2010 Technical Review and 2011 Sea Lice Management and Program Development Workshop

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