The official web resource of the
Colorado Aquaculture Association
|
|
|
|
Do you remember the slogan, “Aquaculture is Agriculture?” I remember participating in a conference, Aquaculture is Agriculture...and More. At that time, (early 1990s) the National Aquaculture Association, the Catfish Farmers of America, and fish farmers in general, were fighting to establish the principle that the fish on their farms were livestock and personal property, not wildlife that belonged to the state. Remnants of that argument still persist, along with the reality that resource agencies become actively involved when farmed fish and fish farming operations affect fish and waters in the public domain. However, aquaculture policy and much of the day-to-day operations of fish farming have become largely concerns of agriculture and agriculture departments. The array of aquaculture matters in the 2008 Farm Bill illustrate the point that in the United States, aquaculture really is agriculture. Aquaculture programs in the 2008 Farm Bill range from a set aside program, to include lands devoted to commercial pond-raised aquaculture in any year during the period of calendar years 2002 through 2007, as eligible for the Conservation Reserve Program, to expanding the role of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for establishing rules and implementation procedures for regulating imported catfish products, and other amenable species. (Richard E. Gutting, Jr. has written an extensive review of the expanded FSIS role in January/February, 2009 issue of the Global Aquaculture Advocate.) Other programs addressed in the Farm Bill provide several program authorizations of importance to aquaculture. (It is always important to remember that authorization of a federal program does not guarantee an appropriation to fund that program.) The Farm Bill extended, through 2012, The National Agriculture Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, which authorizes the Regional Aquaculture Centers. The Regional Aquaculture Centers provide much of the best research and extension support that addresses directly the array of problems faced by fish farmers. A complete description of all aquaculture-related provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill is beyond the scope of a single article. If there is sufficient interest, I can discuss some of the additional provisions in the next issue of the Fishline. I have selected several items from the Bill for brief discussion in the paragraphs that follow to illustrate the breadth of aquaculture matters included in this legislation. Research and extension directed to marine shrimp farming and the effects, transmission, and human-mediated transport of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) are identified for special attention under Subtitle B: Section 7204 High Priority Research and Extension areas. The goal of the marine shrimp farming program is to authorize grants that will advance and maintain a domestic shrimp farming industry in the United States. I think that most of us are aware of the fact that shrimp imported from various areas of Asia now constitute the bulk of shrimp consumed in the U.S. In addition to human health concerns related to imported shrimp, differences in land and labor costs in Asia place U.S. producers at a serious competitive disadvantage. The VHS studies would focus on the effects of the virus on freshwater fish throughout the natural and expanding range of VHS; and also authorize research and extension grants to examine the transmission pathways of the virus and the role of human-mediated transport of VHS among waterbodies. Information from current research indicates that freshwater fish in the Great Lakes area vary among species, and even within species, in response to infection with the VHS virus. Apparently, some species can serve as carriers, thus complicating efforts to manage the virus and the disease that it causes. The potential roles of human-mediated transport have led to some emergency regulations that many fish farmers consider onerous, and of questionable value. All that I can recommend to readers is that the basic rule for containing and controlling a disease agent is, better safe than sorry. Regulations can be relaxed, but increasing them after the fact of disease spread among fishes in the wild is an exercise in futility. The National Aquatic Animal Health Plan is addressed in Section 11013 of the 2008 Farm Bill through an authorization for the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into cooperative agreements with eligible entities for the purposes of detecting, controlling, or eradicating diseases of aquaculture species and promoting species specific best management practices. An eligible entity may be a State, a political subdivision of a State, an Indian tribe, or other appropriate entity. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to determine such other appropriate entities. The Secretary is also authorized to use the authorities of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U,S.C. 8301 et seq.) in order carry out operations and measures to detect, control, and eradicate pests and diseases; and also the authority to pay claims arising out of the destruction of any animal, article, or means of conveyance. Implementation of these authorities will be dependent on funds being authorized and also development of departmental and agency guidelines to provide specific direction. However, I think that it is safe to say that the Department of Agriculture now has broad authority to manage aquatic animal health issues in the United States. It will be interesting to see how potentially overlapping authorities given to State fisheries agencies will be coordinated with the authorities given to the Department of Agriculture. Most State fisheries agencies guard their rights and authorities very jealously. Hopefully, cooperative agreements will be developed to establish operational guidelines, and messy litigation will not be needed. In any case, Congress has finally given authority for aquatic animal health management to a single Federal Department. Better coordination of services and indemnification for animals and property destroyed through disease control actions are extremely important advances for fish farmers. Additional provisions in the Bill deal with production insurance; non-insured crop assistance; identification of specific research areas to be studied; participation in emergency food programs; assistance to rural entities; membership on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board; and eligibility to participate in the National Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. There just isn’t room in this short summary to discuss the implications of all these programs. In summary, the 2008 Farm Bill makes aquaculture a full participant in the many programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Will USDA have the human and financial resources to accept the responsibilities associated with providing full services to aquaculture? That is always a question with authorization legislation. Appropriations must follow authorizations. The task remaining is for each fish farmer to contact Members of Congress and convince them to provide appropriations adequate to fully implement the provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. Yes, it appears that
aquaculture may finally become agriculture. Status of Organic Standards for Aquaculture In 1999, the National Organic Standards Board identified the need to include organic standards for aquaculture in the Final Rule they were preparing to adopt. The NOSB had been working on terrestrial standards for crops, livestock and processed foods since the passage of the Organic Food Processing Act of 1990. The NOSB is an officially appointed body of volunteers who advise the Secretary of Agriculture on proposed organic standards and related matters. Then in 2000, a number of growers, scientists and other aquaculture experts, plus some people engaged in organic agriculture, began to evaluate the compatibility of organic principles and practices with aquatic plants and animals. Their report, concluded in 2002, confirmed that aquaculture production could be organic, and this report developed the basic framework for such standards. In 2005, under the leadership of Richard Nelson of Nelson’s Silver Cup Fish Feeds, Gary Jensen of the USDA, and this writer, the National Organic Aquaculture Working Group was formed. NOAWG, an unofficial body, quickly grew to over 80 members in the U.S., Canada and Europe. A set of proposed organic standards for aquaculture were developed and officially submitted to the National Organic Program of the USDA. Shortly after this submission, NOP, pursuant to official US Government procedures, appointed an official 12 member Aquaculture Working Group, a diverse group of growers and aquaculture experts. AWG, working from the NOAWG proposal, and with the assistance of members of the NOSB and NOP staff, delivered a comprehensive proposal for standards for growing organic aquatic animals and plants that would qualify for the official USDA organic label. Bivalve molluscs were not included then due to complexities and are being reviewed at this time. In 2007, NOSB, after considerable review by their Livestock Committee, passed the bulk of the proposed aquaculture standards by AWG with their recommendation that the Secretary of Agriculture, through the NOP, include them in the Final Rule. However, two major considerations were reserved for further evaluation: the use of net pens in open bodies of water, and the inclusion of fish meal and oil from wild fisheries in aquatic feeds. After inviting and receiving many public comments, and holding a day long symposium with individuals selected for their interest in these matters, the NOSB Livestock Committee proposed workable standards for these two remaining sets of standards. However, when considered by the full 15-member NOSB, several amendments were moved and adopted that would make growing fish impossible in most cases. These new requirements include: - Only local genotypes of animals can be grown in net pens, and they must be without genetic improvement. - If more than 0.5% of a population escape, organic certification is precluded. In addition, in all aquaculture systems, including raceways, recirculating systems, and ponds, at least 50% of all nitrogenous and 50% of all phosphoric metabolites must be captured and recycled to grow other crops. Although the NOSB inserted these unworkable conditions at the last minute, not all is lost. These are recommendations only. The next step in this rulemaking is for NOP to seek additional public comments, and then at their discretion, make appropriate changes. I personally believe that NOP does not want to establish standards that are impossible to meet, and with their careful review, these unworkable conditions will be eliminated or significantly modified. It is not known when the next public comment period will be open. And, after NOP makes revisions, other agencies of the US government will be asked for their comments and suggestions for change. The members of AWG expect to be very active as organic aquaculture standards move through the final rulemaking process. It is our hope that other voices in aquaculture will be offered and carefully considered. In all, we may have another two years ahead of us before USDA standards for organic aquaculture are established in the Final Rule. Individuals interested in learning more, should explore the following website:
