The U.S. aquaculture industry is an important sector of U.S. agriculture. Production in 1997 reached 768 million pounds and generated approximately $934 million for producers. Yet, anticipated growth in the industry, both in magnitude and in species diversity, continues to fall short of expectations.

Much of what is known about aquaculture science is a result of institutional attention given to our traditional capture of wild fisheries with the goal of releasing cultured fishes into public waters for enhancement of declining public stocks. Despite extensive efforts to manage wild populations for a sustained yield, as a nation we consume substantially greater amounts than we produce. Much of the United States’ demand for seafood has been met by imports. The value of imported fisheries products more than doubled during the 1980s and has continued to increase in the 1990s. In fact, the $15.6 billion value for 1998 was a record. In 1998, the trade deficit was $6.9 billion for all fisheries products, $5.9 billion of which was for edible fish and shellfish.

Landings for most commercial capture fisheries species and recreational fisheries of the United States have been relatively stable during the last decade, with many fish stocks being over exploited. In this situation, aquaculture provides an opportunity to reduce the trade deficit and meet the rising U.S. demand for fish products. A strong domestic aquaculture industry is needed to increase U.S. production of fish and shellfish. This can be achieved by a partnership among the Federal Government, State and local public institutions, and the private sector with expertise in aquaculture development.

Congress recognized the opportunity for making significant progress in aquaculture development in 1980 by passage of the National Aquaculture Act (P.L. 96-362). Congress amended the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-113) in Title XIV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-98) by granting authority to establish aquaculture research, development, and demonstration centers in the United States in association with colleges and universities, State Departments of Agriculture, Federal facilities, and non-profit private research institutions. Five such centers have been established: one in each of the northeastern, north central, southern, western, and tropical/subtropical Pacific regions of the country. The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR) (P.L. 104-127) otherwise known as the Farm Bill, has reauthorized the Regional Aquaculture Center program at $7.5 million per annum. As used here, a center refers to an administrative center. Centers do not provide monies for brick-and-mortar development. Centers encourage cooperative and collaborative aquaculture research and extension educational programs that have regional or national application. Center programs complement and strengthen other existing research and extension educational programs provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other public institutions. As a matter of policy, centers implement their programs by using institutional mechanisms and linkages that are in place in the public and private sector.

The mission of the Regional Aquaculture Centers (RACs) is to support aquaculture research, development, demonstration, and extension education to enhance viable and profitable U.S. aquaculture production which will benefit consumers, producers, service industries, and the American economy.

The North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) was established in February 1988. It serves as a focal point to assess needs, establish priorities, and implement research and extension educational programs in the twelve state agricultural heartland of the United States which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. NCRAC also provides coordination of interregional and national programs through the National Coordinating Council for Aquaculture (NCC). The council is composed of the RAC directors and USDA aquaculture personnel.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Michigan State University (MSU) and Iowa State University (ISU) work together to develop and administer programs of NCRAC through a memorandum of understanding. MSU is the prime contractor for the Center and has administrative responsibilities for its operation. The Director of NCRAC is located at MSU. ISU shares in leadership of the Center through an office of the Associate Director who is responsible for all aspects of the Center’s publications, technology transfer, and outreach activities.

At the present time the staff of NCRAC at MSU includes Ted R. Batterson, Director, and Liz Bartels, Executive Secretary. The Center Director has the following responsibilities:

· Serving as executive secretary to the Board of Directors, responsible for preparing agenda and minutes of Board meetings;

· Serving as an ex-officio (non-voting) member of the Technical Committee and Industry Advisory Council;

· Coordinating the development of research and extension plans, budgets, and proposals;

· Coordinating and facilitating interactions among the Administrative Center, Board of Directors, Industry Advisory Council, and Technical Committee;

· Monitoring research and extension activities;

· Arranging for review of proposals for technical and scientific merit, feasibility, and applicability to priority problems and preparing summary budgets and reports as required;

· Recruiting other Administrative Center staff as authorized by the Board of Directors;

· Maintaining liaison with other RACs; and

· Serving on the NCC.

At the present time the staff of NCRAC’s Office for Publications and Extension Programs at ISU includes Joseph E. Morris, Associate Director. The Associate Director has the following responsibilities:

· Coordinating, facilitating, and executing regional aquaculture extension program activities;

· Serving as head of Publications for NCRAC, including editor of the fact sheet, technical bulletin, culture manual, and video series as well as of the NCRAC Newsletter;

· Serving as the NCRAC liaison with national aquaculture extension programs, including in particular, extension programs of the other four USDA Regional Aquaculture Centers; and

· Serving as a member of NCRAC’s Extension Executive Committee.

The Board of Directors (BOD) is the primary policy-making body of the NCRAC. The BOD has established an Industry Advisory Council (IAC) and Technical Committee (TC). Membership of the BOD consists of four persons from the IAC, a representative from the region’s State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension Services, a member from a non-land grant university, representatives from the two universities responsible for the center: Michigan State and Iowa State, and chairs of the two subcommittees of the Center’s Technical Committee. The IAC is composed of representatives from each state’s aquaculture association and six at-large members appointed by the BOD who represent various sectors of the aquaculture industry and the region as a whole. The TC is composed of a sub-committee for Extension (TC/E) and a sub-committee for Research (TC/R). Directors of the Cooperative Extension Service within the North Central Region appoint representatives to the TC/E. The TC/R has broad regional make-up and is composed of scientists from universities and state agencies with varied aquacultural expertise who are appointed by the BOD. Each sub-committee of the TC has a chairperson who serves as a member of the BOD.

NCRAC functions in accordance with its Operations Manual which is periodically amended and updated with BOD approval. It is an evolving document that has changed as the Center’s history lengthens. It is used for the development of the cooperative regional aquaculture and extension projects that NCRAC funds.

ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS

Since inception of NCRAC February 1, 1988, the role of the Administrative Center has been to provide all necessary support services to the BOD, IAC, TC, and project work groups for the North Central Region as well as representing the region on the NCC. As the scope of the NCRAC programs expand, this has entailed a greater work load and continued need for effective communication among all components of the Center and the aquaculture community.

The Center functions in the following manner.

· After BOD approval of Administrative Center costs, the Center submits a grant to USDA/CSREES/Grants Management Branch for approval. To date the Center has received 12 grants from USDA for FY88 (Grant #88-38500-3885), FY89 (Grant #89-38500-4319), FY90 (Grant #90-38500-5008), FY91 (Grant #91-38500-5900), FY92 (Grant #92-38500-6916), FY93 (Grant #93-38500-8392), FY94 (Grant #94-38500-0048), FY95 (Grant #95-38500-1410), FY96 (Grant #96-38500-2631), FY97 (#97-38500-3957), FY98 (#98-38500-5863), and FY99 (#99-38500-7376) with monies totaling $8,702,981. Currently, five grants are active (FY95-99); the first seven grants (FY88-94) have terminated.

