Expansion of the PEI Off-Bottom Oyster Aquaculture Industry

Transcription

Expansion of the
PEI Off-Bottom
Oyster
Aquaculture
Industry
Opportunities, Barriers &
Developments
Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance
& Island Oyster Growers Group Workshop
Slemon Park, Prince Edward Island
Prepared by
Crystal McDonald
Carpe Diem Consulting
February 26, 2010
This is report MG-10-01-007 for the
Aquaculture Collaboration Research and Development Program
Acknowledgements
The Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance and the Island Oyster Growers Group would like to thank
the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program for its generous support of this
project. We would also like to thank the presenters for their informative presentations, the exhibitors for
providing practical displays, and the consultant, Crystal McDonald of Carpe Diem Consulting, for her
facilitation of the workshop and development of the following report.
And to all of the oyster growers that participated in this event we would like to extend our sincere
gratitude for your continued willingness to share your knowledge and experiences with the workshop
participants and your fellow oyster growers.
Expansion of the PEI Oyster Aquaculture Industry: Opportunities, Barriers and Developments
February 26, 2010
i
Table of Contents
Expansion of the PEI Oyster Aquaculture Industry: The Continued Development of Off-bottom Oyster
Culture .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Opportunities, Barriers & Development ................................................................................................... 2
Session 1: Research Project Updates & Industry Feedback .................................................................. 2
Oyster Monitoring Program 2009 ......................................................................................................... 2
Off-Bottom Monitoring Program .......................................................................................................... 3
Management of Fouling Organisms on PEI Oyster Aquaculture Operations ........................................ 5
Oyster Predator Control ........................................................................................................................ 6
Fouling Control Options ........................................................................................................................ 7
Green Crabs as Predators on Oyster Aquaculture Leases ..................................................................... 9
Bird Deterrents on Floating Oyster Gear ............................................................................................. 10
Impacts of Suspended Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Aquaculture on Eelgrass (Zostera marina) ..... 12
Research and Development Priorities .................................................................................................... 13
Minister’s Remarks ................................................................................................................................. 14
Key Note Address .................................................................................................................................... 15
Session 2: Regulatory Barriers ................................................................................................................ 17
DFO Oyster Surveillance in the Maritimes .......................................................................................... 17
MSX Distribution and Mortality Study ................................................................................................ 18
Wastewater Treatment Plant Issues ................................................................................................... 19
Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP) Update....................................................................... 21
Aquaculture Activities and Commercial Shellfish Interactions ............................................................ 22
Industry Priorities Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 25
Exhibitor Product and Contact Information................................................................................................ 26
Measuring Success against the Workshop Objectives ................................................................................ 29
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 30
February 26, 2010
Page ii
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Workshop Flyer & Agenda ........................................................................................................................ 1
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................... 2
Workshop Participant List ......................................................................................................................... 2
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Session 1: Research Project Updates & Industry Feedback Presentations............................................... 3
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Session 2: Regulatory Barriers Presentations ........................................................................................... 4
February 26, 2010
Page iii
Expansion of the PEI Oyster Aquaculture Industry: The Continued
Development of Off-bottom Oyster Culture
Background
Prince Edward Island has a long history in oyster development. As early as 1865 individuals were able to
lease specific areas to bottom culture oysters and in the 1990s there were significant efforts to expand
the production of oysters on private leases, especially using off-bottom and water column culturing
techniques. However, these efforts stalled out in the late 1990s and have only recently been given new
priority by both industry and government.
Currently, PEI is the largest oyster producing province in Atlantic Canada, and the second largest in
Canada. The harvest data collected for oysters is a combination of wild fishery and aquaculture
landings, however, it is estimated that of the 5.6 million pounds of oysters landed in 2008 at least 30
percent are attributable to aquaculture leases. As well, because cultured production techniques produce
a higher percentage of “choice” oysters, the actual dollar value of cultured oyster production on PEI may
be as high as 50 percent of the annual figure ($2.827 million for 2008).
While off-bottom oyster culture has been expanding in Atlantic Canada over the last few years, the most
dramatic increase in production has occurred in New Brunswick. Recent efforts to expand the PEI oyster
aquaculture industry have been aided by the partial lifting of the moratorium on applications to convert
existing bottom leases. In 2009, thirty nine bottom leases were converted to off-bottom and additional
applications are now being accepted in specific areas. Several programs have also been made available
to growers since 2008 to allow them to develop both bottom and off-bottom production.
During the winter of 2007, the IOGG contracted Carpe Diem Consulting to evaluate the potential to
expand the cultivation of quality oysters on PEI. The resulting report, titled Evaluation of the Potential to
Expand the Prince Edward Island Oyster Culture Industry, detailed the actions that would be required in
order to expand the industry over a five year span. Some of the short term actions included opening
access to surface/water column leases, developing invasive species control techniques, researching a
number of areas that affect the ability of the industry to be successful and the development of “a forum
for the timely sharing of research results in a practical and attractive manner.”
On February 26, 2010 the PEI Aquaculture Alliance on behalf of the IOGG held a workshop at the Slemon
Park Hotel and Conference Centre in Summerside, PEI. (See Appendix A and Appendix B.) The workshop,
titled Expansion of the PEI Oyster Aquaculture Industry and the Continued Development of Off-Bottom
Oyster Culture: Opportunities, Barriers and Developments, was funded in part by the Aquaculture
Collaborative Research and Development Program (ACDRP) and provided a venue to:

Inform growers about new developments and technologies related to Oyster Aquaculture;
February 26, 2010
Page 1

Present results from research and development projects and programs;

Facilitate discussion with industry members on the way they would like to see their strategic goals
achieved and the barriers they see to that achievement;

Provide an opportunity for growers to interact, sharing their knowledge and experience.
The following report is a summary of the presentations and discussions held throughout the
informative, day-long workshop.
Opportunities, Barriers & Development
The workshop, titled, Expansion of the PEI Oyster Aquaculture Industry and the Continued Development
of Off-Bottom Oyster Culture: Opportunities, Barriers and Developments included both formal
presentations, a trade show component where suppliers/manufacturers could display and discuss new
technologies with interested growers, and numerous networking opportunities throughout the day
whereby new growers could interact with older, experienced growers and with government and
research representatives. The day was split into two sessions (morning and afternoon) with a key note
speaker at lunch time.
Session 1: Research Project Updates & Industry Feedback
The morning session, Research Project Updates & Industry Feedback, included seven 15-20 minute
presentations on various research initiatives currently being carried out in the region and having some
significance to the PEI off-bottom oyster industry. (See Appendix C, Session 1: Research Updates &
Industry Feedback Presentations.) The following is a short summary of each of the presentations and
follow-up questions and answers:
Oyster Monitoring Program 2009
Presenter:
Matt Smith, Oyster Technician
PEI Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development
In 2009 the Oyster Monitoring Program collected data from 16 sites and 11 river systems. Eastern
samples were collected from the West River, East River (Cranberry Wharf, Kennie MacWilliams
Seafood), Vernon Bridge and Orwell. Western samples were collected from Bideford (Station, Paugh’s,
Old Wharf, Green Park), Montrose, Mill River, Foxley River, Enmore, Bentick Cove, Bedeque and
Wilmont. Water samples were obtained by towing a 2.5 metre long plankton net (30 centimetre
diameter mouth; 63 um mesh) and bucket from the surface to mid-water for five minutes. The contents
of the bucket were then transferred to a one litre sample bottle and taken to the lab where they were
screened and a one millilitre sub-sample was placed on a slide for microscopic examination. Each of the
larvae in the sub-sample was then measured and the information recorded.
February 26, 2010
Page 2
Determining the best time to set oyster collectors depends on:
 The history of the area - The presenter indicated that one of the most valuable things in
determining when to set the collectors is knowledge about the history of broodstock presence
and spat settlement in the area. For example, Ellerslie has a great history of big numbers of spat
present while other areas are substantially poorer.
 Examining the gonads of the adult oysters in the area – Ripe gonads in adult oysters indicate
readiness to spawn and release larvae into the water.
 The water temperature in the area – Research has shown that the temperature of the water in
the area provides a pretty good indication of when larvae are going to spawn. Water
temperatures of 20 to 24 degrees Celsius will result in incremental increases in the growth of
the larvae post spawning.
 The levels of oyster larvae present – Within one to three days of when the number of larvae
present is above 250 microns is when a grower wants to set the collectors, since research has
indicated that the first big set on shells usually occurs with the first big bump. The short term
collectors (STC) and long term collectors (LTC) data gained clearly shows a peak in the number
of spat on the collectors in direct relation to the first wave of larvae above 250 microns. This
oyster larvae information will be available through the toll-free DFARD number (1-800-8315801) in 2010.
The presenter indicated that DFARD was looking to the industry for input on other areas that should be
sampled, reporting methods, possible areas to eliminate/add, and potential new spat collection areas.
Questions/comments from the floor included:

The need for information on the oyster monitoring hotline regarding mussel larvae counts and
sizes. Some areas wait for the mussel spat set to be completed prior to setting their oyster
collectors. The information is available for many areas on the Mussel Monitoring website at
http://www.gov.pe.ca/fard/fisheries/area.php3?area=9, but only until the end of July. The
province will look at whether there are additional areas to collect this information for and
whether the collection period should be lengthened (e.g., in Orwell).
Off-Bottom Monitoring Program
Presenter:
Kim Gill, Shellfish Aquaculture Biologist
Recently there has been an increase in the types (OysterGro and Floating bags) and numbers of offbottom oyster production units being used, as well as in off-bottom production levels, including the
February 26, 2010
Page 3
approval of 39 off-bottom oyster aquaculture sites in 2009. The PEI Department of Fisheries,
Aquaculture and Rural Development (DFARD) has implemented several studies over the years to
monitor various important aspects of the industry:



The Oyster Monitoring Program in place since 2001 to monitor the size of oyster larvae in
primary seed collection areas.
Oysters grown in rack and bags monitored for three years (1997-1999) to evaluate growth and
performance (Technical Report #222).
Oysters monitored in off-bottom culture for stocking density (Aqua Info Note 02.2001), subtidal
vs. intertidal growth (Aqua Info Note 07.2001) and floating bags vs. bags on rebar racks (Aqua
Info Note 08.2001)
In response to the expansion of the sector and the diversity of the production units available, DFARD is
hoping to implement a new Off-Bottom Monitoring Program this year. The program will monitor and
evaluate the performance of oysters grown in the OysterGro and floating bag systems using a similar
protocol to that used in New Brunswick so that the results can be compared. There are currently 13
potential sites (Bideford River, Conway Narrows, Darnley Basin, Dock River, Enmore River, Kildare River,
Lennox Channel, Mill River, Orwell Bay, Souris River, West River, and two sites in Foxley River) being
discussed, however the department is willing to discuss additional sites. Oysters will be put on a lease
based on their average size at the start of the trial (Size 1: oysters up to 30 millimetres; Size 2: oysters
from 31 to 50 millimetres; Size 3: oysters from 51 to 65 millimetres; Size 4: oysters greater than 65
millimetres). It is anticipated that there will be three sampling periods (spring, summer and fall)
although the presenter questioned the industry on the need for the summer samples. In each sample,
30 oysters will be measured for length, width, thickness and weight and the total volume of the bags will
also be taken. Anyone wishing to take part in the program was encouraged to contact the department.
The presenter indicated that there were remaining questions to be addressed regarding the program,
including: positioning of the OysterGro units and floating bags on the 13 sites; whether the oysters that
are already on the leases should be measured for comparison; whether growers would be willing to add
the new units to their management plans to address fouling on the units; the best way to overwinter the
units; and whether the units should be observed prior to raising them to detect any impact the
overwintering may have had on the unit and the oysters in the unit.

Growers urged the presenter to begin the program this season, to include all three sampling
periods, and to add the Dock River (“motel branch”).
February 26, 2010
Page 4
Management of Fouling Organisms on PEI Oyster Aquaculture Operations
Presenter:
In response to changes in off-bottom oyster production technology, DFARD implemented a project to
determine the effectiveness of the OysterGro system versus the floating bag system to address fouling
issues (including second set mussels/oysters, sea squirts, algae, clubbed tunicates, golden star tunicates,
violet tunicates, and vase tunicates).
The OysterGro system trials involved observing six units per site (June to October). Each unit held six
oyster bags (three bags with 30.8 millimetre oysters, and three bags with 46.0 millimetre oysters). The
units were flipped for 24 hours every two weeks resulting in the bags being exposed to the air for a 24
hour period. Oysters at the Savage Harbour and Montague River sites had good growth (10 to 18
millimetres). Oysters in March Water did not have as good growth results, likely due to the site location
(i.e., highly exposed area). Oysters in all sites had low mortality (2 to 4 percent) and although the units
had some fouling, it was easily controlled using the 24 hour air exposure.
The floating bag trials involved observing six bags of 30.8 millimetres oysters at each site (June to
October). The bags were flipped every two weeks. The oysters experienced good growth (8 to 14
millimetres) and low mortality (1.8 percent). While the bags had a small amount of fouling, it was easily
controlled using air exposure.
The presenter concluded that both the OysterGro system and the floating bags offered good growth,
low mortality and good fouling control when they were flipped every two weeks.




Growers indicated they would like to see volume numbers included in the report.
The presenter indicated that there would be a sign up sheet at the registration desk for anyone
wanting to receive a copy of this report or the Aqua Info Notes as they were developed.
One grower indicated that in his experience stress helps the growth rate of oysters so some
fouling on the oysters was not necessarily a bad thing.
Currently the province is looking at oyster bags with floats on the sides. Growers urged them to
put out some bags with the floats on the top of the bags so that the growing conditions would
be more comparable with the technology currently being used by PEI oyster growers. They also
asked that the bags with the floats on the side continue to be monitored.
February 26, 2010
Page 5
Oyster Predator Control
Presenter:
The PEI Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development (DFARD) has explored treatment
options for two of the key oyster predators on Prince Edward Island: the starfish and the oyster drill.
The common starfish to PEI is the Purple Star (Asterias vulgaris). The females are reddish and males are
white or yellow and they become sexually mature after one year. Spawning occurs in June when the
eggs and sperm are shed into the water column. Following fertilization, the larvae develop during a 3 to
4 week period. Starfish growth is mainly influenced by food availability. Five starfish control options
were explored by DFARD resulting in the following:





Quicklime – Quicklime was previously applied in large quantities in the Long Island Sound areas.
However, it is not used as much anymore. The quicklime must be granular, not powder, and
needs to be applied at a rate of 1600 to 2000 pounds per acre. Quicklime is only available in bulk
(tractor trailer load) and must be kept in dry storage as moisture reduces its effectiveness. It is
important that applicators wear the proper protective equipment (gloves, respirator, eye
protection, boots, protective clothing, etc). Quicklime is effective, but because it breaks down
fairly quickly it is not effective on starfish covered by rocks and algae.
Hydrated Lime – A 4 percent hydrated lime solution was used for dipping collectors, bags and
cages. Thirty second dips achieved an effective kill rate of 99 percent.
Starfish Mops – Growers wanting to use starfish mops as a control method will need a boat,
starfish mops and a dipping tank utilizing heat, lime or brine. While this control method will
reduce starfish numbers, it is not 100 percent effective, you run the risk of spreading starfish to
non-infested areas, and the mopping disturbs bottom sediment so it may present a conflict
during oyster spawning.
Starfish Traps – Starfish traps cost about $15 to make. Growers wanting to use this technology
will require a nuisance trapping permit from DFO. The traps will need to be baited, either with
mussels or fish, and you will require a boat and outboard to fish the traps.
Brine – While brine will reduce starfish numbers it is not as effective as the other options,
possibly due to the length of time the gear was emerged.
The Oyster Drill was identified in Atlantic Canada as early as 1901 and in the vicinity of Charlottetown in
the early 40s. Its diet consists primarily of small oysters, mussels and barnacles. The females oviposit
eggs in leathery cases with the young inside. The young hatch out as a smaller version of the adults.
Because there is no larval stage there is limited dispersal of this predator.
February 26, 2010
Page 6
Three traps were tested (A-frame, wire cage and minnow) in Foxley River in 2007; all were baited with
small oysters. Wire traps attracted the most oyster drills (8.1 per trap over the entire season). A-frame
traps were the next best trap; they seemed to trap more small drills than the other traps. In comparison
to the wire cage and A-frame, minnow traps were not effective at catching oyster drills.
Studies showed that there was a high drill concentration in Lot 10, with activity occurring from June to
October (and possibly beyond). Twenty-four drills laid approximately 89 groups of egg cases from July to
October and consumed 301 oysters and 10 mussels during this time. The drills were most active in late
August to early September.
Studies were also carried out on oyster drill egg cases. Vinegar, hydrated lime and brine were tried at
one minute, five minute and 10 minute immersions. The drills were held first in an up-weller system at
Freeland Creek and then in aerated tanks at Ellerslie. No drills hatched from egg cases immersed in
brine for five minutes. All other immersions had some drills hatch (but not necessarily all) including the
10 minute brine immersion. Adult drills, however, survived all treatments.
Trapping trials were conducted through a PEI Aquaculture Alliance project in Foxley River in 2009.
However, a nuisance permit will be required from DFO before trapping can begin this season.
There were no questions from the floor.
Fouling Control Options
Presenter:
Aaron Ramsay, Shellfish Aquaculture Biologist
Several species pose fouling challenges for off-bottom oyster gear including mussels, second set oysters,
barnacles, tunicates, bryozoans, hydroids and sea grapes. Over the years control options that have been
effective in controlling these species include heat (60 °C), salt brine (30%), vinegar (5% acetic acid), lime
(4% Calcium hydroxide), and/or air exposure.
How to control bryozoans, hydroids, sea grapes and starfish? DFARD recommends a 30 second
exposure to a 4 percent lime solution. Since 2002 dipping collectors in a lime slurry for 30 seconds, 10
to 14 days after deployment, has been common practice for the PEI Shellfish Association. Often a second
dip later in the season is done as well. The lime removes fouling (i.e., bryozoans, hydroids, sea grapes)
and predators such as star fish allowing the oyster spat to survive and maximize growth. It is also an
effective treatment for tunicates. All growers are encouraged to lime dip their collectors prior to seed
transfer to other areas.
How to control mussel fouling, second set oysters and barnacles? DFARD recommends a heat dip for
12 seconds in 60°Celcius water. Heat trials were carried out in 1999. Factors to consider include
February 26, 2010
Page 7
temperature of the dip water, dip time, oyster size, drying time, as well as the time of year (i.e., air and
receiving waters temperature) when the treatment occurs. To ensure effectiveness and that oyster
mortalities were kept to a minimum, growers were encouraged to keep the dip water temperature as
close to 60 °C as possible, to keep a uniform temperature throughout the tank (e.g., circulate the water
in the dip tank with a pump), to ensure that the dip time did not exceed 12 seconds and that the gear
was placed immediately back in the growing water for cooling. In 2009, a barnacle control trial was also
carried out, using market-sized oysters heavily fouled with barnacles. Treatments included heat (at
multiple exposure times), brine, lime and acetic acid. The heat dip (saltwater at 60 °C) was the most
effective. The presenter indicated that since the 1999 trials oyster grower Charlie Lelachuer has worked
to mechanize the heat dipping techniques and video was shown of his effective system in operation.
How to control for tunicates? DFARD recommends a one minute exposure to 4 percent lime to control
fouling by the clubbed and vase tunicates; vinegar spray is the most effective for colonial tunicates. In
order to be prepared in the event that oyster growing areas become infested with any of the tunicates
currently found on PEI, trials were carried out using oyster gear in several tunicate infested areas
(Bideford River was the control with untreated gear; March Water and Montague gear were treated
with lime immersion; and Savage Harbour gear was treated with vinegar sprayer). There was more
fouling on the March Water gear, however, no tunicates settled on the collectors. There was also no
noticeable difference in the size of oyster spat between treated and untreated collectors; although the
average size of spat on the lime-treated Chinese hats was slightly larger (21.1millimetres) than that on
the untreated collectors (19.3 millimetres). Similar results were seen with the pipe collectors. Results
from the trials indicate that lime immersion is effective in killing the clubbed tunicate. Savage Harbour
results showed that vinegar spray was effective in reducing the colonial tunicates on the oyster gear.
Montague River trials indicated that lime immersion was effective in killing the clubbed and the vase
tunicate. See the presentation for more detailed results.



