Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just curios do you guys think that we should be aloud to harvest wild salmon? and that hatcheries are good?
 
wildmanyeah said:
Just curios do you guys think that we should be aloud to harvest wild salmon? and that hatcheries are good?
Click to expand...
Let's stick to the topic shall we.
 
Research Article

The effect of exposure to farmed salmon on piscine orthoreovirus infection and fitness in wild Pacific salmon in British Columbia, Canada
  • Alexandra Morton ,
  • Richard Routledge ,
  • Stacey Hrushowy ,
  • Molly Kibenge ,
  • Frederick Kibenge
logo.plos.95.png

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793

Abstract
The disease Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI) is causing substantial economic losses to the Norwegian salmon farming industry where the causative agent, piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), is reportedly spreading from farmed to wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with as yet undetermined impacts. To assess if PRV infection is epidemiologically linked between wild and farmed salmon in the eastern Pacific, wild Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) from regions designated as high or low exposure to salmon farms and farmed Atlantic salmon reared in British Columbia (BC) were tested for PRV. The proportion of PRV infection in wild fish was related to exposure to salmon farms (p = 0.0097). PRV was detected in: 95% of farmed Atlantic salmon, 37–45% of wild salmon from regions highly exposed to salmon farms and 5% of wild salmon from the regions furthest from salmon farms. The proportion of PRV infection was also significantly lower (p = 0.0008) where wild salmon had been challenged by an arduous return migration into high-elevation spawning habitat. Inter-annual PRV infection declined in both wild and farmed salmon from 2012–2013 (p ≤ 0.002). These results suggest that PRV transfer is occurring from farmed Atlantic salmon to wild Pacific salmon, that infection in farmed salmon may be influencing infection rates in wild salmon, and that this may pose a risk of reduced fitness in wild salmon impacting their survival and reproduction.
 
agentaqua said:
Frederick Kibenge
Click to expand...

OH this peace looks so credible the people working on it have such a great background!

"A lab that revealed the first evidence of an infectious virus in British Columbia salmon should be stripped of its international credentials, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency."

"The second audit concludes his lab "fell well short of acceptable quality standards." The first raised concerns about possible cross contamination of samples."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...t-reported-virus-in-bc-salmon/article5582798/
 
OldBlackDog said:
https://www.timeshighereducation.co...ective-and-unworthy-institution#survey-answer
Click to expand...

Off course there are some problems with peer reviewed research - not many activities that involve humans that don't have some kind of problem or limitation. What other alternatives to peer reviewed research and publications are there??? Anyone care to answer???

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0010.107?view=text;rgn=main

The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age
Many writers have advocated various forms of “open” peer review. To some extent, these calls for change have focused on eliminating the tradition of blinding the reviewers’ identities. Others have advocated making the full peer-review record public or opening the review process to anyone who wishes to provide comments. There have even been discussions of treating publications as organic documents that evolve over time with a series of versions that change to reflect new information and additional commentary (Bloom 2006).

A number of highly respected journals have begun experimenting with innovative peer-review models. The British Medical Journal did away with blinding in their peer-review process as early as 1999 (Smith 1999) and many of the BioMed Central journals provide open access to the complete review record. For a three-month period starting in June 2006, Nature experimented with posting preprints for public comment in parallel with traditional peer review (Campbell 2006) and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) is in the process of launching a new journal, PLos One that will publish articles almost immediately with minimal screening and allow for public comment.

Although these experiments in peer review are creating a significant amount of discussion, the majority of scholarly journals continue to use traditional methods of peer review in which a selected group of experts whose identity is blinded from the author and public provides feedback to the editor who makes a final publication decision. While it is likely to be a slow process, we appear to be entering an era when the peer review will evolve to take greater advantage of the flexibility offered by the Internet. In my view, this is only one aspect of a much larger transformation of the centuries-old scholarly journal system that is occurring at least in part due to the inherent differences between paper and electronic distribution and, more generally, the flexibility and efficiencies in communication offered by the Internet.

