SURVEY OF THE DOMESTIC TUNA INDUSTRY Marine Biolog:cai Laocratcry L I B K A. St "ir WOODS HOLE, MASS. SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT: FISHERIES No. 104 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UNITED States Department of the Interior, Douglas McKay, Secretary Fish and Wildlife Service, John L. Farley, Director SURVEY OF THE DOMESTIC TUNA INDUSTRY By A. W. Anderson, W. H. Stolting, and Assoc I ATES Special Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 104 FOREWORD This report is made in response to the following letter; UNITED STATES SMATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 5 July 1952 Dear Mfo Secretary? "The Senate recently had before it a bill (H, Re 5693) which would have placed a temporary import duty of 3 cents per pound on fresh or frozen tuna and would have directed the Tariff Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service to initiate investigations of the tuna fishing in- dustry. This bill passed the House but failed of passage in the Senate. The point of issue was entirely the 3 cent duty and there was no objec- tion to the concurrent investigations which the bill would have ordered. "Subsequently the Senate Finance Committee unanimously passed a resolution directing the Tariff Commission to make the investigation out- lined in the bill. The Tariff law provides for such procedure^ and the letter of the Chairman of the Committeej, Senator George, to the Chairman of the Tariff Commission spelled out the reason for the resolution. That reason^, primarily j, was to assist Congress in any future legislation con- cerning tuna fisho "A number of the Senators have expressed considerable interest in the investigation proposed by the bill involving the Fish and Wildlife Service J and we the undersigned are petitioning you to have such a study initiated and carried out. We are not suggesting any time limit on such a study, but feel that one would be in the best interests of the country and hope that it can be started and concluded reasonably early. The Fint- ance Committee directed the Tariff Commission to report by March 1^,1953 » "A copy of HoR.5693 is enclosed. In it you will find the details of the investigation requested. "Your kind attention in this matter would be deeply appreciated," Sincerely yours ^ (Sigaed) William F.Knowland Richard Nixon Wairen G.Magnuson Harry P.Cain Honorable Oscar Lo Chapman „ n j o 1. ^ ii- T J. . Guy Cordon Secretary of the Interior Washington, D. C, iii The investigation mentioned in the above letter as having been pro- posed in H.R,5693, 82nd Congress, is referred to in Section 3 of that bill, which reads as follows: "The Secretary of the Interior shall make a comprehensive study of the long-range position of the domestic tuna industry and recommend such measures as may be appropriate to promote necessary adjustments so that the industry may achieve and maintain a sound position in the domestic economy. In making his study the Secre- tary of the Interior shall consult with other interested officers and agencies of the Government and may seek information and advice from any other source he deems appropriate. A report of his study and recommendations shall be submitted to the Congress on or before January 1,1953." A preliminary reply to the request contained in the above letter was dispatched to the co-signers on July 23,1952. It read as follows: "I am glad that you and the five other Senators from the Pac- ific Coast States believe there is a need for a full study of the tuna industry and its current production and marketing problans. I appreciate, also, the recogiition in your letter of July 5 that the Department's Fish and Wildlife Service is the proper agency to in- vestigate those phases of the problem vrtiich would not come within the scope of the Tariff Commission's study. "A preliminary examination of the Service's future program with respect to personnel and facilities required for such an in- vestigation indicates that, in the absence of specific funds, it can be made only by deferring some other phases of projects of con- siderable interest to the fishing industry. In our opinion, however, the seriousness of the situation confronting the tuna industry justi- fies such a course. "A further, detailed review of the Service's original economics program, as well as a conference with the Tariff Commission, will be necessary before it will be possible to inform you more fully of the scope of such a study and the date on which it can be completed. In- formation in this regard will be forwarded to you before the end of July." Sincerely yours, /s/ Mastin G.White Acting Secretary of the Interior. Iiimediately prior to the above reply, and subsequently through the summer of 1952, consultations were held with the staff of the Tariff Commission to make sure that the work of that agency in response to a Senate Finance Committee resolution of June 26,1952, would not be dupli- cated. That resolution directed the Tariff Commission: "to make a thorough investigation of the domestic tuna industry, including the effect of imports of fresh or frozen txrna fish on the livelihood of American fishermen, and to report the results of its investigation to the Senate Finance Ccamnittee on or before March 1,1953." A final affirmative reply was sent to the six Senators by the Direc- tor of the Fish and Wildlife Service on August 12,1952. A copy of that letter fo3_Iows; "In the Acting Secretary's letter of July 23, he informed you that the scope and date of completion of the proposed study of the long-range position of the tuna industry by this Department could not be determined until representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Tariff Commission had conferred. Three conver- ences have now been held in order to determine whether the work to be done in this field by the Service would overlap the study request- ed of the Tariff Commission under the Resolution of the Senate Fin- ance Committee dated June 26. "From these conferences it appears that, although the request made of the Tariff Commission is very broad, there are phases vdth respect to the long-range position of the industry which can be undertaken by the Service without duplicating any work contemplated by the Tariff Commission. "Accordingly, the Service will limit its study to those prob- lems which will supplement the Tariff Commission study and do its utmost to complete its report by March 1,1953, at which time the Tariff Commission is scheduled to file its report with the Finance Committee." Sincerely yours, /s/ Albert M.Day Director The material contained herein has been assembled by the staff of the Branch of Commercial Fisheries of the Fish and Wild3j.fe Service. Assist-, ance in some phases was rendered by the Defense Fisheries Administration and the Pacific Oceanic Fishery Invests gations of the Service. The Department of State rendered useful service by expediting the re- ceipt of various types of information from foreign sources through its foreign stations. Other agencies of the Federal Government, in- cluding the Department of Commerce, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Tariff Commission, have been most helpful. This report cer- tainly would not have been as complete and probably would not have been possible without the v^olehearted cooperation of those groups in the United States who catch tuna or process, distribute, and import various tuna products. In addition to the fine cooperation between government and industry in this country excellent cooperation also was received from foreign countries through the Department of State. For additional information on the tuna industry readers are re- ferred to the Tariff Commission's report, entitled Tuna Fish — Report on Investigation Conducted Pursuant to a Resolution by the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate dated June 26. 1952. Such things as voliime of imports of tuna and tionalike products, tariffs on tuna and tunalike products, etc., not discussed in the Service report, ex- cept as necessary to illustrate certain other points, are covered in much more detail in the Tariff Commission report. The report that follows — and the surveys that preceded it — were completed by the Service without the use of additional funds or spec- ial personnel. This was accomplished by detailing a number of Branch of Commercial Fisheries specialists* from their regular duties to carry out those surveys for which they were particularly qualified. The outline on which the surveys were based and the format of the final report were developed by A.W.Anderson, Chief of the Branch of Commercial Fisheries, and Walter H.Stolting, Chief of the Branch's Economics and Cooperative Marketing Section, They also wrote portions of the final report, including the conclusions, and reviewed and edited the balance. Others who participated in the preparation of the report are list- ed below: BRANCH OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Section and Name Position Activity Economics and Cooperative J^^rketing; DeVora R.Alexander Commodity Industry Economist Foreign Washington,D.C. consumption Donald M.Clifford Commodity Industry Economist Distrilaution Washington,D.C. Morton J.Garfield Commodity Industry Economist Consumption Washington,D.C. * Assistance was also received from two specialists on the staff of the Defense Fisheries Administration and from the Director of the Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations. Section and Name Position Activity Educational-' and Market Development; Robert D.Balkovic Fishery Marketing Specialist. . .Consumption Springfield, Illinois William I.Cabaniss. .. .Fishery Marketing Specialist. . .Consumption Minnespolis, Minnesota Burt E.Lindgren Fishery ^rketing Specialist ... Consumption Boston, Massachusetts Kathryn Osterhaug. . . . .Home Economist Organoleptic tests Seattle, Washingtoa Ralph Russell .Conmodity Industry Analyst Consumption Washington, D. C. outlook Roy C, Stevens Fishery Products Technologist .. Consumption Seattle, Washington Gustaf T.Sundstrom. . . .Information Specialist Graphics Washington, D. C. Norman B.Wigutoff Commodity Industry Analyst Consumption Washington, D. C. Exploratory Fishing; Hai-vey R.Bullis Fishery Methods & Equipment .... Territorial waters Specialist, Washington D.C. and Foreign regu- lations . Carl B.Carlson Chief, Gear Development & Production improve- Research Program ments and alternate Coral Gables, Florida uses of vessels. J.G.Ellson Chief, North Pacific Fisheries.. Live bait and alter- Exploration & Gear Research, nate uses of Seattle, Washington vessels. Virgil E.Harris Electronics Scientist Production im- Coral Gables, Florida. provements. John J.Murray. ..Fishery Methods and Equipment. .Potential Atlantic Specialist, Portland, Maine. fishing grounds Donald E.Powell Ass't Chief , Exploratory Fish-. Territorial waters ing and Gear Development Sec. and foreign regu- Washington,D,C. lations. John E.Rawlings. ...... .Fishery Methods and Equip- . . .Production improve- ment Specialist ments Pascagoula, Mississippi. Stewart Springer. . . . . .Chief , Gulf Fisheries Explor- . .Production ation and Gear Research Improvements. Pascagoula ,Missis sippi . Market News; v. J.Samson. .......... .Fishery Marketing Specialist. .Liaison with Cali- San Pedro, California fomia tuna indus- try. vii Section and Name Position Activity Special Research- Clarence R. Lucas COTimodity Industry Analyst ....World Production Washington, D.C. Robert G.Personius Commodity Industry Analyst World production Washington, D.C. Dr. Francis J.Weiss Formerly Ccmmodity Industry. .. .V/orld production Analyst, Washington, D.C. Statistics; C.E.Peterson Chief , Statistical Section Canned tuna statistics Washington, D. C. C.B.Tendick Fishery Marketing Specialist. . .Operating units San Pedro, California statistics F.M.Wood Fishery Marketing Specialist. . .Operating units Seattle, Washington statistics Technology; William Clegg Chemist , Chemical analyses Seattle, Washington Howard Craven Chemical Engineer Sample preparation and Ketchikan, Alaska * physical tests H.E.Crowther Chief, Technology Section Byproducts and new Washington, D..C. imported products Lynne G.McKee Fishery Technologist Plant surveys and engi- Seattle, Washington neering consultant Bruce F.Sanford Chemist Plant surveys and ex- Seattle, Washington perimental packs. M.E.Stansby Chief, Pacific Coast and Processing. Alaska Technological Research Seattle, Washington Dave H.Wieg Laboratory Aid Experimental packs Seattle, Washington DEFMSE FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION Dr. Richard A.Kahn Chief, Branch of Economic Fa c-. . .Foreign and domestic ilities, Washington, D.C. governmental assistance. Edward A.Power Chief, Branch of Material Fac- ..History of United States ilities, Washington, D.C. tuna industry. PACIFIC OCEANIC FISHERY INVESTIGATIONS O.E.Setie Director, Honolulu, T. H ..Biological outlook. * Detailed by Alaska Fisheries Experimental Commission, Fishery Products Lab- oratory, Ketchikan, Alaska. viii CONTENTS Foreword ■ ■ m CHAPTER I - HESTCRY OF THE UNITED STATES TUNA INTOSTRY 1 ' Description of species of tiina and tunalike fishes 2 Alba core 7 Bluefin ■ 8 Skipjack ■ 8 Yellowfin 9 Bonito — 9 Tellowtail 10 Little tuna——— 10 The United States tuna industry 11 The California tuna fishery 12 The Pacific Northwest tuna fishery l5 Tuna canning on the elast Coast of the United States 18 Tuna canning in the Hawaiian Islands 19 Imports of tuna and tunalike fishes 1 20 Fresh ^ 21 Frozen ■ '■ 21 Canned tuna in oil, or in oil and other substances 22 Tuna canned in brine 2U Bonito and yellowtail canned in oil 25 Bonito and yellowtai,! canned, not in oil 26 Tuna fishing gear— 26 Hook and line 26 Trolling 26 Live bait — • ■■ -i 2? Keg lines — ■- 28 Long lines— -^ 28 Purse seines 28 Pound nets 29 Haul seines 29 Harpoons >- 29 Tuna fishing craft • 29 Trollers or jig boats ^ — 29 Purse seiners- 30 Tuna clippers- 30 Tuna canning process and types of packs 31 Tuna byproducts 33 IX CONTHITS-Continued CHAPTER II - CONSIWTION 37 General 38 O/er-all fish consumption Ii9 Tuna consumption as compared vrith other species 5l The relative volume of various fisherj'' products from foreign sources for domestic ccnsumption ^5 Special aspects of consumer demand for tuna in the United States 58 Volume changes which have occurred or are expected to occur in packs of canned tuna ^8 Type of pack such as solid, chunk, grated, flakes, etc., and additives such as oil and brine 6o Species such as albacore, bluefin, skipjack, yellowfin, bonito, etc. 6^ Can sizes 72 Acceptability of east coast packs by consumers 75 Acceptability of bonito and tuna by consumers 75 Consumers ' familiarity with the various styles of canned tuna packs 76 Consumer demand for tuna products other than canned 78 Name brands and private labels 81 Stimulation of consumer demand by promotionol activities and market development 83 Statistical analysis of trend, correlation analysis, etc. 89 Important factors affecting the demand for canned tuna 89 Analysis of canned tuna consumption trend 95 Outlook for the consumption of canned tuna and other tuna products-- in-1953 - beyond 1953--' 98 Canned tuna 98 Foods competing iirith canned tuna 100 Background of demand for canned tuna 101 Fresh and frozen tuna 102 Byproducts from tuna lOU CHAPTER in - WORLD PRODUCTION 107 Biological outlook for tuna resources I08 Production of various countries 112 Western Pacific II8 Japan II8 Formosa (Taiwan) 126 Philippine Islands 126 Indonesia 128 Australia 128 New Zealand 129 CaNITENT&-Continued CHAPTER in - WORLD PRODUCTION (continued) Production of varioas countries (continued) North America ■ 12? Mexico ■ 129 Canada ► ■ 131 Cuba 133 Mediterranean 13l| Turkey 13U Italy- 135^ Libya 136 Tunisia • ■ — ■ 136 Algeria 137 Western Europe'-' 138 Spain ■ • 138 France liiO Portugal (including Azores, Cape Verde Islands, and Angola) lUl Northern Rirope ■ llih Norway, Sweden, and Denmark lUU South America lU6 Peru • lU6 Chile lh9 Ecuador ■ ■ — 1^2 Colombia—— • 152 Venezuela ■ 153 Brazil 153 Central America 15U Costa Rica ■ • 15U El Salvador ■ l56 Guatemala ■ 156 Nicaragua l57 Honduras • l57 Panama ■ 157 CHAPTER IV - DOMESTIC PROmCTION l65 Quantity and value of production 168 Types of tuna fishing noxj employed ■ ■ — -■ — - 173 Pacific Coast States ■— -^ • ■-■ — • 173 Atlantic and Gulf Coast States — ■ ■ ■-- 188 Inter-relationship of tuna fishing with other types of fishing (salmon, halibut, sardines, etc.) 188 Duplications with tuna purse seines 191 Duplication with bait lines, yellowfin and skipjack- — 198 Duplication with lines, albacore ■- 198 ^ CONTENTS-Continued Page CHAPTER IV -■ DCMESTIC PROEUCTION (continued) Are these engineering improvements which can bring about greater efficiencies in fishing operations? 202 Propulsion vmits (engines) and propellers 203 Vessel design — — — — 2oU Refrigeration equipment 20^ Pumps, piping and hydraulics 2o6 Electronic aids to fishing and navigation 2o6 Fishing gear 207 Over-all considerations 209 The importance of bait, its cost, and outlook for improvements in making bait 209 Quantity of tuna caught with bait 210 Cost of bait 213 Nets and boats 2'ilx Fcreign licenses 21Ii Time factor in bait procurement——— — - — — — - 2l5 Quantity of bait used 218 Types of bait and where found 220 Foreign bait regulations 221 Bait supply situation 222 Future problems and bait research 222 Pi^esent bait research - natural bait 223 Present bait research - synthetic bait 223 Can bait research (natural and synthetic)- develop a means to expedite operations and reduce costs of production ': 22U Tuna fleet participation in other fisheries, or transport trade — 22^ Possibility of engaging in the Pacific feoast trawl fishery 22^ Possibility of engaging in the Alaska salmon freeaer-ship industry 227 Ejqjerience and future possibilities 227 Structural modifications for tuna vessels in the salmon-freezing trade 229 Operating costs — — — — — — — — — — 230 Other aspects 230 Effects on salmon industry 231 Possibility of engaging in the Gulf of Mexico and .Atlantic Soast shrimp industry ^31 Experience and future possibilities 231 Comparison of fishing vessels and methods of fishing 233 Differences in operational costs- 23U xll CONTENTS-C ontinued Page CHAPTER IV " DOMESTIC PRODUCTION (continued) Tuna fleet participation in other fisheries, or transport trade (continued) Possibilities of engaging in the transport trade 23U Fleet operations 236 Should the tuna fleet move to other locations to obtain more favorable operating ccnditions ^ 236 New areas available to the tuna fleet for fishing operations or for bases 236 Gulf and Southeastern States 238 Puerto Rico 239 Virgin Islands 2U0 The Philippines, Trust Territories, and Equatorial Pacific '■ 2I4.I Where tuna are available and are not fished by domestic commercial fishermen, is it likely that a commercial fishery will be developed by United States industry? 2U^ Atlantic Coast 2k^ Background of Atlantic Coast tuna fishing 2k^ Quantities and species available 2L|.7 Availabilitjr of local fleet and fishermen 2l;8 Availability of bait 2^0 Markets and canneries available 2^1 Ports and cold storage facilities 2^2 Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean area 251i Trends toward development of a tuna fishery in the Gulf and Caribbean area 2^lj. Quantities and species available in the Gulf and Caribbean 2^6 Availability of local fleet and fishermen 2^8 Availability of bait— 2^9 Markets and canneries available 2^9 Ports and cold storage facilities 260 Central Pacific area 261 Recent developments in the Central Pacific 26l Quantities and species available 261 Availability of local fleet and fishermen 263 Availability of bait- ■ 263 Availability of ports, processing facilities, and markets-- — • 26U Limitations of territorial waters and foreign regula- tions on the United States tuna fishery 26U Vessels affected and their areas of operation 265 Foreign territorial sea claims and fishing regulations--- ■ 266 Relations with foreign countries and causes of disagreement-- ■ 268 CONTENTS-Continued Page CHAPTER IV - DOMESTIC PRGDUCTION (continued) Limitations of territorial waters and foreign regula- tions on the United States tuna fishery (continued) Outlook for United States tuna fishing in foreign areas 271 Factors influencing futiire developments 271 Possible alternate sources of bait 272 Possible alternate tuna grounds 273 CHAPTER V - PROCESSING 279 Canning 28U Shore plant operation 28U Plant arrangement 28U Conveying systems for carrying tuna to the plant- 288 Thawing frozen fish 289 Dressing or butchering 291 Precooking 292 Cleaning 29U Packing 297 Solid pack 297 Chunk pack ■ 301 Flakes or grated packs 302 Addition of oil and salt 302 Exhausting and seaming 30U Washing and processing cans 30U Labeling, packing, and storing 305 Packing methods in different sections of the countrj'- 305 Recent changes in preparing and shipping tuna to United States canneries 307 Frozen raw tuna loins 307 Frozen cooked tuna loins 308 Frozen canned (unsealed) precooked tuna 310 Byproducts of tuna canning 311 Liver oil 311 Solubles and liquid fertilizer 312 Meal and oil 312 Efficiency of use of offal 312 Discussions of efficiency in tuna canneries 313 Quality of certain packs of tuna 3l6 Effect of duration of precook time on the quality of the tuna pack 3l6 Effect of packing methods on the quality of solid packed tuna 320 Comparison of the quality of oil and brine packs 322 Comparison of the quality of Japanese and American canned tuna . 32I4. CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER V - PROCESSING (continued) Page Grades and standards for canned tuna and tuna- like fishes 325 Regulations and standards of State governments 325 Regulations and standards of Federal Government 339 New Federal standards for tuna 341 Industry voluntary quality control 342 Can markets be broadened by packing other tuna products? — 343 Should canneries move to other locations? 346 Imported tuna as compared to the domestic catch 348 CHAPTER VI - IMPORTANCE OF THE TUNA INDUSTRY TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST 353 CHAPTER VII - DISTRIBUTION 36? Charges for distribution and other principal economic functions • 368 Transporting and storing tuna 372 Transportation — — 372 Storage ■ 381 Marketing • 381 Wholesaling and retailing 381 Brokers and sales practices 386 Industry statistics- • 392 Production statistics 392 Stock statistics 393 Consumption data • — 393 Price data 394 Vessel landings — 394 Canned tuna ■ 394 CHAPTER VIII - GOVERIMENT ASSISTANCE TO THE TUNA INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN CaiPETING COUNTRIES 399 Scope of investigation of this subject 399 Source of information 400 Classification of the various types of governmental Summary of findings • • 403 Recent Reconstruction Finance Corporation experience in the domestic tuna industry-— 417 What can Government do to help American tuna fish- ing in the future? 419 Technical assistance— ■ 419 International relations — 420 Manpower ■ 421 CHAPTER IX - CONCLUSIONS km RECOMMENDATIONS • 423 CHAPTER I — HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES TUNA INDUSTRY ABSTRACT The tunas are one of the world's leaoinq fishery resources. Five species are taken generally by united states fishermen, these are albacore, bluefin, little, skipjack, Ate YELLOWIN TUNA, iN ADDITION, BONITO AND YELLOWTAIL ARE PACKED TUNA- style and known as "tunalike fishes", however, they cai^jot be labeled "tuna". The United States catch, which has averaged about 350 million pounds annually IN RECE^^• years, is one of the most valuable fishery products taken by United States fishermen. Tuna cannins began in the United States in 1903 when the camming of al- bacore was undertaken in southern California, For a number of years albacore was the only species canned. However, as the demand increased and the supply of albacore WAS FOUND to BE LIMITED, THE PACKING OF OTHER SPECIES WAS UNDERTAKEN, AS THE MARKET FOR CANNED TUNA CONTINUED TO EXPAND, THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF THE FISHING CRAFT IN- CREASED, AND IT BECAME NECESSARY TO FISH IN WATERS OFF CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA WHERE LARGE CONCENTRATIONS OF SKIPJACK AND YELLOWFIN WERE AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, By 1927, THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF FISH FOR CALIFORNIA CANNERIES WAS THE WATERS SOUTH OF THE MEXICAN BORDER. In 1937, CONSIDERABLE QUANTITIES OF ALBACORE WERE FOUND OFF OREGON A^D WASHING- ton, and tuna canneries were established in those states. locally-caught albacore, as well as receipts of these fish from california and imports of various species of tuna from latin america and japan, are now canned in oregon al« washington. The canning of tuna on the east coast of the United States was likewise begun IN 1937, and the fish ARE now PACKED IN SEVERAL ATLANTIC COAST STATES. LOCALLY- CAUQHT BLUEFIN AND LITTLE TUNA, FISH FROM THE PACIFIC COAST AND IMPORTS FROM CANADA, Japan and Peru provide the raw materials for the east coast canneries. Within a few years after tuna were first canned in California, canneries were constructed in the Hawaiian Islands. The two canneries now operated in the Islatcs pack both loc- ally-caught and imported tuna, as the market for canned tuna increased, a number of countries began exporting fresh, frozen. Arc canned tuna to the United States, Imports of fresh and frozen TUNA (principally FROZEN) WHICH ARE RECEIVED FREE OF DUTY REACHED A PRE-WORLD WAR It HIGH OF ll,046,0CO POUNDS IN 1937, AND THEN INCREASED SPECTACULARLY FOLLOWING THE WAR TO 69,003,000 POUNDS IN 1952, Japan began exporting canned tuna to The United States in 193*., By 1933, im- ports OF tuna CAltCD IN OiL, NEARLY ALL FROM JAPAN, WERE EQUAL TO 40.5 PERCENT OF THE DOMESTIC PACK, SINCE THESE JAPANESE IMPORTS WERE FOU^C) TO BE PRODUCED AT LOWER COST THAN SIMILAR UNITED STATES PRODUCTS, THE DUTY WAS INCREASED FROM 30 PERCENT TO 45 PERCENT AD VALOREM. THIS EFFECTIVELY REDUCED THE IMPORTS. IN 1943, AS A RESULT OF A TRADE AGREEMENT WITH MEXICO, THE DUTY ON TUNA CANNED IN OIL WAS REDUCED TO 22^ PERCENT AD VALOREM. FOLLOWING WORLD WAR II, IMPORTS INCREASED SHARPLY, AND, IN 1950, A TOTAL OF 36,409,547 POUNDS OF TUNA CANNED IN OIL WERE RECEIVED, PRINCIPALLY FROM JAPAN AND Peru, The Mexican Trade Agreement with the United States was abrogated as of January I, 1951, which resulted in the duty returning to 45 PERCENT AD VALOREM. THE RESULT OF THIS ACTION WAS TO REDUCE IMPORTS OF TUNA CANNED IN OIL TO ONLY 3,618,565 POUNDS IN 1951, AND 4,288,447 POUNDS IN 1952. SINCE TLTO CATvTJED .N BRINE. RATHER THW IN OiL^ iS DUTIABLE AT 12^ PERCENT /« VALOREM, JAPANESE TliNA CANNERS BEGAN CANNING TUNA IN BRir£ FOR EXPORT TO THE UNITED STATES. iN It-Dip .'MPORTS OF THIS PACK AMOUNTED TO ABOLfT 9,351,758 POUNDS, M) IN I95;>, TO ;9,0Gft„5C0 POuNDS. T>£ MAJOR PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES CATCH OF TUNA AM) TUNALiKE FISHES IS M/OE WITH HOOK ATO LINE AND PURSE SEINES, RELATIVELY SMALL CATCHES ARE TAKEN BY POUND NETS, HAUL SEIZES, WD HflRPOONS, A^€ OCCASIONAL INCIDENTAL CATCH£S ARE MADE BY G !LL NETS AND OiTER TPA/;'.S. THREE TYPES OF FISHING CRAFT ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT NiNETY=NINE PERCENT OF THE UNI7H) STATES CATCH OF IJNA, THESE ARE THE SMALL TROLLERS, OR JIG BOATS, WHICH FISH FOR ALBACORE? THE LARGE TUNA CLJPPERS, WHICH ACCOUNT FOR THE BULK OF THE >ELLaVFIN AND SKIPJACK CATCH5 AND THE PURSE SEINERS, WHICH ENGAGE PRINCIPALLY IN T^€ TAKING OF BLUE= FIN, BON I TO AND \'ELLOWTA!L„ WHILE MANY ^ECHAN1CAL ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MADE IN CAMMING TUNA SINCE Tl€ INCEPTION OF THE DOt€STIC INDUSTRY, THE BASIC PROCESSES FOLLOWED HAVE SHOWN LIHLE CHANGE. THE FISH ARE PRE-COOKED AND MOST OF THE PAOK IS CANNED IN N0„ i CANS WITH A SMALL QUANTITY OF SALT AND VEGETABLE 0!L, IN RECENT YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN A STRONG TREfX) TOWARD PACKING CHUI^S ArO FLAKES RATVCR THAN SOLID MEAT, !N ADDITION TO THE PRODUCTION OF CANNED TUNA, CONSIDERABLE QUANTITIES OF TUNA BY- PRODUCTS, CONSISTING OF MEAL„ AND BODY AND LIVER OILS, AM) SOLUBLES ARE MANUFACTURED FROM TUNA WASTE. THE "TOTAL VALUE OF TUNA BY-PRODUCTS IN 1952 WAS ABOUT |5„000„000, IN THE SAfjE YEAR, THE VALUE OF THE CANNED PACK WAS $1 !3,000,833o A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE MAKE-UP OF THE DOktSTIC TUNA INDUSTRY FOLLOWS IN TABLE I, DESCRn>TIOU OF SPECIES 01 TOM AM) TUHALIEE FISHES The tunas are one of the world's leading fishery resources. They sure widely distributed in temperate, semi-tropical and tropical waters, pr\r\ althoiigh they have heen fished for many centuries off Europe, northern Africa, and Asia, arid mora recently in the Western Hemisphere and the mid-Pacific, comparatively little is known concerning them. Preliminary research indicates that there may he large populations of tima in the mid-Pacific and in other areas that are not now fished, and it is possible that they are one of the world i^B great food reser9'es. It is generally considered that five species of tuna, which may be canned and sold as tuna, are landed in the United States. On the Pacific doast the catch includes albacore (Ger/no alnlunga^, bluefin (Thunnus thvnnus). skipjack (Katsuwonus pel§m-j[.s) axid yellowfin (Neothunnus macropterus) , while bluefin and little tuna (&ith!y:r]na.a alleteratus) are taken on the Atlantic Coast. Blackfin tuna (EfiiailUiiUlua SdlMkitlU&&) have been caught in the Gulf of Mexico but not in commercial quantities by United States fishermen. The big-eyed t\ina (Para- thunnus £iM.) is takan in Hawaii and it is reported that occasionally catches of this species are taken by California f ishermaa . Howe?er, since the fish TABLE 1. - SUMMARY OF THE TUNA FBHERY Item Common name- Albacore Bluefin Pacific Atlantic c «4 ^■«4- -; -P-; rt »-. «w. <-. Germo alalunga Thunnus thynnus Thunnus thynnus Distribution in Western Alaska to Central Lower California Columbia River to Guadalupe Island, Mexico Newfoundland Caribbean United States fishing range — Alaska to Central Lower California Southern California to Guadalupe Island, Mexico New England and Middle Atlantic States Principal fishing season July to October May to August July to Sept. Sizes: Maximum About 80 lbs. About 250 lbs. About 1600 lbs. 12-25 lbs. 20-l:iO lbs. 8.-65 lbs. and 65-600 lbs. Calif, minimum size limits- 9 lbs. 7i lbs. - United States catchs 19?0 (lbs.) 72,Ulii,600 2,761,800 1,267,200 1951 (lbs . ) 3U, 1^91,000 3,862,000 (1) Average catch 19^1-1950 (lbs.)- 39,295,600 13,003,000 About 1,U20,100 Record catch (lbs.) 1950 -7 2, hlU, 600 1935-25,173,100 19U8-2,997,300 Smallest catch, 19lil-19?0 (Ibs)- 19ll-ll,932,200 L950- 2,761,800 19U3- U76,300 Pacific Coast catch, 19^0 Off Pacific Coast States (lbs. 1 U8, 839, 100 9,U00 _ Off Latin America (lbs.) — 23,575,500 2,752,UOO - Landed in California (Ibs.)- "6l,7U6,000 2,739,000 - Landed in Oregon (lbs.) 5,386,100 22,800 - Landed in Washington (lbs.) — 5.282,500 - - Principal fishing gear used — Troll and live bait gear Purse seine Pound nets, hook and line and harpoon Tr oilers and small live bait boats Purse seiners Various Contract price, ex-vessel $ii25 per ton $310 per ton - Canned pack: 1952 £./ (cases) 2,588,326 9li,898 (1) Percent of total 19^2 pack 28^ \% (1) Record pack (cases) 1950-2,053, 8U2 19U6-ii97,207 (1) Average pack, 19lil-50 (cases) 1,027,960 258,936 (1) White meat Light meat Light meat Average value 19^2 California pack of U8-1/2 cans per case Solid $ll4.7U $ll4.17 (1) Chunk $12.^5 (1) Flake $9.09 559.53 (1) See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 1. - SUMMARY OF THE TUNA FISHERY (Continued) Item TUNA (Cont'd) Little Skipjack Yellowfin ^ . Ruthynnus Alletteratus Katsuwonus pelamis Neothunnus macropterus Distribution in Western Cape Cod south in- to Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico Vancouver Is. to coast of South America Point Conceptton south to Peru United States fishing range — New York to North Carolina Southern Calif, to northern South America Southern Calif, to northern South America Principal fishing season Northern waters in summer ard southern in winter Throughout year Throughout year Sizes: Maximum About 20 lbs. 13 lbs. About UOO lbs. A ,.Av«n^ A 5-10 lbs. h-20 lbs. 30-UO lbs. Calif, minimtun size limits- - U lbs. 7* lbs. United States catcht T ocin MKo 'S 295,900 126,786,100 187,889.500 1951 (lbs.) (1) 116; 599, 000 161,U81.000 Average catch, 19Ul-50 (Ibs.)- (1) 51,828,900 117.6614,000 Record catch (lbs.) (1) 1950-126,786,100 19U8-199.U26.700 Smallest catch, l$iUl-50 (lbs.) (1) 19U1- 25.585.500 19U2- Ul,U66,600 Pacific Coast catch, 1950: j Off Pacific Coast States^lbs.) _ 12,h00 1 500 Off Latin America (lbs.) - 126,773.700 187 i_6 883 000 Landed in California (lbs.) - 12U,517,000 181,371,900 Landed in Oregon (lbs.) - 2,269,100 6,517,600 Landed in Washington (lbs.) - - - Principal fishing gear used — Pound nets and haul seines Live bait and p\irse seines Live bait and purse seines Vessels used Various Tuna clippers & purse seiners Tuna clippers & purse seiners Contract price, ex -vessel - $280 per ton $320 per ton Canned pack: 1952 2/ (cases) (1) 1.6iil,278 U, 016, 878 Percent of tcrtal 1952 pack- (1) 18? hh% Record pack (cases) ^^ 1950-2,262,351 1950-U,2U5.3U6 Average pack, 19U1-50 (cases) (l) 895,3li9 2.397,357 Color classification Light meat Light meat Light . meat Average value 1952 California pack of U 8-1/2 cans per case: Solid (1) $m.o6 ,m.25 Chunk ^^} $12.51 $11.89 Flake 1 S9.72 $9.U9 See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 1. - SUMr4ARY OF THE TUNA FISHERY (Continued) Item TUNALIKE FISHES Common name Bonito Yellowtail Pacific Atlantic Scientific name Sarda chiliensis Sarda sarda Seriola dorsalis Distribution in Western Hemisphere Vancouver Is. in- to Lower Calif. New England to Brazil Central Calif, to Gulf of California United States fishing range So. Calif, to Cen. Lower California Massachusetts to Florida Central California to Gulf of Calif. Principal fishing season Throughout year North'---summer So.-Thruout yr. Throughout year Sizes: Maximum 25 lbs. 1?. lbs. Abput 80 lbs. Average-' 6-8 lbs. (1) Under 15 lbs. Calif, minimum size limits — - - United States catch: 1950 (lbs.) 695,600 123,500 3,530,000 1951 (lbs.) 777,000 (1) U, 670, 000 Average catch, 19U1-50 (Ibs.)- U,927,UOO (1? 5,979,200 Record catch (lbs.) 19U7-13,697,200 (1) 19U8-10,UU5,700 Smallest catch, 19Ul-50 (lbs.) 1950-695, 600 (1) 19U2- 2,726,000 Pacific Coast catch, 19?0: Off Pacific Coast States(lbs.) 33.UOO _ 5,600 Off Latin America (lbs.) 662,200 - 3,52U,200 Landed in California (Ibs.)- 695,600 - 3,529,800 Landed in Oregon (lbs.)- - - - Landed in Washington (Ibs.)- - - - Principal fishing gear used — Purse seines & live bait Havil seines, gillnets, hook & line, pound nets Purse seines and live bait Vessels used Purse seiners & tuna clippers Various small craft Purse seiners and tuna clippers Contract price, ex-vessel $195 per ton - $185 per ton 1952 2/ (cases) U7.213 (1) 179,787 ,5% (1) 2% Record pack (cases) 19U7-260,9U3 (^^ 19U8- 18B,776 Average pack, 19Ul-50 (cases)- 97,812 (1) 99,387 Light meat Light meat Light meat Average value 1952 California pack of U8-1/2 cans per case: C ^T ^ fi , $10.33 {^} $10.50 ^*^ 1 - (1 $8.01 $7.97 (1) W.08 i; Data not available. Does not include 5U6,822 cases of tonno and unclassified tuna. Figure I. PRINCIPAL SPECIES OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES IN UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL CATCH. TUNA '^^ LITTLE TUNA SKIPJACK TUNALIKE BONITO YELUOWTAIL \ U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE are similar in appearsmce to yellowfin, the catch is included with that of the latter species. Other species of tuna occur tax from areas presently fished by United States fishermen. Reference is made to some of them at appi-opriate places in this report. Bonito fSarda chiliensis (Pacific) - Sarda sarda (Atlaiitic)l, which, like tuna, are memhers of the mackerel family, and the yellowtail (Seriola dorsalis) , a memher of the jack family, are canned tuna-style. The pack is considered a ttinal ike rather than a tuna product. However, Federal regulations require that the cans he labeled "honito" and "yellowtail", respectively, rather than tuna. In this report data on consumption, production, etc., of bonito and yellowtail, will be discussed with those of the tunas. Throughout this report when reference is made to tuna and t-unalike fishes it will cover the aforementioned seven species of fish. They are shovm in outline form in figure 1, Additional background information about the five species of tuna and the two tunalike species with which the domestic tuna industry is directly concerned follows: Albacore (Germo alalunga) Albacore, also called longfin tuna, has lighter meat than the other species, and is the only one which, when canned, the Food and Drug Admin- istration permits to be labeled "white-meat" tuna. Albacore are a dark steel blue on the upper portions of the body, shading into d-ull silver be- low, smd may be distinguished from other species of tirna by the great length of the pectoreCL fins, which extend beyond the front of the anal fin. Alba- core occur from Alaska to central lower California, and through the temperate Pacific to Hawaii smd Japan. While individual fish may reach a maximum weight of 80 pounds, those taken commercially usually weigh less than kO potmds axid the average ranges from 12 to 25 pounds. Eegulations of the California Department of Fish and Game permit the taking of albacore at anytime. However, none weighing less than 9 pounds may be sold in the State, There are no size or seasonal restrictions on the taking of albacore in Oregon or Washington. Albacore usually appear on the Pacific coast in the spring or early Slammer, sind disappear in the late fall or winter. Most of the catch is teJcen from July to October, inclusive. Albacore are the only tuna taken off each of the Pacific Coast States. They have also been taken off British Columbia and landings have "been made in Alaska. In recent years from a thiid to a half of the United States catch has "been taken off Mexico. Altacore are taken almost exclusively with hooks, either through the use of troll lines or on live-bait gear. In 1952 the domestic catch of altacore sold in the Pacific coast area for $350 per ton diiring most of the season, advancing to $^25 per ton late in the year, Bluefin (ihunnus thynnus) Bluefin occur in toth. the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. On the Pacific coast they are foiind from Point Conception, California, south to Peru, and westward to Hawaii, Japan, and Australia. Pacific "bluefin atteiin a weight of over 250 pounds. The minimum legal size limit for the commercial catch in California is 7^ po-'onds. The average size ca\aght ranges from 20 to 40 pounds. In addition to its importance commercially, "bluefin are a famous game fish in "both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, In the Western Atlantic, they occur in the Cari'b"bean and from off the Chesapeake Bay States to New- foundland, They are also found in the Mediterranean and off the Atlantic Coast of Europe, where large catches are made "by French, Portuguese, Italian, and recently "by Norwegian fishermen. Atlantic tluefin reach a weight of 1,500 pounds. Fish of 400 pounds are common on "both, sides of the Atlantic. On the Pacific Coast where most of the domestic catch of "bluefin is made, they are caught principally "between May and August. Only occasional catches are made during the winter months. They are taken off the Southern Ceilifornia coast and south to "below the tip of Lower Ceilifomia. On the Atlantic Coast, "bluefin are taken during the, summer and fall from June to Octo"ber. On the Pacific Coast "bluefin are taken almost exclusively with purse seines. The Atlantic iSoast catch is taken with a variety of gear principally lines, harpoons, pound nets, and floating traps. Early in 1953 a price of $310 per ton was established for Pacific coast "bluefin. The 1952 Atlantic coast catch sold to canners was valued at a"bout 12^^ per pound. Skip .lack (Katsuwonus pelamis) While skipjack are the smallest of the commercial tunas, they are pro"b- a"bly the most ahxindant. Known also as "striped tuna", they may "be dis- tinguished "by four or five dark stripes which extend horizontally along the lower side of the "body. Skipjack in the commercial catch usioally weigh from 4 to 20 poTinds. California regulations prohi'bit the landing of skipjack 8 weighing less than k pounds ^ Skipjack occur in the eastern Pacific from Vancouver Island to the coast of South America, hut are rare north of Point Conception, They are also found in Hawaii and Japan where they are the most important tuna talten. They also occur in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediter- ranean Sea. Since skipjack and yellowf in are taken in largely the same areas hy the same "boats and type of gear, there is, to a large extent, a single fishery for the two species. However, there is one difference tetween them. The catch of yellowf in is confined to the coastal shelf and outlying hanks and islands, while skipjack may "be taken at considerahle distances from amy shore or tanko Skip- jack are taken principally with hook and line using live "bait, piirse seines and trolling gear. Early in 1953 a price of $280 per ton was esta'blished in the Pacific coast jynft. for skipjack. Yellowf in (Neothunnus macropterus) Yellowfin is the principal tuna taken "by California fishermen. They occur in the eastern Pacific from Point Conception south to Chile, and also in Hawaii and the central Pacific to Japan. They also are found in the Atlantic, "but apparently less a'bundantly than in the Pacific. Yellowfin may "be distinguished "by the rather lon^ pectoral fin reaching, or almost reachi;^^, the front of the anal fin, "but not past it, as in al"bacore. The name is de- rived from a golden yellow iridescent tand found along the side of newly- caught fish. Yellowfin may reach weights of from 300 to ifOO pounds, "but fish of this size are rare. California limits the sale of yellowfin in the com- mercial catch to a minimum of 7^ pounds. The average size landed ranges from 30 to kO pounds c The northern limit of yellowfin is off piathern California, where the fish are normally taken in August and Septem'uero To the south the season lengthens and in semi-tropical and tropical waters, they can "be taken through- out the year. Yellowfin are tsiken principally with hook and line using live "bait, purse seines and trolling gear. Early in 1953 a price $320 per ton was esta"blished in the Pacific Goast -Area for these fish. Eonito [[Sarda chiliensis (Pacific) - Sarda sarda (Atlantic)J The "bonitos are related to "both the mackerels and the ttinas. In California where the major portion of the domestic catch is made, "bonito are often taken "by tvina fishermen and canned, tuna-style. However, Federal regulations pro- hi"bit labeling the pack "tuna"« Instead, the la'bels must "bear the designation ""bonito". The flesh of "bonito is somewliat darker and more strongly flavored than that of albaccre, 'bluefin, skipjack, or yellowfin. Because of this, "bonito are considered less desirable and tring a lower price. Bonito are small, ranging A'om 6 to 8 pounds each.. They are coastal fish, occuring in schools at varying distances from the coast in temperate waters. In California honito axe found principally off the coast of southern California and the northern half of Lower California. Bonito are taken throughout the yesir principally by trolling, live-bait gear and with purse seines. Eetrly in 1953 a price of $195 per ten was established in the Pacific CSoast Area for these fish, Yellowtail (Seriola dorsalis) The Pacific yellowtail is considered a tunalike fish, and, like bonito, the canned pack is included in statistics shov/ing the production of "tuna and tunalike fishes". However, yellowtail are not tuna, but members of the jack family (Carang^c^apH- which includes the jack mackerel, the scad, and many other tropical species. They cannot be labeled "tuna" but must be designated "yellow- tail". Their range is from Central California, south along the Mexican coast into the Gulf of Csilifornia. Tlie commercial catch is made from Point Concep- tion south to the tip of Lower California. While the largest catches are made between June and September, yellowtail can be taken during the entire year, off Mexico. Yellotail are an important sport fish in Southern California and most of the catch north of the Mexican border is made by sportsmen. In recent years, only about one percent of the commercial catch has been taken north of the Mexican border. Yellowtail are taken principally with hook and line generally with live bait and with purse seines. Early in 1953 a price of $185 per ton was established in the Pacific Coast Area for yellowtail. . Little Tuna (Euthynnus alletteratus) Little tuTia are found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States and in the Caribbean area. They sxe closely related to skipjack, and are one of the specios properly classed as tuna. Little tuna are pelagic fish of the warm seas, averaging about 10 pounds in weight, but may reach 20 poundSo They are bluish or greenish on the upper portions of the body, shading to a light, silvery color below. In recent years, the major portion of the commercial catch has been taken in New York, New Jersey, Virginia and North Carolina. Until a few years ago, litte tuna were marketed only as fresh fish. There was little demand for them and the catch was of relatively minor im- portance. In 19^6, an east coast packer began canning litte tuna and marketing them as tuna. Although the catch of little tuna has not exceeded 1 million pounds in any year, there are indications that considerable quantities occur 10 in Atlantic doast and Golf waters and it is probable that the catch w5.11 in- crease considerably as more is learned of their habits and additional tiina- canning operations become established in the Sfeist Coast and Gulf States, The major portion of the catch of little t-'ona is tsil:en with poiind nets and haul seines„ The fish usiially sell at from 3^ to %* Per pound, THE UNI TED STATES TUM THDUSTBY The United States catch, which has averaged about 350 million poxinds einniially in recent years, is taken pr5.ncipally off the three Pacific Coast States, Central arid South America, The catch is used almost entirely for canning. In recent years, tuna have vied with salmon as the most valuable fishery product taken by United States fishermen, and as the country's most valuable canned fishery product. The record 195G United States catch of tuna and tunalike fishes, amounted to 395,764,000 pounds, valued at $61,729,000 to the fishermen. This catch and imports of 56,711,596 pounds of fresh and frozen tuna in that year were used to produce 17^,794,^36 pounds of canned tuna and tunalike fishes, valued at $112,830,094 to the packer and by-products valued at about $5,000,000. The value of the canned pack declined to $99,046,206 in 1951, but in 1952 with even heavier imports of fresh and frozen tuna, it rose to a value of $113,000,833 (exclusive of the pack of tuna and noodles). The value of the 1950 pack is still the record, however, since data on the pack for Hawaii are included in the 1952 figure whereas they are not included for 1950. The taking of important qusintities of tuna in the Western Hemisphere is of comparatively recent origin. For many years, small catches of bluefin tima or horse mackerel had been taken off the New England and Middle Atlantic States for the fresh fish market, but the catch, seldom exceeded a few hundred thousand pounds. On the Pacific coast, tuna were well known to southern Ca].ifornia anglers prior to the twentieth century. However, the fish were not considered edible and after the angler had his picture taken with his catch, the fish were usually discarded, Tuiia. was so lightly regarded as food that David Starr Jordan in writing concerning the albacore in American Food and Game ?ish, published in 1902, stated that, "As a food-fish, it is of little value, its flesh being coarse and oily. ....,,.. **„ At that time, albacore was so plentiful off Sau Pedro that commercial fishermen often brought in considerable quantities v;ith other species, even though there was no market for them. 11 The California Tuna Fishery The failure of the run of pilchards (sardines) in the San Pedro area in 1903 was primarily responsible for development of tuna cemning. Albert P. Halfhill, who is recognized as the "father of the industry" had been engaged in packing sardines at San Pedro since the early nineties. In 1903, the sardines failed to appear and a crisis confronted both the fishermen and canners. In an effort to keep his plsmt operating, Mr. Halfhill began canning other Csdifornia fishes such as rock cod, jewfish, halibut sind albacore. In an attempt to pack an attractive product, a redwood steam box was constructed in which the fish could be steamed. It was found that this process changed the red flesh of the albacore to a creamy white and improved the flavor. Since the steaming process removed the oil from the fish a quantity of vegetable oil was added to each can to bring out the flavor and improve the appearance of the pack. In 1903, an experimental pack of 700 cases was canned and distributed to eastern and Los Angeles wholesalers. Despite the usual initial difficulties in marketing a new product and the necessity of overcoming consumer resistance to a canned fish having a much different appearance than that of the well established canned salmon, repeat orders began to be received and. , somewhat larger quantities of the fish were canned in the following three ysars^ By 1907, -che industry began to move out of the experimentail stage, and a few years later a trade publication reported that in 191^ a totsd of eleven canneries bad packed a total of 217,000 cases of tuna. While definite proof is lacking, an inspector for the Food and Drug Administration at Los Angeles states in a letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service, dated Jemiiary 13, 1953, tliat "it seems quite likely that the first packs were packed salmon stylo; that is, the raw fish plus salt was placed in the cans which were then sealed and processed with heat*" Since this method is not suited to the canning of tuna, the packs would not have sold well. When the canning of tuna was first begun in southern California, albacore was the only species packed. They were plentiful between Pc5.nt Conception and the Mexican border and three or four fishermen operating a i40-foot boat co\il.d take fiill loads within fifty miles of San Pedro or San Diego. Within a few years, it was found that the runs of albacore were erratic aM packers occasionally required more fish than were available. By 1915, canners were beginning to pack skipjack, yellowfin, and bonito, and in the following year, the canning of bluefin was reported. 12 As the demand for tuna continued, it "became necessary for the fishing vessels to make longer voyages south of the Mexican toundary in search of fish. This required larger "boats and raised the prolDlem of keeping the fish fresh. A niunter of methods were used to prevent loss of fishing time and to insure the quality of the tuna. In 1917} one company outfitted a floating tuna cannery which was towed to the fishing grounds where the fish could he canned a few hours after they were caught o In 191B it was reported that a second floating cannery operated inMagd^ena Bay and other Mexican ports in lower California. In the following years, a niunher of firms hegan operating refrigerated "barges at Turtle Bay and other Lower California ports where fishermen could land their catch and take on ice and supplies. The tima were then shipped to San Diego or San Pedro "by tender^ Tuna, like other foods, felt the stimulation of the World War I demand for food, and catch data indicate that a pack of about 1 inillioJii standard cases (^ 7-ounce cans) was canned in 1920 « The industry, in common with many others, passad through a period of residjustment in the post World War I periodo Production declined sharply and many packers discontinued tuna canning. However, those who remained soon found it necessary to expand their operations. Following 1920, the production of the light -meat varieties of tijina, particularly skipjack and yellowfin, increased rapidly, Al"bacore remained the dominant species through 1925 when the catch totaled 22,207,000 pounds. In the following year, apparently as a result of a change in oceanographic conditions, al'bacore largely disappeared from the inshore areas where they had previously "been taken and the catch declined to only 2, 469!, 000 pounds. The conditions which caused al'bacore to leave the inshore areas caused skipjack and yellowfin to move further north, acd these varieties became the principal species taken^ Since the cons-umption of canned tiina had "been developed largely v/ith the al'bacore or "white-meat" pack, it now "became necessary to educate cons\imers to use the "•light-'meat" varieties. As a result of promotional activities "by canners and distri'butors, this clriange was mads, and yellowfin "became the dominant species, with skipjack in second pla.ceo 13 The continued increase in the consumption of tuna made it necessary that canners "be assiored of a sufficient supply of raw material. The fleet was increased in number and size of the individual vessels and more extensive operations were carried on off the coast of Mexico, In 1927, for the first time, the catch south of the Mexican hoimdary exceeded the production off CsLLifornia, With this j'ear, the principal sjurce of fish for the California canneries moved to the waters off Central and South ^erica. The day of the large "boats and long cruises was at hand. Msuiy changes in methods of operation were made to increase the efficiency of the fishirig vessels. Ice was carried in insulated fish holds so that the "boats coiald remain at sea for longer periods, crews' quarters were enlarged to improve living conditions, and diesel engines replaced gasoline engines to provide additional power and increase safety and economy. By 1926, some vessels were 110 feet in length, and were powered with 3OO H.P, engines, Tb.ese larger vessels were designed to operate outside Mexican territorial waters and Jhus avoid payment of Mexican duties. Japanese interests had begun operating for tuna in Mexican waters, freezing the fish for shipment to Japaj?.. In 192^, heijause of a shortage of fish, arrangements were made "by some California canners to p^irchase tuna from the Japanese operating off Mexico. However, these p-urchases were not large. In 1925, the first commercial imports of frozen buna were received from Japan. Tlie shipment, totaling about 800,000 pounds, was the forerunner of much larger receipts from Japan and other countries in the future. As the California fleet of fishing vessels increased in size, they were able to operate in southern waters where large concentrations of skipjack and yellowfln were available throughout the year. The catch continxied to increase, axid in 1930 exceeded 100 million poiinds for the first time. As a result of the world-wide business depression and heavy volume of frozen and canned imports of tiona from Japan, the catch fel3. sharply to less than 60 million pounds in 1931 and then recovered slowly until 193^, when the duty on tana canned, in oil, was raised from 30 percent to ^5 per- cent ad valorefflo In 1935, the catch reached a new high of neaurly 125 icillion poTinds. In the following years, the market for canned tuna continued to expand, and further jjnprovements were made in the size, equipment and range of the large ti^na clippers, which had become the backbone of the tujia fleet. By 1937. methods had been developed for freezing the fish immediately aiCter capttore in a brine solution. This permitted retention of the fish aboard th« vessel in a solidly frozen condition for as long as it was necessary to remain at sea. V To operate more efficiently, the design of vessel tanks was changed so that some could "be used for carrying fuel on the trip south and fish on the returne Others were adapted to carrying live "bait to the fishing grounds and frozen tuna on the ret\ai'n journey. As the southern tuna grounds were explored, it was found that yellowfin and skipjack occurred from southern California to Peru. Although the particular area in which tuna were aljundant varied from year to year, the long range vessels, with a cruising radius of 10,000 miles or more, were ahle to operate wherever they were to he found. During the period from 1926 to 1938 canners were assured of a steady supply of the light meat varieties of tuna, hut were dependent upon imports of alhacore from Japan for most of their white-meat packs. After the large catch of 22,2065923 pounds of alhacore in 1925, the catch had declined to less than 2,500 pounds in 1933» However, in 1935, alhacore reappeared off southern California and a catch of 2,448,100 pounds was made. Since that year, lEindings of alhacore in California have increased spectacularly, reaching a peak of 61,746,000 pounds in 1950. The Pacific Northwest Tuna Fishery In 1937, alhacore were found off the coasts of Washington and Oregon in the warmer offshore Japanese Current. It is prohable that alhacore had always heen present in these waters diiring a portion of each year since they had frequently heen sighted in northern waters hy sailing ships operating between San Francisco and Alaska. Also, salmon fishermen v/ho ventTired into the waters of the Japanese Current had occasionally caught alhacore. No attempt had heen made to develop an alhacore fishery off Washington and Oregon since local fishermen were not familiar with the fish and there was no market for them in the area. There was so little interest in the fish that when salmon trollers occasionally ran through schools of tima, they were reported to have pulled in their lines and left the area rather than risk damage to their gear hy the hard-hitting alhacore. Despite the lack of interest in alhacore small landings were made in Oregon dujing most of the years after 1928. In 1933, a Warrenton, Oregon, canner packed a few cases of alhacore, the first recorded pack of tuna in the Pacific Northwest. 15 As a resTilt of the opening of the Oregon and Washington coasts to pilchard fishing in 193^, California fishermen "began taki;ig these fish near the edge of the Japanese Current. Thoy sighted altacore in the area and, although the alhacore could not he taken hy p-iorse seines, their presence was reported and a numher of Pacific Northwest fishermen outfitted thsir boats v/ith alhacore gear. In 1936, a total of 27,600 pounds of albacore was landed in Oregon. While the deliveries were small, they were sufficient to interest "both fishermen and packers in the possibility of developing a tuna fishery in the Pacific Northwest. In 1937, the Oregon and Washington catches increased to 1,500,000 pounds £ind in the following year to 10,001,700 pounds, reaching a peak of 3'+, 361,800 pounds in 19^. In recent years, the catch has averaged about 10,000,000 pounds annually. In the first few years of the Pacific Northwest fishery, a portion of the catch was shipped to California for packing. However, in recent years, the catch has been canned in Washington and Oregon canneries. In fact, tuna have been shipped to the Pacific Northwest from California, Central America and Japan. The development of the albacore fishery in the Pacific Northv;est had a far-reaching effect upon the tuna industry. A number of sai.mon canneries were quir-kly adapted to the canning of tuna, and a number of new t'lJJia canneries were constructed. Since albacore are taken largely with small boats, haj.ibut fishermen, salmon trollers, shark fishermen, and other operators of small fishing craft in the Pacific Northwest were able to enter the fishery. The seasons for the other fish previously taken by the fisherinen were short and they were desperately in need of another fishery in which they could engage for a portion of the year. As experience was gained in the taking of eilbacore, some fishermen operated for these fish throughout the season from Jtuie to December, fishing from Mexico to the Pacific Northwest. Others fished for tuna only when they v/ere plentifiil in the locality in which they normally operated. In years when albacore v/ere plentiful alorg the coast, as many as 3,000 vessels entered the tuna fishery. Many of these craft have become dependent upon the albacore fishery for a considerable portion of their annual income. Since the resumption of albacore fishing off the Pacific Coast States, t'viro important trends have occurred with respect to the areas in which the fish are taken. The first has to do with the increase of the volume of the catch off Mexico. 16 D-uring the period from 1918 to 19^1, albacore had "been taken south of the Mexican border in only about half of the years, and in no year had the production exceeded 3 percent of the total landings of these fish. No albacore were reported from off Mexico in 19^1; however, in 19^2 the catch from these waters totaled 2,623,900 pounds, or 11 percent of the total and by 19^ they amounted to 25,926,500 pounds, over half the albacore catch. In recent years there also has been a trend toward an increase in the catch of albacore off central and northern California. In 1950, landings in the Northern, San Francisco, and Monterey districts of California amounted to 21,235,100 pounds, compared with 9,ij48,000 pounds in 19^9 and the previous high of ^,99^,000 pounds landed in 1939. Prior to ftie establishment of tuna canneries in the Pacific Northwest, principally at Astoria, Oregon, on the Colvunbia River, the canning of tuna had been confined almost exclusively to southern California. Since the canners north of San Pedro were dependent oii albacore for a supply of raw material, their season was relatively short, and additional sources of fish were desired in order to supply the firms' markets for tvina and to bring about operating economies through longer canning seasons. The first attempts to accomplish this purpose involved the outfitting of freezer ships which could operate off Central America, purchasing yellowfin and skipjack from United States or local fishermen, which could be frozen and tsiken to northern canneries for processing. This procedure was followed for a number of years, but apparently not too profitably, since these operations have been dis- continued. The second source of tuna has been imports from Japan. Two of the freezer ships that operated off Central America for a time have made a number of trips to Japan and returned with about 1,000 tons of tiuia on each voyage. Recently, however, most of the shipments received in the Pacific Northwest from Japan have arrived on regular commercial cargo vessels. Since the northern canneries do not have as easy access to the bluefin, skipjack, and yellowfin available to the southern California canners, they are very much more interested in receiving continued duty free imports of tuna than are most of the packers in the San Diego and San Pedro areas, according to their testimony at U.S. Senate Finance Committee smd Tariff Commission. hearings. 17 In recent yeai's, the pack of tuna in Washington and Oregor^ »x?.coiintea for ahcut 8 percent of the total domestic production of carjied tuna. In 1951, a total of 1.5 tuna canneries operated in these states,. T^ir.a Cannliig on the East Coast of the United Stg.tes In 1937. ^'J^e same year in which the larger catch of albacore in the waters of the Pacific Horthwest was resulting in the creation of a t^ona- canning industiy in Washington and Oregon, the canning of tluefi;i was ■begun at Gloucester, Massachusetts. In the summer of 1937 » one of the lai'gest fish processing firms operating in that city anno^oncsd that it waa fnterested in obtaining ^applies of bluefin^ A local pvrse sei?3er began experiments, using a mackerai seine, to determine the most feasible method of seining bluefin: and catches amoxinting to 132,^00 pounds, valued r..t $5,296 to the fishermen, were laaided during the months of July and August-, In 19385 a Pacific coast purse seiner, the Y.gpj^rii ^ S^gjlo re r . from Tacoma, Washington, proceeded through the Panaaa Canal to Gloucester and began fishing bluefin with a West Coast tuna seine. In that year, nearly a million pounds of purse seine-caught bluefin were landed at Gloui.7 3Fter„ Five vessels entexed the purse seine fishcrry for bluefir; howeve:.% aost- of the catch was meide by two vessels, the Santa Majia sjnd the Western Eaeplorero It was proven that Atlantic coast bluefin could be taken with purse Seines; lio\/eTer, tlie Western Brc-lorer was sold to a Csmadian interest in 1939, presumably because its catches dio. not permit profitable operations at the pricss offered. The purse seine catch in that year declined to 260,800 pounds and in 19^2 the canning of bluefin at Gloucester was dis- continued. No tujia were canned on the east coast during the j'-ears from 19^3 to 19^5, inclusive. In 19^6, a cannery in Maryland and one in Virginia began canning little tuna, the rexO, tanv, product being labeled "light -meat tuna.'' The markfii; for canned tujia in the years immediately following World Va:r XI was exceptionally strong, and it is believed that additional packers vrould liavo canned little tuna had it been definitely decided they could properly be labeled "tuV/m." It is known that a firm in Mississippi canned experimental packs of the fish and wou.ld have begun commercial operations had it been possible to obtain assurance that the pack could have been labeled "tunao" This assaranof: was given by the Food a'-id Drvig Administraticn in a letter dated August 26, 19^, addressed to the Fish and Wildlife Service which states, "At the present time we are not taking exception to the desigPiition of 'light-meat tv..na' v;hen applied to the usual oil pack prepared frcm Euthynnus allstteratus. " 18 In 1948,, there was a large increase in the number of east coast tuna canneries with two plants operating in MainCj three in Massachusetts, one in New York, and two in Maryland. In 1950, the canning of tuna was begun in South Carolina. A tuna cannery is under construction at Moss Point , Mississippi. However, no tuna had been canned by the end of 1952, The tuna packed by east coast plants has been obtained principally from six sources. These are the bluefin found off the New England and Middle At- Ifintic States J the little tuna, which occurs along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts; deliveries of Pacific coast tuna to eastern packers by United States fishing craft; and imports of tuna from Canada, Japan, and PerUo To date, neither the bluefin nor the little tuna has been taken in sufficient volume along the Atlantic or Gulf coasts to indicate that an iiaportant industry can be developed fromi these species. During 1951 and 1952^ the Fish and V/ildlife Service conducted exploratory fishing opera- tions with purse seines, gill nets, and long lines, for bluefin off New England, and^ while several good individual catches were made, total land- ings were net impressive. In 1951, the Service, in cooperation with an eastern canr.er, attempted to locate schools of little tuna off the South Atlantic States, and in 1952, the Service's exploratory vessel Oregon fished for little tuna in the Gulf of Mexico for a short period. Little t'jna were taken in both areas, but landings were not large. In the future, considerjble quan'. itie .s of little tuna may be found, but to date, the catch is not believed to have exceeded one million pounds in any one year. Shipments of fresh tuna from Canada, and of frozen tuna from Japan and Peru, have been received by a number of eastern cannerSj and in 1952, two Pacific coast tuna clippers passed through the Panama Canal | and del- ivered their catch, or until the fishermen are obliged to discontinue operations in order to care for the fish that have already been taken. Since yellowfin tuna vary considerably in size, and fish ranging up to 150 pounds each are taken, it is necessary to vary the number of fishermen taking this species according to the size of the fish in the school being fished. This is done by changing the number of lines attached to a single lure. If the tuna average under 30 poiinds in wei^t, one m.ftn can take and land the individual fisho However, if the school is found to range from 30 to 50 pounds per fish, two men are req^oii-edj if above 50 pounds, three men are u»ed| and in some instances fish are taken by four-pole teams „ When two, three, or four men are reqiiired to boat an individual fish, the lines from the pole handled by each fisherm^jn are attached to a single lure, so that when a fish is hooked, all the fishermen can assist in lifting it from the water and aboard the vessel. The major portion of the skipjack and yellowfin catch, «>bout one third of the albacore catch and a large portion of the bonito and yelloKtail catch is tak«n on live-bait gear. 27 KEG LINES Keg line gear^ a ••/ariation of hook and line fishing, is used in taking bluefin in Ne'ji England. The gear^ consisting of about seventy- fathoms of raanila line attached to a wire leader and a baited shark hook, is operated from anchored or drifting boats, Chum^ consisting of chopped whiting, squid, small butterfish or other fish is used to attract the bluefin. Vlhen the bait is taken the fishermen attempts to pull the tuna aboard as quickly as possible. If the fish is toe large to be boated im- mediately, or if more than one fish is hooked at the same time, the keg is thrown overboard and the fish is permitted to fight it until tired out. A single fisherman can operate as many as four keg lines. lop:g lines In long-line fishing, a very long line with baited hooks fastened at intervals, is lowered to a predetermined depth in the ocean and allowed to float with the currents for a number of hours. This method is widely used by the Japanese, but 1^' not used by United States fishemiea at the present time. It is possible that if it becomes necessary for United States fish- ermen to move into the tuna-rich waters of the central Pacific, it will be necessary to turn to this method of fishing, since fish in that i-re?. appear to be more widely scattered than those near the coast, and tc feed at a considerable depth. Aibacore, big-eyed, and ye21owfin, are the principal species taken with this gear. Purse Seines The purse seine method is an impcimding device used to enclose schools of fish in a net so that they can be brailed aboard the fiphUig vessel. The purse seine is a large net about 300 fathoms in length, and 30 fathoms deeft costing as much as $30,000, which is carried on the stem of the pu.:5e seiner, a specially-built vessel constructed to operate this type of gear. Upon Ic- cating a school of fish a small seine boat with one end ex the net attached, is let go and the purse seiner circles the school, paying out ths net at the same time. 'ill cansr« The No„ •§ round can soon ■became and remains the principal tuna can. In 1920, a change was made in the size of the No. ^ tuna can in which the major portion cf the pack had been cajined to that date. The height of the can was changed from 2 inches to 1 13/16 inches to permit the production of a tighter pack. The diameter and net contents remained the same„ In the early days of the industry, only solid pack txwa. was canned. However, within a few years, the packing of "broken pieces was started. Canning of flake tuna, as the product was known, remained a minor portion of the prod^iction, and as late aa 1938 it accounted for orJLy 7 percent of the anmxal pack. Until that year, only small broken pieces of GUtia had been canned in the flake pack. However, in 1939 the grating of whole loins of tuna was began, in order to pack what became known as grated tuna. In some instajices, the meat was grabed into relatively small pieces. However, in other instancee, the small pieces were interspersed with larger chunks. This pack was especially gu.ited to the preparation of tuna saJ,ads„ In the first year that this style was canned, the portion of chunk, flake and grated pack increased to 12 percent of the total production. By 19^5» nearly ^2 percent of the tuna canned consisted of chunk, flake and grated pack, and in 1952, 45 percent of the total pack consisted of chunlc pack and 20 percent flake emd grated. While atteanpts have been made to pack a large variety of ti^Jia products besides the regular solid, chunk, flake and grated packs in oil, these items account for a very high percentage of the total production. Specialty tuna products which are regularly canned, Include a "tonno" pack which consists of solid-meat tuna, packed in a special type of can wltli olive oil and about double the quantity of salt used for the reg\ilar pack, Bluefin and skipjack are the preferred species for the tonne pack, since a more pronoxaioed flavor is desired. For a number of years a dietetic pack, without added salt, has been canned as well as baby food. Small packs of tuna paste have been pre- pared, and recently a pack 01" tuna and noodles has appeared or. the market. Other packs which have been produ'^ed in limit«d quantities include deviled txina emd a combination tuna and string bean pack "tonno style". Efforts have been made to market a xuna frankf-'xcter, but canning of this product has been discontinued. 2] Commonly referred to as the "^t- pound can" biat designated as No, 4 tall can or No. 4 can in this report for convenience, 32 A recent, possibly far-reaching development in the canning of t\ma has heen the importation from Japan of cooked, cleaned and frozen alhacore loins. There is a saving of over 50 percent in weight in shipping loins, compared with the whole fish, and there is a further saving in labor cost in having loins prepared in Japan rather than in United States canneries., An even newer development has been the import€ition from Japan of sample shipments of frozen tuna packed in cans which n®ed only to have oil and salt added before sealing and sterilizing. A recent innovation in the packing of tuna has Tieen the wide acceptance by the industry of automatic filling machines for the canning of chunks, flakes and grated, and solid -pack tuna. At the present time, most of the domestic pack of tuna is being packed with these machines, which displace much of the labor formerly required in hand -packing the fish, TUNA BY PEODUOTS The domestic catch of txina, as well as imports of fresh and frozen tuna, are received by canners as whole fish except for recent small imported shipments of frozen cooked loined and sample shipments of frozen cooked tuna in cans. Since less than half of the landed weight of the fish is packed in the can, a large volume of waste material, consisting of heeds, tails, fins, skins, dark meat, bones, and viscera, is available for the manufacture of by- products. This waste material has been used since the early days of the in- dustry, in the manufacture of fish meal and oil. In the early 1930 's, when a demand developed for high potency vitamin A and D oils, it was foiuid that tuna livers were suitable for the manufacture of these oils. The separation of the tuna livers from tha other waste products was begun at that time. Considerable quantities of tuna livers also have been imported and used in the man^:ifacture of tuna liver oils. In recent years, a considerable quantity of condensed fish solublss have been manufactured from the press liquor obtained when the liquids are extrausted from the tuna waste. A liquid fertilizer is also manTifactured from tujia waste materials. Accurate information is not available on the production of tuna meal and oil, since the yield of these products is included with the production of meal and oil produced from Pacific and jack mackerel. On the basis of the quantity of waste material available for reduction, it is estimated that there were produced in 1952 about 22,000 tons of tuna meal, valued at $2,900,000 to the manufacturer and 775,000 gallons of tuna oil, valuad at $^25,000. 33 Data have been collected on the yield of tuna-liver oil since 1940; howeverj for the first few years the figures do not accurately indicate the actual production, since large quantities of wash oil were used in the manufacturing process, which disguised the quantity and value of tuna- liver oil extracted. It is probable that the peak production of tuna- liver oil occurred in 1%5, when the yield was reported as 51s 399 gallons, valued at $1, 576,922 o As a result of the decline in th price of natural vitaaiin oils, production of this oil has declined since that year, and, in 1951, totaled only 12,979 gallons, valued at $272, 942 „ It is probable that the production of tuna-liver oil in 1952 was even less than in the previous year. It is estimated that the production of solvibles manufactured from tuna waste in 1952 amounted to about 36 million pounds, valued, at $1,600,000. The total value of tuna by-products produced in 1952 was afcouL $5*000,000. This compares with the figiire of $113,000,833 already mentioned as the value of the 1952 pack of canned tuna and tunalike fishes. With this comparison it is easily discernible that presently the mainstay cf the domestic tuna industry is the sale and consumption of the canned productu of the industry. 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous . 191U-53. Pacific Fisherman Yearbook. Consolidated Publishing Company. Seattle. Anonymous, 1936. Tuna Fish. U. S. Tariff Commission Report to U. S. Senate No. 109, Second Series. Anonymous . 19U5. Fishery Resources of the United States. U. S. Senate, 79th Congress. Senate Document $1. Anor^nnous . 19U8. Birth of a Mighty Industry. Sun Harbor Catch and Can News. Sun Harbor Packing Company. San Diego. April to August Issues. Anonymous . I9U9. The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Year 19U7 with an Historical Review, 1916-19U7. California Bvrreau of Marine Fisheries Fish Bulletin 7U. Anonymous . 1951. The Tima Fishing and Packing Industry of California. William R. Staats Company, Inc. Los Angeles. Anonymous . 1952. Bonito, Canned in Oil; and Tuna and Bonito Canned, Not in Oil. U. S. Tariff Commission. Anonymous . 1952. Tuna Imports. U. S. Senate, Eighty-second Congress. Committee on Finance Hearings on House Resolution 5693. 35 36 CHAPTER II — CONSUMPTION ABSTRACT ^ Because twna and tunalike fishes are produced from a renewable natural resource that thus far has produced bountifully, supply exerts a lesser influence on the ec- onomics of the tuna industry than does demand as reflected by conslwptfon. consum" er demand is of pronounced importancej so that an appraisal of fish consumption in general and of tuna and tunalike fishes, in particular, is worthtyof consideration, Per CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF ALL FISHERY PRODUCTS HAS NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE 1909. Abundant supplies of meat, poultry, eggs, cheese, aio other protein FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN A LIMITING FACTOR IN THE DEMAND FOR FISHERY PRO* oucTSo Technological improvements have resulted in a greater percentage of the catch BEING CAN?«D, AND IN MORE RECENT YEARS, QUICK-FROZEN, GAINED FISH REMAINS THE MOST important processed fishery product both in value and IK QUANT ITYo ThE TWO LEADING CANNED FISH PRODUCTS, TUNA AND SALMON, SHOW DIVERGENT CONSUMPTION TRENDS, TUNA CON- SUMPTION HAS BEEN INCREASIN3, WHILE SALMON CONSUMPTION HAS DECLINED, A GROWING PRO- PORTION OF THE CANNED TUNA MADE AVAILABLE TO AMERICAN CONSUMERS COMES FROM FROZEN A^D CANNED IMPORTS, Of THE CANNED PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY THE TUNA INDUSTRY THERE HAS BEEN A DECLINE in t>€ volume of solid pack and an increase in the chu^«< and flakes styles. this trend is expected to continue, American consumers, on the whole, are accustomed to tuna cawed in oil, and tuna canned in brine has not yet made significant inroads in sales to household consumers. On THE OTHER HAND, THE INSTITUTIONAL MARKET HAS ALMOST ENTIRELY REPLACED THE OIL PACK with the imported brine pack, From the consumer point of view, there are only two varieties of canned tuna — WHITE meat (aLBACORE) AND LIGHT MEAT (SKIPJACK, YELLOWFIN, BLUEFIN AND LITTLE TUNa), The wwite meat of the albacore commands a premium on most domestic MARKETS. The more ABUNDANT LIGHT -MEAT SPECIES MAKE UP MOST OF THE TUNA PACK, INCREASES OR DECREASES IN The USE OF THE RESPECTIVE SPECIES FOR WHITE-OR LISHT-MEAT PACKS IS EXPECTED TO BE DE- TERMINED PREDOMINANTLY BY THE AVAILABILITY OF EACH SPECIES IN THE RAW STOCKS, THE MARKET FOR CANNED TUNALIKE SPECIES WILL BE SUPPLIED L/IRQELY BY FOREIGN PRODUCERS, The No, i can predominates in the tuna canning industry. Most processors do not anticipate any marked change in present use of can sizes, East coast pack?, although relatively small, are as acceptable as west coast packs when raw stocks from the same sources are used. it is not expected that the geographical POINT of PACKING WHO. INFLUENCE THE CONSUMER INSOFAR AS THE QUALITY OF comparable species is concerned, Among institutional users, canned bonito in oil or brine, mostly imported, has met with overwhelming acceptability. In QENERALp CONSUMERS APPEAR TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENT STYLES OF PACKS OF CANNED TUMA ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE GENERALLY AWARE OF STANDAfiSS WITH RESPECT TO ORIGINAL QUALITY OF FISH OR FILL OF CONTAINER, 37 There appears to be no market or consequence for tvna products ot>€r than the STANDARD CANNED PACK UM.ESS MIXED PRODUCTS, SUCH AS TUNA AND NOODLES, ARE ACCEPTED. Few ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO MARKET OTHER TYPES OF TUNA PRODUCTS, BUT THE SUCCESS- FUL EXPERIENCE OF THE MEAT INDUSTRY, WITH ITS NFrt PRODUCTS, OFFERS HOPE. MOST HOUSEWIVES ARE IK THE HABIT OF PURCHASING CANNED TUNA BY BRAND NAME. IN- STIVUTIONA;. consumers on the other HAND A=?E PRIMARILY PRICE-CONSC lOUS. ThT market FOR CANNED TUNA IN THE UNITED STATE3 IS CAPABLE OF EXPANSION. PRO- motion among institutional users has been shown to be fruitful. promotion of canifcd tuna should be successful ]n the several geographical, occupational, and |f*:ome groups in the unf'ed states with low per capi'a consumption. industry-wide product promomon, in addition to brand advertising and greater recipe information and de- velopment, were recommended means for oe'/eloping markets. Trade opinion and statistical analysis establish that the price relationship between carjneo salmon and canned tutja is the most significanjt of the many factors favorably affecting the demand for canncd tvha. dafa show how the consumption of canned tuna increased as the rat|0 of canned tuna prices to cannieo salmon prices DECREASED, THUS MAKING TUNA A RELATIVELY MORE ATTRACTIVE BUY tq TVE CONSUMER. The RESULTS OF TWO GOVERNIJENT SURVEYS INDICATE Tft SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS -JONSUMING TUNA AS INCOME MOVES UPWARD. The rising demand for TL'NA has seen QIs^EN added WDMENTUM by the large EXPENDI- TURES OF THE TUNA INDUSTRY FOR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION WORK. A STATISTICAL TECHNIQUE l«^ICH ASSUMES THAT THE FACTORS AFFECTING CANNED TUNA CONSUMPTION IN Tit PAST WILL COMTINUE. INDICATES THAT THE UNITED STATES MARKET WILL CONSUME (based ON APPARENT SUPPLY DATa) ABOUT 292 MILLION POUNDS, OR A PACK 0^ 15 MILLION STANDARD CASES IN I960 AS COMPARED TC 1952 CONSUMPTnN OF ABOUT II MILLION STANDARD CASES. It seems probable r-tAT the consumption of canniitd TUNA IN THE United States in S953 will exceed that of 1952 by an appreciable amount, possibly 5 PERCENT, AND LESS probably, BY AS MUCH AS 10 PERCENfT. THEREAFTER, THE CONSUMPTION CAN BE EXPECT- ED TO INCREASE BY MODERATE INCREMENTS, AND PROBABLY NCT EVER*/ YEAR, AT A GREATER RATE THAN THAT OF THE INCREASE IN POPULATION. WITHIN TEN YEARS IT IS PROBABLE THAT CON- SUMPTION VtlJL HAVE INCREASED BY 50 PERCENfT BUT I"^ DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY THAT IT WILL INCREASE AS MUCH AS '50 PERCENT IN THAT TIaIE, OVER TfC LONG PULL, ANY FIGURE BEYOND 5 POUr^S PER CAPITA ANirjUAL CONSUMPTION OF CANNED TUNA WOULD SEEM ENTTIRELV UNREALISTtC. Evetg 3 POU^DS is rather optimistic. The DEVELOPWENfr of specialty PACKS, SUCH AS SMOKED OR SPi;£D TUNA, DOES NOT SEEM LIKELY TO REACH SIGNIFICANO- VOLUME IN RELATION "0 STANDARD TYPES OF CANNED TDNA.. It is PROBABLE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME INCREASE IN THE USE OF FRESH AND FROZEN TUNA IN THE NORTHEAST AND IN THE PACIFIC COAST STATES FOR HOME CANNING, AS WELL AS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION, THE POTENTIAL AMOUNT IS PROBABLY NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY PROMOTION. IA(VRt(ETS FOR FISH MEAl. PRODUCED BY THE TUNA INDUSTRY PRESENT FAVORABLE PROSPECTS WHILE MARKETS FOR FISH OILS AND FOR VITAMIN-BEARING OILS FROM FISH LIVERS AfJD VISCERA CF TUNA ARE UNFAVORABLE. GENERAL An analysis of the consumption of tuna and tunalike fishes is most ap- propriate as u starting place for the research phase of this study. Con- 38 sumption is the keystone in the arch of the economic elements which govern the tuna industry, Tima i/are products of a renewable natural resource, a resource which has not been exploited to the ibll and one v*iich has produced bountifully. The demands of consumers for the products of such a resource exert a profound influence on the economic well-being of the industry corrmercially producing those products. In situations of this kind, supply and suppliers are not the potent force which they would be if supplies were limited. Consumer danand is the more potait force in industries of this type and in the tuna industry. There are many examples of conditions such as this throughout the fisheries of the Nation. It is quite possible, for example, to harvest annually many millions of pounds more of whiting from the Atlantic Ocean, yet fishermen are held in check from doing this by consumers. A brake is exercised on the production urges of fishermen, because consumers will use currently only from 80 to 90 million pounds (round weight) of whiting annually at prices sufficient for the producer to harvest this product. Any increase in production above this level drives the price of vrtiiting down to a point where production brakes are set into motion as a result of consumer dictates. There are also many unused fishery resources such as the menhaden v^ich are not exploited to any degree for food purposes simply because consumers do not fancy the product. On the other hand, sometimes changes in consumer desires open a flood-gate of demand for a particular fishery product to the ultimate benefit of fish producers. There was a time when "pink" or "brown" shrimp could not be sold to con- sumers in the United States because the colors supposedly were an in- dication of spoilage. Experience , promotion, and price reversed con- sumer attitudes. Today they purchase many millions of poxinds of "pink" and "brown" shrimp. With respect to natural resources such as these, including the tuna industry, the consumer is "king". The pronounced effect of consumer demand on the economics of the tuna industry has been apparent, particularly in recent years. With the decline in production of canned salmon and the rise in consumer's incomes, the demand for tuna intensified and has been a stimulant to increase tuna production. Considerable statistical analysis of the danand for tuna was undertaken in conjunction with this survey. For all practical purposes consumption of tuna is synonymous with consumption of canned tuna. Con- sumer use of fresh, frozen, and cured tuna is insignificant. It amounts, combined, to an estimated ,05 pounds per capita per year as compared to lo5 pounds of canned tuna consumed in 1952, Nor is the outlook for in- creased consumption of the former products bright as will be discussed at a later point in this report. Hereafter in this chapter only canned ^7 Unless otherwise noted "tuna" is used hereafter in this chapter to include albacore, bLuefin, skipjack, yellowfin, and little tuna and bonito and yellowtail which are "tunalike" fishes. This is done in order to avoid repetition of the phrase "tuna and tunalike fishes". 39 tuna will be considered vAien discussing consumption. V/herever tuna con- sumption without qualification is mentioned, it will be synonymous with canned tuna consumption. A comparison of data on consumption of tuna and of other protein foods and of over-all fish consumption reveals just how tuna fits into the general protein food consumption picture. Table 2 shows per capita con- siunption of meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and cheese from 1909 through 1952. Although there are many ups and downs in the various series of data it will be noted that there has been, in recent years, a relatively high a- bundance of competitive protein foods such as meats of various kinds, poultry, eggs, and cheese. The degree of abundance will register more strikingly upon an in- spection of table 3 which shows the net food supply per person in various countries of the world. The section of that table which shows the per- centage of total calories consumed per day obtained from livestock pro- duction indicates that the United States and New Zealand are the leading nations of the world in this respect in the most recent years shown in the table. The abundance of other competing protein foods as shown in table 2 reacts to the disadvantage of the marketing of fish in general and has a like effect on the marketing of tuna. It can also be seen from table 2 just how small fish consumption, and tuna consumption in particular, is compared to the other principal protein foods. Unfortunately, the various statistics are not calculated on exactly comparable bases. Meat con- sumption is given in carcass weight, from v*ich there is considerable waste such as bones and trimmings. Fish consumption is given on an edible weight basis. Poultry consumption is given on a dressed weight basis (unevis- cerated). Egg consiimption is given on a farm weight basis and cheese con- sumption on a primary market weight basis. To get all fish consumption as near to the bases of the other items in the table as possible the data for fish should be increased 30 percent as studies of the Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that the marketed weight of all fish is about that much greater than the edible weight. Using this conversion factor on the 1952 data for total fish consumption (edible wei^t) would result in about 15 pounds per capita on a marketed wei^t basis. This is still a relatively small itan compared to meat and the total of all other non-fish items in the table. As for tuna, the marketed wei^t is the same as the edible wei^vt . The round weight or live weight of tuna consumed in the United States would have amounted to about 3 = 4 pounds per capita in 1952. So it can be seen that while this Nation consumes a great amount of protein, a relatively small share is obtained from fishery resources. Far 40 Table 2. - MEAT. FISH. POULTRY,' EGGS. AND CHEESE: PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION, 1909 - 1952 1/ (continued on next page) MEAT {carcass we 1 cut) 2/ F!3H (EDIBLE WEIGHT EOUl VALENTI YEAR LAMB FRESH BEEF VEAL AND PORK TOTAL AND CANNED MUTTON MEAT FROZEN ALL POUNDS 73.5 POUNDS 7.2 POUNDS 6.7 POUNDS 66»4 POUNDS POUNDS 4.3 POUNDS 1909. . . 153.8 2.7 1910. . . 69.8 7.1 6.4 61.8 145.1 4.5 2.8 1911. . . ff7.9 7.0 7.3 68.4 150.6 4.8 2.8 1912. . . 64.0 6.9 7.6 66.2 144,7 5.0 2.9 1913. . . 62.8 6.2 7.2 66,3 142,5 5.3 2.9 19 U. . . 61.5 5.7 7.1 64.6 138.9 5.6 3.0 1915. . . 56,0 5.8 6,0 66.1 133.9 5.8 2,4 1916. . . 58.4 6.4 5,8 68.4 139.0 6.0 2,2 1917. . . 64.2 7.1 4,4 58.5 134.2 6,2 2,0 1918. . . 68,0 7,2 4.7 60.6 140.5 6.4 2,0 1919. . . 61.0 7.8 5,6 63,4 137.8 6.4 2,8 1920. . . 58.6 7,9 5.4 63.1 135.0 6.3 3,2 1921. . . 55.1 7.5 6.1 64,3 133,0 6.2 2,2 1922. . . 58.6 7<7 5.1 65.3 136.7 6.1 3,2 1923. . . 59.2 8.1 5.3 73.7 146.3 6.0 2.9 1924. . . 59.1 8.5 5.2 73.5 146.3 6, 1 3,3 1925. . . 59.1 8.5 5.2 «6.3 139.1 6,3 3.2 1926. . . 59.8 8.1 5.4 63.7 137.0 6.6 3.4 1927. . . 54.1 7.3 5.3 67.3 134.0 7.0 3.8 1928. . . 48.4 6.4 5.5 70.5 130.8 7.1 3.9 1929. . . 49.3 6.3 5.6 69.2 130,4 6.9 3.9 1930. . . 48.6 6.4 6,7 66.6 128.3 5.9 3,3 1931. . . 48.3 6.6 7,1 67.9 129.9 5.0 3,2 1932. . . 46.4 6.5 7.0 70.3 130.2 4.4 3.4 1933. . . 51.2 7.1 6.7 70.3 135.3 4.2 3.9 1934. . . 63.5 9.3 6.3 64.0 143.1 4.4 4.2 1935. . . 52.9 8.5 7,2 48.1 116.7 5.2 4,7 1936. . . 60. 1 8.3 6,6 54.8 129.8 5.2 5.8 19?7. . . 54.8 8.6 6,6 55.4 125.4 5.6 4.2 1938. . . 54.0 7.6 6.8 57.8 126.2 5.3 4.8 1939. . . 54.4 7.5 6.6 64.3 132.8 5,4 4.6 1940. . . 54.7 7.4 6.6 73,0 141.7 5.7 4,2 1941, . . 60.4 7.6 6.8 67.9 142.7 6.3 4.7 1942. . . 60.8 8.2 7.2 63,3 139.5 5.3 2,2 1943. . . 52.9 8.2 6.4 78.5 146.0 5.6 1.9 1944. . . 55.3 12.3 6.6 79.1 153.3 5.6 2.6 1945. . . 59.0 11.8 7.3 66.2 144.3 7.1 2,6 1946. . . 61.3 9.9 6,6 75.4 153,2 6.2 3,8 1947. . . 69.1 10.8 5.3 69.1 154.3 6.2 3.6 1948, . . 62.7 9,5 5.0 67.4 144.6 6.3 3.8 1949, . , 63.5 8,8 4.1 67.3 143.7 6.4 4. 1 1950 9/ . 63.0 8.0 3.9 68.6 143.5 6.3 4.3 1951 y , 56.1 6.6 3.4 71.5 13r7.6 6.4 4.2 1952 9/ , 60.4 7.0 3,9 70.7 142.0 6.3 4.2 FISH (eC JIBLE WEIGHT CONTINUED EQUIVALENT ) POULTRY DRESSED _2/ f YEAR TUNA jf CURED TOTAL FISH CHICKEN TURKEY EQGS CHEESE POUNDS POUNDS 3.9 POUNDS 10.9 POUNDS 19.4 POUNDS POUNDS 36,2 POUNDS 1909. . . 8 ^8 3,9 1910. . , 8 3.8 11.1 20,4 8 37.9 4.3 1911. . . 8 3.6 11.2 20.7 8 40.8 4. 1 1912. . , 1 3,5 11.4 19.7 8 38.6 4.0 1913, , , 3.4 11.6 19.2 8 37.6 4.4 1914. . . O 3.3 11.9 19.1 ^8 36.6 4,4 1915. . . .*2 3,2 11.4 19, 1 8 38.9 4,3 1916. , . .2 3.0 11.2 18.3 ^8 37. 1 4.0 1917. . . .< ! 1 2.9 11.1 17.5 8 34.9 3,9 i*l Table 2. - MEAT. FISH, POULTRY, EGGS. AND CHEESE: PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION, 1909 - 19 52 1/- Continued FISH (EDIBLE WEIGHT CONTINUED EQUIVALENT) POULTRY DRESSED 3/ YEAR TUNA l/ CURED TOTAL FISH CHICKEN TURKEY EGGS CHEESE POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1918. . . .2 2.8 11.2 17.6 8 35,2 3.8 1919. .2 2.7 11.9 18.8 8 37.6 4.2 1920. .2 2.5 12.0 18.1 8 37,1 4.1 1921. .2 2.4 10.8 17.7 8 37,1 4.1 1922. .2 2.3 11.6 18.7 8 39,1 4.3 1923. .2 2.2 11.1 19.3 8 40,5 4.3 1924. .2 2.0 11.4 19.1 8 40.2 4,5 1925. .2 1.9 11.4 19.7 8 39.5 4,6 1926. .2 1.8 11.8 19.6 8 42.0 4,6 1927, .3 1.7 12.5 20.9 8 42,5 4.4 1928. .3 1.5 12.5 20.0 8 42,0 4.4 1929. .3 1.4 12.2 19.7 i.7 41,5 4.6 1930. .3 1.3 10.5 21.5 1.8 41,1 4.6 1931. .2 1.0 9.2 19.4 1.7 41,4 4,4 1932. .2 1.1 8.9 19.7 2.1 38,9 4,3 1933. .4 .9 9.0 20.3 2.4 36,9 4,5 1934. .4 .9 9.5 18.8 2.2 35.9 4,8 1935. .5 1.1 11.0 18.1 2.1 34.8 5,2 1936. .5 1.0 12.0 18.1 2.7 35.9 5,3 1937. .6 .9 10.7 18.0 2.7 38.2 5.5 1938, .5 1.0 11.1 16.8 2.7 38.5 5.8 1939. .7 .9 10.9 18.7 3.0 38.9 5.9 1940. .7 .9 10.8 18.7 3.5 39.6 6.0 1941. .5 .8 11.8 20.5 3.5 38.6 5.9 1942. .4 .8 8.3 23.4 3.7 39.5 6.4 1943. .4 .7 8.2 30.5 3,3 43.1 4.9 1944. .5 .7 8.9 27.0 3.3 44,0 4.8 1945. .7 .9 10.6 28.7 4.2 50,0 6.6 1946. .7 1.0 11.0 25.7 4,5 47,1 6.7 1947. .9 .8 10.6 23.5 4,4 47,6 6.9 1948. .9 .9 11.0 23.1 3.7 48.3 6.9 1949. KO .9 11.4 25.1 4.1 47.7 7,2 1950. 1.2 .9 11.5 26.4 4.9 48.2 7.7 1951. 1.4 .9 11.5 28.8 5.2 51.6 7.2 19b2. 1.5 .9 11.4 29.5 5.6 52.7 7,5 j/ CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION ONLY BEP INNING IN 1941, ^APPROXIMATELY AT WHOLESALE LEVEL OF DISTRIBUTION. %/ DRESSED WEIGHT, (NEW YORK STYLE) APPROXIMATELY AT WHOLESALE LEVEL OF DISTRIBUTION. 4/ CANNED FISH CONSUMPTION ESTIMATED 1910 - 20 BA5ED ON STRAIGHT LINE TREND PROJECTION, ADJUSTED FOR LARGE EXPORT ANDMI L I TARY TAKi NGS OF CANNED FISH FROM 1915 - 1918. 5/; TARM WEIGHT BUT MEASURED APPROXIMATELY AT WHOLESALE LEVEL OF DISTRIBUTION, §/ WHOLE AND PART WHOLE MILK CHEESE, EXCLUDES FULL SKIM, COTTAGE, POT, AND BAKERS, 7/ TUNA AND TUNALIKEFISHES, §/ NOT AVAILABLE, 9/ PRELIMINARY SOURCE:- UNITED STATESFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND UNITED STATES BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. U2 in 0} I (\J I CD O CD - \ { - - I / / / } . ; - \ •^^ V Y •. ~ - en ^ 1 ^ ': - 1- o / ^ ^\ ^ ; 3 / I \ J ^^^ ^ 1 ~ Q. ^N^^ < 2 \ "-T"^ i ; - UJ U N O \ f \ J T X : X ~ X 1 U. 1 r 1 / li. :(n_ U. Ll. 1 oD \ / / Q Q _J \ I >^ UJ Q~ < \ {/5 / \^ z UJ _ 1 — ^fc _ UJ z < cc — 3 u_ <^ - Xs^ - _ X \V \\ / ' / \ / / / / X — ^ ^ / ^ \ ^^ ~ \ \ — - \ \ \ _ - \ \ \ \ - \ \ \ • - $ o to ^ . ^ 5 o CO U) *3 Table 3. - NET FOOD SUPPLY PER PERSON CONriNENT AND COUNTRY PERIOD 1/ CEREALS 2/ AS FLOUR POTATOES 3/ AND OTHEfT ROOT CROPS EUROPE AUSTRIA BELGIUM LUXEMBOURG CZECHOSLOVAKIA DENMARK FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY, TOTAL FED. REPUBLIC SOVIET ZONE GREECE ICELAND I RELAND ITALY NETHERLANDS NORWAY POLAND SWEDEN SWITZERLAND PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 94^49 949/50 94^49 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 943/49 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 94^49 949/50 PREWAR 948/49 949/50 PREWAR 948/49 PREWAR 94^49 949/50 PREWAR 94^49 949/50 138 142 121 115 104 106 139 94 108 107 128 145 119 124 123 117 113 124 !I| I4i 163 15$ 147 120 10^ 13^ 133 . KILOGRAMS PER YEAR 96 113 106 157 141 144 120 137 138 181 184 137 143 142 129 176 228 203 218 197 14 31 39 70 76 195 194 188 37 38 33 116 175 171 130 136 123 285 240 122 157 117 90 98 84 24 23 23 28 26 29 50 32 31 28 25 29 24 19 23 24 19 23 23 20 10 9 9 44 35 38 33 35 7 10 11 32 39 38 30 22 25 9 16 43 40 47 38 38 37 (continued ON NEXT PAGE) 44 Table 3. - NET FDCD SUPPLY PER PERSON - Continued CONTINENT AND COUNTRY PERIOD \J CEREAL^ ^ AS' FLOUR POTATOES 3/ AND OTHOT ROOT CROPS PULSES .5/ EUROPE - CONTINUED: UNITED KINGDOM NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA CANADA CUBA UNITED STATES PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 PREWAR 194€/*9 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 KILOGRAMS PER YEAR 79 115 115 93 76 102 106 ?$ 48 38 35 43 45 45 40 40 44 40 40 4 4 4 12 16 4 4 4 CONTINENT AND COUNTRY PERIOD l/ MEAT$ 5/ MILK 6/ CALORIES PER DAY FATS AND OILS (FAT CONTENT) PERCENTAGE FROM LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS 7/ EUROPE AUSTRIA BELGIUM- LUXENBOURG CZECHOSLOVAKIA DENMARK FINLAND GERMANY, TOTAL FED. REPUBLIC SOVIET ZONE IRELAND PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 1948/49 PREWAR 1948/49 1 949/50 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 prewa;? 1948/49 1949/50 1948/49 1949/50 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 PREWAR 1948/49 PREWAR 1 943/49 1 949/50 KILOGRAMS P 49 23 30 46 45 43 34 75 64 65 33 27 28 53 54 57 51 18 n 13 19 20 11 12 51 55 54 53 R YEAR 199 105 139 136 139 150 105 195 205 210 276 271 267 150 139 148 151 92 134 62 69 75 43 64 313 390 149 185 181 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 18 14 15 19 19 21 10 27 15 19 13 12 19 14 11 11 23 9 16 5 7 15 15 16 15 19 14 17 19 NUMBER 2,990 2,640 2,610 2,820 2,730 2,890 2,690 3,420 3,060 3,180 3,000 3,070 3,020 2,830 2,690 2,680 2,960 2,530 2,690 2,410 2,460 2,600 2,470 2,490 3,160 3,230 3,390 3,350 3,450 PERCENT 32 22 27 29 32 31 22 35 36 39 31 30 38 26 26 28 37 19 26 12 15 12 8 10 36 44 35 35 36 ^5 Tab]e 3. - NET FOOD SUPPLY PER PERSON - Continued PERIOD 1_/ MEATS ^ MILK_6/ FATS AND OILS (FAT CONTENT) Cal&RIES P^r> DAY CONTINENT AND COUNTRY TOTAL PERCENTAGE FROM LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS 7/ EUROPE - CONTINU ITALY ED: PREWAR 19W49 1 949/50 ' ' '26 ' 17 17 KILOGRAMS PE 74 77 81 R YEAR-. , . 11 9 10 NUMBER 2,510 2,340 2,370 PERCENT 14 15 15 NETHERLANDS PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 38 21 29 220 220 211 20 19 23 2,920 2,880 2,970 32 27 28 NORWAY PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 38 27 35 252 283 333 25 20 25 3,220 2,970 3,140 33 34 41 POLAND PREWAR 194^-^9 26 19 135 114 7 6 2,710 2,620 23 17 SWEDEN PREWAR 194^49 1949/50 4y 42 48 302 251 302 18 19 20 3,120 3,070 3,200 38 42 42 SWITZERLAND PREWAR 194^49 1949/50 56 40 45 307 337 340 15 14 15 3,110 3,100 3,190 35 32 33 UNITED KINGDOM PREWAR 194^/49 1949/50 64 44 52 152 202 210 20 19 21 3,100 3,050 3,090 39 32 36 NORTH AND CEN- TRAL AMERICA CANADA PREWAR 194^49 1949/50 62 70 71 221 240 238 19 18 20 3,070 3,060 3,140 39 43 44 CUBA PREWAR 194V'^9 33 35 79 90 8 11 2,610 2,730 17 21 UNITED STATES PREWAR 194§/49 1949/50 64 74 76 204 238 245 20 19 20 3,150 3,140 3,170 36 45 45 CONTINENT AND COUNTRY PERIOD ]/ CEREALS 2/ AS FLOUR POTATOES 3 AND OTHER ROOT CROPS SUGAR 4/ PULSES MEATS 5/ SOUTH AMERICA PREWAR 1948/49 KILO GRAMS PER ye; 27 35 R ARGENT It.'A 106 124 66 87 2 2 107 114 BRAZ 1 L PREWAR 1948/49 78 79 b/qi 8/123 25 30 20 22 50 39 CHILE PREWAR 194^49 124 134 73 80 25 26 10 6 38 38 COLUMBIA PREWAR 194€/49 57 72 &/87 g/98 37 57 T 8 26 29 (continued on next page) ^6 Table 3. NET FDOD SUPPLY PER PERSON - Continued CONTINENT AND COUNTRY PERIOD j/ CEREALS 2/' AS FLOUR F^OTATOES 3/ AND OTHER ROOT CROPS SUGAR PULSES meatus/ SOUTH AMERICA- . . . .KILOGF (AMS PER YE AR CONTINUED: URUGUAY PREWAR 1948/49 85 100 42 34 24 28 2 2 107 106 VENEZUELA 1949/50 85 58 43 14 21 ASIA BURMA PREWAR 1947/48 149 154 a/6 9 6 7 10 9 6 CEYLON 1948/49 1949/50 102 108 §^8 1^3 13 15 4 6 2 3 CHINA (22 PROVINCES) PREWAR 1947/48 172 163 30 35 1 1 23 22 13 10 CYPRUS PREWAR 1948/49 169 171 21 42 9 10 9 11 12 17 INDIA PREWAR 9/ 194€/49 1949/50 143 110 117 8 6 13 12 10 18 17 3 2 2 INDOCHINA PREWAR 1947/48 144 152 fi 7 6 4 7 14 4 INDONESIA JAVA & MADURA ISRAEL PREWAR 1949/50 128 130 §/l57 40 6 26 3 3 5 18 PAKISTAN 194^49 153 5 12 11 4 TURKEY PREWAR 1949/50 191 196 3 16 5 7 8 6 18 14 JAPAN PREWAR 1948/49 TO/ 1949/50 1^ 168 ' 148 ' 149 63 60 60 14 6 3 7 1 1 4 2 2 AFRICA ■■ EGYPT PREWAR 194^49 1949/50 182 186 164 5 12 10 13 13 14 19 12 12 7 19 10 MAURTIUS 194^49 135 28 41 6 7 U. OF S. AFRICA PREWAP 1948/49 1949/50 156 155 154 16 16 15 23 42 40 2 2 3 SB 42 A3, OCEANIA AUSTRALIA PREWAJ? I9W49 1949/50 101 95 96 49 53 53 53 53 53 1 1 2 120 110 112 NEW ZEALAND PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 87 90 92 50 49 37 48 50 50 2 1 2 109 96 106 (continue: ON NEXT PAGE hi Table 3. - NET FDOD SUPPLY PER PERSON - Continued PERIOD _j/ MILK 6 FATS AND OILS (FAT CONTENT) CALORIES PER DAY CONTINENT AND COUNTRY TOTAL PERCENTAGE FROM LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS 1/ SOUTH AMERICA PREWAR 1948/49 153 165 . .KILOGRAMS F 9 16 ER YEAR. . . ARGENTINA 2,730 3,190 36 32 BRAZ IL PREWAR 1948/49 80 79 5 6 2,150 2,340 24 19 CHILE PREWAR 1948/49 54 68 5 6 2,240 2,350 16 17 COLOMBIA PREWAR 1948/49 93 144 3 3 1,860 2,280 19 19 URUGUAY PREWAR 1948/49 165 183 12 11 2,380 2,580 43 39 VENEZUELA 1949/50 107 5 2,210 18 ASIA BURMA. PREWAR 1947/48 17 8 4 3 2,080 1,990 13 10 CEYLON 1948/49 1949/50 9 13 4 4 1,920 1,800 5 6 CHINA (22 PROVINCES) CYPRUS PREWAR 1947/48 PREWAR 1943/49 48 41 6 5 9 \0 2,230 2,120 2,350 2,500 7 6 9 10 INDIA PREWAR 9/ 1948/49 1949/50 65 46 45 3 3 3 1,970 1,620 8 7 INDOCHINA PREWAR 1947/48 13 2 2 1,900 2,040 11 4 INDONESIA JAVA & MADURA ISRAEL PREWAR 1949/50 1 105 3 15 2,040 2,680 2 12 PAKISTAN 1943/49 73 2 2,030 10 TURKEY PREWAR 1949/50 40 54 8 8 2,560 2,670 11 13 JAPAN PREWAR 1948/49 ]0/ 1949/50 \0/ 4 3 4 2 1 1 2,180 10/2,050 20/2,100 5 3 3 AFRICA EGYPT PREWAR 1943/49 1949/50 31 27 29 5 5 6 2,450 2,480 2,300 8 3 10 MAURITIUS U. OF S. AFRICA 1948/49 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 37 76 84 83 6 3 5 5 2,240 2,300 2,580 2,500 7 13 18 16 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) K8 Table 3. - NET FOOD SUPPLY PER PERSON - Continued PERIOD J_/ MILK^ FATS AND OILS (fat content) CKLORIEIS PER DAY CONTINENT AND COUNTRY TOTAL PERCENTAGE FROM LIVESTOCK . PRODUCTS Jt/ OCEANIA PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 PREWAR 1948/49 1949/50 ..KILOGRAMS PER YEAR. . . . AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND 164 195 196 166 240 240 16 14 14 17 15 16 3,300 3,210 3,210 3,260 3,250 3,280 40 41 41 48 46 45 j/ PREWAR DATA REFER GENERALLY TO 1934-38 AVERAGE, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: 1935 1938 FOR GERMANY AND GREECE, 1936-38 FOR THE NETHERLANDS, 1936-38 FOR AUSTRALIA, 1935- 39 FOR NEW ZEALAND, CANADA, UNITED STATES, ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, URUGUAY, AND UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, AND 1931-37 FOR CHINA. ^IN TERMS OF FLOUR AND MILLED RICE. 3/ INCLUDES SWEET POTATOES, CASSAVA, ETC.; POTATO FLOUR, MANIOC FLOUR, AND OTHER ROOT iLOUR EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF POTATOES, CASSAVA, ETC. 4/ IN TERMS OF REFINED SUGAR, EXCLUDING SYRUP AND HONEY. 