New World News and Informtion Data Base on Salmon Resources

Data Base:
Drastic changes are beginning to take place to the salmon
stocks due to various human interfrerences with Nature

| Japanese version | Russian version | Chinese version | back to the previous page |

How to Use This Data Base:
  1. The information contained in this data base are provided by those around the world who are concerned over what's happening to the salmon stocks of the Northern Pacific region.
  2. All articles are going to be made available in various languages we time goes by, and the readers are welcome to quote from them as long as the original news sources are clearly mentioned.
If any reader has access to important information contained in publications in his or her language and not well known in other countries, please feel free to send them to our Clearinghouse Secretariat by e-mail or fax.

[Important News and Events during January, 2000]

(1) Fish farming expansion in Louisiana, Chile, and Norway -- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000
(2) Salmon Expos from Salon.com Magazine -- Fri, 7 Jan 2000
(3) Fish Farming News from Around the World -- Wed, 12 Jan 2000
(4) Scottish Government Guidance Downplays Environmental Threats -- Thu, 13 Jan 2000
(5) Report concludes that recovery of (Pacific) salmon runs is an investment in long-term economic health -- Mon, 17 Jan 2000
(6) Salmon farming overview for 1999 -- Mon, 17 Jan 2000
(7) Aquaculture news and info. from around the world -- Fri, 21 Jan 2000
(8) Leaked DFO report: farmed fish hurting wild Atl. salmon populations -- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000
(9) The Ocean Project: Update on activities -- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000

[Important News and Events during February, 2000]

(1) Maine salmon update -- Tue, 1 Feb 2000
(2) News coverage in Maine of Atlantic salmon issues -- Tue, 1 Feb 2000
(3) Do escaped farm salmon jeopardize native populations? -- Mon, 7 Feb 2000
(4) Fish farming news and information from around the world -- Tue, 15 Feb 2000
(5) CBS on genetically-altered salmon -- Thu, 17 Feb 2000
(6) Europe loosens curbs on animal drugs in the soil -- Thu, 17 Feb 2000
(7) Q's & A's about the regulation of transgenic animals/fish -- Fri, 18 Feb 2000
(8) Fish Farming News From Around the World -- Tue, 22 Feb 2000
(9) Vaccine Industry Report 2000 -- Wed, 23 Feb 2000
(10) Fish farming news and information from around the world - Mon, 28 Feb 2000

[Important News and Events during March, 2000]

(1) B.C. Salmon Farmers Association has reinforced its position against the use of transgenics -- Thu, 2 Mar 2000
(2) Some Marine Biotechnology Web Sites -- Thu, 2 Mar 2000
(3) FDA Request for Comments on Issue Related to New Animal Drugs -- Thu, 2 Mar 2000
(4) Sewage in urban runoff may spur growth of harmful algal blooms -- Fri, 3 Mar 2000
(5) Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) spreads -- Wed, 8 Mar 2000
(6) Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) spreads -- Wed, 8 Mar 2000
(7) Fish Farming News and Information From Around the World -- March 13, 2000
(8) Organic Certification Standards for Aquatic Animals -- Mon, 13 Mar 2000
(9) Aquaculture Outlook (for the US) -- Mon, 13 Mar 2000
(10) B.C. Salmon Farmers Association has reinforced its position against the use of transgenics -- Thu, 2 Mar 2000
(11) Australia not to appeal WTO decision on Canadian salmon -- Tue, 21 Mar 2000
(12) Aquaculture America 2000 panel: Perspectives on sustainability in aquaculture -- Wed, 29 Mar 2000
(13) National (US) Organic Aquaculture Workshop -- Wed, 29 Mar 2000
(14) NOAA Aquaculture Initiative -- Thu, 30 Mar 2000
(15) Federal financial assistance availability (including aquaculture) -- Thu, 30 Mar 2000

[Important News and Events during April, 2000]

(1) Fish Farming News and Information From Around the World -- Mon, 3 Apr 2000
(2) Top salmon expert in Maine resigns in protest -- Thu, 6 Apr 2000
(3) Imports of farmed salmon in ’90s sparked rise in U.S. consumption -- Fri, 7 Apr 2000
(4) Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program -- Tue, 11 Apr 2000
(5) CSREES Update - April 7, 2000 CSREES UPDATE
(6) Transgenic salmon farm in PEI seeks U.S. approval -- Tue, 11 Apr 2000
(7) Antitrust legislation introduced to offset market concentration -- Mon, 17 Apr 2000
(8) Meetings to Discuss Double-Crested Cormorant Management -- Mon, 17 Apr 2000
(9) almon, halibut certified "organic" -- Mon, 17 Apr 2000
(10) PERSPECTIVES ON SUSTAINABILITY IN AQUACULTURE - from Aquaculture America 2000 -- Mon, 24 Apr 2000
(11) U.S. Salmon Consumption Sets Record -- Mon, 24 Apr 2000
(12) Fresno Bee editorial on 'organic' salmon -- Tue, 25 Apr 2000
(13) Giant Genetically Altered Lobster -- Wed, 26 Apr 2000
(14) Environmental group to file Clean Water Act suit against salmon farms -- Thu, 27 Apr 2000

[Important News and Events during May, 2000]

(1) Bangkok Declaration and Strategy for Aquaculture Development Beyond 2000 -- Wed, 10 May 2000
(2) Marine netpen farming leads to infections with some unusual parasites -- Wed, 10 May 2000
(3) Maine debates future of its disappearing salmon -- Wed, 10 May 2000
(4) NPR/Talk of the Nation on FDA's proposals re: genetically modified organisms and 'super salmon' -- Mon, 15 May 2000
(5) Atlantic Salmon in Washington State: A Fish Management Perspective -- Tue, 16 May 2000
(6) Patented salmon?? -- Thu, 18 May 2000
(7) 'Rivers of death' for Atlantic salmon -- Wed, 24 May 2000
(8) Is Salmon Organic? Not Yet -- Wed, 24 May 2000
(9) Australian tuna farms -- Thu, 25 May 2000
(10) Cultured Atlantic Salmon Threaten Pacific Cousins - from latest issue of Conservation Biology -- Thu, 25 May 2000
(11) GM salmon in Norway pose cancer threat: fish inspector (from Agence France Presse) -- Fri, 26 May 2000
(12) Salmon farming news from UK -- Tue, 30 May 2000

[Important News and Events during June, 2000]

(1) On eating salmon... -- Fri, 2 Jun 2000
(2) Maine Fish-Farming Industry Faces Profitability Problems -- Mon, 5 Jun 2000
(3) Salmon farming's 30th birthday -- Thu, 8 Jun 2000
(4) The (Norwegian) hunt is on in the USA and Canada (for fish farm licenses) -- Thu, 8 Jun 2000
(5) Aquaculture expansion annoys fishermen in Ireland -- Thu, 8 Jun 2000
(6) Atlantic halibut project is underway in Chile -- Thu, 8 Jun 2000
(7) SEA System Press Release: Trial of SEA System in NB Interrupted for One Year -- Fri, 9 Jun 2000
(8) ASF and WWF: NASCO Action Insufficient to Save Salmon -- Fri, 9 Jun 2000
(9) Articles on Scotland's wild salmon crisis -- Wed, 14 Jun 2000
(10) 5,000 sea lions and seals have been *legally* killed by BC salmon farmers -- Thu, 15 Jun 2000
(11) `Ultimate' invader threatens Atlantic salmon in eastern Canada -- Fri, 16 Jun 2000
(12) Scottish Parliament launches enquiry into fish farming -- Fri, 16 Jun 2000
(13) BC salmon farms news -- Mon, 19 Jun 2000
(14) US EPA effluent guidelines plan -- Wed, 21 Jun 2000
(15) Natives say salmon farms threaten wild finfish and shellfish -- Wed, 21 Jun 2000
(16) Salmon taste-off -- Thu, 22 Jun 2000
(17) Cover story of Nature: Booming Fish Farming Industry Depleting World Fish Supplies -- Wed, 28 Jun 2000
(18) Justice Department (Canada) gives salmon farming company clean bill of health -- Thu, 29 Jun 2000

[Important News and Events during July, 2000]

(1) Maine aquaculture firm defies industry standard -- Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:49:09 -0400
(2) Department of Commerce (US) Approves $10 Million Loan For Closed System Aquaculture Projects -- Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:56:20 -0400
(3) The availability and use of chemotherapeutic sea lice control products (Contributions to Zoology) -- Tue, 18 Jul 2000
(4) Blue Hill Bay (Maine) group set to file lawsuit; EPA, aquaculture operation targeted -- Fri, 21 Jul 2000
(5) Conference on marine aquaculture and the environment -- Sun, 23 Jul 2000
(6) ISA found on Maine/NB border -- Sun, 23 Jul 2000
(7) Genetically engineered fish is one reason for protests -- Tue, 25 Jul 2000

[Important News and Events during August, 2000]

(1) Vancouver Sun editorial -- Mon, 7 Aug 2000
(2) Financial Times (London) on salmon farming: Halting sacrilege in the Highlands -- Mon, 7 Aug 2000
(3) Glasgow Herald: Organic salmon farming in Orkneys -- Mon, 7 Aug 2000
(4) US Dept. of Commerce: Nine Chilean producers 'dumped' salmon -- Wed, 9 Aug 2000
(5) Canada to invest $75 million over next 5 years on aquaculture -- Wed, 9 Aug 2000
(6) Organic Aquaculture Update -- Wed, 9 Aug 2000
(7) Fish Label Fought: Critics Resist 'Organic' Tag -- Wed, 9 Aug 2000
(8) Certified Organic Wild Fish: The Next Generation of Standards -- Wed, 9 Aug 2000
(9) Russian Fish Farms to Raise 600 Mllion Salmon Fry -- Thu, 10 Aug 2000
(10) Canadian aquaculture 1999 sales up by 5% -- Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:41:04 -0400
(11) US FDA Approval for Cyanotech's NatuRose (color additive for farmed salmonids) -- Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:49:42 -0400
(12) NMFS workshops on offshore aquaculture to be held -- Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:07:22 -0400
(13) Fw: NMFS Workshops -- Fri, 25 Aug 2000
(14) Fish escapees said to feed in wild -- Mon, 28 Aug 2000
(15) Escaped salmon show up in Alaska -- Mon, 28 Aug 2000
(16) Aquaculture industry in Mass. gets state aid -- Mon, 28 Aug 2000
(17) New web page for the DOC/NOAA Aquaculture Program -- Tue, 29 Aug 2000
(18) Environmental think-tank criticizes Chilean salmon farming industry development -- Tue, 29 Aug 2000
(19) Signficant interest in cod farming in Norway -- Wed, 30 Aug 2000

[Important News and Events during September, 2000]

(1) Effects of lethal control at aquaculture facilities on populations of piscivorous birds (Wildlife Society Bulletin) -- Mon, 4 Sep 2000
(2) Washington Post: Maine Salmon Face Upstream Battle as Species; Returns Dwindle as Aquaculture Booms -- Mon, 4 Sep 2000
(3) MSC certification of the Alaska salmon fishery -- Tue, 5 Sep 2000
(4) WWF Scotland-commissioned report: Scotland's Secret-Aquaculture, nutrient pollution eutrophication and toxic blooms -- Mon, 18 Sep 2000

[Important News and Events during October, 2000]

(1) Seafood demand can only be satisfied with aquaculture says scientist -- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000
(2) Fish farming may soon overtake cattle ranching as a food source (from Worldwatch) -- Tue, 3 Oct 2000
(3) Scottish salmon farming revolution that has left the seas awash with toxic chemicals (The Independent/London) -- Wed, 4 Oct 2000
(4) Turbot farming to increase -- Thu, 5 Oct 2000
(5) B.C. salmon farmers invest $9.7 million to develop> green technologies -- Thu, 5 Oct 2000
(6) Greens wary of new fish farm rules (Gofish.com) -- Thu, 5 Oct 2000
(7) Latest European aquaculture statistics -- Fri, 6 Oct 2000
(8) tuna farming news -- Fri, 6 Oct 2000
(9) Agrigate: website from the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide, and Queensland -- Tue, 10 Oct 2000
(10) organic salmon -- Tue, 10 Oct 2000
(11) AK Seafood Marketing Institute: It's time to attack farm salmon -- Wed, 11 Oct 2000
(12) Antimicrobial Resistance: An Ecological Perspective -- Wed, 11 Oct 2000




(1) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Fish farming expansion in Louisiana, Chile, and Norway

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "Zdravka Tzankova" , "FishFarmReview"

The following three stories come from FIS.

* Researchers at Louisiana State University hope to establish the aquaculture industry along the state´s coast in the hope of creating jobs to replace the near-shore oil industry * Chile´s salmon exports are expected to grow by nearly 25% in 2000 * Analysis show that it is possible to produce 2.5 billion tons of salmon in Norway (today Norway produces close to 400,000 tons of salmon).

**SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse**
Bill Mott, Director
102 Waterman Street, Suite 16
Providence, Rhode Island 02906
phone: 401/272-8822
fax: 401/272-8877
email: bmott@seaweb.org
www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

Researchers boost aquaculture industry

(US, Monday, January 03, 2000)

Researchers at Louisiana State University hope to establish the aquaculture industry along the state´s coast in the hope of creating jobs to replace the near-shore oil industry and say the 25 to 30-pound redfish swimming in a fibreglass tank at the LSU could provide the answer.

Researchers hope to speed up the spawning process by controlling water temperature and lighting in a former campus dining service food cooler. The redfish are taken through a full year of seasons in just four months.

It is thought that by controlling spawning, a business could "grow" fish to meet a year-round market, although researchers still have to overcome the problems of getting the fingerlings to grow in tanks once successful egg collection has taken place.

Louisiana´s salty coastal waters allow a wider variety of fish to be farmed and researchers are considering various species for aquaculture, including lemon fish and pompano.

The state´s aquaculture industry already grows crawfish, oysters, soft-shell crab, catfish and alligators. In the future, commercial programmes for red drum, snapper and shrimp will be set up.

By Karen Myles

-----------------------

Producers expect further growth of salmon exports in 2000

(CHILE, Friday, December 31, 1999)

Next year, Chile´s salmon exports are expected to grow by nearly 25% to US$1,000, with shipments increasing from the present 160,000 to some 180,000-190,000 tonnes, according to estimates from the Salmon and Trout Farmers´ Association.

Up to October, Chile´s salmon exports realised US$607.7 million - an increase of 7,45% on the same period of 1998. However, the volume exported was 23.2% lower than that of the previous year.

The president of the Association, Rodrigo Infante, attributed the net growth of the sector´s exports to a larger participation of value added products. He said: "While in 1991 value added products represented just 5% of the salmon exports, this percentage reached 52% in 1998. For this year, we expect these products to account for 55-56% of the total, and to exceed 60% in 2000." According to Infante, this trend responds to the growing demand for products that are almost ready to consume.

Japan is expected to continue being Chile´s top salmon buyer in 2000, considering that most of the increase of this year´s exports resulted from the 26.7% rise in the sales to that country, which amounted to US$325.4 million. This growth offset the 25% drop in volume to 64,000 tonnes.

For next year, the Association also expects an increase in the sales to the U.S. and Latin America, in spite of the drops registered in October, both in terms of value and volume.

Infante said that during January-October, exports of Atlantic salmon were 4.3% up on the same period of 1998 and amounted to US$285.2 million, while sales of coho salmon grew by 40% to US$188 million.

By FIS Latin America

-------------------------------

Fish farming of the future

(NORWAY, Wednesday, December 22, 1999)

Norway already extracts as much fish as possible from the sea, if not even more than it should. On a global level, however, Norway only takes about 2.7 to 3.0 tons of the 100-ton yearly fisheries.

In the future, it will be possible to make money from industry-waste as well as from resources lower down the system, such as plankton, Dagens Naeringliv reports.

Today, salmon is Norway´s most important "commercial animal". This will probably also be the case in the future. Analysis show that it is possible to produce 2.5 billion tons of salmon in Norway, thanks to the long coast line. Today Norway produces close to 400,000 tons of salmon.

But in order to increase the production to such a level, there are a number of challenges that need to be overcome.

Between 15 and 20 different parties are fighting for their share of Norway´s 57,000 kilometre-long coast line. One of the conflicts is between fish farmers and anglers. The latter wants to keep around 50 rivers and nine coast lines free from fish farming. Other groups, who demand their rights to the sea, include the tourist industry, fish farming of other species than salmon and trout and industries dedicated to the development of alternative forms of energy.

By FIS Scandinavia


(2) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Salmon Expos from Salon.com Magazine

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:40:32 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

CC: "Zdravka Tzankova" , "James Semple" , "Allan Berry"

A new twist to the Maine salmon saga...

[The following article comes thanks to Dwayne Shaw and Lisa Dropkin.]

Published by an online magazine, Salon.com. > http://www.salon.com./news/feature/2000/01/05/salmon/index.html.

Illegal, or politics as usual? Environmentalists say Bruce Babbitt broke the law and sacrificed the Atlantic salmon to protect the Endangered Species Act

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Susan Zakin

Jan. 5, 2000 | A lawsuit to force the federal government to add the Atlantic salmon to the endangered species list has exposed a secret deal between Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Defense Secretary William Cohen. Cohen and Babbitt aren't talking, citing litigation, but at least one staff member called it politics as usual. The nation's top environmental lawyers call it illegal.

Internal agency memos show that at the height of the Republican Congress' Contract With America fever in early 1995, Cohen, then a moderate Republican senator from Maine, sent a letter to Babbitt complaining about the way a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to list the Atlantic salmon as an endangered species would affect Maine industries. In it, Cohen bluntly threatened to join his party's attempts to gut the Endangered Species Act if the proposal wasn't dropped.

Within the next few weeks, agency memos reveal, Babbitt put the brakes on listing the fish, over vehement protests by federal scientists. Today, the nation's top environmental attorneys say that Babbitt's action violated the law. The Endangered Species Act clearly mandates that science should be the only criteria for listing species. "Babbitt broke the law, period," says Mark Hughes, executive director of Earthlaw, a Boulder, Colo., environmental law firm.

The Atlantic salmon could become a national political issue, since last month Babbitt once again proposed adding the salmon, which spawns in Maine rivers, to the endangered list. Maine's governor, Angus King, a vocal opponent of listing, is putting the heat on Vice President Al Gore, who is facing a tough primary challenge from former Sen. Bill Bradley in neighboring New Hampshire. King wants Gore to block the listing, which he says would protect the fish by banning fish farming and agricultural irrigation in Maine rivers and throwing thousands out of work. But the current dust-up ignores the long history of compromises already made on protecting the salmon.

Spokesmen for both Babbitt and Cohen declined comment on the 1995 deliberations about the salmon, citing ongoing litigation. The incriminating documents surfaced recently in lawsuits brought by Defenders of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited and the Atlantic Salmon Federation to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the salmon on an emergency basis.

The number of endangered species lawsuits against the federal government has quadrupled over the past five years, exposing a pattern of avoidance and delay that casts doubt on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to do its job in the face of unrelenting pressure -- some would call it bullying -- from a hostile Congress. Some conservationists charge that the agency doesn't realize that the political climate has changed. They think the Clinton administration's mistaken belief that it's necessary to gut the law in order to save it has resulted in a pattern of questionable, often illegal deal-making.

While the case of the Atlantic salmon may be typical of the administration's legally questionable dealings on endangered species, this is the first time anyone has come up with a smoking gun, much less one that bears the fingerprints of two Cabinet officials.

At the time Europeans settled in New England, there were about a million salmon there. Over the next three centuries, the region's forests were razed, thousands of dams were built, fishing became industrialized and salmon, gradually, disappeared. Today, only 200-300 New England salmon still contain enough unique genetic characteristics, which are linked to their natal streams, to be considered wild.

So the federal government began moving to include the Atlantic salmon on the Endangered Species list. But on Feb. 8, 1995, Cohen, then a senator from Maine, sent a letter to Babbitt stating that protecting the state's 75 or so remaining adult wild salmon would "have a serious impact on Maine's agriculture, forest products, and aquaculture industries."

He added ominously: "The disposition of this [Atlantic salmon] petition will greatly affect my views regarding changes to the Endangered Species Act that might be warranted."

Interoffice memos and e-mails over the next few weeks reveal that Babbitt responded quickly. A March 1, 1995, e-mail from Chris Mantzaris of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which shares jurisdiction over the salmon with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated that "Senator Cohen sent a letter to Brown [Ron Brown, who headed the Department of Commerce, which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service] and Babbitt opposing a listing actions. Babbitt took this very seriously and has requested that the federal register notice be redrafted to state that the petitioned action is not warranted."

The biologist's e-mail added, "The Region does not agree and neither do staff level people in HQ." These words were echoed in a blistering memo from another NMFS biologist, John Kocik. The March 3, 1995, memo stated: "It is my opinion that the proposed changes compromise the intent of the Act and the integrity of the science."

Kocik was right, according to the nation's top environmental lawyers. "It was a constitutional moment," says Zygmunt Plater, a legendary Boston College law professor who worked on the nation's first major ESA case, the 1970s effort to stop the Tellico Dam to protect the snail darter. Plater believes the early days of the Contract With America signaled a historic power shift from government to industry, with lobbyists writing legislation and the U.S. House of Representatives "essentially repealing a series of major statutes that regulate the marketplace."

"The 104th Congress put tremendous pressure on people like Babbitt. When you have one branch of the federal government asserting primary power, with the Reagan and Nixon appointees on the Supreme Court deferring to it, it is a major shift. The multimillion-dollar paper, timber and other industry groups that are dedicated to destroying the Endangered Species Act really seemed to hold sway at that time. They represent far more money than the federal government has for endangered species law enforcement. The agencies were cowering in fear, literally paralyzed with fear."

In this charged atmosphere, could Babbitt have done anything differently? Maybe, maybe not. But Babbitt's continuing penchant for back-room deals may leave him with an uncertain legacy at Interior. The former Arizona governor once told me, "Compromise isn't the answer some of the time; it's the answer all the time."

And compromise was certainly the approach taken in Maine. After receiving Cohen's letter, Babbitt ordered that the salmon be placed in a special category called a "candidate species," a kind of bureaucratic limbo for threatened and endangered species. Several months later, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did renew its proposal to list the species, but this time it was downgraded to threatened, a category providing less protection.

Shortly afterward, Congress placed an 18-month moratorium on new listing. After the moratorium was lifted, the federal proposal to list the salmon was withdrawn completely, in favor of letting the state of Maine carry out its own plan for saving the fish, which would have been prohibited under the more stringent endangered listing originally proposed.

About a year ago, not long after a similar arrangement in Oregon was thrown out by a federal judge, Maine's plan flunked a review by federal authorities.

Now it appears that Maine's wild salmon are in even more trouble, as new diseases threaten to reach epidemic proportions without sufficient controls on aquaculture. The industry's reliance on hybrid fish that are partly descended from farmed European salmon -- a practice banned in Canada, which has its own worries about native fish -- is also causing alarm because of the possibility that escapees will taint the dwindling native gene pool. Catch and release fishing for sea-run Atlantic salmon was banned only last week to ensure greater protection for the fish.

On Nov. 18, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service once again proposed listing the Atlantic salmon as endangered, over the loud protests of Maine Gov. Angus King, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe and the state's powerful aquaculture interests. Ironically, the aquaculture industry may have been hurt most by the four-year delay, which has allowed it to up its investment in non-native strains of salmon that could be banned once the ESA takes effect.

Conservationists like Mike Senatore of Defenders of Wildlife say that this is a perfect example of how the Clinton administration's insistence on a win-win policy ends up in losers all around.

But even a federal judge won't be able to answer the question haunting the whole debate: If New England's wild Atlantic salmon die out, will we ever know if the politically inspired delay pushed them over the edge?

Scientifically, it's a tough call. But the legal questions are easier to answer. Did Babbitt break the law? Hughes, Plater and a raft of other environmental lawyers contacted for this article all say yes.

What about Cohen? Given the desperate politics of the time, shouldn't blame be laid at his doorstep rather than Babbitt's? David Carle, the New Hampshire environmentalist who unearthed Cohen's letter prior to the lawsuit, believes the senator-turned-defense secretary's war on the pink fish was not only unethical but possibly illegal. After all, Carle notes, hasn't Cohen, a Vietnam veteran, sworn -- at least twice, if not three times -- to uphold the law of the land?

"It's an interesting question," muses Mark Hughes of Earthlaw. "If this were a white-collar criminal trial, Cohen's letter would certainly be enough to qualify as a threat. But legality depends on context. So I'd say it's reprehensible and, not only that, it's stupid. But not necessarily illegal."

salon.com | Jan. 5, 2000

About the writer

Susan Zakin is the author of "Coyotes and Town Dogs: Earth First! and the Environmental Movement" (Penguin 1995) and a former political columnist for Sports Afield magazine.


(3) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Fish Farming News from Around the World

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

These stories follow:

- Halibut farming is a success in Iceland
- Three stories on Norway:
-Intensified marketing of Norwegian farmed salmon in the USA - "Dawn of a new era" for fish farming
- Fish-farming is a modern-day fairy tale
- Electronically tagged salmon
- Australian imports of salmon in jeopardy?
- Scientists develop farming techniques for marine fish in Brazil esp.
snapper and grouper

News from Iceland from FIS:

Halibut farming is a success

ICELAND

Friday, January 07, 2000, 03:30 (GMT + 9)

Halibut farming is proving to be a very successful industry in Iceland with some firms increasing capacity, including Icelandic firm Fiskeldi Eyjafjardur (Fiskey), which will take in new investors and inject ISK 200 million into the company, reports Fiskaren.

Fiskey claims to be producing 40% of the world´s production of halibut fingerlings. Their goal is to control 50% by the end of next year. In addition, the company will harvest 100 tonnes of halibut, or about 25% of global output of farmed halibut. Halibut production could rise to 220 tonnes by the end of year 2001, the firm´s managing director Mr. Ólafur Halldórsson told Fiskaren.

The largest shareholder in the company is the Icelandic Institute of Marine Research, which controls 30.5%. Thereafter follows the large fishing and seafood company Samherji, which controls 10.9% and Útgerdarfélag Akureyringa with 9.3%.

Until now, most of the developments in halibut farming have occurred in Norway, where Stolt Sea Farm has been the leader both in terms of production volume and technological development. But the development as been hampered by problems in producing enough fingerlings and also by most other halibut projects in Norway being relatively small and without capital. Also, Norwegian companies like Procean AS have been in the forefront of developing grow out farms for halibut. But with the success of Iceland, Norway could stiff competition and see its position as the world´s number one producer threatened.

By Terje Engø

-----------------------------------------------

News from Norway from IntraFish:

Intensified marketing in the USA

Publisert: 12.01.2000 11:17

"Over the next three-year period, marketing of Norwegian salmon and trout will be intensified on growth markets outside the EU", said Jack Robert Møller of the Norwegian Seafood Export Council to the newspaper Adresseavisen.

"Primarily, this means that more money will be targeted on the USA and Japan", he said. A total of 600 million Norwegian kroner spread over three years will be spent on the marketing of salmon and trout.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Dawn of a new era" Publisert: 10.01.2000 07:00

"Today no one has objections to the marine farming business being called an industry. Great changes are in store, and the main challenge will be whether we are equally proficient as industrialists as we have been as pioneers and primary producers".

This was voiced by Chairman Tarald Sivertsen of the Norwegian Fish Farmers' Association, NFFA, in a New Year's interview with IntraFish. "If aquaculture is to become a great and significant industry for Coastal Norway, its actual wealth generation of its own activities must increase. This means more preparation and further processing, which in turn calls for more capital and manpower", he said.

Capital

"It is now we are seeing the dawn of a new era", said Sivertsen. He believes that the marine farming industry can be instrumental in creation of wealth; unsurpassed by anything witnessed by the coast since herring fishing in the previous century built towns along the entire length of Norway's coastline.

"Nonetheless, the industry must be allowed to consolidate, act on equal terms in the EU and that we receive the opportunity to develop new markets. The industry is solid enough to invest further, but it doesn't have enough equity yet. If the objectives of creating a replacement for oil are to be achieved in the future, then fish farm companies' earnings and equity must increase at the same time as we must appeal to the investor milieu", he said.

-----------------------------------------------

Fish-farming is a modern-day fairy tale Publisert: 11.01.2000 07:00

"Fish-farming is a modern-day fairy tale, while agriculture in Norway stands out as the ultimate loser in the projection for Norway's future".

This is expounded in ECON's new scenarios for Norway towards 2020, which were discussed yesterday at NHO's annual conference. The projection for the future has been prepared in co-operation with a cross-section group of 50-60 persons from the Norwegian community.

"The absolute greatest success in 20 years time will be the marine farming industry that has developed into an industrial fairy tale, and that so far has filled the vacuum left after oil. Yes, in 2020 Norway will be the actual dynamo in a global investment in aquaculture, and production value outside traditional fishing will have surged from 10 billion in 1998 to 130 billion. Agriculture remains as the great loser".

-------------------------------------------

Electronically tagged salmon Publisert: 12.01.2000 07:00

Seventh generation salmon are on the way in Aqua Gen's breeding programme. Selection for the new age group is based on electronically tagged parent fish.

"The seventh generation definitely represents a brand new development. Electronic tags provide positive identification", said Willy Merkesnes of Aqua Gen at Kyrksæterøra to the newspaper Adresseavisen. He maintains that the tagging represents a quantum leap in breeding research in so far as totally indisputable identification of the fish is established, at the same time that you can retain as many salmon families as you wish.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Australian imports of salmon in jeopardy? Publisert: 10.01.2000 07:00

The Australian National Anglers Lobby is trying to sign Australia's largest supermarkets to an accreditation agreement to only sell locally- produced raw salmon, reports the Mercury.

Such an agreement would have big consequences on any imports of Canadian or NZ salmon. National Anglers Association spokesman Harvey Taylor leaves Hobart tomorrow [TUES] to finalise an accreditation scheme with Coles, Woolworths, NSW and Queensland chain Franklins and independent wholesalers, which would commit the stores to sell only Australian- produced raw salmon.

"We will be starting a national advertising campaign to promote the stores that only sell local raw salmon. The next step in the process is to include hotels and restaurants in the accreditation campaign." He said two shipments of New Zealand raw salmon had arrived in Sydney at the end of last year and he believed the first shipment from Canada was imminent.

-------------------------------------------------------

>From FIS:

Scientists develop farming techniques for marine fish

BRAZIL Monday, January 10, 2000, 14:30 (GMT + 9)

During the last few years, interest in developing the culture of tropical marine fish, particularly grouper (Epinephelus spp) and snapper (Lutjanus spp) has grown. In some Asian countries, production of these species exceeds 12,000 tonnes per year, with international prices fluctuating between US$3 and US$6 per kilo for snapper and between US$10 and US$30 for grouper, according to a report issued in Panorama da Acuicultura.

Some Brazilian fish are being regarded as suitable species for commercial aquaculture, such as snapper, flounder (Paralichthys spp.), grouper and croaker (Scianidae).

Currently, several universities and research institutions are developing farming techniques in Brazil, including the University of Santa Catalina, the San Pablo Fisheries Institute and the universities of Rio Grande and Pernambuco. Studies are focused on Mugil spp., Centropomus spp. and Paralichthys spp. In addition, researches are studying the adaptability of Epinephelus and Lutjanus to captivity conditions. These two species are found to resist high population densities -up to 100-200 specimens per cubic metre - and common hatching techniques and they reach a commercial size of 400-500g in about a year. The time these fish need to reach sexual maturity is still unknown.

Scientists are trying to develop the most adequate feeding formulae for species hatched in floating cages. Also, they have been working on the reproduction of snapper in captivity, as they believe Lutjanus will probably be the first marine species suitable for hatching in cages in Brazil.

By FIS Latin America


(4) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Scottish Government Guidance Downplays Environmental Threats

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:55:07 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "Zdravka Tzankova" , "Suzanne Vetromile"

FYI

----- Original Message -----

From: Don Staniford ENDS Report 299, December 1999

GUIDANCE ON FISH FARMS DOWNPLAYS ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS

Growing concerns over the impact of salmon farms on the marine environment are poorly reflected in recent planning guidance and advice issued by the Scottish Executive. Although the guidance recommends curbs on the industry's expansion, it does little to draw attention to problems such as the threat to wild salmon populations from parasites, eutrophication and the increasing frequency of algal blooms. Almost all of the UK's salmon farms are on the west coast of Scotland, the Western Isles and Shetland. The industry has grown rapidly in the last decade, with output more than doubling to 110,000 tonnes in 1998. Pressure for further expansion is continuing despite growing concern about the industry's impact on the environment. Planning decisions on fish farms are taken by the Crown Estate Commissioners, but local authorities will take over as soon as new legislation is passed by the Scottish Parliament. In the interim, they have a non-statutory role which in practice gives them substantial control over fish farm projects.

The Scottish Executive recently issued new guidance to local authorities on the location and environmental impacts of fish farms. One major recommendation is a presumption against new farms on the north and east coasts of Scotland. Although these areas are not at present under pressure, the move appears to be a recognition that expansion there might threaten salmon rivers such as the Spey, Tweed, Tay, Don and Dee. The remainder of Scotland has been divided into three categories indicating their suitability for further expansion. There are eleven "category 1" areas where new development or expansion is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances" - for example, "where it can be demonstrated conclusively...that the development will not have a signficant adverse effect on the environmental qualities of the area." Most of these sites are in the Western Isles.

There are over 50 "category 2" areas where the "prospects for future substantial developments are likely to be limited," although some expansion might be permitted "particularly where proposals will result in an overall reduction in environmental effect." The category includes areas which already house substantial fish farming operations or have particular scenic or wildlife conservation value. Areas in "category 3" have "better prospects of satisfying environmental requirements, although the detailed circumstances will always need to be examined carefully," the guidance says.

Professor David Mackay, Director of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's north region, welcomed the guidance, which he sees as "an admission that the industry is not without its (environmental) problems." Professor Mackay has been outspoken in underlining exactly what these are. Speaking at a European aquaculture conference in Trondheim, Norway, this summer, he pointed to concerns over the toxic effects of theraputent and anti-fouling chemicals, habitat degradation, algal blooms and interference with wild fish populations. Few of these problems are reflected in the Scottish Executive's advice. Professor Mackay regards the increased pressure on wild populations from parasites such as sea lice from farms as one of the most important issues. But the guidance merely comments: "Fears have aLso been expressed about the transmission of disease and parasites from farmed to wild fish though this is potentially equally applicable in reverse."

In contrast, Professor Mackay believes that harm to wild fish from the increasing prevalence of parasites "should now be accepted as beyond reasonable doubt." He noted that salmon populations in rivers on Scotland's west coast - closest to fish farm developments have all but collapsed over the last 20 years. Although there have also been declines in other populations more remote from fish farms. these were generally much less severe. Some believed that the sea lice problem would disappear when farm infestations were reduced by medication. But Professor Mackay disagrees, contending that control would need to be far more stringent than the economic optimum in order to protect wild fish. "If near-elimination of sea lice in salmon farms is not practicable then separation from wild stocks by distance may be the only alternative," he said. "It seems likely...that location or expansion of fish farms near the migratory routes and feeding grounds of wild stocks will soon be severely curtailed if not altogether banned."

The Scottish Executive's advice also warns of the need for fish farm sites to be well flushed to avoid the build-up of nutrients and lessen the impact of toxic theraputents and anti-foulants. However, Professor Mackay suggests that farms could avoid anti-fouling chemicals altogether by using so-called "swim through" cages in which the nets are cleaned by exposure to the air. These should be recognised as best environmental practice and adopted by various accreditation schemes now being promoted by the industry, he said. A complete ban on the use of antifoulants on fish cages might be needed, he warned, if research showed that current practices are unsustainable.

Professor Mackay is also concerned over the possible disturbance and degradation of marine habitats by nutrient and toxin inputs from fish farms another issue not broached by the Scottish Executive. Marine salmon farming releases 10.000 tonnes of ammonia into the sea per year - equal to a quarter of the combined input from all Scottish rivers. Some scientists believe that such nutrient inputs have contributed to the increasing incidence of algal blooms (ENDS Report 295. p 12). The blooms can cause fish kills and threaten shellfish harvesting. The latter was a major concern in 1999, with much of the west coast closed for scallop harvesting following an unprecedented and widespread outbreak of amnesic shellfish poisoning - caused by the accumulation of algal toxins in the shellfish.

ENDS Bulletin

Ref: Policy guidance note: Locational guidelines for the authorisation of marine fish farms in Scottish waters. Advice note: Marine fish farming and the environment. Both on: http:/www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc06/mff-01.htm


(5) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Report concludes that recovery of (Pacific) salmon runs is an investment in long-term economic health

Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

CC: "Zdravka Tzankova" , "Suzanne Vetromile" , "James Semple" , "Allan Berry"

This information comes thanks to 'Fishlink Sublegals', an online publication of the Insititute for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Beyond its importance to the west coast, Mainers and others may find it useful in the upcoming Atlantic salmon/ESA discussions.

For full report, web address is given. I've pasted the executive summary below.

REPORT CONCLUDES THAT RECOVERY OF SALMON RUNS IS AN INVESTMENT IN LONG-TERM ECONOMIC HEALTH:

In a 5 January report to the Oregon Board of Forestry, ECONorthwest, a Eugene, Oregon economic consulting firm, found that the long-term benefits produced by recovering salmon populations outweigh the short-term economic gains produced by logging the fishes' habitat. The report, "Salmon, Timber and the Economy" was produced for the Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Rivers Council, Oregon Trout, and the Audubon Society of Portland. For more information on this report, visit the Pacific Rivers Council's website at: http://www.pacrivers.org/Publications/timber.html.

Executive summary

Facing imminent loss of their wild salmon, Oregonians have decided the problem warrants extraordinary effort to solve. Americans, in polls and through their agent, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), agree with them. At the forefront of efforts to solve the problem are proposals to restrict logging and related practices on private and state lands. In this report we examine these proposals and the potential economic consequences of implementing them.

WHY FOCUS ON LOGGING RESTRICTIONS?

Logging and related forest practices are an important, but not sole, cause of declining salmon populations-agricultural practices, urban development, fishing practices, and dams also are important. Private entities and the state own 56 percent of Oregon's timberland, about 9 million acres. Past timber production on these lands has degraded the habitat salmon need to survive by increasing sedimentation in streams, stream temperatures, and the incidence of harmful landslides. It also has destroyed spawning sites and created impediments to the movement of spawners upstream and juveniles downstream.

Furthermore, three recent science-based reviews have concluded that the state's current forest-practice regulations will not prevent further degradation, let alone reverse past degradations (IMST 1999; NMFS 1998; Pacific Rivers Council 1999). The reviews generally recommend restricting logging near streams and in landslide-prone areas, rehabilitating existing roads and changing the design of future roads, and protecting areas with the best salmon habitat that serve as refuges amid habitat desolation.

WHY FOCUS ON THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES?

The proposals to restrict logging and related activities on private and state forest lands have triggered considerable opposition, largely because many landowners believe the proposals would cause them to forgo substantial expected revenues from the production of timber. After NMFS issued its initial proposal, for example, the two organizations representing landowners complained the proposal would take 39 percent of the private timberland out of production at a cost of about $8,700 per acre, or $29 billion total (Oregon Small Woodlands Association and Oregon Forest Industries Council 1998).

Costs to landowners, however, are only part of the story. Rebuilding healthy salmon populations offers large benefits for the economy. The importance of looking at both the benefits and the costs was recognized by 78 economists, who recently sent a letter to the governors of the four Pacific states and the premier of British Columbia (Whitelaw et al. 1998), urging them to look beyond those who cast conservation as a salmon-vs.-economy contest by focusing solely on the costs of salmon conservation. This report takes the broader view recommended in the economists' letter.

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR POTENTIAL ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES?

As salmon-related restrictions generate costs and benefits for the economy, they also will have positive and negative impacts on jobs. These major effects will occur against the backdrop of several important issues.

Costs and Benefits

Recent studies indicate that implementing the logging and other restrictions needed to restore healthy salmon habitat on private and state forest lands would remove 15-45 percent of the lands from timber production. Though some landowners argue the proposals would cost landowners as much as $8,000 per acre, most studies conclude the costs would be 1-10 percent this level, i.e., $80-800 per acre. Even these estimates, however, fail to account for the opportunities available to landowners for mitigating the costs. These include conducting watershed analyses to determine where, exactly, the restrictions are warranted and where they are not. Absent such analyses, it is prudent for the agencies charged with restoring salmon populations to paint the restrictions with a broad brush.

Restricting logging would create numerous benefits. The most apparent is an increase in salmon populations, important to the commercial-fishing industry, recreationists, and those who treasure salmon's intrinsic value. In addition, logging reductions should yield cleaner streams, by reducing logging-related sediment. With past logging practices common in the western Cascades, for example, clearcutting one acre imposed $208 in flood-damage and other costs on downstream firms and households.

Other benefits are less direct but no less important. The cleaner streams, fewer clearcuts, and other environmental improvements accompanying logging reductions would enhance the profits of firms in the recreation and tourism industries. They also would improve the quality of life for those Oregonians who value such things and, when the improvement is enough to influence workers and households to locate in Oregon, it would increase the profits of firms that hire and sell goods and services to them.

Quantifying these and other benefits is devilishly hard. There is evidence, though, indicating that the benefits are commensurate with, or even exceed, the costs.

Studies of federal lands east of the Cascades, for example, found that recreational services account for about 90 percent of the total value of all services and commodities derived from these lands. Fishing is especially important. Timber accounts for only about 10 percent of the total, and this percentage is expected to fall.

Another useful comparison entails recognizing that salmon habitat acts like financial assets, generating a flow of economic benefits over time. Evidence from the past decade indicates that, if habitat improvements resulting from salmon-related logging restrictions generated one additional fish for the recreational fishery per year per acre for the foreseeable future, the asset value of the habitat would be about $2,800 per acre.

By comparison, the average timber-asset value of state and private land used for growing timber in Oregon is about $400 per acre in Western Oregon, and the average value of land plus standing timber is about $4,000 per acre. Values are less east of the Cascades.

Thus, if logging restrictions converted one acre of private or state land from producing timber to producing one salmon per year for the recreational fishery, the asset value of the new salmon habitat would be about seven times the forgone timber-asset value of the land, alone. The recreation-related, habitat-asset value would be about two-thirds the average value of the timber-asset value of the land plus the current stocking of timber. Furthermore, some foresters believe that the forgone timber-asset value could be reduced by half because, with appropriate forest-practice regulations, landowners could improve salmon habitat and produce some timber from some acres.

To weigh the costs and benefits fully, one would have to incorporate into the comparison other benefits, such as reductions in sediment-related damage and the intrinsic value of salmon. Surveys indicate, for example, that Oregon households, on average, are willing to pay $2.50ñ7.00 per month to protect or restore salmon. Applied to the 1.25 million Oregon households, the total is about $3-8.75 million per month. Some undetermined portion of this applies to salmon restoration in private and state forests.

Thus, instead of costing billions of dollars, as some have concluded by looking only at gross estimates of the effects on the timber industry, the actual net effect of the proposed logging restrictions would be much different. The costs and benefits of logging reductions would vary from place to place and it is impossible to trace them all. The available data indicate, though, that many, perhaps most, of the costs could be mitigated, and many-in some instances, perhaps all-of those that remain, would be offset by benefits.

Negative and Positive Impacts on Jobs

Restricting logging on 15-45 percent of private and state lands would potentially jeopardize up to 3,500ó18,500 jobs in the timber industry. Every job lost in the timber industry would jeopardize roughly two more jobs in other industries. Given the robust strength of the state's economy, however, these risks would quickly evaporate in most instances.

Oregon's robust economy would help dislocated workers find replacement jobs. Most would find new jobs within three months, and the percentage remaining unemployed after one year probably would not exceed the background percentage for the workforce as a whole. Unemployment-insurance benefits and other forms of assistance would smooth the transition. This is not to discount the trauma of being laid off or the fact that some workers would experience declines in earnings. Still, the region has, over the past decade, demonstrated its ability to mitigate and adjust to contractions in the timber industry.

The positive impacts on jobs would be less visible, but persist longer. If successful in restoring healthy salmon populations, the proposed logging restrictions would generate jobs in the commercial and recreational fisheries, and in related forms of recreation. By reducing the costs logging imposes on others-by reducing logging-caused sediment in streams, for example-the logging restrictions would improve the profits of the firms and the incomes of the households that currently bear those costs. Perhaps most important, by improving the state's overall natural-resource amenities, the logging restrictions would make the state more attractive to workers, households, and investors. Through its impacts on Oregon's quality of life, the logging restrictions would affect all sectors of the state's economy, even those with no direct link to forests, streams, or salmon.

