WATERLINES - depts.washington.edudepts.washington.edu/.../pdfs/WaterlinesWin2002.pdf ·...

Serge Doroshov & Sturgeon Aquaculture

Vol. 11, No. 2

Ken Chew, WRAC Director, School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences, University of Washington

Funding provided by the US Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service

Ken

Che

w

ContentsSerge Doroshov & Sturgeon 1

High Performance Feeds 3

NRAC Executive Director 5

Aquaculture Report 6

Seafood Consumption Climbs 7

Food Technology Fellows 8

Triploid Rainbow Trout 9

Aquaculture for the Birds 10

PAC Meetings 11

Alaska’s Aquaculture 12

WRAC Nominations 14

East Coast Shellfish Assoc? 15

NAA News 16

Healthy Eating 18

Trout Farmers-USDA Report 20

Fish Farming Insurance 21

AFS Aquaculture Policy 21

Mediterranean Mussels 22

Director-Marine Biology 23

Easy Sesame Halibut 23

Publications 24

Calendar 26

Extension Contacts 27

WATERLINESN E W S L E T T E R O F T H E W E S T E R N R E G I O N A L A Q U A C U L T U R E C E N T E R

Alaska • Arizona • Cal i fornia • Colorado • Idaho • Montana • Nevada • New Mexico • Oregon • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Serge I. Doroshov is a distinguishedscientist in the field of aquatic animalreproduction and fish culture, and apioneer in sturgeon aquaculture in theUnited States. In recognition of his ongo-ing research efforts, Dr. Doroshov wasawarded the Honorary Lifetime Member-ship Award by the World AquacultureSociety in 2000.

Training beginsDr. Doroshov was born in western Siberia,Russia in 1937. His family moved to Mos-cow in 1943 where he lived until 1975.He married Julie in 1958 while they wereboth studying at the University of Mos-cow, and in 1959, they graduated with BSand MS degrees in zoology-ichthyology.

His early research focused on thefeeding ecology of Chinese white bream.In 1967, Doroshov earned a PhD in biol-ogy, and in 1968, he became director ofthe ZNIRO (now the Russian ResearchInstitute of Marine Fisheries and Ocean-ography) Laboratory of Marine Aquacul-ture. While there, he worked with stripedbass (which had been introduced fromSouth Carolina), the local black seaurchin, white sea cod, and polar floun-der, and he supervised research pro-grams on hybrid sturgeon developmentand salmonid and oyster culture.

Even though he was not a member ofthe Communist Party, Dr. Doroshov wasallowed to travel to many countries, suchas Japan, France, Britain, and Canada. In1976–77, he worked for the FAO in Cuba

Winter 2002

Serge Doroshov

continued on page 2

as an aquaculture expert on marine fishbreeding. His wife and their two children(daughter Tanya and son Paul) wereallowed to accompany him. On theirway back, they made the decision not toreturn to the USSR. With the help offriends such as the late Dr. Donald Bevanand his wife Tanya, he came to Seattle,Washington. Shortly thereafter, in 1978,Dr. Doroshov accepted a faculty positionin the Department of Animal Science atthe University of California-Davis.

UC-Davis tenureInitially, Dr. Doroshov studied larvalswim bladders of tilapia and striped bass,and the reproductive biology of culturedcatfish and trout. Around 1985, the focus

2

Winter 2002 Waterlines

Serge Doroshov & Sturgeon Aquaculture

of his research shifted almost entirely to the reproduc-tive physiology and broodstock development of whitesturgeon.

He has collaborated with commercial aquaculturistsand scientists in California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon,and Montana. He has also maintained an active teach-ing schedule and has mentored many graduate students.Dr. Doroshov currently teaches two animal sciencecourses—Fish Production in Aquaculture and Reproductionand Development of Aquatic Animals, and he participatesin teaching graduate courses in Physiological Ecologyand Comparative Physiology.

He has written numerous publications on the repro-ductive development of sturgeon. His research contin-ues on the reproductive biology of white and greensturgeon and on the development of breeding andculture of the endangered species, Delta smelt.

Dr. Doroshov is a person of commitment. I recentlyhad the opportunity to hear his presentation, “CaptiveBreeding and Domestication of Sturgeon,” and to speakto him about the future of aquaculture as he sees it.

What was the most challenging part of getting sturgeonculture started?It was the uncertainty of sturgeon maturation in captiv-ity. Wild female white sturgeon mature at a median ageof 24 years—entirely unrealistic for breeding or roeproduction in any culture. We hoped that maturationwould change with accelerated growth in captivity;however, it took at least five to seven years to under-stand this. Today, we know that artificial feeding andrearing temperature affect development and growthof sturgeon. Female and male sturgeon, cultured inCalifornia, mature at age 8 and 4 years, respectively.It is still a long time for breeding, but it made meat andcaviar production realistic.

What is your prediction for growing sturgeon for food?Currently, sturgeon farms in the Western Region pro-duce approximately 2–3 million pounds of food fish,including 15–20 pound fish for the restaurant marketand younger, 6–10 pound fish for live fish markets (pri-marily ethnic market in California). Young, 2-year-old,6–10 pound white sturgeon yield excellent quality andlarge-size boneless fillets. Economic analysis indicatesfeasibility of this culture. However, it will require devel-opment of product processing and packaging. Thequality of meat in young sturgeon is very good, and

continued from page 1

such a product will compete favorably in supermarkets.I know three farms in California and two in Idaho

producing food fish for the restaurant and ethnic mar-kets. The production of caviar is limited to two farmsin California. The total number of sturgeon farms inthe US is probably around ten. Regulations related toendangered species greatly affect the growth ofsturgeon farms.

Do you expect caviar prices will remain high withincreasing production?It will depend on product quality, further improvementof sturgeon stocks, and competition among farms. Cur-rent production of "farmed" caviar is a rather costly andcomplex process. For targeting specialized markets,farmers will be required to supply a product similar intaste and appearance to traditional caviar from theCaspian Sea. With this high-priced product, caviar pro-duction from farmed sturgeon is economically feasibleand is likely to stay within the historic level of produc-tion from capture fisheries. The potential improvementof cultured sturgeon stocks (e.g., maturation at youngerage, higher yield of eggs) by optimizing nutrition, hus-bandry, breeding, and health management, as well asthe development of new caviar processing technologymay change this picture, increase production and com-petition, and lead to decline in price. However, I don'tsee this happening in the near future.

Total caviar production from world sturgeon farms(primarily the US and France) is about 10 metric tons(mt), versus an estimated 20–50 mt from the CaspianSea fisheries. (Statistics there are very unreliable.)Medium- to large-size sturgeon farms, which had initi-ated domestic breeding at least ten years ago and keepthe continual year-class inventory of female sturgeon,have a capacity to double current production within afew years... if they maintain high product quality.

In conclusion, if Dr. Doroshov had not come alongto continue his physiological and culture research workon sturgeon at UC Davis, the aquaculture industrywould not have experienced the level of development ithas in the Western Region. In addition, some of hisformer students are involved with current researchwhile others have gone on to commercial ventures insturgeon culture. As a researcher and educator, he haswell served the needs of finfish aquaculture in generaland the budding sturgeon industry in particular. ≈

3


left: Gary Fornshell; right: Ron Hardy

Ken

Che

w

Adapted from an article by Ron Hardy and Gary Fornshell, Fish Farming News, November/December 2001

Is Your Fish Like a Volkswagen or a Porsche?

Would you rather drive a Volkswagen or a high-performance Porsche? Most people who could affordit would choose a Porsche because they know it is abetter machine that delivers value for its lofty price.

What about high performance in aquaculture?Would you know if your fish perform like Porsches orVolkswagens? Answering this question was one of thegoals of a four-year feed comparison study recently com-pleted by the Western Regional Aquaculture Center.

We all want high-performance fish—fish that growfaster, eat less, convert feed more efficiently, and pos-sess superior product quality. But, are we willing toprovide the necessary input to allow our fish to reachtheir potential and become high-performance fish?

Who would fill-up a Porsche with low-octane gaso-line? Low-octane fuel may cost less per tankful, butyour Porsche will travel fewer miles per tank. Theapparent saving is really an increased cost in termsof fewer miles per gallon and lower performance.

Similarly, low-performance feeds cost less per tonthan high-performance feeds, but they also produceless weight gain. The true economic cost of feeds—costper unit gain—is typically higher for a low-performancefeed than a high-performance one.

The typical fish grower pays 50–60 cents for feedon every dollar spent on fish production. The typeand quality of feed and the quality of the grower’s feedmanagement significantly impact fish performance andcost of production.

Objectives & goalsThe WRAC-funded feed and nutrition project was multi-faceted and addressed many topics including the regu-lar vs. premium question for rainbow trout. The objec-tives for the high-performance feeds study were to:� Evaluate the effects of feeding high-energy diets

(25–30% lipid content) during the grower and fin-ishing phase of production on fish growth perfor-mance, feed efficiency ratios, nutrient retention, andproduct quality.

� Evaluate the potential of modified fish meals, otheralternate protein, and alternate dietary oil as proteinand energy sources in salmonid diets during thegrower and finishing phase of production.

� Compare the effects of feed-manufacturing technol-ogy on nutrient-dense diets and in standard produc-tion diets, on fish growth performance, feed effi-ciency ratios, nutrient retention, and product quality.

� Continue to develop and validate the in vitro digest-ibility assay, which is intended to predict nutritionalvalue of a feed ingredient or diet.

� Determine the optimum feed ingredient particle sizefor trout feed with respect to apparent digestibilityand proportion of settable solids and soluble mate-rial in fecal wastes.

The goals of the multi-year project were twofold:� To use information generated in studies during the

first years to develop multiple strategies related tofeed formulation and manufacture, feeding practices,and the development of practical in vitro digestibilitytests to reduce pollution in hatchery effluents, espe-cially during the growout period.

� To provide information to properly formulate high-performance feeds.

These goals were tested in the third and fourth yearsof research. This article’s focus is on the first objective—evaluating the effects of high-energy diets on fishperformance and product quality.

How fat is fat?In the United States, the lipid content of trout feedshas increased considerably over the past decade, from15–17% to 20–24%. With this increase, concerns havesurfaced about the effects of high-lipid feeds on productquality and shelf life. There are also reported benefitsof high-energy feeds, including faster growth, increasedfeed conversion efficiencies, and reduced pollutantloading.

In the WRAC-supported study, five fish meal dietsformulated to contain 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%lipid content were fed to rainbow trout with a startingweight of 100 grams for 24 weeks. Four replicate tankswere fed each of the five diets until the fish reached a

continued on next page

Cou

rtes

y of

G. F

orns

hell

4


final weight of about 500 grams. The feed trial was runat the Ennis National Fish Hatchery in Montana.

ResultsAt the end of the trial, rainbow trout fed the 30% lipiddiet had significantly higher average body weight, weightgain, feed intake, and specific growth rate—all signs ofhigh performance. They had significantly lower feedconversion ratios (FCR), meaning that it took less feedper unit gain. A trend of lower FCR as lipid content in-creased was also observed.

Other studies have shown that increasing dietarylipids tends to result in more fat in the gut (and lessyield). But there was no apparent trend in viscerasomatic index (VSI) with dietary lipid content. VSI wasmeasured by weighing the whole fish, then evisceratingthe fish and weighing the viscera. Viscera included allthe internal organs, including gonads, but not the gills.

