Print

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

[Dave]

This study certainly is a piece of work again by the usual suspects. 
I am glad that this study was done because it shows the intentions of the researchers involved and it is a prime example of what the peer review process is capable of producing.  It certainly raises allot of questions.

Exactly aqua. Sadly, this latest by Volpe et al will be considered state of the art science by some, and especially so on other forums.

[StillAqua]

I read the published paper in the journal and I think a lot of the criticism about it is unjustified and exaggerated. It's a simple little study (single sample), a "short communication", that simply identifies living sea lice (eggs and nauplii) being discharged at depth in the ocean from the fish processing plant as a potential issue. They know it was during a period of farmed Atlantic salmon processing because the DFO Scale Lab identified scales collected in the sample. Unlike meat processing plants that are required to discharge their effluent into the sewage system, fish processors can discharge directly to the ocean, and always have. I think they raise a valid concern that direct discharge, without effluent or sewage treatment, could be a vector for introducing infection agents back to the ecosystem and they should do further research and look at treating the effluent. Nothing earth shaking here....the only unexpected part of the results is that the filter screens that should remove lice components from the effluent seem to have failed (or aren't in place).

I think it highlights this ancient mindset that the ocean is our dumping ground and it doesn't matter what we discharge to it (human sewage, processing plant waste, agricultural runoff), it will be "consumed" by the ocean.

[absolon]

This paper reads like a grade 7 science project. It is a single sampling with no comparative data to indicate that farm fish processing is any more dangerous than wild fish processing yet singles out farm fish processing as a risk while entirely overlooking the possibility that wild fish processing is equally or more risky. It doesn't provide any quantification of the purported risk but makes this recommendation:

These data underscore the need for fish farming nations to develop mandatory biosecurity programs to ensure that farmed salmon processing facilities will prevent the broadcast of infectious fish pathogens into wild fish habitat.

The data collected is certainly valid and worthy of entering the scientific record. The discussion, however, betrays the biases of the authors and for that reason, doesn't count as good science. I'm really surprised that the paper in it's existing form was considered worthy of publication.

[shuswapsteve]

I agree - leaving out any comparative data to indicate that farm fish processing is any riskier than processing wild fish was a big omission – not to mention leaving out the important fact that wild fish are processed at the same facility.  It does not take much effort using Google to find out that Walcan processes wild salmon also amongst other things like shellfish.  How that was missed by the authors and the reviewers boogles my mind.  It took me less than a minute on the internet to find what Walcan processes.

Was there any effort to try to work with Walcan to make this more of a collaborative effort?  Was their any effort to contact Walcan about what they are doing or have planned for waste treatment?  There is no personal communication noted from Walcan in the study.  Why wasn’t there any effort to see if sampling could have been done when Pacific Salmon were being processed?  In 2010, when Fraser Sockeye were being processed at Walcan, why didn’t one of the authors have a V8 moment and attempt some sampling then?  The facility was even in the media announcing how busy they were with all those Sockeye.  This was the same year the authors were sampling.  Fish processing was pushed to the limit in 2010 when Fraser Sockeye were returning, so there should not have been any shortage of places to choose from.  At the very least, the authors should have noted this lack of comparative work and recommended future work to address those gaps in their discussion; instead, they seemed to skip over it as if wild Pacific salmon are not processed here at all.

Frankly, I am surprised that this paper survived peer review.  I would have thought that at least one of the reviewers would have seen these obvious omissions and told the authors to do some more data collection.  The authors also failed to mention that a new treatment system was not in full use until 2011.  It is good to be concern about this discharge, but the authors' data was already obsolete by the time it was published.  In the end, the study was not objective and reads more like a vendetta against salmon farming.

[StillAqua]

Frankly, I am surprised that this paper survived peer review.  I would have thought that at least one of the reviewers would have seen these obvious omissions and told the authors to do some more data collection. 

You know the drill ShuSteve....if you and Absolon feel strongly about the faulty design, methods, collection and analysis of data and interpretation, you write a "comment to the paper", send it to the editors, and if they feel it has scientific merit they will publish it and allow the authors to respond. That's the scientific method.

But I think you do have a legitimate concern about how the paper's conclusions may be applied out of context or exagerated since one of the co-authors certainly has a track record for that sort of thing.

[absolon]

One would suspect that the paper will stand or fall on it's own merit; that those with the tools to evaluate it and for whom it is relevant will evaluate it's contribution to the scientific record and value it appropriately. That too is the scientific method.

[Novabonker]

Now if only the same scrutiny was applied to Farmfisher Bawb Loblaw's self serving links from the feedlot industry.... Imagine that!     (imagining is the only way to see it. Dare to dream!)

[shuswapsteve]

You know the drill ShuSteve....if you and Absolon feel strongly about the faulty design, methods, collection and analysis of data and interpretation, you write a "comment to the paper", send it to the editors, and if they feel it has scientific merit they will publish it and allow the authors to respond. That's the scientific method.

I agree that is one route to go, but in this circumstance I believe the omissions were not a coincidence.  I don't believe it was an "Opps...we forgot".  I believe the omissions were known long before, but skipped over because "the ends justifies the means".  Not much different from Salmonconfidential.  I believe Absolon's take on this (from his last post) will put this study where it belongs.  However, it should be read by all and displayed as an example of how not to conduct an objective scientific study.  That is probably the most positive thing about the study.

[Novabonker]

So ALL the junk science the feedlots put out is perfect! Who'd a thunk it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI

[Fisherbob]

http://www.thebristolbaytimes.com/article/1351farmed_fish_line_raises_questions

[Novabonker]

And that has little or nothing to do with CANADA (other than give you yet another anti American tilt)

Here Bawb, let me help you a bit, so you know the country.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

[Fisherbob]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/salmon-farmer-fishing-for-higher-returns/article16110073/?service=mobile

[Fisherbob]

Alaska not liking msc these days.
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/blog/

[troutbreath]

And like who cares bawb? I don't know why you want to share that drivel from fish farming hating Alaskan fishery site. Next thing they will be posting as is "fishhatchery.com" complaining about fish hatcheries competing with the dirty fish you so love. Reality check bawb no one cares what they say because it's propaganda.

[aquapaloosa]

Alaska not liking msc these days.
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/blog/

Thanks for the link.  Interesting stuff.