NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 109
Proceedings of the Symposium
on
the Potential for Development
of Aquaculture in Massachusetts
15-17 February 1995,
Chatham/Edgartown/Dartmouth, Massachusetts
by Carlos A. Castro1 and
Scott J. Soares2,
Compilers and Editors
1National
Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA 01930
2Southeastern Regional
Planning & Economic Development District, Taunton, MA 02780
Print
publication date January 1996;
web version posted April 12, 2001
Citation: Castro CA, Soares SJ, compilers/editors. 1996. Proceedings of the Symposium on
the Potential for Development
of Aquaculture in Massachusetts -- 15-17 February 1995,
Chatham/Edgartown/Dartmouth, Massachusetts. US Dep Commer, NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 109; 26 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
Preface
The
impact of the current fisheries crisis on the fishing industry of coastal
New England has inspired numerous recommendations to alleviate the
resulting economic stress. Among these recommendations are: 1)
retraining of those displaced from the industry, 2) greater exploitation
of underutilized species, 3) a government-sponsored fishing vessel
buyback program, and 4) development of various forms of aquaculture. It
has become apparent that there will be no one solution for the industry's
dilemma. Accordingly, although it is not a panacea, aquaculture
is one alternative that provides limited employment and a source of
high-quality protein.
The primary reasons for organizing
these symposia were the needs to educate and inform municipal officials about
aquaculture, to encourage development of the emerging aquacultural industry,
and to provide a forum for discussion of major constraints affecting the industry. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Southeastern [Massachusetts]
Regional Planning and Economic Development Council (SRPEDD) jointly organized
three regional symposia. Over 350 invitations went to state and federal
government agencies and to coastal communities throughout southeastern Massachusetts. Because
development of Massachusetts' aquacultural industry suffers from a lack of startup
capital, the South Eastern Economic Development Corporation sent an additional
300 invitations to lending institutions throughout the commonwealth. Response
to the more than 600 invitations was extraordinary. Over 300 people attended
the symposia held in Chatham, Edgartown, and Dartmouth on February 15, 16,
and 17, 1995, respectively.
This report summarizes the presentations
at these symposia. Crucial to success was involvement of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution's Sea Grant Program (WHOI/SGP), Martha's Vineyard Shellfish
Group, Inc. (MVSG), Cape Cod Economic Development Council (CCEDC), Resource Conservation
and Development Council, Center for Marine Science and Technology of the University
of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (UMD/CMST), Cape Cod Commission, Martha's Vineyard
Commission, and Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology. The
symposia were sponsored by NMFS, SRPEDD, WHOI/SGP, CCEDC, MVSG, and UMD/CMST. Special
thanks go to Dr. Jean Fraser, Mr. Richard Karney, Dr. Dale Leavitt, and Mr. Dana
Morse for their invaluable assistance in organizing these symposia.
Scott J. Soares
Southeastern Regional Planning
and Economic Development District
Taunton, Massachusetts 02780
WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
Carlos A. Castro
Northeast Regional Operations Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
I welcome all participants
to this symposium on “The Potential for Development of Aquaculture
in Massachusetts.” This event is the result of a cooperative
effort by many agencies and organizations that share an interest in
development of aquaculture. I gratefully acknowledge the sponsorship
of the participating agencies, and particularly recognize the important
financial contributions of SRPEDD, CCEDC, WHOI/SGP, and MVSG. Their
contributions were fundamental in organizing these symposia. We
have set up three similar meetings in order to reach all coastal communities
of southeastern Massachusetts: today this one, tomorrow on Martha’s
Vineyard, and Friday at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.
These symposia were designed to inform,
educate, and address the managerial issues that concern not only local decisionmakers,
but the state and federal government, as well. We hope that the information
and discussions generated in this forum will help local municipalities and the
state to shape their policies on aquaculture. We also certainly hope to
create enough interest to stimulate the private sector to make more capital investments. In
attendance today are selectmen from most Cape Cod towns, official representatives
of conservation commissions, shellfish advisory groups, and state and federal
governments, and individual members of the community.
While, throughout most of New England,
state government plays a prominent role in the regulatory process, Massachusetts
has given local municipalities authority over state waters. This results
in a heterogeneity of public laws. These laws generally require applicants
to establish local residency before applying for an aquacultural permit.
In the Northeast, the near collapse
of groundfish stocks, and the subsequent decline of traditional commercial fisheries,
make aquaculture an attractive alternative for many dislocated fishermen. Cape
Cod and the Islands seem to be on the brink of an aquacultural revolution. In
recent months, the federal government has directed grants to the fishing industry
to facilitate development of innovative aquacultural methods. Many people
might be skeptical about aquaculture becoming an economically viable activity
for this region. Nonetheless, in the last few months, local municipalities
have been overwhelmed by applications for aquacultural permits. The aquacultural
industry is assuming an entirely new dimension as new and alternate methods are
introduced. At the same time, state government is rapidly developing the
legislative framework needed to meet the new challenges of the emerging
industry.
NMFS promotes marine aquaculture as
one of the objectives of the NMFS 1995 Action Plan and as one of the objectives
of the Northeast Fisheries Assistance Program. It is important to note that
NMFS does not promote aquaculture as the solution to the groundfish fisheries
crisis in the Northeast, but rather as an alternative for coastal communities
and fishermen interested in exploring a different economic avenue that may help
to relieve some pressure on traditional groundfish fisheries. Last year,
NMFS distributed over $2 million through the Fishing Industry Grant Program to
fund aquacultural projects in the Northeast. This year, $4.5 million will
be available for the second round of the program. We anticipate that a
significant portion will be directed toward development of marine aquaculture
as a new business opportunity.
Although it has one of the longest
coastlines in the world, the United States lags most other coastal nations in
production of seafood through marine aquaculture. The United States has
a tremendous opportunity to develop a high-quality, technologically advanced,
aquaculture-based seafood industry capable of satisfying our domestic market. Recent
studies show that American consumers strongly prefer seafood that is cultivated under
controlled conditions. It is essential for decisionmakers to learn from
other nations’ experiences in developing aquacultural industries. Chile,
Japan, Norway, and Thailand represent a few of the countries with extraordinary
successes in recent years.
During 1993, the United States imported
over $5.8 billion worth of seafood products, making seafood trade one of the
largest commodities contributing to the trade deficit. According to the
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture
Service 1992), the United States contributes only about 2% of the total world
aquacultural production. In the Northeast, Massachusetts lags behind Connecticut,
Maine, and Pennsylvania in aquacultural production. According to Bush and
Anderson (1993), Connecticut, with estimated sales of $62 million, has the largest
aquacultural production in the Northeast. Maine is second largest in aquacultural
production with $43 million. Massachusetts modestly contributes only $8
million to the regional economy through aquacultural production.
On Cape Cod, where shellfish farming
is the main type of aquaculture, most of the obstacles blocking the development
of shellfish aquaculture arise from user-conflict issues and exacting managerial
regulations. There are no easy solutions to these problems. However,
we should remember that in order to have our communities accept aquaculture for
economic development, there must be a common interest in having it. All
users and practitioners need to feel involved. Presently, several towns
are developing harbor management plans that include aquacultural zones. Local
municipalities should coordinate their efforts with state officials, local experts,
and economic development officials to elaborate comprehensive plans. I
hope that this symposium helps those involved in the regulatory process by providing
tools and ideas to deal better with these new challenges.
REFERENCES CITED
Bush, M.J.; Anderson, J.L. 1993. Northeast region aquaculture
industry situation and outlook report. Univ. R.I. Dep. Resour.
Econ. Publ. 2917; 60 p. Available from: University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, RI.
FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service. 1992. Review
of the state of the world fisheries resources. Part 2. Inland fisheries
and aquaculture. FAO Fish. Circ. 710.
AQUACULTURE: A WORLDWIDE
GROWTH RESPONSE
TO DECLINING FISHERIES
STOCKS
Michael A. Rice
Department of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island 02881
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, farming or husbandry
of aquatic organisms, known as aquaculture, has experienced tremendous
growth over the last decade. According to the most recently published
figures of the FAO, total world aquacultural production in 1992 was
in excess of (U.S.) $32.5 billion, almost double the 1986 figure of
$16.6 billion (FAO 1994). Growth of aquaculture has been most
explosive in Asia where aquatically derived protein is a major portion
of many people’s diet. Total value of Asian aquacultural products
tripled between 1984 and 1992 from $7 billion to about $21 billion. Significant
growth in aquaculture occurred in South America and Europe as well
(FAO 1994).
Sadly, in the United States, the rate
of growth in aquaculture has been much lower. Between 1986 and 1992, the
value of aquacultural products in the United States grew from $471 million to
$630 million (FAO 1994), this gain coming mainly from production of channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus) in Mississippi. This state produces about
80% of the national catfish supply (USDA Economic Research Service 1994).
The United States has paid dearly
for its lack of interest in fostering aquacultural enterprises in the face of
long-predicted declines in natural fishery stocks. During 1983-93, imports
of fishery products into the United States grew from $3.6 billion to $5.8 billion
(USDA Economic Research Service 1994), with about 40% of these totals representing
importation of aquacultured shrimps or prawns. According to the U.S. Department
of Commerce and other sources, importation of seafood products is the third leading
contributor to the trade deficit, next to petroleum and illegal drugs.
As alarming as the figures are, they
should be of most urgent concern in southeastern New England where the economy
has relied heavily upon fisheries and seafood since colonial times. For
example, the history of New Bedford as a whaling and fishing center is well known
throughout the country. As fisheries collapse, secondary industries, such
as fish processing houses and fishing gear suppliers and manufacturers that depend
on the supply of fisheries products, will falter unless there are suitable alternatives
such as aquaculture. As of 1992, total value of aquacultural products in
southeastern New England (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) was $8.2 million (Bush
and Anderson 1993). This is an astoundingly poor performance for a region
with such a proud maritime tradition. But, the existing aquacultural industry
cites several “hidden” factors that have hampered development. Governmental
attention to changing or modifying inappropriate or excessive regulations, and
to promptly resolving multiple-use conflicts, can go a long way toward fostering
aquacultural entrepreneurship.
AQUACULTURAL SOURCES OF LOCALLY CONSUMED
SEAFOOD
In many ways, it is instructive
to examine some of the sources of seafood products in our local supermarkets. Many
products that are plentiful, in reliable supply, and of reasonable
price to the consumer are often of aquacultural origin.
Channel Catfish
The channel catfish aquacultural
industry of the southern United States is often touted as an economic
success story. As stated earlier, this industry makes up a major
fraction of the entire aquacultural production in this country. Market
development was key to success. Catfish is readily available
in supermarkets here in the Northeast where catfish was largely unknown
up to a few years ago.
The industry originally came about
as a secondary means of income for many farmers who had marginal agricultural
land. Catfish are generally produced by allowing brooder catfish to spawn
in shallow open ponds, then collecting the egg masses and incubating them in
indoor hatcheries. Ponds for catfish production generally run from 2 to
10 acres, and a typical farm may have 20-100 or more acres of ponds. Typical
pond production of catfish is 25,000-40,000 lb/acre.
Conditions for success in the catfish
industry of the southern states rests upon a very workable partnership among
industry, state regulatory agencies, state universities, and federal agencies. Once
aquaculture became established and track records known, financial institutions
were willing to develop financing packages, and secondary industries, such as
feed manufacturing, flourished. Auburn University and Mississippi State
University have notable academic and extension programs based upon catfish farming. Additionally,
the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is very active in funding industry-requested research projects.
Atlantic Salmon
Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar), a popular fish very commonly found in the fish sections
of supermarkets, is often reasonably priced for consumers. Here
in the United States, Atlantic salmon are farmed in coastal, floating,
fish pens in the states of Maine and Washington (Bettencourt and
Anderson 1990).
Domestic production of salmon is dwarfed
by production in a number of other countries, including Norway, Scotland, Canada,
and Japan. As a result of this massive overseas production, much of the
salmon sold in the United States is from foreign sources (Peterson 1994). In
the last 2 or 3 yr, Atlantic salmon produced in the fiords of southern Chile
have reached U.S. markets, and their production should grow considerably due
to fairly low costs.