Surprisingly, there were no significant differencesin protein efficiency ratios (PER) among the dietarytreatments. There was a trend for higher PER andpercent apparent net protein utilization values withincreased dietary lipid content, suggesting that proteinutilization was more efficient with increased levels ofdietary lipid. This protein-sparing effect results fromthe fish using dietary lipid to supply metabolic energyneeds, leaving more protein for growth.

There were also no significant differences in wholebody concentrations of moisture, protein, and ash, but

4


P RO J E C T PART I C I PANT S

Dr. Frederic BarrowsUS Fish & Wildlife Service, Bozeman, MT

Dr. Shulin ChenWashington State University

Dr. Faye DongUniversity of Washington

Dr. Norman HaardUniversity of California Davis

Dr. Ron HardyUniversity of Idaho

David BrockRangen, Inc., Buhl, ID, ex-officio member

Chris NelsonNelson & Sons, Inc., Murray, UT, Technical Advisor

Gary FornshellUniversity of Idaho, Extension representative

fish fed the 30% diet contained significantly higher lipidconcentrations than fish fed the 10% diet.

The proximate composition of the fillets showeda similar pattern. Fillets from fish fed the 30% lipid diethad significantly higher lipid concentrations than filletsfrom fish fed the 10 or 15% diets. The percent lipidcontent of the viscera also progressively increased withincreasing dietary lipid concentration.

Taste differencesTaste panel results revealed some differences among dietgroups. Fillets from fish fed the 30% lipid diet were sig-nificantly “more fishy” than fillets from fish fed the 15%diet, as judged by paired comparison tests.

The storage life of frozen fillets, determined bymeasuring levels of thiobarbituric acid reactive sub-stances (TBARS) in fillets over time, was not affectedby increasing lipid concentration. However, there weremeasurable differences in TBARS content: fillets fromfish fed the 30% lipid diet were the highest. Althoughthese differences were not statistically significant, theymay have affected overall aroma and flavor intensity.

Consumers are very aware of “fishy” aroma andflavor, and high levels are undesirable. Thus, productsmust be stored and handled to minimize these proper-ties, and fillets from fish fed high-lipid diets may re-quire special consideration.

Other studies on the effects of high-energy feeds onproduct quality with Atlantic salmon rainbow trout haveyielded mixed results. Some have reported higher filletlipid levels when high-energy feeds are fed, whereasothers report a minor effect. Study duration, water tem-perature, diet formulation, and fish size are likely re-sponsible for different results in different studies.

High lipid = high octaneAs evidenced by weight gain, specific growth rate, andfeed conversion ratios, fish grew faster and more effi-ciently with increasing dietary lipid levels. Feed intakeincreased with increasing dietary lipid levels as FCR de-creased, indicating, as other studies have shown, thathigh-energy diets reduce the nutrient load in effluentsthrough greater use and retention of nutrients by fish.

The more efficient a feed, the less waste is produced.Although an economic analysis comparing the cost pergain for the five diets was not done in this study, the re-sults demonstrate that fish fed high-energy feeds out-perform fish fed low-energy feeds.

Individual operators are ultimately responsible fordeciding which type of feed to use, and this, of course,includes an awareness of acceptable feed costs per unitgain in a given market environment. ≈

5


Dr. Tomas “Tom”

Vergel C. Jamir,

executive director

of the Northwest

Regional

Aquaculture

Center (NRAC)

Cou

rtes

y of

T. J

amir

Lorelei Stevens and Susan Jones, Fish Farming News, September/October 2001

Jamir Hired as Executive Director of NRAC

The Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center (NRAC),which is housed at the University of MassachusettsDartmouth, has a new executive director. Dr. TomasVergel C. Jamir hopes to bring a distinctively pro-industry, problem-solving philosophy to the position.

Jamir identified the three industry segments as:

� “Mom & Pop” operations—the majority of growers� “Intermediate” growers� “Big commercial” companies—there are only a few.

Jamir brings much-needed administrative leader-ship to NRAC, according to Mike Hastings, who serveson the NRAC board of directors and is executive direc-tor of the Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center.

Since former director Dr. Kim Harrison left the postover a year ago, members of the board have workedwith the two-member NRAC staff to help keep the cen-ter operating on track. “Without an executive director,board members and staff had to do extra duty. But it ishard to operate without the top leader.” said Hastings.

Project proposalsNRAC uses a competitive request-for-proposals (RFP)process to determine the projects it wants to sponsor.While the RFP process is seen as most equitable giventhe diversity of the region’s aquaculture industry, it canresult in the approval of many projects. Because they allneed CSREES review, project applicants may wait for as

long as a year for their money.Other RACs use a “working group” approach to

develop their annual project work list. These proposalstend to be larger and require a greater share of acenter’s budget, so fewer are submitted for CSREESvetting. That can mean a faster turnaround time.

Jamir wants to officially recognize the three industrysegments and streamline the RFP process. He said thatworking groups, one for each segment, would look at“What’s been done, what needs to be done, and whatNRAC can do.” And, once the task is done, the workinggroups would be disbanded to avoid a perception of thecenter as being dominated by “an old-boy network.”

Applied researchMatching project to the regional industry’s needs isimportant in the Northeast because USDA grants arethe leading source of funding for applied research.“We need to focus more on what is needed by industry,”Jamir said. “My perspective is that there are two basiccriteria for proposal review: its financial contributionand its probability of success.”

OutlookJamir is enthusiastic about the prospects for aquacul-ture in the Northeast. The challenge, he said, is tech-nology transfer. “I think the main problem is not tech-nology. It’s a matter of distinguishing what technologyis needed by industry and getting it to the farm,” he said.Unabashedly acknowledging his “industry bias,” Jamircontinued, “Aquaculture is an industry, not a technicalresearch project for universities.”

Before taking the NRAC job, Jamir was the programdirector of the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foun-dation, a private nonprofit corporation serving theresearch, education, and conservation needs of thesoutheastern US commercial fishing industry. He hasalso held positions as: center director, School of FieldStudies and the Boston University-affiliated Center forMarine Resource Studies; instructor, Oregon StateUniversity and the University of the Philippines; fisher-ies biology aide, Oregon’s Department of Fish & Wild-life; marine extension agent, Fishery Resource Manage-ment Program, Development Academy of thePhilippines; and operations and marketing manager,AQUATECH Fishery Consultants and Contractors.

Jamir can be reached at (508) 999-8157 or by emailat [email protected]. ≈

6


Report: US Aquaculture Yields Promise, Raises ConcernsGary Jensen, CSREES News Release, August 1, 2001

As the American consumer’s demand for seafood con-tinues to rise, so too does the likelihood that the fish,shrimp, or shellfish purchased at the market or restau-rant has been farm raised. Aquaculture—the farming offinfish, shellfish, or aquatic plants—continues to growrapidly worldwide, with production doubling by weightand value from 1989 to 1998. In the United States,aquaculture facilities now exist in every state and cer-tain regions are seeing rapid growth.

A new report presented to the Pew Oceans Commis-sion examines the role of the emerging US aquacultureindustry in meeting the nation’s demand for seafoodand its current and potential impacts on the marineenvironment. The report recommends steps to ensurethat domestic aquaculture grows in a sustainable fash-ion, and calls upon the US to take a global leadershiprole in adopting best practices.

“The reality today is that aquaculture is supplying asignificant source of protein to consumers as wild oceanfisheries are depleted or reach their limit,” said Leon E.Panetta, chair of the independent Pew Oceans Commis-sion, which is conducting the first review of nationalocean policies in over 30 years. “There are a numberof issues related to this growing industry that can affectthe quality of our oceans. This report looks at thoseconcerns and presents recommendations for balancingthe expected growth in aquaculture production with

protection of those natural species and habitats that areessential to the future of our oceans.”

The report’s authors are Dr. Rebecca Goldburg andMatthew Elliott of Environmental Defense andR. Rosamond Naylor of Stanford University. They findthat farmed fish and shellfish supply one-third of theworld’s seafood, and that in the United States, aquacul-ture (including imports) provides almost all of the cat-fish and trout and nearly half of the shrimp and salmoncurrently consumed.

Although American aquaculture represents just over1% of the world’s production, about 4,000 aquaculturefacilities exist in the United States, ranging from en-closed tanks on land to netpens and shellfish beds inbays and estuaries. Collectively, they raise over 100 dif-ferent species of aquatic animals and plants, and pro-vide new sources of seafood for consumers.

“With supplies of wild seafood limited and demandrising, aquaculture will likely continue to expand in theUnited States,” says Dr. Goldburg, “Aquaculture is hereto stay. The challenge is to ensure that this youngindustry grows in a sustainable manner and does notcause serious ecological damage.”

The authors find that the present harmful effects ofUS aquaculture on the marine environment are minorcompared to overfishing, coastal development, or glo-bal warming. They also point out that the aquacultureindustry is diverse in its methods and practices and thatsome segments of the industry, such as shellfish grow-ing, can have ecological benefits. Nevertheless, theyrecommend immediate motion concerning severalproblem areas:

Eliminate or drastically reduce the accidental release of farmedfish into the wildThe accidental release of farmed fish may harm wildfish populations through interbreeding and competi-tion for habitat and food. In addition, escaped fish mayspread diseases and parasites throughout an ecosystem.Supporting federal activities under the EndangeredSpecies Act to protect wild salmon populations is a keyelement of protecting native fish.

Reduce the use of wild fish for fish feedSome types of aquaculture, particularly salmon aqua-culture, use large quantities of wild-caught fish as feedingredients. Increased catches of small fish for use infeed would reduce the amount of food available for wildRed Tilapia being raised at Fish Breeders of Idaho

Ken

Che

w

6


7


predators such as large fish, marine mammals, andseabirds. The authors call for greater federalresearch to identify alternatives to the use of wildfish for fish feeds, and the cultivation and promo-tion of noncarnivorous aquaculture species.

In addition to these recommendations, theauthors also propose several additional steps to limitthe current impacts of aquaculture:

Develop strong effluent guidelines for aquaculture underthe Clean Water Act, particularly for larger-scale aqua-culture pens that discharge wastes directly into coastalwaters.

Put in place an environmental protective federal permit-ting program for offshore aquaculture before this develop-ing segment of the industry becomes established.

Champion research and development investments and cost-share incentives for sustainable aquaculture practices, suchas recirculating on-land systems.

Seek greater environmental sustainability through the WorldTrade Organization, with the goal of allowing environmen-tal considerations in the production of traded-food commodi-ties to play a far larger role in trade decisions.

The Pew Oceans Commission is an independentgroup led by former White House chief of staffLeon Panetta, which is conducting a national reviewof the policies needed to restore and protect theoceans’ living resources. The commission includesleaders from ocean research, fishing, conservation,industry, and government.

The marine aquaculture report is the second ina series of scientific reports that will assist the inde-pendent commission with its review. In addition toaquaculture, the commission is reviewing coastal de-velopment, marine pollution, fishing, invasive spe-cies, ocean governance, and marine protected areas.The commission will issue its formal recommenda-tions to the President and the Congress in 2002.

Copies of the report, Marine Aquaculture in theUnited States: Environmental Impacts and PolicyOptions, are available online at www.pewoceans.orgor by calling 703-516-0624. To receive a pdfversion via email, contact Justin Kenney [email protected]. ≈

WorldCatch News Network, 2001

Seafood consumption in the United States increased2.3%, with Americans consuming 4.3 billion poundsof domestic and imported seafood in 2000—or 15.6pounds per person.

