Sie sind auf Seite 1von 427

2010 Technical Review


2011 Sea Lice Management and

Program Development Workshop


November 29 to December 1, 2010

Fairmont Algonquin

St. Andrews, NB
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………. 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….. 3

AGENDAS………………………………………………………………………………………… 4


November 29th Workshop………………………………..…… 6

November 30th Workshop…………………………………..… 10
December 1st Research Meeting……………….………….. 17

BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………… 20

NEXT STEPS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20



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

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

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
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.


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

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

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

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


- 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


– 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

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.


– 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.


– 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
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

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.


- 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

of Sustainable Development, Evan has been project manager for the AIMAP supported iCage and Eco-
bath projects.


–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.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010


-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.


– 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.

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.


– 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

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.

– 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.


- presented by Michael Beattie, NB Department of Agriculture Aquaculture and Fisheries

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.


– 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
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.


- 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.



- 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.


-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
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.


-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

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.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010


-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.

- 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.

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

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


-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

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.


-presented by Iain McEwen for James Hoare, The Fish Vet Group

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


– 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 D o 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

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.

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
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

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
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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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.

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

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
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)

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
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.

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

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

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
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.

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

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.
Sustainable Aquaculture in a
national context
An Update from DFO

ACFFA, November 29, 2010

Trevor Swerdfager, DFO, AMD
Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 1
THANK YOU for inviting me:
I would like to offer you my take on …

• The market context for

• Some perceptions of the
• DFO actitivities
• And, anything else you
would like to talk about …

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 2

Seafood markets are truly global in nature
We never were an island: we are becoming
more integrated with global markets every day
• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 3

Globally, the aquaculture continues to grow quickly

The Canadian sector has expanded but not as rapidly as elsewhere

• 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
• Accounts for 14% of total Canadian fisheries
production and 35% of its value

• But we could do better

• An other countries are

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 4

A variety of perceptions are shaping the Canadian
context for farmed salmon
Derek will describe buyer and consumer perceptions; they are not
the problem

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 5

But the New Environmentalism influence on
markets, policy and the public is growing
Campaigns have, with varying success, sought to generate images
of the aquaculture sector as:

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 6

Individual consumers may or not be buying these
But others are concerned

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 7

DFO’s Sustainable Aquaculture Program seeks to
address these issues
Our goal is to foster a stronger, larger more sustainable
aquaculture industry across Canada by:

• Improving the governance and regulatory

regime for the industry
• Substantially improving the science base for
environmental regulation of the industry
• Catalysing and supporting industry
• Supporting the development of certification
systems and expanded market access

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 8

Regulatory reform tops our agenda in many ways

The BC Supreme Court decision has had a huge impact

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 9

Regulatory science remains at the core of our
The Program for Aquaculture Regulatory Research is up
and running
• 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
– Core funding for Centre for Integrated Aquaculture
– 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


Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 10

Innovation, technology development, product
diversification are essential to a dynamic industry:
AIMAP provides catalytic support for innnovation
• A wide range of project have been approved
• The program has levered substantial additional
• Call letter for the coming fiscal year is out

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 11

And for the first time, we now have a nationally
endorsed plan for the sector
The National Aquaculture Strategic Action Plan Initative (NASAPI):

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 12

And we must be able to report on our progress

The Sustainable Reporting Initiative” is well under way

• Established performance indicators to be reported

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 13

Certification is the wave of the future

We need systems that work for Canada and for markets

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 14

The federal government strongly supports aquaculture

The challenges before the industry are great but:

• 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

Canada: A Leader in Sustainable Seafood Production 15

Questions / Comments?
Market Research
Attitudes towards
Atlantic Canada Farmed Salmon

Prepared for:

Canadian Aquaculture
Aquaculture Industry
Industry Alliance
Prepared by:

Environics Research
Research Group
St. Andrews,
Andrews, November
November 29,
29, 2010

• Highlights of research among buyers

• Highlights of qualitative and quantitative research

among consumers

• Conclusions

Buyers Research
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.

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.

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

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.

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
• Environmental controversy could slow growth, but not
reverse it – but this is hypothetical.
• Health scare (i.e. stories about PCBs) would hurt

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

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.

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 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.

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.

Consumer Research
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.

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
• 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.

Motivations to eat more salmon

• Tendency to overestimate current salmon consumption – “halo

• 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”

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.

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.

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
• 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)

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
• 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
• Consumers WANT to know that their salmon is from Atlantic Canada. If
this was promoted – it would be a selling feature.

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.

Rising salmon consumption

Frequency of buying/eating salmon

compared to a couple of years ago
October 2010


16 7

A lot A little About as A little A lot

more than more than much as less than less than
before before before before before

The role of sushi

Frequency of eating sushi or sashimi in restaurant or as takeout

October 2010

Almost every day 1

Several times a week 4

About once a week 8

Two or three times a month 13

About once a month 14

A few times a year or less 25

Never 35 Q.12

Salmon vs. other proteins

Salmon compared to other proteins

October 2010
Healthier in general 82 15 3

Low fat 67 23 10

Nutrition 66 27 7
Contains less hormones/ Environmentally-
56 33 11 friendly
39 51 10
How feel about self Easy to cook 38 43 20
45 44 11
when eat/serve
Freshness 44 42 14 Price 19 24 56

Taste 41 37 22 How filling it is 15 51 34

Salmon is better Both the same Other proteins are better Q.19

Preferred place of origin

Preferred source for fresh salmon

October 2010


18 17 4 18
Atlantic Alaska B.C. Norway Chile Makes no
Canada difference


Preferred place of origin

Preferred source for fresh salmon

Summary first choice By city October 2010


Atlantic Canada 46 56 26

B.C. 30 17 4

Alaska 8 10 37

Norway 5 3 4

Chile * 1 1
* Less than one percent
Makes no difference 11 15 29

Atlantic Canada salmon advantages

Which country’s fresh salmon is better for ...?

October 2010

Most local 69 10 8 21 11
Atlantic Canada
Freshness 49 12 15 41 19
Highest quality overall 31 14 19 6 1 29 Alaska
Smallest carbon footprint 30 9 16 6 3 36
Highest environmental
27 13 16 10 1 33 All the same


Farmed vs. Wild

Caring about whether salmon is wild/farmed

October 2010

I don't really care whether the fresh

13 37 32 17
salmon I buy is wild or farmed

Strongly agree Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree Strongly disagree


How much of your salmon is farmed/wild?

Estimated percentage of salmon bought

personally that is wild or farmed
Mean October 2010


Wild caught Farmed


Farmed vs. Wild

Wild vs. farmed fresh salmon – key attributes

October 2010

Helps prevent overfishing 74 17 10

Available all year round 63 28 9

Cheaper 56 31 13 Freshness 15 50 35

Environmentally sustainable 46 25 28 Fat content 14 63 23

Risk of toxins 37 27 36 Nutritional benefits 9 49 42

Comes from close to Tastier 8 35 57
where you live
36 44 20

Farmed is better No difference Wild is better Q.25

News about fish farming

Seen, read or heard about environmental

impact of fish farming in past year
October 2010



Yes No


Attitudes towards fish farming

Environmental impact of salmon farming

October 2010

Salmon farming is good for the environment

because it reduces pressure on wild
salmon stocks by helping to meet the 71%
worldwide consumer demand for salmon 49

Salmon farming is bad for the environment 22

because it produces harmful environmental 30%
effects which hurt wild salmon populations 8

Strongly prefer Somewhat prefer Q.31

Attitudes towards fish farming

Myths about salmon – true or false?

