salmon egg mortality study
Scott Amerman Amerman salmon eggs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A while back some people asked about the egg cure study being done by the ODFW that was testing the effects of cured eggs on smolts. I (and many other egg cure companies) have been working closely with the ODFW on these studies to see the possible effects on smolts. I figured I would give everyone a little update as to where we are now and what is going on. The preliminary studies have been done, and what we have found is that eggs cured with high levels of sodium sulfite have caused deaths to smolts in a hatcheryenvironment. The tests have shown that hatchery raised smolts whose diet is changed to 100% cured eggs (egg cures high in sodium sulfite) have shown mortalityin some smolts in a small hatchery basin test. As of so far we have no idea how this translates to the real world and if smolts in the wild suffer these same effects. It is very unlikely that any fish in the wild will ever be forced to eat 100% eggs only.

What we have found so far is that some smolts died, usually in the 1st ten days; some in the first 4-8 hours of their diet being changed. In every test that has been done, the majority of the smolts did not die even after being feed this 100% diet for 23 days. Even on the tests where mortality occurred, there was very little, if any, mortality to the smolts in days 10-23. It is my understanding that eggs cured in lower levels of sodium sulfite and eggs cured in borax, etc. had no mortality on smolts. I believe in fact, that in all tests done on eggs cured with a cure containing less than 25% sodium sulfite, there was no mortality over the full 23 days. So far no other chemicals have been shown to cause deaths in smolts, but testing to this point has been fairly limited as to the vast majority of possible cure ingredients.
It is my hope that:
1. We can continue to study the effect of cured eggs on smolts and see if these preliminary results translate over to the wild.
2. If we find that this translates over to the real world, it is my hope we can measurewhat kind of impact sodium sulfite cured eggs have on our smolt populations.
3. If we find a real world problem with these cures, we can alter the use of or remove altogether those chemicals that lead to mortality
4. We can broaden our test to see if other chemicals will lead to mortality too, so as to not replace one deadly chemical with another equally or more deadly chemical.

Be aware that there will be groups out there that will want to take these preliminary test results to push for total bait bans or to prove a great impact by the sports fisherman rather than waiting for continued testing to see if these results translate over to the wild which right now no one knows. For now what we as fisherman can do is avoid throwing your fished out baits back in the water after you change it. Small salmon and steelhead are much more likely to eat the small discarded bait chunks than the larger bait chunks many people fish. Discarding any used cured eggs in a safe manor instead of back into the water until more testing is done will be a safer alternative either way for now.
Also, if anyone out there has seen dead smolts in the wild, we would love the hear about it. We do some egg fisheries where smolts steal our baits, (in tidewater, around the hatcheries and boat ramps) and if a significant number of smolts died in these fisheries, it is my belief that we should be seeing lots of dead smolts in the rivers, hundreds, maybe even thousands of dead smolts following hatchery releases etc.

Please know that if something in our products is significantly impacting juvenile salmon in the wild, then we the cure companies will whole heartedly take on the responsibility to change these ingredients, the way they are used and hopefully regulated.



Scott Amerman Amerman salmon eggs
__________________

When I a was a kid I spent a summer trying to keep some smolt out of Mosher creek,in a ten gallon aquarium.Good old green label salmon eggs would kill them where worms would not.

I was ten years old and it probably only cost me five bucks.How much did it cost you guys-us?

the only places i ever seem to catch salmon smolts seem to be near terminal areas, and mostly during springer seasons.

can't really remember the last time i caught one while fall salmon fishing. most of the "bycatch" comes as cutthroat trout.

So the demise of salmon and steelhead populations are now being considered due to sulfites in eggs.... Hmmm...

What about all the rivers that have bait restrictions?? Are they rebounding with exponencial numbers or am I missing something?

Keith

Another study performed by Oregon's Department of Failure And Waste ' with the help of a few bait suppliers. As far as bait restrictions on all those rivers. On Oregon's coast I can think of only 10 miles of river restricted to the use of bait. That would be the Upper Nestucca in the Tillamook district.