Whether pressurized water would work. It was felt that immersion in hot water would produce
better results.
Whether increasing the amount of lime used would speed up the process. It was explained that
lime reaches its maximum Ph at 4 percent and therefore adding additional lime is of no benefit.
Whether treated tunicates fall off or die and form a dead mass on the gear/oysters. The treated
tunicates die and fall off over a week or so depending on the water temperature.
February 26, 2010
Page 8
Green Crabs as Predators on Oyster Aquaculture Leases
Presenter:
Tyler Pickering, Master of Science Candidate, Department of Biology
University of Prince Edward Island
The presence of Green crab in PEI waters (notably the Cardigan River system) was first confirmed in
1997. This aquatic invasive species quickly established large populations in eastern PEI and continued to
spread westward around the Island. In 2000/2001 the species were detected in productive oyster
harvesting areas (North, West and Hillsborough Rivers) and in 2006/2007 were detected in Bedeque
Bay. As of 2008, the known range of the species extends to Bedeque Bay on the south shore, New
London Bay on the north shore, and there have been sporadic sightings in other locations west of these
areas.
Recognizing the potential threat to the oyster industry (wild and cultured), the University of Prince
Edward Island are carrying out a project with the PEI Shellfish Association. Trapping of the green crab
began late in the autumn of 2008 and continued through the 2009 field season. Two types of trap were
used on seven sites (three in North River, four in Bedeque Bay) and the species, size and sex of each crab
caught was identified/recorded. Trapping surveys showed an increased presence of the green crab in
both bays from 2008 to 2009. In 2008 trapping densities at North River sites were approximately one
crab per day versus three to six crabs per day in 2009. And in Bedeque Bay, low densities of crabs were
found at only one site in 2008 versus one to three crabs per trap densities at all sites in 2009.
Given the fact that green crab are a known predator of most bivalves, including oysters, and are known
to reduce the population of their prey – the arrival, spread and establishment of green crab may
threaten the sustainability of PEI’s oyster industry. In order to identify potential mitigation strategy
measures, size vulnerability experiments were carried out to determine the size of oyster most
vulnerable to green crab predation. Four sizes of oysters (shell lengths of 5-15 millimetres, 15-25
millimetres, 25-35 millimetres and 35-50 millimetres) were subjected to predation by three sizes of
green crab (carapace widths of 35-45 millimetres, 45-55 millimetres and 55-75 millimetres). Thirty
oysters of a single size group were placed with one intact male green crab (pre-starved for 48 hours) in a
floating Vexar oyster bag. This was replicated 10 times for each size of crab and each size of oyster. The
experiment lasted for five days with the results monitored daily.
Small green crabs preyed most heavily on small oysters with almost no effect to larger size oysters.
Medium sized green crabs preyed the most heavily on small oysters, then medium and finally large
oysters with the most amount of damage done in the first three days of the experiment. The large green
crabs had consumed all of the small oysters in their bags after the first day. In contrast to previous
research that found no predation in oysters with a shell length greater than 25 millimetre, this
experiment found that the green crabs consumed oysters as long as 40 millimetre.
February 26, 2010
Page 9
The conclusions drawn from these experiments include:




Green crab are an important predator of the American oyster with the potential for predation
rates as high as 30 oysters per day;
Oyster mortality is dependent on both oyster size (oysters under 15 millimetres are the most
vulnerable) and green crab size (crabs over 55 millimetres carapace width pose the greatest
threat);
Oysters up to 40 millimetres are still vulnerable and therefore oysters kept in nursery grow out
conditions until the shell lengths are 35-40 millimetres should be less vulnerable to green crab
predation; and
Large populations of the green crab are becoming established along the coast of PEI as the
species spreads so continued work will be required on mitigation strategies and technologies to
ensure the sustainability of the PEI oyster industry.
Questions from the floor included:


Whether the green crab would likely enter a suspended oyster bag to prey on oysters. The
presenter indicated that this wasn’t likely in normal grow out conditions but was used as a
means of tracking what damage one green crab could do in a five day span. He also noted that
these were “worst case scenario” results.
Whether oysters would be the food of choice if other bivalves were available. The presenter
indicated that green crab would likely consume soft shell clams, then mussels, then oysters but
that oysters, especially small oysters, were vulnerable to the green crab.
Bird Deterrents on Floating Oyster Gear
Presenter:
Remi Sonier, Shellfish Research Biologist, Aquaculture & Coastal Ecosystem
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Moncton)
In 2004 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) observed the presence of birds on floating oyster
gear in northern New Brunswick. The presence of the birds resulted in high concentrations of faecal
coliforms (E. Coli) being detected (> 230 MPN colonies/100 g) in oyster meats from the sites. This
resulted in the closure of the entire area that was using floating structures and the implementation of
new procedures by the CFIA for anyone using floating oyster gear. Before marketing their product,
effected NB oyster growers were required to completely immerse their structures for 14 days if testing
was done and 30 days if no testing was to be carried out.
In 2005 research was carried out to determine methods to eliminate or reduce the immersion period
before market. The study included an assessment of bird colonies (species and abundance) at 54 sites
along the eastern coast of New Brunswick. Bird species recorded included the Double-crested
February 26, 2010
Page 10
Cormorant, gulls (Herring, Ring-billed and Greater black-backed), the Common Tern, Great Blue Heron,
Common Merganser, Black-bellied Plover and White-winged Scoter. With the Cormorant species
representing the largest populations recorded. An important observation from this review was that the
size of the area covered by floating oyster structures impacted the number/density of birds present. The
floating Vexar bags accumulate eel grass and therefore provide the birds with a good platform for eating
and resting. While the OysterGro systems act like a landing strip for the birds, provide an even more
stable platform than the floating bags and again provide a good platform from which the birds can
gather food and rest.
In 2006 a controlled study was carried out in Caribou Bay, Neguac Bay and Richibouctou Bay (Indian
Island). Three types of floating bags were experimented with: the traditional floating bag with the floats
on the side and one side of the bag always on the surface; a modified bag with the floats on top of the
oyster bag resulting in the bag laying 3 centimetres below the surface of the water; and another
modified system whereby the floats were attached to the oyster bag by a loose rope resulting in the bag
hanging 6 centimetres below the surface. On the OysterGro cages clothesline type additions were made
to the system with limited success against Cormorants. The OysterGro cages were then modified again
with an Anti-Cormo device that used serrated edged material along the floats to deter birds from
roosting.
Conclusions from the research included:



The modified floating bags were not a cost efficient method given the additional time for
flipping the units and the second modification (using the rope to lengthen the distance the bag
hung under water) was not practical;
The OysterGro system with the Anti-Cormo device had really great deterrent power (90-95%
effective) and was the most effective method used in this study, but was still not 100% efficient.
Little manipulation was required prior to over-wintering the unit and the modification was easily
attached/detached.
There is still work to be done to address concerns that the birds will adapt their behaviour over
time to coincide with shellfish grower husbandry practices.
Questions from the floor included:


Whether NB was able to shoot Cormorants. The presenter and NB industry members in the
audience indicated that they are able to shoot Cormorants. It is illegal to shoot cormorants in
PEI.
Whether birds will adapt to the new technologies industry develops. The presenter indicated
that birds will change where they roost when new deterrent structures are provided, but there
is no information at the present time on the birds’ long term adaptability towards those
structures.
February 26, 2010
Page 11
Impacts of Suspended Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Aquaculture on Eelgrass (Zostera
marina)
Presenter:
Marc Skinner, Ph.D. Candidate, Canadian Rivers Institute,
University of New Brunswick in collaboration with DFO (Moncton)
In 2005, DFOs Habitat Management section, requested the Aquatic Animal Health Division to look at
potential environmental influences of suspended oyster aquaculture on valued ecosystem components
(VECs) such as small invertebrates in the sediment, fish and large invertebrates, and fish habitat such as
seagrass and algae. The goal was to establish an environmental monitoring program to validate the
inclusion of suspended oyster aquaculture in Replacement Class Screening.
Sea grasses are vital to the ecological structure, function and productivity of many coastal marine
systems. In fact, the US has spent millions of dollars in its efforts to re-establish eelgrass populations in
many of its coastal areas. The structural complexity of the sea grasses provides refuge from predators,
opportunities to capture prey, increased nutrient cycling, sediment stabilization by decreasing water
velocities, critical nursery habitat for many commercial species and sedimentation of suspended
particles. In 2009 DFO declared eelgrass an ecologically significant species for eastern Canada.
This project hypothesized that there would be a decline in eelgrass populations in areas with suspended
oyster aquaculture. During the presentation an aerial picture was shown of an oyster lease with
noticeable changes in the bottom directly under the site and adjacent to the site where gear had been
present in the prior season. (Note: This picture and some of the data has been removed from the
attached copy of the presentation due to copyright issues.)
For effective environmental monitoring you need a clear understanding of the effect the activity is
having on the environment, the extent of the effect/change, the frequency with which the effect occurs,
what is causing the effect, when it begins, how long it lasts, and whether it is reversible/manageable.
In an effort to answer the first two questions the team undertook a study in 2006 to look at the effect
and extent of off bottom/surface aquaculture on eelgrass at three different lease sites (one in each of
three bodies of water in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence). The study looked at the density of eelgrass
within the aquaculture lease, and then at 25 metres, 100 metres and 500 metres from the lease. The
study found that the lowest biomass, shoot density, and canopy height was found at the lease sites,
although there was no significant difference within the lease site itself. In 2007, leases and reference
sites (300 metres out) were sampled in four bays over 125 kilometres. Overall the mean leaf growth rate
on all bays was 21.7 percent lower on leases than the reference sites and there was a 57.7 percent
lower above-ground biomass at the lease sites. From this the researchers observed that local reductions
at the site might not be solely due to physical disturbance of the benthos, but that light penetration
(shade) and nutrients/organic matter (oyster densities) might play a role as well. DFO and the NB oyster
February 26, 2010
Page 12
growers partnered with L’Etang Bar Ruisseau Ltee (Dr. Andre Mallet) in 2009 to provide access to a
previously uncultured lease, boats, gear, oysters, lab, hatchery, field equipment, and field assistance.
Measurements of the shoot densities at the site showed a clear effect of shading by day 67. Further,
direct comparison of conventional floating Vexar bags (35-50 millimetre oyster shell length, 3.2 kg oyster
m-2 stocking density) to control groups demonstrated the amount of light (mol quanta m-2 s-1) and
relative electron transport rate (mol electrons m-2 s-1) were reduced 85.2% and 81.5%, respectively.
In 2010, the research team plans to continue with the 2009 shading and oyster stocking density
experiments, determine the effects of oyster table aquaculture, and examine the recovery of eelgrass at
the various test sites under different fallowing regimes. It is hoped that the information will allow
industry to determine best management practices to minimize impacts on benthic habitat.
Conclusions from the research include:
 A generalized trend in decrease of eelgrass at the sites – biomass (60%), leaf growth rate (22%),
photosynthesis (85%)
 Reductions are localized but occur quickly
 Shading plays an important role
 Determining the recovery process is the next step – if it is localized and quick, do the effects
matter and can they be managed with the use of BMPs
 Depth of water where the studies occurred – The presenter indicated that the water depth was
approximately 7 feet and that most NB leases were in a similar depth.
 Longlines were used and they moved with the ebb and flow of the tide which resulted in about a
3 metre drift of gear.
 The biodiversity around leases, even with the loss of the eelgrass, were seen to be higher or at
least no different than the control sites.
Research and Development Priorities
Following the morning session/presentations the facilitator asked the participants to address some of
the questions that had been asked of them during the morning and to indicate any additional work that
they thought needed done. There were also copies of recent Aqua Info Notes and research reports
available for interested participants and a sign up list for those interested in receiving any forthcoming
reports. Time did not allow for a formal priority setting process, however, the topics chosen for
discussion with a minimum of time available gives some weight to their priority within the industry.
February 26, 2010
Page 13
Items discussed included:

Oyster Monitoring Program - the need to add mussel spat levels to the Oyster Monitoring
Program (or to at least add an extended collection period for Orwell to the Mussel Monitoring
Program) for those oyster growers that do not set their spat collectors until the mussel set is
finished.

Off-Bottom Monitoring Program - the need to put out some bags with the floats on the top of
the bags so that the growing conditions would be more comparable with the technology
currently being used by PEI oyster growers, while continuing to monitor the bags with the floats
on the side.

Off-bottom Oyster Monitoring Program - growers indicated they wanted the program to begin
this year, all three sampling periods to be included, and the Dock River (“motel branch”) added
to the areas to be monitored.

