 |
|
|
|
|
Commercial
Fisheries Newsline by Ronald E. Kinnunen Abstract: Advisory/extension newsletter for keeping Great Lakes commercial fishing and aquaculture industries informed of relevant regulations, events, opportunities and workshops. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The maps, developed in detail for each of the ports, show surface temperature changes or "breaks" with contoured lines. Three scales are provided including an entire Lake Michigan view, a lake quadrant and a blow up of water off each port. Fishermen receive the data by fax directly from MSU or District Sea Grant Agents. Other individuals or organizations further redistribute the data by refaxing or posting it at sites on their ports. Commercial fishermen in Muskegon and Leland have been receiving the data on a regular basis. They are tracking whether rapid water movement and the resulting temperature changes affect their lifts for whitefish. Most of the Coastwatch users though have been sport and charter anglers who are looking for temperature breaks that congregate salmon and trout in offshore waters. Cloud cover continues to limit consistent availability of accurate data. Our characteristically cloudy weather obscures the surface of the Great Lakes quite regularly. Additionally, light cloud cover and/or fog may indicate false readings that appear to be surface temperature but are actually water vapor. In 1995 the data was modified to significantly avoid this problem. Using seven methods of determination, the maps now indicate probable light and dense cloud cover. 1996 plans call for expansion of the program to other Great Lakes. Commercial fishermen interested in accessing the data should contact their District Sea Grant Extension Agent. Chuck Pistis will discuss this program at Michigan Fish Producers Association Annual Convention in Marquette on January 22, 1996. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information, please contact National Marine Fisheries Service Training Specialist Judy Sprague at 205/596-0947 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The viability of Michigan's commercial fishing industry will depend in large part on how successfully it markets itself and its products. Current prices, profits, and support for the industry is inadequate to assure the long-term survival of the industry. There is no coordinated effort to market Michigan commercial fish. Methods for marketing commercial fish and channels of distribution (e.g., wholesaling, retailing) have changed little over the last twenty-five years even though markets, preferred methods of buying, food distribution, product technologies, and competition have changed dramatically. A major barrier to marketing of commercial fish is the inherent distrust among industry members, and the pervasive attitude that "nothing will work-we've tried it all before." I have been told many times over the last several months that this industry might cooperate when times are bad and prices are down, but as soon as things change, its back to "every person/business for themselves." While many fishers and some buyers recognize that something must change for the industry to survive, there is a reluctance to change the current structure of the industry (e.g., methods of distribution), or marketing methods. It will be difficult to develop or sustain cooperative marketing, or enlist the support of outside organizations, when distrust and skepticism are so pervasive. Recently I requested assistance in support of a commercial fish marketing effort only to be asked, "how can we trust them when they don't even trust each other." This culture of distrust is an obstacle to the type of marketing necessary to cultivate new markets and change perceptions of this industry. It's time to take a hard look at the current and expected future environment for commercial fishing. Coming together on a regular basis to lament about problems and complain about being victimized by court decisions, regulations, and changing market conditions will not increase the price you receive for fish or grow new markets for the future. Successful marketing will require a more pro-active and entrepreneurial attitude. The industry needs to commit to marketing, or resign itself to slow continuous decline. It is no longer enough to be good at fishing or processing. You must also be good at marketing. The industry needs to identify strategic opportunities and problems and decide where cooperative efforts are necessary or beneficial. You need to: (1) create awareness of commercial fishing and its current and historic contributions to Michigan, (2) increase awareness of the type and current "quality" of Michigan commercial fish, (3) identify and aggressively cultivate new markets for commercial fish, (4) develop and evaluate the feasibility of new products, especially products that can be used to reduce the over supply of fish (filets) at a certain time of the year, (5) continually improve the quality of fish handling and processing, and (6) improve relationships with both in-state and out-of-state fish distributors. The industry should carefully consider a "check-off" similar to the ones for cherries, apples and other agricultural commodities. Agricultural marketing organizations have combined "check-off" moneys with other money to support successful product and market development activities. The "check-off" revenues have also provided a basis for marketing partnerships with other businesses and