Fish Farm trouble in BC.

[california]

CAMPBELL RIVER, B.C. – An independent economic analysis of the salmon aquaculture industry in British Columbia shows an increase of 37% over the past three years in its value to the province, resulting in the creation of over 1,600 jobs. Overall, farming and processing 92,800 Metric Tonnes of salmon in 2016 resulted in over $1.5-billion towards the B.C. economy.
• The total output generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 37 percent from $1,144.0 million to $1,561.9 million.
• The total GDP generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 36 percent from $411.5 million to $557.8 million.
• The total employment generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 33 percent from 4,977 to 6,610 full-time equivalents.
• The government taxes generated by the B.C. farm-raised salmon industry increased 39 percent from $62.0 to $86.1 million.
• The total production of farm-raised salmon in B.C. has increased 8% since 2002.

Just to put in perspective if we were to "lose" this industry

Provincial Corporate tax revenues not including resource royalties are 3.4 Billion, so FF tax revenue is about 2% of non resource tax revenue - they don't pay much corporate tax
As a % of Total BC Govt revenue fish farms provide just over 1/10 of 1%, and without their tax contributions the estimated provincial surplus would be about 250 million for 2018, not the 330 Million currently estimated
The 1.561 Billion number includes all estimated associated spinoff activities, the GDP number is 557.8 million which likely is the landed value of the harvest. Worth noting that much of the 1.5 billion in activity goes offshore as the industry is almost exclusively foreign owned. Overall if there was a will to completely get rid of the industry it could be done with little real harm to the BC economy or the provincial coffers. I don't think that's what most people here want though, they want the operations moved to land.
What we essentially get for the risk to our wild salmon stocks is $81 million in tax revenues, and about 6,000 jobs. I guess it depends on your perspective if this is a worthwhile trade off or not. For some it is, for many others, its not. If there is indeed effects on wild salmon these benefits will be counter balanced by reduced tax revenues and jobs from the sport and commercial sectors.

 

[fogged in]

Just to put in perspective if we were to "lose" this industry

Thanks for your post....they are always logical fair and informative.
You seem to be good on research…Can you tell us how many tax payer dollars have been handed over to Fish Farms in the last 10 years?
Here are a few examples that I find shocking, albeit from 4 or 5 years ago;
The payments to Cermaq Mainstream’s IHN diseased Clayoquot Sound farmed salmon are: $2.64 Million (report date: Nov 2012); and, $201,000 for infected equipment and supplies (report date: Jan 2013).
Grieg Seafood open net operation in Sechelt also received payment for slaughtered IHN diseased fish:
$1.61 million (report date: Nov 2012); and, $152,000 for infected equipment and supplies (2013),
St. John’s Telegram newspaper reported $33 Million of taxpayer money given to fish farmsin Atlantic Canada for slaughtered diseased fish.

Bottom line, It appears from what I was able to find (not all examples are quoted above) the Canadian Food Inspection Agency paid fish farms almost $50 Million taxpayer dollars for diseased slaughtered fish across Canada in 2012 and 2013

 

[Ripperoflips]

Maybe instead of taxpayers paying for the fish farm misfortunes, maybe they should be made to have adequate insurance to cover their losses like the rest of the "FARMERS" in this country!

 

[bigdogeh]

Thxs for that California.
And thxs for your figures and questions fogged in.
Do those figures take in to account the money the most generous taxpayers pay to these almost exclusively foreign offshore companies for their diseased salmon that die?
And for the free money that our government (er, sorry taxpayer) so generously hands out in the form of grants to take the burden off the mostly foreign owned industry to have to modernize their equipment, systems etc? What about the money that taxpayer is spending to DFO in the form of jobs to look after these fish farms, and the scientists, etc. That is a direct cost to the taxpayer that I think people would be surprised in how much that would add up to. I don't think that has been taken in to account. DFO is now basically in the business of selling farmed atlantic salmon and the taxpayer is paying for it. While the bulk of the profits go overseas.
I don't think that's included in the figures below but it would be interesting to know what those add up to. I bet it's more than what has been spent for habitat improvement for our decimated wild salmon runs...
If the accounting took into effect the costs of having diseased invasive fish intermingling with our wild stocks, the costs of having their untreated effluents dumped into the environment, I believe people would be shocked at the true cost of having this mostly foreign owned industry in our waters.
Myself, I don't believe we, the taxpayer should be subsidizing these companies for their equipment or dead fish. This is just another form of corporate welfare that these companies and the government seem to be all in for.
These companies have lost their social license a long time ago. Especially when you see video's of them discharging their industries diseased fish wastes and diseased blood directly into our wild salmon migratory runs and other habitat. That is truly shameful. It shows they have little if any regard for our wild salmon runs. It's been going on for 40 years and they haven't changed it. Truly shameful.


from fishfarmnews.blogspot
http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/01/taxpayers-pay-for-diseased-dead-fish.html



Taxpayers Pay for Diseased, Dead Fish-Farm Fish, Fish Farms Don't, Updated Jan 17, 2016

The purpose of this post is to gather together some recent references on the amount of our taxes paid to fish farms companies for diseased dead fish, which they don't have insurance for, and which they should be out of the water to prevent.

From the Conservation Council of NB, Jan 12, 2016: http://www.conservationcouncil.ca/fish-farm-biosecurity-inadequate-to-protect-wild-salmon/.

From 1997 to 2007 some $140 Million was paid to NB fish farm for diseased dead fish.Then another $33 million taxpayer money was paid in NF for diseased dead fish farm fish in 2013.

This does not include the millions paid in BC for IHN, IPN and so on. I update these figures below.

This is the newspaper article that references the east coast payouts, nearing $140 M: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1194343-fish-farm-culls-cost-public-138m. There are other figures in the article.

This is the newspaper article that references the NL $33 M, Jan 11, 2014: http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loc...724/N.L.’s-destroyed-salmon-tab:-$33M/1. There are a lot of strong words in the article, and like the NB article, the public in NL wants fish farms out of the water, or in impervious tanks.

Here is the link to the figures on my site for 2014: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/09/93-million-for-diseased-fish.html. The total was $93 Million and includes BC.

There is some over-counting in the two larger amounts, but do note that you can add the $140M + $33 M + the BC money to get the total payout of taxpayer dollars. The BC money is $2.84 million for Cermaq, and $1.752 for Grieg Seafood, or $4.6 Million, meaning the total is about $177 Million taxpayer dollars for diseased dead fish farm fish for billion dollar corps from Norway. Canadians don't want to pay. They can set up on land or go back to Norway, where the government is so unhappy with their environmental damage it is giving them free licences to set up on land - a $9- to $12-million subsidy over the in-ocean auction price.

Here is the Telegram comparison with my figures: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/09/93-million-for-diseased-fish.html.

Here is the article on the nitty gritty east coast costs, including the BC figures: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/02/key-document-taxpayer-money-for.html.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Maybe instead of taxpayers paying for the fish farm misfortunes, maybe they should be made to have adequate insurance to cover their losses like the rest of the "FARMERS" in this country!

Don't even get me started on crop insurance, How an industry has insurance for when then don't make profits is beyond all comprehension. Do you really want fish farms to have this instead im sure they would all be lining up!

History
In July 1959, the federal government passed the Crop Insurance Act. The Act would assist the provinces in making affordable crop insurance available to producers. Under this legislation, the federal government was prepared to enter into agreements with any province that established a crop insurance program.

Federally, the Crop Insurance Program evolved into the Production Insurance Program and is now known as AgriInsurance. The Federal AgriInsurance program falls under Farm Income Protection Act, and is guided by the Canada Production Insurance Regulations and Growing Forward 2. The program has built on past experiences and evolved into the effective and responsive program that we have today.

Objectives
AgriInsurance is a federal-provincial-producer cost-shared program that stabilizes a producer's income by minimizing the financial impacts of production losses caused by natural hazards.

Available Funding
The federal and provincial governments help to make production insurance affordable by sharing the cost of premiums with producers and by co-funding program administration.

Program Delivery
Each province currently has either a Crown Corporation or a branch of the provincial agriculture department responsible for administering the AgriInsurance program. The federal government's role is to provide program oversight by ensuring that the obligations under Farm Income Protection Act, the Canada Production Insurance Regulations and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Framework Agreement (currently Growing Forward 2) are respected.


http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1284665357886

 

[wildmanyeah]

Hot off the press!

"
A report released today by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, says there is minimal risk to the wild Fraser River sockeye salmon population due to the transfer of IHNV from Atlantic salmon farms in the Discovery Islands.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) released a science advisory report today on the assessment of the risk to Fraser River sockeye salmon due to Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) transfer from Atlantic salmon farms located in the Discovery Islands area of British Columbia.

The report concludes that there are minimal risks to the wild Fraser River sockeye salmon populations due to the transfer. Current fish health management practices such as vaccination and eradication of infected fish, help to minimize the risk. The advice in the report was developed by consensus.

This report is the first in a series that will assess the risk of pathogen transfer associated with aquaculture activities to wild fish and the environment in the Discovery Islands.

All reports will be made available to the public. DFO carried out the analysis under the Aquaculture Science Environmental Risk Assessment Initiative.

The request for Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat advice supports DFO’s role of managing aquaculture in BC and aligns with recommendations in the Cohen Commission Report on the risks to wild fish populations related to pathogen transfer from fish farms.

The peer review group was made up of 39 experts from various disciplines selected for their expertise and knowledge. The participants included scientific expertise from DFO, provinces, academia (Canada and International), Indigenous peoples, and stakeholders."

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/small-risk-to-wild-fraser-river-salmon-for-rare-virus/

 

[SpringFever552]

Im definitely getting some popcorn for this ^^^

 

[spopadyn]

Hot off the press!

"
A report released today by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, says there is minimal risk to the wild Fraser River sockeye salmon population due to the transfer of IHNV from Atlantic salmon farms in the Discovery Islands.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) released a science advisory report today on the assessment of the risk to Fraser River sockeye salmon due to Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) transfer from Atlantic salmon farms located in the Discovery Islands area of British Columbia.

The report concludes that there are minimal risks to the wild Fraser River sockeye salmon populations due to the transfer. Current fish health management practices such as vaccination and eradication of infected fish, help to minimize the risk. The advice in the report was developed by consensus.

This report is the first in a series that will assess the risk of pathogen transfer associated with aquaculture activities to wild fish and the environment in the Discovery Islands.

All reports will be made available to the public. DFO carried out the analysis under the Aquaculture Science Environmental Risk Assessment Initiative.

The request for Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat advice supports DFO’s role of managing aquaculture in BC and aligns with recommendations in the Cohen Commission Report on the risks to wild fish populations related to pathogen transfer from fish farms.

The peer review group was made up of 39 experts from various disciplines selected for their expertise and knowledge. The participants included scientific expertise from DFO, provinces, academia (Canada and International), Indigenous peoples, and stakeholders."

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/small-risk-to-wild-fraser-river-salmon-for-rare-virus/

Well, now we are getting somewhere from a science perspective. No doubt many will decide it is collusion or hubris which has led the government to conclude this, but we will all get a crack at seeing the science at least. Starting to feel like the anti-FF conservationists are running out of reasons to close the "show" down. As I have repeatedly said, my belief is the real path forward is through regulated farming practices (not unlike any land based jurisdictions) and a properly educated public. The conspiracy spreading, fear mongering tactics that are rampant in the public forums is doing nothing to further the conservation side or to shut down an industry. It actually just takes a simple guy like me who is trying to understand the issue and makes me think that the FF industry is pretty solid (it could sure use some positive branding though). I would love to have AM and her merry band of ecowarriors help to find solutions not rooted in junk science that are progressive and show a willingness to help this industry get better (rather than sitting on the docks and getting in the way). If AM boarded any of our fishing boats and decided she was saving the salmon so it was her right, well, I think she might here the phrase "Man Overboard" in a heart beat.

I saw bigdogeh's post of a video on the other thread. Much of what I saw does cause me some alarm - but again, because this is a biased group attempting to show only one side, I can't tell the scale or scope of what they are getting at. Is the video showing a few fish out of thousands or tens of thousands that have disease, birth defects, or been chewed on by a seal? Has the video been cut and spliced to reflect what is there right now or to present a preconceived negative image for marketing purposes? If you have ever been to a feedlot where cattle are butchered, I can tell you it isn't all that pretty. But, pretty is not the equivalent to ethical, harmful or legal.

The video shows herring inside the pens (somehow it equates this to herring being commercially caught). What I got out of that was this: Herring are really stupid. If they don't like being eaten, they should swim out of the salmon nets. Stupid herring - they get what they deserve (plus those filets from that salmon farm are probably really good - all natural)

 

[spopadyn]

Thxs for that California.
And thxs for your figures and questions fogged in.
Do those figures take in to account the money the most generous taxpayers pay to these almost exclusively foreign offshore companies for their diseased salmon that die?
And for the free money that our government (er, sorry taxpayer) so generously hands out in the form of grants to take the burden off the mostly foreign owned industry to have to modernize their equipment, systems etc? What about the money that taxpayer is spending to DFO in the form of jobs to look after these fish farms, and the scientists, etc. That is a direct cost to the taxpayer that I think people would be surprised in how much that would add up to. I don't think that has been taken in to account. DFO is now basically in the business of selling farmed atlantic salmon and the taxpayer is paying for it. While the bulk of the profits go overseas.
I don't think that's included in the figures below but it would be interesting to know what those add up to. I bet it's more than what has been spent for habitat improvement for our decimated wild salmon runs...
If the accounting took into effect the costs of having diseased invasive fish intermingling with our wild stocks, the costs of having their untreated effluents dumped into the environment, I believe people would be shocked at the true cost of having this mostly foreign owned industry in our waters.
Myself, I don't believe we, the taxpayer should be subsidizing these companies for their equipment or dead fish. This is just another form of corporate welfare that these companies and the government seem to be all in for.
These companies have lost their social license a long time ago. Especially when you see video's of them discharging their industries diseased fish wastes and diseased blood directly into our wild salmon migratory runs and other habitat. That is truly shameful. It shows they have little if any regard for our wild salmon runs. It's been going on for 40 years and they haven't changed it. Truly shameful.


from fishfarmnews.blogspot
http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/01/taxpayers-pay-for-diseased-dead-fish.html



Taxpayers Pay for Diseased, Dead Fish-Farm Fish, Fish Farms Don't, Updated Jan 17, 2016

The purpose of this post is to gather together some recent references on the amount of our taxes paid to fish farms companies for diseased dead fish, which they don't have insurance for, and which they should be out of the water to prevent.

From the Conservation Council of NB, Jan 12, 2016: http://www.conservationcouncil.ca/fish-farm-biosecurity-inadequate-to-protect-wild-salmon/.

From 1997 to 2007 some $140 Million was paid to NB fish farm for diseased dead fish.Then another $33 million taxpayer money was paid in NF for diseased dead fish farm fish in 2013.

This does not include the millions paid in BC for IHN, IPN and so on. I update these figures below.

This is the newspaper article that references the east coast payouts, nearing $140 M: http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1194343-fish-farm-culls-cost-public-138m. There are other figures in the article.

This is the newspaper article that references the NL $33 M, Jan 11, 2014: http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Loc...724/N.L.’s-destroyed-salmon-tab:-$33M/1. There are a lot of strong words in the article, and like the NB article, the public in NL wants fish farms out of the water, or in impervious tanks.

Here is the link to the figures on my site for 2014: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/09/93-million-for-diseased-fish.html. The total was $93 Million and includes BC.

There is some over-counting in the two larger amounts, but do note that you can add the $140M + $33 M + the BC money to get the total payout of taxpayer dollars. The BC money is $2.84 million for Cermaq, and $1.752 for Grieg Seafood, or $4.6 Million, meaning the total is about $177 Million taxpayer dollars for diseased dead fish farm fish for billion dollar corps from Norway. Canadians don't want to pay. They can set up on land or go back to Norway, where the government is so unhappy with their environmental damage it is giving them free licences to set up on land - a $9- to $12-million subsidy over the in-ocean auction price.

Here is the Telegram comparison with my figures: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/09/93-million-for-diseased-fish.html.

Here is the article on the nitty gritty east coast costs, including the BC figures: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2014/02/key-document-taxpayer-money-for.html.

Umm, huh? Kinda confused with the "follow the money" theme here, could you provide the government backup to all this. Would help me out a lot. As well, can you help us readers try to understand what you think happened? From reading this, it almost seems like you are saying that the fish farms due to extreme negligence (or perhaps intentionally) wound up producing disease invested fish that the government decided was not fit for human consumption, so the government then bought the fish off of them for a ton of dough? Is that the connect the dots I should be trying to sort through? PS, I gave you a like because of the effort you have put in here - trying to understand it all.

 

[bones]

There is always extra fish in a system, its basically an artificial floating reef. You could look up oil rig platforms and reefs to get a perspective. They attract everything from the bottom up to the apex predator. To which were never present before the rig. Salmon farms offer similar reef safety and food from growth on the nets etc....

We never farmed Atlantic salmon on any of my farms..... 1988. The same symptoms that show in farms with Atlantic salmon also show in mono Chinook and neutered Coho back then...... So what does this all mean? Still to early to point the finger like so many already have

 

[Cuba Libre]

Can you guys link me some stuff from the last 5 years that shows DFO advocating for fish farms?

NVM I found it in the liberal platform, I guess this is sorta what they mean

Growing the agrifood and seafood sectors on Vancouver Island
6 Likes
Growing the agrifood and seafood sectors on Vancouver Island

Creating jobs and opportunities on Vancouver Island

https://www.bcliberals.com/platform/growing-b-c-s-agrifood-seafood-sectors/

 

[GLG]

In summary, the results of this study demonstrate that APEX-IHN®-vaccinated Atlantic salmon are protected against a lethal exposure to IHNV. Moreover, APEX-IHN® vaccination of highly susceptible Atlantic salmon greatly reduces the infectious load and potential for IHNV transmission between both Atlantic and sockeye salmon. For these reasons, APEX-IHN® should be included in fish health management strategies when culturing Atlantic salmon in IHNV endemic areas.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d122p213.pdf

Take that you anti-vaccers.... to bad this was not in widespread use the last time we had to bail out the FF's

 

[spopadyn]

Just to put in perspective if we were to "lose" this industry

Provincial Corporate tax revenues not including resource royalties are 3.4 Billion, so FF tax revenue is about 2% of non resource tax revenue - they don't pay much corporate tax

But, they are a profitable and growing industry. What has been argued is they are living off of subsidies. Besides any fledgling industry has an incubation phase that moves to a proven viable business. This is just the beginning.


As a % of Total BC Govt revenue fish farms provide just over 1/10 of 1%, and without their tax contributions the estimated provincial surplus would be about 250 million for 2018, not the 330 Million currently estimated

Pretty sure you forgot to count the well paid employees that are paying taxes, or do you believe they are working in a tax haven - need to count all those revenues too.

The 1.561 Billion number includes all estimated associated spinoff activities (yep, it is called a full cycle analysis), the GDP number is 557.8 million which likely is the landed value of the harvest.

Worth noting that much of the 1.5 billion in activity goes offshore as the industry is almost exclusively foreign owned. (Really,you just stated above that the GDP number is 557.8 and that they paid about $81 Million in taxes on this - all the rest of the 1.561 stays in BC) If the actual fish sold for Overall if there was a will to completely get rid of the industry it could be done with little real harm to the BC economy or the provincial coffers. I don't think that's what most people here want though, they want the operations moved to land (true if it was economic. BTW, I suspect that the move to land would bring with it a whole host of other conservationists claiming other destructive (real or imagined) issues and the next round of running them out of town would begin).

What we essentially get for the risk to our wild salmon stocks is $81 million in tax revenues, and about 6,000 jobs (a significant underestimate). I guess it depends on your perspective if this is a worthwhile trade off or not. For some it is, for many others, its not. If there is indeed effects on wild salmon these benefits will be counter balanced by reduced tax revenues and jobs from the sport and commercial sectors.

 

[Birdsnest]

Farm bailouts from other sectors dwarf salmon farm bailouts. However there is a mechanism imbeded in this system. For example if I was a cow farmer and I suspect or find out I got mad cow I am far less reluctant to not report despite such reporting being mandatory. So thats a good thing however saying salmon farms get crazy money for losses is true to you and I however, again we see a statement that lacks quantification and comparison.
Just a few examples I pulled down off then net and I left out forestry and gas and oil. Those numbers are truly staggering!
Fur farm bailout 20M :
http://thefurbearers.com/blog/taxpayers-to-fund-20m-bailout-of-nova-scotia-fur-farms
Wheat 124m:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3011115/saskatchewan-crop-hail-payouts-of-over-124m-in-2016/
Dairy and poultry
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinio...y-poultry-subsidies-gouge-canadians-1.1343577


https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sit...dies-in-canada-a-684-billion-price-tag(1).pdf

 

[fogged in]

B.C. government starts review of fish processing plants after concerns of impact to wild salmon
https://www.cheknews.ca/b-c-governm...ter-concerns-of-impact-to-wild-salmon-400099/

 

[GLG]

British Columbia farmed Atlantic Salmon health management practices
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2017/2017_072-eng.html
Vaccination of Atlantic Salmon is not a requirement of licence; however, all companies do voluntarily vaccinate their fish for many pathogens including Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV). The agreement to vaccinate fish and have a coordinated effort in mitigation of disease and response in an outbreak situation is formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) termed the Salmon Farming Industry Viral Disease Management Plan. The use of vaccines was mentioned in the first version of the Viral Management Plan ratified in 2011 and indicated that vaccines were to be used in common areas. Since 2015, the IHNV vaccine has been used by all companies on all smolt before sea water entry.

My math tells me that at this rate we should have a vaccine for PRv in use some time around 2030.

 

[Birdsnest]

My math tells me that at this rate we should have a vaccine for PRv in use some time around 2030.

Well thankfully we have shown that PRV is shown to not cause disease. Ive been touching up on my virology and I've learned that you can not make a vaccine for a virus unless that virus is causing disease. Its as simple as that.

 

[GLG]

British Columbia farmed Atlantic Salmon health management practices
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2017/2017_072-eng.html
Vaccination of Atlantic Salmon is not a requirement of licence; however, all companies do voluntarily vaccinate their fish for many pathogens including Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV). The agreement to vaccinate fish and have a coordinated effort in mitigation of disease and response in an outbreak situation is formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) termed the Salmon Farming Industry Viral Disease Management Plan. The use of vaccines was mentioned in the first version of the Viral Management Plan ratified in 2011 and indicated that vaccines were to be used in common areas. Since 2015, the IHNV vaccine has been used by all companies on all smolt before sea water entry.

My math tells me that at this rate we should have a vaccine for PRv in use some time around 2030.

So it begs the question.... what else are they vaccinating for?

In British Columbia it is not a requirement of licence to vaccinate Atlantic Salmon; all vaccinations are voluntary. All companies vaccinate their fish for furunculosis, vibriosis, and IHNV. In addition, Marine Harvest Canada vaccinates for BKD; Cermaq Canada vaccinates against enteric redmouth disease and mouth rot and; Grieg Seafood vaccinates for enteric redmouth disease and winter ulcer.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2017/2017_072-eng.pdf

 

[terrin]

So it begs the question.... what else are they vaccinating for?

In British Columbia it is not a requirement of licence to vaccinate Atlantic Salmon; all vaccinations are voluntary. All companies vaccinate their fish for furunculosis, vibriosis, and IHNV. In addition, Marine Harvest Canada vaccinates for BKD; Cermaq Canada vaccinates against enteric redmouth disease and mouth rot and; Grieg Seafood vaccinates for enteric redmouth disease and winter ulcer.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2017/2017_072-eng.pdf

Table 1: Summary of the concepts and elements in the Salmonid Health Management Plan Template (2015-2016) and requirement for Standard Operating Procedures. Concept Elements Sub-elements SOP required Personnel Duties and Responsibilities 1.1 Personnel Duties and Responsibilities 1.1.1 Veterinarian - No 1.1.2 Fish health manager / technicians / team - No 1.1.3 Facility staff play a role - No 1.1.4 Contact names and number - No Health Concepts and Required Elements 2.1 Biosecurity - - No 2.2 Keeping Fish Healthy 2.2.1 Single year-class farms - No 2.2.2 Suitable rearing environment and security - Yes 2.2.3 Normal fish behaviour is observed - No 2.2.4 Predator control - Yes 2.2.5 Feed and nutrition - Yes 2.3 Fish Handling Techniques 2.3.1 Routine handling techniques - Yes 2.3.2 Harvesting - Yes 2.4 Monitoring Water Quality 2.4.1 Contingency plans - Yes 2.5 Keeping Pathogens Out 2.5.1 Personnel / Visitor / Diver / Supplier movement - Yes 2.5.2 Equipment / Vehicle movement - Yes 2.5.3 Moving fish between facilities - Yes 2.6 Monitoring Fish Health and Disease 2.6.1 Carcass collection - Yes 2.6.2 Carcass classification - Yes 2.6.3 Specific fish health procedures 2.6.3.1 Anesthetizing and sedating fish Yes 2.6.3.2 Sea lice monitoring Yes 2.6.3.3 Vaccinating fish Yes 2.6.3.4 Euthanasia Yes 2.7 Fish Health Records - - No 2.8 Fish Disease Outbreaks / Emergency - - Yes 2.9 Escaped Medicated Fish - - Yes Interesting to see in the Standard Operating Procedures you referenced when it comes to 2.7 Fish Health Records they are not required to maintain any.

 

[spopadyn]

Table 1: Summary of the concepts and elements in the Salmonid Health Management Plan Template (2015-2016) and requirement for Standard Operating Procedures. Concept Elements Sub-elements SOP required Personnel Duties and Responsibilities 1.1 Personnel Duties and Responsibilities 1.1.1 Veterinarian - No 1.1.2 Fish health manager / technicians / team - No 1.1.3 Facility staff play a role - No 1.1.4 Contact names and number - No Health Concepts and Required Elements 2.1 Biosecurity - - No 2.2 Keeping Fish Healthy 2.2.1 Single year-class farms - No 2.2.2 Suitable rearing environment and security - Yes 2.2.3 Normal fish behaviour is observed - No 2.2.4 Predator control - Yes 2.2.5 Feed and nutrition - Yes 2.3 Fish Handling Techniques 2.3.1 Routine handling techniques - Yes 2.3.2 Harvesting - Yes 2.4 Monitoring Water Quality 2.4.1 Contingency plans - Yes 2.5 Keeping Pathogens Out 2.5.1 Personnel / Visitor / Diver / Supplier movement - Yes 2.5.2 Equipment / Vehicle movement - Yes 2.5.3 Moving fish between facilities - Yes 2.6 Monitoring Fish Health and Disease 2.6.1 Carcass collection - Yes 2.6.2 Carcass classification - Yes 2.6.3 Specific fish health procedures 2.6.3.1 Anesthetizing and sedating fish Yes 2.6.3.2 Sea lice monitoring Yes 2.6.3.3 Vaccinating fish Yes 2.6.3.4 Euthanasia Yes 2.7 Fish Health Records - - No 2.8 Fish Disease Outbreaks / Emergency - - Yes 2.9 Escaped Medicated Fish - - Yes Interesting to see in the Standard Operating Procedures you referenced when it comes to 2.7 Fish Health Records they are not required to maintain any.

Sorry but this is lost in format hell?