The National Marine Fisheries Service said the perperson consumption represents an increase of 0.2pounds from the revised 1999 level. Of the 15.6pounds, 10.5 were fresh or frozen fish or shellfish, 4.8were canned seafood, and 0.3 were cured. That repre-sents a 0.1 pound increase in both fresh/frozen andcanned products compared to 1999 figures. Shrimpconsumption (all preparations) achieved a record 3.2pounds per person consumed in 2000.

Total US supply of edible fishery products on a“round weight” basis was down 1.9 % in 2000. WhileUS landings for human consumption increased by1.2%, imported fish and shellfish increased 2.6% in2000, comprising 68% of the seafood consumed in theUnited States. US exports increased by 11.4%. Inven-tories of frozen seafood in cold storage droppedslightly, declining less than 1% from the 1999 level.

The calculation of per capita consumption is basedon a “disappearance” model. The total US supply ofimports and landings is converted to edible weightand decreases in supply such as exports and inven-tories are subtracted out. The remaining total is di-vided by a population value to estimate per capitaconsumption.

Data for the model are derived primarily from sec-ondary sources and are subject to incomplete report-ing; changes in source data or invalid model assump-tions may each have a significant effect on theresulting calculation. ≈

Ken

Che

w

7


US Seafood ConsumptionClimbs

Meal

hosted by

Alaska

shellfish

growers

for WRAC

board of

directors

8


Norman F. Haard was recognized for his leader-ship in advancing research in fisheries and fruitsand vegetables, as well as food science educationin the United States and throughout the world.He has been involved in WRAC studies in highperformance fish feeds (see article, page 3).

Norm received his education in food sciencefrom Rutgers University (BS 1963) and Universityof Massachusetts (PhD 1966). After a NationalInstitute of Health post-doctoral position at theEnzyme Institute, University of Wisconsin, he wasa faculty member in the Food Science Departmentat Rutgers University from 1968 to 1976. He thenjoined the Department of Biochemistry at theMemorial University of Newfoundland, where hehelped introduce undergraduate and graduateprograms of study in Food Science and Nutrition.In 1986, he came to his present position at theInstitute of Marine Resources at UC, Davis.

Professor Haard has been very active inter-nationally in developing food science and technol-ogy programs in academic institutions in China,Mexico, Pakistan, and Thailand.

He has served on numerous editorial boardsand is currently editor of the Journal of FoodBiochemistry.

Norm’s research has focused on the post-harvest biochemistry of edible plants and aquaticorganisms, and he has been recognized with IFT’sSamuel Cate Prescott Award (1973), Atlantic Prov-inces Intercollegiate Committee’s Fraser Award(1980), and Atlantic Fisheries Technologists’ E. P.McFee Award (1997).

An active member of IFT, he has served on anumber of committees and award juries, includ-ing the Annual Meeting Program Committee andthe Prescott Award Jury. ≈

Adapted from an article by Sara Langen, Assistant Editor, Food Technology, August 2001

2001 Fellows of the Institute of Food Technologists

Faye M. Dong

Professor

Aquatic & Fishery Sciences

University of Washington

PhD in Nutrition, University

of California, Davis

Faye M. Dong was recognized for her meritorious and out-standing contributions and her leadership in advancing thequality of food science education at universities, communitycolleges, and elementary and secondary schools. Her effortshave helped make teaching and learning food science morepublic, more scrutinized by critical review and evaluation,and more accessible to others in the Institute of Food Tech-nologists (IFT).

In a WRAC-funded study (see page 3), Professor Dongand her colleagues are developing environmentally compat-ible feeds for hatchery-raised rainbow trout and salmon thatminimize phosphorus and nitrogen in the effluent. In an-other study, she is working to define effective treatments forkilling Anisakis simplex nematodes in arrowtooth flounderby microwave processing, freeze treatment, and high-hydro-static-pressure processing.

She teaches courses in human nutrition, seafood science,and fish nutrition, and is involved in K–12 outreach activi-ties, including teaching a food chemistry course to fourth-grade teachers. Faye has also mentored many graduate andundergraduate students.

Faye has served as chair of the IFT Steering Committeeto start the Education Division, as well as division interimchair (1995–96) and chair (1996–97). During the creation ofthis division, she was the leader in organizing, encouraging,and supporting the presentation of symposia, forums, andtechnical sessions on teaching and learning. Her tirelessefforts helped create a place where food scientists inacademia, industry, and regulatory agencies are able tointeract with experts in the field of education.

As a member of the Career Guidance Committee, shewas instrumental in starting a Mini-Grant Program for uni-versity food science programs to host workshops for highschool teachers. She has served on IFT program, annualplanning, nominations and elections, awards, and sectionsand division committees. She also served as chair of the TaskForce on Excellence in Food Science Education. ≈

Norman F. Haard

Professor

Institute of Marine Resources

Dept. of Food Science & Technology

University of California, Davis

PhD, University of Massachusetts

UW

Hea

lth S

cien

ces

Pho

togr

aphy

Cou

rtes

y of

N. H

aard

9


Sterility is

beneficial in

preventing

hybridization with

native cutthroat

trout

triplo

id rai

nbow

trout

Utah Begins Triploid Rainbow Trout Production

Research biologists at the Fisheries Experi-ment Station in Utah have announced theapparent success of the first production-scale, heat-shocking process for productionof all-female, triploid rainbow trout.

Triploids possess three sets of chromo-somes instead of the normal two, renderingthem sterile. Because of the possible impactof sterile rainbow trout males on native cut-throat trout, production of all female trip-loids is of interest. Triploid males still pro-duce sperm, but the sperm duct is blocked,preventing fertilization. However, these fishstill behave as fertile males, possibly displac-ing fertile males during courtship. For rea-sons unknown, female triploids do not pro-duce gametes. Therefore, it is desirable torear all female rainbow trout for areas inwhich they may compete with spawningcutthroat trout.

This may be achieved by altering thehormonal balance in hatchery feed duringthe first 60 days. Half of these fish develop astrue males, but the other half are sex-reversedand become phenotypic males, but genotypicfemales (i.e., they look and produce spermlike males, but genetically are female). Theseare the fish used for spawning to produce allfemale progeny. They are selected from thetrue-male group by attempting to strip miltwhen they reach 2 years of age. If milt isexpressed, it is considered a normal maleand discarded. If milt is not expressed, itis considered a sex-reversed fish and thegonads are surgically removed for use.

Sex-reversed broodstock have been pro-duced at the Fisheries Experiment Stationand 2-year classes have been transferred tothe J. Perry Egan State Fish Hatchery. Workin Fall 2000 was the first attempt at usingthis triploid production. Generally, thesefish are sacrificed for the gonads, creating ayearly need for males. An attempt was madeto surgically harvest only one gonad andrecover the fish for reuse the following year.Although the surgical process was successfuland the fish recovered, later complicationsfrom suture dehiscence necessitated the

The Ichthyogram, May 2001, Reported in Idaho Aquaculture Association Newsletter, July 2001

euthanasia of the fish. Plans are being for-mulated to retry the procedure with differ-ent suture material.

The triploidy process involved heatshocking of eggs at 26–27°C for 20 minutesat 20 minutes after fertilization. Based onprevious testing, this regime worked well forachieving high percentages of triploids with-out the major egg losses observed at highertemperatures. The heat shocks were con-ducted in a hatchery trough at the EganHatchery using recirculating heater pumpsto maintain the temperature.

A total of 1.6 million eggs of both theSand Creek and Ten Sleepstrains weretreated. Egg survival was relatively high,so there were many excess eggs that werediscarded.

Some combining of lots was done forshipping, resulting in five lots that werereared at the state hatcheries in Springville—Loa, Kamas, and the Fisheries Experi-ment Station. All but the Kamas lot wereprogeny from the XX males and shouldall be female. The five lots were sampledrecently by diluting blood from 60 fish perlot in Alsere’s anticoagulant solution.These were kept cold and shipped toWashington State University where PaulWheeler analyzed the samples using flowcytometry. Overall the average triploidyrate was 99.7%.

The results indicate that the first yearof production was a great success. Sterilityis beneficial in preventing hybridization withnative cutthroat trout. It can also producebigger fish, because the energy normallyput into gonads is put into growth. Thesedifferences become more noticeable as thefish mature in the age 3 year class and older,so put-and-take programs would not seemuch growth benefit. Most of this year’sproduction will be stocked into StrawberryReservoir. Further production is planned.DWR Sport Fish Managers are consideringthe sterilization of the majority of rainbowtrout production in the state for futurestocking. ≈

10


The Aquaculture Business is for the Birds

Many species of birds are drawn to the pen waterand large concentrations of fish and shellfish onaquaculture facilities. The result is significantpredation on aquacultured products. Birds arehighly mobile, adaptable, and able to rapidlyexploit food abundance.

The severity of the predation problem variesby species of bird, number of birds present, sizeof available fish, and whether the birds resideseasonally or throughout the year. In recentyears, populations of normally migratory birdshave remained near fish production facilitiesyear-round.

Think about it from a “bird’s-eye view:” Ifyou were headed down the Mississippi flywayand came across ponds stocked at up to 6,000pounds per acre with catfish, what would youdo? With more than 100,000 acres in catfishproduction in Mississippi state alone, it is easyto see the potential for some serious problems.

The birds most often responsible for damageare herons, cormorants, and pelicans. Besideseating fish, these birds can injure and stress fish,disrupt feeding activity, eat the fish’s food, dis-turb breeding behavior, and contribute to poorfish health.

Currently, the catfish industry is dealingwith a parasite problem that moves into pondsvia pelican droppings, with a snail as an inter-mediate host and the catfish as the final host. Inlarger fish, the result is reduced feeding, whichstunts growth. In smaller fish, the organism canbe lethal. Infected fish cannot be sold.

Large numbers of birds often roost on shell-fish culture structures. Because of the birds’fecal droppings, some sites repeatedly fail tomeet standards set up by health service agen-cies. The aquacultured product can’t be solduntil water quality is improved.

Some farms have reported annual losses inexcess of $200,000. In the lower MississippiValley, estimates are as high as $18 million.

These fish-eating bird populations all seemto have experienced rapid growth in the last 30years. This can be attributed to the ban of DDT,reduction in wetlands, and protection under theMigratory Bird Treaty Act.

Control can be difficult and costly. Bird-

Bob Robinson, Communications Committee Chair, National Aquaculture Association, AFS Newsletter, October 2001

In recent

years,

populations

of normally

migratory

birds have

remained

near fish

production

facilities

year-round

dissuasion devices (e.g., air cannons and otherscare tactics) are of limited success. Devices suchas cages or netting to cover the rearing area areexpensive and interfere with daily chores.Simple control methods rarely solve the problem.

The US Department of Agriculture hasissued a Cormorant Depredation Order, whichis in effect in 13 states. This order allows forcontrolled harvesting of cormorants that posean immediate threat to fish farmers’ livelihoods.It is hoped that this order will be expanded toinclude all 50 states in the near future.

Management of birds must be consideredat the flyway level to yield meaningful results.Localized efforts can produce some results butwill not modify population nor significantlychange levels of predation.

There must be international cooperation aswell as dialogue among all interested parties,including bird lovers and those who feel that allfish-eating birds are a danger to their livelihood.Somewhere in the middle, a decision must bereached setting upper and lower populationnumbers that are acceptable to all. ≈

1010


Brandts cormorants nesting at Yaquina Head,

Oregon

Col

in F

renc

h

11


past ,

prese

nt, &

upcom

ing m

eeting

s ConferenceIn October, the Pacific Aquaculture Caucus(PAC) held a one-day conference before itsannual general meeting in Seattle. PAC Chair,Dan Swecker, welcomed invited speakers andabout 50 members and their guests.