agencies. The commercial fishing industry (not just a few individuals) needs to decide whether the benefits of a "check-off" will exceed the costs. There is a real opportunity to move this issue, but the industry needs to decide one way or the other. Over the last twenty years there have been a variety of contentious issues that have divided state licensed and tribal commercial fishers. In some ways, this divisiveness has benefited individuals and groups that would like to see an end to all commercial fishing in Michigan. It is important to recognize that tribal and state licensed fishers are confronting similar image and marketing problems (e.g., over harvesters, limited markets, low profits). When it comes to marketing, the two groups have much in common and many reasons to cooperate. We need to identify and undertake cooperative marketing efforts (e.g., develop out-of-state markets) that will be of benefit to both state licensed and native fishers. We also should develop mechanisms (e.g., marketing committee) that will foster dialogue and cooperation related to short-term and long-term marketing strategies. Efforts must be directed at developing closer working relationships with state agencies that can assist with marketing including Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, and the Jobs Commission. However, it is not enough to argue that the commercial fishing industry is in trouble and in need of assistance. The industry needs to formulate and commit to a specific marketing strategy. Only then will it be in a position to ask for assistance and form partnerships. Potential marketing partnerships with the aquaculture industry should also be evaluated. Michigan's commercial fishers should also take the lead in investigating the potential for a cooperative Great Lakes commercial fish marketing campaign. There are many persons willing to provide technical assistance to the commercial fishing industry. However, they are looking for an indicator or sign that the industry is committed to a coordinated course of action focused on strategic marketing problems and opportunities. Few people are willing to invest time or energy in an industry that believes that it does not have a future. The industry must decide whether it wants to continue to be victimized by changes in its environment (e.g., markets, regulations, public attitudes), or cooperatively work to position itself for "success." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The objectives of the ITFAP 1995 monitoring program are similar to previous years:
Lake whitefish and lake trout were again chosen as fish species to test for contaminants in 1995, primarily because of importance to tribal commercial fisheries. In addition, these species were sampled in previous years and can be compared directly to fish collected in 1995. Amy Owen (ITFAP Environmental Scientist) reported that Whitefish Bay Lake Superior whitefish and lake trout tested by ITFAP in 1995 were again determined to be well below safe consumption guidelines for mercury, total PCBs, and miscellaneous organochlorine pesticides. Lake trout were additionally determined to be within consumption guidelines for dioxin and furan congeners (TEQs). Concentrations of mercury, total PCBs and total DDT in both lake trout and whitefish decreased from 1992 to 1995. Toxaphene levels appear to have increased in both species from 1992 levels, yet remain well below MDNR guidelines. Differing analytical methodologies may be responsible for the apparent change in toxaphene levels. "During this time period, a comparison of the largest fish tested 23 to 28 inches showed from 36 to 65 percent declines in mercury, total PCBs and DDT," said Amy Owen. "The evidence of declining contaminant levels is strong because we see the same trend in both species, and because state and provincial agencies are getting similar results." "We are now seeing the major contaminant levels averaging 8 to 50 times lower than the State of Michigan's consumption guidelines," said Tom Gorenflo, ITFAP Director. "These positive trends are encouraging and should inspire us to continue in our efforts to protect the invaluable resources of the Great Lakes." For more information, contact Amy Owen or Tom Gorenflo at 906/632-0072. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 28, 1994, a Special Fish Advisory Panel (Panel), composed of two MESB members and eight additional guest scientists with expertise in Great Lakes contaminants, toxicology, risk assessment, human health and risk communication, was convened by the MESB to review the protocol. The investigation consisted of the accumulation and evaluation of scientific literature and data on the subject. In addition, testimony from task force members, public health experts, state and federal regulatory agencies, environmental organizations and concerned citizens was considered. The Panel was chaired by Dr. Lawrence J. Fischer, MESB chairperson and director of the Institute for Environmental Toxicology at Michigan State University. Among the several findings and recommendations contained in the 62-page report, the Panel indicated that the task force did not but should have used and described in the protocol a weight-of-evidence process which includes a consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the relevant scientific studies. Such an evaluation is critical to the scientific justification of the health protection value used to represent a level of exposure to PCBs via fish consumption that is expected not to produce harmful effects. Despite several identified limitations of the task force-selected health protection value, the Panel supported its use of women of child-bearing age. The Panel also indicated further, however, that an adequate margin of safety resides in the task force-selected health protection value, which means that it may be overly protective for other segments of the population. Consequently the Panel recommended that, in addition to the task force-selected health protection value, there should be a second value used to construct fish consumption advice for the less susceptible portion of the population. Finally, the Panel indicated that the protocol did not adequately address either the relative risk of consuming fish versus other foods or the health benefits from eating fish. The lack of such information could lead the uninformed public into believing inappropriately that there exists a greater human health concern from fish consumption that can be justifiably based on current scientific data. Based on the Panel's review of human scientific studies, the benefits associated with fish consumption by adults may be greater than the risks associated with chemical contaminants in fish caught in the Great Lakes. Copies of the report may be obtained by writing to the Michigan Environmental Science Board, Lewis Cass Building, P.O. Box 30026, Lansing, MI 48909. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fishery management officials from the eight Great Lakes States, the Province of Ontario, and two Intertribal Agencies developed a unified strategy to deal with the European ruffe following an 8 November meeting in Detroit, MI. The European ruffe was first reported in Duluth-Superior Harbor in 1988, having entered the Great Lakes in the ballast water of an oceangoing vessel. Fishery managers' concern that ruffe would access more favorable habitat and disrupt desirable native aquatic communities in the lower four Great Lakes was realized in part this summer when ruffe were reported in Lake Huron waters off Alpena, MI. At this special meeting of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Council of Lake Committees, fishery management officials agreed to recommend changes to the (U.S.) Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force's Ruffe Control Program, so that fishery agencies can be better equipped to deal with the ruffe's impending widespread presence in the lower Great Lakes. Before recommending changes, the Council of Lake Committees (CLC) adopted three broad objectives: first, prevent invasions of new species into the Great Lakes; second, contain ruffe to the Great Lakes (i.e., protect inland and adjoining waters); and third, continue to slow the spread of ruffe within the Great Lakes. Specifically, the CLC recommended that:
"The recommendations of the Council of Lake Committees will help fishery managers focus on the very real problems we face now that ruffe are in the lower Great Lakes," commented Council of Lake Committees Chairman Douglas Jester of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. "The appearance of ruffe represents a permanent change in the Great Lakes fishery. The State, Tribal and Provincial authorities have taken a big step in attacking this problem in a unified and constructive fashion." "Healthy ecosystems should assist in fending off the damages ruffe will pose," added Ron DesJardine of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Vice- chair of the CLC. "The Council of Lake Committees recognizes that strong, healthy fish communities can act as a bulwark against the ruffe invasion. Our overall objectives go beyond dealing with ruffe and focus on building sustainable fish communities that will be more resilient to foreign invaders such as ruffe." Ruffe already have become a dominant species in the fish community of Lake Superior's Duluth-Superior Harbor. Even though ruffe now constitute as much as 15 percent of the diets of predators such as pike, predators are not containing ruffe populations in the Harbor. "Ruffe are nasty little fish," opined Jim Selgeby, a scientist with the U.S. National Biological Service. Selgeby stated that brown bullheads, troutperch, and other species have declined in the face of ruffe expansion in Duluth-Superior. However, all managers and scientists were pleased to see a strong 1995 yearclass of yellow perch in Duluth-Superior, and hope that these young fish will survive to catchable size and that the damage will not be as great as originally feared. Ruffe have no sport or commercial value. Until this summer, the ruffe had been contained to an area of Lake Superior west of Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula. The Ruffe Control Committee of the (U.S.) Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force recommended a program to track the movement of ruffe and to prevent or slow the spread, realizing that eradication would not be possible. Tom Busiahn of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Chair of the Ruffe Control Committee said, "The Fish and Wildlife Service supports the new direction in management of ruffe, since the opportunity to apply chemical control for range reduction has passed." The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Biological Service had attempted to develop and apply chemical treatment techniques since 1993 to eradicate ruffe in river mouths. Because ruffe are known to occupy deep, cold waters (130' in Lake Superior), some biologists question whether range reduction was ever possible through chemical control of river-mouth populations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using satellite sensor data recently declassified by the Navy in combination with data from the European Space Agency, Smith and his colleague, Professor David Sandwell of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, have generated a computer model of the seafloor in unprecedented detail. The new map, which infers seafloor features from changes in the strength of gravity, provides the first detailed view of ocean floor structures in many remote areas of theEarth. Marine geologists have been mapping the ocean floors for some time but, because of limited quality and coverage of the available data, they have had to use guesswork. Until now, the most common method of mapping the seafloor has been acoustic echo sounder readings taken by ships; only a small fraction of the sea floor has been charted, and in some remote parts of the oceans there are gaps between charted areas the size of Kansas. Much of the available data is also low tech, and inaccurately navigated. Even using the most advanced technologies available today, it would take over 125 years to chart the ocean basins using acoustic devices on ships. The newly declassified satellite data have a survey track every three miles, and so scientists can be confident that any feature six miles across will not be missed. Another benefit of mapping the ocean floor via satellite is that the features detected are located with great precision. With this data it may be possible to answer questions like: Is there an uncharted island somewhere where Amelia Earhardt could have landed? Are there uncharted shallow banks that could be rich with marine life and exploitable by commercial fishing? Are there sedimentary basins that might have petroleum reserves that we haven't mapped yet? The data used to generate the new map was gathered by the U.S. Navy's GEOSAT spacecraft between March 31, 1985, and October 30, 1986. As the satellite orbited the Earth almost 500 miles up in space, a radar altimeter on board returned readings of the distance from the satellite to the ocean surface accurate to about one inch. The radar waves were reflected by the ocean surface and did not penetrate it, unlike the sound waves of an echosounder, so that the satellite data yield measurements of the shape of the ocean surface, not the ocean floor. However, Smith and his colleagues at NOAA and Scripps have worked out a method for exploring the ocean floors using these data. They first use the satellite data to find tiny changes in the pull of the Earth's gravity field, and then use those gravity anomalies to infer the topography of the ocean floor. The scientific value of these data was anticipated even as the satellite was flying, and many people have worked a long time to get the data declassified. While a senator, Vice President Gore started a group called the Environmental Task Force, to seek answers to this question: are there technologies and data sets which, because of their military value, are classified, but which would have even greater value to the scientific community and the civilian economy if they could be released? This release of data set is one result of this exercise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In California, the seafood industry, hoping to cash in on the chic cache of California, is readying a plan to promote local fish by placing a special California-caught logo on seafood products. And in Alaska, the salmon industry, battered by competition from farm-raised fish, is fighting to stay alive in the European market by sending its fishermen abroad to promote products and seek new markets in Europe and Asia. At home, the industry is promoting "Alaska salmon nuggets" to the school lunch program. From coast to coast, the fishing industry has found that smart marketing is helping it weather tough times brought on by the depletion of traditional fish stocks, stiff competition from imports and the difficulties of selling unusual but abundant fish species to skeptical consumers. Marketing seafood that comes from healthy stocks such as lobsters, salmon, skate and whiting also allows the industry to tell a positive story about itself, and thus respond to the recent barrage of bad publicity. The credibility and perception of the fishing industry has become more negative. Marketing gives a chance to turn this around. For fishermen, smart marketing can help them get a bigger bang for the buck earned from seafood. As fishermen work harder for smaller catches, they must maximize the return for every pound landed. This can be done by consistently producing top quality fish and aggressively promoting it as such to consumers here and abroad. Little by little, fishermen in many parts of the country have become more active promoting their catches. It's not a role that comes naturally to most. Fishermen are more comfortable selling their products at the dock and leaving it up to the processors, seafood associations or retail stores and restaurants to do the rest. More and more, consumers are demanding to know more about the fish they buy who caught it, how, when and where. This has led fishermen to attend seafood promotions at grocery stores, to staff booths at seafood fairs and to travel abroad to promote their products and answer questions directly from buyers about how they do their jobs. Fishermen have gotten involved