Connections: This week I attended a three-day conference at Fishmongers Hall called Wild Salmon Connections. The conference message was that wild salmon are in crisis but there is hope.
One of the speakers was the Norwegian Minister of Climate & Environment, Andreas Bjelland Eriksen. He told the audience that salmon farming is the most pressing threat to wild salmon in Norway, a view he had expressed in ilAKS four days before. Of course, this was exactly what the Wild Salmon Connections audience wanted to hear. They need a scapegoat for the current state of wild salmon stocks in Norwegian rivers. For as Torfinn Evensen, of Norwegian Salmon Rivers who also attended the conference told Intrafish, that the Norwegian Environment Agency and local river management took emergency measures last year even though the problem is not caused by anglers and rivers owners.
Delegates to the conference were asked to leave questions for the Minister prior to his arrival using the Slido audience interaction app. Anyone leaving a question could see the other questions asked. Most concerned salmon farming. Some of the questions posed included:
What specific acts are you taking as a Minister to transition the salmon industry to closed containment systems? Are you committed to making this shift in the short term?
How is the government responding to the concerns of local communities and fishermen whose livelihoods and ecosystems are threatened by open net salmon farming?
With recent surveys indicating growing public opposition to open net salmon farming what steps is the government taking to ensure that public opinion is reflected in policy and regulatory decisions?
The Norwegian Scientific Advisory Committee for Atlantic Salmon lists the top 3 threats to wild salmon in Norway coming from fish farms – sea lice, escapes and infections and reports indicate that many wild salmon populations in Norway are in serious decline. Does the Norwegian government see the conservation of wild salmon as urgent?
When will the open net pen farming be closed in Norway? If it is not closed are there to be any future restrictions?
Considering the magnitude of organic biological and chemical pollution emitting from salmon farming in Norway is the Minister confident that the permissions given are within the framework of Norwegian law or are the Norwegian Government not familiar with the scale of pollution?
I suspect that anyone reading these questions will no doubt reach a quick conclusion as to the general theme running not just in the questions to the Minister but also through the whole conference.
Yet, when it comes to questions about salmon farming, they always appear to be very similar. What is never heard are questions about the exact impact that salmon farming is supposed to have on wild salmon. For example, Norwegian Salmon Rivers just assume that the decline in wild salmon numbers is down to salmon farming, there are no questions about how many salmon might have died from other causes besides from farming. The assumption appears to be that if salmon farming is removed, wild salmon will thrive.
One question which appeared on Slido but never reached the Minister referred to one of the previous questions about the Norwegian Scientific Advisory Committee’s advice. The question highlighted that in 2019, the last year they gave figures, they estimated that 39,000 wild salmon smolts would die as the result of the greatest pressure on wild salmon – sea lice. The question continued that also in 2019, 96,112 adult salmon returning to Norwegian rivers to breed were intercepted by nets (12,933) and rods (83,179) and killed. The Minister was asked which did he think was the greatest threat to wild salmon in Norway? Unfortunately, the organisers weeded out this question because it didn’t fit in with their theme.
Interestingly, the Slido app was used to pose questions to various panel discussions as they took place but when it came to the section on salmon farming, the organisers again requested questions be submitted in advance. Presumably they didn’t want any questions posed that weren’t in line with the general anti-salmon farming theme.
So how bad is the situation in Norwegian rivers. iLAKS reports that 147 tonnes of salmon were caught by anglers whilst Intrafish puts the total catch at just under 45,000 fish. However, when looking at the official website, the total number reported as caught is 45,190 salmon. Of these 30,422 were killed whilst 14,768 were put back, which equates to a catch and release rate of 32.6%. This is a slight improvement on 2023 when the catch and release rate was 26.7% but the total catch is down over a third.
Norwegian anglers might consider that Scottish anglers are putting back over 90% of the fish they catch, although this strategy Is clearly not halting the decline. Yet, it is not putting the fish back that is the issue here but whether Norwegian rivers can continue to stand the loss of so many breeding fish. The ‘Wild Fish Connections’ conference talked about improving the catchments for returning fish but if the fish are killed before they reach the catchment and breed, such improvements are a pointless exercise.
Intrafish.no reports that Norwegian Salmon Rivers have recruited 18 national nature and interest organisations to shine a spotlight on open cage farming and demand that salmon farms have zero emissions. Some of these organisations are well-known, such as WWF and I can only wonder how they find it acceptable that they have linked up with an organisation that is happy to see 30,442 wild salmon killed for sport yet condemn another sector where there is no definitive proof that salmon farms are responsible for the decline of wild fish. Norwegian Salmon Rivers say that the Institute of Marine Research show that up to 50% of wild salmon die from sea lice in some areas but have published no evidence that these fish actually died as they say they have.
Questioning: In the previous commentary, I mentioned the Slido app, and I was interested that the app highlighted a number of quotes within its pages. I think that they merit repeating here because they are a reminder that questioning is an essential part of what we do.
What makes us human is an ability to ask questions – Jane Goodall.
The key to asking the right question is not to be afraid of the answers – Anon
No-one is dumb who is curious – Neil deGrasse Tyson
Asking questions is the first way to begin change – Kubbra Sait
The important thing is not to stop questioning – Albert Einstein
A prudent question is one-half of wisdom – Francis Bacon
One who never asks either knows everything or nothing – Malcolm Forbes
Yet, when it comes to sea lice, it seems that questioning is not appreciated, at least when the questions are aimed at the scientists who appear to dictate sea lice science. Kyst.no has highlighted some new research from two Nofima affiliated researchers, which challenges the established thinking from the Institute of Marine Research. The new paper has found that lice in the sea are a poor measure of lice on wild fish. The paper claims that the correlation is so poor that data from much larger areas than the production areas is needed if the approach taken by IMR is to be considered accurate. The paper by Gjerde and Aslam challenges the work of Mysksvoll et, al. (2018).
