imny-k^^^ ■:

c

.<°>*

'^'^irES O* ^

\

/

A Comprehensive
Review of the
Commercial Mussel
Industries in
the United States

Washington, D.C.
March 1977

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Sen/ice

A Comprehensive
Review of the
Commercial IVIussel
Industries in
the United States

Conducted in cooperation with, and under contract to,
The National Marine Fisheries Service Washington, D.C.

Principal Investigator
Richard A. Lutz, Ph.D.

The views and recommendations contained in this report are not
necessarily those of The National Marine Fisheries Service

Department of Oceanography
Ira C. Darling Center
University of Maine at Orono
Walpole, Maine 04573

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Robert M White, Administrator

National Marine Fishehes Service

Robert W. Schoning, Director

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.75

Stock No. 003-020-00133-6

A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE MUSSEL
INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES WITH AN
ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH NEEDS AND OPTIONS

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Richard A. Lutz, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Ira C. Darling Center
University of Maine at Orono
Walpole, Maine 04573

COMPILED AND EDITED BY

Lewis S. Incze

Department of Oceanography

Ira C. Darling Center

University of Maine at Orono

Walpole, Maine 04573

ASSOCIATE INVESTIGATORS

Kenneth K. Chew, PhD.
College of Fisheries
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington

James A. Clifton, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
University of Maine at Orono
Orono, Maine 04473

Russel Haley, Ph.D.
Whittemore School of Business

and Economics
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire

Lewis S. Incze
Department of Oceanography
Ira C. Darling Center
University of Maine at Orono
Walpole, Maine 04573

Bruce A. Miller, Ph.D.

Director

UNH/Sea Grant Marine Advisory

Service
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire

Willard Brownell

Field Associate

American Museum of Natural History

New York, New York

Linda Chaves-Michael
College of Fisheries
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington

Ira C. Darling Center Ref . No. 76-25

CONTRIBUTORS

M.W. Blumenstock

School of Business Administration
University of Maine at Orono
Orono, Maine 04473

Kenneth P. Hayes, Ph.D.

Director

Social Sciences Research Center

University of Maine at Orono

Orono, Maine 04473

Anne Weldon

Department of Economics
University of Maine at Orono
Orono, Maine 04473

Ronald K. Dearborn
Assistant Director
UMO Sea Grant Program
University of Maine at Orono
Orono, Maine 04473

David Lloyd

Whlttemore School of Business

and Economics
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire

1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

2.0 MATRIX INDEX TO MUSSEL REPORT. 5

3 . 0 INTRODUCTION 6

4.0 BRIEF NATIONAL HISTORY 7

5.0 CURRENT RESEARCH 7

6.0 SUSTAINABILITY OF THE RESOURCE 9

6.1 Patterns of Exploitation and

Biological Limitations to the Sustainability

of Natural Populations 9

6.2 Limits to the Sustainability of the Resource:

A Maine View 10

6. 3a Feasibility of Mussel Culture 11

6.3b The Advantages of the Cultured Mussel 13

6.4 Biological Constraints to Mussel Culture Using

Rafting Techniques 14

6.5 Feasibility of Alternate Culture Techniques 14

6.6 Prospectus for the Culture of Other Species of

Mussels 14

7 . 0 PRESENT STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY 16

7.1 East Coast 16

7.2 West Coast 20

7.3 Economic Profile 22

7. 31 Introduction 22

7.32 Current Economic Status of the Industry: Subjective. . .26

7.33 Current Economic Status of the Industry: Objective ... .29
7. 4 Processing 38

8.0 STATE GOVERNMENTS AND REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY 42

8.1 East Coast 42

8.2 West Coast 43

9 . 0 INDUSTRY PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS 47

9.1 Economic Problems of the Industry 47

9.11 Resource Availability, Harvesting, and Distribution ... .47

9. 12 Policy and Research Options 48

9.2 Marketing — A Situation Analysis 49

9.3 The Occurrence of Pearls in Mussel Meats 60

9.4 Handling of Mussels and the Extension of Shelf Life.... 62

9.5 Closure of Shellfish Harvest Areas Due to Paralytic

Shellfish Poisoning and Other Causes 64

9 . 5a East Coast 64

9.5b West Coast 69

9.6 Institutional Disincentives to the Expansion of

the Mussel Industry 70

9.7 Harvest Technology 72

10.0 SUMMARY 74

11.0 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH OPTIONS AND NEEDS 75

12 . 0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION REFERENCES 77

13.0 LITERATURE CITED 79

14 . 0 APPENDIX 88

2.0 MATRIX INDEX TO MUSSEL REPORT

Growing Waters /Environment
Technical Problems
Economic Problems
Social Problems
Political Problems
Institutional Problems
Public Health

3.0
9.5
9.11, 9.12

8.0

9.6
9.3, 9.4, 9.5

Resource Availability

Technical Problems
Economic Problems
Social Problems
Political Problems
Institutional Problems
Public Health

6.0-6.6, 9.11, 9.5

6.0,

9.11

9.6

8.0,

9.6

9.4,

7.1, 7.2, 9.3, 9.7

9.6

9.5

Harvesting

Technical Problems
Economic Problems
Social Problems
Political Problems
Institutional Problems
Public Health

6.1,

9.7

9.11

8.0
8.0
9.6
9.3,

6.2a

9.5

Processing

Technical Problems
Economic Problems
Social Problems
Political Problems
Institutional Problems
Public Health

.4

.4,

.4,

,4

.4

.4

7.4, 9.4

Marketing and Consumption
Technical Problems
Economic Problems
Social Problems
Political Problems
Institutional Problems
Public Health

3.0,

9.2

9.11

9.2

8.0

9.12,

4.0, 9.1, 9.2

9.6

9.3, 9.4, 9.5

3.0 INTRODUCTION

The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, is extremely abundant along the east
coast of North America from Cape Hatteras to Labrador, and many large beds
contain high-quality mussels (Field, 1908). Mytilus is also abundant on
the west coast. Except during World War II, there has been little interest
in harvesting this species for food (Dow and Wallace, 1954; Field, 1922).

However, a renewed interest in the harvest of Mytilus has resulted
from pressures on present fishery products, especially clams. Increased
population, rising fuel costs, changes in weather patterns, and present
economic conditions have combined to deplete the supply of certain fishery
products and drive the price of food consistently higher. The availability
and price of several seafood species has been affected by lack of supply
and increased demand. One method of providing a sustainable yield of
seafood products is to encourage the use of currently under-utilized
species, such as the blue mussel.

For a number of reasons, the blue mussel industry has been slow to
materialize in the United States. When clams and oysters were abundant
and inexpensive, there was little impetus to try something new. More
importantly, the American public has never been adequately introduced to
fresh or prepared mussels of high quality, and consequently is unaware
that mussels are a good seafood product. The incidence of pearls, muddy
flavor, labor involved in cleaning, improper handling of some mussels, and
misconceptions about the product safety (particularly with reference to
shellfish poisoning) are some problems that have discouraged many potential
users. The supply of quality mussels from the natural beds has been limited
and unreliable, which makes them difficult to obtain anjrwhere but in the
most specialized markets and restaurants. These factors have discouraged
market development.

In April of 1973, the consumer boycott of beef products in protest of
rapidly escalating meat costs set a national mood which proved receptive to
new sources of protein. The Maine Department of Marine Resources and the
University of New Hampshire capitalized on this situation by undertaking
a pilot project to test the consumer acceptance of blue mussels. In-store
demonstrations throughout New England and at seafood shows across the country
have resulted in increased demand for mussels, both regionally and in the
traditional New York and Boston markets (Bouchard, 1976). During the spring
of L975, Maine mussel productivity was estimated as high as 2,500 bushels
per week (Bouchard estimates) . Yearly production at this rate would result
in an annual yield of about 2,000,000 pounds wet weight, nearly equal to
the peak wartime production of 2,594,000 pounds (1944).

The use of the west coast populations of mussels is relatively
unexplored. Although Alaska has vast resources, little is known of the
demand there. Mussels are reportedly in demand in Washington, Oregon,
and California, although few are being taken at present.

However, several immediate and long range problems confront the
developing mussel industry. Outlined, these are:

(1) Consumer acceptability and market demand

(2) The occurrence of pearls in the meats

(3) A short shelf-life of the fresh product

(4) The periodic closure of shellfish harvest areas due to blooms
of the dinof lagellate Gonyaulax tamarensis in the East and G^. catanella
in the West .

(5) A lack of conservation regulations governing wild harvest.

The following report outlines these problems while providing a detailed
assessment of the present status and research needs of the mussel industry
in the United States.

4.0 BRIEF NATIONAL HISTORY

Despite the availability of large standing crops of mussels, the
consumption of this shellfish in the U.S. has historically been low, with
a consistent, albeit small, demand only in a few metropolitan areas
(Bouchard, 1976). From 1929-1941, fewer than three processing plants
handled mussels in the U.S. (Fisheries of the U.S., 1975). It was not until
World War II that mussels were processed extensively as a substitute protein
source. Most of these were canned for export.

The number of processing plants which processed mussels increased in
1942-1943 to 15, and 12 or more continued to operate through 1946. Peak
production (1945) reached 823,000 pounds of canned product. After 1946,
production rapidly decreased. Today, only a few plants are known to process
mussels in this country.

Mussels have recently received renewed attention as a valuable seafood
resource as reflected by increased commercial landings (see Section 7.3).
Various institutions and businesses have become interested in the potential
of the mussel industry. This has led to both increased research and invest-
ment on both coasts of the United States. Recent surveys indicate a large
market potential for mussels (see Section 9.1). The nation's first commercial
mussel cultivation effort was begun in Maine in 1973.

5.0 CURRENT RESEARCH

Research on the biological and economic problems associated with
stimulating and sustaining the use of blue mussels by American consumers
is currently underway at a number of institutions in the United States.
Research at the University of Maine has contributed significantly to the
knowledge of pearl formation, age determination, and growth in mussels.

Research programs operated jointly by the University of Maine (U.M.O.)
and University of New Hampshire (U.N.H.) are exploring the economic and
market development aspects of the mussel industry as well as the experi-
mental culture of M. edulis (Lutz, 1976b; Myers, 1976), and studies at U.N.H.
and Harvard (Hurlburt, 1977) have resulted in new mussel recipes designed
for large-scale restaurant preparation and home consumption. Problems of
shelf-life and handling practices are being resolved (Slabyj and Hinckle.
1976) . Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) and other conditions of public
health concern are monitored on a regular basis, and the biology of the
PSP organism is being studied by scientists at the Bigelow Laboratory for
Ocean Sciences and U.N.H. (Yentsch et al., 1975; Sasner and Ikawa, 1975;
Buckley et al., 1976; Sasner et al., 1974). Studies currently in progress
at the Darling Center, University of Maine, and at a nearby commercial
mussel operation are providing information needed to develop new procedures
for commercial raft cultivation in this country. Growth studies of mussels
along the New England coast are being conducted with the assistance of a
number of private cooperators (Lutz, 1976b).

Measurements of the uptake, accumulation and loss of radionuclides
by Mytilus edulis experimentally cultured in the heated effluent of a
nuclear power reactor was begun in May 1976 by Hess and others at U.M.O.
employing methods used in similar studies on the American oyster,
Crassostrea virginica (Hess et al., 1975; Price et al., 1976). The research
effort is aimed at (1) establishing biological accumulation rates to
encourage a decision from the FDA on wild harvest and shellfish aquaculture
in areas affected by thermal effluents from nuclear power plants, (2)
suggesting environmentally optimal effluent discharge schedules, and (3)
determining the extent to which heated effluents can benefit aquaculture.
The Environmental Protection Agnecy laboratory at Narragansett, Rhode Island
is investigating possible causes of observed large-scale fluctuations in
distribution, vitality, and extent of natural mussel populations in
Narragansett Bay.

Current research on M. edulis on the west coast of the United States
has been centered at the University of Washington during the last several
years. The biological and economic feasibility of establishing a mussel
industry in Puget Sound is being investigated. Results of the last several
years indicate that conditions in Puget Sound are conducive to successful
raft culture (Chew and Chaves, 1976; Chaves, 1976). Mussels have been
found to grow to market size (50 mm or more) in a period of one year.
Research is also being conducted on the possibilities of obtaining mussel
seed from a hatchery and comparing its growth with natural seed growth.
Marketing studies are being developed for the mussel industry in the north-
west to find out how to present a new and different product on the market and
establish where the greatest consumer demand will be.

Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) has been known in the northwest
since the 18th century (Orth, 1975). PSP research is being conducted at
the University of Washington (Norris and Chew, 1975) , at the University of
Alaska (Chew, pers. comm.), and at the University of Wisconsin (Roberts,
pers. comm.). Growth parameters are still being defined and rapid, inexpen-
sive chemical and bioassay methods are being sought.

6.0 SUSTAINABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

6. 1 Patterns of Exploitation and Biological Limitations to the
Sustainability of Natural Populations

Most coiranercially harvested blue mussels in the United States are taken
from Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Long Island, but the harvest
fluctuates greatly among these and a few other areas. The behavior of
blue mussel populations is unpredictable because they are susceptible to
many changing environmental conditions. The human factor also exerts
great influence, depending on fishing pressure and market demand and
upon the whims of the fishermen.

Maine affords a favorable environment for the production of M. edulis
(such as an abundance of appropriate substrate, productive coastal waters,
and suitable temperatures), and supports the most extensive populations.
However, evidence indicates that the extensive harvests of the World War II
years depleted the commercial exploitable stocks (Dow and Wallace, 1954);
production in 1947 was only 2 percent of the previous year's catch. The
Long Island and Virginia resources were also greatly taxed during the war
years (Fisheries Statistics of the U.S. , 1975) , and production declined with
the post-war decrease in demand.

New Jersey mussel resources are extensive, but are now largely condemned
due to high levels of pollution. After seven years of having no reported
commercial catch, New Jersey produced 7,050 and 15,000 pounds in 1974 and
1975, respectively. The harvest dropped off to an insignificant amount
again in 1976, apparently because most shellf ishermen devoted their efforts
to clamming in order to take advantage of inflated clam prices (LoVerde,
pers. comm. ) .

Narragansett Bay yielded some of the nation's largest catches in the
1950' s, and again in 1974-76. However, exploitable populations were not
found in the bay from 1963-73 (Wilcox, pers. comm.).

A productive blue mussel dredge fishery in the Oyster Bay area of
Long Island ceased to function in 1974 when a principal bed of 30 acres
disappeared. The cause of this disappearance is unknown.

Many fishermen report that large-scale mussel mortalities occur as a
result of severe environmental conditions. Extensive mussel grounds from
southwestern Rhode Island to Stonington, Connecticut, were destroyed by
the 1938 hurricane. High mortality rates are frequently a common phenomenon.
Estimates of annual late-summer mortalities of blue mussels are as high
as 95 percent on the eastern shore of the Delmarva Peninsula.

A once-flourishing West Coast mussel industry has declined steadily
since the turn of the century. Hydraulic mining, which smothers mussel beds
by depositing thick layers of silt on the sea floor, was partly responsible
for this decline. Pollution from human populations has closed many addi-
tional areas (Smith, pers. comm.). Most of the present harvest, which is
very limited, is used for bait.

It is known that M. edulls occurring in natural beds require at least
two to three years to grow to market size. They do not always spawn and
set in the same places year after year and may not spawn at all if conditions
are poor. With this in mind, it seems that natural mussel populations
would have difficulty renewing themselves year after year.

These fluctuations in the availability of mussels indicate problems
with trying to maintain the resource and develop an industry based on a
sustainable and dependable supply. A better understanding of the environ-
mental parameters which affect Mytilus populations is needed, and successful
fishery management techniques need to be devised accordingly.

6. 2 Limits to the Sustainability of the Resource; A Maine View

Conditions favor the growth and survival of mussels along the Maine
coast, as they are abundant there. Scattergood and Taylor (19A9) estimated
that 20 million pounds of mussels existed in commercially exploitable beds
in Maine at the time of their survey. The first large-scale exploitation
of the blue mussel in Maine occurred during World War II, when they were
canned as a substitute protein source. The 1944 commercial landings were
2,594,000 pounds of wet meat (N.O.A.A.).

Despite the apparent abundance of these animals, however, Dow and
Wallace (1954) have indicated that the post-war decline in mussel production
was due not only to a shift back to more traditional protein sources, but
also because readily available natural stocks were nearly depleted. Con-
cerning the second factor, they state that the "canning operations during
the preceding war years had cropped almost completely the readily available
supply."

In addition to that provided by Dow and Wallace (1954) , other evidence
indicates that the renewability of natural mussel populations may be limited,
despite their great fecundity (Field, 1922; Mossop, 1921; Storrow, 1940;
Scattergood and Taylor, 1949) . Growth of recently settled spat in popula-
tions of mixed age is greatly reduced (Seed, 1969) . Recruitment of mussels
on bare rocks does not seem to be successful either. Myers (pers. comm.)
has found that mussels fail to re-establish themselves on areas of offshore
rocks scraped of adults in April, before the spring spawn. The smaller
mussels which had been left in numerous crevices had completely disappeared
by August and October, and no mussels were found on the scraped surfaces.
Eider ducks (Somateria mollisima) had been observed feeding on and about the
scraped ledges (Myers, pers. comm.). Adult eiders have been known to consume
up to a pint (approximately 425 g) of mussels per day (Field, 1922), and the
stomach content of these ducks in the summer has been found to consist of up
to 80 percent young mussels (Graham, 1975) . Eiders prey heavily upon the
mussel beds of the Dutch Waddensee (Thiesen, 1968) .

Whatever the precise explanation, natural populations do not appear to
be capable of a large, sustainable yield, and earlier findings (Dow and
Wallace, 1954) indicate that we may now be approaching that threshold level.

10

Conversations with commercial mussel harvesters in Maine indicate that
several mussel beds are being less carefully picked — that some harvesters
are clearing some areas of apparently stunted mussels with a known pearl
incidence. Faced with increasing consumer demand (Miller, 1964) and the
need for market quality control (Dow and Wallace, 1954; Lutz, 1974a), a
scrupulous examination of natural stock management and an assessment of the
total resource is needed.

Aquaculturing of mussels is a means of expanding the resource base.
Preliminary experiments in culturing mussels have been successful in
Washington and Maine and indicate a potential for expansion of the industry.

6. 3a Feasibility of Mussel Culture

The blue mussel is a good candidate for successful shellfish culture.
It is a more efficient filter-feeder, exhibits more rapid growth, yields a
higher meat : total weight ratio, and is nutritionally superior to more
traditional shellfish species (Lutz, 1974a; Myers, 1974; Scattergood and
Taylor, 1949; Joyner and Spinelli, 1969; McLeod, 1975; Field, 1908;
McLean, 1972; Loosanoff, 1943; Mason, 1971).

Shellfish culture in the United States has already met with some
production and economic success. In particular, at least one Long Island,
New York, oyster operator has made a success of spawning oysters
(Crassostrea virginica) , rearing the larvae to metamorphosis, and planting
leased bottom with the resulting seed. Adults are harvested 2-3 years later
by conventional dredging operations (Relyea and Zahtila, pers. comm.).
Several other shellfish companies are trying similar culturing approaches
to the production of oysters (C. virginica) and quahogs (Mercenaria
mercenaria) (Chanley, Czyzyk, Campbell, and Hart; pers. coirim.). Pilot
mussel culture operations are presently underway in Maine (Myers, 1974)
and Washington State (Chew and Chaves, 1975), and in Canada (McLeod, 1975).

The methods for raising mussels are simple because natural set is
plentiful. Mussel larvae attach themselves to any suitable substrate
suspended in the water column at the time of natural spawn (May-June)
(Lutz, 1974a; Bayne, 1976; Davies, 1974), Collection of spat on ropes, then,
is a relatively easy and inexpensive operation (Lutz, 1974a). However,
because the time of spatfall varies from year to year and because the extent
of spatfall in any one locale varies from year to year, this collection
method is not dependable or efficient from a production standpoint. Experi-
ments in hatchery spawning and setting on ropes are being conducted at
Abandoned Farm, Inc. on the Damariscotta River (Porter, pers. comm.).
Present culture methods depend on the collection of seed mussels from natural
populations for attachment on the culture substrate (Hurlburt and Hurlburt,
1974) . This dependence on wild parent stocks further necessitates the
management of natural populations.

Mussel culture by various methods is widely practiced in Spain, France,
and the Netherlands, and has been described there and in other localities
by numerous workers (Andreu, 1968; Mason, 1971; Bardach et al., 1972;

11

Hurlburt and Hurlburt, 1974). There are two distinct advantages which the
Spanish raft system has over the other two culture methods mentioned. The
first is the utilization of three-dimensional space. The resulting pro-
duction per surface area far surpasses that possible on the land or sea
bottom (Andreu, 1968). The annual yield of an average raft (5,500 square
feet) is 5060 tons of mussels (Mason, 1971) . Adler (1966) reports that
one European mussel farm averages 108,000 pounds of mussels per acre per
year using this method. This production is over 20,000 pounds of high-grade
protein per acre per year. The second advantage is that the mussels are
suspended above the bottom, and so are effectively free from bottom predators
such as the starfish (Asterias spp.), snails (Thais) , and crabs (Carcinus
meanas) (McLeod, 1975). Spanish rafts yield higher productivity than any
other current method of mussel husbandry (Mason, 1971; Lutz, 1974a; Hurlburt
and Hurlburt, 1974) .

Furthermore, this technique is most suited to the geography of the
Maine coast. Maine does not possess the extensive tidal flats or extensive
tidal range of northern France, where the bouchot system is employed, nor
can it offer extensive offshore beds for bottom culture, as in the Nether-
lands; but the drowned coastline does afford numerous, deep, protected bays
and inlets characterized by high summer productivity and good tidal energies.
The five Spanish rias of the northwest coast are deep, drowned river valleys
with steep, granite sides and a (maximum) four meter tidal range producing
a maximum tidal current of 50 cm/sec (Andreu, 1968). They are deeper,
longer, and wider, but also less protected than the inlets characteristic
of the Maine coast. Although the surface areas of these rias are very large
(the largest, Ria de Arosa, is 33 km long and covers 230 square km), the
rafts are located only along the coastline in a maximum depth of 35 feet
CMeLeod, 1975). Work by Fraga and Vives as reported by Andreu (1968)
measured primary productivity from 1.1 - 61.6 mg carbon per liter per hour
(mg C 1~1 hr~l) with an average production of 10.5 mg C 1~1 hr^l.

Two rivers along the central coast of Maine, where experimental mussel
culture is presently underway, are 14.96 km and 18.70 km in area at mean
low water (MLW) (Damariscotta and Sheepscot Rivers, respectively). The
mean depths of these MLW areas are 8.69 and 9.43 meters respectively (McAlice,
unpubl. data). Tidal ranges in these rivers approach 4 meters, and tidal
velocities exceed 50 cm sec~l.

Primary productivity was measured in a deep harbor of similar
geological features (Boothbay Harbor) located between the mouths of these
two rivers. August values are up to 39.8 mg C 1~1 hr~l. The lowest produc-
tivity values appear in January and February and are about 1/10 of the July
and August values (Yentsch, unpubl. data).

Environmental conditions, then, indicate a good prospectus for Mytilus
culture in Maine. This has been substantiated by recent mussel-farming
efforts on the Damariscotta River (Lutz, 1974a). If these efforts prove
successful in developing an economic industry, methods for extending culture
procedures to waters south of the Gulf of Maine could be developed.

12

6. 3b The Advantages of the Cultured Mussel

The advantages of rafting over natural harvest have been discussed
above. The rafting system, by making use of three dimensional space,
achieves the greatest exposure to food supplies in the water and is hence
capable of supporting extremely high animal densities. Use of natural
energy flows is maximized, animal biomass is concentrated (Nixon et al.,
1971), and so management and harvest energy is minimized. Utilization of
this presently under-utilized species can thus be done quite efficiently.

Rafted mussels grow more rapidly than those in natural populations
(Andreu, 1968; Lutz, 1974b, 197Ad; Hurlburt, 1975; McLeod, 1975). One
resons is that their constant submergence enables them to pump water and
to feed at any time (McLean, 1972) . The thinned population experiences
less growth retardation by crowding (McLeod, 1975) and fewer mortalities
due to smothering (Thiesen, 1968) . Growth is enhanced by the shaded
conditions afforded by constant submergence (Coulthard, 1929; Bardach et
al., 1972), and the animal is not traumatized by severe wave action at low
tide or extremes in daily temperature regimes with the tidal cycle (Mason,
1971; McLeod, 1975).

In addition, the cultured mussel presents a superior product. At market
size of 50 mm, the cultured mussel represents a meat yield of nearly 50 per-
cent (Loosanoff , 1943; Andreu, 1968) . This compares favorably with a 10
percent yield for the American oyster, C^. virginica (Loosanoff, 1943).
This is also higher than for natural populations of mussels which have
relatively heavier shells (Loosanoff, 1943). The shells of the rafted
mussels are clean (unfouled) and the byssus is easily removed (McLeod, 1975).
This has the advantage of reducing any trauma when pulled from the substrate
and leaving a smaller byssal gape through which shell liquor may be lost in
shipment (Bardach et al., 1972). There is seldom any byssal thread or
"beard" left on the mussel meats inside the shell. This beard would other-
wise have to be removed in processing after the shell is opened. The valves
are more easily shucked. Furthermore, mud, which is often trapped in the
wild mussels druing harvest, seldom, if ever, presents a problem to the
processor of cultured mussels.

6. 4 Biological Constraints to Mussel Culture Using Rafting Techniques

The accelerated growth and superior condition of rafted mussels is due
to their maintenance under optimal available conditions in the environment.
Simply stated, this involves maximizing exposure to food while minimizing
physical trauma and predation. The success of this technique is directly
dependent upon the production of food and oxygen in the growing waters and
upon adequate circulation.

A dense population of mussels is an extremely heterotrophic community
requiring an environment which can provide abundant supplies of food and
oxygen and assimilate or otherwise remove and process metabolic wastes
(Nixon et al., 1971). The rapid growth of this sessile organism is subsidized
by physical energy flows in nature — mussels require considerable volumes of

13

water to meet their metabolic needs, and these volumes are provided
primarily by tidal circulation. While these free energy flows help to make
mussel aquaculture an extremely efficient means of protein production, limits
to the productivities of natural waters necessarily limit the amount of
shellfish biomass which can be supported before competition for available
nutrients limits over-all growth.