Almost thirteen years ago, Ann Schaffner (1994) wrote a very insightful article discussing the future of scientific journals. She focused on the varied and complex roles journals have played in scientific and scholarly communities in trying to understand the impact of new technology on these journals. If one looks at the debate over how peer review should be done (if at all), arguments often reflect the writer’s or speaker’s focus on a specific function or functions journals play in scholarly communities. It is my belief that we can have a more thoughtful discussion of the role of peer review and the value of the new modes of peer review if we follow Schaffner’s lead in considering the specific roles of journals in scholarly communities when considering how the peer-review process can make best use of the options offered by electronic communication.

Journals likely played a much more central role in this type of communication early in their history. With other more efficient means of communication available today, one would think journals would have a fairly limited role in communicating research results among scholars. It is not clear that this is the case. First, the research on informal communication of science and engineering knowledge suggests the modes of communication vary substantially among fields (Faxon Institute 1991). For example, preprint archives such as arXiv.org were quickly embraced by a number of fields but are rarely used in other fields despite concerted attempts by individuals to implement them. (This has been the case in my field of educational research.) The research on informal communication among scientists also suggests that much of what is discussed among scholars turns out to be journal articles (Schaffner 1994). While preprint archives, listservs, and threaded discussions are likely to grow in importance for communication among scholars working in a field, journals clearly appear to be retaining a significant role in this type of communication.

Validating the quality of research – Journals also play a role in maintaining community standards in how research and scholarship are conducted. To some extent, this is done as journals filter what is published and hence disseminated. The effects can also be more subtle. The work of experienced scholars rarely receive harsh reviews. That is not to say they always get their manuscripts published, but they tend to have internalized the norms of the field and know how the research or scholarship should be conducted and described, and are much less likely than novices to be chastised by reviewers.

There is not universal agreement that this is entirely a good thing. Some have argued that this stifles creativity and unnecessarily subjects novice researchers to harsh criticism (Kumashiro 2005).

Distributing rewards – Publication in peer-reviewed journals is one of the major ways scholars are evaluated. Not only is quantity important, but which journals one publishes in is equally if not more important. The roots of this go all the way back to the formation of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in the middle of the 17th century.While tenure decisions were not involved, an important function of that journal was establishing who deserved credit for specific findings or theories. According to Guédon (2001), the journal served almost like a patent office for ideas. By publishing in the journal, scientists or natural philosophers (as they were called at the time) could establish ownership of their intellectual property. Competition among scientists and controversy over credit for discoveries is still an issue today, and journals still fulfill the role of documenting the paternity of intellectual property. This role clearly has expanded as a more general measure of achievement, and peer review—rightly or wrongly—is an important aspect of this role.

Building scientific communities – Journals also act as a means of tying a scholarly community together in a number of ways. A hallmark of a discipline’s coming of age is the establishment of a new journal: in essence, staking out the intellectual territory of the new field. Beyond that, editorials, opinion articles, and letters to the editor often serve as a forum to debate the issues in the discipline. Sometimes they are substantive and sometimes they extend to related areas such as the social implications of findings, funding, or training issues within the field. Journals also commonly serve as a forum for news such as new appointments to major positions or the passing of a well-known member of the scholarly community. While this role may be diminishing to some extent with the variety of communication options available, journals continue to play an important role in forming and maintaining scholarly communities.

Annals of Emergency Medicine, a well-respected journal in the field. On average the reviewers identified only 34% of the fatal flaws in the manuscript, and 41% of the reviewers indicated the manuscript should be accepted for publication. There is also a multitude of studies demonstrating the high rate of methodological errors in published medical research (Pocock, Hughes, & Lee 1987; Gotzche 1989). Altman (2002) blames this on a variety of causes including the lack of statistical and research design expertise among reviewers. While these examples come from the biomedical sciences, one would think, not to mention hope, that the most sound research practices would be used in such a critical field. Based on my experience as social scientist, methodological errors are common in social science journals as well.

