sockeye fry you say:
quote:[/i]
Boy agent, where do I start.
How about by acknowledging the science and the valid points made, rather than by ignoring them and hoping they will go away.
you then say:
quote:[/i]
First I'll ignore your slander and name calling as this has nothing to do with intelligent debate.
Have I said some controversial things - yes, and I hope it wakes you up - because frankly, I am tired of the ******** and slander from the pro-fishfarming industry and DFO.
I almost can't believe you said:
quote:[/i]
RT to measuring cortisol levels and other stress indicators, any person would realise that the simple act of picking up the fish and taking the blood sample would create the stress level which would cloud any results. C'mon agent, you didn't figure that out?
The only reason I'm not credulous about your very mistaken and misleading comments, is because I'm beginning to understand you really don't know any better, and your faith in the DFO/industry keeps you from looking anywheres else.
To answer your very misinformed science background, let me ask you this question, then: If stress levels from the simple act of picking up the fish and taking the blood sample clouds any results - then why are there whole labs constructed and currently functioning (including those who do work for the fish farming industry) that do just as you suggest is wrong? Why do we even study fish physiology? Why are there whole texbooks on the subject? Are all those PhDs and research wrong because you assume they are? Shall we now throw-out all those years of accumulated data and science because you say so?
The answer is that you (again) do not know what you are talking about, and you are foolish enough to let you fingers on the keyboards let us all read about your lack of background. It's okay to say you don't know, when you don't, sockeye fry.
As to the measured physiological parameters, such as osmoregulatory, metabolic, or stress markers like plasma chloride, lactate levels, liver glycogen or cortisol levels - it takes hours, or sometimes even days to change those levels. That's why they those indicators are used, sockeye fry. The simple act of picking-up the fish - is exactly that - SIMPLE. Continued handling and crowding (which happens in fish farms) do increase stress markers. Read-up on this stuff if you really wish to have an intelligent science-based conversation on this. This is now the third time I am calling ******** on you.
you then say:
quote:[/i]
Conditon factor is found by dividing the weight in grams by the length in cm cubed. It is an indication of the health of a fish. Stressed fish are typically not well fed and therefore skinny.
This is really getting tiring calling ******** on you (the 4th time, now). It is malnourished fish, not necessarily stressed ones that are skinny.
With respect to sea lice, up until the time they become "motile", they are very small, microscopic animals that weigh almost zero. Most exothermic animals eat something like 3-5% of their body weight a day. 5% times almost zero is still almost zero. So the nutritional drain on a fish with the early stages of lice is near zero.
When lice become motile then then switch from a diet of mostly mucus to one where they eat skin and blood (the females need it for egg development). This causes osmoregulatory stress in the host fish since a fish is about half they salinity of seawater.
So the correct indicator to measure is osmoregulatory stress markers once the lice reach their motile stages - not fish condition factor (as has been demonstrated). Again, every fish physiologist in the world knows this stuff, but apparently not the industry or DFO.
While I'm on this topic (again), did you know that the industry rag "Northern Aquaculture" was reporting the results from Simon Jones study (on fish condition factor results) well in advance of its official release from so-called DFO "peer review". This is in very poor form scientifically, and demonstrates the close collusion between the industry and DFO.
And further to that Northern Aquaculture was stating that sea-lice infected fish "GREW FASTER" than non-infected smolts since they were larger. In other words, sea lice made fish grow faster.
Boy, you wanna talk about ******** science, sockeyefry? There is a well-known effect called "survivor bias". It can be found in any ecolgy or sampling manual. The smaller fish were killed by lice long before the big trawlers hired by DFO could get to them The more offshore fish took longer to get there, and ate along the way, and grew. Yet Northern Aquaculture and the industry claim that sea lice make smolts grow.
you then state:
quote:[/i]
If you read my post you will have your answer, but I will repeat it. It is not the upper bay of Fundy smolt which linger around the farm area, but the amolt from the St John River.
******** for the what - 5th time now?
Have you read: Amiro, P.G. 1998. An assessment of the possible impact of salmon aquaculture on Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stocks. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 98/163.
I recommend everyone does. Those smolts were all from the upper Bay of Fundy. You're slinging ********, sockeyefry.
