No ISA in BC CFIA

Birdsnest

Well-Known Member
[h=2]Two-year assessment targeted wild and farmed salmon populations[/h]November 10, 2014 – Ottawa, ON – Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has completed a two-year intensive testing initiative and found no evidence of infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) or infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in wild salmon on the west coast. Between 2012 and 2013, 8,006 samples of trout and salmon species were collected. All of the samples were tested for <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">ISA</abbr>, 6,734 were tested for <abbr title="infectious pancreatic necrosis" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">IPN</abbr>, and 1,272 were tested for infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN). All tests were negative. The tests were performed using internationally recognized and validated testing protocols.
The <abbr title="Canadian Food Inspection Agency" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">CFIA</abbr> also evaluated existing surveillance data for farmed salmon in <abbr title="British Columbia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">B.C.</abbr> and found no current or historical evidence of <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">ISA</abbr> or <abbr title="infectious pancreatic necrosis" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">IPN</abbr> in these populations. The evaluation analyzed data collected from 2006 to 2011 through provincial and federal programs as well as from routine monitoring and testing by industry.
The <abbr title="Canadian Food Inspection Agency" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">CFIA</abbr> is currently testing farmed salmon in <abbr title="British Columbia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">B.C.</abbr> for non-pathogenic <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">ISA</abbr> to confirm they are free of the disease. Testing for other diseases in wild and farmed finfish in <abbr title="British Columbia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">B.C.</abbr> is also planned.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=902639
 
I dont know. Is the CFIA mistaken in your opinion?
It is not "my opinion", BN: The so-called "non-pathogenic ISA" HPR0 strain cannot be cultured; therefore diagnoses cannot be "confirmed". They use cell culture to do this. I thought you were involved in the industry? Did you not know this?
 
No, I meant did you disagree with there being no ISA in bc as stated by CFIA.
 
No, I meant did you disagree with there being no ISA in bc as stated by CFIA.
Well - the conversation about them not being able to confirm the HPR0 strain of ISA aside....I believe that they could legitimately state that they cannot "confirm" ISAv is present in BC currently using their restricted and problematic cell culture methodology used for "confirming" that the disease exists. That would be accurate and responsible reporting. Declaring that BC is ISAv free - on the other hand - is a statement that is impossible to defend using a science-based argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two-year assessment targeted wild and farmed salmon populations

November 10, 2014 – Ottawa, ON – Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has completed a two-year intensive testing initiative and found no evidence of infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) or infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in wild salmon on the west coast. Between 2012 and 2013, 8,006 samples of trout and salmon species were collected. All of the samples were tested for <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">ISA</abbr>, 6,734 were tested for <abbr title="infectious pancreatic necrosis" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">IPN</abbr>, and 1,272 were tested for infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN). All tests were negative. The tests were performed using internationally recognized and validated testing protocols.
The <abbr title="Canadian Food Inspection Agency" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">CFIA</abbr> also evaluated existing surveillance data for farmed salmon in <abbr title="British Columbia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">B.C.</abbr> and found no current or historical evidence of <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">ISA</abbr> or <abbr title="infectious pancreatic necrosis" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">IPN</abbr> in these populations. The evaluation analyzed data collected from 2006 to 2011 through provincial and federal programs as well as from routine monitoring and testing by industry.
The <abbr title="Canadian Food Inspection Agency" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">CFIA</abbr> is currently testing farmed salmon in <abbr title="British Columbia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">B.C.</abbr> for non-pathogenic <abbr title="infectious salmon anaemia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">ISA</abbr> to confirm they are free of the disease. Testing for other diseases in wild and farmed finfish in <abbr title="British Columbia" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: help; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(118, 118, 118); ">B.C.</abbr> is also planned.
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=902639

Did they miss one?

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals...ecrosis-2014-/eng/1391787319214/1391787320198

Locations infected with infectious haematopoietic necrosis in 2014

Infectious haematopoietic necrosis is a federally reportable disease. This means that anyone who owns or works with aquatic animals has the legal obligation to notify the <abbr title="Canadian Food Inspection Agency" style="cursor: help;">CFIA</abbr> when they suspect or detect an aquatic animal disease that is of concern to Canada.
Current as of: 2014-10-31
Date confirmedLocationAnimal type infectedScientific Name
January 28British ColumbiaSteelhead troutOncorhynchus mykiss

<tbody>
</tbody>

<dl id="gcwu-date-mod" role="contentinfo" style="margin: 5px 0px; float: right; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><dt style="float: left;">Date modified:</dt><dd style="float: left; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.39em;"><time>2014-02-07</time></dd></dl>
 
I believe the IHN results also appear suspicious given how endemic and widespread IHN is in sockeye stocks in the Pacific: http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/84/4/803.full "All tests were negative". Huh? WTF??? Why do their test results differ so significantly from other researchers prevalence levels? Kinds puts the whole testing regime under suspicion. Thanks GLG for that post above, as well.
 
Sorry my bad... the news release was for dates 2012 to 2013 so this test doesn't count.....
As you can see the test results were for Jan 2014. That was close..... Will have to wait another year for the next press release....:rolleyes:

Personally I'm waiting for Kristy Miller and her results. I have a lot more faith in her then CFIA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, what a surprise - neither side of the debate trusts the other side's data or conclusions … as though any amount of peer reviewed science would sway either side from their firmly entrenched beliefs. In other remarkable news - the sun will be setting in the west again!!

Cheers!

Ukee
 
Wow, what a surprise - neither side of the debate trusts the other side's data or conclusions … as though any amount of peer reviewed science would sway either side from their firmly entrenched beliefs. In other remarkable news - the sun will be setting in the west again!!

