N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

[ClayoquotKid]

It's interesting how all pro-salmon farm supporters IMMEDIATELY claim an article is "flawed" and "junk science" whenever it puts their operations in a poor light - w/o EVEN READING IT.

Case in point - CK claiming the Ford report is "flawed" because it is "a paper written about Atlantic salmon farms in the Atlantic ocean, where other Atlantic salmon live". It's obvious that CK never read the report or may never even wanted to because it throws his hypothesis in the toliet were it belongs.

Because if he had of read the report he firstly would have noticed the title: "A GLOBAL Assessment of Salmon Aquaculture Impacts on Wild Salmonids", and then noticed they explain in their methods: "we performed 11 comparisons, involving many stocks from both sides of the Atlantic and from British Columbia in the Pacific (Table 1, Data section of Materials and Methods)".

You're only showing your self-imposed ignorance to others on this forum, CK - and your lack of science-based arguments to defend your corporate propoganda.

If you want a real dialogue and debate - then lets use what science we have CK - or maybe you don't really want an open honest debate - may that'd be too painful to change your indoctrinated mind. Try rolling into the fetus position while praying to Wallings photo and murmuring "anti fish farm people are evil - Walling is the light".

SF: I purposely stayed away from pro- and anti- reports, and went with the slightly pro- and cautious Senate report that analyses DFO reports, among others. The reason I don't have the "actual production costs from operating farms" is because your industry REFUSES to switch from open net-cage technology.

You assume I didn't read it because I disagree with it's conclusion?
That's pretty silly if you ask me.
I called it flawed for a number of reasons, the most important being its conclusion is something that is not actually seen happening.
Science is all about debate - methods, data and findings are questioned and the hypothesis may be re-tested by others to compare results.
You can spout all you want about "corporate propaganda", but as was pointed out before - if your theory doesn't match nature, it's wrong.

 

[agentaqua]

Not only are you not reading the science - not only are you not reading what I post - but you are not even reading what you post; the report looked at Atlantc AND Pacific salmon stock numbers in BOTH the Atlantic AND the Pacific Oceans.

your reason for claiming the science was false - is just that - FALSE. That was my last post, CK

 

[rockdog]

You don't expect the kid to actually agree do you? All he ever says Is false, or flawed. That's all he's got!
It's like when you were a kid arguing, and the other kid only ever said "I know you are but what am I"?
His credibility was long gone long ago.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Not only are you not reading the science - not only are you not reading what I post - but you are not even reading what you post; the report looked at Atlantc AND Pacific salmon stock numbers in BOTH the Atlantic AND the Pacific Oceans.

your reason for claiming the science was false - is just that - FALSE. That was my last post, CK

The "Atlantic-Atlantic" comment I tagged on to the bottom of a previous post was incorrect, I will admit that - I'd focused on the "interbreeding" and "sea trout" portion and neglected the Pacific component.
That being said, my whole reason for calling the study flawed was that its conclusion was/is something that does not match what the real world shows.
Pinks in the Broughton have had no measurable reduction in populations near aquaculture facilities - never mind 50% per generation (or in productivity)
They also conveniently neglect to look into Clayoquot salmon, which also show no such reductions comparative to the timing or placement of aquaculture operations.
Anyone can put a paper up on the online journal Plos1 - it doesn't mean their findings are valid, their methodology is sound, or that the world needs to pay attention.
I am quite certain, as I stated before, that if this paper actually held water scientifically it would have been an important part of the Cohen Commission.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

You don't expect the kid to actually agree do you? All he ever says Is false, or flawed. That's all he's got!
It's like when you were a kid arguing, and the other kid only ever said "I know you are but what am I"?
His credibility was long gone long ago.