Seed Collection Areas – growers would like to see 10-15 collectors put out to identify new seed
collection areas (e.g., Covehead, Souris River) and the need for designated seed collection areas
with lots of broodstock present; this will require DFO permits for any spat collectors placed off
of the existing off-bottom leases.
Minister’s Remarks
Minister LeClair, Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development
Aquaculture is a key sector for the establishment of new and expanded economic and employment
opportunities in many coastal communities in Prince Edward Island. Oyster landings in 2009 were at 5.6
million pounds with a landed value of $5.6 million dollars - an estimated 25 to 30 percent of which is
derived from cultured product. As well, the oyster industry provides jobs to as many as 1,000 Islanders
and has an economic value of over 11 million dollars directly to the economy. Under the Rural Action
Plan that the Minister announced last month, the oyster industry has been identified as a growth
industry with a great deal of potential for expansion.
Since the moratorium on new off bottom oyster leases was lifted in 2006 the number of off-bottom
oyster leases has increased by 47 and the amount of acres increased by 374 for a total of 170 off-bottom
oyster leases covering 1,824 acres. The number of bottom leases has also continued to increase in an
orderly fashion and is now at 710 leases covering 5,650 acres. This growth is due in part to the strong
working relationship between the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) regional office, the PEI
Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development (DFARD), the PEI Aquaculture Alliance
(PEIAA) and the Island Oyster Growers Group (IOGG). The Lease Management Board and the Leasing
February 26, 2010
Page 14
Referral Committee are perfect examples of how DFO, DFARD and the oyster industry are working
together to ensure that the industry is well managed and expansion continues to occur in an orderly
fashion.
The Minister indicated that he was pleased that DFARD responded to the request of the IOGG for
programming assistance with the expansion of the industry. The Strategic Oyster Aquaculture Renewal
Program was implemented to provide assistance for oyster aquaculture equipment in the expansion
process. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) has agreed to jointly fund the program with
DFARD for the next two years resulting in an increase in the amount of funding available for growers.
The program is now being delivered by the PEI Aquaculture Alliance and will provide more than one
million dollars with industry investing an additional one million dollars over the life of the program.
The Minister recognized the hard work and knowledge required to grow top quality oysters. The ability
of Island oyster growers to produce more high quality oysters will only advance PEI’s reputation in the
market place as producers of the best oysters in the world. The region just showcased oysters in Atlantic
Canada House at the Olympic Games in Vancouver. Prince Edward Island oysters were a huge hit among
all that visited the Atlantic Canada House. Events such as the Olympics, and the PEI International
Shellfish Festival, are important to increase the visibility of the industry and showcase the high quality
and value of oyster products.
The Minister applauded the efforts of the IOGG and PEIAA members. He indicated it was their hard work
and belief in the industry that will ensure its continued and growing success. He wished everyone
successful and productive discussions in the day’s meeting and in their efforts on the water where he
hoped to be able to visit them during the coming season.
Key Note Address
Participants in the workshop enjoyed a soup and sandwich buffet while listening to keynote speaker,
Mike Rose of Global Trust. (See Appendix C, Session 1: Research Updates & Industry Feedback
Presentations.) The industry participants also took advantage of the opportunity to continue to network
with other growers, manufacturers and suppliers, as well as government and research representatives.
Discussions included issues that had been discussed earlier in the day as well as programs and
technologies that might be of benefit to the industry.
Global Trust Certification
Presenter: Mike Rose, Business Manager
Global Trust, which was originally known as IFQC, was formed/registered in Ireland in 1998. With project
experience in 22 countries, they have grown to be recognized globally as standards and certification
experts. Global Trust is market focused and attests that expectations and promises are being met by
qualified producers.
February 26, 2010
Page 15
So why standards? Food safety and sustainability are the drivers to food certification. Food scares in the
late 80s, led to food safety legislation in the early 90s, which in turn led to the development of food
safety standard and certification programs in the mid 90s. On a parallel track we see sustainability issues
arise as the cod fishery collapses in the early 90s, the FAO introduces a Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries in 1995 and the Marine Stewardship Council is formed in 1997. There is an ever increasing
recognition of the need for seafood sustainability with increased scrutiny and activity by environmental
groups. From 2000 forward there were a multitude of product standards encompassing food safety,
quality, environmental sustainability, health and safety, organic products and ethical issues. Standards in
aquaculture include GlobalGAP, Certified Quality Oyster (CQO) standards, Friend of the Sea, Organic
Standards, ISO 14000, Safe Quality Food (SQF), and the BRC Global Food Standard. As well, the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) is developing new standards as is the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA BAP).
So what is a standard? A standard is a requirement that is determined by a consensus of opinion of the
product users. It prescribes the accepted, and theoretically the ‘best’ criteria for a product, process, test
or procedure. Standards establish consistent practices, promote product safety, identify responsible
industry members/products, promote long term supply chain relationships, show due diligence, and
support industry marketing programs by addressing ENGO and consumer fears about the product.
How do/could oyster growers use standards? The length of a market or cocktail oyster is a standard. The
CFIA offers many types of standards for growing/marketing shellfish through its regulations. Shell shape
and condition offer quality standards. As well, grow-out and harvesting techniques/practices could
provide standards related to “Provenance” (e.g., PEI Off-bottom Oysters). And the number of oysters
grown per cage could also be a standard.
The types of standards developed vary and depend on the fears that are being addressed, who owns the
standard, what the marketing intentions are and whether the standard is meant to be a reactive
(insurance) or proactive (branding) tool. Quality, food safety and sustainability standards determine
whether the food is good and safe to eat and whether my food source is dependable (e.g., unique origin
of product, traceability, Malpeque Oysters). Standards can let the customer know that the food they eat
is organic, eco-friendly, Fair Trade, and that production methods used have protected the health and
welfare of the animal being consumed.
Certification is the process that lets you prove you are meeting the standards that have been developed.
An audit is a key component of certification. It is a tool to collect objective evidence that you are in
compliance with the standard. It is important that the audit be third party to provide recognized,
formalized and consistent accreditation.
Industry should monitor and understand emerging global trends and standards. New fears or trends will
continue to emerge and it is important that you continue to choose flexible options for maintaining
brand trust.
February 26, 2010
Page 16
Session 2: Regulatory Barriers
The afternoon session, Regulatory Barriers, included six 15-20 minute presentations on various
management and monitoring programs currently being carried out in the region and having some
significance to the PEI off-bottom oyster industry. (See Appendix D, Session 2: Regulatory Barriers.) The
following is a short summary of each of the presentations and follow-up questions and answers:
DFO Oyster Surveillance in the Maritimes
Presenter:
Mary Stephenson, Chief, Shellfish Health Unit
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Moncton)
The Shellfish Health Unit carries out active surveillance of wild oyster populations in the region for MSX
(histopathology and PCR), OIE listed diseases like Dermo (histopathology), diseases of regional concern
like Malpeque Disease and the Sea Side Organism (histopathology) as well as emerging issues. The Unit
also responds to grower reports of unexplained shellfish health issues (poor growth, short shelf life,
watery tissues, shell deformity, etc) and shellfish mortalities. Historically, there were continuous
movements of shellfish within the Gulf of St. Lawrence to assist in the recovery following the outbreak
of Malpeque Disease in the early 1900s. However, to prevent Malpeque Disease from entering the Bras
d’Or Lakes, imports into the Lakes have been prohibited since the 1950s.
With the detection of MSX in the Bras d’Or Lakes in 2002, MSX Management Zones (MSX positive and
increased surveillance areas; as per the map) were established and remain in place today. Areas with
increased surveillance are MSX negative but are of interest due to historic activities in the region, the
oceanographic proximity of the area to the MSX positive zone and the risk of introduction of the disease
resulting in changing activities. Oysters originating in the Bras d’Or Lakes cannot be transferred out of
the Lakes for re-soaking and transfers within the Lakes are reviewed on a case by case basis. Since 2002
there have been conditions of license including Oyster Harvest Protocols at both the grower and
buyer/processor levels and the requirement to receive permission to move the product from local
Introduction and Transfer Committees. These committees include representatives of DFO and the
provinces. In 2004 Commercial Oyster Fishery Zones were established around the Bras d’Or Lakes to
ensure commercial fishers adhered to the same harvest restrictions as the aquaculturists.
Monitoring and sampling efforts have continued to determine any changes in the distribution of MSX.
At this point the Shellfish Health Unit was unsure of the surveillance plans for 2010. Growers were urged
to contact the Shellfish Health Unit, DFO Charlottetown or the provincial biologists if they saw unusual
mortalities, abnormal appearance in their shellfish or activities that may put the oyster population at
risk.
February 26, 2010
Page 17
MSX Distribution and Mortality Study
Presenter:
Roland Cusack, Aquatic Animal Health Veterinarian
Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture
Since the detection of MSX in the Bras d’Or Lakes the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and
Aquaculture have implemented a sampling program to track the distribution of MSX in the province.
Samples are typically taken from aquaculture sites while DFO sampling is traditionally from wild oysters
in areas with aquaculture. As of the 2009 sampling, MSX has not been detected in samples taken from
the Gulf Shore although SSO has been detected in the area but has not been associated with any oyster
mortalities. On the Atlantic side of the province the sampling has detected low levels of MSX. In St.
Ann’s Bay the oysters have been removed from the leases and MSX has not been detected in the wild
populations since it was first detected. In 2009 MSX was detected in Aspy Bay. Currently MSX is
widespread in the Bras d’Or Lakes although there are two smaller areas where it is not present possibly
due to low salinity levels. Management of MSX in NS included the removal of the oyster aquaculture site
in St. Anns, the restriction on movement of product outside of the Bras d’Or Lakes, the requirement of
effluent controls for processing plants receiving Bras d’Or oysters, and the First Nations halted fishing in
the Lake. The First Nation hatchery that was built to work on developing a MSX tolerant strain of oyster
has closed. And the Cape Breton University is studying environmental effects on MSX development.
MSX Questions from the Floor
The afternoon session began with a joint presentation on MSX. Questions from the floor were posed
after the two presentations were completed. Questions/comments from the floor pertaining to MSX
included:


How is MSX transferred? The presenter indicated that there has been a considerable amount of
research in the US on the disease and the answer is still not known. The research indicates that
the disease likely requires an intermediary host. Concerns were expressed from the floor that
live mussel transfers are allowed from MSX areas to MSX free areas when this piece of
information is unknown. The presenter indicated that the I&T Committees have been asking for
even tighter controls (e.g., removal of all fouling, facilities receiving the product to have effluent
treatment systems).
The ability to have a study of MSX viability in a Malpeque resistant strain of oysters. The
presenter indicated that DFO couldn’t move Gulf of St. Lawrence oysters into the Bras d’Or
Lakes or Bras d’Or Lakes oysters into the Gulf of St. Lawrence because there were issues with
not introducing MSX into areas that are currently MSX free and not introducing Malpeque
disease into the current MSX zones. She indicated that even with Malpeque Disease now
detected in the Lakes, local stakeholders are reluctant to allow this introduction.
February 26, 2010
Page 18


Growers expressed concern that lobsters from Maine and mussels from MSX areas in Nova
Scotia were still allowed to be brought into the province. They voiced concerns that because the
intermediary host was still not known these activities were placing the PEI oyster industry at
risk.
It was pointed out by the presenters that shellfish is much harder to practice medicine on than
finfish or more traditional farm animals. This has exacerbated the issues surrounding
understanding MSX in oysters.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Issues
Presenter:
Morley M. Foy, P. Eng., Approvals & Compliance
Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry
On average every person uses about 70 imperial gallons of wastewater per day in residential homes for
personal use in the bathroom, kitchen, laundry, etc. Wastewater can also be produced by industrial and
commercial users. The flow and strength of the wastewater will depend on the type of industrial or
commercial activity. There are two main types of wastewater treatment systems, on-site wastewater
treatment (septic systems) and central collection and treatment. Central collection and treatment
systems are typically found in urban areas, whereas septic systems are mostly found in rural settings.
There are many different types of septic systems with the main components being a septic tank and
field tile. Much of the solid material is captured in the septic tank with the effluent flowing over to the
disposal field. The effluent trickles through the soil column beneath the disposal field where natural
filtration and treatment occurs prior to entering the groundwater.
Central collection and treatment systems consist of laterals, sewers mains, possible lift stations,
wastewater treatment systems and outfalls. Raw wastewater flows from households, industrial and
commercial users via the laterals and sewer mains (piping systems) to lower elevations. Lift stations are
often used to lift the raw wastewater from lower elevations to the wastewater treatment plant. The
wastewater treatment systems treat wastewater prior to being released into a nearby watercourse
through outfalls.
Conventional central wastewater treatment facilities include lagoons, aerated lagoons, rotating
biological contactor and extended aeration systems. These systems can range in size treating
wastewater from small communities such as Mt. Stewart to larger systems in communities such as
Charlottetown and Summerside. Lagoon systems are often used in communities as they require very
little maintenance and energy to treat wastewater. However, these systems do require a significant
amount of land in order to operate properly. In areas where suitable land may not be available or
where the flows are high, mechanical treatment plants may be required. These facilities provide
February 26, 2010
Page 19
multiple steps for the treatment of wastewater (removal of grit, screening, primary clarification,
bioreactor, secondary clarification, ultraviolet, etc) prior to releasing effluent back into the environment.
The following offers typical design capacities of Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) on PEI:
Charlottetown WWTP - 5.7 million Imperial gallons per day; Summerside WWTP - 2.6 million gallons per
day; Montague WWTP - 250,000 gallons per day and St Peters WWTP - 46,500 gallons per day.
Wastewater is treated to minimize the impact to human health and the environment. Incidents like that
which occurred in Walkerton in May of 2000 show the magnitude of harm that can occur when water
systems are not operated properly. The same can be said for wastewater treatment systems. In PEI
there are approximately 100 certified operators operating water and wastewater treatment systems. In
order to become a certified operator, a person must meet educational and practical experience
requirements and he/she must pass a standardized exam. Operators certified in PEI can be certified in
any other province with the exception of Quebec.
As of February 2009 the Canada-wide strategy for the management of municipal wastewater effluent
was signed. Two outcomes of the strategy are to protect Human Health and the Environment. This long
term national strategy includes National Performance Standards for effluent and the requirement of all
municipal utilities to complete an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) setting effluent Discharge
Objectives. This strategy will be a key tool for regulating wastewater treatment facilities in the future.
Failure of wastewater collection and treatment plants can occur from time to time due to power
outages, storm events, mechanical failure, operator failure, biological failure, etc. In the event of an
unapproved discharge in excess of 450 litres the WWTP must complete a Discharge of Wastewater
Notice and forward it to the appropriate authorities within one hour of detection.
Planned wastewater discharges may also occur from time to time to allow a facility to complete work on
a system, undertake mechanical repairs, or if there is a planned power outage. In this instance the
WWTP is required to attain approval from the PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry
prior to releasing the wastewater. Again, the WWTP is required to issue a Discharge of Wastewater
Notice to the appropriate authorities to ensure that the shellfish activities in the area are suspended if
need be until the faecal coliform levels are at an acceptable level again.

Whether the Murray River WWTP was adequately cleaning the wastewater prior to returning it
to the river. The presenter indicated that the outflow was monitored to ensure that the
released water was not negatively impacting the area. He indicated that there could be other
activities impacting the waterway.