Are they performing the study in water temps reaching 60-70 degree's as occurs in tidewater in early August through September?

The mortality on the smolts is only part of the problem. What happens to the reproductive cycle of the adults that eat the toxic combo? Would ODFW like to spend more time and money on this never ending science project.

Is the state supporting the use of bait just to satisfy the guides that happen to be promoting the product? A true test should be performed outside the guidelines of ODFW and those bait dealers. I would venture to say that the outcome would not help those bait dealers.

The initial study as small as it is appears, points a very negative affect on the juvenile populations. Reducing the amounts of sodium sulfites may help but in the long run the removal of all toxic compounds used in the curing process would alleviate all need to address the chemical issue once and fore all.

Is ODFW doing the study to protect the sale of the excess eggs to the dealers or are they performing the study to address the longterm negative affects that the cures being used have on the stocks in question ?

A like my salmon eggs on a bead of rice and some soy sauce. No ill effects just good eating and very safe.

Troll.

Wookie,

to my knowledge Amerman doesnt post here. I just passed it along. Look up Amerman and ask him your questions. I have a hunch, if you are sincere, unlike some others, you will get answers.

Yeah, Troll? WTF? Time to get off cloud 9....

It wasn't until the mid 90's that sulfite even became heard of on the streets. What happened to the fish runs before then? How much of a decline have the runs had since the introductions of sulfite? Oh I forgot, all the wild salmonids were making escapement in the 90's and eggs cured in sulfite did them in........

Sure there's an impact but honestly, how much of one?

Keith

I'll bet the hooks kill more fish than the bait.

From Information I've read the highest mortality occurs with barbs, BUT bait and barbs can really put a hurt on the kelts, smolts & resident populations

Maybe an easier read from here:http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/Repository/WSR%20rpt%20full.pdf
go to page 48


Hooking Mortality in Steelhead
Proponents of catch and keep fisheries for wild steelhead offer the notion that steelhead caught and released by anglers die or do not spawn successfully, and that the percentage of fish succumbing to the stress of hook and line capture is unacceptably high. Published or available hooking mortality data sets that relate specifically to steelhead or salmon in freshwater are scarce (Mongillo 1984; Muoneke and Childress 1994). Consequently, catch and keep proponents have invariably applied hooking mortality studies of other species, usually resident salmonids, to anadromous steelhead in rivers. British Columbia Steelhead Brood Stock Program Data
The British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Lands, and Parks produced a multiyear study of summer and winter-run steelhead hooking mortality (Hooton, 1987, Hooton 2001).
Seven years of hooking mortality data were published between 1981 and 1987 on Vancouver Island streams. During this period, over 4,000 steelhead were caught on conventional gear (bait,barbed hooks), most to provide brood stock for hatchery programs. Of these angled steelhead, 144 mortalities occurred, representing a study-wide average of 3.6 percent hooking mortality
(Table 1).

Table 1. Stock specific hooking mortality among winter-run steelhead on Vancouver
Island, 1981-1987.
Basin Years of Record Number of
Steelhead
Angled
Hooking
Mortality
Hooking
Mortality
percentage
Cowichan 7 509 16 3.1
Englishman 5 240 9 3.8
Heber 1 70 3 4.3
Gold 1 30 0 0
Nanaimo 7 378 7 1.9
Puntledge 7 481 9 1.9
Salmon 6 464 27 5.8
San Juan 2 49 3 6.1
Somass 7 1,174 43 3.7
Tsitika 7 320 10 3.1
Keogh 2 336 17 5.1
Total 4051 144 3.6
Source: Hooton 1987.
Hooking mortality of winter-run steelhead was studied more rigorously on the Keogh River on Vancouver Island in 1985 and 1986 (Table 2). Among 336 steelhead angled on various combinations of terminal gear, a total hooking mortality of 17 fish, or 5.1 percent occurred. Use of natural bait produced higher mortality (mean = 5.6 percent) than did artificial lures (mean = 3.8 percent). Mortality while using barbed hooks was higher (mean = 7.3 percent) than for
barbless hooks (mean = 2.9 percent) regardless of whether bait or artificial lure was employed.
Examination of all combinations appear to indicate that barbed hooks were the largest contributor to mortality.

