 |
|
|
|
|
Annual Progress
Report North Central Regional Aquaculture Center A table of commonly used abbreviations and acronyms can be found before the footnotes toward the end of the document. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE 1 (North Central Regional Aquaculture Center funded projects) PROJECT TERMINATION OR PROGRESS REPORTS Extension (Project Component Termination Report) Extension (Progress Report) Yellow Perch (Project Termination Report) Yellow Perch (Progress Report) Hybrid Striped Bass (Project Component Termination Report) Hybrid Striped Bass (Progress Report) Sunfish (Progress Report) Salmonids (Progress Report) Wastes/Effluents (Progress Report) National Aquaculture INAD/NADA Coordinator (Progress Report) Tilapia (Progress Report) Aquaculture Drugs: Safety of 17-Methyltestosterone for Induction of Sex Inversion in Walleye (Project Termination Report) APPENDIX (Publications, Manuscripts, Papers Presented, and Other Outputs for all Funded Projects) North Central Regional Aquaculture Conference National Aquaculture Extension Workshop/Conference National Aquaculture INAD/NADA Coordinator INTRODUCTION The U.S. aquaculture industry continues to be one of the fastest growing sectors within U.S. agriculture, although at a lesser rate than what occurred during the 1980s. Production in 1996 reached 694 million pounds and generated approximately $886 million for producers. The impact of U.S. aquaculture is substantial accounting for approximately 181,000 jobs and generating an estimated $5.6 billion annually. Yet, anticipated growth in the industry, both in magnitude and in species diversity, continues to fall short of expectations. Much of what is known about aquaculture science is a result of institutional attention given to our traditional capture of wild fisheries with the goal of releasing cultured fishes into public waters for enhancement of declining public stocks. Despite extensive efforts to manage wild populations for a sustained yield, as a nation we consume substantially greater amounts than we produce. Much of the United States' demand for seafood has been met by imports. The U.S. imports over 40% of its fish and shellfish and, after Japan, is the world's second largest importer of seafood. Fisheries imports are the largest contributor to the U.S. trade deficit among agricultural products, and the second largest after petroleum, among all natural resources products. The value of imported fisheries products more than doubled during the 1980s and has continued to increase in the 1990s. In fact, the $14.5 billion value for 1997 was a record. In 1997, the trade deficit was $5.2 billion for all fisheries products, $5.0 billion of which was for edible fish and shellfish. Landings for most commercial capture fisheries species and recreational fisheries of the United States have been relatively stable during the last decade, with many fish stocks being over exploited. In this situation, aquaculture provides an opportunity to reduce the trade deficit and meet the rising U.S. demand for fish products. A strong domestic aquaculture industry is needed to increase U.S. production of fish and shellfish. This can be achieved by a partnership among the Federal Government, State and local public institutions, and the private sector with expertise in aquaculture development. Congress recognized the opportunity for making significant progress in aquaculture development in 1980 by passage of the National Aquaculture Act (P.L. 96-362). Congress amended the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113) in Title XIV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-98) by granting authority to establish aquaculture research, development, and demonstration centers in the United States in association with colleges and universities, State Departments of Agriculture, Federal facilities, and non-profit private research institutions. Five such centers have been established: one in each of the northeastern, north central, southern, western, and tropical/subtropical Pacific regions of the country. The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR) (P.L. 104-127) otherwise know as the Farm Bill, has reauthorized the Regional Aquaculture Center program at $7.5 million per annum. As used here, a center refers to an administrative center. Centers do not provide monies for brick-and-mortar development. Centers encourage cooperative and collaborative aquaculture research and extension educational programs that have regional or national application. Center programs complement and strengthen other existing research and extension educational programs provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other public institutions. As a matter of policy, centers implement their programs by using institutional mechanisms and linkages that are in place in the public and private sector. The mission of the Regional Aquaculture Centers (RACs) is to support aquaculture research, development, demonstration, and extension education to enhance viable and profitable U.S. aquaculture production which will benefit consumers, producers, service industries, and the American economy. The North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) was established in February 1988. It serves as a focal point to assess needs, establish priorities, and implement research and extension educational programs in the twelve state agricultural heartland of the United States which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. NCRAC also provides coordination of interregional and national programs through the National Coordinating Council for Aquaculture (NCC). The council is composed of the RAC directors and USDA aquaculture personnel. Michigan State University (MSU) and Iowa State University (ISU) work together to develop and administer programs of NCRAC through a memorandum of understanding. MSU is the prime contractor for the Center and has administrative responsibilities for its operation. The Director of NCRAC is located at MSU. ISU shares in leadership of the Center through an office of the Associate Director who is responsible for all aspects of the Center's publications, technology transfer, and outreach activities. At the present time the staff of NCRAC at MSU includes Ted R. Batterson, Director, and Liz Bartels, Executive Secretary. The Center Director has the following responsibilities: Serving as executive secretary to the Board of Directors, responsible for preparing agenda and minutes of Board meetings; Serving as an ex-officio (non-voting) member of the Technical Committee and Industry Advisory Council; Coordinating the development of research and extension plans, budgets, and proposals; Coordinating and facilitating interactions among the Administrative Center, Board of Directors, Industry Advisory Council, and Technical Committee; Monitoring research and extension activities; Arranging for review of proposals for technical and scientific merit, feasibility, and applicability to priority problems and preparing summary budgets and reports as required; Recruiting other Administrative Center staff as authorized by the Board of Directors; With assistance of the Economics and Marketing Work Group, Technical Committee, or others preparing a summary of regional aquaculture, including production statistics and sales, and identifying technical, financial, and institutional constraints to expanding production. The summary shall include sections addressing established industries, development industries, and opportunities for new product development, and recommended research needs; Maintaining liaison with other RACs; and Serving on the NCC. At the present time the staff of NCRAC's Office for Publications and Extension Administration at ISU includes Joseph E. Morris, Associate Director, and Merry Rankin, Program Assistant. The Associate Director has the following responsibilities: Serving as head of Publications for NCRAC, including editor of the Center's newsletter; Serving as the NCRAC liaison with national aquaculture extension programs, including in particular, extension programs of the other four USDA RACs; and Serving as a member of NCRAC's Extension Executive Committee. The Board of Directors (BOD) is the primary policy-making body of the NCRAC. The BOD has established an Industry Advisory Council (IAC) and Technical Committee (TC). Membership of the BOD consists of two persons from the IAC (the chair and an at-large member), a representative from the region's State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension Services, a member from a non-land grant university and representatives from the two universities responsible for the center: Michigan State and Iowa State. The IAC is composed of representatives from each state's aquaculture association and six at-large members appointed by the BOD who represent various sectors of the aquaculture industry and the region as a whole. The TC is composed of a sub-committee for Extension (TC/E) and a sub-committee for Research (TC/R). Directors of the Cooperative Extension Service within the North Central Region appoint representatives to the TC/E. The TC/R has broad regional make-up and is composed of scientists from universities and state agencies with varied aquacultural expertise who are appointed by the BOD. Each sub-committee of the TC has a chairperson who serves as an ex-officio member of the BOD. NCRAC functions in accordance with its Operations Manual which is periodically amended