bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't mind knowing more of what this may mean or what implications it may entail. Wonder if it deserves it's own separate thread? Or if it could be spelled out in layman's terms?
Viruses in present bc salmon farms
- Thread starter Salmonholic
- Start date
I wouldn't mind knowing more of what this may mean or what implications it may entail. Wonder if it deserves it's own separate thread? Or if it could be spelled out in layman's terms?
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Ye
yeh, a bit late to start a new thread on this now. I sent an email asking for more info. If I get something back I'll start a nee thread then. Although methinks this one is being trolled.
Looks like they are getting rid of the transfers committee and giving to CFIA. I am guessing that would include FF stocking & hatchery outplants. Not well spelled-out in the CFIA news release - maybe on purpose. The s. 56 of the FGRs now states:
Licence to Release or Transfer Fish
56 The Minister may issue a licence if
- (a) the release or transfer of the fish would be in keeping with the proper management and control of fisheries;
- (b) the fish do not have any disease or disease agent that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish; and
- (c) the release or transfer of the fish will not have an adverse effect on the stock size of fish or the genetic characteristics of fish or fish stocks.
If you look into the NAAHP - & the NATIONAL CODE ON INTRODUCTIONS AND TRANSFERS OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS - this one stands out for me:
s.6.2.1 For administrative efficiency, the power to issue licences for low-risk movements may be undertaken by an appropriate departmental representative.
I don't see what criteria are used to determine what a "low-risk" movement is.
Also since this is CFIA - are non-reportable diseases also tested for and risk evaluations carried-out (e.g. PRv)?
And how are these risk evaluations done? using what info?
hmmmm...
another one: is a new disease, an : "exotic species"??? methinks these are the questions that should go in tomorrow...
This is what they actually want to implement: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/management-gestion/2013-IT-code-eng.htm
This is what they actually want to implement: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/management-gestion/2013-IT-code-eng.htm
SpringFever552
Well-Known Member
Ligit question here
How is hmsi/ isa transmitted?
A guy with aids standing on a street corner in New York has 1 million people walk past him..how many will get aids from him..just by walking past?
What if he is instead sneezing on them? And some of them get spit in their mouth or eyes? Fish are in water. There may be millions of inconsequential, non-fish-disease vectors in sea water - ALONG WITH - the ones we are concerned with - such as IHN, IPN, ISA, PRV, etc. These are transmitted by water.
GLG
Well-Known Member
I would say next to zero but if you said .....
If a guy with aids standing on a street corner in New York has 1 million people have sex with him..how many will get aids from him..just by having sex with?
I would sure put the number very high.....
SpringFever552
Well-Known Member
Fk!! AA GLC
I asked a very simple question regarding how this heart disease is transmitted
I do not have the time to read every single link everyone(pro ff or anti ff) posts up here.
You all know the answer to my question regarding the person with aids..but quickly "turned" that question around with fked up situations!!..sneezing/ spitting on, which by the way would not transmitt aids.. lol
http://www.thebody.com/h/when-you-have-hiv-do-you-cough-and-sneeze-and-have-a-stuffy-noes.html
I asked a very simple question regarding how this heart disease is transmitted
I do not have the time to read every single link everyone(pro ff or anti ff) posts up here.
You all know the answer to my question regarding the person with aids..but quickly "turned" that question around with fked up situations!!..sneezing/ spitting on, which by the way would not transmitt aids.. lol
http://www.thebody.com/h/when-you-have-hiv-do-you-cough-and-sneeze-and-have-a-stuffy-noes.html
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
they can get hsmi just from being in the same tank or water as an infected host fish. no sex involved... 
extremely infectious.
cohabitation with waterborne challenge was a scientific term I read of how they experiment with infecting an uninfected host fish with an infected one.
so I believe the virus can be passed through the water. basically water borne as opposed to airborne where you might catch the flue if you were to breathe in the particles of someone who sneezed. Aids virus I would think would be a bloodborne disease.
extremely infectious.
cohabitation with waterborne challenge was a scientific term I read of how they experiment with infecting an uninfected host fish with an infected one.
so I believe the virus can be passed through the water. basically water borne as opposed to airborne where you might catch the flue if you were to breathe in the particles of someone who sneezed. Aids virus I would think would be a bloodborne disease.
Last edited:
It was answered, SF:
SpringFever552
Well-Known Member
they can get hsmi just from being in the same tank or water as an infected host fish. no sex involved...
extremely infectious.
cohabitation with waterborne challenge was a scientific term I read of how they experiment with infecting an uninfected host fish with an infected one.
so I believe the virus can be passed through the water. basically water borne as opposed to airborne where you might catch the flue if you were to breathe in the particles of someone who sneezed. Aids virus I would think would be a bloodborne disease.