A consideration of possible constraints to mussel production In an
estuary or bay would involve an extension of the ecological concept of
"carrying capacity" to the culture or husbandry of mussels. By evaluating
the ability of a body of water to support dense aggregations of shellfish,
the optimal production density can be determined. This evaluation would
involve an assessment of primary productivity, levels of suspended particu-
late matter, tidal velocities and exchange, and the effects of temperature,
salinity, and particle size on rates of filtration. The importance of these
findings to the efficiency of aquaculture production is obvious.

Aspects of this problem have been investigated in Europe (J0rgensen,
1949, 1952, 1959, 1960, 1966; Fraga and Vives, 1960; Davids, 1964; Dral,
1968) , and some studies of ecological energy flows of natural populations
of mussels and other shellfish have been conducted in this country (Odum and
Smalley, 1959; Kuenzler, 1961; Dame, 1972).

6.5 Suitability of Alternate Culture Techniques

Although raft culture is the method apparently most suited to the Maine
coast, other production methods have proven successful in Europe (Hurlburt
and Hurlburt, 1974) and may be applicable to other areas of the United States.
For example, the extensive, sandy bottoms of shallow bays on the East Coast
south of Maine may prove to be more suited to bottom culture methods. Ex-
tensive natural populations on the bottoms of many of these bays (see Section
7.1) indicate conditions favorable for growth and a potential for increasing
production with proper management and re-seeding. A pilot re-seeding project
has been initiated in Ipswich, Massachusetts. The applicability of alternate
methods of mussel cultivation to various sections of the country should be
explored.

6.6 Prospectus for the Culture and Harvest of Other Species of Mussels

While the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, is the mussel species normally
harvested and cultivated within the United States, several other indigenous
species of mussels offer attractive commercial potentials.

Northern horse mussels. Modiolus modiolus, have recently been harvested
in limited quantities along the Atlantic coast and were enthusiastically
received at an international European food exhibition (Bouchard, pers. comm.).
The life history and aquacultural potential of this species have been studied
in some detail at the University of Maine (Lutz and Porter, 1975; deSchweinitz
and Lutz, 1976; Lutz, 1976b). The growth and mortality of experimentally
cultured M. modiolus in two Maine environments, including the heated effluent

14

waters of a nuclear power plant, is currently under investigation, and the
uptake of gamma- emit ting radionuclides by these mussels is closely monitored
(Lutz, 1976b).

The Atlantic ribbed mussel, Geukensia (=Modiolus) demissa, is abundant
in brackish waters along the Atlantic coast from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to
the northeast coast of Florida. With the exception of small quantities
taken during World War II, this species has received little commercial atten-
tion (Castagna, pers. comm.). The aquacultural potential of this mussel in
various estuarine environments is unknown.

The Calif ornian mussel, Mytilus calif ornianus , is currently harvested
(primarily for bait) in both California and Oregon (Price, pers. comm.) (see
Section 7.2). Although the growth rate of this species has been studied by
several workers (Coe and Fox, 1942, 1944; Fox and Coe, 1943; Dehnel, 1956),
little or no research has been directed toward assessment of the cultivation
potential of this mussel.

In order to adequately assess the sustainability and aquacultural
potential of the above species of mussels, relatively accurate methods for
determining the age and growth rate of individual specimens should be
developed. The techniques described by Lutz (1976a) for Mytilus edulis and
Dodd (1964) for Mytilus calif ornianus offer attractive potentials and should
be applied in future research efforts to all three of these species. Experi-
mental culture of these bivalves in various marine and estuarine environments
should also be encouraged. The market potential of these under-utilized
mussel species requires assessment.

15

7.0 PRESENT STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY

7.1 East Coast - Wlllard Brownell

This section is a state-by-state analysis of blue mussel fisheries,
based on extensive interviews with fishermen, dealers, government officials
and biologists. The information included represents facts and opinions
that are generally agreed upon by several people interviewed in a particular
area.

Maine. Mussels are abundant along most of the Maine coast. Although
mussel beds exist in some areas, the coast as a whole is characterized by
prominent rock ledges and outcroppings, and it is on this rocky substrate
that most mussels are found. The southern coast of Maine, west of Cape
Elizabeth, is largely closed to shellfish harvest due to fecal contamination.
Dense mussel populations are found east of this cape, and these are harvested
commercially and recreationally . Most commercial harvest is concentrated
in the mid-coast section, Muscongus and Penobscot Bays. More than 3,000
bushels per week are harvested, primarily by rake from small, flat-bottomed
skiffs, and exported to Boston and New York for further distribution. Recrea-
tional mussel harvest is minimal. Attempts to develop the market for mussels
have resulted in increased landings and exports, and have stimulated the
development of the nation's first commercial mussel aquaculture operation.

New Hampshire. The Hampton and Piscataqua Estuaries of New Hampshire
produce extensive and healthy populations of blue mussels, especially on
pilings, mud bars, and the sides of the outer marsh channels. There is no
record of commercial harvest of this area. Some recreational digging for
mussels occurs, primarily on weekends. There are no significant numbers of
blue mussels in the coastal subtldal zone.

Mussels are generally considered to be a plague, and are successful
competitors of the important soft shell clam (Mya arenaira) stocks.
Occasionally, the state will hire a fisherman to dredge mussels off the
clam flats.

Massachusetts . The most plentiful harvests of M. edulis in
Massachusetts have been made by pitchforking and raking in the harbors and
outer estuarine channels of Buzzard's and Cape Cod Bays. Traditionally
productive grounds that have yielded very few mussels in 1976 are Plymouth,
Kingston, and the North River at Marshfield. Some mussels were taken at
Eastham, Duxbury, and Sandwich in 1976, but catches were relatively low.

Most Massachusetts mussel fishermen are principally clam diggers who
collect mussels by hand when requested by local dealers. Dredging, although
seldom employed, is practiced in the North River, Vineyard Sound, and in the
mouth of Narragansett Bay by one Cape Cod boat. The shellf ishermen receive
from $2.50 to $4.50 per bushel of mussels collected in sacks. They gather
40-60 bushels of mussels in a day's labor of 4-5 hours.

16

Small numbers of blue mussels are gathered commercially at Gay Head,
Plum Island Sound, Ipswich, Scituate, and in the Cape Cod Canal. A team
of divers in Gloucester collects mussels for commercial sale from underwater
beds.

Most Massachusetts shellfish' dealers feel that there is much room for
expansion of mussel markets, primarily in New York City, where most of the
state's production goes. However, sometimes the market becomes unexpectedly
flooded, a shipment may be rejected, and dealers and fishermen get discour-
aged. Demand is very slowly increasing in Massachusetts. More and more
people go out to gather mussels at low tide for home consumption.

Dealers sell blue mussels for $5.00-$9.00/bushel locally and $6.50-11.00
delivered in New York.

Rhode Island. One of the principal U.S. mussel fishermen uses a
standard shellfish dredge to work the beds of Narragansett Bay in 20 to 100
feet of water. He can average 100 bushels/hour if the fishing is good, and
sometimes harvests 5,000 bushels/week. These mussels sell for $5.00/bushel
wholesale, delivered in New York. This fishery fluctuates greatly, due to
massive mortalities which occur very unexpectedly. One such die-off started
in late October 1976. When the Rhode Island supply decreases. New York
distributors request more mussels from Massachusetts and Maine dealers.

There is also a small sport fishery for blue mussels along the banks
of Narragansett Bay, the Providence River, and the Point Judith area. The
principal mussel spawning in Rhode Island occurs in September and October.

Connecticut. Stonington fishermen used to harvest mussels with scallop
dredges in Fisher's Island Sound and along the shore of Rhode Island. Some-
times these were sold to New Jersey dealers, but the majority were used for
cod bait on the hooks of "tub trawls." This practice has not been employed
in recent years, and the only mussel collecting a:ctivity is restricted to
"weekenders" who work the outer breakwater and the rocky, protected shores
at low tide.

There are many dense mussel beds in depths of 40-60 feet throughout
a wide area from Niantic, through Fisher's Island Sound, out to (and around)
the Moraine Islands to the east. Biologists feel that dredging for these
mussels would be very harmful to the very productive bottom communities that
have developed within and around the mussel beds. The beds also serve as
an ideal habitat and food supply for lobsters, which are abundant in the area
throughout the year. Few mussels are found along the Connecticut coast
southwest of these areas.

Divers have observed major mussel mortalities in the open water beds
due to silting-over (smothering) and predation (Asterias starfish and
Pagurus hermit crabs) . Most individuals in these beds are less than 5 cm
in length.

17

New York. Blue mussel fishing on Long Island is now limited to digging,
tonging, and raking in the estuaries for home and some commercial use. Long
Island mussels are believed to be of lower quality than the ones that come
from Maine, and often bring lower prices in the city markets. The bayroen
receive $4. 00/bushel, but generally only collect mussels commercially when
they cannot get clams or oysters, or when a dealer makes a special request.

Mussel fishermen are also frequently hampered by having their prime
gathering areas closed by the state due to high coliform counts in the
growing waters. The most frequently fished areas currently are Cold Spring
Harbor, Mt. Sinai, Smithtown, Port Jefferson, Mattituck, Huntington, and the
mouth of the Nissequogue River.

There is a good mussel set nearly every year all around Long Island. A
major spawning occurs in July. Very dense sets are common and extreme over-
crowding occurs. In most areas, the overcrowding causes stunted growth, and
major mortalities of 2-4 cm individuals occur in intertidal areas in late
summer due to exposure to high air temperatures, starfish predation, and
competition for food (especially in the eastern half of the Island, where
productivity is lower) . Long Island oyster farmers generally agree that the
mussel beds should be thinned out in their first year and that the culls
could be re-seeded or raised on rafts. However, no one seems interested in
doing this, at least as long as oysters and clams continue to bring much
higher prices than the mussels.

Blue mussels are normally available in Long Island fresh fish stores,
and these are supplied locally. When the local demand is low, fishermen sell
to Fulton Fish Market and other dealers. A good fisherman can get 60
bushels/day at low tide or by tonging in shallow water. Some Long Island
fish markets will buy mussels from dealers from Massachusetts or Maine when
the local supply is low.

Mussels also grow successfully at some sites close to New York City,
such as Rye Beach and Powell's Cove (near the Whitestone Bridge). Mussel
beds in this area often disappear completely, while others become established
at new locations. However, because the waters of western Long Island
sound are presently condemned, these mussels have no immediate commercial
value.

New Jersey. Large catches of mussels were made in New Jersey at the
beginning of this century, but very little commercial musseling has been
done since then. The consumer demand for mussels in New Jersey is relatively
high, but most of the supply comes from points north. Most of the small
commercial catches of blue mussels in New Jersey are made by Tuckerton-area
shellf ishermen in the waters around Beach Haven Inlet. They use Shinnecock
rakes, clam forks, and oyster tongs to collect the clumps of mussels from
shallow bars and the sides of channels in the outer estuary.

Shellfish gathering is a popular recreational activity in the Great
Bay-Oyster Creek-Little Egg Harbor area, and the blue mussel is one of

18

the species taken. Most people go along the shores on foot or in small
boats, but some go in party boats and use oyster tongs or Shinnecock rakes
in shallow water (up to 25 feet) to get mussels.

The mussel populations are basically limited to the outer channels.
They are very seldom found offshore, except on occasional "mussel reefs"
which are temporary, due to the highly unstable nature of the bottoms.
Heavy sets have grown on towers and floats three miles offshore at a
proposed power plant site. They do not grow well in the outer, exposed bays
because wave action there is heavy. In the inner reaches of the estuaries
they are limited by high temperature, low salinity, and poor circulation.

There are thick sets of mussels in late winter and early spring in
lower Delaware Bay, which give rise to mussel beds in the Cape May area,
extending as far out as three miles and to depths of 40 feet. The entrances
to Raritan Bay and Old Orchard Bay also harbor extensive M. edulis popula-
tions, but most of these are in condemned waters. These stocks are not being
commercially exploited.

Delaware. Delaware Bay is the southernmost area on the East Coast where
there is substantial spawning, growth and survival of blue mussels, but
major die-off s also occur from time to time. The bay is usually closed to
all shellf isheries due to pollution. During the times when localized areas
are opened up to fishermen, they concentrate on gathering the available
oysters and hard clams. The rest of the time, shellf ishermen poach (despite
the efforts of the state marine police), but they usually don't bother with
mussels because of their low commercial value. No fish stores in the state
carry mussels and apparently no one eats them except for the occasional
shellf isherman or beachcomber.

Ralph Williams, a Delaware Marine Extension Agent, has made efforts
to get Lewes area fishermen to gear up to harvest mussels, but little interest
has been demonstrated. The breakwaters at the mouth of Delaware Bay serve as
a preferred habitat for blue mussels, and give rise to dense, fast-growing
colonies. Apparently, no one takes advantage of this resource.

The population suffered an almost total mortality in September 1976,
but the reason for this has not been determined. Another problem is the
lack of landing centers in Delaware. The closest collection and distribution
points for Delaware fishery products are Ocean City, and Secretary, Maryland.

Maryland - Virginia - North Carolina. Blue mussels live in this region,
but are very unsuccessful, primarily due to high temperatures in August and
September. Massive die-off s of mussels which are less than one year old
occur yearly when the water temperature remains at 25-28 C for several
weeks and the air temperature approaches 35 °C. Mytilus edulis is found in
the estuaries of Chincoteague, Wachapreague, Albemarle, and Pamlico. A
good set of year-classes occasionally develop in these areas, but most of
the juveniles die off by the end of their first summer, with very few
reaching a length of more than 3 cm. They are even less successful in the
estuaries of the Chesapeake, where high temperatures are frequently combined
with pollutants and low salinities to decrease the chances of mussel survival.

19

In the Maryland-Virglnla-North Carolina region mussels are seldom found
in fresh seafood stores. Specialty seafood shops and restaurants, primarily
in Washington, D.C., occasionally purchase blue mussels from New York dealers.
Most of the bajrmen and other people who live by the ocean in these states
are familiar with mussels, but rare is the person who has ever eaten them.
The very few coast dwellers who would be inclined to gather a pail-full of
mussels from time to time are usually deterred from this activity by their
trepidations about pollution. Marine biologists gather blue mussels for
home consumption from the Chesapeake Light, 14 miles offshore from Norfolk,
where they grow abundantly. However, most people in this region regard
mussels as a nuisance, an animal which they would do away with if possible,
due to its fouling tendencies.

Some blue mussels (perhaps 10 percent) survive the high summer tempera-
tures in deeper water, or by air-gaping while attached to structures just
below the mean high water (MHW) mark. However, populations residing in those
parts of the estuaries where water circulation is less than optimum usually
experience close to 100 percent die-off s in summer. The few occasions in
which mussels are gathered in this region usually take place in June-July.

Mussels are abundant in the Chincoteague estuary, mainly along the inlet
channels and the flats that rim the bays v/here there is good circulation of
ocean water. There has never been any reported commercial harvest due to
both the traditionally productive and profitable oyster and clam fishery of
that area and the total lack of market value for mussels locally. Mussels
were gathered in this region during World War II and tested as a possible
source of vitamins.

7.2 West Coast - Linda Chaves-Michael

Alaska. At the present time there are no commercial landings of mussels
in Alaska (Torgerson, pers. comm.). An interest has been shown recently by
several individuals who would like to harvest natural stocks in Alaska. Bay
mussels occur throughout southeastern and southcentral Alaska and the
southern Bering Sea (Paul and Feder, 1976).

Several problems must be overcome before mussels can be harvested on
any commercial scale. Very little capital is presently available in Alaska
for investment. Transportation and labor costs are high. This is in part
due to the high inflationary rate brought about by the Alaskan pipeline.
Under present laws, mussels cannot be harvested in Alaska because no areas
have been certified for them(Torgerson, pers. comm.). Only three areas have
been certified for any kind of shellfish harvest and these are designated
specifically for razor clams (Orth et al., 1975). If one were to set up
rafts in those areas, it might be possible to gain approval from the FDA
within a one year period. This would necessitate an expansion of their
existing program. However, harvesting of mussels in any other areas of
Alaska would require sanitary surveys and PSP monitoring for a period of up
to one and one-half years prior to commencement of an industry. The cost of
this would have to be borne by the state, which would be reluctant to embark
on this type of program unless it were guaranteed that the resultant industry
would bring in a proportionate number of jobs and profits. It is felt by some

20

Alaskans that the price of the product would be prohibitively high and would
not be marketable on a national scale.

Washington. The State of Washington has been involved with the culture
and harvest of mussels just during the last few years. During the 1960 's
several hundred pounds of mussels were harvested from natural stocks and
sold to restaurants at about $.70/pound shellstock (Lindsay and Yamashita,
pers. comm.). This was done by an oyster grower who decided not to continue
this endeavour as the market was not ready at that time for mussels and a
steady supply was not available. Today, oyster growers are still harvesting
a few mussels (by hand) and selling them for $.80 to $2.50 per pound. The
casual harvester can be of great help while this industry is being developed
in Washington. Markets are not yet large enough to sustain several mussel
farms, but the demand is growing day by day. Thus, if the casual farmer
can continue to supply the market (usually one specific restaurant), mussels
may become more popular and the demand will increase.

Only one mussel farmer is presently operating in Washington State. The
first year of business was poor because of weather conditions, but during the
second year he has been selling about 300 pounds per month and could be
selling much more if it was available. If his present raft potential were
fully realized he could expect to produce 123 metric tons of mussels per year,
representing a value of $27,000 if sold at $1.00/pound (pers. comm.).

The major biological obstacle in Puget Sound is the collection of natural
seed. As stated earlier, mussels do not spawn and set consistently year after
year. This problem is being circumvented by the development of an experi-
mental hatchery which would supplement natural stocks. Seed from this
hatchery would be used for research purposes and for distribution to inter-
ested mussel farmers.

Oregon. The mussels which have been harvested in Oregon during the
last several years are M. calif ornianus which occur in large numbers on the
ocean beaches. Very few M. edulis are known to grow in the state. They
occur naturally only at the mouth of estuaries. Shellfish harvesters
occasionally harvest mussels for human consumption, but this is usually done
only upon special request. The obstacle to harvesting mussels for human
consumption (even M. calif ornianus) is generally not PSP, however, problem
levels of PSP occurred in 1957 and 1973. However, shellfish can be harvested
only from certified waters if they are meant for human consumption. The
areas of greatest populations, along the ocean beaches, have not been legally
certified. The entire coastal area is open except for sewage outfall areas.
A harvester must only request certification from the Oregon Health Division.
In the past, the few such requests have been approved.

Recreational shellf ishermen are limited to 72 mussels, which may be
harvested only by hand or by hand-powered tools.

California. Currently, mussels may not be taken commercially in
California for human consumption at any time of the year (Alton, pers. comm.).
A quarantine exists from May 1 to October 31 during which time they may not

21

be taken recreationally either. This is due to the high recorded levels of
PSP. Thus, to satisfy the demand for mussels at the retail level, mussels
are imported from the east coast. During the non-quarantine period, mussels
are being harvested by one individual who produces mussel broth for use in
his restaurant. Provisions are being made to allow the harvest of mussels
from San Francisco Bay, but they must go through a depuration process if they
are to be used for human consumption (Sharpe, pers. comm.). The small quan- "
titles of mussels which have been harvested during the past several years
have been the California mussel, M. calif ornianus ; these have been used
soley for bait (Price, pers. comm.).

Several people in California are now interested either in harvesting
natural mussel stocks or growing them on rafts. All of these people are
located near San Francisco. There is also a small group of people at the
University of California at Davis which is advocating more practical regula-
tions governing the mussel industry. At least one shellfish hatchery has
expressed interest in providing mussel seed for mussel farmers. This could
be necessary if seed cannot consistently be obtained under natural
conditions.

The greatest obstacle to increased harvest of mussels in California is
the Department of Health, which has neither the money nor the manpower to
monitor all the bays and beaches along the California coastline for PSP.
Nor would it be practical for them to inspect mussels immediately after
harvest if they are meant for human consumption. In addition, a number
of people feel that the present total coliform standards are inadequate.
Coliform counts are used to indicate the potential presence of pathogens
found in fecal wastes. High coliform counts can also be of non-fecal origin
(e.g., runoff which occurs from agricultural fields when heavy rains follow
hot, dry summers). Sanitary shoreline surveys should therefore be combined
with fecal counts to properly classify shellfish growing waters.

7.3 Economic Profile of the Mussel Industry

7.31 Introduction

In order to understand the current and prospective economic problems
of the U.S. mussel industry, an economic profile of the industry was de-
veloped. This research was based upon the collection and analysis of data
on the mussel industry and also upon the results of twenty interviews with
firms and individuals engaged in different facets of the industry.

The subjective profile focuses on the industry at the present time,
as perceived by harvesters, growers, dealers and local wholesalers. Nine
personal interviews were conducted in Maine. 1 A similar interview format
was used as a mailed questionnaire for a sample of firms and individuals
outside of Maine. A copy of this appears as Appendix A. Due to time and

iThe interview format was developed with the assistance of the Social Science
Research Institute at the University of Maine-Orono. The Institute also
trained the interviewer to ensure as complete and accurate results as
possible.

22

resource constraints, the sample is not a large one, nor can it be said to
be "scientifically" representative. Nonetheless, the high consistency of
anwers among the twenty respondents suggests an accurate subjective profile
of the industry as a whole. The regional distribution and breakdown by
business category of the interviews and questionnaires is presented below
in Table One. As indicated from Table One the majority of Survey responses
are from Maine and New York, the two states comprising the greater part
of total U.S. commercial production in recent years.

Table I: Mussel Industry Survey by Regional Distribution and
Business Category

Harvester

Grower

Dealer-Wholesaler

Maine

3

1

5

Massachusetts

1

1

Connecticut

1

1

New York

1

1

2

Oregon

1

Washington

1

1

The objective profile consists of a presentation and analysis of
data on the mussel industry from the period 1941-1976.2 Data was obtained
from three primary sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, N.O.A.A. Fishery
Statistics of the United States; United National, F.A.O., Yearbook of
Fishery Statistics; U.S. Department of Commerce, N.M.F.S., Fishery Market
News Report; and from unpublished data supplied by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. The analysis is divided into five parts:

1. A long-run profile of the U.S. industry, by major producing
state and by volume and value of production;

2. A long-run comparison of the U.S. mussel industry with the world
industry by major producing nation;

3. A long-run profile of wholesale prices in the U.S. by major
producing state, nominal and deflated values;

4. A short-run profile of wholesale prices in the U.S.
in comparison with soft and hard shell clams;

mussels

•^In some cases the period covered is shorter due to limitations of the
particular data available or, insofar as 1976 is concerned, due to its
not having been compiled at the date of publication of this report.

23

5. A long-run comparative profile of the mussel and clam industries.
Since it is only the recent historical period that is analyzed in detail
below, some background information is necessary to complete the picture.

The commercial mussel industry in the United States has always been,
and continues to be, a small part of the shellfish industry. It is
misleading) in fact, to denote it as a separate industry. Typically, those
individuals and firms engaged in any facet of the business, from harvester
to metropolitan wholesaler, are simultaneously engaged in the harvesting
and distribution of other shellfish as well,^ Accordingly, the actual
size of the industry cannot be measured accurately by data such as that
appearing in Appendix E: Operating Unit Data of the Sea Mussel Fishery,
1966-1975 for the fisherman and craft listed do not devote all their time
to mussel harvesting.

Until World War II and the post war period, statistics on quantity
and value of commercial mussel landings in the U.S. indicate the industry
was marginal and sporadic.^ (See Appendix C) . Until the Great Depression
of the 1930' s the only recorded years of significant mussel production for
the East are from the Middle Atlantic states: 1887, 1888, 1897, 1904, 1908
and 1921. For the West Coast the only recorded years of significant activity
are 1888 and 1892. These latter have been explained elsewhere in the report.
No information is available on the harvests for the early years in the
Mid-Atlantic states. However, unemployment in the area was high in 1908
following the panic of 1907. Unemployment in the third quarter of 1921
was the highest since the depression that followed World War I, and wide-
spread wage cuts also contributed to a low standard of living. As an
inexpensive source of protein, mussels were substituted for more costly
foods as the standard of living declined.

From the period 1929 on, commercial mussel production has been on
a sustained basis. The industry has shown secular through highly uneven
growth both in quantity and value of product between 1929 and 1975. The
sustained level of activity leading up to World War II may again be
explained by the low standard of living during the Depression years. Eco-
nomic studies generally indicate that inexpensive foods tend to be sub-
stituted for relatively expensive items at low income levels. Without
further evidence, however, this must remain as a speculative conclusion
at the present time.

3The major exception to this general portrait is the local dealer -wholesaler

who hauls his own mussels through dredging or raking.
^Statistical sources prior to the 1930 's are quite poor, however, so that the
size of the commercial industry before that period is not necessarily accur-
ate. In addition harvests for self consumption rather than sale are excluded
from the statistics.

5Even during prosperous periods, mussel consumption has been largely limited
to ethnic populations which typically are on the lower end of the income
scale. Wild mussels, in the economist's vocabulary, may therefore be
labelled as an inferior good, one which only tends to be consumed at low
income levels and for which substitutes are consumed as incomes rise. In the
case of cultured mussels in Europe, however, the food is perceived as a

superior good.

— 24

r

in

in

10

^-

9

c

0)

o

o

3

o
in

P

in

T3
O

D
03

rr

,o

ID

li.

q:

O

SI

(0

o
o

w

Q

o

<D

O

c

J=

^

Q

<o

2

«

o

s

;S

C

o

E

0)

o

10

(A

c

o

1 *!

\-

3

P

o

0)

IT)

q:

<?

llj

3
»-
O

3

cr

\-

m

L.

<1>

n

,

«

0

0)

Q

o

r

o

^

$

'x:

c
0

c

D

>-

c

a.

T3

in

—3

c

0

L.

■

o

o

Ic

3

a>

O

o

5

to
o
CD

CL

5

0

C

sz
0

a>

2

>■

cr

(0

h-

0)

V)

'5

Q

a>
cr

c

0

■^

0

(/>

Q.

>_

0

<D

^

^—

■*-

0

(1>

U>

s

0)

0

£

0

^

c

0

\

D»

OT

(1)

k_

tr

0)

0

••

a>

0

Q

0

0

_i

c
o

^ I

©

1-

\

a>

k.

0

a>

v>

0

D

a>

<u

0

Q

0

_J

<v

3

<u

D O

Q ^

M3dD

w

0

0

«

<D

■ft

"m*

n

<0

a>

0

«

O

>

>

>

^

n

0

D

0

I

X

X

X

_ $

Q.