and updated with BOD approval. It is an evolving document that has changed as the Center's history lengthens. It is used for the development of the cooperative regional aquaculture and extension projects that NCRAC funds. Since inception of NCRAC February 1, 1988, the role of the Administrative Center has been to provide all necessary support services to the BOD, IAC, TC, and project work groups for the North Central Region as well as representing the region on the NCC. As the scope of the NCRAC programs expand, this has entailed a greater work load and continued need for effective communication among all components of the Center and the aquaculture community. The Center functions in the following manner. After BOD approval of Administrative Center costs, the Center submits a grant to USDA/CSREES/Grants Management Branch for approval. To date the Center has received 11 grants from USDA for FY88 (Grant #88-38500-3885), FY89 (Grant #89-38500-4319), FY90 (Grant #90-38500-5008), FY91 (Grant #91-38500-5900), FY92 (Grant #92-38500-6916), FY93 (Grant #93-38500-8392), FY94 (Grant #94-38500-0048), FY95 (Grant #95-38500-1410), FY96 (Grant #96-38500-2631), FY97 (#97-38500-3957), and FY98 (#98-38500-5863) with monies totaling $7,949,181. Currently, five grants are active (FY94-98); the first six grants (FY88-93) have terminated. The Center annually coordinates a program planning meeting which sets priorities for the next funding cycle and calls for regional workshops to develop project outlines to address priority problem areas. Work Groups, which are formed at the workshops, submit project outlines to the Center. The projects are peer reviewed by experts from both within and outside the region. The BOD, using reviewers' responses, decides which projects are to be approved and funding levels. The Center conveys BOD decisions to all Project Work Groups. Those that are approved for funding are asked to submit revised project outlines incorporating BOD and reviewers' comments. The Center then submits the revised project outlines as a Plan of Work (POW) to USDA for approval. Once a POW is approved by USDA, the Center then prepares subcontracts for each participating institution. The Center receives all invoices for subcontractual agreements and prepares payment vouchers for reimbursement. Thus, the Center staff serve as fiscal agents for both receiving and disbursing funds in accordance with all terms and provisions of the grants. Through August 31, 1997, the Center has funded or is funding 45 projects through 236 subcontracts from the first nine grants received. Funding for these Center supported projects is summarized in Table 1 below). During this reporting period, the Publications Office at ISU produced and distributed a number of publications including fact sheets, technical bulletins, videos, and the Center's newsletter. A complete list of all publications from this office is included in the Appendix under Extension. Other areas of support by the Administrative Office during this reporting period included: monitoring research and extension activities and developing progress reports; developing liaisons with appropriate institutions, agencies and clientele groups; preparing, in coordination with the other RACs, both written and oral testimony for the U.S. House Appropriations sub-committee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies hearing in Washington, D.C.; participating in the NCC; numerous oral and written presentations to both professional and lay audiences; working with other fisheries and aquaculture programs throughout the North Central Region; and in conjunction with the Aquaculture Network Information Center (AquaNIC) maintaining a NCRAC web site (ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/ncrac). A joint Program Planning meeting of the BOD, IAC, and TC is held every year in the early winter. The IAC, with input from the TC, generates a list of priority areas for consideration by the BOD. Using their recommendation as guidelines, the BOD then selects priority areas for which project outlines will be developed. The BOD also specifies a maximum funding level for each priority area. Problem statements and objectives are then developed for each priority area by IAC and TC members at the Program Planning meeting. For projects with more than one objective, the IAC ranks the objectives by priority. The problem statement and objective(s) are then included in a workshop announcement that is broadly distributed throughout the North Central Region. The workshops are one-day events to establish a work group that will develop a project outline over the summer months. Work group members will be those who have demonstrated that they have the expertise and facilities for undertaking the proposed work in regard to a particular objective or objectives. The proposed work cannot deviate from the objective or objectives included in the workshop announcement. The work group elects a chair and secretary. The chair is responsible for submitting the project outline to the NCRAC Director; the secretary is responsible for preparing minutes from the workshop that are distributed to all attendees. All project outlines are peer reviewed. The reviewers' comments are used by the BOD in making the final selection of projects and level of funding at the following year's annual Program Planning meeting. All work group members are apprised of the BOD decisions. Revisions of projects approved by the BOD are submitted by the work group chair to the NCRAC Director. The revised project outlines are then included in a POW that is submitted to USDA. Upon approval by USDA, the Center issues subcontracts to the funded work group members. TIME FRAME Program Planning meeting: early winter. Workshops: late-spring, early summer. Project outlines developed over the summer by work group members who participated in the workshops. These project outlines are then submitted to the Center in the fall and peer reviewed. The Board of Directors at the following year's Program Planning meeting selects the projects to be funded. Project outline revised and submitted to the Center by May. Revised project outlines are then submitted in June as a POW (or an amendment to a POW) to USDA for approval. Once approved by USDA, subcontracts are let by the Center with a start date of September 1. By following this procedure, it takes approximately 18 months from the time of identifying a priority area until inception of a project to address the issue in question. WORKSHOPS The purpose of the workshops is to bring together those who are best qualified to work on project objectives by virtue of a demonstrated record of expertise and access to facilities required in the project. These people form a work group for the purpose of writing a project outline to address the problem in question. The following criteria typically apply to those projects that are funded by NCRAC. Involves participation by two or more states in the North Central Region; requires more scientific manpower, equipment, and facilities than generally available at one location; approach is adaptable and particularly suitable for inter-institutional cooperation resulting in better use of limited resources and a saving of funds; will complement and enhance ongoing extension and research activities by participants, as well as offer potential for expanding these programs; is likely to attract additional support for the work which is not likely to occur through other programs and mechanisms; is sufficiently specific to promise significant accomplishments in a reasonable period to time (usually up to 2 years); can provide the solution to a problem of fundamental importance or fill an information gap; can be organized and conducted on a regional level, assuring coordinated and complementary contributions by all participants. The NCRAC program pays no overhead to participating institutions nor tuition remission, has no brick-and-mortar money, and relies on in-place salaried personnel, equipment, and facilities to carry out the projects. Due to the collaborative and cooperative nature of these regional projects, no one individual or institution receives a significant portion of the total project funds. As indicated in Table 1, NCRAC has funded a number of projects for many of the project areas it has selected for research and extension activities. For example, there have been six separately funded projects in regard to Extension and Yellow Perch. Project outlines have been written for each separate project within an area, or the project area itself if only one project. These project outlines have been submitted in POWs or amendments to POWs for the grants as indicated in Table 1. Many times, the projects within a particular area are merely continuations of previously funded activities; while at other times they are addressing new objectives. Presented below are Progress or Termination Reports mostly for projects that were underway or completed during the period September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998. Projects, or Project components, that terminated prior to September 1, 1997 have been reported on either in the 1989-1996 Compendium Report or the 1996-97 Annual Progress Report. A cumulative list of all publications, manuscripts, papers presented, or other outputs for all funded NCRAC project areas is contained in the Appendix. Table 1. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center funded projects.
OR PROGRESS REPORTS Project Component Termination Report for the Period September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1998
NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $10,613 (September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1997) PARTICIPANTS:
REASON FOR TERMINATION This component of the project was completed and funding expended. PROJECT OBJECTIVE Quarterly survey of wholesale fish buyers in selected U.S. and Canadian cities with emphasis on the North Central Region (NCR). PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS The NCR wholesale market report was only partially successful due to difficulty in obtaining the needed information from the wholesale fish buyers network as well as personnel changes during the project time period. As a result only five Canadian and Midwestern reports were generated. However, Swann made an agreement with the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) to distribute a bi-weekly text report that they compiled of wholesale market prices for selected cities along the Atlantic seaboard to the Aquaculture Network Information Center's (AquaNIC) Web page. After Purdue University personnel received a faxed copy of the MDA report, it was re-entered and converted for the Web. Twenty-eight MDA reports were posted on AquaNIC. IMPACTS This work was the first attempt for a market report for the NCR. Experiences garnered from this work will be useful for planning similar market survey projects in the future. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES The wholesale market survey was something of interest for many of the aquaculture producers in the NCR. However, for such a survey to be successful, someone needs to devote at least half of their time in undertaking such an activity and have a strong connection with the fish wholesaling industry. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides daily and weekly mark prices for Boston, Long Beach, New Orleans, New York, and Seattle. With adequate funding NMFS's service could be expanded to other regions. PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, WORKSHOPS, AND CONFERENCES See the appendix for a cumulative output for all NCRAC-funded Extension activities. SUPPORT
Progress Report for the Period May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1998 NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $333,810 (May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1998) PARTICIPANTS:
PROJECT OBJECTIVES (1) Strengthen linkages between North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) Research and Extension Work Groups. (2) Enhance the NCRAC extension network for aquaculture information transfer. (3) Provide in-service training for Cooperative Extension Service, Sea Grant Advisory Service, and other landowner assistance personnel. (4) Develop and implement aquaculture educational programs for the North Central Region (NCR). (5) Develop aquaculture materials for the NCR including extension fact sheets, bulletins, manuals/guides, and instructional video tapes ANTICIPATED BENEFITS Members of the NCRAC Extension Work Group have promoted and advanced commercial aquaculture in a responsible fashion through an organized education/training outreach program. The primary benefits are:
PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OBJECTIVE 1 Aquaculture Extension Work Group members have:
OBJECTIVE 2 The demand for aquaculture extension education programs can not be met by the few specialists in the NCR (4.0 full time equivalents). Networking of specialists and Cooperative Extension Service (CES)-designated contacts has maximized efficiency of education programs and minimized duplication. The NCRAC Extension Project is designed to assess and meet the information needs of the various clientele groups through cooperative and coordinated regional educational programming. In fact, individual state extension contacts often respond to 10-15 calls per month from outside their respective state as well as interacting with colleagues with mutual concerns related to developing aquaculture activities. Many of these requests have been met by providing fact sheets, technical bulletins, bibliographies and detailed responses to specialized questions. Prior to mid-1994 little coordination of international aquaculture information sharing existed. National and international agencies producing information could only be obtained by contacting the respective sources of this information. Also, individual Sea Grant and CES personnel relied heavily on information produced by individual states or through regional cooperative projects. As Internet access extended beyond educational institutions and governmental agencies, a clear need developed to utilize the Internet to reach a much broader audience. In the age of an "information overload" the need for a centralized gateway to the ever-increasing number of aquaculture resources in electronic format was apparent. Since the Aquaculture Network Information Center (AquaNIC) began more than 25,000 people from 49 countries have chosen to use AquaNIC as an alternative to or in conjunction with traditional means of obtaining information. Primary users by countries are: U.S. (40%), Canada (5%), Australia (3%), and the United Kingdom (2%). As a gateway to electronic resources in aquaculture, AquaNIC has increased the timeliness and variety of information available to outreach educators, governmental agencies, and individual users while more effectively utilizing existing personnel resources. AquaNIC can be accessed anytime and, therefore, does not face the challenges associated with office hours, time zones or weekends. Several groups have recognized the benefits AquaNIC provides to the world aquaculture industry and have established long-term partnerships with AquaNIC to assist them in distribution of their resources. Key groups using AquaNIC to house their Web sites include: World Aquaculture Society, NCRAC, Indiana Aquaculture Association, Illinois Aquaculture Industry Association, and the Indiana-based Aquatic Control, Inc. AquaNIC began on a Gopher Server in July 1994 and moved to a World Wide Web server in January 1996. AquaNIC (http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic) houses more than 1650 extension publications, governmental documents, image files, comprehensive e-mail lists, newsletters, calendars, job announcements, and résumés. In addition, AquaNIC has 190 pointers to other aquaculture and fisheries related Web sites. It is the gateway to the world's electronic resources in aquaculture including the Regional Aquaculture Centers. It also serves as the home of NCRAC's Web site http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/ncrac. Swann has coordinated the distribution of NCRAC Annual Reports through AquaNIC. Currently, AquaNIC houses NCRAC Extension Fact Sheets and NCRAC Technical Reports and 1991-1997 Annual Progress Reports. Other services provided on the NCRAC Web Site include a directory of administrative staff and various NCRAC committee members, Extension contacts and the NCRAC Journal newsletter. Other activities related to the AquaNIC and NCRAC Web sites include the development of a World Wide Web 30-slide set for use in Extension and Sea Grant Educator training. AquaNIC has been recognized by various groups including:
Aquaculture handbooks have been developed and distributed to each NCRAC-designated aquaculture extension contact and selected CES and Sea Grant field staff member. As with any organization, there have been changes in NCRAC extension personnel since the inception of the project. Landkamer was the primary aquaculture extension contact for Minnesota. However, he left the university and Kapuscinski became the primary contact person; Gunderson has since assumed that responsibility. Two other individuals were replaced in 1994. In Kansas, Neils replaced Henderson and in Illinois, Kohler replaced Selock. There continues to be changes in NCRAC extension personnel since the inception of the project. Lee replaced Neils in Kansas in 1996. Hochheimer, who replaced Ebeling in Ohio, left Ohio State University; Tiu has been recently appointed as the aquaculture extension specialist for Ohio. Sanders has been recently appointed as the extension contact for North Dakota. OBJECTIVE 3 In-service training for CES and Sea Grant personnel and other landowner assistance personnel have been held in most of the states in the region. Training has been in the areas of basic aquaculture and safe seafood handling including Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP). Many of these individuals have, in turn, trained industry representatives in HACCP. OBJECTIVE 4 A number of workshops, conferences, videos, field-site visits, hands-on training sessions, and other educational programs have been developed and implemented. There have been workshops on general aquaculture, fish diseases, commercial recirculation systems, aquaculture business planning, crayfish culture, pond management, yellow perch and hybrid striped bass culture, rainbow trout production, in-service training for high school vocational-agricultural teachers and polyploid induction in sunfish held in the region. In several states, e.g., Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin, potential fish farmers have been able to view aquaculture systems being operated by extension and research personnel. Three North Central Regional Aquaculture Conferences have been held. The first in Kalamazoo, Michigan was held in March 1991. The second was held in February 1995 in Minneapolis, Minnesota and the third conference was held in Indianapolis, Indiana. These regional meetings were attended by hundreds of individuals including persons from Canada. The next conference is scheduled for February 1999 in Colombia, Missouri. On April 10, 1993, over 700 viewers from 35 states and Canada watched the first national interactive teleconference on aquaculture, "Investing in Freshwater Aquaculture" that was broadcast from Purdue University. It was a televised satellite broadcast for potential fish farmers. The program consisted of 10 five- to seven-minute video tape segments which addressed production aspects of channel catfish, crayfish, rainbow trout, hybrid striped bass, tilapia, yellow perch, baitfish, and sportfish. A set of course materials was available prior to the program. Three times during the program, a question and answer period was available to the audience through a toll free telephone number. Questions not answered during the program were answered by mail afterwards. The entire teleconference is available as a videotape from NCRAC's Publications Office as well as two other videotapes by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln that are reprises of the broadcast. In support of extension activities being funded through research projects, i.e., hybrid striped bass and sunfish research projects, extension specialists have completed fact sheets/book chapters/videos. These extension materials arising from the combined efforts of both extension specialists and researchers will help to address many questions concerning aquaculture in the NCR. In addition to the previously mentioned areas, several NCRAC extension contacts have been instrumental in fostering the continued growth of the aquaculture industry in the region. For example, Pierce has recently created the Cooperative Extension Aquaculture and Marketing Educational Program to facilitate the development and implementation of aquaculture educational programs in Missouri. Many of the NCRAC extension contacts have worked with industry and governmental representatives to produce state aquaculture plans and improved governmental regulations. Binkowski has worked with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection in the production of: A Wisconsin Aquaculture Industry Profile Processor Survey 1998 and 1998 Wisconsin Aquaculture Directory. All fish processors, including those who handle aquaculture products, are now required by law to process their fish following HACCP guidelines. Four 3-day HACCP training workshops were conducted by Kinnunen. These workshops served to train fish processors on the principles of HACCP and to give them knowledge on how to develop and implement a HACCP plan for their specific facility. Fish being processed at facilities running under HACCP now meet standards enforced by the FDA. Kinnunen also worked with the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee on establishing a risk-based system to guide appropriate health decisions recognizing that zero risk is never attainable. If a risk system regarding specific fish diseases could be developed it may help relieve the burden of sacrificing 60 fish per lot for disease certification, which has been a hardship on fish farmers. This risk assessment work on fish diseases has been done based on epidemiological studies. OBJECTIVE 5 Numerous fact sheets, technical bulletins, and videos have been written or produced by various participants of the Extension Work Group. These are listed in the Appendix. Other extension-funded activities include: (1) a 4-H Guide for Aquaculture, (2) "Getting Started in Freshwater Aquaculture" CD-ROM and workbook, and (3) HACCP videos. The first two activities have been undertaken by Swann whereas Kinnunen has been working with Steven C. Ingham (University of Wisconsin-Madison) on the HACCP videos. NCRAC has only provided a small component of the funding for the first two activities. The 4-H guide will consist of three youth guides and one leader's guide developed by a multi-disciplinary design team consisting of Sea Grant and CES experts. The guides will be understandable by leaders and youth regardless of their background in aquaculture. The "Getting Started in Freshwater Aquaculture" CD-ROM and workbook is computer-based instruction on the fundamentals of aquaculture. The workbook serves as a guide for use of the CD-ROM which contains technical information, business planning forms, and example examination questions for instructors teaching aquaculture courses. Two HACCP videos will be developed. The first will cover the basics of sanitation in a fish processing plant and the development of a Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure. This video will be similar to one produced for the American Association of Meat Processors in 1996 which sold over 300 copies nationwide. The second video will describe the steps involved in smoking fish, with particular emphasis on the Critical Control Points in this process that must be monitored in a HACCP system. WORK PLANNED Efforts will continue in regard to strengthening linkages between research and extension work groups as well as enhancing the network for aquaculture information transfer. Participants will also continue to provide in-service training for CES, Sea Grant, and other land owner assistance personnel. Educational programs and materials will be developed and implemented. This includes development of a sunfish culture guide, yellow perch culture guide and videos, hybrid striped bass culture guide, a publication on fee-fishing (sunfish), tilapia culture information packet, and a publication on yellow perch culture in flowing water systems. In addition, a draft of the 4-H Guide for Aquaculture will be completed and pilot-tested and the two HACCP videos completed. Future HACCP workshops will be planned as needed in the NCR. Any additional workshops developed and hosted by state extension contacts will be advertised in surrounding states to take advantage of the NCRAC extension network and the individual expertise of Extension Work Group participants. IMPACTS
PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, WORKSHOPS, AND CONFERENCES See the appendix for a cumulative output for all NCRAC-funded Extension activities. SUPPORT
Project Termination Report for the Period September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1998
NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $350,000 (September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1998) PARTICIPANTS:
REASON FOR TERMINATION The objectives for this project were completed and funding was expended. PROJECT OBJECTIVES (1) Continue to improve larval rearing techniques by developing and evaluating different starter diets in relation to size at transfer to formulated feeds under selected environmental conditions. (2) Continue to improve pond fingerling production through examination of in-pond feeding techniques using physical/chemical attractants and improved harvesting strategies for different sizes of fingerlings from various types and sizes of ponds. (3) Continue development of extension materials and workshops emphasizing practical techniques coinciding with production events to meet the needs of established and potential yellow perch culturists through on-site presentations at two or more locations in different parts of the region. PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS As an integral component of this project, private producers cooperated by providing facilities, fish, feed, day-to-day husbandry, and routine data collection. At its inception, this project included the participation of eight different private fish farms in various parts of the North Central Region (NCR). Participating university researchers provided project oversight on experimental design, advice or direct assistance with the technical set-up of any specialized experimental systems, supervision and assistance on critical end-point data collection, and analyses of results. In the project, significant progress was made at certain sites at testing selected research-based production technologies. Accordingly, from an extension perspective, the project successfully built and/or expanded working relationships between North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) researchers and certain regional fish farmers, testing various research-based technologies under practical production conditions, transferring knowledge from academia to the private sector, and identifying private producers who are both capable and willing to sustain a collaborative technology evaluation and demonstration effort. Several of the original private-sector collaborators have either met or have worked hard to meet their project commitments. OBJECTIVE 1 Researchers at Michigan State University (MSU) directed their efforts towards: (1) identifying mouth gapes for first feeding yellow perch larvae, (2) correlating Artemia cyst diameter to nauplius hatching size, and (3) estimating heritabilities. Mouth gapes for larval yellow perch less than 10 mm (0.39 in) total length (TL) were described by linear regression models. For a first feeding 6.0-mm (0.24-in) TL larvae, the mouth gape width was approximately 322 m (0.0127 in) and the mouth gape height was approximately 318 m (0.0125 in). Newly hatched Artemia nauplii from the Great Salt Lake strain (GSL) were as small or smaller than nauplii from the San Francisco Bay strain (SFB). The SFB strain has been marketed as producing the smallest nauplii. The demand and price for the SFB strain was higher, reaching as much as $220/kg ($100/lb), while the GSL strain was priced at less than $77/kg ($35/lb). Large statistical variations in cyst diameters were observed for the SFB and GSL Artemia strains. Nauplii hatched from cysts collected in the micro-sieves MS200 (mesh size in m) and MS280 had statistically significant differences in length, width, and appendage length for both strains. These results indicate that there was a significant, positive correlation between Artemia cyst diameter and nauplii length, width, and appendage length. Decapsulated Artemia cysts were used to culture first feeding yellow perch larvae with limited success. Hydrated, decapsulated cysts were also used with limited aeration, but dehydrated cysts would be better, because they tend to float on the surface and sink over a longer period of time. A flat bottom added to the yellow perch larval culture tanks helped to spread out the larvae when they exhibited resting behavior. Initially, MSU researchers evaluated the effect of female spawner size on larval yellow perch characteristics. Positive linear relationships were significant between female spawner size (TL and weight) and egg ribbon weight and total fecundity. However, linear relationships were not significant between female spawner size and number of eggs per gram of eggs, chorion shell diameter, and egg yolk diameter. The inability to establish a correlation between female spawner size and these egg characteristics may be due to large environmental variation. Examples of variables that can result in environmental variation are food availability, food quality, water temperature, and predation. Linear relationships could not be established between female spawner size and larval TL and size of the mouth gape, which could have been the result of large paternal influences or environmental variation. A genetics study was designed to identify the amount of influence from both maternal and paternal sources and from the environment. The MSU genetics study was designed to partition out the influence of the maternal and paternal sources of variation on larval TL, mouth gape width, and height. Overall, the paternal contribution to the total variation was small (0-0.13). The overall residual term, including any environmental variance, was larger (0.05-0.21), which indicates the significant environmental influence. Heritabilities (h2), based on spawner TL and age, were estimated for larval yellow perch TL (h2 = 0.14), mouth gape width (h2 = 0.00), and mouth gape height (h2 = 0.23). All values of heritability were less than 0.50, which indicates that selection for improvement of these characteristics will be unlikely. Because this study included a fixed assignment of the parental stock, a true estimation of heritability could not be calculated. However, the estimates of heritability provide a valuable insight to the possibility of starting breeding programs, which could select for other desirable characteristics. The number of brood stock used and the number of larvae sampled were large enough to estimate the genetic variance components. However, by increasing the number of brood stock used, the amount of variation in the population would be better represented. The large dominance values (0.21-1.57) indicate that the variations in larval TL and mouth gape sizes occurred by chance. Studies at Purdue University (Purdue) were designed to quantify the dietary requirements for sulfur amino acids (methionine plus cyst(e)ine) and the dietary choline requirements, providing the framework for the legal use of betaine as a flavor additive in diets for yellow perch. To date, the dietary requirements for lysine, arginine, total sulfur amino acids, the sparing effect of cyst(e)ine for methionine, and choline have been quantified in juvenile fish fed experimental diets. The dietary requirements for lysine and arginine were 1.5% and 1.4% of the dry diet, respectively. The dietary total sulfur amino acid requirement for juvenile yellow perch is 1.0% of the diet and cyst(e)ine, a nonessential amino acid, can spare approximately 50% of the dietary requirement for the essential amino acid methionine. When total sulfur amino acid concentrations were held at the requirement, the dietary choline requirement was 750 mg/kg (ppm) of diet. In 1996, Ohio State University (OSU) researchers spawned yellow perch out-of season during September-October by shifting the photothermal condition (light hours and temperature) by six months. The natural spawning of yellow perch occurs in April-May at 12-14C (53.6-57.2F) and a 12 h photoperiod. The brood stock was maintained at higher temperature and longer photoperiod during September-February (18C [64.4F] and 13 h). The photothermal conditions were decreased gradually until June. The chill period (10C [50F] and 11 light h) was 60 days in duration (June-July) and was followed by gradually increased