Another fact that is sometimes overlooked is that while individual reviewers often miss specific issues in a manuscript, another reviewer often catches the problem. The more reviewers that evaluate a manuscript, the more likely errors will get caught and problems identified. Using the Internet to conduct reviews dramatically reduces the cost and effort involved in peer review and makes it feasible to include a larger number of reviewers per manuscript. Our goal at MEO is to have four to six consultants review each manuscript, and if there are more, even better. By using a fairly open process for selecting reviewers we have found it easy to accomplish this goal. We currently have approximately three hundred reviewers who have volunteered to review manuscripts and have found it relatively easy to add to our review pool as needed.
 
That's right WMY - after reporting positive ISAv samples from River's Inlet - the CFIA gave the OIE $2M - Fred's lab was stripped of it's OIE ISAv certification - because CFIA was protecting trade - rather than wild stocks.

The proper, responsible response would have been to retest - but *NOT* destroy the samples and deny, deny and deny - and punish Fred - which is what the CFIA actually did. The CFIA NEVER went to River's Inlet to retest the wild salmon population - but these researchers did.

Yet - despite this attempt to muzzle labs if they dare reported a FF virus in wild stocks - these (brave, IMHO) researchers went ahead and did the job that our regulators should have been doing long ago - protecting the health of our wild stocks. Thanks for pointing that out!

And instead of taking these findings seriously - the FF pundits on here yet again and also typically wish to attack the messenger - rather than the data/science and the unfortunate implications of these findings - proving yet again how irresponsible, & unprofessional it is to have promoters be the regulators - as Justice Cohen pointed-out.

It also demonstrates how important it is to have independent researchers looking into things that DFO & the CFIA would rather have kept conveniently buried. I'm VERY appreciative of their work - as I bet are most of the wild salmon advocates on this forum.

If you have some actual credible critiques - Plos1 is accepting those critiques as a Letter to the Editor on any paper - as WitW pointed-out. That is - if you actually even read the paper - which I doubt.
 
Last edited:
Now the Fish Farm supporters are calling peer reviewed scientific studies published in well respected journals "Fake Science":rolleyes:
Guess we could see that coming... deny, deny deny...
I heard Trumps looking for a few good people... lol,
Apparently he doesn't believe in science either. He's the smartest one out there.... And the only one that counts. I'm sure his idea's will align nicely with some on this forum.
 
agentaqua said:
It also demonstrates how important it is to have independent researchers looking into things that DFO & the CFIA would rather have kept buried.
Click to expand...

Independent investigations too!

"After Dr. Kibenge's findings were made public at an SFU press conference in October, his lab was hit with two audits – one in November, 2011, by the CFIA, and a second in August, by an independent panel appointed by the Canadian government and the OIE."

"The second audit concludes his lab "fell well short of acceptable quality standards." The first raised concerns about possible cross contamination of samples."
 
bigdogeh said:
Now the Fish Farm supporters are calling peer reviewed scientific studies published in well respected journals "Fake Science"
Click to expand...

How am I a FF supporter? I have already made public multiple times that I think all FF should be land based. I don't know why you guys insist on calling me out personally when I present facts. But sure attack me if it makes you feel better.
 
agentaqua said:
That's right WMY - after reporting positive ISAv samples from River's Inlet - the CFIA gave the OIE $2M - Fred's lab was stripped of it's OIE ISAv certification - because CFIA was protecting trade - rather than wild stocks.

The proper, responsible response would have been to retest - but *NOT* destroy the samples and deny, deny and deny - and punish Fred - which is what the CFIA actually did. The CFIA NEVER went to River's Inlet to retest the wild salmon population - but these researchers did.

Yet - despite this attempt to muzzle labs if they dare reported a FF virus in wild stocks - these (brave, IMHO) researchers went ahead and did the job that our regulators should have been doing long ago - protecting the health of our wild stocks. Thanks for pointing that out!

If you have some actual credible critiques - Plos1 is accepting those critiques as a Letter to the Editor on any paper. That is - if you actually even read the paper.