I couldn't care less what you think of my "Credibility", and I find it funny that the same type of thoughts cross my mind when trying to keep focused on facts instead of "Aha, caught you! You said _____ when blah blah blah, so you're wrong. So there."
What I have to fall back on is the real world - the numbers don't lie when it comes to how many salmon return to their natal systems, with or without aquaculture present.
Until the opponents of aquaculture can measure a negative impact from farms on wild salmon populations, and that measurement is repeatable and scientifically sound - all you have is a feeling that they are bad and a whole bunch of theories as to how they can be shown to do X, Y or Z.
Feelings are not reality, theories do not equal an action in the natural world, and perception of risk is entirely subjective.
A whole lot of effort has gone into trying to prove a hunch for over 30 years now, and with the latest scrutiny put on the industry by the Cohen Commission there is still a lack of evidence to show what all the "haters" out there want so badly to be real.
If you don't like it, that's fine - just don't try to BS about presumed "impacts" that no one seems to be able to measure.

 

[Aces]

They also conveniently neglect to look into Clayoquot salmon, which also show no such reductions comparative to the timing or placement of aquaculture operations

Say what? I have fished in Tofino since the mid 80's and our runs have plummeted since the arrival of the salmon farms. New evidence is coming to light thru our ongoing rountable processes (which has reps from Mainstream and Creative) and the truth will be shown. I don't have access to the data at this momentbut the Wild Salmon Conservancy has been doing studies since 2009 on Chinook and Chum salmon and the evidence is damning for Mainstream in particular.

 

[agentaqua]

The "Atlantic-Atlantic" comment I tagged on to the bottom of a previous post was incorrect, I will admit that - I'd focused on the "interbreeding" and "sea trout" portion and neglected the Pacific component.
That being said, my whole reason for calling the study flawed was that its conclusion was/is something that does not match what the real world shows.
Pinks in the Broughton have had no measurable reduction in populations near aquaculture facilities - never mind 50% per generation (or in productivity)
They also conveniently neglect to look into Clayoquot salmon, which also show no such reductions comparative to the timing or placement of aquaculture operations.
Anyone can put a paper up on the online journal Plos1 - it doesn't mean their findings are valid, their methodology is sound, or that the world needs to pay attention.
I am quite certain, as I stated before, that if this paper actually held water scientifically it would have been an important part of the Cohen Commission.

WOW CK!!
Do you really lack the ability to understand how utterly unprofessional and unscientific your last response was?

Even pro-salmon farm sockeye fry argues intelligently about the science - which obviously he has read. I respect his intelligence and committment to finding the truth - even though we disagree on many things.

I'ts really too bad you aren't as committed to finding the truth - because we are all affected by the operations of the open net-cage industry - and we desperately need honesty, transparency and functioning democracy to find our way out of this mess.

Any less - and we are fiddling while Rome burns. That's why the world needs to pay attention, CK.

That's why I have such a lack of patience for the lies and BS I have experienced Ad nausium from the pro-industry lobbiests. It's shameful and humiliating to see how badly that corporate mindset and propaganda has invaded not just employees of fish farms - but our DFO officials.

To respond to your post:

The peer-review process is not perfect - but reasonable enough to start answering some questions while developing new questions. It's a work in progress.

Either you believe in science - or you believe in religion and theology, and flat Earths. You either believe in the peer-review process or you don't. Either you believe in the process that has produced a few somewhat supportive papers on the impacts of the open net-cage technology, and many slightly-to-highly critical scientific papers - or you don't believe in the scientific process at all, and you go through life wearing tinfoil hats and hiding from the aliens.

You can't use half-read and half-understood scientific papers as your true light one minute, and in the next minute state that you don't believe in science or the scientific process, CK. You can't have it both ways, CK.

CNN and the press releases from the BC Salmon farmers are NOT science, CK. Either you are committed to having a debate over the science, using the available literature (like sockeyefry) - or you are not committed to science, finding truths, or even having a debate.

So far, you have demonstrated the latter - not the former.

Have you ever published in Plos, CK? How do you know then that "anyone can put-up a paper" on that journal? Do you even know ANYTHING about scientific publishing or even science, CK?

Because if you do - you haven't demonstrated it here.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

They also conveniently neglect to look into Clayoquot salmon, which also show no such reductions comparative to the timing or placement of aquaculture operations

Say what? I have fished in Tofino since the mid 80's and our runs have plummeted since the arrival of the salmon farms. New evidence is coming to light thru our ongoing rountable processes (which has reps from Mainstream and Creative) and the truth will be shown. I don't have access to the data at this momentbut the Wild Salmon Conservancy has been doing studies since 2009 on Chinook and Chum salmon and the evidence is damning for Mainstream in particular.