Bill Dewey, representing the NationalAquaculture Association, gave the keynoteaddress, “Aquaculture: A national perspective fora new century.”

A lively panel discussion followed on “Publicpolicy issues: A Pacific perspective—What aquacul-ture issues face the region, and what role can PACplay?” Ken Chew (WRAC) was the panel facilita-tor, and panel members included John Forster(Forster Consulting), Dan Cheney (Pacific Shell-fish Institute), Marc Hershman (UW, School ofMarine Affairs), and Conrad Mahnken (NMFS).

The morning session concluded with a seriesof industry and regional presentations, about“Opportunities for expansion, public policy issues,and research needs.” Individual contributors in-cluded Bill Dewey (Pacific Shellfish Growers As-sociation, Dan Swecker (Washington Fish Grow-ers Association), Ray RaLonde (Sea GrantMarine Advisory Program, Alaska), and JimJohnson (Department of Agriculture, Oregon).

Lunchtime speaker, Dan Herman, of theNational Fisheries Institute, spoke on “NAC-NFI Updates and Projects.” After lunch, therewere status reports on the “Development of Indus-trial Codes of Practice” by Pete Granger, on thework of the Washington Fish Growers Associa-tion, and Robin Downey spoke about the workof the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Associa-tion. A lengthy General Working Session onCodes followed, which became an open forum.

Annual General MeetingAt the ensuing annual meeting, it was an-nounced that the 12 Board of Directors werereturned to office following postal elections.Subsequently, the Board members elected DanCheney as Chair, and Dan Swecker as Vice-Chair. The Board made no change to member-ship dues.

At the dinner reception after the meeting,Ken Chew spoke about the work of WRAC.

Upcoming WorkshopsSpringAs we go to press, PAC is organizing a two-dayworkshop to be held in Sequim, Washington onMarch 26 and 27, 2002. The first day is onAquaculture Regulations and the second day ison Research Goals—both from the West Coastperspective.

PAC is inviting agency policy makers; indus-try leaders; Native American tribal leaders; aca-demic aquaculture researchers; and leaders inlocal, state, and federal government to cometogether to help:� Develop a regional legal framework, with

coordinated regulatory policy, to enable eco-nomically viable and environmentally sus-tainable aquaculture development while stillpreserving cultural and social values.

� Create a regional administrative frameworkto enable aquaculture development to meetthe challenge of the nation’s aquacultureproduction goals.

� Identify and prioritize areas of research toachieve production objectives, such as:

Increase production in existing facilities inenvironmentally compatible ways.

Demonstrate the benefits of aquaculture tothe environment.

Develop environmental mitigation programsusing “restoration aquaculture.”

� Create a system for monitoring and evaluat-ing regional aquaculture development.

SummerOn June 25 and 26, 2002, PAC is assisting NMFS,the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, andthe Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wild-life to carry out a workshop on Captive brood-stocks for recovery of imperiled salmon populations inGig Harbor, Washington. The organizers arecalling for posters, and arranging for plenarydiscussion papers.

Information on the Spring and SummerWorkshops can be found on the PAC homepage: http://www.pacaqua.org ≈

Pacific Aquaculture Caucus—Conference & WorkshopsColin Nash, Pacific Aquaculture Caucus, 2002

12


American Fisheries Society Newsletter, July 2001

An upwell flupsy barge nursery system for Pacific

oysters at Halibut Cove, in Alaska

Ken

Che

w

Farmed fishing’s impactThe original reason for opposition to aquaculture wasfear of mixing farmed and wild Pacific salmon stocks,leading to the genetic weakening of wild salmon.Today, a more important reason is concern for markets.Alaska used to be the primary source for salmon in theworld. Over the years, they have watched each of theirsalmon markets become more and more dominated byfarmed fish.

The US retail market for salmon is overwhelminglyserved by farms in Chile, Canada, Maine, and Norway.Alaskan salmon has become a niche player in this mar-ket. Some fishermen in Alaska are now asking the USgovernment to restrict Chilean imports—although theyhave not filed any type of formal trade complaint.

The US food service market has more room forAlaskan salmon because it is promoted effectively as aseasonal item. The Copper River fishery, for example,is promoted as the first wild salmon of the season.

The primary Alaskan salmon market in Japanfor Bristol Bay sockeye has been impacted by Chileancoho salmon to the point where Bristol Bay prices arenow set by the overall price of farmed coho salmonin Japan.

Now, the state’s halibut fisherman are wondering ifthey are next. Recently, in Anchorage, the Alaska Sea-food Marketing Institute heard a presentation suggest-ing that farmed halibut was on the verge of becoming awidely produced, affordable consumer product. Forholders of halibut licenses who recently won the right toindividual fishing quotas, that represents a threat.

Some Alaska legislators are working on a proposalto impose a marketing tax of 1% on halibut permitholders, similar to the marketing tax on salmon permitholders, to provide funds to market Alaskan wild fish.

But, as the state is gearing up to fight farmedhalibut, it has to be asked if the industry would bebetter off with a complete change of direction? Norwayhas seen its farmed salmon industry become one ofthe leading industries in the country, while its existingwhitefish processors have struggled to retain fish andmake profits.

Most analysts see the major areas of growth in theseafood industry coming from increased efficiencies infish farming, and the expansion of economical farmingtechniques to more species, including cod, halibut, flat-fish, and eventually crustaceans. Alaska has tremendousnatural resources, in terms of growing areas and pro-

The State of Alaska Aquaculture: A Changing Perspective

On these facing pages, we present two articles reflectingthe changing times, efforts, concerns, and interestssurrounding aquaculture in Alaska. The first waspublished in the American Fisheries Society newsletterin July 2001; the second was written in February 2002by Ray RaLonde, an aquaculture specialist at theUniversity of Alaska.

—Ken Chew

continued on page 14

12


July 2001Alaska fishermen and legislators have taken an unyield-ing approach to aquaculture for many years in an effortto protect wild fisheries. The state prohibits all forms offinfish aquaculture.

For shellfish, the state recently proposed to prohibita clam or oyster farm if it might disrupt shorebirds,milling salmon, or threatened wildlife within a criticalhabitat area, or if the farm is some place that might beused for cultural or ceremonial purposes or for com-mercial fishing. Shellfish farmers say these restrictionscould pretty well rule out any beach or cove in Alaska.

The proposal sets quarantine rules for transferringspecies such as scallops and mussels from one locationto another. Farmers say this rule would effectively makescallop and mussel farming illegal. Although the regula-tions are being modified in the face of these objections,they represent the view that aquaculture is a threat tothe state’s economy, rather than a potential benefit.

13


Raymond RaLonde, Aquaculture Specialist, University of Alaska, School of Fisheries & Ocean Sciences, February 2002

continued on next page

Alaska is often considered to be a hotbed of oppositionto aquaculture since the legislature banned finfish farm-ing in 1990. Such a notion is ill conceived. Aquacultureoperators in other parts of the United States have ageneral misunderstanding of the role of aquaculture inAlaska. Even in Alaskan fisheries circles where opposi-tion to aquaculture is still enormous, discussions on fishfarming are no longer behind the scenes.

Alaska is very active in the aquaculture industry.In fact, the salmon ranching industry is the best oceanranching program in the United States in terms of itsproduction and economic impact, and shellfish farmingis on the verge of major development.

Salmon ranching from 31 private nonprofit hatcher-ies releasing smolt into the North Pacific ultimately con-tributed over $56 million into the pockets of Alaskanfishermen in 2000. The cost-recovery income resultingfrom terminal harvests near hatcheries contributed $26million to aide in operational costs for the hatcheries.Cost-recovery income is officially defined as agricultureproduction, making aquaculture Alaska’s number oneagriculture commodity.

Some critics of Alaska’s hatchery system condemnthe salmon ranching program because a number of pri-vate nonprofit salmon hatcheries are behind in theirconstruction loan repayments to the state. But, for dol-lars input and income generated, the salmon hatcherieshave been one of the state’s best investments.

Alaska salmon hatchery operators are some of themost skillful fish culturists in the nation. They operatetheir production facilities with extraordinary attentionto fish health, labor under enormous regulatory safe-guards, and provide real income to the commercialfishermen that support them through their harvestassessment program.

As America’s last frontier, Alaska is in the unenviableposition of being under the environmental protectionistmicroscope. Politically, congressmen from states farremoved from Alaska have a profound affect on thedevelopment of the state’s marine resources. As a newenterprise for Alaska, shellfish aquaculture must con-form to a stringent set of environmental rules. As anexample, Alaska regulations ban the importation ofexotic species for the purpose of aquaculture, with theexception of Pacific oysters that do not reproduce inAlaska waters.

In addition, considerable conflict has recently sur-

faced between the industry and the Alaska Departmentof Fish and Game (ADF&G) Habitat Division over thepossible environmental impacts of on-bottom clamfarming. As often occurs during times of conflict, con-siderable misinformation fuels the fire.

In response, a conference sponsored by ADF&G, thePacific Aquaculture Caucus, Alaska Export Council, andAlaska Sea Grant was held in Anchorage last fall to“Explore On-bottom Shellfish Aquaculture” and to provideinformation on environmental impacts. The AlaskanShellfish Growers Association, with a grant from theAlaska Conservation Alliance, is nearing completion ofa draft environmental code of practice for the industry,another step to address environmental concerns.

Alaskan shellfish aquaculture, because of the exoticspecies import ban, could only raise Pacific oysters until1997 when the state built its first shellfish hatchery.This state-of-the-art facility (the Qutekcak ShellfishHatchery), coupled with the talents of Jon Agosti,hatchery manager, has been able to produce seed forfour indigenous species: Littleneck clam Protothacastaminea, purple hinge rock scallop Crassadoma gigantea,basket cockle Clinocardium nuttalli, and geoduck clamPanopea abrupta. Growout studies are underway, and anumber of farmers are participating.

The Aquatic Farm Act of 1990 specifically states, “Itis the policy of the state to encourage the establishmentand responsible growth of an aquatic farming industry.”Two important events have eased regulatory constraintssince 1998: development of a 10-year tidelands leasingprogram within the Alaska Department of NaturalResources and hiring a proactive Mariculture Coordi-nator within ADF&G. Despite recurring problemswithin current aquaculture regulations, University ofAlaska and the shellfish aquaculture industry initiativesare moving ahead at breakneck speed. Equipped withover $425,000 of grant funding, hatchery research,growout projects, product quality studies, marketing,and aquaculture zoning projects are now underway.

The Western Regional Aquaculture Center plays animportant role in Alaskan aquaculture. Alaska has rep-resentatives on all of WRAC’s committees and the Boardof Directors. Salmon ranchers have received benefitsfrom WRAC’s IHN research and feed development,and effluent water quality research will provide infor-mation necessary to meet future water quality dischargerequirements. Current WRAC research in the develop-ment of oyster broodstock and studies on the impact of

13


February 2002

14


cessing infrastructure, which couldbenefit from a surge in fish farm-ing. At what point will the fishinginterests in the state determine thatthey have more to gain from join-ing this new wave of seafood pro-duction instead of philosophicallyopposing it?

Producing areas live and die bytheir markets. No producing areacan afford to indefinitely ignoresuch major market changes as aretaking place with seafood. ≈

on-bottom aquaculture will providesignificant, practical results that willbenefit shellfish aquaculture.