Cheers!

Ukee
Ukee - the results were from a news release - NOT a peer-reviewed study. Don't confuse the 2 - very different sources!
 
Ukee - the results were from a news release - NOT a peer-reviewed study. Don't confuse the 2 - very different sources!

Is this your idea of accurate and responsible reporting? Care to take another poke at that statement agent?
 
This is ridiculous. The food agency is linked with government, and not independent. If they admit it's here all fish farming would be shutdown, and revenue gone. Not to mention lawsuit of farmers.

The markets would drop all salmon from BC worldwide.

Again it proves that wild salmon need to have a body governing them away from, industry and government... But they will still go on telling the public that Morton sucks, she has no credentials etc etc...

BTW Birdsnest this is only my opinion I know you work in industry, and looking out for your livelihood. I hope you guys can get the cost down to put it on land like band up North did. I am sure cost will come down as more are brought online...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well aware of that Agentaqua, thought it was pretty clear in my post that my reference to data, conclusions and "any amount of peer reviewed science" was general in nature and referring to the larger, on going debate.

Your overly defensive response, to say nothing of your condescension (trust me I know the difference between a news article and peer reviewed science, thank you very much), proves my point about firmly entrenched positions not being swayed much better than my attempt at some light sarcasm. Thanks.

Ukee
 
Quite the procedure to confirm ISA that I found online.
Makes you wonder how they can find it on the east coast of Canada.
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/aahm/current/2.3.05_ISA.pdf

This little bit is where I get concerend.
Pg 9
The procedure described below has been successful for isolation of HPR-deleted ISAV from fish with clinical signs or from suspected cases. HPR0 has hitherto not been isolated in cell culture.

The difference between the two and the part that is troubling

Infection with HPR-deleted ISAV may cause infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), which is a generalised and lethal condition characterised by severe anaemia, and variable haemorrhages and necrosis in several organs. The disease course is prolonged with low daily mortality (0.05–0.1%) typically only in a few cages. Cumulative mortality may become very high for a period lasting several months if nothing is done to limit disease dissemination (Rimstad et al., 2011).
Detection of HPR0 ISAV has never been associated with ISA in Atlantic salmon (Christiansen et al., 2011). This virus genotype replicates transiently and has mainly been localised to the gills. A link between non-pathogenic HPR0 ISAV and pathogenic HPR-deleted ISAV, with some outbreaks potentially occurring as a result of the emergence of HPR-deleted ISAV from HPR0 ISAV has been suggested (Cunningham et al., 2002; Mjaaland, et al., 2002).

Lot's of weasel words in this document to turn positive tests to negative....
This is just a opinion as I'm not qualified but I did spent a fair amount of time in non-biology labs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well aware of that Agentaqua, thought it was pretty clear in my post that my reference to data, conclusions and "any amount of peer reviewed science" was general in nature and referring to the larger, on going debate.

Your overly defensive response, to say nothing of your condescension (trust me I know the difference between a news article and peer reviewed science, thank you very much), proves my point about firmly entrenched positions not being swayed much better than my attempt at some light sarcasm. Thanks.

Ukee
Interesting that you would coach my critique of CFIAs testing regime in terms of an "overly defensive response" Ukee. That would be your filters - not mine. Unfortunately, "light sarcasm" does not translate well while texting. Tone and facial features are not accompanying text. I apologize if I misread your text.

Is this your idea of accurate and responsible reporting? Care to take another poke at that statement agent?
Could you provide more context to your question, BN? I am not sure what you are asking here. If CFIAs study has been peer-reviewed and published in an accredited Science Journal - maybe you have the reference, then?
 
Its not a study agent its was a 2 year assessment where internationally approved(OIE) methods were used to look for the virus. I suspect the methods are peer reviewed otherwise the OIE would not approve them for use by CFIA. I suspect that these are the same methods used to look for isa in the atlantic and I don't see you complaining when they find it there, why would you complain about it, you want this so bad to be here in bc it pretty obvious. Thats what you do i guess.

So you would agree it is misleading to state that "the results are from a news release" and that this was a "study" requiring peer reviews?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I trust this report like I trust my government. there credibility at this point is pretty much worthless. with me at least. and i'll bet there are alot out there that feel the same way. the government would like to think were all stupid and that we'll believe everything they tell us, but guess what. maybe we're not the idiots they like to make us out to be. it's pretty obvious who they look out for. it's not you and me. its their buddies in big business that matter to them. to me and i'm sure alot of others, this report isn't worth the paper its written on. you might think it is, but thankfully there are people out there that can think for themselves and can see where this government is coming from. and they've made it quite obvious.

agent aqua made a good point.
Could you provide more context to your question, BN? I am not sure what you are asking here. If CFIAs study has been peer-reviewed and published in an accredited Science Journal - maybe you have the reference, then?

maybe i'll begin to believe this report when it's been peer reviewed by scientists or those without special interests and nothing to lose if the actual truth were to come out. you can only be lied to so many times before you start crying wolf every time this government has something to say...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comparing the sun setting in the West and the two sides of this argument disagreeing in perpetuity as both being shocking news is too subtle for you without the nuances of facial expressions Agentaqua? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, then, that you also misinterpreted my "overly defensive comment" as referring to your critique of CFIA when I was in fact referring to your overzealousness leading you to interpret neutral comments teasing both sides on their stubbornness and close-mindedness as a pro-fish farm or pro-CFIA statement? Your continued (over)reaction to my neutral comments continues to confirm that you're so invested in arguing your point of view that you don't seem to have the ability to step back and objectively view neutral, generic commentary for what it is.

Cheers and good luck with your combative approach!

Ukee
 
Back
Top