Tilapia
Orechromis spp.
fishes, which are closely related to the well-known Tilapia spp.,
are commonly aquacultured freshwater fishes. (Orechromis spp.
are hereafter referred to as just “tilapia.”) They are becoming
a popular item in many seafood markets in this country. Fresh
tilapia have a firm flesh and delicate “non-fishy” flavor that is agreeable
to the average North American palate.
Tilapia are mouth-brooding fish, native
to Africa. Developing eggs and larvae are incubated by the female parent
as a natural defense against predation. Tilapia are grown in many developing
nations because they are extremely hardy, easy to breed, and amenable to low-capital
culture systems. Being a tropical species, they require a fairly warm environment. They
become heavily stressed and die if water temperatures dip much below 15°C
(59°F).
In this country, tilapia are mostly
cultured indoors in recirculation systems. There are some pond-cultured
tilapia in the desert Southwest, particularly in California and Arizona.
Shrimp
Aquacultured shrimp (family
Penaeidae) is a very common product in supermarkets and seafood stores. Prior
to about 1983, most shrimp on world markets were caught by shrimp trawl
fleets. Although there was a considerable industry of shrimp
aquaculture in many tropical Asian countries, the industry was limited
by availability of juvenile shrimp. These juveniles were caught
by small-scale fishermen. Development of commercial shrimp hatcheries
in the early 1980s radically changed the face of the shrimp aquacultural
industry. The industry in many countries expanded and intensified,
with farms often producing 5-6 times more shrimp per unit of pond area
than was previously possible. Worldwide, the shrimp aquacultural
industry experienced tremendous growth during the middle to late 1980s. Major
shrimp-producing countries include Ecuador, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines,
Indonesia, and People’s Republic of China.
Rapid and largely unregulated growth
of the shrimp aquacultural industry has created a host of environmental and social
problems (Pollnac and Weeks 1992). It is instructive to review them. Key
problems include destruction of wetland habitats for pond construction, displacement
of fishermen dependent upon community-held resources, and lack of sustainability. Production
in the 1990s is declining due to overstocking, stressed stock, and disease (Aiken
1990). For aquaculture to be a sustainable form of economic development,
aquaculturists need to be mindful of the socioeconomic and environmental implications
of their work. They should not simply follow the pattern set by an overseas
shrimp aquacultural operation.
Bivalve Mollusks
Aquaculturing of filter-feeding
bivalve mollusks such as oysters, clams, and scallops is often an environmentally
sound practice (Newkirk 1992; Rice 1992). Southeastern New England
has a long history of shellfishing and shellfish culture. Indeed,
the Rhode Island Oyster Act of 1844 was essentially the state’s first
aquacultural law. It allowed aquacultural leases in Narragansett
Bay (Nixon 1993). On Cape Cod, there is currently a small industry
devoted to culture of the northern quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria). There
are also some small-scale productions of eastern oysters (Crassostrea
virginica) and bay scallops (Argopecten irradians) in southeastern
Massachusetts and in Rhode Island.
Although there are a number of excellent
examples of successful bivalve culture operations around the world, two of note
may provide lessons for southeastern New England. First is the recent development
of a multimillion dollar eastern oyster industry in nearby Connecticut. In
the late 1980s, Connecticut gave high priority to aquacultural development. One
part of their effort streamlined the aquaculture-permitting process. They
created a new Division of Aquaculture under their Department of Agriculture,
and placed most aquaculture permitting in this new division. The Division
of Aquaculture, in one of its first acts, invested $1 million in fossil oyster
shells to provide setting materials for native oysters. The investment
paid off. A small, oyster seed fishery grew and began to supply commercial
leaseholders. Value of Connecticut’s aquacultured oyster products by 1992
exceeded $60 million (Bush and Anderson 1993). The Connecticut oyster aquacultural
industry is now the single largest segment of the entire New England aquacultural
industry. This is largely due to implementation of appropriate governmental
structures and strategic seed money (Volk 1994).
Another notable bivalve aquacultural
success story is the rapid development of a bay scallop aquacultural industry
in China. The Chinese in 1982 introduced 27 New England bay scallops as
brood stock for one of their hatcheries (Yarish and Huang 1992). They now
culture the scallops in coastal waters using simple “longline” systems and lantern
nets. Their state and private hatcheries produce scallop seed and supply
their coastal farms. China, by 1992, reported its bay scallop production
exceeded 120,000 metric tons (265 million lb), much of which it exported to the
United States as frozen scallop meats. We, in Southern New England, clearly
have the potential to culture our own bay scallops.
CONCLUSIONS
We could follow many models
from around the world for development of an economically and environmentally
sustainable aquacultural industry. Additionally, we can learn
much by studying the problems that other countries encounter in developing
their industry. Our key to success in aquaculture is a workable
partnership between governmental regulatory authorities, the educational
community, and members of the industry. Talent exists in each
of these sectors, but cooperation is the key to successful development.
REFERENCES CITED
Aiken, D. 1990. Shrimp farming in Ecuador: whither the
future? World Aquacult. 21(4):26-30.
Bettencourt, S.U.; Anderson, J.L. 1990. Pen-reared salmonid
industry in the northeastern United States. U.S. Dep. Agr.
Northeast Reg. Aquacult. Cent. Publ. NRAC-100; 159 p. Available
from: Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center, Dartmouth, MA.
Bush, M.J.; Anderson, J.L. 1993. Northeast region aquaculture
industry situation and outlook report. Univ. R.I. Dep. Resour.
Econ. Publ. 2917; 60 p. Available from: University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, RI.
FAO. 1994. Aquaculture production 1986-1992. 6th rev. FAO
Fish. Circ. 815; 216 p.
Newkirk, G. 1992. Development of small-scale bivalve culture:
the IRDC experience in developing countries. In: Pollnac,
R.B.; Weeks, P., eds. Coastal aquaculture in developing countries:
problems and perspectives. Kingston, RI: University of Rhode
Island International Center for Marine Resource Development; p. 162-173.
Nixon, D.W. 1993. A legal history of shellfish regulation
in Rhode Island. In: Rice, M.A.; Grossman-Garber, D.,
eds. Proceedings of the Second Rhode Island Shellfish Industry
Conference. Narragansett, RI: University of Rhode Island Sea
Grant; p. 19-22.
Peterson, M. 1994. United States international trade law
and practice: is it consistent with GATT? The U.S.-Norwegian
salmon war. MS Thesis. Kingston, RI: University of Rhode
Island; 135 p.
Pollnac, R.B.; Weeks, P., editors. 1992. Coastal aquaculture
in developing countries: problems and perspectives. Kingston,
RI: University of Rhode Island International Center for Marine Resource
Development; 184 p.
Rice, M.A. 1992. Bivalve aquaculture in warm tropical
and subtropical waters with reference to sanitary water quality, monitoring
and post-harvest disinfection. Trop. Sci. 32:179-201.
USDA Economic Research Service. 1994. Aquaculture: situation
and outlook report. U.S. Dep. Agr. Econ. Res. Serv. AQS-13
(October 1994); 47 p.
Volk, J.H. 1994. Strategies for successful aquaculture
development: the Connecticut experience. (Abstr.) J. Shellfish
Res. 13:323.
Yarish, C.; Huang, X. 1992. Integrated kelp and bay scallop
culture in China. (Abstr.) In: Abstracts of the 12th Annual
Milford Shellfish Biology Seminar. Available from: National Marine
Fisheries Service, Milford, CT.
NORTHEAST AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY: SITUATION AND OUTLOOK
Michael J. Bush and James L. Anderson
Department of Resource Economics
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island 02881
Priscilla M. Brooks
Conservation Law Foundation
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
INTRODUCTION
Total 1992 farmgate value
of aquacultural products in the Northeast was estimated at $146,409,000. (“Northeast” refers
to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West
Virginia.) This estimate was based on farmgate prices quoted
by those producers interviewed. Based on the strength of its
eastern oyster industry, Connecticut had estimated 1992 farmgate sales
of $61.7 million, making it the largest aquacultural producing state
in the region. The pen-reared salmonid industry propelled Maine’s
1992 farmgate sales to $42.9 million, establishing it as the second-largest
aquacultural producing state in the region.
Figure
1 breaks down this total by major species category. Eastern
oyster production represented the single largest segment of the regional aquacultural
industry, accounting for approximately 42% of the total farmgate value. The
net-pen culture of Atlantic salmon and sea-run (i.e., steelhead) rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was the second largest segment, contributing
roughly 29% to the estimated regional value. Northern quahog production
was next, followed by freshwater trout production. Two general groups,
called “other finfish” and “other,” represented a combination of several smaller
categories. The category “other finfish” includes tilapia, catfishes, ornamental
fishes, baitfishes, black basses (Micropterus spp.), sunfishes, crappies
(Pomoxis spp.), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). The
category “other” includes small amounts of other shellfishes, aquatic plants,
and crayfishes. Farmgate sales of “hybrid striped bass” represented approximately
2% of the regional value. [See “Managing Editor’s Note” at
end of this section.]
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS
Based on survey results,
the following are preliminary estimates of private aquacultural production
and value, future opportunities and current problems facing the aquacultural
industry, and priority research directions based on the aquacultural
industry’s needs in the Northeast.
Eastern Oyster
The eastern oyster industry,
with estimated 1992 farmgate sales of $63.4 million, represents the
largest segment of the regional aquacultural industry. Approximately
88% of regionally cultured oyster production is harvested from Connecticut
waters. Although many oyster producers indicate that it is very
difficult to estimate future production levels due to uncertainties
associated with disease, weather, growth rates, and predation, producers
did expect, on average, to see some growth in regional harvests over
the next 5 yr. Based on an average of survey responses, producers
also expect demand for oysters to slightly outpace the increase in
production, leading to slight increases in real farmgate prices. Oyster
growers cite the current regulatory environment, disease, and the unavailability
of financial capital as the top three constraints to industry growth.
Pen-Reared Atlantic Salmon and Sea-Run
Rainbow Trout
The Maine-based, pen-reared
salmonid industry expected limited growth for the 1993 season. However,
producers do expect to see substantial production increases over the
next 5 yr. Salmon growers expect to see increases in demand for
salmon products; however, most producers feel that growth in demand
will not keep pace with production increases, leading to stable or
slightly declining farmgate prices. Financial capital unavailability,
predation, and the current regulatory environment were cited as the
most constraining factors on growth of the salmon industry.
Northern Quahog
Regional northern quahog
production generated an estimated farmgate value of $15.6 million in
1992. This segment of the industry is centered in Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Survey responses indicated
that producers expect to see a steady growth in production over the
next 5 yr. As with oyster producers, quahog growers expressed
difficulty in accurately forecasting their production levels from year
to year due to environmental factors which are beyond their control. Producers
also expect to see moderate increases in demand and fairly stable farmgate
prices. The top three constraints to growth of the quahog industry,
as indicated by growers, are predation, unavailability of financial
capital, and the current regulatory environment.
Freshwater Trout
The 1992 regional production
of freshwater trout was valued at approximately $12.9 million. Although
Pennsylvania accounts for 72% of the volume, making it the dominant
producing state, each of the 12 regional states had some commercial
trout production. Fifty-seven percent of production is sold for
either private stocking or fee fishing. A few large producers
dominate the food-fish sector. Although growers, on average,
expect production to increase slightly over the next 5 yr, most major
producers feel that lack of water resources suitable for large-scale
trout production will limit growth. Much of the increase in production
will depend on achieving greater stocking densities through use of
improved technology for aeration and recirculation. Producers
expect demand, especially in the area of private stocking, to remain
strong, thereby providing a boost to farmgate prices. Trout producers
cite predation, the current regulatory environment, and unavailability
of financial capital as the most constraining factors to trout industry
growth.
Hybrid Striped Bass
The 1992 regional production
of hybrid striped bass was valued at $2.3 million. Maryland and
Massachusetts represent the principal producing states; however, active
producers also were identified in Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia,
and New Jersey. Water recirculating systems were used for about
40% of the 1992 production volume. Their use was expected to
increase, affecting roughly 56% of the 1993 volume. Based on
producer responses, compared to 1992, the 1993 production of hybrid
striped bass was expected to increase by 144% to 2.3 million lb. Producers,
on average, expect growth in demand to lag behind production increases,
resulting in stable or slightly declining farmgate prices. Growers
cited unavailability of financial capital, the regulatory environment,
and marketing as the most constraining factors to the hybrid striped
bass industry.