Thank you for a good reply bigdogeh
I believe I read the report you are talking about
https://www.biv.com/article/2017/2/dfo-study-links-virus-heart-disease-farmed-fish/
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
That's a news release or report on the study, but the link is in your link. Maybe you meant that...
This is the actual peer reviewed science in your link in case you missed it. (or maybe you didn't) It's alot to digest but the more of these you read over time the more you begin to understand how damaging some of these diseases may be to our wild salmon.. And this is a bad one.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171471
The scary thing is these viruses are extremely infectious and have been known to, and can wipe out complete fish farm stock over a matter of months. This has happened anywhere in the world that these farms have set up. Norway, Ireland, Chile, even on the east coast of Canada, in new brunswick, newfoundland and nova scotia. Bad for the fish farms and the tax payers, (you and I) who have to bail them out, but also bad for our wild salmon. The virus causes damaging changes in the heart and skeletal muscles... Even if it doesn't kill the salmon, it weakens them allowing them to be slow swimmers or laggards at the mercy of predators. Being transmitted through water, theoretically a fish coming in contact with water that holds this virus (and the farms are a great breeding ground for the virus) could become infected and pass on the virus to other fish it schools with. Water moves, fish swim and school up... This virus can get transmitted or passed on through long distances I would think. This is why I believe these farms even if they were to only infect one or 2 fish, these fish pass it on to one or 2 more... etc, etc... The damage could be far reaching.The virus stays active for month's on end.
DFO, and the open net pen fish farm industry and supporters have been suppressing the evidence and telling us that our wild fish and the atlantic salmon in the fish farms are special and it can't happen here. We have a different ocean, Pacific versus Atlantic. As AA keeps pointing out, that's by name only... They are all the same water. I have a hard time believing them, DFO and the FF industry, and (once again) it looks like they've been proven wrong, or more likely, suppressing evidence.
Thxs for the question SpringFever552. I sometimes have to try to put all the pieces together to try to figure out about what's going on myself. It's a lot to take in. It's incredible and painstakingly thorough the work the scientists do. I'm very thankful they do it though.
Last edited:
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Let's be clear. PRV and ISA are two seperate viruses.
DFO research shows PRV to be infectious to both Sockeye salmon and Farmed Atlantic salmon. Click on this link for that paper; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146229
Lots of studies showing that ISA is highly infectious in farmed Atlantic salmon. Links to many of them have been posted in previous threads on this forum. It is a reportable disease under World Heath Organization's OIE and so CFIA orders de-popluation if it is confirmed at a Canadian Salmon farm. That is when compensation os paid; when de-population is ordered by CFIA.
Apologies, SF - often - I am never quite sure of what level of detail posters are looking for when they post questions. Thank you for your questions and posts. Excellent responses however, by bigdogeh and cuttlefish. Thank you!
To add a short bit to BD & CFs excellent responses - some virures and bacteria can persist for extended periods of time in the marine environment (weeks) w/o a host (e.g. PRv), while other disease-causing organisms are more fragile - and decompose quicker. During that time - water flows can take these organisms dozens of kilometers away - which is why I believe it is criminal what DFO does wrt siting criteria and discharging (or NOT!) their due diligence wrt risk assessment and management (e.g. the Precautionary Approach).
Many viruses (particularly) are denatured by freezing (esp. ISAv) - so that's why it was so worrisome that even after freezing - they got hits of ISAv from the River's Inlet sockeye samples. Of course, the script writers employed by DFO/CFIA's communication branches spun that as the samples being "degraded" (nothing to see here folks, move along...) - even though those samples weren't originally preserved for viral testing. That fact seemed to be purposed ignored by the scriptwriters at DFO/CFIA - as is the Provincial fish vet's (Marty's) office.
Once disease-causing organisms get past the hosts outer defenses - any disease-causing organisms seem to be concentrated in certain organs - esp. gill filaments, red blood cells, the heart, and the kidney and sometimes liver - dependent upon which organism and what type of organism it is.
So - the researcher needs to sample from the appropriate organ - and preserve the tissue, appropriately (to match the testing procedure) - and then test appropriately - something the CFIA testing folks are reluctant to do - but since the "reportable" diseases are their bailiwick (as CF pointed-out) - they do what they want to and make sure no outside researchers are notified of any disease outbreak - so they can't go there and test themselves.
CFIA has made it very public that the reason they believe they are there is to "protect trade" - rather than the wild stocks and the public's resources. If we are a certified ISAv zone - that has trade implications for the FF industry. The regulators at both CFIA and DFO are very aware of this fact.
