Atlantics from Net Pens were Infected with Virus

http://newsbut.com/wild-fish-conservancy-says-escaped-atlantic-salmon-were-infected-with-contagious/

The House and Senate voted to get rid of them. But they still have 4-7 years to experiment.
This was never about the short term gain of fish farming. There is a reason they want the farms here, its the closest state to Alaska. These giant fish farm companies are solely focused on market share and eliminating Pacific Salmon.

Also, on the world market, Atlantics are preferred to Pacifics. My understanding is that Europeans prefer a farmed Atlantic to a wild Pacific.

Different strokes for different folks.

World market? Don't have to go that far. Fairly recently I was watching a Seattle TV station's locally produced show with a section featuring a cooking/taste test between wild Pacific Chinook and farmed Atlantics. The preference was for the Atlantics! Go figure; different strokes. But there is certainly both a price point AND texture/taste preference for Atlantics by a sizable group of consumers.

The typical salmon-eating demographic is such that the vast majority prefer the farmed product strictly out of familiarity. Statistically, most folks' first taste of salmon is farmed Atlantics. If they find it pleasing to their palate, that's what they reach for at the time of next purchase. The choice is even more strongly reinforced if it's attainable at a lower price point. It's what they like because it's what they know. When presented with the opportunity to finally try the alternative, the unique taste/texture of the wild product is so different, it's considered "abnormal" for lots of these folks.... therefore deemed inferior.

I think it works just the same way (only in reverse) for those of us who grew up eating wild-caught salmon.

layman's terms...hotdog vs venison

GREAT analogy from a ROAD Scholar!

It should be no mystery why many folks prefer farmed Atlantic salmon. They are a milder tasting fish than say Chinook. In addition fresh salmon at a convent size with consistent quality is more readily available for the average consumer at a more affordable price.

I like venison reference; we as a society made the move from relying on venison and turkeys to preferring beef, pork and chicken. If we as a society are going to insistent on eating salmon the rate at which we are destroying the habitat those species require it will have to be largely a farmed product. Have no problem eliminating the net pens but where is the commitment to meaningful habitat protection and restoration to make more wild salmon available?

Curt

Even if we restore the habitat and the wold fish the simple mathematics of management produce fewer consumable fish. Or game. Broodstock requirements for the farmed products are significantly smaller than for wild. And, if we preserve/restore the wild salmon, where are we going to put the people?

Undam the Columbia and tribs and we get back the wild fish. Where will the power and irrigation water come from? King Coal? Maybe DT is right. Remove the dams and bring back coal.

Restore the Ssacramento and San Juaquin for wild salmon. Again, where does the drinking and irrigation water plus power now come from. And, where do all the people in the floodplain (most of the whole Central Valley) get moved to?

The problem is people.

Used to work in Fish Health. Very familiar with virus as we had a few nice blow-ups to deal with.

The AS were carrying the virus. Just like we all carry E. coli. All that means is that the bug was in the fish.

The AS were not "diseased", at least not caused by the virus. It was just there.

The virus has not yet been found in wild Pacifics, except that maybe the rare individual.

The virus has not, to my knowledge, been shown to cause actual disease in Pacifics.

This last is important. Back in the late 80s we had some isolations of the VHS virus. Known to be very lethal to Pacifics and believed (note closely that word) to have been carried in by cultured Atlantics. The VHSV that AS normally had, in the Atlantic, was really bad for Pacifics. So, we went about killing whole hatcheries, disinfecting them, and so on. But, we also continued to look at the bugs. Turns out, the VHSV here was native, was found primarily in cod and herring, and was fairly benign to Pacifics. Didn't stop the anti-AS crowd, even after the information was published in peer-reviewed journals.

My point is that words used in the statements have to be looked at very closely for their specific definitions. And, we need to find out just what the bug can actually do to local fish.

There's a comment that keeps cropping up over and over; "peer-reviewed"
Who selects the peers that do the reviewing? Are all the "reviews" included in the published document?

There are issues with "peer-review". For a journal, they ask professionals in the field to review the manuscript. I have done quite a few. I have also edited books where I solicited reviewers and it was interesting to me that state and tribal bios with expertise in the subject at hand would not review.

There is also what the state and feds use for "peer review" of internal documents. That, in my experience, is more of having the choir review it. More for political/policy concordance.

If something is peer reviewed in a journal there is often responses solicited and a subsequent discussion as to why the conclusions were reached.

From experience, I know the system is not perfect but is is a damnsight better than a News Release.

"For a journal, they ask professionals in the field to review the manuscript."
I'm assuming that "they" is the writer?

From my perspective it looks like there is a lot of 'choir review' that goes on in the private sector of conservation organizations and such. When one follows the names, and there seems to be a lot of the same ones that keep cropping up, the whole thing smacks of cronyism. Mercenary biology?

Then, once these things that may have agenda driven cherry picking of data type of science get published, they then get quoted in the next paper as if accepted as hard fact.

How far back does it go? What kind of foundation is this house built on?
Can we trust any of it? Private or government?

The journal does the reviewing. The author(s) submit the paper and journal editor(s) are the responsible for the review. Generally, the reviews are anonymous. The editor knows but not the authors. Plus, you have to generally pay for publication.

Before you submit a manuscript one generally sends it out to friends and colleagues (maybe even supervisors) for their comments.

Are you seeing the "same names" as authors? One of the reasons for that is that publication is difficult, time consuming, and more effort than many in the field are willing to invest. If you are an academic (professor) there is a system in place to reward publication. If not, the rewards may be only personal as the job/work makes no recognition.

Peer-reviewed publication is the foundation of science and goes back centuries.

Here is WDFWs rebuttal on WFC publication. Its long. I wanted everyone to see what the follow up was from WDFW

WDFW review of Wild Fish Conservancy’s Feb. 15 news release on presence of virus in escaped Atlantic salmon
February 16, 2018
Summary of key points
The following points are fully elaborated in the material below, prepared by Dr. Kenneth Warheit, fish health and genetic specialist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
• The Wild Fish Conservancy’s news release confuses the virus (PRV) with the disease (HSMI), misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate risks to native salmon, and fails to find a single study to support the claim that PRV from open-water pens will harm wild fish.
• The Conservancy asserts – without evidence – that HSMI will harm wild salmon. However, HSMI has never been detected in our native salmon or any other fish except farmed Atlantic salmon.
• PRV occurs naturally and was first confirmed in the Salish Sea from fish samples taken in 1987. The Conservancy provides no data or scientific research to support its claim that the PRV found in escaped fish originated in Norway.
• WDFW methodically and objectively investigates PRV and other fish health issues. We are increasing surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and in our hatcheries. At present, PRV is not recognized as a pathogen of concern by the World Organization for Animal Health.
Review of Wild Fish Conservancy news release
The press release is dated February 15, 2015. The following are general comments about the document (bullets), followed by specific responses to statements made in the press release. The numbered comments below correspond to annotations made in a copy of the press release included with this document.
• Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) appears to be confused by the difference between the virus PRV (Piscine Orthoreovirus) and the associated disease HSMI. WFC exaggerates the risk associated with the presence of PRV, based on current scientific knowledge; and WFC fails to recognize that the presence of PRV does not equal the presence of disease, that most fish with PRV do not exhibit clinical or microscopic signs of disease, and that both farmed Atlantic salmon and free-swimming native Pacific salmon have PRV but only farmed Atlantic salmon get clinical signs of HSMI.
• WFC repeatedly makes statements that appear to be based on science by citing published scientific papers in defense of their statements; but in many, perhaps most cases the published papers do not support their statements. These published papers either do not address their statements, or provide information that is counter to their statements. Where the published papers are consistent with WFC’s statements, the statements generally overstate the conclusions in the published papers.
• Without evidence, WFC states that PRV itself originated in Norway, and they imply, also without evidence, that the strain of PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought to Washington from Norway.
• WFC misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate the risk that the August 2017 Cypress #2 accident will harm native salmon with a disease (HSMI) that has never been detected in our native Pacific salmon or any fish other than farmed Atlantic salmon.
1. WDFW never claimed that PRV was not present in escaped Atlantic salmon. In fact, in the State’s report investigating the Cypress #2 accident, WDFW was the first to report the presence of PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. Ms. Amy Windrope’s quote that appeared in WFC’s press release was accurate and subsequent statements at the press briefing specifically dealt with the presence of PRV and stated that WDFW found PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. None of the escaped Atlantic salmon with PRV examined by WDFW had HSMI.
2. PRV is a virus that is present in both captive Atlantic salmon and free-swimming native Pacific salmon. In most cases, fish with PRV are healthy, and show no signs of disease. The syndrome HSMI has been associated with PRV in Atlantic salmon aquaculture only. HSMI affects only a small subset of captive Atlantic salmon with PRV and in most cases HSMI is not fatal. See attached White Paper.
3. WFC claims that PRV is “highly contagious and debilitating,” and cites the scientific publication Wessel et al. as the source for their statement. But, the results from Wessel et al. do not support WFC’s claim; however, Wessel et al. do state “PRV is ubiquitous in farmed Atlantic salmon and thus present also in apparently healthy individuals.” The published paper indicates that in the laboratory, PRV produced microscopic signs that are consistent with HSMI, but in this study none of the fish developed a debilitating disease, and none of the fish died as a result of infection.
