4,647 research outputs found
Fish behavior and its use in the capture and culture of fishes
No full textFishery management, Behaviour, Food fish, Fish culture, Conferences
Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-149-2023
No full textHere, we outline questions to help guide a practitioner when selecting potential watersheds for population restoration. The questions follow an open-loop process in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ format, whereby the options are to either proceed to the next question if the disturbance in question is negligible to mussel persistence or end the loop; each question ignores previous answers. Many posed questions may be associated with a high degree of uncertainty because of insufficient information and thus answering each question as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ could be considered an extreme simplification of complex information. Given this simplification, if the uncertainty around any question is too great, it is at the practitioner’s discretion to either end the open-loop question process or skip the question and proceed. While this process identifies watersheds for potential restoration, it does not prioritize among them. If practitioners are interested in selecting among multiple watersheds that make it through the open-loop process, then watersheds can be subsequently compared by calculating metrics that assess the relative quality of the watershed for restoration or by comparing information gathered in the open loop process—this step is not described in this open-loop process. Once a watershed is selected for potential mussel restoration, further reach-scale characteristics would need to be considered before population augmentation or reintroduction.1 Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MAUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA , USA
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA
3 U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, of Massachusetts, Amherst, of Massachusetts, Amherst, of Massachusetts, Amherst, of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA , USA
Cooperator Science Series # 149-2023 ii
About the Cooperator Science Series:
The Cooperator Science Series was initiated in 2013. Its purpose is to facilitate the archiving and retrieval of research project reports resulting primarily from investigations supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), particularly the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The online format was selected to provide immediate access to science reports for FWS, state and tribal management agencies, the conservation community, and the public at large.
All reports in this series have been subjected to a peer review process consistent with the agencies and entities conducting the research. For U.S. Geological Survey authors, the peer review process (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html) also includes review by a bureau approving official prior to dissemination. Authors and/or agencies/institutions providing these reports are solely responsible for their content. The FWS does not provide editorial or technical review of these reports. Comments and other correspondence on reports in this series should be directed to the report authors or agencies/institutions. In most cases, reports published in this series are preliminary to publication, in the current or revised format, in peer reviewed scientific literature. Results and interpretation of data contained within reports may be revised following further peer review or availability of additional data and/or analyses prior to publication in the scientific literature.
The Cooperator Science Series is supported and maintained by the FWS, National Conservation Training Center at Shepherdstown, WV. The series is sequentially numbered with the publication year appended for reference and started with Report No. 101-2013. Various other numbering systems have been used by the FWS for similar, but now discontinued report series. Starting with No. 101 for the current series is intended to avoid any confusion with earlier report numbers.
The use of contracted research agencies and institutions, trade, product, industry or firm names or products or software or models, whether commercially available or not, is for informative purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Contractual References:
This document (USGS IPDS #: IP-145512) was developed in conjunction with the US Geological Survey and the Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit in collaboration with the funding partners. Funding for this project was provided by the U.S. Geological Service through the Science Support Partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Recommended citation:
Skorupa, A.J., D. Perkins, A.H. Roy, and J.E. Ryan. 2023. Watershed selection to support freshwater mussel restoration: an open-loop decision guide. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-149-2023, Washington, D. C. https://doi.org/10.3996/css85533320
For additional copies or information, contact:
Allison Roy
U.S. Geological Survey
Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
E-mail: [email protected] 1
Background
in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ format as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ practitioner’s
2
— Zając et al. 2018).
moving to the next question within the open loop process while red arrows that point to the middle “do not” symbol indicate ending the process.3
— —
Decision Framework
1. Does the watershed contain viable populations of target species?
’ — — mussels’ — —4
5
labeled as “ ” “ ” “ ” “unknown” “likely extirpated”
2. Is the watershed outside the species indigenous range?
species’ occurrence; IUCN 2013) 6
“ ” to Question 2
3. Are there mussels that co-occur with the target species (Skip question if answered “no” to Question 2)?
we answered “ ”
4. Does property ownership limit access? 7
we answered “ ”
5. Is the river flow controlled by dams?
dam’s location in the watershed8
answered “ ”— —
6. Are there known water pollutants?
mussels’
mussels’
