Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Grower — 1
The Grower Newsletter for the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers
July 2016
INSIDE THIS 24 PAGE ISSUE
Scottish Rural Awards
2
CEO’s Column 3-7
Use of algal concentrates
9-10
SAGB Conference
12-13
News from Marine Scotland
14
Monitoring and planning
17
SEPA continued 18-19
The Grower is a quarterly newsletter edited by Janet H. Brown, The Shellfish Team, 2 Annfield Grove, Stirling, FK8 2BN [email protected] For membership of ASSG contact CEO Dr Nick Lake, Mendosa, Court Hill Road, Rosemarkie, Black Isle, Ross-shire, IV10 8UE [email protected]
For further information see our web site at www.assg.org.uk Disclaimer: Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the official view of the Association
The Grower is distributed to all members of the ASSG, to policy makers and scientists with interest in shellfish and is sent electronically all over the world to shellfish farmers and their ilk. It is also available online at www.assg.org.uk Why not advertise to our specialist readership?
Advertising The Corran Halls are booked, likewise the Waterfront Fish House Restaurant for the Conference Dinner and enquiries already coming in for the Trade Show. The theme for this year will be “Scottish Cultivated Shellfish - Past, Present and Future" marking the milestone of this year being the 30th anniversary of the start of the ASSG. More details will be available soon but we plan to keep to the new formula established last year of starting at lunch time on the 6th and finishing after another shellfish lunch on the Friday.
News 20-21
FSS Update 23
Photo news and shellfish culture
24
ASSG at Aquaculture UK
ASSG Conference 6-7th
October
The biennual conference and exhibition that is Aquaculture UK took place once again in Aviemore in May. It was under new management this year: 5M have taken over from Ascomber Ltd Although David Mack was still on hand to help the new company it didn’t help the old problem of the clash with the SAGB shellfish conference which David had managed to avoid in most recent shows. There was nevertheless a very good turn-out and some very useful streamlining with all events taking place within the main area rather than as in the past, the conference part taking place in the hotel. The ASSG stand was well visited and it was a good opportunity for much catching up and publicity opportunities. Pictured above – from left Alan Mackenzie, Iain Sutherland (HIE), ASSG CEO Dr Nick Lake and the Editor of The Grower worrying if the camera was operating.
The Grower — 2
Dates for your diary:
European Aquaculture Society meeting “Food for Thought”
20-23 September 2016 Edinburgh
ASSG Annual Conference Corran Halls, Oban
6-7 October 2016
International Conference on Shellfish Restoration Charleston, South Carolina, USA
16-19 November 2016
7th International Oyster Symposium Bangor, North Wales
September 11-15th 2017
Contact details
Editor of The Grower Janet H Brown, 2 Annfield Grove, Stirling, FK8 2BN [email protected]
CEO Nick Lake, Mendosa, Court Hill Road, Rosemarkie, Black Isle, Ross-shire, IV10 8UE [email protected]
Treasurer Stephen Cameron, [email protected]
Other members of management committee;- David Attwood [email protected] Nick Turnbull [email protected] Tristan Hugh-Jones [email protected] Michael Tait [email protected]
Firth of Forth Lobster Hatchery wins award
The Scottish Rural awards organised by Scottish Field and the Scottish Countryside Alliance, for the first time included an aquaculture award. The awards celebrate the “innovation, dedication and enterprise of those living and working in rural Scotland”. The first winner of the aquaculture award was the Firth of Forth Lobster Hatchery. This is a charity established to replenish the Forth lobster population but also providing an educational facility at the same time. The project was first set up in 2010 but it was the award of a substantial grant from the Coastal Com munity Fund in 2014 that
enabled them to expand their facilities on North Berwick harbour.
Pictured below a justly proud Jane McMinn receives the award from Fred MacAulay and Jenny Hjul, Editor of Fish Farmer.
Highly recommended in the same category was the Loch Ryan Oyster Fishery Co.
The Grower — 3
CEO’s Column Nick’s Notes
Summer is here? I guess if you are on the West Coast you will
recognise that it is, but in the East and the Northern Isles the sun has been bright but the temperatures more Spring than Summer! Typically I should not have mentioned the quiet start on the biotoxin monitoring front in my last article as true to form the very next week we had a PSP closure! However, it goes to show that the monitoring system is working and that consumers are protected which is the aim of the investment made by all.
Aquaculture UK at Aviemore
This was a useful meeting point for many members and it was good to catch up with various contacts old and new. Of course shellfish growers require neither feed nor medicines to produce our products and so it is only the equipment manufacturers who view us as potential customers! If you want to view shellfish growing equipment you really need to hop over the channel to France and one of their oyster salons. However, if it's boats, floats and ropes all were able to be discussed! What was also evident was the drive for both "offshore" production and innovation to increase production. Manufacturers such as our own Fusion Marine were evident and in terms of shellfish equipment they have supplied the Holmyard's mussel farm in the English Channel with buoys to weather the conditions. (See full story on page 20—Ed.) John and Nicki's site is truly "offshore"! I am frequently asked by planners and researchers what is the potential for "offshore" production in Scotland? Possibly great biological potential in some areas but why would we currently want to be considering "offshore" when in Scotland we are nowhere near biological carrying capacity "inshore" and we need to optimise production costs not add to them?
Financing and Development?
One area where we do need innovation is with respect to securing investment for expansion of existing sites or creation of new businesses. With typically a minimum of 3 years operational time before cash begins to flow into a business and the fact that stock and growing equipment in the water are not regarded as assets by the commercial banking system, balance sheets and return on investment can make frightening reading for investors. What would add to that fright would be to say you were going to expose this investment to the even more severe weather conditions offshore and with increased operating costs!
In Scotland our industry has very much been developed by small family businesses or individuals taking the risk of using their own funds and starting at modest scales to develop shellfish sites which they have found through experience to be viable. We can all think of many who have failed in this ambition as either the
Dr Nick Lake, CEO of the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers (ASSG)
sites chosen or the long period required to see any return on investment have proven too demanding (not to mention the conspiring of nature to add in additional variable challenges and often lack of understanding by public bodies on the implications of their actions!). Throughout we have been fortunate in the Highlands and Islands to have had both public sector support and encouragement through Highlands and Islands Development Board / Enterprise and a land lord in the form of The Crown Estate who through the spirit of "Stewardship" have been reasonable in financial expectations of our sector and in significant re-investment of revenue. Without these bodies it is difficult to see that we would have achieved so much to date?
