Transcript

For most people, aquaculture is synonymous with foodproduction and with good reason.While farmed fin-fish accounts for 82.4% of annual aquaculture sales in

the U.S., 71% of that is from foodfish production, led bycatfish, rainbow trout,Atlantic salmon, tilapia and hybridstriped bass. Sizeable as the U.S. aquaculture industry is, itpales in comparison with global production by othercountries, particularly China which is far and away theworld’s leading producer, followed by six other countries— U.S. production ranks eighth.

Though aquaculture in the U.S. has expanded in thelast twenty years, some states have fared better than oth-ers. Maryland, which has seen a significant decline infood fish production, has been among the “others.”

In the late 1980s and 1990s growers, researchers andSea Grant Extension specialists played key roles inadvancing the farming of hybrid striped bass — today,however, Maryland has little commercial production ofthis popular species.Though a number of food fish farmsin the state are rearing tilapia, hybrid bluegill and, to alesser extent, yellow perch, they are relatively small opera-tions. Growers have found that high market demand initself does not translate into a viable business, which mustbalance high operating costs (e.g., labor, feed and regula-tory costs) with low-cost foreign imports and low-pricedmeat or poultry alternatives. Margins of profitability canbe so thin, it is too risky for growers and backers to makethe large investments that efficient operations require.

One recent example of the economic challenges facingU.S. producers is the importation of the Vietnamese Basa,which led to dramatic declines in domestic prices forchannel catfish — prices went below the U.S. costs of pro-duction.Another is the tilapia industry: frozen whole fishhas been imported from Asia at less than $0.55/pound,while it has cost U.S. growers at least $1.15/pound toproduce.

ISSUE 2003-03 SUMMER 2003

Finfish FarmingOpportunities forMaryland GrowersAndy LazurSea Grant Extension Aquaculture Specialist

U.S. growers who are committedto aquaculture have been trying tomeet these economic challenges indifferent ways, for instance, by (1)growing higher value species, (2)introducing new product forms (e.g.,pre-seasoned or microwavable fishentrees, smoked products), (3) devel-oping new production techniquessuch as integrating fish with rearingother crops (e.g., vegetables orherbs) and (4), exploring alternativemarkets.

Alternative Markets for FishProduction

Growing fish for the high-valueorganic market is one alternative nowunder evaluation. Meeting therequirements of organic products iscurrently difficult because grains incommercial feeds are grown usinginorganic fertilizers, herbicides andpesticides. An organic fish could beherbivorous and raised in ponds thatare fertilized organically or fed mealthat has been certified as organic. Butgrowers will have to determinewhether the increased cost of pro-ducing so-called organic fish can bemade up in the market place. Price isthe driving force and marketing iscritical: culturists will have to distin-guish their product from natural fish-eries or from imported products andmust seek niche market opportunitiesto be profitable. Perhaps surprisingly,the profit potential from foodfishspecies is lower compared with otheruses of aquaculture such as rearingornamental fish and baitfish.

One promising niche for aqua-culturists is the market for ornamen-tal fish — while ornamentals mayaccount for only 7% of annual finfishsales, the industry’s current dollarvalue is about $70 million.And theprospects may be greater. Hundreds

of species are either cultured onfarms or collected from wild sourcesfor supplying the second largesthobby in the U.S.A diverse numberof freshwater tropical species accountfor over 80% of production, followedby goldfish and koi. Marine orna-mentals are gaining in popularitybecause the vast majority of speciesare still collected from the wild ratherthan cultured. Florida is by far theleading ornamental fish culturingstate, though California,Arkansas,Indiana, Hawaii and Maryland alsoaccount for significant production.Maryland’s ornamental fish industryspecializes in goldfish and koi and isthe number two aquaculture sector inthe state, running close behind orna-mental aquatic plants.

Baitfish is the third largest fishcommodity in U.S. aquaculture,accounting for about 3.8% of sales.Major species are the golden shiner,fathead minnow, and feeder goldfish.The majority of production is fromgrowers in Arkansas, who account forover 60% of the $37 million dollarindustry. Significant demand existsfor marine baitfish species for near-and off-shore recreational fishing,with the vast majority of bait beingharvested from natural waters.A fewfarms produce a small quantity ofbull minnow or killifish — given thehigh market price for many marine