’9
7. Does watershed land use negatively impact habitat?
’10
’s answered ‘yes’
8. Are there detrimental invasive species?
the crayfish’s ’
–11
9. Are there host fish?
’ ’
mussel’s12
10. Are there mussel pathogens?
11. Is there planned watershed development?
–13
12. Do climate forecasts negatively impact mussel habitat?
’
——
Discussion
Reflection on the open-loop process 14
’
Watershed prioritization and river reach identification 15
information encountered during this process does not derail an individual’s ability to move 16
Acknowledgements
Data Availability
h17
Literature Cited – – – – – – on freshwater mussel distribution in the Hawkesbury‐Nepean River, southeastern – – – –18
– –
– – – Reichard, M. 2017. The role of local adaptation in shaping fish‐mussel – dilute freshwater mussel’s host resources. Diversity and – – – ä –19
– – – – – – – – – – – –
– – –20
D. 2014. The impact of municipal wastewater effluent on field‐deployed – – – – – – – – –21
–
– – – – – – –22
– – –
– – – ) to total and un‐ionized –
– –23
– –
– – – – – – – –24
– – – – – – – – –25
Master’s thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 146.
– –
– –– and Simberloff, D. 2009. Introduction of non‐native – –
–26
W. 2007. Intra‐and – – – – – Zając, K., Florek, J., Zając, T., Adamski, P., Bielański, W., Ćmiel, A. Lipińska, A. – – – –27
Tables
status of “extirpated” indicates “likely extirpated”. In the “State” column, CT = Connecticut, MA 5 Year review waterbody Referenced HUC12 in Figure 2 HUC 8 Population status State Farmington River Nod Brook-Farmington River Farmington Unknown CT Farmington River Mill Brook-Farmington River Farmington Unknown CT Farmington River Salmon Brook Farmington Unknown CT,MA Neversink Middle Neversink River Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Unknown NY Middle Delaware Twin Lakes Creek-Delaware River Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Unknown NY,PA Neversink Neversink River Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Unknown NY Neversink Upper Neversink River Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Unknown NY Neversink Lower Neversink River Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Unknown NJ,NY Middle Delaware Harihokake Creek-Delaware River Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Unknown NJ,PA Pequest River, Lake Aeroflex (syn: New Wawayanda Lake) Upper Pequest River Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Unknown NJ Pequest River, Lake Aeroflex (syn: New Wawayanda Lake) Middle Pequest River Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Unknown NJ Pequest River, Lake Aeroflex (syn: New Wawayanda Lake) Lower Pequest River Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Unknown NJ Middle Delaware Shingle Kill-Delaware River Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Unknown NJ,NY,PA Middle Delaware Hornbecks Creek-Delaware River Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Unknown NJ,PA 28
Middle Delaware Paunnacussing Creek-Delaware River Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Unknown NJ,PA Middle Delaware Pidcock Creek-Delaware River Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Unknown NJ,PA Webatuk Creek Headwaters Webatuck Creek Housatonic Extirpated CT,NY Connecticut River Stoughton Brook-Connecticut River Outlet Connecticut River Unknown CT Webatuck Creek Outlet Webatuck Creek Housatonic Extirpated CT,NY Podunk River Podunk River Outlet Connecticut River Unknown CT Webatuck Creek Ten Mile River Housatonic Unknown CT,NY Paulins Kill Upper Paulins Kill Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Viable NJ Paulins Kill Middle Paulins Kill Middle Delaware-Musconetcong Viable NJ Big/Little Flat Brook Flat Brook Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead Viable NJ Muddy Brook, Philo Brook Muddy Brook Outlet Connecticut River Viable CT,MA Stony Brook, Philo Brook Stony Brook Outlet Connecticut River Viable CT 29
with the label “likely extirpated”
Question No.
