FISH WASTE MANAGEMENT GROUP
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 21 APRIL 2004
AT SCOTTISH AGRICULTURE SCIENCE AGENCY, EDINBURGH
Present:
Dave Wyman, SEERAD, Chair
Members:
George Anderson, Transfer Systems International
Michaela Archer, Seafish Industry Authority
Gillian Bain, COSLA (Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Group)
Ralph Baillie, Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers
Alison Chree, UK Association of Fishmeal Manufacturers
Trevor Hastings, Fisheries Research Services
Allan Jess, McKechnie Jess Ltd
Chris Jones, Scanbio (Scotland) Ltd
Calvin Knight, British Trout Association
Jenny Lamont, Composting Association
Lena Leivsdottir, Hordafor
David Mack, UK Association of Fishmeal Manufacturers
Kevin Philpott, SEERAD - Waste Regulation
Guy Robertson, SEPA
David Sandison, Shetland Salmon Farmers' Association
Malcolm Sangster, SEPA
John Shaw, Western Isles Aquaculture Association
Iain Sutherland, HIE
Sheila Voas, SVS
Secretariat:
Carrol Herbertson, SEERAD
Neil Sinclair, SEERAD
Attending on behalf of members:
Andrew Taylor, SEERAD - Animal Health and Welfare
1. Apologies
The Chair began by welcoming everyone to the meeting. It was noted that apologies had been received from WRE Ltd.
2. Minutes of Last Meeting
These were agreed by the group and will now appear on the SEERAD website.
3. Matters Arising
These had been dealt with and some of the matters would be discussed during this meeting. It was noted that composting is not a novel method and cannot therefore be approved as a method 7 process.
4. Update on Progress of Working Group on Aquaculture Waste Research and Development
It was stated that the laboratory research and development was taking place in 3 phases. The first phase consisted of calibrating the equipment at CEFAS and FRS to ensure that pathogen inactivation following the same procedure gave the same results in both laboratories. This was important because the second phase of the project involved each laboratory dealing with different pathogens. The third phase concerned trying to inactivate the most resistant pathogens identified in phase 2, in field trials. The project was currently nearing the end of phase 1. At present the bacterial pathogen tests were being repeated and if the results for the two laboratories are consistent then the project will move on to phase 2. It was hoped to have the laboratory testing completed by end of September this year and to complete the field testing of composting and ensiling by March 05.
The group was informed of a draft Commission document modifying the disposal of Animal By-Products which will allow category 3 material to be ensiled for 24 hours then heat treated to 70ºC for 1 hour. It was felt important to continue to lobby the EU for a waste working group to deal solely with fish.
It was thought that method 6 (ensiling and composting) could deal with category 2 and 3 fish waste as long as the compost reached the temperature specified in EU legislation.. There were good reasons why category 2 mammalian waste could not be treated by method 6 but it was felt that fish waste could be treated by this method. The Chair asked about the timescale for these methods to be approved by the EU. The parameters for method 6 would be agreed within 1 month for both category 2 and 3 fish waste. There was a proposal to allow method 7 to be used for category 2 waste and it was stated that category 2 fish waste can be composted at present.
There followed a discussion on whether diseased fish mortalities should be classified as category 1 waste and whether processing waste from stock subject to IPN controls should be classified as Category 2 waste.. SVS gave an undertaking to look at these issues and provide a paper setting out the definitive position for all forms of fish waste.
5. National Fallen Stock Scheme - Update
It had been planned to launch the scheme in January 04 but problems had been encountered so a decision was taken to delay the launch until Autumn 04. However, phase 1 of the scheme will not include fish waste. The Chair asked when fish waste would be included in the scheme, apparently it could be up to a year before fish waste would be included. The Chair felt pressure should be exerted to allow fish waste to be accepted sooner.
6. Outcome of Commissioned Research and Follow Up Action
SEPA gave the background to the Poseidon report and said any errors will be amended in the final report.
7. Next Steps (SEPA Report on Aquaculture Research and Shellfish Industry)
Comments on the report's recommendations were as follows:
Recommendation 1
It was agreed that aquaculture waste should be controlled and this will be taken up with SEPA
Recommendation 2
It was agreed that the caught and the freshwater sectors data should be included. SEPA and industry representative to collaborate on this.
Recommendation 3
Good practice in the storage of aquaculture waste should be adopted to stabilise and extend shelf life of the product.
Recommendation 4
The group felt catastrophic mortalities should be looked at. However, the Chair was not sure of the benefit of a feasibility assessment as he felt fish waste would be covered by the fallen stock scheme.
Recommendation 5
It was recognised that local companies were developing differing options to deal with fish waste. However the group felt that clarification was needed on the steps necessary to obtain EU approval. It was agreed that SEPA would take this forward in collaboration with SVS
Recommendation 6
SEPA have mapped marine fish farms and it would be useful if existing/proposed waste facilities could be superimposed over this map to see if they fit together. The Chair intimated that he was content for the scoping work to be carried out which would identify where waste facilities may exist.
Recommendation 7
SEPA pointed out that funding would not be available for infrastructure dealing only with fish waste (because of the existence of FIFG) but funding may be possible if the infrastructure also dealt with other waste. There was also a possibility that HIE funding might be available. It was suggested that HIE look again at the earlier paper to see if it could be augmented and include information on ERDF funding. However, the group was reminded that funding will not be available for the infrastructure. It was agreed HIP should be contacted to see if they would be able to fund projects.
Recommendation 8
It was agreed that SEPA would carry out this cost-benefit analysis.
Recommendation 9
The Chair noted that FRS is carrying out Contingency Planning and if the storage and collection logistics of large-scale mortalities is not already covered then the CP could be expanded to cover it.
Recommendation 10
Recommendations have been allocated for appropriate action.
Recommendation 11
SEPA will report back to this group within 6 weeks.
8. Any Other Business
The issue of enforcement of the new Animal By-Product regulations was raised. COSLA was awaiting detailed guidance from SEERAD but any complaints received by local authorities were being looked into.
9. Date of Next Meeting
This was deferred until the SEPA progress report was received. The Chair closed the meeting by thanking everyone for attending.