in other ways, too. In Alaska, the industry has agreed to pay a tax to finance marketing initiatives of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, and in Maryland, a $10 fee assessed on fishing licenses is used by the state for seafood promotions. In Maine, fishermen have a say in how lobsters are promoted by holding seats on the board of the Maine Lobster Promotion Council. This is a brave, new world for fishermen, and creating a connection between the consumer and the producer of a product is the wave of the future. Source: National Fisherman- Nov. 95 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The new Food and Drug Administration regulations represent a revolution in the way food is protected. The regulations based on principles of a system called Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) replace the approach adopted in the early 1900s that addressed safety problems after the fact with new procedures under which food processors will take greater responsibility for preparing safe food, and government and industry will work more closely together to protect public health. It is estimated that these regulations will prevent 20,000 to 60,000 seafood poisonings a year, which cost consumers up to $116 million annually. The regulations lead the way toward a 21st century food safety system; they will be followed next year by Department of Agriculture rules for meat and poultry and in subsequent years by additional FDA regulations covering other segments of the food supply. "Many Americans are making an effort to eat healthier and are including seafood in their diet," said Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala. "A system that will ensure the safety of seafood products, regardless of what country or environment they come from, is a high public health priority. These changes also represent another step in the Clinton Administration's continuing effort to protect the public health through smart, state-of-the-art regulations." The key HACCP components of the system are identification of potential problems that could make seafood hazardous; establishment and monitoring of targeted control points to minimize such risks; and keeping a record of the results. Under the FDA rule, seafood processors will have to identify hazards that, without preventive controls, are reasonably likely to affect the safety of the products. If at least one such hazard can be identified, the firm will be required to adopt and implement an appropriate HACCP plan. For example, a highly mechanized processing line would be checked regularly for metal fragments in the food and records kept of those checks. In addition to helping ensure that the food is free of such contaminants, this process also helps manufacturers who subsequently have problems with their food determine how and when those problems could have occurred. Seafood processors using the HACCP system will continue to be monitored under FDA surveillance and inspection programs. HACCP record keeping will enable FDA regulators to monitor product safety more closely and on a more continuous basis than through spot checks. "Our safety inspections should focus on preventing problems rather than chasing the horses after they're out of the barn," said FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler, M.D. "HACCP is a system that will make that possible." While the HACCP rules do not apply to fishing vessels or transporters, processors of imported as well as domestic seafood must take responsibility for incoming materials. If the supplier does not provide satisfactory information about the area where the fish were caught or how they were handled, the HACCP plan will strengthen the processor's position in refusing to accept the shipment. The HACCP regulations contain special provisions to protect the safety of certain types of products. For instance, processors of raw molluscan shellfish (oysters, clams and mussels) must specify in their plans, among other things, that they will accept only molluscan shellfish that have been harvested from approved waters. In the case of smoked fish, HACCP controls call for procedures that will provide safety from Clostridium botulinum toxin through the shelf life of the product. Retail seafood operations, while exempt from the FDA rule, are regulated by state and/or local authorities with training and other technical assistance from FDA. The HACCP regulations for seafood processors was recently published in the Federal Register. The rule will be fully implemented over the next two years and the agency anticipates being able to perform HACCP inspections beginning in 1996. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under HACCP, processors identify potential food safety hazards and implement a system of controls and checks which reduces the probability of unsafe products reaching the consumer. HACCP development involves a series of steps beginning with a thorough analysis of potential hazards (Hazard Analysis) at each processing operation, given the expected end-use of the product. Steps which must be controlled to assure safety or other requirements are designated Critical Control Points (CCPs). At these points (and only there) Critical Limits are established. The appropriate parameters are Monitored to assure that these limits (such as product storage temperatures) are not exceeded. Records are kept as documentation that the CCPs are under control. When a critical limit is exceeded, a Corrective Action is taken and documented. The final step is periodic Verification that the HACCP system is working. Steps for Implementing the Seven Principles of HACCP
