ISSUE 31 n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2009 $5.00

UNDARIA – IS IT PEST OR PROFIT?

AQUACULTURE NZ BUILDS ON FOUNDATIONS

INTO KIWI TUCKER

PAUATUCK

2 n NZ AQUACULTURE n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09

An informative journal for the aquaculture industry

Published by:VIP PUBLICATIONS LTD

4 Prince Regent Drive,Half Moon Bay, Manukau 2012

Ph 09 533 4336 Fax 09 533 4337Email keith@skipper.co.nzadvertising@skipper.co.nz

or stephanie@skipper.co.nzwww.nzaquaculture.co.nz

General: Reproduction of articles and materials published in New Zealand Aquaculture in whole or part, is permitted provided the source and author(s) are acknowledged. However, all photographic material is copyright and written permission to reproduce in any shape or form is required. Contributions of a nature relevant to the aquaculture industry are welcomed and industry participants are especially encouraged to contribute. Articles and information printed in New Zealand Aquaculture do not necessarily reflect the opinions or formal position or the publishers unless otherwise indicated. All material published in New Zealand Aquaculture is done so with all due care as regards to accuracy and factual content, however, the publishers cannot accept responsibility for any errors and omissions which may occur. New Zealand Aquaculture is produced bi-monthly.

3 EDITORIALA year in review and one ahead

4 NEWSA look at what’s happening in the industry

6 AQUACULTURE FEEDA New Zealand breakthrough

8 ACROSS THE DITCH – AQUACULTURE BECOMES THE VICTIM Is it the canary down the coal mine?

9 THE FUTURE OF NZ’S SEAFOOD & AQUACULTURE INDUSTRYWakatu Incorporation leads the way

10 OCEAN LAW – Undaria ReviewTurning a pest into profit

11 FINDING THE SOURCE OF ALL EVILSTracking down the smoking guns

12 A DATE WITH THE ALGAE TECHNICIANSDeveloping culture for shellfish larvae

15 YOUR FARM AND CLIMATE CHANGEWill it affect production cycles?

CONTENTS

EDITOR:Keith Ingram

ASSISTANT EDITOR:Peter Barclay

MANAGER:Vivienne Ingram

ADVERTISING:Hamish Stewart

DESIGNER:Rachel Walker

CONTRIBUTORS:Chris Choat, Vince Scully, John Mosig, Justine Inns, Dorothy-Jean McCoubrey, David Cooper, Andrew Morgan

PRINTER: GEON

DISTRIBUTION: By subscriptionand insertion with Professional Skipper

6 9

ISSN 1176-5402 ISSN 1176-8657 (web)

ISSUE 31 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2009

$5.00

UNDARIA – IS IT PEST OR PROFIT?AQUACULTURE NZ BUILDS ON FOUNDATIONS

INTO KIWITUCKERINNTTTTOOOOOOO KKKKKKIIIIWWWIII

PAUATUCK

14

ON THE COVER:Paua tuck into

kiwi tucker

PHOTO:By Keith Ingram

TM

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 3

EDITORIAL

Aquaculture New Zealand marked its second anniversary at an AGM in Blenheim last month. It was an opportunity to refl ect on our progress over the past year.

Building on the foundations established in the fi rst, the organisation’s efforts for the past 12 months were directed at four main areas of focus which underpin our growth strategy:• An independent review of the aquaculture legislation• Fast-tracking of aquaculture development in a number of

priority regions• Progressing the market development strategy• Establishing a multi-year research and development

programme aimed at growing the sectorWorking closely with the Government has, and remains,

an important focal point for the sector. There is no doubt the Government wishes to see the sector progress and recognises the current regulatory environment is a barrier to our shared goal.

The review of the regulatory environment for aquaculture is still working its way through the legislative system. What is obvi-ous is that the Government’s support for the sensible develop-ment of the sector has not diminished over the year. This support is refl ected in the appointment of a technical advisory group (TAG) to provide advice on proposals and possible legislative developments. The TAG is chaired by the Hon Doug Kidd.

This process is similar to the path chosen for the review of the RMA – an act the government acknowledges has had an effect on the development of aquaculture. The broad functions of the TAG are to generate proposals for reform of aquaculture legislation, review any advice or proposals Ministers may choose to provide them and report directly to Ministers through written recommendations. The TAG is to provide recommendations in a written report to Ministers by September 30 on proposals for aquaculture reform.

Building strong relationships with the regions that have an affi nity with aquaculture is of great importance to the organisation. We will continue to work closely with all regions, particularly those close to completing their aquaculture planning processes and develolpment strategies.

Within the strategy was the establishment of a Contestable Fund as part of the Government’s programme for partnering with industry. The contestable fund was administered on a dollar-for-dollar match basis with a total of $600,000 being made available to individual companies. Projects had to refl ect the strategic priorities of the Market Development Strategy and

provide ‘spill over’ benefi ts to the sector. The fi rst annual application and awarding process

has been completed with fi ve projects from four companies being supported and launched in June. The success of the initiative was refl ected in that the fund was signifi cantly over-subscribed with keen interest from multiple participants in the sector.

Qualitative and quantitative market research was managed in North America, South Korea and Australia with the initial phase focused on sizing and prioritising specifi c segments in relation to consumption demographics and market structures. Phase two examined usage, knowledge and attitudes across the value chain. The results, after analysis, will be distributed through a communications programme to the sector.

An important part of the market development programme was the second phase of environmental benchmarking of the New Zealand aquaculture sector. This has been completed with the report due at the end of August. The report will be supported by the earlier desktop review and will provide a benchmark of the sector’s Environmental Codes of Practice against existing international standards for best practice and environmental legislation.

Since the release of the Aquaculture Research Strategy in June we have been working with SeaFIC in the development of a wider seafood industry research strategy. This is being in tandem with the work we, and other sectors, have been undertaking with the Primary Growth Partnership development team at MAF in the implementation of the programme. While details have yet to be determined it is expected that the fi rst projects within the partnership will begin at the start of the next calendar year. The Primary Growth Partnership is a new fund worth $30 million in the fi rst year, and scaling up to $70 million by the fi fth year. The Seafood Industry has been allocated $2 million per annum in the fi rst two years, with companies and organisations free to contest for a further $15 million. There has been signifi cant interest in this new programme.

Although there are a number of challenges facing the sector in the year ahead, there are also signifi cant opportunities – par-ticularly in regard to law reform, research investment, and market development. We will continue to work with industry and the government to improve the regulatory regime, and increase the investment in research and development, to grow the aquac-ulture sector towards and beyond its billion dollar goal.

A year in review AND THE ONE AHEAD

nn $30.00 for 6 issues

AQUACULTURE n 3

ISSUE 30 n JULY/AUGUST 2009

$5.00

COW POO KILLS KOURAARE SHELLFISH CONSUMERS AT RISK?DO REGULATIONS HELP OR HINDER?

