Fish Farm trouble in BC.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting if not alarming information regarding the IHN virus which has recently been big news.

”Most if not all salmonid species are susceptible to the ihn virus, with fry and small fingerlings becoming infected very readily, and becoming more resistant as they mature. The infection is often lethal and the mortality rate can be 100% in fry. Those fish that survive an outbreak of IHN can become carriers of the virus, providing a reservoir of infection. In addition, infected juveniles will shed IHN virus particles in the faeces, urine and external mucus.”
“Since 2015, the IHNV vaccine has been used by all companies on all smolt before sea water entry.”

One of the ways IHN is in spread is thru sperm in wild salmon….what about all those wild salmon infected thru fish farms prior to 2015 when vaccination began?
It is no wonder Fish Farms are so concerned.
They knew they had it and have only recently vaccinated against it.
However, vaccination is NOT mandatory. Fish Farms claim all BC farms do vaccinate against it, but there is no enforcement or oversight, we just have to trust them.
https://fishpathogens.net/pathogen/ihn-virus
The IHN virus is just one of many viruses-diseases and Sea Lice concentrated within fish farms.
Fish Farms, DFO and our government seem to think this does not pose a threat to our Wild Salmon????
 
Last edited:
How is this alarming? Would you prefer the farms didn't vaccinate these fish for IHN? Considering IHN is endemic to the Pacific coast, do you think maybe hatcheries should be more concerned with their spawning protocols?
 
  • Uncertainty in this assessment is driven by the lack of knowledge of:
    • the precise residence time of both juvenile and adult Sockeye Salmon in the Discovery Islands, local migration routes and occurrence around Atlantic Salmon farms (i.e., what proportion of migrating Sockeye Salmon are exposed to farms, how close, and for how long);
    • IHNV mortality rates for post-smolt Sockeye Salmon; and
    • other potential impacts of an exposure of Sockeye Salmon to IHNV at marine life stages (e.g., sub-lethal and cumulative effects).For the purpose of the assessment, a number of key assumptions were made including, for example:
    • current management practices are followed and will be maintained, including IHN vaccination of all farmed Atlantic Salmon, surveillance for early detection, and eradication of infected fish within 14 days of confirmation of positive samples;
    • the APEX-IHN® vaccine has a 95% efficacy in farmed Atlantic Salmon;
    • exposure to a minimum concentration of 108 pfu/m3 (plaque forming units per cubic metre) for an hour or more is required to cause infection and disease in juvenile Sockeye Salmon;
    • juvenile Sockeye Salmon had not developed immunity to IHNV (i.e., are naïve) upon exposure to IHNV released from Atlantic Salmon farms; and
    • all IHNV infections in susceptible Sockeye Salmon results in disease and direct mortality.
    • The risk assessment framework and conceptual model used to assess risk of pathogen transfer was accepted and suggestions were made for improvements to future risk assessments.
  • For the purpose of the assessment, a number of key assumptions were made including, for example:
    • current management practices are followed and will be maintained, including IHN vaccination of all farmed Atlantic Salmon, surveillance for early detection, and eradication of infected fish within 14 days of confirmation of positive samples;
    • the APEX-IHN® vaccine has a 95% efficacy in farmed Atlantic Salmon;
    • exposure to a minimum concentration of 108 pfu/m3 (plaque forming units per cubic metre) for an hour or more is required to cause infection and disease in juvenile Sockeye Salmon;
    • juvenile Sockeye Salmon had not developed immunity to IHNV (i.e., are naïve) upon exposure to IHNV released from Atlantic Salmon farms; and
    • all IHNV infections in susceptible Sockeye Salmon results in disease and direct mortality.
    http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2017/2017_048-eng.html
 
I’m surprised you guys haven’t found the most reveling scary part on the report and even has me a bit concerned.

Extra likes to whoever finds it

fogged in said:
Fish Farms, DFO and our government seem to think this does not pose a threat to our Wild Salmon????
Click to expand...

