Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice  (Read 588 times)

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2363
Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« on: August 28, 2012, 08:30:52 AM »

We know that sea lice in numbers, will kill a juvenile salmon.

I stumbled across this article which talks about how the sea lice from the feedlots harms the wild salmon. What we hear from the feedlot industry is that they have the lice under control, down to less than 2 lice per salmon (on average). What they don't tell you, is when you multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of salmon in a feedlot, you have a cesspool of sea lice which will of course attach to any fish that swims by. Add to that the scientific evidence that the sea lice are actual carriers of diseases and viruses such as ISA and IHN, you have a lethal cloud that will almost certainly kill a salmon fry that gets in close proximity to a feedlot....

http://www.cec.org/Storage/133/15825_12-1-Exhibit_B.pdf "It is also possible and likely for sea lice to carry diseases between feedlot and wild salmon.
There are a variety of ways diseases may be transferred from feedlot fish to wild sockeye, including horizontal transfer of shed pathogens, via feedlot salmon escapees, via movement of infected sea lice (vectoring), and through discharge of untreated "blood water" from processing facilities (Dill 2011). Sea lice as a disease vector has already been shown for Infectious Salmon Anemia virus (ISAv) on the Atlantic coast (Dannevig and Thorud 1999; USDA 2002) and proper sea lice management at salmon feedlots is required to prevent the spread of ISA virus (Hammell and Dohoo 2005). The furunculosis bacterium has also been found on the bodies of sea lice, making it likely that sea lice spread this disease as well (Johnson 1998). There are a number of studies showing that sea lice may be vectoring numerous diseases from feedlot to wild fish, such as Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis virus, Salmonid alpha virus, ISA virus, IHN virus, Furunculosis, bacteria (such as Tenacibaculum maritimum, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Vibrio spp.), and microsporidian, Paranucleospora theridion (Nylund et al. 1991, 1993, 1994; Nese and Enger 1993; Rolland and Nylund 1998; Johnson et al. 2004; Hammell and Doho 2005; Karlsen et al. 2005; Barker et al. 2009; Lewis et al. 2010; Stull et al. 2010; Nylund et al. 2011; and see Dill 2011)."


That is another one of the reasons that the feedlots must be removed from all river mouths in order to limit the risk of killing out migrating salmon.
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[

dnibbles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • I smell like a white spring!!!
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2012, 06:59:10 PM »

Did you stumble upon a Delorian and travel back in time? Better get to the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance!
Logged

Novabonker

  • Subscriber
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2012, 08:52:08 AM »

Did you stumble upon a Delorian and travel back in time? Better get to the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance!

I'm left wondering why, when the pro feedlot crew can't come up with anything other than self serving articles written by feedlot companies, they resort to schoolyard name calling and insulting commentary. Is it a sign of lacking the intellect to debate or just plain being WRONG and creating a diversion? Sadly it reflects more on the poster than the person they fling it at. Pathetic, hilarious, or a mixture of both. What's really a shame is anyone else who might post an opinion that runs contrary to theirs is in for a pile of insults and insinuations, not reasoned debate. Why would they bother? I admit to getting caught up in it, but I wiped my shoes and stepped back.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 09:34:55 AM by Novabonker »
Logged
http://

dnibbles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • I smell like a white spring!!!
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2012, 01:09:10 AM »

I'm left wondering why, when the pro feedlot crew can't come up with anything other than self serving articles written by feedlot companies, they resort to schoolyard name calling and insulting commentary. Is it a sign of lacking the intellect to debate or just plain being WRONG and creating a diversion? Sadly it reflects more on the poster than the person they fling it at. Pathetic, hilarious, or a mixture of both. What's really a shame is anyone else who might post an opinion that runs contrary to theirs is in for a pile of insults and insinuations, not reasoned debate. Why would they bother? I admit to getting caught up in it, but I wiped my shoes and stepped back.

No insults here, just a blast from the past. Even Alex gave up on banging the sea lice drum quite a while ago.

Logged

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2012, 08:28:52 AM »

No insults here, just a blast from the past. Even Alex gave up on banging the sea lice drum quite a while ago.


Dismissive answers like the one you have given are common in the industry.

Sea lice is still a problem and as the sea lice develop immunity to the pesticides they are being treated with, the industry will need to come up with stronger and more lethal chemicals. There won't be an end to this banging drum till the feedlots are out of the ocean.
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[

shuswapsteve

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2012, 09:01:53 AM »

Dismissive answers like the one you have given are common in the industry.

Sea lice is still a problem and as the sea lice develop immunity to the pesticides they are being treated with, the industry will need to come up with stronger and more lethal chemicals. There won't be an end to this banging drum till the feedlots are out of the ocean.

Ignorant statements like yours are even more common.  Go research how much SLICE is actually used, what it is, what it isn't, when it is used and how it is administered.  This has been beaten like a dead horse already and most farm critics have now abandoned beating the "sea lice drum" a long time ago (hence the Back to the Future reference).  You might also want to look technical reports from the Cohen Commission which discusses the risks as well as some more recent research that discusses what is currently being done to minimize the impact of salmon aquaculture.

Logged

EZ_Rolling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 356
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2012, 10:28:22 AM »

Another paid announcement brought to you by......


You are really earning it today do you get bonused for the number of forums you post on?
Logged

curious

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2012, 10:40:24 AM »

  

 Sounds like you are a Fisheries and Oceans employee Steve, am I correct ?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 02:23:18 PM by curious »
Logged

dnibbles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • I smell like a white spring!!!
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2012, 11:58:22 AM »

I thought he was a feedlot employee??? ??? ??? Or unemployed?
Logged

curious

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2012, 05:37:48 PM »



Sea lice is still a problem and as the sea lice develop immunity to the pesticides they are being treated with, the industry will need to come up with stronger and more lethal chemicals. There won't be an end to this banging drum till the feedlots are out of the ocean.

 Yes, and the natives are not going to sit back and watch their food supplies diminish as Fraser sockeye salmon productivity declines and open-net salmon farming continues on the wild salmon's migration routes. Even this year it seems some will be short of their allocated food fish.

Novabonker -  appreciate your comments, knowledge and wit.

 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 06:10:23 PM by curious »
Logged

alwaysfishn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Salmon feedlot amplification of sea lice
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2012, 08:33:10 PM »

Ignorant statements like yours are even more common.  Go research how much SLICE is actually used, what it is, what it isn't, when it is used and how it is administered.  This has been beaten like a dead horse already and most farm critics have now abandoned beating the "sea lice drum" a long time ago (hence the Back to the Future reference).  You might also want to look technical reports from the Cohen Commission which discusses the risks as well as some more recent research that discusses what is currently being done to minimize the impact of salmon aquaculture.


The industry "wishes" that the sea lice issue had run it's course. Granted by fallowing farms along some migration routes and using SLICE a drug that is only approved for use in Canada (banned in other countries) the feedlots have probably saved a few salmon smolts. These cesspools are still amplifying sea lice and the related problems they inflict on salmon smolts. There is also increasing evidence that the sea lice are spreading the feedlot diseases like IHN to the wild salmon.

As has been said many times the only solution is to remove the feedlots from the ocean.
Logged
Disclosure:  This post has not been approved by the feedlot boys, therefore will likely be found to contain errors and statements that are out of context. :-[