Aquaculture strikes back in Scotland

Hi All,

Different take on a hot topic. Its getting dirty.

http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstor ... shing.html

Caz

happy new year, i wounder if this type of complaint be raised over here?

They have some neck doing that!!

He's a hired gun for the aquaculture industry in Scotland. He'll produce any kind of report that his paymasters want.

There's more info & discussion over on the Scottish rivers and the General Chat areas of www.salmonfishingforum.com

They might well have some neck. However if I am not mistaken some Irish fisheries are taking the Irish government to the European courts for failing to protect wild salmon from fish farms. Maybe this is the fish farms reply. This could end with salmon being totally protected somewhere in the future. No fishfarms and no angling for salmon.

Caz

there are "hired guns" on both sides of the debate.
what is lacking are hard facts about the whole ecology of the salmon from the headwaters of the rivers to the migration and return from the sea .
ive just read the report that came out in november about the effect of sea lice on salmon and i was amazed that areport that is drawn up using a whole list of previous "reaserch" mashed together and then a series of conclusions are drawn from this info.
there is no new reaserch in this report and it is full of words like estimate ,probably,likelyand maybe and not much actual fact.
i would encourage anybody interested to read this report carefully and objectively.

Whats wrong with trying to protect salmon stocks???????

there are "hired guns" on both sides of the debate.
what is lacking are hard facts about the whole ecology of the salmon from the headwaters of the rivers to the migration and return from the sea .
ive just read the report that came out in november about the effect of sea lice on salmon and i was amazed that areport that is drawn up using a whole list of previous "reaserch" mashed together and then a series of conclusions are drawn from this info.
there is no new reaserch in this report and it is full of words like estimate ,probably,likelyand maybe and not much actual fact.
i would encourage anybody interested to read this report carefully and objectively.

Joyster, I don't want to be condescending, but what exactly are your qualifications for adjudicating on that report?

As a matter of fact, it wasn't a "report", it was a scientific article published in a scientific journal. It took the raw data from 19 studies and used robust statistical analysis to assess the impact of sea lice. The sample size used was enormous, as it contained data from 19 separate releases. The article was peer-reviewed by independent scientific reviewers, and passed fit for publication (there may have been changes requested prior to publication but we don't know that).

Just explaining that this is how those "reports" work. The whole point of science is to conduct research, propose a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, and base findings on the results. Science constantly evolves, and what we think scientifically proven now may be subsequently disproved, or further amended, by more research. Hence, you will rarely see words like "certain", "definite", "100%", "proven beyond doubt" in scientific papers. You will, however, see words like "estimate", "probably", "likely" etc., as scientists recognise that their findings may not be 100% certain, but based on the available evidence these are the "likely" or "probable" findings.

Interestingly, the main author requested the raw data from a certain employee of our beloved Marine Institute for his research, but he was the only researcher to refuse to provide this, even when it was requested through the Freedom of Information Act. Not saying this invalidates his findings, which incidentally were "likely" and not "certain" too, but you have to ask what did he have to hide?

up using a whole list of previous "reaserch" mashed together and then a series of conclusions are drawn from this info.
there is no new reaserch in this report and it is full of words like estimate ,probably,likelyand maybe and not much actual fact.
i would encourage anybody interested to read this report carefully and objectively.

I had meant to pick up on this but Bradan got to it.
If you are interested, some explanation of a meta-analysis at http://www.badscience.net/2008/05/pools-of-blood/
Also http://130.226.106.152/openlearning/html/mod12-2.htm

hi bradan,thank you for enlightining me on the workings of the scientific community, but the problem with these type of reports is that the general public read them and take from it that what is concluded in the report is fact ,when as you explained , this is not always the case.
i will give some facts about a salmon river i know well the owenglen river in clifden. there has been a salmon farm in clifden bay since the late 70"s and the returns of salmon have been consistsntly good over the years. a fish counter was installed there a couple of years ago yet there is no count available on the ifi web site, or most other counters as well.

hi bradan,thank you for enlightining me on the workings of the scientific community, but the problem with these type of reports is that the general public read them and take from it that what is concluded in the report is fact ,when as you explained , this is not always the case.
i will give some facts about a salmon river i know well the owenglen river in clifden. there has been a salmon farm in clifden bay since the late 70"s and the returns of salmon have been consistsntly good over the years. a fish counter was installed there a couple of years ago yet there is no count available on the ifi web site, or most other counters as well.

Joyster, please don't twist my words or misconstrue what I wrote. Just because something is not stated as "fact" doesn't make it untrue. If you want to dispute the findings of the paper, why don't you quote specific examples from it, and explain how you feel it is incorrect, or untrue. Instead of quoting words like "probable" or "likely", why don't you point out where these are used, and how you can show they are used incorrectly, or do not support the conclusions.