I’ll give u a hint it has to do with this
 
Last edited:
Dave said:
How is this alarming? Would you prefer the farms didn't vaccinate these fish for IHN? Considering IHN is endemic to the Pacific coast, do you think maybe hatcheries should be more concerned with their spawning protocols?
Click to expand...
This has been identidied for decades and the BC Fish Farms have only in the last couple of years decided to complete system wide vacination so they could maximize their profits. IHN is a notifiable diseases under the Diseases of Fish Act and is a List II disease under European Directive 91/67/EEC. Great Britain is an approved zone for IHN, and to maintain this status all farms holding susceptible species of fish are inspected at least once a year. In addition, at least once every two years samples of internal organs (and ovarian fluid in the case of broodstock) are taken from 30 fish and tested for the presence of the virus. Like everything else with regard to the disease and virus laden Open net cage fish farms here in B.C. our governments are totally ignoring the fox in the hen house. How many other diseases and viruses(PRV) are these feedlots providing a reservoir for? Minimal Risk who would want to chance a swim through that? It's time our Governments got their heads out of their rears and actually protect the Iconic but endangered Wild Salmon.
 
Think of the taxpayer dollars this is saving as without this vaccination wild Pacific's would infect farmed Atlantic's and no one wants that. As GLG said, expect proactive measures for other viruses as well. Sounds like very responsible husbandry to me.
 
Ripperoflips said:
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!
Click to expand...


Yep exactly. Also would like to see fish farm owners pay to vacinate every hatchery fish that gets released in this province,
 
terrin said:
This has been identidied for decades and the BC Fish Farms have only in the last couple of years decided to complete system wide vacination so they could maximize their profits. IHN is a notifiable diseases under the Diseases of Fish Act and is a List II disease under European Directive 91/67/EEC. Great Britain is an approved zone for IHN, and to maintain this status all farms holding susceptible species of fish are inspected at least once a year. In addition, at least once every two years samples of internal organs (and ovarian fluid in the case of broodstock) are taken from 30 fish and tested for the presence of the virus. Like everything else with regard to the disease and virus laden Open net cage fish farms here in B.C. our governments are totally ignoring the fox in the hen house. How many other diseases and viruses(PRV) are these feedlots providing a reservoir for? Minimal Risk who would want to chance a swim through that? It's time our Governments got their heads out of their rears and actually protect the Iconic but endangered Wild Salmon.
Click to expand...

But again, this is the whole crux of all the problems. There is risk in anything we do. If an industry mitigates as much of the foreseeable problems it can think of, the government and the industry have done well by us. There are no 100% safe measures. If the standard used is zero impact on any single wild salmon, then we all better stop driving our cars, by some bicycles, sell our boats (actually we should destroy them) put solar panels on our house and commit to never using any fossil energy source. That is the biggest problem facing our salmon, we just haven't gotten around to finding a way to commit to this real measure.

So, we get back to vilifying the industry that we don't work for or care about. Blame it on the guys who are doing something different then me. We cook up excuses which have poor science behind them, show fishing SNUF videos and market against an industry that seems to really be doing a decent job. All the leading conservationist scientists are getting a wide audience but when there science is peer reviewed or third party labs are called in to test results, well, the results don't hold up. I keep trying to find a quote or article by AM where she says the independent lab that did not confirm her findings was either lying or being bought off by the government. They don't seem to question the independent lab results, but keep on hawking there results regardless. and, by the way, there are monetary gains for them. They are not as altruistic as we might want to believe. This type of science, would never be used or allowed in any other industry. Can you imagine the trouble we would be in if the pharm industry was allowed to do this?

I am glad that Fogged in posted a link to the newspaper article this morning. But what struck me, is that for all the things we accuse the salmon farming industry, the quote at the end was this:

"Jeremy Dunn, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, said its members welcome the provincial reviews and are co-operating with DFO on its pathogen study.
...
“We welcome a review of any regulations and permitting processes to ensure that they meet best practices to review what’s happening in other parts of the world and review against the best available science,” Dunn said."

Seems to me this is the right attitude for industry reps to have.
 
Well I’ll give you points for trying. But I do have to point out I live in the interior of the province and don’t infect any fish wild or hatchery with prv or any other virus/disease/or infection.

Oh yeah and some of my hard earned tax dollars already end up in fish farm owners pockets so I guess I already am?
 
Last edited:
Clint r said:
Well I’ll give you points for trying. But I do have to point out I live in the interior of the province and don’t infect any fish wild or hatchery with prv or any other virus/disease/or infection.

