2010 Technical Review
and
2011 Sea Lice Management and
Program Development Workshop
FINAL REPORT
November 29 to December 1, 2010
Fairmont Algonquin
St. Andrews, NB
1
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………. 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….. 3
AGENDAS………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
PRESENTATION SYNOPSIS AND SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES……………. 6
November 29th Workshop………………………………..…… 6 November 30th Workshop…………………………………..… 10 December 1st Research Meeting……………….………….. 17
BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………… 20 NEXT STEPS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
PARTICIPANTS………………………………………………………………………………...21
APPENDIX 1 - DRAFT SUMMARY OF FACILITATED WORKSHOP DISCUSSION
2
Introduction The Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association, formerly the New Brunswick Salmon Farmers Association, hosted its annual general meeting and technical reviews on November 29 and 30, 2010. The intent of these sessions was to bring together aquaculture industry representatives from various provinces with other stakeholders to become informed of the preliminary results of the various initiatives and research projects undertaken in 2010. Most significantly, these sessions provided an opportunity to review the research projects undertaken in support of sea lice management and the progress toward the development of a fully operational integrated pest management strategy for sea lice. This information then provided the basis for an invitational research meeting hosted on December 1, 2010. This invitational workshop brought together multi-disciplinary, multi-jurisdictional perspectives to develop a draft research program for 2011 that would not only build on existing and new knowledge but also strive to answer remaining knowledge gaps and further the development of non-chemical sea lice management tools and strategies. The Canadian aquaculture industry is unified in its strong call for access to alternate sea lice therapeutants in support of an integrated sea lice management strategy. This has also been identified as the fish health management priority by the National Working Group for Fish Health Management Tools for Aquaculture. Building on a process that that begun in late 2009 and early 2010, the technical reviews and research workshop not only provided a platform for the New Brunswick industry to meet but also allowed us to work in collaboration with colleagues from across Canada and the United States, both federal and provincial governments, other regulatory agencies, academia, the conservation and fishery sectors and pharmaceutical companies. Over 170 registered for the technical review meeting held November 29th and 30th. This included 9 students from the New Brunswick Community College’s Aquaculture Program. This meeting was gratefully sported by: Fisheries and Ocean’s Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, Solvay Chemicals, Novartis Animal Health, Intervet / Schering Plough, Pharmaq AS, Aqua Pharma, The Fish Vet Group, Future Nets and Northeast Nutrition. The invitational research workshop held on December 1st provided the 72 in attendance with the time to take the information they gained from the presentations on November 30th, along with additional information provided by the various pharmaceutical companies and focus on the development of a sea lice research strategy for 2011. Discussion at the workshop centered on developing a research program with projects that would:
• provide the information necessary to support regulatory access and eventual licensing of new products for sea lice treatment
• provide the information necessary to ensure that product treatments achieve optimal results and avoid tolerance from developing to these products
• provide an improved understanding of sea lice dynamics in the Bay of Fundy to support ecosystem based management strategies
• test non-chemical approaches to sea lice management • ensure that the appropriate data is collected to provide support though modeling to an
effective integrated approach to sea lice management and ecosystem management
3
Acknowledgements
The ACFFA wishes to acknowledge the support of:
Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program (ACRDP)
Solvay Chemicals
Novartis Animal Health
Intervet / Schering Plough Animal Health
Pharmaq AS
AquaPharma
Future Nets
Northeast Nutrition
Fish Vet Group
In addition, the participation of all of the speakers at this session is greatly appreciated by the ACFFA.
4
Agendas
Annual General Meeting & Workshops November 29 and 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
1:00 Registration
1:30 Welcome and Introduction
1:35 National Trends & Initiatives – Ruth Salmon, CAIA
2:00 Update on Federal Activities – Trevor Swerdfager, AMD-DFO
2:25 Market Analysis Project – Derek Leebosh, Environics Research
3:00 Refreshment Break
3:30 R&D Review 2010 • iBoF Project - Dan Mazerolle , Fundy National Park • iCage Technology – Evan Kearney, Admiral Fish Farms • National BKD Update – Sonja Saksida, BC Center for Aquatic Health Sciences
4:45 Wrap up Discussion
5- 7 Reception / Mixer
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
8:00 Coffee and Mixer
8:30 Welcome and Introduction
8:35 Overview of DFO Research - Trevor Swerdfager, AMD-DFO
9:00 Sea Lice R&D 2010 – Regulatory Research & Treatment Efficacy • Dye Dispersion Studies - Fred Page, SABS-DFO • Treatment Impact to Non- Target Species - Les Burridge, SABS-DFO
10:15 Refreshment Break
10:30 Sea Lice R&D 2010 – Regulatory Research & Treatment Efficacy Con’t • Treatments, Efficacy and the DSS - Larry Hammell, Crawford Revie, AVC • Environmental Aspects of ALPHAMAX – Nils Steine, PHARMAQ • Monitoring Environmental Impact - Michael Beattie, NB DAAF
12:00 Luncheon with Keynote Speaker – Mike Randall, Mike Randall Communications • Time to Engage
1:15 Sea Lice R&D 2010 –Green Technology • ECO Bath Technology - Chris Bridger, AEG • Alternative Sea Lice Treatments - Shawn Robinson, SABS-DFO • Potential Cleaner Fish in Bay of Fundy - Ben Forward, RPC • Well Boat Treatment Technology – Ian Armstrong, Aqua Pharma
3:00 Refreshment Break
3:15 Discussion / Moving Forward
6:30 Christmas Dinner
5
Invitational Research Meeting Fairmont Algonquin Hotel, St Andrews, NB
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 8:00 Coffee and Mixer 8:30 Welcome and Introduction 8:35 Research requirements in support of product registrations
• Optimization of ALPHAMAX Treatments – Nils Steine, PHARMAQ, Norway
• Excis – John McHenery, Novartis, UK
• Interox Paramove 50 – Alastair McNeillie, Solvay Chemicals, USA
• Practical Experience of Sea Lice Assays in Scotland- James Hoare, Fish Vet Group, UK
• The Slice® Sustainability Project – Dafydd Morris, I/SPAH UK
10:40 Refreshment Break
11:00 Facilitated Discussion – What we know and what knowledge gaps persist? 11:30 Breakout Group Sessions (Breakout groups will discuss research questions that will address the identified
area; group is also asked to identify immediate, short and long term research option)
1. Regulatory Research: what information/documentation has been obtained in 2010 and what is still required to support treatment strategies
2. Novel Treatments / Green Technology: discuss what has been tried this past year and identify new approaches / opportunities
3. Improved Management Methods / Fish Health: including for options for improved farm management; consider potential interaction with other diseases
4. Environmental Dynamics: what information is required to support farm management decisions, including discussion about risk factors for high lice burdens
5. Modeling: what information is required to continue the development of a model for the Bay of Fundy
1:00 Working Lunch 1:45 Report out from Breakout Groups 3:00 Refreshment Break 3:30 Prioritization of Knowledge Gaps
• Identify specific project hypothesis • Identify collaborative research teams and potential project leaders • Discuss funding opportunities and mechanisms for access • Communication strategy for plan and results of work, and also interaction with international
groups doing similar plans 5:00 Closing Comments / Adjournment
6
P r e s e n t a t io n S y n o p s is a n d S p e a k e r Bio g r a p h ie s The following synopses were prepared by ACFFA and have been approved by the speakers. Monday, November 29, 2010 NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL TRENDS AND INITIATIVES - Ruth Salmon, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance This presentation focused on the fact that the world’s population, which was at 6.1 billion in 2000 is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050 and this population will need a healthy source of protein and the role that aquaculture can play in responding to this need. While Canada’s share of the global food market is shrinking, aquaculture could also be an opportunity for Canada to reclaim our position and reputation. Factors that make aquaculture a solution for the future in providing a viable protein source include the looming water crisis and the desire by consumers to lower the environmental impact of their food choices. Traditional food and agriculture producers are one of the largest consumers of water. With the focus on global greenhouse emissions, another growing trend is the push to eat local – a low carbon footprint diet. Salmon farming has a smaller carbon footprint than producing pork, poultry, beef or fish harvesting. Aquaculture is the answer to growing heart healthy affordable protein for a hungry world AND at the same time bolsters coastal communities with a low impact, sustainable industry. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Ruth Salmon Ruth Salmon brings more than a decade of aquaculture experience to the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, having served five years as Executive Director of the BC Shellfish Growers Association and seven years as a private consultant. She has held senior positions with the Canadian agri-food industry – as General Manager of the Alberta Milk Producers Association and Advertising Manager with the Dairy Bureau of Canada. Having worked at both the provincial and national levels, Ruth takes a special interest in the promotion and expansion of the aquaculture industry across Canada. S US TAI N ABLE AQ UACULTURE I N A N ATI O N AL CO NTEXT AN UP DATE FROM DFO – Trevor Swerdfager, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
The goal of DFO’s Aquaculture Management Directorate (AMD) is to foster a stronger larger and more sustainable aquaculture industry across Canada. In this context Swerdfager reviewed activities being undertaken by AMD to support industry development and address perceptions of the sector. Topics addressed included: the global context within which Canadian aquaculture operates, market context for aquaculture and emerging certification programs, and the influence on markets, policy and public perception as a result of actions by the ‘new environmentalism’. DFO programs highlighted in the presentation included: BC regulatory changes, regulatory science, the Aquaculture Innovation and Market Access Program (AIMAP), National Aquaculture Strategic Action Plan Initiative (NASAPI) and the Sustainable Reporting Initiative (SRI). Local community and political support for the aquaculture industry is generally strong; however, ensuring that Canada’s image both abroad and at home remains strong is critical. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
7
Trevor Swerdfager Trevor Swerdfager is the Director General of the Aquaculture Management Directorate in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Sector of DFO in Ottawa. His group is responsible for guiding the design and delivery of national aquaculture programs. He joined DFO in November, 2007 having spent the previous two years serving as Senior Advisor, Sustainability at the Forest Products Association of Canada. Prior to that, Trevor was the Director General of the Canadian Wildlife Service in Environment Canada and has served in a variety of roles in the policy, water quality and wildlife programs of Environment Canada in Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and national headquarters. He holds a Master's in Geography from the University of Ottawa, a French Language Certificate from the University of Nice, France and a Bachelor of Environmental Studies from the University of Waterloo, Ontario and Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. MARKET RESEARCH ATTITUDES TOWARD EAST COAST ATLANTIC FARMED SALMON – Derek Leebosh, Environics Research Group Leebosh presented highlights from a market research initiative that was led by CAIA and the ACFFA to explore attitudes toward Atlantic Canadian farmed salmon with buyers and qualitative and quantitative research among consumers. Buyer research was conducted through interviews with buyers that had been identified by salmon farming companies operating in Atlantic Canada. Consumer research was conducted through six focus groups and an on-line survey conducted in the key market areas of Toronto, Montreal and Boston. Areas of focus included: factors in buying salmon and motivations for consumption, images of salmon by place of origin, sustainability and environmental factors, and the Atlantic Canadian advantage. In the end, Atlantic Canada has a good image and our industry should find ways to promote the place of origin of the product to consumers. The idea of buying salmon that is local or at least North American is also a winner with consumers and provides us with a competitive edge against west coast, European and Chilean product. A detailed final report is being prepared and will be circulated in February 2011. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Derek Leebosh Derek Leebosh was recently promoted to the position of Vice President - Public Affairs with Environics Research. In his previous position as Senior Associate, Derek was a senior project manager for Environics Research and directed both quantitative and qualitative custom research assignments in the public and private sectors at the provincial, national and international level. Within the public sector, he has directed projects across a vast range of topic areas with particular experience in such areas as anti-tobacco research, fisheries and forestry, environmental issues, working conditions for various categories of public service employees, Canada’s air program, national unity and constitutional issues and organic and genetically modified organisms and biotechnology. He specializes in attitudinal differences in different ethnic communities. Mr. Leebosh joined Environics in 1990. Mr. Leebosh has an undergraduate degree in International Relations and has an extensive background in studying the history of Canadian foreign policy. SEA-PEN REARING PROJECT: AN INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PARKS CANADA, DFO AND THE ATLANTIC CANADA FISH FARMERS ASSOCIATION – presented by Dan Mazerolle on behalf of Renee Wissink and Corey Clarke, Parks Canada The presentation began with a brief history of the Inner Bay of Fundy Salmon (iBoF) and how the live gene banking program works within Fundy National Park to support the rehabilitation
8
of iBoF salmon. The Park is evaluating two recovery strategies as part of their in-river gene banking component. On the Point Wolfe River only mature adult salmon are released with the hope that they will spawn and migrate back to the ocean. On the Upper Salmon River (USR) juvenile salmon (fry or parr) are released into the river to develop into smolt and migrate to the ocean. While, the Live Gene Bank program has been described as “one of the most noteworthy Conservation projects in Canada” there are still concerns about domestication effects of salmon being reared at the Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility where the fish spend the majority of their lives in artificial concrete tanks filled with freshwater. This has caused problems with abnormal spawning behaviour, poor egg quality, poor survival etc. Taking smolt out of the river only to return them to freshwater also does not conform to the salmon’s natural process so sea cage rearing of iBoF smolt became part of the experiment in 2009. Salmon farming companies receive smolt collected in the USR and performance parameters are monitored and compared between the smolt reared in net pens and those taken at the same time and placed in the freshwater facility at Mactaquac. Through comparison of various growth and fitness parameters over the next several years it is hoped that the best conservation strategy for the iBoF salmon can be determined. In other words, can we build a fitter, cheaper LGB fish using sea pens as opposed to the traditional LGB at Mactaquac? S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Dan Mazerolle Dan Mazerolle is the park ecologist for Fundy National Park. He has a B.Sc. from the University of New Brunswick and a M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the University of Saskatchewan. Prior to his current position, he worked as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Renewal Resources at the University of Alberta. Dan has been working as an ecologist for Fundy National Park since 2007.
CO MBATI N G BI O FO ULI N G W I THO UT THE US E O F AN TI FO ULAN TS - presented by Evan Kearney, Admiral Fish Farms Marine biofouling and its associated costs to the industry were highlighted as a primary incentive for experiments with the iCage™ in association with Open Ocean Systems. Pictures and diagrams showed the iCage internal design giving it its rotational and submergence capabilities that enable the farmer to avoid bad weather and the use of antifoulants. Other advantages of the iCage presented included improved water flow and quality, the light weight netting and the reduced maintenance / labour requirements. Other benefits such as feed conversion will be calculated following the harvest of the fish reared in this system. Challenges with the system such as the need to develop an access point for feed cameras, for fish sampling and the need to develop new SOPs for otherwise routine farm activities were also noted. The cages installed at Hardwood Island were 4500m3 which had some structural issues are not yet released commercially. The new cages installed at the site in Back Bay are 2700m3 designed for the site conditions and are commercially available. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Evan Kearney Evan Kearney is the Director of Sustainable Development for Admiral Fish Farms and has been with the Company since March 2004. During that time he has filled roles of Production Site Manager, Quality Control Manager, and Processing Plant Manager. He was responsible in leading the implementation of the SQF (Safe Quality Food) certification program, the development of a value added processing line and an environmentally friendly packaging initiative. Most recently, as Director
9
of Sustainable Development, Evan has been project manager for the AIMAP supported iCage and Eco-bath projects. BKD – I MP ACTS O N THE CAN ADI AN AQ UACULTURE I N DUS TRY –presented by Sonja Saksida, BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences A brief history on bacterial kidney disease (BKD) in salmon was presented with an explanation of why a national survey on BKD was conducted for the National Fish Health Working Group. The survey objectives, participants, and summary of findings were presented. These findings identify BKD as a significant disease on both coasts with both Pacific and Atlantic salmon raised in both fresh and saltwater. BKD ranked very high as a significant disease of concern behind other disease issues like ISA, IHN and sea lice by fish health experts interviewed. Prevalence between species and location was discussed as well as the relative costs to the industry based on rearing situation (fresh vs. saltwater). Proposed risk factors for BKD and farm management limitations in addressing these potential risk factors were identified, which included limited availability and access to effective treatment products. A workshop that would bring fish health experts and researchers together to discuss available and needs for practical tools to managing BKD has been proposed as the next step. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Sonja Saksida Sonja is the Executive Director of the BC Center for Aquatic Health Sciences. She has a BSC (major Marine Biology), a DVM from the Ontario Veterinarian College and a MSc in Epidemiology. She is recognized as a leader in aquatic animal health in British Columbia and internationally. She has conducted a number of outbreak investigations including an extensive investigation into the IHNv outbreak that occurred in farmed Atlantic salmon in BC in 2001. Recently she has been involved in a number of studies investigating the effects of sea lice on farmed and wild salmon. Dr Saksida has a keen interest in welfare issues of aquatic animals and is a member of the animal care committee at Bamfield Science Centre located on the west coast Vancouver Island. She is working closely with the BCSGA in the development of a shellfish management plan and code of practice and is working with a local salmon enhancement facility in developing a zooplankton monitoring program that could be used to improve juvenile coho salmon survival. Sonja recognizes the importance of knowledge transfer and as a result has been involved in coordinating as well as presenting at a number of courses, workshops, and conferences.
10
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 FI S HERI ES AN D OCEAN S CAN ADA & THE S EA LI CE CH ALLEN GE -presented by Trevor Swerdfager, DFO Aquaculture Management Directorate Swerdfager discussed the sea lice challenge in New Brunswick highlighting challenges in developing solutions to this complex issue while at the same time safeguarding the marine ecosystem. As the lead federal agency for the aquaculture sector, activities of DFO to assist with the sea lice management were identified. These include helping to bring people together, ongoing sea lice research and the development of the Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment Regulation. This new regulation would enhance consistency and coherence across the issue of fish pathogen and pest control while ensuring that fish health is management in accordance with marine ecosystem conservation and protection. The development, current status and approval process for the proposed regulation was also discussed. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Trevor Swerdfager Trevor Swerdfager is the Director General of the Aquaculture Management Directorate in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Sector of DFO in Ottawa. His group is responsible for guiding the design and delivery of national aquaculture programs. He joined DFO in November, 2007 having spent the previous two years serving as Senior Advisor, Sustainability at the Forest Products Association of Canada. Prior to that, Trevor was the Director General of the Canadian Wildlife Service in Environment Canada and has served in a variety of roles in the policy, water quality and wildlife programs of Environment Canada in Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and national headquarters. He holds a Master's in Geography from the University of Ottawa, a French Language Certificate from the University of Nice, France and a Bachelor of Environmental Studies from the University of Waterloo, Ontario and Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. DYE RELEAS E AN D RELATED O CEAN O GRAP HI C RES EARCH I N RELATI ON TO S EA- LI CE I N S O UTH W ES T N EW BRUN S W I CK - A P RO GRES S UP DATE – presented by Fred Page, Fisheries and Oceans Canada The identification of the program focus, to provide information on mixing within tarps, skirts and well boats and transport and dispersal of effluents, to regulators, government entities, industries and other stakeholders for use in respective decision and policy making and information gathering activities, was provided as was discussion on the scope, logistics and the complexity of the work undertaken. A review of some basic information on transport, dispersal and a simple model that could be used for comparison was given. Field work completed to date and some preliminary results were reviewed. Research conducted included the monitoring of the mixing of dye within wellboat wells and tarped and skirted cages as well as the dispersal of dye and chemical effluent released. Schematics and pictures showed how the work was conducted with the locations of the various sampling / monitoring locations identified and initial results. The summary results include:
• Flushing of dye from cages once tarps/skirts removed varied from minutes to hours • Bio-fouling on cage netting and skirt/tarp dropping/removal procedures may influence
the flushing time scale • Transport, dispersal and hence exposure appears to be site specific.
It was noted that much of the data has yet to be fully analysed.
11
Fred Page FRED PAGE (PhD) is a research scientist, the Responsibility Center Manager for the Ocean Coastal Ocean Sciences Section of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans located at the Biological Station in St. Andrews, and is the Director of the DFO virtual national Center of Integrated Aquaculture Science (CIAS). Dr. Page is a member of the DFO-NBDAFA Memorandum of Understanding Aquaculture Environmental Coordinating Committee (AECC) and a frequent scientific advisor to the salmon industry and government regulatory bodies (NBDAA, NBDENV, DFO Habitat) on oceanography in the area and aquaculture interactions. He is a bio-physical oceanographer specializing in the investigation of linkages between the physical characteristics and processes of the coastal and shelf seas and their living resources. He has been actively involved in the development of aspects of the environmental monitoring program for the salmon industry in SWNB and is presently evaluating the DEPOMOD model for its usefulness in indicating sulphide levels in the vicinity of some salmon farms in SWNB. DFO S EA- LI CE RES EARCH I N S O UTHW ES T N EW BRUN S W I CK – ECO TO XI CO LO GY – presented by Les Burridge, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Burridge first provided the audience with the definition of terms such as LC50, EC50 and NOEC that were to be used in the body of the talk. The sea lice treatment products – Alpha Max and Salmosan, were described with parameters such as the active ingredient and mode of action, the species used for the bioassays were identified, as well as methods for the study. Dr. Burridge’s group has been determining lethal thresholds for the anti-louse pesticide formulation, AlphaMax (active ingredient deltamethrin), to the lobster and other crustaceans. Preliminary estimates of the 24 h lethality to lobsters range from 0.01 to 0.14 µg/L, depending on life- stage. Mysid shrimp are very sensitive to this product but sand shrimp are less sensitive than other species tested. The estimated 24h LC50 for azamethiphos (Salmosan’s active ingredient) and mysid shrimp was 24 ppb and for sand shrimp 234 ppb. The pulse dose experiments were conducted over 6 days with deltamethrin and adult lobster at different water temperatures and exposure time. Preliminary results from single bioassays showed that lobsters can be affected after repeat exposures to 0.02 or 0.1 ppb. Other preliminary results suggest that:
• Non-target organisms will likely be exposed at some sites. • The likelihood and duration of exposure varies according to site. • Impacts are possible. The probability, extent and magnitude of these impacts
remains poorly understood particularly with respect to multiple treatments over short time frames.
There was a recommendation that field experiments should be conducted in conjunction with further dye dispersion study to enable a comparison between this lab work and exposure in a field setting. Les Burridge Les has a B.Sc from Dalhousie University in Halifax and a PhD in fish physiology from the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton. He is an ecotoxicologist with 32 years experience in lab-based studies of effects of chemical contaminants on fish and aquatic invertebrates. He has studied the effects of pesticides used in agriculture and forestry practices on juvenile Atlantic salmon, the effects of products associated with oil & gas production or transport on various life stages of cod and salmon, and he has done extensive work on the effect of sea lice pesticides and drugs on the American lobster and other marine invertebrates. He has authored or co-authored over 25 papers, including 5 review articles, related to use and potential effects of chemicals used in finfish aquaculture.