October 2010
Wild salmon is more
nutritious than farmed
16 37 25 5 17

Farmed salmon spread

6 29 33 7 25
diseases to wild salmon

You should avoid eating salmon

3 15 36 36 10
more than twice a month

Definitely true Probably false dk/na

Probably true Definitely false

Attitudes towards fish farming

Impact on environment of salmon

farming vs. farming other animals
October 2010
Salmon farming
much more negative
Salmon farming
somewhat more negative

Both the same 53

Farming of other animals

somewhat more negative
Farming of other animals
much more negative

GMO salmon policy

Salmon farming industry policy against

genetically-engineered salmon
October 2010



Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree

Potential ENGO campaign

Impact of potential ENGO campaign

against farmed salmon on you
October 2010


Very big Some Only a little No impact
impact impact impact at all


Potential ENGO campaign

Likelihood of taking action as result of

campaign against farmed salmon
October 2010

Do research to get more

facts about the issue
47 41 9 3

Buy wild salmon instead of farmed

salmon, even if it costs more
19 43 29 9
Very likely
Give up eating salmon/
eat more meat instead
7 16 46 31 Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Boycott your supermarket until
6 14 41 39 Not at all likely
they stop selling farmed salmon

Sustainable certification

Impact of sustainable certification on

likelihood of buying farmed salmon
October 2010



More likely No difference Less likely


Sustainable certification

Paying more for farmed salmon from independently

certified environmentally sustainable source
October 2010 How much more willing to pay

None/no more 40

Less than 5% more 2

5% to 9% more 9

10% to 14% more 20

15% to 19% more 5

20% plus more 24 Mean (including 0) = 12.5%


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
• Sushi more popular in the west (65% at least 1/month vs. 40% in the
• 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
• Easterners less likely to have seen news about fish farming and less
likely to be influenced by any ENGO campaign.


• 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.

336 MacLaren Street 33 Bloor Street E, Suite 900
Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario
Canada Canada
K2P 0M6 M4W 3H1
Tel. 613 • 230 • 5089 Tel. 416 • 920 • 9010
Fax. 613 • 230 • 3836 Fax. 416 • 920 • 3299
Salmon Segmentation

Segmentation of salmon consumers

October 2010

27 20

40 Pragmatic

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
• Like certification
• Female,
Female, older,
older, Toronto
Psychographic Segmentation

• Confident about preparing salmonsalmon
• Eat more and moremore salmon
salmon in in future
• Taste is the number one consideration
• Prefer
Prefer wild
wild –– because
because itit tastes better
• Health conscious
• Environmentalists are unreasonable
• Science
Science will
will solve
solve environmental
environmental problems
• Higher income, older and BostonBoston

Psychographic Segmentation

Pragmatic • Concerned about contamination/threats to

human health
• Low interested in farmed/wild debate and
• Don’t really care if salmon is farmed
• Price
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
Psychographic Segmentation

Disengaged • Disinterested in sustainability/low on

environmental dimensions
• Salmon is a favourite/big sushi
• Salmon seen as a hassle to prepare
• Nutrition
Nutrition isis aa low
low priority
• No interest in whether salmon is farmed
or wild
• Might be attracted to boycott as an act of
• Younger, male and visible
minority/francophone seg
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.

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?
….‖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

This has obvious implications for the

future of farming fish as well as fruit
when using a crop with little genetic

Conservation Magazine
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
Adult (PWR) and
Juvenile* (USR)


* (USR) Releases of
fry and parr result in
various ages and 2
origins of smolt

Genetics Program
Tissue collected
during electro-
fishing program,
smolt wheel or any
adult captures

Work completed
by Patrick O‟Reilly –
Breeding Plan

All attempts are

made to preserve
the widest
genetic diversity
within the
USR and PWR LGB Recovery
• PWR – Adult only
• USR – Juvenile
only program
(unfed fry and
What is Happening ?
Released fish survive
river to Smolt
1-4yrs later

18 months later

Salmon aren‟t returning

from the Bay of Fundy!
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 Fundy
Natural exposure can matter

-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
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
• Control group in Mactaquac had high comparative
• 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
• 5x survival over season close
• 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

8 pens allowed 4 groups of ~ 400 smolt
to be transferred from “A” to “B” side
Feeders Service & Monitoring Cat-Walk during monthly total inventories .
to duplicate Nets hung to „de-foul‟ in sun and provide clean
feed regime conditions for fish to re-enter after inventory
in hatchery

side side
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): • 2011 group/s :
– Continue monitoring – Trial ―Production-size‖ group using
– Migration performance wild captured smolt/parr and
experiments potentially hatchery reared
juveniles in sea cage
• In - Bay release, tag
– This work could facilitate the
detection @ river mouth release of ‗Natural‘ amount of
– Gamete & Offspring adults in the future which has
experiments been previously impossible with
– Spawning performance current budgets and infrastructure.
– Post Spawn Satellite tracking
Very Preliminary Conclusion

• Research should continue.

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

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

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

 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

Freshwater Growout Commercial Enhancement

East Coast 4 3 4 1

Central Canada 2 1 1 1

West Coast 4 5 4 1

Sent out Returned Returned
East Coast 6 4 67
Central Canada 2 2 100
West 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
 #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
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 –
 East coast facilities estimated prevalence in Atlantic
salmon at about 3%
 prevalence in last 5-10yrs has remained the same or increased
 West coast estimate prevalence in Atlantic salmon at 1-
 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
 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 –
 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,
 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,
 Access to therapeutants (Galllimycin 200, TM Aqua)
 Perception issues – potential human health concerns
 BKD is a disease of concern in salmon
 Atlantic
and Pacific Salmon
 Farmed and Enhanced/Wild

 BKD is a disease of concern nationwide

 West Coast and East Coast
 Limited tools for effective
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

Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association

Annual General Meeting and Workshops

November 29, 2010

St. John, New Brunswick
My goal this morning is to briefly describe

o The New Brunswick sea lice challenge

o Our objectives for collective solutions
o DFO involvement
o The emerging Fish Pathogen and Pest Treatment
o Any questions or concerns you may have


• 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


• 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

• 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


• 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


• Our three main contributions to the sea lice challenge are:

1. Helping to bring people together
2. 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.


• 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


• 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.


• 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


• 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


• The products would be authorized on the condition that:

– DFO has received a planned/estimate schedule of

• 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
– Will be used in accordance with mitigation and monitoring
– Is used with an acceptable emergency response plan in

• 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.