Another consideration is the "virulence" of the organism - that is how much mortality is causes. Typically, when hosts have adapted to their disease-causing organisms - the mortality is low - which is a 2-edged sword. Low mortality is certainly a better scenario for any infected host - but it gives that host a chance to be a carrier for the disease over an extended time - and thereby transmitting those disease-causing organisms to the environment - and in the case of FF fish - to wild stocks.
The reason this is an issue - is the magnification of those disease-causing organisms due to the vast host pool of potential carriers - and that the FF fish don't have nearly the same issues with running away from predators as the wild fish. They are protected couch potatoes who can with stand much higher titre levels of virus than wild fish - since they are not chased by predators and are constantly fed. Many of these disease-causing organisms affect their hosts swimming ability/speed/persistence (e.g. PRv).
This is where CFIA takes advantage of that fact (higher titre levels) in their determination of "weak" verses "false" positive viral reporting: they arbitrarily set the magnification cycles of the PCR testing low - low enough to get a "weak" positive from a heavily-infected FF fish - but not high enough to get the same result from a wild fish (who are not fed and not protected from predators) and can only withstand a lesser amount of virus. So - voila! - the "weak" positive is now arbitrarily called a "false" positive - and nothing to see here folks - move along...
For the wild fish - the high virulence associated with a new, introduced FF disease is also a 2-edged sword - bad for that host or cohort - but not as persistent in the environment. It's analogus to sparks from a chimney fire hitting a damp field - each spot on the field catches fire - but burns itself out. That's why there has been conflicting patterns in the tests for ISAv IMHO in wild stocks - it's quite virulent. Not so for PRv.
That's why I believe Marty wanted to downplay the introduction and consequences of PRv - he saw that law suit coming.
To add a short bit to BD & CFs excellent responses - some virures and bacteria can persist for extended periods of time in the marine environment (weeks) w/o a host (e.g. PRv), while other disease-causing organisms are more fragile - and decompose quicker. During that time - water flows can take these organisms dozens of kilometers away - which is why I believe it is criminal what DFO does wrt siting criteria and discharging (or NOT!) their due diligence wrt risk assessment and management (e.g. the Precautionary Approach).
Many viruses (particularly) are denatured by freezing (esp. ISAv) - so that's why it was so worrisome that even after freezing - they got hits of ISAv from the River's Inlet sockeye samples. Of course, the script writers employed by DFO/CFIA's communication branches spun that as the samples being "degraded" (nothing to see here folks, move along...) - even though those samples weren't originally preserved for viral testing. That fact seemed to be purposed ignored by the scriptwriters at DFO/CFIA - as is the Provincial fish vet's (Marty's) office.
Once disease-causing organisms get past the hosts outer defenses - any disease-causing organisms seem to be concentrated in certain organs - esp. gill filaments, red blood cells, the heart, and the kidney and sometimes liver - dependent upon which organism and what type of organism it is.
So - the researcher needs to sample from the appropriate organ - and preserve the tissue, appropriately (to match the testing procedure) - and then test appropriately - something the CFIA testing folks are reluctant to do - but since the "reportable" diseases are their bailiwick (as CF pointed-out) - they do what they want to and make sure no outside researchers are notified of any disease outbreak - so they can't go there and test themselves.
CFIA has made it very public that the reason they believe they are there is to "protect trade" - rather than the wild stocks and the public's resources. If we are a certified ISAv zone - that has trade implications for the FF industry. The regulators at both CFIA and DFO are very aware of this fact.
Another consideration is the "virulence" of the organism - that is how much mortality is causes. Typically, when hosts have adapted to their disease-causing organisms - the mortality is low - which is a 2-edged sword. Low mortality is certainly a better scenario for any infected host - but it gives that host a chance to be a carrier for the disease over an extended time - and thereby transmitting those disease-causing organisms to the environment - and in the case of FF fish - to wild stocks.
The reason this is an issue - is the magnification of those disease-causing organisms due to the vast host pool of potential carriers - and that the FF fish don't have nearly the same issues with running away from predators as the wild fish. They are protected couch potatoes who can with stand much higher titre levels of virus than wild fish - since they are not chased by predators and are constantly fed. Many of these disease-causing organisms affect their hosts swimming ability/speed/persistence (e.g. PRv).
This is where CFIA takes advantage of that fact (higher titre levels) in their determination of "weak" verses "false" positive viral reporting: they arbitrarily set the magnification cycles of the PCR testing low - low enough to get a "weak" positive from a heavily-infected FF fish - but not high enough to get the same result from a wild fish (who are not fed and not protected from predators) and can only withstand a lesser amount of virus. So - voila! - the "weak" positive is now arbitrarily called a "false" positive - and nothing to see here folks - move along...
