 |
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT North Central Regional Aquaculture Center TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 1990 reached 861 million
pounds and generated approximately $762 million for producers. The impact of U.S.
aquaculture in 1990 was substantial: final sales value totalled $4.75 billion; direct and
indirect economic impact was estimated to be $8.0 billion. Yet, anticipated growth in the
industry, both in magnitude and in species diversity, continues to fall short of
expectations. 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 overexploited. 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 1990 Farm Bill (Food, Agriculture Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
- P.L. 101-624) 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. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 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's Office for Publications and Extension Administration at ISU includes Joseph E. Morris, Associate Director and Glenda Dike, Secretary. The Associate Director has the following responsibilities:
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 subcommittee 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 Operation 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. ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS 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.
During this reporting period, the Publications Office at ISU produced and distributed a number of publications including fact sheets, technical bulletins, videos, and two issues of the Centers newsletter, the NCRAC Journal. 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; preparing a compendium progress report for all five RACs; 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 subcommittee 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; and working with other fisheries and aquaculture programs throughout the North Central Region. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 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 projects are then submitted in June as 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. 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;
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, the Center has funded a number of
projects for many of the project areas. For example, there have been four separately
funded projects in regard to Extension and five for Walleye. 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 for all
projects that were underway or completed during the period September 1, 1993 to August 31,
1994. Table 1. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center funded projects.
Progress Report for the PeriodMay 1, 1989 to August 31, 1994 NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $311,848 (May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1995) PARTICIPANTS:
PROJECT OBJECTIVES (1) Strengthen linkages between North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) research and extension work groups. The NCRAC Extension Work Group will promote and advance commercial aquaculture in a responsible fashion through an organized education/training outreach program. The primary benefits are: increased public awareness through publications, short courses, and conferences regarding the potential of aquaculture as a viable agricultural enterprise in the NCR; technology transfer to enhance current and future production methodologies for selected species, e.g., walleye, hybrid striped bass, yellow perch, salmonids, and sunfish, through hands-on workshops and field demonstration projects; improved lines of communication between interstate aquaculture extension specialists and associated industry contacts; and enhanced legal and socioeconomic atmosphere for aquaculture in the NCR. PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Extension Service personnel in aquaculture serve as liaison between research personnel and several clientele groups. The largest group of clientele are individuals interested in starting an aquaculture operation who lack basic knowledge of aquaculture technologies and opportunities. A second group of clientele have some basic knowledge of aquaculture and sites with potential for aquaculture development. These individuals need more specific information to develop plans for establishing a commercial operation. The third clientele group is comprised of established fish culturists who need information to solve specific problems. A fourth clientele group includes industries involved in production of inputs for aquaculture or in the processing and marketing sectors. The demand for aquaculture extension education programs cannot be met by the few specialists in the NCR. Networking of specialists and CES designated contacts will maximize efficiency of education programs and minimize duplication. Printed materials will be an important component of the extension education effort in aquaculture and county agents and Sea Grant agents will be educated to serve as initial information sources. 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. 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. Recently, Gunderson has assumed that responsibility. Two other individuals, who had served since the outset of the project as their state's aquaculture extension contact, have been replaced in 1994. In Kansas, Neils has replaced Henderson and in Illinois, Kohler has replaced Selock. PRINCIPAL ACTIONS At least one contact person has been designated by CES for each NCR state, an extension contact directory has been developed and is kept current, and a mechanism for sharing materials produced by states in the NCR has been established. Workshops for CES and Sea Grant personnel on how to develop a strong interdisciplinary effort, enhance information sharing, establish priorities for development of educational materials, plan workshops, etc., have been held and will be hosted in additional sites. Liaisons with state and federal agencies, and with state aquaculture organizations have been established to identify industry needs. Specific principal major actions have been as follows:
WORK PLANNED At least one Extension Work Group member has been assigned
to work with each funded NCRAC research project to: (1) provide ongoing needs assessment,
(2) provide input for design and prioritization of future research projects, and (3)
identify results that would be useful in extension programs.