· The Center annually coordinates a program planning meeting which sets priorities for the next funding cycle and calls for development of project outlines to address priority problem areas.

· Work Groups are formed which submit project outlines to the Center. The projects are peer reviewed by experts from both within and outside the region.

· The BOD, using reviewers’ responses, decides which projects are to be approved and funding levels. The Center conveys BOD decisions to all Project Work Groups. Those that are approved for funding are asked to submit revised project outlines incorporating BOD and reviewers’ comments.

· The Center then submits the revised project outlines as a Plan of Work (POW) to USDA for approval.

· Once a POW is approved by USDA, the Center then prepares subcontracts for each participating institution. The Center receives all invoices for subcontractual agreements and prepares payment vouchers for reimbursement. Thus, the Center staff serve as fiscal agents for both receiving and disbursing funds in accordance with all terms and provisions of the grants.

Through August 31, 1999, the Center has funded or is funding 49 projects through 295 subcontracts from the first eleven grants received. Funding for these Center supported projects is summarized in Table 1 below.

During this reporting period, the Publications Office at ISU produced and distributed a number of publications including fact sheets, technical bulletins, videos, and the Center’s newsletter. A complete list of all publications from this office is included in Appendix A under Extension.

Other areas of support by the Administrative Office during this reporting period included: monitoring research and extension activities and developing progress reports; developing liaisons with appropriate institutions, agencies and clientele groups; soliciting, in coordination with the other RACs, written testimony for the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies and the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies; participating in the NCC; numerous oral and written presentations to both professional and lay audiences; working with other fisheries and aquaculture programs throughout the North Central Region; in conjunction with the Aquaculture Network Information Center (AquaNIC) maintaining a NCRAC Web site (ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/ncrac); and finalizing a Strategic Plan which is contained in Appendix B (also available at the Center’s Web site). During this reporting period a significant amount of time and energy was devoted to the development and finalization of the Strategic Plan which will serve as a roadmap for the Center as it moves into the next millennium.

PROJECT REPORTING

As indicated in Table 1, NCRAC has funded a number of projects for many of the project areas it has selected for research and extension activities. For example, there have been six separately funded projects in regard to Extension, Hybrid Striped Bass, and Walleye. Project outlines have been written for each separate project within an area, or the project area itself if only one project. These project outlines have been submitted in POWs or amendments to POWs for the grants as indicated in Table 1. Many times, the projects within a particular area are continuations of previously funded activities while at other times they are addressing new objectives. Presented below are Progress or Termination Reports mostly for projects that were underway or completed during the period September 1, 1998 to August 31, 1999. Projects, or Project components, that terminated prior to September 1, 1998 have been reported on in earlier documents (e.g., 1989-1996 Compendium Report and other Annual Progress Reports).

A cumulative list of all publications, manuscripts, papers presented, or other outputs for all funded NCRAC project areas is contained in Appendix A.

Table 1. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center funded projects.

Project Area	Project Number	Proposed Duration Period	Funding Level	Grant Number
Extension	1 2 3 4 5 6	5/1/89-4/30/91 3/17/90-8/31/91 9/1/91-8/31/93 9/1/93-8/31/95 9/1/95-8/31/97 9/1/97-8/31/99	$39,221 $37,089 $31,300 $94,109 $110,129 $10,875 $21,700 $40,000 $384,423	88-38500-3885 89-38500-4319 89-38500-4319 91-38500-5900 91-38500-5900 92-38500-6916 95-38500-1410 97-38500-3957
Economics and Marketing	1 2 3	5/1/89-12/31/91 9/1/91-8/31/92 9/1/93-8/31/95	$127,338 $34,350 $53,300 $40,000 $254,988	88-38500-3885 89-38500-4319 91-38500-5900 93-38500-8392
Yellow Perch	1 2 3 4 5 6 7	5/1/89-8/31/91 6/1/90-8/31/92 9/1/91-8/31/93 9/1/93-8/31/95 9/1/95-8/31/97 9/1/97-8/31/99 9/1/98-8/31/00	$76,957 $85,723 $92,108 $99,997 $150,000 $200,000 $185,600 $187,300 $1,077,685	88-38500-3885 89-38500-4319 90-38500-5008 91-38500-5900 93-38500-8392 95-38500-1410 97-38500-3957 98-38500-5863
Hybrid Striped Bass	1 2 3 4 5 6	5/1/89-8/31/91 6/1/90-8/31/92 9/1/91-8/31/93 9/1/93-8/31/95 9/1/95-8/31/97 6/1/99-5/31/00	$68,296 $68,114 $101,000 $96,550 $168,000 $150,000 $15,000 $666,960	88-38500-3885 89-38500-4319 90-38500-5008 91-38500-5900 93-38500-8392 95-38500-1410 96-38500-2631
Walleye	1 2 3 4 5 6	5/1/89-8/31/91 6/1/90-8/31/92 9/1/91-8/31/92 9/1/92-8/31/93 9/1/93-8/31/95 9/1/95-8/31/97	$177,517 $111,657 $109,223 $75,000 $150,000 $117,395 $59,847 $800,639	89-38500-4319 90-38500-5008 91-38500-5900 89-38500-4319 93-38500-8392 94-38500-0048 95-38500-1410
Sunfish	1 2 3 4	6/1/90-8/31/92 9/1/92-8/31/94 9/1/94-8/31/96 9/1/96-9/31/98	$130,758 $149,799 $173,562 $200,000 $654,119	90-38500-5008 92-38500-6916 94-38500-0048 96-38500-2631
Salmonids	1 2 3 4	6/1/90-8/31/92 9/1/92-8/31/94 9/1/94-8/31/96 9/1/97-8/31/99	$9,000 $120,799 $149,997 $199,290 $160,000 $639,086	89-38500-4319 90-38500-5008 92-38500-6916 94-38500-0048 97-38500-3957
NCR Aquaculture Conference	1 2	6/1/90-3/31/91 12/9/98-6/30/99	$7,000 $3,000 $10,000	90-38500-5008 96-38500-2631
National Aquaculture Extension Workshop/Conference	1 2	10/1/91-9/30/92 12/1/96-11/30/97	$3,005 $3,700 $6,7005	89-38500-4319 95-38500-1410
Crayfish	1	9/1/92-8/31/94	$49,677	92-38500-6916
Baitfish	1	9/1/92-8/31/94	$61,973	92-38500-6916
Wastes/Effluents	1 2	9/1/92-8/31/94 9/1/96-8/31/98	$153,300 $100,000 $253,300	92-38500-6916 96-38500-2631
National Aquaculture INAD/NADA Coordinator	1	9/1/93-8/31/94 5/15/95-5/14/96 5/15/96-5/14/97 5/15/97-5/14/98 5/15/98-5/14/99 5/15/99-5/14/00	$2,000 $5,000 $6,669 $3,331 $15,000 $13,241 $10,000 $55,241	89-38500-4319 94-38500-0048 92-38500-6916 95-38500-1410 96-38500-2631 94-38500-0048 95-38500-1410
Tilapia	1 2	9/1/96-8/31/98 9/1/98-5/14/00	$120,000 $150,000 $270,000	96-38500-2631 98-38500-5863
Aquaculture Drugs	1 2	7/1/96-6/30/97 12/1/96-11/30/97	$27,000 $5,000 $32,000	95-38500-1410 95-38500-1410
White Papers	1 2	7/1/98-12/31/98 9/1/99-12/31/99	$5,000 $17,500 $22,500	96-38500-2631 97-38500-3957