I'll start you off with an example.

the data are based on hatchery-reared smolts, which, among other differences with wild smolts, are larger: hatchery smolts are typically 18–19 cm, whereas wild smolts are typically 11–14 cm in Ireland and Norway. The larger size of hatchery smolts can partially offset their typically low marine survivorship compared with wild smolts [52]. Nonetheless, owing to the size-related effects of sea-louse-induced stress on smolts [27,28], wild salmon would probably experience higher mortality than we have estimated here for hatchery smolts.

"Probably" is used here, as research has not been conducted on wild smolts - it would simply be impractical, if not impossible to do. However, while it cannot be stated as fact, the likelihood is that it is true - larger smolts do have a greater capacity to survive parasitism than smaller smolts, so larger hatchery smolts would likely have greater survival than smaller wild smolts.

If you're going to critique a scientific paper, please do so on a scientific basis. Don't take the lazy approach, a la BIM/aquaculture industry, of simply dismissing research that does not support your world view.

As for the Owenglin, I don't have access to those figures, but I'm not sure the local anglers would agree with your assertion that returns of salmon have been consistently good over the years. While we're discussing salmon farms in that area, perhaps you could explain how the farm in Mannin Bay has grossly exceeded maximum lice levels consistently over the last few months, but hasn't been able to reduce lice numbers, and in spite of these breaches, hasn't been ordered to harvest or fallow the site??

hi bradan, in my 27 years of looking after the input of smolts tosea ,i have found that it is not the size of the smolt that effets sea survival but the health of these fish prior to entering sea water.
i would assume that the hatchery fish would have been reared in optimum conditions whilst the wild smolt would have endured the rigors of nature.
as for mannin bay it is my understanding that this is a harvest site for market fish and also mannin bay does not have a salmonid river entering it.

hi bradan, in my 27 years of looking after the input of smolts tosea ,i have found that it is not the size of the smolt that effets sea survival but the health of these fish prior to entering sea water.
i would assume that the hatchery fish would have been reared in optimum conditions whilst the wild smolt would have endured the rigors of nature.
as for mannin bay it is my understanding that this is a harvest site for market fish and also mannin bay does not have a salmonid river entering it.

OK, so even if size isn't the factor, you're acknowledging that wild smolts will probably have an even higher mortality than that quoted in the paper for hatchery smolts, because of the better condition of the hatchery smolts??

There might not be a salmon river entering Mannin Bay directly but previous research has shown that salmon farms within 30km of a salmonid river mouth can impact on salmonid stocks - the Owenglin River is only about 10km from the farm site in Mannin Bay. And tha fact that it is a harvest site is irrelevant - if lice numbers are that high the fish should all be harvested immediately and the site fallowed.

Debating with you is like dealing with the aquaculture industry as a whole joyster - you ignore points that you can't argue with, and change the subject all the time. Despite jd posting links showing the statistical power of meta-analysis, and my explanation of the scientific paper process, you still refuse to acknowledge the findings of the paper. This is the nub of the problem - the aquaculture industry are fully prepared to use science when it suits them, and hang their hat on certain scientific papers, such as Jackson's research, which finds a small mortality, but refuse to acknowledge research which doesn't suit them, such as Krkosek's meta-analysis, which actually includes Jackson's results.

It's a PR strategy - use science where possible, attack science where it is inconvenient. Donal Maguire from BIM is a prime example - in the media recently he has regularly quoted Jackson, while attacking Krkosek's paper. The scientists and co-authors on Krkosek's paper are all internationally respected scientists with many many peer-reviewed publications behind them, yet Maguire (and yourself) feel qualified to dismiss their research? It would be funny if it wasn't so serious...

hi bradan, fair point on the use of scientific reaserch, but it works both ways.
as regards bim i think what they are proposing to put in place off the coast is crazy. the application they are putting in has nothing to do with salmon production but all to do with keeping bim in funds for the next 10 years or so. enquire of the dept that issues the licences how much they charge per licence issued and you will discover the real reason for bim applying for licences and then renting the same to a third party.

hi bradan, fair point on the use of scientific reaserch, but it works both ways.
as regards bim i think what they are proposing to put in place off the coast is crazy. the application they are putting in has nothing to do with salmon production but all to do with keeping bim in funds for the next 10 years or so. enquire of the dept that issues the licences how much they charge per licence issued and you will discover the real reason for bim applying for licences and then renting the same to a third party.