Tilapia
Tilapia production in the
Northeast remains fairly low, with an estimated farmgate value of $563,000. However,
significant growth is projected by several growers in both Maryland
and Massachusetts over the next 2 yr. Recirculating systems were
used by 100% of the regional tilapia producers identified. Producers
also expect to see significant growth in demand for tilapia, leading
to some strengthening in farmgate prices. Primary constraints
to the tilapia industry, according to producers, include unavailability
of financial capital, lack of information on genetic stocks, and the
regulatory environment.
Other Finfish
The category of “other
finfish” includes ornamental fishes, baitfishes, black basses, sunfishes,
and catfishes. Regional production from this group was valued
at approximately $6.8 million.
Ornamental fish production is dominated
by two major producers, both using open-pond culture techniques. Ornamental
fish producers expect production to be fairly stable over the next 5 yr, with
demand and farmgate prices stable or slightly increasing. Growers indicated
that the current regulatory environment and bird depredation were the most constraining
factors to growth of the ornamental fish industry.
Relatively small amounts of catfishes
are produced for private stocking and fee fishing markets throughout the region. The
only significant regional catfish production for the human consumption market
takes place in Maryland. Producers expect to see fairly substantial increases
in both production and demand resulting in stable farmgate prices. Although
producer rankings of industry constraints were fairly mixed, predation, financial
capital, and the regulatory environment received the highest average scores.
With a few exceptions, the baitfish
industry is characterized by a large number of small, extensive operations. One
operator indicated that he was experimenting with closed systems. Regional
production of baitfishes is expected to see only limited growth due to the large
volume of relatively inexpensive product which is imported from the southern
United States.
Culturists who are also active in
the baitfish and catfish sectors produce much of the black basses, sunfishes,
crappies, and yellow perch. Major industry constraints, as indicated by
this group of producers, are predation, lack of financial capital, and the current
regulatory climate.
Other Aquacultural Products
The farmgate value for
the aquatic plant and crustacean category was estimated at $2.2 million.
Aquatic plant production consists
of ornamental plants, porphyria, and other forms of algae. Production of
aquatic plants was identified in Maryland and Maine.
Crayfish production for the human
consumption market is centered in Maryland, with additional production coming
from Delaware. There are several growers in New York and Pennsylvania that
produce crayfish for the baitfish market.
MANAGING EDITOR’S NOTE: The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to assure the American public
of truth-in-labeling in interstate seafood commerce, requires specific
labeling of all aquacultural products. The FDA requested and
received from the American Fisheries Society (AFS) a list of common
names for all hybridized fishes used as seafood. That list
(Robins et al. 1991, p. 108) also distinguishes hybrids depending
on which parental species is the maternal partner. (In most
cases, the maternal partner is the one with the larger eggs, since
it is easy for a smaller sperm to enter a larger egg than vice versa.)
In this instance, “hybrid striped
bass” refers to a hybridization of the striped bass (Morone saxatilus)
and the white bass (M. chrysops). Assuming that the maternal
partner is the larger striped bass, then the AFS’s name -- and the FDA’s
approved labeling -- for this aquacultural product is “palmetto bass.” Throughout
this report, it is assumed that “hybrid striped bass” refers to “palmetto
bass.”
REFERENCES CITED
Robins, C.R.; Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.;
Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific names
of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Am. Fish.
Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183 p.
SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE ON
MARTHA’S VINEYARD
Richard C. Karney
Martha’s Vineyard Shellfish Group, Inc.
Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts 02557
INTRODUCTION
First, I should like to
thank Carlos and Scott for scheduling this meeting. The timing
is perfect to kick off our “Martha’s Vineyard Private Aquaculture Initiative,” an
aquacultural training program funded under the NMFS Fishing Industry
Grants Program. The 11 fishermen selected to participate in the
training program are in the audience this morning.
I have been in the aquacultural business
for over 20 yr and I feel comfortable using the term “explosive” to describe
development in the industry over the past couple of years. Increased consumption
of seafood in light of its dietary health benefits, combined with a decline in
natural stocks, has resulted in price increases attractive to aquacultural development. Of
the seafood readily available in local fish markets and supermarkets, much is
now farmed. This includes Atlantic salmon, channel catfish, trout, prawns,
and shrimp. The bivalve mollusks [northern quahogs, eastern oysters, bay
scallops, and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis)] increasingly are advertised
as “cultured.” If anything that grows in water is not yet in commercial
culture, it at least is being considered for aquaculture, and methods are being
developed for its culture. The list runs the gamut from abalone, alligator,
and baitfishes, through crayfishes, geoducks, lobsters, mahi mahi, pearl oysters,
and ornamental seahorses, to seaweeds, sponges, scallops, and sturgeons.
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
Currently, aquaculture
is labor intensive, which has favored its development in the third
world. The Chinese have been especially successful adapting scallop
culture techniques developed by the Japanese. These techniques
include spat collectors, pearl nets, and lantern nets, and have been
used to culture scallop species imported from the eastern coast of
the United States. Starting with 26 broodstock bay scallop, the
Chinese now control the major portion of the world’s production of “our” bay
scallop! Right here in Edgartown, Massachusetts, a recognized
center of the bay scallop fishery, the local A&P supermarket features “Chinese
bay scallops” for $3.99/lb retail. The fishermen here receive
$7-8/lb for shucked meats of the same species of scallop, and suffer
from the competition of the cheap foreign import. I have heard
that a “good buck” can be made buying the Chinese product at $3.99
and mixing it with the local catch! But, I am sure that has been
just wishful thinking. Clearly, the local product is fresher
and superior, but the fact remains that there is local consumption
of the cheaper cultured Chinese product.
In Chile, the same Japanese lantern
net technology has been employed in a highly successful private venture. In
operation less than a decade, this venture employs over 600 people, annually
produces over 100 tons of scallop product, and has just been listed on the British
stock exchange. Clearly, the third world is beating us at this part of
the aquacultural game.
LOCAL OPERATIONS
However, within our region,
especially on Cape Cod, some significant private aquaculture has developed. Karl
Rask, who has championed the development of the private aquacultural
industry on the cape, informs me that presently there are 111 operations,
mostly 2- and 3-acre farms (the largest is 33 acres), producing a farmgate
value of about $4 million. Northern quahogs are the number-one
product, with eastern oysters a close second. There is a little
production of softshells (Mya arenaria), blue mussels, and bay
scallops. Vineyard waters are still essentially devoted to the
wild fishery. However, we have been leaders in the development
and application of aquacultural technology to the public management
of our wild fisheries. For the past 18 yr, the Martha’s Vineyard
Shellfish Group, in cooperation with local town shellfish departments,
has publicly cultured economically important, local species including
northern quahogs, bay scallops, and eastern oysters.
Our public stock enhancement program
includes the operation of a solar-assisted shellfish hatchery. The hatchery
produced over 15 million seed shellfish last year. Hatchery production
includes axenic culture of microscopic phytoplankton needed to feed developing
shellfish. Small phytoplankton cultures are worked up into larger 18-l
and 250-l cultures in the greenhouse at the hatchery. Once adequate algal
food stocks are produced, broodstock shellfish are brought into the hatchery
and spawned. When ripe, the quahogs, scallops, and oysters are treated
to repeated thermal stimuli in the laboratory, mimicking changes in water temperature
that elicit spawning in the natural environment. The great fecundity of
shellfish (we average over a million eggs per female) makes these species excellent
candidates for aquaculture. With adequate care and protection, the culturist
can easily produce millions of shellfish. In the big picture of providing
protein for a growing global human population, bivalves also score highly. Bivalves
are herbivores, low on the food chain, and efficient producers of protein.
Fertilized eggs are counted, then
cultured in filtered, heated seawater for the duration of the 2-3 wk swimming
larval cycle. During this period, larvae are fed cultured phytoplankton
daily. Every other day, culture tanks are drained, cleaned, and refilled
with heated, filtered seawater. Shellfish larvae are sieved, culled, and
suspended in the tanks. At the end of the larval cycle, shellfish absorb
their swimming organs, develop a foot, and become a miniature version of the
adult. After this metamorphosis, they are called juveniles. Juveniles
are moved to flowing water systems. Our hatchery is located on a rich estuary
with dense natural phytoplankton blooms. The plankton-rich water is pumped
over the filter-feeding shellfish, so there is little need for additional feeding
with costly cultured phytoplankton.
In the hatchery, quahog juveniles
are grown on downweller sieves, and, eventually, in upweller silos. We
have succeeded in moving seed as small as 1 mm to floating sandbox nursery trays
that are suspended in the natural environment. As most predation on small
quahogs is from nonswimming crabs, the survival rate is high in the floating
nursery trays. The trays are largely inaccessible to the crawling crabs. From
June, field culture continues until October when the quahog seed is ½-¾ inch
in length. The seed then are broadcast in the natural public shellfish
beds.
Very young juvenile scallops are similarly
grown on downweller sieves in the hatchery. Larger scallop seed is grown
to between 2 and 5 mm in raceways before being moved to floating field nursery
cages. After about 2 mo under ideal conditions of temperature and low density,
seed scallops attain a size of about ½ inch, and are broadcast into historically
productive areas of the saltwater ponds.
Oyster larvae cement themselves to
a substrate during metamorphosis. They are cultured using a method known
as “remote setting.” Large hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest developed
this method. At the end of the swimming stage, oyster larvae develop a
distinctive “eyespot.” These “eyed” larvae are screened from culture vessels,
wrapped in damp paper towels, and refrigerated overnight. They are then
released over bags of oyster shell in tanks of aerated seawater at a site near
the growout pond. Within a couple of days, the oyster larvae cement themselves
to the shell, and the shellbags are hung from a raft in the saltwater pond. After
about a month, the shellbags are emptied and the shell with attached oyster seed
is planted on the pond bottom.
Breeding of genetic shell tags into
hatchery stock helps to track survival and determine success of the stock enhancement
program. After about a dozen years of serious hatchery production and seeding,
some town shellfish constables report that 10-20% of the quahog harvest has brown “notata” shell
markings. About 80% of our hatchery quahog production is tagged with the “notata” markings. This
genetic trait was rare in the local population and harvest before the seeding
program. Likewise, shell color variation can be used to mark bay scallops
genetically. The Martha’s Vineyard Shellfish Group pioneered the use of
shell coloration to tag the bay scallop. In 1979, we produced an “F2” generation
with 95% displaying distinctive orange shells. But when we found that the
brightly colored, orange shells increased bird predation, we changed our tag
to a striped pattern. Although still distinctive, the striped pattern may
provide the shells some camouflage, thus protecting them from predators.
Predator control is a major factor
in our ability to succeed. Local shellfish constables have established
trapping programs for crabs and starfish. The Town of Edgartown initiated
a bounty system and paid fishermen for predators they removed. No matter
how successful our public aquacultural program has been, our limitations in manpower
and funds prevent us from realizing the maximum yield possible from the island’s
waters. Private aquacultural ventures, on the other hand, can do
better. Indeed, private culture in Wellfleet, Massachusetts, using only
3% of the total bottom dedicated to shellfish aquaculture, out-produced the wild
harvest from the remaining 97%.
It is the policy of the “Martha’s
Vineyard Private Aquaculture Initiative” to encourage private aquaculture on
the Vineyard. Encouragement consists of a program of education, training,
and cooperative extension-like individual assistance. The Vineyard’s long
history as a public fishery will be a constraint to private development. By
contrast, it is interesting to note that much of the development on Cape Cod
is in Wellfleet areas with a long history of private oyster leases. On
the Vineyard, interest in aquaculture has heightened within the last year, as
evidenced by an increase in the number of applications for shellfish culture
leases. Much of the interest is from the fishing community which not that
long ago considered aquaculture a threat to the public fishing areas and to marketplace
competition. With their natural stocks declining and fishing areas closing,
these same fishermen now see aquaculture as their next source of income. Another
constraint to the Vineyard’s private aquacultural ventures is our high standard
of living, accompanied by high labor cost and outrageously expensive waterfront
property. Furthermore, our predominantly tourist economy also competes
for use of our waters. Its concerns for aesthetics and for providing recreation
pose additional obstacles to local development of aquaculture. On the positive
side, the island’s popularity and bustling local restaurants can make any local
aquacultural product a marketer’s dream.