Outlet Webatuck Creek
Headwaters Webatuck Creek
Sources
1. Does the watershed contain viable populations of target species?
No
No
5-year review (USFWS 2019)
2. Is the watershed outside the species indigenous range?
No
No
5-year review (USFWS 2019)
3. Are there mussels that co-occur with the target species (Skip question if answered “no” to Question 2)
Skip
Skip
Skip question
4. Does property ownership limit access?
No
No
NYS Tax Parcels www.gis.ny.gov/parcels/ | Google search the watershed name
5. Is the river flow controlled by dams?
No
No
National Inventory of Dams (NID) www.nid.usace.army.mil/#/ | USDOT Dam Layer www.data-usdot.opendata.arcgis.com
6. Are there known water pollutants?
No
Yes
NYS State Pollution www.dec.ny.gov/25.html | Google for each watershed "point source discharge" OR "wastewater treatment plant" | EPA StreamCat Dataset documenting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/streamcat-dataset | NYS DEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6054.html | Ten Mile River Watershed Management Plan (HVA 2018)
7. Does watershed land use negatively impact habitat?
Yes
-
National Land Cover Dataset (CONUS) www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-land-cover-conus-all-years| Ten Mile River Watershed Management Plan (HVA 2018)
8. Are there detrimental invasive species?
USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database (Specify species) www.nas.er.usgs.gov/ 30
9. Are there host fish?
Digital Distribution of Native U.S. Fishes by Watershed on NatureServe www.natureserve.org/products/digital-distribution-native-us-fishes-watershed | NY DEC Region 3 Fish Stocking www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7739.html | state fish database (requested upon state approval)
10. Are there mussel pathogens?
Google search "mussel pathogens" OR "mussel die off" in the watershed name
11. Is there planned watershed development?
Google search "development" OR "infrastructure projects"
12. Do climate forecasts negatively impact mussel habitat?
WorldClim www.worldclim.org/ | peer reviewed literature search | EcoSHEDS www.usgs.gov/apps/ecosheds/#
Economics of Fish Marketing in Central Uganda: A Preliminary Analysis
No full textThe paper examines profitability and market performance of small-scale fish traders selected randomly from a cross-section of nine fish markets in four districts in Central Uganda. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire which was designed to solicit information on traders’ socio-economic characteristics, marketing characteristics, operating costs and returns, and problems associated with fish marketing in the study area. Percentages were used to describe the socio-economic characteristics, market characteristic and problems associated with fish marketing while gross profit and marketing performance models were used to determine profitability, marketing margin and operational efficiency, respectively. The results suggest that fish trade is carried out by both men and women. More men are involved in the trade of fresh fish while more women are involved in the processed (sundried/smoked) fish trade. Some traders dealt in more than one species of fish although a majority sold exclusively in one species. Gross profit was estimated at USh358.40/kg and USh234.73/kg for wholesalers and retailers, respectively, with marketing margins of 19.32% and 16.67% for wholesalers and retailers, respectively. The market operational efficiency was 279.27 percent, implying high efficiency in fish marketing in the study area. The major pressing concerns which included high supply cost, low prices, low fish supply and increased arrests for selling immature fish were common to both retail and wholesale marketing channels.Fish marketing, survey data, gross profit, market margin, operational efficiency, Uganda, Agribusiness, International Development, International Relations/Trade, Marketing, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods,
Assessment of Knowledge of Histamine Fish Poisoning Among Health Care Personnel and Fish Consumers in Dar es salaam Region
No full textHistamine fish poisoning which is also called scombroid fish poisoning is a mild to moderate form of food poisoning caused by eating spoiled or bacterial contaminated fish after capture or during subsequent handling and storage. Its symptoms are similar to those of fish allergy and because of that most physicians misdiagnose it. The objective of the study was to assess knowledge of histamine fish poisoning (HFP) among fish consumers and health care personnel in Dar es Salaam. It was a cross sectional design study, utilizing a pre-tested structured questionnaire with pre-set ten questions pertaining to symptoms of HFP for fish consumers and twelve pre-set questions for health personnel. Two hundred and eighty fish consumers and one hundred and five health care personnel were recruited in the study through convenient sampling. The study showed that majority of fish consumers not aware of HFP, and awareness was found to be 26.6%, male (54.1%) being more aware than female (45.9%). Also, 43.2% fish consumers with age group 26-40 years had higher awareness than other