Discussion about various types of facilities found around the Island, including Victoria,
Montague, Murray River and St Peters.
February 26, 2010
Page 20
Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP) Update
Presenter:
John White, Policy Officer, CSSP Policy, Fish, Seafood and Production Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
The main objective of the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP) is to provide reasonable
assurance that molluscan shellfish are safe for consumption, thereby supporting the shellfish industry
and providing confidence in the products for Canadians and export markets. Three federal departments
(the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Environment Canada) work
together to deliver the program.
There have been some recent changes to the CSSP:
1. Requirement for human waste containment devices on harvesting vessels - Canada already
prohibits the overboard discharge of human waste. However, program enhancements in 2008
now require on-board human waste containment on shellfish harvesting vessels where timely
access to onshore facilities is not possible.
2. Water quality monitoring frequency – The sampling requirement was five times every three
years but it will move to five times every year. The program enhancements to increase Canada’s
water quality monitoring frequency started in 2007 with full implementation anticipated to
occur within 4 years. However, PEI has already met the new water quality monitoring frequency
because of the existing partnership agreement between EC and PEI DEEF.
3. Controls for managing the harvest of shellfish adjacent to waste water treatment plants Management of this issue utilizing a combination of: collaboration with provinces to strengthen
WWTP safety performance; enhanced reporting requirements for WWTP/collection system
bypasses; revised classification of shellfish growing areas; the development of Conditional
Management Plans; enhanced processor HACCP controls; and education initiatives to improve
awareness. Former classification of Canadian waters included Closed (included prohibited
areas), Approved and Conditionally Approved. The new classification includes Prohibited,
Conditionally Restricted, Restricted, Conditionally Approved and Approved. Independent of the
classification, the status of the areas will be open or closed. See presentation for maps of old
and new classification differences to Summerside which was reclassified in 2008. North Rustico
was reviewed in 2009/10 with no changes and 2010 to 2012 review will occur for the
Charlottetown area, Montague, Brudenell and Georgetown.
4. New floating bag harvesting requirements – as was mentioned in an earlier presentation an
amendment has been made to Chapter 12 of the CSSP in response to fouling issues on new
February 26, 2010
Page 21
floating bag technology. Oysters grown to market size using this technology will require the
development of a harvesting plan and additional testing, submersion or relay.
In 2004 the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) carried out an audit of the CSSP. In
2009 a follow-up audit was carried out to review the enhancements made to the program since 2004.
The draft report has been received and appears to be positive, although there is some discussion
between US engineers as to whether one of the models used meets their requirements.
There were also audits of the CSSP carried out by the European Union in 2003 and 2009. The objective
of the 2003 audit was to verify whether the CSSP is equivalent to relevant European Community
provisions. The 2009 audit was to follow up on the enhancements made to the program. The draft
report has been received and, while there are some slight differences in the lab methods used between
the two locations, the audit went well.
However, the presenter noted that concerns with viral contamination (Norovisrus and Hepatitis A) in
shellfish are increasing worldwide. In 2008 Health Canada completed a Health Risk Assessment: Enteric
Virus (Norovirus and Hepatitis A Virus) Contamination of Bivalve Molluscan Shellfish which concluded
that the viral risk is low, but that data was lacking. In 2008 CFIA conducted two studies (NB, PEI and BC)
the main purpose of which was to validate the lab methodology but it also provided additional data with
respect to viruses in wastewater and shellfish in prohibited zones. In 2009 a more extensive study was
done in NB, NS and PEI looking at virus and bacteria levels in wastewater, in shellfish growing area
waters, and in shellfish at different distances from WWTP effluent pipes.
As well, the procedure for closures defined in appendix VIII of the CSSP was originally intended to cover
all emergencies including spills of deleterious substances (i.e., WWTP spills, oil spills, hurricanes, etc).
However, there appears to be some confusion and the CSSP partners are working to clarify the policy
and communicate the results to all stakeholders in the program. The presenter indicated that
communication tools are currently being drafted and provinces/industry associations would be given the
opportunity to be involved in the process.
There were no questions/comments from the floor.
Aquaculture Activities and Commercial Shellfish Interactions
Presenters:
Lori Cuddy, Chief, Aquaculture, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (PEI)
Colin MacIsaac, Chief, Resource Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (PEI)
Note: Prior to the workshop the IOGG board of directors met with DFO representatives on February 10,
2010 to discuss a number of outstanding issues that the association felt have the potential to negatively
affect the ability of the off-bottom oyster aquaculture industry to succeed. The questions resulting from
those discussions are being worked on by DFO for presentation to the IOGG board at a later date.
February 26, 2010
Page 22
Bottom Lease Marking - While recent lease marking efforts have been directed towards ensuring that
off-bottom and water column leases were properly marked, this season bottom oyster leases will be
required to be marked from May 1 – November 30 inclusive (ice permitting) as per their contract.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) crews will be out on the water this summer to check that these
leases are properly marked. Sketches of the leases to be marked are available from DFO and the PEI
Bottom Lease Marking Policy indicates the proper method (buoy size/colour, anchoring systems and
identification markings) of marking the lease site. The Conservation and Protection section of DFO have
indicated that anyone found working an unmarked bottom lease this year can be charged with fishing
illegally if they are outside of the approved season. And failure to mark a lease may result in cancellation
of the lease contract.
Cocktail Oyster License – The Cocktail Oyster License provides a Mechanism to allow aquaculturists to
harvest and market cocktail oysters from selected shellfish leases under variation orders issued by DFO.
Anyone interested in harvesting/marketing cocktail oysters must complete an application to “Harvest &
Market Cocktail Oysters” and submit it to Kim Hill. Only aquaculturists NOT holding commercial oyster
licenses are eligible although spat collection is exempted. This requirement applies to any helper
engaged to assist with the harvesting and marketing as well. The application will be reviewed by DFO
(Resource Management, Conservation and Protection, Aquaculture Leasing) and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency. It will require a Variation Order requested to amend Sec 58, MPFRs, allowing the
catching and retention of oysters greater than 1mm in length from Jan 1st to Dec 30th. Non-compliance
with any part of terms and conditions will result in revoking of the Variation Order and all activity
reverts to normal regulated activity (i.e., the shipping, processing, handling, or movement of ALL
product related to this lease). There are currently 8 files open.
Oyster Maintenance License – The Oyster Maintenance License allows for routine maintenance activities
to be carried out by an aquaculturist while ensuring appropriate control measures are in place.
Maintenance Activities typically include the ‘culling and grading’ of product, large and small, from a
lease to a shore facility and back to the original lease. Section 29, Maritime Provinces Fishery
Regulations apply as: “Notwithstanding any close time or size limit set out in these Regulations, a person
may, under the authority of a license, fish for shellfish for the purposes of relocating then to improve
their growth, condition or accessibility.” Interested growers must complete the “Proposed Oyster
Maintenance Activities Off Lease” form and submit it to Kim Hill, Resource Management, DFO,
Charlottetown. The eligibility of applicants will assessed by DFO (Resource Management, Conservation
and Protection, Aquaculture Leasing) for history, compliance, lease reports, marking and fees.
Operational plans will be assessed to consider period of activity, type of activity, places and people
involved, means of transport, etc. No simultaneous commercial fishery activity will be allowed on the
same day. Applicant must supply advance notice of weekly activity to Kim Hill. No ‘mixing’ of product
(i.e., have product from open & closed lease at the same time). All product MUST BE returned to the
lease, not to a market entity.
February 26, 2010
Page 23
Lease to Lease Transfer – A Lease to Lease Transfer will allow aquaculturists to fish for shellfish for the
purpose of relocating them. This privilege is issued under Section 29, MPFRs…. “fish for the purpose of
improving their growth, condition, or accessibility.” Applications are available at the PEI-LSC (Pat Power)
and screening will be carried out by DFO (Resource Management, Conservation and Protection,
Aquaculture Leasing). The permit will only be issued during closed times and day light hours only (July
16th to September 14th; and December 1st to April 30th). Applicants/growers must perform activities as
stated. The permit is non-transferable, non-renewable, and subject to cancellation for non-compliance.
(Sec 56 I&T may apply).
I & T License – Introduction and Transfer Licenses are required to permit transfer of shellfish within and
into the province, while protecting indigenous stocks from disease, genetic shifts and habitat (fellow
travelers). Under Sections 55 and 56 Fisheries (General) Regulations growers who have product
originating from designated restricted waters in PEI or product being imported into PEI must make
application for an I&T License. Applications will be reviewed by the PEI-I&T Committee, chaired by Art
Smith. Conditions of license may include product treatment and mitigation measures. These licenses
may be linked to ‘Lease to Lease’ licensing conditions, but one does not supersede the other.
Summer Marketing Permit – The Summer Marketing Permit allows an aquaculturist to harvest from
clean water leases during a closed time (i.e., May 1st – July 31st). Applications will only be received from
CFIA registered facilities. Applicable Regulations pertaining to the Permit include the Fish Inspection Act,
the Fisheries Act, MCFRs, MPFRs, & F(G)Rs. Historically this permit has been restricted to commercial
lease holders who marketed large quantities of oysters from established leases allowing them to provide
the market place with a constant supply of oysters in respect of depuration restrictions. Applicants must
have a CFIA registered processing facility, a shellfish lease(s) approved for relaying, be license holder
under Sec 4 MCFRs if conducting relaying activity, and must be used in open area, no applicable closures
(bio-toxins, unacceptable micro levels). Summer Marketing occurs May 1st to July 31st (during closed
time for lease fishing). The total number of leases per licence from Summer Marketing and MCFR
decontamination plans shall not exceed five. See the slide presentation for recent uptake on Summer
Marketing Permits.
Shellfish Enhancement and Fish Replanting License (Winterkill Permit) – The Winterkill Permit is a
mechanism for Shellfish Associations or the Department of Transportation and Public Works to move
shellfish from a specific area for enhancement purposes. (Sec 29, MPFRs) Application must be made in
writing to Resource Management, DFO, Charlottetown. Control Measures will be developed on a caseby-case DFO review.
There were no questions from the floor although it was pointed out that the IOGG Board members had
met with DFO earlier and they would be following up on questions that arose from those discussions.
February 26, 2010
Page 24
Industry Priorities Discussion
Priority was given to the following issues:

MSX - The MSX issue, and especially ensuring that the disease does not make its way into PEI
waters, was deemed to be the highest priority issue for the PEI oyster aquaculture industry.

Aquaculture Licensing – PEI is the only province without an aquaculture license and it has
limited PEI growers in what they can do. The IOGG is currently involved in discussions with local
DFO regarding several licensing issues that are important factors in the industry’s ability to
expand/succeed.

Marketing – participants in the 2007 Oyster Expansion Study, the 2009 PEI Aquaculture Alliance
Strategic Plan and in this workshop, all indicated that it was crucial for timely marketing efforts
to be carried out so that new markets were established to increase public awareness of the PEI
oyster and to address the anticipated increase in oyster production.
Additional issues that were raised during the day are summarized below:

Oyster Monitoring Program - the need to add mussel spat levels to the Oyster Monitoring
Program (or to at least add Orwell to the Mussel Monitoring Program) for those oyster growers
that do not set their spat collectors until the mussel set is finished.

Off-Bottom Monitoring Program - the need to put out some bags with the floats on the top of
the bags so that the growing conditions would be more comparable with the technology
currently being used by PEI oyster growers, while continuing to monitor the bags with the floats
on the side.

Off-bottom Oyster Monitoring Program - growers indicated they wanted the program to begin
this year, all three sampling periods to be included, and the Dock River (“motel branch”) added
to the areas to be monitored.

Seed Collection Areas – growers would like to see 10-15 collectors put out to identify new seed
collection areas (e.g., Covehead, Souris River) and the need for designated seed collection areas
with lots of broodstock present; this will require DFO permits for any spat collectors placed off
of the existing off-bottom leases.
February 26, 2010
Page 25
Exhibitor Product and Contact Information
There were a total of five exhibitors at the workshop, including:
Bouctouche Bay Industries Ltd
Exhibitor:
Rheal Savoie
Address:
2147 Route 475
Bouctouche, NB E4S 2J2
Telephone:
(506) 743-5455
Fax:
(506) 743-6729
[email protected]
E-mail:
Bouctouche Bay Industries Ltd is a long established fishing and aquaculture supply business. Apart from
manufacturing commercial fishing equipment, such as lobster traps and buoys, the company has also
expanded its product line and is now fully equipped to manufacture a wide range of custom plastic
products.
Bouctouche Bay Industries has also been involved with the development of the OysterGro system – a
floating oyster cage system that was developed in collaboration with marine biologists, commercial
oystermen, equipment manufacturers and designers. The OysterGro consists of a compact, wire mesh
housing with two specially designed floats. Every component is designed for strength, durability and
convenience. OysterGro creates an ideal environment for growth, cleaning, sorting, protection and
survival. The OysterGro system is amongst the most efficient systems on the market today to control
fouling and secondary spat. Let us help you produce the highest quality oysters at an extremely
competitive price!
With time and experience you may wish to fine tune your OysterGro system to better suit your working
environment and the tools and equipment that are available to you. Check out our consulting services –
we can provide analysis and advice to optimize your results. Bouctouche Bay Industries looks forward to
supporting you in any way we can.
Working with industry to answer today’s challenges with tomorrow’s technologies!
Dennis Motors (Yamaha)
Contact:
Brian Dennis
Address:
Ellerslie, PEI C0B 1J0
Phone:
1-866-952-2229 (Toll Free in the Atlantic Region)
(902) 831-2229
February 26, 2010
Page 26
Fax:
Website:
E-mail:
(902) 831-3196
www.dennismotors.ca
[email protected]
Dennis Motors, a full line Yamaha dealer, located in Ellerslie, Prince County, we carry an excellent
selection of Yamaha ATVs, Motorcycles, Snowmobiles, Outboards, Watercraft, Pumps and Generators.
We also carry a large selection of competitively priced Yamaha clothing, boots and accessories to
personalize you and your unit just the way you like.
With experienced, trained staff and a well equipped facility, Dennis Motors is capable of servicing all of
the products we sell, and more. Outboards, personal watercrafts, snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, cars
and trucks – we handle it all!
Go Deep International
Exhibitor:
Kent Ferguson, Marketing & Sales – Aquaculture
Address:
10 Watertower Road
Saint John, NB E2M 7K2
Toll Free:
(877) 446-3337
Telephone:
(506) 633-7850
Fax:
(506) 633-7859
Skype:
godeepinternational
Atlantic Canada's largest manufacturer and distributor of navigation buoys, solar navigation lights and
shellfish aquaculture equipment. Incorporated in 1997, Go Deep International has serviced customers
locally and internationally by developing new products to meet their specific needs. All of our products
are required to meet stringent quality control criteria. We can cost effectively ship our products to
major markets throughout North America and globally.
We supply the shellfish aquaculture industry with a comprehensive range of shellfish collection and
grow-out materials including harvesting and grading equipment. Everything the aquaculturist needs to
collect, grow, harvest and process mussels, scallops, oysters and other common bivalves. Aquaculture
buoys are available in a wide range of shapes, sizes and color choices, with a proven record in the
aquaculture industry.
Mussel socking, cotton bisected mussel socking, 100% cotton socking, nylon double socking, rope, spat
bags, netron, oyster bags, lantern nets (round and square), and larvae monitoring kits. For pricing and
more information on these or any other shellfish aquaculture growout materials call us TOLL FREE at 1866-447-3337 or 1-506-633-7850
February 26, 2010
Page 27
SEAPA
Exhibitor:
Telephone:
E-mail:
Website:
Ron Buck
508-423-0582
[email protected]
http://www.seapa.com.au
Growing with innovation.
SEAPA Aquaculture Products
SEAPA baskets are a purpose designed, cost effective modular aquaculture system. They are easily
integrated into existing farming practices. Stock is highly visible, held securely, and our innovative quickaccess Auto Caps are the best in the industry. Choose from our multiple basket ranges to find the system
best suited to your farming style. There’s a SEAPA basket and accessory to meet your needs.
SEAPA Longline
The original high productivity system from spat to market. Fully automatable, utilizing cutting edge
farming techniques. Mesh sizes available in 3mm, 6mm, 12mm and 20mm.
SEAPA Multipurpose
The high volume grow out system adapts to existing farming techniques including: intertidal longline,
floating, rack and rail methods, as well as subtidal use. Available in 12mm and 20mm. SEAPA’s baskets
are a proven product manufactured from premium materials to withstand even the roughest conditions.
Vernon d’Eon Lobster Plugs Ltd
Contacts:
Delbert Francis, Aaron Blackett, Shelly Campbell
Address:
35 High Street, Souris, PE
Phone:
1-800-762-8357
(902) 687-4318
Fax:
(902) 687-3790
www.vernondeon.com
Website:
e-mail:
[email protected]
Vernon d’Eon Lobster Plugs is a family owned business that prides itself on quality, innovative products
and ideas providing by far the best service a company can provide. We have been servicing the
commercial fisheries and processing plants for 35 years throughout the Maritimes. We established
ourselves in Souris in 1994 and are proud to say we offer an island-wide service second to none!
February 26, 2010
Page 28
With six fishing supply stores, five delivery trucks and over 40 employees we are the one stop shop for
all of your aquaculture needs - from clothing for your workers, to grow-out gear, to boat supplies, to
plant supplies - we’ve got you covered! Check out our pricing on top quality gear such as oyster bags and
buoys, mussel socking and buoys, hog rings, shock cord, rope, etc.
In addition to the five companies that were able to attend the workshop, the following company
expressed an interest in attending the workshop but were unable to do so:
Dark Sea Enterprises
Contact:
Elaine Reynolds
Telephone:
(604) 926-1050
Address:
47 Glenmore Drive,
West Vancouver, BC
V7S 1A5
Dark Sea Enterprises Ltd was founded in 1988 by three oyster farmers on the Sunshine Coast of British
Columbia who were frustrated by the lack of efficient farming equipment for the deepwater culture of
oysters. These hands-on pioneers collaborated with a design engineer and created the Suspension-1000
oyster tray, which enabled the BC shellfish industry to take a major leap forward in deepwater oyster
farming.
The efficient and robust design of the Dark Sea stacking tray system was designed for maximum water
flow enabling faster growth, combined with labour-savings and longevity. To further improve the
efficient handling of the oyster trays, Dark Sea invented the Quick-Float, designed to float a fully loaded
stack of 10 trays, with a slick aluminum rod attachment for easy attachment and removal of the tray
stack.
The newest Dark Sea innovation is the S4000 nursery tray, perfect for growing smaller shellfish seed.
The S4000 nursery tray has the same robust design and longevity of the Dark Sea grow-out tray,
resulting in a complete system for all stages of shellfish growth.
Measuring Success against the Workshop Objectives
Provide a forum for growers to discuss the opportunities for development of the PEI oyster
aquaculture industry and the barriers they see to that development.
The workshop was very successful in providing the growers with a forum for discussion. Approximately
42 oyster growers participated in the day-long event (see Appendix B), discussion generated by
questions from the floor was good, networking opportunities were taken advantage of by most
February 26, 2010
Page 29
participants and the majority of the participants remained for the entire workshop. If there is one area
that could be expanded in future workshops it would be a formal SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) session to analyse where industry sees the potential for development and
what they perceive as the barriers to that expansion.
Provide the industry with results/updates from current projects and programs.
The workshop was very successful in meeting this objective. There were 13 informative presentations (7
research, 6 regulatory) given throughout the day. Each presentation was approximately 15-20 minutes
in length and was followed by an opportunity for questions from the floor. Presentations were on topics
of current importance to the industry and opportunities were made for discussion of industry concerns.
(See Appendix A.)
Provide a venue for marine fabricators and suppliers to demonstrate related technologies.
The workshop was very successful in providing a professional venue for suppliers to demonstrate
relevant technologies. A total of five marine fabricators and suppliers attended the workshop and
participated in the sideline tradeshow venue while a sixth was unable to attend but expressed interest
in working with the industry to meet its goals. Breaks and lunch time allowed industry members an
opportunity to visit the displays and discuss the technologies with company representatives. This area
was a hive of activity at each of these opportunities with workshop participants in lengthy discussion
with the exhibitors. See the section titled Exhibitor Product and Contact Information for participating
company/exhibitor names and product information.
Provide a forum for feedback about the forthcoming projects, R&D priorities and industry
needs from government programs (e.g. DFARD’s Oyster Monitoring Program).
Industry was given some opportunity to discuss future R&D and program needs as each presentation
was concluded and was to take part in a priority setting session at the end of the day. However, by the
end of the day’s sessions the industry was understandably tired and still had a short Annual General
Meeting to participate in even though the weather was deteriorating rapidly in the region. Future
endeavours should allow more structured time through the day to ensure ample time, energy and
interest to discuss and prioritize industry’s overall R&D and program needs.
Conclusion
The Prince Edward Island Aquaculture Alliance and Island Oyster Growers Group, with financial support
from the Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program, developed a strong workshop
agenda that allowed Island oyster growers the opportunity to discuss recent R&D initiatives and existing
or proposed programs. Participation was diverse with 42 growers, five exhibitors, 15 government
representatives, three researchers and four Alliance representatives/staff in attendance. The Alliance
February 26, 2010
Page 30
and IOGG would be well advised to continue to host such workshops in the future with minor
amendments to the structure of the workshop as detailed in this report (i.e., formal SWOT analysis and
R&D priority setting discussion based on the presented information).
February 26, 2010
Page 31
Appendix A
Workshop Flyer & Agenda
[Type text]
Expansion of the PEI Oyster Aquaculture Industry and the
continued development of off-bottom Oyster culture.
Opportunities, Barriers and Developments
When: Friday, February 26th, 8:00-15:30 (Registration 8:00-8:20)
Where: Slemon Park Hotel & Conference Centre, Summerside, PE
Who: All oyster growers, processors, researchers, equipment manufacturers &
suppliers
Cost: FREE for all members of the PEI Aquaculture Alliance and Island Oyster
Growers Group, $20 for all other (including lunch).
Pre-registration is required, please call Peter or Nancy at
902-368-2757 or e-mail [email protected]
What’s on?