Nantucket Island faces similar constraints
and opportunities in developing aquaculture. We are encouraged by their
innovative, “private-public,” cooperative program. Fishermen are employed
in a private venture in public waters. The town provides them with seed
and public bottom on which to culture seed. In return, they give the town
half of their production. The town uses its half to seed public beds in
order to enhance its stock. The Nantucket program may very well serve as
a model for the Vineyard. Public stock enhancement efforts here lack the
manpower to maximize the size and survival of publicly cultured seed. At
the same time, many eager local aquaculturists cannot produce due to a lack of
available aquacultural areas. Public-private cooperation could benefit
all concerned.
STATUS OF SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE
IN SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS
Richard A. Kraus
Aquacultual Research Corporation
Dennis, Massachusetts 02638
Although eastern oysters,
to a degree, are cultured in southeastern Massachusetts, the overwhelming
energy devoted to marine aquaculture in Massachusetts and elsewhere
on the East Coast is to the culture of northern quahogs, also called
littlenecks or hard clams.
BACKGROUND
Two quotes from the eminent
treatise on the Massachusetts quahog industry, written in 1910 by Dr.
David Belding, a biologist with the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries
and Game, lend some perspective to the present discussion:
To the popular
demand for the LittleNeck, can be attributed the rapid development
of the quahog industry during the last ten years. This development
has furnished employment for hundreds of men, and has given the quahog
an important value as a seafood. What it will lead to is easily
seen. The maximum production was passed a few years ago, constant
overfishing caused by excessive demand is destroying the natural
supply, and there will, in a few years, be practically no commercial
fishery, unless measures are undertaken to increase the natural supply. Quahog
farming offers the best solution at the present time, and gives the
promise of permanent success.
In the warm waters of coastal
States in the south, where the quahog develops more rapidly, there are large
areas which as yet have not suffered from the effects of overfishing, as
has been the case with the northern beds in New England and New York, but
it will be only a short time before the history of ruthless spoilation will
be repeated, as already quahogs from the south are being shipped to the New
England markets.
Although total destruction of the northern quahog industry was given
respite by a couple of world wars, a depression, and the eventual implementation
of more stringent management regulations, Dr. Belding showed remarkable
foresight. However, his anticipation and expectation regarding
quahog farming were far in advance of the technology required to produce
the quahog
seed needed to farm quahogs.
The basic technology underlying controlled
culture of marine shellfish was finally worked out at NMFS’s Milford (Connecticut)
Laboratory during the mid-1950s. From this work at Milford, the Aquacultural
Research Corporation (ARC) and other companies along the East Coast were formed
in an attempt to put this technology to commercial use. Although many companies
succeeded in culturing the quahog, ARC was the first to achieve real commercial
success. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, ARC achieved the levels
of reliability and quantity needed for widespread quahog aquaculture.
PRESENT STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY
Since its commercial beginnings
during the early 1980s, farming of quahogs on Cape Cod and in southeastern
Massachusetts has developed from experimental plants into businesses that now
form most or all of the incomes for more than 80 individuals and families. In
the space of 8 yr, harvests of cultured littlenecks have increased from less
then one million in 1986 to more than an estimated 14 million for 1994. The
present quahog aquacultural industry is centered in Wellfleet where it began. Lesser
segments of industry are in the Towns of Provincetown, Orleans, Yarmouth, Barnstable,
Mashpee, Bourne, and Wareham. Other ventures still in the startup phase
are beginning or planned for Martha’s Vineyard, Brewster, Harwich, Westport,
and possibly Chatham. In general, most of the industry continues to take
place on intertidal flats on the north side of the cape, but increasingly,
work is being done to utilize shallow-water sites on the south side of the
cape.
Although increasingly successful,
local quahog aquaculture is not a mature industry. In many respects, it
is still a startup venture undergoing growing pains. One major problem
is the inadequacy of the planted stocks that survive the vagaries of nature. At
any particular site, it is often not enough to survive a few years in order to
make a success of a quahog aquacultural venture. Many natural cycles of
particularly severe weather occur infrequently and may not yet have been experienced,
and therefore may not have been adequately guarded against. Natural biological
cycles can result in sets of plants or animals that have the potential to smother
and kill small quahogs rapidly. Examples are massive sets of potentially
smothering macroalgae, such as codium, or large sets of animals, such as mussels,
setting on protective netting. Many more subtle problems may not be recognized
by a grower until the crop has been damaged. One of the hardest lessons
for most aquaculturists to appreciate is that they must not lose a significant
portion of a crop. Owing to the lengthy startup time needed to develop
a harvestable crop, and the large initial investment in seed, gear, and labor,
significant losses of stock can often be financially fatal to the typically undercapitalized
aquaculturist.
When dealing with town regulating
authorities, there may be conflicts with local shellfishermen, recreational groups,
or environmental groups. Even though the industry is nearly 10-yr old and
has proven to be totally beneficial and positive, we shellfish leaseholders,
in general, and not just ARC, often encounter friction with other users of nearshore
areas. I would like to address these problems, in particular, as they are
the management issues that will most affect future growth of the industry in
Massachusetts.
The industry involves the use of public “lease
areas,” a practice new to most towns, excepting Wellfleet which has a tradition
of shellfish leases dating back hundreds of years. Often, local authorities
are at a loss as to how to deal with applications for shellfish culture lease
areas. They harbor many misconceptions in this regard. A general
misconception is that leaseholders and/or towns need to be protected from large
outside entities that somehow may take over the business from locals. This
will never happen. Given the nature of the business, especially the fact
that leased areas are often remote and totally unsecured, local control of leases
by persons knowledgeable with that particular area will always be necessary. There
is no evidence that leased areas will be overtaken by large corporations, either
here or elsewhere. On the contrary, help from outside sources often can
enable a new leaseholder to succeed by the use of joint efforts. Leasing
of suitable sea bottom should be viewed as a highly desirable business development
project within the towns.
Another misconception is that the
success of shellfish aquaculture will be detrimental to the wild shellfishery. This
has not proven true. If anything, local success of shellfish aquaculture
has resulted in better prices for the wild shellfishery product. It has
opened new markets, thereby increasing demand for both the cultured and the wild
product. In any event, culture of littlenecks is not just a local phenomenon. Culture
practices like those employed in Massachusetts are now widespread along the entire
East Coast. Given the nature of the shellfish business, local wild shellfishermen
are now in head-to-head competition with aquacultural products from New Jersey,
Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Florida, whether they know it or not. This
competition for markets will only increase in the future. The only way
to retain some control over the local market price is to increase local production.
There has been speculation that, somehow,
shellfish aquaculture might degrade the environment, either by physically harming
the sea bottom or somehow harming the biological diversity of local ecosystems. I
have as much experience as anyone in observing the long-term effects of shellfish
aquaculture. For many of the same reasons as anyone else who cares about
our environment and ecosystems, and because the natural environment gives me
my livelihood, I am more objective about it than one might suppose. If
we culturists should harm the overall balance of natural systems, we would tend
to put ourselves out of business, for we depend upon these systems to nurture
and grow our shellfish.
Shellfish aquaculture strictly benefits
the marine environment. Over time, one sees that culture activities actually
function in similar ways to those artificial oceanic reefs. The nets and
cages actually promote all manner of life in and around them by providing temporary
shelters for all kinds of juvenile marine plants and animals. All of our
marine waters once held much higher levels of shellfish before man began to harvest
them. Shellfish are filter feeders and remove both plankton and particulate
matter from the water column. In doing so, they remove nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorous from the marine system. No doubt, this benefits
the modern marine environment which must deal with elevated loadings of nutrients
as a result of man’s activities upon the land and waters.
POTENTIAL FOR BLUE MUSSEL
AQUACULTURE
IN MASSACHUSETTS
Link Murray
Blue Gold Mussels, Inc.
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740
Within 50 yr, New Bedford
will be the center of a blue mussel industry with annual revenues in
excess of $200 million. Regardless of favorable or unfavorable
government policies, the fundamental strengths of this region for mussel
farming will combine with employment needed to create a vibrant mussel
industry. New Bedford has a strong infrastructure for the processing,
transportation, and marketing of seafood. The waters between
Long Island and Boston can support many farms.
Mussel aquaculture is a billion-dollar
industry in Europe, and also thrives in Asia. Our industry will resemble
the European mussel industry, except that our mussel farming efforts will be
more highly mechanized, and the industry in America will be oriented more towards
processed mussel products. To present a view of our future, we take a look
at the European industry.
Vigo in Galicia, Spain, is a large
fishing and industrial port like New Bedford and Gloucester. The mussel
industry of Vigo and neighboring cities annually generates perhaps $400 million. From
the hills surrounding the harbor, it appears that the bays are filled with moored
ships. These are in fact mussel-growing rafts. The entire Galician
mussel industry is based on the very simple method of growing mussels on ropes
suspended in the water. Machinery used on the rafts is very simple, as
are some of the harvest ships. These farms support many gigantic factories,
each larger than any New Bedford plant, and each with hundreds of employees. Vigo
prides itself on being “the world capital of mussel farming.”
Farther north, in a delightful example
of European enthusiasm, there is another “world capital of mussel farming,” this
one being Charron in northern France. Visitors to Mont St. Michel will
remember the extensive sand flats covered with each tide. This region of
France supports another prosperous mussel industry. This industry is based
on the technique of growing mussels on pilings placed in the flats. While
the tide is out, trucks or tractors work the farms. When the tide is in,
boats harvest and work the beds. We in New England can appreciate this
method by observing how mussels grow on our dock pilings.
Not to be outdone, the Dutch city
of Yerseke is another “capital of mussel farming.” This industry is as
large as that in Spain, and is based on the technique of “bottom farming.” Small
mussels are transplanted to privately leased areas. They are cultivated
so that the meats are full and tender. The area yields abundant crops. There
is an active auction for the harvest of each farming vessel. Of the 10
or so large mussel factories, interestingly, only one or two are still locally
owned. Multinational corporations have purchased the rest. The harvest
vessels are highly automated, as are the factories.
The North American industry is growing
rapidly. The Canadian industry is strongly encouraged by government assistance
and by the innovative work of many farmers in the Atlantic provinces. Focus
has been on producing a uniform grade of fresh mussels which sell at fairly high
prices, reflecting high labor inputs at the farm level. Focus of the Southern
New England industry will be on producing higher tonnages cheaply from the farm,
and utilizing factory labor to produce ready-to-eat products.
Mussel farming is simpler than most
other types of aquaculture, which explains why mussels are so abundantly grown
throughout the world. Mussels are pre-adapted to be successful in crowded
conditions. Other species must be artificially fed and carefully managed
to permit growth in dense concentrations. Mussels, however, grow naturally
and rapidly in dense concentrations. In fact, that is their strategy for
surviving predation and other challenges of their natural environment. Farming
mussels has been likened, hypothetically, to farming of dandelions or crabgrass.
The seafood industry is following
the path already taken by poultry. If one went to dinner several hundred
years ago at a manor, one might be offered a wide range of birds: blackbirds
in pies, partridges, sparrows, hens, ducks, geese, etc. These birds were
all readily available. As human demand for birds increased, their availability
became limited to the few species that were farmed. Similarly, people now
eat many different varieties of fish, reflecting the diversity of species available. In
the future, people will eat the few major species that are easily farmed, such
as shrimp, salmon, and mussels. This pattern is already becoming evident. Regions
like New Bedford that are blessed with productive waters, capable people, and
the requisite infrastructure will eventually produce seafood tonnages dwarfing
the catches we are now trying to recover. In the future, when it finally
realizes its peak processing capacity, New Bedford will become a major industrial
center of mussel aquaculture.
POTENTIAL FOR FINFISH CULTURE
IN MASSACHUSETTS
Joshua N. Goldman
AquaFuture, Inc.
Turners Falls, Massachusetts 01376
The following discussion
is an attempt to provide a brief review of the status of the worldwide
aquacultural industry, to review constraints to industry growth, and
to describe how new controlled-environment aquacultural technology
can assist in managing those constraints. Finally, a perspective
on the potential for future growth of the Massachusetts aquacultural
industry is presented.