Plummeted since the arrival of the salmon farms?
That is simply not true.
Numbers may be low now, but they are actually higher than they were in the decades before farms arrived.
As for the Wild Fish Conservancy study - I don't think anyone outside of themselves has access to their data, their study ran 2 yrs and their findings conveniently counter what another local research program running since 2004 had shown.
That program had two farm companies and two first nations working together to sample points from all over Clayoquot Sound.
Temperature, time and salinity are the only things that have ever been shown to affect the prevalence and occurrence of lice on outgoing smolts - not farms.
Here is the report done on data from 2004-2007:
http://uuathluk.ca/Microsoft Word - CSSWG sea lice report.doc.pdf

I won't bother pointing out the unscientific and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" nature of the WFC study here - obviously it would fall on deaf ears.

I've posted the Clayoquot graphs which shows the nature of the declines in an earlier thread, I will get them up on here if I have time later.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

"I'ts really too bad you aren't as committed to finding the truth - because we are all affected by the operations of the open net-cage industry - and we desperately need honesty, transparency and functioning democracy to find our way out of this mess."
Your truth is something that differs from reality, that is why it seems so hard to find.
If you aren't able to show how "we are all" affected by farm operations, it will continue to be a case of you putting your opinion forward and me countering that opinion as I see fit.
Collecting data to support a preconceived notion is far from science, it is advocacy - and luckily transparency and functioning democracy means the rest of us aren't held hostage to the whims of those who would seek to push political agendas using pseudoscientific means.
I'm not about to continue much further discussing the notion of "science" with someone who will sacrifice so much in favour of collecting support for his own predetermined "truth'.

 

[agentaqua]

Science SHOULD inform advocacy, CK. That's what is called a functioning democracy (NOT capitalism; don't confuse the 2) - with proper responsible oversight.

That's why the NAFTA Mulrooney brought-in was so undemocratic - it removed our right to utilize and incorporate new science into our governmental oversight like environmental assessment. Harper has gone even farther, now - than even ol' chisel-chin schriber-buddy.

Since you keep talking about YOUR reality, CK - Answer this one truthfully:

How many farm sites have you worked on for long periods of time like a production cycle, how many years or production cycles have you worked on the pens, and from what area(s) of the world have you worked the pens??

 

[cuttlefish]

Plummeted since the arrival of the salmon farms?
That is simply not true.
Numbers may be low now, but they are actually higher than they were in the decades before farms arrived.
As for the Wild Fish Conservancy study - I don't think anyone outside of themselves has access to their data, their study ran 2 yrs and their findings conveniently counter what another local research program running since 2004 had shown.
That program had two farm companies and two first nations working together to sample points from all over Clayoquot Sound.
Temperature, time and salinity are the only things that have ever been shown to affect the prevalence and occurrence of lice on outgoing smolts - not farms.
Here is the report done on data from 2004-2007:
http://uuathluk.ca/Microsoft Word - CSSWG sea lice report.doc.pdf

I won't bother pointing out the unscientific and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" nature of the WFC study here - obviously it would fall on deaf ears.

I've posted the Clayoquot graphs which shows the nature of the declines in an earlier thread, I will get them up on here if I have time later.

Was your report on 2004-2007 data ever submitted to a peer review publication? Just wondering since; "Anyone can put a paper up on the online journal Plos1..."

 

[Charlie]

Was your report on 2004-2007 data ever submitted to a peer review publication? Just wondering since; "Anyone can put a paper up on the online journal Plos1..."

I actually really have to chuckle at that question… What do you think the BS response is going to be?

BTW… of course - NOPE! It wouldn’t stand a chance, just better to give to CK and let him use it for PR and try to convince someone they even completed the study.

May I highlight some things?

The Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice Working Group is a collaborative relationship between Ahousaht First Nations, Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, Creative Salmon Company Ltd. and Mainstream Canada. The group is coordinated by Uu-a-thluk (Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council Fisheries).

Study limitations
Like all field research, limitations were present in this study. Figure 1 depicts all possible beach seine locations that were identified in the original site reconnaissance. On average 25 of these sites, distributed throughout Tofino Inlet, Fortune Channel, Bedwell Inlet, Herbert Inlet and Shelter Inlet, were regularly sampled each year. Some sites were found not to be suitable beach seining sites since they were only accessible on very low tides (which, as mentioned in the Methodology section, were not always possible to access). Furthermore, even within the main 25 sites, some were periodically missed because the wind had picked up substantially throughout the course of the day, or the tides made access impossible. Additionally, because of the collaborative nature of the team, regular sampling was not always possible because of weather, deaths in the community, or boat problems. In an ideal study, samples would have been taken on a regular regime, but circumstances did not always permit this.

Difficulties arose when attempting to compare our data to that in other areas. Many researchers differentiate between infection from L. salmonis and C. clemensi. It is important to note that our early data (2004-05) did not differentiate to species at the chalimus stage, and so our combined prevalence of L. salmonis and C. clemensi may look larger than those of other researchers who report only on prevalence of L. salmonis. Future analyses of our data will focus on that from 2006 onward, where species are differentiated.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Hey Agent,

What I meant was that most of the reports written about CC are based on estimates and not actuals. Problem is a company that fails isn't around to provide insight into why, and a company that is asuccess doesn't want to share its secrets to competitors. All the large scale CC work with salmon has been done for the production of smolt, not market fish. That is why I figure that a project like the Namgis facility will yield some actuals that can be used to make informed decisions regarding CC. My understanding is that their "books" will be open to the public?

WRT the NS farm, not really sure why the company applied for a farm site in that location. With the exception of a few warm winters of late, that area of the province experiences lethal winter temnperatures of -2 deg.C. I know hard for someone on the West Coast to fathom, but Saltwater can go down as low as -2 and not freeze. Salmon freeze at -0.7. Probably a blessing in disguise for the company.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

I actually really have to chuckle at that question… What do you think the BS response is going to be?

BTW… of course - NOPE! It wouldn’t stand a chance, just better to give to CK and let him use it for PR and try to convince someone they even completed the study.

May I highlight some things?

The Clayoquot Sound Sea Lice Working Group is a collaborative relationship between Ahousaht First Nations, Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, Creative Salmon Company Ltd. and Mainstream Canada. The group is coordinated by Uu-a-thluk (Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council Fisheries).

Study limitations
Like all field research, limitations were present in this study. Figure 1 depicts all possible beach seine locations that were identified in the original site reconnaissance. On average 25 of these sites, distributed throughout Tofino Inlet, Fortune Channel, Bedwell Inlet, Herbert Inlet and Shelter Inlet, were regularly sampled each year. Some sites were found not to be suitable beach seining sites since they were only accessible on very low tides (which, as mentioned in the Methodology section, were not always possible to access). Furthermore, even within the main 25 sites, some were periodically missed because the wind had picked up substantially throughout the course of the day, or the tides made access impossible. Additionally, because of the collaborative nature of the team, regular sampling was not always possible because of weather, deaths in the community, or boat problems. In an ideal study, samples would have been taken on a regular regime, but circumstances did not always permit this.

Difficulties arose when attempting to compare our data to that in other areas. Many researchers differentiate between infection from L. salmonis and C. clemensi. It is important to note that our early data (2004-05) did not differentiate to species at the chalimus stage, and so our combined prevalence of L. salmonis and C. clemensi may look larger than those of other researchers who report only on prevalence of L. salmonis. Future analyses of our data will focus on that from 2006 onward, where species are differentiated.