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 The positive impacts to aquaculture clientele from all NCRAC Extension activities are oftentimes hard to measure. Direct assistance provided to individuals by the Extension network will enhance the development of aquaculture in the region. For example, Gunderson conducted a crayfish workshop in Minnesota and developed handout information related to crayfish marketing, soft shell production, business development and species identification. Although not specifically a NCRAC function, knowledge gained from working with the northern Minnesota and Wisconsin crayfish producers during this workshop will facilitate more effective dissemination of Crayfish Work Group results throughout the region. In-service training for CES and Sea Grant personnel has enabled those professionals to respond to initial, routine aquaculture questions from the general public and allows the aquaculture specialists to work on more pressing problems. The development of aquaculture education programs for the NCR provides "hands-on" opportunities for prospective and experienced producers. Approximately 4,200 individuals have attended workshops organized and delivered by the NCRAC Extension Work Group. Clientele attending regional workshops learned of aquaculture development strategies in other areas of the country and acquired information which was of direct use to their own enterprises. Education programs also created situations where problems encountered by producers were expressed to extension personnel who later relayed them to researchers at NCRAC work group meetings for possible solutions through the research effort. Fact sheets developed by the Center will serve to better inform clients about suitable aquaculture practices. In addition, the increased cooperation of various state extension personnel allows for an increased amount of education of the public. For instance, "Making Plans for Commercial Aquaculture in the North Central Region" (Garling) is often used to provide clients with initial information about aquaculture, while species specific publications on walleye (Harding et al.), catfish (Morris) and trout (Cain and Garling) have been used in numerous regional meetings and have been requested by clients from throughout the United States. Publications on organizational structure for aquaculture businesses (Kohler and Selock), transportation of fish in bags (Swann), and others are beneficial to both new and established aquaculturists. In a 1994 survey, NCRAC extension contacts estimated that NCRAC publications were used to address approximately 15,000 client questions annually. NCRAC extension efforts have helped increase the number of aquaculture operations within the region. For example, the number of aquaculture licenses in Illinois increased an average of 20% annually for three years to a total of 96 license holders in 1992. Most NCRAC Extension contacts serve on state aquaculture planning committees designed to facilitate aquaculture development. New or improved operations have been facilitated in most NCR states with NCRAC extension assistance. These activities will continue to enhance the development of aquaculture in the region. For example, Ohio State University assisted in the passage of an amendment through the state legislature that acknowledges aquaculture as an agricultural activity, exempts it from Ohio Department of Natural Resources rules on size limitations, and sets up a list of approved species and an optional experimental list. In its final form early next year (1995), the legislation is expected to stimulate new interest in aquaculture in Ohio. Approximately 700 participants viewed the teleconference program "Investing in Freshwater Aquaculture." Overall, the program accomplished the stated objectives. Sixty-one percent of the individuals who responded to the evaluations were participating in their first aquaculture program. These individuals overwhelmingly felt the program was good to excellent. However, a majority of the respondents would have preferred a workshop or seminar over the teleconference. Since the 1980's farm crisis and the inception of NCRAC in 1988, the number of purported and actual fish farmers in the NCR has probably declined due to a shake out of marginal operators who failed because of poor location, an inability or unwillingness to apply proven aquaculture practices, or inadequate financing, entrepreneurial initiative or business acumen. Despite this, the prospects for development of a major aquaculture industry in the NCR are better now than they were six years ago, first, because the surviving producers are more sophisticated and generally better financed, second, because more people in the NCR are better informed about the economic potential and technical aspects of aquaculture, and third, because certain state and local leaders and leadership groups are becoming better informed and more engaged in fostering aquaculture development. To a large extent, these three general outcomes have been due to NCRAC extension outreach activities. PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, AND PAPERS PRESENTED See Appendix. SUPPORT
September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1994
PROJECT OBJECTIVE Develop cost of production budgets and expected revenues
for the raising of food-sized walleye, yellow perch, and hybrid striped bass on farms in
the North Central Region (NCR). The overall goal of this collaborative project is to enhance walleye, yellow perch and hybrid striped bass production by developing enterprise budgets for production of these species in the NCR. This supports the mission of NCRAC, especially by conducting research "for the enhancement of viable and profitable commercial aquacultural production in the United States for the benefit of producers, consumers, and the American economy." This project will benefit the aquaculture industry in the NCR in several ways, even though there are some limitations of these budgets given the "emerging" status of the industry and given the nature of budgets. First, the cost of production or budgeting components of this project offers the potential to help in identifying production systems for walleye, yellow perch and hybrid striped bass most likely to be commercially viable. Information on production costs is quite limited for these species, especially walleye and yellow perch. Second, a little bit of good-quality cost information is better than bad or no information. These budgets will give producers an idea of how enterprise budgets should be organized, what types of data need to be collected, and why good record keeping is essential. The production values and relationships upon which the cost structure is based, while not standardized in the industry, should serve as a rough rule-of-thumb by which aquacultural producers can gauge their management skills. Third, enterprise budgets are an excellent management tool for producers. Enterprise budgets will enable producers to assess the needed budget items and related costs for comparison with their own current, contemplated or expanded operations costs in light of reasonable price expectations. If the publication of these budgets stimulates potential and current aquacultural producers to put together budgets that reflect their unique enterprises, then the industry will be much better off. Fourth, enterprise budgets are the cornerstone for several different types of financial analysis related to aquaculture operations. The budgets will allow more economic research into financial aspects of aquaculture and enable those producers who are spurred on to put together budgets to push on into their own financial analysis (another management tool). Fifth, enterprise budgets are also the cornerstone for sensitivity analysis (yet another management tool). Undertaking sensitivity analysis will enable economists and producers to better understand the relative importance of cost and production items in the budget and to explore the boundaries of enterprise profitability. Finally, realizing that the budgets produced under the auspices of this project will not be the final, definitive budgets for aquaculture production in the NCR, they will serve as a solid starting base from which to update information and expand into alternative species, production systems, life stages, etc. In a more indirect way, the enterprise budgets will accomplish two other important things. One, the budgets should help guide research and extension decisions by NCRAC work group participants, the Industry Advisory Council, the Board of Directors, and the supporting committees. Second, it will provide an opportunity for the economists and other personnel developing the budgets to interact with aquaculture producers, researchers, and extension personnel in the NCR. This type of interdisciplinary interaction is vital for the improved understanding and communication of all vital aspects of aquaculture in the NCR. Economic feasibility analysis will help producers evaluate technical advances in fish production. This contribution is critical as a guide to future research funding in the various species and production systems suitable for commercial production. The distribution of research results from this project through the publications of the Economics and Marketing Work Group and through the Extension liaisons using computer budget software will provide a structured and informed dissemination system which is credible with producers, financial institutions and others. PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS HYBRID STRIPED BASS Kohler has compiled a review of the literature on hybrid striped bass (HSB) production and production costs. The literature is being summarized in an annotated bibliography. This bibliography will be available to anyone needing the information. A mailing list of 56 producers of phase III HSB both within and outside the NCR was compiled. Aquaculture Extension personnel from the 12 states within the NCR were contacted for a list of HSB producers in their state. Information on additional producers was obtained from the 1994-1995 Striped Bass Growers Association Directory and from producers listed in the 1994 Aquaculture Magazine Buyer's Guide. A mail survey was sent to these 56 producers to obtain data on production costs. The response rate was low due to a hesitation on the part of producers to reveal this information. Two large fish farms in Arkansas (Malone's and Keo) and one in Missouri (Osage Catfisheries) were visited to discuss HSB production and gather production information. In all cases, other species in addition to HSB are produced so species-specific production figures were not available. Both farms in Arkansas indicated that the information may be available in early 1995. WALLEYE O'Rourke and Illinois State University (ISU) graduate students have completed an extensive walleye production/culture literature review. For the first year of the current project they focused on fingerling production. The primary focus of the literature review was to discover any research findings that might be useful in ascertaining the cost of production for walleye under intensive and extensive culture regimes. Very little economic research was found and even less was found that was explained well enough to be useful. The second source of information used was research experts and hatchery personnel familiar with walleye culture. The ISU investigators were surprised that many of the "experts" were as reluctant to share information as were the entrepreneurs/producers. The experts were selected and queried using a modified Delphi approach. This stage of the research will be completed in 1995 with additional follow-up questions and identification of a broader group of "experts." Work has advanced on identifying and analyzing the cost of production for advanced walleye fingerlings in intensive and extensive culture systems. The first study, to be completed in December 1994, is an economic feasibility analysis of a tank based, intensive walleye fingerling production system. YELLOW PERCH A good enterprise budget is based on sound production information with data for all the production relationships involved in a production cycle. Knowing the number of commercial producers of yellow perch to be very small, Riepe conducted a literature review in early 1993 to determine whether any data on the production requirements for yellow perch were available. Unfortunately, most research on yellow perch has been limited to attempts to spawn them out of season and successfully culture and harvest eggs, fry, and eventually fingerlings habituated to commercial diets. Riepe then rejected the historical method for developing enterprise budgets and decided to use the economic engineering approach. At this point, Riepe then considered alternatives for obtaining the needed production-related information upon which the budgets must be based, and came up with two methods. The first method may or may not be of use during this project. Riepe developed a record keeping sheet for the non-funded collaborators involved in the yellow perch project who are testing the commercial scale feasibility of food-size yellow perch production systems. The record keeping sheets ask for the itemization of all costs and inputs into the production process and also provides a weekly record keeping sheet that could be used on an ongoing basis by the collaborators. Depending upon how well the collaborators' trials turn out and on what kind of job they do keeping records, Riepe may or may not be able to use the information they provide to guide this set of budgets. Riepe developed, for the second method, a Delphi approach to obtaining the expert opinions of NCRAC researchers on the production relationships which are needed to underpin the yellow perch production cost budgets. Expert opinions were solicited from the researchers and extension persons involved in the NCRAC Yellow Perch Work Group during 1994. The opinion data were entered into a spreadsheet to average the responses and then re-submitted to the researchers. Also, budget assumptions were clarified so that all researchers were thinking of production relationships relating to a similar set of assumptions. Subsequently, some of the NCRAC personnel revised some of their original production values. Expert opinions were solicited for several types of related production values (death loss, feed conversion, fingerling size, harvest size, etc.) for a producer with average skill under average conditions and then for minimum and maximum values representing above and below average skills and conditions. Since it was not possible to model all life stages in all production systems at all sizes of production, Riepe met with Marshall Martin, Paul Brown, and LaDon Swann of Purdue University in late winter to discuss and come to a consensus on how to prioritize alternative budgets. In addition, the membership of the Indiana Aquaculture Association was surveyed by Riepe in October of 1993 to solicit their views on budget priorities. This input was provided to all parties before the meeting. The decision was made that the budgets to be modeled include the life stage of advanced fingerling growout; the production in cage, constructed fish pond, and recirculating tank systems; and two levels of annual production: 2,268 kg (5,000 lb) and 22,680 kg (50,000 lb). Riepe is almost finished with the cage culture budgets, has completed a fair amount of background work on the pond culture budgets, and has not yet started on the tank culture budgets. Riepe also spent some time contacting alternative suppliers of feed and fingerlings since these two items typically account for a majority of the costs associated with an aquaculture enterprise. WORK PLANNED Kohler will submit the annotated bibliography on HSB for
publication. Producers who did not respond to the initial mail survey will be contacted.
Additional farms in the NCR will be visited to obtain production costs and to discuss
production of HSB. Production costs received via the mail survey and farm visits will be
incorporated into a model by the work group chair. O'Rourke will continue economic
analysis of fingerling production systems and begin examining likely food size walleye
production systems. Riepe plans to complete as many of the alternative budgets for yellow
perch stated above as her funding and work schedule will allow. Results will be published
through NCRAC publications and professional presentations and journals (although the
latter is the slowest method for the release of timely information). This project has already benefited the aquaculture industry in the NCR, even though the production cost budgets are not yet completed. Primarily this is because the funding has allowed more economists in the NCR to spend time on applied aquaculture research. As a result, these economists have been able to give presentations on economic issues in aquaculture production to current and potential aquacultural producers that may have reduced the impacts of uninformed investment decisions by current and potential aquaculture entrepreneurs. PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, AND PAPERS PRESENTED See Appendix.
September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1994
PROJECT OBJECTIVES (1) Determine the commercial scale feasibility and improve on the best intensive tank and pond culture practices for the production of yellow perch fingerlings. (2) Determine the commercial scale feasibility of raising food-size yellow perch in flow-through raceways or tanks, open ponds, and large net-pens, comparing the best available formulated diets. ANTICIPATED BENEFITS At the 1992 Program Planning Meeting of the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC), the NCRAC Industry Advisory Council advanced the position that the primary emphasis of research projects proposed for the 1993-1995 funding period should be on the demonstration of commercial-scale feasibility of the best available research-based production technologies, working in collaboration with private fish producers. The NCRAC Board of Directors supported that position, and the NCRAC Yellow Perch Work Group responded by developing a project centered largely on conducting such demonstrations. This project is aimed at providing much needed information on the practical feasibility and costs of employing, on a commercial-scale, selected fingerling production and grow-out strategies that were initially developed and/or tested on a small (laboratory) scale. In addition, this project will develop improved technologies for certain key facets of yellow perch aquaculture. Finally, the results of experiments incorporated into this proposal will immediately help fish farmers improve the production efficiency of both fingerling and food-size yellow perch. PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS As an integral component of much of this project, private producers were to provide the requisite 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. Participating university researchers were to provide 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 Year 1 of the project (September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1994), significant progress was made at certain sites at testing selected research-based production technologies. Accordingly, from an extension perspective, the project is successfully building and/or expanding working relationships between 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, including Pleasant Valley Fish Farm, Sandhills Aquafarm, and Coolwater Farms, LLC. However, from the research perspective, the likelihood of the project generating significant amounts of comprehensive feasibility-assessment data that will be publishable in peer-reviewed journals seems low, based on Year 1 results. One primary reason for this development is that several private-sector collaborators who had initially agreed to participate in the project have either partially or totally pulled back from their original commitments. The reasons for these pullbacks range from initially exaggerated claims of facility and other resource capabilities, to lack of sufficient technical competence or experience, to a belated realization of the potential risks involved. To deal with this problem, in some instances alternate private sector collaborators are being sought for studies to be conducted in Year 2 (September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1995), and in other cases feasibility assessments will be conducted under laboratory conditions rather than under field conditions as originally proposed. OBJECTIVE 1 Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UW-Milwaukee) calculated the labor, supplies and utility costs for the commercial-scale, intensive culture of yellow perch fingerlings in tanks at the Aquaculture Institute University of Wisconsin System Great Lakes Research Facility. Based on this information, the cost for intensively culturing yellow perch from sac fry to 74 d posthatch in tanks was $0.0842 per fingerling. These costs did not include capital expenses or depreciation for facilities and equipment. UW-Milwaukee investigators made several modifications to their procedures to improve hatching success and survival. First, reductions in Saprolegnia growth on eggs and subsequent increases in egg survival were achieved by increasing water temperature during incubation by 1.5C/d (as opposed to 1C every other day). Second, the use of vigorous aeration was used to force-hatch fully developed embryos that failed to hatch on their own. Third, a drip feeder system was developed to provide a constant (24 h/d) supply of food to the yellow perch, and as a result there were no visible signs of cannibalism in any production tanks, and the habituation time to commercial starter diet was reduced to 25 d posthatch. Cumulatively, survival of perch from egg to 74 d posthatch was 41.6%. Studies on pond fingerling production by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) are being conducted using ponds of various sizes at Coolwater Farms, LLC and the Lake Mills State Fish Hatchery. These studies are evaluating the use of: (1) selected high fry stocking densities and early pond harvest to maximize pond fingerling production, and (2) underwater lights and vibrating feeders to habituate perch fingerlings to formulated feeds while they remain in ponds. To date, fingerling production from ponds not equipped with automatic feeders and stocked at 1,000,000 fry/hectare has averaged 375,000 fingerlings/ha (N = 2), and the fingerling size at harvest has ranged from 17-24 mm total length (TL). Fingerling production from ponds equipped with lights and automatic feeders and stocked at 2,000,000 fry/ha has averaged 324,000 fingerlings/ha (N = 5), and the fingerling size at harvest has ranged from 24-44 mm TL. Other fry stocking densities have not yet been tested with a sufficient number of replicates to reach any meaningful conclusions. In general, pond fingerling production has been highly variable, ranging from 0-610,000/ha. All indications are that this high variability has been due to extreme variations in zooplankton populations that have occurred despite extensive efforts at monitoring zooplankton and using fertilization and aeration to maximize pond productivity. UW-Madison investigators also evaluated the effect of
fingerling size at harvest (from ponds not equipped with lights and feeders) on the
subsequent habituation of fingerlings to formulated feeds in tanks. Their results showed
that habituation rates of ~ 60% could be achieved with fingerlings as small as 14.8 mm TL
at harvest. Studies in Nebraska on Objective 1 were conducted at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm in two 0.08-ha × 1.5-m-deep rectangular ponds which are drainable and supplied with groundwater. Both ponds were aerated, fertilized and stocked with about 200,000 eyed-eggs (2,500,000/ha). An effort was also made to conduct a perch fingerling production trial in two new ponds at Red Hook Fisheries. However, these ponds failed to yield any fish after stocking, because construction on the ponds was not completed until a few weeks beforehand and a forage base could not be established. On April 27-28, 1994 Nebraska was hit by a major cold front that resulted in freezing temperatures, a 30-cm snowfall, and a 3-d electric power outage at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm. The direct effects of this cold front on fry survival could not be determined. However, the effect on the zooplankton forage base was a significant pauperization that lasted for several weeks. To help offset this reduction in forage, both ponds were supplementally fed Silver Cup trout starter feed (Sterling H. Nelson and Sons, Inc., Murray, Utah) beginning about 3 weeks after stocking, and the planned duration of the pond production trial was expanded from 6-8 weeks to the entire summer. Standard water chemistry parameters and water temperatures were measured routinely, and zooplankton and fish samples were collected weekly. Water temperatures in the ponds from mid-May to mid-September ranged from 20-26C, with the highest temperatures occurring in July. Under these conditions, the perch reached an average TL of about 20 mm in slightly over 5 weeks, and about 50 mm TL in 10-11 weeks. Field trials to habituate perch fingerlings to formulated feed and raise them intensively in tanks were not conducted in Year 1 at either Pleasant Valley Fish Farm or Red Hook Fisheries because of facility limitations. This situation should be rectified at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm by the spring of Year 2 of the project. The perch in both ponds at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm were harvested on September 22, 1994. Estimated percent survival from the two ponds was 13% and 8.3%, and the average weight per fish was 7.58 g and 8.79 g. Perhaps the most significant finding of this field trial was that supplemental feeding produced two or three populations of perch of markedly different average body size, a result that was probably dependent on their level of acceptance of formulated feed. For example, in one pond approximately 25% of the perch harvested averaged 34.5 g, 15% averaged 8.2 g and the remainder weighed 1.4 g. Two experiments conducted by Ohio State University (OSU) researchers evaluated mass rearing of yellow perch in ponds and intensively reared perch fry in tanks. In one study yellow perch embryos (prior to hatch) were stocked into six 0.1 ha research ponds at 1,000,000/ha. The ponds were fertilized weekly to stimulate and maintain algae and zooplankton production. Two of the ponds were equipped with automatic feeders and high intensity flood lamps to attract the fingerling perch to the vicinity of the feeders. On several occasions, yellow perch fry were seen actively swimming under the lights and consuming feed. Overall survival averaged about 7.5% for the best three ponds, and was 1.5, 2.5, and 0% for the other ponds. Of the two ponds with automatic feeders, one had poor survival (2.3%) but large fry at harvest (5.5 gm), and the other had survival (7.5%) and mean fish size (1.77 g) that was similar to those of unfed control ponds. In a second experiment, pond-reared yellow perch were transferred indoors into 12 40-L flat bottomed flow-through tanks (21C) with automatic feeders at a density of 15 fish/L. Six tanks were stocked with perch at 11-13 mm TL, three with perch at 13-15 mm TL and three with perch at 15-17 mm TL. The fry were fed Ziegler Bros. Inc., Salmon Starter Crumbles #1 every half-hour for 16 h/d and every hour for the remaining 8 h. This experiment was terminated after 28 d. Survival for the smallest size group (11-13 mm TL) was only about 4%, and in most instances larger fry were observed cannibalizing smaller fry. Similar results were obtained in the 13-15 mm TL size group, and mean survival was 22%. The largest size group (15-17 mm TL) showed uniform growth and a final mean weight of from 0.33 g. These findings suggest that the best initial size for habituation of yellow perch to intensive tank rearing using conventional starter feeds would be larger than 15 mm TL. OBJECTIVE 2 Studies to determine the commercial-scale feasibility of raising food-size yellow perch in different types of production systems while comparing the best available formulated diets were initiated in open ponds at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm, in raceways at Sandhills Aquafarm, and in large net-pens at Red Hook Fisheries. The main thrust of the Year 1 effort was to compare the growth and performance of perch fed a standard commercially available trout diet (Silver Cup, Sterling H. Nelson and Sons, Inc.) with that of perch fed a diet specifically formulated for perch. This latter diet was developed cooperatively with, and subsequently manufactured by, Hubbard Milling Company of Mankato, Minnesota. In Year 1 of the project, the three Nebraska cooperators apparently experienced delays in obtaining the Hubbard perch diet, and were further delayed in starting their feeding trials by concerns over the quality and utility of the perch diet delivered. Problems reported with the Hubbard diet included: (1) an unacceptably high level of feed fines (i.e., 20-25%), which would not be consumed and could have significant deleterious effects on water quality; (2) poor pellet size uniformity, which made the use of automatic or demand feeders difficult and necessitated feeding almost entirely by hand; (3) intact feed pellets generally too large to be readily consumed by the size perch being fed; and (4) the integrity of the pellets in water tended to be poor, resulting in their falling apart after hitting the water surface. Because of such difficulties, Sandhills Aquafarm and Red Hook Fisheries soon abandoned their efforts to feed the Hubbard diet, and fed the trout diet exclusively. Pleasant Valley Fish Farm, however, completed a 54-d comparison of the two diets fed to perch in ponds, but scaled down the comparison in terms of size and numbers of ponds and numbers of fish committed to the feeding trial. The feeding trial at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm was initiated on August 10 and terminated on October 4, 1994. Age-1 perch with an average length and weight of about 143 mm TL and 29.1 g, respectively, which had previously been fed Silver Cup trout diet, were stocked into a 10.7-m-square × 1.2-m-deep pond (1,020 fish stocked) and a 24.4-m-square × 1.2-m-deep pond (2,831 fish stocked). Both ponds were supplied with pumped groundwater to maintain water quality and to moderate water temperature, and the smaller pond was aerated. Water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels in the two ponds were generally about equal and sufficient for good growth. The Hubbard perch diet was fed to the fish in the small pond; Silver Cup trout diet was fed to the perch in the larger pond. The fish in both ponds were fed approximately to satiation once daily in the afternoon. Production figures at harvest for perch fed the Hubbard and Silver Cup diets, respectively, were as follows: estimated percent survival, 87.9% and 90.4%; average final length per fish, 157 mm and 163 mm TL; average final weight per fish, 48.2 g and 59.8 g; and estimated feed conversion ratio, 1.62 and 1.06. As yet, these figures have not been subjected to statistical analyses. The Objective 2 field trials conducted at Sandhills Aquafarm and attempted at Red Hook Fisheries failed to produce substantive results. Sandhills Aquafarm was built downstream of a major spring field and began operating in 1989 as a modern trout production facility. From late spring through mid-autumn, water temperatures in the raceways can vary between 13 and 22C, but more typically range between 16 and 20C. Because of these comparatively high temperatures, which during the daytime are sufficient to promote good growth in yellow perch, it was postulated that Sandhills Aquafarm could potentially diversify its operations into perch as well as trout production. To test this possibility, 28,000 feed-trained age-1 perch fingerlings were procured from Pleasant Valley Fish Farm in late May 1994, and stocked at 14,000 fish per raceway in similar-size sections at the head ends of two raceways. After an initial outbreak of Columnaris disease, which was quickly brought under control, the perch at Sandhills Aquafarm remained healthy and consumed feed, but ultimately failed to exhibit significant growth between early June and the end of September. The exact reason for this lack of growth is unknown. However, the tentative conclusion drawn by both Sandhills Aquafarm and Kayes of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UN-L) is that the wide diurnal temperature fluctuations and low nighttime temperatures of the raceway waters effectively precluded significant perch growth. Consequently, field trials will not be conducted at Sandhills Aquafarm in Year 2 of the project. During Year 1, Red Hook Fisheries also reported problems with the Hubbard perch diet, claims to have raised a number of perch in large net-pens, but in the opinion of the UN-L has operated in a manner that is inconsistent with the intent or effective conduct of the project. Accordingly, field trials involving UN-L personnel will not be attempted at Red Hook Fisheries in Year 2 of the project. WORK PLANNED OBJECTIVE 1 UW-Milwaukee will work in collaboration with Alpine Farms, a commercial fish farm, to evaluate the intensive culture of yellow perch using a recirculating system and establish the production costs for this type of rearing unit. As outlined in the original proposal, UW-Madison researchers will continue to test various fry stocking densities, from 1-6 million fry/ha, for their effect on the production of fingerling perch reared in ponds with and without underwater lights and automatic feeders. In 1995, UN-L efforts on the project will be focused on field trials to be conducted at Pleasant Valley Fish Farm. For work under this objective, particular emphasis will be placed on improving the commercial-scale production of yellow perch fry and early fingerlings in ponds, and the habituation to formulated feed and intensive culture of early to advanced fingerlings in tanks. At OSU the studies conducted in 1994 will be repeated in 1995 with improved accuracy gained from this year's experiences. In addition, a new feeding and lighting system will be tried out for pond habituation to dry diets. OBJECTIVE 2 A controlled laboratory study will be conducted at Purdue University to examine acceptability and responses of advanced fingerling perch fed a variety of experimental and practical diets. That study and a follow-up study will be conducted under controlled, near-optimal environmental conditions for perch. Also in 1995, Purdue University researchers will collaborate in a field study involving the same private sector collaborators who participated in 1994, and possibly two others. UN-L efforts on this objective will focus on the grow-out of age-1 fingerlings to market size in aerated ponds supplied with groundwater to maintain water quality and moderate pond water temperature. At least two different formulated diets will also be compared for their effects on perch growth and performance in ponds, following consultation with Brown of Purdue University. IMPACTS The preparation of a summary of production cost information by UW-Milwaukee investigators for the intensive culture of yellow perch fingerlings in tanks will provide the necessary framework for writing a business plan for private sector producers who intend on using this fingerling production strategy. In addition, the continual refinement of intensive fry culture protocols will improve the production efficiency of this method. Studies on pond fingerling production by UW-Madison, UN-L and OSU 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. The most promising of these strategies include the use of high fry stocking densities coupled with either: (1) early pond harvest, for the subsequent habituation of fingerlings to formulated feeds in tanks; or (2) systems using lights and automatic feeders for habituating fingerlings to formulated feeds while they remain in ponds. Studies evaluating the grow-out of yellow perch in ponds in Nebraska have shown that excellent growth rates (>0.5 g/d) for perch can be obtained using this culture strategy, if environmental and nutritional factors are kept at or near optimal. At the conclusion of these studies a significant amount of information will have been generated to help producers select relatively high performing and/or least cost feeds for yellow perch. PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, AND PAPERS PRESENTED See Appendix. SUPPORT
aWisconsin Sea Grant/USDC/NOAA HYBRID STRIPED BASS Project Component Termination Report for the Period May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1994 NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $333,960 (May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1993) PARTICIPANTS:
PROJECT OBJECTIVES (1) Obtain and maintain (in captivity) populations of spawning size white bass. (2) Define reproductive development in wild and captive white bass by characterizing seasonal changes in hormone titers and gonadal histology. (3) Evaluate the effects of selected photoperiod/temperature and hormonal manipulations on gonadal development and spawning in white bass brood stock. PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Southern Illinois University-Carbondale (SIU-C) researchers have successfully captured adult white bass, acclimated them to tank culture conditions, and trained them to accept formulated feed. Some fish have been held in captivity for over three years. This level of domestication is not known to have been achieved with white bass in any other laboratory or commercial enterprise. Considerable numbers of white bass spawns have been accomplished using various hormonal/temperature/photoperiod manipulations over the course of this project. Fish have been accelerated to spawn as early as January, and have had their spawning delayed to as late as October. Accordingly, techniques have been developed that allow successful spawning of white bass any season of the year. Moreover, female white bass that successfully spawned in October 1992 were successfully induced to spawn again in April 1993. Thus, it was demonstrated that white bass can be successfully spawned twice in a 7-month period. It was also shown that male white bass held at or above spawning temperatures (15C) produced viable sperm for at least two months. Average hatching rates have also been improved from 25% to 50%. These findings represent major steps toward the development of domesticated white bass brood stocks to be used for hatchery production of hybrid striped bass. Injection levels of a synthetic luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue (LhRha) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) have been identified that greatly improve upon previous results at SIU-C, and elsewhere, with respect to controlled spawning of white bass. Data indicate that hCG dosages considerably less than that traditionally used to induce final egg maturation are more useful in white bass. In addition to providing guidance for improved spawning performance, these data have positive implications toward eventual regulatory approval of hCG by FDA for spawning Morone species. Annual rhythms of serum levels of estradiol- 17 and testosterone, as well as gonadal growth and histology of the wild and the three captive populations of white bass were documented and correlated with actual spawning events. IMPACTS DOMESTICATION The development of a protocol to habituate adult white bass to captivity, including training to dry formulated feeds, allows for developing domesticated brood stock. Domesticated brood stock is clearly advantageous by:
OUT-OF-SEASON SPAWNING The development of efficacious procedures to manipulate sexual maturation and induce out-of-season spawning is important for optimal management of brood stock. It leads to:
HATCHING RATES Improvements in hatching rates allows for increased hatchery production or reduction in brood stock needs. hCG DOSAGES Determination of the most efficacious hCG dosages not only improves spawning performance, but these data have positive implications toward eventual regulatory approval of hCG by the FDA for spawning Morone species. As a direct consequence of this work:
RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES NCRAC is currently funding a follow-up study that is focused on developing procedures to intensively rear white bass larvae to a stage when they will consume formulated feed (see next Progress Report). A proposed study for the next NCRAC funding cycle will, among other topics, compare three strains of white bass in yield trials. Collectively, the results from these studies should pave the way to undertake a white bass brood stock selection program. PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, AND PAPERS PRESENTED See Appendix. SUPPORT
Progress Report for the Period September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1994 NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $168,000 (September 1, 1993 to August 31, 1995) PARTICIPANTS:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||