Pesticides for Sea Lice Application

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by seascene, Nov 17, 2017.

  1. seascene

    seascene Active Member

    BCRingo and bigdogeh like this.
  2. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    Just signed it. Very easy to do. I encourage many others to do the same!

    We need to keep the pressure on the govt. and industry to get these fish/lice farms out of the water and on to the land where their negative environmental impacts can be better managed.
    bigdogeh likes this.
  3. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    Signed and shared. Our once pristine waters are no place to be dumping pecticides, chemicals, and other pollutants. These farms with their sick, diseased, invasive atlantic salmon represent industrial pollution on a mass scale.
    seascene likes this.
  4. bones

    bones Well-Known Member

    didnt know Hydrogen peroxide was a pesticide?

    "The pesticide Cermaq wants to use, Interox Paramove 50, is a concentrated form of hydrogen peroxide, a chemical responsible for mass die-offs in fish farms. The pesticide irritates the fish while lowering their immune systems. Not only does it harm the fish but it poisons the marine environment and doesn’t break down. "

    Hydrogen peroxide is thermodynamically unstable and decomposes to form water and oxygen with a ΔHo of −98.2 kJ/mol and a ΔS of 70.5 J/(mol·K):

    2 H2O2 → 2 H2O + O2
  5. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    No, but Slice is... Are they still using that and putting it into the fish feed? Hydrogen peroxide is a chemical compound. But if it is being used to rid fish of "pests" (sealice) I would think it could also be classified as a pesticide. Thxs for your link.
    You should try drinking some and see how good it is for you... Then maybe I'll take your word for it that it isn't harmful to the environment...
    from the info you posted.

    Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC):
    LD50 (median dose)
    1518 mg/kg[citation needed]
    2000 mg/kg (oral, mouse)[3]
    LC50 (median concentration)
    1418 ppm (rat, 4 hr)[3]
    LCLo (lowest published)
    227 ppm (mouse)[3]
    US health exposure limits (NIOSH):
    PEL (Permissible)
    TWA 1 ppm (1.4 mg/m3)[2]
    REL (Recommended)
    TWA 1 ppm (1.4 mg/m3)[2]
    IDLH (Immediate danger)
    75 ppm[2]
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
  6. bones

    bones Well-Known Member

    good thing your not drinking it..... why is it you don't or are not upset at the other industries that use it? say pulp and paper?
  7. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I don't think I would drink it...
    It gets treated and tested before being released into the environment in settling ponds full of microscopic bugs designed for that purpose. Do the fish farms do that? Is there any treatment of the wastes and chemicals they use as well as the diseases and viruses that are released directly into the ocean?
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
  8. Birdsnest

    Birdsnest Well-Known Member

  9. terrin

    terrin Well-Known Member

    Good questions. Is there any treatment of the wastes? and chemicals? They tarp the open net fish cage to sort of mimic a closed containment setup then add the Interox Perimove 50 pesticide to the fish pen until the required exposure is obtained then once they are happy remove the tarps to let all this crap dilute into the ocean. As for chemicals they will test the ocean for dilution rates 30 meters away. Play both ways tarps to contain pesticide when it suites them then open flushing into the ocean when that suites them. Try and see if the Feds would allow you to discharge unteated waste into the ocean. Storage and Application Paramove 50TM will be stored in a fenced secure location prior to application at farms. This requires isolated storage and separation, free from combustibles and other chemicals/flammable materials. The storage tanks will regularly be inspected and monitored by cameras. Safe and secure storage and transport in appropriate containers will ensure the containment of Paramove 50TM to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and non-target organisms. Paramove 50TM will be contained either in a secured well boat or tarpaulins during application to farmed fish, which will prevent adverse impact to non-target organisms and water quality. Prior to tarpaulin application, all nets ropes, and other in-water infrastructure will be pressure washed and thoroughly cleaned to remove any organic material. This will help to reduce the total amount of Paramove 50TM to be used during treatments and prevent adverse impacts to non-target organisms. Titration will occur at several locations within the tarp to monitor the concentration of Paramove 50TM every five minutes during treatment. After the tarpaulins are removed the water quality within the net pen will be tested at two and five minutes to ensure concentration of Paramove 50TM has reduced to 0ppm. Five minutes following treatment, water quality will be tested at four sampling stations 30 m from the sides of the farm closest to the treated pen to confirm that there are no detectable levels of Paramove 50TM, thereby preventing adverse impacts to water quality and non-target organisms. The four sampling stations will be tested at 1m, 5m, and 10m depths.
    agentaqua likes this.
  10. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

  11. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    terrin says "Try and see if the Feds would allow you to discharge unteated waste into the ocean" I wonder how Victoria gets away with it? I wonder how many sampling sites are at it's outfall?
    C'mon guys, this is minor stuff.
    bones likes this.
  12. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    That's a crime in itself and you know it Dave. (Or I would hope that you would)
    The term for this is ‘lawful abuse’. It is when a blatantly immoral or unethical act is sanctioned by law. Such as introducing an invasive species or untreated chemicals or untreated raw sewage (from fish farms or people) into the ocean environment.
    Two wrongs don't make a right... At least in my world...
  13. seascene

    seascene Active Member

    And while we are not sweating the fish farm small stuff ...

    "in Canada, everything from casual windshield “surveys” to formal scientific assessments show a drop in insect numbers. Meanwhile, domestic populations of many insect-eating birds are in freefall. Ontario has lost half its whip-poor-wills in the past 20 years; across the nation, such species as nighthawks, swallows, martins and fly-catchers are down by up to 75 per cent; Greater Vancouver’s barn and bank swallows have plummeted by 98 per cent since 1970. Heard much about these things in the mainstream news?" And etc here:

    There is a war on.
    bigdogeh likes this.
  14. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I guess I see it as the lesser of 2 "evils": if we are going to allow OPEN net-pens to operate in the environment - their fish will get lice. Lice for them on their fish is a production loss - lice on farmed fish is for wild fish advocates - is a potential lice loading risk, and a risk to outmigrating wild salmon in the spring.

    So - good to treat and to do it before spring.

    The reason that the industry is now going with H2O2 external bath treatments instead of Slice - is that Slice is becoming way less effective. Sea lice have developed resistance to emamectin benzoate. This was predicted years ago - and the response (predictably) from the FF industry was that Slice resistance happened in the Atlantic (first) - and we are in the Pacific - that wouldn't happen. Sound familiar?

    The bizarre and irresponsible excuse from industry pundits is that: since humans called the name of the ocean something different in the Atlantic - so therefore - that mere difference of a name to humans somehow protects us from all the known and documented impacts from the open net-pens in the Atlantic - in the Pacific. Bizarre logic. This is yet but another example of how illogic and unsupported that irresponsible perspective actually is.

    Doing sea lice treatments with well boats instead of tarps - gives the applicator control over discharges of the external sea lice treatment. Tarps do not. I can only assume that the few well boats are now so booked-up that they figured they had to do it instead with tarps because the lice loading and damage on their FF fish is so severe. There is a lice problem now with the industry in BC that the FFs don't wish anyone to know IMHO.

    Some lice die - and most are dislodged using H2O2. So - that means there will be a large release of lice from this treatment into the environment - esp when the tarps are removed - some dead and some alive. Some will be viable and looking for new hosts for some time - dependent upon stage and water temperatures. I am glad to see this done before the spring outmigration of juvenile salmon.

    There will be effects downstream (from tidal flows and estuarine circulation - that is not taken into consideration) for at least several hundreds of meters from the cages from the H2O2 release - maybe far further. If there are sensitive habitats nearby - that's where the monitoring should be done as in a before-after effects study - for both H2O2 effects AND sea lice loading.

    Monitoring 30m from the cages for only levels of H2O2 will not really tell you much - and in any event - once the H2O2 is released - the fat lady sings - and there's really nothing that can be done.

    Hopefully; time and dilution effects will rehab the water quality, but...
    Preliminary work in the laboratory with Interox® Paramove™ 50 in raw seawater has shown the half-life of 1200 mg·L-1 H2O2 to be 28 days at 10°C.

    I am not sure if I would instantaneously label this as "minor stuff" w/o the studies to support that hypothesis. And that's the real problem with the new regulations that the FF lawyers drafted-up for DFO over sea lice treatments - they didn't want that kind of scrutiny. Otta site - otta mind - yet but again.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    bigdogeh likes this.
  15. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    When it comes to doing sea-lice treatments and deciding on whether using well boats or tarps, I believe they are going to do what is more cost effective (cheapest) and not what's best for the environment. I hope I'm wrong. I really can't say I've seen much (if anything) from this industry that shows me they are serious about their discharges into the environment or the effects of their discharges on the environment... Basically it seems that our government lets them do as they wish with little or no consequence.
  16. trophywife

    trophywife Well-Known Member

    deflect, classic.
    bigdogeh likes this.
  17. SpringFever552

    SpringFever552 Well-Known Member

    Not so cheap in my books
  18. trophywife

    trophywife Well-Known Member

    bigdogeh likes this.
  19. SpringFever552

    SpringFever552 Well-Known Member

    I was pointing out that looks like the ff industry(this 1 company here and 1 more that i know of)is trying to evolve at a not so small investment of $35mil for 1 ship.

    Not sure, but I'm thinking its not the cheapest way of trying to deal with sealice.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
    trophywife likes this.
  20. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    Should put that money toward building closed containment systems and they wouldn't have to worry about sea lice. Wonder if the taxpayer is helping pay for that ship as they seem to be spending a lot of our money for these companies regarding research, etc. when it comes to these lice...
    seascene and trophywife like this.

Share This Page