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


Thank you

Update: Sea lice and resistance monitoring 

Objectives of Program
1. Credible 3rd party for lice counts
Independent counts
Audits of sites
2. Efficacy assessments
3. Resistance monitoring
4. Trends for predictions
(Larry Hammell, Jillian Westcott, Crawford Revie, Shona Whyte) 5. Training (“certification”)
AVC Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences (AVC‐CAHS)
Atlantic Veterinary College
University of Prince Edward Island, CANADA

3rd party 
Farm counts

 Sea lice policy minima:
Farm  (3rd party)   5* – 10 fish per cage
counts counts
 6* – 10 cages per site (at least 4 randomly 
Field  Bioassays
 Counted at least weekly
 “certified” counter
Decision   Training to 3 levels 
System  assessed for lice stage differentiation in lab setting 
Sea Lice 
for Level2 and assessed for stage precision in field 
Treatment  trends and  for Level3
efficacy predictions

2 research scientists  Sept. 22 NBDAA contract fully 
(Shona Whyte, JillWestcott) executed (signed by UPEI VP)

Decision Support System 2‐3 field/lab techs +4 field techs (tx counts)

+2 lab techs (bioassays)

Sep2009 PA
Based on AIF project 
 Sea lice data record submission and  anticipation
Oct 27 NBSGA contract 
fully executed

information retrieval Nov2010 PA
Based on 50% sea lice project and 
 Includes lice counts (weekly) and treatment data 50% by other project

(and fish weight  water temp  etc)

(and fish weight, water temp, etc) NB training PE training

 Initiated in summer 2009 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11

Aug2010 PA
 Web‐active since May 2010 (and added  Based on new project 
(guaranteed by other projects)
 All aspects continue to develop as tool for industry 
and vets in decision making Feb‐Mar
request from NBDAA  Staffing plan to execute sea lice program
to address multiple 
objectives in 
integrated plan

ACFFA Sea Lice Meeting - 29-30 Nov 2010 1

Update: Sea lice and resistance monitoring  05/01/2011

Can select date and 
BMA to generate 
average lice counts 
for sites in BMA

Each BMA can be plotted over time, together or individually, 
and for different lice stages

Average Lice per Fish by BMA (2010)

Lice per Fish

Q chalimus

100 Q AF+mobiles
U chalimus

80 U AF+mobiles
W chalimus
Average L

60 W AF+mobiles

Site 10 V chalimus
V AF+mobiles
S chalimus
S AF+mobiles
559 total count events reported 20
Counts reported T chalimus
3212 total cages counted T AF+mobiles
5.2 average number of cages counted 0 All Chalimus






All AF+Mobiles
23373 total fish counted
7.1 average fish per cage counted
175 total treatment events

Industry average lice counts over time can be plotted

3rd party counts
Average Lice per Fish by BMA (2010)

 Used 2009 as model for attempting pre and 
post counts in standardized fashion
Average Licce per Fish

 Alphamax July 2009 – Nov 2009
 Salmosan Nov 2009 –
S l  N     Dec 2009
 Bioassays as frequently as possible (limited 
All Chalimus
All AF+Mobiles
personnel to do any of this)







ACFFA Sea Lice Meeting - 29-30 Nov 2010 2

Update: Sea lice and resistance monitoring  05/01/2011

Farm  (3rd party) 
counts counts Treatment effects at cage level can be viewed 
SITE level

for different stages by treatment event

effects at site 
level can be  CAGE level
different ways 

(over time or by  Decision 
event) Support 

SITE level

No Pre‐Treatment Count

Ability to view 
treatment   Farm counts, 3rd party counts, resistance 
effects depends 
on data 
testing, and efficacy progress
(collected and   DSS available but not fully utilized (data entry for 
Several  counts or treatments are not complete)
t t
treatments have 
t  h  
no pre or no post   Paramove: Cage treatment efficacy 
counts, so effect 
 good for AF (0.1‐0.2 of pre‐count)
cannot be 
assessed.  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 3

Jillian Westcott, Shona Whyte, Larry Hammell, Crawford Revie
Centre for Aquatic Health Sciences
Atlantic Veterinary College
University of Prince Edward island
Sea Lice Collections
Bioassay Set-Up
Drug Mixing Doses Exposure


Bioassay Evaluations
LIVE (L) 1) normal swimming behavior (ability to swim in a straight line)
2) securely adheres to Petri dish
3) 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 extremities

2) twitches when manipulated with forceps (paralysis)

DEAD (D) 1) inability to swim

2) floating in Petri dish
3) no movement of extremities
EC50 vs. Threshold Approach

 ‘Classic’ dose response: Proportion


- measure: EC50 value

- requires many lice (n = 180 to 540 lice) 0.5
EC 50
- tests 5 to 6 doses

Log scale

 ‘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

n = 90

n = 22

n = 23
Sea Lice Training Program
 Attended the Sea Lice Training course
 Attained a 70% or higher on multiple choice test

 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

 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.
Training Completed

Total # of Level 1 trained = 19 people

Total # of Level 2 trained = 56 people
TOTAL TRAINED = 75 people

Status and Some environmental aspects

Sea Lice workshop, New Brunswick Nov 30th, 2010

Nils Steine, PHARMAQ AS

• PHARMAQ AS, who are we?

• ALPHAMAX® , what is it and where is it used
• ALPHAMAX® Dispersion and sentinel
• Accumulation in mussels
• Fisheries data
PHARMAQ’s business idea

• We provide environmentally
sound, safe and efficacious
health products to the global
aquaculture industry through
targeted research and the
commitment of dedicated

• 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.

A company with global market presence



ALPHA DIP ® - immersion vaccines

DIP/IMMERSION VACCINES ALPHA MARINE ® - vaccines for marine species

ALPHA MAX ® - bath treament against sea lice




Competitive situation

Global market share 2009

Company Vaccines for salmonids reared in seawater
PD vaccine segment not included


Novartis 39%

Intervet/SPAH 6%

Others 11%

Numbers based on PHARMAQ statistics

Too much sea lice thinking?
What is it, how and where is it used.
General properties of synthetic pyrethroids
• Potent substances that impairs
the nerve signal transmission
• Low toxicity to mammals, birds,
plants, algae and sediment
• Lipophilic, but not Deltamethrin use patterns:
bioaccumulating Pesticides: 77%
• Very low water solubility Health & environment: 15.5%
• Biodegradable in water and
Veterinary products: 7.5%
sediments • Fish (share of vet. med.): <0.1%
• Toxic to fish • Fish (share of total): < 0.005%
• Very toxic to aquatic

Slide 18
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
• 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.

Slide 19
Use as bath for removing and killing sea lice

• In Tarp
• In well boat
• In skirt
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
• 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 21
Isopod sea lice (Ceratothoa oestroides)

Slide 22
Isopod sea lice (Ceratothoa oestroides)
after treatment with Alpha Max

Slide 23
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

• Tarpaulin treatments or well boat treatments give most

reliable results with regard to effect on sea lice
• Move towards requiring full enclosure.
Slide 24
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
• 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 25
Sampling stations for sampling of sediments



Sampling stations A – I (9)

R = Reference station

Slide 26
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 27
Dispersion modelling indicates rapid dilution of

Slide 29
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 30
Sentinel monitoring demonstrates less effects than
computer modelling

Slide 31
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

Slide 32
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
• 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 34
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
• Analytical method – GC/MS
– LOQ at 5 µg/kg (ppb) deltamethrin
Slide 35
Design – exposure and sampling

2 ppb deltamethrin 4 ppb deltamethrin

30 min
30 min

60 min

A B C Control

Slide 36
• 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
– 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.
Slide 37
European Lobster Fisheries
Norwegian Crab fisheries

*Oct-Dec cathces not in, expected volumes

Norway lobster (Dublin Bay prawn) catches

• 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)

• Only country requiring Pesticide applicator

• NB clever and active in finding a workable
solution, and monitoring and optimizing the use
for this area.
• ALPHAMAX has been in extensive use for a
long time
• The product has been through rigorous
documentation reviews, including environmental
• 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!


quality team spirit


Near Term AlphaMax®, Salmosan®
and Paramove 50 ® Trials in New

M Beattie, B Thorpe, K Dalton, J Bakker


ACFFA Research Symposium, St. Andrews 2010


• Introduction

• Review Ongoing and near term R&D Efforts

– Illustrate time lines
– Discuss some initial findings

• Resource requirements
– Introduce Mind Mapping
– Financial
– Personnel

“We must all hang

together, or assuredly
we shall all hang

July 4 1776 Benjamin

The summer of 2010
Dye 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 salmon
M Fast AVC March 2011
Phase 1
• Compare mucous layers and dermal histopath on 50
• Controls vs. Salmosan vs. Hydrogen peroxide
Phase 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 species
F 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 prototype
AEG, 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
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
– 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
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 Dobson
Huntsman Marine Science Centre – Amber Garber, Bill Hogans
inVentures Technologies – James Snider, Craig Glassford
NB-DAA – Mike Beattie, Kathy Brewer-Dalton
Future Nets – Clarence Blanchard

Funding Agencies – DFO AIMAP and NBIF


• Phase I – Tank Trials to Determine Pesticide

• Phase II – Design of an Eco-Friendly Bath
• Phase III – Field Trials of the ECO-Bath System &
Protocol Development
ECO-Bath System
Will require movement of sea lice infected Atlantic salmon from grow-out to
bath to grow-out cages

Design Goals:
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.
ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank
Tank trials conducted at Huntsman Marine Science Centre
ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank
Initial series of trials determined effect of PurGro oxygen infusion with sea
lice treatment options
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 treatment
Trial 2 – 250-290% oxygen for 2 hours – no change in behaviour
Trial 7 - >200% in 12 m3 tank with 501 kg salmon (200 g-3122 g fish) –
significant foam fractionation
Trials 3&4 – 2 ppb Salmosan + 250-300% oxygen for 2 hours – no
change in behaviour, no mortalities
Trials 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 mortalities
Trials 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 m
tanks (100 Litres)
ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank
Follow-up series of trials conducted WITH SEALICE

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 removal
Freshwater (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)

ECO-Bath Cage System: Tank
Tarp Permeability and Use of Carbon as an Organic Binder

Tarp Permeability
No 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
ECO-Bath Cage System: Field
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 
Fish in the Bay of 

Benjamin S. Forward, PhD

• Canadian Register of Marine Species 

• Bay of Fundy Registry of Marine species 

• Fishbase

• Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic 
fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries 
and Aquatic Sciences No. 219. 731 p 
• Personal Communications
Family Labridae (Wrasse)
• Genus Halichoeres (3 species) 
• Genus Thalassoma (1 species)
• Genus Xyrichtys (1 species)
• Genus Lachnolaimus (1 species)
• Genus Tautoga (1 species)
• Genus Tautogolabrus (1 species)
Family Labridae (Wrasse)
• Genus Halichoeres (3 species) 
• Genus Thalassoma (1 species)
• Genus Xyrichtys (1 species)
• Genus Lachnolaimus (1 species)
• Genus Tautoga (1 species)
• Genus Tautogolabrus (1 species)
Family Labridae (Wrasse)
• Genus Halichoeres (3 species) 
• Genus Thalassoma (1 species)
• Genus Xyrichtys (1 species)
• Genus Lachnolaimus (1 species)
• Genus Tautoga (1 species)
• Genus Tautogolabrus (1 species)
Hogfish (L. maximus)

Picture by Randall, J.E. as found on

Family Labridae (Wrasse)
• Genus Halichoeres (3 species) 
• Genus Thalassoma (1 species)
• Genus Xyrichtys (1 species)
• Genus Lachnolaimus (1 species)
• Genus Tautoga (1 species)
• Genus Tautogolabrus (1 species)

Picture by Flescher, D. as found on
• Bay of Fundy to Gulf of Mexico
• Feeds on mussels, gastropods, other molluscs and 
• Inhabits the benthic environment 
• Found close to shore to depths of 75 m 
• A minor commercial and game fish in the US 
• Some reports describing attempts to rear this 
species though aquaculture
• No reports for use in sea lice control
Family Labridae (Wrasse)
• Genus Halichoeres (3 species) 
• Genus Thalassoma (1 species)
• Genus Xyrichtys (1 species)
• Genus Lachnolaimus (1 species)
• Genus Tautoga (1 species)
• Genus Tautogolabrus (1 species)

Picture by Flescher, D. as found on
• Newfoundland, and Gulf of St. Lawrence, Bay of 
Fundy to Chesapeake Bay
• They feed on molluscs, crustaceans, barnacles, sea 
urchins, marine worms, sea squirts
• Reported to cease feeding in winter
• Inhabits Benthic environment
• Found in shallow inshore waters to depths of 10m 
(possibly to 70 fathoms)
• Listed as a minor commercial species and game fish 
• One study reported testing for sea lice control
MacKinnon, 1995
• Lab trials and cage trials
• Lab trials (30 gal tanks) 1:1 cunner to Salmon (C. 
• Statistically significant reduction (P < 0.05) in 24hrs 
(n=20) however results dichotomous
• Due to feeding behaviors or capture and handling 
related stress
MacKinnon, 1995
• Sea cage trial started in September (n=1)
• Stocking density (1:67) cunner to salmon (30 to 2000)
• No significant difference over 12 weeks (n=100)
• Too many alternate food sources
• Stocking density too low (1:25 in EU wrasse 
• Size of cunner too large, perhaps only smaller fish 
exhibit cleaning behavior
• Temperature effects?
Other resident species
• Three‐spined Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
spined Stickleback (
• Lumpfish (Cyclopterus
Lumpfish ( lumpus)
Three‐spined Stickleback

Picture by Miyahara, H. as found on

Craig Losos ‐ MSc thesis
• Tested with Juvenile pink salmon when held together 
in tanks
• Provided evidence that the cleaning behaviour of 
three‐spined stickleback reduced sea lice
• The sticklebacks showed a preference for gravid 
females over male lice 
• Also observed to shorten egg strings suspended from 
• Suggested this could represent a natural relationship 
due to the seasonally sympatric occurrence of these 
two species in the Broughton Archipelago, BC, 
Three‐spined 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 species
• Three‐spined Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
spined Stickleback (
• Lumpfish (Cyclopterus
Lumpfish ( lumpus)

Picture by Goulet, D. as found on

• Pilot study at GIFAS, Norway – Fall 2000
• 4 cages, 4 stocking densities (0, 3, 5, 10%)
• Weekly & biweekly counting for 6 months
• Gut content monitoring (n=1)
• Reduction found in cage with 5% stocking after end 
September – mature females only
• One fish from this cage had 100 lice in gut – Oct 11 –
with 35 adult and 65 motile stage
• Unclear if feeding from salmon or during transfer
• More work is required – studies planned
• Other possible species exist
• Further work  necessary
• Tautog?
• Increased stocking densities (cunner)
• Behavior selection possible (all species)?
• Breeding programs (all species)?
• Vector considerations (lumpfish & stickleback)
• Disease interactions (bacterial & viral)
• Containment & Co cultivation strategies (hides)
• Lou Van Guelpen (ARC)
• Amber Garber (HMSC)
• Barb MacKinnon (NB Lung Association)
• Mick Burt (UNB)
• Pat Reynolds (GIFAS, Norway) 
• 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.