As an indication of the changingmood about aquaculture, the Uni-versity of Alaska, Qutekcak Shell-fish Hatchery, and representativesof the Alaska Shellfish GrowersAssociation were invited to give apresentation to the legislative FishCaucus. Traditionally, the Caucusfocuses on commercial fisheries; foraquaculture to be invited is a signifi-cant event. The presentation so im-pressed legislators that support forshellfish aquaculture has beenpushing forward legislation thatcould open up a substantial num-ber of farming locations and pro-vide funding for planning industrygrowth.

Based upon the premise thatshellfish aquaculture is an economicopportunity for coastal Alaskans indire need of assistance and is com-patible with commercial fishing, ex-pect Alaska to pursue shellfishaquaculture as a positive and pro-gressive new industry for the lastfrontier. ≈

WRAC seeksCommittee Nominations

WRAC is soliciting nominations for leaders in the aquaculture industryto serve as representatives on the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) andas members of the Technical Committee’s (TC) Research Subcommittee.Nominations are invited from all sectors of the aquaculture communityin the twelve states of the western region. (You may nominate more thanone individual for both IAC and TC.)

Industry Advisory CouncilMembers are selected from all sectors of the aquaculture industry, in-cluding finfish and shellfish producers, suppliers of goods and ser-vices, and marketing and distribution personnel.

Technical Committee’s Research SubcommitteeIndividuals with extensive scientific expertise in any of thefollowing disciplines are desired:

General fish cultureDiseases of shellfishGeneral shellfish cultureShellfish nutritionBroodstock management

To submit a nomination, provide the information requestedbelow, specifying whether the nomination is for the IAC or TC. Pleaseinclude your name, phone number, and e-mail, in case further infor-mation is needed. Forward the information via:

e-mail: [email protected]: 206-685-4674mail: Carla Norwood, WRAC Administrative Office

School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of Washington, Box 355020Seattle, WA 98195-5020.

If you have questions regarding the nomination process, contact CarlaNorwood: ph: 206-685-2479; email (see above)

NOMINATION DEADLINE IS FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2002

Technical Committee Industry Advisory Council

Name of nominee ______________________________________________

Address _______________________________________________________

Phone ________________________________________________________

Area(s) of expertise _____________________________________________

Your name ____________________________________________________

Your phone ___________________________________________________

PhysiologyProduct quality/preservationDiseases of fishReproductionEconomics

Fish nutritionEngineeringMarketingWater qualityGenetics

Alaska Aquaculture


American Fisheries Society Newsletter


Ray RaLonde

July 2001

February 2002

15


On February 25–27, 2002, the Milford AquacultureSeminar held in New Haven, Connecticut, was thescene of an important discussion concerning the pros-pects of forming an East Coast Shellfish GrowersAssociation (ECSGA).

Interest in an East Coast association has been grow-ing for several years. The Pacific Coast Shellfish Grow-ers Association’s activities, organized efforts to maintaina viable industry, and development of a Best Manage-ment Practice code have demonstrated what can be ac-complished by a regional organization.

Karen Rivara of Aeros Cultured Oyster Company inNew York, presented the rational for forming an asso-ciation. She noted that over the past 25 years, shellfishaquaculture has grown on the East Coast in spite ofmany obstacles. New owners and operators of EastCoast aquaculture facilities come from many sectors ofthe economy, from retired school teachers and recentcollege graduates to members of the traditional fisherieswho look to aquaculture to maintain a sustainable livingon the water. Established shellfish companies continueto use and improve various culture methods to meetthe challenges of consistent production presented bylosses due to disease and the loss of good cultivationareas. A regional organization would enable aquacul-ture operators to work as a group to handle issueswhich confront the East Coast industry, from legislativereform to litigation procedures.

Other stakeholders in the marine environment havechallenged the growth of shellfish aquaculture. Accord-ing to Rivara, this challenge stems predominantly froma lack of understanding regarding the impacts of theshellfish aquaculture industry. Shellfish aquaculture issometimes viewed as an impediment to the develop-ment of other industries in the marine environment(i.e., recreation, port development). In addition, manybenefits of the industry such as increasing seafood pro-duction, jobs, and economic development are over-looked.

Unfortunately, many of those opposed to the indus-try have taken their grievances to legislators and thepress, fostering a lack of understanding and animosityin government attitudes and public opinion. Often,aquaculturists are put in the position of having to taketime from their business to defend their livelihoodagainst unreasonable public opposition.

Rivara and colleagues have worked together todevelop goals for the proposed association:

� Establish an association that represents our strengthand diversity.

� Organize to respond to growers’ needs in each stateand the region as a whole.

� Promote and protect the industry.� Work effectively with other stakeholders and organi-

zations.� Involve the industry, academia, extension, govern-

ment, public shellfish, and other stakeholders in thetask of enhancing the shellfish aquaculture industry.

At the seminar, participants discussed these goalsand other issues important to the industry. They alsostressed the importance of getting as many industryrepresentatives as possible to attend the National Shell-fisheries Association (NSA) annual meeting in April,2002, where on April 15, there will be a major all-daysession to discuss the formation of an East Coast Shell-fish Association. We encourage industry members toattend this day-long discussion session—there will be aspecial reduced registration fee for participation in thisone-day event only.

The complete NSA annual meeting will be held onApril 14–18, 2002 at the Hilton Mystic Hotel in Mystic,Connecticut. (To reach the hotel directly, call 806-572-0731.) For information on NSA registration, call Ms.Joyce Wood-Martin at 860-405-9152. ≈

East Coast Shellfish Growers Association: A PossibilityKen Chew, WRAC Director, School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences, University of Washington

Gef Flimlin, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, and Karen

Rivara, Aeros Cultured Oyster Co., discussing the formation of

ECSGA to industry representatives

Ken

Che

w

16


naa news

President’s MessageThere is considerable wisdom in the words ofSoren Kierkegaard, the 10th century Danishphilosopher and theologian who said, “Lifemust be lived forwards, but can only be under-stood backwards.” The mission of the NAA is “toprovide a unified national voice for aquaculturethat ensures its sustainability, protects its profit-ability, and encourages its development in anenvironmentally responsible manner.” As theNAA looks back over the past year, we developsome sense of accomplishment but we also aresobered by the realization that many of our taskswill require persistent, long-term effort.

As the NAA has reached a critical mass of tal-ent and support, we have become intimately in-volved in a wide variety of national issues. Forexample, we have been deeply involved in try-ing to guide the US Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) to develop appropriate, scientifi-cally based and economically feasible effluentguidelines. We have been, along with variousterrestrial animal interests, a significant force intrying to secure additional flexibility for theFood & Drug Administration (FDA) to ulti-mately improve the availability of essentialtherapeutic agents for minor animal speciessuch as all aquatic animals.

The NAA is intimately involved in thedebate regarding non-indigenous, invasiveaquatic animals, striving to ensure that the pro-grams developed nationally or regionally arepractical and of course, appropriate. We haveattempted to steer debate about national or-ganic standards for aquacultured animals andwe have been involved in national aquatic ani-

mal health management issues.While these efforts, and others, are bearing

fruit and we have made positive steps, our in-volvement has still not resulted in a substan-tively improved national regulatory climate forUS aquaculture. There are several reasons forthis situation, but paramount has to be that thecomplexity of the issues and the forces, oftencompeting, require a long-term commitmentand at times an adaptable approach.

The NAA must continue to look forward,adapt to inevitable change, stay focused on ourmission, and at times, be patient. To illustratethe dilemma, we need only look at our effortswith EPA and FDA. The national effluent guide-lines efforts of EPA will soon reach a climax withthe proposal of effluent guidelines in 2002.Considerable effort by many parties includingthe NAA has been put forth to provide EPA withcredible information hoping to better educate thedecision makers about US aquaculture. In spiteof these efforts, there continues to be other lesswell-informed forces apparently influencing EPA.The outcome of these efforts is in doubt so weneed to continue. Our effects through the MinorUse and Minor Species (MUMS) legislation toprovide FDA with greater flexibility to ultimatelyprovide additional therapeutic agents for aqua-culturists, while proceeding, is moving veryslowly through Congress.

We have been working on this legislativeissue for over two years. Congress has recentlybeen preoccupied with terrorism, biosecurity,and economic issues. For us to move forward,MUMS will require a concerted effort by every-one to recruit cosponsors, but we also will needto provide the legislation’s sponsors some flex-ibility on how to get the bill passed. Above all,we must maintain our commitment, be persis-tent, and look forward.

For the NAA to continue its efforts on yourbehalf, we will need your continued support. Weneed your financial support and your talents. Weneed thoughtful ideas and sometimes, a commit-ment of your time. We are fortunate to have avery talented staff with Betsy Hart and MaryWiltshire but they cannot do everything. If weare to be successful, we all must participate. If weall participate, the burden on any individual willbe lessened. Thank you for your support. ≈

National Aquaculture Association “One Industry• One Voice” Newsletter, 2001

John R.

“Randy”

MacMillan

Cou

rtes

y of

R. M

acM

illan

As the NAA

has reached

a critical

mass of

talent and

support,

we have

become

intimately

involved in

a wide

variety

of national

issues

..

17


One Industry - One VoiceThe National Organic StandardsBoard (NOSB) established anAquatic Animal Task Force and twoworking groups to advise the NOSBon organic certification standardsfor operations that produce aquaticanimals. The working groups sub-mitted minority and majority recom-mendations. NAA recently wroteSecretary of Agriculture AnnVeneman and requested a delay invoting until further investigation.The minority recommendation fromthe Task Force was to limit fish mealoil to 5%. It is hoped that the major-ity recommendation will prevail, al-lowing for optimum natural feed re-quirements for each species.

NAA submitted comments to theGulf of Mexico Regional Panel on“An initial characterization of non-indigenous aquatic species in the Gulfof Mexico region” and effected with-drawal of the document from publiccirculation. The Panel then agreedto a review by an NAA-appointedcommittee of industry experts fromthe southeastern US whereby manyerrors were corrected.

NAA participated in evaluating pro-posals submitted to NOAA’s NationalMarine Aquaculture Initiative Re-quest for Proposals. NOAA’s ambi-tious policy calls for increasing thevalue of US aquaculture productsannually from $1 billion to $5 billionby 2025. The US trade deficit in sea-food products is $7 billion annually.NOAA’s initiative stresses appliedresearch leading to commercial pro-duction and awards points for pri-vate sector participation and com-mercial applications of results byprivate users.

NAA joined other animal Agricul-ture Coalition members in submit-ting written testimony to the Com-

mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition,and Forestry concerning the Re-search, Extension, and EducationTitle of the 2002 Farm Bill. Thecommittee was urged to protect andincrease the federal investment inagriculture research and educationprograms and facilities.

NAA joined other members of theFood Industry Dioxin WorkingGroup in a letter to EPA Administra-tor Christine Todd Whitman thatexpressed continuing concern overdeficiencies in EPA’s Draft DioxinReassessment. The deficienciescould, if not addressed correctly,cause unnecessary loss of consumerconfidence in foods of animal origin,affecting domestic markets andinternational trade.

NAA submitted written testimonyurging support of full funding forthe Regional Aquacultural Centersto the House Subcommittee onAgriculture, Rural Development,FDA, and Related Agencies.

NAA joined other animal and agri-culture groups in submitting a jointletter of support to the Subcommit-tee on Agriculture, Rural Develop-ment, FDA, and related agencies tostrengthen Wildlife Service’s re-sources and to ensure a continuedfederal partnership in the respon-sible management of our nation’swildlife.

