Aquaculture; improving????

is that the paper that shows that sea lice counts are actually lower during out migration periods,

post up the paper
 

Conclusions

The number of Lepeophtheirus salmonis adult females on Atlantic Salmon farms and the corresponding number of copepodids released from Atlantic Salmon farms were lowest during the out-migration window compared to the rest of the year across all Fish Health Surveillance Zones.

The mean prevalence of L. salmonis on wild juvenile Pink and Chum salmon in Clayoquot Sound, Quatsino Sound, Discovery Islands and Broughton Archipelago varied by year and sampling area. Across all years, the mean prevalence of L. salmonis infestation was highest on wild juvenile Chum Salmon in Clayoquot Sound and lowest on Chum and Pink salmon in Discovery Islands. Overall, most L. salmonis observed on wild juvenile salmon were copepodids and chalimus.

No statistically significant association was observed between infestation pressure attributable to Atlantic Salmon farms and the probability of L. salmonis infestations on wild juvenile Chum and Pink salmon in Clayoquot Sound, Quatsino Sound, Discovery Islands, and Broughton Archipelago. However, the data suggests a positive trend in all studied areas. The lack of statistical significance implies that the occurrence of L. salmonis infestation on wild migrating juvenile Pacific Salmon cannot be explained solely by infestation pressure from farm-sourced copepodids.

Further work is required to determine how sea lice monitoring activities of wild salmon may be refined to improve modeling approaches. Key uncertainties could be addressed by verifying the validity of model assumptions by identifying additional relevant environmental, physical and biological factors. Together with this science response, these analyses will contribute to further work on assessment of risk to and to considerations of thresholds on minimizing impact to wild fish.
 
An increasing probability of occurrence of infestation with increasing standardized values of infestation pressure was observed in all four regions, although all four regions had considerably wide confidence intervals (i.e., grey regions in Figure 9). This finding indicated that a positive association (i.e., positive values of coefficient in Table 7) was observed between infestation pressure attributable to copepodids originating from Atlantic Salmon farms and the probability of occurrence of L. salmonis infestations in any given sampling event of out-migrating juvenile salmon (Figure 9). However, this association did not reach the 0.05 threshold for statistical significance in the four regions (p-values in Table 7), hence the occurrence of L. salmonis infestation on wild migrating juvenile Pacific Salmon cannot be explained solely by infestation
 
elmo aside - the FOI requests system is supposedly set up for accountability of our public servants which work on the public's behalf protecting the public resource verses lying to protect any industry. I think there should be accountability from our regulators and the decision makers.

And Simon was also the same public servant who in 2011 floated the narrative that sticklebacks are giving the juvies sea lice rather than the fish farm:

Only 1 glaring problem with that theory - there are almost no gravid female lice on sticklebacks - but are instead a sink verses a source of lice:

And here we go again...
 
Last edited:

Good article that once again points out the shameless pro net pen fish farm stance of DFO that is based on $ and politics and not science and conservation.

It is truly disgusting how corrupt DFO management and science is and how they cave in to foreign owed corporations time again and screw the citizens they are to serve and the salmon and marine environment they are meant to protect. 🤬

Gotta keep pushing hard to get these lice farms out of the water and on to land before DFO mismanagement wipes pacific salmon like they did to the Atlantic cod!!
 
Academic scientists’ critique of DFO Science Response Report 2022/045

The key flaws of the Science Response Report are:
1. the reporting of methods and results appears to be selective, according to ATIP records (Appendix B), such that not all analyses were reported and statistically significant results were omitted;
2. the contributors to the report are almost all Aquaculture-focused DFO staff with the mandate to “support aquaculture development,” and no external, industry-unaffiliated scientists were involved, such that the report’s approval via a “National Peer Review Process” clearly violated any reasonable standards of independent peer review;
3. the report downplays a large body of peer-reviewed research — both BC-focussed and international — that has repeatedly demonstrated the relationship between salmon farms and sea lice on wild juvenile salmon;
4. the report lacks a power analysis to place in context the real possibility that negative results in each region resulted from weak analysis, even if effects of salmon farms truly exist;
5. the analyses cannot be validated, because the underlying data were not provided.
6. the claims rely on an unvalidated infestation model that is inconsistent with the state of scientific knowledge on the topic; and
7. the statistical analyses were inappropriate (in terms of data manipulation, analysis type, and underlying assumptions), and analysis of the results in the report produces the opposite conclusions.
 
Academic scientists’ critique of DFO Science Response Report 2022/045

The key flaws of the Science Response Report are:
1. the reporting of methods and results appears to be selective, according to ATIP records (Appendix B), such that not all analyses were reported and statistically significant results were omitted;
2. the contributors to the report are almost all Aquaculture-focused DFO staff with the mandate to “support aquaculture development,” and no external, industry-unaffiliated scientists were involved, such that the report’s approval via a “National Peer Review Process” clearly violated any reasonable standards of independent peer review;
3. the report downplays a large body of peer-reviewed research — both BC-focussed and international — that has repeatedly demonstrated the relationship between salmon farms and sea lice on wild juvenile salmon;
4. the report lacks a power analysis to place in context the real possibility that negative results in each region resulted from weak analysis, even if effects of salmon farms truly exist;
5. the analyses cannot be validated, because the underlying data were not provided.
6. the claims rely on an unvalidated infestation model that is inconsistent with the state of scientific knowledge on the topic; and
7. the statistical analyses were inappropriate (in terms of data manipulation, analysis type, and underlying assumptions), and analysis of the results in the report produces the opposite conclusions.
That’s a nice way of saying that providing selective industry-collected on-farm data and unaudited industry-paid-for sampling of wild juvenile salmon to industry-promoting regulators as peer reviewers doesn’t produce a very good analysis. My opinion is simply garbage in, garbage out.
 
There was a report done by NPR on peer reviewed papers that said scientists should have to release bassivally all the information regardless of the outcomes.

Something like 1000 scientific papers were reviewed and somethinking like 5% of them other scientists were able to replicate.

Not trying to deflect but the system does have it flaws and the only reason these scientists were able to criticize it is because of different version of it that got released.

The same thing happened with Moderna and them manipulating the data to on there improved variant covid shot. Wear later it was found out that the new and improved version is actually no better then the first shot that was released but they held back data/manipulated the original dataset In order to get government approval.

 
Last edited:
The systems flawed because it’s ran by humans even third parties have an agenda.

This is why I put it in my brain as a common insterest issue, when I looked up the GDP input for marine industry as a whole. Yes I'm in this industry so it effects me more than most on this forum, however it's also because of pure human stupidity and human rights all in the same little bag. I have high hopes for Canada because we have alot going for us, I just hope we realize it before it's too late. Might already be. Dunno. That's another topic I guess.
 
Well to be honest federal land is indeed our land and if enough people are against it, then It won't stand. It's the population vote on that one. Or just let the politicians line thier pockets.
 
Last edited:
and - as always - it's about the $ not the impacts to the wild fish:
 
Back
Top