IMPORTANT BACKGROUND ISSUES

This is not the first time that Oregon's timber industry has faced reductions in logging. Over the past two decades the state has adjusted to reductions far larger than those needed to restore salmon habitat on forest lands. These experiences have taught many lessons.

One is that, although some workers, families, firms, and communities endured severe difficulties as logging diminished, far more have prospered. There is no apparent reason to expect a different outcome following salmon-related reductions in logging. A rosy statewide picture, though, can mask the problems that logging restrictions might generate for some individuals, firms, and communities. These problems can be dealt with directly.

Another lesson is that the rights and responsibilities of landowners frame the definition of all the economic consequences that might follow implementation of tighter restrictions on logging and related activities. How one defines landowners' rights and obligations determines the composition of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed logging restrictions. Some in the state believe salmon-related restrictions on logging would restrict the rights of landowners to produce timber and, thus, impose costs on them. Others have a different view. To them, landowners have an obligation not to inflict further harm on salmon, not to impose costs on others, and to repair the harm from past logging activities. The rights and obligations of landowners have yet to be fully clarified.

A final lesson is the importance of weighing the consequences of making decisions that do not yield the intended results. One of the most frustrating characteristics of the proposals to restrict logging is that nobody can say definitively what impact they will have on salmon. Landowners understandably conclude from this that it would be unfair to them to impose restrictions that later prove fruitless. Given the public's strong opposition to allowing salmon to go extinct, however, it appears that it is better to err in favor of salmon than in favor of timber. If logging restrictions later prove unwarranted, the unlogged trees will have grown and become more valuable. In the meantime, there are numerous options available for mitigating unreasonable costs to landowners. In contrast, if needed restrictions are not implemented, so that salmon slide further toward extinction, the challenge of reversing the slide will become even greater.

ECONorthwest ©1999

Prepared for: Pacific Rivers Council, Oregon Trout, Audubon Society of Portland, Institute for Fisheries Resources.


(6) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Salmon farming overview for 1999

Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:09:30 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

IntraFish has just published a review of 1999 for salmon farming around the world. I've included the introduction below and you can find the full report at:

http://www.intrafish.com/engelsk/report/feat01.php3

Contents include:

Introduction

Norway - success and ambition hand in hand Not too bad for Chile Scotland - The looming shadow of ISA Ireland - Money Talks Faroes - Industry doubles production Tasmania - Growing at a healthy rate Canada - B.C. Delighted after lift of Moratorium Canada - N.B. Farmers are taking a major hit with ISA Increasing demand world-wide means there is space for more production

From the Introduction:

Looking at the progresses of the salmon farming industry world-wide, it seems that 1999 was one of the best years for salmon farmers in living memory. Every country, except perhaps Scotland and New Brunswick in Canada registered what one could euphemistically call 'good results'.

Norwegian farmers experienced excellent production, prices and market conditions; the EU deal again worked well and seemingly to the advantage of all parties. Prices at the gate for Norwegian salmon farmers were higher than last year's and the industry found itself surprised by its good fortune. The end of year exports saw a boost that many had dreamed but that few anticipated only a few months before. Culminating in Week 50 which recorded the highest ever volumes of salmon exported from Norway, 12,273 tonnes, so much so that many in Norway, the Faroes and Ireland have slaughtered more fish then first planned.

The Faroes even managed to double their production level to over 42,000 tonnes, a booster year! The Irish were allocated ample funds for the long term development of the industry and saw the government somehow commit to a national development plan with the [yet to be announced formally] adoption of the CIRCA report.

The BC industry got what it sees as the rightful and overdue reward for its lobbying efforts, with the lifting of the moratorium on the expansion of the industry there. But New Brunswick was not so fortunate in that there were still 20 outbreaks of the Infectious Salmon Anaemia disease (ISA) among the vaccinated fish, leading to 1million fish of all sizes being culled. It was premature to think that ISA would disappear outright with the first year of vaccination, and atypical hot summer conditions did not help either.

As for Scotland, the year could indeed have been better. Again, both the strong value of the Sterling and the exchange rate for the Norwegian kroner played in favour of Norway on the EU salmon market. The industry was still badly affected by the inertia of the ISA disease crisis, and early culls and restrictions on smolts put to sea have had a crippling effect. Many are awaiting compensation which may come too late and the industry has had - after refusing the first offer in February - to accept a deal for compensation which, as yet [13-1-2000], has not been sanctioned by the European Commission. The eradication policy in place for a time flogged the European market with great quantities of small Scottish salmon, to the detriment of the overall industry.

All this has been occurring with a background of increased internationalisation of the industry, where 'restructuration', 'alliances' and 'consolidation' are occurring at a sustained if not increasing pace. With giants like Nutreco, Pan Fish, Stolt Sea Farms, Hydro Seafood and others elbowing for a better control of the industry. Booker's sale of Marine Harvest Mc Connell to Nutreco in July, for nearly half the price it had been acquired for, signalled the rising ambition of Nutreco - which also acquired BOCM Pauls in the UK and BioMaster in Chile - and the vast availability of cash (though this does not necessarily apply to the entire industry, not even in Norway!) for some of the 'big ones' willing to expand.

The very good results registered by Pan Fish on the Oslo stock exchange will serve to strengthen the idea within financial circles in Norway and elsewhere that the salmon farming industry - and aquaculture in general - may become a fertile playground for investors. Other companies are presumably waiting in the aisles for their turn to make an entry on the stock exchange. There are also speculation that whoever buys Hydro Seafood may well want to jump onto that gravy train.

To take a measure of what the industry world-wide has felt in the past year, Intrafish has interviewed key national representatives and others, most of the interviews have been edited, with questions and comments often left in brackets [ ]. It was our choice to reproduce almost entirely [thanks to the WWW] these interviews as we felt they all spelt perspectives which may, one way or the other, interest at least some of our readers and give an insight into each of the national organisations' thinking.


(7) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Aquaculture news and info. from around the world

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

The following information is attached below.

- US EPA announces new activity on aquaculture effluents
- Business Week on salmon farming boom in Chile
- Letters to ed/Montreal Gazette
- Greenpeace issues report: "Genetically Engineered Fish: Swimming Against the Tide of Reason"

--------------------------------------------------------------

>From Gary Jensen USDA-CSREES:

The following is an important notice from the Engineering and Analysis Division of the Office of Water at EPA announcing the agency's decision on "a new activity to develop pollutant controls in the form of nationally applicable discharge standards for commercial and public aquaculture operations". Please share this announcement with others in the U.S. aquaculture community. The federal Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture will be actively involved in collaborating with EPA and coordinating a network of stakeholders and expertise to assist in this process.

___________________________________________________

EPA Expands Focus on Nutrient Pollution

EPA's Office of Water is focusing new efforts to help reduce nutrient loadings from commercial agricultural and industrial operations nationwide. Among those efforts is a new activity to develop pollutant controls in the form of nationally applicable discharge standards (known as effluent limitations guidelines and standards) for commercial and public aquaculture operations.

Background:

In assessments of surface water quality, states most frequently cite siltation, nutrients, and pathogens as the major cause of water quality impairment. Over the past two years, EPA has directed resources of the Office of Water's Engineering and Analysis Division to address specific sources of these pollutants. Current activities addressing coal mining (remining operations and certain mine land reclamation activities in the arid west) and the construction and development industry are expected to result in significant reductions of soil and other solids reaching rivers, lakes and streams. Ongoing activities to control nutrients and pathogens from concentrated animal (pork, poultry, beef, and dairy) feeding operations are expected to improve water quality.

In 1974, EPA issued a summary technical document for use as guidance in developing controls for wastewater discharges from fish hatcheries and farms. At that time a decision was made not to issue final national effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Based on the 1997 agricultural census data, the aquaculture industry includes close to 5,000 land based and marine environment facilities. The aquaculture industry has facilities located in every state and territory, and is currently one of several growing segments of U.S. agriculture. Given the current growth of the aquaculture industry, and the inconsistent state regulatory oversight, EPA has decided to examine technologies currently available for the control of pollutants, primarily nutrients from land based and marine environment aquaculture operations. Although the aquaculture industry is currently subject to the NPDES permitting system, there are no national technology based standards for aquaculture. New national standards for aquaculture will assist the 43 states that are delegated by EPA to administer the NPDES permitting program.

Some aquaculture facilities can contribute nutrients to environmentally sensitive areas found in estuaries, rivers, lakes, and streams throughout the country. Improvements in wastewater treatment within the aquaculture industry have been employed by some facilities to reduce the nutrient pollutant load. It may be possible for more facilities to employ these technologies to reduce pollutant discharge loadings to surface waters and, in some cases, water quality impairment in portions of the U.S. By examining the cost and performance of pollution control technologies and practices, EPA is committed to developing national effluent limitations guidelines and standards that are consistent with the principles of good environmental stewardship and support the long-term sustainability of the industry.

Throughout this national regulatory effort, EPA will work closely with USDA and other federal agencies, academia, industry trade associations, state and local governments, citizen groups, environmental groups and other stakeholders. EPA's efforts will build on the technical expertise of nationally-recognized leaders, such as members and participants of the Federal Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) and its newly created Aquaculture Effluents Task Force. EPA will regularly provide to the JSA, the industry, and the public, information on its data needs and the status of their efforts throughout the regulatory development period.

___________________________________________________________

Copyright 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Business Week

January 24, 2000

SECTION: BUSINESS WEEK INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS; Spotlight on Chile; Number 3665; Pg. 4

LENGTH: 752 words

HEADLINE: A CITY TRANSFORMED BY A FISH...WORRIES THAT THE BOOM WON'T LAST

BYLINE: By Greg Brown in Puerto Montt; EDITED BY HARRY MAURER

Puerto Montt, a port town in southern Chile, has long been known as the tourist stop that isn't -- a collection of unpainted shacks and broken pavement overlooking an otherwise postcard-perfect bay. Despite beautiful views of ocean and volcanoes, renowned seafood, and richly stocked handicraft markets, most tourists move on quickly to parks and resorts further south.

But Puerto Montt is waking up nevertheless, largely thanks to a handsome fish, onchorhyncus kisuth, with tasty pink flesh. Since the salmon-farming boom began in these parts a decade ago, some 35,000 jobs have been created in Chile's 10th Region, a traditionally poor province of rolling farmlands, mountains, and rustic fishing villages. Many of the jobs are concentrated in and around 150,000-inhabitant Puerto Montt, thanks to a nearby airstrip. The best customers for Chilean salmon are finicky Japanese restaurant buyers, so the fish has to be cut into sushi-ready filets, frozen, and shipped by air within hours of harvesting.

Local producers, whose processing plants line the highway between the city and airport, are talking of doubling, even tripling their capacity in the coming decade. ''We are planning to grow 100% over the next three years,'' says Salmoamerica Chief Executive Thomas Kehler, whose 550-employee Chilean-owned company has sales of $ 30 million on a $ 12.5 million investment. ''And we can do that within the limits of the operations we already have.''

The flood of salmon investment -- some $ 4 billion in the 1990s -- has cut regional unemployment to 6%, nearly half that of the nation. In 2000, Chile's salmon exports are set to exceed $ 1 billion, up from just $ 159 million in 1991. Salmon now earns double the export value of the better-known Chilean wine industry and is helping diversify the economy away from dependence on copper, worth some $ 7 billion a year, about one-eleventh of gross domestic product.

This rapid growth may well continue, since salmon farming uses cheap, relatively simple technology. Improving genetics and better farming techniques are driving down costs fast. ''In 1985, it cost $ 10.20 to produce a kilogram of salmon in Chile,'' says Alejandro Pizarro, head of Pesquera Eicosal Ltd., a 580-employee company that racks up $ 35 million in sales annually. ''In 2000, it will cost $ 2.40.'' Bolstered by declining costs, investors plan to fully exploit the coast of the 10th Region and then extend their reach south into the chillier, island-dotted 11th Region. BACKPACKERS. Thanks to the boom, run-down Puerto Montt suddenly looks upwardly mobile. A colorful, three-floor mall opened in 1997, and a second is planned. Poverty rates dropped during the '90s, from 40% to 29%. Meanwhile, clapboard hostels for backpackers and laborers are giving way to reasonably priced business and tourist hotels. Housing starts have nearly doubled, and business construction is up by one-third.

Some view the changes with skepticism. ''I guess it's good that things are picking up, but I don't want to lose sight of our values,'' grumbles taxi driver Juan Rivas, 57. ''We sure don't want the crime problems they have in Santiago.'' In fact, crime has declined slightly over the past few years -- which may have something to do with all those jobs.

The salmoneros do face some serious obstacles. Chile, which dramatically reduced world salmon prices when its export-savvy government began promoting salmon farming a decade ago, now faces the challenge of adding value to a product that has become a commodity. Upmarket products, mostly aimed at busy U.S. families, such as filets packed with condiments and recipes, make up more than 50 cents on the dollar of salmon export income. ''Before, supermarkets didn't want to hear about value-added products,'' says Rodrigo Infante, of the Association of Chilean Salmon & Trout Farmers in Santiago. ''But we have to do this. If you're in a commodity market and the price drops, you're dead.''

An even bigger worry is tougher competition. Chile currently enjoys an advantage because fishmeal and fish oil, the main components of the feed used in salmon farms, are produced cheaply here. But U.S. salmon farmers accused Chilean salmoneros of dumping their goods below cost in 1997, a case that resulted in small punitive tariffs. That makes the Chileans nervous about underselling competitors. ''My dumping office is bigger than my accounting office,'' fumes Kehler. But salmon still looks to be the savior of the south.

URL: http://www.businessweek.com/index.html

GRAPHIC: Photograph: PUERTO MONTT PLANT The salmon boom has brought 35,000 to the region, and investment is still pouring in PHOTOGRAPH BY GREG BROWN ; Illustration: Map: Chile MAP BY NITA L. JANSEN

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: January 20, 2000

------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2000 Southam Inc.

The Gazette (Montreal)

January 21, 2000, Friday, FINAL

SECTION: Editorial / Op-ed; B2

LENGTH: 305 words

HEADLINE: Fish-farm fears are exaggerated

I well understand the wish of any news-gathering organization to highlight an issue as important as the plight of the Atlantic salmon (Gazette, Jan. 10, ''Fish-farm salmon driving wild ones to near extinction''). However, in doing so, The Gazette has unfairly put the entire aquaculture industry in a negative light.

Your story failed to cite sources in the Canadian aquaculture industry, such as myself, scientists and others at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or other aquaculture-industry representatives from across Canada. For example, the article raises the spectre of transgenic fish somehow ''pushing their wild cousins off the map.'' Yet a few phone calls to knowledgeable people would have revealed that the Canadian aquaculture industry considers transgenic fish to be purely experimental.

More important, the issue of the introduction of genes from farm salmon to wild is false. Both farmed and wild salmon are the same species, having the same genetic makeup. No new genes are being added if they breed.

This is one of a number of issues that was covered in a report I commissioned titled Potential Genetic Interaction Between Wild and Farm Salmon of the Same Species, by R.G. Peterson.

Moreover, there is no research to support the notion that genes from farmed salmon are negatively affecting the fitness of wild salmon stocks. Such proof would require investigations on a stock by stock basis.

This is an extremely complex issue, much too complex to warrant the certainties offered by the author and the limited number of sources cited in the article.

For a more balanced perspective on this topic, I invite your readers to visit our Web site at www. dfompo.gc.ca/ocad- bcda/index.html

Yves Bastien

Commissioner

Aquaculture Development

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Ottawa, Ont.

Copyright 2000 Southam Inc.

The Gazette (Montreal)

January 21, 2000, Friday, FINAL

SECTION: Editorial / Op-ed; B2

LENGTH: 167 words

HEADLINE: Snafus happen

Garth Fletcher (Gazette, Jan. 10, ''Fish-farm salmon driving wild ones to near extinction'') unfairly portrays the concerns of those who question aquaculture and its methodologies. We are not eco-terrorists just because we fear another killer-bee intrusion into the natural environment. Accidents happen in all fields, regardless of safeguards, and to suggest otherwise is simply scientific arrogance.

Pen-bred salmon differ from their wild-caught cousins in that dye must be added to their feed to ensure the same orange flesh tone as that found in the wild.

To protect their investments, aqua- farmers add antibiotics and growth hormones to the feed. Though the medical profession is deeply concerned over the excessive use of antibiotics and fears the long-term, cumulative effects of chemicals and growth hormones on people, we continue to pass on these doctored foods to an unsuspecting and trusting public.

George Dupras

Director

Animals Alliance of Canada

Toronto, Ont.

-------------------------------------------------------

GENETIC FISH THREATEN NATURAL FISH STOCKS

20 January 2000

MONTREAL -- Genetically engineered (GE) fish pose a severe threat to wild fish populations says a Greenpeace report published today. Fish, genetically engineered to grow faster, could spread their foreign DNA to wild fish, destroying entire populations. According to Greenpeace, the threat posed by GE fish highlights the need for tight international rules to control commercial releases of genetically engineered organisms (GMOs).

"The commercialisation of GE fish is few steps away and we are only starting to understand the risks involved," said Michael Khoo of Greenpeace. "There are no regulation in Canada and the US where GE fish is presently hatched in containers. The delegates from 140 countries opening the Biosafety Protocol negotiations in Montreal today should study this report carefully and make the proper conclusions."

The commercial development of GE fish has mainly concentrated on making fish grow faster and larger. However, according to scientific modelling done at Purdue University in the US (1), just a small number of growth-enhanced GE fish could eradicate large populations of wild fish. Larger, GE fish attract more mates and quickly spread their characteristics throughout the population. However, the offspring of these fish have reduced reproductive capability and so reduce the health of the entire population.

The study was published on the opening day of the Biosafety Protocol meeting which is scheduled to run till January 28. The meeting will try to adopt rules on transboundary movement of GMOs. An earlier round of negotiations in February last year in Cartagena, Colombia, failed to reach an agreement due to strong opposition from the main grain exporting countries: Canada, the US, Argentina, Uruguay and Australia.

"Canada and the US have torpedoed every attempt to get a strong Biosafety Protocol," said Khoo. "Government representatives gathering in Montreal have their last chance to find a solution and we urge them not to fail. Industrialised countries like European Union member states have a responsibility to make it happen."

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

- Michael Khoo, Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaigner, +1 416 569 8408 or

- Mika Railo, Greenpeace International Press Officer in Montreal, +31 6 21296908

The Greenpeace report "Genetically Engineered Fish: Swimming Against the Tide of Reason" and daily updates from the Montreal Biosafety meeting are available on the Greenpeace website: www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/bio/montreal.htm

Note to editors:

(1) Muir WM, Howard RD (1999) Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. PNAS 96:13853-13856


(8) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Leaked DFO report: farmed fish hurting wild Atl. salmon populations

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmOpen FFList"

Copyright 2000 Southam Inc.

The Ottawa Citizen

January 22, 2000, Saturday, FINAL

SECTION: News; A1 / Front

LENGTH: 570 words

HEADLINE: Escaped fish harm wild salmon: Leaked Fisheries report backs up claim that farmed fish hurting wild stocks

BYLINE: Tom Spears

Escaped farm salmon have indeed damaged Canada's fragile stock of wild salmon by interbreeding with them, an internal report from Fisheries and Oceans Canada admits.

The report, made in preparation for next week's meeting of Canada's advisory committee on Atlantic salmon in Montreal, backs up the claims made by conservation groups who warn of dangers to Atlantic salmon.

Damage has already occurred, says the draft report, which has not been publicly released.

It comes shortly after a statement by Yves Bastien, Canada's commissioner of aquaculture, that there is no evidence farmed fish cause genetic disruption for wild Atlantic salmon.

U.S. federal fish agencies had already warned that interbreeding between wild and domestic fish was weakening the gene pool of salmon in the Gulf of Maine.

Now the Canadian DFO scientists are saying the evidence of genetic damage does exist. A copy of the report obtained by the Citizen says:

- All Atlantic salmon are not genetically the same. Each local population of salmon has its own distinct genetic fingerprints that are important because they allow salmon to adapt to local conditions. For instance, the salmon native to a river that melts in early spring will need spawning instinct that are different from salmon in a river where the ice goes out much later. They are also adapted to different acidity levels in different rivers.

- ''Genetic difference have been observed between wild and cultured (farmed) salmon.'' The greatest differences are between domesticated fish originally from European stock and wild fish native to North America.

- ''Wild and escaped domesticated Atlantic salmon can interbreed, and in some cases escaped domesticated salmon form the majority of fish in the spawning population.''

- A cross between wild and domesticated fish does nothing good for the wild fish. But ''there is evidence to indicate that there has been a reduction of fitness in the wild populations in the short terms when wild and domestic salmonids have interbred.'' Sal-monids are fish in the salmon family, including trout.

This point is ''the central issue of concern,'' the report says.

It quotes a 1997 study that says the smolts (young salmon) born from escaped salmon, and from hybrids of wild and domestic salmon, are less likely to survive than wild fish.

However, the study notes, the domestic and hybrid fish grow faster in their early months of life than young wild salmon.

This allows them to crowd out the wild fish in the competition for food and survival.

The salmon meetings scheduled for Monday and Tuesday are not directly connected with another set of Montreal meetings -- an international attempt to lay out a ''protocol'' on trade in genetically modified food.

But Greenpeace argues the salmon are a perfect example of the environmental dangers of genetically modified foods.

Greater than the danger from simple farmed fish is the danger that some day genetically engineered salmon will escape, says Miranda Holmes of Greenpeace.

These fish, still in the lab, are two or three years away from commercial release. Combining chinook and Atlantic salmon genes, they eat voraciously and grow faster than natural salmon.

But she said Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal should prohibit the commercial use of transgenic fish. ''The primary responsibility at DFO is the protection of wild stocks,'' she said.

GRAPHIC: CP Color Photo: Farmed Atlantic salmon

**The Ocean Project** **SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse** Bill Mott, Director 102 Waterman Street, Suite 16 Providence, Rhode Island 02906 phone: 401/272-8822 fax: 401/272-8877 email: bmott@seaweb.org SAC web: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac TOP web: www.theoceanproject.org


(9) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: The Ocean Project: Update on activities

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000

From: "Bill Mott"

To:

I thought you might be interested in the following update emailed out earlier this week to organizations and agencies that have expressed interest in working with TOP. If you and/or your organization/agency would like to become involved in some capacity with The Ocean Project, please let me know and I can send additional information or you can visit our web site and fill out the participation form online. Also, if you're in DC and would like to come to a presentation of our national ocean awareness survey findings in March, please let me know. FYI, a copy of our press release from the other month is attached as well as a list of Partner Institutions.

Bill Mott, Director

-------------------------------------

January 24, 2000

Hello!

Thank you for your interest in our new public awareness initiative. I wanted to update you on how The Ocean Project activities are moving along.

Media Interest: Since the press release in late November, and the opening of our web site (www.theoceanproject.org), there has been a steady flow of interest. All media (tv, radio, print, and internet) picked up the story and continue to cover it to some degree.

Network of Partners: As a result of nearly 1,000 mailings, our network of partners has increased significantly. Many conservation groups and government agencies have expressed interest in working in some capacity with TOP and our network of more than 60 Partner Institutions (aquarium, zoos, museums). We hope to build a synergy with all these various players at some point in the coming months.

DC and Regional Presentations and Workshops: We are planning some presentations on our survey results in Washington, DC for the NGO and goverment agency communities (and any other interested parties). The presentation dates have not yet be set but will most likely occur in mid-March. Additionally, we hope to do a series of workshops/briefings around the country at various partner institutions in the coming months, depending on funding, and I will keep you posted.

TOP email list: I can add you to an email list to receive information periodically - just let me know! At some point it may actually turn into a listserv. Also, if you have friends or colleagues who should be included on the list to receive periodic updates, share information, coordinate activities, etc., please let me know. I would imagine that there will not be much 'traffic' on this list at first but will become more lively as specific programs and projects begin to be planned and implemented in the coming months.

Strategic Planning: The steering committee of The Ocean Project (Paul Boyle, New York Aquarium; Vikki Spruill, SeaWeb; Jim Hekkers, ColoradoÆs Ocean Journey; Kathy Sher, National Aquarium in Baltimore; Diane Sena, Monterey Bay Aquarium; John Nightingale, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center; Michael Hutchins, American Zoo and Aquarium Association; Greg Stone, New England Aquarium; and Bert Vescolani, John G. Shedd Aquarium) and I will be working on strategic planning during the next few weeks.

If you have any questions about anything related to The Ocean Project, please feel free to contact me by phone or email anytime. Thank you very much and I will be in touch!


(9) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Aquaculture calendar
aquaculture calendar

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:27:33 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmOpen FFList"

Here are some of the aquaculture-related events, conferences, etc. coming up through July 2000. For more info. on other events throughout the year, please visit our web site: http://www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac/salmoncalendar.html

FEBRUARY

Aquaculture America 2000: "Unmasking the Marvels of Aquaculture"

February 2-5 New Orleans, Louisiana, USA The National Conference & Exposition of the World Aquaculture Society

For more information, go to: http://www.was.org/confer/neworleans/neworleans.htm

Abalone Symposium

February 6-11. International Symposium, Centre for Marine Studies, Cape Town, South Africa

Contact Peter Cook, fax +27 21 650 3283

Risk Analysis &emdash; Aquatic Health

February 8-10. Conference, Office International des Epizooties, Paris, France

Contact Dr. K. Sugiura, +33 144 15 1888

Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium

Agenda for Action 20-25 February 2000 Thailand

The Network of Aquaculture Centres in the Asia-Pacific (NACA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) are co-sponsoring the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millenium. The major focus will be on policy and planning with an emphasis on the social, technical and regulatory issues surrounding aquaculture development and aquaculture technologies. The conference will be a unique opportunity for participants to help shape the future direction of aquaculture development.

The Secretariat Aquaculture in Millennium III c/o NACA Headquarters Fisheries Compound Kasetsart Campus 10903 Jatujak, Bangkok, Thailand

Network of Aquaculture Centres in the Asia-Pacific Ph: +66 2 561 1728 Fax: +66 2 561 1727 Email: naca@inet.co.th Conference website and brochures: http://naca.fisheries.go.th

20th Anniversary Milford Aquaculture Seminar

February 28-March 1. Quality Inn Conference Center, 100 Pond Lily Avenue, New Haven, CT 06525

Contact Walter Blogoslawski (203) 579-7035 or 7000; walter.blogoslawski@noaa.gov

MARCH

Fish International 2000

March 23-26. Bremen, Germany

For information: contact MGH, Burgerweide, 28209 Bremen, Germany tel. +49 421 3505-260, fax: +49 421 3505-681 info@fishinternational.de

Aquaculture International 2000 & Fishing 2000

March 30-April 1. Scottish Exhibition and Conference Center, Glasgow, Scotland

Aquaculture international is set to be just part of a "total fish show," as it runs alongside Europe's most successful annual commercial fishing exhibition, Fishing 2000.

For information: contact Sue Hill, Exhibitions Manager, Emap Highway Events, MEED House, 21 John St., London WC1N 2BP UK tel. +44 (0) 207 470 6340 fax: +44 (0) 207 831 2509 sueh@meed.emap.co.uk

APRIL

Fish Health Workshop

April 6, 2000 Eastport, Maine

For further information, contact: Dr. Mike Opitz, Extension Veterinarian University of Maine Cooperative Extension 5735 Hitchner Hall, Rm. 105 Orono, ME 04469-5735 Phone: 207/581-2771 Fax: 207/581-2729 Email: mopitz@umext.maine.edu

MAY

AQUA 2000 - "Responsible Aquaculture Development in the New Millennium" The annual international conference of the World Aquaculture Soceity & European Aquaculture Society

May 2-6, 2000 The Acropolis Convention Center Nice, France

For more information, contact: World Aquaculture Society 21710 7th Place West, Bothell WA 98021 USA Tel: +1-425-485-6682 Fax: +1-425-483-6319 E-mail: worldaqua@aol.com

European Aquaculture Society Slijkensesteenweg 4, B - 8400 Oostende Belgium Tel: +32-59-32-38-59 Fax: +32-59-32-10-05 E-mail: eas@unicall.be Also, some information available at: http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~booghe/eas/conf/aqua2000.htm

AquaVision 2000

May 9-11. Stavanger, Norway.

AquaVision is Skretting and Nutreco Aquaculture's global business conference for the fish farming industry. One of the main themes will be Value Chain Management &emdash; how to increase value through cooperation and coordination of work with farmed fish from the cage, via distribution and processing, right through the consumer.

For information: contact Communications Manager Vidar Julien, Tel.: +47 51 88 59 02 or +47 92 26 46 96, fax +47 51 58 43 68 vidar.julien@skretting.no

Tuna 2000 Bangkok

May 25-27. Bangkok, Thailand

Sixth Infofish World Tuna Trade Conference Contact: Infofish &emdash; Tuna 2000, Bangkok, P.O. Box 10899, 50728 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, tel. (603) 291-4466, fax: (603) 291-6804 infish@tm.net.my OR infish@po.jaring.my

Aquaculture Canada 2000 - The 17th Meeting of the Aquaculture Association of Canada

May 28-31, 2000 Hotel Beausejour Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada

For more information, contact: Dr. Andrew Boghen Phone: 506-858-4321 Fax: 506-858-4541 Email: boghena@umoncton.ca

JUNE

1st Maricult Conference "Exploitation of living marine resources for the new millennium - Bridging potentials and environmental constraints "

26- 28 June 2000 Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

The following organizations have contributed in the funding of projects or/and by direct support to the Conference: MARICULT Research Programme, Norsk Hydro ASA, EU Commision, Research Council of Norway , NTNU, SINTEF

More information at: http://www.maricult.org/public/conference2000/

17th Annual NASCO Meeting

June 2000 New Brunswick, Canada

JULY

IIFET 2000 - The 10th Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics & Trade

July 10-13, 2000 Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

The IIFET 2000 website is located at http://osu.orst.edu/Dept/IIFET/html/2000

For further information, contact: Dick Johnston IIFET 2000 Conference Organizer richard.s.johnston@orst.edu or IIFET 2000 Organizing Committee Members Ann Shriver (ann.l.shriver@orst.edu), Debi Mandigo (debi.mandigo@orst.edu), and Pam Garland (garlandp@peak.org).

Genetics in Aquaculture VII

July 15-22, International Association for Genetics in Aquaculture, Symposia Townsville, Australia

Contact and conference info: http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/conferences/genaqua/genaqua2000-a.html

The Third International Recirculating Aquaculture Conference - 2000

July 20 - 23, 2000 Roanoke, Virginia, USA

For more information contact: Dr. George Libey Recirculating Aquaculture Conference 2000 Virginia Tech (0418) Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA Phone: 540/231-6805 Fax: 540/231-9293 E-mail: CFAST@vt.edu


(1) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Maine salmon update

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:49:57 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

This is a good overview of the situation in Maine.

Another public hearing on this issue in Rockland tonight.

Copyright 2000 Bangor Daily News

BANGOR DAILY NEWS (BANGOR, MAINE)

January 26, 2000 Wednesday

HEADLINE: Use of hybrids complicates salmon talks

BYLINE: Mary Anne Clancy Of the NEWS Staff

MACHIASPORT -- Atlantic Salmon of Maine has $ 25 million worth of fish in the water, a payroll of $ 4.6 million and 165 employees with knots in their stomachs.

The workers fear their jobs and their company will leave Washington County if two federal agencies prevail on a proposal to classify wild Atlantic salmon in eight Maine rivers as an endangered species.

Five of the eight rivers are in Washington County, home of Maine's $ 60 million aquaculture industry.

And Atlantic Salmon of Maine's fish farms -- seven ocean lease sites totaling 145 acres -- are within 12 miles of three of the Washington County rivers.

The problem, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, is that farmed fish can escape from their ocean cages during seal attacks or storms at sea.

If the aquaculture salmon enter the rivers and breed with the wild fish, they could alter the genetic makeup of the last self-sustaining wild runs of Atlantic salmon in the United States, the fish agencies say.

Compounding the problem is that Atlantic Salmon of Maine and other Washington County fish farmers raise European hybrids -- fish whose genetic makeup is distinctly different from that of thewild salmon.

"And so what? " responds Alf Aarskog, Atlantic Salmon of Maine's production manager. "From a genetic point of view, every river in Maine should be happy if we lost 1 million fish. It would prevent inbreeding. "

Aarskog and his colleagues say the gene pool of the "the so-called wild fish" is too small, resulting in salmon that are "brothers and sisters. "

In contrast, they say, European salmon are the product of extensive genetic engineering in countries such as Norway. The European-strain fish are bred for salmon farming and grow to market size much faster than North American strains. That, according to the salmon aquaculture industry, allows Maine to compete with Chile and other salmon producers in the U.S. market.

"These fish have been chosen," said Steve Swartz, Atlantic Salmon's hatchery production manager. "They are 10 to 15 percent larger, historically, and they are more disease-resistant. "

The companies that use the European fish refuse to stop, and the Maine Department of Marine Resources is backing them up.

The thought of losing the competitive edge that European salmon provide is so unthinkable that the subject wasn't even on the table during nine months of negotiations with the federal fish agencies.

"The state wouldn't even negotiate on that," said Dan Kimball, the Atlantic salmon recovery specialist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Instead, the talks centered on ways to keep farmed salmon from escaping.

Those negotiations reached a stalemate just weeks before Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announced Oct. 13 that the two federal fish agencies were proposing to place wild Maine salmon on the endangered species list.

Swartz said the industry dropped out of the talks and let DMR continue the negotiations. The experience was just too frustrating, Swartz said, because the federal agencies changed the ground rules as they went along.

Swartz maintains both fish services knew the industry used European hybrids back in 1997 when they accepted Maine's Atlantic salmon conservation plan and withdrew their 1995 proposal to list the Maine salmon as a threatened species.

Kimball said the federal agencies knew the industry used European-strain salmon to get started in the late 1980s, but believeda 1995 state law had put an end to the practice.

The Maine law prohibits importation of non-North American fish or eggs.

In addition to the state law, the Army Corps of Engineers, which issues federal permits for aquaculture leases, has a standard condition prohibiting importation of non-North American fin fish at any stage of development, Kimball said.

"We felt that between the state requirements and the Corps permits, the European stock would phase out," he said.

But, in 1998 the federal agencies learned the industry was continuing to use European strains because Maine law did not prohibit importing sperm, he said.

Swartz said he began importing European salmon sperm for use in Atlantic Salmon of Maine's hatchery operations two years ago. "It was totally legal," he said.

The federal agencies became aware of the practice in September 1998, when the Army Corps of Engineers was reviewing Atlantic Salmon of Maine's application for a 10-acre aquaculture lease off Stone Island in Machiasport.

The National Marine Fisheries Services objected to the use of imported sperm and asked the Corps to circulate a letter to the aquaculture industry requesting voluntary compliance with the prohibition on the use of European strains.

U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine interceded for the company and convinced Roland Smitten, director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, to authorize an immediate permit to Atlantic Salmon of Maine.

According to a news release from Snowe at the time, the federal agencies and the state agreed to discuss the issue and reach a solution no later than March 15, 1999.

The March deadline came and went without an agreement.

With Maine refusing to budge on the use of European strains, both federal fish agencies say they worked with industry and DMR to come up with a plan for reinforcing aquaculture cages to prevent escapes.

Key to that discussion was a monitoring plan: Some way was needed to mark the aquaculture fish so they could be traced back to a problem cage.

Mary Colligan, the endangered species specialist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, said marking was important because the industry maintained it could develop escape-proof cages. There had to be some wayto determine if those reinforcements would work, she said.

George LaPointe, Maine's marine resources commissioner, said last week that the negotiations broke down because the two sides couldn't agree on a phase-in schedule for the enhanced cages or which fish should be marked and who would mark them.

LaPointe told those who attended a Jan. 8 Washington County rally against the proposed listing that the aquaculture industry had agreed to reinforce its cages and mark its fish. But, he said, the federal fish agencies refused to mark the Atlantic salmon that are raised at the Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery in Orland.

Those Craig Brook fish are spawned from brood stock collected from five of the eight salmon rivers.

The juvenile fish are put back into their home rivers under a salmon recovery program developed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission in 1991.

Kimball said LaPointe's characterization of where the talks broke down is inaccurate. The industry had agreed -- in principle -- to reinforce its cages, but wanted to do it on a schedule that coincided with depreciation, he said.

"That would take several years," Kimball said. "We wanted to phase it in as soon as possible. "

And, he said, the state did not agree to a marking program.

The state committed only to setting up a group to study the feasibility of a marking system. LaPointe was to review the work of the committee and if he determined that marking was "feasible and necessary," he "could decide" to proceed with marking, Kimball said.

Marking fish from the federal hatchery doesn't make sense because the whole purpose of marking is to determine whether aquaculture fish can escape from the reinforced cages, Kimball said.

Aquaculture companies are not required to report escapes. When farmed fish are found in the rivers, the industry maintains, they are either wild fish or salmon that escaped from Canadian salmon farms, Kimball said.

Bobby Hukki, assistant farm manager for Atlantic Salmon of Maine, said his company already uses an enhanced cage system, including heavier twine, better predator netting to protect against seals, and tensioning nets that are better able to withstand rough weather.

"We're willing to make the extra investment because our sites are more exposed and it makes economic sense," Hukki said. "But we can't negotiate for the entire industry. "

Hukki noted that Atlantic Salmon of Maine may be in a better financial position to make the expenditure than smaller companies that aren't as well capitalized.

Atlantic Salmon of Maine is 80 percent owned by Conti-Sea, a joint venture by two multinational agribusinesses -- the former Continental Grain and Seaboard Corp. The remaining 20 percent is owned by Morten Heleseen, a Norwegian businessman.

Aarskog said the company produces 40 percent of Maine's farmed salmon and is second only to Stolt Sea Farm of Norway, an international aquaculture company that is the fifth-largest producer of salmon in the world, he said.

The multinational companies that dominate Maine fish farming provide good jobs in Washington County, where the average salary is $ 399 a week, according to the Maine Department ofLabor.

Those who work on Atlantic Salmon of Maine's fish farms begin at $ 7 an hour, and the starting wage for the 90 employees at the company's Machiasport processing plant begins at $ 11 an hour, plus benefits.

Hukki said most employees make more than that because they have been with Atlantic Salmon of Maine for years.

In addition to the company's 150 employees in Washington County, Atlantic Salmon of Maine has hatcheries in Rangeley and Solon and a sales team in Belfast, Swartz said.

The debate on salmon aquaculture and the possible threat it poses to wild salmon stocks is also taking place in Canada, where a recent report indicates that farmed salmon have already bred with dwindling wild stocks.

Canada prohibits use of European stocks in salmon aquaculture, but fish farmers there are fighting to have that restriction lifted. Conservation groups are fighting the proposal.

Hearings scheduled on salmon controversy

10 a.m. Saturday, University of Maine at Machias' Performing Arts Center.

6 p.m. Monday, Ellsworth Middle School.

6 p.m. Tuesday, Rockland District Elementary School.

GRAPHIC: Atlantic Salmon of Maine employees Karen Blackie (left) and Kathie Barkles, both of Caratunk, inoculate farm-raised salmon against four types of bacteria at the company's Solon facility, where brood stock is raised. (NEWS Photo by Bob DeLong)

LOAD-DATE: January 26, 2000


(2) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: News coverage in Maine of Atlantic salmon issues

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:40:40 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

News from yesterday's edition of Bangor Daily News and Sunday's (front page) Portland Press Herald follow.

Copyright 2000 Bangor Daily News

BANGOR DAILY NEWS (BANGOR, MAINE)

January 31, 2000 Monday

HEADLINE: Officials take heat over salmon listing Snowe, Collins, Baldacci attack reasons behind federal endangered species proposal

BYLINE: Mary Anne Clancy Of the NEWS Staff

MACHIAS -- Seven hours into a public hearing Saturday, Dana Urquhart stepped to the microphone and addressed representatives of two federal agencies that want to protect the wild Atlantic salmon in eight Maine rivers as an endangered species.

"I have to oppose it because you haven't shown me anything but speculation," said the Bucks Harbor fisherman turned salmon farmer.

He told600 people gathered at the University of Maine at Machias he does not trust federal Endangered Species Act proposals.

"I have to think there is something else behind it. "

Suspicion about the proposal was a theme voiced throughout the day Saturday as a crowd turned out for the first of three public hearings conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The university set up closed-circuit televisions in two additional buildings so that those who could not fit into the main hall could view the proceedings.

Washington County is home to five of the eight rivers, and many of those who spoke said they feared an endangered species listing because it could have disastrous effects on the county's salmon aquaculture, wild blueberry and forest industries.

In addition to the specter of additional regulations is a suspicion voiced over the past several weeks by many opponents, including Gov. Angus King. They say a listing would allow "radical environmentalists" to use the Endangered Species Act to turn Washington County into "a wilderness park. "

"We've been called promoters of fear," said George "Bud" Finch, the mayor of Eastport. "I'm very proud of that. There are people who want to put us out of here so they can have it for their playground. "

Many state and local officials spoke against the federal proposal, but the most vigorous attack came from U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, who opened the hearing with a 40-minute assault on the science and the timing of the proposal.

Snowe called the proposed protection listing "a Draconian proposal" and said it would result in "an economic decapitation of this part of the state. "

She berated the federal agencies for what she said was "an about-face" on their 1997 decision to accept Maine's Atlantic salmon conservation plan rather than list the salmon as a threatened species.

Now, just two years later, the federal agencies have decided to list the species as endangered -- despite all that Maine has accomplished, she said.

"And you haven't been able to specify one thing that a listing could do that the state plan can't," Snowe said.

Snowe accused both fish agencies of acting out of fear that they would lose a lawsuit by national and regionalenvironmental groups.

Defenders of Wildlife and others sued U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service early last year, maintaining that the agencies violated the Endangered Species Act when they accepted the state plan rather than listing the fish as threatened.

A federal ruling on the lawsuit, which seeks an emergency listing of the fish, is expected any day.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins also questioned what would be accomplished by listing the fish.

Collins said there is "no compelling evidence" that the fish in the eight rivers were any different from other Maine salmon and no indication that conditions had changed since 1997, when the state plan was accepted.

U.S. Rep. John Baldacci said he understands there are deficiencies in the state plan, including some issues that haven't been addressed. But, he said, the federal agencies themselves have indicated that creation of local watershed councils on the eight rivers was one of the bright spots in the state's efforts.

"This is only going to be done with cooperation and it is important that people in Washington County stay involved," Baldacci said.

But the state has prohibited most local involvement, said Nate Pennell, director of the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District.

Pennell, speaking as an individual, said his agency was excluded from the group developing the state plan, despite the fact that it does much of the planning, writing, survey work and inventories for natural resource-based projects in Washington County.

"Our district reviewed the state plan and found it full of inaccurate information that, if implemented, would hasten the end of Atlantic salmon," Pennell said. "The people in charge of the plan have neither the knowledge nor the skills to save the salmon, and the local people have been excluded. "

Clint Townsend of Skowhegan, a former U.S. commissioner for the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, also expressed concern with the Maine salmon conservation plan.

Townsend said he served on one of the subcommittees that developed the state plan, but began to lose confidence in it after the state Land Use Regulation Commission ignored the advice of its own advisory committee when setting 1998irrigation withdrawal limits for Cherryfield Foods, a Washington County company that is the largest blueberry grower and processor in Maine.

Irrigation withdrawals from the Washington County salmon rivers have been identified by the federal agencies as a potential threat to salmon habitat.

Townsend said his confidence was further eroded when the state continued to support use of European salmon by Maine's aquaculture industry. Federal agencies have expressed concern that European salmon will breed with Maine's wild salmon, changing their genetic structure.

"I feel there has been a lack of commitment on the part of the King administration," Townsend said. "I'd call on the congressional delegation to put some real money into the recovery of Atlantic salmon. "

Last week's vote by the Maine Legislature to put $ 804,000 into the state conservation plan was good, but it came a year late, he said.

Ralph Keef, president of the Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, said his organization worked with the state plan for two years, but decided to join in the federal lawsuit because the state plan isn't working.

"The plan is seriously lacking in funding and staffing," Keef said. "The fish are telling us we're about out of time. The science is telling us we're out of time. The last and best hope to save the salmon in Maine is the Endangered Species Act. "

Ed Baum, the senior fisheries scientist at the Atlantic Salmon Commission, testified as an individual, but said his comments were based on 30 years of experience in Maine's salmon restoration program. The biological significance of the Maine salmon is without question, Baum said. Maine is "home" to the only remaining naturally reproducing salmon in the United States, he said.

The Maine fish differ from Canadian salmon not only genetically, but in terms of behavior and life history, including how long it takes a juvenile salmon to reach the stage of development when it can leave fresh water for the ocean, the age at which the salmon reaches sexual maturity, and how many years the fish spends at sea before returning to its home river to spawn the next generation.

The number of adult wild salmon returning to the eight Maine rivers has dropped from about 500 to 700 fish in the late 1980s to an estimated 150 in 1999, Baum said.

Baum said he believes wild Maine salmon are "perilously close to extinction. " Many events over recent years demonstrate that "the state is neither willing nor capable of affording the dedication, commitment and resources" to protect the salmon, he said.

Some speakers, including Jon Reisman, a Cooper selectman and a member of the Dennys River Watershed Council, said they would stop their volunteer efforts to protect the fish if the federal agencies list them as endangered.

William Patrick, the environmental engineer for Cherryfield Foods and the president of the Pleasant River Watershed Council, said the salmon in the Pleasant River are already extinct.

"There are not the numbers of adult fish or any other fish that statistically will allow the Pleasant River to redevelop anykind of a return," Patrick said. "What the Pleasant River needs is a restoration plan, not a listing plan. "

The public hearings will be at 6 p.m. today at the Ellsworth Middle School and at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Rockland Elementary School.

GRAPHIC: George Smith of Mount Vernon waits to speak on behalf of the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine during an Atlantic salmon public information meeting and hearing Saturday afternoon at the University of Maine at Machias. Smith was 14th on a list of more than 100 people who signed up to make statements about protection for the salmon. (NEWS Photo by Anthony Robert La Penna)

LOAD-DATE: January 31, 2000

-----------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2000 Guy Gannett Communications, Inc.

Portland Press Herald

January 30, 2000, Sunday, CITY EDITION

SECTION: FRONT, Pg. 6A

HEADLINE: FATE OF THE ATLANTIC SALMON

BYLINE: Reporting by Dieter Bradbury

STEADY DECLINE

Historical records suggest that hundreds of thousands of Atlantic salmon once made annual spawning runs in rivers from Maine to Connecticut.

But those numbers have dwindled steadily since the 1800s, due largely to overfishing, pollution and erection of dams that cut off spawning habitat.

In the late1940s, sport fishermen in Maine became so alarmed about the declining population that they convinced the state to create the Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission to help restore salmon runs.

During the 1960s the federal government joined in by building hatcheries where biologists hold wild broodstock and raise their young for restocking the rivers.

Since the hatchery program began, millions of young salmon have been pumped into Maine rivers, at an estimated cost $ 115 million.

Federal energy and environmental policies have also changed to require dam owners to install more fish ladders, adjust water releases and take other steps to improve fish habitat.

Yet the salmon runs have continued to decline.

By the most recent estimates, the eight rivers where federal regulators want to list salmon under the Endangered Species Act saw a spawning run of only 100 to 150 salmon in 1999.

SPAWNING NUMBERS

In seven of the rivers where the fish would be listed as endangered, adult salmon spawning runs have declined significantly over the past 30 years. The numbers are based on actual trap catches in the rivers, as well as observations by fisheries biologists. A new study in the Narraguagus has also shown that juveniles preparing to migrate to the ocean are surviving at only half the rate anticipated by scientists.

Number of salmon

1973(peak) - 520 salmon

RECREATIONAL FISHING

The Atlantic salmon is often called the king of sportfish because of its spirit, beauty and endurance.

Along the Penobscot River, the state's premiere river for salmon fishing, anglers from all over the continent wait in line every spring for a chance to pull a fish from one of several pools above Bangor.

The Atlantic Salmon Federation and other conservation groups have promoted a catch-and-release ethic for years to protect dwindling salmon populations.

But with some rivers now attracting only a relative handful of wild fish, even catch-and-release fishing can a threat to the salmon's survival.

Biologists say the population can't afford any unnecessary losses. And even the most careful fisherman can damage a salmon, especially if it's being released into less-than-optimium conditions in its river. In December, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife suspended all recreational fishing for Atlantic salmon until the population recovers.

OCEAN ENVIRONMENT

Atlantic salmon migrate to the North Atlantic Ocean after they mature in Maine's rivers. They spend one to three years at sea before returning to the rivers to spawn.

In the ocean, salmon are subject to a variety of stresses, ranging from predation to changing temperature conditions and commercial fishing.

Commercial fishermen in the Canadian Maritimes, Newfoundland, Labrador and Greenland once took tens of thousands of tons of salmon each year. The Canadian government virtually shut down the commercial fishery in the 1990s by imposing moratoriums and buyouts. In Greenland, authorities have agreed to restrict the annual catch to 22,000 pounds through this year.

But other problems faced by salmon at sea are beyond immediate human control. Scientists have found that temperature fluctuations are occuring in areas where salmon congregate in the North Atlantic, possibly reducing the food supply.

The return of the striped bass, which preys on salmon, together with predation by cormorants, seals and other natural enemies also affects salmon in the ocean.

MIGRATION ROUTES

Salmon migration

Maine; Atlantic Ocean; Greenland

AGRICULTURAL IMPACT

Wild blueberries flourish in the rocky, acidic soil that dominates the watersheds of coastal salmon rivers.

Most of the annual harvest is taken from Washington and Hancock counties, with a portion in midcoast Maine.

Blueberry growers have tripled their crop yields from productive acres during the 1990's by applying pesticides to curb weeds or bugs and irrigating their fields.

However, irrigation and pesticide use may pose a threat to salmon and their habitat. If growers take too much water for irrigation, rivers will run too shallow and water temperatures rise too high for fish to survive.

Maine regulators have set standards to limit water withdrawals for irrigation from salmon rivers. However, the subject remains a concern for federal biologists.

Trace amounts of pesticide have also been found in at least one Down East salmon river, and the Board of Pesticides Control is working to monitor pesticide levels to prevent harm to fish.

One Canadian study suggests salmon runs in New Brunswick dropped when fish were exposed to chemicals commonly used as inert ingredients in a pesticide.

But scientists still now little about salmon-pesticide interactions, and more study is needed.

WILD BLUEBERRY PRODUCTION

Millions of pounds

'92(peak) - 84.2 million pounds

Blueberry growers in Maine: 500

Acres under production: 30,000

Average yield: 2,200 pounds per acre

Value of product: $ 65 million

Employment: 8,000 seasonal, 300 full-time

Staff photo by John Ewing Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Maine Aquaculture Association, Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine

SALMON FARMING

Virtually every wild salmon river along the eastern Maine coast has a collection of aquaculture pens at its mouth, each stuffed with tens of thousands of farmed salmon.

The $ 68 million aquaculture industry is an important part of the Down East economy, providing badly needed jobs and income in Washington and Hancock counties.

But fisheries biologists are concerned about threats to wild salmon from the fish farms.

They worry that farm fish, carrying European genes introduced to speed growth, will escape from their pens and breed with wild salmon. That could compromise the genetic integrity that enables wild fish to adapt to conditions peculiar to their native rivers.

Fish pens, if not managed carefully, can also be breeding grounds for diseases like infectious salmon anemia, a bacterial condition that has forced farmers in the nearby Canadian Maritimes to destroy millions of fish.

So far, Maine's salmon farms have escaped serious disease problems. But fisheries biologists fear that wild salmon are vulnerable to a disease outbreak if any infected farm fish escape into the rivers from their pens

Escaping aquaculture salmon could also occupy the limited supply of habitat in the rivers.

Federal biologists have been pressuring the industry to stop introducing European strains of fish in Maine, but fish farmers have refused to cooperate. They say the genetic modifications are vital to their ability to meet foreign competition.

The industry also downplays concerns about genetic disruption and disease. It says few fish have escaped from the pens, and farm fish are ill-equipped to survive, breed or compete for habitat in the rivers.

Value of aquaculture industry: $ 68 million

Number of jobs: 750

Total annual production: 30 million pounds

Number of licensed pen sites: 42

(Map of Maine coast) Staff art by Alfred Wood, Reporting by Dieter Bradbury

Sheepscot River- Salmon habitat

Ducktrap River - Salmon habitat

Cove Brook - Salmon habitat

Narraguagus River - Salmon habitat; Fish farms

Pleasant River - Salmon habitat; Fish farms

E. Machias River - Salmon habitat; Fish farms

Machias River - Salmon habitat; Fish farms

Dennys River - Salmon habitat; Fish farms

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

Adult salmon mature after two to three years at sea. Most weigh eight to 15 pounds when they return to their native rivers to spawn. Some adults, called kelts or black salmon, return to the ocean after spawning.

1. Females bury fertilized eggs on stream bottoms in the fall in gravel nests called redds.

2. The eggs hatch into alevin, or sac fry, in the spring. The yolk sac is gradually absorbed.

3. Three to six weeks after hatching, alevins become fry emerging from the gravel to seek food.

4. The fry develop into parr, about two inches long, which feed and grow in their native streams for one to three years.

5. Smolts, which average six-inches long, develop from parr and undergo changes in their body chemistry in the spring so they can migrate to the ocean.

NOTES: Sidebar salmon

GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: February 1, 2000


(3) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: New Scientist: Do escaped farm salmon jeopardize native populations?

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 21:03:09 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

Copyright 2000 New Scientist IPC Magazines Ltd

New Scientist

February 6, 2000

SECTION: This Week, Pg. 12

LENGTH: 304 words

HEADLINE: Call of the wild

BYLINE: Debora MacKenzie

HIGHLIGHT: Do escaped farm salmon jeopardise native populations ?

A MAJOR row has broken out in Canada over a proposal to import Norwegian salmon to stock fish farms. The government's Office of Aquaculture and the farming industry have dismissed fears of escaped salmon wreaking havoc, saying they will enrich the genetic diversity of wild stocks. But last week in Montreal the government's fisheries scientists warned that escapees could jeopardise the survival of Canada's wild salmon.

Canadian salmon farmers want to import breeding stock from Norway's highly successful farms. "They want the same opportunity to improve their stock as other livestock producers," says Dave Conley, a spokesman for the Office of Aquaculture. The office wants the government to lift its ban on importing farmed salmon.

In October, Ray Peterson, a retired cattle geneticist at the University of British Columbia, wrote a paper for the department claiming wild salmon would benefit from some new genes. "Isolation of salmon stocks should be avoided," writes Peterson. He says they have lost their genetic diversity.

"Nonsense," says Carl Walters, a fish biologist at the University of British Columbia. Wild salmon are genetically very diverse, he says, while farmed fish are less diverse selections from wild stocks. He says that salmon, unlike cattle, are highly adapted to local conditions that do not restrict genetic diversity.

Fisheries scientists are concerned that the sheer number of escaped farmed salmon could overwhelm native stocks. At a meeting in Montreal last week, scientists working for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans recommended continuing the ban on Norwegian salmon. And a leaked report by the scientists says studies have shown that wild fish are much more genetically diverse than Peterson claims.

For more science news see http://www.newscientist.com


(4) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --


Subject: Fish farming news and information from around the world

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:25:34 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

1) Ocean Spar delivers cages to Canary Islands for sea bream farming
2) Norwegian smolt in closed systems
3) Norway diversifying with cod and pollock farming
4) Halibut breakthrough for Stolt Sea Farm
5) Further consolidations and buyouts likely: $4.6 billion raised for investments
6) Salmon escapes in Scotland ‘not a threat’
7) GMOs in animal feed must be labeled in EU
8) Battle over inshore fish farming in NZ
9) Maine Governor’s legacy
10) U.S. aquaculture generates nearly $1 billion reports recently-released 1998 Census of Aquaculture
11) Fish-farm impact on benthic assemblages from Marine Pollution Bulletin

From FIS:

1) Ocean Spar delivers cages to Canary Islands

UNITED STATES Tuesday, February 15, 2000, 21:30 (GMT + 9)

American firm Ocean Spar Technologies reports that two, 9000 cubic metre Ocean Spar® Sea Cages have been ordered for sea bream farming in the Canary Islands. Technicians will oversee anchor placement and the final installation later this year.

Ocean Spar claims that no other cage system matches their performance in high currents. In currents of 1.0 metre per second (2 knots), conventional systems ("weighted bag" systems) can lose more than 80% of their full volume, while the Ocean Spar® cages reportedly maintain over 90% of their volume in currents up to 1.75 metres per second (3+ knots). The firm claims that its cages therefore offer stable net shape, a larger holding volume and a better environment for growing fish.

The firm believes that the design of its cages is a major selling point, as they are structurally simple, yet ocean compliant. The simple design means low maintenance, easy installation, and exceptional value, important factors for every farmer. Ocean forces such as waves and currents pass easily through the system leaving it relatively unaffected. Less movement means less wear for longer life and reduced maintenance.

The firm offers over 25 years of experience in cage design and development and claims the Ocean Spar® line of Sea Cages is the result of extensive research over the past ten years. This includes a worldwide market study of the industry´s needs, extensive engineering feasibility studies and the actual operation of its systems raising fish in high energy, oceanic conditions.

By Karen Myles

-----------------------------------------

From IntraFish:

2) Demand for smolt to be contained in closed systems Publisert: 08.02.2000 07:00

The committee that is working on the new smolt regulations is against production of smolt in new floating marine farm installations in Norway.

The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries wants smolt production to take place in closed systems - preferably under a roof - so that one has total control.

In the work on new smolt regulations, the prime objective is to make a regulation that can prevent the outbreak of contagious disease", said Aalvik.

---------------------------------

From Seafood.com:

3) Cod Farming in Norway Attracting More Capital

Seafood.com Feb 14- Fjordlaks, a salmon fishery group in Norway, is about to be given permission by the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries to establish a large scale cod and pollock farming operation in Sykkylven.

This is the second major recent investment in cod farming in Norway, which appears now to be attracting capital.

Marin Fisk Holding in Tromso had previously announced a major investment in a cod smolt producing facility. The same technical model will be used by Fjordlaks. Declining cod stocks in the Barents Sea, together with excellent salmon profits, make this a good time for Norwegian farming interests to diversify.

----------------------------------

From IntraFish:

4) Halibut breakthrough for Stolt Sea Farm Publisert: 03.02.2000 10:08

The marine farming company Stolt Sea Farm increased their turnover last year by NOK 200 million kroner to NOK 2.1 billion. Production of halibut was increased by 500 per cent to 240 tonnes.

Stolt-Nielsen is officially presenting its results for 1999 today, but the newspaper Fiskaren has already managed to gain access to the figures that are to be presented to the market. Expectations are high on the market for an excellent result, not least due to a lucrative year for operations in the marine farming company Stolt Sea Farm. Some contend that this can contribute to the company increasing its value.

Turbot production increased by 400 tonnes to 2,000 tonnes last year. Sturgeon production remained stable at 400 tonnes. Sturgeon is caviar and earns big bucks.

Stolt Sea Farm runs marine farming on several continents. In Norway the company has 25 salmon licences. In addition, Stolt also purchased the company Aqua Foods last year, which produces 6,500 tonnes of salmon per annum in Canada, and they have a minority shareholding in the Chilean company Eicosal. The post is equivalent to 3,000 tonnes of salmon per annum.

This year Stolt Sea Farm will be increasing their sales of salmon and trout to 67,000 tonnes in gutted weight, on a global basis. Then Stolt will really be breathing down Hydro Seafood's neck, and possibly surpass Nutreco.

Last year Hydro Seafood produced just on 70,000 tonnes and Nutreco reputedly between 65,000 and 70,000 tonnes, wrote the newspaper Fiskaren.

----------------------------------

From Seafood.com:

5) $4.6 Billion Raised for Salmon Investment in Norway

Seafood.com Jan 15- According to a report in Intrafish.com, the eight companies bidding for Hydro Seafood’s salmon farming operations in Norway have raised about $3.4 billion in capital commitments. The price for Hydro Seafood is expected to be around NOK 3.5 Billion, or $US 425 million.

The companies involved in the bidding are PacPro, an investment group organized around Leroy, Stolt Sea Farm, Rieber, Nutreco, Cinven, Conti Group, and one additional unnamed foreign company. Norsk Hydro has set a bid deadline for February 17, after which they will select two companies to proceed to the next round of negotiations.

In addition, the feed company Ewos is for sale, for which bidders have raised about $1.2 billion. Four companies have been reported as bidders for Ewos.

The implication is that the unsuccessful bidders for both companies will continue to look for attractive investments in the salmon sector, and as a result further consolidation and buyouts are likely.

----------------------------------

From IntraFish:

6) Escaped salmon not a threat Publisert: 14.02.2000 07:00

Western Isles Seafood Company Ltd (WISCO) has admitted that just over 11 thousand salmon (57 tonnes) escaped from its cages in West Loch Roag, Isle of Lewis, Fish Farming Today reports.

The salmon escaped when gale force 9 winds pushed the fish through torn nets caused by seals. The fish weighed an average of 5kg, and were certified to be healthy.

The incident was immediately reported to the Scottish Executive, although Friends of the Earth criticised the government for not divulging specific details of the escape and for not protecting Scotland's wild fisheries sufficiently. Kevin Dunion, director of FoES, said: "Yet another mass escape blows out of the water claims that Scottish salmon farming is 'the most tightly regulated in the world."

A WISCO spokesperson said that the fish pose no threat to the environment, and the company had been cooperating closely with SEPA and the Western Isles Fisheries Trust who had been placing nets to try to prevent any of the escapes running up the local river system. In fact, as FFT went to press, there had been little sign of the salmon since the escape, with only one whole fish, and the remains of a half eaten salmon caught in the nets. Proving, the company said that the salmon stock had most likely been devoured by seals".

----------------------------------

7) GMOs in animal feed must be labelled - EU Publisert: 27.01.2000 07:00

The European Parliament Agriculture Committee is calling for clear labelling of genetically modified additives in animal feedingstuffs. It believes that this is the only way of ensuring that end users can avoid consuming food containing GMO components or food produced on the basis of GMOs.

A report by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, the German Green Committee Chair, which the committee adopted unanimously on Tuesday, amends a proposed directive on additives in animal feed to ensure that GMO additives are identified, are only licensed for sale if they are safe for human health and the environment, and are subject to environmental impact assessments.

Given the high level of public concern over food safety and "high-tech" feed additives such as GMOs, antibiotics and growth promoters, the committee is demanding codecision, instead of simple consultation, for this proposal.

The committee supports the basic aim of the Commission's original proposal, which is to harmonise procedures for replacing marketing authorisations of these "high-tech" additives. It is tabling a couple of amendments to tighten up the provisions and ensure that all firms are treated equally during the re-evaluation period for authorisations. The report goes to the full House in Strasbourg in February.

----------------------------------

From FIS:

8) Golden Bay aquaculture industry under threat

NEW ZEALAND Thursday, February 10, 2000, 08:00 (GMT + 9)

This week, the future of Golden Bay´s NZ$25 million-a-year aquaculture industry will be settled at an Environment Court hearing. Environmentalists and tourist interests wish to preserve the present scenic and recreational character of the bay, while fishermen and fish farmers are lobbying for the continuation and development of the bay´s fisheries, an industry which provides potential for job opportunities and business development.

The main argument in the case is whether marine farming structures should be allowed close inshore, where they might spoil boating and the sea views which tourists come for, or whether they should be farther out to sea. However, farmers claim that their gear is more likely to be damaged farther out to sea and mussel farming or spat catching means conflicts with established fin fishing and scallop-seeding practices.

The court first sat for five weeks starting 1 November 1999, and lawyers expect that the case will be heard for another three weeks.

There are competing demands on the bay´s water space for the growing aquaculture industry from shellfish processors for their rapidly developing export markets, and from companies processing them for quasi-medicinal purposes. In addition, demand for spat-catching sites is increasing (not technically marine farming) for both mussels and scallops, from the Challenger Scallop Enhancement Company for its rotational fishing programme, and from inshore commercial fin fishermen.

The Tasman District Council hopes the case, which has already cost about NZ$100,000 in lawyers´ fees and staff time, will lead to the satisfactory completion of the coastal section of the plan.

By Karen Myles

----------------------------------

Thanks to Jed Wright for passing this along from the Forecaster, a suburban Portland (ME) paper:

9) Governor King’s legacy

February 10, 2000

FORECASTER

Page 11.

Dark Legacy

John's column. By John Cole

Picture of the week: the Associated Press shot of College of the Atlantic students and their protest poster at a public hearing in Ellsworth on the question of the Atlantic salmon's federal classification as an endangered species in Maine.

"Can Angus, Not Salmon" was the poster's message although it was a minority voice at the hearing, it was right on target.

At three public hearings on the issue, voices against the listing far out- shouted the salmon's defenders. And every one of those strident voices echoed our governor, who has been protesting the listing for most of his second, and last, term. Indeed, it is Angus who has led the charge against the listing from the very first discussions about the possibility that the Atlantic salmon might become subject to federal "endangered species" regulations. Angus countered by saying the state could handle the problem and proposed a five-year salmon restoration plan. And then did next to nothing.

Salmon defenders saw the ploy for what it was and still is: a delaying game. They sued to have the feds get involved. They sued because the state plan was 90 percent talk and very little action. And they sued because the wild Atlantic salmon in Maine water is at the brink of extinction, if not already gone.

So Angus turns up the demagogue volume. He says stuff like, "Over my dead body." And paints the federal government _ the very same government, by the way, that sends Maine hundreds of millions of dollars every year _ as a know_nothing dictatorship that will use the Endangered Species Act to tell us how we can heat our homes. And more. "If: the salmon lovers get their way, Washington will tell you how large a lawn you can have," says Angus, hitting his demagogic stride.

It's a sorry spectacle. I have known; and liked, Angus for more than 30 years now. This inexplicable excess, this stupid demagogy, this pandering to the self_interests of the selfish and ignorant, is a sad sight indeed. Especially when it could have been so easy to do the right thing.

The tragedy has been compounded by others in public office, most notably Sen. Olympia Snowe. She's just bright enough to sense that there are more ape_necks out there than thinkers, an equation that can translate to victory in her next election if she panders to the booboisie, to lift a term from Mencken.

Just think of what might have happened. Suppose Angus had been less strident, less closeminded. Suppose he'd been more like Angus King instead of a Newt Gingrich clone. He could have met with the feds, discussed and negotiated. This is our government we're talking about here, not the Gestapo.

Thanks to the Endangered Species Act, many living creatures _ including our national symbol, the bald eagle _ have been rescued and restored.

But no, for reasons known only to him, Angus has it in for the Atlantic salmon. So, ladies and gentlemen of Maine, we preside over the demise of this most wild and noble creature, this symbol of grace, courage, and an indomitable will to live, to insure the survival of its species. It has taken incalculable abuse to kill the last of Maine's Atlantic salmon and our governor has driven home the final spike.

A while back, pundits were pondering this s governor's legacy. They said he had yet to define it. They need wonder no longer. The salmon's death in Maine waters belongs to Angus. It is a dark legacy indeed.

------------------------

Thanks to Dave Conley for passing this along from Fishmonger News Network:

10) U.S. aquaculture generates nearly $1 billion First-ever national aquaculture census confirms fish-farming's contribution

By Rick Ramseyer Feb. 8 - Fishmonger News Network - The first in-depth census of U.S. aquaculture shows the industry recorded sales of $978 million in 1998 - a 20 percent jump from the previous year and a clear indication of fish-farming's clout. The just-released 1998 Census of Aquaculture provides a detailed picture of the industry's status and "confirms that it is growing rapidly," says Debra Kenerson, a statistician for the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), which conducted the research.

The entire report, available online at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm, is based on questionnaire responses from at least 4,023 aquaculture operations, including growers and hatcheries, Kenerson says.

Highlights include:

The value of U.S. aquacultural products totaled $807 million in 1997 and rose sharply to $978 million in 1998. Mississippi topped the sales charts, snaring nearly 30 percent of all 1998 domestic aquaculture production in 1998. Arkansas, Florida, Maine and Alabama ranked second through fifth, respectively, in sales. Food fish, including catfish, trout, salmon, tilapia and hybrid striped bass, accounted for roughly two-third of all aquaculture sales and represented just under half of aquaculture farms. Food-fish growers netted average sales of $387,000 per farm in 1998.

The census process, which took about year, involved personnel from 45 NASS field offices nationwide, Kenerson says. The study highlights 37 different species, she adds, including food fish, baitfish, mollusks, crustaceans, ornamental fish, sport/game fish, algae and sea vegetables.

An array of aquaculture issues are also addressed, ranging from methods of production and water sources to sales outlets, cooperative agreements, contracts and operation sizes. A bound version of the census will be available in about three weeks.

For quick facts about the U.S. aquaculture industry, click here http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/quickfacts/index.htm

---------------------

11) Studies carried out several months after cage deployment might underestimate the actual impact on benthic assemblages.

Mazzola, A., Mirto, S., and Danovaro, R. Initial fish-farm impact on meiofaunal assemblages in coastal sediments of the Western Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(12): 1126-1133, 1999.

Notes: We studied the initial impact of organic loads due to the biodeposition of a new fish farm in a non-impacted coastal area of the Tyrrhenian Sea (Western Mediterranean). Sediment chemistry and meiofaunal assemblages were investigated from July 1997 to February 1998 on a monthly basis at two stations: the first was located under the fish farm, while the second was at about 1 km distance, and served as control. Variations in the biochemical composition of the sedimentary organic matter and meiofaunal community structure were also related to changes in reared fish biomass. The presence of the cage induced rapid changes in the benthic compartment: the sediments reached rapidly (i.e., after only 6 weeks) reducing conditions. A significant accumulation of biopolymeric carbon was observed beneath the cage both at the beginning of this study and 5-7 months after cage disposal and appeared to be related to the fish-farm production cycle. Sedimentary proteins and lipids resulted to be good descriptors of medium-term fish-farm impact. Changes in the sediment conditions beneath the cage determined a significant reduction of the total meiofaunal density (on average 70%). Most meiofaunal taxa, including nematodes, copepods and ostracods displayed a significant decrease in the farm sediments within 3 months after cage installation. Kinorhynchs appeared extremely sensitive to reducing conditions of the sediments and disappeared almost completely, whereas polychaete densities remained unvaried. After initial impact meiofaunal assemblages responded to organic enrichment recovering, at least partially, their apparent structural characteristics. These data indicate that studies carried out several months after cage deployment might underestimate the actual impact on benthic assemblages.


(5) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: CBS on genetically-altered salmon

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:45:50 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

News transcripts follow.

See these web sites for further information:

CBS: CBS News Home Page

A/F Protein, Inc: A/F Protein Inc. Home Page

Environmental Defense: Environmental Defense Home Page

Copyright 2000 Burrelle's Information Services

CBS News Transcripts

SHOW: CBS EVENING NEWS (6:30 PM ET)

February 14, 2000, Monday

TYPE: Profile

HEADLINE: IN-DEPTH LOOK AT GENE-ALTERED SALMON

ANCHORS: DAN RATHER

REPORTERS: WYATT ANDREWS

Tonight's EYE ON AMERICA is an in-depth look at a gene-altered first, one you've never seen before--fish genetically altered to grow bigger and more rapidly. Its developers soon hope to take it out of the lab and into the food chain to your dinner table. CBS' Wyatt Andrews reports on a gene food controversy on a whole new scale.

WYATT ANDREWS reporting:

These salmon did not get the gene--the small group. And the larger ones, these inherited the gene.

These salmon were all born on the same day, but the bigger ones are genetically altered--gene spliced with another fish species--so that they grow twice as fast. Are you telling me all these fish are the same age?

Mr. ELLIOTT ENTIS (CEO, AF Protein): They're the same age. And not only that, they are brothers and sisters.

ANDREWS: For Americans, this is the first look at this mixed-species technology.

Mr. ENTIS: We have simply changed one gene in the salmon.

ANDREWS: And if Elliot Entis has his way, you'll be eating this gene-altered salmon and trout sometime within the next two to three years.

Do you eat this?

Mr. ENTIS: I absolutely eat this.

ANDREWS: Entis' Canadian-based fish farm, AF-Protein, may be the first to get FDA approval to market a transgenic animal, an animal genetically composed of two different fish.

Mr. ENTIS: Basically, we've taken a snippet of DNA from another edible fish, either a winter flounder or a commonly found fish called an ocean pout, and we've matched that snippet of DNA to the salmon's growth hormone.

ANDREWS: And growth means money. Entis says his fish can reach market size in 18 months, instead of three years, with the same taste and nutrition as their farm-raised kin.

Mr. ENTIS: We are, I have to say, 100 percent certain that this is safe.

ANDREWS: Stop right there. A lot of people will say you're messing with the genetics of this fish. How can you be so certain?

Mr. ENTIS: We know exactly what the gene which we have inserted, or that genetic instruction, expresses or produces in the salmon. We know and can prove that it only produces salmon growth hormone.

ANDREWS: There is no law against mixed species animals, but AF-Protein will have to prove these fish are safe to the FDA. There is one major environmental concern: what happens when these big voracious salmon escape from the farm--and there is no doubt they will--and then begin to breed with salmon in the wild?

Ms. REBECCA GOLDBURG (Environmental Defense): The risk is genetic pollution.

ANDREWS: Rebecca Goldburg is a senior scientist at Environmental Defense.

Ms. GOLDBURG: If you muck up the gene pool of wild salmon by introducing the genes of farm salmon, you can make the wild salmon populations less able to survive and reproduce in the future.

ANDREWS: Entis responds that wild Atlantic salmon are in danger already. He argues that without this technology, there will be no way to meet consumer demand.

Mr. ENTIS: We can produce more protein, more cheaply, for more people than would otherwise be the case.

ANDREWS: So now, quietly, farmers are crossing the line from crossbred animals to mixed-species animals, and arguing this kind of low-level mutation is what it will take to feed the world. On Prince Edward Island, Canada, Wyatt Andrews for EYE ON AMERICA.

RATHER: Tomorrow night, we'll give you even more in-depth reporting about this gene-altered fish story. Wyatt Andrews will give you a look into who decides and how it is decided whether these fish are safe to eat.

Announcer: For the latest medical news and information, visit our health Web site cbshealthwatch.com.

Two versions of essentially the same story follow:

Copyright 2000 Burrelle's Information Services

CBS News Transcripts

SHOW: CBS MORNING NEWS (6:30 AM ET)

February 15, 2000, Tuesday

TYPE: Newscast

LENGTH: 505 words

HEADLINE: GENETICALLY ALTERED SALMON BEING DEVELOPED THAT SCIENTISTS SAY WILL HELP FEED THE WORLD'S GROWING POPULATION

ANCHORS: JULIE CHEN

REPORTERS: WYATT ANDREWS

BODY:

JULIE CHEN, anchor:

A super breed of fish is being developed that scientists say will help feed the world's growing population. But critics warn these genetic alterations could have dire consequences. Wyatt Andrews reports in this morning's Eye on America.

WYATT ANDREWS reporting:

These salmon were all born on the same day, but the bigger ones are genetically altered, gene spliced with another fish species so that they grow twice as fast.

Are you telling me all these fish are the same age?

Unidentified Man #1: They're the same age. Not only that, they're brothers and sisters.

ANDREWS: For Americans, this is the first look at this mixed-species technology.

Mr. ELLIOT ENIS (Fish Farmer): We have simply changed one gene in the salmon.

ANDREWS: And if Elliot Entis has his way, you'll be eating this gene-altered salmon and trout sometime within the next two to three years.

Do you eat this?

Mr. ENIS: I absolutely eat this.

ANDREWS: Entis' Canadian-based fish farm, AF-Protein, may be the first to get FDA approval to market a transgenic animal, an animal genetically composed of two different fish.

Mr. ENIS: Basically, we've taken a snippet of DNA from another edible fish, either a winter flounder or a commonly found fish called an ocean pout, and we've matched that snippet of DNA to the salmon's growth hormone.

ANDREWS: And growth means money. Entis says his fish can reach market size in 18 months instead of three years, with the same taste and nutrition as their farm-raised kin.

Mr. ENIS: We are, I have to say, 100 percent certain that this is safe.

ANDREWS: Stop right there. A lot of people will say you're messing with the genetics of this fish. How can you be that certain?

Mr. ENIS: We know exactly what the gene which we have inserted, or that genetic construction, expresses or produces in the salmon. We know and can prove that it only produces salmon growth hormone.

ANDREWS: There is no law against mixed species animals, but AF-Protein will have to prove these fish are safe to the FDA. There is one major environmental concern. What happens when these big voracious salmon escape from the farm--and there's no doubt they will--and then begin to breed with salmon in the wild?

Ms. REBECCA GOLDBURG (Environmental Defense): The risk is genetic pollution.

ANDREWS: Rebecca Goldburg is a senior scientist at Environmental Defense.

Ms. GOLDBURG: If you muck up the gene pool of wild salmon by introducing the genes of farm salmon, you can make the wild salmon populations less able to survive and reproduce in the future.

ANDREWS: Entis responds that wild Atlantic salmon are in danger already. He argues that without this technology there will be no way to meet consumer demand. So now, quietly, farmers are crossing the line from cross-bred animals to mixed-species animals and arguing this kind of low-level mutation is what it will take to feed the world. On Prince Edward Island, Canada, Wyatt Andrews, for Eye on America.

LANGUAGE: English

LOAD-DATE: February 15, 2000

Copyright 2000 Burrelle's Information Services

CBS News Transcripts

SHOW: THE OSGOOD FILE (Various Times)

February 15, 2000, Tuesday

TYPE: Commentary

HEADLINE: GENETICALLY ALTERED FISH

REPORTERS: CHARLES OSGOOD

BODY:

CHARLES OSGOOD reporting:

THE OSGOOD FILE, sponsored in part by Deloitte and Touche. I'm Charles Osgood.

It's possible now to alter fish genetically to make them grow bigger faster. It's being done in the lab. The result could be in the market or on your dinner table soon. The only question is whether it should be. That story after this for Deloitte and Touche, one of the nation's leading professional services firms.

(Announcements)

OSGOOD: At his AF-Protein fish farm in Canada, Elliot Enis has produced a new kind of fast-growing extra large salmon. He could produce as any as the market required if he gets the FDA approval he's applied for. He says it's not at all difficult to reproduce.

Mr. ELLIOT ENIS: We have simply changed one gene in the salmon.

OSGOOD: It's as nutritious and delicious as any other salmon, Enis says. You and I haven't tasted it yet, but he has.

Mr. ENIS: I absolutely eat this.

OSGOOD: The salmon in question is what's called transgenic. It's genetically composed of two different species of fish.

Mr. ENIS: Basically we've taken a snippet of DNA from another edible fish, either a winter flounder or a commonly found fish called an ocean pout, and we've matched that snippet of DNA to the salmon's growth hormones.

OSGOOD: Normally it takes three years for a salmon to reach market size. He can do it in 18 months. It's perfectly safe, Enis says.

Mr. ENIS: We are--I have to say--100 percent certain that this safe. We know exactly what the gene, which we have inserted or that genetic instruction, expresses or produces in the salmon. We know and can prove that it only produces salmon growth hormone.

OSGOOD: Enis thinks he'll be able to prove that to the FDA's satisfaction. But there's another concern: What if one of these fish gets away and begins to breed with salmon in the wild? That's what Rebecca Goldburg worries about. She's a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Ms. REBECCA GOLDBURG (Environmental Defense Fund): The risk is genetic pollution. If you muck up the gene pool of wild salmon by introducing the genes of farm salmon, you can make the wild salmon populations less able to survive and reproduce in the future.

OSGOOD: But Enis says wild salmon are getting scarce anyway, and this is the way to produce more of what the world needs.

Mr. ENIS: We can produce more protein more cheaply for more people than would otherwise be the case.

OSGOOD: THE OSGOOD FILE, Charles Osgood on the CBS Radio Network.

LANGUAGE: English

LOAD-DATE: February 15, 2000


(6) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Europe loosens curbs on animal drugs in the soil

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:46:12 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

Thanks to Mark Ritchie for this article. No mention of fish per se, but this will have ramifications for fish farming, undoubtedly.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns222628

Farmers' free-for-all Europe loosens curbs on animal drugs in the soil

IN a move that has stunned environmental regulators, Europe's veterinary scientists have decided to drastically loosen controls on the release of antibiotics and other animal medicines into the environment.

The decision comes as watchdogs such as Britain's Environment Agency grow increasingly concerned about the toxic impact of drugs in soils and water and their possible role in developing antibiotic resistance in diseases such as tuberculosis. Although there are no national or international legal limits on the amount of drugs that can be released into the environment, there is a policing code designed to investigate possible ecological impacts.

Steve Killeen, head of chemicals policy at Britain's Environment Agency, based in Bristol, told New Scientist that he first heard about the changes earlier this month. "The agency has had no involvement in this decision," he said. "I think there are real questions about whether vets are taking environmental issues sufficiently seriously."

More than 10 000 tonnes of antibiotics are used in the European Union each year, roughly half of which ends up in animals. Up to 50 per cent of some drugs passes unchanged through our bodies and enters sewage systems, or is poured onto the land in farm waste, and may end up in rivers.

Europe has no ceiling on the amount of farm drugs allowed into soils. But veterinary authorities across the EU had said that any compound likely to accumulate at above 7·5 grams per hectare on a farm must undergo an environmental impact study.

Now, as a result of an agreement reached last year between veterinary regulators from the EU, US and Japan who are members of a little-known body called Veterinary International Cooperation on Harmonization (VICH), this threshold is to be raised tenfold to 75 grams per hectare. The change is due to be announced this spring.

Environmental scientists and regulators expressed alarm earlier this month during a meeting on antibiotics in the environment at Cranfield University. "Very little research or monitoring has been done in Britain on antibiotics in the environment since the 1980s,""said Killeen. "I can see no scientific argument for revising the threshold," added Nicholas Green, an environmental scientist from Lancaster University.

Carol Aldridge of the British government's Veterinary Medicines Directorate at Addlestone in Surrey, who represents European governments on the VICH, told New Scientist: "The US provided data to support their position that the trigger should be raised. " The information, she says, comprises a summary of research showing the effects of antibiotics on earthworms, microorganisms, plants and aquatic life, as part of their registration process for the drugs. But the problem of developing resistance to antibiotics formed no part of the ecotoxicology package.

Danish and Swiss researchers revealed new monitoring results in Cranfield. Last year, Bent Halling-Sørensen of the Royal Danish School of Pharmacy in Copenhagen found 68 types of drugs in soil and water samples, mostly derived from pig manure. Some soils onto which pig waste was spread contained concentrations of the antibiotic tilosin up to 40 times the current threshold for investigation.

Fred Pearce

From New Scientist magazine, 19 February 2000.


(7) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Q's & A's about the regulation of transgenic animals/fish

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:30:34 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

Thanks to Becky Goldburg for passing along this message, which originated from:

John Matheson
Office of Surveillance and Compliance Center for Veterinary Medicine
301-827-6649
301-594-4512 (fax)
e-mail: jmatheso@cvm.fda.gov

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse Bill Mott, Director Email: bmott@seaweb.org Website: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

Subject: Q's & A's about the regulation of transgenic animals/fish

Attached and pasted in below is a series of questions and answers about the regulation of transgenic animals, including fish. Each of you has expressed an interest in this topic and I thought you would like to see it in advance. The information should be posted soon on the CVM Website for animal biotechnology: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/biotechnology/biotech.html If, on reading this, other questions occur to you that you'd like to see answered, let me know so I can compile the next edition. -John Matheson

INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION CENTER FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE

questions and answers about Transgenic Fish The following consumer information is provided by John Matheson, Office of Surveillance and Compliance, Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Q. Who regulates animal biotechnology products?

A. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) regulates, in whole or in part, diverse animal biotechnology products.

Q. Has FDA approved transgenic animals to enter the food supply?

A. No. Most transgenic animals under development are regulated by one or more FDA Centers. There are procedures to request approval to enter transgenic animals into the food or feed supply. No approvals have been granted for entry into the human food supply. The procedures for biopharm animals (producing drugs or biologics) are described in the 1995 Points to Consider in the Manufacture and Testing of Therapeutic Products for Human Use Derived from Transgenic Animals. For these types of animals, as well as others generated by biomedical research, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) serves as a consulting group to the other FDA Centers in the food and feed safety evaluation. Gene-based modifications of animals for production or therapeutic claims fall under CVM regulation as new animal drugs. Investigational applications are filed for these modifications where, with a showing of adequate safety data, the sponsor may request disposition of animals by slaughter for food or for processing into animal feed components. To date, no transgenic animals have been approved for use as human food. A very limited number have been approved for rendering into animal feed components.

Q. How far along is the development of animal biotech products?

A. Non-heritable modifications (gene therapy) are still in early stages of development for animals, although this is a very active area in human medicine. These products are anticipated to be individual animal injections that would modify only some of the cells of the body to express a protein, protein hormone or enzyme. For example, individual steers could be modified to produce more muscle mass without having to modify the breeding herd, where additional muscle mass could cause calving difficulties. Heritable modifications or germ-line transgenic animals with agronomic traits are most advanced for fish, and have already begun to receive public attention in the U.S. and abroad. Most of the modifications currently relate to improving animal productivity.

Q. Are there any biotech products currently in use?

A. Yes. CVM's first recombinant DNA product - recombinant bovine somatotropin (BST) for dairy cows.

Q. How will these products be regulated?

A. Most, but probably not all, gene-based modifications of animals for production or therapeutic claims fall under CVM regulation as new animal drugs. As strange as it may seem at first, many of the modifications being investigated involve the addition of new animal drug substances. For example, adding growth hormone to a cow can be accomplished through use of BST injections, through gene therapies to create BST-producing regions in the body of the cow, or through germ-line modification, making a transgenic variety that contains extra BST-coding genes in every cell of the body, including reproductive cells. It all amounts to adding an animal drug, but the conditions are different - dose, areas of the body where the drug is released, opportunity for a withdrawal time, etc. The substances being added are for the purpose of improving animal health or productivity.

Q. Are there specific regulations for transgenic animals?

A. The animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act best fit transgenic animals that have agronomic traits now being investigated and developed. Other transgenics will no doubt come along that could be viewed as containing food additives, color additives, and vaccines. Development of site-specific gene insertion techniques and animal genome projects could change the scope of potential genetic modifications to yield a wider variety of products than are currently being investigated.

Q. Have any transgenic fish been approved in the U.S.?

A. Transgenic fish of various species of salmon, tilapia, channel catfish and others are being actively investigated worldwide as possible new food-producing varieties. Technology developed for using transgenic fish as laboratory models to study developmental biology is being applied to food fish species with the aim of adding agronomically important traits, like improved growth rates and disease resistance. No transgenic fish have been approved for producing food in the U.S., although a variety of transgenic fish species can be found in laboratories around the world. As there is active investigation of transgenic fish abroad, as well as in the U.S., the public and the research community are occasionally exposed to predictions of the imminent commercial release of transgenic fish into the food supply. This should not occur without the pre-market approval from CVM, for those fish that have an added gene-based animal drug.

Q. What limitations does current technology have on the production of transgenic fish?

A. The current technology has limitations that affect what types of transgenics can be developed. The "transgenes" are limited to short gene constructs and are inserted randomly and in variable numbers of copies in each individual. This creates difficulty in stabilizing genetic modifications in a breeding population. There may be uncontrolled expression of the transgene. It may be expressed all the time; it cannot be turned off. Insertion sites for the transgenes may inadvertently affect the expression of other genes by disabling them or turning them on at an inappropriate time. The incidental insertion of drug resistance genes from bacterial plasmids introduces further uncertainties as to food safety. The technology for creating transgenic animals is constantly improving and will soon begin to reduce the limitations of the current approaches and improve the competitive balance with other approaches to breed improvement.

Q. What about biocontainment concerns?

A. Breeding programs are needed to stabilize the transgenes in a patentable variety and to produce numbers necessary for regulatory approvals and for marketing. Biocontainment strategies, both from an engineering and biological point of view, are necessary to prevent escape of the transgene into wild fish populations and to provide a means of control over the unlicensed breeding of the patented variety. These features add to the costs of development and affect competitiveness of the approach versus other, more traditional, breeding approaches. Biocontainment needs are specific for each species and the location where it would be reared.

