Wednesday, 24 April 2019

Mowi's Lice Wellboat Not A Technological Wonder, Just the Same Old Hype, Updated May 2, 2019 - Job Numbers


Your piece on Mowi’s lice wellboat gives a false impression about the technology, and the fish farm press have a similar piece:

Company people, like Chris Read, don’t seem to know that wellboats are commonly used in Europe, and they aren’t that spectacular.

Last year Marine Harvest lost 150,000 fish in one wellboat treatment in Scotland. Mowi employees here don’t seem to know that.

This is not a technological marvel, only the lengths they go to after lice have become resistant to all their chemicals and they don’t work anymore. Look at the graphs of Clayoquot Sound lice last summer and they show the peaks and troughs of chemical resistance. They released 2 million litres of Paramove 50 - in a UNESCO Biosphere no less - and still had a problem. This post gives you the link to the Clayoquot graphs:

Here is the graph for Ross Pass: 

If they wanted to do anything worth while, they simply need to use one of the hundreds of systems for on-land production and move out of the water.

My list now has 276 on-land systems around the world. This is standard operating practice, but here, Mowi, disingenuously claims it can’t be done. See my list:

Lice are a billion dollar problem for fish farms. See item 447  below in one of my lists of on-going problems in the ocean.They are not investing in BC or anywhere else by using a wellboat, only trying to rid themselves of their share of the $1B problem called lice.

My post is: I am up to nearly 4,500 problems in the global fish farm/seafood industry press on the subject. Yes, almost 4,500 problems - in only the past three years.

Intrafish has a new report out on lice, the billion dollar problem. 447. Intrafish Lice Report:

DC (Dennis) Reid

And finally, here is a post on the 34% of wild salmonids lost in Ireland to farmed fish:


Extra note: Mowi Harvest says it has 600 employees in the first article above, making the industry/DFO number of 7,000 look pretty unreal, as I have noted before. I don't think Mowi has 600, more like about 530. And Cermaq and Grieg are much smaller operations.

Google this for several takes on Mowi employment numbers: And the Mowi figure is for a vertically integrated number, including processing.

253 jobs for Cermaq, dec 2016: 250 jobs in 2017: 250 jobs in 2018: Also 250 jobs in this, 2018:

664 jobs for Grieg worldwide: 150 jobs in BC, 2019, company quote:

So 530 + 250 + 150 = 930 jobs. Not 7,000 as industry claims. And I think the Mowi figure is inflated.

Fish Farms Kill Wild Salmonids, Says 'Status of wild Atlantic salmon in Norway 2018'

The next time a BC or, ___________ fish farmer says there is no evidence that farmed fish kill wild salmon, take this link and shove it in his/her face, and say, "Nice try, a__hole, er turkey."

Look at this paper of Norwegian wild Atlantic salmon returns:

The major conclusion is: "Escaped farmed salmon, salmon lice and infections from salmon farming are the greatest anthropogenic threats to Norwegian wild salmon. The proportion escaped farmed salmon in the rivers is reduced in recent years, and the risk of further loss of wild salmon due to escaped farmed salmon is reduced from very high to high. The knowledge of infections from salmon farming is poor."

You will recall that in BC, fish farmers and DFO maintain the mantra that farmed fish can't escape. Sure, and Volpe's papers show a 'leakage' and escape figure that leads to 153,000 fish escapes in BC per harvest cycle. 

See Volpe's research here along with a number of links to his science:

Here are this paper's conclusions: 

From Page 6: "Escaped farmed salmon In 2017, 1 220 000 metric tons of farmed Atlantic salmon were produced in Norway. It was reported that 15 000 farmed salmon escaped from fish farms. The mean annual number of escaped salmon reported during the last 10 years was 183 500 salmon. The actual number of escaped farmed salmon are potentially 2-4 times higher than the reported numbers, according to studies by the Institute of Marine Research during 2005-2011."

Note that reported escapes are much below the numbers that are most likely to have escaped. 

From page 6:  "The proportion of escaped farmed salmon in angling catches in monitored rivers in summer has been on average 3-9% in most years after 1989 (figure 4). In 2017, the average was 2.8%. The proportion of escaped farmed salmon has been larger during monitoring of the rivers in the autumn shortly before spawning, likely because the escaped farmed salmon tend to enter the rivers later in the season than the wild salmon, often towards the end or after the angling season."

Note that the issue is lack of science, not the conclusion that farmed salmon don't enter rivers as DFO would have us believe in Canada. And here, we have Volpe.