NAA met with FDA’s The Aquacul-ture Partnership (TAP) to discuss di-oxin, import tolerances, extra-labeluse of medicated feeds for minorspecies, Vietnamese catfish mis-branding import alerts, biotechnol-ogy in seafood, and possible devel-opment of good aquaculture practicesfor human pathogen reduction inthe international shrimp industry.

NAA submitted comments regardingthe Aquatic Nuisance Species TaskForce draft strategic framework.

NAA participated in a workshophosted by the Commission for Envi-ronmental Conservation on Prevent-ing the Introduction and Spread ofAquatic Invasive Species in NorthAmerica.

NAA submitted comments on a bro-chure that is being developed by theWestern Region Panel on AquaticNuisance Species for invasive specieseducational purposes.

NAA participated as a steering com-mittee member reviewing the Na-tional Fish Hatchery System. TheSport Fishing & Boating PartnershipCouncil released a report title “Sav-ing a System in Peril: A Special Reporton the National Fish Hatchery System.”

NAA participated in the first com-prehensive assessment of federalpolicy/regulatory issues on a frame-work for offshore marine aquacul-ture in the 3–200 mile US oceanzone. The report describes the statusof marine aquaculture in the US, therationale for siting projects offshore,using reviews, case studies, alterna-tive approaches, and internationalexperience, and it identifies and ad-vocates approaches for developmentin the US Exclusive Economic Zone.A follow-up study with nationalworkshops and regional meetingsfrom areas currently involved in de-veloping offshore aquaculture (NewEngland, Gulf of Mexico, and Ha-waii) will be held to discuss and laterrevise the policy framework. The fi-nal intent is to present Congress,federal agencies, and other inter-ested groups with a policy frame-work for future offshore marineaquaculture development. ≈

18


Healthy Eating

Helping Autistic KidsTwo-thirds of children with autism are likely to have a fatty aciddeficiency that may be responsible for some of the behaviors andsymptoms of autism. Dr. Gordon Bell of Stirling University inScotland, compared 55 autistic and non-autistic children lookingfor signs of a fatty acid deficiency. He found that 65% of autisticchildren with 12% of non-autistic children showed symptoms ofthe nutritional imbalance. He recommended fish-oil supplements.He said: “when we treat some of these kids by replacing depletedfatty acids we see improvement in some of the behaviors and char-acteristics of autism, their concentration improves and their sleeppatterns stabilize.

—Netdoctor.co.uk

Cutting the Risk of Ovarian CancerEating fish and vegetables may reduce women’s risk of developingovarian cancer, while frequent consumption of red meat may in-crease the risk, a new study showed.

The results showed that frequent consumption of red meat wasassociated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Women whohad high intakes of bread, soup, sugar, pasta, and rice also had aslightly increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Women who consumed high quantities of fish, cheese, veg-etables and edible seeds such as peas and beans had lower inci-dences of ovarian cancer. The study appears in the Sept. 15 issueof the International Journal of Cancer.

—FaxWatch Inc., September 24, 2001

People who suffer from mouth sores can find a lasting cure in anew medicine made of shrimp and crab shells, Chinese scientistssay. The medicine, made of substances extracted from shells ofshrimp and crabs was developed by scientists with the WaterTreatment Center under the State Oceanic Administration inHangzhou, capital of China’s Zhejiang Province.

Although ulceration of the oral cavity, or mouth sores, are notconsidered serious, they usually take a long time to cure and causediscomfort for patients when they are speaking or eating.

The medicine must be applied twice a day to the affected area,said Sun Ziuzhen, a researcher with the center, who has studiedthe shells of shrimp and crabs for nearly ten years.

—American Fisheries Society Newsletter

Healing Mouth Sores

NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SHELLFISH

A Washington Sea Grant Publication

Faye M. Dong, ProfessorSchool of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of Washington

Maintaining good health and asense of well-being are top priori-ties for many people today. Bothhealth and well-being are stronglyrelated to diet. The relationship ofdiet to overall health and the effectof diet on the incidence of certainchronic illnesses, such as heart dis-ease and cancer, continue to be ac-tive areas of nutrition research.Compared to the past, people todayare generally more careful in man-aging their diets to reduce thechances of getting life-threateningdiseases. People are also payingmore attention to better managingany diseases they may already have,and to changing their lifestyles tosustain longer and healthier lives.Based on current dietary recom-mendations, this paper examineswhether shellfish should be in-cluded in a healthful diet.

For a copy, contact:Washington Sea Grant ProgramCommunications3716 Brooklyn Avenue NE,Seattle, WA 98105-6716phone: 206-543-6600fax: 206-685-0380,email: [email protected]

18


19


Health Benefits of Omega-3 Fatty Acids

There is a growing weight of evi-dence that the health benefits of fishoils are so manifest, and so varied,that they may soon be considered alegitimate and widely used healthaid rather than a simple, healthyfood product.

In the April 24, 2001 issue ofthe New York Times, several currentand recent health studies wereexamined, covering fish’s variouseffects on a broad array of illnesses,conditions, and diseases. While theconsensus among health profession-als is that more extensive research isneeded, every study cited fatty fish,including sardines, tuna, andsalmon, to be a legitimate health aidand in some cases, a critical dietarycomponent.

Among the recent findings:

Heart diseaseLast year, the American MedicalAssociation (AMA) recommendedthat people eat two servings of fattyfish per week. The AMA concludedthat there is a beneficial effect onnerve conduction in the heart,which can help forestall potentiallydangerous cardiac arrhythmia.Other recent heart-related researchindicates that fatty acids may pre-vent heart attacks due to clotting,help reduce atherosclerosis, andreduce blood triglyceride levels.

StrokeA study published in the Journal ofthe American Medical Associationfound that women who ate fish onceper week suffered strokes at a rate22% less than women who ate fishjust once a month. Significantly,the health benefits increased withgreater levels of fish consumption.Women who ate fish five times perweek were 50% less likely to have

ischemic (clotting, rather than hem-orrhagic) stroke than the controlgroup. The report examined 80,000women enrolled in the NursesHealth Study, one of the nation’soldest, largest, and most respectedresearch efforts, and was adjustedfor age, smoking, and other riskfactors.

ArthritisThe anti-inflammatory propertiesof fish oils have been put to the testin more than a dozen studies, andthe medical consensus is that peoplewith rheumatoid arthritis can miti-gate their symptoms with regularconsumption of fish. Fish oils werefound to be particularly effectivein lessening levels of joint stiffnessand fatigue.

Crohn’s diseaseA recent study in the New EnglandJournal of Medicine of patients withCrohn’s disease and chronic irri-table bowel syndrome indicatedthat more than half of the peoplestudied remained symptom-free ifthey took Omega-3 along with theirmedication.

Mental healthAmong the most intriguing andimportant developments in fish oilresearch has been the potential ithas to address mental disordersand psychiatric health.

Dr. Andrew L. Stoll, director ofthe Psychopharmacology ResearchLaboratory at McLean Hospitalfound that in a small study, the pa-tients he was treating for bipolardisorders did so much better withfish oil supplements, he began ad-ministering the treatment to hiscontrol groups halfway through thestudy. In his recent book, “The

Omega-3 Connection,” Stoll arguesthat, while research on psychiatricapplications was still in its infancy,Omega-3s are a critical componentof brain health and may help miti-gate a wide range of psychiatric dis-orders.

Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, a psychia-trist with the National Institutesof Health, has found a critical linkbetween Omega-3 fatty acids anddepression, asserting that decreasedlevels of an Omega-3 component,DHA, were directly linked todepression. A large study is underway at the National Institute ofMental Health to verify these linksbetween Omega-3s and mooddisorders.

—WorldCatch News, 2001

SOURCES OF OMEGA-3*

Sardines 1.5 grams

Atlantic mackerel 2.5 grams

Herring 1.7 grams

Lake trout 1.6 grams

Salmon 1.2 grams

Striped bass 0.8 grams

Tuna 0.5 grams

Pacific halibut 0.4 grams

Channel catfish 0.3 grams

Shrimp 0.3 grams

* per 100 grams of raw fish

Source: American Dietetic Association

19


20


Adapted from an article by Cindy Snyder, The Times-News, April 11, 2001

Idaho producers remain optimistic about sales

Trout producers in the Magic Valley in Idahoaren’t putting much stock in a US Departmentof Agriculture (USDA) report that shows thevalue of trout sales fell last year.

For one thing, the reported total sales of$76 million from 20 trout-producing states rep-resents a decrease of just 1% from 1999 sales.And while the USDA estimate is the best num-ber available, there is some question about howaccurate the number is.

The USDA sends out forms for trout pro-ducers to report sales for the past calendaryear, but most companies operate on a fiscalyear that is different from the calendar year.Just the process of converting numbers fromone system to another can introduce errors.

Randy MacMillan, who has the advantage ofheading up research for Clear Spring Foods inBuhl and serving as president of the NationalAquaculture Association, said it’s difficult togeneralize what happened last year. While salescontinue to be strong for Clear Springs Foods,

other trout companies may not be doing aswell—depending on where they market thetrout and how the trout is sold.

Early concerns that seafood sales wouldfall off as the US economy slowed have not yetshown up in the numbers. MacMillan said anabundance of cheap aquaculture-producedsalmon on the market continues to lure con-sumers to the seafood counter. “That’s a goodthing; it increases consumer interest in sea-food,” he said.

According to the USDA’s March 2001Aquaculture Outlook, most of the decrease insales in 2000 came from lower sales of food-sized fish—trout that are 12 inches or morein length. Nearly 59 million food-sized fishwere sold in 2000, down 4% from 1999. Thevalue of those sales was $63.7 million, down 2%from the previous year. Most of that decreasewas seen in Idaho, which accounts for 53% ofthe total value of trout sold in the nation. In-creased food-size fish sales from California,Pennsylvania, and Washington partially offsetthe loss of Idaho.

Sales of stockers (fish 6 to 12 inches) totaled7.6 million fish in 2000 with a value of $6.7million—both figures are up from a year ago.Nearly half the stockers were sold to privateorganizations to stock rivers and fish; the restwere sold to other producers or processors.

Both the sales volume and value of finger-ling sales (fish under 6 inches) were about thesame as 1999. Trout egg sales in 2000 werevalued at $4 million, down 19% from 1999.

According to the report, 44.5 millionpounds of trout were sold in 2000, downfrom 46 million pounds in 1999. Sales totaled$36.9 million in 2000, down from $37.2million in 1999.

Looking at the report, MacMillan sees rea-son for optimism for the aquaculture industry.Consumers continue to gobble up importedtilapia, Atlantic salmon, and shrimp. There’s alarge domestic market for aquaculture prod-ucts. US producers just have to find a way totake advantage of it. ≈

Trout Farmers Not Deterred by USDA Report

Trout farm located along the Snake River in Idaho

Ken

Che

w

Early

concerns that

seafood sales

would fall off

as the US

economy

slowed have

not yet shown

up in the

numbers

21


American Fisheries Society Newsletter, October 2001

Insurance targets fish farming business

Fish farmers need no longer flounder in their searchfor appropriate insurance protection. The HartfordFinancial Services Group, a major insurer of live-stock, has created a new insurance program to targetthe fast-growing fish farming business. Whether afish farm is an indoor or outdoor operation, theHartford can protect this livestock through itsFishstock Mortality Program.

The program provides fish farmers broad cover-age to ensure their operations are protected iffishstock die from weather conditions, disease, ormechanical and electrical breakdowns.