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
Dose control

Air actuated
valves with
pressure relief
Port &
500 litre 316 stainless batch
steel tank c/w mixer for controllers
potable water flush after for accurate
H2O2 & for all alternative dosing
bath therapeutants
Controlled dosing - consistently
Monitoring & control,
measuring & recording
Accurate & representative
oxygen monitoring essential
H2O2 calibration of well prior to
first treatments – “hot spot”
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
Treatment 23/03/2010
ppm H2O2

-3 0 4 7 10 13 17 20 23 26 30 33 36 39 42 45

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
Focus 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)
• ALPHAMAX early years vs cage sizes
• Toxicity and mortality
• Closed Treatment Trends
• Optimization projects
• Resistance trends
• Regulations and future
Sea lice treatment options before
• 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
40m vs 160m circle
How big are these big units…
40 000/750=53 Vik i Sogn

157 m circomference
-40 000 m3

300 m2*2,5m=750m3
ALPHAMAX works on all stages of lice
Organophosphates Chitin synthesis inhibitor Pyrethroides Avermectines

Free swimming in sea Stuck on the fish

Teflubenzuron (Ektobann)
Diflubenzuron (Releeze vet)
Deltamethrin (ALPHA MAX )
Cypermethrin (Betamax)
Emamectin benzoate (SLICE)
Moving on fish
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

Slide 12
Acute toxicity of deltamethrin after 30 min
bath treatment, Atlantic salmon at 12 C
% mortality

100 75 50 25 15 5 15, 15,
18 C 4 C
Concentration (ppb) hour
Slide 14
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).
Pharmaq diffusor Flotør 10 liter 20mm slangenippel 20mm slange til bå
Tau 12mm

50mm PVC or flex hose


3m Alphamax


End cap w/lead

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
• No behavioural
Full tarp Tx A

• 158 m polar circle

• 8,4 ˚C
• Rantex full tarp total B
volume 22000 m3 (?)
• 15 bottles ALPHA MAX
• Estimated concentration
1.7 ppb deltamethrin
• Conc. drop from 15 min,
likely due to organic
• Efficacy 80%
Density : ALPAHAMAX efficacy vs biomass

Kg / m3

• Efficacy is impacted above a certain density

– Likely limit: 80-100 kg/m3
AMX 012.10 FT
Full tarp Tx

Position C
7 Doseringsslange
Concentration (ppb)

25m (C)
5 1,5m
3 3m
10 min 20 min 35min

Position B
Concentration (ppb)

0,8 1,5m 15m (B)
0,6 3m
Date: 02.09.10, Harriet Romstad
Fish size: 2074 g, 358 tons in total, tarpaulin (Plany)
10 min 20 min 35min

3,5 Fish starved for 3 days before treatment

Position A
3 Water temperature 13,1oC
5m (A)
Concentration (ppb)

Bottom ring lifted to ca 3 meters, total volume in
2 1,5m
tarpaulin 22 000m3
1 Oxygenation using Net-ox : 2 stk 15*15+ 1 stk 12*9
0,5 18 bottles of ALPHA MAX distributed using 9 min.
10 min 20 min 35min
God Effekt
New major sea lice project with several
stake holders: Topilouse
• Proper assessment of tarps and currents, small and larger scale
• Well boat optimization
• Optimized counting
• Safety
We 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.
1 Framme i brønn
30 ton in well Bak i brønn
0,8 Losseslange
Sample location:
0,6 Blue: Fwd in well
Red: Rear well

0,4 Orange: Discharge hose
2 min 5 min 10 min 20 min 30 min 45 min 60 min Framme i brønn
60 ton in well Bak i brønn

2 min 5 min 10 min 20 min 30 min 45 min 60 min

• Pyrethroids and DNA tracer parallell results

• Joint project to find out more about the
pyrethroids (Novartis and PHARMAQ)
ALPHAMAX, optimization of sampling and
• 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 labs
Teoretical Lab 1 Lab 2

SW, glass, standard

Sample 13 Terapi 022.10 FO-5 2 2,4 PHQ bottle
SW, glass ware, other
Sample 14 Terapi 022.10 FO-5 2 2,3 1,2 bottle
SW, glass, standard
Sample 15 Terapi 022.10 FO-6 1 1,1 PHQ bottle
SW, glass ware, other
Terapi 022.10 FO-6 1 0,53 bottle

No difference between SW and FW

Further testing: hoses, well boat walls and piping,

General Practical experiences with well
• 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,

Bath treatment method allowed
Prod Skirt Closed tarp Well boat Regulation

Norway Most Few Few, Closed Tx mandatory

Off label from 01.11.11, unless
Raised nets increasing increasing skirt is proven*
UK Few Mainly Mainly Only closed allowed
Off label
Ireland Some Some Some All methods allowed
Faroes Most Few Few All methods allowed.
Closed from 01.05.11
Chile Most Few Few Intention was for
Off label closed, risk and labour
Mand. Raised (pred nets an issue)
net (4m)

Slide 36
Jan 1st 2011: Food Control Authority
demands closed treatment system with
any bath product
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
•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.
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



avg. ad. females






2008 2009 2010

Average Worst region Best region

Sea Lice Drug use, annually



4000 organofosfater
kg aktiv substans

peroksid x 1000

3000 kitinsyntesehemmere

2000 emamektin



• AMX continues to be an important tool

• Reduced sensitivity to pyrethroids and the other
drug classes are spreading
• Strong focus on optimised treatments (full
Thank you for your attention!


quality team spirit


Interox® Paramove® 50
Salmon Lice Control
Regulatory Requirements

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc.


Progress 2010

Regulatory Situation – Historical Perspective

Where we are now

Where we need to be

ACFFA Research Plan 2011

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 2

Solvay – A Global Leader in Hydrogen Peroxide
worldwide Hydrogen Peroxide Facilities


Brazil Australia

Hydrogen Peroxide Facility

Aquaculture Site

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 3

Benefits of Interox Paramove 50

for adult and pre-adult lice
Environmentally friendly
Decomposes to water and oxygen
No residue
No withdrawal period
Application dose and control easy

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 4

Drawbacks of Interox Paramove 50

Not as effective on Chalimus

Careful dose control essential

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 5

Hydrogen Peroxide Analysis - Development

New test kit will be available Spring 2010

Easy to use

e Digital Readout

Low Cost

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 6

Treatment Efficacy – Optimization:

0% Salmon Mortality 100%


0% Lice Mortality 100%


0% Lice Removal 100%

Increasing therapeutic dose

800 mg/l Dose

1500 mg/l 2000mg/l
20 min 20 min 40 min
10°C 10°C 18°C

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 7

Interox® Paramove® 50
Regulatory Landscape
History of Interox Paramove Hydrogen Peroxide Regulatory
Approvals for Salmon Lice Control
–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

–Re-introduced in Norway under emergency use permit
–Re-introduced in Scotland under emergency use permit

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 9

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 determination
Dispersion studies
Adverse effects

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 10

ACFFA Program - 2010

Development of Integrated Pest Management

Program for Salmon Lice Control
Use of well boats for salmon treatment
Emergency registration of Interox Paramove 50
Dispersion studies and modeling of treatment
chemical discharges from well boat and
Efficacy of hydrogen peroxide for salmon lice

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 11

New Brunswick -2010

Emergency registration obtained
Well boats introduced and crews trained
Supply chain established
Interox Paramove treatment regime established (after rocky start !!!)
Dye studies on well boats undertaken
Lice treatment data collected
Successful treatments achieved
These are very impressive achievements in
such a very short time !!!

Where do we go from here ?

