82.3 million deaths: I just happened across an article in the Guardian newspaper from the end of 2023 that reported the premature deaths of 82.3 million chickens in the UK. This was up from 64 million in 2021. Many of the deaths were attributed to avian flu and extreme summer temperatures, although campaign groups said that the use of fast growing ‘Frakenchickens’ were an important factor. The group ‘Open Cages’ said that a move to slower growing breeds would contribute to a reduction in mortality yet as I discussed recently in reLAKSation, several companies have withdrawn their commitment to do so because they say that this is not the best way to improve welfare in the poultry industry. Back in 2023, the Poultry Council said that there was not any significant consumer demand for slower growing chicken. This is illustrated by the fact that most retailers offer consumers a wide choice from organic, free-range and premium breed varieties, but most consumers opt to buy chicken that represents the best value.
According to the Scottish Greens on their website, their MSP Ariane Burgess, who is campaigning for a halt to new salmon farms, highlighted that12 million farmed salmon died prematurely in Scotland last year and challenged the Minister in the recent Scottish Parliamentary inquiry that there is a contradiction between those figures and that there is no systemic problem is the industry. Ms Burgess said that Scotland’s reputation is increasingly being damaged as restaurants and hospitality choose not to serve farmed salmon due to welfare and environmental concerns.
Unfortunately, Ms Burgess’s perception of Scottish reputation has been moulded by the angling fraternity who blame salmon farming for the decline of the wild salmon stocks that they want to catch and kill for sport. Of course, many anglers will protest at such a suggestion claiming that they are conservationists, but it is clear that it is conservation of the fishing that is more important than protecting the fish. The only reason that the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee discussed mortality is because the angling sector is using this issue to demonise the industry in the hope that salmon farming can be curtailed in order to help wild salmon stocks recover. The convenor of the committee talked about mortality levels affecting consumer confidence however he has confused consumer confidence with the ‘concerns’ of the angling fraternity. It is clear from the mortality numbers from the chicken sector, consumers weigh up all the facts when making a buying choice and currently high mortality, for whatever reasons does not drive change. That is not to say that consumers, including myself, do not care about welfare (as I will discuss later).
I always remember a young farmer being interviewed on BBC Countryfile saying where-ever there are animals there are dead animals. As a Norwegian politician recently pointed out, mortalities in farmed animals receive government and public sympathy but when it comes to salmon, the industry is accused of welfare abuse. Whether in Norway or Scotland, these claims only come from one source and that is from the anglers and until, the angling fraternity are prepared to sit down and discuss the issues, rather than whinge and whine from the wings, their aim of helping wild salmon will never be achieved.
Postscript. One of the repeated claims about salmon mortality is that if it was happening in public view, there would be a national outcry. Last week BBC News reported that four horses died at this year’s four-day Cheltenham Festival with two dying on one day. The BBC say that 82 horses have been killed in the last 25 years whilst racing over fences. These deaths have occurred right under public gaze. In fact, 65,000 people attend the festival each day and whist the deaths may horrify many, the public return in the same numbers every year. Whilst not exactly comparable, those who complain most are the campaigning charities, not the public.
Science land: In Norway, the same discussion is also taking place, also driven ultimately by the angling sector. There has been a proposal put forward that the farming industry should have an ambition of a five percent mortality level. In response, the leaders of Mowi and Salmar have said that a fixed level of mortality is unrealistic as this is about biology and events beyond their control.
In a commentary in Intrafish, IMR Research Direct Geir Lasse Taranger has responded saying ‘really’. He said that this years IMR Risk Report has brought to light an important debate about fish farming as to whether Norway’s second largest export industry should have ambitions for fish welfare and survival. He said that reported mortality has been around 17% equating to the deaths of 64 million fish. He suggests that if mortality can be brought down to levels last seen in 2010, this would a step in the right direction. He said that modelling studies suggest that mortality could be brought down through interventions with site structure including for example, moving production from unfavourable sites and concentrate the fish in fewer facilities or phase in closed or submerged facilities.
For those readers of reLAKSation who don’t follow the Norwegian press, I would mention that I responded to this commentary, which Intrafish kindly published. Can we now expect a peer-reviewed scientific paper detailing the process of farming salmon whilst avoiding any premature fish deaths. Should the second largest export industry rely on modelling or the expertise of companies with over forty years’ experience of farming salmon to understand how to control mortality. I asked how much experience of farming salmon do the IMR scientists actually have? From my own experience of the scientific community, these are the last people I would look to for advice. The fact that Dr Taranger chose to use the media to express his view speaks loudly of the massive divide between the scientific community and the real world. It is worth remembering that the issues of sea lice have been brought to the fore by the scientific world without the inclusion of those with on the ground expertise. I have asked previously why the Sea Lice Expert Group consists only of scientists and not a single representative of the industry their decisions affect.
I want to look at the detail of Dr Taranger’s commentary but first, I would mention that Dr Taranger replied in Intrafish to my response to his commentary. He says that I seem to believe that society must live with the current levels of mortality. In fact, I never said that at all and the temptation is to respond with another commentary, but I am sur that Intrafish are not that interested in a tit-for-tat series of commentaries on the same subject so instead, I wrote directly to Dr Taranger saying that I would be happy to discuss the issues with him. I am still witing for a reply.
In his original commentary, Dr Taranger responded to the Salmar statement of ‘events beyond our control’. He writes:
- Peaks in salmon mortality can be explained by jellyfish, algae, disease and lice explosions due to marine heatwaves and are all well-known risks. He says that the industry must do more to protect themselves from such well-known risks especially as climate change presents increased challenges.
- Delousing of salmon is not an unexpected event and is one of the main reasons why salmon die on farms. He says better control of lice infestations will reduce mortality
- Lice pressure is affected by how many fish are in a fjord and how long they have been there. He says that it is no coincidence that lice infestation in Northern Norway has increased in line with increased salmon production. He adds that it is also no coincidence that the lice pressure is greatest in Western Norway where there are most fish and most locations in relation to sea area and thus the highest production intensity in the country.
Sadly, Dr Taranger, nor any member of the scientific community appears willing to discuss these issues directly, preferring to express their views in the pages of the media. I continue to find it puzzling that there is such an unwillingness to discuss the basic issues. For example, I do not necessarily agree that more farms automatically mean more lice and more pressure on wild fish. I would argue that there is too much of a reliance on models and the blinkered view of sea lice moulded by claims from the wild fish sector.
Surely, if Dr Taranger and IMR have a view on the impacts of salmon farming then they should be talking directly with the industry instead of focusing on the publication of peer reviewed papers which actually have little bearing on what is happening in the fjords around Norway.
Not so good news: I was planning to write about a commentary written by Seafood Norway’s head of communication Krister Hoaas. This concerned the news that a review of over 200 rivers in Norway has shown that there are increased numbers of spawning wild salmon and sea trout. However, he has written a further commentary on the subject which might surprise many and is worth repeating here:
‘One would think that everyone, including die-hard opponents of aquaculture including those who believe aquaculture is the main cause of negative stock development for salmon and sea trout, would be pleased that the quality assured data from NINA almost unequivocally show a solid increase in the number of spawning fish in the counts. The opposite seems to be the case in the comment fields, here it was hailed with angry faces, vomit emojis and scolding.
While NINA believes that “spawning fish counting is an important tool for monitoring salmon stocks in Norwegian rivers. Data from population monitoring of salmon and sea trout in rivers contributes greatly to knowledge about Norwegian salmon and sea trout stocks,” the keyboard warriors believe that researchers at the IMR, VI, Nofima, NINA and probably everyone else, is corrupt and in the pocket of the aquaculture industry. So are the Norwegian Environment Agency and VRL, according to some.
The comments on Facebook in particular have been depressing reading, but very many of them are not available to the public. I have simply deleted these. I do not intend to let keyboard warriors and internet trolls ruin exchanges where arguments can be pitted against each other. Those who vomit can do so elsewhere.”
This is just sad.
Question?: Fish Farming Expert reports on a study undertaken by the University of Stirling that looks at the secretions that sea lice produce as larvae. Like other parasites, such as mosquitoes and ticks, salmon lice secrete substances form their glands which make it easier for them to feed or evade their host’s immune system.
The researcher found considerable differences in the proteins secreted by infectious copepods and those by adults. In total, 43 secretory proteins were found in copepodid secretions that are absent in those from adults including many such as serpins previously identified in terrestrial parasites that have been shown to play a role in limiting the host’s immune response.
My question is why would sea lice copepodids develop such a wide range of specialist proteins to trick their hosts immune system into not fighting them off, then be left to blindly and randomly disperse into the vast volume of the ocean on the off chance they might bump into a host fish?