4. Neither the Wessel et al. nor the DiCicco et al. papers state that there are “significant mortalities from HSMI,” as WFC claims. Wessel et al. state that “[h]istopathological lesions in the heart can be found in most fish in an affected sea cage while the cumulative mortality [in Norway] ranges from insignificant to 20%.” DiCicco et al. state “[t]he disease [HSMI] has been reported also in Scotland . . . and Chile.” The data presented by DiCicco et al. for the BC farm indicates that about 0.2% of the affected fish died from HSMI.
5. WFC states that the “spread of PRV from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon has been well documented,” and cites Garver et al. as that documentation. Garver et al. describes a laboratory study where through injections and forced cohabitation the investigators demonstrate that PRV can be highly infectious. Therefore, this research does not state that PRV spreads from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon. However, it is likely that wild salmon can be infected with PRV from farmed salmon, and likewise, farmed salmon can be infected by wild salmon. Furthermore, in addition to WFC’s misuse of the Garver et al. research, they omitted another finding of Garver et al.: even with the high infectivity of PRV, none of the test fish showed any clinical or microscopic signs of disease.
6. This paragraph is entirely speculative and not based on any “peer-reviewed science,” as claimed by WFC. WFC states that “the virus may reduce the amount of oxygen cells can transport to the fish’s muscles,” and cites another paper published by Wessel et al. However, the cited paper does not support WFC’s statement: “[a]lthough the present study suggests salmon RBC [red blood cells] can tolerate high amounts of PRV, it is not known how it affects other important erythrocyte functions, such as oxygen transport.”
7. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope was based on clinical examination, by a licensed veterinarian, of escaped Atlantic salmon re-captured soon after the spill. The veterinarian determined that these fish were indeed healthy, that is, free from disease. These fish were tested for regulated pathogens, not for PRV, which is not a regulated pathogen nor is it recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as a pathogen of concern. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope is accurate. WFC continues to inaccurately state the difference between a virus (PRV) and a disease (HSMI).
8. WFC is disingenuous when they label PRV as a “Norwegian virus” and WFC is implying that the PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought here from Norway. PRV has been present in Salish Sea waters since at least 1987. There is a scientific debate in the peer-reviewed literature as to the origin of the PRV (eastern Pacific v Atlantic). This debate centers on viral genetics since there is little direct epidemiological evidence as to the origin of PRV. An objective evaluation, based on current information and analyses, would indicate that the origin of PRV is not known. Nevertheless and more importantly, it is unknown as to where the escaped Atlantic salmon contracted PRV. It is conceivable that the fish contracted the virus in Cooke Aquaculture’s Rochester hatchery, which if true would suggest that all the Atlantic salmon in the net pens have PRV. This would be consistent with what is known about the prevalence of PRV in Atlantic salmon net pens in British Columbia, and not a surprising result here in Washington. Alternatively, it is also conceivable that the fish entered the net pens free of PRV and contracted the virus from wild fish—a scenario that is also common in British Columbia.
9. WFC provided no data or citations that support their claim that the PRV present in the escaped fish are of Norwegian origin. See comment #8 above. In addition, although PRV genetic sequences from eastern Pacific closely resemble that from Norway, there are differences between these sets of sequences, and it would have been more informative if WFC provided information about the sequences, rather than speculating about the origin of the PRV found in the escaped Atlantic salmon.
10. Despite WFC’s claim that there is a “multitude of scientific studies,” they failed to cite a single scientific study “that demonstrate[s] PRV from open-water pens will likely spread to and harm wild fish.” WFC also failed to state that PRV is present in native Pacific salmonids from Alaska to at least Washington, and in all cases these native fish showed no clinical or microscopic signs of HSMI or any other disease related to being infected with PRV. WDFW is methodical and objective in our evaluation of PRV, and we plan to increase surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and within our hatcheries. WDFW has been truthful with WFC and with anyone who asks us about PRV. The Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee made up of virologists, pathologists, geneticists, and veterinarians have produced a White Paper on PRV and HSMI. WDFW’s current management associated with PRV is consistent with that White Paper.

Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.

Not everyone who has HIV gets AIDS.

But why take a risk on amplifying a KNOWN pathogen in our waters?

Stupid is as stupid does.

I'm glad WA's leaders are finally taking a stand against this industry.

Salmon farming may not belong in Puget Sound, but false claim news releases grandstanding the effort by WFC to get rid of the farms is not the way to go about it. The review by Ken Warheit is a good read. I've read some of his genetics work; he is thorough, precise, and accurate. I'm glad he reviewed WFC's news release. When I read it I had some problems with it, but I'm not as articulate as Warheit is in his review.

Agreed, Salmo. Accuracy should be important.

WFC counter to WDFW press release.....and I would like to add part of eyeFISH's comments

But why take a risk on amplifying a KNOWN pathogen in our waters?


Wild Fish Conservancy stands firm behind PRV statements February 20th, 2018

For immediate release.

In light of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) response to Wild Fish Conservancy’s (WFC) press release on February 15th, we stand firm behind our original statements, and aim to briefly but fully clarify our position on the matter of Piscine Orthoreovirus (PRV) of Norwegian origin found in escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in Puget Sound. It is our intention that this clarification will dispel any charges of inaccuracy when it comes to the PRV threat. As is stated in the original release, WFC received independent lab results confirming the presence of PRV in 19 of 19 farmed Atlantic salmon tested that had escaped from a large-scale escape event off of Cypress Island in August 2017. Furthermore, testing of the samples showed the strain of PRV to be of Norwegian origin. Specifically, the S1 gene from tissue samples from eight of the 19 fish were sequenced and all identified as Geneotype 1a, which is known to be of Norwegian origin. We take issue with a number of claims made by WDFW in response to this press release, mainly that the agency did not attempt to accurately represent WFC’s views on the matter, and that WDFW is not taking an appropriately precautionary approach when it comes to evidence of a potentially harmful virus being proliferated in Washington’s public waters.
WDFW mischaracterizes our view regarding the Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammatory (HSMI) disease. In the press release we accurately state that HSMI has caused up to 20% mortality in Norwegian net pens. We also state that PRV is known to be the causative agent of HSMI, which has been well documented.
We do not claim, however, that HSMI has been shown to occur in wild Atlantic or Pacific salmon and steelhead. We do not confuse HSMI with PRV, but we do express unease over PRV’s demonstrated relationship to the lethal disease. We are clear that our primary concern is with infection of the virus itself and the concerning possibility that it may cause harm to wild salmon and steelhead, particularly juveniles.
In the press release, WFC states:
“As PRV builds up in a salmon’s red blood cells, the virus may reduce the amount of oxygen cells can transport to the fish’s muscles, lowering the fish’s performance. For a wild fish, reduced performance means a reduced ability to capture prey, evade predators, and swim upriver to spawn.”
This quote identifies a credible biological mechanism by which PRV infection may lead to increased mortality in wild salmon and steelhead. Even in the absence of HSMI, there is the potential for PRV infection to harm wild fish. We believe this potential for harm should not be taken lightly, especially considering the status of the wild ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in Puget Sound.
WFC additionally takes issue with the claim that escaped Atlantic salmon were infected with PRV as a result of stress in the aftermath of escape. 100% of escaped Atlantic salmon tested by both WDFW and WFC (a total of 23 fish) tested positive for
PRV. In a recent broad effort to survey for disease among Alaska and Washington, only 4.6% of Chinook, Coho, and steelhead sampled in Puget Sound tested positive for the virus, a finding that dispels the notion that PRV is ubiquitous among wild fish. Similarly, Norway’s wild salmon disease surveillance program data shows that escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in wild salmon rivers have much higher levels of PRV infection (55% of fish sampled) than either wild-origin conservation hatchery brood stock (24%) or wild salmon (13%). Lacking data that would indicate the absence of the disease prior to escape, WDFW cannot state with any amount of certainty that the disease was contracted in the days following the escape.
As for the issue of the virus’ origin, WFC strongly disagrees with WDFW’s implication that PRV in Puget Sound and the Salish Sea originated in the Pacific Northwest, rather than being imported from Norway. Our independent lab results identified the S1 gene samples of Atlantic salmon as Geneotype 1a, which is known to be of Norwegian origin. WDFW’s implication that the virus is native to the Salish Sea is, at best, highly controversial. Our evaluation of the recent scientific literature on this issue leads us to conclude, in agreement with a majority of researchers who have published on the matter, that it is highly improbable that PRV is native to the eastern Pacific Ocean, and that its presence in Puget Sound and the Salish Sea is the result of importation from Norway.
Much of WDFW’s reply treats the press release as if it were a detailed scientific article, rather than a news brief presenting a summary of critical information. In the release WFC provided members of the press and public with references to the relevant scientific journal articles that informed our position; those interested in digging deeper are encouraged to dig deeper. Still, a press release is necessarily brief and general. It is not a scientific document, and a reviewer should not treat it as such. The testing of the tissue samples from the Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Cypress Island pen, the general results of which we announced in the press release, is part of an ongoing collaborative research project soon to be published in a major scientific journal. Contact information has been provided at the bottom of this press release, please don’t hesitate to contact WFC to request more information regarding the information provided in this release.
When it comes to the impacts of PRV on our wild salmon and steelhead, the science strongly indicates that Washington state agencies need to take a measured and precautionary approach, not a dismissive one. In Puget Sound, wild Pacific salmon and steelhead find themselves at considerable risk, with several species threatened with extinction and many surviving at only a fraction of their historical abundance. Even a small amount of risk from the spread of PRV, compounded with the other stressors our wild fish populations face, has the potential to bring about disastrous consequences to already imperiled wild salmon and steelhead. Due to this concern, a measured and precautionary approach dictates that state agencies must err heavily on the side of caution.
The burden of proof that PRV does not cause harm to wild fish does not rest on wild fish. The burden of proof, rather, lies squarely with the Atlantic salmon net pen industry and regulatory state agencies. This burden has yet to be shouldered by the industry and its defenders.
To date, WFC has not seen sufficient evidence from either of these entities that PRV will not harm wild fish. In standing firm on our concern over the impacts of PRV to wild Pacific salmon, WFC calls on WDFW and other state agencies to accomplish the following: 1. Stop all restocking of Atlantic salmon net pens until thorough industry-independent testing has proven the Atlantic salmon hatchery is not planting PRV infected fish. 2. Immediately test all Atlantic salmon net pens in Puget Sound for PRV. 3. Remove all PRV-infected Atlantic salmon from Puget Sound net pens. 4. Immediately disinfect facilities showing any trace of PRV.
We maintain that these actions are essential to ensure that PRV-infected fish are not being planted into public waters and that Atlantic salmon raised in net pens are not amplifying and spreading the virus in public waters where it places our native salmon and steelhead at risk.
For more information, please contact:
Kurt Beardslee, Executive Director
(425) 788-1167
Or email us at:
info@wildfishconservancy.org

I agree with bushier and eyeFISH that WDFW has not been very risk-averse in this situation.

But, especially with the events of recent weeks with all of the shootings how much risk-avoidance do we want to put in place? Or drunk driving? Just asking the question as to how do we assess risk versus an action?

These cultured Atlantics sure seem to have pathogen issues. Is it more recent than when they were first imported in the 19th Century?

Also, the real target here. it seems, should be the whole net pen industry. Escape by 100,000 Chinook would have been significantly more damaging. The industry, to me, is a bigger issue than simply the fish stock used.