2 • MARYLAND AQUAFARMER

Contents1 Finfish Farming

Opportunities for MarylandGrowers

4 An Asian Oyster for the ChesapeakeUpdate on Crassostrea ariakensis

5 Research on C. ariakensis in Maryland

6 A Unique PartnershipHorn Point Laboratory and theOyster Recovery Partnership

8 Did the ITC Get It Wrong?Crabmeat Imports Three Years Later

9 The Aquaculture Research and Development Project at theUniversity of Maryland EasternShore

10 Upcoming MeetingsOyster Research and Restoration

New Maryland Sea GrantMagazine

New PublicationsFrom the Sea Grant Network

Perhaps surprisingly, theprofit potential from

foodfish species is lowercompared with other uses of aquaculture such as

rearing ornamental fish and baitfish.

bait fishes growers have shown anincreasing interest in culturing them.For many of these species, however,there are significant gaps in ourunderstanding of their reproductivebiology, hatchery technology, nutri-tion and basic culture requirements.

Another important culture sectoris sport fish production for stockingthe thousands of farm ponds, smalllakes, and reservoirs for recreationalfishing.While the major economicimpact of freshwater recreational fish-ing is in natural bodies of water — an estimated $406 million in Mary-land — private ponds and stockedlakes can be of significant economicimportance. Hatcheries in the nationproduce a variety of recreationalspecies, including crappie, hybridstriped bass, largemouth bass, andsunfishes that account for $8 millionin sales. In addition, millions of cat-fish and trout are also sold for stock-ing ponds. Currently, because Mary-land does not have a private hatcherysupplying gamefish species for privatepond stocking, fish are importedfrom neighboring states.

Two other non-food markets ofcultured fish, often overlooked, are ofsignificance: research laboratories andfisheries restoration programs. Somehatcheries have discovered a highvalue market opportunity by sellingvarious species of fish to industrialcompanies or laboratories that con-duct chemical bioassays for environ-mental impact or biomedical studies.Carp, zebrafish, bull minnows, sun-fishes are among the more com-monly used species. Culturing fishfor restoration or conservation pur-poses, typically conducted by state or

federal hatcheries, accounts for a sur-prising number of fish annually.According to the USDA 1998 Cen-sus of Aquaculture, 11 million catfish,2.4 billion salmon, 71 million bass,117 million trout, 646 million wall-eye and 100 million other fish of var-ious species were stocked in restora-tion efforts.The extent of privatehatchery contributions to these num-bers was not reported, though thetotal fish volume represents a highlysignificant economic value.

While aquaculture for food pro-duction will continue to dominatethe world-wide industry, there areopportunities in Maryland and the

mid-Atlantic for growers to producea variety of higher-value species forniche markets. By thinking outsidethe dominant foodfish species boxand investigating the potential ofother applications of aquaculture,growers could enhance their prospectsfor a broader and more profitableindustry.

This article is the first of a periodic serieson finfish aquaculture that will highlightdifferent commodity groups, includingfoodfish, ornamentals, baitfish and sport-fish. For more information, contact AndyLazur at [email protected].

SUMMER 2003 • 3

Table 1. United States aquaculture production, farm gate value, and imports ofmajor foodfish species.

Species Production Farm Value Production Imports(Million lbs.) ($ Million) Expansion Quantity

(Since 1990) (Million lbs.)

630.6 358.0 40% -

54.5 72.3 -3% -

39.2 103.8 468% 413

10.5 27.8 820% -

19.6 26.4 100 148

Channel catfish

Rainbow trout

Atlantic salmon

Hybrid striped bass

Tilapia

This summer oysterfarmers in Virginia

will plant a millionhatchery-spawned oys-ters on their leasedgrounds. Hatchery-bred oysters are hardlynew to the Bay — alldisease-free seedplanted in Maryland,for example, begin lifethere. (Nearly all ofthese were spawned atthe University ofMaryland Center forEnvironmental Science Horn PointLaboratory facility. See “A UniquePartnership.”)

What’s new is that these hatcheryoysters are Crassostrea ariakensis, thenon-indigenous or “exotic” Suminoethat in growth trials of some 60,000oysters in 2001 gave strong indicationof resistance to MSX and Dermo —the two parasitic diseases that havebeen killing the native Crassostrea vir-ginica — and very fast growth to har-vestable size. Those trials were donewith oysters that had been renderedsterile by Standish Allen and col-leagues at the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science (VIMS).Advances intechnologies have made it possiblefor scientists to manipulate the oys-ters’ chromosomes so that there is alow probability of these so-called“triploid” animals reverting to“diploids,” which could enable themto develop eggs and sperm and even-tually reproduce.Triploidy may alsoaccount for faster growth since nutri-

tional energy is not diverted todeveloping eggs and gonadal tissue.

In its application on behalf ofVirginia oyster growers, the VirginiaSeafood Council submitted a pro-posal to the Virginia MarineResources Commission — “Eco-nomic Analysis and Pilot-Scale FieldTrials of Triploid Aquaculture” —requesting authorization for 10 lease-holders to each grow out 100,000Suminoe oyster seed as part of aneconomic study that aims at explor-ing the feasibility of what the Coun-cil’s executive director Francis Portersays could be the beginning of a“brand new industry.”All ten growersparticipated in the 2001 trials.

According to the application,which VMRC approved after theCouncil revised it — in response tocriticism by VIMS and the Chesa-peake Bay Program Living ResourcesSubcommittee-C. ariakensis Ad HocPanel Review — oysters will be heldin the water from 9 to 18 months,

depending on growthrate, then harvestedand marketed by the10 industry partici-pants.

In the seafoodcouncil’s application,the participatinggrowers have pro-vided summaries ofhow they will handlethe C. ariakensis oys-ter seed from plantingto harvest, forinstance, their meth-ods for confining

oysters, plans on harvesting them andstrategies to prevent their releaseunder storm events. Growers areemploying different methods of con-finement: five will use rigid bags inclam or bottom cages; three willplant oysters in bags on the bottom;one will use floating rafts; and onewill employ a rack and bag methodof growth.

Aquaculture and Wild HarvestsThroughout the world, the farm-

ing of non-native species has becomethe major means of producing com-mercial oyster harvests — this is thecase in France, England,Australia,New Zealand and the west coast ofthe United States.While Crassostreagigas was imported to the U.S. north-west near the beginning of the 20thcentury, it wasn’t until the 1970s thatgrowers there began employinghatcheries to produce oysters —today, more than 90 percent of oyster

4 • MARYLAND AQUAFARMER

An Asian Oyster for the ChesapeakeUpdate on Crassostrea ariakensis

Merrill Leffler, Maryland Sea Grant

production in the northwest is fromhatcheries. In other parts of theworld, in France, for example, C. gigasspawns in the wild. Growers use avariety of techniques for collectingspat and then planting them.

Until MSX spread throughoutthe lower Chesapeake in the late1950s — Dermo became rampantsome years later — Virginia’s oysterproduction came primarily from pri-vate grounds: growers deposited shellon leased bottom for stabilization andthen planted seed oysters, often fromhighly productive seed grounds in theJames River and elsewhere.While Vir-ginia watermen still harvested publicgrounds for “wild” oysters during theSeptember to April growing season,oyster companies in Virginia harvestedtheir leased grounds out of season; inthis way,Virginia leaseholders had anall-year-round industry.

Historically, this was not the casefor Maryland where companies bylaw are not allowed to lease groundsfor aquaculture — only individualscan do so.While some individuals puttogether large leasing acreage and soldoysters commercially out of season,the state discouraged the growth ofoyster farming, for example, by mak-ing it nearly impossible for Marylandleaseholders to buy oyster seed fromstate grounds (most growers had tobuy and transport seed from Virginia,which added to their productioncosts).

Maryland’s historical lack of sup-port for oyster farming may bereflected in the many public har-vesters in the state who reject atriploid-based aquaculture industryand have called for introducing repro-ductive C. ariakensis into the Chesa-peake. Larry Simns, president of theMaryland Watermen's Association, hasbecome a strong supporter of C.

ariakensis since the 2001 Virginiagrowth trials — at the annual Water-men’s Exposition in Ocean City,Simns said that while he had notgiven up on the native Crassostrea vir-ginica, it was time to look to a non-native oyster that gives evidence ofbeing able to survive MSX andDermo.

With the state’s worst harvest onrecord this season, Maryland Gover-nor Robert Ehrlich directed theDepartment of Natural Resources inJune 2003 to begin preparing anEnvironmental Impact Statement forintroducing C. ariakensis to the Bay.While such a process can take severalyears, the governor has calledrestoration of oysters to the Chesa-peake “an economic and environ-mental priority.”

Coming Next — Report on C.ariakensis and the Chesapeake

In mid-August, the Ocean Stud-ies Board of the National Academiesof Science will issue its report onintroducing C. ariakensis to theChesapeake Bay.The study willaddress how C. ariakensis might affectthe ecology of the Bay, includingeffects on native species, water qual-ity, habitat, and the spread of humanand oyster diseases. It will also con-sider effects on recovery of the nativeoyster C. virginica as well as its poten-tial range and effects within the Bayand in neighboring coastal areas.

The release of this year-longstudy will give a first glimpse on justwhat the prospects are for importingC. ariakensis into the Chesapeake.Stay tuned.

SUMMER 2003 • 5

Research on C. ariakensis in Maryland

Two research studies on Crassostrea ariakensis are getting underwayat the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, with

support from the NOAA National Sea Grant College Invasive Species Pro-gram.

Roger Newell and Victor Kennedy at the UMCES Horn Pointlaboratory will assess the potential for natural predators to control thespread of this non-native species. Without natural controls, the oysterpopulation could potentially grow unimpeded to become a nuisance, pos-sibly out-competing the native eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica forfood and settlement space for larvae. Newell and Kennedy will examinethe Asian oysters’ vulnerability to natural predators that feed on the nativeeastern oyster: in quarantined laboratory experiments, the two-year studywill test how C. ariakensis responds to predators commonly found on aChesapeake Bay oyster bar.

Ken Paynter and Don Meritt will characterize survival and perform-ance of C. ariakensis in Maryland waters, which are lower in salinity thanin Virginia. While the field trials in Virginia in 2001 indicated that the Sumi-noe is resistant to MSX and Dermo, little is known about its biology orreef building capabilities; moreover, Maryland’s low salinity and sediment-laden waters differ from Virginia’s higher salinity waters. In this study,Paynter and Meritt will collaborate with VIMS scientists to study habitatand mortality rates of sterile (i.e., triploid) native and non-natives at sitesin the Choptank, Patuxent and Severn Rivers.

In 1994, the oyster hatchery at theHorn Point Laboratory producedabout four million seed oysters,

most of which were destined forChesapeake Bay restoration research.By 2000, 40 million spat left thehatchery — last year, more than 70million went into bay waters, prima-rily for reef restoration in riversthroughout Maryland’s portion of theBay system. By 2004, when HornPoint’s new Aquaculture andRestoration Ecology facility becomesoperational,“the hatchery could havethe capacity to produce 150 millionspat a year,” says Sea Grant ShellfishSpecialist and hatchery director Don(Mutt) Meritt.

While Horn Point, which is partof the University of Maryland Center

for Environmental Science, has beenable to expand production because offunding support from state and fed-eral agencies, a key factor in the needfor expansion has been the lab’sunique relationship with the OysterRecovery Partnership, says Meritt.That uniqueness has to do with theway that Horn Point and ORP sup-port each others’ objectives. In thiscase, the lab’s mission is to developthe scientific knowledge that can bestcontribute to restoration in theChesapeake, Meritt says, togetherwith outreach efforts for putting thatknowledge to work. ORP DirectorCharles Frentz’s goal is “to make oys-ter restoration work successfully.”Themeans towards trying to achieve thisgoal have been made possible in part

by Congressional support of theNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration’s Chesapeake BayOffice, which helped fund newequipment for stepping up produc-tion, Frentz says.“Over these years,”he adds,“ORP has increased plantingoperations because of Horn Point’sexpanding capability for producingseed while seed production hasincreased because of our growingcapability to get these oysters intothe field.”

The Horn Point-ORP connec-tion has its origins in the MarylandOyster Roundtable, convened in1993 when Department of NaturalResources Secretary Torrey Brownbrought together a group of stake-holders representing watermen, aqua-

6 • MARYLAND AQUAFARMER

A Unique PartnershipHorn Point Laboratory and the Oyster Recovery Partnership

Merrill Leffler, Maryland Sea Grant

culturists, scientists, legislators, envi-ronmentalists and agency managers.Brown charged them with develop-ing a consensus plan on returningsustainable oyster populations to theBay.A century of stress from overfish-ing, habitat loss, sedimentation andcontaminants had been exacerbatedfor more than twenty years by twoparasitic diseases — MSX (caused byHaplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo(caused by Perksinsus marinus) — thatwere killing oysters before theyreached three inches, the minimumharvestable size.

The Roundtable membersreached important consensus agree-ments that are in place today and, ineffect, set the stage for expandinghatchery production of oysters inMaryland.An important agreementwas dividing Maryland rivers into sev-eral zones and allowing only certifi-able, disease-free seed to be planted inupriver zones — in fact, this meantthe planting of only hatchery-pro-duced seed, since virtually all publicoyster grounds in Maryland had beentainted by Dermo disease. Roundtablemembers also called for establishing anon-profit co-venture among water-men, aquaculturists and environmen-talists that would be responsible forraising money and coordinatingrestoration projects in Maryland —the Oyster Recovery Partnership wasthe resulting organization.

The first ORP director, Dr. Den-nis Walsh brought strong technicalexpertise to the partnership, says BillGoldsborough of the Chesapeake BayFoundation and a member of ORP’sExecutive Board. In the mid-nineties,then-director Bob Pfieffer first beganworking with Meritt to produce oys-ter seed in shell bags. (The bags madeit easier to handle large number ofseed oysters.) Early on, Pfiefferattracted a host of volunteers who

would fill bags with shell, load theminto tanks so that larvae would havesurfaces to settle on, then unload thebagged seed and move them ontoboats for placing in nurseries — afterspat had grown for a month or two,the bags were hauled up and shippedto restoration sites where they werecut open and oysters sent to the bot-tom for grow out.

“All in all, this process is tremen-dously labor intensive,” Meritt says,“but we went from making andmoving a few thousands shell bags ayear to more than 25,000.” Thisnumber was hardly huge by westcoast production standards where theindustry is nearly all based on hatch-ery production, says Meritt,“but aswe produced more shell bags, we alsohad to produce more larvae and thenmore algae [for feeding larvae].”

To produce substantially moreoyster seed, more setting tanks wererequired — ORP and its partnerswere major players in helping to getgrants that justified that need.WhenCharles Frentz took over ORP, hebrought a strong business back-ground, Meritt says.“He’s been a keyplayer in the advances we see today.”

Those advances are not only ingreater production of spat, but in get-ting new technology online, forexample, a specially designed shell-washing machine located at HornPoint for cleaning large volumes ofshell to remove organic and inorganicmatter before the shells are put intosetting tanks.Another significantchange has been the handling of shelland seed.“Shell bags were always agreat limiting factor in significantlyincreasing production,” Meritt says,“and I’ve always disliked using themfor the obvious reasons of the largeneed for manpower.” Several yearsago he, Goldsborough, Eddie Walters,ORP field manager, and Frentz got

together to look at alternatives. Usingthe high grade stainless steel proveneffective in setting tanks used byFrench hatcheries, Meritt helpeddesign the stainless steel setting cagesthat are in use today. One cage han-dles the same amount of shell as 54shellbags, and it is all done mechani-cally.

It only takes a couple of peopleand a boom truck a short time, saysMeritt.And those tanks are alwaysfilled, Frentz adds.

SUMMER 2003 • 7

ORP PartnersMaryland Department of

Natural ResourcesMaryland Watermen’s

AssociationChesapeake Bay FoundationUniversity of Maryland Center

for Environmental ScienceNOAAChesapeake Bay ProgramState of Maryland Office of

the GovernorChesapeake AllianceChesapeake Bay TrustEPAArmy Corps of EngineersMaryland Department of

Agriculture Maryland Department of the

EnvironmentNational Fish & Wildlife

FoundationUniversity of Maryland Sea

Grant CollegeThe Academy of Natural

SciencesWorld Wildlife FederationNanticoke Watershed AllianceKeith Campbell Foundation for

the EnvironmentCommunity Foundation of the

Eastern ShoreCentury FordMaryland Saltwater

Sportfishing AssociationMaryland Scuba AssociationWeems Creek ConservancyNorthrup Grumman

From the ORP website,www.oysterrecovery.org

Frentz has also had a hand inhelping develop the concept of“managed reserves,” an approach tomanaging public oyster grounds forsustainability that the MarylandWatermen’s Association, MarylandDepartment of Natural Resourcesand the ORP have agreed to. In con-trast to oyster sanctuaries, reserveswill be harvested on a limited basisonly after oysters have reached fourinches (the legal minimum is threeinches) — oyster bars will be moni-tored, so that if disease does becomeestablished before oysters reach fourinches, watermen will be given thego-ahead to harvest them.

Just how ORP has been goingabout coordinating oyster restorationis available at its web site atwww.oyster recovery.org. Look upoysters plantings over these last cou-ple of years and you’ll find out howmany oysters have been planted andwhere in systems such as the Severn,the Patuxent, the Chester, the Chop-tank, the Magothy rivers.You’ll findother information such as the dateand extent of the plantings, howmany seed were planted and thebroodstock they derive from.

ORP and its partners have beentargeting some of their restorationprojects at mid-range salinity sites inthese rivers, regions where native oys-ters are especially vulnerable toDermo disease and, in some instanceswhere salinities are above 15 parts perthousand, MSX as well.They havebeen having success, Frentz says,despite disease pressures. Still, Dermoand MSX are entrenched throughoutthe Bay.While their virulence mayabate this year because of heavy rain-fall — lowered salinities generally leadto decreases in virulence — diseaseremains the major limiting factor inrestoring sustainable populations ofCrassostrea virginica in the Chesapeake.

M aryland recently lost yet anotherof its few remaining major

crabmeat plants, the owner citingcompetition from low-priced importsas a major reason, though the Chesa-peake Bay’s continuing low harvestsof blue crab and new regulations thatprevented Maryland processors frombuying legally caught sponge crabs(egg-bearing females) were also fac-tors. Imports, however, have had themajor impact. An article in MarylandAquafarmer in 2000 chronicled theincrease in imported crabmeat andthe International Trade Commission’s(ITC) investigation (see www.mdsg.umd.edu/Extension/Aquafarmer/Summer00. html#4).

In August 2002 the ITC voted 3-2 to reject the petition of the BlueCrab Coalition — an organization ofdomestic blue crab processors — thatsought relief from injury resulting

from large and rapid increases incrabmeat imports. Notably, theCommission Chair and Vice Chairdissented from the determination:

crabmeat from swimming crabs [theywrote] is not being imported into theUnited States in such increased quanti-ties as to be a substantial cause of seri-ous injury or the threat of seriousinjury to the domestic industry produc-ing an article like or directly competi-tive with the imported article (USITCPublication No. 3349.August, 2000).(The report is available at FTP://ftp.usitc.gov/pub/reports/opinions/PUB3349.PDF)

In reaching its decision, the ITClooked at a “snapshot” of the state ofthe domestic crabmeat processingindustry in 1999 and then based theirfindings on a survey that covered theperiod from 1995 to 1999.Whilereasonable people can disagree that

Crabmeat in ATC through Baltimore Customs District

8 • MARYLAND AQUAFARMER

Did the ITC Get It Wrong? Crabmeat Imports Three Years Later

Doug Lipton, Marine Economics Specialist, Maryland Sea Grant Extension

increased levels of imported crabmeat was not currently the cause ofserious injury to the domestic indus-try (the 3-2 vote is evidence of thedisagreement), it takes some prognos-tication to determine whetherimported crabmeat is causing a threatof serious injury.With the closure ofMaryland companies and the contin-ued increase in imports, a Mondaymorning quarterback might concludethat the ITC missed the threat thatimports have created.

The figure on the left shows thevalue of imported crabmeat in air-tight containers (ATC) through theBaltimore customs district from 1990to March 2003. Baltimore hasbecome the dominant entry place inthe U.S. for imported crabmeat fromswimming crabs. The Commissionwas deliberating in early 2000, so itonly saw the three years of substantialgrowth that started in 1997 whenimports into Baltimore went fromless than one million dollars in 1996to almost $11 million in 1997. Thisgrowth was followed by a jump to$38 million in 1998 and $62 millionin 1999.

After the three years of tremen-dous increases, imports increased onlyslightly in 2000 to $64 million. Therehas been speculation that expansionof imports slowed as the industrywaited to see what the Commissionwould decide. A year after the ITCdetermination of no injury, importsjumped to $103 million in 2001 and$123 million in 2002.

One can only wonder what theITC determination would have beenif it had waited until 2002 to file itspetition. Using the five-year timeframe of 1998-2002, the Commissionwould have seen the value of importsskyrocket by 326% and the impacton the domestic industry, would havebeen more evident.

The University of Maryland EasternShore (UMES) has been involved

in aquaculture research, graduateeducation, and industry support formore than a decade. UMES’s Aqua-culture Research and DevelopmentProject (ARDP) is currently con-ducting studies on the nutritional andphysiological requirements of severalspecies including striped bass, hybridbass, tilapia,American eels, and bluecrabs. In addition, we are workingon the development of tertiary watertreatment methods for recirculationsystems for fish and blue crabs.

Though many of the researchprojects are basic in nature, several aredesigned to provide informationdirectly to aquaculturists. We are alsoseeking to work cooperatively withMaryland growers in developing proj-ects addressing their specific needs.

UMES facilities for aquacultureand fish physiology research include anutrition laboratory equipped forboth basic and applied research in feedcompositional analyses; hatchery andrearing space with both flow-throughand recirculating system capabilities; arecently completed fish physiologyand water quality laboratory that con-tains equipment and instrumentationrequired for supporting the ARDPresearch program; and a laboratory-scale California Pellet Mill for produc-ing experimental feeds.

ARDP’s focus is fish physiologyand nutrition, aquatic animal hus-bandry, the impacts of water qualityon fish growth and physiology, andthe chemosensory control of feedingbehavior. The project also supportsgraduate-level courses and participatesin training courses, technical confer-

ences, and extension activities for thegeneral public. Staff also visits privatefacilities to help assess culture orsystem design problems.

Among ARDP’s research focusesare stress physiology of fishes, the roleof aqueous ions on the mitigation ofstress and their impact on nitrogenmetabolism within fishes. Researchon the effects of aqueous calcium,sodium, potassium, and chloride willhelp clarify the control mechanismsinvolved in osmoregulation and thelevels of ammonia and urea carried inthe blood or excreted. The results ofthese studies could provide a betterunderstanding of the functional causeof several unexplained mortality syn-dromes, including the impact ofaqueous ions on the survival anddevelopment of larval striped bass.

I have been involved in aquacul-ture diet development research forover 20 years; my most recent workhas aimed at developing more effi-cient feeds for tilapia and striped bass.Identifying alternative protein sourcesto provide more economical food is acurrent research priority, and under-standing the roles of lipids in thenutrition and health of these species isbecoming another important focus.

Other research is examining theeffects of different feed and ingredi-ent-processing methods on nutrientavailability, the use of animal wasteproducts from other animal hus-bandry industries as feed ingredientsfor fish, and the role of environmentalparameters on nutrient digestibility.Grant program, www.nsgo.seagrant.org

For more information on ARDP researchand outreach, contact Steven Hughes [email protected].

SUMMER 2003 • 9

The Aquaculture Research and Development Project at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore

Steven Hughes, University of Maryland Eastern Shore

10 • MARYLAND AQUAFARMER

The first issue for2003 of ChesapeakeQuarterly, Mary-land Sea Grant’snew magazine,focuses on skip-jacks and the oys-ter fishery in

Maryland. The official Maryland stateboat, skipjacks have become a symbolof the Bay itself and its rich maritimehistory. Both keepers of a traditionand exploiters of an important eco-logical resource, skipjacks have cap-tured our imagination while present-ing us with a poignant dilemma. Howdo we preserve the precious pastwhile safeguarding the Bay’s ecologi-cal future? Michael Fincham considersthis question, while tracing both cur-

New Maryland Sea Grant Magazine

Upcoming Meetings

rent scientific efforts to restore theBay’s vertical oyster reefs and mar-itime heritage programs aimed atrepairing and keeping afloat thenation’s last commercial sailing fleet.

This issue of the online version ofthe magazine also features video clipsfor the first time, including footage ofArt Daniels, the oldest working skip-jack captain; the restoration of hisboat, the City of Crisfield; and scientistsworking to restore oyster reefs. To seethem, visit the web at www.mdsg.umd.edu/CQ.

This issue complements andserves as a companion to the last issuefor 2002 (volume 1, number 3) ofChesapeake Quarterly, which posed thequestion,“Does the Bay need a newoyster?”Taken together, these two

issues help to explain many of thecomplexities — ecological, scientific,social and historical — that face theChesapeake’s struggling oyster fish-ery. For a free subscription to themagazine, e-mail [email protected] or call Jeannette Connorsat 301-403-4220, x 22.

From the Sea Grant Network

FinfishAquaculture of Cobia. Kilduff, P. et al.

2002. Induced tank spawning ofcobia, Rachycentrol canadum, and earlylarval husbandry. Reprint from Vir-ginia Sea Grant,VSGCP-R-02-004,4 pp. No charge.

Commercial Economics of Mud MinnowCulture. Adams, C and A. Lazur.2001. Economic considerations for

Oyster Research and Restoration in U.S. CoastalWaters: Strategies for the Future

September 8-9, 2003 • Annapolis, Maryland

This meeting will be organized around a series of plenary sessions thatwill (1) summarize the status of oyster fisheries in the U.S., (2) share

recent developments at the leading edge of oyster disease research, (3) Syn-thesize developments for management and restoration of oyster popula-tions. Facilitated workgroups will be charged with developing recommen-dations and strategies for future research investments focused on:

* Managing Around Disease* Genetic Manipulation and Population Genetics* Frontiers in Disease Research* Managing for Ecological Benefit* Public Health Issues and Impacts on Oyster Marketing

For the agenda, registration and hotel reservations, please visit the web,www.mdsg.umd.edu/oysters/meeting, or contact Maryland Sea Grant,301-403-4220, x 11.