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 12

Hydrogen Peroxide Registration

Emergency registration expires June 2010

Options are:

1.Seek extension of emergency registration

2. Pursue full registration of Interox Paramove 50

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 13

PMRA Registration Process

Pre-registration consultation

Program to complete data sets

Compilation of submission package

Formal submission

Review by PMRA


Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 14

PMRA Requirements

Pre-submission Meeting;

Submit all the information on therapeutant and its

intended use:
Published literature
Solvay Chemicals proprietary studies
Solvay Chemicals planned studies
New Brunswick studies

PMRA will review and indicate what additional

information will be required
Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 15
PMRA Requirements

Product Chemistry
Occupational Exposure
Environmental Fate
Environmental Toxicity

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 16

PMRA Requirements _ Potential Shortcomings

Will not know exactly what PMRA will require

until after the pre-consultation meeting -

Fullregistration process likely to take many

many months rather than weeks

Copyright 2010, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 17

Iain McEwen & James Hoare
Bioassays undertaken on request of the
product manufacturer and/or farm company

Methodology based on that detailed in

SEARCH handbook for emamectin benzoate
Bioassay “Must Haves”:
 5 doses required  Lice for test must be Pre
 Concentration range –Adult II stage
chosen must elicit some  1:1 Male to Female ratio
response from the lice  All in all requires the
 One of the doses must collection of ~ 250 lice
result in a 100% per bioassay
(affected) response
Product Active Ingredient Range chosen (active)
0, 31.3, 62.5, 125, 250, 500, 1000
Slice emamectin benzoate 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

 Established procedure
 Yields a rapid result
 Knowledge of the
mechanism of
resistance is not
 Simple to carry out in
a laboratory situation

 Main types of bioassay
carried out
 AMX and Salmosan
became available to the
farms more recently
than the other

 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 likely
treatment efficacy on the farm

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,
 In other words which of the available (bath)
treatments will work best.

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

 Suitable containers
 Rounded/curved forceps
 Sieves with suitable
 Method of
 Method of aeration

April 2008
 Collect lice on site
 Collect sufficient numbers
 Remove lice from
anaesthetised fish gently
and transfer to the
collection vessel using
 Avoid contaminating lice
collection water with
mucus from the fish.
 Do not collect lice from
harvest fish that have been
 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
 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
Soft plastic containers can
be cut into manageable
pieces with shears, and
lice easily removed and
1. Calibrated balance accurate
to 3 decimal places
(azamethiphos only).
2. 0.2 to 1 ml automatic pipette
and tips
3. 1x 50ml volumetric flask
4. 1x 1000ml volumetric flasks
5. 2 x 50ml syringes
1. 1 x 1 ml syringe
2. 1 x 50ml syringe or 100 ml
measuring cylinder
3. 1 x 20 L plastic container
4. 1 x 5 L plastic container

Solution Active conc*. Quantity Source Volume and diluents

Salmosan as Azamethiphos
50ml vol flask diluted
Stock solution 200ppm 0.01g Azamethiphos
with IMS
1000ml vol flask diluted
Dose solution 0.1ppm 0.5ml Stock sol.
with seawater

20000ml tub diluted
Stock solution 500ppm 20g Salmosan
with freshwater
5000ml container
Dose solution 0.1ppm 1ml Stock sol.
diluted with seawater

0.1ppm azamethiphos (equivalent to 0.2ppm SALMOSAN)

Note that some time may be required to allow azamethiphos to dissolve thoroughly in IMS

 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.

 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”
 Discard any lice which do not
‘swim off’ when dropped in
 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

 Carry out the rinsing and cleaning
steps described below, on first the
“Control” lice and then the “Test”
 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 to

forceps, taking care not to damage the lice. Details of numbers of healthy
(active), moribund (abnormal behaviour or inactive) and inactive lice are

The proportion of lice adversely affected is expressed as a %, with any

consequent mortality/morbidity in the controls accounted for by Schneider
Orelli's formula, and with confidence limits determined by standard Binomial statistics as
outlined by E. B. Wilson in 1927 with a correction for continuity.

Quick assessment only so as not to adversely affect timing of subsequent dishes or

viability if ambient temperatures are warm.

 Methods may be modified when larger numbers of unsorted lice are
 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

The SLICE Sustainability Project


Best-practice treatment principles:
Sea lice resistance management, 2010
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,


In September 2000, Intervet/Schering-Plough

The SLICE Sustainability Project
Animal Health published a technical bulletin
entitled Sea Lice Resistance Management (with Protect, conserve, renew and succeed
particular reference to avermectins).


Since then, salmon farms around the world have
successfully used SLICE® (emamectin benzoate)
1. Collaboration
to control sea lice infestations in salmon. After
nearly a decade of SLICE use, some sea lice
Strictly apply area management agreements
resistance or tolerance to in-feed treatments with
that include all-in/all-out stocking and
SLICE has been reported in several countries,
with the exception of Canada’s West Coast. fallowing to eliminate the transfer of sea lice
from one generation of fish to the next.
Still today, SLICE remains effective in many areas;
it is the treatment of choice and is preferred over Monitor the sea lice population within the
bath treatments due to its ease of application, whole area to help determine the best time
duration of efficacy and effect on all life stages of to treat.
sea lice.

Follow established treatment thresholds or

After long-term exclusive use of any chemothera-
consult local recommendations, and for
peutant, reduced susceptibility may be expected.
maximum effectiveness, agree on product
It then becomes more important than ever to
employ best-practice treatment procedures to selection, timing and rotation options.
ensure maximum efficacy. This bulletin is a guide Develop a written agreement so everyone
to best-practice principles based on observation is clear about the protocols.
of field results over the course of many years, as
well as emerging techniques that are now being Hold meetings and share data with other
applied to help with the treatment decision farmers in the area.
process. A guide like this cannot, however, cover
all the variables that a veterinarian must consider
when making treatment decisions.
The SLICE Sustainability Project


2. Planning (See Figure 1)

Develop a sea lice control strategy within Where not stipulated by legislative authority,
a Veterinary Health Plan (VHP) that is specific establish trigger levels for treatment based
to each site in the area, but also consider the on the numbers of sea lice.
VHPs of all sites within the area. Regarding
sea lice management, these should include,
but not be restricted to, the following: 3. Sensitivity Monitoring — Bioassays

Bioassays are recommended as part of

Seek regulatory permission to use all available
best-practice principles, but they are not
licensed medicines, even if one or more may
a definitive tool to be used when making
not be considered for use at the outset.
treatment decisions.

Consider the use of non-medicinal techniques,

Field experience has made it clear that
such as wrasse.
the LC50 or EC50 values determined from
bioassays on sea lice are not an entirely
Use the best available techniques to
accurate predictor of resistance, but
determine the sensitivity of sea lice to the
bioassay values are among the best tools
medicines being considered for use. (See
currently available.
the section on bioassays.)

Bioassays should be viewed as one tool

Prepare a treatment plan prior to stocking
among several that veterinarians should
the site with fish. This should include the
use to decide when a particular medicine
medicines to be used and their rotation.
may or may not be effective and when it is
(See the section on the rotation of
time to consider changing to a treatment
with a different mode of action.