water temperature and longer day light (12C [53.6F] and 19 h). Following this period, 47% of the females were recorded as gravid and 24 were stripped or spawned naturally. The males spermiated during the entire shifted spawning period from August until September. The average relative weight of ovulated eggs as percentage of the female weight was 26.6 ± 10.7%. Embryo survival through the eyed-stage was 56 ± 24%. Larval skeleton abnormalities (45 ± 15%) and a low frequency of swim bladder inflation (44 ± 34%) were observed. Hatching occurred seven days after spawning incubation at 14C (57.2F). Just before hatching, the eggs were transferred to 20-L (5.3-gal) aquariums with continuous water flow at 20C (68F). Three days after hatching, fresh-water rotifers Brachionus calyciflorus and microalgae Dictyosphaerium chlorelloides were added three times a day to aquariums at an average concentration of 10 rotifers/ml (296/oz). Eighty percent of the larvae were found to have 1-4 rotifers in the gut at first feeding. Artemia nauplii were added six days after hatching. The combination of rotifers, algae and Artemia was supplied until 14 days after hatching after which, only Artemia nauplii were offered to the larvae. Two different dry diets were tested for weaning 25 day old larvae, salmonid starter diet and experimental squid based diet. However, only 35 day old juveniles were found to accept dry diets and were not weaned completely from Artemia until an age of 45 days. Nine diets were tested as weaning diets, including two commercial ("Zeigler" trout starter [Zeigler Bros., Gardiner, Pennsylvania] and "Biokyowa" [Biokyowa, Inc., Chesterfield, Missouri]), one semi-commercial (F.T. Barrows, Fish Technology Center, Bozeman, Montana), and six experimental diets. Live food (Artemia nauplii) was used as a control. In addition, the semi-commercial and one experimental diet ("walleye") were supplemented with 20% (initial fish biomass) Artemia. The "Zeigler" trout starter was coated with 5 or 10% (diet weight) krill hydrolysate as a feed attractant. One hundred fish (average wet weight 75.5 ± 5 mg; 0.0027 ± 0.00 oz) were placed in each of 44, 20-L (5.3-gal) aquariums. Fish were fed ad libitum, eight feedings per day. After 31 days, fish were sacrificed, counted, and sampled for length, wet weight, dry weight, and digestive tract enzyme activities. Percent survival to 31 days ranged from 35 ± 6.2% (French diet - based on freeze-dried liver and yeast extract with CMC was used as a binder) to over 70% on a walleye diet (based on krill meal and herring meal as protein sources, including 2% krill hydrolysate with gelatin used as a binder) or Barrows with 20% Artemia nauplii (manufactured by marumerization technique). OBJECTIVE 2 Trials were completed by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers at Coolwater Farms, LLC, to determine key parameters for producing yellow perch fingerlings habituated to formulated feed and reared in ponds for an entire growing season, and to compare the performance of two types of pond lighting and feeding systems. Their studies showed that rearing fingerlings in ponds for the entire first growing season can result in yields greater than 247,097 fish/ha (100,000 fish/acre), although variability in both pond productivity and fish size result in a wide range of production levels. Over two years of data collection, fingerling production in ponds harvested in the autumn ranged from 49,919-276,478 fish/ha (20,000- 112,000/acre, and averaged about 148,250 fish/ha (60,000 fish/acre). Autumn-harvested fingerlings ranged in size from 6.4-20.3 cm (2.5-8.0 in) TL (2-100 g; 0.1-3.5 oz total weight). On a per acre basis, gross revenues (based on a fingerling price of $0.075/in) from the various production methods studied were as follows:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) researchers coordinated pond culture field trials in Nebraska. In 1994 and 1995, field trials were conducted at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm in two 0.08-ha × 1.5-m-deep (0.2-acre × 4.9-ft) rectangular ponds, which were drainable, aerated with low-pressure blowers connected to subsurface diffused-air distribution systems, and supplied with groundwater as needed for temperature moderation and to provide fresh water for flushing. Both ponds were filled and fertilized in early spring prior to stocking, then stocked with about 200,000 eyed-eggs (2,500,000/ha; 1,011,750/acre). Three major changes in procedures were made in Year 2: (1) the number of feeding stations in each pond was increased from five to seven, (2) the automatic feeders used were better maintained and more frequently filled with fresh feed, and (3) in one pond, a predetermined number of advanced fry were concentrated in a 1.8-m × 1.8-m × 0.9-m- (5.9-ft × 5.9-ft × 3.0-ft) deep net-pen around one of the feeders. Perhaps the most significant finding of the Year 1 field trail was that ponds stocked at high rearing densities produced at least three populations of perch of markedly different body sizes, a result that was almost certainly dependent on degree of acceptance of formulated feed. In the first pond, for example, about 25% of the perch harvested averaged about 34.5 g (1.22 oz), about 15% averaged about 8.2 g (0.29 oz), and the remaining 60% averaged about 1.4 g (0.05 oz) in body weight. Examination of gut contents revealed that at the time of harvest the large fish were consuming significant amounts of formulated feed, the medium-size fish were consuming "some" formulated feed, while the small fish were consuming almost no feed. By the date of harvest, the natural forage base in both ponds appeared to be depleted, which was not unexpected given the stocking rates. Conversely, post-harvest analysis in Year 2 revealed distinctly bimodal fish size distributions in both ponds. The weight distributions of the two distinct populations of perch in both ponds were found to be statistically normal. For the first pond, large fish comprised about 18% of those harvested and had a mean weight of about 30.5 g (1.08 oz), while the smaller fish had a mean weight of about 7.1 g (0.25 oz). For the second pond, the comparable figures were about 21%, 33.2 g (1.17 oz) and 7.4 g (0.26 oz), respectively. The perch confined to the net-pen supplied with formulated feed from one feeder had a near-normal (slightly positively skewed) size distribution, with a mean weight at harvest of only about 6.1 g (0.22 oz), suggesting that natural forage in ponds fed formulated feeds may still comprise a major source of food for much of the growing season. However, analysis of gut contents revealed that nearly all the fish in both ponds, as well as the net-pen, were consuming significant amounts of formulated feed by the final harvest date. Comparison of the data generated by the Nebraska field trials revealed similarities between Year 1 and Year 2 in the estimated numbers of perch produced and estimated survival rates in the two ponds used at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm. Specifically, the estimated numbers of perch produced and survival rates in Year 1 and Year 2 in the first pond were 12,833 and 11,145 and 13% and 11%, respectively. The same production estimates for the second pond were 8,011 and 9,831 fish, and 8.3% and 9.8% survival, respectively. However, the total biomass of perch harvested from the first pond was about 70.4 kg (880 kg/ha or 785 lb/acre) for Year 1 compared to 122 kg (1,525 kg/ha or 1,360 lb/acre) for Year 2, while the total biomass of perch harvested from the second pond was about 97.3 kg (1,216 kg/ha or 1,085 lb/acre) for Year 1 compared to about 126 kg (1,575 kg/ha or 1,406 lb/acre) for Year 2. Collectively, these findings demonstrated that providing formulated feed to perch fry and fingerlings in small (0.08-ha; 0.20-acre) rearing ponds by the procedures described can increase total production two- to four-fold, depending in large part on the number of feeders used per unit of pond surface area and the level of sustained attention given to maintaining feeders and keeping them supplied with fresh feed. UNL investigators also evaluated several strategies of harvesting various sizes of young-of-the-year yellow perch (16-mm-35-mm [0.63-in-1.38-in] TL) using light attraction from various types and sizes of ponds. The studies evaluated four different lighting system designs to optimize light attraction and the capture of young perch in three different designs of passive capture gear. The four different lighting systems were tested in combination with all three designs of capture gear. Regardless of the equipment tested, UNL researchers found the "best" size at which to light harvest young perch to minimize physical injury while maximizing the number of fish captured seems to be between about 18-mm (0.71-in) and 25-mm (0.98-in) TL. However, a large number of variables influenced the number of fish captured and the catch per unit effort, combined with the widely varying harvest results observed under what appeared to be very similar conditions. Thus, a single night's effort under seemingly similar conditions with the same equipment might yield anywhere from 50,000-500,000 fish with no obvious explanation for the differences. Many factors appeared to have major effects on harvest success, regardless of the combinations of harvesting equipment tested. Percentage success of total pond harvest seems to be inversely related to pond surface area, depth and the steepness of slope of pond banks. Thus with 0.2-ha (0.50-acre) ponds, harvest percentages as high as 50% can sometimes be achieved, while with 0.4-ha (1.0-acre) ponds harvest percentages higher than 50-60 are rare. Preliminary trials with larger ponds suggest that percentage harvest declines progressively with increasing pond surface area. Harvesting success can be impaired by poor weather and windy conditions, and can be particularly poor in ponds with steeply sloped banks where most of the littoral zone is deeper than 1.2-m (3.9-ft). High initial stocking rates of ponds with eyed-eggs or fry, if survival is good normally increased initial capture numbers and catch per unit effort. However, the percentage success of total pond harvest is often reduced by high initial stocking rates due in part to the great numbers of harvesting efforts required, each of which seems to have a negative influence on the strength of the phototactic response of perch of similar size to recurring exposures to artificial light. Two particularly important factors that appear to significantly reduce the utility of light harvesting young perch from ponds are: (1) the very short time period during which perch are in an appropriate size range to harvest on a large scale, and (2) repeated or prolonged exposures to artificial light of perch of a size that are normally highly photopositive have a significant cumulative dampening effect on their overall phototactic response. The first of these factors is of major practical importance because of its limiting effects on the logistics of pond harvesting. Under good growing conditions, young perch may be in the desired range of 18-mm (0.71-in) to 25-mm (0.98-in) TL for only seven to ten days. Such a short time period makes the large-scale light harvesting of perch extremely sensitive to disruptions by poor weather or equipment failures, as well as the physical stamina of workers engaged in all-night harvesting efforts night after night. The obvious dampening effect of repeated or prolonged exposures to artificial light on the phototactic response patterns of young perch suggest that under practical conditions the practice of first habituating young fish to formulated feed in ponds using light as initial attractant to automatic feeders may be incompatible with any subsequent light harvesting strategies. OBJECTIVE 3 During 1996, three yellow perch workshops were conducted. The University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute sponsored two workshops entitled "Intensive Aquaculture of Yellow Perch in Conjunction with Recirculating Aquaculture Systems," which included NCRAC Extension and Yellow Perch Work Group members. Alpine Farms (Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin) personnel participated as aquaculture industry cooperators to provide their practical experience with, and knowledge of, yellow perch rearing in their recirculating aquaculture system technology. UNL conducted a workshop in Nebraska. In 1997, UW-Madison researchers sponsored an organizational meeting of producers of yellow perch who are using pond systems. The objectives of this meeting were to discuss common problems and opportunities facing these aquaculturists. The group was unanimous in their identification of fingerling size uniformity and pond production variability as being the most critical problem areas of production. The group also expressed interest in examining the potential of developing a cooperative mechanism to purchase commodities (e.g., fish food) and market products (e.g., fingerlings and processed fillets). A follow-up meeting of this group together with perch producers using other systems was held at the 1998 Wisconsin Aquaculture Conference (March 13-14, 1998, Eau Claire). These meetings have led to the formation of a yellow perch committee within the Wisconsin Aquaculture Industry Advisory Council. This committee will first meet in September 1998 and one of its first goals will be to develop a means of networking and communicating among all interested perch producers. UNL delivered a total of eight extension programs that, in whole or in part, provided timely information on various aspects of yellow perch aquaculture. Some progress was made on the production of two videotapes on selected aspects of perch aquaculture: one on procedures for spawning perch, and the second on small-scale perch processing. A "rough-cut" edition of the perch spawning videotape has been reviewed by several aquaculture professionals, and has been shown at aquaculture conferences or workshops in several states, among them Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, Maryland, and North Carolina. Both videotapes are expected to be completed by UNL by March 1, 1999. IMPACTS Quantifying critical nutritional requirements for targeted species reduces feed costs and allows variation in use of feed ingredients. The research completed at Purdue, MSU, and OSU, is defining a yellow perch diet and feeding strategies for use in the NCR. Total sulfur amino acid concentrations are typically the first limiting amino acid in diets that contain high levels of plant protein feedstuffs. That is, if the requirements for methionine + cyst(e)ine are met, then other essential amino acid concentrations will be at or above the needs of perch. Once methionine is absorbed by perch, it is either used for synthesis of new protein, such as fillets, or catabolized (broken down) into cyst(e)ine, then choline. Given that methionine is limiting in most diets for perch, there will not be excess methionine for cysteine and choline synthesis. Thus, the values quantified at Purdue are vital pieces of information for dietary formulation and provide the basis of equally important work on flavor additives. With the mouth gape of first feeding yellow perch fry identified, researchers and culturists can focus on providing suitable diets that are small enough for the larvae to consume. The procedure of shifting the spawning season has to be accompanied with indoor larvae rearing. The larvae rearing protocol developed in this project is based on a combination of microalgae and rotifers as the larvae first feed. Artemia nauplii were offered from six days after initiation of feeding. Weaning period started at 35 days and the fingerlings were completely weaned from Artemia to dry diet at the age of 45 days. Co-feeding of dry diets and Artemia as well as coating starter diet with krill hydrolysate significantly increased growth of yellow perch juveniles. Studies on pond fingerling production by UW-Madison