A26-Lancast«r Fanning, Saturday, February 14, 1998
Pennsylvania Aquaculture Summit Provides PDA
VERNON ACHENBACH JR.
Lancaster Fanning Staff
HARRISBURG (Dauphin
Co.) A Pennsylvania aquacul
ture summit called by state Secret
ary of Agriculture Samuel Hayes
Jr. was held Thursday at the state
Department of Agriculture Build
ing in Harrisburg.
The purpose of the summit was
to assess the issues of concern by
the industry and to determine pos
sible supportive actions by PDA
and other state agencies.
The summit was attended by a
group representing some of the
growing aquacultural industry in
the state.
The last time the industry
gathered for such a stakeholder
meeting was in 1993, while Boyd
Wolff served as agriculture
secretary.
The result of that 1993 confer
ence was a draft of issues that have
hampered entreprenuerial efforts
in aquaculture in Pennsylvania.
On Thursday, the group
included many who were involved
during the 1993 conference, and
apparently many of the issues
remain the same and largely
unresolved.
Leo Dunn, with the PDA
Bureau of Market Development,
led the conference.
The meeting began with a
review and discussion of eight
issues identified and prioritized as
matters of concern during 1993.
A general consensus was used to
identify areas of concern and
assign new priorities, if
appropriate.
Secretary Hayes joined the
group for about an hour to infor
mally hear concerns. He told the
group that aquaculture, its growth
and promotion, was very impor
tant to the state and that work
would be done to help the industry
advance.
As with other agricultural ven
tures, Hayes told the group that
first and foremost should be
addressing issues that unecessarily
reduce or eliminate profits for
aquaculturalists.
He also told the group that Dunn
has been aggressive in promoting
the concerns of the state aquacul
ture industry at various levels and
opportunities.
He said that while, historically,
aquaculture wasn't as large an
industry as it is now, it is growing
and can be pressumed to grow in
world importance.
He said that compared to the
state's nationally leading agricul
tural activities, such as dairy and
livestock production, that it may
seem insignificant to some.
(Dunn said an initial rudimen
tary survey of the value of Pen
nsylvania aquaculture resulted in
an estimated annual sales of $12.8
million.)
Nevertheless, Hayes said he
believes that logically, aquaculture
will increase in importance, espe
cially as wild populations of aqua
tic food species are continually
pressured from world commercial
overharvesting and loss of habitat
He said that with the human
population growing, and arable
land acres decreasing, other tech
niques for food and material pro
duction are going to have to be
found.
Therefore, he said, that while
aquaculture is important today, it
is going to become even more
important. He said its importance
is not only in food production, but
extends to such areas as the health
cate industry.
He said aquaculture is a virtual
ly untapped production resource.
The research needed to unlock that
potential has to be supported.
But overall, he said that he
knows the issues listed and priori
tized were important, but, “If
we’re not talking about profitabili
ty, it’s not relevant”
Hayes announced that later this
year he plans to hold a symposium
on agricultural research, and rele
vancy will be an issue then,
because if the research doesn’t
enhance profitability ”... in some
manner, it’s not relevant”
Also, in order to better serve the
industry, it’s necessary for the
state to have accurate data about
the actual extent and diversity of
the state’s aquacultural production
capabilities.
Previously, official surveys
were done and information pro
vided to the Pennsylvania Agricul
tural Statistics Service (PASS).
Now that surveying aquacultur
al production has been shifted to
the purview of PASS, work is
underway to develop better, more
specific data collecton and report
ing on actual instate production.
A representative from PASS
told the group that they should
review a proposed list of specific
different species for which PASS
should seek production data.
He said that PASS does not
make specific producer informa
tion public or available to other
governmental agencies, so produc
ers should not be reluctant to pro
vide information for an official
survey.
Instead of fearing providing
information, if PASS-gathered
data can provide for more accurate
information regarding the state’s
aquacultural industry, then its true
strengths and value can be better
represented when working to
expand knowledge and opportuni
ties for the industry.
The effort to find out what the
state can do for the aquacultural
industry is part of a wider effort by
Hayes to be more aggressive in
working with various agricultural
production sectors, to improve
communications and to provide
meaningful support by the PDA
through promotion or other means,
such as research, testing, etc.
Strong efforts have been madi
in expanding exporting opportuni
ties for Pennsylvania agricultural
commodities and processed pro
ducts, and the aquacultural indus
try has been becoming more active
in more recent years.