Key Note Speaker on Third Party Certification

Program and Project Updates



Industry discussions on Oyster Aquaculture Expansion opportunities and
barriers
Lunch, with Oyster Bar, included
Tradeshow area including equipment suppliers & manufacturers, displays of
off-bottom oyster aquaculture gear
For accommodations please contact the Slemon Park Hotel & Conference Centre (www.slemonpark.com/hotel)
directly at 1 (877) 782-9734, quote “PEI Aquaculture Alliance” for a special rate.
Funding and support from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development
Program (ACRDP) and the Strategic Oyster Aquaculture Renewal Program (co-funded by the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and the PEI Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development (DFARD).
Proposed Workshop Agenda
8:00-8:20
Registration
Session 1: Research Project Updates, Industry Feedback / 2010 R&D Priorities
8:20-8:30
Welcome and Introductions
8:30-9:00
Oyster Monitoring Programs, ongoing and new (growth and environmental)- DFARD
9:00-9:20
Treatment of Tunicates on Collectors - Matt Smith, DFARD
9:20-9:40
Predator and Fouling Control Options - DFARD
9:40-10:00
Green Crab Predation- Tyler Pickering - AVC
10:00-10:20
Break
10:20-10:40
Bird Deterrents on floating oyster gear - Rémi Sonier - DFO
10:40-11:00
Impact of floating oyster gear on eelgrass populations - Mark Skinner - UNB
11:00-11:40
Industry Feedback on Monitoring, Programs and R&D Priorities
11:40-12:00
Greetings from Minister LeClair
12:00-13:00
Lunch with Keynote Speaker. Topic: Certification
Session 2: Regulatory Barriers
13:00-13:30
MSX Management and Monitoring - Mary Stephenson - DFO and Roland Cusack NSDFA
13:30-13:50
Waste Water Treatment Plant Issues - Morley Foy, PEIDEEF
13:50-14:10
CSSP Update - John White - CFIA
14:10-14:30
Update on oyster aquaculture issues - DFO Leasing
14:30-15:15
Industry feedback regarding regulatory barriers to expansion
15:15
Close
Appendix B
Workshop Participant List
Oyster Workshop Attendees
Name
Fernado Salazar
Richard Samson
Rhéal Savoie
Crystal MacDonald
John White
John White
Morley M. Foy
Brian Dennis
Aaron Ramsay
Colin Young
Kim Gill
Matt Smith
Neil MacNair
Bob Thompson
Colin MacIsaac
Erica Watson
Lori Cuddy
Mary Stephenson
Rémi Sonier
Stephen Langteigne
Thomas Laundry
Mike Rose
Kent Ferguson
Adam Sellick
Arnette Reynolds
Chad Gallant
Claude Allen
Craig Oliver
Dale Cormier
David Lewis
Dean MacEachern
Dennis Enman
Diana Pickering
Dustin Chappell
Elmer Compton
George Dowdle
Organisation
AANS
Adams Plastic Repair
Bouctouche Bay
Carpe Diem
CFIA
CFIA
DEEF
Dennis Motors
DFARD
DFARD
DFARD
DFARD
DFARD
DFO
DFO
DFO
DFO
DFO
DFO
DFO
DFO
Global Trust
Go Deep
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Name
Hubert Marchbank
Jason Handrahan
John McInnis
Lloyd Lewis
Louis Ferguson
Mike Marchbank
Paul Sharp
Randy Oatway
Robbie MacRae
Robert Dickieson
Robert Leard
Roger Townshend
Roy Drake
Scott MacLeod
Shawn Cooke
Stephen Lelachuer
Todd Jeffery
Tom MacDonald
Marie-Josee Maillet
Florent Garnerot
Mitchel Poitras
Andrew Bagnall
Roland Cusack
Nancy Geldert Laybolt
Peter Warris
Ronelda MacDonald
Rom Buck
Tara Daggett
Marc Skinner
Andre Nadeau
Garth Arsenault
John Davidson
Pedro Quijon
Tyler Pickering
Delbert Francis
Organisation
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
NB DAA
NBPSGA
NBPSGA
NS DFA
NS DFA
PEIAA
PEIAA
PEIAA
SEAPA
Sweeney International
UNB
UPEI
UPEI
UPEI
UPEI
UPEI
Vernon D'Eon
Appendix C
Session 1: Research Project Updates & Industry Feedback Presentations
PEI Oyster Growers Workshop
Feb.26 2010
Slemon Park
Sponsored by
PEI Dept of Fisheries Aquaculture and Rural Development
PEI Aquaculture Alliance
DFO (ACRDP)
Oyster Monitoring Program
2009
Data from 16 sites and eleven river systems
Eastern Samples Collected by Mark MacLeod
P West River
P East River- (Cranberry Wharf and
Kennie MacWilliams Seafood)
P Vernon Bridge
P Orwell
Western Samples Collected by Matt Smith and
Paul Burleigh
P Bideford four sites
< Station
< Paugh’s
< Old Wharf
< Green Park
P Montrose
P Mill River
P Foxley River
P Enmore
P Bentick Cove
P Bedeque
P Wilmont
Sampling Method
P Water samples were obtained by towing a 2.5
metre long plankton net (30) cm diameter
mouth, 63 um mesh and bucket, from surface
to mid water for 5 minutes.
P The contents were transferred to a 1 L sample
bottle and taken to the lab where they were
screened and a 1ml sub sample was placed on
a slide for microscopic examination.
P Each larvae in the subsample was measured
and recorded.
Plankton Net used
in the Oyster
Monitoring
Program
When to Set Collectors?
P Previous History of Area
P Examining the gonads of adult Oysters
P Water Temperature
P Oyster Larvae Tows
< Toll free number 1-800-831-5801
Bideford River
2010 Oyster Monitoring Program
P Areas to be Sampled?
P Reporting methods i.e. eastern areas do actual
counts of larvae > 250 microns?
P Eliminate Freeland and add Milligan’s Wharf?
P Potential new areas for spat collection
< Pinette?
< Birch Hill?
< Other?
OMP Report
P Has detailed information on 2009 results
P Will be completed and mailed out to growers
by March end
3/22/2010
Off-Bottom Monitoring
Program
Kim Gill, Matt Smith, Aaron Ramsay
(DFARD)
Off-Bottom Aquaculture
• Increase in off-bottom
oyster aquaculture
sites in PEI
• Increase in the units
being used to grow
oysters:
– OysterGro
– Floating bags
• Increase in production
(SOAR)
1
3/22/2010
History of PEI Oyster Monitoring
• Oyster Monitoring Program has been in place
since 2001
– Reports concentration and size of oyster larvae in
primary seed collection areas
• Oysters in rack and bags were monitored for 3
years (1997-1999) to evaluate growth and
performance (Technical Report #222)
• Oysters monitored in off-bottom culture for
stocking density (AIN 02.2001), subtidal vs.
intertidal growth (AIN 07.2001) and floating bags
vs. bags on rebar racks (AIN 08.2001)
• With the increase in off-bottom sites, a
monitoring program would be useful to
evaluate the performance of oysters grown
in OysterGro units and floating bags
• Need to follow the growth of oysters in offbottom units over several years
• Follow a similar protocol that is currently
used by NBDAA
2
3/22/2010
13 potential sites
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bideford River
Conway Narrows
Darnley Basin
Dock River
Enmore River
Foxley River (2 sites)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kildare River
Lennox Channel
Mill River
Orwell Bay
Souris River
West River
Any others?
(Murray River,
March Water?)
• OysterGro units and floating bags will be
placed on a lease at the 13 sites
• Oysters will be placed in a group based on
their average size at the start of the trial:
– Size 1 – oysters from 0 to 30 mm
– Size 4 – oysters from 65 mm and greater
3
3/22/2010
Sampling
• 3 sampling periods:
– Spring
– Summer
– Fall
• In each sample, 30
oysters will be
measured for length,
width, thickness and
weight
• The total volume of the
bags will also be taken
Questions
• Where will the OysterGro units and floating bags
go on the 13 sites?
• Should the oysters that are already on the lease
be measured for comparison?
• How will the fouling on the units be maintained?
– Could the growers add these to their own
management plan?
• How will the units be overwintered?
– How will the OysterGro units be sunk in the fall and
brought back up in spring?
– Where will the floating bags be overwintered?
– Spring observation before raising
4
3/22/2010
• Results will be presented in an annual
report, similar to the OMP report
• Comments would be appreciated
• Leaseholders who are willing to participate
could let DFARD know
5
Management of Fouling
Organisms on PEI Oyster
Aquaculture Operations
Kim Gill, Matt Smith, Neil MacNair (DFARD)
and
Marie-Josée Maillet (NBDAA)
Fouling Organisms on Floating
Units
•
•
•
•
Second set of mussels/oysters
Sea squirts (Molgula sp.)
Algae
Invasive tunicates: clubbed tunicate
(1997), golden star tunicate (2000), violet
tunicate (2004), vase tunicate (2004)
1
Second Set
Squirts
2
Algae
Invasive Tunicates
Violet Tunicate
Golden Star Tunicate
Clubbed Tunicate
Vase Tunicate
3
Savage Harbour
March Water
(clubbed tunicate)
(violet and golden star tunicates)
Montague River
(vase tunicate)
OysterGro System
• 6 units per site (June to
October)
• Holds 6 oyster bags
– 3 bags = 30.8 mm
oysters
– 3 bags = 46.0 mm
oysters
• Units flipped for 24 hrs
every 2 weeks
• When flipped (as in
picture) the floats expose
the bags to the air to dry
fouling
4
OysterGro System
• Oysters had good growth in Savage
Harbour and Montague River
• Oysters in March Water did not have as
good growth results – we suspect this was
due to site location (highly exposed area)
• Oysters had low mortality
• Units had some fouling, but it was easily
controlled using the 24hr air exposure
OysterGro System
5
OysterGro System
OysterGro System
6
Floating Bags
• 6 bags at each site
from June to
October
• Flipped every 2
weeks
• Each bag had
initial size 30.8 mm
oysters
Floating Bags
• Oysters had good growth and low
mortality
• Bags had a small amount of fouling,
but was easily controlled using air
exposure
7
Floating Bags
Floating Bags
8
Comparison
Culture System
Growth
(June to October)
Mortality
OysterGro System
(Small)
13 – 18 mm
2.0%
OysterGro System
(Large)
10 – 11 mm
4.0 %
Floating Bag
8 – 14 mm
1.8 %
Summary
• OysterGro and floating bags were
successful at controlling fouling when
flipped every 2 weeks, and oysters had
good growth and low mortality.
9
Oyster Predator Control
Kim Gill*, Matt Smith,
Aaron Ramsay, Neil MacNair
Predators
Starfish
Oyster Drill
1
Starfish Biology
• The common starfish to PEI is the Purple Star
Asterias vulgaris
• Sexes are separate
– Females are reddish and males are white or yellow
•
•
•
•
Become sexually mature after one year
Spawning occurs in June
Eggs and sperm are shed into the water column
Following fertilization, the larvae develop during
a 3-4 week period
• Starfish growth is mainly influenced by food
availability
Starfish Control Options
•
•
•
•
•
Quicklime
Hydrated Lime
Starfish Mops
Starfish Traps
Brine
2
Quicklime
• Quicklime was previously applied in large
quantities in the Long Island Sound
• Not used as much anymore
• The quicklime must be granular, not powder
• Needs to be applied at 1600-2000lbs/acre
• Available in bulk only (tractor trailer load), needs
dry storage (moisture reduces the effectiveness)
• Need protective equipment
– Gloves, respirator, eye protection, boots, protective
clothing
Quicklime
3
Hydrated Lime
• 4% hydrated lime solution
• Used for dipping collectors, bags and
cages
• 30 second dip kills up to 99% of starfish
Starfish Mopping
• Need boat and starfish mops
• Need dipping tank (either heat, lime or
brine)
• Mopping disturbs bottom sediment so it
may present a conflict during oyster
spawning
• Will reduce starfish numbers, but not 100%
• May risk spreading starfish to non-infected
areas
4
Starfish Mopping
Starfish Trapping
• Material to make traps costs about $15
• Need a nuisance trapping permit from
DFO
• Traps need to be baited, either with
mussels or fish
• Boat and outboard required to fish the
traps
5
Starfish Trapping
Oyster Drill
6
Oyster Drill Biology
• Identified in Atlantic Canada as early as
1901
• Diet consists primarily of small oysters,
mussels and barnacles
• Females oviposit eggs in leathery cases
with young inside. The young hatch out as
a smaller version of the adults
• No larval stage therefore there is limited
dispersal
Drills – Trap Design
Wire Cage
A-frame
Minnow
7
Drills – Trap Design Comparison
•
•
•
•
•
Trial conducted in Foxley River
in 2007
Wire traps attracted the most
oyster drills (8.1 per trap over
the entire season)
The most drills caught was 96
in a wire cage trap
A-frame traps were the next
best, and seemed to trap more
small drills than the other traps
Minnow traps were not
effective at catching drills in
comparison to the wire cage
and A-frame
Drill Activity
• High drill concentration in Lot 10, active
from June to October (and maybe beyond)
• Drills most active in late August – early
September
• 24 drills laid ~89 groups of egg cases from
July – October and consumed 301 oysters
and 10 mussels
8
Drills – Egg Case Treatments
• Vinegar, hydrated
lime, brine
• 1 min, 5 min, 10 min
immersions
• Held first in an
upweller system at
Freeland Creek and
then in aerated tanks
at Ellerslie
Drills – Egg Case Treatment
• No drills hatched from egg cases
immersed in brine for 5 min
• All other immersions had some drills hatch
(but not necessarily all) including 10 min
brine immersion
• Adult drills survived all treatments
9
Drill Trapping
• There have been trapping trials being
conducted in Foxley River in 2009,
hopefully will continue into the next year.
• Nuisance permit required from DFO
10
3/22/2010
FOULING CONTROL
OPTIONS
Island Oyster Growers Workshop
Slemon Park, PEI
February 26th, 2010
Fouling Organisms
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mussels
Second set
Barnacles
Tunicates
Bryozoans
Hydroids
Sea grapes
1
3/22/2010
Control Options
•
•
•
•
•
Heat (60 °C)
Salt Brine (30%)
Vinegar (5% Acetic Acid)
Lime (4% Calcium hydroxide)
Air Exposure
How to control
bryozoans, hydroids,
sea grapes and
starfish?
2
3/22/2010
Lime Dipping
• Since 2002 dipping collectors in a lime slurry 10 to 14
days after deployment has been common practice for
the PEISA (30 seconds).
– Often a second dip later in the season is done as
well.
• Lime removes fouling (ie. bryozoans, hydroids, sea
grapes) and predators such as star fish allowing the
oyster spat to survive and maximize growth. It is also
an effective treatment for tunicates.
• All growers are encouraged to lime dip their
collectors prior to seed transfer to other areas
How to control
mussel fouling,
barnacles and
second set?
3
3/22/2010
Heat Trials (1999)
• Factors to Consider
–
–
–
–
Temperature
Dip Time
Oyster Size
Drying Time
• As well as…
– Time of year (air temperature)
Heat Trials – Juvenile Oysters
24 Hr Pre-dry
100
Mortality (%)
80
60
40
20
0
5
10
15
20
30
Control
Immersion Time (seconds)
Mussels (24.7 mm)
Oysters (25.3 mm)
4
3/22/2010
Direct Immersion
100
Mortality (%)
80
60
40
20
0
5
10
15
20
30
Control
Mussels (27.4 mm)
Oysters (25.3 mm)
24 Hr Post-dry
100
Mortality (%)
80
60
40
20
0
5
10
15
20
30
Control
Mussels (27.4 mm)
Oysters (25.3 mm)
5
3/22/2010
Heat Trials – Adult Oysters
24 Hr Pre-dry
100
Mortality (%)
80
60
40
20
0
5
10
15
20
30
Control
Mussels (59.3 mm)
Oysters (Large)
Direct Immersion
100
Mortality (%)
80
60
40
20
0
5
10
15
20
30
Control
Mussels (59.3 mm)
Oysters (Large)
6
3/22/2010
24 Hr Post-dry
100
Mortality (%)
80
60
40
20
0
5
10
15
20
30
Control
Mussels (59.3 mm)
Oysters (Large)
Barnacle Control Trial (2009)
• Heavy set of barnacles
on market-sized oysters
in 2009.
• Treatments tried:
–
–
–
–
Heat (multiple exposures)
Brine
Lime
Vinegar
7
3/22/2010
Barnacle Control Trial - Results
Heat Dipping Mechanized
8
3/22/2010
9
3/22/2010
10
3/22/2010
11
3/22/2010
12
3/22/2010
13
3/22/2010
14
3/22/2010
15
3/22/2010
How to control for
tunicates?
16
3/22/2010
Tunicate Treatments
•
•
•
•
Bideford River - Control (untreated)
March Water- Lime immersion
Savage Harbour- Vinegar spray
Montague - Lime immersion
17
3/22/2010
Tunicate Treatments
Sprayer used for vinegar treatment
18
3/22/2010
Results – March Water
There was more fouling on
controls, however no tunicates
set on the collectors
• There was no noticable
difference in size of
oyster spat between
treated and untreated
collectors
• Chinese hat-control
(untreated) average
spat size – 19.3mm
• Chinese hat-lime
treated average spat
size 21.1mm
19
3/22/2010
• Results from 2007 trials demonstrate that lime
immersion is effective in killing the clubbed tunicate
• Similar results were seen with the pipe collectors
20
3/22/2010
Savage Harbour Results
• Control collector (untreated) average size 20.3mm
• Treated collector (vinegar spray) average size 19.4mm
Savage Harbour Results
• Similar results were seen with the pipe collector
21
3/22/2010
Montague River Results
• Collector (hat) – volume of tunicates
– Untreated control 18.9L
• Spat mortality
– Untreated control 24%
• Size of seed
– Untreated control 18.9mm
• Collector (hat) – volume of tunicates
– Untreated control 13.7L
• Spat mortality
– Untreated control 19%
• Size of seed
– Untreated control 18.7mm
