1 reply to this topic

[Swinsc]

http://www.heraldsco...salmon.21946288

Not a good read is it?
K.

[Terran]

Swinsc,

 

This came up in the "Aquaculture Ass" topic, as well. It is a sickening read.

 

I recall when the Jackson report came out, the Aquaculture industry jumped to flaunt it's (original) findings in the media.

 

However, it seems the study was "flawed" or mis-interpretted.

 

The new paper demonstrates that the impact of sea lice on wild salmon causes a much higher loss (34%) of those returning to rivers in the west of Ireland, than the 1% loss suggested heretofore in the Jackson paper. The new study entitled “Comment on Jackson et al. "Impact of Lepeophtheirus salmonis infestations on migrating Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts at eight locations in Ireland with an analysis of lice-induced marine mortality" is published by Krkošek, et al. (2013) in The Journal of Fish Diseases.  It points out fundamental methodological errors made by Jackson et al. (2013). Following a re-analysis of the same data, it shows that it incorrectly concluded that sea lice play a minor, perhaps even negligible, role in salmon survival and that this finding emerged following three fundamental methodological errors.

I wonder how quickly the Aquaculture Industry moves to correct it's assertions and accept the "new" interpretation of the study?

 

You can see that happening now.

 

Terran