by John G. Nickum, Senior Biologist and Resource Philosopher
Harmannus “Harry” Westers is no longer with us in body. Colon cancer presented a problem that he could not solve. It seems strange, nearly impossible, to be faced with the reality that there was a problem that Harry could not overcome. For those of us who knew him, Harry will live on in our memories and in the solutions he provided to aquaculture. For those fish culturists who did not know Harry personally, his work will make their jobs easier and more predictable for many years to come. Harry represented all that is good in the art and science of fish culture. As a scientist, he brought order and predictability to a field that was dominated by folklore and tradition. However, Harry never forgot that fish culture is also a practical profession in which the first commandment is: “know your fish.” He knew fish, he knew their life requirements, and he knew how to provide the environments needed for their efficient growth. Harry was not only a good scientist and good practitioner of the art of rearing fish; he was a good man; a wonderful, versatile human being. I was fortunate to know him both professionally and personally, but never-the-less, I was surprised to learn that he really was an artist, as well as a scientist. He was a painter, who specialized in landscapes and cityscapes done in oil; however, he is not known to have ever made a painting of a fish. Harry was not born to a world of fame and privilege. By the time he was 10 years old his country was occupied by the Nazis. I have a boyhood friend, Bernie, who grew up under the same conditions in the Netherlands. It is remarkable that either Harry or Bernie survived, let alone that they immigrated to the United States and went on to have successful careers. Harry came to the United States with his pregnant wife, Jolie, in 1955 at the age of 25, after giving up a career as a teacher. Not content with the opportunities available to him with that background, he applied for graduate school at the University of Michigan, originally intending to become a forester. Fortunately, he became interested in fish biology. With a home filling rapidly with youngsters, Harry had to work to house and feed his family while studying fish biology. He completed his Master’s degree studies in 1958 and went to work for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Much of modern fish hatchery management is based on concepts developed by or refined by Harry. When I taught aquaculture and fish propagation at Cornell and Iowa State, I found that my students could gain rapid understanding of some difficult concepts concerning oxygen consumption, ammonia production, flow rates, appropriate rearing densities, and design concepts to ensure proper flushing of rearing units if I presented these concepts using Harry’s formulas and explanations. He made the complex easy to understand. In his work, Harry functioned as an engineer, as well as a biologist, designing aeration systems, degassing columns, and baffle systems that would prevent accumulation of solid wastes. He also developed formulas for calculating feeding levels based on actual metabolic rates and growth rates based on temperature units. And yet, his calculations and formulas were presented in forms that did not, do not, frighten the “mathematically challenged.” Harry was part of the team that brought the Great Lakes salmon fishery to reality. Simply growing fish was not enough for Harry; he wanted the products of his work to be useful. The administrators of the Michigan DNR recognized leadership qualities in Harry and appointed him to the position of Chief for the Fish Hatchery System. However, administrative duties never weighed him down to the point where he could not continue his applied research. Harry’s professional colleagues recognized his leadership abilities by electing him to be President of the Fish Culture Section of the American Fisheries Society. These same colleagues elected him to the National Fish Culture Hall of Fame in 1988. After Harry retired from the Michigan DNR, he found that he could not just walk away from the profession to which he had devoted his life. [The need to support his family of 10 children may have provided an element of necessity for this venture.] He founded a consulting business, Aquaculture Bioengineering Corporation. In this capacity, he provided service and his expertise to countless aquaculturists and government agencies. I credit him for single-handedly keeping EPA effluent regulations for fish farms far more reasonable than they would have been without his influence. I am grateful to have known Harry and to have benefited from his advice and example as a fine human being and a great scientist. I am honored to know that he considered me a friend and worthy colleague. I regret that I could not participate in the memorial service that took place on the grounds of the home that he built and nurtured for 40 years. It would have been a unique privilege to honor his life and to add one more memory to the many that I hold for this remarkable man. His life has ended, but he lives on in the record of his work and in the memories of his colleagues and many, many friends. |
|
Copyright © 1999-2009 Colorado Aquaculture Association. All rights reserved. Do not copy or reproduce without permission. |
