ISA - New Infections - Norway, Chile

There are two current infections of ISA halfway around the world from one another this week.

1. May 6, 2014 ISA in Norway: http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/23111/suspicion-of-isa-on-nordland-fish-farm. 

2. April 29, 2014 ISA in Chile: http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/23072/weekly-overview-chilean-salmon-producer-criticised-over-failure-to-harvest-infected-cages.

Chile's use of antibiotics for secondary infections hit the 2008 ISA outbreak level of use in 2013. I suspect we are now looking at another collapse of the Chilean industry. In the last one, a quarter of a billion dead fish had to be disposed of. 13,000 to 26,000 workers lost their jobs.

Go back and look at my ISA table, Friday, October 21, 2011: 2011: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.ca/2011/10/isa-infections-world-wide-sine-1984.html.

I missed reporting for one year, so the table would be even longer, but, as is, the table tells the story: fish farms propagate ISA, and other diseases, thereby making virulent strains available for the wild fish that Canadians, Norwegians and so on want safe from fish farm infections.

Key Document: Slaughter Payments to Fish Farms - Jan 16, 2014

This link takes you to the Telegram newspaper that reports $33 Million of taxpayer money given to fish farms in Atlantic Canada by the federal government for slaughtered diseased fish farm fish: http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2014-01-11/article-3571724/N.L.%26rsquo%3Bs-destroyed-salmon-tab%3A-%2433M/1.

I now have some figures that I accept on slaughter fish payments of taxpayer dollars in BC and Grant Wartkentin and Cermaq Mainstream, Marine Harvest and Grieg Seafood may be happy to hear I will eat some crow here, as the BC figures are lower, much lower than my estimate.

The reason for having to make an estimate is that fish farms regularly refuse to let the public know how much taxpayer money they receive for diseased fish that foul our pristine oceans. And behind the scenes, they regularly have their lawyers keeping such numbers, and in the BC case, the disease records for testing of their farms, from the public, as happened during the Cohen Commission, and in this case, getting information from government.

And in this case, it was precisely that, a fish farm legal injunction that made my request wait 10 months before the millions of taxpayer dollars were put in a table and sent to me. My estimate of $35 million in BC is incorrect. The payments to Cermaq Mainstream's IHN diseased Clayoquot Sound farmed salmon are: $2.64 Million for 959,498 diseased salmon (paid in Nov 2012); and, $201,000 for infected equipment and supplies (paid in Jan 2013). The total is $2.8 Million, or $3 per fish, not $30 per fish.

What has not made the news is that the Grieg Seafood open net operation in Sechelt also received payment for slaughtered IHN diseased fish: $1.61 Million for 312,032 diseased salmon (Nov 2012); and, $152,000 for infected equipment and supplies (2013), or $5.60 per diseased salmon.

And here's the bottom line. In the past year or so, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency paid fish farms a total of $30.6 Million of taxpayer dollars for diseased slaughtered fish farm fish. That's pretty close to the $35 Million estimate and I don't think any taxpayer wants to pay a single dollar for these diseased fish, particularly when diseases become a thing of the past when the fish are raised on-land in closed containers with recirculating systems. The old-tech dinosaur operations need to move to land.

I will get back to you with more when I have had a chat with the Telegram. Stay tuned.

Mainstream – Slaughtered fish Money, Clayoquot Sound – Updated Dec 7, 2013

In response to Grant Wartkentin’s post about taxpayer-funded slaughter payments to Cermaq Mainsream for its Clayoquot Sound fish that had IHN, here are some quoted segments of his post: 

If Reid had done a 30 second Google search for "Cermaq financial statements," he would have found the actual amount of compensation we received in the public Cermaq quarterly financial reports, particularly for Q4 2012. 

The number you are looking for is on page 7 where it states:"Mainstream Canada received a compensation of NOK 15.4 million following the mandatory culling of the Millar site due to an IHN outbreak in July 2012."

That's roughly $2.8 million CAD, a far cry from Reid's imaginary number of $35 million. The market value of the fish which were culled, if they had grown to harvest, would have been at least 10 times that amount. 

Hopefully Reid will correct his mistakes, since his whole premise, and his numbers, are completely fabricated nonsense. 

In response: yes, it has been a long time since I have accepted anything a fish farm says without doing independent research. I lost belief in fish farms when they neutralized a Jan 9, 2004 Science article showing that farmed fish had high levels of PCB’s, cancer causing chemicals and persistent organic pollutants (1). The post on this read like a Hollywood movie script (2,3,4).  The same Albany university group has been publishing on the chemicals in farmed fish in the years following their Science 2004 article, and Norwegian scientists have also published on this in 2013 (5).

My investigations should result in the actual dollar figures paid for slaughtered farm fish all across Canada, but an estimate is the best that can be done now because fish farms are not transparent. I researched the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and other sources to come up with what seems a reasonable approach – you can see it in the last post. So, until I have independent verification of the amount, my $35 Million estimate stands for now – I have noted Wartkentin’s claim of $2.8 Million. Should it or another figure prove to be the more likely than my current estimate, I will amend my figure.

Let me give you an example of non-transparency. A year ago, my research into fish feed showed that some companies were using chicken and other land animal faeces in fish feeds. I checked on Cermaq/Mainstream’s fish feed company EWOS and found that among other things, they were using, as they put it, feather meal. This means chicken feathers. So if you eat a farmed fish, you could be eating chicken feathers. These have been shown to contain multiple chemicals in them, for example, fluoroquinolines. I would not eat a farmed salmon.

I sent a note to EWOS asking them if they used chicken faeces and/or animal faeces in their fish feeds. I did not receive a response. I asked six times, and received no response. If I had been EWOS I would have wanted to be sure no one in the world thought I was using faeces in EWOS feed. So it is still not clear whether chicken faeces or other animal faeces are in EWOS feeds.

One other thing, Mainstream actually had IHN virus at three Clayoquot fish farms: Millar, Dixon and Bawden. Wartkentin does not mention this. And Grieg had IHN at Culloden in the Sechelt. In 2001 to 2003, 36 fish farms in BC had IHN, killing some 12,000,0000 farmed fish. Were these compensated for at today’s figure of $30 per fish this would mean $360 Million. Canadian taxpayers don’t want their tax money going to foreign multi-billion dollar corporations. In this case the company is owned, currently, 59.2% by the Norwegian government and the people of Norway.

The final thing I would add is that the tone of Wartkentin’s notes is not professional. If I were Mainstream/Cermaq I would not let him speak this way, or I would let him go.

1.       Science, Jan 9, 2004. This is the article that fish farms neutralized: http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/salmon_study.pdf. This Albany (Hites et al) group has gone on to author many reports on chemicals in farmed fish in the years since 2004, including chemicals that cause cancer.

2.       This is the spinwatch.org link to the article David Miller wrote on about the fish farms. It details a story that doesn’t seem real, one that would make a Holllywood script. After reading this, you will probably come to the same conclusion that I did:  I never believe anything a fish farm company says unless can independently verify the claim:  http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/component/k2/item/139-spinning-farmed-salmon-part-1-of-3.

3.       This is part 2 of the Miller article: http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/spying/item/140-spinning-farmed-salmon-part-2-of-3

4.       This is part 3 of the Miller article: http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/component/k2/item/141-spinning-farmed-salmon-part-3-of-3

5.    See the table Norwegian scientists referred to in October 2013, on chemicals in farmed salmon. The chemicals in farmed salmon are about a factor of 10 times all other commonly consumed meats. The table can be found here: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2013/11/dear-minister-of-health-farmed-salmon-toxins.html.

   

jj