For me the most interesting part of the article in Kyst.no is the response from IMR to this new work. Mari Skuggedal Myksvoll and Anne Dagrum Sandvik from IMR said that this criticism was first presented in the Traffic Light lawsuits of 2020/1. I remember they were very dismissive of this work at the time. They then said that the work was first submitted to the journal PLOS One in 2022, but it was rejected. It was subsequently published in the journal Aquaculture. Clearly, Myksvoll and Sandvik imply that if the paper was not accepted by PLOS One it cannot be good enough or accurate, However, in my experience papers about sea lice call on a very small group of reviewers, most of whom are engaged in this work. It is highly possible that a paper was rejected because of reviewer’s bias, not that that is easy to prove but I know it exists having been mistakenly sent a reviewers copy of a paper I wrote.
In a second article in Kyst.no Bjarne Gerde says he is being criticised for misunderstanding but has never been told what he misunderstands. Bjarne also responds to their failure to publish in PLOS One saying that after three rounds of refereeing, they realise that the journal wasn’t interested in the paper, so they submitted to Aquaculture instead who published after two rounds of refereeing.
The two members of IMR also say that the authors have never contacted IMR to clarify the misunderstandings. However, my own experience of trying to discuss science with IMR is that they either never reply or are extremely dismissive. Finally, they say that the paper Myksvoll et. al. (2018) did not attempt to predict the lice burden using modelled density in the sea, so they feel that it is strange to be criticised for something they never did. They therefore argue that the criticism of their work is irrelevant and outdated.
Last year, Mari Myksvoll and two of her colleagues from IMR dismissed the findings of a paper by Solveig Van Nes and Albert Imsland from Akvaplan Niva. They chose to write a response in the pages of the online paper E24. IMR appear to have a record of dismissing any work that does not agree with their own. It should be remembered that IMR science forms the basis of the Traffic Light System.
Bjarne Gjerde says that it is impossible to have a scientific discussion with IMR and I agree. I have argued time and time again that there needs to be a new discussion on sea lice yet it seems that researchers in both Norway and Scotland resist any such idea. As I have said before, if they are confident of their work, they should have no problem standing up to questioning from others.
Anyone interested in reading the commentary can access both Kyst.no articles through these links from where they can be easily translated.
As for the points of disagreement, this is not my area of specialisation on sea lice as it involves a lot of modelling. Myksvoll’s 2018 paper is an evaluation of a national salmon lice monitoring system. The abstract states:
“We have therefore developed an operational salmon lice model, which calculates the infestation pressure all along the coast in near real-time based on a hydrodynamical ocean model and a salmon lice particle tracking model. The hydrodynamic model generally shows a negative temperature bias, and a positive salinity bias compared to observations. The modelled salmon lice dispersion correlates with measured lice on wild salmonids caught using traps or nets.”
My problem with the paper is the use of the sea lice dispersal model because as regular readers will know, no-one has yet found any infective sea lice larvae in the water column except at very low levels. If they are not present, then the model is just a computer programme that bears no resemblance to real life.
Myksvoll states that the lice dispersion correlates well with measured lice on wild salmon yet when the numbers of fish sampled in the Traffic Light System are considered, they are so low that drawing any conclusions would be a miracle. The numbers of fish sampled for the paper at four locations were 49, 23, 9 and 64. Taranger (also from IMR) stated in a 2012 report that a minimum of 100 fish should be sampled. These numbers fall far short of his recommendation but then when it comes to salmon farming and sea lice, such things don’t seem to matter.
70% mortality: In a statement posted on the Scottish Greens website on January 17th MSP Arianne Burgess called for a pause on new salmon farms. She said that the RAIC inquiry was an opportunity to take meaningful action to address high mortality rates adding that 25% of farmed salmon die in the pens. ‘Imagine a quarter of farm cattle were left dead in fields – there would be an uproar about animal rights.’
This week, Scottish Farmer reported that SBV (Schmallenberg Virus) has been confirmed at a farm in Ayrshire resulting in the deaths of 90 lambs – about 70% of this year’s crop as well as multiple knock-on issues in breeding ewes. The farmers said that it is devastating, initially affecting lambs within the ewes during pregnancy. The losses come in a variety of ways from abortions before lambing, deformed lambs, dead lambs at birth, some with extreme deformities and others with more modest but unsolvable issues like fused limbs and neurological issues. The farmers said losing 90 lambs is a huge blow.
There is a vaccine for SBV but because the uptake is low, it is currently not commercially viable to produce it. One of the problems is that farmers are not obliged to report cases of SBV so the spread of the disease across the country is unknown. Some farmers are reluctant to report cases because there is a stigma about it. SBV is spread by midges and now there is concern about the spread of Blue Tongue Virus which is also transmitted by midges. Unlike SBCV, BTV is a notifiable disease.
These viruses have spread from the continent and with warmer summers more midges are now heading north more often. It seems that reports about high mortality amongst sheep will become more common in Scotland.
I have previously mentioned the comment of a young framer interviewed on the BBC Countryfile programme who said that wherever there are live animals there are dead animals too. I would be interested to hear what Ariane Burgess has to say about the poor farmer who has experienced 70% mortality of his lambs. She says that there will be a public outcry about such levels of mortality, but the reality is that there is much public sympathy for this farmer and no doubt for others should they ever suffer a similar fate.
The so-called debate about mortality in salmon farming is not about how many salmon died, but rather that those who highlight high mortality are simply using it as a vehicle to try to ensure that their wish to see an end to salmon farming, for reasons best known to themselves, is achieved.