KIWI REDFINEXPERTISEEXPORTED

SUBSCRIBE NOW TOSUBSCRIBE NOW TOName ________________________________________________________________________________

Address _____________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________ Postal code ______________

Email _______________________________________________________________________________

n n Enclose a cheque for ________________ n n Visa/Mastercard (only) _______________________

Card Number _________________________________________________________________________

Card Name __________________________________________________________________________

Signature __________________________________________________________Expiry date ——/——

GST No:68-684-757Post to:VIP Publications Ltd, 4 Prince Regent Drive, Half Moon Bay, Manukau, 2012

GUEST EDITORIAL BY MIKE BURRELL,CEO, AQUACULTURE NEW ZEALAND

NEWS

4 n NZ AQUACULTURE n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09

TROUT EGGS TO HELP FARMERSThe Brumby government has donated 500,000 rainbow trout eggs to help fi sh farmers hurt by the bushfi res earlier this year.

They are destined to help four farms in Marysville, Buxton and Murrindindi, which were directly affected by the destructive fi res.

These farms lost an estimated 220 tonnes of trout to the fi res and the Brumby government is keen to put the damaged businesses back on their feet.

To further accelerate rebuilding of trout stocks, trout farmers are also investigating the supply of trout eggs and fi ngerlings from Tasmanian fi sh farms.

The Victorian government recognises the important contribution of the trout farming sector in the Shire of Murrindindi through the supply of premium fi sh and as one of the largest employers in the region.

AQUACULTURE REFORM UNDERWAYFisheries Minister Phil Heatley and Environment Minister Nick Smith recently announced the appointment of the Aquaculture Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to provide expert input to the aquaculture reform process.

“The government is committed to helping the aquaculture industry reach its economic potential and supports its goal of generating $1 billion in sales by 2025,” Heatley said.

Dr Smith said aquaculture reform was part of phase II of the government’s wider Resource Management Act reform programme.

“The RMA is not working for the aquaculture industry. The changes made by the previous government have stalled the industry and need to be revisited. Resource law in the coastal environment is complex and that is why extra export support is needed to fi nd a durable solution,” Dr Smith said.

The aquaculture TAG will report to ministers by the end of September 2009. The ministers will report back to cabinet by the end of November with recommendations for improving the aquaculture regime, and a bill will be introduced to Parliament as soon as possible after that.

The move to reform has been welcomed by the aquaculture industry.

Aquaculture New Zealand chairman, Peter Vitasovich, says the short time frame allocated to the TAG is pleasing, because it prevents any further delays to addressing legislation holding back further development of the industry.

Other industry observers say the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) introduced by the previous government is continuing to address some technical problems with the current industry regime, but it does not address the big issues.

There are concerns that an industry goal of more than doubling its revenue by 2025 is

unachievable unless changes to the legislation are made.

The issues include the need to unlock coastal space available for aquaculture. More important, it is opening up the industry to farm a broader range of species.

Currently, just mussels, oysters and salmon are farmed. Beyond that, the industry is keen to develop scallops, kingfi sh and other fi n fi sh in farming operations, which would have strong domestic and international markets.

A NEED TO KEEP PACE WITH CHANGEWhile the value of Australian aquaculture has grown, the 21st Century challenges faced by the aquaculture industry must continue to be addressed.

Increased demands on aquaculture due to lost fi shery production and consumer desire for ‘Australian’ produce has further amplifi ed the need for production improvement.

A report on Australian fi sheries was released recently by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) and highlights a $63 million increase in the value of Australian aquaculture. The report reveals the value of Australian aquaculture production increased by eight per cent in 2007-08.

Australian Aquaculture Conference Chairman, Roy Palmer said the increase in aquaculture production is positive, however there is a need to keep pace with the changing environmental and economic factors that challenge the aquaculture industry.

“While the news of increased aquaculture production is very good news for Australia, we are still slipping regarding total tonnages when compared to international competitors.”

The conference will be held in Hobart 23-26 May 2010.

PLASTIC COMPANY UPGRADESAustralian plastic moulding company, Tooltech (Ploma) have, for the past 15

years, designed and produced the world’s most comprehensive and versatile range of shellfi sh grow-out trays and baskets. Known as the Aquatray and Aquapurse systems, they are used in many parts of the world in varied sea-state conditions.

The Company are currently in the process of changing their trading name and logo to TTPPlastics, and in conjunction have considerably upgraded their website (www.ttpplastics.com.au), providing more details of the products and their wide rangeof uses.

Whilst their range of environmentally friendly polymer aquaculture industry products are primarily used for oyster farming, they are also suitable for some modes of farming scallops, mussels, pearl oysters and abalone.

NEW CLIP FROM SEAPASeapa has released a new, extended clip, to add to its popular standard oyster cage clips.

As the name suggests, the extended clip is longer than the standard clip by 15cm – just enough for most users to get their whole hand between the line and basket.

The longer clip makes taking baskets off the line at lot easier, particularly when wearing gloves. The extended clip also take a more aggressive hold on the line so you can be sure it will stay where you put it.

NEW PROJECTS FOR CAWTHRONNelson’s Cawthron Institute is to use funding from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology to foster change and help the region become more sustainable.

The project involves collaboration with the Sustainable Cities Research Institute at the University of Northumbria in the UK, which has worked for over a decade on the development of sustainable cities and settlements.

Sustainable business group manager, Jim Sinner, says, “the project will target what is known as the ‘soft infrastructure’ of communities. By that we mean the networks and relationships that create the capacity of people to change the way they work and live.”

“Focusing on just the ‘hard infrastructure’ – such as the roads and public services – won’t get us to where we need to be. We need to advance understanding from ‘what needs to happen’ to ‘how to make it happen’,” he

Trout Farmer, Glen Dovaston

explains. “The issues we focus on will be chosen by the communities themselves.”

The research will be led by Dr Marg O’Brien, a social ecologist with over 20 years of experience working at the interface of communities and the environment, and Ian Challenger, who helped develop and implement environmental indicators for the Kaikoura community prior to joining Cawthron.

The project has strong links with four councils, district health board staff and community groups in Nelson, Takaka, Picton and Kaikoura.

Sinner says these groups will help develop, test and then implement new techniques to achieve change and measure progress.

Cawthron is also a partner in two other new projects that received funding recently, bringing the total new funding for the Institute’s work to $2.7 million, spread over six years.

The fi rst is led by the Centre for Ecological Economics at Massey University, and will work with Ngati Raukawa and Tauranga iwi to restore and enhance coastal ecosystems. Cawthron’s contribution will be understanding and modelling coastal interactions to help inform resource management decisions.

The second is led by NIWA and involves improving stormwater management in the Auckland region. Cawthron will provide resource economics, also to help inform decision-making.

This project builds on two years of work Dr Chris Batstone of Cawthron has worked for the Auckland Regional Council to estimate potential benefi ts to that community of improved coastal water quality.