12
UP DATE O N S EA LI CE AN D RES I S TAN CE MO N I TO RI NG I N N EW BRUN S W I CK & BIOASSAY UPDATE AND SEA LICE TRAINING UPDATE – presented by Larry Hammell and Jillian Westcott, Atlantic Veterinary College, UPEI AVC has been conducting many sea lice counts prior to and after treatments. Counts are conducted by sampling 10 fish per cage over 10 cages; farmers have been sampling 5 fish per cage over 6 cages and all data is being entered into the Decision Support System (DSS) – which is a Web-accessible database with built-in analytical capabilities that is being developed to include all relevant sea lice monitoring data. Other data such as water temperature, treatment products, and parameters are also being entered. The DSS became active in May 2010 and 559 count events have been entered so far. AVC is now beginning to summarize and analyze what has occurred over the summer of 2010. Data from the Interox Paramove treatments to date show that while the treatment usually had little or no effect on the chalimus stages, there was much better removal of the adult females, typically down to 10-20% of the pre-count levels. While individual cage treatments were effective, site level evaluations did not show the same result. The suggestion is that treatments have not been clustered over a sufficiently short time period for an overall effect at the site (and area) level to occur. Bioassays are being conducted regularly by AVC on Salmosan, SLICE and Alpha Max testing a range of doses. The results show variation in sea lice response to the tested chemotherapeutants and there appears to be gender differences in the response to the various compounds. However, there has been very little change in EMB resistance patterns since 2008 when bioassays were started, while 2009-2010 bioassays indicate broad sensitivity to Salmosan or Alphamax. Bioassay results are also being managed within the DSS. A summary of the three level sea lice training and certification program that has been developed by AVC was described. To date, 75 people have completed Level 1 training and 56 people have completed Level 2 training. Training will continue in 2011. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Larry Hammell Larry Hammell, DVM, MSc (Epidemiology), is Director of the AVC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences and Professor in the Department of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, UPEI. Dr. Hammell has been a faculty member in the Department of Health Management at AVC since 1992 and was Coordinator of Fish Health at AVC from 1996 to 2002. As a specialist in finfish health management, Dr. Hammell has a particular interest in applying epidemiology research tools to evidence-based management of aquaculture health issues, and has taught and worked with veterinarians and farmers in many parts of the world, including both coasts of Canada, Chile, Australia, Thailand, and the United States. As an epidemiologist, Dr. Hammell carries out both applied and clinical research in aquatic food production settings, including risk factor studies, clinical field trials, and the development and evaluation of surveillance programs. Jillian Westcott Jillian Westcott is a research scientist with the AVC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences and has worked extensively on sea lice treatment trials and the development of bioassay methods for EMB. Her PhD was completed at AVC (supervised by Hammell and Burka) on methods to assess tolerance to EMB through bioassays and enzyme activation assays. She will be responsible for the optimization and implementation of the bioassays, collection of the results, analyses (with input from Revie/Hammell), and reporting. N EAR TERM ALP HAMAX® , S ALMO S AN ® AN D P ARAMO VE 5 0 ® TRI ALS I N N EW BRUN S W I CK - presented by Michael Beattie, NB Department of Agriculture Aquaculture and Fisheries
13
During the summer of 2010 the NB Department of Agriculture Aquaculture and Fisheries (NBDAAF) and DFO teams spent extensive time reviewing the mechanical operations and conducting dye studies on the well boats. DFO and DAAF will collaborate on work to determine the best pre-treatment mixing procedure for Salmosan. DAAF is also conducting projects in conjunction with AVC. One project will evaluate morphological changes in sea lice over time and from various locations around the world – including areas that do not have salmon aquaculture to determine how this pest has evolved over time and potentially provide important information to inform improved management approaches. As noted, the cuticle of the bed bug has thickened by 3 times since 1949 so we cannot assume that similar changes have not been happening in sea lice. A second project with AVC will assess the potential affect of hydrogen peroxide on the mucous and dermis layer of salmon as compared to another treatment product. If changes are observed then a second phase of the experiment will determine if these changes affect the re-infection rate of the salmon by sea lice. Work will also continue with DFO to determine the potential exposure to sentinel species including lobster to sea lice treatment products; this will provide a repeat of the study done in 2009. Work with AEG and DFO to conduct various dye tests with the ECO-Bath system as it is developed will be scheduled as is work with RPC to evaluate the potential to recapture or denature the active ingredient in sea lice treatment products for use with all treatment methods. In this field, initial lab experiments conducted using activated charcoal to remove the active ingredient in Salmosan and Alpha Max resulted in the charcoal filter removing 99.83% and 92.5% of the initial concentration respectively on the first pass. This technology will be tested in the Eco-Bath, well boats and tarped systems. DAAF is working with two private companies to test litmus / ELIZA test kits which could be used cage side to ensure the correct concentration of the treatment product has been obtained. The time, personnel and funding resources required to perform all this work was identified along with the challenges to obtaining each in the appropriate time frames. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Michael Beattie Michael Beattie is the NB DAAF Veterinarian. Michael received a BSc, (hon.) and MSc. in marine biology from the University of New Brunswick, a DVM degree from the AVC and a Marketing certification from the Norwegian School of Bus. In. 1997 he became a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Since 2003 he has served as the Chief Veterinarian for Aquaculture in the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries. Prior to joining the Provincial government Mike was the North American Product Manager for the world’s largest integrated aquaculture company, Nutreco. He was involved in uncovering new research, carrying out field trials and marketing new products. ALP HA MAX ® S TATUS AN D S O ME EN VI RO N MEN TAL AS P ECTS – presented by Nils Steine, PharmaqAS A profile of Pharmaq as a company with its business focus, structure, global distribution, major products, and attention on R&D was provided. Alpha Max, their sea lice treatment product, was profiled – the general properties of synthetic pyrethroids and the active ingredient deltamethrin. Alpha Max has been in use for 13 years (in Norway). Today the product has Market Authorisation (MA) in the following countries: Norway, the Faroe Islands, UK, Chile, and Ireland, which is partly based on extensive environmental reviews. Further focus was made on product documentation field studies: A sediment study conducted in Norway was described and results presented confirmed that none of the samples in any of the two sites showed deltamethrin concentrations above the LOQ of 50 ng/kg. Acute toxicity data for various marine organisms was presented, as well as data from a sentinel monitoring study which used a marine crustacean for which deltamethrin is highly toxic. This study was
14
considered to profile deltamethrin in a “worst case scenario” site (shallow and low flow) using twice the recommended treatment dosage. The results showed that deltamethrin caused limited and reversible effect on the sentinel species used, and only within the first 30 meters of the net pen. Chile has a high production of mussels in between salmon farms sites and so trials were conducted with Alpha Max to assess the risk to the mussels grown on a salmon site being treated for sea lice. Results showed that blue mussels exposed to deltamethrin will not contain residues above the MRL value and mussels contained within the treatment unit will be safe to eat following a clearance period of 48 hours. Information on catch trends in various lobster and crab fisheries was included, and shows no impact to increased catches in all species. There are no pharmacogivilance reports concerning product adverse events on environmental aspects. It was noted that Norway used approximately 24000 bottles of Alpha Max in 2009, while New Brunswick used 11 bottles. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Nils Steine Nils Steine is a Technical Manager with PHARMAQ AS in Norway, and is also responsible for sales and tech support Canada. Prior to his employment with PHARMAQ he provided technical support for the Company and MariCal /Supersmolt as a consultant, in addition to providing fish health field and diagnostic services to PAN FISH Canada and MH Canada. Nils was the Fish Health Manager Production for a company in Maine, USA, from 2000-2004 and worked in fish health services in Northern Norway from 1996,-2000. He has a MSc Aquaculture Fish Health (1996) with his thesis written on cold water vibriosis, and vaccination at different intervals and into smoltification. THE ECO - BATH S YS TEM - presented by Chris Bridger, AEG The ECO-Bath System is now in the second phase of development and the design goals of the system were identified. The phase 1 tank trials involved using the PurGro oxygen infusion system with various sea lice treatment products and oxygen levels. The potential to use carbon to filter the pesticides after treatment in the system has also been tested. The general components of the ECO-Bath cage system were presented; these include a dual system with appropriately designed dewatering table and water recirculation / filtration systems. All components have been assembled and ready for deployment, which is likely to occur in spring 2011 due to cooling seawater temperature. Following this, field trials will begin with the ECO-Bath system. Dye dispersion studies in collaboration with DFO SABS and the rehearsal of fish transfers between the grow out net pens and the bath system represent first activities to be undertaken. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Chris Bridger Chris Bridger is the AEG General Manager. Bridger has extensive experience in aquaculture development and management including Coordinator of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Consortium, consultancy with the New Brunswick Salmon Growers’ Assoc., Research & Environmental Manager with the Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Assoc. and Projects Manager with the USAID Aquaculture CRSP. In 2005, Bridger received the Distinguished Early Career Award from the United States Aquaculture Society. EVALUATI O N O F THE EFFI CI EN CY O F N O N - CHEMI CAL METHO DS TO REDUCE THE I MP ACT O F S EA LI CE AS S O CI ATED W I TH S ALMON AQ UACULTURE S I TES US I N G THE P RI N CI P LES O F BI O - FI LTRATI O N AN D TRAP P I N G
15
- presented by Shawn Robinson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada The aquaculture industry often looks to the agriculture sector for examples of management methods and tools that could be used to combat pests and parasites since they have “plagued agriculture for millennia”. The use of pesticide in agriculture has become a mainstay in the industry, but its use has also resulted in more than 500 species of insects, mites, and spiders developing some level of pesticide resistance. Therefore, other, non-chemical methods have been developed using predators, traps and lures in an effort to naturally control pest/parasite populations. We propose that these strategies should also be evaluated within the context of the marine environment to help control sea lice. In our study, the marine predator equivalent for sea lice predator, the blue mussel, is being investigated as a bio-filter. Initial laboratory experiments have shown that mussels are capable of consuming sea lice nauplii at a rate of approximately 0.5 lice per mussel per hour. Very rough, ‘back of the envelope calculations’ suggest that 12 rafts of mussels placed strategically on a site could theoretically consume 8.4 million lice per hour. Another area of study has been on sea lice traps using lights and chemical lures using chemicals found in salmon mucous. The practical application of these various potential types of tools on a farm site was discussed as were biological and ecological questions that still exist about sea lice. There are suggestions that the early life stages of sea lice, including the eggs, may have a benthic component and so filter feeders or traps below a site may also need to be considered as part of a management plan. Funding for the field testing of mussel socks in or around salmon cages and with trap/lure prototypes will be pursued as a second phase of this work over the next two years. Shawn Robinson Dr. Shawn Robinson has been working for the last 18 years as a research scientist with the Dept. Fisheries and Oceans at the Biological Station in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of New Brunswick and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College and is actively engaged in applied ecological research on marine shellfish species such as blue mussels, sea scallops, sea urchins and soft-shell clams. His research team is studying the natural processes by which these animals interact and utilise their environment so that better and more sustainable culture techniques can be developed. One example of this research is the study of an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) project (sometimes known as polyculture) where shellfish are grown in conjunction with other species to produce a more sustainable and productive system. Much of this work involves collaborative projects with industry and academic partners and takes a more holistic view of the aquaculture system combining biology, physics, economics, sociology, and government policy. P O TEN TI AL CLEAN ER FI S H I N THE BAY O F FUN DY -presented by Ben Forward, RPC The identification of a potential cleaner fish species native to the Bay of Fundy was an R&D project that was identified and supported as part of the 2010 Sea Lice Research Program. Using a variety of resources, 8 species within the wrasse family were initially listed as being present in the Bay of Fundy. Of these 8, further research concluded that the presence of 6 of these species on the Canadian Register was due to accidental capture during times of changes in warm water currents etc. leaving only 2 as potential candidates. While the upper range of the Tautog does include the Bay of Fundy and its general prey does include crustaceans, there has been no work done to indicate that this fish would eat sea lice. The final candidate remaining was the Cunner. It has a range that includes the Bay of Fundy, Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and there has been some work done to evaluate its use as a cleaner fish. Lab trials were encouraging; however, cage trials did not show a reduction in sea lice possibly due to the stocking density, the abundance of other food sources and / or the size of Cunner used. It was also reported that other work has been
16
conducted elsewhere on the potential of two other resident species – the three-spined stickle back and the lumpfish. Additional work needs to be conducted on each of these species before any conclusions can be drawn, including the determination of the appropriate life stage and stocking densities necessary, assessment of potential disease interactions between cleaner fish and the farmed salmon, and co- cultivation strategies. It was recommended that this work be included in a research program for 2011. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Ben Forward Dr. Forward is Head of the Food, Fisheries, & Aquaculture department at the New Brunswick Research & Productivity Council (RPC), in Fredericton, NB, Canada. He holds a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Victoria and a BSc with honors in Biology from the University of New Brunswick. As Department Head he oversees four divisions providing R&D and diagnostic services in the areas of Fish Health, Food Process and Development, Microbiology, and Forensic Biology. He is a member of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, Society for Wildlife Forensic Science and Aquaculture Association of Canada. AN I N TRO DUCTI O N TO W ELL BO AT TREATMEN T TECHN O LO GY -presented by Ian Armstrong, Aqua Pharma Armstrong provided a brief overview on the recent development of purpose built systems on well boats for the dosing of sea lice therapeutants, and commented that Atlantic Canada is one of the international leaders in this field with the introduction of 3 lice treatment well boats into New Brunswick since June 2010. The introduction of a standard dosing system suitable for all bath therapeutants greatly assists fish health veterinarians in delivering their selected IPM strategy whilst also facilitating treatment efficacy comparison between countries. Aspects of product delivery for Interox Paramove 50, well boat components and general treatment procedures were described. Field data from Norway and Scotland was presented showing the results achieved from well boat treatments using Interox Paramove 50. With a known volume and efficient water & oxygen circulation systems, well boats greatly facilitate the consistent dosing of the selected therapeutant for its optimal contact time. The learning curve for those salmon farming sites not accustomed to well boats was highlighted along with the importance of fish preparation, crowding, and fish loading and unloading as an integral part of the treatment process. Developments in 2011 and beyond will include the development of filters to remove both lice and treatment product from the treatment water as well as fine tuning current treatment procedures. The launch of a manual titration kit by Solvay for spring 2011 will also assist growers with more efficient monitoring of treatments with Interox Paramove 50. Well boats can be used for a number of other tasks including smolt transport, size grading, moving of fish to harvest stations and also LiveChill harvesting. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Ian Armstrong Ian has worked in the Atlantic salmon farming industry since 1982 since graduating from the University of Edinburgh, and for the first 12 years he held various farming management positions with Marine Harvest in Scotland & in Chile. He then became Processing Manager for Marine Harvest & Scottish Sea Farms (SSF) for the next 8 years, before becoming an independent consultant in 2002 and helping to successfully develop the Closed Valve Harvesting concept along with Sølvtrans. Aqua Pharma Inc, a company which was formed in June 2010 to help deliver specialist solutions to our North American salmon farming clients. It is an Aquatic Group company, Aquatic being a leading Norwegian specialist service provider to various parts of the food industry.
17
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 ALPHAMAX UPDATES – FOCOUS ON TREATMETNS IN CLOSED UNITS -presented by Nils Steine, Pharmaq AS A description of Alpha Max was provided with information on the worldwide regulatory status of the product. The active ingredient in Alpha Max, deltamethrin, is a pyrethroid insecticide which is effective on all life stages of sea lice. Notes on variances of efficacy and experiences with toxicity in salmon showed that this was typically the result low water temperatures, low oxygen, poor mixing of product, or miscalculation of dosage. With no mortality in salmon shown with the use of up to 50ppb, it was suggested that it is better to increase the does slightly rather than to extend the duration of an Alpha Max treatment. Tarp treatment application procedures were discussed along with some recent findings from work completed in other countries. Included is the testing of a new application method to improve the vertical distribution of the product within a tarp. Experiments conducted to better understand the affect of high and low oxygen levels during treatments and the affect of fish stocking density on the efficacy in tarps were explained. Oxygen levels within the tarp (5mg/l to 15mg/l) did not affect the level of deltamethrin observed in the cages during the treatment. There does appear to be a limit to the fish stocking density which should be used during treatment; initial suggestions are that stocking densities should be kept below 80-100kg/m3. Pharmaq is working on a number of projects involving the assessment and optimization of well boat and tarp treatments, and is working with Novartis to learn more about pyrethroids in general. A table identified the bath treatment methods permitted in various salmon producing countries, with the note that the Norwegian Food Control Authority is demanding the use of a closed treatment systems as of January 2011 (tarps and well boats). Skirt treatment will be permitted under special circumstances, requiring a significant documentation process. Sea lice numbers recorded for 2008 to 2010 in Norway and the amount of sea lice treatment products used annually since 1991 were used to stress the need for treatment optimization. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Nils Steine Nils Steine is a Technical Manager with PHARMAQ AS in Norway, and is also responsible for sales and tech support Canada. Prior to his employment with PHARMAQ he provided technical support for the Company and MariCal /Supersmolt as a consultant, in addition to providing fish health field and diagnostic services to PAN FISH Canada and MH Canada. Nils was the Fish Health Manager Production for a company in Maine, USA, from 2000-2004 and worked in fish health services in Northern Norway from 1996,-2000. He has a MSc Aquaculture Fish Health (1996) with his thesis written on cold water vibriosis, and vaccination at different intervals and into smoltification. EXCIS – SAFETY FOR THE FISH AND THE ENVIRONMENT; LABOROTORY AND FIELD - presented by Allison MacKinnon for John McHenery, Novartis Animal Health Excis has been in use in the European Union for 15 years, and the low-cis form of the active ingredient cypermethrin used in the product is a less toxic form of the chemical. Experiments were presented showing the safety of the Excis product to salmon at low and high water temperatures that showed no permanent effects, no mortalities and that all fish were normal within hours of treatment when used at 10 times higher than the recommended dose. Environmental toxicology information on cypermethrin and the product itself was reviewed.
18
Cypermethrin rapidly binds to particulate material and settles, with this binding reducing its toxicity. Field data from dispersal studies conducted in various locations with Excis showed a 103 reduction in concentration within 30 minutes of release and it was not detected in the sediment. The risk to other marine species depends on the period of exposure and the dose to which the organism is exposed. Data from several sentinel species studies conducted in Scotland and North America concluded that cypermethrin as Excis does not kill crustaceans outside the treated cages unless held for extended periods and that it does not persist in the environment. John McHenery Dr. John McHenery joined Novartis in June 2009 where he was responsible for the UK aquaculture business and is a Chartered Biologist and a Fellow of the Society of Biology. He now works with the research and development department. John has been involved in research and development of veterinary medicines for fish for over 20 years and was the environmental consultant on Excis during its development and authorization in Europe I N TERO X® P ARAMO VE® 5 0 FO R S ALMO N LI CE CO N TRO L - REGULATO RY REQ UI REMEN TS -presented by Alastair McNeillie, Solvay Chemicals The benefits and drawbacks of using Interox Paramove 50 as a sea lice treatment product were addressed with special reference to the stages of lice for which the product is effective and the importance and ease of ensuring proper dose control. To aid with the treatment process Solvay is developing a new manual test kit that will be available in the spring of 2011 to allow users to more easily monitor concentrations of hydrogen peroxide within the treatment system. With Interox Paramove the potential for salmon mortality at high dose rates and water temperatures was of concern. From the results to date it was concluded that for good lice removal/mortality without salmon mortality careful selection and control of the treatment dose is required, particularly at higher water temperatures. The historical and current regulatory status of Interox Paramove was reviewed with the activities in New Brunswick highlighted. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) registration process was outlined; Solvay will be beginning this process in the next couple of weeks. The information that Solvay will need to present to PMRA during this pre-submission meeting was described and following the PMRA review, Solvay will be notified of any data gaps which would require additional work. Some areas where potential data may be required were also addressed. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
Alastair McNeillie Alastair McNeillie is currently the Technology Development Manager for Solvay Chemicals in North America which includes the development of applications for hydrogen peroxide and more recently its use for salmon lice control. He joined Solvay in 1979 and have been involved with hydrogen peroxide and its related products for over 30 years having spent my career in the UK, Australia and North America, in the latter case having been here for the last 18 years. Alastair has a BSc and PhD in chemistry from Strathclyde University in Scotland. P RACTI CAL EXP ERI EN CE O F S EA LI CE AS S AYS I N S CO TLAN D ( BUCKET CHEMI S TRY AN D J AM J ARS ) -presented by Iain McEwen for James Hoare, The Fish Vet Group
19
Protocols and methods used in conducting standard bioassays for sea lice treatment products were described and are based on the methodology developed for emamectin benzoate. The results of bioassays conducted in labs can be difficult to translate into treatment efficacy on the farm. For growers what is needed is a cage side test that will provide immediate information on lice sensitivity and; therefore, help to inform on the most appropriate treatment option to use at that specific time. A review of what has been done to date in this area was provided, including a detailed description of the equipment required, lice collection method, solution preparation, method of exposure and the monitoring required for an onsite bioassay. Modifications, depending on the number of lice available at the time, may be required. There are limitations to conducting these tests on site including the need for validation, the lice sampled may not be representative, and if precise methods are not followed the lice may be ‘over-exposed’ in the bioassay as there is also no quick means of recording exact concentration on farm- yet. The methods seem to work well with gravid female lice, but further work need to be conducted to fine tune the methodology. S e e At t a c h e d P r e s e n t a t io n
James Hoare James Hoare graduated from the Royal Veterinary College, London & subsequently completed a master’s degree in Aquatic Veterinary Studies at the University of Stirling. Since 2007, James has been working at the Fish Vet Group, Scotland which provides veterinary & laboratory support to the UK aquaculture industry THE S LI CE® S US TAI N ABI LI TY P RO J ECT – presented by Dr. William Enright for Dafydd Morris, Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health A brief description of the SLICE® Sustainability Project was provided. The four core actions of the program are Protect fish from sea lice; Conserve the efficacy of SLICE® and other effective sea lice control tools; Renew the strength and dependability of a proven partner; and Succeed through proactive, judicious sea lice control programs. The program focuses on proven management procedures with monitoring and support provided to maximize the impact of each treatment. It was suggested that treatment failures being experienced can be attributed to factors such as miscalculation of biomass; influences on feed intake related to appetite and starvation regimes; fish health status; proper doses not being achieved in feeds; etc. all of which can result in reduced sensitivity and lead to resistance. While there have been a number of failure reports in the UK and Norway, which are being addressed through intensive monitoring and research, to date, there have been no failures reported in British Columbia. It should not be a surprise that New Brunswick has experienced failures given the almost exclusive use of the product over a 10 year period with limited monitoring. Aquaculture farming and feed practices have developed significantly since the product was introduced which may also be implicated in efficacy issues. Currently the company is about to undertake a global laboratory ring test (including three labs in Canada) of SLICE® in feeds. An improved sea lice bioassay technique is also now available. A study investigating the genetics of SLICE® resistance at the molecular level is on-going in the UK. S e e At t a c h e d Do c u m e n t s
Dafydd Morris is the Technical Manager (Aquaculture), within the Aquatic Animal Health division of Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health UK. Dr. William Enright is the Director, Commercial Operations Support and Director, Aquatic Animal Health for Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
20
Breakout Group Discussions Five groups were formed to facilitate more detailed discussions. Each group was assigned a specific area of potential research and categorized the work into short, medium and long term options. The areas for discussion were:
1. Research to support access to products / regulatory requirements 2. Environmental dynamics 3. Improved management methods / fish health 4. Novel treatments / green technology 5. Modeling
Group leaders were assigned and these leaders reported out on the identified priority projects to the larger group. After all 5 group leaders reported out the lists were reviewed to identify the top three ranking projects within each main research area. With the consensus confirmed, the process of identifying project leads and collaborators began (see Appendix 1for the draft workshop summary).
Next Steps The identification of knowledge gaps around sea lice by the various speakers within the workshop highlighted the research needs of Atlantic Canada. There was an identified need for more research and study around the use and fate of the various chemotherapeutant options in the marine environment. The non-chemotherapeutant options such as mechanical and natural filters and cleaner fish have to be more fully explored as they appear to have potential. As the 2010 research projects are completed and results are finalized other information sessions will be organized to inform stakeholders of the outcomes. A summary of the potential research ideas in each of the five categories was developed (see Appendix 1) sent to workshop attendees, identifying the priority work that arose from the group discussions. Those identified as project leads for the various research initiatives were asked to discuss the project with the identified collaborators who agreed to participate, and develop a Letter of Intent (LOI) for the project. It was agreed that these LOIs be submitted to the ACFFA by January 10th and the Association would then develop a research program for presentation to funding agencies. The intent will be to gain funding support through these agencies for the program as whole. Alternatively the appropriate program within in agency or department will be identified for each project.
