N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

[sockeyefry2]

AP: Let me clarify two things: 1) I'm not in Ottawa, and 2) I want the Namgis to succeed. I don't want anything to occur that would call into question the results of the trial. Even if it does succeed, however, I doubt you will see a wholesale transition of the BC industry on land. What you will see is a transition of the fish farming industry to China, which will make the lot of you quite happy I suppose.

Charlie: DFO didn't have positive ISA results in 2004. They had some + PCR results which were not reliable and subsequently proven false via Viral cell culture.

Cuttle: Thanks for the Namgis link, but I've been following this before the first sod was even turned at the site.

Agent: NS has public hearings for aquaculture leases in SW for Finfish and Shellfish applications. NL and NB have Public Call for comment from the general public, but I don't think they have a Public Hearing.

The smolt that were transferred into the Namgis site would have had pre transfer disease screening performed. This screening checks for Bacterial as well as Viral pathogens.

I was quite surprised at Stanifords blog posts regarding the Namgis project. I read through the rest of his stuff. Quite amusing and entertaining. A little to over the top for me though.

 

[agentaqua]

Agent: NS has public hearings for aquaculture leases in SW for Finfish and Shellfish applications. NL and NB have Public Call for comment from the general public, but I don't think they have a Public Hearing .

In order to be effective in reducing and mitigating impacts and risk - public input MUST BE mandatory and be dealt with in a process like a full CEAA assessment.

Elsewise, anyone can submit comments and anyone can totally ignore all those comments and/or not appropriately respond and act on the gaps.

There must also be a mechanism not just to say yes - but to actively deny applications.

The purpose of any environmental assessment is suppossed to be to weigh risks and benefits - rather than to rubber stamp and provide the illusion of a transparent process.

As a society - we can say no thanks - this doesn't make sense.

W/o the appropriate safeguards in place - any "voluntary" public process just becomes a PR exercise, rather than a vehicle for responsible oversight and due diligence.

We end-up in the Orwellian place we are currently in - with lies, deceit, double-speak, corruption, collusion and lack of trust.

 

[Swingin Dick]

Heres a nice farmed Coho I saw at Superstore on the way home from work. If im not mistaken they are supposed to have pinkish red meat. I was more then happy to explain what is wrong with this fish to some folks that were going to buy one. I said it loud and I said it proud for all to hear. F'n Gross discustingness. Maybe one of the fishfarmers on here could enlighten us on this sickly looking fish. Give us the facts.

 

[Dave]

Would have been good if you had shown the entire label. There are several land based coho farms here in BC and in Washington State; that flesh colour looks similar to those that I have seen in Superstores on the lower mainland.

 

[agentaqua]

Charlie: DFO didn't have positive ISA results in 2004. They had some + PCR results which were not reliable and subsequently proven false via Viral cell culture.

http://www.salmonconfidential.ca/mo...gn=Salmon Confidential May 1&utm_medium=email

 

[agentaqua]

and this one: http://wildfishconservancy.org/reso...us-isav/Kibenge.DFOdraftmamuscript_200411.pdf

p.15: "These results are not unique since Raynard et al. (2001) also reported detection of ISAV by RT-PCR in wild fish in Scotland without isolating the virus by cell culture even though they were able to amplify the full segment 8 and 2. Thus our results may imply that wild pacific salmon species have a nonpathogenic ISAV isolate or just non-infective particle of ISAV."

Raynard R.S, Murray AG, Gregory A. (2001). Infectious salmon anaemia virus in wild fish in Scotland. Dis Aquat org 46: 93-100.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/46/d046p093.pdf
ABSTRACT: Following the outbreak of infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) at salmon farms in Scotland, UK, a survey was established to determine the extent of infection in wild fish. All fish tested were free from the clinical symptoms of ISA. Isolations of ISAV were made from 5 sea trout within areas where ISA affected salmon farms were located. Evidence for ISAV in other sea trout was provided by ISA RT-PCR diagnostic tests. Results from ISA RT-PCR tests reveal evidence for ISAV being present in salmon parr, adult salmon and juvenile brown trout in rivers distant from salmon farms and indicate that, at the time of the survey (1998–1999), ISAV may have been widely distributed. Nucleotide sequence analysis of segments 2 and 8 showed that for most sequences from wild fish there was 100% homology with ISAV isolated from clinically affected farmed fish although evidence is presented which indicates variability in ISAV sequences from wild fish. Modelling the RT-PCR findings indicates that ISAV among salmonid fish was spatially non-random. Brown trout, sea trout and salmon (adult and parr) show a pattern of occasionally large numbers of positive samples against a background of very low numbers.