SEALORD SELLS MARINE FARMSSealord has agreed to sell 249ha of its Marlborough marine farms to Sanford for $23.4m.

Spat growing on the farms and the young crop, forecast to be harvested from July 2010 onwards, is also included in the deal. However the price does not include crop on the farms that will be ready for harvest in the coming 12 months.

A joint announcement by Sanford and Sealord said Sanford would buy that crop when it was ready for harvest.

Sanford said the marine farms would add to its existing farms in the Marlborough Sounds, giving it access to increased space to grow greenshell mussels of about 5000 tonnes a year.

The purchase of the Sealord farms would help throughput at an automated mussel opening machine line in Havelock, developed by Sanford, almost double within three years.

Sealord said the sale of its farms in the Marlborough Sounds freed up capital

for investment in other areas. It would concentrate on developing its extensive mussel farm holdings in Tasman Bay and in the Coromandel.

The two companies said the deal refl ected a closer working relationship developed over recent years between them.

A toll mussel processing company in Tauranga – North Island Mussel Processing – developed by the two was undergoing a $23m upgrade which included automated mussel opening machines.

The companies said they had also agreed on cooperative catching arrangements for orange roughy and dory on the Chatham Rise, resulting in increased catching and processing effi ciencies that had benefi ted both companies.

CHRIS REELS IN A BIG ONEChris O’Halloran was fi shing near Swan Hill along the Murray River that separates NSW from Victoria in Australia’s Riverina region. Having landed a 60cm Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) he decided to tether it for the pot. Later, when he went to recover ‘dinner’, he was unable to haul in the tether line.

He thought the cod must have somehow wound the line around a snag. Just then the tension eased and a great head appeared from the water: the head of a 40kg, 1.2m cod. True to the axiom – big fi sh eat little fi sh – the larger cod had swallowed the tethered cod, which at 60cm was no midget in itself. Chris phoned a local farmer and a friend to help haul the monster from the water. After some quick photos the huge cod was released back into the water.

This is not the largest cod ever caught. The heaviest fi sh recorded was 113.6kg and measured 1.8m. It had an eye socket of 37mm. Over fi shing and altered river regimes for irrigation since the arrival of Europeans has restricted the environmental opportunities for such growth. Today, Chris’s

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 5

INVESTOR OUTLOOK POORWith the recent failure of the Australian Bight Abalone Group and generally deteriorating business conditions, some growers are beginning to wonder what’s next.

While the overall outlook is still regarded as very bright generally, fi nanciers are exercising caution with some operations.

ABA directors said the withdrawal of fi nanciers from the grower loan market, and a reduction in investment, were the decisive factors in making the decision they did.

The group’s independent Chairman, Tipene O’Regan, said the issues surrounding Great Southern and Timbercorp had affected the entire industry.

“The board does not have faith in the tax effective MIS model of fundraising going forward,” he said.

“Our investment infl ows for this year were down 77.6 percent from last year and 86.7 percent on our expectations.

“Whilst we could have drawn down on funds raised this year to continue operations we did not think that to do so would be in the best interest of those 2009 applicants, accordingly we have arranged to reimburse all of the 2009 application monies.”

fi sh is newsworthy. Fossil Murray cod skulls have been found with eye sockets of 56mm.

NEW PROJECTS TO BE ANNOUNCEDFive new projects from four New Zealand aquaculture companies were due to be launched by the end of July.

As part of the Government’s programme for partnering with industry, a total of $600,000 is being allocated to co-fund projects by Aotearoa Seafoods Ltd, Island Aquafarms Ltd, Pacifi ca Seafoods Ltd and The New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd.

The funding is for projects with the potential to drive industry growth over the medium to long term and will be administered on a dollar-for-dollar match basis.

SPENCER GULF AQUACULTURE TO EXPANDDepending on the outcome of new research, aquaculture will be used in Australia’s Spencer Gulf to farm more mussels, abalone and fi nfi sh.

Currently yellow tail kingfi sh are currently grown in the area but a $1.16m state and federal government research project is looking at other options.

The aim is increase the sustainability of the seafood industry.

Chris O’Halloran

As New Zealand’s aquaculture industry shows encouraging signs of substantial development a small Auckland company, with a wealth of crucial industry

knowledge, is positioning itself to supply one of this sector’s most vital needs.

In general food circles, Auckland based company EN Hutchinson Ltd, has already developed a respected name with giants in the industry but the growing needs of our aquaculture industry is where its future is fi rmly focussed.

Company director, Peter Hutchinson, studied aquaculture in Tasmania in the early 1990’s and on his return home, made every endeavour to work in the local industry wherever he could. He worked for both NIWA and the Ministry of Fisheries for a while and even spent some time at Kelly Tarlton’s.

He stepped into local aquaculture waters in the mid 1990’s working at a pilot scale snapper farm project

on Kawau Island. But real interest in the development of marine fi sh in captivity came at NIWA (MAF) in Wellington in the early 90’s where Peter worked under the guidance of the respected aquaculturalist, Mike Tait.

“He is a giant of a man in all respects, about seven foot tall and built like a sasquatch,” Peter says of his former mentor but his experience and involvement with New Zealand’s fi rst, and very successful, efforts to grow farmed snapper is something he’s never forgotten.

“They were very interesting times. They were some of the fi rst marine fi sh ever reared in New Zealand.”

Now, although snapper have become a major success story for Japanese fi sh farmers, commercial aquaculture production has never taken off in New Zealand, partly because wild snapper are still readily available here but also because of three letters that Peter almost spits out through clenched teeth – RMA. To cut a long and different story very short, “it’s just held us back,” Peter says.

Peter certainly doesn’t regret coming into the family business but if the bureaucrats had taken better notice of the success being achieved in aquaculture overseas, he might have had a different career path. To put it mildly, the Resource Management Act (RMA) changed a lot of things for a lot of people, he says.

But, quite apart from the political issues surrounding the RMA, the fact that snapper never fi nally took off for commercial aquaculture in New Zealand can’t all be blamed on the RMA and Peter fully recognises this. The general lack of interest in establishing farmed snapper had more to do with the low price of wild caught snapper compared to the cost of producing them on fi sh farms.

Over the years however, the frustrations experienced with the RMA have been “enormous”, he says.

“The number of times I’ve been involved with various projects and in dealing with people who were trying to get consents to get farms going … well … it’s … It’s a shame that the RMA became the focal point of the whole aquaculture industry in New Zealand … to the point where to do anything required up to 30 different permits or licences

AQUACULTURE FEEDa NZ breakthrough

BY PETER BARCLAY

6 n NZ AQUACULTURE n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 7

from central to local government … the Department of Conservation. It just absolutely strangled it, and it still does, although they are trying to work through it now.

“I think it’s been fi ve years since anyone was issued with a permit to put a sea cage in anywhere in New Zealand because of a blanket moratorium. The moratorium has been lifted but there’s too much red tape to power through to even look at it.