The Pennsylvania Aquaculture
Association for more than several
years has maintained a promotion
booth at the Pennsylvania Farm
Show Food Court, selling catfish,
tihpia, trout and striped bass.
As an aside, the PAA also pro
vided an aquarium for promotional
use during the Farm Show. It was
used (his year, and after the Farm
Show, it was moved to the lobby of
the PDA Building in Harrisburg.
According to Dunn, it has been
suggested that the aquarium can
serve as home, on a rotating basis,
for different species raised by Pen
nsylvania aquaculturalists. While
it currently is housing goldfish and
koi, it could, he said serve as a
showcase for several months at a
time for different species raised in
Pennsylvania.
He said that information about
the species, its importance and
uses could accompany the aquar
ium and serve to educate the public
visiting the PDA Building.
Those invited to attend the aqua
culture summit included owners of
licensed facilities, those who could
potentially serve on a state aqua
cultural advisory board, related
state agency representatives and
interested legislators, as well as
representatives of Penn State Uni
versity, University of Pennsylva
nia, and University of Delaware,
among others.
While the majority of those par
ticipating represented fish-raising
businesses, there was some rep
resentation of aquatic plant
producers.
Leading the concerns of the
group in 1993 was bird and animal
predation of fish at the facilities.
That continues.
Bird predation has long been a
problem and has cost the industry
much in lost production.
While it was common practice
years ago for birds, such as herons,
that had become habitual predators
at fish-raising facilities to be shot.
Federal protections and fines had
largely stopped that practice since.
However, according to audience
testimony, while the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has and does
issue permits for killing trouble
some birds, the state Game Com
mission has to co-sign on the per
mit in order to grant complete
authority to kill certain bird
species.
The group complained that,
while the rest of the agricultural
sector is allowed to kill crop
damaging animals such as deer
(protected by the Game Commis
sion through hunting rules and reg
ulations), the aquaculture industry
has been prevented from doing so,
primarily because neither the fed
eral government, nor the state,
specifically recognizes aquacul
ture as an agricultural practice.
It was reported that the Game
Commission, which didn’t have a
representative present and
couldn’t be contacted for comment
prior to presstime, has ruled that
because aquaculture isn’t included
in the official state definition of
agriculture, it isn’t afforded the
same right to destroy crop
damaging animals.
Further, previously proposed
legislation to define aquaculture as
a branch of agriculture and help
develop the industry stalled and
had to be reintroduced.
More recently proposed legisla
tion (Senate Bill 283) would bring
legal and state policy considera
tion of aquaculture as agriculture.
Successful passage of that legisla
tion, or something similar, is
sought by the group.
Without it, those in aquaculture
are forced to pay some taxes not
required by traditional agriculture,
are not afforded work vehicle con
sideration by PcnnDOT, and they
do not receive the same promo
tional support as other sectors.
Of second priority was the avail
ability of drugs and therapeutants
for the industry.
For example, while some medi
cines are available to those raising
trout and salmon species, labeling
was not done for warm water
fishes, such as hybrid striped bass.
While those raising trout can
purchase and use some drugs over
the counter, those raising other
species must secure a prescription
from a veterinarian in order to use
the same drug. That adds consider
ably to operating costs and
decreases profitability.
Further, disease testing support
needs to be determined, and
expanded if possible, to help the
industry.
The state should also develop a
fish health certification program so
that Pennsylvania aquacultural
producers can better meet growing
demands for health certification by
other states and nations.
It was reported that while diag
nostic services by the state laborat
ory are good, but should be
expanded, that once a disease or
health problem has been discov
ered through diagnostic testing,
there is no bank of expertise to pro
vide growers with solution advice.
Veterinary support for the
industry is very limited, and some
in south centre’ Pennsylvania are
forced to use out-of-state services.
The Fish Commission was
invited to be represented, though it
was not. The Commission in the
past had offered disease testing
services to the rest of the state’s
aquaculture industry, as did the
federal Fish and Wildlife agency.
They both stopped that practice
three years ago.
Without time to adjust to the
lack of testing facilities and exper
tise, it became difficult for private
business to market fish out of state.
At the time. New York’s similar
trout production was devastated
prior to its April opening of trout
season because whirling
disease a disease affecting the
brains of fish.