Table 2. Percent hooking mortality (number of fish in parentheses) on various terminal
gear types in the Keogh River in 1985 and 1986.
Year Gear Type
Barbed/Bait Barbed/No
Bait
Barbless/Bait Barbless/No Bait Total
Mortality
1985 12.5 (6) 7.7 (2) 3.6 (2) 0 (0) 7.7 (10)
1986 5.9 (3) 2.5(1) 2.6 (2) 2.6 (1) 3.4 (7)
Total
Mortality
9.1 (9) 4.5 (3) 3.0 (4) 2.6(1) 5.1 (17)
Source: Hooton 1987.

A study evaluating the degree of injury of winter steelhead was also undertaken on the Keogh River (Table 3). Fish were caught with hook and line just downstream of a weir located in the lower river. The degree of injury was observed, followed by tagging and immediaterelease upstream of the weir. Later, after the spawning season, out-migrating kelts were trapped at the weir to determine post-spawn survival of angled and non-angled fish. Of the 336 steelhead originally caught by hook and line, 84 were later recovered in post-spawn condition at the weir,
representing 27.5 percent of fish that had recovered enough to migrate back down to the lower river. Post-spawn recovery of non-angled fish was 32.9 percent, a difference of 5.4 percent.
These data indicate that the majority of caught and released fish not only made it to spawning grounds, but spawned and out-migrated.
Table 3. Number of hooked fish (percentage in parentheses) and non-angled fish later recovered as out-migrating post-spawners in the Keogh River in 1985 and 1986.
Year Hooked Fish Recovered as
Kelts
Non-Angled Fish Recovered
as Kelts
1985 25 (22.3%) 56 (24.0%)
1986 59 (30.6%) 403 (34.7%)
Totals 84 (27.5%) 459 (32.9%)
Source: Hooton 1987.

Interestingly, Hooton (2001) provided a cautionary note to his earlier study, reporting that hooking mortality was measured as mortality occurring in the first 24 hours after capture. Mortality observed after 24 hours was considered holding mortality related to the holding and
transport of fish in artificial environments for brood stock programs. Unfortunately, holding mortality was not recorded during the brood stock program and could not be evaluated. However, the above kelt recovery data on the Keogh River provide evidence that delayed
mortality resulting from angling injury is minimal.
Comparison of the degree of hooking injury with mortality rates revealed, not unexpectedly, that mortality was highest among fish that sustained severe blood loss when the hook pierced or tore a major blood vessel (Table 4). In these cases, 53.3 percent hooking
mortality occurred. An instructive feature of these data was that despite extensive blood loss, 47 percent of the most severely injured fish recovered and were released in what appeared to be a
healthy condition. While the number of fish in the most severe injury groups was small, their recovery as post-spawners did not differ substantially from the least injured fish.