22
3/22/2010
Untreated Control
Treated October 7
Recommendations
• Bryozoans, sea
grapes, starfish = 4% lime solution for 1 minute
and hydroids
• Mussels, second = 60°C hot water for 12 seconds
set, and barnacles
• Tunicates
– Clubbed
– Vase
– Colonials
= 4% lime solution for 1 minute
= 4% lime solution for 1 minute
= vinegar spray
23
3/22/2010
Green crabs as predators on oyster aquaculture leases
Tyler Pickering and Pedro Quijon
Department of Biology, University of Prince Edward Island
Oyster Aquaculture Workshop
Slemon Park, PEI
February 26, 2010
The European green crab invasion
•
First confirmed in PEI waters in 1997
– In the Cardigan River System
– Large populations established in eastern PEI
– Ongoing western spread
•
Recently invaded productive harvesting areas
– North, West and Hillsborough River (~2000/2001)
– Bedeque Bay (~2006/2007)
•
As of the winter of 2008, known range extends to:
– Bedeque Bay on the south shore
– New London Bay on the north shore
– Sporadic sightings in other locations
1
3/22/2010
Trapping surveys for green crabs
•
Trapping began in autumn of 2008 and
continued through 2009 season
•
Used baited Fukui and minnow traps
– North River – 3 sites
– Bedeque Bay – 4 sites
•
Each crab was identified, measured,
and sex recorded
Bedeque Bay
North River
Wilmot
Dunk
Fall 2008 Trapping Surveys
North River
Bedeque Bay
0
•
•
0
0
Trapping densities of ~1 crab per trap per day at sites in North River
In Bedeque Bay, crabs only found at one site, with very low densities
2
3/22/2010
Fall 2009 Trapping Surveys
North River
Bedeque Bay
0
•
•
0
0
2009 trapping densities ranging from ~3-6 crabs per trap in North River
In Bedeque Bay, crabs found at all sites, ~1-3 crabs per trap densities
Concern for the oyster industry
•
Known predator of almost all bivalves
– Including clams, mussels, and oysters
– Known to reduce population size of its prey in most areas
•
Their arrival, spread, and establishment may threaten the
sustainability of PEI’s oysters industry
•
To identify potential mitigation strategies,
the size of oysters most vulnerable to green
crab predation must be properly identified
3
3/22/2010
Size vulnerability experiments
•
Four sizes of oysters
– 5-15 mm SL
– 25-35 mm SL
•
- 15-25 mm SL
- 35-50 mm SL
Three sizes of crabs
– Small (35-45 mm CW)
– Medium (45-55 mm CW)
– Large (55-75 mm CW)
•
30 oysters of a single size group with one green crab included in a
floating Vexar oyster bag
– N=10 for each size of crab and each size of oyster
– Lasted for five days and were monitored daily
•
Intact male green crabs, starved 48
to beginning of experiment
hours prior
Size vulnerability to small green crabs
35
•
Preyed most
heavily on small
oysters
•
Had almost no
effect on medium
and large oysters
Cumulative mortality (#)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time (days)
4
3/22/2010
Size vulnerability of medium green crabs
•
Predation was
highest on small
oysters, followed by
medium, the large
oysters
•
Predation was
greatest in the first 3
days
•
Slight predation on
the extra-large
oysters
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time (days)
Size vulnerability to large green crabs
•
All small oysters
consumed after the
first day
•
Predation was
highest on small
oysters, then medium
•
Slight predation on
extra-large oysters
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time (days)
5
3/22/2010
Large crabs
35
30
30
25
25
35
20
15
10
5
0
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
Time (days)
•
•
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time (days)
Initial predation by large green crabs was higher than medium crabs
However, the difference was minimal at the end of the five days
For both sizes, some slight predation on extra-large oysters
Maximum Vulnerable Size
•
Largest identifiable size eaten was 40 mm SL
•
Contrasts previous research that found no
predation on oysters >25 mm SL
35
30
Medium crabs
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time (days)
6
3/22/2010
Implications & Conclusions
• Green crabs are important
predators of American oysters
– Predation rates can be as high as
30 oysters per day
• Oyster mortality is dependent on both oyster
size and crab size
– Crabs over 55 mm CW pose the greatest threat
– Oysters under 15 mm are the most vulnerable
Implications & Conclusions
• Partial size refuge from green crabs at ~35 mm SL
– Oysters up to 40 mm SL are still vulnerable
– Oysters kept in nursery grow out stages until 35-40 mm
should greatly reduce green crab predation
• Ongoing spread of green crabs
along PEI
– Large populations are quickly
becoming established
– Further mitigation needed to ensure
sustainability of oyster industry
7
3/22/2010
Questions?
Acknowledgements:
PEI Shellfish Association
PEI Atlantic Shrimp Corporation Inc.
Aquaculture & Fisheries Research Initiative Inc.
Dr. Jeff Davidson (Shellfish Research Group, AVC)
Erica Watson & Crystal Laroque (DFO-Gulf Division)
Kristen Murray (Biology Department, UPEI)
Dan McNeill (Biology / Shellfish Research Group, AVC)
8
Bird deterrents on floating oyster gear.
L.A. Comeau, P. St-Onge, F. Pernet, and L. Lanteigne
presented by: Rémi Sonier (DFO, Gulf Region)
Oyster Workshop
PEI Aquaculture Alliance
February 26th, 2010 : Summerside, PEI
Partners
Florence Albert
Laurie Robichaud
Marie-Josée Maillet
Marcel Léger
Sylvio Doiron
Denise Méthé
Gilles Olivier
Thomas Sephton
Industry
Léon Lanteigne
Armand King
Paul Savoie
Rhéal Savoie
Fabrice Pernet
Roland Chiasson
Eve-Julie Arsenault
Philippe St.-Onge
Alyre Chiasson (U de M)
Rémi Sonier
Luc Comeau
1
Introduction
• In 2004
– CFIA observed an important presence of birds on floating
structures (Vexar© bags) in St-Simon Bay (northern N.B.)
– High concentrations of faecal coliforms (E.coli) in oyster’s meat
were detected (> 230 MPN colonies / 100 g)
– Closure of the entire area using floating structures
– New rule implemented: Complete immersion of the structures
before marketing the product
• (14 days with tests; 30 days without tests)
– Added labour: retrieve all buoys from floating bags before
marketing the product (additional $$)
• In 2005
Introduction
– First bird study initiated
– Primary goal: which structures commonly used have the most
deterrent affect
– Secondary goal: what modifications can be made to optimize
bird deterrent efficiency
– Rational:
• a) eliminate or reduce the immersion period before
marketing the product
• b) preserve the green and eco-friendly aspect of the industry
2
Study no.1 (2005)
• Assessment of birds colonies ; species and
abundance
– Visual observations (using binoculars from shore or
kayak)
– Total counts of birds (by species) on floatings structures
(ex: # birds / 100 structures)
2005
3
Bird Species
Common Tern
Double-crested
Cormorant
Ringed-billed Gull
Herring Gull
Common Merganser
Black-bellied Plover
Greater blackbacked Gull
White-winged
Scoter
Great Blue Heron
2005
4
2005
the floating gear (number / 100m2)
mean abundance of birds on
70
60
50
IMPORTANT OBSERVATION
40
roosting area (m2)
available
=
# of birds / 100 m2
30
20
10
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2
total roosting area (m )
made available by the floating gear
Comeau. L.A. et al. 2008
5
WARNING !!
This presentation may contain graphic pictures
showing bird droppings
and explicit words such as feces
Floating Vexar© bags
• Accumulates eel grass (« nest-like material »)
• Nice platform to forage for food
6
OysterGroTM cages
• Large landing strip
• More stable then bags
• Great platform to gather food
Study no.2 (2006)
Controlled study
• Caribou Bay
• Neguac Bay
• Richibouctou Bay
(Indian Island)
7
3 types floating bags
a) Standard (S)
74 cm
37 cm
13 cm
floater
bag
b) Modified type 1 (M1)
c) Modified type 2 (M2)
Max # birds / 100 floating bags
Double-crested
Cormorant
BAY
8
OysterGroTM cages
OysterGroTM cages
a) « clotheslines »
Worked relatively well at the
Village Bay site.
Did not work at St. Thomas site
-Important population of
cormorants
-Isolated aquaculture site
9
OysterGroTM cages
OysterGroTM cages
b) Anti Cormo
©
Original
10
Max # birds / 100 floating cages
OysterGro Std.
Anti Cormo©
Species
OysterGroTM cages
c) Anti Cormo© version 2.0
AC structure (147.3 cm X 15.2 cm X 13.2 cm)
Flipped floating cage
(length view)
Flipped floating cage
(width view)
Floating cage buoys
water
AC structures
11
OysterGroTM cages
c) Anti Cormo© version 2.0
per 100 OysterGroTM
Number of birds
500
A) Shédiac Bay
400
AC functional
AC absent
AC inoperative
300
500
200
400
100
300
0
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Sampling Week
B) Bouctouche Bay
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Conclusions
• Modified Vexar® floating bags
– Not practical (flipping) and cost efficient
• OysterGroTM cages with AntiCormo TM version 2.0
– Not 100% practical (hazard…)
– Little manipulation before overwintering
• Future studies ?
– Adaptability by birds (in time)
– Colony behaviour (migration, nesting) vs. shellfish
growers husbandry practices (flipping, grading, sinking)
12
AntiCormo TM revisited
Original
Version 2.0
AntiCormo TM revisited
Photos: Rhéal Savoie, BBI
13
1
Impacts of suspended oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) aquaculture on eelgrass (Zostera
marina)
-Marc Skinner & Dr. Simon Courtenay-
2
Assessing the relative habitat value of
suspended oyster aquaculture to coastal and
estuarine epibenthic fauna
-Marc Skinner & Dr. Simon Courtenay-
3
overview
•
Project history
•
Eelgrass ecology
•
Eelgrass + NB oyster culture
•
•
•
sGSL surveys (2006-2009)
Prelim results 2009 experiment
Moving forward
•
•
Research priorities
2010 season next steps
4
project history
In 2005, Habitat management approached
Aquatic Health Division to look at potential
environmental influences of SBOA on VECs:
1. Benthic infauna (small inverts in sediment)
2. Demersal/epibenthic fauna (fish and large inverts)
3. Macrophytes (seagrass/algae = fish habitat)
Goal - establish environmental monitoring
programme to validate inclusion of SBOA in
Replacement Class Screening.
5
project history
Zostera marina (eelgrass) decline:
Hypothesized decline of Z. marina in areas of SBOA leases
Prop scars
Missing
eelgrass
~60 m
L. Comeau
6
eelgrass ecology
Seagrass communities are vital to the ecological
structure, function, and productivity of many coastal
marine ecosystems
Structural complexity provides:
• growth/predation refuge
• prey capture opportunities
• sedimentation of suspended
particles
• increased nutrient cycling
• sediment stabilization by decreasing water
velocities
• critical nursery habitat for many
commercial species
Eelgrass declared Ecologically Significant Species
(ESS) in eastern Canada (DFO 2009)
Photos – © Cornell Cooperative Extension Marine Program / www.SeagrassLI.org
7
environmental monitoring
Need very clear goals:
1. Effect - is there a change?
2. Extent - how large is it?
3. Frequency - how common is it?
4. Mechanism - what is the cause?
5. Onset - when does it begin?
6. Duration - how long does it last?
7. Remediation - is it reversible?
8. SOLUTION - can it be managed?
8
methods – 2006 Zostera – effect & extent
Samples taken @ one lease in each of
three sGSL waterbodies in August ’06
BSS
Newfoundland
TAB
RICH
New
Brunswick
N
N
otia
a Sc
Nov
0
150
k ilo m e te r s
300
9
500m
100m
25m
Shore
1 oyster line = 50 m
•
Lowest biomass, shoot density, canopy height found at
SBOA leases
•
No significant difference within leases
10
results – 2007 Zostera - effect & extent
Mean Shoot Density (shoots.m-2)
160
140
120
100
b
a
80
60
40
20
0
Lease
300m
1000
b
800
600
400
a
200
0
Lease
Treatment
Mean Canopy Height per Site (cm)
Mean Above-ground Biomass (g DW m-2)
•9 Leases and 9 reference sites (300 m) sampled in BSS - August 2007
300m
Treatment
100
80
60
a
a
40
20
0
Lease
300m
Treatment
n = 9; + 95% CI; α=0.05
11
results – Z. marina leaf growth 2007
•
•
Leases and reference sites (300 m) sampled in 4 bays (n=2 /
bay) over 125 km distance in July 2007.
Overall, mean leaf growth 21.7% lower @ LEASE vs REF across
all bays (range +28 to -41%)
Z. marina Leaf Growth (mg shoot-1 day -1)
n = 2; 95% CI; α=0.05
14
Lease
300m
12
10
*
8
*
*
*
Gaekle & Short (2001)
6
4
2
0
BSN
BSS
NEG
RICH
Bay
results – Z. marina above-ground biomass 2007
• 57.7% lower biomass @ LEASE
Z. marina Biomass (g DW m-2+ SE)
– with no effect of bay or interaction
100
80
60
40
20
0
Lease
300m
Treatment
12
13
2009 Z. marina manipulative experiment
Observed local reductions may not be due solely to
physical disturbance of benthos
•
•
Light penetration (SHADE),
Nutrients, organic matter (OYSTER DENSITY)
DFO Habitat & NB oyster growers very interested in this
research
– Partnered with L'Etang Bar Ruisseau Ltee (A. Mallet)
– Provided
» exclusive access to previously uncultured lease
» all lines, bags, anchors, oysters
» use of lab, hatchery, boats, field equipment
» field assistance
14
Field experiment in BSS from July-October 2009
– samples collected 1, 18, 38, 52, 67, 93 d post-exposure
C3
P1 S3O22
P2 S1O31
P3 S2O13
EMPTY
P6 S2O23
P7
P9 S3O33
P10 S3O11
P11 S1O23
P4 S2O11
L1
Shading
S1=60% SSI
SSI=subsurface
irradiance
Oyster Density
O2=3.2
O3=6.4 kg.m-2
n=3 per TMT
S2O31
P12 S1O13
L3
P13 S1O11
P14 S1O22
P15 S2O22
P16 S2O12
P17 S3O13
P18 S2O21
P19 S3O23
P20 S1O21
P21 S1O33
P22 S2O33
P23 S1O12
P24 S3O31
P25 S2O32
P26 S3O12
P27 S1O32
L4
L5
O1=dead shells
kg.m-2
P8
L2
S2=28.5% SSI
S3=19.7% SSI
S3O21
L6
L7
P28
S3O32
1.8 m
1.4 m
50 m
C2
C1
15
SHOOT DENSITY (shoots-1.m-2 + SE)
1000
*
800
*
•Clear SHADE effect
600
•First seen @ 67d
400
200
CONTROL
S1
S2
S3
0
1
18
38
52
67
93
Days Post Exposure
16
PPFD (μ
μmol quanta m-2 s-1 + SE )
160
140
120
a
100
80
60
ab
ab
40
abc
20
bc
bc
c
c
c
c
0
Cont S1O1 S1O2 S1O3 S2O1 S2O2 S2O3 S3O1 S3O2 S3O3
rETR(μ
μmol electrons m-2 s-1+ SE)
Treatment
Thom et al. (2008)
20
S202 rTER 81.5% lower than CONTROL
18
16
a
14
12
10
8
Z. marina minimum mid-day light
requirement
ab
ab
6
4
bc
bc
bc
2
c
c
c
c
0
Cont S1O1 S1O2 S1O3 S2O1 S2O2 S2O3 S3O1 S3O2 S3O3
Treatment
17
environmental monitoring
1.
Effect - is there a change?
2.
3.
Extent - how large is it?
Frequency - how common is
it?
Mechanism - what is the
cause?
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Onset - when does it begin?
Duration - how long does it
last?
Remediation - is it
reversible?
SOLUTION - can it be
managed?
2010 ACRDP proposal +
2010 Physical Exp
2010 Z. marina recovery ACRDP proposal
18
Aim – examine recovery of eelgrass @ SBOA in the
sGSL
–
goal to develop BMPs for minimizing impacts on
benthic habitat.
1. fine scale (spatial + temporal) recovery of eelgrass
– continuation of 2009 shading x oyster stocking
density experiment
2. determine the influence of bottom table culture on
eelgrass as well as examine recovery rates under
various fallowing plans
– single 8 mos exposure
– cumulative 8 mos exposure
http://www.aquaculturepei.com/org
anization/oysters.cfm#
19
synthesis
1. Generalized trend in decrease of eelgrass
– biomass (60%), & leaf growth rate (22%),
photosynthesis (85%) @ sGSL SBOA sites
2. Reductions are localized but quick
3. Shading plays important role
– need to finalize Oyster density (sulfide, OM)
– contribution of physical effects? Tricky TBD
4. Recovery process next step
– if quick, do effects matter
– if not, can we manage it? BMPs
20
acknowledgements
Simon Courtenay
PhD Supervisory Committee
Andre Mallet
Claire Carver
Sarah Khan
Celine Godin
Brad Firth
Robert Dupuis
Gisele Richard
Lynne Post
Doris Daigle
Fred Page
Gilles Miron
Gerhard Pohle
Bob Clarke
Roger Newell
Jeff Barrell
Lin Liu
Patrick Nussey
Chris McKindsey
Philippe Archambault
Olivier D’Amours
Lise Ouellette
Peter Cranford
Wayne Fairchild
Mark Hanson
Hélène Dupuis
Toby Balch
Mark TeKamp
Sylvio Doiron
Peter Strain
Peter Jarvis
Monica Boudreau
Marie-Helene Theriault
Daniel Bourque
Roy Parker
Marcia Chiasson
Bill Tibble
Becky TIbble
Alex Levi
Sophie Bastien-Daigle
Andrew Boghen
Yrois Robichaud
Lisa Robichaud
Paul Robichaud
Denise Méthé
Guy Robichaud
Marc Ouellette
Luc Comeau
Matthew Hardy
Thomas Landry
Gilles Olivier
Jon Grant
Myriam Barbeau
John Kershaw
Jason Hallett
Noel Swain
Jordan Musetta-Lambert
Dave Hryn
3/22/2010
PEI Off-Bottom Oyster Industry
Opportunities, Barriers and Developments
Mike Rose
Presentation Plan
1. Brief Company Overview
2. Why Standards?
3. What is a Standard?
4. Types of Standards