AQUACULTURAL INDUSTRY CONTEXT
The decline of many traditional
fisheries has been widely documented and has resulted in great hardship
for many communities in Massachusetts and throughout the region. Worldwide
catch has fallen consecutively for 4 yr, and many experts now believe
that the maximum sustainable yield was reached a decade ago. The
silver lining which surrounds this dark cloud is the opportunity to
hasten development of aquaculture. Aquaculture should be viewed
as a complementary partner to traditional capture fisheries as part
of a long-term strategy to meet growing consumer demand through sustainable
fisheries management.
It is surprising to many of us in
the United States that virtually all growth in worldwide fishery production over
the past decade has occurred as the result of aquaculture. A recent World
Bank report indicates that global aquacultural production nearly doubled in the
9 yr between 1984 and 1993. During this period, fish farming increased
from 12 to 22% of the value of the global fish harvest. Worldwide annual
aquacultural farmgate value is now estimated to exceed $30 billion. The
World Bank report concludes that this dramatic growth “signals the potential
for aquaculture to capture half the value of the global fish harvest by 2010.”
However, many aquacultural industry
observers have speculated about the attainability of this growth and the potential
for significant environmental damage. Additionally, given the U.S. protective
environmental tradition, it is unclear to what extent the United States will
be successful in increasing its share beyond the current 4%. Further development
of the aquacultural industry is constrained by three principal factors: 1)
environmental restrictions on use of land and water resources; 2) chronic production
risks such as pollution, uncontrolled transmission of disease, algal blooms,
and storm damage; and 3) market limitations related to high production costs,
intermittent availability, variable quality, and lack of product diversity.
Development and recent commercialization
of controlled-environment production systems are a landmark for the aquacultural
industry. These systems have the potential to address successfully the
environmental, social, and economic constraints to further development of the
industry within New England. In addition, controlled-environment production
has been shown to have a positive impact on growth rate, feed conversion, and
mortality compared to traditional methods of production.
AQUAFUTURE, INC.
AquaFuture is an internationally
recognized leader in development and commercialization of intensive
recirculation systems. The company’s development of recirculation
technology began in 1982 at Hampshire College (Amherst, Massachusetts)
with research on enhanced nitrification. AquaFuture was incorporated
in 1987 and began by building a pilot plant for small-scale commercial
production of tilapia and hybrid striped bass, integrated with hydroponic
herbs and specialty greens. The company has been active in building
on its core technology with research on fish genetics, nutrition, fish
health, and production management information systems.
AquaFuture’s patented water treatment
technology brings a high degree of control to the fish farming process, dramatically
reducing water consumption and feed requirements while significantly increasing
growth rates. In 1992, AquaFuture completed a major expansion of its facilities. These
facilities, in a single 1-acre building, today produce 1 million lb (450 metric
tons) of fish per year. The company’s management believes that this plant
is unequaled anywhere in the aquacultural industry.
Faster growth, ability to thrive under
intensive culture, efficient food conversion, and high fillet yield are among
the desirable characteristics of a culturable species. Hybrid striped bass
are relatively easy to produce as juveniles under extensive (pond) conditions,
a factor which has facilitated the development of the farmed hybrid striped bass
industry. The hybrid striped bass is produced by crossing the striped bass
with its freshwater cousin, the white bass. The hybrid grows faster than
either parent species, and thrives better under intensive culture.
AquaFuture has recently embarked on
a new project to begin demonstration-scale commercial production of summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatus). The company is currently completing the
permitting for the first vertically integrated facility in the United States
dedicated to commercial production of this species. The facility will incorporate
hatchery, growout, and processing functions. Summer flounder are a high-value
marine fish for which recently imposed fishing quotas have severely limited supply
and increased prices. Sales of summer flounder from the Quonset Point aquacultural
project will be principally exported to Japan for sushi.
AquaFuture’s project has received
a $654,000 grant from NMFS to provide partial funding for the project. The
project is designed with three principal objectives: 1) establish an entirely
new industry in the region with significant potential for growth, export sales,
and job creation (i.e., targeting 200 new jobs in 5 yr); 2) retrain displaced
commercial fishermen in a sustainable method of fisheries production; and 3)
develop a standardized regulatory roadmap for siting and permitting, easing future
entry of fishermen and others into aquaculture.
OUTLOOK FOR MASSACHUSETTS
Because of the relatively
high production cost of most aquacultural products versus those of
traditional harvest, local aquaculture is not likely to be a significant
source of raw materials for the state’s processing sector in the near
future. However, the emerging finfish aquacultural industry in
Massachusetts has the potential to create significant numbers of meaningful
jobs in coastal communities around the state, to generate significant
export revenues, and to become an important new environmentally sustainable
industry. Massachusetts aquaculture can benefit from linkages
with the existing and undersupplied processing sector in developing
new products, as well as with the emerging biotechnological industry. Production
must adapt to a series of niche businesses, each targeting high-value
domestic and export market opportunities.
Success in aquaculture depends on
suitable siting (water quality and quantity, reasonably priced electricity, etc.),
operator skill, an acceptable permitting process, and access to appropriately
structured (i.e., patient) capital. Investment capital remains a
major limitation; the state may need to play a more active role in providing
financial assistance for development of this important and highly promising industry.
FINFISH CULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS: A RESEARCHER’S PERSPECTIVE
David A. Bengtson
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island 02881
INTRODUCTION
As one considers fish culture
in Massachusetts, the first impulse is to divide the topic by environment: freshwater
versus saltwater, and -- within the marine environment -- the warmer
waters south of Cape Cod versus the colder waters north of the cape. The
fact that the cape serves as a boundary between two biogeographic provinces
is both good news and bad news. The good news is that there is
a wider variety of marine species that can be cultured in waters of
two provinces (i.e., both warmwater and coldwater species). The
bad news is that culturing species in waters near the limits of their
ranges means that the waters may not be optimal for growing fish during
some months of the year (i.e., too hot in summer for some, too
cold in winter for others).
The culturist, therefore, needs to
consider whether culture of particular species in Massachusetts’ open waters
makes sense from the standpoint of growth of the product (let alone regulatory
problems). What are the major species that we need to consider? North
of the cape, Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus),
Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) are
actual or potential marine fish candidates. South of the cape, summer flounder
and tautog (Tautoga onitis) are still just potential candidates at this
point. In the freshwater environment, trout, hybrid striped bass, and tilapia
are presently grown in Massachusetts.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
As natural stocks of commercially
important species decline, tremendous pressure will build to culture
many of those species and to employ out-of-work fishermen in such culture. Several “reality
checks” must be put into place in dealing with that pressure.
The first reality check is economics. Fish
culture in Massachusetts will be (and is) expensive. Costs of land, labor,
and regulatory issues are higher than they are “down south.” By “down south,” I
mean the Delmarva peninsula, the Carolinas, and beyond to Latin America. The
farther south one goes, the lower the costs for fish production. The Massachusetts
fish culturist who produces a filleted product for the retail market may very
well find that the market price for that species is actually determined by the
supply from lower-cost southern producers. For example, it is by now well
known that the price of Atlantic salmon in the United States is primarily determined
by production in Chile. In order to be safe, the culturist should try to
produce a product whose price cannot be determined by Latin American competitors. One
product that foreign growers cannot economically export to the United States
is live fish for the Asian market, so production for that market ought to be
high on the list for examination by anyone wishing to enter the Massachusetts
finfish culture industry.
The second “reality check” regards
the number of jobs created in an aquacultural venture, and, more specifically,
how many of those jobs might be filled by unemployed fishermen. I am aware
of a few companies in which about one-to-two-dozen people can produce approximately
1 million lb of fish per year. While many of those jobs might be performed
by former fishermen, several require specific training or skills not likely to
be possessed by fishermen.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Technical issues in finfish
culture fall into two basic areas: biological and engineering. Biological
issues may be subdivided into hatchery-phase aspects and growout aspects. In
the hatchery phase, broodstock fish must be managed in such a way that
eggs can be obtained as often as possible, preferably throughout the
year. If the goal of the operation is to bring a consistent product
to market throughout the year, then a consistent supply of eggs should
be going into the production pipeline. For commercially important
marine fish species, rearing of larvae into juveniles is often the “bottleneck” because
of high mortality associated with that stage (even in natural oceanic
populations). Growth of sea bass, sea bream, cod, turbot, and
halibut industries in Europe required solution of many problems (e.g.,
food, nutritional requirements, swim bladder inflation, etc.) in the
hatchery phase. Once the fish move to the growout phase (including
a “nursery” phase for hatchery-to-growout transition), focus of problems
usually shifts to nutrition, disease, and system operation (including
effluent management). Growout phase is the most expensive and
risky. Feed costs usually account for about one-half of production
costs, and the growout period usually takes more than 1 yr.
Engineering issues can also be subdivided;
in this case, into those associated with coastal net-pen facilities and those
associated with land-based, flow-through or recirculation facilities. Net-pen
facilities require mechanical engineering expertise, so that pens can withstand
physical stresses of an ocean environment. Recirculation facilities require
chemical or process engineering expertise, so that proper water chemistry can
be maintained through the production tanks and biological filters.
For reasons mentioned above, especially
water temperature and regulatory problems in the coastal environment, I believe
that the soundest strategy for finfish culture in Massachusetts is development
of land-based recirculation systems. The high-tech, high-(fish)-density,
aquacultural system developed at AquaFuture, Inc., in Turners Falls is a model
for aquaculture’s success. According to the owners, they can produce as
much hybrid striped bass in a 45,000-ft2 facility as is produced in
400 acres of farm ponds “down south.” If New England aquaculturists are
to succeed, they need to develop appropriate technologies (including development
of new hybrids or genetically improved species) for a high land cost, high labor
cost, difficult regulatory environment.
Beginning in 1990, the Universities
of Rhode Island and Massachusetts collaborated to demonstrate that summer flounder
exhibited potential for commercial aquaculture in a land-based recirculation
system. This high-value species can be induced to spawn throughout the
year with hormonal injections, larvae can be raised using techniques similar
to those for turbot in Europe, and fish can grow to about 10 inches within the
first year of life and to market size within 2 yr. Although research on
this species continues, a Northeast Fishing Industry Grant has assured that a
commercial-scale demonstration project will begin this year and will likely create
a new industry, since interest from the private sector is high.
CONCLUSIONS
U.S. agriculture owes its
success in large part to government-conducted and government-funded
research, followed up with technology transfer to the private sector
via a strong cooperative extension service. In New England, we
are currently in the research phase and entering the technology transfer
phase. NMFS is to be lauded for its support of research in culture
of commercially important species. The USDA and states must now
ensure that the New England cooperative extension network is adequate
to the task of serving the fastest-growing, food-producing sector of
the U.S. economy -- aquaculture.
DISEASE CONTROL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
OF MARINE AQUACULTURE
Sharon A. MacLean
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
National Marine Fisheries Service
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
INTRODUCTION
The culture of finfishes
and shellfishes in U.S. marine and estuarine waters has grown rapidly
in the past two decades. Recent declines in major commercial
fish stocks have spawned interest in further expanding coastal and
offshore aquacultural operations. Culture, maintenance, and movement
of finfishes and shellfishes by humans have a history of thousands
of years, but only in recent decades has there been much intensive
culture of marine species. Intensive marine culture operations
now are common in several areas of the world, providing an opportunity
to examine the successes and failures of intensive aquacultural development.
The following discussion draws on
experience and research conducted primarily in Scandinavia, Britain, Asia, and
North America, as a basis for discussing real and potential impacts of marine
aquaculture. This is not a comprehensive review of the voluminous literature
on environmental impacts of aquaculture, but, rather, an introduction for local
decisionmakers to key issues surrounding aquacultural development of coastal
areas.
DISEASE AND ITS CONTROL IN AQUACULTURE
Diseases occur in wild
as well as in cultured animals, and can be divided into two basic groups: 1)
infectious diseases caused by viruses, bacteria, or parasites; and
2) noninfectious diseases caused by toxic substances, improper nutrition,
poor water quality, physical damage, or genetics.
Infectious diseases are of major concern
in aquaculture because of their effects on production and of their potential
impact on wild populations. Outbreaks of disease in finfish culture facilities
and shellfish hatcheries typically are caused by opportunistic pathogens that
are widely distributed in nature, but have both a low prevalence and low intensity
of infections in wild populations. Stress of confinement decreases resistance,
and high density of culture situations facilitates transmission of infectious
agents; both contribute to onset and progression of disease.
Absolute prevention of disease in
aquaculture is possible technically, but rarely achieved in practice, particularly
in high-density, commercial culture systems. Recent development of specific,
pathogen-free shrimp broodstock, for example, may be substantially ahead of the
ability of shrimp farmers to keep their facilities free of all pathogens. Vaccines
are an important means of preventing disease, and recent advances in vaccine
development have greatly decreased prevalence of bacterial disease in finfish
culture.
Since stress of culturing marine organisms
at high stocking densities contributes substantially to onset of disease, control
of disease becomes important to success of production. Some progress has
been made in development of specific disease-resistant strains of cultured species,
and in studies on the effect of proper nutrition on disease resistance. For
the most part, however, control of disease in aquaculture relies upon good husbandry
and drug treatment. Husbandry is the only method of control for adult mollusks
(Bower et al. 1994). Drug treatment has been the subject of much
attention as a potential source of drug residues in food products and the environment. Drug
treatment will be discussed later.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MARINE AQUACULTURE
There is much published
information on effects of aquaculture on the environment. What
is presented here is an introduction to some of the concerns surrounding
development of aquaculture. It becomes evident when reviewing
the literature that intensive culture of finfishes or shellfishes in
shallow or poorly flushed coastal areas is a “recipe” for problems.
Physical Impacts
Construction of aquacultural
facilities, as with industrial development of other types, can have
consequences for the physical environment. In Southeast Asia,
construction of shrimp ponds has destroyed thousands of acres of mangrove
habitat. U.S. federal and state regulations, however, limit potential
adverse effects of coastal and wetlands development, including development
for aquaculture.
Changes in the environment may be
less obvious when effects are below the water surface. Alteration of water
flow has been reported in Europe and Asia where highly intensive culture of mollusks
is done on racks or poles. Under these conditions, vertical arrays of mollusks
act as a wall, altering natural flows of water. Modifying water flow affects
deposition and movement of sediments such that wastes accumulate beneath the
racks more rapidly than if the “walls” did not exist; erosional areas develop
where previously there were none (Pillay 1992). Adequate spacing of structures
vertically arranged in the water column minimizes such effects.
Physical placement of marine culture
facilities may conflict with other users of the marine environment, such as commercial
and recreational fishermen, boaters, and those seeking aesthetics of the undisturbed
beauty of nature.
Impacts from Solid Wastes
In ponds and systems with
inadequate flushing, extensive waste accumulates beneath cultured finfishes
and shellfishes raised off bottom, and leads to significant physical,
chemical, and biological changes to the environment. Solid wastes,
consisting of excrement and unconsumed food, alter granularity of sediment,
resulting in a fine silty consistency that is less likely to disperse
than larger-grained material. This alteration of bottom habitat
leads to changes in natural bottom-dwelling organisms. A decrease
in diversity and abundance of benthic species has been reported beneath
intensive finfish cultures, particularly at sites accumulating more
than 20 cm of waste (Weston 1989; Kupka-Hansen et al. 1991). But
in well-flushed, less-intensive culture situations, there appears to
be a biostimulation of bottom-dwelling species (Churchill, pers. comm.1).
Microbial decomposition of organic-rich
waste consumes oxygen. If waste accumulation is extensive, the demand for
oxygen will be extremely high and can lead to anoxia and to generation of hydrogen
sulfide and methane gases. Local anoxia has been reported in Japan in shallow
bays where there is intensive mussel and oyster culturing (Nose 1985), and low
oxygen levels have been reported beneath intensive net-pen culture of salmonids
in Europe (Kupka-Hansen et al. 1991). These conditions are reversible,
and crop rotation, bottom harrowing, and leaving areas fallow are some practices
utilized to mitigate them.
Turbidity is a measure of solid material
suspended in water. Turbidity of local waters may be increased when water
is discharged during harvest of pond-raised shrimps and finfishes. Minor
changes in harvest practices, such as allowing a waiting period after harvest
before discharging water, can greatly reduce the input of sediment-laden water
into neighboring waterways.
Impacts from Chemicals
Numerous chemicals have
been used in aquaculture to deal with pests, predators, fouling organisms,
parasites, and diseases. A chemical used might be considerable
in amount, depending on type and intensity of culture, and the extent
of impact of the chemical is associated with how it is used (e.g.,
antibiotics or vitamins as feed additives, antifouling agents in constructional
materials, or chemicals broadcast through the water).
Antibiotics are used in finfish and
shrimp culture. This has raised considerable concern regarding their persistence
in the environment, the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of wild bacteria,
and the presence of residues of antibiotics in the cultured food product. Most
research has been directed at salmonid net-pen culture where extensive use of
antibiotics has resulted in accumulation of drugs in sediments in the vicinity
of culture sites. However, studies have shown that after 30 days, oxytetracycline
(the most commonly used drug) is bound to sediment in an inactive state (Samuelson et
al. 1994). Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria have been isolated
from sediments near fish culture facilities, but resistance may be as short-lived
as 9 days (Austin 1985). With recent development of effective inexpensive
vaccines, use of antibiotics in fish culture has declined precipitously, and
soon should become a nonissue. Norway has experienced a 73% reduction in
use of antibiotics in salmonid culture, and salmon farmers in the United States
have had similar experiences. The FDA regulates use of drugs in animals
cultured for human consumption. Antibiotics accumulate in tissues of treated
animals, and thus may pose a risk to human health. Therefore, FDA requires a
period of nontreatment before marketing to allow drugs to dissipate from tissues.
Several chemicals have been approved
by the FDA for use in aquaculture to treat external fungal and parasitic infestations. Some
of them, like hydrogen peroxide and garlic, are household items. In Europe,
treatment of salmonids with organophosphate chemicals to control sea lice infestations
showed negative effects on nontarget organisms within 25 m (80 ft) of the net-pens
(Egidius and Moster 1987). Use of local, cleaner wrasse fishes and a natural
insecticide extracted from a flower are being investigated as alternative control
methods. Furthermore, management practices such as maximizing distance
between sites, avoiding overlap of generations on farms, and allowing regular
fallow periods help alleviate the problem.
Chemicals used as antifouling agents
to treat equipment and constructional materials can have substantial effects
on cultured or wild marine organisms. Tributyltin, used in antifouling
paint, has been implicated as the cause of major reproductive failures and deformities
in mollusks in Europe and the United States. As a consequence, its use
has been greatly restricted in many countries. Copper-based antifouling
agents are used commonly and have shown limited local effects.
Water Quality Impacts
Additions of nutrients,
particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, to the environment are a concern
because of the potential for these elements to trigger algal blooms. Intensive
culture of finfishes and shrimps can contribute substantial amounts
of nitrogen to the environment through addition of uneaten feed (only
20% of nitrogen in feed enters the fish) and metabolic waste in the
form of ammonia. Algal blooms, however, are more relevant to
lake systems rather than to open well-flushed environments where dilution
occurs.
Blooms of toxic algae are another
issue, as they may affect marine organisms as well as pose a human health risk. Correlations
between toxic algal blooms and aquaculture were reported from Japan where mollusks
were intensively cultured in poorly flushed embayments (Nose 1985). Such
blooms have not been reported in association with finfish farms.
Impacts on Wild Stocks
Threats to wild stocks
by aquaculture include disease transferred from cultured to wild stocks,
genetic interactions and dilution of the wild gene pool, and competition
or predation by escapees. Despite even the best efforts to prevent
them, escapes from culture systems still result from accidents and
natural disasters. Hatchery-reared or cultured organisms tend
toward limited genetic variability and may introduce “weak” genes into
the wild gene pool through interbreeding. This is a growing issue
as more riverine salmon populations become classified as endangered. Hundreds
of thousands of cultured salmonids have escaped from net-pens in Norway
over the past decade and no genetic impact has been reported as yet. Reducing
the potential for genetic impact could include increasing the number
of broodstock to keep genetic variability high, using only sterile
finfish in culture, or rearing local finfishes.
Serious problems in aquaculture arise
when finfishes or shellfishes and their associated pathogens are introduced to
an area inhabited by previously unexposed, susceptible wild populations. This
has been the case with transfer of marine mollusks and crustaceans, nationally
and internationally, which resulted in wide dissemination of several serious
pathogens of oysters and shrimps (Farley 1992; Lightner et al. 1992). The
possibility of transferring pathogens from cultured finfishes to wild finfishes
has been studied in Britain, and research showed low prevalence of the pathogen
studied and no sign of disease in wild stocks (Phillips et al. 1985). However,
a recent study in Norway suggests that escapes of infected finfishes, along with
transfer and natural movement of finfishes, have contributed to the spread of
disease into wild stocks (Johnsen and Jensen 1994). More commonly, though,
the impact of disease is on cultured species. Guidelines to minimize disease-based
and parasitic interactions between cultured and wild stocks have been established
on regional, national, and international levels, and include steps to reduce
introduction of diseases when fish are moved to new areas. The only U.S.
program requiring disease inspection of imported finfishes deals with freshwater
salmonids. Although many states have agreements on interstate movement
of finfishes and shellfishes, no federal disease inspection is required for interstate
movement of marine organisms.
Environmental Benefits
Most often, discussions
about environmental effects of aquaculture are negative, although beneficial
effects exist aside from seafood production and economic gain. Mollusk
culture makes several positive contributions to the environment. Shell
rubble collecting beneath mollusk culture structures helps to stabilize
bottom sediments, serves as a surface for spat settlement, and may
provide shelter for small invertebrates.
Mollusks, being filter feeders, filter
the water of phytoplankton, thus counteracting algal growth. This phenomenon
has been exploited in polycultural systems in Israel and other countries, where
nutrient-rich wastewater from finfish culture tanks is used to grow algae on
which oysters feed. Cultured macroalgae (i.e., large algae such
as kelp) and other aquatic plants remove nutrients from the environment, thereby
limiting the potential for algal blooms resulting from overenrichment by nitrogen
and phosphorus.
Open-water mollusk culture also may
enhance natural sets by broadcasting spawn into open water, causing settlements
to occur outside the culture site. Finfish culture decreases fishing pressure
on wild stocks, and, as mentioned earlier, may increase biodiversity in benthic
communities beneath some net-pen systems. Wild finfishes and large crustaceans
tend towards densities that are higher around cages than in surrounding areas.
CONCLUSIONS
At present, environmental
impacts from marine aquaculture in the United States are few and tend
to be localized, although the potential for greater impacts exists. Many
potential threats to the environment can be avoided or minimized by
thoughtful planning of locations for culture sites, and of culture-carrying
capacity of local environments. Some recently developed environmental
models are based on the method, species, and biomass of a culture,
as well as hydrographical and water quality conditions of proposed
culture sites. These models may be useful to planners in considering
areas for intensive aquacultural development.
ENDNOTE
1. L. Churchill; Maine Department of Marine Resources, West
Boothbay Habor, ME; 1995.
REFERENCES CITED
Austin, B. 1985. Antibiotic pollution from fish farms:
effects on aquatic microflora. Microbiol. Sci. 2:113-117.
Bower, S.M.; McGladdery, S.E.; Price, I.M. 1994. Synopsis
of infectious diseases and parasites of commercially exploited shellfish. Ann.
Rev. Fish Dis. 4:1-199.
Egidius, E.; Moster, B. 1987. Effect of Neguvon and Nuvan
treatment on crab (Cancer pagurus, C. maenas), lobster
(Homarus gammarus) and blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Aquaculture 60:165-168.
Farley, C.A. 1992. Mass mortalities and infectious lethal
diseases in bivalve mollusks and associations with geographic transfers
of populations. In: Rosenfield, A.; Mann, R., eds. Dispersal
of living organisms into aquatic ecosystems. College Park, MD:
Maryland Sea Grant; p. 139-154.
Johnsen, B.O.; Jensen, A.J. 1994. The spread of furunculosis
in salmonids in Norwegian rivers. J. Fish Biol. 45:47-57.
Kupka-Hansen, P.; Pittman, K.; Ervik, A. 1991. Organic
waste from marine fish farms -- effects on the seabed. In:
Makinen, T., ed. Marine aquaculture and environment, Nord 1991;
vol. 22; p. 105-120. Available from: Nordic Council of Ministers,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lightner, D.V.; Redman, R.M.; Bell, T.A.; Thurman, R.B. 1992. Geographic
dispersion of the viruses IHHN, MBV, and HPV as a consequence of transfers
and introductions of penaeid shrimp to new regions for aquaculture
purposes. In: Rosenfield, A.; Mann, R., eds. Dispersal
of living organisms into aquatic ecosystems. College Park, MD:
Maryland Sea Grant; p. 155-173.
Nose, T. 1985. Recent advances in aquaculture in Japan. Geojournal 10:261-276.
Phillips, M.J.; Beveridge, M.C.M.; Ross L.G. 1985. The
environmental impact of salmonid cage culture in inland fisheries:
present status and future trends. J. Fish Biol. 27:123-137.
Pillay, T.V.R. 1992. Aquaculture and the environment. New
York, NY: Halsted Press.
Samuelson, O.B.; Lunestad, B.T.; Ervik, A.; Fjelde, S. 1994. Stability
of antibacterial agents in an artificial marine aquaculture sediment
studied under laboratory conditions. Aquaculture 126:283-290.
Weston, D.P. 1989. Effects of aquaculture on indigenous
biota. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 20:79A.
USER CONFLICTS -- CAN AQUACULTURE
EXIST
WHILE GUARANTEEING PUBLIC RIGHTS?
Susan Snow-Cotter
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
BACKGROUND
Public rights which need
to be protected when aquaculture is contemplated are known as the public
trust doctrine (PTD). The PTD is a common-law concept which has
been upheld in varying forms by courts across the country. The
PTD gives states title to land under navigable waters and tidally affected
land. These lands are held in trust for the public. To
protect access for all, the trust restricts, but does not generally
prohibit, exclusive use of trust property. Any exclusive use
(including aquaculture) of trust lands typically requires a lease from
the state. The process of leasing trust lands varies from state
to state, as does the cost of leasing.
In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) is “landlord” for submerged trust
lands under regulatory authority of Chapter 91. To date, MDEP has not taken
jurisdiction over most aquacultural projects because they are considered temporary
moored facilities, and are not generally an exclusive use. A few
aquacultural projects have received 10A permits (under Chapter 91) which are
issued free by the harbormaster on a year-by-year basis. The 10A permit
is only valid for moored facilities. MDEP regulations do not directly address
aquaculture, although they may soon be re-evaluating this issue in light of the
recent surge in interest in marine aquaculture. Under the present administration
of Chapter 91, the only way that an aquaculturist could obtain an exclusive long-term
license to an area is to apply for a Chapter 91 license which entails a detailed
application, environmental review, and assessment of a license fee. In
exchange, the applicant obtains a 30-yr (renewable) license. No aquacultural
proponent has applied for a Chapter 91 license to date.
Other states use different systems
to handle their submerged lands under the PTD. Some have no leasing structure,
relying on taxes from aquaculture (or any other use of trust lands) to meet their
obligations under the doctrine. Others have moderate leasing fees to cover
attendant costs of environmental monitoring and administration. States
like Washington with high leasing fees appraise their submerged lands as a percentage
of the value of the adjacent upland. On this basis, they realize a substantial
revenue which they use for public education, facilities for public access, removal
of derelict shoreline structures, restoration of wild shellfish beds, and marine
recreation. Consequently, everyone can see benefits flowing directly from
private use of trusted lands, and, therefore, everyone is more likely to accept
development of aquaculture. Massachusetts is now assessing its current
policy to determine how best to strike a balance among various interests involved
in leasing of trusted lands for aquacultural use. The state recognizes
that it must temper promotion of aquaculture, a desirable economic endeavor,
with various public and private concerns and rights, including environmental
protection.
USER CONFLICTS AND SITING ISSUES
User conflicts are one
of the major obstacles to development of aquaculture in Massachusetts. These
conflicts may vary somewhat from site to site, and from one type of
aquaculture to another, but they are common worldwide. The conflicts
change somewhat depending on the relative location within the Exclusive
Economic Zone, whether it is intertidal or subtidal. In the intertidal
area of Massachusetts, most aquaculture today is bottom culture, and,
therefore, user conflicts are minimized in some ways. Conflicts
are largely aesthetic, and are most apparent at extreme low tide when
culture facilities are visible and leaseholders are tending their shellfish. Off-road-vehicle
access to leaseholds is another conflict, particularly when access
runs over private property, whether upland or tideland. Conflicts
with intertidal leaseholders also occur if they involve a loss or restriction
of recreational activity.
User conflicts change somewhat as
aquacultural activities move offshore to subtidal, state-owned, nearshore waters. Culturing
techniques here are more exclusive in nature, generally either water-column culture
or pen culture. These types of culture are usually incompatible with other
uses of the same site, and user conflicts are more direct. Some conflicts
included here are associated with navigation, recreation, fishing gear, and endangered
species. When aquaculture is sited in federal waters (i.e., waters beyond
the 3-mi limit), conflicts involve navigation (even submarine routes!), commercial
shipping, and commercial fisheries. Because the ocean is a limited public
resource, there is a need to balance conflicting uses and to reach a consensus
on an acceptable mix. Good public policy demands that conflicts involving
use of public lands and properties be resolved considering the rights of all
interested parties.
Conflicting uses and aquacultural
siting issues are not, of course, unique to Massachusetts. Many areas of
the world have dealt with these issues. Massachusetts is in a good position
to adapt lessons learned elsewhere. Some of these lessons are:
1. |
Planning -- Rather than evaluating a potential aquacultural site
only after it appears in a proposal, towns, counties, and states
should proactively plan such sites using the “harbor planning” process
to map them. |
2. |
Structure/Gear Design -- Design the orientation, distance from
shore, color, and amount of vertical structures so as to reduce
aesthetic conflicts. Use mobile gear, cage culture, or marina
culture to reduce exclusive use of an area, and provide flexibility
for the culturist to move gear in response to seasonal fisheries,
water quality, etc. Placing gear entirely underwater and
tending it with remotely operated vehicles are options being considered
by a prospective culturist in Chatham. This approach will
avoid aesthetic conflicts. |
3. |
Determination of Priority Uses -- The State of Washington has
a policy that clearly gives preference to aquaculture when there
is competition for use of state waters. The policy also says
that the state’s interest in aquaculture outweighs any local interest. |
4. |
Education -- Aquaculture is a new industry in Massachusetts,
and most of the citizenry do not understand it. Lack of public
knowledge about it and its impacts has resulted in sometimes unnecessary
controversy over siting and leasing. Public education of
waterfront owners, municipal and state decisionmakers, and school
children will go far in familiarizing people with realities of
aquaculture. Better understanding should bring greater public
acceptance. Use of citizen advisory groups to facilitate
siting is an approach that has proven successful at the local level
in Nova Scotia. They found that meetings between prospective
culturists and community representatives often smoothly resolved
otherwise contentious siting issues. |
The bottom line for much
of the aquacultural siting issue is the realization of priorities for
use of limited space. In areas such as Asia and South America,
where large-scale aquaculture has been successful, people are voracious
seafood consumers who recognize the vital need to allocate space for
food production. Recreational use of waters is not a high priority. Another
important consideration is the level of government control over decisionmaking. These
countries generally have centralized governments with limited municipal-level
decisionmaking. In Massachusetts, of course, the situation is
just the opposite where aquaculture is concerned. We have strong
democratic traditions and do not favor large exclusive uses of our
public waters.
MASSACHUSETTS AQUACULTURAL INITIATIVE
The Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office (MCZM) has drafted the document, “Marine Aquaculture
White Paper,” now available for public review. It characterizes
the marine aquacultural industry in Massachusetts, and identifies some
problems.
The MCZM has formed three working
groups, “Environmental Review,” “Regulatory Reform,” and “Economic Development,” to
develop state strategies that encourage marine aquaculture while protecting the
environment and the rights of public and private property. The MCZM expects
that by late spring 1995 it will finalize these strategies, drafting them into
another document, “Aquaculture Strategic Plan,” for the state.
THE REVOLVING LOAN FUND:
ITS APPLICABILITY TO AQUACULTURAL
PROJECTS
Maria G. Gooch
South Eastern Economic Development Corporation
Taunton, Massachusetts 02780
The South Eastern Economic
Development Corporation (SEED) was established in 1982 as a “Chapter
180” nonprofit corporation to help finance small businesses. Although
small businesses create most new jobs in this country, they have a
difficult time obtaining financing. This is especially true for
small businesses with little collateral and an operating history shorter
than 3 yr.
SEED’s first step was to obtain a
certification from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to package loans
under the “SBA 504 Program.” SEED also packages “SBA 7A” guaranteed loans
on behalf of local banks and small business clients. In addition to the
SBA programs which might be of assistance to some of you, SEED also runs three “Revolving
Loan Fund Programs,” a “Micro Loan Program,” and an “Enterprise Fund Program.”
The “Fisheries Adjustment Revolving
Loan Fund” was established last year when the U.S. Economic Development Administration
made a $500,000 grant that passed to SEED through the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Economic Affairs. Purpose of the grant was to alleviate economic
distress relating to loss of fishery jobs. SEED covers all of southeastern
Massachusetts with this fund, including the Counties of Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable,
Dukes, and Nantucket, but not the City of New Bedford which runs its own program.
The major goal of this fund is to
create long-term job opportunities for workers displaced from the fishing industry. Under
this fund, SEED provides loans up to $100,000 that can be used as the downpayment
on a larger project. The SEED portion of the project is generally 30% or
less, although in cases where there is a financing gap, SEED’s portion can be
larger. The interest rate is generally below prime and fixed for the term. SEED’s
last loan rates were 8.5% fixed. The loan term is generally 5 yr, although
SEED can defer principal payments, amortize over longer periods, or establish
seasonal schedules as needed. Loan funds may be used for business real
estate, boat construction or repair, equipment and furnishings, or working capital. Aquacultural
businesses, lobstermen, and shellfishermen received some of the loans under this
fund. SEED can accommodate special needs of the aquacultural industry by
making repayment terms very flexible during the first year, and by allowing the
client to repay the loan from other sources of income. SEED approves loans
on a monthly basis, but can approve small loans more quickly in an emergency.
THE NORTHEAST FISHERIES
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
AND FISHING INDUSTRY GRANTS
Dana L. Morse
Northeast Regional Operations Office
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
BACKGROUND
In March 1994, Ronald Brown,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, announced the federal
appropriation of $30 million to aid the struggling fishing industry
in the Northeast. Eighteen million dollars went to the Economic
Development Administration for technical assistance purposes and for
low-interest loans, and $12 million went to NMFS. Breakdown of
the NMFS allocation was as follows: 1) $9 million for the Fishing
Industry Grant (FIG) Program, 2) $1 million for fishing vessel obligation
guarantees, 3) $1 million for administrative costs, and 4) $1 million
for development of six fishing family assistance centers (FACs).
FISHING FAMILY ASSISTANCE CENTERS
The FACs are located in
Portland and Rockland, Maine, in Gloucester, Chatham, and New Bedford,
Massachusetts, and in Narragansett, Rhode Island. The Rockland
and Narragansett offices are mobile and cover large areas. Due
to newness of the program and the rapidly changing nature of the industry,
duties of the staff are still evolving. Generally, staff have
identified tractable problems and have developed remedial programs. For
example, to overcome the unfamiliarity with grant proposal writing,
all assistance centers have held well-attended, well-received workshops
and seminars.
The FACs’ services to fishermen and
their families at present are largely extensional and educational. These
services include: 1) general information; 2) referral to various agencies
for loans, education, food and heating assistance, funding for new business startup,
etc.; 3) guidance in development of grant proposals; 4) relief and retraining
programs conducted with other local entities such as industry cooperatives and
Sea Grant offices; and 5) media communication to disseminate information regarding
government and other programs.
The FACs utilize existing resources
to define, advertise, and implement certain programs and policies, and act as
real, face-to-face extensions of the federal government. By offering personal
counseling and service, they put the human element back in the relationship between
the government and the fishing industry. Recently, there has been a considerable
amount of interest, media attention, and criticism surrounding the grants program. Identifying
criticisms and offering constructive advice have also been an important FAC activity.
FISHING INDUSTRY GRANT PROGRAM
The FIG Program was delivered
under two solicitations, each for $4.5 million. Unlike loans,
grants need not be refunded. Typical of other grant programs,
this one involves the review of proposals, awarding of funds, project
evaluation, and reporting.