5/ INCLUDING OFFAL AND POULTRY. 6/ WHOLE MILK USED FOR FRESH CONSUMPTION Ar- UJ X en o (J) _■ Lj.J U") CL (T) >- 1— in — _j rr o UJ rr GQ < C) > I— o o 3 o 1— ^ o o ^ X G- UJ (0 -) Ul o < X UJ >- Li- O UJ IjJ (0 X 1- c n 3 u. U- u. (_) O U) Li- Ll. O >t::^ 1 sales of fresh shrimp, and has more than doubled since the end of World War II. The increase in the supply, vAiich occurred as a result of strong demand, resulted from expansion of domestic production and the sizable increases in imports from Mexico. Among canned fish, salmon, tuna, and sardines accoimt for the bulk of the domestic consumption, (table 4). During the period 1929 to 1938 salmon usually accounted for over one-half of the canned fish consumption in the United States. Canned salmon consumption has declined from over two pounds in pre-V/orld War II years to an average of about 1.4 pounds in the post-World War II period. The salmon pack varies vrith the size of annual runs which have decreased appreciably in recent years. The decreases have been marked for red and pink salmon and to a lesser de- gree for the lower priced chiun. The picture for canned tuna consumption, however, is quite different fran that of canned salmon. I'una consumption presents a reversal of the canned ■"salmon trend. Tuna has increased from a per capita consumption of only .5 pounds in 1935 to 1.5 pounds in 1952. The pack of the leading tuna species — albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack — increased consider- ably over the past two decades. The response of the domestic industry to increased demand has been an increased amount of processing on the part of tuna canners and increased fishing effort by the tuna fleet with long-range tuna clippers operating as far south as Peru. But at the same time increased imports of canned tuna and of frozen tuna used for canning in domestic canneries have accounted for increasing proportions of the supply available to American consumers. The sardine packs of both Maine and California have also fluctuated considerably. The season just closed in California has been the most disastrous in history from a production standpoint. A significant por- tion of the pack, particularly that of California, is for the export market. It appears likely that the portion of the canned sardine pack used domestically will continue to rank after salmon and tuna in per capita consumption. Reference to table 4 indicates that since 1929, with the exception of the World War II period, the per capita consumption for all canned fish has shown a slight increase. Far greater have been the per capita consumption changes among the species utilized for canning. Tuna con- sumption has increased steadily, while consumption of salmon and sardines, although fluctuating erraticklly, has declined. 53 Table 4. - CANNED FISH: PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION BY PRINCIPAL KINDS (EDIBLE WEIGHTS) 1909 - 1952 1/ SARDINES TUNA AND YEAR SALMON (pilchards AND herring) TUNALIKE FISHES SHELLFISH OTHER TOTAL POUNDS POJNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1909. . . . 1.5 ,6 (2 .2 .2 2 1910. 1.5 .7 (2 .2 .2 2 1911. 1.5 .7 (2 .2 .2 2 1912. 1.6 .7 2 .2 .2 2 1913. 1.6 .7 (2 .2 .2 2 1914. 1 .6 .7 .2 .2 .3 3.0 1915. • 1.3 .6 .2 .2 .1 2.4 1916. 1.2 .5 .2 .2 ,1 2.2 1917. 1 .1 .5 .2 .2 (3 2.0 1918. 1.1 .5 .2 ,2 (3 2.0 1919. 1.5 .7 .2 .2 .2 2.8 1920. 1.7 .8 .2 .2 .3 3,2 1921. 1.2 .5 .2 .2 .1 2.2 1922. 1.7 .8 .2 .2 .3 3.2 1923. 1.6 .7 .2 .2 .2 2.9 1924. 1.8 .8 .2 .2 .3 3.3 1925. 1.7 .8 ,2 .2 .3 3.2 1926. 1.8 .8 .2 .2 .4 3.4 1927. 2.1 .9 .3 .2 .3 3.8 1928. 2.1 .9 .3 .2 .4 3.9 1929. 2.1 .9 .3 .2 .4 3.9 1930. 2.0 .7 .3 .2 .1 3.3 1931. 2.1 .5 ,2 .2 .2 3.2 1932. 2.2 .5 .2 .2 .3 3.4 1933. 2.2 .8 .4 .2 .3 3,9 1934. 2.3 .8 .4 .2 .5 4.2 1935. 2.2 1.0 .5 .2 .8 4.7 1936. 3.4 1 .1 .5 .2 .6 5.8 1937. 1.9 1.0 .6 .3 .4 4.2 1938. 2.9 .7 .5 .2 .5 4.8 1S39. 2.1 1.2 .7 .2 .4 4.6 1940, 1.9 ,.7 .7 .2 .7 4,2 1941. 1942. 4/2.8 ^1.6 5/.I (3) .5 .4 .2 .2 .5 4.7 2.2 1943. , .8 .4 .4 .2 .1 1.9 1944. . .7 ,9 .5 ,1 .4 2.6 1945. .8 .8 .7 .1 .2 2.6 1946. . 1.1 1.2 ,7 .2 .6 3.8 1947. . 1.5 .6 .9 .1 .5 3.6 1948. . 1.4 1.0 .9 ,2 .3 3,8 1949 t/ . 1.5 1.0 1.0 .2 ,4 4.1 1950 t/ . 1.4 1 .1 1.2 .2 .4 4.3 1951 6/, . 1.3 .7 1 .4 .2 .6 4.2 1952 6/ . 1.4 .5 1.5 .3 .5 4.2 1/ CANNED FISH CONSUMPTION ESTIMATE 1910 - 1920 BASED ON STRAIGHT LINE TREND PROJECTION ADJUSTED FOR LARGE EXPORT AND MILITARY TAKINGS OF CANNED FISH FROM 1915 - 1918. 2/ NOT AVAILABLE. ' 3/ LESS THAN .05 POUNDS. 4/ MAY BE TOO LARGE; NO DATA AVAILABLE ON DEFENSE AND WAR TAKINGS, WHICH HAD BECOME SIGNIFICANT BY 1942. 5/ ASSUMED TO BE SAME AS IN 1940. 6/ PRELIM.INARY. SOURCE: UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND UNITED STATES BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE ECONOM I C , 5^ THE RELATIVE VOLUME OF VARIOUS FISHERY PRO HJCTS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES FOR DOMECTIC CONSUMFTlOTT Reference has been made to the importance of imports of certain types of fishery products in the fish consumption pattern of the United States, There has been a considerable increase in the percentage of edible fishery products supplied by foreign sources in recent years, particularly frozen cod fillets and frozen tuna. Table 5 shows the share of civilian con- sumption of edible fish in the United States foreign producers have had in total and by types of products from 1930 through 1951, with 1952 data unavailable. Since pre-WorM War II years the percentage of total civilian consumption supplied by imports from foreign countries has approximately doubled. Data for 1952 are unavailable. Particular note should be made of the substantial increase in the percentage of foreign supply for the fresh and frozen category. This latter increase is due largely to the imports of groundfish fillets, particularly cod fillets. Table 6 gives a f\ill picture of the estimated percentages of the total apparent supply of canned tuna by source and type for the years 1926 through 1952. This table does not take into account beginning and year end stocks, but it is felt that this does not significantly affect the data in the table which show the relative portions of apparent supply coming from different sources. Fresh and frozen tuna imports from foreign countries amounted to 16.2 percent of the total apparent supply of canned tuna in 1952, while in 1938 they amounted to only 3.6 percent. Canned tuna imports from foreign sources were 20.3 percent of the total apparent supply in 1950 just prior to the automatic doubling of the duty to 45 percent ad valorem on tuna canned in oil on January 1, 1951. Although this percentage was not as great as the 29.3 percent in 1933 the actual volume entered in 1950 was greater than that of 1933 when total supply and consumption were much less. With the 45 percent ad valorem duty in effect, tuna canned in oil has now declined to pre-World War II levels in absolute quantities imported and the percentage of the total apparent supply also has declined. New on the market as a volume product, tuna canned in brine, which is subject to a 12^ percent ad valorem duty, was beginning to be imported in significant amounts in 1951. Of the total apparent supply of canned tuna in 1952, 33.3 percent was supplied by imports of fresh and frozen tuna and tuna canned in oil and in brine. In 1933 the percentage was 34.5, but the apparent supply was less than one-quarter that in 1952. 55 Table 5. - EDIBLE FISH: ESTIMATED CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION, ESTIMATED FOREIGN SUPPLY AND ESTIMATED PERCENT OF CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION SUPPLIED FROM FOREIGN SOURCES IN TOTAL AND BY TYPES OF PRODUCT (EDIBLE WEIGHT IN MILLIONS OF POUNDS) 19 30 - 1952 FRESH AND FROZEN j/ CANNED 2/ YEAR CIVILIAN FOREIGN FORE 1 ON CIVILIAN FOREIGN FOREGIN CONSUMPTION SUPPLY SUPPLY CONSUMPTION SUPPLY SUPPLY QUANTITY QUANTITY PERCENT QUANTITY QUANTITY PERCENT 1930. . . 727,4 61.3 8.4 414,3 54.3 13, 1 1931. . . 619.7 58.4 9.4 397.5 55.3 13,9 1932. . . 548.9 44.9 8.2 420.9 79,0 18.7 1033, . . 534,6 52.5 9.8 491.9 84.1 17.1 1934. , . 556. 1 54.3 9.8 538.5 69.2 12.9 1935. . . 661.1 54.6 9.7 601.1 83.3 13.9 1936. . , 674,3 75.7 11,2 746.9 93.0 12.5 1937. . . 730.1 84.1 11.5 550.7 86.0 15.6 1938. . . 696.3 71.1 10.2 630.9 55.7 8.8 1939. . . 713.2 82.0 11,5 607.8 80.5 13.2 1940. . . 762.3 83.7 11,0 551.3 45.0 8.2 1941, , . 838.2 75.5 9.0 627.1 50.5 8.1 1942. . . 699.7 70.8 10.1 290.2 37.0 12,7 1943. . . 722.7 79.4 11.0 241,7 45.7 18.9 1944. . . 723.5 86.7 12.0 332.2 47.2 14,2 1945. . . 918.4 121.9 13.3 334.5 54.2 16.2 1946. . . 870.4 126,9 14.6 526.2 95.1 18.1 1947 3/ . 893.6 119.7 13.4 554.0 76.5 14.1 1948 y . 914.0 159.2 17.4 557.4 89.3 16.0 1949 y . 944.6 158.0 16.7 611.9 76.2 12.5 1950 a^ . 955.6 220.2 23.0 646.7 144.7 22.4 1951 y . 973.6 248.1 l4) 25.5 641.2 (4) "W 18.6 1952. . . (4) V) (4) CURED TOTAL YEAR CIVILIAN FOREIGN P'oreign CIVILIAN FOEIGN FOREIGN CONSUMPTION SUPPLY SUPPLY CONSUMPTION SUPPLY SUPPLY qUANTITY QUANTITY PERCENT qUANTITY qUANTITY PERCENT ■ 1930. . . 162.2 72.3 44.6 1,303.9 187.9 14.4 1931. . . 130.4 64.2 49.2 1,147.6 177.9 15.5 1932. . . 133.5 48.6 36.4 1,103.3 172.5 15.6 1933. . . 117.1 43. 1 36.8 1,143.6 179.7 15,7 1934. . . 117.7 43.2 36.7 1,212.3 166,7 13.8 1935. . . 136.8 45.7 33.4 1,399,0 193.6 13.8 1936. . . 129.9 50.8 39.1 1,551.1 219.5 14.2 1937. . . 121.9 47.9 39.3 1,402.7 218.0 15.5 1938. . . 124.7 46.8 37.5 1,451.9 173.6 12,0 1939. . . 115.5 40.1 34.7 1 ,436. 5 202.6 14.1 1940. . . 1 14. 1 39.8 34.9 1,427.7 168.5 11,8 1941. . . 110.1 37.6 34.2 1,575,4 163.6 10.4 1942. . . 99.6 42.5 42.7 1>089.5 150,3 13,9 1943. . . 96.7 54.5 56.4 1,061.1 179.6 16.9 1944. . . 94, 1 60.2 64.0 1,150.2 194. 1 17.9 1945. . . 113,0 64.4 57.0 1,365.9 240.5 17.6 1946. . . 190.5 77.3 40.6 1,567.1 299.3 18.9 1947 3/ . 1948 y . 1949 y . 1950 y . 110.5 46.3 41.9 1,548.1 242.5 15.7 131.9 69, 1 52.4 1,603.3 317.6 19.8 134.4 73,7 54.3 1,690.9 307,9 18.2 138.5 77.5 56.0 1,740.8 442,4 25.4 1951 y . 143.6 81.8 56,9 1,758.4 448.9 25.5 1952. , , (4) (41 (4) (4) (4) { 2/ SMALL QUANTITIES OF FRESH AND FROZEN S/IlMON USED IN CANNING INCLUDED A3 DATA CANNOT BE SEGREGATED 2/ INCLUDES FRESH AND FROZEN TUNA ANJ FRE3H SEA HERRING IMPORTED FOR CANNING, BUT EXCLUDES FRESH AND FROZEN SALMON IMPORTEC FOR THAT PURPOSE. 3/ PRELIMINARY. X/ NOT AVAILABLE, SOURCE: COMPILED BY UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 56 Table 6. - CAIWED TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES: TOTAL APPARENT UNITED STATES SUPPLY AND ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL APPARENT UNITED STATES SUPPLY BY SOURCE AND TYPE OF PRODUCT. 1926 - 1952 1/ TOTAL PACKED IN U.S. YEAR APPARENT SUPPLY CATCH THOUNSANDS OF POUNDS PERCENT PERCENT 1925 20,429 100.0 100.0 1927 30,140 100.0 99.8 1928 29,189 100.0 93.1 1929 36,103 100.0 90.2 1930 48,255 100.0 92.5 1931. . . . . . . . 30,144 100.0 84.1 1932 34,893 100.0 76.0 1933 49,017 100.0 65.5 1934 55,163 100.0 79.7 1935 68,445 100.0 83.9 1936 71,181 100.0 86.9 1937 86,521 100.0 80.9 1938 73,291 100.0 86.6 1939 97,557 100.0 86.6 1940 107,231 100.0 92.3 1941 64,895 100.0 94.3 1942 52,912 100,0 98.0 1943 57,074 100.0 98.9 1944 73,348 100.0 94.6 94,230 100.0 93.6 1946 98,627 100.0 94.5 123,617 100.0 94.1 1948 5/ 148,290 100.0 92.3 154,339 100.0 88.5 1950 ^ 219,720 100.0 70.4 180,734 100.0 71.6 1952 S/ 216,621 100.0 66.7 FROM FOREIGN - CA UGHT FISH PACKED IN U.S. IMPORTED CANNED IMPORTED YEAR FROM DOMESTIC TUNA 4 TUNALIKE CANNED TUNA TOTAL FRESH OR FROZEN FISH IN OIL IM BRINE 3/ FOREIGN TUNA 2/ PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT - 4 - - 1927 0.2 >4 - 0.2 6.9 4 - 6.9 1929 9.8 4 - 9.8 7.5 4 - 7.5 1931 12.6 3.1 - 15.9 7.0 17.0 - 24.0 1933 5.2 29.3 - 34.5 5.9 14.4 - 20.3 1935 4.1 12.0 - 16.1 3.5 9.6 - ■ 13.1 1937 5.3 12.8 - 19.1 3.6 9.8 - 13.4 1939 3.0 10.4 - 13.4 1 .4 6.3 - 7.7 1941 0.6 5.1 - 5.7 1 .2 0.8 - 2.0 1943 0.2 O.Q - 1 .1 1 .1 4.3 - 5.4 1945 0.8 5.6 - 6.4 0.7 4.8 - 5.5 1947 5/ 0.9 5.0 - 5.9 1 .9 5.8 (6) 7.7 1949 5/' 3.2 3.1 0.1 11 .4 (continued ON NEXT PAGE) 57 Table 6. - CANNED TONA AND TUNALIKE FISHES: TOTAL APPARENT LTVITED STATES SUPPLY AND ESTIMATED PEBCENTAGES OF TOTAL APPARENT UNITED STATES SUPPLY BY SOURCE AND TYPE OF PRODUCT, 1926 - 1952 1/ - Continued FROM FOREIGN - CAUGHT FISH YEAR PACKED IN U.S. FROM DOMESTI C FRESH OR FROZEN TUNA 2/ IMPORTED CANNED TUNA i TUNALIKE FISH IN 01 L IMPORTED CANNED TUNA IN BRINE 3/ TOTAL FORE 1 GN 1950 5/ 1951 5/ 1952 5/ PERCENT 9.1 15.5 16.2 PERCENT 20.3 7.7 8.3 PERCENT 0.2 5.2 8.B PERCFNT 29.6 28.4 33.3 V PRIOR TO 1952 DOES NOT INCLUDE HAWAIIAN PACK FOR WHICH DATA WERE NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE. ALSO BEGINNING AND YEAR-END STOCKS FOR EACH YEAR NOT CONSIDERED. 2/ CONVERTED TO NET WEIGHT OF CANNED FISH BY CONSIDERING A 45?^ RECOVERY FROM FRESH AND FROZEN WEIGHT SHOWN IN IMPORT STATISTICS. EXCEPT 1952 FOR WHICH 50.7?^ RECOVERY WAS USED. DATA FOR THE YEARS 1937-1950 EXCLUDE 90?^ OF THE IMPORTS SHOWN FROM COSTA RICA AND 60?^ OF THOSE FROM THE CANAL ZONE, BELIEVED TO REPRESENT AN APPROXIMATE PROPORTION OF THE TUNA CAUGHT BY UNITED STATES FISHING VESSELS AND TRANS SHIPPED TO THE UNITED STATES WHERE IT ENTERED AS AN IMPORT. 3/ DATA NOT AVAILABLE PRIOR TO 1948. PROBABLY INSIGNIFICANT. 4/ NOT SEPARATELY CLASSIFIED IN IMPORT DATA AND PROBABLY H NS I GN I F I CANT . 5/ PRELI Ml NARY 6/ LESS THAN .05 PERCENT. SOURCE: COMPILED BY UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. ?or 1950 BOid 1951 tlie percentage of the domestic ■aj>k»t for oaoned tuna vhloh was srq^plied "by foreign sources has been ercentage of foreign snpply of canned ttma rose even further in that year. Tb» greater incidence of foreign etxpplj in the canned tuna narks t as cospeured to the arerage for all canned fish is al'so illustrated grt^hically in figure k. SPECIAL ASPECTS OF COHSTJMES DBMAUD JOB gOHA DT THS VSITSD STATES Besides drawing together historical data oa consumption in the imtediately preceding pages, there vere numerous special aspects of domestic demeuid for tuna which required investigation. Caimed fish processors, distributors, and the consumers were interviewed to de- termine variovis special characteristics of the demand for tuna, dis information is detailed on pages 56 to 88. Volume Changes Which Have Occurred or Are ^jij^fttfld to p9- Q_ Q_ Z ID O (/) UJ (T Z O O ^ lD u_ cr o p o CO o o o CT) UJ X CO - ^ - \ / X x t - •>^ • . / ^V \ V \ \ — ^ • \ CO • 1 — UJ X ^^ \ / (/) X \ / CO \ / ul u. \ \ - UJ o UJ V - _l z ^^ ^v^ < z * ^- z < ^"^^ 1 r) o X, / - H _l J - a _l N V ./^ z < < < u. o 1 / - 1 / z 3 ^ y" ^ Q, (C U. a: ^^ o 3 s. — >; CO ^ ^ 'x * — a! Q. z C3 - 3 UJ ^S^ V cn CE z £ UJ >/ '\ ^^---^ X • X * <^ . 1 1 1 — ^"^"\ / — \ ^ -« ::» ^ s 59 used. Today it is only a small part of the total pack. There have been changes too in the use of different sized cans by tuna packers. Consumers' desires dictate what tuna packers shall produce and are far from uniform. The whole subject of consumption is a dynamic one with changes continually taking place. The changes in the volume of the various types of products, species used, and can sizes are discussed in the following pages. TYPE OF PACK SUCH AS SOLID, CHUNK, GRATED, FLAKES, ETC., AND ADDITIVES SUCH AS OIL AND BRINE Since 1938, there has been a trend away from the type of packing known as solid pack. Prior to that time, over 90 percent of the pro- duction was solid pack. The only tuna packed as flakes was that which could not be packed as solid pack because of the small size of pieces. Between 1938 and 1946 an increasingly large amount of tuna was canned as grated- tuna. Sales of the grated product increased so that more and more of the pack was put up in this manner. In 1948, the first pack of chunk style or bite-size tuna was marketed. This was an improvanent on the grated pack and still retained the labor-saving advantages. As a result of these changes only 35 percent of the 1952 production was solid pack. Figpre 5 shows the percentage of the total pack that was canned as solid pack during the years 1929-1952. Table 7 shows the production brokai down into solid pack and "other" for that period. Practically all of the pack during this period was in oil. Since 1950, a small quantity of dietetic pack (in distilled water without salt) and of strained tuna for baby food has been packed. As the amount packed was relatively insignificant, it has been included with other tuna in the statistical data. Some tuna and noodles were packed in 1952, but data on this pack have not been included in the tables on canned fish production in this report. Several factors are considered by consumers in the buying of solid, or chunk, or grated tuna. Price differentials and the use of the product are the primary considerations. The usual price premium that many con- sumers are willing to pay for solid pack is attributed to a better appear- ance and a belief as to its better quality. Since the introduction of the chunk style pack several years ago, however, there has been a shift to this pack by consumers in many markets. The solid pack must be broken up for use in salads or cooked dishes, but the chunk pack, while still retaining a good appearance, is in more convenient form for use and sells at a lower price per can and usually per ounce of contents, 60 Table 7. - PACK OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES: BY TYPE OF PACK, 1929 - 19 52 YEAR SOLID PACK OTHER TOTAL 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 POUNDS 29,462,580 39,523,512 23,727,249 22,829,504 28,000,392 38,089,779 48,983,361 52,514,238 60,298,791 53,062,611 65,900,377 73,507,497 49,779,618 36,280,293 37,491,363 42,734,097 51,872,058 54,370,113 79,574,586 91,016,163 73,323,831 87,476,886 63,457,884 63,066,717 PERCENT 94.2 94.5 93.8 91.4 93.4 93.3 93.9 94.2 92.5 92.8 87.9 85.6 83.1 72.7 69.6 60.9 58.3 57.9 67.7 65.2 51.7 50.0 40.3 35.2 POUNDS 1,823,868 2,314,224 1,567,926 2,142,954 1,976,058 2,756,592 3,209,166 3,241,008 4,916,340 4,092,336 9,086,652 12,385,854 10,100,214 13,628,088 16,393,860 27,451,134 37,106,406 39,517,758 37,894-122 48,665,790 68,376,762 87,317,550 93,868,578 116,349,876 PERCENT 5.8 5.5 6.2 8.6 6.6 6.7 6.1 5.8 7.5 7.2 12.1 14.4 16.9 27.3 30.4 39.1 41.7 42.1 32.3 34.8 48.3 50.0 59.7 64.8 POUNDS 31,286,448 41,837,736 25,295,175 24,972,558 29,976,450 40,846,371 52,192,527 55,755,246 65,215,131 57,154,947 74,987,529 85,893,351 59,879,832 49,908,381 53,885,223 70,185,231 88,978,464 93,887,871 117,468,708 139,681,953 141,700,593 174,794,436 157,326,462 179,416,593 Figure 5 PERCENTAGE OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES CANNED AS SOLID PACK, 1929-1952 YEAR 19^9 3T Based on data in table 7. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 61 Most msnbers of the tuna canning industry anticipate a further considerable expansion in production of the (;hunk pack vdth a corres- ponding decrease in the solid packo The chunk pack can be put up at a lower cost than the solid pack and most consumers^ realizing that the solid pack is practically always broksn up before the tuna is used, are readily accepting the chunk style with its usual lower price » Of all the packers visited only one had ever put up a brine pack. This was an extremely small producer who believed the saving in oil was a worthwhile one« All others felt that, especially with the present low cost of oilj the small sxtra expense for oil was well worthwhile and they had no plans for future marketing of a brine pack. All tuna canners contacted used soya oil exclusively (except for the special tonno pack in which olive oil was anployed) , They had, in the past, used cottonseed and peanut oil, Daring World War n, scarcity of these oils led them to use the then -mo re-plentiful soya oil. Since labels have to declare the type of oil used,, the industry has standardized on soya. They have no particular preference for it other than its availability and low costo Should future shoi^tages develop the type of oil might change? otherwise the industry will probably continue to use soya oilo Flake and grated style packs attract consumers who stress Lheir lower price. The finely chopped appearance of these packs deter many consumers from baying them, iji spite of their usefulness in dishes which require cut-up tuna. If consumers were better informed as to the quality, convenience and inexoe'isiveness of flake and grated packs, the sales of these packs could be farther expanded. While it is generally agreed in the trade that a price incentive is necessary in order to sell tuna packed in brine, it is also agreed that a maricet has definitely been establish. ed for it among household consumers. However, a market for tuna in brine has not been established throughout the United States, IL'S distribution has been spottyj but where it has been introduced, it appears to have taken hold. According to a study conducted by a local newspaper in Seattle, a certain brand of tuna in brine was third in quantity of sales for all tuna products sold in the Seattle area duriiig 1952, It was outsold only by two nationally-advertised domestic tuna in oil brands. Tuna in brine has established itself on the retail level also in Minneapolis, in most west coast cities, and in many of the eastern cities, except in New York City. How well established it has become appears to be directly correlated to the efforts of the large retail grocery chains to add it to their lines and to promote it, Beiause of the necessity to be com- petitive, whai one chain grocery begins to purchase and sell tuna in 62 brine the others follow readily. Brokers and v^olesalers report that there is a slow but steady increase in orders for tuna in brine in No. ^ or "shelf" size containers, Th^ report that horaemakers are gradually becoming accustomed to the use of tuna packed in brine. In connection with its preparation for a hearing on proposals to adopt standards for canned tuna_„ the Food and Drug Administration made a .survey of household consumers in the last quarter of 1952. Certain questions were asked about brine and oil packs. A total of 4<,119 replies to the following questions were tabulated with results as shown: io Have you purchased danned tuna packed in water (with or without salt)? Yes - ^12 No - 2.661 Don't remember - 6^ Not answered - 294 2. If you have bou^t canned tuna packed in water, did the label on the can describe it so that before you opened the can you Imew it was packed in water? Yes - it^S No - 182 Not answered - 3.474 3. When you use canned tuna packed in oil^ do you use the oil? Yes, always - 1,097 Yes, sometimes •= 1.161 No - 1,718 Not answered - 143 4. If you use the oil (either always or sometimes) how do you use it? Replies to this question indicated three general uses: 1, Oil is not separated from the fish, 2, Oil is separated and part added to tuna salad, 3, Oil is used in what was often referred to as creamed tuna, 5. Considering the ways in which you use canned tuna, would you prefer: About the proportion of oil you now get , . . . . 1.544 More oil and less fish. ,,,,... , 20 More fish and less oil............ 2.304 Nob answered. 251 63 Tuna and bonito packed in brine have to a great extait replaced oil packs in institutional markets. These packs are made by foreign firms who now supply the greater part of the United States institutional consumers' needs. Hotels, restaurants, school lunchrooms^ hospitals, and other quantity food purveyors in all areas canvassed have shown an overwhelming change to brine packs „ In the New England area the following reasons are given for this change: 1. It is usually a solid jack which is entirely usable and has cus- tomer appeal and acceptance. 2« It is more economical when compared to the oil packe 3. The large size can -- such as the No, 4 ~ has advantages in that it cuts costs by saving time and labor in preparation, and re- quiring less handling and storage space. 4. It is a quality pack, 5. It keeps well in storage, 6. Packing in brine does not necessarily detract from appearance, texture, or flavor. 7. When drained, it is adaptable for all culinary purposes. One of the_ largest vAiolesale grocers in the United States, catering primarily to institutional users,, reports doing about 85 percent of his tuna business with the impoirted brine packs. In factj the domestic oil packs now make up only about one-half of one percent of his sales. Before the brine packs became available, this wholesaler was selling a fairly large volume of domestic packs of tuna in oil. Many vrtiolesalers and brokers report that although they do not carry any brine packs in the re- tail or "shelf" size containers, they do carry brine packs in the larger volume containers that are used ty institutions. Institutions and restaurants purchase foods on a more objective basis than household consumere. Since tuna in brine can be bought for less, and is substitutable for tuna in oil, it is not surprising that the brine pack has found wide acceptance by this trade. The brine pack is particularly suitable for cooked tuna dishes where the oil is not necessary. If household cceisumers made purchases in accordance with requirements of the diaies they prepared the increase in brine pack sales no doubt would be considerable. However, there is nothing to in- dicate this will occur in the near future. Consumption of the brine pack is expected to be limited for some time to come. SPECIES SUCH AS ALBACORE, BLUEFIN, SKIPJACK, YELLOWFIN, BONITO, ETC. Ehiring the period 1929-1952, there was no definite trend toward packing a particular species. Figure 6 shows the percentage of the total pack that was packed from yellowfin, albacore, and skipjack. The absence of most of the clipper fleet during the war years accounts for the lower percentage of yellowfin and skipjack during that period. The data for 1944 are not comparable with the other years, as all of the flake and grated light-meat pack was listed as mixed tuna rather than being credited to the various species. Table 8 includes revised data on the poundage of each species of tuna canned from 1929-1952. These data were obtained by multiplying the number of standard cases of solid pack by 21 and of flakes and grated by 18. In this table the chunk-style pack has been included with flakes and grated and converted to pounds by multiplying by 18, except in 1952 when the factor was changed to 19.5. As separatt data were not available on this style of pack prior to 1952, it was not possible to use this factor on the earlier data. For all practical purposes from the consumer point of view, there are only two varieties of canned tuna — white meat (albacore) and light meat (skipjack, yellowfin, bluefin, and little tuna). The dark meat of any species is less salable than the white meat or light meat in American markets. The white meat of canned albacore commands a pr«nium on most do- mestic markets, particularly in cities such as New York and Boston. Albacore also is popular with canners because of the high yield and the uniformity of size vhich makes for easier handling in the plant. Thus, even when the viiite meat market is saturated, canners can usually pack albacore profitably as a li^t-meat product. The hi^er price of alba- core as a raw material may be more than offset by the greater canning yield. The more erratic supply causes a greater fluctuation in albacore prices than in those for light-meat tunas. Table 9 and figure 7 show the annual average prices paid to west coast fishermen for albacore, yellowfin and yellowtail from 1929 through 1952 with early 1953 prices. Prices of all species as shown in figure 7 tend to move together, with albacore having wider movements. In 1951 large imports of albacore 65 Fi gure 6 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PRODUCTION OF CANNED TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES PACKED FROM CERTAIN SPECIES, 1929-1952 100 90 80 70 60 50 ALBACORE YELLOWriN P b - cT "- -. -\ '^'^a; J l_l I I L_J — L YEAR 1929 31 33 35 37 Based on data in table 8. 43 45 47 49 51 1952 U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 3ERVICE dropped the price of doneetic albsoore close to yellowfln. At tloes dxirlng the year prices were reported for domestic albacore which were lower than reported prices for yellowf in. As may be determined from table 8 the pack of light-meat tuna represents by far tho greater percentage of the total pack of -■una. The principal reasons for the larger sales of light-meat tuna are its greater abvmdance and lower cost &s compared to white-meat tuna. The supply of albacore is limited as compared to the several llghtrmeat species where, if one species is scarce, €(> Table 8. - CANNED PACK OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1929 - 1952 ALBACORE YELLOWFIN YEAR SOLID I^LAkES AND GRATED TOTAL SOLID FUKES AND GRATED TOTAL 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 POUNDS 2,977,107 2,969,421 3,062,178 1,387,323 1,061,319 1,723,533 2,356,494 1,203,573 2,072,868 7,008,183 10,327,590 6,436,731 5,613,573 9,726,885 13,112,211 18,039,966 17,375,610 9,567,075 11,011,056 19,814,424 22,540,749 32,357,262 21,711,942 28,284,921 POUNDS 121,122 54,576 213,120 129,978 64,044 153,468 180,144 104,526 283,554 908,316 2,338,272 1,392,426 728,550 1,746,378 3,403,476 5,953,248 6,979,860 3,647,448 3,450,474 6,402,582 7,082,640 9,234,360 9,537,318 ^23,485,034 POUNDS 3,098,229 3,023,997 3,275,298 1,517,301 1,125,363 l,8r77,001 2, 536, 638 1,308,099 2,356,422 7,916,499 12,665,862 7,829,157 6,342,123 11,473,263 16,515,687 23,993,214 24,355,470 13,214,523 14,461,530 26,217,006 29,623,389 41,591,622 31,249,260 51,769,955 POUNDS 12,600,630 18,492,222 12,491,892 12,424,314 17,611,230 20,493,501 24,454,710 Z7, 049, 680 30,213,162 24,382,995 33,393,654 34,070,274 23,739,975 10,383,534 13,015,926 14,166,411 25,119,675 31,850,343 40,498,143 47,860,197 33,885,117 35,992,215 25,822,818 22,532,034 POUNDS 1,105,146 1,785,942 1,020,078 1,687,734 1,758,042 2,248,038 2,322,720 2,684,808 3,798,972 2,610,666 6,271,740 8,^47,652 7,103,466 6,123,564 5,966,568 16,465,266 18,577,764 22,206,456 31,300,128 41,205,348 45,565,758 .51,144,066 ^55, 934, 802 POUNDS 13,705,776 20,278,164 13,511,970 14,112,048 19,369,272 22,741,539 26,777,430 29,734,488 34,012,134 26,993,661 39,665,394 ^2,517,926 30,843,441 16,507,098 18,982,494 14,166,411 41,584,941 50,428,107 62,704,599 79,160,325 75,090,465 81,557,973 76,966,884 78,466,836 BLUEFIN SKIPJACK YEAR SOLID FLAKES AND GRATED TOTAL SOLID FLAKES AND GRATED TOTAL 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 POUNDS 2,039,856 6,432,237 er77,863 156,807 77,679 6,296,409 7,878,066 6,167,028 4,052,181 6,596,625 4,326,966 5,784,702 3,176,838 4,605,468 3,182,529 5,080,425 4,170,096 5,264,280 6,365,604 1,830,255 762,951 245,028 421,407 528,066 POUNDS 88,884 398,196 91,656 38,052 8,640 222, 642 618,984 366,318 437,220 346,482 267,210 885,636 350, 208 1,217,502 1,169,136 4,546,314 4,437,486 2,605,122 1,109,214 729,828 714,996 ^ 933,390 yi, 331, 284 POUNDS 2,128,740 6,830,433 969,519 194,859 86,319 6,519,051 8,497,050 6,533,346 4,489,401 6,943,107 4,594,176 6,670,338 3,527,046 5,822,970 4,351,665 5,080,425 8,716.410 9,701,766 8,970,726 2,939,469 1,492,T79 950,024 1,354,797 1,859,350 POUNDS 7,799,211 5,460,924 4,735,101 5,171,775 4,565,127 4,599,021 5,906,586 8,906,226 14,132,454 7,048,650 8,407,402 15,389,115 8,421,063 8,810,256 6,004,068 4,231,689 3,350,886 5,668,656 13,775,622 13,539,267 10,667.433 13,257,800 9,853,742 5,136,096 POUNDS 269,694 73,206 216,774 26r7,010 145,332 132,444 87,318 85,356 396,594 226,872 209,430 1,515,654 993,438 4,470,372 5,314,122 8,275,662 7,857,810 5,637,582 7,302,798 16,758,270 29,349,918 29,827,764 ^26, 837, 757 POUNDS 8,068,905 5,534,130 4,951,875 5,458,785 4,710,459 4,731,465 5,993,904 8,991,582 14,529,048 7, 275, 522 8,696,832 16,904,769 9,414,501 13,280,628 11,318,190 4,231,689 11,626,548 13,526,466 19,413,204 20,842,065 27,425,703 42,617,718 39,691,506 31,973,853 SEE FOOTNOTES AT END OF TABLE. (CONTINUED OM NEXT PAGE) 67 Table P. - CANNED PACK OF TUNA AND TUNALiKE FISHES, 1929 - 1952 - Continued SEE FOOTNOTES AT END OF TABLE, (continued on next page) 68 MISCELLANEOUS OR MIXED | "TONNO" BON 1 TO YEAR SOLID FLAKES AND GRATED TOTAL SOLID SOLID FLAKES AND GRATED 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 POUNDS 348,012 28,182 564,312 678,363 218,904 1,826,076 2, 297, 694 POUNDS 239,022 21,057,588 3,347,082 1,457,622 561,024 792, 558 1,379,430 . 903,996 3/5,592,752 POUNDS 587,034 21,057,588 3,347,082 1,485,804 1,125,336 1,470,921 1,598,334 2,730,072 7,890,446 POUNDS 2,480,625 3,351,096 1,400,427 2,561,853 2,871,540 3,517,164 3,377,808 3,618,846 5,309,997 2,948,400 4,621,039 7,921,452 2,038,974 1,159,473 (1) 603,603 956,235 (^] 1,469,895 1,872,507 3,541,482 5,136,810 3,373,146 3,077,907 POUNDS 730, 569 1,871,499 1,091,349 1,039,185 891,219 1,219,743 3,034,416 2,753,877 3,195,675 3,317,559 4,089,099 2,250,738 4,670,421 658,518 945,840 173,859 754,803 1,757,238 4 446,036 3; 177,867 455, 658 27,279 188,706 341,607 POUNDS 2.304 25,614 180 28,728 22,950 55,602 87,894 40,842 322,290 522,180 886,086 612,648 216,648 209,736 98,694 557,028 BOM 1 TO-CONTINUED YELLOWTAIL YEAR TOTAL SOLID FLAKES AMD GRATED TOTAL 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 POUNDS 730,569 1,873,803 1,116,963 1,039,365 891,219 1,219,743 3,034,416 2,753,877 3,195,675 3,317,559 4,089,099 2,279,466 4,693,371 714,120 1,033,734 214,701 1,077,093 2,279,418 5,332,122 3,790,515 672,306 237,015 287,400 898,635 POUNDS 486,570 946,113 68,439 88,347 922,278 240,408 1,975,281 2,815,008 1,322,454 1,760,199 655,137 1,654,485 2,118,774 936,159 1,230,789 438,144 144,753 262,521 1,980,048 2,357,334 792,078 231,588 250,047 804,573 POUNDS 684 115,758 901,60 9.25 8.15 5.45 5.33 6.87 14.35 19.40 16.27 16.41 19.49 19.82 25.26 29.63 18.32 19.11 15.74 18.60 (1) CENTS PER POUND 5.88 5.99 5.41 4.08 4.45 5.01 5.01 5.28 5.96 6.01 5.35 5.90 6.32 9.25 9.91 9.92 9.97 11.48 15.58 16.75 16.27 15.34 15.46 16.00 16.00 CENTS PER POUNB 4.88 1930 4.40 1931 3.33 1932 2.84 1933 2,26 1934 3.37 1935 2.87 1936 2.96 1937 3.95 1938 1.60 1939 3.35 1940 3.41 1941 3.90 1942 7.08 194J 7.48 1944 7.92 1945 8.26 1946 8.20 1947 11.29 1948 11.13 1949 9.37 1950 8.90 1951 ^ 1952 y 9.49 9.25 9.25 l/ NOT AVAILABLE. y WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF CALIFORNIA LANDINGS. y BASED ON REPORTED CONTRACT PRICES FOR 1952 AND Fl R3T THREE MONTHS OF 1953. With this differential the fisherman still may be expected to fish preferentially for yellowf in rather than skipjack. Duxing periods of scarcity of fish, however, fishermen hesitate to pass up a good run of skipjack on the chance of later finding yellowfin. Unier present conditions it is not believed that the new price differential will cause much change in the ratio of landings of these two species. BlTiefin landixjgs are not expected to change in \olTme except in accordance with normal fluctuations in abundance. Bonito and yellowtail, the tTinalifce fishes, will probably not be caught and packed in significantly increased quantities by the domestic industry unless there is an increase in the present domestic tariff on importations of these products. The market for these species will prob- ably continue to be supplied predominatly by foreign packers. Even if a tariff increase should occur, expansion of the catching and processing of these species by the domestic industry would be limited since the de- mand for then is relatively weak compared to the species which cein be canned amd sold as tuna. 70 -« O LO cn — y I CT) (D < 3 LU >- _J LlI >- LU or o < _1 < W Q. O t uj z lO go- gro -$ 1 1 1 — > j — - (l j - - ^ 1 / • - — <: 1 \ \ { — — Uj ^ > t. — - ALB AC OR I 1 - >v -J 1 *• ^ ) ^ 1 • -J 1 : / \ •• # ^***»»„,^ \ • — - '^ • — 1 1 > \ — - 1 1 I* — • - A / - ( \ \ — - \' : - ~ \ \ - 1 1 y. // - ^ 1 1 R in CM a o - 71 CAN SIZES During the period 1935-1952, there was a significant increase in the proportion of the pack of canned tuna in the No. 5 tuna can. These cans contain 7 ounces of solid pack, 6g ounces of chunk style, or 6 ounces of grated or flake style. These weights are net weights and in- clude the weight of fish, oil, and salt. In figure 8 it will be noted that 76 percent of the pack in 1935 was in this size can. In 1946, this had increased to 99 percent, while in 1952, 95 percent of the pro- duction was in the No. 5 tuna can. Table 10 lists the quantity of tuna packed in the various can sizes. The percentage increase in the quantity packed in the No. 5 tuna can was largely at the expense of the No. 1 tuna can or the size known in the trade as "I's", except during the war \itien the smaller No. 5 tuna can was not packed because of the tin conservation program. From 1949 to 1952, a small pack was again put up in No. 4 tuna cans, which is the institutional size pack. To convert a canning line from the use of one size can to another involves substantial expense. The tuna canning industry fortunately has a sufficient variety of sizes on the market at present to meet the demand of consumers. The popular flat No. 5 tuna can adequately meets the needs of most families. The No. 1 can which contains about twice the contacts of the No. ^ can is currently being emphasized in several retail markets. It is too soon to know how well this size will go, but it is expected that the market will be limited, especially since the saving to consumers over the buying of the smaller No. 5 tuna can appears to be negligible. If the larger can were priced so as to show a significant saving to the con- sumer, it might develop a significant vol\ime. However, the general trend in urban markets is toward smaller can sizes. Rural markets buy most foods in ."larger quantities, but need first to become tuna conscious before they can be sold a larger size can. Now the No. ^ can would be the reasonable one to promote in rural markets. It certainly appears that the industry has a sufficient variety of different size cans to satisfy present danand, and to experiment with additional sizes would be questionable. Of course, as the industry pro- cesses tuna mixed with other foods, such as noodles, etc., the size and type of container may have to undergo considerable change. 72 Fi gure 8 PERCENTAGE OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES CANNED IN NO. i CANS, 1935 - 1952 YEAR 1935 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 1952 Based on data in table 10 U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE A poesl'ble small chazige in cein size might result from the pending rood and Drug Administration standards for canned tuna. These stand- ards are expected to call for a fill-in wei^t of 6.0 ounces of tuna for the solid pack smd 5»75 ounces for the other packs. Biis is greater than the present fill-in weights used in the industry. One possibility of avoiding an increase in the price per can ^ioh would result from such a standard is a reduction in the height of the can hy such an amount that the fill-in wei^t would not have to te changed. Biis could he done without increasing the cost per can to the consumer as h« would get Just ae much fish as formerly. One drawba^f to such a change is that it is believed that foreign importations would still employ the standard No. ji tuna can since it would not require any significant change in present packing prooedxire of foreign prooessore to comply with the proposed standards. This woxild place the domestic pack at a disadvantage. If foreign and domestic cans of tuna were adjacent to each other on the grocer's shelf, at the same price, consumers would tend to choose the slightly larger oan. Present thinking in the tuna industry is reported to be against adoption of the slightly smaller oan when and if the standards go into effect. The tuna canning industry does not anticipate euiy marked change in the oan sizes used in the futvire. The large institutional size cans are said to be less popular than might be anticipated because the production costs are vexy little less per pound of finished product than smaller sizes. In fact, some processors claim that it costs as aiuch or more, proportionally, to pack the Ho. k tuna oan as the Bo. ^ can. 73 Table 10. - PACK OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES BY CAN SIZE, 1935 - 19 52 YEAR NO. 1/4 (48) NO. 1/4 (100) NO. 1/2 (48) NO. 1/2 (96) NO. 1 (48) ACTUAL CASES ACTUAL CASES 149,098 ACTUAL CASES 1,915,459 ACTUAL CASES ACTUAL CASES 1935 205,295 _ 168,710 1936 207,577 159,198 2,040,049 _ 185,538 1937 252,882 223,353 2,293,454 . 245,981 1938 282, 178 123,682 2,048,434 - 215,374 1939 298,463 188,438 2,784,835 _ 253, 629 1940 373,977 331,952 3,068,839 - 284,759 1941 266.767 96,917 2,036,782 - 324,776 1942 195,708 50,263 2,228,862 _ 64,975 1943 51,464 - 2,490,203 - 103,409 1944 46,669 _ 2,650,145 330,427 120,634 1945 - - 4,342,495 _ 100,691 1946 - 4,737,788 _ 20,117 1947 - . 5,789,969 - 50,213 1948 - - 6,891,649 - 72,717 1949 316,733 (1) 6,863,959 _ 88,891 1950 578,879 46,676 8,427,932 _ 67,048 1951 471,444 57,324 7,720,604 _ 73,523 1952 600,088 70,699 8,627,722 - 32,053 YEAR NO. 4 (6) NO. 4 (12) MISC. (48) TOTAL TOTAL ACTUAL CASES ACTUAL CASES ACTUAL CASES ACTUAL CASES 2,438,562 STANDARD CASES 1935 2,510,828 1936 . _ _ 2,592,362 2,680,734 1937 - - - 3,015,670 3,144,501 1938 - 2,522 - 2,672,190 2,754,143 1939 - 2,674 _ 3,528,039 3,642,951 1940 - 3,665 - 4,068,192 4,188,460 1941 - 5,454 _ 2,730,696 2,931,581 1942 - - - 2,539,808 2,484,749 1943 _ - _ 2,645,076 2,696,073 1944 - - _ 3,147,875 3,560,020 1945 _ . _ 4,443,186 4,531,565 1946 - - 6,346 4,764,251 4,784,484 1947 _ _ 4,100 5,844,282 5,894,495 1946 - _ , 614 6,964,980 7,037,758 1949 10,190 - 1/63,906 7,343,689 7,290,320 1950 31,115 621 9,152,271 9,016,541 1951 - 25,383 74 8,348,352 8,236,725 1952 - 8,102 19,278 9,357,942 9,115,202 ]/ THE PACK OF 1/4 POUND CANS ( 100 TO THE CASE) HAS BEEN INCLUDED WITH MISCELLANEOUS SIZES. NOTE:— DATA FOR 1952 INCLUDES PACK IN HAWAII. Ko8t processors do not antlclx>ate auBy marlced deiiand for the Bo. ^ ttma can. A few prooessori^ especially those selling their fish in specialty aarksts snoh as New York Oity, indicate that there is soso increase in demand for a Bo. ^ tana can for uje by small faallies such as {^artBsnt house dwellers. It is heliaved that the Bo. \ tuna can represents about the best approxiaation of the needs of avera^ oonsnnsrt. 7* Acceptability of East Coast Packs by Consumers Of the total pack of over 9,115,202 standard cases of tuna produced in the United otates and Hawaii in 1952, slightly over 200,000 cases or about two percent was packed on the Atlantic Coast. Obvious- ly such a small volume could not be distributed very widely. As a result very little is Imown regarding the acceptability of the east coast packs compared with those of the west coast. The Atlantic Coast pack consisted of bluefin and little tuna from the east coast and yellowfin and skipjack and albacore from other areas. Comments from the New England Area indicate that the east coast pack of albacore is quite acceptable. One of the largest cnain grocers in the southern and southeastern states reports very good sales of the east coast pack of yellowfin tuna but reported the lack of a regular supply. The packs of Atlantic coast species, such as bluefin and little tuna, are not considered quite as acceptable as the light- me at packs produced from either imported tuna or from the west coast yellowfin and skipjack because of the darker appearance and, in some cases, a some- what stronger flavor. However, the latter factor is considered an at- tribute by some small segments of the United States population. In general, however, the prevailing American consumer preference is for the milder flavored product. Those selling the east coast product report that consumers know very little about this pack. As the east coast pack increases in volume and becomes more wide- ly distributed there is every reason to believe that its use and ac- ceptability will expand. It is not e^nected that the geographical point of packing will be of any significance in Influencing the consumers' choice of canned tim^' packs insofar as quality of comparable species is concerned. Acceptability of Bonito and Tuna by Consumers 4/ Most distributors agree that canned bonito is an acceptable product and that there is a definite place for it on the market, pri- marily as a lower priced item. At the retail level, chain stores are doing a reasonably good business with bonito. These retailers reported average volume sales of canned bonito as approximately one-third those of their sales of canned tuna. Several chain store operators indicated increased sales of canned 'bonito over the past two years and attributed this largely to the lower cost as compared with canned tuna. Aside from 47 In this section "canned tuna" does not include tunalike species. 75 price, bonito is preferred by some household consumers in certain areas of the country or because of racial or religious backgrounds. It is reported, for instance, that Italian-American and other Ameri- cans of southern European origin show a preference for bonito. Simi- larly, bonito is reported to be more available on grocers shelves in Pennsylvania than in Illinois. Bonito sells best in the institutional trade. Almost without exception, bonito was found to be used widely by hotels, restaurants, and lunchrooms. Although the sales of tuna far exceed that of bonito, the trend of increased imports of bonito into the United States points to the fact that this species is being increasingly accepted on both the retail consumer and the quantity food purveyor levels, available In 194B, the first year for which canned bonito import figure? are/ there was a total of 306,000 pounds of canned bonito and yellowtail (noatly bonito) imported into the United States. In 1949 and 1950 imports of these products rocketed to 8,099,000 and 8,135,000 pounds respective- ly. In 1952, imports of canned bonito and yellowtail (mostly bonito) reached a total of 13,812,000 pounds. Reduced to relative figures, the 1952 imports represent an increase of 70 percent over 1949 and an increase of 4400 percent over 1948. Consumer Familiarity With the Various Styles of Canned Tuna Packs In general, consumers appear to recognize quite clearly the dif- ferent types and styles of packs of canned tuna. It is doubtful that they are generally aware of any standards with respect to original quality of fish or fill of container. Species identification on labels is not required by law or regulation except for bonito and yellowtail. Few packers identify the other species. At present, prac- tically the only other species named on labels is albacore, which is marketed as white meat. At the present time it appears that consumers are generally aware only that they are buying white or light meat in either a solid pack or as chunk, flakes, or grated packs. The pack designations other than solid are used somewhat interchangeably — chunk and "bite size" are alike, and flakes or grated are similar. With the exception of the Boston and New York City metropolitan areas, the predominant demand is for the chunk style packs. Retailers, wholesalers, and brokers in most of the United States report sales in the ratio of 3:2, 2:1, and. 4:1 for chunk style over solid packs in the three best selling brands. In the Boston and New York City areas, 76 notably high-priced markets j the ratio of sales by types of packs is reversed. Solid pack, white meat, is by far the best seller in the ratio of from 2:1 to as high as 9:1. In many instances, it is appar- ent that the solid packs are purchased for no other reason than that it is assumed the higher the price the better the product. There is, however, a slow but steady trend away from this type of consumer purchase . Llany consumers buy certain types of packs because of habit. Hav- ing once found a product to suit their tastes, they are reluctant to change. Often, however, there is no ready explanation for consumer preferences; or if there is one, the reason is lost in antiquity. This can best be illustrated by the public preference for brown shell- ed eggs in Boston and white shelled eggs in New York. The Food and Drug Administration's consumer survey previously referred to, containing some information on this subject of consumers' familiarity with the various styles of canned tuna packs. Some of the questions asked and the replies of the Z4.II9 responses tabulated were as follows: 1. In the last two years have you used canned tuna fish in your home? Yes - 4,004 No - 115 2. 'iVhat forms of canned tuna have you bought? Solid pack ~ 2,953 Flakes 1,521 Grated 1,472 Chunks 2,373 Other forms — 47 Mixed light and dark 65O 3. Have you found any of the information on labels of canned tuna hard to understand? Yes - 205 No - 3,274 4. If you have found labels hard to understand, what state- ment on the label was not clear to you? Replies indicated that they were often confused about the meaning of the word "albacore." Mr. i//alter Richards (Richards, Walter, 1952), reports that of those interviewed in a recent survey conducted in southern California 77 "Lhree-fourths did not, knew the difference between packs by name . . . Those who always bought solid pack seemed to do so under the impres- sion that it was very superior in quality. Not one housewife showed a knowledge of the use of pack wiLh relation to recipec" This infor- mation is especially revealing where it is considered that in southern CsLlifornia^ where most of the American tuna industry is Iccated^ the local populace wouj.d normally be expected to be better informed about this product. All available data indica-;es a growing trend away from the solid pack to other styles of packs,, particularly chunk style o This trend is reflected by the sales ratios previously quoted in this section. Many consumers undoubtedly turned to the chunk style pack when they found they could get a product which would ser re most of their needs without having to pay the higher price per can for solid psckc Some effort is now bei:ig made by the tuna industry and by con- sumer groups to educate the coasumier with regard to styles of pack. A recent report made by a consumer's group rates 16 brands of canned tuna according to flavor, texture, color > etc., and also describes the grades and styles of pack^ enphasizing the wisdom of purchasing according to the use intended Institutions; restaurants, and other quantity buyers prefer the solid packSu The doimestic industry produced a No. 4 tuna can pack from 1938 through 1941.v and fromi 1949 to the present pri-itarily in the solid style pack., However^ the volume of the domestic pack in in- stitutional size cans in 19^? the year of th^ largest volume, was only one percent of the entire pack of over -57 million pounds. 0/ an estimated 6;500jOOO pounds of canned tuna (exclading tuncuika) im- ports in 1951 in institutional size containers^ 95 percent or more was solid pack» Of an estimated 2 million pounds of annual canned bonito imports in institutiona] size containers for the years 1951 and 1952, 100 percent was solid pack. Consumer Demand For Tuna Products Other Than Canned In an attempt to learn whether demand might be stimulated or markets created for tuna products other than canned tun£> inquiry was made among processors^, distributors, and retailers of canned tunao In ad^iltionj inquiry was also made of producers , process- ors and distributors of fresh, frozen, and cured fishery products. 78 These inquir'ies were limited to tuna, with tunalike products not be- ing considered. (Vhile many packers believe that the existing standard tuna pack is all that the housewife needs or wants, no large-scale attempt has ever been made to put up a mass produced tuna product consisting of tuna and some other food ingredient(s) which would be ready to serve by merely opening the can and heating. Several such products have been tried on a small scale in the past, but with the high cost of production (and associated high selling price) they have never been popular. One large tuna packer and another small processor are now in process of bringing out such a mass produced product. A few mem- bers of the tuna industry believe that such products may greatly ex- pand the demand for tuna, but until the success or failure of this new venture can be determined, it is difficult to predict the future of such items. The armed forces have expressed an interest in such products and , if they were to be made available in can size to fit the United States Army ration carton, there mi^t be a considerable market for them. Highly seasoned, smoked, and other specialty tuna products have been produced for many years in small volume but plant operators do not believe there is any possibility of greatly increasing their sale. Palatability tests have been conducted in the Fish and midlife Service laboratories on some of the products mentioned above. All of the products were generally acceptable but some improvement was desir- able. In the midwest some brokers and other distributors of canned tuna believe that tuna spreads could find narkets in that area. A few distributors on the West Coast are moderately optimistic to en- thusiastic over the possibilities of prepared products that the house- wife needs only to heat and serve, such as tuna aril noodles. Some hold that such products are the answer to a modem trend, that con- sumers are thus reached who might not otherwise- be buyers of the con- ventional canned tuna. Fresh and frozen tuna has been and is being sold in some areas. During a price dispute with canners in 1951j a California fishermen's union disposed of a volume of albacore in Los Angeles and San Francis- co by direct sales to consumers. Of 1,400,000 pounds sold by the union, all but about ten percent were sold fresh » This ten percent 79 was canned for the account of the union and sold mostly through its membership. The latter method of selling was reported to have met with little success. Most of the albacore sold fresh, through est- ablished retell channels, was used for home freezing or home canning. It is reported that the use for these two categories was about equal- ly divided. To add impetus to this method of marketing, the fisher- men's union prepared and distributed instructions for freezing, cook- ing, and canning the tuna. During the 1952 season the fishermen's union made no attempt to sell albacore direct to the public, since the price offered by can- nery operators was sufficiently attractive to discourage direct sales. There were isolated instances of attempts by individual fishermen to sell directly to the consumer in 1952 but withlittle or no success. However, during the 1951 season a great deal of publicity was given this subject through newspapers and radio and the public was sympa- thetic to the problems of the domestic tuna fishermen. It is not ex- pected that direct sales to consumers in the manner described above will continue regularly but they might be attempted again if the unit remuneration to the fishermen from the canneries is markedly reduced. There is also a small mari. 'SJs'se 36 '44 0.4 33 .'34 ^V '43 '42 '30 • 0.2 0 31 N3a ^A •"s D 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MO Percent canned tuna price is to canned salmon price 1/ V«lsht«d areraee wtaoleaal* prie* all packx Ixieltsllng ttmallke fiataas. 2/ VelghtaA aTen«e wbolsaale prloe all paoke. 2/ Ama anl tonalike flshaa. 120 Data trcm tal>la 12. U. 3. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE the lack of similar activities on the part of the salmon industry, also probably had a significant influence. Canned tuna has been established as a staple product in most markets during the past decade under these favorable circumstances. No longer a specialty item, canned tuna has overtaken salmon in volume and value sold in many northeastern and west- ern markets. There can be no doubt that the relatively high prices and low production of canned salmon had an important influence in bringing this about. Other factors affecting danand also were developed in this study. In table 13 data are presented showing the relationship of tuna consump- tion by income groups as found in the recent Fish and Wildlife Service consumer preference survey previously referred to. Both this table and the data developed from the "1948 food consumption surveys" conducted by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics of the C.So Department of Agriculture shown in table 14 indicate that demand is elastic with respect to percentage of housdiolds consuming canned tuna throughout most of the income range covered. By "elastic denand" is meant the tendency for purchasers of canned tuna to increase rapidly with increases in family income. That is to say, in general, there are substantial in- creases in the number of households consuming canned tuna as income moves upward. The tabulation for the Fish and Wildlife Service consumer prefer- ence survey has a breakdown by regions — Northeast, North Central, South, and West. The boundaries of these regions are the same as shown in figures 3 and 9. The general pattern for each of the four regions was that of positive income elasticity. The South, throughout all inccme brackets, had a lower percentage of tuna consumers than the other regions. This situation in the South has been previously referred to. The Northeast and West showed the highest percentages of users. The survey indicates that as inccme increases, particularly in the lower brackets, canned tuna consumption will be expanded by bringing new con- sumers into the market. While positive elasticity in the percentage of users may be noted, it should also be observed in table 14 that there is a tendency for the amount of canned tuna consumed to level off and become relatively stable in the hi^er income brackets. That table shows that as incone increased in these brackets the quantity of tuna consumed per family varied only slightly. This toidency is a limiting factor on the over-all elasticity of demand for canned t\ina. It is the influence of the physiological in that the human stomach will take just so much of a product. The income of consumers could be increased infinitely, or the price of canned tuna could be reduced tremendously, but there is a fixed limit to the amount of canned tuna which will be bought and consumed, 92 TABLE 13. - PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS IN VARIOUS INCOME GROUPS THAT USED CANNED TUNA DURING THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR PRECEDING OCTOBER, 1951,, BY REGIONS 1/ AND FOR THE UNITED STATES NORTHEAST NORTH CiNTRAL SOUTH WEST UNITED STATES total total total total total INCOME , house- pei^ house- per- house- per- house- per- house- per GKOUP holds cent holds cent holds cent holds cent Itdlds pent Ln group usl^ng in group using in group using in grouo using in group using Under $1000 3 100.0 16 12.5 72 8.3 7 28.6 98 12.i' $1000-11249 6 33.3 11 27.3 20 20.0 6 16.6 43 22.7 • $1250-«1499 14 35.7 15 46.7 39 20.5 7 28.5 75 29.3 $1500-11999 23 47.8 10 20.0 28 17.9 10 50. Q 71 31.9 $2000-$2499 51 37.3 35 31.4 51 25.5 23 52.2 160 34.4 $250O-$2999 91 63.7 82 34.1 73 23.1 36 75.0 287 45.3 $3000-13999 139 63.3 142 47.9 67 34.3 32 50.0 380 51.3 $4000-$4999 78 61.5 75 53.3 40 37.5 23 82.6 216 56.7 $5000-$!7499 41 70.7 47 63.8 29 44.8' 14 71.4 131 62.1 $7500— Over 27 74.1 17 58.8 12 58.3 9 66.6 65 66.1 Income not given Total households 212 57.5 282 31.6 298 25.5 155 56.8 947 39.6 in survey 685 60.0 732 29.6 724 25.1 322 58,4 2472 42-5 1/ For boundaries of regions see figures 3 and 9. 93 TABLE 1U« - Consumption of canned vana by city families in tne U. S,j, 19^8 Survey and family income class (dollars) Households Quantity consumed per house- hold in a week Quantity per houses- hold using any during week Households using dur- ing 1 week Natior,^ Urban Sxirvey Spring, 19U8 All classes o o . « o „ . « o . o « , . . . Und.er 1,000.... oo...,,.,. l„000-=l,999...o... 2oOOO-2^999o...... ....... 3,000-3*999..... ......... 1^5000-l;5999o. ............ 5.000-7,U99.o....o..o..., 7j,500 and over. . . .. . . . .. . No t classified. . o., ,,<,.. . Birmingham^ Ifinter, 19U8 All clases .. ....... ........ 0--999o..,,..... ......... 0 loOOO^l, 999.0............ 2.000-2, 999.... .......... 3oOOO.-35999o,,,..,..,.... UjOOO and over Not classified. . .......... Buffalo.o mnterj, 19U8 All classes ................ 0^1,999.................. 2c000-2,999...........o.. 3.000 =-3*999. UpOOO-5.<,999.........»o.., 6,000 and over........... Not classified. .......... MLnneapolis-St. Paul Wlrber, 1948 All classes 0. ........ ...... 0.4,,999. ........... o...., 2oOOO-2s999.........".... 3oOOO-3o999... ....... U,000>-.5p999........o..... 6„000 and over.. ...... ... Not classified. .<,.. ..... . San FranciscOp Winter, 19li8 All. classes «..........•..•< 0".lj999............. 2o000"-2.999 3^000-3,999.... U,000-5,999.. ...... ...... 6j,000 and over Not classified. . ......... Number 1,558 53 20U IllO 351 167 I5ii 72 lli7 267 19 51 83 53 UU 17 258 23 9S 76 Ui 7 13 253 25 65 68 ^9 26 10 288 18 62 86 58 32 32 Pounds 0„082 .Oli7 .036 .059 ,081; .13U .106 .106 .120 0O3O 0 .025 .023 0O6I .039 .170 .036 .170 .159 .210 ,063 .391 .119 .030 .090 .157 .137 .137 .123 .126 .051 .088 .123 .206 .137 «093 Pounds 0.516 .U15 .U95 .U8U .li98 .558 .56U .lilS .570 0 .iiU9 .630 .381; .1;59 .li25 .5i;l .Uio .557 .525 .1;85 .1;1;0 .726 .512 .750 .l;5l .593 .507 .lii;5 ol;iO .1;77 .U55 .Ii53 .l;6l .520 .1;86 .1;27 Percent 15.9 11.3 7.U 12.2 16.8 21;. 0 18,8 23.6 21,1 6.7 0 3.9 6.0 13.2 9.1 0 31oli 8.7 30 30 U3 11; 53 23.3 h.O 20.0 26.5 27.1 30.8 30.0 26.1; 11.1 19.1; 26.7 39.7 28.1 21.9 SOU Iir£. U ,S, Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics 9k The fact that increased income leads to greater use of canned tuna^ and the fact that consumer incomes on the average have been relatively higher in the post-World War II years must account for some of the increased demand for canned tuna„ In addition J, the influence of advertising should not be discoantede There have been mudi greater expenditures for direct advertising by the tuna processing industry in recent years „ Estimates of their direct advertising expenditures are shovnri in table 15 » Advertising and sales pro- motion can help to shift the intensity of demand upward ty influencing the tastes of consumers o An increase in consumption can be gained by in- troducing new consumers to canned tuna and raising the per capita consump- tion of present consumers. The latter is now being attempted by promoting dishes which lift tuna frcm the strictly salad or sandwich category,, How- ever» because of the many competitive foods on the market it would appear that gaining new consumers might be more fruitful. Through advertising the intensity of demand for canned tuna might be further increased by changing slightly the food habits of consumers not now using canned tuna. Analysis of Canned Tuna Consumption Trend As has been indicated, there are many factors affecting the demand for canned tuna. To attempt to analyze all would have been a time-con- suming and never-ending job. Yet, it is desired to make some judgment as to the marketing trend on a quantity basis. In this connectiai one further analysis is presented. Figure 11 shows the trend in consumption of canned tuna over the past 24 years ^ based on an average calculation which excludes the influence of the war years 1942-1945 « These years were excluded because a great part of the larger boats in the fleet had been commandeered for war use by the armed forces. The actual apparent coasump- tion data graphed in figure 11 are also shown in table 6„ Affecting the trend v*iich is shown on the chart are all the factors involved in the demand for canned tuna with no one of them specifically isolated. This trend indicates that in I960 apparent consumption of canned tuna will amount to 292 million pounds. Taking 19o5 pounds as a conversion factor to standard cases this would amount to about 15 million standard cases as compared with slightly over 11 million standard cases in 1952, That is to say, if the same factors which have been at work in the past continue to operate in the future the estimate of 15 million standard cases should be valid. Consumption of canned tuna can be expected to increase. It is inter- esting to note that on the basis of the estinated increase in oar population canned tuna consvunption may be expected to expand by about 10 percent from 95 TABLE 15 . - ESTIMATED DIRECT ADVERTISING ^/EXPENDITURES OF THE TUNA PROCESSING INDUSTRY, 1946-52, YEAR DIRECT AD- VERTISING EXPEfffilTURES VALUE OF .. PRODUCTION dollars dollars 1946 682,409 59,136,823 1947 787,937 90,609,175 1948 1,039,738 n?, 612 ,296 1949 1,522,101 97,710,325 1950 3,082,798 112,830,094 1951 3,233,097 99,046,206 1952 3,660,000 113,000,833 % DIRECT AD- VERTISING IS OF VALUE OF PRODUCTION percent 1.2 o9 1.4 1.6 2.7 3.3 3.3 TOTAL 14.008.080 684.945.752 2a_ 1/ Does not include advertising by local distributors for which ^llowarices are made by processors, or any other type of advertising expenditure which may be made for products of the tuna industry. 96 Figure CANNED TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES : APPARENT SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES, MILLIONS 1929-1941 AND 1946- 1952 , WITH ESTIMATE R3R I960 OF POUNDS 300 250 200 100 1930 32 34 36 38 1940 46 48 1950 52 54 56 58 I960 Data from tablo 6 U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 97 1952-1960. This expectation assumes that consumption will continue at the same per capita level as in 1952, which was 1^ pounds per person. As compared to the 10 percent expension in consumption which can be expected solely on the basis of increased population, the estimated increase shown in figure 11, is much larger, amounting to 36 percent. Factors other than the increase of population are ex- pected to have a bearing on the I960 volume of consumption. It is believed that the price relationship of canned tuna to canned sal- mon will be a very important influencing factor with respect to the I960 estimate. The salmon runs are not expected to decline to the extent they have in the past decade, and are more likely to increase. However, the supply of canned salmon is not expected to exceed 6 million standard cases in any one year in this decade under favorable conditions and will average somewhat less. This compares with an average pack of 6,968,280 standard cases from 1931 to 1941. Also, high labor and material costs are unlikely to decline, and these rigid costs together with a limited supply will keep canned salmon prices fixsm dropping very far. Even if the canned salmon industry launches a promotion campaign it is unlikely that it can regain all of the market that has been lost to canned tuna. In addition to being influenced by the competitive situation with canned salmon the estimate graphed also assumes that national income will continue along present trends with employment at high levels. Greater promotional ex- penditures by the tuna industry and additional favorable circumstances can increase consumption to an even higher estimate. On the other hand unfavorable economic conditions such as decreased national income and unemployment would probably result in lower consumption. OUTLOOK FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF CANNED TUNA AND OTHER TUNA PRODUCTS - IN 19^3 - BEYOND 1953 Canned Tuna Canned tuna has become a staple article of diet for certain purposes in certain areas, at least. As a base for salads, canned tuna of the usual oil pack and more recently in the brine pack, has been commonly and increa- ingly used for some time, over most of the country. The major increases doubtless occurred at times when canned salmon became scarce. Possibly the complete absence of canned crab meat from Japan during World War II was also a factor in this increase. The other staple use is in sandwiches, which may themselves be made of tuna salad or of a tuna "spread". Many sandwiches are sold at lunch counters ajid other establishments serving light meals, 98 As a staple protein base for hot dishes, tuna has not attained any- great volume as yet. It is in the capture of a portion of this field that some further gains in per capita consumption may be made for the ex- tent of use in salads and sandwiches is probably near its maximum unless eating habits shift further toward utilizing more of these forms of food. It has also been pointed out that niral areas such as the southern and north central sections of the camtrj'- consume much smaller amounts of canned tuna than urban areas. In spite of the difficulties involved in attanpting to expand this market, the potentialities of its expansion are significant o With some effort on the part of the various segnents of the industry concerned it is likely that more canned tuna could be sold in those areas in the fliture. In a previous section it was indicated that there was little consump- tion of canned tuna in the very low income brackets, the hi^est use being in the middle and upper income households. Apparently an expansion of volume could be accomplished if it were possible to lower the price of the product. This has already occurred to some extent (see retail prices in chap- ter Vn) , Even if prices could be lowered fUrther it is probably true that a considerable portion of the low-income groups would be difficult to reach by most major types of promotion so that the development of this market might be difficult and costly. However, the fact that low -income households use relatively small amounts of canned tuna points toward a means of disposal of the supply of canned tuna, should it become much greater than it has been. Probably there are better prospects of doing this through national efforts to raise the level of income of low- in come households rather than through further sizable reductions in the prices of canned tuna, A large number of variable factors will affect the future consumption of canned tuna. Some of these are mentioned below. However, other un- suspected influences may be at work or may come into operation later, as is often found in studies of economic activities. In general, it may be said that canned tuna is a popular food in the United States and its popularity appears to be increasing, Althou^ canned tunalike products, bonito and yellowtail, are not as popular with household consumers their use is increasing. Institutional users are purchasing these items more and more. The recent increases in per capita consumption point to the possibility of some flirther increases in consumption, if any appreciable effort is exerted to attain it. As to the immediate future, the year 1953, the probabilities point to an increase over 1952. This forecast 99 is based primarily on the volume of canned tuna now available from the 1952 pack, nornal results of fishing by the domestic fleet, and the continuance of imports of frozen tuna and canned tuna and bonito at a substantial level. It is presumed that determined and intelligeit efforts vdll be made to step>- up the distribution of tuna. If the new pack from domestically-caught tuna is substantially lower in volume than in 1952^ the total available domestic supplies for the entire year 1953 will not be sufficient to provide the vol- ume that could be absorbed by an expanding market. Whatever nay happen to domestic production of raw stock, we assume that supplies from other parts of the worlds either canned abroad or canned in the United States from raw or other stock produced abroad, will increase the total supply to an amount ample for the needs of the domestic market. That is, we assume that the total quantity made available will meet any reasonable forecast of demand in the next few years and that the price will be low enough so that it will be absorbed by the market. In other vords, although no more tuna can be consumed than that vAiich is supplied, the in- terest and capacity of the consumer probably will be the limiting factor /than the domestic production supplemaited by supplies from abroad. Foods Competing With Canned Tuna The supplies of competing foods, particiilarly protein foods, are important factors affecting the consumption of canned tuna. Among these protein foods are meats, poultry, cheese, eggs, and types of canned fish other than tuna. Of these it may be said that the per capita volume of meat available for consumption is unlikely to greatly exceed that of 1952. Cattle numbers are extraordinarily high, but pork production in 1953 is likelj'' to be at a lower level than in the previous year. The production of poultry meat as a specialized industry has been growing rapidly and it seems probable that production in this field will continue at a high level. Production of eggs per capita reached a high point in 1952 and is not likely to greatly exceed recent levels. The per capita production of dairy pro- ducts, on the contrary, has been declining and seems likely to decrease for the next few years at least. As to canned fish, the production of canned salmon, the major competitor of canned tuna, does not seem likelj^ to increase greatly for the next few years. The sardine industry is so variable in its production that little that is significant can be said about the prospects. Maine sardine production should average below that of 1952 in the next few years. It is po.>_ible that the development of anchovies as sardines may increase the supply from 100 the Pacific coast o It is also probable that the California sardine, or pilchard J viH stage some come-back. However, it seems unlikely that the pilchard will approach its previous peak in the foreseeable future. It does not seem probable that the pack of canned mackerel or of Pacific and jack mackerel will be increas«d very greatly nor that these products will prove a substitute for or competitor of canned tuna in the near future. In addition to an increased level of constimption of canned tuna in 1953 it is considered quite likely that successive increases in following years will occur to the I960 level of consumption m«itioned in the previous section. Background of Demand for Canned Tuna Consumer income is a major factor in the consumption of food, as is true of consumer goods in gaieral. The income of consumers tends to vaiy with the volume of business activity. Wage earners' income, v*iile it is dependent on rate of pay, hours worked, and the volume of employment, varies with economic activity rather dii^ctly. When economic activity is on a hi^ plane, employment is at a hi^ level, as is true at present, when the number employed is at a maximum and the volume of unemployment is at a minimumo PuH employment brings high consumer income and increased purchasing power. When the purchasing power of consumers is large, the prospect for maintaining or increasing the consumption of a given food is facilitated. When cDnsumer income and the consequent expenditures decline, the compet-ition between foods is enhanced. It seems unlikely that economic activity will continue at its present level indefinitely. In fact, many economists believe it will decline during 1953, The prospects for food production, however, are favorable. Consequent- ly, it is anticipated that there wUl be increased competition between foods. In this competition, canned tuna is rather favorably situated because of its relatively low price as compared with many other protein foods. However, it is not as staple an article of diet as a number of other conmodities in this class and it is a relatively recent addition to the diet of many con- sumers „ The development of specialty packs, such as smoked or spiced tuna, has made little progress in the United States, It does not seem likely that these packs will reach significant volume in relation to standard types of canned tuna. 101 Fresh and Frozen Tuna Consumption of fresh and frozen tuna seems to be increasing somevdiat. In recait years j fresh tuna has been marketed along the northern Atlantic seaboard during the season in which turn v;as being caught in waters off New Jersey, New York, and New England, There is also sane marketing of frozen tuna out of season. The tuna marketed at retail seems to have been chiefly bluefin and little tuna and one species seems to have substituted for the other, according to whidi was being cau^t most in the area or in the particular year or portion of the season. The danand seens to have ccme largely from consumers vrtiose family or national background included a practice of using fresh tuna. Such consumers are largely from Mediter- ranean or Iberian countries or have their family origins in these areas. However, inquiries in New England indicated that others also cons^lraed fresh and frozen tuna. One field investigator believed ttet fresh and frozen tuna "offer good prospects for market exploitation" in New England and New York City, This trade in fresh and frozen tuna in the northeast has been so small that it has received little attention and would be difficult to measure. It is believed, however, that the volume has increased somewhat and that it could be fUrther increased if the flew of supplies were more regular and if the species was designated so that variability in the char- acter of the meat could be explained and allowed for in preparation for eating. Information on methods of cooking and canning such as that dis- tribated by a California fishermoi's union could be made available. With these aids, if promotion were xindertaken, the use of fresh and frozen tuna might be increased considerably. However, it seems unlikely that such a promotion will occur. It does seem probable, nevertheless, that this trade will, increase somewb.at since tuna are now being landed and sold. Formerly th^ ware not cau^tj or vdien cau^t were discarded, used as bait, or on occasion sold to redu:;tion plants. As far as is known, tuna is not found in frozen form very generally in retail markets in the northeast, so that the season of widespread availability is short. It seems unlikely that serious attempts will be made in the near future to make frozen tuna gener- ally available for an extended season. On the west coast, the potentialities for the consumption of tuna in fresh form were indicated in the experimental distribution undertaken by a California fishermen's union in 1951o This occurred during an anergency period of declining prices for canning albacore, when the union was resist- ing the canner's reduction in the price of raw stock. These operations were conducted in central and southern California, starting in San Francisco, I 102 I and involved a considerable volume of albacore, about 1,250,000 potinds, which vfas marketed fresh in a period of a few weeks. An effort was made to have the tuna sold through retail stores at a price no greater than 25 cents a pound and that seems to have been the standard practice. Recipes for cooking and instructions for freezing and canning were distributed with the tuna. Here again there is little evidence available as to the current situation, that is, whether this distribution had a continuing effect upon sales of fresh tuna or whether there is an increasing consump- tion as time goes on. What information has been obtained is negative in character. On the west coast, and particularly in California, there are consider^ able numbers of people with backgrounds in Mediterranean countries, as well as many Mexicans and people of Mexican origin who may also trace back to Spain to some extent. In addition, there is a considerable element of Oriental origin. These national origins may have an effect on the possibil- ity of increasing the ccnsumption of fresh and frozen tuna in that area. It seems probable, in view of what is known of Oriental food preferences, that sudi consumption mi^t well eiqpa.nd among these people. Doubtless they would make a marked distinction between the various species of tuna. Prob- ably the reaction of people with origins in eastern Asia, such as those deriving from the Japanese, would be different from others, such as those springing from Philippine stock. One phase of the consumption of fresh and frozen tuna should be men- tioned, namely, the heme canning of the product. Indications turned up in our inquiries point to some use of tuna for this purpose. It was esti- mated that about half of the 1,250,000 pounds sold fresh during the union' s campaign in California in 1951 was utilized for home earning. The union also canned about 150,000 pounds for its monbers. However, little interest was shown in 1952 and it does not seem probable that the use of tuna for this purpose will reach any significant proportions , The scanty information available from experiences in the distribution of fresh tuna would indicate that, if adequately promoted, several million pounds annually could be disposed of in this manner in the United States and that the price realized could be greater than that paid for raw stocks for conwercial' canning. The prospects are, however, that no such promotion will be undertaken and that commercial canning will continue to absorb practically all production and importation of tuna in fresh and frozen form. 103 Byproducts From Tuna The production of oil and meal from tuna is distinctly a matter of disposing of byproducts incidental to the processing of the chief product of an industry. The variations in the market for byproducts are unlikely to appreciably affect the sales volume of the tuna industry as a whole or to be a principal factor in practices of the industry, because of the fact that the value of the byproducts pro diced by this industry is anall ccan- pared to the value df canned products producedo As to the fliture of markets for these products, it may be said briefly that the market for fish meal is e^qsected to continue strong in 1953 and for several years thereafter. Fish meal has a peculiar adaptability to certain phases of the production of poultry and hatching eggs and to the production of swine. At present a small percentage of fish meal in feeds used in these industries is almost indispensable ^ The probability of the development of a substitute for the presently unknown nutrition factor in fish meal cannot be assessed accurately. This possibility, moreover, poses the chief reservation as to the future price scale and absorptive capacity of markets. It will probably be a matter of twD years at a mini- mum before the factor can be identified and there exists the possibility that this will never be accomplished. Sol\d.ng the problems of locating or synthesizing a substitute and its development conmercially would consume additional time. Moreover, if the factor is isolated, it m^y nevertheless prove most efficient to obtain it by feeding fish meal. The importation of fish meal, vdiich in 1952 was at about the same level as cur domestic productionp may also affect the market for fish meal. At the moment, however, it is not thought that this volume will increase rapidly enough to seriously affect the market for domestic fish meal. This is not to say that the increases have not been phenomenal, from less than 10,000 tons in 1947 to nearly 130,000 in 1951, and over 200,000 tons in 1952.5a A continuation of this rate of increase seems unlikely, and prices have so far not reacted unfavorably to supplies of this volume. On the demand side, it should be mentioned that there has recently been a decline in the numbers of poultry and in the numbers of swine. However, the year-to-year fluctuations in the numbers of the types of animals that are oridinarily fed fish meal in their rations are not expected to be wide enou^ to make for marked changes in demand. A factor which should be mentioned is the increasing reliance on poultry meat derived from specialized feeding operaticns rather than from enterprises devoted primarily 5/ Imports of some fish solubles may be incLudsd in these figures, 104 to the production of sggs„ This development tends to increase the proportion of growing chicks and laying hens vrfiich are fed rations containing fish mealo The market for fish oils is currently in the doldrums and there is no in- dication that the situation will change greatly in the next few years. The chief hopes for improv^ient in the market for fish oils seem to lie in the devel- opment of specialized uses and in the use of fish oils in feeds for various types of farm animals o Extensive use of fish oils in feeds hinges on the success of currant and future research. No immediate prospeds of successful substitution is in evidence o Further research may develop not only special uses for fish oils, imt special uses for individual types of fish oils or for certain fractions or components of these oils. Here, again^, no immediate prospects of success are observable « In the jneantime, certain unfavorable factors in the market situation are at work^ and these^, for the :jao8t part, affect the markets for inedible fats and oils rather generallyo A major unfavorable factor is the development of what are called synthetic detergents, which have markedly decreased the demand for fats and oils for the manufacture of soaps. Another negative factor in demand is the increasing use of "rubber" bases or latex bases in paints, which has de- creased the demand for oils in the industry. The domestic market for fish livers has been weakening for several years, A major factor in the sit^.ation is the use of synthetic -vitamins, the declin- ing cost of which has been accompanied by increasing production and widespread substitution for vitamin-bearing fish-liver oils. Moreover^ fish livers and fish-liver oils from other countries have been available in large volume and at low prices. Under the circumstances, vriiich do not seem likely to change significantly for the better, the livers and viscera of tunas do not seem likely to provide an iiic«ntive to further tiina production or to provide alternative income for processors. The value of these particular byproducts and others is a minor factor in the operations of the industry when compared with its canned products „ 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous o 19U9o Consumption of Food in the United States, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics Miscellaneous Publication 69I0 Anonymous , 1952, Tuna Imports, U. S. Senate, Eighty-second Congress, Committee on Finance Hearings on House Resolution 5693. Anonymous , 1952, Yearbook of Food and Agricultural Statistics - 1951. U, N. Food and Agricultxire Organization, Rome. Anonymous „ 1953 o Tuna Fish, U. S. Tariff Commission Report on Investigation Conducted Pursuant to a Resolution by the Committee on Finance of the U. S. Senate, June 26, 1952 o March. Richards, Walter, Surveys. 1952. Tuna Market / Pan American Fishennan, Vol. 1, no. 2, September , Sherr, Harry, 19li8o National Food Situation, Supply and Distribution of Fishery Products in the Continental United States, I93O-U7. U, S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. July-September. Stolting, Walter H, and Garfield, Morton J. 1952. Fish and Shellfish Preferences of Household Consumers ■ 1951, Part I - National Summary. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet U07. Stolting, Walter H, and Garfield, Morton J, 1952, Fish and Shellfish Preferences of Household Consumers • 1951, Part II - Regional Summary. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service PLshery Leaflet U08. 106 CHAPTER HI — MDRLD PRODUCTION Abstract tunar. comprise a renewable biological resource not limited to co^ftinental shelves and unknown in potential production, Although much work has been done to discover tuna grounds and to develop methods of capture and use, the elementary biological features of the tunas are only beginning to be understood. occurrence of tuna in commercial quantities has been correlated with cur- rent patterns in warmer seas„ ufwellings of deep water provide nutrients favorable to the growth of plai*kton necessary as food for tunas or other animals eaten by tunas. The PRINCIPAL AREAS NOW BEING FISHED ARE THE PACIFIC OCEAN NEAR THE COASTS OF Asia and North and South America, and the Atlantic and Mediterranean waters OFF southern and WESTERN EUROPE. In SOME PARTS OF THE WORLD (PERU, ANGOLA, THE EAST COAST OF AUSTRALIA, THE NORWEGIAN Sea, and Northeast United States) development of tuna fisheries has begun, and substantial product loig has been achieved in some instances. Unexplored areas favorable for the existence of commercial quantities of tuna appear to be in ( i ) the equatorial circulation of the atlantic and indian Oceans, (2) the northeastern Pacific gyral, (3) the current flowing northward off WESTERN Australia, and (4) the Gulf Stream where it meets the coastal wati^rs alons North America. It is thought that landings can be maintained in heavily exploited areas AND increased ON A WORLD-WIDE BASIS. The United States catch could be greatly increaoEd qy adoptins methods for TAKING subsurface STOCKS NOT NOW EXPLOITED, AND BY FISHING NEW AREAS IN THE mid=Pacific„ In pre=World War 1 1 yei^s the world's tuna industry was confined mainly to the seas arou^d japan, the ik.ed i terranean and adjacent atlantic ocean, and the Pacific Ocean off Central America. Japan, the United States, and Turkey together caught 88 percent of the entire PRODUCT] on. Since the war, the increased demand for canned tuna in the United States A^D Italy has stimulated world interest in the tuna fisheries. Operations have been expanded and new industries have been developed, prin- cipally OFF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COAST OF THE AMERICAS AND OFF WESTERN AND NORTHERN Europe. The world's catch increased from 825 million pounds in i939 to over i bil- lion POUNDS IN l95l. Further expansion is expected in presently productive areas and other warm 107 REGIONS, Even where -ResocwcES (re abundant, however, the returns must be large enough to JUSTIFY the purchase OF HIGH-PRICED VESSELS AND THE INSTALLATION OF REFRIGERATION AM3 canning facilities, Because of the relatively high cost of producing tuna, continual expansion ap- ears to be largely dependent on the maintenance and enlargement of the more high-pr i ceo markets for tuna products, The UNITED STATES APPEARS TO BE THE TARGET FOR MUCH OF THE INCREASED PRODUCTION OF TUNAS CONTEMPLATED BY MANY COUNTRIES. It has just been observed that tuna consumption in the United States is in a healthy state. The outlook is relatively bright for continued increase in consumption. To determine if the demands which have been pic- tured in the previous chapter will be satisfied, staff members of the Branch of Fishery Biology and the Branch of Commercial Fisheries of the Fish and lifLldlife Service have reviewed in detail the production or catch- ing of tuna. The term "production" as used in this and the following chapter is limited to the natural resource and things concerned vdth that resource up to the time tuna are landed. Occasionally information on pro- cessing may be given but this is done only to illustrate conditions of production by indirection. Processing, a later stage of the industry will be discussed in Chapter V, BIOLOGICAL OUTLOOK FOR TUM RESOURCES!/ The tunas, as a group of fishes comprising a renewable biological re- source, differ from all the other well-known and important food fishes such as the herring, cod, haddock, halibut, salmon, and mackerel in two impor- tant respects. They are not limited to broad shallow sea areas abutting continents and their ultimate potentials for production are completely un- known. Even the elementaiy features of their biology such as spawning, life history, and migrations are only beginning to be understood. Under the circumstances, any appraisal of the long-term outlook must be very tentative and in very uiprecise terms 6/ Tunalike species are not considered in this section. 108 I Though tunas were fished in the Mediterranean and in Japan ever since prehistoric times, the large tuna fisheries of today are relative- ly recent developments o Only the home island fishery of Japan and the United States West coast fishery can be said to be well-developsdo It is not known how much these two fisheries can continue to grow beyond their present size.. In the Pacific Coast States area the landings (all species) grew from about 44,820,000 pounds in 1920 to 99,347,000 pounds in 1930, to 204,882,000 pounds in 1940, and to 389,852,000 pounds in 1950. Stric- tures on growth since 1950 seem related to marketing rather than production difficultieso If ^ai^ of "the latter have been partially effective in limit- ing growth it has been through scarcity of live bait rather than the scarc- ity of tunao NonethelesSj one cannot expect to double the catch every decade indefinitely into the future, and it is possible that this particu- lar fishery may have nearly reached its full development „ Studies under- taken by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission are directed toward examining this possibility. The tuna fishery of the Japanese home islands has grown more gradually over a longer period of time and similarly has reached a stage where further indefinite growth seems hardly likely » On the other hand during the last two decades it has become evident that these two great tuna fishing areas are not the only sites of large tuna resources. Prewar and postwar Japanese fishing expeditions in the north Pacific convergence for albacore and in the equatorial countercurrent region for yellowfin tuna have opened up resources in the western half of the Pacific the potentials of which are not yet realized. For the eastern half of the Pacific it appears that the equatorial region offers even bet- ter possibilities and it can only be guessed that the eastern north Pacific gyral may harbor albacore stocks similar to those farther west in the north Pacific convergence. The Japanese, in prewar years, had also penetrated the waters among the large island masses of southeast Asia with tuna fishing expeditions and are now resuming their activities in this direction. Their results suggest existence of large tuna stocks from the Solomons Island area on the east to the Indonesian archipelago on the west. In the meantime development of still other tuna fisheries has begun in continental-adjacent seas in other parts of the world. These activi- ties are al.ong the west coast of South America (Peru), the west coast of Africa (Angola), the east coast of Australia, in the Norwegian Sea, and off northeast United States. In some instances these developments are in a tentative trial stage, in others substantial production has alrondy been achieved^ Some of the areas may prove to have only nominal possibilities, lOV but others conceivably might support fisheries rivaling those of the Japanese islands or those of the American west coast. There are in addition vast sea areas as yet totally unexplored for tuna possibilities., Our imperfect but growing stock of knowl- edge concerning the oceans and the tunas suggest that concentrations of these fish occur in regions marked by fairly definite types of oceaji circulationo The essential features seem to be the propaga- tion or the accumulation of planktonic organisms in unusual concen- trations affording food directly to the tunas or to the small fishes, squids and other marine animals which in turn are fodder for the tunas o The apparently effective types of circulation are: mass ujd- wellings off continental edges generated by certain prevailing wind systems i, interfaces between major ocean water masses of contrasting hydrographic properties, divergence-convergence combinations related to wind systems J and other oceanic situations causing convergence if on sufficient scale. It is probable that the concentrations of tuna are roughly proportional to the intensity and stability of these cir- culation systems but also modified by particular biological require- ments of the fish themselves. Since many of the regions with the above listed types of circulation have not been assayed as to in- tensity and there is little precise knowledge on the biological re- quirements of tuna^, their effectiveness in supporting large tuna resources cannot be predicted. Nonetheless, study of current chsirts of the oceans is impres- sive for the number of totally unexplored situations which seem to fill at least some of the requirements for supporting large tuna populations. For instance the equatorial circulation of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans may be expected to have a divergence-convergence system similar to that of the Pacific which has already proved ef- fective in supporting a considerable tuna population. In the Atlan- tic and Indian Oceans, however, the systems are geographically short- er from east to west and the accumulated effect of winds with long fetch may therefore be less pronounced. Also with reversing monsoons in the Indian Ocean there may be seasonal interruptions which may destroy the integrity of the system periodically. The huge gyral in the northeastern Pacific may constitute an even more effective convergence than the more linear one stretching across the western north Pacific Ocean. The north flowing current at certain seasons along the west coast of Australia bears similarities to those off the west coasts of SoiTth America and Africa which 'haVe aTiready proved to harbor tuna populations of note. Even the interface of 110 of the Gulf Stream and the coastal waters of our north Atlantic shores may eventually prove to be akin to the impingement on adjacent waters of the Kuroshio of Japan in supporting tuna, though it seems that the magnitude of the stock must be modest to have escaped notice so faro Not only do there appear to be unexplored opportunities for tuna production in the geographic sense , but also in the sense of neglect- ed specieSj life history phases^, and aggregational phases. Thescjtoo, involve the geography of distribution^, but knowledge of the habits of the fish in relation to catching techniques in some instances and market acceptance in others are the principal problems. This field of consideration ramifies so extensively that it can only be touched upon here. On the west coast of North and Central America four species com- prise practically the entire United States catch: yellowfin, skipjack, albacore, and bluefino Yet there are two others in the area which are common and if commercially sought might yield surprisingly large catches. They are the "little tunny" (Euthynnus lineata) and the big -eyed tuna ^arathunnus sibj). The fonner is generally of smaller size than desir- able and very dark fleshed; the latter is larger sized than desirable and similarly dark fleshed but not as extremely so. These could be drawn upon eventually if a very great enlargement in demand should far outstrip the supply of the presently more desirable species. The three species which form the mainstay of present supply, yellowfin, skipjack, and albacore, are fished during only that segment of their life histories which might be termed late youth and early adulthoodo The main bulk of the adults almost completely eludes cap- ture in the American fishery. In part, this miay be attributed to the fishing methods which are effective only fcr surface swimming fisho In part it is due to our ignorance as to where the major part of their adult life is spent. With increased knowledge of the age-connected habits of these fishes and employment of appropriate gear, new gains in catch might be drawn from the older components of the stocks al- ready fished in their younger phases. In summary, biological considerations suggest that the outlook is favorable for sustaining the present tuna yield and perhaps increas- ing it manifold on a world-wide basis. The avenues of expansion for our present largely developed fishery on the West Coast probably are not most promising along continued growth in directions pursued in the past, but in tapping new stocks » Geographically the most available would be the eastern portion of the proved yellowfin stocks of the trans-Pacific equatorial zone and the hypothecated albacore stock of 111 the eastern north Pacific gyral. Among methods of fishing not yet used the technically most available is the long line method so far utilized extensively only in the fisheries of Japan.. This method may not only be necessary to the tapping of the geographically dif- ferent stocks but it may also prove to be the means of drawing upon the adult phases of the presently utilized stocks o At the present time there seems to be no biological obstacle to continued increase in American tuna production^ In fact the biological outlook in other parts of the world are so favorable that foreign competition is quite likely to intensify as other countries develop additional tuna resouix:es wdiile looking to the existing American market to ab- sorb their prod uc to PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES For centuries tuna has been consumed fresh j smoked j or dried and salted in the Orient and in various western European and Mediter- ranean countries^ During the past 50 years, howeverj the develop- ment of canned tuna products and the improvement of fishing vessels, gear, and techniques have profoundly changed the pattern of produc- tion and consumption in the world's tuna fisherieSo V/ith the crea- tion of a strong demand for canned tuna, principally in the United States and in Italy, tuna and tunalike fishes have become one of the world's most important items in fish trade. Although the species of tuna and closely allied forms are numer- ous, not all species have been taken in large commercial quantities. The skipjack is the most abundant, supplying approximately 40 percent of world tuna landings o The yellow fin tuna is second in importance; world landings have been about 20 percent of the total, Albacore landings are about half those of yellowfin tuna. Of the remaining tuna species the most important are the blue fin of the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and the eastern Pacific and the black or oriental tuna (Thunnus orientalis) of Japanese waters. Presently, Japan is the only country fishing for the big-eyed tunaj other species of big- eyed tuna are kno'«i to exist in other parts of the world and undoubt- edly they will be taken commercially as new tuna fisheries are dev- eloped. In recent years the little tuna (Euthynnus sp.) has been taken in larger but not yet commercially important amounts. Closely allied to the tunas are the tunalike bonitos (Sarda spo): in certain countries (Turkey, Peru) they are the most important of the tuna and tunalike species taken, 112 Although the tuna and tunalike fishes are world-wide in distribu- tion and occur abundantly in most tropical and temperate waters, the major areas of production before World War II were centered in: 1) The eastern Pacific from California to Ecuador, 2) the coastal and nearby offshore waters along the Japanese islands, 3) the eastern Atlantic off Portugal, Spain, and France, and 4) the Mediterranean area, particu- larly near Sicily and North Africa and in the vicinity of the Dardan- elles.. The opening of a large tuna market in the United States during the 1930 's stimulated much exploration and development in various parts of the world and new fishing grounds came into prominence o Among the foremost developments before World War II were the Japanese discoveries of albacore grounds in the mid-Pacific and yellowfin tuna grounds in the southwest Pacific « In 1939 over 825 million pounds of tuna and tunalike fishes were landed^ almost half of this amount was taken by Japanese fishermeno Next in importance were the landings by the United States tuna fleet, accounting for 22 percent of the world's totalo Turkish landings, principally bonitOj were estimated to be about l6 percent of the world total during the 1930' So Western European countries (France, Spain, and Portugal) were fourth in importance with landings amounting to slightly over 8 percent of the world's tuna catcho The remainder of the landings were iiBde by numerous other countries which caught tuna incidentally cr commercially in small amounts to supply foreign markets or local processing industries o A major change in the world pattern of tuna production occurred during and after World War II » The need for animal protein food dur- ing the war and the interest shown by Latin American countries in dev- eloping their tuna and bonito fisheries were mainly responsible for increased landings in Peru and Chile » Japan, which doninated the ex- port of canned and frozen tuna to the United States before World V^ar II, has recently increased this trade and is now extensively fishing the albacore and yellowfin tuna grounds that were partially exploited before the waro It is now able to supply both home and foreign markets almost at willo In 1951 world tuna production increased to over 1 billion pounds, Japan again being the leading producer with approximatelj' 36 percent of world landings o The United States had a larger share of the world landings than in 1939, its fleet supplying about 32 percent of the world's totalo Peru has shown the most striking Increase in landings— from 0o2 percent in 1939 to nearly 13 percent of the world'p supply in 113 1951o Increased landings by western European countries, amounting to 11 ol percent of the world catch; have enabled them to supply the large Italian market for canned tuna, Turkey was ailso an important producer (3«4 percent), but actual landings have declined to approxi- mately one-fourth of the prewar landings « Norwegian landings of tuna have increased from an insignificant eumount to slightly over one per- cent of the world totals Although many other countries have shown an interest in producing tuna (primarily for export to the United States), their tuna fisheries have not been expanded. In table 16, landings of tuna and tunalike fishes are given for those countries for which data are available. These data are illustrated graphically in figures 12 and 13, It is believed that the total landing figures approximate the actual total world landings^, since those countries omitted conduct exceedingly small tuna fisheries, if any at all. Gradual expansion of the tuna fisheries appears probable by those countries which are now the largest producers and by other countries located near extensive but little utilized tuna resources. The main obstacle to development in countries without progressive modern fishing industries is lack of capital for building vessels needed for high-seas operations and for establishing shore-based fac- ilities to can or freeze the catch. For some countries tuna has be- come too high priced for local consuiaption, mainly because operating costs for high-seas vessels are high. Therefore, a large part of the world's increased production has been channeled into the more favorably priced United States market. Significantly, as Japanese production costs and exports have increased, the price of tuna on the local market has risen and consumption has dropped. The United States undoubtedly is the target for much of the increased produc- tion of tanas contemplated by many countries, Peru, with large quantities of bonito available in its coastal waters, can be expected to increase production of this species even though its fishing fleet is primarily composed of comparatively small vessels, Chile and Ecuador are capable of increasing their tuna land- ings, but lack experience and capital. Along the east coast of South America tuna and tunalike fishes are now taken in small amounts. Dev- elopment awodts exploratory fishing to determine the size and avail- ability of the stocks in offshore waters. Furthermore, countries such as Venezuela and Brazil would be faced with the problem of marketing comparatively high priced tuna locally (in competition with salted cod) or developing export markets, 114 TABTK 16 0 -LANDINGS OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES BY AREA AND COUNTRY, 1939 AND 1951, EXCEPT AS NOTED Area &nd country 193S » 1951 Pounds Percent Pounds Percent Western Pacific Japan Formosa Total 411,095,790 14,764,680(1936) 425,860,470 49.8 I08 51.^ 362,989,305 15,121,890 (1948) 378,111,195 35o6 1«5 37»1 North America United States Mexico Canada Cuba 1/ Total 182,604,870 3,466,000(1940) 1,265,670 85,000(1940) 187,421.540 22.1 0.4 0,2 (2) 22.7 1/324,105,000 1,636,000 659,400 3,000,000(1952) 329,400,400 31.8 0.2 (2) 0.3 32,3 Mediterranean Sea Turkeyl/ Italy Ubya Tunisia Algeria 132,000,000(1938) 3,647,070 2,734,200(1936) 1,658,160(1937) 738,675(1936) 16.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 (2) 17.0 34,200,000(1945) 6,376,860 2,224,845(1948) 952,560(1950) 1,741,950(1947) 45,496,215 3.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 Total 140,778,105 4-5 ',Ve stern Europe Spain France Portugal Total 35,271,000 26,274,780(1938) 6,203,000 67,748,780 4.3 3»2 0.8 8.3 71,305,000 33,075,000 3,929,000 108,309,000 7.0 3.2 0.4 10.6 Northern Europe Norway Denmark Total 306,495 304,290 610,785 (2) 11,545,380 2,723,175 14,268,555 1.1 0.3 1.4 South America Peru Chile Total 1,293,012 1,320,795 2,613,807 0.2 0.2 0.4 131,171,040 10,295,145 141,466,185 12,8 1.0 13.8 Central America Costa Rical/ 550,000 (2) 100.0 3,400,000 1,020,451,550 0.3 Grand Total B25,5B3,U(i'/ 16O.O 1/ Estimated 2/ Less than 0.1 percent 115 CVJ 13 Ul o o > OD V> UJ X 0) z < z I- u. o o z Q z < O 0> (/^ Q Z o CL O O o o o o_ in" CVJ 00 o 2 Q Z < _J < h- o X o - (O OD Q (0 r) tlJ o X Q. (/) u. O O liJ O ^ o _J o o < o z cvi ro 3 1- o 0) o 1 3 2 CD < if) CD < r^ O I- UJ X o cc Q- CL < 117 The Indo-Pacific region has great possibilities for developing tuna fisheries comparable to those of the leading world producers. Before World 7/ar II extensive tuna resources were discovered by the Japanese in Indonesian, Indian, and Philippine waters. The people of this region now utilize only those tunas that can be caught close to shore with their simple fishing gear. Indonesia, India, and the Philippines are conscious of their offshore fishery resources and are attempting to organize the industry necessary to produce adequate airaounts of tuna for domestic consumption as well as for export. Along the east African and Arabian coasts of the Indian Ocean tunas have been caught and dried, and/or salted for local consumption or for shipment to India and Ceylon, and before World War II process- ing factories were established in Italian Soraaliland. Australia has been exploring its tuna resources, and is in the initial stages of developing an industry that will provide canned tuna for local con- sumption and for export either to the United States or to the British Isles. In other areas of the world similar increased utilization of the tuna resources is also under way. Norway, with reported landings of about 22 million pounds in 1952, is capable of building or adapt- ing shore facilities for processing canned tuna, and may be expected to increase production further. Along the west African coast, Angola appears to be a likely place for the development of large tuna fish- eries and, aided by the Portuguese, it is providing some canned tuna for the Italian market. Following are detailed discussions of the tuna fisheries in those countries for which information is available. Catch, process- ing, and export data are given where available. In addition to sources cited in the bibliography. Foreign Service despatches of the United States DepartEient of State have provided much of the information given in the balance of this section. The United States tuna fisheries are not discussed in this chapter. They will be considered in greater detail in the next chapter. Western Pacifio JAPAN Tuna has always been a staple food in the Japcinese diet, and, except for the period during and immediately after World War II, Japan has been the world's leading producer of tuna and tunalike fishes. 118. Until the advent of motorized vessels j operations were conducted mainly in coastal waters for skipjack and other tunas, such as the black tuna^ yellowfin tuna^ and the albacoreo Production increased sharply after World War I, but it was not umtil after 1925 (when Japan exported its first shipment of frozen albacore) that the in- dustry assumed a position wherein it supplied both local and foreign markets <, Although the major catch during the late 1920 «s and the dec- ade following continued to come fromi Japanese coastal and nearby off- shore waters J the fisheries were expanded to overseas areas. Important tuna grounds were developed in the mid-Pacific (near Midway Island), where albacore and the big-eyed tuna are talcen, and in the southwest Pacific, where the yellowfin tuna is the important commercial species » Japan's catch of skipjack j, other tunas, and tunalike fishes, rose from about 135,000,000 pounds in 1908 to 290,830,680 pounds in I93O0 Production, stiinulated by the increasing mechanization of ves- sels, the increased local demand for tuna, and the development of foreign markets for frozen or canned tuna, increased to A46,369sl75 pounds in 1940 » The skipjack continued to be the most important species, mainly because of the large local demand for the processed skipjack stick Katsuobushi ; the catch of skipjack during the 1930 's was between 60 percent and 70 percent of total tuna and tunalike landings o Other tuna species, such as the black tuna, the big-eyed tunac, and yellowfin were also taken in increasing amounts, mainly for local consumiption as raw tuna= Albacore, not well liked by the Japanese, was the main species taken for the export market « During World War II catches declined sharply, especially from offshore waters. Immediately after 1945, however, tuna fishing was resiimed in the coast- al and offshore waters authorized for fishing by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) o After World War II the tuna fisheries afforded Japan an oppor- tunity to accumulate foreign credits. Important salmon and crab fishing grounds were lost, but the fishing areas authorized by SCAP were capable of producing 90 percent of the annual prewar Japanese tuna catcho The postwar Japanese tuna fleet was restored rapidly, not only through the efforts of tuna operators to enter a lucrative trade but through official support by the Japanese Government and the occupation authorities » By 1947, when 1,314 tuna vessels (totaling 78,517 gross tons) were operated, the fleet was larger than that operated before the war. In 1951 the tuna fleet consisted of 1,698 vessels (totaling 103,978 gross tons), compared with 1,038 vessels (totaling 52,665 gross tons) in I94O0 Individual vessel tonnage of U9 the postwar fleet is larger, and these vessels are capable of operat- ing at greater distances in offshore waters. A new trend has been the mothership tuna expeditions that have been sent to the southwestern Pacific o The first expedition was authorized by SCAP on May 11, 1950$ nine expeditions operated in a limited area in the southwestern Pacific from June 1950 to November 1951 and produced approximately 385 500,000 pounds of tuna^ marlin, sharkj and other fisheso Two expeditions operated in 1952, catching 14,250,000 pounds of fish (about 60 percent yellowf in) . The trend toward a larger tuna fleet, using larger vessels and mothership-type operations, makes it possible for Japan to supply increasing amounts of those species (albacore and yellowfin mainly) which are the prin- cipal export products in the tuna trade. At the same time home markets can be supplied with the tunas preferred by the Japanese. The postwar rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Japanese fishing industry, as a whole, has been made possible primarily by Japanese Governnent official assistance, private bank financing and, since 1949, by the use of United States Counterpart Funds. In the fiscal year endir^ March 31 ,1951 the Japanese Government disbursed, out of United States Counterpart Funds, a total of 380,000,000 yen for the establishment of new freezing plants, cold-storage plants, and ice factories. Of this total, about 100,000,000 yen was speci- fically intended for processing fresh or frozen tuna for export. No disbursement from the Counterpart Fund was made for this purpose in the fiscal year ending March 1952. The landings of tuna and tunalike species in Japan are shown in table 17o They indicate that in 1952 the Japanese tuna fisheries were likely to exceed their pre-World War II production. The large tuna export trade developed by Japan is based mainly on species not in great demand locally, with the exception of yellow- fin. Consequently, a rasirked increase in the catch of albacore and yellowfin has taken place, as shown in table 18. Tuna was first canned in oil experimentally in Japan in 1906. Progress was slow, and an annual production of only 3,000 to 4,000 cases was attained by 1919 o No tuna was canned between 1920 and 1929 except on an experimental basis. In 1930, a cannery was estab- lished at Shimiau for the production of tuna in oil, to be exported to the United States where the decline in albacore landings created 120 TABLE 17 o - JAPAN; UNDINGS OF TUUk AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1930-1952 YEAR FROM COASTAL WATERS FROM OFFSHORE WATERS TOTAL POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1930 70,390,215 220,440,465 290,830,680 1931 67,764,060 253,019,340 320,783,400 1932 74,253,375 205,966,845 280,220,220 1933 74,191,635 235,573,380 309,765,015 1934 83,977,425 231,419,160 315,396,585 1935 99,613,080 212,087,925 311,701,005 1936 108,084,690 282,193,695 390,278,385 1937 83,794,410 286,808,760 370,603,170 1938 74,469,465 318,437,280 392,906,745 1939 107,674,560 303,421,230 411,095,790 1940 139,805,820 306,563,355 446,369,175 1941 303,743,160 1/ a) 303,743,160 1942 276,495,975 1/ (1) 276,495,975 1943 199,746,540 1/ (1) 199,746,540 1944 96,799,500 63,724,500 160,524,000 1945 50,274,000 17,860,500 68,134,500 1946 81,635,715 1/ (1) 81,635,715 1947 (2) (2) 276,432,030 1948 (2) (2) 223,745,760 1949 (2) (2) 269,331,930 1950 (2) (2) 306,-653,760 1951 (2) (2) 362,989,305 1952 3/ (2) (2) 430,038,945 1/ Catch from offshore waters included with coastal waters 2/' Not available. 2/ January to September only. TABLE 18 «~ JAPAN; LANDINGS OF SET.FCTED SPECIES OF TUNA, 1936-1940 AND 1950-1952 YEAR SKIPJACK ALBACORE YELLOWIK BLACK TUNA BIG-EYED TUNA TUNA POUiroS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1936 271,936,035 47,158,335 7,225,785 46,948,860 10,564,155 1937 282,297,330 59,254,965 7,029,549 51,993,900 25,871,265 1938 188,584,830 64,339,695 233,730 9,466,065 27,271,440 1939 218,255,310 37,637,U5 17,626,770 38,483,865 15,968,610 1940 235,121,355 40,660,200 12,579,525 44,911,440 12,004,020 1950 186,498,900 65,256,975 22,623,300 10,244,430 21,860,370 1951 229,992,525 65,997,855 27,000,225 12,998,475 27,000,225 1952 1/ 199,876,635 124,229,700 28,867,860 (2) (2) 1/ January to September only 2/ Not available. 121 a market for the Japanese product » Favorable acceptance of CcLnned white-meat tuna on the American market led to the establishment of other canneries^ and the number increased to 16 in 1932,. Three types of products were prepared; 1) white-meat tuna in oil, 2) tuna in brine, and 3) white-meat tuna seasoned (sugar and soy sauce added to albacore scraps), the latter two products primarily for local consump- tion or for export to other oriental countries. Production of canned tuna for the pre-World War II period is given in table 19. TABLE 19 o - JAPANi PRODUCTION OF CAMMED TUNA 1931-1940 YEAR PRODUCTION CASES 1931 o,,„..o.„.,..o„..o.oo.».o.oooo„ooo..o ««,,.._..,., 128,500 1932 o « o . . . , „ o , . , , „ o . « o . . o o , o . o « o « , o o o . , o o . o „ o 0 o . o , « o , o 364,799 1933 o . « . . , o o . o 0 o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o « o o o « o . o o o o o o 820,388 1934 . o ,«, o o o o ., o .. o c , o ., o „ o o .. o =. o , o , ... o ». o , .... o o o . o 396,195 1935 ........ o....,..........,.......,.....,o..o,,«oo.. 456,585 1936 o..,.,,...,.c,........o,.,,..,,o,,....o,o,..,,.,o, 438,500 1937 ..o».oo...ooo..=o...,.=..o,.„.,„..oooo..oo.oo.,.., 712,112 1938 .,. o .«,,. o » o .... o ,.,»«,. o .,,. o o o „„ o ..... o ,.,.. o o . , 807,924 1939 .................................................. 851,442 1940 ..... o ......... o o ....... o ........ 0 . o o .. o o o o o . o ... o 967 >056 NOTE? Cases consist of 48 460-grara cans or 96 235-gram cansT Nearly 80 percent of the approximately 6,000,000 cases of canned tuna prepared from 1931 to 1940 was exported, almost two-thirds to the United States, with Canada, China, and Europe the next most important outlets. The peak of this trade was reached in 1933 when 670,004 cases (all white-meat tuna) were exported to the United States. The American tuna industry expressed concern over the possibility of the foreign product displacing American canned tuna, and the Presidential proclama- tion, effective January 13, 1934, increased the import duty on canned tuna from 30 percent to 45 percent ad valorem. The post World War II tuna canning industry produced 1,299 cases of 48 8-ounce cans in 1946 and 7,169 cases in 1947. Thereafter, produc- tion increased rapidly as new canneries were put into operation. In 1950, 61 canneries, employing 9,880 people, were engaged primarily in processing fish; production of canned tuna by these plants was 2,603,891 cases, of which 1,406,130 cases were packed in oil. At that time the United States duty on canned tuna in oil was 22-1/2 percent ad valorem. Following the reimposition, on January 1, 1951, of the 45 percent duty on canned tuna in oil imported into the United States, production declined to 1,191,300 122 cases, of which 352,000 were packed in oil. During 1951? 59 plants (with an annual production capacity of 2,2055.840 cases) were in operation, but by December 1951, only 10 canneries, em- ploying 941 people, were canning tuna. Ti'ie production of canned tuna by the Japanese for recent years is shown in table 20; TABIE 20 o- • JAPAN: PRODUCTION OF CANNED TUNA 1948-1951 V ITE2I 1948 191.9 1950 1951 . IN OIL ALBACOREo , . . o . OTHERo o o . . . o o o TOTAL o IN BRINE ALBACOREo ..... OTHER. . o «. o o o o TOTAL. CASES GASES (2) (2) (2) 121 CASES 605,358 800,772 85,632 7»470 CASES 185,000 167^500 75.670 205,047 1.406,130 352,500 255,000 148,000 CHUNKS IVITH SEASONING (SUGAR AND SOY SAUCE) ALBACORE, ........... (2) (2) OTHERo oco.o.o.... CO (2) (2) TOTAL, oooooo 19.220 139,674 64,145 134; 582 65,000 135,000 198,727 200,000 (2) (2) 2) (2) (2) 11 2) (2 482,146 403,887 19,899 905,932 147,200 J 88, 600 235,800 FUKES WITH SEASONING ALBACOREo..o=»ooo.oo SKIPJACKooo.o.o.ooo, YELLOWFIN ,..^»..... TOTALoooo.oo ,_ ___^ GRAND TOTAL. 0.^.162,694 3/626,106 2^2,603,891 1,191,300' 1/ December 1951 production estimated. Cases are 48 7-ounce cans. 2/ Not available 3/ Includes 67,804 cases of skipjack, type of pack not given, LjJ Includes 281,385 cases of skip jack, type of pack not given. In 1950, 95 percent of the 1,527,376 cases of canned tuna ex- ported by Japan were sent to the United States, the remainder mainly to Canada and Africa. In 1951, when the duty on canned tuna in oil imported into the United States rose to 45 percent ad valorem 123 Japsmese exports declined over 50 percent to 719^120 cases. Since the duty on tuna in brine was only 12-1/2 percent ad valoremji the Japanese prepared larger amounts of this product, principally for export to the United States, Exports of tuna in brine were about half the canned tuna exports = This change-over in the type of product prepared for export illustrates the versatility of the Jap- anese tuna operators. In 1952, exports increased to 1,084,080 cases, over 70 percent being birine packed. The Japanese exports of canned tuna for 1950, 1951, and 1952 are shoim in table 21: TkELE 21. -. JAPAN; EXPORTS OF CA^JNED TUNA 1950-1952 1950 1951 1952 TO THE TO OTHR TO THE UNITED COUN" UNITED STATES TRIES STATES TO OTHER TO THE COUN- UNITED TRIES STATES TO OTHER COUN- TRIES CASES CASES CASES CASES liVHITE-ilEAT TUNA IN OILoooo 00629,359 LIGHT-MEAT TUNA IN OIL, 0000 804,265 VffllTE-MEAT TUNA IN BRINE.ooo 7,693 LIGHT- MEAT TUNA IN BRINEooo. 5,084 WHITE-MEAT TUNA FUKES, SEASONED - LIGffl^MEAT TUNA FUKES, SEASONED 19,391 115,700 56,000 51,776 109,950 57,490 225,900 930 142,050 5,900 8,876 ~ 5,200 932 - - CASES 152,362 363 578,762 194,726 32,402 1.535 CASES 82,893 34,414 2,872 2,701 700 350 TOTALo 00 1,446,401 80,975 593,600 125,520 960,150 123,930 NOTE; Cases are reported on a basis of 48 7 ounce canso The export of frozen tuna to the United States, first tried on a modest basis during the late 1920 's reached sizable amounts during the following decade. Table 22 shows the pre-World War II exports of alba- core and skipjack for the years 1929-1939= After World VVar II, trade in frozen tuna was not resumed until oc- cupation authorities permitted its export in 1948. In that year 2,451,960 pounds of frozen tuna was exported, and in 1949 the amount was increased to 3,210,480 pounds. The necessary plant expansion re- quired for producing larger amounts of frozen tuna was undertaken during 1950 and 1951, assisted by United States Counterpart Funds. In 1951 j 124 TABLE 22 0 - JAPAN s EXPORT OF FROZEN TUNA, 1929-1939 YEAR ALBACCEE SKIPJACK TOTAL POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1929 7,084,665 ^ 7,084,665 1930 9,377,865 • 9,377,865 1931 7,344,855 •» 7,344,855 1932 2,548,980 - 2,548,980 1933 3,397,905 - 3,397,905 1934 4,140,990 9 4,140,990 1935 6,888,420 ~ 6,888,420 1936 5,856,480 - 5,856,480 1937 7,424,235 5,005,350 12,429,585 1938 4,507,020 4,800,285 9,307,305 1939 7,064,820 1,144.395 8,209,215 73 tuna-freezing plants were in operation, compared with 31 in 1937o In table 23 are shown the amounts of frozen tuna exported during 1950, 1951 j and 1952 o TABLE 23 o SPECIES - JAPAN; 1950 TO THE UNITED STATES EXPCBTS OF FBOZEN TUNA, 1950-1952 1951 TO CANADA TO THE urn: TED STATES TO CANADA 1952 TO THE UNITED STATES TO CANADA ALBACORE SKIPJACK YELLOyjFIN TOTAL POUNDS POUNDS 12,941,145 1,717,695 3,442,005 - 2,449,755 - POUNDS 28,945,035 3,001,005 - 1,999,935 - POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 3,053,925 37,520,000 5, 7367000 1,166,000 - 6,614^000 1,717,695 33,945.975 3,053,925 45,300,000 5,73 The Japanese Government now exercises control over tuna exports „ On September 25 1951, canned white- and light-meat tuna were placed on the list of commodities for which export licenses are required. On Decentoer 15sl951j, frozen tuna was added to the listo On April 7,1952, a quota for the export of tuna to the United States was established for the period April ls,1952 to March 31,1953o The quota covers both frozen tuna and can- ned tunao Subsequent to the establishment of the original amount of the quota ^ several increases in the amounts allocated for frozen tuna were made and one increase was made in the amount allocated for canned tuna. 125 It is reported that the Japsinese GovemnBnt will continue its policy of developing the tuna fisheries » Since the country has sur- plus trade credit with the sterling bloc and with some of the soft currency countries, the only market for high-priced tuna are believ- ed to be the United States and Canada. Even the Far Eastern coun- tries, which took sizable amounts of seasoned tuna before World War IIj, no longer import this lower priced tuna product in any quantity. The industry is continuing exploration of new tuna fish- ing areas and is planning the construction of larger size beats (300 gross tons or more) for distant offshore fishing. Experiments are continuing with raothership operations, particularly in tropi- cal waters. Future expansion of the industry, however, will depend mainly on the export trade in tuna and tuna products. FORMOSA C TAIWAN) Tuna fishing from Formosan ports has been carried on tradition- ally in the seas east of Formosa, principally for skipjack. During the Japanese control of Formosa, however, an important fishery for the black tuna was developed in the deeper waters between Formosa and the Philippine Islands, As boats became larger, operations were gradually extended to the South China, Sulu, and Celebes Seas, for yellowfin tuna primarily. During the 1930 's operations became more intensive, and lA, 764, 680 pounds of tuna and tunalike fishes were landed at Formosan ports in 1936; one-third of the catch was skip- jack, the remainder being black tuna, yellowfin tuna, and others. The postwar tuna fisheries have not changed appreciably. Production in 1948 was 15,121,890 pounds. Since Formosa is situated favorably for expanding its tuna fisheries, it can be expected that produc- tion will increase if vessels are available for offshore operations, and foreign markets can be developed for tuna products surplus to the needs of the local population. Most tunas, with the exception of skipjack, are consumed fresh by the local population; the skip- jack is usually processed into katsuobushi, principally for export to Japan. Nothing is known about Formosan facilities for canning tuna. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Tunas are among the most abundant of the marine resources in the waters surrounding the Philippine Islands. Of the 21 tuna and tunalike species found in these waters, the main species are the yellowfin, the skipjack, and the black tuna (closely allied to the 126 bluefin of the Pacific west coast). Tunas have been taken locally for centuries^ but the catches by Filipinos have been small because vessels are unable to operate in the offshore waters where the tunas are most plentiful. Before World *Var II the Japanese extended their tuna fisheries southward, and obtained good catches in Philippine waters. Not only did vessels operate directly from Japan proper j, Formosa, and the Ryukyu Islands, but the first Japanese-controlled land~based operation was established at Zaraboanga in 1935o This Japanese-Philippine company, knowQ as the Sea Foods Corporation, operated four fishing vessels, re- frigerated storage, and a cannery. Canned tuna was prepared miainly for export to the United States, Table 2U shows the pre-World iVar II exports of canned tuna, the entire amount of which was believed prepar- ed by the Zamboanga plant, TABLE 24o - PHILIPPINES; EXPORT OF CANNED TUNA, 1935-1940 YEAR TO THE TO OTHER ~~ TOTAL ~ UNITED STATES COUNTRIES POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 167,580 116,865 138,915 855,540 1,122,345 1,254.645 In 1936 a small Japanese tuna fishery was also established at Davao, primarily to catch skipjack for preparation into katsuobushi; similar plants were opened at Bangui and Aparri, These Japanese opera- tions were neither extensive nor large, and vessels fished nearby waters. The plant at Zamboanga was destroyed during World War II 5 the other operations were also terminated by the departure of the Japanese at the end of the war. Apart frcsa Japanese efforts, only one other attempt to establish a commercial fishery for tunas in the Philippines has been recordedo The Philippine Packing Corporation, which operated a fruit cannery, conducted exploratory fishing in 1934, Post-fforld War II production of tuna by the Filipinos has been small. In 1946, 335,160 pounds were landed; in 1947 landings were 705,600 pounds. This tuna production was far below potential output, 127 1935 167,580 0 1936 116,865 0 1937 138,915 0 1938 853,335 2,205 1939 1,122,345 0 1940 1.254,645 0 Recent explorations j carried out by the Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the Philippine Rehabilitation Program, indicate that a tuna industry, employing as many as 10,000 people on vessels and in shci'e installations, could eventually be established in the Philip- pine Islands to supply local needs and to establish an export trade in canned tunao Since American techniques are too expensive, fish- ing and canning methods best suited to local conditions must be developed o The development of a Philippine tuna industry would re- quire capital for plant construction and for buildir>g vessels capable of fishing for skipjack and yellowfin, the two most abundant tuna species in Philippine waters (as shown by the Japanese pre-World War II operations) » INDONESIA Indonesia's tuna fisheries are in an early developmental stage. Very little tuna is taken at present, but prewar Japanese fishing operations proved the existence of substantial stocks in several areas in the Indonesian Archipelago. A large tuna industry may help to relieve the adverse trade balance (currency drain) that has result- ed from fish imports of over 44,000,000 pounds annually in recent yearso The amount of imports is limited only by high prices, because Indonesia is believed capable of using over 2 billion pounds of fish, or three times the amount now consumed. Present catches of tuna are composed primarily of skipjack; small amounts of yellowfin are also taken. Fishermen operate frcm March to December using hook and line with live bait. The fish are foiand at present within five hours' travel time from port. The catch is landed fresh, sold wholesale at public auction, and generally dis- tributed smoked, AUSTRALIA Although Australia has a long coast line and an apparent abund- ance of tuna, its tuna fishing industry is little developed. Interest in tuna, however, has been growing since 1930, Initial packs of tuna have been made and trial shipments have been successfully marketed in the United States, The British Isles are reported to have contracted for canned tuna, and Australia itself is expected to eventually become a good canned tuna market. The three major species of potential commercial importance are the skipjack, the southern bluefin (Thunnus maccoyii) , and the northern 128 f bluefin (Kishinoella tonggol) , A niimber of other tuna and tunalike fishes are found in Australian waters; among these are the yellowfin, the little tuna, and the bonito (Sarda australis) . Australia operated 17 fish canneries in 1952.. Although these plants now pack only small amounts of tuna, the tuna resources are being looked on for future expansion of fish canning. In late 1950 a California-type tuna clipper began a five-months trial of live bait fishing possibilities in eastern Australian waters » This vessel caught 250sOOO pounds of tuna in 70 days of active fishing » NEW ZEALAND The tunas are unimportant in New Zealand's fishing industry. Ob- servations indicate that tunas are most abundant in the Tasman Sea and off the coast of northernmost New Zealand. Southern bluefin, yellow- fin, albacore, and skipjack are k nown to frequent these areas, but the economic feasibility of a tuna industry in New Zealand has not been de- terminedo The few tuna taken appear to be caught incidental to other fishing operations. In 1952, only 20 cases of tuna in oil were packed. North Ajnerica MEXICO Although tuna and tunalike fishes are found off both coasts of Mexico, only the Pacific supports a commercial industry. Two species, yellowfin and skipjack, are utilized. Operations are centered in the Gulf of California and along the Pacific shore of lower California. The productive waters immediately off this coast also provide a consider- able part of the California tuna landings by United States vessels; much of this catch is shipped through Mexico into the United States under "via la pesca" permits. The entire Mexican catch is canned. Approximate landings and the pack of canned tuna from 1940 to 1952, are shown in table 25= Before 1947, Mexico exported canned tuna to the United States regularly. Exports to the United States from 1940 to November 30, 19$2 are listed in table 26. The entire Mexican tuna pack is now consumed domestically. Demand for tuna is said to exceed production. This demand and Mexico's 129 TABLE 25. - MEXICO? TUNA UNDINGS AND CANNED PACK, 1940-1952 YEAR UNDINGS 1/ PACK OF CANNED TUNA POUNDS POUNDS 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 3,466,000 882,000 1,728,000 2,892,000 2,324,000 2,160,000 1,606,000 780,000 1,332,000 1,584,000 2,072,000 1,636,000 1.654.000 1,733,000 441,000 864,000 1,446,000 1,162,000 1,080,000 803,000 390,000 666,000 792,000 1,036,000 818,000 827.000 17 calculated from canned weights TABIE 26. - MEXICO; EXPORTS OF CANNED TUNA TO THE UNITED STATES, 1940-1952 YEAR QUANTITY POUNDS 1940 410,777 1941 67,584 1942 U2,675 1943 86,640 1944 116,610 1945 127,638 1946 44,394 1947 0 1948 0 1949 44 1950 44 1951 0 1952 (11 months) 0 proximity to fishing areas of proven production indicate that a great expansion of the country's tuna canning industry can be expect- ed eventually. 130 CANADA Possession of the v»orld's second largest fish-canning industry cind proximity to the world's best tuna market are major reasons for the existence of Canada's tuna industry » Distantly located from the more productive grounds, however j Canada has never developed large tuna fisheries; in 1948 only 0o2 percent of its fish catch was tuna. British Columbia has a small industry utilizing imported and locally caught albacorej and canning is done at plants normally used for sal- mon» Nova Scotia takes bluefin, but they are mostly exported fresh, Canada's tuna catch has been large in some recent years, but landings are dependent on the occurrence of fish and the effort ex- pended in the catch « Up to 1946 landings averaged about 600,000 pounds annually; since then they have been as shown in table 27, TABLE 27, - CANADA3 LANDINGS OF TUNA, 1946-1952 YEAR BRITISH COLUMBIA NOVA SCOTIA TOTAL 1946 431,600 1947 796,500 1948 2,175.000 1949 2,230,800 1950 2,114,300 1951 189,500 1952 Cli POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1,820,700 2,252,300 1,706,900 2,503,400 781,300 2,956,300 958,400 3,189,200 787,400 2,901,700 469,900 659,400 655.400 ^ (1) (1) Not available, Canada's tuna exports to the United States are limited almost entirely to fresh and frozen tuna, mxJstly from Nova Scotia, Canned tuna is usually consumed domestically or exported to other countries, Ccinadian tuna exports to the United States are shown in table 28. British Columbia's salmon-canning industry easily converts to tuna canning during the off-season. Tuna is obtained from domestic landings by Canadian and sometimes United States vessels, or is import- ed from Japan and the United States when local sources fadl as they did in 1950 and 1951° In 1950 three companies, representing a small seg- ment of the fish-canning industry, were canning tuna in British Colum- bia, Nova Scotia cans a small amount of tuna incidentally to other species. Table 29 gives the production of canned tuna« 131 TABLE 28, - CANADA: TUNA EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES, 1947-1952 YEAR FRESH OR CANNED FROZEN TOTAL 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1/ T POUNDS 896,614 220,343 1,234,246 891,312 68,248 954.529 POUNDS POUNDS 188,051 1,084,665 7,546 227,889 2 1,234,248 280 891,592 216 68,464 0 954,529 Data for January through October. TABIE 29o - CANADA; HIODUCTION OF CANNED TUHA, 1946-1952 YEAR BRITISH COLUMBIA NOVA SCOTIA TOTAL CASES 1946 (1) 1947 (1) 1948 20,248 1949 15,254 1950 30,885 1951 53,280 1952 CD 1/ Not availableo CASES CASES 16,931 (1) 19,184 (1) 12,025 32,273 8,536 23,790 1,494 32,379 7,562 60,842 4,739 (1) NOTE: Cases are reported on a basis of 48 - 7 ounce cans. Only four or five Canadian vessels fish especially for tuna on the west coast and these must often go south to Oregon or California to find fish, Wheni fish are available off British Columbia, halibut and salmon boats from Canada and the United States will enter the fishery. Nova Scotia tuna are taken mostly in trap nets and some by sport fishing. Canada's tuna production is expected to increase slightly. As long as local landings and imports are available, the British Colum- bia salmon canneries can be expected to operate within the demand for tuna products. Tuna loins are being imported from Japan on an experi- mental basis in an attempt to reduce production costs. Nova Scotia's tuna production depends largely on the demand for fresh tuna by east 132 doast United States packers.. An increase in the Nova Scotia catch cannot be expected with the present fishing methods. The Canadian Government has made no special attempt to aid or develop the tuna industry „ CUBA Although the Cuban fishing industry takes more than 450 species of edible fish from nearby waters, only a few are caught in large commercial quantities. Among these are the skipjack and the black- fin tuna ( Parathunnus atlanticus) . Both are taken by Cuban fishery- men mainly from within territorial waters. Extensive explorations have not been conducted to determine how abundant these species are in offshore Cuban waters 5 but results of sport fishing indicate that these and other tunas occur in sufficient numbers to permit expansion of the Cuban tuna fisheries. Total annual landings of fish and shellfish by Cuban fishermen have recently averaged about 25 to 30 million pounds = Detailed data on the tuna landings are not available, but have been estimated to be nearly 3,000,000 pounds of eviscerated fish in 1952. Canning of tuna was first started in 1940 by the Fabrica Nacional de Conservas , and 1,777 cases of 48 7-ounce cans were produced in that year. A second plant, the Mariscos del Carib, began canning in 1944, and a third plant, the Cla. Ganadera de La Habana, began operations in 1945. Tbtal production by the threeplants in 1946 was 20,830 cases of 24 8", 9-, or 9g-ounce canso In 1952, five companies operating seven canneriesj processed tuna as well as vegetables and other fishery prod- ucts. Estimates of tuna production for 1952 were upward of 100,000 cases of 24 95"Ounce cans. Regardless of the species of tuna used or methods of packing, the cans are labeled "Bonito en Aceite" to com- pete with a similsirly named product imported from Spain. It is esti- mated that 85 percent of the Cuban demand for canned tuna was satisfied by the local producto Cuba has exported fresh or frozen tuna, but only in 1941 and in 1950 have the amounts exceeded more than 140,000 pounds annually. In 1941, 615,195 pounds were exported, almost entirely to the United States^ in 1950, 566,685 pounds were exported, of which 361,620 pounds were sent to the United States. Although Cuba is presently using only a small part of its avail- able fishery resources, it is not expected that tuna production will 133 increase sharply. Tunas are taken by small vessels as an off-season activity. These vessels ai'e not suited to the mass production meth- ods required for establishing large tuna fisheries. treditcrranean TURKEY Fishing for tuna and tunalike fishes is conducted from many small and scattered ports along the coasts of Turkey. The most important tuna grounds, however, are located in the Dardanelles and the Bosporus and in the Sea of Marmara; the coastal area near Istanbul produces the largest catches. Various species make their seasonal migration from the Mediterranean en route to and from their spawning grounds in the Sea of Marmara or the Black Sea, thereby making it possible to ob- tain an abundance of fish with small fishing craft and comparatively simple gear. The most important tuna and tunalike species are the bluefin and the bonito, the latter being the mainstay of the fisheries. Other tunas are taken in small amounts. (NOTE: Turkish records and reports designate two species of bonito, the palamut and the bonitou or torik. These are actually one species, the former being the young fish and the latter the older ones.) The bonito is usually taken by fixed nets or traps, the bluefin by hook and line or harpoon from small vessels. Accurate statistical records or iish production in Turkey have not been published. One estimate places the 1938 catch of tuna and tunalike fishes at about 132,000,000 pounds, or approximately half the total Turkish fish catch. About 80 percent of landings by tuna fishermen were bonito. Although this estimate appears to be high, its reliability is substantiated by the large exports in 1939. Recent- ly, a sharp decline in the bonito catch, attributed to natural fluc- tuations in abundance, has occurred, but it is possible that overfish- ing or loss of foreign markets may also be responsible. The 1945 catch of tuna and tunalike fishes was estimated to be about 34,200,000 pounds . In addition to being consumed by the Turkish people, the bonito is the most important fishery product exported. Small amounts of tuna are also exported. Table 30 shows the 1939 and 1947 exports of bonito. 134 TABLE 30 o - TURKEYS EXPORTS OF BONITO BY COUNTRY OF DESTINATION, 1939 AMD 1947 1939 1947 FRESH SALTED 5 CANNED SMOKED, OR DRIED SALTED, CANNED FRESH SM)KED.OR DRIED Italy Greece Bulgaria Other Total FOUNDS 22,438,080 10,032,750 4,365.900 1.025,325 37»862.055 POUNDS 183,015 438,795 4,410 1,947,015 2.573^235 POUNDS 2,438,730 3,234,735 507,150 POUNDS ,57^330 207,270 632.835 897,435 Small amounts of bonito are canned by five canneries in the Istanbul area, A quality product is produced although the processing equipment is not modern » In 1948 the United Kingdom contracted with the Ccinneries for 70,000 cases of canned bonito o Whether or not del- iveries Tfvere made on this contract is not knowno One freezing and cold- storage plant freezes bonito and tuna for shipment to Italy « Small amounts of bonito are salted, but the decline in the bonito catch has forced most salteries to close dov»no ITALY Tunas are taken along the coasts of Sardinia, Sicily, and the toe of the Italian boot., They are caught in huge fixed nets or traps (ton- nare) as they migrate to^'vard the Black Sea in the spring and return tovvard the Atlantic Ocean in the fall. Although tunas migrate into the Adriatic Sea, they frequent only the Yugoslav portion of that body of water o The catch is principally bluefin, which the Italians call tonno; next in importance are bonito, and skipjack. Virtually all of the catch is canned^ Sicily is the center of the canning industry.. Landings of tuna in recent years have varied from a low of 2,500,000 pounds to a little over 6,000,000 pounds, as i ndicated in table 31 „ The Italian people are heavy consumers of Italian-style canned tuna (heavily salted in olive oil) « Demand is much greater than the domestic production, and Italy is second only to the United States among the world's tuna importers c Pre-Vforld War II imports, princi- pally from Turkey, Portugal, Spain, and Spanish Morocco, were important. 135 TABI£ 31. - ITALY: LANDINGS OF TONA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1939 AND 1946-1951 YEAR UNDINGS 1/ ~ ~ ~ POUNDS 1939. ,. o o .... o . o .... o « = .. o .............. 0 o . o „„. . 3 ,647,070 1946 ,..„..o. ...... o,...o.„..oo.,o.o...o.,,o.o.„ 4,679,010 1947 ...... o .... o .............................. . 4,791,465 1948 „o.,..................................o.... 2,599,695 1949 o ...................................... o o . o 5,131,035 1950 ........... o,...o...,...,...,........,...o, 4,899,510 1951 ........... PC... ........................ o. 6,376>860 1/ Landings of whole tuna (ncstly bluefin, tuna and tunalike fishes) . After the war Italy oontinued to be an excellent market for tuna, imported either canned or in the fresh or frozen form for canning locally. Beginning with 1953» Norway began to supply Italy with large quantities of frozen bluefin. Exports of canned tuna are small | they were 33,000 pounds in 1950 and 95,000 pounds in 1951, compared with 1939 shipments of over 1,000,000 pounds. T.TRYA Before the war Italy obtained part of its tuna supply from its overseas colonies. Libya was then a small but important producer of tuna in the Mediterranean area. Because of Italian initiative, the Libyan tuna ind'istry (nonexistent during Turkish rule) was able to land 2,734,300 pounds of tuna in 1936^ 1,334,000 pounds of canned tuna in oil were exported almost exclusively to Italy. As a result of the North African conflict during World War II, the Libyan tuna industry suffered great losses in equipment and the country's separa- tion from Italy brought about loss of its main market. By 1948, how- ever, the industry was able to land 2,224,845 pounds of tuna. At the same time it recovered its former export market. In 1951, Libya exported 1,147,000 pounds of canned tuna in oil to Italy. TUNISIA Tunas are caught off the coast of Tunisia as they migrate east- ward during the spring. They are taken in large fixed nets or with 136 hook and line from small fishing boats , Landings have been small and have declined sharply ^ as shown in table 32; the increased landings in 1950 were made principally by a new company (Societe des Madra^ues Tunisiennes) j which was given monopoly rights in the tuna industry for 40 years: TABLE 32 » - TUNISIA; UNDINGS OF TUNA AND TONALIKE FISHES, 1930-1937 AND 1944-1950 YEAR POUNDS 1930 o « o o o o o .»„, o o o o o o o o o 0 . o o .«» o ....... o o o o o o o o o o . 2,081,520 1931 =o.ooooc,.oooo.,..o,o..=..o.co.ooo...„«o„coooo 2,079,315 1932 o . 0 o o o o o o „ o o „, o .. o „ o o ...„. o o o . o „.. o » o „„..„« o » . 1,287,720 1933 oo«o.»ooo,o.oo.o,co.o„».o,.„ooo„,„o„„«o.„„„oo« 1,082,655 1934 . „ o 0 o o „ o o o o , o o « . o « o » o o . o o o . , o , . . , . . . 0 o o o o „ o o o . 1,483,965 1935 „ o o o , o o » o . o o o . o o o 0 o . o . « o « o » . . o o o o . o o o c o o o 0 » o . . 740,880 1936 „,,000O„.0.00000«0O00O00.OO0.0,..C..O0..O0„0O0 577,710 1937 c o . . c o o o e o o o , o o » 0 o o „ o o „ o , 0 „ o . „ o . o . o o o , . „ o « o 0 0 o 1,658,160 1944 o.o««ooo»o.ooo„o„o... 0.000,0.00000000.000000.0 385,875 1945 oo.oooo.oo.ooooo,o....oooo.oooooo.oo.oo.oo.oo, 557,865 1946 O.O.0O00000000.O00.O...O0OOO.OOO..O0.OOOO0...C 438,795 1947 o . o o . 0 . . o 0 o o o o . o . o o o o o 0 o . 0 o . . . . 0 o o o 0 o o . o o . . o o o 253,575 1948 o . . . . o o o o o o o o . o o o o o o o . o . . o 0 o . o , o , . 0 . . . o . . o o . 0 o 264,600 1949 . . . . . . o o o . o . o . . . . . 0 o . . . 0 o . , . o . o o . . . . . o 0 . . . . 0 o . U3,325 1950 . . o o . o 0 o o . . . . o . o o . o o c o o o o o . o o . o o o o . o o o o o . o o o . o 952,560 In 1950c, half the catch was canned and exported. The possi- bility of increasing tuna pnDduction is regarded optimistically by Tunisian authorities, as tuna are reportedly plentiful and excel- lent locally produced olive oil is available for use in canning. AUIERIA In 1936, Algerian landings included 560,070 pounds of bluefin and 178,605 pounds of albacore; landings of these tunas in 1947 were 1,741,950 pounds. Tunas are caught in fixed traps and with hook and line. The main fishing centers in Algeria are Oran, Hiilippe ville , and Boneo 137 vVESTERN EUROPE SPAIN Tuna fishing is one of the oldest industries of Spain « Bluefin, albacore, and other tuna and tunalike fishes are caught in consider*- able numbers as they skirt the coasts of Spain and the Canary Islards d'oring their migrations . Bluefin are taken mainly along the Spanish south coast en route to the Mediterranean Sea in the spring to spawn; lesser numbers are caught as the fish return to the ocean in the falL. Albacore are of equal importsmce, but are captured mainly along the north and northwest coasts, Bonito is also important, though less valuable, and several other species of small tunalike fish are taken in minor quantities. Also classified in Spanish statistics under bonito are skipjack and yellowtail. Fishing along the south coast is mainly by large trap nets ex- bending into the sea from coastal projections. Since 1928 trap operation has been urder Consorcio Naci onal AlmadraberOj, a monopoly owned 48 percent by the government , Major trap installations are at Tarifa, Barbata, and Sanctipetri (C^diz Province) and near the Portu- guese border (Pro'vince of Huelva) , In the south and other areas tuna are also caught t^ trolling, shore seines, purse seines, and gilL netSo Recent recorded landings by Spain's tuna fishermen are given in table 33 o The Canary Island catch is about one-tenth of the Spanish total. Much of the tuna catch is marketed fresh or frozen; sizable quantities are salt'^d, dried, or canned in oil., In 1945j. when 64,r70>000 pounds of the three principal species were caught, at least 7>074,000 pounds of canned tuna and 4,683,000 pounds of salted tuna were produced. During and after World War II, exports of can- ned tuna in oil varied from 2,000,000 to 7,837,000 pounds annually. Prewar canned tuna exports were much larger, 34,506,000 pounds being recorded for 1931» Italy and Switzerland were the principal mari , o < United States » . Other countries Total 2,116,380 1,309,515 392,665 392,137 135,388 723,098 5,069,183 Includes small quantities of anchovies in oil. Tuna fishing is also important in the Spanish Protectorates in northern Africa o Tunas are caught mainly in trap nets and by troll- ing, and much of the catch is canned. The 1947 landings of all tuna and tunalike fishes in the Protectorates were 2,426,000 pounds, and included 276,000 pounds of albacore, 1,916,000 pounds of bonito. 139 and only 2^200 pounds of bluefin tuna. The 1933 catch of bluefin was reported to be 5s9545000 poxinds, but the largest bluefin catch in recent years was 1,413 sOOO pounds in 1946. Some of the tuna caught in the Spanish Protectorates reportedly is canned in small canning plants in Tangier. In 1933^ 1,058,000 pounds of canned tuna was produced. FRANCE Tunas and tunalike fishes are caught along both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean coasts of France. On the Atlantic coast, where most of the tuna fishing is concentrated, bluefin and alba- core are important. These species enter the coastal waters off southwest France during May, and migrate northward along Bretagne and Normandy c Tunas are also caught along these coasts during the southward migration in the fallo Major Atlantic tuna fishing ports are Saint Jean de Luz, Douarnenez, Concarneau<, Port Louis, Etel, Yeu, Les Sable s-d'Olonne, and La Rochelle. Half of the fishing fleet operates from the Island of Groix. Fish are caught generally from small sailboats with hook and line. Recently, boats have been equipped with motor power and refrigeration! production has increased as the vessels have fished further offshoreo The largest Atlantic tuna canneries are located in Camaret, Douarnenez, Audierne, Concarneau, Lorient, La Rochelle, and Saint Jean de Luz. In the Mediterranean, relatively minor quantities of albacore, bluefin, and bonito are caught during the spring. Fixed nets are the most important gear for catching bluefin. The only French tuna cannery in the Mediterranean Area is at Sfete. In recent years tuna landings have varied from a low of less than 2,000,000 pounds in 1944 to an average of slightly more than 33,000,000 pounds for the years 1949-1951., as shown in table 35<. Most of the tuna catch is canned; little is consumed fresh or frozeno Tuna, canned in olive oil, is exported, but the quanti- ties cannot be determined from available statistics. French export statistics show the total export of canned fish as salmon, sardines. 140 TABLE 35. -• FRANCE; UNDINGS OF TUNA. 1930 - 1951 YEAR ALBACORE ELUEFIN TOTAL 1/ POUNDS POUMDS POUNDS 1930 13,622,490 3,327,345 16,949,835 1931 23,117,220 3,351,600 26,468,820 1932 17,115,210 2,487,240 19,602,450 1933 14,339,115 3,602,970 17,942,085 1934 21,161,385 5,986,575 27,147,960 1935 22,307,985 3,060,540 25,368,525 1936 19,359,900 4,132,170 23,492,070 1937 (2) (2) 23,500,890 1938 20,885,760 5,389,020 26,274,780 1939 (2) (2) (2) 1940 (2) (2) 16,541,910 1941 (2) (2) 15,099,840 1942 (2) (2) 15,494,535 1943 (2) (2) 2,853,270 194A (2) (2) 1,695,645 1945 (2) (2) 21,904,470 1946 (2) (2) 14,109,795 1947 (2) (2) 11,115,405 1948 (2) (2) 17,079,570 1949 (2) (2) 32,331,915 1950 (2) (2) 34,495,020 1951 y (2) (2) 33,075,000 1/ Does not include bonito. 2/ Not available. '^ Estimated, ajid "other fish." Tuna exports are included in the last group. Exports of "other fish" for 1949 amounted to nearly 44,000,000 pounds, of which 400,000 pounds were shipped to the United States PORTUGAL (Including Azores, Cape Verde Islands, and Angola) In Portugal, tuna fishing has long beeni an established indus- try. Bluefin are captured, particularly off South Portugal, while en route to spawning grounds in the Mediterranean Sea. Skipjack, bonito, Ul and other tunalike fishes also are important « Large fixed traps are the major gear employed; trolling lines and various types of gill nets and seines are also usedo The Portuguese tuna catch varied between 3,909,000 and 13,342,000 pounds annually from 1938 to 1951 ■> Bluefin normally provide most of the catch, as indicat- ed by the following data in table 360 TABLE 36, - PORTUGAL^ UNDINGS OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1938-19 51 YEAR BLUEFIN SKIPJACK BONITO TOTAL POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1938 5,716,000 853,000 154,000 6,723,000 1939 3,762,000 2,223,000 218,000 6,203,000 1940 4,156,000 1,162,000 190,000 5,508,000 1941 5,727,000 1,735,000 359,000 7,821,000 1942 6,498,000 1,967,000 833,000 9,298,000 1943 9,389,000 2,249,000 276,000 11,914,000 1944 8,922,000 1,224,000 972,000 11,118,000 1945 5,770,000 1,471,000 4,805,000 12,046,000 1946 10,538,000 1,360,000 1,444,000 13,342,000 1947 8,926,000 1,482,000 315,000 10,723,000 1948 5,484,000 1,124,000 104,000 6,712,000 1949 (1) (1) (1) 5,883,000 1950 (1) (1) (1) 3,909,000 1951 (1) (1) (1) 3,929,000 1/ Not available „ Most of the tuna catch is canned in oil or sauce and exported. Export data for recent years are given in table 37 « Italy has consistently received oirer half of the Portuguese tuna exports before and after World War II « A nuiaber of other countries have also provided well established jaarketso For several years prior to 1951, shipanents to the United States were of fair sizCj but trade dropped to 9,000 pounds in 1951o Exports, by country of destination, are shown in table 380 A reduction of the tuna catch since 1946, apparently caused by decline of the tuna resources, is of concern to Portuguese fishermen and the Portuguese Government. Portuguese tuna fishing recently has been Umited to about three months a year. May to August, when tuna 142 TABLE 37 o - PORTUGAL: KXPORTS OF CANfED TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES. 1938-1951 YEAR IN BRINE IN OIL OR SAUCE TOTAL POUNDS 1938 291,000 1939 322,000 1940 46,000 1941 168,000 1942 289,000 1943 84,000 1944 2,000 1945 0 1946 15,000 1947 137,000 1948 20,000 1949 68,000 1950 9,000 1951 26,000 POUNDS 2,600,000 1,316,000 3,519,000 3,965,000 2,891,000 3,790,000 3,376,000 4,719,000 2,994,000 1,603,000 5,429,000 3,713,000 3,680,000 3; 570^000 POUNDS 2,891,000 1,638,000 3,565,000 4,133,000 3,180,000 3,874,000 3^378,000 4,719,000 3,009,000 1,740,000 5,449,000 3,781,000 3,689,000 3,596.000 TABLE 38, - PORTUGAL: EXPORTS OF CANNED TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES BY COUNTRY OF DESTINATION ,1947-1951 C0U1^ITRY 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS Italy ....... =.oo 260,000 4,015,000 2,741,000 2,414,000 2,964,000 Brazil .....ooo.. 49,000 68,000 0 35,000 205,000 Switzerland . „ . . o . 161,000 245,000 340,000 284,000 68,000 Belgium-Luxembourg 362,000 300,000 24,000 121,000 66,000 Portuguese colonies 26,000 51,000 62,000 55,000 64,000 United State S..O. 516,000 340,000 174,000 523,000 9,000 All other cxsuntries 366, OC: 430,000 440,000 257,000 220^00 To-tai 1,740,-000 ■ - T,44*?^000 3,78-1,000 5,-6^,000^3, 596",tX)Cr- are caught mostly in the trap nets off the cost of Algave. The use of more powerful fishing craft and modern fishing methods is contenplatedj however, and these are expected to miake possible a year-round supply of tuna, of which a major portion would be of the white-saeat variety acceptable on the American market. Changing world conditions are mak- ing the Portuguese Government look more keenly towards the American miarketo 143 To increase the tuna catch; two American submarine chasers have been purchased recently. These vessels are equipped with two 900 horse power motors and have refrigeration compartments for 100,000 pounds of fish each. One of these vessels has already completed a successful trial run and both are expected to leave soon for tuna fishing with lines in the waters off the Canary Islands. Portugal possesses very large colonies in Africa (Angola and Mozambique), as well as the Azores and the Madeira Islands. All are located near actual and potential tuna fishing grounds. In the Azores the tuna industry has been increasing production since 1929; five large and six small canneries are operated principally on Sao Miguel and Tereira Islands. These canneries operate 6O motor launches and a number of small boats, and at peak production employ 2,500 persons in fishing and cannings The main fish used for canning is bluefin, although bond to is also canned in smaller quantities. Normal Azores production is estimated at 3,300,000 pounds per year; in 1949, 2,200,000 pounds were canned and shipped to the United States, Italy, Frajice, Switzerland, Belgium, and Brazil. Tuna fisheries are also conducted in the Cape Verde Islands. Production is small, the pack in 1947 being about 600,000 pounds. Oceanic conditions off Angola are similar to those off Peru and large tuna resources are available. In a recent visit to Angola, a Fish and Wildlife Service observer noted quantities of yellowfin widely distributed along the coasts A growing tuna canning industry is centered around the port of Mossamedes. Presently, fishing is one of the most important single industries of Angola. Recent annual landings of all fish have been between 100,000,000 and 250,000,000 pounds. Tuna landings in 1950 were reported to have been about 2,600,000 pounds. Recently, fish canning has increased owing to the demand for canned fish in Italy, Northern Europe NORmY, SWEDEN, AND DENMARK Although the Scandinavian countries are not located near the world's principal tuna grounds, bluefin frequent nearby waters. This fish has been taken in the Sound, the Kattegat, the Skagerak, the North Sea, and the Norwegian Sea. The gradual warming of North At- lantic waters during the last several decades has resulted in the 144 appearance of the bluefin. in larger numbers farther northward, and since 1947 larger tuna landings have been made, especially by Norway from waters north of Bergeno Before World War II the combined land- ings from Norway, Sweden, and Denmark did not exceed 1,800,000 pounds annually. Since 1947 catches have been as indicated in')TabJe.39. TABLE 39 o " SCANDINAVIA; UNDINGS OF TUNA, 1947-1952 YEAR NORWAY DENMARK SWEDEN TOTAL 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 POUNDS 463,050 811,440 5,651,415 3,774,960 11,545,380 25,172,280 POUNDS 864,360 1,047,375 4,476,150 2,185,155 2,723,175 (1) POUNDS 220,500 282,240 1,225,980 207,270 (1) (1) POUNDS 1,547,910 2,141,055 11,353,545 6,167,385 (1) (1) 1/ Not available o Norway's landings would have been larger durir^ 1952 if adciition- al freezing, canning, anid transport facilities had been available. Only 330,750 pounds of fresh fish can be sent daily by rail from Bergen, and during the height of the tuna season the daily landings reached 1,984,500 poundso Since tuna lancJings more thajn doubled in 1952, freezing, storing, and canning facilities were inadequate for handling the increased landings o The Norwegians were able, however, to can about ID percent of their catcho Besides shipping 1,300 pounds of caaned tuna to Venezu- ela, 500 railroad cars of frozen tuna were sent to Sicily for canning in Italian style. The Norwegian canned tuna has a ciarker color, coarser texture, and stronger flavor than the product preferred by the American customero Tb3se cjialities, however, make the product suitablB for the Italian trade. If Italy remains a gcxxi market for bluefin, the Norwegian tuna fishery can expand when the necessary handling and distribution facilities are provided. Denmark and Sweden do not have special tuna fisheries. Part of Denmark's catch is canned for domestic consumption. Presumably the majority of Sweden's catch is also cerrsumed domestically. 1A5 South America PERU Peru occupies a central position in the tuna fisheries of Latin America's west coast » Its geographical location near the richest part of the Humboldt current has enabled the country to develop not only a sizable tuna industry, but to maintain its leadership among the tuna producers of Latin America. The Pacific Ocean along the Peruvian coast is known for its rich marine life, ocean currents bringing highly mineralized water from the ocean depths to the surface. These nutrient-rich waters are the basis for a food chain which culminates in the occurrence of large and valuable food fishes, such as bonito, yellowfin, and skipjack. An important link in the food chain is the anchovy (Engraulis ringeus) since it constitutes the main food for the various tunas. The bonito, found throughout the area in which the coastal current flows, generally follows the migration of the anchovy. In winter the anchovy is spread over a wide area but during spring and summer it is found close inshore, since the warm oceanic waters force it into the narrow band of cold water along the coast. At this time landings of bonito are largest. The yellowfin and the commercially less important skipjack migrate from the open sea into coastal water. These tunas are found more frequently along the northern and southern Peruvian coasts than along the central part. Before the 19^0 decade the Peruvian tuna fisheries were poor- ly developed and lacked adequate vessels, gear, skilled fishermen, ports, and processing facilities. Expansion was stimulated in 1942 by UNRAA's request for additional production (75 percent tuna in brine and 25 percent ' -.nned tuna in oil) to supply European war areas with much needed animal protein f ood » The fishing industry was only partially able to meet UMRAA's demands, since it still lacked re- frigeration plants, canning plants, tinplate, and oil. Despite these early limitations, production of tuna and tuna- like fishes increased steadily and by 1951 was over 131,000,000 pounds. Domestic consumption of tuna products also increased » Most of the bonito consumed locally is in the fresh state; about 10 to 12 percent of the total production of canned bonito is also absorbed in 146 the domestic market. Increased landings were made possible main- ly by private companies who introduced motor-driven launches outfit- ted with modern gear, such as purse seines for tuna and gill or drift nets for bonito. Tuna and tunalike fish' landings by Peru- vian fishermen are shown in table 40. TABLE 40. - PERU: LANDINGS OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1939-1952 YEAR YELLOWIN SKIPJACK BONITO TOTAL WUMDs POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1939 49,572 66,811 1,185,629 1,293,012 1940 220,941 86,656 2,985,129 3,292,726 1941 1,614,501 79,821 3,551,373 5,245,695 1942 157,216 22,932 12,608,411 12,788,559 1943 805,928 22,932 26,387,235 27,216,095 1944 32,634 24,916 36,000,594 36,058,144 1945 650,034 62,402 41,247,755 41,960,191 1946 3,004,313 56,448 32,537,421 35,598,182 1947 4,001,414 149,719 35,355,411 39,506,544 1948 6,553,260 928,305 44,033,850 51,515,415 1949 7,313,985 3,023,055 59,722,425 70,059,465 1950 30,325,365 963,585 69,025,320 100, 3U, 270 1951 16,314,795 2,910,600 111,945,645 131,171,040 1952 1/ 4,815,720 4,972,275 68,765,130 78,553,125 1/ January to Jpne inclusive, Tuna landings by Peruvian fishermen have been disposed of fresh, frozen, or canned in oil or brine, as shown by the latest available data in table 41. The export of tuna, at first principally to Italy, increased steadily until 1946. It is claimed that tuna played an important role in relieving famine conditions in certain parts of Europe toward the end and immediately .f'Ler World War II. Vflien UNRRA dis-. continued further purchases of relief supplies in 1947, Peru hkd al- ready established other markets for its canned tuna. The bulk was shipped to the Uni.ted States; such European countries as Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, and Switzerland imported smaller but significant amounts. Exports from Peru continued to increase but in 1951 show- ed a slight drop. Table 42 gives details about the Peruvian exports of canned tuna. 147 TABLE 41. - I^RU.- DISPOSITION OF TUNA AND TUNAUKE FISH LANDIN'':S, 1950 - 1951 PRODUCT 1950 1951 1/ FHESH OR FROZEN s YELLOVVFIN... ... SKIPJACK ...... BONITO ....... o . TOTAL. POUNDS POUNDS 24,119,172 23,254,151 15,279,989 822,024 22,050,000 47,373:323 38,152,013 CASES 2/ 84,251 34,362 502,139 CASES 2/ 48,505 16,424 402,958 620,752 467,887 CASES 3/ 1,896 34,945 CASES 3/ 12,078 34.568 36,841 46,646 .NTJED IN OIL: YELLOWIN. SKIPJACK . BONITO.,.. TOTAL. CANl«iD IN BRINE: YELLOWIN. SKIPJACK. , BONITO.... TOTAL. T7 January to October. 2/ Cases represent 48 7-ounce cans per case. 3/ Cases represent 48 1-pound cans per case. TABIE 42. - PERU: EXPORTS OF CANNED TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES BY COUNTRY OF DESTINATION, 1950 - 1951 1950 1951 -1/ COUNTRY IN OIL IN BftlNE IN OIL IN BRINE CASES CASES CASES CASES UNITI:D STATES . 496,989 (2) 332,700 (2) bed:}iul' . 11,334 (2) - (2) ITnLY......... . 13,034 (2) - (2) SV/ITZERLAND........ . 34,001 (2) - (2) OTHERS...., . 11,334 (2) 84,187 (2) TOTAL. . . . 566,692 34,841 416,887 ^4,546 1/ January to October. NOTE: Cases represent 48 (2) Not available. 7-ounce cans. 148 In 19485 Peru started to export small quantities of frozen tunaj by 1950, this trade had reached considerable proportions. Virtually all frozen tuna has been shipped to the United States and has consisted almost exclusively of yellowfin, as shown in table 43 « TABLE 43. • " PERU; EXPORTS OF FROZEN TUNA AND BONITO^ 1948-1952 SPECIES 1948 1949 i956 1951 1952 1/ POUND S POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS YELLOWFIN (2) (2) 14,378,80.5 14,637,672 4,681,215 SKIPJACK (2) (2) - ' ' 767,561 3,733,065 BONITO (2) (2) ~ 9,482 ~ TOTAL 644,963 2,156,490 14,378,805 15,414,715 8,414,280 1/ January to June 2^/ Not available The main ports used by the Peruvian tuna industry are Gallao, IlOj, Paita^ and Chinbote, The first cannery was established in 1939, arxi 45 plants were in operation in 1952. Freezing plants, with a daily freezing capacity of 8OO5OOO pounds, were in use in 1951. Cold- storage capacity was 14j,000,006 pounds. In 1952 the fishing fleet engaged in catching tuna consisted of 1,000 vessels operated by about 6,000 fishermen 0 The Peruvian Government has shown some interest in developing the tuna industry, although it has done little to improve the lot of the fishermen by education or by providing modern equipment. It has established a Fisheries Technology Laboratory in Callao to dev- elop and test processing methods „ CHILE Chile's utilization of fish is limited and until 1942 the tuna catch was extremely sinall and of importance only for local consump- tion. The white meat aibacore was considered the fare of the poorest people in the northern ports of Chile. When Americans visiting Chile showed a high regard for the aibacore, the fish became an expensive dish in the best hotels „ 149 The BBin species of tuna found in Chilean waters are yellowfinj albacore, and skipjacko Bonito, at first taken in moderate quanti- ties conpared with the turasj has recently beeoias more Important o It is consumed locally fresh or canned ^ but is exported only in the canned formo No commercial organization is devoted solely to the catching and canning of tuna, nor are any Chilean boats equipped to fish for tuna exclusivelyo Before 1945 > Chilean landings of tuna and tunalike fishes averaged between loOOO^OOO and 3jOOO,000 pounds annually. In 1945 they reached a total of 5,867s505 pounds. Thereafter, production was moderate until 1949$. when landings exceeded 10,000,000 pounds c Table 44 gives the landings made by Chilean fishermeno UNDINGS OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1938-1951 POUNDS (1) (1) 643,860 1,095,885 189,630 2, 46.% 190 1,786,050 4,562,145 2,024A90 1,053,990 (1) 1,001,070 908,460 l,534«6eo BONITO POUNDS (1) 1,320,795 174,195 1,036,350 815,850 646,065 240,345 1,305,360 901,845 3,702,195 (1) 9,371,250 6,454,035 8,760,465 lEAR 1938 1939 1940 19a 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 y Not availably. The freezing and canning of tuna pro(iacts has been limitedo With the exception of the tuna canned or frozen, practically all tuna and tunalike fi^es are consumed fresh at the local ports. Little is sold elsewhere in Chile except in the canned formo Chile is a fairly good consumer of canned tuna. At least 11 canneriea reportedly pack tuna and bonito but none pack these products TOTAL POUNDS 2,306,430 1,320,795 818,055 2,132,235 1,005,480 3,111,255 2,026,395 5,867,505 2,926,035 4,756,185 (1) 10,372,320 7,362,495 10.295,145 150 exclusively o A large canning plant at Iquique is said to be the only modern and complete fish freezing and canning establishiaent in Chile 0 Despite the increased landings, there appears to be little effort made to increase tuna exports o Chilean exports of canned tuna have been moderate, as shown in table 45 » TABLE 45 » - CHILE; EXPORTS OF CANNED TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES ^ 1942-1950 YEAR TO UNITED STATES POUNDS 1942 (1) 1943 308,700 1944 714,420 1945 1,719,900 1946 950,355 1947 222,705 1948 127,890 1949 185,220 1950 716,625 1/ ins jignificanto TO OTHER COJNTRIES TOTAL POUNDS POUNDS 130,095 130,095 304,290 612,990 271,215 985,635 183,015 1,902,915 68,355 1,018,710 41,895 264,600 13,230 141,120 467,460 652,680 57,330 773,955 The export of frozen tuna was begun in 1950, when 68,355 pounds were shipped to the United States « Between January and September of 1951, 99,225 pounds were exported, also to the United States o This trade has been limited because adequate freezing facilities are lacking. Only the plant at Iquique is equipped to prepare frozen tuna for export o To improve the diet of the people and to obtain foreign ex- change by insreasing exports, the Chilean Corporaci<^n de Foraento de la Produccidn has shown an interest in better utilization of Chile's fishery resources o Originally, the Corporacic^n planned to increase exports of canned tuna to 500,000 cases (about 12,000,000 pounds) of white-meat tuna to the United States, Plans for the rapid expansion of the fishiqg industry have not material- ized because capital and experience are lacking. Canning plants do not employ modern machinery, and cans are not standardized and 151 are of inferior quality » Labor is poorly paid but production costs are highj owing to the use of antiquated machinery and inefficient production methods,, ECUADOa Although the waters around the Galapagos Islands and near Ecuador's much indented 500-mile coast. line contaiin abundant quanti- ties of tuna, the country's fishing industry is small and unorganiz- ed o Along the coast the temperatures are oppressive and most fishing is done at night o Fishing vessels are small dugouts, propelled by sails, and only one or two Diesel-powered vessels are available for fishing offshore waters., Local fishing is done on a small scale with hook and line, the catch being sufficient only to satisfy the needs of the fishermen and other coastal people » About a thousand people are employed in the fishing industry » Statistical data are not available to indicate the amount of tuna and tunalike fishes caught » Fresh or dried and salted albacore and bonito are sold in Guayaquil and other coastal towns c Despite Ecuador's proven tuna resources, the country is a net importer of processed fishery products, mainly from Peru and the United States. Because of the successful tuna fisheries conducted by the United States vessels in Galapagos waters and the progress made by Peru in its tuna fisheries and tuna export trade, Ecuador's leading govern- ment and business organizations have become more conscious of the country's tuna resources. A desire exists for the establishment of a local tuna industry, but prospects for such development are not promisingo Fresh water is lacking for the operation of canning and freezing plants, trained fishermen and skilled labor are not avail- able, and a labor law is in existence which tends to increase pro- duction costs without increasing the productivity per person. Attempts made in the past to establish fish-canning plants in Ecuador have all failed. COLUMBIA Because Colombia's small fishing fleet is handicapped by lack of equipment and small operating range, the country's tuna resources have never been utilized or assessed » However, extensive tuna re- sources probably exist in waters off both the Caribbean and the 152 Pacific coasts. As far as known, purse seining has never been triedj and the poor keeping quality of local bait fishes has dis- couraged fishing off Colombia by foreign tuna clippers o Colombia has two small plants which prepare canned fish and other products. One plant , belonging to the Empacadora del Prado, is at Barranquilla; the other j owned and operated by the Empaca- dora Santa Marta , is at Santa Marta. Mullet and sardines are usu- ally canned; when bonito is available it is packed in vegetable oil. In recent years interest has been shown in developing Colombia's fisheries, but so far, developments have been confined to Caribbean- based inshore operations for supplying fresh fish to Colombia's larg- est communities. VENEZUELA The fisheries of Venezuela have undergone considerable expan- sion during recent years, but so far only a few tuna have been taken incidentally during inshore trolling operations. Venezuela has been more interested in developing local production of relatively low- priced fishery products for domestic consumption, and an extensive sardine canning industry has been established. Although fishing ves- sels and techniques have been improved, the fisheries have not been expanded to offshore waters where supplies of tuna are said to be abundant . BRAZIL Although Brazil has a large potential domestic market for fish and fishery products, its fisheries are little developed and of sm.all economic importance. Commercial fishermen and fishery experts agree that a wealth of marine resources exist off the Brazilian coast. Little, however, has been done to explore these valuable resources; meanwhile, large quantities of risli, both canned and salted, are imported. Statistical data Indicate that tuna and tunalike fishes coit^jribe no more than a small part of the total fish catch. Large schools of tuna, however, have been reported along the northern Brazilian coast, these schools being especially numerous near the small island of Fer- nando de Noronha, 225 miles east of the hump of Brazil. Albacore and 153 bonito are listed as the principal varieties » A scientific booklet, published by the Hunting and Fishing Division of the Brazilian ICn- istry of Agriculture, states that these species are particularly s-citable for smoking » Although tuna has been reported as abundant off the northern coast of Brazils most fish processing plants are located in the southj principally in the States of Rio de Janeiro ;, Rio Grande do Sul, and Sao Paulo, Of the 120 establishaents registered^ 45 are devoted to canning and 75 to salting. Probably little or no tuna is processed. Cfeitral Aiiejdxa COSTA RICA Large quantities of tunaj, mostly yellowfin and skipjack, occur in Pacific, waters off Costa Rica, Tuna fisheries could be operated on a large seals from Costa Rican bases by native fishermen, but there seems to be little interest in expanding present actiiritieso About 250 Costa Ricans are employed on American tuna boats. Other Costa Risan fishermsn number less than 100° these fishermen Operate from Puntarenas with about 10 powered vessels and 50 small canoes and sailboats, TJ18 port of Puntarenas with its sheltered harbor 5, ship stores, and marine ways and machine shops, is a natural center for fishing acitivity. In 1936 a freezing plant was established at the port with United States capital and machineryi this plant =— one of the larg- est in Central America '=- is presently leased ta & California tuna- processing conpanyo Freezing operations, begun in 1937 on a small scale, attained an output of 7,285,320 pounds in 1938, Subsequent output has vaided considerably, but reached its peak in 1950 with 9j,69i,630 pounds. The tuna handled by this plant has been brought in mainly by UrJ.ted States vessels, and after being frozen was shipped to the Uni-^:ed States „ In 1942 a small Calif ormiia-type cannery was established at Puntarenas and operated in connection with the freezing plant. The cannery's maximum capacity is said to be 100,000 cases per year, and the pack is reported to be of excellent quality. Some is con- sumed in Costa Ricaj the bulk, however, is exported principally to Latin->Amerioaa coi^ntries, 154 statistics of tuna landings in Costa Mca are not available, Moreover, because of the small but significant local consumptions available export statistics only reflect the size of landings by United States vessels o Exports of tuna products are shown in table 46.. TABLE 46. - COSTA RICA: EXPORTS OF TWIA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1937-1951 YEAR FRESH OR FROZEN CANNED IN OIL TOTAL POUNDS POUNDS POUNDS 1937 277,830 _ 277,830 1938 7,285,320 -. 7,285,320 1939 7,481,565 - 7,481,565 1940 4. 2 11 .,5 50 - 4,211,550 1941 1,845,585 - 1,845,585 1942 2,350,530 17,640 2,368,170 1943 994,455 44,100 1,038,555 1944 1,905,120 22,050 1,927,170 1945 1,435,455 498,330 1,933,785 1946 2,824.605 707,805 3,532,410 1947 3,867,570 3,212,685 7,080,255 1948 6,339,375 198,450 6,537,825 1949 4,551,120 149,940 4,701,060 1950 9,891,630 141,120 10,032,750 1951 3,'X)7s620 19,845 3,027,465 In April 1949, at the request of the International Baak for Reconstruction and De'-slopment, the Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion of the United Nations undertook a study of possibilities for fishery development in Costa Rica. Because of the readjy market for tuna in the United States, it was concluded that Costa Rica could obtain valuable I'oreign exchange if some of the tunc, now caught in Costa Rica or adjoining waters by United States vessels could be taken and landed by Costa Rican fishermen. It was pro- posed that five American-type refrigerated purse seiners, cf 70 tc 80 tons cargo capacity, be acquired. The establishment cf. addi- tional freezing and cold-storage facilities in Puntarenas was also suggested. Since canned tuna is protected by a United States import duty, it was not considered advisable to establish new canning facilities or to enlarge the plant already in operation o 155 Costa Rica is a logical base for both United States and Costa Rican vessels, and possible development of larger shore facilities (shops and freezing plants) may eventually oake it the center of the tuna industry in the eastern Pacific o During the past few years United States tuna clippers have tended to base more and more of their activities at Puntarenas during the peak January to June fishing season off Costa Rica. EL SALVADOR El Salvador, the smallest and most densely populated of the Central American republics, has a Pacific coast line exposed to the full sweep of the Pacific oceanic currents. At times vast schools of tuna and tunalike fishes are seen migrating not too far from shore. These and other pelagic species occur in greatest abundance from June to September; during this time the fishermen of El Sal- vador land a considerable quantity of fish for personal use and for the local market. No detailed statistics are available to ascer- tain how much are tuna, and no export statistics are given from which deductions could be made. The possibilities for tuna production in El Salvador are limited because of the short coast line, the seasonal occurrence of fish, the lack of trained fishermen, and the lack of efficient boats and gear. Four cold-storage plants are located in El Salvador; these plants are capable of handling limited quantities of tuna for local consumption. GUATEMALA Very little is known about the fish resources of Gruatemala. Along its Pacific coast schools of tuna are common 30 or more miles from shore, close inshore their occurrence is sporadic. Suitable harbors for basing a fishing fleet, refrigeration or processing plants, and seaworthy boats, such as the tuna industry requires, do not exist along Guatemala's west coast. The Caribbean coast of Guatemala offers more favorable fish- ing conditions and better harbor protection than the Pacific coast. Tuna occur infrequently, however, and little opportunity for dev- eloping a tuna industry exists. 156 NICARAGUA Nicaragua, the largest of the Central American republics, has a coast line of about 200 miles on the Pacific and 300 miles on the Caribbean, The ivaters off both coasts contain sizable fishery- resources, particularly those off the Pacific coast. The lack of population and the poor transportation facilities, however, make the commercial utilization of these resources extremely difficult. Consequently, Nicaragua has an exceedingly small tuna fishing in- dustry. There are no knovm exports of tuna, and the few tuna caught by native fishermen are consumed locally. The government has made no effort to develop a domestic fishing industry or to establish Nicaraguan bases for foreign fishing fleets. HONDURAS Comiiercial fishing is not conducted in Honduras, except for the operations of one small company engaged in providing fish for the Tegucigalpa market. It is known that tunas migrate along the coast of Hunduras, but they are rarely seen on the market. Refrig- eration or canning plants do not exist, and the government shovjs no interest in the development of a fishing industry. PANAMA Panama has neither a tuna fishing fleet nor tuna processing establishments. Its only interest in the tuna fisheries is the fees obtained by issuing bait-fishing licences to California tuna clippers. In 1951, fees received amounted to $73,000. Exports of tuna or tunalike fishes from Panama to the United States are re- ported, but these are predominantly transshipments of fish caught by American boats. In 1950, Panama reported tuna imports of 41,895 pounds, valued at ^16,000. As far as known, no Panamanian plans exist for the development of a tuna fishing fleet nor for the establishment of shore plants. 157 HIBLIOGRAPHY Alberts, H. W. I9U7. Fishing Industry of Ecuador, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 227, April. Anonymous . 193U. Marine Foods Canning Industry in Japan. Association of Japan. Tokyo. Canned Foods Anonymous . , 1938-52. Estadistica de Comercio Exterior, 1937-51 (Statistics of Foreign Commerce, 1937-51). Direccion General de Estadistica (Director General of Statistics), San Jose, C. R. Anonymous . , 1939-52. Estadistica Chilena (Statistics of Chile). Direccion General de Estadistica (Director General of Statistics) . Santiago, de Chile. Anonymous . 1939. Statistique des Peches Maritime s (Statistics of the Maritime Fishery) . Republique Fran9aise (Republic of France ) . Paris . Anonymous . 19 UO, I9U7-52. Annuario Statistico Italiano (Annual Statistics for Italy), Institute Centrale di Statistica (Central Institute of Statistics). Rome. Anonymous. I9UO, 19U7-52. Bulletino Mensile di Statistico Italiano (Monthly Bulletin of Italian Statistics). Rome. Anonymous r. ^ 19U3-51. Comercio Exterior de Chile, 19U3-51 (Foreign jTommerce of Chile, 19U3-51). Direccion General de Estadistica (Director General of Statistics). Santiago, de Chile. 158 I Anor^nnous . Japanese Trade Studies, Marine Products. U. S. Tariff Commission Special Industry Analysis No. 27. August, Anonymous . ^ 19U6, 19^0. Anuario Estadistico del Peru, 19Uli-U5 and 19U8-U9 (Annual Statistics of Peru, 19UU-U5 and 19U8-U9). Direccion Nacional de Estadistica (National Director of Statistics). Lima. Anor^rmous , 19U7-52, Statistica del Commercio con I'Estero, 19U6-^1 (Foreign Trade Statistics, 19U6-51) . Institute Centrale di Statistica (Central Institute of Statistics). Rome. Anonymous , 19 U7. Anonymous » I9I18. Zona de Protectorado, Anuario Estadistico (Protectorate Zone, Annual Statistics). Madrid. Estadistica de Pesca Ano 19h7 (Statistics of the ^ Fisheries for 19U7) . Ministerio de Industria Y Comercio (Minister of Industry and Commerce). Direcci(in General de Pesca Maritima (Director General of Sea Fisheries). Madrid, Anonymous , 19 U8, Japanese Fisheries Production, 1908-19 U6. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 279, January, Anonymous » I9U8-I953. U. S. Imports of Merchandise for Consumption, I9I47-51 Annuals and 1952 Monthlies. U. S. Census Bureauc Report FT 110 » Anonymous , 19 U9. Estatistica das Pescas Maritimas (Statistics of the Maritime Fisheries). Ministerio da Marinha (Department of the Navy), Comissao Central de Pescarias (Central Commission of Fisheries), Lisbon. 159 Anonymous « 19U9o Fishing and Fisheries (Brazil). U. Service Fisheiy Leaflet 3U9, July. S. Fish and Wildlife Anonymous o 19U9-5l= Fiske, Ar 19U8, 19U9, and 1950 (Fisheries, 19U«, 19U9, and 19^0). Statistiska Centraltyran (Central Bureau of Statistics), Stockholm, Anonymous » 19U9» General Aspects of the World's Tuna Fisheries. U. N. Food and Agriculture Organization Fisheries Biilletin, Vol. 2, no. U, July-August. Anonymous < 19 U9. Revue des Travaux Nos. 57-60 (Review of Works Nos, 57-60). Office Scientifique et Technique des Peches Maritimes (Scientific and Technical Office of the Maritime Fisheries), Paris. December. Anonymous c 1950„ Anonymous. 1950. Anonymous . 195b 0 Anonymous, 1951: Anonymous , 1951, Japanese Statistical Yearbook, Prime Minister's Office, Bureau of Statistics, Tokyo. Taiwan Agricultural Yearbook, 19U9 Edition, Provincial Government of Taiwan, Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Taipei, January. Yearbook of Fisheries Statistics, 19li8-U9o U, N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Fiskets Gang, No, 52. Bergen, December 27. Proved Pole Fishing in Australia $ 2U8,a30 lbs. Tuna in 70 days. Fisheries Newsletter, Vol, 10, No. h. Sydney. April, 160 Anonymous . 1952. Anonymous, 1952. Anonymous , 1952. Anonymous , 1952. Anonymous . 1952. Anonymous , 1952, Anonymous , 1952. Anonymous . Anonymous , Coraercio Externo por Mercadorias e Paises (Foreign Trade by Commodities and Countries). Institute Nacional de Estatistica (National Institute of Statistics). Lisbon. Fisheries of Japan, 1952. Japanese Government, Fisheries Agency. Tokyo. Fiskeriberetning for Aret 1951 (Fishery Statistics for 1951). Fiskeriministeriet (Fishery Ministry) . K^benhavn. Too much Tuna. News of Norway, Vol. 9, no. 30. Norwegian Information Service. Washington. August 28, Trade and Production of Tuna and Bonito in Peru. Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture. Lima. October. Tuna Fisheries off Western Norway. News of Norway, Vol. 9, no. 39. Norwegian Information Service. Washington. October 30. Two U. S. Vessels Purchased for Tuna Fishing. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Commercial Fisheries Review, Vol. 12, no. U. Annual Report of the Insular Collector of Customs. Commonwealth of the Philippines. Bureau of Customs. Manila. Comercio Exterior Republica de Cuba. (Foreign Trade of the Republic of Cuba). Direccion General de Estadistica (Director General of Statistics). Havana. 161 Caldwell, Aldridge. 1952, Tuna Quest in Australia. The New Commonwealth. Sidney, April lU. Classen, T. E. A. 19U6, The Tuna Industry in Southern Spain. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 188, July, Conner, Jack E, I9U8, Fishing Industry in Brazil. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 329, September. Fiedler, R. Ho, Lobell, M. J., and Lucas, C. R. I9U7, Fisheries and Fishery Resources of the Caribbean Area, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 259, September. Fiedler, R. H, 1951. The Fisheries of Indonesia. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 396, July, Jul, Mogens. 19U9. Report on a Fisheries Project for Costa Rica. U. N. Food and Agriciilture Organization, Washington, September, Lefebvre, Gabriel. I9U7, L'Angola, Son Histoire, Son Economic (Angola, Its History and Economy), Liege. Lubbert, H. and Ehrenbaum, E, 1937, Handbuch der Seefischerei Nordeuropas (Handbook of the Seafisheries of Northern Europe), Vol. 7, pt. I. Stuttgart, Magalhaes, Elzamann. 19U1, Defumacao de Pescado (Smoking of Fish). Seruico de Informacao Agricola (Agricultural Information Service), Ministerio de Agricultura (Ministry of Agriculture), Rio de Janeiro, 162 Martinez, J. L. I9U80 The Cuban Fishing Industry. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 308, Marcho Rawlings, John E„ The Cuban T\ina Fishery (Unpublished Manuscript). Romero, Edmundo Z„ , 19ll8„ La Pesqueria en el Peru y su Increraento por medio de la Inmigracion (The Fishery of Peru and its Increase by Means of Immigration). Lima. Saunders, G. B., Kclloway, A. D., and Handley, C. 0., Jr. 1950. A Fish and Vaidlife Survey of Guatemala. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report - Wildlife $, June. Schweigger,. Ervrin. ^ ^ 19U3<. Pesqueria y Oceanografia del Peru y Proposiciones para su Desarrollo Future (The Fishery and Oceanography of Peru and Proposals for their Future Development), Lima. Shapiro, Sidney. 19 U8. The Japanese Tuna Fisheries. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Leaflet 297, April, Smith, R. 0. 1950. Survey of Market for Fishery Products in Ecuador. U. S. Departm.ent of Agriculture Foreign Agricultiore Circular. Tyson, R. \h 19^0. Fishing Industry of Turkey, Economic Cooperative Administration, July 26. War f el, H. E. 19^0, Outlook for Development of a T\ina Industry in the Philippines, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report 28 „ 163 164 CHAPTER IV — DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ABSTRACT Of the 32 PERCENT OF WORLD PRODUCTION OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES ACCOUNTED FOR BY UNITED STATES FISHERMEN, ALMOST ALL OF THIS AMOUNfT IS TAKEN ON THE PACIFIC COAST, Nearly all tuna clippers and about 15 purse seiners are used solely to FISH FOR tuna AND RELATED SPECIES,, OTHER CRAFT ENGAGED IN THE TUNA FISHERY ARE ALSO OPERATED TO A LARGE EXTENT IN OTHER FISHERIES SUCH AS THOSE FOR SALMON, HALIBUT, BOTTOM FISHES, PILCHARDS, ETC. SUPPLYING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TUNA FLEET IS A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE FIELD INVOLVING OUTSTANDING FIRMS WITH HIGHLY TRAINED ENGINEERING STAFFS. ThC ALMOST UNJVERSALLY-USED SLOW SPEED HEAVY DUTY MAIN DIESEL ENGINES ARE EXTREMELY RELIABLE AND ECONOMICAL. REPLACEMENT OF THESE WITH HIGH SPEED DIESELS WOULD RcSULT IN A REDUCTION OF WEIGHT AND A SAVINGS !N CARGO SPACE, BUT RE-TRAINING OF ENGINEERS WOULD BE REQUIRED AND LaVER DEPENDABILITY MIGHT RESULT. SMALLER TUNA VESSELS HAVING PROPORTIONATELY INCREASED CARGO SPACE THROUGH THE USE OF HIGH SPEED Diesels might result in more economical operations. Oiesel-electric propulsion would provide greater flexibility and lowered maintenance costs, but the inital cost might be double that of the present engines. There appears to be little prospect of improvement in conventional propellers. The design of tuna vessels can be improved only at the cost of decreased carrying capacity and effscsencv. primary fault of the ammonia compression refrigeration system, nearly universal !N the tuna fleet, may be lack OF ADEQUATE RESERVE CAPACITY. The ammonia A3S0RPT!0N system has certain advantages, but TRIALS TO date have not been entirely successful due to imperfections in the system and lack of trained engineers. hydraulic pumps and plastic piping offer possibilities for lower installation and maintenance costs. Radar, loraWj and depth sounders have materially increased fish production SINCE World War II. Development of new electronic devices such as echo-ranging units and underwater listening equipment hold PROMdSE of greatly increasing efficiency of fishing operations. Electrical fishing experiments conducted in Europe on marine fishes indicate that the successful development of electrical fishing equipmentt could revolutionize some methods of commercial fishing.. Present fishing gear is effective and any change must prove of decided super ior- iTYo Plastic or nylon netting might prove superior to cotton and linen for purse seines. Gill nets can catch tuna and may be used as auxiliary gear. If Americaivi fishermen can profitably use long-line gear, new fishing areas in the east -central pacific may be opened up. The PRESENT TUf>IA BOATS ARE HIGHLY EFFICIEIVr AS OPERATED. UNLESS SOME REVOLU- tionary means of catching tuna is developed to a practical stage there appears to be little chance of curtailing production costs through increased effectiveness per unit of crew effort. Bait is an important aspect of the United States tuna fishery, since 70 per- cent OF THE TOTAL CATCH OF TUNA BY UNITED STATES VESSELS IS MADE WITH BAIT. JN 1950 ROUGHLY i POUND OF BAIT WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE llO POUNDS OF SKIPJACK OR YELLaVFIN TUNA, AND A LESSER AMOUNn" FOR ALBACORE, AN ESTIMATED 26,000,000 POUNDS 165 OF BAIT (FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC) WAS USEO BY THE BAIT BOAT FLEET IN lijCO. ABOUT 17 PERCENT OF A TUNA-BAiT BOAT'S TIME AT SEA IS SPENT IN SECURING BAIT. BETWEEN 35 AfJD 90 PERCENT OF THE BAIT SUPPLY IS FOUND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, SOME OF THESE COUNTRIES PERMIT BAITING BY AMERICAN VESSELS WITH VARYING RESTRICTIONS. A LIMITED AMOUNT OF RESEARCH CONCERNING SYNTHETIC BAIT HAS BEEN STARTED. DEVELOP- MENT OF A SUITABLE SYNTHETIC BAIT OR A SUBSTITUTE SOLRCE OF NATURAL BAIT WOULD BENEFIT THE TUNA FISHERY. A LIMITED NUMBER OF TUNA VESSELS MIGHT BE PROFITABLY EMPLOYED IN OTHER FiSHERfESo However p a large influx of new vessels will have a somewhat deleter- ious EFFECT ON ANY ONE FISHERY, DURING THE 1952 SALMON SEASON, SIX OF THE 17 freezer-ships WORKING IN BRISTOL BAY WERE TUNA CLIPPERS, THESE TUNA BOATS WERE HANDICAPPED BY THEIR SNABILITY TO CARRY A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CATCHER BOATS AND THEY RECEIVED ONLY PARTIAL LOADS, Some of the smaller vessels in the tuna fleet might prove successful in nt SHRIMP fishery AS CATCHER BOATS AND REFRIGERATED TRANSPORTS WORKING THE MORE DIS- TANT GROUNDS, The USE OF LARGER REFRIGERATED TUNA VESSELS IN THE SHRIMP INDUSTRY OF THE South Atlantic and Gulf States is impractical. Tuna boats should not EiNfTER the Pacific coast tram, fishery because the market for trawl fish is AMPLY SERVED BY THE PRESENT TRAWL FLEET. POTENTIALITIES IN THE TRAWL FISHERY ARE UNATTRACTIVE, SINCE THE VALUE OF ITS LAIvlDINGS AMOUNT TO ONLY SEVEN PERCENT OF THE VALUE OF THE TUNA FISHERY. The POSSIBILITIES OF PROFITABLY OPERATING TUNA VESSELS IN THE TRANSPORT trade are very dim, compared to a reefer ship on a tonnage basis, a tuna clipper wculd pay about 5 times the wages per ton capacity and 3.5 times the operating cost per ton capacity. Both the tuna clipper and the large seiner are readily adaptable as in- dependentj long-line catcher boats and the clipper might perform some sort of mothership duty to smaller purse seiners, or to other types of smaller fishing VESSELS, Of the VARIOUS LOCATIONS FROM WHICH THE DOMESTIC TUNA FLEET MIGHT OPERATE — OTHER THAN THE BASES NOW USED-- THE EQUATORIAL CENTRAL PACIFIC AREA AND THE GuLF- CARIBBEAN AREA HOLD PROMISE FCR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS AN EXPANSION OF, BUT NOT A substitute for, the present fishing grounds of the united states tuna fleet. the United States South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico ports mc the ports of Puerto r'co and the virgin islands have conditions attractive to the development of new tuna processing plants and vessel bases. but it is doubtful that the savings in any large-scale movement would offset the disadvantages. the outlook for favor- able changes in location of the entire tuna fishing fleet in the pacific is similarly poor. Development and /or expansion of the United States tuna industry is possible IN 3 AREAS not NOW FISHED ON A LARGE- SCALE BY THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY. THESE AREAS ARE THE Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico and Car.ibbean area, and the eastern CENTRAL Pacific, Recently-gained knowledge indicates that large stocks of several SPECIES OF TUNA,, AS YET ONLY PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY UNEXPLOITED, INHABIT THESE WATERS WITHIN RANGE OF AMERICAN PORTS. THE RATE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THESE RESOURCES IS DIFFICULT TO PREDICT BECAUSE VERY LITTLE IS KNOWN AT THE PRESENT CONCERNING THE HABITS AND ACTUAL ABUNDANCE OF THE SPECIES, AND THE INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION WILL BE DEPENDENT TO A LARGE DEGREE ON THE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF THE TUNA MARKET IN COMING YEARS, 166 Bluefin have been caught by cow/ercial fishermen in Hbn England waters during the summer and early fall for the past half century or more, annual production is small compared to the pacific coast tuna fishery, normally ran3ing in recent years BETWEEN 1 AND 2 MILLION POUNDS WITH MOST OF THE CATCH COMING FROM TRAPS IN CaPE CoD Bayo Efforts to purse seine bluefin in the Gulf of Maine by commercial fisher- men IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II AND BY THE F ( SH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN 1951 resulted in good catches, but a low and unsteady local market for tuna discouraged commercial developmente since the war, tuna-cann!ng activities have increased on the atlantic coast, with 5 canneries in operation in 1952, the seasonal occurrence of large schools of bluefin in inshore waters indicates that the fishery may possibly be expamdeo further offshore, but the offshore potential is unknown now. Adequate port facilities, the presence of large amounts of live bait, and a fleet OF fishing VESSELS WHICH COULD BE READILY ADAPTED TO LONG-LINE FISHING ARE FACTORS in favor of expansion of atlantic coast tuna fishing, in addition to the bluefin, little tuna and bonito are present in considerable but unknown quantities from Cape Cod to Florida, Stocks of tuna on which to base a Gulf and Caribbean tuna fishery are known TO EXIST, Development by United States fishermen is likely when and if our know- ledge OF seasonal occurrence and /sdaptations of fishing methods to the local conditions is sufficient, A LIMITED FISHERY FOR LITTLE TUNA INTC GuLF IS NOW possible if MARKETING PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED, EXTENSIVE SCHOOLS OF TUNA WERE OB- SERVED !N THE Central Gulf in 1951 and 1952 by the Fish and Wildlife Service ex- ploratory RESEARCH VESSEL OREGON, THE EXISTENCE OF A SUCCESSFUL LIVE-BAIT FISH- ERY FOR TUNA IN CUBA LENDS ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPLOITING CARIBBEAN TUNA WITH LONG-RANGE VESSELS CAPABLE OF FOLLOWING THE SEASONAL MIGRATIONS OF THE FISH, Rich nen tuna fishing grounds were recently discovered by the Service's Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations in equatorial mid-Pacific waters south of Hawaii, Excellent long-line catches have been made over a wide area, indicating THAT considerable EXPANSION OF KNOiA/N PRODUCING GROUNDS IS POSSIBLE, THE MAJORITY OF THE TUNA CATCH IS MADE UP OF LARGE YELLOWFIN, WITH SOME SKIPJACK AND BSG-EYEO TUNA, American tuna seiners and large clippers are readily adaptable to long- line FISHING, AND, ON THE BASIS OF EXPERIMENTAL CATCHES, AN AMERICAN VESSEL AND CREW OF 12 MIGHT EXCEPT AN AVERAGE DAILY CATCH OF FROM 6,000 TO 13,000 POUNDS IN THE MOST PRODUCTIVE AREAS, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF LIMITED EXPLOITATION OF SURFACE TUNA IN ThC LiNE AND FHOENIX ISLANDS, ADDITIONAL SHORE-SIDE FACILITIES are needed for any use of these islands as tuna fleet bases. Most of the actual tuna fishing by United States vessels takes place on the HIGH SEAS beyond THE LIMITS OF CLAIMED TERRITORIAL SEAS, HOWEVER, THE TUNA FLEET REGULARLY ENTERS FOREIGN TERRITORIAL WATERS TO CAPTURE BAIT, TO UTILIZE PORT FACILITIES, AND TO FISH FOR TUNA IN SOME LOCATIONS, FOR THESE REASONS, AMERICAN TUNA FISHERMEN PURCHASE LICENSES AND OBSERVE FISHING REGULAT I 0^B OF THESE COUNTRIES, ALBACORE BOATS, PURSE SEINERS, tND TUNA CLIPPERS ARE AFFECTED IN VARYING DEGREES BY THE FOREIGN CLAIMS AND REGULATIONS, SOME 200 TUNA CLIPPERS, WORKING FROM SOUTHERN California to international waters off northern Peru, are totally dependent on live bait and are most affected by the limitations of territorial waters, Claims to territorial seas made by Latin American counttries range from 3 to 200 MILES offshore, ALTHOUGH ALL ARE NOT ENFORCED, TUNA BAIT USUALLY IS TAKEN WITHIN 3 MILES OFF SHORE SO THESE COUNTRIES EXERT COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THESE BAIT RESOURCES, 167 RELATIO^B BCTOEEN THE AMERICAN TUNA FLEET AN3 THE LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN GOOD CONSiOERiNG TWE LARGE NUMBER OF BOATS INVOLVED. SEIZURES OF AMERICAN VESSELS HAVE FOLLOWED INCREASED TERRITORIAL WATER CLAIMS AND CHANGES IN FISHING REGULATIONS. ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES ONLY THE 3-MILE LIMIT, SOME ■COUNTRIES ARE ENFORCING CLAIMS UP TO 12 MILES. AMERICAN FISHERMEN HAVE OBSERVED SUCH CLAIMS FOR PVFPOSES OF EXPEDIENCY, NOT BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE THEM AS VALID. The ABILITY OF LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES TO DEVELOP LOCAL TUNA INDUSTRIES WILL IWDOUBTEDLY PLAY A MAJOR ROLE !N FUTURE FISHERY LEGISLATION. THERE ARE POSSIBLE ALTERNATE SOURCES OF BAIT, BUT THEY ENTAIL INCONVENIENCE AND INCREASED COSTS AT THIS TiMEo Present research to develop artificial or alternate tuna baits is PROMISING, AND C0U.D RELIEVE THE TUNA FLEET FROM ITS ALMOST TOTAL DEPENDENCE ON foreign SUPPLIES. RESULTS OF RECENT EXPLORATION INDICATE THAT ThERE ARE SUFFICIENT STOCKS OF TUNA IN THE HIGH SEAS BEYOND ALL TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS TO SUPPORT THE PRESENT INDUSTRY IF SOME OF THE EXISTING FISHING QBOUNCS WERE CLOSED. QUANTITY AND VALUE OF PRODUCTION It has been shown that the United States accounted for about 32 percent of world production of tuna and tionalike fishes in 19^1 • That harvest was taken almost entirely by Pacific Coast States fisher- aeno A complete statistical survey of the catch of tuna and tunalike fishes was made throughout the United States in 1950 o The results of this siorvey with respect to the quantity of the catch, together with estimates of the quantity of the catch for 19^1 and 1952, are shown in table U?. This table shows the preponderance of the Pacific Coast States catch in the total of tuna and tunalike fishes produced in the United States » The fact that the preponderant part of the United States catch of tuna and tunalike fishes has been made by Pacific Coast States fishermen has been the case historically for many years. Although canplete statistical suin/^eys of the United States catch of tuna and tunalike fishes were made in 191^5? 19b0 and a nimjber of prior years, these surveys do not give the total catch of these fish exactly. In those years small quantities of certain tuna and tunalike species caught on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts were reported under other fish names since the identification of those fish was not clear. However, the particular fish which were not identified properly, principally little tuna and bonito, make up the smaller part of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast catch. Blnefin is the largest item in the total of that catcho Complete data for the catch of bluefin in the Atlantic Coast States are available for a number of years and are shown in table U8 . From this table it may be observed that in all years, from 1929 through 1950, liie Atlantic ooast bluefin catch, which makes up the bulk of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast States catch of tuna, was small compared to the tuna catch of the Pacific Coast States which is shown by species in table h9 for the years 1911 through 19^0. 168 TABLE 47.- UNITED STATES CATCH OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1950 - 1952 1/ ESTIMATED. 2/ NOT AVAILABLE. (EXPRESSED IN THbUSANDS OF POUNDS) PACIFIC COAST STATES SPEC 1 ES 1950 1951 1952 1/ TUNA: ALBACORE QUANT 1 TY 72,415 2,762 126,786 187,889 QUANT 1 TY 34,491 3,862 116,599 161,481 QUANT 1 TY BLUEFIN .... LITTLE. ... 1 |/ SKIPJACK 2/ YELLOWFIN 2/ TOTAL 389, 852 316,433 328 000 TUNALIKE FISHES; BON 1 TO 696 3,530 777 4,670 2,374 YELLOWTAIL 9,212 ' TOTAL 4,226 5,447 11 586 GRAND TOTAL 394,078 321,880 339,586 ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST STATES SPEC 1 ES 1950 1951 l/ 1952 \J TUNA: QUANTITY 1,267 296 QUANTITY 1,800 300 QUANTITY BLUEFIN 2J iJ SKIPJACK 2/ YELLOWTAIL 2/ 1,563 2,100 800 TUNALIKE FISHES: BON 1 TO 124 125 125 TOTAL 124 125 125 1,687 2,225 .925 TOTAL SPEC 1 ES 1950 1951 l/ 1952 1/ TUNA: ALBACORE , . BLUEFIN QUANTITY 72,415 4,029 296 126,786 187,890 QUANTITY 34,491 5,662 300 116,599 161,481 QUANT 1 TY LITTLE 2/ SKIPJACK 2/ YELLOWFIN 2/ TOTAL 391,416 318,533 328 800 TUNALIKE FISHES: BOItllTO 820 3,530 902 4,670 2,499 YELLOWTAIL ^ 9,212 TOTAL 4,350 5,572 11,711 GRAND TOTAL 395,766 324,105 340,511 169 Table 48. - ATLANTIC COAST STATES; 1929 - 1952 BLUEFIN TUNA CATCH, YEAR NEW ENGLAND MIDDLE ATUNTIC CHESAPEAKE BAY STATES STATES STATES POUNDS VALUE POUNDS VALUE POUNDS VALUE POUNDS VALUE 1929 222,027 $19,086 113,604 $8,313 _ _ 335,631 $27,399 1930 239,264 14,483 57,162 4,774 - - 296,426 19,257 1931 301,223 20,559 20,150 833 - _ 321,373 1/315,094 21,392 1932 255, 626 11,561 59,468 2,616 - - 14,177 1933 401,481 17,569 43,228 1,926 _ _ 444,709 19,495 1934 (2) (2) {^) (2) . - (2) 15,074 1935 538,500 13,931 24,100 1,143 _ _ 562,600 1936 (2) (2) 12) 100 $1 (2) <^1 35,549 1937 928,800 31,b7b 94,100 3,966 100 8 1,023,000 1938 1,567,400 58,126 255,600 9,952 - - 1,823,000 63,078 1939 834,900 30,103 114,500 4,724 - - 949,400 34 827 1940 1,120,900 39,229 33,900 1,312 _ . 1,154,800 40,541 1541 (^) (2) (^) 5,062 - - (^) <^1 75,223 65,276 1942 771,600 69,678 51,100 4,000 483 826,700 1943 382,800 48,224 93,500 17,052 (2) 476,300 1944 754,100 106,252 75,000 9,205 829,100 115,467 1945 1,226,200 216,653 148,100 24.415 _ _ 1,374,300 241,068 1946 1,007,800 67,308 176,600 27,338 _ _ 1,184,400 94,646 1947 945,200 88,506 141,200 25,361 1,100 132 1,087,500 113,999 1948 2,878,100 194,999 119,200 18,520 _ _ 2,997,300 213,519 1949 2,673,900 196,457 64,200 11,152 - - 2,738,100 207,609 1950 1,135,100 96,321 132,100 16,045 _ _ 1,267,200 112,366 1951 (1 2 2) 2 i 2 2) if (i i 1952 (2 (2 (2 2 l/ DOES NOT INCLUDE 3,350 POUNDS, VALUED AT |134 LANDED IN ^ DATA NOT AVAILABLE. FLOR I DA , Table 49. - PACIFIC COAST STATES: TUNA CATCH BY SPECIES, 1911 - 1952 'expressed in THOUSANDS OF POUNDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS^ (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 170 YEAR ALBACORE BLUEFIN SKIPJACK QUANT 1 TY VALUE QUANTITY VALUE QUANTITY VALUE 1911 850 5 _ _ _ - 1912 3,400 20 _ - - - 1913 6,600 53 _ - - - 1914 18,470 222 - - - - 1915 21,050 316 _ - - - 1916 4,100 78 l/20,540 l/700 (2) (2) 1917 30, 170 1,207 i;i50 25 420 11 1918 7,270 400 6,240 218 3,020 91 1919 13,630 845 17,180 687 6,900 241 1920 18,880 1,982 15,780 740 7,960 378 1921 15,280 1,222 3,420 85 1,140 25 1922 13,230 1,151 3,500 132 11,860 270 1923 12,515 1,627 3,645 182 11,463 298 1924 17,695 1,829 3,726 345 3,781 179 1925 22,207 2,333 4,190 377 14 235 752 1926 2!351 220 6,787 360 20,951 873 Table 49 (EXP (expressed in thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars PACIFIC COAST STATES: TUNA CATCH BY SPECIES. 1911 - 1952 - Continued YEAR ALBACORE BLUEFIN SKIPJACK QUANT 1 TY 4' 579 VALUE 517 QUANTITY 4; 898 VALUE 312 QUANTITY VALUE 1927 33, 807 1,261 1928 283 42 13,701 823 15,815 562 1929 269 40 7 527 490 26, 998 1,081 1930 286 24 21,921 1,238 20,486 790 1931 37 3 3,534 169 16,507 504 1932 620 31 1,071 51 21,637 751 1933 2 (3) 560 29 16,687 613 1934 121 9 18,358 846 14,830 594 1935 2,446 200 25, 173 1,145 17, 197 668 1936 984 91 18,925 922 25,992 1,19'l 1937 3,520 287 12,694 725 47,104 2,319 1938 17,726 966 17,728 983 22,654 1,133 1939 18,922 1,009 1 1,836 602 30 121 1,300 1940 14,502 996 19,970 1,117 56, 650 2,743 1941 11,932 1,712 9,519 581 25,586 1,362 1942 23,540 4,566 12,845 1,159 38,735 3,335 1943 37,518 6,104 10,178 967 28,894 2,583 1944 52,795 8,666 20,344 1,939 30,037 2,694 1945 39,483 7,697 20,594 1,984 33,348 2,982 1946 24,142 4,784 22,032 2,246 41,088 4 283 1947 26,844 4/49,493 6,780 20,838 3,321 52,749 7,628 1948 14,659 6,529 1,096 60,554 9,534 1949 54,794 10,039 4,389 713 80,512 11,923 1950 72,415 13,835 2,762 425 126,786 18_,130 1951 34,491 5,403 3,862 604 116,599 16,655 1952 (^) (^) (^) (5) (^) (5) YEAR YELLOWFIN TOTAL QUANT 1 TY VALUE QUANTITY VALUE 1911 _ - 850 5 1912 - _ 3,400 20 1913 - - 6,600 53 1914 . . 18,470 222 1915 _ . 21,050 316 1916 (2) (2) 24,640 778 1917 31,740 1,243 1918 . - 1 6, 530 709 1919 615 27 38,325 1,800 1920 2,200 105 44,820 3,205 1921 1,400 35 21,240 1,367 1922 7,360 294 35,950 1,647 1923 11,072 1,218 38,695 3,325 1924 3,125 500 28,327 2,853 1925 13,279 2,151 53 911 5 613 1926 1 2, 565 591 42 654 2,044 ^9Z7 25,934 1,304 69,218 3,394 1928 32, 251 1,774 62 050 3, 201 1929 37,399 2,200 72,193 3,811 1930 56,654 3,396 99,347 5 446 1931 36,580 1,979 56,658 2,655 1932 36,923 1,505 60,251 2,338 1933 51,076 2,275 68,325 2,917 1934 60,913 3 053 94,222 4,502 1935 72, 252 3,620 117,070 5,653 1936 78,353 4,139 125,254 6,343 1937 91,523 5,458 154,841 8,789 1938 78,318 4,705 136,426 7,787 1939 110,418 5,912 171,297 8,823 1940 113,760 6,707 204,882 1 1 , 563 1941 76,702 4,851 123,739 8,506 1942 41,467 3,836 116,587 1 2, 896 1943 49,262 4,881 125,852 14,535 1944 63,144 6,269 166 320 19,568 1945 87,446 8,718 180,873 21,381 1946 127,247 14,614 214,509 25,927 1947 153,510 23,919 253,941 41,648 1948 199,427 33,406 316,003 58,695 1949 190,544 30, 999 330,239 53,674 1950 187,889 28,823 389,852 61,213 1951 161,461 24,961 316,433 ^328,000 47,623 1952 {^) (^) 1/ includes skipjack AND YELLOWriN. 2/ INCLUDED WITH BLUEFIN. 3/ LESS THAN 500 DOLLARS. a/ INCLUDES 132,000 POUNDS, VALUED AT §^ DATA NOT AVAILABLE. 6/ PARTLY ESTENATED. $32,000 LANDED IN ALASKA, NOTE:--DATA FOR 1911-1926 FROM UNITED STATES, TARIFF COMMISSION REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE ON TUNA FISH, REPORT NO, 109, SECOND SERIES, JANUARY 3, 1936. 171 Table 50. - PACIFIC COAST STATES: BONITO A^fD YELLOWTAIL CATCH, 1916 - 1952 < EXPRESSED IN THOUSANDS OF POUNDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) YEAR BON 1 TO YELLOWTAIL TOTAL QUANTITY VALUE QUANTITY VALUE QUANTITY VALUE 1915 448 13 1,343 31 1,791 44 1916 480 1,153 1 1,633 1917 889 2,746 ^ 3,635 1918 2,442 11,515 ^ 13,957 1919 3,509 5,005 1 8,514 1920 874 2,705 3,579 i 1 1921 325 2,491 2,816 1922 958 3,41A 4,372 1923 1,115 3,980 5,095 1924 1,038 29 4,714 375 5,752 404 1925 867 26 3,180 272 4,047 298 1926 3,079 93 5,023 266 8,102 359 1927 1,717 50 4,225 195 5,942 245 1928 2,088 68 2,684 139 4,772 207 1929 2,919 98 3,075 150 5,994 248 1930 5,164 167 4,770 210 9,934 377 1931 3,080 49 2,526 84 5,606 133 1932 2,862 53 1,796 51 4,658 104 1933 2,252 40 3,899 88 6,151 128 1934 3,203 77 2,347 79 5,550 156 1935 7,896 229 8,149 234 16,045 463 1936 7,216 221 10,092 299 17,308 520 1937 7,808 286 5,371 212 13,179 498 1938 7,753 286 6,812 253 14,565 539 1939 9,919 321 2,866 96 12,785 417 1940 5,291 196 5,957 203 11,248 399 1941 10,827 459 9,831 383 20,658 842 1942 1,651 115 2,726 193 4,377 308 1943 2,282 182 4,935 369 7,217 551 1944 816 69 2,955 234 3,771 303 1945 2,714 217 3,534 292 6,248 509 1946 5,626 536 4,562 374 10,188 910 1947 13,697 1,606 9,953 1,124 23,650 2,730 1948 9,135 1,062 10,446 1,163 19,581 2,225 1949 1,830 178 7,320 686 9,150 864 1950 696 68 3,530 314 4,226 382 1951 777 74 4,670 443 5,447 517 1952 2,374 (1) 9:212 (1) 1 1 , 586 (1) j/ DATA NOT AVAILABLE NOTE: --DATA FOR 1^16 BULLETIN NO, 74. - 1922 FROM CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF MAR I ME FISHERIES, FISH 172 The catch of bonito and yellowtail — the timalike fishes — for the Pacific Coast States is shown in table ^0 by species for the years 1915 through 1950. Values of the catch are also given in these last three tables. As a result of detailed statistical surveys, value data are available for the Pacific Coast States tuna and tunalike species catch for most years. However, 19^0 is the only year -when complete value data were recorded for the entire United States as a result of the detailed statistical survey conducted in that year. The value of the catch along with the quantity caught in 19^0 for the entire United States is shown in table 5^. In order to show by general areas where most of the domestic catch is taken, tables 52, 53, and 5U, have been prepared. In recent years most of our catch has been taken off Latin America. The smaller proportion of the total catch has been taken off the Pacific Coast States and in one year, 19U8, 132,000 pounds of albacore were taken off Alaska. Operating range of the domestic tuna fleet is shown in figure 111, TABLE 51, - UNITED STATES: CATCH OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES, 1950 (Expressed in thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars) Species Pacific Coast States Tuna: Albacore Blue fin Little Skipjack Yellowfin Total Tunalike fishes: Bonito Ye How tail Total Quantity 72,U15 2,762 126, 786 187,889 Value 13,835 i;25 18,130 28,823 389,852 61,213 696 3,530 68 31ii U,226 382 Grand total 39U,078 61,595 (Continued on next page) 173 TABLE 51. - UNITED STATES: CATCH OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES j 1950 (continued) (Expressed in thousands of pounds and thousands of dollars) SPECIES ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST STATES TOTAL TUNA? Albacore ........ Hluefin Little Skipjack • . Yellovvfin. ...... Quantity ! 1,267 296 Value 112 11 Quantity 72,415 4,029 296 126,786 187,889 Value 13,835 537 11 18,130 28,823 Total 1,563 123 391,415 61,336 TUNALIKE FISHES: Bonito Yellowtail. . . . . , . 124 10 820 3,530 78 314 Total 124 10 4,350 392 Grand Total 1,687 133 395,765 61,728 TYPES OF TUNA FISHING NOW RIPLOYED Pacific Coast States Three general types or methods of fishing are now employed by American fishermen in the tuna fisheries of the Eastern Pacific Ocean contiguous to the North and South American continents and out- lying islands and offshore banks. Generally these methods are also commonly associated with three specific types of fishing craft. The three types are as followsj 1. Purse seine nets operated by "seiners" or purse seine vessels. 2. Bait lines, also referred to as bait fishing or live bait fishing. The craft are termed "bait boats" or "live bait boats". Larger vessels of this type with raised-deck and clipper bow are more generally termed "clippers" or "tuna clippers". 174 Table 52. - PACIFIC COAST STATES: 1911 - TUNA CATCH BY AREA OF CAPTURE, 1952 ALBACORE BLUEFIN SKIPJACK YEAR OFF PACIFIC COAST STATES OFF LATIN AMERICAN COUNTR 1 ES OFF PACIFIC COAST STATES OFF LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, OFF PACIFIC COAST STATES -OFF LATIN ■AMERICAN !C0UNTR|ES QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY 1911 850 - - - ^ - 1912 3,400 . - - - - 1913 6,600 - - - - - 1914 18,470 - - - - - 1915 21,050 - - - - - 1916 4,100 - 1/20,540 - ^^L - 1917 30,170 - 1,150 - 420 - 1918 7,268 2 6,240 - 3,020 - 1919 13,550 80 17,180 - 6,885 15 1920 18,880 _ 15,780 - 7,942 18 1921 15,278 2 3,360 60 1,140 1922 13,230 - 3,473 27 10,115 1923 12,488 27 3,562 83 4,579 6,884 1924 17,280 415 3,726 - 1,356 2,425 1925 21,685 522 4,190 - 8,768 5,467 1926 2,351 4,455 (2) 124 6,7er7 - 14,217 6,734 1927 4,898 (2) 5,804 28,003 1928 '283 - 13,701 4,263 11,552 1929 269 (2) •7,477 50 8,032 18,966 1930 286 15,599 6,322 3,015 17,471 1931 37 _ 2,i358 1,176 11,966 4,541 1932 620 _ 460 611 , f^ 21,262 1933 2 _ 324 236 (2) 16,687 1934 121 _ 18,292 66 14,830 1935 2,387 61 18,i496 5,677 1,908 15,239 1936 984 _ 13,B09 5.116 8,457 18,535 1937 3,520 _ 10,822 1,872 1,884 45,220 1938 17,696 30 16,512 1,216 3 22,651 1939 18,918 4 9,319 2,517 2,719 27,402 1940 14,501 1 18,850 1,120 2,985 53,665 1941 11,932 _ 8,848 671 4,215 21,371 1942 20,916 2,624 10,332 2,513 218 38,517 1943 28,019 9,499 7,664 2,514 18 28,876 1944 43,020 9,775 16,084 4,260 4 30,033 1945 27,221 12,262 14,139 6,455 93 33,255 1946 15,180 8,962 15,529 6,503 1,747 39,341 1947 21,082 3/23,567 5,762 14,756 6,082 893 51,856 1948 25,926 1,694 4,835 319 60,235 1949 31 ; 217 23,577 2,266 2,123 27 80,485 1950 48,839 23,576 9 2,753 12 126,774 1951 16,869 w 3,025 837 1 116,598 1952 (i) (^) (4) U) YELLOWFIN TOTAL OF F latin' 'OFF LATIN YEAR OFF P/ VC 1 F 1 C AM ERICAN OFF PAC 1 F 1 C AMERICAN 1 rOTAL COAST STATES CO UNTR|ES_ COAS T STATES COUNTRIES QUA NTITY QL ANT 1 TY QU ANTITY QUANTITY Qy> ENTITY 1911 _ _ 850 _ 850 1912 _ _ 3,400 - 3,400 1913 _ 6,600 - 6,600 1914 _ _ 18,470 - 18,470 1915 _ _ 21,050 - 21,050 1916 (1) _ 24,640 . 24,640 1917 - 31,740 - 31,740 1918 _ _ 16,528 2 16,530 1919 615 _ 38,230 95 38,325 1920 1,700 500 44,302 518 44,820 srr rr\r\ rkr/-\Tro AX r-kir* r\c V?i9. / 50 \ Okl k. 21.128 , rvT DA(^ri 112 21,240 175 Tible 52. PACIFIC COAST STATES: TUNA CATCH BY AREA OF CAPTURE, 1911 - 1952 - Continued 1 YELLOWFIN TOTAL YEAR OFF PACIFIC COAST STATES OFF LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES OFF PACIFIC COAST STATES OFF LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES TOTAL QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY 1922 1,200 6,160 28,018 7,932 35,950 1923 429 10,643 21,058 17,637 38,695 1924 681 2,444 23,043 5,284 28,327 1925 2 964 10,315 37,607 16,304 53,911 1926 2,695 9,er70 26,050 16,604 42,654 1927 595 25,339 15,752 53,466 69,218 1928 83 32,168 18,330 43,720 62,050 1929 199 37,200 15,977 56,216 72,193 1930 36 56,618 18,936 80,411 99,347 1931 155 36,425 14,516 42,142 56,658 1932 165 36,758 1,620 58,631 60,251 1933 7 51,069 333 67,992 68,325 1934 19 60,894 18,432 75,790 94 222 1935 529 71,723 23,320 93,750 117' 070 1936 767 77,586 24,017 101,237 125,254 1937 188 91,335 16,414 138,427 154,841 1938 11 78,307 34,222 102,204 136,426 1939 457 109,961 31,413 139,884 171,297 1940 238 113,522 36,574 168,308 204,882 1941 2 76,700 24,997 98,742 123,739 1942 1 41 466 31,467 85,120 116,587 1943 0 49,260 35,703 90,149 125,852 1944 (2) 63,144 59,108 107,212 166,320 1945 5 87,443 41,458 139,415 180,873 1946 33 127,214 32,489 182,020 214,509 1947 3 153,507 36,734 217,207 253,941 1948 (2) 199,427 25,580 290,423 316,003 1949 10 190,534 33,520 296,719 330, 239 1950 1 ler7,888 48,861 340,991 389,852 1951 _ 161,481 19,895 296,538 316,433 5^328,000 1952 (4) (4) (4) (i) l/ THE CATCH OF SKIPJACK AND YELLOWFIN IS INCLUDED WITH BLUEFIN. 2/ LESS THAN 500 POUNDS. 2/ INCLUDES A CATCH OF 132,000 POUNDS LANDED IN ALASKA. y DATA NOT AVAILABLE. ^ PARTLY ESTIMATED. NOTE:--DATA FOR 1911 TO 1926 INCLUSIVE FROM UNITED STATES TARIFF COWISSION REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE ON TUNA FISH, REPORT NO. 109, StCONO SERIES, JANUARY 3, 1936. 176 Table 53. - PACIFIC COAST STATES: BONITO AND YELLOWTAIL CATCH BY AREA OF CAPTURE. 1923 - 19 52 YEAR BON 1 TO YELLOWTAIL OFF OFF LATIN 01- F OFF LATIN CALIFORNIA AMERICA CALIFORNIA AMERICA QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY 1923 479 636 2,969 1,011 1924 836 202 2,863 1,851 1925 771 96 2,587 5Q3 1926 2,900 179 3; 173 1 , ri50 1927 1,120 597 1,436 2,789 1928 1,318 770 1,297 1,387 1929 594 2,325 850 2,225 1930 3,866 1,298 1,215 3,555 1931 3,015 65 1,708 818 1932 1,711 1,151 1,024 772 1933 1,967 285 1^233 2,666 1934 3,003 200 211 2,136 1935 2,264 5,632 582 7,567 1936 2,217 4,999 254 9,838 1937 5,707 2,101 224 5,147 1938 4,598 3,155 246 6,566 1939 6,697 3,222 262 2,604 1940 3,553 1,738 329 5,628 1941 7,851 2,976 96 9,735 1942 862 789 55 2,671 1943 802 1,480 33 4,902 1944 326 490 28 2,927 1945 340 2,374 29 3,505 1946 583 5,043 31 4,531 1947 384 13,313 104 9,849 1948 215 8,920 247 10,199 1949 99 1,731 18 7,302 1950 34 662 6 3,524 1951 54 723 14 4,656 1952 250 2,124 150 9,062 TOTAL YEAR OFF CALIFORNIA 'I F LATIN MERICA TOTAL QUANTITY Q UANTITY QUANTITY 1923 3,448 1,647 5,095 1924 3,699 2,053 5,752 1925 3,358 689 4,047 1926 6,073 2,029 8,102 1927 2,556 3,386 5,942 1928 2,615 2,157 4,772 1929 1,444 4,550 5,994 1930 5,081 4,853 9,934 1931 4,723 883 5,606 1932 2,735 1,923 ^658 . 1933 3,200 2,951 6; 151 1934 3,214 2,336 5,550 1935 2,846 13,199 16,045 1936 2,471 14,837 17,308 1937 5,931 7,246 13,179 1938 4,844 9,721 14,565 1939 6,959 5,826 12,785 1940 3,882 7,366 11,248 1941 7,947 12,711 20, 658 1942 '917 3,460 4,377 1943 835 6,382 7' 217 1944 354 3,417 3,771 1945 369 5,879 6,248 1946 614 9,574 10,188 (CONl "INUED ON NEXT page) 177 Table 53. - PACIFIC COAST STATES: BONITO AND YELLOWTAIL CATCH BY AREA OF CAPTURE, 1923 - 1952 - Continued TOTAL YEAR OFF CALIFORNIA OFF LATIN AMERICA TOTAL 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 QUANTITY 488 462 117 40 68 400 QUANT 1 TY 23,162 19,119 9,033 4,186 5,379 11,186 QUANTITY 23,650 19,581 9,150 4,226 5,447 11,586 Table 54. PACIFIC COAST STATES AND ALASKA: BY REGION, 1923 - 1952 ALBACORE CATCH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA NORTHERN OFF LATIN CALIFORNIA YEAR OFF CALIFORNIA AMERICA QUANT 1 TY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY 1923 27 12,486 PI - 1924 415 17,280 (1, - 1925 , 522 21,225 460 - 1926 (1) 2,232 119 - 1927 124 4,454 , , 1 - 1928 283 (1) - 1929 (1) 269 - 1930 110 173 - 1931 _ 7 30 - 1932 . , 13 607 (1) 1933 . (1 (1) 1934 _ • 19 1 - 1935 61 1,703 683 - 1936 _ 914 42 - 1937 _ 1,437 583 ^^K. 1938 30 5,074 2,598 22 1939 4 5,002 4,991 3 1940 1 3,001 883 1 1941 _ 2,166 1,176 (l 1942 2,624 7,692 293 12 (continued on NEXT PAGE) 178 Table 54. PACIFIC COAST STATES AM) ALASKA: ALBACORE CATCH BY REGION, 1923 - 1952 - Continued SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CENTRAL NORTHERN OFF LATIN ■ CAL 1 FORN 1 A CALIFORNIA AMERICA OFF CALIFORNIA QUANT 1 TY QUAINT ITY QUANT 1 TY QUANTITY 1943 9,499 10,621 774 488 1944 9,775 8,355 225 78 1945 12,252 8,551 372 90 1946 8,953 8,784 261 61 1947 5,752 5,489 1,645 531 1948 25,927 7,192 2,630 732 1949 23,577 11,008 6,530 2,818 1950 23,575 16,935 15,634 5,601 1951 17,522 5,595 5,647 2,052 1952 (2) (^) (2) YEAR OREGON WASHINGTON ALASKA TOTAL QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY 1923 _ _ _ 12,515 1924 _ . - 17,595 1925 _ _ . 22,207 1926 - _ . 2,351 1927 - - - 4,579 1928 _ . - 283 1929 (1) - - 269 1930 3 - - 286 1931 _ - - 37 1932 _ - - 620 1933 2 _ - 2 1934 1 - - 121 1935 1 _ - 2,448 1936 28 - - 984 1937 1,079 421 - 3,520 1938 5,859 4,133 - 17,725 1939 6,485 2,437 - 18,922 1940 9,286 1,331 - 14,502 1941 7,545 1,045 - 11,932 1942 10.943 1,976 - 23,540 1943 10,386 5.750 - 37,518 1944 22,492 11,870 - 52,795 1945 12,178 6,030 - 39,483 1946 3,951 2,122 - 24,142 1947 9,174 4,243 - 26,844 1948 7,953 4,917 132 49,493 1949 6.327 4.434 - 54,794 1950 5,386 5,283 _ 72,415 1951 2,950 625 _ 34,491 1952 (^) (2) . i^) j/ LESS THAN 500 POUNDS. ^ DATA NOT AVAILABLE. NOTE: --SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INCLUDES THE SAN DIEGO AND SAN PEDRO DISTRICTS; CENTRAL CALIFORNIA THE MONTEREY AND SAN PRANCISCO DISTRICTS; AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA THE AREA NORTH OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REGION. 179 3. Troll lines, operated from troll boats or simply '»Trollers*»o Table ^5 is a tabulation of the Pacific Coast States operating units engaged in tuna fishing in 1950 and 19^1, including craft also operating in other fisheries. It includes number of fishermen on vessels 7/ and boats [BJ and total fishermen; number sind combined registered net tonnage of vessels segregated into 10-ton size cate- gories, and total vessels and net tonnage; number and length in yards of seines, and ntimber of lines and hooks„ These data are given for each major type of tuna fishing and for the total, exclusive of duplication. A description of the gear mentioned has been given previously in Chapter I . Table 56 is a similar tabulation of the fishermen and fishing craft engaged exclusively in tuna fishing in 1950 and 1951" Table 57 gives like data on the fishermen and fishing craft engaged in other fisheries in 1950 and 1951 as well as tuna f ishingj that is, it gives the total craft and fishermen engaged in tuna fishing and duplicated in other fisheries. Data as to the quantity of the catch made -with the principal types of gear used are given in table 58 » The catches made with troll lines and bait lines are combined in this table under the general classification, "hooks and lines'*, since that was the only manner in which these particular data were available. Data for 1930 and 19U0 are shown along with 1950 for conjparative purposes. Gill and trammel net gear shown in this table are not covered in this sub - section because these nets are not a type of gear used with the objective of catching tuna or tunalike fish. Any of the latter taken by this gear are only incidental to the capture of other species of fish. 7/ The term "vessel" as used in this and the following section applies only to craft of 5 net registered tons capacity and over. 8/ The terra"boat as used in this and the following section applies to all craft of less than 5 net registered tons capacity. 181 TABLf. 55.- TUNA OPERATING UNITS, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 1951: BY GEAR AND SIZE CLASSIFICATION OF VESSELS INCLUDING CRAFT ALSO OPERATING IN OTHER FISHERIES TUNA PURSE SEINES YELLOWFIN AND SKIPJACK BAIT ALBACORE ITEW LINE BAIT LINES 1950 1951 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS 1,190 1,183 2,832 3,071 1,217 1,264 ON BOATS - - - - 209 195 TOTAL 1,190 1,193 2,832 3,071 1,426 1,459 VESSELS, MOTOR: 5 TO 9 NET TONS . , . 1 . 3 3 90 117 10 TO 19 NET TONS , . 3 2 11 14 71 79 20 TO 29 NET TONS . . - 2 12 13 32 30 30 TO 39 NET TONS . . 4 5 18 13 10 9 40 TO 49 NET TONS . . 4 7 6 8 3 3 50 TO 59 NET TONS . . 31 28 5 5 7 3 60 TO 69 NET TONS . . 24 24 8 7 5 _ 70 TO 79 NET TONS . , 12 12 7 8 1 1 80 TO 69 NET TONS . , 11 9 12 13 4 2 90 TO 99 NET TONS . . 9 9 16 17 2 1 100 TO 109 NET TONS, . 2 2 6 6 - . no TO 119 NET TONS. . . . 12 11 1 _ 120 TO 129 NET TONS. . _ - 12 14 . - 130 TO 139 NET TONS. . - _ 18 17 1 1 140 TO 149 NET TONS. . 1 1 7 7 . . 150 TO 159 NET TONS. . . _ 10 14 . . 160 TO 169 NET TONS. . _ . 6 10 _ . 170 TO 179 NET TONS. . . . 7 7 . . 180 TO 189 NET TONS. . - . 12 16 _ . 190 TO 199 NET TONS, , . . 20 21 _ 200 TO 209 NET TONS. . . _ 3 3 _ - 210 TO 219 NET TONS, . . . 3 3 . . 220 TO 229 NET TONS. , . . 4 4 . _ 230 TO 239 NET TONS. . . _ 1 1 . . 240 TO 249 NET TONS. . _ _ 3 2 - - 260 TO 269 NET TONS. . _ _ 1 1 - - 270 TO 279 NET TONS. . _ _ 2 2 _ . 300 TO 309 NET TONS. . . - 1 1 . _ 370 TO 379 NET TONS. . - . 1 1 _ _ 380 TO 389 NET TONS. . - - - 1 - - TOTAL VESSELS. . . 102 101 227 243 227 246 TOTAL NET TONS , . 6,680 6,545 26,702 29,219 4,414 3,802 BOATS, MOTOR 1 1 . 47 SI APPARATUS: NUMBER 102 101 2,832 3,071 1,426 1,450 LENGTH, YARDS , , , . 63,888 66,350 - - - - HOOKS - - 2,832 3,071 1,426 1,450 ALBACORE TOTA ITD1 TROLL LINES TOTAL L 1/ 1950 1951 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS 4,454 2,666 5,671 3,930 9,586 8,116 ON BOATS 3,231 1,908 3,440 2,103 3,440 2,103 TOTAL 7,685 4,574 9,111 6,033 13,026 10,219 VESSELS, MOTOR: 5 TO 9 NET TONS . . , ' 753 418 843 535 846 538 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) id2 TABLE 55.- TUNA OPERATING UNITS, PACIFIC COAST STATES. 1950 - 1951: BY GEAB AND SIZE CLASSIFICATION OF VESSELS INCLUDING CRAFT ALSO OPERATING IN OTHEB FISHERIES - Continued ALBACORE TO! ITEM TROLL LINES TOTAL '*^ y 1950 1951 1950 15S1 1050 lefel NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER VESSELS, MOTOR - CONT'D: 10 TO 19 NET TONS. , . 573 324 644 403 655 419 20 TO 29 NET TONS. . . 158 110 190 140 202 154 30 TO 39 NET TONS. . . 53 37 63 46 84 62 40 TO 49 NET TONS. . . 31 18 34 21 43 35 50 TO 59 NET TONS. . . 10 12 17 15 52 46 60 TO 69 NET TONS. . . 2 3 7 3 38 34 70 TO 79 NET TONS. . . 2 1 3 2 22 21 80 TO 89 NET TONS. . . 2 1 6 3 27 25 90 TO 99 NET TONS. . . - 1 2 2 27 28 100 TO 109 NET TONS . . 2 1 2 1 10 9 no TO 119 NET TONS . . 1 - 2 - 14 11 120 TO 129 NET TONS . . - - - - 12 14 130 TO 139 NET TONS . . - 1 1 2 19 19 140 TO 149 NET TONS . . _ - - - 8 8 150 TO 159 NET TONS . . - - - - 10 14 160 TO 169 NET TONS . . - - - - 6 10 170 TO 179 NET TONS . . - - . - 7 7 180 TO 189 NET TONS . . - - - - 12 16 190 TO 199 NET TONS . . - - - - 20 21 200 TO 209 NET TONS . . _ - - - 3 3 210 TO 219 NET TONS , . . - - - 3 3 220 TO 229 NET TONS . . - - - - 4 4 230 TO 239 NET TONS . . - - - - 1 1 240 TO 249 NET TONS . . - _ _ - 3 2 260 TO 269 NET TONS . . - - - - 1 1 270 TO 279 NET TONS . . - - - - 2 2 300 TO 309 NET TONS . . - - . - 1 1 370 TO 379 NET TONS . . - - - - 1 1 380 TO 389 NET TONS . . - - - — - 1 TOTAL VESSELS . . . 1,587 927 1,814 1,173 2,133 585476 1,510 TOTAL NET TONS, . . 2i;i03 13,307 25j517 17; 109 52^ 556 BOATS, MOTOR 1,722 947 1,769 998 1,769 998 APPARATUS: NUMBER 23,910 13,407 - _ - - HOOKS 23,910 13,407 - - - - j/ EXCLUSIVE OF DUPLICATION. N0TE:--THE TERMS "VESSEL" APPLIES ONLY TO CRAFT WITH A REGISTERED NET CAPACITY OF 5 TONS AND OVER, WHEREAS THE TERMS "BOAT" APPLIES ONLY TO CRAFT UNDER 5 NET REGISTERED TONS CAPACITY. 183 TABLE 56.- CHAFT AND MEN FISHING TUNA ONLY, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 19 51: BY GEAR AND SIZE CLASSIFICATION OF VESSELS ITEM TUNA PURSE SEINES YELLOWFIN AND SKIPJACK BAIT LINE 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS 113 132 2,743 2,968 TOTAL 113 132 2,743 2,968 VESSELS, MOTOR: 5 TO 9 NET TONS, . . _ 1 1 lO TO 19 NET TONS. . _ 7 11 20 TO 29 NET TONS. . _ 8 11 30 TO 39 NET TONS. , - 16 12 40 TO 49 NET TONS. 1 - 6 7 50 TO 59 NET TONS. , . 5 5 60 TO 69 NET TONS. . 1 8 7 70 TO 79 NET TONS. 1 . 7 8 80 TO 89 NET TONS. . _ 12 13 90 TO 99 NET TONS, 6 7 16 17 100 TO 109 NET TONS 1 1 6 6 no TO 119 NET TONS . . 12 9 120 TO 129 NET TONS . _ 12 14 130 TO 139 NET TONS • *■ - 17 16 140 TO 149 NET TONS 1 7 7 150 TO 159 rJET TONS , . 10 14 160 TO 169 NET TONS . . 6 10 170 TO 179 NET TONS . - 7 7 180 TO 189 NET TONS . - 12 16 190 TO 199 NET TONS - _ 20 21 200 TO 209 NET TONS - _ 3 3 210 TO 219 NET TONS , - 3 3 220 TO 229 NET TONS . _ 4 4 230 TO 239 NET TONS . - 1 1 240 TO 249 NET TONS . . 3 2 260 TO 269 NET TONS . - 1 1 270 TO 279 NET TONS - - 2 2 300 TO 309 NET TONS _ _ 1 1 370 TO 379 NET TONS . - 1 1 380 TO 389 NET TONS - - - 1 TOTAL VESSELS . 9 10 214 231 TOTAL NET TONS. 795 982 26,342 28,673 ALBACOR E LINES TOTAL ITEM 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER N'JMBER FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS .... 1,282 1,292 4,138 4,392 ON BOATS 1,338 1,035 1,338 1,035 TOTAL 2,620 2,327 5,476 5,427 VESSELS, MOTOR: 5 TO 9 NET TONS. . 211 212 212 213 10 TO 19 NET TONS. 157 140 164 151 20 TO 29 NET TONS. 48 45 56 56 30 TO 39 NET TONS. 11 9 27 21 40 TO 49 NET TONS. 1 -) 8 9 50 TO 59 NET TONS. 3 4 8 9 60 TO 69 NET TONS. 2 - 10 8 (continued on next page) 184 TABLE 56.- 1950 - CRAFT AND MEN FISHING TIJNA ONLY, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1951: BY GEAR AND SIZE CLASSIFICATION OF VESSELS - Continued ALBACORE LINES TOTAL ITEM 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER VESSELS, MOTOR, CONTINUED 70 TO 79 NET TONS. .' . 2 1 10 9 80 TO 89 NET TONS. . . 4 3 16 16 90 TO 99 NET TONS. . . 2 2 24 26 100 TO 109 NET TONS. . 1 1 „B 8 no TO 119 NET TONS, , 1 _ 13 9 120 TO 129 NET TONS. . - - 12 14 130 TO 139 NET TONS. . 1 - 18 16 140 TO 149 NET TONS. , - - 7 8 150 TO 159 NET TONS. . - - 10 14 160 TO 169 NET TONS. . - - 6 10 170 TO 179 NET TONS. . - - 7 7 180 TO 189 NP- TONS. . - - 12 16 190 TO 199 NET TONS. . - - 20 21 200 TO 209 NET TONS. . - - 3 3 210 TO 219 NET TONS. . - . 3 3 220 TO 229 NET TONS. . - - 4 4 230 TO 239 NET TONS. . - - 1 1 240 TO 249 NET TONS. . - - 3 2 260 TO 269 NET TONS. . - - 1 1 270 TO 279 NET TONS. . - - 2 2 300 TO 309 NET TONS. . - - 1 1 370 TO 379 NET TONS. . - - 1 1 380 TO 389 NET TONS. . - - - 1 TOTAL VESSELS . . . 444 419 667 660 TOTAL NET TONS, . . 6,492 5,629 33,629 35, 284 BOATS, MOTOR 744 455 744 455 BAIT FISHING FOR TUNA 185 TABLE 57.- CRAFT AND MEN FISHING TUNA AS WELL AS OTHER FISH, PACIFIC COAST STATES. 1950 - 1951: BY GEAR AND SIZE CLASSIFICATION OF VESSELS ITE>1 TUNA PURSE SEINES YELLOWFIN AND SKIPJACK BAIT LINE 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS. 1,077 1,061 89 103 TOTAL 1,077 1,061 89 103 VESSELS, MOTOR: 5 TO 9 NET TONS. . . 1 - 2 2 10 TO 19 NET TONS. . 3 2 4 3 20 TO 29 NET TONS. . - 2 4 2 30 TO 39 NET TONS. . 4 5 2 1 40 TO 49 NET TONS. . 3 7 - 1 50 TO 59 NET TONS. . 31 28 - - 60 TO 69 NET TONS. . 24 23 - - 70 TO 79 NET TONS. . 11 12 - - 80 TO 69 NET TONS, . 11 9 - - 90 TO 99 NET TONS, . 3 2 - - 100 TO 109 NET TONS. 1 1 - - 110 TO 119 NET TONS. - - - 2 130 VO 139 NET TONS. - - 1 1 140 TO 149 NET TONS. 1 - - - TOTAL VESSELS. . . 93 91 13 12 TOTAL NET TONS . . 5,885 5,563 360 546 ITEM ALBACORE : LENES TOTAL 1/ 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS 4,389 2,638 5,448 3,724 ON BOATS 2' 102 1,068 2,102 1,068 TOTAL 6,491 3,706 7,550 4,792 VESSELS, MOTOR: 5 TO 9 NET TONS. . . 632 323 634 325 10 TO 19 NET TONS. . 487 263 491 268 20 TO 29 NET TONS. . 142 95 146 98 30 TO 39 NET TONS. 52 37 57 41 40 TO 49 NET TONS. . 33 19 35 26 50 TO 59 NET TONS. . 14 11 44 37 60 TO 69 NET TONS. . 5 3 28 26 70 TO 79 NET TONS. . 1 1 12 12 80 TO 89 NET TONS. . 2 - 11 9 90 TO 99 NET TONS. . - - 3 2 100 TO 109 NET TONS. 1 - 2 1 110 TO 119 NET TONS. 1 - 1 2 130 TO 139 NET TONS. _ 2 1 3 140 TO 149 NET TONS. - - 1 - TOTAL VESSELS. . . 1,370 754 1,466 850 TOTAL NET TONS . . 19,025 1 1 , 480 24, 847 17,272 BOATS, MOTOR , , , 1,025 543 1,025 543 l/ EXCLUSIVE OF DUPLICATION, 186 TABLE 58. - PACIFIC COAST STATES; CATCH OF TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES BY GEAR, 1930, 19U0, and 1950 Gear and species 1930 19iiO 1950 Purse seines and lampara netss Albacore Bluefin Skipjack Yellowfin Bonito Yellowtail Pounds 21,919,600 38,051 l,5U5,83l; 3,775,735 2,305,311 Pounds 157,000 19,90U,U00 13,098,500 I5,237,li00 U, 751,600 3,189,200 Pounds 7,900 2,722,300 ll,87h,800 39,678,700 li9U,800 2,120,UOO Total 29,58U,53l 56,338,100 56,898,900 Hook and lines g Albacore Bluefin Skipjack Tellawfin Bonito Yell o^T tail 286,283 1,682 20,l4U7,536 55,108, 3U 7 l,320,6h9 2,l;29,Ul8 lh,3hh,Q00 60,100 U3, 551, 700 98,522,500 U99,900 2,752,200 72,U06,700 39,500 11U,911,300 lli8,210,800 197,500 1,U08,100 Total 79,593,915 159,731,200 337,173,900 Gill and trammel nets l/: BlueTin Bonito Yellowtail 67,876 35,699 5,800 39,500 I5,h00 3,300 1,300 Total 103,575 60, 700 U,600 Grand total 109,282,021 216,130,000 39U,077,iiOO 1/ Tuna and tunalike fishes caught by this gear were taken incidentally T^ile fishing for other species » 187 Atlantic and Gulf Coast States Complete data on the types of fishing employed to catch tuna and tunalike fishes in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast States A^ea are not always available. Fortunately, the detailed statistical survey of the catch of these fish made for the y^ar 19^0 affords the best source of information on this subject. For that year no tuna or tunalike fish T7ere caught commercially along the Gulf Coast. The only commercial catch made in that year was along the Atlantic Coast. Detail on the quantity and value of -Uiis catch by States and gear are shown in table 59. INTER-REIATipNSHIP OF TUM FISHING WITH OTHER TYPES OF FISHING (SALMON, HALIBUT, SARDINES, ETC.) In considering Ihis question, which is particularly applicable to the Pacific Coast States and is considered for that area only, one must bear in mind that all persons seeking a livelihood from fishing as in other occupations will endeavor to engage in those fisheries and tj^es of fishing that will yield the largest annual income. In addition fishermen will consider the fishery to which they are personally adapted, and for which their individual fishing crafts are suited and can be equipped. It should also be borne in mind that weather conditions and rough seas, particularly from Central California northward, prevent many of the craft, small and large, frcni operating on a year round basis, and that many of the smaller craft, limited by fuel capacity or other reasons, must confine their fishing activities to within a few miles from shore and even in many instances to within a relatively short radius of their homeport. Because of these limitations, and in order to produce the largest annual income, the fishermen must select not only those fisheries for which they and their craft are best equipped and adapted, but also those which are most remunerative at each particular period or season of the year. Quite a number of fishermen will supplement their fishing activities with employment in other occupations on land, or o thers, employed chiefly in land occupations, may endeavor to supplement their income from such employment by engaging in fisheries for such periods of time as they can spare from their land occupations. The type of vessel and its idgging and equipment also have a large bearing in determining for -vrtiat fisheries a particular craft may be used. 188 Table 59. - ATLANTIC COAST STATES: TUNA AND BONITO CATCH BY STATE AND GEAR, 19 50 SPECIES AND STATE HAUL SEINES PURSE SEINES GILL NETS LINtS, HANU TROLL AND TRAWL POUNDS VALUE POUNDS VALUE POUNDS 100 1,500 2,000 VALUE POUNDS VALUE BLUEFIN TUNA: MAINE MASSACHUSETTS NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 1,600 $147 $3 142 200 18,900 1 55, 000 84,700 $1,744 10,307 10,600 TOTAL - - 1,600 147 3,600 345 258,600 22,651 LITTLE TUNA: NEW JERSEY MARYLAND VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA 4,300 133,000 $172 3,990 - - 200 6 700 100 20 13 TOTAL 137,300 4,162 - - 200 6 800 33 BONITO: NEW JERSEY V 1 RG 1 N 1 A NORTH CAROLINA FLOR 1 DA 8,500 7,800 1,600 1,098 235 80 - - 20, 000 1,000 190 42,400 20 2,070 TOTAL 17,900 1,413 - - 20,000 1,000 42,500 2,090 TOTAL. TUNA AND BON 1 TO : MAINE MASSACHUSETTS NEW YORK NEW JERSEY MARYLAND VIRGINIA NORTH CAROLINA FLOR 1 DA 12,800 140,800 1,600 1,270 4,225 80 1,6C3 147 100 1,500 2,000 200 20^000 3 142 200 6 1,000 18,900 155,000 84,700 800 100 42,400 1,744 10,307 10,600 40 13 2,070 TOTAL 155,200 5,575 1,600 147 23,800 1,351 301,900 24,774 SPECIES AND STATE HARPOONS POUND NETS AND FLOATING TRAPS BLUEFIN TUNA: MAINE ♦1ASSACHUSETTS RHODE ISLAND NEW YORK NEW JERSEY POUNDS 198,100 8,500 18,300 VALUE $16,520 594 1,799 POUNDS 678,900 42,500 31,000 11,800 VALUE $59,795 4,192 3,650 1,255 TOTAL 224,900 18,913 764,200 68,892 LITTLE TUNA: NEW YORK NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA - - 13,900 134,100 8,100 1,700 4,555 330 TOTAL - - 156,100 6,585 BON 1 TO : MASSACHUSETTS RHODE ISLAND NEW YORK VIRGIt^lA - - 4,300 400 3,000 35, 200 428 38 450 4,274 TOTAL - - 42, 900 5,190 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 189 Table 59. - ATLANTIC OOAST STATES: TUNA AND BONITO CATCH BY STATE AND GEAR, 1950 - Continued SPECIES, AND STATE HARPOONS POUND NETS AND FLOATING TRAPS TOTAL, TUNA AND BONITO: MAINE MASSACHUSETTS RHODE ISLAND NEW YORK NEW JERSEY VIRGINIA POUNDS 198,100 8,500 18,300 VALUE $16,520 594 1,799 POUNDS 683, 200 42,900 47,900 145,900 43,300 VALUE $60,223 4,230 3,800 5,810 4,604 TOTAL 224,900 18,913 963, 200 80,667 SPECIES AND STATE OTTER TRAWLS TOTAL POUNDS VALUE POUNDS VALUE BLUEFIN TUNA: MAINE - . 218,700 $18,414 MASSACHUSETTS 1,500 $83 845,400 70,921 RHODE ISLAND - - 60,800 5,991 CONNECTICUT 10,200 995 10,200 995 NEW YORK 2,600 340 118,300 14,590 NEW JERSEY - - 1 3, 800 1,455 TOTAL 14,300 1,418 1,267,200 112,366 LITTLE TUNA: NEW YORK 200 27 14,100 1,727 NEW JERSEY - - 134,800 4,575 MARYLAND - _ 100 13 VIRGiNA 1,300 52 13,700 554 NORTH CAROLINA - - 133,200 3,996 TOTAL 1,500 79 295,900 10,865 BON 1 TO : MASSACHUSETTS _ _ 4,300 428 RHODE ISLAND _ - 400 38 NEW YORK 100 5 3,100 455 NEW JERSEY 100 30 200 50 VIRGINIA - - 43,700 5,372 NORTH CAROLINA - - 7,800 235 FLORIDA - - 64,000 3,150 TOTAL 200 35 123,500 9,728 TOTAL, TUNA AND BONITO: MAINE - - 218,700 18,414 MASSACHUSETTS 1,500 83 849,700 71,349 RHODE ISUND - - 61,200 6,029 CONNECTICUT 10,200 995 10,200 995 NEW YORK 2,900 372 135,500 16,772 NEW JERSEY 100 30 148,800 6,080 MARYLAND _ _ 100 13 VIRGINIA 1,300 52 57,400 5,926 NORTH CAROLINA - - 141,000 4,231 FLORIDA - - 64,000 3,150 TOTAL 16,000 1,532 1,686,600 132,959 190 Table 60 shows for the years 19^0 and 1951j the craft and men using both tuna and other gear, and the total of such duplications. The following discussion describes in more detail the inter-relation- ship between the tuna and other fisheries based on the data for the year 19^0 given in table 60 « Duplications With Tuna Purse Seines Table 56 reveals that only 9 of the fleet of 102 tuna purse seiners were engaged exclusively in tuna fishing with purse seines in 19^0 and table 60 shows what fisheries the other 93 vessels engaged in ■when not fishing tuna. Some of these vessels engaged in more than one fishery besides the tuna fisheryo The vessels of the tuna purse seine fleet are based largely at San Pedro, but include also a few based at San DiegOo All but one of the San Diego vessels operate a modified form of purse seine for local bluefin only, converting to albacore fishing, either with bait or troll lines, during the season when albacore are abundant in southern California waters o They also fish pilchards (sardines) with purse seines during the sardine season. One of these vessels also operated sea bass gill nets for a short period in 1950. A very limited number of the tuna purse seine fleet have their home port at Monterey and San Francisco, but these also base at San Pedro during the tuna purse seining season. The main body of the tuna purse seine fleet are vessels that were built to engage in a combination of seining operations, such as for sardines, mackerels, and tunas, A limited few will also purse seine for market fishes, chiefly barracuda, off Lower California, when market conditions are favorable. The above is confirmed in table 60, which reveals that in 1950s 91 vessels of the fleet also were used for sardine seining, 27 also for mackerel seining, and 2 for barracuda and other market fishes „ The sardine season set by California law, starts in central and northern California on August 1, and ends January 15, and starts ir "outhern California on October 1, and ends on February lo The mackerel seining season on which no legal season is set, usually starts in August and ends in February or March, but these fish may be taken in lesser quantities in other months also. Thus it may be seen that the fleet of seiners can have practically a year round operation by fishing for pilchards during the southern California season, and for tuna in late winter and spring. In late summer and early fall they may go to Monterey or San Francisco to fish for sardines or they may fish mackerels, principally jack mackerel in 191 TABLE 60.- CRAFT AND MEN USING BOTH TUNA AND OTHER GEAR, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 1951 DUPLICATED WITH ITEM PURSE SEINES, TUNA LINES, YELLOWFIN AND SKIPJACK 1950 1951 1950 1951 SEINES, BARRACUDA: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS VESSELS, MOTOR. . . . NET TONS NUMBER 18 2 68 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER SEINES, MACKEREL: FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS 316 652 . - TOTAL 316 652 - - VESSELS, MOTOR. . . . NET t6nS 27 1,627 56 3,137 - - SEINES, PILCHARD: FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS 1,054 1,061 12 20 TOTAL 1,054 1,061 12 20 VESSELS, MOTOR. . . . NET TONS 91 5,809 5,563 2 20 3 66 SEINES, OTHER: FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS _ 11 10 _ TOTAL - 11 10 - VESSELS, MOTOR. . . . NET TONS - 1 38 2 31 - GILL NETS, SEA BASS: FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS 7 - - - TOTAL 7 - - - VESSELS, MOTOR. . . . NET TONS 1 16 _ - - TRAMMEL NETS: FISHERM.EN, ON VESSELS . 9 _ . TOTAL - 9 - - VESSELS, MOTOR. . . . NET TONS - 1 19 _ - LINES, TRAWL, SET AND HAND: FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS . . 53 59 TOTAL - - 53 59 VESSELS, MOTOR. . . . NET TONS - - 8 151 7 317 TRAPS, LOBSTER: FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS 5 TOTAL - - 5 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 192 TABLE 60.- CRAFT AND MEN USING BOTH TUNA AND OTHER GEAR, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 1951 - Continued DUPLICATED WITH ITEM PURSE SEINES, TUNA LINES, YELLOWFIN AND SKIPJACK 1950 1951 1950 1951 TRAPS, LOBSTER - CONT'D: VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 1 27 HARPOONS, SWORDFISH: FISHERMEN, ON VESSELS . . - 19 28 - TOTAL - 19 28 - VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS - 1 139 3 204 - DUPLICATED WITH ITEM LINES, ALBACORE TOTAL l/ 1950 1951 1950 1951 SEINES, BARRACUDA: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS NUMBER 26 3 69 NUMBER 24 3 65 NUMBER 44 5 137 NUMBER 24 3 65 SEINES, MACKEREL: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 136 8 73 6 414 8 668 6 TOTAL 144 79 422 674 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 17 457 1 7 260 1 41 1,920 1 58 7,168 SEINES, SALMON: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS 5 1 22 8 1 32 5 1 22 8 1 32 SEINES, PILCHARD: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 561 105 314 37 1,532 105 1,356 37 TOTAL 666 351 1,637 1,393 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 85 1,850 12 43 881 7 169 7,272 12 137 5,241 7 SEINES, OTHER: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 173 162 142 106 183 162 153 106 TOTAL 335 248 345 259 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 193 TABLE 60.- CRAFT AND MEN USING BOTH TUNA AND OTHER GEAR, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 1951 - Continued DUPLICATED WITH ITEM LINES, ALBACORE TOTAL j/ 1950 1951 1950 1951 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER SEINES, OTHER - CONT 'D: VESSELS, MOTOR 41 33 43 34 NET TONS 338 303 369 341 BOATS, MOTOR. ..... 35 28 35 28 GILL NETS, BARRACUDA: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS 39 35 39 35 ON BOATS 55 39 55 39 TOTAL 94 74 94 74 VESSELS, MOTOR 10 8 10 8 NET TONS 71 52 71 52 BOATS, MOTOR 21 13 21 13 GILL NETS, CALIFORNIA HALIBUT: FISHERMEN: ON BOATS 2 _ 2 - BOATS, MOTOR 1 - 1 - GILL NETS, CRAB: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS - 2 - 2 VESSELS, MOTOR - 1 - 1 NET TONS - 5 - 5 GILL NETS, SALMON: F 1 SHERMEN : ON VESSELS 15 - 15 . ON BOATS 8 - 8 - TOTAL 23 - 23 - VESSELS, MOTOR 8 8 NET TONS 104 _ 104 - BOATS, MOTOR 4 - 4 - GILL NETS, SEA BASS: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS 81 55 81 55 ON BOATS 123 86 123 86 TOTAL 204 141 204 141 VESSELS, MOTOR 22 13 22 13 NET TONS 193 97 193 97 BOATS, MOTOR 48 29 48 29 GILL NETS, SHAD: FISHERMEN: ON BOATS 2 _ 2 _ BOATS, MOTOR 1 - 1 - GILL NETS, SHARK: F 1 SHERMEN : ON VESSELS 156 71 156 71 ON BOATS 43 55 43 55 TOTAL 199 126 199 126 (CONTINi'ED ON NEXT PAGE) 19/. TABLE 60.- CRAFT AND MEN USING BOTH TUNA AND OTHER GEAR, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 1951 - Continued DUPLICATED WITH ITEM LINES, ALBACORE TOTAL V 1950 1951 1950 1951 GILL NETS, SHARK - CONT'D: VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR GILL NETS^ OTHER" NUMBER 38 738 19 NUMBER 18 238 20 NUMBER 38 738 19 NUMBER 18 238 20 FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 24 43 13 47 24 43 13 47 TOTAL 67 60 67 60 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 9 79 22 4 160 21 9 79 22 4 160 21 TRAMMEL NETS: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 85 66 46 48 85 66 55 48 TOTAL 151 94 151 103 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 22 184 22 11 78 16 22 184 22 12 97 16 LINES, TROLL, SALMON: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 2,188 382 887 243 2,188 382 887 243 TOTAL 2,570 1,130 2,570 1,130 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 771 8,317 273 372 4,755 146 T71 8,317 273 372 4,755 146 LINES, TRAWL, SET AND HAND: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 1,658 749 1,214 509 1,711 749 1,273 509 TOTAL 2,407 1,723 2,460 1,782 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 384 6,791 414 269 4,717 265 392 6,942 414 276 5,034 265 FYKE NETS: FISHERMEN: ON BOATS BOATS, MOTOR 1 2 1 - 2 1 - DIP NETS: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 7 9 6 7 9 6 TOTAL 16 6 16 6 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 4 35 6 3 29 4 35 6 3 29 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 195 TABLE 60.- CRAFT AND MEN USING BOTH TUNA AND OTHER GEAR, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 1951 - Continued DUPLICATED WITH ITEM LINES, AUBACORE TOTAL j/ 1950 1951 1950 1951 BRAIL OR SCOOP NETS: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS NUMBER 248 556 NUMBER 105 228 NUMBER 248 556 NUMBER 105 228 TOTAL 804 333 804 333 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 93 744 268 36 270 114 93 744 268 36 270 114 BEAM TRAWLS: FISHERMEN: ON BOATS BOATS, MOTOR 1 1 - 1 1 - OTTER TRAWLS: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 362 -16 128 19 362 46 128 19 TOTAL 408 147 408 147 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 85 2,046 12 29 699 5 85 2,046 12 29 699 5 TRAPS, CRABS: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 642 145 220 45 642 145 220 45 TOTAL 787 265 787 265 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 257 2,733 108 87 1,072 32 257 2,733 108 87 1,072 32 TRAPS, LOBSTER: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 115 285 88 165 115 285 93 165 TOTAL 400 253 400 258 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 40 319 148 27 181 81 40 319 148 28 208 81 TRAPS, OCTOPUS: FISHERMEN: ON BOATS BOATS, MOTOR 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 HARPOONS, SHARK: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 7 7 17 31 7 7 17 31 TOTAL 14 48 14 48 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 2 11 3 6 36 11 2 11 3 6 36 11 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 196 TABLE 60.- CRAFT AND MEN USING BOTH TUNA AND OTHER GEAR, PACIFIC COAST STATES, 1950 - 1951 - Continued V EXCLUSIVE OF DUPLICATION. DUPLICATED WITH ITEM LINES, ALBACORE TOTAL 1/ 1950 1951 1950 1951 HARPOONS, SWORDFISH: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS NUMBER 33 53 NUMBER 93 102 NUMBER 61 53 NUMBER 112 102 TOTAL 86 195 114 214 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 9 73 19 28 209 41 12 277 19 29 348 41 ABALONE OUTFITS: FISHERMEN: ON VESSELS ON BOATS 17 eo 7 23 17 60 7 23 TOTAL 77 30 77 30 VESSELS, MOTOR NET TONS BOATS, MOTOR 6 50 29 3 20 11 6 50 29 3 20 11 TYPICAL WEST COAST TUNA PURSE-SEINE OPERATION 197 southern California, or if the demand exists for bonito and yello-w- tail they may make a trip or two to banks off Lower California for these species as well as for the various species of tuna. With -the decline in the availability of sardines and Pacific mackerel during the past six or seven seasons, combined -with com- paratively poor runs of bluefin tuna in local -maters, the fishermen of the tuna purse seine fleet have had to rely much more on tuna fishingo Duplication With Bait Lines, Yelloivfin and Skipjack Table 57 reveals that only 13 vessels of the clipper fleet fishing primarily for yellowfin and skipjack with bait lines, were duplicated in fisheries other than tuna fishing during 1950. These with one exception, were vessels in the lowest tonnage categories. However, a greater number, 31 including some craft up to medium size, also made trips primarily for albacore, Sinc^Tn^aft used the same gear for albacore as for yellowfin and skipjack, they are not dupli- cated in the albacore fleet in any of the statistical tables. Fishermen of this fleet will at times when at anchor, and usually for their own consumption, fish for other species of fish with hand lines or pole and line, but may bring in any surplus of market fish so taken. Similarly, when cruising for tuna they may endeavor, sometimes successfully, to harpoon any swordfish that they encounter. Only foin* of the smallest of the fleet engaged in such otherwise unprofitable incidental fishing. Two of these operated a modified form of a purse seine for sardines, and two others operated their bait seines commercially for bait fish at times when no tunas were within their limited cruising range. These four, perhaps, should be more rightly classified with the albacore fleet. In general, it may be said that the vessels of the clipper fleet are not adaptable to other types of fishing, since the removal of bait tanks and other conversions required for other types of fishing, except on the very smallest craft, is too expensive and time consuming. Consequently, whether the vessels of this fleet operate at a profit or loss depends solely upon their tuna catch. Duplications With Lines, Albacore In this phase of the report the operation of the albacore fleet will be divided into three groups on the basis of their home port; 198 that iSs (l) those based in Washington and Oregonj (2) those in northern and central Califomiaj and (3) those in southern California. The albacore fleet of Washington and Oregon consists, except for those built in "the past decade ^ of craft originally built for engaging in fisheries other than tuna. Many of them still rely heavily on their efforts to derive an adequate annual income from fishing operations other than for t\ina. The total Washington-Oregon albacore fleet in 1950 consisted of approximately 7?0 vessels and 80 boats. The remainder of the fleet are from California^ All of the boats and a large majority of the vessels based in Washington and Oregon fished for albacore in waters off Washington and Oregonj, and about half the vessels also fished albacore in Cali- fornia waters o The p:'incipal fishing operations of this group in 19^0 other than that for tuna consisted of fishing for halibut with trawl lines, for salmon with troll linesj for various bottcm fishes mth otter trawls, for sharks with gill nets, and for crabs with traps or potSo Approxi- mately 160 of the vessels fished for halibut, the season for which usually starts about May 1, and extends possibly into July, but in recent years has ended in June o Following the halibut season some of them may come directly down to California waters to fish for albacore or may change over to salmon trolling, otter trawling, or some other fishery until late summer when albacore become available off the Washington-Oregon coasto Fishing for bottom fishes, principally those of the flounder family, may be engaged in throughout the year whenever weather permits. Most of the otter trawlers do engage in such operations on a year roiind basis o In some instances, trolling for albacore may be simul- taneously conducted with otter trawling by these craft as they proceed to and from their fishing banks, or they may suspend their trawling operations whenever exceptional runs of albacore are available in the Northern California and/or Washington-Oregon waters o The season for salmon trolling off Washington=Oregon, normally starts early in May and is usually over by mid-September, However, salmon may not prove sufficiently abundant even in August to justify commercial operations. Since the lines used for salmon trolling may be readily inter-changed with those for albacore trolling, albacore fishing will start whenever the albacore appear in such nothern waters in sufficient quantities to be more remunerative than salmon trolling o 199 Gill netting for sharks, drdndling for some years, has been almost entirely eliminated since 19^0 on the Pacific Coast due to the low price being paid for shark livers. Crab fishing may also be conducted, except possibly for a couple mnter months, on a year roiind basis except in California ■where the law prohibits taking of crabs from August 1 through November 1^ of each yearo Most of the crab fishermen are also salmon trollerso It may be pointed out here that salmon trolling and crab fishing are carried on largely in inshore waters within a few miles of the coast line. The albacore, on the other hand, usually are found farther offshore but may run in closer following hot spells that warm up the inshore waters. Mary of the smaller craft are not capable of pursuing the albacore to their outer off- shore range and thus are limited to taking them only when they appear closer inshore « The craft having their home ports in California, north of Point Conception, consist of a very mixed group of various types and sizes. This grout) includes sardine purse seiners, salmon trollers, crab fishermen, set line and hand line fishermen, and even a very few of other types that oridinarily fish exclusively in bays and rivers rather than in the open ocean waters. For the past five or six years, sardine fishing north of Point Conception has been only fair to almost a complete failure. As a result, many of the sardine seiners in this area have been forced to enter other fisheries as a means of livelihood o They can, by removing turntables and heavy nets, and by equipping their vessels with outrigger poles, be fairly readily adapted for albacore trolling. This practice has become increasingly more prevalent as the sardines declined. As mentioned above, crab fishing in California is limited to the season from November 16 through July 31> and salmon trolling may be carried on, starting usually in April, off Monterey and a month or so later farther northward and continuing into early September. Most of the crab* fishermen and salmon trollers are identical since there are only a few months of overlapping of seasons in these two fisheries. As the season tends to dwindle in August and since there is no other fishery open thereafter for some months, the majority of that fleet will fish for albacore starting in some years in late July and usually ending sometime in October, However, sane of the more seaworthy craft may be able to fish in farther offshore waters into November or possibly even December, Some of the albacore 200 trollers, especially those at Monterey, -will fish set lines for bottom fish, principally rock fish, during the fall and winter months folloTdng the albacore season and at such times as weather permits o These craft are mostly undertonnage craft (boats) with very limited cruising range. The information with respect to albacore fishing by the Tfeshington- Oregon otter trawlers, also applies to the California otter trawlers » In addition, a very limited number of fishing craft that ordinarily confine their fishing activities to within the bays and rivers will fish for albacore whenever they approach close to the California coast. The albacore fleet of southern California, including both those operating bait lines and those operating troll lines, also consists of various types and sizes of vessels and boats, most of which engage in other fisheries as well as albacore fishing. The other fisheries prosecuted by the southern California albacore fleet are seining for pilchards (sardines), mackerel, barracuda, miscellaneous small market fishes, and bait; gill netting for sea bass, barracuda, shark, and other miscellaneous fishes, and trammel netting for California halibut; set line and hand line fishing for various market fishes; Pacific mackerel fishing with brails or scoop nets; swordfish harpooning; and fishing for abalone with diving equipment, A legal closed season is in force in California on sardines for canning or reduction purposes as mentioned earlier in this report but not for bait or other uses. Other fisheries having closed seasons are lobsters which are closed from April 16 through September 30, and abalone which is closed from January 15 s through March l^o Also various other laws and regulations in all of the Pacific Coast States restrict some fishing operations to certain areas within their respective jurisdiction, and may also restrict the sale of some species of fish for certain purposes. In recent years, albacore has been thenajor source of income to- the southern California albacore fishermen, and even though pertiaps not a majority, it does provide a very considerable portion of the annual income to many fishermen of the albacore fleet in nortliern California, Oregon and Washington. 201 ARE THERE EmiMET'lRING ntPRO\rEMEI\rrS WIOK CAN BRING ABOUT GREATER ~~' EFFIGIEMCIBS IN FISHING OPERATION? The marketing difficulties in the tuna industry and the related adverse economic conditions in the domestic tuna fleet which prevailed in 1951 have been previously referred to. Further evidence of the adverse conditions encountered by the bait boat fleet in particular is given in table 61. This table was originally prepared by the staff of the American Tunaboat Association, and submitted in evidence at the hearings on tuna imports held by the Senate Committee on Finance, February h, 5, 6 and 7, 195?. Supplemental data for the year 1952 were added later. Corroborative evidence of the validity of the data in this table for the years 19^0 and 19^1 is given in table 67, prepared by the staff of the Service engaged in this study. Regardless of the causes which contributed to the economic difficulties cited, it was determined in this survey to explore avenues of relief which night ameliorate the adverse effects of any cause of the economic difficulties encountered by the domestic tuna fleet. Improvements in the operating efficiency of the fleet was the theme of this particular work. This particular approach is supported by evidence to the effect that the fisherman for his effort receives one cf the larger shares of the consumer's pajTnent for a can of tuna (see Chapter VII), The peculiar nature of certain types of tuna fishing such as the long trips of the clipper fleet and the low quantity of catch per unit of gear set in the albacore fishery make it a high unit cost fishing industry as compared to purse seining for pilchards or similar types of fishing. Moreover, the high cost element is evident in many foreign fisheries because of the gr vit distances involved in capturing the roving tunas. It is obvious that all other things being equal the chances of making substantial savings in the cost of bringing canned tuna to consumers, who have so strongly evidenced that they like and want this product, should be greatest at the production level. In addition, any increased efficiency on the part of the domestic fisherman with resultant louver unit cost of production will make him better able to compete with foreign fishermen. Accordingly, the results of investigation in this field are given in this and the next section. 202 TABLE 61. - TDM BAIT BOAT FLEET - INDEX OF ACTIVITY (Total landings by fleet divided by capacity of all vessels for 1 f-ull trip) Year Vessels Potential Actual Activity surveyed tonnage landings index 19h6 86 12,9u5 147,867 3.70 19h7 120 23,175 69,933 3o02 19U8 137 27,3U5 89,606 3.28 19h9 153 32,81^5 92,822 2o83 1950 172 36,710 121,807 3.32 1951 183 38,735 101,1114 2.60 1952 178 lil,065 102,915 2o5l Soxu'ce: American Tunaboat Association. Propulgion Units (Engines) and Pi'opellers The proDulsion equipment in tuna vessels has reached a high degree of efficiency and reliability. The hea-\^ duty slow speed Diesels have long been nationally recognized in the mail time industry for their dependability and economy, and as minor defects are dis- covered they have been rectified by the manufacturers. The intro- duction of high speed main propulsion engines would result in reduced weight, saving in space, and greater cargo capacity. The high speed Diesel is becoming increasingly popular for sei'vice on land, in smaller fishing vessels and for auxiliary service in the tuna fleet. The greater uniformity of spare parts through mass production, features of interchangeability and lighter weight which permit easier overhaul and repair are pertinent factors. As operating experience is developed it is quite possible that high speed Diesels will become popular in the tuna fleet. One small school of thought. among tuna boat builders is that the tuna vessel of today is too large, expensive, complex and costly to function economically both as a catcher and carrier of tuna. This argument is based on the fact that, although the clippers are unquestionably efficient in catching tuna, the cost of using them to return the catch several thousand miles to California ports is extremely higher than the cost of cargo vessels would ise. If the 203 tuna fleet had been restricted to vessels of 100-ton capacity operating yrith motherships or some other form of cargo carriers, the tuna fishing operation might now be on a sounder economic basis. Smaller vessels with proportionately increased cargo capacity through the use of high speed Diesels may be an answer. However this must be considered against the background of mothership oi^erations which have been tried with the practice being generally discontinuedo The use of Diesel-electric proptilsion is under preliminary study because of greater flexibility of control, ease of handling, smooth propulsion, elimination of propulsion shaft aligrment difficulties, and reduction of engine room space by combining the functions of the present main propulsion engines and the auxiliary engines used for electrical power service. The auxiliary engines and generators are highly efficient by modern engineering practice o The only fault may be inadequate capacity in some of the older vessels caused by the addition of new electrical loads for advance equipment. Propellers have been installed on many thousands of fishing vessels and a great amount of design experience has been accumulated. As a consequence there appears to be little prospect of improvement in conventional propellers. Limited experience with variable pitch propellers has demonstrated that the control mechanism is subject to failure and that conventional propellers will result in equal or increased speeds of the vessel at a given power input. Vessel Design A tuna clipper is designed to carry the maiximum load and the necessary mechanical and electrical equipment in the minimim over- all length of hull. There are definite possibilities for improved hull design for easier running lines and seakindliness, but these designs are not compatible with maximum loads per foot of over-all length. The tuna vessel owners have decided that carrying capacity cannot be sacrificed for cleaner lines, desirable deadrise and flared bows. The cost of a hull is predicated on a relatively uniform price per foot of over-all length among builders for definite size ranges of vessels and types of construction. Essentially the buyer of a tuna boat is purchasing a definite number of tons carrying capacity for a fixed sum of money. Most fishing vessels are designed for the exploitation of specific fisheries with a specific type of gear. The tuna clipper is a highly-apecialized type developed over many years and with the assumption that the resource is adequate to support such a highly specialized vessel throughout its useful life. Purse seiners, 20A by virtue of their large amount of free deck space aft are the most versatile type of vessel in existence today, for they can operate purse seines, long lines, otter trawls, siirface or submerged gill nets, and can even operate -with pole and line gear for tuna in a manner similar to the tuna clippero However, with the exception of purse seines, they cannot operate arrjr of these types of gear as effectively as a vessel specifically designed for each purpose. Because the bulk of the small-boat albacore fleet is seasonally dependent on other fisheries, there is little probability that there are major changes that covild be made to increase albacore fishing efficiencj'- that -woiiLd not rediice efficiency in the other fisheries in which the vessels engage. Refrigeration Equipment The ammonia compression system is nearly universal in the tuna fleet. It has a high degree of reliability and effectiveness, and the primary fault night be lack of adequate reserve capacity in some installations. Refrigeration was first introduced in tuna vessels about 1926, and since then constant engineering improvements have been made. The loss through spoilage is very low. Tuna vessel owners are extremely reluctant to experiment ivith other refrigerants or systems which, if they do not function properly, could result in the spoilage of cargo worth fron $30,000 to $180,000, depending on the size of the vessel. Compression Freon systems have been tried on tuna vessels but they have been replaced with ammonia systems because of greater reliability. Ammonia absorption systems hold promise, but the un- favorable experiences reported to date with this system in some salmon freezer ships in Bristol Bay, has deterred its introduction in the tuna fleet. The system as applied to fishing vessels still has serious imperfections in such items as liquor r^ransfer primps, and there is a general lack of engineers who can operate absorption systems. Theoretically the equipment and installation costs and the operating and maintenance costs are lower than those of compression systems. Theoretically, also, the absorption system has the advantage of maintaining greater efficiency at low temperatures than ccmpressor systems. However, these theoretical advantages do not outweigh the greater reliability of compressor systems in the mind of the tuna vessel owner. It is also maintained that the lack of e:q)erienced operating engineers has hindered acceptance of ^he absorption system, 205 Pumps, K-ping and Hydraulics The pumps and piping system for bait water and brine circulation are highly efficient, but refinements providing greater versatility are being developed. The use of hydraulic pumps may be an innovation ■which could eliminate or greatly rsduce the complicated electrical systems. Efforts are being made to develop plastic piping which would not be subject to corrosion, electrolysis or the attachment of marine growths. Electronic j>ids to Fishing and Navigation New types of navigational equipment, such as loran (long-range navigation), radar (radio detecting and ranging), and the widespread use of supersonic depth recorders for locating schools of fish have materially increased fisherj'- production in general since World War II, The continuous improvement of these devices and the development of new devices such as echo-ranging equipment, underwater listening equipment and electrical fishing apparatus will undoubtedly bring about greater efficiencies in fishing operations in the future with an attendant increase in fishery production. But a great amount of basic research is required before working sets of this advanced type of equipment can be made available to commercial fishermen. The extent to which these improvements and developments will increase fishery production is difficult to evaluate now, but it may be expected to be appreciable. A radical change in fishing methods such as the development of an electric fishing ship might revolutionize entirely commercial fishing operations as they are now carried out in certain fisheries. Fishing vessels equipped with radar can operate with greater safety at night and during periods of poor visability. Tuna schools feeding near the surface are frequently accompanied by d ense flocks of birds which can often be located more readily by radar than by the human eye, Loran has eliminated laborious computations formerly re- quired to determine the vessels' position and has made possible the determination of position at any time during the day or night, Loran can materially reduce the man hours spent at sea by enabling the fisherman to place his vessel on a precise spot of a particular fishing bank in a minimum of time. Commercial fishermen in constantly growing numbers find the supersonic depth recorder very useful for locating schools of fish. Unfortunately, depth recorders have fundamental 206 limitations in that the fishing vessel must pass directly over the school before receiving any indication of its presence. The depth recorders now in common use are primarily designed for navigational purposes and probably do not have the best frequency and wave characteristics for locating fish. Research along these lines should greatly benefit the fishing industry. The development of echo-ranging equipment similar to war-time sonar(used for locating enemy submarines) but especially designed for locating schools of fish and reduced to a convenient size and reasonable cost for use on fishing vessels would increase efficiency of operations. It is known that certain fishes make characteristics noises, and this condition may well pertain to tuna. The development of listening devices for receiving these sounds and thereby establishing the presence of subsurface schools of tuna in an area would materially reduce the time required to find fish. It is well established that fish will respond to an electrical stimulus, and varying current densities can be used to influence the reactions of fish in different size ranges. Such equipment is now used in fresh water for scientific purposes, Bxperiments now being con- ducted in Europe have demonstrated the possibility of controlling the movements of cod and herring in the open sea. The high conductivity of sea water requires far greater amounts of electrical power than fresh water to control the reaction of fish. Pulsating, rather than continuous, current will materially reduce the electrical power require- ments and offers promise of practical electrical fishing methods at sea. Extensive basic research is required to establish proper pulsation patterns, to design proper and safe equipment and to test the equipment under actual operating conditions. The successful development of electrical fishing devices may revolutionize the fishing industry as selected species and sizes of fish could be attracted to a net for capture or even pumped aboard the vessel. Fishing Gear The various types of tuna fishing gear have attained their present state of effectiveness throtigh the concerted efforts and ideas of many thousands of practical fishermen over a period of many years, to best suit the species of tuna and the area exploited. Furthermore, the fishermen have become highly skilled in the operation of the gear and in studying the habits of tuna to use the gear most effectively. Any 207 change in fishing methods must prove of decided superiority over existing techniques on an actual production basis o Minor improvements are being introduced by fishermen, and radical types of gear are being tested by various Governmental research agencies. The only improvement made in purse seines during the past five years is the use of chain to replace lead lines. A cheap grade of linen netting was used experimentally in 19^0 in the hope of making a lighter and stronger seine but the material would not stand upo High grades of linen are too expensive to compete with cotton as netting material for tuna seines^ The life of a tuna seine is relatively short because of deterioration in the tropics and the distortion of the netting due to the heavy catches o It is possible that plastic or nylon netting may prove superior to cotton but no testing program is in existence now as far as can be determinedc Results of experimental gill netting for albacore by the Service vessel John Ne Cobb in 1950 were encouraging (Powell, Alverson and Livings tonej 1952)3 but the poor runs of albacore in the Pacific North- west the following two years prevented further large-scale experiments with gill nets « Trials of gill nets in Hawaiian waters by the Pacific Oceanic Fisheries Investigation met with little success in catching tuna. This was believed to be at least partly due to the extremely clear water in the area. It has not been demonstrated as yet that gill nets will catch any species of tuna as consistently or efficiently as the standard types of gear now in use. Perhaps gill nets may be used as auxiliary gear -virfiich can be set while the tuna boat is drifting at nighto Over- all catches might be increased in this manner, but at the moment there is no indication that gill netting will replace ar^y other gear or will be used exclusively by any tuna boats o Long-line gear^ developed and used extensively by Japanese tuna fishermen, has been under test by the Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investi- gations staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the central Pacific for several years o These tests have proved that tuna can be taken with long line over a wide area of Pacific equatorial waters at rates as good or better than prevail in the Japanese tuna fishery,, An experiment with a Pacific coast purse seiner, the Cavalieri, using long -line gear, was successful in taking a full load of tuna. However, the fish were of large size, and much of the catch was discarded because of dis- coloration o Long line has certain advantages over other gear in that no live bait is needed „ it can be handled in weather too rough for seining, and it does not require siu*face observation of the school as 208 the gear can be fished at various depths. Its main disadvantage is probably the amount of man-power needed to handle it. There are definite possibilities for impro-vlng the gear to nake it easier to handle and more efficient in operation. If it can be shown that this method of fishing can be profitably carried out by American fishermen and vessels ^ new offshore fishing areas can be opened, which may be an answer to part of the present problems faced by the tuna industry. Over-all Considerations In exploring means of improvement in vessel design-, mach- inery, and use of fishing gear, constant attention has been given to improvements which would result in reduction in size of fish- ing crews. The manpower element is of paramount importance be- cause of its major bearing on the actual cost of production of the raw material. Under present circumstances, howsver, it is believed that the tuna fleet is composed of craft on wnich little improvement can be made to increase present efficiency in produc- tion. Probably no great change toward more effectiveness per unit of crew effort ;ind resulting curtailment of provluction cost will come until some revolutionary means of catching tuna can be applied in a practical manner, THE BffORTANCE OF BAIT, ITS COST, AMD OUTIDOK FOR niPROVELT.NTS IN MAKING BAIT The catching of bait is important and costly in the opera- tion of the domestic tuna fleet. There are two methods of demon- strating the importance and necessity of bait to the tuna industry. One is to evaluate the production of raw tuna by United States ves- sels, both as to weight and value, by use of the live-bait method of fishing as contrasted with similar production and value by use of other fishing methods. The second is to show the time, the trouble, and the expense United States vessels must undergo to se- cure bait. The importance and necessity of bait will be consider- ed and analyzed from both of these standpoints. In addition, prospects of improvement in the process of making bait will be considered. 209 Quantity of Ttma Cau.'^t mth Bait Albacore, highly variable in abundance, ^ constituted 18 percent of the total landings of tuna by weight by domestic vessels and 22 per- cent of the value in 195C 49^on the United States Pacific coast (see table 62). In addition to representing a relatively small percentage of the Pacific coast tuna landings, albacore is subject to a high degree of fluctuation in yearly catches. On the other hand, skipjack and yellowfin, tropical tunas, con- stituted 80 percent of the weight and 76 percent of the value of sim- ilar landings in 1950. Equally as iji^Dortant, skipjack and yellowfin do not possess the seasona-J-ty or wide swings in yearly abundance as in the case of albrcorel]/. Because of the fr.ctors of quantity and dependability, skipjack and yellowfin together form the backbone of the United States tuna fishing industry. 9/ During the 21 years from 1927 through 1947, the landings of alba- core by the Californin fleet in any one /er-'r varied from a lov of 487 pounds to a liigh of 21,000,000 pounds (Jalifornia iJepartment of Fish and Game, 1949). In 1950 at San Diego nlbacore were landed in only 7 of the year's months, and the bulk of the landings vjere in the 4 months July through October (California Department of Fish and Game, 1952). ipy The year 1950 has been selected for reference and discussion pur- poses, since in 1951 <3xtensive fleet tie-ups occurred because of in- dustry economic factors and 1952 figures are not complete at the time of this report. ^ 11/ In 1950 at San Diego in each month of the year, landings of skip- jack and yellowfin occurred in fairly regular and consistent amount (California Department of Fish and Game, 1952). During the period of 1927 t-o 1947, altuough fluctuations occurred in the landings of yellowfin and skipjack by the California fleet, these were much less pronounced than in the case of albacore (California Departnent of Fish and Game, 1949! 210 TABLE 62 „ - CATCH OF TUNA AMD TIWALIKE FISHES, BY SPECIES AND GEAR - 19?0 PACIFIC COAST STATES Species Gear Weight Portion of total Value Portion of total Albacore Lines Purse seine Total Lines Purse seine Total Lines Pui'se seine Total Lines Purse seine Total Lines Purse seine Total Lines Purse seine Total 3) TOTALS Pounds 72,^06,700 7,900 Percent 18.38 Dollars 13,833,711 1,193 Percent 22, U6 72,lilh,600 18.38 13,835,20h 22. h6 Blue fin 39,?00 2,722,300 .01 .69 6,011 119,380 .01 .68 2,761,800 .70 ij.25,:-9i .69 Bonito 197, ,^00 lA98,100 .05 1/.13 i9,::;52 .03 I/0O8 695,600 .18 67,703 .11 Skipjack llh,911,300 11, 8 7h, 800 29.16 3.01 16,181,331 l,6h9j,108 26.76 2.68 126,786,100 32.17 I8,130,h39 29oUU Yellowfin mS, 210, 800 39,678,700 37.61 10.07 22,883,237 5,939,976 37.15 9.61i 187,889,500 h7.66 28,823,213 I46.79 Yellowtail 1,U08,100 2/2,121,700 o35 2/.5U 128,6hli 2/l85j,690 .21 2/.30 3,529,800 .89 3lU,33a .51 COMBDn 39h,077,li00 100.00 61,596,281; 100.00 1/ Includes 3,300 pounds caioght by gill nets - value 2/ Includes 1,300 pounds caught by gill nets - value $lllu 211 Bait is essential for the skLpjack-yellowfin fishery 5 and the albacore fishery also requires a large amount. For example, 82 per- cent of the skip jack-yell owf in catch by the California fleet in 1950 was made v;ith bait (see table 63). It is conservatively estimated that at least 70 percait of the entire tuna catch (all varieties of tuna) made by the United States fleet in the eastern Pacific is taken with bait, ~J This method of fishing for tuna is very efficient from the standpoint of production per man day. TABLE 63.^'= YELLC'WKLN AND SKIPJACK ^ LANDED IN CALIFORNIA, 1948 - 1950 Purse Seiners YEAR Number of craft Pounds (percentage of total) Number of craft Pounds (percentage of total) 1948 1949 1950 171 182 193 199, 891, U9 (77=28) 222,286,771 (34.59) 251,831,713 (82.13) 111 108 115 47,089,076 (18.21) 31,381,001 (11.94) 51,633,050 (16,84) (contirued on next page) See footnotes at end of tabl'5» 12/ Exact figures for the weight of other tunas, chiefly albacore, taken with bait are not available. Taking the known catch of yellow- fin and skipjack with bait (table 62) and assuming one-third of the total catch of albacore (table 6I) was caught with bait, it is esti- mated that at least 70 psrcen'':. of the total Pacific coast tuna catch in 1950 (table 61) was made with bait. 212 TixBLE 63 ol;/ - IELLC'.'FIN AND SKIPJACK if LANDED IN CALIF-ORNIA, 19hB - 1950 - Continued Year Miscellaneous Yearly Totals Number of craft Pounds (percentage of tot^l) Number of craft Pounds (percentage of total) 19U8 700 11,658,397 (U.5i) 982 258,638,622 (100.00) 19h9 515 9,12U,1^15 "(3.U7) 805 262,792,187 (lOOoOO) 1950 202 3,162,37a (lo03) 590 306,627,137 (lOOoOO) 1/ This material is a continuation for subsequent years of table°"3 of the California Departitient of Fish and Game?., Fish Billetin No. 7l^, The Coinngrcial Fish Catch cf Galiforriia for the Year 19U7, with an Tiistoi-ical revTCT'TglS' -'''l!^77~^^^"^®<^ thro^jgh the cburteaiy of the"~CaliTbrnia DepartJnenE of Fish and GamCo 2/ The catch of yellowfin and sMpjack combined made by the CalifoniJ.a fleet of bcala, bi.'oken down intos (l) turia bait boats, those that fished throughout the year or a great part of it 5 (2) regular purse-seine rsj and (3) miscellaneous smaller craft which fished only at the norUiern rang* of the tuna, with ax'i^- type of gear, nets, or live bait. Post of Bait A few of the costs of secoring bait are direot costs which can be identified, but most of them an? mtrgnd sc rompllntely with other functions of tuna fishing and boat operations that they cannot be isolated o Conversations with tuna boat opei^ators reveal that cost figures on the bai-oing aottivity have never been kept by the vessels, and there is doubt as to the practicabiliicy of ever obtaining such figures o 213 NETS AND BOATS Bait nets are a direct cost vhich can definitely be ascribed to securing baito The requirements and the cost of th^se are detailed in table 6U0 These nets are used to catch bait, and depending on the size of the fishing vessel and its area of operations, may cost from $3,000 to $7,000 in round figures o The life of these nets is normally about a yearo To fish these nets the tuna vessel carries a speedboat, a large skiff, and a small skiff, having an aggregate cost of around $U,000o Hoviever, it is probable that at least somo of these boats would be necessary equipment even if not used for bait procurement o FOREIGN LIGEJTSES Another type of cost -which is fairly direct is the cost of foreign licenses and permits (see table 65) o Since these licenses grant the privilege of fishing for tuna as well as for bait, for example both tuna and bait are taken close to land at the Galapagos Islands, it is not alrrays possible to segregate zhe uortion of the TABLE 6u„ ^ BAir lETS USED BY TUNA FISHING VESSELS 1/ Number and t;^^!* of nets Cost Length Depth W-sh sizi Tvdne Two small ^iil,OOOoOO 102 fthmo 15 fthirio (a) Bag!' 26 cable sardine eao (b) Apron 3" (c) VMng 0* #6 thread #6 thread One large fpl,300oOO 130 fthm. 20 fthm. (a) Bag |»* 26 cable sardine eao (b) Apron 3" (,c) Wing 6" #6 thread #6 thread One $1, 000c 00 102 fthn. Ih fthm. (a) Bag 3 A'" 29 cable anchovetta eao (b) Apron 3'» (e) V/ing 6" #6 thread //6 thread One small $l,500o00 68 fthmo 7 fthm. (a) BAg 7/8« #6 thread Galapagos eao (b) Aprcai 1'' (c) Wing' l** #6 thread #6 thread One large $1,800.00 80 ftiirn. 10 fthHio (a) Bag 7/8" #6 thread Galapagos eao (b) Apron 1" (e) V/ing 1'" #6 thread #6 thread 17 Eiformation f -urnished by oivner-captain of a tliroa clipper, November 19?2o A'"'erag'! life of net aboard an average tuna vessel is approximately one (l) year. Part or all of the nets Ij.sted above may be carried on a tuna clipper, depending on its slae and range of operations . 214 cost which should be allocataci to baito An exa:nination of the table ■will show that the licensing charges are costly „ A vessel of 200 net tons, for examplej, would pay over $2,000 (Uo So) for a 90-day Mexican fishing license alorif, not counting additional fees for an- nual registratior-j bait sei-'ies, and :'.r«s-»'-4neinbttrs' personal licenses* An Ecuadoran license for tiw sama size vessel, good for 100 days, wc'uld 30st $2,1400 (UoSo), plus -in add:.tional charge for annual registrations Other countries hav« varying charges as shown in the table. Some boats use more than one country's license on a trip. The American Timaboat Assoc.raiiion has furnished an estimate that the cost of Mexican licenses for itii members approximates $13 per ton of tuna caught by the vessels with the licenses, but similar information concerning the o\'er-ali cost cf foreign licenses is not available o It is impossible to be coiiple-vely categorical as to the particular foreign licenses taken by various boats, but in general, these are as follows: Snail boats (lOO-tcn carrying capacity or less) take a Mexican license, medium boats (mors than 100 tons up to 200 tons) usually take a Mexican liceiiise, and large boats (over 200 bons) frequently tak« a license in Mexico, Ecuador, Panama, or other countries. TBffi FACTOR IN B/iIT PROCUREMENT Although other costs undoubtedly exist, they must be shown in a different way, Thers is, for example, a material cost of time in the baiting activity. In the absenc'* of published data the time factor for the baiting activity has been estiinated according to the following method of samplings. Information was obT:ained frcm 13 vessels in the San Diego baic fleet, selected to give a cross-section of the three slisci groups (100 toricS capacity or lu^ssj more "chan 100 to 200 tons, and over 200 tons) wliich shosv-s that an average of 17 percent of these vessels' time at sea in the year 195'2y^ was devoted to securing bait. Variations for inJividual boats ranged from 9 per- cent to 33 percent, with rj*arly all within the range of 12 percent to 20 percent. Assuming t!:iat the fig-art; of 17 per3ent baiting time is typical for an average year, the nurdbei' of days at sea devoted to taking bait may be calculated as follovjs. Records for a typical n^jmber of bait boats in each size class for 1950 reveal that an average of 2^6 days per vessel were spent at sea in tliat year. Thus the average baiting time per vessel would be I4I4 daj'S per yearp 1^ 19^2 data used in absencv^ of any other, 215 TABLE 65. ABSTRACT OF FOREIGN FISHING LICENSE INFORMATION FOR MAJOR TUNA BAIT AREAS MEXICO (as of November 15 ., 1952) Vess, Rego Tons Days Good For or Time Good For Cost in Mexican Pesos, per Net Reg. Ton, of Vessel Bait and fishing license 1 to 3 inclo li to 1^ incl. 16 to 70 incl, 71 to 100 incl, 101 and over 101 and over only Annual boat registration All tonnages 10 25 50 70 90 Special winter rate, Nov, 16 - Feb, 19 1 year from issue date 55.73 133.76 lliU,91 89.18 89.18 55.73 5o70 Other jfet- registration (all nets including bait nets) $0,21 Mexican per meter measured on the corkline. Good for one year from issue date. Personal fishing license, ftli,00 Mexican for each member of the crew. Expires December 31> each jrear. Notes Tonnage is basis net ton registry as per U, S, Customs achneasure- ment for the vessel. Current effective rate of exchange at Ensenada, Mexico, is $8,50 Mexican equals $1.00 U, S, Ensenada is the only Mexi- can port at -which U, S, vessels can secure licenses in Mexico, Most of these licenses are actually piirchased in San Diego or San Pedro, Cali- fornia, where 25 percent additional is charged. Official rate of ex- change, $8,65 Mexican equals $1,00 U. S,, applies in San Diego and San Pedro, (Continued on next page.) 216 TABLE 65. - ABSTRACT OF FOiffilGN FISHING LICENSE INFORMATION FOR MAJOR TUNA BOAT AREAS - Continued COSTA RICA (as of November 15, 1952) Annual matriculation (registration) equivalent to a permit, valid from date of its issuance, according to the following tariff: Gross ton of vessel Rate per vessel $U.S. Up to 25 $150,00 26 to 50 200,00 51 to 100 300 ,00 101 to 150 350,00 More than 150 500.00 PANAMA (as of December 22, 1952) License valid for season of year in which purchased. Bait fishing season is from February 15 to October 15 . Net tons of vessel Rate per vessel $ U.S« "LJ Under 25 Up to 375 Over 25 and up to 50 390 to 750 Over 50 and up to 100 765 to 1,500 Over 100 and up to I50 1,515 to 2,250 Over 150 and up to 200 2,265 to 3,000 Over 200 3,015 and up Other Personal fishing stamp - $1,00 for each crew member. All vessels receiving licenses must purchase their fuel, supplies, and lubricants, and make their repairs in Pansima, (Continued on next page.) 1/See footnote at end of table. 217 TABLE 6?. - ABSTRACT OF FOREIGN FISHING LICENSE INFORMATION FOR MJOR TUNA BAIT AREAS - Continued ECUADOR (as of November 1^, 19^2) Document required Good for Cost $ U, S. Registration (Matricula) Fishing license 1 calendar year, expires Dec. 31> each year 100 days. One renewal permitted Consular fees: Certification cf bill of health Certification of crew list $200.00 per boat $12o00 per registry net tonnage of vessel $15.00 per application $ 0,10 per mfin Note Matricula and license not valid in continental Ecuadoram Testers. 1/ Calculated on basis of ^.00 U.S. per net to;i of vessel. Quantity of Bait Used Although 70 percent of the domestic tuna catch is estimated to be made by the use of bait, only 10 to 15 percent of all the bait needed or used is taken in United States waters and this portion is suitable only for use in the so-called "local" fishery (California- Mexico grounds). The remaining 85 to 90 percent of the bait require- ment comes from foreign waters. The operating range of United States tuna bait vessels is shown in table 66, 218 TABLE 66, - OPERATING RANGE OF UNITED STATES TUNA BAIT VESSELS Capacity (Tons) Number of Vessels Operating Range 1/ 100 or less 30 Gtaf of Tehuantepac More than 100 to 200 79 Costa Rica Over 200 112 Peru 1/ Means vessels fish the high seas to as far as the geographic references given. They also fish seaward up to 2^0 - 300 miles within this range. Records of the total amount of bait used to catch tuna are unavailable, although such studies are presently underway. In the absence of appropriate statistics, it has been estimated that in the year 19^0 the United States fleet used more than 26,000,000 pounds of baito Of this amount it is estimated that only 3?000,000 pounds ■was taken from United States waters. The amount of bait actually used does not necessarily correspond with the amount needed, since yihen bait is in good supply it is used liberally and when in short supply, frugally. The basis of this estimate follows, Fishennen use "scoops" as a unit for counting bait, (A dip net is used to transfer bait fish from the bait net to the tuna boats' bait tanks. Each dip net load is counted as a "scoop.") According to a former Fish and Wildlife Service official who studied the matter, a '»scoop'» will average about 10 poimds of bait fish and an average of about 20 ••scoops"' of bait are used to catch one ton of yellowfin or skipjack (with considerable individual variations from average due to season, availability, and biting habits of the tuna)o This yields a 1- pound-of-bait to 10-pounds-of-tuna ratio for the skipjack and the jrellowfin caught by the bait fleet. Live bait is also frequently used in the albacore fishery, but they are also taken in large amounts vdthout the use of bait. Statistics are not available to accurately segregate the amount of albacore takon with bait. It has been assumed here that one-third of the total albacore landings are fish caught with the use of bait and that the amount of bait 219 needed to catch a given weight of albacore is half that needed to catch the same wei^t of yellowfin and skipjack, (These estimates were derived frcm conversations with albacore fishermen in the harbor of San Diego o) On these assumptions, the bait-catch ratio for the entire albacore landings wjuld be 1 poixnd of bait to 60 pounds of albacorco The availability of bait and the amount used undoubtedly varies from year to year depending on fishing conditions » In considering the estimated bait consumption for 1950t) it should be kept in mind that a record tuna catch was produced in that year and that production by the United States fleet has decUned irtsuceesdipg years. Types of Bait and HVhere Found The volume of bait indicated is composed of several species of bait fishes, -which are found in various geographic locations o The principal bait varieties commonly used are as follcwss Anchovetas ( Cetengraulis mysticetus) . This bait is preferred by tuna fishermen for long hauls because of its hardiness and ability to withstand crowding in the bait tanks. It will live in all water temperatures encountered in the clipper fleet tuna fishing range, and mil live 2 or 3 months if care is taken to avoid abrupt temperature changes, Anchovetas are found along the Lcwei' Oalifornia coast, the Grilf of California frcni the vicinity of Guaymas southward along the coast of Mexico, the Gulf of Fonseca, and the Gulf of Panama, They also occur on the Columbia coast, vrtiere they are not extensively utilized and reportedly are of inferior survival qualityo In 1950 and 1951 they were taken in the Gulf of Guayaquil, but Ecuador has now closed this area to foreign boats. California sardines (Sardinops caerulea) . These are superior to anchovetas from the standpoint of attracting and chumming tuna, but will not crowd as well as anchovetas in the bait tanks, Cali- fornia sardines are unsuitable for southem trips as they wLll not survive the warmer water. In the winter they may be transported to the Galapagos region by steering an outside course in colder water. They are never satisfactory to transport to Central or South America. They are found along the coast of Californ:.a from the vicinity of San Pedro to the California-Mexico boundary and in Mexican waters on thelDwar California coast and in the G\ilf of California. 220 IJorthern anchovies (Engraulis tnordax) o These are not as hardy as anchovetaSo They are taken in th-e same places and used in the same manner as California sardines <> Salimas (composed of two spe-ries of the family Xenichthyidae) . They ai-e a hardjr bait, taken oily at the fralapagos Islands and used there o Peruvian sardines (Sardinops sag^i: ) . This bait has characteristics similar to Calif oriiLa sarSineSo 'It is~ taken by the United States fleet only at the Galapagos Islands and used there o Other bait varieties not coiTnonly used are as follows s Thread herring (Opisthor-fjna libertate) . Small thread herring are quite hardy; largo onesy Tiis' sc. l"hey are lAsed when other bait is not readily available. They are found from Lower California to Central America and off the southern coast/ of California » Flat-iron herring ( Ilisha furthi) » This bait does not survive ivell in bait taiuroo It is used when the fishing grounds are hearby and other baits are not available. It is found f rom L.ower California to Central Americao Fonsign Bait Regulations Some of the foreign countries which possess bait si^jplies en- force regulations as to the baiting areas (see table 65)o These range from partial and seasonal closures as in Panama to complete prohibition of foreign fishing as iai Peruo Such cIosui^bs, of course, have their effect on the availabilitj^ of bait to American vessels, Mexico, a major source of bait supply;, licenses A'aerican vessels to take bait in her waters without ^oacoiial limitations o As in most fisheries the bait supply in Mexico is subject go temporally natural • fluctuationp but Mexico oonstiti\tes a dependable source of supply at the present tdnieo Panama enforces a seasonal closing in the Gulf of Panama from October 15 to February 15 each year, as well as a permanently closed area in Panama Baj"-, During the closed season, a source of bait for bait boats fishing the highsoas grounds off Peru is lacking. The bait situation for the long range boats is aggra- vated by the fact that Ecuador closed the Gulf of Ga,ayaq\iil in January 19^2 to American boats, thus making this bait location no longer available to Americ&n boata, Disapp8ara.nco of tlio anchovetas 221 from Costa Rice (the Gulf of Nicoya) in 19U8, said to be due to a natioral disaster, a "red tide", removed at least temporarily this abundant supply of bait from the tuna fleeto Bait Supply Situation In general bait supplies during 1951 and 1952 have been ade- quate for the United States tuna fleet, A good many of the bait species are known to fluctuate vjidely at various times and places. There have been times, it is truej when boats have been materially delayed for lack of baito As an example of natural fluctuating supply, there is the sardine situation in the Galapagos Islands » In the 1950-51 season sardines were plentiful; in 1951-52 they were scarcej and to date in the 1952-53 season, plentifulo Similar oc- currences may be found in other baiting areas o While the physical supply of bait has been adequate, the incon- venience and uncertainty occasioned by foreign control of the supply must be recognized. With some countries such as Mexico, arrangements exist to the mutual satisfaction of the foreign country and the American tuna fleet. In other countries, there are partial or com- plete closures of baiting grounds and sometimes sudden unanticipated closiires. In addition, there are involved the matters of licenses and fees in order to obtain baito Sometimes the problem of securing physical possession of the necessary foreign license causes consid- erable inconvenience to United States vessels . At the present time it appears that smoothing out the international complications con- cerning utilization by the United States fleet of available foreign bait in a manner mutually satisfactory and beneficial to the foreign countries and the United States is relatively more Important than the matter of physical availability of bait. Future Problems and Bait Research Aside from the matter of inteniational relations mentioned above, such questions as these await answers in the future: The amount of fishing pressure which the various bait stocks can with- stand and the degree of bait fishing intensity that can be tolerated without introducing the problem of overfishing. Present knowledge provides no answers to such questions. 