21
Participants
November 29th and 30th Workshop
Last Name First Name Company Goodfellow Danielle AANS Feswick April ACFFA Hanley Jim ACFFA Hill Murray ACFFA House Betty ACFFA Kaufield Kathy ACFFA McGee Doni ACFFA Parker Pamela ACFFA Smith Sybil ACFFA Brown Bill Admiral Fish Farms Brown Glen Admiral Fish Farms Kearney Evan Admiral Fish Farms Pendleton Jack Admiral Fish Farms Bridger Chris AEG O'Halloran John Aqua Veterinary Services Armstrong Ian AquaPharma Carr Jon Atlantic Salmon Federation Burnley Holly AVC Hammell Larry AVC Jones Patti AVC Reynolds Don AVC Revie Crawford AVC Westcott Jillian AVC Saksida Sonja BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences Salmon Ruth CAIA Giffin Bernita CFIA George Sheldon Cold Ocean Salmon Ang Keng Pee Cooke Aquaculture Brown Chuck Cooke Aquaculture Clinch Michael Cooke Aquaculture Dunlop Greg Cooke Aquaculture Halse Nell Cooke Aquaculture McGratton Stan Cooke Aquaculture Middleton Joe Cooke Aquaculture Nicholls Kris Cooke Aquaculture Nickerson Jeff Cooke Aquaculture O'Neill Rodney Cooke Aquaculture Szemerda Michael Cooke Aquaculture Corey Lee Corey Feed Mills Beattie Mike DAAF
22
Brewer-Dalton Kathy DAAF Chiasson Yvon DAAF Coombs Karen DAAF Hill Barry DAAF Lipsett Kim DAAF Rioux Robert DAAF Watson Kimberly DAAF McGarry Alison DAFF Antworth John DENV Vienneau Doreen Downeast Plastics Ramirez Felipe DSM Dyneema Robertson Ken DSM Dyneema Ernst Bill Environment Canada Drost Terry ESQU Certified Ltd Taylor Stephanie ESQU Certified Ltd Hoare James Fish Vet Group McEwen Iain Fish Vet Group Bakker Jiselle Fisheries and Oceans Canada Blair Tammy Fisheries and Oceans Canada Boudreau Pascal Fisheries and Oceans Canada Burridge Les Fisheries and Oceans Canada Chang Blythe Fisheries and Oceans Canada Cline Jeff Fisheries and Oceans Canada Cooper Andrew Fisheries and Oceans Canada Cooper Lara Fisheries and Oceans Canada Fife Jack Fisheries and Oceans Canada Gagné Nellie Fisheries and Oceans Canada Gaudette Julien Fisheries and Oceans Canada Glebe Brian Fisheries and Oceans Canada House Nancy Fisheries and Oceans Canada Kesselring Cheney Sarah Fisheries and Oceans Canada Leadbeater Steve Fisheries and Oceans Canada Liutkus Matthew Fisheries and Oceans Canada Lyons Monica Fisheries and Oceans Canada Martin-Robichaud Debbie Fisheries and Oceans Canada McGladdery Sharon Fisheries and Oceans Canada McLaren Michelle Fisheries and Oceans Canada Merritt-Carr Vicki Fisheries and Oceans Canada Millar Harvey Fisheries and Oceans Canada Page Fred Fisheries and Oceans Canada Parsons Jay Fisheries and Oceans Canada Reid Gregor Fisheries and Oceans Canada Robertson Paul Fisheries and Oceans Canada Robinson Shawn Fisheries and Oceans Canada Rose-Quinn Tammy Fisheries and Oceans Canada Swerdfager Trevor Fisheries and Oceans Canada
23
Taylor Suzanne Fisheries and Oceans Canada Waddy Susan Fisheries and Oceans Canada Webster Cindy Fisheries and Oceans Canada Wong David Fisheries and Oceans Canada Abbott Matthew Fundy Bay Keeper Recchia Maria Fundy North Fishermen's Assoc Blanchard Clarence Future Nets & Suppliers Acebado Ray GMG Fish Services Weaire Ted GMG Fish Services DeLorme Dr. Peter Health Canada Mitchell Mary Health Canada - PMRA Garber Amber Huntsman Marine Science Centre Enright William Intervet/Schering-Plough Fielding Stacy Kelly Cove Salmon Griffin Randy Kelly Cove Salmon Belle Sebastian Maine Aquaculture Association MacPhee Dan Maritime Veterinary Services Ltd Marcoux Ernie Marsh Canada Bourque Christy Mitchell McConnell Insurance Bourque Peter Mitchell McConnell Insurance Green Darrell NAIA Fader-Day Angie NBCC Carney Rod NBCC Instructor Allen Claire NBCC Student Baer Rudy NBCC Student Dougherty Tyler NBCC Student Graham Caroline NBCC Instructor Leonard Jillian NBCC Student Linehan Nancy NBCC Student Orr Chris NBCC Student Rippin Mackenzie NBCC Student Strong Evan NBCC Student Wiwczaruk Mandara NBCC Student Donkin Alan Northeast Nutrition Holmes Jason Northeast Nutrition Taylor Tom Northeast Nutrition Craig Aaron Northern Harvest Sea Farms French Steve Northern Harvest Sea Farms Kesselring Mark Northern Harvest Sea Farms MacKinnon Allison Novartis Animal Health Peach Randy Novartis Animal Health Jackson Tim NRC-IRAP Cusack Roland NS Fisheries and Aquaculture Giles Marshall NS Fisheries and Aquaculture Miller Andy Open Ocean Systems Storey Andrew Open Ocean Systems
24
Daigle Edouard Parks Canada Mazerolle Daniel Parks Canada Steine Nils Pharmaq AS Bacon Bev RDI Strategies Forward Benjamin RPC Backman Steve Skretting Neathway Laurie Skretting Stanley Trevor Skretting Taylor Gary Skretting McNeillie Alastair Solvay Chemicals Daigle Amanda Sweeney International McCray Michelle Sweeney International Smith Amanda Sweeney International Sweeney Bob Sweeney International McCool Andrew Syndel Laboratories Curtis Donna UNB Student Chopin Thierry UNBSJ Barker Sarah University of Maine Bricknell Ian University of Maine Molloy Sally University of Maine Pietrak Mike University of Maine
December 1, 2010 Research Meeting
Last Name First Name Company Abbott Matthew Fundy Bay Keeper Antworth John DENV Armstrong Ian AquaPharma Bacon Bev RDI Strategies Bakker Jiselle Fisheries and Oceans Canada Beattie Michael DAAF Blair Tammy Fisheries and Oceans Canada Brewer-Dalton Kathy DAAF Bridger Chris AEG Burnley Holly AVC Chang Blythe Fisheries and Oceans Canada Cooper Andrew Fisheries and Oceans Canada Cooper Lara Fisheries and Oceans Canada Curtis Donna UNB Student Cusack Roland NS Fisheries and Aquaculture Delorme Peter Health Canada Donkin Alan Northeast Nutrition Drost Terry ESQU Certified Ltd Enright William Intervet/Schering-Plough Ernst Bill Environment Canada
25
Fielding Stacey Kelly Cove Salmon Forward Ben RPC Garber Amber Huntsman Marine Science Centre Gaudette Julien Fisheries and Oceans Canada George Sheldon Cold Ocean Salmon Halse Nell Cooke Aquaculture Hammell Larry AVC Hawkins Leighanne Kelly Cove Salmon Hill Murray ACFFA House Betty ACFFA House Nancy Fisheries and Oceans Canada Jones Patti AVC Kaufield Kathy ACFFA Kearney Evan Admiral Fish Farms Lipsett Kim DAAF Liutkus Matthew Fisheries and Oceans Canada Lyons Monica Fisheries and Oceans Canada MacKinnon Allison Novartis Animal Health MacPhee Dan Maritime Veterinary Services Ltd McCool Andrew Syndel Laboratories McEwen Iain Fish Vet Group McGladdery Sharon Fisheries and Oceans Canada McLaren Michelle Fisheries and Oceans Canada McNeillie Alastair Solvay Chemicals Miller Andy Open Ocean Systems Nicholls Kris Cooke Aquaculture Nickerson Jeff Kelly Cove Salmon O'Brien Nicole NL DFA O'Halloran John Aqua Veterinary Services Page Fred Fisheries and Oceans Canada Parker Pam ACFFA Parsons Jay Fisheries and Oceans Canada Peach Randy Novartis Animal Health Pee Ang Keng Cooke Aquaculture Pendleton Jack Admiral Fish Farms Recchia Maria Fundy North Fishermen's Assoc Reid Gregor Fisheries and Oceans Canada Revie Crawford AVC Robinson Shawn Fisheries and Oceans Canada Saksida Sonja BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences Smith Amanda Sweeney International Smith Sybil ACFFA Steine Nils Pharmaq AS Storey Andrew Open Ocean Systems Straight Howard Admiral Fish Farms Szemerda Michael Kelly Cove Salmon
26
Taylor Stephanie ESQU Certified Ltd Taylor Tom Northeast Nutrition Waddy Susan Fisheries and Oceans Canada Westcott Jill AVC White Shona AVC Wong David Fisheries and Oceans Canada
27
APPENDIX 1
DRAFT SUMMARY OF FACILITATED WORKSHOP DISCUSSION
Introduction: This workshop, held on December 1, 2010, builds upon the collaborative, multi-disciplinary approach that began in January 2010, toward the development of a coordinated research program to support an integrated pest management strategy for sea lice. This current workshop followed the presentations of interim findings from the 2010 collaborative sea lice research program, presented November 30th as part of the Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association (ACFFA) annual meeting and technical reviews. This invitational workshop was designed to bring together multi-disciplinary, multi-jurisdictional perspectives to develop a draft research program for 2011. The objective was to not only build on existing and emerging knowledge, but also to strive to address remaining knowledge gaps and further the development of non-chemical sea lice management tools and strategies. The Canadian aquaculture industry is unified in its strong call for access to alternate sea lice therapeutants in support of an integrated sea lice management strategy. This has also been identified as the fish health management priority by the recently formed National Working Group for Fish Health Management Tools for Aquaculture. The information presented below is drawn from the flip charts utilized by each of the breakout groups to identify and then present to the plenary session their short, medium and long term research priorities. In general, short term priorities are considered as “needs to be done in the next 12 months”. Medium term refers to a 2-3 year time period. Long term priorities are either those elements of the research program which may need to be initiated in the short term, but may not produce results for several years, or those that are an ongoing need and which will continue over several years in support of short or medium term priorities. During the course of the reports presented by the Breakout Groups it was clear that there are several cross-cutting themes linking the research questions being posed by the five groups. Where these have been identified, they have been noted at the end of each section describing priorities. The next steps include the designated teams, identified below each sub-section, preparing synopses of the short term research priorities they have identified. These will then be assembled by the ACFFA team into the R&D Program for 2011. This program will then be refined and presented to our funding partners to ensure a timely 2011 start of research initiatives in synchrony with biological imperatives. The names of individuals/organization in bold refer to those responsible for drafting the short term priority project synopsis of a project proposal. These will be submitted to the ACFFA using the template attached at the end of this report by January 10, 2011. The ACFFA will incorporate all projects into a summary document which will then be circulated back to the various researchers for review/comment and which will be used for submission to funding partners. Group 1 - Regulatory Research Regulatory research is intended to support the access to and eventual licensing of alternative products for sea lice treatments that will enable the use of these products in New Brunswick and in other parts of Canada.
28
This group reviewed what information/documentation was obtained in 2010 and what information/data is still required to support licensing of products in support of effective treatment strategies. This group was led by Kathy Brewer-Dalton and Michael Beattie. Short Term Research Priorities:
1. Analyze data already in the system including efficacy data, dye dispersion data and bioassay data from research conducted in 2010 from field and lab research. Most is in process; however some data gaps must also be filled. Responsibilities: All participants currently engaged in the sea lice research program
2. Dye dispersion studies in well boats - to include development of protocols for assessing potential impacts on lobster as a sentinel species. DFO (Fred Page & Les Burridge); NBDAAF (Mike Beattie/Kathy Brewer-Dalton)
3. Dye studies (with well boats and tarps) to assess potential impact on lobster larvae as well as other zooplankton and food species for fish of commercial significance. Particular emphasis to be placed on sensitive habitat areas and specific times of the year. DFO (Fred Page & Les Burridge); NBDAAF (Mike Beattie/Kathy Brewer-Dalton)
4. Repeat field exposure trials to complete the data set on adult lobsters. DFO (Les Burridge/Sue Waddy)
5. Effluent exposure trials in well boats to characterize the dynamics and variability of effects
amongst different boats and different farm locations. DFO (Fred Page & Les Burridge); NBDAAF (Mike Beattie/Kathy Brewer-Dalton)
6. Potential disease risk should be explored that could result from use of wrasse, mussels and other lice-cleaning species. NBDAAF (Mike Beattie/Kathy Brewer-Dalton) done in collaboration with researchers engaged in cleaner fish and lice filter research activity (see section
7. Cumulative impact study initiation. This is a long term study; however, the work needs to begin
in the short term. The work would be undertaken by DFO, likely in collaboration with as yet unidentified university partners and/or others. DFO (Les Burridge)
8. Lice survival study to assess issues related to lice survival/re-attachment following removal from
fish during bath treatments. NBDAAF (Mike Beattie/Kathy Brewer-Dalton); DFO (?)
Linkages: Nos. 2, 3, and 5 are linked to each other. No. 6 is linked to Nos. 1 & 4 in Novel/Green Short Term Priorities. No. 8 is linked to No. 1 in Improved Management Methods/Fish Health. Medium Term Priorities:
1. Assessment of saltwater sediment toxicity related to lice treatments 2. Analysis of sedimentation patterns at farm sites 3. Classification of farm sites based on low, medium and high risk factors taking into account short
term research priorities 4. Further work on novel approaches to determining regulatory requirements 5. Determination of sub-lethal effects of treatment products on non-target organisms
Long Term Priorities:
1. Assessment of cumulative impacts; work which while being initiated in the short term will only produce results in the longer term.
29
Group 2 – Novel Treatments/Green Technology Developing non-chemical treatments and new technology to support sea lice management and control is a priority for the salmon farming industry. This group was charged with examining what new approaches had been attempted in 2010, discussing what is being done in other salmon farming jurisdictions, and then to identify additional approaches and/or extensions of existing approaches that need to be considered for 2011. This group was led by Chris Bridger. Short Term Research Priorities:
1. Cleaner Fish - additional research needs to be undertaken to assess the potential for using species of “cleaner fish” analogous to the use of Wrasse species in Norway. Specific tasks identified in this regard include:
a. Proof-of-concept tank trials using Cunners. To date, preliminary trials indicate that Cunners do eat sea lice. However, not all members of the population placed in the tank exhibit the same propensity for feeding on lice. It was suggested that it is common to find only 2 of 5 Cunners feeding on the lice.
b. Undertake field trials in sea cages with an initial ratio of 600 Cunners: 20,000 salmon. c. Questions to be addressed in 2011 include:
i. What type of Cunner breeding program is needed that will exploit their lice-eating behaviour?
ii. What additional information do we require on Cunner spawning and husbandry practices and how do we obtain it?
iii. Do we need to modify the approach to conducting field trials? iv. Are there issues we should be aware of in terms of Cunners acting as vectors for
disease issues? v. Are there other local species which could also act as “cleaner fish’? vi. What ‘training’ would support improved efficacy from cleaner fish, building on what
has been developed in Norway (Keng Pee Ang – Cooke Aquaculture Inc; Ben Forward, RPC)
2. Bacterial control treatment strategies need initial investigation to identify possibilities for bacterial
control treatment strategies for sea lice. RPC has prepared a proposal that would look, in the short term, at:
a. Establishing a proof-of-concept b. Exploring bacterial isolates from sea lice that may offer potential
Implementation/application of the results of this research is considered to be possible in the medium term. (Ben Forward, RPC)
3. ECO-Bath - work initiated in 2010 on development of the “ECO-Bath” closed treatment system should to be continued in 2011. Dye studies should be completed in 2010 with the following activities undertaken in 2011:
a. Field trials with salmon b. Refinement of efficiencies in terms of capturing salmon in nets and then in the ECO-Bath
following treatment c. Determination of the applicability for the use of bacterial control/filter methods d. Development of Standard Operating Procedures describing the treatment process e. Application to well boats - It was noted that there would be some aspects of the ongoing
ECO-Bath development that would also be applicable to well boat treatments. For example, use of a carbon filter to bind and remove active ingredients was proposed and initiated within the ECO-Bath funded project in 2010. This worked quite well during preliminary trials and so its potential is now being considered for integration in both the ECO-Bath and well boat treatments technology projects for 2011.
(Chris Bridger, AEG; Admiral Fish Farms)
30
4. Sea trials using mussel bio-filters - lab work utilizing mussels as bio-filters was undertaken in
2010 by Shawn Robinson’s group at SABS. The positive results achieved in this work strongly suggest the need for field trials with sea cages to verify the concept and assess its real on-farm potential. Specific components of the field trials would consider site layout, arrangement and logistics in terms of:
a. Timing of deployment of mussel socks b. Optimal location of socks (inside cage; outside cage; sock depth; distance from outside of
cage; distance between socks, etc.) c. Investigation into use of bottom filters below the cage to capture what appears to be nauplii
emerging from lice egg strings that have detached and fallen to the bottom d. Investigation of the use of mussel socks on sites currently fallowed
(Shawn Robinson, DFO/SABS)
5. Biological Study of Sea Lice - More research is required on the biology of sea lice to support the development of improved management strategies that would help farms determine how to avoid infestations, as well as how to use natural means of lice clearance. A literature review is necessary to determine what has already been done in regard to this topic. Specific questions to be addressed in this regard would include:
a. What aspects of sea lice population dynamics could be exploited to contribute to improved sea lice avoidance and clearance opportunities?
b. How can industry contribute to basic research questions? c. What behaviour or other mechanisms can be exploited to concentrate sea lice in specific
areas of fish farms where they could be removed? d. What are the intermediate sources and/or hosts, environmental factors and innate behaviour
that affect fish farms and that could lead to avoidance strategies? e. How can the above information be integrated into a management strategy that considers:
i. Smolt size and time of entry ii. Net cleaning iii. Cage submersion
(Chris Bridger, AEG; Admiral Fish Farms; Amber Garber, HMSC; Brian Glebe, DFO) Linkages: Nos. 1 & 4 are linked to No. 6 in Regulatory Research Short Term Priorities. No. 3 is linked to No. 3 in Environmental Dynamics; Nos. 4&5 are linked to No. 1 in Environmental Dynamics Medium Term Priorities: Some aspects of lice filtration and trapping were seen to be more of a medium term priority. Included here were:
1. An assessment of the work done elsewhere on mechanical filtration systems and its applicability to Atlantic Canada.
2. Design and initiate experiments to explore the potential of using light traps and pumping systems to remove lice.
3. Explore the potential for a selective grading system that would avoid the inclusion of lobster larvae in any trapping system.
Long Term Priorities: Over the longer term, consideration may be given to:
1. The development of vaccines for immunizing salmon against sea lice. Discussion with pharmaceutical company representatives in the plenary session seemed to suggest that this would be a “long shot” given the cost associated with vaccine development, the potential efficacy achievable and the relatively small market compared to that for vaccines for terrestrial animals.
2. Development of broodstock resistant to sea lice infestations. There is suggestion that some species of salmonids demonstrate greater resistance to lice infestations.
3. Development of a “lice tag” that could be attached to the operculum during grading/vaccination prior to transfer to sea cages.
31
Group 3 - Improved Management Methods/Fish Health Research results will help to lead to improved farm and fish health management. This will lead to a reduction in the number of treatments required to control sea lice and; therefore, a reduction in the quantity of product required. This group explored what additional options should we be included in research to support improved farm and fish health management. The group also discussed what potential interactions with other diseases should be considered. This group was led by Sonja Saksida. Responsibility: Where there is no link to research activities under other focus areas, the ACFFA team will assume the lead responsibility for drafting the project synopses for all of the research priorities identified for short term priorities. Short Term Research Priorities:
1. Lice recovery – there is a need to determine if and how well lice recover after bath treatments; under what conditions they are able to re-attach following treatment; and what impact treatments may have on their ability to reproduce and on the viability of their eggs. Currently there is work going on at VESO in Norway looking at lice recovery issues and it will be important to tap into this information to avoid any duplication of efforts. Following on this, there may be need for additional lab and field work related to determining the dynamics of re-attachment, reproductive capability and egg viability.
2. Technology review - there is new treatment technology being developed in Norway which should be reviewed and assessed as to its applicability in Atlantic Canada. From this it may be likely that additional new treatment technology should/can be identified. Included here would be environmentally friendly methods for neutralizing treatment products, as well as methods for collecting lice removed from the fish during treatment.
3. Evaluation of therapeutic dose level - additional investigation is required in terms of assessing
factors related to achieving optimal therapeutic doses in well boats and tarps. While some of these may not yield results in the next 12 months, they will need to be initiated immediately in order to yield results in the next year or two. Such factors would include:
a. Differences in treatment efficacy amongst well boats, and between well boats and tarps b. Mixing systems c. Currents (and tidal influences) d. Water quality including:
i. Organic content ii. Temperature iii. Salinity iv. Tidal currents
e. Fish Biomass f. Water depth and vertical distribution of product during treatment (and discharge) g. Assays by on-site management h. Binding (stickiness) of surfaces which could impede efficacy
4. Assessing the downstream effects of treatment products on:
a. Non-target organisms b. Fish in pens downstream from the treatment cages
5. Staff training - The need is identified for additional research related to training and monitoring of
treatment activities on farms. More specifically, this would include: a. Improved documentation on Best Aquaculture Practices (BAPs) and treatment Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) b. Improved Bay Management Plans to focus on
32
i. coordinated BMA sea lice treatments ii. improved communication amongst farms iii. determination of optimal treatment times iv. enhanced information feed-back loops to industry, researchers, veterinarians, and
pharmaceutical companies v. continued development of the Decision Support System vi. continued sea lice identification and counting training by AVC
Linkages: No. 1, 3 and 4 are linked to Regulatory Research Short Term Priorities Nos. 2, 3, 5 , 8 and to Environmental Dynamics No. 2.
Medium Term Priorities: Medium term priorities focused on new and novel products and processes that could be used in treating sea lice. More specifically the following were considered:
a. Are there any potential products currently being used for treating other feed animals that could be investigated for their applicability to treating sea lice on salmon? This may include traditional pharmaceutical products and/or other existing products.
b. Are there products that could be used to neutralize existing treatment products? c. Is there potential for a treatment strategy which would focus on lice contraceptives? d. Is there potential for mechanical delousing technology? e. Are there natural predators/parasites that could be safely used in treating lice? f. Are there additives that could be incorporated into feed that could inhibit lice attachment?
Long Term Priorities: Priorities here focused on:
1. The ongoing Minor Use/Minor Species (MUMS) work being undertaken by the National Fish Health Working Group
2. Work on salmon nutrition to include: a. New formulations that may assist in controlling sea lice issues b. Immunostimulants c. Feed management
3. Stress management and salmon welfare
Group 4 – Environmental Dynamics Improved farm management to avoid sea lice infestations would be better informed through a better understanding of the environment. A discussion on what information is required to support farm management decisions, including discussion about risk factors for high lice burdens was undertaken in this section. This group was led by Larry Hammell. The group indicated that some of the priorities listed below would need to be teased out of the short term category and re-classified as medium or long term priorities. They will attend to this during the development of their respective short term priority project synopses. Short Term Research Priorities:
1. Lice dynamics - Development of a greater understanding of the dynamics of lice movements in the areas where salmon farming is conducted. Where appropriate, this would include additional dye studies and the use of sentinel species. The research would include:
a. Movement of lice from farm to farm b. Movement and interaction of lice from other species in the wild (i.e. pollock, mackerel,
herring, etc.) to farmed salmon c. The potential effects of zonation and fallowing duration within Bay Management Areas to be
measured with sentinel salmon and mussels, as well as other species that may serve as
33
reservoirs. What are the dynamics of “zones” and BMAs and how do they influence each other? All of this could assist in influencing farm siting decisions.
d. Determining the source of the lice for farms and other species including: i. A greater understanding of the nature and dynamics of wild lice reservoirs ii. Predicting farm levels of lice
e. Developing a greater understanding of lice: i. Life history ii. Spatial and temporal distribution through models for lice counting iii. Benthic vs planktonic life stages (eg. Do eggs hatch out on the bottom when egg
strings are detached during treatment?) iv. Specific movements of adults and pre-adults
(Larry Hammell, AVC)
2. Treatment impact - Developing greater understanding of the impacts of treatments on the surrounding ecosystem. This would include:
a. Determining optimal means of measuring impacts and what the results will mean in terms of making decisions re site selection. This would include quantifying:
i. What to measure ii. Short term pulses vs. chronic lower level of treatment product iii. Public acceptance of risk to the ecosystem iv. Impact on life stages (especially early larval planktonic and benthic forms) of
commercial fisheries species (lobster, shrimp, etc.) v. Measuring the long term impact (eg. 2-7 delay in measuring the impact on the lobster
fishery) vi. The consequence of the impact in terms of the balance between the benefit of
improvement vs. the cost of the impact b. Determining how best to minimize treatment events c. Understanding the dynamics of acute and chronic treatment impacts d. Utilizing lab and field studies (including dye studies and non-salmonid sentinel species to
help generate questions to the above e. An examination of current and historical records (confidentiality issues) to help determine
data gaps and how to optimize models for predicting tidal exchanges and potential impacts on the fate of treatment products
(Fred Page, Les Burridge, DFO/SABS)
3. Chemical filters - Understanding the dynamics associated with the effectiveness of detoxifying/denaturing treatment products. This included consideration of the following:
a. Identification of methods to measure this b. Assessing the toxicity of the products and their affinity for specific denaturing agents c. Quantifying the effectiveness of potential filtering systems that are being considered to
remove treatment products. d. Is “natural” denaturing reducing efficacy? (There was a very brief discussion about the fact
that local environments and water quality already seemed to decrease the "toxicity" of the chemical if measured in effect against sea lice. If Bay of Fundy water is absorbing or somehow "denaturing" the local effect on lice, it is likely detoxifying, at some level, the chemical generally. However, while there was a question about all of this, we did not explore it in more detail.)
(Mike Beattie, NBDAAF; RPC)
Linkages: No. 1 has some linkages in Regulatory Research. No.2 is linked to Nos. 2, 3, & 5 of the Regulatory Research Short Term Priorities and to No. 3 of the Modelling Short Term Priorities. No. 3 is linked to No. 5 of the Regulatory Research Short Term Priorities.
34
Group 5 - Modelling Computer and mathematical models can help to inform management decisions and to lead to a better understanding of environmental conditions within the Bay of Fundy. What information is required to continue the development of a model for the Bay of Fundy? This discussion was led by Crawford Revie. Short Term Research Priorities:
1. Farm-based model - Development of a rapid farm-based model that can be used to advise farms on the best treatment products (or combination of products), and optimal timing for their use. Crawford Revie, AVC; Fred Page, DFO; Decision Support System
2. Environmental model - Develop model(s) focused on providing answers to regulatory questions related to local and cumulative environmental issues. Fred Page, DFO; Crawford Revie, AVC; Decision Support System
3. Predictive system - Development of a predictive system for the occurrences of pulses of lice/eggs/free-living stages. This will need some consideration of sample design for ground-truthing. This project has links to IMTA in the sense that essentially it was felt that the issue of 'source' pulses of lice (especially after fallowing, etc) are poorly understood. Given that the IMTA folks are interested in counting early stages (including for example by Quantitative PCR) to see the effects of mussels, etc it was felt that there may be some overlap in collecting data sets to help model lice population dynamics in these early stages. Crawford Revie, AVC; Fred Page, DFO; Decision Support System
Linkages: Given that modelling depends on data from lab and field research, the priorities indicated here should be considered as being linked to those of all of the other groups.
Medium Term Research Priorities:
1. Development of better biological models that exhibit increased realism. 2. Linkages amongst models to focus on ensure scale and scope are addressed. 3. Scenario evaluation related to the use of models.
Dr Crawford Revie Crawford is a professor within the Department of Health Management at the Atlantic Veterinary College which is part of the University of PEI in Charlottetown, Canada. He moved there at the end of 2008 to take up a Canada Research Chair position in Population Health: Epi-informatics. Prior to this he was based at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland where he was a key member of emerging research groups in the areas of Veterinary Informatics and Quantitative Epidemiology working with colleagues in the two Scottish Schools of Veterinary Medicine (at the universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh). He has written extensively on sea lice monitoring, epidemiology and modeling in Scottish farms and is involved in sea lice related research on both coasts of Canada as well as in Norway, Chile and Ireland. Crawford was the co-chair of the 8th international conference on sea lice, in Victoria, Canada in 2010
AN INTRODUCTION TO WELL BOAT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY - Ian Armstrong, Aqua Pharma Inc The installation of purpose built specialist systems onto wellboats for the dosing of the various sealice therapeutants is a new development, and Atlantic Canada is now one of the international leaders in this field with the recent introduction of 3 lice treatment wellboats into New Brunswick since June 2010. Wellboats can be used for a number of tasks including smolt transport, size grading, moving of fish to harvest stations and also LiveChill harvesting. This latter technology was developed in Scotland using Sølvtrans maritime expertise in response to the ISA crisis of 1998. The majority of Scottish production is now harvested using this technology, whilst in Norway the various benefits of local harvest stations preclude such a rapid acceptance unless the individual harvest stocks are under quarantine. New technology takes time to become established, particularly if it involves significant capital investment. The Norwegian coastline can grow many more tonnes of Atlantic salmon than the 825,000 tonnes HOG it currently grows, but first the industry needs to convince their Regulatory Authorities that they can adequately control fish escapes, transmission of infectious disease, and sealice. The recent increase to 40,000 m3 cages provides some additional technical challenges, and these were amongst the catalysts for our successful pilot project undertaken in Norway during late 2009 with our development partners. With their known volume and efficient water & oxygen circulation systems, wellboats greatly facilitate the optimal dosing of the selected therapeutant, with purpose built systems allowing the prescribed dose to be present throughout the entire fish holding area for the required length of time. However wellboat lice treatments are amongst the hardest of tasks for both the site staff and wellboat crew to undertake. The learning curve is rapid and intensive for those sites not accustomed to wellboats, whilst each water body has its own characteristics to take due account of. Other risks are introduced along with this powerful and mobile lice treatment facility – biosecurity standards have to remain high, and the mooring grid has to safely accommodate the size of vessel. Full enclosure tarpaulins have the advantage that fish are not pumped on and off the wellboat treatment vessel. Treatment efficacies have become significantly higher as a direct consequence of the greatly improved control wellboats deliver. This is essential if the industry wishes to reduce lice burdens from current levels as there is little merit, and also potential harm, in initiating treatments at very low levels of lice if such proactive treatments do not reliably result in very high removal rates. Reducing the variability of treatment within a biological area is also essential to fully achieve the aims of a strategic treatment, whilst recent field data indicated the benefits of preparing the fish populations with a Slice treatment immediately prior to a period of starvation and a wellboat treatment using Interox Paramove 50. Once aboard the treatment vessel the current status of technology permits only the very high removal of lice. Developments in 2011 and beyond will include the introduction of filters to remove both eggs and moribund lice from the treatment water prior to it being discharged back to where it came from. Future designs of treatment vessel will become more ambitious when further experience is gained. A key part of the Aquatic Concept is to provide our clients with an integrated dosing system, suitable for all bath therapeutants. Fish health veterinarians require such tools to facilitate their selected IPM strategies. By working together for common purpose, all the therapeutant suppliers to the salmon industry can better assist those who take the financial risk in farming fish. Without a vibrant and robust international salmon farming industry many of us would have to seek alternative employment. Ends.