Cooke plans to go NAFTA on Puget Sound:
http://kuow.org/post/remember-nafta-it-might-keep-atlantic-salmon-farms-puget-sound

A alternative:

http://www.theolympian.com/news/business/article201131419.html

From my reads, there is fault on both sides....Cook for not doing maintenance in a timely/on-going manner. On the state side, there are multiple agencies with different responsibilities for different aspects of supervision. One would think that there were or should have been scheduled inspections and/or unannounced inspections that would have identified issues such as not being anchored within the boundaries, mussel growth on the nets, deteriorating floats and anchor lines......

That said, I think on-land facilities are better for raising exotics.....

The good news is Cooke Aquaculter has already made it publicly clear they see the removal of their permit and right to farm as a “taking” and they intend to SUE the state to seek just compensation to the tone of 70 some million.

Guess if they win their suit the citizens of Washington will be buying farmed salmon after all, about 70 mill worth!

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...eles-site-open/

You think its a coincidence that the navy just built that giant dock right next to the fish pens and now they got to go.I will be glad when I don't have to look at that eye sore or swing around it every time I go fishing.

Land-based fish rearing is significantly better option from a variety of perspectives. Certainly the effects of tides and storms are reduced, waste can be collected and treated, etc.

The big BUT is water. Cowlitz Salmon uses, I believe, 100 cfs to rear their production of smolts. Where will you find a couple 100 cfs of clean water and then be willing to keep fish that might carry pathogens out of the water supply? I have been told that there are filtering technologies that could clean up the water but that would add so much to the cost. But, the discussion needs to occur.

That was the big push for the GMO Atlantic salmon. Giving them a Chinook growth hormone and making them triploid significantly cut down on the time needed to grow them to harvest size. They claimed this made land based aquaculture economically viable. But of course these "franken fish" were outlawed. What a shame.

The key will still be clean fresh water.

Re-circulation with supplementation at some percentage on a daily or weekly basis. Any discharge going through UV lights or something similar to kill pathogens.

Not just recirculation but it will need to have the nutrients removed, treated for pathogens (UV at least) and cooled. Simple recirc will get real ugly real fast at commercial loading rates.

Most, especially most successful, government facilities use single pass, especially when reading densities get very high.

Yeah but who the hell wants to eat something like this?

When you buy it in the store you see the flesh and maybe the skin. On a plate in the restaurant even less.

Back in Doc Donaldson's class he told the story of a taste test they conducted with his super trout. Same stock, all fed the same food except that different dyes were added to color the flesh. The color ranged from very pale (no dye) to very red.

The result? North American consumers said the red fish tasted better. Northern Europeans said the pale/white fish tasted better. There was no difference in taste. It was all in the visual perception.

Honestly these look pretty tasty. Glad Canada has some sense.


Here's to Commercial fishermen going the way of market hunters.

Source for the picture.

Did anyone else see those gut-wrenching images of that waste flow of blood pouring out of a fish processing plant in B.C. that was on the local news? Talk about why these farms are not environmentally sound! Lots of evidence that profit is the business model, not protecting the environment. If you can't do it without impacting the water or wild salmon you should NOT be allowed to do this. Bob R

Well since it’s already shaped like a turd, maybe easier to digest for folks with gastrointestinal issues.

An article from the National Fisherman about a large scale land-based Atlantic salmon farm proposed in Belfast, Maine


https://www.nationalfisherman.com/viewpo...re-salmon-farm/

Tanks a million: Maine strikes a deal for an onshore salmon farm
By Jessica Hathaway February 1, 2018

The town of Belfast, Maine, and a Norwegian aquaculture company have entered an agreement that could see the production of farmed salmon in the town to the tune of 60 jobs.*

Nordic Aquafarms plans to invest north of $450 million into a 40-acre land-based tank farm on a site they have contracted to buy from the Belfast Water District. And I think it’s safe to say Mainers are freaking out about it. As much as Mainers ever freak out, anyway.

Responses run the gamut from, “Did you hear about them Norwegians, deah?” to “Well isn’t that cunning?” (OK, maybe that’s just how it goes in my head, imagining old-timers talking about it over coffee and pie at the bean supper.)

But the people of Belfast are cautiously ecstatic. The deal with the water district includes 26 acres and an annual volume of water (the other 14 acres are currently privately owned). Excitement about new jobs and investment is tempered only by unknowns, like what do tanked salmon eat? How will the waste be managed? How many of the 60 jobs in the initial 2-year investment phase will be filled by locals?