222 PRESEIJT BAIT RESEARCH— NATURAL BAIT The Inter-American Traplc&l Tuna Commission, at present adhered to by Costa Rica and the United States, with research headquarters at San DiegOy is undertaking research on "the biology-p ecology, and distri- bution of the tropical bait fishes. This agency is now collecting bait samples from some of the t\ina boats upon their arrival at San Di(^Oo At the present time the research is in the preliminary stages* A tag for bait fish to assist in studying migrations and other matters has been developed, California sardineSj, in addition to being valuable for food and fish meal, fish oil and condensed fish solubles, are an important bait fisho The sardine investigations, conducted cooperatively by the California Academy of Sciences,, California Department of Fish and Game, Stanford University (Hopkins Marine Station), the Fish and Tifiidlife Service, and the University of California (Sci'ipps Institution of Oceanography) may be of value also from the standpoint of bait re- search „ In Peru, under the auspices of the Peruvian Division of Fish and Oane and the Guano Company.o there is research being conducted concerning biological aspects of the anchovy o The relationship of anchovies to the substance known as "guano" is the purpose of this wo:tiriiich represents the majoidty of these vessels, is of the opinion that trawl- ing offers no promise for these vesse?iSo He reported that a few of the vessels have tried trawling with medi-ccre results » In his opinion, these vessels need something new to fish for in place of the scarce California sardines (numerous CalJLfornia seine boats divide their year between the tuna and the sardine fisheries as has been previously indi- cated) = Possibility of Engaging In The Alaska Salmon Freezer-Ship Industry EXPERIENCE AND FUTUHE. POSSIBILITiCES In recent years freezer-ships )\&ve operated in ever-increasing numbers in the Bristol Bay Area of Al.askao These ships carry smaller boats (gill netters) which are used as catcher boats » The gill netters deliver their salmon catches to the freezer-ships , where they are frozen whole. Eventually the freezer-ships return to one of several Puget Sound ports and discharge their cargo of frozen salmon. The fi^zen salmon are then canned. Red salmon is the variety most sought by the freezer-ships. However, in 1952 some of the vessels also took pink and chum salmon. Whether the freezing of pink and chum salmon will prove to be feasible and profitable is as y^^t yj-jkrjown. The freezer-ship indus- try has been concentrated mainly in the Bristol Bay Region of Alaska, the Territory's chief source of red salmon. Freezer-ship growth in Bristol Bay is indicated in Table 69 o 221 Table 69 »- TAXE OF SALMON BY FREEZER-SHIPS IN BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA Yea;- Fish C auivit Total for Area By Freszer-ships Port By F ion of Total reszer- ships Freezer-ships in Operation Poitnds Pounds Percent Number 1950 44,519,956 Ij 016, 130 2,28 5 1951 24,590,922 2,994,828 L2ol8 11 1952 68,788,896 9,306,234 13o53 17 1/ 1/ These vessels fished 129 gill-net boats with an aggregate of 19,350 fathoms of gill nets. Freezer- ships have increased rather rapidly i-n nu/rber in recent years, and in 1952 they accoionted for approximately I4 percent af the salmon tak&Ti in Bristol Bay« They also accounted for an. unlcnovm, but small, por- tion of the take from other areas of Alaska. Numerous economic factors make it impossible to forecast the future of the freezer-ship industry. Some of these factors ai'e: cost of raw salmon; cost of vessel operations including payro.ll; policies and cost of production of competitive shore-based canneries j selling price of canned salmon; and consumer acceptance of tne freezer-ship caxined- salmon product. The theoretical limitation upon freezer- ship ejq^ansion is the portion of tne fish supply which is not as yet taken by the freezer- ships. In the Bristol Bay Area 86 percent of the catch was taken by other methodso If freezing proves successful with pink and chum salmon, tiie theoretical poten- tial for freezer-ships would be much greater. iyt/ To take care of a great voiujne of frozen salmon from Alaska, no doubt canning facilities in the Puget Sound or other continental United States areas would require ex- pansion, "2^ In 1951, the Alaska salmon take amounted to 276,588,312 pounds of wliich 113,666,596 pounds were pink salmon. Other species of salmon were taken as follows: Chum, 52o934,320 pounds; Coho, 36,279,648 pounds; King, 15,790,840 pounds; Red, 57,916,908 pounds. It i5 of course unlikely that the existing Alaska shore plants would permit their fish supply to be diverted by freezei-^ships without offering strenuous competition to retain their supply, or that the residents and the Government of the Territor7 will surrender without protest the import- ant canned salmon industry ii/, STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR TUNA VESSELS IN THE SALMON-FREEZING TRADE Of the 17 freezer-ships which operated in Alaska in 1952, 6 are known to be tuna vessels, Tvina vessels requ-lre only a moderate amount of con- version to become salmon freezer-ships because tthey already possess refrig- eration and large frozen carrying capacity. The method of freezing used normally by tuna vessels (brine-freezing) has also been adopted by other types of vessels in the salmon freezer-ship industry^ Tuna vessels require alterations mainly to permit carrying the catcher boats and to provide gas- oline storage for the catcher boats and living accommodations for the fishermen who man the catcher boats^ For a tuna vessel using 8 to 10 catcher boats, these modifications are estimated to cost between $4j000 and $6,000 depending on the particular vessel. Tuna vessels have as much carrying capacity for frozen salmon as they have for tuna. If salmon are received at a fast enough rate to permit load- ing a complete brine well at a tinie^ the brine may be drained off the salmon as soon as they are frozen and the salmon left in that well for dry storage. However, if fish are received at a slow rate, it is necessary to transfer them after they are frozen to another well for dry storage. Since the fish assume contorted positions when frozen, they do not stack in the best space- conserving manner when transferred to another well. Tuna vessels appear to have demonstrated that they are practicable in the freezer-ship industry for salmon so far as receiving and freezing salmon is concerned. 1^/ Total 1951 Alaska salmon pack was 3,484,468 cases (48 1-pcund cans) valued at $79,249,185. Western Al.aska pack was 388,519 cases valued at $11,859,298. In 1951 the entire Alaska salmon fishing industry employed 27,625 persons who earned $17,114,315. In western Alaska 6,064 persons earned $3,605,475. I 229 OPERATING COSTS No basis exists for providing comparison between operating costs of tuna vessels in the tuna fishery and in the frozen-salmon industry. This is because in the first instance the vessel operates as a fishing vessex with all crew members working on a share basis, that is, sharing in the profits and the expenses of the fishing venture o In the second instance the vessel operates as a factory ship, and the owner alone assumes the financial risks o He pays the crew, pays all eir^enses of the voyage, and buys at prevailing prices the fish received ly 'one vesselj and his profit, if any, is the difference between the total operating costs and the gross income from the voyage « It is possible for him to lose a large sum of money if the voyage proves a failure > By having the salmon custom-canned for his account he assumes a further i'.' sk since he then speculates as well in the canned-salmon market. Both the gill nets and the gill-net boats are furnished by the vessel owner« Gill r-.ets to outfit one catcher boat cost .^500, These have a life of 1 year for the web and 3 years for the cork and lead lines-. The gill-net boats cost JJ6^000 to $7*000 each and have a life of 5 year?.. Assuming «t fleet of eight catcher boats, the boat and nets require a:n outlay of more than $50,000. On an accrual basis, the annual cost for these items would approximate $ll;^000. Maintenance and overhaul of the equipment is estimated at 5 percent of cost per arjium. The number In the crew varies with the size of the freezer-ship. Small ships of 150 to 200-ton3 carrying capacity may carry as few as 6, while large ships of more than 500-tons carrying capacity sometimes carry lli or 15 men. The wage scales for crew members are complicated, consisting of a combination of straight wages, overtime, percentage, run-money, and bonuses. Wage expenses and other data for a large tuna- type vessel engaged in the Alaska salmon-freezing trade are shown in table 70. OT^IER ASPECTS Bristol Bay, Alaska, is 3.«220^/ miles from San Diego, the home port of most tuna vessels. This distance is computed via Seattle to Nushagak Bay. 16-/ San Diego to Nushagak Bay direct, 2,820 nautical miles. Via Seattle and Ketchikan;, 39570 nautical miles. 230 The Alaska salmon-freezing industry provides the equivalent of one trip a year for tuna boats » Table 67 sho'ws that the large vessels averaged about four tuna trips in 1950 and about three in 1951 ■> Therefore, salmon-freezing is at best a partial substitute for tuna fish-Lngo EFFECTS ON SALMON INDUSTRY Undoubtedlj'^ if expanded on a large scale., freezing activities would cause substantial changes in the present Alaska salmon industry and, indeed, in the economy of the Territory. At the present time nearly all of Alaska's saljnon are canned in shore canneries located in various places in the Territory^ These canjneries are a source of jobs and payrolls for the local i:nhabitantsa In addition, numerous other businesses rely upon the Alaska salmon industry^ for exanple. machine shops, transportation companies, stores, and sv-pplien-j , etc. To the extent that the freezsr-ahips transfer from -ohe Territory the raw material which creates jobs and payrolls x^i-thin th.e T^rrrltcry, they injure the Alaskan economyo Any benefit to taria vessels from participation in the Alaska salmon fisheiy would appear to be at the expense of the existing Alaska salmon-canning indiastry and the Territory's economic welfare- Possibility of Engaging in the Gulf of Mexico and... AtIantio_ Coast Shrimp Industry EXPERIENCE AMD FlfTTTRE POSSIBILITIES The outlook for using any substantial part of the tuna fleet in the shrinp industry is poor. The high investment and operating costs render their emplosrment in'.practicalo BoMa'Jer^ the shi~j.;{iip l.»?uustry is in a period of rapid change with an increased us-j of fishirig grounds at greater distances from home ports. The advantages of groatei' cruis- ing range and larger pay load characteristic of tuna vessels h:111 become more important if this trend continues » In the event that future explora- tions in distant areas open highly productive sh-i'imp grounds;, several of the smaller tuna vessels might find profitable employaient as shrimp trawlers . Freezer-ships In operation on the Campeche fisiiing grourds have met 231 Table 70 „■ DATA GONCERNIKG A CERTAIN TUIIA-TYFE VESSEL VJHILE IN THE ALASKA SALI.:ON-FREEZING TRADE - 1952 Payroll Position Employees Earnings Captain Mate Chief Engineer First Assistant Engineer Second Assistant Engineer First Cook Second Cook Deck hands Total Vessel Payroll Gill-net Fishermen Employment taxes approximately h percent Total Payroll number 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J, 12 20 dollars 5,751. 2,036. 5,626. li,593. k,39Q. 2,611, 1,611, 10o733. 37,, 362 6U,562 101, 92U U,076 32 106,001, 26 53 32 37 67 53 53 V 32 53 £0 2/ 53 98 ^3/ Operational Data Days on Trip Gill-net boats carried Estimated vessel carrying capacity, tons Estimated load this trip, tons Number of salmon this trip, fish Number casos li8/l's packed from fish (approximately Gross value canned salmon pack, at $26«00 per case 10 600 370 131,780 10,250 ,<^266,500, 1/ Partial season 2/ Includes price for fish, run money, and shipboard wages >. 3/ Includes some pre- and post-season wages o All such wages were not available and are not included o 232 with very limited success » In 1952, generally less than three were pres- ent on the grounds at any one time,, Many factors have contributed to the faj.lure in the establishment of a trend toward the use of larger vessels as refrigerated freighters.. The preferred method of operation is to go to the Campeche grounds with a full load of ice and to return as seon as a load of shrimp has been caught or until a shortage of ice malces the return imperative. Also, a large number of shrimp boats are owned or controlled by dealers and it is to their advantage to get all the production of these boats delivered directly to their plants. A third factor is that many of the small fleets and independent shrimp boats fish seasonally in different areas and move irregularly, following reports of good fishing. During 1952 the catch-rate on the Campeche grounds declined » If such a decrease in the catch per unit of effort continues, there may be some changes in the methods of operation that could possibly involve greater use of refrigerated transport vessels on these grounds. COMPARISON OF FISHTNO VESSELS AND METHODS OF FISHING The value of frozen yeHowfin tuna delivered at the dock at the present time is $320 per ton« The larger vessels of the American tuna fleet catch tuna by live bait fishing or with purse seines. Both of these methods usually produce large tonnages of fish in a short time lAien fishing is successful. A single tuna vessel many times boats more than ten tons in a single day and annual catches totaling one thousand tons are not unusual. The value of iced or frozen shrimp delivered at the dock varies with the size and species., but for purposes of comparison, a value of $1,000 per ton for headless shrijup may be used. A catch by a single shrimp vessel of as much as fifty tons of headless shrimp In one year is large. The daily catch with a shrimp trawl is seldom as much as half a ton of headless shrimp. The design of long-range tuna vessels gives them large capacity for quick handling of bulk fish. On the other hand, the limited catch of the shrimp trawlers makes design for extra large payloads unnecessary and ir^jractical. Some increase in the catch of shrimp by use of vessels of greater power and with nets of larger size has been obtained by shrimp fishermen but in practice the cost of gear and vessels of larger size and the eicpense and difficulty of maintaining and handling larger shrimp 233 fishing rigs has been greater than the resxilts jiistified. With the increase in the number of fishermen in the crew and by the use of larger vessels some increase in the catches of shrimp can be made by operation twenty-four hours a day. In most areas, however, shrimp fishing is productive only during the night or during daylight hours, depending on the species of shrimp being taken. Both day and night fishing are only rarely good in the same area at any season. DIFFERENCES IN OPERATIONAL COSTS The yearly replacement and maintenance cost of gear for a tuna boat would be substantially higher than shrimping gear maintenance and replace- ment. Operating and maintenance costs between tuna and shrimp vessels may be roughly estimated in the ratio of five to one. The use of the larger, more modern, live bait tuna fishing vessels as catching boats for shrimp appears entirely impractical because the high operating and maintenance costs are out of line with potential earn- ings. Some of the smaller vessels of the tuna fleet might compete successfully in the shrimp fishery particularly on the more distant grounds. Generally these vessels would require some clearing of the deck stmctures, some new rigging, a winch and some provision for faster freezing of catches of shrimp where ice is not used. Competition by boat owners for superior crews is strong in the southeastern states as it is elsewhere. Factors that tend to cut down the value of shares, such as high operating cost, a large crew, fre- quent loss of time through mechanical breakdoim, if not offset by fac- tors favorable to good crew earnings, would present serious difficul- ties to an owner. Possibilities of Engaging in the Transport Trade The diversion of tuna vessels to the transport trade is economical- ly unsound. The largest tuna clippers having a capacity of 500 tons cost from $500,000 to $600,000 but on the open market a 10,000 ton freighter or a 5000 ton reefer ship can be purchased for $U50,000 or $693,000 respec- tively. The operating costs per day for a 500 ton clipper exclusive of 234 wages varies from ^>300 to $kOO per day while on the same basis a 5000 ton reefer ship can be operated for $700 to $1200 per day depending on the type and area of operations. Assuming an average of $3^0 for a ^00 ton clipper and $1000 for a ^000 ton reefer ship the operating cost exclusive of wages is 3 . 5 5 1 per ton of capacity. The payroll per month, under United StattiS maritime wage scales for a 15 man crew for ocean going service re- quired on tuna clippers, would be $5900 without overtime or war zone bonus- es. But about $12,000 per month will cover similar base pay requirements for a 5000 ton reefer ship under the American flag. On a tonnage basis a clipper will pay about five times the wages per ton capacity when compared to a reefer ship. Ocean freight rates vary in accordance with Shipping Conference tariff rates and ranges. Various lines operate in specific areas and a uniform rate applies by agreement at a conference to a given item. Another deter- ring factor under the schedule is the standard practice of quoting rates for example, "From Panama or any Central American Port to any U.S. Pacific Port, or any Atlantic or Gulf Coast Port," because any ship engaged in such runs usually makes all the major ports ^vithin an area. A sample quote from the Grace Line for tuna from Panama or any Central American Port to San Diego or any West Coast Port is as follows: ConditionlS/ Non-contract Contract Non-contract Contract In addition to very unfavorable operating costs and low freight rates, as contrasted to cli.pper- caught and transported tuna at about $300 per ton, the paper work involved in carrying cargo requires the services of experts. For each separate item of cargo, documentary charges involv- ing manifests, export declarations, ocean bills of lading, and insurance contracts are involved. Furthermore, when carrying cargo for hire the Quantity tons Rate short ton!?/ dollars Up to 100 75.50 Up to 100 63.00 Over 100 72.00 Over 100 60,00 12/ Various classes of dry stores very from I/2 to 2/3 of these rates, 18/ Contract is an agreement to ship all fish for one year. 235 vessels must comply vdth American Bureau of Shipping Requiranents. Fleet Operations The tuna clipper could be easily converted to small-scaU fleet operations involving a few catcher boats. There has already been seme interest shown in this type of operation in the central Pacific grounds now under investigation by the Pacific Oceanic Fishery In- vestigations. The clippers, as motherships, probably could not carry catcher boats on deck to operate long-line gear. The smallest catcher vessels used successfully by the Japanese are about 50 tons. Attanpts to transport such vessels even considerably lighter than 50 tons would present very serious questions of stability. Smaller catcher boats could be utilized if the stay at sea was not protracted, for instance in fl.shing out of one of the Line Islands. It is possible that such a fleet of boats could be used to fish for a succession of clip)pers arriving on the grounds. There would be only a moderate amount of structural modification needed to convert to mothership operations. If the mothership also runs some long-line gear it would probably be necessary to eliminate the bait tank to provide deck space for the long-line hauler and storage of gear. Deck arrangements could be converted for hi^ly efficient operation. The addition of a feathering propeller, a sailing clutch, or a reverse gear would be an important improvement over the direct reversible engine » There are no other imperative changes. Space and quarters for the crew are sufficient. It is estimated that 9 men woiild be needed to operate a clipper as a mothership. If the vessel carried on additional fishing activities the crew would have to be increased to 12 or 18 men. SHOULD THE TUm FLEET MOVE TO OTHER LOCATIONS TO OBTAIN MORE FAVORABLE OPERATING CONDITIONS? New Areas Available to the Tuna Fleet for Fishing Operations or for Bases Since the United States tuna clipper fleet is adapted to long- range fishing it is reasonable for the tuna industry to consider 236 fishing in any tropical and subtropical waters of the Eastern Pacific and the Western Atlantic. Fishing conditions for tuna in tie Tropical Eastern Pacific have appeared to be the "best available aM fishing effort has been concentrated in that area. Recently, the industry has given some attention to the possibilities for fishing operations in other areas. !lVo events have contributed to this development. Tbe Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations has drawn attention to areas having an apparently productive potential of tuna in. the equa- torial waters of the Central Pacific, and exploratory fishing by the Branch of Commercial Fisheries in the GvHf of Mexico has indicated that previous estimates of the possibilities for fishing for tuna on the Atlantic side should be re-examined. Segments of the tuna Industry have plans, in various stages of development, for the operation of new tan& ceuining plants at Moss Point, Mississippi, and at Ponce and Quaniea, Puerto Rico. These plants will operate on tuna taken in the Tropical Eastern Pausific, but their locations will enable them to take advantage of any fish- ing developments in the Western Atlantic Area. In the choice of locations, the fact that these Gulf and Caribbean ports are nearer the Tropical Eastern Pacific tuna fishing grounds than is southern Callforula (see table 71) has been considered, as well as such feu:tors as availability of labor, transportation, and local arrangements for some tax exetaptions. These developments appear to be an expansion of the tTina industry rather than 6uiy large-scede movement of fleets or shore facilities. J .. / WEST COAST TUNA CLIPPER 237 TABLE 71. - DISTANCES FROM PORTS ON THE PACIFIC; ATLANTIC, AND GULF COASTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND PUERID RICO TO THE PANAMA CANAL AND THE -.'/EST COfvST OF COSTA RICA Balboa, Punt arenas. Canal Zone Costa Rica Miles Miles Los Angeles .. ....,.„..,.. o., . 2,913 ...... o = «. o .. o , o ... . 2,499 San Diego ............ o »«„,.. . 2,843 .... o o .......... . 2,429 San Juan, Puerto Rico .,o..... 1,036 ,. ..o ....... oo,. o... . Ij50? New Orleans 1,433 ... o ... o .......... c . 1,904 Charleston, South Carolina. .. . 1^607 ... c ............... . 2,078 New York ..................... 2,01? .................... 2. 438 SOURCE; Distances Betweet\ United States Ports, United States Coast Pilot Series, United States Department of Coimaerce, Coast and Geo- detic Survey, Washington, 1938. GULF AND SOUTHEASTERN STATES The supply of amskilled labor at ports in the Gulf and Southeast- ern States is adequate for considerable industrial ^-xpansion. There is some competition for skilled labor but it is unlikely that this would present any real difficulty tc t-he operation oi a tura canning plant, the necessary ccmpleraent to fleet operation. Experienced super- visory employees would have to be brought from the Pacific coast. The cost of labor is somewhat lower in the Southeastern and Gulf States than in the Pacific Coast States ^ Vessel maintenance costs are comparatively lew but facilities for med- ium size vessels from fifty to five hundred tons are limited. There are sev- eral deep-water ports on the Gulf coast that can acooiamodate even the larg- est clippers. Galveston, New Orleans, labile, and Pensacola have dry-dock- ing facilities. Repairs and maintenance not necessitating dry-docking are available at Tampa and Pascagoula. Supplies for vessels of this size are not ordinarily carried in stock, and repair yards in general are not experi- enced in handling the repair and maintenance of large fishing vessels. At the present time the cost of dry-.iocking, maintenance, repairs, and similar services for a medium size tana clipper are lower in the Gulf area than in other parts of the country, but, be cause of the small number of such vessels handled, a longer time is required to complete the work and it is questionabl* 238 whether th« savings would represent a real operational advantage to a vessel owner. The difference in shipping cost of the finished product (canned tuna) to some markets from Atlantic _ports compared with Pacific eoast ports is substantial. Carload railroad rates from Pascagoula, Mississippi, to New Y©rk, New York^ for example, are $1.10 per 100 pounds for a 36,000 pound car minimum compared with rates from Los Angeles, California to New York^ New York of $2.52 per 100 pounds for a [iO,000 poimd car mini- mian, .'11.86 for a 60,000 pound car minimum, and $1.81 for a 70,000 pound car minimum. HJERTO RICO There is a large resevoir of unskilled labor in Puerto Rico, and normally there are several applicants for each job vacancy. Skilled labor is generally not available and must be trained or brought in from the United States. The labor costs are low, varying somewhat in differ- ent parts of the Island. In the San Juan area in 1952 unskilled labor received from fifty to fifty-five cents an hour, but in other parts of the Island unskilled labor could be hired for as little as thirty-five cents an« hour. Opinion expressed by several employer's interviewed in Puerto Rico in late 1952 was that the quality of unskilled labor was fair to good but that the labor turnover rate was high. One employer cited, as an example, that of approximately 300 production line employees laid off for a one=week holiday period, only 200 returned to work. No federal income tax is collected on income earned in Puerto Rico by United States mainland corporations which derive at least 80 per cent of their income from sources within Puerto Rico and 50 per cent or more from the active conduct of a trade or business. No federal income tax is collected on income earned in Puerto Rico by Puerto Rican corpora- tions and partnerships or by individuals residing in Puerto Rico for a whole year. Piarthermore, complete freedom from Insular income, property, and business taxes is available in Puerto Rico until June 30, 1959, and partial freedom for gn additional three years, on certain types of manu- facturing. The processing of canned foods is a business considered eligible for tax exerption. However, the Government of Puerto Rico has established a policy of denying such tax exemptions or other special benefits of its industrial program to any individual or firm proposing to close a factory on the United States mainland in order to transfer it to Puerto Rico, 239 Laws relative to inportation of materials or articles of foreign origin, and laws relative to immigration 'are the same as on the United States mainland. There are no tariffs or quotas imposed on imports of manufactured or processed materials from the United States although excise taxes must be paid if applicable. No restrictions are placed on the sale in the United States of foods processed in Puerto Rico. Roads are satisfactory for motor transportation of products from one port to another within the Island of Puerto Rico. Regular sailings are made to Atlantic and Gulf ports by vessels of the Bull lane, the Waterman Steamship Company, and Lykes Brothers Steamship Coinpany. No commodity rates are in effect fr-on Puerto Rico to New York, New York, at present on canned tuna. The applicable rates at present are 97 cents per hundredweight for canned tuna from any Puerto Rican port with the addition of a 2^ cents wharfage inqDost per h\mdredweight for cargo loaded at San Juan, 32 cents at Ponce, and h cents at Mayaguez. This compares favorably with carload railroad freight rates of $1,81 per hundredweight from iiOs Angeles, California to New York, New York or $1.10 from Pascagoula, Mississippi to New York, New York. Puerto Rican fishermen are not experienced in offshore fisheries and it is questionable whether local fishermen would be obtainable for work on tuna vessels. Probably it would be necessary to bring most or all fishermen from the United States mainland for employment on vessels based in Puerto Rican ports. States Although Unitocl/fiLshermen could not be expected to be eager to move to Puerto Rico or any other area away from their established homes, the Puerto Rican housing, education and medical facilities are modern, and recreation is widely diversified. The foods and merchandise famili- ar to people on '.he United States mainland are readily available. The cost of living is slightly higher than in the United States. VIRGIN ISLANDS Insular programs to encourage new industries in the Virgin Islands are similar to the ones in effect in Puerto Rico. 240 THE PHILIPPINES J TRUST TERRITORIES AND EQUATORIAL PACIFIC A report J Outlook for Development of a Tuna Industry in the Philippines (Warfel, 1950) s indicates that the possibilities for production of large quantities of tuna in the vicinity of the Philip- pines are poor (under standard United States fishing methods) . In this report it is pointed out that one of the important reasons why Philippine waters would offer little to the American tuna fleet is that "live bait fishing is handicapped by restricted bait supply". The situation in the Trust Territory is similar but, in addi- tion, obstacles of importance in the utilization of any stocks of tuna in the area are (1) absence of processing plants or difficul- ties of building and operating processing plants in the area, (2) unavailability of local fishermen trained in operations of large tuna vessels, and (3) probable unwillingness of United States tuna fishermen to move into the area for an extended period of time. At the present time consideration is being given to requesting new bids for the lease of a fish cannery located at Tutuila, American Samoa. The cannery is complete with equipment and facilities, and is reported to be able to handle 21 tons of tuna per 8-hour day. Actual rated capacity of the equipment is 1,000 eases per day. The modern installation consists of 4 buildings, new devices for hand packing tuna, a rotary drier for processing the waste products into fish meal, and a cold storage area capable of freezing and/or storing approxi- mately 240 tons of tuna. Dock facilities are adequate for fishing vessels, and electric power is available. Vessel maintenance facili- ties are limited. Steps are being taken to increase the limited water-storage capacity. Supply of local vNorkers is reported to be adequate on the basis of trial runs. Transportation to and from the United States is via steamship lines which call at the Island at monthly intervals. In connection with leasing the cannery j, the Gtovernment of Ameri- can Samoa is chiefly concerned in improving the local economy by pro- viding employment and technical training for the local inhabitants. The cannery was erected following World War II by private enterprise, but was never successfully operated due mainly to a shortage of raw material (tuna) Distance of American Samoa (2,276 miles south of Hawaii) from established fishing grounds of the United States tuna fleet would necessitate exploi- tation of new fishing areas. Attempts by the previous cannery owners to take tuna near Samoa by established American methods were unsuccessful. 241 It is likely, therefore, that different gear, such as long lines, would need to be employed to take advantage of the rich tuna grounds recently found in Central Pacific equatorial waters by the Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations. Besides the normal problems involved in establishing ar industry in such a remote place there is also the problem of prov- ing conclusively that tuna can be taken in the area in sufficient quan- tities to support profitable canning activities. Should the operation prove successful, only a limited number of fishing vessels would be re- quired. It is reported that fresh or frozen tuna may enter American Samoa free of duty. Canned tuna is dutiable at 15 per cent ad valoreum. Exports of products from American Samoa are subject to an export duty of 2 per cent of appraised value. Further inforiiation concerning cus- toms problems with respect to American Samoa is given in the folloxidng letter from the U. S. Bureau of Customs to the Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Under Secretary of State: TREASURY DEPARTMENT (30PY) BUREAU OF CUSTOMS WASHINGTON 2$, D. C. Feb. 25, 1953 Mr. William C. Herrington Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State Department of State Washington 25, D. C. Sir: Reference is made to your letter of December 8, 1952 (U/FW) stating that negotiations are under way between an American busi- ness concern and the authorities of American Samoa for the lease to and operation by the former of a tuna cannery situated in that territory. As the canned product would be marketed in the con- tinental United States, you request information regarding several matters pertaining to such shipments to the United States. You ask first for information regarding the dutiable status of canned tuna shipped to the continental United States, whether in oil or in brine, which emanated from American Samoa as a pro- duct of that territory. Such canned tuna brought into the United 242 states from Samoa is not subject to customs duties because it is not imported from a foreign country. You then ask: "If United States legislation were enacted establishing an quota and/or duty with reference to fresh and frozen tuna imports, woiild it apply to fresh and frozen tuna landed in American Samoa by a foreign country (provided of course that American Samoa were not especially dealt with in such legislation)?" If the legislation provided for a quota on United States im- ports, without more, it would not apply to imports into American Samoa because American Samoa is not a part of the customs territory of the United States. ■Whether or not a quota on "imports" of tiina woiild apply to shipments from Samoa of tuna landed there by a foreign country would depend on the answer to the question whether shipments from Samoa are "importations" for tariff purposes. Since American Samoa is a possession of the United States, it is not a foreign country and shipments therefrom would not be importations into the United States, if the merchandise had actually been importdd into Samoa as distinguished from passing through Samoa in transit. You also ask whether Public Law 701, 8lst Congress, prohibits the landing in American Samoa of fresh and frozen tuna fish by a Japanese flag mother ship or fishing vessel proceeding there as such or as a cargo vessel direct from fishing grounds on the high seas. You inquire in addition whether such law prohibits the landing there by a United States flag vessel of fish cargo acquired by direct transfer on the high seas from a Japanese flag mother ship. Except as other wise permitted by treaty or convention, section li311 of the Revised Statutes (U6 U.S.C. 2^1), as amended by the Act of September 2, 1950 (61; Stat. 577), prohibits a foreign-flag vessel, whether documented as a cargo vessel or otherwise, from landing in a port of the United States its catch of fish taken on board on the high seas or fish products processed therefrom, or any fish or fish products taken on board such vessel on the high seas from a vessel engaged in fishing operations or in the processing of fish or fish products. The Bureau is of the opinion that the statute does not apply 243 to the landing of fish or fish products in any port of American Samoa. Accordingly, a Japanese flag mother ship or fishinc vessel, whether proceeding as such or as a cargo vessel direct from fishing grounds on the high seas, is not prohibited thereby from landing in American Samoa fresh or frozen tuna fish taken on the high seas, Rcr does such law prohibit a United States flag vessel from landing at American Samoa such a fish cargo squired on the high seas by direct transfer from a Japanese flag mother ship. Very truly yours. (Sgd.) FRANK DOW Commissioner of Customs The discovery of rich, new, tuna grounds in Central Pacific equa- torial waters casts yet another hue on any consideration of buttressing the economic position of our domestic tuna fishery. In discussing this subject thus far, empahsis has been made principally on the possibilities of improving conditions in present areas of operation. The field of new areas of operation is also important in the consideration of the economic welfare of the tuna industry because of its significance in the event of any possible deterioration in the productive capacity of the present fisheries . Although there have been some changes through the years in areas fished by the domestic fleet, the great bulk of the domestic catch has been taken in the general area of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. There are other areas which also offer commercial possibilites of tuna fish- ing on a large scale by domestic fishermen which are in a relatively undeveloped stage. These areas are the 1/estern Atlantic or Atlantic Coast Area, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Area, and the Central Pacific Area. The likelihood of the development of fisheries for tuna in those areas is considered next. 2A4 WHERE TUNA ARE AVAIUBLE AND ARE NOT FISHED BY DOMESTIC CCMMERCIAL FISHERMEN. IS IT LIKELY THAT A COtMERCIAL FISHERY ^VILL BE DEVELOPED BY UNITED STATES INDUSTRY? Atlantic Coast BACKGROUND OF ATLANTIC COAST TUNA FISHING Reports of bluefin in Atlantic coastal waters and particularly off New England date back many years. Fishermen on Cape Cod were catching them in traps as early as the 1880' So The large bluefin, referred to in the past as "horse mackerel", have also been sought by sport fishermen for the past few decades. Bluefin are present in New England waters from June to October and are taken by various forms of fishing gear from waters south of Cape Cod and north as far as Nova Scotia. Over the years, landings from Cape Cod Bay trap and pound nets have accounted for the bulk of New England tuna production, with catches by small vessels using harpoons, and sportsmen accounting for a small part. The fishing has been on a small scale compared to the Pacific coast tuna industry. Efforts to increase the exploitation of New England bluefin have been made several times, with limited success. From 1938 to 1941 a small numiber of Gloucester mackerel seiners and one Pacific ooast seine boat tried purse seining for bluefin and achieved fair success. Indi- vidual landings up to 100,000 pounds were made. The venture was aban- doned after the 1941 season, principally because of an unsteady market and low prices offered by the fish buyers of the regiono During 1950, interest in the possibility of establishing a tuna processing industry utilizing Maine sardine -canning plants during periods of normal off-season shutdowns led to an appropriation of funds by the Federal Government for the investigation of the commercial po- tentialities of bluefin in the Gulf of Maine by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The first year's exploratory fishing program,, utxlising a purse seiner, was carried out from ^une to October, 1951 (Murray, 1952) . Objectives were: (l) to determine the location, extent,, and range of bluefin tuna concentrations in Mew England coastal waters during the summer and fall seasons; (2) to determine whether the bluefin tuna are consistently available in sufficient quantities to warrant expanded 245 commercial fishing operations; and (3) to test various fishing meth- ods and equipment slndi to determine the moSt efficient methods for capturLng tuna in commercial quantities. The 1951 program was successful, resulting in a total catch of ISOjOOO pounds of bluefin and further demonstrating that tuna in com- mercial quantities inhabit these waters during the summer months. In 1952 the exploration was continued, employing long lines and gill nets as the principal fishing equipment. Results obtained were inconclu- sive from a commercial fishing standpoint. The Japanese -style long lines produced excellent individual catches of tuna over a wide area in the Gulf of Maine, but results were inconsistent and the total catch was not large. Many more sharks were caught than tuna. Prelim- inary reports indicate that the 19$2 season was one of the poorest on record from a production standpoint, only 218,000 pounds of tuna being taken in the Cape Cod traps as compared to 800,000 pounds in 1951- This indicates the fluctuating nature of the tuna run in the region, which will be a factor in future development. Froni existing evidence, it appears that bluefin are closely asso- ciated with the Gulf Stream. This current flows approximately 300 miles off the New England coast, southeast of the important fishing grounds from Georges Bank to the Grand Banks. Lying outside of the regular fishing grounds, these waters are seldom visited by the ccxnnser- cial fishing fleet, and it is quite possible that bluefin stocks are in abundance in this offshore area for a part of the year, at least, and are available for exploitation. Live bait tuna fishing or "poling", practiced by Pacific coast tuna clippers, has never been tried on the Atlantic coast. Good catches of mediiam-sized bluefin have been made in recent years by trawl fish- ermen in the Gulf of Maine using hand lines and fresh herring and mackerel for bait. Catches were incidental to regular fishing opera- tions. In 1951 over 140,000 pounds of bluefin were caught on hand lines by otter-trawl fishermen and marketed in Gloucester and Boston. Chum made from ground herring has been used succes'^fully in attracting and holding bluefin schools alongside fishing craft. For a number of years, little tuna have been taken in fair amounts in ocean pound nets in late summer and early fall off the coasts of New York and New Jersey. No organized commercial fishery for the spec- ies has ever been maintained, and it has usually been takeni along with other species of fish. Landings have also been made at irregular intervals all aloi^g the Atlantic coast south of Cape Cod by trolling 246 boats J beach seines and occasional purse seine rSo QUANTITIES AND SPECIES AVAIUBLE Three species of tuna and tunalike fishes are known to be pres- ent in substantial quantities in Atlantic coastal waters. These are: (1) bluefinj (2) little tuna; and (3) common bonito. Atlantic coast commercial catches for 1950 were: Bluefin .... .o. o. o.. o.. o ..... o..« .1,2675200 pounds Little tuna ...................... 295,900 " Bonito ....o...................... 123,500 " Of the three species, the bluefin is by far the most important frcan the standpoint of past production and desirability for canning purposes, producing a light meat of average texture and good quality. Any industrial development of the tuna fishery in New England would be dependent, at least in a large part, upon this species. Annual landings of bluefin on the Atlantic coast have in some years exceeded 2 million pounds. This production has been primarily from traps and inshore fishing vessels. Therefore, the off-shore potential of the species is unknown, and little data are available on such things as life history and total extent of the population. They reach their greatest abundance on their yearly migration into the Gulf of Maine in the summer months. It has never been definite- ly determined where they cone from or where they go after leaving New England waters each fall. New evidence has recently been un- covered indicating a spawning ground off southern Florida, but mi- gration routes and range limits in the Atlantic are unknown. Until more information is available, it is impossible to even guess at the abundance of bluefin which may be available. The consistency of ap- pearance (with some fluctuations from year to year, which are not abnomal in tuna fisheries) in the Gulf of Maine each summer and the fact that large schools yielding catches of over 100,000 pounds to purse seiners have been found relatively close to shore indicates that the resource may be far greater than past production figures reveal. More offshore exploration and increased employment of ac- tive gear such as purse seines and hook and line with live bait may result in an expansion similar(but perhaps on a reduced scale) to that of the Pacific coast tuna fishery in the past 30 years. 247 Little tuna are found in Atlantic coastal waters from Cape Cod to Florida^ Evidence points toward a seasonal northward migration from Florida to Massachusetts, starting in April anl returning south in October (Carlson, 1951) » Catches by ocean pound nets situated along the New Jersey and New York coasts account for the majority of the little tuna landings in the Middle Atlantic regiono Little real in- formation is available concerning the abundance and life history of the species.. They are taken occasionally, and sometimes in good quantities, by trolling gear from Florida to Cape Cod, and are often considered a nuisance by sportsmen who are after larger game fish. In 1951, an exploratory survey by the Fish and ??ildlife Service in co- operation with a South Carolina fish processing firm, supported pre- vious conclusions that little tuna occur over a wide range and can be taken with commercial trolling gear, but unfavorable weather hampered purse seining operations to some extent o All fishing for this spec- ies has been near shore, and much more exploration must be undertaken before the potentialities of the resource can be adequately e-i/aluatedo However, it is apparent that even the known stocks are not being fully exploited at the present time = Little tuna was canned in small quantities in Maryland and Vir- ginia in 1946 and processing continued during the next few years » Results were encouraging and offered considerable hope for further development on a considerable scale (Chilton, 1949) = Landings of little tuna in the New York wholesale fish market during the period from 1940 to 1952 averaged 220,000 pounds annually. Bonito appear to be closely related to the little tuna in habits and occurrence., Few are taken north of Cape Cod, but they are caught in small quantities all along the Atlantic coast to Florida = Tftey are caught with trap nets and beach seines" and on hook and line, frequent- ly by sportsmen o ^Dst of the production in recent years has been from the South Atlantic States and Chesapeake Bayo No organized com- mercial fishery exists for the species and like the bluefin and little tuna, very little is known concerning its total abuxviance. AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL FLEET AND FISHERMEN With few exceptions, fishing craft operating in the Atlantic are unsuited for large-scale tuna seining operations. Tuna purse seines are of tremendous size with lengths ranging from 300 to 400 fathoms, depths from 20 to 40 fathoms and generally weighing from ? to 10 tons. 248 New England boats engaged in mackerel purse seining operate light seines which are set and hauled from accessory or seine boats „ Menhaden purse seiners operating from Middle Atlantic anl South Atlantic ports, while considerably larger than the mackerel seiners, also use acces- sory boats, and generally these craft are rfot more suitable for conver- sion to Pacific-style tuna seining than the smaller New England type mackerel seiner. The Pacific coast tuna seiner is the proven and effective type for this fishery. The use of present style menhaden and mackerel purse seiners in a bluefin fishery might be moderately successful with a few minor changes. Conversion of these craft to stern-set Pacific coast seiners is probably impracticable » Estimates from shipbuilders of the cost for installation of turntables, re-location of pilot houses and changing the deck layout of a typical mackerel seiner are extreme- ly high and in most cases approximate ^0 percent of the ship's value. New England otter trawlers, typically with house aft, are likewise un- suited for ready conversion to seining. It would probably be more practicable and economical to operate VJest Coast tuna seiners than; to attempt conversion of &st coast fishing boats. Most of the snBll and medium size fishing boats operating in the Atlantic fisheries can be readily adapted to long line fishing opera- tions. Installation of necessary equipment can be easily accomplished in the majority of cases without necessitating major changes in deck arrangements or machinery. Conversion costs would be relatively low with procurement costs for gear, line hauler, and side roller repres- enting the major outlay. Generally, small otter trawlers, line trawl- ers, gill netters and similar craft ranging from 35 to 50 feet in length and in the 5 to 40 net ton class would be suited for inshore fishing within an operational distance of approximately 50 miles from land. The offshore fishery would require larger boats such as medium otter trawlers, scallop dredgers and mackerel seiners in the 60-100 foot range and from 45 to 95 net tons. Procurement and installation costs for line hauler, side roller, minor accessory gear, and the long line required for equipping these types of boats for long lining are approximately as follows; Line hauler and side roller, ... ,.., = „. ...... .... . .$800.00 PoiTjer and transmission u nit for lire hauler,.., .. 400,00 Long line (per basket) ,..,,, ,.,,.,,,,. ,,..,.,... . 35«00 Tuna long-line haulers are not manufactured in this countryj the above 249 costs include transportation from Japan. For those boats which can furnish power for the line hauler from their own propulsion machinery, a separate power unit would not be required. Supplies for rigging long lines are easily obtainable from maritime supply houses. It is estimated that a maximum of 100 baskets of gear would be sufficient for full-time operation. Live bait fishing requires a specialized type of craft, and a sur- vey of the fishing boats operating along the Atlantic coast reveals that few boats are considered suitable for conversion purpose So Conver- sion of brawlers and menhaden purse seiners to a style akin to the ac- cepted and.^efficient California tuna clipper would be costly and would involve a considerable risk, at least until a live bait fishery has been proven practical in these waters. Development of an Atlantic live bait tund fishery would seem to be dependent upon the employment of conventional type Pacific coast tuna clippers. The -development of a successful tuna fishery in the Atlantic would require employment of skilled fishermen arid trained personnel. Unquestionably this manpower can be found in the fishing industry of the Atlantic coast. Captains and key crew members experienced in tuna fishing would be needed. The menhaden, mackerel and herring purse seine fisheries have been carried on frcm Maine to Florida since the early 1900' s and men from these fisheries would be available for any large-scale tuna purse seining development. Tuna long line fishing differs only slightly from line trawling as practiced in the New Eng- land ground fishery and no difficulty would be experienced in obtain- ing skilled fishermen for this work. Very few fishermen experienced in live bait tuna fishing can be found along the east coast. Some men now engaged in otter trawling and seining have fished on tuna clip- pers out of California ports but the number is small and not to be reckoned with in terms of crews for a sizable live bait fishery. Train- ing of experienced fishermen in live bait fishing technique would not be difficult and indications are that at least 50 percent of a vessel's crew could be recruited from the east coast at the present time. AVAILABILITY OF BAIT Vfliile no organized live bait tuna fishery has ever been carried on off the Atlantic coast, adequate supplies of herring and other clupe- oid fishes are available to supply the demands of an extensive fishery. 25Q Pound and trap nets, stop nets and purse seines in New England and the Middle Atlantic States produce huge quantities of herring during the bluefin season. Mackerel, squid and menhaden^ considered to be excel- lent tuna bait for long lines, are also in abundant supply and easily- obtainable . Facilities for transferring live herring from fixed fishing sta- tions to live bait boat tanks are found in ports fron eastern Maine to Cape Cod. In 1952 a Calif ornia- type tuna c Upper loaded 100 bushels of live herring from a Kaine weir and kept the majority of the fish alive in bait tanks for several days before leavirig the area. Sub- stantial quantities of squid are also caught by New England pound nets during the summer months. An anple supply of either fresh or frozen bait is available for long line fishing. New England ports where sup- plies of live and frozen bait may be obtained are as follows: Maine. ........ .Eastport, Rockland, Boothbay Harbor, Harpsvjell, Portland . Massachusetts. .Gloucester, Boston, New Bedford, Provincetown. Rhode Island . . . Newport , Point Judith . Connecticut . , . .Stonington. MARKETS AND CANNERIES AVAIUBIE Five tuna cjoining plants which have operated recently have a com- bined capacity for processing approximately 100 tons of raw tuna daily, and their operations represent the best outlet for marketing the pro- duction from an expanded Atlantic tuna fishery. Location of the can- neries is as folloTJs: Eastport, Maine j Gloucester, Massachusetts^ Nanticoke, Maryland; Tighlman, Maryland, and Beaufort , South Carolina. Information received from officials of two New England tuna can- neries is that these plants are capable of processing a combined total of 50 tons of raw tuna daily. The South Carolina cannery has a dcdly processing capacity of 10 tons of raw tuna„ A realistic estimate of the annual processing capacity of these three plants in terms of raw tuna would be 13,000 tons. Data concerning annual processing capac- ity have not been received from the Maryland canneries. Testimony given by the treasurer of one Maryland firm, before the Senate Finance 251 Committee in February^ 19523, stated that Japanese and Peruvian tuna imports, landed usually at New York or Baltimore, constituted the main supply source for this company „ PORTS AND COID STORACTl FACILITIES Determination of satisfactory ports for narketing tuna catches is dependent upon many factors 5 some of 'wliich have been previously in- dicated. Besides 5 adequate docking space, unloading facilities, prox- imity to fishing grounds, availability of markets and cold storage space, provision for maintenance and servicing facilities should be available. While the majority of the major North Atlantic ports poss- ess these facilities in varying degrees, the following ports from Maine to South Carolina may be rated as follows: Gloucester, Massachusetts. . o. o o.. o .Excellent deep water port, possessing ample docking and discharging space. Location of tuna can- nery with facilities for packing 75 tons of raw tuna weekly; company has purchased individual tuna trips totalling 290 tons. Good trans- shipping point for forwarding tuna to eastern tuna canneries. Servic- ing and maintenance facilities for fuel oil, ice, bait, hull and mach- inery repairs considered adequate. Local marine railways can drydock ships up to 200 gross tons and larger ships can be drydocked in B-oston shipyards. Limited maricet for fresh tuna with approximately five fish dealers located in the port. Cold storage space limited at the pres- ent tiine , but construction of proposed new freezer plants will provide adequate storage space. Boston, Massachusetts .„....., .Excellent deep water port, with docking and discharging facilities available at Boston Fish Market Cor- poration pier. Facilities for freezing and storing a minim.um of 4200 tons of tuna available in the Boston Metropolitan Area. Good shipping point for delivery of tuna to Eastern canneries. Port has adequate servicing and maintenance facilities for handling large tuna clippers. Limited market for fresh tuna with approximately ten dealers interest- ed in this phase of the industry, New Bedford, Massachusetts ..<,... .Largest fishing center in south- ern New England, advantageously situated in relation to fishing grounds of the southwestern part of Georges Bank, Nantucket Shoals and eastern Long Island waters. Port has six marine railways, capable of handling 252 ships ranging from 10 to 500 gross tons., Excellent machine shops locat- ed here with provisions for effecting major repairs » Local freezers of the blast tunnel type can freeze 50 tons of fish daily and have a stor- age capacity of 2500 tons with space for storing 500 tons of round tuna. Ample docking space for discharging fish at private and state-owned piers o New York City o,o.oo Best location of all North Atlantic ports for discharging tuna trips destined for tuna canneries in the Middle Atlan- tic and South Atlantic Regions „ Docking and unloading facilities avail- able at Fulton Fish MarKet piers. Fleet maintenance and ship supply services available for unlimited tonnage craft in the area. Largest fresh tuna marKet on east coast. Estimated capacity of freezer and storage space available for tuna holdings is 1500 tons. Closer to fish- ing areas south and west of Cape Cod but considerably farther from fil- ing grounds north and east of Cape Cod than most of the Hew England fishing ceaters. Portland, Maine .......Deep water port with fair facilities for handling limited production. Docking space available at four private docks with additional space available at State of Maine pier in the event that heavy production is indicated. Excellent servicing and maintenance facilities for medium size fishing boats. Marine railways can handle ships up to 200 gross tons. Port is within reasonable dis- tance of tuna cannery at Eastportj Maine. Beaufort, South Carolina. ... .Site of tuna processing plant with one dock suitable for unloading large tuna clippers . Freezer space for 350 tons and storage space available for 250 tons of tuna in the imme- diate area. Annual capacity of tuna processing plant estimated at 2000 tons. Cape May, New Jersey. .... .Good harbor with limited docking space. Location excellent in respect to fishing operations southwest of New York to Carolina coast. Supply and maintenance service poor. Recommend- ed for emergency use by medium and small size craft for transshipment of tuna fares. No record of any available cold storage facilities. Rockland, Maine ..... .Located within reasonable transport distance of Eastport, Maine, and suitable for unloading tuna fares destined for immediate shipment to canneries or freezers. No freezer or storage facilities. Arrangements for use of pier for unloading would depend on cooperation of local fish company. Supply and maintenance facilities 253 fair to poor. Recommended for small scale operations provided clear- ance for use of dock space is obtained. Provinceto'jvn, Massachusetts. .. .Limited facilities suitable for small and medium size boats. Insufficient water at low tide at docks for boats drawing over 9 feet although bottom is composed of sand and mud and grounding would not cause damage to boat. Freezer and storage facilities for 1225 tons of tuna are available in the immediate area. Limited ships services, supplies and maintenance facilities indicate emergency use of this port by small craft only. Definitely not recom- mended for purse seiners and clippers. Information received from cold storage plant operators located in Maine and Massachusetts is that adequate freezing facilities and cold storage sjace for handling a minimum of 7,125 tons of raw tuna yearly are known to be available in these . states. Replies were received from nine companies, all located in coastal cities. In Maine, two plants reported a combined storage space for 1100 tons; four plants in the metropolitan Boston area reported storage space for 4200 tons; four plants in the Cape Cod area have storage space for 1225 tons, and New Bedford plants have storage room for 500 tons. Plans are under way for the construction of two new plants in Gloucester, and any tuna industry expansion in flew England iiill not be retarded by lack of freezer and storage facilities. At Beaufort, South Carolina, a fish processing firm has cold storage space for 250 tons of tuna. Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Area TRENDS TOWARD DEVELOPMENT OF A TUNA FISHERY IN THE GULF AND CARIBBEAN AREA Any extensive development of a fishery for tuna in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region on a year-round basis will necessarily involve fishing in a relatively wide range, north and south, because throughout the area where tuna are reported in relative abundance their occurrence is seasonal. The geographical ranges, seasonal dis- tributions, and habits of the various tuna fishes in the western North Atlantic are not wellkiown but the weight of available evidence indi- cates, for example, that nature bluefin move from the Caribbean along 254 the Atlantic coast on their northward migration in late spring and sum- mer, and that lesser movements of other species occur, northward in summer and southward in winter . Two independent lines of development in a tuna fishery in Gulf and Caribbean waters are possible. One of these involves fishing by rela- tively small, short-range vessels inshore or close to a base and often on a seasonal or part-time basis. Fisheries of this character are now in various stages of development, A small but successful live bait fishery has been developing in Cuba since 1942 (Rawlings,1953) « The production of this fishery in 1952 amounted to about 3,000,000 pounds of raw eviscerated tuna, mostly tak- en within Cubcin territorial waters. The canned product, processed and marketed within Cuba, is estimated to satisfy about 85 percent of the present Cuban market demand and replaces a canned tuna product formerly imported from Spain. The French Colonial Administration expects delivery of a 60-ton purse seiner at Martinique in 1953 to be used chiefly in fishing for yellowfin an d blackfin occurring seasonally over banks near Martinique, As a part-time activity, a fish processing firm at Beaufort, South Carolina processes relatively small quantities of the little tuna taken from inshore waters of the Atlantic and Gulf States, The stodcs of lit- tle tuna on which this production is based occur within the limits of the continental shelf along the Middle and South Atlantic and Gulf States and are believed to be adequate for considerable expansion of fishing for the species (Carlson, 1951) « The existence of a successful live bait fishery for tuna in Cuba is evidence that Caribbean tuna stocks can be exploited. That local, seasonal fishing for tuna off the Atlantic and Gulf States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as well as in Caribbean countries will be gradually and slowly expanded is a reasonable expectation, HoweverySuch an expansion should be expected only where canning facilities and favor able market conditions exist, and production should be expected to rsraain small relative to the landings of American tuna vessels of the long- range fishery. The second line of development of tuna fishing in the western North Atlantic involves the use of long-range refrigerated fishing vessels and is potentially a source for much greater production. No operations by long-range commercial fishing craft have been attempted up to the 255 present time. In 1951 and 1952 the exploratory fishing vessel Oregon of the Fish and Wildlife Service reported extensive schools of tunas in the central Gulf of Mexico. Since 1951 interest in the tuna resources of the offshore areas of the Gulf and Caribbean has greatly increased. QUANTITIES AND SPECIES AVAILABLE I N THE GULF AND CARIBEEAN Tunas have been reported in the region many times, particularly in the Caribbeanj but observations of large numbers have been relatively few. Comnercial fishermen on the Atlantic coast are familiar with the blue fin and fishermen of both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are familiar with the little tuna. Other tunas ordinarily occur in waters outside the areas of customary fishing activdty. Commercial fishermen of the Atlantic and Gulf States generally do not distinguish little tuna, from other species of small tunas when they observe them in the water. It has been noted (^Vhiteleather and Brown, 1945)jthat even in fish markets of Trinidad lit- tle distinction is made between the relatively dark meat little tuna and the light meat blackfin. Because of the relatively lower quality of the little tuna and because only limited local markets have existed, the spe- cies has been of comparatively little interest to com.iercial fishermen. The prevailing opinion that tuna stocks in the western North Atlantic were insufficient to support a large fishing operation has been altered somewhat since 1951 when large numbers of blackfin were reported by the exploratory fishing vessel Oregon in the central Gulf of Mexico. Subse- quent exploratory work in the Gulf of Mexico and a re-examination of re- ports of tuna in the Caribbean leads to the conclusion that large stocks of tuna exist in that area. A point of special interest to the American fishery is that what up to now appears to be the commonest Gulf and Caribbean pelagic tuna, the blackfin, is taken by the Cuban fishery with live bait (Rawlings,1953) « Furthermore^ two other tunas reported offshore in the Gulf by the Oregon, the yellowfin and the (white) skipjack, are either closely allied to, or identical to tunas making up the bulk of the catch of the American tuna fishery in the Pacific, where the majority are taken with live bait. The presence of large stocks of tuna does not necessarily insure that large catches are available to the fishermen. There are some obvi- ous difficulties to fishing in the Gulf and Caribbean area. The tunas do not show at the surface often as compared to tunas in the American Pac- ific fishery. Weather conditions for tuna fishing generally are not so favorable as in the Tropical ll.otern Pacific. Most important, however, is that comparatively little is known of the movements and habits of the pelagic tunas of the Gulf and Caribbean, The tunas known from the Gulf and Caribbean area are listed in table 72 „ The relative abundance of the species cannot be determined from the data available, but the three species of most interest to the live bait fishery, the blackfin, the yellowfin, and the (white; skipjack, are found at some seasons over the entire Gulf and Caribbean area in blue waters off the continental shelf. 256 O J= .S Ml n -3 sh -o D. c mm .H S t. m -a ifl +> c c vi •rl 3 c C •.0) IB a n n o s c -H -H s o 0) 3 c J3 n 01 a n) a c x: T3 llj •H Ifl t. (U ^ oT ID t3 •p n ■;i » j= .a x; H +j (0 2 0 •^ x: (U xs -rf^ n u-i . t; a 3 cO w ^I'E O (D ° 2: ^5 O .-I ' O iH O tH >'^ 257 AVAIIABILITI OF LOCAL FLEET AND FISHERMEN Seasonal fishing for little tuna inshore try fishing boats nomiariy engaged in the Gulf of Mexico fishery for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel or for shrimp is a practical possibility. Many fishermen along the coasts of Florida and adjacent States have sufficient experience and either own or have satisfactory boats and gear available for inshore trolling for little tuna. No dependable market to the fishermen for these fish has ever evcisted, and the development of much activity in the fishery would require solution of special problems in handling the catches ashore because the landings would be seasonal and not large at any one point o During June 1952 the exploratory fishing vessel Oregon took ijSOO to IijOOO pounds of little tuna on several successive days in and near the Dry Tortugas shrimp fishing grounds. The fish, weighing an average of lit po\inds, were taken ty hand lines using dead bait and scrap fish for chum. The fishermen present on the grounds at that time were interested in the possibility of catching little tuna as a part-time activity during the summer season of relatively low shrimp production because the bait can be taken :.acidental to the shrimp trawling at no extra cost and because the daily period of fishing activity for little tuna occurs in a one or two hour period at dawn immediately after shrimp trawling stops o However, there was no aj:>preciable production in 1952 because of the absence of a dependable market at the docks where shrimp were landed. Larger catches and larger landings of little tuna at one port :;ould presumably be made by fishing with purse seines. It remains to be demonstrated, however, that little tuna can be •taken regularly and in sufficient number by purse seines to ju?bxfy the relatively high investment in gear and vessels. If markets warranted the use of purse seines for little tujia, some of the vessels of the menhaden fleet would be available. Some Ox the smaller ones having load capacity too small to profitably compete in handling the comparatively low- value menhaden might operate more successfully on a higher value product such as tuna. 258 Pascagoula, Mississippi, is the home port for two live-bait tuna clippers fishing in 1952 on the Pacific tuna gro-unds and delivering catches to the Atlantic ports of Beaufort^ South Carolina, and Gloucester, Massachusetts. If exploratory fishing demonstrates that tuna can be taken in the Gulf and Cairlbbean in sufficient quantity with live bait, it is to be expected that these vessels would divert all or part of their fishing from the Pacific to this areao Other than these two, there are no Atlantic-based fishing vessels of satisfactory design to enter the long-range live-bait tuna fishery without expensive conversion,, Crews could be recruited from the local reservoir of fishermen to partially man any additional tuna boats brought into the region. But experienced tuna fishermen would have to be obtained from the Pacific coast to train the local men, at least for the first few years of operationo AVAILABILITY OF BAIT A preliminary survey of the sources for live tuna bait in the Gulf and Caribbean is promising. The Cuban fishery uses the majua or round herring (Jenkinsia lamprotaenia) , and the cabezona or hard-head ( Atherinomorus stipes), successfully . Both species are widely distributed and are said to be ccramono The Oregon took large quantities of the majua and the Spanish sardine (Sardinella anchovia), in December 19^2 by use of liglits and lift nets off the Yucatan Peninsula, The latter species appeared to be very harc^ under tank conditions and displayed a behavior pattern that seemed desirable for tuna bait. It has not yet been used in fishing trials. In August 1952, large quantities of young jacks ( Carangidae ) , of two or more undertermined species were observed in the north central Gulf by the Oregon. These also are believed to offer a promising possibility as tuna bait. Additional information is needed on seasons and areas of abundant ba^.t supply as well as on the behavior of bait species of the Gulf and Caribbean. MARKETS AND CANNERIES AVAILABLE There is little or no market demand for fresh tuna in the West Indies or Gulf Coast Area at present, and local fishing developments are intimately connected with the availability or development of canning facilities. 259 The tuna canning plant at Beaufort, South Carolina, which has been mentioned, is a possible outlet for tuna production in this area. This operation is being carried on now in part with landings of Pacific tuna boats of the United States fleet and some little tuna from the Gulf and Atlantic States o A building for a tiina canning plant has been erected at Moss Point, Mississippi. Present plans are for this 20-ton-a-day plant to begin operation early in 195i+» Two canneries, one of 30-ton daily capacity and another of l50-ton dai]y capacity, are planned in Puerto Rico. At present it is not possible to estimate the importance of these projects to the development of a Gulf of Mexico tuna fishery. These canneries are expected to operate on fish obtained from the Pacific but would also serve as a market for production of the less distant Atlantic fishing grounds if these are developed. Gulf shrimp canneries may be converted to part- or full-time operation on tuna without great difficulty. But the capacities after conversion would not be great (generally less than 30 tons daily) and, in comparison with the most modern tuna canneries, efficiency would be lowo PORTS AMD COLD STORAGE FACILITIES There are numerous ports on the Gulf doast possessing adequate facilities for small craft which might enter a localized tujia fishery. Those now serving the shrimp fleet can accomjuodate the needs of these smaller vessels. Costs of vessel maintenance are comparatively low in the region. Facilities for handling large tuna seiners or clippers are limited although several deep- water ports could be used as bases for even the largest bait boats. Dry-docking facilities are available at New Orleans, Mobile, Pensacola, and Galveston for the larger craft. It could be expected that, if the need arose, supplies and maintenance facilities for tuna boats would be increased to meet the needs of a fleet wishing to base on the Gulf. Puerto Rico has hai^bors capable of handling the largest tuna boats, and at least a minimum of servicing and supply facilities are available to meet the trip needs of vessels ranging into the Caribbean. Facilities for storage of frozen tuna in the Gulf Area are adequate to handle considerable quantities at some seasons of the year. Some competition for freeser space has been normal in the early winter and it is occasionally necessary for fish producers 260 to haul fish several hundred miles for storage. Several conditions make it difficult to estimate the quantities of frozen tuna that could be handled without expansion of present storage space. Packaged products are preferred over bulk fish at the freezer plants, and demands for space are increasing. However, freezer operators in the Gulf A.rea generally express the opinion that facilities will be kept abreast of any gradually increasing requirement of a developing tuna Indus try o Central Pacific Area RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CENTRAL PACIFIC Considerable knowledge has been gained concerning the occurrence and abundance of various tunas in the open Pacific in recent years. The Japanese, engaging in large-sacle fishing ventures in pre-war and post-war years, have located vast new mid- ocean productive grounds for albacore and yellowfin in the western half of the Pacific, Several Japanese mothership expeditions using long-line catcher boats, have operated iri the central Pacific in the last few years. The Service's Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations staff is presently engaged in exploration and stucfy of new tuna grounds in the equatorial eastern half of the Pacific, This investigation, which has been under way for 5 years, has revealed the existence of extensive stocks of yellowfin in waters south of Hawaii which can be readily caught with sub- sTirface long-line gear. The exact extent of mid-Pacific tuna grounds which may be available can only be surmised at this time, but possibilities for further extension of offshore fishing areas are promising, QUANTITIES AND SPECTES AVAILABLE In the immediate vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands, a sizable resource of skipjack is fished by local vessels from May to October. Annual landings approximate 10,000,000 potinds. There is also a small population of surface yellowfin in the area during the summer months, A limited long-line fishery exists to supply the needs of the local fresh fish market. The outlook for expansion of this fishery is not bright as the abundance of tuna in the area appears to be much lower than in waters farther south. 261 In the Line Islands and Phoenix Islands, Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations has found fair quantities of surface yellowfin and some skipjack dxiring the summer months » This area has possibilities of supporting a limited live-bait fisheryo Inadequate knowledge exists concerning availability of surface tunas in the surrounding open ocean. Surface-swimming schools in this area can be readiily taken by trolling as well as live bait, but efforts at purse seining them have been unsuccessful. An exceptionally dense population of sub-surface tunas has been dj.s covered by Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations explora- tions south of Hawaii in the general area from lliO° to 160° W. longitude and from the Equator to 8° N. latitude. Long-line catches on experimental trips have ranged from 3 to 30 fish per hundred hooks, and average catches of 10 or 12 per hundred hooks have been made. This is exceptionally good fishing as compared to the Japanese and Hawaiian long-line fisheries. Primarily, these are large yellowfin tuna averaging over 100 poimds, with lesser amounts of big-eyed tuna and skipjack. The population is apparently subject to seasonal and possible other fluctuations in abundance, and it appears at present that the summer and fall are superior to other seasons. The catch that could be expected by an American commercial fishing vessel using long lines in this area would depend to a great extent on the amount of gear the crew is willing and able to operate. Japanese crews of about 20 men fish approximately 2,000 hooks per day working extremely long ho\irs, and a Philippine crew of 10 will fish about 600 hooks per day. It is impossible to project these figures into an American operation, but it does appear likely that an American crew of 12 could fish about 900 hooks per day assuming some slight improvements in the gear and methods of operation are made. An experimental trip with a converted Pacific coast purse seiner and a Hawaiian crew in August and September 1952 resulted in a catch of 96,000 pounds of tuna in approximately one month's fishing time. On the basis of catch rates on recent trips, the average daily catch for an American vessel and crew might be expected to range from 6,000 to 13,000 pounds in the most productive areas. 262 Albacore are known to be present in the offshore North Pacific past the range of the present fishery. Occasional catches have been made thousands of miles from land between Hawaii and the Pacific coasto Japanese long-line expeditions in the North Pacific extending as far east as waters north of Midway Island yielded productive fishing over wide areas o The American albacore fishery is shore-bound to the Pacific coast, and no organized commercial fishing and very little experimental fishing have ever been carried out in the vast expanse of water between Hawaii arxi California, Future exploration may reveal whether substantial stocks of albacore inhabit the waters of the eastern North Pacific gyral and if they are available there as they are further west in the Japanese fishery. AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL FLEET AND FISHERMEN The local Hawaiian tuna fleet, or portions thereof, would be readily adaptable to any expanded operations in the immediate vicinity. Limited range, capacity, and icing facilities of the fleet would necessitate a mothership or some shore-side facilities in the Line Islands or Phoenix Islands, where the resource is con- sidered too limted for clipper-iype vessels.. For exploitation of the large stock of sub-surface tiinas in the equatorial region south of Hawaii, the small Hawaiian tuna fleet would be of limited value. It could be used only with some type of mothership support. Large seiners or clippers from the Pacific coast, adapted for long-line fishing would be needed for independent operation. Some local fishermen would be available to partially man such vessels o AVAIUBILITY OF BAIT Limited supplies of bait are known to exist near the Islands, but final evaluation of abundance awaits long-term attempts to exploit the tuna resource. Some experimental trips to the Line and Phoenix Island Area have been hampered by the apparent inconsistency of available live bait. Bait does not present a problem to long-line fishing. Frozen sardines, herring and squid from the United States Pacific coast are all suitable for this type of fishing o 263 AVAIIABILITY OF PORTS, PROCESSING FACILITIES AND MARKETS Honolulu and the United States Pacific coast offer the only adequate port facilities for tuna fleet operations in the eastern mid=PacifiCo Several suitable anchorages and docks are available in the area, but are without any logistic facilities. There is a dock in the lagoon at Palnyra and another at Canton. Nearly complete lack of facilities would necessitate shore-side construc- tion or use of a mothership for any fleet which would use the Line or Phoenix Islands as a base of operations. There is a limited market for fresh tuna in the Hawaiian Islands J and it is doubtful if this consumer market could be increased to any great extent in the near future » There are two tuna canneries, one on Oahu and one on Kauai Islando The most sub- stantial potential market for ary large-scale increase in mid- Pacific tuna landings appears to be the Pacific coast canneries, although Hawaiian canners could absorb considerable additional fish and, of cou-rse, are capable of expansion© LIMITATIONS OF TERRITORIAL WATERS AND FOREIGN REGULATIONS ON THE UNITED STATES TUNA FISHERY This particular subject is of great interest. Mary phases of it have a most pronounced bearing on present fishing activity in the tuna industry* The subject is one that has received much publicity through newspaper reports of seizures of United States fishing vessels by foreign governments. It has also been the subject of endless discussion in many quarters and its delicate nature with respect to foreign relations can well be appreciatedo Effective prosecution of fishing activity in the present areas of operation hinges on many decisions already made and yet to be made in this fieldo Considerable pertinent information on the subject follows o It has been carefully drawn together iiy staff investi- gators in cooperation with other government departments and the tima industry© Only basic concepts are presented and no attempt has been made to go into the various minute details involved in the subject© 264 Vessels Affected and their Areas of Operation With the growth of the tuna canning industry of southern California following the first World War, United States tuna fishermen expanded their range of operations ~ first to waters off Mexico^ then to Central and South America as far as northern Pern, and to the high seas off British Columbia during the past decadeo The large area of operation is necessary in the main- tenance of this year-round industry because of the migratory nature of tuna and their seasonal inconsistency of appearance o American fishermen have pioneered and developed this great fishery to its present place in our econonor. Because tuna ai-'e migratory fish, not bound to shore in ary phase of their life cycle, most of the actual tuna fishing activities a.re carried on far outside the normal boundaries of so-called "territorial seas^o There are related activities, however, which have lead to our tuna fleet regularly entering the territorial waters of Latin American countries; principally, search for tuna bait, use of port facilities, and, to a limited extent, actual tuna fishing. The three principal groups of American tuna vessels (albacore boats, piirse seiners, and live bait boats or clippers) have been affected in varying degrees by the limitations and regulations of territorial seas of foreign countries.. Albacore are caught seasonally (summer and fall) off our own coastal States of California, Washington, and Oregon, with some fishing off British Columbia and Mexico. It is estimated that about 30 percent of the total albacore landings are caught off Lower California =, Approximately 3,000 small craft from ports in Alaska to southern California fish part-time for albacore, spending the remainder of the year in other fisheries, such as salmon, halibut, bottom fish, sardines, etc. Some are equipped with live bait tanks (it has been estimated that one-third of the albacore are caught with bait, some of which is taken in foreign waters), but most employ surface trolling gear only. These vessels have a limited range and the bulJc of their albacore catch is made from 20 to 200 miles offshore. Therefore, these fishermen are the least affected by existing foreign territorial sea claims. 265 The purse seiners, most of ;Aiich are seasonally employed in both the pilchard and tuna fisheries, are generally larger than the albacore trollers, but more limited in range and facilities for preserving the catch than the clippers.. Their normal area of operations, as indicated in an earlier section, is off southern California and Mexico, although some of the larger vessels may work as far south as the Galapagos Islands » There are about 15 large seiners which fish for tuna the year around in the same areas covered by the clippers. About 100 smaller purse seiners devote approximately 60 percent of their time to tuna, nonnally restricted to waters off Mexico (Real, 1952 )o Being free from the need of live bait, most of their fishing is done on the high seas, but a significant amount is also carried out in waters under the jxirisdiction of foreign countries o In the neighborhood of 200 long-range live-bait tuna clippers, using hook and line, operate on the high seas from southern California to the waters off northern Peru. Their total dependence on live bait and their wide range of operations have necessitated a certain amount of their time being spent in waters claimed by the various Latin American countrieso These are the tuna fishing craft which have been vitally affected by territorial water claims and fishing regulations of foreign countries. Foreign Territorial Sea Claims and Fishing Regulations From Mexico to Peni there are 10 countries off whose coasts our tuna fleet operates. It is often, difficult to establish the exact extent to which a nation claims the territorial sea or fisheries control in adjacent waters due to the ambiguity of the law or the frequencies of changes in the law with changes in administration. Claims to territorial seas which have been asserted (but not necessarily enforced) ty these countries range from 3 to 200 miles, sometimes including contiguous zones estab- lished for various reasons (see Boggs, 1951 )• 266 Tuna bait fishes taken in these foreign waters are normally.' found Trri-thin 3 miles of shore, since the 3-mile zone of national sovereignty is comiaonly recognized and strictly adhered to l^' mary nations (incl-adi.ng the United States), the jurisdiction of these countries o-rer the bait supply is unquestioned. Therefore, when fishing for bait or tuna in foreign territorial waters, American fishermen must abide by the regulations of the countries involved. Approximately fifty percent of the tuna bait is taken from the Me.xican coast under Mexican fishing permits (Chapman, 1952 )o Some othei' countries which have bait resources available at cert.^.n times of the year and for which permits are issued include Panajn?., Ecuador, and Costa Rica. For detailed listing of regulations, jicense fees, etc., for the major bait areas, see the section on Foreign Licenses in this chapter. The important point is that, with the exception of Ecuadoran permits, these fishing permits are used almost exclusi\''ely for taking tuna bait» Ecuadoran bait resources increased in importafiCv=5 following the discovery of new high seas tuna grounds off northern Peru. As is tr>ie of the other countries, Ecuador has tuna off her continental, coast only at certain seasons, and in much greater abundance over a longer period of the year in the vicinity of the Galapagos Islands o American fishermen have, in the past, been able to ptu-chase fishing permits from the Ecuadoran consul in San Diego which would allow fishing for tuna or bait in Ecuadoran waters, bcvh near the Galapagos Islands and off the continental coast of Ecuador. These permits could also be purchased by the vessels at sea via radiDo 19/ In addition to license regulations, several countries have provided, or expressed such intentions, for closed seasons on certain fisning grounds* 19/ In Jaruaiy, 19^2, a change in Ecuadoran fishing laws eliminated. '*radi.o*» perjnits and foreign fishing in the claimed territorial waters of continental Ecuador, resulting in a reduction in the number of permits purchased by United States tuna vessels. In ■ September, 19^2, the law vras interpreted to make it possible for a vessel which had a Matricula aboard to radio in to Saa Diego for an Ecuadoran fishing permit, and have it mailed to BXtj port except Ecuadoran. A Matricula is a permit to b-uy a license. 267 Relations with Foreign Countries and Causes of Disagreement Because of the very nature of the American tuna fishery^ then, it is not at aU. surprising that incidents have arisen involving American vessels and Latin American governments <> Perhaps what is more surprising is the fact that, in general, relations between the American tuna fleet and the Latin American countries have been very good over a long period of time. Incidents involving charges of fishing law violations and invasion of territorial seas, with consequent vessel seizures and fines, have been relatively few, considering the number of fisliing trips American vessels have made in these waters o Recent disputed tuna boat seizures have involved only one country, Ecuador. Such disputes, even though few in number, present a serious problem to our tuna fishermen and to our international relations* At present, the problem of conflicting concepts and regulations respecting territorial seas, the continental shelf, and fisheries control, is under study 'oy the International Law Commission of the United Nations (Francois, 19?0, 1951, 1952 )o The Inter-Aiaerican Council of Jurists of the Organization of American States has for some time been studying similar international law questions affecting the Americaso The problem is extremely complex, and there seems to be little hope for a quick solution covering the numerous and inconsistent national claims to territorial seas and sovereignty thereiUo The specific problems involving fisheries interests of the United States in international relations have for some time been uiider continuous study by the Department of State. The three phases of interna tioi^l law which are of greatest importance to the American tiona fishermen ax'St (1) the extent of the territorial sea or fisheries jurisdiction claimed by the Latin American countries! (2) the location of base-lines from which such zones are measuredi and (3) the right of "irjiocent passage"* 268 Within accepted territorial seas, there is little question of the right of exclusive control of fisheries by the coastal State. Our tuna fishermen recognize this law, and have paid license fees and observed regulations of the foreign coimtries in whose waters they have had to operate o Incidents charging violations have usually arisen following drastic changes in regulations or closure of certain waters o Although the United States, along with Gi'eal Britain and many other major maritima nations steadfastly refuses to recogniEe claims of territorial seas in excess of 3-'iniles wide, in actual practice some countries are occasionally enforcing su'ih claims (Mexico -=■ 9 miles, Ecuador — 12 miles )o American fishermen have observed such claims as a matter of expediency, not because they recognize them as valid. For practical purposes, exaggerated claims to teiTitorial seas, such as 200 miles, have not been established at the present time. They have met with widespread opposition from many sources, for they are entirely out of reason and have no precedent. The difficulties involved in attempting to properly control such a vast expanse of water are recognized even cy those countries involved. There has not been a great operational problem for the tuna fleet where such claims are not enforced. As has been pointed out previously, the primary reason for American tuna fishermen to enter territorial seas of foreign countries is to obtain bait. The bait is found within the 3"ii)ile liinit, which is the minimum distance claimed by ary country, and which is recognized by the United States. Therefore, as far as bait fishing is concerned, it makes little difference whether the claim to territorial seas is 3 miles or 12 miles. Any general extension of jurisdictional control beyond 3 miles could create serious difficulties in actual tuna fishing. Though most tuna are caught many miles off-shore, a significant amount is taken fairly close to the 3-mile liinit in certain areas. Ecuador's enforcement of her 12-mile claim has caused inconvenience and added to the cost of tuna production in that area. Two recent sej.zures of American tuna boats ^^/ in controversial waters have resulted in the United States Government protesting to Ecuador this inter= ference with the rights of American vessels on the high seas. iOj' Sun Pacific seized July 29, 1952. Equator seized July 31s 1952c Both vessels were detained and fined. 269 The recent fishing dispute involving Britain's challenge of Norway's method of fixing base lines from which to measure the width of the territorial sea, / together with other adjustments of fishing zones by various covintries, has focused interest directly on this problem. Recently Ecuador established a base line drawn directly between prominent points of her coast line which, in effect, extends the Ecuadoran claims of sovereignty far in excess of a 12-mile-wide band for most of her continental coast. The right of "innocent passage" as applied to fishing vessels has been involved in at least one recent seizure of an American tuna boat^/ Right of certain foreign vessels to navigate through the territorial sea of another country for the purpose of traversing that sea without entering inland waters, or of proceeding to or from inland waters, is a basic principle of international law. The United States position is that this right applies to fishing vessels as well as merchant ships. 2L / Norway's method of fixing base lines by drawing straight lines between prominent points of land instead of following the sinuosities of the coast line was upheld by the World Court. 22 / Notre Dame was taken into custody by Ecuador on November hf " 1951, for alleged violation of Ecuadoran waters and fined $5j376.20, which amount was paid on November 20, 1951, under personal protest of the captain. The United States Government has asked the Ecuadoran Government to reconsider the case charging that they have no right to deny innocent passage. 270 Outlook for United States Tuna Fishing in Foreign Areas FACTORS IMFLUENCING FUTURE DEVELOPI-ENTS Before discussing the possible future effects of territorial sea declarations and fishing regulations on the United States tuna fishery off Latin America, it is important to point out that extremely confused and unsettled conditions surround the recent developments;. The obvious political under-currents provide an even more hazardous basis for interpretation since policies change with administrations and are extremely vulnerable to pressures from nationalistic elements, private or nationalized industries, and political expediency* It has been estimated that the tuna fleet spends $2,500,000 annually for fishing permits in foreign waters* While there are no statistics available, mention should be made of the large amount of money spent for fuel, provisions, and recreation in the many ports o This sujn is substantial and may exceed the amount spent on fishAng permits. Thus, American tuna fishing activities have proi/ided a substantial source of income to these countries, which will hax'-e an. important influence on future developments. Thei'e has been a natural interest on the part of Latin Americans in the exploitation of the rich fishery resources that lie off their shores at certain seasons. Besides a desira to share in this source of wealth from the sea, apprehension over- possible depletion of the fisheries has led to passage of restrictive fishing laws purportedly based on conservation. Actually" there is no scientific information available conceriiing either the tuna or bait populations which can be used as a basis for an intel?Ligent conservation or management programo The desire and abili.ty of these countries to capitalize on tuna production will undoubtedly play a major i-ole in future fishery legislations Tuna are "seasonal" off each country, and to develop a full-time fishery J large vessels would be needed and this would entail fishing off the coasts of other countries at certain times. For a part-time tuna fishery to be successful, the fleet must be able to tvTTi to other fishing activities in off seasons for vjhich the vessels and crews would be suitable. This situation does .not exist in many of these countries o Attempts to develop local t'ona industries utilizing direct American aid and technical know-how have been undertaken. Some have been unsuccessful due to insufficient capital, poor management, political ir_fluence, and the lack of a suitable local fishing fleet. The continuation of efforts to establish r^ationally-owned industries is uncertain and will depend upon degrees of success achieved. 271 POSSIBLE ALTERNATE SOURCES OF BAIT Depending on the location of seasonal tuna grounds, certain bait resources vary in importance at different times of the year. While there is little likelihood that all Latin American tuna bait grounds will be closed to American fishermenj there is always the possibility that some of them may be, through natural or other causes » Although some regula- tions have been instituted for professed conservation raEBons, there is no evidence of a general decline in the bait resource from over-fishing. (At least one important local bait resource was temporarily destroyed by a natural disaster, "red tide"). United States tuna boat operators, in backing up their claim that they are not depleting the bait stocks, have cited records to show that they are presently fishing in every bait area in which they have fished for the past 25 years. The Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission has begun a study of the tuna and bait, populations with the objective of developing sufficient knowledge of the resource on which to base, if and when needed, recommendations for an effective management program. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of the tuna bait is taken from Mexican waters, and that, if necessary, these grounds could supply the needs of the entire tuna fleet. There is considerable bait available in waters off southern California which could also be utilized to a much greater extent than at present, in case of emergency. This would ontail certain problems in transporting the bait to the more southern grounds, but is definitely a possibility. However, getting bait exclusively from Mexico or California would cause considerable in- convenience and result in an increase in total ninnir.g time, for the clippers sometimes need two or more leads of bait on a single cruise. Certain experiments designed to find a substitute for live tuna bait offer encouraging possibilities and have been discussed on previous pages . Experiments to develop gear for taking pelagic bait on the high seas may partially eliminate the importance of coastal bait grounds. Development of artificial bait fish is also being investigated. Other possibilities for eliminating the need of live bait from tuna fishing, although not advanced to any practical stage at present, lie in the field of electrical fishing and the utilization of sound impulses to arouse the feeding frenzy in tuna to the point where they will strike dead bait or artificial lures. Some of these possibilities are definitely encouraging, others may be rather remote, but they do indicate that within the near future our tuna clippers mi^t be wholly or partially free from their 272 dependence on live bait supplies from waters of foreign countries o POSSIBLE ALTERNATE TUNA GROUNDS Expansion of the actual tuna fishing grounds reached the present southern limits of the fishery some 20 years ago, except for some seasonal fishing on the banks off northern Peru where United States fishermen began fishing three years agOo Areas vriiich iiive been steadily fished for over 20 years are still producing record landings (Gary, 1952). Recent seaward expansion has led to tuna fishing as far as 200 miles or more from any lando Results of exploratory fishing by the Service's Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations indicate that subsurface stocks of tuna extend abundantly in a band of equatorial water for thousands of miles off the coast of Central and South America, (For other possible alternate tuna grounds seeprevious asctionSo'Airther exploration may lead to our tuna fleet operating as far as oue or two thousand miles from shore but at no greater distances from California ports than the present southern limits of the fishery „ The adaptability of tuna boats and crews to long-line fishing (discussed in another section) will undoubtedly have an important bearing on fUrther seaward expansiono Thus, in the event of closure of some waters to United States tuna fishermen (even though entailing coi:isiderable inconvenience)^ there is evidence to indicate that sufficient stocks of tuna exist beyond 200 males from shore to support the present industry. 273 BIBLIOGRAFHT Anonsrmous 1931. The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Year 1929. California Division of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 30. Anonjnnous 1935. Anonymous . 1949. The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Years 1930-1934, inclusive. California Division of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 44. The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Year 1947 with an Historical Review, 1916-1947. California Bureau of Itarine Fisheries Fish Bulletin 74- Anonymous 1950. Replies from Governments to Questionnaires of the Inter- national Law Commission, United Nations General Assembly, International Law Commission, Second Session, March 23« Anonymous 1951. Anonymous 1951. Anonymous 1952. Anonymous 1952. Draft Articles on the Continental Shelf and Related Subjects. United Nations General Assembly, International Law Commission, Third Session, July 30,1951- The Tuna Fishing and Packing Industry of California. William R. Staats Company, Inc. Los Angeles, Facts for Business Men. Puerto Rico Economic Develop- ment Corporation, San Juan. Limits (3 miles or 200 miles) Territorial Waters. Pan-American Fisherman. Vol. VII, No.l. August. 274 Anonymous 1952. Pacific Coast States Fisheries — 1950, Annual Summary. U.SoFish and Wildlife Service, Current Fishery Statistics 764. Anonymous 1952. The Conmercial Fish Catch of California for the Year 1950 with a description of methods used in collecting and com- piling the statistics, California Bureau of Marine Fish- eries, Fish Bulletin 86, Anonymous 1952. Tuna Imports. UoS. Senate, Eighty-second Congress^ Com- niittee on Finance^ Hearings on House Resolution 5693 • Anonymous 1952o Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Cooperative Research Program. University of Miami Marine Latoratory, Pi'ogress Reports 1, .-.y and 3. Bingham., J. rf. 1938. Report on the International Law of Pacific Coastal Fish- eries. Stanford University Press. Boggs, S, W. 1951. Dfc liiiiitxitiaicif Seaward Areas under National Jurisdiction. American Journal of International Law. Vol„45jNoo2jApril. Boggs, S. W. I95I- National Claims in Adjacent Seas, Geograpitiioal Review^ Vol. XLI, No. 2. Carlson, C. B. 1951. Reconnaissance Survey on the Occurrence of Little Tuna (Euvhynnus aHetteratus) Along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States from New Jersey to Mississ- ippi and Contiguous Waters. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Commercial Fisheries, Unpublished aanuscript . Gary, Harold F. 1952. Statement on Tuna Industry. United States Tariff Corai- mission Hearing on Investigation of the Tuna Industry, Washington, November. 275 Chapman, VL M. "'"~- 19480 United States policy with regard to High Seas Fisheries. U. S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Commercial Fisheries Re\lew. Vol.10, I»o.L2. December. Chapman, ■?. M. 1952. The Ecuador Story. Pan-W^merican Fishenaan. Vol. VII, Noo3j, October. Chilton.. CoH. 1949. "Little Tuna" of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Leaflet 353, December. Francois 5, J,P,A, 1950. Report on the High Seas. United Nations General Assembly, International Law Cominissionj, Second Session, March 17, Francois, J.P,Ao 195^' Second Report on the High Seas. United Nations General Assembly, Iniiemational Law Commission, Third Session, April 10. Francois ;, J,P„A. 1952. Report on the Regime of the Territorial Sea. United Nations General Assembly, International Law Commission, Fourth Session; April /. , Godsil. H„C. 1933. The High Seas Tuna Fishery of California. California Division of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 51- Inigo,, Felix 1952. A Preliminary Report on a Survey of the Commercial Fisheries of Puerto Rico. Caribbean Fisheries Conference, Trinidad. March e Meyer, C.B.V. 193?' The Extent of Jurisdiction in Coastal iVaters. A.W.Sijthoffs UitgeversmaatschappiJ. N.V Leiden. Murray, John J. 1952. Report on 1951 Exploratory Bluefin Tuna Fishing in the ^ Gulf of Uaine. U.S. Fish and *Vildlife Service, Commercial 1 Fi.ThpHfts rt-view. Vol. l4> No. 3, March. I 276 Olsen, OoT. I9IO0 International Regulations of the Fisheries on the High Seaso U.SoBureau of fisheries^ Bulletin Vol „ XXVIII, 1908. Powells DoE.j, Alversonj D.Loj, and Livingstone jR, Wo 1952., North Pacific Albacore Tuna Investigation, 1950. U.So Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Leaflet 402, April. Rawlings, John E. 1953. A Report on the Cuban Tuna Fishery. U.SoFiah and Wild- life Service, Commercial Fisheries Review, Volol5,No,l, January. Real, Jo Jo 1952. In the Matter of the Application of the California Fish Canners Association, Inc., for an investigation under Section 7 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 19510 U.S. Tariff Commission, Washington, January. Riesenfeld, So A. 1942. Protection of Coastal Fisheries Under International Law, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, Monograph No. 5, Washington. Rosa, Horacio, Jr. 1950.. Scientific and Coirmon Names Applied to Tunas, Mackerels, and Spear Fishes of the iVorld, with Motes on their Geographic Distribution . United Nations Food and Agri- culture Organization, Wasliington. December. Stevenson, C. H. 1910. International Regulations of the Fisheries of the High Seas. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Bulletin Vol . XXVIII , 1908 . Truman, H. S. 1945 » Proclamation 2667, Policy of the United States wii&h Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, signed at Washington on Septeuber 28, 1945. Federal Register, Vol.10, No, 193, October 2. Truman, H.S. 1945, Proclamation 2668, Policy of the United States with respect to Coastal Fisheries in the certain areas of the High Seas, sigaed at VYashington on September 28,1945' Federal Register, Volol0,NOol93, October 2 277 Warfelj Herbert E. I95O0 Outlook for Development of a Tuna Industry in the Philippines „ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report 28. ;Vhiteleather, R,?., and Brown, H,H. 1945» An Experimental Fishery Survey in Trinidad, Tobago, and British Guiana. Anglo American Caribbean Commis- sion;, Washington. 278 CHAPTER V "- PROCESSING ABSTRACT TufJA PLANTS GENERALLY FACE ON A DOCK WHERE FISH CAN BE UNLOADED FROM THE FISHING VESSEL, C^Ni^lERY SPACE BDJACErn" TO THE DOCK USU^J-LY HOUSES THAWING AND BUTCHERING FACILITIES, AND COLD STORAGE SPACE, WHEN AVAILABLE. PRE-COOKERS, AND SOIiCTIMES RETORTS, ORDINARILY ADJOIN THIS AREA. CLEANING AND PACKING L!I«S ARE USUALLY LOCATED BEHIND THE PRE-COOKERS. THE LABELING AND PACKING ROOM IS OFTEN LOCATED ON THE FLOOR .ftBCVE. ORDINARILY RAIL FACILITIES ARE AVAILAS_E AT THE REAR. Fish ARE carried from the vessel to the plant either by sluices OR BY PUSH CARTS, AT© ARE WEIGHED BETWEEN UNLOADING FROM THE VESSEL AND ARRIVAL IN THE CANNERY. COWEVINQ OF FISH IS ORDINARILY HANDLED IN A HIGHLY EFFICIENT MANNER WITH LITTLE CHANCE FOR I MPROVEMENfT . Tuna tf^E thawed in running water in thawinq tanks, or )n air with or without sprays of water. Thawin'q time varies from a few mini/tes for nearly thawed fish to overnight for kard-frozen ones^ Thawing oper.utions require very little labor, ano little if AN\' improvement in EFFICIENCY IS POSSIBLE. Tuna are butchered on small, stationary or movable tables, usually equipped with a movrks belt, by fsom 3 to 10 or more MSfj. One man generally slits open the fish, REMOVItJQ THE V!3:.ERAj A SECO.^ MAN WASHES AND SMELLS THE FISH, AND A THIRD MAN PLACES THE FISH |.\ THE PhHCOOK 8A\a;F.TS. IN LARGER PLANTS TWO SUCH CREWS MAY OPERATE. ADCniCNA. MEN HANDLE SLUICE GATES AND SEPARATE LIVERS FROM THE VISCERA. THE BUTCHERING OPERATION IS CONDUCTED VERY' EFFICIENTLY AT A COST RARELY EXCEEDING ♦2.00 TO 13,00 PER ION OF FISH, BurCHEREO FISri ARE LOADED INTO WIRE MESH BASKETS ACCORDING TO SIZE. BA3LA>CS THERE MAY BE 9 TABLES WITH 50 TO 75 CLEANERS AT EACH TASLE. A FISH IS CLEANED INTO QUARTERS OR LOINS, FLA., MA-' PROVE TO BE PRACTICAL, AND WILL PROBABLY MATERUU.V REDUCE THE COST OF PROCESSING TUNA, 279 Nearly the entire tuna industry has aoofted the newly developed tuna pacxinq EQUIPMENT. For solid packing, the "PaCK-SHAPER" is USriD BY MOST OF THE ll«USTRY. The cleaned loins are fed by HANC into a "shaping tunnel composed dp FOUR BELTS. The LOINS ARE compressed INTO A CYLINDER OF TUNA WHICH 13 PUSHED INTO CANS, ONE AT A TIME, AND THE CORRECT THICKNESS CUT OFF BV A KNIFE„ ThE GORBY ATO OaVEY MACH- INES HAVE ALSO BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THEY ARE 90MEV/HAT SIMILAR A^C UTILIZE A MEASURING BOX. Hand-packing labor costs about $.50 per case. The "PACK-SmPER" elimiwtes all of tv€ packing labor except for the one to three persons who are s^^uireo to feed the machine. machine packing is used but royalty payments of at least i l# per case have to be paid, amd there may be some loss in yield. to the expert, the appearance of the machine solid pack may be inferior to hand-packed fish because cans are not so ti'3h7l.y packed md the fish tends to have a slightly raggec cut surface. developmental work 13 continuing toward elimination of these objections. both tve chum< pack and the flaked or grated tuna are machine-packed by equipment specially designed for this purpose. Salt is added by conventional type equipment, hot oil is generally added at te>*>eratures from 160° to 225 f. Exhaust boxes, turret steajji flow seamers, and vacuum seamers are used to create a vacuum in the cans. Efficiency of can washing seems to be more a function of attention to operat- ing DETAILS SUCH AS KiATNTAINlNQ ADEQLArELY HIGH WATER TEMPERATURE AND USE OF SUF- FICIENT DETERQENT THAN TO DESIGN OF EQUIPMENT. Cans are labeled and boxed by coNvE^^•|ONAL equipment, Afc storage is palletiz- ed WITH USE OF LIFT TRUCKS. Frozen raw loins and frozen cooked loinb are two relatively new tuna products WHICH Japan has shipped to tuna canneries in The United States in very limited quantities. The frozen cooked lo'ns, as received bv the canneries, are thoroughly cleaned AND READY for PACKING INTO CANS. PRACTICALLY 100 PERCENT RECOVERY FROM T(C LOINS CAN BE EXPECTED IF THE PRESENT DIFFICULTIES WITH OXIDATION CAN BE ELIMINATED. The PRODUCTION OF FROZEN LOINS, VWETHER RAW OR COOKED, OFFERS SEVERAL AD- VANTAGES. Plant operators in Japan benefit through' additional processing activi- ties. SiNCE ONLY The USABLE PORTION OF THE TUNA IS SHIPPED, UNITED STATES PLANTS BENEFIT FROM REDUCED SHIPP|I>IQ COSTS. USE OF THE IMPORTED COOKED LOINS /J.SO WILL RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL SAVING IN LA3CR COSTS SINCE FEW, IF ANY, OF THE PLANT PERSON^€L NORMALLY EMPLOYED IN THE BLiTCHERINO, PRECOOKINQ, AMD CLEANING OPERATIONS WILL BE REQUIRED. A NEWER PRODUCT, WHICH COULO SERIOUSLY AFFECT PRESENT TUNA CANNING OPERATIONS, IS FROZEN, CANNED (uNSEALED), PRECOOKED TUNA. A SAMPLE LOT OF THE PRODUCT WAS PREPARED IN JAPAN BY PACKING PRECOOKED AND CLEANED ALBACORE MEAT IN NO. I /2 TUNA CANS AMD FREEZING THE OPEN CANS Of TUNA. TlHE FROZEN PRODUCT WAS THEN SHIPPED TO A CANNERY IN THE UNITED STATES FOR COMPLETION OF THE CANNING PROCESS, THE PROCESS MAY BE SUBJECT TO A UNITED STATES PATENT. 280 At least 50 percent of The weight of the whole tuna, as landed, is not canned. The so-called "waste" material is used to produce liver, solubles, liquid fertilizer, TUNA oil and meal. In some PLANTS THE LIVERS ARE SEPARATED FROM THE OTHER VISCERAL MATERIAL AND PROCESSED INTO LIVER OIL, IN OTHER PLANTS ALL OF THE VISCERA, INCLUDING THE LIVERS, IS USED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FISH SOLUBLES AND LIQUID FISH FERTILIZERS. ThE RE- MAINING WASTE, INCLUDING FINS, hCAO, SKIN AfC BONES, IS CONVERTED INTO TUNA OIL AND MEAL IN THE REDUCTION PLANT. The TUNA CANNING INDUSTRY UTILIZES ITS "WASTE" MATERIAL AS EFFICIENTLY AS any other segment of the domestic fishin3 industry. efficiency in tuna canning might be improved either by saving labor or by increasing the yield of canned fish obtained pen ton of raw fish processed. since shore labor amounts to no more than 10 to 12 percent of total costs, chances for making any substantial reduction in costs by more efficient use of lbaor are not great, substantial labor saving could be accomplished in the cleaning step if any of several different pieces of equipment which are under development to clean tuna 'mechanically should prove successful, a net saving in labor of perhaps 2?^ per case might be achieved. other steps in the processing of tuna are fully or almost fully f^chanized and any improvements vjhich might be made could only result in very small over-all savings. With the cost of the raw fish amounting to up to 70 percent of the total «08T, savinqs res'jlting from increasing the yield of the canned product are potentially quite large. over-all losses during precooking and cooling may be as much as 30 PERCENT. These losses may be cut down considerably by more careful control, but IF carried to an extreme, may alter the characteristics of THE FINAL PRODUCT, AND result IN A PACK OF POOR APPEARANCE WITH REDUCED PROTEIN CONTENT f€ MACHINE-PACKED TUNA BROUGHT A30LfT BY A DISTORTION OF THE MUSCLE FIBERS OF TV£ FiSK IN TKt PACK lf*3 MACHINE WHICH IN TURN RESULTS IfJ A GREATER CAPACITY OF THE FUESH TO ABSORB OJ'-o THIS GREATER ABSORPTION OF OIL, IN SOME CASES, LEAVES INSUFFICIENT OC- AT THE SURFACE MD MAY CONTRIBUTE TC SCORCHING DURING RETORTING. The DRAINED FISH FROM OIL PACKS HAVE A MUCH HIGHER 01.. CONTENT "HAN DOES THAT FROM BRINE PACKS, THIS 0IF?-EP3>*:E MAKES FOR A DIFFERENCE IN TEXTURE, WITH MOST CONSUMERS PREFERRING THE TEXTURE OF THE Olu PACK. THE TEXTURE DirrEKEN:E IS NOT SO HJUCH ONE Or DIFFERING VErOERNESS OR TOUGHNESS AS IT IS OF DrFERUJG DEGREES OF OILINESS AhlCH SHCW UP QUITE HARKEOLY IN COMPARATIVE TASTE TESTS, THE "ESTS CAR- RIED O-J? THUS FAR IfCilCATE THAT THE BRINE PACK USUALLY IS, |N ADDITION, A LITTLE TOUGHER THAN THE OJL PACK ESPECIALLY ATTER THE PACK HAS STOOD IN THE CAN FOR SEV- ERAL MONTHS. Both oil AfC brine packs develop SOME T0UGHNE3S DURING THE FIRST few months of storage after processinqo a state o." equil13ril*! seems to develop after about six months of such storage, whereupon l.'ttle further change occurs. Japanese canned tunAj being mostly hand packed ,, has a soucwhat smoother sur- face THAN THE AVERtCAN MACHINE PACK, THE JAPANESE PACK SEEMS ALSO TO HAVE BEEN 3JVEN A LONGER PRECOOK THAN IS CUSTOMARY/ WJTH THE AMERICAN PACK, WHICH RESULTS IN T^€J7^PA^ESE PACK HAVING A SOMEWHAT HIGHER PROTEIN CONTENT THAN THE DOMESTIC PACK, HCWE^-ER, MOST OF THE CANNED TUNa IMPORTED FROM JAPAN IS NOW PUT UP SN BRINE. AND SUCH FtSH HAVE A MUCH LOWER OIL CONSENT (aS LITTLE AS 2 PERCENT OIL OR LESS) THAN the american oil packs (which usually have from 10 to 20 percent oil). such jap- anese brine-packed tuna is also of a somewhat tougher texture. Furthermore, the jmpcrted canned tuna usually has a flat, sokctimfs almost tasteless rlavor as co vipareo to the domestic product, this may be due to a vari- ety f.f causes, incluo^ro possible loss of flavor constituents either -itrouqh holding the frozen fish for too long a period of t i me or by overcooking it at thc precook stage. this loss in flavor 13 sometimes quite noticeable. The STATE OF CALVORNIA has EXTENSIVE REGULATIONS CONCERNING FRESHNESS OF r«v tuna tmo adequate pfiocessinq kcthoos in preparing the canned product. the industry is well satisfied with existin9 regulations fho believes that they main- tain the qualfn* of tuna at a high level. TVr Unitho States ^ooo and Drug Administration will be bringing ou" new sta^c•aros for canned tuna within the next year or 30. heirinqs are still in progress concerning certain contftoversi al aspects of the standards, particular- ly with respect to fill of contai.mer. For MOST CANNED FOOD PROOLCTS, THE All(C>-JNT OF FOOD MATER Irt. PLACED INTO THd CAN ("Fl-.l-nJ" WEIGH,') CAN BE ESTIMATED BY DTTERMINING THE "DRAINED WEIGHT" OF THE CANNED PftOOUCT. !N THt: CASE Of" THE CANNED TUNA, HOWEVER, THE FISH AB- SORBS VARVIN3 AMOU^^rS OF TH£ AOOED OtL DEPENDING ON THE TY^E OF PACK. THE r«CH(NE-PACKED TUNA ABSORBS l«3RE OF THE 01^ A^D THUS GIVES A HICHER DRAJMEO VfflGHT TTAN THE HATC-PACKED FISH. BECAUSE THE OIL IS NOT COMPLETELY REMOVED WHEN "DRAINED WEIGHT* IS DETERMINED, THE NcW TUNA STANDARDS Wl .L NOT BE BASED, AS IS COMMON V/l'iH OTHER FOOOS, ON "DRAINED WEIGK""; SOME OTHER CRITERIA WILL BE USED. Under consideration is a methcc of wcasuring the contents based on "PRESS y/GIGH!*, TVE contents »■ A CAM WOU.D BE SUBJECT TO A STIPULATED PRES- SURE in a special PRESS, THC EXPRESSED LIQUID SEPARATED, A^O THE AMOUNT OF PRESS CAKE (sot.103) Dri"ERK;lNED. STtBKA-ATED "PRESS V/EIGhT" REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE TO Bc Mr; a-' each type of pack such as soli", CHUhK, flake, and packed with oil 0?t BRI.*i, 282 I Color of the different packs of cammed fish will be graded in the new standards GIVING three types, WHITE-MEAT, LIGHT-VEAT, AND DARK-MEAT PACKS. THE COLOR, DE- termined in a special instrument, will be stipulated for each grade. in addition tc color grades, packs may be pltt up as solid-pack, chunks, a^d flakes. specifica- tions may limit the amount of small pieces allowed in the solid and chunk packs to 15 and 50 percent respectively, While many packers believe that the existing standard tuna pack is all that the housewife needs or wants, no large-scale attempt has ever been made to fmt up a mass produced tuna product consisting of tuna and some other food i nqred i entj[ s ) which would be ready to serve by merely opening the can and heating, several such products have been tried on a small scale in the past, but with the high cost of production (and consequently, high selling price) they have never been popular. One OF THE LARGER TUNA PACKERS IS NOW IN THE PROCESS OF BRINGING OUT SUCH A MASS- PRODUCED PRODUCT. A FEW MEMBERS OF THE TUNA INDUSTRY BELIEVE THAT SUCH PRODUCTS MAY GREATLY EXPAND THE DEMAND FOR CAMMED TUNA, BUT UhfTIL THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THIS NEW VENTURE CAN BE DETERMINED, IT 13 IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDIICT THE FUTURE OF SUCH ITEf«, The armed forces HAVE EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN SUCH PRODUCTS MC , if they were to be made avail/flle in a size of can to fit the united states army ration carton, there might be a considerable market for them. highly seasoned, smoked, and other specialty tuna products have been produced for many years in small vollime but p<.ant operators do not believe there is any possibility of greatly increasing their sale. Some members of the California tuna industry are giving serious consideration TO opening plants in Puerto Rico, The favorable tax situation gives this Territory m edge over any other place in the Caribbean or Gulf areas. Southern California has certain advantages over many areas as a location of tuna canneries. It has available other species of fish which are commonly canned making possible a di- versified YEAR-ROUND INDUSTRY WHICH INSURES A SUPPLY OF TRAINFD PERSONCJEL SKILLED IN THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS RANGING FROM CATCHING THE FISH TO PACKING THEM IN THE CANS. JAPANESE- IMPORTED FROZEN WHOLE FISH IS PREFERRED BY MOST PACKERS TO DOMESTIC ri9H BECAUSE OF CERTAIN HAIVOLING ADVANTAGES IN THE CANNERY. THE JAPANESE FISH ARE GRADED AS TO SIZE AND DAMAGED FISH ARE CULLED OUT BEFORE EXPWTATiON. THESE FACTORS TEND TO MAKE THE JAPANESE FISH SEEM SUPERIOR TO THE UfJGRADED, DOMESTIC LAM3INQS. There is a belief in some segments of the ItCUSTRY THAT THE COLO^ OF THE JAPANESE FISH IS LIGHTER THAN THAT OF AMERICAN PRODUCED TUI^IA. THIS IS SOME- TIMES ASCRIBED TO BETTER HANDLING OF TUNA BY JAPANESE THAN BY AMERICAN FISHERMEN. Actually such better HA^OLlNG has neither been verified nor, in fact, has any DIFFERENCE IN COLOR BEEN CONFIRMED. POSSIBLY THE FACT THAT A VAST MAJORITY OF IMPORTED TUNA ARE ALBACORE, A WHITE -MEAT SPECIES, HAS CAUSED PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT Japanese-caught fish are always of a light color regardless of species. Japanese -CAUGHT tuna have often been held -n cold storage for many months before THEV reach THE AMERICAN PROCESSOR. 'WHERE THE GLAZE HAS BEEN LOST FROM THE FISHp DEHYDRATION MAY BE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN WITH AMERICAN-PRODUCED TUNA. The CAMMED PRODUCT, RESULTING FROM SUCH DEHYDRATED FISH IS SOMETIMES DESCRIBED AS HAVING A WOODY TEXTURE AND BEING TASTELESS OR LACKiNG IN NORWL FLAVOR. This chapter will treat of the two principal activities in the tuna processing industry, :;anning of tuna and production of byproducts. As has been indicated in the chapter on consumption, there is not much demr.nd 283 ;?or froaen,. cured, etc. tuna products. The production of these items is so small in relation to the value of total processed tuna products that they will not be considered in this chapter. Canning of tuna and tufialike fishes is the one big activity in the tuna'' processing industry. The utilization of byproducts, while relatively smaller in econonic value, is a function related to the canning process, CANNING The principal types of canned tuna and tunalike fishes produced by tr.e domestic tuna processing industry have been discussed in some detail In the chapter on consumption. There, in the sections on pages 58 to 74s considerable detailed data are shown on the type of canned products packed by species, can sizes, etc. Shore Plant Operation The underlying purpose of this section of the report is to determine just how tuna is handled from the time it is received as fresh or frozen fish until it has been canned and stored for shipment. A consideration of the various steps in the canning process should then reveal whether ariy important engineering improvements might be made to improve efficien- cy of operation and reduce costs. In carrying out this survey , each plant canning tuna in the United States was visited and thoroughly inspected. Fish were followed through each step of the canning process, and detailed notes were taken on opera- tions of the equipment at each stage. In addition, superintendents and laanagers were interviewed. The geographical distribution of firms can- ning tuna and tunalike fishes in the United States is shown by States since 1923 in table 73. The principal steps in the canning process considered and to be dis- cussed in this report include (1) general arrangenisnt of equipment in tuna plants, (2) conveying tuna to the cannery, (3) thawing of frozen fish, (4) butchering, (5) precooking, (6) cleaning, (7) packing, (8) addition of oil and salt, (9) exhausting and seaming, (10) cleaning and retorting of cans, and (11) labeling, boxing, and storage. PLANT ARRANGBENT Practically all tuna plants are located adjacent to a dock suitable for unloading fish from a vessel and are provided with rail facilities for delivery of cans and other materials (sometimes including frozen fish), 284 TABLE 73.- IvfUMBER OF FIRMS CANNING TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1923 - 19 52 YEAR CALIFORNIA OREGON WASH 1 NGTON MAINE MASSACHUSETTS 1923. . 1924. . 1925. . 1926. . 1927. . 1928. . 1929. . 1930. . 1931. , 1932. . 1933. . 1934. . 1935. . 1936. . 1937. . 1938. . 1939. . 1940. . 1941. . 1942. . 1943. . 1944. . 1945. . 1946. . 1947. . 1948. . 1949. . 1950. . 1951. . 1952. , NUMBER 19 19 22 19 19 16 17 15 15 15 12 13 14 16 15 15 16 16 18 19 18 18 20 22 32 30 31 27 28 27 NUMBER 1 2 3 6 6 6 6 9 9 14 14 14 13 10 11 9 6 NUMBER 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 5 9 11 13 14 9 9 6 7 NUMBER 2 2 2 1 1 NUMBER 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 YEAR NEW YORK MARYLAND VIRGINIA SOUTH CAROLINA TOTAL 1923. , 1924. , 1925. , 1926. , 1927. , . 1928. . 1929. , 1930. . 1931. . 1932. . 1933. . . 1934. . 1935. . 1936. . . 1937. . . 1938. . . 1939. . 1940. . . 1941. . . 1942. . . 1943. . . 1944. . . 1945. . . 1946. . . 1947. . . 1948. . . 1949. . , 1950. . . 1951. . . 1952. . . NUMBER - 1 1 NUMBER 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 NUMBER 1 NUMBER 1 1 1 NUMBER 19 19 22 19 19 16 17 15 15 15 13 13 14 16 19 20 26 27 28 27 19 32 43 49 61 65 56 54 47 45 285 as well as for shipment of the final canned product. Usually the cannery- faces the dock vdth the rail line at the rear. Ordinarily, a doorway opens from the dock side of the plant into a room where the fish are thawed and butchered. If thawing tanks are employed^ these may be in this or in an adjoining room. If a cold storage is available on the pi>emises, it is generally adjacent to and entered from this room. The fish are usually delivered to an open space near the door and if frozen are merely laid on the floor for defrosting with or without sprays. The butchering table, sometimes peniEnently installed, in other cases on casters for moving about, is usually nearby. The racks and baskets are generally assembled in an area near the butchering table and the perforated papers (if used) inserted in each basket before it is wheeled to the end of the table to be loaded with fish. In most plants the precookers, and in seme cases the steam boiler, are located in space adjacait to the butchering room. A typical tuna plant layout is shown in figure 15 . In most cases, the cleaning, packing, and seaming equipment are lo- cated in space directly behind the thawing snd butchering room. In a few plants butchering is carried out at a different floor level than the other operations. In the ideal layout (where space permitct) the cleaning, packing, and seaming operations take place in straight lines. In the larger plsmts as many as nine such lines are em.ployed vrf-iile the smaller plants may have only one or tvro . Wliere many lines are operated, it is conmon to reserve several of them for putting up special packs such as flakes or chunks. Flakes, in such plants, are almost invariably put up in separate lines. Chunk pack may be put up in the same line as solid pack with provision to divert cleaned loins to alternate fillers and seamers. In smaller plants having only a very few lines ^ the arrange- ment has to be very flexible so that the same lines can be used for different purposes when different tj^^es of packs are being put up. Con- siderable ingenuity is used in some of the simll and medium-sized plants to achieve maximum flexibility in use of the equipment for different types of pack. After seaming, cans are washed. Usually a separate washer is placed at the end of each line iiunediately after the s earner. In a few of the plants a single large washer was employed through which conveyor chains containing cans from all the lines passed. From the washer the cans are conveyed to the retorts and then to the labeling and boxing area. Cans are generally labeled and boxed in a room at the rear of the cannery which is adjacent to or part of the storage room. In most plants this room has access to a spur railway line at the rear of the plant. 286 pi _S e «_ 3 o >- < -J C3> ^ < Q. >- D- ■D o i i £ 1 t it ♦ i innnnnDD p'x)^'^ In quite a number of the plants the labeling, packing, and storage section is on a floor above (and usually behind) the rest of the plant. It is common also to use this same area for unpacking empty cans and by means of unscrambling devices to arrange them in conveying lines and feed them to the filling machines. This makes a conv anient and efficient set-up whereby empty cans can be brought into the plant from the rail line, and finished cartons of canned tuna shipped out without in any way interfering with other operations in the plant, CONVEyiNG SYSTQIS FOR CARRYING TUNA TO THE PLANT The larger canneries which are located adjacait to docks and have no intervening roadvjaj^ or other obstruction use, as a rule, the follow- ing system. A large tub is lowered through the hatch into the hold of the filing vessel and filled by hand with tuna. The tub is then lifted out of the hold by a boom hoist and swung over an apron where it is dumped automatically with a catch chain. In some installations two hatches of a single vessel can be unloaded simultaneously in this way. The fish fall from the dumping apron into a flume containing running sea water which sluices the fish on to a slat-type conveyor belt elevator which lifts the fish to a scale house where the fish are weighed, usually in the presence of representatives both of the fishing vessel and of the cannery. The weighing is done in batches, ordinarily a scale hopper of about 700 pound capacity being employed. The fish are thai sluiced through flumes to the cannery. This method is highly efficient and involves a minimum of handling. It is used by the large plants in San Diego and by one Terminal Island plant. Such a system can handle about 15 tons per ho\ir. Most of the plants on Terminal Island are located across a road- way from the unloading docks making the use of continuous sluiceways for conveying the fish to the jplants inconvenient. A majority of these plants make use of three-wheol metal carts holding around IjOOO to 1,400 pounds of tuna. These cart,s are lowered into the hold of the vessel, filled with tuna, and then lifted by boom, or in some cases, by overhead trolley v,lth chain lift on to the dock. Otherwise, a large bucket, usually with a hinged bottom, is loaded with fish in the hold and dumped into the cart on the dock. The cart is then wheeled over a floor level weighing scale and into the cannery. This method, although requiring a little more labor than the 3].ulcing method, is reasonably efficient, 288 Some tuna are brought to the cannery by other transportation methods than by the fishing vessel. In a few instances the fishing vessel discharges tuna at some remote port and the iced fish are hauled to the cannery in large truck-trailers » The trucks are thai unloaded, usually into the carts, which are wheeled into the cannerj'-. Japanese tuna are often unloaded at points such as Portland, Oregon, or Seattle, Washington where they are placed in cold storage. The fish, when needed at a carjiery, are packed into a truck or freight car and shipped to the cannery. Usually the fish are unloaded from freight car or truck into hand-pushed carts and wheeled into the thawing or butchering room. The extensive handling aind re-handling of such frozen fish nay result in quite serious bruisirig, abrasion of the skin, or other damage. Frequent- ly, the workers in unloading a car or truck of such fish handle them with hooks. While an effort is usually made to handle the fish by the head or tail, occasionally fish are hooked throu^ the body and, if the fish are partially thawed, considerable damage may result. When the fish are, as sometimes happens, handled as many as 4 or 5 times in this way, an appreciable portion of the fish may show the effect of such rough treatment . In general, the conveying of fish from vessel to cannerj- is handled in a highly efficient mamer with a minimum of labor. It is not believed that any considerable improvement can be made at this stage. THAWING FRDZHJ FISH Fish frozen aboard clipper ships are generally thawed or partially thawed before they are unloaded at the cannery. It is customary to turn off the refrigeration a day or two before the vessel docks. In some cases sea water is circulated through the coils in tne wells containing froaen fish to hasten thawing. Thawing or partial thawing of fish aboard the vessel facilitates unloading without the danger of breaking or otherwise damaging the fish when th^ are removed from storage on the boat. (Frozen fish are more easily damaged than thawed ones because of the greater tendency for them to stick to the coils or to each other; in handling during unloading such fish may be damaged when they are pulled aparto) It also reduces the thawing time required at the cannery. It is generally impossib3.e to completely thaw the fish aboard the vessel because this would entail too much danger of spoilage should there be a delay between the time the fish are unloaded and the canning process begins. 289 Fish unloaded by sluicing generally go directly to the butchering area. It is conmon to have an arrcingeraent whereby fish not sufficiently thawed can be diverted by opening a gate so that they are sluiced into a thawing tank. After these fish have finished thawing, they are released back into the sluiceway which carries then again into the butchering room. Thawing of fish in tanks is generally done only in the larger plants. More frequently the fish are allowed to thaw by spreading them in a single layer on the floor and allowing them to thaw either without other aid or more frequently by sprays of water from an overhead pipe spray- system. In a few plants the fish are placed in piles and thawed by spraying water from a hose at intervals. Even some of the larger plants use spray rathe'r than tank thawing. Since fish are in such a variety of stages of thawing, from hard frozen to completely thawed whm they reach the plant, thawing time varies over a wide range. Very frequently, even though the fish were originally frozen aboard the vessel, they are sufficiently thawed by the time they reach the butchering table that they can be butchered forthwith. In many other cases the relatively short wait from the time they reach the butchering room until actual butchering starts is sufficient to complete thawing. For hard-frozen fish, thawing overnight with sprays is generally onployed which is in most cases sufficient to thaw the fish,. Fish from a vessel are seldom hard-frozen when they reach the plant. In some instances canneries have cold storage rooms in which surplus fish are placed. Such fish can be withdrawn at a suitable time so as to be thawed when canning operations start. It was noted in some instances that fish thawed in tanks apparently- lost some weight due to the leaching action of the water. At least the water in several such tanks was quite cloudy. Investigation of this possibility mi^t be worthwhile since only a small loss of fish at current fish prices is sufficient to seriously run up operating costs. The amount of labor used in thawing fish even in the plants using the most inefficient set-ups is trivial. Usually men assigied other duties incidentally take care of the thawing operations. Especially in view of the wide variation in degree of hardness of fish to be thawed, employment of any special thawing equipment would not seem feasible. 290 DRESSING OR BJTCHERING Butchering of tuna takes place along a butchering table. Frequently a slat conveyor belt, 30 to 36 inches -wide^ carries the tuna along such a table, and the various operations are conducted by men stationed, along one or both sides of this table <, A small plant might have as few as three men at such a butchering table o The first man would slij> open the fish and remove the viscera„ The second nan would wash the fish body cavity, smell the fish to reject any spoiled tuna, and remove any bits of :^\,'< it, X U ft. and 12 ft. to 30 ft. long. Racks are xntroduc-ed through a door in the front and when cocking is completsd. iu:<:- ivli.hdrawn through the same door. In double-ended cookers racks are pushed in the front, and upon completion of the cook, go out a door at the rear. A few plants use improvised cookers by employing standard retorts. The cooked fish must cool thoroughly^ a process usually re- quiring about 24 hours. The racks are placed in a separate room or space and allowed to stand j usually overnight. In a few plants air circulation is provided and in one plant refrigerated air holds a constant temperature regardless of outside weather conditions. In the precooking operation as n;uch as 20 percent of the weight of the fish is lost. This consists of tuna oil, moisture, and dis- solved protein and other tissue constituents. It is desirable to keep the moisture loss consistent from fish to fish and avoid excessive over-cooking with resultant large shrinkage losses. Large fish require 292 longer precook times than do smaller fish. Hence, it is customary to grade fish according to size, placing fish of only one size grade in a given cooker, and to vary the cooking time in proportion to the size of fish in the cooker. This avoids overcooking the small fish in order t.a sufficiently cook a few large ones. Usually fish are divided into not more than three categories, large, medivun, and small. This still leaves a fairly wide variation in size of fish in any cooker. Some plants use more size grades which results in more uniform cooking and less shrinkage losses by overcooking. Close attention to cooking time and temperature also pays off in large savings of shrinkage loss. Some plants run check weights on tuna in each cooker weighing fish before and after precook to be certain that losses do not exceed pre-determined limits. Many plants also have temperature recording instrummts on each cooker to be certain that temperatures are accurately maintained. Tuna are precooked in most canneries at temperatures usually be- tween 216° and 220° F, The time of precooking varies ivith the size of fish and also from cannery to cannery. The following tabulation is typical of cooking times used: Size of fish Number of fish Cooking times per basket in hours Very small 8 or mo]?e 1-1/2 Small 6-8 1-3A Small to medium 4- 6 2 - 2-1/2 Medium 3 3 - 4-1/2 Large 2 6-8 Very large 1 8 - 10 In a few plants it was observed that there seaned to be a tendency to reduce the precooking times apparently in an attanpt to increase the yield of fish by not cooking out so much moisture. The racks and baskets used in the precookers rapidly become covered with a coating of fish protein and hardened fish oil unless constant effort is maintained to keep them clean. Some plants steam clean this equipment after each cooking operation. The use of paper liners in the 293 baskets is a help in reducing on the severity of this problem as it keeps fish away from the metal baskets thus eliminating much of the tendancy for fish particles to adhere to the basketo It also provides a fresh surface on which the fish rests regardless of whether the bas- ket was completely clean at the start of each cook. While it is not believed that any simple improvemont in precook- ing equipment and methods would greatly improve efficiency of operations, there is room for improvement in some plants in the care taken to obtain a uniform cook. Saving of just 1 percent of the total maximum of 30 per- cent shrinkage loss during cooking and cooling would", be well worthwhile. Such, or even much larger, savings are being made in many of the plants by careful attention to cooking temperatures and times and by more care- ful sorting of the fish by sizes. Careful control of precooking time means not only avoiding over- cooking, but also making certain that the fish are not undercooked. In- sufficiently cooked fish are vei^' difficult to clean and greatly slow up the rate of cleaning. Furthermore, under- precooked fish make a poor appearing pack because of the tendency cf the fish to shrink excessive- ly during final retorting in the can. Losses during cooling of the precooked fish amount to as much as 10 percent. Much of this is evaporation of moisture from the hot fish. Main- tenance of high humidity in the cooling areas will reduce such losses and some plants are experimenting along this line in order to keep shrinkage during cooling to a minimum. aEANING The cleaning of tuna requires more hand labor than all other shore operations combined. It is the one stage of the aitire canning opera- tion, aside from the butchering operation, which has not been completely mechanized. It is for this reason that changes and improvements in clean- ing methods may be expected to yield the biggest labor savings of any single operation. Savings rai^t be obtained either by making the exist- ing procedure more efficient or by replacing the existing methods with some more hi^ly mechanized procedure. The tuna industry is working along both these lines in an effort to improve the efficiency of the cleaning operation. Existing practice varies somevhat between the most efficient can- neries and some having older equipment . The following is typical 294 of operations in the larger and more modern plants. Fish are cleaned on long cleaning tables having workers on both sides with, in a typical installation, 50 to 75 cleaners to a table » Several such tables are operated in a large plants A modern cleaning table generally has three moving belts. The upper belt is used for conveying the cleaned loins to the packing machine. The middle belt conveys the whole fish to the cleaners. At one end of the table, racks containing baskets of precooked tuna from the cooker are unloaded on to the middle belt and the tuna conveyed the length of the belt and ronoved as required t^'- the cleaners on each side of the table. The lowest belt, which moves In the opposite direction from the other two, is connected to the table top by open chutes opposite each cleaner. Waste and parts of tuna unsuitable for the grated pack are discharged into these chutes and are carried back to the beginning of the line and thence by a conveyor to the meal and oil plant. The table work top is on a level with the middle belt so that the heavy tuna can easily be slid from the belt to the worker without undue liftixig,, When tuna are to be hand-packed, the cleaned loins go on to boards (about 26" X 18") which carry tuna on a belt to the guillotine krdfe. If the fish are to be ma diine -packed, these boards are not used; and the loins are placed directly on the moving belts. In cleaning the fish, the head is removed and the skin and fins scraped off. The fish is split, and the backbone ranovedo Each half is split again longitudinally and the dark meat carefully scraped away. The flakes suitable for canning are placed in large pans. The content of these pans is usually emptied into a larger container on a cart which is rolled along the line by a worker who carefully inspects the flakes before collection in order to be certain no fins, bones, skin., or other undesirable constituent is present. Sometimes an inspector also works at the end of the lower belt just before the reflise enters the conveyor to the reduction plant. He removes any edible flakes whioh may have been carelessly or accidentally dumped on to the refuse belt. In the larger plants containing a number of lines, some may be used for chunk pack and others for solid pack. Usually one or two separate lines are always used for packing the flake and/or grated pack. In smaller plants the cleaning operation is nearly the same except that shorter and fewer cleaning tables are employed. In almoat all plants a moving belt is used for ccnveying the vAiole fish to the cleaners. 295 In a few plants the racks containing baskets of precooked fish are stationed between the rows of cleaning tables, and workers carry baskets of precooked fish are stationed between the rows of cleaning tables, and workers carry baskets of tiona to the cleaners, as required. In a number of the smaller or older plants, especially vrtiere hand-packing is used, the boards of cleaned loins are carried by hand to the guillotine and packing line. The rate at which fish can be cleaned varies with the skill of the worker and the size of the fish. A greater weight of fish can be cleaned if the fish are large than if they are small. In labor contracts between unions and the canneries, standards of the rate of cleaning are sometimes set. Thus in the Columbia River area a standard of eight fish per hour is mentioned. However, if a good job of cleaning is dene, seldom are more than six albacore cleaned per hour. It is to the ad- vantage of the cannery to see that the cleaner does not work so fast as to be careless about turning out a well-cleaned tuna loin, to produce more flakes than are absolutely necessarj', or to discard flakes in the waste chute. Some canneries use piece-work rates with a bonus for pro- duction above a minimum quota while other canneries operate strictly on an hourly rate. Although the piece-work rate results in greater output pel" worker, it generally produces a definitely inferior product with greater loss or diversion of a portion of what should have been solid pack pack to the flake pack. An increase in yield (due to the high proportion of operating cost being charged against cost of fish) is much more important than a proportionate increase in cleaning rate. Thus, a simple calculation shows a loss of an extra 1 percent of fish going into the waste chute will not compensate for an increase in clean- ing rate of 20 percent. Where piece-work is employed closer inspection is a necessity. In some plants inspectors or supervisors travel up and down the cleaning line inspecting the output of each worker, and in addition loins, flakes, and waste are separately inspected to prevent waste. Costs of the cleaning operation (estimated from information furnished by plant superintendents) varied from about 331^ per case in the most efficiait plants to about 55^ per case in the less efficient plants. Possibly an average of 45^ per case might be typical. These figures are for yellowfin tuna. When skipjack tuna is processed costs are much hi^er owing to the small size of this species. 296 Only a few years ago all tuna was hand-pa eked j an operation re- quiring an amount of labor next in quantity to cleaning. Today a majority of plants employ machine-packing. The tuna industry is giving considerable thought to ways and means whereby the laborious hand cleaning operation can be mechanic edo This is not an easy problem to solvco In addition to the need for - .j developing equipment to separate the flesh from bone and skin, it is necessary to devise means of remov- ing dark from light flesho If this is done by removing the dark flesh by some mechanical device based upon the usual location of the dark strips of flesh, considerable li^t meat will be removed with the dark owing to variation from fish to fish. This then poses the problem of hand-labor to separate the dark from li^t meat or the alternative of reduction of yield of light meat. The industry is working on sev- eral mechanical devices which may eventuall.y work out into a practical method of cleaning tuna. PACKING Three chief types of pack of tuna are put up. The solid pack is composed of transverse segments usually not exceeding three to four to the can. In the chunk pack the loins are cut into smaller segments before filling into the can. Flake or grated pack consists of small pieces most of which will pass throu^ a ^-inch screen. Solid Pack Fitting together of three or fcur segments of tuna in a can to form a neat appearing, solid pack is a fairly complex operation. Until the past few years such filling was always carried out by hand and even now a few machine packers will, on special order, put up a hand pack which is considered of superior quality to the machine- packed product. For the hand pack, cleaned loins on boards pass beneath a guillotine- type cutter consisting of a heavy knife blade suspended above and at ri^t-angles to the conveying belt containing the boards of tuna loins. The knife moves up and down at a rate geared to the forward motion of the tuna loins and such that segments about 1-1/8-inch wide are cut for the usual 301 x 113 tuna cans. Generally three pieces of fish are fitted into the can to form a solid surface around the circumference and throughout the can„ Where necessary a fourth small piece may have to be added. These operations ordinarily take place on each side of a long packing table. Such a table in a typical operation might consist of an 297 upper belt containing boards of cut tuna loins. Beneath would be a second moving belt containing the empty tuna cans which can be slid off the belt on to an adjacent shelf by the packers as needed. Beneath the can belt is a third moving conveyor at work-bench level for de- livery of filled containers. At the end of the packing line is a patching table where cans are usually inspected and where necessary additional fish can be added. About UO hand packers work on one line. Most of the tuna industry has replaced hand packing xri-th completely automatic filling machinery, generally using the Carro-thers "Pak-3haper". This machine is the final development of a device originally known as the Pak-Selector, on which work was started in 1940 by Ebin Carruthers. The Pak-Selector, an ingenious though rather cu.mbersome mechanism, gave way to the present more simple and rugged Pak-Shapero This machine molds loins of tuna into a uniform, cylindrical form and cuts off seg- ments, strictly on a voliime basis, and feeds them into the cans. Essentially the Pak-Shaper consists of tv;o separate feed chains, each chain link fitted vdth a semicircular steel jilate with each plate overlapping the following plate like fish scales. The two chains lie in a horizontal plane and side by side. The driv^.ng sprockets of each chain operate, one x>dth cloclcwise rotation and the other counter-clock- wise when looking downward upon the feed chains. Thus, the sides of the two chains nearest each other move forviard in the same direction and the semicircular chain attachments, as they approacth the other chain, form a round tunnel which approximates the shape and siae of tha cross section of \he tuna can. The bottom of this tunnel consists of the steel belt upon which the fish rests. The top of the tunnel consists of a moving belt eventually converging into a stationary plate. As the chains move forward, the tuna loins are receiA^ed at the en- tering end where the feed chains are widest apart, and the loins are fed into this receiving end on a steel belt. The feeders,, one to three girls, stagger or overlap the loins to fonn a uniform column of fish as it enters the machine. As the chains move forward, the fish is gradually compressed by having the chains approach nearer each other forming a round cylinder approximating the size of the can. This pressing and forming is aided by two tampers on each side of the fsed chains wiiich aid in kneading the fish into the pr-oper shape. The column of fish is extmided through a forming ring which sizes the colu-ran to conform ex- actly to the size of the can. As soon as the £5. ah has moved the proper distance oast the forming ring, a circular knife descends and cuts off the in-fill section to the 298 exact length required. The circular knife then moves forward at a higner speed than the incoming fish and places the severed cut into the waiting can which rests in the can turret. The turret steps forward one place bringing an etipty can into place, the knife moves upward out of the way of the incoming fish and back to its first po- sition next to the forming ring ready for a new cut, and the cycle is completed. The speed of the machine is around 120 cfns per minute. One to three workers may be used to feed the machine j three feeders producing a much better product than when one feeder is used. The skill of the feeder alsa has a great bearing on the quality of work put out by the machine . This machine replaces about 40 hand packers and only one to three workers are required to operate it. Offsetting a portion of the saving in labor is the royalty charge which starts at 19^^ per case for the first 25,000 caseSj decreases to lU

*iich .?ids in forming a solid space-free column of fish. The column of fish comes up against a backstop and a guillotine knife, set at right angles to the feed belts, descends and cuts off the exact length of fish required. While the knife ranains down, a pusher piston moving at right angles across the belt,, transfers the severed section betv/^een the laiife and the backstop into a short tunnel and thence into a pocket or me?. suring box on the periphery of a turret containing a n".imber of such pockstSo The pressure of this pusher piston can be adjusted to predetei-raine the solidity of the fish going into the can and thus its wei^t. IVhile the pusher holds the fish into this measure box, a knife outs off the charge which now becomes the in-fill weight for the can. The turret moves aro'and one step, the pusher returns to its original position, the guillotine blade lifts, and the belt moves the column of fish up to the backstop thus completing the cycle. Tne turret containing the measure box, in rotating, brings the charge of fish opposite the anpty can v^ich has been fed into the can turret. Opposite the measure box is a plunger which now moves forward forcing the charge of fish out of the measure box and into the waiting can. Further rotation of the turret brings the can to the discharge mnway leading to the saiter, oiler, and soamer. Another somewhat similar packer is the Davey machine. 300 Chunk Pack In preparing the chunk-style pack, the loins have to be cut into small pieces. This is done biy means of a guiUotine-tj-pe cutter similar to that used for solid packs except that the cutter^ instead of con- sisting of a single knife edge set at right angles to the length of the iQinsj consists of knives arranged in an angular form to cut the fish into ditoond-shaped pieces. All chunk-style tuna is machine packed by more conventional type fillers such as are used in other food industries. These machines have taken over practically 100 percent of the filling of this type of pack at a great saving of cost over hand filling. The essential elements of the machine are a circular horizontal steel plate carrying the measure boxes and a series of plungers to clear the measure boxes at the proper time anl tamp the material into the can. The circular disk varies in diameter depending on the make of mar.hine and the number of pockets or measure boxes ranged around its circumfer- enceo One popular machine has a disk approximately 36" across. This disk revolves in a horizontal plane around an upright shaft. Equally spaced around the circumference of the disk area number of holes of a size sli^tly less than the can diameter. The fish to be filled into the can is received off the inspection belt from the diced tuna cutter or the flaking screen. The loose material falls on to the revolving disk and is directed into the pockets or measure boxes ty a stationary plow fixed at the edge of the disk. Below each pocket is a tubular extention of such a length that its volume, viien filled level with the surface, holds the material required for the in-fill weight of the can. The lower openings of the measure boxes are closed at the time of filling ty a stationary metal plate which is set close to the open- ings to prevent material sifting out. Beneath this plate is the empty can turret which has received the onpty cans from the can chute. This turret positions the empty can directly beneath the measure box with the lip of the can close to the lower side of the plate which forms the temporary bottom of the measure box. As the turret revolves, this bottom plate opens up allowing the material to fall through into the waiting can below. At the same time, a plunger above the measure box descends and forces the material down into the can, tamping it sufficient- ly to form a head space in the can. These plungers are all carried in a cage above the rotating turret, a plunger for each can. Plungers are forced down and withdrawn at the 301 proper time by cam mounted within the cage carrying the plungers. Further revolution of the turret discharges the can. The measure box again has the bottom closed by the stationary plate, and the cycle is completed. The Carruthers Pak-Shaper, designed for use with solid pack, can also be used for packing chunks and flakes but it is not so satis- factory as machines designed especially for this purpose and is seldom used for anything except solid packing. Flakes or Grated Packs Fish flakes suitable for jacking as grated tuna are collected during the cleaning operation usually in large pans. They are inspected at the time of cleaning the fish and then are usually spread out in a thin layer on a moving belt where a final inspection eliminates any small pieces of skin, bonej, etc. The fish then passes on to a filling machine. The same type of machine is used for flakes as for the chunk pack. It is interesting to note that more inspection is required for the cheaper flake and grated pack than for the chunk or solid packs. In addition to emplojnnait of several sets of inspectors, some plants also utilize magnetic separators to remove any metal objects which may have accidentally dropped into the fish. General Packing of chunk and flake or grated packs seems to be operating at about maximum possible efficiency. Machine packing of solid pack still allows room for considerable improvement. This is a matter of engineering development, and the industry is working toward this end with maximum dispatch, ADDITION OF OIL AND SALT All tuna plants now use soya oil. Before the war cottonseed oil was generally used but owing to shortages of this oil, it was discon- tinued and various substitutes including soya oil used. Actually there is little or no difference in results when the different oils are used. Since labels have to be printed in advance indicating which oil is used and since most packers were using soya oil at the end of the war, this type has been standardized on. It is readily available at all times and at prices as low or lower than other types that might be used. 302 The amount of oil added to the standard No. 5 tuna can for solid pack is Ig ounces. Some packers vary this amount a little for flake or chunk pack. The oil is generally added hot at temperatures between 160° and 225° F., each plant adjusting the temperature to what they consider to be optimum. Most plants use temperatures in the range of 180° to 200° F, and a few plants do not heat the oil at oil. Heating of the oil decreases its viscosity and increases the rate of penetration of oil into the tuna. In hand packs more uniform penetration is achieved by putting part of the oil in the bottom of the empty can and part on top after the can has been filled with fish. Such a system is infeasible when such packing equipment as the Carrufchers Pak-Shaper is used owing to feeding of the empty cans to the machine on edge. Heating of the oil also helps to create vacuum in the cans where a vacumm sealer is not employed. Oil is added to the cans of tuna along a conveyor belt leading from the packer on the packing line. Oilers are usually either of the perforated pipe or piston pump type. Quite frequently oil is added not only by separate pumps but also at different points along the line. Thus three piston pumps might add half the oil within a space of a foot or so and then the cans might travel along the conveyor for 10 feet, allowing the oil to penetrate the fish before adding the remaining oil from three additional piston pumps.. When hot oil is employed, it is heated in a thermostatically controlled tank usually employing steam pipes. The oil may flow by gravity from such an overhead tank or it may be pumped to the oilers. Excess oil which may not fall into a can is generally collected in a sump beneath the can conveyor belt, screened, and returned to the heating tank. Nozzles on piston pump oilers are sometimes provided with fine screens which prevaits dripping and loss of oil between shots. From 1/16 to I/8 ounces of salt are added to the 307 x 113 size cans; l/lO to l/l2 ounces of salt is an average range. Several dif- ferent types of salters are employed, with two makes being most fre- quently employed, A few plants have improvised salters and some of these seem to work as well or better than standard manufactured salters. It was observed that a few salters spread the salt fairly uniformly over the entire top of the can. Usually, however, most of the salt was dropped in a spot about the size of a quarter in the middle of the can. Whether different degrees of uniformity of sprinkling of the salt on the can make any appreciable difference in uniformity of salt pene- tration into the fish is not known, 303 EXHAUSTING AND SEAMING In California most of the plants employ steam boxes for exhausting followed by standard seaming machines. Time of cans in the exhaust box varies from 1 to 5 minutes with an average of 2 to 3 minutes. In a few of the plants exhaust boxes have been replaced with turret steam flow seamerSo Only one plant in California employs vacuum seamers but these are used almost exclusively in the Pacific Northwest. On the Atlantic coast all three methods were used in different plants, WASHING AND PROCESSING CANS A wide variety of can washers were employed. These were of two types. In one type the cans passed through a confined space and were sprayed with a hot detergent or soap solution and in the other they were passed directly under a soap or detergent solution. In many instances the cans passed between rotating brushes. In all cases a final wash or spray vdth hot water was received. A considerable difference in thoroughness of washing of cans was observed in the different plants. In some instances the cans were com- pletely clean with no trace of oil film or oil droplets. In the worst instances the cans were covered with an unsightly film of oil. Such a condition will show up on the labels and, especially if a white or light colored background is employed, the label will take on a dirty tan or grey appearance. The difference in thoroughness of washing did not seem to be correlated in any way with the tj^pe of washer used. Some of the most complicated washers were observed to be doing poor jobs. It is be- lieved that the efficiency of the washer is largely determined by the way in v*iich it is operated. Good operation includes maintaining both water tonperature and an adequate amount of soap or detergent compound in the water. Some plants had ' automatic equipment to add cleaning compound as needed. In most cases some standard detergent or alkaline soap powder such as Turko, Mido, or Oakite was employed, A few plants used their own specially compounded chemical mixtures. Processing takes place in 4 to 10 car standard horizontal retorts using basket cars. Some were of the double-ended type permitting cars to be rolled in one end and out the other. In California all retorts racist be provided with recording charts and processing must conform to cerxain standards laid down by the State Public Health Department 304 (see section of this report on grades and standards for canned tuna and tunalike fishes for further details). Most processors in other areas also conformed to these standards. Seventy-five minutes at 240° F, is an average processing time for the 307 x 113 size cans. Cooling is carried out with water under air pressure. Air under pressure must be introduced with the cobling water. The air replaces the condensed steam, thus maintaining the external pressure on the cans and preventing their bursting. UBELING, PACKING, AND STORING Labeling, packing, and storing were quite uniform throughout the various plants. Equipment for these operations were standard labelers, casers, and sealers, either Standard Knapp or Burt in most cases. In a few plants there was a tendency to crowd the labeling and packing operations into inadequate space wherever a small bit of unoccupied area was available. This meant extra moving of packs especially where labeling or boxing took place at points ronote from both retorts and storage. Storage in practically every instance was palletized and lift trucks were employed. PACKING METHODS IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY The tuna packing industry can be divided into three areas each having its own characteristics; (l) California, (2) Oregon and Washington, and (3) the Atlantic coast. Tuna packing had its inception in California and through the years the California packers have had ample opportunity to work out the main problems involved. Gradually machinery has been devised to take the place of many hand operations with a resulting speed-up and lowering of cost. With the abundance of raw material and ample labor supply California became the center of the industry, not only in volume of pack but in developnent and use of mechanical methods. Oregon and Washington entered the tuna industry later when it was found that tuna were present off the Pacific Northwest coasts. During the period of development in California as has been previously described tuna were not generally known to exist off of the Oregon and Washington coasts and the waters were thought to be too cold for tuna to be present. 305 Salmon troll ers venturing farther off the coast in search of salmon occasionally picked up a few tuna but did not market them» In the late 1930' s and early 1940' s sufficient albacore were taken for packers around Astoria and Grays Harbor to become interested in canning tuna. The Oregon industry is centered at Astoria on the Columbia Rivera Here have been located large salmon canning plants and it was only natural that the canning of a new species would be first attempted by experienced canners seeking to extend their operating season. These plants, already equipped with salmon canning machinery, sou^t whenever possible to acccmmodate their existing plant to their tuna operation, installing only what specialized tuna equipment was necessary. While some of the plants became important tuna packers, the canneries were still primarily salmon plants packing tuna or salmon vdiichever was in season. Thus,, a difference existed between California and Oregon. California plants were primarily tuna plants „ Oregon plants were com- bination canneries o In Oregon most of the plants are of fairly small capacity (20 - 30 tons of fish per day). One plant is of large capacity and ranks along with the major California plants in size and efficiency. Later, in Washington 5, a similar development occurred whereby plants that had handled only salmon began to use the same equipment as far as possible for their new tuna operation. The Washington plants, located principally in the Grays Harbor area, are all very anall plants capable of handling from 5 to 15 tons of tuna per day. Some packers have in- stalled a complete hand-pack tuna line with precooker, guillotine, and well-built packing tables vAiile others still use makeshift equipment, adapted from Salmon canning operations. With the gradual falling off of the tuna catch along the Oregon and Washington coasts, the plants have had to supplement their operations with imported tuna when available . These plants would like to be able to procure more imported tuna and if available would use it to extend the already shortened salmon season Canning of tuna on the east coast has been a new development of the last few years. Aside from sport fishing, tuna had not previously been taken commercially on the Atlantic coast. With realization that a po- tentially important commercial tuna fishery might be developed, small tuna packing operations have been started in Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina. 306 All of the Atlantic coast plants have tried to incorporate tuna packing into their original fish canning 9perations, which may have been sardines, mackerel, or the handling of cod, haddock, alevdves, etc. Existing buildings and equipment have been pressed into service for tuna as far as possible in order to hold down to the minimum the amcunt of capital investment required for a new and untried packing venture. Hence, usually the only specialized tuna equipment purchased has been the packing machine and guillotine. The filler may be the Pak-Shaper which is utilized for solid and chunk pack or a chunk filler may be used. Occasionally precookers and tuna racks and baskets may be purchased, but these may be outmoded equipment discarded by a west coast packer. Other plants have adapted their sardine precookers or dryers using the same racks and trays employed for sardines. In each case the effort has been to hold down the capital investment until they were sure of the supply of tuna and that the costs involved were not excessive. Existing space, often not handily located, has been utilized to house the tuna operation and extra labor is often involved in moving material about to reach odd corners in the plant. All the plants along the Atlantic (coast are of relatively small tuna handling capacity ranging from 10 to 25 tons of fish per day. Recent Changes in Preparing and Shipping Tuna to United States Canneries Normally, only whole (round) frozen tuna are shipped for further processing to United States canneries by Japan and other foreigi countries. This is the practice which has become so prevalent since the advent of the 45 percent ad valorem tariff on canned tuna in oil effective January 1, 1951. Recently, however, the Japanese have exported new forms of tuna to the United States in an effort to reduce shipping costs and to effect other savings. These new forms are frozen raw t\ma loins j frozen cooked tuna loins; and frozen, canned (iinsealed), precooked tuna. Each is in an experimental stage, not having taken on commercial significance up to this time. FROZEN RAW TUNA LOINS Sample shipments of frozen raw yellowfin tuna loins from Japan have been received in California and processed into canned tuna. In- formation on the quality of the canned product is not available but technologists believe that an acceptable product could be produced from the raw loins if proper freezing and packaging procedures were used. 307 One of the principal advantages of handling the loins instead of the whole tuna is the reduction in shipping costs. Since the "waste" portion of the v^ole tuna is ranoved in Japan there is a substantial decrease in shipping weight. Frozen raw loins also represent some savings to the tuna canneries, for the butchering operation and at least a part of the usual cleaning operation required for vhole tuna is eliminated. However, the frozen raw loins must still be thawed, precooked, and partially cleaned. The raw loins received at a United States cannery wei*e reported to contain some dark meat and skin. This product upon entry into the United States is dutiable at I5 cents per pound o The yield of canned tuna from frozen raw loins is reported to be approximately 73 standard cases per ton. FROZEN COOKED HJNA LOINS Frozen cooked tuna (albacore) loins is another recent and perhaps more premising new tuna product to be shipped to the United States for canning. The Japanese have sent limited (experimental) quantities of the cooked and cleaned loins to tuna canneries in California, where they have been processed into an acceptable canned product. In Japan, the frozen cooked loins are prepared as follows: V/hole (round) tuna are first headed and gutted (entrails removed) and then boiled for approximately 30 minutes (depending on size). After cooling, the tails and fins are removed and the skin is scraped away. Four fillets are then cut from the backbone and the dark flesh triinned off. The cleaned filletSj, or loins, are then frozen, (but not glazed) in- dividually wrapped in parchment paper, and packed in cardboard or wooden boxes vrfiich hold about 50 pounds. Each box contains between ten and fifteen loins, depending on the size of the fish, and is double strapped prior to shipping o The recovery of cleaned loins is reported to be 30 to 40 percent. In the United States, the imported frozen loins are first thawed by removing them from the wooden boxes and replacing in tuna baskets for approximately 24 hours. They are then ranoved from the baskets, un- wrapped and fed into the processing machines in the same manner as with domestically cleaned fish. Since there is no cleaning of any kind necessary on the imported loins there should be no waste from this pro- duct. However, it is understood that on shipments received so far there has been approximately a 10 percent loss on the loins due to oxidation of 308 the surface. There is also a reported shrinkage of about 5 percent, as indicated by the difference in net weight between the time the loins are packed in Japan and their airival ?t the California canneries. Un- doubtedly the loss due to both oxidation and shrinkage co\ild be materially reduced by improved packaging. Although the loins canned thus far had been subjected to cooking, freezing, thawing, and processing there was apparently no marked de- terioration in quality. In an organoleptic examination at the Service's technological lab- oratory in Seattle, ten persons compared the quality of canned tuna prepared from the frozen cooked loins with regular Japanese canned al- bacore. The results of the test indicated that there was no distin- guishable difference between the two products. A laboratory analysis of four samples of the canned tuna from frozen cooked albacore loins placed the range in protein content at 28.6 to 30.0 percent. Previously analyzed samples of canned albacore imported from Japan had a protein content of 26 - 29 percent. There is no available information as to the quantities of frozen cooked loins which will be produced in Japan in 1953 « Although approxi- mately 225 tons of the loins have already been exported to the United States the operation is still considered to be in an experimental stage. As yet, no attempt has been made to prepare frozen cooked tuna chunks or flakes for export. Ncrhave species of tuna other than albacore been used. However, the Japanese are considering making experimental ship- ments of skipjack loins to the United States. The factor vriiich at present limits the commercial production of frozen cooked loins in Japan is freezer space. It is reported that there is not sufficient freezing equipment available to the Japanese fisheries to handle commercial quantities of the loins. The preparation of the cleaned, cooked loins in Japan and their use in American canneries offers many advantages. One of these is the re- duction in shipping costs. Since only the usable portion of the tuna is shipped, frei^t charges normally paid on the "waste" parts of tuna are saved. Cooked loins are in a more favorable position in this regard than the raw loins referred to above since the loins lose an appreciable amount of weight during the precooking and cooling operations. 309 In the United States the most significant feature of the imported frozen, cooked and cleaned loins is the savings in personnel. When imported cleaned loins are used, few, if any, of the wcmen normally- employed in the cleaning operation are required. The butchering and precooking operations are also eliminated„ Whether or not this new type operation will be profitable to American canneries depends entirely on the price at which the Japanese will sell the cooked and cleaned loins. The rate of duty for entry of these products as imports into the United States is 1 cent a pound, net weight, if "in bulk or in immediate containers, weiring with their contents more than 15 pounds each", and 12^ percent ad valoran if "in immediate containers weighing with their contents not more than 15 pounds each", FROZEN, CANNED (UNSEALED), PRECOOKED TONA Another new product designed to avoid a great part of the tariff charges assessed against canned tuna exported to the United States is frozen^ canned (unsealed), precooked tuna. Reduction in labor costs to United States canners is also involved. The new product is similar to frozen raw loins and frozen cooked loins in that it involves a split plant operation; part of the canning operation being carried out in Japan and part in the United States. A few sample cases of the frozen, precooked tuna, hand packed in open No. 5 tuna cans have been shipped from Japan to a tuna cannery in the United States, Each case contained 48 cans of solid pack albacore. Fall information on the method of packing the tuna in Japan is not available. However, it is assumed that the usual butchering, precooking, cleaning, and packing procedures are used, with the exception that oil and salt are not added to the cans of tuna. Following packing, the open cans of tuna are frozen. Cases of the frozen, canned, (unsealed) pre- cooked tuna are then shipped by refrigerated vessels to the United 5tates„ At the cannery in the United States tteonly steps required to con- vert the frozen canned (imsealed) product into the conventional hermetic- ally sealed canned tuna are thawing, addition of oil and salt, sealing, processing, labeling and repacking in cartons , Since nearly all of these operations are mechanized, only a very small percentage of the labor norm- ally required by United States canners for tuna canning is needed. 310 It is reported that the sample lot of canned albacore packed from the frozen, canned (unsealed) precooked product compared favorably in quality with canned tuna packed from imported frozen raw Japanese albacore. There are indications that this product when entered as an import into the United States is dutiable at a rate of 12^ percent ad valorem. If ccanmercial scale tests prove that the operation is feasible it could have a drastic effect on the domestic tuna canning industry. Practically all of the plant labor now employed in "buna canning opera- tions up to the point of adding oil and salt to cans of tuna meat could be eliminated. Furthermore, neither the skilled labor nor the specialized equipment which is required in a modern tuna canning plant would be needed. It is ffonxreivable that any food cannery could receive the frozen, canned, (unsealed) precooked tuna from Japan and complete the canning operation with its present equipment and labor. It is possible that this entire method of producing canned tuna may be covered by United States patent 2,110,801, Method of Canning Tuna, Clams, and Oysters, dated March 8, 1938. BYPRODUCTS OF TUNA CANNING At least 50 percent of the wei^t of the whole tuna, as landed, is not canned. However, all of the so-called "waste" material is not a direct loss to the plants, for much of it is used to produce byproducts of some value, such as liver oils, solubles, liquid fertilizer, tuna oil and meal. Liver Oil During the dressing otc butchering operation the thawed tuna are slit and the viscera removed. In some plants, which manufacture liver oil, the operation is carried one step further by separating the livers from the viscera. The livers are then processed to extract the oil. Tuna liver oil, once a valuable byproduct because of its high vitamin D content, has declined in both value and producticai during recent years. Synthetic vitamins and increased imports of natural vitamin oil have caused the decline. 311 Solubles and Liquid Fertilizer In many of the tuna canning plants all of the visceral material, including the livers, is collected for use in the production of fish solubles and liquid fish fertilizers. In producing liquid fish fertil- izer one patented process utilizes the naturally occurring enzymes of the entrails to liquify the protein ccmponentSo Meal and Oil The fins, head, skin, bones and other parts of the precooked tuna which are not suitable for use in the solid, chunk, or flake packs are separated from the edible tuna meat during the cleaning operation. This offal is then conveyed to the reduction plant where it is cooked vrith live steam under pressure and then pressed to expel most of the oil and some of the water. The oil is then separated from the water for marketing as "tuna oil". The water phase (press liquor) containing dissolved protein, water soluble vitamins and minerals, is concentrated in vacuum evaporators to produce fish solubles. The pressed fish material, or presscake, is dried in mechanical dryers to produce fish meal having a moisture content of approximately 8 percent. Tuna meal has a slightly lower protein content than meals prepared from whole fish, such as menhaden, heiring and pilchards. However, it is readily accepted for use as an important ingredient of many animal feeds. Efficiency of Use of Offal None of the "waste" material from tuna canning operations is discarded. Because the head, skin, bones, and other parts removed during the cleaning operation have been cooked (precooking operation) it is not likely that more efficient use can be made of this material than con- version into meal and oilo On the other hand, the viscera, which are removed from the tuna prior to cooking, may be a source of products which are more valuable than those now produced from this material. It is generally accepted that fish viscera represents a potential source of valuable pharmaceutical preparations and other chemical compounds. Some of these products have been prepared from tuna entrails in the labora- tory and on a semi-commercial scale. However, much more investigational work will be required before such products can be profitably produced on an extensive conmercial scale. 312 The turia canning industry utilizes its "waste" material as efficient- ly as any other segment of the domestic fishing industry. DISCUSSIONS OF EFFICIENCY IN TUNA CANNERIES In the average tuna cannery up to 70 percent of plant production cost is the cost of the fish and 10 percent to 12 percent is shore labor. At $13.00 per case total labor amounts to only $1.30 to $1.56 per case. Thus only some very drastic imprcvenent viiich would eliminate a large part of the existing shore labor could make any really substantial re- duction in the cost of canned tuna. The only major item of labor which mi^t be reduced is that involved in the cleaning operation. Present cleaning costs approximate $.50 per case. Even if a completely automatic process for cleaning could be developed and this labor eliminated, a portion of the saving would undoubtedly have to be paid as royalty for use of the elaborate machinery developed. It is also possible that a mechanical cleaning machine would give a lower yield of cleaned loins than at present is obtained from hand cleaning. Both of these things occurred when hand-packing was replaced by ma chine -pa eking. Labor saved in all other steps of the canning operation combined, even if feasible, could not amount to more than a very few cents per case. Potentially, more money could be saved by increasing the yield of the canned product. Of the various stages where yield increases are possible, the precooking stage is the one where greatest savings mi^t be made. Such savings could be accomplished in some plants by more uniform cooking cif the fLsh„ By sorting fish into more size groups each batch would have a smaller range of sizes so that in giving the largest fish in the batch the optimum cook, it would not be nec- essary to so greatly overcook smaller fish. It mi^t even be worthvAiile to reduce the size of precookers in some of the canneries and use more of them. This would facilitate the division of fish into larger numbers of size groups. Another possible saving in loss of fish during precooking is to reduce the length of the precook. The precooking stage accomplishes a number of objectives. The most important of these is making the fish easier to clean. Long experience in the canneries has shown that un- less the fish is given a certain minimum precooking time, rate of cleaning falls off and the yield of well-cleaned loins is reduced. If present efforts to develop a mechanical cleaning machine are successful, and if such equipment works equally well on raw or undercooked fish as on fully precooked tuna, this advantage of the precook will be eliminated, 313 A second result of the pre cook process is elimination of much of the natural tuna oil which is cooked out and discarded. There is some belief that this tuna oil has a strong^ disagreeable flavorc This is true if the fish have been held in cold storage for extended periods of time^ stored at too high storage temperatures or have not been ade- quately protected against access to air^ Under such storage conditions, the tuna oil becomes oxidized, resulting in a rancid flavor, and its elimination during precooking is necessary if a first-class product is to be produced. Ordinarily, if fresh or properly stored tuna are used, a good product without off flavor will result even if the tuna oil is not removed o With some of the darker species of tuna, the tuna oil may, even when fresh, have a distinctive flavor vAiich makes its removal preferable. A third result of the precook process is elimination of water to- gether with some dissolved tissue components. Thus, the precooked tuna has a lower moisture content and a hi^er protein contait than the raw fish. Precooking alters the texture of the tuna; the longer the pre- cook the greater the texture difference » After the fish has been re- torted in the cans, however, any texture difference due to precooking is partially eliminated. The retorting process, being carried out at a much higher temperature than the precook, is much more drastic even though the processing time is much less» Normally precooked fish give up very little oil or moisture while being retorted in the can. Raw or under-precooked fish, on the other hand, liberate some of the Juices which would have been cooked out in a thorough precook and, instead of being discarded j, they are retained in the can^ Moderate reduction of the precook time has the following results on the final retorted product in the can: lo Less of the flavorful juices are discarded (in the precook) and are present to flavor the Ush in the can. This is an advantage to the consumer if fresh, properly stored tuna are used, because the flavors lost in the precook are natural flavors which add to the desirable flavor of the product. On the other hand, this loss would be an advantage to the con- svuner in case the fish were not fresh or had been held frozen for too long a time or under improper storage conditions o Under such circumstances the loss of flavors would be a loss of undesirable constituents which would have altered the flavor of the tuna in a deleterious way. 314 2. The protein content is less and the moisture content is greater. This is a disadvantage to the consumer because he is getting less protein for his money. It is an advantage to the producer because he will increase his yield of canned tuna per ton of raw fish. 3. Cans of xindercooked tuna contain a greater volume of aqueous liquid phase containing dissolved protein which might hot be noticed by the consumer because it lies beneath the added vegetable oil. It would probably be discarded by the consumer if he poured off the vegetable oil (this is the usual practice) and would be lost for all practical purposes. The possibility of reducing the length of precook, especially if mechanical equipment is developed to clean the fish, is one that will undoubtedly receive considerable attention from the industry in the future. Already a number of producers are experimenting along these lines. If the precook is not cut too drastically, a superior product of better flavor might be obtained which would offset any disadvantage to the consumer due to lowered protein content. If carried out to such an extreme that raw or nearly raw fish were being canned, the disadvantages of reduced protein content and excess retort juices in the can would prob- ably more than offset any advantages to the consumer. Furthermore, raw tuna cannot at present be retorted without the development of unsightly curd on the surface. Unless this difficulty can be overcome by some technological development, it is unlikely that any processor will go to the extreme of retorting raw tuna. The final attitude of the Food and Drug Administration to any re- duction in precookirig time for tune is unknown. The original tentative standards proposed by this agency made no provisions for regulation of precook time and tuna retorted without any precook would have complied with such tentative standards vrtiich measured only the amount of fish placed in the can regardless of how or whether it had been precooked. At the present time, the Food and Drug Administration is giving con- sideration to adopting some standard which would at least restrict any reduction of precooking time. This would be accomplished by re- quiring a minimum solids content per can as determined by a proposed "press weight" procedure. Some reduction in precook time has already been adopted by much of the industry. Any future changes adopted in precooking time in an effort to save on yield of the fish and possibly to improve flavor must be balanced against any Adverse changes in appearance and texture of the product. 315 Another point in the processing of tuna where an increase in yield mi^t be obtained is in the machine packing of the solid-style pack. A Significant loss of fish may be taking place during packing by the machines now used by a large part of the industry « Efforts are already underway to eliminate or reduce these losses. To this end, two new machines are being tried and a modification of the machine now being used will be available shortly. In conclusion, it is not believed that any appreciable increase in efficiency of the industrj"- can be accomplished without drastic altera- tion in the entire process of tuna, canning. As with any industry, a few isolated plants are using obsolete or inefficient methods, but the industry as a whole is operating in a manner which allows it to utilize all the latest advances. Furthermore, it is looking ahead to the time when improvements in processing equipment will be available and is carrying out research in an effort to develop new processes and equip>- raent, especially with regard to the precooking and cleaning style. QUALITY OF CERTAIN PACKS OF TUNA The following factors are considered in the work on quality of cer- tain packs of tuna; io Effect of duration of precook time on the quality of the pack, 2o Effect of method of jacking on the quality of the pack, 3o Effect of packing mediiim (oil or brine) on the quality of the pack, 4o Comparison of the quality of Japanese and American canned tuna. Samples of canned tuna for examination were, in some cases, procured at retail, in other cases directly from the tuna plants or were put up experimentally either at a commercial tuna cannery or at the laboratory. Quality of the packs was determined organoleptically and by making physical and chemical laboratory tests. Effect of Duration of Precook Time on the Quality of the Tuna Pack A very brief experiment was carried out to obtain firsthand know- ledge as to the effects of varying precook time on the quality of tuna 316 on the quality of tuna canned therefrom. During the field survey of the industry, many conments had been made by processors regarding the import- ance of this stage of the processing in obtaining the maximum yield. Opinions varied as to the effect on the quality of the pack of shorteipjig the pre cook. Albacore, cau^t about August 1, 1952, in waters off the coast of Oregon and held since that date in cold storage at 0° F., were used for this experiment carried out on November 17, 1952. Ei^t fish ranging from 11.5 to 15.5 pounds and averaging 13.3 pounds were thawed and butchered. Three fish were precooked for what was estimated to be nor- mal precooking time (2^ hours at 218° F,), three were cooked for one-half of the normal time (l^ hours at 218° F,), and two fish were not cooked at all. All three batches were thai cleaned, packed with oil, and pro- cessed in the usual way. Fish were sampled at various stages, weired, and protein, moisture, and oil content were determined. Butchering losses amounted to only 2.8 percent. The loss of weight brought about by precooking (before cooling) amounted to 14.4 percait (based on the total weight of the fish) for the half normally cooked fish and 16,1 percent after normal precooking period. The total losses (occurring during cooking and cooling) were 17.3 percent and 19.9 percent respectively. In tables 74, 75, and 76 are shown the protein, moisture, and oil content of the fish. Analyses are shown for the precooked fish before addition of oil or salt and for the final canned fish after draining away the oil. Each figure in these tables represents an average of values fr5m siXi Number i tuna cans. In table 77 is shown the amount of fluids (aqueous phase and oil) drained from a No. 5 tuna can receiving different degrees of precook and the amount of dissolved solids in the aqueous phase of such fluids. Here again values reported are averages of data obtained from six cans of fish. The protein contait of drained tuna, determined before retorting, rose frcm 22.4 percent for \incooked fish to 28.1 percent for fish given the fun precook time (table 74). This difference is not nearly so great after the fish had been retorted, an increase of from 26.1 percent (no precook) to 27o5 percent (normal precook) occurring for the same samples. The final retorting, being a much more drastic process than the precook, tends to equalize differences due to the degree of precook. 317 TABLE 74.- PROTEIN CONTEND OF ALBACORE, PRECOOKED TO DIFFERENT EXTENTS, BEFORE AND AFTER FINAL RETORTING PROTEIN CONTENT PRECOOK TIME , BEFORE RETORTING J/ AFTER RETORTING ^ PERCENT PERCENT NONE ^ ^ 22.4 26.1 ONE-HALF NORMAL-1 1/4 HRS. @ 2T8"F. 26.4 27.6 NORMAL - 2 1/2 HRS. (g 2180f. 28.1 27.5 y ANALYSES WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE TUNA BEFORE ADDITION OF OIL AND SALT. y ANALYSES WERE CARRIED OUT ON DRAINED SOLIDS. TABLE 75.- OIL CONTENT OF ALBACORE, PRECOOKED TO DIFFERENT EXTENTS, BEIDRE AND AFTER FlNAL RETORTING OIL CONTENT PRECOOK TIME BEFORE RETORTING l/ AFTER RETORTING tJ PERCENT PERCENT NONE 13.5 15.0 ONE-HALF NORMAL - 1 1/4 HRS. @ 218"F. 11.5 16.3 NORMAL - 2 1/2 HRS @ 2180f. 14.2 19.5 1/ ANALYSES WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE TUNA BEFORE ADDITION OF OIL AND SALT. y ANALYSES WERE CARRIED OUT ON ON DRAINED -SOLTDS. TABLE 76.- MOISTURE CONTENT OF ALBACORE, reECOOKED TO DIFFEhENT feXTENTS, BEFORE AND AFTER FINAL RETORTING MOISTURE CONTENT PRECOOK TIME BEFORE RETORTING l/ AFTER RETORTING tJ PERCENT PERCENT NONE f. 64.6 57.0 ONE-HALF NORMAL - 1 1/4 HRS. @ 218"f. 61.5 55.9 NORMAL - 2 1/2 HRS @ 218°F. 58,5 52.4 t/ ANALYSES WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE TUNA BEFORE ADDITION OF OIL AND SALT. y ANALYSES WERE CARRIED OUT ON DRAINED SOLIDS. TABLE 77.- QUANTITY OF LIQUIDS AND DISSOLVED SOLIDS FROM RETORTED CANS OF ALBACORE WHICH HAD BEEN PRECOOKED TO DIFFERENT EXTENTS AMT. or AQUEOUS AMT. OFOIL ?' Sf°'-,^^,'^^^°^' °^ PRECOOK TIME FLUID p\r 1/2 - LB. PER l/2-LB. '^ AQUEOUS FLUID CAN CAN ML ML t'ERCENT NONE 22 32 l/2 11.9 ONE-HALF NORMAL 1 1/4 HRS. @218°F, 10 //2 28 17.0 NORMAL 2 1/2 HRS. @ 218"F. 3-^3 26-l/3 18.1 318 The variation of the oil contait of the tuna vdth differing degrees of precooking before addition of vegetable oil and before retorting (middle column, table 75) is probably meaningless because each of the three precook groups consisted of different individual fish of different initial oil content. The data in the last column of table 75s shovdng the oil content after retorting with added vegetable oil, are of more significance because in this case there was an excess of free oil present which tended to bring the oil content of the fish to an equili- brium state regardless of the initial oil content. The canned fish which received no precook had an oil content of 15 percent as compared to 19.5 percent for fish receiving the full precook. Thus it appears that ab- sorption of added vegetable oil takes place to a greater extent, the longer the fish is precooked before addition of oil. The moisture contait of tuna, both before and after final retorting, showed a decrease as the length of precooking time increased (table 76). This moisture content decrease amounted to about 6 percent regardless of vAiether it was measured before or after final retorting. The degree of precook had a very pronounced effect on the amount of aqueous fluid formed during retorting (table 77). Thus, in fish which received the normal precooking time, the canned product contained only 3 2/3 mlo of aqueous fluid as compared to 22 ml. where uncooked fish was retorted or 10^ ml. vAiere the fish received only one-half the normal precook time. The percentage of dissolved solids in the aqueous phase (table 77) decreased with decreasing precook time, but the total quantity of such solids increased as the precook time decreased. The decrease in the amount of free oil in samples receiving a longer precook time is probably due, at least in part, to a greater absorption of oil by the flesh of such fish (see table 75). The appearance and texture of the three packs differed considerably. The most striking difference was the occurrence of much white curd on the surface of the fish which had not been precooked. None of the samples receiving one-half or full normal precooking time had any trace of curd. The samples from fish receiving no precook were also of a very different texture which kept the fish from flaking at all readily. A sample in the can appeared as if it were one solid chunk of fish (welded together at the surface by the curd), and it could be broken apart only with con- siderable difficulty. Even aside from the presence of the curd, this texture difference was one vdiich would sharply differentiate the fish from what one normally associates with tuna. This altered texture apparently acted as the main barrier to penetration of the vegetable oil into the flesh. 319 Thus, although the tuna processed without precooking contains more natural tuns, oil, the total amount of oil (after absorption of vege- table oil during retorting) (table 75) is less. Thus the amount of vegetable oil absorbed in the tuna from fish which has not been pre- cooked must be a great deal less than that in the normal pack. Although the tuna retorted without precooking contained six times as much aqueous liquid as the normal pack, this fact is not readily- apparent when a can is opened. There is always a sufficient excess of oil floating at the surface of such cans so that the aqueous layer, near the bottom of the can, would not ordinarily be noticed. A series of penetrometer readings were made on the experimental samples prepared from tuna precooked to different extents (table 78). The greater the length of precook, the more tender was the texture of the fish. The differences (9.96 for no precook, 10.48 for one-half of normal cook, and 10.92 for normal cook), although not numerically large, represent a definite difference which is easily detectable organoleptically. Effect of Packing Methods on the Quality of Solid Packed Tuna Before the introduction of machine packing, solid-pack tuna was put up very carefully by hand. A good hand-pack contained three pieces of fish tightly filled into the can without any voids between pieces. The action of the guillotine prior to filling out the loins cleanly giving a very smooth-cut surfajce. When these hand-packed cans were retorted, some shrinkage took place, but the tightness of fill before retorting was sufficient to prevent development of any appreciable spaces between pieces. When such a retorted can was opened, the appear- ance was almost as if one piece of fish had been filled into the can, with only faint lines showing between pieces. Machine packing has caused several alterations in the appearance of the canned product which may be considered ty experts to be adverse changes. (These alternations apparently have not effected the price of the ma chine -pa eked product nor its consumer acceptance.) These changes involve (l) presence of spaces between pieces in the machine-packed fish, (2) presence in some cases of a large number of pieces in a can, (3) distortion of the fibers of the cut loins, causing sane flaking, and (4) adsorption of oil caused by (l), (2), and (3) above. 320 TABLE 78. PENETROMETER READINGS ON PROCESSED CANNED TUNA GIVEN DIFFERING LENGTHS OF PRECOOKING Note: Increasing penetrometer readings deno' e increase in tenderness. CAN PENETROMETER READINGS EXTENT OF PRECOOK NUMBER 1 2 3 4 AV, MM. MM. MM. MM. MM. NONE 1 9,0 8.5 7.5 9,5 8.6 2 12.0 10.0 10.5 11.0 10.9 3 10.0 10.0 9.5 9.0 9.6 4 9.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 9.5 5 11.5 11.0 9.5 9.0 10.2 6 12.5 11.5 9.0 9.0 10.5 7 10.0 9.5 9.5 10.5 9.9 8 11.5 11.5 10.0 11.0 11.0 9 10.0 9.0 8.5 10.0 9.4 OVERA LL AVERAGE 10.0 ONE HALr NORMAL 1 10.5 lOiO 11.0 12.0 10.9 ^ 10.0 11 .5 11.5 10.5 10.9 3 10.5 10.0 12.5 10.5 10.9 4 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 9.8 5 11.0 12.0 9.5 9.0 10.4 6 11.0 10.5 11.0 12.0 11.1 7 10.5 10.0 10.0 9.5 10.0 8 n.o 9.5 11.0 11.5 10.8 9 9.5 8.5 10,0 10.0 9,5 OVERAl L AVERAGE 10.5 NORMAL 1 12.5 11.5 14.0 16.0 13.5 2 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 8.5 3 10.0 9.5 8.5 9.0 9.2 4 10.0 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.4 5 12.5 12.0 10.0 11.5 11.5 6 11.0 9.0 10,0 10.5 10.2 7 13.0 12.5 13,5 15.0 13.5 8 14.5 11.0 10.5 12.0 12.0 9 -1.0 11.5 9,5 10,0 10.5 OVERAL L AVERAGE 10.9 321 Points (l) and (2) above occur as a result of imperfect stagger- ing of the loins of tuna as th^ enter the filling machine. This stag- gering is carried out by hand and requires considerable skill. Greater uniformity in this operation can be attained both by using more skill- ful operators and by increasing the number of workers feeding a machine. Most plants use only one such feeder, but where two or even three such workers are utilized, the resulting fill is much improved. When veiy small fish such as skipjack are being canned, differences due to skill of feeding the machine are especially critical. Even by using the most skilled workers and employing several of than for each Pak-Shaper, it is difficult to avoid some imperfect overlapping, with resulting voids between pieces in many of the cans, A second type of change is brought about during kneeding of the tuna loins within the forming tunnel of the Pak-Shaper, During this operation, the loins are subjected to a twisting stress which distorts the fibers. This results in some separation of the flakes. Another effect which may result from the machine packing of tuna arises from greater absorption of oil by the fish. The distortion of the muscle fibers in the Pak-Shaper results in the flesh having an in- creased capacity to absorb oil. In such cases, unless a large quantity of vegetable oil is added, the possibility exists that the surface of the fish may not be covered by oil during retorting. This may con- tribute to surface discoloration or so-called scorching. Apparently, there is a considerable variation in the amount of distortion of the tuna fibers in the Pak-Shaper such as to make for somewhat variable amounts of absorption of oil. Thus, if the same minimum amount of oil is added to all cans, some '^dll have insufficient free oil to cover the surface of the fish, A few packers overcome this difficulty by adding an excess of oil. This practice, however, may result in leaving inadequate headspace in some of the cans^ Comparison of the Quality of Oil and Brine Packs The principal difference between the oil and brine pack is the oil content of the drained tuna. Use of brine in place of oil as a packing medium results in a product containing no oil other than the natural tuna oil left in the flesh after precooking. The precooking process renoves a part of this natural oil. Since the oil content of tuna varies widely both from species to species, and from fish to fish, the amount of oil left in the flesh after pi^cooking also varies widely. 322 Individual cans of experimental brine pack tuna had oil contaits varying all the way from lo7 to 13.5 percent, a difference of eight times. Packing the tuna in oil resulted in the absorption of considerable vege- table oil into the flesh. Thus of the oil pack samples examinedj oil content of the flesh varied from 9.2 to 20.2 percent. Those samples of brine pack tuna having very low oil content dif- fered from the ordinary oil pack to a very marked extent and when exam- ined by tasting panels could be readily distinguished. For example, a low oil conteit brine pack and a normal oil pack of tuna were made into two casserole dishes with spaghetti. A taste panel examined these two dishes without knowing their identity. All eleven members of the panel individually picked out the oil pack as being preferred, even though the tuna was greatly diluted by the presence of the spaghetti. While the difference was not pronounced, it was completely distinguish- able. From an orgsinoleptic standpoint, the difference between oil and brine packs seens to be a matter of a greater oily texture of the oil pack. This texture difference is not so much a matter of tenderness or toughness of the fLesh as it is of a difference in the feel of high and low oil content flakes of fish when held on the tongue. When the texture of oil and brine packs are measured with a penetrometer, the oil packs are only sli^tly more tender than the brine packs. Brine packs had an average penetrometer reading of 10.6 as compared to 11.8 for oil packs o This relatively small difference in no way accounts for the very definite difference noted organoleptically. A nimor to the effect that brine packs of tuna toughen upon pro- longed storage was investigated. Preliminary findings Imore prolonged storage tests are still underway) indicate that both brine and oil packs show an increase in t outness in the first few weeks after th^ are canned. Thus iranediately after being canned, brine packs of tuna had an average tenderometer reading of 16. 4 and oil packs prepared from adjacent sections of the same loins had a reading of 15.9. Six weeks after the tests began, the readings had decreased to 13.4 and 13,2 respectively. Tests on other tuna, which had been put up for a period of many months, showed average readings of 10.6 for brine packs and 11,8 for oil packs. There was no significant difference in the readings for tuna held for six months as compared to readings on samples held for one or two years. Apparently increasing tou^ness is a change v*iich takes place during the first few months of storage, and probably the texture has already reached its maximum toughness by the time the pack reaches the consumer, 323 Comparison of the Quality of Japanese and American Canned Tuna Japanese cannery costs for labor and for purchase of tuna are lower than is the case in the United States^ This has resulted in certain differences in cannery methods which have a bearing on the quality of the canned tuna. Since the cost of fish is of less importance to Japanese than to American processors, the Japanese processors are probably not so careful to keep the precooking time to a minimum as are the American processors^ As a result most Japanese tuna apparently is precooked longer than is American tuna, and in fact, much of the Japanese tuna seems to be given what in this country would be considered an overcook. The tuna canning process employed in Japan yields a product hav- ing a higher protein content than the American product due to the longer precook mentioned abDve„ The protein content of the Japanese pack rarely falls below 28 percent whereas that of the American pack lies between 25 and 28 percent. The oil content of all samples of Japanese-packed tuna examined was relatively low. In the oil -packed samples of albacore the oil content of the drained fish ranged from 3.2 to 7»0 percent. Japanese brine packs were of even lower oil contait (often as low as 2 percent or less) because the natural oil presoit in such fish is not supple- mented by any added vegetable oil. Owing to the higher protein and lower oil content, the Japanese tuna has a somewhat more solid texture than the American pack„ The flavor of imported tuna is usually more flat and tasteless than that of the American fish. Possibly this is due to a longer precook having volatilized a portion of the natural flavoring compon- ents in the imported canned fish. Also, some foreign packers tend to use less salt than is conmon with American tuna canners, and this may account for a part of the difference. Another explanation is that a number of American tuna canners use monosodium glutamate which brings out the flavor of the tuna. Still another explanation and one which has been advanced by some members of the American tuna industry is that the imported fish may have been stored in the frozen state for long periods of time which may lead to a loss of flavor. 324 No comparisons of domestic and foreign oil packs of canned tuna were made in this vrorkc Sales of foreign tuna canned in oil in the domestic market are at a minimum since January 1, 1951, the inception date of the present 45 percent ad valorem duty on those products. From a practical standpoint foreign packs of tuna canned in oil are presently not an important factor in the American mcirket«.. GRADES AND STANDARDS FOR CANNED lUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES The immediately previous sections have detailed various tests of quality of certain packs of canned tuna. These were in the nature of consumer quality tests of the tend product of processing. Long before the canned products of the tuna industry are used by consumers there are many regulations and standards of State and Federal govern- ment to which the industry must adhere. In addition the industry has its own voluntary quality control methods. These regulations^ standards and quality control methods are given in detail in the follovdng three sub-sections. Regulations and Standards of State Governments Legal standards, grades, and other requirements for processing canned tuna are set up and enforced by both State and Federal agencies. In most states such requirements are very nominal or even non-existent. In California, however, where most of the tuna is processed, there are very extensive requirements and rigid enforcement vAiich came into effect approximately thirty years ago. An authoidty was set up in the California Department of Public Health to supervise operation of all canneries within the State insofar as maintenance of adequate standards of quality of raw material, sanitation in the plants, and proper sterilization of the product is concerned. Enforcement of regulations is carried out by supervisors and inspectors of the Department of Public Health. The Department maintains such regulation over the entire fish canning industry, as well as over the canning of fruit and vegetable products. It also operates a research and testing labot°atory under the general supervision of a member of Hooper Medical Foundation of the University of California. Ccilifornda State sanitation requirements begin with the fishing vessel which must obtain a sanitary certificate shewing that the vessel has been cleaned in a satisfactory manner. The regulation with respect to such cleaning is as follows: 325 "The cleaning operation of all holds, bait wells, bait tanks and decks must be carried out under the supervision of a duly author- ized representative of the California State Department of Public Health. "The cleaning operation shall be carried out by scrubbing or steam cleaning the surfaces of all holds, bait wells, bait tanks and decks where fish intaided to be used for canning purposes are stored, after which a thorough rinsing is to be given and then the surfaces are to be treated with a chlorine compound. "The brine cooling coils on all brine tuna boats shall be cleaned with either a chlorine solution or solution of chloride of lime, vrtiich is to be carried out by pumping the solutions through the coils, A thorough rinse with clean, fresh water should follow the application of the above-mentioned solutions, "Where boats are fishing in local waters only, a certificate good for 30 days will be issued, after wliich the boat vail have to be thor- oughly cleaned again. If in less than 30 days sanitary conditions are found to be unsatisfactory, the boat will be ordered to clean up before being allowed to deliver fish to any carmercial cannery. "For boats that are fishing in foreign waters, the cleaning opera- tion must be done before their departure on each trip, and the certifi- cate surrendered at the end of each trip before being allowed to unload their cargo." The California State Public Health Department also inspects tuna for decomposition in accordance with its Regulations and Specifications Governing the Delivery, Handling, and Inspection of Tuna, Mackerel, and Sardines which reads as follows: "GENERAL RULES "lo The term 'decomposed' as used herein shall be taken to mean fish that are 'in whole or in part diseased, contaminated, filthy, putrid or decomposed or otherwise unfit for food'. (California Pure Foods and Drugs Act, 1939, approved July 13, 1939. "2. The Bureau of Cannery Inspection of the State of California and its inspectors shall require the seller of raw fish and the canning organization involved in each sale to comply with the provisions of the California Pure Foods and Drugs Act, 1939, prohibiting the manufacture, 326 production, preparation, compounding, packing, selling, offering for sale or keeping for sale any decomposed fish. The responsibility for main- taining an effective inspection service and of eliminating decomposed fish frcan the canned product shall rest upon the Bureau of Cannery In- spection of the State of California and the executive head of each canning organization, "3o The inspector in charge at the plant shall require that all cannery operations be carried on under clean and sanitary conditions and require the inmediate disposal of decomposed fish, fish offal and bait chum, "4. These regulations may be amended at any time as provided by law, "STANDARDS "lo Inspection of raw fish shall be strict and uniform and shall be designed and carried out to the end that fish unsuitable for canning shall be rejected in the raw state insofar as possible. "2, The standards to be used in the examination and judging of fish shall be such as will nake the resultant product conform to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of the United States and to the California Pure Foods and Drugs Act, 1959, approved July 13, 1939. "3o The Bureau of Cannery Inspection shall reject fish only if decomposed or unfit for canning for human consumption. The Bureau will not reject cooked fish because of its color or quality, unless such color or quality indicates decomposition as defined in section 1 under General Rules. "4, Split, mashed or broken fish shall be condemned if deemed by the inspector to be necessary for the prevention of acceptance of de- composed fish. "5. The canner shall, promptly on airival of each boat-load of fish, notify the Bureau of Canneiy Inspection, and no canner shall re- ceive fish into its plant until authorization is given by the inspector. "6. Raw tuna shall be inspected by the Examination of each raw, defrosted fish at the time they are eviscerated. 'Defrosted' shall mean that each fish is thawed out to the point that odors are readily 327 detectable. Cooked fish shall be inspected at such places and times as may be directed by the inspector to insure compliance with the law and these regulations. "INSPECTION SERVICE "1. The inspection of all fish for canning purposes shall be under the direction of the Chief of the Bureau of Cannery Inspection of the State Department of Public Health. The inspector on duty at each plant shall observe that all operations are carried out in a sanitary manner and in a manner to prevent the canning of decomposed fish, and shall immediately report to his superior officer any unusual or objectionable practice. "2. In order to facilitate and expedite the administration and enforcement of the aforementioned Acts and these rules, each canner may select sufficient personnel from his own employees who shall be trained by an inspector of the Bureau to examine fish. The supervis- ing inspector shall notify each canner in writing the names of employ- ees of each company vrtio are approved by the Bureau as fish examiners. This approval shall be valid only for a period of three months and only for the plant or plants specified in the approval. "3. The detailed examination of the fish shall be made by an in- spector or an approved canneiyfish examiner under the supervision of an inspector. The inspector shall specify the number of cannery fish examiners required, in accordance with the condition of fish in pro- cess from time to time, and the canner immediately shall supply the number so specified, referring any difference of opinion in this re- gard to the inspector in charge of the district. The approved cannery fish examiners shall at all times be under the direction of the in- spector in charge at the plant while they are performing the duty of examining fish. The inspector in charge at the plant may call upon the cannery managenent for an approved substitute whenever any author- ized cannery fish examiner is, in the opinion of the inspector, doing his work unsatisfactorily. In the event such substitution is not im- mediately made, an inspector shall be assigned to replace him until an approved substitute is available. The canner involved shall not receive or pack any fish until a proper substitute or an inspector is available. All costs shall be assessed against the canner involved. "4. The inspector in charge of the district shall have full au- thority over the activities of his subordinates while assigned to the respective canneries. 328 "REPORTS "1. The inspector shall nake a written record of each boat load on a printed form. The records shall state total quantity of fish and include such evidence as the inspector may be able to obtain as to the method of handling, "2. The Bureau shall have free acceas to the records of each cannery which bear directly on the problem of fish and cannery in- spection. "3o Condemned fish shall be weighed by the canner in the pres- ence of the inspector and the inspector's report shall show accurately the wei^t of condemned fish. The iiispector shall keep separate weight records of fish rejected by the canner because of quality or condition other than deccanpositdon. "FISHING VESSELS "1, Decks and holds of all boats and vessels catching tuna, mackerel or sardines and transporting them to a cannery shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. The requirement for cleaning ves- sels and boats shall be enfcSDcadtfcegajTaiBfesLbf tjhe;,size or type of the vessel or boat and shall be uniform throu^out the State. "2. Each vessel shall keep a written log which shall be avail- able to the inspection service. Records of net boats shall show the time of each set. "3, No decomposed chum may be used for bait or in taking mackerel. All bait or chum used must be fresh (not over 24 hours old) unless it be salted or frozen. "4o High seas fishing boats, vAiether net or bait, shall keep a record of their catch and their methods of handling fish, including hold and water temperature, upon forms provided by the Chief of the Bureau of Cannery Inspection, "5. The Chief of the Bureau of Cannery Inspection or his author- ized agent may require interested parties, including members of the laboratory staff, to appear before him when undue quailtitiies of fish have been condonned. He shall make inquiry of the ilshermen to deter- mine the methods used in fishing and handling and shall endeavor to explain to the fishermen the proper method of handling raw fish to 329 prevent the recurraice of the loss. Represaitatives of the United States Food and Drug Administration of the Federal Security Agency and other interested parties may be admitted to the inquiry. "DISPOSAL OF CONDDflJED FISH "1. When a boat-load of tuna or mackerel has been condemned as unfit for canning, the inspector shall notify the supervising inspector who shall take such action as is necessary to prevent delivery of the rejected fish to any other plant . "2,. V/hen a boat-load of sardines has been condanned and the canner to whom delivery was offered cannot receive the fish for reduction purposes, the inspector shall take the necessary steps to prevent the canning of these fish by any other canner. "3. In all cases the inspector shall serve notice upon the captain of the boat whose fish are condemned that they shall not be used or sold for canning purposes. "4. The inspector shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that fish vrtiich are condemned for canning purpxDses shall not be used for canning. "SAMPLING "1. The inspector in charge of the district shall determine whether or not sample cans of the final product shall be taken for examiniation. He shall base his decision upon the condition of the boat-load and the report of the inspector. If the boat-load of fish is in a prime state of preservation at the time of packing, the inspection in the plant con- firmed this, no samples need be taken. "2. Sampling shall be carried out according to rules promulgated by the Bureau of Cannery Inspection and the minimum quantities of samples shall be as follows: "Shipnent of less than 200 cases - U8 cans 200 to 1,000 cases - 96 cans 1,000 to 2,000 cases - 192 cans 2,000 to 5,000 cases - 288 cans 5,000 to 10,000 cases - 576 cans Over 10,000 cases - 960 cans 330 "Not more than one can should be taken from any one case in sampling. February 28, 1941." In actual practice viiile a state supervisor or inspector may be in a cannery or about the wharfs or promises, he seldom personally makes routine inspection either of the raw fish during butchering or of the precooked fish„ This work is gaierally carried out ty one of the cannery personnel for most lots of fish passing through the cannery. Only in cases of suspected spoilage would, as a rule, the state in- spector take an active part. Those tuna vdiich are iced, rather than frozen, sometimes are held long enough for spoilage to develop. Fish frozen aboard clipper ships usually are frozoi within such a short period of time that no spoilage can take place. However, in a few instances fish have been allowed to stand on deck in the hot sun for an excessive period of time (in hot equatorial regions this may be only a few hours) and such fish are then partially spoiled before freezing is complete. Spoilage is usually detected during butchering; on rare occasions it may not show up until after pre cooking either: in the foim of an off -odor or as honeycombing. When a state inspector detects spoilage in a lot of fish he advises the cannery to stop packing that lot of fish. In a borderline case the packer may feel that the condition of the fish does not warrant such action and he may continue to pack it. In such a case, samples of the raw fish, or more frequently, of the canned product are shipped to the Fish Laboratory at the Hooper Foundation vdiere both organoleptic and chemical examination of the fish are made. The chemical examination for tuna spoilage consists of the test developed by Dr. Farber of the Hooper Foundation for volatile reducing substances. The test involves the collection of any volatile substances which can be swept away fron neutral fish press juices by aeriation. The gases so collected are passed through an alkaline potassium permanganate solution and the excess permanganate determined by titration. Results are expressed as microequivalents per 5 nil. of press juice. For canned tuna, products having less than 15 microequivalents of volatile redicing substainces per 5 ml, of press juice are considered acceptable vhile values in ex- cess of 20 show definite decomposition. Values between 15 and 20 are borderline, indicating fish of questionable acceptability. If the laboratory reports that a lot of fish is not acceptable the State Public Health Department issues an order preventing the fish from being canned J, or if already canned, prevaiting the particular coded lot of canned fish 'from being marketed. Such fish are usually reduced to fish meal for animal feed. 331 California sets up the following standards for water used in a fish cannery: "BACTERIOLOGICAL AND QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WATER USED IN FISH CAMING OPERATIONS "A) Waters satisfactory without treatment (1) For whole fish handling operations s a) Not subject to contamination with human fecal discharges b) Maximiim of 7 E„ coli organisms per cc c) Bacterial standard may be exceeded in not more than 20 percent of the samples (2) For cut fish handling operations s a) Not subject to contajnlnation with human fecal discharges b) Maxim'jm of 7 E. coli organisms per cc c) Bacterial standard may be exceeded in not more than 5 percent of the samples "B) Waters satisfactory after treatment (1) For whole fish handling operations! a) Not subject to gross contamination with human fecal discharges before treatment b) Maximum of 3 Eo coli organisms per cc after treatment c) Bacterial standard may be exceeded in not more than 20 percent of the samples (2) For cut fish handling operations; a) Not subject to gross contamination with human fecal discharges before treatment b) Maximum of 3 Eo coH organisms per cc after treatment c) Bacterial standard nay be exceed in not more than 5 percent of the samples d) The treatment shall include filtration or the equival- ent as one of the steps of the treatment process 332 "Samples for bacteriological analysis shall be analyzed by an approved method set forth in the latest edition of the APHA manual en- titled "Standard Methods of the Examination of Water & Sewage". Those methods shall be employed which give the most specific reliable means of measuring organisms having their origin in the intestines of man and other vsnn-blooded animals." Sanitation in California tuna canneries must conform to practices laid down in "Regulations Groverning Minimum Sanitary Requirements for Food Packing Establishments (California Government Code Section 11421)." These requirements pertain to such practices and equipment as drainage and plumbing, ventiliation, construction of floors, walls, and ceilings, etc. One provision specific to tvina canneries is that precooked fish must be cooled in a rodent proof room, a practice not generally follow- ed in other states. In most plants in California a space in a larger room is fenced off with wire meshing for coolirjg of the racks of tuna from the precooker. Rigid standards are laid down for the construction and operation of retorts used for canning of tuna. Following is quoted from Sections 21705 and 21706 of the California Public Health Department's Regulations for the Equipni^pit and Operation of Retorts for the Sterilization of Low Acid Foods in Steam or Water: "21705. REQUIRED EQUIPMMT FOR ALL TYPES OF RETORTS WHEN STERILIZING FOOD IN TIN OR IN GLASS JARS WITH gOSURES SUCH THAT THET mX BE PROCESSED IN STEAM "(a) Recording Thermometer. (1) The temperature chart shall be easily readable to 1°F. and shall be graduated in not to exceed 2°F. divisions within the range of plus and minus 10°F. of the official process to be used. All charts shall have a working scale of not less than three inches. Written permission from the State Department of Public Health shall be obtained for the use of old equipment with charts having a working scale of less than three inches. All repla can aits or new installations shall conform to a minimum three- inch working scale, (2) No tanperature chart shall be used in a recording thermome- ter unless it is a chart manufactured by or for the manufacturer of the recording thermometer used on the retort. 333 (3) It shall be unlawful to use charts with the temperature in- dicated in code. (4) Every recording thermometer shall bear the name plate of the original manufacturer having the serial number assigied by the manufacturer, and the manufacturer's chart number die stamped thereon. (5) Any recording thermometer found by a cannery employee or State Cannery Inspector to be faulty in its operation shall be promptly adjusted or replaced by a properly functioning instrument. (6) Any recording thermometer requiring repair of the thermal systan shall be repaired by the manufacturer or a servicing or- ganization accredited by the manufacturer. (7) Documentary evidence of proper calibration shall accom- pany any repaired recording thermcaneter when returned by the manufacturer or accredited servicing organization. (8) AH recording thermaneters shall be so placed with re- spect to light that they are conveniently readable. "(b) Indicating Mercury Thermometer. (1) The divisions shall be easily readable to 1°F. and shall not exceed 20°F. per inch of graduated scale. It shall be unlawful to use mercury thermometers with the temperature in- dicated in code. (2) All mercury thermometers shall be placed in respect to light so that they are conveniently readable. "(C) Pressure Grauge. (1) Every retort shall have a pressure gauge of the Bourdon type in which the ojaerating maechanism is a complete unit inde- pendent of the case. Every gauge shall be equipped with a com- pensating hair spring. (2) The minimum diameter of the dial shall be 4-1/2 inches. 334 (3) The range of the pressure scale preferably shall be 0 to 30 pounds, but a range of 0 to 60 pounds may be used. (4) Any retort pressure gauge found to be inaccurate either by a cannery employee or by a State Cannery Inspector shall be re- placed by a properly functioning instrument. "(d) Valves for Ronoval of Condensate. (1) Condensate shall not be allowed to accumulate in hori- zontal retorts. NOTE. This may be prevented by the installation of a one- half inch or larger valve in the bottom of the retort to be left open sufficiently daring the coming-up time (lag) to remove the condensate. (2) To assure that condensate will not accumulate in a re- tort during the process, a one-eight inch or larger petcock or valve shall be installed or a hole drilled in the drain or bottom of the retort and it shall remain open during the en- tire processijng time, "(e) By-pass Around Diaphragm Control Valve on Steam Inlet. Each diaphragm control valve shall be equipped vdth a by-pass to allow for hand control in case of an emergency.. "(f) Steam Inlet. (l) Horizontal Retorts: (A) For retorts more than 20 feet in length, the steam shall enter the spreader pipe near the center of the re- tort. For retorts less than 20 feet in length, the steam may enter the spreader pipe either at the center or at the end. If steam enters at the end, the spreader pipe shall be no smaller than the steam inlet. 335 (B) The retort shall be equipped with an adequately per- forated pipe extending throu^out the entire length of the bottcm of the retort with perforations arrang- ed so that the steam is directed up and into the load of cans. The ends of the steam spreader shiall be closed. (2) Vertical Retorts: (A) If steam is adnitted into the bottom of the retort, it shall be directed up into the load of cans. Any other position of the steam inlet must be approved by the Department. NOTE: The recommended number of holes to be used in steam spreaders is givai in the follovdng table: SIZE OF STEAM SUPPLY IMLET SIZE HOLES INCHES 3/4 INCH PIPE 1 :. INCH PIPE 3.-1/4 INCH PIPE 1-1/2 INCH PIPE INCH PIPE 2-1/2 INCH PIPE 3/16 25 45 70 1112 185 265 7/32 18 35 50 82 135 195 1/4 14 25 38 62 lo: l!x5 "(g) Retort Bleedera: (1) For Horizontal Retort: (A) A horizontal retort shall be equipped with bleedSi's along the top of the retort not more than oight feet apar*: and there shall be one within approximately o:ie foot of each end of the retort. These bleeders shall be kept vride open during the entire process. (B) Any bleeder at least one-eighth inch in size ca a. thermome- ter well may be considered to ccmply with this reqiiranent v*ien the well is in the top of the retort and located at the proper place. 336 (2) For Vertical Retorts (a) a vertical retort shall be equipped \j±th a bleeder at the end of the retort opposite the steam inlet „ This bleeder shall be wide opoi during the entire process. In the case of very sraall retorts (less than 30 inch diameter and less than fair feet im. depth) a tJ.iree-thi.rty-second inch bleeder may be iisedo "(h) Thermometer Bleeders. Bleeders for All ThermomeT^ers on All Types of Retorts, A one -sixteenth inch or larger bleeder hole shall be kept- open for the free escape of st'iam on a.H thermometer fittii'^s unless thermometer bulbs are set vrt^olly within the shell of retort pro- per. The b].eeders sha].l be so located as to prrvide a fiall flow of steam past the sensitive part of the the/raomete.'' bilbo "(i) Vents for Removal of Air Frori Retorts During Comixg-Up Period. Vents 3hall be installed arid cpe rat-id .in su-'-i a way that all the air is removed from the T'vtort before timing "f the pro- cess is started. "(j) Stacking Equipment for Use in Hr,rizoi-.^:.l and Vertical Retorts. (1) Stacking equipment (baskets., trays^ gondclas; etr.) for all types of containers in dicc. ntiauou:< rvtorts,. when cans or jars are stacked in a vertical petition., shall be preferably of strap iroi), Wlien perforated sheet metal baskets are used, the perforations in the bottoms shall be at least oiie iiich holes on one and three-fourth inch centers or their equivalent, unless other equipment has been approvedn (2) If dividers are used, they shall be of ;vide mesh material, such as fish nets or onion sacks, or of strap iron or sheet metal having perforations at least the equivalent of one-inch holes on one and three-foarths inch centers. Close meshed cloth dividers are not permitted. 337 "217Q6o additional EQUIPMENT SUGGESTED HIT NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE DEPARTMEI'iT OF PUBLIC KEALfH "(a) The use of an additional thermometer on each retort is advised to ser-/e primarily as a check instrument ^ preferably located ad- jacent to the tanperature recorder bulb. ••(b) An Automatic Temperature Controller is reconmended, "(c) A safety valve of such size and capacity that it msets vlth the requirements of any Board of Mechanical Engineers or any Safety Code in the State of Califomiaj and/or the Califorrua Industrial Accident Conmission^ It is recommended that the safety valve discharge be equal to or greater in capacity than the retort steam supply line." There is no California State requiranent for pre cooking of tunac. T)-)e product must be retorted, however, to the foil owing standards: Car' Size Process Time in Miiyites at 230°F. 240°F. ZUZ'^Y, SjO^'F. No. i can 120 65 60 40 No. J can 140 75 — 55 No. i can 170 95 — 80 No. 4 can 320 230 — 190 120 65 140 75 170 95 320 230 120 65 120 65 140 75 140 75 2 oz, glass 120 65 — 40 3i OS. glass 120 65 — 40 7 uz. glass i 1:>, glass 140 75 — 55 Most packers use a processLTg tenperature of 240°F„ Thu3, the common No» ^ tuna can would then be processed for 75 minutes at this temperature. Tu:ia packer3 all seem entirely satisfied with the California 3tate regulations. There seems to be veiy harmonious relationships between the State super/isors ard inspectors in the plant a;fid the management and foranftn of the canneries. No dissatisfaction with or critiicism of State regulations was express by anyone in the industry. 338 Regulations and Standards of Federal Government Federal standards and inspection of canned tuna are administered by the Food and Drug Administration, At the present time there are no specific standards for canned tuna and any regulations come under the general powers of the agency for the inspection of foodo Food and Drug Administration Standards involves (l) standards of identity (v;hat the particular food is), (2) standards of quality (whether above or below standard), and (3) fill of container (how full the package must be) » The standards contemplate in every case that the food is properly prepared from clean, sound materials. The label on the canned product must not misrepresent any fact about the contents of the can^ nor can the contents be packed from "filthy or decomposed" food. The can should be filled as full as is practicable with the principal food in the can (in this case tuna). Any packing medium (in this case added oil) should fill only inter- stices between pieces of the product and must not be used to fill unused head space which could just as well have been filled x-n.th the main product. With certain other canned foods, it has been ruled that a minimum of 90^ of the volume of the can must be filled with the main foodstuff contained in the can. The current Food and Drug Administration requirements (United States Food and Drug Administration - 19i|.7) for labeling canned tuna are as follows : "The common or usual name 'tuna' nay be used in labeling, fish of the following species: Species Gomnon^ Name in the United States Germo alalunga Albacore Thunnus thynnus Bluef in tuna Neothunnus macropterus Yello^^rfin tuna Katsuwonus pelamis Skipjack or striped tuna The term 'white meat tuna' may be used on the label of the canned light=colored meat of the albacore (Germo alalunga) . The light-colored meat of the other three species, Thunnus thynnus, Neothionnus macropterus, and Katsuwomus pelamis may not he labeled as 'white meat tuna' but may properly be labeled as 'light meat tuna. ' 339 The meat canned from the fish Sarda chilensis, commonly known as the bonito or bonita may not be labeled as tima since it is not a true tuna but must be labeled as bonito or bonita o The meat of Seriola dorsalis., commonly known as 'yellowtsil' must be labeled as yeilowtail and m.ay not be designated as timaJ' The "little tuna" (Euthynnus alletteratus)was not included in the Food and Drug Administration requirements which were published in 19ii7« However, the Food and Drug Administration in a letter dated August 26, 19u3, and addressed to the Fish and Wildlife Service, declared: ''o^oooo» at the present time we ire not talcing exception to the designation of 'light meat tuna' when applied to the usual oil pack prepared from Euthynnus alletteratuso" Inspection of tuna by the Food and Drug Administration also covers the raw fish as received at the cannery and such inspection has been made especially in the case of foreign imports of tuna. Particularly in Cali- fornia with its excellent and complete inspection for spoilage in raW;> cooked, and canned tuna the Federal authorities have left such inspection quite largely in the hands of the state. Since states do not make aay inspection of imported tuna , the i''ood and Dru^j Administra-:-J.on has been active in carrying out such inspection o Imported fish is examined for the presence of off -odors and condemned when foimd to be spoiled on this basis. The frozen fish are drilled with an electric drill.. Heat from t.he drill- ing causes any off -odors to be siofficiently volatilized so that they can be detected by a trained inspector. Immediately after the war when fi .jen tuna was first iriipcrted from Japan spoilage was -"n-tually nil and no fish hro •. .■ be condemned^ In- creasing carelessness on the part of the e:q)or^ei-s later resulted in con- siderable spoiled tuna being exported and a number of large batches of fish were condemned. More recently a considerable improvement has bsen noted and once more occurrence of spoilage in imported frozen Japanese tuna is rare. The Federal Trade Commission is also concerned with the sale and dis~ tribution of tuna and tuna products. However o since the provisions of the Trade Practice Rules for the Tuna Industry promulgated by the Federaa Trade Commission are very similar to the requirements of the Food and Dmg Administration, the detailed provisioas will not be listedo New Federal Standards for Tuna In 1925 the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agri- culture, following meetings with the tuna industry, published in its Trade Announcements, certain recommendations on the canning of tuna. In part, the recommendations for the No« -g^-tuna cans called for a drained weight of not less than ^-3/h ounces for hand-packed, solid-pack tuna. (Machine packing was not used at that time and the chunk and flalce type packs were not marketed.) Apparently these recommendations were satis- factory as long as the solid-pack tuna was hand packed. However, when the chunk and flake style packs were introduced and the machine packing began to replace hand packing the absorption of oil by the tuna no "long- er followed a fixed pattern. Machine packed tuna because of its twisted or distorted fibers absorbs more oil than the hand packed product. Simi- larly chunk-pack and flake-pack tuna absorb more oil than the solid-pack. Therefore, the drained weight procedures pre^.dously used to denote the "fill-in" weight of tuna were no longer applicable. During the past several years the Federal Food and Drug Admihis- tration has again been working closely with the tuna industry toward the eventual setting up of standards for canned tuna. Thousands of laboratory tests have been carried out on such subjects as fill of con- tainer and methods of determining it, and on color determination of the canned product. At the present time these discussions and experiments have nearly been concluded. Although the final specifications have hot been resolved, tentative specifications are under consideration and it is expected that the final specifications may be adopted sometime during 1953= One of the particularly important problems in standardizing canned tuna products involves the matter of fish "fill-in" weight of the contain- er. For example, packers have been putting about 5-3/ii ounces of fish into hand-packed No. ■§• tuna cans which are labeled "net contents 7 ounces." Machine-packed No. f cans may have ^2 ounces "fill-in" weight and sometimes even less. (These "fill-in" weights represent the precooked loins - not the raw meat, 5 The fish absorbs sufficient added oil to give a higher drained weight with the machine-packed than with hand-packed fish. Similar relationships hold for the other types of packs. The ordinary drained weight determination is carried out as follows s The canned product is opened and the contents of the can are placed on a standard gauge wire screen. The material is allowed to drain a specified time and the solid material weighed. The weight of the solid material is called the "drained weight." The drained weight is an estimation of the 3U "fill-in" weight of the canned food material. Detennination of drained weight for mar;y canned food products, for example, canned peas, is a simple and fairly accurate procedure. But, in the case of canned tuna, when the ordinary drained weight is determined the oil does not drain completely from the meat. The ordinary drained weight procedure for canned tuna would then obviously give high values which may not be an indication of the "fill-in" weight of tuna meato The new tuna standards, therefore, must adopt some other criteria for estimating "fill-in'» weight. Under consideration is a method of measuring the solid contents of a can of tuna based upon "press weight" determinations. By this method the contents of a can would be subjected to a stipulated pressure in a specially designed press, the expressed liquid separated, and the amount of press cake (solids) determined. The amount of the solid portion of the canned product would serve as an indication of the "fill-in" weight. Stipulated "press weight requirements" would have to be met by each type of pack, such as solid, chunk, flake, and packed with oil or brine. In general most tuna packers are convinced that the new Federal specifications will be, in the long run, a good thing for the industry. They realize that when the standards are adopted there will be some immediate effects which may seem harmful at the time. These are concerned mainly vrith the requirements on fill of con- tainer which wiU. necessitate increasing the amount of fish in the standard tuna can. Industry Voluntary Quality Control In addition to enforced regulations carried out by State and Federal agencies, the industry carries out its own inspection and maintains its own sanitation quality control program at various levels. Mary of the canneries have technologists and a few have well-equipped laboratories. These check on yields obtained in the processing of fish and look after sanitation in the plants. They also try to improve on processing methods and develop new products and byproducts. Some of the smaller canneries which have no laboratories or technologists of their own make use of one of the several commercial testing laboratories which operate- in southern California. These laboratories will station a worker in a plant to check on weights of product and to collect and carry out cuttings of the product to be certain it is up to required standards. 3k2 Most of the tuna canneries are members of the National Canners Association. Starting in 1951 this organization began a series of annual tuna cuttings in southern California, Coded samples from the pack of each cannery are collected and judged for the quality of the pack. At the annual meeting members of the industry are able to see how their own product compares id.th the average pack in the industry. CAN MARKETS BE BROADENED BY PACHM} OTHER TUNA PRODUCTS? There are three ways canned tuna can be put up to vary it from the conventional tuna pack. The first of these involves altering the existing tuna product in some minor way such as packing in a can of another size, altering the size of the pieces in the can, or altering the packing medium such as replacing the oil with brine. Minor modifications such as these are treated in greater detail in other sections of this report. (See Chapter I.) So far as modification of the packing medium is concerned there seems to be no interest in substituting brine for oil ty domestic producers. The entire domestic pack is put up at present, in a 'veg- etable oil, usually soya oil except for a small pack of tonno. Tonno is a pack prepared for certain nationality groups in which the vegetable oil is replaced with olive oil (and the salt content is also altered). Two other modifications of the standard pack which are put up in small amounts are dietetic tuna which is put up without salt and has a low oil content, and a baby food made from tuna. Both of these are at present very small volume items •rfiich, even if they expand considerably, will never markedly increase tuna consumption. TvTo concerns are now adding mum) sodium glutamate (MSG) to their product to improve the flavor. This tends to accentuate or bring out the normal tuna flavor. The MSG is added in one plant with the salt, at the other plant separately just after the salt. 343 A second type of change which can be made is to pack the tuna with some other food ingredient such as noodles to provide the housewife with a prepared recipe which needs only to be heated and served. The tuna packing industry is divided in its opinion about the future possibilities of marketing any substantial quantity of such a product o One opinion, shared by quite a number of members of the industry, is that tuna as now packed is a very versatile product which lends itself easily to preparation in a wide variety of recipes and that each housewife has her own favorite recipes for combining tuna with other foods. It is felt that it is better for the industry to provide the standard pack of tuna which can be used in numerous ways rather than to attempt to provide ramerous specially prepared txma recipes or to try to force the housewife into using one or two standard tuna mixtures ready for use from the can<, According to this viewpoint, the consumer can purchase and have on hand a small supply of canned tuna which can be used as occasion demands for a wide variety of dishes o This viewpoint seems to be shared by a majority of those engaged in the industry. Another opinion was expressed by a few of the packers. This opinion was based on the belief that mary consumers are not familiar with the possibility of preparing a low-cost main course dish from canned tuna, and that such persons may look on tuna as a high-cost luxury itemo It was contended by these packers that if a quality product such as tuna and noodles was available, ready to heat and serve when it came from the can, many consumers who now looked on tuna as a luxury food would be potential buyers of such a product. These several packers expressed the belief that if such a product could be developed and produced in an efficient manner it might become an item which could be produced in considerable volume and would materially boost the consumption of tuna. Mixtures of tuna with other foods have been on the market for many years. Packs of tuna and noodles have been marketed by a number of concerns. Other such products include "jellied tiina" (for use in salads) and tuna with string beans. When such products have been put up in the past they have been produced by extremely small producers or as a specialty item without the use of high- speed cannery equipment. This has resulted in excessive production costs and has restricted the sale of these products to a very small volume through delicatessen or other special channels. 344 It is fairily well agreed in the tuna industry that if such products are to succeed in a big way, it is essential that they be produced in volume using specially designed equipment for filling the cans as well as during other stages of the processing. None of the products of this type have been thus produced to date. One of the larger tuna concerns, however, is experimenting with such a fully mechanized pack. The remainder of the tuna industry is closely watching this development and if it is successful, without doubt there will be other ventures in this field. The third class of specialty tuna products involves canning a product having entireily different characteristics from the usual pack. This includes such items as tuna spreads, highly seasoned tuna, and smoked canned tuna. Some of these products have been prepared from tuna flakes in an effort to produce a more desirable and higher priced commodity than the low-cost canned flakes. These products can be produced only for very limited markets. They are used as hors d'oeuvres or for other special purposes where the demand could never be very great. Numerous such products have been and are being produced in a small way. Seldom do such packs exceed a very few thousand cases per year for any one producer. It does not seem likely that production of such items could ever have any very substantial effect upon the consumption of tuna. A possible impetus to production and marketing of specialty tuna products may result from interest of the United States Armed Forces in purchasing such products for use in rations. Such use of specialty products as tuna and noodles, spiced tuna, or tuna and vegetables J, if available at a reasonable cost, would be seriously considered by the knayc This interest on the part of the armed forces might provide an opportunity to the tuna industry to try out on a large scale the marketing of such products. Furthermore, sale of ary form of tuna to the armed forces might have advantages far exceeding the immediate small profits involved. Inclusion of tuna products in such rations might introduce tuna to mary individuals who never had tried it and thus serve as an advertisement of such products. Doubtlessly many such men, upon return to civilian life, would be influenced to continue eating tuna and this effect might appreciably increase the sales of tuna in the future » 345 On the other hand, there are certain requirements involved in packing canned food items for United States Am^ pvirchase which lessen the attractiveness of this possible marketo For example, the product would have to be put up in cans of special size to fi^ into the ration cartons j special packing requirements must be met; and certain labor requirements would be specified which may not be in keeping with the present policy of many plants. The uncertainty of continued sale of the product to the Army must also be consideredo SHOULD CANNERIES HOVE TO OTHER LOCATIONS? Until very recently all the tuna canned commercialJy in this country was put up in the three western States, California, Oregon, and Washington; by far the largest portion being canned in California. Certain factors encouraged the industry to center in this area. At the start of the tuna industry most of the fish were caught off the coast of California or Lower California which resulted in establish- ment of the industry in southern Californiac As the demand for tuna increased, it became necessary to look farther and farther to the south for adeqviate supplies of fish. Today a substantial part of the catch is taken in Pacific waters off South America which are closer, via the Panama Canal, to certain ports on the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea than they are to Californiao There are certain advantages to the continued processing of this species in California. One such important reason is the location in southern California of several other fisheries which yield a canned product o Both canned pilchard and canned mackerel are produced in considerable volume in southern Californiao These fisheries tend to complement the production of tuna inasmuch as the canning takes place in the same factories as that of tuna and at times when tuna are not available. The same plant and some of the equipment may be used for canning of mackerel, sardines, or anchovies o Furthermore, it is much easier to have a ready supply of labor available at a moment's notice if that labor can be used throughout the year in the various fisheries. The same people tend to remain over a period of years where there is prospect of fairly steady employment and such labor becomes more skilled than when there is a more rapid turnover. Availability of numerous machine companies and can manufacturers is helpful in the develop- ment and upkeep of the canneries o 346 Because the tuna industry started in southern California, most of the fishermen make their homes in that area and might not wish to locate elsewhere. Since tuna fishing is a highly specialized occupation^ availability of experienced tuna fishermen is an important requisite to the establishment of a tuna industry* One disadvantage to southern California as the center of the tuna indiistry is the fact that the real big markets for the product are in the eastern section and the urban areas of the central section of the country. This increases the cost of transportation to some extent over that of eastern production. However, transportation costs are a minor part of total costs involved in the price the consumer pays for canned tuna and tunalike products. Another disadvantage has been the movement of the center of fish production to the south. The tuna industry has considered the possibilities of moving its canneries to other locations, particularly in the Gulf and Caribbean areas. Puerto Rico has a potential advantage not shared by other areas in that under a recent agreement no Federal income tax would have to be paid for tuna produced there within the next few years. Apparently, insofar as the California tuna packers are concerned, the disadvantages more than outweigh the advantages in all Gulf and Caribbean potential locations except in Puerto Rico. In that Territory the tax advantage appears to have made the possibility of tuna operations attractive enough so that, in spite of the various other drawbacks, several California tuna concerns are giving very careful consideration to the possibility of operating in Puerto Rico. Some factors which would influence such a decision are hard to evaluate. For example, labor costs are much lower on an hourly basis in Puerto Rico than in California but productivity may be lower. Distances to be traveled by tuna clippers from the highly productive fishing grounds off Peru and Ecuador are less to Puerto Rico than to southern California, but, the industry points out, in traversing the distance from southern California to South American waters the fishing vessel is con- tinually passing through waters containing tuna and in some voyages may get a full cargo without ever traversing the maximum distance to equatorial waters. Since fishing vessels from Puerto Rico would have to cruise as far as the Panama Canal through presently non-productive tuna waters, they would have to make close to the maximum voyage. These and other perplexing problems make the final decision a difficult one. 347 Operation in Puerto Rico or other American Gulf ports would permit distribution of tuna without payment of duty of any kind. Operation in South America, on the other hand, requires import duty on the canned product, This^. combined with the lack of suitable plant locations, uncertainty of fish supplies, the lack of adequate supply and maintenance services, an uncertain labor supply, and the possibility of future confiscation of plants by foreign 20"vernments apparently has not appealed to any of the California producers and none expressed interest in such an operations IMPORTED TUNA AS COHPARED TO THE DOMESTIC CATCH Directly competitive with the tuna produced by the domestic tuna fleet, the nature of which has just been described, are the raw tuna products of foreign producers imported into the United States. By far the major portion of imported raw tuna comes from Japan. Most of the imported Japanese tuna are graded in Japan before shipment so that any fish showing signs of spoilage or bruising caused by improper handling are eliminated. The rejected fish are used in Japan for domestic consumption. At the same time the fish are graded by size so that a shipment usually falls v/ithin a very narroxj size range. The domestic catch, on the other hand, is not graded in any way before it reaches the cannery, and as a result consists of a wider range of fish sizes and contains a higher proportion of bruised fish. These factors give most processors a preference for the imported Japanese fish insofar as ease of handling in the plant is concerned. Particularly is the viniformity of size of consid- erable value* Not only does this make for greater facility in handling but it also increases the yield obtained. This is due largely to the fact that losses during precooking of the fish can be held to a minimum if the sizes of the fish are uniform. When fish of varying sizes have to be cooked together a precooking time long enough to thoroughly cook the largest fish is required. This means that the smaller fish are overcooked and excessive shrinkage has taken place. While it is true that a rough segregation of fish by sizes talces place before putting them in the precooker, a certain variation is bound to occur nevertheless. Pre-grading for size in Japan facilitates this sorting for size as the fish go into the precooker, and enables the operator to work with fish in a much closer range of sizes and thus reduces losses during precooking. 348 Frozen tuna as shipped from Japan are free of any extensive bruises resulting from poor handling by the fishermen. This may be due more to rejection of bruised fish during grading in Japan than to any more careful handling of the fish by the Japanese fishermeno It sometimes happens, however, that the handling of the frozen fish in transit results in additional bruising. Some- times the fish are handled several times after arrival in this country. The fish may be unloaded from a vessel in Portland, Oregon or Seattle, Washington, transported to a cold storage warehouse and placed therein. Later they may be taken from cold storage, loaded into a refrigerator car and shipped to Astoria or Grays Harbor and finally unloaded at the tuna cannery. In handling the frozen tuna during such transfers, it is customary for the workmen to use a steel hook on a wooden handle to lift or drag the frozen fisho These are generally applied to the head or tail of the fish. When used carelessly, and especially when the fish are partially thawed, these hooks may cause considerable damage to the fisho Thus when carelessly handled in transportation, Japanese tuna may be more bruised and damaged than local fish. Ordinarily, however, considerable care is taken in handling the frozen tuna, and the Japanese fish are then received in better condition with respect to bruising and similar damage than are domestic tunao There is considerable variation in the opinion of tuna packers as to the degree of color difference in the flesh of tuna canned from Japanese and American caught fish. Most packers believe that in a species to species comparison, the color of the flesh of tuna canned from the Japanese fish is lighter than from American caught fisho Some persons interviewed thought that there was a tremendous difference in this respect, others a lesser differencej a few thought there was little or no difference in color. Those who believed that a considerable color difference existed ascribed it to better bleeding of the fish by the Japanese fishermen. Others who found no difference said they were sure the Japanese did not specially bleed their fish. An interesting theory to accoiint for ■ the alleged difference in color was propounded ty one of the packers. It was his opinion that Japanese tuna, caught on long- lines, bleed from cuts made by the hook. Because the fish are under the sea water he suggested that the sea water prevented coagulation of the blood and without any Bpcecia-l attention ty the Japanese fishermen the fish caught on long-lines were thoroughly bled before they were ever lifted from the water. 349 Recent tests by the Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations do not confirm the belief that bleeding the tuna improves the color of the canned product. In these tests tuna of known history were handled in various ways immediately after capture. All possible combinations of bled and unbled, gutted and ungutted, alive and dead fish were used. An examination of the canned tuna prepared from the various lots of fish indicated that there were no noticeable differences which were caused by the various treatments. It is generally believed that the flesh of Japanese tuna is firmer than that of American caught fish. This is ascribed to the fact that Japanese tuna are often held in cold storage for many- months before they reach the cannery. Although the tuna have been glazed before being placed in cold storage, the glaze soon evaporates at least at certain spots on the fish which may permit rather extensive dehydration to take place. Most packers contacted felt that the texture of tuna canned from Japanese frozen fish was more tough or woocfy than that from American caught fish. Some also thought that the flavor of the Japanese fish was flat as compared to that canned from domestic fish. In summaiy, Japanese caught frozen fish are preferred by most packers primarily on the basis of their having been graded in Japan before export, thus giving fish of more uniform size and with less chance of bruised or partially spoiled fish being included. Some processors believe the color of flesh of tuna canned from Japanese fish is markedly superior to that of flesh from domestic fish. However, most packers prefer the flavor and texture of tuna canned from the domestic fisho 350 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous 1939. Regulations Issued December 15sl939> California Department of Public Health, Bureau of Foods and Drugs Inspection, Cannery Inspection Section., Anonymous 1941. Regulation Issued February 28,1941^ California Depart- ment of Public Health. Anonymous 1947 c Import Rfequireinents of the United States Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Acto UoSoFood and Drug Administration ^ Miscellaneous Publication 2. 351 352 CHAPTER .VI ~ IMPORTANCE OF THE TUNA INDUSTRY TO THE HATIONAL INTEREST ABSTRACT National security is a major component of national interest. The tuna INDUSTRY tS IhPORTANT TO NATIONAL SECURITY. THE SECRETARY OF THE NaV¥ STATES THAT TUNA FISHING BOATS PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT BACKUP TO PATROL CRAFT IN THE RES- ERVE Fleet. He indicated that fishing boats (inclusive of tuna craft) are an integral part of navy department planning. the department of the army states that u uses canned tuna in its rations for feeding troops. Under date of March 5,iL953, the Selective Service System issued "Operations Bulletin No.9i1»o This Bulletin, which details a "manpower policy for the com- mercial FISHING I^DUSTRY", INDICATES THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT INDUSTRY AS A SOURCE OF FOOD IN THE DEFENSE EFFORT. THE TUNA INDUSTRY IS COVERED BY THIS BULLETIN. In NORMAL TIMES THE GREAT TUNA CANNING INDUSTRY, WITH ITS OUTPUT OF PRODUCTS VALUED AT OVER 100 MILLION DOLLARS IN 1950, IS A NOTICEABLE SEG»ENT OF TVIE UNITED States EcotwMY. Its products are also becoming more important as a food source IN times of emergencies such as war. This is particularly true since the advent OF declining canned salmon production. Many allied industries are "fed" by the tuna industry. Net manufacture, boat manufacture and can manufact'jre are but a few of the many which beivefit from THE existence OF THE TUNA INDUSTRY. In approaching this subject thei-e should first be a distinction made between National interest and one of its major ccraponents. Nat- ional security. The latter has to do with the very safety and exist- ence of our Nation, The former has to do '/vith those factors and in addition, other factors such as economic advantages, etc. From the point of view of the Federal Government, National security is the phase of this subject which is the more important. Consequently, the Armed Services" Components, which during past periods of National emer- gency have relied bo some extent on the craft and personnel of the tuna fleet and the plants and personnel of the tuna processing indus- try, were queried on this subject as it respects National security. Letters were Br4tt©Qdto;ith"eiSeepegar^ of the Navy, the Chief of Trans- portation in the Department of Army, tnd the Quartermaster General, The following replies were received; 353 DEPAR'MENT OF THE NAVY (COPY) Office of the Secretary WASHINGTON 15 Jan 1953 My dear Mr, Secretary: Your letter of 18 December 1952 requested the views of the Department of the Navy concerning the importance of the tuna industry from the standpoint of national security. fishing The Department of the Navy considers the domestic tuna/fleet an important facet in the national security c This may be divided into three categories in the event of an emergency, namely: ao Domestic tuna products as a source of food, bo The fishennen as a source of manpower for mobilization. Co The fishing boats as a means of augmenting naval patrol craft o The first two categories are self evident. As for the third category, the requisition of a number of fistiing boats may be necessary to augment the naval forces that our national econ- omy can supporto The Department of the Navy is much better prepared than prior to World War II in availability of patrol craft due to the number of vessels in the Reserve Fleet. How- everj, these vessels are approaching the end of their useful life. The tuna fishing boats provide an excellent back up., These boats could be converted for limited anti-sutmarine war- fare, harbor patrol j, mine warfare, and picket boat operations. The Department of the Navy has completed an initial study of methods of utilization and conversion of small naval craft to augment anti-submarine warfare operational capabilities • The study is applicable to comparable size fishing boats. It is hoped that this information will assist in the study of the tuna industry. Sincerely, Honorable Oscar L. Chapman /s/ Dan A.Kimball feiS!^C?n°^5''B.J?^^'^°^ 354 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (COPY) Office of the Chief of Transportation WASHINGTON 25, D, C. TCTER HB (OCT 381) Feb 26 1953 Director, Fish and VITildlife Service Department of the Interior Washington 25, Do D. Dear Sirs This acknowledges receipt of your letter of 10 February 1953j File number 717, relative to the importance of the tuna industry from the standpoint of national security and to poss- ible use by the Transportation Corps of tuna clippers and their crews in case of extreme emergencyo The importance of tuna fish and its products as a source of food for this nation cannot be questioned o The size of the domestic tuna fleet, which numbers more than two hundred ac- tive boats of :jboth wood and steel construction ranging up to 140 feet in length, attests to that facto With respect to possible use of units of the donsstic tuna fleet by the Transportation Corps in a nati onal emergen- cy, the following information is furnished. Since World War II the responsibilities for controlled mine planting activi- ties have been transferred from the Department of the Army to the Department of the Navy, The functions of moving mili- tary personnel and supplies coastwise, overseas and within Theaters of Operation have been transferred to the Military Sea Transportation Service of the Department of the Navy. The present water transportation responsibilities of the Trans- portation Corps are discharged within harbor areas, on inland waterways or on other relatively sheltered waters. From the above it is apparent that the types and sizes of vessels required by the Transportation Corps in perform- ing its present mission differ greatly from those used in World War II, In addition, the current new vessel procure- ment program of the Transportation Corps is aimed at acquiring 355 sufficient craft of the various types necessary to discharge its responsibilities in the event of national emergencyc It is therefore not anticipated that the Transportation Corps will require any great number of units of the tuna fleet in the forseeable future. This, of course, is predicated upon an unchanged mission on or subsequent to any future mobiliza- tion date„ With regard to possible use of tuna fleet crews, it is difficult to estimate the manpower requirements for manning of Transportation Corps vessels in case of national emergency. It can be said, however, that military personnel are being trained to the maximum extent practicable with existing equip- ment and facilities to discharge Transportation Corps respons- ibilities overseas in the operation of its vessels. It is the policy of the Transportation Corps, however, to use civilian crews within the Continental United States for operation of its vessels wherever practicable. This policy is expected to continue in case of future national emergency, providing civilian crews can be made available. In such emergency, the skilled crews of the tuna fleet might well be utilized to augment existing Transportation Corps civilian crews within the Continental United States ani in the delivery to Oversea Commands of such vessels as are capable of proceeding under their own povier, I trust that this reply gives pu the desired information. Your interest in calling the matter to my attention is appreciated. Sincerely yours, /s/ F.AoHeileman FoAoHEILEMAN Major General, USA '"Chief of Transportation 356 . . -'DEBKRTMEHT OR' THE: AMY (copy) Office of the Quartermaster General WASHINGTON 25, D.C. In reply refer to QMGIF 431 Fish and Wildlife Service 24 February 1953 Director Fish and Wildlife Service United States Departmert of the Interior Washington 25, D..C. Dear Sir: Your letter of 9 February 1953 requesting a statenent of our views concerning the importance of the tuna industry from the standpoint of national security has been received. This Office is not in a position to make a determination of the ramifications involved in the relation of the tuna indus- try to national security o However, infonmtion related to con- sumption of tuna, its acceptance Isy Army personnel, and its nutritional qualities is available and is submitted for your informationo From: the viewpoint of consumption, tuna has been placed on the Joint Army-Air Force Master Menu eight (8) times per year for the years 1953 and 1954. Frequency of serving any item is determined by its acceptability, nutritional qualities, availabil- ity and price. Installation commanders are authorized, however, through their local Menu Boards to change menus as published by the Office of the Quartennaster General, based on local conditions. Total quantity of tuna fish issued from depots in the con- tinental United States for consumption both overseas and in the United States over the p^stthree years is as follows: 1950»o. 1951. . 1952 o= ol, 256,000 lbs .1,907,000 lbs .2,911,000 lbs Nutritionally, tuna is classified as a protein food as are 357 other meat J fish and poultry products. Consequently, although it is desirable to retain tuna as a menu item for the purpose of maintaining variety, substitution of another protein in event of short supply of tuna would not present a significant problem o At the present time j this Office is not procuring canned fish for foreign relief feeding, nor are any procurements con- templated at this time. In sumjiary, to the knowledge of this Office, no problem has existed in the availability of adequate aaounts of fish (canned or fresh) to meet any reasonable supply demand. Sincerely yours, /s/ Vta. J. McDonald M.Jo McDONAID Colonel, QMC Executive Officer In addition to this information with respect to National security, there is one further fact which should be mentioned. Under date of March 5 j 1953, the Selective Service System issued "Operations Bulletin NOo91"o This bulletin indicates the importance of the commercial fish- ing industry to the National economy and the defense effort o It reads as follows: "OPERATIONS BULLETIN Ho„91 SUBJECT; MAriPO;VER POLICY FOR THE COMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY "lo Since food has its source in commercial fishing as well as in agriculture, the principles relating to agricul- tural manpower contained in the attachments to Operations Bulletin NOo72, Subject: Policy on Agricultural Manpower, shall be applied in the classification of registrants en- gaged in the commercial fishing industry. Local boards may contact the Defense Fisheries Administration, U„ So Depart- ment of Interior, throu^ its field offices listed below, which, when requested, will furnish information as to the es- sentiality of registrants engaged in the commercial fishing industry. . . , » 358 '2» On questions of fishery maapower matters affecting states not mentioned above, the Defense Fisheries Administra- tion^ U„ So Department of the Interior, Washington 25, D. C. may be contacted.. (signed) Lewis Bo Hershey DIRECTOR" With the issuance of this bulletin more detailed consideration in the selection of commercial fishermen by the Selective Service System will result o This is a realization of the importance of the commercial fishing industry as a food source in the defense effort. Although not specifically mentioned, the tuna fishing industry is part of this over- all group o As far as the economic aspects of the National interest, with re- spect to the tuna fleet are concerned, there are many factors to be considered. First, there is the fact that the tuna resource is one that is available for the most part free to all nations of the worlds The United States, by prosecuting a tuna fishery, stands to benefit to sonB extent from that free resource. Second, the employment of labor on boats and in allied industries must be considered. Beyond that the opportunity for businessmen to engage in businesses which are afforded b^ the tuna fishing industry must not be overlooked. All these and more favorably affect the ^fational interest. At the present time with the economy of the Wation functioning in high gear as a result of the Defense Program the existence or loss of the tuna fishing industry would not have a pronounced effect on the economy of the Nation, Howfever, the problem should also be ap- proached from the long-range point of view. Under normal conditions, in the absence of war or National emergency, the United States econ- omy can not be expected to function in the same way as it does at present under the Defense Program. There is hardly a question but that at such time the Nation would appreciate having a tuna fishing industry to provide employment for labor and to afford the Nation some benefit from a great world food resource which is free for the taking. In its record production year, 1950, the tuna fleet produced fish valued at $61^419, 000. It was the vital base for the process- ing industry which turned out products valued at over $190,000,000 in that year. Production of that magnitude mth attendant thousands 359 of workers would be particularly significants especially in a normal peacetime economy. Some idea as to the Departanent of Labor's view with respect to the tuna industry and the National interest were given in reply to a query on this subject addressed to that Department. The reply from the Department of Labor is reproduced as follows: U.So DEPARTMENT OF UBOR Office of International Labor Affairs (COPY) WASHINGTON Office of the Director March 2 > 1953 Mr a Albert M= Day Director Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Interior Washington 25, D, Co REF; File 717 Dear Mr. Day: a Please find att ache c^ brief statement covering some of your questions on fishing and canning of tuna This statement was prepared by the Bureau of Employment Security of the De- partment of Labor, If you have additional questions, please let me know. Sincerely yours, /s/ Philip Arnow Riilip Arnow Associate Director Enclosure 360 (COPY) NOTES ON TUNA FISHING AND CANNING INDUSTRIES IN SELECTED AREAS Los Angeles Area Fishing and fish canning employment represents less than three- tenths of one percent of total employment in the Los Angeles area. In December 1952, 2,000 were engaged in fishing, while 4,200 were em- ployed in fish canneries. This is not significantly different from conditions in December 1951o Eraplojnnent declines have been reported in some larger fish canneries, however, due to mechanization. Much of the solid pack process has been converted to chunk and grated pack through the use of machinery, which saves time over the hand-pack methods previously used. Despite the small percentage of area workers involved in fish- ing or fish cannirig and the abundance of job opportunities to be found in the Los Angeles area — particularly in aircraft and relat- ed activities — a sharp drop in fishing would create high unemploy- ment among workers attached to this industry. The major reasons for this situation are age, language barriers, attachment to the indus- try, and limited woric experience in other fields. Most workers in these industries entered their occupations at an early age ajnd through famiily ties. Available infonnation on tuna fisherman shows that over one-third are past 50 years of age, and less than one-sixth under 30, For the area as a whole, less than three-tenths of all workers are past 50, and close to one-third be-» lovj 30o This older age would prove a handicap in obtaining other jobs. Also, many of the workers can communicate effectively only in a language other thian English, This problem is further compli- cated by the fact that a number of languages other than English are spoken so that fishermen and cannery workers cannot even trans- fer readily from boat to boat or plant to plant but must work with- in a group where they can be assisted in their communications with others. Transfer to other industries is greatly impeded. The lim- ited work experience of these workers also hampers any shift to other jobs. The skills of commercial fishermen are peculiar to the industry and cannot be fully utilized elsewhere. Industries that might absorb these workers as laborers are petroleum produc- tion and refining, and shipbuilding. They mi^t also find dock vK>Tk as riggers or longshoreman. None of these industries are ex- panding and an adequate supply of experienced workers is available, 361 Training and readjustment would be difficult from the standpoint of both the fishermen and prospective employers. Also, many fisher- men own homes in the harbor area, vos Angeles area, with public trans- portation facilities lamitedo Even if these fishermen could find work in other industries, their earnings would doubtless be sig- nificantly below what they could make fishing. Cainnery workers are predominantly women, but similar language, age, and other barriers exist. Very little related work is avail- able. Most canneries have a fixed labor force, not readily adapt- able to other jobs. No other food processing and packing plants are located nearby. San Diego Area In December 1952, around 800 workers were engaged in fishing, and 700 in fish canning. This industry is highly seasonal however, and December is normally a low month. In July and August, about 2,500 workers enter the area during albacore runs. The current situation is not markedly different than in Dec- ember 1951. Fishing employment was slightly lo'/ver, but cannery employment was twice as great. By mid-January, however, canning eraployraent was below the level one year earlier, with most can- neries on a stand-by basis awaiting return of tuna boats. Fishermen in this area, as in Lqs Angeles, could not be readily absorbed into other lines. Most are over 35 years of age, with skills and experience not easily adapted to other jobs. Some could be used in shipyards for repair work, and many do find such work during layoffs. A few fishermen have given up their trade, despite the high monetary returns, to remain in shipyard work. Shipyards still complain about loss of workers when fishing picks up, however. A few fishermen have also been going into small businesses of their own. However, it is the concensus of c pinion, both management and labor, that if large numbers were to become unemployed the majority would I'emain so until their unemployment benefits expired and probably would eventually leave for other fishing areas. Age, monetary considerations, language barriers and lack of necessary skills, along with lack of citizenship, make it doubtful if many would desire or oould obtain jobs in the ex- panding defense plants of the San Diego area» 362 San Francisco Area In this area, evidence indicates tuna fishing has been de- clining since 1950 o Canneries have not been significantly affect- ed in terms of employment because of importation of tuna from the Central PacifiCj, Australia, Japan, and Peru, although many firms have found operations less profitable » Because of dependence upon foreign tuna purchased on the open market, they have been unable to plan ahead with any accuracy, and employment has been less stable o To some extent, technological developments are believed to have affected tuna fishing. Modern equipment — including re- frigeration, automatic steering, depth and direction finding, and two-way radio ■ — has enabledoboats to stay at sea longer and troll greater distances » Owners have found that they can accom- plish the same work with smaller, less experienced crews. Fewer skilled fishermen are needed. Unions claim that the practice of hiring family members or men interested in adventure has been on the rise, with fewer skilled fishermen, meeded, and that owners have justified the change on the basis of the lower prices they receive for tuna and increased operating expenses „ To some extent, the decline in tuna fishing in this area has been offset by increased fishing for tuna by boats former- ly engaged in:sardine fishing. Sardine catches, particularly in the Monterey area, have fallen off shapply in recent years. Fishermen in this area have been more fortunate than in most others in obtaining other work. They are members of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, and many have been placed in stevedoring and longshoring jobs. These jobs are depepderit^ion war contracts, however, and most fishersjen would be displaced by other union members with longer seniority if these contracts were terminated or sharply reduced. Also, the work is not steady and does not conpensate for losses of wages due to lack of fishing. As in other areas, the average age of fishermen is high— - believed to be around 50 years. Younger fishermen, usually sons of fishermen or boat owners, have found work on shore easier and wages better due to reduced earnings in the declining tuna industry. Most younger fishermen are native born. Older 363 TNOrkerSj because of languagej age, and training handicaps, and lade of citizenship, have difficulty switching to land occupations. They can find work usually only in stevedoring, longshoring, rig- ging, and ship repair and boilermaking^ Other California Areas No tuna fleet, as such, is located in northern Califomiao Declines in tuna would probably not severely affect these areas. Most fishermen normally fish for other species, although some are equipped for tuna and occasionally fish for tuna in southern waters or during runs in northern waters. During 1952, there were few tuna runs in the north, and only a few tons were processed in northern plants — principally at Eureka. Fishermen in northern California, unlike those in the south, are largely self-employed on their owm boats „ They are busy dur- ing runs of sardines, anchovies, or squid, and find work in the off-season in farming, construction, or similar activitje So Dur- ing some seasons, these boats shift to Alaskan waters for salmon, or to South America or Mexico for tuna<. The virtual disappear- ance of sardines in recent years has caused a decline in fishing employment . Declines in tuna would largely cause increased fishing in other species. Should this not be possible, fishenaen would pro- bably operate pleasure boats, move to other fishing areas, or find work in fanning, construction, or fresh vegetable packing. Unemployment of fishermen in northern California is practically nonexistent at the present time. Washington and Oregon Areas While no information is available on fishing in Washington and Oregon, conditions are believed similar to those in north- ern California with tuna fishing of secondary importance. General Commercial Fishing is classified as an Essential Activity. This would, of course, include fishing for tuna. The List of Critical Occupations includes all Masters and Pilots on cbmrii&rcial fish- ing vessels as well as licensed mates and engineers on such vessels, 364 The lists of Essential Activities and Critical Occupations are prepared by an Interdepartmental Conraittee on Essential Activities and Critical Occupations and jointly issued by the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor. The Department of Defense, the Selective Service System j, and the Defense Manpower Adminis- tration in the Department of Labor use these lists in determin- ing policy in calling reservists to active duty, making deter- minations on requests for occupational deferment, and in the priority of referral of viiorkers to essential establishments in shortage areas. (End of statement prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor - Office of International Labor Affairs). In addition to employment for labor in the tuna fishing industry, employment in allied industries stems from the existence of tuna fishing. The great tuna canning industry also is based to a considerable extent on the existence of a domestic tuna fishing fleet. It, together with its allied industries, provides further employment for United States labor. All of these industries offer a great field for the endeavors of business- men. The loss ;of them in normal times would unquestionably be noticed in the economy of the Nation. During World War II certain canned fish such as salmon and sardines were placed under set-aside orders by the War Food Administration. Such action made it mandatory for packers to furnish a sizable percentage of their pack to the National Government for its use in prosecuting the war effort. Although tuna was not included in such action, it is a type of product which serves the same purpose as was intended for the products placed under set-aside orders. The declining production trend for salmon and the increasing production trend for tuna has made it likely that the latter will be a more important source of canned fish for any present or future emergencies such as were encountered in World War II. Such indi- cations are evidence of the future importance of the tuna processing in- dustry to the National security in time of war. When viewed from the other aspects of National interest — the econ- omic aspects — the processing industry also takes on great importance. Tuna processing provides employment for a large number of persons, par- ticularly on the west coast. It offers opportunity for business enter- prise to engage in entrepreneural risks with attendant remuneration for successful prosecution of these risks. 365 In connection with tuna canning operations and tuna fishing activity allied industries, such as can manufacturers, label manufacturers, machin- ery manufacturers, net manufacturers, boat builders, hardware supplies etc., are provided with markets and resultant business activity and employ- ment in those industries. All these together in times of normal economic activity in the United States add to the Natbnal well-being. The loss of them in normal times would be noticed in the economy of the Nation. 366 CHAPTER VII — DISTRIBUTION ABSTRACT Of the three principal economic functions in bringing canned tuna to the con- sumer, NAMELY, production, PROCESSING, AND DISTRIBUTION, THE LATTER TAKES A SMALLER share of the consumer's dollar than each of the other two. transportation, ware= housing, wholesaling and retailing are the principal sub=funct 1 ons in distribution. There are three principal transportation facilities used to bring canned tuna FROM processor TO MARKET, NAMELY, RAILROAD, TRUCK, AND INTERCOASTAL BOAT. THE GREATEST VOLUME OF CANNED TUNA MOVES VIA RAILROAD DESTINED FOR MOST OF THE MAJOR DISTRIBUTION CENTERS IN THE UNITED STATES, CANNED TUNA SHIPMENTS TO LARGE CITIES ON THE WEST COAST ARE HANDLED PREDOMINANTLY BY TRUCK „ A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CANNED TUNA IS SHIPPED TO ATLANTIC PORTS VIA J NTER=COASTAL BOAT, UTILIZING LOW RATES AND LOM MINIMUM CARLOAD REQUIREMENTS. RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION RATES FOR MANY FOOD COMMODITIES INCREASED MORE THAN DID RAILROAD RATES FOR CANNED TUNA IN THE PERIOD 1550 THROUGH )952« !N GENERAL, transportation charges for canned tuna from i 950 through 1952 were relatively low, ranging from 0.5 percent of retail value to 3.22 percent of retail val.ue for various types of movements studied. Wholesale marketing procedures are being improved with many new methods that FOCUS ON AD>AJSTMENTS IN MERCHANDISING POLICIES AND PHYSICAL OPERATIONS. IMPROVE- MENTS HAVE BEEN INITIATED TO CUT COSTS OF TAKING AND ASSEMBLING ORDERS; TO PROVIDE SEPARATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR HANDLING SPECIAL ORDERS; AND TO STRIVE FOR BETTER INTER- GRATION OF PLANT AND WORKER SO THAT JOB TIMING WILL BE THE MOST EFFICIENT. WlOLESALERS STOCKING CANNED TUNA HANDLE IT IN AN IDENTICAL MANNER TO HUNDREDS OF OTHER CANNED COMMODITIES. THEREFORE, AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE OVERALL PHYSICAL OPERATION OF WAREHOUSING WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT IN CANNED TUNA'S WHOLESALE MARKET- ING. The MARKED GROWTH OF THE "SUPERMARKET" T>PE GROCER AND CHAIN STORE OPERATIONS have forced improvements in retail marketing procedure. efforts have been direct- ed toward improvements in the physical handling of groceries and merchandising research. any cost reducing innovation by retail grocers will be to some degree an improvement in the retailing of canned tuna. Wholesale and retail marketing of canned tuna is only a part of ithe overall operation of firms in these fields, the essential problem of wholesaling and retailing is not one that can be resolved in terms of any one particular product. The problem confrcsin-ing both wholesaler and retailer is the general movement of wjmerous products and not just the specific movement of canned tuna. in handling canned tuna wholesalers and retailers appear to have solo this commodity at lower relative margins than canned fish vreus handled. Ninety percent of all domestic tuna is packed in the State of California, of which 70 percent is processed by three large concerns. the greatest portion of the pack is sold through food brokers, who receive a three percent commission on the face value of invoices, prices charged are f.o.b. plant, with the trans- portation cost added to the buyer's invoice. most packers sell on a cash basis allowing small discounts for prompt payment of bills. prlfcipal purchasers of canned tuna are wholesalers, re7ail=0wned cooperatives, and chain stores, a notable trend is the increased volume sold to chain stores in post war years. 367 LARQEf^ TUNA PACKING CONCERNS EXTEND A FLOOR STOCKS GUARtNTEE WHICH IS A GUARA^fTEE TO THE PURCHASERS AGAINST A PACKER'S REBUCTION IN PRICES WITHIN A LIMITED PERIX OF TIME. Direct AOVERTisirjG by tuha processors consists mostly of naijC brand pro- motion CONDUCTED NATIONALLY. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS YEARLY ARE SPENT FOR THIS purpose. soye large companies engage in cooperative advertising agreeme^^•s that stipulate the processor will pay the buyer a certain sum per case on proof that the suver has advertised '>€ processor's brand. Large processors warehouse canned tuna in cow^iercial warehouses at vari- ous DISTRIBUTION CENTERS THROUGHOUT THE NATION SO AS TO SHORTEN TIME INTERVAL taken for delivery of orders to buyers, Except -or California pack, data are not generally published on a current BASIS. Information on stocks is lacking at all levels except for private data at the CANI«R'S level collected BY A CALIFORNIA PACKERS' CRGANIZATION. PERIODIC studies OF THE REGIONAL CONSUMPTION OF CANNED TUNA ALSO ARE LACKING. PRICE DATA AT THE WHOLESALE LEVEL IS COLLECTED BY THE FiSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAB3R STATISTICS' INDEX OF WHOLESALE PRICES. CHARGES FOR DISTRIBUTION AND OTHER PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC FUtCTIONS During this survey it was desired to obtain some idea of the rela- tion of the total charges made for the distribution of the processed products of the tuna industry to the charges made for the other princi- pal economic functions in bringing the products of the industry to con- sumers , A breakdown of the percentages of the consumer's dollar which went as compensation for the principal economic functions was sought. Considerable data were obtained which provide information with respect to the percentages of the consumer's dollar used in recent years for these principal functions — productions processing, and distribution. Again as in the chapter on Consumption it might be observed that the products of the tuna industry are practically synonymous with can- ned tuna and tunalike fishes. Some information with respect to retail prices paid by consumers for canned tuna in recent years is given in table 79" In this table average retail prices in selected cities for retail sales of the solid pack, light -meat No. 1/2 can of tuna are shown for the years 1950, 1951s and 1952. These retail price data were ob- tained by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Further data on retail prices of canned tuna are available from both these BureauSj, but the cities shown in the table have been selected for the purpose of this survey because they best il- lustrate certain types of distribution to be described in ensuing pages. 368 TABLE 79" - AMUAL AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE, SOLID PACK, LIGHT -MEAT, FANCY NO « 1/2 CAN TUNA IN SELECTED CITIES OF THE UNITED STATES, 1950-1952 CITY AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE 1950 1951 1952 Cents Cents Cents Boston, Massachusetts 34.9 37.3 32.8 New York, New York AO.5 1/ 37.0 35.3 Washington, D. C. 41.9 ^ 37.8 39.1 Atlanta, Georgia 40,9 1/ 37.5 38.1 Dallas, Texas 44.2 -^ -„ Houston, Texas _„. 35.6 39.0 2/ Chicago, Illinois 40.8 y 39.6 37.7 y San Franc Isro, California 41.5 u 35.7 38.9 1/ April - December (9 months). 2/ February - December (11 months) SOURCES United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The retail price data were matched with appropriate data indi- cating what parts of the retail price were received by producers (fishenaen), processors, and distribution agencies. These data are shown in table 80 which provides information for West Coast produc- ed and processed canned tuna and in table 81 which gives information for East Coast processed canned tuna. In table 80 it will be noted that the amount taken for distribution is the smallest of the three shares. For table 81 no data were available for the remuneration to fishenaen, A large portion of the raw fish used by East Coast pack- ers is caught by foreign fishermen, whereas the reverse is true for the pack made on the West Coast <, Production of solid pack_„ light-meat canned tuna which consists predaninantly of the No c 1/2 or 7'-ounce can, accounted fcr about 26 percent of the domestic pack of canned tuna in 1950, 22 percent in 1951 and 16 percent in 1952. Distribution of this particular prod- uct accounted for about the same percentages of total distribution of canned tuna. Although that commodity only accounts for those ap- proximate percentages of the total canned tuna pack and total 369 TABI£ 80. - ESTUIkTED SHARES OF CONSUMER EXPENDITURES OBTAII^ED BY WEST COAST PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS AND AIL DISTRIBUT- ORS , FOR CANDIED TUNA PRODUCED AND HIOCESSED ON THE WEST COAST AND RETAILED IN VKRIOUS SELECTED CITIES, ANTTUkL AVERAC3ES: 1950 - 1952 1/ CITY YEAR PRODUCERS PROCESSORS DISTRIBUTORS AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE SHARE SHARE SHARE PAID BY Dollars CONSUMERS Dol- Per- Dol- Per- Dol- Per- Cents lars cent lars cent lars cent per per per otre- per of re- per of re- case can case tail case tail case tail Boston, 1950 1.2k 43,2 6,20 37.0 3.31 19.8 16.75 34.9 Kass. 1951 7o29 40.7 6.41 35-8 4,20 23,5 17.90 37.3 1952 7.16 45,5 7.16 45.5 lo42 9o0 15.74 32,3 New 1950 7o24 37.3 6,20 31.9 6„00 30.8 19.44 40.5 2/ York, 1951 7.29 a,i 6.41 35,9 4.06 23.0 17.76 37.0 NoYo 1952 7.16 42.3 7.16 42„3 2,62 15.4 16»94 35.3 Wash- 1950 7.24 360O 6o20 30,8 6,67 33,2 20,11 41,9 3/ ingtm,1951 7=29 40,2 6.41 35.3 4,44 24.5 18„14 37,8 D.Co 1952 7.16 38.2 7.16 38 o2 4,^ 23.6 18,76 39,1 Atlan- 1950 7.24 36.9 6,20 31,6 6,19 31.5 19,63 40,9 2/ ta, 1951 7o29 40,5 6,41 35,5 4.30 24,0 18^00 37.5 Ga. 1952 7ol6 39,2 7,16 39,2 3.96 21,6 18.28 38,1 Dallas Z^ 4nd H0uBa Iton^Tex. 1950 7.24 34.1 6o20 29.2 7.77 36 ..7 21,21 44.2 1951 7.29 42.7 6,41 37.5 3.38 19.8 17,08 35.6 1952 7.16 38,2 7.16 38,2 4.40 23,6 18,72 39.0 3/ Chi- 1950 7.24 36,9 6o20 31.6 6.14 31,5 19.58 40.8 3/ cago, 1951 7.29 38.4 6,41 33.7 5,30 27.9 19.00 39,6 111. 1952 7,16 39.6 7,16 39.6 3.77 20„8 18,09 37,7 3/ SanFrai- 1950 7.24 36,4 6.20 31,1 5,48 32.5 19,92 41.5 2/ Cisco J 1951 7.29 42.5 6,41 37.4 3,44 20,1 17, U 35.7 Calo 1952 7.16 33,4 _7,16 38,4 4.34 23.2 18.67 38,9 1/ Based on sales of solid pack,fancy,lighfeciEat,No,l/2 can tuna.These are gross shares and include predominantly costs of labor, supplies, materials J etc, 2/ April-December(9 months) .^/February-December (11 months).^ Dallas, Texas for 1950 and Houston, Texas for 1951-1952, SOURCE: Compiled by United States Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice. 370 TABIE 81 „ - ESTIMATED SHARES OF CONSUMER EXPENDITURES OBTAINED BY EAST COAST' PROCESSORS (AND THEIR RAW FISH SUPPLIERS) AND AIL DISTRIBUTORS, FOR CANNED TUNA PROCESSED ON THE EAST COAST AND RETAILED IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ANNUAL AVERAGES 1950-19 52c y CITY YEAR PROCESSORS AND PRODUCERS SHARES Dollars Percent per of case Retail DISTRIBUTORS SHARE AVERAGE PAID BY Dollars per -case RETAIL PRICE CONSUMERS Dollars per case Per- cent of re tail Cents per can New York, N. Yo 1950 1951 1952 llo67 12.16 11.84 60.0 68.5 69o9 7.77 5.60 5.10 40.0 31.5 30,1 19,44 17.76 16.94 40.5 2/ 37,0 35.3 1/ Based on sales of solid pack, fancy, light- meat. No. 1/2 can tuna. These are gross shares and include predominantly costs of labor, supplies, materials, etc. 2/ April-December (9 months), SOURCE: Compiled by United States Fish and Wildlife Service, distribution of domestic canned tuna products, it was selected for study because considerable retail price data were already available from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, In addition, it is felt that it is typical of the distribution of the bulk of domestically can- ned tuna products. With this in mind, the percentages of the consumer's dollar distributed to the principal economic functions as shown for that commodity, in general, may be considered to be typical for the majority of canned tuna products. For the la^er priced canned tuna products such as grated tuna an d for tunalike products the picture will be somewhat the same although fixed distribution charges, such as transportation, which are the same regardless of the value of the prod- uct tend to exact a greater share of consumers' expenditures for those lower priced products. The share of the consomsr's dollar for West Coast canned tuna that distribution takes in relation to the other shares is shown graphically for the three years 1950-1952 and for three selected cities 371 in figure 16. The distribution function breaks down into many sub- functions each of which receives a part of this share. Transportation, warehousing, wholesaling, and retailing are the principal sub-func- tions. These will be discussed in ensuing pages. Since transporta- tion is the processor's first physical contact with the distribution channel, that sub-function will be discussed first along with the re- lated item, warehousing. Transporting -^and Storing Tuna TRANSPORTATION Of the total 1952 domestic pack of canned tuna about 2 percent was processed on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and 98 percentr^on the West Coast. Most of the canned pack in the fonner area is shipped via railroad and truck with the predominant part moving by the latter medium. Canned tuna is shipped fron the West Coast to the various cities throughout the country by railroad, truck, and boat. The greatest volume of the pack of that area is moved via railroads. A much smaller portion is moved by truck principally to West Coast consuming areas and in post-war years, the West Coast canners have been reviving the pre-war practice of utilizing boats, with the pre- dominant part of those shipments going to northeastern United States. Five canning companies packed approximately 70 percent of all the light-meat, solid pack, canned tuna shipped from the West Coast to various points in the United States, during the last three years. About 75 percent of these shipments were via railroad| approximate- ly 13 percent via truck; and around 12 percent by boat. Host of the ligh-t-meatj solid pack canned tuna handled by boat was shipped to the Atlantic coast for destinations in the Northeastern region with a small part of those shipments destined for Southern cities. Of that moved via railroad, at least 30 percent was shipped to the North Central United States. A considerable amount was also moved by railroad into the Northeastern region. It also 'vas the pre- dominant carrier used for shipments to the South but the total vol- ume shiipped to that area is small canpared to the other areas of the United States. Tuna shipped in the West Coast area was shipped pre- dominantly via truck. The greatest percentage of ±iipments was moved via railroad for several reasons. Most canned tuna shipments are long hauls. 23:/ Exclusive of local cartage and delivery. 0]^' Includes a relatively small amount packed in Hawaii. 372 Figufe 16 production , processing and distribution shares of consumer's* dollar for west coast canned tuna- SOLO IN selected CITIES, 1950 — 1952 • PERCENT OF CONSUMER'S DOLLAR 1950 1951 NEW YORK , N.Y. 1952 1951 CHICAGO, ILL. 951 1952 SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 1/ Based on sales of light-meat, solid-pack, taaoj, Ho.i can tuaft U. 3. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 373 1950 Data from table 80 Railroad rates for canned tuna are favorable for a considerable part of the long-haul business when compared with rates of other types of transport. The favorable railroad rates for the general category of canned fish, under which canned tuna is shipped, may also be attri- buted in part to the nature of the product. Canned fish can be load- ed in freight cars to a relatively heavy weight compared to many other foods. The use of heavy loadings also increases the economic utilization of transportation equipment. The sturdy nature of -.uell- packed canned fish has also resulted in a low rate of loss and damage claims. In addition, favorable schedules and the fact that most plant locations have railroad siding facilities and access to rail- roads aids the movene nt of canned tuna by this form of transport. It should be noted that many of the foregoing factors apply in somewhat similar fashion to canned tuna when shipped by other forms of trans- port, especially boat. Table 82 gives a comparison of railroad rates for various food products with canned fish shipped fran Los Angeles, California, (Terminal Island, California) to Chicago, Illir.Dis, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It illustrates more effectively the economical manner in which the transport of canned tuna by railroad can be conducted. The mininium weight commonly used for canned fish is considerably higher than the minimum for other foods shown in table 82, which supports the contention that canned fishery products can be moved from location of processing to consumption areas, as efficiently as other foods, if not, in many cases, more efficiently. The indi- cated railroad rates for carjied fish are definitely more reasonable than for the other food products in table 82 reflecting this effi- ciency- For most commodities, in the table where a 15 percent in- crease of rates in 1952 as compared to 1950 is shown, an increase to that extent was authorized by the Interstate Coi^merce Commission and was made effective May 2,1952. Whereas, the rates for most of the com- modities v;ere increased 15 percent, those for canned fish were in- creased less because the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered that increases in the railroad rates for most canned foods be limited to an amount less than the general increase in freight rates which was authorized. In both cases shown thie percentage increase in rates for canned fish amounted to 8 percent. Although railroad charges for shipments of canned tuna have been rising in recent years they have not been rising at as great a rate as the railroad charges for many other commodities, principally because of "hold-downs" ordered by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 374 TABLE 82.- RAILROAD RATES FOR VARIOUS POOD PRODUCTS, INCLUDING CANNED FISH, SHIPPED FROM LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TO CHICAGO, ILL- INOIS AND PITTSBURGH, lENNSYLVANIA (Carload rates per 100 pounds) PRODUCT ORIGIN DE, STINATION DOl'ESTICRATEl/ PERCENTA(3; MINB5U1{ mi?c^^^ ;n'ec^ CHANGE IIIEIGHT tive tive FROM 1950 1/1/50 5/2/52 TO 1952 Dollars Dollais % Dollars Pounds Canned fish .Los Angeles 2/ Chicago 1.50 1,62 8.0 0.12 60,000 Eggs, in shell. . .Los Angeles Chicago 3.10 3.57 15.0 0.47 33,000 Frozen fish, , Los Angeles Chic ago 1.75 2.01 15.0 0,26 36,000 Fresh cit- rus fruit, oranges. . .Los Angeles Chicago 1.73 1.85 6.9 0.12 39,200 Cheese .Los Angeles Chic ago 3.32 3.82 15.0 0.50 24,000 Canned fish .Los Angeles ^ Pittsburg 1.50 1,62 8.0 0.12 77,000 Eggs, in shell. .Los Angeles Pittsburgh 3.10 3.57 15,0 0.47 33,000 Frozen fish- .Los Angeles Pittsburgh 2.48 2.85 15.0 0,37 36,000 Fresh cit- rus fimt. oranges. . • Los Angeles Pittsburgh 1.73 1,85 6.9 0,12 39,200 Cheese • Los Angeles Pittsburgh 3.6? 4.22 15.0 0.55 30,000 1/ Rates are approximately correct. Percentage increases authorized and effected have been calculated herein on base rates whereas under ordi- naiy circumstances these percentage increases are applied to the total base transportation ch arge. 2/ Applicable to cars loaded at Terminal Island, California anid other West Coast points. Canned tuna shipments moved via truck were concentrated in the Wi3st Coast Area close to the source of supply, ^ne of the distinct character- istics of tinick transportation within a limited area is the ability of that type carrier to adapt better to stop-offs enroute for partial un~ loadings. This creates a higher quality of service on short hauls which is often offered at favoraole rates. Motor carriers' speed of delivery and lower carload mininium also gives thera competitive advantages over 375 the railroads for certain types of short haul. Nearly all truck ship- ments of canned fish froin Terminal Island, California, are made on a minimum of 30,000 pounds or an equivalent of around 1000 cases of can- ned tuna. Most of the canned tuna shipped via truck is destined for San Francisco and Sacraraemto, California, Salt Lake City, Utah, Western Idaho, and Central Oregon. Movements of canned tuna to Portland, Ore- gon are usually made via railroad or by boat. Shippers indicate that boat rates are more favorable to Western Oregon than are truck freight rates. Shipments of canned tuna to Denver, Colorado, are usually made by railroad instead of motor carrier since railroads have comparable rates and terminal connections from the West Coast Area to that city. The majority of canned tuna shijanents via inter-coastal boats were to the Northeastern United States. A small amount was shipped to South Atlantic ports. Rates lower than those via railroad and low carload minimum requirements are maintained to Atlantic seaboard points. These low cost factors of boat transportation are important to many packers of canned tuna, especially smaller ones, and buyers. Smaller concerns not packing in quantities that would allow them to take advantage of the higher railroad minimum carloads can utilize boats and obtain carload rates for shipments as low as 20,000 pounds. Available data indicate that there was a slight increase in the shipments of canned tuna via inter-coastal boat in 1952 as com- pared with 1950. It also shows that approximately one aid one-half percent of light-meat, solid pack, canned tuna shipped by those West Coast companies which furnished transportation infoxmBtion in this survey was destined for South Atlantic ports. The outstanding disadvantage of boat transportation presently is the slow delivery time. If it is considered that the transportation Tunction is a nec- essary service which must be utilized to place canned tuna in the conSumer''s> hands, and if the particular advantages or disadvantages of one form over the other are disregarded there are certain gen- eralizations that can be made regarding canned tuna shipments. Prao- tically all forms of rates for this comodity are regulated and the great bulk of it is shipped under commodity rates. Commodity rates are previously published in tariff form, as inquired by the Inter- state Commerce Commission, and other regulatory bodies. From the 376 west coast to various Eastern areas there is usually designated a blanket charge which is the same for any point of origin in the par- ticular area covered. Changes in these published coinmodity rates are made usually only after adequate hearings and study. Assuming that all TN'est coast tuna canners were surrounded by equal produc- tion conditions little saving in the cost of transporting their products could be realized under present rate-making procedure. The fact that production conditions in this area are not equal accounts for much of the difference in the cost of placing canned tuna in the consumer's hands at a particular place rather than differences in shipping charges. It must also be realized that there are regional differences in shipping charges on canned tuna produced in other regions. However, it has been noted that such production is relative- ly small at the present time. Table 83 illustrates the relationship of transportation rates to the average retail price of the solid-pack, light-m^t, fancy No.l/2 can of tuna. The table shows the cents per case value and the per- centage of the retail price that is obtained by various transporta- tion agencies for selected types of movements. In general, transporta- tion rates ranged between, a low of ,5 percent of the retail price for canned tuna when shipped via truck, from Terminal Island, CalTfornia to San Francisco, Californiaj to a high of 3»22 percent of the retail price when shipped via railroad, from Terminal Island, California, to Boston, Massachusetts. In no case, was there an increase in 1952 over 1950 greater than .6 percent of retail price, regardless of the type carrier rates used for comparison. Railroad transportation rates in 1950, from the Pacific coast to the cities named did not exceed 3 percent of the retail price arii in several instances aver- aged closer to 2 percent 0 On a cents per case basis the "hargeL; averaged approximately UU cents or less than one cent per No „ 1/2 can on a 48-can standard case basis. By 1952 the railroad rates, as a percentage of the average indicated 1952 canned tuna retail price had increased a maximum of only .6 percent to Mew York, New York, and a mininaim of .33 percemt to Atlanta, Georgia. All these rail- road increases amount to about 3»3 cents on a per case basis because practically all railroad rates were increased the same maximum amount 12 cents per hundred weight. For inter-coastal boat charges frcm Pacific coast ports, only the Northeastern Atlantic ports of Boston, Massachusetts, and New York, New York, are indicated in table 83 since the greatest part of all canned tuna shipped via boat is destined there. Inter-coastal 377 TABIE 83. - SELECTED FRXMARY TRANSPORTATION CH/JRGES FOR SHIPPING SOLID PACK, UGH-FMEAT, FANCY NO. 1/2 's OF CANNED TUNA AND REUTION TO RETAIL ffilCE, 1950-1952. 1/ AVERAGE RETAIL SHIPPING • CHARGE FRIGE PAID BY TYPE OF ORIGIN DESTINATION YEAR CENTS % OF CONSUMERS SHIPLENT PER CASE RETAIL DOLLARS PER CASI CENTS ; PER CAN CARLOAD VEST .... • BOSTON, 1950. .47.5.... 2.33 .. .16.75... • 34.9 RAILROAD COAST MASS. 1951 48.2 2.69 17.90 37.3 FREIGHT 1952 50.8 3.22 15.74 32.8 ■ilEST . . . . NEW YORK,... 1950. .47.5.... 2.44 .. .19.44... .40.5 2/ COAST N.Y. 1951 48.2 2,71 17.76 37.0 1952 50.8 2.99 16.94 35.3 11EST . 0 . . WASHINGTON, 1950. .47.5.... .2.36 .. .20.11 .. .41.9 3/ COAST D.C. 1951 48.2 2.65 18.14 37.8 1952 50.8 2.70 18.76 39.1 WEST .ATLANTA, 1950. .40.9.... .2.08... .19.63... .40.9 2/ COAST GA. 1951 41.6 2.31 18.00 37.5 1952 44.2 2.41 18.28 38.1 VffiST DALLAS /i/andl950. .39.0.... .1.83... .21,21... .44.2 COAST HOUSTON, TEX, 1951 39.7 2.32 17.08 35.6 1952 42.3 2.25 18.72 39.0 3/ WEST .CHICAGO, 1950. .40.9.... .2.08... .19.58... .40.8 3/ COAST ILL. 1951 41.6 2.18 19.00 39.6 1952 44.2 2.44 18.09 37.7 3/ INTER- VEST. .BOSTON, 1950. .35.7.... .2.13. ,, .16.75... .34.9 COASTAL COAST MASS. 1951 35.7 1.99 17.90 37.3 BOAT (Car- 1952 41.1 2.61 15.74 32.8 loads) VffiST. .NEW YORK,... 1950. .35.7.... .1.83... .19.44... .40.5 2/ COAST N.Y. 1951 35.7 2.01 17.76 37.0 1952 41.1 2.43 16.94 35.3 TRUCKLOAD TERMINAL. • SAN FRAICIS-1950. .10.6 .0.5.... .19.92... .41.5 2/ SHIPMENTS -ISLAND, CO, CAL. 1951 10.6 0.6 17. U 35.7 BY EJEST CAL. 1952 11.6 0.6 18.67 38.9 CST PROC - ESS0R3 TRUCKLOAD EAST ll . .NF/.' YORK.... 1950. .23.9.... .1.22... .19.44... .40.5 2/ SHIFMT BY COAST N.Y. 1951 23.6 1.32 17.76 37.0 EA.ST COAST 1952 24.6 1.45 16.94 35.3 ^OCESSORS l/Estimated average charge per standard case of 48 cans.2/Apr-Dec(9 mo^ ^'February-December (11 months) ./^/Dallas, Texas for 1950 and Houston, Tex for 1951 and 1952. ^Average origin for the area, SOURCE: Compiled by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 3/S boat charges were approximately 2 percent of the retail price for can- ned tuna in 1950, and by 1952 they had increased to only about 2-1/2 percent of the retail price. Therefore, in 1950 it cost about 32.7 cents per case to ship canned tuna to these areas, and in 1952 about 41=1 cents per case. Truck transportation charges from Terminal Island, California to San Francisco, California are shown for canned tuna packed on the 1/Vest Coast. Since the majority of canned tuna is now packed in the Terminal Island, California area, and San Francisco, is a large consumer area, comparison of truck rates to retail prices for that city was nade. West Coast packers teve indicated that the majority of canned tuna moved on the West Coast is by motor carrier. Truck rates in 1950, from Terminal Island to San Francisco were approximately .5 percent of the indicated retail price for canned tuna. There has been only a slight percentage increase of ,1 percent through the year ending 1952, with a 9 percent intra-state rate increase being authorized by the California Public Utility Commission, June 24,1952. For caiined tuna packed on the east, coast average truck transporta- tion rates to New York City are shown. East coast packers indicate that New York City is art important market for their tuna products and much is transported there via truck. Truck rates for the average haul to New York City from e;ast (ioast plants are only 1.45 percent of the retail price in the year vjhen the highest average rate prevailed-1952. The small percentages of the consumer's payment for canned tuna taken by primary trcinsportation ageacies shown in table 83 and again graphically in figure 17 for certain selected transportation move- ments, do not materially affect the retail prices paid by the consumer. At 48 No. 1/2 cans to the standard case the charge for the long haul railroad movements is about one cent per can and for the toat, truck and shorter haul railroad movements it is less than one cent per can. Most transportation charges are subject to review and corrective ac- tion by public regulatory bodies. Charges for canned food products have been subjected to considerable review by these bodies. As a re- sult of this action, they may be considered to be reasonable and it is extremely unlikely that any significant reductions or savings could be made in this field which would reduce over-all marketing charges fpr canned tuna. 3-^ Figure 17 PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION AND PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SHARES OF CONSUMER'S* DOLLAR FOR CANNED TUNA^TRANSPORTED BY VARIOUS METHODS TO SELECTED CITIES, 19 50 — 19 5 2. • PERCENT OF CONSUMER'S DOLLAR 1950 1951 '952 RAILROAD (Carload freight) FROM WEST COAST TO NEW YORK, N.Y. TRUCK FROM EAST COAST PLANTS TO NEW YORK, NY. BOAT FROM WEST COAST ( PRODUCT TO NEW YORK, N.Y. RAILROAD (Carload freight) FROM WEST COAST TO CHICAGO . ILL. TRUCK FROM TERMINAL ISLAND, CAL. TO SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. (0.6) 1/ Based on sales of light-meat, solid-pack, fancy Ko.l/2 can tuna. Figures In purontheals are primary transportation. Data from tables 80, 81 and 83. 380 U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE STORAGE Nation-wide storage i'acilities for canned tuna are adequate ac- cording to available information furnished by the Office of Price Stabilization in December 1952- There does not appear to be any pro- blerai on the part of wholesale grocers and other large lot receivers, that handle canned tuna, in providing storage space for their pur- chases. The tuna packers, who store canned tuna in various centers of distribution so as to tiave stocks available for quick delivery, have voiced no complaint with respect to storage space shortages. Storage charges in commercial warehouses were ranging from 5 to 7 cents per hundrediveight in December, 1952, equaling approxi- mately 1-1/2 cents per case of canned tuna stored for a one month period. This is but a small fraction of the retail price of canned tuna. Since top Office of Price Stabilization ceilings were being charged pretty much over the entire country the question could be raised as to whether storage charges are "reasonable". Certainly, from the standpoint of the owners of the storage facilities the ceil- ings are ■dog low, and therefore, charges are "unreasonable", and from the standpoint of those who pay the storage costs they are either "reasonable" as they exist or "unreasonably" high. In other words, the "reasonableness" of storage costs depends on who is doing the estimating. It would appear, from a consumer standpoint that so long as storage costs are as indicated a very small fraction of the retail price per can of tuna and the storage function is being handled ex- peditiously, then the storage charges are "reasonable". Certainly storage costs like primary transportation costs do not act to sig- nificantly increase the consumer pirLce for canned tuna. Marketing WHOLESALING AND RETAILING After the transportation agency brings canned tuna from the processor's plant to the buyer's warehouse, a public warehouse, or other delivery point, the wholesaler or ]arge lot receiver next physically hanidles the product and next after him the retailer. The wholesaler or chain store warehouse department's main function is 381 to bear the risk involved in having large quantities of canned tuna available for quick delivery to retail stores and other outlets. I^e wholesaler may buy large lots of a thousand or more cases and dispose of them in small lots so that the retailer, for example, can handle such a small lot of canned tuna as a few cases, a case, or half case, along with the mainy other items he must have available for the needs of his customers. The services of retailing take the largest segment of the distribution payment from the consumer's dollar. Wholesaling takes the next largest segment. In this study consideration was given to reviewing these marketing practices to see if anything could be done to improve the physical handling of canned tuna and thus reduce wholesaling and retailing costs and margins. ■Wholesale marketing procedures are being improved with many new methods being initiated by leading wholesale grocers and chain store system operators. These new methods have focused on adjustments in merchandising policies and physical operation. Most improvements in this field, however, have but a small effect on reducing total dis- tribution costs and are not as revolutionary as self-service super market retailing was i n the retail field. Wholesalers and chain stores have improved efficiency and cut the costs of operation fay reducing the cost of taking sales orders. This cost can be minimized by reducing effort expended by salesmen or order men, increasing the average order size, ajid eliminating un- profitable orders. Methods of assembling orders within the warehouse have been revised. Merchandise is arranged in systematic sections so that order men know where each item is situated. Reserve stocks are separated fi"om assembly selection lines. The latter sire arranged in order of turnover vdth items sold most frequently nearest the order assembly area. Separate arrangements are provided to handle special orders, such as split case lots. All operations are integrated so that job timing will be most efficient with respect to use of plant and workers » Wholesalers have tried to reduce their delivery costs by foster- ing closer working relations with the retailers and thus reduce the number of deliveries. Constant effort has been exerted toward re- duction of time spent in loading and unloading trucks, both at the retailer's platform and the warehouse. Those retailers who place late orders are often penalized by being placed on a cash-and-carry basis. Truck routing has been improved and common carriers are be- ing utilized where the charge is less than the cost of operating a 3^2 wholesaler's truck. The latter practice is also coramon among other large lot receivers such as chain stores. Some less direct procedures for minimizing costs have been initi- ated such as preventive maintenance on owned trucks, loading trucks as full as possible and arranging for return hauls, and the use of driver logs or mechanical recorders to effect greater regulation over trucks which are enroute. The degree to which wholesale grocers and chain stores can apply all or some of the above methods of improveraient in physical operations depends upon the unique circumstances surrounding each individual bust nessc Some warehouses are located in areas where there is traffic congestion and generally poor facilities for operation of large trucks. Older warehouses are not readily adaptable to new methods of order as- sembling. Innumerable physical as well as economic problems, confront established wholesale grocers and chain stores when innovations are required by changing times. Generally speaking, wholesale marketing is a very competitive field and by the fact that this competition exists it can be assumed that those who do not function efficiently will be forced either to revise their methods of operation or go out of business. 'iVholesale grocers and chain stores purchase the great bulk of the domestic pack of canned tuna from processors. These purchases are stored in the respective warehouses of each buyer. The bulk of the cases of canned tuna purchased are stored in that section of the ware- house assigned to reserve canned commodities. When additional canned tuna is needed in the order assembling area it is brought forward from the reserve sotorces, and placed in selection lines according to its bulk and prospective turnover. Canned tuna and tunalike products are handled in an identical manner to hundreds of other canned commodi- ties sold by wholesalers or distributed from chain store warehouses. Therefore, any improvement in the overall physical operation of ware- housing will in some degree improve the marketing of canned tuna and tunalike products. The many other improvements in the over- all job of wholesaling which have been previously mentioned are also tending to aid the marketing of the products of the tuna industry. Retail grocers' marketing procedures have undergone many physi- Cc^l changes -vdthin a relatively short period of years. The change from the small service grocery store on the ccrner to the hugh super market type grocery that occupies perhaps an entire city block and 383 uses self-service methods has forced revolutionary improvements in retail marketing procedure. It has also been instrumental in making sizable cuts in the cost of retailing. The keen competition existing betineen retailers has resulted in a persistent demand for the activation of rore detailed merchandising research. Studies have been directed toward improving retail methods of physical operation such as receiving, check in^ price marking, and stocking groceries. Each of these functions have been analyzed through time and motion studies, and improvements have been developed through more efficient handling methods and equipment, and the proper choice for store layout. All this physical handling is a part of the most iraportant item in the total cost of retailing — labor. Wages are the biggest part of the margin exacted for both retailing and wholesaling and therefore _, efforts to make the wisest and most efficient use of labor are not directed aimlessly. VJholesale and retail margins on canned tuna are tied into the many other things sold by these distributors. The essential problem of -wholesaling and retailing is not one that can be resolved in terms of any one particular product. The general problem confronting both wholesaler and retailer is the movement of nuraerous products and not just the specific handling of canned tuna. However, in tackling this general problem many specific determinations are made as to how differ- ent items are to be handled and these specific determinations vary con- siderably one from the other. The percentage margin on a staple vol- ume item or a high priced item Taa.y be low, whereas the margin on a perishable or a low priced item may be high. A brief discussion of Federal price regulations as they have concerned wholesale and retail grocers should establish some basis for a review of the margins for canned tuna to see if they are reasonable, particularly since regula- tions on canned tuna and tunalike products have been in effect nearly six of the last ten years. During the greater part of IVorld V/ar II, wholesalers and re- tailers of canned foods were required to establish ceiling prices for merchandise which they sold. At the end of the war in 1945 and for the greater part of 1946, individual wholesalers were required to de- termine into vjhat category their particular kind of operation fell, along with the classification of merchandise handled.. By reference to a table supplied by the Office of Price Administration (O-P.A.) >which shovjed the different categories, a set of mark-up factors c»uld be as- certained. These mark-up factors were then multiplied by the particular 384 wholesaler's "net cost" and the product equalled the maximum or ceil- ing price that could be charged. Similarly, retailers were classed in certain categories according to their volume of sales. Four groups were established and for each group a maximum percentage mark)-up by commodity class was specified. A retailer could determine his maximum allowable mark-up for most any commodity" simply by reference to the proper table issued in Office of Price Administration regulations. Until recently when ceiling prices on all canned foods were dis- pensed with the Office of Price Stabilization (O.P.S), procedure was the same as that required under OoP.A. for obtaining wholesale ceiling prices. The retailer's procedure was also the same as under O.P.A. ex- cept that the value limits of each of the four group classifications based on volume of sales was increased. This was probably brought about by the increased growth of independent super market and chain store type merchandising and higher prices with resultant higher sales volumes. Under 0. P. S. regulations the nHximum permissible retail iiark-ups applying to canned tuna, ranged from 21 to 25 percent of the retailer's purchase price. Seldom was the full 25 percent mark-up applied to canned tuna at the retail level. In many instances the margins of re- tailers were far below those permissible. This indicates that competi- tion in retailing c-anned tuna is effective and the nargins on that product are probably reasonable. An example of the relatively low margins for canned tuna is given in a comprehensive study of seven super markets, located in Providence, Rhode Island published in 1952 . This study was made during 12 weeks in October, November and December, 1950. The gross profit margin as a percent of sales for canned tuna was 13. 3D) percent . If the margin is computed as a mark- up on the basis of cost, as was the practice under O.P.S. regulations, the result is somewhat higher — 15.34 percent. This mark-up of 15.34 percent, based on cost was lower than any allowable mark-up on canned fish for retail stores put into effect by the Office of Price Sta- bilization immediately after this study. Since thip particular case study covered only a 12-week period in a specific area, the results could hardly be used as an indicator of national retail margins for canned tuna. The results do show that efficient retail outlets do and can charge quite low mark-ups for canned tuna and reports indicate that this is prevalent and not exceptional over the nation.. The study also demonstrates that individual margins are not a reliable measure of whether a particular commodity is being handled 385 profitably or efficiently. All individual margins must be related to an over-all selling policy. Low margins and, therefore, relatively low prices are charged on aany items so that customers can be attracted and thus increase sales. Other reasons can contribute to maintaining low margins on some items. At the same time, margins on other items will be relatively high. This is illustrated in the study of the Progress- ive Grocer. The margin on sales for all canned fish was 15.99 percent. Whereas canned tuna was being sold at a lower margin (l3.30 percent), canned sardines were being sold at a margin of 26.57 percent of sales and the canned herring margin was 27.71 percent. Canned tuna is a fast moving and volume item, accounting for 41 percent of the value of all sales of canned fish covered in this study. Sardines accounted for only 9 percent of the value of all sales of canned fish covered. These facts tell part of the study as to why various canned fish items are handled differently with respect to retail margins. The ri^t combination of both high and low margins, so as to result in high sales and a competitive margin on total sales, is the primary objec- tive of large retail outlets. In the determinations of margins retail- ers appear to have kept those on canned tuna relatively low. In the merchandising of canned tuna and tunalike fish products on wholesale and retail levels, as discussed earlier, progress is be- ing made and as new improved developments occur adjustments are being made. Wholesalers and retailers are constantly working toward the at- tainment of a position where they can utilize the most efficient meth- ods of physical operations in conjunction with a realistic selling policy so as to maximize their profits. The outlook is for continued progress to be made in developing better methods of wholesaling and retailing in general and for canned tuna and tunalike products in par- ticular. However, it is likely that each improvement will have only a relatively small influence on the total margin taken by those agen- cies of distribution unless a revolutionary development like super market self-service retailing should again occur. Since canned tuna is a voliiffle item among canned fish it is likely to be haodled with a favorable level of margins being set by vidiolesalerc cuid retailers for this item as compared to many other canned fish items. BROKERS AMD SALES PRACTICES The physical handling of canned tuna and tuna like products has been traced from the time the processor is finished withthem until the consumer buysthexa In the discussion of that handling, it was pointed 386 out that the primary transportation agency is the processor's first con- tact with the distribution system where his product is physically handled by a distribution agency. Even before this contact is made, however, there is usually an earlier personal contact between the processor and a selling agent in the distribution system ivho may be either a broker or a representative of a chain store organization, or grocer, or some other large lot handler. Usually it is the broker with whom a contact is first madec The broker is an expert in the marketing of canned tuna and tunalike products, who knows a great deal about the desires of consumers for those products, the quality of the products of various packers, transportation problems, etc. Brokers. maintain contacts with large lot buyers and through them processors can easily find buyers for their products. Brokers do the work of making contacts to see who wants canned tuna and tunalike products and then consolidate the various needs indicated to them into the form of orders given to their principals, the processors. They are compensated individually for such selling efforts with a remuneration of a certain percentage of the value of the sales they make being paid to them by their principal. In 1951 approximately 90 percent of all domestic canned tuna and tunalike products was packed in California. Of that 90 percent slightly over 70 percent was packed by three large fish canning companies. The methods used in marketing canned tuna by these companies and others should give a good representation of the general procedures followed. The information contained in the following paragraphs is assembled to reveal marketing methods of the tuna packers, presently in use, so that a more dynamic knowledge of the tuna processor's problems with respect to dealing with marketing agencies can be acquired. The greatest percentage of the canned t\ina pack is sold through food brokers. Most of the balance is sold direct to bi:iyers through packers' regional and home offices or through sales agents. Food brokers do not take title to the commodities they handle, but usually act as an intermediary between processor and buyer. Firms that es- tablish regional sales offices do not as a rule dispense with brokers in the territory covered by the regional office. The regional office is concerned more with supervising the actual physical distribution and sales promotion of the firm's pack. There are several types of wholesale distributors and/or organi- zations performing like services that handle the wholesale marketing 387 of the canned pack. These include retail-owned cooperatives, inde- pendent wholesalers, chain store warehouses, and warehousing units of other large retailers. The quantities of canned tuna or tunalike fishes sold to each type of wholesale distributor vary according to their anticipated voLime of sales. The volune of products of the tuna industry sold to chain store warehouses has increased in the post-World War II period, according to available estimates from firms who pack thcs e products. Most firms market their products on a cash basis allowing a dis- count if bills are paid within a limited number of days after the date of the invoice, usually 10 to 30 days. The discount is usually 1-1/2 percent of the invoice value. Brokers are paid a 3 percent commission based on the face value of the invoice, and there is generally no limit on volume they can handle. Brokers do not conduct advertising for the companies as a rule, but are requested to lend full brokerage services such as contacting wholesalers, chain stores, and other retail outlets. The number of indi- vidual brokerage firms that handle an individual processor's pack varies from two or three per firm up to as many as one hundred for a single large firm, each with a separate territory to cover. The larger packers have their own name brands and carry on their own sales promotion campaigns. Individual tuna processing corporations have been known to spend as much as one million dollars or more a year for direct advertising purposes. In addition, these Scime firms and others engage in cooperative advertising agreements that stipulate a certain sum will be paid per case, to the buyer, upon receipt by the packer of evidence that the buyer has advertised the packer's "brand". Advertisir^ usually consists of space purchased in local newspapers. The sun generally allowed per case is 50 cents. Agreements of this nature represent a considerable cost when the amourt paid per case is multiplied by the total number sold. Packers are not always en- thusiastic concerning cooperative advertising agreements. In some instances the agreements are construed to be effective price cuts and are highly desirable to buyers. Consequently, advertising agreements tend to become a "business custom" and, therefore, are demanded by prospective purchasers of canned tuna. In contrast to the larger packers operatir\g nationally, many of the smaller packers sell their entire pack to large retail outlets who 388 in turn label the cans with their own "privcite" brand names. Large chain stores have private labels and also sell national name brand products. Other small packers may use Uieir ovjn "brand" name on a private labels selling the majority of their pack in certain locali- tieso These brands are sold by anyone who wishes to handle them within a limited area. The canned pack is distributed in various ways usually determin- ed by the size of the processing firm. The large firms hold a certain percentage of their current inventories directly adjacent to their plants with the balance of the inventories being warehoused at various distribution centers tliroughout the nation. Smaller packers ordi- narily retain the majority of their canned tuna in warehouses located at the plant site. So far as it can be ascertained^ the processing firms do not own or control warehouses in any of the cities of the country where distribution is made. The level of inventories at the various centers of distribution are based on projected sales figures or anticipated turnover. The storage charges associated with tuna stored for the account of the processor at the different distribution points are absorbed by the processor. The necessity to keep canned tuna available in rather large quantities at points other than plant site has developed, in part, from the increasing growth of chain stores and super market type distribution. These kinds of retail outlets operate on volume turnover accompanied by a short time interval between purchase and resale. Large orders are placed and expected to be filled raomentailly. Brokers must be able to guarantee immediate delivery or buyers turn to a source that can meet their needs. The competitive marketing conditions of the canned tuna industry have forced the processors to accept the burden of the cost of maintaining this immediate source cf supply. Prices charged by processors are F.O.B. shipping point which is usually the cannery. Transportation charges are paid by the canners who are compensated by adding freight costs to invjices sent the buyers. Tuna canning requires a large cash outlay for purcnase of raw fish and processing with no return being realized until after the pack is sold and in the hands of the buyer. Tliis process may take from 2 to 3 months or more. The seasonality of the raw fish supply requires that inven- tories be held for extended lengths of time through periods of light fish deliveries if the processor intends to stabilize a year-round market for his brand. These marketing conditions give rise to various problems of finance, 389 Financing through loans is undertaken to carry inventorj'. In general these loans are considered a high type and there has been no great difficulty with this type of financing in the industry. Some further information with respect to recent Reconstruction Finance Corporation experience in the domestic tuna industry is given in Chapter VII. In pricing their product for sale it has become a comnon prac- tice among processors of canned tuna and tunalike products to "guar- antee floor stocks". Floor stock guarantees mean that the packers of tuna adAd-se their brokers that the prices of certain kinds of canned tuna or tunalike products held by buyers will be guaranteed against the packers own reduction in prices. This applies to the buyer's warehouse floor stocks, goods in transit, and unshipped ordei*s. Most of the firms limit this guarantee to about sixty days. This guarantee allows the brokers to quote a specific price to buyers without the associated risk of a price decline from the proc- essor level occurring shortly after the buyer pays for and gets his order. The arrangement establishes good processor-buyer relations, and to some extent, assures the processor of a future buyer. Guaran- tees should tend to reduce the processors' inventories since the buyers can purchase greater quantities without the risk of a packer price cut. Brokers and wholesalers consider guarantees desirable since risk of canners' reduction in price is removed. However, from a packers standpoint certain difficulties could arise. For instance, if some phase of the production or raw material costs were reduced, and the packers wished to cut their prices, so that buyers could take advan- tage of the lower price and enlarge markets, they would be penalized to the extemt of their existing guarantees. Generally speaking, the processors are opposed to floor stock guarantees; they are a problem for themj but the guarantees have become a policy of the industry and are virtually required to be extended in order to sell canned tuna expeditiously. Floor stock guarantees are "insurance" — price change insurance— for distributors of canned tuna and tunalike products. They tend to stabilize prices to some extent. Anything that helps to stabilize prices tends to stabilize physical movement and thus lead to lower unit cost of operation. On the whole, the tuna packers' present methods, as described in the material above, for marketing their canned pack are efficient and 390 are reasonable in cost. With the competition that exists in the markets ing of canned tuna and tunalike products efficient methods must be utilized, by the firms within the market. Those Urns that are not ef- ficiently operated must sooner or later cease operations. It follows, then, that since the tuna processors are operating within a competitive market 3tnicture25/ each must meet the require- ments that generally prevail in that structure, and are being practic- ed, by those who compete for the sale of canned tuna and tunalike prod- ucts o No individual firm within the present canned tuna market can reduce its brokerage commission, disallow "stock guarantees", or drastic- ally reduce its expenditures for advertising and promotion of its prod- ucts, and still hope to maintain its position in the market. Marketing customs which have been established on an industry-wide basis tend to become "industry institutions" and therefore, become a part of doing business. Most reputable concenns 'i-dll not forsake established bisiness institutions for short-run, dubious innovations. The general information contained in the above discussion of the methods utilized by canned tuna processors to distribute their pack in- dicates that they are doing as good a job as competing canned fish proc- essors. There is also enough evidence to show that distribution and mar- keting costs are no higher for canned tuna than for other canned fishery products. Some discussion on the over-all aspects of that subject was undertaken in the previous section. As an example of a specific item of distribution cost, the bi-okerage fee is 3 percent of invoice for est- ablished brands of canned srlmon, as well as canned sardines — the same as for t\ina. It must be kept in mind that brokerage commissions on fishery products vary according to the manufacturers or processors who pay them, rather than according to the kind of fishery product offered on the market. Generally speaking, commission fees may be higher than 3 percent of invoice if the product offered for sale is not too well established on the market, and greater effort is required on the part of the broker to merchandise it. Brokerage commissions are generally higher than customary if the product is not regularly processed by a particular firm and is being handled only as a product for off season processing. In short, brokerage commission fees will vary slightly ac- cording to the anticipated dollar return from the product being handled. Canned tuna has become a rather basic item in the trade and is handled with reasonable charges. 25_7 The exact degree of the competitive nature of the market structure was not determined in this study. 391 Industry Statistics PRODUCTION STATISTICS At present, the data on the receipts of tuna at California can- neries as well as the pack by these canners are available on a month- ly basis from the California Department of Fish and Game. These data and information on landings and imports in California are also pub- lished weekly in the Market News reports issued by the Fish and Wild- life Service at San Pedro. In the past, these data have been suffi- cient for the industry as only a small pack of tuna was produced out- side of that State, ;Yith the increased interest in packin*^ tuna in other areas, it is necessary to consider imports and packs m other sections. The California tuna industry has recently requested that the Service obtain data on imports of fresh and frozen tuna in other Pacific Coast Areas and published them in the San Pedro Market News reports. If the expansion of tuna canning on the Atlantic coast con- tinues, similar information for that area would also be necessary in estimating total supplies available. Somewhat similar data are available on the pack of canned salraon- a closely competitive product « Information on the pack of salmon in Alaska is available weekly in the Market News reports issued by the Fish and jVildlife Service at Seattle during the packing season. Data on the Paget Sound production are issued at intervals by the Vfeshing- ton Department of Fisheries, and published in the Seattle liarket News reports also. There are no regularly published figures on the salmon pack in the Columbia River and Coastal district s, but the pack of these districts does not usually represent more than 5 percent of the total production. Similar information for canned mackerel arid canned pilchard are available on a monthly basis from the California Departitient of Fish and Game, although these products are not generally considered to be directly competitive with canned tuna. Estimates of actual and anticipated production of fresh meat and poultry and canned poultry—which are competive with canned tuna in the sense that they are protein foods- ^are published monthly by the Department of Agriculture. Apparently very few persons interested in the marketing of canned tuna pay any attention to these items^ but their supply and price undoubtedly affect the sales of canned tuna. 392 STOCK STATISTICS I'flnile information on the quantity packed is of major importance to the producers and distributors of canned tuna, data on the stocks on hand at the packer and wholesaler levels vjould be of equal or possibly even more benefit. This type of information is probably of more direct importance to the buyer and seller of canned tuna than data on the total pack. Generally speaking, the wholesaler seems to be more interested in these data than the packer. Howeverj the packer could use statistics on stocks to even greater advantage than could the wholesaler. Information of this type would show the c aimers when stocks were starting to pile up at the wholesale level. At present, these stocks can reach dangerously high levels before any intimation of marketing difficulties reaches the packer in the form of reduced or cancelled orders. It takes several months to slow down or stop canning operations due to the long trips made by the fishing vessels. Consequently, any information that would enable the packer to obtain earlier information on sales or stocks at the various levels of dis- tribution would assist in preventing glutted markets. The monthly holdings in cold storage warehouses of frozen meat, poultry, and fish are published by the Department of Agriculture and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The California Fish Canners Associa- tion collects data on stocks of canned tuna owned by its members. This inf onnation is not generally available except to Association mem- bers. However, public information is not available on stocks of can- ned fish of any variety. ' ,Vhen queried on the subject of statistical data, a number of brokers said that most of their information was obtained from their principals (canners). In ad'iition to the information obtained from Fish and Wildlife Service reports, some brokers obtain some general infcrmation from such sources as trade magazines and reports of the American Institute of Food Distribution. The information available from the single packer represented by a broker is necessarily some- what sketchy and in some cases is not indicative of the status of the entire industry. However, some brokers undoubtedly obtain the infor- mation on canned tuna stocks collected by the California Fish Canners Association from members of that Association. CONSUMP'nON DATA Another type of information required for modern marketing con- sists of data on the regional consumption of the item. Some companies 393 are able to work this out for their own brands, but brand distribu- tion may not be indicative of t6tal product consumption. This in- formation helps in determining where money for advertising will get the maximum return. It also helps to appraise the results of adver- tising and to determine the type of sales promotion that does the most good. Data are not available on regional consumption of any canned fishery products. Studies of the regional marketing of meat and poultry products are made at frequent intervals by the Department of Agriculture. Periodic studies of the regional consumption of canned tuna vvould provide a basis for the orderly expansion of the market. PRICE DATA Vessel Landings Considerable information with respect to prices for tuna and tunalike species at the ex-vessel level is available from the Fish and iVildlife Service, reports and trade publications. Canned TUna Canned tuna prices (f.o.b.canner's terminal) are quoted weekly by the San Pedro Market News Service office. Quotations are obtain- ed from brokers and cannery representatives in the San Pedro-Los Angeles area. Prices are quoted for advertised brands and for pri- vate labels. Based on prices quoted by the San Pedro Market News Service office, once a week the United States Bureau of Laoor Statistics is supplied with a quotation for lightr-meat, solid- pack tuna, (No. 1/2 tuna can, 7 ounce net weight) to be incorporated in tliat agency's Wholesale Price Index. That Bureau also uses the quotation to com- pute an individual index for canned tuna, an index for the canned fishery products sub-group, and an over-all fish and shellfish index (1947-/^9 = 100). In 1948 the Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (after consultation with various fishery 394 trade groups) determined that canned tuna should be one of the fish- ery items which was to be included in the revised '^olesale Price Index which the Bureau of Labor Statistics was working on„ Solid pack, light meat tuna vjas picked as the most representative of the different styles of canned tuna available at that time. This ^yle of pack represented the greatest proportion of the total tuna pack at that time. In the raeantiraej specifically since 1950, the pack of chunk-style, light-meat t'ona has increased. '-/-■ ''.'-' .■■-' '-' Canned tuna prices for advertised brands and private labels do not generally move or change simultaneously. In order to give rep- resentation to both types of tuna in the index, the price supplied to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics for inclusion in the '/iJnolesale Price Index is a composite price for advertised brands and private labels. The composite price is computed in the follow- ing manners In a particular week the average price for advertised brand solid-pack, light-meat tuna is |15.00 per case, and the price for private label solid-pack, light- meat tiana is 514o00 per case. By talking to brokers and cannery representatives it is determined that 80 percent of the tuna entering trade channels during that week is advertised brands. Assigning a weighting of 80 percent to the price for advertised brands, the composite price (based on the above two quotations) for advertised brands and private labels would be $1A..80 per case. Although some critics of this method of computing a price for canned tuna contend that quoting one grade of canned tuna does not show variation in prices for all grades and packs of canned tuna, it must be remembered that for index purposes it is not feasible to give representation to aH types and grades of a particular commodity. It is o nly possible to pick one type or grade which,, over a long period of time , approximates the over-all price movement of a sub- stantial part of the total of that commodity entering trade channels. It is impossible in an index of the type compiled by- the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics to include all grades or major varieties of a certain commodity. The Bureau prices over 2,000 commodities. If prices for all grades and types of canmodities were to be included, the cost of computing the index would be prohibitive. If the pack of chunk-style, light-meat tuna continues to in- crease, it will be necessary to link the price for this style of tuna into the iftiolesale Price Index and discontinue the pricing of solid -pack, light- meat tuna. Befoi-^ doing this, however, it would 395 be wise to delay making the change until it is determined that the new standards which are being established by the Food and Drug Admin- istration in cooperation with the tuna industry do not lead to further changes in the style of pack. In order for an index series to be of value, it is necessary that the series have a list ofsitems which is not changed too often. Otherwise, the index will lose its value be- cause of defects in comparability. 3S6 BIBLIOfxRAPHY Anonymous 1945- Food Desk Book, Federal Regulations Publishers, Pike and Fischer. OPA Price Service, Vol, h- Rochester, N.Y. Anonymous 1947 o Summary of Operating and Unit Cost Data, Various Periods, 1 936-1944 » Office of Price Administration Survey of Fish Processors, Data Series No„23. Anonymous 1950. The Marketing and Transportation Situation. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Econ- omics. August. Anonymous 1952. Maximum Price Regulations o Office of Price Stabilization. Anonymous 1952. Report on a Study of Sales and Margins by Commodities made in the Providence Public Markets in Providence, R.I. Progressive Grocer., New York,NoY. Heinritz, S.F. 1949. Purchasing, Prentice Hall Inc., New York, N.Y. Hoecker, R.W. and Davenport, J.H. 1952. How Some ?fholesale Grocers Build Better Retailers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration and National American VVholesale Grocers' Association, Marketing Research Report No. 12. Kriesberg, Martin. 1952. Methods of Handling and Delivering Orders Used by Some Leading vmiolesale Grocers. U.SoDepartraent of Agricul- ture, Production and Miarketing Administration and United States i(tfholesale Grocers' Association, iiarket Research Report No. 13- 397 Larson, S. J. and Mixon, J. A. 1952. Planning a Wholesale Frozen Food Distribution Plant. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Production and Market- ing Administration, Marketing Research Report No. 18. Sevin, C. H. 1946 Distribution Cost Analysis, a Management Tool for Cost Reduction. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Economic Series No. 50. Shaffer, P. F. and Harwell, E. ^. 1952. Some Improved Methods of Handling Groceries in Self- Service Retail Food Stores. U.S.Departme nt of Agricul- ture, Production and Marketing Administration Earketing Research Report No. 7- 398 CHAPTER VIH •= GOVERr^DSNT ASSISTANCE TO THE TUNA INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN COMPETING COUNTRIES ABSTRACT governmerrtal aid in vaftcing degrees is qiven to the fishing im3ustry of the United States and 25 other countries studied. Some of this aid accrues to the tuna ll«ustries of many of those countries, the united states and the 25 other COUNTRIES ALL LEVY AN IMPORT OU-.T ON CmNNEO TUNA AND TUNALIKE FISHES BUT IN SOME countries fresh or frozen raw tuna enters as an import j free of duty. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation kas made some loans to members of the domestic tuna industry, The Inter=American Tropica;. Tuna Commission is engaged in a scientific research program which hc/vever has been limited due to a shortage of operating FtMJS. Exploration for ne« tuna grouncs has been under way for severe, yews by the service in the central pacific off t¥e atlantic coast and in the gulf of MEXICO. A BEGINNING HAS BEEN MADE IN RESEARCH DESIGNED TO PROVIDE LIVE BAIT SUBSTITUTESo The United States Departmei^ of State is devoting attention on a continuing BASIS to the reduction OF AREAS OF FRICTION AND MISUNDERSTANDING IN INTERNATIONAL relations affecting the TUNA INDUSTRV„ If THE TUNA FISHING INDUSTRY IS TO CONfTINUE ITS VITAL. FOOD PRODUCTION, THE PROBLEM OF SKILLED MANPOWER WARRANTS THE INCREASED CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENT. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION OF THIS SUBJECT The investigation of this subject extends to the assistance given to fishery enterprises by the United States and by foreign Governments as far as they are active In tuna fishing or proces,?\ng of tuna products, both inclusive of tunalike fish,, or as far as they are considered potential future competitors of the American tuna industi-y. Besides the United States, the follomng countries vrere considered? In Asia, — Japan and the Philippines j in North America, —Canada and Mexico | in South America, — -Chile, Peru, Venezuela, and Ecuador | in Central America, — -Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexicoj in Europe, —The United Kingdom, The ^Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Portugal., Italy, and France | in Oceania, — Australia and New Zealand » 399 As can be expected, the most detailed information is available for the United States. With regard to mary countries, information •was not available on all subject matters which were of interest in this investigation. The most regrettable fact is that statistical data, if available, are often sporadic and refer to different calendar or fiscal years. The investigation itself did not give preference to countries with greater production of tuna and tuna- like fishes and products processed therefrom. As far as the search for information is concerned, all countries considered were treated as of equal importance. The investigation was extended to the aid given by central Governments, as distinguished from provincial or local aid. It was not overlooked that, in some countries, practically all aid to the fisheries is granted by the central Government while, in others, for example; in the United States and Canada, substantial assistance is also extended by State, provincial, or local Govern- ments, However, such State, provincial, or local assistance was mentioned only as far as it was deemed advisable to found up the information, SOURCES OF INFORMATION Information was obtained in the United States from budget reports; budget estimates; annual reports of Federal and State fishery administrators; from hearings before Congressional Com- mittees, especially before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives; from material available in the libraries of the Department of the Inteii.or, of the Department of Agriculture, of the Department of State, and of the Library of Con- gress. The official publications issued by various foreign Govern- ments were also utilized for additional and more recent data. Most valuable information was obtained from special reports prepared by Foreign Service Officers of -the Department of States, and from the documentary evidence submitted by them. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation also prepared a report on its activity with respect to the domestic tuna industiyo Available information was gathered in the United States Department of Commerce. About 20 •♦desk" officials within the Department of Commerce, Office of International Trade, were interviewed in connection with this investigation. Information also was obtained from the Office of the Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife tx) the Under Secretary of State and from the Fishery Attache of the United States in Tokyo, Japan. 400 Interviews -were held with officials of the Fish and Wildlife Service #10 have been regularly stationed in foreign countries, and were temporarily available in Washington, D, C.^ as well as with other persons vho were formerly stationed in official capacity in foreign countries and whose knowledge of the interrelation of fisheries and Governments in such countries could advantageously be used for this investigation. In many cases, it was not possible to obtain direct information on the assistance given in foreign countries to the t^ma fisheries, while information was available as to the assistance given to fisheries generally. In such cases, an estimate had to be made as to the relationship, present or potential, of the fisheries as a whole to the tuna fisheries, or vice versa. On the basis of these estimates, sane evaluation of the policies prevailing or to be expected for the tuna fisheries could be made. Specific anphasis was laid on the collection of data Tfrtiich would show the protective tariff duties which are applied in foreign countries in the interest of the tuna industries. About 15 tariff specialists of the Department of Commerce, Office of International Trade, were helpful in collecting that datao CLASSIFICATION OF THE VARIOUS TYPES OF GOVERUMENTAL ASSISTANCE In the present investigation, all governmental assistance ex- tended to fishery enterprises classifies into three main categories? (1) Bounties or subsidies, which may be direct or indirect? (2) emergency reliefj and (3) other governmental aid. Under bounties and subsidies are listed governmental grants made to fisheries enterprises in connection with the various phases of fisheries operations, and the special privileges which tend to lessen the costs of such activities. Bounties and subsidies are sub- classified ass (1) dir-'-ty and (2) indirect assistance. Under direct assistance are grouped payments by the Government of sums of money to fishermen either in consideration of certain past per- formances, or with a view to defraying a part of the costs of future undertaking?, but, in both cases, upon compliance with specific re- quirements set up by the Government, Such direct bounties and sub- sidies (direct assistance) ares bounties paid to fishermen, or to owners of fishing vessels for engagirg in fishing operations for a specified length of time and bounties paid upon the exportation of fisheries products | subsidies granted for the construction or repair of fishing vessels j other direct subsidies for example, ,;.v /*oi subsidies granted toward the erection or operation of freezing establishments and other miscellaneous direct' subsidies. All direct bounties and subsidies are non-recoverable cash outlays by the Government, and reach the recipients in the form of direct cash payme nts o In the case of indirect bounties and subsidies (indirect assistance), cash payments are not made directly to fisheries enter- prises; the Government either lessens the costs of operations by granting certain privileges, entirely relieves the fisheries enter- prises from carrying on certain necessary activities, or extends financial accomodation in the form of loans -which, otherwise, -would not be obtainable. Thus, indirect bounties and subsidies are, for example; governmental loans or guarantees of loans to fisheries enterprises; miscellaneous indirect subsidies for example, home market promotion activities carried on by the government; and exemptions from customs duties or from taxes on commodities used in fisheries. It appears that the governmental loans are the most important type of indirect bounties and subsidies granted to fishermen. With -the exception of loans, all indirect assis-tance represents non-recoverable cash outlays or losses on the part of the go-vernmento Another foim of aid vhich is indirect and sanetimes results in financial benefit to fishermen is the practice of some na-tions to maintain ice or refrigerated -warehouses in fishing districts. The governments usually charge a foe for the use of these facili- ties but often it is an aunount considerably under -t*iat the fishermen -would have to pay for the ser-vice if any pri-vate firm were at all disposed to conduct the service « Other cash paymen-ts "to fishermen -which do not constitute an integral part of definite governmental policies toward fisheries, and do not represent normally recxirring encouragement to -the fishing industry, are lumped under '*Emergency relief* , This aid, going to needy fishermen, was called into existence by extraordinary conditions, and is likely to cease -with the improvement of general economic con- ditions in the respective countries. Finally, under "Other Governmental Aid", are listed all o-ther types of assistance, classed in t-wo main groups; (1) facilitation services, and (2) administrative functions of departments or bureaus of fisheries. In contrast to bounties and subsidies which generally are reducible to monetary terms vdth regard to individual fishermen or fisheries crganizations, the benefits accruing frcm "Other Govern- mental Aid" do not lend themselves to monetary measurementSj either individually or collectivelyo The f\inds expended in the form of '*Other Governmental Aid" are, inmost cases, non-recoverable. Governmental activities Ti^-iich tend to improve the basic con- ditions of fisheries operations are classified as facilitation services. These services include fish protection and propagation research and investigation, the improvement of port facilities, and other activities affecting the general working conditions of fisher- men; for example, biological, statistical, and economic research, technological assistance, dissemination of information, and education of fishermen. In some countries, expenditures for so-called facilitation services probably include items of expense •»*iich, in fact, were expended for administrative functions, and vice versa, '^Administrative functions'* cover chiefly the routine activities of the fisheries bureaus. Part of the expenditures under this head have to do with the general supervision of fisheries and with the administration of the various other forms of aid to fisheries. Others are for the enforcement of fishery laws, such as those de- signed to prevent excessive depletion of waters, or to assure the quality of the product marketed. In some countries, part of the eijqsenditure is for the collection of statistics of the fisheries. Summary of Findings Some governmental aid is given to fisheries in all the 26 coimtries examined. The specific aid to the tuna fisheries could only, in few cases, be --i^parated from the aid which was given to the fisheries generally in ^he respective country, Tfllhere the assistance, given to the tuna industry, could not be eliminated, it was assimed that the assistance given to that industry is in about the same proportion to the assistance given to the fishery industry generally as the catch of tuna and tunalike fishes is to the total catch by quantities or by values i^spectively, ^llith regard to same countries in which tuna or tunalike fishes are not landed or with regard to countries in which tuna or tunalike fishes are landed in very small 405 quantities only, assistance given to the fisheries generally was discussed -rtien it was assumed that the countries in question will in the near future develop tuna fishing or a tuna processing industry, A fev7 countries give direct subsidies to their fisheries either in the form of bounties, grants for vessel construction or other direct grants. Only 7 out of 26 countries were foiuid to assist ■with such direct subsidies which are considered to be non-recoverable losses for the government treasury in question^ Seventeen countrifis out of 26 make loans to fishermen or fishery industrial corporations, for the development of their industry, mostly for the acquisition or reconditioning of vessels » The United States is included among these seventeen since the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is active in this field. Some information about its activity is given later in this chapter. Seven countries out of 26 give quarantees of such loans when the loans are advanced from private sources. Only a few countries, namely five, maintain public ice or refrigerated warehouse's for the use of fishermen or fish processors. Seven countries provide for emergency relief in the case of disaster, hurricanes or as consequence of war emergencies , Twenty-one out of 26 countries are engaged in biological re- search and 20 countries give assistance for fishery technological research. Only 16 countries support fish propagation by public funds. Fishermen's schools and fishermen's collegesare supported by govern- ment contributions in 12 cotmtrieso Exploratory fishing is supported by the respective governments in 10 countrieso The importance of the fishery products as objects of inter- national or national trade can be seen fron the fact that 1^ countries have set aside funds to support marketing and marketing research. Only 13 countries support regiolar statistical data collectiono The same 13 countries have set aside appropriations for economic research. Twelve countries give assistance by dissemination of information, mostly concerning the results of biological studies or exploratoiy fishing. Some coimtries also make available to the fishery industries regular marketing reports as well as trade conditions in foreign states. Five countries provide special legislation for certain types of fishery enterprises for example, for fishery cooperative assistance, for fishery export associations or for fishery monopolies. 404 Specific efforts were made to collect data on tax or duty ex- emptions for fisheries, protective tariffs and quota systems imposed on fisheries o Ten countries show exemptions for certain taxes or duties for fisheries either in the form of tax exemptions on gasoline, motors, or other equipment used in the fishery industries or in the form of duty free importation of such equipment. All countries but the United States, Denmark, Norway, and Nicaragua, levy an import duty on fresh and frozen fish, especially fresh and frozen tuna. But, of these foiu* countries, three, namely; Denmark, Nicaragua, and Norway have established import and exchange license systems which at present are prohibitive to any importation of Any fresh or frozen tuna. Consequently, only the United States permits duty free importation of fresh and frozen tuna without any restrictions as to quotas and international payments. (Italy permits the duty-free importation of fresh and frozen tuna for canning in Italy. However, it does not issue import permits for imports from hard currency countries.) All together 21 countries at present apply a strict control on monetary exchange and on imports -wiiich makes practically impossible the importation of tuna and tunalike fish products. All 26 countries levy an import duty on canned tuna and tunalike fishes. For further details with respect to the various types of assistance rendered to the tuna industries of the various countries studied see table 8h» More detailed information was obtained, such as amounts expended for direct aids, etc., but space does not permit the reproduction of that information here. Details of the import duties of each country are given in table 85. The comparative effect of the various duties levied are given in table 86 where a price of 1^ cents (U. S.) per poiind net and a price of 60 cents (U. S,) per pound gross has been assumed to determine the effect of duties of all countries. U05 TABLg 84. - GOraBWEIJT ASSISTANCE TO THS TTHtt rmJOSTOT Ol THB imiTn) STATES AM) CCHPETINC COUFmiBS AS OF fBBHUARI 1, 1953 Trp«* ot A*«lstai>c« Rand«r«d Pl*hln( BountlM Subtidl** OthOT- f«r Vxsal Dlraet ConstruetlMi SubsldlM Loan* Gkmrmtni GuaruitlM Mlse«ll*nMui Indlract Subsldlat - Ai«l8t&nc« n«t rend*r«d. X Asalataae* r«nd«r*d. (Continued on naxt pag«) TABLE 84. - GOVERNME?'T ASSISTANCE TO THE TUNA ITIDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES AND COIPETING COUNTRIES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1953 - Continued Country Tax or Duty Exeinption Types of Assistance Rendered Protective Tariff (Raw Fish) Protective Tariff (Canned Fish) Import Licensing Maintenance of Ice-or Refrigerator Warehouses - Assistance not rendered. X Assistance rendered. (Continued on next page) 1*07 Country United States Canada Mexic* Guatemala Panama EL Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Costa Rica Venezuela Ecuador Peru Chile Columbia Japan Philippilnes Australia New Zealand United Kingdom The Netherlands Denmark Norv/ay France Spain Portugal Italy T»BLE eu. - CX)VB?NHQ1T ASSISTANCE TO THE TlflA I'lDJSTRY IN THE UNITH) STATES ANT CC»?PSri"IC COUNTRIES .\S OF FEBRUABY 1, 1953 - Continued Types of Assistance Rendered Other Governmental Aid Qnergency Relief Biological Research Fish Propagation Technological Research Fishermen's Schools Port Facilities X X X X X _ - X X X z X X X _ _ X X - 'issistanoe not rendered. X Assistance rendered. (ContinufXl on next page J IfOB TABLE eU. - CXJVERNMENT ASSISTA^'CE TO THE TONA ItroUSTRY IK THE UN'ITED STATES AMD COMPETING COUNTRIES AS OP FEBRUARY 1, 1953 - Continued Country Exploratory Fis'iery Types of Assistance Rendered Other Gcvemnental Aid Marketing Services Statistics and Economic Research Information Services Legislative Preferences United States Canada Mexico Guatemala Pa nana El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Costa Rica Venezuela Ecuador Peru Chile Columbia Japan Philippines Australia New Zealand United Kingdom The Netherlands Denirark Norway France Spain Portugal Itc-ly - Assistance not rendered, X '.ssistance rendered. IW9 TABLE 85. - IKPCRT TARIFF -RATES OF FRESH, FROZEN AND PROCESSED TUNA IN SPECIFIED COUNTRIES, AS OF FUBRUARY 1, 1953 Importing Country Part I - Fresh and Frozen Currency Equivalent Additional Taaes United States 1/2 cent (fresh) 1/2 cent (fresh) 1 cent 15% (frozen) 17-1/25S (frozen) 25% (frozen) .10 pesos 10? 0.05 balboas plus per pound net per pound net per po'ird - net ad valorem ad valorem ad valorem per kllograjn ad valorem p«r gr. kg. 1 C. dollar tl.Ol 1 peso ; $0.23 1 balboa $1.00 3% of duty on freight or express ship- ments. 10? of duty on parcel post British Connonwealth preference Most Favored Nations (U. S.) General British Commonwealth preference Most Favored Nations (U. 5.) General Nicaragua U.S. equivalent pg^ gp^ i^g^ 3 cent plus 6% ad valorem 2% tell tax on import charges. 10 cents tax on eich imported package .62 lempiras per gr. plus 10? surtax on duty plua 8? Consular fee ad valorem 2 lempiras r $1.00 Road tax 1? ad valorem Wharfage tax 0.01 lempiras per gross kg. Portage and storage fee 0.01 per gross kg. Toll tax 0.02 per gross kp. Special surtax) 0.01 per ) gross kg. ) 35 colones (,70ld) per hundred gr. kg. 1 gold oolones - $1.00 (Continued on next page) TABLE 35. - IMPORT TARIFF RATES OF FRESH, FROZEN AND PROCESSED TUNA IN SPECIFIED COUNTRIES, A3 OF FEBRUARY 1, 1953 - Continued Importing Part I - - Fresh and Frozen Country- Rate Rate Base Currency Equivalent Additional Taxes Remarks Costa Rica 80 colones plus per gr. kg. ad valorem 1 colones = 14.3 cents Imports at present prohibited Veneziiela 2 bolivars per gr. kg. 1 bolivar = 30 cents Imports of fresh and frozen tuna licensed. Under quota. 2 sucres per gr. kg. plus 13-1/2? ad valorem Import Tax plus kiS ad valorem Exchange Tax 1 Sucre = 6,25 cents U. S, equivalent 3.225 cents per gr. kg. plus 11.667? ad valorem (duty paid) Import licenses are given only in exceptional cases U. S. equivalent 27.8 cents 20? plus per gr. kg. ad valoram (duty paid) No license at present given. 30 centaves 25? plus per gr. kg. ad valorem 1 centave = .4 cents Imports at present proM.bited PhillDoines $4.50 fret Tram U. S. \. per gr. kg. Imports restricted to a quota of 5? of 1949 iir.ports (frozen tuna) Japan 10? No imports permitted at present. (Continued on next page) TABLE 85. - IMPORT T.'>RIFF RATES OF n?ESH, FROZEI! AND PHDCES5ED TUHA IN SPECIFIED COUNTRIES, AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1953 - Continued Importing Country Part I - Fresh and Frozen Currency Equi^'clert Additional Taxes ustralia 1 pence per lb. ^-rose for Conmonwe!)] th Countries per lb. gross General (1-1/2 pence per lb. gross tariff ( plus (10^ ad valorem I i <• %2.:^L IT-l/Zif Sales 1 d z .93 cents tax Imports from hard currency countries not oermltted New Zealand 10 shllUngs per U2 lb. (ctw.) (for Conmonwealth Countries and Prelerrec' Nations) 15 shillings 112 lb. net all other free from Austral!? 1 t = *2.8C 1 shilling Z lU cents 22.5!f Surtax of duty No imports et present permitted United Kingdom 10^ ad valorem free fran Conmonwealth Countries $2.80 Import licaises r'iquired for most countries and if tr9n8- ported on Non- Coramonwealth Vessels. The Netherlands /t-1/2? Turn- over Tax Licenses for imports required Denmark Norway France Trade Agreement Countries (min. 12.5 franc ) General 99!f 1 franc = .28 cents 1% trans- action tax (on goods plus duty) Licenses rspuired Licenses required Licenses at present not issued Spain .252 gold pesetas per net kg. 1 pold pesetas - 32.6 cents Licenses at present not Issued General Trade Agreerrient Countries 0.05 g. esc. 0,025 g. '^sc. per net kg. (during Sept. and Jan.) 0.001 g. esc. 0.001 g. esc. 1 gold escuedo = 86 cents 60!{ Surtax on duty Licenses at present not issued Italy General Trade Agreemsnt Countries 30^ 1855 ad valorem for canning in Italy 1 Ura = .16 cents Licenses only issued for soft currency countries . (Continued on next page) 19h9o 419 Exploration of possible new tuna grounds has been underway by the Fish and Vlildlife Service for the past several years in the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico p and off the Atlantic seaboard. Re- sults are promising ibr the establishment of new conmercial tuna fisheries in all these areaso If these projects v;ere to be con- tinued and expanded they would provide knowledge of new resources which may be available to maintain or increase the needed pro- duction of tuna. Research on new and modified types of fish gear to increase efficiency, as well as electronic experiments in locating schools of fish such as tuna, are being conducted. It is believed by many tuna experts that alternate sources of live tuna bait or live bait substitutes can be fotmd to relieve the fleet of this source of considerable expense and trouble. It has been proposed by the indxistry that the Fish and Wildlife Service undertake a broad-scale research program to develop an alternate bait for tuna. This is a field in viiich the Government can be of great assistance to the fishing industry, as private operators do not normally have the facilities or funds for systematic scientific research o f this type . International Relations ^o/ As indicated in Chapter IV, the scope of American tuna fishing operations off foreign shores, together with the highly disordered state of foreign claims to fisheries control in adjacent waters, has conspired to confront tiie industry with a production problem that enters the field of international relations and raises questions of international lav/. The United States Department of State is devoting attention on a continuing basis to the reduction of areas of friction and misunderstanding in the matter. The encouragement and facilitation of the free exchange of factual information regarding the tuna fishery, both of an economic and scientific nature, is one way of meeting this objective. Another is the negotiation of av^iropriate agreements once valid bases therefor are established. These may relate to privileges within 28/ Prepared by the Office of the Special Assistant for Fisheries and Wildlife to the Under Secretary of State, United States Department of State, as requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 420 recognized territorial waters, such as fishing, port privileges, shelter, etCo, or thej"- may be of a conservational or investigative character. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is an example of the latter. Secondly, the United States Department of State is continuing its policy of warding off, wherever possible, impending illegal seizures of other illegal molestation of United States fishing vessels by foreign authorities, and of rendering appropriate assistance #iere United States citizens do become so involved. Manpower Efficient tuna fishing is dependent upon team work and skill of the crew manbers. Vessel operators have recently expressed alarm over two developments T*iich reportedly threaten to cause an acute shortage of skilled tuna fishermen to adeqixately man the vessels. Concern has been expressed that the McCarran-Walter Act, by eliminating fishermen from classification as seamen, will re- sult in a number of experienced fishermen of foreign nationality being forced to leave the country. It is believed that approximately 1^0 tuna fishermen are affected. Up to the present, no reports have been received of a tuna vessel being tied up for lack of a crew, and it appears that there are a sufficient number of qualified fishermen to operate the fleet under present conditions. Secondly, there is a possibility of younger fishermen being taken into the armed forces by the draft. Manning the vessels with inexperienced fishermen reduces efficiency and raises the costs of production, thereby tending to reduce the competitive ability of American fisher- men with foreign tuna-producing nations. It has been the policy to grant military deferments and even discharges to skilled fishermen ■viio are essential to operation of a vessel. If the tuna fishery is to maintain its position as a vital food-producing industry, this problem of skilled inanpower warrants increased consideration. 421 ii22 CHAPTER IX ~ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Fifty years ago the tuna industry in the United States consisted of one cannery in southern California and a few vessels fishing in nearby waters o This cannery and these vessels created the industry that has made available the canned tuna now so wide- spread in domestic markets » Since this inauspicious beginning the domestic pack of canned tuna and tunalike fishes has become more valuable than that of salmon^ and more canned tuna is consumed per capita than salmon or any other canned fisho In attaining these premier positions the tuna industry has grown amsizingly in size and complexity. The onetime local fishing fleet of small boats has expanded to thousands of fishing craft including the largest, the most expensive, and the farthest ranging fishing vessels in the domestic fleeto The single cannery has grown to over forty canneries which include the finest examples of mechanized fish processing in the cotintryo They have spread to Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, and to Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina, Others are projected for Mississippi and Puerto RicOo Thousands cf shoreworkers find year-round employment in the Pacific coast canneries and other thousands in service industries* Numerous fish plant workers on the Atlantic coast are finding that tuna canning helps to extend employment while processing based on local fisheries is at a low ebb. The first struggling efforts to create a market for canned tuna have given wsy to marketing organizations and promotional programs, the achievements of which may be measured best ty the top ranking of canned tuna in per capita consumption, and by the frequency with which its desirability blazons forth in every type of advertising raediao U23 M&rket demand ccapled with domestic initiative and foreign ccnpetition have made the producing, processing, and marketing segments of the once simple t;irxa industry so complex that actions which benefit a fisherman may harm a processor, or, as in some cases, what may be to the advantage of one processor is to the disadvantage of another.. Once albacore was the onily tuna cannedo Now "tuna" includes yellowfin, skipjack, bluefin, and little tuna. And "tunalike" fishes include bonito and yellowtailo Niti^ty percent of the domestic catch is taken off the shores of foreign nations and the fisKing operation is now subject to vaiying degrees of foreign controlo Until 1925, the domestic pack consitfjted oiily of tuna caught by domestic tuna fishermen. Then frozen whole tuna were imported and processed ±39 domestic canneries, and shortly thereafter foreign canned tuna appeared on the United States market* The proportion of foreign tuna used by domestic canneries varies with their access to the domestic tuna landings. California packers are so situated that they can utilize both the domestic catch and imported frozen tuna advantageous lyo Pacific Northwest and Hawaiian canners have m:ach more need for frozen imports to round out their packs, while Atlantic coast processors are almost wholly dependent, at present, on frozisn imported tunao Importing of tuna, either canned or frozen, has become a significant part of the country's tuna industiy. Foreign tuna, in one g-iise or another, accounted for 33o3 percent of the available supplies for the domesrtdo market in 1952. And a new phase is just beginninge Importation of frozen cooked tuiia loins is underway© When packing these loins a cannery eliminates all labor and processing steps up to the mechanical pacldng into canso Trial shipments of Imported frozen cooked tuna in open No a 1/2 tiona cans have been rsceived recently. This type of import eliminates the need for labor and equipment up to the sealing machine and cooking retorts o Completing the canning process by sealing the cans and cooking the sealed product is a simple procedure. It does not require a t^ina cannery since the sealing, and cooking can be accomplifshed m the plant of almost any fn.\it or vegetable packer with the equipment used for the regular pi'oductso U2li The domestic tuna industry, in all its segments, is a pro- gressive industry as its achievements over the past fifty years readily demonstrate. Its importance to the National interest is borne out by the World War II record of its fishing fleet and by the current statements of Federal agencies with regard to its importance to the National economy. But when the tuna industry created a desirable product and developed an increasing market for the product J it also created problems. These problems, left unsolved, could reduce the domestic tuna industry, as we know it now, to an insignificant operation insofar as fishing, process- ing, and a substantial part of the distributing function are con- cerned. Undoubtedly all those involved with the domestic tuna in- dustry in any respect agree that its problaas should be studied and that attempts to solve the problems in an equitable manner should be made. Outlining the problems is not difficult. Suggest- ing solutions or methods of attack is much more difficult because of the diversity and conflict of interests. The more pressing problems follow. They are not necessarily in order of importance nor of priority as to which should be at- tacked first. They are so interrelated that a decision on one usually affects the others. 1. Hovj can the domestic fishing fleet continue to operate profitably and supply a fair share of the raw material for the canned tuna consumed in the domestic riarket when in cocipetition with increasing imports of tuna in various forms? The share of the market supplied by the domestic fishing fleet has declined with increasing imports, and vessels have been forced, at times, to cease fishing for extended periods when their market was over supplied. Imports of tuna, whether frozen round, frozen cooked loins, frozen cooked in cans, or canned in oil or brine, are directly competitive vdth the landings of the domestic fleet ^ Many units of the fleet are faced with operating unprofitably, ceasing operations, transferring to another type of activity — which is difficult or impossible for most vessels — or transfer- ring to a foreign registry. 425 2o How can domest-ic packers be assured of adequate raw materials to meet market demands for canned tuna? Landings of tuna by the domestic fleet currently are not large enough tc suppjy the needs of domestic cannerso If additional restrictions were placed on imports of frozen round tuna.^ or frozen cooked tuna loins, to aid the fishing fleets and the domestic catch could not be correspondingly increased, mary caxmers would be seriously affected. Most California canners import tuna although most of the domestic tuna is landed there. Pacific Northwest canners require imported tuna because the local catch of albacore is highly variable and never large. Atlantic coast canners are almost wholly dependent on tuna from foreign sources as the local fisheries ara unsure and undeveloped. Diminished access to imports of frozen round tuna or frozen cooked loins, or an increase in their cost, would require canners to decrease and limit their markets, would increase their operating costs, and could stimulate transfer of canning operations to foreign countries o 3o How can domestic shore plant workers be assured of full employment in canneries utilizing tuna? Imported frozen round tuna permits increased operation and greater employment since domestic landings of tuna currently are not large enough to supply the needs of domestic canners. If restric- tions were placed on imports of frozen round tuna to aid the fishing fleet, and the domestic catch could not be increased to meet the need, cannery operations would be curtailed and shore employment decreased. Imports of frozen cooked tuna loins add to a canner's supply of raw material but eliminate a relatively large number of shoreworkers in the butchering and cleaning operations. Imports of frozen cooked tuna in cans also add to the canne^-'s supply of raw mateiaal and eliminate additional shoreworkers in the can filling operationo Imports of tuna canned in oil or in brine eliminate all need for shoreworkers in domestic plants. Ii26 If further restrictions were placed on the imports of frozen cooked tuna loins, frozen cooked tuna in cans, and tuna canned in brine or oil, to aid shoreworkers, then domestic packers would have increased costs, and a lesser share of the market to the extent that domestic catches could not fill the gap« If additional restric- tions were placed on imports of tuna canned in oil or in brine, then the fleet, the canners, and the shoreworkers would benefit while importers and distributors of canned tuna would s\iffer« Lack of full employment for shoreworkers creates a difficult problem for mary of them who do not possess skills permitting them to transfer readily to other industries o For others there is no alternative employment in their areas o Imports are both an advantage and a disadvantage to the shoreworker, depending upon the form in which the packer receives them* If the trend is toward the partially processed forms, then shoreworkers must find other employ- ment, possibly at the cost of moving from the area in which they now are employedo lie How can domestic canners be assured of supplying a fair share of the domestic market for canned tuna? The needs of the domestic market are now supplied by tuna canned by domestic canners from the domestic catch and from imports of frozen round tuna, frozen cooked loins, and frozen cooked tiina in cans, and by importers of tuna and tunalike fishes canned in oil and in brine., If further restrictions were imposed on the imports of frozen rotind tuna or frozen cooked loins to aid the fishing fleet or the shoreworkers, then canning operations would suffer to the extent that the domestic catch could not fill the canners' raw material needs at a comparable price. If further restrictions were placed on the importation of tuna or txmalike fishes canned in oil or in brine, all segments of the tuna industry, except importers and distributors of these products, should benefit from a greater market o 127 If further restrictions were placed on the imports of frozen cooked tima in cans — and use of the pre duct is found to be feasible ~ then canners, in the short view, might consider them- selves deprived of an added and possibly more desirable raw materialo In the long view, however, it seems almost certain that the importa- tion and the successful and profitable canning cf this product is one of the greatest threats to the domestic canning industry as it is now constituted, (importation cf frozen cooked loins presents the same threat, but to a lesser degree^ since packing equipment not normal to other food canning plants is requiredo ) There appears to be no reason why ar^y- fruit cr vegetable canner, or, for that natter, almost ar^y food canner, could not complete the processing of frozen cooked tuna in cans as readily as tuna cariners. They might do it more advantageously if the canned tuna shared overhead and marketing costs with the packers' major productso Custom canning also might occur and make it possible for large btjyers to circumvent the usual marketing channels o In summary, further restrictions on imports of frosen round tuna or frozen cooked loins would increase canners' costs and limit their ability to supply their markets o Lowering tariffs on imported t'una or tunalike fishes canned in oil or brine vrould create greater market competition which might be offset by increased demando A trend toward, and the successful utilization of, imported frozen cooked tuna in cans might aid canners at first, but probably'" would eventually make canned tuna a byproduct of other canned food plants. Thus, the tuna canning industry faces problems T«diich, at worst, could force the canning operation to foreign countries or transfer it to other food canning industries in this countryo U28 5» How can the domestic consumer be assured of an adequate supply of canned tuna at a fair price? Consumers have evidenced a keen and increasing desire for canned tuna. It seems obvious that their demands will be met from domestic or imported production or a combination of both. A fair price is another mattero If the domestic fleet can no longer compete with foreign production and is reduced in size or trans- ferred to foreign registry, and if domestic canners become largeDy dependent on imports for their raw material, it will not take long for the exporting countries to eliminate the domestic canners by carrying out the canning function at home. When that occurs, they also can govern the price of canned tuna within certain limits » Consumers, therefore, may have a considerable stake in vrtiether we maintain a domestic tuna industry or become dependent on foreign canned tuna* 6. How can the domestic tuna industry meet the future demand for canned tuna? The per capita consumption of canned tuna is increasing, which means that the industry, for a time, at least, must not only supply the added volume required ty population growth but also a greater consumption per person. If the tuna industry solves all its other problems, the matter of increasing its supplies remains. If the fishing fleets cannot catch the additional raw material required, then the tuna industry foregoes an opportunity for greater production and may even lose ground to some other more available fish or competing foodo 1;29 7. How can the international problems involved in fish- ing for tuna be resolved in an equitable manner? The international character of the tuna resource creates problems which are unique to fishing as a food producing opera- tion and, to varying degrees, makes the domestic tuna fishing fleet subject to foreign regulations. These regulations could become onerous and have a tendency to shift both fishing and processing operations from domestic to foreign bases. If the fleet, through its ovin resources, or with State or Federal assistance, were successful in locating new resources, in adapting new fishing methods, or in devising a live bait sub- stitute, this problem would diminish in importance. Manifold considerations concerned with surveying the long- range position of the domestic tuna industry in the domestic ec- onomy have been detailed in the previous chapters. It has been noted that the outlook for consumption of products of the tuna industry is a bright one. On the other hand, the prospects of major relative cost reductions in fishing and processing are rather bleak. Distribution, which is responsible for only a small part of the ultimate cost of canned tuna, does not offer anj- great prospect of cost sa^/ings as an aid in improving the position of the industry. In the light of these and associated determinations, suggestions are made herewith as to what may be done by the domestic tuna industry — fishermen, processors, dis- tributors, and importers — ,3jid the Federal Government, to promote necessary adjustments so that the industry may achieve and main- tain a sound position in the domestic economy. Before considering what the Federal Clovernment could or should do for the tuna industry, it is necessary to outline what the tuna industry has done for itself during the economic trials experienced in the past two years, and what it can do in the fut- ure. A review of its recent activity indicates that it has not been inactive in helping itself to surmount some of its problems. 430 Among the small craft fishermen there has been a considerable increase in the number of fishery cooperative marketing associations organized in the Pacific Coast States during the last two years. Most of these associations are groups of small boat operators who have organized in this manner to improve their lot. In March 19^3* there were more than l5 fishery cooperative marketing associations controlled by small craft commercial fishermen actively participating in the marketing of tuna or purchasing supplies for operators of craft in the tuna fishery. The large craft operators have also been active. The American Tunaboat Association, Inc., has organized as a fishery cooperative marketing association. The Fishermen's Cooperative Association of San Pedro, Inc., which has been operating for mar^r years, has become more and more active with the business affairs of its members . Fishermen, processors, distributors, and importers have not been laggard in carrying out their functions expeditiously and in line with the statements contained in Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Docvunent No. 18, 8lst Congress. In this Document the Secretaries of State and Commerce stated that; "Every improvement that can be made in fishing vessels, processing equipment, transportation and distribution facilities, and in techniques used should help to reduce costs and increase returns to the industry . •• The tuna industiy has taken action along the following lines: 1. Large expenditures have been made for direct advertising by the domestic twaa industry, as indicated in table 1^. In addition, direct advertising has been conducted ty importers. . The latter, while not as great in dollar amount, has been intense in certain selected areas of the Nation. U31 2. Packers have mechanized the canning of tuna to a large degree and are continuing efforts toward mechanization of the butchering and cleaning process. The packers also have cooperated with the Food and Drug Administration in developing Federal standards for tuna. 3o Distribution costs^ including transportation and selling charges, have been held to a minimum. Retailers are handling tuna at relatively reasonable margins and, in mar^ cases, are taking lesser margins than on other comparable foods. lio Fishermen have been improving their vessels and gear, so far as they are financially able. New communication, naviga- tional, and fishing aids are in evidence on the tuna fleet. The fishery cooperative marketing associations previously mentioned have effected some monetary savings for their members. This has been done, for example, by purchasing group insurance at lower rates, purchasing group wharfage at lower charges per boat, and purchasing supplies on a quantitative basis and reselling them at savings to their members. In addition, some of these associations have handled the catch of their members and arranged for its sale, returning profits from such activity oo the members. Those associations which have not done this have at least bargained collectively with canners and wholesalers to obtain the best possible price for the sale of members' catches. The latter has been particularly true with respect to the American Tunaboat Association, Inc., and the Fishermen's Cooperative Association of San Pedro, Inc., the two large fishermen's groups in the tuna industry. These associations have been working toward improving conditions of sale for the members' products. Some recent accomplishments include establishment of prices for a better defined and longer period, guarantee of a market for three capacity trips for bait boats, limitations of the right of the canners for imposing limits on loads of fish, and arrangements for canners to allow fishermen to operate to a greater extent in the more productive seasons. U32 While the tiina industry has been very active, as organizations or individuals will be when faced by economic trials, there are some suggestions which can be made to the industry for further consideration in improving its lot. It is recommended that the canners expand and improve their advertising efforts d This applies as well to importers o Market development can also be undertalcen in conjxmction with or supple- mental to advertising. Among the aims should be expansion of consumption among low income groups and in the rural market, and the greater usage of tuna, for example, in hot dishes, etc. Canners could investigate thoroughly the possibility of expanding the consmnption of tuna ty marketing new products such as tuna combined iirith other ingredients in ready-to-serve form. Canners might also continue their work on technological improvements in processing. While the products of the tuna canneries are of a high quality, no effort should be spared in producing products of even better quality at competitive prices. Canners should also consider the advisability of collecti^ig, tabulating, and making available more fully and more widely monthly data on stocks of canned tuna at processors' and dis- tributors' levels. Fishermen should test newly located tuna grounds to determine if operating costs can be lowered. Experiments with long-line methods of taking offshore sub=surface stocks of tuna to determine the profitability of this method should be undertaken to prepare the industry fofc its use in the future, if necessary. Since the actions and efforts of the tuna industry alone have not solved, and do not give promise of solving, its problems it is necessary to consider what aid the Federal Government might offer the industry. It is suggested, therefore, that the Federal Government consider the following actions: li33 1. Consideration should be given to the formulation of an international commodity agreement to cover trade in tuiia. Such an agreement would be similar to, although not exactly the same as, the International Wheat Agreement of 19h9i to which the United States is a party. At the outset the United States might invite those countries which are important producers, processors, and consumers of tuna to join with it in prepairLng such a document for trade in tuna. The objectives of such an international commodity agreement would be to stabilize production, processing, and trade, increase consumption, and make the wisest possible use of international tuna resources. In addition, such an agreement would supersede any unilateral action undertaken by governments now or in the future. Such action would not be contrary to our commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Any document consum- mated would necessarily have to be approved by the United States Senate and legislation related to effectively carrying out the agreement would have to be acted upon by both Houses of Congress. Exploratory steps in this matter are being taken by the Department of the Interior. 2. The several different forms of tariff rates on the various products of the tuna industry should be properly related. There is no logical relationship between a h^ percent ad valorem duty on tuna canned in oil, a 12|- percent duty on tuna canned in brine, and no duty on frozen tuna. The actual level of rates for these products is not suggested herein, only the suggestion that whatever the actual levels of rates may be, that the duties on the various products be properly related. The appropriate Executive and Independent agencies can furnish technical information in this regard which would help to accomplish this. h3li 3. The Federal Government should continue and strength- en tuna research programs along the following lines: a. Scientific studies of the tuna and bait popula- tions to provide the basic knowledge of the resources which is now lacking, including adequate support of the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Comraission. b. Exploratory fishing to point the way for indus- try development of new tuna grounds. c. Gear research and experimental fishing, in co- operation with the industry, to devise better and more effi- cient methods of locating and catching tuna. d. A full scale research program aimed at finding an alternate tuna bait which would relieve the fleet of its dependence on foreign bait grounds. e. A marketing and economic research program, com- parable to that provided competing foods, to aid the industry in expanding consumption and finding solutions to its econ- omic problems. 4. Enact into law the provisions of S.1731, 83rd Congress, which provides that $1,000,000 of "Section 32" funds be trams- ferred to the Department of the Interior by the Department of Agriculture, to be used for technological and related research, an educational service, and market development work for the fishing industry. These funds are derived from 30 percent of the duties on all imported products, and are available to the Department of Agriculture for assisting in the marketing of agricultural products. Devoting an equitable portion of these import duties to help solve the problems caused by the imports of tuna is a logical use for the funds. Legislation of this type has the support of important segments of the domestic fishing industry. 435 5» In view of the existence, on a large scale, of fishery cooperative marketing associations in the tuna industry, enact into lav7 the provisions of S. 1902, 8lst Congress, vrtiich vrould permit these associations to have access to the Bank for Cooperatives in the Farm Credit Administration. Fishery cooperatives do not now have such accesso It would aid them to have some of their financing done through this experienced agency in the same manner as do agricultural cooperatives* This legislation would not set up a duplicating agency. It would simply allow the fishery cooperatives to participate in the present services of the Bank for Cooperatives under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. 6. Efforts should be continued toward obtaining a satisfactory solution to the pjroblem of territorial seas and fisheries jurisdictions therein and to clarify the rights of United States fishermen. U36 Interior — Duplicating Section Washington, D. C. 40287 MBL WHOI Library - Serials 5 WHSE 01189 / I