Norwegian Fish Farm Disease and Lice Costs

Two recurrent themes in fish farm environmental damage are: disease losses and out of control sea lice and their associated diseases.

See: http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2015/03/02/norway-salmon-farmers-q4s-confirm-sea-lice-as-key-driver-in-2015-supply/.

You judge for yourself::

1.      February 2015, Rabobank analyst Gorjan Nikolik suggested sea lice management will continue to define the global salmon picture this year.

2.      In 2015, Chile is once more constrained by its own biological situation.

3.      In Norway: Capacity growth is hard to come by... will involve managing all sanitary conditions, including pancreas disease (PD) and amoebic gill disease (AGD).

4.      In Norway, Marine Harvest: spent on sea lice problems: NOK 53m in Q1, NOK 80m in Q2, NOK 74m in Q3 and NOK 96m in Q4, for a year total of NOK 303m, or $40m.

Comment: The cost of seal ice chemicals was 70% higher than in 2013.

5.      Marine Harvest noted: NOK 199m… relating to sea lice mitigation and extraordinary mortality. [Pancreatic Disease and Amoebic Gill Disease].

6.      Salmar had: a challenging situation with respect to salmon lice and PD” in its central Norway region.

7.      Norway Royal Salmon: production cost was still high as a result of costs associated with AGD and PD.

8.      Norway Royal Salmon: was indicted by Norwegian government over misrepresenting sea lice numbers.

9.      Grieg’s costs were up: as a result of lice treatment, and mortality due to gill disease in Shetland, as well as fish that had been affected by PD in Norway's Rogaland region.

Then go back and read this post, a study that says one third to one half of global aquaculture product is lost to diseases. That was 2002, and in 2015, disease and lice are still big killers. All of this could be eliminated by on-land fish farms, and no exposing of wild Pacfic salmon to lice and disease from fish farms: 

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