CO

a>

_

'

in

s

5

■0

k-

a>

a>

"— ^

F

0

CO

1-

0

h-

a>

3

D
li.

D

0.

0

k_

0

0

>

0)

0

*

3

>.

(A

0

CT

r

0

0

<u

I

c

SAjsuajui joqoi

aA!suajU| iDijdoo

25

7.32 Current Economic Status of the Industry; Subjective

Three aspects of the U.S. mussel Industry were Investigated In the
mussel Survey referred to In the Introduction; technique of production;
Industry structure; and market relationships. These elements are summarized
in Figure 1: Industry Structure. Each box Is an Independent firm or In-
dividual except harvesters employed by a dealer as part of his own operation.
Lines between the boxes refer to market relationships among Independent
economic agents. Only markets of types 1, I'jand 2 were Investigated due
to time, logistical, and resource constraints. The three major types of
markets are: retailers buying from metropolitan wholesalers; metropolitan
wholesalers buying from local wholesalers; local dealers /wholesalers
buying from harvesters, or producing directly on demand for metropolitan
wholesalers. Variants of these basic market types are denoted
by a superscript prime, (e.g. 1'). Vertical dashed lines refer to basic
divisions within the Industry by type of function, production or supply,
distribution, and retailing for final demand or consumption. The local
dealer/wholesaler box encompassing producers indicates relations of produc-
tion internal to a firm, employer to employee, as distinguished from market
relations. At the level of production, three techniques may be distinguished
and are noted in the left hand margin and bottom of Figure 1: labor
intensive, capital intensive, and highly capital intensive. Finally, the
separation of the Industry as between wild mussels and mussels produced
through aquaculture indicates that there are really two sectors of the
industry since the respective products have very different characteristics."
The smaller size of the farmed mussel sector is indicated by a smaller box.

The technique of production for wild mussels is labor intensive
Cindividuals using hoes) or capital Intensive (a boat up to 60^ with a crew
up to four dredging or raking mussel beds) depending upon the location of
the resource. CAppendlx F lists landings by type of gear and state 1971-1975.)
Entry into the industry is relatively easy for individuals harvesting by
hand or with hoes. Traditionally, however, dealers are supplied by regular
harvesters of long-standing acquaintance. With limited demand for mussels,
therefore, net additional entrants into harvesting have been few in number,
despite the ease of entry due to low initial capital requirements. Produc-
tivity per man-day varies depending upon the individual concerned and the
availability of the resource. Ten bushels per man-day using labor using
labor intensive techniques was the average from the survey responses.

Capital intensive techniques of production typically require a crew
of between 1 and ^ men operating a dredge or rake over mussel beds from
boats 32* to 60' in lengtin. Productivity per man-day varied from 40 to
80 bushels for firms employing rakes and 20-30 bushels for firms employing

"The cultured mussel is currently bel^g marketed as a gourment specialty in
fine restaurants. The cultured product is therefore not an inferior good,
but, rather, a food item which may prove in time to have a high income
elasticity of demand. This appears to be a matter of consumer education.

26

dredges. The total capital requirements for these techniques was
considered proprietary information and is not included in this report.

The technique of production for cultured mussels is not well-established
since it is a very new method of producing mussels. Of the three growers
surveyed, only one is approaching a commercially feasible level of produc-
tion. The other two are experimenting with aquaculture as a means of
supplementing the supply of wild mussels or improving quality. Although
aquaculture ventures are all highly labor intensive at this early stage of
the art, initial capital requirements for the firm are substantially higher
than either of the two previous techniques and will probably increase over
time as mechanization proceeds. Higher capital requirements reflect the
greater complexity of an aquaculture business compared to the harvesting
of wild mussels and the fact that a considerable scale of operations will
be necessary to minimize costs of production. Figures for productivity
per man day are not yet available and in any event would not be comparable
with those for other techniques since the product produced is very different.

Industry structure is dominated by firms comprising the metropolitan
wholesale market. Four city markets and two regional markets were identified
from the survey results. Other markets undoubtedly exist but will require
further research for identification. Metropolitan wholesalers buy the
greater proportion of mussels sold by local wholesalers, although the exact
proportion could not be determined. In turn, they sell to other metropolitan
wholesalers and directly to retailers. Markets of type 2' were identified
between east coast metropolitan wholesalers and Montreal and west coast
wholesalers. Retail sales from the metropolitan market are distributed
among foodstores and restaurants and as bait. Orders for mussels are
placed with metropolitan wholesalers who then transmit the demand through
the distribution channels to local wholesalers and finally to the harvesters.
Supply forthcoming to the market prior to demand is minimal.

Local wholesalers also tend to be dealers and supply retail markets
directly. A much greater proportion of total sales is to metropolitan
wholesalers, however. In the case of dealers purchasing mussel stocks from
independent harvesters, any risk from holding inventories is absorbed by
the dealer/wholesaler. Moreover, dealer/wholesalers are a source of credit
for independent harvesters when business conditions are poor. With one or
two exceptions, local dealer/wholesalers did not have severe credit problems,
possibly because they are engaged in the shellfish industry generally, and
not only in mussels. ° Individual dealers surveyed had not been in the
mussel business for a long time, with one exception on Long Island. They
tend to move in and out of the "industry" depending upon demand. Dealers
recognize they are too small individually to increase the demand for mussels

^The latter figure does not necessarily indicate lower productivity for
dredges, since 3/4 of an 8 hour day is for cleaning done on the boat.
Moreover, the average productivity for dredges is closer to AG than to
80 bushels.

o

"This is not true for aquaculture operations, however, which require
considerably more capital for a product of uncertain demand.

27

through advertising but did not appear to favor a cooperative advertising
venture. Transportation by local wholesalers to metropolitan wholesalers
is either by common carrier or by trucks owned by the local wholesalers.

For the industry as a whole, metropolitan wholesalers appear to
dominate price determination. Local dealers and wholesalers, who supply
most of their stocks to metropolitan wholesalers, receive $4 - $8 per bushel
depending primarily upon size and quality of stock. Fluctuations in demand
do not cause substantial price changes; rather they are met by changes in
quantity supplied to the market at a fairly constant price. The stability
of prices also extends backward to the market between harvesters and local
dealers/wholesalers. In New England harvesters receive $3 - $4 bushel; in
Washington state $3 per hour; on Long Island, where the cost of living is
higher, $6 per bushel. In short, for markets of types 1 and 2, prices
are stable and demand determines volume. Typically, orders are placed by
metropolitan wholesalers to their regional or local counterparts. Demand
is then transmitted to the harvesters who either work directly for local
dealers or have longstanding market relationships with them.

Responses by dealers and harvesters to the Survey indicate that greater
supply would be forthcoming in the short run at existing prices if demand
increased. On the east coast this would require increasing the number of
harvesters and possibly the number of boats since the utilization of
existing capacity appears quite high at the present time, especially for
those dealers/harvesters focusing most of their fishing effort on mussels.
The distribution network could handle a much larger volume of mussel pro-
duction if demand were forthcoming without an increase in the number of
firms. The long-run picture is very different, however. Almost all
respondents indicated that doubling the supply of mussels to the market for
a period of 5 years would deplete or exhaust the wild resource. In sum,
demand factors are a limitation to the growth of the industry in the short
run and the long run. Supply factors due to limitation of the wild resource
are a limitation to the growth of the industry in the long run but not the
short run.

The price stability of mussels, also analyzed in section 7.33 below,
is due to two factors. First, there is some risk to handling mussels for
firms in the distribution channel since demand for the product has not
been great compared with other shellfish species in the past. Second, since
the product is not in great demand and does not promise a very high rate of
return, bargaining power over prices from firms supplying mussels to
metropolitan wholesalers is not as strong in comparison with species such
as clams. In effect, metropolitan wholesalers may exhibit a degree of
monopsony power over local dealers/wholesalers, which is transmitted through
to the harvester.

Responses from the survey attribute price changes more to changes in
quality and size of product than to variations in demand conditions in the
short run. Local dealers/wholesalers set quality standards for harvesters
depending upon demand conditions, however, so the latter do have some
influence on price.

28

Finally, mussels grown by aquaculture have not as yet entered the
well-established distribution network for wild mussels depicted in Figure 1.
Sales have been directly to retailers for the most part.

7.33 Current Economic Status of the Industry: Objective

Between 1942 and 1975, three distinct periods in the history of the
mussel industry can be distinguished: 1942-1947; 1948-1964; 1965-1975.
These phases are evident from Figures 2 and 3, quantity and value of mussel
landings by year and state.

The first was the period of greatest U.S. mussel production in recorded
history. Yields exceeding 2.7 million pounds were maintained steadily for
4 years. These were canned for export for U.S. troops overseas during the
war and possibly for consumption by European countries such as France as
well. Maine supplied the greater part of this yield with New York a distant
second. The rapid drop in yields soon after the conclusion of the war
reflects a return to more traditional sources of protein and a depletion of
wild stocks according to Dow and Wallace (1954) .

Between 1948 and 1964 the industry as a whole exhibited highly uneven
harvest levels with no secular trend observable. The distribution of the
harvest between states changed noticeably from the first period as well.
Although Maine regained prominence from New York in 1950 after the drastic
decline in landings in 1947, from 1953 to 1965 Maine accounted for a small
percentage of total U.S. landings. Rhode Island was prominent between 1955
and 1959 with no reported landings of significance after 1961. Massachu-
setts landings remained uneven between 1948 and 1958, showing no secular
trend. However, between 1959 and 1963 Massachusetts landings increased
markedly and accounted for almost all U.S. production. The trend in
production since 1959 has been downward for Massachusetts in the face of
a secular increase in total U.S. landings. Finally, New York landings in
the second period are low relative to other states except in the years 1953
and 1954.

The third period, 1965-1975, is the most significant. The trend, albeit
highly uneven during this period, is distinctly positive. The average rate
of growth per year for the period is 16 percent. From 1965-1967 Maine and
Massachusetts comprise the bulk of U.S. landings. From 1968-1973 New York
and Maine account for most of U.S. production. In 1974 and 1975, however ^
New York landings have dropped rapidly but have been more than offset by a
rapid rise in Maine landings insofar as total industry growth is concerned.
Whether the decline in New York landings is due to resource depletion, as
indicated by the survey results, is not a conclusion which has been firmly
established at the present time. Landings for 1976, when available, may
help to further clarify this issue. Since the U.S. market as a whole has
been increasing the past few years quite rapidly, however, it is difficult
to reconcile the New York performance with any other explanation than
resource depletion.

29

Fig. 2 QUANTITY (By Live Weight) OF UNITED STATES MUSSEL LANDINGS BY YEAR AND STATE

A Long- Run Profile
Source: (United States Department of Commerce, N.O.A.A., Fisheries Statistics of ttie United States,
Wastiington, D.C., Annual)

3,200

3,000-

2,800-

2,600

2,400-

2.000-

Q 1,800

1,000

800

600

400-

200-

United States

Maine

New York

Massoctiusetts

Rtiode Island - Production Insignificant for
Years not Portrayed

' /\ /■•.. ■■••. \

/ -J

1942

1945

1950

1955

I960

1965

1970

1975

30

o
a.

c

cc

c
o

LlI

LU

3
_l

rO

o

3
C
C
<

(J
Q

c*
o

o
5

<

*"

t-

o

(/>

Q

(J

2

w>

<

'^

u

q:

en

<

u>

UJ

<u

>-

^

>

<0

CD

ll.

CO

<

(0

2

<

n

q

z

.^'

<

-J

Q)
O

w

0)

_i

E

LlI

F

(D

o

CO

o

■~>

„_

^

o

c

(/I

OJ

III

fc

1-

*-

<

o

1-

o.

Q

Q

I/)

UJ

"D

c
Z)

o

O

O

II

N-

(0

<D

.^_*

u>

(/)

D

o

O

o

Q

Q

—

,

O

c

c

o

E
o

z
1

c
o
u

1

(0

w

</)

^_

a>

(U

«

••-

in

o

p

JC

3

in

(/)

o

O

TD

-D

>

Ol

o

<U

0)

c

Ul

5

(/)

'E

c

0)

o

o

13

3

2

s

5

•

>/

^

■•,

;\

•^

\"-«.

^■^

'•

-..x/

•./

v

y-\

V

VN,/ 1

\ -I

1

I

V

\

o
o
'a-

in
in

01

o
in

CD

in

Sdvnnoa do soNvsnoHi

31

The top two lines in Figure 3 represent value of total U.S. landings
per year in current dollars and real dollars as deflated by the appropriate
price index. Using 1967=100 as the base date of the index, the higher value
of the constant dollar series before 1967 indicated dollars were worth more
in real purchasing power before 1967 than since 1967. In fact there is
continuous inflation throughout the post-war period although it was very low
from 1952 through 1968.

Inflation has hurt the mussel industry seriously since 1972. The gap
between sales in current and real dollars has widened considerably. Indeed,
comparing the quantitative performance of the industry with value of
landings for 1974, we find that real value of landings fell sharply while
volume increased. Inflation is certainly a more severe problem for
fledgling industries like the mussel industry than for well established
industries which can administer prices. The purchasing power from sales
by the industry is declining. As the survey results indicate, this
sector faces an increase in labor and fuel costs in the near future.

Figures 4 and 5 enable an historical comparison of the U.S. industry
with the world mussel industry for a twenty year period. Unfortunately,
data for 1974 and 1975 are not yet available. Nonetheless, several
important economic observations can be made.

Although the U.S. industry has exhibited marked growth in recent years,
it is still an insignificant proportion of the world industry, which is
centered in Europe and based largely upon aquaculture .rather than the
harvesting of wild supplies. However, between 1962 and 1973 the average
rate of growth for the world industry was 5 percent, considerably lower than
the 16 percent rate of growth for U.S. harvest during the period 1965-1975.
Until very recently the Netherlands was the largest producer of mussels.
Since the mid-1960 's however, the growth in world production has come mainly
from Spain, with other major producing countries exhibiting no secular trend
of positive growth. Indeed, the leveling-off of world production in 1973
was due to a decline in harvests in the Netherlands, France, and Denmark.
Spain is now the world's largest producer.

It is not clear from the small amount of information on the European
industry now available whether demand has leveled-off recently in Europe
or whether all available growing waters for mussels are being utilized to
capacity. 9 A 1975 NMFS report prepared by Fisheries Development Limited in
London indicates production is now sufficient to meet European demand.
However, there is also evidence indicating long-term supply constraints
due to the lack of additional growing waters.

One possible implication of this for the U.S. industry might appear to
be to emphasize export markets as a way of stimulating demand for the in-
dustry. In 1974, for example, wholesale prices in the United Kingdom were

9Figures 4 and 5 show that the growth in value of landings in France is
considerably outstripping growth in volume, thus indicating a supply
constraint and rising prices as demand outgrows supply.

32

Fig. 4 WORLD MUSSEL PRODUCTION BY COUNTRY AND YEAR, 1953-1973*

Source: (United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, Yearbook of Fishery
Statistics, New York, Annual)

*BLUE MUSSEL, COMMON MUSSEL, by Country and World Total.

"OTHER MUSSELS" by World Total only.
(Series Exclude Aquoculture for Spain through I960, but

Include Aquoculture for Spain 1961 - )

350n

300-

250-

O 200-

I-

UJ

z
<

^ ISO-
IS
o

X

100-

50-

World Total, Blue and Common Mussels

■— Netherlonds
Spain

- France

Denmark

United States

— X World Total, "Other Mussels

1 —

1953 1955

I960

1965

— I 1

1970 1973

33

Fig. 5 VALUE OF WORLD MUSSEL PRODUCTION BY YEAR, 1952-1972

Source: (United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, Yearbook of
Fishery Statistics, New York, Annual)

27-1

24-

co

_J
_l
O
Q

CO

UJ

I-
<

t-

co

Q
LU
t 15-

CO

o

BLUE, COMMON MUSSELS

12-

France

Netherlands

Spain

1952

1955

1958

1961

1964

1967

— I 1

1970 1972

34

38 cents per pound wholesale f.o.b. from the continent, somewhat above the
comparable U.S. price for recent years. (See Appendix C.2). Transportation
charges would be considerably greater for U.S. produced mussels, however.
Moreover, the UK price is for the markedly superior cultured mussel and not
the wild mussel, which dominates U.S. production. Thus, export markets are
not a feasible path of industry growth currently, or in the foreseeable
future. On the contrary, if U.S. demand for the cultured mussel develops
sufficiently in the future, European exports to this country may well
pose a severe constraint to the growth and survival of the U.S. industry.
Since the technique of production for aquaculture is better developed in
Europe than the U.S., average costs of production are without question con-
siderably lower. Even with the costs of transportation, therefore, foreign
competition may be a reality to which policy makers and firms must address
themselves while U.S. mussel aquaculture is still an infant industry. At
present there are no tariffs or other special import restrictions on mussel
products in this country.

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the long term behavior of wholesale prices
for mussels in the New York market. Prices in Figure 6 are computed on
a bi-monthly basis so that it is possible to compare short-term price
behavior with the long-term trend. In Figure 7 yearly averages are used
since the major focus is on long term price behavior at current and real
prices.

Between 1950 and 1965, wholesale prices in the New York market varied
considerably among the three states at any point in time. Prices for each
state also varied considerably over time within the period. Finally, there
is no secular trend in prices during this period. The average price for
the period was constant, about $2.50 per bushel. This price behavior re-
flects the marginal size of the industry in the post-war period leading up
to 1965 as noted in the analysis of Figure 2.

With the growth of the industry in the period following 1965, however,
prices have moved steadily upwards. The variability in prices among states
has also narrowned considerably. This probably reflects the growing ration-
alization of price determination towards a cost-plus basis and away from the
pure market forces of supply and demand concommitant with the growth of the
industry. This is similar to the history of price determination for most
produced commodities.

Nonetheless, price variation in the later period is by no means minimal.
Results from the survey indicate, however, that differences in quality and
size are mainly responsible for price variation, demand fluctuations being
of secondary importance. -^^ This does not mean, however, that prices are

lOSince cultured mussels exhibit greater uniformity in size and quality, the
stability of prices should increase if this product comes to dominate the
market. Price stability is desirable from a business standpoint as it re-
duces one element of risk. Variations in market conditions are then limited
to changes in inventories rather than changes in both prices and inventories,

35

tf)

r>-

o

0^

o

1

TJ

o

Q>

If)

in

ai

^

3

Q.

1

c

3

hi

<D

0)

<

o

OC

>

III

<u

>

(/)

<

U)

0)

>-

<D

_l

a-

X

W

1-

IJ.

z

W

CD _

UJ

o

i*:

z

q:

<

<f

^

<

o

z

o

V

a>

o

k_

^

F

UJ

E
o

2

o

CO
UJ

*4-

o

()

,»_

c

CL

E

k-

o

III

Q.

_l

n

<

(O

Ul

1

o

o

CO

X

73

^

Q)

C

-)

_J

Ul

if)

<u

(f)

o

r)

3

<u

<0

3

^

x:

u.

o

O

0)

c

o

05

>-

o

O

v

CT)

00

ID

■^

CD
N-

in

-N-
CJi

o

"CT>

in

CD
05

o

.CD

in
in

o

in

CJ5

(S3nnvA nvNii/yoN 'syvnnoa) n3Hsna d3d S3Didd 3'ivs31ohm

36

in

_

1^
2?

o

1

o

o

■o

55

.c

CO

1

B

en

3

UJ

c

o

Z>

<

<r

oT

UJ

_o

>

'>

<

«

(0

>

_i

(0

oc

o

<

UJ

^

>-

v>

L

en

0)

UJ

_c

3

'k.

_J
<

o

5

>

o

Q

c
o

UJ

*••-

1—

o

<

Z

_l

Ll
UJ

<

Q

<

d

Q

2

Z

<

oT

o

_l
<

E

z

E

s

o
o

o

2

o

•

,^

cn

c

UJ

E

o

cc

o

Q.

Q.

0)

Q

UJ

_)

(/>

<

0)

to

o

UJ

CO

_l

o

T3

X

«

$

'E

3

_l

UJ

(r>

Q>

(D

^

3

3

o

2

en

o

c

E

o

o

c

o

z

E

c

Q>

o

o>

z

E

o

__

o

>
<

o

^

z

0)

0)

tr

o

o

•»?

in

0)

>

o

^_

■^-

4—

<

q:

0)

o

v

a>

>

a>

u>

U)

»

<

cc

D

3

^

JC

£

£

^

k.

o

O

p

p

«r

oT

o

o

>

>-

c

c

in

«>

u>

(0

J

s

'5

'5

a

o

a>

0)

5

S

S

5

Z

z

00

1^

1_A

in

O

"cn

in
en

o

CO

in
_ m

o
in

CT)

(iv38e nvNiiAioN 'savnoQ) i3Hsna a3d S3Didd bivssiohm

37

determined by harvesters or local wholesalers. Metropolitan wholesalers
appear to exhibit some monopsony power in price determination, though,
obviously, prices must in the long run cover average costs at each point
in the production-distribution channel.

From Figure 7, it is evident that current and real wholesale prices
for the industry did not vary widely until the 1970 's. In the 1970 's,
however, the mussel industry has suffered falling prices in real terms.
Although this is by no means unique, an emerging industry is much more
vulnerable to inflation than well established industries, as noted earlier.
The fall in prices in real terms is a serious setback to an industry which
cannot administer prices and thereby protect itself from inflation. In
effect, a fall in real prices mades it harder for the mussel industry to
maintain profit margins and purchase additional inputs necessary to sustain
a given volume of production, let alone a growth in production. If current
prices were keeping pace with inflation the real dollar price series would
be horizontal for the 1970 's.

Figure 8 is a short-run profile of wholesale prices in the New York
market for mussels and its closest substitutes. For the period analyzed,
July 11, 1975 - October 1, 1976, the stability of mussel prices compared to
soft clams and two varieties of hard clams is remarkable. Although time
and resource constraints prevented an econometric analysis of cross-price
elasticities, the periods of greatest vulnerability in mussel prices appear
to be correlated with the periods of greatest variability of soft clam
prices, December 26 - March 5 and June 25 - August 6.

Data presented in Figure 9 tend to support the view that soft clams
and mussels are substitutes. The substantial decline in soft clam production
during World War II is matched by a substantial rise in mussel production
during the same period. A less dramatic rise in mussel production between
1971 and 1973 is associated with another large drop in U.S. clam production.

7.4 Processing

Mussels are in greatest demand as fresh shellfish. The shelf-life of
fresh mussels is limited under existing practices, and a method of safely
extending safe holding-time while maintaining product quality is needed.
These needs are discussed in Section 9.4 of this report.

Mussel processing is reviewed by Scattergood and Taylor (1949a) .
Prolonged shelf life and increased range of distribution are the principal
advantages. However, other benefits exist. Mussels can be canned with
conventional machinery used to process fish and other shellfish species,
thus minimizing capital investment. Furthermore, this can be done during
the winter, when fish processing is at its minimum and mussel harvest is
not limited by the occurrence of red tides. This would have the added social
value of stabilizing employment in an established industry — namely fish
processing. Also, mussels are conditionally more fit for canning during the
winter, when meats are firm and the animal has recovered from the summer
spawn (Scattergood and Taylor, 1949a).

38

Fig. 8 MUSSEL, SOFT CLAM AND HARD CLAM WHOLESALE PRICES, NEW YORK MARKET

A Short - Run Profile

Source: (United States Department of Commerce, NO.A A , National Morine Fistieries Service, Stotistics and
Morketing News Division, Fishery Morket News Report, (weekly), July 1975 - October 1976).

35n

33-

31-

29

27-

^ 25-

UJ

23-

UJ 21

CO
CD

19

17-

UJ
Q.

CO

cr
<

_i 15----

O

Q

A

A

/

'x/ \

V-'

^

SOFT CLAMS

/

^

CHERRYSTONE CLAMS

"^«.^^^

\ ^'\

\ I

\ i

V,J

CHOWDER CLAMS

MUSSELS

S-f I \ I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I T I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I [—
Julyll. Aug.8 Sept.5 Oct3 Novl4 Dec.l2 Jan9 Feb.6 Mor5 Apr2 Mayl4 Jun.ll Jul.9 Aug.6 S€pt3 Oct.l

-1975-

1976

39

ro

I
CO

c
<

a
d

in
? g

i I

Q u>

(/)

UJ

<

<j

1-

(/)

(D

■o

Q

a>

UJ

1-

'E
3

O

~

3

<2

Q

^-

O

o

cr

w

Q.

>.^

S

«

<

_i
o

Ll

1-

<■

Ul

o

<

CO

d

z

Q

2
<

t>

k_

_J

Q>

LU

E

CO

e

CO

o
o

3

2

*4-

o

Li.
O

c
a>

^^

E

x:

o

o>

Q.

0)

Q

to

0)

«

>

P

'_J

OJ

>»

■o

s

0)

'E

>-

3

1-

^^

h-

2

Q>
U

<

3
O

o

W

01

d>

o

^

^

o

c

n

fc

E

(2

>

u

o

o

o

«

QJ

U)

CO

H-

««-

V)

<n

o

o

en

CO

^

^

— I—

o
o
o

CD*

saNnod do soNvsnoHi

40

The commercial market in the U.S. today consists primarily of fresh
product. Mussels of 2 to 3 inches in length are brought from the
harvest area, usually in small boats, to a mussel dealer. They are then
washed and sorted in a washer-grader (this is the same piece of machinery
used in sorting other shellfish species) . Mussels are usually held in
seawater on rafts for several days before shipping. While this procedure
enables the dealer to ship in bulk nnd assures him of an adequate supply
for his customers, it also improves the survival of mussels in transport.
This is presumably due to a reacquisitlon of shell liquor and recovery of
the animal from harvest trauma (picking, transporting, cleaning and sorting)
(Slabyj and Hinckle, 1976).

To date, no machinery has been specifically designed to shuck mussels;
this process must still be done by hand and constitutes a large expense in
mussel processing. The byssal threads must be removed from the meats after
shucking, and this increases considerably the time and care required to
prepare mussels (pers. comm.). Cooked mussel meat can be easily removed
from the shell after steaming or boiling.

Although the meat yield of wild mussels varies both seasonally and
specifically for each animal, a bushel of 3-inch mussels yields about
one gallon of wet meats. Smaller mussels have a slightly higher yield
(Stewart, pers. comm.).

41

8.0 STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY

8.1 East Coast - Willard Browne 11

Public health aspects of mussel harvesting and commercial sales have
been under the control of either PHS or the FDA administration of the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) since 1925 (Roberts, pers.
comm.), but each state and several major cities have further controls,
which are carried out by local sanitation departments. Fishing licenses
and management of stocks are controlled by the states and/or towns. The
leasing of bottoms for harvest and/or culture of shellfish is controlled
at various levels. Most coastal states have marine police, or wardens,
who work for a state department of marine resources (or equivalent) to
enforce these controls and regulations. The following is a summary of some
of the legal matters that affect mussel fisheries in the principal
producing states (as described in Section 5.1).

Maine. The opening and closing of shellfish harvest areas, including
Mytilus, is regulated on a species basis by the Maine Department of Marine
Resources (DMR) . Regulation is required to safeguard against contamination
by fecal pollution, Industrial pollution, and paralytic shellfish poisoning.
These sanitation regulations are in compliance with the NSSP administered
by the FDA. The state is responsible for licensing of in-state dealers as
well as interstate shellfish transporters.

Licenses for commercial harvest are issued by this department for $10
per year, and no restrictions are placed on size of mussels, size of total
catch, method of harvest, or season. However, numerous towns impose
ordinances restricting shellfish harvest to town residents. Many of these
towns will issue non-resident licenses.

Regulations requiring shore access and lease of bottom areas for
aquacultural operations are also under the jurisdiction of the DMR. These
vary with locations.

Massachusetts . State law requires all coastal towns to assume
responsibility for management of their inshore shellf isheries. Commercial
licenses are generally $25 or $50 per year. Some towns issue daily
sportfishing permits (cost: $1.00 to $2.50) for small quantities of shell-
fish. The towns with the largest resources and the most fishermen usually
employ extensive management practices. For instance, Duxbury has closed
seasons on clams, but mussels are only restricted by the number of licenses
given out (10). Currently, there are four fishermen working the mussel
beds there. They complain because they are not permitted to have helpers
at any stage of the operation. A local large-volume dealer complains
because the stocks are so extensive that they could be exploited at a much
higher level and could satisfy a demand which usually exceeds the supply.
Mussel stocks are consumed each year by migrating eider ducks.

42

Ipswich has initiated programs to harvest all mussels in dense beds,
market all individuals that are over 5 cm in length, and relocate the
smaller ones in deeper water (4-5 feet at low tide) where there is better
water circulation and more space. It is believed that the relocated
mussels, which are never exposed by the tide, have better taste, grow
faster, have a whiter color, and more meat per volume of animal. A local
dealer in Ipswich gave away some free samples of mussels prepared in
different ways in order to stimulate the local industry.

Connecticut. The State Department of Health publishes a yearly report
describing the restricted shellfish harvest areas. Norwalk has opened a
conditional area to shellfishing for permit holders; this is closed for 5
to 9 days immediately following a rainfall of 0.5 inches or more. There
is no government control on mussel fisheries at any level.

Rhode Island. There are no state regulations governing either the
commercial or recreational harvest of mussels in Rhode Island waters.

New York. Leasing of bottom-rights is the principal question con-
cerning Long Island mussel fishermen. All available bay bottoms have been
either commercially leased or reserved specifically for use by town
residents. There exists great controversy over the distribution of these
special rights, which often set aside areas for extensive shellfish culture
that are considered to be good natural production areas for other species.
Often, leased areas are closed due to pollution, especially in the western
part of the island. There are no management policies for mussels.

New Jersey. The regular clamming license is required of mussel
fishermen. The State Department of Environmental Protection, Shellfish
Control Section publishes condemned area charts for fishermen. The fine for
taking mussels from condemned waters is $100. Mussels are not considered
to be a resource that requires management in New Jersey, since so few are
taken.

8.2 West Coast - Linda Chaves-Michael

Alaska. There are presently no specific regulations pertaining to
mussels in Alaska, whether M. edulis or M. calif ornianus .

The Alaska departments of Fish and Game, Public Safety, and Health
and Social Services are jointly functioning as the shellfish control agencies
for the State of Alaska as outlined below.

Department of Health and Social Services

1. Coordinating agency for State shellfish program

2. Classifies growing areas

3. Conducts sanitary surveys

4. Establishes sanitary standards

43.

5. Conducts PSP testing

6. Issues numbered certificates to approved clam processors

Department of Fish and Game

1. Collects clam samples for PSP testing

2. Issues licenses to commercial clam diggers

3. Assists in sanitary surveys

Department of Public Safety

1. Active patrolling of beach areas
^ 2. Enforcement of clam fishery laws

(from Orth et al., 1975).

Shellfish growing areas are closed to commercial harvesting for human
consumption unless the areas have been certified by the commissioner for
the designated shellfish species. In Alaska, only three areas, Cordova,
Swikshak, and Polly Creek, have been certified for shellfish harvest (Orth
et al., 1975). Since these areas are approved for razor clams only, mussels
cannot be harvested there. Prior to harvesting mussels, one would have to
convince the Departments of Health and Social Services and Fish and Game
that the investment of time and money in approving these or other areas
would be rewarding to the state (Torgerson, pers. comm.).

The requirements for leasing tidelands are still being developed and
have not specified any regulations which would pertain to rafting. The
Coastal Zone Management Program is also in the developmental stages. Due
to the vast resources of shellfish which are available for fishing, little
effort has been devoted to aquaculture planning. The state is tremendous
in size, lacks a historical fishery for mussels, and is still a number of
years behind the rest of the country as far as management and organization
of that fishery are concerned.

Before attempting an aquaculture venture in Alaska, it would be wise
to contact the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources,
Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Health and Social
Services, Department of Fish and Game, and local coastal zone management
agencies. The regulations are at a stage where they are still being
developed and are thus likely to change during the next few years.

Washington. The sportfishing daily bag limit for mussels in
Washington is 10 pounds in the shell. Neither a license nor a permit is
required for recreational harvest.

Gear limitations for the commercial harvesting of mussels specify
that one may harvest only with a pick, mattock, fork, or shovel operated
by hand. A mechanical device may be used, but only if it has a special
permit. Mussels may be taken only from the tidelands of licensed farms.
Within Puget Sound harvesting may only take place from November 1 through

44

March 31 on the tidelands lying west of Dungeness Spit. Elsewhere on
Puget Sound there is no closed season. Harvesting of mussels may take
place throughout the year from licensed clam farms in Grays Harbor and
Willapa Harbor.

The Department of Fisheries issues a clam farm license ($15) if
mussels are to be commercially harvested from beds or an aquaculture license
($100) if mussels are to be cultured. No specific mussel aquaculture
regulations have been established yet; however, they would probably be
similar to the existing regulations governing salmon aquaculture. The
Department of Fisheries encourages private and commercial aquaculture in
Washington. The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for
leasing waters for the purpose of aquaculture. Leases last for five year
periods with options to renew up to a twenty year period.

The Department of Health and Social Services oversees water quality in
the State of Washington. It implements the regulations of the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program of the FDA. Waters are subject to a sanitary
survey before they are certified for shellfish harvesting. Commercial
shellfish harvesting is not permitted from any other beaches or bays. A
PSP monitoring program is also in effect; in the event that toxic levels
are found, commercial shellfish growers and the media are informed to
prevent harvesting or marketing of affected shellfish.

Within the State of Washington, each county has developed its own
shoreline management plan. Thus, county authorities must be contacted
prior to setting up a mussel farm as regulations vary considerably among
the different counties.

To give an example of how one obtains all necessary permits, a
mussel farmer in Washington contacted three agencies to obtain the permits
for setting up his culture business. These were: the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, State Department of Fisheries, and the County Government. The
Army Corps of Engineers coordinated with all other agencies necessary, such
as the Department of Ecology, Natural Resources, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife,
and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Without any objections from
anyone, all permits were granted within a ten-month period. Had there been
any objections to the proposed plans for putting rafts in the water, the
mussel farmer would have had to resolve these personally with the offended
parties prior to being issued the permit (Jefferds, pers. comm.).

Oregon. The Department of Fish and Wildlife in Oregon is responsible
for all sportfishing regulations. Seventy- two mussels are allowed per
harvester per day. The season is open the entire year. Mussels may not be
taken from the marine gardens at Otter Rock unless they are taken singly for
use as bait. They may only be taken by hand or hand-powered tool.

No species requirements for mussel raft culture have been established.
No precedents have been set for the leasing of waters for raft culture and
this idea is apparently not favored. Harvesting of natural stocks is
possible and has been done by at least one harvester. Twice monthly PSP

45

samples by the Health Division are a type of survey and harvest has been
permitted under these conditions. The state does not wish to incur the
cost of establishing and maintaining sanitary surveys of the ocean beaches
just for the mussel industry.

The State Lands Division is responsible for the leasing of land and
water; it has delegated to the Department of Fish and Wildlife the respon-
sibility for leasing lands for aquaculture. This department may lease inter-
tidal and other areas for oyster culture, but no regulations have yet been
established for mussel culture (Snow, pers. comm.).

California. A 25-pound daily limit is placed on the harvesting
of M« edulis and/or M. calif ornianus from California waters. These must be
collected by hand. Due to the presence of PSP in the waters a quarantine
on both sport and commercial harvesting of mussels normally extends from
May 1 through October 31. In 1976, however, the shellfishery had to be
closed on March 22.

At the present time, mussels may not be harvested from California
waters if they are to be sold fresh for human consumption. Some harvesting
may soon be permitted from San Francisco Bay, providing the mussels are
relayed or depurated. Mussels may be harvested from waters which are
certified for other shellfish species (such as oysters) while a Health
Department inspector is present. These may be used only to make broth.
This obviously creates an unmanageably costly program for the Health De-
partment (Sharpe, pers. comm.). The health agencies cannot be expected
to favor a mussel industry under these conditions.

Mariculture regulations are in existence, but are not outlined for
individual species. A $25 license must be obtained for the privilege of
cultivating marine life, "whether planting, promoting their growth, or
harvesting them in, on, or from waters of this state." This license is
administered by the California Fish and Game Department. Bottom-rights are
also leased through this department. Leases are granted only if they are
in the public interest — if no public clam digging is taking place on the
bottom area in question, and if recreational purposes are not hampered.
Leases are awarded to the highest bidder for a period of not more than 25
years, with renewal options after a period of 20 years.

Other agencies which must be consulted before establishing a mussel
farm are the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Commission, the Department
of Public Works (county), and the Department of Public Health.

46

9.0 INDUSTRY PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
9.1 Economic Problems of the Industry

9. 11 Resource Availability, Harvesting, and Distribution

The economic problems identified with the U.S. mussel industry
from the subjective and objective profile may be grouped under three
headings: resource availability, harvesting, and distribution. The first
two categories conform to the NMFS matrix guideline; the last one is
not included in the matrix format, as necessitated by findings from the
research.

Resource availability does not appear to be a short-run problem but
is without question a long-run problem if demand continues to grow at
the same rate as the past ten years. Both the subjective and objective
economic profiles indicate depletion of the wild mussel resource. Mussels
are competing with other species for growing waters in a biological and
economic sense. Survey responses from the west coast indicated mussels
were harvested primarily to clear waters for species promising higher
rates of return such as oysters. The quality of the resource is reduced
in the summer months, thus dampening demand. Accordingly, the season is
largely between October and May. In the winter months, however, ice can
damage mussel beds and equipment so as to restrict resource availability.
Finally, over half the respondents indicated knowledge of mussel beds
being closed because of pollution.

Harvesting problems as perceived by dealers and harvesters include
the following. Cutting and cleaning mussels is very time consuming and
quite inefficient from an engineering and economic . point of view. This is
as true for capital intensive techniques of harvesting as it is for labor
intensive techniques. More efficient gear both for the harvesting, sorting
and cleaning of mussels could improve efficiency in the industry for the
wild resource. Aquaculture has the great advantage of allowing more
effective and efficient harvesting independently of improved gear since
mussels are grown under controlled conditions.

In contrast with dealers/wholesalers, harvesters face problems in
obtaining working capital. Dealers indicated a willingness and need to
pay harvesters more but the wholesale price in metropolitan markets does
not permit this. At the same time dealers emphasized the need to educate
harvesters better as to an acceptable level of quality for the market.
Finally, costs of harvesting are expected to increase from increasing fuel
expenses and cost of maintaining equipment.

Distribution channels for wild mussels are well developed and pose
few economic problems for the industry. One, however, is clearly evident
from the survey results. Respondents from Maine did not indicate any
serious losses due to problems with mussel freshness, storage, and shelf
life in the summer. Most respondents from mailed questionnaires to the
west coast and the east coast exclusive of Maine indicated such problems
were severe constraints. Research in solving these problems has been
conducted at the University of Maine - Orono during the past few years.

47

funded through the National Office of Sea Grant, N.O.A.A. Results from
this research appear to have been disseminated effectively in Maine but
not effectively throughout other mussel producing states.

9.12 Policy and Research Options
The Short Run:

1. Completed research from the National Sea Grant Blue Mussel
Project should be systematically distributed to mussel harvesters, growers,
and dealers outside of Maine. The survey results show that businesses

in Maine have far fewer problems with respect to handling and storage that
maximize freshness and shelf life than businesses in New York and Washington.

2. Assuming continued growth in the demand for mussels as projected
from the period 1965-1975 into the future, efforts should be undertaken in
the immediate future to prevent overfishing of the wild resource. Over-
fishing has in the past and could well again result in a short term glut
in the market which would depress prices even lower than they are now and
discourage suppliers. Moreover, by depleting the resource for a period of
time it would undoubtedly compromise and perhaps even reverse the upward
trend in demand that has been sustained for the past ten years.

3. Research efforts might be undertaken to increase productivity at
the harvesting level in order to facilitate supplying a growing market.
This would include, for example, Improvements in the mechanization of very
time consuming processes such as sorting, cleaning and shucking. Although
the Survey results indicate that a larger supply of mussels would be forth-
coming at the current price to harvesters if demand expanded, this would
come from Increased numbers, not increased effort by individuals currently
in the business. By making returns more attractive in this Industry for
those now employed through increased productivity, a relative change in
harvesting effort could be brought about which would economize on other
species and exploit this underutilized resource. -'-

The Long Run:

4. In the long run research along a broad spectrum aiding the
development of mussel aquaculture must be undertaken if demand continues
to grow at the same rate as the past 10 years. The unanimous conclusion
of harvesters and dealers from the Survey is that the wild mussel supply

is not sufficient in quantity or quality to enable a large scale industry to
develop in this country such as exists in Europe.

5. Such an industry, based on aquaculture, would have to be
designated an Infant Industry by the federal government and protected from
European competition until it matures.

■'-This should not be done at the expense of overfishing the mussel resource,
however. More research is needed to see just how large the available
supplies of wild mussels are.

48

9. 2 Marketing - A Situation Analysis

Expansion of the blue mussel industry in the United States has been
restricted by a historically limited market (Scattergood and Taylor, 1949a).
In May 1973 the country's first major blue mussel promotional campaign
was initiated by the University of Maine (U.M.O.)> the University of New
Hampshire (U.N.H.)> and the Maine Department of Marine Resources (D.M.R.)
through a tri-institutional Sea Grant Program. Consumer enthusiasm for
the product was documented during the campaign at numerous national food
exhibits and in-store demonstrations (Bouchard, 1976). From a marketing
standpoint, the following general conclusion can be drawn. Given a steady
and reliable source of high-quality supply, and adequate consumer education
as to the benefits to be derived from the eating of mussels, the major
impediments to the establishment of a successful mussel fishery would be
removed.

Toward achievement of that goal, the NOAA Office of Sea Grant has
commissioned U.N.H. and U.M.O. to continue the investigation into the
problems associated with the marketing of blue mussels.

The eventual goal of the marketing project is to determine:

1. The reasons for negative attitudes concerning mussels on the part
of certain suppliers and consumers.

2. The methods for altering these attitudes..

3. The principal economic impediments to the development of a natural
mussel fishery.

4. The methods for removing these impediments.

5. The market potential for commercial raised mussels.

Termination of this phase of the project will follow formulation of
specific marketing strategy plans.

The development of effective marketing proposals is dependent upon
the collection of "the facts" surrounding the product or industry referred
to as a "situation analysis." It is the purpose of this report, or
situation analysis, to present the background data on the mussel industry
needed by the marketing strategist. This was accomplished by:

1. Summarizing the available mussel data of relevance to the
marketing function.

2. Presenting the results of additional primary research involving
mussel fishermen, dealers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers.

3. Presenting options for future research in specific areas in order
to facilitate future strategy plans.

49

The research methods employed were fairly simple and routine in
keeping with the basic purpose of the report. The initial phase involved
the preparation of a research outline indicating specific types of data
needed, together with suggested sources of secondary data. With one or
two exceptions, these efforts went unrewarded due to the limited amount
of relevant published data. In an attempt to correct this deficiency, a
detailed questionnaire was designed to collect parimary data directly
from businessmen involved with the collection, selling, and reselling of
blue mussels. The results of this phase of the research were more encour-
aging. Businessmen in general were quite willing to discuss their operations
and the problems they encountered. Unfortunately, due to time and manpower
constraints, the number of interviews conducted was rather small, and
limited to a narrow geographical area, (the Portland and Brunswick-Rockland
areas of Maine, and the greater Portsmouth area in New Hampshire). There-
fore, although the interviewers were able to identify issues of primary
importance, these were too few to provide all the data desired on the
industry and the impediments to its growth.

The positive results of the study were substantial, however, and
should not be ignored:

1. Identified principal problem areas and impediments to industry
growth.

2. Confirmed and/or clarified secondary source material.

3. Elicited detailed commentary from those closest to the issues
and problems.

4. Indicated attitudes at different levels of the distribution
channel.

5. Assisted in the identification of areas needing future research.

Product and Production System. Despite a comparatively low level of
consumption in the U.S., blue mussels are not necessarily considered an
undesirable commodity. The low consumption level seems to be attributable,
rather, to a low level of consumer awareness and supplier interest.

Current consumption is generally limited to European ethnic populations
in large cities (the mussel enjoys widespread popularity in Europe), metro-
politan epicures, and pockets of innovators in the New England seacoast area.
Current detractors are also in a distinct minority, limited to: (1) those
who have seen the relatively unattractive clusters of mussels among rocks
and pilings and assume them to be worthless; (2) native New Englanders who
have traditionally seen them used as fish bait; and (3) those few who have
tasted the product and, for reasons explained in detail below, have been
dissatisfied.

50

Recent promotional brochures have, almost without exception, made
reference to the positive attitude with which the Pl5rmouth Pilgrims received
mussels: "This bay is a most hopeful place.. an abundance of muscels (sic),
the greatest and the best we ever saw..." (Hurlburt and Hurlburt, 1974).
It is difficult therefore, to explain why a product which was received so
enthusiastically by our ancestors is now high on the list of under-utilized
species. Except for a brief period of intensive fishing during the lean
World War II years, mussels have been largely ignored (Dow and Wallace, 1954).
This would seem to indicate that in the U.S., mussels (at least until the
war years) had been considered a valuable food only in times of extreme
shortage of preferred foods. The possibility that such a shortage may be
imminent is helping proponents of mussels to attract attention to the poten-
tial of that shellfish. Several other factors contribute to the market
potential for the blue mussel: the consistent increase in the per capita
consumption of seafood (10.6 pounds in 1967 to 12.9 pounds in 1973) (Cobb,
1973), the gradual decline of available domestic resources, and the steadily
increasing costs and decreasing supplies of preferred shellfish and other
foods.

Regardless of whether mention of these facts is considered alarmism
or foresight, mussels are an abundantly available under-utilized species.
They have the additional proven advantages of being well-suited to commercial
cultivation. Their potential as a partial solution to a number of problems
is, therefore, readily apparent.

On the sand, amongst rocks, or on pilings, the harvesting method is
a time-consuming manual process involving hoes, pitchforks, or clam rakes.
The principal advantage of this method is that it permits greater attention
to the size and quality of the mussel to be harvested.

After harvesting, the mussels are washed in a machine which separates
the clusters and cleans the shells. The machine (which costs approximately
$1700) does not, however, remove the mud and silt trapped within the shell.
This is one of the primary causes of consumer dissatisfaction with the
product. Proper post-harvest preparation calls for the immersion of the
mussel in seawater, usually in rafts, or in depuration tanks for 1-3 days.
This permits the mussel to cleanse itself of foreign particles and to
restore body liquids depleted in washing and handling. Oftentimes, however,
the mussel is immediately packed and shipped after washing. During the
winter months this does not seem to present as serious a problem as it
does during the summer when post-harvest immersion of mussels is almost
mandatory due to the generally weaker condition of the mussel after spawning
and harvesting in warmer temperatures. Most fishermen claim that immersion
overnight is sufficient for restored vitality. However, the problem of low
quality associated with foreign particles trapped in the mantle remains.

Mussels are then packed in bushel quantities in well ventilated burlap
or polypropylene bags. In the summer, quantities of crushed ice are added
to the bags to aid in the preservation of the product. However, actual
freezing of the product results in a significantly increased mortality

51

Total Nutrients

Calor

ies of Fuel

Per Pound

Value

Per Pound

8.4

150

7.6

141

8.2

136

4.5

68

2.5

41

rate (Slabyj and Hincle, 1976). Although shelf life of the mussel is con-
sidered to be 3-4 days, recent experiments have shown that, packed with the
correct quantity of ice under ideal temperatures, the mussel will live up
to 30 days in the winter, and from 17-20 days in the summer months (Slabyj
and Hinckle, 1976). These results were obtained in a laboratory environment,
but indicate the increased market potential of the product when shipped and
stored under proper conditions. At present, the use of refrigerated trucks
is not considered necessary by many dealers.

As stated previously, the benefits of mussels are substantial.

1. They contain a high degree of protein. In fact, one pound of
' mussel meat contains 65.3 grams of protein while a similar quantity of

choice beef contains only 59.1 grams of protein (Cobb, 19 73).

2. They contain more total nutrient content than other popular
shellfish (Hurlburg and Hurlburt, 1976).

Species

Sea mussels
Lobster
Long clams
Round clams
Oysters

3. They are highly efficient in terms of food conversion (protein
consumed to create protein) . While a steer consumes approximately 21 pounds
of protein (in the form of grains, etc.) to produce one pound of protein,
the mussel simply filters plankton, which is not considered protein other-
wise available to humans (Hurlburt, 1976).

4. They are generally considered to be very tasty: "Better than
clams", "rich", "robust", "somewhere between an oyster and a clam" in taste,
are a few of the taste descriptions found in consumer surveys.

5. They are adaptable to a great number of recipes as protein
substitutes in recipes calling for other high-priced meats, or recipes
developed exclusively for mussels.

6. They are abundant and available for harvesting year round.

7. The price is generally low, usually about 1/3 that of clams.
Retail prices range from a low of 25 cents/pound in Maine during the fall
to 79 cents/pound or more in Boston.

8. The successful marketing of blue mussels could:

a. Pave the way toward acceptance of other underutilized species.

b. Postpone or prevent the depletion of traditionally preferred
shellfish resources.

52

c. Provide an "economic boost" to the New England fisheries.
Conversely, the following disadvantages characterize the blue mussel:

1. Because they are not a well-established product, their
availability at the retail level is sporadic.

2. Their physical appearance, as clusters along the tidal flats
or among rocks "...piled high into a black mass on a table..." is quite
unattractive to some consumers (Nathan, 1975).

3. The occasional presence of pearls and particulate matter in
the mantle tissue or within the shell cavity of the mussel lends an unat-
tractive "grittiness" to the product and could result in a broken tooth (in
extreme cases) .

4. Some mussels, especially those which remain exposed for long
periods intertidally, are characterized by low meat yields.

5. Traditional eating habits and customs militate against the
trial of a new product among certain consumers.

6. The traditional use of mussels as fish bait in New England
promotes a negative attitude when suggested as a food source.

7. Mussels are highly susceptible to red tide and to other toxic
substances due to their location near the surface of the water and their
filter feeding method.

In summarizing the marketing implications of the product and
production system, it seems quite clear that two general factors act to
impede the growth of the mussel industry. First, consumers are not
sufficiently familiar with the product, and the consequent lack of demand
results in sporadic supply. A more efficient supply channel could develop
in the wake of an increased and sustained demand for mussels. Second,
because of limited demand and low prices, few incentives exist to insure
a quality control at the retail or dealer level. Poor quality mussels
discourage expansion of the market.

Industry Profile

Due to the lack of consumer demand and lack of established concepts
of quality, an efficient supply system has failed to develop. This failure
superimposes some of the following characteristics which further limit the
expansion of the industry.

1. Poorly developed distribution channels.

2. Frequent low-quality harvest.

3. Destructive competition among dealers for a limited number of
wholesalers during the peak winter months and sporadic supply during the
summer .

53

4. An attitude of discouragement among conscientious fishermen
concerned with quality and among proponents of mussels in general.

In an attempt to clarify these observations and to identify the
primary impediments to the industry, the following profile is offered, based
upon interviews with industry spokesmen from fishermen to retailers.

The Fisherman. The need for appropriate incentives to promote the
successful expansion of the industry is especially apparent at this level
of the industry. The quality of mussels at the retail level is almost
solely dependent upon the fisherman's care in harvesting.

During the summer, spawning activities combined with the warmer
waters results in a generally weaker product.

Over-fishing the most convenient mussel beds is another direct
result of insufficient education and incentives. The most accessible beds
can soon become exhausted. Immature mussels are harvested along with those
of marketable size, and none are left to reseed the area. Although care-
lessness and irresponsibility are partially to blame, the economic motive
is clear. The ratio of cost to payoff does not warrant increased care in
the short run. Most commercial fishermen will concentrate on the more
profitable shellfish with a ready market. Mussels, then, are only harvested
sporadically in order to fill the boat. The effects on supply consistency
are obvious.

To combat the various problems and impediments at the fisherman
level. Interview respondents suggested implementation of the following
measures:

1. Prohibition of summer harvesting in certain areas (much like
the closed season on scallop fishing) . This would permit the mussel to
spawn unhindered in depleted, heavily-harvested areas and would aid in
upgrading quality.

2. Enactment of regulations prohibiting the harvesting of mussels
less than two inches long.

3. Agreement among fishermen to reseed depleted beds.

4. Agreement among fishermen to refrain from pilfering beds
transplanted by other fishermen. (This of course implies establishment
of defined "territories.").

5. Increased quality checks, possibly regulated by the Department
of Marine Resources (or equivalent). The expected effect would be to
facilitate consumer acceptance by insuring a higher-quality product. These
checks would be for characteristics such as lack of mud, pearls, etc., and
would be in addition to required sanitary inspections.

54

6. An increase in the price paid to fishermen in order to stimu-
late consistent and quality supply. (Currently the fishermen are paid
between $3-$4 per bushel compared to $16-$20 per bushel for clams.)

Dealers and Distributors. Dealers form the first link in the
supply and distribution channel, which operates from fisherman to dealer
to metropolitan wholesaler to retail marketer or restaurateurs. (The
amount of mussels which go from dealers directly to local retailers or
restaurateurs is small by comparison.) Demand is generated at the retail
level and cascades down this series of links. Because mussels do not store
well (see Section 9.4), a dealer cannot gamble in futures without assuming
risks which are not warranted by the low prices paid for mussels. Sporadic
supply at the dealer level is perpetuated by uncertain and discontinuous
demand. These factors effectively limit the number of dealers who can
profitably enter the business.

This situation further prompts many dealers to handle the product
only seasonally (usually October through April) when increased local quality
promotes increased demand and supply. While this is a long season, it
cannot take advantage of locally increased demands for shellfish during
the summer tourist season. An additional effect is the inability of most
dealers to depend upon mussels as their sole source of business. Most are
clam or lobster dealers handling mussels as a side activity.

Despite established dealer-wholesaler relationships, demand from
the wholesaler is rarely consistent or guaranteed in any way. Dealers
prefer to deal in bulk quantities to more established markets such as
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Montreal. As a result, the smaller
retailer or restaurateur outside these areas is often neglected, contribu-
ting to insufficient exposure and spotty supply.

Dealers surveyed generally shipped between 100-300 bushels per
week during the summer and approximately 500-600 bushels during the winter.
They paid between $3-$4 per bushel to the fisherman, and resold the bushel
for $5-$6 to the wholesaler. Transportation costs to Boston were $1.50 per
bushel. All sales terms were indicated to be f.o.b.

As indicated previously, shipment is by truck. The mussels are
packed in ventilated bushel bags with a limited amount of fresh water ice
to reduce mortality. It is important to note that, in most cases, the
distribution costs of mussels are largely covered by the shipment of
"money-earners", such as lobsters, in the same load. The increased
market area possible through air freight shipment is not presently feasible
due to the bulkiness of the item in relation to its price.

There is very little advertising at this level. Promotion is
limited to selling stock to the next level in the channel.

Retailer. The principal problems at the retail level are
inconsistent quality of supply and a limited demand. Restuarateurs are
particularly concerned with quality and often carry mussels only during

55

winter months. Presently, the mussel is used as either an appetizer or
menu variation in restaurants. Very few restaurants list it as standard
fare, reflecting the concern for both consistent quality and supply.

An obvious solution to the supply problem seems to be direct
supply by the fisherman or dealer. Unfortunately very few dealers are
willing to negotiate anything but bulk orders. Similarly, most fisher-
men find small, fragmented supply impractical and unattractive.

The advertising and promotion of mussels even at the retail level
(fish markets, supermarkets) is extremely minimal. First, it is often
difficult to induce a supermarket to carry a product like the mussel which
is not a "guaranteed mover." Also, there is little packaging or branding
done, with the very limited exception of canned mussels. The principal rea-
son for this seems to be uncertainty as to "proper" packaging procedures.
One supermarket, for instance, placed the mussels in a plastic tube with a
film seal, affixing the store's name to the outside. This particular
procedure seems to be an exception rather than the rule, however.

At present, packaging and branding decisions must be made at the
retail level. In the supermarket, this would seem to be a relatively
simple proposition. One pound quantities of mussels could be easily
packaged by the same method used for other seafoods and meats. Similarly,
if branding is considered to be desirable, the most logical solution would
be to use the store name. The fact that little branding is used for other
fresh-packaged meats and seafoods may indicate this is unnecessary.
Packaging and branding may do much to increase product appeal to the consu-
mer , however .

Supply and Demand. As previously indicated, the dynamics of supply
and demand at various levels of the distribution channel are at the mercy of
a rather complicated and cyclical interaction of economic forces. The
following is a superficial description of these interacting problems which
should serve to acquaint the reader with their basic scope and effects.

1. Dealers are never certain of the wholesaler demand for mussels.

2. This results in inconsistent dealer demand for mussels from
the fisherman.

3. This limits the number of dealers who can profitably enter the
market.

4. The dealer generally prefers to deal in bulk quantities to a
wholesaler, avoiding the problems of meeting small, scattered, and sporadic
retailer demand. Available mussels are funneled into a limited number of
wholesalers. The majority of small retailers outside ethnic markets are
consequently neglected and lose interest in the product.

5. The dealer could break this funnel effect by dealing directly
with retailers, but he is usually small and ill-equipped to do so, and
limited demands do not warrant his efforts to establish such a trade route.

56

6. Lower quality at the wholesale level during the summer results
in decreased demand. This imposes a seasonality of the product.

7. During the winter months, quality is more consistent and demand
increases. The limited number of wholesalers may cause a high degree of
competition among dealers at this time of year, however, perpetuating
competitively low costs.

This completes the cycle. Because demand at the consumer, and
hence retail, level is uncertain, dealers and fishermen cannot depend on a
steady mussel business. Low prices paid for mussels limit dealer profit-
making to bulk quantities, which are sold to metropolitan wholesalers.
Local exposure and expansion of the mussel market is consequently forfeited.
Continued low demand and low prices fail to encourage much consciousness of
product quality at any stage of the distribution network. Frequent poor
quality discourages both traditional consumers as well as newcomers.

Market Profile

From 1964 to 1975 the quantity and value of New England landings
of mussels has exhibited a fluctuating, but generally upward trend:

New England Landings of Mussels
(figures expressed in thousands)

Maine

Mass.

Rhode Is.

Conn,

Totals

Year Quant /Val Quant /Val Quant /Val Quant /Val Quant /Val

1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

15/1

179/16

32/3

150/11

240/20

186/25

371/31

404/62

389/31

103/16

353/29

86/17

301/64

166/34

150/35

209/50

281/71

42/11

440/116

35/10

308*/33

53/11

612/198

50/15

-/-

2/1
4/1
-/-
-/-
-/-
-/-
-/-
-/-
-/-
48/13
224/63

-/-

194/17

-/-

184/15

-/-

430/46

-/-

775/93

-/-

492/47

-/-

439/46

-/-

467/98

)/(l)

359/85

-/-

323/82

-/-

475/126

1/C

410/107

-/-

886/276

(Dollar amounts refer to prices paid to fisherman)

(1) Less than 500 pounds or 500 dollars.

*The decrease from 440,000 lbs to 308,000 lbs. in Maine during 1974 re-
flects the affects of widespread red tides in the Gulf of Maine. Indi-
cations are, however, that 1975 witnessed a return to more or less normal
levels. These figures look rather optimistic, but comparison with
similar figures during the World War II years indicates the enormous
potential currently unrealized.

(Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States,)

57

New England Landings of Mussels, 1942-1947
(Thousands of Pounds)

Maine

Mass.

Conn.

Totals

Year

Quantity

Quantity

Quantity

Quantity

1942

46

—

.5

46.5

1943

2,612

-

-

2,612

1944

2,594

36

-

2,630

1945

2,733

50

-

2,783

1946

2,314

32

5

2,351

1947

40

-

5

45

(Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States)

For additional perspective on the relative position of mussels in
the market, the following New England landing statistics for traditionally
preferred shellfish are offered:

(Note: Figures are 1973 statistics in thousands of pounds and
thousands of dollars. Dollar amounts are prices paid to the fisherman.)

New England Shellfish Landings, 1973

Pounds

Clams

Shrimp

Lobster

Scallops

Mussels

Dollars

11,738*

9,060

20,734

5,657

26,500

37,600

3,900*

7,100

475*

126

* Wet meat weight,

(Source: Fishery Statistics of the United States, 1973)

As previously indicated, mussels are priced considerably lower than
other shellfish at all levels of the distribution channel:

Mussels
Clams

Price Paid

Fisherman

Dealer

$3-4/bushel
Approx. $16-20/bushel $23-30/bushel

Approx. $.08/lb.
$3-4/bushel

Retailer

Approx. $.25-.79/lb.
depending on location

Approx. $.60-. 90/ lb.
depending on location

58

Several fishermen expressed dissatisfaction with this situation.
In their judgment, only the retail level was "turning a decent profit."
The implication was clearly that increased prices paid to fishermen and
dealers would stimulate increased quality of supply at all levels. In
addition, the potential for industry expansion through price incentives is
further enhanced by the fact that most mussel fishermen are also clam
fishermen. They consider the harvesting of clams to be tedious and time
consuming in comparison with that of mussels.

In closing, some brief mention should be made concerning the
commercial cultivation of mussels. This report has been concerned solely
with the current situation within the New England mussel industry, and the
impediments to its expansion. The potential of cultivation, given solutions
to the current problems surrounding demand, is enormous. In fact, it is
reasonable to assume that with sufficient demand, capital, cultivation
areas, and expertise, cultivation could furnish the market with a higher
quality mussel in far greater quantity than would be possible on a sustained
basis with wild mussels. The success of commercial cultivation in Europe
is adequate testimony to this statement.

From a marketing perspective, however, the following are the more
important problems which must be overcome before duplication of European
mussel cultivation succes can occur:

1. The same product preconceptions and misconceptions must be
overcome as with wild mussels, though the higher quality of cultivated
mussels can be expected to alleviate this situation somewhat.

2. Marketing solutions must accompany economic feasibility
studies to justify increased expenditures for material and equipment.

3. Adequate demand must be in evidence to attract venture
capital.

4. The effect of increased price would have to be accurately
predicted.

Research Needs and Options

The following is a list of areas which, based on the above
discussion, warrant additional research.

1. During the primary research phase of this investigation, it
became apparent that a number of consumers thought of mussels in terms
of "steamers." This indicates a generally preferred form of preparation.
It may be of interest to determine the effects of "generic branding" of
mussels as steamers. In other words, if the mussel is thought to be some
form of "steamer variant" , initial acceptance of the product may be
facilitated through the promotion of these similarities.

59

2. Additional research must be conducted into the entire area of
retail package and display variations. What would the consumer prefer?
What would the supermarket expect of the wholesaler? Does the retailer
know of the ideal conditions under which the product should be kept? How
would this affect his display?, the packaging?, and so forth.

3. A more exhaustive study needs to be undertaken to determine
the actual extent and effects of the various supply and demand constraints
within the distribution channel.

4. In conjunction with recommendation #3, the economic
feasibility of incentives to the fisherman in the form of an increased
price per bushel should be determined. As a means for spurring consistency
of quality and supply at all levels, wholesale price increases warrant
considerable study.

5. Similarly, the effects of increased price at the consumer
level need to be explored during the test market phase. It must be
remembered that mussels are currently priced at approximately 113 the
level of clams. The current interest in mussels by a large restaurant
chain is a prime example. A price increase should not be considered a
deterrent to acceptance.

6. The current number and location of mussel dealers, wholesalers,
and canneries should be determined for more accurate assessment of industry
conformation and potential.

7. The size and value of U.S. exports and imports of mussels need
to be known together with an assessment of the potential for increased
exports.

9. 3 The Occurrence of Pearls in Mussel Meats

Among the principal objections and limiting factors to the commercial
use of a large quantity of natural mussels is the presence of large
(greater than 1 mm) and numerous pearls embedded directly in the mantle
epithelium of the mussel. These have been encountered by Herrington and
Scattergood (1942) and Scattergood and Taylor (1949b) in a survey of mussels
along the Maine coast. Their results indicated considerable variations in
both the number and size of pearls with geographical location. Because
pearls affect consumer acceptance of the product (Herrington and Scattergood
1942) , they recommended the closing of six areas in Maine where pearl inci-
dence was high. This represented about 1/5 of the total estimated (commer-
cially-exploitable) Maine mussels at the time. Before examining the effect
of rafting upon the presence of pearls, a brief review of the existing
knowledge concerning the subject of pearls in mussels might be instructive.

The presence of pearls in mussels has been known for at least 300
years (Giard, 1907). Garner (1872) recognized that such pearls were formed
as a reaction by the mussel to a small parasite (harmless to man) , later
found to be a digenetic trematode in the genus Gymnophallus (Lutz, 1974a).

60

Thus far, the suggested life cycle involves a sea duck (either an eider,
Somateria mollisima, or a scoter, Oedemia nigra) as the adult host, and
the blue mussel as an intermediate host (Stunkard and Uzmann, 1958) .
Whether a second intermediate host is required remains uncertain. In
general, therefore, the life cycle of the trematode is not well-established.

Research in progress at the University of Maine suggests that the
presence of pearls in mussels from Maine waters is also the result of in-
fection by the trematode Gymnophallus. In support of this idea are three
pieces of evidence: (1) when the pearls are treated with dilute hydro-
chloric acid, the resulting residue consists of an amorphous mass, which
is probably organic in nature. It is reasonable to conclude that this may
be the remains of a trematode although, conceivably, it may represent the
remnants of the organic matrix within the structure; (2) the diameters of
the smallest pearls found correlate quite nicely with the lower limit of
the size range reported for the larval trematode (approximately 120 microns),
and (3) larval trematodes which are morphologically very similar to those
described by Jameson (1902) have been isolated from the mantle tissue of
mussels from Maine waters (Lutz, 1974a). Alternate natural mechanisms (if
existent) of pearl formation, other than trematode initiation, are not well
understood.

Whatever the factors involved in pearl formation, research to date
suggests that rafting techniques eliminate pearl production as a limiting
factor to the commercial use of cultivated mussels in both U.S. and Europe
(Lutz, 1974a, 1974c). However, the presence of pearls continues to be a
deterrent to the commercial exploitation of natural populations throughout
the northeast.

Further research at the University of Maine suggests that differences
reported by Scattergood and Taylor (1949b) in the size and number of pearls
in various populations through the state may be largely a reflection of
differences in the ages of the studied populations, i.e., older populations
might naturally be expected to contain larger and more numerous pearls. If
so, the locations of pearl-producing areas might be expected to fluctuate
with time depending on the age structure of the various mussel populations.
The exact relationship between age and the incidence of pearls in numerous
areas along the Atlantic coast must be investigated before adequate manage-
ment guidelines can be established for east coast beds.

To date, pearls have not been a problem in mussels collected from the
west coast.

Summary

1. The presence of pearls within the mantle epithelium of M. edulis
represents one of the chief limiting factors to the commercial utilization
of large quantities of mussels along the Atlantic coast.

61

2. Research at the University of Maine has demonstrated that, when
raft cultivation techniques are employed, pearl production is no longer
a commercial deterrent.

3. The relationship between mussel age and pearl incidence has been
quantified for two populations of M. edulis.

4. Factors responsible for the presence or absence of pearls in
natural populations of M. edulis are not well understood.

Research Needs

r

1. Basic life history studies on the trematode(s) reportedly respon-
sible for pearl formation in M. edulis should be conducted.

2. Alternate natural mechanisms (if existent) of pearl formation,
other than trematode initiation, should be understood.

3. Environmental and biological factors responsible for the presence
or absence of large and numerous pearls in geographically isolated popula-
tions of M. edulis should be further researched.

4. The exact relationship between age and the incidence of pearls in
numerous areas along the Atlantic coast must be investigated before adequate
guidelines can be established for east coast beds.

9.4 Handling of Mussels and the Extension of Shelf Life

Mussels are packed by the dealer into one-bushel burlap or poly-
propylene mesh bags and transported by truck to metropolitan wholesalers.
The trucks are usually cooled, but the mussels are generally not shipped in
ice. Packaging display, and handling practices vary in the retail store.

Under existing practices, the shelf life of the blue mussel, Mytilus
edulis is approximately 3-4 days, though the shelf life of this mollusk
has been increased significantly by storage in ice. However, standard
practical and economical methods designed to increase mussel shelf life are
needed to expand both the geographical range and the local volume of the
mussel market (Slabyj and Hinckle, 1976). An increase in possible safe
holding time would reduce risk of loss by the wholesaler, who should then
be able to provide a high quality product at a reasonable price. This, in
turn, should encourage retail sales. Both consumer protection and market
business could benefit from an extension of shelf life.

Food quality standards for mussels are presently the same as those
established for other shellfish by the NSSP administered by the Federal Food
and Drug Administration (Hurst, personal communication; Apollonio, 1975).
Recent research, however, indicates several problems associated with those
regulatory standards (Miskimin et al. , 1976; Corlett, 1976). Processing

62

(primarily freezing and canning) is known to extend shelf life by extending
the time period during which shellfish samples comply with present food
quality standards. However, both processes may have economic and food
quality limitations (Corlett, 1976).

The level of fecal coliform organisms is presently used as the
standard for evaluating the market acceptability of shellfish (Andrews et
al. , 1976)*. Since there are regulations governing the allowable total
coliform counts in the growing waters (70/100 mis) (Andrews et al. , 1976) ,
high coliform counts in meats at the retail level indicate poor post-harvest
handling procedures and possible buildup of microorganisms of public health
significance. However, regulations based on fecal coliform levels may be
inadequate. While Salmonella and Streptococci counts frequently correlate
well with those of E^. coli (Andrews et al. , 1976) , high counts of other
pathogenic microorganisms may occur irrespective of E^. coli levels due to
the competitive elimination of enter-obacteria in seawater (Jannasch, 1968)
and the environmental incompatibility of marine waters with E^. coli (Faust
et al., 1975).

The environmental interrelationships of these organisms and their
behavior with respect to E^. coli under storage conditions are poorly under-
stood (Miskimin et al. , 1976). Since E^. coli eventually dies out in sea-
water (Jannasch, 1968; Faust et al. , 1976), it may be a poor indicator of
other pathogens, not likewise affected, from the same pollution source.
These pathogens may grow rapidly after processing methods eliminate the
normal spoilage microflora. In one instance. Staphylococcus aureus was
found in processed seafood (crabmeat) which was acceptable by E^. coli
standards (Slabyj et al. , 1965). Furthermore, pathogens which are not of
fecal pollution origin would not necessarily be suspected when tests for
fecal coliforms yield negative results. Clearly, microbial standards for
mussel meats need to be re-evaluated.

Post-harvest multiplication of fecal coliforms in initially acceptable
mussels presents a problem to the food handler. Qualitative changes in
bacterial populations occur during storage, and these changes may be respon-
sible for decreases in product quality (Slabyj and Hinckle, 1976). Research
is needed to evaluate the public health significance of these qualitative
and quantitative changes. This investigation should be directed specific-
ally to each species of commercial shellfish because each has its own
peculiar microbial flora which presents different competitive situations
with respect to microbes of human health concern (Slabyj , personal communi-
cation) .

While bacterial multiplication is itself apparently not related to the
mortality of mussels being held, cold storage decreases both bacterial mul-
tiplication and shellfish mortality. Determination of optimal cold storage

* The total fecal coliform count in meats at the market is 230/100 g meat,
and the total bacterial count can be no greater than 500,000/100 g meat.

63

temperatures is needed in order to provide increased shelf life of the
fresh product while minimizing bacterial growth (Slabyj and Hinckle, 1976).
The inadequacies associated with equating product quality to present micro-
bial standards have already been discussed (Miskimin et al. , 1966; Andrews
et al. , 1976; Corlett, 1976). Recent work by Corlett (1976) extends the
need for evaluation of microbial standards to refergerated and frozen food
items; Slabyj and Hinckle, (1976) and Chichester and Graham (1973) stress
the importance of such investigation to improvements in the handling of
blue mussels and other seafood commodities. This optimal temperature, then,
will have to reflect new findings regarding microorganism growth in mussels
in cold storage, fluctuations in temperatures normally encountered in trans-
port and sales, and the costs of refrigeration at various temperatures.

Processing by freezing or canning may provide the key to a major part
of the mussel market. Although not as desirable as the fresh product,
processed mussels are less risky to transport. While frozen handling cer-
tainly extends the shelf life of the food product, it is expensive and is
not immune to the microbial changes described above by Corlett (1976) .
Canning provides perhaps the greatest benefit in safe, prolonged shelf life,
but results in a loss to the packer due to meat shrinkage. Specific inves-
tigation of the long term taste-quality and microbial activity of frozen
and canned mussel products is needed (Slabyj, personal communication).

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

The specific and major research needs described above can be
recapitulated as follows:

1. Investigate the pre-harvest and post-harvest interrelationships
of pathogenic microorganisms (with respect to counts of fecal coliform or-
ganisms in mussels) in order to evaluate present shellfish quality standards
as they pertain to mussel products. The significance of this investigation
to the economics of the food industry is discussed in a paper by Miskimin

et al.^(1976).

2. Determine the optimal temperature and other relevant conditions
for storage of live mussels, taking into account such factors as mortality,
product acceptability, and loss of shell liquor.

3. Determine long-term taste quality and sanitary quality of various
processing methods.

4. Establish new microbial standards for the evaluation of mussels.

9. 5a Closure of Shellfish Harvest Areas Due to Paralytic Shellfish
Poisoning and Other Causes - East Coast

A problem associated with the harvest of bivalves in general, and
Mytilus edulis in particular, is the repeated but unpredictable occurrence
of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) caused by blooms of the dinoflagel-

64

late Gonyaulax tamarensis in the Gulf of Maine (Sasner, 1974; Yentsch,
unpublished manuscript). Gonyaulax blooms, or "red tides", can and do
occur at any time during the summer, but the most extensive blooms occur
in the spring (May) and fall (late September - early October). These blooms
are presumably due to the breakdown of thermal strata which results in
increased nutrient availability, although a number of other environmental
parameters are probably involved (Sasner et al. , 1974; Yentsch et al., 1975).
The density of the spring bloom is commonly limited by marginally acceptable
water temperatures (about 7oc) ; fall blooms are usually the most severe
(when surface water temperatures average 15oC) (Yentsch, pers. comm.).
However, this simple generality is complicated by marked geographical and
annual variations (Sasner et al. , 1974) . Mussels are the most efficient of
commercially valuable bivalve filter-feeders (McLeod , 1975) and are them-
selves unaffected by the presence of blooms of G. tamarensis . As a result,
they accumulate tremendous amounts of toxin, presenting a problem to con-
sumers of mussel meats (Sasner et al. , 1974; Sasner and Ikawa, 1975). In-
formation on the chemical and physiological characteristics of toxins ela-
borated by marine algae has been reviewed by numerous authors (Medcof et
al., 1947; Prakash et al., 1971; Norris et al. , 1973; Sasner et al. , 1974;
Sasner and Ikawa, 1975;Schantz et al. , 1975; Evans, 1975; Yentsch et al. ,
1975; Yentsch, 1976; Buckley et al. , 1976).

Consequently, all areas of the Maine coast must be monitored throughout
the summer primary productivity season (April through October) for the
accumulation of this toxin in shellfish. Laboratory testing of mussel
meats is conducted using a modification of the mouse bioassay first employed
by Sommer and Meyer in 1937 (see Buckley et al. , 1976). A dose-response
formulation converts the resultant death-time data to micrograms (jjg)
saxitoxin equivalents per 100 g of fresh mussel meats. A level of 80 fdg
toxin per 100 g fresh mussel meats (80 jug/100 g) is sufficient to warrant
closure of a shellfishery in geographical locations where these levels are
found. This bioassay is faster and more reliable than serological or
chemical tests developed to date (Buckley et al., 1976).

Because of the unpredictability of spreading, the observed patchiness
of blooms, and the problems associated with continuous monitoring of a
2,500-mile coastline, a generous "buffer zone*", also closed to shellfish
harvest, must be established. The technology of our present monitoring
system and the sometimes sudden and extensive blooming tendency of G^.
tamarensis as well as its varying toxicity to different individuals makes
this rather conservative approach necessary. Although there is wide
variation among human beings, an average individual would become sick after
consuming about 1000 >ug of the toxin (Sasner et al. , 1974). The LD50 for
cats and mice is between 5-10 >jg kg~l (Evans, 1975). This suggests that the
LD5Q for a human is between 500-1000 pg. A single mussel had accumulated

*A "buffer zone" is an area which is not yet affected by toxic levels of
PSP, but which a) is quite likely to be affected in the very near future
and/or b) is convenient to establish because of prominent geographic
(cartographic) features, such as a river or headland.

65

upwards of a thousand yug of toxin after a prolonged and particularly intense
bloom along the southern coast of Maine (Hurst, pers. coiiiin.)> and PSP scores
of up to 9,500 were recorded in some Massachusetts samples after the 1972
red tide (Sasner et al. , 1974). Mussels from Monhegan Island, Maine (a
permanently closed area) reached levels of 24,000 /jg/100 g after the 1974
red tide (Gilfillen et al. , 1976)..

The illness associated with PSP first manifests itself as a tingling
sensation at the extremeties, followed by a loss of equilibrium, and vomiting.
Extreme cases have led to respiratory arrest and death. The avoidance of
mussel meats as "poisonous" by the Indians and by people of our coast
(Field, 1908) — people whose ancestors came largely from mussel-consuming
European countries — is probably the result of such illnesses prior to our
awareness of PSP. Mussels will gradually purge themselves once the red tide
has subsided. The rate of this depuration is a function of the total
accumulation of toxins and other parameters affecting the pumping rate of
the mussel (Hurst, pers. comm.).

PSP Monitoring Program

The Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) is responsible for the
regular monitoring of 2,500 miles of rugged, irregular coastline. Due to
cost-effective restraints, direct and regular monitoring is possible only
at a limited number of locations. There are 18 of these primary monitoring
sites, located largely on exposed shores and peninsulas. Based on current
experience, PSP can be detected here first, before it moves into the bays
where most of the shellfish harvest occurs (Hurst, pers. comm.). Samples
of shellfish are collected by DMR staff members and returned to the labora-
tory at Boothbay Harbor, where they are tested via mouse-assays (see above)
for toxin levels (expressed in ;og/lQ0 g meat). There are 100 secondary
stations where the progress of dinof lagellate blooms and the accumulation of
toxins by mussels can be monitored.

Checks at the primary stations are performed about every other week
beginning in early April (April 30 is the earliest occurrence on record) ,
and every 7-10 days starting June 1. If levels at any one site, or a
number of sites, are sufficiently high (80 >ig/100 g) the shellfishery in
the area is closed. The geographical extent of the closure depends on the
level of toxin found at the monitoring site and the history of spreading in
that particular coastal section (DMR has records of closures and toxin
levels beginning with 1958) . Monitoring of secondary stations is immedi-
ately begun to closely watch the extent of the bloom. Levels of toxins in
the meats are periodically checked throughout the bloom period and through
natural depuration until the fishery is again opened, after which tim.e the
shellfish in the affected area are checked once weekly. Two full-time staff
members are responsible for this field work, and 50-100 samples can be
assayed in one day at the Boothbay laboratory. Since the monitoring is
staggered, this pace rarely becomes necessary, but may occur during "crisis"
blooms when large areas are affected (Hurst, pers. comm.).

66

The shellfish monitoring program's foremost concern is consumer
protection against periodic health hazards. To this end the present program
is effective and reliable. Through its numerous monitoring sites, DMR
also tries to accommodate the shellfish industry by: 1) its practice of
only partial closings, and 2) reopening of beds once they are again safe.

As the mussel industry increases in importance, it will be desirable
to better understand the environmental biology of Gonyaulax, to improve
specific monitoring technology, and to understand the time-exposure
relation between Mytilus edulis and Gonyaulax tamarensis. Improvements in
this field should enable better prediction of the timing, location, and
potential severity of red tides and enable more discriminatory judgments
on the opening and closing of mussel harvest areas. Optimal location of
cultivated mussel operations could also result from a better understanding
of the environmental parameters affecting Gonyaulax blooms. For instance,
current research on the effects of available trace metals on Gonyaulax
could prove instrumental in these regards. The extreme sensitivity of this
organism to trace metal concentrations above ambient oceanic levels corre-
lates well with the apparent "immunity" of several areas of the Maine coast
to red tide (Yentsch, unpublished manuscript). Also of importance to the
location of shellfish harvest and culture areas is the observed (from DMR's
data) density gradient of Gonyaulax from the heads of tidal bays, to the
outer peninsulas, and to the offshore islands (approximately IX to lOX to
lOOX, respectively) (Yentsch, pers. coram.).

Research on the effects of PSP on mussels themselves (as well as
other shellfish), rates of intoxication, and rates of detoxification are
being investigated. These studies should indicate the feasibility of
artificial depuration and allow for estimates of natural depuration times.

Gonyaulax tamarensis is not the same organism responsible for the red
tide of the southern Atlantic seaboard (Gymnodinium breve) , and its toxins
are more complex than those of the west coast species Gonyaulax catanella
(Sasner and Ikawa, 1975). Its environmental biology, then, is unique to
the Gulf of Maine and requires individual attention. The environmental
biology and toxicity of G^. tamarensis is presently the chief focus of the
Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in West Boothbay Harbor, Maine.
Current research at U.N.H. is focused on isolation of the toxins produced
by G^. tamarensis and determination of fluorescence spectra for use as an
assay tool. Research in these areas would be of immense value to a
developing mussel industry and to the shellfish industry in general. Some
needed research and development ideas follow.

Research and Development Needs

(1) Research the possibility of monitoring the presence of
dinof lagellates by assaying for peridinum pigment, a water-soluble pigment
characteristic of dinof lagellates. Gonyaulax is large (35-50;u) and could
easily be identified microscopically from water samples testing positively
for dinof lagellates.

67

(2) Research and devlop an assay for dinof lagellates (and Gonyaulax
in particular) using floral spectrophotometry. Dlnof lagellate toxins pro-
duce distinctive spectral peaks; these need to be studied more carefully and
a system adapted to field assay.

(3) Develop a reliable and cost-efficient chemical test for levels of
toxin in shellfish meats to replace the inconvenient mouse bioassay.

(4) Study the encystment and over-wintering biology of Gonyaulax.
This may be of value in helping to predict the cause, location, timing, and
severity of the spring bloom.

(5) Study the behavior of red tide spreading and its action at
boundary conditions.

(6) Try to determine the environmental parameters responsible for
unialgal blooms of Gonyaulax. What factors lead to its periodic dominance?
Do man's activities affect the outbreak of blooms?

(7) Try to determine time-exposure factors relating mussel toxin
accumulation and Gonyaulax concentrations in the water. This relation
should provide a better understanding of acceptable levels of Gonyaulax in
the water column.

(8) Determine intoxication and detoxification times for mussels to
establish the possibility of artificial depuration and the length of time
required for natural depuration.

Other Public Health Problems

Many productive mussel beds along the Maine coast have been permanently
closed due to pollution. The presence of fecal coliforms is used as the
standard median; counts greater than 14 per 100 mis water with not more than
10 percent in excess of 46 per 100 ml will result in the closure of an area
to all shellfish harvest. Total coliform counts cannot exceed median 70
per 100 mis water with not more than 10 percent exceeding 230. This
standard is set in conjunction with the National Shellfish Sanitation Pro-
gram administered by the Federal Food and Drug Adminstration. Approximately
25 percent of the areas closed to shellfish harvest on the Maine coast are
only seasonal used for summer cottages. Sewage abatement laws may affect
these figures in time. Some areas are closed because of potential pollution
threats — meaning that conditions in an area may unpredictably vary from
acceptable to unacceptable (Hurst, pers. comm.).

Due to the already-established shellfish industry in Gulf of Maine
waters, there exists a good data history, good regulatory agencies, and
established research facilities for dealing with red tide and other public
health problems. Advancements in research and development in these areas
could be of great value to a potentially flourishing blue mussel industry.

68

9.5b West Coast

Incidents of paralytic shellfish poisoning have been recorded as far
back as 1799 when over 100 Aleut hunters in Alaska died from the consumption
of mussels. Meyer et al. (1928) reported six deaths from 102 known cases in
July 1927 near San Francisco. Since then, there have been sporadic out-
breaks of PSP along the west coast in spite of warnings that shellfish may
be harmful. Certain areas are known to regularly have toxic levels of PSP;
these are the California coastline and the Straits of Juan de Fuca in
Washington.

Paralytic shellfish toxicity has been the object of a variety of
studies as far back as 1888 when Schmidtmann demonstrated that levels of
toxicity in M. edulis occur rapidly in nature (Sribhibhadh, 1963) , but it
was not until 1957 that attempts were made to show that outbreaks of para-
lytic shellfish poisoning could be correlated with environmental factors
(Dupuy, 1968). This was a direct result of serious outbreaks in British
Columbia and Washington. Research has since been done on the season of
shellfish toxicity, rates of uptake of Gonyaulax by various bivalves, arti-
ficial growth of Gonyaulax, identification and taxonomy of the species of
Gonyaulax, and bioassay methods, to name a few.

Excellent descriptions of the causative organism of PSP in Washington
are made by Dupuy in his thesis. These are too lengthy for present discus-
sion, but it is important to note that several strains of Gonyaulax catenella
occur in Washington waters alone. The optimum groVth requirements of these
strains vary (Norris, 1975). Toxin production also differs according to
the species of Gonyaulax.

Comparison of Maximum Amount of Toxin
Produced by Four Species of Gonyaulax

Organism Cells per ug of Toxin

Gonyaulax tamarensis 16,665

(Bay of Fundy; Prakash, 1963)

Gonyaulax sp. 154,355

(Sequim Bay, Washington, 1965)

Gonyaulax polyedra 850,000

(California; Schradie and Bliss, 1962)

Gonyaulax catenella 1,405,000

(California; Burke et al. , 1960)

(Source: Dupuy, 1968)

69

The results of research on Gonyaulax species of the west coast of the
United States indicate that blooms may occur from late spring through early
fall (Dupuy, 1968; MacDonald, 1970; Neal, 1966; Norris, 1975). Typically,
the water temperature Increased from 10°C to 19°C during this time of the
year. Toxic conditions occur during generally lower nutrient levels
(Norris, 1975), in salinities between 29-32 o/oo, during periods of in-
creased insolation, and when the populations of diatoms is reduced (Dupuy, •
1968). The growth requirements have not been sufficiently defined yet;
G^. catenella is not restricted by physical parameters and thus can create
a widespread, serious hazard.

The effect of paralytic shellfish poison on the shellfish industry on
the west coast of the United States is far reaching. The most prominent
effect is the closure of harvesting seasons in different states. This is
based on the occurrence of illnesses in the past, and findings of current
monitoring programs.

In California, no mussels may be harvested from May 1 through October
31 from any beaches or bays. The industry in Alaska has not yet begun, but
the possibility of PSP would require a vast monitoring service to be con-
ducted at the state's expense. Prior to embarking on this monitoring pro-
gram, the state would like the assurance that a developed mussel industry
would be financially rewarding to the state in jobs and revenues. In
Washington, a monitoring program is in existence and is conducted by the
Department of Health, which contacts shellfish growers in the event of PSP
outbreaks. A closure exists west of Dungeness Spit from April 1 through
October 31. Oregon is the only state which does not have a problem with
PSP. A monitoring program exists, but toxic levels are not reached.

The major problems with PSP is that monitoring is expensive and
time-consuming. Ideally, a method of detecting toxic levels which would
be simple and inexpensive and could be conducted at a harvesting site should
be developed. Until new methods are developed for detection, blanket
closures will have to continue.

The present state of knowledge of Gonyaulax catenella is inadequate.
Some parameters affecting growth are known, but factors affecting survival
and toxin production are poorly understood.

9. 6 Institutional Disincentives to Fishery Development

Significant progress has been made towards identifying quality control
problems which have earlier discouraged development of the mussel fishery.
As discussed above, both the relationship of meat quality with growing con-
ditions and a relationship of mussel longevity with pearl development have
been observed. Management of wild stocks; proper quality control screening
after separation, cleaning, and resubmergence in salt water; and transpor-
tation under proper refrigerated conditions can do much to ensure a good
quality product at the retail market. Sea Grant supported research both by
university scientists and private industry has demonstrated that consistent

70

crops of excellent quality can be cultured. Also, as discussed in other
sections of this report, the current world demand for mussels and the
strengthening of the U.S. market over the past 10 years points to a posi-
tive economic climate for emergence of this new industry.

Institutional Arrangements Hindering vs. Helping an Emerging Industry

There are a number of institutional arrangements, however, which, in-
stead of encouraging the development of mollusli fishery, act as disincen-
tives to its growth. Although many of these institutional problems are
shared by the entire shellfish industry, their effect on an emerging in-
dustry such as the mussel fishery (both wild harvest and aquaculture) is
especially damaging. From state to state, shellfish management and control
is practiced at different levels, e.g. state, county/region, municipal.
Regardless of the primary management level which has evolved, significant
institutional problems have arisen. These are manifested in different ways
from area to area.

Conflicting jurisdiction. Whether a management agency seeks
development of the fishery or whether an individual or firm is considering
investment into aquaculture of mussels, conflicting jurisdictional author-
ities are a disincentive. If management authority is maintained at the
state level, manipulation of the resource may be possible without signifi-
cant conflict. Other institutional controls over related resources may well
conflict with a sound management plan. Coastal zone management planning in
a particular area may not include shellfish management, nor may water
quality control regulations be consistent with shellfish production. Even
if plans within a particular coastal zone or water quality management area
are consistent with fishery development, activity in adjacent zones or
areas may result in poor water quality. When management of the shellfish
resource is at the county/regional or local level, the likelihood of
jurisdictional dispute increases.

Limited management priority. Fisheries management, coastal zone
management, and water quality regulation decisions are all made within the
reality of limited financial resources. Because the mussel industry is an
emerging one, and therefore not easily recognized as a significant financial
resource, it faces special institutional barriers. In several states there
is a reluctance to allow the harvesting of mussels because the investment
by the fishery management agencies into health controls, such as PSP and fecal
pollution, may not be offset by revenues from the harvest of the mussels.
A more mature industry could more easily demonstrate an appropriate
cost-benefit relationship. Similarly, the lack of recognition of mussels,
whether wild or cultured, as a valuable resource places the industry at a
disadvantage when water quality control regulations or coastal zone manage-
ment plans are being developed.

Uncertainty concerning institutional direction. The dynamic nature
of several institutional decision-making processes, which may ultimately
affect an investment in the fishery, is a subtle but significant disincen-
tive to fishery development. This disincentive is particularly important

71

when management of the fishery is at the local/municipal level or when in-
dividuals or small firms are considering investment. For instance, without
a reasonably well-defined route for the application for an aquacultural
permit, few outside the bureaucratic or legal establishment would find the
necessary involvements interesting or even tolerable. In several states,
the review process is not clearly defined, and various state and federal
agencies are ambivalent about the requirement for a permit. Similarly,
without clear guidance concerning the proper management of the species,
and without reasonable expectation of profitable harvest not adversely
affected by other institutional decisions, few will want to initiate the
process of good fishery management. Here, institutions seem to be providing
neither the positive incentive of effective guidance, nor the assurance
against the negative aspects, by providing long term leases or authority
in some way initiating "grandfather" protection for the industry. The
issue may be further complicated by the lack of clear property rights over
submerged and intertidal lands. Much of the uncertainty in all of these
institutional and legal considerations is caused by the basic conflict of
private use and restricted exploitation of a resource which is common
property. ^

Research needs. Little research has been sponsored to review the
effect of various institutional arrangements on shellfish management and
on development of the fishery. A broad spectrum of arrangements have
emerged, and a number of patterns are already available for investigation.
Research in this area might well produce positive results if it proceeded
in sequence with the biological research and the more specific economic
research. Effective guidance now might spur on an industry already
developing, despite certain institutional disincentives.

9. 7 Harvest Technology

Measures to increase harvest efficiency must be taken in order to
reduce the labor intensiveness of the industry. However, this does not
necessarily mean mechanization at all levels. Many areas are not suited
to mass-harvest methods, though they may be very suited to the growth of
mussels. Hand-picking or raking is the method used in such places. This
forced situation enables selective harvest while minimizing damage to the
mussel beds.

There are, however, many productive areas which are not only amenable
to mass-harvest methods, but may also be unavailable to hand harvest — such
as subtidal beds. Many of these areas have been dredged in the past (see
Section 7.1). However, the demise of many of these same beds may be due to
failure to recover from dredge damage. Research is needed to assess the
effect of dredging on mussel beds and to improve dredging or other mass-
harvest techniques to maximize natural recovery of the beds. If re-seeding
of such beds is ultimately necessary, then proper management practices
should be developed accordingly.

72

Mussels are cleaned and sorted with a mechanical washer-grader
developed for other shellfish species. This sytem seems quite satisfactory
at present (Hemingway, Myers, Stewart; pers. comm. ) • However, no machinery
has been developed to shuck mussels. This must be done by hand if fresh
(uncooked) meats are desired. Mussel meat can be easily removed from the
shell after steaming or boiling. (See Section 7.4 for an overview of
processing. )

Mussel culturing is presently a very labor intensive process. A review
of this subject is provided by Hurlburt and Hurlburt (1974). Seed mussels
must be attached to the culture substrate, the market-sized mussels selected
at harvest, and the smaller ones returned for further growth. While bottom
culture may be less intensive than raft culture in many of these respects,
losses to predation and smothering are greater and growth is not as rapid.
All of the commercial culture systems used in the world today require great
care and time.

Regardless of the culture method employed, more efficient operating
procedures need to be engineered. In many cases, this would involve
mechanization. This would allow for an expansion of production levels
without increasing human labor. This should, in turn, enable production
at a competitive cost.

73

10.0 SUMMARY

Blue mussels are abundant on the east and west coasts of North America
and are a potentially valuable seafood product. They grow more rapidly,
yield a greater meat: total weight ratio, and are nutritionally superior to
more traditional shellfish species. Increased mussel landings in recent
years reflect a renewed interest in this currently underutilized species
and a potential for market development.

Various problems, which are not insurmountable, have contributed to
the slow materialization of the mussel industry in this country. A major
impediment involves the present lack of market demand. Promotion of con-
sumer awareness and acceptability would seemingly eliminate this problem —
promotional campaigns have encountered favorable customer reaction.

Objective biological problems which affect the quality of the mussel
are being researched at a number of institutions. These problems include
the occurrence of pearls in mussel meats, the short shelf life of the
fresh product, and the seasonal occurrence of biotoxins in the growing
waters. An improved understanding of all of these problems should enable
better harvest management and control of product quality.

Although mussels are abundant, possess good reproductive capacities,
and grow rapidly, limits to the sustainability of the mussel resource
should be investigated to avoid the dramatic supply dynamics characteristic
of over-exploited species. A proper understanding of recruitment and a
carefully executed management plan could greatly increase the level of
production on a sustained yield basis. There exists a good background of
basic biological information concerning mussels. Practical application of
this knowledge to various conditions found along our coastlines is needed.

Aquaculture of mussels presents an effective means of expanding the
resource base, and the accelerated growth and superior quality of cultured
mussels make this product an attractive addition to the industry. Experi-
mental mussel culture has been successful in Maine and Washington waters
and offers the potential for a dependable commercial supply of high quality.
Biological and physical parameters affecting growth and production
efficiency need to be studied.

Finally, there exists a potential for the aquaculture of mussels other
than M. edulis. The level of basic biological information about these
mussels needs to be increased, and the feasibility for cultivation of these
species studied.

74

11.0 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH OPTIONS AND NEEDS

The following is a summary of research options and needs which have
been discussed in detail throughout this report. Specific research needs
concerning major impediments to the development of the industry have been
discussed and outlined in Section 9. These are also summarized below. For
detailed needs, the appropriate sections should be consulted.

(1) Continued economic growth in the demand for mussels necessitates
transforming conditions of supply based on wild harvest, to conditions
based on aquaculture. Long-range research should, therefore, focus on the
problems and needs of aquaculture operations. In the short run, however,
research and government policy should focus on improving the productivity

of harvesting natural stocks. In addition, government policy should try
to ensure stability in the volume of production so as not to damage the
market. As this infant industry develops along aquacultural lines, measures
should be taken at the federal level to ensure that it is not faced with
unfair competition from abroad.

(2) The effect of various institutional arrangements on blue mussel
management and on the development of the industry should be researched.

(3) An assessment of the available stocks and a scrupulous evalu-
tion of natural stock management should be made. Populations of mussels
in the more southerly parts of their east coast range suffer sporadic high
mortalities. Causes of these die-offs should be investigated and possible
management plans developed. The sustainability of West Coast mussels has
not been tested because demand for them has been historically low. Sus-
tained production yields for West Coast conditions should be evaluated as
interest in the harvest of mussels continues to increase.

(4) Wherever commercial mussel culture is practiced in the world
today, natural seed is collected for attachment of the culture substrate.
This requires the development of management policies concerning the con-
tinued mass collection of seed mussels. This will become increasingly
important as the production of cultured mussels increases. The feasibility
of rearing mussel larvae in a hatchery should be investigated, although
this may prove to be industrially less efficient than the collection of seed
from the environment.

(5) While shellfish aquaculture is an extremely efficient means of
protein production, the total biomass of shellfish in a culture system is
limited by the capacity of the growing waters to provide food and oxygen
and to remove and process metabolic wastes. This limitation is a function
of the natural productivity of the water and the total volume of water to
which the shellfish are exposed. Given limits to natural productivity
and tidal exchange, there exists an optimal shellfish production level
specific to each culture location. If this level is exceeded, over-all
growth is retarded and production efficiency is reduced. To maximize the
efficiency of aquacultural production on an individual and regional basis
and to determine, in advance, the suitability of an individual site for

75

for aquacultural operations, a system for evaluating the carrying capacity
of growing areas should be developed.

(6) In order to accurately assess the sustalnablllty and
aquacultural potential of Indigenous mussel species other than Mytilus
edulis (such as the California mussel — Mytilus calif ornianus , the Northern
horse mussel — Modiolus modiolus, and the Atlantic ribbed mussel — Geukensia
demissa) , relatively accurate methods for determining the age and growth
rate of individual specimens of these species should be developed. To this
end, more basic studies of both shell structure and calcium carbonate
deposition are required. Experimental culture of these species in various
marine and estuarine environments should also be encouraged. The market
potential of these underutilized species requires assessment.

(7) The seasonal and sporadic occurrence of dinof lagellates of the
genus Gonyaulax which led to a condition commonly referred to as the "red
tide" is a phenomenon with which the mussel industry must deal. The
geographic extent and history of blooms of the causative organism is well-
documented on the East Coast. Similar data does not exist for the west
Coast, and an assessment of the "normal" conditions of paralytic shellfish
poisoning (PSP) must be made for those waters. The encystment and over-
wintering biology as well as the environmental parameters affecting the
timing, location, and severity of blooms of the various Gonyaulax species
responsible for PSP must be investigated. Attempts to develop improved
field bioassay methods need further research. Finally, an assessment of
intoxication and detoxification rates for various mussel species should be
determined to evaluate the required time for natural depuration and/or the
feasibility of artificial depuration.

(8) An extention of shelf life of the fresh product would increase
the geographical range of distribution and would encourage retail sales by
reducing risks of poor product quality. Microbial standards for shellfish
need to be re-evaluated to minimize undue waste of product while continuing
to ensure product safety. The long-term taste quality and sanitary quality
of various processing methods need to be evaluated.

(9) More basic research is needed concerning factors responsible
for the presence or absence of pearls in certain populations of mussels
along the Atlantic coast.

(10) Research is needed to assess the effects of dredging on mussel
beds and to improve dredging or other mass-harvest methods to maximize na-
tural recovery of the beds. If re-seeding of such beds is ultimately
necessary, then proper management practices should be developed accordingly.
In order to relieve mussel culture techniques of some their labor intensive-
ness, more efficient operating procedures need to be engineered. This
would, in many cases, involve mechanization.

76

12.0 Personal Communication References

D. Alton

Regional Shellfish Specialist, FDA

50 United Nations Plaza

San Francisco, California

R. Bouchard
Marketing Specialist
Department of Marine Resources
Augusta, Maine

P. Campbell

Long Island Oyster Farms

Northport, L.I., New York

M. Castagna

Sclent is t-in-Charge

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Eastern Shore Laboratory

Wachapreague, Virginia

P. Chanley

Hatchery Operator

Shelter Island Oyster Company

Greenport, L.I., New York

P. Goggins

Department of Marine Resources

Augusta, Maine

C. Hart

President

Shellfish, Inc.

West Sayville, New York

M. Hays

Department of Health and Social Services

Olympia, Washington

B . Hemingway
Mussel Dealer
Lincolnville, Maine

G. C. Hurlburt
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

J. Hurst

Department of Marine Resources

Boothbay Harbor, Maine

L. Chaves-Michael
College of Fisheries
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington

K. K. Chew
College of Fisheries
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington

S. Czyzyk
Hatchery Operator
Bluepoint Oyster Company
West Sayville, New York

W. Dahlstrom
Marine Resources Branch
California Fish and Game
Menlo Park, California

S. Davison

Health Division

Human Resources Department

Portland, Oregon

P. Jefferds

Penn Cove Mussels

Coupeville, Washington

C. Lindsay

Department of Fisheries

Olympia, Washington

G. Lo Verde

National Marine Fisheries Service

Toms River, New Jersey

B. McAlice

Department of Oceanography
University of Maine at Orono
Walpole, Maine

E. Myers
President

Abandoned Farm, Inc.
Damariscotta, Maine

77

B. Porter

Abandoned Farm, Inc.

Damariscotta, Maine

C. Stewart

Maine Mussel Company

Warren, Maine

R. Price

Sea Grant Technician

U. of California at Davis

Davis, California

K. L. Torgerson

Department of Health and Social Services

Division of Public Health

Juneau, Alaska

A. Provenzano
Institute of Oceanography
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, Virginia

E . Quan

Department of Environmental Quality

Portland, Oregon

D . Relyea
Hatchery Manager
Frank M. Flower Company
Bajrville, L.I., New York

Roberts, H.R.

F.D.A. , Bureau of Foods

Washington, D.C.

B. Wilcox
Shellfisherman
Wickford, Rhode Island

E. Yamashita

Western Oyster Company

Seattle, Washington

C. Yentsch

Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences

Boothbay Harbor, Maine

J. Zahtila
Hatchery Manager
Frank M. Flower Company
Bajrville, L.I., New York

C . Sharpe

California State Department of

Public Health
Berkeley, California

B. M. Slabyj

Department of Food Technology

University of Maine

Orono , Maine

E. Smith

Marine Resources Branch
Department of Fish and Game
Sacramento, California

D . Snow

Oregon Fish Commission
Newport, Oregon

F. Spenger

Spenger Company, Inc.
Berkeley, California

78

13.0 LITERATURE CITED

Andreu, B. 1968. The importance and possibilities of mussel culture.
Seminar on Possibilities and Problems of Fisheries Development in
Southeast Asia, organized by the German Foundation for Developing
Countries. Berlin, 10-30 September, 1968. Working Paper. 15 p.

Andrews, W.H., CD. Diggs, J.J. Miescher, C.R. Wilson, W.N. Adams, S.A.
Furfari, and J.F. Musselman. 1976. Validity of members of the
total coliform and fecal coliform groups for indicating the presence
of Salmonella in the quahog, Mercenaria mercenaria. J. Milk Food
Tech., 39(5): 322-324.

Apollonio, S. 1975. Regulations for control of the harvesting and
processing of shellfish and the minimum standards for shellfish
establishments in the interstate trade. Maine State Department of
Marine Resources (April) .

Banks, A. and C.T. House. 1958. The freezing and cold storage of
mussels. Modern Refrigeration. July.

Bardach, J.E., J.H. Ryther, and W.O. McLamey. 1972.. Culture of mussels,
In; The farming and husbandry of freshwater marine organisms. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 868 p.

Bardach, J.E., J.H. Ryther and W.O. McLamey, Aquaculture (New York:
Wiley-Interscience, 1972) Chaps. 1 and 39.

Bayne, B.L. (ed.) Marine mussels: their ecology and physiology.
Cambridge University Press. 506 p.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve
Bulletin, Washington, D.C., Annual.

Bouchard, R. 1973. Maine Mussels An Underutilized Species. Maine
Dept. of Sea and Shore Fisheries, Augusta, Maine.

. 1976. Edible blue mussel product development in New England.

Project IV, NCAA Sea Grant Proposal, Volume II-A, p. 53-62.

Bruce, J.R. 1926. The respiratory exchange of the mussel (Mytilus
edulis L.) . Biochemical Journal, 20^: 829-846.

Buckley, L.J., M. Ikawa, and J.J. Sasner, Jr. 1976. Isolation of

Gonyaulax tamarensis toxins from soft shell clams (My a arenaria)
and a thin-layer chromatographic-fluorometer method for their
detection. J. Agric. Food Chem. , 24_(1) : 107-111.

Bums, W.J. 1969. Beneficial effects of warm water discharges from
power plants. Paper presented Southeast Electric Exchange, Pro-
duction Section Meeting, Clearwater, Florida. 6 p.

79

Cairns, J. 1968. We're in hot water. Scientist and Citizen. 10(8) ;
187-198.

Chaves, L. 1975. Experimental culture of mussels at Seabeck Bay.

University of Washington, Washingtion Sea Grant Publication No.
WSG-TA-75-14, 8 p.

, and K.K. Chew. 1975. Mussel culture studies in Puget Sound,

Washington. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting World Mari-
culture Society, 1975. p. 185-191.

Chichester, CO. and H.D. Graham. 1973. Microbial Safety of Fishery
Products. Academic Press, New York.

Christy, F. and A. Scott. 1965. The Common Wealth in Ocean Fisheries.
John Hopkins Press (Baltimore) .

Cobb, N. 1973. Fishery Statistics of the United States. Statistical
Digest No. 67, Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Service.

. 1973. Fishery Statistics of the United States. Statistical

Digest: Historical Fisheries Statistics. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service.

. 1975. The Undersea Underdog. Boston Globe, Sunday Supple-

ment , May 11 .

1975. Fisheries Development Limited, London, England. The

Market in Western Europe For; Dogfish, Squid, Mussels, Skate,
Monkfish, Whiting. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Service, January.

Coe, W.R. and D.L. Fox. 1944. Biology of the California sea-mussel

(Mytilus calif ornianus). III. Environmental Conditions and Rate
of Growth. Biol. Bull., 87(1): 5972.

Corlett, D.A., Jr. 1976. Evaluating the need for microbial standards
for refrigerated and frozen foods. Food Product Development,
10(7): 95-100.

Coulthard, H.S. 1929. Growth of the sea mussel. Contributions to
Canadian Biology and Fisheries, 4^: 123-136.

Dame, R.F. 1972. The ecological energies of growth, respiration, and
assimilation in the intertidal American oyster, C^. virginica. Mar.
Biol., 17: 243-230.

80

Davids, C. 1964. The influence of suspensions of micro-organisms

of different concentrations on the pumping and retention of food by
the mussel M. edulis. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 2_:
233249.

Davies, G. 1974. A method for monitoring the spatfall of mussels
(M. edulis) . Journal du Gonseil. Conseil International pour
I'Exploration de la Mer, 36: 2734.

Dehnel, P. A. 1956. Growth rates in latitudinally and vertically

separated population of Mytilus calif ornianus. Biol. Bull., 110(1) :
43-53.

de Schweinitz, E. and R.A. Lutz. 1976. Larval development of the

northern horse mussel Modiolus modiolus (L.), including a comparison
with the larvae of Mytilus edulis L. as an aid in planktonic
identification. Biol. Bull., 150(3): 348-360.

Dodd, J.R. 1964. Environmentally controlled variation in the shell

structure of a pelecypod species. J. Paleontol., 38^: 1065-1071.

Dral, A.D.G. 1968. On the feeding of mussels M. edulis in concentrated
food suspension. Netherlands J. Zool., 1^: 440-441.

Dow, R.L. and D.E. Wallace. 1954. Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) in

Maine. Maine Dept. of Sea and Shore Fisheries mimeographed report,
5 p.

Dupuy, J.L. 1968. Isolation, culture and ecology of a source of

paralytic shellfish toxin in Sequim Bay, Washington. Ph.D. Thesis,
Univ. Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Economic Report of the President (with the annual report of the Council

of Economic Advisors), Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office,
January, 1976.

Evans, M.H. 1975. Saxitoxin and related poisons: their actions on

man and other mammals. In: Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Toxic Dinof lagellate Blooms, Massachusetts Science
and Technology Foundation, Wakefield, Mass., p. 337-345.

Faust, M.A., A.E. Aotaky, and M.T. Hargadon. 1975. Effect of physical
parameters on the in situ survival of Escherichia coli MC-6 in an
estuarine environment. Appl. Microbiol., 30^(5): 800-806.

Field, I. A. 1908. Sea mussels and dogfish as food. Bull. Bureau of
Fisheries (U.S.), XXVIII: 243-257.

. 1922. Biology and economic value of the sea mussel, Mytilus

edulis. Bull. U. S. Bur. Fish., 38: 127-259.

81

Fox, D.L. and W.R. Coe. 1943. Biology of the California sea-mussel
(Mytilus calif ornianus) . II. Nutrition, metabolism, growth and
calcium deposition. J. Exp. Zool. , 93^: 205-249.

Fraga, F. and F. Vives. 1960. Retencion de particulas organicas por

el mejillon on los riveros flatantes. Reunion Sobre productividad
y Pesquerias Barcelona, 4^: 71-73.

Garner, R. 1872. On the formation of British pearls and their
possible improvement. J. Linn. Soc, 11: 426-428.

Giard, A. 1907. Sur les Trematodes margaritigenes (Gymnophallus

somateriae Levinson and G. bursicola Odhner). Compt. Rend. Seances
Soc. Biol., 63: 416-420.

Gilfillan, E.S., J.W. Hurst, S.A. Hanson, and C.P. LeRoyer, III. 1976.
Final report to the New England Regional Commission Contract
#10530699, Mimeographed report, 51 p.

Graham, F. , Jr. 1975. Gulls, A Social History. Random House, New
York, 179 p.

Havinga, B. 1956. Mussel culture in the Dutch Waddensea. Rapp.

et Proc. Verb. Cons. Perm. Intern. Expl. Mer., 140(3) : 49-52.

Herrington, W.C. and L.W. Scattergood. 1942. Sea mussels, a potential
source of attractive, low-cost seafood. U.S. Fish. Leafl., Wash.,
11: 5 p.

Hess, C.T., C.W. Smith and A.H. Price, II. 1975. Model for the

accumulation of radionuclides in oysters and sediments. Nature,
258(5532): 225-226.

Hurlburt, S.W. 1977. The mussel cookbook. Harvard Univ. Press,
(in press) .

Hurlburt, C.G. and S.W. Hurlburt. 1974. Mariculture of the edible
blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) . Blue Gold, November, pp. 1-20.

Jameson, H.L. 1902. On the origin of pearls. Proc. Zool. Soc.
London, 1902; 140-165.

Jannasch, H.W. 1968. Competitive elimination of Enterobacteriaceae
from seawater. Appl. Microbiol., 16^(10): 1616-1618.

J^rgensen, C.B. 1949. The rate of feeding by Mytilus in different
kinds of suspension. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 28^: 333-344.

. 1952. Efficiency of growth in M. edulis and two gastropod

veligers. Nature, London. 170: 714

82

J^rgensen, C,B. 1960. Efficiency of particle retention and rate of
water transport in undisturbed lamellibranchs. Journal du
Conseil. Conseil International pour 1' Exploration de la Mer,
26: 94-116.

. 1966. Biology of suspension feeding. Pergamon Press,

Oxford.

Joyner, T. and J. Spinelli. 1969. Mussels: a potential source of
high-quality protein. Comm. Fish. Rev., ^(8-9): 31-35.

Keiffer, E. 1976. Salmon Ranches and Lobster Farms. New York Times
Magazine, vol. 126, October 3.

Kuenzler, E.J. 1961. Structure and energy flow of a mussel population
in a Georgia salt marsh. Limnol. Oceanogr. , 6^: 191-204.

Loosanoff, V. 1942. Methods for cultivation of edible mussels. Atlantic
Fisherman, 23^(6): 6-20.

. 1943. Cultivation of the edible mussel. Southern Fisherman,

January, p. 10-27.

Lutz, R.A. 1974a. Raft cultivation of mussels in Maine waters -

its practicability, feasibility, and possible advantages. Maine
Sea Grant Bulletin 4. University of Maine, Walpole, Maine. 27 p.

. 1975. Mytilus edulis L. : Age determination, pearl incidence,

and commercial raft cultivation implications. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Maine at Orono, Orono, Maine, 133 p.

. 1975. Experimental culture of mussels in Maine and New

Hampshire. In: A Cooperative University Institutional Sea Grant
Proposal, Vol. II-A, Cooperative Projects, p. 6-30.

. 1976a. Annual growth patterns in the inner shell layer

of Mytilus edulis L. J. mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 56: 723-731.
and B. Porter. 1976. Experimental culture of mussels in

Maine and New Hampshire. Proposal submitted to Office of Sea
Grant, NOAA, Washington, B.C., Vol. II-A, p. 6-30.

MacDonald, E.M. 1970. The occurrence of paralytic shellfish poison
in various species of shore animals along the Strait of Juan de
Fuca in the State of Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Washington,
Seattle, Washington.

MacLean, J.L. 1972. Mussel culture: methods and prospects. Australian
Fisheries, 20: 1-13.

MacLeod, L.L. 1975. Experimental blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) culture
in Nova Scotia waters. Interim Report 1, A Joint Project of
Resource Development Division Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries
and the Industrial Development Branch Fisheries and Marine Service
Environment Canada. September, 38 p.

83

Mason, J. 1971. Mussel Cultivation. Underwater Journal, _3(2) : 52-59.

McHugh, L.J. 1970. "Trends in Fishery Research", A Century of Fisheries
in North America. American Fisheries Socity, Washington, D.C.

Medcof, J.C., A.H. Leim, A.B. Needier and A.W.H. Needier. 1947.

Paraltyic shellfish poisoning on the Canadian Atlantic Coast.
Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 75^; 1-32.

. 1960. Shellfish poisoning — another North American ghost.

Canadian M. A. J., 82^: 87-90.

Meyer, K.F. , H. Sommer and P. Schoenholz. 1928. Mussel poisoning.
J. Prev. Med., 1} 365-394.

Miller, B.A. 1974. Edible blue mussel mariculture development.

A Special Regional Program Proposal, NCAA, Office of Sea Grant
Programs, Vol. Ill, p. 9-12.

Milne, P.H. 1972. Fish and Shellfish Farming in Coastal Waters.
Fishing News Books Ltd.

Miskimin, D.K. , K.A. Berkowitz, M. Solberg, W.E. Riha, Jr., W.C.
Franke, R.L. Buchanan, and V. O'Leary. 1976., Relationships
between indicator organisms and specific pathogens in potentially
hazardous foods. J. Food Sci. , 41: 1001-1006.

Mossop, B.K. 1921. A study of the sea mussel (Mytilus) . Contr.
Canad. Biol., 1921(2): 17-48.

Murphy, A.L. 1936. Mussel poisoning in Nova Scotia. Canadian
M. A. J., October, p. 418-419.

Myers, E.A. 1976. Commercial Culture of Maine Mussels. In: A
Cooperative University Institutional Sea Grant Proposal, Vol.
II-A, Cooperative Projects, p. 31-39.

Nash, C.E. 1974. Crop Selection Issues. In: Open-Sea Mariculture.

Pennsylvania: Oceanic Foundation, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc,

Neal, R.A. 1967. Fluctuations in the levels of paralytic shellfish
toxin in four species of lamellibranch molluscs near Ketchikan,
Alaska, 1963-1965. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Washington, Seattle,
Washington.

Nixon, S.W. and C. Oviatt, C. Rogers, and K. Taylor. 1971. Mass

and metabolism of a mussel bed. Oecologia (Berl.), 8^: 21-30.

Norris, L., K.K. Chew and A.C. Duxbury. 1973. Shellfish and the red
tide. Pacific Search, WGS-AS 73-2, 2 p.

84

Norris, L. and K.K. Chew. 1975. Effect of environmental factors on
growth of Gonyaulax catenella. Proceedings of the First Inter-
national Conference on Toxic Dinof lagellate Blooms, November,
1974, Boston, Massachusetts. V.R. LoCicero (ed.), Massachusetts
Science and Technology Foundation, Wakefield, Mass. p. 143-152.

Odum, E.P. and A.E. Smalley. 1959. Comparison of population energy
flow of a herbivorous and a deposit-feeding invertebrate in
a salt marsh ecosystem. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. , 45^: 617-622.

Orth, F.L., C. Smelcer, H.M. Feder, and J. Williams. 1975. The Alaska
clam fishery: A survey and analysis of economic potential.
Institute of Marine Science Report No. R75-3, Sea Grant Report
No. 75-5.

Paul, A.J. and H.M. Feder. 1976. Clam, mussel, and oyster resources
of Alaska. Institute of Marine Science Report No. 76-4,
Sea Grant Report No. 76-6.

Prakash, A., J.C. Medcof, and A.D. Tennant. 1971. Paralytic shellfish
poisoning in Eastern Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Bull., 177 :
1-87.

Price, A.H. II, C.T. Hess, and C.W. Smith. 1976. Observations of
Crassostrea virginica cultured in the heated effluent and dis-
charged radionuclides of a nuclear power reactor. Proc. Natn.
Shellfish. Ass., (in press).

Sasner, J.J., Jr. 1973. Comparative studies on algal toxins. In;

Marine pharmacognosy. Martin and Padillo (eds.). Academic Press,
New York, p. 127-177.

, M. Ikawa, and B.E. Barrett. 1974. 'Red tide' in the

southern Gulf of Maine, U.S.A. Biological Conservation. 6^;
76-78.

and M. Ikawa. 1975. Comparative studies on toxins of

micro-organisms. Proceedings of the First International Con-
ference on Toxic Dinof lagellate Blooms. November 1974, Boston,
Massachusetts, pp. 433-442.

Scattergood, L.W. and C.C. Taylor. 1949a. The mussel resources of
the North Atlantic region. Part 1. The survey to discover
the locations and areas of the North Atlantic mussel-producing
beds. Comm. Fish. Rev., 11(10): 1-10.

and . 1949b. The mussel resources of the North

Atlantic regions. Part III - Observations on the biology
and the methods of collecting and processing the mussel.
Comm. Fish. Rev., 11(9): 11-23.

85

Schantz, E.J., V.E. Ghazarosslan, H.K. Schnoes, F.M. Strong, J. P.
Springer, J.O. Pezzanite, and J. Clardy. 1975. Paralytic
poisons from marine dinoflagellates. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Toxic Dinoflagellate Blooms, November,
1974, Boston.^ Massachusetts. V.R. LoCicero (ed.), Massachusetts
Science and Technology Foundation, Wakefield, Mass. p. 267-274.

Seed, R. 1969. The ecology of M. edulis on exposed rocky shores. 1.
breeding and settlement. Oecologia, 3^: 277-316.

Slabyj , B.M., A.M. Dollar, and J. Liston. 1965. Post-irradiation
survival of Staphylococcus aureus in sea foods. J. Food Sci.,
30: 344-350.

and C. Hinckle. 1976. Handling and storage of blue mussel

in shell. Research in the Life Sciences, University of Maine
at Orono, Maine, 23(4) ; 1-13.

Sribhibhadh, A. 1963. Seasonal variations of the shellfish toxicity
in the California mussel, Mytilus californlanus Conrad, and the
Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Thynberg) , along the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and in Willapa Bay. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Washington,
Seattle, Washington.

Storrow, B. 1940. Experiments in transplanting mussels at Whitby.
Rept. Dove Mar. Lab. Cullercoats, 1939: 17-20.

Stunkard, H.W. and J.R. Uzmann. 1958. Studies on digenetic

trematodes of the genera Gymnophallus and Parvatrema. Biol.
Bull., 115: 276-302.

Thiesen, B.F. 1968. Growth and mortality of eultured mussels in the
Dutch Waddensea. Meddelelser fra Danmarks Fiskeri-og
Havunders^gelser, N.S., 6^: 47-78.

United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organization, Yearbook of Fishery
Statistics, annual .

U.S. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S., U.S. Government
Printing office, 1975.

U.S. Congress, "National Aquaculture Organic Act of 1976" (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Congress Bill dated May 18, 1976, of the 94th Congress,
2nd session.)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Fishery Statistics of the United States,
1942-1973.

U.S. Department of Commercej National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Statistics
and Market News Division, Fishery Market News Report, N-127,
July 1975-October 1976, weekly.

86

U.S. Department of Coiranerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Mussels: New York
Wholesale Prices, 1950-1976, unpublished data.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Statistics
and Market News Division, New York Weekly Summary, September 24-30,
1976.

U.S. Public Health Service, National Center for Urban and Industrial
Health, Certified Shippers of Fresh and Frozen Oysters, Clams,
and Mussels, Washington, D.C. (a directory with monthly supple-
ments. )

Wedin, J.H. 1968. The Needs of United States Fishermen. In:

The Future of the Fishing Industry of the United States. Washington:
University of Washington-Publications in Fisheries New Series, Vol.
IV.

Yentsch, CM. 1976. Physiology and ecology of Gonyaulax tamarensls,
the New England red tide organism. Seminar presented at the Food
and Drug Administration in Washington, D.C, 25 February. Unpublished
manuscript.

, E.J. Cole, and M.G. Salvaggio. 1975. Some of the growth

characteristics of Gonyaulax tamarensls isolated from the Gulf
of Maine. Paper presented November, 1974, Boston. IN: Proceed-
ings of the First International Conference on Toxic Dinof lagellate
Blooms. V.R. LoCicero (ed.), Massachusetts Science and Technology
Foundation, Wakefield, Massachusetts, pp. 163-180.

87

APPENDICES

A. Mussel Survey Interview Guide

B. Historical Fishery Statistics 1887-1975

C.l. Nominal and Real Value of Industry Landings, 1942-1975

C.2. Average Price Per Pound by Year and Major Producing
State 1942-1975

D. Five Year Average Landings and Value of Mussels,
1966-1975 by State, Region, and U.S. Total

E. Operating Unit Data, 1966-1975

F. Landings by Type of Gear and State, 1971-1975

G. Public and Private Acres Leased, by State, 1975

88

Appendix A. MUSSEL SURVEY INTERVIEW GUIDE*

BLUE MUSSEL INDUSTRY STATUS PROJECT

University of Maine & University of New Hampshire

Institutional Sea Grant Program

Mail Questionnaire

Explanation of Questionnaire:

We are part of a team under contract with the National Marine Fisheries
Service to fulfill compliance with a Congressional Law requiring information
on the commercial status of the U.S. shellfish industry. Our particular
assignment is to report on the status of the mussel industry.

We would appreciate very much your cooperation in helping us to fulfill
our contract. In order for this valuable food to become a full-fledged industry
in the U.S., work such as we are doing is needed. We will be sampling through
this questionnaire individuals and firms engaged in many different aspects of
the business. The results of our survey will be mailed to you upon completion.
We hope they will be of use to you in your own planning.

Compliance with the contract requires the questionnaire to be completed
and returned as soon as possible, and no later than the last week of November.

Please complete and return in the enclosed envelope to:

Dr. James A. Clifton
235 Stevens Hall
Economics Department
University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04473

Thank you for your cooperation.

General Questions

Al. How many bushels of mussels do you handle in

1. a week 2. a month 3. a year (1976 to date)

4. a week (1975) 5. a month (1975) 6. a year (1975)

A2. Do different seasons influence your business? 1. Yes 2. No

(go to A3) (go to A4)

*Prepared with the assistance of the Social Science Research Institute, University
of Maine - Orono. -«

A3. (If yes) How do they influence your business?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

What part{s) o-

1.

Grower

2.

Harvester

3.

Dealer

4.

Processer

5.

Wholesaler

6.

Retailer

A4. What part{s) of the mussel business are you involved in?

A5. If mussels were as valuable as clams or oysters and demand were to increase
greatly, could you supply some of the increased demand?

1. Yes (See A-6)

2. No (See A-7)

A6. (If yes to A5) How would you increase your supply?

1.
2.
3.
4.

A7. (If no to A5) What factors would inhibit an increase in your supply?

1. Labor (time, costs, availability)

2. Capital

3. Mussel beds becoming depleted

4. Equipment

5. Other (specify)

B. Resource Availability

(This section for growers, harvesters, dealers. Processers see Section D. All
others Section E.)

Bl. When you are devoting your time to mussels, how much of that time is spent
in searching for supplies?

Over 50% 10-50% Less than 10%

1. A great deal 2. Some 3. Very little

90

B2. Is this time

1. Greater than 2. Less than 3. The same

as it was when you started in business?

B3. Has your volume of production changed since you have been in business?
Has it

1. Increased 2. Remained the same 3. Decreased

B4. Is the wild mussel supply such that the harvest could be doubled for a
period of ten years?

Yes No

Could it be increased to ten times the current level?

yes No

B5. Is there competition from other parts of the fishing industry for mussel
growing areas?

Yes No

B6. (If yes to B6) If so, what other industries compete for the areas?

1. 2. 3.

C. Mussel Harvesting

(For growers, harvesters)

CI. About how much do mussel harvesters get per bushel for their work?

C2, If there are plenty of mussels, how many bushels can one person harvest
per day?

C3. Do you expect your costs within the next year to increase, decrease, or
stay the same?

Increase Decrease Stay the same

(Go to C4) (Go to C5) (Go to C6)

C4. What items will have the greatest effect on the increased costs?

Labor

Machinery

Fuel ~~~~~~~~

Other ZZIZIZZZIIZI

Specify

91

C5. What items will have the greatest effect on the decreased costs?

Labor

Machinery

Fuel

Other

S pec i f y

C6. Are there parts of the business you're not in now that may be attractive
for expansion in the future?

List

C7. Do you feel that lack of money prevents you from expanding your business?

Yes Sometimes No

C8. What agencies provide financial help by way of loans, etc. to the mussel
business?

List

C9. Do you have any problems with the following?

Yes Sometimes No

1. Keeping mussels fresh

2. Storing mussels

3. Transporting mussels

D. Mussel Processing

(For processors)

Dl. When mussels are in season how many harvesters supply mussels to you?

Number

On a regular basis?

Irregularly?

D2. What per cent of your mussels come from harvesters who supply mussels to
you on a regular basis? %

92

D3. After you receive the mussels do you clean them in any way?

If yes, how? How much time do you spend on this? Does this limit your
willingness to handle mussels?

D4. What percentage of all the mussels you handle are unsalable due to

Spoilage?

Poor quality?

D5. Are there fish processing plants in this area?

Yes No
D6. (If yes to D5) Could they also handle mussels?

Yes No

D7. Who do you sell mussels to?

(Wholesaler, retailer, restaurants)

Wholesale Retail Restaurant

List Names

D8. Are you: Satisfied with prices?

Somewhat satisfied?

Dissatisfied with prices?
D9. How do you determine what price you charge for your mussels?

DIO. Does the price of mussels change a lot during the year?
Yes Sometimes
What is the range in the last few years? Low High

93

Dll. What are the reasons for the price changes?

Yes No

Season

Fluctuating size

Quality

Demand

Supply

Any other reasons

(Specify)

D12. What price per bushel would you have to charge to cover all your expenses
and give you a reasonable profit?

D13. Do you have any credit problems?

Yes No Sometimes

D14. (If yes to D13) What kind of credit problems?

D15. Would you be willing to share advertising costs with others if it would
expand the mussel industry

Yes Depends No

E. General Questions

(For growers, harvesters, dealers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers.)

El. Are there any advantages to bein^ a small industry such as the mussel
industry (If so, what are they?,

94

E2. What are the disadvantages of being a small industry?

E3. How do you perceive the longer term advantages and disadvantages?

E4. What kind of business problems do you have that could be helped by public
spending for research?

E5. Is there any future in growing mussels instead of just harvesting existing
supplies?

E6. Do you have any problems with:

1. Yes 2. Sometimes 3. No

1. Bad weather

2. Red Tide

3. Labor supply

4. Other, specify

E7. Are there any mussel areas you know of that are closed quite often due to
pollution?

1. Yes 2. No

E8. (If yes) Where are they? 1. 2.

E9. Do you know of any federal, state or local regulations that cover the blue
mussel industry?

Yes No

If yes, what are they?

1.

2.

3.

ElO. How do these regulations affect prices?

95

Ell. Assuming your total expenses were $100, how would that be allocated among
the following items, based on current allocation of your actual expenses?

$ $ $ $ $ $

Labor

Equipment

Storage

Processing

Transport

Financial

Expense

Expense

Expense

Expense

Expense

Expense &
Profit

E12. How long have you been in the mussel business?

El 3. What business were you in before you became interested in mussels?

Thank you for your helpi

96

i^pendix B.l HISTORICAL FISHERY STATISTICS 1887-1975*
Summary of Sea Mussel Landings, 1887-1975

Year

New England

Middle Atlantic

Chesapeake

Total Atlantic

Coast

Pounds
6

Dollai

(in
• Pounds

845

thousa
Dollar

10

nds)
Pounds

Dollar

Pounds Dollar

1887

(1)

851

10

1888

7

(b

892

11

-

-

899

3 11

1889

-

-

1

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1890

(h

(2)

49

2

-

-

(2)

(2)

1891

(2)

(2)

27

1

-

-

(2)

/2-v

1892

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

.2.

1895

(2)

(2)

(h

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1897

(2)

(2)

2,550

-

-

(2)

(2)

1898

23

1

(h

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1899

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1901

(2)

(2)

637

-

-

(2)

(2>

1902

-

-

(2)

<2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1904

(2)

(2)

1,552

-

-

(2)

(2)

1905

-

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1908

12

(1)

8,462

9

-

-

8,474

1915

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1918

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(■2)

(2)

,2.

1919

27

1

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

See Footnotes at end of table.

*Data supplied by National Marine Fisheries Service.

97

Year

New England

Middle Atlantic

Chesapeake

Total Atlantic

Coast

Pounds
(2)

Dollar

Pounds
(2)

Dollar

Pounds
(2)

Dollar

Pounds
(2)

Dollar

1920

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1921

(2)

(2)

841

8

(2)

(2)

(2)

(h

1922

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1923

(2)

.2.

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

192A

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1925

/2n

.2.

ih

(h

(h

<2)

(2)

(2)

1926

.2.

(2)

251

11

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1927

(2)

(h

(h

ih

(2)

(h

(h

(h

1928

130

1

(h

(h

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1929

10

1

185

10

-

-

195

11

1930

11

2

295

14

-

-

306

16

1931

117

1

174

8

-

-

291

15

1932

63

4

113

8

-

-

176

12

1933

141

6

53

3

-

-

194

9

1934

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

23

1

(2)

(2)

1935

117

3

98

6

23

1

238

10

1936

(2)

(2)

(h

(2)

77

2

(2)

(2)

1937

16

1

93

5

28

1

137

7

1938

24

1

243

18

30

1

297

20

1939

23

3

184

7

-

-

207

10

1940

18

1

263

14

2,212

88

2,493

103

1941

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

915

46

(2)

(2)

98

Year

New England

Middle Atlantic

Chesapeake

Total Atlantic

Coast

Pounds
46

Dollar
3

Pounds
326

Dollar

Pounds
164

)ollar

Pounds
536

Dollar

1942

23

23

49

1943

2,612

111

1,028

81

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

1944

2,630

78

572

72

175

25

3,377

175

1945

2,783

82

433

87

49

7

3,265

176

1946

2,351

63

(2)

(2)

304

46

(2)

(2)

1947

45

2

730

176

-

-

775

178

1948

157

18

267

63

-

-

424

81

1949

788

52

127

25

-

-

915

77

1950

692

57

68

14

-

-

760

71

1951

684

46

38

8

-

-

722

54

1952

356

20

14

3

-

-

370

23

1953

200

15

259

65

-

-

459

80

1954

219

13

291

62

-

-

510

75

1955

508

40

119

25

-

-

627

65

1956

459

22

29

6

-

-

488

28

1957

471

27

10

2

-

-

481

29

1958

415

43

36

6

-

-

451

49

1959

483

57

29

5

-

-

512

62

1960

494

45

14

2

-

-

508

47

1961

615

48

18

2

-

-

633

50

1962

565

43

27

3

-

-

592

46

1963

727

55

74

11

-

-

801

66

99

Year

-New England

Middle Atlantic

Chesapeake

Total Atlantic

Coast

Pounds
194

Dollai

Pounds
126

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds
320

Dollar

1964

17

17

-

34

1965

184

15

296

45

-

-

480

60

1966

430

46

133

23

-

-

563

69

1967

775

93

28

8

-

-

803

101

1968

492

47

207

63

-

-

699

110

1969

439

46

674

63

-

-

1113

109

1970

467

98

200

60

-

-

667

158

1971

359

85

318

96

-

677

181

1972

323

82

496

161

-

-

819

243

1973

475

126

685

195

-

-

1160

321

1974

410

107

490

209

-

-

900

316

1975

886

276

123

55

1009

331

Year

Pacific Coast

Grand Total U.S.

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds
(2)

Dollar

1887

(2)

(2)

(2)

1888

32,396
(2)
(2)

378
(2)
(2)

33,295
(2)
(2)

89

1889

» o • o

(h

1890

o • • • •

(2)

1891

(2)
2,880

(2)
12

(2)
(2)

(2)

1892

(2)

100

Year

Pacific Coast

Grand Total U.S.

1895
1897
1898
1899
1901
1902
190A
1905
1908
1915
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
192A
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929

Pounds

512

(2)

383
(2)
(2)

28
(2)

68

20
8
6
6
2
7

10
8
4
1

(h

(')

Dollar

ih

2

2
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)

1

3

1

1
(1)

ih
(1)
(1)

8,

Pounds
2

2

2
2
2
2
2
2

542
2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

95

Dollar
2

2
2
2
2
2

2
2

11
2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

101

-Year

Pacific Coast

Grand Total U.S.

Pounds

Dollai Pounds

1930 (1)

1931 (h

1932 (^)

1933 (^)

1934

1935

1936

1937 (1)

1938

1939 .

1940

1941

1942

1943 . .

1944

1945

1946 (h

1947 (1)

1948 1

1949

1950 (1)

(1)

(^)

(^)

(1)
(1)

(1)

306
291
176
194
(2)
238

(h

137

297

207

2,493

(h

536
(2)
3,377
3,265
(2)
775
425
915
760

Dollar

16

15

12

9

(2)

10

(2)

7

20

10

103

(b

49
(2)

175

176

(2)

178

81

77

71

102

Year

Pacific Coast

Grand Total U.S,

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971

Pounds

(1)
(1)
(1)

Dollai

(1)
(1)
(1)

(1)

Pounds

Dollar

722

54

370

23

459

80

510

75

627

65

488

28

481

29

451

49

512

62

508

47

633

50

596

46

801

66

320

34

480

60

563

69

803

301

699

110

1113

109

667

158

677

181

103

Year

Pacific Coast

Grand

Total U.S.

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds

877
1208

941
1010

Dollar

1972

58

19

19

18

1

262

1973

48

340

1974 . o

41

334

1975

1

332

Less than 500 pounds or $500.
^Data not available.

-'Includes a small production of clams.
Note: — Data are shown in pounds of meats.

104

Appendix B.2 SUMIIARY OF SEA MUSSEL LANDINGS BY STATE 1887-1975:

Year

Maine

Massachusetts

Rhode I

sland

(in thousands)

Pounds
6

Dollar

Pounds

'Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

1887

(1)

-

-

1888

7

(h

-

-

-

1898

-

-

7

(1)

16

1

1908

-

-

1

(^)

4

(1)

1919

17

(h

-

-

10

1

1928

-

-

-

-

130

1

1929

-

-

10

1

-

-

1930

-

-

11

2

-

-

1931

90

2

27

5

-

-

1932

33

1

30

3

-

-

1933

110

3

30

3

1

(1)

1935

117

3

-

-

-

1937

11

(1)

-

-

5

1

1938

7

(b

16

1

1

(1)

1939

-

-

20

3

3

1
( )

1940

-

-

14

(1)

1

(1)

1942

46

3

-

-

-

-

1943

2,612

111

-

-

-

-

1944

2,594

75

36

3

-

-

1945

2,733

72

50

10

-

-

1946

2,314

61

32

1

-

-

1947

40

1

-

-

-

-

105

Year

Maine

Pounds
124

Dollai

1948

13

1949

386

15

1950

325

11

1951

447

13

1952

288

9

1953

51

1

1954

81

2

1955

105

3

1956

122

2

1957

39

5

1958

120

9

1959

24

2

1960

50

3

1961

2

(1)

1962

7

1

1963

20

2

1964

15

1

1965

32

3

1966

240

20

1967

371

31

1968

389

31

1969

353

29

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds
30

Dollar

-

-

4

120

8

186

23

164

16

200

30

72

12

165

21

68

11

(1)

(h

29

2

120

12

119

9

18

2

193

16

210

21

85

7

251

13

32

3

400

19

69

6

226

28

189

15

270

40

360

29

84

13

543

41

70

7

556

42

2

(h

706

53

1

(1)

179

16

(S

(1)

150

11

2

1

186

25

4

1

404

62

-

103

16

-

-

86

17

-

106

Year

Maine

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Pounds
301

Dollar

Pounds
166

1
Dollai^

Pounds

Dollar

1970

64

34

-

1971

150

35

209

50

-

-

1972

281

71

42

11

-

-

1973

440

116

35

10

-

-

1974

308

83

53

11

48

13

1975

612

198

50

15

224

63

■':Less than 500 pounds or $500.

Note:— Surveys made for 1889, 1902, 1905, and 1924- in all .New England
States and for 1925 and 1926 in Connecticut, indicate that no sea
mussels were landed during these iyears. Data for 1925 and 1926 are
not available for the other states.

107

Year

Connecticut

Total New England

Pounds , Dollar Pounds

1887

1888

1898

1908 7

1919

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1935

1937 . .

1938

1939

1940 o 3

1942 o (^)

1943

1944 o

1945 - -

1946 5

1947 5

i')

1
(1)

Dollar

6

(1)

7

(^)

23

1

12

(1)

27

1

130

1

10

1

11

2

117

7

63

4

141

6

117

3

16

1

. 24

1

23

3

18

1

46

3

2612

111

2630

78

2783

82

2351

63

45

2

108

Year

Connecticut

Total New England

Pounds

3

96

Dollar

Pounds
157
788
692
684
356
200
219
508
459
471
415
483
494
615
565
727
194
184
430
775
492
439

Dollar

19A8

1949

1

6

(1)

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

18
52

1950

3

57

1951

46

1952

20

(1)

15

1954

1

13

(1)

40

1956

1

22

(1)

27

1958

(1)

43

57

1960

• •o»«*«»

45
48

1962

43

55

1964

17

15

1966

46

93

1968

47

46

109

Year

Connecticut

Total New England

Pounds
(1)

Dollai

Pounds

Dollar

1970

1971

(1)

467
359
323
475
410
886

98
85

1972

82

1973

126

1974

1

107

1975

276

■^Less than 500 pounds or $500.

Note:— Surveys made for 1889, 1902, 1905, and 1924 in all ^ New England
States and for 1925 and 1926 in Connecticut, indicate that no sea
mussels iwere landed during these lyears. Data for 1925 and 1926 are
not available for the other states.

110

Year

New York

New Jersey

Delaware

Total Middle

Atlantic

Pounds
845

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds

Dollai Pounds

Dollar

1887

10

-

-

845

10

1888

892

11

-

-

-

-

892

11

1889

1

(1)

-

-

-

-

1

(1)

1890

49

2

-

-

-

-

49

2

1891

21

1

6

(1)

-

-

27

1

1892

(2)

(2)

-

-

-

-

(2)

(2)

1897

30

1

2,520

2

-

2,550

3

1901

262

2

375

1

-

637

3

1904

159

5

1,393

2

-

-

1,552

7

1908

8,175

8

287

1

-

-

8,462

9

1921

50

2

791

6

-

-

841

8

1926

210

10

47

1

-

-

257

11

1929

165

8

19

2

1

(1)

185

10

1930

271

12

4

(1)

20

2

295

14

1931

170

8

4

(1)

-

-

174

8

1932

86

6

4

(1)

23

2

113

8

1933

48

3

5

(1)

-

-

53

3

1935

82

5

3

(1)

13

1

98

6

1937

90

5

-

-

3

(1)

93

5

1938

241

18

-

-

2

(1)

243

18

1939

172

7

-

-

12

(b

184

7

111

Year

New York

New Jersey

Delaware

Total Middle

Atlantic

Pounds
215

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds
12

Dollar

Pounds
263

Dollar

1940

14

-

(1)

14

1942

326

23

-

-

-

-

326

23

1943

1,028

81

-

-

-

-

1,028

81

1944

572

72

-

-

-

572

72

1945

429

87

4

(1)

-

433

87

1946

447

104

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(^)

(h

1947

686

171

44

5

-

-

730

176

1948

267

63

-

-

-

-

267

63

1949

127

25

-

-

-

-

127

25

1950

68

14

-

-

-

-

68

14

1951

38

8

-

-

-

-

38

8

1952

14

3

-

-

-

-

14

3

1953

259

65

-

-

-

-

259

65

1954

291

62

-

-

-

-

291

62

1955

119

25

-

-

-

-

119

25

1956

29

6

-

-

-

-

29

6

1957

10

2

-

-

-

-

10

2

1958

36

6

-

-

-

-

36

6

1959

29

5

-

-

-

29

5

1960

14

2

-

-

-

-

14

2

1961

18

2

-

-

-

-

18

2

1962

27

3

-

-

-

-

27

3

1963

74

11

-

-

-

-

74

11

112

Year

New York

New Jersey

Delaware

Total Middle

Atlantic

Pounds
125

Dollar

Pounds
1

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds Dollar

1964

17

(1)

-

126

17

1965

295

44

1

1

-

-

296

45

1966

115

18

18

5

-

-

133

23

1967

28

8

-

-

-

-

28

8

1968

207

63

-

-

-

-

207

63

1969

674

63

-

-

-

674

63

1970

200

60

-

-

-

-

200

60

1971

318

96

-

-

-

-

318

96

1972

496

161

-

-

-

-

496

161

1973

685

195

-

-

-

-

685

195

1974

483

205

7

4

-

-

490

209

1975

106

45

15

8

2

2

123

55

^Less than $500.

2
Data not available.

113

Year

Maryland

Virginia

Total Chesapeake

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

1887

^

-

-

1888

-

-

-

-

-

-

1890

-

-

-

-

-

-

1891

-

-

-

-

-

-

1897

-

-

-

-

-

-

1901

-

-

-

-

-

1904

-

-

-

-

-

1908

-

-

-

-

-

1920

-

-

-

-

-

-

1925

-

-

-

-

-

-

1929

-

-

-

-

-

1930

-

-

-

-

-

-

1931

-

-

-

-

-

-

1932

-

-

-

-

-

1933

-

-

-

-

-

1934

-

-

23

1

23

1

1935

-

-

23

1

23

1

1936

-

-

77

2

77

2

1937

-

-

28

1

28

1

1938

-

-

JO

1

30

1

1939

-

-

-

-

-

-

1940

-

-

2212

88

2212

88

1941

-

~

915

46

915

46

1942

-

-

164

23

164

23

114

Year

Maryland

Virginia

Total Chesapeake

Pounds

Dollai

1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

Pounds
175
49
304

Dollar

25

7

46

Pounds
175
49
304

Dollar
25
7
46

115

Year

Maryland

Virginia

Total Chesapeake

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds

Dollar

1966
1967

-

-

Note: Landings of sea mussels in the Chesapeake States iwere confined
to Virginia, i Sea mussels .were taken only during the i years from 1934
to 1946.

1968-73 — No catch, .see note.

116

'Year

1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1895
1899
1904
1908
1915
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930

Washingi

ton

California

Total Pacific

Coast

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds
^2,396

Dollar

Pounds
^2,396

Dollar

-

^78

^78

(2)

(')

2,100

9

(2)

(2)

(h

(2)

2,700

11

(2)

(2)

(h

(2)

2,998

13

(')

(2)

-

~

2,880

12

2,880

12

24

(3)

488

5

512

5

19

(3)

364

4

383

4

-

-

28

2

28

2

-

-

68

2

68

2

1

(3)

19

2

20

2

(2)

(2)

8

(^)

8

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

(2)

6

(2)

(2)

(2)

6

(2)

6

(2)

(2)

(2)

2

(2)

2

(2)

-

7

1

7

1

-

-

10

3

10

3

-

8

1

8

1

-

4

1

4

1

-

-

1

(3)

1

(3)

-

-

3

(3)

3

(3)

-

-

(3)

/3)

(3)

(3)

-

-

(h

,3.

(3)

(3)

-

-

(')

(3)

(h

(3)

117

Year

Washington

California

Total Pacific

Coast

Pounds

Dollar

Pounds
(3)

Dollar

Pounds
(3)

Dollar

1931

-

(3)

(3)

1932

-

-

(3)

(3)

(')

(3)

1933

-

-

(3)

(3)

(3)

(h

1937

-

-

(')

(3)

(3)

(3)

1946

-

-

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

1947

-

-

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

1948

-

1

(3)

1

(3)

1950

-

-

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

1952

-

-

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

1953

-

-

0)

(3)

(3)

(3)

1954

-

-

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

1962

-

-

4

(3)

4

(')

1972

-

-

58

19

58

19

1973

-

-

48

19

48

19

1974

-

-

41

18

41

18

1975

-

-

-

-

1

1

Includes a small production of clams,

^Data not available.

^Less than 500 pounds or $500.

Note: Surveys made for 1934-1936, 1938-1945, 1949, 1951, 1955-1961,
and 1963-1971 indicate that no sea mussels were landed during these
years. Data for 1974 and 75 include a small catch in Oregon. Less than
500 lbs and $500 in 1974 and 1,000 lbs valued at $1,000 in 1975.

118

Appendix C.l NOMINAL AND REAL VALUES OF liroUSTRY LANDIIIGS, 1942-1975*

Total Aggregate Value

Year

Lbs.

East and West Coast
Dollars

1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960

(1967 $)
Deflated Value

536,000

3,640,000"^

3,377,000

3,265,000

3,102,000^

775,000

424,000

915,000

760,000

722,000

320,000

459,000

510,000

627,000

A83,000

481,000

451,000

512,000

508,000

49,000

192,000

175,000

176,000

213,000

178,000

81,000

77,000

71,000

54,000

23,000

80,000

75,000

65,000

28,000

29,000

49,000

62,000

47,000

322,344

341,894

232,679

97,826

86,797
59,276
25,959
91,520
85,650
74,035
30,884
31,088
51,793
65,410
49,538

*Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, N.O.A.A,, Fisheries Statistics of
the United States, Washington, D.C., Annual.

Does not include data for the Chesapeake.
2
Does not include data for Middle Atlantic.

119

Total Aggregate Value

East and iWest Coast

(1967 $)

Year

Lbs.

Dollars

'.Deflated Value

1961

633,000

50,000

52,900

1962

596,000

46,000

48,530

1963

801,000

66,000

69,828

1964

320,000

34,000

35,904

1965

480,000

60,000

62,100

1966

563,000

69,000

69,138

1967

803,000

101,000

101,000

1968

699,000

110,000

107,360

1969

1,113,000

109,000

102,351

1970

667,000

158,000

143,148

1971

677,000

181,000

158,918

1972

877,000

262,000

220,080

1973

1,208,000

340,000

252,280

1974

941,000

334,000

208,750

1975

1,010,000

332,000

191,564

120

^Appendix C. 2: AVERAGE PRICE PER POUND BY YEAR A14D MAJOR PRODUCING
STATE 1942-1975.

Total Value/lbs.

Year

U.S.

•West
Coast

iMe.

Mass.

N.Y.

1942

0.070

cent

p/lb.

0.065

0.071

1943

.053

.042

.079

1944

.047

.029

0.083

.126

1945

.054

.026

.200

.202

1946

.069

.026

.03

.233

1947

.246

.025

.249

1948

.191

.105

.236

1949

.084

.039

.067

.197

1950

.093

.034

.098

.206

1951

.075

.029

.167

.211

1952

.062

.031

.162

.214

1953

.174

.019

.069

.251

1954

.147

.025

.076

.213

1955

.104

.029

.083

.210

1956

.057

.016

.032

.207

1957

.060

.13

.094

.200

1958

.109

.075

.087

.167

1959

.121

.083

.079

.172

1960

.092

.060

.081

.143

121

Total Value/ lbs.

lYear

U.S.

West
Coast

iMe.

Mass.

N.Y.

cents/lb.

1961

0.080

0.076

0.111

1962

.077

0.143

.07o

.111

1963

.082

.100

.075

.149

1964

.106

.067

.089

.136

1965

.125

.094

.073

.149

1966

.123

.083

.134

.156

1967

.126

.084

.153

.286

1968

.157

.080

.155

.304

1969

.098

.082

.198

.093

1970

.237

.213

.205

.300

1971

.267

.233

.239

.302

1972

.299

.328

.253

.262

.324

1973

.281

.396

.264

.286

.285

1974

.355

.439

.269

.208

.424

1975

.329

1.000

.324

.300

.425

Note: Data for U.S. price/lb. from Appendix C.l - Data for other areas
Appendix B Landings by states.

122

ZJ

■o
c

(O

c
o

'C3I
<U

>■
Si

in

O)

(b

(O

3

C

a
<

in

r*

«—

r^

^

1^

6

CO

r^

d)

(O

UJ

3

1

3

_l

<
>

00
CO

Ul

3

r;.

s

"5

UJ

3

•a
c

o

2

CO tn

3 — 1

•a
e

\- Q 1

o o O o

M

IT) O U)

O in UJ

z f> z

— (O —

in

O (O <

r*

z o> s

2

r»

UJ

is:

(9

•

o

<

r»

UJ

CO

>

(/}

r^

<

d>

(O

oc

>-

Q

Z
<

_l

CM
00

UJ

>

(O

iZ

J

(O

O

P^

■D

(6

c

CO

11

1 °l

1- Q. 1

1

S g g 8 °

>

a
a

3

123

tn

h-

t—

r^
^

l~;-

6

CM

r-;-

cn

CO

LU

z>

CM

_J

1^

<

00

(A

>

(O

S

ri

cn

CO

3

o

■^

r^

o

0)

T3

c

CO
CO

3

(O <A

Crt 1-

3 <0 1

>

-2^ 11

■o

1- Q II

o ifl C2 Lo o

^

o CM ifl r^ 1

CD

M

CO CM »- 1

5P in

0)

Landir
1966-7!

■l-<
CO

■o

0)

lO

4-

o

'c
D

a>

6

O)

r^

(0

l_

«

>

CO

<

1^

CO

CO

a>

>

CO

O

H

Z

CM

a>

1^

>

o

00

iZ

<

_1

CO

^

p;»

r^

CO

o

r^

■o
c

ID <«

^

CO -a

3 C

° ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1

-C o 1 1

1- Ql 1 1 1 1 1

o o o o o o

o o Q g o

o ca to t CM

124

IT)

r-

1 —

r^
•<*•

r^

6

r;-

O)

111

CD

LU

D

CN

-1

r^

<

00

>

CO

en

r~-

s

r~

l/>

CO

3

O

r^

^^

O

0)

•a
c

(0 u>

CO
CO

3

3 (0

"(5

O =

>

c

^ o

o

1- Q

C

OJ

o o o o o

0)

ID CN 03 "ij-

CC

in

o

c

r>.

■•»->

in

c

6

c

JO

r^

(Q

O)

*->

<

r^

_J

o

^

■o

r^

0)

■o

6

O)

r».

(0
0)

^

>

00

<

CO

to

(O

>

o

z

1

CN

(U

o

r-^

>

Z

CO

ii.

^

CD

r-;-

1-^

CO

o

r^

•D

CD

c

CD

m <n

*2 T3 ■

2 c 1

9 ^ 1

-^ O 1

1- n

1

1

Q O O O O O

o o o o o

125

in

r^

^

r^
■*

1

r^

6

c^

111

-

D

-J

^.

<

-J

>

LU

CO

CO

.D

S

•^

o

UJ

3

•a

o
6

CO

-1
<

>

c

3 TO

O = 1 ,

-c o 1

c

(0 >.
CO UJ

CD UJ w

H Q III

O U> O Ifl o

cvi r-: T-'

Z r*. tC

lA

± CO UJ

r^

Q <o -»

r^

z 2 >

r^

-• z

•*-

o

6

UJ
CD

<

CC

UJ

>

<

w

CC

<

z

UJ

Q

>■

Z
<

UJ

-1

>

il

o

r>.

•a
c

CO
CO

(D <A

«» "D

3 c

° 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

■CO 1

1- 0-

1 1 1 1

^ CO CM T- o

126

U)

r;.

f»

1^

rsi

6

CO

i>

d>

(O

UJ

^

-1

<N

CO

<

r;"

-J

>

00

111

CO

C/I

w

z>

*—

S

«^

(O

o

UJ

O

3

to.

_j

■a

(O

<

c

to w>

CO

>

3 (O

o =

■o

£ o

c

1- Q

w

Q O O O O

Z i« £
^ r^ O

(O CM 00 Tj-

LD

Q <i> >

r;.

f LAN
196
NEW

r^

■*

o

6

UJ

r*

<

UJ

CO

CO

•

5

o

2

CO

O

1

cc

z

£!■

<

UJ

>

UJ

>

^

(O

iZ

(O

o

c

^6

<o «

(O

« T3

3 C

O I, 1

-c o 1

1- Q.

8 8 8 8°

# en CM ^

127

CO

-J
HI
CO
CO

D

-J
<
>.

<
>

CO R

CD Ifl —

Z !> H

^ '- "

Q r^ 111
Z 2 2

< '^ z
-I o
HI O

<

UJ
>

<

cc
<

UJ

>

UJ

>

c

!S <"

ill i_

3 nj

O =

s: o

H Q

O

o

Q
<

73

c

(0 <»
«» "D

§ §

I L

o
o

CM

o
o

128

Lf)

CO

-J
LU
CO
CO

3

111

<
>

CO

00

CO

<

> 2

-o g

CD
CD

CC

CO

Q 6 5

z to <

5 oi -J

o
in

o

CM

o

05

o

CO

o

00

<

CC
LU
>
<

<

UJ

>

UJ

>

CO

z

Q

z
<

CO

CN

CO
CO

c

v> "D

CO

CO

o
o

lO

o
o

o
o

CO

o
o

CN

129

in

6

CO

_l
lU
GO
CO

D

UJ

_i
<

>

U

3
_l
<

>

c

W Q

CO Z

^ .o <
Z S -I

— "r (o
Q CD —
Z (O UJ

< 5 Q
-• O

o a:
111

CD
<

■a
c

S •»

3 (O

O =

j: o

o

in

o

>
<

<

>
>

Q

<

■D

c

(O

V) u>

(- 0.,

o

CO
CD

o

o

o

CN

130

CO
lU

3

-J

<
>

<

>

■o
c

(0
CO

CD

(O

I-
Ul

in CO
u> X

CO (J

22 <

^ CO
CO

<

c
I- Q

in

o

CM
00

o

CO

CO

LU
<
Ul

oc
<

UJ

>

o

z

5

z
<

c
I =

n CM

o o

in

o

C3>

CO

CO
CO

CO

CO

s

o
o

o

ID

131

I I I I I

O CO
CM CD

o in LO o
tn r- oj o

CD CD OJ n

o in in o

O CD C\i C)

o o CM (n

•d-cur-oojoinco -
incDioincD<-criC7t ^
r^toinininincoin o?

■^•-Or~-CDCDiO-^ OJ

r~-oimojvoor~-co t-~
ooo^'-ooior-'- ,

cocj^co-^'-n't-'t'

CD o o en o^

- CM O CO CT r- CO CD ,

o Q a* o o o
en in f- kO o lo
«- in h r~ ord

oin^ocD^cji'-cnino
cncocjicDmoj'ctasincn
cMOJOmoiininfocMTt

cMojcMnnT^inr- \o"io

too too o o
iD lo CO o en oi

CO »o o <- en lo

OCnO^CJiCTtO^CTiCTiCncn

cncncncncjiCTio^cnc^cn

0iC7>Q»0>CJ'0^(J>CT»CJ*0i

132

23

*j ^

< <

z in

< o

3 3

0 O

1 Q.

3 _J
O O
X O

O (O
Z CC
< <

i Q ^^^~

z tn
< tt
(O <

3 _l

O -I
X o

Z (/I
(/I <

2 tn
< o

U1 Z

Rq5'

o* o^ o^ o* o^

13 ID

o o

X Q.

gen

3 ■ ,

go

38

X Q.

3 3
O O
X Q.

Q to

z q:
< <

^:SS

X o

K O

Q

Z t/)

CD CM O •-

^ 2

cn o CD

O O

X a

z to
< q:
tn <

X o — '-

Z 01

< o
tn z

3 3

o o

X Q.

9i

< O
(O z
3 3
O O
X Q.

Id

r- r- lo

?d

88

I a.

8^

z in
< o
in z

)0 ■ '

'* O* 0* o* ^

^ O* O* ^ O*

5"^

>i^

133

Appendix G: Public and Rivate Acres Leased, by State 1975*

Mus

sels

Public

Private

Total

Maine

100,000

45

100,045

New York

26,100

—

26,100

Oregon

1/

—

1/

Washington

1/

1/

California

1/

—

1/

— Not available

Note: There are some States not listed that have small

quantities of commercial landings of one or more of
these shellfish.

*Data supplied by National Marine Fisheries Service.

<r U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977--240-848/99

13.

f

^: