THE ART OF LIVING IN AUSTRALIA TOGETHER WITH THREE HUNDRED AUSTRALIAN COOKERY RECIPES AND ACCESSORY KITCHEN INFORMATION BY MRS. H. WICKEN TEXT

licensed dredging was permitted, but with such disastrous results that within two years a Fisheries Act Amendment Act had to be passed. What happened, in short, was that the beds were actually skinned, so that the total disappearance of the oyster was looming in the distance. But even the passing of this latter Act was powerless to check the evil, and by the Oyster Fisheries Act of 1884 (the present Act) there was a reversal to the old system of long leases and larger holdings. Even at the present time matters are far from perfect, and in the opinion of the Commissioners of Fisheries some radical change is necessary if oyster production is to have a place at all. Now, it is true that the present Act has checked the wholesale extermination of oysters on the part of licensed dredgers. But, unfortunately, in its passage through Parliament, some unhappy amendments totally altered the intention of the Bill. For instance, one clause makes it penal to remove oysters from a reserve or leased area without authority; but omits the protection of oysters on adjoining foreshores which may not be under lease at all; and it has accordingly happened that unprincipled persons have proceeded to rob the adjacent unleased beds of every single oyster they contained. But while faulty and inoperative legislation may be responsible in part for the failure in our oysteries, it is certain that other causes must be at work to bring about such a disastrous result. And in the different annual reports on the fisheries of the colony this is attributed to various reasons. Thus at some places, between the Richmond and Port Macquarie, it has been set down to the presence of quantities of decomposing sea-weed on the oyster beds; in the Manning to deposits of mud and sand; and elsewhere again to the ravages of a small worm. Besides these causes, too, it has been ascribed to the long continued absence of floods, with a consequent increased salinity of the water--the latter being considered inimical to oyster life. In the opinion of scientific writers, water containing 3 per cent. of salt is most suitable for oyster development, water above that salinity being too strong, and that below it too weak. It has also been well pointed out by Mr. henry Woodward, in his admirable pamphlet on Oyster Culture in New South Wales, that most of our deep water beds are situated in the rivers, a little way from the sea. Under favourable circumstances there is just that commingling of the fresh water from the river and the salt water from the sea which produces the oyster to perfection. In times of drought, however, the salt water drives out the oysters from the deeper beds by reason of its greater density. On the other hand, the fresh water, being the lighter, floats at the top and enables the oysters to live in the shallower parts, by maintaining the required 3 per cent. of salinity. It is evident from this, that the lessees have acted in direct opposition to this natural law, for they have stripped the oysters from the shallow water, where they would have done well, and laid them down on the deep beds, where the increased percentage of salt water has proved too much for them. Dr. James C. Cox, of Sydney, the President of the Fisheries Commission, and our best known authority on conchology, has contributed a very valuable paper upon "The Australian Oyster, its Cultivation and Destruction," to the recent official work, THE FISHERIES OF NEW SOUTH WALES, already referred to. A brief summary of his views will, therefore, be full of interest. First of all, then, he separates oysters into three classes, namely, drift oysters, mud oysters, and rock oysters. Now, this classification must be clearly borne in mind, as it will the better enable the reader to understand what follows. He attributes the want of success in our oysteries to several causes, which have not been sufficiently heeded. One of these is that the oyster culturists have expected that the seed oysters which they obtained from between high and low water mark (rock oysters) would produce drift oysters if placed on beds on which drift oysters once throve in abundance. Dr. Cox maintains, however, that these two kinds of oysters, the rock oysters and the drift oysters, are quite different, and, as it will be seen, believes that they require different food. It can be well understood from this, then, that rock oysters will fail to grow on drift-oyster beds. As to the mud oyster, he thinks very highly of it, and regrets that it has been so ignored by our oyster culturists. He is quite sure that if our mud oyster were cultivated and educated as it is now in Europe, it would be brought to the same perfection as the European and American oyster. It has been said of our mud oyster that it will not keep, and will not carry; but the same was said of its European representative until its cultivators came to discover that by a gradual process of raising it could be educated to keep quite long enough for all commercial purposes. To come to the real point on which Dr. Cox considers that all oyster culture has failed in Australian waters. It is an established fact that the drift oyster and also the mud oyster require a diatomatic food for their existence. These two varieties of oysters no doubt consume other forms of food, but living diatoms constitute by far the greatest part. On the contrary, the rock oyster does not appear to need the diatomatic nutriment to sny extent, and is fed chiefly by larval forms of marine life. Thus, knowing that the drift and mud oysters require different food from the rock oyster, it is easy to see why our oyster culturists have failed in establishing new beds of oysters in various places. For the whole purport of Dr. Cox's paper may be summarised into expressing his belief that sufficient attention has not been devoted to the replenishment of our natural beds, WITH THEIR OWN KIND. In former days, when our drift and mud oysters were in their prime, there were many pools of naturally preserved fresh water--in fact, often very extensive lakes--on the banks of many of the estuaries and inlets running up into our rivers and creeks. Now, these reservoirs appear to have been constantly supplied by subaqueous springs of fresh water, and in consequence the supply of diatomatic food was abundant. It was abundant, because, as it is well known, diatomatic life depends for its existence, to a great extent, on the presence of fresh water. These collections of fresh water no longer exist, so that the diatomatic food supply is not forthcoming to maintain the drift and the mud oyster. But there are other additional causes for the disappearance of these latter. The surrounding ground has been cleared for agricultural purposes, and the earth, broken up by ploughing, has been washed into these estuaries, and has suffocated, as it were, the oysters in their natural position. Again, the water which flows over the oysters is continually being disturbed by the different steamers passing up and down. The stirred-up mud they create gets into the gills, and destroys the oysters. From the preceding it will be seen that Mr. Cox is of opinion that the loss of diatomatic food is one of the principal causes in diminishing the supply of drift and mud oysters, and in addition he believes that this decrease has been also brought about by muddy water. Indeed, fairly clear water is absolutely necessary for their existence. On the contrary, water loaded with any sediment interferes with the functions of the oyster so much as to destroy it. In this way floods are considered to be beneficial, and even almost necessary, to proper oyster development; for they clear out the accumulations of mud, silt, and marine vegetable growth, thus giving the beds every chance. And further, Mr. Thomas Whitelegge, of the Australian Museum, has made some investigations into what is known as the "worm disease," due to the POLYDORA CILIATA. It was commonly suppose that it was not the worm itself which was fatal, but that by boring through the shell it afforded entrance for the fine mud, which quickly destroyed the oyster. From the result of his researches, however, Mr. Whitelegge believes that the young worm simply swims into the open oyster, and that it immediately begins to construct a tube and collect a large quantity of mud. The worms appear to have the power of collecting a large quantity of mud in a very short time. The mud is covered over at once by the oyster with a thin layer of shelly matter, thus enveloping the worm, together with its mud. After this, one of two things happens: if the oyster be healthy, it envelops the worm and mud so quickly as to dispose of the intruder for good; but, on the other hand, if the oyster be unhealthy, or already infested, the shelly deposition is far slower, as a consequence of which the worm gains the ascendency, and the oyster succumbs. In Victoria, too, the oyster fisheries are in a most unsatisfactory condition. According to Mr. Saville Kent, the author of THE GREAT BARRIER REEF OF AUSTRALIA and formerly Commissioner of Fisheries in several of the Australian colonies, and who is qualified to speak on these matters, the destruction of the oyster there has been brought about by sedimentary deposits, by parasitic growths, such as sponges, mussels, ascidians, and sea-weed; by the attacks of the dog-whelk and other natural enemies; and by their continual removal by human agency. He points out that there are the remains of magnificent natural beds in different parts, but that they are on the verge of ruin through neglect on the one hand and the invasion of poachers on the other. In short, he very plainly shows that unless active measures be taken for their general resuscitation and development, Victoria will have to look elsewhere for her oyster supply. THE RE-CREATION OF OUR OYSTER FISHERIES. If one only looks to the conduct of some of those who have been engaged in our oyster fisheries, the reason for their present defective state will be readily apparent. The Fisheries Commissioners well express it when they state that "If a person takes up ground only for the purpose of collecting and selling whatever oysters he finds upon it, and bestows no care in providing for the continuity of the supply, that ground must cease to be productive." And apart from this it will be found that even when every effort has been made to provide for continuous supply, yet the matter is by no means easy. The truth is the oyster fisheries have been managed in a happy-go-lucky way. There has been but little care taken in their conservation, and the inevitable result is that the winnings, as the official figures show, are rapidly failing. The same thing is not peculiar to Australia, however, and has happened everywhere else where the same careless policy has been pursued. We have, then, a grain of comfort from the fact that it is not confined to us. In our own case the Fisheries Commissioners have repeatedly called attention to the need for certain legislative reform in connection with our oysteries. They assert, in fact, that "it is absolutely imperative that our oyster beds and deposits must be regulated on quite a different system to that which obtains under the existing law." Mr. Saville Kent, who has been investigating the cause of failure in connection with the oyster fisheries of Victoria, not so long ago, has made some interesting recommendations. The principle of his system is to establish on selected spots, in the neighbourhood of the formerly most productive natural oyster grounds, small Government reserves, whereon stocks of oysters shall be laid down and carefully cultivated for breeding purposes. He points out that the capacity of oysters for breeding is greatly augmented when they are collected together in a small space, in comparison with that of equal numbers thinly scattered over my extensive area. Each reserve in this way constitutes a prolific breeding centre for stocking the surrounding waters, and by this means alone the process of restoring the natural beds is quickly accelerated. Indeed, he is particularly careful to draw attention to the fact that in the previously attempted establishment of artificial oyster fisheries a prominent error was in working too large areas. One or two acres intelligently cultivated can be made to produce far more substantial results than a very large area under inefficient management, and at much less expenditure of time and money. A vast amount of money has been expended in different localities on the Victorian coast for the purpose of developing the oyster fisheries. In the great majority of cases, however, the site selected was unsuitable for such a purpose, and the mode of culture adopted impracticable and inefficient. For instance, one place was the recipient of a vast amount of sedimentary deposits. Here he found that they had surrounded the chosen areas with fences of great height and strength, and closely wattled, for the purpose of catching and retaining the young oyster brood. Instead of this, however, they had simply acted as "catch-pits," which had accumulated soft oozy mud to the depth of several feet, and a few dead oyster shells were the only result. Instead of such an evident failure as this, he recommends oyster-spat collectors of two kinds, one consisting of extra thick split palings 4 ft. long by 8 in. wide, with a brick attached to each end to weigh them down, and at the same time to raise them off the ground. Several of them on being raised for inspection, after three months, were found to have over 1,000 embryo oysters adhering to them. The other form of spat collector he employs consists of cemented slates, arranged ridge-wise on light ti-tree frames, and in some localities these were found to be even more efficacious than the palings. In the old country the same necessity for oyster culture is well recognised. In an interesting address given not so long ago, Professor Huxley, after referring to the growing scarcity of the bivalve, expressed his belief that the only hope for the oyster consumer was first in oyster culture, and secondly in discovering a means of breeding oysters under such conditions that all the spat was safely deposited. France has done more than any other country in the world in the artificial culture of the oyster. Not many years ago the oyster fisheries there were in danger of absolute extinction--a state of affairs brought about by reckless and unrestricted fishing, without any effort to provide for a re-supply. Mainly through the efforts of M. Coste, the propagation of oysters was scientifically carried out, with a result that has even exceeded the marvellous. According to a recent French official report, the Bay of Arcachon contained in the year 1807, 20 private PARCS, or district oyster beds. In the year 1865 these had increased to the number of 297, with an output of 10,000,000 oysters. In the year 1887, the area under cultivation in the same bay amounted to 15,000 acres, and produced 300,000,000 oysters. In addition to this, a still later report attributes the present flourishing condition of this industry "to the steps primarily initiated by the Government, and to the necessity of upholding this success by continuing the same system of administrative supervision, together with the practical illustration in the Government model PARCS of the most perfected methods of oyster culture, for the benefit of private cultivators." And lastly, if we require further evidence in support of the necessity for ostreiculture, we have only to turn to America. A falling off in the supply led to an inquiry into the cause by the United States Fish Commission. Professor Goode, in his review of the work accomplished by this body, writes, INTER ALIA:--"The important distinction between the extermination of a species and the destruction of a fishery should be noted. In the case of fixed animals like the sponge, the mussel, and the oyster, the colonies or beds may be practically exterminated, exactly as a forest may be cut down. The preservation of the oyster beds is a matter of vital importance to the United States, for oyster fishing unsupported by oyster culture will, within a short period, destroy the employment of tens of thousands, and the cheap and favourite food of tens of millions." "Something," the professor proceeds to say, "may be effected by laws which allow each oyster bed to rest for a period of years after each season of fishing upon it. It is the general belief, however, that shell-fish beds must be cultivated as carefully as garden beds, and that this can only be done by leasing them to individuals. It is probable that the present unregulated methods will prevail until the dredging of the natural beds ceases to be remunerative, and that the oyster industry will then be transferred from the improvident fisherman to the care-taking oyster-culturists." We are thus led to the inevitable conclusion that if our Australian oyster fisheries are to be re-created, it will be necessary to follow in the same lines. With that object in view, therefore, it will be needful to devise suitable legislative enactments to protect our oyster fisheries and to foster ostreiculture at the same time. We must benefit, in short, by the experience derived from other parts of the world where ostreiculture has been carried to a state of absolute perfection. THE FOOD VALUE OF THE OYSTER. In the first place I shall begin by affirming that it would be a difficult matter indeed to say too much in favour of the oyster. It is as highly appreciated at the present day as it was by the Romans hundreds of years ago, and it is certain that in centuries to come it will be found occupying a similar unrivalled position. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that it is not every person who cares for the oyster, showing that there are various forms of affliction; and we find, accordingly, that there is no half-heartedness about the like or dislike for the oyster--it is either held in the loftiest admiration, or looked upon almost with repugnance. It is both food for the sick-room and food for the strong man. It is one of the most valuable forms of nourishment for the growing child, and it gives strength to those of declining years. It is specially appropriate for the brain worker, and yet it is deservedly in great repute with the muscle user--whether athlete or artisan. It is the opening ceremony at our feasts, while it reigns supreme at supper. In short, there is everything to be said for it, while not a single word can be urged against it. But if it is thus so highly appreciated in health, it is in disease that it is at its best; for here it occupies a place which nothing else can fill. Indeed, after many cases of acute or serious illness, the oyster is one of the first things which the patient looks for. In many chronic disorders, too, it is absolutely without a rival. Thus, in anaemia, where the blood is so poor, it restores the strength; in bronchitis and other chest diseases it helps to relieve the loaded tubes of phlegm; in consumption and similar wasting maladies it conserves the vital powers; in debility it creates new force; in indigestion it is often digestible when all else is indigestible; in nervous disease it renews the nervous energy. The list, in fact, might be multiplied indefinitely, but enough has been instanced to prove the value of the oyster. It should be added, in conclusion, that it is best eaten raw, with its juice, which is its blood mixed with sea-water. A squeeze of lemon is generally employed to bring out its flavour, and, for those who are not invalids, a sensation of cayenne pepper is distinctly an improvement. THE FOOD VALUE OF FISH. Along with its great ally, the oyster, fish undoubtedly occupies one of the highest places on the food list. Unfortunately, it is not met with