Project Area

Project

Number

Proposed Duration Period

Funding Level

Grant Number

Extension

5/1/89-4/30/91

3/17/90-8/31/91

9/1/91-8/31/93

9/1/93-8/31/95

9/1/95-8/31/97

9/1/97-8/31/99

$39,221

$37,089

$31,300

$94,109

$110,129

$10,875

$21,700

$40,000

$384,423

88-38500-3885

89-38500-4319

91-38500-5900

92-38500-6916

95-38500-1410

97-38500-3957

Economics and Marketing

5/1/89-12/31/91

9/1/91-8/31/92

9/1/93-8/31/95

$127,338

$34,350

$53,300

$40,000

$254,988

88-38500-3885

89-38500-4319

91-38500-5900

93-38500-8392

Yellow Perch

5/1/89-8/31/91

6/1/90-8/31/92

9/1/91-8/31/93

9/1/93-8/31/95

9/1/95-8/31/97

9/1/97-8/31/99

9/1/98-8/31/00

$76,957

$85,723

$92,108

$99,997

$150,000

$200,000

$185,600

$187,300

$1,077,685

88-38500-3885

89-38500-4319

90-38500-5008

91-38500-5900

93-38500-8392

95-38500-1410

97-38500-3957

98-38500-5863

Hybrid Striped Bass

5/1/89-8/31/91

6/1/90-8/31/92

9/1/91-8/31/93

9/1/93-8/31/95

9/1/95-8/31/97

6/1/99-5/31/00

$68,296

$68,114

$101,000

$96,550

$168,000

$150,000

$15,000

$666,960

88-38500-3885

89-38500-4319

90-38500-5008

91-38500-5900

93-38500-8392

95-38500-1410

96-38500-2631

Walleye

5/1/89-8/31/91

6/1/90-8/31/92

9/1/91-8/31/92

9/1/92-8/31/93

9/1/93-8/31/95

9/1/95-8/31/97

$177,517

$111,657

$109,223

$75,000

$150,000

$117,395

$59,847

$800,639

89-38500-4319

90-38500-5008

91-38500-5900

89-38500-4319

93-38500-8392

94-38500-0048

95-38500-1410

Sunfish

6/1/90-8/31/92

9/1/92-8/31/94

9/1/94-8/31/96

9/1/96-9/31/98

$130,758

$149,799

$173,562

$200,000

$654,119

90-38500-5008

92-38500-6916

94-38500-0048

96-38500-2631

Salmonids

6/1/90-8/31/92

9/1/92-8/31/94

9/1/94-8/31/96

9/1/97-8/31/99

$9,000

$120,799

$149,997

$199,290

$160,000

$639,086

89-38500-4319

90-38500-5008

92-38500-6916

94-38500-0048

97-38500-3957

NCR Aquaculture Conference

6/1/90-3/31/91

12/9/98-6/30/99

$7,000

$3,000

$10,000

90-38500-5008

96-38500-2631

National Aquaculture Extension Workshop/Conference

10/1/91-9/30/92

12/1/96-11/30/97

$3,005

$3,700

$6,7005

89-38500-4319

95-38500-1410

Crayfish

9/1/92-8/31/94

$49,677

92-38500-6916

Baitfish

9/1/92-8/31/94

$61,973

92-38500-6916

Wastes/Effluents

9/1/92-8/31/94

9/1/96-8/31/98

$153,300

$100,000

$253,300

92-38500-6916

96-38500-2631

National Aquaculture INAD/NADA Coordinator

9/1/93-8/31/94

5/15/95-5/14/96

5/15/96-5/14/97

5/15/97-5/14/98

5/15/98-5/14/99

5/15/99-5/14/00

$2,000

$5,000

$6,669

$3,331

$15,000

$13,241

$10,000

$55,241

89-38500-4319

94-38500-0048

92-38500-6916

95-38500-1410

96-38500-2631

94-38500-0048

95-38500-1410

Tilapia

9/1/96-8/31/98

9/1/98-5/14/00

$120,000

$150,000

$270,000

96-38500-2631

98-38500-5863

Aquaculture Drugs

7/1/96-6/30/97

12/1/96-11/30/97

$27,000

$5,000

$32,000

95-38500-1410

White Papers

7/1/98-12/31/98

9/1/99-12/31/99

$5,000

$17,500

$22,500

96-38500-2631

97-38500-3957

PROJECT TERMINATION

PROGRESS REPORTS

EXTENSION¹

Progress Report for the Period

May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1999

NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $384,423 (May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1999)

PARTICIPANTS:

Fred P. Binkowski	University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee	Wisconsin
James M. Ebeling	Ohio State University	Ohio
Robert D. Espeseth	University of Illinois	Illinois
Donald L. Garling	Michigan State University	Michigan
Jeffrey L. Gunderson	University of Minnesota-Duluth	Minnesota
F. Robert Henderson	Kansas State University	Kansas
John Hochheimer	Ohio State University	Ohio
Paul B. Jarvis	North Dakota State University	North Dakota
Anne R. Kapuscinski	University of Minnesota	Minnesota
Terrence B. Kayes	University of Nebraska-Lincoln	Nebraska
David L. Klinkebiel	North Dakota State University	North Dakota
Ronald E. Kinnunen	Michigan State University	Michigan
Christopher C. Kohler	Southern Illinois University-Carbondale	Illinois
David J. Landkamer	University of Minnesota	Minnesota
Charles Lee	Kansas State University	Kansas
Frank R. Lichtkoppler	Ohio State University	Ohio
Jerry Mills	Brown County Extension	South Dakota
Joseph E. Morris	Iowa State University	Iowa
Kenneth E. Neils	Kansas State University	Kansas
Robert A. Pierce II	University of Missouri	Missouri
Shawn H. Sanders	North Dakota State University	North Dakota
Brian R. Stange	North Dakota State University	North Dakota
Daniel A. Selock	Southern Illinois University-Carbondale	Illinois
John P. Slusher	University of Missouri	Missouri
Fred L. Snyder	Ohio State University	Ohio
LaDon Swann	Purdue University	Indiana/Illinois
Laura G.Tiu	Ohio State University	Ohio

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

(1) Strengthen linkages between North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) Research and Extension Work Groups.