“The RMA really has hamstrung the New Zealand industry and it will continue to do so until it is sorted out. That is why New Zealand is so far behind the rest of the world as far as aquaculture is concerned. We’re 15 years behind at least, especially compared to places like Australia.”

Another big feature of the aquaculture scene in the late 1990s was NRM’s failed effort to produce aquaculture feed. Unfortunately the feed was not suitable due to a lack of extrusion technology/knowledge within the company, fi sh became ill and legal action followed. After that, NRM concentrated on its poultry and cattle food and the aquaculture industry continued to mostly import what it needed to grow fi sh.

“It was a setback for New Zealand aquaculture because it was done badly and it meant that no other major commercial organisation was prepared to stick their hand up and give it a go at making aquaculture feed.”

While Peter sees that event as signifi cant in terms of the history of the local industry he doesn’t see it as a major turning point for his own company because other factors were involved. He joined the family business in 1997 and the following year began their fi rst tentative efforts at making fi sh food by extrusion (primarily abalone feed). Extrusion is signifi cantly different to the method traditionally used to manufacture pellets for the agricultural sector in New Zealand which relies on pellet presses – different machines entirely.

Peter takes no pleasure at NRM’s lack of success in the business and is generous in weighing up its fi nal outcome. “Who knows,” he says. “Perhaps, if they had succeeded, they might have ended up as competition to us but we might also have ended up doing R & D for them.”

Due to an almost complete stall in new aquaculture ventures during this period – Hutchinson’s initial attempts at fi sh feed ground to a halt. Currently though, while still doing general food production, Hutchinson’s are also becoming fi rmly focussed on aquaculture feed and, with all he has personally experienced, Peter can see a bright future for the family business.

What made the Hutchinson approach so different was the fact that the extrusion production method fully cooked the ingredients as part of the production process. This meant a better end product, that lasted longer in water. It also enabled the inclusion of a wider range of content to the actual product mix and control over product density.

Now, for perhaps the fi rst time in New Zealand, the essential elements of real aquaculture knowledge coupled with signifi cant production capacity, were together under one roof. The fact that the operation was capable of doing short runs made it ideal for R & D projects, something the company is still heavily involved with today.

On the day we visited, the plant was in full scale production on a run of paua (abalone) food it calls ABMAX for Oceanz Blue of Bream Bay, Northland. This heavily researched product is produced by adding a carefully controlled blend of constituents into a hopper at the start of the extrusion process. The product contains cereals, fi sh meal, vegetable proteins, yeast extract, seaweed meal, humectant, food acid, fi sh oil, amino acids, vitamins and minerals and a mould inhibitor to protect it under storage.

ABMAX is the result of signifi cant research and its effectiveness has been heavily tested. When compared to other feeds, ABMAX shows paua achieve substantial growth gains.

The company proudly claims that the stability of the product is “so superb, that despite their best endeavours, even the world’s largest feed companies have been unable to successfully match our product in this respect.”

Hutchinson’s produce a wide range of steam extruded products, one of which might one day become a regular for bait fi shers while another, a starch based product, is a biodegradable replacement for polystyrene packaging.

The heart of its success not only rests with the investment its made in machinery but also the strenuous lengths it goes to get its products right. While many of the product contents come from items that can be bought off a shelf, the fi nal mix can only be combined by some human factors - real knowledge and experience. That’s something EN Hutchinson has a lot of.

Peter Hutchinson examines the final product

• Aquaculture Feeds

• Research and Medicated Feeds

• Aquaculture Consulting

• Feed Plant Development

E.N.HUTCHINSON LTDCC SSOOHUTTCCCCHHHHHHHIIIIINNNNNNNSSSSOON LT.H

Phone +64 9 527 0601www.enhutchinson.co.nzz

VIP

.AC

31

AQUACULTURE has become the victimBY JOHN MOSIG

G’day Kiwi. How’s it going over there? Bloody cold, eh? And a bit dry in some parts I hear. Here’s some news that will come as no surprise to you, but something the wider

public, thanks to elements of the Green Taliban, sprouting some unbalanced science, are, generally speaking, blissfully unaware of. Aquaculture is the victim of environmental degradation, not the cause of it.

Three fi sh farms in different parts of the Sunburnt Country have taken on the big boys for damage caused by lack of environmental citizenship. The issues are on going, so we can’t claim a victory for the good guys yet, but the issue runs deeper than that. Is aquaculture the canary down the mine for the environment?

The fi rst case you may already be aware of: the two headed fi sh larvae from Sunland Fish Hatchery in Queensland’s Noosa River catchment. Back in the late winter of 2007, Gwen Gilson, the proprietor recorded a series of events that read like a script from the X-Files. Convulsions, birth defects and deaths in her farm animals and poultry and in her Australian bass (Macquaria novemaculeata) larvae. Her neighbours also suffered mortalities and genetic deformities in newly hatched and born livestock and poultry. Losses were horrendous and only Gwen’s intestinal fortitude enabled her to keep going.

To get some idea of the background to this situation search Sunland two headed fi sh on the www. It’s had plenty of exposure.

The bottom line is that after being fobbed off by the authorities, threatened by local government for publicly drawing attention to the mortalities and deformities with fl yers and billboards erected on her property, and not taken seriously by the local conservation movement, Gwen’s concerns have been vindicated. And surprise surprise, once they started looking really hard they came up with traces of the chemicals under suspicion in all sorts of places: not only the Noosa catchment itself, but also in a northern Queensland town water supply.

The next instance I’d like to tell you about occurred out in Western NSW in the Namoi drainage basin. Namoi Valley Aquafarming operates a warm water native fi sh hatchery not far from Narrabri. Recently they were notifi ed, a few days before the scheduled date, that a mineral exploration company would be running a series of seismological tests a couple of kilometres from the farm. Asked that the tests be held off for a few weeks as they were in the middle of their Murray cod breeding season they were told no can do by the men in the tin hats and luminous jackets. No amount of pleading would change their minds and threats of legal action to recoup any losses fell on deaf ears. The tests went ahead and the effect on the breeding programme was as predicted. The recovery from last season’s breeding programme was less than 10 percent of the normal output.

The third instance was a chemical spill. A plastics moulding company allowed a vat of suspicious ingredients to fi nd their way into the marine environment when, during a clean up of a factory oversight, a good load of the effl uent found its way into the storm water system, which fi nished up draining into Port Phillip in the vicinity of an inshore mussel lease. The lease was

a spat collection zone and by the time the EPA and Fisheries Victoria had given the all clear to move the settled spat it was too late and the farmer concerned lost his seed stock for the next year’s crop.

At the time of penning this issue of Across The Ditch none of these farmers had been compensated for preventable losses caused by outside agencies.

So, Mosig, the point being? The point is that aquaculture gets all the bad press but in reality is more likely to be the victim of environmental degradation than the instigator.

So what can we, as an industry, do about it? I suppose, to start with, we should have a strong publicity arm that gets the industry on the front foot. The environment movement can certainly muster a mob of placard wavers at the press of an SMS key. And they seem to have the ear of the mainstream press corp.

We produce healthy food, employ lots of people, invest in production facilities and pay our taxes. Don’t laugh. I don’t know how the system works over your side, but we pay payroll tax, Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax, Goods & Services Tax (GST), fuel excise and excise on that well earned drink at day’s end and that blissful nicotine hit when we fi nally get our hands dry enough to pull out a paper and warm enough to roll one. They’re all taxes we pay before we even look at making a profi t.

We also invest in the future. Through R&D we provide employment opportunities and experience for the next generation of marine and aquatic environmental scientists. Through monitoring the environment as part of our food safety and animal husbandry protocols we measure the current status of the environment and pick up any trends, adverse or otherwise.

Your chest starting to swell with pride? And so it should. Look, this is a great story to tell. I don’t read enough of the New Zild mainstream media to be able to say whether the industry is getting the message out in Kiwiland or not, but from what I pick up in ours, it seems to be more about aquaculture as agent orange than as a major food producer with solid environmental credentials.

How important is it that we get the message out there? Very. I don’t think anyone still holds the romantic view that politicians are there to govern for the greater good of all. Ours are certainly more interested in staying in the comfortable seats to the right of the Speaker. Which means they react to public opinion, not set it. With the right image out there in the constituencies, party pollsters are more likely to pick up positive vibes and give our industry the green light than if their questionnaires suggest the aquaculture industry is the devil incarnate.

If you doubt me on that one, do some surveys in the urban areas. Forget about Nelson. Try places where they are removed from the real world and have a fuzzy green view of it. Wellington would be a good a place to start as any wouldn’t you say?

And if you think the theory is fanciful, bring to mind some of the delays that have threatened to choke the life out of the development of the mussel sector on both sides of the Tasman. And, it’s just not mussels. You apply for a license to farm prawns on Queensland’s coast opposite the Great Barrier Reef and you’ll see what I mean.

8 n NZ AQUACULTURE n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09

ACROSS THE DITCH

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 9

South Australian Aquaculture OpportunityThe South Australian Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is inviting applications from suitably qualifi ed individuals/companies to undertake the farming of:

• aquatic animals in a manner that involves regular feeding • bivalve molluscs • algae

A total of 150 Ha will be made available in the Fitzgerald Bay aquaculture zone, located near Whyalla on the Eyre Peninsula, at the top of the Spencer Gulf.

Completed applications must be lodged with PIRSA, Aquaculture Division by 30 October 2009.

Copies of the application form and information documents are available by contacting PIRSA Aquaculture on pirsa.aquaculture@saugov.sa.gov.au, or can be found on the website:

www.pir.sa.gov.au/aquaculture/regulatory_servicesVIP.AC31

The Horoirangi Centre for Seafood and Aquaculture Innovation is to be located 10km from the centre of Nelson. The concept has been developed by Wakatu

Incorporation, a collectively owned Maori whanau business based in Nelson.

Horoirangi aims to fundamentally reshape New Zealand’s seafood and aquaculture industry by providing a world class facility where research and development providers, the aquaculture industry and commercial enterprises work collaboratively towards growing our export earnings.

“The New Zealand government has set a goal for aquaculture to become a $1billion plus sector by 2025, but this will not happen by a whim and a prayer,” says chief executive, Keith Palmer. “It will need strong co-ordinated commitment by industry, science, education and local and central government if it is to occur.”

“Like all developing industries, aquaculture will need a large capital injection to bring these components together physically, that is a co-ordinated approach to supplying resources and the basic infrastructure to create a platform for science and industry to work together so they can apply research to grow the industry to the benefi t of all partners, increase employment regionally and nationally, and provide growth to the nation’s GDP.”

After several months of consultation with some 50 stakeholder groups and organisations, Wakatu, with assistance from NIWA have developed a business case for the development. Wakatu is leading a joint regional application, with Cawthron Institute, to secure a grant from the Enterprising Partnerships Fund. The immediate focus is to establish key enabling infrastructure assets for a commercial aquaculture zone, and a shared research and development and education campus.

By co-locating research and education providers it is expected that these organisations will be able to provide an improved level of integrated service to industry, and be able to collaborate to increase the speed of innovation that will give New Zealand seafood products a point of difference in the international market.

If Wakatu, together with its partners, is successful in their bid to central government the aquaculture industry will receive the shot in the arm it needs to achieve its target of reaching a one billion turnover by 2025. “Its about being smarter and being ahead of the global competition so we can demand top prices in high value markets,” says Keith Palmer. A decision on the Enterprising Partnership grant is expected by November 2009.

Development work has already been undertaken on various land based algae, shellfi sh and fi n fi sh species which would require an initial 14ha of the commercial land to develop full scale production. It is intended to take each species, develop a commercialisation model and provide interested partners the opportunity to participate at ground level.

Wakatu are a people of the land and the sea, and believe that establishing Horoirangi will offer opportunities that fi t with the aspirations of its Maori owners and those of NZ Inc.

To learn more visit www.horoirangi.co.nz.

THE FUTURE OF NZ’SSeafood and Aquaculture IndustryBY TONI GRANT, GM STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT

AC28.indd 8 15/2/09 4:52:22 PM

Back in the March/April edition of New Zealand Aquaculture we looked at the current regime relating to undaria. Biosecurity New Zealand (BNZ) has now

released its biosecurity discussion paper on the review of the 2004 Undaria Commercial Harvest Policy.

The starting position of the review is that it should be possible to allow greater commercial utilisation of undaria without signifi cantly increasing its adverse effects. Its objectives are to assess the feasibility of such utilisation and determine the most effi cient legislative regime to manage commercial utilisation of undaria.

The review considers three main options:1. Harvest as part of a control programme or as a by-product

of another commercial activity only (status quo); 2. Harvest anywhere undaria is naturalised (excludes farming);

and3. Harvest anywhere undaria is naturalised, and farming only

in heavily infected areas.The status quo provides limited scope for commercial

utilisation, as it doesn’t allow for quality control (essential if undaria is to be marketed as a food product) or the ability to predict harvest quantity. There are markets for undaria

other than as a food product, such as fertiliser, fi sh food or pharmaceutical use, with less stringent quality requirements, but these are likely to be less lucrative. The reality is that the status quo is not allowing effective commercial utilisation of undaria.

The second option would prohibit all farming but allow harvesting anywhere undaria has become naturalised, i.e. “where undaria has adapted or acclimatised to a new environment and established as if native”. Again, this option limits the harvester’s control over the quality of the product, however it is more viable than the status quo as it is not so restrictive in terms of quantity. The review identifi es an increased risk of spreading undaria and the need for regional coastal plans to provide requirements relating to maintenance or cleaning activities.