Table 4. Number (percentage in parentheses) of hooking mortalities among steelhead ofvarious hook injury categories and the percent of individuals of each category recovered as out-migrating post-spawners in the Keogh River.
Hook Injury* Fish Landed Hooking Mortality Number Post-
Spawners Recovered
1 257 0 (0%) 51 (20.6%)
2 49 1 (2.0%) 7 (15.9%)
3 30 16 (53.3%) 4 (28.6%)
All 336 17 (5.1) 84 (27.5%)
* 1=Superficial wound, no blood loss.
2=Moderate wound, some blood loss but no major blood vessel ruptured.
3=Severe blood loss associated with rupture of major blood vessel.
Source: Hooton 1987.
Other Steelhead Data
As reported, other than the British Columbia steelhead brood stock program, hooking
mortality data for steelhead are scarce. However, several other hooking mortality data sets were
identified in which steelhead were captured for study or brood stock collection (Table 5).
Table 5. Other hooking mortality data sets for steelhead.
Study Hooking Mortality (%) Comments
MELP1, Kamloops 1.61 436 steelhead collected from the Thompson R. for brood
stock between 1982-1995
MELP1, Surry 0.31 306 steelhead collected from the Coquihalla R. for brood
stock between 1985-1995
MELP1, Surry 209 steelhead collected from the Squamish R. for brood
stock between 1985-1995
Lirette, 1988
4.31
7.9 76 summer steelhead collected from the Somass River
R. for brood stock in 1984 and 1985
Lirette, 1988 195 winter steelhead collected from the Somass R. for
brood stock in 1984 and 1985
Lirette, 1989 69 summer steelhead collected from the Campbell R. for
brood stock in 1988 and 1989
Thomas, 1995 21 steelhead collected from the Skeena R. Terminal
gear not specified
Nelson et al. 2001
4.1
8.7
4.6
0.9 226 steelhead were angled and tracked in a radio
tracking study in 1999 and 2000.
1 Ministry of the Environment, Lands, and Parks, British Columbia (unpublished data).
53
Average hooking mortality for Table 5 is 3.54 percent, which is within the general range
of that found for the British Columbia steelhead brood stock program.
Other Hooking Mortality Data
In contrast to the relative scarcity of mortality data in freshwater anadromous fisheries,
there is an abundance of data on resident salmonids, for which a consistent pattern is apparent.
Specifically, resident fish caught on bait experienced significantly higher mortality compared to
anadromous fish in rivers. This result is confirmed repeatedly in numerous review papers (Table
6). Studies also show that hooking mortality of resident salmonids with bait is consistently three
to nine times higher than mortality associated with artificial lures or flies. The typical
observation was that baited hooks were taken deeply and that rupture of blood vessels was the
primary cause of mortality (Hooton 2001). Most studies with resident fish indicate hooking
mortalities between 25 and 50 percent, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Hooking Mortality in Resident Trout.
Species Hooking Mortality (%) Study
Multiple Species 25 Wydoski 1977
Atlantic salmon (landlocked) 35 Warner and Johnson 1978
Rainbow trout ~30 Mongillo 1984
Cutthroat trout ~50 Mongillo 1984
Several resident trout species 43.6 Taylor and White 1992
Several resident trout species 31.4 Trotter 1995
It is clear that hooking mortality data from resident salmonids are not applicable to nonfeeding
steelhead in rivers. Equally clear is that the hatchery steelhead programs in southwestern
British Columbia provide evidence that angled steelhead have a high survival after capture by
angling.
54
Conclusions
Overall, the data indicate that wild steelhead release fisheries on winter steelhead stocks
exert a minimal influence on the ability of the fish to spawn and refute claims that caught and
released steelhead were effectively lost from the population. The following conclusions can be
drawn:
• Hooking mortality of steelhead ranged between 0 and 6 percent in 11 Canadian river
basins over a 7 year period with a Province-wide average of 3.6 percent.
• Hooking mortality of winter-run steelhead averages between 2 and 3 percent using
barbless hooks, regardless of whether bait is used.
• Barbed hooks appear to be the largest contributor to hooking mortality.
• The great majority of released fish make it to spawning grounds and spawn.
• Use of resident salmonid hooking mortality data is not applicable to steelhead in
freshwater.
55
References
Hooton, R.S. 1987. Catch and release as a management strategy for steelhead in British
Columbia. Catch and release fishing, a decade of experience. A National Sport Fishing
Symposium. September 30-October 1, 1987. Sponsored by Humboldt State University,
American Fisheries Society, California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, and California Trout,
Inc.
Hooton, R.S. 2001. Facts and issues associated with restricting terminal gear types in the
management of sustainable steelhead sport fisheries in British Columbia. British Columbia
Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks. Nanaimo, British Columbia.
Lirette, M.G. 1988. Telemetric studies of summer and winter steelhead in the Stamp and
Somass Rivers, 1984-1985. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries Program,
Fisheries Report No. VI 881. Nanaimo, B.C.
Lirette, M.G. 1989. Monitoring of tagged summer steelhead in the Campbell River, 1988-1989.
Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries Program, Fisheries Report No. VI 882.
Nanaimo, B.C.
Mongillo, P.E. 1984. A summary of salmonid hooking mortality. Washington Department of
Game, Fish Management Division. Olympia, Washington.
Muoneke, M. I. and W.M Childress. 1994. Hooking mortality: a review for recreational
fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2(22):123-156.
Nelson, T.C., J. Rissling, and C.E. Mussell. 2001. Vedder/Chilliwack River steelhead telemetry
program 1999-2000. Report for the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Lower
Mainland Region, Surrey, B.C.
Taylor, M.J. and K.R. White. A meta-analysis of hooking mortality of non-anadromous trout.
N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 12:760-767.
Thomas, J.O. 1995. 1995 Skeena River sport fish coho and steelhead catch and release study.
Unpublished report. J.O Thomas and Associates Ltd. Contract No. FP 95-5049-170H-0315.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Prince Rupert, B.C.
Trotter, P. 1995. Hooking mortality of trout. Fly Fisherman 26(3):16-27.
Warner, K. and P.R. Johnson. 1978. Mortality of landlocked Atlantic salmon hooked on flies
and worms in a river nursery area. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:772-775.
Wydoski R.S. 1977. Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to quality
fishery management. In: R.A. Barnhart and T.D. Roelofs (eds.). Catch and Release Fishing as a
Management Tool. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
56
5