Scale of our Industry?
What has become evident is that while starting small has advantages the costs are high per tonne of output and the balance sheet looks a lot healthier in the long run if your outputs are high. It is the optimal economy of scale model which makes sense in a financial context but raises real issues for private investment and in terms of securing planning permissions to secure larger sites? There is also the issue of acquired expertise and knowledge in developing any business based on years of experience and going for broke in terms of production tonnages at the start can mean just that in some cases. Investment alone is not enough to be successful. In addition where is your market for 1 million oysters per year or 500 tonnes of mussels when you set out originally to grow enough to supply your local hotels and pubs? (Such outlets also earning small volume price premiums while larger tonnages face the reality of the national / international market?). So if this is really such a difficult area for commercial investment how have we managed in Scotland to show around an average 9% increase in mussel production per year over the last decade?
Shetland has been responsible for the main growth in this sector. How has this been possible given their remote location from the main markets? It is true to say that in the recent past there has been some transfer of salmon farming sites to mussel production and the available infrastructure helped this. However, there is a predominance of independently owned and operated farm sites some relatively small. The one asset which all
The Grower — 4
The Grower — 5
CEO’s Column cont.
not regarded as blockers to the industry developing but potentially issues which require to be addressed. With a vision of where our sector has potential to be by 2030 hopefully this will assist one of the major blockers we have at present, namely securing private investment for small family businesses who have the potential to contribute to the combined output of Scottish cultivated shellfish.
Those of you who attended last year's ASSG annual conference cannot have forgotten the enthusiasm which James Withers the CEO of Scotland Food and Drink relayed in his presentation. There is clearly a bright future for Scottish shellfish from a market demand perspective we just need to ensure that Scotland PLC can establish a suitable framework to encourage individuals, small and large businesses to be able to operate?
ASSG Conference Oban 6/7th October 2016
Given the importance of this Vision 2030 outlook for our sector and especially those who already have established shellfish production businesses in Scotland we will be spending time considering the implications at this year's conference. The Vision group aims to report in the late summer and so the timing of our Conference will provide an opportunity for not only a presentation but for members and delegates to have their say. The plan is that we will have an "any questions" session on the second day which has a focus on the future direction of our industry.
I can't believe that the Conference organising file has never left my desk since last year's event which either indicates that it has been a busy year or that my office management skills are somewhat lacking! However, plans are progressing to make this year's event extra special.
Celebrating the ASSG at 30!
Those of you young enough may well appreciate that this is the 30th anniversary of the formation of the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers Ltd. Hence it is a good time to take stock and celebrate the success of our sector to date. The theme is "Scottish Cultivated Shellfish - Past, Present and Future" and while recognising lessons to be learnt from the past we will be very much looking to the future.
The full programme is being pulled together with the usual mix of presentations from home and abroad and of course we will be running the "Best Scottish Shellfish" competition. One aspect of this that is ripe for change is the awarding of a single prize for each category. The number of entries last year especially for the oysters meant that many received no recognition of the high quality shellfish which were presented. Given the judging panel's skill and the selection criteria developed by our head judge it is considered that runners up in each category can be selected and members should be rewarded for the time and effort in selecting and presenting their stock. We also hope to source prizes
require is access to efficient harvesting and handling equipment and in terms of boats this is an area where commercial finance is interested in investing. However, it is highly unlikely that any small farming operation could sustain such an asset on its balance sheet as the repayments would be crippling and to expand a business additional private funds are needed for stock and equipment in the water! Hence development can be stifled? Well not in Shetland! What has arisen in many cases are smaller sites using the services of larger businesses harvesting vessels and landing / handling infrastructure. Hence economy of scale is maintained across the entire sector through individual businesses co-operating and this has also allowed bulk production to be transported to a central processing facility in Glasgow (close to the market). This therefore appears to be an issue of critical mass as much as economy of scale?
Is this a model we could use for other areas of Scotland and for oysters as well? It would require that we had clearly defined aspirations and that all public agencies would work together to ensure support for a critical mass of individual smaller scale privately owned businesses which could establish within an area, allowing the costly assets to be offset between them. While this would avoid the planning issues associated with seeking single large scale shellfish production sites it does imply that a certain critical mass of area would have to be made over to individual shellfish production sites within a coastal region. Could we see this occurring with sites becoming available from the salmon farming sector as they master the advantages of working further offshore?
I discussed all of the above issues with a range of parties at Aquaculture UK and found that there was a feeling that to make the most of our natural assets in Scotland (which includes the expertise of our smaller family owned businesses working in remote locations) we all must take a fresh look at where we want our industry to go in the coming years.
Vision 2030?
Given the sort of discussions we have been having regarding the production issues facing our sector it is interesting to note that within Scotland there has been a need identified for all agricultural and food / drink producers to take stock of constraints and opportunities. Through Scottish Government, Scotland Food and Drink there is a desire to identify the opportunities for the Scottish economy of this sector. Individual components include beef, dairy, whisky, cereals, lamb etc. and importantly for us aquaculture has its own viewpoint and requested input. Obviously salmon would be seen as the leading volume output but shellfish and trout are also recognised as having significant potential. We together with Seafood Shetland have been involved in the Vision 2030 working group with the objective of distilling down what are the absolute blockers to our sector expanding and maintaining viability? Issues such as food safety monitoring, planning permissions, infrastructure etc. are
The Grower — 6
CEO’s Column cont.
which are uniquely Scottish in manufacture! If members have any additional ideas for celebrating our 30th birthday I would be pleased to hear them. Of course it goes without saying we will be making the most of our great Scottish seafood for the lunches and also holding our annual dinner and AGM - an actioned packed couple of days! Full details will be advertised as soon as we have finalised the programme. It is worth noting that Nick Turnbull will be standing down from the management committee at this AGM after many years of great support and advice for the Association. This will leave a particular gap in the representation of the oyster sector and we would be keen for another suitably experienced member to help fill this position. I have said before that it is not onerous in time or travel as we aim to hold the majority of meetings via teleconference. Please give it some thought as the Association is reliant on the good council of the management committee members.
Shellfish Waters Protected Areas
Elsewhere in this edition of The Grower you will see an item from SEPA on the progress with the implementation of the pollution remediation programme to meet the SWPA standards laid down by Scottish Government. My thanks go to all the members who
responded to the survey I circulated regarding the priority areas for implementing the SEPA work on diffuse pollution sources. This was undertaken in conjunction with Seafood Shetland and in total 19 SWPAs were identified covering both oyster and mussel sites. Interestingly (and not surprisingly?) many members were able to identify the likely source of the pollution impacting their site and noted the relationship between rainfall levels and their management decisions as to when it was best to harvest. This sort of information should help SEPA in narrowing down their sampling programme and matching it to monitoring of individual catchment conditions. We hope to be able to provide continued updates on this work to all impacted members and will be looking for improvements on the ground at the earliest opportunity.
I hope the summer is long and warm for you - with the minimum of algal blooms!
All the best
Nick
The Grower — 7
NEWS Mapping Scottish aquaculture priorities through to 2030
The Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre (SAIC), in partnership with Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), is undertaking a scoping study to map aquaculture priorities through to 2030.
The Innovation Centre is seeking information and opinions from industry, academics and stakeholders on what they see as the priorities for innovation and investment.
SAIC is keen for as many people as possible to get involved. 2030 may seem like a long time away but if Scottish aquaculture is to capitalise on growing global demand for aquaculture products then action is needed now, across all areas of the industry.
The scoping study is being carried out by independent consultants Imani Development and SRSL. To have your say, contact Iain Gatward on 01631 569990 or email him at [email protected].
Pictured right ; Iain Gatward pictured at the Tree House at Cairndow, Loch Fyne after one of the interviews as part of the project. Photo J H Brown
ShellEye In the January edition of The Grower we introduced
ShellEye, a research project investigating the use of satellites to detect reduced water quality events specifically for the shellfish industry. Funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the aim of this project is to launch a water quality bulletin service in target areas to alert stakeholders to harmful algal blooms that may have an impact on shellfish stock.
At the end of May ShellEye held its 2nd Annual Science Meeting in Weymouth. The schedule for the pilot bulletin service was agreed and the trial is due to begin over the summer. There will be a more detailed update in the next issue of The Grower
To keep up-to-date with the launch and progress of the trial bulletin service please register your interest at www.shelleye.org/contact#register
The Grower — 8
The Grower — 9
The need for large quantities of quality microalgae is one of the most significant impediments restricting expansion of hatchery capacity for the bivalve industry, as well as oyster restoration programmes. Ample feeding with microalgae is essential for hatchery productivity, but natural phytoplankton from ambient waters cannot provide a reliable supply of microalgae. Moreover, untreated seawater risks exposure of hatchery animals to parasites, pathogens, and toxic phytoplankton blooms. But production of sufficient quantities of algae to satisfy the needs of a hatchery can be a daunting challenge, especially for smaller producers who are now faced with the need to establish their own hatcheries due to shortages of seed.
Fortunately, there is a solution to the problem of ensuring reliable supplies of microalgae for hatcheries: the use of liquid algae concentrates. Reed Mariculture Inc. produces algae concentrate feeds designed specifically for bivalves. Reed Mariculture’s Shellfish Diet® 1800 provides a nutritionally balanced combination of six specially-selected strains of Chaetoceros, Pavlova, Tisochrysis (“T-Iso”), Tetraselmis, and Thalassiosira, providing a range of cell sizes from 4 – 12 microns. These marine microalgae strains have demonstrated success as feeds for a variety of bivalves including oysters, clams, mussels, and
Overcoming the Algae Bottleneck With Algae Concentrates Eric Henry PhD, Research Scientist, Reed Mariculture Inc. Campbell, California, USA
scallops. This mixed diet provides excellent nutrition for all life stages, from first-feeding larvae all the way through broodstock, increasing both growth rates and survival. Reed Mariculture also offers the algae species used in Shellfish Diet as single-species Instant Algae® products, so hatchery operators have the option to create their own custom mix of species for particular applications.
The FAO bivalve hatchery manual (available online at www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5720e/y5720e00.htm) estimates that “The culture of algae accounts for about 40% of the costs of rearing bivalve seed to a shell length of about 5 mm in a hatchery.” Many bivalve hatcheries are now finding it more economical as well as more reliable to feed only with Instant Algae. With no need to grow their own microalgae, the cost and the complexity of both constructing and running a hatchery are significantly reduced, making it possible for even small-scale bivalve growers to set up their own hatcheries. In the USA, Scott Rikard manages the Auburn University oyster (Crassostrea virginica) hatchery on Dauphin Island, Alabama. He says, “We use Shellfish Diet almost exclusively for rearing our oyster larvae. Since we opened the hatchery in 2003, production has increased from a few million larvae and less than 100,000 oyster spat each year, to 188 million oyster larvae and 12.8 million oyster seed in 2014. All made possible by Shellfish Diet!” (see https://eos.ucs.uri.edu/EOS_Linked_Documents/masgc/masgcg12008.pdf
Eric earned his PhD in phycology (algae studies) at the University of British Columbia and continued academic research on algae for the next 16 years, authoring or co-authoring 25 research papers in scientific journals. In 1996 he joined the private sector to develop algal mass culture and associated aquaculture technologies. Eric has been part of the Reed Mariculture team since 2003, where he works on algal and zooplankton culture, development of new products, and provides customer technical support relating to uses of Instant Algae, zooplankton culture, and larviculture of shellfish and finfish.
Shellfish diet micrograph
The Grower — 10
John “Barley” Dunn, Director of the East Hampton Shellfish Hatchery on Long Island, in the state of New York, says “We use Reed’s algae concentrates to supplement our own live algae production during the times of year when our shellfish are ‘eating us out of house and home.’ This allows us to grow more and larger shellfish early in the season before moving them to the nursery.”
At Southold NY, also on Long Island, the Cornell Cooperative Extension agency’s SPAT (Southold Project in Aquaculture Training ) programme (see http://ccesuffolk.org/marine/aquaculture/spat-program) works “to encourage community members to become stewards of their environment and to restore shellfish to the bays.” To date, over 1,000 members of local communities have taken part, many as volunteers operating a hatchery. Currently SPAT is helping to establish several small “pocket” hatcheries that can be operated by local communities. The use of Reed Mariculture’s Instant Algae concentrates will be essential for the success of these hatcheries, enabling community members with minimal training to operate these hatcheries without requiring them to master algae culture protocols.
