View From the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences side of the fence

[agentaqua]

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69.12 (Dec 2012): p1994(13).


Abstract:

Sea trout (Salmo trutta) stock collapses in coastal areas of western Ireland subject to salmon aquaculture were contemporaneous with high abundances of larval sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) on juvenile sea trout. Whereas sea trout remain in near-shore waters throughout their marine migration, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts typically move quickly offshore into oceanic waters. It might therefore be predicted that salmon smolts would be less vulnerable to coastal stressors and less likely to be negatively affected by infestations of sea lice early in their marine phase. Groups of microtagged, hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts were fed either untreated pellets or pellets incorporating the in-feed sea louse treatment SLICE (emamectin benzoate) prior to eight experimental releases in three marine locations over a 3-year period. In total, 74 324 smolts were released and analysis of tag recaptures from returning adult salmon showed that emamectin-treated smolts experienced increased survivorship and were 1.8 times more likely to return compared with control fish. These results suggest that sea lice-induced mortality on adult Atlantic salmon returns in Ireland can be significant, and that sea lice larvae emanating from farmed salmon may influence individual survivorship and population conservation status of wild salmon in these river systems.

 

[stones93]

Grab the popcorn

I have chatted with many people who are fed up but think they are beating their head on the wall. My take on that is that I understand and feel the same way, HOWEVER, they win if you give up! Thinking that scientific proof would change the minds of politicians is WRONG (or else Harper would be gone!). Everytime an article or report that you read is posted here, dont assume it has been read by your local, provincialand federal representaives! They only act on the number of e-mails, or phone calls to their office. Please continue the fight for safe and sustainable wild habitat by BUGGING THE SH$T out of our politicians! I also try and post this on FB. I know my firends have seen it over and over again but if it sinks in with just one more person we make progress!

Fight the good fight! (remember though, you attract more bee's with hiney that vinegar!)

 

[Birdsnest]

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69.12 (Dec 2012): p1994(13).

Author(s): Oystein Skaala, Kevin A. Glover, Bjorn T. Barlaup, Terje Svasand, Francois Besnier, Michael M. Hansen and Reidar Borgstrom.
Document Type: Magazine/Journal
Bookmark: Bookmark this Document
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f2012-118 Performance of farmed, hybrid, and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) families in a natural river environment
Abstract:

Sea trout (Salmo trutta) stock collapses in coastal areas of western Ireland subject to salmon aquaculture were contemporaneous with high abundances of larval sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) on juvenile sea trout. Whereas sea trout remain in near-shore waters throughout their marine migration, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts typically move quickly offshore into oceanic waters. It might therefore be predicted that salmon smolts would be less vulnerable to coastal stressors and less likely to be negatively affected by infestations of sea lice early in their marine phase. Groups of microtagged, hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon smolts were fed either untreated pellets or pellets incorporating the in-feed sea louse treatment SLICE (emamectin benzoate) prior to eight experimental releases in three marine locations over a 3-year period. In total, 74 324 smolts were released and analysis of tag recaptures from returning adult salmon showed that emamectin-treated smolts experienced increased survivorship and were 1.8 times more likely to return compared with control fish. These results suggest that sea lice-induced mortality on adult Atlantic salmon returns in Ireland can be significant, and that sea lice larvae emanating from farmed salmon may influence individual survivorship and population conservation status of wild salmon in these river systems.

No popcorn required. Agent would you please let us know which study it is you want to showcase. You link to the study and the abstract quoted seem to be two different topics.

Was it this study from the Irish Themselves from the other side of the fence you want to look at? https://www.marine.ie/home/services/operational/sealice/

"The Marine Institute study comprising 28 releases of 352,142 salmon smolts at 8 locations along Ireland’s coast from Donegal to Cork, over a 9 year period showed that sea lice were "a minor and irregular component of marine mortality in the stocks studied and is unlikely to be a significant factor influencing conservation status of salmon stocks"

 

[fogged in]

No popcorn required. Agent would you please let us know which study it is you want to showcase. You link to the study and the abstract quoted seem to be two different topics.

Was it this study from the Irish Themselves from the other side of the fence you want to look at? https://www.marine.ie/home/services/operational/sealice/

"In this study, data on 352 142 migrating salmon from twenty-eight releases, at eight locations along Ireland's South and West coasts covering a 9-year period (2001 to 2009) are reviewed. Both published and new data are presented including a previously unpublished time series. The results of a meta-analysis of the combined data suggest that while sea lice-induced mortality on outwardly migrating smolts can be significant, it is a minor and irregular component of marine mortality in the stocks studied and is unlikely to be a significant factor influencing conservation status of salmon stocks."

reply only if you want to prolong an endless debate.
Like I said earlier to debate this stuff with Birdsnest is an exercise in futility
I am not saying Birdsnest is not entitled to his opinion...he certainly does and he has posted it.
The end I say

 

[Dave]

reply only if you want to prolong an endless debate.
Like I said earlier to debate this stuff with Birdsnest is an exercise in futility
I am not saying Birdsnest is not entitled to his opinion...he certainly does and he has posted it.
The end I say

Say what? Birdsnest is correct; agent needs to clarify his post.

 

[fogged in]

Say what? Birdsnest is correct; agent needs to clarify his post.

not so Dave
it's just an opinion...no need to debate it. we all have the ability to accept or reject the opinions presented here.
The history of these kinds of debates are they go on and on with no resolution until people loose interest or Admin finally puts an end to it.
You and Birsnest are long time supporters of Fish Farms. Fair enough, but there is nothing that can be presented to either of you guys that will change your colors. I might add that the other side is much the same...so what's to be gained??
As far as I am concerned neither you or Birdsnest have anything new to present.

 

[agentaqua]

sorry about the wrong url guys:

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f2011-155

Try that one

Evidence for sea lice-induced marine mortality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in western Ireland from experimental releases of ranched smolts treated with emamectin benzoate

P.G. Gargan,a G. Forde,a N. Hazon,b D.J.F. Russell,b C.D. Toddb

aInland Fisheries Ireland, Swords Business Campus, Swords, Co. Dublin, Ireland.

bScottish Oceans Institute, University of St Andrews, Scotland KY16 8LB, UK.



Corresponding author: Patrick G. Gargan (e-mail: paddy.gargan@fisheriesireland.ie).


Paper handled by associate editor James W.A. Grant

Published on the web 2 February 2012.

Received February 17, 2011. Accepted October 17, 2011.

 

[Birdsnest]

Luckily We do not have see trout here but I think that the potency of the sea lice over there is far worse thus being a larg portion of the issue. Even so the study I posted https://www.marine.ie/home/services/...ional/sealice/suggest the atlantic salmon there are not suffering the same fate. In this article http://www.atlanticsalmontrust.org/...view-of-the-collapse-of-sea-trout-stocks.html it states that high levels of sea lice and damage to fish were observed in returning sea trout. These observations were only made in areas near salmon farms in Ireland. How come we don't see elevated levels of sea lice as in irland on sea trout on any salmon or sea trout here on pacifics that are returning? If the same were true here the same observations could be made.


About the potency of the sea lice here compared to other oceans Anyone have information on that?

 

[Gear'n'beer!]

We don't see elevated levels of sea lice?
Here is your own website- http://www.marineharvestcanada.com/farming_fish_health_sea_lice.php

 

[Birdsnest]

I meant on returning salmon as seen on the sea trout in Ireland. Not to knock the study but in the abstract it states this: "Whereas sea trout remain in near-shore waters throughout their marine migration, Atlantic salmon (<named-content xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlnsasis=" http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" content-type="species" type="simple" style="padding-right: 5px; ">Salmo salar</named-content>) smolts typically move quickly offshore into oceanic waters.It might therefore be predicted that salmon smolts would be less vulnerable to coastal stressors and less likely to be negatively affected by infestations of sea lice early in their marine phase." This comment would indicate that the results of the study are isolated to that location on sea trout with their atlantic strains of sea lice and results on salmon in general will vary as it does in the same location with the atlantic salmon there. Seems reasonable to me to think that a similar study would have to be done in bc to actually apply any results. I'm not saying the study should be ignored but I will say relating the study to bc is pointless until the study can be performed here on pacific stocks with pacific sea lice. Does anyone agree?

 

[tubber]

That argument is analogous to having an agency of some sort test the impact of the Ebola virus on the people of Tofino rather than assuming the results would be similar to what is seen in Africa.

 

[Charlie]

Salmon/Steelhead Species Information

Cutthroat Trout (Resident)
Cutthroat Trout (Ocean)


Cutthroat Trout (Coastal)
Oncorhynchus clarki clarki

Other names: sea-run cutthroat, harvest trout
Average size: 1-4 lbs, up to 6 lbs

Of the 13 subspecies of cutthroat trout indigenous to North America, only the coastal cutthroat is anadromous. But coastal cutthroat have complex life histories, and not all fish are anadromous. In any given body of water, some may migrate to sea, while others become resident fish. In fact, the offspring of resident fish may migrate, while the offspring of anadromous fish may "residualize."

 

[agentaqua]

In the science - The argument HAS NEVER been that open net-cage have no impact on adjacent wild salmonid stocks. The discussion has always centered around HOW MUCH of an impact that industry has on wild salmon stocks. In the media - the battle has been between paid industry PR consultants and their protectors (DFO & the Aquaculture Branch) - and often - independent researchers. The media assumes that both sides of a story have equal merit and gives opposing views near equal time. In science that assertion is often invalid and the media is often used by those with an agenda to push their agenda, rather than carry-out due diligence like our regulators should be doing. The climate change media battle is another prime example, and all one has to do is follow CNN to see how fear-based information is served to the Americans. The due diligence is the obvious missing part in all this fish-farm debate.

We - as a supposedly open democratic society (ya, right!) - need ALL the available information to make appropriate decisions. Which is why Hitler burned books and Harper closes libraries. They have an agenda that is challenged and threatened by information and science. That is why DFO and CFIA hide fish health information and state that their interpretation of the Privacy Act overrides the Charter - after talking with the fish farm lawyers.

Instead - we should be having a conversation about what risks we - as a society - are prepared to accept. Ever notice we never seem to get to that point in the discussion? There is a reason for that. If we ever get to that point - those currently in power have (in their mind) lost that power.

So as soon as the conversation slides into that there MIGHT BE an impact - out come the hired PR guns. That's when CFIA gives the OIE $2 Million and complains to the OIE about Fred Kibenge's lab in Charlottetown. That's when we get to see the behind the scenes "we are winning the PR war" in the Cohen transcripts. We get glimpses of this upper-level corruption through FOI requests with substantial blackening-out portions of really embarrassing stuff.

THEY DO NOT WANT A DISCUSSION OVER ACCEPTING A LEVEL OF IMPACTS BECAUSE THAT MEANS YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THERE ARE IMPACTS.

They should - as our regulators and as our paid public servants be performing due diligence and being open with that information. They are not. They are compromised.

One of the tools of due diligence is what is called the "Precautionary Approach". The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal Protocol, and among other international treaties and declarations is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), signed by 172 governments, including Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

This due diligence was incorporated by DFO policy around 2003:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/precaution-back-fiche-eng.htm

So - contrary to uninformed views of ClayoquotKids: "it is not up to industry to prove its innocence, it is up to opponents to put up or shut up when it comes to measuring impacts in the real world."

That aptly demonstrates the mindset of the pro-aquaculture pundits. Ignorance is not bliss with respect to protecting our resources for future generations.

 

[Dave]

Did you write that aqua?

 

[Birdsnest]

Ok Agent, I thought we/you were over repeating yourself but it seems you cant resist. You posted a study for discussion. I made some points. You respond with blanket statements that have nothing to do with the study you posted. Why did you post the study in the first place if you are not willing to discuss it?

The argument HAS NEVER been that open net-cage have no impact on adjacent wild salmonid stocks

This is not being argued. What the issue is, as cohen stated is if salmon farms are having greater than minimal impact on Pacific salmon stocks?

 

[agentaqua]

Luckily We do not have see trout here but I think that the potency of the sea lice over there is far worse thus being a larg portion of the issue. How come we don't see elevated levels of sea lice as in irland on sea trout on any salmon or sea trout here on pacifics that are returning? About the potency of the sea lice here compared to other oceans Anyone have information on that?

BN - there is absolutely no difference between the "potency" of sea lice of the Atlantic verses the Pacific Oceans.

There are species-specific differences in attachment and success between sea lice species (normally only two to worry about with salmonids - Lepeophtheirus salmonis and caligus spp.). There are species-specific immune responses by salmonids. and there are regional areas where the sea lice have developed resistance to Slice. But there are no potency differences between leps in the Atlantic verses leps in the Pacific.

What the real difference is the regulatory agencies and the acceptance in Europe that sea trout and Atlantic salmon are impacted by the open net-cage industry, which is exasperated by improper siting'

Mortality from sea lice is dependent upon the size and reserves of the host (besides the species-specific immune responses listed above) - and the stage of the louse. When the sea lice become motile subadult and adults - the damage and mortality increases. Comparisons need to be done by looking at sea lice loading per gram of host fish.

None of this is new information.

Pink salmon smolts are the smallest outmigrating Pacific salmon smolt averaging only 45mm in length and only 0.25 gram. Chums are not much bigger. They are the most susceptible to sea lice loading due to their small size. Atlantic salmon smolts are often 160 times the weight of the pinks, and sea trout larger again.

So if sea trout averaging quite a bit larger than pink smolts are having a hard time with sea lice - dying at 1.8 times the rate of slice-protected sea trout - then what would be the expected increase in mortality rates in pink smolts for the same lice loading given mortality is a function of host mass?

You wanted to discuss the science of this study - there it is.

Sometime back in 2003-ish - the provincial government required sea lice treatments in the spring to protect the pinks. The sea lice action plan or something or other they called it. This was all acknowledged some time ago. I think for some places - it helped mitigate some of the impacts to wild salmon stocks from the open net-cage industry.

there are other impacts - like disease transfer - that CFIA/DFO are not even open to discussing at this time.

If we had scientifically-defensible siting criteria - we might be able to mitigate some of these interactions. That is the great failure of due diligence by DFO and specifically - the aquaculture branch. That is why they don't want to discuss it. Their lawyers have pointed out the federal governments liability, backed-up by the fish farmers lawyers assertions about claiming damages over trade loss and quoting the Privacy Act.

 

[GLG]

So there is a link between fish farms and an impact to wild salmon stocks.
The question is how much of an impact?
Is it 1% or is it more?
Would the fish farm advocates like to comment or perhaps give us a number?

 

[Birdsnest]

BN - there is absolutely no difference between the "potency" of sea lice of the Atlantic verses the Pacific Oceans.

Recent evidence is also emerging that L. salmonis in the Atlantic has sufficient genetic differences from L. salmonis from the Pacific, suggesting that Atlantic and Pacific L. salmonis may have independently co-evolved with Atlantic and Pacific salmonids, respectively.[SUP][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_louse


This woud suggest that the the two regions have lice that are different.[/SUP]

 

[Charlie]

Recent evidence is also emerging that L. salmonis in the Atlantic has sufficient genetic differences from L. salmonis from the Pacific, suggesting that Atlantic and Pacific L. salmonis may have independently co-evolved with Atlantic and Pacific salmonids, respectively.[SUP][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_louse


This woud suggest that the the two regions have lice that are different.[/SUP]

Also, from your reference:

Interactions between wild and farmed fish

There is evidence that sea lice flourishing on salmon farms can spread to nearby wild juvenile salmon and devastate these populations.[SUP][28][/SUP] Sea lice, particularly Lepeophtheirus salmonis and various Caligus species, including Caligus clemensi and Caligus rogercresseyi, can cause deadly infestations of both farm-grown and wild salmon.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][29][/SUP] Sea lice migrate and latch onto the skin of wild salmon during free-swimming, planktonic nauplii and copepodid larval stages, which can persist for several days.[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP] Large numbers of highly populated, open-net salmon farms can create exceptionally large concentrations of sea lice. When exposed in river estuaries containing large numbers of open-net farms, mathematical models have suggested that many young wild salmon may be infected [SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP] Adult salmon may survive otherwise critical numbers of sea lice, but small, thin-skinned juvenile salmon migrating to sea are highly vulnerable. It has been suggested that sea trout populations in recent years have seriously declined due to infestation by sea lice,[SUP][35][/SUP] and Krkosek et al. have claimed that on the Pacific coast of Canada the louse-induced mortality of pink salmon in some regions is over 80%.[SUP][28][/SUP] A few studies indicated there has been no long term damage to fish stocks in some locations,[SUP][36][/SUP] and that a population decline in wild salmon that occurred in 2002 was caused by "something other than sea lice".[SUP][37][/SUP] However, the repeated epizootics of lice on wild fish have only occurred in areas with salmon farms in Ireland, Scotland, Norway, British Columbia, and Chile.[SUP][38][/SUP] Field sampling of copepodids, and hydrographic and population models, show how L. salmonis from farms can cause mass infestations of seaward migrating salmonids, and that this effect can occur up to 30 km (19 mi) from the farms</ref>[SUP][15]
[/SUP]
Several scientific studies have suggested that caged farmed salmon harbour lice to a degree that can destroy surrounding wild salmon populations.[SUP][34][/SUP] Other studies have shown that lice from farmed fish have relatively no effect on wild fish if good husbandry and adequate control measures are carried out (also, see section: Control on salmon farms).[SUP][39][/SUP] Further studies to establish wild-farmed fish interactions are on-going, particularly in Canada, Scotland, Ireland, and Norway. A reference manual with protocol and guidelines for studying wild/cultured fish interactions with sea lice has been published.[SUP][40][/SUP]

 

[agentaqua]

Field sampling of copepodids, and hydrographic and population models, show how L. salmonis from farms can cause mass infestations of seaward migrating salmonids, and that this effect can occur up to 30 km (19 mi) from the farms</ref>[SUP][15]

AND DFO thinks 1 km is an adequate and scientifically defensible siting criteria here in the Pacific, and they want you and I to believe them and to believe that they house the professional and scientific expertise to deal with aquaculture.

Recent evidence is also emerging that L. salmonis in the Atlantic has sufficient genetic differences from L. salmonis from the Pacific, suggesting that Atlantic and Pacific L. salmonis may have independently co-evolved with Atlantic and Pacific salmonids, respectively.[SUP][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_louse


This woud suggest that the the two regions have lice that are different.[/SUP]

OK - I'll nibble:

1/ how would you determine whether or not the same species of lice are different with respect to "potency" - if such a thing exists?
2/ How would you quantify and prove that?
3/ Just because there are genetic differences between different populations of leps in the Atlantic and Pacific (which would be expected) - why would you assume that the reason they are taking it more seriously in Europe must mean there are differences in potency?
4/ If sea lice have co-evolved with different salmonid species in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (as you posted above) - why would "potency" then be suspected as a factor of differences between how different jurisdictions acknowledge sea lice impacts from the open net-cage industry? Why wouldn't you first suspect politics and media manipulation as the reason for different management strategies?