Coordinate the timing of treatments for

The routine use of bioassays, coupled
the selected medicines.
with treatment monitoring as described
in the next section, should make it
Have trained staff monitor sea lice numbers
possible to produce records that can be
weekly throughout the year in accordance
used to correlate treatment success with
with published protocols.
bioassay results.
Best-practice treatment principles:
Sea lice resistance management, 2010



a strategy

Sea lice

Measure Design a
program control control
effectiveness management program


1 2 3 4
Develop a strategy Design a control program Implement control program Measure program effectiveness

• Form area management • Embed control program • Write standard operating • Record all bioassay results
agreement into veterinary health plan procedure (SOP) for program
management procedures • Analyze feed and record
• Decide on stocking policy • Obtain permission for all • Lice counting
available licensed medicines • Sampling • Analyze flesh and record
• Coordinate fallowing
• Feeding
• Include non-medicinal • Monitor and record every
• Treatment triggers treatment according to plan
• Agree on lice- measures
monitoring protocol
• Provide training; • Record any deviation from
• Determine sensitivity implement SOPs
• Adjust strategy in light of sea lice to available plan and reason
of the database information medicines and parameters • Carry out bioassays in
of use • Create database of
all areas to be farmed
all information
• Write down treatment • Coordinate treatments
regimen to be used for • Regularly review information;
whole cycle adjust strategy as needed
• Carry out treatments in
accordance with plan
• Prepare a rotation plan
Best-practice treatment principles:
Sea lice resistance management, 2010


How to use Bioassays Analyze feed that was administered to

fish to ensure the target dose was included
• Ideally, bioassays should be conducted
in the diet.
according to a published protocol. Further
information on protocols can be found within
Take samples of flesh 24 hours post-
the Sealice Resistance to Chemotherapeutants
treatment and freeze. Then, if required,
— A handbook in resistance management,
analyze the samples to check for therapeutic
Search Project (QKK2-CT-00809) or within the
levels of emamectin.
paper entitled “Optimization and field use of
a bioassay to monitor sea lice Lepeophtheirus
Record sea lice numbers 3 weeks post-
salmonis sensitivity to emamectin benzoate”
treatment and compare against the
by Jillian D. Westcott, Henrik Stryhn, John F.
pre-treatment number and bioassay results.
Burka and K. Larry Hammell in Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms, Vol. 79:119–131, 2008.
Analyze the results and make adjustments,
if necessary, to the strategy and medication
• 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.
5. General Husbandry
With so many variables, it may be difficult to
compare results among laboratories using
Administer the correct dose of the licensed
different protocols, but the fundamental
formulation for the full treatment period as
rationale for using bioassays remains.
described in the manufacturer’s data sheet.
Any deviations should be recorded.

4. Monitoring Keep nets clean to ensure good water

exchange, prevent the build-up of sea lice
Record the results of the bioassay to
within the pen and facilitate good clearance
check the sensitivity of sea lice in the area
of medicines after bath treatments.
to be treated.

Do not use holding cages at harvest stations;

Record sea lice numbers weekly and,
it may unnecessarily harbor sea lice.
particularly, prior to each treatment.

Whenever fish are moved using fish pumps, Simultaneously treat all fish on the farm
use sea lice filters on the pumps. to reduce the likelihood of leaving a
reservoir of untreated lice.
Well boats used to move fish out of a
management area should be operated only Feed medicated with SLICE should be
with closed valves. the sole source of feed for the 7-day
treatment period.

6. Medicated Feeding Withhold feed from the population for

24 hours before treatment.
Make sure fish are eating before treating
with an oral medicine. Bacterial or viral
Carefully monitor the feeding response.
disease, heavy sea lice infestation or
environmental conditions can reduce fish
Carry out sea lice counts for 3 weeks
appetite and feed consumption. Treating
post-treatment; if the efficacy is not as
orally when fish have reduced appetites is
desired, consider immediate use of a bath
not advised because they may not consume
treatment (i.e., a treatment with a different
enough feed to get the proper dose rate.
mode of action on the same cohort of
sea lice).
Remove, where possible, non-feeders
within the population being treated,
since they can harbor sea lice after an
7. The Rotation of Chemotherapeutants
in-feed treatment. with Different Modes of Action

Check the accuracy of the biomass to Sea lice, like other parasites on farmed
ensure that the correct dosage is calculated. animals, have the ability to develop tolerance
or resistance to the active ingredients in the
Avoid making changes in your regular medicines used to control them. To slow
feeding practices during oral treatment. the development and minimize the impact
Changing feed type or pellet size, for of resistance, it is suggested that strategic
example, may negatively affect intake rotation of chemotherapeutants/medicines
and absorption of SLICE. be employed.
Best-practice treatment principles:
Sea lice resistance management, 2010


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.

W W W. A Q U A . I N T E R V E T. C O M

Specific product details such as indications, withdrawal

time, etc., may vary by country. Please refer to your
local package insert for details or contact your local
Intervet/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.

The SLICE Sustainability Project

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.

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.


protect succeed

Protecting fish — and the world’s salmon industry —
from a costly and resilient parasite

Sea lice are naturally occurring parasites salmon industry. Despite these advances,
that live in the ocean and threaten the the risk of sea lice infestation and related
health and welfare of salmon. Poor sea losses remains high as some strains of the
lice control can lead to poor growth and parasite become more tolerant to the few
feed efficiency, as well as high mortality. therapeutics available.
They can also stress fish and make
them more susceptible to bacterial and Now more than ever, therapeutics such as
viral infections. SLICE are essential for successful salmon
production — not only to protect salmon
Sea lice infestation levels vary with from sea lice but also to protect the
farm location, salinity levels, stocking economic viability and sustainability of the
rates, proximity to sources of sea lice, world’s salmon industry. It is, therefore,
water temperature and the management imperative to follow best practices and
practices used by farms in specific maximize the impact of each treatment.
bay-management areas. If not effectively
controlled, they can cost the salmon Strategic rotation programs, diagnostics,
industry tens of millions of euros fallowing between production cycles,
each year. all-in/all-out single-year class stocking
policies, coordinated area-wide treatments
The launch of SLICE in 2000 and the more and biological controls (wrasse) will go a
recent reintroduction of effective bath long way toward building sustainable sea
treatments have dramatically reduced the lice control programs.
economic impact of sea lice on the global
The SLICE Sustainability Project


• 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.

• 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.
Conserving the efficacy of SLICE and
other tools for effective sea lice control



More than a decade ago, Since then, integrated and sustainable

Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health sea lice management programs involving
developed SLICE, which brought sea SLICE have proved to be highly effective
lice control to unprecedented levels in major salmon-producing countries —
for efficacy and dependability. not only for controlling sea lice but also
for conserving the effectiveness of SLICE
As revolutionary as SLICE was, however, and other valuable therapeutics used for
scientists knew that sea lice — like sea lice control.
any parasite that threatens animals in
production agriculture — had the Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health’s
potential to become less sensitive to proactive educational initiatives and
the product over time. collaborative efforts with farmers, feed
companies and diagnostic laboratories
For this reason, when SLICE and its are widely credited for the long-term
new-generation molecule were introduced success of SLICE on most of the world’s
to salmon producers in 2000, scientists at salmon farms.
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
published specific guidelines for sea lice After 10 years, SLICE remains the world’s
resistance management to help conserve No. 1 product for sea lice control.
the product’s efficacy.



renew succeed

Renewing the strength and dependability

of a proven partner

Why participate in The SLICE Sustainability To help with this important effort,
Project? Simply put, the world’s salmon Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
industry would be challenged to raise is working closely with feed companies
healthy, profitable fish without SLICE and and regional laboratories to analyze
other effective therapeutics. feed samples and ensure that feed is
prepared with the correct concentration
Parasites threaten efficient, economic of SLICE. The labs also analyze fish tissue
production of all farmed animals, not just samples to evaluate the intake of feed
salmon. Unfortunately, because of the containing SLICE and the absorption of
technical challenges and high costs the active ingredient.
associated with product development, the
animal health industry has very few new These efforts are designed to avoid or
anti-parasitic compounds in the research minimize the spread of sea lice resistance
pipeline. Even when new therapeutics while maximizing the effectiveness of
do become available, it’s likely that they SLICE and other products needed for
could lose effectiveness over time if effective control.
they are not used judiciously or if new
strains of sea lice emerge.