age groups, though awareness was insignificantly associated with sex (P=0.153) and age groups (P=0.153). Among health care personnel interviewed, awareness was found to be high (60%) and all physicians had awareness while only 17.2% of clinical officers interviewed had awareness of HFP. Awareness among health workers was significantly associated with their medical cadres. The study also showed that 97.8% of the fish consumers interviewed had low knowledge about HFP and 2.2% had average knowledge. Among health personnel, 28.6% had low knowledge, 57.1% had average knowledge and 14.3% had good knowledge. All clinical officers interviewed for knowledge assessment of HFP expressed low knowledge level, while physicians and residents were the only cadre with good knowledge among health care personnel. Both scombroid and non scombroid fish were listed by respondents being responsible for HFP; mackerel was frequently listed followed by tuna and king fish for scombroid fish, while Nile perch, Cat fish and Tilapia were frequently listed among the non scombroid. Symptoms that were recorded among the respondents included rashes, diarrhea and skin itching. There is a need for training healthcare personnel particularly clinical officers who had low knowledge of HFP and work in peripheral health facilities where allergy tests are not done. Training should highlight how to distinguish fish allergy from histamine fish poisoning, to avoid misdiagnosis. This can be achieved by explaining the significance of making recall of previous history of allergic reactions to incriminated food (fish), since lack of previous history of allergic reaction and high attack rates in group out breaks, implies HFP and not fish allergy. Awareness campaign to fish consumers and the general public on HFP should be conducted to advocate the significance of fish handling after catch by fisherman and during processing, sale and storage, through icing and refrigeration.\u
Randall, J.E. — Caribbean reef fishes. Jersey City. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine Publications, 1968
No full textBourlière François. Randall, J.E. — Caribbean reef fishes. Jersey City. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine Publications, 1968. In: La Terre et La Vie, Revue d'Histoire naturelle, tome 23, n°1, 1969. pp. 122-123
MEASUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTABILITY BETWEEN U.S. DOMESTIC CATFISH AND IMPORTED FISH
No full textThis study examines p-interdependence and quantifies q-substitutability between domestic catfish and different species of imported fish in the U.S. fish market. In doing so, this study uses cointegration analyses for p-interdependence and structural analyses for q-substitutability. Cointegration analysis identifies the long run price equilibria between U.S. domestic catfish and different species of imported fish. The structural analyses show a degree of q-substitutability.cointegration, structural analyses, fish, imports, p-interdependence, and q-substitutability, International Relations/Trade,
Fish fauna of the Vasse River and the colonisation by feral goldfish (Carassius auratus)
No full textDuring December 2003 and March 2004 a total of 7895 fish from nine species were captured during a survey of the Vasse River, including two sites in the Vasse River Diversion Drain. Of the fish captured, four were native freshwater fishes that are endemic to the south-west, three were native estuarine species and two were introduced fishes. Two estuarine species dominated the native catches with the western hardyhead (Leptatherina wallacei) being captured at the most downstream sites and the Swan River goby (Pseudogobius olorum) being captured throughout the river aside from the upper-most headwater site. The endemic western pygmy perch (Edelia vittata) was also widely distributed in the river, however, it was captured in relatively low numbers aside from immediately downstream of the Diversion Drain at a site with more complex in-stream and riparian habitat. The western minnow (Galaxias occidentalis) and nightfish (Bostockia porosa) were only captured in relatively low numbers at two sites each in the lower Vasse River. This study also captured the rare mud minnow (Galaxiella munda) at the headwater site, which is the first record of this species in the Vasse River.
The Vasse River is generally heavily modified and two introduced feral species, the mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and goldfish (Carassius auratus) have become established and accounted for over 60% of all fish captures. These species were particularly dominant in more degraded reaches of the river, such as the Diversion Drain and the lower Vasse River. The goldfish were captured in the lower Vasse River, between the Diversion Drain and immediately below the Old Butter Factory slot-boards. This stretch of the river has essentially become a heavily silted, stagnant pool due to the restriction of flow from the Diversion Drain and the presence of slot-boards, which together prevent adequate flushing of the system and that is likely to have facilitated the establishment of the feral species, as well as exacerbating algal blooms.
