cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Some sites just don't cut it no matter which coast. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/aquaculture/pdf/remediation_aquaculture.pdf
N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for this Cuttle. The conclusions on page 29 are quite pertinent:
"5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the assessment of the data for the entire Centre Cove farm, it appears that the site is gradually recovering from the effects of organic enrichment. Remediation of copper and zinc is occurring much more slowly and it is unclear if these metals will return to background conditions. This raises an important point that if farms are fallowed to allow recovery from organic enrichment, but not long enough to allow recovery from metal contamination, metals may accumulate in high concentrations over subsequent production cycles. As the site recovers from organic enrichment, the metal complexes may break apart which in turn may cause the bioavailability and thus toxicity of metals to increase. While farms are fallowed to accomplish remediation of organic enrichment, the remediation process could lead to negative impacts with respect to metals, a possibility which has not yet been addressed in aquaculture regulations in British Columbia.
Although the conditions at Centre Cove have improved over the course of the study, the benthic impacts from finfish aquaculture at this site are severe compared to other farm sites in British Columbia. It is estimated that a full remediation to background sulphide conditions could take 15 years from the time that fish were last on site. The persistence of impacts and the slow remediation time at Centre Cove is likely due to the site’s slow current speeds and the fine sediment grain size. The MoE study at Centre Cove lends support to the idea that low current and fine-grained sediment sites in British Columbia are not well suited for intensive open net cage finfish aquaculture. "
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
And in other news from BC fish farms......
CANADA - Marine Harvest Canada (MHC) has withdrawn from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) certification process after the accidental drowning of six California sea lions at its Shelter Bay salmon farm near Port Hardy BC.
The sea lions were discovered by divers earlier in July while conducting routine underwater inspection of the farm’s predator defense netting.
A small opening into the enclosed area beneath one of the eight sea cages was closed off to prevent further incident. The matter has been reported to Fisheries and Oceans Canada in accordance with the farm’s license conditions. No farm fish escaped the containment net.
"Marine Harvest is very disappointed by the demise of these sea lions but affirms that its commitment to operate in a manner that avoids harm to sea lions remains in force," said Clare Backman, Marine Harvest’s Public Affairs Director.
"Marine production staff are now examining all farm sites to prevent a repeat occurrence," added Ms Backman.
Although it occurred two months after an on-site ASC audit, the incident exceeds the threshold criteria established by this standard. MHC has voluntarily withdrawn the farm from the ASC certification process.
- See more at: http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews...ealions-found-under-farm#sthash.uliOkp6I.dpuf
The horse has left the barn so we need to look to see if the door is open on all our barns.
Who would have thought that leaving the door open you would have had such an effect.
World class operations always has the barn door open.... its policy and procedure.
An they think we need less regulation so they don't have to report things like this.
Maybe have the "leaders in Ottawa" come up with paper work to hide this.
Out of site out of mind.....
CANADA - Marine Harvest Canada (MHC) has withdrawn from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) certification process after the accidental drowning of six California sea lions at its Shelter Bay salmon farm near Port Hardy BC.
The sea lions were discovered by divers earlier in July while conducting routine underwater inspection of the farm’s predator defense netting.
A small opening into the enclosed area beneath one of the eight sea cages was closed off to prevent further incident. The matter has been reported to Fisheries and Oceans Canada in accordance with the farm’s license conditions. No farm fish escaped the containment net.
"Marine Harvest is very disappointed by the demise of these sea lions but affirms that its commitment to operate in a manner that avoids harm to sea lions remains in force," said Clare Backman, Marine Harvest’s Public Affairs Director.
"Marine production staff are now examining all farm sites to prevent a repeat occurrence," added Ms Backman.
Although it occurred two months after an on-site ASC audit, the incident exceeds the threshold criteria established by this standard. MHC has voluntarily withdrawn the farm from the ASC certification process.
- See more at: http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews...ealions-found-under-farm#sthash.uliOkp6I.dpuf
The horse has left the barn so we need to look to see if the door is open on all our barns.
Who would have thought that leaving the door open you would have had such an effect.
World class operations always has the barn door open.... its policy and procedure.
An they think we need less regulation so they don't have to report things like this.
Maybe have the "leaders in Ottawa" come up with paper work to hide this.
Out of site out of mind.....
Thanks for that post, GLG. Interesting anyways. 6 is a pretty high number at one go. Especially for the California sea lions - which are in lower numbers.
Interesting that MHC has voluntarily withdrawn from the MSC certification program. Maybe there are less long-term ramifications if a company "voluntarily withdraws" verses being de-certified "involuntarily".
I do understand that sea lions, seals and birds are normal predators and occasionally end-up dead on fish farms. Not much anyone can do about that. Just wondered why they found 6 California sea lions dead in one pop. Seems quite a bit to get tangled in one inspection. Wonder if any of them had bullet holes in their heads.
Interesting that MHC has voluntarily withdrawn from the MSC certification program. Maybe there are less long-term ramifications if a company "voluntarily withdraws" verses being de-certified "involuntarily".
I do understand that sea lions, seals and birds are normal predators and occasionally end-up dead on fish farms. Not much anyone can do about that. Just wondered why they found 6 California sea lions dead in one pop. Seems quite a bit to get tangled in one inspection. Wonder if any of them had bullet holes in their heads.
Public Comment Period Ends October 22, 2014 on new proposed Aquaculture Activities Regulations in the Canada Gazette
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=862669&crtr.tp1D=930
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2014/2014-08-23/html/reg1-eng.php
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=862669&crtr.tp1D=930
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2014/2014-08-23/html/reg1-eng.php
http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear&day=24&id=71550&l=e&special&ndb=1+target=
Sea lice proved to be detrimental to wild salmon and sea trout
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/fish...e-review-nina-report-1044-september-2014/file
Wednesday, September 24, 2014, 03:10 (GMT + 9)
The Chairman and Board of Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI), the state agency responsible for the protection, management and conservation of Ireland's inland fisheries and sea angling resources, have welcomed the recent release of a definitive review of over 300 scientific publications on the effects sea lice can have on sea trout stocks.
A team of top international scientists from Norway, Scotland and Ireland reviewed all available published studies on the effects of sea lice and have now concluded that sea lice have negatively impacted wild sea trout stocks in salmon farming areas in Ireland, Scotland and Norway.
IFI highights that previously research was based on individually published studies but this new review reached its conclusions based on comprehensive studies of the effects of salmon lice from over 300 scientific publications. The project was funded by the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund, which provides investment in Norwegian seafood industry-based R&D with the objective of creating added value for the seafood industry.
The study also examined the potential effect of sea lice on salmon and concluded that sea lice have a potential significant and detrimental effect on marine survival of Atlantic salmon with potentially 12-44 per cent fewer salmon spawning in salmon farming areas.
"These conclusions concur with previously published Inland Fisheries Ireland research on the potential impact of sea lice from marine salmon farms on salmon survival," stated IFI Chairman Brendan O’Mahony.
The studies reviewed indicate that salmon farming increases the abundance of lice in marine habitats and that sea lice in intensively farmed areas have negatively impacted wild sea trout populations. The effects of sea lice on sea trout are increased marine mortality and reduced marine growth.
IFI says this new study confirms the evidence collected since the early 1990’s in Ireland regarding the impact of sea lice on wild sea trout stocks, particularly in relation to the collapse of Connemara’s sea trout stocks.
The Board of IFI has consistently called for marine salmon farms to maintain sea lice levels close to zero prior to and during the wild sea trout and salmon smolt migration period in spring. IFI has also raised concerns regarding the location of salmon farms in the estuaries of salmon and sea trout rivers.
IFI believes this new review confirms the need for very tight regulation of sea lice levels on salmon farms and raises legitimate concerns with regard to the potential impact of new, large scale salmon farms, proposed along Ireland’s west coast, on salmon and sea trout stocks.
The state agency expects that regulators will now consider the results of this comprehensive review when making decisions on the sustainability and approval of future marine salmon aquaculture licences and the regulation of sea lice at existing sites so as to ensure no negative impact on salmon and sea trout stocks.
Sea lice proved to be detrimental to wild salmon and sea trout
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/fish...e-review-nina-report-1044-september-2014/file
Wednesday, September 24, 2014, 03:10 (GMT + 9)
The Chairman and Board of Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI), the state agency responsible for the protection, management and conservation of Ireland's inland fisheries and sea angling resources, have welcomed the recent release of a definitive review of over 300 scientific publications on the effects sea lice can have on sea trout stocks.
A team of top international scientists from Norway, Scotland and Ireland reviewed all available published studies on the effects of sea lice and have now concluded that sea lice have negatively impacted wild sea trout stocks in salmon farming areas in Ireland, Scotland and Norway.
IFI highights that previously research was based on individually published studies but this new review reached its conclusions based on comprehensive studies of the effects of salmon lice from over 300 scientific publications. The project was funded by the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund, which provides investment in Norwegian seafood industry-based R&D with the objective of creating added value for the seafood industry.
The study also examined the potential effect of sea lice on salmon and concluded that sea lice have a potential significant and detrimental effect on marine survival of Atlantic salmon with potentially 12-44 per cent fewer salmon spawning in salmon farming areas.
"These conclusions concur with previously published Inland Fisheries Ireland research on the potential impact of sea lice from marine salmon farms on salmon survival," stated IFI Chairman Brendan O’Mahony.