researchers have shown that research-based production strategies can be used on a commercial scale to produce large numbers of perch fingerlings at a relatively low cost. Lights and automatic feeders can be used to improve the habituation of fingerlings to formulated feeds in tanks, and to feed-train perch directly in ponds. Improvements in feeder design has increased reliability and decreased capital and operational costs. The Nebraska field trials conducted in ponds at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm in collaboration with the UNL clearly demonstrated that research-based production strategies can be used to culture both fingerling and food-size perch under commercial conditions in ponds, by stocking ponds at high densities and using intensive feeding methods. Field trial data collected at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm indicate that perch can be raised in ponds from eyed-eggs to fingerlings having mean weights of 11.0-12.8 g (0.39-0.45 oz) within one growing season at production levels as high as 1,216-1,525 kg/ha (1,085-1,360 lb/acre); and that age-1 fingerling perch can be raised in one growing season to food-size fish having weights averaging 135 g (4.76 oz), at production levels at least as high as 4,740 kg/ha (4,229 lb/acre). Rates of growth at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm aimed at the production of food-size perch were excellent, ranging from 0.55-0.82 g/day (0.02-0.03 oz/day). While many problems remain in perch culture, these field trials suggest that perch can be raised to food size in ponds within two years. The extensive field trials conducted by UNL investigators have demonstrated both the utility and limitations of using light to harvest young photopositive perch. Given the highly variable success rates of harvesting such perch with light and the nature and cost of the highly specialized equipment required to light harvest perch in large numbers, it is recommended that this harvesting practice by used only by experienced fish culturists for very targeted applications, such as the early harvest of very young perch for habituation to formulated feed. Comparatively small numbers of such feed-trained fish can potentially be used later in the growing season to facilitate the habituation of large numbers of perch fingerlings to formulated feed under intensive culture conditions. Requests for information on yellow perch aquaculture continue to increase annually. Workshops done on yellow perch aquaculture in the NCR have enabled extension specialists and researchers to provide information on this species to established fish farmers, potential fish farmers, and the general public. The workshops have also provided a mechanism for yellow perch culturists to identify problem areas. For example, producers have identified the excessive variability in fingerling size and pond productivity as the critical problems currently faced by yellow perch fingerling producers. This provides valuable insight into future directions that are needed for yellow perch aquaculture research. Addressing these areas of concern expressed by current yellow perch producers will bridge the gap between research and solutions to real-world problems. RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES While the results of these studies have provided important information regarding larval and fingerling yellow perch production, they have also served to emphasize several areas in which improvements are greatly needed. Results of these studies are being used to continue to improve larval culture. The first objective of the NCRAC Yellow Perch Project that began in September 1, 1997 was, "With the goal of larval intensive yellow perch feeding in tanks from the onset of first feeding, continue to develop methods to produce fingerlings." With the mouth gape identified, researchers can focus on providing suitable diets that are small enough for the larvae to consume. Work completed at OSU provides a strong basis for further study. Although separating Artemia cysts by size would enhance their use, the process used by MSU researchers would not be efficient for small-scale aquaculture operations. After the hydration and separation processes, the Artemia cysts would have to be dehydrated for storage. Better cyst processing techniques should be developed to separate cysts into smaller size categories after harvesting, but prior to dehydrating the cysts. The cysts could be graded, dehydrated, and sold according to diameter to improve utilization by small larvae. The nutritional requirements data should be used in developing feeds specifically for larval yellow perch. The results of heritability studies indicated that, through natural selection, larval TL and the size of the mouth gape for perch may have reached a plateau and cannot be increased through selective improvement. If artificial selection for these traits operates in the same direction as natural selection (i.e., larger mouths and longer lengths), then it may be difficult to improve on natural selection. However, other traits that are important for culture, such as larval survival should be investigated. Another genetics experiment should be conducted, but only after some of the environmental variables can be controlled (i.e., a captive brood stock). A selection program, which identifies perch that grow well in intensive culture conditions, should be started to aid intensive larval culture techniques. This could be started by using perch raised entirely in intensive culture conditions as the brood stock for future cultures. The high cost of fingerlings continues to be one of the greatest factors constraining the growth of yellow perch aquaculture. The extreme variability in the size of pond-reared fingerlings, coupled with relatively poor overall production rates (which are typically as much as an order of magnitude lower than theoretical production levels), continue to be critical problems facing yellow perch producers. Accordingly, efforts to develop improved methods of fingerling production need to be continued. PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, OR PAPERS PRESENTED See the Appendix for a cumulative output for all NCRAC-funded Yellow Perch activities. SUPPORT
aSea Grant/USDC/NOAA bUSDI, Bureau of Indian Affairs cEPA Progress Report for the Period September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998
PARTICIPANTS:
PROJECT OBJECTIVES (1) With the goal of larval intensive yellow perch feeding in tanks from the onset of first feeding, continue to develop methods to produce fingerlings. (2) Increase growth rates of yellow perch greater than 150 mm (6 in) by evaluating diets, feeding strategies, environmental manipulation, and mono-sex/bi-sex comparisons. (3) Develop out-of-season spawning methods for yellow perch. ANTICIPATED BENEFITS This project will address priority needs identified by the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) Industry Advisory Council (IAC) for advancing yellow perch aquaculture in the North Central Region (NCR). The proposed research on Objective 1 will improve larval rearing techniques by developing and evaluating different starter diets and environmental conditions. The information generated by these studies will greatly assist perch producers in their efforts to reliably raise the large numbers of perch fingerlings needed by the industry. Research on Objective 2 will develop and evaluate methods for improving growth of perch as they approach market size. The use of these methods by commercial perch producers will decrease the time needed to raise perch to market size and thereby increase the efficiency of production facilities and reduce production costs. One of the most promising strategies in this regard is the production of mono-sex female stocks of perch. A method for producing 100% female perch has been developed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) and is currently | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||