Reed Mariculture produces algae from continuously-harvested cultures, so the algae are always in their healthiest, rapid-growth phase. After harvesting by centrifuge, the algal cells are re-suspended in a proprietary medium of buffer salts, to stabilize cell integrity and retain their full nutritional value. No pasteurization or other heat treatments are used. Shellfish Diet is a refrigerated product with a shelf life of 12-14 weeks. According to the FAO Manual on The Production and Use of Live Food for Aquaculture, “The density of harvested algal cultures generally ranges
between 80 and 250 mg of dry weight per liter.” The biomass dry weight of Shellfish Diet 1800 is 8% (80 g per liter), so one liter of Shellfish Diet is typically the equivalent of 320 to 1,000 liters of algal culture. In contrast to algae cultures, the consistent biomass densities of Instant Algae products make them particularly well-suited for automated dispensing to larviculture tanks via a dosing pump.
Because the algae cells in Reed Mariculture’s Instant Algae products are so highly concentrated, some care is required when dispensing the products into culture tanks. This high concentration can sometimes result in clumping if the product is added directly to seawater without sufficient mixing. This may happen because the cells are in such close contact that if polysaccharides on the cell surface interact with calcium ions naturally present in seawater, cells can stick together. It is therefore best to first dilute Instant Algae into around 10 volumes of fresh water (which must be free of calcium or iron, which can also cause clumping), or even better a sodium chloride solution. Pouring the diluted product through a 20 micron screen will further ensure complete dispersion of the algal cells.
Reed Mariculture Inc. was founded in 1995 by the Reed family to grow “tank-raised” bivalve shellfish. Over the next three years they worked on developing tank-raised shellfish technology, while also developing and refining the technology for large-scale production of marine microalgae, the essential feed for shellfish. In 1998 Reed Mariculture discontinued its shellfish operations to focus on producing microalgae for shellfish and finfish hatcheries. Today the company markets its algae-based feeds to aquaculture research institutions and commercial hatcheries in 86 countries.
Please visit www.reedmariculture.com for more
information about Reed Mariculture products.
Algae concentrates cont.
Crassostrea virginica veliger larva
7th International Oyster symposium (IOS7)
The World Oyster Society (WOS) have announced the date for the 7th International Oyster Symposium (IOS7) which is being held at Bangor University, Wales, UK, in 2017.
The dates are 11-15th September 2017 and the conference is being convened by Dr Jonathan King, Deputy Director of Centre for Applied Marine Sciences (CAMS), Bangor University, and Director of the European and African Chapter of WOS.
The Grower — 11
The Grower — 12
SAGB Annual Shellfish Conference
Janet H Brown reports
There is no doubt something different about the Shellfish Conference held each year in Fishmongers’ Hall: the setting is so out of the ordinary all new speakers tend to make reference to the grandeur of the surroundings. But that uniformity was definitely confined to those first few sentences of each presentation, the programme was extremely varied.
The SAGB, the Shellfish Association of Great Britain is a broad church, fishermen, processors, marketers and aquaculturists and probably roughly in that order of precedence. So for shellfish aquaculture things can often seem a little sparse but nevertheless of interest. While Ian Duncan (Pictured below with David Jarrad) was one of the first speakers and indeed the
keynote speaker on the first day, and ostensibly talking on fisheries his insights into the working of the EU from his vantage point as MEP and member of both Fisheries Committee and the Environment Committee were fascinating. Not least his description of how “a man with a frying pan” could instigate change more rapidly than any number of highly paid lobby groups. Interestingly it turned out that many of his audience saw this as speaking either for or against the brexiteers, clearly it could depend on one’s own viewpoint. Ian
Duncan very much personified the recommendation from Denis Healey that all politicians should have a hinterland, coming as he did from a background in academic geology, commercial work with BP as well as work in the European parliament and a period as secretary to the Scottish Fishermen’s federation - definitely a politician with a hinterland.
If there was a theme to the conference it would be future challenges and opportunity in the shellfish industry which was set out in the first talk, the Drummond lecture given by Mike Berthet which provided a good overview highlighting the new species becoming available such as wild-caught slipper lobster from SE Asia and farmed tropical marine shrimp from East Anglia (this is not a misprint) which could increase competition while also drawing attention to some of the problems, disease being one of the major threats in aquaculture. Consumer education particularly in relation to aquaculture seemed to be an important takeaway message as well as certification – the two probably closely connected.
Maybe one of the crucial talks for all sectors was that where the new Chief Executive of Seafish introduced himself. Marcus Coleman (below) was
appointed in January this year so this was also an opportunity to review his first 100 days. What was unusual in this was the initial emphasis on his background (hinterland?) which did cover such a wide range of companies that the question was prompted from the floor afterwards, “How long will you be staying with Seafish?!” But there can be no doubt that experience in fields as diverse as communications, business and engineering can only be an advantage in bringing fresh thinking into Seafish and their activities. His policies include a flat management structure and he is clearly very approachable. One of his stated aims is
The Grower — 13
marketed under the trade name Cove using a scallop shell as logo. They are seeking support for this.
Similarly film maker Justyn Jones (below) who has a track record of film making with environmental credentials sought support from crowd funding and the shellfish industry to make a film for presenting the environmental credentials of shellfish aquaculture in a competition. Unfortunately he was just pipped to the prize but is still keen to follow up on the subject but explained how there needed to be a story. He showed clips from John Holmyard’s Offshore Shellfish Ltd and from the North Menai Strait MSC certified mussel fishery and talked of plans to maybe follow up on these with the plans to develop a mussel hatchery in Shetland. You can see the film “The Musselman” at the web site of Small World Productions at smallworldtv.co.uk/musselman-new-short-film/
For anyone hoping to export shellfish to China one talk was of particular interest. Karen Morgan (pictured right) who had been instrumental to SAGB’s efforts to get UK crab reinstated in the China market. Karen is the Aquaculture Food and Drink Counsellor in the British Embassy, Beijing. She is funded by the ADHB (Agriculture and Horticulture development Board). She also said that Defra has very useful information for helping exporters but with 120 countries already exporting to the growing market that China provides exporters may need all the help they can get. With Karen on the ground in China the help she can provide could be invaluable.
All photographs J.H Brown
to get young people into the seafood industry and this policy seemed to brook no argument looking around the hall at the grey heads making the bulk of the audience!