The Hartford has introduced a customized insur-ance policy that partners fish farmers with their localinsurance agents to review specific needs.

The basic Fishstock Mortality Program coversfishstock that die as a result of specific causes of loss.Optional coverage can protect a fish farmer when aheating system breaks down, causing water temperatureto fall, or when foreign or toxic substances infect thefishstock, all resulting in death of the fishstock. Spe-cial coverage includes transportation, fatal fish dis-ease, and deoxygenation of the water from thebreakdown of an aeration system.

“Our goal was to develop a policy that makes fishfarmers comfortable,” said Dave Berry, vice presidentof Livestock at The Hartford. “With so many thingsto think about in running a business, fish farmersneed the security of knowing that their stock is wellprotected by an experienced, first-class insurancecarrier.

The Hartford has worked with the livestockindustry and the independent agents that serve thisindustry for 85 years. Most recently, the company hasbuilt on that experience and its relationships withindependent agents to develop the industry-leadingcoverage and top-quality service that the fish farmingindustry demands. Fish such as tilapia, salmon, andstriped bass are popular among fish farmers, but re-quire knowledge and care to raise successfully.

“The Hartford and its agents have the trainingand knowledge to assist farmers in this growing in-dustry,” said Berry. The Hartford Financial ServicesGroup, Inc. is one of the nation’s largest insuranceand financial services companies, with 2000 revenuesof $14.7 billion. ≈

Fish Farming News, September/October, 2001

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) has published apolicy statement on commercial aquaculture. The fol-lowing are some excerpts:

Commercial production is essential in meetingincreasing demands for food fish and for sport fishing,the provision of aquarium fishes and bait fish, and thelocal production of fish to replace imports.

Such rapid expansion of the industry, however, hasraised many AFS concerns. Disease problems, geneticpollution, escape of exotic and introduced species, andeutrophication are areas of greatest concern.

There is the possibility of amplifying pathogenicorganisms in an intensive culture system, which mightbe released with or without fish into wild populations.All states and provinces should have fish health pro-grams, but because of the diverse nature of these pro-grams, only the federal government may be able toconsistently apply equal standards throughout thecountry.

In supporting the orderly development of aquaculture,and to protect the integrity of native aquatic commu-nities, the AFS advocates the following principles:

Federal, state and provincial agencies should cooperate toensure the health of aquatic organisms, control the transferand introduction of aquatic organisms, and inspect process-ing plants and fish and fish productions to safeguard humanhealth.

When commercially cultured fish are considered for stocking,every consideration should be given to protecting the geneticintegrity of native fishes.

Aquaculture facilities should meet prevailing environmentalstandards. Aquaculture is a form of agriculture. The prin-ciple responsibility for development of aquaculture is in theprivate sector. Government should support these initiativesdirectly through research and development, fish inspection,and fish health certification, and indirectly by reducingunnecessary regulatory constraints, mediating in resourceuser conflicts, and coordinating the involvement of adiversity of government departments.

AFS has also developed a seven-part “policy regardingcommercial aquaculture advocates.” For informationon this policy, call AFS at 301-897-8616 or visit thesociety’s website at www.fisheries.org. ≈

Fish Farming Insurance AFS Aquaculture Policy

22


Mediterranean

mussels spawn

in winter

and peak in

between

September and

May, filling a

niche when

Penn Cove

mussels are

not at the

best quality

Mediterranean Mussels: Pearls of Puget SoundChristine Cyr, FIS North America, American Fisheries Society Newsletter, October 2001

An emerging summer treat for musselconnoisseurs throughout the UnitedStates and Canada is Puget Soundfarmed Mediterranean mussels, orMytilus edulis galloprovincialis. The “meds”as they are called, originate from theMediterranean and were discoveredgrowing in Puget Sound, Washington,in 1989. Since then, the mussels havebecome popular for summer, as tradi-tional mussel varieties are weak fromspawning.

Spawning can cause mussels to loseup to a third of their body weight, leavingthe meat soft or bitter. The native musselto the Puget Sounds is the Mytilus edulistrossulus, also known as the Penn Covemussel. Penn Cove mussels spawn in thesummer and peak in July and August.Mediterranean mussels spawn in the win-ter and peak between September andMay, filling a niche when Penn Covemussels are not at the best quality.

The meds, like other mussels and oys-ters cultivated in the Puget Sound, aregrown using rope culture. This method,which originated in Spain, uses nylontubes connected with mussel spat, or babymussels. These tubes are suspended fromlines hanging off floats or floating rafts.Once mussels are mature, the ropes caneasily be removed from the water andstripped.

Rope culture is in opposition to bot-tom culture, a type of aquaculture wheremussel seed is spread over a section ofthe ocean bottom and harvested with amesh dredge. According to Gordon King,manager at Taylor Shellfish Farms inShelton, Washington, rope culture allowsmussels to mature younger and with ahigher ratio of meat.

“Sales of Mediterranean mussels werehigh this year,” said King. “Meds come ina separate niche of the suspension culturemarket.” Taylor Shellfish Farms, alongwith Kamilche Sea Farm and Penn CoveShellfish, are the largest cultivators ofMediterranean mussels in Puget Sound.According to King, Taylor ShellfishFarms, the largest cultivator of the three,sold around a million pounds of Mediter-ranean mussels this year in the UnitedStates and Canada.

Penn Cove Shellfish and Taylor Shell-fish Farms also produce triploid musselsthat are treated to create three sets ofchromosomes. The third chromosomeprevents triploids from spawning so thatthey can be harvested at a better qualityall year long. (See related triploid articleon rainbow trout on page 9.)

According to King, an advantage tocultivating Mediterranean mussels overPenn Cove mussels is that they are moredisease resistant. Penn Cove mussels aresusceptible to a disease call Hemic neo-plasia. The disease does not affect hu-mans but can be fatal to mussels, and lim-its the period of time in which they areharvested. ≈

Mussel farmer Ian Jefferds (right) showing a student a mussel

operation. Jefferds is holding up a string of seed mussels from one

of his rafts

Ken

Che

w

23


Easy Sesame Halibut

23

Professor Comes Home to HawaiiHelen Altonn, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 17, 2001

Jo-Ann C. Leong, professor and formerchair of Oregon State University’s De-partment of Microbiology (and currentWRAC board member), is closer to herhundreds of island relatives as directorof the University of Hawaii’s Institutefor Marine Biology (HIMB).

Her appointment began in Septem-ber, 2001. “She’s a real winner,” saidC. Barry Raleigh, dean of the School ofOcean & Earth Science and Technology.E. Gordon Grau, former HIMB interimdirector who now directs the Sea GrantCollege Program, said Leong is ”topnotch” in her field and an outstandingadministrator and scholar. “She doesinteresting and important research. We had to work very hard torecruit her,” he said.

Leong said HIMB “is doing sensory biology in the broadest senseof the word, not only looking at marine mammal echolocation, but athow other fish sense their environment and respond to lunar cycles aswell as climate and ultraviolet radiation, etc.”

Cutting-edge work is being done on coral reef biology, stirring alot of interest because of problems with coral reefs around the world,Leong said. “Hawaii, fortunately because of its isolation, has an op-portunity to begin to look at coral reefs before they decline.” Thelaboratory also has a group looking at the response of reef organismsto pollution and other intrusions in the environment, she said.

With a large laboratory building funded by the Pauley Foundationand new faculty who will be recruited, Leong said: “We have an op-portunity to make something pretty spectacular. I’m excited about it.”

Leong earned a bachelor’s degree in zoology from the Universityof California-Berkeley and a doctorate degree in microbiology fromthe University of California-San Francisco Medical Center. She hasbeen on the Oregon State University faculty since 1995, and in 1998was named the second recipient of the Emile F. Pernot DistinguishedProfessorship in Microbiology, which was established to enhance thestudy of microbiology.

She is a nationally recognized specialist on viral diseases in salmon,trout, and aquatic animals, and was a key figure in the creation of aCenter for Salmon Disease Research at Oregon State.

She was appointed chair of the OSU Microbiology Department in1996 and has received awards for her teaching, research, and service.

A research virologist, she teaches virology, molecular biology ofHIV, disease of Pacific salmon, and immuno-pathogenesis of HIV.Leong does research on human retroviruses, such as HIV, and onviral diseases that devastate fish stocks. She also holds patents onvaccines to control viral infection of fish. ≈

Ingredients

2 lb halibut fillets or steaks

1/4 C orange juice

1 Tbsp soy sauce

3/4 tsp sesame oil

1 Tbsp toasted sesame seeds

2 Tbsp ketchup

1 Tbsp fresh lemon juice

1/4 tsp pepper

1 Tbsp brown sugar

Marinate the fillets for 2 hours inorange juice, ketchup, soy sauce,lemon juice, pepper, oil, and brownsugar.

Turn once during cooking.

Heat the remaining marinate andpour over the fish.

Top with toasted seeds.

Ken

Che

w

Jo-Ann Leong, director of

UH Institute of Marine

Biology

RecipeCharlie Swanton

24


Publications

Books

1897 Manual of Fish CultureThe Fish Culture Section (FCS), American Fish-eries Society has reprinted the 1897 manual, anexcellent historical reference of the techniquesused during the early era of fish culture in theUSA. The first in a three-volume series plannedby FCS. To order this publication, contact:

Nick C. Parker, USGS, Biological Resources Div.Texas Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research UnitTexas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX [email protected] Ph: 806-742-2851Fax: 806-742-2946

or

American Fisheries Society,Attn: Orders Department1650 Bluegrass Lakes PkwyAlpharetta, GA 30004Phone: 687-366-1411 Fax: 770-442-9742

Fish Hatchery Management, Second EditionExpands and updates the original Fish HatcheryManagement, the preeminent fish culture manualin North American since 1982. Rewritten to in-clude advances in hatchery operations, practicalknowledge about raising high-quality fish, andoptimal use of culture fishes in management pro-grams. Covers advances in production; water is-sues; transportation; stocking; open, controlled,and semi-controlled systems; broodstock andspawning; nutrition; fish health. Order from AFS(see above).

Harmful Algal Blooms on theNorth American West CoastProceeds from a conference to organize a WestCoast effort for research and monitoring harmfulalgal blooms (HAB) held in 1999 in Anchorage.HABs are a pervasive health and economic prob-lem on the North American West Coast. Paralyticshellfish poisoning and domoic acid are the mostprominent.Edited by: Raymond RaLondePrice: $10To order: 888-789-0090fax: 907-474-6285online: www.uaf.edu/seagrant/bookstore


Heaven on the HalfshellThere’s a certain romance to the oyster industry of the PacificNorthwest. To most, it conjures images of men in oilskins,working from low boats and braving the elements to bring inthe harvest: fresh, succulent oysters from the pristine baysand inlets of northern California, Oregon, Washington, Brit-ish Columbia, and Alaska.

Yesteryear’s wood tongs and hand-powered dredges havebeen replaced by state-of-the-art shellfish hatcheries and bio-engineered broodstock. Still our love affair with the oyster,and our fascination for the men and women who devotedlytend its beds, remain strong. Savory Pleasant Cove, HammaHamma, Dabob Bay, and Malaspina oysters from the North-west are known as some of the finest shellfish in the world.

Entertaining text and engrossing historic and contempo-rary photos present the efforts of pioneering aquaculturists,scientists, field technicians, oyster connoisseurs, and otherswho have shaped this unique industry.

Eighteen oyster recipes round out this lively portrait ofthe bivalve we love best.