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 1
Sustainable Aquaculture in a national contextAn Update from DFO
ACFFA, November 29, 2010
Trevor Swerdfager, DFO, AMD
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 2
THANK YOU for inviting me: I would like to offer you my take on …
• The market context for aquaculture
• Some perceptions of the sector
• DFO actitivities• And, anything else you
would like to talk about …
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 3
Seafood markets are truly global in nature
• Demand for seafood is growing and diversifying globally
• FAO projects continued rise in demand for seafood, capture fisheries will not meet this increased demand
• Market demand for aquaculture products is strong and has clear potential to grow
• Market trends and attitudes in other countries have huge impact on Canada
– The EU is a major policy driver, US markets often follow EU attitudes and trends
• Chile is down but not out, Norway is booming, Scotland production facing many of same problems as NB
We never were an island: we are becoming more integrated with global markets every day
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 4
Globally, the aquaculture continues to grow quickly
• DFO economic study places value of the sector at:– $833M farm gate in 2009– ~$1B in contribution to GDP– ~$2B gross economic value
• Approximately 15,000 people directly employed
• Accounts for 14% of total Canadian fisheries production and 35% of its value
• But we could do better• An other countries are
The Canadian sector has expanded but not as rapidly as elsewhere
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 5
A variety of perceptions are shaping the Canadian context for farmed salmon
• Local community and political support fo the industry is generally strong
– SWNB, Campbell River, Bellloram
• Complaints about food quality, price, freshness are minimal or nil
• Retailers continue to support farmed salmon
• Canada’s image abroad remains strong
Derek will describe buyer and consumer perceptions; they are not the problem
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 6
But the New Environmentalism influence on markets, policy and the public is growing
• Responsible for disease transmitted to wild salmon and other species
• Pest infestations harming wild ecosystems directly and indirectly via chemicals used to control them
• The source of “genetic pollution”• A non-transparent, secretive industry• Regulated in a lax manner with minimal enforcement of
what laws do exist• Unduly supported by governments biased toward
economic growth at the expense of the environment
Campaigns have, with varying success, sought to generate images of the aquaculture sector as:
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 7
Individual consumers may or not be buying these arguments
• Many retailers and other buyers are demanding third party certification• The fishing community has expressed growing concern • Media attention to the issue continues to grow• The Cohen Commission will focus even more attention on these issues• The policy climate for expansion of the industry is challenging in some
parts of Canada
But others are concerned
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 8
DFO’s Sustainable Aquaculture Program seeks to address these issues
• Improving the governance and regulatory regime for the industry
• Substantially improving the science base for environmental regulation of the industry
• Catalysing and supporting industry innovation
• Supporting the development of certification systems and expanded market access
Our goal is to foster a stronger, larger more sustainable aquaculture industry across Canada by:
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 9
Regulatory reform tops our agenda in many ways
• The new regulation will come into force prior to December 18, 2010
• It creates a new federal licence, strong monitoring and reporting requirements and a strong program to administer and enforce it
• Draft licence conditions have been released, hiring of staff is under way and we are ready to “go live” in three weeks time.
• Our work on fish health regulations will be discussed tomorrow
The BC Supreme Court decision has had a huge impact
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 10
Regulatory science remains at the core of our program
• New staff are coming on board• Priorities have focussed to date on:
– Ecosystem carrying capacity and ecosystem and far-field indicators of aquaculture effects on fish habitat
– Core funding for Centre for Integrated Aquaculture Science
– Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) research and support for the development of an NSERC Canadian IMTA research network
• Ongoing delivery and alignment of ACRDP with other programs
The Program for Aquaculture Regulatory Research is up and running
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 11
Innovation, technology development, product diversification are essential to a dynamic industry:
• A wide range of project have been approved• The program has levered substantial additional
investments• Call letter for the coming fiscal year is out
shortly
AIMAP provides catalytic support for innnovation
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 12
And for the first time, we now have a nationally endorsed plan for the sector
• Was approved by all federal and provincial Ministers on November 9, 2010
• Charts strategic directions for finfish, shellfish, freshwater• Commits governments to a set of common actions to advance the
development of in the industry• Includes a national over arching document and separate plans for
east coast finfish and shellfish, west coast finfish and shellfish and a national plan for freshwater
The National Aquaculture Strategic Action Plan Initative (NASAPI):
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 13
And we must be able to report on our progress
• Established performance indicators to be reported against
• Reports will likely be by sector
• They will chart progress toward sustainability; they are not judgements or “report cards”
• Strong reporting will promote transparency, enhance our positioning re: certification
The Sustainable Reporting Initiative” is well under way
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 14
Certification is the wave of the future
• Detailed analysis of various standard systems is under way in DFO
• DFO has provided $105k to CAIA to form an “Aquaculture Standards Forum” to bring the industry together around certification– Will improve collective understanding of certification– Working groups will focus on sectors– Intent is to better position CAIA members to respond
to and LEAD re: certification• FAO process is continuing and will result in global
guidelines for aquaculture certification;• A national organic standard for aquaculture is well
advanced with strong DFO support
We need systems that work for Canada and for markets
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 15
The federal government strongly supports aquaculture
• The industry is Canada is built on a very solid foundation
• It has tremendous market opportunities as a sector
• It must become more efficient, more transparent and able to demonstrate positive environmental performance
• The sector can and will compete well with the rest of the world
The challenges before the industry are great but:
Questions / Comments?
Market Research Attitudes towards
Atlantic Canada Farmed Salmon
Market Research Attitudes towards
Atlantic Canada Farmed Salmon
Prepared for:
Canadian Aquaculture Industry AlliancePrepared by:
Environics Research GroupSt. Andrews, November 29, 2010
Prepared for:
Canadian Aquaculture Industry AlliancePrepared by:
Environics Research GroupSt. Andrews, November 29, 2010
2
Agenda
• Highlights of research among buyers
• Highlights of qualitative and quantitative research among consumers
• Conclusions
• Highlights of research among buyers
• Highlights of qualitative and quantitative research among consumers
• Conclusions
Buyers ResearchBuyers ResearchBuyers Research
4
Who we talked to
• Environics interviewed seven corporate buyers of east coast farmed salmon.
• Three were Canadian and four were American.• Buyers were very enthusiastic about talking to us about
their issues.
• Environics interviewed seven corporate buyers of east coast farmed salmon.
• Three were Canadian and four were American.• Buyers were very enthusiastic about talking to us about
their issues.
5
Key factors in buying salmon
• Quality (freshness, colour, fat content, consistency)• Value for money• Availability/consistency of supply• Customer service/vendor loyalty Many buyers say a
good relationship with a reliable supplier who is loyal to them - is what most guides their buying decisions. They like a supplier who treats them like a partner.
• Quality (freshness, colour, fat content, consistency)• Value for money• Availability/consistency of supply• Customer service/vendor loyalty Many buyers say a
good relationship with a reliable supplier who is loyal to them - is what most guides their buying decisions. They like a supplier who treats them like a partner.
6
Perspectives on farmed salmon
• They buy almost exclusively farmed salmon. Wild salmon is a very small part of their business
• Farmed salmon is appreciated as a product – it offers year round availability, consistent and reliable quality.
• Suits their food service clients who demand consistent supply/pricing/quality – no surprises with farmed salmon.
• Well-accepted by consumers and has a better taste and consistency for many uses (i.e. juicier for BBQs, safe for sushi)
• Virtually no mention of any environmental controversy
• They buy almost exclusively farmed salmon. Wild salmon is a very small part of their business
• Farmed salmon is appreciated as a product – it offers year round availability, consistent and reliable quality.
• Suits their food service clients who demand consistent supply/pricing/quality – no surprises with farmed salmon.
• Well-accepted by consumers and has a better taste and consistency for many uses (i.e. juicier for BBQs, safe for sushi)
• Virtually no mention of any environmental controversy
7
Farmed salmon - market prognosis
Demand for farmed salmon can only grow – supplying the demand is the challenge!
• Population is growing, younger people like fish• Available fresh - anytime, anywhere• A safe and healthy protein + publicity about Omega-3• Sushi popularity is driving up demand for salmon (sometimes
25% of salmon sales) and Canadian salmon is prized for sushi – good fat content/colour.
• More demand for value-added, “plate ready” salmon products.
Demand for farmed salmon can only grow – supplying the demand is the challenge!
• Population is growing, younger people like fish• Available fresh - anytime, anywhere• A safe and healthy protein + publicity about Omega-3• Sushi popularity is driving up demand for salmon (sometimes
25% of salmon sales) and Canadian salmon is prized for sushi – good fat content/colour.
• More demand for value-added, “plate ready” salmon products.
8
Farmed salmon - market prognosis
Few real threats to demand:• Potential supply problems (i.e. Chilean ISA crisis).• Concerns about consolidation of the salmon farms –
becoming monopolistic and selling directly to their customers.
• Environmental controversy could slow growth, but not reverse it – but this is hypothetical.
• Health scare (i.e. stories about PCBs) would hurt
Few real threats to demand:• Potential supply problems (i.e. Chilean ISA crisis).• Concerns about consolidation of the salmon farms –
becoming monopolistic and selling directly to their customers.
• Environmental controversy could slow growth, but not reverse it – but this is hypothetical.
• Health scare (i.e. stories about PCBs) would hurt
9
FAQs and sources of information
• Buyers don’t field many questions about farmed salmon. More of a thing of the past and largely media driven.
• Are there PCBs? hormones? antibiotics?• What makes the salmon orange or red? Are they dyed? What
does “colour-added” refer to? • What are the farmed salmon fed? Do they have a balanced diet?• Buyers get their information from the producers/farmers and feed
suppliers and from company websites. Some will also simply “google” for information. “Salmon of the Americas” is also mentioned.
• Buyers don’t field many questions about farmed salmon. More of a thing of the past and largely media driven.
• Are there PCBs? hormones? antibiotics?• What makes the salmon orange or red? Are they dyed? What
does “colour-added” refer to?• What are the farmed salmon fed? Do they have a balanced diet?• Buyers get their information from the producers/farmers and feed
suppliers and from company websites. Some will also simply “google” for information. “Salmon of the Americas” is also mentioned.
10
Images of salmon by place of origin
Buyers see positive attributes in Atlantic Canadian salmon:• Fresher, local, fast delivery, longer shelf life• Rigorous environmental regulations, well-controlled in Fundy,
smallest carbon footprint. • Buyers like to deal with Atlantic Canadians - good rapport.BC salmon: lower quality, shorter shelf life, kudoa.Chilean salmon: “down-market”, lower environmental standards,
“tasteless and dry - just orange fish”. Salmon from Scotland/Faroe Islands: “premium product” for high
end sushi.
Buyers see positive attributes in Atlantic Canadian salmon:• Fresher, local, fast delivery, longer shelf life• Rigorous environmental regulations, well-controlled in Fundy,
smallest carbon footprint.• Buyers like to deal with Atlantic Canadians - good rapport.BC salmon: lower quality, shorter shelf life, kudoa.Chilean salmon: “down-market”, lower environmental standards,
“tasteless and dry - just orange fish”. Salmon from Scotland/Faroe Islands: “premium product” for high
end sushi.
11
Sustainability and the environment
• Sustainability = “doing no harm to the environment”, sound husbandry practices, good environmental standards, low impact on wild fish stocks and the ocean.
• Farmed salmon seen as automatically “sustainable” since it cannot be over-fished. It is a solution to the problem – world cannot depend on wild.
• Several talk about conversion ratios of feed to fish and pen density as something they are curious about.
• Most buyers do NOT have a formal “environmental policy”, but have informal policies to avoid endangered species and some are planning policies
• Sustainability = “doing no harm to the environment”, sound husbandry practices, good environmental standards, low impact on wild fish stocks and the ocean.
• Farmed salmon seen as automatically “sustainable” since it cannot be over-fished. It is a solution to the problem – world cannot depend on wild.
• Several talk about conversion ratios of feed to fish and pen density as something they are curious about.
• Most buyers do NOT have a formal “environmental policy”, but have informal policies to avoid endangered species and some are planning policies
12
Sustainability and the environment
• Environmental controversy is seen as old news. PCB scare from years ago is sometimes mentioned.
• Media driven story. Awareness of any ENGO campaigns is quite low. Some mention of Monterey Bay aquarium and suspicions of Alaska salmon industry involvement.
• ENGO campaigns have had little impact on consumers. But, news stories can depress demand in the very short-term.
• For buyers when it comes to farmed salmon from the east coast – this is really a non-issue unless human health is affected.
• Environmental controversy is seen as old news. PCB scare from years ago is sometimes mentioned.
• Media driven story. Awareness of any ENGO campaigns is quite low. Some mention of Monterey Bay aquarium and suspicions of Alaska salmon industry involvement.
• ENGO campaigns have had little impact on consumers. But, news stories can depress demand in the very short-term.
• For buyers when it comes to farmed salmon from the east coast – this is really a non-issue unless human health is affected.
13
Advice to Atlantic Canada salmon farmers
• Atlantic Canada as place of origin has no profile/image among consumers. Retailers do not promote it and so consumers don’t ask for it .
• Promote Atlantic Canada – “buy local”, fresh and “ocean to plate”• Make the case that farmed salmon relieves pressure on wild
salmon stocks. Tell consumers the story. • Environmental certification gets a mixed reaction. Some are
cynical and see it as a gimmick to raise the price. Customers are not asking for it. Others say this is the future so be prepared. Upscale customers will eventually demand it. It can be an opportunity to educate the public.
• Atlantic Canada as place of origin has no profile/image among consumers. Retailers do not promote it and so consumers don’t ask for it .
• Promote Atlantic Canada – “buy local”, fresh and “ocean to plate”• Make the case that farmed salmon relieves pressure on wild
salmon stocks. Tell consumers the story.• Environmental certification gets a mixed reaction. Some are
cynical and see it as a gimmick to raise the price. Customers are not asking for it. Others say this is the future so be prepared. Upscale customers will eventually demand it. It can be an opportunity to educate the public.
Consumer ResearchConsumer ResearchConsumer Research
15
Focus Group Methodology
Six focus groups were conducted in August 2010 with salmon consumers in Toronto, Boston and Montreal.
One session with older consumers and one with younger consumers in each city.
Goal was gain an understanding of the role of salmon in the lives of consumers and how they view salmon from Atlantic Canada.
Six focus groups were conducted in August 2010 with salmon consumers in Toronto, Boston and Montreal.
One session with older consumers and one with younger consumers in each city.
Goal was gain an understanding of the role of salmon in the lives of consumers and how they view salmon from Atlantic Canada.
16
How salmon fits into peoples’ lives
• Salmon is firmly established as part of a “rotation” of proteins – even if volume may be overestimated.
• Link to local culture in Boston and to ancestry in coastal areas of Quebec.
• Many older people report eating more salmon as reaction to a health issue or scare.
• Salmon is identified as a “reliable” food when eating out. Sushi and salmon mentioned everywhere except older Montrealers.
• Enthusiasm about sharing salmon recipes and ideas.
• Salmon is firmly established as part of a “rotation” of proteins – even if volume may be overestimated.
• Link to local culture in Boston and to ancestry in coastal areas of Quebec.
• Many older people report eating more salmon as reaction to a health issue or scare.
• Salmon is identified as a “reliable” food when eating out. Sushi and salmon mentioned everywhere except older Montrealers.
• Enthusiasm about sharing salmon recipes and ideas.
17
Motivations to eat more salmon
• Tendency to overestimate current salmon consumption – “halo effect”.
• Many older consumers were ordered by doctors to eat more fish and salmon in particular or simply want to have a healthier diet.
• Salmon is now widely available fresh all year round – this makes a difference. People want to add variety to their diets.
• People feel “light”, “refreshed” and “good about themselves” when they eat salmon. They are doing the “right thing”.
• “When you eat salmon, your whole meal tends to be healthier”
• Tendency to overestimate current salmon consumption – “halo effect”.
• Many older consumers were ordered by doctors to eat more fish and salmon in particular or simply want to have a healthier diet.
• Salmon is now widely available fresh all year round – this makes a difference. People want to add variety to their diets.
• People feel “light”, “refreshed” and “good about themselves” when they eat salmon. They are doing the “right thing”.
• “When you eat salmon, your whole meal tends to be healthier”
18
Obstacles to eating more salmon
• Perception that salmon is more expensive than other proteins.• Storage and shelf-life concerns• Fish is not part of the fast food culture. “We are not a fish-eating
people”. Eating fish has to be promoted by the industry so it becomes part of our culture.
• In Montreal, some negative association with fish and old religious practices (i.e. Lent, Fridays)
• Some (younger women esp.) still believe it’s unhealthy to eat “too much” salmon.
• Perception that salmon is more expensive than other proteins.• Storage and shelf-life concerns• Fish is not part of the fast food culture. “We are not a fish-eating
people”. Eating fish has to be promoted by the industry so it becomes part of our culture.
• In Montreal, some negative association with fish and old religious practices (i.e. Lent, Fridays)
• Some (younger women esp.) still believe it’s unhealthy to eat “too much” salmon.
19
Attitudes toward farmed salmon
• Farmed salmon largely a non-issue in eastern markets. Awareness of any controversy is low – in contrast to what was observed in Vancouver.
• People accept that they usually buy farmed salmon and they understand that it is typically cheaper, fresher and more local.
• A few consumers seek out wild salmon because it is seen as tastier and more “natural” and “organic”.
• People are curious about what fish are fed “Do they get a balanced diet?”
• Farmed salmon is seen as a sustainable way to eat fish without causing overfishing of wild stocks.
• Farmed salmon largely a non-issue in eastern markets. Awareness of any controversy is low – in contrast to what was observed in Vancouver.
• People accept that they usually buy farmed salmon and they understand that it is typically cheaper, fresher and more local.
• A few consumers seek out wild salmon because it is seen as tastier and more “natural” and “organic”.
• People are curious about what fish are fed “Do they get a balanced diet?”
• Farmed salmon is seen as a sustainable way to eat fish without causing overfishing of wild stocks.
20
Where does your salmon come from?
• People typically have no idea where the salmon they buy comes from - “It’s says ‘Atlantic salmon’, so I guess it’s from the Atlantic Ocean!”
• Despite “Atlantic salmon” moniker – many imagine that salmon is from Alaska or BC. Little spontaneous awareness that their salmon is likely from Atlantic Canada.
• Some vague associations with Scotland or with Nova Scotia (e.g. Nova lox)
• People typically have no idea where the salmon they buy comes from - “It’s says ‘Atlantic salmon’, so I guess it’s from the Atlantic Ocean!”
• Despite “Atlantic salmon” moniker – many imagine that salmon is from Alaska or BC. Little spontaneous awareness that their salmon is likely from Atlantic Canada.
• Some vague associations with Scotland or with Nova Scotia (e.g. Nova lox)
21
The Atlantic Canada advantage
• Salmon from Atlantic Canada has a “unique selling proposition”.• Consumers in Toronto are patriotic and like supporting a Canadian
industry and creating jobs in a region with which they have positive associations.
• Salmon from Atlantic Canada is seen to be fresher and more local and to have a smaller carbon footprint.
• Bostonians regard the Atlantic provinces as neighbours and as being “local”. Canada is seen as having high safety and environmental standards.
• Consumers WANT to know that their salmon is from Atlantic Canada. If this was promoted – it would be a selling feature.
• Salmon from Atlantic Canada has a “unique selling proposition”.• Consumers in Toronto are patriotic and like supporting a Canadian
industry and creating jobs in a region with which they have positive associations.
• Salmon from Atlantic Canada is seen to be fresher and more local and to have a smaller carbon footprint.
• Bostonians regard the Atlantic provinces as neighbours and as being “local”. Canada is seen as having high safety and environmental standards.
• Consumers WANT to know that their salmon is from Atlantic Canada. If this was promoted – it would be a selling feature.
22
Online Consumer Research - Methodology
• A total of 843 consumers of salmon completed the survey online October 22-31, 2010. The sample was composed of 240 consumers in each of the Greater Toronto Area and the Boston area and 365 in Greater Montreal.
• All screened to have some responsibility for grocery shopping and meal preparation in their household and had either bought fresh salmon or ordered fresh salmon in a restaurant at least once in the preceding month.
• The survey took an average of 20 minutes to complete.
• A total of 843 consumers of salmon completed the survey online October 22-31, 2010. The sample was composed of 240 consumers in each of the Greater Toronto Area and the Boston area and 365 in Greater Montreal.
• All screened to have some responsibility for grocery shopping and meal preparation in their household and had either bought fresh salmon or ordered fresh salmon in a restaurant at least once in the preceding month.
• The survey took an average of 20 minutes to complete.
23
Q.14
Rising salmon consumption
A lotmore than
before
A littlemore than
before
About asmuch asbefore
A littleless thanbefore
A lotless than
before
16
3243
72
Frequency of buying/eating salmoncompared to a couple of years agoOctober 2010
24
Q.12
The role of sushi
Never
A few times a year or less
About once a month
Two or three times a month
About once a week
Several times a week
Almost every day 1
4
8
13
14
25
35
Frequency of eating sushi or sashimi in restaurant or as takeoutOctober 2010
25
Q.19
Salmon vs. other proteins
Taste
Freshness
How feel about selfwhen eat/serve
Contains less hormones/chemicals
Nutrition
Low fat
Healthier in general 82 15 3
67 23 10
66 27 7
56 33 11
45 44 11
44 42 14
41 37 22
Salmon compared to other proteinsOctober 2010
How filling it is
Price
Easy to cook
Environmentally-friendly 39 51 10
38 43 20
19 24 56
15 51 34
Salmon is better Both the same Other proteins are better
26
Q.21a
Preferred place of origin
Atlantic Canada
Alaska B.C. Norway Chile Makes no difference
43
18 17 4 118
Preferred source for fresh salmonOctober 2010
27
Q.21
Preferred source for fresh salmonSummary first choice By city October 2010
* Less than one percent
Preferred place of origin
TORONTOTORONTO MONTREALMONTREAL BOSTONBOSTON
Atlantic Canada 46 56 26
B.C. 30 17 4
Alaska 8 10 37
Norway 5 3 4
Chile * 1 1
Makes no difference 11 15 29
28
Q.21b
Atlantic Canada salmon advantages
Highest environmentalstandards
Smallest carbon footprint
Highest quality overall
Freshness
Most local 69 10 8 21 11
49 12 15 41 19
31 14 19 6 1 29
30 9 16 6 3 36
27 13 16 10 1 33
Atlantic Canada
B.C.
Alaska
Norway
Chile
All the same
Which country’s fresh salmon is better for ...?October 2010
29
Q.26-care
Farmed vs. Wild
I don't really care whether the fresh salmon I buy is wild or farmed 13 37 32 17
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Caring about whether salmon is wild/farmedOctober 2010
30
Q.23
How much of your salmon is farmed/wild?
Wild caught Farmed
52 48
Estimated percentage of salmon boughtpersonally that is wild or farmedMean October 2010
31
Q.25
Farmed vs. Wild
Comes from close towhere you live
Risk of toxins
Environmentally sustainable
Cheaper
Available all year round
Helps prevent overfishing 74 17 10
63 28 9
56 31 13
46 25 28
37 27 36
36 44 20 Tastier
Nutritional benefits
Fat content
Freshness 15 50 35
14 63 23
9 49 42
8 35 57
Farmed is better No difference Wild is better
Wild vs. farmed fresh salmon – key attributesOctober 2010
32
Q.29a
News about fish farming
Yes No
37
63
Seen, read or heard about environmentalimpact of fish farming in past yearOctober 2010
33
Q.31
Attitudes towards fish farming
Salmon farming is bad for the environmentbecause it produces harmful environmentaleffects which hurt wild salmon populations
Salmon farming is good for the environmentbecause it reduces pressure on wild
salmon stocks by helping to meet theworldwide consumer demand for salmon
22
49
22
8
Strongly prefer Somewhat prefer
Environmental impact of salmon farmingOctober 2010
71%
30%
34
Q.32-myths
Attitudes towards fish farming
You should avoid eating salmon more than twice a month
Farmed salmon spread diseases to wild salmon
Wild salmon is morenutritious than farmed 16 37 25 5 17
6 29 33 7 25
3 15 36 36 10
Definitely true
Probably true
Probably false
Definitely false
dk/na
Myths about salmon – true or false?October 2010
35
Q.33
Attitudes towards fish farming
Farming of other animalsmuch more negative
Farming of other animals somewhat more negative
Both the same
Salmon farming somewhat more negative
Salmon farmingmuch more negative 3
9
53
21
14
Impact on environment of salmonfarming vs. farming other animalsOctober 2010
12%
35%
36
Q.33.1
GMO salmon policy
Stronglyagree
Somewhatagree
Somewhatdisagree
Stronglydisagree
53
37
82
Salmon farming industry policy againstgenetically-engineered salmonOctober 2010
37
Q.34
Potential ENGO campaign
Very big impact
Someimpact
Only a little impact
No impact at all
10
44
2620
Impact of potential ENGO campaignagainst farmed salmon on youOctober 2010
38
Q.35
Potential ENGO campaign
Boycott your supermarket until they stop selling farmed salmon
Give up eating salmon/eat more meat instead
Buy wild salmon instead of farmedsalmon, even if it costs more
Do research to get more facts about the issue 47 41 9 3
19 43 29 9
7 16 46 31
6 14 41 39
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
Likelihood of taking action as result ofcampaign against farmed salmonOctober 2010
39
Q.36
Sustainable certification
More likely No difference Less likely
63
298
Impact of sustainable certification onlikelihood of buying farmed salmonOctober 2010
40
Q.36.1
Sustainable certification
20% plus more
15% to 19% more
10% to 14% more
5% to 9% more
Less than 5% more
None/no more 40
2
9
20
5
24
Paying more for farmed salmon from independentlycertified environmentally sustainable sourceOctober 2010 How much more willing to pay
Mean (including 0) = 12.5%
41
Eastern and western markets compared
• Consumers on the west coast and in eastern markets broadly similar. Vancouver is the outlier.
• Less intensity around positive statements about salmon in the eastern markets.
• Sushi more popular in the west (65% at least 1/month vs. 40% in the east)
• Easterners less likely to care whether their salmon is farmed. They are more likely to see other kinds of farming as more damaging to the environment and to see salmon farming as being beneficial to the environment.
• Easterners less likely to have seen news about fish farming and less likely to be influenced by any ENGO campaign.
• Consumers on the west coast and in eastern markets broadly similar. Vancouver is the outlier.
• Less intensity around positive statements about salmon in the eastern markets.
• Sushi more popular in the west (65% at least 1/month vs. 40% in the east)
• Easterners less likely to care whether their salmon is farmed. They are more likely to see other kinds of farming as more damaging to the environment and to see salmon farming as being beneficial to the environment.
• Easterners less likely to have seen news about fish farming and less likely to be influenced by any ENGO campaign.
42
Conclusion
• Atlantic Canada has a good image. Most people don’t know where their salmon comes from, but when they find out it gives them a good feeling. Find a way to promote the place of origin of the product to consumers.
• The idea of buying salmon that is local or at least North American is a winner. Atlantic Canadian salmon can easily be shown to have travelled a much shorter distance and can therefore be fresher. This should be stressed in order to give the product a competitive edge against west coast, European and Chilean product.
• Atlantic Canada has a good image. Most people don’t know where their salmon comes from, but when they find out it gives them a good feeling. Find a way to promote the place of origin of the product to consumers.
• The idea of buying salmon that is local or at least North American is a winner. Atlantic Canadian salmon can easily be shown to have travelled a much shorter distance and can therefore be fresher. This should be stressed in order to give the product a competitive edge against west coast, European and Chilean product.
TORONTO33 Bloor Street E, Suite 900Toronto, Ontario Canada M4W 3H1Tel. 416 • 920 • 9010Fax. 416 • 920 • 3299
OTTAWA336 MacLaren Street
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
K2P 0M6Tel. 613 • 230 • 5089Fax. 613 • 230 • 3836
44
Q.seg
Salmon Segmentation
20
13
40
27
Ethical
Discriminating
Pragmatic
Disengaged
Segmentation of salmon consumersOctober 2010
seg
Psychographic Segmentation
Ethical • Concerned about sustainability/strong on all environmental dimensions
• Nutrition and health are important• Willing to pay more• Strongly prefer wild salmon• Trust environmental groups/boycott would have
a big impact • Farmed salmon is seen to be environmentally
destructive • Like certification• Female, older, Toronto
• Concerned about sustainability/strong on all environmental dimensions
• Nutrition and health are important• Willing to pay more• Strongly prefer wild salmon• Trust environmental groups/boycott would have
a big impact• Farmed salmon is seen to be environmentally
destructive• Like certification• Female, older, Toronto
seg
Psychographic Segmentation
Discriminating• Confident about preparing salmon• Eat more and more salmon in future• Taste is the number one consideration• Prefer wild – because it tastes better• Health conscious• Environmentalists are unreasonable• Science will solve environmental problems• Higher income, older and Boston
• Confident about preparing salmon• Eat more and more salmon in future• Taste is the number one consideration• Prefer wild – because it tastes better• Health conscious• Environmentalists are unreasonable• Science will solve environmental problems• Higher income, older and Boston
seg
Psychographic Segmentation
Pragmatic • Concerned about contamination/threats to human health
• Low interested in farmed/wild debate and uninformed
• Don’t really care if salmon is farmed• Price conscious• Farmed salmon helps prevent over-fishing• Low impact from ENGO boycott• Low on environmental values• Certification has a big impact• Want to believe farmed salmon is good!• Older women
• Concerned about contamination/threats to human health
• Low interested in farmed/wild debate and uninformed
• Don’t really care if salmon is farmed• Price conscious• Farmed salmon helps prevent over-fishing• Low impact from ENGO boycott• Low on environmental values• Certification has a big impact• Want to believe farmed salmon is good!• Older women
seg
Psychographic Segmentation
Disengaged • Disinterested in sustainability/low on environmental dimensions
• Salmon is a favourite/big sushi consumers
• Salmon seen as a hassle to prepare• Nutrition is a low priority• No interest in whether salmon is farmed
or wild • Might be attracted to boycott as an act of
rebellion • Younger, male and visible
minority/francophone
• Disinterested in sustainability/low on environmental dimensions
• Salmon is a favourite/big sushi consumers
• Salmon seen as a hassle to prepare• Nutrition is a low priority• No interest in whether salmon is farmed
or wild• Might be attracted to boycott as an act of
rebellion• Younger, male and visible
minority/francophone
49
Segmentation - implications
Two segments may merit special targeting.
The Pragmatic Consumers tend to have particular concerns around toxins and threats to human health. They have no issues with farmed salmon. They want to be reassured that farmed salmon is safe and helps protect wild stocks.
The Discriminating Consumers would be more attracted to a positive message about the health benefits and taste of salmon. They like to see themselves as appreciating high quality products that have prestige. They would respond well to a message that promotes farmed salmon as a scientific cutting edge solution to the threat of over-fishing.
Two segments may merit special targeting.
The Pragmatic Consumers tend to have particular concerns around toxins and threats to human health. They have no issues with farmed salmon. They want to be reassured that farmed salmon is safe and helps protect wild stocks.
The Discriminating Consumers would be more attracted to a positive message about the health benefits and taste of salmon. They like to see themselves as appreciating high quality products that have prestige. They would respond well to a message that promotes farmed salmon as a scientific cutting edge solution to the threat of over-fishing.
Sea-Pen Rearing Project: An Innovative Partnership between Parks Canada, DFO, and the Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association
Renee Wissink and Corey Clarke
One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar) in the wild and in aquaculture
Mart R. Gross (Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55: 131–144)
• ―Today, over 94% of all adult Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) are in the
aquaculture niche…‖.
• ―The three interest groups in fisheries — aquaculture, biodiversity, and capture — must begin to work together if we are to take up the challenge of preserving biodiversity and if aquaculturists can be expected to willingly prevent further impacts from their industry‖.
What do bananas and salmon have in common?
Conservation Magazine (www. Conservationmagazine.org)
….‖Each is a virtual clone, almost
devoid of genetic diversity. And that uniformity makes the banana ripe for disease like almost no other crop on Earth‖.
This has obvious implications for the future of farming fish as well as fruit when using a crop with little genetic diverstiy.
Background Information• Historically, IBoF Salmon were found in >40 rivers with a population
of >40,000 returning adults.
• In 1999, it was estimated <250 adult IBoF salmon returned to inner bay rivers to spawn.
• IboF Salmon have been designated as an endangered population by the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) since 2003.
• At the Park, the focus of our recovery program is to protect the salmon‘s genetic diversity through live gene banking.
• Low to non-existent returns from the marine environment by mature adults is commonly accepted as the factor most limiting recovery.
Live Gene Banking
Live gene banking involves the capture and rearing of individuals to ensure representative family groups are always protected from potential threats in the wild.
―the Live Gene Bank is one of the most
noteworthy Conservation projects in Canada‖ M. Gross
Current Program
SMOLT WHEEL USR
DFO LGB
Adult (PWR) and Juvenile* (USR)
Releases
* (USR) Releases of fry and parr result in various ages and 2 origins of smolt
Genetics ProgramTissue collected
during electro-fishing program, smolt wheel or any adult captures
Work completed by Patrick O‟Reilly –DFO @ BIO
Breeding Plan
All attempts are made to preserve the widest genetic diversity within the population.
USR and PWR LGB Recovery Experiments
• PWR – Adult only program
• USR – Juvenile only program (unfed fry and fall/spring fingerlings)
What is Happening ?Released fish survive
river to Smolt1-4yrs later
18 months later
Salmon aren‟t returning
from the Bay of Fundy!
BUT!
So what is the problem?• LGB program at Mactaquac and other Biodiversity
Facilities is expensive.• Domestication problems – e.g., poor
hypothalamus development in concrete pens -> spawning behaviour abnormal, egg quality may suffer, etc.
• Smolt designed to go to sea and we redirect them back into freshwater
• What if we could better mimic sea conditions in controlled way for post smolts -> sea pens!!
Newest Project:Sea Cage rearing experiment
Project Conception• Idea of sea pen post smolt rearing had been talked about in
Planning Group for a number of years
• Invitation by Aquaculture Industry in 2008 was catalyst –resulted in meeting in St. George
• Pilot study in 2009 (ACFFA ->Admiral and Cooke Aquaculture) on Deer Island
• First full study year in 2010 (Admiral) near St. George and hopefully continuing into the future (AACFFA-> multiple partners) with 2011 on Grand Manan
Rearing Salmon in the Bay of FundyWHY?
Natural exposure can matterA LOT!
-Steelhead tank design (U.Cal)-PW-US return VS smolt (FNP)- Spawning behaviour research (DFO)
Project Objectives
• Using sea cage to more closely emulate natural rearing environments, determine smolt trait‘s association with:
» Survival» Growth and Development» Maturation» Reproduction and Offspring performance» i.e., overall fittness
• Compare same measures & traits with control group in freshwater rearing facility (Mactaquac).
2009 Pilot Season: Design Highlights
• 700 to 2 sea cages, 200 to Mactaquac• Logistics worked well (catching & moving fish)• Little monitoring control (350/pen, 20,000 capacity) • Sea lice resulted in high losses in July • Medication delivered in feed as per fish health
policy but difficult to feed so few fish (drop in a bucket)
• Control group in Mactaquac had high comparative survival
• Innovative solutions developed and presented by Admiral staff during planning for 2010......
2010 Design Highlights
• 1600 USR smolt to 4 sea pens, 100 to Mactaquac
• Excellent control, daily mort data
• 5x survival over season close 2009
• Monthly total inventories• Lice loading data set (small)• Final Inventory (Oct 22)
included growth measures on ALL fish
The 2010 Admiral Replicated Pen for Aquaculture Research Purposes (ARP2)
Patent pending!
• Design Sketch & Photo
Aside
Bside
Ser
vice
& M
onito
ring
Cat
-Wal
kFeeders usedto duplicate feed regime in hatchery
8 pens allowed 4 groups of ~ 400 smolt to be transferred from “A” to “B” side
during monthly total inventories .
Nets hung to „de-foul‟ in sun and provide clean
conditions for fish to re-enter after inventory
Currently testing field season data (results spring 2011)
-Effects of smolt origin and age on 6-month survival/mortality in sea cages (does level of captive/wild exposure affect survival?)
-Effects of smolt size on 6-month survival/mortality in sea cages(do larger or smaller smolt have different survival?)
-Effects of smolt origin & age on growth development in sea cages(do surviving fish develop differently based on smolt traits)
Plans for 2011 and beyond
• 2010 group (fresh & salt):– Continue monitoring– Migration performance
experiments• In - Bay release, tag
detection @ river mouth– Gamete & Offspring
experiments– Spawning performance
experiments– Post Spawn Satellite tracking
• 2011 group/s :– Trial ―Production-size‖ group using
wild captured smolt/parr and potentially hatchery reared juveniles in sea cage
– This work could facilitate the release of ‗Natural‘ amount of
adults in the future which has been previously impossible with current budgets and infrastructure.
Very Preliminary Conclusion• CAGE REARING IS FEASIBLE WITH
SOME POTENTIAL CONSERVATION AND FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES !
• Research should continue.
QUESTIONS?
Marine Biofouling
Raising the iCage™
iCage™ Submersed
Icing as a result of freezing spray
iCage™ Pros
No Antifoulant
Lightweight, non-absorbing netting
Net stays clean, better water quality
No net changing
No large equipment required for maintenance
Fixed growing volume
No icing from freezing spray
Ability to avoid negative surface condition
Individual mooring systems
iCage™ Challenges
Developing SOP’s – Feeding, Rotating, Seining
Worker and Diver Orientation and Access – Feed camera access, Fish sampling access, mortality removal
Something DIFFERENT! UFO Complex – Unidentified Floating Object
BKD – Impacts on the Canadian Aquaculture Industry
BC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences
Bacterial Kidney Disease
Renibacterium salmoninarium
Chronic disease of salmonids
Vertical and Horizontal transmission
OIE listed in 2003 but has been removed
Annually reportable NAAHP (proposed)
BKD – the unsexy disease
Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD)
Identified as an potential disease of concern for salmon by National Fish Health Management Working Group.
Survey to assess impacts and effects on salmonid culture
Survey Objectives
relative importance of BKD the regions
current prevalence in each region and whether there has been a change in over the last 5-10 years;
current techniques used to control/prevent BKD; and
factors that may contribute to changes in observed prevalence.
Participants
Veterinarians and Fish Health Specialists
Atlantic Provinces – NL, NS, NB
Atlantic salmon
Central Canada – QC, ON
Lake and Brook Trout, Atlantic, Chinook and Coho
West Coast – BC
Atlantic, Pacific salmon
SummaryFacility
Freshwater Growout Commercial Enhancement
East Coast 4 3 4 1
Central Canada 2 1 1 1
West Coast 4 5 4 1
Questionaire
Sent out Returned% Returned
East Coast 6 4 67Central Canada 2 2 100West Coast 6 6 100
Summary of findings – Importance /Prevalence
BKD rates as a significant disease affecting both Pacific and Atlantic salmon on both coasts and in FW and SW
~ 3rd most important (sea lice and ISA) on east coast
~ 3rd or 4th on west coast (IHNv, mouth rot, sea lice) Atlantic salmon
#1 for Pacific Salmon (enhancement and commercial operations)
Central Canada did not consider the disease to be significant – only important in some strains of Atlantic Salmon.
Summary of findings – Importance /Prevalence
But the US considers BKD a significant disease in the Great Lakes Region
"Inter-laboratory testing for field validation of diagnostic methods to detect and quantify Renibacterium salmoninarum" has been recommended for funding by the Great Lakes Fishery Trust.
The need to “standardize test is considered highly relevant and necessary for fish health management in the Great Lakes region and elsewhere where BKD is an issue.”
Summary of findings – Prevalence
East coast facilities estimated prevalence in Atlantic salmon at about 3%
prevalence in last 5-10yrs has remained the same or increased slightly
West coast estimate prevalence in Atlantic salmon at 1- 3%
Same prevalence or some decrease in last 5-10yrs
In BC it is a significant health issue of Pacific salmon in private and public facilities- prevalence was estimated as 5%
No change in chinook, maybe some decline in coho
Summary of findings – Prevalence – in context
Annual Fish Health Reports published by BC MAL - includes health summaries provided by BCSFA (through their database) and fish health audits conducted by BC MAL
Between 2003 - 2009
BKD constituted between 2-10 % of all diseases diagnosed in farmed Atlantic Salmon.
BKD constituted between 62 - 100% of all diseases diagnosed on farmed Pacific salmon.
Summary of findings – Costs
Management modifications, production losses, treatment costs and harvest quality
Freshwater
Broodstock management - $$$
Separation, Therapuetant, Handling, Screening
Production losses - $$
In Central Canada – this was the most important cost
Saltwater
Production modifications – density, feed additives, handling
Treatment costs
Downgrades
Summary of findings – Proposed Risk Factors
Variation in prevalence by species/stock/strain
Limiting factor for Pacific salmon aquaculture growth
Husbandry techniques – density/ handling
Water Quality – Water Hardness, Low DO, Salinity, Temperature
Other stressors – predation, harmful plankton
fish movement- interprovincial
Location of farm
Feed Formulation- plant proteins
Summary of findings – Limitations in management
Poor understanding of the risk factors
Reliable diagnostic methods to detect low level infections
Effective vaccines
Difficult to culture
Effective therapeutants
Registered therapeutants - Extralabel use(OTC, erythromycin)
Access to therapeutants (Galllimycin 200, TM Aqua)
Perception issues – potential human health concerns
FAO/WHO
Summary
BKD is a disease of concern in salmonAtlantic and Pacific SalmonFarmed and Enhanced/Wild
BKD is a disease of concern nationwideWest Coast and East Coast
Limited tools for effective prevention/management
Next Step –
Practical Tools for managing BKD Workshop - Fish Culturists and Researchers
Possible funding sources – NSERC, ACRDP
AFS Western and Eastern Fish Disease Workshop – Nanaimo BC June 2011.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada &
THE SEA LICE CHALLENGE
Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers AssociationAnnual General Meeting and Workshops
November 29, 2010St. John, New Brunswick
2
o The New Brunswick sea lice challengeo Our objectives for collective solutionso DFO involvemento The emerging Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment
Regulationso Any questions or concerns you may have
My goal this morning is to briefly describe
3
• As a result of a variety of factors, sea lice levels in Southwest NB have continued to rise
• The issue has reached near crisis levels• The industry has reported growing revenue losses since
2009 and an increasingly difficult operating environment.
• This predicament constitutes a threat to the sustainability of the industry and its rural and coastal employment capacity not only in NB but potentially in other areas of Canada
THE SEA LICE CHALLENGE IS SIGNIFICANT AND GROWING
4
• It is clear that some readily available sea lice control treatments exist
• It is equally clear that some of the pose risks to the marine environment
• The challenge before us all is to effectively safeguard marine ecosystem health while addressing the needs of both the wild and farmed fisheries.
• Meeting this challenge involves a complex matrix of stakeholders, a wide suite of scientific and technical issues and a host of operational realities
SIMPLE SOLUTIONS ARE SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE
5
• DFO understands the complexities surrounding the sea lice challenge for the aquaculture and wild fishery sectors, and for coastal communities who depend upon healthy aquatic ecosystems.
• DFO regional and Ottawa offices have been working together with the Provinces and stakeholders to develop common approaches to address sea lice management
DFO “GETS IT”
6
• broad-based engagement in the issues• An Integrated Sea Lice Management Strategy for NB• A common set of research and monitoring priorities
(short and long term)• A regulatory framework
IN OUR VIEW, WE ALL NEED …
7
• Our three main contributions to the sea lice challenge are:1. Helping to bring people together2. Ongoing sea lice research 3. The Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment Regulations
• The preliminary scientific research which will be discussed later today by the researchers themselves, is one element of a greater combination of needs toward solving this issue.
DFO WILL CONTINUE TO DO ITS PART…
8
WE ARE MOVING QUICKLY ON A NEW REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
• Sea lice control involves the Fisheries Act, the Pest Control Products Act, Food and Drugs Act, Health of Animals Act
• Federally, it involves Health Canada (Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, Veterinary Drugs Directorate), Environment Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and DFO
• Section 36 of the Fisheries Act and the “other” federal laws do not align perfectly for sea lice control purposes
9
• The Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment regulations are being proposed with two goals in mind:
– To enhance consistency and coherence across the complex issue of fish pathogen and pest control
– To ensure that fish health is managed in accordance with marine ecosystem conservation and protection.
WE ARE WORKING TO FIX THIS MIS-ALIGNMENT
10
• Since October 2009 we have engaged Health Canada, Environment Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, provinces and others regarding the regulation
• On August 25th, a consultation discussion document was posted on the DFO web site for a 15-day public consultation period. ~ 100 comments were received and are being considered as we develop regulatory text
DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGULATIONS IS WELL ADVANCED
11
• It is likely that under s.36 and s.32 of the FA, the proposed regulations could provide a mechanism for the authorization of the following products for the purpose of fish pathogen and pest treatment:
– Pest control products registered or authorized under the Pest Control Products Act
– Drug products approved under the Food and Drugs Act
OUR APPROACH IS STLL BEING REFINED
12
• The products would be authorized on the condition that:– DFO has received a planned/estimate schedule of
treatments.
• And under the condition that the product:– Has undergone a science-based Environmental RA– Has undergone analysis that identifies the waters outside
the treatment area that are likely to be affected by the deposit.
– Will be used in accordance with mitigation and monitoring measures.
– Is used with an acceptable emergency response plan in place.
WE WOULD PROVIDE “BLANKET AUTHORIZATIONS”
13
• Authorizations would only be issued if the use of the product would not result in harm to non-target fish, fish habitat or the
use of fish by man.
THE REGULATION WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH SECTION 36
14
o Require records to be kept on the use of treatments and reported to DFO.
o Apply to all aquaculture facility operators who treat for fish pests and pathogens
o Allow for activities to continue under the National Aquatic Animal Health Program.
Our goal is to have the regulations in place by Spring 2011
THE REGULATIONS WILL:
15
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Thank you
Update: Sea lice and resistance monitoring (AVC‐CAHS)
1
UPDATE: SEA LICE & RESISTANCE MONITORING IN NEW BRUNSWICK
(Larry Hammell, Jillian Westcott, Crawford Revie, ShonaWhyte)AVC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (AVC‐CAHS)Atlantic Veterinary CollegeUniversity of Prince Edward Island, CANADA
Objectives of Program
1. Credible 3rd party for lice counts
Independent counts
Audits of sites
ff2. Efficacy assessments
3. Resistance monitoring
4. Trends for predictions
5. Training (“certification”)
Farm counts
CAHS(3rd party) counts
3rd party audits
Training
Bioassays
Decision Support System
Clinical Field Trials
Treatment efficacy
Sea Lice trends and predictions
Farm counts
Sea lice policy minima:
5* – 10 fish per cage
6* – 10 cages per site (at least 4 randomly selected)selected)
Counted at least weekly
“certified” counter
Training to 3 levels
assessed for lice stage differentiation in lab setting for Level2 and assessed for stage precision in field for Level3
Decision Support System
Sea lice data record submission and information retrieval
Includes lice counts (weekly) and treatment data
(and fish weight water temp etc)(and fish weight, water temp, etc)
Initiated in summer 2009
Web‐active since May 2010 (and added retrospectively)
All aspects continue to develop as tool for industry and vets in decision making
Sept. 22 NBDAA contract fully executed (signed by UPEI VP)
Oct 27 NBSGA contract fully executed
Sep2009 PABased on AIF project anticipation
Nov2010 PABased on 50% sea lice project and 50% by other project
+2 lab techs (bioassays)+4 field techs (tx counts)
2 research scientists (ShonaWhyte, JillWestcott)
2‐3 field/lab techs
Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11
Feb‐Marrequest from NBDAA to address multiple objectives in integrated plan
NB training PE training
Aug2010 PABased on new project (guaranteed by other projects)
Staffing plan to execute sea lice program
ACFFA Sea Lice Meeting - 29-30 Nov 2010
Update: Sea lice and resistance monitoring (AVC‐CAHS)
05/01/2011
2
Can select date and BMA to generate average lice counts for sites in BMA
559 total count events reported3212 total cages counted5.2 average number of cages counted
23373 total fish counted7.1 average fish per cage counted175 total treatment events
Counts reported
Site 10
80
100
120
140Lice per Fish
Average Lice per Fish by BMA (2010)
Q chalimus
Q AF+mobiles
U chalimus
U AF+mobiles
W chalimus
Each BMA can be plotted over time, together or individually, and for different lice stages
0
20
40
60
03/28/2010
04/11/2010
04/25/20
10
05/09/2010
05/23
/2010
06/06/2010
06/20/2010
07/04/2010
07/18/2010
08/01/2010
08/15/20
10
08/29/2010
09/12/20
10
09/26/2010
10/10/2010
10/24/2010
11/07/20
10
11/21/2010
Ave
rage L W AF+mobiles
V chalimus
V AF+mobiles
S chalimus
S AF+mobiles
T chalimus
T AF+mobiles
All Chalimus
All AF+Mobiles
80
100
120
140
ce per Fish
Average Lice per Fish by BMA (2010)
Industry average lice counts over time can be plotted
0
20
40
60
03/28/2010
04/11/2010
04/25/20
10
05/09/2010
05/23
/2010
06/06/2010
06/20/2010
07/04/2010
07/18/2010
08/01/2010
08/15/20
10
08/29/2010
09/12/20
10
09/26/2010
10/10/2010
10/24/2010
11/07/20
10
11/21/2010
Ave
rage Lic
All Chalimus
All AF+Mobiles
3rd party counts
Used 2009 as model for attempting pre and post counts in standardized fashion
Alphamax July 2009 – Nov 2009
S l N D Salmosan Nov 2009 – Dec 2009
Bioassays as frequently as possible (limited personnel to do any of this)
ACFFA Sea Lice Meeting - 29-30 Nov 2010
Update: Sea lice and resistance monitoring (AVC‐CAHS)
05/01/2011
3
Farm counts
CAHS(3rd party) counts
Decision Support System
SITE level
Treatment effects at site level can be viewed different ways (over time or by event)
Salm
osa
n
Treatment efficacy
Salm
osa
n
SITE level
Treatment effects at cage level can be viewed for different stages by treatment event
Paramove
CAGE level
Paramove
No Pre‐Treatment CountAbility to view treatment effects depends on data (collected and submitted). Several t t t h treatments have no pre or no post counts, so effect cannot be assessed.
Conclusion
Farm counts, 3rd party counts, resistance testing, and efficacy progress
DSS available but not fully utilized (data entry for counts or treatments are not complete)
Paramove: Cage treatment efficacy
good for AF (0.1‐0.2 of pre‐count)
Reasonable for PAAM (0.3‐0.4)
Cage treatments effective, but site control is hampered by not treating entire site over short period
ACFFA Sea Lice Meeting - 29-30 Nov 2010
Jillian Westcott, Shona Whyte, Larry Hammell, Crawford RevieCentre for Aquatic Health Sciences
Atlantic Veterinary CollegeUniversity of Prince Edward island
Sea Lice Collections
Bioassay Set-Up
Slice
AlphaMax
Salmosan
Drug Mixing Doses Exposure
RESPONSE CRITERIALIVE (L) 1) normal swimming behavior (ability to swim in a straight line)
2) securely adheres to Petri dish3) normal movement of extremities
WEAK (W) 1) disabled swimming but capable of weak uncoordinated movement (loop to loop swimming)
2) inability to firmly adhere to Petri dish (adherence to dish for a period before dropping off)
MORIBUND (M) 1) minimal movement of extremities2) twitches when manipulated with forceps (paralysis)
DEAD (D) 1) inability to swim
2) floating in Petri dish 3) no movement of extremities
Bioassay Evaluations
‘Classic’ dose response:- measure: EC50 value- requires many lice (n = 180 to 540 lice)- tests 5 to 6 doses
‘Threshold’ dose indicator:- measure: % M+D at threshold dose- tests fewer lice (n = 60 to 180 lice)- selecting correct level- limits to interpretation
NOTE: Expect variation/noise in responses to any treatment
EC 50
Dose
ProportionAffected
0.5
Log scale
EC50 vs. Threshold Approach
n = 90
n = 22
n = 23
LEVEL 1: Attended the Sea Lice Training course Attained a 70% or higher on multiple choice test
LEVEL 2: Attended the Sea Lice Training course Attained a 70% or higher on multiple choice test Attained a 80% or higher on practical evaluation of sea lice in the laboratory, including differentiation of species, stage and gender
LEVEL 3: Attended the Sea Lice Training course Attained a 70% or higher on multiple choice test Attained a 80% or higher on practical
evaluation of sea lice in the laboratory, including differentiation of species, stage and gender
Practical on‐site evaluation of sea lice including differentiating species, stage and gender on live fish. Comparison with reputable counters; pass rate is 80% agreement between counters.