BNZ consider that option two could be operated either with the current unwanted organism classifi cation under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (preferred) or without (although it is

not apparent how that status would be changed). There would also be a less prescriptive regime for obtaining a permit than is currently in place, but more prescriptive harvesting rules. Permits would have to align with any applicable regional pest management strategy developed by regional councils.

Then it gets a little convoluted. If the unwanted organism categorisation was removed, harvesting would be authorised by a fi shing permit under the Fisheries Act 1996, with management focusing on the utilisation of the organism while ensuring sustainability, rather than on providing for continuous monitoring of its status and attempts to contain, control and eradicate it. In order to be able to manage the biosecurity aspect of undaria outside of the unwanted organism categorisation, a Regional Council would have to classify undaria as a pest, meaning an exemption under the Biosecurity Act would still be required in order to harvest it.

Option three is similar to option two, in that it would allow harvesting anywhere where undaria has naturalised, however it would also allow farming, although only in “heavily infested” areas and only with stock sourced from within New Zealand. The review does not provide a defi nition for heavily infested areas but submissions are sought on this point. Again, Biosecurity Act exemptions would still be required if undaria was classifi ed as an unwanted organism or a pest, in addition to all other marine farming requirements.

As noted back in March/April, the biosecurity focus of the current regime is of little assistance to a commercial operation; operators have no control over the quality of the stock, cannot guarantee a continued supply or properly control production. This situation is effectively repeated in option two, which allows harvest in a wider range of situations, allowing a greater scope for quantity of harvest but still limiting scope for quality control. Option three incorporates the features of option two, but would also allow for farming, which would permit quality control. However there would still be major barriers to farming undaria, particularly its likely classifi cation as a pest in many regions.

So it seems options proposed are unlikely to simplify the process for farming undaria, as long as it is still considered a biosecurity concern. The key, for those aspiring to farm undaria would be for it to be treated as a resource (called wakame) rather than a pest in the regions in which it is well-established, while efforts are still made to control its spread into areas where it is not currently present.

UNDARIA ReviewBY JUSTINE INNS, BA LLB

Justine Inns is a partner at Oceanlaw. She previously spent more than a decade as an advisor to

various iwi (tribes), including several years with Ngai Tahu.

14 New Street, PO Box 921 Nelson. Phone 64 3 548 4136, Fax 64 3 548 4195, 0800 OCEANLAW email martylo@oceanlaw.co.nz www.oceanlaw.co.nz VIP.S40

The only law firm in the South Pacific dedicated to the sea

justine.inns@oceanlaw.co.nz www.oceanlaw.co.nz

THE REVIEW DOES NOT PROVIDE A

DEFINITION FOR HEAVILY INFESTED

AREAS BUT SUBMISSIONS ARE SOUGHT

10 n NZ AQUACULTURE n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 11SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 11

Recently I was fortunate enough to attend the International Molluscan Shellfi sh Safety Conference in Nantes, France. It is always stimulating to have

opportunities to network with colleagues and to compare notes with shellfi sh industry, regulators and scientists from other parts of the globe.

So what is happening in other parts of the world and how do we stack up here in New Zealand? Universally, the major food safety problems affecting shellfi sh consumers are caused by viruses; either norovirus or Hepatitis A. For example, in the USA, it is estimated that 40,000 norovirus and Hepatitis A illnesses annually are attributed to raw shellfi sh consumption. This is in spite of the fact that the USA has one of the best shellfi sh sanitation programmes in the world. The fi gures are also very similar for European shellfi sh consumers.

New Zealand is fortunate in that we do not have such widespread contamination issues, but we must sit up and pay attention to the fact that, in recent years, we have had norovirus outbreaks associated with oysters. Unfortunately, there is still much that we do not understand about viruses in the marine environment, including their survival rates, which strains cause illness and under what conditions shellfi sh bioaccumulate them. However, we do know that the major source of contamination is human sewage.

Currently all the international shellfi sh quality programmes, including New Zealand’s, use faecal coliforms or E coli as indicators to show the presence of any faecal material. The problem is that neither of these indicators are very specifi c and their presence in water and shellfi sh could be related to droppings from birds, sea mammals or land animals. In some cases the faecal coliforms can be elevated when there is the presence of large amounts of rotting vegetation in the area, such as mangrove leaf litter. So how can we really know the true risk of human viral illness when shellfi sh are harvested?

Identifying the potential risk is the basis of an emerging new science, called Microbial Source Tracking (MST), which might give us some valuable answers. MST has the potential to be able to tell us more about the source of faecal contamination and whether it has come from farm animals, wild birds or humans. It is the aim of the scientists to get very specifi c and be able to identify if the source is, for example, Canadian geese, cows or sheep. If we know more about the type of pollution, this can assist fi nding the actual source and mitigate this.

At the ICMSS conference it was evident that science work is being done both in the EU and the USA on MST methods. We are very fortunate in New Zealand in having Cawthron Institute and ESR Ltd who are also doing science work to establish MST methods suitable for our unique environment. The shellfi sh industry is supporting proactive research in this area and with this joint approach it is likely that soon we will understand more about the sources in a catchment. This will be benefi cial in preventing viral outbreaks, because if a human contamination is identifi ed, we can then fi nd the “smoking gun/s” and work with the

authorities to have the septic tanks or sewage treatment plant performance improved.

In the meantime, both Cawthron and ESR Ltd have a range of microbial and chemical testing methods that can already help identify pollution types e.g. fl orescent whiteners from laundry powders can be used to fi nd grey water from septic tanks. It is worth having a chat to either agency to see what they already have in their tool box to help understand what is happening in your local area.

I came away from the ICMSS conference feeling fortunate that New Zealand is in a privileged position. We are a small country, relatively unpolluted with good open relationships between industry, scientists and the regulatory agencies. This means we are able to quickly identify our problems, review the latest science and sort out solutions that are best for our communities.

Finding the source OF ALL EVILS!BY DOROTHY-JEAN MCCOUBREY

12 n NZ AQUACULTURE n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09

The production of micro-algae to feed the mussel and oyster larvae is a key activity in a shellfi sh hatchery. Cawthron employs Liz, Cara and Nicky to produce the

algae and develop improved culture methods. Microscopically small algae are grown as the fi rst food

for the mussel and oyster larvae. These algae need to be nutritious and small enough to fi t through the mouth of the 0.03mm long shellfi sh larvae.

Tuesday morning eight o’clock. Liz arrives and goes immediately to her fi rst task. She swirls the stock cultures that grow in half-litre fl asks in an incubator where light and temperature are controlled. Liz: “Growing algae is a bit like cooking, follow the recipe and the methods and from time to time you have to stir the cultures in order to get good mixing and a good product.” After that, Liz, Cara and Nicky look at the work planner and determine what they need to do and in which order.

Liz and Cara will start with the check-in to ascertain whether all the systems function correctly. Cara: “For optimal algae growth, it is very important that the temperature is correct, the light intensity is OK and air fl ow, carbon dioxide concentration, and nutrient concentration are just right.”

In many ways the algae lab is similar to a microbiology lab. For example, every day new cultures are started from stock cultures. It is very important that the growth medium of the algae is free of bacteria (sterile), because bacteria can harm the algae and reduce their food quality for the shellfi sh larvae.

Nicky is preparing everything for the transfer of the algae from stock cultures to fl asks and carboys. To avoid bacterial contamination, she heats the fl asks and the carboys containing seawater and nutrients in the autoclave to 121°C a few days prior to use. To ensure that the growth media in the containers reach the desired 121°C, Nicky puts an indicator into a fl ask. Nicky: “When the indicator has changed colour and melted, we know that the glassware is ready for use.”

After lunch, the algae technicians start the transfers. First, they transfer the algae from a 500ml fl ask to the 3L fl asks in

the laminar fl ow hood. “We always transfer in the back of the laminar fl ow hood, to make sure only fi lter-sterilised air enters the fl asks. We also spray our hands with ethanol and fl ame the necks of the fl asks with the Bunsen burner between each transfer. Clean and systematic work is very important. If a fl ask or other equipment is not clean and sterilized, the algae will not meet the quality requirements.”

When the fl asks are inoculated, it is time to do the transfers into the 20-litre carboys. “To avoid back injury we always have two people lifting these carboys.” When all transfers are done, Liz and Cara take the carboys and the fl asks to the algae room where they attach them to their individual sterilised air supply.

It is about 3 o’clock when the transferring is fi nished. After a cup of tea and a biscuit, the algae technicians make bags for the continuous algae production system. Nicky explains: “We make these bags ourselves using special plastic. Each of these bags will be used for two to four months and in that time produce between 1200 and 2400 litres of algae culture. The continuous system can produce more than 2000 litres of algae culture per day, which is suffi cient for a commercial-scale hatchery.” After the 40L bags are prepared, they are hung on metal racks and then inoculated with algae from a carboy before being hooked up to the continuous supplies of seawater, nutrients and air enriched with carbon dioxide.

At the end of the day Cara replaces the nutrient carboy and the carbon dioxide bottle that are attached to the continuous algae production system. Cara explains: “The continuous system allows us to be more cost-effective than the carboy method, but it is technically more demanding. We have to ensure that all parts of the system work continuously to the specifi cations.”

In addition to his usual high school studies, Lars Bannenberg is studying English towards the International Baccalaureate in English. An internship in an English speaking environment is part of the curriculum. Lars did this internship at Cawthron.

A day with the ALGAE TECHNICIANSBY LARS BANNENBERG, KSG APELDOORN HIGH SCHOOL, THE NETHERLANDS AND CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

Preparing for culture transfers: We normally grow several

cultures from which we choose the best for further culturing

Check-in: Cara and Liz check the pH

in the hanging bags of the continuous

algae culture. Many micro-algae species

cultured for shellfish feed have a

golden-brown colour

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 13SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 13

A NEW ZEALAND FIRSTMTI to train students from ChileBY DAVID COOPER

Mahurangi Technical Institute (MTI) in Warkworth has recently signed a contract with the Chilean Ministry of Education to train students in aquaculture technology.

The agreement comes after a visit to MTI in June by two offi cials from the Chilean Ministry of Education, Trinidad Droguett, director of the “Technicians for Chile” programme and Victor Iribarren the deputy director of the same programme. They were accompanied by Bruno Aldaz, international advisor to the New Zealand Ministry of Education who facilitated the visit.

The Technicians for Chile programme is an initiative to train Chilean graduates at various international locations in the practical aspects of their fi eld with the overall objective being to lift the productivity of selected industry sectors. MTI is the only New Zealand institution chosen to train students in the fi eld of aquaculture.

MTI will deliver their Certifi cate in Aquatic Studies to the students who will live in Warkworth for the duration of the 44 week programme, with two intakes per year. The Chilean Government has committed to fund up to 20 students per intake. The fi rst students will be arriving in February for the

fi rst intake in next year with another cohort arriving for the July intake.

The certifi cate in Aquatic Studies covers such subjects as, fi nfi sh biology, shellfi sh biology, aquatic microbiology, hatchery management, live food production and aquaculture facility management and is intended to produce graduates with the specialist skills to successfully operate and manage an aquaculture facility. Students will also achieve the New Zealand National Certifi cate in Aquaculture which is under pined by the Seafood Industry Training Organisation’s (SITO) aquaculture unit standards.

Paul Decker the director of MTI says, “It is an honour for us to be selected against some stiff competition to deliver this programme and a real feather in our cap to be recognised by the Chilean government as a world leading training provider in the fi eld of aquaculture. It is also somewhat ironic given the bureaucratic diffi culties that MTI has been subjected to by the New Zealand education system over the last year. It seems that we are recognised for excellence in our fi eld internationally but life is still made unnecessarily diffi cult for us by our own New Zealand system.”

L to R Christine Burt and Paul Decker (MTI), Trinidad Droguett and Victor Irbarren (Chlean Government) Dr. John Walsby (MTI), Bruno Aldaz (NZ Education Ministry at MTI)

14 n NZ AQUACULTURE n SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09

Cawthron has established a specialised team to lead the development and application of new and emerging technologies for environmental monitoring,

management of risks to seafood safety and new products from marine and freshwater micro-organisms. The Aquatic Biotechnologies Group will provide technology-based solutions to resource planners, environmental managers, councils and the seafood industry, as well as to start-up businesses looking to develop new high-value products.

While New Zealand already has a signifi cant reputation in seafood safety, researcher on harmful algae Dr Lesley Rhodes sees aquatic biotechnologies as the key to providing industry with the ability to stay at the leading edge. “Our role will be to develop accurate, cost-effective tools and technologies to better understand the safety of products and detection of harmful algae. This knowledge will be critical to ensure that New Zealand seafood product continues to meet food safety standards.”

Because of stringent international seafood safety standards, Dr Rhodes says industry needs to be sure that any product leaving our shores is not going to be rejected when it arrives at market. “We will be looking to provide tools that not only provide the answers faster and cheaper than before, but also techniques that can be used easily in the fi eld to detect whatever may be in the water, long before shellfi sh have the chance to take them up.” Dr Rhodes is confi dent that the Aquatic Biotechnologies Group brings together the capabilities to address industry needs. “Together we have the expertise to ensure we can provide answers to questions around water quality, especially those of concern to the shellfi sh industry in terms of knowing which harmful algal blooms, viruses and bacteria may impact on their product.”

Many of the new methods will rely on molecular-based techniques. Such techniques are very powerful because they can identify specifi c features of molecules at very low concentrations thus being sensitive and specifi c at the same time. Researcher Dr Susie Wood says these techniques will also provide new solutions to help manage environmental problems, resulting in improved environmental management. Microbial Source Tracking, or MST, is an example; providing a powerful, rapid and accurate tool for councils and industry

to identify and trace the origin of unwanted micro-organisms in freshwater or marine systems.

Cawthron is also working with Waikato University to develop a suite of molecular-based techniques to detect and determine toxin production potential of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) which form blooms in lakes and rivers. Skin rashes and digestive upset in swimmers and fatalities in dogs have been ascribed to such toxins. Rapid and accurate identifi cation of problem alga species can, for example, help councils determine when to issue health warnings while minimising false alarms.

The techniques being developed will also support biosecurity efforts, for instance, by detecting new invasive species in ships’ ballast water. This will improve our ability to reduce the risk of new marine incursions and provide early warning of non-native species in our waters.

Algal technologies leader, Dr Mike Packer, says the new technologies will provide ways to generate value from the many micro-organisms in marine and freshwater environments, especially algae.

Along with the potential to explore high value products, nutraceuticals and raw ingredients for many industrial processes, he says another driver will be on commercial opportunities for renewable energies and waste mitigation, including greenhouse gases. “Given that algae are the fastest growing primary producers on the planet, at least an order of magnitude faster than any terrestrial crop, if one is considering any biomass to commodity products process, such as biofuels, it makes sense to consider algae in the mix.”

While there are several hurdles to overcome, he believes turning our attention to areas of innovation required for true biofuel production will mean focusing aquatic biotechnologies on higher value products from large-scale algal farms in the near term. “This will allow us to get our teeth into it in an economically sensible way and apply creative solutions to those problems.”

The Aquatic Biotechnologies Group will not be limiting its investigations to energy. There are many other potential co-productions, such as nutritional oils, animal feeds, biopolymers, building materials, bioplastics and raw materials for cosmetics.

BIOFUELS, BIOSECURITY AND SEAFOOD SAFETYBY DANETTE OLSEN, CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

Dr Susie Wood working with

Cawthron Institute’s

culture collection of micro-algae

Quantitative PCR analysis

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 09 n NZ AQUACULTURE n 15

VIP.AC31

Your farm andCLIMATE CHANGEBY ANDREW MORGAN

As a farmer you may have noticed rumblings of how climate change from atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions will impact on ocean acidity as a result of

increases in carbon dioxide absorption (CO2) by the ocean in the coming century. Well, so has everyone else. A growing body of literature is being put together led by countries such as Japan and Australia.

For domesticated farmed species changes in ocean acidity has the potential to impact on, and radically change, production cycles and production management. Some areas are highlighted here that will need researching in the coming decade. Research will inform the development of strategies, policy and planning to deal with the impact of climate change on marine farming.

Increasingly acidifi ed oceans and concurrent drops in pH in surface waters from CO2 build up, as the buffering capacity of the ocean is exceeded, will impact on reproduction and growth of broadcast spawners such as shellfi sh.

Firstly, in species such as shellfi sh and sea urchins (for example mussels, oysters, scallops and kina), sperm and eggs are broadcast into the water column where fertilisation takes place. In an increasingly acidic ocean the ion exchange channels in the egg activated during fertilisation may be blocked, inhibiting this process.

Changes in pH may also affect the viability of sperm, impacting on swimming speed and the ability to fertilise. Essentially this means fewer embryos are available in progression to the larval stage of development and subsequent spat settlement on farms. Consequently, this has the potential to reduce fertilisation rates and may also affect fecundity.

Second, during the larval stage of development these species deposit calcium carbonate shells or exoskeletons, slowly adopting the early shape of the juvenile form as they progress to settlement. In an increasingly acidic environment calcium deposition for the larval shell or exoskeleton is disrupted, which for such a small organism has signifi cant implications for survival.

The potential for shell or exoskeleton structural integrity to be compromised before settlement has major implications for survival and collecting large numbers of spat for farms. Life in the plankton is tenuous at the best of times and in combination with disruption of calcium carbonate deposition it will be even more so.

Third, once larvae settle and grow into juveniles the process of shell and exoskeleton deposition continues. Along with this the ‘meat’ mass also grows as the animal feeds and develops into an adult form that is eventually of harvestable size. However, in an increasingly acidic environment thinning of the shell will occur due to seawater absorption of calcium from the shell.

This may make them more susceptible to damage and subsequent disease. Furthermore, if the animal increases energy expenditure in shell deposition and maintenance of metabolism to compensate and maintain growth rate relative to development, the potential exists for stunted growth.

Lastly, some potential positives exist because a farmer may end up in a situation where they have produced a smaller animal but with a larger meat to shell ratio. Some global markets prefer smaller animals with a ‘meat’ mass that fi ts nicely in the

mouth for consumption. However, if problems with fecundity, fertilisation and early development mean less natural spat are available, it may be better to eliminate the impact of this on total production biomass on farms by relying on hatchery reared spat.

In the hatchery animals can be bred that do not expend energy on reproduction. Animals could also potentially be selectively bred and reared to cope with an acidic environment during growth. In the future the industry may end up relying totally on the hatchery production of selectively bred triploid animals. Food for thought.

ABOVE: Larva of the sea urchin (kina) Evechinus chloroticus (1mm)

Larva of the scallop Pecten novaezelandiae (1mm)

The Complete Aquaculture Net SystemKey Advantages

• Aquagrid® semi-rigid net can be 100% stronger than traditional nylon nets

• Hot air welded technology delivers seam strengths 4 times that of hand laced nylon nets

• Serves as both containment and predator net in one

• Prevents predators from breaching cages and eliminates potential entanglement and drowning

• Requires no anti-foulant treatment

• Designed to be cleaned in the water (per area regulations)

• Improves fish health due to better oxygen delivery and flushing action

• 10-yr operational cost can be 70% less than a traditional nylon net

Aquagrid® is a registered trademark of TenCate® Geosynthetics North America

Maccaferri NZ Ltd 0800 60 60 20

Top RailTop Rope

FlotationCollar

Horizontal Ropes

Weight RingCore for Mortality Retrieval System

Walkway

Weight Line

Steel Eyes

The Aquagrid® System

Peter Finlay pfinlay@maccaferri.co.nz www.maccaferri.co.nz

Bottom Rope

VIP.AC31

MANUFACTURERS OF THE WORLD’S MOST VERSATILE SHELLFISH GROW-OUT SYSTEMS

have changed their:Trading Name & Logo from Tootech-Polma to:

PO BOX 209, Carole Park, Qld, Australia 430019-25 Antimony Street, Carole Park, Qld, Australia 4300

Tel: +61 7 3271 1755, Fax +61 7 3271 3298R. Breakwell – Marketing/Export Manager Mobile +61 0 408 740 883

NEW ZEALAND EMAIL: roly@clevedonoysters.co.nzCHECK OUT OUR NEW AND COMPREHENSIVE WETSITE:

www.ttpplastics.com.au

AQUATRAY AQUAPURSE

AQUATRAY AP6 AQUAPURSE

VIP

.AC

31