As tiring as all this ******** is getting, you then state:
quote:[/i]
The maguadavic river has been dead for years due to habitat destruction. There only is a few salmon in the river, so your 90% although sounding pretty ominous is in reality not.
First off - it's spelled "Magaguadavic River", but pronounced "mac-a-davic". Most people unfamiliar with the area haven't a clue how to spell it.
Secondly, although I am glad you are already convinced that the genetic pollution from adjacent fish farmed Atlantic salmon into the natural fitness of the wild Atlantic Magaguadavic River gene pool is:
quote:[/i]
although sounding pretty ominous is in reality not.
It would make me sleep better at night if I thought your opinion was based on science. However, as demonstrated numerous times - your opinion is often not, but rather based on press releases from the fish farming industry.
I would recommend you read "Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population Ian A. Fleming1*, Kjetil Hindar1, Ingrid B. MjÖlnerÖd1{, Bror Jonsson2, Torveig Balstad1 and Anders Lamberg1 1Norwegian Institute for Nature Research,Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway 2Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Dronningensgate 13, POBox 736, Sentrum, N- 0105 Oslo, Norway
These Norwegian researchers found that "evidence of resource competition and competitive displacement existed as the productivity of the native population was depressed by more than 30%. Ultimately, the lifetime reproductive success (adult to adult) of the farm fishes was 16% that of the native salmon. Our results indicate that such annual invasions have the potential for impacting on population productivity, disrupting local adaptations and reducing the genetic diversity of wild salmon populations.".
Another good peer-reviewed article is: "Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon " by Philip McGinnity1, Paulo Prodo¨ hl2, Andy Ferguson2*, Rosaleen Hynes2, Niall O´ Maoile´idigh1, Natalie Baker2, Deirdre Cotter1, Brendan O’Hea1, Declan Cooke1, Ger Rogan1, John Taggart3 and Tom Cross4 1Aquaculture and Catchment Management Services, Marine Institute, Newport, Co Mayo, Ireland 2School of Biology and Biochemistry, Queen’s University, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland 3Department of Biological and Molecular Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK 4Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
these researchers found: "Where suitable habitat for these emigrant parr is absent, this competition would result in reduced wild smolt production. In the experimental conditions, where emigrants survived downstream, the relative estimated lifetime success ranged from 2% (farm) to 89% (BC1 wild) of that of wild salmon, indicating additive genetic variation for survival.We thus demonstrate that interaction of farm with wild salmon results in lowered fitness, with repeated escapes causing cumulative fitness depression and potentially an extinction vortex in vulnerable populations."
What number of bullshits are we up to now - 6? And you feel that I am doing:
quote:[/i]
slander and name calling as this has nothing to do with intelligent debate.
re-read your statement here.
You then ask:
quote:[/i]
Could you please tell me where the sea lice come from?
Ya - with respect to infecting outmigrating salmon smolts - from the large numbers of infected farmed salmon held in open net-pens. I again, turn you to science, sockeye fry. read: Estimated Sea Louse Egg Production from Marine Harvest Canada Farmed Atlantic Salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, 2003–2004 by CRAIG ORR. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:187–197, 2007
As far as sea lice initially infecting recently-stocked farmed fish hatchery smolts - it's from either adjacent multi year-classes of farmed fish, or from resident wild stocks. In either case it proves that the open net-cage technology is an ineffective barrier to the transfer of sea lice and other diseases and parasites, because it is OPEN. The technology is fatally flawed, and should be prohibited from being used, due to population-level effects on adjacent wild salmon stocks.
So far the one thing I agree with you on is that you:
quote:[/i]
have tried to present some information which may be of interest
Yes, you have tried, and for that - I thank you for elevating the discussion so that other readers may get informed.
However, you also state:
quote:[/i]
that basically you [agentaqua] have bought into the antifarmoing lobbiest BS and anything that is contrary to that view must be ridiculed. Therefore I must conceed that you all will never possess anything resembling an open mind regarding this topic and any further attempts to bring sanity to this discussion will be futile.
I agree that I am attempting to point-out the obvious hypocrisies in your arguments in a manner that demonstrates my frustration at the pro-farming industry (and their lies that have no interest in checking-out with science) in a manner that they can understand. I am not targetting my fustration at you, specifically.
I too hope that you start to focus your energy towards resolving these issues.
[/quote]