You just demonstrated what is called a Type II error, SF. A very serious and common error of judgement for NOVICE scientific authors - not expected from experienced (and so-called "excellent") authors such as Jones - Molly Kibenge's boss who refused to let her publish her important information. It's also called a serious cover-up, lack of morals, lack of discharge of due diligence, lack of honesty and transparency, collusion, etc.

 

[Birdsnest]

That looks like freeze burn to me. Look down on the cut on the belly wall on the left of the photo and there is some yellow there too along side is some nice pink too. Ya, not nice. Maybe I am wrong but it just look similar to what I have seen at home. Whats worse than how it looks is how freezer burn tastes. YUK!!! Cut that yellow stuff off and and it is just fine "if" it is freezer burn. Remember that distributors buy the product from the farms and what they do with it sometimes is not in the farmers control. Same goes with wild product.

IMO

Edit:

I just noticed that one label has "previous" written on it. I suspect this is previously frozen product so maybe I am right.

 

[Birdsnest]

Heres a nice farmed Coho I saw at Superstore on the way home from work. If im not mistaken they are supposed to have pinkish red meat. I was more then happy to explain what is wrong with this fish to some folks that were going to buy one. I said it loud and I said it proud for all to hear. F'n Gross discustingness. Maybe one of the fishfarmers on here could enlighten us on this sickly looking fish. Give us the facts.

I find it pretty entertaining that you were so quick to educate the public at the store but in the same paragraph here you are asking what it is. What did you tell the people in the store what it was? Really, I am asking.

Its freezer burn. The same thing will happen to wild fish. I hope that when people have a fish like this, wild or not, they trim off the yellow stuff and consume the remainder. Waisting fish is not ethical. Shame on the retailer for not trimming this product. Again, it is likely this has nothing to do with the product.

 

[Dave]

NOVICE[/b] scientific authors - not expected from experienced (and so-called "excellent") authors such as Jones - Molly Kibenge's boss who refused to let her publish her important information. It's also called a serious cover-up, lack of morals, lack of discharge of due diligence, lack of honesty and transparency, collusion, etc.

Agent, you seem to have the same sort of mind set as perhaps a Don Staniford; pugnacious and really quite bright but somehow ... missing something. What part of not being able to duplicate results don’t you understand? Jones or Kibenge or Traxler could not publish what could not be confirmed. Would you? You know ISA is a CFIA reportable disease, that to deny or defy that law would mean scientific ridicule and the loss of personal credibility by all involved ... and yet you continue to trash these people by suggesting they did this purposely.
How about this ... a strain of ISAv is endemic on the Pacific coast, has been for a long time, and has not been fully studied yet (not to worry, Riddell, Miller, and a cast of DFO and university researchers are working on that) because there is nothing, that is nothing, to show this has induced mortalities in Pacifics or farmed Atlantics. Can you accept that?

 

[Swingin Dick]

That looks like freeze burn to me. Look down on the cut on the belly wall on the left of the photo and there is some yellow there too along side is some nice pink too. Ya, not nice. Maybe I am wrong but it just look similar to what I have seen at home. Whats worse than how it looks is how freezer burn tastes. YUK!!! Cut that yellow stuff off and and it is just fine "if" it is freezer burn. Remember that distributors buy the product from the farms and what they do with it sometimes is not in the farmers control. Same goes with wild product.

IMO

Edit:

I just noticed that one label has "previous" written on it. I suspect this is previously frozen product so maybe I am right.

It was marked previously frozen. When I freezer burn fish in my freezer (happens all the time) it doesn't turn yellow. Or maybe I never noticed. I usually throw it in the crab trap or cut into strips for Hally. I am 100% against salmon farming in our oceans. I do not claim top be an expert on this topic, but I know one thing for sure. They weren't there before and they are not a natural part of our oceans. Our ocean has only yielded less real fish since they arrived. They don't help me or my family in any way shape or form.