Sea Lice Training Program
Training Completed
Total # of Level 1 trained = 19 peopleTotal # of Level 2 trained = 56 peopleTOTAL TRAINED = 75 people
ALPHA MAX ®
Status and Some environmental aspects
Sea Lice workshop, New Brunswick Nov 30th, 2010Nils Steine, PHARMAQ AS
Topics
• PHARMAQ AS, who are we?• ALPHAMAX® , what is it and where is it used• ALPHAMAX® Dispersion and sentinel
monitoring• Accumulation in mussels• Fisheries data
PHARMAQ’s business idea
3
• We provide environmentally sound, safe and efficacious health products to the global aquaculture industry through targeted research and the commitment of dedicated people
PHARMAQ AS• Established in July 2004 as a result of an MBO of the global
aquaculture business of Alpharma Inc. Orkla and Kverva acquired the company in November 2008. Management and employees hold about 26 % of the shares
• Kverva AS is an investment company a focus on marine industry.
• Orkla’s Share Portfolio is a part of Orkla
Financial Investments.
4
A company with global market presence
6
PRODUCTS
INJECTABLE VACCINES
DIP/IMMERSION VACCINES
IMMUNOSUPPORT
THERAPEUTIC MEDICINES
BIOCIDES
MAJOR BRANDS
ALPHA JECT® - injection vaccines
ALPHA DIP ® - immersion vaccines
ALPHA MARINE ® - vaccines for marine species
ALPHA MAX ® - bath treament against sea lice
8
Competitive situation
CompanyGlobal market share 2009
Vaccines for salmonids reared in seawaterPD vaccine segment not included
PHARMAQ 44%
Novartis 39%
Intervet/SPAH 6 %
Others 11%
11
Numbers based on PHARMAQ statistics
Too much sea lice thinking?
ALPHA MAX ®
What is it, how and where is it used.
Slide 18
General properties of synthetic pyrethroids• Potent substances that impairs
the nerve signal transmission• Low toxicity to mammals, birds,
plants, algae and sediment dwellers
• Lipophilic, but not bioaccumulating
• Very low water solubility• Biodegradable in water and
sediments• Toxic to fish• Very toxic to aquatic
crustaceans
Deltamethrin use patterns:Pesticides: 77%Health & environment: 15.5%Veterinary products: 7.5%• Fish (share of vet. med.): <0.1%• Fish (share of total): < 0.005%
Slide 19
A sea lice therapeutant with deltamethrin formulated as ALPHA MAX, Brief description• Deltamethrin, a pyrethroid insecticide, as
active ingredient• Mode of action: impairs the nerve signal
transmission• Microemulsion concentrate –
a formulation that makes deltamethrin soluble in water
• Low mammalian toxicity, established MRL – no violation reported
• Only limited, transient local environmental effects following use
• Dosage: Closed tarpaulin or well boat:2 ppb deltamethrin (3 ppb for “skirt”) for 30 minutes (40 minutes for “skirt”)
• Works on all stages of sea lice.
3
Use as bath for removing and killing sea lice
• In Tarp• In well boat• In skirt
Slide 21
Regulatory status of ALPHA MAX - deltamethrin• Norway: application for Marketing Authorisation (MA) and
sales licence since 1998, full MA granted in 2006
• Faeroe Islands: application and sales licence since 1998, MA in 2006
• Chile: Emergency licence in August 2008. MA in 2010
• UK: Mutual recognition procedure (MRP), MA granted in 2008
• Ireland: Emergency licence 2006 (AR16), Mutual recognition procedure (MRP), MA granted in 2008
• Greece: Imported and used based on the UK MA since 2008
• Canada: PMRA emergency registration in New Brunswick, May 2009-2010, Oct-Dec 2010
Slide 22
Isopod sea lice (Ceratothoa oestroides)
Slide 23
Isopod sea lice (Ceratothoa oestroides) after treatment with Alpha Max
Slide 24
Practical bath treatment Experience from Norway
• PHARMAQ has 13 years experience with bath treatments from field with deltamethrin (ALPHA MAX)
• In Norway the main proportion of bath treatments are conducted as skirt treatments.
• Farmers with trained personnel, correct equipment and good procedures use treatment tarpaulins
• Increasing numbers of bath treatments are conducted in well boats
• Larger cages have been introduced, New challenges.......
• Tarpaulin treatments or well boat treatments give most reliable results with regard to effect on sea lice
• Move towards requiring full enclosure.
Slide 25
Sediment study from the field
• Two sites that has been treated with ALPHA MAX for several years
• 4 times in 2007, last treatment in September 2007
• 9 sampling stations around each site• Samples collected 13. and 14. November 2007• Analysed for content of deltamethrin• Validated analytical method GC MS/MS• Limit of quantification 50 ng/kg
Slide 26
Sampling stations for sampling of sediments
R
Sampling stations A – I (9)
R = Reference station
A
B
C
D
E
F
I H G
Slide 27
Sediment study from the field
• None of the samples in any of the two sites revealed deltamethrin concentrations above the LOQ of 50 ng/kg
• No Effect concentration for the sediment dweller Corophium
volutator is 320 μg/kg – 6400 times the LOQ
Major presence in Bay of Fundy
Slide 29
Dispersion modelling indicates rapid dilution of outlets
Slide 30
The challenge of an Environmental Risk Assessment
• PEC: Predicted Environmental Concentration
• PNEC: Predicted No-Effect Concentration estimated by applying a safety factor to the most sensitive species
• If PEC/PNEC>1, risk to organisms in the environment may be present
Slide 31
Sentinel monitoring demonstrates less effects than computer modelling
Slide 32
The sentinel field trial demonstrated less effects than estimated by computer modelling • Deltamethrin is highly toxic to Palaemon elegans – a sentinel
species being a good indicator of low, toxic concentrations of deltamethrin. LC50 (24h) of 0.07 ppb gives PNEC = 0.007 ppb
• Computer modelling estimated the affected area to be 300m x 300m, 12 m depth
• Toxic effects on shrimps were limited to the area up to 30 m from the fish-farm with a gradient dependent on distance and depth –a far less impact than theoretically estimated.
• Worst case site and more than twice the recommended treatment dose – use of deltamethrin caused only limited, reversible effects.
Mortality of P. elegans
Depth, m Distance from farm, m
1 5 10-15 30 50-500
1 96 70 40 5
3-5 50 20 5 40 Mean 8.6*
Over seabed NR 0 0 0
*Not statistically different from acclimation mortality of 5.6%One set of cages, 200 was not found before 3 weeks later, all 3 cages were there, all shrimp were alive
Slide 34
Conclusion• Deltamethrin will cause transient effect on crustacean in
a small area around treated farms– A field study has shown effect up to 30 meters from
the treated cages• Deltamethrin has relatively low toxicity to non target
organisms other than crustacean • Deltamethrin concentrations in sediments under treated
farms are low even at sites that have been treated for many years.
• Deltamethrin is safe for the environment with only a transient local effect following treatment.
Slide 35
Residues of deltamethrin after administration to blue mussel (Mytilus chilensis)
• Study location:– Fundacion Chile Experimental Station Quillaipe– Study director: Martin Hevia
• Exposure:– 2 and 4 ppb deltamethrin for 30 and 60 minutes
• Sampling– 0, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, 168 hours after end of
exposure• Analytical method – GC/MS
– LOQ at 5 µg/kg (ppb) deltamethrin
Slide 36
Design – exposure and sampling
SV
FV
30 min
60 min
30 min
A B C Control
2 ppb deltamethrin 4 ppb deltamethrin
Slide 37
Results• Deltamethrin residues detected
– 0, 6, 12 and 24 hours after exposure– From 48 hours and onwards all samples were below
the LOQ– Highest concentration detected at 0 hours after end of
exposure– Same elimination pattern in all exposed groups
• Conclusion– Blue mussels exposed to deltamethrin in connection
with sea lice treatment will not contain deltamethrin residues above the MRL value
– Even blue mussels being contained in the treatment unit will be safe to eat following a clearance period of 48 hours.
European Lobster Fisheries
Norwegian Crab fisheries
*
*Oct-Dec cathces not in, expected volumes
Norway lobster (Dublin Bay prawn) catches
Pharmacovigilance
• Adverse reactions with any of our products• All distributors are trained in this, and to report• No reports from any production region regarding
envirenmental effects of ALPHAMAX• Some reports, all related to tox reactions in fish
(too long exposure)
Canada
• Only country requiring Pesticide applicator permit
• NB clever and active in finding a workable solution, and monitoring and optimizing the use for this area.
Summary• ALPHAMAX has been in extensive use for a
long time• The product has been through rigorous
documentation reviews, including environmental effects
• To date all countries where application has been submitted, it has received an MA.
• Canada can find a way to use it right.
We make aquaculture progress!
innovation
dynamism
quality team spirit
44
Near Term AlphaMax®, Salmosan®
and Paramove 50 ® Trials in New Brunswick
M Beattie, B Thorpe, K Dalton, J BakkerNB DAA Staff, AVC, RPC, DFO &
ACFFA2010-2011
ACFFA Research Symposium, St. Andrews 2010
Outline
• Introduction
• Review Ongoing and near term R&D Efforts– Illustrate time lines– Discuss some initial findings
• Resource requirements– Introduce Mind Mapping– Financial– Personnel
Introduction
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”
July 4 1776 Benjamin Franklin
The summer of 2010Dye studies to describe mechanical operations on 2 well boats
Near Term R & D Efforts
• Temporal and spatial morphological variation in L. salmonis J Burka AVC March 2011
– Pre summer of 2008 Bay of Fundy sea lice vs. present day (temporal variation)
– Present day Greenland, Norwegian and Chilean sea lice vs. Bay of Fundy sea lice (spatial variation)
– Present day Bay of Fundy sea lice vs. Miramichi sea lice (farmed vs. non-farmed regions)
Near Term R & D Trials
• Affects of Hydrogen peroxide on mucous layer and dermis of Atlantic salmonM Fast AVC March 2011
Phase 1• Compare mucous layers and dermal histopath on 50
fish • Controls vs. Salmosan vs. Hydrogen peroxidePhase 2• Compare re-infestation rates for various treatments in
lab conditions
Near Term R & D Trials
• Salmosan : Maximizing the Soluble Partitioning Pre-Application L Burridge DFO Feb 2011
• Matrix Evaluation – Temp’s ( 4C, 8C, 11C, 14C, 20C )– Fresh vs. Saltwater– Agitated vs. Non-Agitated– 24 hr’s in advance vs. 40 min in advance– Measure water and filter/ sample– Continuous measurement of pH
Near Term R & D Trials
• Dye Study : Utilizing Fluorometers to Assess Chemical concentration and duration of exposure on sentinel speciesF Page et. al. May 2011
• Fluorometers attached to lobster crates downstream from treated cages– Duration of exposure– Total chemical concentration per sentinel species
Near Term R & D Trials• Eco-Bath “Poor mans well boat” conception,
design and construction of a prototypeAEG, Puregrow, Admiral Fish Farms July 2011
Phase 1– Complete design, lab testing & build prototype– Dye test prototype in-tarp circulation patterns
Phase 2– Dye test and verify operational capabilities with fish– Complete both ROI and cost/benefit analysis for
commercialization
Near Term R & D Trials
• Chemical Recapture / Denaturing of active molecule prior to discharge RPC March 2011
Phase 1.– Test various filter material and determine re-capture & filter
saturation time lines– Test various non-noxious chemicals to denature active
molecule– Test breakdown metabolites to determine toxicity– Ascertain cost/benefit ratio for possible implementation
Phase 2– Apply to NBIF for prototype development
Activated Charcoal
Filtration set - up
Initial Water Sample collection
5 Minute interval sampling method
Initial Results
• Deltamethrin– Initial Concentration 14 ppb 55 L/min– 5 min intervals (5-23 min) 1.2 ppb (92.5%)– 2nd Pass 5 min intervals 0.029 ppb (91.5%)
• Azamethiphos– Initial Concentration 310 ppb 27 L/min– 5 min intervals (5-30) 0.52 ppb (99.83%)– 2nd Pass 5 min intervals 0.02 ppb (96.16%)
Near Term R & D Trials
• Litmus / ELIZA test kits for the determination of chemical concentration for azamethiphos, deltamethrin & betamethrin NBDAA & 2 private companies March 2011
– Lab based study associated with chemical study by RPC, running 5 litmus / sample for variance
– Lessen the overall usage of pesticides (top up)– ROI determination for commercial development
corporations
Resources ?• Planning and Execution of Trials
– Planning occupies about 25% of total trial output– 10 % of time towards execution of trial– 60% of time analyzing data– 5% on communication
• Personnel– Limited personnel available from all sectors with
proper skill sets and knowledge• Financial
– Need funding at beginning of year (personnel/equip)– Applying for funding wastes time and energy
• Pot of monies
The End
• Questions?
The ECO-Bath System
Project Team: Admiral Fish Farms – Evan Kearney, Jack Pendleton
AEG – Chris Bridger, Phil DobsonHuntsman Marine Science Centre – Amber Garber, Bill Hogans
inVentures Technologies – James Snider, Craig GlassfordNB-DAA – Mike Beattie, Kathy Brewer-Dalton
Future Nets – Clarence Blanchard
Funding Agencies – DFO AIMAP and NBIF
• Phase I – Tank Trials to Determine Pesticide Potentiality
• Phase II – Design of an Eco-Friendly Bath Solution
• Phase III – Field Trials of the ECO-Bath System & Protocol Development
RAS
ECO-Bath SystemWill require movement of sea lice infected Atlantic salmon from grow-out to
bath to grow-out cages
Must minimize fish stress and mortality during treatment.Must be effective to kill and/or remove all sea lice from treated fish and treatment water.Must be cost-effective and efficient to ensure adoption by industry.
Goal to treat 4-6 cages per day so that entire sites and bay areas can be treated in a timely manner.Not cost prohibitive so 1 ECO-Bath System: 1-2 Sites feasible.
Must fully contain the treatment bath water including removed sea lice and pesticides after the treated fish stock is removed.Must dramatically reduce the total quantity of pesticides to a fraction of that presently required to treat an entire aquaculture site.
The ultimate result would involve effective and safe removal of all pesticides from the treatment bath water for disposal in an approved landfill.
Design Goals:
Tank trials conducted at Huntsman Marine Science Centre
ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank Trials
Trial 1 – 100% oxygen, TGP 104; oxygen >200% for >2 hours (>280% for >1hour) – no change in behaviour, no mortalities, actively fed within 2 hours of treatmentTrial 2 – 250-290% oxygen for 2 hours – no change in behaviourTrial 7 - >200% in 12 m3 tank with 501 kg salmon (200 g-3122 g fish) – significant foam fractionationTrials 3&4 – 2 ppb Salmosan + 250-300% oxygen for 2 hours – no change in behaviour, no mortalitiesTrials 5&6 – 1500 ppm 35% H2O2 + 200-300% oxygen for 2 hours – no change in behaviour, no mortalities (TGP higher than normal)Trials 8&9 – 3 ppb Alphamax + 200-300% oxygen for 2 hours – no change in behaviour, no mortalitiesTrials 10&11 – freshwater + 300% oxygen for 1 hour; freshwater + ambient oxygen – no change in behaviour, no mortalities
*Trials1-6, 8-9 completed on smolts in a 1 m3 tanks (100 Litres)
Initial series of trials determined effect of PurGro oxygen infusion with sea lice treatment options
ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank Trials
Each trial had a treatment (pesticide + PurGro) and a control (pesticide + ambient 90-100% oxygen)H2O2 trials resulting in mortalities – 12 m3 tank, approx 30 min., 252 mortalities w/in hours of treatment – loss presumed to be result of tank turnover rate (could not flush water with fresh saltwater fast enough)
Necropsy – noted eroded fins, pale gills, bloody livers, lack of mucous (‘slime’) on exterior of fish
Salmosan and Alphamax trials (3 treatment, 3 controls each) – no difference in behaviour, no difference in successful lice removalFreshwater (40min-1hour) – 30-40% removal of sea lice – similar for PurGro and ambient oxygen
*Trials1-6, 8-9 completed on smolts in a 1 m3 tanks (100 Litres)
Follow-up series of trials conducted WITH SEALICE
ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank Trials
ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank Trials
Tarp PermeabilityNo detectable levels of Salmosan or Alphamax outside of tarp
Carbon as an Organic Binder (pesticide pumped through carbon)
66% of Alphamax removed in one pass 95% of Salmosan removed in one pass
Tarp Permeability and Use of Carbon as an Organic Binder
ECO-Bath Cage System: Field Trials
All components ready for deployment to conduct field trials
Deployment of entire system expected in March 2011
Initial field trials will involve dye studies similar to well boat dye tests led by DFO SABS
Numerous rehearsals of the critical fish transfer between grow-out to bath to grow-out cages anticipated
Treatment pesticides will be added after all parties are satisfied with the overall system design and capability
All pesticide field trials will involve consistent pre- and post- sea lice counts and extensive water sampling
Potential Cleaner Potential Cleaner Fish in the Bay of Fish in the Bay of FundyFundy
Benjamin S. Forward, PhDBenjamin S. Forward, PhD
ProblemProblem
http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/tag/fish/
MethodsMethodsResourcesResources
•• Canadian Register of Marine Species Canadian Register of Marine Species ((http://http://www.marinespecies.org/carmswww.marinespecies.org/carms))
•• Bay of Fundy Registry of Marine species Bay of Fundy Registry of Marine species ((http://http://www.marinebiodiversity.ca/BayOfFundywww.marinebiodiversity.ca/BayOfFundy))
•• FishbaseFishbase ((http://http://www.fishbase.orgwww.fishbase.org))
•• Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences No. 219. 731 p and Aquatic Sciences No. 219. 731 p
•• Personal CommunicationsPersonal Communications
Family Family LabridaeLabridae
(Wrasse)(Wrasse)••
Genus Genus HalichoeresHalichoeres
(3 species) (3 species)
••
Genus Genus ThalassomaThalassoma
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus XyrichtysXyrichtys
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus LachnolaimusLachnolaimus
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogaTautoga
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogolabrusTautogolabrus
(1 species)(1 species)
Family Family LabridaeLabridae
(Wrasse)(Wrasse)••
Genus Genus HalichoeresHalichoeres
(3 species) (3 species)
••
Genus Genus ThalassomaThalassoma
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus XyrichtysXyrichtys
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus LachnolaimusLachnolaimus
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogaTautoga
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogolabrusTautogolabrus
(1 species)(1 species)
http://www.fishbase.org/
Family Family LabridaeLabridae
(Wrasse)(Wrasse)••
Genus Genus HalichoeresHalichoeres
(3 species) (3 species)
••
Genus Genus ThalassomaThalassoma
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus XyrichtysXyrichtys
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus LachnolaimusLachnolaimus
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogaTautoga
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogolabrusTautogolabrus
(1 species)(1 species)
http://www.fishbase.org/
Hogfish (L. Hogfish (L. maximusmaximus))
Picture by Randall, J.E. as found on http://www.fishbase.org/
Family Family LabridaeLabridae
(Wrasse)(Wrasse)••
Genus Genus HalichoeresHalichoeres
(3 species) (3 species)
••
Genus Genus ThalassomaThalassoma
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus XyrichtysXyrichtys
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus LachnolaimusLachnolaimus
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogaTautoga
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogolabrusTautogolabrus
(1 species)(1 species)
TautogTautog
Picture by Flescher, D. as found on http://www.fishbase.org/
http://www.fishbase.org/
TautogTautog
•• Bay of Fundy to Gulf of MexicoBay of Fundy to Gulf of Mexico
•• Feeds on mussels, gastropods, other Feeds on mussels, gastropods, other molluscsmolluscs
and and crustaceanscrustaceans
•• Inhabits the benthic environment Inhabits the benthic environment
•• Found close to shore to depths of 75 m Found close to shore to depths of 75 m
•• A minor commercial and game fish in the US A minor commercial and game fish in the US
•• Some reports describing attempts to rear this Some reports describing attempts to rear this species though aquaculturespecies though aquaculture
•• No reports for use in sea lice controlNo reports for use in sea lice control
Family Family LabridaeLabridae
(Wrasse)(Wrasse)••
Genus Genus HalichoeresHalichoeres
(3 species) (3 species)
••
Genus Genus ThalassomaThalassoma
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus XyrichtysXyrichtys
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus LachnolaimusLachnolaimus
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogaTautoga
(1 species)(1 species)
••
Genus Genus TautogolabrusTautogolabrus
(1 species)(1 species)
CunnerCunner
Picture by Flescher, D. as found on http://www.fishbase.org/
http://www.fishbase.org/
CunnerCunner
•• Newfoundland, and Gulf of St. Lawrence, Bay of Newfoundland, and Gulf of St. Lawrence, Bay of Fundy to Chesapeake BayFundy to Chesapeake Bay
•• They feed on They feed on molluscsmolluscs, crustaceans, barnacles, sea , crustaceans, barnacles, sea urchins, marine worms, sea squirtsurchins, marine worms, sea squirts
•• Reported to cease feeding in winterReported to cease feeding in winter
•• Inhabits Benthic environmentInhabits Benthic environment
•• Found in shallow inshore waters to depths of 10m Found in shallow inshore waters to depths of 10m (possibly to 70 fathoms)(possibly to 70 fathoms)
•• Listed as a minor commercial species and game fish Listed as a minor commercial species and game fish
•• One study reported testing for sea lice controlOne study reported testing for sea lice control
MacKinnon, 1995MacKinnon, 1995
•• Lab trials and cage trialsLab trials and cage trials
•• Lab trials (30 gal tanks) 1:1 cunner to Salmon (C. Lab trials (30 gal tanks) 1:1 cunner to Salmon (C. elongatus)elongatus)
•• Statistically significant reduction (Statistically significant reduction (P P < 0.05) in 24hrs < 0.05) in 24hrs (n=20) however results dichotomous(n=20) however results dichotomous
•• Due to feeding behaviors or capture and handling Due to feeding behaviors or capture and handling related stressrelated stress
MacKinnon, 1995MacKinnon, 1995
•• Sea cage trial started in September (n=1)Sea cage trial started in September (n=1)
•• Stocking density (1:67) cunner to salmon (30 to 2000)Stocking density (1:67) cunner to salmon (30 to 2000)
•• No significant difference over 12 weeks (n=100)No significant difference over 12 weeks (n=100)
•• Too many alternate food sourcesToo many alternate food sources
•• Stocking density too low (1:25 in EU wrasse Stocking density too low (1:25 in EU wrasse applications)applications)
•• Size of cunner too large, perhaps only smaller fish Size of cunner too large, perhaps only smaller fish exhibit cleaning behaviorexhibit cleaning behavior
•• Temperature effects?Temperature effects?
Other resident speciesOther resident species
•• ThreeThree‐‐spined Stickleback (spined Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
•• Lumpfish (Lumpfish (Cyclopterus
lumpus)
ThreeThree‐‐spined Sticklebackspined Stickleback
Picture by Miyahara, H. as found on http://www.fishbase.org/
Craig Craig LososLosos
‐‐
MScMSc
thesisthesis
•• Tested with Juvenile pink salmon when held together Tested with Juvenile pink salmon when held together in tanksin tanks
•• Provided evidence that the cleaning Provided evidence that the cleaning behaviourbehaviour
of of threethree‐‐spined stickleback reduced sea licespined stickleback reduced sea lice
•• The sticklebacks showed a preference for gravid The sticklebacks showed a preference for gravid females over male lice females over male lice
•• Also observed to shorten egg strings suspended from Also observed to shorten egg strings suspended from femalesfemales
•• Suggested this could represent a natural relationship Suggested this could represent a natural relationship due to the seasonally sympatric occurrence of these due to the seasonally sympatric occurrence of these
two species in the Broughton Archipelago, BC, two species in the Broughton Archipelago, BC, CanadaCanada
ThreeThree‐‐spined Sticklebackspined Stickleback
Losos CJC, Reynolds JD, & Dill LM (2010). Sex-selective Predation by Threespine Sticklebacks on Sea Lice:A Novel Cleaning Behaviour Ethology : 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01814.x
Other resident speciesOther resident species
•• ThreeThree‐‐spined Stickleback (spined Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
•• Lumpfish (Lumpfish (Cyclopterus
lumpus)
LumpfishLumpfish
Picture by Goulet, D. as found on http://www.fishbase.org/
LumpfishLumpfish
•• Pilot study at GIFAS, Norway Pilot study at GIFAS, Norway ––
Fall 2000Fall 2000
•• 4 cages, 4 stocking densities (0, 3, 5, 10%)4 cages, 4 stocking densities (0, 3, 5, 10%)
•• Weekly & biweekly counting for 6 monthsWeekly & biweekly counting for 6 months
•• Gut content monitoring (n=1)Gut content monitoring (n=1)
•• Reduction found in cage with 5% stocking after end Reduction found in cage with 5% stocking after end September September ––
mature females onlymature females only
•• One fish from this cage had 100 lice in gut One fish from this cage had 100 lice in gut ––
Oct 11 Oct 11 –– with 35 adult and 65 motile stagewith 35 adult and 65 motile stage
•• Unclear if feeding from salmon or during transferUnclear if feeding from salmon or during transfer
•• More work is required More work is required ––
studies plannedstudies planned
ConclusionsConclusions
•• Other possible species existOther possible species exist
•• Further work necessaryFurther work necessary
••
TautogTautog??
••
Increased stocking densities (cunner)Increased stocking densities (cunner)
••
Behavior selection possible (all species)?Behavior selection possible (all species)?
••
Breeding programs (all species)?Breeding programs (all species)?
••
Vector considerations (lumpfish & stickleback)Vector considerations (lumpfish & stickleback)
••
Disease interactions (bacterial & viral)Disease interactions (bacterial & viral)
••
Containment & Co cultivation strategies (hides)Containment & Co cultivation strategies (hides)
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
•• IRAPIRAP
•• Lou Van Lou Van GuelpenGuelpen
(ARC)(ARC)
•• Amber Garber (HMSC)Amber Garber (HMSC)
•• Barb MacKinnon (NB Lung Association)Barb MacKinnon (NB Lung Association)
•• Mick Burt (UNB)Mick Burt (UNB)
•• Pat Reynolds (GIFAS, Norway) Pat Reynolds (GIFAS, Norway)
•• Pamela Parker & Betty House (ACFFA)Pamela Parker & Betty House (ACFFA)
An Introduction to Wellboat Treatment Technology
Aqua Pharma Inc
ACFFA – 30th Nov 2010
Early development stage of the Concept – it still is.....