(2) Enhance the NCRAC extension network for aquaculture information transfer.

(3) Provide in-service training for Cooperative Extension Service, Sea Grant Advisory Service, and other landowner assistance personnel.

(4) Develop and implement aquaculture educational programs for the North Central Region (NCR).

(5) Develop aquaculture materials for the NCR including extension fact sheets, bulletins, manuals/guides, and instructional videotapes

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS

Members of the NCRAC Extension Work Group have promoted and advanced commercial aquaculture in a responsible fashion through an organized education/training outreach program. The primary benefits are:

· increased public awareness through publications, short courses, and conferences regarding the potential of aquaculture as a viable agricultural enterprise in the NCR;

· technology transfer to enhance current and future production methodologies for selected species, e.g., walleye, hybrid striped bass, yellow perch, salmonids, and sunfish, through hands-on workshops and field demonstration projects;

· improved lines of communication between interstate aquaculture extension specialists and associated industry contacts; and

· an enhanced legal and socioeconomic atmosphere for aquaculture in the NCR.

PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

OBJECTIVE 1

Aquaculture Extension Work Group members have:

· Served as extension liaison, if not an active researcher, for every funded NCRAC project.

· Assisted in writing and developing the NCRAC Walleye Culture Manual, edited by Bob Summerfelt of Iowa State University.

· Assisted with the planning, promotion, and implementation of the hybrid striped bass, walleye, and yellow perch workshops held throughout the region.

· Provided the NCRAC Economics and Marketing Work Group with information relevant to that group’s efforts to develop cost of production budgets and expected revenues for the commercial production of food-sized hybrid striped bass, walleye, and yellow perch in the NCR.

· Participated as Steering Committee members for a regional public forum regarding revision of the National Aquaculture Development Plan and two National Aquaculture Extension Workshops/Conferences.

· Participated as Steering Committee members for the past four North Central Regional Aquaculture Conferences.

· Served as editors for regional aquaculture newsletters as well as in-state aquaculture associations.

· Wrote and edited the upcoming Sunfish Culture Guide.

OBJECTIVE 2

The demand for aquaculture extension education programs cannot be met by the few specialists in the NCR (4.0 full time equivalents). Networking of specialists and Cooperative Extension Service (CES)-designated contacts has maximized efficiency of education programs and minimized duplication. The NCRAC Extension Project is designed to assess and meet the information needs of the various clientele groups through cooperative and coordinated regional educational programming. In fact, individual state extension contacts often respond to 10-15 calls per month from outside their respective states as well as interacting with colleagues with mutual concerns related to developing aquaculture activities. Many of these requests have been met by providing fact sheets, technical bulletins, bibliographies, and detailed responses to both generalized and specialized questions.

Prior to mid-1994 little coordination of international aquaculture information sharing existed. National and international agency produced information could only be obtained by contacting the respective sources of this information. Also, individual Sea Grant and CES personnel relied heavily on information produced by individual states or through regional cooperative projects. As Internet access extended beyond educational institutions and governmental agencies, a clear need developed to utilize the Internet to reach a much broader audience. In the age of an “information overload” the need for a centralized gateway to the ever-increasing number of aquaculture resources in electronic format was apparent.

AquaNIC (http://aquanic.org) is a collaborative effort to provide access to aquaculture information through a central location on the Internet regardless of the physical location of those information resources. AquaNIC was implemented in 1994 and is housed in the Department of Animal Science at Purdue University (Purdue). The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Program, the Cooperative Extension Service at Purdue, and University of Illinois Extension provide leadership for AquaNIC. A national steering committee and other aquaculture stakeholders provide oversight and direction for AquaNIC. Land-grant institutions, Sea Grant Colleges, the World Aquaculture Society, NCRAC, and others with an expertise in aquaculture contribute significantly to AquaNIC.

AquaNIC houses over 8,000 publications, newsletters, photographs, slide sets, videos, and directories with more than two million files downloaded in 1998-99. The home page of AquaNIC averages more than 5,000 visits per month by people from 90 countries and is linked to more than 600 other Web sites.

Through AquaNIC, individuals can access the World Aquaculture Society home page as well as the employment services provided for the Society by the Delaware Sea Grant College. In addition, AquaNIC hosts NCRAC’s Web site.

Specific resources of AquaNIC include:

· a tools section providing access to resources for the Web and sites beneficial to the daily lives of users;

· a beginner’s section established to quickly locate information of interest to prospective aquaculturists;

· federal publications from, in part, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Library, National Agriculture Library, Sea Grant Depository, Sea Grant, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Fisheries Institute, the Food and Drug Administration, and the five U.S. Department of Agriculture Regional Aquaculture Centers;

· publications from 26 states which are results of university-based research and outreach activities;

· links to newsletters from state, national, and international aquaculture associations;

· a database of over 700 electronic photographs available to view or download;

· a searchable database of over 600 aquaculture Web sites and 40 list servers;

· a database of the e-mail addresses and areas of interest for the U.S. and internationally; and

· a calendar of events of conferences, public hearings, workshops, and other aquaculture related events.

AquaNIC has been recognized by various groups including, in part by the National Agriculture Communicators in Education, USDA, Mckinley Group’s online editorial team, Progressive Farmer On-Line, Dow Jones Business Directory, The Bridge Ocean Science Teacher Center, and Netscape “Open Directory.”

Aquaculture handbooks have been developed and distributed to each NCRAC-designated aquaculture extension contact and selected CES and Sea Grant field staff member.

As with any organization, there have been changes in NCRAC extension personnel since the inception of the project. For instance, Landkamer was the primary aquaculture extension contact for Minnesota. In the intervening years, he has been replaced by Kapuscinski and then by Gunderson. Two other individuals were replaced in 1994. In Kansas, Neils replaced Henderson and in Illinois, Kohler replaced Selock. Lee replaced Neils in Kansas in 1996. Hochheimer, who replaced Ebeling in Ohio, left Ohio State University; Tiu was appointed as the aquaculture extension specialist for Ohio in 1998. In North Dakota, Klinkebiel was the first aquaculture extension contact; he was followed by Stange in 1996, then Sanders in 1998, and Jarvis in 1999. In 1998 Mills became the first formally appointed NCRAC Extension contact for South Dakota. As of 1999, Kayes is no longer with Nebraska Extension; to date no replacement has been designated.

OBJECTIVE 3

In-service training for CES and Sea Grant personnel and other landowner assistance personnel have been held in most of the states in the region. Training has been in the areas of basic aquaculture and safe seafood handling including Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). Many of these individuals have, in turn, trained industry representatives in HACCP.

OBJECTIVE 4

A number of workshops, conferences, videos, field-site visits, hands-on training sessions, and other educational programs have been developed and implemented.

There have been workshops on general aquaculture, fish diseases, commercial recirculation systems, aquaculture business planning, crayfish culture, pond management, yellow perch and hybrid striped bass culture, rainbow trout production, in-service training for high school vocational-agricultural teachers, and polyploid induction in sunfish held in the region. In several states, e.g., Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin, potential fish farmers have been able to view aquaculture systems being operated by extension and research personnel.

Four North Central Regional Aquaculture Conferences have been held. The first in Kalamazoo, Michigan was held in March 1991. The second was held in February 1995 in Minneapolis, Minnesota and the third conference was held in Indianapolis, Indiana. The fourth conference was held February 1999 in Columbia, Missouri. These regional meetings were attended by hundreds of individuals including persons from Canada.

On April 10, 1993, over 700 viewers from 35 states and Canada watched the first national interactive teleconference on aquaculture, “Investing in Freshwater Aquaculture,” that was broadcast from Purdue University. It was a televised satellite broadcast for potential fish farmers. The program consisted of ten five- to seven-minute videotape segments which addressed production aspects of channel catfish, crayfish, rainbow trout, hybrid striped bass, tilapia, yellow perch, baitfish, and sportfish. The entire teleconference is available as a videotape from NCRAC’s Publications Office as well as two other videotapes by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln that are reprises of the broadcast.

In support of extension activities being funded through research projects, i.e., the Hybrid Striped Bass and Sunfish research projects, extension specialists have completed fact sheets/book chapters/videos. These extension materials arising from the combined efforts of both extension specialists and researchers will help to address many questions concerning aquaculture in the NCR.

In addition to the previously mentioned areas, several NCRAC extension contacts have been instrumental in fostering the continued growth of the aquaculture industry in the region. For example, Pierce created the Cooperative Extension Aquaculture and Marketing Educational Program to facilitate the development and implementation of aquaculture educational programs in Missouri. The Missouri Aquaculture Initiative continues to provide the framework from which aquaculture information and educational programs are delivered in the state.

Tiu has also worked to revitalize the Ohio Aquaculture Association (OAA). The OAA board of directors of the previously inactive organization has met and a membership drive ensued. An OAA newsletter was published in August 1999.

Many of the NCRAC extension contacts have worked with industry and governmental representatives to produce state aquaculture plans and improve governmental regulations. Binkowski has worked with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection in the production of A Wisconsin Aquaculture Industry Profile Processor Survey 1998 and the 1998 Wisconsin Aquaculture Directory.

All fish processors, including those who handle aquaculture products, are now required by law to process their fish following HACCP guidelines. Four three-day HACCP training workshops were conducted by Kinnunen. These workshops served to train fish processors on the principles of HACCP and to give them knowledge on how to develop and implement a HACCP plan for their specific facility. Fish being processed at facilities running under HACCP now meet standards enforced by the FDA. In 1998-99, Kinnunen conducted two more HACCP courses with attendees including fish processors, aquaculturists, and baitfish producers. Each course was three days and participants were awarded certificates upon successful completion through the National Association of Food and Drug Officials.

Kinnunen also worked with the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee on establishing a risk-based system to guide appropriate health decisions recognizing that zero risk is never attainable.

In 1998-99, Gunderson and Paul Tucker shared the NCRAC extension liaison responsibilities for Minnesota. Gunderson and Tucker participated in an aquaculture workshop on the Red Lakes, Minnesota Indian reservation, presenting information on leech and baitfish culture. Wisconsin aquaculture researchers also presented information at this workshop.

Gunderson and Tucker have worked closely with industry collaborators to develop horneyhead chub culture techniques in Minnesota. Materials developed by NCRAC and other RACs and distributed through NCRAC have been used extensively as teaching tools and for developing spawning and production systems.

Although not funded by NCRAC, Gunderson and Tucker worked with other aquaculture and exotic species specialists from around the region to address an issue important to many fish farmers in the NCR, especially people raising fish for stocking or baitfish. The aquaculture industry is accused of being an important vector for the spread of exotic species like zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, round goby, and others because water and organisms are moved from one water body to another. To better identify the risks of spreading exotic species and to reduce those risks, a HACCP approach was used. Extension specialists in Illinois/Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio are participating in this project which is designed to identify Critical Control Points and to develop guidelines for controlling the spread of exotic species while not overburdening the industry with unnecessary regulations.

OBJECTIVE 5

Numerous fact sheets, technical bulletins, and videos have been written or produced by various participants of the Extension Work Group. These are listed in Appendix A.

Other extension-funded activities include: (1) a 4-H Guide for Aquaculture, (2) “Getting Started in Freshwater Aquaculture” CD-ROM and workbook, and (3) HACCP videos. The first two activities have been undertaken by Swann whereas Kinnunen has been working with Steve Ingham (University of Wisconsin-Madison) on the HACCP videos. NCRAC has only provided a small component of the funding for the first two activities.

A one-year no-cost extension was granted to complete the 4-H Guide because of the difficulty in hiring a part time technical writer for the project. Production of a national 4-H aquaculture curriculum using an experiential learning approach not only provides essential technical information, it allows youth to lead enriching and fulfilling lives through improved self-esteem, critical thinking, and greater appreciation of human diversity and values. An aquaculture curriculum that allows both goals to be achieved without compromising one for the other provides youth with technical training and life skills. The guide has been written and reviewed by the NCRAC Extension Work Group Chair. A second draft has been completed and is in the process of being formatted and final graphics created. The layout should be completed in winter and pilot testing initiated during the summer of 2000. The final version will be completed during the winter of 2000.

The “Getting Started in Freshwater Aquaculture” CD-ROM and workbook is computer-based instruction on the fundamentals of aquaculture. The workbook serves as a guide for use of the CD-ROM which contains technical information, business planning forms, and example examination questions for instructors teaching aquaculture courses.

One HACCP video has been developed that describes the steps involved in smoking fish, with particular emphasis on the Critical Control Points in this process that must be monitored in a HACCP system.

WORK PLANNED

Efforts will continue in regard to strengthening linkages between research and extension work groups as well as enhancing the network for aquaculture information transfer. Participants will also continue to provide in-service training for CES, Sea Grant, and other land owner assistance personnel.

Educational programs and materials will be developed and implemented. This includes development of a sunfish culture guide, yellow perch culture guide and videos, hybrid striped bass culture guide, a publication on fee-fishing (sunfish), tilapia culture information packet, and a publication on yellow perch culture in flowing water systems. In addition, a draft of the 4-H Guide for Aquaculture will be completed and pilot-tested and the two HACCP videos completed.

Future HACCP workshops will be planned as needed in the NCR. Any additional workshops developed and hosted by state extension contacts will be advertised in surrounding states to take advantage of the NCRAC extension network and the individual expertise of Extension Work Group participants.

A regionally advertised fish disease workshop will be held November 1999 at the Ohio State University Research and Extension Center at Piketon. The annual meeting of the OAA will be held in conjunction with this meeting and new officers will be elected. Another introductory aquaculture workshop will be held in January 2000.

A second HACCP video on the basics of sanitation in a fish processing plant and the development of a Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure will be developed. This video will be similar to one produced for the American Association of Meat Processors in 1996 which sold over 300 copies nationwide.

Pierce developed a Professional Improvement Experience for Extension Educators entitled: “Aquaculture, Water Quality, Aquatic Plant Identification and Management,” which was approved and will be conducted in the early months of 2000 in southeast Missouri.

A Yellow Perch Producer Forum is planned for January 2000 in Hudson, Wisconsin. Both producer and research presentations will be part of the program.

IMPACTS

· In-service training for CES and Sea Grant personnel has enabled those professionals to respond to initial, routine aquaculture questions from the general public.

· Development of aquaculture education programs for the NCR has provided “hands-on” opportunities for prospective and experienced producers. Approximately 5,000 individuals have attended workshops or conferences organized and delivered by the NCRAC Extension Work Group. Clientele attending regional workshops learned of aquaculture development strategies in other areas of the country and acquired information which was of direct use to their own enterprises. Education programs also created situations where problems encountered by producers were expressed to extension personnel who later relayed them to researchers at NCRAC work group meetings for possible solutions through the research effort.

· Fact sheets, technical bulletins, and videos have served to inform a variety of clients about numerous aquaculture practices for the NCR. For instance, “Making Plans for Commercial Aquaculture in the North Central Region” is often used to provide clients with initial information about aquaculture, while species specific publications on walleye, trout, and catfish have been used in numerous regional meetings and have been requested by clients from throughout the United States. Publications on organizational structure for aquaculture businesses, transportation of fish in bags, and others are beneficial to both new and established aquaculturists. In a 1994 survey, NCRAC extension contacts estimated that NCRAC publications were used to address approximately 15,000 client questions annually.

· NCRAC extension outreach activities have helped to foster a better understanding and awareness for the future development of aquaculture in the region.

· AquaNIC has become an entry point for many people searching for aquaculture information on the Web. AquaNIC’s home page now averages more than 5,000 visits per month by people from more than 90 countries. The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program has also created Web pages for the Indiana Aquaculture Association, the Illinois Aquaculture Industry Association, NCRAC, and the World Aquaculture Society.

· The 4-H Guide for Aquaculture will offer a tremendous opportunity to teach math, biology, and chemistry using experiential learning. Aquaculture could also be easily adapted to teach life skills, e.g., communications and leadership to youth. Leadership and analytical skills can be strengthened through carefully choosing how content is selected and used. Incorporating aquaculture into 4-H Youth programs is not limited to rural farming communities; the curriculum could also be used in urban and inner city schools.

· Fish processors who have attended NCRAC-sponsored HACCP Training Workshops have learned the principles of HACCP with regards to its importance in insuring the production of a safe fishery product. They also learned how to work with their production employees on developing a HACCP Plan specific to their own processing facility. HACCP Plans have now been implemented by workshop attendees who are now keeping records of their daily processing and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures. About 140 fish processors and/or aquaculturists attended one of the four HACCP Training Workshops.

· In Ohio, new fish farmers have applied for Aquaculture Permits for 1999 as well as worked on their business plans with hopes of creating successful aquaculture businesses. With the OAA getting organized, producers will have the forum necessary to encourage appropriate legislation necessary for the success of the aquaculture industry.

· In Minnesota, three industry collaborators operated successful horneyhead spawning systems in 1999 and are currently building new enlarged spawning systems for 2000. It is anticipated that these three fish farmers will produce significant quantities of horneyhead chubs next year, which will reach the Minnesota baitfish market in 2001.

PUBLICATIONS, MANUSCRIPTS, WORKSHOPS, AND CONFERENCES

See Appendix A for a cumulative output for all NCRAC-funded Extension activities.

SUPPORT

YEARS	NCRAC-USDA FUNDING	OTHER SUPPORT					TOTAL SUPPORT
YEARS	NCRAC-USDA FUNDING	UNIVERSITY	INDUSTRY	OTHER FEDERAL	OTHER	TOTAL	TOTAL SUPPORT
1989-91	$107,610	$237,107				$237,107	$344,717
1991-93	$94,109	$152,952				$152,952	$247,061
1993-95	$110,129	$198,099		$250,000	$55,000	$503,099	$613,228
1995-97	$32,575	$149,325	$5,000	$84,000		$238,325	$270,900
1997-99	$40,000	$110,559				$110,559	$150,559
TOTAL	$384,423	$848,042	$5,000	$334,000	$55,000	$1,242,042	$1,626,465

YELLOW PERCH²

Progress Report for the Period

September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1999

NCRAC FUNDING LEVEL: $185,600 (September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1999)

PARTICIPANTS:

Paul B. Brown	Purdue University	Illinois
Konrad Dabrowski	Ohio State University	Ohio
Donald L. Garling	Michigan State University	Michigan
Robert S. Hayward	University of Missouri-Columbia	Missouri
Jeffrey A. Malison	University of Wisconsin-Madison	Wisconsin
*Extension Liaison:*
Donald L. Garling	Michigan State University	Michigan
*Industry Advisory Council Liaison:*
Forrest Williams	Bay Port Aquaculture Systems, Inc., West Olive	Michigan
*Non-funded Collaborators:*
Marty Domer	Ohio Valley Fish Hatchery Inc., Mineral City	Ohio
Forrest Williams	Bay Port Aquaculture Systems, Inc., West Olive	Michigan

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

(1) With the goal of larval intensive yellow perch feeding in tanks from the onset of first feeding, continue to develop methods to produce fingerlings.

(2) Increase growth rates of yellow perch greater than 150 mm (6 in) by evaluating diets, feeding strategies, environmental manipulation, and mono-sex/bi-sex comparisons.

(3) Develop out-of-season spawning methods for yellow perch.

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS

This project will address priority needs identified by the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) Industry Advisory Council (IAC) for advancing yellow perch aquaculture in the North Central Region (NCR). The proposed research on Objective 1 will improve larval rearing techniques by developing and evaluating different starter diets and environmental conditions. The information generated by these studies will greatly assist perch producers in their efforts to reliably raise the large numbers of perch fingerlings needed by the industry. Research on Objective 2 will develop and evaluate methods for improving growth of perch as they approach market size. The use of these methods by commercial perch producers will decrease the time needed to raise perch to market size and thereby increase the efficiency of production facilities and reduce production costs. One of the most promising strategies in this regard is the production of mono-sex female stocks of perch. A method for producing 100% female perch has been developed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) and is currently being used by several regional perch producers under an investigational new animal drug (INAD) exemption granted by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). Research under another NCRAC project entitled “Safety of 17a-Methyltestosterone for Induction of Sex Inversion in Walleye” was aimed at gaining a universal New Animal Drug Application approval for using this method in percids. The proposed research on Objective 3 will develop methods to induce out-of-season spawning in perch. The resultant availability of perch fry at different times during the year will increase the efficiency of existing pond and tank fry culture systems by allowing multiple cropping of these systems. In turn, the availability of fingerlings at multiple times during the year would facilitate a fuller, more efficient use of grow-out facilities and equipment. The availability of fertilized eggs outside the normal spawning season would also greatly facilitate research on the culture of perch fry in tanks. Additional benefits of using the procedures developed in these studies include greater predictability of gamete production and reduced incidence of failed spawning, gamete resorption, and subsequent brood fish losses.

PROGRESS AND PRINCIPAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS

OBJECTIVE 1

Research at Purdue University (Purdue) was designed to evaluate the available larval diets fed to yellow perch and determine the appropriate size for transferring larvae to formulated diets. In two separate studies, researchers at Purdue offered quadruplicate groups of larval perch several of the available diets and monitored survival and growth. Four of the feeds were offered in both studies. Perch offered rotifers then Artemia gained significantly more weight and exhibited significantly higher survival than perch fed any of the dry diets. Among the dry diets, there were no clear distinctions between groups.

Research at Michigan State University (MSU) looked at the effect of a special tank design and three feeds on the survival of larval yellow perch. Yellow perch readily accepted vinegar eels, newly hatched Artemia nauplii, and an artificial plankton (Argent) at first feeding. Survival to 30 mm (1.2 in) was approximately 85%. Unfortunately, tank drains clogged near the end of the experimental period and all fish were lost overnight.

Researchers at Ohio State University (OSU) determined the effects of krill hydrolysate as a feed attractant. Growth trials were conducted using commercial trout starter diet alone (control) or the same diet coated with liquid krill hydrolysate. The diet coated with attractant increased growth rate of yellow perch juveniles by 31% compared to the non-coated control diet (average final wet weight, 734 ± 33 and 559 ± 82 mg [0.0259 ± 0.0012 and 0.0197 ± 0.0029 oz], respectively). Moreover, weight gains were not significantly different compared to fish fed exclusively with live brine shrimp nauplii. The effects of krill hydrolysate on dry diet ingestion rates were also determined using radioactive (¹⁴C) labeling. A commercial starter diet was coated with 5% hydrolysate or the soluble fraction of krill was added to the experimental tank water. In both cases an increase in ingestion followed (approximately 200%), although ingestion rate expressed on a per weight basis was not significantly different compared to that of live brine shrimp nauplii.

In previous experiments, OSU researchers observed a correlation between low frequency of swim bladder inflation and skeleton deformities and mortality. Therefore, in a follow up study, the question of conditions resulting in swim bladder inflation in yellow perch larvae as related to dry diet utilization was addressed. Newly hatched fry were collected in a single 100-L (26.4-gal) rearing tank. Water flow into the tank was provided using four surface sprinklers to facilitate swim bladder inflation as observed in other percids. Temperature was kept at 20-23°C (68.0-73.4°F) and indirect dim light of 50-80 lux at the surface was provided. Prior to completion of yolk sac absorption, newly hatched live brine shrimp nauplii were provided by peristaltic pump during light hours (24 h). The density of nauplii was maintained at 4-5 individuals/mL (118-145/oz). The rearing system was cleaned and mortalities were recorded daily. Swim bladder inflation and gut content were recorded after three weeks of culture. Survival was 20% whereas only 5.5% of these survivors had inflated swim bladders. There was no significant difference between fish with non-inflated and inflated swim bladders in total length (10.4 ± 1.2 and 11.1 ± 1.3 mm [0.41 ± 0.0472 and 0.44 ± 0.0512 in], respectively). Histological analysis revealed that 100% of fish with non-inflated swim bladders showed infiltration of macrophages into their lumen. A similar process was earlier described in walleye larvae following the ingestion of bacteria and organic debris and attributed to their poor survival.

At UW-Madison a 2 ´ 3 factorial experiment comparing the habituation success of two sizes of small (12.5 mm [0.49 in] and 15.5 mm [0.61 in] total length) pond-raised perch fingerlings fed one of three commercial starter diets (Biokyowa A250/B400, Bioproducts Biokrill trainer, and Silver Cup soft-moist) has been completed. Habituation success was generally twice as good in the 15.5 mm (0.61 in) fish when compared to their 12.5 mm (0.49 in) counterparts (43-76% versus 20-37%). Overall habituation success was highest in the fish fed Biokyowa (F = 76% in 15.5 mm [0.61 in] fish and 37% in 12.5 mm [0.49 in] fish). Groups fed Biokrill trainer showed the strongest initial acceptance, but by the end of the trial virtually all these fish were small and suffered from scoliosis, suggesting a nutritional deficiency in the krill diet. A strategy that employs krill for the first few days (to take advantage of its initial attraction) with a transition to a more nutritionally complete diet may be worth investigating. Tank husbandry of the 12.5 mm (0.49 in) fish was extremely labor intensive.

OBJECTIVE 2

UW-Madison researchers published a manuscript describing the effects of genistein on the growth and reproductive development of yellow perch. Low levels (0.75 mg/g [parts per thousand] of diet) of genistein may have a positive effect on growth in yellow perch, but no apparent estrogenic effects on reproductive function. The effects of genistein on growth and reproductive development are highly dependent on dose.

Also at the UW-Madison the first replicates of studies comparing the growth of male and female yellow perch in ponds have been completed. Preliminary examination of the data suggests that female yellow perch had greater weight and length gains than males when grown in ponds. However, the growth of both males and females in these studies was poor, possibly due to a disease outbreak among tagged fish or the type of tags used to identify individuals. A second round of studies using a different style of identification tag has been completed, and the data is currently undergoing analysis.

Work proposed at Purdue was designed to identify legal flavor additives for perch that will lead to increased consumption of feed. The original proposal indicated two genetic groups of fish would be raised at either 16, 22, or 28°C (60.8, 71.6, or 82.4°F) and offered one of three flavor additives. An additional genetic group has been obtained that has a proven record of rapid growth. The three genetic groups are all female fish from Lake Mendota, mixed sex fish from Lake Mendota and mixed sex fish from North Carolina. All groups of fish were obtained as juveniles and are currently being raised to the appropriate size for experimentation.

Research done by University of Missouri (UM) scientists sought to determine whether the use of a compensatory growth feeding regime would cause yellow perch to outgrow counterparts fed every day, the latter feeding regime being standard in aquaculture. This idea was based on previous work in age 0 hybrid sunfish in which a novel overcompensation response was found when certain repeating cycles of no-feeding followed by refeeding (hereafter, NFRF cycles) were implemented. The first study was a scoping experiment to determine which, if any, NFRF cycles would produce growth overcompensation in adult yellow perch. Episodes of hyperphagia occurred after each food deprivation period for all treatment groups, demonstrating that yellow perch do possess compensatory growth capacity. However, no growth overcompensation resulted in any of the treatment groups, and control fish consumed more food and showed greater overall weight gain and growth efficiency than did any of the compensatory growth treatment groups. In all treatments female yellow perch showed higher growth rates and growth efficiencies than males.

Results of the first experiment raised the question of whether growth overcompensation might be induced in yellow perch if one of the better performing longer-cycle NFRF regimes was used, but with maintenance-level feeding followed by refeeding (MFRF) substituted for total food deprivation to elicit the compensatory growth response. Comparisons of NFRF versus MFRF regimes have not been made previously in any fishes in relation to compensatory growth responses. Yellow perch fed according to the NFRF schedule did not show growth overcompensation, but did show consumption, specific growth rate, and growth efficiency equivalent to controls. Fish fed according to the NFRF regime consumed 28% less food, had a 59% lower specific growth rate, and showed a 55% lower growth efficiency than controls and counterparts fed on the MFRF schedule. In general, this result suggests that under conditions where growth overcompensation does occur, the MFRF regime may produce even better growth improvements than the NFRF regime. It is quite possible that growth overcompensation in yellow perch was impeded in the present study due to the individual holding of the fish, and this may warrant testing.

Research at MSU was designed to compare gender related growth rates of yellow perch greater than 150 mm (6 in) raised in single gender or mixed gender cohorts. Gender related growth differences are being evaluated using a saturation kinetics model developed by Mercer. Fish were separated by gender and randomly assigned (8/tank) to 110-L (29.1-gal) tanks. Water temperatures were maintained at 21°C (69.8°F) by a recirculation system. Three replicate tanks per feeding rate treatment were randomly assigned feeding rates of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0% of total wet weight fish per day. Fish were then weighed every two weeks and feed levels were adjusted accordingly. The saturation kinetics model will be used to determine feeding levels required for maintenance and maximum and optimal feed efficiency.

Single gender cohort growth trials have been completed. A preliminary growth model was used to examine the growth rates between males and females, and this model indicated a significant difference in the growth rates, however, complete statistic analysis of the data has not been completed. The maximum growth rate was 0.024 g/day (0.0009 oz/day) for males and 0.035 g/day (0.0012 oz/day) for females. Using this model, the maintenance value was 0.04% total weight per day. According to this model, the feed level to achieve maximal growth is 1% body weight per day for males and slightly higher for females. Crude protein analysis of whole body samples has also been completed. Whole body crude protein levels were inversely related to feeding rate.

OBJECTIVE 3

UW-Madison researchers have induced out-of-season spawning with variable degrees of success in several year classes of yellow perch females. Due to its immediate commercial applicability, emphasis has been placed on inducing spawning in July, which may allow for the double cropping of fingerling ponds. Research efforts under this objective have been hampered by the failure of a water chilling system, and subsequent loss of many of the acclimatized brood stock due to a suspected toxin from the failed chiller. A replacement water chiller has been obtained to supply necessary cold water for the simulation of winter-like conditions during the spring and early summer of 2000. A group of male and female perch are currently undergoing acclimatization for a planned July 2000 spawning.

WORK PLANNED

OBJECTIVE 1

Research at Purdue will include two more diet evaluations for this coming year. Those evaluations will be continuations using rotifers and Artemia as a positive control, then comparing several of the available dry diets available for use in the United States.

Larval perch studies at MSU will be repeated to verify high survival and swim bladder inflation. If fertilized eggs are available from researchers conducting out-of-season spawning (Objective 3), trials will be run in January 2000.

OBJECTIVE 2

At UW-Madison, collection and analysis for the second round of studies comparing the growth of males and females in ponds will be completed, and a manuscript reporting the results of the study will be prepared for publication.

At Purdue a study evaluating flavor additives to perch diets will be completed later this year.

UM researchers will continue research to identify compensatory growth feeding schedules that maximize growth and growth efficiency in yellow perch (>150 mm; 6 in).

MSU will complete the statistical and proximate analysis of data collected during the first growth trial. Total proximate analysis will be performed on whole fish tissue. Currently, a second set of growth trials are under way to compare the growth rates of the males and females raised in a mixed stock. Three tanks of females fed at 3% of total wet weight are being raised as a control. Experiments should be completed by December 1999.

OBJECTIVE 3

UW-Madison studies on out-of-season spawning induction will continue.

IMPACTS

OBJECTIVE 1

Research on Objective 1 is improving larval rearing techniques by developing and evaluating different starter diets and environmental conditions. Methods for successfully rearing yellow perch fingerlings as small as 15.5 mm (0.61 in) using readily available commercial feeds have now been demonstrated. For newly hatched perch larvae, we have shown that live foods including rotifers, Artemia, and vinegar eels can be used successfully as a first food source, and dry diets including artificial plankton and diets containing krill hydrolysate show promise for the future. The information generated by these studies will greatly assist perch producers in their efforts to reliably raise the large numbers of perch fingerlings needed by the industry.</

PROJECT TERMINATION

OTHER SUPPORT