For the wild fish - the high virulence associated with a new, introduced FF disease is also a 2-edged sword - bad for that host or cohort - but not as persistent in the environment. It's analogus to sparks from a chimney fire hitting a damp field - each spot on the field catches fire - but burns itself out. That's why there has been conflicting patterns in the tests for ISAv IMHO in wild stocks - it's quite virulent. Not so for PRv.
That's why I believe Marty wanted to downplay the introduction and consequences of PRv - he saw that law suit coming.
Last edited:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Yea that's going to leave a mark.....
Went to the cfia website and tried a search on these 2 terms and found no results.
Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI)
Piscine Orthoreovirus (PRV)
It's like they have never heard of them. How convenient for our friends now that they don't have to let DFO know that they are testing positive when they outplant their smolts into the sea pens. Marine Harvest / DFO is now off the hook for that court case they lost to Morton.
https://www.straight.com/news/44712...ased-salmon-fish-farms-bc-federal-court-rules
Remember the good old days when we would bring a problem to DFO and they said "Sorry that's a provincial matter" then we would approach the province with the problem and they would say "Sorry that the responsibility of DFO" and round and round we would go.
Last edited:
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
Yeah, sure gives you a lot of confidence that our government regulatory bodies are honest and looking out for the publics best interests, doesn't it.
Seems they tend to reflect the antonym of honesty more than anything sadly.
antonyms: unscrupulous, dishonest
n·est
ˈänəst/
adjective
adjective: honest
- 1.
free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere.
"I haven't been totally honest with you"
synonyms: truthful, sincere, candid, frank, open, forthright, ingenuous, straight;
straightforward, plain-speaking, matter-of-fact;
informalupfront, aboveboard, on the level
"I haven't been honest with you"
antonyms: insincere- morally correct or virtuous.
"I did the only right and honest thing"
synonyms: upright, honorable, moral, ethical, principled, righteous, right-minded, respectable;More
virtuous, good, decent, fair, law-abiding, high-minded, upstanding, incorruptible, truthful, trustworthy, reliable, conscientious, scrupulous, reputable;
informalon the level, trusty
"an honest man"
antonyms: unscrupulous, dishonest - fairly earned, especially through hard work.
"struggling to make an honest living" - (of an action) blameless or well intentioned even if unsuccessful or misguided.
"he'd made an honest mistake"
synonyms: genuine, true, bona fide, legitimate;More
informallegit, honest-to-goodness
"an honest mistake" - simple, unpretentious, and unsophisticated.
"good honest food with no gimmicks"
- morally correct or virtuous.
informal
adverb: honest
- 1.
used to persuade someone of the truth of something.
"you'll like it when you get there, honest"
Middle English (originally in the sense ‘held in or deserving of honor’): via Old French from Latin honestus, from honos (see honor).
Last edited:
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Here's a possible disease vector;
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-fi...-into-key-salmon-migration-corridor-1.3696793
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-fi...-into-key-salmon-migration-corridor-1.3696793
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Our BC Fish Farm practices now have world wide condemnation from “Sumofus” and a petition which now has 12,795 signatures. Have a look and see what that number goes to and sign the petition.
BUT…we were told by the Fish Farm guys the dumping of this waste was “treated”, met BC standards and was approved. How does that make you feel???
“It's unimaginable. Disgusting footage was just released of parasite and virus-filled farmed salmon blood being pumped out of salmon processing plants off Vancouver Island. The worst part? It's being dumped right into critical wild salmon migratory routes.
Scientists tested this disgusting effluent and found a deadly virus linked to heart and skeletal muscle inflammation in wild salmon that causes heart lesions and organ hemorrhaging.”
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/minis...e-dumping-of-infectious-waste?source=homepage
BUT…we were told by the Fish Farm guys the dumping of this waste was “treated”, met BC standards and was approved. How does that make you feel???
“It's unimaginable. Disgusting footage was just released of parasite and virus-filled farmed salmon blood being pumped out of salmon processing plants off Vancouver Island. The worst part? It's being dumped right into critical wild salmon migratory routes.
Scientists tested this disgusting effluent and found a deadly virus linked to heart and skeletal muscle inflammation in wild salmon that causes heart lesions and organ hemorrhaging.”
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/minis...e-dumping-of-infectious-waste?source=homepage
california
Well-Known Member
Up to almost 21,000 signatures now, so the issue has been noticed by quite a few people.
Similar threads