The studies reviewed indicate that salmon farming increases the abundance of lice in marine habitats and that sea lice in intensively farmed areas have negatively impacted wild sea trout populations. The effects of sea lice on sea trout are increased marine mortality and reduced marine growth.
IFI says this new study confirms the evidence collected since the early 1990’s in Ireland regarding the impact of sea lice on wild sea trout stocks, particularly in relation to the collapse of Connemara’s sea trout stocks.
The Board of IFI has consistently called for marine salmon farms to maintain sea lice levels close to zero prior to and during the wild sea trout and salmon smolt migration period in spring. IFI has also raised concerns regarding the location of salmon farms in the estuaries of salmon and sea trout rivers.
IFI believes this new review confirms the need for very tight regulation of sea lice levels on salmon farms and raises legitimate concerns with regard to the potential impact of new, large scale salmon farms, proposed along Ireland’s west coast, on salmon and sea trout stocks.
The state agency expects that regulators will now consider the results of this comprehensive review when making decisions on the sustainability and approval of future marine salmon aquaculture licences and the regulation of sea lice at existing sites so as to ensure no negative impact on salmon and sea trout stocks.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/fish...e-review-nina-report-1044-september-2014/file
SUMMARY
Thorstad, E.B., Todd, C.D., Bjørn, P.A., Gargan, P.G., Vollset, K.W., Halttunen, E., Kålås, S., Uglem, I., Berg, M. & Finstad, B. 2014. Effects of salmon lice on sea trout - a literature review. NINA Report 1044, 1-162.
Salmon lice are external parasites on salmonids in the marine environment. Farmed salmonids also act as hosts for salmon lice; therefore open net cage farms can increase the production of infective larvae in coastal areas. The aim of this report is to review the existing knowledge on the effects of salmon lice on wild sea trout and focuses on reports in the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature. For this reason, reference to so-called “grey literature” reports has been minimized. The studies reviewed here range from laboratory and field investigations of the effects of salmon lice on individual fish, to analyses of impacts on wild populations.
Salmon lice feed on the host fish mucus, skin and muscle, causing tissue erosion. Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated that salmon lice may induce osmoregulatory dysfunction, physiological stress, anaemia, reduced feeding and growth, increased susceptibility to secondary infections, reduced disease resistance and mortality in individual sea trout.
Sea trout in farm-free areas generally show low levels of salmon lice. In farm-intensive areas, salmon lice levels vary considerably among studies and localities, ranging from low levels similar to farm-free areas to those indicating a risk of significant lice-induced mortality. Several studies have shown elevated salmon lice levels in wild sea trout adjacent to fish farms, particularly within 30 km of the nearest farms. Amongst salmonids, sea trout are especially vulnerable to salmon lice infestation because they typically remain in coastal waters during their marine residence, and coastal waters are the areas where open net cage Atlantic salmon farms typically are situated.
Based on the depend upon marine refuges in the winter. Large catchments with suitable year-round conditions for freshwater residents face a lower risk of loss of their brown trout populations. However, a severe reduction or loss of sea-migrating individual trout may result in (1) reduced future recruitment of trout, and (2) reduced or eliminated harvestable surplus of trout for fisheries.
Thus, loss of the improved growth opportunities for trout at sea and reduced recruitment to spawning may lead to lower total abundance of brown trout, and loss of the large veteran migrants popular among fishers and which may make a disproportionately large contribution to egg deposition within the overall population. Salmon lice-induced effects also might extend to altered genetic composition and diversity of trout populations, and the establishment of exclusively freshwater resident populations. Some monitoring studies have indicated that such changes may have occurred already in some catchments in farm-intensive areas; but the lack of comprehensive and long-term monitoring of sea trout populations and integrated studies of the effects of salmon lice at the population level make it difficult to draw specific conclusions in this respect.
Whilst the focus of the present report remains with the effects of salmon lice, it has also to be acknowledged that sea trout populations are affected also by a multiplicity of environmental and anthropogenic influences. There is local and regional variation in the importance of these other impact factors, and the status of sea trout varies accordingly across the distribution range. Other human-induced impact factors include climate change effects, pollution, overfishing, diseases caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi and other parasites. Some of these impacts perhaps are attributable to the increased geographic spread and biomass production of fish farming over recent decades, by hydropower development and other river flow regulation, migration obstacles and habitat alterations. The interactive effects of two or more impact factors may be complex and unpredictable. For sea trout populations experiencing negative anthropogenic impacts both in freshwater and at sea, there is need for co-ordinated mitigation measures.
There now is a good understanding of effects of salmon lice at the level of the individual host fish, and the most important knowledge gaps therefore pertain to the effects of salmon lice at the population level. Specifying and quantifying the reduction of wild sea trout populations as a result of increased mortality and reduced growth (and thereby fecundity) should be a priority research topic. In order to fully inform our understanding of population-level effects, more detailed and comprehensive information is required on sea trout marine migration behaviour, the foraging areas exploited by trout at sea and their vulnerability to salmon louse infestation. In contrast to Atlantic salmon, sea trout populations throughout the geographic distribution generally have been rather poorly studied, monitored and mapped. As a consequence, even the status of sea trout populations and a basic understanding of putative anthropogenic factors potentially impacting them are not well known for many catchments or watersheds.
SUMMARY
Thorstad, E.B., Todd, C.D., Bjørn, P.A., Gargan, P.G., Vollset, K.W., Halttunen, E., Kålås, S., Uglem, I., Berg, M. & Finstad, B. 2014. Effects of salmon lice on sea trout - a literature review. NINA Report 1044, 1-162.
Salmon lice are external parasites on salmonids in the marine environment. Farmed salmonids also act as hosts for salmon lice; therefore open net cage farms can increase the production of infective larvae in coastal areas. The aim of this report is to review the existing knowledge on the effects of salmon lice on wild sea trout and focuses on reports in the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature. For this reason, reference to so-called “grey literature” reports has been minimized. The studies reviewed here range from laboratory and field investigations of the effects of salmon lice on individual fish, to analyses of impacts on wild populations.
Salmon lice feed on the host fish mucus, skin and muscle, causing tissue erosion. Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated that salmon lice may induce osmoregulatory dysfunction, physiological stress, anaemia, reduced feeding and growth, increased susceptibility to secondary infections, reduced disease resistance and mortality in individual sea trout.
Sea trout in farm-free areas generally show low levels of salmon lice. In farm-intensive areas, salmon lice levels vary considerably among studies and localities, ranging from low levels similar to farm-free areas to those indicating a risk of significant lice-induced mortality. Several studies have shown elevated salmon lice levels in wild sea trout adjacent to fish farms, particularly within 30 km of the nearest farms. Amongst salmonids, sea trout are especially vulnerable to salmon lice infestation because they typically remain in coastal waters during their marine residence, and coastal waters are the areas where open net cage Atlantic salmon farms typically are situated.
Based on the depend upon marine refuges in the winter. Large catchments with suitable year-round conditions for freshwater residents face a lower risk of loss of their brown trout populations. However, a severe reduction or loss of sea-migrating individual trout may result in (1) reduced future recruitment of trout, and (2) reduced or eliminated harvestable surplus of trout for fisheries.
Thus, loss of the improved growth opportunities for trout at sea and reduced recruitment to spawning may lead to lower total abundance of brown trout, and loss of the large veteran migrants popular among fishers and which may make a disproportionately large contribution to egg deposition within the overall population. Salmon lice-induced effects also might extend to altered genetic composition and diversity of trout populations, and the establishment of exclusively freshwater resident populations. Some monitoring studies have indicated that such changes may have occurred already in some catchments in farm-intensive areas; but the lack of comprehensive and long-term monitoring of sea trout populations and integrated studies of the effects of salmon lice at the population level make it difficult to draw specific conclusions in this respect.
Whilst the focus of the present report remains with the effects of salmon lice, it has also to be acknowledged that sea trout populations are affected also by a multiplicity of environmental and anthropogenic influences. There is local and regional variation in the importance of these other impact factors, and the status of sea trout varies accordingly across the distribution range. Other human-induced impact factors include climate change effects, pollution, overfishing, diseases caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi and other parasites. Some of these impacts perhaps are attributable to the increased geographic spread and biomass production of fish farming over recent decades, by hydropower development and other river flow regulation, migration obstacles and habitat alterations. The interactive effects of two or more impact factors may be complex and unpredictable. For sea trout populations experiencing negative anthropogenic impacts both in freshwater and at sea, there is need for co-ordinated mitigation measures.
There now is a good understanding of effects of salmon lice at the level of the individual host fish, and the most important knowledge gaps therefore pertain to the effects of salmon lice at the population level. Specifying and quantifying the reduction of wild sea trout populations as a result of increased mortality and reduced growth (and thereby fecundity) should be a priority research topic. In order to fully inform our understanding of population-level effects, more detailed and comprehensive information is required on sea trout marine migration behaviour, the foraging areas exploited by trout at sea and their vulnerability to salmon louse infestation. In contrast to Atlantic salmon, sea trout populations throughout the geographic distribution generally have been rather poorly studied, monitored and mapped. As a consequence, even the status of sea trout populations and a basic understanding of putative anthropogenic factors potentially impacting them are not well known for many catchments or watersheds.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/aei2014/5/q005p221.pdf
Vol. 5: 221–233, 2014
doi: 10.3354/aei00105
AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS
Aquacult Environ Interact
Effects of salmon lice infection on the behaviour of
sea trout in the marine phase
Karl Øystein Gjelland1,*, Rosa Maria Serra-Llinares2, Richard David Hedger3,
Pablo Arechavala-Lopez2, 3,4, Rune Nilsen2, Bengt Finstad3, Ingebrigt Uglem3,
Ove Tommy Skilbrei2, Pål Arne Bjørn2
1Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, the Fram Centre, 9296 Tromsø, Norway
2Institute of Marine Research, 58171 Bergen, Norway
3Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, 7485 Trondheim, Norway
4Department of Marine Science and Applied Biology, University of Alicante, 03080 Alicante, Spain
ABSTRACT: Salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis Krøyer may affect survival and growth of
anadromous salmonids through physiological stress and/or behavioural changes. Using acoustic
telemetry tracking, we investigated the behaviour of 30 infected sea trout Salmo trutta throughout
the summer in a fjord with very high salmon lice infection pressure. Most of the tracked sea trout
adopted a movement pattern expected to suppress salmon lice infestation, as they showed a
strong preference for fresh or brackish water, spending most of the time close to a river outlet or
even migrating into the river. Highly infested sea trout preferred shallower depths, associated
with lower salinity. The fish lost to predation stayed further away from the river outlet than nonpredated
fish, and were likely subjected to a stronger infection pressure. Half of the tracked group
were treated with a salmon lice prophylaxis, emamectin benzoate. The effect of treatment on
infestation was monitored in a separate group held in a sea cage and found to be moderate; the
mortality in this group was associated with infestation by motile lice stages. In contrast, treatment
was not found to have an effect on tracked fish behaviour. It is likely that some physiological and
behavioural responses to high salmon lice infection pressure may be present even after a prophylaxis
treatment, in particular when the treatment is given after exposure to salmon lice infection.
We conclude that increased salmon lice infection pressure associated with altered salmon farming
practice may have the potential to influence the marine behaviour and growth of sea trout.
Vol. 5: 221–233, 2014
doi: 10.3354/aei00105
AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS
Aquacult Environ Interact
Effects of salmon lice infection on the behaviour of
sea trout in the marine phase
Karl Øystein Gjelland1,*, Rosa Maria Serra-Llinares2, Richard David Hedger3,
Pablo Arechavala-Lopez2, 3,4, Rune Nilsen2, Bengt Finstad3, Ingebrigt Uglem3,
Ove Tommy Skilbrei2, Pål Arne Bjørn2
1Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, the Fram Centre, 9296 Tromsø, Norway
2Institute of Marine Research, 58171 Bergen, Norway
3Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, 7485 Trondheim, Norway
4Department of Marine Science and Applied Biology, University of Alicante, 03080 Alicante, Spain
ABSTRACT: Salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis Krøyer may affect survival and growth of
anadromous salmonids through physiological stress and/or behavioural changes. Using acoustic
telemetry tracking, we investigated the behaviour of 30 infected sea trout Salmo trutta throughout
the summer in a fjord with very high salmon lice infection pressure. Most of the tracked sea trout
adopted a movement pattern expected to suppress salmon lice infestation, as they showed a
strong preference for fresh or brackish water, spending most of the time close to a river outlet or
even migrating into the river. Highly infested sea trout preferred shallower depths, associated
with lower salinity. The fish lost to predation stayed further away from the river outlet than nonpredated
fish, and were likely subjected to a stronger infection pressure. Half of the tracked group
were treated with a salmon lice prophylaxis, emamectin benzoate. The effect of treatment on
infestation was monitored in a separate group held in a sea cage and found to be moderate; the
mortality in this group was associated with infestation by motile lice stages. In contrast, treatment
was not found to have an effect on tracked fish behaviour. It is likely that some physiological and
behavioural responses to high salmon lice infection pressure may be present even after a prophylaxis
treatment, in particular when the treatment is given after exposure to salmon lice infection.
We conclude that increased salmon lice infection pressure associated with altered salmon farming
practice may have the potential to influence the marine behaviour and growth of sea trout.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/aei2014/5/q005p249.pdf
Vol. 5: 249–253, 2014
doi: 10.3354/aei00110
AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS
Aquacult Environ Interact
First report of winter epizootic of salmon lice on
sea trout in Norway
Knut Wiik Vollset, Bjørn Torgeir Barlaup
Uni Research − Environment, LFI, Thormøhlensgt. 49 B, 5006 Bergen, Norway
ABSTRACT: Here we report on the first observation of a winter epizootic of salmon lice Lepeophtheirus
salmonis Krøyer on sea trout Salmo trutta Linnaeus in a Norwegian fjord with intensive
salmon farming. Trouts were sampled and counts of lice in the field were made for 2 consecutive
winter seasons with trap nets in 2013 and 2014 just inside and outside the border to the National
Salmon Fjord in Sognefjorden, western Norway. The aim of the study was to document potential
epizootic outbreaks during the winter months. Following reports and field registrations of high
abundance of lice in February and early March 2014, 12 and 14 fish were sampled from the 2 locations
between 9 and 24 March and analyzed in the laboratory. Prevalence of sea lice on sampled
fish inside and outside the fjord was 100 and 74%, with a mean abundance of 254.3 and 26.8 and
a mean average intensity of 254.3 (max = 759) and 37.5 (max = 188), respectively. Chalimus stages
dominated on the fish. In comparison, prevalence and abundance based on field observations in
2013 were low and dominated by adult stages. We suggest that the winter epizootic observed in
2014 and not in 2013 may be a result of the combined effect of production of salmon lice in nearby
fish farms and the prevailing environmental conditions.
Vol. 5: 249–253, 2014
doi: 10.3354/aei00110
AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS
Aquacult Environ Interact
First report of winter epizootic of salmon lice on
sea trout in Norway
Knut Wiik Vollset, Bjørn Torgeir Barlaup
Uni Research − Environment, LFI, Thormøhlensgt. 49 B, 5006 Bergen, Norway
ABSTRACT: Here we report on the first observation of a winter epizootic of salmon lice Lepeophtheirus
salmonis Krøyer on sea trout Salmo trutta Linnaeus in a Norwegian fjord with intensive
salmon farming. Trouts were sampled and counts of lice in the field were made for 2 consecutive
winter seasons with trap nets in 2013 and 2014 just inside and outside the border to the National
Salmon Fjord in Sognefjorden, western Norway. The aim of the study was to document potential
epizootic outbreaks during the winter months. Following reports and field registrations of high
abundance of lice in February and early March 2014, 12 and 14 fish were sampled from the 2 locations
between 9 and 24 March and analyzed in the laboratory. Prevalence of sea lice on sampled
fish inside and outside the fjord was 100 and 74%, with a mean abundance of 254.3 and 26.8 and
a mean average intensity of 254.3 (max = 759) and 37.5 (max = 188), respectively. Chalimus stages
dominated on the fish. In comparison, prevalence and abundance based on field observations in
2013 were low and dominated by adult stages. We suggest that the winter epizootic observed in
2014 and not in 2013 may be a result of the combined effect of production of salmon lice in nearby
fish farms and the prevailing environmental conditions.
tincan
Well-Known Member
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/salmon+farmers+pledge+meet+global+standard/10232612/story.html
B.C. salmon farmers pledge to meet new global standard
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council certification was developed by industry and environmental groups
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...al+standard/10232612/story.html#ixzz3EoriDkEx
Fewer than one in 20 of the world’s salmon farms have achieved Aquaculture Stewardship Council environmental certification, but B.C.’s salmon aquaculture companies have committed to 100-per-cent certification in this region by 2020.
“The members of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association want to achieve the gold standard in certification,” said Jeremy Dunn, executive director of the association.
The creation of council certification was initiated by the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) about 10 years ago and introduced in 2012, after a process involving 2,000 representatives of the industry, retail and food service and environmental organizations. There are detailed aquaculture standards for 12 species — including salmon — that must be met before a product can carry the ASC logo.
It will not be an easy road for B.C. farmers.
“The commitment to being certified is not the same as being certified,” said Jay Ritchlin, western region director of the David Suzuki Foundation. “The process that the David Suzuki Foundation supported is incredibly rigorous and designed to be applicable to the top 20 or 25 per cent of performers in the world.”
Ritchlin served on the steering committee of the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogues, a series of meetings that hammered out the certification standards, which were then adopted by the ASC.
No salmon farms in B.C. have yet met the standard and only one has pursued the process, he said. “Every farm that wants to use that logo has to pass that certification individually.”
ASC certification assesses environmental impacts such as disease transference to wild salmon, the effects of feed and feces on the ecology of the ocean floor, escapes by farm fish, sustainability and traceability of feed sources, as well as economic and social impacts on surrounding communities, including First Nations, according to Jose Villalon, board member and founding chair of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
Villalon, a former shrimp farmer, is in Vancouver to speak on food security during Aquaculture Awareness Week, Sept. 21-27.
“The great thing about the standard is that it is science-based and measurable,” said Villalon. “Rather than the typical environment and social standards that are nice-sounding rhetoric ... more than 150 items are audited in order to comply and if you have too many sea lice per kilo, for example, you just don’t qualify.”
Ritchlin warned that even ASC certification might not be enough to move B.C. farmed Atlantic salmon off the “avoid” lists maintained by SeaChoice or the Vancouver Aquarium’s OceanWise program.
“This is a single farm certification system, so one thing this process does not do is to speak to the overall impact of the industry in an area,” said Ritchlin. “It should perform well with regard to waste going into the ocean and does some good things around disease (transference), but parasites and disease are almost impossible to stop in ocean-based net pen aquaculture.”
The standards likely will make it easier for land-based, closed-containment salmon farms to achieve certification, a direction for the industry that is being keenly encouraged by the Suzuki foundation, he said.
rshore@vancouversun.com
B.C. salmon farmers pledge to meet new global standard
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council certification was developed by industry and environmental groups
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...al+standard/10232612/story.html#ixzz3EoriDkEx
Fewer than one in 20 of the world’s salmon farms have achieved Aquaculture Stewardship Council environmental certification, but B.C.’s salmon aquaculture companies have committed to 100-per-cent certification in this region by 2020.
“The members of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association want to achieve the gold standard in certification,” said Jeremy Dunn, executive director of the association.
The creation of council certification was initiated by the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) about 10 years ago and introduced in 2012, after a process involving 2,000 representatives of the industry, retail and food service and environmental organizations. There are detailed aquaculture standards for 12 species — including salmon — that must be met before a product can carry the ASC logo.
It will not be an easy road for B.C. farmers.
“The commitment to being certified is not the same as being certified,” said Jay Ritchlin, western region director of the David Suzuki Foundation. “The process that the David Suzuki Foundation supported is incredibly rigorous and designed to be applicable to the top 20 or 25 per cent of performers in the world.”
Ritchlin served on the steering committee of the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogues, a series of meetings that hammered out the certification standards, which were then adopted by the ASC.
No salmon farms in B.C. have yet met the standard and only one has pursued the process, he said. “Every farm that wants to use that logo has to pass that certification individually.”
ASC certification assesses environmental impacts such as disease transference to wild salmon, the effects of feed and feces on the ecology of the ocean floor, escapes by farm fish, sustainability and traceability of feed sources, as well as economic and social impacts on surrounding communities, including First Nations, according to Jose Villalon, board member and founding chair of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
Villalon, a former shrimp farmer, is in Vancouver to speak on food security during Aquaculture Awareness Week, Sept. 21-27.
“The great thing about the standard is that it is science-based and measurable,” said Villalon. “Rather than the typical environment and social standards that are nice-sounding rhetoric ... more than 150 items are audited in order to comply and if you have too many sea lice per kilo, for example, you just don’t qualify.”
Ritchlin warned that even ASC certification might not be enough to move B.C. farmed Atlantic salmon off the “avoid” lists maintained by SeaChoice or the Vancouver Aquarium’s OceanWise program.
“This is a single farm certification system, so one thing this process does not do is to speak to the overall impact of the industry in an area,” said Ritchlin. “It should perform well with regard to waste going into the ocean and does some good things around disease (transference), but parasites and disease are almost impossible to stop in ocean-based net pen aquaculture.”
The standards likely will make it easier for land-based, closed-containment salmon farms to achieve certification, a direction for the industry that is being keenly encouraged by the Suzuki foundation, he said.
rshore@vancouversun.com
http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/...n-provided-seriously-inaccurate-escape-data/1
The Telegram>Opinion>Letter to the editor
Aquaculture association provided seriously inaccurate escape data
Published on June 18, 2014Share 0 16 Comment
In her letter to The Telegram published June 7, Miranda Pryor, executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Aquaculture Industry Association, accuses Bill Taylor, president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, of being “grossly inaccurate.”
Bill had cited 750,000 reported fish escaping from the aquaculture industry’s sea cages in Newfoundland in his commentary that appeared earlier in The Telegram.
The number Bill Taylor used was provided at the annual Fisheries and Oceans Canada Salmonid Advisory Workshop that took place in Gander last fall. A joint presentation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador provided numbers that added up to 784,672 escaped salmonids (Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout and char).
All of these farmed fish threaten wild salmon as they are vectors for spreading infectious salmon anemia, bacterial diseases and sea lice, and they compete with wild salmon for food, space and spawning gravel.
In addition, when escaped farmed salmon and wild salmon interbreed, this contributes to weakening of the wild gene pool over time, which can eventually wipe out the wild run.
I would add that the 784,672 does not include the escape that took place last fall from the Cooke Aquaculture site in Hermitage Bay, reported to be 20,000 farmed salmon, nor does it include any chronic trickle losses, unreported escapes or losses due to accounting errors. So the total number of salmonid escapes is now over 800,000.
Public reporting of escapes and a long-term database of all incidents of farmed escapes, the location of the incident and the number of escapees are needed.
It would make sense for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as the department with ultimate responsibility for protecting wild salmon and dealing with the impacts of fish farming, to post this information to a website in a timely manner.
It is a telling statement on the lack of government transparency and accountability when the public and media are forced to submit requests to access to information to get accurate details on escape incidents.
I note that Pryor invites the media to contact her for accurate information. The media might also want to check with independent sources to end up with as factual information as possible for those who follow the news.
Sue Scott
VP, Communications
Atlantic Salmon Federation
The Telegram>Opinion>Letter to the editor
Aquaculture association provided seriously inaccurate escape data
Published on June 18, 2014Share 0 16 Comment
In her letter to The Telegram published June 7, Miranda Pryor, executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Aquaculture Industry Association, accuses Bill Taylor, president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, of being “grossly inaccurate.”
Bill had cited 750,000 reported fish escaping from the aquaculture industry’s sea cages in Newfoundland in his commentary that appeared earlier in The Telegram.
The number Bill Taylor used was provided at the annual Fisheries and Oceans Canada Salmonid Advisory Workshop that took place in Gander last fall. A joint presentation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador provided numbers that added up to 784,672 escaped salmonids (Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout and char).
All of these farmed fish threaten wild salmon as they are vectors for spreading infectious salmon anemia, bacterial diseases and sea lice, and they compete with wild salmon for food, space and spawning gravel.
In addition, when escaped farmed salmon and wild salmon interbreed, this contributes to weakening of the wild gene pool over time, which can eventually wipe out the wild run.
I would add that the 784,672 does not include the escape that took place last fall from the Cooke Aquaculture site in Hermitage Bay, reported to be 20,000 farmed salmon, nor does it include any chronic trickle losses, unreported escapes or losses due to accounting errors. So the total number of salmonid escapes is now over 800,000.
Public reporting of escapes and a long-term database of all incidents of farmed escapes, the location of the incident and the number of escapees are needed.
It would make sense for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as the department with ultimate responsibility for protecting wild salmon and dealing with the impacts of fish farming, to post this information to a website in a timely manner.
It is a telling statement on the lack of government transparency and accountability when the public and media are forced to submit requests to access to information to get accurate details on escape incidents.
I note that Pryor invites the media to contact her for accurate information. The media might also want to check with independent sources to end up with as factual information as possible for those who follow the news.
Sue Scott
VP, Communications
Atlantic Salmon Federation
Last edited by a moderator:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/harv...-on-the-farm-letters-to-the-editor-1412362878
LETTERS
Harvesting Wild Salmon and Those Down on the Farm
I have seen firsthand the effects of fish farming in the open seas.
3 COMMENTS
Oct. 3, 2014 3:01 p.m. ET
I have seen firsthand the effects of fish farming in the open seas (“Farmed Salmon Gets Respect,” Personal Journal, Sept. 25). It is devastating to the wild salmon runs in the vicinity. Escapes of farmed salmon are frequent occurrences in open-net pen fish farming. Salmon that escape can enter rivers and breed with wild salmon, causing reduced genetic diversity and fitness in wild populations. In addition to escapes, the east coast Canadian industry has been plagued by sea lice and disease outbreaks. Sea lice are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment, prompting industry to use more toxic chemicals to control outbreaks, sometimes illegally, resulting in the deaths of crustaceans such as lobster.
I commend Whole Foods for buying all of its farmed salmon for its Midwest U.S. stores from a land-based salmon farmer in Iceland. The Atlantic Salmon Federation, an international wild Atlantic salmon conservation organization, is working in partnership with the Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute in West Virginia to develop the technology to grow Atlantic salmon in land-based, closed-containment facilities. The result has been a farmed product that has no need for antibiotics or harsh chemicals to control disease and parasites, faster growth, no uneaten food or feces contaminating the sea floor, no disease spread to the environment and no escapes. There are entrepreneurs who are using this technology, and their product is beginning to be marketed. This should please discriminating chefs who truly want great taste plus a product that doesn’t harm the environment.
Bill Taylor
President
Atlantic Salmon Federation
St. Andrews, New Brunswick
LETTERS
Harvesting Wild Salmon and Those Down on the Farm
I have seen firsthand the effects of fish farming in the open seas.
3 COMMENTS
Oct. 3, 2014 3:01 p.m. ET
I have seen firsthand the effects of fish farming in the open seas (“Farmed Salmon Gets Respect,” Personal Journal, Sept. 25). It is devastating to the wild salmon runs in the vicinity. Escapes of farmed salmon are frequent occurrences in open-net pen fish farming. Salmon that escape can enter rivers and breed with wild salmon, causing reduced genetic diversity and fitness in wild populations. In addition to escapes, the east coast Canadian industry has been plagued by sea lice and disease outbreaks. Sea lice are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment, prompting industry to use more toxic chemicals to control outbreaks, sometimes illegally, resulting in the deaths of crustaceans such as lobster.
I commend Whole Foods for buying all of its farmed salmon for its Midwest U.S. stores from a land-based salmon farmer in Iceland. The Atlantic Salmon Federation, an international wild Atlantic salmon conservation organization, is working in partnership with the Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute in West Virginia to develop the technology to grow Atlantic salmon in land-based, closed-containment facilities. The result has been a farmed product that has no need for antibiotics or harsh chemicals to control disease and parasites, faster growth, no uneaten food or feces contaminating the sea floor, no disease spread to the environment and no escapes. There are entrepreneurs who are using this technology, and their product is beginning to be marketed. This should please discriminating chefs who truly want great taste plus a product that doesn’t harm the environment.
Bill Taylor
President
Atlantic Salmon Federation
St. Andrews, New Brunswick
http://www.vancouversun.com/busines...farming+delights+industry/10278463/story.html
Federal report on B.C. salmon farming delights industry
But biologist calls the data released ‘very coarse and of little utility’
BY PETER O'NEIL, VANCOUVER SUN OCTOBER 9, 2014
Federal report on B.C. salmon farming delights industry
A federal report shows inproving inspections reports for fish farms in B.C.
Photograph by: bill keay , vancouver sun
OTTAWA — The B.C. aquaculture industry says new federal figures on the health of B.C.’s farmed salmon sends a positive signal about the industry’s performance.
The information comes two years after Justice Bruce Cohen, in a $37-million report on the state of the Fraser River sockeye fishery, called on Ottawa to be more open with its scientific data.
While one critic called the latest disclosure inadequate and misleading, the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association said it provides evidence that contradicts criticism from environmentalists about fish farming.
“Our members are glad to see this information made publicly available on a regular basis so that people can see for themselves the good health and compliance records we have on salmon farms in B.C.,” said association executive director Jeremy Dunn.
The data showed an increase in the past two years in federal inspections and a better industry performance compared to 2011, when there were 71 site visits and in only about a third *— 24 — did inspectors fail to find deficiencies, such as poor record-keeping on incidence of lice and technical problems with sanitizers.
There were 118 visits in 2012 and a much higher proportion of farms showed no deficiencies — 77. The result was almost identical last year, with 120 inspections and 83 sites having no deficiencies.
The association noted that many of the deficiencies involved paperwork mistakes.
Stan Proboszcz, a biologist with the organization Watershed Watch, said the data that was released has a glaring omission — the lack of details on disease and pathogens that may have been found in salmon carcasses.
“Doesn’t the public have a right to know if farm fish are sick in public waters?”
Proboszcz called the data release “very coarse and of little utility.”
He said that when the B.C. government was responsible for the sector, before a 2009 court ruling that shifted jurisdiction to Ottawa in a case brought by environmentalists troubled by Victoria’s handling of the industry, reports of pathogen and disease incidence were regularly made public.
B.C. fish farms have had bad publicity over salmon health, including viral outbreaks in 2012 at three farms. Two companies received $4.1 million in compensation under a federal program that bails out farmers and ranchers for losing livestock due to disease.
Proboszcz suggested Ottawa isn’t releasing more detailed data on sick fish due to concerns expressed by industry worried about bad publicity.
Not true, says Dunn.
“Our understanding is they (federal Fisheries department officials) are working on that data and it will be included soon.”
However, Fisheries wouldn’t say Thursday whether such data will be made public.
poneil@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/poneilinottawa
===
Click here to report a typo or visit vancouversun.com/typo.
Is there more to this story? We'd like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. CLICK HERE or go to vancouversun.com/moretothestory
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Federal...ts+industry/10278463/story.html#ixzz3Flc6Aokw
Federal report on B.C. salmon farming delights industry
But biologist calls the data released ‘very coarse and of little utility’
BY PETER O'NEIL, VANCOUVER SUN OCTOBER 9, 2014
Federal report on B.C. salmon farming delights industry
A federal report shows inproving inspections reports for fish farms in B.C.
Photograph by: bill keay , vancouver sun
OTTAWA — The B.C. aquaculture industry says new federal figures on the health of B.C.’s farmed salmon sends a positive signal about the industry’s performance.
The information comes two years after Justice Bruce Cohen, in a $37-million report on the state of the Fraser River sockeye fishery, called on Ottawa to be more open with its scientific data.
While one critic called the latest disclosure inadequate and misleading, the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association said it provides evidence that contradicts criticism from environmentalists about fish farming.
“Our members are glad to see this information made publicly available on a regular basis so that people can see for themselves the good health and compliance records we have on salmon farms in B.C.,” said association executive director Jeremy Dunn.
The data showed an increase in the past two years in federal inspections and a better industry performance compared to 2011, when there were 71 site visits and in only about a third *— 24 — did inspectors fail to find deficiencies, such as poor record-keeping on incidence of lice and technical problems with sanitizers.
There were 118 visits in 2012 and a much higher proportion of farms showed no deficiencies — 77. The result was almost identical last year, with 120 inspections and 83 sites having no deficiencies.
The association noted that many of the deficiencies involved paperwork mistakes.
Stan Proboszcz, a biologist with the organization Watershed Watch, said the data that was released has a glaring omission — the lack of details on disease and pathogens that may have been found in salmon carcasses.
“Doesn’t the public have a right to know if farm fish are sick in public waters?”
Proboszcz called the data release “very coarse and of little utility.”
He said that when the B.C. government was responsible for the sector, before a 2009 court ruling that shifted jurisdiction to Ottawa in a case brought by environmentalists troubled by Victoria’s handling of the industry, reports of pathogen and disease incidence were regularly made public.
B.C. fish farms have had bad publicity over salmon health, including viral outbreaks in 2012 at three farms. Two companies received $4.1 million in compensation under a federal program that bails out farmers and ranchers for losing livestock due to disease.
Proboszcz suggested Ottawa isn’t releasing more detailed data on sick fish due to concerns expressed by industry worried about bad publicity.
Not true, says Dunn.
“Our understanding is they (federal Fisheries department officials) are working on that data and it will be included soon.”
However, Fisheries wouldn’t say Thursday whether such data will be made public.
poneil@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/poneilinottawa
===
Click here to report a typo or visit vancouversun.com/typo.
Is there more to this story? We'd like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. CLICK HERE or go to vancouversun.com/moretothestory
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Federal...ts+industry/10278463/story.html#ixzz3Flc6Aokw
Last edited by a moderator:
ASF Press Releases
Salmon News
Above: Jonathan Carr on the Conne River in southern Newfoundland
On CBC's Fisheries Broadcast, Jonathan Carr, ASF's Vice-President of Research and Environment, provides a perspective on DFO's decision to release Newfoundland farmed salmon to track where they go. He also notes that everyone already knows they enter salmon rivers along the south coast of Newfoundland.
nlfisheries-carr-out.mp3 13.0MB http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/0dd/3d1/146/nlfisheries-carr-out.mp3
See more at: http://asf.ca/jon-carr-of-asf-on-experiment-to-release-nl-farmed-salmon.html#sthash.Z6qrKYIc.dpuf
Salmon News
Above: Jonathan Carr on the Conne River in southern Newfoundland
On CBC's Fisheries Broadcast, Jonathan Carr, ASF's Vice-President of Research and Environment, provides a perspective on DFO's decision to release Newfoundland farmed salmon to track where they go. He also notes that everyone already knows they enter salmon rivers along the south coast of Newfoundland.
nlfisheries-carr-out.mp3 13.0MB http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/0dd/3d1/146/nlfisheries-carr-out.mp3
See more at: http://asf.ca/jon-carr-of-asf-on-experiment-to-release-nl-farmed-salmon.html#sthash.Z6qrKYIc.dpuf
http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1247694-counterpoint-wild-salmon-collapse-hardly-a-mystery
COUNTERPOINT: Wild salmon collapse hardly a mystery
JIM GOURLAY
Published October 30, 2014 - 5:31pm
Last Updated October 30, 2014 - 5:58pm
Re: “Source of N.S. salmon decline elusive,” (Oct. 13). While I commend your Truro correspondent for penning an article on the ongoing precipitous decline of wild Atlantic salmon in Nova Scotia, the headline and the story leave the erroneous impression that the reasons for the steady extirpation of this amazing species are not well understood. This is entirely wrong.
During a lifetime of wild salmon conservation work, I’ve learned first-hand that the main reason for the precipitous losses of wild stocks is a habitual lack of political will to respond in any meaningful or effective way to the crisis.
While it is true that we do seem to have a smolt survival problem at sea that is not yet well understood, we have very clear and well-understood issues that successive governments at both levels have for decades blithely refused to act to mitigate. The primary responsibility for migratory Atlantic salmon management lies with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, whose record on this file can only be described as a dereliction of duty on an epic scale, rivalled only by the politically tainted calamitous failure of the northern cod stocks due to chronic mismanagement.
The abuses of this iconic species and its habitat in this province are many, and include sloppy logging practices, but two really stand out. (Bear in mind that in the mid-’60s Nova Scotia still had about 72 healthy salmon-bearing streams.)
We have now lost all or part of at least 17 major systems due to acid precipitation. In Norway, more than 40 rivers were impacted by acid rain from Eastern Europe. Most have been successfully protected because the government of Norway has for decades been investing more than $20 million annually liming its acidified watersheds, and the lucrative sport fishery has been salvaged.
Although the Norwegians have done the heavy lifting pioneering liming techniques, and the technology and know-how has long been readily available, the government of Canada has not lifted a finger or expended a nickel to combat the ravages of the acidification of Nova Scotia’s rivers.
Every single salmon stream draining into the Bay of Fundy — 10 in New Brunswick and 23 in Nova Scotia — has suffered a catastrophic wild stock loss of more than 40,000 fish that commenced in the late ’60s. This environmental disaster of global proportions followed, by about a decade, the development of net-pen salmon aquaculture in the Bay of Fundy and the escape into the wild of hundreds of thousands (more than 400,000 in a single year) of genetically inferior non-wild salmon, which then invaded those rivers.
The circumstances and the timing mirror the dramatic wild salmonid declines in Norway, western Scotland and western Ireland pursuant to the development of the pen-raised salmon industry and is considered, even by DFO scientists (before they were muzzled) to be highly suspect as a key contributing factor in the loss of 23 Nova Scotia rivers as salmon streams.
For those of us who care — it’s an appalling and shameful record. Those of you who don’t really consider it a big deal may wish to consider how your children and grandchildren might fare living on a planet where a robust and powerful species like Atlantic salmon cannot survive.
We can only hope at this time, as we peer into the abyss for wild Atlantic salmon, that enough concern, anger and noise will be generated to shame those who posture as “leaders” to finally act.
Jim Gourlay, Cloverdale
COUNTERPOINT: Wild salmon collapse hardly a mystery
JIM GOURLAY
Published October 30, 2014 - 5:31pm
Last Updated October 30, 2014 - 5:58pm
Re: “Source of N.S. salmon decline elusive,” (Oct. 13). While I commend your Truro correspondent for penning an article on the ongoing precipitous decline of wild Atlantic salmon in Nova Scotia, the headline and the story leave the erroneous impression that the reasons for the steady extirpation of this amazing species are not well understood. This is entirely wrong.
During a lifetime of wild salmon conservation work, I’ve learned first-hand that the main reason for the precipitous losses of wild stocks is a habitual lack of political will to respond in any meaningful or effective way to the crisis.
While it is true that we do seem to have a smolt survival problem at sea that is not yet well understood, we have very clear and well-understood issues that successive governments at both levels have for decades blithely refused to act to mitigate. The primary responsibility for migratory Atlantic salmon management lies with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, whose record on this file can only be described as a dereliction of duty on an epic scale, rivalled only by the politically tainted calamitous failure of the northern cod stocks due to chronic mismanagement.
The abuses of this iconic species and its habitat in this province are many, and include sloppy logging practices, but two really stand out. (Bear in mind that in the mid-’60s Nova Scotia still had about 72 healthy salmon-bearing streams.)
We have now lost all or part of at least 17 major systems due to acid precipitation. In Norway, more than 40 rivers were impacted by acid rain from Eastern Europe. Most have been successfully protected because the government of Norway has for decades been investing more than $20 million annually liming its acidified watersheds, and the lucrative sport fishery has been salvaged.
Although the Norwegians have done the heavy lifting pioneering liming techniques, and the technology and know-how has long been readily available, the government of Canada has not lifted a finger or expended a nickel to combat the ravages of the acidification of Nova Scotia’s rivers.
Every single salmon stream draining into the Bay of Fundy — 10 in New Brunswick and 23 in Nova Scotia — has suffered a catastrophic wild stock loss of more than 40,000 fish that commenced in the late ’60s. This environmental disaster of global proportions followed, by about a decade, the development of net-pen salmon aquaculture in the Bay of Fundy and the escape into the wild of hundreds of thousands (more than 400,000 in a single year) of genetically inferior non-wild salmon, which then invaded those rivers.
The circumstances and the timing mirror the dramatic wild salmonid declines in Norway, western Scotland and western Ireland pursuant to the development of the pen-raised salmon industry and is considered, even by DFO scientists (before they were muzzled) to be highly suspect as a key contributing factor in the loss of 23 Nova Scotia rivers as salmon streams.
For those of us who care — it’s an appalling and shameful record. Those of you who don’t really consider it a big deal may wish to consider how your children and grandchildren might fare living on a planet where a robust and powerful species like Atlantic salmon cannot survive.
We can only hope at this time, as we peer into the abyss for wild Atlantic salmon, that enough concern, anger and noise will be generated to shame those who posture as “leaders” to finally act.
Jim Gourlay, Cloverdale
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/57993-eastern-shore-salmon-farm-proposal-morally-indefensible
Eastern Shore salmon farm proposal morally indefensible
BY JIM GOURLAY
Published February 2, 2012 - 5:34am
Last Updated February 2, 2012 - 8:52am
West River Sheet Harbour is backdropped by a newly constructed lime doser that helps normalize the river's acid levels. (TIM KROCHAK / Staff)
That fresh water systems in much of Nova Scotia have suffered devastating damage from acid rain is well known: We just don’t talk about it much anymore. Innumerable lakes have been ruined and 14 Atlantic Coast rivers have completely lost their Atlantic salmon, while 20 more have seen salmon runs reduced by up to 90 per cent.
Sweden and Norway have been similarly impacted. Norway spends somewhere north of $20 million a year successfully treating its priceless rivers, and has pioneered watershed liming. Sweden has done likewise.
Canada has done absolutely nothing to mitigate this environmental disaster.
Frustrated, angry and disillusioned, the 100 per cent volunteer Nova Scotia Salmon Association, with support from the Atlantic Salmon Federation and Northern Pulp, took on a huge fundraising effort to install Norwegian technology on an acidified Nova Scotia river as a demonstration project.
After seven years of liming, $600,000 in raised funds, and 18,000 hours of volunteer labour, the pH of West River Sheet Harbour has been normalized, and juvenile Atlantic salmon populations boosted by 300 per cent — so far. Trout are also on the rebound. All good …
Except the governments of Nova Scotia and Canada now propose to license a marine salmon farm near the Sheet Harbour estuary. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that the presence of marine cages would utterly sabotage the dedicated work of the NGOs and their volunteers. Why?
•Unnaturally high infestations of sea lice:
In Norway, the salmon runs in 35 rivers were devastated when marine salmon farms were located in adjoining fiords. Blooms of parasitic sea lice traced to the farms decimated wild salmon smolts as they migrated to sea.
In western Scotland, following the expansion of salmon aquaculture in the sea lochs, wild salmon stocks have been in freefall. Salmon farms have been deliberately kept away from the east coast (where wild stocks are improving).
In Ireland, west coast rivers have been similarly impacted and sea lice from salmon farms have been independently verified as the major factor.
In Newfoundland, the only seriously ailing salmon stream on the whole island has a salmon farm near its estuary.
In the inner Bay of Fundy, we have completely lost the salmon runs to 33 rivers coincident with the growth of salmon aquaculture in the outer bay.
In British Columbia, a clear connection has been made between salmon farms, sea lice, and declining runs of pink and coho salmon in those rivers where farms have been sited.
Is anybody seeing a pattern here yet?
Sea lice are becoming resistant to available insecticides and the industry is panicked. Even as its PR machine makes outlandish claims of environmental sustainability, serious charges have been laid in connection with extensive shellfish poisoning in New Brunswick and Maine, allegedly as the result of illegal insecticide use on farmed fish. (Nothing has been proved.)
An industry spokesperson has been quoted as saying Nova Scotia is seeing rapid expansion of salmon aquaculture because the industry is only lightly regulated here. The company proposing to expand on the Eastern Shore is headquartered in Scotland. But Scottish Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson is now speaking openly about banning salmon farms close to salmon rivers.
In Norway, the head of the Directorate for Nature Management has publicly suggested the sea lice situation has become so severe that marine-based salmon aquaculture should be cut in half to protect wild fish.
•Disease:
Salmon farms worldwide have been implicated in the spread of fatal diseases such as furunculosis and infectious salmon anemia (ISA) among wild salmon.
•Escapes:
Global losses of (vastly inferior) genetically manipulated salmon from marine pens now outnumber wild fish populations many times over. Interbreeding results in mass spawning failure and contributes to the decline in wild fish. Some European rivers (and at least one in New Brunswick) host more aquaculture escapes than wild fish.
So why are we repeating others’ mistakes? Are we really prepared to sacrifice a major natural resource for 20 low-paying jobs and profits for a foreign company?
That Canadian governments should insipidly ignore an environmental disaster of global proportions is shameful. That those same governments should propose to risk wrecking the efforts of volunteers — to do the job they should have done — is morally indefensible.
The public meeting on the proposed salmon aquaculture sites is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 6, at 6 p.m. at the Sheet Harbour legion.
Jim Gourlay is a past-president of the Nova Scotia Salmon Association and a recipient of the Nova Scotia Lieutenant-Governor’s Conservation Award for his work on behalf of wild Atlantic salmon.
Eastern Shore salmon farm proposal morally indefensible
BY JIM GOURLAY
Published February 2, 2012 - 5:34am
Last Updated February 2, 2012 - 8:52am
West River Sheet Harbour is backdropped by a newly constructed lime doser that helps normalize the river's acid levels. (TIM KROCHAK / Staff)
That fresh water systems in much of Nova Scotia have suffered devastating damage from acid rain is well known: We just don’t talk about it much anymore. Innumerable lakes have been ruined and 14 Atlantic Coast rivers have completely lost their Atlantic salmon, while 20 more have seen salmon runs reduced by up to 90 per cent.
Sweden and Norway have been similarly impacted. Norway spends somewhere north of $20 million a year successfully treating its priceless rivers, and has pioneered watershed liming. Sweden has done likewise.
Canada has done absolutely nothing to mitigate this environmental disaster.
Frustrated, angry and disillusioned, the 100 per cent volunteer Nova Scotia Salmon Association, with support from the Atlantic Salmon Federation and Northern Pulp, took on a huge fundraising effort to install Norwegian technology on an acidified Nova Scotia river as a demonstration project.
After seven years of liming, $600,000 in raised funds, and 18,000 hours of volunteer labour, the pH of West River Sheet Harbour has been normalized, and juvenile Atlantic salmon populations boosted by 300 per cent — so far. Trout are also on the rebound. All good …
Except the governments of Nova Scotia and Canada now propose to license a marine salmon farm near the Sheet Harbour estuary. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that the presence of marine cages would utterly sabotage the dedicated work of the NGOs and their volunteers. Why?
•Unnaturally high infestations of sea lice:
In Norway, the salmon runs in 35 rivers were devastated when marine salmon farms were located in adjoining fiords. Blooms of parasitic sea lice traced to the farms decimated wild salmon smolts as they migrated to sea.
In western Scotland, following the expansion of salmon aquaculture in the sea lochs, wild salmon stocks have been in freefall. Salmon farms have been deliberately kept away from the east coast (where wild stocks are improving).
In Ireland, west coast rivers have been similarly impacted and sea lice from salmon farms have been independently verified as the major factor.
In Newfoundland, the only seriously ailing salmon stream on the whole island has a salmon farm near its estuary.
In the inner Bay of Fundy, we have completely lost the salmon runs to 33 rivers coincident with the growth of salmon aquaculture in the outer bay.
In British Columbia, a clear connection has been made between salmon farms, sea lice, and declining runs of pink and coho salmon in those rivers where farms have been sited.
Is anybody seeing a pattern here yet?
Sea lice are becoming resistant to available insecticides and the industry is panicked. Even as its PR machine makes outlandish claims of environmental sustainability, serious charges have been laid in connection with extensive shellfish poisoning in New Brunswick and Maine, allegedly as the result of illegal insecticide use on farmed fish. (Nothing has been proved.)
An industry spokesperson has been quoted as saying Nova Scotia is seeing rapid expansion of salmon aquaculture because the industry is only lightly regulated here. The company proposing to expand on the Eastern Shore is headquartered in Scotland. But Scottish Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson is now speaking openly about banning salmon farms close to salmon rivers.
In Norway, the head of the Directorate for Nature Management has publicly suggested the sea lice situation has become so severe that marine-based salmon aquaculture should be cut in half to protect wild fish.
•Disease:
Salmon farms worldwide have been implicated in the spread of fatal diseases such as furunculosis and infectious salmon anemia (ISA) among wild salmon.
•Escapes:
Global losses of (vastly inferior) genetically manipulated salmon from marine pens now outnumber wild fish populations many times over. Interbreeding results in mass spawning failure and contributes to the decline in wild fish. Some European rivers (and at least one in New Brunswick) host more aquaculture escapes than wild fish.
So why are we repeating others’ mistakes? Are we really prepared to sacrifice a major natural resource for 20 low-paying jobs and profits for a foreign company?
That Canadian governments should insipidly ignore an environmental disaster of global proportions is shameful. That those same governments should propose to risk wrecking the efforts of volunteers — to do the job they should have done — is morally indefensible.
The public meeting on the proposed salmon aquaculture sites is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 6, at 6 p.m. at the Sheet Harbour legion.
Jim Gourlay is a past-president of the Nova Scotia Salmon Association and a recipient of the Nova Scotia Lieutenant-Governor’s Conservation Award for his work on behalf of wild Atlantic salmon.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.nssalmon.ca/docs/Newsletter_Spring_14.pdf
A Brief History of Finfish Aquaculture in the Maritimes
A Brief History of Finfish Aquaculture in the Maritimes
http://asf.ca/in-11-years-mutated-salmon-lice-dna-has-spread-around-north.html
In 11 years mutated salmon lice DNA has spread around North Atlantic
SCIENCE-NORDIC
Mutated salmon louse DNA spread throughout the North Atlantic in 11 years or less
November 19, 2014 - 05:00
A recent study has demonstrated that genetic changes giving the salmon louse partial resistance towards one of the most commonly used delousing chemicals in marine aquaculture (emamectin benzoate/Slice) have spread to salmon lice in the entire North Atlantic in a maximum of just 11 years.
This is the first time that scientists have managed to simultaneously document that a mutation that arose in just one or few animals in the marine environment have spread to the whole population, and at the same time managed to document how long this process took.
“What´s unique here is that we have managed to document that a trait can spread to the entire North Atlantic in such a short period of time,” says Kevin Glover who is the research group leader for the population genetics group at the Institute of Marine Research, and a professor at the Sea lice Research Centre at the University of Bergen.
However, Glover cautions - even though the trait has been spread to the entire population of salmon lice in the North Atlantic, this does not mean that all lice carry the mutation(s).
Mutations are normal
Mutations are constantly occurring in any organism, and they spread in the population through reproduction. However, it is only when a mutation offers the organism improved survival or competitive advantage over its siblings that the mutated gene is rapidly spread in the population like we have documented here.
“The genetic changes we have observed mean that many salmon lice now tolerate higher dosages of Slice. This can and has resulted in treatment failure on commercial farms throughout the North
Atlantic where this chemical is used to treat salmon lice infestations,” says Glover.
We cannot avoid dispersal
Since the lice supporting these mutations display increased resistance towards Slice, some of them survived chemical treatments using this agent. These survivors thereafter had offspring that displayed this increased tolerance. After a short period of time, and more chemical treatments, the frequency of lice displaying reduced sensitivity in the region where this originated, rapidly increased. These lice displaying reduced sensitivity, have thereafter been dispersed further afield by attaching to farmed escaped salmon that have migrated long distances, and/or by infecting wild salmon and trout migrating past these farms. Wild salmon from both sides of the Atlantic meet on the oceanic feeding grounds. Here they can cross-infect each other and when they return to their respective countries, they take with them some of the lice displaying the resistance genes. It is in this manner Slice resistance has quickly spread across the entire North Atlantic.
Dispersal occurred in just a few years
“Slice was first used in commercial salmon farming in 1999, and the samples for our study were collected from throughout the North Atlantic in 2010. We are therefore sure that the dispersal of mutation entailed by increased resistance have spread from one geographic region to all in a maximal time-scale of 11 years,” says Glover.
Do not know where the mutation first originated
Scientists in the project are confident that the mutation(s) causing the observed decreased sensitivity to Slice originated in one place.
“We see that in contrast to genetic variation in all other chromosomes, there is strongly reduced genetic variation in the chromosome where the causative mutations for this increased tolerance are located. Furthermore, we see that the genetic code in the region on this chromosome is identical or almost identical in many lice throughout the entire North Atlantic," says Glover.
This demonstrates that the mutation(s) causing the resistance originated in a limited geographic area and was thereafter quickly spread throughout the North Atlantic.
“We cannot say for sure where these genetic changes first originated. However, we know that the first reports of treatment failure to Slice, were from fish farms in Ireland in 2005. It is therefore not unthinkable that the origin of the observed genetic changes was in Ireland,” Glover says.
Represents a challenge for the management of pesticide resistance
The implications of the study are that when salmon lice develop resistance to a new chemical used for delousing on salmon farms, this will be quickly spread to all regions of the North Atlantic. This documented example took a maximum of 11 years, but it was probably spread faster.
“In the real world this means that how one country chooses to manage resistance development on their farms, will affect other countries throughout the entire North Atlantic”.
Basically, we are all in the same boat together so to speak, indicates Glover. This is an important point that the management authorities need to take home.
http://sciencenordic.com/mutated-salmon-louse-dna-spread-throughout-north-atlantic-11-years-or-less
- See more at: http://asf.ca/in-11-years-mutated-salmon-lice-dna-has-spread-around-north.html#sthash.n4FOQE83.dpuf
In 11 years mutated salmon lice DNA has spread around North Atlantic
SCIENCE-NORDIC
Mutated salmon louse DNA spread throughout the North Atlantic in 11 years or less
November 19, 2014 - 05:00
A recent study has demonstrated that genetic changes giving the salmon louse partial resistance towards one of the most commonly used delousing chemicals in marine aquaculture (emamectin benzoate/Slice) have spread to salmon lice in the entire North Atlantic in a maximum of just 11 years.
This is the first time that scientists have managed to simultaneously document that a mutation that arose in just one or few animals in the marine environment have spread to the whole population, and at the same time managed to document how long this process took.
“What´s unique here is that we have managed to document that a trait can spread to the entire North Atlantic in such a short period of time,” says Kevin Glover who is the research group leader for the population genetics group at the Institute of Marine Research, and a professor at the Sea lice Research Centre at the University of Bergen.
However, Glover cautions - even though the trait has been spread to the entire population of salmon lice in the North Atlantic, this does not mean that all lice carry the mutation(s).
Mutations are normal
Mutations are constantly occurring in any organism, and they spread in the population through reproduction. However, it is only when a mutation offers the organism improved survival or competitive advantage over its siblings that the mutated gene is rapidly spread in the population like we have documented here.
“The genetic changes we have observed mean that many salmon lice now tolerate higher dosages of Slice. This can and has resulted in treatment failure on commercial farms throughout the North
Atlantic where this chemical is used to treat salmon lice infestations,” says Glover.
We cannot avoid dispersal
Since the lice supporting these mutations display increased resistance towards Slice, some of them survived chemical treatments using this agent. These survivors thereafter had offspring that displayed this increased tolerance. After a short period of time, and more chemical treatments, the frequency of lice displaying reduced sensitivity in the region where this originated, rapidly increased. These lice displaying reduced sensitivity, have thereafter been dispersed further afield by attaching to farmed escaped salmon that have migrated long distances, and/or by infecting wild salmon and trout migrating past these farms. Wild salmon from both sides of the Atlantic meet on the oceanic feeding grounds. Here they can cross-infect each other and when they return to their respective countries, they take with them some of the lice displaying the resistance genes. It is in this manner Slice resistance has quickly spread across the entire North Atlantic.
Dispersal occurred in just a few years
“Slice was first used in commercial salmon farming in 1999, and the samples for our study were collected from throughout the North Atlantic in 2010. We are therefore sure that the dispersal of mutation entailed by increased resistance have spread from one geographic region to all in a maximal time-scale of 11 years,” says Glover.
Do not know where the mutation first originated
Scientists in the project are confident that the mutation(s) causing the observed decreased sensitivity to Slice originated in one place.
“We see that in contrast to genetic variation in all other chromosomes, there is strongly reduced genetic variation in the chromosome where the causative mutations for this increased tolerance are located. Furthermore, we see that the genetic code in the region on this chromosome is identical or almost identical in many lice throughout the entire North Atlantic," says Glover.
This demonstrates that the mutation(s) causing the resistance originated in a limited geographic area and was thereafter quickly spread throughout the North Atlantic.
“We cannot say for sure where these genetic changes first originated. However, we know that the first reports of treatment failure to Slice, were from fish farms in Ireland in 2005. It is therefore not unthinkable that the origin of the observed genetic changes was in Ireland,” Glover says.
Represents a challenge for the management of pesticide resistance
The implications of the study are that when salmon lice develop resistance to a new chemical used for delousing on salmon farms, this will be quickly spread to all regions of the North Atlantic. This documented example took a maximum of 11 years, but it was probably spread faster.
“In the real world this means that how one country chooses to manage resistance development on their farms, will affect other countries throughout the entire North Atlantic”.
Basically, we are all in the same boat together so to speak, indicates Glover. This is an important point that the management authorities need to take home.
http://sciencenordic.com/mutated-salmon-louse-dna-spread-throughout-north-atlantic-11-years-or-less
- See more at: http://asf.ca/in-11-years-mutated-salmon-lice-dna-has-spread-around-north.html#sthash.n4FOQE83.dpuf
http://www.southcoasttoday.ca/conte...possible-pesticide-supplier-cooke-aquaculture
5-year prison term possible for pesticide supplier to Cooke Aquaculture
November 23, 2014 - 09:19 — Timothy Gillespie
Banned in Canada, Cooke went to Maine for 72 gallons of deadly pesticide
FROM BANGOR DAILY NEWS: A Maine feed store owner waived indictment and pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to making a false statement to federal agents in connection with the illegal use of a pesticide by Cooke Aquaculture subsidiary Kelly Cove Salmon five years ago.
Clyde Eldridge, 65, owner of local feed and pet store C&E Feeds, was questioned by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials as part of an investigation into the illegal use of cypermethrin on the New Brunswick side of Passamaquoddy Bay in 2009. The pesticide application killed hundreds of lobsters off Deer Island and Grand Manan in November and December 2009.
Cypermethrin is a synthetic insecticide used to control many pests, including moth pests of cotton, fruit and vegetable crops, according to information posted online by the Extension Toxicology Network. In aquaculture operations, it is used to treat infestations of sea lice, a parasitic crustacean that can weaken fish and expose them to infection and disease.
The pesticide is banned in Canada but not in Maine, where it can be used with prior permission from state officials. The use of pesticides in or near the ocean has long been a concern to Maine lobster fishermen who fear that it could harm the state’s $364 million lobster fishery.
In April 2013, CEO Glenn Cooke and other Cooke Aquaculture senior officials pleaded guilty in New Brunswick to using the banned pesticide in Canadian waters and was fined $500,000 CAD. Kelly Cove Salmon is a subsidiary of Cooke Aquaculture, which is based in Blacks Harbour, New Brunswick, and is the largest aquaculture firm in Maine.
On Sept. 23, 2010, two EPA special agents assisting Environment Canada in the case asked Eldridge to identify anyone to whom he had sold cypermethrin and whether he had kept records of the sales, according to a press release issued Thursday by the U.S. attorney’s office. Eldridge told investigators he sold different amounts of cypermethrin to different people and that he did not keep track of the sales, prosecutors indicated.
The investigation revealed, however, that Eldridge sold cypermethrin on 10 or 11 occasions to a regional production manager employed by Kelly Cove Salmon, a subsidiary of Cooke Aquaculture, and that on each occasion, Eldridge made a note of the quantity picked up by the manager, the release said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Moore said Thursday that Eldridge later told investigators that he knew at the time that the person buying the pesticide was doing so on behalf of Cooke Aquaculture.
Court documents did not detail why Eldridge lied to investigators or why Kelly Cove Salmon used the pesticide illegally.
Moore said U.S. federal prosecutors did not have information about what quantity of the pesticide Eldridge sold to Kelly Cove Salmon. According to an agreed statement of facts accepted in New Brunswick Provincial Court at the time of the Canadian firm’s plea, Kelly Cove Salmon purchased 72 gallons of cypermethrin “from a specialized supplier” in 2009.
Eldridge, who is free on personal recognizance bail, faces up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
The investigation was conducted by the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and Environment Canada.
5-year prison term possible for pesticide supplier to Cooke Aquaculture
November 23, 2014 - 09:19 — Timothy Gillespie
Banned in Canada, Cooke went to Maine for 72 gallons of deadly pesticide
FROM BANGOR DAILY NEWS: A Maine feed store owner waived indictment and pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to making a false statement to federal agents in connection with the illegal use of a pesticide by Cooke Aquaculture subsidiary Kelly Cove Salmon five years ago.
Clyde Eldridge, 65, owner of local feed and pet store C&E Feeds, was questioned by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials as part of an investigation into the illegal use of cypermethrin on the New Brunswick side of Passamaquoddy Bay in 2009. The pesticide application killed hundreds of lobsters off Deer Island and Grand Manan in November and December 2009.
Cypermethrin is a synthetic insecticide used to control many pests, including moth pests of cotton, fruit and vegetable crops, according to information posted online by the Extension Toxicology Network. In aquaculture operations, it is used to treat infestations of sea lice, a parasitic crustacean that can weaken fish and expose them to infection and disease.
The pesticide is banned in Canada but not in Maine, where it can be used with prior permission from state officials. The use of pesticides in or near the ocean has long been a concern to Maine lobster fishermen who fear that it could harm the state’s $364 million lobster fishery.
In April 2013, CEO Glenn Cooke and other Cooke Aquaculture senior officials pleaded guilty in New Brunswick to using the banned pesticide in Canadian waters and was fined $500,000 CAD. Kelly Cove Salmon is a subsidiary of Cooke Aquaculture, which is based in Blacks Harbour, New Brunswick, and is the largest aquaculture firm in Maine.
On Sept. 23, 2010, two EPA special agents assisting Environment Canada in the case asked Eldridge to identify anyone to whom he had sold cypermethrin and whether he had kept records of the sales, according to a press release issued Thursday by the U.S. attorney’s office. Eldridge told investigators he sold different amounts of cypermethrin to different people and that he did not keep track of the sales, prosecutors indicated.
The investigation revealed, however, that Eldridge sold cypermethrin on 10 or 11 occasions to a regional production manager employed by Kelly Cove Salmon, a subsidiary of Cooke Aquaculture, and that on each occasion, Eldridge made a note of the quantity picked up by the manager, the release said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Moore said Thursday that Eldridge later told investigators that he knew at the time that the person buying the pesticide was doing so on behalf of Cooke Aquaculture.
Court documents did not detail why Eldridge lied to investigators or why Kelly Cove Salmon used the pesticide illegally.
Moore said U.S. federal prosecutors did not have information about what quantity of the pesticide Eldridge sold to Kelly Cove Salmon. According to an agreed statement of facts accepted in New Brunswick Provincial Court at the time of the Canadian firm’s plea, Kelly Cove Salmon purchased 72 gallons of cypermethrin “from a specialized supplier” in 2009.
Eldridge, who is free on personal recognizance bail, faces up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
The investigation was conducted by the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and Environment Canada.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sea Lice Research Video in Norway
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SqA4PL40ATE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
AFS:
Norway takes sea lice very seriously, knowing that salmon farms cause infestations, and that as few as eight sea lice on a smolt can kill it.
Norway also makes sea lice density information public.
This video shows some of the research taking place. It is in Norwegian, but with English subtitles. - See more at: http://asf.ca/sea-lice-research-video-in-norway.html#sthash.q8AtPN05.dpuf
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SqA4PL40ATE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
AFS:
Norway takes sea lice very seriously, knowing that salmon farms cause infestations, and that as few as eight sea lice on a smolt can kill it.
Norway also makes sea lice density information public.
This video shows some of the research taking place. It is in Norwegian, but with English subtitles. - See more at: http://asf.ca/sea-lice-research-video-in-norway.html#sthash.q8AtPN05.dpuf
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