Cleaning & disinfection between discrete biosecurity zones
LiveChill pump ashore Harvest Station Scotland 2001
Designed in response to the Scottish ISA crisis of 1998/9, LiveChill vessels close their valves after loading & slowly chill
their harvest fish at 1.5 degrees/hr whilst they travel to the Harvest Station. On arrival the fish are crowded towards a
vacuum pump using a moveable bulkhead & pumped ashore, with the chilled water returning to the vessel.
Norwegian Harvest Station 2010
There are many benefits to such harvest stations.
ATLANTIC CANADA – QUICKEST INDUSTRY TO BUY INTO AQUATIC’S LICE TREATMENT CONCEPT
In the last 6 months New Brunswick has successfully introduced:
• Wellboats
• Wellboat sealice treatments
• Interox Paramove 50 during record summer temperatures
Bayside Marine Terminal – safe H2O2 bulk handling practices undertaken by
6 trained wellboat crews
Standard components of Hygiene Teknikk dosing system - IPM tool
500 litre 316 stainless steel tank c/w mixer for potable water flush after H2O2 & for all alternative
bath therapeutants
Dose control panel
Port & Starboard
batch controllers
for accurate dosing
Air actuated valves with
pressure relief
Controlled dosing - consistently
Monitoring & control, measuring & recording
Accurate & representative oxygen monitoring essential
H2O2 calibration of well prior to first treatments – “hot spot”
avoidance
Manual titrations – 2, 6, 10, 15, 20, 34, 38 & 42 mins after dosing to test
mixing before fish treatments start
Peroxide Autotitrator – confirmation of the prescribed therapeutic dose of H2O2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
-3 0 4 7 10 13 17 20 23 26 30 33 36 39 42 45
pp
m H
2O
2
Time
Treatment 23/03/2010
Auto titration expensive – a manual titration kit will be launched by Solvay
Chemicals for Spring Treatment Season
Size grading salmon off the treatment vessel after 35 mins Interox Paramove exposure – April 2010
Assessing treatment efficacy to ensure optimal treatments
Fish crowding & discharge – an empty cage to discharge the treated fish into is optimal for fish welfare unless all the cage can be loaded at the
same time onto the wellboat.
Visiting NB same time as FVG in Sept 2010 – learning together
Fish loading & unloading –stress minimisation essential
Destruction or capture of lice & eggs before discharge – next step
One example of a wellboat discharge - DFO trial dye study
of Ronja Carrier at Bayside
Next steps:
• Fine tune treatment methodologies
• Increase treatment capability/day
• Treatment Control & Monitoring
• Filtration – once proven solution
• Automated cleaning/disinfection systems
• Active ingredient recapture
ALPHAMAX UpdatesFocus on treatments in closed units
Seal Iice workshop, St Andrews, NB, Dec.1st, 2010
Nils Steine, PHARMAQ AS
Research requirements in support of AMX registration in Canada• Product is documented completely for European
and Chilean authorities• Differences in application requirements
(Scotland SEPA)• Canada needs to decide what is needed, and
PHARMAQ will assess this.– Differences between the provinces
• Several interesting activities in NB (recovery, ecobath etc)
Topics
• ALPHAMAX early years vs cage sizes• Toxicity and mortality• Closed Treatment Trends• Optimization projects• Resistance trends• Regulations and future
Sea lice treatment options before ALPHAMAX• Before ALPHAMAX: Nuvan, Neguvon, H2O2, Salmosan
and Excis. – Small cages (40s-50s, 12x12m)– Very creative practices (ice blocks, ”bombs”, skirts, tarp, tarping
many cages, nothing…)
• Mid 90s: Salmosan and Excis: – Registered for tarps– Cages became too large =>Skirts
• ALPHAMAX studies (early-mid 90’s) done in small and
fully enclosed units.
27 m circle
157 m circle
Toxicity40m vs 160m circle
How big are these big units…
300 m2*2,5m=750m3
40 000/750=53 Vik i Sogn
157 m circomference-40 000 m3
ALPHAMAX works on all stages of lice
Cypermethrin (Betamax)
Teflubenzuron (Ektobann)
Emamectin benzoate (SLICE)
Organophosphates Chitin synthesis inhibitor Avermectines
H2O2
Salmosan
Pyrethroides
Free swimming in sea Stuck on the fish
Moving on fish
Diflubenzuron (Releeze vet)
Deltamethrin (ALPHA MAX )
Slide 12
ALPHAMAX Toxicity, experiences• Very rare. Signs are erratic behaviour, equilibrium
problems, change of pigmentation, extensive gasping.
• Actual Tox reactions: – Several cages treated simultaneously– Repeated exposures in the downstream cages.– Increased risk at no current.– Typically small fish, low biomass and slack tide– Poor distribution of active in the cage– Fish with wounds, hyper ventilation– Miscalculation of dose
Current
Slide 14
100 75 50 25 15 5 15, 18 C
15, 4 C
10, 1
hour
0102030405060708090
100
% m
orta
lity
Concentration (ppb)
Acute toxicity of deltamethrin after 30 min bath treatment, Atlantic salmon at 12 C
Closed Tarp Application, recent development and findings• Tarp Tx on large cages is picking up momentum in Norway
now (mandatory* from 01.01.2011, Faroes 01.05.2011) • Large cages (>150m`s) distribution
– Takes some minutes for proper distrbution. – Smaller cage no problem with surface distribution– More important with higher dose over shorter time than longer exposure
• Lower concentration along the edges, higher concentrations further in, where the school is.
• Lower concentration between the net and the tarp, than inside the net.
• Testing of new application methods, for examle – In-line bath treatments– Improved Vertical distribution (deep tarps).
Flotør 10 liter
50mm PVC or flex hose
Pharmaq diffusor
Tau 12mm
End cap w/lead
1m
2m
3m
4m
20mm slangenippel 20mm slange til båt
Alphamax
160m Ring (9 diffusors)Spread zone
Treatment Optimization drivers today
• Reduced sensitivity in an increasing number of areas.• Have to perform the treatments as optimal as possible
for decent result• Increased political pressure
– Wild salmonid debate
High and low DO impact on AMX concentration impact in closed tarp?
High and low DO impact on AMX concentration impact in closed tarp?
• No difference between DO`s of 5 and 15ppm
• AMX not deactivated by moderate superoxygenation
• No behavioural difference
Full tarp Tx• 158 m polar circle• 8,4 ˚C
• Rantex full tarp total volume 22000 m3 (?)
• 15 bottles ALPHA MAX• Estimated concentration
1.7 ppb deltamethrin• Conc. drop from 15 min,
likely due to organic binding.
• Efficacy 80%
Pos A
Pos B
Density : ALPAHAMAX efficacy vs biomass
Kg / m3
Density
• Efficacy is impacted above a certain density– Likely limit: 80-100 kg/m3
Doseringsslange
PHARMAQ ASAMX 012.10 FT
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
10 min 20 min 35min
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
(p
pb
)
Position A
1,5m
3m
4,5m
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
10 min 20 min 35min
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
pp
b) Position B
1,5m
3m
4,5m
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10 min 20 min 35min
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
pp
b)
Position C
1,5m
3m
4,5m
5m (A)
15m (B)
25m (C)
Date: 02.09.10, Harriet RomstadFish size: 2074 g, 358 tons in total, tarpaulin (Plany)Fish starved for 3 days before treatmentWater temperature 13,1oCBottom ring lifted to ca 3 meters, total volume in tarpaulin 22 000m3
Oxygenation using Net-ox : 2 stk 15*15+ 1 stk 12*918 bottles of ALPHA MAX distributed using 9 min.
God Effekt
Dis
tribu
sjon
sare
alFull tarp Tx
New major sea lice project with several stake holders: Topilouse• Proper assessment of tarps and currents, small and larger scale
trials• Well boat optimization • Optimized counting• SafetyWe are getting results these days, a lot is still pending.
ALPHA MAX in well boat-Topilouse project
• 2 ppb deltamethrin, added in mixing tank.• No fish• Ca 50% recovery, • Stable over time
ALPHA MAX in well boat
• 4 ppb deltamethrin, added in mixing tank.• No fish• 50 % recovery• No drop over time
Varying biomass in well boat, AMX conc.
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
2 min 5 min 10 min 20 min 30 min 45 min 60 min
PP
B
30 ton in wellFramme i brønn
Bak i brønn
Losseslange
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
2 min 5 min 10 min 20 min 30 min 45 min 60 min
PP
B
60 ton in wellFramme i brønn
Bak i brønn
Losseslange
Sample location:Blue: Fwd in wellRed: Rear wellOrange: Discharge hose
Topilouse
• Pyrethroids and DNA tracer parallell results pending
• Joint project to find out more about the pyrethroids (Novartis and PHARMAQ)
ALPHAMAX, optimization of sampling and analysis• Still a lot of work to be done, recovery % an issue• Internal projects: Sampling procedures• Dilutions, bottles, storage, water type
– Fresh water vs sea water– Glass ware, plastics
Some recent results, comparing labsTeoretical Lab 1 Lab 2
Sample 13 Terapi 022.10 FO-5 2 2,4 SW, glass, standard PHQ bottle
Sample 14 Terapi 022.10 FO-5 2 2,3 1,2SW, glass ware, other
bottle
Sample 15 Terapi 022.10 FO-6 1 1,1 SW, glass, standard PHQ bottle
Terapi 022.10 FO-6 1 0,53SW, glass ware, other
bottle
No difference between SW and FW
Further testing: hoses, well boat walls and piping,
General Practical experiences with well boats• Density does not seem to play a role as long as
under 80-100 kg/m3• Smaller fish/higher numbers => reduce density• Typically using the H2O2 distribution system
• Questions: binding of AMX, skimmer, pipes, oxygene
Bath treatment method allowedProdregion
Skirt Closed tarp Well boat Regulation
Norway Most Off labelRaised nets
Few
increasing
Few,
increasing
Closed Tx mandatory from 01.11.11, unless skirt is proven*
UK FewOff label
Mainly Mainly Only closed allowed
Ireland Some Some Some All methods allowed
Faroes Most Few Few All methods allowed.Closed from 01.05.11
Chile MostOff labelMand. Raised net (4m)
Few Few Intention was for closed, risk and labour(pred nets an issue)
Slide 36
Farmers can still use skirts, but there will be stringent demands to documenting efficacious treatments. Documentation demands mean that: •Documentation contains both theoretical concentrations and practically proven ones. •Documentation will have to be carried out according to acknowledged scientific principles•Documentation will have to be carried out and assessed by a neutral and scientifically based organisation. •The farm will need an assessment of the location- and current conditions, including gear/equipment, procedures etc.
It is not enough just to show an efficaceous treatment with a skirt to have the method approved. The duty of proper treatments are absolute, and too large cages for a proper bath treatment will not be allowed.
Jan 1st 2011: Food Control Authority demands closed treatment system with any bath product
Treatment strategies after Jan 1st 2011•Some farms wish to document that thir skirt treatment setups are giving a good distribution of the product.
•Some go to fully enclosed tarps for all sizes. (Trondheimsfjorden divides…)
•Huge gaps between the need for tarps and capacity to deliver? Actually no (until now)
Well boats are being rebuilt to become specialty treatment boats only •
Sea lice numbers 2008-2010
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A
2008 2009 2010
avg.
ad.
fem
ales
Average Worst region Best region
Sea Lice Drug use, annually
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
kg a
ktiv
sub
stan
s organofosfater
peroksid x 1000
kitinsyntesehemmere
pyretroider
emamektin
Summary
• AMX continues to be an important tool• Reduced sensitivity to pyrethroids and the other
drug classes are spreading• Strong focus on optimised treatments (full
enclosure)
Thank you for your attention!
innovation
dynamism
quality team spirit
43
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc.
Interox® Paramove® 50
for
Salmon Lice Control
Regulatory Requirements
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 2
Agenda
Progress 2010
Regulatory Situation – Historical Perspective
Where we are now
Where we need to be
ACFFA Research Plan 2011
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 3
Solvay – A Global Leader in Hydrogen Peroxide worldwide Hydrogen Peroxide Facilities
IndiaThailand
USA
Brazil
Europe
Australia
Hydrogen Peroxide Facility
Aquaculture Site
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 4
Benefits of Interox Paramove 50
Effective for adult and pre-adult liceEnvironmentally friendlyDecomposes to water and oxygenNo residue No withdrawal periodApplication dose and control easy
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 5
Drawbacks of Interox Paramove 50
Not as effective on Chalimus
Careful dose control essential
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 6
Hydrogen Peroxide Analysis - Development
New test kit will be available Spring 2010
Easy to use
Digital Readout
Low Cost
Paramove
Solvay
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 7
Treatment Efficacy – Optimization:
800 mg/l
20 min
10°C
1500 mg/l
20 min
10°C
2000mg/l
40 min
18°C
Increasing therapeutic dose
0% Lice Removal 100%
0% Lice Mortality 100%
0% Salmon Mortality 100%Target
Therapeutic
Dose
Interox® Paramove® 50Regulatory Landscape
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 9
History of Interox Paramove Hydrogen Peroxide Regulatory Approvals for Salmon Lice Control
1990’s–Registration given for its use in Europe (Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Faeroes)–In New Brunswick emergency registration issued for hydrogen peroxide use in tarpaulin treatments
–Due to success with Slice use suspended and registrations allowed to lapse
2008–Interox Paramove introduced in Chile
2009–Re-introduced in Norway under emergency use permit
2010–Re-introduced in Scotland under emergency use permit
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 10
Hydrogen Peroxide For Salmon Lice - Canada
Current Regulatory Situation - Canada:12 month emergency registration in place for Interox Paramove 50 use in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia & Newfoundland – expires June 2011– conditional on having studies undertaken during its use under the emergency registration:Salmon lice treatment efficacy Optimum hydrogen peroxide dose determinationDispersion studiesAdverse effects
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 11
ACFFA Program - 2010
Development of Integrated Pest Management Program for Salmon Lice Control Use of well boats for salmon treatmentEmergency registration of Interox Paramove 50Dispersion studies and modeling of treatment chemical discharges from well boat and tarpaulinsEfficacy of hydrogen peroxide for salmon lice control
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 12
New Brunswick -2010
Achievements:Emergency registration obtainedWell boats introduced and crews trainedSupply chain establishedInterox Paramove treatment regime established (after rocky start !!!)Dye studies on well boats undertakenLice treatment data collectedSuccessful treatments achieved
These are very impressive achievements in such a very short time !!!
Where do we go from here ?
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 13
Hydrogen Peroxide Registration
Emergency registration expires June 2010Options are:
1.Seek extension of emergency registration
2. Pursue full registration of Interox Paramove 50
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 14
PMRA Registration Process
Pre-registration consultation
Program to complete data sets
Compilation of submission package
Formal submission
Review by PMRA
Approval
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 15
PMRA Requirements
Pre-submission Meeting;
Submit all the information on therapeutant and its intended use:
Published literatureSolvay Chemicals proprietary studiesSolvay Chemicals planned studiesNew Brunswick studies
PMRA will review and indicate what additional information will be required
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 16
PMRA Requirements
LabelProduct ChemistryToxicologyOccupational ExposureMetabolismResidueEnvironmental FateEnvironmental ToxicityEfficacy
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 17
PMRA Requirements _ Potential Shortcomings
Will not know exactly what PMRA will require until after the pre-consultation meeting -
Full registration process likely to take many many months rather than weeks
Iain McEwen & James Hoare
Bioassays undertaken on request of theproduct manufacturer and/or farm company
Methodology based on that detailed inSEARCH handbook for emamectin benzoate
5 doses required
Concentration range chosen must elicit some response from the lice
One of the doses must result in a 100% (affected) response
Lice for test must be Pre –Adult II stage
1:1 Male to Female ratio
All in all requires the collection of ~ 250 lice per bioassay
Bioassay “Must Haves”:
Product Active Ingredient Range chosen (active)
Slice emamectin benzoate0, 31.3, 62.5, 125, 250, 500, 1000 ppb
Excis cypermethrin 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20 ppb
Alphamax deltamethrin 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 ppb
Salmosan azamethiphos 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 ppm
4
Established procedure
Yields a rapid result
Knowledge of the mechanism of resistance is not required
Simple to carry out in a laboratory situation
08/02/2011
08/02/2011
Main types of bioassay carried out
AMX and Salmosan became available to the farms more recently than the other medicines
Provision of sufficient numbers of healthy lice -
getting good controls
Adult / Gravid females excluded
Assessment of lice subjective ?
Results can be difficult to translate into a likelytreatment efficacy on the farm
08/02/2011
9
Graph of EC50 (ppm
azamethiphos) against % affected lice at therapeutic dose (adjusted for control mortality)
A simple and quick test that hopefully will reveal the sensitivity characteristics of lice populations and to provide knowledge that could inform treatment intervention decisions at the farm-level. (2nd Sea Lice Multi-nation Workshop, Aberdeen, UK: 18th –
19th
October,
2010.
In other words which of the available (bath) treatments will work best.
10
Procedure that can be carried out:
When there are insufficient numbers of (healthy) lice for a standard bioassay.
If there is a high proportion of gravid females/other life stages not utilised in the standard bioassay within the lice population.
As an adjunct to a standard bioassay if there are sufficient numbers of lice left over after bioassay allocation.
When it is felt that the use of larger numbers of lice per replicate in a sensitivity trial may give a more accurate estimate of the proportion of the lice population that is likely to be affected by the therapeutic dose.
As a practical on-site procedure, carried out before or during (?) a cage/well-boat treatment.
April 2008
Suitable containers
Rounded/curved forceps
Sieves with suitable mesh
Method of chilling/maintaining temperature
Method of aeration (optional)
Collect lice on site
Collect sufficient numbers
Remove lice from anaesthetised fish gently and transfer to the collection vessel using forceps.
Avoid contaminating lice collection water with mucus from the fish.
Do not collect lice from harvest fish that have been iced.
After collection it is good practice to pour out contents through a sieve and replace with clean sea-
water: any active lice caught can be returned to the collection vessel.
Well rinsed plastic milk bottles are ideal as collection vessels: holding approximately 60 lice per litre.
Keep lice collection cool but do not allow temperature to drop below 4C.
To ensure robust controls lice can be held overnight at 12 deg C in gently aerated water prior to sorting.
Pour out contents of collection vessel through a sieve: lice that are caught in sieve when seawater is filtered off are usually compromised.Soft plastic containers can be cut into manageable pieces with shears, and lice easily removed and transferred
1.
Calibrated balance accurate to 3 decimal places (azamethiphos
only).2.
0.2 to 1 ml automatic pipette and tips
3.
1x 50ml volumetric flask4.
1x 1000ml volumetric flasks5.
2 x 50ml syringesOR
1.
1 x 1 ml syringe2.
1 x 50ml syringe or 100 ml measuring cylinder
3.
1 x 20 L plastic container4.
1 x 5 L plastic container
17
Solution Active conc*. Quantity Source Volume and diluents
Salmosan
as Azamethiphos
Stock solution 200ppm 0.01g Azamethiphos 50ml vol
flask diluted with IMS
Dose solution 0.1ppm 0.5ml Stock sol. 1000ml vol
flask diluted with seawater
OR
Stock solution 500ppm 20g Salmosan 20000ml tub diluted with freshwater
Dose solution 0.1ppm 1ml Stock sol. 5000ml container diluted with seawater
18
0.1ppm azamethiphos
(equivalent to 0.2ppm SALMOSAN) Note that some time may be required to allow azamethiphos
to dissolve thoroughly in IMS
19
20
Label 3 of the beakers as “Control”
and 3 as “Test”.
Always work with the “Control”
beakers ahead of the “Test”
beakers, to reduce risk of contamination of the Control.
Dispense 250 ml clean sea water into each of the “Control”
beakers using a 50ml syringe.
Dispense 250 ml of the Therapeutic Dose
water into each of the “Test”
beakers; discard syringe.
21
Decant the water from the sea lice. Discard any lice that do not/will not remain attached.
Using forceps, place 15 lice into each beaker. Stock the “Controls”
ahead of the “Test”
beakers.
Discard any lice which do not ‘swim off’
when dropped in beaker.
Make sure that all lice used for the test are healthy, i.e. have active swimming response and attach strongly to the vessel surfaces. Discard any lice that do not meet these criteria.
Note the time that each vessel (both Control and Test) are stocked.
22
Carry out the rinsing and cleaning steps described below, on first the “Control”
lice and then the “Test”
lice
After 30-
60 minutes “treatment”, pour the contents of each beaker through a tea strainer. All lice must be removed from the beaker. Gently detach any remaining lice in the beaker and place in the tea strainer. Gently rinse the lice in clean fresh seawater. Leave each strainer and lice to sit in a 0.5l beaker containing seawater for a few minutes.
Label 3 of the petri
dishes as “Control”
and 3 as “Test”.
Dispense 50 ml clean sea water into each of the dishes using 50ml syringe.
Empty the lice back into appropriate dish. Put aside in a cool place (12C) and leave undisturbed for 24 hours, prior to assessment.
The viability of the lice may be checked on the following occasions:
Immediately, at the end of exposure to agent, and before flushing with clean seawater.
3 hours after exposure (optional).
24 hours after exposure.
48 hours after exposure.
The viability of lice is assessed by the observation of movement
or reaction toforceps, taking care not to damage the lice. Details of numbers of healthy(active), moribund (abnormal behaviour or inactive) and inactive
lice are recorded.
The proportion of lice adversely affected is expressed as a %, with any consequent mortality/morbidity in the controls accounted for by SchneiderOrelli's
formula, and with confidence limits determined by standard Binomial statistics asoutlined by E. B. Wilson in 1927 with a correction for continuity.
Quick assessment only so as not to adversely affect timing of subsequent dishes orviability if ambient temperatures are warm.
23
Methods may be modified when larger numbers of unsorted lice are
available.
Stock solutions are prepared as before. Dose solutions are made up at ‘double dose’
strength: e.g. to make 0.2ppm azamethiphos
either (depending on Method) add 1ml of azamethiphos
stock to 1000ml volumetric flask; or, add 2mls of salmosan
stock to 5000ml container.
Lice are sequentially sorted into labelled 500ml containers each
containing 200 to 250ml clean sea water. This process might result in slightly different proportions of male to female or adults to pre-adults per container but generally numbers balance out if enough lice are used. Up to 50 lice may be stocked per container.
Then 200 to 250mls of ‘double-strength’
dose is added to each container and stirred gently to ensure rapid mixing.
Note time of mixing and treat as in Methods
above.
After treatment and rinsing the lice may be incubated either in large (140 x 23mm petri-dishes or similar), or clean 0.5l beakers: beakers will require aeration due to low surface area to volume ratio.
Needs validation is against strains of lice from a laboratory of know sensitivity.
Lice ‘over-exposed’
in the bioassay?
No quick means of recording exact concentration on farm-
yet
Behaviour of medicines in Plastic Petri dishes
Lice sampled may not be representative
Numbers
Hosts selected
Have noted a higher affected % than that determined in concurrent standard bioassays (78% as against 46%); suspicion of differences in the adsorption of active compound to the surfaces of the plastic vessels involved. Try glass?
Combinations with Paramove
suggests possible synergy with Azamethiphos
Works well with gravids
26
The SLICE® Sustainability Project(parasiticide)
Introduction
In September 2000, Intervet/Schering-Plough
Animal Health published a technical bulletin
entitled Sea Lice Resistance Management (with
particular reference to avermectins).
Since then, salmon farms around the world have
successfully used SLICE® (emamectin benzoate)
to control sea lice infestations in salmon. After
nearly a decade of SLICE use, some sea lice
resistance or tolerance to in-feed treatments with
SLICE has been reported in several countries,
with the exception of Canada’s West Coast.
Still today, SLICE remains effective in many areas;
it is the treatment of choice and is preferred over
bath treatments due to its ease of application,
duration of efficacy and effect on all life stages of
sea lice.
After long-term exclusive use of any chemothera-
peutant, reduced susceptibility may be expected.
It then becomes more important than ever to
employ best-practice treatment procedures to
ensure maximum efficacy. This bulletin is a guide
to best-practice principles based on observation
of field results over the course of many years, as
well as emerging techniques that are now being
applied to help with the treatment decision
process. A guide like this cannot, however, cover
all the variables that a veterinarian must consider
when making treatment decisions.
Best-practice treatment principles:Sea lice resistance management, 2010
TEC
HN
ICA
L BU
LLETIN
Dafydd Morris, BSc Hons, MSc, Technical Manager (Aquaculture), INTERVET/SCHERING-PLOUGH ANIMAL HEALTH and Ralph Baillie, BSc, MBA, Global Accounts Manager (Salmon), GLOBAL AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH,
INTERVET/SCHERING-PLOUGH ANIMAL HEALTH, UNITED KINGDOM
The SLICE Sustainability Project
Protect, conserve, renew and succeed
1. Collaboration
Strictly apply area management agreements
that include all-in/all-out stocking and
fallowing to eliminate the transfer of sea lice
from one generation of fish to the next.
Monitor the sea lice population within the
whole area to help determine the best time
to treat.
Follow established treatment thresholds or
consult local recommendations, and for
maximum effectiveness, agree on product
selection, timing and rotation options.
Develop a written agreement so everyone
is clear about the protocols.
Hold meetings and share data with other
farmers in the area.
continued
BEST-PRACTICE TREATMENT PRINCIPLES
The SLICE® Sustainability Project
BEST-PRACTICE TREATMENT PRINCIPLES
2. Planning (See Figure 1)
Develop a sea lice control strategy within
a Veterinary Health Plan (VHP) that is specific
to each site in the area, but also consider the
VHPs of all sites within the area. Regarding
sea lice management, these should include,
but not be restricted to, the following:
Seek regulatory permission to use all available
licensed medicines, even if one or more may
not be considered for use at the outset.
Consider the use of non-medicinal techniques,
such as wrasse.
Use the best available techniques to
determine the sensitivity of sea lice to the
medicines being considered for use. (See
the section on bioassays.)