It is, therefore, essential for producers,

diagnostic laboratories, universities and S U S TA I N A B L E S O L U T I O N S
allied industries to learn from past sea
• Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health routinely
lice control efforts, protect the products
The SLICE Sustainability Project

works with salmon producers and veterinarians to

that are available and, where necessary,
conduct comprehensive reviews of their sea lice
take steps to renew the efficacy of
control programs to ensure that past and present
proven compounds. 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).

Figure 1. Example of successful sea lice
monitoring program involving SLICE.

EB = emamectin benzoate, the active

ingredient in SLICE

Alternative treatment
recommended. Consult
product manufacturer
for treatment and
monitoring guidelines.

Review history and efficacy

of farm’s sea lice treatments.
SLICE Site treatment,
Treat only if sea lice recommended lice-clearance
populations meet locally data
recommended thresholds.

Sample feed Sample fillet

containing 24 hours after
SLICE. treatment.

Analyze EB Analyze EB
in medicated in flesh.

• In 2009, Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health drew

on its global experience to develop a sustainable sea lice Review treatment
management program for salmon farmers in Chile,
results and adjust
who suffered widespread treatment failures with generic
emamectin. The program gives farmers additional program, as needed.
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.


• 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.

Questions being addressed:

What is the precise relationship between tissue

concentrations of emamectin and field efficacy
where sea lice have reduced sensitivity?

What are the best rotation schemes for SLICE

and other sea lice products?

Are tolerant sea lice as robust and prolific as

naïve sea lice?

How stable are resistance genes in treated sea

lice populations?
conserve Succeeding through proactive, judicious
sea lice control programs

There is no silver bullet for sea lice Recognize the full value of
control. Whether it’s a new farm with effective control programs —
naïve sea lice populations or a well- reduced treatment costs, reduced
established operation with a history of risk of failed treatments, no
resistance, it is still possible to develop sub-lethal dosing (which can
lasting, sustainable sea lice control increase populations of tolerant
programs with SLICE and other tools. sea lice).

Keys to successful sea lice control: Restore and retain the efficacy of

Continuously monitor sea valuable therapeutics, which are

lice populations. increasingly hard to replace.

Measure and record sensitivity Follow the six steps for success of

patterns on a site and regional basis. The SLICE Sustainability Project

(beginning on page 10).

Make sure your staff is effectively

Your Intervet/Schering-Plough
trained and that all proper
Animal Health representative will work
management procedures are in
with you to customize a program that
place for each product available.
meets the specific needs, challenges and
objectives of your operation.

The SLICE Sustainability Project

A Six-step Strategy to protect, conserve,

re new and s u c c e e d


cooperation of farmers, feed suppliers
and pharmaceutical companies.

Your Intervet/Schering-Plough
Effective sea lice control begins with a
strategic, integrated approach — one Animal Health representative can

that involves good planning plus the help coordinate these efforts and
synchronize practices.


• 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
The SLICE Sustainability Project

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.


• 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.


Constant monitoring is the foundation

of The SLICE Sustainability Project.
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health BEST PRACTICES
works with laboratories in your area*
to provide reliable testing services to: • Use sea lice sensitivity monitoring

(through bioassays) to determine which

Monitor your progress
treatments will be effective.

Guard against future resistance

• Monitor the efficacy of every
Maximize your return on investment. treatment against the plan.

An Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health

• Analyze feed to ensure correct levels
representative can also work with you to
fine-tune sampling procedures for a more of SLICE were included in the diet.
accurate analysis.

• 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

The SLICE Sustainability Project

against pre-treatment sea lice numbers.

• Analyze results and make adjustments

as needed to the treatment plan.


*Ask an Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health

representative for the list of laboratories participating
in The SLICE Sustainability Project.
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
As producers know, good basic husbandry
will reduce stress and minimize the risk help minimize losses.

of infection from viruses, bacteria and


• 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.


• 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.
differently from feed formulated to
maximize growth. For example,
emphasis should be to ensure there is
a uniform uptake of medicated feed
Good feed management can go a
across all fish, and feed containing SLICE
long way toward optimizing
should be used as the sole ration (100%)
treatment efficiency and ensuring
for the full 7-day treatment period.
the correct administration of feeds
containing SLICE.
Before even considering the use of an
in-feed medication, be sure that the fish
It’s important to keep in mind that
are feeding well.
medicated feed must be managed


• Treat all fish on the farm at the same • Conduct sea lice counts 3 to 4
time to avoid creating a reservoir of weeks post-treatment. If efficacy is
untreated sea lice. not satisfactory, consider immediate
use of bath treatment with a product
• The total dosage of SLICE required should offering a different mode of action.
be distributed throughout the daily ration,
based on the daily feed rate of the fish for
the full 7 days of treatment.

balance what’s needed to control sea lice
while keeping population levels of sea lice
acceptable to the wild salmon and sea
trout interests.
Finding new, effective, safe and
environmentally friendly products to
combat sea lice and other parasites is When planning a rotation strategy for

becoming more costly and difficult SLICE and other parasiticides, consider

with time. the physical conditions of the site/area,

the sensitivity of sea lice to the proposed

It is, therefore, essential to use treatment, the economics of treating and

consistently reliable products that meet the potential for stress during different

stringent international standards for phases of the production cycle.

quality. These products need to be used

properly, responsibly and judiciously to Your Intervet/Schering-Plough

ensure long-term effectiveness. Animal Health representative can help

you manage your sea lice treatments

To help maintain product performance, for optimum performance, safety

farms should carefully comply with and returns.

established trigger levels for initiating

treatment. This approach will help
The SLICE Sustainability Project


• 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.


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.
The SLICE Sustainability Project

• 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.

*Check your local package insert for details.


Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, Merck and Schering-Plough recently

based in Boxmeer, the Netherlands, is merged to create a stronger, more diverse
focused on the research, development, and more truly global company. This
manufacturing and marketing of animal not only benefits the company and its
health products. The company offers shareholders, but it also benefits the
customers one of the broadest, most millions of people around the world who
innovative animal health portfolios, rely on the company’s products and expect
spanning products to support perform- it to continue to deliver exceptional value.
ance and to prevent, treat and control
disease in all major farm and companion Today's Merck is working to help the
animal species. world be well. Through its medicines,
vaccines, biologic therapies, and consumer
In aquaculture, Intervet/Schering-Plough and animal products, the company works
is the world’s largest developer and with customers and operates in more than
marketer of pharmaceuticals and 140 countries to deliver innovative health
vaccines. Major products include the solutions. Merck also demonstrates its
parasiticide SLICE® (emamectin commitment to increasing access to
benzoate), as well as the antibiotic healthcare through far-reaching programs
AQUAFLOR® (florfenicol) and the vaccine that donate and deliver products to the
ranges AQUAVAC® and NORVAX®. people who need them. For more
information, visit
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health,
subsidiaries of Merck & Co., Inc.,
Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. For more
information, go to
Canada Chile

Ireland and the United Kingdom Norway

The SLICE Sustainability Project
For more information about
The SLICE® Sustainability Project,
contact your local
Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health
representative or call:





United Kingdom:

This publication contains information on

veterinary products based on international
registration dossiers and may refer to products
that are either not available in your country
or are marketed under a different trade
name. In addition, the safety and efficacy
data for a specific product may be different
depending on local regulations. For more
information, read the product labeling that
applies to your country or contact your
local Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health


SLICE® are property of Intervet International
B.V. or affiliated companies or licensors and
are protected by copyrights, trademark and
other intellectual property laws.

Copyright © 2010. Intervet International B.V.

All rights reserved.