Conferences are a great opportunity for networking, meeting people and mainly, the clue is in the name, conferring. While giving an informative talk is essential, speakers buzzing off straight after their talk are essentially reneging on the unspoken contract. Delegates pay for the opportunity both to hear the talks but also to interact with the participants. So while Michiel Fransen gave an interesting talk on the Aquaculture Stewardship Council he left many disappointed people who would have liked to discuss the topic further – or even as in my case, take a photograph. It was left to the one person in the audience who actually was certified by ASC to give much of the essential information on the process. I certainly did not know that IKEA were the biggest buyer of salmon and that they insist it has to be from a certified source and the message was essentially being repeated from the earlier talk that certification will be increasingly important.
David Jarrad provided an update on what was happening in the world of EU representation speaking with some authority as vice President of EMPA, the European Mollusc Producers’ Association and the formation of the Aquaculture Advisory Council.
The two concluding talks were dealing with topics off the beaten track which is often one of the signs of a fruitful conference. George Foot (Pictured below) drew
timely attention to the serious problem of microplastics which are not filtered out by sewage systems and are a threat to filter feeders that can then accumulate them and pass them unwittingly up through the food chain with as yet unknown consequences. The main source seems to be micro-abrasives used in exfoliators used in the quest for beauty. George with his colleagues is seeking to turn the problem on its head by using waste from shellfish to provide the naturally degradable abrasive material for a fully sustainable substitute product. These will be
SAGB cont.
The Grower — 14
Information update on oyster importation
Andrew Mayes
Estuary and River Colne in Essex, Poole Harbour in Dorset and the River Teign in Devon.
the territory of Northern Ireland except Dundrum Bay, Killough Bay, Lough Foyle, Carlingford Lough and Strangford Lough
the territory of Guernsey Important cautionary note
Growers are advised to exercise caution and consider the risks when importing part grown oysters from different health zones. The movement of part grown oysters presents an inherent risk of disease transmission, including the possible introduction of hitchhiker/alien species.
In accordance with current legislation, all consignments from Ireland will be inspected before departure from the exporting site and any consignments arriving in Scotland may be subject to inspection prior to deposit - The Trade in Animals & related Products (Scotland) Regulations 2012. If hitchhiker species are present which don’t meet the health requirements for import, the consignment can be isolated and detained or be destroyed, prior to deposit.
To contact the Marine Scotland or CEFAS Fish
Health Inspectorates, The Marine Institute – Ireland or
the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural
Affairs please use the contact details below:
Industry concerns were raised in 2015 regarding a perceived shortage of spat and juvenile oyster supplies following the extension of movement restrictions for oyster herpes virus (OsHV-1 µVar) to include the Reculver shellfish hatchery in Kent. The industry was reassured by the hatcheries in the remaining disease free areas that they could supply all remaining oyster farms in Scotland, provided orders for oyster spat were placed well in advance.
There are now an additional six compartments available for trade, located in the Republic of Ireland, along with the existing suppliers of juvenile oysters in areas recognised as free from OsHV-1 µVar. The six compartments in the Republic of Ireland have completed an approved surveillance programme undertaken by the Marine Institute over a five year period. Further information on this surveillance can be found at the following web address:
www.fishhealth.ie/FHU/HealthSurveillance/Oyster+Herpes+Virus+Surveillance.htm
The areas in the Republic of Ireland which have been recognised as disease free for OsHV-1 µVar are:
Compartment 1: Sheephaven Bay
Compartment 3: Killala, Broadhaven and Blacksod Bays
Compartment 4: Streamstown Bay
Compartment 5: Bertraghboy and Galway Bays
Compartment 6: Poulnashaary Bay
Compartment A: Tralee Bay Hatchery Due to the current health status of the six
compartments noted above, Scottish oyster growers can import part grown Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) or spat from these areas into Scotland, subject to importation regulations. The Fish Health Inspectorate at Marine Scotland Science in Aberdeen can be contacted for advice on the regulatory requirements when importing shellfish from overseas (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Fish-Shellfish/FHI/importexport)
Other areas which are recognised as free from OsHV-1 µVar and from where Pacific oysters can be sourced are:
the territory of Great Britain except the north Kent coast, the River Roach, River Crouch, Blackwater
Marine Scotland – FHI Tel: 01224 295 525 Email: [email protected]
CEFAS – FHI Tel: 01305 206 700 Email: [email protected]
The Marine Institute – Ireland Tel: (+)353 (0)9 138 7200 Email: [email protected]
Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Tel: 0300 200 7844 Email: [email protected]
Andy has been working as a fish health inspector for
Marine Scotland – Science for 7 years. He graduated
with a BSc in Marine Geography at Cardiff University
in 2007 before becoming a fish farmer, working out of
Dunoon in Argyll. More recently he has been
specialising in shellfish farming at the marine
laboratory in Aberdeen and provides advice on shellfish
health issues at the Shellfish Working Group in
Edinburgh.
The Grower — 15
The Grower — 16
The Grower — 17
Shellfish Farms Monitoring and Planning
Kate McEwen, FVG Environmental
FVG Environmental are keen to make shellfish farmers aware of the relatively new services that they offer. Although FishVet Group is best known for veterinary services to the fin fish industry, FVG Environmental offers a broad spectrum of services to all areas of aquaculture.
In recent years it has become apparent to me and my colleagues that it can be difficult for busy shellfish farmers to keep up with the various regulatory requirements placed upon them and, in the event that seabed surveys, environmental reports or discussion with regulatory bodies are required, they are uncertain who they can turn to for help. Many readers will already be aware that shellfish regulation is changing with the transfer of licensing from the Crown Estate to Local Authorities and the increase in number of Marine Protected Areas and other protected areas.
Ewan Gillespie, FVG Environmental consultant (pictured below), says that recent surveys conducted by
FVG Environmental were in response to a requirement placed upon operators to satisfy the Scottish Government, Marine Scotland and SNH that sites were not adversely impacting upon maerl beds below and adjacent to longlines. The sites surveyed were located within Scotland’s only SAC that has maerl as the primary feature of designation.
FVG Environmental has considerable practical experience in seabed survey work, having carried out benthic monitoring surveys for marine salmon farms for many years and has more recently designed and conducted visual surveys and benthic sampling on various mussel longline sites to satisfy the specific requirements set by authorities.
We are particularly aware that costs need to be kept down and while FVG Environmental bring in the equipment costs are reduced by using site service boats and site staff to assist in the surveys – and many find it an interesting experience, seeing the videos and still images of what lies on the seabed. Iain McEwen (FVG biologist and
surveyor) (pictured left) and Ewan both plan and carry out marine surveys, understanding the requirements placed upon the site operators by the various regulatory bodies and ensure that the surveys are well designed and deliver the information required. Once the visual surveys and benthic sampling have been carried out, Enviro staff in the Inverness lab analyse samples and
bring field data, visual and benthic analysis results together in reports which can be submitted as part of site legal requirements to provide environmental data to government agencies and regulators.