Absolutely it works both ways - the problem is those on the aquaculture side only accept research that says what they want to hear and dismiss everything else. I've found most researchers on the wild salmon side to be more accepting of all research - all the research together builds up a picture, and good scientists take it all and draw conclusions from a wide range of viewpoints. Of course, it probably helps that they have no vested interest (for the most part) and do not rely for their livelihood on the industry.

Re licences, I'm already in quite hot and heavy correspondence with the department over the BIM proposal, any chance you could PM me the kind of figures you're talking about?

Hi All,

Seems as though theres another scientific paper just been released. Yin and Yang .

http://www.bim.ie/news-and-events/content,68600,en.html

Caz

Hi All,

Seems as though theres another scientific paper just been released. Yin and Yang .

http://www.bim.ie/news-and-events/content,68600,en.html

Caz

Notice how BIM didn't post the link to the paper, in other words this is a press release with their spin on it, instead of allowing people to read the paper themselves and see how the statistics are presented.

FYI, the paper can be read here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12054/full

The results of a meta-analysis of the combined data suggest that while sea lice-induced mortality on outwardly migrating smolts can be significant, it is a minor and irregular component of marine mortality in the stocks studied

Even here, they recognise that sea lice-induced mortality can be significant. I have no problem with the irregular phrase - mortality can be hugely variable from year to year, depending on rainfall and consequent flushing rate in estuaries, salinity levels, etc., and sea lice counts/husbandry on local salmon farms. Even in areas with lots of salmon farms, in some years with a wet spring and good husbandry on local farms mortality will not be significant.

Note also "in the stocks studied". 2 of the stocks were from the Lee and Erne systems, neither of which have salmon farms near their estuaries, and neither of which have to pass many salmon farms on their way to the feeding grounds. Of course there won't be heavy sea lice-induced mortality in those stocks, which will skew the data.

Thirdly, look at what question is asked - in this paper they look only at mortality on smolts. Average sea survival is about 5% for most stocks i.e. 95% of smolts die at sea from a variety of causes. This paper finds only a ~1% increase in that from sea lice. But if you ask the question the other way, what effect does it have on returning adults? If only 5% of fish are going to make it back to their native river, the additional 1% mortality is equivalent to only 4% return to the river, which is a 20% reduction on 5%.

Its very easy to spin statistics the way you want, which is exactly what BIM have done here. No surprise really, when they consistenly ignore the vast body of research papers that say something different. BIM have no credibility or integrity when it comes to this issue - if sea lice are not a problem then why do we need a sea lice monitoring programme? And if this much-vaunted programme is so good (the best in the world acc to MI and BIM), then why do we have salmon farms that are consistently in breach of the limits, without any consequences???

hi bradan,i have just read the mi report. the reaserch was into smolt mortality and its realation to sea lice not on the impact of lice on returning adults. as far as i am aware there is not a lice problem in relation to this but i am sure someone will come up with something , and if someone knows there is i would be interested to hear about it.
i am still trying to get fish counter returns but the ifi does not seem to be able to furnish the figures either by direct request or on their lovely fish counter website which only contains partial returns from 2 rivers in the years 2008 to 2011, what a waste of money!!!

hi bradan,i have just read the mi report. the reaserch was into smolt mortality and its realation to sea lice not on the impact of lice on returning adults. as far as i am aware there is not a lice problem in relation to this but i am sure someone will come up with something , and if someone knows there is i would be interested to hear about it.
i am still trying to get fish counter returns but the ifi does not seem to be able to furnish the figures either by direct request or on their lovely fish counter website which only contains partial returns from 2 rivers in the years 2008 to 2011, what a waste of money!!!

Smolt mortality directly impacts on returning adults, I wasn't talking about sea lice infecting adults as they return to the coast. The only way to measure the mortality is counting returning adults, as we can't monitor smolts at sea. If 4.8% of untreated smolts return, and 5.6% of Slice-treated smolts return, as this paper found, the authors can theoretically claim that is an additional mortality of 0.8%. Sounds tiny, right? But ( 5.6-4.8 )/4.8 x 100% = 16.66% increased survival in treated fish returning to the coast. All of a sudden it sounds quite significant. They're the same statistics, just presented a different way. Its the return to the coast that's important, that is your spawning stock for future generations. And that, my friends, is why BIM and the marine Institute cannot be trusted with statistics.

As for fish counter reports, who have you asked in IFI, and were you given a reason for refusal? PM me if you like...

hi bradan, the fact that 16% more treated thsn untreated adults returned in no way proves that the 16% mortality is attributable to sea lice.
i have emailed 4 times , made 3 written requests and 1 phone call, and not only will they not supply any figures but also fail to respond to any communications.