So what are your concerns here?
I see by your bolding that you've identified the fact that the two farm companies in the area were part of the study, that the study (like any other using beach seines) had limitations and that L. salmonis and C. clemensi (L mostly found on salmonids, C found on most everything) were not differentiated in 04-05.
As far as peer review - I suppose the WFC study and the one I posted would both not have gone through the process officially for a scientific journal, I just wanted to show the difference between a long running, data collection program and a short term, directed effort to "prove" a point.
On the topic of sea lice, here are some other papers which have been written and might have been subjected to a little higher level of scrutiny:
“The salmon that returned in such low numbers in 2002 were exposed as juveniles to fewer sea lice than were the salmon that returned in record high numbers in 2001,” Marty said. "Sea lice from farm fish could not have caused the 2002 wild salmon population crash."
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9698
"The survival of the pink salmon cohort was not statistically different from a reference region without salmon farms. "
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/09/icesjms.fsq146.abstract

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Science SHOULD inform advocacy, CK. That's what is called a functioning democracy (NOT capitalism; don't confuse the 2) - with proper responsible oversight.

That's why the NAFTA Mulrooney brought-in was so undemocratic - it removed our right to utilize and incorporate new science into our governmental oversight like environmental assessment. Harper has gone even farther, now - than even ol' chisel-chin schriber-buddy.

Since you keep talking about YOUR reality, CK - Answer this one truthfully:

How many farm sites have you worked on for long periods of time like a production cycle, how many years or production cycles have you worked on the pens, and from what area(s) of the world have you worked the pens??

Clayoquot Sound - 3 production cycles on 3 different farms, 2 years managing an area with 7 farms.
About 3 years now doing all sorts of other stuff.

 

[cuttlefish]

Plummeted since the arrival of the salmon farms?
That is simply not true.

I won't bother pointing out the unscientific and "post hoc ergo propter hoc" nature of the WFC study here - obviously it would fall on deaf ears.

I've posted the Clayoquot graphs which shows the nature of the declines in an earlier thread, I will get them up on here if I have time later.

So thanks for sharing that report and the fact that it hasn't been peer-reviewed. Very much to be taken with the same grain of salt that you suggest when reading the WFC report. I noticed the Uuathluk report doesn't mention stocking status of any Clayoquot salmon farms during the study period. You probably have that info but it's absence in the report is significant. at least to me, the uneducated outsider.

Oh, and while you're digging up your previously posted graphs, I thought it would be a good time to refresh memories with this DFO CSAS peer-reviewed link for what it's worth; http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_032-eng.html.
Allow me to select a few quotes:
"The status of wild WCVI Chinook remains poor. Over the last 15 years wild populations in south-west Vancouver Island have continued to decline despite management actions. Wild populations from north-west Vancouver Island are more stable; however they are only stable at low levels and show no signs of rebuilding."

"Of particular concern, are wild populations originating from the south-west area of Vancouver Island. Wild spawner populations in Area 24 (Clayoquot Sound) have declined an average of 53% over the last three generations despite relatively pristine freshwater habitat and harvest reductions."

"Stakeholders are concerned about the potential impact of near-shore activities (e.g. aquaculture) on WCVI Chinook populations, particularly in Nootka Sound (Area 25) and Clayoquot Sound (Area 24). However, there is uncertainty in level of harvest in some areas and the role additional harvest among other factors, such as marine mammal predation, may play in the decline of populations there."

Kinda backs up what Fishtofino's personal observations.

And BTW, welcome back, Charlie.

 

[agentaqua]

A number of small, niggling items still left to respond to:

Thanks for your last post, Sockeyefry. I'm enjoying your input and debate on this forum.

Yes, I do understand the industry needs some hard numbers to actually see how profitable CC can be. Lets hope the Namgis do well. If everyone HAD TO go CC, then there wouldn't be any debate about whether or not CC can compete w open net-cages. There were a number of other positive benefits when using CC, including getting a premium for the product.

CK: Quite a number of rambling points still left hanging, but I'll try to wrap-up most of them:

Firstly, Cohen's mandate was very narrow, and focused on the Fraser stocks. He was not trying to prove or disprove whether or not stocks world-wide were affected by open net-pen aquaculture like Ford's peer-reviewed article – HENCE, Ford was not included in Cohen's references. It wasn't because Ford's article was invalid - as you like to claim.