No one ever said that Keith! I'll bet you'll think twice about letting the smolt nibble on your left over bait though....well maybe.

Well stew, if you read the entire survey you would have noticed that some egg cures with sulfite had 0% mortality.

But then again you quoted me because you're another one of those bug chucking trout fisherman.

[censored]. Force feed an infant 100% sulfite eggs like some of the cures tested for 23 days straight and you'll have a dead infant too.

I could see the problem if you fed a smolt a single egg and it died, but not the case from my understanding.

Keith

+1 Stew

Im just wondering how to get the word out. It would not surprise me, to see an amendment in the next session. I guess we have about four month. Its no better for bankers. Throw it on the ground and the birds get it.

An alternative to sulfites is in order, to protect our privileges.

Keith, it a stupid preservative. So far, youre the only one tied up in knots.

Borax?

fb

Im not an egg expert. Dad used Borax. But in those days, they didnt have all the colors etc we do now. Borax seems to toughen up the eggs.

I have all the old photos. They didnt need GL2 or better, invisible line, lazer hooks. Hell, the first mono was dark brown. He even used it for his hand tied flyline leaders, cause the line was stiffer and rolled out a better cast. My Dads boss, came up with the idea for weighted flylines and told the flyline guys to use powdered lead. They just mixed it into the batter.

Sodium sulfite is toxic to rats. The LD50 is less than 5000 mg/kg which would make it toxicity category D and a dangerous waste in Washington state in amounts of 10% or greater. MSDS for sodium sulfite

I'd like to find out if there are any fish bioassay results on rainbow trout. Sodium sulfite was a common ingredient in photo developer. I haven't done waste designation for quite some time. I'll see if I can dig up a list I have of fish bioassay data. I know the test used to cost around $800 and we used to contract that testing with Sound Analytical.

Interesting information guys.....I'm guessin Borax ain't all that great in the grand scheme of things either?

Careful with all that technical jargon stuff Steelheadman, m reyns might think you're a Husky instead of a Coog

It seems very reasonable to me to attempt to see if something is killing ANY smolts. This is especially true when we have such a small number of smolts as we see in many Puget Sound rivers. Doesn't look to me like anyone is saying the sulfites are anything like the main problem, just that perhaps they may be one problem. If so, let's fix it.

Another proven smolt killer is the two small hooks with bait used by many side drifters, but . . . If we fail to do whatever we can to help the wild fish we will see complete closures. Which would you choose?

I do not know how long the sulfites have been in use as egg cures, but do know several Kenai guides were using them in the late 70s.

That'd be fine by me Redd but some folks lose all their confidence without bait on the end of their biz, and would wet their pants over a rule like that. Besides, it'd be just one more wedge to divide angler groups when we need to be more united than ever,

fb