New Publications

the prospective mudminnow culturistin Florida. FLSGP-G-01-014, 9 pp.Available online.

Video on Baitfish Operations. MinnesotaSea Grant. 2002. From net to sale:Controlling aquatic nuisance specieswith the HACCP approach for bait-fish and aquaculture industries. Min-nesota University Sea Grant,MINNU-V-02-001, 22 minutes,$3.50.

Lipids and Farmed Fish. Flick, G., M.Hall-Arber et al. 2002. Lipid profilesin farmed fish.Virginia Sea Grant,VSGCP-R-02-006, 2pp. No charge.

ShellfishOyster Gardening Handbook —

Mississippi and Alabama. MobileBay oyster gardening programtraining manual. 2001. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant. MASGC-H-01-002, 106 pp. No charge.

Mesh Enclosure Experiments withQuahogs [Hard Clams]. Walker, R.L.et al. 2002. Optimum seed plantingsize and mesh size of bottomlessmesh enclosures for culturing thenorthern quahog Mercenaria mercenaria(Linnaeus, 1758) in coastal Georgia.Georgia Sea Grant, GAUS-G-02-002, 16 pp. No charge.

Optimum Size for Planting Hatchery-Produced Seed. Wallace, R.K. et al.2001. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant..MASGC-H-01-001, 48 pp.

Recirculating SystemsSoftware for Hard Clam Growers.

Sturmer, L. et al. 2002. ComputerLogbook and Management:A user’sguide for commercial hard clamgrowers. Florida Sea Grant, FLSGP-C-02-001, 43pp. No charge

To order, visit the National Sea GrantCollege website, www.nsgo.seagrant.org,and choose the link to the state Sea Grantprogram listed with the citation.

Sea Grant Extension Phone Numbers and E-Mail Addresses

Doug Lipton, SGEP Coordinator and Marine Economist 301-405-1280 [email protected]

Don Webster, Marine Agent 410-827-8056 [email protected] Takacs, Marine Agent 410-326-7356 [email protected] Meritt, Shellfish Aquaculture Specialist 410-221-8475 [email protected] Lazur, Finfish Aquaculture Specialist 410-221-8474 [email protected] Terlizzi,Water Quality Specialist 410-234-8896 [email protected] Rippen, Seafood Technology Specialist 410-651-6636 [email protected] Frederick, Education Specialist 410-234-8850 [email protected] Mason-Jenkins, Seafood Specialist 410-651-6212 [email protected] Smyk-Newton, Coastal Communities Specialist 301-405-5809 [email protected] Leffler, Communications Specialist 301-403-4220, x20 [email protected] O’Herron,Assistant Coordinator,

Environmental Finance Center 301-403-4220, x26 [email protected]

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Maryland, College Park,and local governments. Thomas A. Fretz, Director of Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, College Park.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Maryland Sea Grant Extension Program is a joint effort of the Maryland Cooperative Extension and the Maryland Sea Grant College, supported in part by NOAA Office of SeaGrant, Department of Commerce.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The University of Maryland is equal opportunity. The University’s policies, programs, and activities are in conformance with pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations onnondiscrimination regarding race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital and parental status, and disability. Inquiries regarding compliance with TitleVI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Educational Amendments; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans With Disabilities Act of1990; or related legal requirements should be addressed to the Director of Personnel/Human Relations, Office of the Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, SymonsHall, College Park, MD, 20742.

The Maryland Aquafarmer is a quarterly publication of the MARYLAND COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OFMARYLAND COLLEGE PARK AND EASTERN SHORE with support from the MARYLAND SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM. Thispublication is mailed free of charge to those interested in aquaculture research and education. Address corrections are requested. Thepublication is also accessible on the World Wide Web through the Maryland Sea Grant College home page. Our address is:

www.mdsg.umd.edu/MDSG/Extension/Aquafarmer/index.html

Merrill Leffler, EditorMaryland Sea Grant College

4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 300, University of Maryland, College Park 20740Tel: 301-403-4220, x20

MARYLAND COOPERATIVE EXTENSIONU.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

UNIVERSITYOF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARKCOLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20742

OFFICIALBUSINESSPENALTYFOR PRIVATE USE $300

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

USDAPERMITNo. G268


Top Related