Authors: David G. Gordon, Nancy E.Blanton, and Terry Y. Nosho

To order: Washington Sea Grant Program3716 Brooklyn Avenue NE,Seattle, WA 98105-6716phone: 206-543-6600fax: 206-685-0380,email: [email protected]

25


Marine Aquaculture: Opportunities for GrowthNational Academy Press (1992)Coastal farming and ocean ranching of marine fish, shellfish, crusta-ceans, and seaweed are a major and growing industry worldwide. Inthe US, freshwater aquaculture is becoming a significant commercialactivity; however, marine aquaculture has lagged behind. This bookexamines the obstacles to developing marine aquaculture in the USand offers recommendations for technology and policy strategies toencourage this industry. The book provides comparisons between USand foreign approaches to policy and technology and information onthe diverse species under culture. It describes problems of coordina-tion of regulatory policy among federal, state, and local agencies andescalating competition for the use of coastal waters. It addresses envi-ronmental concerns and suggests engineering and research strategiesfor alleviating negative impacts from marine aquaculture operations.Available for download at http//:www.nap.edu/books/0309046750/html

Bivalve bibliographyThe Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History announces an onlinebivalve bibliography containing over 4,800 references, primarily fromits book, Bivalve Seashells of Western North America(http:www.sbnature.org/atlas/bivbook.htm). Access the bibliography at http://205.180.85.170/RIS/RISWEB.ISA. Select the database “bivalve.pdt” Bibliography may bequeried by author, title, date, or keywords. Any questions or prob-lems with the database? Contact: Paul Valentich Scott, Senior Associ-ate Curator, Dept. of Invertebrate Zoology, Santa Barbara Museum ofNatural History, 2559 Pueta del Sol Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105.Ph: 805-682-4711, ext. 319; fax: 805-569-3170; email:[email protected]

Aquaculture training databasehttp://www.was.orgA World Aquaculture Society (WAS) initiative—to maintain a databaseof universities, colleges, and institutions that offer training anddegree programs in aquaculture. Because WAS does not place infor-mation on the site without consent, they urge any interested univer-sity and college to use the “submit training” section of the site. Simplygo to the WAS site; click on the “Training” link; click on the “Submittraining” link; fill out the form; click the “Submit” button. Your insti-tution then becomes part of the global aquaculture informationnetwork. If you have any questions, contact Carl Webster, [email protected]

Sea urchinshttp://zoology.unh.edu/faculty/walker/urchin/gametogenesis.html

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute courseshttp://www.aquaculture-online.org

OnlineTransgenic Seafood: Q&ABiotechnology is having a great impacton medicine and the world’s food sup-ply. For example, some companies aredeveloping transgenic technology thatwill allow them to speed up the growthof salmon or make other seafood spe-cies resistant to certain illnesses.WorldCatch assembled the followinglinks to provide detailed information.

� Q & A about transgenic fishUS Food & Drug Administrationhttp://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/transgen.htm

� Are transgenic fish and shellfish in ourfuture?US Food and Drug Administrationhttp://www.fda.gov/cvm/biotechnology/shellfish/index.htm

� Under the microscope: We can buildsuper fish, but should we?SeaFood Businesshttp://www.seafoodbusiness.com/99may/issue.html

� Designer fish flounder over legalhurdlesThe Christian Science Monitorhttp://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/03/04/fp19s1-csm.shtml

� Transgenic fish could threaten wildpopulationsPurdue Universityhttp://www.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/0002.Muir.trojan.html

� Something fishy—environmental defensehttp://www.edf.org/pubs/Reports/Aquaculture/transgenic.html

� Aqua Bounty Farms—The company’sgoal is to develop fish for aquaculturewith improved growth rates and othereconomically desirable traits through theuse of transgenicshttp://www.fda.aquabounty.com/

— WorldCatch News Network, 5/15/01


26


March 200228–29 Burrowing Shrimp Workshop

Contact: Dr. Brett Dumbauldph: 360-665-4166email: [email protected]

April 200214–18 National Shellfisheries Association

94th Annual MeetingMystic, ConnecticutContact: Carolyn FriedmanSchool of Aquatic & Fishery SciencesBox 355020, University of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98195-5020ph: 206-543-9519email: [email protected]

23–27 World Aquaculture 2002Beijing, ChinaAnnual mtg. of World Aquaculture SocietyContact: John Cookseyph: 760-432-4270 fax: 760-432-4275email: [email protected] web: www.was.org

June 20024–8 4th Int’l. Conf. on Molluscan Shellfish Safety

Galicia, SpainContact: Conference Secretariat, ICMMS Centrode Investigacions, Marinas Aptdo. 13, 36620Vilanova de Arousa, Pontevedra, Spain.ph: +34 986500155 fax: +34 986506788email: [email protected]: www.atlanticocongresos.com/moluscos/index.html

August 20023–7 American Malacological Soc. 68th Annual Mtg.

Charleston, South CarolinaContact: Rob Dillon ph: 843-953-8087email: [email protected]: www.cofc.edu/~dillonr/AMS2002.htm

September 20022–6 4th Int’l. Symposium on Aquatic Animal Health

New Orleans, LouisianaContact: ISAAH2002,Dept. of Pathobiological SciencesSchool of Veterinary MedicineLouisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803fax: 225-578-9701email: [email protected]: www.vetmed.lsu.edu/isaah2002.htm

17–20 Aquaculture Canada '02Charlottetown, Canada19th annual meetingAquaculture Association of CanadaContact: Cyr Couturierph: 709-778-0609 fax: 709-778-0535email: [email protected]: www.mi.mun.ca/mi/aac

November 200215–16 Northeast Aquaculture Conference & Expo

Warwick, Rhode IslandContact: Ann Marie Rathbunph: 401-461-8848, ext. 391 or 800-292-8787email: [email protected]

20–24 6th Int’l. Conference on Shellfish RestorationCharleston, South CarolinaContact: Elaine Knightph: 843-727-6406 fax: 843-727-2080email: [email protected]: www.scseagrant.orgInfo on submitting an abstract, contact: Rick Devoeph: 843-727-2078 fax: 843-727-2080email: [email protected]

2002Calendar

It is never too early to start collecting any newor used shellfish-related items for the annualauction in benefit of the Student EndowmentFunds. Items can include, but are not limited to:books and other publications (historically im-portant reprints), home brews and vintages,jewelry, artwork, and of course, t-shirts andother articles of clothing.

Please bring items with you to the NSA '02meeting in Mystic, Connecticut or send them to:

Sandy ShumwaySouthampton College, LIU,Southampton, NY 11968ph: 631-287-8407fax: 631-287-8419email: [email protected]

NSA 2002 AUCT ION

For the benefit of the student endowment fund˜

27


Aquaculture Extension Contacts

IdahoErnest BrannonAquaculture InstituteUniversity of IdahoMoscow, ID 83843phone: 208-885-5830fax: 208-885-5968email: [email protected]

Gary FornshellTwin Falls County ExtensionUniversity of Idaho246 3rd Avenue EastTwin Falls, ID 83301phone: 208-734-9590fax: 208-733-9645email: [email protected]

MontanaMartin FrickAgricultural Education116 Cheever HallMontana State UniversityBozeman, MT 59717-0374ph: 406-994-3201fax: 406-994-6696email: [email protected]

NevadaMichael CollopyUniversity of Nevada-RenoDept. of Env. & Resource ScienceReno, NV 89512phone: 775-784-4773fax: 775-784-4583email: [email protected]

New MexicoJon BorenExtension WildlifeNew Mexico State UniversityBox 30003, Dept. 3AELas Cruces, NM 88003-8003phone: 505-646-1164fax: 505-646-5441email: [email protected]

Byron WrightNew Mexico State UniversityP.O. Box 30003, Dept. 4901Las Cruces, NM 88003phone: 505-646-7931fax: 505-646-5975email: [email protected]

AlaskaDonald E. KramerUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd, #110Anchorage, AK 99508-4140phone: 907-274-9691fax: 907-277-5242email: [email protected]

Raymond RaLondeMarine Advisory ProgramUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd, #110Anchorage, AK 99508-4140phone: 907-274-9691fax: 907-277-5242email: [email protected]

ArizonaKevin FitzsimmonsEnvironmental Research LabUniversity of Arizona2601 East Airport DriveTucson, AZ 85706-6985phone: 520-741-1990fax: 520-573-0852email: [email protected]

CaliforniaFred S. ConteDepartment of Animal ScienceUniversity of California-DavisDavis, CA 95616phone: 530-752-7689fax: 530-752-0175email: [email protected]

ColoradoW. Dennis LammCooperative ExtensionColorado State University1 Administration BuildingFt. Collins, CO 80523phone: 970-491-6208fax: 970-491-5541email: [email protected]

Christopher MyrickFishery & Wildlife BiologyColorado State University239 Wagar BuildingFt. Collins, CO 80523-1474phone: 970-491-5657fax: 970-491-5091email: [email protected]

OregonJohn FaudskarSea Grant ProgramOregon State University2204 Fourth StreetTillamook, OR 97141phone: 503-842-3433fax: 503-842-7741email: [email protected]

UtahTerry MessmerCollege of Natural ResourcesDept. of Fish & WildlifeUtah State UniversityLogan, UT 84332-5210phone: 435-797-3975fax: 435-797-1871email: [email protected]

WashingtonSteve HarbellCooperative ExtensionWashington State UniversityP.O. Box 881216 Robert Bush DriveSouth Bend, WA 98586phone: 360-875-9331 x633fax: 360-875-9304email: [email protected]

Sandra RistowWashington State UniversityAnimal Sciences411 Hulbert HallPullman, WA 99164-6332phone: 509-335-0165fax: 509-335-1074email: [email protected]

WyomingJim BennageSheridan College3059 Coffeen AvenueSheridan, WY 82801phone: 307-674-6446 x6164fax: 307-674-4874email: [email protected]

28


Western Regional Aquaculture CenterUniversity of WashingtonSchool of Aquatic & Fishery SciencesBox 355020Seattle, WA 98195–5020

Bulk RateU.S. Postage

PAIDSeattle, WA

Permit No. 62

Waterlines is a semiannual publicationintended to inform the general public andvarious aquaculture groups regarding WRACactivities and regional news. These includehighlights of USDA/CSREES-funded researchand extension projects; a calendar of scheduledmeetings and events; and articles regardingaquaculture and related topics appropriate tothe Western region. Readers are encouragedto submit material for inclusion in the news-letter. Publication of material in Waterlinesdoes not imply endorsement by WRAC.

Submit material to:Editor, WRAC WaterlinesSchool of Aquatic & Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonBox 355020Seattle, WA 98195–5020phone: 206-685-2479fax: 206-685-4674email: [email protected]: www.fish.washington.edu/wrac

Printed on recycled paper usingvegetable-based inks,

WATERLINES

BackwashWRAC wants to hear from you. Tell us who you are andwhat you would like to see in Waterlines. If you are a newreader and want to be added to our mailing list, completethe form below and mail to:

WaterlinesWestern Regional Aquaculture CenterUniversity of WashingtonSchool of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesBox 355020Seattle, WA 98195-5020

Or forward via email: [email protected] fax: 206-685-4674.

If you are receiving duplicate copies, please let us know.Name

Address

City State Zip

Country

Comments

WATERLINES - depts.washington.edudepts.washington.edu/.../pdfs/WaterlinesWin2002.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of WATERLINES - depts.washington.edudepts.washington.edu/.../pdfs/WaterlinesWin2002.pdf ·...