Aquatic Animal Health Subprogram: whirling disease a disease strategy manual
Aquafin CRC - Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture Subprogram: model development for epidemiology of Amoebic Gill Disease
Mother-of-pearl (Pinctada maxima) shell: stock evaluation for management and future harvesting in Western Australia
Assessing Australia's future resource requirements to the Year 2020 and beyond: strategic options for fisheries
Electronic cooking end point determination and the effectiveness of alternative cooking methods for Crustacea
Mapping and distribution of Sabella spallanzanii in Port Phillip Bay
Final report
Project products
IPA APFA: detection of pesticide impacts on larval prawns in hatcheries and presence in estuarine intake water
9th International Conference on Harmful Algal Blooms, 7-11 February 2000, Hobart
Starting in the mid 1980s, Australia has experienced an increased public
awareness of harmful algal blooms, especially their suspected involvement
in causing fish kills and feared public health risks following consumption
of contaminated seafood products and drinking water supplies. If not
adequately monitored and managed, the economic impacts on Australia's
developing aquaculture industry and on both domestic and export markets
could be devastating. An example of the first problem is the 1989 bloom
event by the golden-brown flagellate Heterosigma akashiwo in Big Glory
Bay, New Zealand, which killed NZ$ 12 million worth of cage-reared chinook
salmon. An example of the second problem is the 1993 New Zealand outbreak
of neurotoxic shellfish poisoning by the dinoflagellate Gymnodinium cf.
breve (NSP; 180 illnesses, no deaths) which led to export losses of NZ $
4.5 million in the first quarter of 1993 and a 25% decrease in domestic
shellfish demand . Similarly, positive test results are now available from
Australian shellfish products for paralytic shellfish poisons (NSW,
TAS,VIC,SA), diarrhetic shellfish poisons (TAS), amnesic shellfish poisons
(VIC) , neurotoxic shellfish poisons (VIC) and cyanobacterial peptide
toxins (WA). While algal biotoxins only in extreme cases lead to human
fatalities, it is the so-called "halo"-effect of bad publicity resulting
from a few human poisonings that can devastate aquaculture industries.
Compared to our neighbour New Zealand, which spends $3.2 M per year in
biotoxin monitoring efforts (most comes from the Ministry of Health, with
industry providing $750,000 per year via an industry levy), Australian
efforts in this area of quality assurance and environmental protection of
aquaculture operations are unsatisfactory.
Final report
The FRDC sponsored 9th International Conference on Harmful Algal Blooms held in Hobart, Tasmania, from 7-11 February 2000, was a resounding success. It was the largest conference on this topic (526 participants from 47 countries) ever held anywhere in the world. A total of 130 talks and 308 poster presentations were given. The conference broke important new ground by dedicating a special session to Algal Bloom Monitoring, Management & Mitigation. Special sessions were also dedicated to Impacts on Shellfish Aquaculture and Impacts on Finfish Aquaculture. Two FRDC representatives (Peter Lee and Alex Wells) attended, and as a special service to the Tasmanian finfish aquaculture industry US expert Dr Jack Rensel gave a keynote conference address, a special satellite seminar for fishfarmers and government staff, as well as met with 4 fish farming companies on site. US experts Prof. Sandra Shumway and Dr Monica Bricelj visited several shellfish aquaculture operations. A public forum on "Harmful Algal Blooms: Impacts on Health, Environment & Economy" was scheduled in association with the conference. The publication outputs from this meeting include a 518 pages Conference Proceedings Volume (to be published through the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO) and a special issue of the international journal Phycologia (vol. 40(3)) both to appear in 2001.
Keywords: Harmful Algal Blooms; Shellfish Biotoxins; Aquaculture Finfish Kills
Project products
Developing jungle perch fingerling production to improve fishing opportunities
Jungle perch once occurred widely in coastal Queensland rivers, from Cape York to Northern NSW. Central and southern populations have declined or become locally extinct due to dams and weirs blocking migration pathways between saltwater (where they spawn) and freshwater habitats (where they reside as juveniles and adults). Unlike barramundi, mullet and bass; jungle perch cannot persist long-term in saltwater habitats. Barriers lead to rapid local extinction. Construction of fishways on barriers in the past 10 years has created suitable conditions for the reintroduction of jungle perch. There are limited opportunities for natural recolonisation, and remnant adult populations of local strains are too few for translocation to be a practical solution. Restocking from captive bred individuals is the only option to bring back jungle perch fisheries.
Restoring wild jungle perch fisheries is a high priority for recreational fishers in Queensland. Reintroduction of self sustaining populations in rivers in south-eastern Queensland and the Mackay-Whitsunday Region will provide angling opportunities to large populations of anglers. Development of jungle perch fingerling production will also create future opportunities to further enhance Queensland's stocked impoundments and make jungle perch accessible to even more anglers.
Recent research by DEEDI has solved much of the reproductive biology of jungle perch, which can now be spawned regularly in captivity. Jungle perch larvae are much smaller (2.3 mm) than bass and barramundi larvae and establishment of first feeding has been problematic. Strategies to promote larval feeding need to be developed. The transition from larvae to fingerlings is critical for future development of jungle perch fisheries.
Final report
This project has for the first time demonstrated the feasibility of hatchery production of jungle perch fingerlings. The research on jungle perch production has enabled a hatchery production manual with accompanying videos to be produced. This has given private commercial hatcheries the information needed to produce jungle perch fingerlings. Several hatcheries have already indicated an interest in producing jungle perch and will be assisted to do so in 2016. Currently jungle perch are not a permitted stocking species, so cannot be sold to fish stocking groups. However, hatcheries will be able to sell fingerlings to the aquarium trade or supply grow out facilities that could produce jungle perch for human consumption. Should jungle perch become a permitted species for stocking, this will provide hatcheries with a major new product option to sell to fish stocking groups. It would also benefit anglers by providing another iconic species for impoundment stocking programs. This could have flow-on benefits to regional economies through angler tourism.
Should the pilot reintroductions of jungle perch into streams result in self-sustaining jungle perch populations, then there will be three restored jungle perch populations close to major population centres. This will create a new opportunity for anglers not normally able to target jungle perch. Since the majority of anglers who target jungle perch are catch and release fishers, angling is expected to have minimal impact on recovery of the populations.
This project led to the development of a hatchery manual for jungle perch production and to a summary brochure. In late 2014 and in 2015 researchers were able to make the first ever releases of jungle perch fingerlings back into rivers and streams within their historical range.
Keywords: Jungle perch, Kuhlia rupestris, hatchery production, restoration, fish stocking, captive breeding, larval culture, recreational fishing.