 

[rockdog]

Keep telling the people. That's what I do when I'm in the stores, at work, having a beer in the dressing room after hockey.....basically any time some one will listen.

 

[Swingin Dick]

I should add that all of these fish were skinny as well. And I know what a coho looks like, I have eaten a half of a freezer of them since last summer. They had some nice orange meat atlantic springs last week. Red and white = pink, red and yellow = orange.

I don't want to get sued by the fish farms for defamation? so im not gonna comment much more.

 

[Swingin Dick]

I will take every opportunity to tell them.

 

[cuttlefish]

Since this thread started off about Nova Scotia fish farms, here's a good link to end it with;
http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews...vernment-develops-new-aquaculture-regulations


Nova Scotia Government Develops New Aquaculture Regulations
03 May 2013
CANADA - The province is protecting coastal communities, making sure aquaculture grows in a sustainable way, through a new regulatory framework for the aquaculture industry.
"People who live in coastal communities want good jobs, but not at any cost," said Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Sterling Belliveau.
"This government recognises that the aquaculture industry is an important part of rural communities. By developing strong regulations and enforcement we will help the industry grow in a way that balances economic development and environmental protection."
The work will be led by Dalhousie University law professors and environmental law experts Meinhard Doelle and William Lahey. They will be advised by an advisory committee chosen to represent stakeholders and community interests including the Mi'kmaq, Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Salmon Association, Nova Scotia Fisheries Sector Council, Ecology Action Centre and the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities.
"We look forward to working with the advisory committee, key stakeholders, scientific experts, and members of the public to develop a regulatory framework for aquaculture that best serves the long-term social, environmental and economic interests of the province," said Mr Doelle.
Mr Doelle and Mr Lahey, assisted by the advisory committee and a scientific advisory committee to be struck later, will consider a full range of impacts, benefits and risks that should be addressed through regulation.
They will use a multi-phased process of public and stakeholder consultation, the first phase of which will begin this summer.
"Our members are committed to farming responsibly in Nova Scotia," said Bruce Hancock, executive director of the Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia. "We believe that clearly written regulations are an important part of sustainable expansion of aquaculture in Nova Scotia and will help build public confidence in our industry."
It is anticipated the department will receive recommendations to develop regulations by the end of 2014.
"From our vantage point, aquaculture regulations are failing to protect Nova Scotian communities and the environment and thus we welcome a comprehensive review of the regulatory system and options going forward," said Ecology Action Centre policy director Mark Butler. "There are sustainable opportunities in aquaculture, but they must not come at the expense of the ecosystem or other marine industries."
The development of regulations for the aquaculture industry was part of the action plan from the province's first aquaculture strategy, released in May 2012. The aquaculture industry generates about C$50 million annually.
"Investment in aquaculture can provide meaningful work that will sustain rural communities and maintain their quality of life. It could mean the difference for young people and families who want to remain and thrive in rural and coastal Nova Scotia," said Mr Belliveau.

TheFishSite News Desk

 

[salmonkiller01]

I call B.S that Nova Scotia's regulations will be any different than B.C's. Its a free for all and if there are any problems ,mums the word. Its no different than any industry, what has to be reported will but if its not reportable it won't . Government guidlines are a way of easing the pain of industry by creating flawed regulations. I can't import an exotic fish and put it in a lake but they can bring in some atlantic salmon and have escapement and its the same old story, well they are not aclimatized to the pacific enviroment and will never spawn. Its all a joke.

To all the fishfarmers that are here an trying to promote their industry, I believe you are hardworking people, you deserve your jobs and I would hate for anyone to face a job loss(not that you will). Its the governmnet regulations, governments ignoring facts and covering up anything that may harm the bottom line of offshore owned corporations. Its no different than the oilsands, forestry or even comercial fishing. The governments attitude is we are a nation of natural resources lets exploit it as fast as we can, who gives a crap about our future. When they could require a sustainable way of doing things but at a cost to industry.

Why have fish farms on a wild salmons migration route? If there is even a doubt about a wild salmons health because of this, move the farm. But that will cost a corporation money and time.

If the government said today all farms need to be closed containment, the industry would go to closed containment, construction of them would start tomorrow(well not literally) and all the worker on the open cage farms would have jobs, get more skills training and would be home more instead of being on a floating house in the middle of nowhere.

Its evolution and every industry goes thru it, you think pulp mills of today are the same as they were 30 years ago???Air emmisions, effluent??
Why would your industry be different, it needs to evolve and the government is the only one to make it happen and thats what people like me and so many others are pissed at.

 

[sockeyefry2]

By Anthony Farrell, Vancouver Sun August 27, 2011Scientists routinely agree to disagree, but that doesn’t sit well with society-at-large, which increasingly demands instant answers and quick solutions.

Nowhere is this more painfully apparent than in the debate and confusion around the future of salmon in British Columbia, which is the current topic of an expensive federal inquiry, the Cohen Commission.

The problem is that we expect too much, too soon from science. The announcement of an “overnight” discovery is always backed by an awful lot of scientific discovery and testing.

While responsible scientists couch their discoveries with words like could, may and might, prudent caution too often gets lost in translation.

Take my salmon research in B.C. as an example.

A news headline early this year claimed a virus from farmed salmon is killing wild sockeye salmon in the Fraser River.

As a co-author of the research cited as the headline’s source, which appeared in the prestigious scientific journal Science, I can safely say our position was far more circumspect. Yet, somehow the headline stretched a discovery-phase hypothesis on a genomic expression signature associated with sockeye salmon to claim a virus had come from farmed salmon! Clearly,
Tthis is an illustration of the knowledge gap between science and public perception.

Proclaiming certainty takes time and many experiments, but here’s another example of how a hypothesis – not a certainty – concerning wild salmon was debated and subsequently revised with new information: In an article in Science in 2007, results of a mathematical model were used to boldly declare: “If outbreaks [of sea lice] continue, local extinction [of pink salmon] is certain” in the Broughton Archipelago.

This terrific sound bite triggered a media blitz promoting the idea that sea lice released from Atlantic salmon farming were decimating wild pink salmon populations.

Fast forward to 2011. Did these wild pink salmon populations collapse? No. Either something changed dramatically or the study’s conclusions were premature. Here’s the lesson: In the discovery phase, the devil lies in the details.

In fact, juvenile pink salmon are a lot tougher than we initially thought when it comes to sea lice infestations.

There is little to suggest sea lice would kill 80 per cent of infected pink salmon, as the original model posited.

In fact, a 2010 report – Relationship of Farm Salmon, Sea Lice and Wild Salmon, published in another prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science – concludes: “Productivity of wild salmon is not negatively associated with either farm lice numbers or farm fish production, and all published field and laboratory data support the conclusion that something other than sea lice caused the population decline [of pink salmon] in 2002.”

Clearly, profound differences of opinion exist among scientists during this initial discovery phase. And that’s normal.

Inasmuch as we must maintain vigilance, uncertainty cannot paralyze progress.

Consider the projections of a dismal sockeye salmon return to the Fraser River in 2009. According to some mathematical models, there was a one-in-500 chance of it happening.

But scientific probability models didn’t sit well with an outraged public, which demanded investigation and got a public inquiry in the form of the ongoing Cohen Commission, which is costing tens of millions of federal dollars that I suggest might be better spent on scientific investigation into the many mysteries of salmon.

Of course, smiles quickly returned with the near historic return of sockeye last fall.

This return had a one-in-10 probability of happening according to scientific models. Scientists are doing their best with limited resources and discovery science remains far from a sure bet.

Yet, the public, which is clearly selective in its risk tolerance, demands absolutes from the media when confronted with questions about natural phenomena like salmon.

As Malcolm Gladwell writes in What the Dog Saw: “Rarely is there a clear story – at least, not until afterward, when some enterprising journalists or investigative committee decides to write one.”

Have your headlines if you must, because in this fast-paced world we can’t always wait for hindsight, but can we agree to not represent hypotheses – no matter how intriguing – as facts?