New York had banned accept
ing fish in its borders unless
assured that they were tested and
certified as being free of whirling
disease.
In quick response, the state PD A
diagnostic laboratory staff, espe
cially Dr. Fred Rommel, deve
loped and got approved a test for
whirling disease. That enabled
Pennsylvania producers to be able
to certify the disease-free status of
fish stocks and then qualify to sell
and ship trout to New York in time
for its trout season opening day.
In the meantime, however, sup
port of the aquaculture industry by
PDA was dampened.
The industry had manned a
12-membcr PDA aquacultural
advisory board, though the board
was dismantled under former state
Secretary of Agriculture Charles
Brosius, whom Hayes replaced.
Additional development of tests
to help the aquacultural industry
comply with growing health
certification restrictions was not
done.
Water quality issues remained
next in importance, in comparison
to 1993 priorities.
While the 1993 effort and follo
wup determined that a general per
mit should and could be developed
to allow aquacultural facilities to
discharge used water into the
state’s waterways.
While much of the work in
developing the general permit has
been done through effort with the
state Department of Environmen
tal Protection, it did not receive
more effort in recent years.
Part of the issue deals with the
fact that most of the state’s trout
production facilities are located at
the headwaters of the state’s best
quality streams.
Since the facilities were con
structed before the streams
received additional protections
from degradation of water quality,
and never had to qualify for a per
mit to discharge waste water into
the streams, the industry has
sought grandfathering existing
facilities.
The streams received the high
quality status with the existing
aquaculture facilities already in
place and discharging effluent,
therefore it has been agreed that
they should receive such grand
fathering status, it was reported.
But while the development of a
general NPDES permit was near
ing final stages, it apparently
became shelved in the meantime.
Direction
The last several issues of con
cern to the industry were shifted
around in importance.
The priorities for 1993 listed
quality assurance as the next
important issue, but since the fed
eral guidelines for all meat safety
processing have been since deve
loped in the HACCP program, the
issue is still important, but it was
decided that the industry needed
better adoption and information to
deal with the issue, not necessarily
more government assistance.
Instead the issue of water alloca
tions and consumptive uses of
water was moved higher on the
list
Growing water demands has
created more battling over water
resources, and groundwater with
drawals or diversions have proven
to be a source of consternation.
While the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission and the Dela
ware River Basin Commission
both register water uses and over
see the approval of groundwater
withdrawals, it was said that more
of Pennsylvania’s aquacultural
users should register their uses
with the federal-state compact
agencies, so as to ensure a record
of their historic water uses against
future claims.
Non-native, also called non
indigineous species, are also of
major concern. Bans and restric
tions on raising varieties needs to
be addressed better, so that aqua
culturalists in the state can take
advantage of opportunities to
pursue new technologies deve
loped in raising different species.
It was reported that such activi
ties as raising freshwater flounder
is being done, but not in Pennsyl
vania. There are other species of
potential, such as a freshwater
prawn (shrimp), but creating a
clear, quick pathway for resolving
issues of handling non-native spe
cies needs to be created.
While dangers to native and
naturalized species from the acci
dental introduction of non-native
species that could out-compete and
destroy native aquatic life are very
real, the issue needs a better
mechanism for dealing with it.
The Fish Commission has much
control over the introduction and
propogation of non-native aquatic
species, even though it continues
to stock and introduce non-native
species, such as the muskellunge,
and brown and rainbow trouts.
Wetlands protection continues
to be a big issue for aquaculture
since many facilities were deve
loped at natural spring sites and lie
in wetlands and in floodplains.
Apparently, general mainte
nance of fish-raising ponds could
cause a number of agencies to
enforce wetlands and wetlands
species protection laws.
Though a complete summary of
the day's discussions are to be
compiled and published by PDA,
among the issues receiving the
consensus of the group was that it
would request that Secretary Hay
es reinstate an aquacultural advis
ory board; seek passage of legisla
tion defining aquaculture as agri
culture; pursue the passage of DEP
regulations for the general permit
ting of aquaculture'discharge; seek
cooperation by the state Game
Commission in allowing the kill
ing of habitual predatory birds
(individual birds can and have
learned to bypass various protec
tive devices from screening to
elcjtrifted screening) causing crop
damage (losses); and to seek to
continue to meet more regularly,
such as perhaps once every two
months, to devote more time to
each of the issues.