Prepare a treatment plan prior to stocking
the site with fish. This should include the
medicines to be used and their rotation.
(See the section on the rotation of
chemotherapeutants.)
Coordinate the timing of treatments for
the selected medicines.
Have trained staff monitor sea lice numbers
weekly throughout the year in accordance
with published protocols.
Where not stipulated by legislative authority,
establish trigger levels for treatment based
on the numbers of sea lice.
3. Sensitivity Monitoring — Bioassays
Bioassays are recommended as part of
best-practice principles, but they are not
a definitive tool to be used when making
treatment decisions.
Field experience has made it clear that
the LC50 or EC50 values determined from
bioassays on sea lice are not an entirely
accurate predictor of resistance, but
bioassay values are among the best tools
currently available.
Bioassays should be viewed as one tool
among several that veterinarians should
use to decide when a particular medicine
may or may not be effective and when it is
time to consider changing to a treatment
with a different mode of action.
The routine use of bioassays, coupled
with treatment monitoring as described
in the next section, should make it
possible to produce records that can be
used to correlate treatment success with
bioassay results.
TEC
HN
ICA
L BU
LLETIN
Best-practice treatment principles:Sea lice resistance management, 2010
BEST-PRACTICE TREATMENT PRINCIPLES
F I G U R E 1
Sea lice control
management
• Record all bioassay results
• Analyze feed and record
• Analyze flesh and record
• Monitor and record everytreatment according to plan
• Record any deviation fromplan and reason
• Create database of all information
• Regularly review information;adjust strategy as needed
Measure program effectiveness
• Form area managementagreement
• Decide on stocking policy
• Coordinate fallowing
• Agree on lice-monitoring protocol
• Adjust strategy in light of the database information
Develop a strategy
• Embed control program into veterinary health plan
• Obtain permission for allavailable licensed medicines
• Include non-medicinal measures
• Determine sensitivity of sea lice to available medicines and parameters of use
• Write down treatment regimen to be used for whole cycle
• Prepare a rotation plan
Design a control program
• Write standard operating procedure (SOP) for programmanagement procedures
• Lice counting
• Sampling
• Feeding
• Treatment triggers
• Provide training; implement SOPs
• Carry out bioassays in all areas to be farmed
• Coordinate treatments
• Carry out treatments in accordance with plan
Implement control program
1
3
4
1 2 43
2
Develop
a strategy
Design a
control
program
Measure
program
effectiveness
Implement
control
program
Analyze feed that was administered to
fish to ensure the target dose was included
in the diet.
Take samples of flesh 24 hours post-
treatment and freeze. Then, if required,
analyze the samples to check for therapeutic
levels of emamectin.
Record sea lice numbers 3 weeks post-
treatment and compare against the
pre-treatment number and bioassay results.
Analyze the results and make adjustments,
if necessary, to the strategy and medication
employed.
Best-practice treatment principles:Sea lice resistance management, 2010
BEST-PRACTICE TREATMENT PRINCIPLES
How to use Bioassays
• Ideally, bioassays should be conducted
according to a published protocol. Further
information on protocols can be found within
the Sealice Resistance to Chemotherapeutants
— A handbook in resistance management,
Search Project (QKK2-CT-00809) or within the
paper entitled “Optimization and field use of
a bioassay to monitor sea lice Lepeophtheirus
salmonis sensitivity to emamectin benzoate”
by Jillian D. Westcott, Henrik Stryhn, John F.
Burka and K. Larry Hammell in Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms, Vol. 79:119–131, 2008.
• Many farm companies have their own
in-house bioassay facilities and there may be
subtle differences in the protocols they use,
which may or may not affect end results.
With so many variables, it may be difficult to
compare results among laboratories using
different protocols, but the fundamental
rationale for using bioassays remains.
5. General Husbandry
Administer the correct dose of the licensed
formulation for the full treatment period as
described in the manufacturer’s data sheet.
Any deviations should be recorded.
Keep nets clean to ensure good water
exchange, prevent the build-up of sea lice
within the pen and facilitate good clearance
of medicines after bath treatments.
Do not use holding cages at harvest stations;
it may unnecessarily harbor sea lice.
4. Monitoring
Record the results of the bioassay to
check the sensitivity of sea lice in the area
to be treated.
Record sea lice numbers weekly and,
particularly, prior to each treatment.
TEC
HN
ICA
L BU
LLETIN
BEST-PRACTICE TREATMENT PRINCIPLES
Whenever fish are moved using fish pumps,
use sea lice filters on the pumps.
Well boats used to move fish out of a
management area should be operated only
with closed valves.
7. The Rotation of Chemotherapeutantswith Different Modes of Action
Sea lice, like other parasites on farmed
animals, have the ability to develop tolerance
or resistance to the active ingredients in the
medicines used to control them. To slow
the development and minimize the impact
of resistance, it is suggested that strategic
rotation of chemotherapeutants/medicines
be employed.
continued
Simultaneously treat all fish on the farm
to reduce the likelihood of leaving a
reservoir of untreated lice.
Feed medicated with SLICE should be
the sole source of feed for the 7-day
treatment period.
Withhold feed from the population for
24 hours before treatment.
Carefully monitor the feeding response.
Carry out sea lice counts for 3 weeks
post-treatment; if the efficacy is not as
desired, consider immediate use of a bath
treatment (i.e., a treatment with a different
mode of action on the same cohort of
sea lice).
6. Medicated Feeding
Make sure fish are eating before treating
with an oral medicine. Bacterial or viral
disease, heavy sea lice infestation or
environmental conditions can reduce fish
appetite and feed consumption. Treating
orally when fish have reduced appetites is
not advised because they may not consume
enough feed to get the proper dose rate.
Remove, where possible, non-feeders
within the population being treated,
since they can harbor sea lice after an
in-feed treatment.
Check the accuracy of the biomass to
ensure that the correct dosage is calculated.
Avoid making changes in your regular
feeding practices during oral treatment.
Changing feed type or pellet size, for
example, may negatively affect intake
and absorption of SLICE.
TEC
HN
ICA
L BU
LLETIN
Best-practice treatment principles:Sea lice resistance management, 2010
Specific product details such as indications, withdrawaltime, etc., may vary by country. Please refer to your local package insert for details or contact your localIntervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health representative.
SLICE® is the property of Intervet International B.V. or affiliated companies or licensors and is protected by copyrights, trademark and other intellectual property laws.
Copyright © 2010. Intervet International B.V. All rights reserved. SPAH-AQF-11
Printed on recycled paper.
W W W . A Q U A . I N T E R V E T . C O M
Veterinary health plans should contain a
site-specific product rotation program and
subsequent monitoring programs. Analysis
of the data collected under the program will
help to improve future recommendations
for product rotation within the farm
management area.
The strategic rotation of treatments with
different modes of action remains at the
discretion of the attending veterinarian.
BEST-PRACTICE TREATMENT PRINCIPLES
The SLICE® Sustainability ProjectIntroducing
(parasiticide)
The SLICE® Sustainability Project is a global initiative
by the Aquatic Animal Health business of
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, the world’s
leading animal health company for aquaculture.
1
It is based on four core actions — Protect,
Conserve, Renew and Succeed — that are
essential for developing sustainable sea
lice control programs for the world’s
salmon industry.
The SLICE Sustainability Project is backed
by Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
and its network of global technical service
specialists — consultants who are ready
to take an active role in training farm
personnel and developing science-driven
programs aimed at optimizing product
efficacy and longevity.
The program also involves a global
network of analytical laboratories,
which have been identified by
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
for conducting bioassays, feed and tissue
analyses, and other tests needed to
implement the program effectively.
p r o t e c t
Sea lice are naturally occurring parasites
that live in the ocean and threaten the
health and welfare of salmon. Poor sea
lice control can lead to poor growth and
feed efficiency, as well as high mortality.
They can also stress fish and make
them more susceptible to bacterial and
viral infections.
Sea lice infestation levels vary with
farm location, salinity levels, stocking
rates, proximity to sources of sea lice,
water temperature and the management
practices used by farms in specific
bay-management areas. If not effectively
controlled, they can cost the salmon
industry tens of millions of euros
each year.
The launch of SLICE in 2000 and the more
recent reintroduction of effective bath
treatments have dramatically reduced the
economic impact of sea lice on the global
salmon industry. Despite these advances,
the risk of sea lice infestation and related
losses remains high as some strains of the
parasite become more tolerant to the few
therapeutics available.
Now more than ever, therapeutics such as
SLICE are essential for successful salmon
production — not only to protect salmon
from sea lice but also to protect the
economic viability and sustainability of the
world’s salmon industry. It is, therefore,
imperative to follow best practices and
maximize the impact of each treatment.
Strategic rotation programs, diagnostics,
fallowing between production cycles,
all-in/all-out single-year class stocking
policies, coordinated area-wide treatments
and biological controls (wrasse) will go a
long way toward building sustainable sea
lice control programs.
Protecting fish — and the world’s salmon industry —
from a costly and resilient parasite
ren
ew
c o n s e r v e
s u c c e e d
The
SLIC
E®
Sust
aina
bilit
yPr
ojec
t
2
S U S T A I N A B L E S O L U T I O N S
• Always check the sensitivity of sea lice before
selecting a product for control. Bioassays can be
used as an in vitro tool to monitor changes in
sea lice susceptibility to parasiticides.
• Approved sea lice control products must be
used at the recommended time, dose rate and
duration to be, and also remain, effective.
• Other factors such as fish appetite, feed
preparation and feeding method will affect
the success and sustainability of in-feed sea
lice treatments.
S U S T A I N A B L E S O L U T I O N S
• Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
continues to support SLICE in major salmon-
producing countries — not only by providing
innovative technical support but also by
maintaining the product’s regulatory compliance,
licensure and continued availability.
• Recently, Health Canada’s Veterinary Drugs
Directorate issued a Notice of Compliance for SLICE
to Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health in Canada.
SLICE has been used effectively in Canada for 10 years
under the EDR authorization process.
• To help meet the growing need for SLICE
worldwide, Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
is pursuing registrations for the product in other
major markets.
More than a decade ago,
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
developed SLICE, which brought sea
lice control to unprecedented levels
for efficacy and dependability.
As revolutionary as SLICE was, however,
scientists knew that sea lice — like
any parasite that threatens animals in
production agriculture — had the
potential to become less sensitive to
the product over time.
For this reason, when SLICE and its
new-generation molecule were introduced
to salmon producers in 2000, scientists at
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
published specific guidelines for sea lice
resistance management to help conserve
the product’s efficacy.
Since then, integrated and sustainable
sea lice management programs involving
SLICE have proved to be highly effective
in major salmon-producing countries —
not only for controlling sea lice but also
for conserving the effectiveness of SLICE
and other valuable therapeutics used for
sea lice control.
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health’s
proactive educational initiatives and
collaborative efforts with farmers, feed
companies and diagnostic laboratories
are widely credited for the long-term
success of SLICE on most of the world’s
salmon farms.
After 10 years, SLICE remains the world’s
No. 1 product for sea lice control.
Conserving the efficacy of SLICE and
other tools for effective sea lice control
c o n s e r v ep r o t e c t
ren
ew
s u c c e e d
5
r e n e w
• Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health routinely
works with salmon producers and veterinarians to
conduct comprehensive reviews of their sea lice
control programs to ensure that past and present
strategies are providing optimum protection. The
review includes bioassays to determine sea lice
susceptibility, tissue and feed analyses, feeding
practices and other variables that can affect the
outcome of control programs. The company then
works with customers to develop best practices and
site-specific strategies for long-term, sustainable
control of sea lice (Figure 1).
S U S T A I N A B L E S O L U T I O N S
To help with this important effort,
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
is working closely with feed companies
and regional laboratories to analyze
feed samples and ensure that feed is
prepared with the correct concentration
of SLICE. The labs also analyze fish tissue
samples to evaluate the intake of feed
containing SLICE and the absorption of
the active ingredient.
These efforts are designed to avoid or
minimize the spread of sea lice resistance
while maximizing the effectiveness of
SLICE and other products needed for
effective control.
Why participate in The SLICE Sustainability
Project? Simply put, the world’s salmon
industry would be challenged to raise
healthy, profitable fish without SLICE and
other effective therapeutics.
Parasites threaten efficient, economic
production of all farmed animals, not just
salmon. Unfortunately, because of the
technical challenges and high costs
associated with product development, the
animal health industry has very few new
anti-parasitic compounds in the research
pipeline. Even when new therapeutics
do become available, it’s likely that they
could lose effectiveness over time if
they are not used judiciously or if new
strains of sea lice emerge.
It is, therefore, essential for producers,
diagnostic laboratories, universities and
allied industries to learn from past sea
lice control efforts, protect the products
that are available and, where necessary,
take steps to renew the efficacy of
proven compounds.
Renewing the strength and dependability
of a proven partner
The
SLIC
E®
Sust
aina
bilit
yPr
ojec
t
6
p r o t e c t
c o n s e r v e
s u c c e e d
• In 2009, Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health drew
on its global experience to develop a sustainable sea lice
management program for salmon farmers in Chile,
who suffered widespread treatment failures with generic
emamectin. The program gives farmers additional
resources for working together, monitoring progress and
preventing resistance in new production areas. More
importantly, the program offers a long-term strategy
for safely and confidently controlling sea lice with
high-quality products such as SLICE, which is produced
under the highest GMP standards.
Figure 1. Example of successful sea licemonitoring program involving SLICE.
Review history and efficacy
of farm’s sea lice treatments.
Treat only if sea lice
populations meet locally
recommended thresholds.
SLICErecommended
Sample feed
containing
SLICE.
Alternative treatment
recommended. Consult
product manufacturer
for treatment and
monitoring guidelines.
Treatment Site treatment,lice-clearance
data
Analyze EB
in medicated
feed.
Sample fillet
24 hours after
treatment.
Analyze EB
in flesh.
Review treatment
results and adjust
program, as needed.
EB = emamectin benzoate, the activeingredient in SLICE
7
Questions being addressed:
What is the precise relationship between tissueconcentrations of emamectin and field efficacywhere sea lice have reduced sensitivity?
What are the best rotation schemes for SLICEand other sea lice products?
Are tolerant sea lice as robust and prolific asnaïve sea lice?
How stable are resistance genes in treated sealice populations?
S U S T A I N A B L E S O L U T I O N S
• To help salmon producers become even more
successful and sustainable in the future,
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health is working
with leading experts around the world to further
improve sea lice control strategies.
s u c c e e d
There is no silver bullet for sea lice
control. Whether it’s a new farm with
naïve sea lice populations or a well-
established operation with a history of
resistance, it is still possible to develop
lasting, sustainable sea lice control
programs with SLICE and other tools.
Keys to successful sea lice control:
Continuously monitor sea
lice populations.
Measure and record sensitivity
patterns on a site and regional basis.
Make sure your staff is effectively
trained and that all proper
management procedures are in
place for each product available.
Your Intervet/Schering-Plough
Animal Health representative will work
with you to customize a program that
meets the specific needs, challenges and
objectives of your operation.
Succeeding through proactive, judicious
sea lice control programsp r o t e c t
ren
ew
c o n s e r v e
Recognize the full value of
effective control programs —
reduced treatment costs, reduced
risk of failed treatments, no
sub-lethal dosing (which can
increase populations of tolerant
sea lice).
Restore and retain the efficacy of
valuable therapeutics, which are
increasingly hard to replace.
Follow the six steps for success of
The SLICE Sustainability Project
(beginning on page 10).
9
The SLICE Sustainability Project
o n e cooperation of farmers, feed suppliers
and pharmaceutical companies.
Your Intervet/Schering-Plough
Animal Health representative can
help coordinate these efforts and
synchronize practices.
COLLABORATE WITHOTHER FARMS
Effective sea lice control begins with a
strategic, integrated approach — one
that involves good planning plus the
A Six-step Strategy to protect , conserve ,
renew and s u c c e e d
B E S T P R A C T I C E S
• Stock a defined area with a single-year class of fish. This will reduce the potential
for transmission of sea lice from existing stocks to newly introduced, uninfected fish.
• Adopt an all-in/all-out stocking policy, where each and every site within the area is
completely harvested and fallowed before being stocked with new fish.
• Synchronize fallowing with neighboring farms. Leaving whole sites and areas
unstocked for a minimum of 6 weeks prior to restocking helps break the reproductive
cycle of sea lice.
• Keep nets clean. This helps ensure a good water flow through the pens, which helps
prevent the buildup of sea lice populations.
• Monitor sea lice populations. Early detection of sea lice numbers will let you treat
before sea lice reach the more damaging motile stages. Conduct weekly lice counts.
10
The
SLIC
E®
Sust
aina
bilit
yPr
ojec
t
• Define the bay area to be managed, taking into account tide schedules,
currents, depth, salinity, water temperature, seasonal wind patterns, management
practices and other factors that can affect sea lice population and migration.
• Form a local management group involving area producers, veterinarians, feed
suppliers and pharmaceutical company representatives.
• Follow previously agreed upon monitoring protocols.
• Follow established treatment thresholds (see insert or consult local
recommendations) and agree on timing, product selection and rotation options
for maximum effectiveness. Develop a written agreement so that everyone is
clear about the protocols.
• Continue monitoring to maintain lice sensitivity and effective control.
• Share information on treatment challenges and successes to ensure a
well-coordinated effort.
• Hold meetings to review progress and amend agreement points as necessary.
O R G A N I Z I N G A S U C C E S S F U L P R O G R A M
t w o
An Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
representative can also work with you to
fine-tune sampling procedures for a more
accurate analysis.
TEST OFTEN TO GUARDAGAINST RESISTANCE
Constant monitoring is the foundationof The SLICE Sustainability Project.
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
works with laboratories in your area*
to provide reliable testing services to:
Monitor your progress
Guard against future resistance
Maximize your return on investment.
B E S T P R A C T I C E S
• Use sea lice sensitivity monitoring
(through bioassays) to determine which
treatments will be effective.
• Monitor the efficacy of every
treatment against the plan.
• Analyze feed to ensure correct levels
of SLICE were included in the diet.
• Conduct tissue analysis on samples
taken 24 hours after treatment to ensure
proper drug uptake.
• Evaluate sea lice numbers 3 to 4
weeks post-treatment and compare
against pre-treatment sea lice numbers.
• Analyze results and make adjustments
as needed to the treatment plan.
*Ask an Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Healthrepresentative for the list of laboratories participatingin The SLICE Sustainability Project.Th
eSL
ICE®
Sust
aina
bilit
yPr
ojec
t
12
t h r e e MAKE GOOD HUSBANDRYPART OF YOUR PLAN
As producers know, good basic husbandry
will reduce stress and minimize the risk
of infection from viruses, bacteria and
parasites. Having basic husbandry at the
core of your veterinary health plan will
help provide the best health status for
your fish. Fine-tuning these practices will
help minimize losses.
B E S T P R A C T I C E S
• Biosecurity procedures should be in place at all times.
• Vaccinate fish against those diseases they are likely to encounter, to promote
good health and minimize losses.
• Grade fish and thin out when required to reduce feeding competition and
maintain optimum stocking densities to minimize stress.
• Remove mortalities, ideally on a daily basis, to reduce the risk from infection.
• Remove poor-performing or sick fish whenever practical. Sick fish generally don’t
eat and, as a result, fail to respond to medicated feeds. They can harbor high
numbers of sea lice.
• Keep nets clean to promote good water flow and help prevent the buildup of
sea lice populations.
• Employ feeding strategies to ensure fish are well fed to help optimize welfare
and reduce the time spent near the surface where sea lice are most prevalent.
• Monitor growth and check the accuracy of the biomass.
13
• Check the correct dose rate against the
manufacturers’ recommendations and an
accurate assessment of the biomass.
• Withholding feed for 24 hours before
initiating treatment will help ensure ade-
quate consumption of in-feed therapeutics.
With SLICE, this practice has been shown to
improve the uptake in the flesh of the fish,
as well as the distribution of medication
across the whole population.
B E S T P R A C T I C E S
f o u r REVIEW FEEDINGPROCEDURES
Good feed management can go a
long way toward optimizing
treatment efficiency and ensuring
the correct administration of feeds
containing SLICE.
It’s important to keep in mind that
medicated feed must be managed
differently from feed formulated to
maximize growth. For example,
emphasis should be to ensure there is
a uniform uptake of medicated feed
across all fish, and feed containing SLICE
should be used as the sole ration (100%)
for the full 7-day treatment period.
Before even considering the use of an
in-feed medication, be sure that the fish
are feeding well.
• Treat all fish on the farm at the same
time to avoid creating a reservoir of
untreated sea lice.
• The total dosage of SLICE required should
be distributed throughout the daily ration,
based on the daily feed rate of the fish for
the full 7 days of treatment.
• Conduct sea lice counts 3 to 4
weeks post-treatment. If efficacy is
not satisfactory, consider immediate
use of bath treatment with a product
offering a different mode of action.
B E S T P R A C T I C E S
15
f i v e MAXIMIZE PRODUCTPERFORMANCE
Finding new, effective, safe and
environmentally friendly products to
combat sea lice and other parasites is
becoming more costly and difficult
with time.
It is, therefore, essential to use
consistently reliable products that meet
stringent international standards for
quality. These products need to be used
properly, responsibly and judiciously to
ensure long-term effectiveness.
To help maintain product performance,
farms should carefully comply with
established trigger levels for initiating
treatment. This approach will help
balance what’s needed to control sea lice
while keeping population levels of sea lice
acceptable to the wild salmon and sea
trout interests.
When planning a rotation strategy for
SLICE and other parasiticides, consider
the physical conditions of the site/area,
the sensitivity of sea lice to the proposed
treatment, the economics of treating and
the potential for stress during different
phases of the production cycle.
Your Intervet/Schering-Plough
Animal Health representative can help
you manage your sea lice treatments
for optimum performance, safety
and returns.
The
SLIC
E®
Sust
aina
bilit
yPr
ojec
t
16
• Insist on high-quality, branded therapeutics. Select products from pharmaceutical
companies that adhere to Good Manufacturing Practices, which include rigorous
testing for potency, purity, quality and safety.
• Don’t take shortcuts. Always administer the correct dose rate and use the product
for the full duration recommended on the label.
• Accurately determine the biomass of the fish you are treating. Underestimating
population and weight may cause you to use less than the recommended dose rate
for effective treatment — resulting in poor clearance and possibly allowing sea lice
to develop resistance.
• Treat all fish in the area at the same time. This will help ensure effective treatment
and reduce the chance of some fish being exposed to less than the recommended
dose rate and the risk of re-infestation.
• Avoid cross-infestation of sea lice. Coordinating treatments with all farms in
a bay-management area has been shown to reduce cross-infestation.
• Strategically rotate therapeutics with different modes of action to prolong
the effectiveness of available tools for sea lice control.
B E S T P R A C T I C E S
17
s i x REVIEW THEPERFORMANCEOF SLICE
SLICE has established a strong track
record worldwide for controlling sea lice,
both Caligus spp. and Lepeophtheirus
spp., in farm-raised salmon.* Ask your
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
representative about the best ways to
use SLICE in your operation.
• Kills all stages of sea lice (motile and non-motile), including gravid adult
females, and protects for 75 to 90 days. (See local product labels on page 20
for more specifications.)
• Protects fish from new infestations, thereby allowing fish to recover from
existing damage.
• Effective under a wide range of environmental conditions (e.g., water
temperatures of 5° C to 15° C in both freshwater and seawater).
• Well tolerated by fish. In field trials, salmon receiving more than three times
the recommended dose rate showed no mortality or significant reductions in
feeding associated with treatment. SLICE is also well tolerated and effective
when administered to smolts prior to transfer to sea.
• Proven safe to handlers and the environment when used according to
label directions.
• Made according to Good Manufacturing Practices recognized by regulatory
authorities in the US, Europe and other key markets.
• Backed by Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, the world’s largest
developer and marketer of pharmaceuticals and vaccines for aquaculture.
A D V A N T A G E S O F S L I C E
The
SLIC
E®
Sust
aina
bilit
yPr
ojec
t
18
*Check your local package insert for details.
A B O U TI N T E R V E T / S C H E R I N G - P L O U G HA N I M A L H E A LT H
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health,based in Boxmeer, the Netherlands, isfocused on the research, development,manufacturing and marketing of animalhealth products. The company offerscustomers one of the broadest, mostinnovative animal health portfolios,spanning products to support perform-ance and to prevent, treat and controldisease in all major farm and companionanimal species.
In aquaculture, Intervet/Schering-Ploughis the world’s largest developer andmarketer of pharmaceuticals andvaccines. Major products include theparasiticide SLICE® (emamectinbenzoate), as well as the antibioticAQUAFLOR® (florfenicol) and the vaccineranges AQUAVAC® and NORVAX®.
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health,subsidiaries of Merck & Co., Inc.,Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. For moreinformation, go to www.intervet.com.
A B O U T M E R C K
Merck and Schering-Plough recently
merged to create a stronger, more diverse
and more truly global company. This
not only benefits the company and its
shareholders, but it also benefits the
millions of people around the world who
rely on the company’s products and expect
it to continue to deliver exceptional value.
Today's Merck is working to help the
world be well. Through its medicines,
vaccines, biologic therapies, and consumer
and animal products, the company works
with customers and operates in more than
140 countries to deliver innovative health
solutions. Merck also demonstrates its
commitment to increasing access to
healthcare through far-reaching programs
that donate and deliver products to the
people who need them. For more
information, visit www.merck.com.
Chile
Cana
da
Nor
way
Irel
and
and
the
Uni
ted
King
dom
20
The SLICE® Sustainability Project
For more information aboutThe SLICE® Sustainability Project,contact your localIntervet/Schering-Plough Animal Healthrepresentative or call:
Canada:+1.866.683.7838
Chile:+56.65.27.4006
Ireland:+353.1.205.0905
Norway:+47.554.3751
United Kingdom:+44.3700.603.380
www.intervet.comhttp://aqua.intervet.com
This publication contains information onveterinary products based on internationalregistration dossiers and may refer to productsthat are either not available in your countryor are marketed under a different tradename. In addition, the safety and efficacydata for a specific product may be differentdepending on local regulations. For moreinformation, read the product labeling thatapplies to your country or contact yourlocal Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Healthrepresentative.
AQUAFLOR®, AQUAVAC®, NORVAX® andSLICE® are property of Intervet InternationalB.V. or affiliated companies or licensors andare protected by copyrights, trademark andother intellectual property laws.
Copyright © 2010. Intervet International B.V.All rights reserved.
ISP-GA-2