Project number:
1994-152
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure:
$236,561.00
Principal Investigator:
Peter Last
Organisation:
CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Hobart
Project start/end date:
14 May 1995
-
30 Nov 1999
Contact:
FRDC
1. To determine the true species composition of SEF "quota species" based on AFMA's requirements and industry's requests for clarification as to which species constitute quota species
2. To prepare a definitive identification guide to the SEF quota species and their close relatives
3. To include within this guide a means of identifying fillets of these species based on their protien fingerprints
Final report
ISBN:
0 643 06161 4
Author:
Dr Peter Last
Final Report
•
1998-02-27
•
1.39 MB
1994-152-DLD.pdf
An upgraded identification guide to fish and fillets of the South East Fishery (SEF) quota species groups has been compiled from new information. This reference, South East Fishery.Quota Species: an Identification Guide (Daley et al., 1997) and hereafter referred to as SEF Species Guide, was prepared with the joint resources of the CSIRO Division of Marine Research, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) and the Fishing Industry.
The SEF Species Guide was based on a thorough taxonomic study of the commercial species of the SEF. It provides an improved means to their identification and also clarifies which species are regulated by quota within each quota species group. The species composition of the fishery, consisting of 13 quota species groups, was found to include a suite of commercial species that are currently not covered by quota regulations. Some are new to science and several are very similar in appearance to the quota species.
The SEF Species Guide will be an important tool in the administration of the SEF. Many of the findings of the study have implications for the development of management, including non-trawl sector arrangements. The main findings of the study and their implications for management, are discussed separately for each quota species group in the results section. Results are summarised in Table 1.
In the past, quota regulations have been difficult to enforce because the species identity of the catch was difficult to prove. Genetic examination of seafood can provide strong evidence of species identity. Protein fingerprinting (described more fully in the SEF Species Guide) is a simple method of genetic testing that compares muscle proteins of species. It was used in this project for identifying whole fish and fillets of the SEF quota species. For species with very similar or identical protein fingerprints, additional allozyme tests were developed. The main aim of both types of tests is to assist in distinguishing between quota and non-quota species. More sophisticated genetic techniques (e.g. mitochondrial DNA) may provide more definitive identifications but are more expensive and more time-consuming, and require specialised skills and facilities.
Most SEF quota species have different marketing names to their non-quota commercial relatives. Quota species usually command a higher price than the non-quota species. Use of the correct marketing names is likely to increase consumer confidence, by extension their demand for seafood, thereby contributing to the value of the SEF. Protein fingerprinting may be used to check that seafood is not marketed under the name of a different species. In protein fingerprinting, samples to be identified are compared to a protein standard. Some species can be tested cheaply and easily in the market place; other species require additional testing.
The quota species in six of the SEF quota groups ( dories, grenadiers, prawns, redfishes, roughies and ocean perches), can be distinguished from the non-quota species by protein fingerprinting alone. In five groups (gemfishes, lings, morwongs, trevallies and warehous), protein fingerprinting needs to be supplemented with simple allozyme tests. The confirmatory allozyme tests involve comparing muscle tissues from positively identified control specimens. Testing is difficult in the field but can be done in a laboratory by a technician with limited training.
The remaining two groups (whitings and flatheads) need to be tested in a genetics lab, by an expert, using a combination of protein fingerprinting and multiple allozyme tests. In the event of a legal dispute, field test results (for any of the species) would need to be confirmed in a genetics laboratory. More sophisticated DNA analysis could also be used to provide additional and stronger evidence.
One weakness of similar studies in the past is that no whole fish vouchers were retained. Unless a voucher specimen is retained it is very difficult to prove the identity of a fish from which a tissue sample was taken. Vouchers were retained for all of the species examined during preparation of the SEF Species Guide.
The SEF Species Guide was based on a thorough taxonomic study of the commercial species of the SEF. It provides an improved means to their identification and also clarifies which species are regulated by quota within each quota species group. The species composition of the fishery, consisting of 13 quota species groups, was found to include a suite of commercial species that are currently not covered by quota regulations. Some are new to science and several are very similar in appearance to the quota species.
The SEF Species Guide will be an important tool in the administration of the SEF. Many of the findings of the study have implications for the development of management, including non-trawl sector arrangements. The main findings of the study and their implications for management, are discussed separately for each quota species group in the results section. Results are summarised in Table 1.
In the past, quota regulations have been difficult to enforce because the species identity of the catch was difficult to prove. Genetic examination of seafood can provide strong evidence of species identity. Protein fingerprinting (described more fully in the SEF Species Guide) is a simple method of genetic testing that compares muscle proteins of species. It was used in this project for identifying whole fish and fillets of the SEF quota species. For species with very similar or identical protein fingerprints, additional allozyme tests were developed. The main aim of both types of tests is to assist in distinguishing between quota and non-quota species. More sophisticated genetic techniques (e.g. mitochondrial DNA) may provide more definitive identifications but are more expensive and more time-consuming, and require specialised skills and facilities.
Most SEF quota species have different marketing names to their non-quota commercial relatives. Quota species usually command a higher price than the non-quota species. Use of the correct marketing names is likely to increase consumer confidence, by extension their demand for seafood, thereby contributing to the value of the SEF. Protein fingerprinting may be used to check that seafood is not marketed under the name of a different species. In protein fingerprinting, samples to be identified are compared to a protein standard. Some species can be tested cheaply and easily in the market place; other species require additional testing.
The quota species in six of the SEF quota groups ( dories, grenadiers, prawns, redfishes, roughies and ocean perches), can be distinguished from the non-quota species by protein fingerprinting alone. In five groups (gemfishes, lings, morwongs, trevallies and warehous), protein fingerprinting needs to be supplemented with simple allozyme tests. The confirmatory allozyme tests involve comparing muscle tissues from positively identified control specimens. Testing is difficult in the field but can be done in a laboratory by a technician with limited training.
The remaining two groups (whitings and flatheads) need to be tested in a genetics lab, by an expert, using a combination of protein fingerprinting and multiple allozyme tests. In the event of a legal dispute, field test results (for any of the species) would need to be confirmed in a genetics laboratory. More sophisticated DNA analysis could also be used to provide additional and stronger evidence.
One weakness of similar studies in the past is that no whole fish vouchers were retained. Unless a voucher specimen is retained it is very difficult to prove the identity of a fish from which a tissue sample was taken. Vouchers were retained for all of the species examined during preparation of the SEF Species Guide.