With experience on both sides of the industry and knowledge of current and novel regulations and legislation that are being applied to operators, Ewan also assists and supports Scottish shellfish growers through the minefield of monitoring and licencing requirements, providing them with regulatory and scientific support and can act as a liaison between individual growers and the various agencies involved.
The requirements described here may apply to a number of sites and we would be pleased to work with shellfish operators to review site permissions, carry out a site survey, or provide technical or regulatory assistance with any aspect of site licencing.
Contact us at [email protected] 01463 717774
Kate McEwen is part of the environmental team at FishVet Group. She has worked with the company since 2004. She has a BSc in Marine and Environmental Biology, an MSc in Aquatic Pathobiology and previously worked as an aquaculture risk surveyor.
The Grower — 18
River basin management planning and
shellfish waters
This is the second in a series of articles from SEPA providing information about how we seek to protect and improve shellfish waters across Scotland. The first article (April 2016) outlined the context of the work, who’s involved and roles and responsibilities. In this article we will expand on the functions of shellfish water classifications and outline the strategy for progressing the proposed approach to rural diffuse pressures across Scotland.
Classification of shellfish harvesting areas and protected areas?
SEPA and Food Standards Scotland, FSS, both classify the same waters using the same data so it’s reasonable to think this is the same thing. However, due to different purposes and calculations using that data, it is a little more complicated than that and so worth an explanation. A short version and a more detailed explanation are provided.
The short version
In summary, it is the responsibility of FSS to make sure the shellfish are safe to eat and the responsibility of SEPA to make sure the environment is in a condition to allow shellfish production.
FSS sample, analyse and report water quality in Shellfish Harvesting Areas (SHA) throughout the year to ensure shellfish are safe for consumption, or determine if they require further treatment. At the end of the year, FSS then provide this data to SEPA who use it to classify the wider Shellfish Water Protected Area ( SWPA). The SEPA classification gives an overview for the water quality over the year across the whole SWPA. This allows us to identify longer term trends and is used to give an indication of where resources should be targeted for further investigations to identify the source of pollution and seek improvements.
The longer version
FSS classify SHAs, under the Shellfish Hygiene Directive and are given their own classification A, B or C based on the number of E.coli present in a 100g sample of shellfish flesh, as follows;
SHA classification can change throughout the year dependent on the most recent sample result.
SEPA classify SWPA, under the Scotland River Basin District (Quality of shellfish Protected Areas) (Scotland) Directions 20151 as Good, Fair or
Insufficient. Again, this is based on the number of E.coli present in a 100g sample of shellfish flesh (based on a 90 percentile calculation – this means a few high results can downgrade a SWPA, as a precautionary approach):
SEPAs classification collates all of the sample results from within the SWPA from the last 3 years of data, to determine the classification result for that reporting year. For example, SEPA collated the 2015 data in spring 2016, ran the classification, including data from 2013 and 2014. It is then checked before being published during the summer. The timescales are determined by the scale of the classification work that SEPA does annually for thousands of rivers, lochs, estuaries, coastal and groundwater waterbodies and protected areas.
Scotland’s strategy to tackle rural diffuse
pollution
In the first article we explained that rural diffuse pollution is the most widespread pressure affecting water quality in Scotland, including the SWPAs.
A range of different sources can contribute to rural diffuse pollution. The main cause is typically when rainwater run-off from land picks up soil, bacteria and nutrients from livestock excreta, or fertilisers and pesticides used in agriculture. Inputs from other rural land uses such as forestry and discharges from septic tanks can also contribute.
Scotland is widely recognised as having one of the leading approaches in Europe for dealing with rural diffuse pollution.
The approach, which was developed and implemented in the first cycle, 2009 to 2015, included:
The introduction of new general binding rules (GBRs)2 on how a wide range of land management measures (general rules which apply everywhere), for activities liable to cause pollution, must be undertaken to help protect and improve water quality.
Land managers and public bodies working together in 12 prioritised catchments to bring land management practices in line with the requirements of the GBRs.
The approach, known as the diffuse pollution priority catchment approach,3 was designed for large areas of land where the dominant land uses are intensive arable or livestock farming. Almost 5,000km of rivers in 12
Shellfish Water Protected Area – Classification: Quality Standards
Most probable number of Escherichia coli per 100g sample of shellfish flesh and intra-valvular liquid as a
90-percentile standard
Good Fair Insufficient
≤ 230 ≤ 4,600 > 4,600
The Grower — 19
River basin management cont.
priority catchments were walked to assess diffuse pollution sources, and around 2,500 farms visited. Of the farms where non-compliance with the GBRs was found, 65% have subsequently taken steps to reduce pollution risks or are in the process of doing so. Public bodies are continuing to work with those farmers who have not yet started to improve their management practices to ensure they do. In some cases, land managers are doing more than is required by the GBRs with the assistance of funding available under the Scottish Rural Development Programme. 4
The priority catchment approach is supported by the Diffuse Pollution Management Advisory Group, 5 whose members represent a cross section of rural, environmental and wildlife conservation interests.
Our data shows that, in 2015, rural diffuse pollution is contributing to adverse effects on water quality in 246 water bodies and 70 protected areas in the district. Of these, 55 water bodies and six protected areas are in the 12 priority catchments in which land managers and public bodies have been working together during the period 2009 to 2015. We expect to see improvements in water quality in these water bodies and protected areas over the next few years. However, land managers and public bodies will continue to work together in the catchments over the period 2015 to 2027 to further improve compliance with the GBRs and ensure good land use practices are maintained and strengthened where necessary.
A further 140 water bodies and eight protected areas in 32 catchments are affected by agricultural land uses where the priority catchment approach is applicable. Over 2015 to 2021, land managers and public bodies will put in the concentrated effort required to help to drive and support the required improvements in land use management practices in these catchments.
For the remaining 8 water bodies and 56 protected areas, this includes the SWPAs, the main sources of pollution typically include sources resulting from less intensive land use, such as hill farming, sheep grazing, and septic tank discharges. These areas, for which focused operational action to reduce pollution is needed, are generally significantly smaller than those for the larger priority catchments. To differentiate these areas from priority catchments, we have identified them as rural diffuse pollution focus areas.