Dr. Anthony Farrell holds a Canada research chair in fish physiology, culture and conservation as a professor at the University of British Columbia, with a cross appointment in the zoology department and the faculty of land and food systems.

 

[sockeyefry2]

SK
The industry has evolved. It is very different now than 40 years ago. There has been tremenduous improvements in containment, knowledge of and how to prevent disease, biosecurity methods, how the fish grow, and what environmental challenges exist.

Things that caused mass mortality in the 90's aren't even an issue today.

I put to you that it isn't the Gov that's ignoring facts, it is yourself that is ignoring, or refusing to accept facts. The simple truth of the whole matter is that over 40 years, salmon farms and wild salmon have co existed without any measurable change in the populations of wild salmon, and there annual fluctuations in BC. The population graphs have been displayed here over and over, and if I took away the years at the bottom no one could pick out the years during which the farms existed, and supposedly had an impact on the wild pops.

 

[rockdog]

Ah. More misinformation......

 

[agentaqua]

Agent, you seem to have the same sort of mind set as perhaps a Don Staniford; pugnacious and really quite bright but somehow ... missing something. What part of not being able to duplicate results don’t you understand? Jones or Kibenge or Traxler could not publish what could not be confirmed. Would you? You know ISA is a CFIA reportable disease, that to deny or defy that law would mean scientific ridicule and the loss of personal credibility by all involved ... and yet you continue to trash these people by suggesting they did this purposely.
How about this ... a strain of ISAv is endemic on the Pacific coast, has been for a long time, and has not been fully studied yet (not to worry, Riddell, Miller, and a cast of DFO and university researchers are working on that) because there is nothing, that is nothing, to show this has induced mortalities in Pacifics or farmed Atlantics. Can you accept that?

Dave: Thanks for being honest. I always appreciate that. Appreciate the “bright” comment, too. I also found your perspective interesting. Defensive, hopeful – demonstrating a lack of understanding, maybe even a lack of experience.

The fact that DFO could not duplicate results from the original samples is not unexpected, nor does it give DFO licence to bury and hide the results. Can you accept this?

Virus and the associated RNA is very fragile, and the samples need to be handled with the appropriate care and tissues need to be treated with the appropriate preservative matched to the testing methodology. The fact that DFO could not replicate the ISA results from the same samples does NOT mean the population is free from ISA. Can you accept this?

Another issue is that new samples can be taken, and this would have been the appropriate responsible response rather than hiding the results even after being under court order from Cohen to produce all information on ISA. Can you accept this?

The appropriate professional and responsible response would have been to publish the results as “preliminary” while notifying the affect First Nations and working with them to obtain new samples. Can you accept this?

I have no problem accepting, but I am worried about the consequences if a “new” strain of ISAv is “endemic on the Pacific coast, has been for a long time, and has not been fully studied yet”. That new strain is most likely from fish farm imports, possibly from improper egg importation controls interference by a DFO employee under pressure from the industry. All this information can be found in the Cohen transcripts. Can you accept this?

The part that I am “missing” as opposed to pro-industry pundits is the complacency to accept collusion and corruption in our democratic process and in the system designed to protect our public resources for our children's children. Can you accept this?

 

[agentaqua]

Farrell: again defending the industry with yet another farm hack op ed. Not unexpected or novel.

Farrell was the guy who claimed that farms never impacted sea lice levels – even after he admited he's never worked on sea lice (see: http://www.leg.bc.ca/CMT/38thparl/session-2/aquaculture/hansard/W60601a.htm#7:1430):

A. Farrell: "By my limited review of the literature. I stated clearly and explicitly at the outset that I've never worked on sea lice."

A. Farrell: "I've done some reading. I mean, not anywhere near enough."

AND by the same guy who doesn't understand what an average number of lice on a fish are:

A. Farrell: "I'm not aware of that information. I can't comment, but I will comment that I've never seen 0.3 of a louse. I've only ever seen one louse, but I've never seen part of a louse on a fish. I mean, I'm struggling with that."

The UBC Center for Aquaculture and the Environment gets $$$ from the feds and the industry to accommodate the industry, though. That's apparently not too hard for Farrell to understand...