From page 6: "New studies have shown that there is widespread genetic introgression of escaped farmed salmon in Norwegian wild salmon. Significant genetic contributions from farmed salmon (introgression) has been found in wild salmon in 61 of 175 studied rivers. Further, there were indications of genetic introgression from farmed salmon in wild salmon in 54 additional rivers... individuals with high levels of introgression from farmed fish had altered age and size at maturation."

In other words two thirds of studied Norwegian rivers have gene pollution.

From page 6:  "The scientific evidence that incidence of escaped farmed salmon will negatively affect Norwegian wild salmon, both ecologically and genetically, is strengthened during recent years. Even though the proportion of escaped farmed salmon has decreased in monitored rivers, the proportions are still so high in many rivers that more extensive measures are required to reduce the negative impacts. Many salmon populations are already genetically impacted by farmed salmon introgression, and continued addition of new escaped farmed salmon challenge the recovery of the natural genetic composition of wild populations. The official goal of protecting the genetic integrity and variation of wild Atlantic salmon populations cannot be met with current levels of escaped farmed salmon in the population,"

From P7: Pink salmon are a problem, imported by Russia into the northeast Atlantic area: " In 2017, a large and unexpected invasion of pink salmon was recorded. Almost 6500 pink salmon were reported caught in the sea and in 271 rivers along the entire coastline in Norway. These are minimum numbers, because an official reporting system is lacking. In some rivers, hatching was observed from late autumn 2017."

From P8: the major threats are: "Assessments according to this system are updated annually by the committee. Escaped farmed salmon, salmon lice and infections related to fish farming were identified as the largest population threats to wild salmon (figure 5). Escaped farmed salmon have the greatest negative impact, whereas salmon lice have the greatest risk of expansion of negative impacts in the future. The risk of causing further loss due to escaped farmed salmon is reduced compared to earlier assessments due to the potential for effective mitigation measures. Infections related to fish farming were also identified as a threat that can significantly impact salmon, and with a large likelihood of causing further reductions and losses in the future. However, knowledge of the impacts of infections related to fish farming is poor, and the uncertainty of the projected development of this impact factor is high. More knowledge on this impact factor is needed."

See Figure 5 on page 9 for a graphic of the problems. These are all anthropogenic causes, meaning caused by man. The number one problem for wild salmon is escaped farmed salmon.  That's the conclusion drawn. If you look at the graphic it is obvious that farmed salmon are number one.

From page 11: "For a population to attain a good enough standard according to the quality norm, the population must not be genetically impacted by escaped farmed salmon or other anthropogenic activities, it must have a large enough spawning population to reach the spawning target and it must provide a normal harvestable surplus (given the current ocean survival conditions). Hence, population status can only be classified as good when the spawning targets are attained after a normal exploitation of the population. When a population does not have a normal harvestable surplus, this indicates that local or regional human impact factors are negatively impacting them. A population that reaches the spawning target, but where the fishing is highly reduced or closed, does not have a good status. In total, 149 populations have been evaluated according to the norm.Only 29 populations (20%) attained classification as having a good or very good quality, which is the requirement of the norm. This means that 119 populations (80%) did not meet the requirements of the quality norm. Of these, 42 populations (28%) had moderate quality and 77 populations (5 2%) had poor or very poor quality. Populations in Rogaland county and in the northern part of Tr√łndelag county had the best quality, whereas populations in Troms and Hordaland counties and in the southern parts of Tr√łndelag county had the poorest quality. "

There you have it: wild salmon are mostly affected by human problems, mostly salmon farming escapes and lice and genetic pollution.

So this is what Norway concludes. Wouldn't it be the same everywhere? That fish farms kill wild salmonids, in Canada, Scotland, Ireland, etc.?


Update: a report on environmental damage and fish farms killing wild Atlantic salmon in eastern Canada, by DFO:

Tuesday, 23 April 2019

Wilkinson Against Wild BC Salmon, for In-ocean Fish Farms, PRV

Hi Ainslee Cruikshank

Dr. Brian Riddell, CEO of the PSF, has done a rebuttal to the Rapid Science Response at DFO: He used to work as a scientist for DFO.

And on the industry/DFO claim that there are 7,000 jobs in fish farming in BC, the BC government’s own figure is 1,800, making the number used by DFO/industry almost 400% too high. See the BC Stats report here, figures that I would say are more accurate: The DFO/fish farm revenue number is also inflated, almost 200%.

And on DFO’s claim to use ‘evidence and science’ they only do so when it suits their purposes. There are many cases where they do not use either, for example:

Thanks for your work.

DC (Dennis) Reid