There have been many ideas about what
the grants program was supposed to achieve, and many misconceptions. Most
importantly, the program does not offer instant gratification. There have
been requests to draft a program similar to Canada’s. In response to closure
of its cod fisheries, Canada pays its fishermen, in effect, unemployment compensation. The
FIG Program does not provide such immediate financial assistance. It is,
however, a means to stimulate ideas for new business opportunities, new processing
technology, and fishery development. These ideas should increase diversity
of the industry, and help to retain and create jobs.
Today, diversity is an especially
important issue in New Bedford. New Bedford has been a “traditional” port,
fishing for traditional species, using traditional methods, and selling well-established
products in traditional markets. Now, not only is domestic supply obviously
changing, but so is the marketplace. Diversity, therefore, is vital to
the future of the New Bedford seafood industry. Perceived benefits, in
light of the need for diversity, of the FIG Program include: 1) stimulating
new businesses and/or processes which would translate to jobs; 2) providing an
opportunity to examine propositions which are risky and otherwise might not be
tried; 3) stimulating ideas; 4) fostering productive exchanges between science
and industry; and 5) familiarizing applicants with development of business plans,
a necessary first step in capital formation for companies of any size. Perceived
drawbacks include: 1) not providing instant gratification; 2) requiring
grant writing, a complicated process foreign to many in the fishing industry;
3) requiring facility with language that is greater than normal for fishermen,
compounding the strangeness of the proposal process for them; and 4) requiring
reporting, another task that can present writing problems similar to those of
the grant proposal.
While FAC staff cannot change the
nature of the program, such as the time it takes to process applications, they
can help to overcome difficulties encountered concerning writing of proposals
and reports. They commonly spend time privately discussing proposals with
applicants, performing general reviews of various documents, presenting workshops
on proposal development, answering questions, and providing referral to qualified,
professional grant writers.
HOW AQUACULTURE FARED IN “ROUND ONE” GRANTS
Twenty-eight projects were
funded in the first round of FIG. The nine projects that concerned
aquaculture received over $2 million of the funds available, individually
ranging from $40,000 to over $650,000.
It is noteworthy that FIG aquacultural
projects are still subject to any permits that are required by town, state, or
federal agencies. Simply receiving funding does not preclude the need for
all appropriate permits. However, since the permitting process is lengthy,
use of a “NMFS Experimental Permit” has been suggested. Further, since
these permits have limited duration, if towns were to employ an experimental
permit as a substitute for “normal” town permits, there would be an opportunity
to make detailed assessments of projects at very limited risk. As projects
progressed, towns would become better equipped to make educated decisions about
any future work, and could develop equitable iterative solutions to problems
as encountered.
CONCLUSIONS
The Northeast fishing industry
is in great need of alternatives to traditional activities. Current
fishing regulations promote attrition of individuals from industry,
rather than an “all-or-nothing” effect. Part-time ventures, such
as tending an intertidal lease site, could provide some needed employment,
with possible transition to full-time nonfishing employment. The
FIG Program provides funding for risky ventures in a tight economy.
Exchange and examination of ideas
are the most important aspects in the relationship between the aquacultural industry
and the grants program. It is imperative that ideas flourish in order for
the fishing industry and the region’s economy to survive. This fisheries
crisis is inherently one of extreme and rapid change. The Fishing Industry
Grant Program provides one door of opportunity to an industry that genuinely
requires alternatives.
AQUACULTURAL POLICY:
FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Harlyn O. Halvorson
Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology
University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747
INTRODUCTION
The Policy Center for Marine
Biosciences and Technology was established in 1992 to address a broad
range of problems and opportunities raised by recent developments in
marine biosciences. It is concerned that the United States insufficiently
applies many recent developments that offer potential economic and
social benefit. It is a center “without walls,” providing a forum
for everyone concerned with marine issues. Its work entails: 1)
defining relevant issues; 2) identifying gaps in scientific knowledge;
3) targeting audiences in need of specific information and producing
informational packages aimed at their needs; and 4) recommending legislative
action to appropriate local, state, and federal policymakers.
The Policy Center stresses effective
communication, and provides a credible forum for deriving sound public policy
in the growing area of marine regulations. Its offices are at the University
of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, and
the Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge. These institutions are dedicated
to both science and public service. By having offices there, the Policy
Center has access, free of typical institutional constraints, to a variety of
individual talents and organizational strengths. The Policy Center involves
scientists, government institutions, environmental experts, and public interest
groups as active partners in shaping public policy.
In summer 1993, at the Marine Biological
Laboratory, the Policy Center held its first conference, “Aquaculture and the
Marine Environment: the Shaping of Public Policy.” The purpose was to explore
public perceptions about marine aquaculture, assemble relevant facts surrounding
these perceptions, and examine resulting impacts. The topic was of interest
and concern to the public, and could produce scientific information to assist
public policymakers. A number of organizations interested in marine aquaculture
sponsored the conference. Participants represented government, academia,
industry, research institutes, and public interest organizations. Recommendations
that emerged from that conference are relevant to this symposium.
AQUACULTURE’S ROLE IN THE ECONOMICS
OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES
Consensus of the conferees
was that marine aquaculturists should promise coastal communities no
more than what might be accomplished at their current stage of development. However,
coastal communities should factor aquaculture into their economic development
planning, and bring their needs to the attention of federal and state
decisionmakers.
For crafting legislation to provide
or create opportunities for economically viable aquaculture, communities need
to know about their aquacultural options and how to obtain the mix of sizes and
types of aquaculture that will be socioeconomically compatible. Conferees
made the following recommendations:
1. |
State and federal governments should include aquaculture in economic
development planning. State aquacultural coordinators might
identify existing mechanisms, such as coastal zone management plans
or planning councils, to help local governments integrate aquaculture
with economic development. |
2. |
The federal government should mandate, by statute, the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s recommendation that participating
departments and agencies of the federal government give priority
to, and rapidly develop, national aquacultural strategies that
the U.S. Congress can assemble into law. |
3. |
Governments should convince lease site applicants of the necessity
to address the public trust issue. Applicants should be able
to justify clearly and forthrightly why a community should allow
them to use public resources for commercial purposes. Governments
should assist applicants by compiling descriptions of successful
aquacultural projects and ways in which the projects benefitted
their communities. |
4. |
The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture should determine how aquacultural
marine industrial parks could be started. Such parks would
foster aquacultural innovation and new businesses. They might
receive blanket permits, eliminating the need for new permit applications
for every new lease site. The central purpose of such parks
would be to reduce startup costs. |
STRATEGIES FOR SHAPING PUBLIC POLICY
Strategies to shape public
policy in support of marine aquacultural development should be based
on a clear understanding of: 1) which key individuals, interest
groups, and agencies should receive information and recommendations;
2) kinds of information most appropriate for intended audiences; 3)
and the most effective means of communicating relevant information
and recommendations to intended recipients. In recommending local,
state, regional, and national fostering of marine aquaculture, policy
planners should include guidelines for, and examples of, successful
planning and development, including marine aquacultural industrial
parks.
Governments, industries, and universities,
in partnership, should be the pre-eminent planners of marine aquacultural development
in coastal states. Coordinators should work closely with their state coastal
zone management offices and local communities, encouraging them to include aquaculture
in their plans. States should designate a leading agency for aquacultural
development. Aquacultural planning should be strongly linked to long-term
environmental and economic planning.
Federal Government
The federal government
should designate a lead agency that works with the Joint Subcommittee
on Aquaculture. This agency should clarify and publish the role
of all federal agencies dealing with marine aquaculture.
The federal government should review
and modify existing regulations and procedures so that they include aquaculture. Most
existing regulations and procedures for protecting the environment preceded the
emergence of aquaculture.
The federal government should create
a government-industry-university roundtable on aquaculture. This roundtable
would advise the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture and the leading aquacultural
agency on all matters of mutual interest, including research and product development.
Both houses of the U.S. Congress will
probably introduce bills governing aquaculture this year. Therefore, it
is important that congressional committees be well informed beforehand. The
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture asked the congressional Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) to make a study of domestic aquaculture. Members of the
Policy Center have been involved in a number of OTA’s study reports which are
currently under review.
The OTA also asked the Policy Center
to investigate successes and failures in domestic aquaculture in order to develop
options for federal involvement. In its report, “Factors Contributing to
Success and Failure in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry,” the Policy Center identified
the findings and recommendations listed in Table
1.
Local Government
Local government should
be more aware of potential benefits of marine aquaculture, and of the
case studies of successes and failures in aquaculture. The case
studies will help them to understand the governing regulatory, economic,
environmental, and social factors.
Local government should devise a “one-stop” permitting
process managed by a facilitator with practical experience, and should study
the feasibility of marine parks as initial sites for aquaculture. They
should issue one-time permits for the site, rather than subsequently issue permits
to every individual entrepreneur.
Scientific Community
The scientific community
should encourage and assist scientists to engage in research and technology
-- from basic to applied -- relevant to aquaculture. It should
also perform additional research in a variety of fields, including
population genetics, hybrid fish behavior, and ecosystem dynamics.
AQUACULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS
That Massachusetts needs
to address issues about aquaculture has never been more evident. The
local and national press have reported the crisis in our fisheries,
the need to create new jobs, the promise of aquaculture, and the state’s
unique resources in marine biology.
For a sharper focus, the Policy Center
made a case study on the use of sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus)
for aquaculture in Massachusetts. The study identified opportunities for,
and critical deterrents to, development of aquaculture. It addressed regulatory
problems, and prepared educational materials for regulators, practitioners, and
the general public. Those problems and prosed solutions are summarized
in Table
2.
This is an exciting period for Massachusetts. Both
federal and state governments are re-examining the role of aquaculture. They
are greatly interested in activities that can harm the sensitive marine environment,
such as waste treatment, and in policy issues involving environmental protection
and economic development. They need a clarification of issues; they need
to know about critical gaps in scientific knowledge; and they need to find out
what kinds of regulations are appropriate. They also need a consensus among
environmentalists, scientists, coastal industries, and coastal community officials
concerning the issues. Of critical importance is the communication between
the industry, the public, and local, state, and federal officials whose decisions
affect aquaculture. The public is best served when policy is based on sound,
scientific information and a broad consensus.
Acronyms |
AFS |
= American Fisheries Society |
ARC |
= Aquacultural Research Corporation |
CCEDC |
= Cape Cod Economic Development Council |
FAC |
= Fishing Family Assistance Corporation |
FAO |
= (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization |
FDA |
= U.S. Food and Drug Administration |
FIG |
= Fishing Industry Grant Program |
MCZM |
= Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office |
MDEP |
= Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection |
MVSG |
= Martha's Vineyard Shellfish Group, Inc. |
NMFS |
= (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service |
OTA |
= (U.S. Congress) Office of Technology Assessment |
PTD |
= public trust doctrine |
SBA |
= U.S. Small Business Administration |
SEED |
= South Eastern Economic Development Corporation |
SRPEDD |
= Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District |
UMD/CMST |
= University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth's Center for Marine Science
and Technology |
USDA |
= U.S. Department of Agriculture |
USDC |
= U.S. Department of Commerce |
WHOI/SGP |
= Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Sea Grant Program |
Scientific
Names of Species and Hybrids
|
Atlantic cod |
= Gadus morhua |
Atlantic halibut |
= Hippoglossus hippoglossus |
Atlantic salmon |
= Salmo salar |
Bay scallop |
= Argopecten irradians |
Black basses |
= Micropterus spp. |
Blue mussel |
= Mytilus edulis |
Channel catfish |
= Ictalurus punctatus |
Crappies |
= Pomoxis spp. |
Eastern oyster |
= Crassotrea virginica |
Haddock |
= Melanogrammus aeglefinus |
Northern quahog |
= Mercenaria mercenaria |
Palmetto bass |
= female Morone saxatilus x male M.
chrysops |
Rainbow trout |
= Oncorhynchus mykiss |
Sea scallop |
= Placopecten magellanicus |
Softshell |
= Mya arenaria |
Striped bass |
= Morone saxatilus |
Summer flounder |
= Paralichthys dentatus |
Tautog |
= Tautoga onitis |
Tilapias |
= Orechromis spp. and Tilapia spp. |
White bass |
= M. chrysops |
Yellow perch |
= Perca flavescens |