Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

I think it’s fair to say no one on this site is paid to support or oppose Fish Farms other than Fabian Dawson.
I do believe however some, but not all, Fish Farm supporters and their family members benefit financially either directly or indirectly from the industry.
This might explain their passion and desire to derail the conversation when they think it is going the wrong way.
It also appears to me those who oppose Fish Farms have no financial involvement and do so only because of their conclusions regarding the impact Fish Farms have on wild salmon and our environment.
Your posts are so judgemental. I don't work for FF's but I think the FF posters are strong believers in science and in helping the people of BC (especially the First Nations). It appears to me that many of the anti-FF posters have an adgenda that is likely financed and paid for by ENGO's. So, why don't you ask the posters that you support if they are working with or for any of the ENGO's? If they were, maybe you might not judge the pro industry supporters so harshly.
 

Well agent I'll give you credit. You waited for 9 pages to go by before you repeated this accusation. You failed then to respond to this info in the very same paper you posted.

Not according to the paper you posted where it states in the discussion:
“While European origin Atlantic salmon have been introduced to B.C. and Washington State, there has also been extensive transplantation of native Pacific salmon and trout eggs into Europe and elsewhere [19]. Transplanted rainbow trout contributed to the spread of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), a salmonid virus endemic to western North America, to Europe and Asia [20, 21]. If PRV was endemic to western North America, it is equally probable that movement of infected Pacific salmon or trout eggs could have concomitantly spread PRV in Europe. There have been no published retrospective studies of archived samples conducted in Norway to determine how long the virus has been present in that country. However, Atlantic salmon tissues from Norway collected in 1988 tested positive for PRV RNA (Rimstad pers. comm.) suggesting that the virus was present at least a decade prior to the first reports of HSMI. There has been little surveillance for this virus outside Norway and Western North America. Thus, it is premature to speculate about transmission pathways given the lack of understanding of the global distribution of PRV.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141475
 
from your link

While European origin Atlantic salmon have been introduced to B.C. and Washington State, there has also been extensive transplantation of native Pacific salmon and trout eggs into Europe and elsewhere [19]. Transplanted rainbow trout contributed to the spread of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), a salmonid virus endemic to western North America, to Europe and Asia [20, 21]. If PRV was endemic to western North America, it is equally probable that movement of infected Pacific salmon or trout eggs could have concomitantly spread PRV in Europe. There have been no published retrospective studies of archived samples conducted in Norway to determine how long the virus has been present in that country. However, Atlantic salmon tissues from Norway collected in 1988 tested positive for PRV RNA (Rimstad pers. comm.) suggesting that the virus was present at least a decade prior to the first reports of HSMI. There has been little surveillance for this virus outside Norway and Western North America. Thus, it is premature to speculate about transmission pathways given the lack of understanding of the global distribution of PRV.
 
Not surprising that the ENGO pundits again bring this up again. Typical scare tactics for donations. There seeming lack of acknowledgement that ENGO has about these studies is certainly revealing about their intelligence. At Least we have the PSF acknowledging them who say "the jury on salmon farms is still out"

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/PRV whitepaper revised Sept 2017.pdf?3c0h5&9laxp

Summary Conclusion Based on Available Data: The ubiquitous nature of piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), its apparent historic presence in wild Pacific salmonid stocks in the Pacific Northwest and the lack of clear association with disease in Pacific salmonids suggest the virus poses a low risk to wild species of Pacific salmonids.

Molecular testing of archived fish tissues in BC has shown that PRV was present in wild and farmed salmonids since 1987 and may have been present as early as 1977 in one sample from steelhead trout (19)

Why PRV in the PNW is of low risk regarding HSMI in wild Pacific Salmonids
1. The disease “heart and skeletal muscle inflammation” (HSMI) has not been reported in wild salmon populations in Norway or elsewhere and appears to only be a threat to farmed fish
2. While PRV causes HSMI in farmed Norwegian Atlantic salmon, high levels of PRV genetic material have been detected in asymptomatic wild and cultured salmonids with no evidence of HSMI disease
3. Histopathological lesions of HSMI were recently described as statistically correlated with the presence of PRV at one Atlantic salmon farm in British Columbia, Canada (BC) while other studies have detected the presence of PRV genetic material in wild and cultured Chinook, coho and pink salmon and steelhead trout from Washington State, BC and Alaska where years of surveillance have reported no presence of HSMI
4. Molecular testing of archived fish tissues in BC has shown that PRV was present in asymptomatic wild and farmed Pacific salmon since 1987 and may have been present as early as 1977 before Atlantic salmon were imported for aquaculture
5. HSMI has not been reported in Pacific salmon or steelhead in North America to date
6. Laboratory studies with Chinook and sockeye salmon have demonstrated that PRV is infectious and will persist for quite some time but does not cause fish mortality, HSMI, or any other apparent disease
7. Development of HSMI and HSMI-like diseases of farmed salmonids (Atlantic and coho salmon; rainbow trout) infected by PRV may be a result of different viral strains, host specific antiviral responses and environmental stressors that do not appear to be present or active for indigenous salmon on the Pacific Coast
8. The presence of PRV genetic material in Pacific salmon tissues is not sufficient evidence for HSMI disease

Laboratory challenges of Chinook, sockeye and Atlantic salmon injected with PRV infected material from Pacific Northwest salmonids resulted in no significant mortality or clinical disease (21, 22). A second study of Chinook salmon also injected with PRV positive material from Pacific Northwest salmonids resulted in virus replication with transient cytoplasmic inclusion bodies in red blood cells causing no reduction in hematocrits and no fish mortality (23). Similar challenge studies in rainbow trout (23) also resulted in no direct mortality following injection with PRV infectious material. These experimental studies suggest PRV in the Pacific Northwest is of low virulence for rainbow trout, Chinook and sockeye salmon.

The PRV strain present in indigenous Pacific salmon in the PNW, historically and experimentally, appears to be relatively benign and unable to produce significant disease or HSMI in native salmonids.
 
Last edited:
Wow - did AA even read it? Now others are going to berate the pro-FF group for saying the science posted by AA suggests that PRV could have equally originated in the Pacific and is the cause of PRV in Atlantic salmon. This, is simply guilt by accusation. Not balanced and not scientific. For the others who have read the past few posts - this is not PR hacks - this is propaganda. This is a case of lying, half truths, and deflections. Oh wait, those labels are only for the pro-FF group.
 
You know, I keep thinking of Hamlet - "Me thinks though doth protest too much". I love how the anti-FF crowd talks about "half truths", "deflections", "lies" etc.... This is fake news folks. The science people on this forum acknowledge the truths, even when it doesn't support their position. If you all think I am a paid PR hack, well, like Rico, I want to know where I can pick up a cheque. On the other side of half truths are those who will say anything about FF's, even if there is no evidence. Again, as a broken record, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. If the anti-FF crowd wants to be brutally honest, great, we can talk about the facts.



Really, this is why we struggle with these posts. Not one spec of science to support your position. Heck, even AA won't venture a guess as to what the actual impact of removing FF's would be. WMY is bang on. The same anti-FF crowd thinks the Alaskan Raping industry is great for our salmon. OMG - where are you all on this?

So - lets agree on these facts:

1) There are more salmon in the pacific ocean then ever before.
2) Alaska, despite record harvests, has its wild salmon runs rushing to similar destruction as ours.
3) Alaska has no salmon farms.
4) PVR is a pre-existing virus in the Pacific...period. Science is crystal clear.

Once we agree on the facts, lets see if we can try and do something productive. Now watch my post get buried with a bunch of spams...
I guess we need some visuals to remind ourselves just how bad Fish Farms really are.

11840466_web1_180510-PQN-M-Clayoquot-Chum-I-4.jpg


A massive outbreak of salmon lice recently reported in the Clayoquot Sound is threatening juvenile salmon. — CAC photo
 
expect that the science that's available does not support fish farming having this big of an impact. Where as the slide has literally already killed off the year class of multiple different salmon species.

I get it for some fish farms are the utopia remove them and will have billions of salmon returning but the current science that's available simply does not support this theory. The best conclusion that the PSF has come to is that they may be having an impact and that using the preocinary principle we should begin transferring them to land.
Must be just a coincidence that things really started going downhill very fast since the early nineties around the same time as open net cage fish farms came around.
 
Must be just a coincidence that things really started going downhill very fast since the early nineties around the same time as open net cage fish farms came around.

Actually marine survival rates started to decline in the early 70's and crashed in 1980's. Since then a lot of stocks have been recovering.

I don't no anyone that had problems limiting out on chinook last year and many are saying it was one of their best seasons they have ever had.

Nass and Skeena have no fish farms on their migratory routes and are experiencing the same issues. I know the ENGO pundits have tried to link salmon returns with fish farms but have failed. 2009 sockeye crashed, fish farms were blamed. 2010 sockeye had one of their highest returns to the Fraser.

South east Alaska is also experiencing similar issues

I found this back and forth between Elmo and Bob to be very revealing about the ENGO lobby https://steelheadvoices.com/?p=1749
 
Interesting when you remind the industry that PRv is NORWEGIAN in origin they all rush to trot out: " it is premature to speculate about transmission pathways given the lack of understanding of the global distribution of PRV.".

I mean it's almost like they have something to hide - or maybe might be sued or something if they released a foreign disease onto naive stocks and caused the crash of fisheries.

PHEW! Thanks guys I feel so much better that you claim there is nothing to worry about. No Norwegian diseases that the only plausible source would be the open net-cage industry to worry about.

And if you read the grey literature entitled the "white" paper WMY posted above as reassurance - they still talk about PRv not causing HMSI.

Ya they were never wrong neither...
 
they still talk about PRv not causing HMSI.

"The PRV strain present in indigenous Pacific salmon in the PNW, historically and experimentally, appears to be relatively benign and unable to produce significant disease or HSMI in native salmonids."

ENGO pundits are once again using typical distraction tactics but its okay i'll post it again so they can read it over

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/PRV whitepaper revised Sept 2017.pdf?3c0h5&9laxp

PISCINE ORTHOREOVIRUS (PRV) IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST APPEARS TO BE OF LOW RISK TO WILD PACIFIC SALMONIDS

This summary report contains the most current information available on PRV risk to wild Pacific salmonids contributed by expert fish health practitioners and researchers in the Pacific Northwest Prepared By The Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee By T.R. Meyers Alaska Department of Fish and Game Juneau Fish Pathology Laboratory


Summary Conclusion Based on Available Data: The ubiquitous nature of piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), its apparent historic presence in wild Pacific salmonid stocks in the Pacific Northwest and the lack of clear association with disease in Pacific salmonids suggest the virus poses a low risk to wild species of Pacific salmonids.

Molecular testing of archived fish tissues in BC has shown that PRV was present in wild and farmed salmonids since 1987 and may have been present as early as 1977 in one sample from steelhead trout (19)

Why PRV in the PNW is of low risk regarding HSMI in wild Pacific Salmonids
1. The disease “heart and skeletal muscle inflammation” (HSMI) has not been reported in wild salmon populations in Norway or elsewhere and appears to only be a threat to farmed fish
2. While PRV causes HSMI in farmed Norwegian Atlantic salmon, high levels of PRV genetic material have been detected in asymptomatic wild and cultured salmonids with no evidence of HSMI disease
3. Histopathological lesions of HSMI were recently described as statistically correlated with the presence of PRV at one Atlantic salmon farm in British Columbia, Canada (BC) while other studies have detected the presence of PRV genetic material in wild and cultured Chinook, coho and pink salmon and steelhead trout from Washington State, BC and Alaska where years of surveillance have reported no presence of HSMI
4. Molecular testing of archived fish tissues in BC has shown that PRV was present in asymptomatic wild and farmed Pacific salmon since 1987 and may have been present as early as 1977 before Atlantic salmon were imported for aquaculture
5. HSMI has not been reported in Pacific salmon or steelhead in North America to date
6. Laboratory studies with Chinook and sockeye salmon have demonstrated that PRV is infectious and will persist for quite some time but does not cause fish mortality, HSMI, or any other apparent disease
7. Development of HSMI and HSMI-like diseases of farmed salmonids (Atlantic and coho salmon; rainbow trout) infected by PRV may be a result of different viral strains, host specific antiviral responses and environmental stressors that do not appear to be present or active for indigenous salmon on the Pacific Coast
8. The presence of PRV genetic material in Pacific salmon tissues is not sufficient evidence for HSMI disease

Laboratory challenges of Chinook, sockeye and Atlantic salmon injected with PRV infected material from Pacific Northwest salmonids resulted in no significant mortality or clinical disease (21, 22). A second study of Chinook salmon also injected with PRV positive material from Pacific Northwest salmonids resulted in virus replication with transient cytoplasmic inclusion bodies in red blood cells causing no reduction in hematocrits and no fish mortality (23). Similar challenge studies in rainbow trout (23) also resulted in no direct mortality following injection with PRV infectious material. These experimental studies suggest PRV in the Pacific Northwest is of low virulence for rainbow trout, Chinook and sockeye salmon.

The PRV strain present in indigenous Pacific salmon in the PNW, historically and experimentally, appears to be relatively benign and unable to produce significant disease or HSMI in native salmonids.
 
Last edited:
The ENGO pundits would lead people to believe, That all these virus are here as a result of fish farms but again the latest PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE IS SAYING THAT'S NOT TRUE. its okay tho, there distractions and miss truths all see to be for donations. So remember to donate to them!

Infectious agent detections in archived Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka ) samples from British Columbia, Canada (1985-94)

Articlein Journal of Fish Diseases 2019(1):1-15 · February 2019with 102 Reads 

In response to concerns that novel infectious agents were introduced through the movement of eggs as Atlantic salmon aquaculture developed in British Columbia (BC), Canada, we estimated the prevalence of infectious agents in archived return‐migrating Sockeye salmon, from before and during aquaculture expansion in BC (1985–94). Of 45 infectious agents assessed through molecular assays in 652 samples, 23 (7 bacterial, 2 viral and 14 parasitic) were detected in liver tissue from six regions in BC. Prevalence ranged from 0.005 to 0.83 and varied significantly by region and year. Agent diversity ranged from 0 to 12 per fish (median 4), with the lowest diversity observed in fish from the Trans‐Boundary and Central Coast regions. Agents known to be endemic in Sockeye salmon in BC, including Flavobacterium psychrophilum, Infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus, Ceratonova shasta and Parvicapsula minibicornis, were commonly observed. Others, such as Kudoa thyrsites and Piscirikettsia salmonis, were also detected. Surprisingly, infectious agents described only recently in BC salmon, Ca. Branchiomonas cysticola, Parvicapsula pseudobranchicola and Paranucleospora theridion, were also detected, indicating their potential presence prior to the expansion of the aquaculture industry. In general, our data suggest that agent distributions may not have substantially changed because of the salmon aquaculture industry.
 
indicating their potential presence prior to the expansion of the aquaculture industry. may not have substantially changed because of the salmon aquaculture industry. "Potential presence" and "may not have" are very week words when asserting a point or fact.
 
I think it’s fair to say no one on this site is paid to support or oppose Fish Farms other than Fabian Dawson.
I do believe however some, but not all, Fish Farm supporters and their family members benefit financially either directly or indirectly from the industry.
This might explain their passion and desire to derail the conversation when they think it is going the wrong way.
It also appears to me those who oppose Fish Farms have no financial involvement and do so only because of their conclusions regarding the impact Fish Farms have on wild salmon and our environment.
So...... I'm not paid but my family is..... I just dont read propaganda sites. Those are there for people that have Strong options. In the future please try to stay on topic and stop derailing this post. And please leave my family out of this.... I dont ***** about yours.
 
Ya fish poop, Rico. You are missing some important caveats and depth to that statement:

1/ Whether fish poop or not - this is NO WAY invalidates, reduces nor excuses the very real and sometimes realized risks and impacts to wild stocks from open net-pen operations. It is merely another attempt to deflect attention away from these realities,
2/ Fish do poop - as does every organism including plankton and blue whales - and have for millennia. Fish do not have faecal coliforms (only warm-blooded animals do),
3/ Fish can be affected by sewerage through various means (like the pharmaceuticals in urban estuaries as you posted) - but are largely unaffected by faecal coliforms - unlike humans, and
4/ Most of the issues around faecal coliforms (as an indicator organism) are related to human health issues.
 
I am actually lost on this debate. We have a post on the origin PRV in which the post contradicts the poster. Is the post incorrect? Are we now saying that it is conclusive proof that the findings in the scientific document are wrong? My head is spinning. Feels much like the claim that the die off in Newfoundland wasn't a warm water ocurance but was caused by a virus. Again, not wanting to be swallowed by the spam artist, but really would like some kind of factual starting point. BTW, calling out the pro industry posters is not effective debate, it actually shows your own lack of understanding and comprehension.

I think the accusation Rockfish made is exactly the opposite of reality.
 
Fighting the rise of superbugs in Asian aquaculture

“These deadly superbugs are causing concern, and with good reason. Globally, 700 000 deaths are attributable to antimicrobe-resistant bacteria.”

CBC reported last year deaths in Canada after being infected by superbug infected shrimp from Asia.

Is this not an ultimate concern where the filth of these fish pens that frequently mass kills off their own fish contributes to the global rise in un-killable super bugs. Why take the chance? I liveaboard and sail this coast year round. A historian at a tourist attraction deceased cannery near Rupert told me that the harvest of salmon was so massive tons of perfectly fresh salmon were dumped back into the ocean and in the bush for the bears because of lack of capacity to process the massive harvests. Add that cannery to all the others now gone from BC and you can see that wild salmon restored would dwarf fish farms.



http://www.fao.org/flexible-multipartner-mechanism/success-stories/story-6/en/
 
Ya fish poop, Rico. You are missing some important caveats and depth to that statement:

1/ Whether fish poop or not - this is NO WAY invalidates, reduces nor excuses the very real and sometimes realized risks and impacts to wild stocks from open net-pen operations. It is merely another attempt to deflect attention away from these realities,
2/ Fish do poop - as does every organism including plankton and blue whales - and have for millennia. Fish do not have faecal coliforms (only warm-blooded animals do),
3/ Fish can be affected by sewerage through various means (like the pharmaceuticals in urban estuaries as you posted) - but are largely unaffected by faecal coliforms - unlike humans, and
4/ Most of the issues around faecal coliforms (as an indicator organism) are related to human health issues.
Never said anything with respect to fish poop AA....... youbwould know that if you read the article. Your response is so.... off topic. Your response from my fishmeal replacement was human waste..... which if your swimming in the strait of Georgia your wild salmon may contain human waste already........

AA if your gonna reply to my links get a grip and stay on TOPIC.....
 
Back
Top