Secondly – more on the peer-review process. I noticed you neglected to respond to my and Cuttlefish's queries about whether you were one of the “ANYONES” who get published in PLOS1. I can only assume you have never published, and are embarrassed to admit it - esp. after you were called on your "anyone" remarks by several posters.

For your information, the peer-review process can be quite stringent. For many Journals, only 10-20% of the articles submitted get published and only after a lengthy review and revision process – the rest are declined. Most peer-review editors farm the draft text out to 2-20 double-blind reviewers who are experts in their field for review and comments. The number of reviewers often depends upon how interdisplinary the study was. This review process often takes months – sometimes even years. Yes ANYONE can do it, but certainly not EVERYONE is successful. This is the same for PLOS1 as many other Journals. The same process for the antis and the pro-articles, as well.

IF you have legitimate scientific critiques on the paper in question you can submit a letter to the original editor about the article, and they publish these. The original authors can then respond back with explanations, and this process can go on for some time with back-n-forth and is quite enlightening. There were a series of letters by Stucci, and Jones over some of Krkosek's work (for example) and it was very informative to read the back and forths.

This is the scientific process, CK. It's not perfect, but reasonable – and certainly better than taking anybody's word for what they believe. The process (hopefully) builds on past work – eventually getting us to a better understanding of the issues.

There are sometimes some hard truths revealed in this process – and admitted and responded to when there is open, transparent, respectful dialogue. Many people are vested in their paradigms, and many are afraid of change.

Let me ask you this question: To what camp does stalling the issues with deflection and lies work better for? Who is afraid of changing from the open net-cage technology?

Certainly our coastal communities want to be able to take advantage of our natural resources – stalling is continuing to deny access and vitality to our communities. These communities bear the brunt of any negative effects – NOT Vancouver, Ottawa or Oslo. The shareholders of these companies only want to see the largest return on their investment as possible. They don't bear the burden of living with the negative effects.

Thirdly, thank you for your honest answer about what your aquaculture experience has been. From your answer – I would suggest that you are familiar with aquaculture in Clayoquot Sound, but not personally experienced with the effects of aquaculture in the Broughtons, in New Brunswick, in Ireland, in Western Scotland, or in Norway. I neglected to add Chile, since they have no natural stocks of wild salmonids to assess impacts against aquaculture. Unfortunately you also appear to not have read the literature, either.

BECAUSE if you had more experience or background – (being the conscientious professional you want to be) you would NEVER had made the statement that “opponents of aquaculture can't measure a negative impact from farms on wild salmon populations”. It's NOT just the Ford study, CK. It's been the experience world-wide, INCLUDING the Broughtons, New Brunswick, Ireland, Western Scotland, and Norway.. Different problems for different areas sometimes:

look-up just two examples (it's all the time I have for in my response right now) :

the impact of genetic pollution and escapees on the Maquadavic River in New Brunswick,
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/7/1263.full
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/2/504.full.pdf

The impact of sea lice in Europe,

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/07/02/rspb.2009.0771.long
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2004.01102.x/abstract

Please note that Maggie MacKibbon did find the proximity and length/stage of production did affect numbers of sea lice, IN CONTRAST to your assertion that: “Temperature, time and salinity are the only things that have ever been shown to affect the prevalence and occurrence of lice on outgoing smolts - not farms.”.

Everywhere you look IN THE WORLD, there have been negative population-level impacts on wild adjacent salmon stocks from the open net-cage industry. Some years for some things – not too bad – especially if the wild stocks are at high enough numbers to take it. When the wild numbers drop – that additional environmental stress can and does have significant, severe population level effects. Over time – like playing the loto – you occasionally win, or in this case – LOOSE.

In the science, the argument is over how that effect happens, how significant that effect is, and what that risk is that we are subjecting the wild salmon stocks to – the debate in the literature (like climate change) is not over that it NOT happens.

Anyways that's all I have time for now....

 

[sockeyefry2]

Agent,

Problem is if BC is forced into using CC, and the rest of the world isn't, it leaves the BC industry at a disadvantage. The notion of a premium price for CC product is a bit of a missunderstanding on the part of CC supporters. It isn't that a CC product will automatically bring you a premium price, what is important is that a CC product will have to bring a premium price to make the CC profitable. The availability of a premium price will depend on the markets.

I don't think forcing the industry to adopt an unproven production system is the way to go right now. The unproven nature will make it difficult for the companies to raise the necessary capital. I think investment in development of the systems so that the companies are pulled into adapting the tech, not pushed. A few more larger scale projects such as the Namgis project are needed to find out where the problems lie and how to fix them.

It is extremely important that the projects be done properly. Because the profit margins are so tight, these systems must be run as efficient as possible, maximizing the fishes growth and minimizing the overall cost.

By the way, did you see the recent paper out of Ireland regarding 9 years of sea lice study, that determined the lice had no measurable impact on salmon populations? I can't seem to locate it. Never did make the papers, funny about that???

 

[agentaqua]

No I haven't seen, nor heard of that study.

As far as the Atlantic salmon populations in Europe go - I can see where sea lice would be less of an issue as the smolts are much larger at outmigration (we discussed this already), sea lice mortality is dependent upon the size of the host fish, and the Atlantic smolts travel farther offshore than many Pacific species thereby avoiding some of the worst of the open net-cage interactions.

There are other negative interactions - like genetic pollution from escapees or the effect of sea lice theraputants on adjacent crustaceans. It's both interesting and worrisome to note that in the Atlantic, sea lice have built-up resistance to Slice, and the industry has to take drastic action to rid their farm fish of lice.

It's the sea trout in Europe that are affected more by lice from the fish farms than the Atlantic smolts as the trout don't travel so far away from their natal streams.

 

[sockeyefry2]

Here is the news article about it published on Fish Farm Xpert:

Sea lice do not play a significant role in salmon mortality says study
IRELAND: Sea lice infestation is unlikely to be a significant factor influencing the conservation status of salmon stocks according to a research paper published in the latest edition of the prestigious Journal of Fish Diseases.


Tips en venn Utskriftsvennlig
Siri Elise Dydal

This definitive research, involving more than 350,000 fish, released into eight different rivers in 28 separate experiments, was carried out over a nine year period by the Marine Institute and NUIG Galway to investigate the impact of sea lice on the marine mortality of Irish salmon smolts and assesses the extent of sea lice-induced mortality in Irish Atlantic salmon stocks.

In this long-term study, one group of salmon smolts were treated with a commercial agent that protects them against sea lice infestation for eight weeks after going to sea. The return rates of control or unprotected mirror groups of fish were compared with the ‘protected’ fish to see if they suffered any additional sea lice induced mortality following release into the sea. The research also took account of the results of a similar, but much smaller study carried out by Inland Fisheries Ireland.

Because the Marine Institute study involved the repeated release of hundreds of thousands of fish over the course of a decade across eight locations in Ireland, its results are highly accurate and very reliable. It found the level of marine mortality attributable to sea lice infestation to be very small – approximately 1 per cent in absolute terms.

“At these levels, it is unlikely to influence the conservation status of stocks and is not a significant driver of marine mortality”, the article states. The paper also offers an explanation as to why some researchers in this area have reached different conclusions and demonstrates serious flaws in the experimental design employed by these research groups.

The article concludes by noting the strong and significant trend in increasing marine mortality up to 2008 and finds that “there is no evidence to suggest that this trend is influenced by sea lice infestation levels of outwardly migrating smolts as treated and control fish are equally affected.” These findings agree closely with the outcome of a similar long term study carried out in Norway.

Welcoming the publication and its findings Donal Maguire Director of Aquaculture Development Services of BIM stated: “This is confirmation of the validity of the approach that we have taken with regard to the development of this industry. The scare stories in relation to sea lice being a threat to wild salmon put out by the opponents of salmon farming have no basis in scientific fact. Ireland is uniquely blessed in having an environment naturally suited to salmon farming and all stakeholders should now unite to realise the opportunities this represents and to deliver the much needed economic and employment benefits to coastal communities around Ireland.”
Publisert: 31.01.13 kl 07:00