Over the period 2015 to 2021, SEPA will investigate and identify the main sources of pollution in the 64 focus areas identified in the RBMP.
Land managers and public bodies in the focus areas will then work to investigate the sources of pollution and identify what can be done and start to put in place the appropriate measures. This is a challenging programme of work because of:
the large numbers of focus areas involved;
the time and specialist expertise required in each focus area to work out the main sources of pollution and then develop practical solutions;
the technical challenges of identifying the exact nature and detail of the problem and for
implementing solutions in sometimes remote, rural areas where access can be difficult.
For these reasons, we do not think it will be feasible to complete all the actions required before the end of 2021. Land managers and public bodies will work together to complete the remaining actions in the period 2021 to 2027.
As well as significantly expanding our priority catchment work and initiating work in focus areas described above, we are:
revising and strengthening the Scottish Rural Development Programme 4 to help support land managers take action beyond the basic good practice required by the GBRs;
increasing efforts on national awareness raising and education to help land managers across the district understand how they can reduce the risk of rural diffuse pollution.
What we expect to achieve?
It is not possible to predict precisely the effects of all these measures to reduce diffuse sources of pollution. However, our best estimate is that, in combination with the measures taken to address any other sources of the pollutants concerned they will be sufficient to enable the achievement of good water quality in the affected water bodies in due course.
We will monitor progress towards this target. This will allow us to identify whether we are on track and to review and update our programme of measures if necessary.
Although the majority of the measures will be implemented by 2021 the timescale for recovery from the effects of pollution will vary, typically being longer for lochs than rivers and longer still for groundwater. These delays are because it takes time for some pollutants already in the environment to flush out of the system and, in the case of surface waters, for healthy populations of water plants and animals to re-establish.
References 1. www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/8135/0 2. www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/water/diffuse-pollution/diffuse-pollution-in-the-rural-environment/ 3. www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/river-basin-management-planning/actions-to-deliver-rbmp/priority-catchments/ 4. www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/river-basin-management-planning/actions-to-deliver-rbmp/priority-catchments/ 5. www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/river-basin-management-planning/who-is-involved-with-rbmp/dpmag/
The Grower — 20
NEWS Unique flotation system developed for offshore mussels
There can be no doubt that growing mussels on ropes well offshore will provide some special demands on engineering capabilities. Offshore Shellfish Ltd (OSL) is the first company in Europe to install a large scale, rope grown mussel farm in fully offshore conditions. Situated between 3 - 6 miles off the coast of South Devon in Lyme Bay, one of the key challenges for the farm was to develop a flotation system that could cope with the rigours of severe winter storms.
OSL managing director John Holmyard who told the ASSG conference last year about his pioneering project, came up with an initial float design concept working in a vertical position, as opposed to the traditional horizontal-axis barrel floats normally used to suspend mussel ropes. The idea behind this is that by working in the vertical axis, the floats exhibit a more gentle motion than is experienced with barrel floats, as waves pass over the headlines. The robustness of the float means they can be allowed to submerge if required, which ensures that extreme forces aren’t transferred to the ropes, thereby preventing mussels from becoming dislodged.
John sought the help of Fusion Marine to refine his ideas and turn them into reality. “We had worked with Fusion Marine before and trusted them to translate our ideas into a durable float of a specific shape and size that would ride the waves and reduce movement on the mussel lines ensuring that the crop does not fall off.” Manufactured from high density polyethylene (HDPE), the 250 litre floats feature unique injection moulded end -with robust connections that are butt fused onto a length of large diameter HDPE pipe to create the float. This creates a set of extremely strong rope connection
points that allow secure and standardised attachment of the float to the headlines. (see photo )
“During extensive trials, we have been thrilled with the performance of the flotation system, which has enabled the farm to produce a crop of high quality, fast growing mussels that are in great demand,” said Holmyard.
“Initially, the floats were not the simplest to use, but we have been learning how they work during two years of trial and sometimes error, and have now perfected the design and the way we use them. These floats now do exactly the job they were designed to do, and are doing it very well. I don’t believe the farm would have survived the past two winters’ storms without them.”
Rhuaraidh Edwards, Technical Sales Engineer for Fusion Marine said: “We have worked closely with OSL to develop this robust and versatile flotation system for demanding offshore sites. The floats have a unique spliced loop attachment system, which ensures that each rope can be quickly and easily attached in the same way and at the same depth, with no knots to tie and nothing to work loose. This, combined with the vertical axis design, ensures the farm can cope with harsh offshore sea conditions.
“Throughout the development process we have been impressed by John Holmyard’s pioneering spirit for new aquaculture innovation and we continue to work closely with him to further develop the offshore float for his exciting but very demanding venture.” The offshore mussel farm is currently in its build-out phase with 700 floats supplied already. Completion will be in four years’ time when it is expected to produce up to 10,000 tonnes of mussels per year.
The Grower — 21
NEWS Native oysters may have an advantage when it comes to OA?
A recent study (published June 2016) suggests that native oysters may have an advantage when it comes to resisting ocean acidification (OA) over the widely cultured Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. This study was on the native Olympia oysters (Ostrea lurida) of the Pacific Northwest coast. The researchers found that the Pacific oyster has only a 6 hour window in which to develop their shell and this means that if the pH is low their energy can become depleted by this process. The native Olympia oyster as an internally brooded larva does not begin to make a shell until 2-3 days after fertilisation and then makes the shell much more slowly. The difference also relates to the relative sizes of the larvae, the eggs of the Pacific oyster being very much smaller than those of the Olympia oyster it is easier for their energy supplies to become depleted rapidly. The researchers point out that it is not the internal brooding that confers the advantage as in one experiment they reared the Olympia larvae outside the adult oyster and they did just as well as the internally nurtured larvae. They say that brooding does help guard the larvae from predators and from some adverse environmental changes
such as low salinity events but not against acidification. The lead author of the study George Waldbusser of the College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences of Oregon State University pointed out, “This is a unique trait that allows native oysters to survive surprisingly high levels of acidification, but they didn’t develop this trait in response to rising acidification. It does make you wonder if the may be traits in other organisms that we are unaware of that maybe beneficial.” Whether this advantage applies to all members of the same genus Ostrea remains to be seen but would seem probable.
Waldbusser, G. G., Gray, M. W., Hales, B.,
Langdon, C. J., Haley, B. A., Gimenez, I., Smith, S. R., Brunner, E. L. and Hutchinson, G. (2016), Slow shell building, a possible trait for resistance to the effects of acute ocean acidification. Limnol. Oceanogr.. doi:10.1002/lno.10348
The study this story is available online: http://bit.ly/1UjsaD8
If all else fails………….The oceans are 25% more acidic than before the Industrial revolution. One potential alleviation has been put forward as reported in New Scientist recently. The Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea research is carrying out research to investigate whether a natural mineral can mop up unwanted acid in sea water. They say, “We’re trying to put some numbers on the table so that if politicians decide that we need to do this in 10 to 15 years’ time, the research is there and we can say, ‘here are the problems you might be dealing with’,” said Francesc Montserrat who is leading the research.
Olivine is a magnesium silicate mainly found in Earth’s subsurface. When it is placed in sea water it
gradually swaps its magnesium ions for protons thereby helping to remove acidity. Trials in small cubic meter sea water tanks showed that with the ground-up mineral in a 1.5 cms layer over a base of natural sediment the pH increased by the desired amount with no adverse effects but at 3cms deep many of the marine organisms died either because of too great a pH change or due to presence of nickel. Other such environmental engineering approaches were being presented along with results from studies on the effects of acidification in marine organisms at the International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World in Hobart, Australia in May. See www.highco2-iv.org/program
And alternatives for dealing with OA?
Scottish shellfish production 2015 The results of the Scottish Shellfish Farm Production
Survey for 2015 has now been published and the report is available to view or download at www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/05/2841 The Executive summary gives the following information.
7,720 tonnes of mussels were produced for the table market in Scotland. This is the second highest level of mussel production recorded in Scotland;
Mussel and Pacific oysters remain the main species produced in terms of value and tonnage although production decreased by 5% and 21% respectively during 2015;
During 2015, over 5 million Pacific oyster shells were produced for on-growing showing that markets both home and abroad are well established;
There has been an 83% increase in queen scallop production and a 38% decrease in scallop production since 2014;
Native oyster production dropped from 242,000 to 200,000 shells in 2015. The sector continues to target a strong niche market;
Employment levels showed a decrease of 0.3% from the previous year, with 344 full, part-time and casual staff being employed during 2015. The Scottish shellfish farming industry is estimated to be worth £10.1 million at first sale value.
The Grower — 22
The Grower — 23
As harvesters will be aware new end product E.coli criteria will apply from 1st January 2017 following the coming into force of EC regulation 2015/2285. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2285&from=EN. By way of background, the main driver for the change finds its origin in international standards and the desire to move towards harmonised approaches for trade. The Codex Alimentarius criterion for E. coli for bivalves placed on the market differed from the criterion contained in European Union legislation and comprises a three-class plan (n = 5, c = 1, m = 230 and M = 700 E. coli MPN/100 g of flesh and intravalvular liquid), while the European Union criterion is a two-class plan (n = 1, c = 0, M = 230 E. coli MPN/100 g of flesh and intravalvular liquid). Microbiological sampling requirements for products placed on the market are set out in Commission Regulation 2073/2005: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02005R2073-20140601&rid=1 .
The microbiological criteria for foodstuffs regulation recognises that food business operators should decide themselves the necessary sampling and testing frequencies as part of their procedures based on HACCP principles and other hygiene control procedures. In addition the regulation recognises that the number of sample units of the sampling plans set out in the Annex to the regulation may be reduced “if the food business operator can demonstrate by historical documentation that they have effective HACCP-based procedures”.
Whilst this latitude is available FSS is aware that some businesses will be unsure as to when five units are required to be analysed at any given point and have sought guidance from FSS on the matter.
Essentially whilst this is a matter of risk management and therefore wholly a business decision, there are some generic rules that might apply. If for example classification and end product results are rising and may be considered borderline compliant, then confidence that the product will at any given moment conform to the new criteria might be less, and that is when additional units may be required. There will be an added difficulty if shellfish are not depurated because harvesters do not manage the system inputs in the same way that someone depurating might. Nevertheless, if businesses understand how environmental factors affect
E coli levels in their areas and harvest in accordance with periods of lower risk then single unit samples may be sufficient with only occasional additional verification samples required.
It is difficult for FSS to anticipate the scenarios that might precipitate additional or reduced sampling but we would be happy to consider if ASSG members wish to submit ideas or scenarios that might help others understand what the criteria change might mean for them in January.
FSS will also be issuing a short consultation on a revised approach to classification which will also follow the application of the Codex criteria in the New Year. Harvesters should however be aware that the classification that has been awarded for 16/17 will remain in place until April 2017. For further information please contact [email protected] Jennifer Howie Food Standards Scotland Senior Policy Advisor Pilgrim House, Old Ford Road, Aberdeen, AB11 5RL 01224 285157 07990788501 [email protected] www.foodstandards.gov.scot
News from FSS New E. coli criteria for shellfish
EAS Conference Edinburgh September 20-23
As part of the Conference Programme the organisers plan a Shellfish Industry Forum on the final day (23rd
September) with topics covering the most pressing issues facing the industry currently. These will include discussion on UK Shellfish Aquaculture Industry within the EU and the European Commission’s perspective on Sustainable Development of the Shellfish Aquaculture Sector (Aquaculture Advisory Committee by EU Commission). Other topics will include matters around product safety including Norovirus, HABs and diseases, climate change and biosecurity.
Full details will be available on the EAS website
at www.easonline.org/39-uncategorised/346-
aquaculture-europe-2016
The Grower — 24
Results from the first aquaculture award in the Scottish Rural awards on Page 2.
Shellfish Culture
ICSR 2016
Shellfish decoration from the pavilion set up in memory of HRH the Queen Mother in Edinburgh Botanic Gardens. Photographs by J H Brown
The International Conference on Shellfish Restoration to be held in Charleston, SC, USA is fast approaching!
The Call for Abstracts and Special Sessions is open and we want to hear about your shellfish project!
ICSR aims to bring together a wide variety of scientists, community groups, growers, resource managers, and educators to advance shellfish restoration efforts world-wide.
Stay tuned to www.scseagrant.org/icsr for the latest announcements.
We hope to see you in Charleston in November!
SAGB Conference
Mike Berthet, (pictured below) Marketing Development Manager for Global Aquaculture Alliance gave the Drummond lecture on “Shellfish – future proofed” amid the grand setting of Fishmongers’ Hall at the SAGB conference in May. For full report see Pages 12 and 13. Photograph J H Brown