And instead of taking these findings seriously - the FF pundits on here yet again and typically wish to attack the messenger - rather than the data/science and the unfortunate implications of these findings - proving yet again how irresponsible, & unprofessional it is to have promoters be the regulators - as Justice Cohen pointed-out.

It also demonstrates how important it is to have independent researchers looking into things that DFO & the CFIA would rather have kept buried. I'm VERY appreciative of their work - as I bet are most of the wild salmon advocates on this forum.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right , AA
If even just one or two of those at the top of DFO management had even a small percentage of the honesty, integrity and ethics of Frederick Kibenge, we might not even be having this conversation right now...
 
bigdogeh said:
You're exactly right , AA
If even just one or two of those at the top of DFO management had even a small percentage of the honesty, integrity and ethics of Frederick Kibenge, we might not even be having this conversation right now...
Click to expand...

Once again bashing DFO despite them posting finding like these, Honestly why do u need to make such attacks

"
A team of international researchers has diagnosed a potential heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in farmed Atlantic salmon samples collected from a BC aquaculture facility in 2013-2014.

This research, led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) Dr. Kristi Miller, was undertaken as part of the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI), a collaboration between DFO, the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Genome British Columbia to better understand the distribution of microbes and diseases in wild and cultured (hatchery and aquaculture) salmon in BC."

http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=24&id=84501&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target
 
wildmanyeah said:
Once again bashing DFO despite them posting finding like these, Honestly why do u need to make such attacks "A team of international researchers has diagnosed a potential heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in farmed Atlantic salmon samples collected from a BC aquaculture facility in 2013-2014.

This research, led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) Dr. Kristi Miller, was undertaken as part of the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI), a collaboration between DFO, the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Genome British Columbia to better understand the distribution of microbes and diseases in wild and cultured (hatchery and aquaculture) salmon in BC."

http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=24&id=84501&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target
Click to expand...
Ya - I don't know why we have to work so hard to keep DFO accountable, either WMY. We shouldn't have to - but that gets back at the issue Justice Cohen pointed-out about the regulator shouldn't be the promoter.

Kristi did her work IN SPITE OF upper-echelon interference from DFO, WMY. I am surprised you didn't know that.
 
wildmanyeah said:
Once again bashing DFO despite them posting finding like these, Honestly why do u need to make such attacks

"
A team of international researchers has diagnosed a potential heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in farmed Atlantic salmon samples collected from a BC aquaculture facility in 2013-2014.

This research, led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) Dr. Kristi Miller, was undertaken as part of the Strategic Salmon Health Initiative (SSHI), a collaboration between DFO, the Pacific Salmon Foundation and Genome British Columbia to better understand the distribution of microbes and diseases in wild and cultured (hatchery and aquaculture) salmon in BC."

http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&day=24&id=84501&l=e&special=&ndb=1 target
Click to expand...

Nothing but the utmost respect for Kristi.
Sad that the only person you came up with is the one person that has had to fight her own organization to spread the truth... The one person that DFO wishes would just look the other way. The one person that DFO has tried their best to suppress and discredit her work in the past....
pretty sure wmy knows that though...
I think Kristi deserves a pretty good apology from the top of DFO management... Those are who I'm bashing in-case you didn't understand or read my post (#294) clearly.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
‘Shockingly huge’ steelhead salmon escape fish farm, threatening B.C.’s Lois Lake ecosystem
Replies
5
Views
1K
agentaqua
A
T
Ice On Southern BC ( Merrit, Kamloops, 100 Mile area, Okanagen and the Kooteneys)
Replies
6
Views
231
TMan
T
Derby
BC wildlife federation town hall meeting
Replies
0
Views
160
Derby
Derby
A
Chinook bycatch by BC trawlers
Replies
21
Views
2K
wildmanyeah
W
Whole in the Water
Concerns about herring kills at B.C. fish farms
Replies
26
Views
3K
Fishing?
F
Back
Top