5. What is Certification?
6. Q & A
1
3/22/2010
Company Overview
• Formed and Registered in 1998 in Ireland. Private Company
• Recognized Experts in standards and certification and a
willingness to develop customized solutions
• Based in Ireland, operating globally, growing NA interests
• Previously known as IFQC (Name Change June 2009)
• Represents Internationalization of the Company
• Same Ownership and Management
Global Project Experience
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ireland
UK
USA
Canada
China
Chile
Peru
France
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Denmark
Iceland
Vietnam
Thailand
Indonesia
South Africa
Faro Islands
Norway
•
•
•
•
•
•
India
New Zealand
Australia
Austria
Colombia
Equador
4
2
3/22/2010
STANDARDS PROVISIONS
• GLOBAL GAP • WWF
• GAA**
• ISO 9000
• CQS /CQM** • ISO 14000
• MSC
• ISO 16000
• Label Rouge
• IFFO RS**
• FAO Codes
• Carbon Trust
• BRC / IFS
**Exclusive Service Providers
5
Aquaculture Services
• Quality – Certified Quality Standards (Ire, UK, Canada, Holland, USA)
• Superior Quality Guarantee – Label Rouge (France)
• Organic – Ireland / UK
• Eco-Label – Ireland / UK / Canada / USA
• GAA BAP Standards – Global
• Global GAP – Global
• IFFO – Responsible Feed Supply - Global
• Chain Of Custody / Traceability – Various
3
3/22/2010
Fishery Services
• Sustainability – Marine Stewardship Council
• Responsible Fisheries Management – Iceland, (TBA Alaska)
• FAO Code Benchmarking – Various
• Responsible Fishing – Ireland
• Responsible Sourcing – IFFO Global Responsible Supply Standard
• Chain Of Custody – Various
Seafood Processing Services
• Quality– Certified Quality Standards (Ire, UK, Canada. Holland)
• Organic– Ireland / UK
• Eco-Label - Ireland / UK / Canada / USA
• GAA – BAP Seafood Processing Standard
• BRC Global Food Safety Standard – Global
• Chain Of Custody / Traceability – Various
4
3/22/2010
SEAFOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS
OPERATED BY GLOBAL TRUST
Seafood Trust Eco-Label (Salmon)
Ireland
Canada
BIM Seafood Stewardship
Ireland
Irish Quality Wild Seafood Program
Ireland
Seafood Trust Eco-Label (Mussels)
Ireland
Certified Quality Wild Seafood Program
Ireland
Certified Quality Salmon Programme
Ireland
United Kingdom
Canada
Seafish Responsible Fishing Standard
Ireland
UK
Marine Stewardship Council - Fishery Management Standard
International
Marine Stewardship Council –Chain of Custody Standard
International
ISO22005 Traceability Standard
International
BRC Global Standard –Food Standard
International
BRC Global Standard –Packaging Standard
International
Label Rouge Salmon Programme
Ireland
France
Certified Quality Trout Programme
Ireland
United Kingdom
Certified Quality Mussel Programme
Ireland
United Kingdom
Holland
Certified Quality Oyster Programme
Ireland
France
Global Trust is Market Focused
Visible
Measurable
Insurable
Valuable
Marketable
Our specialties are
Business-to-Business and
Consumer-Facing services.
We attest that expectations/promises
are being met by qualified producers.
5
3/22/2010
Company Accreditation
Integrity
Why Standards?
6
3/22/2010
Why Standards?
• If people and systems were
PERFECT,
• And there was total TRUST,
• Standards & Certification would
NOT be necessary.
Standard and Certification
“Drivers”
Food Safety and Sustainability
7
3/22/2010
Food Safety and Sustainability
Megatrend …
a general shift in thinking or approach
affecting countries, industries, and
organizations.
John Naisbitt, “Megatrends” (1982)
Standard Drivers
Mixed Global Megatrends
Food Safety
Demographics /
Lifestyle,
e.g., LOHAS
Seafood
depletion
8
3/22/2010
Food Safety
Late 1980s
- Food Scares
1990
- Major Food Safety / Labeling
Legislation
Early 1990‟S
- ISO 9000 Certification becomes
popular
Mid 1990‟s
- Product Standard and Certification
programs emerge
World of Seafood Sustainability
Megatrend Synopsis for Seafood
1992 Collapse of Northern Cod stock . Cod fishery
closed in Newfoundland.
1995 FAO introduces Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries.
1997 Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) formed by
Unilever and World Wildlife Federation (WWF),
partly as a reaction to the loss of the Northern
cod fishery.
9
3/22/2010
Unmistakable Megatrends …
Safe, sustainable seafood
Environmental impacts of fishing and aquaculture
Fundamental change in the way we do business
toward …
objective demonstration of sustainable practices
• Growing recognition of Seafood Sustainability
• Growing number of “players”
• Standards Setters
• Increasing ENGO scrutiny and activity
10
3/22/2010
Seafood Standards and Certification Bodies
Equivalence
•
•
•
•
•
•
Standards Setters
•
GFSI
EU Retailers •
•
FAO
•
IAF/EAF
•
ISO
EU Reg (Org) •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Certification Bodies Accreditation Bodies
BRC
•
IFS
•
MSC
•
SQF
•
Dutch HACCP
•
GAA
•
IFOAM
•
FOTS
GlobalGAP
WWF Dialogues
IFFO
Private, e.g., Whole
Moody
SGS
IFQC
NSF
SAI
ACC
SCS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
UKAS
COFRAC
INAB
ANSI
JAS-ANZ
SCC
UKOFS
Foods / M&S / Wal-mart / Costco
Year 2000 onwards
Multitude of Product Standards
encompassing:
Food Safety
Quality
Environmental
Sustainability
Health and Safety
Organic
Ethical
Highlighting
Specific
Preferences
11
3/22/2010
Standards in Aquaculture
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GlobalGAP
Certified Quality Oyster (CQO) standards
Friend of the Sea
Organic Standards
ISO 14000
Safe Quality Food (SQF)
BRC Global Food Standard
Emerging
• WWF Standards
• Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA BAP)
What is a Standard?
12
3/22/2010
A Standard is …..
• A requirement that is determined by a
consensus of opinion of users
• Prescribes the accepted and
(theoretically) the „best‟ criteria for a
product, process, test, or procedure
Why Standards?
Very Common Human Usage
•
•
•
•
•
•
The inch is a standard of measurement.
Money is a standard of exchange.
Words are standards of communication.
Octane numbers of gasoline are quality standards.
"No more than 1% shrinkage" - performance standard.
Traffic lights are safety standards.
13
3/22/2010
Why Standards?
Oyster Usage
• Length of an oyster is a standard.
• Number of oysters per cage could be a standard.
• CFIA offers many types of standards (Regulatory).
• Shell shape and condition offer quality standards.
• Grow-out & harvesting techniques and practices.
General grow-out conditions could provide standards
related to “Provenance”,
e.g., PEI Off-bottom Oysters
Standards Construction
• Principles and Objectives
• Protocols and Criteria
• Indicators of performance
• Minimum Standards (the bar) for indicators
• Measurement criteria
14
3/22/2010
Shellfish Examples
• Principle „deliver a safe product to the consumer‟
• Criteria „Products shall not contain levels of natural
contaminants that are harmful to human health‟
• Indicator - natural toxin levels
• Assessment Protocol- Every harvest batch?, Every
week?, according to Regulation (CFIA)
• To What Standard/method- testing by an approved
laboratory
• Approval - accredited method and/or government
appointed reference laboratory and method..
Benefits of Standards
Establishes consistent practices
Promotes product safety
Identification of responsible
industry members and products
Addresses ENGO and consumer FEARS
15
3/22/2010
Standards
“A business tool to build TRUST and address FEARS”
Communication Vehicle
Unique Selling Points (USPs)
for the PEI Seafood (Oyster) Story
Customers, consumers, interest groups, ENGOs,
Governments
Communication of product value attributes to the Market
CQS Eco Standard (bivalves)
A communication vehicle
For Grower - Sustainable Farming
For Retailers - Responsibly Sourced
Key Communication Points
A commitment to protecting the environment
• A commitment to low impact oyster farming
Further reduction of environmental impact (where possible)
• Respect for surrounding biodiversity / habitats
• Respect for local communities / heritage
•
•
16
3/22/2010
Standards
“A business tool for long term success”
Develop industry efficiencies
Consistent practices
Industry benchmarking
Promotes long-term supply chain
relationships
Due Diligence: an insurance policy
Supports industry marketing programs
PEI Oyster Aquaculture
Standards and Certification Help
Build Industry Confidence and
Market Bridges
INDUSTRY
PRACTICES
IMAGE and TRUST
GAPS
CUSTOMER /
CONSUMER
17
3/22/2010
Types of Standards
Types of Standards
Standards Vary in Emphasis
Depends what “FEARS” are highlighted
Depends Who Owns and Develops the
Standard
Depends upon market intentions
Reactive (insurance) and / or Proactive
(branding)
18
3/22/2010
Types of Standards
Quality
Food safety/traceability
•
• Certified Quality Oyster Programme
• BRC Standards (Processing and Packaging)
Scottish Code of Good Practice - Scottish Quality Salmon
• Label Rouge
• GlobalGAP
• SQF
• Company purchasing standards
“Is my food Good and Safe?”
Types of Standards
Quality
Food safety/traceability
Provenance
•
Inherent TRUST Quality often attributed to „unique origin
of product‟.
• Product of Origin / traceability claims
• Europe / US has some specific legislation that can give
geographic protection to a name of a product
• PEI Mussels, PEI Oysters, PEI Lobster
“Is my food source dependable?”
19
3/22/2010
Types of Standards
Organic Standards
• Irish Organic Shellfish
• Certified Quality Organic Standards
• Naturland Standards for Organic Aquaculture
(Shellfish)
• KRAV (Norway / Sweden)
• WholeFoods (Salmon Standard)
“Is the food I buy „natural‟, better tasting, i.e., is it „organic‟?”
Types of Standards
ECO Standards Focus
• Commitment to protecting the local environment
• Commitment to low impact fishing methods
• Further wider reduction of environmental impact
• Respect for biodiversity
• Sustainability of associated food chains and habitats.
• WWF Bivalve Standard
“Is the food I buy hurting the species, threatening
other species, and is it eco-friendly?”
20
3/22/2010
Types of Standards
Emerging Social Licence Standards
• Fair Trade Labels
• Global Reporting Index (GRI)
• Social Accountability Standards
• WWF Dialogues (components)
• CSQ-Eco Standard (components)
• ISO 2600 (Guidance standard - Social Responsibility
- to be published in 2010)
“Is the food I buy hurting indigenous people
or local populations?
Types of Standards
Emerging Animal Welfare Standards
RSPCA - Freedom Food
Gaining recognition with UK Retailers (Sainsburys)
Focus on handling practices
Freedom from (Thirst, Pain, Distress, Abnormal
conditions, etc)
• Many other standards include Fish Health and
Welfare requirements
•
•
•
•
“Is the food I buy hurting animals?
21
3/22/2010
What is Certification?
What is Certification?
Certification is the process which allows you
to PROVE that you are meeting standards
That‟s how you earn TRUST.
That‟s how consumer FEARS are addressed.
Its Your Proof!!
22
3/22/2010
Certification
Consumer
Buyer
IS THAT FOOD SAFE?
WHO SAYS SO ?!
CAN I TRUST IT?
WHERE DID IT COME
FROM?
IS IT GOOD VALUE?
Who is telling me and why should I trust them?
“ISO 65” is Important
Demands Verification and Transparency
23
3/22/2010
What is ISO 65?
International Standard for bodies offering
“Certification”
Certification Audits
•
•
•
•
•
Audit is a key concept in Certification
Audit is the key tool for measuring compliance
Auditors seek objective evidence
Not intended to „catch out‟ the applicant
Positive experience to demonstrate compliance
24
3/22/2010
Audit Independence
Self Proclamation is unsubstantiated
Unaccredited Third Party Certification lacks
substantiated consistency and competency
Accredited Third Party Certification depends on the
terms of accreditation
Internationally Recognized and Formalized
Accreditation is Ideal (ISO 65 Standards)
May 2000
Global Food Safety Initiative
[Global Retailers Choose ISO 65 Programs]
For Recognized Standards
Auditing & Certification
must be
ISO 65.
25
3/22/2010
Be Flexible
Know your options
(as company and industry)
Monitor, understand existing and emerging
global trends/standards
New “Fears / Drivers” will emerge,
choose flexible options for maintaining
BRAND TRUST
Thank you very much.
www.GTCERT.com
26
Appendix D
Session 2: Regulatory Barriers Presentations
DFO Oyster
Surveillance in the
Maritimes
Mary F. Stephenson
Prepared for
Oyster Workshop, Summerside, PEI
Feb. 26, 2010
1. Histological detection of MSX in
Crassostrea virginica
1
DFO Active Surveillance
Shellfish Disease
• Histopathology & PCR screening
– MSX
• Histopathology
– OIE listed diseases
• Dermo
– Diseases of Regional Concern;
• Malpeque Disease, SSO
– Emerging Issues
DFO’s Passive Surveillance
• Grower reports
–
–
–
–
Poor growth
short shelf life
watery tissues
shell deformity
• Mortality
investigations
2
2002 MSX Survey
Magdelan
Islands
New Brunswick
Prince Edward
Island
Cape Breton
Nova Scotia
Phases I & II
Science Advice:
Zonation for Introduction & Transfers of Oysters
MSX Positive
SSO Positive
Buffer
•No transfers out of Bras d’Or Lakes for resoaking
•Within Bras d’Or Lakes – Case by case basis
3
MSX controls
• Conditions of license
• Oyster Harvest Protocols
– Harvester
– Processor
• Introduction & Transfer Committees
2005
Commercial
Oyster Fishery
Zones
4
Detection of MSX in the Bras d’Or Lakes
2002-2008 DFO data
05
05
05
02
02
02
05
02
06
05
05
03
05
02
02
03
02
03
08
07 03 03
06
06
05
06
02
0407
06
05
03
MSX not detected
05
02
MSX +, PCR only
05
MSX +, PCR & Histo
Detection of MSX in
Cape Breton
03
03
06
06
02
04
05
07
03
05
02
02
MSX not detected
MSX +, PCR only
MSX +, PCR & Histo
5
DFO 2009 Sampling Sites
Mill River
NB
Badeque
PEI
St. Peter’s Bay
Basin Head
Colville Bay
Bideford
West River
Tatamagouche.
Malagash.
Grand Etang.
Boughton R.
Pictou Hbr.
Long Pond.
NS
Oyster
Other species
MSX Management Zones:
MSX Positive
Increased surveillance
Area of Increased Surveillance
• Why?
– Historic Activities
– Oceanographic proximity
– Change in activities
– Risk of Introduction
• 2010 surveillance
6
If you see
• Unusual mortalities
• Abnormal appearance
Please contact us…
• M. Stephenson, DFO Moncton
• DFO Charlottetown
• Provincial Biologists
7
3/22/2010
MSX Distribution and
Mortality Study
Roland Cusack, Andrew Bagnall,Carl Huntington,
Grant Spearman
February 26, 2010
Contents
• Distribution of MSX in Nova Scotian Oyster
Sites
• Study of MSX associated mortalities
• Discussion of management
1
3/22/2010
Distribution of MSX
2
3/22/2010
MSX Distribution
Mortality Associated with MSX
•
•
•
•
•
Procedures
Select MSX positive/negative sites
Four 10mX10m Grids at sites
Count of live and “dead” oysters within grid
Collect every 10th live oyster (10%) to
determine presence or absence of MSX by
histopathology
Collection at 77 day interval
3
3/22/2010
MSX Positive Site
Nyanza Bay
MSX Negative Site
“Control”
Chapel Island
4
3/22/2010
Live versus Dead Oyster Ratio
MSX Positive Sites**
%Q1Live= 409÷1196= 34.2%
%Q1Dead= 787÷1196= 65.8%
%Q2Live= 683÷1201= 56.8%
%Q2Dead= 518÷1201= 43.2%
%Q3Live= 294÷882= 33.3%
%Q3Dead= 588÷882= 66.7.8%
%Q4Live= 228÷748= 30.5%
%Q4Dead= 520÷748= 69.5%
%TotalLive= 1614÷4027= 40.1%
%TotalDead= 2413÷4027= 59.9%
** Prevalence of MSX infection= 47% (N=160)
5
3/22/2010
Live versus Dead Oyster Ratio
Control Sites**
%Q1Live= 96÷726= 13.2%
%Q1Dead= 630÷726= 86.8%
%Q2Live= 66÷451= 14.6%
%Q2Dead= 385÷451= 85.4%
%Q3Live= 105÷873= 12.0%
%Q3Dead= 768÷873= 88.0%
%Q4Live= 9÷15= 60.0%
%Q4Dead= 6÷15= 40.0%
%TotalLive= 276÷2065= 13.4%
%TotalDead= 1789÷2065= 86.6%
Prevalence of infection= 0% (n=30)
Rate of Mortality
MSX
Sites
% Live August
% Live October
Q1
34.2
22.4
Q2
56.8
15.6
Q3
33.3
16.1
Q4
30.5
20.3
Total
40.1
22.3
% Mortality = 44.4% in 77 days
Infection Prevalence 45.8% to38.5%
6
3/22/2010
Discussion on Management
• Aquaculture site in St Ann’s oyster removed
no new infections yet IDed in wild oyster
populations
• No movements permitted to outside the Lake
• First Nations halted fishing in the Lake
• Processing plants for Bras d’Or oysters with
effluent control
• Trials to accelerate oyster growth rate
Discussion on Management
• First Nation hatchery for building tolerance
no longer operating
• CBU studying environmental affects on
MSX development
• Movement controls through I and T process
7
Wastewater Treatment
Morley Foy, P.Eng. – Approvals & Compliance
Environment, Energy and Forestry
February 26, 2010
Topics Covered

