Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alwaysfishn]

http://www.southasiamail.com/news.php?id=100346

A new Simon Fraser University-related study confirms sea lice from salmon farms are compromising wild fish populations.

It is based on the most comprehensive examination of sea lice from salmon farms and wild salmon dynamics in B.C. to date.

“I don’t know if I would go so far as to call our study seminal,” says SFU researcher Brendan Connors, a postdoctoral fellow in SFU’s School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM).

“But it shows that once you consider all the available information, there is support for a negative relationship between lice on farms and the productivity of adjacent pink and coho salmon populations. Contrary to the previous study (known as Marty et al. 2010), we conclude B.C. economies and ecosystems that depend on wild salmon would benefit from management and policy designed to minimize louse transmission from farmed to wild salmon.”

Larry Dill (SFU biology professor emeritus), who supervised Connors doctoral thesis at SFU and independent biologist Alexandra Morton, an SFU honorary degree recipient are among the new study’s six co-authors.

Connors and Dill will appear before the Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River Aug. 25, 26 and 29. They may be questioned about their team’s new study.

The study, Effects of parasites from salmon farms on productivity of wild salmon, has just been published in the August 22, online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“For pink salmon, estimated mortality ranged from 88 per cent when lice were abundant down to one per cent when lice were less abundant. For coho salmon, estimated mortality reached 92 per cent when sea lice were abundant and was as low as two per cent when lice were rare.”

The researchers went beyond reviewing previous studies that have reached contradictory conclusions about the impact of sea lice from fish farms on nearby wild salmon.

They reanalyzed data collected for a study known as Marty et al. 2010, the first with access to data on the number of sea lice on farmed salmon. It found no relationship between the productivity of pink salmon and the number of sea lice on farmed salmon in the year the pinks went to sea.

The authors concluded that management actions and policies that separate wild and farmed salmon would not benefit the productivity of wild salmon.

This new study used the same sea louse data as the Marty et al. 2010 study. It looked at pink as well as coho salmon before the emergence of salmon acquaculture. The 2010 study only looked at pink after the emergence of salmon farming.

Also beyond the 2010 study, this study looked at adjacent pink and coho populations not exposed to salmon farms.

When all the information is considered, the authors of this new study come to the opposite conclusion of Marty et al. 2010.

[aquapaloosa]

About science, salmon farming and public perception.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Agreeing+disagree+fish+story+other+name/5317095/story.html

[work2fish]

wow, nice BS article (my opinion), hmm wonder who pays that writer's his research, and for him to present papers like the folowing, fish farms perhaps? lol

Oh look, same author also wrote this:
http://praise.manoa.hawaii.edu/content/aip/TowardsImprovedPublicConfidenceinFarmedFishQualityACanadianPerspective.pdf

Kinda reminds me of the cigarette company reps who were still in denial that cigarettes cause cancer.

Here's a better summary, now that they've actually made the disease records public:
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2011/08/heres-why-i-think-salmon-farms-are-the-gatekeepers-to-survival-of-the-fraser-sockeye.html

Scientists, might still not be able to say with 100% confidence that the farms are the issue, but you'll also have the same issue finding a scientist to say with 100% certainty evolution is the only possible answer.   If you seriously think they're still no link, you should also take up smoking, ride your motor bike without a helmet, don't wear your seat belt, and start studying creationism.

[shuswapsteve]

wow, nice BS article (my opinion), hmm wonder who pays that writer's his research, and for him to present papers like the folowing, fish farms perhaps? lol
and start studying creationism.

Dr. Farrell is only the co-author, along with Dr. Kristi Miller, of the now popular study that looked into a possible virus impacting the survival of Fraser Sockeye.  Who pays that researcher his research....well...I would first try obtaining a copy of the study in the journal Science and find out for yourself.  You might be surprised that your tax dollars were likely used in this research.  He likely has more experience with this subject than you.  In addition, you do remember Dr. Miller....you know...the one fish farm opponents called Scientist of the Year.  Didn't you even care to read his article to see what he was trying to convey?  Now do you feel like a total butthead (my opinion)?  Do you now feel like you should actually read what someone with experience has to say - especially from someone who's research may be pivotal in this inquiry?  I thought so.

[work2fish]

Dr. Farrell is only the co-author, along with Dr. Kristi Miller, of the now popular study that looked into a possible virus impacting the survival of Fraser Sockeye.  Who pays that researcher his research....well...I would first try obtaining a copy of the study in the journal Science and find out for yourself.  You might be surprised that your tax dollars were likely used in this research.  He likely has more experience with this subject than you.  In addition, you do remember Dr. Miller....you know...the one fish farm opponents called Scientist of the Year.  Didn't you even care to read his article to see what he was trying to convey?  Now do you feel like a total butthead (my opinion)?  Do you now feel like you should actually read what someone with experience has to say - especially from someone who's research may be pivotal in this inquiry?  I thought so.

Surprised that tax dollars paid for pro aquacultrure research? Nope not surprised in the slightest.  Surprised that a co-author of the paper that shows a virus is the most likely cause tof the sockeye decline, who just happens to have done work for the aquaculture industry would be quick to point out that it's too soon to make the logical supposition that Fish farms are the likely source of the virus they are seeing? Still not surprising at all. Surprised to see him try to confuse the issue more, by pointing out what tend to be irrelivant facts in the newspaper, while the information on disease outbreaks at the farms is unpublished?  Nope. 

When other scientists are willing to discount thier own published papers on the stand at the cohen commsion(eg Kent), I don't find any of this surprising.  In the newpaper he tries to use the inaccuracy of a probability model to discount the idea that fish farms are having a negative impact on salmon, and to argue his fact that scientists are often conflicted and tend to disagree on this subject.  He argues that it's too soon to draw any conclusions based on these hypothesis.  Kinda reminds me of other scientists that discounted the hypothesis of global warming.  Some still discount this hypothesis, but it's now agreed by the majority of scientists now that it's the best hypothesis to fit facts and observations. Some would still argue that it's too soon to draw any conclusions, but they would be in the minority.   I don't believe that given the relavent facts and recently available information of fish farm disease, that it's too soon to draw the conclusion that fish farms are probbaly the biggest factor in the salmon decline. Are they the only factor? No, but the biggest, and potentially easiest to fiix? Definitly.

I think there are enough facts finally coming to light, especially since the disease information is now public, to say the best hypothesis that fits these facts is that the farms are the issue.  I've read what he has to say, along with other scientists, and based on my own experience, knowledge of the industry, and having read most of the published papers on the subject, I find the Research Chair in Sustainable Aquaculture, to probbaly have a vested interest in protecting Aquaculture, and to be just another fish farm shill trying to distract and mislead the public. aka a butthead(my opinion) ;P

[StillAqua]

Science is perfect....it's the humans that do it and manage it that are seriously flawed. Given enough funding and no political or stakeholder interference in the research and communication of the results, the science will eventually find he right or most likely answer. Each scientist, just like regular people, has their own threshold level of evidence that is required to convince them that simply reflects their personal experiences, biases and scepticisms. Some get marginalized from the field because they can't adapt their opinions to new evolving information or because they have opinions or objectives that aren't scientific or that could pass peer review. Most can readily adapt to new evidence, data and hypotheses because that's part of the scientific method. You see this in every field of science so there's nothing new going on here. It's just that most science isn't done in the glare of the media and a very public and political inquiry.