Q. Are there environmental concerns?

A. The primary environmental concerns about releases of transgenic fish, for example, include competition with wild populations, movement of the transgene into the wild gene pool, and ecological disruptions due to changes in prey and other niche requirements in the transgenic variety versus the wild populations. For example, transgenic tilapia (with cold tolerance similar to the unmodified species) might require little containment in the northern tier of the U.S., but might be excluded from the Gulf States altogether, where tilapia may be a serious exotic invader of freshwater streams and ponds. These site-specific concerns may make it necessary to control the sites where transgenic fish are reared and the level of biocontainment required might differ from site to site. Any biocontainment other than absolute containment will have to be assessed for specific proposed sites.

Q. How will the public accept foods derived from transgenic animals?

A. Germ-line transgenic modifications of animals, including fish and shellfish, have already begun to receive public attention in the U.S. and abroad. Public acceptance of foods derived from transgenic animals will be important to the success of any transgenic variety introduction. Approval by FDA or a food regulatory group in another country does not guarantee public acceptance. Labeling of food from transgenic animals will likely be even more important to consumers desiring a choice than has been observed for milk derived from BST-treated dairy cows or for transgenic plant varieties. Ethical concerns among the public over the appropriate use of animals are issues, not evident with transgenic plants, that may affect public acceptance of transgenic animals as food sources. There is also expected to be variation among the citizens of different countries as to their acceptance of transgenic animals. Development of a world market for a transgenic animal variety is currently fraught with difficulties owing to the varying cultural views and governments.


(8) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Fish Farming News From Around the World

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:51:47 -0500]

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

Please read below for more on these stories:

1) BC Salmon Aquaculture Committee Established
2) Washington State salmon farmers want better regulation
3) ISA report published by Scottish Executive
4) "Farming of cod can be a larger industry than salmon farming"
5) NASCO and salmon farmers sign agreement
6) Australia divided over WTO ruling (regarding salmon from Canada)
7) Future may have only three or four major marine farming companies on a global basis
8) Interest in organic salmon farming grows
9) Algae Bloom in Chile Causes Salmon Die Off

--------------------------------------------------------

1) BC Salmon Aquaculture Committee established

Publisert: 21.02.2000 07:00

The appointments of 15 people to a new BC salmon aquaculture implementation advisory committee were announced on Friday by Fisheries Minister Dennis Streifel and Environment, Lands and Parks Minister Joan Sawicki.

"Forming the committee is a key step in making B.C. "salmon aquaculture policy work," said Streifel. "The people in this group will bring together a broad diversity of thought, technical knowledge and experience." The committee will be co-chaired by two assistant deputy ministers: Bud Graham from the Ministry of Fisheries and Jon O’Riordan from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The 15 members include representatives from First Nations, environmental organisations, federal and local governments, the salmon aquaculture industry, the salmon aquaculture support service industry and alternative technologies.

Welcoming the announcement, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association Executive Director Anne McMullin said: 'The inclusion of Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Georgia Strait Alliance and T. Buck Suzuki Foundation representatives on the committee indicates that the coalition of British Columbians who support our industry and want it to achieve its full potential continues to grow'

'They fully expect and believe that these environmental organisations will contribute in a positive way to the successful implementation of the new policy framework, and are pleased to have them at the table,' McMullin said.

A recent federal government study found that responsible expansion of B.C.'s salmon farming industry has the potential to create 20,000 new jobs, $900 million in capital investment and $1 billion in annual sales within 10 to 12 years, according to BCSFA. A recent MarkTrend poll found that British Columbians support the responsible expansion of salmon farming in B.C. by a margin of 5 to 1.

The provincial government salmon aquaculture policy was announced in October 1999. One of the main goals of the policy is to ensure a viable and environmentally sustainable industry in the future. "We have moved to introduce tough new policy guidelines for salmon aquaculture that will dramatically reduce the environmental impact in British Columbia," said Sawicki. "We will look to the advisory committee for recommendations on green technology and piloting closed-containment systems."

The committee will monitor implementation, provide advice on implementation issues, review data collected, advise on research priorities, serve as a forum for dialogue and information exchange among interests and provide strategic advice to government on future regulations and developments in the industry. The committee's first focus will be to review an environmental monitoring program for the aquaculture industry and develop a strategy for relocating poorly sited tenures.

The salmon aquaculture implementation advisory committee is expected to hold its first meeting next month. Public members of the salmon aquaculture implementation advisory committee include: Representing Environmental Groups Laurie MacBride, Georgia Strait Alliance Karen Wristen, Sierra Legal Defence Fund David Lane, United Fish and Allied Workers Union/CAW-T. Buck Suzuki Foundation Representing Local Governments Jim Abram, Regional District of Comox-Strathcona (appointed by UBCM) Gillian Trumper, Mayor of Port Alberni Representing Sport and Commercial Fisheries Jeremy Maynard, Chair of Sport Fish Advisory Board Daren Hancott, Vice-president and general manager Seafood Products C. Ltd. Representing Salmon Farming Industry Odd Grydeland, Manager, Freshwater Operations, Heritage Aquaculture and President of B.C. Salmon Farmers Association Dale Blackburn, Vice-president, West Coast operations, Stolt Seafarm Inc. Kim Pullen, President, Pacific National Group Representing Salmon Farming Support Industry Ron Kilmury, President, Moore-Clarke Representing Alternate Technologies Craig Williams, CEO, Future Sea Technology Note: First Nations representation is being sought, and two members will be confirmed at a later date.

--------------------------------------------------------

2) Washington salmon farmers want action on escpaees Publisert: 22.02.2000 07:00

Washington salmon farmers are unhappy that a bill to tighten regulation of their industry is stalled in Olympia; and they are planning to draft their own plans for chasing farm escapees and establishing a salmon-watch program to monitor the impact of escapees.

The farmers say that if the Legislature won't take action, the best hope for the future of their $40 million industry is for them to negotiate their own regulatory road map with the state. "It's kind of a love-hate relationship in the sense that nobody likes to have more regulation," says Sen. Dan Swecker, a Rochester Republican and also executive director of the Rochester-based Washington Fish Growers Association. But "if we don't do it this way, someone might come up with a worse idea." Washington's nine salmon farms produce 5,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon annually.

The stalled bill in the Legislature would provide $35,000 in new state money -- which the industry and Fish and Wildlife would each match - to pay for developing salmon-recapture plans and escape-prevention techniques and establishing an "Atlantic salmon watch program" to monitor area waterways. The bill also spells out other ways the US Fish and Wildlife Department could take more control over an industry that operates mostly outside the department's authority, and would call for a temporary stay on expanding farms.

Both the House and the Senate versions of the bill have stalled as a result of resistance to launching any programs that would require new appropriations, state officials say.Even without the bill, the industry may still be willing to offer $35,000 to the state to get a program under way, says Sen. Swecker. Additional state oversight would help the industry's credibility, says Kevin Bright, operations manager for Anacortes-based Cypress Island Inc., which runs four fish farms. "It would be, in my mind, more evidence to support us," says Mr. Bright, and "quell some of that hearsay out there."

New rules are necessary, agrees Jeff Koenings, director of the Fish and Wildlife Department. He says the state needs to figure out how to allow the industry to grow while assuring the public that there won't be harmful side effects. The department and the industry agree that current rules on escapes are insufficient. As it is, farmers are required to report major breakouts to the department within two hours, which sets off a consultation about what to do next. That, all agree, is a waste of valuable time that could be better spent lassoing the runaways and bringing them back to the pen. Salmon farmers think they should be equipped with commercial fishing gear to swoop up runaways before they get too far - something that would require a change in regulations.

Source: AP

--------------------------------------------------------

3) ISA report published by Scottish Executive Publisert: 22.02.2000 11:16

A series of recommendations which are aimed at preventing outbreaks of fish diseases – including Infectious Salmon Anaemia – were published yesterday (21-2) by the Scottish Executive. The Joint Government and Industry Working Group on ISA (infectious salmon anaemia) report makes 81 recommendations to curb the disease and reduce the risk to fish from other diseases.

The report also outlines proposals on current industry practices relating to fish health and identifies possible areas of research. The Group proposes that implementation of the proposed measures should be by a combination of voluntary and statutory means.

The Scottish Executive will urgently consider the report and Ministers are expected to formally respond to its recommendations in the Spring. Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs John Home Robertson 'who has particular responsibility for fisheries issues ' said that he is "well aware of the concerns of the industry on these and related issues. I will be considering the contents of the report as a matter of urgency and will issue a formal response within three months."

The first outbreak of ISA in Scotland occurred in May 1998; a total of 11 farms have been infected with the disease and 24 others suspected. Most of the cases occurred in 1998. The Joint Government and Industry Working Group on ISA was constituted in October 1998 and met on 14 occasions. Two interim reports have been published in January and May 1999; the conclusions and recommendations of those reports are included in the final version. The report, which is the result of 15 months work, has been presented to Scottish Ministers and farmed salmon industry bodies.

Chaired by Dr Ron Stagg, Head of Fish Cultivation at the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, the Government representatives were drawn from the Scottish Executive, its agencies and the State Veterinary Service. A wide cross section of fish farming interests were represented by Scottish Quality Salmon, the Shetland and Orkney Salmon Farmers' Associations, small independent farmers and the trout sector. (more on this report in the next few days).

--------------------------------------------------------

4) Cod farming will be biggest Publisert: 22.02.2000 07:00

"Farming of cod can be a larger industry than salmon farming. This is the opinion of Operations Manager Amund Pedersen at Fjordlaks.

The newspaper Sunnm 'sposten reported that the Ålesund-based company Fjordlaks has plans to build a large facility for cod farming in the Hj'undfjord. They have now applied for a licence for this type of marine farming.

"Cod can be produced cheaper than salmon and it offers better financial returns", said Amund Pedersen

--------------------------------------------------------

5) NASCO and salmon farmers sign agreement Publisert: 21.02.2000 07:00

The member countries of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) have reached a landmark agreement with the international salmon farming industry, pledging both parties to work together to conserve and enhance wild salmon stocks and support sustainable aquaculture in the North Atlantic.

The co-operation agreement was signed by NASCO and salmon farming representatives from Canada, the United States, Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands on February 11 in London, England. The parties also agreed to form a working group toward the development of Guidelines for Containment for North Atlantic countries operating salmon farms.

Speaking on the topic Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA) President and BCSFA executive Director Anne McMullin said: "We are extremely pleased that an inter-governmental organisation of the stature of NASCO has both recognised the importance of supporting a sustainable salmon farming industry, and acknowledged its potential to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of wild salmon stocks".

The objective of the co-operation agreement is to "establish mutually beneficial working arrangements in order to make recommendations on wild salmon conservation and sustainable salmon farming practices." NASCO Secretary and Chairman Malcolm Windsor congratulated the salmon aquaculture industry for "the excellent spirit of co-operation" evidenced over two days of meetings in London. He noted that the co-operation agreement provides "a firm basis for future progress."

NASCO and the North Atlantic salmon farming industry have agreed to meet on an annual basis to discuss common issues. In February 2001, the parties will meet to address ways in which salmon farmers can contribute to the conservation of wild stocks through research partnerships and the application of private sector resources and expertise.

The joint government-industry working group established to develop guidelines on salmon farm containment is expected to make a progress report to NASCO during its 17th annual meeting in the Miramichi, NB, June 5-9, 2000. A full report of the working group will be presented in February 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------

6) Australia divided over WTO ruling Publisert: 22.02.2000 07:00

Tasmanian Premier Jim Bacon said the Tasmanian Government would not buckle to pressure from the WTO and the Australian Federal Government to weaken its quarantine laws and allow raw salmon into the state.

"This is not a trade issue. This issue is about the protection of Tasmania's reputation as a producer of fine quality, disease free food.”

'Tasmania is the only salmon producer in the world that is disease free and we have managed to maintain that status through tough quarantine measures. The Federal Government and the WTO need to understand our determination to maintain that disease free status,'Bacon said.

"I am encouraged the State Opposition has offered bipartisan support but am extremely disappointed that Liberal senators are trying to use Tasmania as a scapegoat." Mr Bacon said the WTO found that Australia, not just Tasmania, must relax its restrictions on salmon imports or face punitive trade retaliation from Canada.

Mr Bacon says that “the Canadians still believe the Tasmanian Government has imposed the import ban as a trade protection measure. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tasmanian salmon market would be worth less than $30,000 to the Canadians - hardly worth the cost of pursuing the issue. But on the other hand, the State will lose a $120 million industry if it loses its disease free status with ramifications for all of Tasmania's food industries." Canada is claiming lost trade of C$45 million [since 1975], a figure with which Australia does not agree.

Meanwhile Australia tries to isolate Canada salmon trade war. The Australian government and trade groups are attempting to stop a new eruption in a longstanding dispute with Canada over salmon imports from spilling into major areas of trade.

Top of the list of trade retaliations being considered by Canada are Australian lamb exports, worth about A$50 million a year, followed by a range of other mostly minor exports. Australian government and trade officials say they will work to ensure the dispute does not widen to involve major commodity exports such as beef, raw sugar and some metals products.

Canada is one of Australia's largest markets for raw sugar, taking 616,081 tonnes in 1998/99. This made it Australia's fourth largest export market, after South Korea, which took 695,500 tonnes, Malaysia and Japan. The Canadian Trade Department said last Friday it now had the right to retaliate against Australia and would ask the WTO to rule on the extent of retaliation Ottawa can take. The process takes 60 days. However Canada may not wish to shoot itself in the foot and target products which it indeed wants to buy, it could rather target products produced from Tasmania, which would not include raw sugar. An official with Australia's national farm lobby group, the National Farmers Federation said retaliation was a lose-lose outcome and bad for trade.

"This latest panel ruling confirms once again that the Australian measures, which continue to restrict salmon imports from Canada, are not based on science," said Canadian Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal. Australia's government would consult with authorities in the state of Tasmania, where import restrictions have been imposed on salmon imports which extend beyond Federal quarantine restrictions. It will also be consulting with Canadian authorities, Australian federal officials said.

Sources: Tasmanian and Canadian governments, Reuters, WTO.

--------------------------------------------------------

7) Major players gaining ground Publisert: 17.02.2000 07:00

The gap between the large and medium-large marine farming companies will widen to the advantage of the large companies. This is the opinion of First Securities' Analysis Manager, Glen Roland.

The major marine farming companies have so far delivered weaker results than the medium-large (companies). Hydro Seafood, Pan Fish and Stolt Sea Farm are examples of large companies. "However, confidence in the major players has not diminished. This year they will, in all likelihood, present considerably better results than the medium-large companies", Roland said to the newspaper Fiskaren.

Roland believes that investments made in the largest companies will already show a return this year, providing salmon prices remain at their present level.

Glen Roland also believes that there will only be room for three or four major marine farming companies on a global basis. His opinion is that two or three of these will be Norwegian.

--------------------------------------------------------

From FIS:

8) Interest in organic salmon farming grows

UNITED KINGDOM

Monday, February 21, 2000, 03:30 (GMT + 9)

The Scottish fish farming company Aquascot is determined to make a go of organic salmon farming, in spite of the failure in Norway to raise salmon organically.

Today, normal farmed salmon cannot be classified as organic for a number of reasons. The feed used has a number of artificial additives including colouring agents, either astaxanthin or catantaxanthin. Also, the fish is normally treated with different kinds of medication.

Aquascot has decided to lower the risk of disease by reducing the number of salmon in the cages and will replace the non-organic feed with organic crushed shrimp shells. The firm hopes to sell its organic salmon in supermarkets across the UK and claims the price of organic salmon should not differ much from other farmed salmon.

The Norwegian trials failed because the market was not prepared to pay the extra cost involved in producing organic salmon. In Norway, enclosed cages with an artificial current to make the salmon swim were used. This was costly, and many asked if any customer could feel the difference in the texture of the meat.

Aquascot has chosen a cheaper production method. Shrimp shell is also sought after by the industry and in the future there will be strong competition from other industries producing different products from shrimp shell. Only time will show if Aquascot will succeed, but with increasing consumer awareness regarding the quality of seafood, they should be in a position to create a market. Any other company interested in trying this will spend more than 18 months planning the operation before being able to deliver organic salmon.

By Terje Engø

--------------------------------------------------------

From Seafood.com:

9) Algae Bloom in Chile Causes Salmon Die Off

Seafood.com Feb 22- An algal bloom, called "Green Spot" is causing salmon deaths in cages from Puerto Montt to points further south. Approximately 150,000 adult salmon have died, and the total may go higher.

The bloom was caused by a combination of strong run-off from recent rains, plus unusually warm conditions. The algae basically remove oxygen from the water, causing salmon to asphyxiate.

The dead salmon have been taken to fish meal plants, as they are not contaminated in any way.

Growers are taking steps to mitigate the effect of the algae. First, they are surrounding cages with polyethylene aprons, to keep the algae from getting close to the cages. Secondly, they are introducing compressed air into the cages, and third, they are trying to lower both food intake and stress on salmon, to reduce their metabolic rate.

The situation will change once weather conditions break up the bloom, which could happen with a strong rain, or cooler temperatures. It is not anticipated at this time that overall salmon production from the South of Chile will be seriously effected. Producers are still planning to sell about 180,000 tons of salmon this year.

The first trouble began last week, at a farm belonging to Marine Harvest.

In 1999, a similar algae problem resulted in the deaths of about 300,000 salmon.

--------------------------------------------------------

For more info. on fish farming issues, please see www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

(9) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Vaccine Industry Report 2000

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:50:58 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

From: http://www.intrafish.com/engelsk/report/feat_print.html

This article is a part of the IntraFish Market Report

Vaccine Industry Report

INTRODUCTION

With the growth of salmon farming, it is the entire business supplying it which is also benefiting or suffering, depending on the geographical location. Generally there seems to be a confidence that salmon farming should grow annually by anything from 5 to 20% in the coming years.

In Chile, the industry is planning to invest US $800 million in equipment and infrastructure alone this year. The aqua health industry is somehow of a niche and very specialised industry, requiring big means to invest in R&D and a long term vision. We will here focus on the vaccine 'industry'. The fact that so many big companies are wrestling to be in pole position in yet such relatively small market seems indicative of the long term potential and of the investors' faith in global aquaculture. Not just salmon aquaculture of course, but the entire industry, which is growing at a very fast pace indeed.

"Despite recent improvements in disease resistance and developments of new and better antibiotics and vaccines, disease in aquaculture is still a major obstacle to growth and profitability in the farming of many species, in particular of shrimp. Improved breeding programmes, e.g. in Atlantic salmon in Norway, have in many instances already drastically reduced the use of antibiotics but for most other species much more research in the development of new drugs and vaccines including oral vaccine delivery systems for farmed fish must be undertaken." (extract from notes of a 1998 FAO sub-committee meeting on fish trade).

Though hard to quantify, the economic cost of aquaculture production losses due to disease was estimated in 1997 by the World Bank to be around US$3.02 billion a year. In Norway, the bacterial disease 'winter ulcers' (vibrio viscosus) led to the downgrading of 16,000 tonnes of farmed salmon in 1998 (5.5% of the total production), representing an economic loss of NOK 100-150 million. Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN) also had and has dire consequences on the Norwegian and Chilean industries, just as Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) is having an impact in New Brunswick and Scotland. Where there may be a difference is that, in the case of ISA, different regulatory regimes mean that vaccination is allowed in New Brunswick whereas -due to the 'list 1' status - it isn't in the UK.

In its annual newsletter, Aquaculture insurer Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance (SMMI) last summer highlighted, from its own claim figures, how diseases were still an important component of the losses to the industry. Disease were responsible in 1998 for 33% of the claims in Ireland/UK (23% in value, mainly due to IPN) and - though only a relatively small problem in Tasmania and New Zealand - diseases was a very significant hindrance to profits made in the Chilean industry. World-wide, diseases were the cause of 22% of SMMI's claims in frequency terms, and 14% in value terms.

There has also been a shift in the types of products used. There are basically two main areas in salmon aqua health products. One is vaccines, the most important, and also that of parasiticides, sea lices treatment. At least in Norway, the latter has decreased over recent years. This is due to both product improvement - which now kill off all stages of the parasites - and also because the farmers and the vets have implemented more strategic treatment systems. For instance, within a specific period of time, they treat all farms in a designated area or region. Thereby, diminishing the risks of contact infections and of re-infection.

Source: Kontali Analyse

"We see that in the vaccine field, there is an increasing demand for vaccines, as the industry is producing more smolts. And the growth rate in the Norwegian fish farming industry, both salmon and trout, which is about 10-20%, increase every year. The slaughtering increase in 1999 was around 20% for salmon and 7% for trout, according to Kontali," said VESO assistant director Per Johan Rottereng.

"Since every smolt put into sea is having at least one vaccine injection. One can expect the production of vaccine will grow at exactly the same rate as that of the farming industry. We don't have a loss [though not taking into account R&D investments]. Our profit is increasing when the smolt production is increasing. ." says one industry source.

A little playground for giant players - some background

Alpharma

Alpharma is a multinational pharmaceutical company selling its products in 60 countries; it has employees in 38 sites in 22 countries. In 1998, the turnover of the company was US$604.6 million with a net income of US$ 27.3 million.

The Aquatic Animal Health Division (AAHD) which among others develops vaccines for the salmon farming industry registered a turnover of US$18.9 million in 1998, with an operating income of $3.6 million.

Revenues from Norway totalled in that year for all activities US$86 million. The Alpharma AAHD covers the following countries with vaccines: USA, Canada, UK/Eire, Iceland, Faroese Islands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden Finland, Turkey and Greece. Sales of vaccines for sea-bream and sea-bass in the latter two countries is a profitable business.

"We are on our way to Chile but we do not have any products licensed there. [...] We have sufficient capacity to produce the vaccines from Norway at the moment," says AHHD Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Trond Enger. The applications [for products in Chile] will be in the system in a very short time

Aqua Health Limited (AHL) AHL, Canadian-based company is owned by Cobequid Life Sciences (The Norvartis Group acquired last November Vericore Holding which in turns owns 40% of Cobequid).

In 1999, the Aqua Health sales turnover was $7.9 million. "We saw a significant growth in our business last year. We had an almost 50% increase in sale." Says Garth Greenham, AHL marketing director. "Norway was one of the major growth markets and we've seen growth in Chile. We've just purchased a lab and production facility in Chile as well as a production unit in Montreal, Canada. We've seen a year of very significant growth." He emphasises the strong R&D effort and said that AHL "always re-invest in the business, into research mostly. Certainly, now we're building infrastructure to try to keep up with the demand."

"We can see continued growth in Norway, Canada is probably going to be fairly level, because we already have 70% market share there, and Chile will be a growth area , it will contribute significantly to the growth of the company during this fiscal year. Chile is very much an untapped vaccine. Very few fish are vaccinated in this country," said Mr Greenham. In Norway, Aqua Health's vaccines are distributed through Scan Vacc.

Swiss-based Novartis has its core business in health care, agribusiness and consumer care. In 1998 the group totalled sales for CHF 31.7 billion. The Group invests annually more than CHF 3.7 billion in R&D. It employs 82,000people in 140 countries. Cobequid has also signed a deal in April last year with French company Sanofi, which gives Sanofi distribution rights of the Cobequid products for fresh water trout, and the sea-bass / sea-bream industry in France, Italy and Spain.

Aquaculture Vaccine Limited (AVL) AVL, a UK-based vaccine developer and provider, had a turnover of around ?2 million last year. The company registered a 150% growth in the past 2 years and is projecting to almost double this figure in 2000, "to ?3-4 million" says MD Patrick Smith.

All of AVL's business is divided in vaccines for salmon, trout and marine species. AVL established last year a presence in Chile; a distributorship deal was signed last May with Santiago-based Animal Services Latina (ASL) which will distribute the AquaVac products there. "We've got a very strong R&D and licensing programme. We're beginning to come through. We're entering a range of new markets with new products as a result," says Mr Smith. "We're now getting into the Norwegian market this year, we've been out of it for some time. We now have a range of improved product."

Intervet Intervet Norbio is owned by Intervet, which is owned by Akzo Nobel. The latter last year acquired Hoechst Roussell Vet for EUR 600 million. Akzo Nobel is based in the Netherlands and employs approximately 83,000 people in near 70 countries. Consolidated sales for 1998 totalled EUR 12.5 billion (US$ 13.8 billion, GB? 8.4 billion).

Intervet develops vaccines for cold water species; that includes Chile, Canada, Scotland, Ireland and the Faroes. But the sales area is the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, the Faroes). Intervet does have ATCs (Animal Test Certificates) hence there are also test trials taking place in Ireland and Scotland. But as yet no licensed product, hence no sales, in UK Ireland. This should change in 2000. Intervet also opened some new Head Office in Singapore and it is developing products such as its shrimp vaccine, now being registered in 11 countries.

Microtek, bayotek ... Bayer Despite Intrafish's best efforts, we could not get replies to any of the questions put to Bayer companies and to Bayer itself. Big companies can sometimes be slow to react and their views and comment on the industry is hence absent from this report. Below is some information we obtained from the Bayer website.

Bayer is an international, research-based group with major businesses in life sciences, polymers and speciality chemicals. Employing 120,400 people world-wide, the group has operations in nearly all countries of the globe and a portfolio of about 10,000 products. It has annual sales of DM 54.9 billion and an operating result of DM 6.15 billion (1998).

Bayer Inc. is Canada's fifth largest chemicals company and among the top 10 pharmaceutical companies. Sales in 1998 increased 3.0 percent to CAN$ 1.35 billion and net income rose 40 percent to CAN$ 22.3 million. Capital expenditures increased from CAN$ 79.6 million in 1997 to CAN$ 118.7 million. With 2,250 employees, Bayer Inc. is divided into six operating divisions extending from British Columbia to Quebec. The automotive and the healthcare markets generate well over 50 percent of the total sales, while the construction and chemical markets account for 14 percent of sales.

Bayer sells vaccines in Canada, BC and NB, through Bayotek. It also has this year a vaccine against ISA licensed for use in New Brunswick. It is increasing its efforts to penetrate the Norwegian vaccine market, in particular in the past year.

1999 - The year it was... NORWAY 1999 was a decent year for most in the business. In Norway: "The vaccine market was quite good and there were no big problem with vaccines, [whereas] in previous years, some of the producers had some problems on the side effects and the farmers got pretty angry," says Martin Gausen from Kontali Analyse.

"The volume is increasing with the amount of smolts released, and this is increasing by around 10% per year [See graph]. [However] there were a few problems with delivering the vaccines for some vaccine producers last year.", said Mr Gausen. The average price for a dose of vaccine in Norway last year was around NOK 0.85 to NOK 1. There were almost 130 million doses sold for salmon and approximately 30 million doses sold for trout, hence a total doses of vaccines for salmonids of approx. 160 million. The market last year yielded NOK 120-130 million.

95 G
96 G
97 G
98 G
99 G

October

11 200
14 000
14 100
14 900
14 800

November

17 100
19 300
16 700
15 200
19 400

December

10 100
15 100
10 000
11 700
11 100

January

12 100
12 100
12 600
15 100
10 600

February

7 900
6 100
9 800
7 700
9 300

March

8 800
8 800
5 800
7 000
9 900

April

3 200
5 300
6 400
5 600
4 800

May

2 400
3 400
3 600
3 400
2 800

June

2 900
2 100
3 500
3 000
3 800

July

4 300
4 400
6 900
10 100
12 400

August

17 100
9 400
13 000
17 700
20 000

September

8 500
10 200
8 300
7 400
11 800
95 G
96 G
97 G
98 G
99 G

Vacine
105 600
110 200
110 700
118 800
130 700

Smolt
97 000
98 000
110 000
118 000
123 000

Antibiotics
2 800
1 037
746
679
.
Source: Kontali Analyse

The Distributors / Vaccine wholesalers Although Norway is not a member of the EU, it belongs to the European Economic Association, and as such, has accepted all EU regulations with respect to pharmaceuticals, except in the are of feed antibiotics. The distribution of vaccines in Norway is dealt with through 'wholesalers'. All the producers in EU/EOS can get a license to distribute their own products, but in Norway none of the producers have found this opportunity favourable. The vaccine manufacturing companies are in contact with the buyers through their marketing departments, but the products are actually distributed through the three Norwegian distributors: VESO, Euro Pharma and NMD. NMD had about 4% of the sales volume last year and the other two shared almost equally the rest of the market.

There was prior to 1995 a State monopoly in Norway regarding distribution of pharmaceutical products to the aquaculture industry such as vaccines. Other players entered the market for fish vaccines in 1996.

"Being a wholesaler is a totally different concept. You do not have the risks that manufacturers have. But on the other hand we have smaller margins and we do not have the choice: we cannot develop the expertise, backed with years of experience, to develop an R&D structure and be competitive, Intervet, Bayer, etc.... have very deep pockets," says Jim Roger Nordly, general manager of Euro Pharma.

"Scotland & Ireland are a different business... they are a lot more liberal there in that regard... If you have a garage with a cooler in it, you could almost start your own business as a wholesaler," Mr Nordly said jokingly. "But we are interested in expanding in Scotland and the Faroes. Of course getting the customers is one things but getting the suppliers and having the licences to do what we want to do is important. On the other hand, the growth in the Norwegian market from last year to this year alone is bigger than the Faeroes market in total, and maybe twice as big as Scotland in value, so we are trying this year to concentrate on what we have been doing so far, consolidate and do more on veterinarian products, for land based animal farms. Last year, near 95% of our turnover came from sales of vaccines to fish farms. This year, the proportion will be slightly less because of new animal farm products."

VESO sold 76 million doses last year, according to Mr Per Johan Rottereng, Assistant Director, who adds that VESO and Euro Pharma last year both had approximately 48% market share each. NMD had around 4%. "We sell every vaccine which is on the Norwegian market. We don't favour any of the producers who deliver vaccines to us." In 1999 VESO had a turnover of around NOK 86 million.

"Our other department for contract research (VESO Vikan AkvaVet) is serving the same vaccine companies and offering them test facilities and research projects. [...] We have standard test procedures for Aeromonas salmonicida, Vibrio salmonicida, Vibrio anguillarum and Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA). In addition developmental work is going on with Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis (IPN), Vibrio viscosus, Photobacteruim damselia subsp piscicida and Pisciricketsia salmonis [SRS]." There is also a new department in Trondheim.

Europharma is happy with the growth they're experiencing, says Mr Nordly. Wholesaling has only been opened to competition (from government control - VESO) for the past three years. "But we are very happy with the situation. For the past month [January 2000], we had 65% of the market, so we are quite happy with this, but we need to sell quite important quantities because the margins are very low. I guess you have 5 players in the Norwegian market alone. Last year, this was worth NOK 120-125 million."

Scotland and Ireland have hardly any economical value at all, he adds, because they have low price, simple, vaccines. Though, things are now changing, the Scots would now also be getting more advanced vaccines, which are more expensive.

"Euro Pharma had sales reaching approximately NOK 90 million, representing around 50% of market last year. At this time last year VESO was a bit bigger than us, but this has now changed, we are leading with a few percentage points on them..." says Mr Nordly. However, he adds: "The profits weren't so good but the market share is very good. The margins in the industry are very low and the competition is quite strong too."

The Producers/Vaccine developers For Alpharma, the market leader in 1998, "1999 was not a great year, mainly because we were short of products for a large part of the year," says Mr Enger, ... "it was due to the transfer of our product from the US to Norway and that process took a longer time than we expected". Last year, due to the problem cited above, the company lost some segment of the market. "We ended up in Norway with 43%. And we had more than 70% on average for the last 5 years [before 1999]". Alpharma sold [through distributors] approximately 70 million doses last year in Norway.

Delivery problems also occurred at Alpharma in July-September when large quantities of the two most important vaccines had to be recalled from the market due to emulsion fissuration (the vaccine separated in a water and oil phase).

For Intervet, what was lost by Alpharma, was an opportunity that it could not miss. The company increased its market share from 7% to 35% in Norway (trout & salmon) alone. "Growth-wise, we had really good growth, from NOK 10 million in 1998 to NOK 44 million in 1999. But we are only getting back to where we were in 1996. In 1996, sales turnover was also NOK 45-46 million, and our market share was 52%. We then went down to 7% in 1998," says Alistair Brown, Intervet MD. 1997 and 1998 were two bad years where they had to develop new vaccines. 4 new vaccines came out in 1999. "And we took the market back again" [...]. We've been hit a bit hard and had problems with side effects with our then IPN vaccine, we now released a new one in 1999 and we are back where we were".

The [IPN] vaccine which created the problem was launched in August 1995. 1995 was good, 1996 even better, says Mr Brown, and during 1997 sales started to drop when feedback on side effects started occurring. "We're only talking of about 6-7 million fish which were involved in side effect cases, out of the total." [...] "its very few but word gets round, and if you have large groups [as customers], its easy to lose out." "In fact in 1997, 70% of all salmon harvested in Norway were vaccinated with our vaccine. Intervet sold 41.235 million doses (salmon) in Norway in 1999; and 17 million doses for trout which represent 74% of that market ("we've had that market share for a long time"). It also sold 3.2 million salmon vaccine doses in the Faroes

Scan Vacc is the company which deals with Aqua Health's vaccines in Norway. "Yes, we were very happy," says Marketing Driector Mr Ole Kristian Kaurstad. "We entered this business in late 1997. [...] We got this agreement with the Canadian company Aqua Health Ltd. and the only vaccines we sell are theirs. In terms of sea lice treatment products, we are representing Vericore. They now have become part of Novartis. Then, the market share was not very impressive. But by 1998 and 1999 we have been able to take it up to closer to 25%. Thinks are going according to our goals, so we're satisfied with that.

Additionally, we have a sister company called Scan Aqua, representing a New Zealand company with an anaesthetic for fish. The approvals for this product in Norway were obtained in late 1999. Since we do not have the MRL [Maximum Residue Levels, mandatory in Norway since 1st January 2000] documentation in place, we foresee that this year will be very low, if any sales at all. But we hope to back in strongly in 2001." The Scan Vacc growth in sales in 1999 was slightly above 50%, which Mr Kaurstad says they are "definitely satisfied with". "We had anticipated some strong growth, but not quite that much, so we were happy. This is turnover... profits are doing fine [no comment, books not yet closed for 1999].

A new comer in Norway is Aquaculture Vaccine Limited (AVL) which is one of the few 'independent' companies not backed or yet bought by a major pharmaceutical company. AVL is confident that all countries where it operates will contribute to its projected doubled turnover for 2000. "Yes, Chile, Norway, we're making big inroads in the South East Asian market... As new licences will come up we will have more sales opportunities", says MD, Mr Smith.

He doesn't seem to fear the harsh competition present in the Norwegian market place. "We've been able to learn quite a lot from other people's mistakes; so we think we have managed to develop some products which have made definite improvements in those areas". [...] "we have new adjuvant technology, with less in the way of side effects, and we've developed a very effective oral vaccine delivery system," says Mr Smith. AVL is awaiting licenses for products, It hopes to be in a sales position this year.

UK/Eire

There are three vaccine providers in UK/Eire: Vetrepharm, AVL and AquaHealth. Intervet Norbio will this year also come into this market.

For Vetrepharm, the main vaccine distributor of the British Isles and the daughter company of Vetrepharm since November 1999. The year could have been better. Vetrepharm suffered from the problems Alpharma experienced, since this is where its vaccines are coming from, and like Alpharma, lost substantial market share. "It wasn't bad... It was a cool year for everybody. Aquaculture is only part of our business. Trout farming for instance has always been a marginal business for us, since we do not have any vaccines," says MD Keith Thompson . We do however supply antimicrobials and biocides. The [trout] sector would appear to be static in spite of the BTA's [British Trout Association] efforts to improve the marketing. Marketing of salmon is beginning to improve and follows the further processing and added value pioneered by the poultry industry."

And I've said many times that salmon farming is poultry 20 years ago. They are doing better now, you can't sell whole salmon weighing 15 kilos but you can sell bits of salmon like poultry sells further processed [products]." Said Mr Thompson. Asked if his company had in any way felt the impact of the Infectious Salmon Anaemia disease (ISA) crisis in Scotland, Mr Thompson answered: "Vaccines are always in a different position, because they have to protect... its like buying insurance. And I don't know a single salmon company which doesn't vaccinate fish - whether or not the conditions are good - they just takes longer to pay."

"The salmon vaccine market - we had some interruption in supply, and that apart - we did alright. We've always been profitable." Over the years, Vetrepharm has been very dominant in both Ireland and Scotland with 70 to 80% market share, but the company would not release its figures for last year, which it admits were in decrease. Alpharma's Mr Enger said that: "Vetrepharm also had problems last year due to product shortage [the same as that which affected Alpharma] and also delays in the regulatory process. We have two products licensed in January of this year, and we had hoped to have obtained these licences 6 months earlier."

As for AHL, Mr Greenham said that their market share was 17% in Scotland in 1999, with the only one product they have licensed there, a single monovalent furunculosis product. "Our limitation in the UK is the availability of approved products." Admits the AHL executive.

CANADA

AHL says they are well implanted in Canada -where it claims a market share of around 70% in BC and New Brunswick. Following the Appearance of ISA in NB three years ago, AHL was the first one to have an ISA vaccine licensed for use in the Bay of Fundy. Last year's results weren't as good as first anticipated, but this was in no means solely due to the vaccine's fault, says Mr Greenham. (Also see our previous report - 1999 retrospective)

"The performance in the field wasn't exactly indicative of the performance in the laboratory, but it as a truly atypical year in NB also, the sea temperatures were higher than normal etc.; and it also very difficult to put on the finger field performance when there are so many factors involved." Mr Greenham had earlier told Intrafish. "It was a very rapid response product." [...] "Vaccines are not bullet-proof, they're an aid to the prevention of disease. They are put together with your husbandry programme. But of course we would have liked to see a better performance." "Certainly, vaccines are not 100% proof".

There were 20 new sites with ISA In 1999. Several farms had positive cages in the 1998 year class and there were some ISA incidence in single year class farms. Affected farms have all been eradicated. Just under 1 million fish were prematurely culled - from smolts to harvest size fish. All ISA infected sites were due to be cleaned out by the end of last month [January] to allow for fallow period before spring entry.

"Bayotek has now introduced a new ISA product in New Brunswick and took some of the market share. People are trying the product. But still, the vast majority of the fish vaccinated against ISA are vaccinated with our vaccine," says Mr Greenham

Chile

AHL say they are the first to have got an approval to sell an autogenous IPN vaccine in Chile, in June 1999. "All vaccine companies are attracted to this market are being quite aggressive," says Mr Greenham. The company estimated the Chilean vaccine business to be worth approximately US$12 million and to be growing slightly faster than the industry at 15%. Last year Cobequid had said that the new product licences it had applied for could increase its present sales in Chile by $3-4 million. The license for the IPN product was granted in June 1999.

"The problem in Chile is that the development of product is the largest challenge," says Mr Greenham. "There is not an effective SRS [Ricksettia] vaccine available here, in our opinion The other problem is a viral problem; Chile is a great market but its also a larger challenge compared to more traditional markets."

The R&D issues...

Side effects, IPN, ISA, Freshwater vaccines... Besides dealing with the important issue of side effects and getting IPN under control, there is a need to develop something for the fresh water part of the business.

There is still a lot of mortality in that area, especially in a country like Chile. In that country, the fish stay in lakes until they reach quite a large size due to favourable temperatures. The time before fish are being put to sea is delayed and this often results in a high mortality in lakes.

Below are some of the views from the people we have interviewed. IPN is indeed a big disease in Norway says Mr Rottereng from VESO: "We have epidemiological reports showing that there is also a very big problem here in Norway. And we definitely see a trend in the big demand for IPN vaccine in the past two years.

"The main issue is now to provide an IPN vaccine which is efficient. And next is to make more efficient vaccines with less side effect; especially on furunculosis and to some extent on the winter sore. We see that there are differences between vaccines in terms of efficiency and side effects. But different vaccine producers have different strategies as to how they achieve this."

To make an IPN vaccine a priority is also the view of Jim Roger Nordly from Euro Pharma: "The biggest challenge is to be able to prove that you have an effective IPN vaccine in the market; next comes the issue of side effects; then after that are all the new diseases. And of course, that there is a registration to do on this, and its getting tougher and tougher to get a registration from the government."

"Whereas for cats and dogs you have a fairly stable situation and you can keep vaccines for a long period of time - up to 15 years; in fish farming, if you can keep the same vaccine for 18 months, you are lucky! That's the way its been so far, and it looks set to continue. If you look at the situation we have now. Since January 1999, there has been something like 21-22 vaccines on the market in Norway, 18 of which are 'new', 'next generation' vaccines. Because of the costs involved, it is unlikely the companies have made much money from it. But on the other hand, if you are looking at the long term perspective, they have to do it if they want to be in this industry. The market is moving very quickly," said Mr Nordly.

"For instance, ISA and BKD vaccines can be done, but all these things cost money and some of the companies may only make a small margin one year, but not year after year. Big companies will never put money in something that can become a problem, [especially with little margins to play with]."

For Intervet, "our main issue is certainly to reduce side effects. I think that all the companies will agree on that. Certainly in oil-based vaccines. I think that all the vaccines in Norway are pretty effective" [...] "Vaccine side effect cases are very complicated. It could be that you'd need the attack of another virus to cause these side effects, but there no evidence to suggest that its only due to vaccines. Strains of fish, farm practices and hygiene, relations with other disease, and perhaps even viruses which we haven't discovered yet, can all be contributing factors." Mr Brown is confident that their new vaccines have dealt adequately with the problem.

"Our investment in R&D is huge, but then we're looking at the world market and 15 years ahead all the time. We're not there for short terms profits. You're talking about sold companies who are committed towards aquaculture. Because they see their potential in world-wide aquaculture. You can't base Intervet's commitment just on the Norwegian market! Because its obviously very small."

As for Mr Thompson of Vetrepharm, "All vaccine companies must keep more than one eye on the development of vaccines, not just for new species but to counteract - like the poultry industry has done - and look for disease which we didn't think were there before, like ISA. We haven't seen ISA before, but then we haven't seen Hitra, and vibrio viscosis hadn't been diagnosed. We haven't seen VHS, we don't get IHN, but there is no reason to suppose that we won't have it. And any company that wishes to stay into this business and wishes to make a serious contribution must realise that like the poultry industry - where chicken receive 14-16 vaccinations in its 38 days life - we're heading that way!" [...] "If the economic cost of developing vaccines is becoming a problem for some companies, they shouldn't be in the business... he said"

Regarding the suitability of developing an ISA vaccine in Norway, Mr Rottereng said: "There are two main issues here. 1) Can we produce an effective vaccine against Infectious Salmon Anaemia? I think we can. We are not the one making this vaccine but we have an idea what the manufacturers are able to. . But issue number 2 is: ' Would the authorities like to make vaccine as a strategy against ISA, or would the strategy be slaughtering and eradication of the infected fish'? So, for the fish farming industry it is possible to make a vaccine, but the issue for the vaccine industry is 'If there was a market, would the authorities change their eradication strategy?' I can not answer this.

But my feeling is that there will be quite some discussions in the EC as to whether the strategy should be slaughtering or to make vaccines available. So, I think that it will take some years for the strategy to come. This is just my feeling."

Alistair Brown said that indeed, developing an ISA vaccine was not a problem technically: "There is no problem in developing ISA vaccines, its just a question of whether we can use them. And how much of our resources we can use to develop the vaccine until we know we can use it. We started on ISA several years ago, its just a question of how far you go; but there is no problem in developing an ISA vaccine anyway".

"We are the Champions".. or 'Where is 2000 leading the Aquatic Animal Health industry to?' Mr Gausen of Kontali Analyses acknowledged the importance - for any company willing to go into the aqua health sector - of possessing a strong back. "Of course, producing a vaccine entails a lot of costs. The margins are dependent of their [R & D] investments. The vaccine producers are at the moment also putting a lot of efforts in [marketing] documentation and trials showing how good their products are compared to their competitors.")

"The competition is very hard and with new people coming in, I don't think that the margins will be coming up in coming years. I think that in Norway we have 5 competing companies. And all of them want to increase their market shares, and in order to do that they will need to reduce their margins. But in the long run, all of these are big companies and their parent company can afford to give money. I think they can go for a lot of years without earning any good money."

Euro Pharma general manager, Mr Nordly, said: "The competition is very hard with vaccines. The rebates are extremely high compared to what they used to be. If you compare with 1992, when the first oil-based vaccine came into the market, a litre was selling for about NOK 5,900 with no rebate. This, divided by 5000 doses/litre makes an average price of NOK 1.18 per dose. Now we have much more advanced vaccines, but the prices are much lower, it averages (all manufacturers included) around NOK 1 per dose."

"On the list price, it may seem that vaccines are getting more expensive, but there are such rebates systems that in effect it eats up the difference. It could be a problem in the future to be able to develop vaccines of that level and at the speed that we'd want to, because they may not be anybody willing to do that [invest heavily in R&D]."

Euro Pharma says it expects its turnover to reach NOK 110-116 million for the aqua health market this year in Norway. "We already have made the contract, so as long as we'll be able to keep up with the customers we will reach this," says Mr Nordly. "Our customers have been very loyal, we have picked up new ones but we have more or less kept 100% of the customers we had when we started and gained other on top."

Intervet is also 'certainly' looking at improving its market share in 2000. "We're looking at around 40%, at least, [combined trout salmon; it had 35% of the salmon vaccine market in 1999] of the Norwegian market. For the trout only, we've had a steady 74-75% of the market for the past 5 years, so I think its unlikely we're to lose any of that, says Mr Brown. "There is plenty of growth potential in the established market (Norway, the Faroese Islands, Scotland and Ireland); and there is plenty of growth for us in those markets... And then from there, we're also looking onto Chile and Canada. Now that Chile has IPN problems it'll come very fast".

So, 'what could wrong?' we asked Mr Brown: "I suppose that if you have too many people in the market and margins are pressed right down, then a company could decide to withdraw from the aquaculture market. It could happen theoretically. We're only talking about 4 or 5 companies."

And what about a 'price war'? "I wouldn't say that we're bothered about prices, and no, there is no 'price war', but then we sell our vaccines at a slightly higher price than others," he said.

Mr Kaurstad of Scan Vacc sees some 'uncertainties' in the growth of the vaccine market, but not so much for his products/company: "We think tha its possible for the market to grow. But there are a number of uncertainties. And we feel that these uncertainties will be bigger with our competitors than with us. [...] We feel that we are sure that our products have been there for a while, even if they are being improved upon [whereas] our competitors are to a large extent using new concepts with new products, and their trials are not always completed. In my opinion, their [competitors'] products have not been tested for as long as ours, and they may face problems."

Mr Nordly says they are "very optimistic [at Euro Pharma]. We have tripled our sales this January compared to January 1999. But for the industry as such, well, sooner or later, we will have to be able to stabilise the situation and come down to a few competitors who would be able to make money."

Quite optimistic then... But is Big Beautiful? Despite all the talks and the evidence of the harsh competition taking place within the industry, most of the company are very optimistic about their goals for the coming years.

Not only is the salmon market naturally growing, and other new markets profile themselves on the horizon, but most players are exhibiting a very strong confidence in their ability to capture their competitors' market shares... If we were to listen to them all, it seems that the market would be worth 160% of its own value... 'Our aim is definitely to increase our market share for the year 2000' is a sentence which was on the lips of almost all the people Intrafish talked to.

This would indicate that the companies backing the industry have a strong and long term commitment to the global aquaculture industry. Though, it may not be clear how effectively profitable this industry really is at the moment - if one considers the fury of R&D investments in the Norwegian market for instance, which is only worth in the region of GB?10 million annually in sales value, and where 4 of the world's biggest Pharmaceutical companies are competing - there is little doubt that the prospects of making 'big' money in the long term is there. But how many companies will still be there to reap the benefits?

Among talks of how small an industry the salmon vaccine business is - and considering how big are the players involved in it - there are at the moment rumours circulating about AVL, which some say could be the next company to be integrated in a larger alliance.

Mr Patrick Smith, MD for AVL denies such rumour: "No, actually. We are still a relatively small independent vaccine company. We are backed by the venture capital company '3i', which has given an enormous amount of support in the past 2-3 years. [...] We feel that this has given us a very strong base for carrying on independently, and to enter all the countries where aquaculture is a significant business." And would AVL not let itself be tempted by any offers?

"No, at the moment, I don't think we really need to. We are very much a stand alone business," says Mr Smith. "Also, I think a lot of major pharmaceutical companies have gone into the business; but we are a very specialised company just purely specialising in the aquaculture industry. And therefore we have built up an enormous amount of expertise in that area. [...] Small is sometime beautiful! We're small but we can react swiftly and we are very focused."

One industry source told Intrafish that "They are all part of large corporations, and I guess the trend towards more consolidation will not stop here, because I'm quite sure that 5 vaccine companies in Norway are at least two too many to have a profitable business. It's a very very small industry. If the aquaculture industry is to have new effective vaccines in the future, they will not have that with 5 companies not making money."

Mr Enger, from Alpharma said on this topic: "There is integration all over [in the aquaculture business] so why wouldn't this industry do it as well. Because even with a good growth its not a big market". Alpharma acquired Vetrepharm last November, the two companies operate on separate markets.

Asked whether he could foresee if his company would ever become a take-over target, Mr Nordly said: "This could happen of course, VESO was looking at us last year. But we didn't come up with an agreement. I would say that we will decide very much for ourselves what we want to do or not... We are a small company and this makes it easy for us to focus."

Conclusion

It seems that there is a least one thing that the vaccine industry is not short of: confidence. There has been some drastic shifts in the distribution of market shares in Norway - the leading market in salmon vaccine - in the past year.

Not only that, but developments have shown that such shifts can be reversed, just as easily and rapidly as they came about. Though, none of the companies involved seem overtly concerned. The fact that they indeed have a very strong back and deep pockets is probably what makes them so resilient.

As one industry source said, "We have no reason to be other than optimistic. But this business is perhaps the one which fluctuates the most within the salmon farming industry. Market shares in the vaccine business may go from 65% to 0% in one year! New products and bad experience with old products continuously help shift any customer loyalty" [...] "A market share is only there because your products work and they fulfil the needs of your customers and the price is something they will be prepared to pay."

But overall it seems that all are very optimistic in the current climate. One can however sense that this display of confidence is no game. Ultimately, believe quite a few industry sources, there will need to be less players in the business. The reluctance of many to communicate any financial information away shows that there is more to this business than just sales figures. R&D may for the moment constitute the prevalent part of the industry, and because it is the less visible one, it can also induce observers in error. Figures on R&D budgets and profits (which comes to the same) were hard to come by. In fact, very few people gave us any meaningful indications as to what they may be. It might be that after all this is -like many other businesses - a hard ball game.

As the MD of one the major non-Norwegian based company told Intrafish: "You seriously don't expect people to tell you how many doses of vaccine they sell?! In Norway, its recorded by law every month. Where else in the civilised world? And one of the problem in fish farming, is the data... everybody is in the databases but nobody knows what the sales are! I don't know of many companies who would blatantly announce their turnover and market shares. In Norway, they only do it because they have to. A lot of people guess at it. At the other end of our industry, which is the pharmaceutical end, there are 3 or 4 different data collection organisations which do their best to guess what's going on".

This is an industry with some big budgets (see the 'background' of the companies) and whose members can afford to carry out a lot of marketing. But these are suppliers which salmon farmers cannot do without. As Mr Enger said: "When you look at the aquaculture industry, the vaccines are the best investment which the farmers could be doing. Vaccines are extremely cheap compared to the job they do. If you go back a little in time and look at the use of antibiotics, the antibiotic treatment alone was much more expensive than vaccines before you even started to count the mortality. So you could say that for every dollar you invest on vaccines, you will get 10 dollars back on average, and in many instance much more. Without the vaccines, you wouldn't have a viable aquaculture industry.

The vaccine industry hence seems to have a good future ahead of it, no matter what. "We depend on the continued presence of the industry. Sometimes the prosperity of the aquaculture industry overall is not a barometer to the prosperity of the industry selling vaccine. Because insurance will be bought no matter what," said Mr Thompson.

Economically, one doesn't have to reduce the mortality very much to justify a vaccination programme. Its in the single digit percentages. Some say that reducing mortality by 2% is enough to pay back your vaccination programme.

However, the wealth of the vaccine industry will ultimately - of course - be dependent on the good health of the aquaculture business which feeds it. The ongoing climate of mergers and generally of restructuration in the global salmon farming industry also has its impact on the vaccine companies: "Yes, in a way it will be easier to loose or gain bigger shares depending on whether or not you have the right vaccine at the right time. If you're in a bad position, it will be easier to loose large chunks of the market, because we're now perhaps talking of 15 groups which buy more than 85% of all vaccines in Norway. So if you're in you're in, if you're out, you're out!" It is a very sensitive market, but there is no reason to believe we [Intervet] won't always be in," says Alistair Brown.

"Its hard to forecast the future in this business, and to what extent structural changes will affect us. We can obviously speculate. But for as long as the fish farming does well, we'll be okay. For a number of reasons, I think the competition will get tougher this year, especially in the vaccine segment. Intervet for instance is stronger that they were two years ago, and Bayer is trying at least to get into the market again. Now, AVL is also trying. All this means more competition this year in Norway," said Mr Kaurstad.

When asked if he thought there would be space for everybody, Mr Brown answered: "Time will tell! We're not talking about a very big market here in Norway, so people coming in the aquatic animal health market now will have to look long term and, certainly on the vaccine market, world-wide."

Salmon is only one of the most visible part of the aquaculture business, in Europe. Elsewhere in the world, it is about shrimps, yellow tails, carp, tilapia etc. that people think when hearing the word 'aquaculture'. And, in the rest of the aquaculture world the use of vaccine is still very limited. The high tech business of salmon farming is somehow an ideal area on which to practice the skills needed to develop - and indeed, service - the global aquaculture industry. A lot of these other aquaculture industries are not so (bio)technologically advanced and, for instance, still use greatly other chemicals and antibacterial agents.

Hence, there is still more than $100 million spent annually in Japan on antibiotics, in the yellow tail business alone. "That industry will not continue to live if we don't get good vaccines. But It [the vaccine market] will never be a big market, it will always be a niche market as you have to use different products in each market," said one source.

NOTES

A 1998 FAO study (GESAMP report no. 65) warns that the use of chemicals other than vaccines (antibiotics for example) "may incur penalties to the aquaculture industry including: 1) inter-national trade difficulties arising from the drug residue monitoring and enforcement programme; 2) the potential for loss of efficacy of prophylactic antibacterial agents; and 3) increased demand for and complexity of effluent treatment."

The report also mentions that "the possible effects of some aquacultural chemicals [...]on the health of fishfarm workers are of concern" and that " Stimulation of drug resistance in aquatic micro-organisms is a potential consequence of the use of antibacterials."

The authors however recognise that, regarding the salmon industry "the practice of providing antibacterial protection for Atlantic salmon smolts in Europe immediately before their transfer to sea has been largely discontinued because effective vaccines have become available." And it adds: "In other sectors, such as both shrimp and some fish hatcheries, [antibacterial] prophylaxis is common and applied to prevent bacterial and fungal diseases". [...] "Although vaccination is used routinely in salmon aquaculture, effective vaccines have not yet been developed for many of the diseases important in tropical aquaculture."

This article is a part of the IntraFish Market Report http://www.intrafish.com/engelsk/report/

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse Bill Mott, Director 102 Waterman Street, Suite 16 Providence, Rhode Island 02906 Tel: 401/272-8822 Fax: 272-8877 Email: bmott@seaweb.org Website: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac


(10) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Fish farming news and information from around the world - February 28, 2000

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:42:45 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

Fish farming news and information from around the world - February 28, 2000

1) US EPA agrees to effluent guidelines for fish farms
2) 'Genetically Modified Food Uproar Stalks Salmon Industry'
3) GM salmon research stopped in NZ
4) Offshore fish farming trials in Hawaii
5) DANA FEED A/S awarded ISO 14001 certification
6) London’s Daily Telegraph on disease, salmon farming and wild fish
7) Earth Island Journal article on salmon farming
8) Maine DMR staff recommends approval of Blue Hill Bay site for salmon farm
9) State of Maine files suit over salmon data
10) Time Magazine article: “Frankenfishing in the Gene Pool”

-------------------------------------------------------------

1) EPA effluent guidelines to be established under Clean Water Act

>From ENN:

ENN News
News Bytes
Saturday, February 26, 2000
Fish farm cleanup — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed on Thursday to establish effluent guidelines for fish farms under the Clean Water Act. "EPA's action is good news for U.S. waterways," said Environmental Defense senior scientist Rebecca Goldburg. "Most fish farms are feedlots that produce large quantities of wastewater laden with fish feces and uneaten fish feed. In some states, many large aquaculture operations are now virtually unregulated and large quantities of untreated fish wastes are regularly discharged into waterways. The establishment of effluent limitation guidelines should end such noxious practices." The agreement is the result of a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the EPA for failing to implement the Clean Water Act.

-------------------------------------------------------------

2)

>From Seafood.com:

Genetically Modified Food Uproar Stalks Salmon Industry

Seafood.com Feb 28- Growing public distrust of genetically modified foods has the potential to create a major problem for the salmon industry, and for aquaculture products in general, despite the fact that no genetically modified aquaculture products are being sold.

The salmon industry is particularly vulnerable, because the controversy is not simply over whether to introduce genetically modified organisms into the food chain, but also over whether genetically farmed salmon are a threat to the existence of wild salmon populations. The result is that some groups are fanning the fears of the public in a way that may be dangerous to the continued growth of salmon consumption.

This week, Time Magazine published a story on “Frankenfish”, quoting people who called the 10,000 to 20,000 genetically modified salmon in closed tanks of AF Protein, Inc., “a biological time bomb that could destroy the remaining natural salmon populations..”

Also, over the weekend, a New Zealand company, King Salmon, announced that it had killed all its genetically modified Chinook salmon, and “disposed of them in accordance with (scientific) containment protocols.” The company said it successfully passed down a growth hormone gene for three generations, which allowed the salmon to grow at three times their normal rate, and that their Chinook salmon could conceivably grow to 550 pounds. They have retained frozen sperm from the genetically engineered salmon at a secure location.

The shutting down of this research came days after New Zealand environmentalists had convinced the government to conduct another review of the licensing and inspection process for these experiments.

In Britain, also over the weekend, five Greenpeace activists boarded a ship with genetically modified soybeans for animal feed, and prevented it from unloading until they were arrested. Then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a change of his support for GM foods, said on Sunday that the technology has “the potential to harm”.

Blair made his statement just before the opening of a three-day conference of OECD nations on the science of genetically modified foods.

We have been reporting on this story for months because it has the potential to have a negative impact on seafood consumption, despite the fact that no seafood currently uses this technology. In the same way that press stories about ocean and beach pollution in the late 1980’s made people question whether seafood came from clean waters, the controversy over GM foods has the potential to make consumers suspicious of aquaculture seafoods.

-------------------------------------------------------------

3)

>From IntraFish:

GM salmon research stopped

Publisert: 28.02.2000 07:00

A controversy involving leaked secret documents and deformed salmon heads has ended with a New Zealand company agreeing to kill all its genetically engineered salmon, reports the AP.

More than a year after New Zealand King Salmon Co. Ltd. was first accused of breeding transgenic chinook salmon in the so-called ‘Franken-fish’ experiment, the company announced Friday it would bury the remains of the specially grown fish and suspend its research.

King Salmon's chief executive Paul Steere said the company made the decision after it had successfully introduced an additional growth hormone gene into chinook salmon and passed the trait down three generations, since the initial gene introduction work in the mid-1990’s. . He denied the decision to suspend the project was influenced by political, ethical or scientific resistance. "Our decision is purely based on the best placement of our resources, which for a company of our size are limited," said Mr Steere. Opponents of the project have fought for more than a year to stop it after leaked secret papers showed deformed heads and other abnormalities had occurred during the breeding program.

"Our review concluded some minor benefit may accrue from further selection work with further generations on additional traits such as maturation, fat levels and colour uptake. However the necessary resources of finance and expertise are best placed in priorities arising from our family selective breeding programme, which with promising progress has commenced commercial output,” Steere said in a statement.

After receiving the new growth hormone gene, the salmon grew three times faster than the normal rate. King Salmon has admitted some of the first-generation fish had developed lumps on their heads due to apparent genetic deformities. “All modified salmon have been killed and disposed of, in accordance with (scientific) containment protocols,'' Steere said. "The next major phase for the transgenic research would have required significant resources to demonstrate triploid (sterility) assurity and expansion for commercial production.”

"While similar progress has been made with Atlantic salmon in Canada our achievement is the envy of all involved in this work and others in general broodstock breeding programmes," said Mr Steere. The Canadian work is expected to go into commercial production next year.

The company said it would retain frozen sperm from genetically engineered salmon ``at a secure location'' so it was available to continue the program in the future. The company's experimental work was halted as the government prepared to establish an inquiry into the project and its controls to prevent live salmon or fertile eggs escaping into the wild.

-------------------------------------------------------------

4)

>From FIS:

Sea Grant Programme uses Ocean Spar cage

UNITED STATES

Friday, February 25, 2000, 00:30 (GMT + 9)

As part of a trial conducted the Sea Grant Programme at the University of Hawaii, known as the Hawaii Offshore Research Project (HOARP), approximately 70,000 Pacific threadfin (Polydactus sexilifis), known in Hawaii as ´Moi´ have been harvested from a cage moored two miles off Ewa Beach, Ohau.

A SeaStation™ cage developed by Ocean Spar Technologies (OST), USA was used in the project and was submerged 12 metres below the surface for all of the seven months it took to grow the fish to market size. This avoided any problems for the fish that may otherwise have been caused by wave action at the offshore site, and overcame local concerns about the visibility of floating fish farm structures and possible negative reaction from tourists. Ocean Spar´s cages are made specifically for offshore conditions and are designed to minimize motion induced by external forces in order to reduce wear and fatigue in cage components.

The fish in the HOARP trial were fed by an experimental under water feeding system and harvested by pumping them to the surface with an airlift pump, once they had been crowded inside the net by divers. Juvenile fish, supplied by the Oceanic Institute in Hawaii, were first introduced into a special holding net inside the cage, where they were fed until they were big enough to be released into the 3000 cubic metres of rearing volume in the main cage.

Charles Helsley, Hawaii Sea Grant Director said: "The potential of aquaculture in open-ocean environments has attracted considerable interest throughout the world and raises the intriguing possibility of fully utilizing the ocean´s resources. The successful demonstration of a fully submersible SeaStation is an important step towards realizing this goal and HOARP expects it to become a national model for offshore cage culture."

Potential applications of the SeaStation Sea Cage include all warm water farmed species, as well as salmon. The cage can be submerged to avoid: plankton blooms, visibility, high vessel traffic, and storm events. It can also be released from its moorings and towed (with full volume!) to other areas or harbours for harvest, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------

5)

>From FIS:

DANA FEED A/S is awarded ISO 14001 certification

DENMARK

Monday, February 28, 2000, 12:00 (GMT + 9)

Danish firm DANA FEED A/S, a developer and producer of high quality extruded fish feed, has been working hard for the past few years, to make the firm and its products as environmentally friendly as possible.

The firm´s hard work and dedication has paid off. Earlier this month, the company´s Environmental Management System was tested and approved by Dansk Standard and DANA FEED was awarded the environmental certification ISO 14001.

Following the achievement, the management of DANA FEED feels the company can now be ranked among other top firms that strive to protect the environment.

DANA FEED told Fish Info Service that environmentally friendly production is definitely the way forward, as more and more clients demand environmentally friendly products and prefer to work with companies that share the same philosophy.

By Karen Myles

-------------------------------------------------------------

6)

Copyright 2000 Telegraph Group Limited

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON)

February 26, 2000, Saturday

SECTION: Pg. 13

LENGTH: 1079 words

HEADLINE: Country: Reel life With a deadly virus devastating Scotland's salmon farms, can we trust those who would have us believe that the wild fish are safe?

BYLINE: By Charles Clover

Just as it looked as if things couldn't get much worse for the king of fish, a salmon disease apparently new to Britain was found on a Scottish fish farm in 1998. By the end of last year, three quarters of the industry had been quarantined: 11 cases confirmed and 24 suspected. In November 1999, the Government announced that the virus that produces infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) had been discovered in wild fish: brown trout, rainbow trout, eel and salmon parr in fresh water.

Then, in December, inquiries by Friends of the Earth Scotland established that an estimated 11,000 full-grown salmon suspected of harbouring the disease had escaped from a farm on Loch Roag in Lewis close to three famous wild salmon river systems, the Grimersta, Morsgail and Garynahine. These rivers produced 2,000 rod-caught fish between them before salmon farming arrived in the 1980s, but fewer than 300 last year. Disaster appeared imminent.

Salmon catches have already reached historic lows, thanks to overfishing, damage to spawning grounds, acidification and sea lice infestation from fish farms in the estuaries and sea lochs. Worst of all are signs that the salmon's cold-water migration lanes to and from Greenland, where they go to feed, are contracting, possibly as a result of global warming.

But just how bad is ISA? Is it a worse threat than UDN (ulcerative dermal necrosis), remembered by many as the beginning of the end of pre-1960s plenty? Is it like those other fish farm diseases that do not seem to have affected wild fish? Or is it a plague comparable to the infestation of sea lice thought responsible for devastating wild sea trout and salmon runs on the west coast?

We do know that ISA is a disaster for salmon farmers. It has cost the industry pounds 37 million and caused four million farmed salmon to be compulsorily slaughtered. Where opinions differ is on what ISA means for wild fish. In Scotland and Norway, the prevailing view among government scientists - who often come under political pressure to balance the threat to the wild with the economic benefits provided by salmon farms - is that the disease is caused by the conditions in which farmed fish are kept and is not of great concern to fish in the wild.

In Canada, however, symptoms of the disease have been reported in wild salmon running the same river as farm escapees. Independent scientists have expressed their alarm.

ISA causes haemorrhages in the fish's kidneys, spleen and other organs, and depresses the immune system and growth. In laboratory tests, with fish kept close together in a tank for long periods, ISA kills all but one or two per cent. The survivors then develop a strong immunity. Vaccines for ISA are being developed but EU law restricts their use. The disease is not thought to affect humans.

No one knows when or where the virus originated but it has been around a long time. The strains special to Canada and Norway are thought to have divided about 100 years ago - though Canada now has the Norwegian version, too.

The absence of any proof that the virus has been imported from elsewhere leaves the growing likelihood - seized upon by an industry that has been blamed for the crisis as well as the victim of it - that it has a greater incidence in the wild than previously thought. The virus has been isolated in three cases: two sea trout and one eel on Mull, not far from fish farms. Less reliable tests have shown that it may have been present also in brown and rainbow trout and salmon parr in the Rivers Conon and Tweed, and on farms in Aberdeenshire and Kinross-shire, a long way from marine fish farms.

The official view, given by John Home Robertson, the Scottish fisheries minister, is that: "Claims of spread from fish farming to the wild are not supported by any current evidence or fact." The Government has now agreed to carry out tests for ISA in wild fish south of the border, where there are no fish farms.

In Norway, where the virus was discovered in 1984, scientists say that ISA is a disease of farmed salmon, triggered by stressed conditions, not a disease seen in the wild.

Dr Knut Falk of the National Veterinary Institute in Oslo says: "Even in the early 1990s, when the disease was detected in 100 farms - 10 per cent of Norwegian fish farms - no indications of any disaster in wild salmon were detected." Since then, strict controls on discharges of blood and other infectious material have reduced the number of farms developing the disease to two a year.

According to Dr Falk, the disease proceeds slowly, taking four or five months to kill most of the salmon in a cage, but often leaving neighbouring cages unaffected. He says: "To get the disease, it seems that considerable infectious pressure has to be generated, and I doubt that this will be possible in populations of wild fish. It seems, both from experimental work as well as observations in fish farms, that the salmon can handle small amounts of virus." His verdict: "I don't think you will get a disaster in wild fish."

A strikingly different view comes from Dr Fred Whoriskey, a scientist working with the Atlantic Salmon Foundation in Canada. He has recently found ISA in both fish farm escapees and wild brood stock collected on the Magaguadavic river in New Brunswick, just north of the US border. Three of the wild fish, collected in a fish ladder above the tide, died of their symptoms. The rest tested positive for the virus.

Dr Whoriskey says: "The virus is like a time bomb, waiting inside the fish for conditions to shift in its favour. When they do - for example, when the fish becomes stressed, decreasing its immune system, or when water temperatures favour virus growth (10C-15C) - it takes off and the symptoms appear. You've got the virus in wild populations; the symptoms will come." He believes that no one has yet looked hard enough. Canada is also conducting tests to see if the virus can be transmitted "vertically" down the generations.

The discovery of wild fish with ISA is about as worrying as it gets, particularly when you consider that the Magaguadavic's wild run has fallen from an average of 750 fish in the 1980s to 24 in 1999.

As the salmon farming industry seeks to downgrade the importance of ISA, to save it from further losses, the defenders of the wild salmon are using the Canadian experience to argue that without more effective regulation, there could be a wider disaster.

Daily Telegraph Environment Editor

-------------------------------------------------------------

7)

Earth Island Journal

March 22, 2000

SECTION: No. 1, Vol. 15; Pg. 29 ; ISSN: 1041-0406

IAC-ACC-NO: 59211589

LENGTH: 1211 words

HEADLINE: A Farewell to Salmon?

BYLINE: Sullivan, Ron

BODY:

The small brown, battered fish found in most breeding farms barely resemble the long silvery torpedoes we know as the aristocratic Atlantic salmon.... Farm fish, the marine equivalent of domesticated cattle, are being bred in ever greater numbers while salmon in the wild have dangerously dwindled to an all-time low.

-- Marilyn Bauer, "Incredible Disappearing Salmon," Boston Globe

In addition to the usual litany -- dams, pollution, over-fishing and habitat loss -- wild Atlantic and Pacific salmon now face a new threat -- from fish farming. By 1998, the North American spawning run, once estimated at 2.5 million adult breeding fish, had fallen to an all-time low of 80,000. Farmraised salmon now outnumber wild salmon 50-to-one.

Bill Taylor, president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, calls the salmon "a barometer for the health of the North Atlantic ecosystem.... The fact that our salmon populations are in freefall should signal to us that the health of our rivers and oceans is under siege."

Conservation measures such as catch-and-release fishing rules, commercial fishing bans and river cleanups, while partially successful in some areas, have failed to give salmon populations a significant boost. Even international agreements that halted fishing in the waters off Greenland and North America have failed to reverse the salmon's death spiral.

Last October, a joint report by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) warned that, despite conservation measures, wild Atlantic salmon are in danger of extinction. Fewer Atlantic salmon are returning to spawn each year while large numbers of young salmon are not surviving in the rivers and the ocean.

Fish Farms vs. Wild Salmon

According to FWS biologist Paul Nickerson, the biggest threat to the survival of the wild Atlantic salmon comes from farm-raised salmon. "The aquaculture industry raises salmon of various origins," Nickerson notes, and when these fish escape "they pose several threats to wild populations."

Salmon farming is big business. The $ 900 million US seafood-farming industry accounts for $ 60 million worth of annual earnings in Maine alone. Nonetheless, the threat to Atlantic salmon is so severe that the FWS and NMFS have called for reducing water diversions to increase river flows, tighter restrictions on sport-fishing, and closer regulation of fish-farming.

In October 1999, in response to the FWS/NMFS report, US Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announced that he would nominate the Atlantic salmon for Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection. A Defenders of Wildlife lawsuit demanding an emergency ESA listing for the Atlantic salmon also spurred Babbitt's action.

The actual listing could take up to 15 months. Meanwhile, local governments -- along with the logging, sport-fishing, and cranberry- and blueberry-growing industries -- are raising strenuous objections. Maine Governor Angus King called Babbitt's ruling a "betrayal" that would cripple the state's aquaculture industry.

While fish farms provide an economic boost to coastal communities, aquaculture is no friend of the wild salmon. Fish-farming, like any farming, uses local resources: water, space, fuel and feed. As Michael V. McGinnis pointed out in a 1994 Natural Resources Journal essay, "hatchery production of salmon masks the decline of wild salmon, contributes to the genetic dilution and loss of wild salmon, and increases the competition for freshwater and ocean resources on which salmon depend."

Atlantic Salmon in the Pacific?

It may come as a surprise that fish farms on the Pacific coast do not raise Pacific salmon: They typically raise Atlantic salmon. When farmgrown salmon escape or are released into oceans and rivers, they compete with threatened wild populations. Escaped farm salmon may displace wild stock in their traditional spawning grounds. If they mate with wild salmon, they can dilute the genetic strength of wild salmon populations.

Because salmon-farm breed stock and fry are collected from many scattered locations, this can introduce genetic traits that are disadvantageous for the long-term survival of wild salmon. The smaller the wild population, the greater the threat.

Infectious salmon anemia (ISA) is an incurable disease caused by a virus that seems to mutate easily, complicating efforts to control it. Crowded fish-farm conditions facilitate the spread of the disease. ISA has been found in Atlantic salmon raised in both Atlantic and Pacific Coast fish-farms. ISA has caused millions of dollars in losses in Norway, Scotland and New Brunswick, Canada, where entire fish stocks had to be destroyed to prevent the further spread of the infection.

In October 1999, the Research and Environment Department of the Atlantic Salmon Federation confirmed that ISA-infected salmon from Atlantic fish farms had escaped and apparently spread the disease to the embattled wild salmon populations.

ISA first surfaced in the Norwegian salmon farming industry in 1984. An ISA epidemic swept Canada's east coast fisheries in 1996. ISA now threatens US fish-farms in Cobscook Bay, near the Canadian border.

Escapes happen regularly, because of pen damage and accidents -- especially during extreme seasonal tides. On the Pacific Coast, escaped salmon have been found breeding in West Coast rivers, where they are slowly replacing their native cousins.

Last September, 30,000 farmed salmon broke through the torn netting of a Vancouver Island pen. The BC Ministry of Fisheries ruled that Stolt Sea Farms Ltd., the farm's owner, had not been negligent and merely recommended that regulations be "reviewed" and that "fish recovery plans be prepared and put in place" -- a slippery prospect, at best.

The Canadian government gave the escaped salmon a clean bill of health, but independent lab tests commissioned by Alexandra Morton ["Salmon Farming's Hidden Harm," Summer '96 EIJ] found that the fish-farm fugitives carried furunculosis, a bacterial disease that poses a serious threat to wild salmon.

In spite of such disclosures, the BC government rejected a call to place a moratorium on the creation of new fish farms and announced that it would increase the number of new netcage fish-farms by as much as 42 percent.

"Fish farm expansion in BC is being driven by the collusion of power and money," charged Howard Breen of the Georgia Strait Alliance. Breen called the BC government's decision a "dangerously unacceptable response to an industry that has hammered the final nail in the coffin of wild salmon in Atlantic Canada and will surely do the same here in British Columbia."

Breen believes the only thing that can save the salmon from extinction is a joint effort by Indigenous fishers and activists to mount a campaign of "direct action to stop this catastrophic environmental crime from occurring."

Meanwhile, the world's largest Atlantic salmon farm, Scotland's Hydro Seafood, has been targeted for a takeover by the US-based ContiGroup Companies.

ContiGroup happens to be the world's largest producer of cattle feed. It is an ironic twist that "the marine equivalent of domesticated cattle" will soon be fattened by a cattlefeed outfit.

-------------------------------------------------------------

8)

Copyright 2000 Bangor Daily News

BANGOR DAILY NEWS (BANGOR, MAINE)

February 25, 2000 Friday

LENGTH: 860 words

HEADLINE: DMR staff favor salmon farm off Blue Hill

BYLINE: Samantha Coit Of the NEWS Staff

BLUE HILL -- Along with tourists and seasonal residents, Blue Hill may be home to another community on the bay -- 400,000 farm-raised Atlantic salmon.

The state Department of Marine Resources this week recommended approval of fish farmer Erick Swanson's plans to raise up to 400,000 salmon on a 35-acre tract off the eastern shore of Long Island. The recommendation came with seven conditions attached.

Swanson, who is the sole director for Acadia Aquaculture Inc., wants the exclusive right to lease the site for 10 years to expand his nearby Trumpet Island salmon farm to raise single-year classes of the fish -- a method of fish disease prevention.

DMR hearing officer Laurice Churchill made the recommendation to Commissioner George Lapointe, who will make the final call on the fish farm proposal after applicants and those who gained legal standing in the case respond during a 10-day comment period.

Initial approval of the project came despite strong public opposition and a privately funded study detailing apparent inadequacies of the site for a fish farm. Those factors included low water flow and low levels of dissolved oxygen, signs of a static environment with little flushing power to wash away food and feces, according to Friends of Blue Hill Bay, a group opposed to the plan.

The group presented the study at an Oct. 27 hearing on the proposal with oceanographer Neal Pettigrew, an associate professor of oceanography at the University of Maine who specializes in coastal water circulation issues, and who conducted the study.

DMR staff recommended approval of the project because it found that the aquaculture plans meet state criteria for a lease site.

For example, the proposal would not interfere unreasonably with navigation, fishing or other uses of the area, nor public enjoyment within 1,000 feet of municipal, state or federal beaches, parks or recreation facilities, according to the report.

The report also states that the proposed fish farm site will not interfereunreasonably with the lease site's ability to support existing flora and fauna. The commissioner may revoke the permit if activities at the lease site are "substantially injurious to marine organisms. "

Swanson could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Ellen Best, a spokesperson for Friends of Blue Hill Bay, was preparing comments to be sent to the DMR commissioner.

"We were sorry that Ms. Churchill dismissed Neal Pettigrew's findings out-of-hand and seemed to give them no weight," Best said Thursday.

According to Best, the DMR report did not include a condition that would prohibit Swanson from using public facilities in Blue Hill, another concern she planned to share with the commissioner.

"Devastated," was the word that intervenor Don Eley used to describe his reaction to the DMR report.

"The state has put the issue of aquaculture ahead of science," said Eley. "If it turns the bay into a cesspool, then they'll change their mind. " Eley wrote to Gov. Angus King, the Department of Marine Resources and the editor of his local weekly to share his concerns.

Blue Hill Selectman Gordon Emerson said he was surprised by the department's recommendation to okay the site.

"If it is approved, we want some control over pollution," he said.

Intervenor Robert Slaven Jr. said, "The whole concept is upside down. " If a proposal meets certain criteria, an oil rig could be placed in the middle of the bay, he said.

Slaven said he has considered applying for a lease of the entire bay for boaters, fishermen and recreational use.

Conditions recommended for a lease site approval are: Allowing lobster and crab fishing in open areas of the site; ensuring all inboard engines operated by the leaseholder have caged propellers; reaching agreements with Acadia National Park, Blue Hill selectmen and the Seal Cove Landing Committee, who expressed concerns about public resources at a public hearing; and marking the lease site area with standards set by the Coast Guard and DMR.

Last summer, the state nixed two nearby lease site applications from Belfast-based Atlantic Salmon of Maine to raise more than 1 million salmon.

Suitability of the site proved to be a hot topic at a public hearing on the fish farm proposal.

The Friends of Blue Hill Bay initiated a study that examined 40 locations throughout the bay for temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen levels at depths extending to 40 meters, compared with the 15-meter depths considered in the Department of Marine Resources' site review.

Pettigrew, who conducted the study has said that at 40 meters, dissolved oxygen levels decreased significantly.

The department's site review outlined that water circulation and levels of dissolved oxygen are lower than at other Maine sites.

The conditions could contribute to a build-up of feed and fecal matter under the pens, according to a report by Jon Lewis, the state's aquaculture environmental coordinator.

Lewis said the state's monitoring program would be able to detect changes in oxygen levels or accumulations of food and feces under the site.

LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2000

-------------------------------------------------------------

9)

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. These materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The Associated Press.

February 25, 2000, Friday, AM cycle

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 588 words

HEADLINE: State files suit over salmon data

BYLINE: By DAVID SHARP, Associated Press Writer DATELINE: PORTLAND, Maine

Frustrated by delays, the state is suing for access to data used by federal government scientists to support their proposal to place wild Atlantic salmon on the endangered species list.

The state also wants a court order extending the March 15 deadline for public comments to ensure independent scientists have an opportunity to review the data and enter their findings into the public record.

Gov. Angus King expressed outrage Friday over repeated attempts by the state to get access to the federal government's raw data.

"They're saying they want to base this on science and to keep politics out of it. Fine, we want to look at the science," King's spokesman, Dennis Bailey, said from his office in Augusta.

Frustration has been building since the government delivered CD-ROMs on Jan. 24 that turned out to be useless because a University of Maine professor could not access the data they contained, Bailey said.

A scientist at the Maine State Police Crime Laboratory confirmed the professor's findings that the CD-ROMs were useless, he said.

Then, on Feb. 16, more data was received but this time the disks did not have a template necessary for the state to evaluate the raw data. Federal officials initially declined to turn over the templates, Bailey said.

King said he does not understand why the government is dragging its feet, especially after the state took the step of filing a formal request for data under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on Dec. 21.

"It's irresponsible and it makes me suspicious that there is something in the data they don't want us to see," King said in a statement.

Paul Nickerson, chief of the endangered species unit for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's northeastern division in the Hadley, Mass., said Friday that he believed the federal government had complied with state requests.

"We've been up to our necks with FOIA requests. And we provided piles of information to Maine. So the fact that there was something wrong with those disks comes as a complete surprise to me," Nickerson said.

The federal government continues to maintain it will provide the essential data but not until March 3, the lawsuit says.

By then, it will be too late because independent scientists cannot review the data and report back in the one week before the end of the public comment period, according to the state's lawsuit.

The lawsuit to enforce the state's original request for data, and to request a temporary restraining order to delay the deadline for public comments for 30 days, were filed Thursday in U.S. District Court.

Named in the lawsuit are the Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The federal government proposed in November to list wild Atlantic salmon from seven Maine rivers under the Endangered Species Act.

The rivers are the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Narraguagus, Pleasant, Ducktrap and Sheepscot. Also named is Cove Brook, a tributary of the Penobscot River.

King contends there is not enough scientific data to show the wild salmon are different from other salmon. He also contends the move would be devastating to the Down East economy, which relies on salmon farms and blueberry farms, some of which draw water from the rivers for irrigation.

King supports a proposal by U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct an independent survey of the data behind the proposed listing.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2000

-------------------------------------------------------------

10)

>From TIME:

SCIENCE MARCH 6, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 9

Make Way for Frankenfish! What Happens To These Ordinary Salmon If The Genetically Modified Lunkers Ever Get Loose? BY FREDERIC GOLDEN

Whether served as raw sushi, grilled steak or in thin smoked slices, most of the salmon you eat these days is not the sleek sport fish that has been a favorite of anglers since Izaak Walton but rather a chunky, sluggish creature raised in captivity. Indeed, salmon caught in the wild accounts for less than half of all salmon sold in the U.S.

Now gene splicers have cooked up a replacement that sounds like a fish tale: a veritable superfish, one that can grow at least twice as fast, resist disease and outmate competitors. If approved, it could provide protein to millions of people at a time when fish stocks are perilously low. But as you might expect, some critics are carping. They consider the supersalmon a biological time bomb that could destroy the remaining natural salmon populations and wreak other environmental havoc. To them, the supersalmon is nothing less than a "Frankenfish."

Unlike other genetically modified foods--so-called Frankenfoods--the supersalmon was born almost accidentally. About 20 years ago, a fish researcher in Newfoundland found that even though his saltwater tank had frozen, the flounder in it survived. Adapted to icy Canadian waters, the fish turned out to have a gene, known in other polar fishes, that produces an anti-freeze protein. While trying to splice this gene into salmon so it too could be grown in colder waters, scientists made a second accidental discovery: they found that while the gene didn't keep the salmon from freezing, a portion of it, when stitched onto a salmon's growth-hormone gene, greatly speeded development--up to five or six times as fast as in the early months and about twice as fast overall. Patenting their discovery, the scientists started a company in Waltham, Mass., called A/F Protein (A/F stands for antifreeze).

The company has 10,000 to 20,000 Atlantic supersalmon swimming in endless circles in 136 tanks at three locations in Canada's Maritime provinces. The hope is that these fish will soon be producing eggs for commercial aquaculture not just in Canada but in New Zealand, Chile and the U.S. as well. By turning to the supersalmon, says Elliot Entis, A/F's president, fish farmers could double production without doubling costs because the fish converts food into body mass so much more efficiently than ordinary salmon. That, he says, would mean "more fish for more people at a lower price."

But this so-called blue revolution may not reach U.S. shores for a while. Although gene scientists in the U.S. have been tinkering with a variety of marine creatures--not only salmon and trout but also carp, catfish, tilapia and shrimp--these efforts are drawing criticism similar to that directed at genetically modified foods. Opponents, who complain about the fertilizers and other pollutants released into coastal waters by the fish farms, are especially concerned about the potential impact on the gene pool. They note that domesticated fish regularly escape from their pens into the wild and breed with native stocks, upsetting the balance of nature.

No one knows what ripple effects might occur if the new supersalmon escaped into the wild. One of the few studies done by U.S. researchers found a lower survival rate for eggs produced by transgenic fish. Still other studies show that despite their name, so-called superfish have diminished muscle structure and swimming performance. Says Canadian fish geneticist Robert Devlin: "Science, at the moment, is unable to give us a reliable assessment of risk."

Entis and others reply that whatever the risk, it could be lowered to almost zero by raising the fish in closed tanks rather than in storm-exposed pens. Still another tactic under consideration is shocking the fertilized eggs so they create fish that cannot reproduce--a marine equivalent of the self-destructing terminator gene that Monsanto once considered putting in its patented plant seeds.

Fearing a consumer backlash, New Zealand King Salmon, a major producer of Chinook salmon--the largest Pacific salmon--announced last week that it was suspending its gene-modification experiments. Entis, by contrast, believes he can win acceptance of his supersalmon through public education. "We have to show we have nothing to hide," he says.

But don't count on putting supersalmon lox on your Sunday-morning bagel anytime soon. The Food and Drug Administration must first approve introduction of the fish into the U.S., something that probably won't happen before 2001.

--REPORTED BY DICK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON

COPYRIGHT © 2000 TIME INC.


(1) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: B.C. Salmon Farmers Association has reinforced its position against the use of transgenics

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:28:30 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

CC: "James Semple" , "Allan Berry"

Canada NewsWire

March 1, 2000, Wednesday

SECTION: DOMESTIC NEWS

DISTRIBUTION: Attention News/Assignment Editors

LENGTH: 343 words

HEADLINE: B.C. Salmon Farmers reinforce stance against ‘transgenics’

DATELINE: VANCOUVER, March 1

The Board of Directors of the B.C. Salmon

Farmers Association (BCSFA) has reinforced its position against the use of

transgenic - or genetically modified - fish in aquaculture.

At a Board meeting on February 24, 2000 in Campbell River, BCSFA Directors voted unanimously to strengthen its policy against the use of transgenic fish in British Columbia. Membership in the BCSFA is contingent upon companies using only naturally bred salmon for food production in their operations.

The prohibition against the use of transgenics is also enshrined in the BCSFA Code of Practice - a voluntary code of operational guidelines enacted on January 1, 2000 to improve the environmental performance of B.C. salmon farms prior to the implementation of new aquaculture regulations in British Columbia.

“B.C. salmon farmers are wholly opposed to the use of genetically modified fish in aquaculture - both here in British Columbia and around the world,” said BCSFA Executive Director Anne McMullin. “Transgenic fish are not used in commercial production today, and should not be used in the future unless science can prove that they present no danger to human health, wild stocks or the marine environment.”

McMullin acknowledged the growing public concern about the use of genetically modified fish in aquaculture. She noted, however, that transgenic fish are not approved for use in aquaculture production anywhere in the world and that the international salmon farming industry has taken a firm stance against their use.

There are activist groups that are using the future threat of transgenic fish in aquaculture as a means to oppose salmon farming as practiced today,” McMullin said. “It’s important that the public understands that the salmon farming industry shares its concerns about genetically modified fish, and has no plans to use transgenics now or in the future.”

CONTACT: Anne McMullin, Executive Director, (604) 682-3077

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2000


(2) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Some Marine Biotechnology Web Sites

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:34:53 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

CC: "James Semple" , "Allan Berry"

BIO - Guide to Biotechnology

See bottom of page for Applications of Marine Biotechnology

US Department of Agriculture - Biotechnology for the 21st Century: New Horizons Opportunities in Marine Biotechnology and Aquaculture

University of Maryland, Center of Marine Biotechnology

University of California, Marine Biotechnology Center

Marine Science Online Magazine

Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ltd.

US National Sea Grant Office, Applications of Marine Biotechnology

Marine Biotechnology Highlights

Maine Biotechnology Research Unit, Thailand

US Office of Naval Research, Biotechnology

Seaweed Biotechnology Laboratory

National University of Ireland, Galway Seaweed site:

Marine Biotechnology Institute, Japan

Meron Group

Marine Chemicals:

Biotechnology Links


(3) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: FDA Request for Comments on Issue Related to New Animal Drugs

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:15:09 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

CC: "Allan Berry" , "James Semple"

Thanks to Gary Jensen for this posting.

If interested, written comments should be submitted by May 8, 2000.

[Federal Register: February 8, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 26)] [Notices] [Page 6214-6216]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration Review of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs; Center Responsibility and Standards for Prompt Review; Availability of Draft Guidance

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is making available information regarding the approval of supplemental applications for approved new animal drugs. CVM is publishing standards for the prompt review of supplemental applications and referencing an existing guidance that describes how supplemental applications may qualify for priority review. CVM is also designating an individual within the Center who is responsible for encouraging the prompt review of supplemental applications and for working with sponsors to facilitate the development and submission of data to support supplemental applications. Further, CVM is describing its efforts to collaborate with other organizations and persons to identify published and unpublished studies that may support supplemental applications and to encourage sponsors to submit supplemental applications based on such studies. In addition, CVM is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Development of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs.'' This draft guidance explains how drug sponsors can use data submitted in support of an original application to support supplemental applications.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 8, 2000. Written comments on the existing guidance entitled ``CVM's Program Policy and Procedures Guide 1240.3135,'' which describes how supplemental applications qualify for priority review, may be submitted at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of ``Guidance for Industry: Development of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs'' or ``CVM's Program Policy and Procedures Guide 1240.3135'' to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. Copies of the draft guidance and the existing guidance may be obtained on the Internet at http:// www.fda.gov/cvm. Submit written comments on the draft guidance, ``Guidance for Industry: Development of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs'' to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit written comments on CVM's ``Program Policy and Procedures Guide 1240.3135'' to the Policy and Regulations Team (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn N. Martinez, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation (HFV-130), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, 301- 827-7577.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 403 of the FDAMA (Pub. L. 105-115) instructs FDA to provide certain information regarding approval of supplemental applications for approved products. Among other things, section 403 requires that FDA do the following: (1) Section 403(a) requires that the agency publish standards for the prompt review of supplemental applications; (2) section 403(b)(1) requires that FDA provide guidance to ``clarify circumstances in which published matter may be the basis for the approval of a supplemental application''; (3) section 403(b)(2) requires that FDA provide guidance that specifies ``data requirements that will avoid duplication of previously submitted data by recognizing the availability of data previously submitted in support of an original application.'' (4) section 403(b)(3) requires that FDA provide guidance that defines supplemental applications that are eligible for priority review; (5) section 403(c) requires that FDA designate an individual within each Center to be responsible for encouraging the prompt review of supplemental applications and working with sponsors to facilitate development and submission of data to support supplemental applications; and (6) section 403(d) requires the implementation of programs and policies to foster collaboration between FDA and other organizations and persons to identify published and unpublished studies that might support supplemental applications and to encourage sponsors to submit supplemental applications based on such studies. This document and the guidance documents discussed in it fulfill the requirements of section 403(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c). This document also discusses FDA's continuing efforts at collaboration as required by section 403(d). Section 403(b)(1) will be addressed in a future Federal Register notice.

II. Section 403(a): Standards

Section 403(a) of FDAMA requires that FDA publish ``standards for the prompt review of supplemental applications submitted for approved articles * * *.'' The legislative history of this section indicates that these performance standards should cover supplements submitted for changes in product use. Section 512(c)(1) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(1))sets a 180-day time frame for review of new animal drug applications (NADA's). This time frame applies to all applications, including supplements to approved applications. The agency intends to use the performance goals set forth in the fiscal year (FY) 2001 performance plan to fulfill the requirement of the FDAMA that it establish standards for the prompt review of efficacy supplements. In FY 2000, the agency's goal is to review and act on 65 percent of NADA's and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADA's), including supplemental applications, within 180 days of receipt. For FY 2001, the goal is 70 percent. To facilitate prompt reviews, CVM encourages sponsors of supplemental applications to work closely with CVM personnel through presubmission conferences or other means to aid CVM in assuring that supplemental applications are reviewed promptly.

III. Section 403(b)(2)(i): Specify Data Requirements That Will Avoid Duplication of Previously Submitted Data by Recognizing the Availability of Data Previously Submitted in Support of an Original Application

CVM has developed and is announcing the availability of a draft guidance, ``Guidance for Industry: Development of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs'' that represents the agency's current thinking. The Center designates two categories of supplemental new animal drug applications (NADA's), Category I and Category II. Ordinarily, for Category I supplemental NADA's, FDA does not require a reevaluation of any of the safety or effectiveness data in the parent application. For Category II supplemental NADA's, FDA may ordinarily require drug sponsors to submit new data. Therefore, the Center may be required to reevaluate certain safety or effectiveness data in the original application. The draft guidance lists the types of supplemental NADA's that fall into each of the categories, and it provides an overview of issues that drug sponsors should consider with respect to safety and effectiveness data and data supporting the environmental and manufacturing controls technical sections when seeking the approval of Category II supplemental NADA's. The draft guidance is organized by type of Category II supplement. For each type (e.g., a change in the amount of drug administered per dose), the document provides a table and comments. The table lists each technical section for which information would be required for approval of the supplement and whether the information in a previously approved application is sufficient or new information would be needed. Comments provide additional information to assist the sponsor. In this way, the draft guidance specifies data requirements that will avoid duplication of previously submitted data. It also refers drug sponsors to related guidance documents that will aid them in the preparation of supplemental NADA's. This draft guidance does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statute, regulations, or both.

IV. Section 403(b)(3): Define Supplemental Applications That Are Eligible for Priority Review

When CVM determines that a product represents an important advance in animal health, it may expedite the review of original and supplemental applications. The circumstances in which CVM may make such a determination are outlined in an existing guidance entitled ``CVM Program Policy and Procedures Guide 1240.3135,'' available at the address above.

V. Section 403(c): Responsibilities of Centers

FDA has designated the following individual within CVM to be responsible for encouraging prompt review of supplemental applications for approved articles and for working with sponsors to facilitate the development and submission of data to support the approval of supplemental applications in accordance with section 403(c) of FDAMA: Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation (ONADE), Center for Veterinary Medicine, (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville MD 20855, 301-594-1620.

VI. Section 403(d): Collaboration to Identify Published and Unpublished Studies

CVM currently collaborates with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Research Support Project #7 (NRSP-7) and others, including state agencies, extension agents, universities, the National Coordinator for Aquaculture NADA's, and other USDA agencies, to encourage sponsors to make supplemental applications for minor use new animal drugs by encouraging development of Public Master Files (PMF's). Minor use new animal drugs are drugs used in minor animal species or drugs used in any animal species for the control of a disease that occurs infrequently or occurs in limited geographic areas. Minor species are defined in 21 CFR 514.1(d). PMF's contain public data from unpublished and published studies that can be used in conjunction with data already available in a major use product's original NADA to support a supplemental NADA. The majority of approved minor use drugs have been approved as supplements to products approved for use in major species. In a notice entitled ``Proposals to Increase the Legal Availability of Animal Drugs for Minor Species and Minor Uses; Availability'' published in the Federal Register (63 FR 58056, October 29, 1998), CVM proposed other methods of collaboration to make data available for minor use supplemental applications. In addition, CVM frequently participates in discussions with animal industry trade associations to help clarify the new animal drug approval process. These discussions encourage university researchers and others to identify or initiate studies that may be used to support supplemental applications.

VII. Comments

The draft guidance discussed in section III of this document is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this draft guidance. Written comments may be submitted at any time, however, comments should be submitted by May 8, 2000, to ensure adequate consideration in preparation of the final document. Comments should be identified with the full title of the draft guidance and the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except individuals may submit one copy. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the document and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Dated: January 24, 2000.

Margaret M. Dotzel, Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 00-2767 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-F


(4) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Sewage in urban runoff may spur growth of harmful algal blooms

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:41:51 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

Press Release February 24, 2000

Contacts: Tim Stephens, UC Santa Cruz, (831) 459-2495; stephens@cats.ucsc.edu Merrik Bush-Pirkle, San Francisco State University, (415) 338-6747; merrik@sfsu.edu

Sewage in urban runoff may spur growth of harmful algal blooms

Researchers find that urea from urban waste, generally ignored as a pollutant by environmental agencies, contributes to growth of potentially toxic blooms of a common phytoplankton species

For Immediate Release

SANTA CRUZ, CA--In nature, there's no accounting for taste. New research shows that a common type of marine algae may prefer urea, an organic nitrogen compound found in urine and in agricultural and urban runoff, over inorganic fare such as ammonium and nitrate that occurs naturally in the ocean. When excess nutrients cross their paths, these single-celled organisms, called dinoflagellates, can grow into potentially toxic blankets of algae commonly known as red tides.

The new findings, published in the current issue of Aquatic Microbial Ecology, suggest that urea in urban and agricultural runoff may play a greater role than previously thought in triggering or sustaining harmful algal blooms found growing off California's coastline.

"The particular bloom we looked at, which extended from the upper Baja peninsula in Mexico to the Monterey Bay, occurred after heavy urban runoff events in the southern California region," said Raphael Kudela, assistant professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "Our data suggests it was probably triggered by the increased concentration of urea introduced to the ocean by urban runoff," Kudela said.

Kudela and coauthor William Cochlan of San Francisco State University's Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies examined the physiology and ecology of the bloom, which occurred in 1995 and was the largest and most widespread red tide found off California's coast since 1902. Though marine scientists usually monitor marine ecosystems for high concentrations of common inorganic nutrients known to spur harmful algal blooms, urea is generally ignored, the researchers said.

Previous studies have shown that urea can nourish the growth of dinoflagellates under laboratory conditions. The new study shows for the first time, however, that the naturally occurring red-tide dinoflagellate responsible for the 1995 bloom--known scientifically as Lingulodinium polyedrum--can use organic urea as a nutrient source and even prefers it over traditionally measured inorganic forms of nitrogen.

"Although urea as a source of pollution is generally ignored by state and federal environmental agencies, research shows that urea represents an average of one-third of the total nitrogen uptake supporting growth of phytoplankton in regions where red tides can occur," Cochlan said. "In some estuarine areas, such as the Chesapeake Bay, urea can represent 60 percent of the nitrogen uptake at certain times of the year."

Phytoplankton serve as the base of the marine food web, but unusually high levels of nutrients together with abundant sunlight can spur rapid growth, or blooms, of these single-celled plants, leading to dense patches of algae floating near the surface of the ocean that can double in size daily. While most blooms are not harmful, a small number of phytoplankton species can produce potent neurotoxins when they form into a bloom, sometimes poisoning or killing higher life forms such as zooplankton, shellfish, fish, birds, marine mammals, and even humans as the toxin is transferred up the food chain.

Although Lingulodinium polyedrum has been reported to produce yessotoxin, a compound related to the class of poisons that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning, the researchers found no evidence that the 1995 bloom was toxic. However, large algal blooms of any type pose an additional risk by lowering the available oxygen in the surrounding water when they decay, causing small marine animals, such as zooplankton and fish, to suffocate.

"Considering the role urea seems to play in spurring or sustaining growth of phytoplankton, including harmful algal blooms, this organic nitrogen source should be taken into consideration by environmental agencies that conduct bloom mitigation efforts," Cochlan said.

According to Kudela, these harmful bloom events are becoming more common off the California coastline. In addition to the dinoflagellate Lingulodinium polyedrum, the diatom species Pseudo-nitzschia australis also plagues California's coastal waters in deadly bloom form. Pseudo-nitzschia was recently identified as the culprit when more than 400 sea lions died and many more suffered from domoic acid poisoning on California's Central Coast in 1998. "However, there's no evidence that Pseudo-nitzschia responds to urea," Kudela noted.

The researchers emphasized that red-tide-causing phytoplankton species are driven to bloom by varying mechanisms and nutrients, so it's important to examine and understand each species individually. Toward that end, the researchers have been awarded a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program to conduct a comprehensive field and lab study, along with several other groups on the West Coast, of the more deadly Pseudo-nitzschia.


(5) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) spreads

Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:31:23 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To:

…‘a world-first discovery with the isolation of an influenza-like virus from farmed Coho salmon in Chile.’

Courtesy of Don Rainnie, Research Director, AVC Inc.

http://www.upei.ca/~avc/salmon.htm

AVC Confirms Presence of ISA Virus in Farmed Coho salmon in Chile Scientists at the Atlantic Veterinary College (AVC) at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI) have made a world-first discovery with the isolation of an influenza-like virus from farmed Coho salmon in Chile. As the world's second largest salmon producer, Chile was thought to be free of the virus, known as infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) virus, which has plagued many of the world's other major salmon producers in Norway, Scotland and Canada for the last decade. In Norway, Scotland, and Canada, ISA virus has caused different degrees of mortality in farmed Atlantic salmon. In Chile, the virus has not caused mortalities in farmed Atlantic salmon and trouts. University researchers Drs. Fred Kibenge and Gerry Johnson were able to confirm presence of an ISA virus strain in Chilean Coho salmon due to development of unique laboratory manipulations which enabled the virus to grow reliably in cell culture. While isolation of the Chilean virus proved unsuccessful for other laboratories, Dr. Kibenge was able to isolate it and confirm its identity. This strain of ISA virus is not well adapted to grow in cell culture in contrast to the Canadian and European ISA virus strains which grow readily in cell culture. In December 1999, the Office of International Epizootics (OIE) Reference Laboratory for ISA virus, located in Norway, provided independent confirmation that the Chilean virus isolated at AVC was indeed ISA virus. Subsequently, these virus isolates were also confirmed by electron microscopy at AVC.

"We have been advancing the idea of strain variation among ISA virus isolates, and the discovery of ISA virus in Chile lends further support to our observations" says Dr. Kibenge. In a research paper which appeared in the January 2000 issue of the Journal General Virology (), Dr. Kibenge and his colleagues demonstrated that Canadian isolates of ISA virus fall into two main groups on the basis of their ability to grow in the CHSE-214 cell line and the composition of their structural proteins.

There are two main cell lines being used to isolate and grow ISA virus, SHK-1 cell line and CHSE-214 cell line. All Canadian and European isolates of ISA virus tested so far grow in the SHK-1 cell line. However, only some of the isolates from Canada, and none from Europe grow in the CHSE-214 cell line. The Chilean isolates grow very poorly in both cell lines and require other laboratory manipulations to get them to grow reliably. "These findings have important implications in the diagnosis and control of ISA in farmed Atlantic salmon and other fish species here in Canada and in other salmon producing countries", says Dr. Kibenge, Professor of Virology at AVC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Journal of General Virology (2000), 81, 143-150.

Growth of infectious salmon anaemia virus in CHSE-214 cells and evidence for phenotypic differences between virus strains

Frederick S. B. Kibenge1, Japhet R. Lyaku1, Don Rainnie2 and K. Larry Hammell3

Department of Pathology and Microbiology,1 AVC Inc.2 and Department of Health Management3, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada

Author for correspondence: Frederick Kibenge. Fax +1 902 566 0851. e-mail kibenge@upei.ca

Abstract

Infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV) is a new orthomyxovirus-like virus. Thirteen isolates of ISAV (11 from Canada, one from Norway and one from Scotland) were studied for their replication in the CHSE-214 cell line compared with that in the SHK-1 cell line. All isolates replicated in SHK-1 cells, producing CPE between 3 and 12 days post-inoculation (p.i.). Six Canadian isolates also replicated in CHSE-214 cells, with production of CPE between 4 and 17 days p.i. Analysis of a one-step growth curve of ISAV in CHSE-214 cells showed that progeny virions remained predominantly cell-associated, accounting for the focalized nature of the CPE in the cell monolayer. One isolate (HKS 36) replicated in CHSE-214 cells, as shown by positive RT–PCR results of blind passages, but was non-cytopathic. All of the isolates were analysed for genetic heterogeneity by RT–PCR and RFLP with EcoRI and XhoI in a fraction of genome segment 2. The Canadian isolates showed a different RFLP profile to those of isolates Glesvaer/2/90 from Norway and 390/98 from Scotland. Structural proteins of four isolates, ‘Back Bay 98’, RPC/NB-877, RPC/NB-049 and Glesvaer/2/90, were examined further by SDS–PAGE. All viruses showed four major polypeptides, designated here as VP1–VP4, in Coomassie blue-stained gels. In isolates Glesvaer/2/90 and RPC/NB-877, these viral proteins had estimated molecular masses of 74, 53, 46 and 26·5 kDa, respectively. Viral proteins in isolates ‘Back Bay 98’ and RPC/NB-049 were of similar sizes, except that VP3 was 43 kDa. Taken together, these results show that there are phenotypic differences among strains of ISAV.


(6) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) spreads

Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:34:02 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To:

1) ISA in Chile 2) Growth of infectious salmon anaemia virus in CHSE-214 cells and evidence for phenotypic differences between virus strains

Taken from below:

…‘a world-first discovery with the isolation of an influenza-like virus from farmed Coho salmon in Chile.’

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse Email: bmott@seaweb.org Website: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

Courtesy of Don Rainnie, Research Director, AVC Inc.

http://www.upei.ca/~avc/salmon.htm

AVC Confirms Presence of ISA Virus in Farmed Coho salmon in Chile Scientists at the Atlantic Veterinary College (AVC) at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI) have made a world-first discovery with the isolation of an influenza-like virus from farmed Coho salmon in Chile. As the world's second largest salmon producer, Chile was thought to be free of the virus, known as infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) virus, which has plagued many of the world's other major salmon producers in Norway, Scotland and Canada for the last decade. In Norway, Scotland, and Canada, ISA virus has caused different degrees of mortality in farmed Atlantic salmon. In Chile, the virus has not caused mortalities in farmed Atlantic salmon and trouts. University researchers Drs. Fred Kibenge and Gerry Johnson were able to confirm presence of an ISA virus strain in Chilean Coho salmon due to development of unique laboratory manipulations which enabled the virus to grow reliably in cell culture. While isolation of the Chilean virus proved unsuccessful for other laboratories, Dr. Kibenge was able to isolate it and confirm its identity. This strain of ISA virus is not well adapted to grow in cell culture in contrast to the Canadian and European ISA virus strains which grow readily in cell culture. In December 1999, the Office of International Epizootics (OIE) Reference Laboratory for ISA virus, located in Norway, provided independent confirmation that the Chilean virus isolated at AVC was indeed ISA virus. Subsequently, these virus isolates were also confirmed by electron microscopy at AVC.

"We have been advancing the idea of strain variation among ISA virus isolates, and the discovery of ISA virus in Chile lends further support to our observations" says Dr. Kibenge. In a research paper which appeared in the January 2000 issue of the Journal General Virology (), Dr. Kibenge and his colleagues demonstrated that Canadian isolates of ISA virus fall into two main groups on the basis of their ability to grow in the CHSE-214 cell line and the composition of their structural proteins.

There are two main cell lines being used to isolate and grow ISA virus, SHK-1 cell line and CHSE-214 cell line. All Canadian and European isolates of ISA virus tested so far grow in the SHK-1 cell line. However, only some of the isolates from Canada, and none from Europe grow in the CHSE-214 cell line. The Chilean isolates grow very poorly in both cell lines and require other laboratory manipulations to get them to grow reliably. "These findings have important implications in the diagnosis and control of ISA in farmed Atlantic salmon and other fish species here in Canada and in other salmon producing countries", says Dr. Kibenge, Professor of Virology at AVC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Journal of General Virology (2000), 81, 143-150.

Growth of infectious salmon anaemia virus in CHSE-214 cells and evidence for phenotypic differences between virus strains

Frederick S. B. Kibenge1, Japhet R. Lyaku1, Don Rainnie2 and K. Larry Hammell3

Department of Pathology and Microbiology,1 AVC Inc.2 and Department of Health Management3, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada

Author for correspondence: Frederick Kibenge. Fax +1 902 566 0851. e-mail kibenge@upei.ca

Abstract

Infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV) is a new orthomyxovirus-like virus. Thirteen isolates of ISAV (11 from Canada, one from Norway and one from Scotland) were studied for their replication in the CHSE-214 cell line compared with that in the SHK-1 cell line. All isolates replicated in SHK-1 cells, producing CPE between 3 and 12 days post-inoculation (p.i.). Six Canadian isolates also replicated in CHSE-214 cells, with production of CPE between 4 and 17 days p.i. Analysis of a one-step growth curve of ISAV in CHSE-214 cells showed that progeny virions remained predominantly cell-associated, accounting for the focalized nature of the CPE in the cell monolayer. One isolate (HKS 36) replicated in CHSE-214 cells, as shown by positive RT–PCR results of blind passages, but was non-cytopathic. All of the isolates were analysed for genetic heterogeneity by RT–PCR and RFLP with EcoRI and XhoI in a fraction of genome segment 2. The Canadian isolates showed a different RFLP profile to those of isolates Glesvaer/2/90 from Norway and 390/98 from Scotland. Structural proteins of four isolates, ‘Back Bay 98’, RPC/NB-877, RPC/NB-049 and Glesvaer/2/90, were examined further by SDS–PAGE. All viruses showed four major polypeptides, designated here as VP1–VP4, in Coomassie blue-stained gels. In isolates Glesvaer/2/90 and RPC/NB-877, these viral proteins had estimated molecular masses of 74, 53, 46 and 26·5 kDa, respectively. Viral proteins in isolates ‘Back Bay 98’ and RPC/NB-049 were of similar sizes, except that VP3 was 43 kDa. Taken together, these results show that there are phenotypic differences among strains of ISAV.


(7) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Fish Farming News and Information From Around the World

Date: March 13, 2000

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:31:43 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To:

Fish Farming News and Information From Around the World –

March 13, 2000

1) Nutreco’s acquisition of Hydro Seafood creates the world’s biggest integrated aquaculture company

2) EWOS and NorAqua to be the world’s largest supplier of salmon feed

3) Former Norwegian Minister of Fisheries says, "Genetics technology has much to offer…”

4) Norwegian Seafood Export Council to market aggressively in US

5) 81 recommendations made in the Scottish Joint Government/Industry Working Group report on ISA available online

6) ISA virus found in farmed Coho salmon in Chile

7) Decisions coming on Australia, Tasmania and the issue of importing salmon from non-disease-free WTO countries

8) Comment period for Atlantic salmon listing in Maine extended

9) NB fish farmers: story of True North Salmon Company

10) Aqua Bounty to sell genetically-modified salmon eggs

11) Reminder: FDA Request for Comments on Issue Related to New Animal Drugs

1)

>From IntraFish:

Birth of a new mega leader Publisert: 13.03.2000 11:45

The acquisition of Hydro Seafood by Nutreco (which is listed since June 1997 on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange) announced this morning will create the biggest integrated aquaculture company world-wide. The new company will have a global share of the salmon market of around 20% and becomes the undisputed number one in size, comforting aquaculture as Nutreco's core business.

Nutreco Chief Operating Officer Wout Dekker (CEO from July 1st next) said that "this move will allow us to develop an even stronger aquaculture industry in Norway, based on the experience we have built throughout the years and to build a strong marketing and sales organisation led from Norway for value added salmon products world-wide." It is expected that a final agreement will be reached during the first half of April.

Hydro Seafood will sell for NOK 3.5 billion to Nutreco, according to head of information in Norsk Hydro, Mr Tor Steinum.

Until now, and since it acquired Marine Harvest last year, Nutreco had a 9% market share. With Hydro Seafood's 11%, this makes the market share of the new company stand in the region of 20%. Including Hydro Seafood, Nutreco Aquaculture will have annual sales of EUR 970 million / NOK 7.8 billion (EUR 690 million / NOK 5.5 billion in 1999), of which 37% in Norway. It will employ 4900 people, of which 1200 in Norway, and have operations and sales in 19 countries.

Nutreco's activities are divided into Nutreco Aquaculture and Nutreco Agriculture. Last year, Nutreco Aquaculture's income from operations rose by 55% to EUR 58.4 million (1998: EUR 37.7 million). Acquisitions (Marine Harvest, BOCM Pauls,…) contributed 23% to the growth. Overall, Nutreco had [prior to Hydro Seafood takeover] 9,185 employees and a turnover of EUR 2.6 billion in 1999.

Hydro Seafood has 1500 employees and had in 1999 a turnover of EUR 280million (NOK 2.245 billion). Nutreco is the market leader in four main salmon fish feed markets (Norway, Chile, Canada and UK/Ireland), though the sale of EWOS announced last Friday will change this position for Norway.

"We are excited to have Nutreco as the new owner of the company. Nutreco has shown a long term commitment to the Norwegian aquaculture industry and we look forward to strengthen the further development of farming, sales and marketing activities of Nutreco's global salmon business," comments Hydro Seafood MD Asbjorn Reinkind.

Mr Reinkind will be responsible in Nutreco Aquaculture for the integration of the global salmon farming and sales activities, and he will become a member of the Nutreco Management Committee. This new business group of Nutreco will market 150,000 tonnes of salmon and be managed out of Bergen, Norway - whereas the Nutreco headquarters remain in Boxmeer, Netherlands.

Mr Dekker further commented: "With this acquisition, Nutreco will clearly improve its position as the number one aquaculture company worldwide in this fast growing industry. We also further strengthen our portfolio, geographically as well as in terms of food chain activities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Meanwhile, in another major sale, the take-over of EWOS is fixed for 28 April this year.

>From FIS:

Statkorn Holding buys EWOS

NORWAY Friday, March 10, 2000, 23:00 (GMT + 9)

On 9 March, Norwegian firm Statkorn Holding signed an agreement with the Danish company Danisco to buy the fish feed producer EWOS for NOK 1.8 billion.

EWOS is the second largest fish feed producer in the world and last year, the company had a turnover of US$326.5 million. Statkorn Holding owns 57% of Norway´s largest fish feed supplier NorAqua. The Norwegian state holds 80% of the shares in Statkorn Holding and the firm will be quoted on the Stock Exchange later this year.

“After this purchase EWOS and NorAqua will become the world’s largest supplier of salmon feed with a global market share of around 40%. At the same time the company will be the market leader in two of the world’s most important markets: Chile and Norway," company chairman Mr Sigbjørn Johnsen told Fish Info Service.

“This purchase is based on our strategy to establish Statkorn Holding as a leading player in the global fish market. Up till now, we have only been represented in Norway by our daughter company NorAqua. We are very satisfied that EWOS has a strong position in all of the main markets, such as Norway, Scotland, Canada and Chile. The world’s globalisation within the fish farming industry, makes it necessary for us to be represented in the most important markets," continued Mr Johnsen.

Mr Johnsen stressed that together, EWOS and NorAqua will strengthen their position in the global fish feed market and contribute to increase their income in the future. The company is also ready to adapt production to meet the expected increase in the market.

By Ola Sletten

------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)

>From IntraFish:

Genetics technology can be beneficial Publisert: 08.03.2000 07:00

"Genetics technology has much to offer in the pursuit of commercial exploitation of new species". This opinion was expressed by the former Minister of Fisheries Jan Henry T. Olsen in an interview with the newspaper Fiskeribladet.

Olsen believes that the potential for cultivating food in the sea is practically unlimited, and that the conditions are right for a manifold increase in today's Norwegian production. He is not worried that farmed salmon (through genetics technology) will become so "meaty" that it won't be able to swim, and in this case he is referring to the Belgian cow Belgian Blue, which is so utterly gene-manipulated that it can hardly walk.

According to Olsen, effective production is a principal objective.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)

>From Intrafish: Salmon best-selling seafood product Publisert: 08.03.2000 07:00

In the Norwegian Seafood Export Council's strategy plan for USA investment, is the statement that in 1998 for the first time ever, salmon is the best-selling seafood item in the country's supermarkets. Of the USA's 30,000 supermarkets, 43 per cent have seafood counters.

During the next two years we will see Norway taking an aggressive marketing approach to the USA's market for Norwegian salmon. The Seafood Export Council will be spending NOK 12 million on marketing this year. Next year this sum will be increased to NOK 15 million. In comparison, this year NOK 2.4 million will be spent on marketing of white fish in the USA.

Salmon is served at 37 per cent of the approximate 798,000 retail outlets in food service. Both food service and the supermarkets are characterised by amalgamation, and the major distributors are booming.

According to the Export Council it is a principal challenge to raise the quality of frozen salmon fillet, among others, because North American decision-makers maintain that raw products are better than frozen. Consequently, this opinion is an obstacle for market development of frozen salmon products. Another major challenge is to rebuild Norwegian salmon as a brand recognised by the consumer.

Norwegian salmon has gained ground in leaps and bounds in the USA over the last few years. In the statistics for import of salmon to the USA, hereunder wild salmon caught in the sea, Canadian salmon is still Number One, with a volume of 267,000 tonnes in the period January to October last year. This was a market share of 43.7 per cent. This share has diminished constantly since 1997, when the share was 47.5 per cent.

Chile's market share last year was 31.8 per cent. In 1997 the share was greater, 37.8 per cent. Norway's share last year was 8.3 per cent, a quadrupling in relation to 1997. The market share at that time was 2.5 per cent.

Seafood consumption in the USA per inhabitant is stable, that is, around 6.7-6.8 kilos. Salmon accounts for 0.63 kilos of this figure. Tuna fish and shrimps are the primary seafood products. Each North American eats almost 24 kilos of chicken per annum. The Export Council believes that the price level for Chilean salmon is the greatest threat to Norwegian salmon in the USA. The threat also looms from Alaska in all market segments. Chile and Canada dominate the market for farmed salmon, and they are making tracks into the value-added processing segment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)

DISINFECTION GUIDE WITH REGARD TO ISA VIRUS

With 81 recommendations made in the Joint Government/Industry Working Group report on ISA published two weeks ago by the Scottish Executive.

Published on the website of the Fisheries Research Services (FRS) - an Agency within the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department (SERAD)

http://www.marlab.ac.uk/Fishdiseases/ISADisGuide.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

6)

>From FIS:

ISA virus found in farmed Coho salmon in Chile

CHILE Thursday, March 09, 2000, 21:30 (GMT + 9)

In a recent press release scientists at the Atlantic Veterinary College (AVC) at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI) confirm that they have made a first discovery of the ISA virus from farmed Coho salmon in Chile. As the world´s second largest salmon producer, Chile was thought to be free of the virus, known as infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus, which has plagued many of the world´s other major salmon producers in Norway, Scotland and Canada for the last decade. In Norway, Scotland, and Canada, ISA virus has caused different degrees of mortality in farmed Atlantic salmon. In Chile, the virus has not caused mortalities in farmed Atlantic salmon and trout, yet.

It is UPEI researchers Drs Fred Kibenge and Gerry Johnson who were able to confirm the presence of an ISA virus strain in Chilean Coho salmon. It is due to the development of a unique laboratory manipulation that enabled the virus to grow reliably in cell culture. While isolation of the Chilean virus proved unsuccessful for other laboratories, Dr Kibenge was able to isolate it and confirm its identity. This strain of ISA virus is not well adapted to grow in cell culture in contrast to the Canadian and European ISA virus strains, which grow readily in cell culture. In December 1999, the Office of International Epizootics (OIE) Reference Laboratory for ISA virus, located in Norway, provided independent confirmation that the Chilean virus isolated at AVC was indeed ISA virus. Subsequently, these virus isolates were also confirmed by electron microscopy at AVC.

"We have been advancing the idea of strain variation among ISA virus isolates, and the discovery of ISA virus in Chile lends further support to our observations," Dr Kibenge told Fish Info Service (FIS). In a research paper, which appeared in the January 2000 issue of the Journal General Virology, Dr Kibenge and his colleagues demonstrated that Canadian isolates of ISA virus fall into two main groups on the basis of their ability to grow in the CHSE-214 cell line and the composition of their structural proteins.

There are two main cell lines being used to isolate and grow ISA virus, SHK-1 cell line and CHSE-214 cell line. All Canadian and European isolates of ISA virus tested so far grow in the SHK-1 cell line. However, only some of the isolates from Canada, and none from Europe grow in the CHSE-214 cell line. The Chilean isolates grow very poorly in both cell lines and require other laboratory manipulations to get them to grow reliably. "These findings have important implications in the diagnosis and control of ISA in farmed Atlantic salmon and other fish species here in Canada and in other salmon producing countries", said Dr Kibenge, Professor of Virology at AVC, to FIS.

Due to confidentiality agreements with the Chilean farms involved, Dr Kibenge is not at liberty to indicate which specific farms are affected, or how widespread the Chilean ISA epidemic is.

Dr Kibenge told FIS that it is impossible to say if this strain of the ISA virus also is dangerous to Atlantic salmon. He claims that more research and studies are necessary to determine if this is possible. Such research is currently not done due to lack of funding. However, Dr Kibenge hopes that by releasing the technical information, researchers and companies in other parts of the world may find it in their interest to support further testing to determine the chances for this ISA strain also spreading to Atlantic salmon in Chile.

By Tor-Eddie Fossbakk

------------------------------------------------------------------------

7)

Thank to Mark Ritchie for this piece:

------------------------------------------------------

Australia must support Tasmania's 'line in the sand' over salmon from non-disease-free WTO countries

------------------------------------------------------

In a few days, a Senate committee will report on the successful pressure by Canada and other members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to abolish Australia's 24-year ban on imports of uncooked salmon. It is high time for some democratic discussion of this.

The ban was dropped 8 months ago when political directions caused the Australian Quarantine Authority (AQIS) to relax the policy which protected our environment and salmon industry from introduction of northern-hemisphere fish diseases.

The Tasmanian Parliament has rocked the WTO's boat by refusing to allow that State's disease-free salmon fishery and aquiculture to be compromised by the alarming prospect of new diseases coming in from Canada and elsewhere. This precautionary and correct view will be shared by the vast majority of Australian citizens.

The problem is that the bureaucrats of Foreign Affairs and Trade have negotiated Australia into a corner in their haste to create "free market" access for exports. Their lack of due consideration to health and environment factors is likely to result in a major wave of protest by consumers -- as well as payments of compensation to foreign countries whose market access is justifiably restricted by precautionary actions such as Tasmania's.

On 22 November, a UK specialist in fish diseases, Mr David Bucke, warned the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee (RRATC) that visual product inspections by Canadian exporters could not detect the presence of at least four or five serious diseases in multiple tissues of salmon for export to Australia.

Mr Bucke added that there were strict rules preventing the import of salmon and other fish to European Union countries, Britain and the US from any country known to have diseases which were not present in the importing country.

Australia's standards for an "appropriate level of protection" are not scientifically rigorous nor acceptable to community expectations. We can remedy the weakness only by going back to the WTO with an appeal which supports Tasmania's position.

Detailed information is available at http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/salmon4.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

8)

Thanks to Ron Huber for sending the following info:

>From (Maine) Governor's office

MARCH 9, 2000 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COURT ENTERS JUDGEMENT IN STATE'S FAVOR IN FOI SALMON CASE, EXTENDS COMMENT PERIOD

AUGUSTA - Federal District Court Judge Gene Carter has entered a consent judgment in favor of the state in its suit to compel the Federal Government to release all data and information concerning its proposed listing of Atlantic salmon as an endangered species. The order extends the deadline for public comments on the listing proposal for an additional 30 days.

The state sued in Federal court last month under the federal Freedom of Information Act seeking genetic research and data that form the basis for the proposed listing. Although the government originally argued that it had turned over all the information that it was required to, on March 1st it turned over additional data to the state's Senate delegation that was being sought by the state. The government has since pledged to cooperate with the State in providing any additional information. Under Carter's order, the state will have until April 14th to review the data and respond to the government's proposed listing.

"We're very pleased," said Gov. Angus King. "All we have been asking for is a chance to look at the scientific data behind the government's proposal to list the salmon. It's unfortunate that we were forced to go to court to gain access to the information, but now that it appears we have what we've been looking for, I hope the federal agencies will continue to cooperate with us on this important issue." Contact: Dennis Bailey, 287-2531

------------------------------------------------------------------------

9)

Thanks to Dave Conley for this information:

PUBLICATION The Moncton Times and Transcript DATE Thursday March 9, 2000 PAGE A1 BYLINE Forster, James

N.B. firms learn to add value to exports; We no longer simply ship unprocessed fish, wood to New England markets

It conjures images of 1854, the beginning of an 11-year golden age of free trade between New Brunswick and New England. New Brunswickers couldn't cut wood or net fish fast enough for the ravenous industrial appetites of their American trading partners. Our raw resources flowed freely to the south, and their money came north. A lot of people had never had it so good, and a lot more never had it so bad after the deal fell apart in 1866 when the Americans, after a spat with New Brunswick's colonial masters in Britain, called the whole deal off.

Fast forward to the year 2000. It's now 11 years into what is supposed to be another golden age of trade. But this time around, New Brunswick new-age fish lords and lumber barons feel the real money lies not in netting and chopping as much fish and wood as fast as you can, but in adding value to those resources by transforming them into finished products before they ever leave the province.

Case in point: world-conquering True North Salmon Company of St. George in southern New Brunswick, and tiny Hartwood Industries Ltd. of Woodstock, in south-central New Brunswick, which is making its first tentative foray across the border. Both companies could hardly be more different, yet they are alike in that they see opportunity in taking the province's raw materials and increasing their worth many times over before exporting them.

Back in 1985, Cooke Aquaculture (True North's parent company) kept 5,000 salmon in a growing pen in the Bay of Fundy. Today, there are about five million True North salmon caged in the bay, growing like an investment on fire.

"Our entire focus for the last two or three years has been to add value to as much fish as we can," says True North's Jeff Legge. The company's logic is not complicated: customers will pay extra for higher quality products, which in turn boosts the company's bottom line much more than having the lowest prices ever could.

"You either have to be the cheapest in the world, or you have to be the best in the world," Legge says. "We have chosen to be the best." Company vice-president Glenn Cooke provides evidence True North's strategy is sound. Exports in 1997 rose 35 per cent. In 1998, they were up 100 per cent. Last year's figures indicate a 112 per cent hike. "I figure we'll do $48 or $50 million (in sales) this year," Cooke announces after 60 seconds of playing with numbers he has scribbled on a piece of paper.

It would be easy, and probably lucrative enough, to simply gut the fish and ship them out at the lowest price possible. Instead, True North's plants in all three Maritime provinces multiply the value of their product by transforming fish into spiced salmon portions in lemon white wine, barbecued salmon, lemon-pepper salmon in leek sauce, even salmon burgers and roasts of salmon. The company provides jobs for about 300 workers, and the taxes generated by the 100 per cent New Brunswick-owned company contribute significantly to government coffers.

Anticipated world demand for salmon is into the double digits and is predicted to stay there for at least the coming decade. Legge recalls the time world-wide annual production hit the 25 metric tonne mark. The industry panicked as they wondered who would possibly buy all that fish. This year, production will surpass 700 metric tonnes.

"And the great news is that the world demand continues to outpace that." Judging by True North, it appears New Brunswick's raw resources have come a long way in 150 years, and Hartwood Industries wants to be a part of that evolution.

[section cut] Both True North and Hartwood are showing their corporate faces at the huge International Boston Seafood Show, the world's largest fish trade show. Carrying on a normal conversation with Legge, Cooke and the Youngs is impossible, since the interest in their products is so intense that the interruptions come often.

Young engages in business chatter with a buyer from grocery giant Sobeys, emerging later with a huge smile on his face and a business card in his hands. "Wow," he says. "This could really be something big."Beth Young is busy handing out pamphlets and filing contact names of those who stop by to set the stage for potential future deals. "I've been to the Toronto Gift Show twice," she says, shaking her head, "and I'll tell you, this is absolutely crazy."

It's the same story next door at True North. Russian, Japanese and buyers from dozens of other nations all want a piece of True North's time and products. Competitors from Norway and Iceland and Korea and Chile – New Brunswick aquaculture's biggest threat - are here too, sampling his wares and, though they comment to each other about their New Brunswick nemesis in their native tongues, their body language speaks volumes, and they obviously like this fish.

Of course, nothing good lasts forever, and eventually the bustling American economy that helps make more expensive, value-added products like True North's and Hartwood's attractive to U.S. consumers could fade, or the gap between the value of the American and Canadian dollar which makes Canadian products relatively cheaper in the U.S. will shrink. "We are realistic about that and we have planned for that," Legge deadpans. If or when that happens, at least most of the rest of the competing fish-growing nations will face the same situation, so the playing field will remain level, Legge contends. As well, there is the growing demand in the rest of the world for True North to rely on. And the company has invested heavily in automation, which cuts their production costs. And then there's their plan to diversify their product lines to dampen the effect if things start to sour on the salmon front.

"You know," Legge says, "we are going to become the world's largest producer of arctic char within the next 12 months, and I would say 95 per cent of that will be exported not only to the U.S., but to Europe, too." True North foresaw opportunities in salmon well before the boom in that segment of the aquaculture industry hit. Now, they are predicting tasty char

will be the next big thing in table fare.

Last year, the world's fish farms produced more than 1,300 metric tonnes of arctic char. About 500 tonnes of that came from True North. But don't get too excited about those figures just yet, Legge advises, because the company hasn't even begun to reach their char capacity, nor is the market nearing its capacity to absorb the increase in production.

No more hewers of wood and drawers of water - the phrase that was used a century ago to describe a nation that sold its resources for a quick buck. For many of today's exporters, the path to prosperity lies in offering higher-cost, highest-quality goods to a marketplace that not only has the money to pay for them, but is anxious to do so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

10)

Thanks to John Foss for this:

Hot Debate

Aqua Bounty Farms to begin selling genetically modified salmon eggs

March 8 - Fishmonger News Network -The president of Aqua Bounty Farms, a leader in the emerging field of genetically engineered seafood, said Tuesday that the company will begin selling the first genetically modified salmon eggs to fish farms worldwide by late fall or early winter.

Elliot Entis, president of Waltham, Mass.-based Aqua Bounty, made the comments during an exclusive interview - broadcast live over the Internet - with Dan McGovern of Fishmonger News Network at the International Boston Seafood Show.

Earlier Tuesday, as part of a program called "Hot Trends in Retailing for the Millennium," Entis said Aqua Bounty's genetically altered fish have a growth rate of up to 600 percent higher than its non-transgenic cousins and can reach harvest size in about 16-18 months compared with the typical grow-out period of three years.

A single slide Entis presented at the program told the story: It compared two typical 14-month-old salmon - usually 3 to 4 inches long - with an engineered one that was about 15 inches long and weighed 6.6 pounds.

The dramatic growth rate - which is also possible in trout, tilapia and Arctic char, among others - stems from the insertion of a "gene construct" from species such as a winter flounder or ocean pout that stimulates higher growth in the pituitary gland and the liver.

The salmon don't grow larger than non-engineered fish, Entis said. "They just get there quicker," he explained, noting that the time savings could allow fish farmers to achieve greater profits via a more rapid production cycle.

He said the fish "are basically identical" to other salmon, but may have a slightly lower fat content that could have health benefits for consumers.

While the Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of genetically engineered seafood, Entis said he favors labeling because it will help build "consumer trust and faith."

The program included a lively exchange between Entis and Phillip Nabors, president of Mustard Seed Market & Cafe in Akron, Ohio.

"Consumers have an opinion about genetically modified foods," said Nabors, stressing that consumers have "fundamental concerns about what goes into their bodies."

He added that consumers "want labeling generally so they can avoid genetically engineered foods."

Nabors also expressed concern that environmental and ethical issues need to be addressed. "Once [the engineering is] done, you can't put the genetic genie back in the bottle," he said.

Entis objected to Nabors' "rigid environmental bias" against the technology. "Let's look at what it can do and judge it on its merits," he said.

The "Hot Trends" session, attended by about 150 people, was moderated by Fiona Robinson, editor-in-chief of Seafood Business magazine. Other panelists included David Theran, chief marketing officer with FultonStreet.com in Long Island City, N.Y.; and Mark Lamothe, vice president of marketing for Gorton's Seafood in Gloucester, Mass.

http://fishmonger.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

11)

REMINDER: FDA Request for Comments on Issue Related to New Animal Drugs

SUMMARY: As required by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is making available information regarding the approval of supplemental applications for approved new animal drugs. CVM is publishing standards for the prompt review of supplemental applications and referencing an existing guidance that describes how supplemental applications may qualify for priority review. CVM is also designating an individual within the Center who is responsible for encouraging the prompt review of supplemental applications and for working with sponsors to facilitate the development and submission of data to support supplemental applications. Further, CVM is describing its efforts to collaborate with other organizations and persons to identify published and unpublished studies that may support supplemental applications and to encourage sponsors to submit supplemental applications based on such studies. In addition, CVM is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Development of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs.'' This draft guidance explains how drug sponsors can use data submitted in support of an original application to support supplemental applications.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 8, 2000. Written comments on the existing guidance entitled ``CVM's Program Policy and Procedures Guide 1240.3135,'' which describes how supplemental applications qualify for priority review, may be submitted at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of ``Guidance for Industry: Development of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs'' or ``CVM's Program Policy and Procedures Guide 1240.3135'' to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. Copies of the draft guidance and the existing guidance may be obtained on the Internet at http:// www.fda.gov/cvm.

Submit written comments on the draft guidance, ``Guidance for Industry: Development of Supplemental Applications for Approved New Animal Drugs'' to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit written comments on CVM's ``Program Policy and Procedures Guide 1240.3135'' to the Policy and Regulations Team (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn N. Martinez, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation (HFV-130), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-7577.

Written comments may be submitted at any time, however, comments should be submitted by May 8, 2000, to ensure adequate consideration in preparation of the final document. Comments should be identified with the full title of the draft guidance and the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except individuals may submit one copy. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the document and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


(8) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Fw: Organic Certification Standards for Aquatic Animals

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:44:23 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To:

Organic standards coming to a fish near you.

This pertains to both wild and farmed fish. If you can't make the public hearings in AL, AK and RI, the deadline for comments is May 3rd.

Thanks to Gary Jensen for this info.

Also, check out: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/ for more info. on the National Organic Program.

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse Email: bmott@seaweb.org Website: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

____________________________________________________________

Notice of Meeting

Summary: The Agricultural Marketing Service announces three forthcoming public meetings to solicit testimony on organic certification standards for operations that produce aquatic animals.

Dates: April 10, 2000 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; April 12, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; May 3, 2000, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Places: The meetings will be held at the following locations: April 10, 2000: Mobile Convention Center, 1 South Water St., Room 201, Mobile, Alabama, 36602, telephone number (334) 208-2000. April 12, 2000: Anchorage Hilton, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501, telephone number (907) 272-7411. May 3, 2000: Providence Biltmore, 11 Dorrance St., Providence, Rhode Island, 02903, telephone number (410) 421-0700.

For Further Information Contact: Keith Jones, Program Manager, Room 2945 South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AMS, Transportation and Marketing, National Organic Program, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456 Phone (202)720-3252.

Supplementary Information: Section 2110 (7 U.S.C. 6509) of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) as amended (7 U.S.C. Section 6501 et seq.) requires that livestock that is to be slaughtered and sold or labeled as organically produced shall be raised in accordance with the title. Section 2103 ( 7 U.S.C. 6502) of the OFPA defines livestock as any cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, equine animals used for food or in the production of food, fish used for food, wild or domesticated game, or other nonplant life. Therefore, any fish used for food that is to be sold or labeled as organic must be raised in accordance with the requirements of the OFPA. AMS understands the term "fish" to encompass all aquatic animals used for food including shell fish and fin fish. AMS also understands the term "fish" to encompass all aquatic animals, whether propagated and raised in a controlled or selected environment ("aquaculture") or from federally regulated but free roaming marine and fresh water populations ("wild harvested"). AMS is conducting three public meetings to solicit testimony regarding organic production and handling standards for operations producing aquatic animals.

Who Can Comment

Any member of the public may comment at a meeting; however, we request that those persons who wish to comment register with USDA as soon as possible prior to the meeting date. A person may register by calling the NOP at (202) 720-3252, at which time each person will be requested to submit their name, the topic of the comment, and the meeting location where the comment will be submitted. Registration will help insure that a person will be able to present his or her comment during the meeting. Persons wishing to comment may also register by sending an e-mail message to the NOP Webmaster at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop . Any person wishing to comment, but who is unable to register prior to the meetings, will be able to sign up at each location on the day of the meeting. These presenters may submit comments on a first-come, first- served basis following the completion of comments from pre-registered individuals. Oral comments from all individuals will be limited to 5 minutes to enable the greatest number of presenters an opportunity to speak. All public comment will be recorded and included in the public record. We request that a printed copy of each comment be provided to the USDA at the time the comment is submitted orally to ensure an accurate transcription.

Written Comments

Written comments may be mailed to Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 4007-S, Ag Stop 0275, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, or faxed to (202)205-7808, or submitted via the Internet through the NOP's homepage at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. All comments must be submitted no later than May 3, 2000.

Purpose and Background of the National Organic Program: As set forth in Section 2102 (7 U.S.C. 6501), the OFPA is intended to (1) establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products: (2) assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard; and (3) facilitate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced. The National Organic Program (NOP) is the entity within AMS responsible for implementing the objectives of the OFPA. Pursuant to section 2119 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6518), the Secretary has established the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to provide assistance in the development of organic standards. The members of the NOSB represent distinct disciplines from within the organic community and are authorized to propose recommendations to the Secretary on the creation and revision of production and handling standards for organically managed operations.

The NOSB received public testimony and engaged in discussion of certification standards for aquaculture and wild-harvested aquatic animal operations at meetings in July, 1998, October, 1998, February, 1999, July, 1999, and October, 1999. NOP intends to review the testimony and discussion from these meetings, consider any subsequent recommendations proposed by the NOSB, evaluate the information derived form the forthcoming national meetings, and draft and publish for comment in the Federal Register proposed organic standards for operations that produce aquatic animals.

Multiple Federal entities share regulatory authority for the production and marketing of aquatic animals. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department of Commerce provides services and products to support domestic and international fisheries management operations, fisheries development, trade and industry assistance activities, enforcement, protected species and habitat conservation operations, and the scientific and technical aspects of NOAA's marine fisheries program. The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior fulfills multiple functions including managing interjurisdictional fisheries, restoration of aquatic ecosystems, and recovery of listed and candidate aquatic species. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the USDA has a role in both plant and animal aquaculture, especially involving disease, pest prevention, and wildlife damage management. The Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services operates an oversight compliance program for the safety, wholesomeness, identity, and of marketed seafood products. AMS does not seek to exercise regulatory authority beyond its responsibility for marketing products as organically produced and handled. In developing organic production and handling standards for operations producing aquatic animals, AMS will consult with all federal entities that share regulatory responsibility for such operations.

In conjunction with the forthcoming public meetings for consideration of organic production and handling standards for operations that produce aquatic animals, AMS would like to receive comment on the following questions:

QUESTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL AQUATIC ANIMAL OPERATIONS

1. Are the fundamental components of an organic certification system, including verifiable management practices, lists of restricted and prohibited substances, and certification by an accredited third party, applicable to operations that produce aquatic animals? 2. How can the statutorily required components of a livestock operation's organic system plan, including health care practices, feed requirements, and identification and record keeping systems, be monitored and verified for individual animals in aquatic production environments? 3. How would the introduction of organic production and handling standards for aquatic animals operations affect consumer perception and acceptance of the organic certification process for other types of operations? 4. Are there post-harvest processing and audit trail requirements that would be unique to operations that handle aquatic animals? 5. What types of certification programs other than organic could provide consumers with useful information on the harvest and processing of aquatic animals? 6. How would USDA organic standards for the production and handling of aquatic animals fit within the international regulatory framework established by the Codex Alimentarius guidelines?

QUESTIONS APPLICABLE TO WILD HARVESTED OPERATIONS

1. How can the OFPA's statutory requirement that a producer maintain adequate records to document the origin, feed supply, and health care of all livestock in their operation be fulfilled in an operation involving animals born and reared in the wild? 2. What are the criteria for determining the suitability of a wild harvested site for the production of organic aquatic animals? How can prevailing environmental factors such as water quality, the presence of prohibited substances, and ancillary human activity be incorporated into the site inspection? How can the potential impact of the operation on the target species, non-target species, and the environment be addressed in the certification process? 3. How can the population dynamics of the targeted species, including age distribution, reproductive capacity, and sustainable catch limits, be cumulatively addressed by the organic system plans of multiple operations? 4. How can producers anticipate and certifying agents verify site conditions over time and across the production site in which wild harvested operations function? 5. How can the management practices of a fish hatchery that contributes to a wild harvested population of aquatic animals be incorporated into the organic system plan?

QUESTIONS APPLICABLE TO AQUACULTURE OPERATIONS

1. What are the criteria for evaluating the suitability of a production site for an organic aquaculture operation? Specifically, can standards be developed for the site of production to address nutrient concentration, the emergence and transfer of disease, the escape of captive species to the wild, and detrimental impacts on indigenous species? 2. What characteristics of fish meal -- such as the source of the fish it is derived from or the synthetic materials it may contain - are pertinent to the requirement in the OFPA that producers supply livestock with "organically produced feed that meets the requirements of this title."? 3. How are the OFPA's various provisions pertinent to allowed and prohibited livestock medications applicable to the needs of aquaculture operations? 4. What guidelines are needed to insure that predator control practices for aquaculture operations are consistent with organic principles? 5. Should the induction of triploidy in fish species be classified as an excluded method under the policy on biotechnology contained in the Proposed Rule for the NOP? 6. What considerations should be addressed in the origin of livestock requirement for aquaculture operations that obtain stock fry or larvae from wild populations?


(9) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Aquaculture Outlook (for the US)

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:12:25 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To:

The full Aquaculture Outlook (published twice a year) is available in PDF at: < http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/ >

A couple of excerpts taken from partial report below:

- higher restaurant sales are expected to boost sales of domestic aquaculture production, they also are expected to increase the demand for imported aquaculture products

- census responses seem to suggest that the aquaculture industry is headed toward becoming a highly concentrated industry with the majority of production coming from a small number of farms. If the aquaculture industry follows this path, it will be duplicating the type of production concentration that has occurred in the other livestock industries

- The biggest change in the Atlantic salmon market in 1999 was that the growth in imports came primarily from countries besides Canada or Chile. These two countries are still the largest suppliers of Atlantic salmon products to the United States and in 1999 accounted for 78 percent all Atlantic salmon exports to the United States. However, in 1999, most of the growth in imports has come from European producers, mostly those in Norway and the United Kingdom, but also from Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

Included below are an overview of domestic production and the recent census, as well as the salmon review (catfish, trout and other species are in the full report, as well as charts with quantity and value of imports by country).

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse Email: bmott@seaweb.org Website: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

Supplement to Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Situation and Outlook Aquaculture Outlook Economic Research Service LDP-AQS-11 U.S. Department of Agriculture March 13, 2000 Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board

Domestic Production, Imports, and Exports Expected Higher in 2000

The forecast for a strong domestic economy and the continued recovery of a number of Asian economies (especially Japan) are expected to help aquaculture production and trade opportunities expand in 2000. A strong domestic economy is expected to boost sales in the restaurant and foodservice sectors. Higher away-from-home food sales are especially beneficial to seafood and aquaculture demand, as a high percentage of total seafood sales are made in this sector. While higher restaurant sales are expected to boost sales of domestic aquaculture production, they also are expected to increase the demand for imported aquaculture products, such as shrimp, salmon, tilapia, and various mollusks. Exports of U.S. aquaculture products are expected to be aided by growth in Asian economies. Aside from Canada, Asian countries are the largest markets for U.S. aquaculture products. If the Japanese and Korean economies strengthen, their markets will become more attractive to U.S. exporters. While most indications are for strong sales during 2000, aquaculture producers will again be faced with strong competition from the livestock and poultry industries. U.S. production of red meat, while down from 1999, are still expected to be at relatively high levels, and poultry production is expected to be substantially higher.

Census of Aquaculture Yields Clearer Picture of U.S. Industry

The recently released 1998 Census of Aquaculture report provides a wealth of data about the U.S. aquaculture industry, a small amount of which will be reviewed in this report. The full text and set of tables reported in the Census of Aquaculture can be found at the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) web site - www.usda.gov/nass/.

The first aspect of U.S. aquaculture to be reviewed is the number of farms in the industry and the value of their sales in 1998. The census showed slightly over 4,000 farms in the domestic aquaculture industry. These farms had total sales of $978 million in 1998. Not unexpectedly, the majority of the farms and the bulk of the sales were located in the southern region. The farms responding to the census were divided into five regional groupings based on the States served by the five regional aquaculture research centers. The 13-State southern region had over two-thirds of the reporting farms and accounted for just about the same percentage of total sales. The western region had the second highest sales total, followed by the eastern region, the north-central region, and the tropical and subtropical region (Hawaii).

The census responses were also grouped according to the type of product produced. By far the largest sector of the industry were food fish producers. This group, with 54 percent of the farms, accounted for 71 percent of the total sales. To a large extent, the results of the census were influenced by the impact of the catfish industry, which dominates the U.S. aquaculture industry. Mississippi is the center of the catfish industry and reported by far the largest sales, accounting for almost a third of the total. In all, the four major catfish producing States of Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana accounted for four of the top seven highest States in sales. While Mississippi was the top State in sales at $290 milllion, Arkansas was second, at $84 million, chiefly through its combination of catfish and baitfish sales. Sales of ornamental fish, mollusks (clams and oysters), and other product (alligators) placed Florida in third, at $77 million. Maine was the fourth largest at $67 million due to sales of Atlantic salmon. Alabama was the fifth highest at $59 million, almost exclusively through catfish sales. The next five highest States in sales value were Washington, Louisiana, California, Idaho, and Virginia.

One of the observations that stands out from the Census of Aquaculture is the level of concentration in production. Slightly over 4,000 farms responded to the Census of Aquaculture. Of those 4,000 farms, 208 farms reported sales of $1 million or more in 1998. This is only 5 percent of the farms, yet their combined sales were $612 million, or over 60 percent of total U.S. aquaculture sales. This type of concentration is repeated in the many of the various segments of the industry. For example, catfish farms reporting sales over $1 million represented less than 10 percent of total catfish farms, but they had 59 percent of total sales. It is not much different in the trout industry where the largest 4 percent of farms accounted for 45 percent of total sales.

The impact of large operations can also be seen in the State-level data. In Maine, 65 farms responded to the Census of Aquaculture, however, 20 of these farms were food fish farms reporting total sales of $64.6 million. These are assumed to be Atlantic salmon farms and their average sales were slightly over $3 million. No other State can boast of aquaculture farms with this type of average sales. Even the largest catfish farms, those with sales of over $1 million, only averaged $2.6 million per farm.

While currently somewhat of an anomaly in the aquaculture industry, the census responses seem to suggest that the aquaculture industry is headed toward becoming a highly concentrated industry with the majority of production coming from a small number of farms. If the aquaculture industry follows this path, it will be duplicating the type of production concentration that has occurred in the other livestock industries.

(sections cut)

1999 Marks Continued Growth in U.S. Salmon Imports

U.S. imports of Atlantic salmon in 1999 totaled 242 million pounds and $629 million. These are increases of 16 percent in quantity and 24 percent in value. All three Atlantic salmon import categories (fresh whole fish, frozen whole fish, and fresh and frozen fillets) showed increased quantities, and the average unit values for both fresh and filleted products rose in 1999. Unit values for frozen products fell slightly, but the total value of frozen Atlantic salmon imports was up 22 percent. Imports of filleted products continue to be the fastest growing segment of Atlantic salmon imports. In 1999, imports of filleted products grew 25 percent to 118 million pounds. Imports of Atlantic salmon fillets have risen rapidly over the last several years, and have doubled between 1997 and 1999. This rapid growth has changed imports of filleted products into the largest of the three product categories, surpassing imports of fresh products. The value of filleted products reached $334 million in 1999, topping those of fresh whole fish and accounting for 53 percent of all Atlantic salmon imports.

The biggest change in the Atlantic salmon market in 1999 was that the growth in imports came primarily from countries besides Canada or Chile. These two countries are still the largest suppliers of Atlantic salmon products to the United States and in 1999 accounted for 78 percent all Atlantic salmon exports to the United States. However, in 1999, most of the growth in imports has come from European producers, mostly those in Norway and the United Kingdom, but also from Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Imports from these countries all more than doubled in 1999. Canadian imports increased by 8 percent to 98 million pounds, but imports from Chile were down by 7 million pounds.

With strong economic growth in the United States forecast for another year, imports of Atlantic salmon are expected to continue to expand in 2000. Shipments are expected to approach 275 million pounds and $700 million in value. While a strong domestic economy is expected to increase the demand for salmon, especially from the restaurant industry, where it has become a featured seafood product for many businesses, a strong dollar versus many major currencies is expected to make Atlantic salmon imports from most producing countries relatively less expensive.

While imports of Atlantic salmon have been increasing, exports of U.S. salmon products have been declining. While the decline in exports had effected all types of salmon products, the bulk of the impact had come from falling exports for frozen salmon products. The large majority of frozen salmon products exported from the United States had been going to Japan. The U.S. wild harvest salmon industry had been faced with two changes in the Japanese market over the last several years. First, the slowdown in the Japanese economy lowered the total demand for salmon and especially for frozen sockeye salmon which had been the chief U.S. export. Secondly, with rising production, Atlantic salmon producers in Europe and the Americas had targeted Japan as a growth market for their products.

As the Japanese economy has strengthened somewhat, exports of U.S. wild salmon in 1999 increased. While exports are up considerably from the previous years, (49 percent higher for the quantity of frozen Pacific salmon) shipments are only about even with those in 1997 and well below the exports of 1996.

In 2000 the salmon markets are expected to remain very competitive as European producers try and capture market share in the United States from growers in Canada and Chile. If the economy in Japan continues to improve, then salmon farmers will have a third major market (besides Europe and the United States) to target. Another factor is changes in the strength of the dollar versus the Canadian dollar and the Japanese yen. For most of 1999 the U.S. dollar was very strong versus the Canadian dollar, increasing the competitiveness of products from that country. If the dollar is strong versus the Yen, then U.S. wild harvest products are expected to be less competitive compared with farmed products from other countries in the Japanese market. This would force more U.S. wild harvest product into the domestic market where it would compete primarily with imported frozen products, either whole or filleted.

Principal contributor: Dave Harvey 202-694-5177


(10) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: B.C. Salmon Farmers Association has reinforced its position against the use of transgenics

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:28:30 -0500

From: "Bill Mott"

To: "FishFarmReview"

CC: "James Semple" , "Allan Berry"

Canada NewsWire

March 1, 2000, Wednesday

SECTION: DOMESTIC NEWS

DISTRIBUTION: Attention News/Assignment Editors

LENGTH: 343 words

HEADLINE: B.C. Salmon Farmers reinforce stance against ‘transgenics’

DATELINE: VANCOUVER, March 1

The Board of Directors of the B.C. Salmon

Farmers Association (BCSFA) has reinforced its position against the use of

transgenic - or genetically modified - fish in aquaculture.

At a Board meeting on February 24, 2000 in Campbell River, BCSFA Directors voted unanimously to strengthen its policy against the use of transgenic fish in British Columbia. Membership in the BCSFA is contingent upon companies using only naturally bred salmon for food production in their operations.

The prohibition against the use of transgenics is also enshrined in the BCSFA Code of Practice - a voluntary code of operational guidelines enacted on January 1, 2000 to improve the environmental performance of B.C. salmon farms prior to the implementation of new aquaculture regulations in British Columbia.

“B.C. salmon farmers are wholly opposed to the use of genetically modified fish in aquaculture - both here in British Columbia and around the world,” said BCSFA Executive Director Anne McMullin. “Transgenic fish are not used in commercial production today, and should not be used in the future unless science can prove that they present no danger to human health, wild stocks or the marine environment.”

McMullin acknowledged the growing public concern about the use of genetically modified fish in aquaculture. She noted, however, that transgenic fish are not approved for use in aquaculture production anywhere in the world and that the international salmon farming industry has taken a firm stance against their use.

“There are activist groups that are using the future threat of transgenic fish in aquaculture as a means to oppose salmon farming as practiced today,” McMullin said. “It’s important that the public understands that the salmon farming industry shares its concerns about genetically modified fish, and has no plans to use transgenics now or in the future.”

CONTACT: Anne McMullin, Executive Director, (604) 682-3077

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2000


(11) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Australia not to appeal WTO decision on Canadian salmon

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:39:47 -0500
From: "Bill Mott"
To:

Copyright 2000 AAP Information Services Pty. Ltd.

AAP NEWSFEED

March 21, 2000, Tuesday

SECTION: Nationwide General News; Australian General News

LENGTH: 396 words

HEADLINE: Fed: Government not to appeal Canada salmon decision

BODY: Salmon Vaile

CANBERRA, March 21 AAP - The federal government had decided not to appeal a World Trade Organisation (WTO) decision allowing Canada to export salmon to Australia, Trade Minister Mark Vaile said today.

Mr Vaile said the government had won strict quarantine provisions for Canadian imports and Tasmanian salmon producers had nothing to fear.

"We now have a decision that justifies having the strictest quarantine approach of any WTO member for salmon and trout," he said.

"Ten out of 11 measures that we have put forward, that are in excess of the international standard, have passed WTO scrutiny," he said on ABC radio.

"We have put this through a scientifically based process with AQIS (the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service).

"In this decision the disease-free status of Australia and our island continent existence has been well and truly recognised by the WTO approving a higher than international standard."

The Tasmanian government, with the full support of the state's $120 salmon million industry, which fears it could be wiped out by imported diseases, has erected its own barriers to the imported fish.

Mr Vaile said the WTO had accepted Australian proposals that imported salmon be head-off, gilled and gutted and that farms with the salmon disease ISA be quarantined.

"This decision could have been a lot worse," he said.

"On balance we have decided that an appeal would open the decision to cross appeal from Canada and we may lose some of the conditions that we have now won."

Mr Vaile said it remains to be seen what impact imported salmon would have on sales of the Australian product.

He said his advice to date was that no Canadian salmon had been imported since July last year.

"Our Tasmanian salmon industry is the most efficient, the most competitive and the highest quality in the world," he said.

"In the commercial market place they are almost going to be impossible to beat."

Mr Vaile said Canada originally threatened to bar imports of Australian beef, sugar and seafood if their salmon was not allowed in.

But there had been no mention of trade retaliation in the latest decision, he said.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: March 20, 2000


(12) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Aquaculture America 2000 panel: Perspectives on sustainability in aquaculture

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:40:19 -0500
From: "Bill Mott" <
To:

Thanks to Mike Weber for the attached document:

Summary of papers presented at a panel

PERSPECTIVES ON SUSTAINABILITY IN AQUACULTURE

Aquaculture America 2000
New Orleans, Louisiana
5 February 2000

Sponsored by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Organized by Michael L. Weber

Summary of papers presented at a panel

PERSPECTIVES ON SUSTAINABILITY IN AQUACULTURE

Aquaculture America 2000
New Orleans, Louisiana
5 February 2000

Sponsored by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Organized by Michael L. Weber

Aquaculture and Sustainability: The System Context, by Blair Bower, Consultant to the Office of External Affairs, National Ocean Service.

In assessing sustainability, it is useful to place aquaculture operations within three "producing" contexts and one "marketing" context.

Local Context: The first context is that of the individual aquacultural operation as a production system with geographic boundaries in three dimensions. Within this context, one can define within some range the timing and costs of inputs to the operation and the management measures necessary for producing a specified output. Some inputs can be controlled, such as feed and pen design, while others cannot, such as frequency and intensity of weather events, quality of available water, and regulatory constraints on discharging waste. Other factors affect decisions about an aquaculture operation. These include short-run weather patterns, mid-run developments in technology and changes in demand, and long-run changes in climate, for instance. By performing an "activity analysis," which accounts for the materials and energy flowing into and out of an operation at different levels of production, one can determine the feasibility of an aquaculture operation. Such analyses have been performed for many years in the analysis of industrial and agricultural activities.

Regional Context: An aquacultural operation is just one of several types of activities in a region, such as a coastal strip, an estuary, or an inland watershed. Various activities within a region interact to a greater or lesser degree. For instance, the withdrawal and discharge of water is likely to affect other downstream activities, such as aquaculture operations. Managing these interactions within a region is made the more complex and difficult by the effect of activities that are outside the region and by the jurisdictional complexity of regions.

Interregional/international Context: Conceptually, one can develop models that link regions within a country or among countries. Such a model might aid in investigating shifts in the location and level of aquaculture production as a result of changes in raw material and energy costs, market demands, or governmental policies, for instance. Such models have been developed for specific products, including major farm products such as wheat, corn, and soy.

Marketing Context: A Southeast Asian fisheries development group recently defined sustainable development as "the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations." The definition itself fails to define a crucial term, "human needs," which drives the use of natural resources. Little attention has been paid to defining "human needs" or its substitute--"life style." But doing so is crucial to assessing sustainability. The life style of someone making $100,000 a year is much different from that of someone making $20,000 a year.

Marketing, of course, helps form life styles and demand. In the last two decades, the U.S. food market has been marked by the proliferation of increasingly processed food products. Between 1989 and 1997, for instance, the number of items in a conventional grocery store grew from 14,000 to 22,000. Many of these new products required increased processing and packaging, so that by 1998 farmers themselves received only 20 cents of every food dollar. This trend is relevant to sustainability since increased processing and packaging requires the consumption of more material and energy and the disposal of more residuals.

Conclusion; Key questions for aquaculture in the future include the following:

o Will inputs such as feed and energy remain available at prices that will make aquaculture production feasible, given the competition for those resources by other activities?

o Will aquaculture operations become uneconomic as they are required to internalize previously externalized costs, such as waste disposal?

o Given the depletion of many fish stocks, will the reliance of some aquaculture operations on fish meal be allowed to continue?

Aquaculture: A Net Gain or Loss to World Fish Supplies? by Rosamond Naylor, Senior Research Scholar, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University.

This presentation addressed the common perceptions that

- aquaculture supplements global fish supplies;

- aquaculture compensates for the short-fall in wild catch as ocean fisheries deteriorate; and

- aquaculture restores wild populations by relieving pressure on capture fisheries.

Many people look at ocean fisheries and aquaculture as distinct sectors. However, they should be considered together since the sustainability of one depends upon the other.

Aquaculture production now amounts to about 30 million metric tons. Aggregate data suggests that this is more than double the output of a decade ago. More than 220 species are farmed, but most production is of herbivorous filter-feeders such as carps, which are consumed principally in lesser developed countries such as China and India. High-value, carnivorous species such as shrimp and salmon are consumed principally in the industrialized countries. Filter-feeding mollusks are consumed mostly in lesser developed countries, although markets are developing in industrialized countries.

Capture of ocean fish has stabilized at 85-95 million metric tons, but the composition of the catch has changed from large, high-value species to small, lower-value species, many of which are converted to feed. This trend is quite opposite that of aquaculture where the focus has moved to fish at higher trophic levels. Now, 1.9 pounds of wild fish are consumed to produce one pound of any of the top ten types of farmed fish. For some of the most widely produced species, 2-5 pounds of fish are required to produce one pound of farmed fish.

Actual ratios of wild fish to farmed fish depend on the proportion of fish meal and fish oil in the feed and the conversion ratio. Industry can continue to improve the overall ratios by substituting other materials, but there are limits since fish meal and fish oils provide essential amino acids. As well, the pelagic species of fish that provide the material for fish feed provide a foundation for ocean food webs. Overfishing these species has effects that may cascade through marine ecosystems.

Globally, 8% of total aquatic primary production is needed to sustain capture fisheries, seaweed collection, and aquaculture. Capture fisheries remove 123 million metric tons from oceans and lakes, although about 27 million metric tons are discarded. Of this catch, 65 million metric tons goes for direct human consumption.

The remaining 30 million metric tons are used as feed in aquaculture and livestock operations. (In the last ten years, the percentage share of feed going to aquaculture has increased from 10% to about 33%.) Although the livestock industry still uses more fish meal and oil than does aquaculture, it does not depend upon fish meal for essential inputs since livestock feed typically contains only 2-3% fish meal. As a result, the livestock industry can much more easily substitute other protein sources than can aquaculture, where fish meal often makes up as much as 50% of the feed.

If aquaculture that does not rely on fish meal is included, total aquaculture production is about 30 million metric tons. Taking into account the fish used in feed, the net volume of fish flowing to humans through aquaculture is 19 million metric tons. The principal question for future sustainability will be whether this number goes up or down. Aquaculture has other impacts which must be considered in assessing its sustainability:

o Many pelagic fish populations used in producing feed are overexploited, with ripple effects in their ecosystems. In the North Sea, over-exploitation of capelin, sandeel, and Norway pout are thought to have led to large declines in cod populations.

o Besides creating greater pressure on pelagic fish populations, aquaculture can also increase pressure on wild fish populations indirectly by modifying habitat, collecting wild seedstock, and introducing non-indigenous species, diseases, and parasites. Past conversion of mangrove habitats to ponds for growing shrimp or milkfish has undoubtedly reduced the productivity of nearshore fisheries. In Thailand, it is estimated that for each pound of shrimp produced in ponds a half-pound of fish biomass is lost. The conversion of mangroves in Ecuador has contributed to the decline in abundance of the shrimp larvae upon which shrimp farms themselves depend.

o Where aquaculture is little more than the grow-out of fish caught as young, other problems arise. In the Philippines and Indonesia, for instance, milkfish are captured in seine nets for growing out in ponds. Much more is caught than milkfish, however: Up to 85% of the catch is discarded.

o The escape of salmon from farms into the wild is widely documented. Increasing evidence suggests that salmon escapees may hybridize with wild populations of salmon, which could exacerbate the decline of vulnerable runs of salmon. The transfer of shrimp between countries and continents has introduced viruses and bacteria that have devastated shrimp farms in some areas.

To advance toward sustainable aquaculture, several steps should be taken:

- Farm lower on the food chain, focusing research and investment on traditional species;

- Reduce fish meal and fish oil inputs;

- Integrate production systems, such as in traditional polyculture and waste culture;

- Promote environmentally sound aquaculture and resource management.

The private and public sector must work together to increase the net contribution of aquaculture to world fish supplies. Without a shared vision, an expanded aquaculture industry poses a threat to ocean fisheries and to itself.

Lessons Learned from the Struggle to Define Agricultural Sustainability by Peter Faeth, Director, Economics Program, World Resources Institute.

Sustainability is not a new concept. Civilization has been affected by sustainability failures over the millennia, from the decline of the Mesopotamian culture to the Irish potato famine. Historically, we've focused upon soil conservation and irrigation maintenance, as well as genetic development, and not on diversity or on protection of centers of origin, until fairly recently.

Things have changed, however. The scale of human activity has become large relative to the productive capacity of ecosystems. In the past, local actions were limited and could be absorbed by the environment, but this is no longer the case. Now, we understand that the Earth is not boundless. We also better understand our own actions and the complexity of Nature. Also, more information now is disseminated to the public.

There are several ways of thinking about sustainability. For instance, the Dust Bowl spurred agricultural conservation in the United States, which concerned itself mostly with soil and water. Another approach was developed by Conway, who identified four indicators of sustainability:

- Productivity: net yield or income per unit of resource;

- Stability: the degree to which productivity is constant in the face of small disturbances;

- Equitability: fair allocation of production among human beneficiaries;

- Sustainability: the ability to maintain productivity in spite of a major disturbance.

Another response closely associated with sustainability in agriculture has been organic agriculture, although it predates sustainable agriculture conceptually. Many proponents of sustainable agriculture came from the organic farming movement

Sustainability also has been expressed in terms of natural capital. Economics textbooks define income as the maximum that can be consumed in current years without reducing potential consumption in future years. In 1987, the Brundtland Commission adopted a very similar definition for sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Herman Daly identifies three criteria for sustaining the physical resource base:

- The rate at which natural resources are used should not exceed their rate of regeneration;

- The rate at which nonrenewable resources are used should not exceed the rate at which substitutes are developed;

- The rate of pollution emission should not exhaust the environment's assimilative capacity.

Nobel economist Robert Solow differentiated between weak and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability means the maintenance of the sum of all capital, including human, financial, and natural capitals, and assumes that any one form of capital can be substituted for another. Strong sustainability means the maintenance of critical natural capital, suggesting that some forms of capital may not be interchangeable

Finally, sustainability has also been characterized as a three-legged stool. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has identified these "legs" as economics, environment, and equity. For the most part, discussions about agricultural sustainability have focused upon the first two.

In the past, there have been several efforts to define agricultural sustainability, all of which settled, more or less, on economics, environment, and equity. The 1990 Farm Bill enshrined these concepts in law by defining sustainable agriculture as follows:
Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having site-specific application that will, over the long-term: satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends; make the most of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources, and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operations; enhance the quality of life for farmers, ranchers, and society as a whole.

More recently, the President's Council on Sustainable Development's Sustainable Agriculture Task Force defined sustainable agriculture as:

an agriculture that combines modern technological innovation with proven resource conservation and food and fiber production practices to protect environmental quality, maintain and enhance profitability, preserve rural communities, and produce a safe and adequate supply of food for all members of the current and future generations.

Through all of this, several lessons have been learned.

- First, a definition may be useful but shouldn't consume a lot of time and effort.

- Incorporating economics and environment in sustainability definitions is easy, while equity is quite difficult. As a result, equity has fallen by the wayside in practical use. It is important to retain this principle partly because it makes sustainability relevant to more people, especially the poor.

- Involve a broad group of people and stakeholders, including those inside and outside your own community of interest.

Finally, in trying to develop workable definitions and approaches to sustainability in aquaculture, consider the following

- Think in terms of systems, both aquacultural systems themselves and the larger systems in which they reside. Are externalities being created? What financial flows are necessary to maintain the system? Are external financial flows, such as subsidies, required? What are the resource flows in and out of the system? What environmental services are being used? Consumed? How dependent or self-sufficient are aquacultural systems?

- Think in terms of natural capital. What forms of capital does aquaculture use? What forms of capital does it deplete or create? What forms of capital must it maintain?

- Think in terms of the future. Where is the industry headed? What is the nature of future demand? Where are consumers headed? What environmental problems can be anticipated?

- Think in terms of benefits. Who wins and who loses? Are benefits being distributed evenly? Is anyone being made a lot worse or better off?

- Think outside the box. It's easy simply to take what we know and stick it into a new framework. The challenge is to think anew.

Identifying Environmental Performance Criteria for Certification of Sustainable Aquaculture Operations by Chet Chaffee, Vice President, Marketing and Certification, Scientific Certification Systems.

Sustainability is difficult to define. The problem we face today with the use of the term sustainability in connection with aquaculture is similar to what we faced between 1989 and 1993 regarding environmental marketing claims. In 1989, 3-4% of new product introductions made environmental marketing claims. By 1993, this percentage had grown to 12-13%. An audit of Home Depot stores found more than 250 such claims within 4 hours. Many of these claims were generic statements such as "Environmentally Friendly" or "Environmentally Safe." Any phrase or word could be placed after the word "environment" and become a claim of environmental benefit. Most of these claims had little to no meaning. The bottom line is that there were too many definitions and claims for what constituted an environmentally friendly product.

Today, the same problem is occurring with sustainability. There are too many definitions, and each time an organization grapples with sustainability, a new definition is proposed.

There are two main problems with how sustainability is viewed now. First, most people view sustainability as some defined point in time and space that a company can reach. This is simply not the case. Each time we gain new information, we change our definition and goals. As a result, attaining sustainability is an on-going, never-ending process.

Second, people generally are confused about the systems they are examining, and as a result are thoroughly confused about the parameters that can be measured to assess progress toward sustainability. For example, if one is interested in looking at the environmental consequences of a system, then the physical parameters of that system must be examined and measured. Economic measurements cannot tell you anything about the environmental consequences of your actions. If one is interested in the economic sustainability of a business, then economic parameters are appropriate. So it goes for social issues.

To understand the environmental aspects of a process, you must look at inputs and outputs of the process. For instance, in steel-making, one needs inputs of fuel and raw materials to run blast furnaces. No matter how much money you put into the process, you cannot make steel without fuel and raw materials. The same is true for the output of the furnace: More or less money will not change the amount of air and water emissions.

Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) worked with a research organization in Chile and its industry clients to define what parameters should be used in an international eco-labeling scheme for farmed salmon. The project looked at several parameters:

- Environmental regulations worldwide, which show the range of requirements for salmon farming and form the base or minimum required for measuring environmental performance.

- The technical literature, which provides insights into the range of practices around the world. If the range is great, then one can set performance standards that differentiate best practices. While there is plenty of literature on local effects, such as farm siting, waste accumulation, there is little about potential regional and global effects.

- Operational protocols for salmon farms, which describe what activities are occurring and are under management control. These are the features that would be the subject of performance measures.

- Life cycle analysis, which examines all physical parameters for the system from cradle to grave. This analysis is focused specifically on regional and global effects from industrial systems and is therefore complimentary to most of the analyses found in the technical literature.

Life cycle analysis is standardized in the ISO 14000 series of Environmental Management Standards and is used extensively in examining such systems as chemical production, car manufacturing, etc. We chose this type of analysis in order to get a complete description of the parameters in the system and the environmental effects that each parameter may contribute. We focused the analysis on the farming of Atlantic salmon at three stages: hatchery operations, smolt-rearing operations, and adult grow-out operations. We collected several types of data for each stage, including fuels, raw materials from pharmaceuticals and feed to nets and fish eggs, and waste streams including effluents such as organic debris from cleaning nets, feed loss, fecal matter, and discarded packaging.

For each input and output, we described all parameters from cradle to grave. For example, a plastic tray would be linked to oil extraction, refining, plastic manufacturing, transport, etc. We then described the entire system and looked at the results. For instance, we examined greenhouse gas emissions as CO2 equivalents. This analysis showed that, in general, salmon farm operations contribute a very small amount of greenhouse gas. Most of these emissions are associated with fish meal and fish oil, and the manufacture of feed pellets. These results show how important global and regional parameters are for any ecolabeling scheme. The results also suggest that fishing generally may have a greater environmental effect than first recognized. This in turn could have large implications for the environmental preferability of farmed versus wild-caught salmon.

Energy Efficiency of Intensive Salmon Culture and the Commercial Salmon Fishery in British Columbia: Implications for Sustainability by Peter H. Tyedmers, Ph.D. Candidate, Resource Management and Environmental Studies, University of British Columbia.

This presentation is based upon the results of dissertation research that used two approaches to quantitatively evaluate the biophysical efficiency or sustainability of the two major technologies for harvesting or producing salmon in British Columbia, Canada: the commercial salmon fishery and the intensive salmon culture industry.

The commercial salmon fishery in British Columbia, which is almost 130 years old, relies mostly on sockeye, chum, and pink salmon, and uses three gears: purse seine, gillnet, and troll. Landings have generally ranged between 60,000 and 100,000 pounds, which makes British Columbia the fourth largest salmon-fishing jurisdiction in the world after Alaska, Japan, and the Russian Federation.

Intensive salmon culture in British Columbia began in the early 1970s. Production remained relatively steady until the mid-1980s when production grew rapidly. Farmed salmon production in British Columbia amounted to 43,000 tonnes, making British Columbia also the fourth largest salmon-producing jurisdiction after Norway, Chile, and Scotland. Although coho and chinook salmon are farmed, Atlantic salmon have come to dominate production.

The main objective of my research was to quantitatively assess the biophysical "costs" associated with two distinct systems for producing salmon in British Columbia. Here, there is an opportunity to explore what, if any, differences exist between the biophysical costs associated with the two largely distinct technologies for producing dead salmon. Both sectors also have become increasingly interested in claiming to be "environmentally sustainable," although there has been little work to evaluate the biophysical costs and impacts of their activities.

Specifically, I analyzed the biophysical costs of producing a tonne of Atlantic and chinook salmon through farming and of landing a tonne of salmon by species and gear. Although I conducted an analysis of the ecological footprint of both technologies, I will focus this presentation on my energy analysis.

What does energy use have to do with sustainability? First, industrial use of fossil fuels in particular has been linked with global climate change as well as other large-scale ecosystem impacts such as loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, our industrial energy resources are finite in and of themselves. As industrial energy becomes scarcer, prices will rise, becoming a problem of economic sustainability for all energy intensive industries and activities.

My analysis of salmon farming considered the following parameters:

- direct feed, energy and labor inputs used in rearing juvenile fish;

- direct feed, energy and labor inputs in grow-out operations;

- the energy "embodied" in the grow-out site infrastructure, and

- the direct energy and labor inputs associated with transporting adult salmon from grow-out sites to processing plants.

Measurements were made in terms of an average tonne of Atlantic or chinook salmon produced based on data provided by salmon farm operators and associated companies.

My results indicate that total feed inputs amounted to about 1.77 tonnes of feed for each tonne of Atlantic salmon, and 2.2 tonnes of feed for each tonne of chinook salmon. Total energy inputs to the three stages of raising salmon amounted to 8,850 megajoules (MJ) of energy for each tonne of Atlantic salmon and 10,700 MJ for chinook salmon. (A megajoule is equivalent to about 2.8 x 1011 kilowatt hours of electrical energy.)

The question arises: What are the energy inputs required to produce the feed? To determine this, I analyzed the chain of activities that produces a tonne of feed delivered to a farm in British Columbia, assuming the feed is 38% fish meal, 18% fish oil, 15% whole grain, and 12% livestock by-products. My calculations indicate that it takes about 50,000 MJ of energy to produce a tonne of salmon feed. Adding energy used in transporting the feed brings the total to about 54,000 MJ of energy to produce and deliver a tonne of feed to a farm site in British Columbia. (This is the equivalent of burning 400 gallons of diesel fuel.)

Of these total energy inputs, 44% is required to catch and process fish into meal and oil. Another 40% of the energy is required for production of the feed components derived from livestock. Only 3% of the energy is required for producing the components derived from crops although they account for 21% of the mass of the feed. Transportation account for 7% of the energy, and final milling of the feed for 6%.

Combining these direct and indirect energy inputs to the hatchery, grow-out, and salmon transport systems shows that an average tonne of Atlantic salmon produced on a farm in British Columbia requires an investment of 104,000 MJ of energy, compared to 129,000 MJ for a tonne of chinook. This is the equivalent of burning about 760 gallons of diesel to produce one tonne of Atlantic salmon and 950 gallons to produce one tonne of chinook salmon. This production system also produces an equivalent of 7.2 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of Atlantic salmon, and 8.9 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of chinook salmon produced. Providing the feed requires more than 90% of the energy used in the producing salmon on these farms.

My analysis of the commercial salmon capture fisheries evaluated the following inputs:

- direct fuel and labor inputs while fishing;

- indirect or "embodied" energy and labor in the construction and maintenance of the fishing vessels themselves;

- indirect or "embodied" energy to manufacture gillnet, purse seine, and troll fishing gear;

- feed, labor, and direct energy used in producing that portion chinook and coho salmon catch released from hatcheries.

In analyzing energy used in landing a tonne of commercially caught coho salmon, fuel represents the largest energy input at a little more than 28,000 MJ. Rearing at hatcheries used another 7,800 MJ, while the energy embodied in vessels and gear represented 4,400 MJ. In all, I estimated that the British Columbia commercial fishing fleet consumes 41,000 MJ of energy in landing one tonne of coho salmon, thereby producing about 2.9 tonnes of CO2. By comparison,

- landing one tonne of chinook consumed about 35,000 MJ of energy and produced about 2.9 tonnes of CO2;

- landing one tonne of sockeye consumed about 27,000 MJ of energy and produced 2.3 tonnes of CO2;

- landing one tonne of chum salmon used about 24,000 MJ of energy and produced about 2.0 tonnes of CO2; and

- landing one tonne of pink salmon required about 22,000 MJ of energy and produced 1.8 tonnes of CO2.

Clearly, the energy inputs required to produce salmon on farms are much higher than those required to capture salmon at sea. If the energy required to produce a standard .44-pound fillet of salmon is put in terms of the amount of diesel fuel necessary to produce the equivalent amount of energy used in each system, the following results:

- farmed Atlantic salmon .26 gallons

- farmed chinook salmon .31 gallons

- wild caught chinook salmon .08 gallons

- wild caught coho salmon .11 gallons

- wild caught sockeye salmon .07 gallons

- wild caught chum salmon .06 gallons

- wild caught pink


(13) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: National (US) Organic Aquaculture Workshop

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:16:51 -0500
From: "Bill Mott"
To:

Thanks to Gary Jensen for this information:

National Organic Aquaculture Workshop

A National Organic Aquaculture Workshop, co-sponsored by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and University of Minnesota Extension Service, is scheduled for June 23-24, 2000 in St. Paul, Minnesota. The purpose of the workshop is to address the technical aspects of numerous issues associated specifically with aquaculture production that have been identified by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

The issues include:

1. What are the criteria for evaluating the suitability of a production site for an organic aquaculture operation? Specifically, can standards be developed for the site of production to address nutrient concentration, the emergence and transfer of disease, the escape of captive species to the wild, and detrimental impacts on indigenous species?
2. What characteristics of fish meal -- such as the source of the fish it is derived from or the synthetic materials it may contain - are pertinent to the requirement in the OFPA that producers supply livestock with "organically produced feed that meets the requirements of this title."?
3. How are the OFPA's various provisions pertinent to allowed and prohibited livestock medications applicable to the needs of aquaculture operations?
4. What guidelines are needed to insure that predator control practices for aquaculture operations are consistent with organic principles?
5. Should the induction of triploidy in fish species be classified as an excluded method under the policy on biotechnology contained in the Proposed Rule for the NOP?
6. What considerations should be addressed in the origin of livestock requirement for aquaculture operations that obtain stock fry or larvae from wild populations?

Who should attend workshop:

Persons who are organic certifiers, experts in the issue areas referenced above, aquaculturists who are already or anticipate marketing organically certified aquatic food products, and others who wish to contribute to developing national organic standards for the aquaculture industry.

For more information on the St. Paul workshop including the agenda, lodging and registration contact: Deborah Brister University of Minnesota Institute for Social, Economic and Ecological Sustainability
Tel 612-624-7723
email: djb@fw.umn.edu

The proceedings of the workshop will be made available for public review before any recommendations are presented to the National Organic Standards Board. Public comment on the workshop proceedings may be sent directly to the NOSB.

************************************************

Other Opportunities to Comment on Organic Standards for Aquaculture BEFORE May 17, 2000

For persons who cannot attend the St. Paul workshop, a series of three public meetings are planned to solicit testimony on organic certification standards for operations that produce aquatic animals, using the same workshop questions as a framework. The schedule for the public meetings is:

April 10, 2000: 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mobile Convention Center, 1 South Water St., Room 201, Mobile, Alabama, 36602, telephone number (334) 208-2000.

April 12, 2000: 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Anchorage Hilton, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501, telephone number (907) 272-7411.

May 3, 2000: 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Providence Biltmore, 11 Dorrance St., Providence, Rhode Island, 02903, telephone number (410) 421-0700.

For further information on any of the three public hearings contact: Keith Jones, Program Manager Room 2945 South Building U.S. Department of Agriculture AMS, Transportation and Marketing National Organic Program P.O. Box 96456 Washington, D.C. 20090-6456 Phone (202)720-3252.

Additionally, written comments may be mailed to: Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator Agricultural Marketing Service USDA Room 4007-S Ag Stop 0275 P.O. Box 96456 Washington, D.C. 20090-6456 or faxed to (202)205-7808, or submitted via the Internet through the NOP's homepage at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. All written comments must be submitted no later than May 17, 2000.

**************************************************

Background Information

The following provides some selected information that may help in understanding the current process of developing national organic standards for agriculture, including aquaculture.

Purpose and Background of the National Organic Program:

As set forth in Section 2102 (7 U.S.C. 6501), the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 is intended to (1) establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products: (2) assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard; and (3) facilitate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced. The National Organic Program (NOP) is the entity within AMS responsible for implementing the objectives of the OFPA. Pursuant to section 2119 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6518), the Secretary has established the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to provide assistance in the development of organic standards. The members of the NOSB represent distinct disciplines from within the organic community and are authorized to propose recommendations to the Secretary on the creation and revision of production and handling standards for organically managed operations.

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) requires that livestock that is to be slaughtered and sold or labeled as organically produced shall be raised in accordance with the title. OFPA defines livestock as any cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, equine animals used for food or in the production of food, fish used for food, wild or domesticated game, or other nonplant life. Therefore, any fish used for food that is to be sold or labeled as organic must be raised in accordance with the requirements of the OFPA. The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) understands the term "fish" to encompass all aquatic animals used for food including shell fish and fin fish. AMS also understands the term "fish" to encompass all aquatic animals, whether propagated and raised in a controlled or selected environment ("aquaculture") or from federally regulated but free roaming marine and fresh water populations ("wild harvested").

Organic Standard for Aquatic Animal Production:

While the first proposal for National Organic Standards for Agriculture contained no standards solely for aquatic animals in an organic operation, it did contain provisions applicable to their production. The first proposal allowed fish and crustaceans, among other livestock types, to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic if such livestock had been brought into an organic operation no later than the earliest commercially available stage of life. Several commenters suggested that the management of aquatic species differs significantly from mammals and poultry and would require separate regulatory provisions. AMS concurs and intends to develop detailed practice standards for specific aquatic species that will be published for comment and finalized prior to the implementation of the National Organic Program (NOP). Given the virtual absence of recognized certification programs for aquatic operations, including aquaculture, there are limited models on which to base national standards. Therefore, AMS must create opportunities for producers, consumers, certifying agents, and other interested parties to participate in the development of practice standards.


(14) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: NOAA Aquaculture Initiative

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:06:15 -0500
From: "Bill Mott"
To:

NOAA's Science Adv. Board is holding an open meeting in early April (5-7). Among topics to be discussed is the NOAA Aquaculture Initiative.

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse
Email: bmott@seaweb.org
Website: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

___________________________________________________

Federal Register: March 21, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 55) Notices Page 15130-15131

---------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Science Advisory Board

AGENCY: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, DOC.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

---------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for research, education, and application of science to resource management. SAB activities and advice will provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management. Time and Date: The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 5, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Thursday, April 6, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Friday, April 7, 2000, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Place: American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Status: The meeting will be open to public participation with two 30-minute time periods set aside during the meeting for direct verbal comments or questions from the public. The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meeting will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Written comments (at least 35 copies) should be received in the SAB Executive Director's Office by March 29, 2000, in order to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received by the SAB Executive Director after March 29 will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Approximately thirty (30) seats will be available for the public including five (5) seats reserved for the media. Seats will be available on a first-come first-served basis. Matters to Be Considered: The meeting will include the following topics: (1) Overview and SAB discussion of FY 2000 NOAA budget, (2) NOAA update to SAB recommendations concerning the establishment of three pilot SAB Working Groups to develop review processes that will be used to review

[[Page 15131]]

various NOAA science efforts (see http://www.sab.noaa.gov/ oct1999finalminutes.html, (3) NOAA response to SAB request to establish an Ocean and Coastal Information Dissemination Service (see http:// www.sab.noaa.gov/oct1999finalminutes.html), (4) Discussion of the SAB Report for the next NOAA Administrator, (5) Public Input Session with SAB discussion, (6) Presentations and SAB discussion of the ``Census of Marine Life'' and NOAA's Ocean Exploration and Research Initiative, (7) Overview and SAB discussion of potential recommendations relating to the NOAA FY 2002 budget request, (8) SAB Sub-Committee and Issue Group Reports, (9) Overview and SAB discussion of NOAA/Universities Administrative Efficiencies Subcommittee, (10) Presentation and SAB discussion of Aquaculture Initiative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael S. Uhart, Executive Director Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11142, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Phone: 301-713-9121, Fax: 301- 713-3515, E-mail: Michael.Uhart@noaa.gov); or visit the NOAA SAB website at www.sab.noaa.gov.

Dated: March 15, 2000. Louisa Koch, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OAR. [FR Doc. 00-6873 Filed 3-20-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-M


(15) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: NMFS: Federal financial assistance availability (including aquaculture)

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:13:22 -0500
From: "Bill Mott"
To:

Thanks to Gary Jensen for this information:

Please distribute this federal register announcement to others who may have an interest in this Federal financial assistance program with some specific reference to aquaculture as follows:

Priority lending purposes. The priority lending purposes for this $23.7 million loan ceiling include: (d) Marine and closed system aquaculture. This excludes land-based aquaculture not occurring in closed systems.

(2) Non-priority lending purposes. The non-priority lending purposes for this $23.7 million loan ceiling include: (a) Land based aquaculture in open systems;

(3) Reserving FY 2000 loan ceiling. (a) Before April 17, 2000. Before this date, NMFS will reserve the entire $23.7 million loan ceiling for applications that involve the priority lending purposes. (b) After April 17, 2000. If any of the $23.7 million loan ceiling remains unreserved after this date, the unreserved amount will then be available to reserve for applications involving any FFP lending purpose.

Gary Jensen USDA-CSREES

___________________________________________________

Federal Register: March 27, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 59) Notices Page 16179-16181

----------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 000314073-0073-01; I.D. 120399C] RIN 0648-ZA83

Fisheries Finance Program; Program Notice and Announcement of Federal Financial Assistance Availability

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Federal financial assistance availability.

---------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of $28.7 million in Fisheries Finance Program (FFP) loans during fiscal year (FY) 2000. This notice establishes FY 2000 loan application priorities.

DATES: Effective March 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES:
(1) Applicants in the Alaska, Northwest, and Southwest Regions. Kimberly Ott, Northwest Financial Services Branch (F/SF23), 7600 Sand Point Way, NE (BIN C15700), Building 1, Seattle, WA 98115;
(2) Applicants in the Northeast Region. Leo Erwin, Northeast Financial Services Branch (F/SF21), One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; and
(3) Applicants in the Southeast Region. Kell Freeman, Southeast Financial Services Branch (F/SF22), 9721 Executive Center Drive North., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Grable, 301-713-2390, fax 301-713-1306, E-mail Michael.Grable@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

(1) Notice purpose. The notice's purpose is to: (a) Announce that the FFP has a $28.7 loan ceiling for FY 2000; (b) Establish loan application priorities for the $23.7 million loan ceiling not dedicated to any specific loan purpose; and (c) Establish an application selection basis for the $5 million loan ceiling dedicated to purchasing halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ).

(2) FFP description. The FFP is a direct loan program under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended. Debt maturities can be up to 25 years, but not longer than financed property's economically useful life. Interest rates, which are fixed, are the U.S. Treasury's borrowing cost plus 2 percent. There are no prepayment penalties. Loans may equal 80 percent of financed property's depreciated cost, and may generally be either original financing or refinancing of existing loans. FFP loans generally require experienced fisheries borrowers with strong primary and secondary means of repayment, including personal guarantees. FFP loans generally have longer maturities and lower interest rates than private fisheries credit. This stretches the service of lower-cost FFP debt over a longer repayment period more consistent with cyclical fisheries economics. For further FFP details, see the FFP's operating rules at 50 CFR part 253, subpart B.

(3) FFP lending purposes. These are the FFP's statutory lending purposes: (a) Fishing vessel construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, and acquisition. The FFP rules, however, prohibit loans that increase existing harvesting capacity, as does the FY 2000 appropriations act. FFP loans may not, consequently, originally finance either vessel construction or reconstruction that increases vessel harvesting capacity. Nevertheless, FFP loans remain available for refinancing existing vessel loans for all eligible purposes because this does not increase harvesting capacity. Additionally, FFP loans remain available for originally financing vessel purchase and/or reconditioning; (b) Fisheries shoreside facilities construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, and acquisition; (c) Aquacultural facilities construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, and acquisition; (d) IFQ acquisition. So far, only entry level or small boat fishermen in the halibut and sablefish fisheries are eligible for these loans. Eligibility in additional fisheries depends on Fishery Management Council requests; (e) Fishing capacity reduction under section 312(b)-(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishery Management Councils must also request these loans; and (f) Acquiring pollock fishing vessels or shoreside facilities. This dedicated use of FFP loan ceilings was available in FY 1999 only to communities eligible to participate in the Western Alaska Community Development Program.

(4) Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA) cost effect on loan ceilings. Congress annually authorizes FFP loan ceilings. Since 1972, Congress has done this by appropriating FCRA costs at rates projected in the President's annual budgets. FCRA cost is the loan loss that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects for different Federal loan categories. A loan ceiling is the amount that a stated FCRA cost appropriation produces at a stated FCRA cost rate. The following table shows, for example, the loan ceiling effect of different FCRA cost rates for a $0.1 million FCRA cost appropriation:

----------------------------------------------------

FCRA Cost Appropriation FCRA Cost Rate Loan Ceiling

---------------------------------------------------

$0.1 million............................ 1%

$10 million $0.1 million............................ 2%

$5 million $0.1 million............................ 5%

$2 million $0.1 million............................ 10%

$1 million $0.1 million............................ 20%

$0.5 million $0.1 million............................ 50%

$0.2 million

----------------------------------------------------

The FFP uses FCRA cost appropriations as lending capital, borrowing the balance from the U.S. Treasury. If, for example, the FFP had a $0.1 million FCRA cost appropriation at a 1 percent FCRA cost rate, the FFP's lending capital would be the $0.1 million FCRA cost appropriation plus $9.9 million borrowed from the U.S. Treasury. The FFP would then make loans worth $10 million, using their repayment proceeds to repay (with interest) the FFP's own loan from the Treasury. (5) FFP's FY 2000 loan ceiling. The President's FY 2000 budget established a 1 percent FCRA cost rate for the FFP loan ceiling that the budget requested (which did not include IFQ loans). Congress enacted a FY 2000 FCRA cost appropriation of $0.338 million and dedicated $0.1 million of it to IFQ loans, leaving the undedicated $0.238 million balance available for the FFP's other lending purposes. OMB reduced the apportioned FCRA cost to $0.337 million. The President's budgets have not, through FY 2000, requested IFQ loan ceilings. OMB, however, established a 2- percent FCRA cost rate for the first FCRA cost appropriation that Congress dedicated to IFQ loans. This FCRA cost rate has since applied to all FCRA cost appropriations that Congress dedicated to IFQ loans (fiscal years 1998 and 1999). Consequently, the FFP's apportioned loan ceiling for FY 2000 is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------

FCRA Cost x FCRA = Loan

----------------------------------------------------

Loan Purpose.................................................. Appropriation Cost Rate Ceiling

IFQ........................................................... $0.1 million 2 percent $5 million

Other Purposes................................................ $0.237 million 1 percent $23.7 million

Totals........................................................ $0.337 million - $28.7 million

---------------------------------------------------

(6) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. The FFP is listed in the ``Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance'' under number 11.415: Fisheries Finance Program.

II. $5 Million Ceiling For IFQ Loans During FY 2000

Backlogged IFQ applications from FY 1999 far exceed this $5 million loan ceiling. NMFS will not, consequently, accept new IFQ loan applications during FY 2000. Instead, NMFS will select $5 million worth of backlogged applications for processing. This accords with NMFS' previous Federal Register notice (64 FR 25289, May 11, 1999). NMFS will use for FY 2000 selection the same random process it used for FY 1999 selection. NMFS' previous Federal Register notice requested, but did not receive, public comment about this.

III. $23.7 Million Ceiling For Other Loan Purposes During FY 2000

(1) Priority lending purposes. These are the priority lending purposes for this $23.7 million loan ceiling: (a) Fishing Capacity Reduction. This is the highest priority because harvesting overcapitalization is a major national fisheries problem. (b) Supporting the existing FFP credit portfolio. This includes: refinancing loans, assuming loans, and other loan servicing actions that protect the Government's interest in the existing FFP portfolio and limit loan loss exposure; (c) Backlogged FY 1999 loan applications. This includes about $10 million in FFP loan applications backlogged from FY 1999; and (d) Marine and closed system aquaculture. This excludes land-based aquaculture not occurring in closed systems.

(2) Non-priority lending purposes. These are the non-priority lending purposes for this $23.7 million loan ceiling: (a) Land based aquaculture in open systems; (b) Fisheries shoreside facilities; and (c) Fishing vessels.

(3) Reserving FY 2000 loan ceiling. (a) Before April 17, 2000. Before this date, NMFS will reserve the entire $23.7 million loan ceiling for applications that involve the priority lending purposes. (b) After April 17, 2000. If any of the $23.7 million loan ceiling remains unreserved after this date, the unreserved amount will then be available to reserve for applications involving any FFP lending purpose. (c) Fishing Capacity Reduction Exclusion. Because this is the highest FFP lending priority, NMFS may at any time during FY 2000 consider reserving for this purpose any or all of the $23.7 FFP loan ceiling not previously reserved for another purpose. NMFS will do so only for accepted fishing capacity reduction requests whose further processing requires FY 2000 loan approval.

(4) Application fee. NMFS will reserve loan ceiling for an application only upon the applicant's payment of an application fee. Fifty percent of this fee is non-refundable (NMFS earns the remainder upon loan approval).

(5) Losing loan ceiling reservations. NMFS intends to ensure that it obligates this entire $23.7 million loan ceiling before October 1, 2000. If an applicant with a loan ceiling reservation does not comply with NMFS' loan processing requirements promptly enough for NMFS to prospectively achieve this intention, NMFS may transfer the loan ceiling reservation to another applicant who can and will comply.

(6) Applications and waiting list. All potential applicants must first discuss their loan projects with the appropriate NMFS Regional Financial Services Branch. If a potential applicant appears to be ineligible for an FFP loan or unable to meet the FFP's loan risk criteria, NMFS will take no further action. If, however, a potential applicant prospectively appears to be both eligible and able to meet the loan risk criteria, NMFS will either then advise the applicant that it may submit an application and application fee or add the applicant to a FFP waiting list for submitting future applications when lending priorities and/or unreserved loan ceilings permit. NMFS will reserve sufficient loan ceiling for every applicant that submits an application and application fee after NMFS advises the applicant that it may do so. Although NMFS advises a potential applicant that it may submit a loan application and application fee, only subsequent loan investigation and analysis will determine whether, and under what conditions, NMFS will approve a loan. Subject to FY 2001 loan priorities and loan ceilings, NMFS will consider as FY 2001 application candidates all parties on the FY 2000 waiting list for whom NMFS did not reserve FY 2000 loan ceiling. NMFS will do so in the chronological order in which parties were added to the waiting list. All FFP loans are subject to the FFP operating rules. Potential applicants should see these rules for further eligibility and qualification details.

IV. Administrative Requirements

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 bars additional Federal loans (other than disaster loans) to delinquent Federal borrowers (excluding debt under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). Loan applicants are subject to name-check reviews intended to reveal whether applicant principals have been convicted of, or are facing, criminal charges for fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters affecting the applicant's honesty, integrity, or creditworthiness. False application statements can result in loan denial, loan termination, and possible punishment by fines or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001. Applicants must complete a Form CD-511 because they are subject to 15 CFR part 26 (Federal assistance debarment) and the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352 (using appropriated funds to influence Federal financial transactions). NMFS will furnish this form when it advises potential applicants to submit their applications.

Classification

Neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires prior notice and opportunity for public comment about this loan notice. Consequently, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. This notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. FFP applications are not subject to Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.'' This notice contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB approved the required collection of information under control number 0648-0012. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Dated: March 16, 2000.

Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00-7503 Filed 3-24-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


(1) [MULTILINGUAL INFO CLEARINGHOUSE] -- Back to the Table of Contents --

Subject: Fish Farming News and Information From Around the World -

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:24:11 -0400
From: "Bill Mott"
To:

Fish Farming News and Information From Around the World –

April 3, 2000

1) Maine salmon harvest declines for first time in ten years
2) Blue Hill Bay (Maine) salmon farm OK'd
3) New code of practice in New Brunswick
4) FIS interview with Dan Swecker of Washington Fish Growers Association
5) Simon Fraser University (BC) think tank sessions lead to call for better aquaculture research
6) Transgenic salmon article (Vancouver Sun)
7) Genetic modification far from fully risk assessed
8) NZ imports of salmon from Australia to be allowed
9) Major fish farm project for Malaysia
10) Cod farming profitability far off
11) ISA prompts slaughter of 700,000 salmon in Norway
12) Job cuts at Shetland-based fish processor partially blamed on ISA
13) Icelandic-Irish salmon breeding program launched
14) Low-cost soy feeds farm-raised fish
15) US Atlantic salmon production growing in years to come

Also:

**Note: A revised version of ‘Summary of papers presented at a panel (in New Orleans): PERSPECTIVES ON SUSTAINABILITY IN AQUACULTURE’ will be coming out in the near future.

**Upcoming conference: 1st MARICULT CONFERENCE June 25-28, 2000 (www.maricult.org/public/conference2000)

Or contact Yngvar Olsen, professor at the Trondhjem Biological Station in Norway and Conference Chair, for further information: yngvar.olsen@vm.ntnu.no

===========================================

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse
Email: bmott@seaweb.org
Website: www.seaweb.org/campaigns/sac

===========================================

1) Maine Salmon Harvest Declines for First Time in Ten Years

>From Seafood.com:

March 30-- The booming Maine salmon farming industry hit a bump in the road in 1999, and total harvests dropped from 29.6 million pounds in 1998 to 26.8 million pounds in 1999.

Joe McGonigle, executive director of the Maine Aquaculture Association, blamed the uncertain regulatory environment brought about by the proposed endangered species listing. He said that was discouraging further investment in Maine salmon aquaculture at this time.

But others, including John Lewis, aquaculture coordinator for the State of Maine, said other factors were more important. For example, he said that farmers were reducing stocking densities this year because of fear of disease. There had been an outbreak of ISA in neighboring New Brunswick, for example.

He also said that there was an attempt by many growers to have all the salmon in particular locations be of the same age, to simplify feeding requirements. As a result, fewer fish were in the water late last year.

McGonigle also pointed to the denial of Atlantic Salmon’s request for new aquaculture pens in Blue Hill bay as a factor.

[News and commentary by John Sackton at www.seafood.com, the web site for commercial seafood buyers, sellers and consumers. Email Comments.]

===========================================

2) Blue Hill salmon farm OK'd

BANGOR DAILY NEWS (BANGOR, MAINE)

March 23, 2000 Thursday

BYLINE: Samantha Coit Of the NEWS Staff

BLUE HILL -- State Marine Resources Commissioner George LaPointe has approved fish farmer Erick Swanson's plans to raise Atlantic salmon on a 35-acre tract in Blue Hill Bay.

The decision came despite strong public opposition to the project and a privately funded study detailing apparent inadequacies of the site for Acadia Aquaculture Inc.'s plans to raise about 400,000 Atlantic salmon there.

Five intervenors joined in on the proceedings. LaPointe issued the decision March 15 but the applicant and intervenors did not receive formal notice of it until Wednesday.

Swanson, who is sole director of the company and also operates Trumpet Island Salmon Farm Inc. off nearby Hardwood Island, has submitted two more applications to the Department of Marine Resources for lease sites to raise more Atlantic salmon in Blue Hill Bay.

The Acadia Aquaculture proposal grants Swanson exclusive right to raise Atlantic salmon for 10 years off Dunhams Cove, Long Island.

The lease site approval contains conditions, including one that the DMR staff did not include in a preliminary report released earlier this month. That report recommended approval of the lease.

That provision prohibits the applicant from using the Seal Cove landing facility or Blue Hill Bay landing facilities for feed delivery or harvest transport by trucks. Activities planned for the proposed site include transporting smolts to pens, changing and cleaning the nets on site, feeding the fish with feed blowers, sorting and grading fish with mechanical graders and fish pumps, harvesting salmon with blood water that is disinfected with approved disinfectants, and using veterinarian-approved antibiotics.

Intervenors have 30 days to appeal the decision in court.

===========================================

3) New code of practice in New Brunswick

Thanks to Dave Conley for this piece:

PUBLICATION The Moncton Times and Transcript DATE Thursday March 30, 2000 PAGE A7

Salmon farming code endorsed; New code of practice divides New Brunswick's 90 salmon farms into a number of bay management areas

Members of the New Brunswick Salmon Growers' Association have endorsed a code of practice that will be tied to the licensing of salmon farming sites by the province.

The code of practice will set standards for husbandry practices and fish health management throughout the salmon farming industry in New Brunswick.

"Salmon farmers have voluntarily taken this initiative because it is an important step in developing businesses that are both economically and environmentally sustainable," said Nell Halse, general manager of the NB Salmon Growers' Association.

"With clearly defined standards, we will be better able to produce a quality food product while preserving the unique and pristine environment of the Bay of Fundy, on which we all depend."

Salmon farming, New Brunswick's largest agri-food industry, is focused in Charlotte County, along the Bay of Fundy. One-quarter of all private sector jobs in Charlotte County are related to salmon farming.

The new code of practice divides New Brunswick's 90 salmon farms into a number of bay management areas. Salmon farmers in each area will sign agreements, outlining protocols for disease management, growing and harvesting fish, disinfection and cleaning of equipment, and handling of waste.

Compliance by salmon farmers with the code of practice will be tied to the licensing of salmon farming sites by the province. The adoption of the code coincides with the reshuffling of the provincial cabinet and the formation of the provincial Department of Food Production.

"We are extremely pleased that the provincial government has recognized the major role salmon farming plays in food production by combining the development of our industry with that of agriculture," Halse said. "With $150-million in annual sales, salmon farmers produce the province's largest cash crop, twice the value of the potato industry.

===========================================

4) Washington Fish Farmers: ‘Farming is the answer’

>From FIS:

UNITED STATES Friday, March 31, 2000, 21:30 (GMT + 9)

Fish Info Service (FIS) contacted Dan Swecker with the Washington Fish Growers Association to get the Associations view on the situation for wild Pacific salmon. According to Mr Swecker, "the fundamental question is whether each stock of fish in each stream is a discrete "species" or an "evolutionarily significant unit" as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) likes to refer to them". Many things have happened over the years to threaten the concept that the original wild stocks are still there. "The real answer is that every situation is different and we don´t have the scientific data to support either position," Swecker said. "However, the scientific technology is available to get the information as well as manage the genetic diversity of each stock."

Dan Swecker characterises current stocks as follows:

Wild Stocks: totally pure original stock, and there are very few of these Natural Stocks: a naturally reproducing run of fish (not totally pure), and there are many of these Local stocks: more or less naturally producing stocks, which were transplanted into an area, also many of these Hatchery stocks: fish raised artificially and released to migrate to the ocean - many of these stocks return and mingle with naturally reproducing fish.

He points out what he believe are major factors affecting today´s survival of salmon in order:

Ocean conditions: worst in 500 years, major natural cycle Fishing: not necessarily over fishing in general, but difficulty in targeting the right stocks Predators: marine mammals and birds – protected by law and at record high populations Habitat: off mainstem tributaries, loss of shading, channelling for flood control and development, blockages, culverts Mainstem dams: modification of the river channel, warming due to reservoirs and high dissolved gas levels due to design of dams and management of discharges through relief tubes and over spillways

All of these problems have strategies for overcoming them. Mother nature has managed ocean conditions for salmon for thousands of years. As the ocean conditions warm, the salmon runs to the south are depopulated and runs to the north are invigorated. As the ocean cools the northern runs diminish and the southern runs are re-populated by straying. Over time the selectivity of the environment shapes the genetics of the transplanted fish to resemble the original stock. There is always straying going on so genetic diversity is preserved.

Dan Swecker said: "One can argue that the combination of natural conditions and human caused habitat degradation could have irreversible long-term impacts. Of course, this is the nature of man. We displace other species with our activities. The question is how much of this is tolerable. The endangered species act has a tolerance of -0-."

He continued: "Even if man´s activities are irreversible and intolerable, we have the technology to preserve and manage the genetic diversity of the stocks though captive broodstock programmes." Twenty years ago, Atlantic salmon were the most threatened and endangered species of salmon in the world. Today they are the second most prolific species after pink salmon. Most live on farms.

The interface between farmed salmon and ESA is a political one. In Washington State, the concern is that the prevalent farmed species (Atlantics) is a non-indigenous species and some suggest that there is a threat to native stocks. Science says that this is not a major concern. According to NMFS the risk of from Atlantic salmon is less than .0003% of the risk caused by intentionally released Pacific stocks.

On the East Coast, the concern is the opposite. The fear is that the cultured stocks will breed with wild stocks and reduce genetic diversity. "My guess is that there are few, if any, wild stocks remaining and if it were not for the escapees from the farms there would be no "natural" runs left. In fact, I believe that yearly infusion of new individuals from the farms is necessary to maintain even a semblance of run viability and things would come to a screeching halt very quickly if the farms were removed," Swecker said.

While Atlantic salmon farming may have some mild impacts on natural runs, these are very manageable in every respect. The technologies and scientific techniques used by the private sector in fish farming are very applicable to the endangered species problems. To one degree or another, natural runs can be scientifically improved to protect genetic diversity and improve run viability.

"Farming is the answer not the problem," concluded Dan Swecker.

By Tor-Eddie Fossbakk

===========================================

5) Simon Fraser University (BC) think tank sessions lead to call for better aquaculture research

From: M2 PRESSWIRE March 23, 2000

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY (SFU) think tank sessions lead to call for better aquaculture research

More than 50 acquaculture experts and salmon conservation groups are calling for better research on the coexistence of Atlantic and Pacific salmon fish farming and Pacific wild salmon stocks in B.C. Their concerns were expressed following a recent two day think tank session co-hosted by SFU. The group also wants the provincial and federal governments to apply an international precautionary principle to monitoring the impact of current regulation and expansion of fish farming.

The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), a Scotland-based international group promoting the restoration and enhancement of dwindling North Atlantic salmon stocks, developed the principle. It outlines a number of conservation measures for ensuring the protection of salmon resources when there is incomplete or unreliable research about the impact of new programs or industries on those resources.

SFU salmon behavioural ecologist Larry Dill, who co-moderated the conference, believes application of the NASCO principle in Canada is crucial in light of international scientific findings presented at the conference.

"They affirmed that salmon farming has been an ecological disaster for wild Atlantic salmon, and that some of its effects could happen here," notes Dill. "In many cases the relevant research needed to confirm whether the same thing could happen here has not been conducted or hasn't been done appropriately. In addition much of the work done by government agencies has not been through the normal scientific peer review process, so one can't even say whether it is adequate," adds Dill.

Conference delegates also called for the creation of an independent group of scientists to work with government agencies and the aquaculture industry. It would determine how to proceed with salmon farming in B.C. so as to avoid the damages experienced in Europe.

The lack of scientific research and the provincial government's recent decision to allow expansion of B.C.'s existing salmon farms lead to the conference. A ban on the rearing of transgenic salmon (genetically manipulated to stimulate fast growth) was another recommendation made at the two day think tank session. Ron MacLeod, a former federal director general of Pacific fisheries who advises SFU faculty on fisheries conservation and participated in the conference, says, "I came away with the impression that if the province bans the rearing of transgenics as recommended by scientists, adheres consistently to the precautionary principle and applies close monitoring, their limited expansion schedule should be okay."

The conference was organized by SFU's continuing studies in science program, in conjunction with the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the Save Our Fish Foundation, the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission and the federal and provincial departments of fisheries.

For more info. contact: Pat Gallaugher pgallaug@sfu.ca Tel: +1 604 291 4653 Ron MacLeod Tel: +1 604 538 5709 Carol Thorbes, media/public relations Tel: +1 604 291 3035

===========================================

6) Transgenic salmon research

Thanks to Dave Conley for this:

PUBLICATION The Vancouver Sun
DATE Wed 22 Mar 2000
SECTION/CATEGORY News
BYLINE Dawn Hanna

Scientists put extra genes in salmon for growth: Researchers say they can grow fish to maturity in half the normal time, but add that many questions remain to be answered.

The young coho salmon swimming in the vat look pretty much like any other of their species, Oncorhyncus kisutch. They have the same bluish sheen, the same black spots scattered along their backs, the same white-gummed grimaces. But these fish are definitely different. For one thing, they're about three times longer than the average one-year-old coho and about 30 times heavier. These particular young coho are some of the thousands of genetically modified fish at the department of fisheries and oceans' West Vancouver Research Laboratory. They differ from their unaltered, wild brethren in that they have extra genes, genes put there by scientist Bob Devlin and his colleagues. The genes, which regulate growth, came from other salmon. They were injected into a batch of coho eggs. As the new fish grew, their genes incorporated the introduced DNA. (At maturity, both kinds of salmon will be about the same size -- between 2.5 and 5.5 kilograms. But the normal coho will have taken four years to get there, the transgenics only two. Some of the earlier generations of transgenics also had misshapen heads, their gills lumpy and distorted, their usually streamlined profiles humped with excess cartilage.)

Devlin began his research into transgenics in 1989. He was looking at the potential of genetic engineering for application to fisheries science. Then companies worldwide began looking at producing genetically modified fish on a commercial basis. In the early stages, DFO officials considered a collaboration with industry. But after much discussion, the decision was made to focus the research solely on risk assessment. ``The department decided that receiving money from licensing and commercialization would complicate the research,'' says Devlin. ``By doing it totally within the government we're able to keep it totally objective.'' (The only Canadian company involved in commercial transgenic research is A/F Protein Canada Inc. of Newfoundland. Their experimental hatchery on Prince Edward Island is working on producing faster-growing Atlantic salmon, trout and Arctic char. These days Devlin and associates work with two species: coho salmon and rainbow trout. Their aim is to understand as much as possible about the fish that result from the transgenic process.

The idea is not just to increase scientific knowledge but also to establish regulations for the inevitable commercial applications. ``Once you have actually grown the fish and seen them you realize that there are quite a lot of questions to be asked,'' says Devlin. - There is increasing public anxiety about genetically modified foodstuffs -- both plant and animal. Those for and against are waging a war of words in newspapers, magazines and on Web sites. Others, more radical, have vandalized crops and projects that they believe to be genetically modified. Earlier this month, a New Zealand company suspended its attempt to grow bigger chinook salmon. Opponents of the project had fought for more than a year to shut it down, after leaked reports of deformed heads and other abnormalities in the transgenic fish. (All the fish were destroyed, but the company has frozen the genetically modified sperm for possible future projects.) And in January, 138 countries signed a United Nations-sponsored Biosafety Protocol in response to consumer concerns about health, safety and ecological impacts posed by genetically modified organisms. The protocol now forces exporters to label shipments that may contain added genetic material. The protocol applies only to agricultural products such as corn, soybeans, cotton and wheat. - Devlin says there is still much more to be learned about transgenic fish.

His particular concerns focus on two areas: human food safety and environmental concerns. He's pretty confident that food safety issues can be adequately addressed. Research so far on transgenic salmon shows no problems. But, he adds, there are still questions to be answered. Then there's the issue of environmental impact, namely what effect would transgenic salmon have on B.C.'s marine ecosystem should they escape into the wild? ``When you see this kind of size difference after one year,'' says Devlin, ``you've got to start to think that this might have some impact.'' Research shows that genetically modified fish don't swim as well as normal fish. On the other hand, transgenics have voracious appetites -- they eat about 10 times more than normal fish the same age, three times more even than normal fish the same size. Scientists know that transgenic and wild salmon can interbreed -- at least in the lab. But they don't know if transgenics can survive the rigours of spawning in the wild. It's also known that transgenic fish hatch sooner than normal fish. But the salmon's life cycle is timed to other cycles in nature -- the hatch of insects, for example. So it's not known if such a trait would be an advantage or a disadvantage. ILLUSTRATION: Color Photo: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun / BIG DIFFERENCE: Fisheries scientist Bob Devlin at his West Van lab with a pair of coho salmon. Both fish are a year old, but the larger shows the difference genetic modification can make to the growth rate.

===========================================

7) Genetic modification far from fully risk assessed

>From FIS:

CANADA Monday, March 27, 2000, 21:30 (GMT + 9)

From time to time the issue around transgenic fish in particular or food in general pops up. The latest development is that the international community (138 countries) signed a United Nations-sponsored Bio safety Protocol last January. This was in reaction to consumer concerns surrounding health; safety and ecological impacts that might be impacted by genetically modified organisms.

The irony though is that few, if any, really know what the impact genetically modified organisms will have. The issue is too new for scientists to have been able to research the consequences enough. For fish it is necessary to study this issue over several generations, which means at least 10-12 years, and even then there are more unanswered questions than there are answered ones.

Fish Info Service (FIS) spoke to Dr Bob Devlin, senior scientist at the West Vancouver Research Laboratory, owned by the Canadian Department of Fisheries (DFO), about the issue of transgenic fish. He is working on these issues related to coho and trout. Earlier they also studied other species, like Atlantic salmon, but in the early 1990’s it was decided to limit the research to only coho and trout.

Dr Devlin made it quite clear that the reason for this research is absolutely non-commercial, and they are concentrating solely on risk assessment. DFO decided that accepting money to conduct research from commercialisation and licensing of the processes they were developing would complicate the research. "By doing it solely based on government funding we’

re able to stay totally objective", Dr Devlin said.

"What we do is not liked by neither the aquaculture industry nor the environmental groups. However, we think it is important to conduct this type of research to find scientific evidence for what the risks are," he continued. There are too many people that are either taking a very strong stand against or embracing genetically modified fish without any scientific evidence to back up their arguments. At this point it is impossible to say that there are absolutely no risks involved. Dr Devlin was not able to give a reliable estimation of risk either. Their work is also to establish provide a foundation on which regulations for the inevitable commercial applications of genetically modified products that are bound to come. In Canada such regulations are currently out for consultations.

Some speculate that using sterile fish will solve the risk problem. According to Dr Devlin, this is much too simple. There is no 100% guaranty that through a sterilisation process, all fish become sterile. Maybe 99.9% or more are, but there is still that small margin of error that allows for non-sterile fish to enter into the ecosystem. Since there still are more unanswered questions related to risk and consequences, research must continue. The closest to zero risk may be by raising such genetically modified fish in closed environments such as land-based systems, but even under such circumstances Dr Devlin could not rule out risk.

Asked what questions are not adequately answered, Dr Devlin brought up a couple of issues like the affect the hormones may have on the human cell line and nutritional equality, which need long-term feed studies probably involving studies of rats. It is a departmental issue who is more suited to conduct some of these studies, not necessarily DFO, maybe other more consumer oriented institutions should be responsible for these kind of studies.

By Tor-Eddie Fossbakk

===========================================

8) NZ Imports of salmon from Australia to be allowed

>From IntraFish:

Published: 27.03.2000 07:00

The importation of gutted salmon with its head and gills intact will be permitted from Australia into new Zealand, subject to the development of an Import Health Standard, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) announced last Thursday.

The decision is based on a scientific evaluation of the potential health risks to fish and other aquatic animals from such products being allowed to enter New Zealand. The risk analysis was carried out by the MAF Biosecurity Authority, and was released for public comment in September last year. The analysis was supplementary to the previous two carried out in 1994 and 1997.

A review of the submissions received in response to the supplementary import risk analysis was published last week. The review of submissions concluded that no new evidence had been presented which would change the conclusions reached in the supplementary risk analysis. The Biosecurity Act 1993 requires that when considering the importation of goods that might cause unwanted harm to animal health, MAF must consider the likelihood of the organisms being introduced, and the possible effects such organisms might have on people, the environment and the New Zealand economy.

The supplementary risk analysis considered only those diseases of salmonids which are present in Australia, and which have not been recorded in New Zealand. These are atypical strains of Aeromonas salmonicida, lymphosarcomas in Tasmanian Atlantic salmon, streptococcosis, and epizootic haematopoetic necrosis virus (EHNV). The risk analysis assessed each of these diseases, and concluded for the first three that the risk of introduction posed by head and gill intact salmonids for human consumption was low or negligible. However, specific measures were recommended to protect against the introduction of EHNV.

MAF received 12 submissions on the supplementary risk analysis, the content of which is summarised in the review published today. As a result of questions raised in submissions regarding streptococcosis, MAF sought further expert opinion which is also summarised in the document. MAF concludes that none of the points raised in submissions affect the validity of the conclusions reached in the supplementary analysis, or the risk analyses that had preceded it.

While MAF will be permitting the importation of head and gills intact salmon from Australia, MAF will not be permitting the commercial importation of trout. New Zealand's international agreements, such as CER and membership in the World Trade Organisation, oblige MAF to base decisions affecting imports on a scientific basis. Continued refusal to allow imports from Australia would have been difficult to defend on technical grounds, especially as the international standard for safe trade in table fish, the International Aquatic Animal Health Code, considers that evisceration ensures that fish may be traded safely.

Source: New Zealand Government

===========================================

9) Major fish farm project for Malaysia

>From Fishmonger.com:

Project will benefit rural poor

March 27 - New Straits Times - The Balik Pulau district of Malaysia, bordered by a potentially rich sea, is implementing a mega fish farm project this year. If the proposed US$263,200 project is carried out, Balik Pulau will have the largest and most productive fish farm venture in the country.

Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Dr. Hilmi Yahaya said a Penang-based aquaculture company had submitted a project plan to the State Government early this year. He said the project had the support of the state government and relevant authorities like the Fisheries Department, Malaysian Fisheries Development Board and the marine police.

The company, which he declined to name, will turn the seafront areas from Pulau Petong to Sungai Pinang into "farms'' to breed marine life for seafood. The company, with experience in running seafood production in other States including Pahang, Kelantan and Johor, will use Swedish technology for the project.

''The company has given the assurance the project will not pollute.'' About 90 per cent of the produce from the sea ranch will be exported to the Far East and Europe, while the rest will be for the local market.The project will also benefit people in the area.

Dr. Hilmi, who is also the State Planning and Co-ordination of Development Programs Committee chairman, spoke to newsmen at the Balik Pulau Umno division delegates' meeting at the Tabung Haji complex in Bayan Lepas. The project will be a joint venture with a local residents' trust fund. It will be a collective investment fund for residents under the Balik Pulau hard-core poor program. Dr. Hilmi will head a panel to list down eligible hard-core poor, estimated to be about 1,000, to be shareholders in the proposed fund.

He also discussed the project with the Rural Development Ministry which is expected to provide some financial help to set up the fund. ''The residents will also work in the project and be trained,'' Dr. Hilmi said.

===========================================

10) Cod farming profitability far off

>From IntraFish:

Published: 24.03.2000 07:00

There is still a long way to go before cod farming can be profitable, among others, in FoU. If cod farming were to become a lucrative business, facilities would require a production volume of 36.000 cubic metres, which in turn requires localities. Capital is also needed.

This was revealed in a report, commissioned by SND, from the consultancy firm KPMG. The report's conclusions are KPMG's, but the report will be used as the basis for SND's further investments in financing cod farming. At SND they are considering whether they should initially concentrate their investments on a few cod hatcheries.

The report warns against investing in small marine farms where the capital resources are limited.

Operations that shall ensure the progress of cod farming, must be able to see the whole chain of values in context, and contribute to development at several links simultaneously, is a conclusion of the report.

The report maintains that it is a realistic conclusion to expect production to reach 30,000 tonnes annually, and that in the long term it will be possible to produce several hundred thousand tonnes.

===========================================

11) ISA prompts slaughter of 700,000 salmon in Norway

>From Fish Information Servive:

NORWAY Tuesday, March 28, 2000, 23:00 (GMT + 9)

Seafood Farmers AS on the west coast of Norway, a firm which is controlled by Norwegain giant Pan Fish ASA, has plans to slaughter 700,000 salmon due to the detection of the ISA disease three weeks ago.

Although the disease was detected in just one of Seafood Farmers´ cages, local veterinarian authorities have said that the fish in the other five cages at the same location must be slaughtered too. There are no signs of the disease in these five cages.

The situation could prove fatal, if the infected fish were to escape to another area. This is why the authorites are not taking any risks. Most of the loss brought about as a result of low market price for salmon, which weigh only about one kilo each, and the high production cost of such small salmon will be covered by the Seafood Farmers insurance company.

The European market does not really buy small salmon and with high smolt costs is it difficult to make a profit. Seafood Farmers, once they have slaughtered the salmon, will then be subjected to a six-month quarantine restriction. The firm can slaughter about 50,000 salmon a week and the whole process could take about four months to complete.

By Terje Engø

===========================================

12) ISA among causes of job cutting at Shetland-based fish processor

UNITED KINGDOM

Wednesday, March 29, 2000, 06:30 (GMT + 9)

The German salmon company Laschinger has suffered heavy losses in its Shetland-based fish processing operation, forcing job cuts and the transfer of its salmon-filleting operation to Germany, where its fish is smoked.

The reorganisation has been blamed on problems caused by the presence of Infectious Salmon Anaemia in Shetland since 1998, poor fish farm production and the high value of the UK pound.

The news is a severe blow to workers at Laschinger’s processing plant, Lerwick Fish Traders, which is the largest and most modern salmon factory in the Shetland Islands. Around 40 f