Nordic Aquafarms CEO Erik Heim noted that the facility will be designed to produce a low-impact discharge of water that is free of chemicals and medications. He added that all waste will be recycled, and the site design will incorporate renewable energy.

Though my penchant runs toward wild fisheries, I also recognize that fish farming is not going away. Some aquaculture is inherently beneficial to wild fisheries, like mussels, clams and oysters. Ocean net pens have improved over the decades, but they are still far from clean or beneficial — only marginally less harmful, assuming they work as planned. If a company is committed to farming salmon or any other finfish, I much prefer the use of land-based tanks.

Following the West Coast salmon spill this year, net pens are under more well-deserved scrutiny. If we’re going to pour resources into improving finfish farming techniques, why not home in on tanks that keep the farm stock separated from the wild stock?

If Nordic Aquafarms reaches its goal to pump out 66 million pounds of salmon a year (about 7 percent of American salmon consumption), they will certainly be giving traditional salmon farmers a run for their money.

I will follow up with some of my Maine colleagues in AS restoration.

The sensationalism of the WFC is everything that is wrong with the environmental movement right now. The way we are going to save the world is slowly one dirty sweaty day at a time, not misusing information and suing the daylights out of the “bad guys”.

It really bothers me that planners, policy, and attourneys are trying to save the environment from their desks. Good luck with that.

....and another land based AS facility is planned in Maine.....

https://www.nationalfisherman.com/northe...orways-thunder/


By Jessica Hathaway February 27, 2018

Less than a month after Nordic Aquafarms announced a deal with the city of Belfast, Maine, to build the world’s largest aquaculture tanks in the midcoast town, a Maine-based company announced its purchase of a nearby site for the same purpose.

Bucksport’s former Verso paper mill site will be repurposed as Portland-based Whole Oceans’ $250 million investment in farmed Atlantic salmon.

Whole Oceans plans to locate its land-based salmon farm in midcoast Maine.

As with the Belfast site, local stakeholders have questions about water use, discharge and waste management. Last week, Nordic Aquafarms held a public community meeting to answer questions about their operational plans.

“As a commercial fisherman in northern Penobscot Bay, I did have some questions pertaining to the supply of water going into the fish as well as any discharge they would be introducing into my area,” said Travis Otis, from nearby Searsport, who attended the meeting. “With the facility being entirely land based, with the sole exception being the supply and discharge pipes for the brackish water, that really helped to give me a certain level of peace of mind. When they further explained the process during their presentation as to how they would reduce the levels of discharge in comparison to a water-based operation — claims of 90 percent — I was very pleased to hear about how important the local environment is to them.”

While Nordic Aquafarms plans to break ground in 2019, Whole Oceans says it will begin construction in August this year.

Since Verso announced it was shuttering the Bucksport mill in December 2014, the town has entertained potential investors scouting the mill site for various uses. The vacant mill is in a beautiful and strategic location on the tidal and fast-running Penobscot River with access to both brackish and fresh water.

“Aquaculture is a centerpiece of our state’s ocean economy. As a result of careful planning and effort, Whole Oceans is bringing a new opportunity and economic diversification to a former industrial site, creating renewed economic vitality and jobs,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). “The innovative Whole Oceans aquaculture facility will reflect our ocean heritage in a new, environmentally sustainable manner.”

Whole Oceans claims it has presold 10 years worth of production — that’s 50,000 tons a year, or half a million tons total. Nordic Aquafarms projects it will produce 33,000 tons annually.

If this new wave of aquaculture can assuage local fears of water contamination, it will be a veritable home run for coastal Maine.

My Maine contact says that what she has heard is that they have found locations where they can tap deep water (salt). They can continue saltwater culture in an upland situation. It will certainly add costs to pumping but will allow for significantly more treatment of wastewater. Will also allow for much better targeting of the use of medicines. It should also come close to eliminating concerns about mass releases. If an upland site fails so that hundreds of thousands of fish escape then there are probably much bigger problems to be dealt with by society than just the escape of fish.

All this and yet the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch folks list marine pen raised Atlantic Salmon from British Columbia on the "good" list for sustainability and environmentally friendly.

But then again they also list steelhead gill netted from Washington's Humptulips, Queets, Quillayute and Quinault Rivers in their "good" category.....