It is suggested that the introduction of goldfish into the Vasse River is relatively recent and the dominance of juveniles born in October last year will result in a rapid increase in the population in the next few years. Growth rates of goldfish in the Vasse River far exceed those reported elsewhere with individuals attaining lengths of over 180 mm TL at the end of their first year, the age at which they also mature. Goldfish are known to be vectors for disease introduction, may prey on native fish and their eggs and larvae, reduce aquatic plant biomass and re-suspend nutrients further fuelling algal blooms. Furthermore, recent studies have demonstrated that significant growth of cyanobacteria is stimulated by the passage through goldfish intestines. Goldfish, which attained lengths of over 40 cm in the Vasse River, therefore have the potential to contribute to algal blooms.
It is recommended that flushing of the river could occur by removal of the slot-boards at the Old Butter Factory and diverting flows from the Diversion Drain back into the river, thus attempting to return environmental flows to a more natural regime. Riparian vegetation should also continue to occur in this stretch of the River with estuarine species able to tolerate the higher salinities expected to occur as the River returns to a more natural, estuarine system.
A goldfish eradication program should be implemented in the lower Vasse River. This program would also provide an excellent opportunity to gain further information on their biology and ecological impact in the system, particularly with regard to their role in algal blooms. An education program should also be implemented outlining the problems caused by releasing aquarium fish into wild aquatic systems
Effects of non-fish based raw materials on the fish muscle quality of salmonids
No full textSalmonids are considered as fatty fish and a healthy food. They are characterized by a high proportion of n-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 LCPUFA). There is
great interest in producing high-quality salmonids with a reduced use of fish-based materials and a challenge to adjust feeds towards more sustainable.
This thesis investigated the effects of sesamin, linseed oil (LO), rapeseed oil (RO),krill oil (KO), krill meal(KM), mussel meal (MM), and zygomycete meal (ZM)(Rhizopus oryzae) on fish performance, fatty acid profiles, carotenoids, cytochrome P450 (CYP450) and, colour properties and oxidation in the white muscle of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus).
No negative effects on fish performance were found when KM, KO, MM, ZM and sesamin were included in the fish feeds. The FA profile was modified significantly by
these feed compounds. LO and RO increased the α-linolenic acid (ALA) level and decreased the n-3 LCPUFA portion. Sesamin significantly decreased the ALA level and slightly increased the DHA level in some groups of Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout. Stripped-LO showed different effects on the portion of EPA and ALA compared to the LO group. The sesamin content in fish liver was consistent with its level in feeds, while the content in white muscle was similar across all groups. KO, KM and MM contributed a high portion of n-3 LCPUFA and under 3.5 mg/kg astaxanthin to the white muscle of Arctic charr, enhancing a* value. Some groups with a high level of astaxanthin showed high level of oxidation products (thiobarbituric reactive substances). Sesamin and ZM significantly affected the level or activity of CYP 450.
The results of this thesis reveal the different effects of the non-fish-based materials on the fatty acid profile and colour properties in salmonids, suggesting that these feed compounds can be used to improve fish quality with an optimised formula. Results also indicate that new feed raw materials need further evaluation before the full application in commercial fish feeds
Towards integration of environmental and health impact assessments for wild capture fishing and farmed fish with particular reference to public health and occupational health dimensions
No full textThe paper offers a review and commentary, with particular reference to the production of fish from wild capture fisheries and aquaculture, on neglected aspects of health impact assessments which are viewed by a range of international and national health bodies and development agencies as valuable and necessary project tools. Assessments sometimes include environmental health impact assessments but rarely include specific occupational health and safety impact assessments especially integrated into a wider public health assessment. This is in contrast to the extensive application of environmental impact assessments to fishing and the comparatively large body of research now generated on the public health effects of eating fish. The value of expanding and applying the broader assessments would be considerable because in 2004 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports there were 41,408,000 people in the total ‘fishing’ sector including 11,289,000 in aquaculture. The paper explores some of the complex interactions that occur with regard to fishing activities and proposes the wider adoption of health impact assessment tools in these neglected sectors through an integrated public health impact assessment tool
Experiments on raising quality fish seed in floating nurseries and its role in aquaculture in India
No full textObservations on experiments carried out on raising quality fish seed in floating nurseries and raising fish of marketable size in cages at Allahabad are reported. The experiments proved successful in terms of (1) rearing carp spawn to fry stages; (2) rearing carp fry in floating nurseries (cages) in lentic waters to fingerling stage
- …
