The way to understand conflicts, you Google the papers of the person of interest, copy the names and then look up their publications. You will find that those who are connected with fish farms end up doing work that is positive to them, while the mainstream scientists are not. How big an influence you ask? Well, Marine Harvest has 90 research projects going at the present time to solve the issue of lice being unkillable, largely because the cocktail of chemicals don't work, in time. See the post two below this one and it tells you the chemicals: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/cancer-causing-chemicals-in-farmed.html.
You will note in the acknowledgements to the Saksida paper that many levels of government were also involved. As you will recall, the most important recommendation in the Cohen report was for DFO to be relieved of the conflict of interest in supporting fish farms and wild salmon at the same time, and for it to just get on with saving wild salmon. The Harper government did not do this. The Trudeau government has not done it either.
One of the real disappointing things in Norwegian fish farms is that in Norway, they spend a very long time criticizing anyone who complains about fish farms, and this has migrated to wherever in the world fish farms go. I will do a post comparing Norway and BC shortly, and you should buy from Glydendal publishers in Norway an e-book of Kjersti Sandvik's book Under the Surface that systematically works through many problems in Norway. Most follow them around the world. See: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2016/03/under-surface-kjersti-sandvik-gyldendal.html.
The Saksida report details the IHN epidemic in farmed fish in BC in 2001 - 2003. Some 12 million farmed salmon caught the disease and died. It ravaged one fish farm after another, many on Vancouver Island, where the capital of BC, Victoria, is located. The premier, Christy Clark, has not gotten fish farms out of the water either.
I will have more to say on this, and for now, see the Table of Contents:
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Introduction 3
IHN 2001-2003 5
What is the case definition for IHN in Atlantic salmon? 5
What was the scope (i.e. how many farms were
affected) of the recent epizootic? 5
What was the initial source of the infection? 5
What does the mortality curve associated with an IHN
case look like? 6
What were the cumulative mortality rates associated
with the cases of IHN? 6
Summary of IHN cases during the 2001-2003 outbreak 7
IHN cases in Area1 7
IHN cases in Area2 8
IHN cases in Area3 9
IHN cases in Area4 9
IHN cases in Area5 10
What changes were made at the sites afteran IHN
diagnosis was made? 11
What is the status of IHN as of December 2003? 11
Risk Factors and their management 12
Source of Infection 12
Freshwater introduction or vertical transmission 12
Horizontal transmission in seawater 13
A/ Wild sockeye salmon 13
B/ Waterborne transmission 15
C/ Other fish species that can carry IHNV 17
D/ Movement of farmed salmon in and between areas 19
E/ Shared equipment and common boat traffic 20
F/ Harvest by-products from IHNV infected populations 22
Other Risk Factors 24
Lag time between suspicion and confirmation of an infection 24
Stress in the Atlantic salmon 25
Lack of an effective IHNV vaccine 26
Research Needs 27
Summary 27
Figures and Tables 29
References 36
Here are the Acknowledgements:
"I would like to thank the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (BCMAFF) and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) for funding the study. I would also like to thank all the companies (Atlantic salmon producers and suppliers) who participated in the study. They were all extremely cooperative and very willing to spend a considerable amount of time helping me collectand validate the information presented in this document. I would like to thank the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Pacific Salmon Commission, Environment Canada and the District of Campbell River forbeing so prompt in providing me with information.
I would finally and especially like to thank Paula Galloway, Darlene Hanson, Gary Robinson, Garth Traxler and Dr. Craig Stephen for their assistance in editing the document. Their input was invaluable and, I know, increased the quality of the final product."
Go look them up. Government is in a conflict of interest here and the fish farms paid for them, also a conflict of interest.
Brief Summary
During the outbreak of IHN, 36 fish farms were infected. Smaller fish caught IHN at 70% while larger fish, over 2 kg, were infected at 40%. Take a look at Fig 9 as it shows the prevailing currents in the area north of Campbell River where sockeye salmon smolts travel out to the ocean. Note the sections on viral outbreak being spread to nearby farms, starting on page 7, one of the prime causes appears to be wellboats transporting smolts close to infected sites, particularly through the dense maze of channels north of Campbell River.
See Figure 8 for Vancouver Island infections, apparently Clayoquot Sound. 10 farms were infected only one was not infected. BC also had IHN infections from 1992 to 1996. Origins of infection could be wild salmon returning [those fish that Kristi Miller's work showed had a high viral signatures, however, 600,000 to 1 million farmed fish are by definition stressed and leach out 56 billion viral particles per hour once infected, infecting many sites in its path].
Page 15 quote on transmission: "If the assumption is made that the east coast Vancouver Island isolate originated in Area 1, then waterborne exposure of the smolts, in Areas 2 and 3, to IHNV could have occurred as they were being live hauled through Area 1. In addition, a low titre exposure to the virus may explain why the onset of disease in the population did not appear until several weeks after the last group of smolts had been entered.
Brief Summary
During the outbreak of IHN, 36 fish farms were infected. Smaller fish caught IHN at 70% while larger fish, over 2 kg, were infected at 40%. Take a look at Fig 9 as it shows the prevailing currents in the area north of Campbell River where sockeye salmon smolts travel out to the ocean. Note the sections on viral outbreak being spread to nearby farms, starting on page 7, one of the prime causes appears to be wellboats transporting smolts close to infected sites, particularly through the dense maze of channels north of Campbell River.
See Figure 8 for Vancouver Island infections, apparently Clayoquot Sound. 10 farms were infected only one was not infected. BC also had IHN infections from 1992 to 1996. Origins of infection could be wild salmon returning [those fish that Kristi Miller's work showed had a high viral signatures, however, 600,000 to 1 million farmed fish are by definition stressed and leach out 56 billion viral particles per hour once infected, infecting many sites in its path].
Page 15 quote on transmission: "If the assumption is made that the east coast Vancouver Island isolate originated in Area 1, then waterborne exposure of the smolts, in Areas 2 and 3, to IHNV could have occurred as they were being live hauled through Area 1. In addition, a low titre exposure to the virus may explain why the onset of disease in the population did not appear until several weeks after the last group of smolts had been entered.
The presence of an IHN positive population, undergoing an epizootic, could provide a continuous reservoir of virus not only for the infected site itself but also to the 16 surrounding area (i.e. downstream)."
See the recommendations on non-movement of farmed salmon stock (p 19), use of common equipment, wellboats, fallowing and etc. on 16-17 and succeeding pages.
This report makes no mention that 12 million farmed fish were lost, nor does it mention how much taxpayer money, if any, the federal government paid for diseased dead fish. Nor does it estimate how many wild salmonids were killed by IHN.
Also, if you check the papers sited, you will find that Michael Kent is mentioned. He did work on SLV while working for DFO. He left DFO and recanted his work on the Cohen stand - one of four scientists who made the same disappointing choice. It has to be asked: what does one do with papers from recanted work, and shouldn't all wages and benefits paid to Kent for this work be paid back to the Canadian taxpayer?
No comments:
Post a Comment