Oh yeah and some of my hard earned tax dollars already end up in fish farm owners pockets so I guess I already am?
Click to expand...
Actually, the math is wrong. Those hard working fish farm owners helped out the province with $80M last year. You probably got to see a doctor or used roads etc. that were all partially paid for by the FF's. So, since you caught more hatchery fish than I and and since the FF's don't catch hatchery fish, and since you have a nice boat - I think you should pick up the cheque!

It is a bit like this - if you owned a winery in BC and paid your taxes, the taxes the government received should be your contribution. To decide that maybe all the alcohol treatment centers should be paid for by the wineries as well would be what you are asking here (even if the alcoholics in the center all drank beer). Just arguing your logic is flawed.... not really thinking you should pay for it.
 
Dave said:
Think of the taxpayer dollars this is saving as without this vaccination wild Pacific's would infect farmed Atlantic's and no one wants that. As GLG said, expect proactive measures for other viruses as well. Sounds like very responsible husbandry to me.
Click to expand...

Well Dave I said this:
"My math tells me that at this rate we should have a vaccine for PRv in use some time around 2030."
I see the art of sarcasm is sometimes lost when posting. If only you would have seen my eyes roll......:rolleyes:
 
fogged in said:
There have been 982 posts on this thread since Chuck introduced it on Oct 10, 2017
I may have missed seeing the link below and if so please accept my apologies, if not it is definitely worth a read!
Fish Farms a Viral Hotspot for Infection of B.C.’s Wild Salmon, New Study Finds
By Judith Lavoie • Thursday, December 14, 2017 - 13:14

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/12/14/fi...t-infection-b-c-s-wild-salmon-new-study-finds
Click to expand...

It’s taken me awhile to respond to this study but it really needs rebuttal. Not groundbreaking at all and once again flawed and incomplete.

The study, in my opinion, used a very poor sample size with very unequal representation. Look at the raw data provided to see where the samples were from within the Fraser watershed - those upstream and downstream of Hope. Of course infection rate is greater in the lower regions if that’s where most of the samples are from. Additionally, just because you catch an adult salmon at one location doesn’t necessarily mean that’s its final destination, so it throws the catagorizing of challenged and not challenged by the authors into question. Those captured in the ocean could very well be heading to terminal areas in the mid and upper Fraser, so by definition they would be in the challenged catagory. This is why statisticians are not fisheries biologists.

In those catch areas the fish could have all been handled differently if caught by recreational anglers and First Nations. In order to make broad population inferences one should do a more extensive, structured surveillance of wild salmonids which the authors admitted was lacking in their study.

Second, the authors categorizing of “significant migratory challenges” is too vague and incomplete and doesn’t address what the migratory conditions were at the time. That’s a very significant omission. Nowhere in the study do the authors put context to their findings by saying what the environmental conditions (specifically the Fraser) were during the sampling period in 2012 and 2013. Also, those conditions can change within the migration from month to month, from run timing group to run timing group. For instance, Early Stuart Sockeye can typically face some significant migratory challenges in some years through Hell’s Gate in June and July due to much much higher discharge following spring freshet. Early Summer to Summers Sockeye can experience higher water temperatures some years, but Late Summer Sockeye can often avoid those late on in September and October.

What might be a major migratory difficulty one year might not be so much the next. It is true that places like Hell’s Gate and the other migratory bottlenecks can be difficult places for salmon migration, but it depends on what the river discharge and water temperatures are at the time. Pacific salmonids have water discharge and temperature thresholds where migration can be difficult, but not so much below those levels. Some years had very high water temperatures in the Fraser but that didn’t necessarily translate into major prespawn mortality. Instead, the authors make it black and white (i.e. challenged or not) which in reality isn’t what its really like.

Thirdly, what are these PRV infected salmon relative to what actually escaped to the spawning grounds in 2012 and 2013 if we are looking at the adult escapement. In 2013, some Fraser CUs that escaped to the spawning grounds did better than cycle year averages. Yet the authors claim that PRV infected salmon could be experiencing migratory difficulties due to bad hearts. Well the spawning ground escapements for many CUs don’t appear to corroborate those claims in 2013. Statistics are great, but they should be ground truthed. Nowhere in the study do the authors say how those results relate to what actually escaped to the spawning grounds. That’s pretty important.

Lastly, HSMI has not been documented in wild salmon in BC or even in Norway. The authors even state:

However, HSMI has not been reported in wild or captive Pacific salmon.

How many of the samples in the study were examined for HSMI? Apparently, PRV is this very deadly virus to wild Pacific salmonids and no testing for the disease, HSMI. Did Morton’s supermarket samples show HSMI? Show the same voracity and skepticism for this as you do the recent DFO study.
 
Last edited:
shuswap said:
It’s taken me awhile to respond to this study but it really needs rebuttal. Not groundbreaking at all and once again flawed and incomplete.

The study, in my opinion, used a very poor sample size with very unequal representation. Look at the raw data provided to see where the samples were from within the Fraser watershed - those upstream and downstream of Hope. Of course infection rate is greater in the lower regions if that’s where most of the samples are from. Additionally, just because you catch an adult salmon at one location doesn’t necessarily mean that’s its final destination, so it throws the catagorizing of challenged and not challenged by the authors into question. Those captured in the ocean could very well be heading to terminal areas in the mid and upper Fraser, so by definition they would be in the challenged catagory. This is why statisticians are not fisheries biologists.

In those catch areas the fish could have all been handled differently if caught by recreational anglers and First Nations. In order to make broad population inferences one should do a more extensive, structured surveillance of wild salmonids which the authors admitted was lacking in their study.

Second, the authors categorizing of “significant migratory challenges” is too vague and incomplete and doesn’t address what the migratory conditions were at the time. That’s a very significant omission. Nowhere in the study do the authors put context to their findings by saying what the environmental conditions (specifically the Fraser) were during the sampling period in 2012 and 2013. Also, those conditions can change within the migration from month to month, from run timing group to run timing group. For instance, Early Stuart Sockeye can typically face some significant migratory challenges in some years through Hell’s Gate in June and July due to much much higher discharge following spring freshet. Early Summer to Summers Sockeye can experience higher water temperatures some years, but Late Summer Sockeye can often avoid those late on in September and October.

What might be a major migratory difficulty one year might not be so much the next. It is true that places like Hell’s Gate and the other migratory bottlenecks can be difficult places for salmon migration, but it depends on what the river discharge and water temperatures are at the time. Pacific salmonids have water discharge and temperature thresholds where migration can be difficult, but not so much below those levels. Some years had very high water temperatures in the Fraser but that didn’t necessarily translate into major prespawn mortality. Instead, the authors make it black and white (i.e. challenged or not) which in reality isn’t what its really like.

Thirdly, what are these PRV infected salmon relative to what actually escaped to the spawning grounds in 2012 and 2013 if we are looking at the adult escapement. In 2013, some Fraser CUs that escaped to the spawning grounds did better than cycle year averages. Yet the authors claim that PRV infected salmon could be experiencing migratory difficulties due to bad hearts. Well the spawning ground escapements for many CUs don’t appear to corroborate those claims in 2013. Statistics are great, but they should be ground truthed. Nowhere in the study do the authors say how those results relate to what actually escaped to the spawning grounds. That’s pretty important.

Lastly, HSMI has not been documented in wild salmon in BC or even in Norway. The authors even state:

However, HSMI has not been reported in wild or captive Pacific salmon.

How many of the samples in the study were examined for HSMI? Apparently, PRV is this very deadly virus to wild Pacific salmonids and no testing for the disease, HSMI. Did Morton’s supermarket samples show HSMI? Show the same voracity and skepticism for this as you do the recent DFO study.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post this in the comments section of the website that has published this paper. That way the authors would have a chance to answer your points. This is important subject to all of us who care about wild salmon and it's a shame that the discourse is not properly done.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793
 
GLG said:
Why don't you post this in the comments section of the website that has published this paper. That way the authors would have a chance to answer your points. This is important subject to all of us who care about wild salmon and it's a shame that the discourse is not properly done.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188793
Click to expand...
Good point - add comments to there website as well. Fogged In posted it here though for a reason though GLG - to share and have public discourse - his comments are welcomed by us all.
 
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
Derby
BC wildlife federation town hall meeting
Replies
0
Views
159
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
A
Is it legal to bring US caught fish into BC waters?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Tighthead
T
Back
Top