Aquaculturists (growers) were excluded from FDA's HACCP proposal. Also excluded were transporters (e.g., trucking firms), and retail and food service sectors which are inspected by state and local agencies. The proposal would place responsibility for HACCP on processors and importers. Aquaculturists may question their need to develop a HACCP program given this expected exclusion. However, the issue is quite complex. FDA's position is to conduct HACCP inspections at facilities of the type they currently inspect. For this reason, they include warehouses and wholesale companies in their definition of "processor," even though these firms may not directly handle the product. This policy allows FDA to inspect and intercept non-compliant products at some point in distribution. It seems doubtful therefore that FDA will permit the direct sale of aquaculture products to end users without HACCP controls, even when each step (production and harvesting, trucking, retail) appears to be excluded. For example, simply icing or boxing fish is likely to meet the definition of processing for inspection purposes. Even if FDA does not directly inspect aquaculture facilities, they will require processors who receive aquaculture products to provide documentation that the products they purchase are under HACCP controls. This liability will almost certainly translate to an economic reality for producers: buyers of seafood for processing plants and wholesale distribution companies may soon purchase only from suppliers who operate under HACCP. In the "Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guide" FDA identifies three safety categories (chemical contamination, food and color additives, and aquaculture drugs) and three non-safety categories (filth, decomposition and parasites) which should be controlled in aquaculture. Implicit in their comments is the need to implement HACCP at the grow-out site to control hazards, including the contamination of products with agricultural chemicals. The agency identifies several pathogenic bacteria of concern in seafood including a few which are especially significant for aquaculturists: Clostridium botulinum, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus aureus. The first three microorganisms are associated with ponds and other outdoor facilities. C. botulinum is a soil organism which, under certain conditions, can produce the toxin responsible for botulism poisoning. Listeria and Salmonella are often associated with the intestinal tracts of livestock and wildlife, including birds which may frequent ponds. Individuals may also shed these bacteria. Listeria is readily tracked into packing facilities on feet and adapts especially well to cool, moist areas such as storage coolers. Staph. aureus is most commonly transferred to food by people during handling. Other pathogens also should be considered during hazard analysis, and new organisms will emerge in the future. As previously stated, FDA expects to hold processors responsible for products produced by aquaculture producers. FDA anticipates that processors will periodically visit production sites and audit procedures. They recommend that, before product is accepted, field agents review the grower's animal drug and medicated feed usage records and any veterinary prescriptions. FDA also expects that products will be periodically tested for drug residues. An aquaculture setting offers the potential for tight controls. However, aquaculture products are not inherently safer or of higher quality than their wild harvest counterparts. Only through effectively managed safety and quality assurance programs is this potential realized. For liability reasons, the aquaculture industry is urged to be extremely cautious when promoting food safety as a marketing advantage. Source: Maryland Aquafarmer - Fall 95 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Michigan Aquaculture Association will be hosting the social for the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center meeting on Friday evening. Those attending the Michigan Aquaculture Association meeting will be invited as observers to any of the North Central Aquaculture Center meetings they wish to attend. Of particular interest should be the annual project update reports. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Jerry Kahn at 517/724-5241 or Bob Baldwin at 616/796-2284. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One major issue that surfaced was how an approved species list would be generated and who would be responsible for it. The bill had been designed to have the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) as lead agency and the Agriculture Director responsible for the list. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) did not want this approach but wanted to have MDA, DNR, DEQ and the Office of the Great Lakes collaborate on the species list in the bill. A solution to this dilemma is to introduce the species list with the bill and periodically amend the species list through the legislature. The Act or legislation is currently in the Legislative Service Bureau being finalized for Bill form and formal introduction by Representative Mike Green. For a copy of the Bill you can contact Bob Baldwin (President-Michigan Aquaculture Association) at 616/796-2284. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stocker trout sales totaled 150,000 pounds with an average liveweight of 0.29 pounds. The value of sales, at $350,000, dropped 48 percent from a year ago, and averaged $2.33 per pound. Fee fishing (38 percent of total), other (27 percent of total) and sales to other producers (18 percent of total) accounted for the majority of sales. Fingerling sales totaled 18,000 pounds, down 44 percent. The value of sales decreased $25,000 to $200,000 and averaged $11.11 per pound. Losses of trout in Michigan amounted to 178,000 fish, weighing 115,000 pounds. Predators and disease were the leading causes of death, accounting for 65 and 23 percent of all fish lost, respectively. Nationally, trout sales, including egg sales, totaled $73.9 million, an increase of 13 percent from a year ago. Trout growers in the 15 selected states sold a total of 58.4 million pounds of trout valued at $68.3 million this year. Foodsize trout sales accounted for 89 percent of the value of all trout sold. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two walleye culture workshops sponsored by the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center are now being planned for this spring and early summer. Ron Kinnunen (Michigan Sea Grant Extension) and Jeff Gunderson (Minnesota Sea Grant Extension) are working with Robert Summerfelt (Iowa State University) on the logistics on these workshops which will be held at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. The first workshop will be held in late April or early May 1996 (depending on conflicts with walleye culturists) to demonstrate the technology of intensive mass culture of walleye fry on formulated feed in tanks. The target audience for this workshop will be primarily tribal, state, and federal hatchery biologists. Attendance will be limited to approximately 20 to 30 with a cost of about $25 to $30. Those attending will receive a copy of the new North Central Regional Aquaculture Center Walleye Culture Manual. A second workshop will be conducted in June 1996 and will focus on intensive tank culture of fingerlings to food size. Audience for this workshop will include more private sector growers. Ron Kinnunen and Jeff Gunderson each plan on driving down to these workshops and will have room for several passengers. For more information, please contact Ron at 906/228-4830 or Jeff at 218/726-8715. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The water quality of effluents coming from aquaculture ponds is, justifiably, of great concern to a variety of groups, including adjacent property owners and environmentalists. The research site chosen for Rivera's study was the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Lake Mills Fish Hatchery in Lake Mills, Wis. The study was conducted in conjunction with the DNR's annual walleye and northern pike fingerling production for southern district lakes. Early each spring the ponds at the hatchery are filled with water from nearby Rock Lake, stocked with fry, fertilized to provide food for the growing fish, and drained about eight weeks later to harvest the fish. During 1994 Rivera took water samples from a total of 14 ponds during harvest; seven of these ponds had been renovated in 1992, the others were 40-50 years old. As the ponds were draining, water samples were obtained at five different times to determine the nutrient levels of the discharge waters. When the samples were brought back to the laboratory, Rivera measured several different water quality parameters including temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus levels, to name a few. The second part of the project was to evaluate the effects of the pond harvest effluents on Rock Creek, a small stream that flows out of Rock Lake, through the hatchery, and eventually into the Rock River. Both the water quality and the biological communities of the stream were evaluated in the late spring, during the June harvest period, and again in the late summer. Three different sampling sites were chosen: upstream from the hatchery, adjacent to, and just downstream from the fish hatchery. Rivera concluded that the levels of most measured parameters increased significantly only in the last 10-15 percent of the water drained from the ponds. She suggests that a simple management strategy to reduce or even eliminate the pollution to the receiving waterway would be to direct the last 15 percent of the effluent water to settling or sedimentation ponds. The final sludge could be used as a fertilizer for many types of agricultural activities. The settling ponds could also be used for cropping species such as rice, which are adapted to similar environmental conditions. Another interesting finding from Rivera's work was that the effluents from fertilized fingerling production ponds did not pose a serious pollution threat to the natural waters. Very few of the pollutants measured in the stream were at higher levels than those normally found in undisturbed streams. In fact, she found that hatchery effluents had a net positive effect on the stream due to the increased water flow, a possible outcome not often recognized but of great importance to the aquaculture industry. The minor impacts of the harvest effluents were concentrated in the area immediately next to the hatchery. However, due to the stream's capacity to regenerate at the increased flow rates, the biotic communities downstream from the hatchery were restored to a more diverse state than before. Source: Wisconsin Aquaculture Update - Fall 95 |