Wastewater –

“What is it? Where does it come from?”

On-site Sewage Disposal Systems (Septic Systems)

Central Wastewater – Collection, Treatment & Disposal

Operators

Some reasons why Wastewater Discharges occur

Reporting -
Pressure to ensure Wastewater Discharge reporting is done
1
Residential Sewage
Water is used in several areas of the home:
the kitchen, the bathroom and the laundry room
Each resident of a dwelling may generate 70-75 gallons
of wastewater per day. Up to 70 % can be used in the bathroom.
Commercial & Industrial
Sewage
The amount of flow and strength of the
wastewater can vary pending type of
industry and/or commercial development
2
Wastewater Treatment
On-site Wastewater Treatment
Conventional Leaching Chamber
Conventional Pipe and Gravel
Disposal Field
Septic Tank
Sewage Disposal
Systems Regulations
3
Central Wastewater Systems
Conventional Sewer Collection & Wastewater Treatment
Alternative Sewer Collection & Alternative Treatment
Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Systems
Collection, Pumping Stations, and Wastewater Systems
•
•
•
•
•
Engineer designs the system meeting the Atlantic Canada Guidelines Manual
Certificate of Approval (COA)
Engineer oversees the construction with the contractor building the system
Engineer develops Record Drawings
Utility Operates with Certified Operator
4
Central Wastewater Collection
Construction of Central Collection
(Conventional)



Typically, 8 to 12 inch PVC pipe
Manholes placed 100 to 120 meters apart
Collection carries effluent to wastewater treatment plant.
5
Pumping Stations
Small Lift Station

Larger Lift Station
Pumping Stations often required to
pump wastewater from low spot to
wastewater treatment plant.
Conventional Treatment
Lagoon
Wetland
Aerated Lagoon
Rotating Biological Contactor
Extended Aeration
6
Larger Treatment Facilities
Charlottetown
Summerside
The Liquid Treatment Process
1. Grit Removal
2. Bar Screen
3. Primary Clarifier
4. Bioreactor
5. Secondary Clarifier
6. Ultraviolet
7
Disposal & Outfall
Typical Size of Wastewater Treatment Plants
Charlottetown WWTP
Summerside WWTP
26,000 m3/day
11,675 m3/day
(5.7 Million Imperial Gallons per Day)
(2.6 Million Imperial Gallons per day)
Montague WWTP
St Peter’s WWTP
1,135 m3/day
213 m3/day
250,000 Imperial Gallons per Day)
(46,500 Imperial Gallons per Day)
8
Final Treated Liquid
Raw Wastewater
Treated Wastewater
9
Why are we treating Wastewater?
St Peter’s Bay Fishery
Why treat wastewater?
10
Reason to treat wastewater
Operator Certification
11
“There is no question that
competent water
operators are an essential
element of a safe drinking
water system.”
Justice O’Connor
Just as we would not comprehend the use of an unskilled
mechanic to service a multi-million dollar passenger jet in the
interest of public safety, we should not entrust the safety and
integrity of our drinking water and wastewater systems to
unskilled or inadequately trained operator…
Operator Certification Model
Class 4
Education
Training
Class 3
Experience
Class 2
Knowledge
Class 1
12

Canada-wide Strategy for the
Management of Municipal
Wastewater Effluent
Outcomes
•
Protection of the Environment and Human Health
•
One Window approach to regulation
Tools
•
National Performance Standard
•
Complete Environment Risk Assessment (ERA) on all facilities
•
Based on ERA’s, Develop Environmental Discharge Objectives EDO’s
Wastewater Discharge Reporting
Why Discharges happen?
•
Power Outage
•
Storm Events
•
Mechanical Failure
•
Operator Error
•
Biological Failure
•
Other
13
Why Planned Discharges happen?
•
to complete work on system
•
Planned Power Outages
•
Mechanical Repairs
Responsibility to Report
Discharges
Owner & Operator
14
January 30, 2008
Canadian Shellfish Sanitation
Program
PEI Oyster Aquaculture Industry
Summerside, PEI
February 26, 2010
The Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program
• The objective of the CSSP is:
• To provide reasonable assurance that molluscan shellfish are
safe for consumption, thus supporting the industry and
providing confidence for Canadians and export markets
• Three federal government agencies work together to
deliver program:
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
• Environment Canada (EC)
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
Page 2
1
January 30, 2008
Program Highlights
• Changes to the Program
• Foreign Audits
• USFDA 2004 and 2009
• EU 2003 and 2009
• Viruses in Shellfish
• Recent studies
• Emergency Closures
Page 3
Recent CSSP Program Changes
1. Requirement for human waste containment
devices on harvesting vessels
2. Water quality monitoring frequency
3. Controls for managing the harvest of
shellfish adjacent to waste water treatment
plants
4. New Floating Bag Harvesting Requirements
Page 4
2
January 30, 2008
1. Shellfish Harvesting and Handling
• Enhanced controls to prevent overboard
discharge
▪ Canada already prohibits the overboard
discharge of human waste
▪ Program enhancements in 2008 now require
on-board human waste containment on
shellfish harvesting vessels
 applies to vessels where timely access to onshore
facilities is not possible.
Page 5
2. Water Quality Monitoring Frequency
• Sampling was 5 times every 3 years – will move to 5
times every year.
• Program enhancements started in 2007, will
increase Canada’s water quality monitoring
frequency.
• Full implementation within 4 years.
• PEI already met water quality monitoring frequency
because of partnership agreement between EC and
PEI DEEF.
Page 6
3
January 30, 2008
3. Shellfish Harvesting in Areas Near WWTP
Management utilizing a combination of;
▪ Collaboration with provinces to strengthen
WWTP safety performance
 enhanced reporting of WWTP/collection system
bypasses
▪
▪
▪
▪
Revised classification;
Conditional Management Plans
Enhanced processor HACCP controls
Education initiatives to improve awareness
Page 7
3. Classification
• Former Categories
•
•
• Closed (included prohibited)
• Approved
• Conditionally Approved
New Categories
• Prohibited
• Conditionally Restricted
• Restricted
• Conditionally Approved
• Approved
Status of Harvest Areas (independent of classification)
• Open or Closed
Page 8
4
January 30, 2008
3. Summerside – Old Classification
Page 9
3. Summerside – New Classification
Page 10
5
January 30, 2008
3. Classification
Top priority sites have been identified
▪ For 2008/09
 5 sites in Atlantic Canada have been
reclassified
 PEI - Summerside
▪ For 2009/10
 8 sites to be assessed this year
 PEI – North Rustico – no change
▪ For 2010-12
 Charlottetown Area, Montague, Brudenell,
Georgetown
Page 11
4. Floating Bag Harvesting Requirements
• Amendment to CSSP chapter 12
• Requires aquaculturalists to be aware that new
•
•
technology/techniques may be a source of contamination (i.e.
floating bags may attract birds)
Must develop a harvesting plan if grown to market size in
floating bags or work with registered shellfish processors under
an SQA
ARISC requires harvesting plans be submitted which will require
testing, submersion, or relay
Page 12
6
January 30, 2008
Foreign Audits
• USFDA - 2004 and 2009
• 2009 Audit was focused on enhancements to the program since
2004
•
• Draft report has been received
EU - 2003 and 2009
• Objective was to verify if the CSSP is equivalent to relevant
•
•
European Community provisions
Some focus on enhancements since 2003 audit
Draft report has been received
Page 13
Viruses In Shellfish
• Concern with viral contamination in shellfish is increasing
worldwide
• Norovirus
• Hepatitus A
• 2008 - Health Canada - Health Risk Assessment : Enteric Virus (Norovirus
and Hepatitis A Virus) Contamination of Bivalve Molluscan Shellfish
• Viral risk is low, however data is lacking
• 2008 – CFIA conducted 2 studies
• NB, PEI, BC
▪ Main purposes was to validate the lab methodology – additional data
gathered with respect to viruses in wastewater and shellfish in prohibited
zones
• 2009 – More extensive done in NB, NS and PEI
• Looking at virus and bacteria levels in wastewater, in shellfish growing
area water, and in shellfish at different distances from WWTP effluent
pipes
Page 14
7
January 30, 2008
Viruses
Page 15
Emergency Closures
• Procedure for closures defined in appendix VIII of the
CSSP
• Covers spills of deleterious substances (i.e. WWTP spills, oil
spills, hurricanes, etc.)
•
•
• Was originally intended to cover all emergencies
CSSP partners recognize that the policy needs to be
clarified and communicated effectively to stakeholders
Communication tools are currently being drafted and
provinces/industry associations will be involved
Page 16
8
AQUACULTURE ACTIVITIES
and COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH
INTERACTIONS
Presented to:
IOGG Workshop
February 25, 2010
Presentation Overview
• Bottom Lease Marking
Policy
• Cocktail Oyster License
• Oyster Maintenance
Permits
• Lease to Lease Transfer
Permit
• Introductions & Transfers
Permit
• Summer Marketing
License
• Replanting License
2
1
Bottom Lease Marking
• PEI Bottom
Marking Policy
• Buoy Size/Colour
• Buoy Identification
• Anchoring System
3
Bottom Lease Marking
• Lease contact
– Clause III – Period of
compliance
• May 1 – November 30
inclusive (ice
permitting)
• Cancellation of lease
contract
• Plan for Spring 2010
4
2
Cocktail Oyster License
Mechanism to allow aquaculturists to harvest and market
cocktail oysters from selected shellfish leases under
variation orders issued by DFO
• Application Process- Complete
Application to “Harvest & Market
Cocktail Oysters” and submit to
Kim Hill, Resource Manager
responsible for Oyster IFMP.
5
Cocktail Oyster License
• Eligibility Requirements
– Only aquaculturists NOT holding commercial oyster licenses are
eligible. ( Spat collection is exempted). Applies to any helper
engaged as well.
– Application reviewed by DFO- RM,C&P, Aquaculture, & CFIA.
– Variation Order requested to amend Sec 58, MPFRs, allowing
the catching & retention of oyster greater than 1mm in length
from Jan 1-Dec 30th.
– Non-compliance with any part of terms & conditions will result
in revoking of Variation Order and all activity reverts to normal
regulated activity. (i.e. the shipping, processing, handling, or
movement of ALL product related to this lease)
– Currently 8 files are open.
6
3
Oyster Maintenance License
Allows for routine maintenance activities to be
carried out by an aquaculturist while ensuring
appropriate control measures are in place
– Maintenance Activities typically include the „culling and
grading‟ of product, large and small, from a lease to a shore
facility and back to the original lease.
– Sec 29, Maritime Provinces Fishery Regulations apply as:
“Notwithstanding any close time or size limit set out in these
Regulations, a person may, under the authority of a license, fish for
shellfish for the purposes of relocating then to improve their growth,
condition or accessibility”
7
Oyster Maintenance Licenses
• Application Process/Eligibility
– Specific “Proposed Oyster Maintenance Activities Off Lease”
form to be completed & submitted to Kim Hill, RM-Ch‟town.
– Eligibility assessed by RM, C&P, & Aquaculture Leasing for
history, compliance, lease reports, marking and fees.
– Operational plan assessed to consider period of activity, type
of activity, places & people involved, means of transport, etc.
• Control Measures
– No simultaneous Activity in commercial fishery on same day.
– Advance notice of weekly activity to Kim Hill.
– No „mixing‟ of product. (i.e. have product from open & closed
lease at the same time)
– Product MUST BE returned to the lease, not to a market
entity.
8
4
Lease to Lease Transfer
Mechanism to allow aquaculturists to fish for
shellfish for the purpose of relocating them.
• Application/Eligibility
– Again, this privilege is issued under Sec 29, MPFRs…. “ fish for the
purpose of improving their growth, condition, or accessibility”
– Applications at the PEI-LSC, (Pat Power), and screening with RM,
C&P, and Aquaculture Leasing Branch.
– Issued during closed times/day light hours only. (July 16 –
September 14 & December 1st – April 30th)
– Perform activities as stated, non-transferable & non-renewable,
and subject to cancellation for non-compliance. (Sec 56 I&T may
apply)
9
Introductions & Transfers Licence
Licensing requirement to permit transfer of shellfish
within and into province, while protecting indigenous
stocks from disease, genetic shifts and habitat (fellow
travelers)
• Authority
– Sections 55 and 56 Fisheries (General) Regulations
• Application
– Product originating from designated restricted waters in PEI
– Product being imported into PEI
– Applications reviewed by PEI-ITC, chaired by Art Smith
• Conditions
– Product treatment & mitigation
– Maybe linked to „Lease to Lease‟ licensing conditions, and one does not
supersede the other.
10
5
Introductions & Transfers Licence
11
Summer Marketing Licences
Mechanism to allow aquaculturists to harvest from
clean water leases during a closed time (May 1st –
July 31st)
• Application/Eligibility - CFIA Registered Facility
– Applicable Regulations = Fish Inspection Act, Fisheries Act,
MCFRs, MPFRs, & F(G)Rs.
– Historically restricted to commercial lease holders who marketed
large quantities of oysters from established leases allowing them
to provide the market place with a constant supply of oysters in
respect of depuration restrictions.
12
6
Summer Marketing Licences
Conditions
– Must have a CFIA registered processing facility
– Must have a shellfish lease(s) approved for relaying
– Must be license holder under Sec 4 MCFRs if conducting
relaying activity
– Must be in open area, no applicable closures (bio-toxins,
unacceptable micro levels).
– Summer Marketing occurs May 1st-July 31st (during closed time
for lease fishing).
– Total # of leases per licence from Summer Marketing and
MCFR decontamination plans shall not exceed 5.
13
Summer Marketing Permits
• Recent Uptake on Summer Marketing
– 2005 9 of 15 were at capacity
– 2006 10 of 15 were at capacity
– 2007 3 of 14 were at capacity (44 of 70=62%)
14
7
Shellfish Enhancement & Fish Replanting
License (Winterkill Permits)
Mechanism for Shellfish
Associations (or DOT&PW) to
move shellfish from a specific
area for enhancement purposes.
(Sec 29,MPFRs again)
• Application
– In writing to Resource Management,
RM-DFO
– As stipulated following case-by-case
review with C&P, Habitat, RM, others.
15
Questions
?’s
16
8

Expansion of the PEI Off-Bottom Oyster Aquaculture Industry

Transcription

Similar documents

Celebrity Guests

Summer 2014 - Shellfish Culture Ltd

ultimate party - Atlantic City

OYSTER PERPETUAL SUBMARINER

PEI on WHO Radio and at the Iowa State Fair!

Oyster Perpetual

Summer 2016 - Shellfish Culture Ltd

Understanding people on the move in London Charles Buckingham

OYSTER PERPETUAL COSMOGRAPH DAYTONA

- Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute