Marketing and Shipping - nsgl.gso.uri.edu

Proceedings of the Second International Conference and Exhibition,November 1999, Seattle, Washington

Edited by Brian C. Paust and Allison A. Rice

Published by University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program

Report No. AK-SG-01-03

Marketingand Shipping

Elmer E. Rasmuson Library Cataloging in Publication Data:

Marketing and Shipping Live Aquatic Products (2nd : 1999 : Seattle, Wash.)

Marketing and shipping live aquatic products : proceedings of the second InternationalConference and Exhibition, November 1999, Seattle, Washington / Edited by Brian C.Paust and Allison A. Rice. – Fairbanks, Alaska : University of Alaska Sea Grant Col-lege Program, [2001].

308 p. : ill. ; cm. – (University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program ; AK-SG-01-03)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Aquatic animals—Transportation—Congresses. 2. Aquatic animals—Marketing—Congresses. 3. Aquatic animals—Housing—Congresses. 4. Aquatic animals—Law andlegislation—Congresses. 3. Seafood industry—Quality control—Congresses. I. Title.II. Paust, Brian C. III. Rice, Allison A. IV. Series: Alaska Sea Grant College Programreport ; AK-SG-01-03.

HD9450.5 M37 1999

ISBN 1-56612-067-5

Citation for this volume is B.C. Paust and A.A. Rice (eds.). 2001. Marketing andshipping live aquatic products: Proceedings of the Second International Conference andExhibition, November 1999, Seattle, WA. University of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-01-03,Fairbanks.

CREDITS

This book is published by the University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program, which iscooperatively supported by the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA National Sea GrantOffice, grant no. NA86RG-0050, projects A/151-01 and A/161-01; and by the Universityof Alaska Fairbanks with state funds. The University of Alaska is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution.

Sea Grant is a unique partnership with public and private sectors combining research,education, and technology transfer for public service. This national network of universitiesmeets changing environmental and economic needs of people in our coastal, ocean, andGreat Lakes regions.

NAT

ION

AL

OC

EA

NICAND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMIN

IST

RAT

ION

US

DEPARTMENT OF COMMER

CE

University of Alaska Sea GrantP.O. Box 755040205 O’Neill Bldg.Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5040Toll free (888) 789-0090(907) 474-6707 • Fax (907) 474-6285http://www.uaf.edu/seagrant/

iii

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ vii

PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ANIMALS DESTINED

FOR LIVE AND ORNAMENTAL MARKETS

Physiological Responses of Blue Crabs (Callinectes sp.) toProcedures Used in the Soft Crab Fishery inLa Laguna de Terminos, Mexico

Angela R. Danford, Roger F. Uglow, and Carlos Rosas ...................................1

Effect of Long-Haul International Transport on LobsterHemolymph Constituents and Nitrogen Metabolism

Angela R. Danford, Roger F. Uglow, and John Garland .................................9

Physiological Stress Response in FishGeorge Iwama ...................................................................................................19

Critical Oxygen Point in Yellowleg Shrimp (Farfantepenaeuscaliforniensis): A Potential Species for the Live Seafood Trade

Lucía Ocampo V. ...............................................................................................23

SOCIAL, ETHICAL, AND HUMANITARIAN CONSIDERATIONS

Animal Rights Advocacy, Public Perception,and the Trade in Live Animals

Paul G. Olin ......................................................................................................27

Animal Ethics and the Live Aquatic Animal TradeBernard E. Rollin .............................................................................................35

LIVE HOLDING SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND WATER QUALITY

Holding Tank System for Reconditioning Transportof Live Cod Recently Captured in Deep Water

Hans-Peder Pedersen and Arnt Amble ............................................................45

Short-Term Holding and Live Transport of Aquatic Animals:An Overview of Problems and Some Historic Solutions

David J. Scarratt ..............................................................................................51

Live Fish Handling Strategies from Boat to Retail EstablishmentJohn Seccombe ..................................................................................................57

ORNAMENTAL SPECIES INDUSTRY

Florida’s Ornamental Marine Life IndustrySherry L. Larkin, Donna J. Lee, Robert L. Degner,J. Walter Milon, and Charles M. Adams ........................................................63

iv

Contents

Shipping Practices in the Ornamental Fish IndustryBrian Cole, Clyde S. Tamaru, Rich Bailey, Christopher Brown,and Harry Ako ..................................................................................................73

The Ornamental Fish IndustryCraig A. Watson ................................................................................................87

LIVE SHIPMENT OF MARINE ALGAE AND AQUATIC PLANTS

Live Rockweed (Ascophyllum) used as a Shipping Mediumfor the Live Transport of Marine Baitworms from Maine

Stephen E. Crawford ........................................................................................95

Shipping and Handling the Marine Algae Macrocystis in AlaskaThea Thomas ....................................................................................................99

LIVE SHIPMENT OF MOLLUSKS AND CRUSTACEANS

Live Transport of the Great Scallop (Pecten maximus)Toril Overaa ....................................................................................................105

Handling and Shipping of Live Northeast Pacific Scallops:Larvae to Adults

William A. Heath ............................................................................................ 111

The Harvest and Culture of Live FreshwaterAquatic Invertebrates

Barry Thoele ....................................................................................................125

Optimizing Waterless Shipping Conditions forMacrobrachium rosenbergii

John Kubaryk and Carol Harper ..................................................................131

Keeping Baitfish Alive and Healthy in Holding Tanks:Tips for Retail Outlets

Hugh Thomforde .............................................................................................141

What’s New in Live Fish and Shellfish At-Sea Holding Systems:High Tech and Low Tech

Mick Kronman ................................................................................................145

Opportunity or Threat? Implications of the Live HalibutFishery in British Columbia from the Harvester Perspective

Kim Mauriks ...................................................................................................151

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND THE

DEVELOPING LIVE HARVEST INDUSTRY

Resource Management and Environmental Issues ConcerningLive Halibut Landings

Bruce M. Leaman ...........................................................................................155

v

Contents

Sterling Pacific Halibut: A New ApproachKim Mauriks ...................................................................................................159

Resource Management Issues in California’s CommercialNearshore Live/Premium Finfish Fishery

Christine Pattison ...........................................................................................163

Shipping Live Fish into British Columbia, Canada:Basic Regulatory Requirements

Dorothee Kieser ...............................................................................................171

Resource Management Issues: Question and Answer SessionBruce M. Leaman, Kim Mauriks, and Christine Pattison ...........................177

MARKETING LIVE SEAFOOD AND ORNAMENTAL PRODUCTS

The Live Reef Food Fish Trade in Hong Kong:Problems and Prospects

Yvonne Sadovy ................................................................................................183

Marketing Aspects of the Live Seafood Trade inHong Kong and the People’s Republic of China

Patrick S.W. Chan ..........................................................................................193

Wholesale and Retail Marketing Aspects of theHong Kong Live Seafood Business

Patrick S.W. Chan ..........................................................................................201

An Overview of Irish Live Crustacean FisheriesIan Lawler .......................................................................................................207

The Construction of a Commercial Live SeafoodTransshipment Facility: Review of General Specifications

Jon Chaiton .....................................................................................................215

An Insight into the Shanghai Market for Imported Live SeafoodThomas Liu .....................................................................................................221

REGULATORY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED

WITH THE TRANSPORT OF LIVE AQUATICS

The National Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control PointProgram and the Live Seafood Industry

Donald Kramer ...............................................................................................227

Restraints to Shipping Live Product: Lessons fromthe AquaSeed Corporation Experience

Per Heggelund .................................................................................................231

vi

Contents

Shipping Live Aquatic Products: Biological,Regulatory, and Environmental Considerations

John G. Nickum ..............................................................................................237

NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES AND THE LIVE AQUATIC INDUSTRY:THE PROBLEM OF EXOTIC INTRODUCTIONS

Do Live Marine Products Serve as Pathways forthe Introduction of Nonindigenous Species?

Annette M. Olson ............................................................................................243

Live Seafood: A Recipe for Biological and Regulatory Concern?Todd W. Miller, John W. Chapman, and Eugene V. Coan ............................249

Review of Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species: What’s at Risk?Paul Heimowitz ..............................................................................................257

Impact of the Green Crab on the Washington State ShellfishAquaculture Industry

Charlie Stephens .............................................................................................263

LIVE SHIPMENT QUALITY AND SAFETY

A New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield,Using Advances in Acoustic Probing

R.J. Cawthorn, A. Battison, J. Guigné, K. Klein, Q. Liu,A. MacKenzie, R. MacMillan, and D. Rainnie..............................................267

Using HACCP Principles and Physiological Studiesto Improve Marketing Practices for Live Crustaceans

S. Gomez-Jimenez, R.F. Uglow, R. Pacheco-Aguilar andL.O. Noriega-Orozco .......................................................................................271

Live Seafood Holding Systems: Review of Systemsand Components

John Chaiton ..................................................................................................283

Participants ...........................................................................................................291

Index ......................................................................................................................295

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The meeting “Marketing and Shipping Live Aquatic Products: Second InternationalConference and Exhibition” was held November 14-17, 1999 in Seattle, Washington.John Peters was conference manager. Session chairs include Donald Kramer,Roger Uglow, Allison Rice, Edward Kolbe, Paul Olin, Mike Stekoll, John Ewart,Brian Paust, John Richards, Christopher DeWees, Jodi Cassell, Skip Kemp,John Chaiton, Raymond RaLonde, Quentin Fong, Annette Olson, Scott Smith, andCharles Crapo. The meeting was sponsored by AFDF, Alaska Department of Commerceand Economic Development, Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, Alaska SeafoodMarketing Institute, Anchorage International Airport, California Sea Grant, CFAB,National Sea Grant Office, Nor’westerly Food Technology Services, Oregon Sea Grant,Seafood Business, University of Alaska Sea Grant and Marine Advisory Program,University of Delaware Sea Grant, and Woods Hole Sea Grant. Julie Carpenter of theAlaska Marine Advisory Program helped make travel and financial arrangements forthe meeting.

The proceedings book was published by University of Alaska Sea Grant. Sue Kellercopy-edited and arranged the production of the book, Kathy Kurtenbach formatted thetext pages, and Tatiana Piatanova designed the cover

Marketing and Shipping Live Aquatic Products 1University of Alaska Sea Grant • AK-SG-01-03, 2001

ABSTRACT

The blue crab fishery in La Laguna de Terminos,Campeche, Mexico includes Callinectes sapidus,C. rathbunae, and C. danae. These species aremorphologically similar but differ in their physio-logical requirements, salinity tolerance, and distri-bution. They are treated identically by the localfishermen, who sell them to suppliers of soft crabs inthe United States. Despite their physical similari-ties, the species differ in their distributions withinthe lagoon system and have very different physio-logical requirements.

Following capture, the crabs must tolerate a vari-ety of post-harvest stresses, including periods of airexposure, temperature and/or salinity changes, han-dling, and interactions with other crab. At the shed-ding factory, they are kept at ambient temperature(range 27-35°C) and local salinity (5-10 ppt) untilthey molt, or, in the case of C. danae, probably die.

Ammonia efflux rates were used as an indicator ofthe severity and types of stress. At 30 minutes afterhandling, effluxes were 2.04±0.12, 0.18±0.13, and2.14±0.46 µmol NH4 per gram per hour respectivelyfor C. sapidus, C. rathbunae, and C. danae. After 4hours, these rates had dropped to 0.18±0.02,0.21±0.03, and 0.56±0.18 µmol NH4 per gram perhour. Callinectes sapidus and C. rathbunae did notalter ammonia efflux rates significantly on transferto diluted seawater and were shown to be efficientosmoregulators, but C. danae showed large indi-vidual variability of response to dilution. Followinga 4 hour period in air, all three species showed el-evated ammonia excretion levels when reimmersed.After 60 minutes, the efflux rates had reverted to“normal” pre-emersion values. The findings are dis-

cussed in the context of possible procedural chang-es that would reduce losses, thus increasing pro-duction without the need for increased landings.

INTRODUCTION

This paper deals with the physiological responsesof blue crabs, Callinectes sp., to procedures used inthe soft crab fishery in the Laguna de Terminos,Mexico. A “soft-shell” crab is an animal that hasjust molted and is considered a delicacy in the res-taurant market of the United States. The holdingand transporting of live shellfish is now a commonevent in the specialized trade of crabs, lobsters, andprawns. Many current practices have arisen purelyby trial and error and often without much real thoughtabout the physiological requirements of a particularspecies. The natural environments of shellfish varywidely in terms of physical and chemical detailssuch as water salinity and temperature. Hence, hold-ing and transporting systems used for one species maynot be appropriate for another. For example, theedible crab Cancer pagurus can be transported dryfor periods up to 2 days. The velvet crab, Necorapuber, on the other hand, inhabits a similar envi-ronment, but is much less tolerant of air exposure.

The expansion of fisheries worldwide has meantthat old resource bases are becoming less reliableand more priority is being given to developing un-derutilized areas. The coastline of the gulf states ofMexico is one such and with the American marketclose by, new attempts are being made to improvecommunications and international trading.

The fishing industry in Mexico is still developingrapidly. Considering the abundance of commercial

Physiological Responses of Blue Crabs (Callinectes sp.) toProcedures Used in the Soft Crab Fishery inLa Laguna de Terminos, Mexico

Angela R. Danford and Roger F. Uglow

University of Hull, Hull, U.K.

Carlos RosasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campeche, Mexico

2 Danford et al.: Physiological Responses of Blue Crabs

species there, it seems that there is much scope forfurther development and growth. Shellfish havebeen caught primarily for local consumption, andincreasing amounts are being exported to the UnitedStates. This export trade has proved to be a lucrativedevelopment. The blue crab fishery of Callinectessapidus in the United States is based on the gulfcoast and Chesapeake Bay area and provides anannual catch of between 45,000 and 89,000 metrictons (Cameron 1984). It is thought that the harvestfrom the recreational fishery is almost as large.Hence, there are concerns over the sustainabilityof this resource due to increasing fishing effort,market demand, and the continued degradation ofcoastal habitats essential for the life cycle of thisspecies. The Mexican annual catch, however, is only6,000-9,000 metric tons (Secretaría de Pesca 1994).The Mexican fishery, however, has the advantageof being a year-round fishery.

International trade in blue crab could be particularlylucrative in Mexico if a good marketing system isdeveloped for them (Nowak 1970). In Ciudad DelCarmen, Campeche, Mexico, blue crabs are fishedby local artisanal harvesters and delivered to oneof two plants that specialize in providing soft bluecrab for the American restaurant market.

A description of the soft blue crab trade is presentedhere, as well as some preliminary physiologicalexperiments designed to use ammonia effluxes asan indicator and identify practices that cause stress.The future success of this live and soft-shell crabindustry is dependent on adequate training inholding, handling, packing, and transporting tech-niques. The viability of this fishery also depends onobtaining more information on the factors that causestress and, hence, quality loss in the product.

BLUE CRABS

Blue crabs are swimming crabs (family Portunidae,order Decapoda), a worldwide group containingmany species of commercial importance. “Blue crab”is actually a generic name that includes many similarspecies within the genus Callinectes. What manyconsider to be Callinectes sapidus actually comprisesseveral species that look very much alike. In theGulf of Mexico, at least five species are caught com-mercially, of which three are included in thisstudy—Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun 1896), C. rath-bunae (Rathbun 1896), and C. danae (Smith 1869).These species are quite similar in appearance andare identified by differences in the prominent pro-

tuberances and teeth between the eyes (Fig. 1).However, they are very different in their physiologicalrequirements and the niches that they occupy.

These three species are caught indiscriminately byfishermen along the length of a large mangrove andlagoon system in the state of Campeche. The salin-ity decreases along the lagoons and estuaries from35 parts per thousand (ppt) to levels as low as 3ppt. Callinectes sapidus is an intermediate speciesthat can tolerate varying salinities and is foundmost abundantly in salinity of 15 ppt. Callinectesrathbunae is the most tolerant to varying salinityand is caught in full seawater to as low as 5 ppt,whereas C. danae is a more oceanic species and hasbeen found in salinities from 30 to 67 ppt.

THE FISHERY IN THE LAGUNA

DE TERMINOS

Crabs are harvested by local fishermen from areaswith salinities of approximately 35 ppt in the ocean

Figure 1. Species identification based on rostral teeth ar-rangement.

Marketing and Shipping Live Aquatic Products 3

along mangroves to areas where the salinity can bealmost zero. Once caught, the crabs are placed inlarge plastic containers and covered with mangroveleaves to keep humidity high. They are transportedin air to the shedding plant, usually within 3-4hours after capture. The shedding operations arenon-technical and are characterized by low levelsof investment and high profitability (Fig. 2).

At the plant, the crabs are sorted by molt stage andtransferred to large holding tanks with a salinityof 5 to 8 ppt. Once fully molted, the crabs are dressedin the plant (removal of eyestalks, mouth-parts, andabdomen), packaged, frozen, and shipped to theUnited States. Crabs that do not molt are processedor made into fertilizer and animal feed, which isnot as profitable as producing soft crab.

PHYSIOLOGY

Millions of years of evolution have created diversespecies that are best adapted to the environmentin which they live. A wild-harvested animal, suchas a blue crab, is placed in an alien environmentfrom the moment it is captured. Unless the holdingand transport conditions provided are within thephysiological tolerances of the animals, their dete-rioration and death are inevitable. The deteriora-tion exhibited by various captive animals may berapid or slow because certain types of stress affecteach species differently. Nevertheless, the effectsof abuse tend to be cumulative, and measurementsof physiological changes in these captive animalscan give useful information as to what is stressful.This can give an insight into the types and magni-tude of stress encountered from capture to delivery—factors that can potentially delay molting. If thedeveloping fishery is to be successful, ways mustbe found to mitigate these stress factors.

Stressed and unstressed shellfish normally lookexactly the same but stressed animals are more likelyto succumb to the rigors of marketing proceduresthan unstressed ones. Consequently, it appears rea-sonable to make practical use of physiological indi-cators of the animals’ well being. In this study,ammonia excretion rates were measured, as theyprovide a reliable and sensitive indicator of gener-al metabolism. Although other measurements ofmetabolism, e.g., oxygen consumption, are recog-nized as good indicators of physiological status andare practical means of measuring stress, otherequally sensitive indicators are now available.

Ammonia excretion is one such indicator. Prelimi-nary studies in our laboratory have shown thatstresses such as handling caused greater changesto ammonia excretion than to oxygen consumptionin several freshwater fish species (Bracewell 1999).Ammonia was measured using flow-injection anal-ysis as developed by Hunter and Uglow (1993a).

Ammonia is the principal waste of nitrogen metab-olism in aquatic organisms. It is produced continu-ously by the animal and excreted continuouslyacross the gills. Ammonia exists in two forms with-in biological systems, the gas NH3 and the ion NH4

+.Ammonia gas is the most toxic of the two and theproportion of NH3 to NH4

+ is dependent on pH. Atphysiological pH (approx. 7.8) most of the ammoniaexists as the least toxic NH4

+. In these experimentstotal ammonia was measured, which is the combi-nation of NH3 and NH4

+.

Simple investigations into the changing ammoniaefflux rates of blue crabs were made in an effort toidentify some of the stressful situations to whichthese animals are exposed with the final aim ofimproving some of the practices used.

Figure 2. Inside of the shedding plant.


Figure 3. Total ammonia efflux rates before and after handling. Eachline represents the mean of n = 8 with S.E. for each species. Vertical dashedline represents moment of handling.

WATER QUALITY WITH EMPHASIS ON

SALINITY DIFFERENCES

Callinectes danae is entirely marine whereas C.sapidus and C. rathbunae inhabit the lagoon systemin salinities which range from 5 to 35 ppt. At the shed-ding plant, all the crabs are placed in local water ofthe same salinity at between 5 and 8 ppt. This wa-ter is not monitored for quality, but is taken directlyfrom the nearby lagoon. The effect of salinity chang-es on these species was investigated because it wasapparent that some of these animals experienced a30 ppt salinity change—the difference between thesalinity at the capture location and that present atthe shedding plant. Clearly, animals brought fromregions of higher salinity are subjected to a suddensalinity change and hence, osmotic stress.

Each crab (n = 8) was placed individually into a plas-tic container holding 2 L of seawater with a salini-ty of 35 ppt and allowed to acclimate for 4 hoursbefore their ammonia effluxes were measured. Thecrabs were then transferred to water with a salini-ty of 5 ppt and the procedure repeated. The salini-ty-dependent ammonia effluxes are shown in Fig. 4.

Hemolymph samples were taken from other indi-viduals of each species that had been acclimatedwithin a range of salinities in order to determine ifthere was any salinity dependence of blood ammonialevels (Fig. 5).

Transfer to a dilute medium (local water) produceda small but not statistically significant increase to

IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS

From the point of capture to the pointwhere they molt and are selected forfinal processing, the crabs are exposedto a number of stresses. With blue crabs,as with many other species, the mainforms of stress involved in the har-vesting, holding, and transportingare:

• Animal Interaction

• Handling

• Water quality

• Dehydration

• Temperature changes

• Air exposure

ANIMAL INTERACTIONS

AND HANDLING

Blue crabs are extremely aggressive and are espe-cially active at tropical temperatures (30-40°C).High levels of mutual damage can occur even be-fore crabs are landed due to fighting in the traps.Missing limbs and other forms of injury arecommon.This problem is not only an aesthet-ic point; interactions of this sort also produce stressin the animal. Regular checking of the traps shouldreduce the number of weakened animals.

Blue crabs are handled when removed from traps,on arrival at the plant, and a number of times atthe shedding plant during transfer between tanks,weighing, and repeated examination for molt stage.Investigations were made into the changes tometabolism induced by handling on the threespecies of blue crabs. Figure 3 shows the change inammonia efflux and hence the metabolic effect of asimple transfer of crabs from one container to anoth-er, an operation that lasted 1 to 2 seconds.

The ammonia excretion rate doubled in C. rathbun-ae and increased approximately 4-fold in C. sapidusand C. danae. It took a further 2-4 hours for the ammo-nia excretion rates to return to the pre-handling lev-els. Therefore, continued handling and interactionswith other crabs result in a sustained higher rate ofmetabolism and the expenditure of valuable energyreserves. Handling-induced changes to circulating in-ternal ammonia levels were also found to occur in theshrimp Crangon crangon (Hunter and Uglow 1993b).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (h)

To

tal

am

mo

nia

eff

lux (

µmo

l N

H4

pe

r g

pe

r h

) C. sapidus

C. rathbunae

C. danae


the ammonia efflux rates of C. sapidus and C. rath-bunae, but induced significant (P < 0.05) increasesin C. danae efflux rates. Callinectes danae in asalinity of 5 ppt excreted a mean of 1.4 µmol NH4per gram per hour. This is the equivalent of 5.04mmol NH4 per day, a high rate for an animal withno food intake. Hemolymph ammonia concentra-tions varied widely with salinity, with the lowesthemolymph ammonia mean values at a salinity of20 ppt. This suggests that 20 ppt may be near opti-mum for water used in holding systems and, in viewof ammonia excretion, the least stressful salinityfor C. sapidus and C. rathbunae. A lower level ofammonia in the blood is consistent with a low levelof stress. Callinectes danae, however, did not sur-vive long enough to acclimate in salinities below20 ppt.

The inverse relationship between salinity andammonia excretion, as illustrated by C. danae, canbe related to an increased deamination of the ami-no acids used for cell volume regulation in dilute me-dia (Gerard and Gilles 1972). This is energeticallyexpensive, as is the active replacement of sodiumions with ammonium ions (Mangum et al. 1976,Pressley et al. 1981).

Salinity tolerant species, such as C. sapidus and C.rathbunae, have been shown by others to have onlyminor changes to blood ammonia and amino acidlevels when in dilute media (Ballard and Abbott1969, Engel et al. 1974, Findley and Stickle 1978).The only minor increases in ammonia excretion byC. sapidus and C. rathbunae demonstrate their sa-

linity tolerance. Callinectes danae, however, appearsto be very intolerant of transfer to diluted seawater,and attempts to do so in a commercial operation arecounterproductive. Not only will this species perishat low to medium salinities, but their decompositionproducts are likely to foul the water and jeopardizethe lives of the other species in the tanks. In thisinstance, it would be more sensible to cease tradingin C. danae at the tested establishment or to investin a better quality holding and water supply systemthat is capable of delivering full salinity water.

AIR EXPOSURE (EMERSION)AND DEHYDRATION

Dehydration is a problem for theseanimals when transported dry. Moistgills are necessary for the continua-tion of respiratory gas exchange andremoval of waste products. The ef-fects of air exposure on crustaceangas exchange and blood chemis-try have been studied extensively(Johnson and Uglow 1985, Burnettand McMahon 1987, DeFur 1988,DeFur et al. 1988, Burnett 1988among others). However, studies areinfrequently applied in the contextof the transport of live animals.

Figure 5. Salinity dependent hemolymph ammonia levelsin Callinectes species. Values are the mean of n = 8 with S.E.C. danae died in salinities below 20 ppt.

Figure 4. Total ammonia efflux rates of Callinectes species at salinities of35 and 5 ppt. Values are the mean of n = 8 with S.E.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

C. sapidus C. rathbunae C. danae

To

tal

am

mo

nia

eff

lux (

µmo

l N

H4

pe

r g

pe

r h

)

35 ppt

5 ppt

Salinity

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20 30 40

Ambient salinity

He

mo

lym

ph

to

tal

am

mo

nia

(µm

ol N

H4

pe

r L

)

C. sapidus

C. rathbunae

C. danae


Out of water, an aquatic animal faces a number ofphysiological problems related to the functioningof their gills. Air exposure is a considerable stressbecause the gills are not able to function in air asefficiently as they do in water. O’Mahoney and Full(1984) found that C. sapidus could not maintain nor-mal oxygen uptake levels during emersion, but isknown to survive emersion for 1-3 days at low tem-peratures (DeFur et al. 1988).

Our observations at the shedding plant showed thatC. sapidus could survive 2 days of emersion whenheld in high humidity at >30°C.

In full sunlight, mangrove leaves in the crate areunlikely to keep the relative humidity high enoughto prevent dehydration. Freshly caught blue crabsmay have to endure emersion for 3-4 h or more at>30°C before reaching the shedding plant.

This observation prompted a small experimentto determine the effect of 4 hour air exposure periodson the animal’s metabolism. After a 4 hour airexposure at 85-90% relative humidity, eight of eachspecies were returned to seawater (35 ppt) and theirammonia effluxes monitored. It is important to re-member that the gills cannot function as efficientlywhen in air but ammonia is still produced con-tinuously. A similar pattern of ammonia efflux wasfound in all three species (Fig. 6) even though C.danae was relatively intolerant of air exposure(mortalities were observed after only 4 hours in air).In all cases, a large efflux of ammoniaoccurred during the first 10 minutes afterreimmersion which suggests ammoniahad accumulated during emersion. Therelationship between the amount ofammonia expected to be excreted uponreimmersion following 4 hours in air andthe amount actually measured, gives theimpression that either ammonia pro-duction continued at a reduced rate, orthat nitrogenous wastes are excreted insome other form or by some other means.The important point is that the majorityof the efflux of ammonia occurs withinthe first 10 minutes, and that “normal”pre-emersion rates were restored after30-60 minutes.

The potential implications of this findingin the context of holding and transport-ing product is obvious. Animals thatexperience emersion will release largeamounts of ammonia upon reimmerison.

Therefore, tanks and holding systems need to begeared to cope with such a sudden increase inammonia concentration. The release of ammoniaon reimmersion is only transient, lasting approx-imately ten minutes. However, the accumulation ofammonia will be more permanent in static andrecirculating systems. This influx of ammonia maybe accommodated in a flow-through system, but inthe case of static holding systems or recirculatingholding systems with biofilters, this burst ofammonia is going to present a problem.

The consequences of an overloaded system can bedire. Ambient ammonia levels in the sea and fresh-water environments are usually very low (a fewµmol NH4 per L) and the ammonia excreted by ani-mals under such circumstances rarely creates aproblem for them. The accumulation of ambient am-monia ions, however, is often a problem when ani-mals are held at high densities in holding systems.Ammonia is toxic and long-term exposure to highlevels can compromise the quality of the stock.

Ammonia is highly diffusible and, when abruptlyexposed to a medium with dissolved ammonia lev-els greater than those in the blood, an influx-induced elevation of blood ammonia levels may oc-cur (Hosie et al. 1991, Schmitt and Uglow 1997).High ambient ammonia water levels have beenfound to retard growth and, in extreme cases, causedeath (Wickins 1976, Armstrong et al. 1978, Chenet al. 1990).

-1

1

3

5

7

9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time following reimmersion (min)

Tota

l am

monia

efflu

x (µ

mol N

H4 per

g p

er

h)

C. sapidus

C. rathbunae

C. danae

4

h a

ir e

xpo

sure

Figure 6. The effect of 4 hour air exposure on total ammonia effluxfollowing reimmersion in Callinectes species. Values are the mean of n = 8with S.E.


CONCLUSION

The measurement of ammonia proved to be a goodindicator of changing metabolism in blue crabs.Callinectes danae was the least tolerant to salinitychanges and air exposure, whereas C. sapidus and

C. rathbunae could survive prolonged periods of airexposure in humid conditions and large salinity fluc-tuations.

At the shedding plants, the crabs are kept in largetanks filled with local water until they molt. Whileheld, they suffer a variety of physiological stresseswhich probably delay ecdysis and raise the mortal-ity rate. Providing the optimum water conditionswould increase the income of the companies by pro-moting a quality product and would also reduceproduct wastage via mortalities and over-exploita-tion of local resources. The majority of physiologi-cal studies focus on and isolate particular stressingfactors using previously unstressed and uninjuredanimals. It is important to consider the combinedeffect of several different stresses to the welfare ofthe animals.

There are other ways of measuring metabolism toprovide stress indices. Metabolic products such aslactate, urate, glucose, and hormones are producedby crustaceans under different forms of stress, andthese can also provide useful information. Investi-gations into such stress indices are being conductedat Hull University together with investigations intothe potential detoxification mechanisms that com-mercial crustacean species use to combat high in-ternal and external ammonia concentrations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank the researchers at the Univer-sidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) labo-ratory in Ciudad Del Carmen for their help duringour visit and to Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tec-nología (CONACYT) for financial aid.

REFERENCESArmstrong, D.A., D. Chippendale, A.W. Knight,and J.E.

Colt. 1978. Interaction of ionized ammonia and un-ionized ammonia on short-term survival and growthof prawn larvae, Machrobrachium rosenbergii. Biol.Bull. 154:15-31.

Ballard, B.S., and W. Abbott. 1969. Osmotic accommoda-tion in Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. Comp. Biochem.Physiol. 29:671-687.

Bracewell, P. 1999. The effects of electric fishing on somefreshwater cyprinid fish species. Ph.D. thesis, Uni-versity of Hull, U.K. 241 pp.

Burnett, L.E. 1988. Physiological responses to air expo-sure: Acid-base balance and the role of branchialwater stores. Amer. Zool. 28:125-135.

Burnett, L.E., and B.R. McMahon. 1987. Gas exchange,hemolymph acid-base status and the role of branchi-al water stores. Amer. Zool. 28:125-135.

Cameron, M.L. 1984. The paddle crab industry in NewZealand: Development of the U.S. West Coast market.Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington.38 pp.

Chen, J.C., P.C. Liu, and S.C. Lei. 1990. Toxicities of am-monia and nitrite to Penaeus monodon adolescents.Aquaculture 89:127-137.

DeFur, P.L. 1988. Systemic respiratory adaptations toair exposure in intertidal decapod crustaceans. Amer.Zool. 28:115-124.

DeFur, P.L., A. Pease, A. Siebelink, and S. Elfers. 1988.Respiratory responses of blue crabs, Callinectes sapi-dus, to emersion. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 89A:97-101.

Engel, D.W., E.M. Davis, D.E. Smith, and J.E. Angelovic. 1974.The effect of salinity and temperature on the ion lev-els in the haemolymph of the blue crab, Callinectessapidus, Rathbun. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 49A:259-266.

Findley, A.M., and W.B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of salinityfluctuation on the haemolymph composition of theblue crab Callinectes sapidus. Mar. Biol. 46:9-15.

Gerard, J.F., and R. Gilles. 1972. The free amino-acidpool in Callinectes sapidus tissues and its role in theosmotic intracellular regulation. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.Ecol. 10:125-136.

Johnson, I., and R.F Uglow. 1985. Some effects of aerialexposure on the respiratory physiology and bloodchemistry of Carcinus maenas (L.) and Liocarcinuspuber (L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 94:151-165.

Hosie, D.A., R.F. Uglow, L. Hagerman, T. Sondegaard,and K. Weile. 1991. Some effects of hypoxia andmedium ammonia enrichment on efflux rates andcirculating levels of ammonia in Nephrops norvegi-cus. Mar. Biol. 110:273-279.


Hunter, D.A., and R.F. Uglow. 1993a. A technique for themeasurement of total ammonia in small volumes ofseawater and haemolymph. Ophelia 37:31-40.

Hunter, D.A., and R.F. Uglow. 1993b. Handling-inducedchanges to haemolymph ammonia concentration andammonia excretion rate of Crangon crangon (L.).Ophelia 38:137-147.

Mangum, C.P., S.U. Silverthorn, J.L. Harris, D.W. Towle,and A.R. Krall. 1976. The relationship between bloodpH, ammonia excretion and adaptation to low salin-ity in the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. J. Exp. Zool.195:129-136.

Nowak, W.S.W. 1970. The marketing of shellfish. Fish-ing News (Books) Ltd. London. 263 pp.

O’Mahoney, P.M., and R.F. Full. 1984. Respiration of crabsin air and water. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 79A:275-282.

Pressley, T.A., J.S. Graves, and A.R. Krall. 1981.Amiloride-sensitive ammonium and sodium transportin the blue crab. Am. J. Phys. 241:370-378.

Schmitt, A.S.C., and R.F. Uglow. 1997. Some effects ofambient ammonia levels on blood ammonia, ammo-nia excretion and heart and scaphognathite rates ofNephrops norvegicus (L.). Mar. Biol. 127(3):411-418.

Secretaría de Pesca. 1994. Atlas pesquero de México. In-stituto National de la pesca. 234 pp.

Wickens, J.K. 1976. The tolerance of warm-water prawnsto recirculated water. Aquaculture 9:19-37.


ABSTRACT

The American lobster, Homarus americanus, is a veryimportant commercial species and is distributedalive to markets worldwide. The possible deleteriouseffects of long-haul consignments were investigatedin terms of hemolymph constituent changes andmetabolic ammonia effluxes. The study involvedgroups (n = 10) of freshly caught and 127 day storedlobsters. Lobsters were consigned with normal roadand air carriers from Halifax, Canada, to Hull, U.K.,and were held out of water for 48-50 hours. Journeytemperature varied between 1.5 and 2.0°C. On ar-rival at Hull, the animals were examined, weighed,and bled to provide laboratory samples before be-ing reimmersed, each in 6 L of 12°C seawater.

All lobsters survived the period of aerial exposure.However, three of the stored lobsters died within4 hours of reimmersion. Hemolymph acidosis(–0.5 pH units) developed during the consignment,and hemolymph levels of metabolic end products(ammonia, lactate, and urate) increased. Blood pro-tein levels showed a progressive decrease duringconsignment and recovery and had the lowest con-centration in those lobsters that died. Handling andtemperature produced a rise in blood glucose levels.

The initial ammonia efflux rates after the first 5 min-utes of reimmersion were 5.81, and 3.82 µmol NH4per kg per h. These levels dropped to 0.49, and 0.29µmol NH4 per kg per h after 4 hours for the “fresh”and stored groups, respectively. After 18 days of stor-age at 12°C without feeding, the ammonia efflux rateshad stabilized at 0.07 and 0.08 µmol NH4 per kg perh for the same groups, indicating that low levels ofnitrogen meta-bolism had resumed. The results arediscussed in terms of the ability of H. americanusto cope with current holding and distribution meth-ods and what the energy demands of such proce-dures are likely to be.

INTRODUCTIONThe American lobster, Homarus americanus (H.Milne Edwards 1837) is a fully aquatic species thatprobably never experiences aerial exposure (alsotermed emersion) naturally. However, it is wellknown in the fishing industry that this species cansurvive 2-3 days out of water if kept cool and hu-mid. This attribute helps account for the appear-ance of the species as a fresh product on the menusof eating establishments worldwide. Consequently,we studied the effect of long-haul internationaltransport on hemolymph constituents and nitrogenmetabolism in the lobster.

Once caught, a lobster is likely to be subjected toa number of stressors, including emersion, hypoxia,desiccation, and rapid temperature changes. All ofthese stressors will adversely affect the intrinsicquality of the lobsters. Such events occur more orless daily for shore or intertidal animals, which arenaturally covered and uncovered by the tides. Com-pared to subtidal species, these intertidal speciesare comparatively resistant to temperature fluctu-ations (Newell 1970) and desiccation (Newell 1976).The subtidal lobster should be particularly vulner-able to these types of stressors during their livemarketing and distribution.

The emersed lobster faces the problem of impairedgill function, which results in a reduced oxygenuptake and an impaired ability to release metabol-ic wastes such as carbon dioxide and ammonia. Thegills are important to the proper functioning of theseanimals and tend to work best in water. There is acertain amount of gill collapse, almost like leavesof a wet book coming together, when the lobstersare taken out of the water.

Many decapod crustacean species switch to anaer-obic metabolism when oxygen becomes limiting

Effect of Long-Haul International Transport on LobsterHemolymph Constituents and Nitrogen Metabolism

Angela R. Danford and Roger F. UglowUniversity of Hull, Hull, U.K.

John GarlandClearwater Fine Foods Inc., Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada

10 Danford et al.: Hemolymph and Nitrogen Metabolism in Lobsters

(DeFur 1988). Lowered oxygen consumption dur-ing emersion has been found in the blue crab, Calli-nectes sapidus (Batterton and Cameron 1978,O’Mahoney and Full 1984, DeFur et al. 1988). Spe-cies differ in their tolerance to emersion. For ex-ample, the shore crab, Carcinus maenas, cansurvive 24 hours of emersion without recourse toanaerobic metabolism whereas the more subtidalNecora puber rapidly switches to anaerobiosis onemersion (Johnson and Uglow 1985).

The successful shipment of lobsters can be betterassured by knowledge of the facts pertaining to theirsurvival out of water (McLeese 1965). The fact mustbe pointed out that most long haul studies focus onanimals that are transported by air transport—aninherently costly enterprise. It costs just as muchmoney to transport water as it does product. Con-sequently, the industry is interested in the toler-ance of commercial species held in air. Recentstudies on the effects of commercial distributionprocedures on crustaceans such as the lobster in-clude several on respiratory gas transport and acid-base balance (Vermeer 1987; DeFur et al. 1988;Taylor and Whiteley 1989; Spicer et al. 1990; White-ley and Taylor 1992; Morris and Oliver 1999a,b).The somewhat smaller number of studies on theeffects of aerial exposure on nitrogen metabolismof commercial species includes those on the spinylobster, Panulirus interruptus (Gomez-Jimenez1998), on the brown crab, Cancer pagurus (Regnault1992, 1994), and on scampi, Nephrops norvegicus(Schmitt and Uglow 1997).

Ammonia is the principal nitrogenous metabolicwaste of aquatic animals and is excreted continu-ously across the gill membrane to the surroundingwater at roughly the same rate as it is produced bythe metabolizing tissues. When the animal is outof water less ammonia is produced, but gill func-tion is impaired and raised levels in the hemolymphcan attain harmful, even fatal, levels if emersion isprolonged.

The determination of sets of conditions under whichliving crustaceans can be held, immersed or em-ersed, with minimal accumulation of toxic wastes,such as ammonia, within their bodies is an objec-tive that deserves to be carefully studied. Ap-plication of such knowledge would enhance theexpectation of delivering quality, live product. It isusual for lobsters to be held, often for periods ex-tending into months, between the time when theywere captured until eventual final sale. In the in-terests of quality maintenance, it is usual to main-

tain the animals under a regime that keeps themetabolic rate low, so that the animals’ nutritionalreserves are conserved and waste products are min-imized. The point of final sale is frequently far re-moved from the place of storage and, in order toreduce transportation costs, stored animals needto be consigned dry for journey times that may ex-tend to 48 hours and still arrive as quality products.

This study aimed to compare stored lobsters withfreshly caught ones in terms of their quality andtheir tolerance to long-haul distribution methodscomparing hemolymph chemistry and nitrogenmetabolism. An increased understanding of thephysiological changes imposed on lobsters duringstorage and distribution protocols may lead to im-provements in commercial handling methods,giving better survival, less wastage, and a more ef-ficient utilization of a valuable sustainable resource.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups of mixed gender lobsters (H. america-nus, 430-580 g, 10-12 cm carapace length) were sentby commercial road and air carriers from Halifax(Nova Scotia, Canada) to Hull (United Kingdom).These groups comprised freshly caught lobsters (de-livered within 17 days of harvesting) and animalswhich had been held in a commercial storage sys-tem for 127 days at the ponds of Clearwater Lob-sters, Nova Scotia. The lobsters went through thenormal preparatory commercial procedures beforebeing packed into the conventional Clearwater poly-styrene boxes less than 2 hours before pickup bythe courier. They were sent as if the laboratory atHull University was a regular customer located inYorkshire (U.K.).

The lobsters used were of the highest grade, withnone in advanced stages of molt or with apparentinjuries, missing limbs, or shell disease. All hadbeen checked for the presence of ciliates and gaff-kemia (Aerococcus viridans). Before dispatch, theweights and lengths of a representative group weremeasured and a 0.5 ml hemolymph sample was col-lected from each animal via a hypodermic needleinserted through the arthrodial membrane at thebase of a walking leg.

Lobsters (n = 10 from each group) were tagged andfurther checked for damage before being packed inpolystyrene boxes (41.0 × 62.0 × 32.5cm) providedwith an outer cardboard wrap (Fig. 1). Three gelpacks (Hardshell Fresh) were placed on top of thelobsters in each box and the animals were provided


with seawater-soaked newsprint. The lid of eachbox had two holes (diam. 0.5 cm) to allow for a mod-erate exchange of air. A HOBO Temperature Log-ger (Onset Computer Corporation) with internaland external temperature sensors was placedamong the lobsters (Fig. 2). The external sensor wasfastened securely to the outside of the polystyrenebox. The logger was programmed to measure tem-perature every minute for a period of 3 days.

Groups were emersed at 07:40 (Nova Scotia time =GMT – 4h). On arrival at Hull, each box was care-fully opened and a relative humidity (RH) meter in-troduced. Each lobster was then carefully removed,measured (carapace length to the nearest mm),weighed (nearest g), and inspected for damage. A he-molymph sample (0.5 ml) was taken from each ani-mal and measured immediately for its pH (JP pHmeter and microelectrode). All blood samples werethen divided into 2 aliquots, one of which was depro-teinated with 6% perchloric acid (1:1, v:v) prior tobeing assayed for lactate (Sigma kit No. 735) and glu-cose (Sigma kit No. 510). The other aliquot was di-luted (1:1, v:v) with ice-cold distilled water andcentrifuged (2 minutes at 10,000 rpm) to reduce clot-ting of the sample.

All hemolymph samples were frozen until assayedand any clotted samples were gently homogenized(1-2 minutes) to liquefy. The diluted hemolymphsamples were quantified for total protein (Sigmakit No. 541) and for total ammonia (NH4 = NH3 +NH4

+) by flow injection analysis (Hunter and Ug-low 1993). The time taken for handling and sam-

pling each animal was kept to a minimum in orderto reduce any hyperglycemia occurring at this time(Florkin and Duchâteau 1939; Telford 1968, 1974).

Hemolymph urate determinations were made spec-trophotometrically at 520 nm. At this wavelength,the blood pigment haemocyanin is known to causeinterference (Lallier and Truchot 1989a,b) and, con-sequently, test absorption measurements were cor-rected. For this purpose, a blank measurement wasmade on a sample containing the same volume ofhemolymph as the test sample diluted in a phos-phate buffer (pH 7.2).

Immediately after hemolymph sampling, each lob-ster was placed in its own plastic vessel containing6 L of seawater (12°C and salinity 30 parts per thou-sand, ppt). Water samples (1.5 ml) were takenat 0, 5, 10 and 30 minutes and at 1, 2, 3, and 4hours after reimmersion. After 4 hours, anotherhemolymph sample was taken from each animaland treated as described.

Following the completion of this sampling procedure,the lobsters were transferred to a recirculatingaquarium (12±1°C, salinity 30 ppt). After 18 days, thelobsters were again tested in terms of their am-monia efflux rates and hemolymph constituent lev-els. All lobsters were starved throughout theexperiments (Sokal and Rohlf 1981).

Normality was tested using Lilliefor ’s test and ho-mogeneity using the Levenes’ test (Zar 1999). Datathat fulfilled this criterion were compared usinganalysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post hoc testTukeys-HSD (Zar 1999). Significant differenceswherever stated are at the 95% confidence level(P<0.05).

Figure 1. Conventional Clearwater polystyrene box withcardboard wrap for the packaging and transport of live lobsters.

Figure 2. Inside the box, showing tagged lobsters and tem-perature data logger.


RESULTSGeneral observationsDuring consignment, the lobsters were emersed for48 hours and 40 minutes. Three lobsters from thestored group died during the initial 4-hour reim-mersion period and a further specimen from thisgroup died 48 hours later. All other lobsters survivedthe treatments and continued to survive 6 monthslater. The RH on arrival at Hull varied between 85%and 90%. The internal/external temperature dataare shown in Fig. 3 and reveal that the internal tem-perature rose just 1°C during the journey while ex-ternal temperature varied between 1.6 and 14.1°C.

No significant differences between the mean weightsof the two groups were found when they were firstunpacked or when re-weighed 18 days later. How-ever, both groups showed an increase in weight dur-ing that 18 day period (+1.65% = fresh group and+2.58% = stored group).

Hemolymph changesBoth groups had a mean hemolymph pH of7.27±0.03 when first unpacked, which then rose to7.41±0.04 at the end of 4 hours of immersion at 12°C.The pH rose to 7.69±0.01 after 18 days of storage at12°C (Fig. 4a).

There were no significant differences betweenhemolymph glucose in pre-consignment and post-consignment animals in both groups (Figure 4b).However, both groups showed further signifi-cant increases in blood glucose during the 4 hourreimmersion period at 12°C (P<0.05 in each case).Some indication of a possible temperature-depen-dence of blood glucose values is also shown by thedata that reveal that the initial mean blood glucosevalues of both groups were within the range 1-6 mg100 ml but had increased to 8-15 mg per 100 ml af-ter 18 days storage at 12°C despite the lobsters beingdenied food over this period. Although the between-group differences sometimes escaped statistical sig-nificance, the fresh group consistently showed thehighest mean concentration of blood glucose.

Figure 4c shows that both groups had low initialmean values of blood lactate, but this had risen sig-nificantly on arrival and after 4 hours reimmersionat 12°C had risen significantly again (P<0.05 in eachcase). The period of 18 days storage at 12°C result-ed in a significant drop to a similar circulatinglactate level (P<0.05 in both groups) that was slight-ly higher than the original preconsignment value.

Blood protein levels were unaffected by the imposedtreatments other than some evidence of a slow, pro-gressive decrease over the course of the test period(Fig. 5a). The animals from the stored group thatdied shortly after reimmersion had a much lowermean blood protein level on arrival than the rest ofthe group (0.98±0.11 g per 100 ml and 5.21±0.30 gper 100 ml respectively).

Blood urate levels appeared to rise slightly duringthe consignment period (Fig. 5b), particularly in thecase of the stored animals in which the increase wassignificant (P<0.05). The elevated levels were sus-tained during the post-arrival reimmersion period,but after 18 days storage at 12°C, these levels hadreverted to values that were slightly higher thanthose initially measured.

The circulating ammonia levels measured in thefresh and stored groups are summarised in Figure5c and show that initial levels varied within therange 400-600 µmol NH4 per L. Consignment causedthe levels to increase in both groups but, again, thisattained significance for the stored group only(P<0.05). Blood ammonia levels rapidly reverted toinitial levels during the 4 hour emersion period and,after the 18 day storage period at 12°C, had fallento levels that were significantly lower than the ini-tial values (P<0.05 for each group).

Figure 3. Internal and external temperature of the consign-ment of Homarus americanus during transportation. The verti-cal line indicates arrival in the laboratory and removal frompackaging.


had dropped to 0.07 and 0.08 mmol NH4 per kg perh for the same groups. These rates are comparablewith other species kept under similar conditions(Table 1).

DISCUSSION

These data refer to lobsters subjected to emersionat temperatures (ca. 2°C) which evoke a low meta-bolic rate. Care and attention to the provision ofpackaging methods, including thermal insulation,ensures the constancy of this holding temperature

Ammonia efflux ratesFigure 6 illustrates the data obtained for the am-monia efflux rates following reimmersion after ar-rival. Measurements reveal that both groups hadvery high efflux rates over the first 5 minutes, withthe fresh group having a significantly higher rate(P<0.05) than the stored group. These initial ratestranslate to 5.81 and 3.82 mmol NH4 per kg per hand compare with 0.49 and 0.29 µmol NH4 per kgper h measured after 4 hours for the fresh andstored groups, respectively. Subsequently, after 18days of storage at 12°C, the ammonia efflux rates

Figure 4. Changes to pH (a), glucose (b), and lactate (c) inthe hemolmyph of fresh and stored groups of Homarus ameri-canus. Columns show values before transportation, upon arriv-al, after 4 hours reimmersion, and following 18 days in theaquarium. Values are the mean of n = 10 in each case with S.E.

a)

c)

Figure 5. Changes to protein (a), urate (b), and total ammonia(c) in the haemolmyph of fresh and stored groups of Homarusamericanus. Columns show values before transportation, upon ar-rival, after 4 hours reimmersion, and following 18 days in theaquarium. Values are the mean of n = 10 in each case with S.E.

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.47.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

Before

transport

Upon Arrival After 4 h re-

immersion

After 18 days

He

mo

lym

ph

pH

Fresh

Stored

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Beforetransport

Upon Arrival After 4 h re-immersion

After 18 days

He

mo

lym

ph

glu

co

se

(m

g p

er

10

0 m

l)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Beforetransport


After 18days

He

mo

lym

ph

la

cta

te

(mg

pe

r 1

00

ml)

0

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

Beforetransport


After 18 daysHe

mo

lym

ph

to

tal

pro

tein

(g

pe

r 1

00

ml)

Fresh

Stored

a)

b)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Before

transport

Upon Arrival After 4 h re-

immersion

After 18

daysH

em

oly

mp

h u

rate

(m

g p

er

10

0 m

l)

b)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Beforetransport


After 18 days

He

mo

lym

ph

to

tal

am

mo

nia

(µ

mol N

H4 p

er

L)

c)


during consignment. Care also needs to be takenthat the immediate surroundings of the animalsretain a high relative humidity. Clearly, such mea-sures are successful in the transport of lobsters.However, lobsters were found to gain weight whenreimmersed (ca. +1.5-2.5% fresh body weight) which,as they were not fed, probably indicates a recoveryfrom in transit water loss. This is noteworthy in viewof the functions that these small volumes of waterprobably serve during emersion, ensuring a moistor a very high relative humidity at the surface of

the gills, thus allowing some measure of flux (gasesand ions) to proceed while the animals were in tran-sit. It was not possible to determine what propor-tion of such losses represent tissue desiccation, butlosses of a similar, but slightly higher, magnitudehave been noted for other species (e.g. 3.6-4.7% bodyweight in Panulirus interruptus (Vermeer 1987) and5.0% and 5.2% body weight over 24 hours for Carci-nus maenas and Necora puber, respectively (Johnsonand Uglow 1985).

A hemolymph acidosis and the accumulation ofmetabolic end products (ammonia, lactate, andurate) in the hemolymph occurred during transit.These changes serve to emphasize the impairedfunction of the gills at this time and the importanceof water retained in the gill chambers. Burnett andMcMahon (1987) have suggested that this water alsoacts as a store for CO2 and base and helps bufferagainst an emersion-induced acidosis event. Thedecrease of 0.5 pH units in the hemolymph afternearly 50 hours of emersion accords with similarfindings elsewhere (e.g. a decrease in 0.23 pH unitsin the hemolymph of 9 hour–emersed Carcinus mae-nas, (Truchot 1975). Such decreases have been at-tributed to an impaired excretion of CO2 and thebuildup of lactate. Taylor and Wheatly (1981) at-tributed the decrease of 0.44 pH units in the bloodof 3 hour–emersed crayfish, Austropotamobius pal-lipes, to a 10-fold increase in lactate and CO2, over-whelming the buffering capacity of the hemolymph.Blood lactate, CO2, lowered pH, and urate are eachnow recognized as modulators which alter (usuallyincrease) the oxygen affinity of the respiratory pig-

Table 1. Total ammonia efflux rates of some commercial crustaceans at different temperatures.

Total ammonia efflux rate

Species Temperature (°C) (µmol NH4 per kg per h) Source

Nephrops norvegicus 12 0.25 Schmitt (1995)Nephrops norvegicus 6 0.15 Hosie et al. (1991)Nephrops norvegicus 12 0.15 Hosie et al. (1991)Cancer pagurus 12 0.02 Hosie (1993)Callinectes sapidus – 0.15 Cameron (1986)Carcinus maenas – 0.26-0.54 Haberfield et al. (1975)Necora puber 12 0.03 Hosie (1993)Panulirus interruptus 20 0.33 Goméz-Jiménez (1998)Homarus americanus 3 0.05 Present studyHomarus americanus 12 0.08 Present study

Figure 6. Total ammonia efflux rate of stored and freshHomarus americanus following reimmersion after consignment,and after 18 days at 12°C. Values are the mean of n = 10 in eachcase with S.E.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

Time following reimmersion (min)

To

tal

am

mo

nia

eff

lux (

mm

ol

NH

4 p

er

kg

pe

r h

) Fresh

Stored


ment, hemocyanin, in many crustaceans (Truchot1980; Booth et al. 1982; Graham et al. 1983; Man-gum 1983a,b; Taylor et al. 1985; Morris et al. 1985,1986).

Most of the studies made to date have been in thecontext of the survival of crustacean species duringemersion or hypoxic periods in their natural envi-ronments. Little attention has been paid to the rel-evance of such work in the context of the livedistribution of animals, even though such datawould serve to help make sensible predictions aboutthe ability of quality shellfish to tolerate commer-cial distribution practices without experiencing ap-preciable loss of intrinsic quality.

The practices of emersion and handling are knownto evoke a hyperglycemic response in crustaceans(Kleinholtz et al. 1950, Johnson and Uglow 1985,Spicer et al. 1990, Schmitt and Uglow 1997) as aresult of endocrine-mediated mobilization of glucosefrom stored reserves. Such reserves, of course, areextremely important to an animal that has beenstored without food intake for several weeks, as wasthe case in this study. The implications of “kick-starting” the metabolism of an animal which hasbeen living on its reserves for many weeks has notbeen fully explored. Here the effects of 50 hours intransit was to raise the circulating glucose levelsfrom 0.16 to 0.61 µmol per L, whereas an equiva-lent increase occurred over the 4 hours of reimmer-sion at 12°C. Morris and Oliver (1999a) found thatthe rock lobster, Jasus edwardsii, increased its bloodglucose levels from 0.4 to 0.85 µmol per L during>30 hours emersion at <0.5°C.

The present findings suggest that the unpacking,handling, and reimmersion procedures constituted alarge and rapid stress to the animals and may ex-plain the 4 mortalities that occurred in the storedgroup and the absence of any deaths among the freshgroup. Certainly, post-delivery treatments, partic-ularly temperature rises, deserve further examina-tion in the context of intrinsic quality loss of storedproduct.

Dry-land pond storage treatments appear to haveno adverse effects on blood protein levels as freshand stored groups had similar mean values beforeconsignment. The animals that died had lower pro-tein levels than the remainder of the stored groupand this may have been a significant factor in theirdeaths. The frequency of cases involving rapid pro-tein loss during storage or in subsequent consign-ment and how such instances correlate with the

pre-selection criteria used in grading lobster is anarea that has still to be studied.

The rates of ammonia production decrease whenlobsters are emersed, particularly at low tempera-tures. The data in this study show, however, thatblood ammonia levels in both groups increasedwhile the lobsters were in transit. This indicatesthat the rates of ammonia excretion during emer-sion are reduced more than are the rates of produc-tion. The decrease in hemolymph pH presumablyfavors the production of the less toxic, ionic (NH4

+)form of ammonia and thus the induced acidosis atthis time may actually afford some measure of pro-tection from internal ammonia toxicity. It shouldbe recognized that, when animals are not fed, allnitrogen losses represent a withdrawal from storedreserves. Using the oxycalorific value of ammonia,given by Brafield and Solomon (1972), the stableammonia excretion rate of ammonia can be equat-ed as a net loss of 0.124 kcal per kg per day or 1.575kcal over the 127 days of storage.

Normally, any urate formed from metabolism willbe oxidized by uricase to allantoin. However, dur-ing emersion, urate is formed continuously, presum-ably from purine catabolism (Dykens 1991), and isaccumulated because of a decrease in uricase ac-tivity. Uricase requires oxygen as a cofactor and areduced oxygen level during emersion leads to a re-duction in its activity and thus the accumulation ofurate (Morris et al. 1986). The studies have shownthat urate increased significantly in the storedgroup but not in the fresh group of lobsters. Thisindicates a possible lessened functioning of uricasein the stored animals when under hypoxia. It is notknown whether the urate accumulation comprisesa means of detoxifying ammonia at such times.Clearly, the functional significance of these find-ings and possible commercial implications of theseaspects of waste management on commercial pro-cedures also require further study.

CONCLUSION

The present studies have shown that physiologicaland biological research can provide useful corrobo-rative indicators of the efficacy of commercial prac-tices for the live distribution of aquatic products.These studies also serve as indicators of proceduresthat require further study to determine their po-tential to be effective. The present findings empha-size the fact that, even with the better-studiedspecies (e.g., lobsters), our information is still veryincomplete and, for many other species with the po-


tential for being exploited, our knowledge is almosttotally lacking.

REFERENCES

Batterton, C.V., and J.N. Cameron. 1978. Characteris-tics of resting ventilation and response to hypoxia,hypercapnia, and emersion in the blue crab, Calli-nectes sapidus (Rathbun). J. Exp. Zool. 203:403-418.

Booth, C.E., B.R. McMahon, and A.W. Pinder. 1982. Ox-ygen uptake and the potentiating effects of increasedblood lactate on oxygen transport during exercise inthe blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. J. Comp. Physi-ol. B. 148:111-121.

Brafield, A.E., and D.J. Solomon. 1972. Oxy-calorific co-efficients for animals respiring nitrogenous sub-strates. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 43A:837-841.

Burnett, L.E., and B.R. McMahon. 1987. Gas exchange,hemolymph acid-base balance and the role of bran-chial water stores. Amer. Zool. 28:125-135.

Cameron, J.N. 1986. Responses to reversed NH3 and NH4+

gradients in a teleost (Ictalurus punctatus), an elas-mobranch (Raja erinacea), and a crustacean (Calli-nectes sapidus): Evidence for NH4

+/H+ exchange inthe teleost and the elasmobranch. J. Exp. Zool.239:183-195.

DeFur, P.L. 1988. Systemic respiratory adaptations toair exposure in intertidal decapod crustaceans. Amer.Zool. 28:115-124.

DeFur, P.L., A. Pease, A. Siebelink, and S. Elfers. 1988.Respiratory responses of blue crabs Callinectes sapi-dus to emersion. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 89A:97-101.

Dykens, J.A. 1991. Purineolytic capacity and origin ofhaemolymph urate in Carcinus maenas during hy-poxia. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 98B:579-582.

Florkin, M., and G. Duchâteau. 1939. La glycémiede l’écrevisse aprés l’injection d’adrénaline oud’insuline. C.R. Hebd. Soc. Biol. 132:484-486.

Gomez-Jimenez, S. 1998. Some physiological and immu-nological responses of the spiny lobster, Panulirusinterruptus (Randall, 1840), to practices used in itslive marketing in the Baja California fishery. Ph.D.thesis. University of Hull, U.K. 111 pp.

Graham, R.A., C.P. Mangum, and R.C. Terwilliger. 1983.The effect of organic acids on oxygen binding ofhaemocyanin from the crab Cancer magister. Comp.Biochem. Physiol. 74A:45-50.

Haberfield, E.C., L.W. Haas, and C.S. Hammen. 1975.Early ammonia release by a polychaete Nereis vi-rens and a crab Carcinus maenas in diluted seawa-ter. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 52A:501-503.

Hosie, D.A. 1993. Aspects of the physiology of decapodcrustaceans with particular reference to the livemarketing of Cancer pagurus (L.) and Necora puber(L.). Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, U.K. 135 pp.

Hosie, D.A., R.F. Uglow, L. Hagerman, T. Sondegaard,and K. Weile. 1991. Some effects of hypoxia andmedium ammonia enrichment on efflux rates andcirculating levels of ammonia in Nephrops norvegi-cus. Mar. Biol. 110:273-279.

Hunter, D.A., and R.F. Uglow. 1993. A technique for themeasurement of total ammonia in small volumes ofseawater and haemolymph. Ophelia 37(1):31-40.

Johnson, I., and R.F. Uglow. 1985. Some effects of aerialexposure on the respiratory physiology and bloodchemistry of Carcinus maenas (L.) and Liocarcinuspuber (L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 94:151-165.

Kleinholtz, L.H., V.J. Havel, and T. Reichardt. 1950. Stud-ies in the regulation of blood sugar concentrationsin crustaceans. II. Experimental hyperglycaemia andthe regulatory mechanisms. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole,Mass.) 99:454-468.

Lallier, F., and J.P. Truchot. 1989a. Modulation ofhaemocyanin oxygen-affinity by L-lactate and uratein the prawn Penaeus japonicus. J. Exp. Biol.147:133-136.

Lallier, F., and J.P. Truchot. 1989b. Hemolymph oxygentransport during environmental hypoxia in the shorecrab, Carcinus maenas. Respir. Physiol. 77:323-336.

Mangum, C.P. 1983a. Oxygen transport in the blood. In:D.E. Bliss (ed.), The biology of Crustacea, v. 5, L.H.Mantel (ed.), Internal anatomy and physiologicalregulation. Academic Press, New York, pp. 373-429.

Mangum, C.P. 1983b. On the distribution of lactate sen-sitivity among haemocyanins. Mar. Biol. Lett. 4:139-149.


McLeese, D.W. 1965. Survival of lobsters Homarus gam-marus out of water. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada.22(2):385-394.

Morris, S., and S. Oliver. 1999a. Circulatory, respiratoryand metabolic response to emersion and low tem-perature of Jasus edwardsii: Simulation studies ofcommercial shipping methods. Comp. Biochem.Physiol. 122A:299-308.

Morris, S., and S. Oliver. 1999b. Respiratory gas trans-port, haemocyanin function and acid-base balancein Jasus edwardsii during emersion and chilling:Simulation studies of commercial shipping methods.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 122:309-321.

Morris, S., C.R. Bridges, and M.K. Grieshaber. 1985. Anew role for uric acid: Modulator of haemocyanin oxy-gen affinity in crustaceans. J. Exp. Zool. 235:135-139.

Morris, S., C.R. Bridges, and M.K. Grieshaber. 1986. Thepotentiating effect of purine bases and some of theirderivatives on the oxygen affinity of haemocyaninfrom the crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. J.Comp. Physiol. 156:431-440.

Newell, R.C. 1970. Biology of intertidal animals. Elsevi-er, New York. 555 pp.

Newell, R.C. 1976. Adaptation to environment: The phys-iology of marine animals. Butterworths, London. 539pp.

O’Mahoney, P.M., and R.F. Full. 1984. Respiration of crabsin air and water. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 79A:275-282.

Regnault, M. 1992. Effect of aerial exposure on ammoniaexcretion and ammonia content of branchial water ofthe crab Cancer pagurus. J. Exp. Zool. 268:208-217.

Regnault, M. 1994. Effect of air exposure on ammoniaexcretion and ammonia content of branchial waterof the crab Cancer pagurus. J. Exp. Zool. 268:208-217.

Schmitt, A.S.C., and R.F. Uglow. 1995. Aspects of thephysiology of some species with particular referenceto their live marketing. Ph.D. thesis, University ofHull, U.K. 109 pp.

Schmitt, A.S.C., and R.F. Uglow. 1997. Haemolymph con-stituent levels and ammonia efflux rates of Neph-rops norvegicus during emersion. Mar. Biol.127:403-410.

Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nd edn. W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 859 pp.

Spicer, J.L., A.D. Hilll, A.C. Taylor, and R.H.C. Strang.1990. Effect of aerial exposure on concentrations ofselected metabolites in the blood of the Norwegianlobster Nephrops norvegicus (Crustacea: Nephropi-dae). Mar. Biol. 105:129-135.

Taylor, E.W., and M.G. Wheatly. 1981. The effect of long-term aerial exposure on heart rate, ventilation, res-piratory gas exchange and acid-base status in thecrayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. J. Exp. Biol.92:109-124.

Taylor, E.W., and N.M. Whiteley. 1989. Oxygen trans-port and acid-base balance in the haemolmyph ofthe lobster, Homarus gammarus, during aerial ex-posure and re-submersion. J. Exp. Biol. 144:417-436.

Taylor, E.W., S. Morris, and C.R. Bridges. 1985. Modula-tion of haemocyanin oxygen affinity in the prawnPalaemon elegans (Rathke) under environmentalsalinity stress. J. exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 94:167-180.

Telford, M. 1968. The effect of stress on blood sugar com-position of the lobster, Homarus gammarus. Can. J.Zool. 46:819-826.Telford, M. 1974. Blood glucose incrayfish: II. Variation induced by artificial stress.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 48A:555-560

Truchot, J.P. 1975. Blood acid-base changes during ex-perimental emersion and re-immersion of the inter-tidal crab Carcinus maenas (L.). Respir. Physiol.23:351-360.

Truchot, J.P. 1980. Lactate increases the oxygen affinityof crab hemocyanin. J. Exp. Zool. 214:205-208.

Vermeer, G.K. 1987. Effects of air exposure on desicca-tion rate, hemolmyph chemistry, and escape behav-iour of the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus. Fish. Bull.,U.S. 85(1):45-51.

Whiteley, N.M., and E.W. Taylor. 1992. Oxygen and acid-base disturbances in the haemolymph of the lobsterHomarus gammarus during commercial transportand storage. J. Crust. Biol. 12:19-30.

Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th edn. PrenticeHall International, New Jersey. 663 pp.


QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

QUESTION: Have you done any studies on photo-tropic responses in any crustacean species?

R. UGLOW: Phototropic responses—no. The onlyphototropic responses I have done in species likethe lobster is some work with visual acuity manyyears ago. I provided test animals with bright light,darkness, et cetera, and used heart rate and venti-lation rate as response mechanisms. That worksperfectly well. However, I have not done it in thiscommercial context.

I would say more often than not these animals arekept in the dark. In fact, many of them have a nat-ural rhythm that is lost when they are placed instorage. The natural rhythm of light and dark islost, therefore activity will change and so will theirammonia excretion, for instance. But I have notdone phototropic responses.

QUESTION: Concerning the boxes used to ship thelobsters, were they injected with oxygen?

R. UGLOW: I must ask the Clearwater people whoare here, is this a normal procedure?

ANSWER: No, it is not.

QUESTION: Are there holes in the shipping boxes?

R. UGLOW: Yes, there are holes in the tops of thebox. This information is in the paper.

QUESTION: How do you maintain the internaltemperature of 2°C?

R. UGLOW: Primarily through the use of gel packsin the shipping containers.

QUESTION: Comment concerning the shippingboxes. The holes in the top lid are very small—abouta quarter to a half inch. These holes allow suffi-cient ventilation.

R. UGLOW: Also, there is an outer sleeve as well.

QUESTION: You’ve collected a lot of data on phys-iological responses and I would guess this is lead-ing to somehow improving the shipping methods orhandling of the animals. What do you envision interms of changes to handling practices to improvesurvivability?

R. UGLOW: How do I envision this type of workassisting in the future modification of protocols forthe different species? This is only one of a long se-ries of studies we have completed on mainly Brit-ish species. As you can see, we normally would lookat these reactions from the time the crustaceansare taken from the pot until final delivery. One ofmy other students will be giving a talk on theHACCP implications of this later in the conferenceinvolving spiny lobsters from Mexico.

We try as best we can to let the trade know what isgood, what is bad, what ought to be done, and alsowhat ought not to be done. I am afraid that this is avery, very slow process. If we do any work privatelyfor a firm, they then do not want any of that infor-mation released elsewhere. So this transfer of in-formation involves very slow diffusion.

What we have found from experience is that as peo-ple get succeeded in their businesses (retire), thesucceeding group then abandons some of the prac-tices that were being used. So there will be, as cancertainly be seen in Europe, a gradual increase orimprovement in the standards that are being usedthroughout the industry. I should mention here thatthe name of this game is a quality product at thepoint of final delivery. The purpose is not just ananimal that is alive (unless it is being sold as freshproduct) but a live product with a lot of its intrinsicquality left intact. So I envision that it will be a slowlearning process, but it will gradually come about.

QUESTION: Have you or anyone else done stud-ies on the consequences of packing in live seaweedas opposed to wet newspaper?

R. UGLOW: We have not formally studied this mat-ter. However, I have experience with this topic.Again, have we looked at the implication of usingseaweed as the agent for keeping the humidity highin the packing boxes, rather than wet newsprint?What I find is if transit times of over 24 hours areinvolved, you get a certain amount of fermentationwhen using seaweed. I would say it usually getsquite warm in seaweed rather than the newsprint(fermentation produces heat). However, people douse seaweed—quite often, I guess. Another problemis the sheer scale of the amount of packing materi-al that is needed. In Great Britain shippers use rockwool quite a lot—rock wool and ice. Incidentally, alot of shippers unwittingly use freshwater ice, whichmelts and causes osmotic problems. But I believethat it is usually the suppliers of biological speci-mens, rather than food items, who use seaweed.


SUMMARY

This presentation (transcribed from a talk) de-scribes the generalized stress response in fishes andwill serve as an introduction to a range of physio-logical responses from the whole animal to the cel-lular level. Various stressors of fish will bedescribed, as well as the positive and negative con-sequences of those stress responses.

INTRODUCTION

I am grateful to have this opportunity to talk toyou about my work on stress. When I say “my work,”please remember that I play a small role in thiswork. The workers in my lab, including graduatestudents, post doctoral fellows, and research assis-tants, are the people who have done all the workpresented here.

This is an overview of the stress response in fish.Because I do not have sufficient time to speak indetail about any complete data set, I will provideinformation of basic importance to the industry.I want to define stress, give examples of stressors,and discuss the generalized stress response in fish.

GENERALIZED STRESS RESPONSE

We all work with stress to some extent in the animalsand plants that we work with. However, what I wantto discuss is a specific type of response found in fishthat is common to many different stressors. That iswhy I call this reaction a “generalized stress response.”I would like to address this response at the organ-ismal or whole animal level, as well as at the cellu-lar level, with particular regard to heat shockproteins. I will also discuss how to measure thisstress response—not in a technical way as employedin a laboratory, but a method that can be used tomeasure stress in the field. I will conclude by point-ing out important areas for research in the future.

What is stress? Well, as Hans Selye pointed out, “Weall know what it is, but we really do not know what

it is.” I like to use a definition given by Dr. RolandBrett of the Canadian Department of Fisheries andOceans who worked at the Pacific Biological Sta-tion at Nanaimo. He stated that stress is a responseto an internal or external stimulus that causes theanimal to extend its normal adaptive response be-yond the normal range. So your heart rate, yourbreathing rate, or any physiological variable, hasits normal rhythm and range. It has a normal max-imum-minimum that varies over the time of the dayand seasons of the year. But in terms of stress studiesat our lab, we like to consider that a stress responsehas occurred when that normal maximum-mini-mum is exceeded. Our understanding of stress alsorecognizes that there is a variation in this response.This is a nice definition of stress for people involvedwith experimental projects because it is possible toconstruct experiments around this definition.

Fishes will probably try to avoid stress. However, ifbehavioral constraints or physical constraints arepresent which keep the fish in conditions that arestressful, the animal will respond with either achronic or an acute response that can result in deathor, if possible, return to its normal resting state.Examples of behavioral constraints can be seen interritorial animals that live on coral reefs that aresubjected to altered conditions. Cod and other fishspecies that choose to stay in a given area can beexposed to a variety of potential stressors during abreeding season.

Fish are exposed to various physical and biologicalstressors. For example, coral reefs around the manytropical islands are exposed to suspended red earthsoils that wash down to the sea during periods ofheavy rainfall. Many tropical islands are being sub-jected to land development projects such as golfcourses and hotels. Erosion can occur when defor-estation occurs. In those places when it rains it usu-ally pours, producing a suspension of solid earthwashing into the coral reef environment wheremany of the fish are territorial. This is a routineand common occurrence at the mouths of rivers in

Physiological Stress Response in Fish

George IwamaUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

20 Iwama: Physiological Stress Response in Fish

these areas. It is common to see a plume of red earthcovering the coral environment.

Closer to home, with regard to salmon culture, thereare many ways to transport immature salmon fromthe hatcheries to the ocean cages. The smolts canbe put into special buckets and airlifted to distantsites. Imagine a smolt one morning in its nice hatch-ery with cool fresh water and normal oxygen levelssuddenly being placed into one of these buckets thathas a touch of anesthetic and a touch of salt to helpit osmoregulate, and then being flown by helicop-ter to a net cage. There the smolt is dropped backinto normal oxygen, full-strength seawater, and noanesthetic. It is a wonder that they survive at all,but they seem to recover. In another example of thissituation, government trucks in British Columbiatake trout from a hatchery to a so-called liberationat a lake where all the coarse fish seem to knowexactly when they arrive. Stress can result.

MEASURING RESPONSES

Measurement of stress depends on the physiologi-cal response. Neural and endocrine fish responsesto a stressor have been well documented, particu-larly in salmonid fishes. Chromaffin and interrenalcells are involved which produce catacholamines,mainly adrenaline or epinephrine in the short-term.In a slow response to stress over a longer term, yousee an increase in cortisol production.

This cortisol response has been well characterizedand I would like to spend some time talking aboutit. As is well known, in the trout and similar spe-cies the kidney is the blood-covered structure youclean out after washing the guts away. In the anter-ior portion of this kidney, the tissue is endocrine infunction as well as hematopoietic. The chromaffincells produce adrenaline and the interrenal cellsproduce cortisol. Cortisol production is in responseto the ACTH from the pituitary.

Resting cortisol levels can increase tenfold in re-sponse to stress. However, there is a wide range incortisol resting conditions. My recent literature re-view with Bruce Barton indicates a wide range ofreported values. As can be seen, it is important foryou to establish the baseline values for your partic-ular conditions and species.

The time to peak stress response is approximatelyfive minutes in the case of adrenaline and thirtyminutes to an hour for cortisol. Adrenaline is in-

volved in various responses, including gluconeogen-esis and glycogenolysis. These responses accomplisha number of changes within the affected fish in-cluding:

• Increased glucose levels in general circulation.

• Increased gill ventilation.

• Maintenance of red blood cell pH.

• Releases new red cells from the spleen.

• Increases gill surface area.

• Increases proton or hydrogen ion excretion of thegills (this will affect the species of ammonia atthe gill surface).

Cortisol also increases circulating glucose levels. Irepeat this because I will later need to return tothis topic. However, this increase in cortisol levelscan have negative effects on immune function, re-production, and ionic and acid- base balance.

In an experiment that Bruce Barton conducted aspart of his Ph.D. project, he exposed some trout torepeated netting stress. Holding a fish in a net for30 seconds caused an increase in cortisol. The re-searcher did this once again after a few minutes,and in a few minutes exposed the trout to this typeof stress a third time. The cortisol response wascumulative—the repeated exposure to stressorscaused an accumulation of cortisol.

It is important to note that we consider the prima-ry stress response to be the release of the hormonescortisol and adrenaline. The secondary responses arethe effects of these stress hormones on the physiol-ogy and biochemistry of the animal. Many physiol-ogists concentrate on reporting about thesesecondary responses. The tertiary response is thesum effect of these events on the individual and onthe population. So stress may affect the immunesystem and it might affect the reproductive capac-ity of the animal and population. These are poten-tial tertiary responses to stress.

In general, adrenaline levels shoot up and downvery quickly. Cortisol, on the other hand, begins torise a little later. The glucose level is quite signifi-cant because it is a variable that you can measurein the field as a secondary indicator of stress. Keepin mind that stress is adaptive. It is important toknow that this physiological response is a positiveone and that it does afford advantages to the ani-mal. But under prolonged conditions of stress, itcan be maladaptive.


Alan Pickering has generated some data dealingwith circulating cortisol levels. His study involvedconfinement stress—confinement for one monthusing sexually mature male brown trout. His datashowed that the cortisol level goes up and then thetestosterone level decreases. There is equivalent datafor estrodiol, estrogen, etc. for the female trout.

I would like to point out that this is the kind of datathat people rely on to make the statement thatstress can have negative effects on fish reproduc-tion. Also, oxygen consumption goes up as cortisollevels rise, implying that there is an increase in me-tabolism. In addition, an increase in glucose is nor-mally seen in rainbow and coho salmon. That stressresponse is reduced, though, when you add 100 mil-limoles of sodium chloride to the holding water.

When a group of fish are stressed, their survivaldecreases. However, if you transport them and thenallow them to recover in some salt, you can increasetheir survival substantially. As you probably know,salt must be used with some care because it canrust out your transport trucks.

MEASURING STRESS IN THE FIELD

We conducted some experiments directed at thequestion—Can you measure stress in the field? Thetypical lab spectrophotometer is not really a porta-ble instrument. It is possible to measure the glu-cose response to stress by using small glucosemeters—the same meters purchased by diabeticpeople who measure their blood sugar. One modelis literally as small as a pen. We have completedthese experiments with small instruments. Whenyou need to measure hemoglobin, etc., other smallhemoglobinometers are available. Instruments likethese can be taken to the field.

In our experiments, there was very good agreementbetween measurements taken at the lab and thosetaken with the field instruments. In other words,you can do these kinds of measurements quite reli-ably.

THE CELLULAR STRESS RESPONSE

I also want to describe briefly the cellular stressresponse—primarily the production of stress pro-teins. The discovery of this highly conserved groupof proteins is popularly attributed to giant chromo-somes from the salivary glands of fruit flies. Theproduction of stress or heat shock proteins (HSP)in response to many different stressors has been

described in almost every type of cell examined.These stressors include environmental stressorssuch as heavy metals, many other kinds of toxi-cants, as well as diseases—viral, bacterial, andparasitic. It is important to know that normal cel-lular processes produce these proteins. They arearound in constitutive levels to maintain normalcell function.

HSP-70 assists in preventing premature folding andimproper aggregation of proteins. The translocationor transport of various proteins to cellular organellecompartments requires unfolding and refoldingsteps. In these and other ways, heat shock proteinsare important to the life of a cell. In experimentsconducted by Matt Vijayan in our laboratory, cellsin rainbow trout exposed to a toxicant show an in-crease in HSP-70 production in response to thisform of stress.

What can you do about stress? One topic we arecurrently working on is something called cross-tol-erance. If you stress a fish first, it becomes some-what resistant to subsequent stressors. AnnTodgham, working with SDS (a toxicant) exposurein our lab, has shown that fish not exposed to anyprevious stressor all die when exposed to SDS. If,for example, you first expose the fish to a +5° heatshock, many will survive. If the test fish are ex-posed to a +5° heat shock, survival is greater thanwith fish exposed to the toxicant alone. Thirty per-cent of these pre-stressed fish survive exposure toSDS.

We do not have a good understanding how this hap-pens. We suspect that heat shock proteins are in-volved—that the first primary stressor induces thecellular stress response, arming the cell againstsubsequent stressors. This heightened state ofreadiness seems to work at the organismal level aswell. So this is a area of research we are pursuingin the attempt to help natural stocks, as well as incultured stocks.


QUESTION: Does the cortisol response also occurin eggs?

G. IWAMA: I do not know. There have been someexperiments, but the problem with eggs, as youknow, is they are a blob of protein and the yolk getsin the way. It is difficult to obtain enough sample,even in alevins or juveniles. Taking blood is out ofthe question and homogenizing the whole animal,

22 Iwama: Physiological Stress Response in Fish

all of the tissues, masks any real effects because ofthe volume of all the other tissues that are present.Because of these technical difficulties, there has notbeen reliable evidence of changes in blood cortisolin small juveniles.

QUESTION: In your pre-stressing experiment,what time elapsed between stress exposures?

G. IWAMA: About eight hours. In our work, we haveinfected fish and have shown that bacterial patho-gens will also increase HSP level. Toxicants, tem-perature change, low oxygen, salinity change—theyhave all caused an increase in HSP levels. Whathas not caused an HSP-70 increase is handling. Thisis a great advantage when sampling fish in the fieldbecause you have about a one-hour window beforehandling effects begin to show up.

QUESTION: Does cold shock work as well in thedevelopment of crossed tolerance?

G. IWAMA: We do not know. We know that coldshock involves another set of proteins. These arenot the same stress proteins induced with heatshock. A different type of protein is involved. Also,we have not experimented with cold shock in thesespecific animals. We have just completed some coldshock experiments with Amazonian species in Bra-zil. I am concerned that the specificity of theantibodies used in this research hinders the re-search—we do not have good tools. The antibodytests used in our lab work very well with rainbowtrout and salmon, but they do not cross react verywell with Brazilian species, such as tilapia, and oth-er species from the tropics. So that’s one thing.You’ve got to make good antibodies.


INTRODUCTION

Shrimp and other crustaceans are able to eitherregulate their oxygen consumption independentof prevailing oxygen levels (“regulators”) or theymatch their oxygen consumption rates to theprevailing oxygen levels (“conformers”). As condi-tions change, many of these species are able toswitch from one strategy to the other, but may be-come vulnerable when conforming at low oxygenlevels. The dissolved oxygen level at which aspecies makes the switch from acting as a regula-tor to a conformer is the critical oxygen level (Pcr).This point can be taken as being at, or near, thelimiting level for the species. Accurate knowledgeof the Pcr is particularly important for the success-ful commercial holding and distribution of manyspecies.

Farfantepenaeus californiensis (Fig. 1) is a nativepenaeid shrimp of northwestern Mexico that spendsmuch of the daytime in burrows in the muddysubstratum. Like many burrowing species, it is tol-erant of low levels of dissolved oxygen and is alsotolerant of low temperatures (19-23°C). Consequently,it has the distinct potential of becoming a candidatespecies for culture during the Mexican winter—as an alternative to Litopenaeus vannamei—and also a potential candidate for the live seafoodtrade.

This study relates to the determination of the Pcrfor F. californiensis and the extent by which thisvalue is influenced by the prevailing temperature.These data are considered to be a prerequisite toany serious consideration of this species for cultureor live marketing. Results indicate that the Pcr isabout 1.3 mg per L within the temperature rangeof 19-27°C. Below Pcr, oxygen consumption decreas-es to approximately 10% of the value occurringduring normoxic conditions when the animal is act-ing as a regulator.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

F. californiensis (weight 2.5 g), obtained from theExperimental Shrimp Farm at the CIBNOR facili-ties, were conditioned for seven days at three dif-ferent temperatures (19, 23, and 27°C) and fed adlibitum twice a day on a commercial diet.

Shrimp fasted for 24 hours were placed into an in-termittent flow respirometer. Following the closedmode setting, oxygen uptake was recorded with anoxygen electrode at 10 minute intervals until dis-solved oxygen depletion was sustained or the shrimpdied. At the end, all shrimp were weighed.

The critical oxygen point (Pcr) was established as thepoint of intersection of the regression lines for con-sumption during normoxic and hypoxic conditions.Differences between temperatures were determinedby ANOVA and the Duncan multiple range test.

Critical Oxygen Point in Yellowleg Shrimp (Farfantepenaeuscaliforniensis): A Potential Species for the Live Seafood Trade

Lucía Ocampo V.Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste (CIBNOR)La Paz, Mexico

Figure 1. Yellowleg shrimp, Farfantepenaeus californiensis.

24 Ocampo: Critical Oxygen Point in Yellowleg Shrimp

RESULTS

Oxygen consumption was constant and independentof dissolved oxygen down to 1.3 mg per L for alltemperatures. Consumption during hypoxic condi-tions decreased to approximately 10% of the con-sumption during normoxic conditions. The Pcrvaried from 1.2 mg per L at the lowest temperatureto 1.3 mg per L at the highest temperature, whichleads us to conclude that the Pcr was not affectedby temperature (P > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The Pcr provides a good water quality variable todefine the limit to which an aquaculturist shouldmanage a species. Knowledge of this variable is crit-ical for the management of adequate physiologicalstatus and is an important tool during live trans-portation.

Oxygen consumption of F. californiensis decreasedwith decreasing oxygen concentration. Subrahman-yam (1980) described the metabolic response to pro-gressive hypoxia as a continuous hyperbolic curve.However, from the mathematical point of view, thechangeover point is difficult to estimate. In our study,the definition proposed for Pcr permits differentmodels to be fitted above and below this changeoverpoint. Biologically, this accounts for the regulatorynature of oxygen consumption during normoxia andthe conforming behavior at low oxygen levels. Thedistinction between organisms that conform to con-ditions in their external environment and those thatregulate some physiological function in the face ofchanging environmental conditions has frequentlyled to confusion. It is not uncommon to find that avirtually identical set of data has been interpretedas evidence of conformity by one investigator andof regulation by another. However, a Pcr has beenconsistently found between 0.9 and 2.0 mg per L(Egusa 1961, Mackay 1974, Kramer 1975, Liao andHuang 1975, Armitage and Wall 1982, Llobrera1983, Trouchot and Jouve-Duhamel 1983, Liao andMurai 1986, Villarreal 1989, Rosas et al. 1997).

Oxygen regulation capacity seems to decrease withtemperature increments. A correlation betweentemperature and Pcr has been reported for L. van-namei postlarvae (Villarreal et al. 1994). In thisstudy no effect of temperature was observed inF. californiensis.

The relationship between temperature and oxygen-regulation capacity in aquatic organisms seems to

be related to metabolism, and particularly to in-creases in the metabolic rate. This relationship mayalso be associated with limitations involving thetransport of oxygen from the environment to thecells (Fry 1957) and is strongly influenced by theactivity level and the size of shrimp (Bridges andBrand 1980).

Other water quality variables such as salinity (Ro-sas et al. 1997), pH, and ammonia levels (Allan etal. 1990) seem to influence the tolerance to low lev-els of dissolved oxygen. These water quality vari-ables also affect shrimp growth (Seidman andLawrence 1985) and must be considered for furtherresearch. More research is required to understandthe effect of these variables on the physiologicalcapacity in F. californiensis.

REFERENCES

Allan, G.L., G.B. Maguire, and S.J. Hopkins. 1990. Acuteand chronic toxicity of ammonia to juvenile Metape-naeus macleayi and Penaeus monodon and the in-fluence of low dissolved-oxygen levels. Aquaculture91:265-280.

Armitage, K.B., and T.J. Wall. 1982. The effect of bodysize, starvation and temperature acclimation on ox-ygen consumption of the crayfish Orconectes nais.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 73A(1):63-68.

Bridges, C.R., and A.R. Brand. 1980. Oxygen consump-tion and oxygen independence in marine crustaceans.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2:133-141.

Egusa, S. 1961. Studies on the respiration of the “kuru-ma” prawn, Penaeus japonicus Bate. II. Preliminaryexperiments on its oxygen consumption. Bull. Jap.Soc. Sci. Fish. 27:650-659.

Fry, F.E.J. 1947. Effects of the environment on animalactivity. University of Toronto Studies for BiologicalSeries 55. Ontario Fisheries Research LaboratoryPublication 68.

Kramer, G.L. 1975. Studies on the lethal dissolved oxy-gen levels for young brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus.Proc. World. Maric. Soc. 6:157-167.

Liao, I.C., and H.J. Huang. 1975. Studies on the respira-tion of economic prawns in Taiwan. Oxygen consump-tion and lethal dissolved oxygen of egg up to youngprawn of Penaeus monodon Fabricius. Journal of theFisheries Society of Taiwan 4:33-50.


Liao, I.C., and T. Murai. 1986. Effects of dissolved oxy-gen, temperature and salinity on the oxygen con-sumption of the grass shrimp, Penaeus monodon. In:J.L. Maclean, L.B. Dizon, and L.V. Hosillos (eds.),The First Asian Fisheries Forum, Manila, Philip-pines, pp. 641-646.

Llobrera, J.A., 1983. Effects of dissolved oxygen on thesurvival, growth and energetics of juvenile freshwa-ter shrimp, Machrobrachium rosenbergii. Ph.D. dis-sertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.116 pp.

Mackay, R.D. 1974. A note on minimal levels of oxygenrequired to maintain life in Penaeus shmitti. Proc.World. Maric. Soc. 5:451-452.

Rosas, C., A. Sánchez, E. Díaz-Iglesia, R. Brito, E. Mar-tínez, and L.A. Soto. 1997. Critical dissolved oxygenlevel to Penaeus setiferus and Penaeus shmitti post-larvae (PL10-18) exposed to salinity change. Aqua-culture 152:259-272.

Seidman, E.R., and A.L. Lawrence. 1985. Growth, feeddigestibility and proximate body composition of ju-venile Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus monodongrown at different dissolved oxygen levels. J. Maric.Soc. 16:336-346.

Subrahmanyam, C.B. 1962. Oxygen consumption in re-lation to body weight and oxygen tension in the prawnPenaeus indicus (Milne Edwards). Proceedings Indi-an Academy of Sciences 55(3B):152-161.

Trouchot, J.P., and A. Jouve-Duhamel. 1983. Consomma-tion d’oxygène de la crevette japonaise, Penaeusjaponicus, en function de l’oxygenation du milieu:effects de la temperature et de l’acclimation a desconditions ambiantes hypoxiques. IFREMER, Actesde Colloques 1:245-254.

Villarreal, H. 1989. Feeding, growth and energetics of thefreshwater crayfish Cherax tenuimanus (Smith) withspecial emphasis on its potential for commercial cul-ture. Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland. 249 pp.


INTRODUCTION

Shipping and marketing live aquatic products is anexcellent way to gain top value in the world mar-ketplace. In order to accomplish this there are threequality issues that need to be carefully addressed:

1. The first, and most familiar of these considera-tions is the need to pay close attention to prod-uct quality. The consumer is paying a premiumprice and demands a premium quality product;fish should be healthy and not have missingscales or be marked by other defects.

2. The second consideration involves the quality ofthe resource from which these products are har-vested and the environmental impacts associ-ated with capture and processing. There is in-creasing concern about the sustainability of ourfishery resources, and the public is demandingthat they be protected from overharvesting.

3. The third quality issue that members of the liveaquatics industry need to address is the quali-ty of life experienced by aquatic organisms thatare destined for live markets. Obviously, theseare terminal markets, but there is public concernthat animals should not experience pain and suf-fering on their way to those markets.

This paper will introduce the concepts of animalrights and animal welfare and provide some back-ground on animal rights organizations. An overviewof an animal rights controversy in San Francisco,California, will document (1) how people’s concernfor animal pain and suffering in the live animaltrade led to an initiative to ban the sale of live foodanimals, and (2) how this might impact the tradein live aquatic products. Finally, some recommen-dations for the industry to responsibly addresslegitimate issues will be presented.

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE

The current concern for animal welfare developedas animal agriculture moved from a family enter-prise that emphasized animal husbandry to an in-

dustrial activity involving animal production (Rollin1996). Over the last 100 years, animal agriculturehas evolved into an intensive activity made possi-ble by expanded and efficient transportation anddistribution networks, improved agricultural effi-ciency, intense market competition, and increasinglevels of urbanization. Large agribusiness is thedominant force of agriculture in the developed worldtoday. In terms of animals destined for human foodmarkets, the focus is now on animal production andefficiency rather than on animal husbandry. Highintensity animal culture practices are commonplaceand efficient in that they provide high volume pro-duction of relatively inexpensive food. However, thepublic perception is increasing that animals sufferin confined production situations. Two large anddiverse animal advocacy groups (animal rights andanimal welfare) are now focusing their efforts onthis issue.

The live aquatics industry must be aware of theseconcerns and understand the motivations of ani-mal rights and animal welfare organizations andhow they might come into conflict with fisheries,marketing, and ultimately meat consumption. Theindustry must address legitimate concerns put for-ward by animal rights and welfare groups andunderstand the significant and fundamental dis-tinctions between their respective philosophies.

One of the largest and most prominent of animalrights groups is the People for the Ethical Treat-ment of Animals, better known by the acronymPETA. Animal rights groups differ from animalwelfare groups which include the various societiesfor the prevention of cruelty to animals. Animalrights groups often focus on sensational issues andconcentrate their efforts on fundraising. They spendtheir money to influence public opinion and gov-ernment policy. Animal welfare groups, on the otherhand, are concerned with the development andmaintenance of programs and infrastructure to pro-vide for animal care. They provide things like shel-ters for animals and low-cost spay/neuter clinics.

Animal Rights Advocacy, Public Perception,and the Trade in Live Animals

Paul G. OlinUniversity of California Sea Grant, Santa Rosa, California

28 Olin: Animal Rights Advocacy and Live Trade

The developing controversy in San Francisco in-volves both animal rights and animal welfaregroups in opposition to a group of primarily ethnicChinese merchants who engage in the sale of liveanimal products to their customers. This conflict isseated in social, cultural, and religious differencesthat have given rise to an ethical dilemma. The di-lemma stems from the fact that children learn tobelieve very early in life the difference between whatis right or wrong. While the basics are agreed uponin most cultures, differences arise around somecustoms and behavior and this includes foods andthe manner in which they are prepared. In SanFrancisco’s Chinatown, for example, ethnic Chineselike to buy live animals, and they are accustomedto seeing those animals butchered at the point ofpurchase or after being taken home. This creates asocietal dilemma between those who would cham-pion cultural traditions, while at the same timeseeking an initiative to ban the sale of live animalsthat interferes with some of these traditions.

The root of this controversy stems from the tenden-cy of mainstream North American consumers topurchase packaged foods. These consumers go tosupermarkets and purchase a nice clean preparedchicken that has been placed inside a plastic-wrapped package with an absorbent pad to retainany blood. There is a complete psychological dis-connect between the packaged food and its livingsource. Most consumers never consider the historyof their packaged meat products including the rear-ing of the animal, its slaughter, and subsequentprocessing into consumer-ready products.

Many Americans will not readily accept the sightof animals being killed or held in high-densityconfinement. In Chinatown, however, live turtlesmay have their shells cut off, live fish may be filleted,and frogs may be butchered in public view. This is op-posed by some people and creates a basic dilemma inwhich society must balance members’ rights to en-gage in certain social, ethnic, and religious practicesthat may upset the sensitivities of others in society.

Society has determined that animals have rights,and foremost among these is the right not to expe-rience unnecessary pain and suffering. People alsohave rights, and most do not appreciate their rightsbeing infringed upon, particularly by a group witha different social and cultural foundation. Theseissues are responsible for the emotionally chargednature of the controversy.

STRESS AND PAIN IN FISH

Recognizing that societal consensus confers on an-imals the right to avoid unnecessary pain and suf-fering, the question arises as to if and when animalsmight experience these sensations. It is evident thatfish do react to stress and that different stress re-sponses occur. What is unknown is whether theseresponses are indicative of pain and suffering asrecognized by humans, or whether this is beinganthropomorphic and attributing human emotionsto animal behaviors. Fish physiologists have theopinion that pain is not a strong sensation experi-enced by fish (Lagler et al. 1977).

Fish and most aquatic organisms exhibit both be-havioral and physiological responses to stress. Bloodcortisol, blood glucose, and ammonia levels can allmeasurably fluctuate in fish exposed to stressors.Fish also produce endogenous opioids in responseto stressful stimuli similar to the morphine-likechemicals produced in higher vertebrates. However,whether pain accompanies these measurableresponses to stress is unclear. Some evidence wouldindicate that is the case, while other data suggestotherwise.

Fish and mammals share the same type of neu-rotransmitters that in mammals are used to trans-mit sensations perceived as pain in the neocortexof the mammalian brain. However, fish are entirelylacking a neocortex. When you go to the dentist andget a local anaesthetic to deaden pain, you can feelsensations as your teeth are drilled or pulled, butthey are not painful. The local anaesthetic blocksthe perception of pain in the neocortex (Harvey-Clark 1998). Furthermore, in mammals, nervousimpulses triggering sensations of pain are trans-mitted through the spinal column in fibers of thespinothalamic tract, a structure that is entirelylacking in fish. Fish also lack nociceptors—special-ized pain receptors found in higher vertebrates(Stoskopf 1993).

In summary, there is no objective scientific data todetermine whether fish feel pain as experienced byhumans. Pain and suffering are human intellectualconstructs and science avoids anthropomorphism.That being said, most people are not scientists, andthe general public perception is that fish can feelpain and suffering. Animal rights groups play uponthis perception in their efforts to fundraise and re-cruit.


ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS

Animal rights organizations (AROs) often rely onsources of information other than the most reputa-ble scientific data. One pertinent quote on a Website reads, “The pain system in fish is virtually thesame as in birds and mammals.” This is simply nottrue. Statements on some Web sites can be found,such as “fish suffer from being impaled, thrown,crushed, or mutilated while alive, and they are of-ten left to die slowly and painfully of suffocation.”These statements conjure very graphic imageswhich people, in many cases, tend to believe. An-other quote reads, “It is unthinkable that fish donot have pain receptors. They need them in orderto survive.” This may be unthinkable, but thereis little evidence that fish have pain receptors. Itis important to keep in mind, in situations suchas this, the words of U.S. Senator Daniel PatrickMoynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion,but not his own facts.”

AROs and their experts have certain things to sayabout fish and the fishing industry as we can seefrom the following quote from a Web page, “Fishingis violent, bloody and cruel, fishing hurts. Pleasedon’t eat the animals.” Some AROs are not as con-strained as scientists about the need to rely on thebest available scientific data in making determina-tions about pain and suffering in fish. Another Webpage says, “Fishing, aquatic agony,” and yet anoth-er reads, “Imagine reaching for an apple on a treeand having your hand suddenly impaled by a hookthat yanks you into an environment where you can-not breathe. This is what a fish faces when hooked.”Clearly this is not the case. Fish do not pick applesout of trees and neither do they have hands. Butnonetheless, this is a very graphic image thatengenders empathy in people and is readily avail-able on the Internet.

In a recent ARO campaign, a human costumed as afish is depicted as saying, “Don’t be cruel to fish.” Inthis example, they use a time-honored advertisingtechnique by having the costumed fish accompaniedby a young woman in revealing attire. Demonstra-tions very similar to this were observed at the Aqua-culture Expo in Tampa, Florida, in 1999. The AROprotestors arrived at the convention center just be-fore the media arrived. The camera crew quickly ob-tained their footage and left, followed shortlythereafter by the ARO protestors. The film clip subse-quently aired on the evening news. Members of AROsare very good at what they do. They are persuasive intheir advertising, and they get their message across.

Another social agenda promoted by AROs is vege-tarianism, and this has obvious implications for thelive seafood trade. One tack taken to forward thisagenda is to attempt to denigrate the quality of meatproducts. Toward this end, another Web segmentreads, “Like the flesh of other animals, fish fleshcontains excessive amounts of protein, fat, and cho-lesterol.” This is a ludicrous pronouncement. It isthen followed by the statement that fish can accu-mulate toxins and that the consumption of fish cancause kidney damage, foster impaired mental de-velopment, cause cancer, and even result in death.While this statement may on rare occasions be true,it is fear mongering, and the relative risk to hu-man health of consuming most fish is infinitesimal-ly small, especially when weighed against theknown health benefits of consuming fish with highlevels of omega-3 fatty acids. Public health author-ities protect consumers by issuing health adviso-ries if particular fish, usually resident in highlyurbanized estuaries, pose a health risk associatedwith any accumulated toxins.

AROs have outreach programs to help people orga-nize demonstrations, including how to choose alocation. They will provide stickers, leaflets, andposters. They provide instructions on how to starta campaign to ban fishing at a local lake or pond,including how to contact the regulatory authoritiesthat have the power to manage the particular wa-ter body, how to call up the media, and, finally, howto follow up with a demonstration. Demonstratorsare encouraged to use “fishing hurts” stickers inhighly visible places. Another Web site op-posed tofishing is called nofishing.net

These campaigns are very persistent and have beenquite successful. In 1988, for example, PETA em-barked on a campaign in which they recruited30,000 teachers (Harvey-Clark 1998). Conservativelyspeaking, if each PETA-indoctrinated teacherinteracts with 100 students, 3,000,000 children willobtain messages promoted by the group. Keep inmind that PETA is only one of many animal rightsorganizations. In 1995, the top ten animal rightsgroups in the United States and Canada had a bud-get of US $410,000,000, and assets exceeding onebillion dollars (Rowan and Leow 1995).

RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY

The quality of the resource supplying live aquaticproducts and the environmental impacts of captureand processing are also of concern to consumers andshould be addressed by the industry. For example,


environmental groups have had tremendous im-pacts on the U.S. Pacific tuna fishery and also theAtlantic swordfish industry by initiating boycottsout of concern for bycatch and declining populations.Organizations like the Monterey Bay Aquarium andthe Audubon Society are recommending that farmedsalmon not be consumed because of concerns withhow those farming practices are impacting the en-vironment. Protecting the environment and sustain-able harvest practices is crucial to the long-termsuccess of any live fish marketing endeavor.

Information on the Internet includes graphic imag-es of dead and dying birds and statements that“Countless birds and other animals suffer and manydie from injuries caused by swallowing or becomingentangled in discarded fishing hooks, monofilamentline, and lead weights.” Unfortunately, this is true,and is an issue the industry should address. Whilethe magnitude of the mortality is unlikely to havean impact at the population level for these animals,the magnitude of negative publicity that can be gen-erated by these graphic images is formidable. Thefishing industry needs to respond by doing beachcleanups, collecting discarded nets and hooks, andbecoming involved in other activities that addresslegitimate concerns.

Whether one agrees with groups like PETA or not,the reality is that, if the public perceives that thereis pain, suffering, crowding, and close confinementassociated with your business, they will react neg-atively. On the contrary, fish, shellfish and crusta-ceans that appear healthy and are being held in nicefacilities with clean water will impress consumersand further the image of live seafood as a high qual-ity and high value product. For these reasons, it isimportant that issues involving the handling ofanimals destined for the live trade be addressed inan effective and timely manner.

SAN FRANCISCO’S LIVE ANIMAL

SALES DEBATE

In San Francisco, a very diverse city with many dif-ferent ethnic groups, a controversy has developedover the live animal trade between some of thesegroups in the last ten years. There is a large Chi-nese and Asian community with a variety of reli-gious traditions and cultural practices. There arealso outspoken and concerned activists comprisingother segments of society.

One of the strong Chinese traditions includes thepurchase and preparation of live seafood and other

animals in local markets. A consumer can go to manylocal markets in Chinatown and buy live turtles,chickens, frogs, fish, crabs, oysters, and clams. Someanimal activists objected to this live animal tradeas being cruel and undertook an initiative to havethe Board of Supervisors ban live animal sales with-in the city. Allegations of cruel and inhumanetreatment of animals have been countered with ac-cusations of racial and cultural discriminationagainst Chinatown merchants.

Opponents of live animal sales proposed an initia-tive that originally would have banned the sale ofall live animals in the city. The list of sales outletsoriginally targeted was very inclusive—from Chi-natown markets to the crab houses on Fisherman’sWharf, including seafood wholesalers as well asmembers of the fishing industry. However, the peo-ple pushing for the ban quickly recognized that Fish-erman’s Wharf and a number of other businessesare visited by millions of tourists every year, andconsequently, form a strong political lobby. As a re-sult, shellfish and crabs were dropped from this ini-tiative early on. This is not to say that theproponents lost interest in banning live shellfish andcrab sales, but rather, their politically astute strat-egy called for dropping them in order to eliminate astrong political lobby opposed to the initiative.

At that point, Chinatown merchants felt that theywere being singled out, and they cited cultural andracist motivations for the initiative. Amid a greatdeal of controversy, the Board of Supervisors did notpass this initiative. The animal activists then de-manded legal enforcement of provisions under exist-ing animal cruelty statutes. These statutes restrictlive animal sales where food is sold and require an-imals be killed in a humane fashion. City officialsdetermined that these statutes applied to restau-rants, and not to markets in the Chinatown area.

Animal activists subsequently filed suit under theanti-cruelty statutes. A coalition of ten animal rightsorganizations sued twelve Chinatown markets. Thecruelty lawsuit was rejected because the judge didnot feel that the animal rights groups demonstratedthat these animals were being killed in a cruel fash-ion. The activists then petitioned the Fish and GameCommission, which in California controls the im-portation of animals, to ban the importation of tur-tles and frogs. The Fish and Game Commissiondelayed action on the ban pending legislative ac-tion in the form of a bill that would mandate thepermitting and monitoring of live animal markets.This bill has been temporarily deferred because of


an agreement on animal treatment reached betweenthe Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani-mals (SPCA) and a group of Chinese merchantsrepresented by the Chinese Consolidated Benevo-lent Association. These two groups drafted a jointstatement of principles and guidelines that effec-tively address important topics of concern, includ-ing the humane killing of animals, sanitary holdingfacilities, and related issues.

The controversy appeared resolved with implemen-tation of the guidelines scheduled for July 2000.However, the SPCA determined that the merchantswere not honoring the agreement. So the confron-tation is continuing, the animal rights groups areagain seeking a ban on the importation of turtlesand frogs and, in addition, they are planning voterinitiatives at both the local and state levels.

This animal rights coalition is also proposing a boy-cott of Chinatown merchants and also recommend-ing reforms to the Fish and Game Commission.Ranking officials in a number of animal welfareassociations and animal rights groups in the great-er San Francisco area are positioning themselvesto become members of this regulatory body.

REVIEW OF THE ISSUES

The concerns being addressed by the initiative wereprimarily animal suffering from lack of food andwater, high-density confinement, and unsanitaryconditions. These are readily dealt with by follow-ing guidelines related to other animal agricultureindustries that are regulated by federal, state, andlocal statutes. This includes providing sanitary con-ditions, having available food and water, and avoid-ing unnecessary suffering. If the live aquaticsindustry avoids addressing these issues, initiativeswill develop in other regions like the one in SanFrancisco targeting live seafood. Activists in SanFrancisco have stated their intentions to move intoSan Diego, Los Angeles, and Oakland with similaragendas.

Other valid natural resource issues are raised asjustification for terminating the trade in live ani-mals. For a variety of religious, social, and econom-ic reasons, live aquatic animals purchased fromretail outlets may be intentionally or inadvertent-ly released alive into the wild. These animals maybe exotic to the region and compete with native spe-cies, they might introduce pathogens, or they maybe ill-adapted for survival in the wild. For exam-ple, public health concerns about salmonella in

chickens have been raised as another argumentagainst the live trade in chickens. The trade in liveseafood has historically resulted in some exotic in-troductions, and this is an area that requires closemanagement, education, and enforcement. Theimport permits that govern this trade require thatanimals be killed before leaving the retail site. Thebusinesses involved need to make sure that happens.

There are also concerns about the live animal tradeimpacting the management of native wildlife. Forexample, the harvest of some species of frogs andturtles may be illegal in California, but not in oth-er states. As a result, the actual origin of productsin retail markets may be uncertain, leading to con-cerns about the intermingling of legal and illegalproducts and the potential for overharvesting ofsome California populations. Education and prod-uct identification are necessary elements of a pro-gram to ensure this does not occur.

The trade in live aquatic products will continue togrow if the industry addresses (1) the quality of theproduct, (2) the quality of the fishery resources be-ing harvested and finally, and (3) the quality of lifeexperienced by animals in the marketing chain.Product quality is the simplest factor to achieve,and this has largely been accomplished. Sustain-ing our fishery resources and developing a goodpublic perception concerning capture fisheries andlive marketing is a greater challenge.

First and foremost, the industry needs to addressthe broad range of valid public concerns with therecognition that public perception is reality. Mostreasonable people feel that aquatic animals canexperience pain and suffering, and practices thatcontribute to animal suffering or give that percep-tion should be avoided. Traders in live aquatic prod-ucts need to be willing to compromise and respect avariety of practices and deeply held convictions.This includes those of Chinese consumers who wantto purchase freshly killed animals for a meal, andthe convictions of animal rights and welfare groupsconcerned with animal suffering, and perhaps evenwith meat consumption itself. There may be a ten-dency to dismiss the animal rights people as ex-tremists, but this strategy runs counter to goodbusiness practices as these groups have demonstrat-ed their ability to orchestrate campaigns and swaypublic opinion in order to accomplish their goals.

The industry must work closely with fishery man-agement agencies to assure that our fishery resourc-es are stable, well managed, and productive. It is


equally important to work together with naturalresource agencies to ensure procedures are in placeto prevent the unintentional introduction of exoticspecies or spread of pathogens.

The live seafood industry needs to be proactive andwork toward becoming better communicators. Onemethod to accomplish this would be the develop-ment of a Web site presenting a wide range of infor-mation about the live seafood industry—thebusinesses and species involved, efforts to maintainhealthy animals and high water quality, and thehumane practices employed in holding systems.This will serve to counter some of the informationcurrently available on the Web about how cruel andinhumane fishing is. These and other related Webdocuments will help promote the industry and alsoserve as an open forum providing objective infor-mation about the industry and its practices.

REFERENCES

Harvey-Clark, C. 1998. Live fish biology: From harvestto market. In: C. Rodgerson and C. McKenna (eds.),East Coast Live Fish Conference: A Sea of Opportu-nities. Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture, Hal-ifax, Nova Scotia, pp. 33-39.

Lagler, K.F., J.E. Bardach, R.E. Miller, and D.R.M. Passi-no. 1977. Ichthyology. 2nd edn. John Riley and Sons,New York.

Rollin, B.E. 1996. Animal production and the new socialethic for animals. In: B. Paust and J.B. Peters (eds.),Marketing and shipping live aquatic products. North-east Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Co-operative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca,New York, pp. 7-13.

Rowan, A.N., and F.M. Leow. 1995. The animal researchcontroversy: Protest process and public policy—Ananalysis of strategic issues. Center for Animals andPublic Policy, Tufts University, School of VeterinaryMedicine, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 22, 39, 93, 118,124, 141, 146.

Stoskopf, M.K. 1992. Fish medicine. W.B. Saunders Com-pany, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., pp. 82-83.


R. UGLOW: In addition to finfish, in the UnitedKingdom, PETA is beginning to focus their atten-tion on invertebrates as well. One of the consequenc-es of all this is the negative impact on the trade.When subjected to this type of attention, you musttake elaborate procedures to protect yourself. Thiscan be hideously expensive.

QUESTION: It has occurred to me that an effec-tive industry response to these public policy issuesmight be modeled after the response of the researchcommunity to confrontations with animal rightsgroups. Animal research has been subject to thesame kinds of political pressures from animal rightsgroups. Animal researchers are responding with ed-ucational campaigns that inform the public aboutthe benefits of animal research. These campaignsalso indicate how animal researchers have respond-ed as a community to the valid concerns forwardedby members of the public. Among other strategies,the research community has developed handlingprotocols.

It seems that this industry might look at other ex-amples of how other workers have responded tothese groups. Although the animal rights groupshave not become overtly threatening, we must re-member that many research institutions haveheightened security because of the threat of violencefrom these groups.

I think that a proactive approach is definitely ap-propriate. I am also very troubled about the PETAoutreach effort to the public schools. That seems tome to be the most critical place to respond becauseof the vulnerability of children to any kind of infor-mation presented by an adult.

QUESTION: How much of the PETA informationis accurate?

P. OLIN: I think a very strong force behind PETAis the desire to have everyone be vegetarian. I thinkthat this is the underlying motivation. You can seethat on their Web pages. Also, there may be somegood natural resource arguments that we should allbe vegetarians in terms of the ecological impacts ofanimal protein production.


QUESTION: You mentioned the need for compro-mise among these groups with deeply held opin-ions. Do you have any successful examples from theSan Francisco experience?

P. OLIN: At this point in time, I would have to sayno. However, I think we will see compromises, be-cause I think the Chinese merchants will be forcedto respond and to improve their animal handlingpractices and their care prior to being dispatchedfor food.


SUMMARY

The last 30 years have witnessed a dramatic risein social concern for animal treatment and animalwelfare across the Western world. We demonstratethis phenomenon briefly and explain the nature andcause of these ethical concerns. Issues that couldarise in aquatic food animal transport will be men-tioned and a strategy explained for the industry toproactively accommodate itself to the social ethicwithout being forced to do so by legislation.

BACKGROUND STATEMENT

Anyone who reads a newspaper or watches televi-sion cannot have failed to notice an ever-increas-ing social concern with animal treatment duringthe past three decades in the United States, Cana-da, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe.This concern has had a major impact on all areasof animal use in society. In the United States, thisconcern has been operative on federal, state, andlocal legislative and regulatory levels.

According to the National Cattlemen’s Associationand the National Institutes of Health, both of whomhave no vested interest in inflating the influenceof this issue, since 1980 Congress has received moreletters, phone calls, faxes, and personal contactson animal welfare issues than on any other mat-ter. Numerous locales have abolished the steel-jawed trap by statute and others, like the State ofColorado, by public referendum. Spring bear huntshave suffered similar fates, where there is a dan-ger of shooting a lactating mother and orphaningcubs that then cannot be force-fed. In Colorado, over70% of the public voted to abolish the hunt. An iden-tical hunt in Ontario, Canada, was abolished bythe Minister of the Environment in spite of the factthat the hunt brings a considerable amount of mon-ey into the province. In Europe, confinement agri-cultural practices that are the mainstay of NorthAmerican animal agriculture have been swept awayby public concern expressed in legislation. Swedenled the way in 1988 with what the New York Timescalled a “Bill of Rights” for farm animals.

Whereas 20 years ago one could find no U.S. feder-al legislative proposals pertaining to animal wel-fare, recent years have witnessed as many as 60such proposals each year in Congress alone. Theseproposals have included attempts to protect animalsin research, save marine mammals from becomingvictims of tuna fishermen, and curtail the exoticbird trade. Other animal uses, such as cosmetic test-ing, have been changed by people voting with theirpocketbook. The Body Shop, for example, became abillion dollar company by disavowing such testing.According to the executive director of the AmericanQuarter Horse Association, their single biggest ex-pense is tracking horse welfare legislation at alllevels of government. In 1998, such proposed legis-lation filled a volume the size of a big-city telephonebook. Last year in California, voters passed a billmaking the slaughter of horses for food or shippinghorses for that purpose a felony. While this law isobviously not enforceable, it is a good indicator ofpublic sentiment.

Perhaps most indicative of the degree of U.S. pub-lic commitment to animal welfare was the passageof two pieces of federal law in 1985 aimed at regu-lating the use of animals in research and, particu-larly, at minimizing animal pain and suffering. Thereason these laws are so significant is that they werevigorously opposed by the research community. Thisgroup went so far as to threaten the public withgrave danger to human health, specifically to chil-dren’s health, if the laws were passed. The researchcommunity even produced a less than subtle filmentitled “Will I Be All Right, Doctor?,” with the que-ry coming from a sick child and the reply comingfrom a pediatrician who in essence affirmed, “Youwill be, if they leave us alone to do as we wish withour animals.”

Yet despite this naked appeal to fear, the extensiveresearch animal protection laws moved throughCongress easily, even though roughly 90% of theanimals used in research are rats and mice. Theseanimals are not cute and cuddly, indeed are repul-sive to most people and traditionally associated in

Animal Ethics and the Live Aquatic Animal Trade

Bernard E. RollinColorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

36 Rollin: Animal Ethics and Live Trade

the public mind with filth and disease. If the publiccan generate enough moral concern about these an-imals to tolerate alleged risks to children’s health,it is clear that the treatment of any animal can be-come the focus of public concern.

It is thus quite manifest that animal welfare is aforce to be reckoned with socially, more so than everin human history. In work that I did for USDA ex-plaining the emergence of this social phenomenon,I distinguished five reasons why it has developedso strongly during the last 30 years.

In the first place, major demographic changes havechanged the paradigm for what an animal is in thesocial mind. A century ago, when the society washighly agricultural, if one had asked the man inthe street, urban or rural, to state the first wordthat came to his mind when one said “animal,” itwould have been “horse,” “cow,” “food,” “work,” etc.With well under 1% of the public engaged in ani-mal production agriculture (in fact, only 1.7% of thepublic is engaged in any agricultural production atall) coupled with increasing urbanization, this isno longer the case. The paradigm for an animal isnow the companion animal with almost 100% of thepet-owning public declaring that their animals are“members of the family.”

Second, the mass media, most notably newspapersand television, have discovered that “animals sellpapers” (recall Animal Planet, an entire televisionstation devoted to animals) and that exposés of ani-mal abuse sell even more papers. Such exposure hasgreatly sensitized the public to animal welfare issues.

I happened to be in California during the Baby Fayincident and was besieged by a bunch of reportersbecause I work in ethics of genetic engineering, bio-tech, advances in science, and so forth. The report-ers wanted me to comment on, quote, “Is it themonkey or the kid?” I said, “No, actually Baby Fayis more a human subjects issue rather than an an-imal issue.”

There was no pain and suffering associated withtaking the heart from the baboon. However, therewas a failure on the part of the surgeon to notifythe parents of other options.

The reporters said, “We’re not interested in thehuman subject issue. Animals sell papers.”

Another significant example occurred some yearsago when the press revealed that two whales were

trapped in the Arctic ice. In response to a majorU.S. public outcry, the Russians sent an icebreakerto release these animals. Was this an overflowingof Russian compassion? Hardly. Rather, some clev-er Kremlin politicians realized that a good way towin U.S. public opinion was to help the animals.Under other circumstances the Russians mighthave sent a whaling boat. Suffice it to say that sur-veys of the general public since 1990 repeatedlyreveal that at least 85% of the general public be-lieve animals have rights!

Third, the last 50 years in the United States haveseen the American citizen’s moral vision expand toinclude a wide variety of traditionally disenfran-chised human beings—black people, women, hand-icapped persons, children, and so on. This same“moral searchlight” has inevitably focused on theenvironment and on animals, especially since manyanimal activist leaders are veterans of other moralcrusades such as civil rights, women’s causes, andthe labor movement.

Fourth, numerous philosophers and scientists haveoffered rationally based, readable, moral argumentsfor extending greater moral status to animals inways that have captured the public imagination.Jane Goodall, for example, has turned the bulk ofher attention to animal welfare issues. Peter Sing-er’s book, Animal Liberation, has been in print con-stantly for 25 years. Books like The Horse Whispererand When Elephants Weep are best-sellers. Thereare no less than twenty law schools in the UnitedStates that teach animal law. A substantial num-ber of those people are working on legal modalitiesfor elevating the legal status of animals in society.

Finally, and most important, the major changes inanimal use that have occurred since World War IIhave called forth a demand for new and expandedethical categories. Traditional animal use was large-ly agricultural—food, fiber, locomotion, and power.The essence of traditional agriculture was husband-ry (from the Old Norse word for “bonded to thehousehold”). Husbandry meant putting the animalsinto the ideal environment they were evolved forand then augmenting their natural ability to sur-vive with protection from famine, drought, preda-tion, disease, etc. We put square pegs into squareholes, round pegs into round holes, and created aslittle friction as possible doing so. If we harmed theanimals we harmed ourselves.

So powerfully is this “ancient contract” ingrainedin the human psyche, that when the Psalmist wish-


es to metaphorize God’s relationship to Man, he usesa paradigm case of husbandry—the shepherd: “TheLord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He leadethme to green pastures. He maketh me to lie downbeside still waters. He restoreth my soul.” We wantno more from God than a shepherd provides for hisanimals. Thus as long as husbandry was the guid-ing principle of agriculture, the only social ethicneeded was prohibition of overt cruelty and to catchthe few deviants who caused suffering for no reason.

The anti-cruelty ethic is almost as old as humanhistory. It can be found in the Bible, as in the in-junction not to muzzle the ox when it is threshinggrain. The owner of the ox loses little by letting theox eat the few bits of grain that fall down; the ani-mal suffers greatly by not being permitted to enjoya favored food. Muzzling the ox creates unnecessarysuffering and no human benefit. The prohibitionagainst cruelty was carried on through the Rabbin-ical tradition, ancient and medieval philosophy, andinto modern times where it is law in virtually allcivilized societies.

Traditionally, given predominantly agriculturaluses of animals, the anti-cruelty ethic was designedto catch sadists and psychopaths who, as modernresearch has confirmed, begin with animals andmove to people. The ethic was not meant to pre-clude all infliction of pain on animals. Some painwas taken for granted, for example in branding,castration, and dehorning cattle or trapping var-mints. Such pain was perceived as necessaryto “minister to the necessities of man,” as onelaw puts it or rather to minister to normal hu-man needs and desires. Anti-cruelty was directedagainst deliberate, willful, unnecessary, purposeless,sadistic, deviant infliction of pain and sufferingor against outrageous neglect such as not feedingand watering.

In short, traditional agriculture was roughly a sym-biotic fair contract: “we take care of the animalsand they take care of us,” as western ranchers stillsay. But this changed after World War II. Withthe loss of agricultural land and labor to urbaniza-tion, an industrialized view of agriculture as pro-ducer of cheap and plentiful food emerged. Thus,industry values of efficiency and productivity re-placed husbandry values. Given the advent of “tech-nological sanders” such as antibiotics and vaccines,we could now force square pegs into round holesand put the animals into situations where, thoughtheir welfare was negatively affected, profit and pro-ductivity were not.

The infliction of suffering that was not deliberatecruelty was further sanctioned by the rise of largeamounts of biomedical research and testing on an-imals at roughly the same time. Researchers areinvariably motivated not by cruelty, but by decentconsiderations such as curing disease and promot-ing health. Corporations are motivated by the de-sire to protect the public against toxicity ofhousehold products and themselves from lawsuits.The net result, though, was an explosion of animalsuffering that inexorably called forth new ethicalconcepts beyond deliberate cruelty.

In fact, a moment’s reflection reveals that the vastmajority of animal suffering today is not the resultof cruelty, but rather is the result of decently moti-vated activities. For example, the cases of sadisticcruelty pale in comparison to the fact that we pro-duce 8 billion broiler chickens a year in confine-ment with 80% of them bruised or fractured as theygo to market.

To go “beyond cruelty,” then, society has looked tothe ethical concepts it uses for people and appliedthem, appropriately modified, to animals. In sum-mary form, the new ethic says that when we useanimals, as when we use people, we must respecttheir basic biological and psychological needs andnatures. Such respect for humans is encoded inrights. This is what I have called their “telos” fol-lowing Aristotle—that is the “horseness of thehorse,” the “pigness of the pig.” Since such respectno longer follows automatically from husbandry,this ethic demands that we legislate or otherwiseimpose such “fair use.”

With public sensitivity to animals so intensified byall of the factors enumerated above, it is no sur-prise that social tolerance for animal abuse, wheth-er the result of cruelty or not, has diminishedprecipitously. The new ethic of respect for animalneeds and natures has, for example, abolished theold zoos that were little more than prisons for ani-mals. The new concern for animals has also consid-erably broadened and expanded what counts ascruelty. It has also considerably truncated the sortsof reasons that provide valid justifications for hurt-ing animals. In the past, society was content to in-terpret the prohibition against unnecessarysuffering in the cruelty laws as meaning that ani-mal suffering would be tolerated only as long as itwas not sadistic, or totally purposeless, or if it wasinconvenient or expensive to eliminate it. Suchwould be the case with castration and branding inthe cattle industry.


Ever increasingly, society will accept animal suf-fering as necessary only if (a) the suffering occursin the context of a use beneficial to most people and(b) it is impossible to alleviate. This occurs whenwe do biomedical research for human or animalhealth on animals and create disease, injury, stress,etc. in them. Even in such cases, where society seessuffering as inevitable, it will control such behav-ior to assure that such suffering is minimal. An ex-ample is when the laboratory animal laws mandatepharmacological control of pain and living environ-ments that suit the animals’ natures.

This new way of thinking has had and will haveconsiderable impact on all of animal use. It will, asit has done the world over in agriculture and re-search, proscribe activities that significantly violateanimal’s natures. But, perhaps even more impor-tant, it will no longer tolerate suffering to whichalternatives exist and no longer tolerate major suf-fering that does not benefit society in general. Inother words, what is actionable under the anti-cru-elty ethic and laws will be expanded. The USDAwas successfully prosecuted in 1984 for mandatinghot iron face-branding of dairy cows it had boughtto thin the U.S. herd. A New York State judge saidthat USDA was indeed guilty of cruelty, for it hadnot attended to or considered non-painful ways ofidentifying these animals.

This, then, is a brief summary of the social ethicalforces characterizing society’s views of animals atthe beginning of the new millennium. All indica-tions point to this ethic expanding, not diminish-ing. And, like most other ethical movements, as itszeal increases it will claim some victims who can-not accommodate new ways of thinking.

In sum, as social concern about animals has grownin society, three responses have developed that havehad or will have major impacts on those who maketheir living from animals. While society is not yetgenerally abolitionist in its view of animal use, ithas shown its willingness to abolish “frivolous uses”such as horse tripping, cosmetics testing on animals,and even circuses. It will tend to try to assure thatanimals used by humans live full and decent lives,with their natures and basic interests met and theirsuffering minimized.

1. As mentioned earlier, as the restricted nature ofthe anti-cruelty ethic is understood, the legal sys-tem will move “beyond cruelty” in regulatinganimal treatment. A beautiful explanation of thismove can be found in a 1985 case that animal

activist attorneys brought against the New YorkState Department of Environmental Conserva-tion (or land management). The lawyers were af-ter the steel-jawed trap, but knew that previousattempts to prosecute trappers under cruel-ty laws were thrown out by the courts sincethe trap was a “standardly accepted device.” Thistime they tried a different tack, arguing that theNew York State government department wasguilty of cruelty not because it allowed the useof the trap per se, but because such use was un-regulated. Thus an injured animal could be heldin the trap indefinitely without food, water, ormedical attention, which did count as cruelty.

The judge’s response was ingenious. If it wereup to him personally, he affirmed, he would banthe steel-jawed trap immediately, as it has beenbanned in many countries. But, he pointed out,it is not up to him. The society has not spokenagainst the trap for fur, pest control, or recre-ation. Thus, if the plaintiffs wish to end the trapuse, they should change the social ethic and gonot to the judiciary, but to the legislature. As wehave indicated, citizens are increasingly takingthis tack and hence the proliferation of laws wementioned earlier. Laws could easily be passedlimiting practices you take for granted whicheither cause suffering or violate animal nature.

2. Sympathetic judges and prosecutors will increas-ingly expand cruelty notions beyond the deviantand intentionally sadistic to anything caus-ing pain that could be avoided, as we saw in theUSDA face-branding decision. Precedent for thissort of approach exists in your industry. As earlyas 1911, a New York judge pointed out that whatcounts as cruelty changes with degree of socialconcern. He noted that the concept could,inprinciple, apply to turtles being imported forsoup that were placed on their backs and tiedtogether by a rope passing through holes in theirfins, or to live codfish that were thrown in bar-rels of ice and sold as live cod; or to animalscooked alive. More recently, in the past two years,animal rights groups, including Chinese groups,have brought suit against merchants in SanFrancisco’s Chinatown for cruelty for keepinglive fish and other animals under conditions ofpain, suffering, distress, and deprivation.

3. Campaigns can be launched to boycott animalproducts perceived to be produced or transported cruelly. Such campaigns have been directedagainst paté de foie gras produced by force-feed-


ing, tuna-fishing that uses nets imperiling dol-phins, the live lobster trade, and has virtuallydestroyed the white veal industry.

FOCUS ON LIVE AQUATICS INDUSTRY

What areas of your industry are vulnerable? Firstof all, we have mentioned the furor in Chinatownof San Francisco. The same sorts of concerns couldbe directed against routine practices in your indus-try. These include the decompression associatedwith fishing leading to rupture of animal organs,netting practices, death by suffocation when ani-mals are placed on ice, sorting of fish using spikedrods, and the practice wherein crabs have legs tornoff and are then thrown back into the sea to regen-erate the missing appendages.

It is revelatory to me about evolving social thoughtthat some ten years ago, at an annual meeting ofthe fishery managers of Colorado and Wyoming,hardly radical enclaves, participants expressedmajor concern with catch and release fishing andthe suffering it engenders. It is now far more wide-ly accepted than ever before that fish and otheraquatic animals feel pain. It is further known thatfish are among the animals most susceptible tostress and stress-induced disease, which econom-ics alone dictates you would reduce. The social eth-ical concerns simply increase the imperative.

Second, the transport of live fish involves muchanimal suffering. Some carp have their mouthssewn together for transport to prevent cannibalism.Other fish are transported with insufficient oxygen.Many are crushed; many die of heat stress or deci-mation. Still other sea life such as lobsters havetheir claws fastened shut. Many animals shippedby air die from extremes of temperature on the tar-mac.

Third, the sale and boiling of live shellfish—shrimp,lobsters, and crabs—have raised serious oppositionin Britain. Mainstream moderate groups such asRSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Crueltyto Animals) and UFAW (Universities Federation forAnimal Welfare) have supported restaurant boy-cotts affirming that the animals are suffering, aclaim buttressed by research in the U.K. A new,humane stunner has been developed. PETA (Peo-ple for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) orches-trated an effective campaign some years agodemanding that large, old lobsters be returned tothe sea.

These are just a few of the issues that I, as an out-sider, see as obviously placing your live aquaticsindustry in jeopardy in the face of the new ethic weoutlined. I am sure you could greatly proliferateexamples from your own specialized knowledge.

The obvious question, then, is what you should bedoing proactively to avoid problems. Cruelty casescan be disastrous because even if you win, you lose.For example, if I march outside your university witha sign that says, “Dr. Johnson is not a child molest-er,” in five years your name will be inextricablylinked to child molestation. Consumer boycotts andonerous regulations devised by people who meanwell but do not understand the industry can be dev-astating, as well.

For 25 years, I have worked to help various animaluser groups stay in accord with the social ethic foranimals. After five years of working with the Colo-rado State University Veterinary School, I was grat-ified to find that we were written up in Nature asthe best animal-using campus in the UnitedStates—from an animal welfare point of view. I wasalso part of the group that wrote the 1985 U.S. fed-eral laws that helped assuage public concern aboutthe treatment of animals in research. I have alsoworked with U.S. cattlemen and the governmentsof the United States, Canada, Holland, Australiaand New Zealand to achieve similar goals and amcurrently creating a mechanism for self-examina-tion with the National Western Livestock Show andRodeo.

There are two notions pivotal to the success we haveenjoyed. One is to embark on a campaign of detailedand critical self examination. An industry like yoursmust have an inventory of practices that may beout of harmony with the emerging ethic we havedescribed.

Second, you must continually monitor and explorethe emerging social ethic and use it as a yardstickto gauge industry activities and future plans. Anexample of an industry that did not do this is theconfinement swine industry. Now they are reapingthe wind. They built too many high production unitsand the price of pork is radically depressed, andthey are being bombarded by legislation all overthe United States with impossible environmentaldemands. George Gaskel of the London School ofEconomics found that one of the biggest impedi-ments to the acceptance of biotechnology in Englandand Europe is not fear of risk, but the feeling that


it violates fundamental ethical norms. To my knowl-edge, no regulator ever paid attention to that.

Third, you must have viable action plans for recti-fying and changing the problematic practices youunearth. If you tell the truth, admit your shortcom-ings and have a plan for correcting problem areas.The public will give you some leeway and allow youreasonable time to change established practice. Ifyou lie or prevaricate or attempt to obfuscate, onthe other hand, you will be relentlessly plagued bythe media. Remember: If Nixon had told the truth,he probably would have remained President. TheAmerican public, at least, tends not to kick you whenyou are down and admit your problems.

I will give you an example of this effective strategy.About 12 years ago we had a massive die-off of oldbeagles in one of our research colonies. We werestudying what effect low level radiation has on mor-bidity and mortality of beagles over their whole lifespan. We had a bunch of geriatric animals and thefunding had dried up. They were in outdoor ken-nels and, if you know Colorado, you know that thetemperature can go from 60 above to 30 below over-night and it did. We did not have any heated ken-nels because they were not supplying any moremoney. We were not allowed to change the protocolby supplying straw to insulate the animals. Theresult was that 30 animals died in 10 days.

We had activists coming to the university from asfar away as Massachusetts. We decided in a closedmeeting what we were going to do. Even though itwas right before Christmas, we wrote a 30-pagereport telling the exact truth about what had hap-pened—that the funding agency was no longer fund-ing these kennels. We admitted that this did notexcuse the fact that we did not have the animalsunder proper care. We explained that we were notallowed to change the protocol, that here is whatwe were doing to change it in the future, et cetera.Within minutes of release of that report, the pressno longer came, the activists sent their tickets back,and we heard no more. If we had tried to cover itup, we would still be recovering from it. It is notnews anymore if you admit it. That is crucial.

Toward these ends, I would recommend that youimmediately plan a conference or large portion of aconference specifically focusing on animal welfareissues in your industry and on the emerging socialethic for animals. If nothing else, this shows thepublic you are concerned. Contrary to human na-

ture, it would be wise to listen to and work withyour moderate and rational critics. After you haveexplored the issues, you should set up a committeeof top people from the industry to explore alterna-tives to morally unacceptable practices. Keep inmind that many animal welfare problems and thestress they occasion are, in any case, also costly tothe industry in the form of sick, injured, or deadanimals. You should also set up a timetable for im-plementing changes, express concern for and com-mitment to proper animal treatment, and publicizeyour plan for self-regulation.

The trick is to behave proactively and preemptive-ly. If you wait for a crisis, it will be too late. Then itwill seem as if you are being forced into makingthese changes, and you will be. Do not make themistake of directing your ire against extremists. Inthe end, it is the general public, not the most radi-cal activists, who must be satisfied with your com-mitment to animal welfare.


QUESTION: Why compare problems associatedwith laboratory animals with live aquatics? Whycan something that someone else does harm us?

B. ROLLIN: Because you are guilty of what logi-cians call a “tu quoque fallacy.” Let me explain why.To pursue a line like that is self-destructive. “Tuquoque” means, “you, too.” If you accuse me of slap-ping around my child and I don’t deny it, but I in-stead say, “you slap around your wife,” that doesnot respond to the objection. Do you see the point?The fact that everybody is guilty of some wrong inanimal use doesn’t make the social searchlight anyless focused on you. And if you respond by saying,“Well, what the hell are you guys saying. You treatyour dogs worse than we treat our fish,” I guaran-tee you that is just going to increase their zeal toget you. You can bet on it. That is the way humanpsychology works.

I know, you are just venting. But my point is youcannot afford to vent emotionally. You have to ra-tionally address people’s concerns because they areyour customers. It may become socially unaccept-able to order lobster—which is exactly what oc-curred with regard to veal. When I addressed theAgricultural Research Service at USDA, I talked toan audience of 75 people. Seventy of them said theywould not eat veal even though they helped devel-op the production systems.


QUESTION: Do you think the traditional commer-cial fishery or the newly emerging live fishery isbetter off? It seems that those involved in the livefishery are better equipped to handle an item suchas the public perception of pain. Fish are killed oncommercial boats by gaffing and clubbing. Fish aredressed on many commercial boats that are stillalive as compared to stunning and bleeding in achilled tank with carbon dioxide. Do you think alive harvesting boat is better off?

B. ROLLIN: I don’t know because I do not knowenough about your industry. If you asked me aboutthings in the biomedical area, the cattle area, theswine area, I can answer you. But I learned a longtime ago not to talk about what I don’t know.

QUESTION: Might a small industry have any ad-vantages?

B. ROLLIN: Shooting from the hip, I would saythat there are lots of complex forces operating. Byand large, I think, people favor small individual in-dustries. Do you see what I mean? And in fact, inthe agricultural animal area, small usually goeswith better husbandry. If you can demonstrate thatsmall fishermen are more harmoniously connectedwith nature and the animals they work with interms of sustainability and that sort of thing, I thinkthat this will go a long way. The American publiclikes the little guy.

In agriculture, the corporations have been very in-telligent in turning the small farmer against theanimal rights people. It is only in the last five yearsthe small farmers have begun to realize that theenemy is the big farmer. They are the ones who areputting them out of business, not the animal rightspeople.

QUESTION: Most of my customers are either Asianor first generation Asian-Americans living in theUnited States. I also export to the Asian countries.Is the animal rights attitude also found among thesegroups?

B. ROLLIN: No.

QUESTION: I notice that the animal rights ethicis well-developed in England as in America.

B. ROLLIN: And northern Europe as well. Yes, andit is catching on a little bit in southern Europe. Forexample, if any of you have been to Spain recently,

you can see demonstrations against bullfights,which is incredible. Everything American spreads—good and bad. But I do not think in Asia you aregoing to have much of a problem. There’s less ani-mal welfare thinking in Japan.

I can tell you something about the U.S. swineindustry. I have a friend who is involved in one ofthe big North Carolina swine production units. Theyfigure that they have maybe six to eight years leftin the United States and then they are going to moveto the Orient. The Orient cares less about animalwelfare and, more to the point, the Orient caresabout the environmental despoliation associatedwith this industry. They want pig.

QUESTION: The media is important to the liveindustry. How can the media be more effectivelyused?

B. ROLLIN: There is no question. Everybody de-pends on the media. But, in my experience, themedia is interested in any animal story. Over theyears at Colorado State University, we have beenable to use the media. This may serve as a modelfor your industry. We utilized the media, every timewe made a change in established practice that thepublic would approve of.

Most of you will disapprove of what I am about torelate to you. In 1978 we were teaching surgery toveterinary students by using an animal eighttimes—cutting on them eight times. At other schoolsthey would cut on them 20 times. We provided noafter-care. At my institution, these animals werecalled “sub dogs” and at Purdue they were called“X dogs.” The average person was shocked and hor-rified by this activity. What I did was to tell thepublic, with the permission of the institution, thatwe had been doing this for some time for economicreasons and that we had not thought in ethicalterms. Now that we were thinking in ethical terms,we were committed to phasing this out. Do you seehow this works?

The media carried this nationally and it bore farmore fruit than anybody thought. When we stoppeddoing multiple surgery on animals and went to ter-minal single surgery—which, in any case, is a bet-ter model for what you are going to meet in practice—the local humane society said, “If you guys feelthat strongly about animals, then we will give youthe ones we are going to kill and you can do sur-gery on them, so it is cheaper for you.”


My experience with the American public is that theAmerican public is very fair, very open, very willingto listen to both sides, particularly if you show themthat you are trying. If you just blow the issues off,they will get you.

And that is true with the media, too. The media doesnot only use you, you can use the media. Does thatmake sense? If you tell them something that is re-ally new, that is not just propagandistic nonsense,they are going to listen. For example, if I were work-ing for you, I would say that you hold a conference,you come up with a series of action items, and thenyou tell the media. “We as an industry have becomeconscious of moral obligation,” and so on.

I was involved in saving the livestock showing in-dustry. You may not be aware of this situation. Aboutfive years ago, there was a series of media revela-tions about how corrupt livestock showing was. Thechampion steer at a Denver show had been en-hanced with the anabolic clenbuterol which entersinto the human food chain and poses danger to thegeneral public.

At the same time, a lamb in a Tulsa show had beenobserved by the fair manager being beaten by a kidwith a two-by-four to expand the hindquarters sothat it would look like muscle. In a Texas state fair,a kid shoved a hose down the throat of a pig to in-crease his weight. All these were well-publicized. Asa consequence, we had a two-day meeting of peopleinterested in saving livestock showing. They camefrom every state in the union, 500 people, and be-cause we had to, the group agreed on 18 action itemsincluding making adulterating an animal a felony.

We adopted all of these items as an ad hoc group.Then, when the media came to me during the live-stock show and said, “Tell us about some atrocities.”I said, “No, I will not tell you. You know about theatrocities or you would not be coming to me. Let metell you what is more newsworthy—the fact that500 people from all walks of life are addressing thisin a highly ethical and highly proactive fashion.”And they bought it and they ran it on NPR (Na-tional Public Radio) and elsewhere. Do you see howwe managed this problem?

Acting in this manner goes against your nature. Itis much more natural, and I sympathize with you,to follow the “you, too” strategy mentioned earlier.The only problem is that this strategy will not work.Growing up in New York City and learning streetfighting, I learned very early that the object is to

win. This is not like the British where you put upthe Marquis of Queensberry and do everything in aperfectly fair manner and then you get kicked inthe head. Rest assured—this is a street fight.

QUESTION: This is not really a question, but acomment concerning the recent proposed Senateamendment which would have put some very oner-ous regulations on the shipment of all live animalsin the United States by all air carriers. It was inresponse to animal rights activists concerned aboutdogs, cats, and other animals—companion animalsthat are being transported like luggage. The prob-lem is that the senator who initiated the amend-ment had no idea about live fish, live seafoodproducts that were going on the airplanes as well.As of late 1999, the amendment will be changed toexempt animals not covered in the Animal WelfareAct including fish, reptiles, and amphibians. It ap-pears that the industry is going to dodge this bullet.

B. ROLLIN: Right, well said.

QUESTION: PETA and the other animal rightsactivists have now been put on notice that, in addi-tion to companion animals, there are all these fishthat they did not even think about. I bet you theywill now go after the Animal Welfare Act to includefish, reptiles, and amphibians.

B. ROLLIN: Well, the following may interest you.The Animal Welfare Act does not cover these ani-mals (fish, etc.), but the vast majority of animal carecommittees in research institutions do provide an-esthesia and analgesia, in fact they demand it. It isnot legally justified by either of the laws, but thecommittees, in interest of consistency not politics,feel that there is sufficient evidence that fish maywell feel pain and also some of the higher cephalo-pods. So the institution committees have voluntar-ily said, “Let us deal with this in keeping with whatwe have been shown is social concern.”

QUESTION: An additional comment. I direct thefish labs at the University of Florida and we haveapplied consistent rules. We’re not required to dothis, but we do.

B. ROLLIN: You do, exactly. And if people thinkthat this does not reassure the general public, thatyou are now doing the right thing not because some-body is holding a gun at your head, believe me itdoes provide reassurance. That is why there havebeen less break-ins and that sort of thing, especial-ly, as you know, in Florida which was a hotbed in


the 1980s of people hassling and disrupting meet-ings and so forth. Right?

QUESTION: Still is.

B. ROLLIN: It still is? I would say, in keeping withwhat you said, that you should not think that youare getting away with something just because youdodged the bullet this time.

QUESTION: Precisely. My point is that it is veryalarming how quickly the activists can change theentire industry.

B. ROLLIN: I worked on the federal lab animallaws with people who had 100 years of research ex-perience, so we knew what we were talking about.And if you ever attend Congress to see how lawsare passed, it would curl your hair. A senator or acongressperson who carries a piece of legislationmay know nothing about it. It is put into the handsof aides who may or may not know anything aboutit. One version of our bill was soundly defeated be-cause Congressman Walgren from Pennsylvaniahad been told that a group called AALAC (Ameri-can Association for Accreditation of Laboratory An-imal Care), working as an independent body undercontract to NIH (National Institutes of Health), pro-vides accreditation that assures proper animal care.Well, it doesn’t.

AALAC assures that research facilities are ade-quate for scientific purposes. And yet, Walgrenwrote this in as a provision of his bill—that youcould not do animal research in the United Statesunless you were AALAC accredited. To make all U.S.animal research institutions AALAC accreditedwould have cost 500 billion dollars. This why I donot like law. That is why I much prefer encourag-ing you to clean up your own house. Do you under-stand what I mean here? If other people come toclean your house, they are going to do it with a verybig vacuum cleaner.

QUESTION: In an industry where there are a lotof small operators, would you say that the associa-tions that operators belong to should be taking pro-active action? Examining your own house is difficultto do in an objective manner.

B. ROLLIN: Well, I do not mean to sound like apolitician, but I am going to say yes and no and Iwill tell you why. First, I say yes because you areright. By this I mean a two person operation doesnot have the luxury of reflecting on the social ethic.

But I would also say that you should not “top down”these things because none of the rules will workunless they originate from the grassroots. Once youestablish a reasonable agenda from the top, then itbecomes extremely important to get people at thegrassroots level to see that it is in their interest todo it, to make the adjustments. I think in the caseof a lot of the problems that confront you, it is prob-ably in your economic interest as well to proceed inthis manner—for reasons of quality, dead animals,and so forth. So I think it has to be dialectical.

QUESTION: I would like to mention somethingsimilar in another industry. King County, Washing-ton state, has a hazardous waste program that hasbeen dealing with a lot of small individual opera-tors. The program has actually been functioningvery nicely. An anonymous information line is avail-able where individual operators can contact haz-ardous waste management at the county to askquestions about their status—to assess their ownstatus, to determine which set of regulations theyfall under, and also to talk about particular prac-tices that had not been thought about. This systemopened up the process, I think. I am not an opera-tor with hazardous materials, but I think this is away that can open the gates to people and to pro-vide some kind of anonymous information network.

B. ROLLIN: True, sure. Let me give you an exam-ple from the beef industry. The beef industry is avery clean industry for meat production from ananimal welfare point of view compared, let us say,to swine or chicken. But there are some very publicpractices that people use to discredit the beef in-dustry. These practices include knife castration,dehorning, and hot iron branding. As one cowboyin Wyoming said to me, “The castration practicedoes not make any sense, Doc. We cut off their tes-ticles, and then we are dinged by the public for be-ing inhumane. Then we put their testicles in theirears (meaning the use of replacement growth hor-mones) and they do not work as well and we getdinged for adulterating the food supply.”

So some very smart operators now just raise youngbulls. If you raise young bulls, you do not need tocastrate. If you do not castrate, you do not have touse growth hormones. You can call the product “nat-ural.” Furthermore, you can market a young bullwith a full month less feeding than a steer becauseyou left the testicles on. Research at Colorado StateUniversity and Nevada has shown that these ani-mals are indistinguishable in palatability, tender-ness, or anything at an age up to about 14 months.


So there are some smart operators who are justmarketing bulls. And they do not call them bulls—rather they call the product “Dakota lean.” Where-as the other operators are getting perhaps a buck apound, these smart operators are getting ten dollarsa pound from exclusive restaurants on both coasts.They sure are not getting this kind of money inWyoming, but it is not the Wyoming market theyare after. Do you see my point?

So I think the smartest things to fix first are thethings that also cost you money. You do not have totrumpet that, but you do not deny it either. You pointout that these are welfare issues that your industryis committed to fix.


ABSTRACT

The transportation of live cod, recently caught fromdeep water by seine netting, has frequently resultedin high mortality, even when the fish density in thevessel holding tanks (with continuous through-flowof seawater) was restricted to 100-120 kg per m3.In addition, a substantial mortality usually occurredafter transfer from these holding tanks to floatingnet cages. This mortality occurred during the first fewdays after transport from the fishing grounds andis due to the poor condition of the fish after transport.A mortality rate of 10% has been a rather commonfigure and occasionally about 50% of the cod died.

Based on findings reported in H.-P. Pedersen’s doc-toral thesis, technology for greatly improved sur-vival rates and transport efficiency is presented.The concept differs significantly from standard tech-nology for live fish transport tank systems. This con-cept is based on the hypothesis that insufficientoxygen supply is the main cause of the high mor-tality rates related to transport of recently caughtcod. Based on hydrodynamic analysis of the veloci-ty and distribution of the water flow in the holdingtank, a system for efficient oxygen distribution hasbeen developed. This system allows for the avoid-ance of possible respiratory malfunction due to over-ly dense fish concentrations. The hypothesis andtechnical solutions are investigated theoreticallyand experimentally.

Through the use of this innovative system, a sur-vival rate of practically 100% is obtainable for re-cently caught cod that is transported in tankscontaining 400-600 kg fish per m3 tank volume. Thisis about a 50:50 mixture of fish and seawater. Thekey to safe and efficient transport of live cod is anefficient system for circulation and distribution of

the oxygen-carrying seawater. The proposed circu-lating system is also suitable for the “high density”live transport of other species. For certain species,the ability of this transport system to successfullyhandle more than 700 kg fish per m3 tank volumeis reported.

BACKGROUND

The title of this report contains the phrase “recon-ditioning transport.” By “reconditioning” we meanthat the fish should be in better condition after thetransport than they were when the transport start-ed. Atlantic cod is the main topic of this presenta-tion, but I think the results and the conclusions willbe of more general interest. By “deep water” wemean depths of 100-200 meters or even more.

Fish farming based on fish derived from the fish-ing fleet has several advantages compared to fishfarming based on juvenile fish from hatcheries. Withsmall fish quotas in the late 1980s, Norwegian fish-ermen looked to the farming of cod as a way of get-ting added value from the limited catch. Severalfish farming projects were started using live codthat originated from the coastal fishing fleet. How-ever, mortality rates were often high (10-50%) andrather unpredictable, both during transport fromthe fishing grounds to near netpens and severaldays after vessel transportation. Without a lowerand more predictable mortality rate, the future offish farming based on the vessel transport of livecod seemed uncertain. Vessel transport and short-term storage seemed to be a risky business.

Later, people began focusing on the potential in-crease in income that could be gained from tempo-rarily storing the live fish in order to “smooth out”

Holding Tank System for Reconditioning Transport of Live CodRecently Captured in Deep Water

Hans-Peder PedersenMARINTEK (Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute), Trondheim, Norway

Arnt AmbleSINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, Trondheim, Norway

H.-P. Pedersen’s current affiliation is Capella Technologies AS, Trondheim, Norway

46 Pedersen and Amble: Holding Tanks for Live Cod

the fish supply during the fishing season. A variantof this idea called for storing the cod alive until af-ter the close of the fishing season, when fish land-ings are smaller and prices higher.

The interest in solving the problem of high mortal-ity rates associated with the transport of live codgave birth to several research projects sponsoredby the Research Council of Norway. These projectswere the basis for a doctoral thesis dealing with“Live Fish Technology,” where the live transport ofwild captured cod was the main issue.

PROBLEMS AND RESULTS

As early as in 1957, Professor Gunnar Sundnes re-ported that live cod in good condition could be trans-ported at high fish densities—500-600 kg per m3

(Sundnes 1957). However, cod caught by Danishseine at depths of 100 m or more are generally notin very good shape when hauled onboard.

There was a lot of speculation about the causes ofthese large losses. The mortality factors consideredincluded:

1. Condition of the cod.

2. Spawning season.

3. Feeding.

4. Rough treatment from the fishing gear.

5. Decompression from 200 meters, causing expan-sion of the buoyancy system to be out of balance.

6. Stress due to crowding during catching and hand-ling of the fish.

7. The rupture of the swim bladder (a common oc-currence in most of the fish).

8. Gas bubbles in the bloodstream causing dam-age and stress.

9. Mechanical damage onboard the fishing vessel.

10. Partial suffocation resulting from rough han-dling in the catching process.

11. Other holding conditions aboard the transportvessels, including water temperature variationsand possible stress reactions due to the crowd-ing of fish in the transport tanks.

A combination of a many different stress-inducingfactors were possibly involved.

The various problems associated with the live har-vesting and onboard transport of fish caused us to

investigate several aspects of the handling process.Areas of study included:

1. Possible correlation between mortality and howthe catching operation was carried out includ-ing the influence of the hauling speed of the fish-ing gear on the mortality rate (Pedersen 1997).

2. Laboratory tests investigating possible stressreactions due to high fish density (Staurnes etal. 1993b).

3. Stress response due to low temperature and rap-id temperature drop (Staurnes et al. 1993a).

Several researchers, including myself, tried to solvethe problem. We started on board the fishing vesselswith observations. Many fish were cut into pieces togain needed samples, which were taken ashore foranalysis. We studied fishing gear mortality, the speedof gear hauling, and we studied the behavior of thefish in relation to the fishing gear. We recorded tem-peratures, oxygen levels, and so on. In the laboratory,the meat was studied. My colleagues measured stressreactions and what happens to the fish when thewater temperature drops very quickly. Many aspectsof this work were done at the request of the fisher-men and other members of the fishing industry.

So then, what is the real problem? What could itbe? None of the above tests indicated a likely rea-son for the high mortality rate observed in connec-tion with full-scale transport and storage of livecaptured wild cod. We were having difficulty accept-ing the possibility that there might be a simpleanswer to the problem.

During the transport of live cod from the fishinggrounds, it was observed that the cod had a tendencyto accumulate close to the bottom of the fish tanks.In this area, oxygen levels as low as 2 mg per m3 weremeasured (Pedersen 1997). In traditionally designedwell vessels (live hauling vessels), seawater enters thefish holding tanks through perforations in the forwardtransverse bulkhead. The water leaves the tanksthrough the transverse aft bulkhead. This arrange-ment does not ensure sufficient water speed andoxygen levels near the bottom of the holding tanks.

It occurred to us that this water distribution pat-tern might be stressing the fish, possibly causingsuffocation. In the traditional holding tank, thewater will flow rather easily through the tank, butnot necessarily through the fish to provide for theirrespiration needs. Even if the water was directly


applied to the tightly grouped fish, the water wouldmeet the resistance from this dense mass and thenmost of the flow would pass over the fish. The fol-lowing thoughts arose from this observation: Couldthe reason for the high mortality rate be as simple asinferior oxygen supply? Could a better arrangementfor water and oxygen distribution be the answer?

We then proposed our very simple answer to the prob-lem—more efficient distribution of the water enter-ing the holding tanks. Water supplied from a bottom“grid” arrangement was the proposal. We should tryto take advantage of the hydrodynamic forces in-volved with the proper distribution of water. Butnow let’s take a look at the principle of this up-welling arrangement. The water must pass throughthe tightly grouped fish, not slide over top of it.

We proposed an arrangement in which seawater issupplied through a perforated bottom in the fishtank. The bottom grid arrangement is designed toprovide sufficient flow resistance to distribute thewater evenly in spite of any local accumulation offish. However, it is possible that, in spite of a veryefficient distribution of water and oxygen along thebottom of the tank, the water could escape withoutproviding a sufficient oxygen supply to all the fishin the tank. One way this could happen would be inthe situation where the accumulated fish behavedlike a carpet which could lift off and let the mainpart of the water stream escape upward along abulkhead or a corner.

The desired water distribution would also be lostif most of the water escaped through a few random-ly developing “tunnels” in the fish mass. A third pes-simistic hypothesis assumed that even if therewas a sufficient water and oxygen supply inside thedense “fish carpet,” the pressure from neighboringfish caused by reduced buoyancy would, in turn,reduce or otherwise hinder respiratory functions.

So we started with some small calculations andstudied what happens when the water stream flowsfrom the bottom upward through the tank—verti-cal flow in other words. Fortunately, the laws ofphysics dictate that the velocity of the water willbe rather low when no fish are present in the hold-ing tank. However, when the fish are crowded to-gether, the water flows in the small channels betweenthe fish and the velocity of water will, of course,increase. Taking the increased vertical flow intoaccount, we saw the possibility of some lifting forc-es that could lift the cod, which have completely orpartially lost their buoyancy. We also realized that

you do not need a large amount of extra water flowto lift cod that have lost only 5% of their buoyancy.

We commenced our study with a set of carefullyconsidered assumptions. Assuming the presence ofsmall openings between each fish in the ratherdense fish mass, an upward water flow will reach arelatively high velocity. This high water speed willintroduce lift forces on each fish and the downwardpressure due to limited buoyancy will be reduced.When increasing the water supply and thus increas-ing the water velocity, the hydrodynamic lift forc-es, at some optimum level, should be able to keepeach fish floating free in the water stream. Calcu-lations indicated that some extra water supplymight be needed to get cod, with no buoyancy re-maining from their deflated swim bladder, to liftoff the bottom in a vertical water flow. The resultsfrom the calculations seemed promising, but wouldit work in real life?

To further investigate our assumptions, tests wereperformed using cylindrical models representingfish. Three different specific gravities were testedand retested. The conclusion was rather easily drawn.The plastic fish models will separate, lift off, andwill be sorted according to their specific gravity. Thisis, of course, not the final proof that we had arrivedat a successful system, but it was a step on the wayto solving the problem. The model test results indi-cated that fish would float individually on the wa-ter stream and fish with different specific gravitieswould be sorted into “gravity groups.”

The next step was full-scale tests onboard the fish-ing vessel Karl Wilhelm. The fish tank arrangementis a simplified double-bottom holding tank. Theadjustable bottom or “grid” provides for the properdistribution of water within the tank. Key data fromtwo full-scale tests are given in Table 1. Resultsfrom these and other experiments and full-scaletests are summarized in Table 2.

So the real test was in practice on the fishing vessel.We made three trips. The first one was a failure causedby a rather simple fault. The flaps between the wallsand the bottom were not functioning. The necessaryadjustments were made and the next two trips weresuccessful.

The results presented in Table 2 indicate that forthe transport of cod captured alive, fish density ina tank with a conventional horizontal-flow waterdistribution system should be restricted to about120 kg fish per m3 tank volume. With this original


Table 1. Key data from two full-scale tests on transporting live cod from fishing grounds.

16-17 April 1996 24-25 April 1996

Fish density 310 kg/m3 380 kg/m3

Transport duration 16 hours 16 hoursNumber of fish 307 410Number of dead fish after transport and two weeks storage 2 0Mean size of fish 2.73 kg 2.50 kgCatching depth 80 m 70-110 mWind and waves L. breeze, 1 m wavesHauling speed of fishing gear 88 m/minWater temperature 2.8-3.6°CWater supply 100 m3/hourResistance through bottom grid 0.004-0.005 barOxygen consumption 100 mg/kg/hourCod with ruptured swim bladder Approx. 50%

Table 2. Fish densities achieved for safe transport of live fish.

Newly caught transport Stored fish from fishing grounds

Salmon Cod Saithe Cod Saithe FlounderType of transport kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m2a Source

Well vesselConventional, 200 226 190- 150 Interview with well horizontal water flow 200 vessel skippers 1994

Well vesselWater flow from 350- Mads Waage, bottom grids 400 Frøya fiskeindustri

Fishing vesselHorizontal water flow 120 50 Isaksen and Midling 1995Water from bottom grids 250 180 Isaksen and Midling 1995Water from bottom grids 360 B. Isaksen 1996b

Water from bottom grids 380 Pedersen et al. 1996

ContainerTrain and lorry 500- G. Sundnes 1957-1964

600

Laboratory experiments 540 MARINTEK/SINT EF 1993

a Storage density for flounder given in kg per square meters.b Unpubl. notes


system, a mortality rate of about 10% should beexpected. However, with a water distribution sys-tem using the new concept, successful transport of380 kg fish per m3 was obtained. Mortality was prac-tically zero. It is interesting to note that the vol-ume actually occupied by fish, the “real density,”was estimated to be about 600 kg per m3.

The new concept worked very well. Survival wasclose to 100%. During the second of the three trips,we had two dead cods out of about 350. However,these two fish were not very lively when they en-tered the system. On the third trip, about 400 codwere transported and all of them survived the 16hours of vessel transport and storage for two weeks.Colleagues at SINTEF (Trondheim), analyzed sam-ples for stress levels using cortisol and other indi-cators. They reported back that the stress level inthese fish after the vessel transport period was atthe same level as measured in cod stored for a longperiod of time. It is apparent that we have improvedlive holding conditions during vessel transport. Thecod were in good shape at the end of transport.

For the live transport of flounder, the correspondingfish density figures are 50 kg per square meter oftank bottom area in the conventional system and360 kg fish per square meter for a system using thenew water distribution concept. We later successfullytransported flounder at a density of 700 kg per m2.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our calculations, experiments, and currentstage of knowledge, the following conclusions couldbe drawn:

1. The safe live transport of a wide range of fishspecies could be performed at very high holdingdensities through the efficient distribution of thewater and oxygen supply through the bottomgrid arrangement.

2. Respiratory malfunction caused by reduced orabsent swim bladder buoyancy could be curedby increasing the water supply through a bot-tom grid arrangement, thus providing sufficienthydrodynamic lift to separate the fishes.

COMMENTS AND FUTURE

DEVELOPMENTS

Fish with a high level of swimming activity willsurvive transport at rather high fish densities whenthe crew are using the proposed concept. Full-scale

tests with salmon showed 100% survival at fishdensities of 350-400 kg per m3 (see Table 2).

To avoid wear and tear on fish with high swimmingactivity, the tank geometry and water flow arrange-ments should be manipulated in order to allow thefish to swim in an “organized” manner, for exam-ple, in a school.

The motions of the vessel navigating in waves willintroduce pressure variations and relative move-ments between the fish and the walls of the tank.Above certain limits of pressure variations and ves-sel movements, several fish species will become sea-sick. They will lose buoyancy and accumulate onthe bottom of the fish tanks.

The rolling motions of a vessel can easily be takencare of through the use of suitable, well-known rolldamping devices. Heaving and pitching motions arenot adequately taken care of by conventional shipdesign. With a transport vessel specifically designedfor live fish, however, the heaving and pitchingmotions of the vessel could be minimized throughthe use of active fins.

REFERENCES

Pedersen, H.-P. 1997. Live fish technology for fishingvessel. Doctoral thesis, Norges Teknisk-naturviten-skapelige Universite. MTA-rapport 1997:119. ISBN82-471-01424. 105 pp.

Staurnes, M., T. Sigholt, H.-P. Pedersen, and T. Rustad.1993. Physiological effects of simulated high densitytransport of Atlantic cod. SINTEF, Trondheim. ISBN82-595-7460-8.

Staurnes, M., F.R. Rainuzzo, T. Sigholt, and L. Jørgen-sen. 1993. Exposing of cod to cold water: Stress re-sponse, osmotic regulation and composition of lipidsand Na-K-ATPase activities in gill tissue. SINTEFReport SFT21 A93015, Trondheim. ISBN 82-595-7455-1, pp. 1-26. (In Norwegian.)

Sundnes, G. 1957. On the transport of cod and coalfish.J. Cons. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 22(2).

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

H.-P. Pedersen is a naval architect and marine en-gineer with more than 28 years of experience withresearch and development in the design of fishingvessels and equipment. Recently he completed a doc-


tor of engineering program with a thesis on live fishhandling and live fish technology for fishing vessels.


QUESTION: What was the density of the cod whenthe 10% to 50% mortality was reached?

H.-P. PEDERSEN: The highest level of density wasabout 120 kilos per cubic meter. However, I thinkin most cases the density was lower than this. Soyou can say we have improved the process by morethan three times.

E. KOLBE: How did you deal with the expandedswim bladder in the fish?

H.-P. PEDERSEN: We harvested the fish fromabout 100 meters depth. The experiment was per-formed at sea level. I think all of the cod had rup-tured swim bladders. Some of the fish still had alot of gas inside. By the way, cod are able to get ridof gas from the bladder via a small rupture in thestructure. So even if the swim bladder has ruptured,the stomach or abdominal cavity could still containa large gas volume.

QUESTION: What type of water circulation is usedin the vessel live tanks—recirculation or flow-through?

H.-P. PEDERSEN: We pumped surface seawaterand discharged it overboard. The oxygen consump-tion was about 100 milligrams per kilo per hour.

QUESTION: Did you feed the cod onboard the ves-sel?

H.-P. PEDERSEN: No, we did not feed the cod.They were just kept in captivity for two weeks.

QUESTION: Did the fish lose weight? Also, howmuch value was added to these products becausethey were kept in water? Did you get a higher price?

H.-P. PEDERSEN: You are asking about the lossof product weight. This was not a question for us.

The big issue was “will this cod survive.” I knowthat different species from the same family havebeen kept in captivity for three months withoutfeeding. They lose weight—some from the muscleand some from the liver. I do not have any numbersfor the cod in this experiment.

QUESTION: Going back to a previous questionabout the swim bladder, what can be done to pre-vent overinflation? Could you bring them up slowly?What did you do to fix the problem?

H.-P. PEDERSEN: We were much concerned aboutthe problem of gas retained in the stomach or out-side the swim bladder when the swim bladder rup-tured. But it turned out to be, in fact, a problem ofonboard selection. You do not retain cod that seemto keep air in the stomach. Regardless of the depthof capture, these cods will not survive. However, inthe main part of the catch (about 90%), the swimbladder will rupture and most of these cod appar-ently are able to get rid of all of their gas. Some ofthe fish will have excess buoyancy. These fish tendto swim to the bottom of the tanks. They are usinga lot of energy to get to and stay at the bottom. Itseems that, after the passage of several hours, thesecod with excess buoyancy have been able to regu-late their system so that they are paddling aroundrather happily.

QUESTION: When you have a high density of fishat the bottom of a holding tank, not only would theoxygen concentration be of concern, but ammonialevel would be high, as well. When you redirectedthe water flow, was the problem of ammonia build-up minimized as well?

H.-P. PEDERSEN: You are asking me about am-monia content and oxygen level. I have done somecalculations of the possible problems with ammo-nia buildup. Very briefly, this will not occur in anopen or flow-through system. However, I measuredoxygen levels as low as two milligrams per liter.This is on the point of suffocation. So, it is not sur-prising that we observed a high level of mortalityin the traditional horizontal flow systems.


INTRODUCTION TO LOBSTER STORAGE

AND SHIPPING

I am no longer active in scientific research, but asthe editor of two aquaculture-related magazines Istill have a keen interest in seafood. I believe wehave a clear responsibility to comment on the in-dustry, and it is important that scientists, engineers,equipment designers and manufacturers, and thepeople who are using information and equipmentto grow, catch, or sell fish and shellfish, should allbe talking together. My own professional history,going back to the early 1960s, began with the lob-ster industry, and some of my earliest field tripswere to tidal lobster pounds.

Figure 1 is an aerial view of a typical Bay of Fundylobster pound. Lobsters are still stored in these tra-ditional pounds throughout the winter season whenfishing is difficult and prices are high. The poundoperators depend on the 25 ft (8 m) tides at themouth of the Bay of Fundy to provide adequatewater circulation to these holding areas. At hightide, a fresh supply of water will completely floodthe pounds. The wall and fence keep the lobstersfrom escaping and retain a meter or so of waterwhen the tide is out. The tides serve as a naturalpump for these holding systems.

Lobsters are banded to immobilize the claws andplaced in the pound. In the old days, they were sim-ply tossed in with little regard to their conditionand, as a consequence, the mortality rate was quitehigh. To complicate matters further, there was lit-tle in the way of record keeping. Then as now, lob-sters were raked off the bottom of the pound bymeans of drags, and packed and shipped aroundthe country and to more distant markets.

It is easy to forget that the transport of lobstershas gone on for many years. Before there were air-planes making rapid transcontinental journeys, thetrains did a very fine job of it. Lobsters were tradi-tionally brought to the West Coast of North Ameri-ca packed in wooden boxes, wrapped with seaweed,

and iced. Every two or three hundred miles, wherev-er the train had to stop, somebody would refresh theice to keep the lobsters properly chilled. In this man-ner, they would make their way across the continent.The transport of shellfish across the continent by railbegan very shortly after the last spike was driven.

On several occasions earlier in the twentieth century,lobsters were shipped by rail and introduced to sev-eral locations on the Pacific Coast in an effort to setup viable reproducing populations. Other shellfishsuch as oysters were also transported in this way.

Lobsters are still put into crates or boxes chilledwith frozen gel packs and shipped across the coun-try, either by truck or by airplane. The traditionalstandard wooden lobster crates (Fig. 2) held some-thing in the order of 100 pounds (45 kg) of lobsters,crammed in on top of one another. Frequently thelid was put down and somebody would jump on thetop to make sure that they were all firmly packed.

This same packing practice is still common in thesea urchin industry. Shippers do not realize thatthe skin of a sea urchin is on the outside. When

Short-Term Holding and Live Transport of Aquatic Animals:An Overview of Problems and Some Historic Solutions

David J. ScarrattHatchery International, Bridgetown, Nova Scotia, Canada

Figure 1. Lobster pound on Deer Island, New Brunswick(Clearwater Lobsters photo).

52 Scarratt: Short-Term Holding and Live Transport of Aquatic Animals

they are crushed one on top of the other with theirspines sticking out, and then jumped on, every ur-chin is going to be injured. Shippers are finally be-ginning to learn that product survival and lowmortality rates are directly dependent on the carewith which they handle their product.

REVIEW OF HOLDING SYSTEMS

Times are changing, and the cavalier disregard withwhich fishermen, in particular, and the industry,in general, held their lobsters is also changing. Nowlobsters are genuinely perceived to be “dollars onthe hoof.” Although some people still need some ed-ucation, most lobsters are now handled much morecarefully.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate part of Clearwater Seafood’slobster holding facility. (An extensive description ofthis was delivered at this conference in 1997.) Here,lobsters are handled individually, rather than inbulk, and are carefully banded. They are placed intoindividual compartments within trays that are thenstacked on top of one another. High stacks of thesetrays are maintained in this state-of-the-art facility.

This system is the direct descendant of a stackingsystem that I first saw in the Billingsgate Market(London) in 1962. It consisted of a series of trayswith a small reservoir at the bottom filled with cock-leshells, and, in effect functioned as a mini-recircu-lation system. That innovative system was theprototype of units now seen in virtually every sea-food restaurant.

Clearwater Seafoods has developed this to the nthdegree. They can now store in excess of a millionpounds of lobsters in a controlled environment. Theoperating temperature is maintained at about2-3°C, which keeps lobsters for many months in verygood condition. For the most part, these on-landpounds are located in areas where it is possible tomaintain flow-through circulation systems. How-ever, some degree of recirculation is provided be-cause it costs money to cool water and recirculationenables energy conservation. However, recirculationmay also create problems of ammonia buildup, andrequire the addition of a biofilter to remove it. Withthis compartmentalized system, it is possible toadjust the size of the compartment to suit the sizeof the individual lobster.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Figure 5 shows lobsters neatly stacked verticallyin a new plastic shipping container fitted with ad-justable dividers. The claws are banded and the tailsare tucked into the space provided—a bit like a caseof wine. The totes stack for shipment, but can benested for the return journey. This patented sys-tem is a very effective way of handling product. TheSea Hive Corporation of Halifax is now using thisstrategy to ship some of their product.

The lobsters are covered with wet newspaper—sea-weed is no longer the standard. A layer of foil isplaced on top, and then chill-packs are added. Inthis manner, lobsters can be transported from Hal-ifax to Tokyo in something like 56 hours with verygood survival rates.

Sea Hive is also looking at other ways to move lob-sters over long distances. Figure 6 shows the in-side of a 40-foot ocean-going container into whichhas been fitted a plastic liner and a series of sprin-kler hoses. In this particular example, the liner hasnot yet been put on the floor. With this floor liner inplace, the shippers are able to fill the container withlive seafood and recirculate water through it.

The initial shipments employing this method usedadditional technology because the container ship’sfire mains, which are used to supply seawater to irri-gate the lobsters, cannot be opened until the ship isat sea. There was concern that lobster conditionwould deteriorate after they were removed from thepound and before they were at sea, when water circu-lation would be restored. Thus, Sea Hive has beenexperimenting with several different types of recir-culation systems, each using roughly a one-to-one

Figure 2. Traditional lobster crates still in use for short-term storage and shipping (Clearwater Lobsters photo).


ratio of water to lobster volume built into the endof the container.

The developers of this shipping method now findthat the 24-hour period at each end of the journeywhen ocean water is not available does not requirethe use of the recirculation system. They find thatthey can pack the lobsters in their crates inside thecontainer, load it onto the ship, and turn the firemain on as soon as the vessel reaches oceanic wa-ter. At the end of the journey, after the fire main isturned off, the lobsters are cooled from ocean tem-peratures to a holding temperature of 2-3°C usinga chiller system. This step is accomplished beforethe lobsters are off-loaded and taken to their nextmarket destination. The lobsters must be cooledwhile they are still wet—they cannot be allowed todesiccate. This method is a perfectly viable way ofgetting bulk seafood across the Atlantic withoutbeing dependent upon an airplane.

Four shipments of shellfish have now been madefrom Halifax to Europe using this type of technolo-gy. It has been used not only for the shipment of lob-sters, but also for mussels, American and Europeanoysters, and scallops—all with considerable success.

SMALL SCALE LAND-BASED LIVE

HOLDING SYSTEMS

Small seafood outlets and restaurants are begin-ning to use small-scale recirculation systems. Theycan hold several different species, including oysters,

mussels, and lobsters. In some the animals are con-tinuously submerged while in others they are heldunder a spray. Some of the small systems arechilled, and have a pump, and charcoal filter, andan ultraviolet light system to control bacteria.

Figure 8 shows a display case holding oysters,clams, and quahogs. The water enters along a chan-nel, spills into the containers holding the product,flows into another channel across the back, and iseventually channeled to a filter, a pump, and anultraviolet system. There is no additional reservoirin this simple system—the shellfish are in the res-ervoir.

Figure 3. Lobsters are packed into individual compartmentsof storage trays (Clearwater Lobsters photo).

Figure 4. Stacked lobster storage trays (Clearwater Lob-sters photo).

Figure 5. Sea Hive’s patented lobster tote (Sea Hive Corpo-ration photo).


Figure 8 shows a much larger system currentlybeing built in Vancouver, British Columbia. Thestandard tote boxes shown will each hold about1,000 pounds of mussels. This system is being setup to accept East Coast mussels transported toBritish Columbia via freight truck. The journeytakes just under a week. The plan is to ship cooledmussels in cool moist air from the East Coast, putthem into this type of live holding system, and irri-gate them with large volumes of recirculated water(Fig. 9). This is very similar to the way stored mus-sels are irrigated in Prince Edward Island and NovaScotia, except that it is self-contained.

SOME BASIC CONCERNS

The advent of these and other live holding systemsis an exciting development, but I am left with a fewareas of unease. My concern is that we may be ap-plying swimming pool technology without a properunderstanding of the biology of the animals to beheld in these systems. The lack of a biofilter on someof the systems is of concern.

I am delighted to read in Angela Danford’s paper (thisproceedings, Danford et al. 2001) that we are finallyobtaining some numbers on ammonia and carbondioxide production. I am aware of one lobster poundthat is running into problems involving a decreasein pH of the seawater. I suspect this is probably a re-sult of accumulating carbon dioxide produced by theanimals held in the system. In the three systems Ihave described above, there is no indication that aera-tion or some other method is being used to strip car-bon dioxide from the holding water. In anticipation

of this talk, I spoke with Hélène Drouin, of Aqua-biotech, Inc. in Quebec. She has designed biofiltersfor the lobster storage industry, specifically to dealwith this issue in recirculating systems. She believesthat her biofilter works particularly well, because itis a trickle filter that includes an aeration compo-nent which allows carbon dioxide to be blown off.

However, I am still uncertain that these “biofilters”will genuinely work effectively when the storage tanksare filled with a big load of shellfish after being semi-dry for a week or more. How much ammonia are thenewly added animals going to dump the instant theyare irrigated again, and how will the biofilter copewith this sudden spike? What will be the effects ofrapid fluctuations in loading as stock is removedand replaced? It is quite different from recirculat-ing fish culture systems where the stocking densityis relatively constant. This is clearly an area for newresearch.

Biofilters take a long time to get up to speed, particu-larly at the cool temperatures that are used for stor-age. I am uncertain that the necessary work has beendone to ensure that the biological requirements of thebacteria in these biofilters are being properly met,let alone those of the shellfish. They, too, are livingorganisms that require their own nutrients—the met-abolic by-products that mussels, lobsters, and oystersare excreting—and also their own oxygen supply.

I would also like to comment on the National Shell-fish Sanitation Program requirement for ultravioletlight sterilization systems to remove potentially harm-

Figure 6. Ocean-going container fitted with plastic liner andsprinkler hoses (Sea Hive Corporation photo).

Figure 7. Recirculating shellfish display case, Granville Mar-ket, Vancouver, B.C. (David Scarratt photo).


ful bacteria. We must ensure that UV sterilizationdoes not at the same time compromise the effec-tiveness of the bacteria in the biofilter. If there isadequate physical separation between the two com-ponents, I think that the systems should functionadequately.

CONCLUSION

We clearly need more research on the developmentof appropriate biofilters for shipping and storagesystems. I am hopeful that this type of meeting willbring the people with mechanical and engineeringideas and biological backgrounds together with thepeople whose businesses depend on delivering prod-uct in good condition. I hope my ability to stand onthe sidelines and examine the way the industry isdeveloping, and then offer technical commentarythrough the medium of our newspapers and maga-zines will be of some value to you.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Ed Kolbe and the organizersof this conference for their invitation to come andaddress you. I would also like to thank the repre-sentatives of Clearwater Lobsters for discussing thisissue and also for some of the slides: Sheridan Flynnfrom Sea Hive, Hélène Drouin of Aquabiotech, Inc.the proprietors of the seafood retail outlets I visit-ed, and a number of others, for discussing the wayin which this industry seems to be evolving.

REFERENCE

Danford, A.R., R.F. Uglow, and J. Garland. 2001. Effectof long-haul international transport on lobsterhemolymph constituents and nitrogen metabolism.In: B.C. Paust and A.A. Rice (eds.), Marketing andshipping live aquatic products: Proceedings of theSecond International Conference and Exhibition, No-vember 1999, Seattle, WA. University of Alaska SeaGrant, AK-SG-01-03, Fairbanks. (This volume.)

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

David Scarratt obtained his B.Sc. and Ph.D. at theUniversity of Wales and immigrated to Canada in1961. In 1998, having retired from a career in fisher-ies and aquaculture, he was appointed editor of Re-circ Today, a magazine devoted to the use of recir-culation technology and recycling in aquaculture.Scarratt is now editor of Hatchery International, whichincorporates Recirc Today. His professional historywith the lobster industry goes back to the early 1960s.


QUESTION: Do you know the acceptable levels ofcarbon dioxide for crustaceans at a given tempera-ture, and what the critical limit for carbon dioxidemight be?

D. SCARRATT: I cannot answer that offhand. Iknow some of the seminal work was done at the bio-logical station at St. Andrews by a researcher namedDr. Don McCleese. In about 1964, he and Dr. Wild-

Figure 8. Recirculation system in bulk mussel storage.Stacked tote boxes hold up to 10 metric tons of mussels for re-watering and short-term storage prior to distribution to retail-ers (David Scarratt photo).

Figure 9. Mussel storage system, Vancouver, B.C. The bigreservoirs (bottom) hold water for delivery to the storage tanksin Fig. 8. Above them is a battery of filtration units. This sys-tem uses UV to help control bacteria (David Scarratt photo).


er published a bulletin under the old Fisheries Re-search Board logo titled “The care and handling oflobsters.” There are copies of this publication at allof the Canadian fisheries libraries. I think this willgive you some very interesting data and it is stillthe basic book on that subject. It will tell you themaximum temperature that a lobster can be condi-tioned to and will also provide you with certain sur-vival times in air.

I ran into a problem of survival in air a few years agowhen a client called to say that he had some lobstersdie after they were taken out of the water. They weredead when they got to their market destination lessthan an hour away. The problem was that they weresimply too warm when they were taken out of thewater to survive in air. Throwing ice over the boxeswas not enough to bring their body temperature down.

Earlier, somebody asked whether oxygen helped.McCleese found quite clearly that increasing the

oxygen concentration of the air in which lobsterswere being held was counterproductive. It reducedsurvival. This was surprising and I think that itwas probably because of increased metabolic rate.He tried holding the lobsters at 30% oxygen, 40%,50%, and 60%, and found that the higher the oxy-gen content the worse the survival rate was. Wenever followed up on this finding, but I think that itis an interesting topic of study.

QUESTION: What is involved with the precondi-tioning of a biofilter?

D. SCARRATT: The preconditioning of a biofiltermay take up to 30 days or perhaps longer before onewill accept its full design load. It is also temperaturedependent. The second item I would like to mentionis the advisability of using protein skimmers to takeoff some of the additional waste material in a live hold-ing system and so reduce the demand on the biofil-ter itself.


INTRODUCTION

New Zealand has been exporting live lobster to Asiaand Europe for approximately 15 years. Our exper-tise in getting lobster into these markets as a premi-um product is recognized worldwide. The yearlyvolume is about 3,000 metric tons. Significantamounts of live eels and live mussels are also ex-ported.

Beginning in 1993, wild-caught live snapper wereexported to Japan from New Zealand in a specialpolystyrene box transport system. After three years,however, because of price competition with farmedsnapper, this business was closed down. No otherlive finfish were exported other than a few experi-mental efforts. Technical and financial complexitiesabound in this business. Consequently, effortsencouraging fishing companies to jump in andexperiment with live fish have proven to be unpro-ductive. A variety of risk factors are involved.

Meanwhile, a growing Asian population of 130,000in Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city (1.3 mil-lion people total population), has started to demandlive finfish in the local shops and restaurants. Thispaper will focus on the handling and delivery ofwild-caught live seafood from a fishing company,Deep Cove Fisheries Ltd., based on the South Is-land of New Zealand, to Auckland and into this de-veloping restaurant trade.

THE BUSINESS OF LIVE SEAFOOD

HANDLING AND TRANSPORT

Deep Cove Fisheries is faced with a number oflogistical challenges servicing the Auckland livemarket. Product transport is just one area of overallchallenge. There are basically two methods of trans-port to Auckland:

1. Traveling the distance of 1,200 km (750 miles)by air—a 12 hour trip in a special polystyrenebox.

2. Traveling by land transport—a journey of 30hours in a special insulated 1,000 liter bin.

Deep Cove Fisheries first developed a list of speciesavailable to be caught, handled, and sold for a profitinto the domestic market. We hoped that this extens-ive study would also provide us with the experienceto export overseas to Asian markets at a later date.

Step One: Species determination andcatching methodsOur first strategy was to establish target species thatwere most likely to be attractive to the New ZealandAsian market. This was a problem as there were noexisting preferred species originating from NewZealand. The Asian market in Hong Kong was beingsupplied with live fish from several countries. Thesefish do not have the same color or shape as ours.

We located a Chinese restaurant that would takefree live samples in exchange for honest reports onproduct quality and the different cooking methodsused to prepare the seafood. Then, without engag-ing scientists, we adopted a crude yet effectivemethod of evaluating available species. One of ourmethods for identifying likely candidates is of par-ticular interest. We simply asked the fishermanwhat species of fish they found still flopping on thedeck after taking them off the hook. We also askedhow long these fish survived in iced water or inchilled conditions.

From this study we found that monk fish, flounder,and cod were the strongest—the most robust spe-cies encountered by the harvesters. We have sincetried about ten other species. The most popularspecies have been sea perch, blue cod, monk fish,trumpeter, and a strange fish we have in NewZealand known as the southern pigfish (Congiopo-dus leucopaecilus). Fortunately, the Chinese like it.The restaurant chef thinks it is ideal; he places aboutsix of these prepared fish on a plate. We have alsoworked with grouper, but air bladder problems oc-

Live Fish Handling Strategies from Boat to Retail Establishment

John SeccombeAquahort Ltd., Maraetai Beach, Auckland, New Zealand

58 Seccombe: Live Fish Handling Strategies

curred when the fish were caught deeper than 30meters. We are currently working on a means toovercome this without venting through the use of aneedle.

We needed to modify the fishing vessel used in thisproject to accommodate the live handling and hold-ing of fish. We made fish holding tanks using 150liter insulated plastic bins. We plumbed in waterlines to connect with the boat’s deck hose and direct-ed the water in an upwelling manner—overflowingout the top of each of the bins. The skipper alsocame up with the idea of a grill at the top of the binto hold the fish under the water. When fish areaffected by stress or air bladder problems or are con-fused by the light, they will take in air at the sur-face. This only worsens their buoyancy problems.

The next step was to establish the best catchingmethods for these species. Contrary to what I haveheard or read about other live fish projects, this fish-ing vessel initially trawled for the live fish. I wasamazed that they were getting up to a 90% successrate. They used shallow, short, slow tows, and usedextreme care getting the fish onboard the fishingvessel without crushing the fish or damaging scales.The fishermen used gloves to protect the fish. How-ever, the bycatch of school sharks, with their roughskin and thrashing about, occasionally did taketheir toll on the delicate fish. After carefully exam-ining the results, the fisherman soon arrived at theunderstanding that catching by pots and hand lineswere the preferred methods.

My ambition is to eventually have chilled seawatertanks on the boats with aeration provided to lessenthe oxygen deficit incurred during the harvestingprocess. Also, we might eventually use an anestheticagent to further reduce the shock accompanyingharvesting.

Step Two: Receiving and holding systemsSo we had all these fish species coming into thetanks located in the land-based factory. I immedi-ately had to develop a system that could maintainthem. I initially thought that I would be able to usemy experience with lobster and simply transfer thiscarefully developed technology to the new fish liveholding situation. However, this strategy did notquite work. Live fish just will not tolerate the samehandling and holding protocols that we can get awaywith when marketing lobster. Problems like highwaste levels following heavy tank loadings will notbe tolerated by the fish. I would see fish darting

around in a holding tank for a couple of hours and Ithought that they were in good condition—justexceedingly active. Then, unfortunately, they woulddie. These fish had been “poisoned” by nitrite levelsexceeding 0.5 ppm. Remedies had to be sought.

The receiving tank system at the plant was notideal, but it served as a pilot or experimental sys-tem. The tanks were altered in various ways untilwe were able to prove that it would all work. Amongother changes, I installed a foam fractionator andused natural medium in the biofilters (e.g., coral)to buffer the pH levels. I did not want the tank manto try to watch the pH and control fluctuations byadding buffering chemicals.

Another thing that I learned from the lobster in-dustry is that, by the time the fish are brought on-board the fishing boat and transported to theholding facility, they could have built up a hugeoxygen deficit. It is important to get oxygen backinto their systems as quickly as possible. I put anairlift system inside the holding tanks to provideboth aeration and a circular motion without too higha current. I did not want the fish to expend too muchenergy swimming. This also maintained a good“scrubbing” effect on released gases and gave us abackup system in case the main water pumpstopped working, which it did twice over a singleweekend. The water recirculation rate through thetanks was three times per hour with new seawateradded once per month.

In New Zealand, the entire live industry monitorswater quality parameters. In fact, this is a require-ment that has been written into our “Code ofCompliance for Export.” We regularly measure am-monia, pH, and nitrites. If you receive a mortalityclaim from your overseas buyer, you must be able toproduce these water quality parameter readings. Interms of the current fish holding system, the pH lev-el is maintained around 7.8 to make the system moreforgiving toward any ammonia buildup. Nitrite mustbe maintained as close to 0 ppm as possible with amaximum allowed level of 0.25 ppm. Ammonia ismaintained in the narrow range of 0.0-0.5 ppm. Weadd new water about once a month or more frequent-ly if needed in order to get rid of nitrate buildup.We try to keep the nitrate level below about 80 ppm.

A new live fish venture can have logistical problemsif the fishing company has not generated largeenough market volumes. Right now we are catchingand moving up to 300 kg of live fish to the land-based tanks at the Deep Cove Fisheries plant. At


present, one 120-seat restaurant in Auckland doesbetween 45 and 60 kg of live fish business per week.This small volume did not currently warrant usingthe big transport bin that we imported from Aus-tralia. Instead, we have developed a method, muchlike that used in the aquarium trade, of transport-ing the live fish in polystyrene bins. The big differ-ence was that we are putting up to 5 kg or aboutfour fish into less than 15 liters of water. Some fish-to-water ratios have been as low as 1-to-1.

The secret to our handling protocol is not to use ordepend on chemicals that will hide any poor fishhandling problems or inadequate water qualityparameters that might be present in the system.We use good purge times and grade in an aggressivemanner for any weak fish. We also use an AquahortHeat’n’Chill heat pump to gradually reduce theholding water temperature to induce a slight coma-tose effect. The holding temperature of some speciesis depressed to as low as 1°C.

We experienced a rather interesting problem withfree-swimming fish. It is possible that some fish willsettle down on the bottom of a holding tank in adense school and smother each other. Solutions hadto be found to resolve this difficulty. Good water cir-culation is a partial remedy.

Our use of water temperature to induce a comatosestate in the fish before packaging for shipment isbased on some simple observations. You basicallyobserve the animal’s behavior, placing your handin the tank and carefully touching them, their eye,for example, to test their response state at differ-ent temperatures. We made use of techniques thatare also used in the lobster shipping industry. Wechilled the water to approximately the minimumwinter temperature, less 1°. We learned that this isan optimum thing to do when handling live fish.

One additional thing about the fish that differenti-ates them from lobster is their inclination to regur-gitate stomach contents. Some fish, for example, themonk fish, can have the digested remains of wholefish inside them for up to 2-3 weeks. I asked manyscientists about this and we are still not sure wheth-er this is an indication of stress or if it is normal forthem to retain stomach contents for that length oftime. In terms of our project, for that initial 3-4 daysfollowing delivery at the plant, the staff observedthe fish and removed any that showed signs of weak-ness during the first 24 hours. They also noted thewaste released by the different species over this

period of time. I believe that the observed vomitingcould possibly be an indication of stress in the dif-ferent fish species.

We needed to incorporate a proper amount of purg-ing time into our handling schedule. As previouslymentioned, we initially had only one Chinese res-taurant taking between 40 and 60 kg of live fish aweek. The participating fishing vessel would comein with 300 kg of live fish and this was loaded intoour small holding system of about 8,000 liters totalwater volume. We quickly realized that the fishneeded about four days of purging time. Anythingless than this and I would have the restaurant own-er ringing me up to say, “John, there’s a fish that’sspewing a white mess into the tanks, looking un-sightly....” So this has been a problem.

Most important, if fish have not been purged longenough, the stress caused by transporting them willprobably induce them to vomit their stomach con-tents and this will pollute your transport systemwater.

Step Three: Transportation of live productto marketWe sent the live fish to our Auckland market usingan airline company that had advertised itself asbeing very experienced with seafood. It was a ma-jor airline. However, sometimes I would go out tothe airport freight terminal to pick up the deliv-ered fish and the freight guy would walk out hold-ing the poly bin in a vertical position. I would say,“How would you like to be standing on your headlike those poor fish?” So, we started to talk to thesepeople about proper handling and they graduallyrealized what had to be done. But then the shiftwould change and I would have to start the educa-tion process all over again.

One night an expected delivery of live fish had notarrived, so I rang up the airline freight office andasked where they were. The lady at the desk an-swered “It’s very good that you rang us. We’re clos-ing now at 5:30 pm at the airport. Don’t worry, we’lljust put them in the freezer overnight.” I said, “No,you won’t. I’ll be straight out there.” The containershad all been posted with “live fish” labels on theoutside. So this is certainly something that youshould not take for granted—freight people readingand responding to your labels such as “this side up”and that sort of thing. You will need to work care-fully with your shippers.

60 Seccombe: Live Fish Handling Strategies

Once we were able to establish good catching meth-ods and an adequate transport method, and hadeducated the airline transport people not to treatour product like frozen fish, we then started usinga homemade anesthetizing agent—oil of cloves. Thisgave us that extra performance we needed—12 hoursof transport time and up to 100% survival. Some ofour transport experiments lasted 19.5 hours.

Step Four: MarketingAs a marketing tool, we give our client restaurantsa 24-hour grace period to notify us of problems witha shipment. Within this period they must report inwriting the weight and species of fish that arrivedead. Typically, fish sell for $35.00 NZ per kilogramin live form and $3.00 NZ per kilogram for “dead”product. We are now going to adopt the Australianpractice of selling “unders” (e.g., fish under 1.5 kgeach) at a prevailing price per kilogram and selling“overs” (e.g., over 1.5 kg per fish) at $65.00 NZ perfish. Because of the large price differential betweenlive and chilled fish, it is important for the live ship-pers to protect themselves.

The live fish trade has additional marketing chal-lenges because it is a traditional Asian business. Onemust appreciate the huge cultural differences be-tween Westerners and Asians. Neither of us can readeach other’s body language. I tried sending a nicelive fish promotional flyer by fax machine to 30 dif-ferent Japanese and Korean restaurants and didnot receive a single response. Later, it was explainedto me by Chinese businessperson that I must per-sonally visit prospective customers with live fishsamples. The development of a good working rela-tionship with your client is particularly importantin the live trade.

This statement highlights the next step—the pro-cedures for transferring the live fish from the plantholding tanks to restaurant. This can mean, duringpeak traffic times in the inner city, a one hour de-livery time for only a 15 km drive. At the plant dis-patch station we need polystyrene boxes, new waterto add to the plastic bags, and an oxygen bottle. Theentire procedure must be carefully organized andwell practiced to reduce transfer time.

Humane and ethical treatment issues will alwaysbe topics requiring careful attention. We must con-sider the animal rights bills being drawn up indifferent parts of the world. We picked up a bit offlack concerning animal rights last year in New

Zealand. A member of Parliament received a cry forhelp from someone who had walked into a Japa-nese restaurant and observed a lobster that was stillmoving on the plate. So the New Zealand Parlia-ment, in all of its wisdom, made the decision to in-clude lobster, octopus, and live fish in the nationalAnimal Rights Act. However, there were no legalrequirements linked to this inclusion, just that thelawmakers were going to include these species un-der this act. Suddenly there were many Asian peo-ple who were not able to interpret these newregulations or how they could be applied to the liveseafood industry. When I went to some Japaneserestaurants, for instance, to ask if they would buylive fish, they said, “Oh, no, we don’t buy live lob-ster—a policeman might come through the door.”This was really a sad situation. I told the industrymembers that we would have to become proactive,that we would need to write a code of practice thatwould be accepted by the SPCA (Society for the Pre-vention of Cruelty to Animals) and so on. Obvious-ly, the code of practice needs to include the live fishin the tanks.

PRESENT SITUATION

We have now installed a 350 kg holding facility inAuckland City. We are now able to land a largervolume of live fish using the approved fish trans-port bin. This unit is being very successfully usedin Queensland, Australia, to export live fish to HongKong. The unit is a fully insulated plastic Dyna binof 1,000 liters capacity, but with only 750 liters ofwater actually added. The unit is fully approved byall major airlines and has a 300 hour airworthinesscertificate. In terms of shipping costs, when using asmall polystyrene box the freight cost is $9.50 NZper kilogram compared to $3.50 NZ per kilogramwhen using the transport bin system. Incidentally,Auckland is the site of the America’s Cup sailingcompetition. We have been gearing up to supply theparticipants with our product.

We shipped up some southern pigfish at the begin-ning of the year [1999] and I still have some samplesin my office aquarium tank [11 months later]. Theaquarium is provided with a chiller unit, so it isactually quite a good experiment showing that ifyou do it right, the fish will go on and survive forlong periods of time. These particular fish are eatinggoldfish pellets, a food that is totally foreign to them.

We have also recently shipped sole, brill, skate, seaperch, blue cod, and monk fish. These fish have been


held in the Auckland 350 kg holding system forthree weeks now. We are maintaining these tanksat about 12°C, their minimum winter temperature.

FUTURE

We are quite positive about the live industry’s fu-ture prospects at the moment. I am just now await-ing word from the director of Deep Cove Fisheriesto say we are ready to move into export marketing.We have gained a great amount of hands-on expe-rience working in the domestic market. Once addi-tional markets are established, we should begin tolook at the possible farming of these fish. We shouldalso think about conducting practical scientific re-search on our existing transport system and deter-mine rather precisely why it works and where itcan be improved. We undoubtedly have the poten-tial to fine-tune our working system and gain thatextra distance needed when we become involvedwith export marketing. We have sent live fish topublic aquaria and this has created still anothermarket. As an additional benefit, this market hasreturned to us good technical advice.


QUESTION: Please describe what you are callingpoly bins?

J. SECCOMBE: These are the small standard poly-styrene insulated bins or shipping boxes that ev-erybody packs their product in. The aquarium tradealso use them.

QUESTION: How do you pack the live fish in theseboxes?

J. SECCOMBE: Actually we use the IATA (Inter-national Air Transport Association) standards asprescribed by the airlines. We use “X” amount ofwater in double plastic bags flooded with a certainamount of oxygen. The oxygen is really not the con-cern. The real concern is the security of the water.Most of the major airlines will supply you with in-formation about how to pack live fish. The secretinvolves educating your whole handling and freightnetwork. There are a few other tricks that we dowith the water. Initially, we try to stay away fromanesthetizing agents because they will possiblycamouflage some of your mistakes—poor handling,for example. We are now using an oil of clove mix.This is not a proprietary mix. There is another mix

developed in New Zealand that is very successful,but we have made our own and we use a little bit ofthis to give us that extra mile.

QUESTION: What species is the monk fish?

J. SECCOMBE: It is a stargazer. I have also seenlive monk fish in Boston. I have seen pictures ofreally big ones. Our variety is not quite as big as theAtlantic species. I think that they were also sellingthem live.

QUESTION: You mentioned a regional code of prac-tice. Is this for the fishermen that you are workingwith? Is this a common issue?

J. SECCOMBE: We brought that code of practicein for the live lobster industry. I helped write thecode with about six or eight other people in the in-dustry. We drafted a copy and then obtained inputfrom other people. It is really a set of guidelines,but occasionally people say that it is almost law. Itcovers everything from the biofiltration system towater testing through to cooking the product. Forthe lobster there are also product standards suchas the acceptable number of legs that can be miss-ing from the lobster.

The industry believes that all live fish are coveredunder these guidelines, but they are not. We needsomething special for that. I have inquired overseason the Internet and received some information fromthe U.K. There is a code of practice in the U.K. deal-ing with live fish and fish farms. I will see if we canadapt something from this document.

QUESTION: When you put flat fish in your polyshipping containers, do you stack the fish more thanone layer deep? Do you put fish on fish or do youuse some method to separate them?

J. SECCOMBE: We have not quite arrived at thisstage. I would not encourage stacking, although I sawfish farms in Japan working with high densities ofthese fish and they were basically overlapping them.You could do that, but I would like to keep themseparate. We have been packing them so that theycan be separated in the poly bins. We have evenused a special bubble plastic to separate the otherfish species from each other, especially cods and fishspecies that have spines. They can damage eachother and also the plastic bags. Consequently, weconstruct this protective sleeve around them.


ABSTRACT

The United States is a net importer of live orna-mental marine life products. In 1998, ornamentalimports reported under the Live Ornamental Fish(LOF) code (HTS 030110) were valued at US $45million by U.S. customs, while exports were valuedat $10.6 million. The approximate $34 million tradedeficit for LOF in 1998 represents a 25% increaseover the deficit reported in 1994. In Florida, theincreased demand for ornamental marine life hasstimulated market prices and triggered an increasein the collection of certain species. Although almost330 distinct organisms have been harvested fromFlorida’s waters since 1990, the species harvestedin the greatest numbers were anemones, sand dol-lars, snails, crabs, and starfishes. The species withthe highest landed value included live rock and an-gelfish (blue, grey, queen, and rock beauty).

This paper characterizes the market for ornamentalmarine life collected in Florida using data from theFlorida Department of Environmental Protection,which began an industry reporting system in 1990.Information was obtained on the value and harvestlevels of individual species, changes in the numberand location of fishing areas, and the numbers ofindustry participants (i.e., collectors and dealers/wholesalers). Statistics on the local industry werethen compared to trends in total U.S. import andexports in the trade category LOF as reported tothe U.S. International Trade Commission. Thesestatistics were also compared to U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service trade data. Last, information from anongoing survey of U.S. marine life wholesalers,sponsored by the Florida Sea Grant College Program,provided opinions regarding the advantages anddisadvantages of Florida-caught marine life species.

Analysis of the trade data indicates that interna-tional market trends affect the market for locallyharvested species. Changes in these trends are partlyresponsible for the large variability in harvest pres-sure and corresponding changes in product value

since data collection began in Florida. Survey resultsalso document the local and national importance ofthe supply of ornamental marine life products orig-inating from Florida. This information is used

1. To identify species with the greatest marketand, therefore, the greatest need for culture re-search and protection in the wild.

2. To review the likelihood of the success of existingand proposed regulatory measures in Florida.

INTRODUCTION

The State of Florida began collecting statistics onthe commercial harvest of live marine species in1990. The marine life industry in Florida—asdefined by the Florida Administrative Code(F.A.C.)—pertains to the nonlethal harvest ofsaltwater fish, invertebrates, and plants for com-mercial purposes (F.A.C. Rule 46-42, recently re-numbered to 68B-42). Some products, such as sanddollars, are dried and destined for the shell/curiomarket. The vast majority of products, however, aredestined for the hobby aquarium industry.

Live ornamental aquatic products include bothmarine and freshwater species. In Florida, themarine component of this industry is derived al-most exclusively from the capture of wild specimensand is valued at less than $5 million annually. Ex-ceptions include the culture of clown fish and liverock. All freshwater species, on the other hand, arecultured. Florida is a leading domestic producer offreshwater fish and plants, with dockside valuesreaching $56 million and $13 million, respectively,in 1996 (Florida Department of Agricultural andConsumer Services). According to the Pet IndustryJoint Advisory Council (1999), Florida produces andsupplies 95% of the tropical fish sold in North Amer-ica. For comparison, the worldwide wholesale mar-ket for marine (i.e., saltwater) ornamental products(wild and farmed) is estimated at more than $100million (National Sea Grant College Program 1999).

Florida’s Ornamental Marine Life Industry

Sherry L. Larkin, Donna J. Lee, Robert L. Degner, J. Walter Milon, and Charles M. Adams

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

64 Larkin et al.: Florida’s Ornamental Marine Life Industry

In Florida, the commercial marine life industry ischaracterized by regulations that have been prima-rily enacted at the request of collectors. Commer-cial collectors must adhere to various gear re-quirements and are also constrained by a set of reg-ulations, including daily bag limits and individualsize limits (minimum and/or maximum), that spe-cifically apply to the harvest of “restricted species.”(F.A.C. 46-42). However, for many commercially har-vested species, collection is essentially unregulated.

Since the official designation of a Marine Life fish-ery in Florida and the onset of data collection in1990, there has yet to be a comprehensive analysisof the industry. The harvest of certain species (mostnotably live rock and live sand) has, however, drawnmedia attention to the industry. This paper at-tempts to synthesize the available data to providea perspective of the industry, its trends, and its (po-tential) need for improved management and mar-keting plans. This is accomplished by first reviewingthe available trade data to quantify the trade vol-ume in the United States. Second, Florida commer-cial collection statistics are evaluated to determinethe primary species and recent trends. Last, whole-saler information is obtained from an ongoing mar-ket survey. All information is summarized in thisreport to the industry.

U.S. TRADE IN LIVE ORNAMENTALS

There are two primary sources of U.S. trade data,U.S. Customs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Customs data for LOF indicates that the trade def-icit increased from US $27.6 million to $34.5 mil-lion (25%) from 1994 to 1998. As shown in Fig. 1,both imports and exports have declined since 1995when the total trade value peaked at nearly $75million.

Imports of LOF are primarily from Singapore (18%),Thailand (18%), and Indonesia (13%). Exports toJapan and Canada dominate the outgoing trade byaccounting for 32% and 26%, respectively, of theaverage annual value. Since LOF includes marineand freshwater species, one way to separate thesestatistics is to focus on those countries known formarine production. An estimated 2% of imports orig-inate from the Caribbean. Haiti and Trinidad andTobago account for 68% of the value of Caribbeanimports. (From our preliminary survey results, tobe discussed later, we know that the majority ofproducers import marine products from the Carib-bean.) These imports have been falling since 1995.

No LOF were exported from the U.S. to Caribbeannations. Several survey respondents (U.S. whole-salers) have also indicated receiving larger quanti-ties of ornamental fish from the Red Sea. Thesestatistics have not yet been analyzed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data for the fol-lowing codes were also used in this analysis:

• TROP = all live tropical fish including goldfish.

• OLIN = other live invertebrates in tropical fish and other shipments.

• NONV = non-CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) other invertebrates.

The above are the codes most commonly reportedin Florida (J. Marquardt, Supervisory Wildlife In-spector, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). This datais summarized across the 170 foreign countries and44 U.S. ports in Table 1. These statistics accountfor the majority, but not all, of the marine life trad-ed. Seahorses, for example, are coded separately.However, this code is not used in all cases; seahors-es are likely included in the TROP category formixed shipments (S. Einswiler, Div. Law Enforce-ment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA,November 1999, pers. comm.).

Total trade value of TROP, OLIN, and NONV hasaveraged over $975 million annually from 1994through 1998. As with LOF, the United States hasexperienced an overall trade deficit in TROP, OLIN,and NONV, as imports account for 62% to 77% ofthe total trade value. TROP trade has accountedfor the vast majority of landings, averaging over3.2 billion live tropical fish annually, worth an es-

Figure 1. Live ornamental trade fish (LOF, HTS 030110,International Trade Commission) in the United States, 1994-1998, US $ millions.

$0

$25

$50

$75

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Imports (Customs Value) Exports (F.A.S.)Imports (Custom Value)

$75

$50

$25

$0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Exports (F.A.S.)


timated $950 million ($0.29 each). Invertebrate cat-egories, NONV and OLIN, collectively average ap-proximately $29 million in annual trade. Themajority of domestic NONV trade, which includeslive and dead products, moves through Florida andaverages 7 million invertebrates annually (each val-ued at approximately $0.37). Although the NONVcode includes dead products and, therefore, mayappear unrelated to the industry, several Floridaproducts are harvested and reported as live catcheven though they are destined for the shell/curiomarket. In terms of the management of the re-source, all live collection is relevant.

Focusing on Florida and its 63% share of the do-mestic NONV (non-CITES invertebrates) trade, the1994 through 1998 trade statistics are presentedin Fig. 2 (excluding trade of unspecified direction).Since 1994, the trade deficit declined from $1.13million to $250,000 as part of a 90% decline in thevalue of all imports and exports. Exports comprisednearly 40% of total trade volume in 1994, but just25% of the trade volume in 1998. Despite a spike inNONV trade volume in 1995, overall trade volume

fell 93%. It is unknown whether these observedtrends are representative of the trade or a constructof the data reporting and coding process.

COMMERCIAL COLLECTION

IN FLORIDA

Florida’s marine life industry encompasses the har-vest of live products (fishes and invertebrates) fromFlorida’s waters that are sold in the aquarium andshell/curio trade. Information on the industry iscollected by the Florida Marine Research Institute(FMRI, Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservationCommission, St. Petersburg, FL) through the Ma-rine Information System. The Marine InformationSystem, which began in 1990, requires licenseddealers (i.e., buyers) to report dealer and harvester(collector) license numbers, the location of harvest,the species and quantity purchased, and the valueof each transaction by species. Landings that arenot sold are excluded from the summary.

The total value of commercial collection in Floridaincreased 14% from 1990 to 1998, peaking in 1994at approximately $4.3 million (Fig. 3). Since 1990,the commercial value of the invertebrate sector in-creased 91% while the value of collected fish fell40%. Although the value of both invertebrates andfish fell between 1994 and 1998, the value of inver-tebrates appears to have leveled off in 1998. Thedecline in invertebrate value beginning in 1996 canbe attributed to regulations on the collection of liverock and live sand, products that are now eithercultured or require special permits to harvest.

Figure 3 depicts dockside values of marine speciesthat are landed in Florida and destined for com-mercial markets. Because of the exclusion of recre-ational landings and the non-reporting of mortalitythat occurs prior to first sale, the landings statis-tics that follow should be considered conservativeestimates of overall production in Florida. The em-phasis on live commercial landings is intended todefine the content of the data, not to imply any sig-nificance to the size of recreational landings ormortality rates. Generally, recreational landings(especially of high-valued fish species) are believedto be minor due to the equipment and skill neededto capture and transport these species.

Approximately 180 species of fish have been har-vested in Florida over the last decade. To facilitatethe evaluation of these species, this large group ofharvested species was aggregated into 65 common

Table 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)average annual trade, 1994-1998.

Quantity Value % Value (millions) ($ US millions) Florida Import

NONV 7.0 2.6 63 62OLIN 34.4 26.0 21 77TROP 3,249.2 951.6 22 71

Data excludes shipments in January and February 1994.

Figure 2. USFWS trade of NONV species.

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

Export Value Import Value Total QuantityExport Value Import Value Total Quantity

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Value

(million $US) Quantity

(millions)


names and then ranked by average annual value.The ten most economically important fish speciesgroups are listed in Table 2 with the 1998 statisticsand the change in landings since 1990.

Several industry trends are apparent in Table 2:

• Angelfish are the highest valued fish species group.The angelfish species group (which is primarilycomposed of queen, rock, and beauty angelfish)has averaged approximately 54% of the total annu-al value of fish landed each year. Despite the de-crease in total volume landed between1990 and1998, the number and value of landings of angel-fish remain the most economically important com-mercial marine fish species in Florida.

• Rankings of the economically important specieshave changed over time. For example, from 1990to 1998, surgeonfish ranked ninth overall in termsof economic importance. In 1998, however, surgeon-fish ranked third in economic importance. On theother hand, the economic importance of damsel-fish declined in 1998, falling from third overall tofourth.

• The average price of specimens within these fishspecies groups range from $0.80 to over $8.00 each.

• Fish landings range from approximately 3,000 tonearly 50,000 annually.

• Consideration of the change in landings from 1990to 1998 reveals that landings of eight of the topten fish species groups, including the top six, fellfrom 7% to 48%. In contrast, seahorse landings,the seventh most economically valuable fish spe-cies on average, has increased 184% while sur-geonfish increased 18%.

Since 1990, approximately 150 species of inverte-brates have been harvested in Florida for the aquari-um or shell/curio markets. These invertebrates weregrouped under 35 common names. The top ten groupsby average annual value are listed in Table 3.

As with the fish species groups, the rankings of eco-nomically important invertebrates changed in 1998with the exception of the top two species groups,namely, live rock and snails. In particular, crabs areranked third in 1998 versus fourth overall, indicat-

Table 2. Top fish species groups by average annual value 1990-1998.

1998

Rank by value Value Avg. price Landings % Change in landings1990-1998 (US $) (US $) (number) 1990-1998

1. Angels 396,765 8.12 48,839 –32 2. Hogfish 62,647 8.44 7,419 –13 3. Damsels 25,298 1.19 21,225 –34 4. Jawfish 13,886 2.36 5,894 –7 5. Wrasse 22,712 1.68 13,512 –42 6. Butterflys 15,402 2.35 6,551 –48 7. Seahorses 13,664 0.80 16,977 +184 8. Parrots 17,205 5.74 2,998 –39 9. Surgeons 26,728 3.47 7,702 +1810. Drum 14,278 2.11 6,781 –43

Figure 3. Dockside value of commercial marine life landingsin Florida, 1990-1998.

$5,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Invertebrates Fish


ing that crabs are becoming more economically im-portant to the industry. This is primarily due to anincrease in the harvest of hermit crabs. Similarly,gorgonians are ranked fourth in 1998 compared tosixth overall. Anemones, on the other hand, are rankedthird overall but fell to fifth in 1998. Most notable isthe decline in economic importance of starfish.

The average prices for specimens within the top in-vertebrate groups ranged from $0.08 to $2.87, muchlower than the average prices of fish species (Table2). Conversely, invertebrate landings are much high-er, ranging from 20,000 to nearly one million indi-viduals per year. Note that these landings ignore liverock and live sand since landings of these speciesare measured in pounds. Overall, note the change inlandings from 1990 to 1998, which are significantlygreater than the landings reported for the fish spe-cies. The increase in landings for snails, crabs, andstarfish ranged from 755% to 1,824%. The increasein starfish landings is notable given the decline invalue relative to the other invertebrate species.

The commercial harvest of live rock and live sandhas declined since restrictions were imposed in 1996.Currently, these species may be harvested only byspecial permit (e.g., aquaculture leases for live rockand dredge and fill permits for live sand) and thusmay be removed from the marine life category ifmarine life endorsements are no longer required inorder to sell these products.

The number of industry participants from 1990 to1998 is summarized in Fig. 4. The number of licensed

marine life dealers increased significantly in themid-1990s, but by 1998 this number had declinedto the level observed in the early 1990s. Currently,there are approximately 65 licensed dealers in Flor-ida. These dealers are legally allowed to purchasemarine life species from licensed collectors and arerequired to submit information regarding the trans-action to FMRI. This required reporting informa-tion consists of the collectors license number, specieslanded (quantity and unit price), area where col-lection occurred, and the transaction date. Individu-als can be licensed as both a collector and dealer.

To collect marine life in excess of the daily bag limitof 20 specimens and one gallon of marine plants,an individual or business needs a saltwater prod-ucts license (SPL) with both a restricted species en-dorsement and marine life endorsement (F.A.C.46-42.006). The marine life endorsement (MLE) isthe only authority that applies exclusively to themarine life industry. The total number of MLEs in-creased steadily from 1990 to 1997. In 1997, ap-proximately 800 endorsements had been issuedwhereas fewer than 200 were issued in 1990. Thenumber of active marine life endorsements (i.e., en-dorsements with reported landings), however, hasremained fewer than 230. In 1998, only 128 MLEswere active. The number of MLEs issued declinedrecently due to a moratorium that will remain ineffect until at least 2003. However, there continuesto remain a significant amount of latent effort inthe fishery. It is believed that these are commercialenterprises, including individual fishermen andbusinesses, that are retaining permits to hedge

Table 3. Top invertebrate species by average annual value, 1990-1998.

1998Ranked by value Value Avg. price Landings % Change in landings 1990-1998 (US $) (US $) (number) 1990-1998

1. Live rock 175,580 1.93 90,975 –63 2. Snails 166,310 0.21 805,210 +791 3. Anemones 97,061 0.48 201,629 –26 4. Crabs 138,442 0.18 788,598 +755 5. Starfish 47,116 0.09 511,297 +1,824 6. Gorgonians 98,374 2.41 40,743 +129 7. Sand dollars 65,423 0.08 771,817 +203 8. Urchins 68,105 1.67 40,900 +29 9. Sponges 49,243 2.87 17,166 +110. Live sand 42,158 0.56 75,584 NAa

a The first live sand landings were reported in 1993.


against further restrictions in other fisheries. Spec-ulative permit holdings appear to be increasing asrestrictions are imposed in other commercial fish-eries in South Florida.

U.S. WHOLESALER SURVEY

We are currently interviewing U.S. wholesalers ofmarine life under a Florida Sea Grant project titled“Structure and Competitiveness of Florida’s Tropi-cal Ornamental Marine Species Industry.” The in-terviews began in August 1999 and will continuethrough January 2000. The survey asks firms to de-scribe their market channels (supply and demandside) and asks several open-ended questions regard-ing the state of the industry. Firms are also askeddemographic questions that are intended to identifycommon answers among distinct market groups.

A sample of 183 firms were identified for inclusionin the survey. The 93 Florida firms were identifiedusing the marine life endorsements. Only activeMLEs in 1997 and 1998 were included in the sur-vey. All firms in Florida were contacted. The non-Florida firms were identified using the Pet ProductsNews Buying Guide on the recommendation of thepresident of the American Marine Life Dealers As-sociation. All firms were sent a letter explaining theproject and asking for cooperation in summer 1999.By November 1999, approximately a quarter of thefirms had been surveyed. A quarter were eliminat-ed as potential respondents after it discovered thattheir phone was disconnected or they were out ofthe business. The remaining half of the respondentshave yet to be contacted.

One of the open-ended questions asked: “In youropinion, what is the primary advantage, if any, of a

Florida caught species compared to a similar im-port?” The subsequent question asked: “In your opin-ion, what is the primary disadvantage, if any, of aFlorida caught species compared to a similar im-port?” The questions were intended to assess opin-ions regarding industry strengths and weaknessesthat could ultimately be used to aid marketing cam-paigns and establish consensus regarding the effec-tiveness of regulatory measures. The responses tothese questions, to date, are summarized in Table 4.

The primary advantage of Florida-caught species,according to industry wholesalers, is that they areof a higher quality. When asked, respondents mosttypically defined quality in terms of higher survivalrates (e.g., by packing fewer fish per box and the short-er travel time). The most frequently cited disadvan-tage of Florida-caught species, relative to similarimports, is the lack of sufficient quantity, both intotal and seasonally. Several respondents expressedfrustration at being unable to deliver the total quant-ities requested of them or having to procure suppliesfrom multiple dealers.

The second most frequently cited advantage of Flor-ida-caught species was a lower cost. This responsewas most prevalent among Florida wholesalers whoalso function as collectors. Interestingly enough, thethird most frequently cited advantage of Florida-caught species was “no advantage.” Uniqueness wasfourth and no import paperwork was fifth. This latteradvantage was most prevalent among smaller deal-ers in terms of annual sales. For this group the im-port regulations and the additional fees are majordeterrents to greater participation in the internation-al market.

The second most frequently cited opinion regardingthe disadvantages of Florida-caught products wastheir higher price. This is an interesting view sincelower cost was also cited as an advantage. The high-er price (disadvantage) was from wholesalers nation-wide who benefit from import competition. Weakattributes, the third response, conveyed the senti-ment that Atlantic species are “uglier,” perhaps lesscolorful, than Pacific species. The fourth was sea-sonality or a lack of consistent availability. Manyrespondents believed that the part-time nature of thecollection industry results in lower supplies in thewinter, as the cool water keeps divers home. Thefifth response was unprofessional collectors. Thesewholesalers reported having not received productfollowing payment or receiving product of such poorquality that subsequent high mortality rates madethe transaction unprofitable. Those wholesalers not

Figure 4. Number of marine life endorsement (MLE’s, i.e.,collectors) and dealers in Florida.

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

MLEs MLEs w/Landings

0 0

20

Collectors

1000

800

600

400

200

40

60

80

100

120

Dealers

DealersMLE MLE w/landings Dealers


reporting such problems stated they only purchasefrom collectors they have either dealt with over timeor whom they know personally.

CONCLUSIONS

National trade statistics suggest an increasing defi-cit as imports continue to exceed exports. The re-cent decline in trade of non-CITES invertebrates islikely related to the corresponding significant in-crease in the commercial collection of invertebratesin Florida. Regarding commercial collection in Flor-ida, there were definite trends in both the numberof fish and invertebrate species landed. In particu-lar, landings of fish have declined while landings ofinvertebrates have increased. Although it is not pre-sented, the survey has revealed that invertebratecollection has likely increased due to the following:

1. The recent popularity of live reef tanks.

2. The ease of collecting invertebrates comparedto fish species.

3. The lower cost associated with collecting in verte-brates versus fish, which ideally requires threeindividuals (two divers and a boat driver).

The overall trend is a decrease in the value of com-mercially landed marine life species in Florida.Domestic wholesalers distinguish Florida productsfrom similar imports, typically citing that Floridaproducts are of a higher quality but, unfortunately,not available in sufficient quantities. According toour survey, import competition affects the industryin terms of price, diversity, and availability.

Regulatory concerns regarding the collection indus-try in Florida have become increasingly visible asmanagers search for plans that can accommodateincreasing demands on the natural resources. TheFlorida commercial marine life industry is just one

of the many user groups including recreational har-vesters and recreational observers (e.g., tourists).In addition, the commercial industry is composedof inactive, part-time, and full-time collectors withvarying demands on the regulators and the resourc-es. Currently, inactive participants outnumber ac-tive participants nearly four to one (Florida MarineFisheries Commission 1998). The potential for anincrease in observed effort and landings from pre-viously inactive industry members raises concernsfor resource sustainability and, indirectly, for thequality of resources available to non-consumptiveuser groups. This concern, in part, is the topic ofperiodic regulatory workshops designed to addressthe future of the industry.

In Florida, the purpose and intent of regulationsare to protect and conserve the tropical marine liferesources and assure the continuing health andabundance of these species (F.A.C. 46-02.001). Inaddition, the further intent is to assure that harvest-ers use nonlethal collection methods to minimizemortality and maximize economic benefits. Conse-quently, the significant increase in the number ofMLEs resulted in the establishment of a moratoriumon the issuance of new MLEs (Florida Marine Fisher-ies Commission 1998). Although the moratoriumhalts the increase in the number of speculative (i.e.,inactive) permit holders, it does not restrict effortbeyond current or historical levels. On the contrary,latent MLE holders may have more of an incentiveto continue holding the endorsement knowing thatthey may be unable to obtain one in the future.

Managing the marine life industry in Florida is com-plicated relative to the management of traditionalfisheries due to the sheer number of species in-volved, diverse markets supplied by these products,and the visibility of the industry. Fisheries man-agement plans typically are defined for each spe-

Table 4. A Ranking of wholesaler’s survey responses to the following question: “In your opinion, what is the primary (dis)advantage, if any, of Florida caught species compared to a similar import?”

Advantages (n = 28) Disadvantages (n = 36)

1. “Higher quality” (36%) 1. “Low availability” (28%)2. “Lower cost” (14%) 2. “Higher price” (19%)3. “None” (11%) 3. “Weak attributes” (18%)4. “Uniqueness” (7%) 4. “Seasonality” (14%)5. “No import paperwork” (4%) 5. “Unprofessional collectors” (11%)


cies (e.g., spiny lobster) or for an assemblage of verysimilar species (e.g., pelagic tunas). The Florida ma-rine life management plan includes approximately300 species, with new species added each year. Thenumber, variety, and similarity among species pro-hibits individual management and favors more ag-gregate policies such as daily bag limits forrecreational collectors. Commercial collectors facedaily bag limits on a select list of species. Improvedmanagement of the marine life collection industryin Florida is presently hampered by the cost anddifficulty of enforcing collection methods and catchlimits for the approximately 330 species collectedby 230 active permit holders harvesting in federaland state waters along Florida’s 1,350 mile coastline.

The biological status of the stocks is an importantfactor in any resource management plan. The stockstatus is, however, not available for any of the spe-cies collected in Florida. A proxy for stock statusthat is frequently used by fisheries biologists is thetrend in catch per unit effort (CPUE). In the ma-rine life industry, such a measure is available byusing reported landings per trip over time. Exami-nation of this data on the primary species (i.e., topspecies groups in terms of economic importance)revealed that none of the species experienced de-creasing CPUE estimates. Most estimates fluctu-ated and many actually increased, which would beexpected as the number of collectors declined. Con-sequently, with the data available, there is no rea-son to assume the industry threatens stocksustainability.

The collection statistics contain only the commerciallandings of live marine species. Consequently, thesestatistics will underreport the number of specimensactually harvested. As reported earlier, each individu-al is allowed to collect 20 specimens and one gallonof plants per day for personal use. These unreport-ed recreational landings, as well as the harvest ofdead marine life used in the shell and curio indus-tries, result in estimates of the value of the indus-try that are biased downward. It is also plausiblethat collectors selling to wholesalers in other statesare not reporting their sales, which would furtherunderestimate the overall value of the industry.

Survey results suggest that successful marketingstrategies should promote the higher quality of Flor-ida-caught products and, if possible, the availabili-ty of a consistent supply of products. The importanceof this latter characteristic is likely behind thegrowth and success of large wholesale operationsin Florida and California.

Effective regulations are the key to the success ofthis industry. In order to create effective regulations,the primary threats to the industry need to be iden-tified and monitored. For example, it is unlikely thatthe recreational sector is a significant threat to thesustainability of the resource or the viability of thecommercial industry. First, fish collection requiresspecialized skills, equipment, and knowledge of eachspecies. Second, black market transactions are un-likely since dealers (wholesale and retail) must doc-ument the source of their inventory. Buying fromnon-licensed collectors is risky and inconsistent. Inaddition, in order to keep the MLE, collectors needto report at least $5,000 in annual sales. Conse-quently, underreporting could jeopardize a collec-tor’s claim of economic dependence on the industry.Third, the market for aquarium species is increas-ingly competitive, both nationally and internation-ally, as many products can be bought/sold over theInternet. Similar arguments apply for the latenteffort in the fishery, making it an unlikely threat tothe species and commercial industry.

Future regulation of this industry may need to con-sider more generic policies that can be easily mon-itored for compliance. For example, making sizelimits and bag limits uniform across fish speciesand, especially, within species, could increase theprobability that the policies are enforced. The baglimits may also need to be enforceable to be effec-tive. For example, is it possible for a marine patrolagent to accurately verify that an individual hasno more than 50 Spanish hogfish or 75 butterfly-fish without compromising the survival rate of theharvested animals?

For invertebrate species in particular, the marinelife regulations may need to acknowledge thatthe shell and curio markets do not require live prod-ucts. The regulations currently state that thepurpose is to promote high survival rates tohelp sustainability and conservation (F.A.C. 46-42.001) by landing all organisms alive (F.A.C. 46-42.0035(1)). With products destined for “dead”markets, the current regulatory purpose is in-appro-priate and, therefore, so are gear regulations de-signed to keep products alive (e.g., living wellrequirements) (F.A.C. 46-42.007).

Last, the purpose behind the legislation is to protectand conserve the resources and assure the continu-ing health and abundance of the species (F.A.C. 46-42.001). With the exception of daily bag limits, theregulations pertain to both commercial and recre-ational harvesters. Currently, recreational harvest-


ers are subject to the same bag limits that apply tothe capture of saltwater foodfish. The enforceabilityof recreational harvests is extremely limited. Giventhe expressed concern for the health of the resource,the lack of monitoring of the recreational sector maybe crucial to the future sustainability of these re-sources. A more reasonable, manageable, and en-forceable strategy may be to reduce the recreationalharvest to a reasonable level (i.e., the number ap-propriate for an average-sized aquarium). To increasethe effectiveness of these regulations, this informa-tion could be conveyed in the form of public servicepromotions. An example of the effectiveness of sucha campaign is the queen conch. An extensive aware-ness campaign was used to alert the public (commer-cial collectors and tourists) that the species could nolonger be harvested legally. Consequently, informa-tional campaigns may be the most cost-effective strat-egy for managing this diverse industry and resource.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article was developed under the auspices ofthe Florida Sea Grant College Program with sup-

port from the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Office of Sea Grant, U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, Grant No. NA76RG-0120. Theresearch was also supported by the Florida Agri-cultural Experiment Station and approved for pub-lication as Journal Series No. R-08057. The viewsherein do not necessarily reflect the views of any ofthese organizations.

REFERENCES

Florida Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Marine LifeStaff Paper, Tallahassee, FL. September 1998.

National Sea Grant College Program. 1999. Marine aqua-culture: Economic opportunities for the 21st century.Developed by the Aquaculture Task Group of the SeaGrant Association. Published by Texas Sea GrantCollege Program, TAMU-SG-99-603, College Station.

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. 1999. U.S. Ornamen-tal Aquarium Industry. Pet Information Bureau,Washington, DC. Available at www2.pijac.org/pijac/PJF001.htm.


INTRODUCTION

One of the most critical determinants to the finan-cial success of tropical fish farms is the problem ofdelivering a quality product to distant market des-tinations. At times, Hawaii’s geographic locationoffers a strategic advantage for growers. However,our islands’ isolation also presents an obvious mar-keting constraint—the long distances to final mar-ket destinations. The location of the major marketsfor our ornamental products dictates that the modeof transportation must involve the various airlinecarriers operating out of Hawaii. The duration oftransport over many of these routes ranges between48 and 72 hours. The purpose of this report is todescribe some of the critical handling and packingmethods that are essential for the successful trans-port of live tropical fish.

In the course of a 72-hour trip from a farm to thefinal delivery site, the fish are confined within plas-tic bags charged with oxygen. During transport, thewater in these closed containers may become oxy-gen-depleted and may accumulate excessive carbondioxide, causing a reduction in the pH. Metabolicactivity may also lead to elevated ammonia levelsin the water, which can be damaging to the healthof the fish or, in extreme cases, can be lethal. Adensely packed shipping container further increas-es these risks, but also reduces the cost of trans-portation—a critical cost in the delivery of productat competitive prices.

The challenge confronting the shipper is to arriveat an ideal balance of handling strategies underwhich fish can be shipped cost-effectively, withoutunnecessary risk of injury or mortality. Fortunate-ly, much of the guesswork in the handling and ship-ping sequence has been eliminated. This report willoutline basic procedures and packing densities that,when properly applied, should get the fish to theirdestination in good condition.

FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS

Perhaps the most important consideration whencalculating the total transport time to get a prod-uct to market is the specific airline company andits capabilities. For this reason, air freight consid-erations are being presented here prior to the de-scription of the other steps in the live fish shippingsequence.

Very careful consideration must be given to the air-line schedule and the procedures it uses to handlesensitive freight. These parameters vary widelyfrom airline to airline. This analysis will be furthercomplicated if the fish have to be transferred toanother airline company before they reach the fi-nal destination. For farmers just beginning to shipfish to markets outside the state, it is suggestedthat they initially concentrate on markets that canbe reached by direct flights from Hawaii. This willminimize the risks of lost freight and delayed ship-

Shipping Practices in the Ornamental Fish Industry

Brian ColeUniversity of Hawaii, Kaneohe, Hawaii

Clyde S. TamaruUniversity of Hawaii Sea Grant, Honolulu, Hawaii

Rich BaileyUniversity of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii

Christopher BrownHawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Kaneohe, Hawaii

Harry AkoCollege of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Honolulu, Hawaii

74 Cole et al.: Shipping Practices in the Ornamental Fish Industry

ping, which occurs most often during freight trans-fers from one plane to another. Hawaii has manydirect flights to destinations not only in the conti-nental United States but also other parts of theworld. Check with the individual airlines to gain alist of the destinations that are served with directflights. Also, inquire about the seasonal availabili-ty of freight space, something that can quicklychange with demand and time of year.

Some important questions to consider when choos-ing a carrier are:

• What is the total transit time to the final desti-nation? Be sure to calculate total transit time be-ginning when the bag is sealed at the farm andending when the bag is delivered to the customer’sbusiness establishment.

• Is there a plane transfer en route? If there is atransfer, does the freight transfer facility haveavailable climate controlled freight holding capa-bilities? This can be particularly important dur-ing the winter months.

• At what time does the shipment actually arriveat the final receiving airport? If the shipment ar-rives late in the business day, it may sit in a freightoffice overnight, adding considerably to total tran-sit time.

• Do live and perishable products have first priori-ty along the entire selected transport route? In-terruptions can occur; for example, during theChristmas season mail has first priority on all U.S.carriers.

• Does the airline freight office notify the destina-tion customer when the freight arrives?

• If container inspection is required along the se-lected transport route, will the shipment be de-layed if it arrives at an inspection point after nor-mal business hours?

As can be seen, the business planning process mustcarefully consider the entire transport route, includ-ing ground transport segments. Contingency plansshould be made to further reduce risk over sectionsof the transport route.

SHIPPING METHODS

All farms, regardless of whether they are shippingproduct to a transhipper, wholesaler, or retailer,must base their stock availability list on what ispresently in their holding area. This amounts towarehousing stock that is ready to be marketed inanticipation of orders that will be placed over the

next two to four weeks. This practice is consistentwith common business strategies used by any oth-er distributor. Having a constant supply of fishready to sell should be considered just anothermanufacturing strategy that will enable the “prod-uct supply pipeline” to remain full. In this way, neworders can be satisfied in a timely manner.

The most commonly used shipping methods areactually a variation on a single theme. The sequenceis fairly basic:

1. Fish are packed in partially water-filled plas-tic bags.

2. Bags are inflated with pure oxygen.

3. Each bag is carefully closed with one or morerubber bands.

4. Packed bags are placed in an insulated corru-gated box and the master container is sealed.

5. Necessary shipping instructions and related doc-uments are attached to the container.

6. The box is transported to the freight facility andshipped.

The size and shape of these bags and boxes, as wellas the insulation, can vary widely.

BagsMany of the domestic producers use square bottomplastic bags, as shown in Fig. 1. The use of thesepleated bags (provided with a flat bottom) is highlyrecommended. These bags utilize the surface areaof the bottom of the shipping box more efficiently.In addition, if the bags are properly placed in thebox, the problem of fish crowding into the cornersof the individual bags is kept to a minimum. Thesebags also allow for maximum oxygen transferthrough the surface of the water by expanding theair-water interface within the individual bags.

Boxes are generally packed with bags of “full” or“quarter” size. Full bags are those that occupy theentire box, half bags are packed two to a box, andquarter bags are packed four to a box. Square-bot-tom bags are available for custom packs down toone-eighth box size. Bag thickness ranges from 2 to6 mls, depending on the size of the bag and themanufacturer. Some of the commonly availablepleated and flat bag sizes are listed in Table 1.

Fish packers in Asia generally use bags manufac-tured from stock tube plastic that are heat-sealed


at one end so that each bag has only a single seam.Plastic shipping bags of this type are known as “pil-low bags” in the industry because, when they areinflated, there is no flat surface. The air-water sur-face within these bags is increased by shipping thebags on their side.

Due to inexpensive manufacturing costs, there is amuch wider size selection available in the pillow bagcategory (Table 1). Sizes range from small bags (17.5cm × 7.5 cm), intended for the packing of individualfish to sizes as large as 65 cm × 35 cm, for the ship-ment of large numbers of small fish. Large bags ofthis type usually contain 5-7 liters total volume witha water and oxygen percents ranging from 35%

water and 65% oxygen to 20% water and 80% oxy-gen. The number of fish packed in this type of bagwill range from 200-500. The smaller shipping bagscontain proportionally fewer fish to insure survivalof the fish during the typical 48-hour transport times.

BoxesMany different styles and types of boxes are rou-tinely used in the ornamental fish industry. Someof the most commonly used configurations are de-scribed in Table 2. Most shippers rely on boxes thatthey can purchase locally for most of their shippingneeds. Shippers will typically send out several typesof boxes as part of an effort to recycle or reuse box-es they receive. These include not only the standardtypes of boxes discussed below but also miscella-neous others. Some of these shipping boxes haveloose panels that are used to line the box walls.Internal partitions of this sort help keep requiredstorage space to a minimum. Other boxes areequipped with stacking molded Styrofoam compart-ments for use under extreme conditions.

Florida boxesThe standard box used in the domestic industry isthe traditional square Florida single box (Fig. 2).In single boxes used for shipments originating fromFlorida, the standard insulation is constructed ofmolded Styrofoam that has a taper and lip aboutmidway up the sidewall to facilitate the stacking ofempty containers.

Figure 1. Half-sized (left) and full-sized pleated bags (right).

Table 1. Types and sizes of bags commonly used to ship ornamental fish.

Flat bags (pillow bags) Pleated bags (square bottom)(length cm × width cm) (length cm × width cm × depth cm)

65 × 35 (full bag) 37.5 × 37.5 × 55 (full bag)60 × 27.5 40 × 20 × 55 (half bag)57.5 × 25 20 × 20 × 50 (quarter bag)57.5 × 22.5 (half bag) 15 × 10 × 45 (eighth bag)42.5 × 22.5 10 × 10 × 40 (sixteenth bag)37.5 × 2022.5 × 17.525 × 12.5 (quarter bag)20 ×10 (eighth bag)17.5 × 7.5 (individual fish)

cm = centimeter 2.45 cm = 1.0 inch


In recent years, some large shippers have begunusing a double-capacity version of the single box.This variation is called a “double.” The doubles havebeen shipped with any of three different types ofinsulation, including:

• A molded Styrofoam box.

• Individual Styrofoam panels inserted along the inner surfaces of the shipping box.

• Sheets of fiberglass insulation lining the box.

Hawaii boxesOrnamental fish producers in Hawaii are currentlyusing a molded Styrofoam box that was originallydesigned for use in the shrimp industry (see Fig. 3).Locally, these shipping containers are called “coffinboxes.” This box has approximately the same ship-ping capacity as the Florida box and typically in-volves the use of two half bags. Each half bag hasthe capacity to contain 3.5 liters of water and can

hold half the fish listed in Table 3. An alternativemeans of insulating bagged ornamental fish, usedin Hawaii, makes use of rectangular panels of Sty-rofoam rather than preformed inserts to line theshipping boxes (not shown).

Asia boxesOrnamental fish from Asia are frequently packedin one of two size boxes, the Asia double box or thealternate Asia box (Table 2). Both sizes are packedwith a minimum of four bags.

FISH PACK DENSITY

Common pack numbers used in the industry basedon 48 and 72 hour transit times, along with somegeneral guidelines for packing density are present-ed in Table 3. The guidelines represent a compositeof packaging densities in common use in the aquar-ium trade. This table is based on an analysis of in-

Table 2. Styles and dimensions of common shipping boxes.

Box dimensionsBox style (length cm × width cm × depth cm)

Traditional Florida box 42.5 × 42.5 × 25Florida double box 80 × 42.5 × 25Asia double box 60 × 42 30Alternate Asia box 49 × 38 × 38Hawaii box 68 × 34 × 25

cm = centimeter 2.54 cm = 1.0 inch

Figure 2. Typical “Florida” single box. Figure 3. Typical “Hawaii” shipping box (bottom) and Styro-foam insert (top).


Table 3. Common packing densities used in the shipping of ornamental fish. The packing densitieslisted in this table are based on a single 7 liter capacity bag in a single Florida style box.

Standard Extended Length Pack Pack

Species (inches) (48 hr) (72 hr)

Swordtails 1.0 400 3001.5 300 2502.0 250 2002.5 200 1503.0 100 75

Mollies regular 1.5 300 225 medium 2.0 200 150 large 2.5 150 100

Platies 0.5 400 3001.0 300 2251.25 275 2001.5 250 175

Variatus 0.5 400 3001.0 300 2251.25 275 2001.5 250 175

Guppies (fancy) 1.25 400 300 (feeder) 1.0 1,500 1,000

Tetras small 0.5 300 225 medium 0.75 250 200 large 1.0 200 150

Angel fish regular 1.0 150 100 medium 1.5 50 35 large 2.0 20 15

Kissing gourami regular 2.0 125 100 medium 3.0 50 35

Blue gourami regular 2.0 125 100 large 2.5 100 70

Paradise gourami regular 2.0 125 100 large 2.5 100 70

Standard Extended Length Pack PackSpecies (inches) (48 hr) (72 hr)

Dwarf gourami 1.75 150 100

Tiger barbs small 0.75 400 325 regular 1.0 300 225 medium 1.25 200 150 large 1.5 125 100

Rosy barbs regular 1.5 150 100 long-fin 1.5 150 100

Danios small 0.75 500 400 regular 1.0 400 300 large 1.25 300 250 long-fin 1.0 300 250

Corydoras 1.0 225 175

Rainbow Sharks small 1.5 200 50 medium 2.0 150 100 large 2.5 100 75 x large 3.0 75 50 xx large 4.0 50 40

Cichlids regular 1.5 150 100 medium 1.75 100 70 large 2.0 20 10

Rainbow fish regular 1.5 150 100 medium 2.0 100 75 large 2.5 50 35

General guidelines1.5 200 1502.0 150 1002.5 100 753.0 75 504.0 50 355.0 20 126.0 15 10


dustry price lists and the personal experience of theauthors. Note that pack numbers are based on thenumber of pieces per 7 liters of water contained ina single bag (full pleated bag, see Table 1) packedwithin a Florida box. The packing densities varydepending on the size of the fish. Because of knowndifferences in the volumes and surface areas of pack-ing boxes, standard pack numbers for Hawaii box-es are estimated to be 1.3 times the numbers givenin Table 3 for the Florida box.

Normally, egg-layers are bagged with a 5% over-pack and live-bearers are bagged with a 10% over-pack. For example, a box of mollies shipped at 300pieces actually contains 330 pieces. Higher priceditems, extremely delicate fish, and large fish suchas cichlids are not overpacked. Large fish, and thosewith sharp spines or scales should be placed in dou-ble bags (one inside the other and sealed eitherindependently or together) to reduce the possibili-ty of a puncture and water leakage. Some buyersmay require pack numbers lower or higher thanthose listed in Table 3. For instance, if you are sell-ing to the retail level, the pack numbers are gener-ally lower.

If a buyer requests pack numbers higher than nor-mal, make it clear that the buyer assumes the riskof guaranteed live arrival. If you are shipping a fishspecies with which you have little experience, usethe packing densities listed under “general guide-lines.” Fish may be packed on a trial basis usingthe densities given in Table 3 and held for observa-tion up to 72 hours. The standard pack guidelinesare based on 48 hour shipping time and the extend-ed pack is based on 72 hour shipping time.

PACKING PROCEDURES

A flow chart illustrating the typical processes in-volved in the packing and shipping of ornamentalfish is presented in Fig. 4. Before harvesting andpacking, it is important to have all required pack-aging materials available and ready for use. Anychemicals needed for pond treatment of parasitesshould be on hand. You should also insure that thereis adequate room in holding tanks to house theharvested fish. Extra tanks for sorting by size and/or sex will be needed, as well. You will also need acomfortable sorting table in a clean, well-lit area.Suitable bags for packing should be in stock, as wellas the insulated Styrofoam inserts and outer box-es. Boxes and bags can be obtained through thesources listed in Appendix 1. Other critical supplies

include a full oxygen cylinder complete with regu-lator to inflate the bags, rubber bands to seal thebags, and tape to seal the boxes. Packing shouldnot be attempted until the packaging area is fullyoperational, with none of these items missing.

Step 1. Preharvest fish should be examined for par-asites and diseases at least one week priorto harvesting. This allows sufficient lead-time should any treatments be necessary.

Step 2. Post harvest fish brought into the holdingtanks for sorting and sale should be checkedagain for parasites and diseases. Holdingtanks should have adequate water and aer-ation. Iodine-free salt (sodium chloride) canbe added to the holding tank water at 9 ppt(parts per thousand). This provides an iso-tonic salt solution that is effective in reduc-ing stress and promoting the developmentof a natural slime coating. This helps pre-vent opportunistic infection caused by han-dling injuries.

Step 3. Feeding should be withheld for a minimumof two days and up to five days before pack-aging, depending on species. For example,live-bearers such as swordtails and molliesrequire two days without food, whereas gold-fish and corydoras require four days. Anyaccumulation of feces in the holding tanksshould be removed once or twice a day toprevent the fish from eating this material.The absence of feces in the tank is an indi-cation that fish have had an adequate purgetime prior to sorting, counting, and shipping.

Step 4. Fish are now sorted and counted into baglot quantities and held in individual aquar-iums, trays, or buckets. These pre-shipmentcontainers should have adequate water andairflow. The water exchange rate in thesecontainers should be a minimum of fourtimes per day. Ideally, the preshipmentholding containers should have a standpipeor valves to allow the water to be drainedto the correct shipping volumes. The fishand water can then be poured directly intothe shipping bag. This technique savestime and minimizes handling.

Step 5. Any shipping additives are placed into thebag at this time. The bag is first purged ofair and then pure oxygen is injected intothe bag below the surface of the water. The


bag is sealed using rubber bands or one ofthe commercial grade sealers or banders andplaced into the shipping box. Depending onclimatic conditions and species involved, iceor heat packs can be placed on top of the bagafter sealing for best results.

SHIPPING ADDITIVES

Over the last 15 years, several additives for use withshipping water have been developed to help reducestress and increase fish survival. These productsgenerally fall into three categories:

• Sedatives

• Water quality stabilizers

• Antibiotics

The most common sedatives are quinaldine orquinaldine sulfate and tricane methane sulfonate(MS-222). Commonly used concentrations are list-ed in Table 4. Quinaldine is used at 25 ppm (partsper million) in shipping water and MS-222 at60-70 ppm, with adjustments made for sensitive spe-cies. These compounds reduce the metabolic rate offish and can also prevent injury caused by jumpingor swimming into the sides of the box.

Water quality stabilizers include pH buffers, zeoliteat 20 grams per liter (effective in removing ammo-nia), activated carbon at 20 grams per liter, ice orheat packs to maintain temperature, and sodiumchloride at 9 ppt. Other products have become avail-able from the bait minnow industry. This group ofproducts usually contains a combination of chelat-

Figure 4. Flow chart of fish packing steps and procedures


ing agents, buffers, ammonia or chlorine removers,and some form of antibiotic.

Caution should be used in the application of antibi-otics. These compounds are subject to regulatorycontrols which should be carefully considered be-fore any application. One of the most widely usedantibiotics for shipment and treatment of fish istetracycline at 5-20 ppm. This antibiotic has beenused extensively, especially with fish shipped fromAsia. However, there are indications that some bac-teria have developed an immunity to tetracyclinedue to its widespread use. This is one of thereasons why the authors do not recommend its use(J. Brock, DVM, Aquaculture Development Program,State of Hawaii, pers. comm.). Other antibiotics com-monly used in shipping are furanace at 0.05-0.20ppm,and neutral acriflavine at 3-10 ppm. Otherantibiotics such as kanamycin and phenicol are usedmuch less frequently and are primarily used as on-farm treatments for disease. Different sulfa-baseddrugs are being used in response to the develop-ment of bacterial resistance to antibiotics histori-cally used in the ornamental industry.

We used tiger barbs as test animals to demonstratethe effect of packing density on total ammonia con-centration during transport. The fish were packedin bags containing three liters of water and inflat-ed with pure oxygen. Samples of the water weretaken at zero, 24, 48, and 72 hours and tested for

total ammonia nitrogen by the Hach colorimetricmethod. All readings at the level of 3 ppm were as-sumed to be 3 ppm and above, since this is the up-per limit of accurate readings by this test method.All test results except those that were less than3 ppm were significantly off scale. The test fish were1.25 inches long and were either starved for 48hours or were fed normally prior to packing. Foreach of the starved and fed treatment groups, therewere either no additives placed in the shippingwater, zeolite added at 20 grams per liter, or MS-222 at 20 milligrams per liter added to the ship-ping water.

Figures 5 and 6 show the increase in the concen-tration of total ammonia nitrogen over a 72-hourperiod for fish packed at two different densities withvarious treatments. Zeolite was the only additivethat had a significant effect on ammonia concen-trations. The ammonia level rose to 1.5 ppm in thefirst 24 hours, then leveled out for the next 24 hoursas the zeolite bound with the ammonia. From hour48 to hour 72 the ammonia started to climb againas the saturation point of the zeolite was reached.Figure 7 (200 fish per bag) shows a pattern similarto that indicated by Fig. 5 (150 fish per bag) withall treatments.

Zeolite is commonly used in bags that have beenoverpacked and in shipments of fish that producelarge quantities of ammonia, such as Corydoras spp.and Carassius auratus. This application adds a neg-ligible cost to each bag and may substantially re-duce the risk of mortality. Shippers should checkwith local suppliers for current pricing. It shouldbe noted that the group that was fed normally andwas treated with MS-222 had 50% mortality by hour48 and 100% mortality by hour 72 (Fig. 6). Surviv-al was 100% in the lots involving the other treat-ments. These results suggest that the combinationof MS-222 and feeding should be avoided and thatzeolite may be a cost-effective shipping additive.

RECEIVING FISH

Most farms that ship fish also receive fish, eitherfor resale or to add to broodstock lines. A criticalcomponent of a successful farm or transshipmentfacility is the appropriate care and handling of in-coming shipments of fish.

Arriving shipments should be inspected immediate-ly, particularly those that have been shipped overlong distances or those which have been subject to

Table 4. Common shipping additives and concen-trations typically used in water for thetransport of ornamental fish (adapted fromHerwig 1979).

Chemical Concentration

Quinaldine 25 ppmTricane methane sulfonate (MS-222) 60-70 ppmpH buffers As per labelZeolite 20 gm/LActivated carbon 20 gm/LSalt (NaCl) 9.0 pptCommercial mixtures As per labelFurnace 0.05-0.2 ppmNeutral acriflavine 3-10 ppm

ppm = parts per milliongm/L = grams per literppt = parts per thousand


delays. Fish that are densely packed in bags thathave taken longer than expected to arrive may besuffering from exposure to accumulations of ammo-nia, thermal shock, or other problems. In such cas-es, a quick assessment of the condition of thearriving fish can limit losses.

In order to implement a successful receiving pro-gram, you must first have a working knowledge ofthe chemical and physical changes that are takingplace inside the shipping bag during transport. Oncea bag has water, fish, and oxygen sealed inside it,certain chemical changes take place due to the met-abolic activities of the fish. When fish “breathe,”they absorb oxygen and excrete other gases and me-tabolites—primarily carbon dioxide and nitrogen inthe form of ammonia.

Total ammonia nitrogen, for the purposes of thispaper, consists of two forms of nitrogen that existin a pH and temperature dependent equilibrium.These forms of nitrogen are non-ionized ammonia(NH3) and the ammonium ion (NH4). The non-ion-ized form (NH3) is toxic to fish while the ammoni-um ion (NH4) is not toxic to fish (Boyd 1979). Theproportion of NH4 (nontoxic) to NH3 (toxic) increas-es with decreasing pH and decreases with increas-ing pH (Boyd 1979). The percentage of NH3 alsorises with increasing temperatures. Consequently,

shipping conditions involving relatively high pHand elevated temperature are especially dangerousto ornamental fish. Since NH3 cannot be measureddirectly, several tables have been created based onan equilibrium formula that predicts the relativepercentages of non-ionized ammonia at differenttemperatures and pH levels. Table 5 was createdfor the aquaculture industry and reproduced fromBoyd (1979).

Generally, when a box containing a bag of fish reachesits final destination, it has been in transit for 24-48hours. During this period there has been enoughcarbon dioxide produced to reduce the pH of thewater to the level of 6.5-7.0. From Table 5, using atemperature of 24°C and a pH of 7.0, the toxic frac-tion is only 0.52%. If the total ammonia nitrogenreading is 10.0 parts per million (ppm), the toxicfraction is only 0.052 ppm (0.0052 × 10.0 = 0.052 ppm).Long-term exposure to this concentration of toxicammonia (NH3) is well within the tolerable limits ofmost species and will not do any serious physiolog-ical damage to the fish (Post 1987). However, if thepH in this same bag of fish is 10.0 and the temper-ature is 24°C, the non-ionized toxic fraction of am-monia from this chart is 84.0% or 8.4 ppm (0.84 ×10.0 = 8.4 ppm). At this level, severe stress, physio-logical damage, and even death may occur at expo-sure times as short as 30 minutes or less (Post 1987).

Figure 5. Changes in total ammonia nitrogen concentrationover time in bags packed with 150 fish, with and without addi-tives.

Figure 6. Changes in total ammonia nitrogen concentrationover time in bags packed with 200 fish for a 48-hour transittime, with and without additives.


When receiving fish, it is critical that you are awareof the temperature and pH differences between thewater in the shipping bag and the receiving waterat the facility. The recommended method for accli-mating fish is to float the sealed bag in the receiv-ing tank or pond for at least five minutes per degreeof temperature difference, or until the temperatureof the water in the bag is within two degrees of thereceiving water. The bag should be kept out of di-rect sunlight to avoid photic shock to the fish andthe elevation of water temperatures in the bag be-cause of the greenhouse effect.

At this point in the receiving procedure, non-iodizedsalt may be added to reduce stress. Fish should alsobe inspected under the microscope for any parasitesor disease and the proper treatment applied. Whenthe bag is unsealed, the fish can be dipped out andplaced directly into the receiving water. Generally,water in shipping bags is discarded rather than in-troduced into the culture system. This strategylimits the possible introduction of pathogens, anes-thetics, etc.

If the bag is unsealed prior to this point in the re-ceiving sequence, the carbon dioxide in the shippingwater will begin to dissipate into the atmosphere.

This will cause the pH of the shipping water to in-crease rapidly along with the toxic fraction of ammo-nia, potentially causing severe stress and perhapsthe death of the fish. Adding water to an unsealedbag may only increase stress if the water being addedhas a high pH and temperature. If your water natu-rally has a low pH and you do choose to add water tothe bag, remove and discard an equal amount of wa-ter from the bag. This will, at least, reduce the totalamount of nitrogen present in the shipping water.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Even the most effectively run ornamental fish pro-duction facility is likely to fail if insufficient atten-tion is paid to fish packing and shipping procedures.This is a basic problem confronting the members ofthe ornamental industry. Attention must be givento minimizing risk within each step of the packingand transport sequence. Appropriate adjustmentsneed to be made without going to the costly excessof shipping underpacked bags.

Packing methods should take into account the spe-cies being shipped and the expected time in tran-sit. Concentrating sales to destinations alongwell-established transport corridors and adherence

Table 5. Percentage of non-ionized ammonia (toxic) in solution at different pH values and tempera-tures (reproduced from Boyd 1979)

Temperature (Centigrade)pH 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

7.0 0.30 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.52 0.60 0.70 0.81 0.957.2 0.47 0.54 0.63 0.72 0.82 0.95 1.10 1.27 1.507.4 0.74 0.86 0.99 1.14 1.30 1.50 1.73 2.00 2.367.6 1.17 1.35 1.56 1.79 2.05 2.35 2.72 3.13 3.697.8 1.84 2.12 2.45 2.80 3.21 3.68 4.24 4.88 5.728.0 2.88 3.32 3.83 4.37 4.99 5.71 6.55 7.52 8.778.2 4.49 5.16 5.94 6.76 7.68 8.75 10.00 11.41 13.228.4 6.93 7.94 9.09 10.30 11.65 13.20 14.98 16.96 19.468.6 10.56 12.03 13.68 15.40 17.28 19.42 21.83 24.45 27.688.8 15.76 17.82 20.08 22.38 24.88 27.64 30.68 33.90 37.769.0 22.87 25.57 28.47 31.37 34.42 37.71 41.23 44.84 49.029.2 31.97 35.25 38.69 42.01 45.41 48.96 52.65 56.30 60.389.4 42.68 46.32 50.00 53.45 56.86 60.33 63.79 67.12 70.729.6 54.14 57.77 61.31 64.54 67.63 70.67 73.63 76.39 79.299.8 65.17 68.43 71.53 74.25 76.81 79.25 81.57 83.68 85.8510.0 74.78 77.46 79.92 82.05 84.00 85.82 87.52 89.05 90.5810.2 82.45 84.48 86.32 87.87 89.27 90.56 91.75 92.80 93.84


to the established packing methods, materials, anddensities described in this manual will contributeto the consistent delivery of fish in excellent condi-tion. We recommend the use of an effectively de-signed packing room, with harvests preparedappropriately in anticipation of shipping deadlines.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This manual is a combined effort of three institutions:

1. The United States Department of Agriculture Cen-ter for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture (CTSA)through a grant from the U.S. Department of Agri-culture Cooperative State Research, Education andExtension Service (USDA Grant #9638500-2743).

2. The University of Hawaii Sea Grant ExtensionService (SGES) through the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA), project #A/AS-1 which is sponsored by the University of Ha-waii Sea Grant College Program, School of OceanEarth Science and Technology (SOEST) under In-stitutional Grant No. NA36RG0507 from NOAAOffice of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce,UNIHI-SEAGRANT-TR-98-01.

3. The Aquaculture Development Program (ADP),Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, as partof the Aquaculture Extension Project with the Uni-versity of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Service, Con-tract 9960.

The views expressed herein are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the fund-ing agencies or their subagencies.

REFERENCESBoyd, C.E. 1979. Water quality in warmwater fish ponds.

Auburn University/Craftmaster Printers, Auburn,AL. 359 pp.

Herwig, N. 1979. Handbook of drugs and chemicals usedin the treatment of fish diseases. Charles ThomasPublishers, Springfield, IL. 272 pp.

Post, G. 1987. Textbook of fish health. TFH Publications,Inc., Ltd., Neptune City, NJ. 288 pp.


QUESTION: If oxygen is not an issue, why do youinflate the bags with oxygen? Why not simply in-flate them with air?

R. BAILEY: Good point. Some people in the indus-try have talked about that. Also, a few airlines havebeen a little bit concerned about the amount of ox-ygen in the hold of an airplane. I think what they’regoing to do is start to look at that, as a means oftrying to increase the number of fish per box, andactually deflate some of the bags. Again, a lot of thebags are inflated with 80% pure oxygen. Whatthey’ve found is that even after 72 hours only halfof the oxygen has been consumed. It’s also a func-tion of temperature. I was just in Singapore and afarm there chills their bags of fish down to 72°, pri-or to boxing them.


APPENDIX 1. LIST OF SUPPLIERS IN THE AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY.




INTRODUCTION

The ornamental fish industry is global in natureand relies on rapid movement of product via air-freight networks. Current technology and expertiseallows for the live shipment of fish, invertebrates,and other aquatic organisms from any point of ori-gin to any destination, provided there is space avail-able on the commercial carrier.

Because of the need to deal with 2,000 differentspecies and varieties of ornamental fish and varioussizes of individual fish, expertise and competencein the fields of transport logistics and live handlingtechnology are highly prized. The ability of suppli-ers to deliver healthy and minimally stressed ani-mals is often the deciding factor in a company’sfinancial success. Most suppliers provide a 24-hour,post-delivery guarantee on live animals. Factorsmanipulated during the packaging of ornamentalfish include:

1. Amount of water.

2. Temperature.

3. Size and number of fish per pack.

4. Water additives (antibacterials, ammonia absorb-ers, pH stabilizers, etc.).

5. Time of packing.

On the other end of the shipment process, handlingthe fish at the receiving stage is of equal impor-tance to the ultimate success of the shipment. Theproper acclimation of the newly arrived animals andthe timely resolution of unavoidable health problemsassociated with shipping stress are other specializedskills requiring extensive training and expertise.

Knowledge of airfreight practices, including sched-ules, layover times, and seasonal climatic conditionsat all points along the shipment route is important.The development of good working relationshipsbetween shippers and the airlines enhances suc-cess during the shipping process, as well. Competi-tion for limited cargo space may be an issue at

certain locations or at certain times of the year.Other products, especially mail and certain highpriority shipments, take precedence over ornamen-tal fish. Perhaps the most important factor under-lying the successful movement of ornamental fishis the unimpeded movement of live animalsthroughout the entire shipping process.

The development of regulatory trends involving theinspection and/or quarantine of shipments is prob-lematic for this industry. Live aquatic animals areunder unavoidable stress during shipment, anddelays in the delivery of shipments can cause in-creased losses.

FLORIDA’S ORNAMENTAL

AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY

The University of Florida has recently acquired anew research facility in Ruskin. We are currentlyabout two years into this new program. The Ruskinfacility is a laboratory specifically designed toaddress the needs of Florida’s tropical fish industry.Our laboratory has a 6.5-acre fish farm adjacent toit. We are also building a new hatchery and nutri-tion lab at this site, and we maintain a small dor-mitory for students. The laboratory is providing uswith many opportunities to assist the industry.

Every two years the State of Florida completes asurvey of farmgate value in the aquaculture indus-try. Farmgate price is what the farmer is paid forthe product. Aquaculture products pass through anumber of hands before finally departing Florida.For this reason, by the time the products aretransported across the Florida boundary the priceusually doubles and sometimes triples. The tropi-cal or ornamental fish sector accounted for $57 mil-lion (US) of the just over $100 million resulting fromthe entire aquaculture industry in 1997. The aquat-ic plant sector of the industry accounted for an ad-ditional $13.2 million. This particular sector dealsprimarily with aquatic plants destined for theaquarium trade and ornamental fish ponds; thus

The Ornamental Fish Industry

Craig A. WatsonTropical Aquaculture Laboratory, University of Florida, Ruskin, Florida

88 Watson: Airfreight and the Ornamental Fish Industry

these two sectors are sister industries. The ornamen-tal trade dominates Florida’s aquaculture industry.

The ornamental fish industry is concentrated in theTampa Bay region, in Hillsborough County. This isalso the center of the work at our laboratory. About95% of the U.S. ornamental fish production is inFlorida and about 80% of Florida’s production iscultured in Hillsborough County. One of the reasonsfor the concentration of farms in and around TampaBay is that the Tampa International Airport providesvery good service to the industry. There is also awell-developed infrastructure in the county to supplyessential products to the ornamental and aquaticplant industry. In addition to this, we have the ben-efit of occupying a region with flat, sandy soils. Youcan simply dig a hole and it quickly fills with water,creating a pond in the process. If you fly over Hills-borough County, you can see these farms spreadout everywhere. The ornamental farms are locatedin the middle of a broad, flat agricultural region.The average sized farm is approximately 10-15 acres.

Progress in the Florida industryBigger farmsThe Florida industry is moving toward bigger farmsand consolidating. One farm I am familiar withillustrates a trend now gaining power in the Floridaindustry. The farm has recently purchased 160 acresof ponds in nearby De Soto County. Bringing thesetwo properties together, this single company is cur-rently farming about 1,500 ponds. In addition toproduction facilities, consolidation has now movedto the distribution of ornamental products. Severallarge retail companies are beginning to dominate thedistribution of live fish to the hobby trade. Addition-al consolidation is expected in the Florida industry.

More fish per pondSome of the initiatives that have been undertakento increase the overall farmgate value of this diverseindustry have not involved the construction of moreponds, but rather the placement of more fish inthese ponds. We have studied ways to increase feed-ing rates and to increase stocking densities. Someornamental farmers used to harvest 2,000-3,000 fishout of a typical pond. Now they are harvesting10,000-20,000 fish out of the same pond. The use ofsimple production strategies such as continuousaeration and the use of automatic feeders with com-plete diets have allowed the industry to expand inthis manner.

Covered pondsAnother innovation is the use of covered ponds.While Hillsborough County is south of the estab-lished freeze line, it does occasionally freeze in thisarea. We experienced a devastating freeze on Christ-mas Eve 1989, and lost 70% of the cultured fish inFlorida overnight. Ornamental farmers are nowcovering 30-40% of their ponds with plastic duringthe winter. Although covering a pond with plasticmay seem like an easy process, this represents amajor cost to the farmer. However, if the farm hasa profitable year because of plastic covers and oth-er precautions, the use of these strategies will havebeen justified. Cost recovery usually takes only ayear or two.

Bird nettingI would also like to point out that underneath theplastic cover is bird netting. The plastic cover toprotect the ponds from freezing weather goes onfrom November to March of each year. When itcomes off, the farmers cover the ponds with birdnetting to ward off various species of fish-eatingbirds. We completed a study dealing with the prob-lem of bird predation and found that the industrywas losing up to 40% of certain species of ornamen-tal fish. Brightly colored fish species were particu-larly vulnerable to bird predation.

Indoor productionWe are beginning to see another trend in the in-dustry—the movement toward the use of indoorproduction at all levels of the ornamental industry.The industry is getting away from the exclusive useof ponds and has now started to use recirculatingwater systems and related technologies.

Other changesAmong other innovations are the use of computermonitored growout systems, liquid oxygen injection,biological filters, and so on. The industry is becom-ing technologically advanced in order to gain thefollowing benefits:

• Eliminate bird predation.

• Reduce the financial risks associated with cold tem-peratures.

• Allow for more control of the production process.

What has the spread of these various productionstrategies done for the industry? The adoption of


these innovations has made it a lot easier to get theproduct to the market. It is now much easier to pickthe fish out using a net and package them for theend consumer.

Transport to marketOrnamentals are the number one airfreight com-modity for the Tampa International Airport. On aweekly basis, the industry now ships approximate-ly 30,000 boxes of ornamental fish and aquaticplants from this airfreight hub. The movement ofornamental fish and associated products around theairport is quite hectic. Trucks are sometimes linedup ten deep trying to get to the cargo bays of themajor airlines providing service at Tampa Interna-tional. There is a huge infrastructure withinHillsborough County and other Florida regions spe-cifically geared toward supplying shipping servic-es. The ornamental industry is very important tothe local economy—the aquaculture industry andits associated infrastructure companies are majoremployers. For example, local plastic bag manufac-turers produce an enormous quantity of plastic bagsfor the industry.

Where are the markets for the ornamental fish andaquatic plant products? The answer to this ques-tion is quite simple—where is the money? Orna-mental fish and aquatic plants are generally definedas luxury products, and the market for these prod-ucts is largely confined to the Northern Hemisphere.It is an exotic hobby. The farther you get away fromthe tropics, the more interest there is in tropicalaquarium fish. The times of the year when the larg-est numbers of tropical fish are sold generally tendto coincide with the hardest freezes in the north.When people become snowbound in their houses,they appear to find it comforting to own a littlesquare of the tropics in their front room.

Today, the airfreight transportation network, withits speed and number of available domestic and in-ternational flights, is capable of carrying an orna-mental fish from any point on the globe to any otherpoint in the world in a very short time. The net-work can accomplish this task in a very efficientmanner. This represents a major change from thepast. In the 1930s and before, tropical fish weretransported in metal cans on steamships and rail-road cars. Now it is difficult to think about how hardit used to be to transport an ornamental fish from,for example, Florida to Germany. It was moved in a

metal can, with someone changing the water at sev-eral points along the way.

ORNAMENTAL SOURCES WORLDWIDE

Florida and Hawaii are the major sites of ornamen-tal production in the United States. There are small-er amounts of production in Texas, and Californiahas several good producers. Additional productioncomes from southern Mexico near the Yucatan. Asmall amount of production takes place in CostaRica and there is some apparently diminishing in-terest in Venezuela and Colombia. In Europe, theCzech Republic is generating an amazing amountof production. When the Iron Curtain fell, we foundout that they were really cranking out ornamentalfish. However, the major production centers of theworld are Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, HongKong, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and southern India.Florida’s major competition comes from SoutheastAsia. Asians are producing the same kind of fish asthose cultured in the United States, but with cheap-er labor and “friendlier” government systems.

Wild harvestingWe need to consider ornamental fish as an interna-tional commodity. In the global marine ornamentalcategory, we have counted 851 species that are com-monly traded. The Florida industry cultures about24 of these fish. This suggests that many marineornamental species are harvested from the wild.We recognize that there are some real problems withthis type of collection. Wild harvesting is currentlybeing scrutinized in terms of its sustainability. In-cidentally, several of us at this conference are onour way to the first international conference on theculture and conservation of marine ornamental reefspecies, in Hawaii, to deal with the issues associat-ed with the wild harvesting of marine ornamental fish.

The fact remains that large numbers of marine or-namental species are being collected from the wild.The fish are brought into major wholesale centersincluding Jakarta, Manila, and a number of othercollection points. From these centers, the fish andother species are shipped to worldwide markets.They are involved in the trading of just about any-thing and everything that has a little bit of color toit. For many of these tropical fish species, research-ers are not even close to figuring out their complexlife cycles. The proper methods to spawn them andrear their larvae are unknown.


Some fish will retail for close to $100.00 if the ship-per can get it to the United States alive. You can un-derstand why a shipper is going to spend a lot moretime and money packaging and shipping this ani-mal than other less valuable species. Where is theornamental industry going with this type of collect-ing? The marine ornamental industry is moving to-ward aquaculture, i.e., the farming of these species.

Sherry Larkin, the first speaker in this technicalsession, talked about the aquarium product knownas “live rock.” Live rock and live sand are importantitems in the aquarium trade. Live sand, for instance,is frequently used as a base component in modernmarine aquariums. Florida has several producerswho are actively involved with the aquaculture oflive rock. This is accomplished by first collectingrock from land, and then depositing this rock atvarious locations in the Gulf of Mexico. The rock isharvested when it has become covered with encrust-ing organisms, hence the name “live rock.” This is aproduct much in demand by hobbyists. Other pro-ducers are involved with the aquaculture of variousmacro-algae that are also in demand by hobbyistsoperating reef tanks.

Most of the ornamental fish currently being culturedin Florida and elsewhere in the world are speciesthat form strong pair bonds. The life cycles of thesefish include parental care of the eggs and larvae.The larvae are quite large compared to some of theother marine ornamental species.

Small farms in the Far EastOn the freshwater side of the ornamental business,a big portion of Florida’s competition is from smallindividual producers in the Far East. These opera-tions do not individually produce many fish, butwhen there are 2,000 of them in Jakarta alone, theyadd up. In Singapore and areas across the straitinto Malaysia, this type of farming is being carriedout at higher densities. Much of the culture processinvolves netpens and a small amount of water ex-change. In this more intensive form of farming,many fish are produced in small areas. This type ofoperation must be highly managed because of allthe small netpens.

Just like the farms in Florida, these Asian farmshave an advantage over the wild-caught fish in thatthe fish originating from a farm are handled onlyonce, perhaps twice, while en route to the final ship-ment location. In Singapore, these farms deliver

their ornamental fish in bags ready to go into thebox. Not many handling steps are involved. By com-parison, in the Florida industry, the fish are typi-cally delivered and then go into tanks, where theyare purged and repackaged by the wholesaler.

REVIEW OF HANDLING STEPS

Following is a description of the entire handling andshipping sequence involving just one fish, the clownloach. This shows some of the complexities presentin the industry. Any pet shop in the world that hasa good freshwater fish section will have this fish.The clown loach probably originated from one of twoislands in the southwestern Pacific—Sumatra andBorneo.

In Borneo, about 200 miles up the Kapuas River, isthe Kapuas Hula Region. Moving up this river andturning a corner, you would see dozens of boats po-sitioned against the riverbank with fishermen op-erating lift nets. They sit there all day long, droppingnets into the water and, at regular intervals, liftingthem up. The captured fish are poured into a bucket.After sufficient fish have been harvested, the har-vesters transport them back to their houses andtransfer them into floating cages

Then large “collector boats,” moving up and downthe river, stop at the docks and transfer the fishinto plastic cages that are positioned in the bilge ofthe boat. They flood the bilge and circulate the wa-ter by trickling water into these cages. The fish arecarried 200 miles down the river to the port town atthe mouth—Pontianak. One particular trader has aspacious structure enclosing glass raceways stackedtwo high. He claims to have approximately 5,000,000clown loaches in inventory at this location.

It is easy to estimate the number of times that ourhypothetical fish has been handled at this point andhow far it still has to go. It is still in Borneo and itwill probably be sold to an ornamental trader inSingapore, Los Angeles, Tampa, Miami, or somemajor European city before it is distributed to stillanother wholesaler. From this point it will be sold toa pet shop and then finally purchased by a hobbyist.Consequently, this fish may change hands as manyas seven times before reaching the final market.

PathogensIn the majority of cases, the roots of any problemsassociated with the shipping of fish involve the fish


and the environment in which it has been placed.There are concerns about pathogens from sourceareas, of course, but it is typically the “environmen-tal diseases” that flare up during shipment thatcause the significant problems. The ornamentalindustry is faced with pathogens that can multiplyrapidly during shipment, especially bacterial infec-tions. Our laboratory and other programs work withproducers, training them in disease diagnostics andtreatment in an effort to eliminate disease organ-isms prior to shipment.

Water qualityAttention to water quality is an essential consider-ation when it comes to the handling of ornamentalfish. If you are trying to keep alive anything that isaquatic and you do not understand the importanceof water quality, then you are in for trouble. If youare involved with the shipping of ornamentals, themaintenance of proper water quality is a big issue.Many individual strategies are involved. It is im-portant to purge the fish and to have water circu-lating through them during the pre-shipmentholding period.

OxygenThe provision of oxygen is a major factor when ship-ping fish. The reason to encourage the injection ofpure oxygen on top of the water containing fish isquite simple. If you fail to inject a small volume ofoxygen, the fish are going to run out. By makinguse of compressed oxygen for shipping, a major lim-iting factor can be eliminated. However, even withpure oxygen, after a period of time the fish will de-plete the supply in the bags.

AmmoniaThe accumulation of ammonia and other nitroge-nous wastes, as well as pH alterations, present ad-ditional problems during the shipping period thatneed to be dealt with. It is possible to get rid ofsome of the ammonia produced via excretion bypurging the fish prior to shipment. However, youstill have excretion across the gill membranes.Although it is possible to get rid of most of the or-ganic debris in the bag by eliminating the feed andfeces, it is not possible to get rid of these thingscompletely. The fish are going to excrete ammonia.What does ammonia do to the fish? The biggest con-cern about ammonia, when in the acute state, isthat it can cause damage to the gills. When acute

ammonia buildup occurs in the holding water, youcan expect to see hemorrhagic areas on the gill fil-aments. Obviously, a fish suffering this type of dam-age will not be capable of normal respiration orother functions performed by the gills.

The use of zeolite is probably your best bet for re-moving ammonia during shipping. There are sever-al other things such as Ammolock and other chemicaladditives, but zeolite will physically remove a cer-tain amount of ammonia.

pHA few words need to be mentioned about pH. ThepH of the holding water will go down (become moreacidic) during shipment. In some ways this is goodbecause it pushes the ammonia into a nontoxic form.But at extremely low pH, you will start having prob-lems. It is important in the ornamental fish tradeto understand that some fish can tolerate loweredpH levels and some fish cannot. Remedies must besought.

Corydoras adolfi, a fish being collected in the north-ern part of the Amazon River, is found living in pHenvironments as low as 5.0. On the other hand, ifyou go to the Rift Lake area, you will find fish liv-ing very happily in situations approaching pH 10.Thus it is important to maintain the accustomedpH during shipment. The best method to maintainproper pH is to use buffers. The alkalinity of thewater is manipulated primarily using carbonatesand bicarbonates. Also available are pH fixers andcommercial buffer solutions that will maintain thepH of the holding water at a certain level duringthe shipment period.

Fish need to be acclimated to their new conditions.Many times when a shipping bag is opened rightafter shipment, the pH will be in the area of 6.0-6.5.In most situations, these fish will be transferred towater with a pH as high as 8.0. You need to accli-mate the transported fish to this new pH. Certainfish go into a pH shock quickly if they are abruptlytransferred.

SalinitySome people add salt to their shipping bags. Thisis not a bad idea. The best way to look at this strat-egy, using the words of veterinarian Ruth Floyd, isto consider a freshwater fish to be a bag of salt sit-ting in a pool of freshwater. The salt content inside


the fish is higher than in the surrounding water. Ifyou poke a hole in that bag or otherwise damage orstress the bag, salt will leave the bag and freshwa-ter will migrate in. One way to relieve the animal’sosmotic stress or osmoregulatory stress is to add alittle bit of salt to the surrounding pool of holdingwater. For proper levels of osmoregulation, Floydrecommends 0.1-0.3% salt in the shipping water.

TemperatureTemperature during shipment is another importanttopic. This can become a problem with shipmentsthat are removed from a cargo plane and allowed tosit on the tarmac for a period of time. With regardto temperature, acclimation is important. This prob-lem can go both ways. During the summer, yourshipping bags may contain water that is at quitewarm ambient temperatures. The recovery waterin which you place these fish may be relatively cold.This is another example of the unexpected complex-ity present in the ornamental trade.

In terms of temperature management consider thefollowing two fish. Koi carp can tolerate a wide tem-perature range. They are able to live under ice andthey are also able to live during the summer in Flori-da in shallow ponds where the water temperaturesare over 90°F. In other words, they are robust fishin terms of tolerating temperature. It is possible tochill them down before shipment, the obvious ad-vantage of which is to lower their metabolic rateand need for oxygen. Also, less excretion will takeplace and less ammonia will be generated. An ex-treme in the other direction involves the discus fish.This fish, when taken below 70°F, will be in trou-ble. Consequently, it is important to know your fishin this trade.

LightDim light is important when opening boxes of orna-mentals. Some businesses use red light since mostfish do not respond to this light frequency. You andyour workers can see what is going on and the fishare protected from the sudden light shock.


QUESTION: Two years ago at this conference, therewas a speaker distributing plastic bags that weresupposed to be permeable to ammonia. Have youused these bags?

C. WATSON: Yes, I’ve seen these bags. They arepermeable to ammonia. Bob Rofan with Cordon rep-resented this product. We tried some and they ac-tually appeared to exchange gas. Unfortunately,they had the tendency to break. The bags were thinenough to allow the gas to go across them, but theywere also thin enough that they were more vulner-able to breakage.

BAILEY: A problem with these bags is the userstend to put more bags in a box. When this occurs,there is no oxygen in the box and the box is sealed.

QUESTION: What is the role of mariculture formarine ornamental species?

C. WATSON: I think that there has been a goodamount of development. There is a huge amount ofinterest. A number of us at this gathering are goingtomorrow to the first international conference onthe culture and conservation of marine ornamentalreef species, in Hawaii. The sponsors have a pre-registration of over 100 people from all over theworld looking at this issue.

The marine ornamental aquaculture industry is inno position to provide the quantity product that thehobby demands today. We have a long way to go.We are able to culture a couple dozen fish, a dozencrustaceans, and maybe a dozen coral species. Thatis it. If you go into a marine aquarium shop, youwill see thousands of different species available tothe hobbyist.

It is important to understand that the hobby tradehas been built and sustained on this level of avail-ability. It must be like stamp collecting. A stampcollector stays interested for 10 to 20 years, becausethere is always a new stamp. I have been an orna-mental hobbyist since I was eight years old, evennow that I do this work professionally. There is stillanother fish to be collected. I do not think thataquaculture will ever entirely replace wild collec-tion. However, I think that the technology is rapidlydeveloping and this will make the culture of manyspecies economically feasible.

QUESTION: I would like to make one commentabout the stamp collecting. A stamp collector mayhave a stamp that is worth a whole lot of money. Afish hobbyist may purchase a fish that is worth awhole lot of money, but he is not going to purchasemultiple examples of this fish. There is a consider-able expense involved in raising ornamental fish.


Consequently, you do not have available a high vol-ume market to sell your product.

QUESTION: When airplanes are in the air, theyare partially depressurized. Do you have any infor-mation about fish suffering the consequences of thisdepressurization?

C. WATSON: No, it is not enough to cause any de-compression problems. What you do need to takeinto account is the expansion of your bags. The phys-ical expansion of your bags will occur and if youoverfill the bags and take them to 35,000 feet, theyare going to break. So, do not fill your bags up com-pletely. Leave some space for expansion during theflight.

QUESTION: I have two comments, one relatingto light in calming fish. I was a fish farmer and canreport that one effective practice was to just puta large leaf in the bucket in which the fish are be-ing held. A number of species will concentrate un-der this shade and they appear to be relaxed. Ifyou take the leaf out of the bucket, the fish willbegin frantically darting around the bag. That isan example of a real simple technology that is ex-tremely effective. With regard to how much oxygento put in a bag, another reason this strategy is im-portant is that no carrier will guarantee a shipmentof fish will arrive in an allotted amount of time.The use of oxygen is a fairly inexpensive insurancepolicy covering the fish that may be delayed by tenor twelve or fifteen hours.


ABSTRACT

A subspecies of rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosumscorpioides), locally known as “wormweed,” is usedas a shipping material for the live transport of ma-rine baitworms. The baitworm industry is valued atover US $3.5 million per year and more than400,000 pounds of wormweed was used for packingin 1998. Worms are shipped from Maine to severalplaces around the globe, including the west coastof North America, South America, France, Italy, andJapan.

The wormweed must be very fresh (only 1-2 daysold) to prevent damage to the baitworms. The worm-weed is not washed; a brief survey found over 35species of invertebrates living in the wormweedused for packing. Evidence has shown that some ofthese species have established themselves in SanFrancisco Bay. An alternative method for the pack-aging of baitworms is recommended to reduce thenumber of possible introductions of Gulf of Maineinvertebrates to other places in the world.

INTRODUCTION TO WORMWEED

Wormweed is the common name for a form of sea-weed used to pack baitworms for shipping from theGulf of Maine. Wormweed is a subspecies of rock-weed (Ascophyllum nodosum), the most abundantlarge seaweed in the Gulf of Maine. Rockweed growsto two meters long in intertidal areas attached torocks. Small pieces break off the ends of the plantdue to wave action and ice damage, and the pieceswash out into the gulf and form mats up to severalhectares in size. The plants in these accumulationseventually die, releasing their nutrients into thesea.

When pieces of rockweed wash into salt marshesand come to rest among the cordgrass at the upperlevel of the high tide mark, a rather remarkabletransformation occurs. This intertidal zone is ex-posed to the air for 5 of the 6 hours in a tidal cycle

and is exposed to other extreme environmental con-ditions including desiccation, low to zero salinitiesduring rain events, and temperature ranging from25°C to over 35°C. In this extreme environment,the loose pieces of rockweed are able to grow vege-tatively between the stems of the cordgrass. Theyare called wormweed.

The fronds of the offspring are not as tough as thelarger rockweed and its texture is smooth to thetouch. These and possibly other characteristics haveallowed use of wormweed as a packing material forlive baitworms.

Two species of baitworms are harvested in Maine,the sandworm (Nereis virens) and the bloodworm(Glycera dibranchiata). The sandworm is worth$0.095 to the digger (i.e., ex digger price); the blood-worm is worth $0.135 each. The diggers or “worm-ers” pay $43.00 per year for a license that permitsthem to harvest both worms and wormweed. Thestate requires that dealers report the number ofworms shipped, but no record is kept of the amountof wormweed harvested. During 1998, 21,675,000bloodworms were harvested and 6,704,000 sand-worms. The industry is valued at over $3.5 million.

The two species of worms must be kept separatewhile in containers; otherwise the bloodworms willkill the sandworms. Wormers sort and count theirharvest into boxes at the dealer. Each box holds 125worms and an average of 1.67 pound of wormweed.From this data it can be calculated that 400,000pounds of wormweed were harvested during the1998 season. The wormers are paid $4.00 per 20pound “bale” of wormweed. This product must befresh. Any wormweed over three days old begins tocompost or decompose and the heat generated bythis decomposition literally “cooks” the worms. Thispresents a logistical problem to the dealer, who musthave a continuous fresh supply of wormweed forshipping. This has proven to be the most satisfac-tory method of shipping the worms since the 1940s.

Live Rockweed (Ascophyllum) used as a Shipping Medium forthe Live Transport of Marine Baitworms from Maine

Stephen E. CrawfordInternational Marine Resources, Eastport, Maine

96 Crawford: Live Rockweed as Shipping Medium for Baitworms

A problem exists concerning the use of fresh worm-weed as packing material. When used in the bait-worm industry it is not washed very well and mustbe very fresh. Inhabitants living in the wormweedare, consequently, shipped along with the worms.Table 1 presents a list of invertebrates found dur-ing two visits to a dealer in November 1999. Someof the observed species were quite numerous, in-cluding the green crab, Carcinus maenus. Theseanimals all arrive at the shipping destination in atleast as good condition as the marine worms. Theworms are shipped from Maine to other locationson the East Coast and also to San Francisco, SouthAmerica, France, Italy, and Japan.

A graduate student from the University of Califor-nia, Berkeley, working with Dr. Andy Cohen of theSan Francisco Estuary Institute (Richmond, Cali-fornia) surveyed anglers in the San Francisco regionduring 1994-1995 to determine how the anglers dis-posed of packages of baitworms containing worm-weed. Approximately one-third of those surveyeddumped the leftover bait and seaweed into the SanFrancisco Bay. Between 5% and 40% left their boxesof seaweed and worms on the pier or on the shorefor others to use. A substantial number of these dis-carded containers were washed away at high tide.The remainder was properly disposed of. Dr Cohenfeels it is very likely that Littorina saxatilis, a smallperiwinkle, has been introduced into the bay by thisroute.

Significant dangers are involved when shippinglarge numbers of species and introducing them intodistant waters. The zebra mussel in the U.S. GreatLakes is an infamous example of an exotic intro-duction and is one of many species that have causedenormous ecological damage. The green crab, orig-inally from Europe, has decimated clam flats in thenortheastern United States. A comb jelly originallyfrom the Chesapeake Bay (U.S.) has destroyed 21of 26 commercial species fisheries in the Black Seaby eating small food organisms formerly consumedby the juveniles of local fish populations. It is im-possible to predict where or when the next introducedor exotic species might suddenly explode in numbersand destroy an ecosystem.

It would be very prudent to find alternative, eco-logically safe shipping medium for packing baitworms.Because the market for this type of packaging prod-uct is rather small—worth $80,000 in 1998 for400,000 pounds—a large company has little eco-nomic incentive to invest funds in the developmentof alternate packaging materials. A considerable

Table 1. Groups and species of invertebrates foundin wormweed (Ascophyllum nodosum scor-pioides) used as packaging material forshipping marine baitworms.

Group Species or subgroup

Gastropods Littorina littoreaLittorina obtusataLittorina saxatalisLacuna vinctaSpirorbis planorbisOnchidorus bisuturalisHydrobia minutaThai lapillusNassarius trivittatus

Bivalves Mytilus edulusMya arenaria

Amphipods Microdeutopus obtusatusMicrodeutopus finmarcharusAmpithoe rubricataDiastylis theaGammarus angulosusHyale nilssoniJassa falcataGammarus oceanicusCorophium spp.Orchestia spp.

Isopods Jaera marinaIdotea phosphorea

Worms NematodaTremotodaNemertinaPolychaetaOligochaeta

Insects ChiromidaeTurbanidaeCollembola

Others HalicardiaeHarpacticoidsMysidsCarcinus maenus


amount of resistance would be expected from thewormers who collect the $80,000 for harvesting thewormweed.

European researchers maintain sandworms andbloodworms for research in packing consisting of wetnewspapers, charcoal, and sawdust. Such a mediumcould be prepared by the dealers well in advance ofharvests and sales. This would eliminate the logisti-cal problem of needing fresh packing for delivery. Adecision to change the packing medium would haveto originate with either the Maine Department ofMarine Resources, or perhaps with the State ofCalifornia if it began to refuse to accept baitwormsshipped in live seaweed. Given the risks involved, find-ing an alternative shipping medium seems necessary.

CONCLUSION

The use of wormweed as a packing material for theshipping of live marine baitworms from Maine in-volves a significant risk of transporting and intro-ducing a variety of invertebrate species into widelyseparated ecosystems. Over 35 different specieswere observed on a packing table at a worm ship-ping center in Jonesport, Maine. Several exotic spe-

cies from the Gulf of Maine have been found in SanFrancisco Bay and may have been transported bywormweed. European researchers have used a pack-ing medium consisting of wet newspapers, charcoal,and sawdust to culture the same species of bait-worms for research. It would seem prudent to re-quire Maine worm shippers to use the same type ofpacking material.

Worm diggers will continue to sell wormweed to thedealers who will pay for it. Thus to effectively elim-inate wormweed shipping, all dealers must agreeto change their packing material or the Maine StateLegislature will need to mandate a new manage-ment regulation. One challenge associated with thisproblem is that no damage is being done to the Gulfof Maine. The potential for damage occurs at thelocations where the worms and wormweed areshipped. As responsible global citizens, we shouldmake every effort to raise the awareness of thoseinvolved in the marine baitworm industry. Buyers,sellers, and recreational fishermen need to be in-formed of the dangers involved with using worm-weed. Hopefully this will help dealers to make thedecision to change their shipping strategies andincorporate an alternate packing material.


ABSTRACT

The harvest and shipment of Macrocystis kelp firstoccurred in Alaska in 1983. Macrocystis kelp is usedin the production of herring spawn-on-kelp, a high-ly prized traditional food in Japan. Large amountsof Macrocystis kelp are harvested from the remotebays of Southeast Alaska and shipped to the her-ring fishing grounds of Prince William Sound andother locations. Carefully selected portions of Mac-rocystis kelp is shipped 600 miles or more to areaswhere it does not naturally occur.

The logistics of harvesting and shipping this highlyperishable product from one remote area of Alaskato another in a cost-effective manner are consider-able. A brief history of shipping and handling meth-ods is presented. Cost efficiency and effectivenessof present handling and shipping procedures arereviewed.

INTRODUCTION

The herring spawn-on-kelp fishery (sometimes re-ferred to as the herring roe-on-kelp fishery) hasoccurred in Prince William Sound (PWS) since 1969.Pacific herring lay their adhesive eggs on marinealgae and seagrass in the intertidal and upper sub-tidal zones. Herring spawn-on-kelp is a highlyprized traditional food in Japan. Divers harvestedthe spawn-on-kelp in the wild until about 1979.Since this date, spawn-on-kelp has been harvestedfrom man-made impoundments or “pounds.” Thepound fishery developed rapidly from 1980 to 1988with a harvest of more than 500,000 pounds in 1992.

The Japanese buyers let it be known to the spawn-on-kelp producers that they prefer Macrocystis kelpto the Laminaria kelp growing naturally in PWSand would pay a premium for product using Mac-rocystis. The problem for the producers is that theclosest Macrocystis beds were in the remote coastalareas of Southeast Alaska, 600 roadless miles tothe south. The logistics of harvesting and shippingthe kelp are considerable. Macrocystis kelp is high-

ly perishable and susceptible to damage from expo-sure to air, wind, fresh water, freezing temperatures,and sunlight. All of these hazards are commonly en-countered in Alaska during April, the time whenPacific herring return to spawn. Any damage or de-terioration sustained by the kelp during harvest andshipment is quite apparent in the final product. Thefinal product of deteriorated quality is either unus-able or considerably downgraded.

Harvest methods, transport time, and the handlingof the kelp is critical. Limiting the amount of timethe kelp is out of seawater will reduce exposure tothe elements and possible damage. Cost efficiencyis also a critical factor. The spawn-on-kelp producthas a limited market and if the cost of the harvestedkelp going into the fishery is too high, the chance ofmaking a profit with the final product is decreased.In the production of spawn-on-kelp, procurementof the Macrocystis is by far the largest single ex-pense. Throughout the history of this PWS fishery,large amounts of kelp have been required. At thepeak of the pound fishery in the early 1990s, thespawn-on-kelp producers required more than 65,000pounds of kelp over a period of just a few days.

The kelp grows only in Southeast Alaska—justabout to the latitude of Sitka or halfway up the pan-handle. Keep in mind that Prince William Sound islocated in southcentral Alaska, hundreds of milesnorth of Sitka. Also, there is now a spawn-on-kelpfishery developing in Norton Sound, part of theBering Sea.

METHODS

The herring pound fishery involves hanging indi-vidual blades of kelp on lines and stringing theselines across a rectangular floating structure in theform of a large net bag. The kelp hanging in thewater is surrounded by this web enclosure. Thepounds are made of aluminum, plastic floats, andlumber. They are equipped with weights to keepthe web from brushing up against the kelp. Mature

Shipping and Handling the Marine Algae Macrocystisin Alaska

Thea ThomasCordova, Alaska

100 Thomas: Shipping and Handling Macrocystis

herring are captured in seines and transferred tothe pounds. The herring are held for up to eight daysin the enclosure or pound and, when they becomesexually mature, will lay their adhesive eggs on thekelp. Once the herring have deposited their eggson the kelp, they are released to continue their nat-ural life cycle. Pacific herring will return to spawnfor several years.

It is interesting to note that the main sources ofherring roe for the Japanese market are the exten-sive sac roe fisheries that occur from California toAlaska. The roe harvested in this manner requiresthe harvesting of whole fish from which the egg skeinsare extracted. With little or no market for the her-ring flesh, the carcasses, including those of themales, are treated as waste. Thus, one of the mainbenefits of the pound fishery is that it allows forthe harvesting of the valuable roe without damag-ing the adult herring. Great care is taken during thecapture and transfer of the herring to limit mortal-ity caused by handling stress and descaling. Thecapturing of the herring requires a seine vessel,skiff, and a second vessel to transfer the herring tothe kelp pound. Frequently, a spotter plane is usedto locate the herring and direct the setting of the seine.

Harvesting MacrocystisThe initial problem for the spawn-on-kelp produceris to locate beds containing Macrocystis of suitablequality. The kelp that is selected must have large,thick mature blades that are free of invertebratesand damage caused by wave action. The quality ofthe naturally growing kelp can be highly variabledepending on the location of the beds and oceanconditions. The kelp is harvested from Southeast Alas-ka in early April and then transported to Prince Wil-liam Sound, and other locations, as fast as possible.

The window for shipping kelp is narrow due to thefact that the herring biomass may come into a givenarea and spawn all within the time of a few tide cy-cles. The major spawn rarely occurs at the same timefrom year to year. In PWS it can occur anytime fromearly April to early May. Once the Macrocystis isharvested, even if it is handled in the prescribedmanner, it lasts for only a finite period of time, andthen begins to deteriorate. Over the years, Alaskafishery managers have become concerned about thesustainability of the kelp resource. Because of theneed for careful management, harvesters must ob-tain a permit and are allowed to harvest only a cer-tain number of kelp blades. As a consequence, caremust be taken to harvest only the highest quality kelp.

To harvest Macrocystis, one person cuts the kelp.The cut sections then float to the surface whereanother harvesting crew member, using a smallskiff, pulls up these long stalks of Macrocystis. Atthis point the blades are carefully inspected to seeif they are mature. Immature blades tend to quick-ly deteriorate. Blades that are shredded, an indica-tion of wave damage, are also culled during thisinitial inspection. The kelp must also be free of in-vertebrates, some of which are capable of eating theblades. One type of snail, for example, is capable ofproducing large holes in the blades—a severe qual-ity defect. Because of the exacting quality require-ments in the spawn-on-kelp fishery, every stalk ofkelp is inspected and when a suitable section of kelpis found, it is coiled down in the bottom of the skiff.A mature blade can be six feet long.

After the kelp has been picked and looked over, it istaken to the sorting and packing area. Each bladeis carefully inspected to make sure it meets all ofthe criteria—maturity, size, free of invertebrates,absence of wave damage, etc. The harvester doesnot want to ship any more product than necessarybecause shipping is very expensive. Consequently,each blade is looked at to make sure it will workand then the kelp is packed in the shipping boxes.

Shipping MacrocystisThe first shipments of Macrocystis from SoutheastAlaska to PWS for the pound fishery occurred in1983. Since this time, a set of standard procedureshas been developed. Producers will locate suitablekelp beds and then hire the boats, skiffs, and man-power needed to do the harvesting. The kelp mustbe handled delicately—protected from snow, rain,wind, and sun. The sorting and packing areas mustremain covered, a challenge when operating a smallvessel at sea.

The first shipments of kelp were transported in re-frigerated seawater (RSW) in the holds of fishingvessels. The elapsed time and damage occurringduring transit across the Gulf of Alaska were ex-tensive.

The next attempted method involved placing thekelp in totes and insulated containers piped withcirculating seawater aboard the fishing vessels usedto transport the product. Packing in this manneroffered more protection for the kelp during trans-port. However, once again the lengthy transit timeand rough weather in the Gulf of Alaska was hardon the kelp and this method was abandoned after


several years. Many problems occurred because ofthe huge volume of kelp required by the spawn-on-kelp fishery and because of the complexities in-volved with continuous and effective circulation ofseawater through the totes.

First air shipments of kelp were in 1988. After beingsorted and picked, the kelp was loosely packed inplastic lined Wetlok‚ boxes of the type suitable forairfreight. Approximately 35 pounds of kelp is loose-ly packed in a standard 80 pound box. Airfreightwas fast but expensive, and the large volumes ofkelp that needed to be shipped over a relativelyshort period of time caused congestion within thenetwork of commercial airfreight carriers. The kelpharvesting grounds were frequently days away fromany major airport. To further complicate matters,the shipments of kelp are categorized as low prior-ity items and the number of flights between the kelpharvesting and spawn-on-kelp production areas arelimited. Quality problems quickly developed if thekelp was “bumped” from a flight and sat even oneextra day out of the water. If the boxes of kelp arebumped at the airport, cargo personnel need to knowthat the product must be kept in coolers at 1-2°C.One day under improper holding conditions couldmean the difference between acceptable and unac-ceptable quality.

Over the past several years, many spawn-on-kelpproducers have decided that the risks associatedwith the use of commercial airfreight carriers weretoo great and have hired private air cargo companiesto transport the boxes of kelp. This method is fastand efficient, but very expensive, and it is subjectto another set of problems. Even with private cargoplanes, the kelp must still be transported by vesselto a port within reach of a suitable airstrip. Herethe product is loaded into refrigerated trucks fortransport to the airstrip and flown to one of the PWSports or other production areas. A serious effort toeducate all the kelp handlers along this transportnetwork has been necessary. Among other variables,a close watch must be maintained on ambient tem-peratures impacting the shipping containers.

Upon reaching PWS, the kelp is trucked to the har-bor and transported by boat to the herring grounds.By this time the boxes have been handled no fewerthan five times. At the spawn-on-kelp productiongrounds, the kelp is again sorted and graded. It isremoved from the boxes and inspected to see if therehas been any deterioration during shipping. Kelpfronds with any signs of deterioration are culled.

The individual blades are then broken off the stalksand individually strung on lines, and hung in theherring pounds. It is important that the blades bekept separated on these lines. If the blades are po-sitioned too close together, some sections of theblade will be shaded by an adjacent blade resultingin uneven coverage of eggs over the kelp—a quali-ty defect. They are separated by about 10-14 inches.This procedure is a very labor intensive—thousandsof blades of kelp are involved.

Figure 1 shows the spawn-on-kelp product beingremoved from the water. It is sorted and graded.The processing of the spawn-on-kelp product actu-ally begins on the fishing grounds. It is packed insalt and 100% brine before it is transported to theprocessing plant. Figure 2 shows the final spawn-on-kelp product.

Figure 1. The spawn-on-kelp product as it is removed fromthe water.

Figure 2. Spawn-on-kelp final product.

102 Thomas: Shipping and Handling Macrocystis

DISCUSSION

The strategy of shipping in Wetlok® boxes by air-freight produced the strongest and freshest kelp aswell as the best quality final spawn-on-kelp prod-uct. Packaging the kelp in these plastic lined boxesprovided the kelp harvesters with a great advan-tage compared to the use of large totes. The rela-tively small amount of loosely packed kelp in eachof the large shipping boxes helped keep the kelpcool and limited bruising caused by compression.The wax-coated boxes are, for the most part, water-proof and also offer some amount of insulation. Thishelps protect the kelp from exposure to fresh water,sunlight, and freezing temperatures. The plastic lin-ers help keep the kelp moist during shipment. Theboxes are also easy to handle during loading fromboat to truck to plane and then back to truck and,finally, by boat to the spawn-on-kelp grounds.

Airfreight provided an obvious advantage overtransport by sea—reducing transport time from sev-en days down to one or two days. But the logisticsinvolved with the commercial airfreight of kelp arestill substantial. An extra day was always involvedand then the possibility of the freight being“bumped” was always a threat. The use of privatecargo carriers has substantially increased the con-trol the producers have over the movement of theproduct. This allows the harvesting and transpor-tation times to be closely coordinated. The produc-ers quickly realized that by pooling resources andcooperating on the use of harvest vessels and cargoflight charters, costs could be kept to a minimum.The complicated logistics of kelp harvesting andconsideration of the potential costs of the spawn-on-kelp fishery necessitated this degree of coopera-tion. However, persuading commercial fishermen toagree on a date to harvest and ship the kelp remainsa major challenge. Each group of spawn-on-kelpfishermen has a different prediction of when theherring will spawn.

LITERATURE SOURCESMorstad, S., T. Baker, and J. Brady. 1990. Pacific her-

ring pound spawn-on-kelp fishery in Prince WilliamSound, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish andGame, Regional Information Report 2A92-02.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Pacific her-ring pound spawn-on-kelp fishery in Prince WilliamSound, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish andGame, Regional Information Report, Appendix H6and H13.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Thea Thomas graduated from the University ofOregon in 1982 with a master’s degree in biology.She then moved to Alaska where she worked as abiologist with the Prince William Sound Aquacul-ture Corporation and the Alaska Department of Fishand Game.

In 1985 she became a commercial fisher and hasparticipated in the herring spawn-on-kelp poundfishery in Prince William Sound since that time. Sheis a specialist in the shipment of Macrocystis kelpfor her herring group as well as for others.


QUESTION: What is the relative value of the her-ring roe-on-kelp product?

THOMAS: The ex-vessel price received by the fish-ermen has ranged anywhere from US $10.00-30.00per pound. By the time the product gets to the con-sumer in Japan, the price can easily double this ex-vessel value—$45.00-55.00 per pound. I should alsomention that when the final product is brought tothe processing plants in Alaska, it is repackagedand transferred into 35-pound plastic buckets. Whenthe product arrives in Japan it is again processedand put into very small consumer containers.

QUESTION: Why was Macrocystis given a premi-um value in this market? What is value of the Mac-rocystis roe-on-kelp product as opposed to the valueof Laminaria version?

T. THOMAS: Macrocystis is a stronger, firmer kelp,and a more durable kelp. Laminaria is fairly thinand fragile. I think Macrocystis is more aestheti-cally appealing. It has nice ridges and, when youhave eggs on both sides, the product has a wavylook to it. I think that the premium value mostlyinvolves aesthetics.

QUESTION: Is the seaweed eaten as well as theroe?

T. THOMAS: Yes—it is all eaten together, the her-ring eggs and kelp.

QUESTION: Can you describe the flavor of theproduct?


T. THOMAS: There is a very slight flavor to theproduct. I do not believe that the actual flavor char-acteristics are that important. I think that productappearance is an important factor.

QUESTION: Has there been any significant effecton the Southeast Alaska herring stocks broughtabout by the collection of the kelp?

T. THOMAS: No—the herring do not need the kelpfor the completion of their life cycle. They will spawnon anything. Including seagrass, rocks, pretty muchanything that is there. If the kelp is there in frontof them, they will spawn on it, but they do not ab-solutely need it.

The herring have a lot of problems, but harvestingkelp is not one of them.

QUESTION: Is there a synthetic kelp product?

T. THOMAS: I am not aware of any substantialwork on this. I have heard that the Japanese haveworked on a manufactured product over the years.They have worked with herring that have been har-vested for the eggs. There are large sac roe fisher-ies where the fish are harvested just for their eggmasses. The Japanese researchers have attemptedto take those eggs, break them apart, and then tosomehow artificially reattach them to kelp. If any-one makes progress with this procedure, it woulddo away with this business of harvesting the kelp,putting the herring in with the kelp, and other la-

bor intensive steps. As far as I know, none of theartificial product has been placed on the market.

QUESTION: I am aware that several groups havetried to develop an artificial product. In one case,although the product has a good appearance, it doesnot have the proper mouth appeal to it—cleavageand crunch—and, as a consequence, the productfailed.

QUESTION: I just wanted to point out that thismethod of obtaining herring roe, the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery, is really fantastic. Prior to the de-velopment of this fishery, the herring were sacrificedin order to obtain the roe. Now basically we have arenewable resource with fish going into the pounds,laying their eggs, and then being released. There isthe potential of the fish staying in the fishery andnot being sacrificed.

T. THOMAS: This is a really good point. In tradi-tional sac roe fisheries, the herring are seined orgillnetted, killed, laced in totes, allowed to sit andsomewhat deteriorate for a few days, and then theeggs are squeezed out. In a sac roe fishery, all theherring are sacrificed. In Alaska traditionally a lotof the carcasses were just dumped. About 15 yearsago the practice of dumping was stopped. Now mostroe stripping takes place in the Orient. As pointedout, following the pounding, the herring are releasedafter being held for approximately eight days untilthey spawn. They will come back to spawn for up tonine years in Prince William Sound.


INTRODUCTION

Although Norway is one of the leading fishery na-tions in the world, our bivalve production is still inan early stage of development. With our long coast-line and clean water, the conditions are perfect forcultivating bivalves. The coastline provides manygood locations for bivalve cultivation. In addition,we have little pollution compared to other Europe-an countries. Norwegian scallops grown in this cleanocean water are of high quality.

The Gulf Stream, moving in a northeastern direc-tion across the North Atlantic Ocean, warms ourcoastal surface waters. In addition, cold, nutrient-rich water is brought into the coastal zone by meansof upwelling. The combination of these positivegrowth factors stimulates high levels of primaryproduction in Norwegian waters. Algae is the nat-ural food of bivalves. At present, the scallops in ourcoastal waters have remained free of all known dis-eases and parasites. One can imagine, however, thatpathogens may become a problem when cultivationdensities become higher.

Norway’s production of scallops is estimated to reachover 1,200 tons by 2003. At the same time, the Eu-ropean market for Norwegian scallops is increas-ing. The main challenge facing Norwegian farmershas been to deliver the bivalves to the consumer inlive form. Why deliver live scallops to Europeancustomers? There is a tradition in Europe of prepar-ing dishes using live scallops. Live scallops indicatequality—the consumer or buyer knows what he isgetting. A live product offers farmers the best pric-es, as well. Norway also exports frozen and pro-cessed scallop muscle and gonad.

Within the European market, the distance betweencultivator and consumer is short. In Norway, themarketing situation is quite the opposite—the na-tional market is small and the distance between cul-tivator and consumer can be long. This means thatmost of our scallops, oysters, and blue mussels willbe consumed in other European countries. Norwe-gian salmon exporters are now helping the shellfish

industry with their market entries and contacts onthe European continent. This will increase the pop-ularity of bivalves in the marketplace and will stim-ulate the more timely development of the industry.

THE GREAT SCALLOP

(PECTEN MAXIMUS)The most common scallop species in Norway is thegreat scallop (Pecten maximus). The commercial sizeof this bivalve ranges from 10.5 to 14 centimeters(Fig. 1). In Europe, the muscle and gonad are con-sumed.

There has been little research done on the live trans-port of scallops in Norway. The reduced level of re-search has occurred because the shellfish industryis not a large commercial entity in Norway. Cur-rently, there is no sale of cultivated scallops in Nor-way. Scuba divers hand-pick scallops from wildpopulations along the coast. This makes the Nor-wegian scallops an exclusive product, but also moreexpensive than the scallops harvested by trawlers

Live Transport of the Great Scallop (Pecten maximus)

Toril OveraaNorwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Figure 1. The great scallop (Pecten maximus).

106 Overaa: Live Transport of the Great Scallop

in other countries. The cost of harvesting makes itdifficult to compete with other European scallops.

The transport and packing methods currently usedfor this limited production are primarily based onthe harvester’s experiences. The most common meth-od is packing the scallops in layers in Styrofoamboxes (5-12 kilos of scallops per box) with moist paperor wood fibers under and on top of the product. Someexporters use freshwater ice on top of the product tokeep the temperature low. The fact needs to be point-ed out that freshwater ice and scallops are not a goodcombination. Scallops are not able to close their shellstightly together like oysters and blue mussels. Themeltwater from the freshwater ice leaks into thescallop, creating osmotic abnormalities. Because ofthis interaction, the scallops tend to die very fast.

There are still many challenges to overcome beforethe scallop industry will be able to stand on itsown.This project will begin the process of resolvingseveral of these live transport problems.

CHALLENGES FACING THE

NORWEGIAN SCALLOP INDUSTRY

1. Currently Norwegian scallops are an unknownproduct in Europe. Norway is faced with a sig-nificant marketing problem. This has to do withlittle commercialization of the Norwegian scal-lop. Norway has no tradition of scallop cultiva-tion or harvesting on a large scale. Countrieslike France, Italy, Spain, and Belgium are themain scallop importers. These European mar-kets are also subject to local scallop preferences.France is the biggest scallop market, consuming80,000-100,000 tons per year. The main suppli-er of this product is Great Britain. The scallopproduct is provided mainly in the form of frozenmuscle because of the long distance between theharvesting areas and the market.

Countries importing Norwegian scallops wantto know what a Norwegian scallop is.What arethe color, taste, texture, and smell of our scal-lops? What is so special about the Norwegianscallop that they should prefer them above, forexample, Irish or British scallops?

2. Improved cultivation and harvesting techniquesmust be developed. The usual cultivation tech-nique in Norway uses baskets to culture imma-ture scallops from 20 mm to the size range of 50-70 mm. These maturing scallops are then plant-ed on the ocean bed and allowed to grow until

they are ready to be sold. In Norway, market-ready scallops are hand-picked by scuba divers,while in Europe scallop trawlers are used to har-vest scallops. These cultivation techniques mustbe improved in ways that make the industry moreefficient. However, a basic marketing question re-mains. Is it better for this developing industryto present smaller quantities of an exclusiveproduct or large quantities of a more industrialquality product?

3. The technical education of cultivators must bestressed. It is crucial that the people producingand handling the scallops be thoroughly informedabout scallop biology and ecology. The cultiva-tors should also be seriously committed to thisbusiness activity. Diligent intent and close ad-herence to business plans is necessary for thedevelopment of a stable industry.

4. A remedy must be sought to reduce the financialburdens associated with toxic algae testing. Cur-rently the cultivators and producers have to payfor these expensive tests themselves. The in-stitutes that are qualified to conduct these testsin Norway are both understaffed and under-funded to accommodate the workload. In termsof toxic algae testing, various countries have au-thorized different tests. Some of these govern-ments are willing to “see through their fingers,”whereas others are strict. Norway is furtherchallenged because our country is outside theEuropean Union. It is important that Norwe-gian laws and regulations are compatible withEU trade regulations.

5. An expanding industry needs to attract capitaland investors. The industry lost most of its fi-nancial supporters in the mid-1980s, when mostof the farms went out of business. An effort mustbe made to rebuild trust among the Norwegianinvestors, many of whom saw their money endup on the ocean floor.

6. An effort must be made to create a national mar-ket for this product. Most Norwegians eat scal-lops only when they visit other European coun-tries. A formal campaign to encourage thedomestic consumption of scallop products needsto be undertaken. Many campaigns for seafoodhave been successful and some economists be-lieve that seafood will eventually take over asthe upper class food in place of other meat prod-ucts. It would be good public relations for ourscallops if Norwegians themselves can recom-mend them.


7. The problem of cooler water temperatures andlonger growth times in northern regions, includ-ing Norway, must be recognized. Some observershave stated that the low water temperaturesin northern aquaculture regions are a disadvan-tage. The average culture time for Norwegianscallops is 3-4 years to commercial size. However,other authorities state that the cold tempera-ture may be beneficial because it decreases thespread of diseases and parasites.

8. Norwegian scallops—live seafood or processed?Should Norway encourage the development ofthe skills and transport infrastructure neededin the marketing of live product or should theindustry invest in production lines so that wecan process the scallops into different productforms?

QUALITY

If Norway is to develop a scallop industry, basicquality standards need to be developed. What is thequality of a scallop? The outward signs of bad or less-er quality in a scallop are based on rather subjec-tive observations and, to a certain degree, depend onthe experiences of the observer. What is the observ-er accustomed to or brought up to believe, and whatare the culinary traditions in the country they livein? Essentially, people have their own preferences.

Quality varies with the smell, taste, color, harvest-ing season, and other variables. In addition, thetaste, smell, and color of the product will vary withlocal growing conditions such as salinity, tempera-ture, food access, currents, and suspended sediment.Different culture locations will produce quite dif-ferent products, which may or may not suit the pref-erences of a given group of consumers.

The final determination of scallop quality and mar-ket suitability is dependent on the person you areasking. Preferences tend to vary. The fish dealer atthe market, a gourmet cook, an experienced scallopconsumer, and a scallop rookie may not be able toreach a consensus opinion.

WHAT ARE INDICATIONS

OF QUALITY?Various tests are currently available to objectivelydetermine the quality of seafood products. We hopethat in the future we will have available a range ofportable instruments that can provide indicationsof meat quality, animal condition, and yield in the

field. An important element in the development ofthe Norwegian scallop industry is the developmentof handling protocols. The major goal of these guide-lines involves the handling of live product in a man-ner that produces the smallest increment of stress.As suggested, product quality is linked to stress.

A variety of tests have been proposed to observethe effects of stress. Stress is here defined as anexternal influence that diminishes the scallop’squality. An understanding of external conditionsthat promote stress and strategies for the reduc-tion of stress are important to the development ofthis industry. These field tests include:

1. Standard stress test. Different groups of scal-lops are exposed to air for different periods oftime. The test animals are then subdivided intogroups and exposed to seawater of different sa-linities. The mortality in each of these differentgroups is observed.

2. Condition index. The scallop’s length, width, thickness, and weight are measured before and afterlong periods of stress to see if there has beenany impact on the growth or energy metabolism.

3. Behavior. How long does it take before the scal-lop starts to behave normally after a period ofprolonged stress: Do they filtrate normally? Istheir escape response intact? How long does ittake before they recess into the sediments?

4. Biochemistry. Measurements of carbohydrateand amino acid content from different tissuescan indicate if the animals are depleting ener-gy reserves during stress situations.

5. Physiology. Observation and analysis of growthpatterns, oxygen consumption, and the accumu-lation of ammonia provide hints about the im-pact of external forces, including handling, onscallop biology.

6. Other. Other observations used to monitor theimpact of stress include the visual inspectionof the mantle and the smell of the test animals.

TRANSPORTATION METHODS

The main goal regarding live transport must be todeliver live scallops in good condition, every time,and without significant product loss. Is this possible?

DryImportant factors regarding dry holding and trans-port of scallops are:

108 Overaa: Live Transport of the Great Scallop

• Temperature. Maintaining the scallops at low tem-perature generates low metabolism. When scallopsare held at lower metabolic states, they requireless oxygen.

• Moisture. Adding moisture prevents the scallopsfrom dehydrating and keeps the gills moist so thatgas exchange can continue to take place.

• Oxygen. A high oxygen level in the transport boxcreates a higher oxygen gradient in the air sur-rounding the gills and facilitates the transport ofoxygen into the scallops. A high oxygen level alsohelps keep the bacteria count low.

• Pressure. Careful placement of scallops in the ship-ping container places a moderate amount of pres-sure on the shells, which keeps them closed to helpavoid excessive dehydration.

In waterSeveral important factors must be regarded whenscallops are transported in water. Here the scallopsare held in their natural environment, but in smallwater systems, even small changes can lead to ma-jor water quality imbalances. All the parametersthat are listed below are interrelated, to a certaindegree:

• Oxygen. Maintenance of dissolved oxygen with-in a specified range is essential to the survival ofthe animal and, therefore, the aeration or oxygen-ation of the holding water is necessary.

• Water temperature. Maintenance of low holdingtemperatures induces lower levels of metabolism,slowing the depletion of dissolved oxygen.

• Carbon dioxide. Usually seawater serves as a bufferfor carbon dioxide produced as a result of respira-tion. However, in small, closed systems, the accu-mulation of this waste product can become aproblem. One must have available compounds orbiofilters that consume the carbon dioxide. Nor-mal pH of seawater is about 8 and drastic fluctu-ations from this level will have negative effects onthe scallops.

• Ammonia. This gas is also a waste product. Athigh concentrations, it becomes toxic and must beremoved by a biofilter or other standard means.

• Water flow. Maintenance of water flow through theholding system creates homogeneous conditionsand, in this way, prevents the development of tem-perature and oxygen stratification.

• Induction of spawning. Scallops can be induced tospawn by a sudden rise in water temperature. Thiscan, in turn, cause oxygen depletion. In addition,spawning activity lowers product quality and theeconomic value.

PACKING

How can one make things better for the scallopsduring transport? If the intent is to develop a com-mercial industry, it will be necessary to optimizethe packing methods in a way that takes care of thescallop’s biological nature. Satisfactory solutionswill have to be found for other commercial issuessuch as recycling the transport boxes, the preser-vation of product aesthetics, and close adherence toethical treatment standards. It is crucial that thescallops, from the moment they are harvested, donot experience any form of rough treatment. Shockscan be caused in various ways and are generallynot good for the scallops. Rough handling, for ex-ample, will crack shells—opening the affected ani-mals to bacterial infections.

Repacking or reconditioning at intervals along thelogistic chain may help dry-transported scallops.Regular reconditioning will supply the scallops withmoisture. Dead, badly shaped, or injured scallopscan be removed during the course of these inspections.It is also important to develop a system that continu-ously monitors water quality parameters and alertsthose in charge of approaching problems. If possi-ble, this carefully structured distribution chain shouldproceed unbroken from harvester to consumer.

When the scallops arrive at the retail store, restau-rant, or market, it is important that they be storedin the proper manner. Keeping the product aliveonce it has reached the market is crucial. If the scal-lops are to be stored in the original transport con-tainer, it is crucial to keep them moist, at lowtemperature, and packed together to slow dehydra-tion. Some establishments store the scallops inaquaria or water tanks. To some, a live product in-dicates quality and attracts a hungry eye. Howev-er, some people do not like to see what they are goingto eat while it is still alive.

THINK QUALITY!How does a harvester “think quality” in order toassure the world that his or her product is of goodquality?


• Quality versus quantity. Do you want to go forquality or for quantity, or is it possible to combinethe two? Often when attention is given to the pres-ervation of quality, quantity suffers and vice versa.

• Live transport versus processing. Rememberthat live products provide an indication of highquality. The customer knows what state the scal-lop was in before he or she consumed it. The pro-cessing of various scallop products will require ahigher level of investment, but also frozen or cannedproducts stay fresh much longer.

• Ethics. How well do you treat your live scallops?Modern consumers are interested in how the prod-ucts are produced and treated.

• Aesthetics. Here you can use your own creativityto make the live product attractive to the consum-er. Arrange the scallops in ways that make the prod-uct attractive to the eye. There is a great potentialfor the development of niche markets,if the prod-uct is able to gain the attention of the consumer.

• Environment. Environmental issues must alsobe carefully considered. For example, is your pack-aging and wrapping material recyclable? Are bet-ter alternative packaging methods available?

• Loss due to mortality and meat yield. Whatlevel of mortality can be accepted? In addition,how can the marketer assure that the productcontains an acceptable meat yield?

• Education and information. The quality racestarts the second the scallops are taken from thesea. People occupying each segment of the mar-keting chain must have knowledge about the prod-uct, from scuba divers to the packers to theconsumer. Should the marketer include an infor-mation sheet with each shipment about the propercare of scallops with additional tips about how todisplay and handle the bivalves?

CONCLUSION

Quality must be experienced with your senses—seeing, tasting, smelling, and touching. Scallops can

be transported in different ways depending on wherethey are going, the quantity involved, and the qualitydemanded. The ultimate result of perfect live trans-port is that the Norwegian scallop will gain a qual-ity trademark and establish successful marketentry. This is what is needed to allow the industryto survive in Norway and, in addition, to provide valu-able employment in coastal areas. Last, but definitelynot the least, the marketer must respect that liveanimals are being dealt with and that special caremust be taken.

REFERENCESDore, I. 1984. Fresh seafood: The commercial buyer’s

guide. Buying, choosing, handling and using freshfish and shellfish. Osprey Books. 375 pp.

Dore, I. 1991. Shellfish. A guide to oysters, mussels, scal-lops, clams and similar products for the commercialuser. Osprey Books. 240 pp.

Foseide Fagerholt, A. 1999. The shell industry. Marketand market entries. From oral presentation. KPMGConsulting, Trondheim, Norway. 30 pp. (In Norwegian)

Maeda-Martinez, A.N., et al. 2000. A shipment methodfor scallop seed. J. Shellfish Res. 19(December 2000).

Maguire, J.A. 1999. The effect of transportation on thejuvenile scallop Pecten maximus (L.). Aquac. Res.30:325-333.

Maguire, J.A. 1999. Some methods of quantifying quali-ty in the scallop Pecten maximus (L.). J. ShellfishRes. 18:59-66.

Shumway, S.E. 1991. Scallops: Biology, ecology and aqua-culture. Elsevier Science Publishing Company Inc.1095 pp.


ABSTRACT

Live scallops from the Pacific Northwest have beensuccessfully shipped as adults, juveniles, and larvaeto destinations around the world by air. Juvenileand adult scallops are generally packed and shipped“dry” or exposed under cool, moist conditions sincetheir basal metabolism is greatly lowered at tem-peratures of 5-8°C. Larvae and small spat can beshipped in oxygenated seawater or dry, under cooland moist conditions in an insulated box. This exposedmethod can be adapted for the small- and large-scale transport of all stages from spat to maturescallops. Sufficient humidity is provided by layeringwith seawater-moistened packing (e.g., absorbentpaper or a damp, thin sponge) to prevent damageto delicate mantle and gill tissues. If there is notsufficient weight from packing materials to preventgaping, then additional mechanical pressure shouldbe applied to prevent valve flapping and dehydration.

Specialized handling procedures have been developedfor the remote setting of scallop larvae for seed pro-duction at ocean nursery sites and for intermediateculture of seed in preparation for final growout andharvest. These methods allow even isolated coastalareas to participate in scallop farming activities andto market their products anywhere in the world thatthe expanding marketplace demands. Following thebasic procedures for live scallop handling and ship-ping will pay dividends in improved survival andshelf life of the product and in business profitability.

INTRODUCTION

Scallops are highly prized as seafood for theirunique flavor and appearance, especially when freshor live. Scallop culture is expanding to meet thisdemand for high quality scallop products. This is,in turn, stimulating a growing trade in scallop lar-vae and juveniles for seed stock (Ito 1991, Walker1993). Over 50% of world production of scallops re-sults from culture or enhancement (Bourne et al.1989, FAO 1999). This report reviews recommend-

ed practices for handling and shipping live commer-cial scallops present in the Northeast Pacific Oceanarea (California to Alaska).

Although there are 23 species of scallops recordedin the Northeast Pacific Ocean (Bernard 1983), mostare small or rare. Only four native species are ei-ther large enough or sufficiently abundant to be ofcommercial interest (Bourne 1988, 1991). Thesescallop species are

• Patinopecten caurinus (weathervane scallop)

• Chlamys hastata (spiny scallop)

• Chlamys rubida (pink scallop)

• Crassadoma gigantea (purple-hinge rock or rockscallop)

In addition, the Japanese weathervane scallop, Pa-tinopecten (Mizuhopecten) yessoensis, is a cold wa-ter species that was first introduced from Japan toBritish Columbia in 1983 for its potential use incommercial culture (Bourne et al. 1989).

BACKGROUND ON COMMERCIALSPECIES AND SCALLOP PRODUCTIONIN THE PACIFIC NORTHWESTPatinopecten caurinusThe weathervane is a large scallop (up to 25 cm;see Fig. 1) that occurs from central California tothe northern Gulf of Alaska, westward along theAleutian Islands, and into the Bering Sea. It livesin depths of 10-200 m, often on sand or mud bottom(Grau 1959, Kaiser 1986). Populations are patchyin distribution and no extensive beds occur through-out its range (Bourne 1991). In areas where com-mercial fisheries occur, aggregations are sporadicand local (Starr and McCrae 1983, Kaiser 1986).

In Alaska, a commercial fishery for weathervane scal-lops began in 1967 (Kaiser 1986, Kruse and Shirley1994), with the catch being shucked at sea. Landings

Handling and Shipping of Live Northeast Pacific Scallops:Larvae to Adults

William A. HeathBritish Columbia Ministry of Fisheries, Courtenay, British Columbia, Canada

112 Heath: Handling and Shipping Live Scallops

and ex-vessel value have varied widely (Fig. 2)as the fishery developed from a sporadic, low-inten-sity fishery to one prosecuted by a highly special-ized fleet of large vessels capable of harvestingwith greater efficiency (Shirley and Kruse 1995). Oth-er sources of variability were the effects of exploita-tion of limited, patchy stocks, changes in marketconditions, and the availability of more lucrativefisheries (Shirley and Kruse 1995).

From 1967 until 1991, when the use of mechan-ical shucking devices was first reported in Alaskascallop fisheries (Griffin and Ward 1992),weathervanes were opened manually at sea forremoval of the adductor meats. Automatic shuck-ing machines were introduced to make harvestof smaller scallops more economical, but theiruse in processing weathervane scallops in Alas-ka was prohibited in 1993 (Kruse 1994). The rulefor manual shucking reduces the economic attrac-tiveness of harvesting smaller scallops and, com-bined with gear and area restrictions, an observerprogram, and fishing season limits, will help toimprove the sustainability of the Alaska scal-lop fishery (Shirley and Kruse 1995). The Aquat-ic Farm Act of 1988, which authorizes the farmingof bivalve shellfish in Alaska, may also provideopportunities for farming of the weathervanescallop and other native scallop species in Alas-ka (RaLonde 1992). The recent development ofa shellfish hatchery in Seward provides an avail-able seed supply to Alaska scallop growers.

In British Columbia, there are two local populationsof weathervane scallops, one in the southern GulfIslands area of the Strait of Georgia and the otherin Dixon Entrance off the north coast of the QueenCharlotte Islands (Bourne 1991). However, thesepopulations are too small to support a sustainedfishery. Current harvest from these areas consistsonly of incidental catch in other fisheries (GulfIslands) or periodic beaching (taken by beachcomb-ers from Masset) during ground swell events inMcIntyre Bay on Dixon Entrance (R. Wylie,Fishery Committee of Village of Masset Council,B.C., pers. comm.). Hatchery and nursery methodsfor the weathervane scallop have been developedin British Columbia at Island Scallops Ltd. (Saun-ders and Heath 1994), but survival and growth ofspat and juveniles have been significantly lowerthan for Japanese scallops. Commercial broodstockmaintenance and small-scale growout of weather-vane scallops is proceeding.

Chlamys hastata and Chlamys rubidaThe spiny scallops and pink scallops are relativelysmall, slow-growing scallops (to 75 mm and 60 mm,respectively; Bourne and Harbo 1987). In BritishColumbia, they are harvested and sold live from asmall dive fishery and trawl fishery (Harbo andHobbs 1997, Lauzier and Parker 1999; Table 1).

Figure 2. Alaska weathervane scallop fishery production (1980-1998).

Figure 1. Weathervane scallops. Those on the left are cul-tured (about 3 years old); those on the right are wild (more than10 years old).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year

Ca

tch

(1

,00

0 l

b)

& V

alu

e (

US

$1

,00

0)

Catch (lb. MeatsX1,000)

Value (US$1,000)


Most of the marketed catch consists of dive-caughtspiny scallops. The main harvesting areas areamong the islands in the southern Strait of Geor-gia, relatively close to processing plants and localmarkets. Landings are evenly spaced throughout theyear, reflecting the demand for a continuous lowsupply of fresh scallops (Harbo and Hobbs 1997).Spiny and pink scallops are mainly served as whole,steamed product in restaurants.

In 2000, the fishery was put under scientific licenserequirements as “data limited” so that it will pro-ceed under a precautionary approach. In Washing-ton, there is a small experimental fishery for spinyscallops (Sizemore and Palensky 1993). Only a fewvessels certified by the Washington State Depart-ment of Health are permitted to fish in restrictedareas. They are subject to weekly marine biotoxinmonitoring. The fishery is closed between July 1and October 1 due to consistently high biotoxin lev-els present in the scallops during this time.

In Alaska, there was a small fishery for Chlamysspp. in the early 1990s (Shirley and Kruse 1995)that used automatic shucking machines on the fish-ing vessels. RaLonde (1992) noted that large inci-dental captures of pink and spiny scallop spat byAlaska shellfish farmers has led to attempts to de-velop a market for whole scallops sold alive.

Crassadoma giganteaThe purple-hinge rock scallop, Crassadoma gigantea,is a large scallop (up to 25 cm) that usually cementsits right or lower valve to rock surfaces and developsa massive shell (Fig. 3). The shell often becomesirregular during growth, conforming to the contoursof the substrate. In natural populations, the shell

is often pitted with holes (from boring sponge,Cliona sp.) or encrusted with other plants and ani-mals (Harbo 1997). Rock scallops occur in patchypopulations from Mexico to the Aleutian Islands inAlaska (Bernard 1983), from the lowest intertidal(<1 m tide level) to depths of about 80 m. They areoften found in areas with strong currents or oceanicsurges (Bourne 1991).

There is no commercial fishery for rock scallops dueto low abundance and difficulty in harvesting, butthey are prized by recreational divers. Growth in wildpopulations is relatively slow, but rock scallops grownin suspended culture in California reached a shellheight of 12 cm in two years (Leighton 1979). Rockscallops grown in northern Strait of Georgia, B.C.reached 9 to 10 cm in three years (MacDonald etal. 1991). The economic feasibility of rock scallopfarming along with oysters and without oysters inWashington State was examined by Kelly (1998).Recent research (Culver et al. 2000) has also ad-

Figure 3. Rock scallop (Crassadoma gigantea).

Table 1. Production and value of spiny and pink scal-lop fishery in British Columbia.

No. of vessels reporting metric tons landed Total valueYear Dive Trawl Dive Trawl $ Can million

1993 9 10 82 8 0.4231994 17 4 99 5 0.491995 14 8 86 10 0.4761996 12 5 95 7 0.5031997 13 3 70 3 0.3761998 6 3 50 4 0.29

Fisheries and Oceans Canada statistics.


dressed the factors controlling the cementing pro-cess of C. gigantea, with the goal of developing meth-ods for manipulating the attachment process formore economical culture of this intriguing species.

Patinopecten (Mizuhopecten) yessoensisThe Japanese scallop (Fig. 4) is a relatively large(up to 20 cm), cold water species distributed onsandy or gravel bottoms at 10 to 40 m in the coastalareas of northern Japan (Hokkaido and northernHonshu), the south Okhotsk Sea and the Sea ofJapan. Known as “hotate-gai” or the “giant ezo-scal-lop,” this species is the subject of a huge fishery andclosely related aquaculture industry in Japan (Ven-tilla 1982, Yamaha Fisheries Journal 1990, Ito1991). The main scallop culture areas in Japan,using natural spat collection methods, are Hokkaidoand north Honshu (Aomori Prefecture). Productionreached 300,000 t in Japan in 1987 (Ito 1991), val-ued at over ¥74 billion, making it the most produc-tive and valuable molluscan species in Japan. In1997, production from the Japanese scallop indus-try was over 500,000 t (FAO 1999).

In British Columbia, hatchery and nursery culturemethods for P. yessoensis and the rock scallop weredeveloped in the Canada-B.C. scallop researchproject conducted at the Pacific Biological Stationduring 1981-1988 (Bourne et al. 1989). The successof the hatchery program and subsequent commer-cial culture activity has produced ample culturedbroodstock of Japanese scallops, so that broodstockimportations into British Columbia are no longerrequired.

The Japanese scallop has been farmed in BritishColumbia coastal waters since 1989, when the cul-ture methods developed in the Canada-B.C. scallopproject were transferred to industry. Seed produc-tion was developed at the Island ScallopsLtd. hatchery at Qualicum Bay, near Nanaimo oneastern Vancouver Island. A total of six farm siteswere established in the north Strait of Georgia andBaynes Sound areas and in Clayoquot Sound on thewest coast of Vancouver Island (Walker 1993).

Oceanographic conditions conducive to the farmingof the Japanese scallop in British Columbia (Crossand Kingzett 1992, Cross 1994) are productive wa-ters with cool temperatures (8-16°C) and relativelyhigh, stable salinity (>28 ppt). Cross (1994) observedreduced growth above 12.5°C and increased mor-talities above 16°C.

Minimal motion of the culture apparatus is anotherimportant condition. If a site doesn’t provide natu-ral (geographic) protection from significant waveaction and horizontal currents, anchoring and sub-surface longline systems that are properly installedand maintained may mitigate these factors (Ventil-la 1982, Heath and Gubbels 1993, Cross 1994).

In response to disease problems in growout at somefarm sites (Bower and Meyer 1994), culturists haveused strategies such as selective breeding for resis-tance to a protozoan parasite, Perkinsus qugwadi(Blackbourn et al. 1998, Bower et al. 1998) and de-veloping viable hybrids with the weathervane scal-lop, Patinopecten caurinus (Saunders and Heath1994, Bower et al. 1999).

In the new British Columbia industry, growout meth-ods were initially modeled on techniques developedin Japan (Ventilla 1982, Yamaha Fisheries Journal1990, Ito 1991), but have been considerably modifiedto adjust to faster growing conditions in the provinceand the challenges of disease and flatworm (Pseudo-stylochus ostreophagus) predation on scallop seed(e.g., Saunders and Heath 1994). Hatchery-producedlarvae can be either set and nursery-reared at thehatchery (Island Scallops Ltd.) or transferred to anocean nursery site for remote setting and ocean-basedrearing. Techniques for handling larvae, spat, and ju-veniles during culture operations are described later.

Farmed scallop production has developed slowly inrecent years, (Fig. 5) with a relatively small numberof sites. However, this sector and the rest of the Brit-ish Columbia shellfish industry appears to be poisedfor rapid expansion under the recently implemented

Figure 4. Japanese scallop (Patinopecten yessoensis), 2 yearsold in culture.


provincial Shellfish Development Initiativeof the British Columbia Assets and LandsCorporation and British Columbia Fisheries.This program is providing a new process forexpansion of existing farms and for accep-tance of applications for new sites (Osborne2000). Its goal is to double the area (from2,115 ha to 4,230 ha) for shellfish tenuring(or “leasing”) within the next ten years.

RECOMMENDED HANDLINGPRACTICES FOR LIVE MATURESCALLOPSSanitary regulations and practicesThere are regulations for sanitary controlof bivalve shellfish harvesting, processing,and distribution under the U.S.-based Na-tional Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP1993) and the related Canadian ShellfishSanitation Program (CSSP 1996). An ex-cellent information manual on quality as-surance for shellfish producers is also avail-able from the British Columbia Ministry of Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Food (Kingzett and Pirquet 1995).

Maintaining the quality of live scallops, as for oth-er live mollusks (Kingzett and Pirquet 1995, Heath1997), involves using common sense in managingseveral key factors that include the prevention of:

• Physical damage, including the avoidance of shellbreakage during sorting or harvesting and sub-sequent handling.

• Excessive physiological stress from extremes of heator cold, fluctuations of salinity when immersed,orexposure to desiccating agents, such as direct sun-light, wind, or prolonged air exposure at low hu-midity.

• Exposure to sources of contamination, such as pe-troleum products or other poisonous chemicals,microbial agents such as human or animal wastes,or polluted water.

The best approach is to maintain cleanliness andprotection from all real or potential contaminationsources.

Specific practices for harvestinglive mature scallopsIn general, scallops, as subtidal animals, are muchmore sensitive to harvest-induced stress than inter-tidal bivalves, such as clams or oysters. This is due to

the fact that swimming scallops (weather-vane, spiny,pink, and Japanese) often have fragile shells, espe-cially at the margins, that are prone to breakage orchipping if handled roughly. Chipping impairs thescallop’s ability to retain moisture and hastens gap-ing. Shelf life and marketability decline sharply withbreakage, so damaged product is unsuitable for liveshipping.

Most scallops are prone to gaping when out of waterfor more than a few minutes. Once they begin togape, the mantle and gill tissues will dry out quick-ly (resulting in risk of mortalities), especially if ex-posed to sunlight, wind, or other desiccating agentsDirect sunlight on scallops will heat the shells, caus-ing the adductor muscle to separate from the shell.This may not be immediately evident, but may showup in elevated post-harvest mortalities a few dayslater (Kingzett and Pirquet 1995).

Harvesting live spiny and pink scallopsThe preferred method for the handling of dive-caughtspiny and pink scallops (T. Harper, pers. comm.) isas follows:

• Hand-picked scallops are placed by the diver in anet bag for holding and transfer to support vessel.

• Landed scallops are placed in a live tank with flow-ing seawater until fishing ceases in the approvedwaters.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

Pro

du

cti

on

(t)

/ V

alu

e (

M $

C)

Production (t)Value (M $C)

Figure 5. Farmed Japanese scallop production (t) and landed orfarmgate value (Can$ millions) in British Columbia, 1993-1998. Brit-ish Columbia Ministry of Fisheries statistics.


• At the dock, scallops are removed from live tankand placed in covered plastic totes for direct trans-port to processing plant.

• At the plant, rotary brush cleaning of fouling or-ganisms (e.g., encrusting sponges) is performedif necessary.

• Scallops are returned to flowing chilled seawaterprior to packaging for shipping to customers (seegeneral method for scallop live shipping, below).

Harvest procedures for farmedJapanese scallopsThe recommended method for harvesting farmedJapanese scallops (12-14 cm after 2 years growout;S. Scrase, Pacific Aqua Products Inc., Courtenay,B.C., pers. comm.) is as follows:

• Nets of scallops on sub-surface longlines are raisedto the surface by crew on work vessel.

• Scallops are removed from nets (e.g., pearl or lan-tern nets), shaken into a plastic tote and with lidon, queued for cleaning and sorting.

• Culling is done if necessary to ensure that scallopsfor live marketing are free of major deformities ofthe shell margin (“conchiolin,” “biting,” or distorted shells; Ventilla 1982) caused by overcrowdingor other environmental stress during growout.

• Biofouling organisms (barnacles, mussels, sea ane-mones, tube worms, etc.) are kept at a minimumso as not to detract from appearance or shelf lifeof the product. Manual or mechanical removal ofbiofouling are both viable options, but care in useof high-pressure spray is needed to prevent in-jury to scallops (i.e., spraying only on top or bot-tom surfaces, not at shell opening).

• Scallops are washed reasonably clean of sediment,detritus, or biofouling remains as soon after har-vesting as feasible by vigorous rinsing or spraying.Water used in washing product must be potable(safe for drinking) or from a harvest or growingarea that is classified as Approved under NSSP(state Health Department) or CSSP (EnvironmentCanada).

If the harvest period is prolonged (several hours ormore), product can be safely held in a shower sys-tem (Kingzett and Pirquet 1995) or a live holdingtank (e.g., large tote with flowing seawater, Fig. 6).DO NOT wash or hold product in a harbor or otherpolluted area or in containers of stagnant water.

When harvest is completed, the scallops are packedinto plastic tubs with lids (e.g., RubbermaidRoughneckTM, 30 L volume) for transport to the pro-cessing plant. To maintain cool conditions, the useof refrigerated trucks is best, but the use of ice ontop of the totes is an effective substitute for trans-port in a covered, non-refrigerated truck (S. Scrase,Pacific Aqua Products Inc., pers. comm.).

SCALLOP PACKAGING AND SHIPPING

Juvenile and adult scallops are suitable for extendedlive shipment in insulated containers without the addi-tion of seawater. Survival and quality are maintainedif metabolic rates and other processes are depressedby cool, humid conditions. Below 8°C, Japanese scal-lop respiration has been found to drop sharply, there-fore lowering basal metabolism (Ventilla 1982). Highhumidity from seawater-moistened packing mate-rials and the application of gentle mechanical pres-sure on the scallops will prevent desiccation of delicatemantle and gill tissues and lessen incidence of valveflapping that can cause damage to mantle tissue.Effective transport methods for scallops will take ad-vantage of these factors (Ventilla 1982, Overaa 2001).

General method for shipping live juvenileand adult scallops in small lotsFor air cargo or other shipments of scallops that can-not be serviced economically by refrigerated (“freez-er”) truck or bulk freight container, the followingmethod works well for juvenile and mature scallops:

• The most common insulated containers are sty-rene or Styrofoam boxes with cardboard sleevesor outer boxes, with frozen gel packs for cooling.However, other well-insulated containers (e.g.,ColemanTM coolers) will serve well, but are gen-erally more expensive.

• The frozen gel packs are placed at the bottom ofthe container and insulated from the scallops witha layer of packing dampened with seawater (e.g.,paper toweling, thin sponge, or clean PamperTM -style diaper for newborns).

• The scallops (spat or juveniles in net bags) are po-sitioned over the covered gel packs and are coveredwith another layer of damp packing material. Totrack temperature changes, a maximum-minimumthermometer or disposable temperature logger canbe placed among the scallops. Additional gel pack(s)can be placed on top of the contents for longer trips.


• The lid is placed on the container and taped se-curely shut. It is important to put some mechan-ical pressure on the scallops to prevent gapingand dehydration. If Styrofoam is used, the box isthen placed in its cardboard housing.

• The container is labeled clearly for shipment, in-cluding contact telephone numbers for sender andreceiver.

Transport of scallop seed

Development of scallop farming enterprises in thePacific Northwest area, as in some areas of Japan,is dependent on reliable and cost-effective accessto scallop seed from hatchery (Pacific Northwest)or nursery (Japan) sources (Ventilla 1982, Ito 1991,Walker 1993). Two approaches to large-scale seedtransport have been widely used in Japan for spatand juvenile scallops (Ventilla 1982).

1. The “oxygen” or “wet” method.

2. The “exposure” or “dry” method.

A slightly modified version of Ventilla’s Table II (seeoriginal document) on spat and seed transportmethods is reproduced here (Table 2).

The method above is an example of the “exposure”method, adapted for smaller, unrefrigerated ship-ments, including air cargo. Note that spat (>1 mm)or juveniles (3-9 mm) are usually placed in fine meshor screen bags (e.g., pearl nets) for shipment by the“exposure” or “dry” method. This step controls den-

sities and greatly increases efficiency in transferringthe seed into seawater at the destination.

The general method with Styrofoam box contain-ers was used (Heath and Dobie 2000, in press) tomove juvenile P. yessoensis (3-8 mm size) from Is-land Scallops Ltd. hatchery on Vancouver Island toPrince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands onBritish Columbia’s north coast (9 h duration) forexperimental growout trials. Survival was above75% even though the multiple step transfer wasdone during hot summer weather in early July.

Transport of scallop larvaeWet oxygen methodCompetent or ready-to-set scallop larvae (260-280µm size) for remote setting applications and smallspat (0.3-1.0 mm) for nursery rearing can be suc-cessfully transported by the “wet” method with oxy-genation. A convenient variation of the “oxygen”method of Ventilla (1982) is as follows (S. Scrase,Pacific Aqua Products Inc., pers. comm.).

• Equipment: one liter plastic pop bottles with op-tional air filler valve on screw caps, insulated plas-tic drink cooler with gel pack in lid, and an oxy-gen tank with regulator.

• Seawater chilled to 7-8°C, saturated with oxygenand containing 15 million larvae per liter is putin a bottle, capped, and injected with oxygen untilbottle surface is taut (about 5 psi).

• Bottle is placed in drink cooler with frozen gel packinstalled in lid.

• Container is shipped to destination, preferablyas “carry-on” baggage if by air travel. If the tripis prolonged, every 2 hours, the bottles of larvaeare gently rolled to resuspend settled larvae. Tripdurations of over 20 hours can be accommodatedusing this method.

Dry methodA “dry” method for shipping scallop larvae and smallspat (size ranges same as above) is also available andis similar to the method used for shipping eyed-lar-vae of oysters and other bivalve larvae (e.g., Donald-son 1991). The general procedure for preparing,packaging and shipping of bivalve larvae, includingscallops, is given below.

• Larvae are collected by draining from culture tankwith a siphon onto a screen (minimum 260 µmfor competent Japanese scallop larvae) in a wa-ter bath to relieve stress from pressure.

Figure 6. Wet tank for onboard holding of scallops.


Ta

ble

2.

Sp

at a

nd

see

d t

ran

spor

t m

eth

ods

for

Pa

tin

opec

ten

yes

soen

sis.

Sta

ge

Tra

nsp

ort

Sh

ell

size

P

erio

d of

yea

r

Du

rati

onS

urv

ival

R

emar

ks

met

hod

Des

crip

tion

of

met

hod

(m

m)

(in

Jap

an)

of

trip

(h

) r

ate

(%)

Spa

tO

xyge

nS

pat

in p

olye

thyl

ene

0.8

-1.5

Up

to S

ept.

2

0

9

0T

he

smal

ler

the

spat

met

hod

bag

wit

h o

xyge

nat

edth

e be

tter

. 2,0

00-4

,000

/S

W. T

ran

spor

t by

bag

wit

h b

ags

stac

ked

free

zer

tru

ck (

2-5°

C).

in t

wo

laye

rs. O

2 pu

tin

to b

agu

nti

l it

sw

ells

,th

en b

ag i

s se

aled

.

Spa

t

Exp

osu

reS

pat

put

into

pea

rl n

et 2

-5

N

ov.-

Apr

.

20-

30 8

0-90

1,00

0-2,

000

spat

/box

.

met

hod

or f

ish

box

an

dP

ack

the

spat

in

th

etr

ansp

ort

by f

reez

erev

enin

g an

d m

ove

attr

uck

(2-

5 °C

).n

igh

t. P

ack

fast

an

dtr

ansf

er f

ast.

Cov

er i

nsa

ckin

g so

aked

in

SW

to p

reve

nt

“bit

ing.

”

Juve

nil

e

Exp

osu

reS

eed

in p

earl

net

s or

5-9

Nov

.-M

ar.

2

0-40

80-

90U

se w

et s

acki

ng

toto

m

eth

odfi

sh b

oxes

an

dpr

even

t dr

yin

g ou

t an

dh

alf-

tran

spor

t by

fre

ezer

“bit

ing.

” A

ll h

andl

ing

grow

ntr

uck

(6-

8°C

). t

o be

don

e du

rin

g c

ool

peri

ods.

Aft

er V

entl

la 1

982;

SW

=se

awat

er.


• The larvae are then graded through a series ofscreens by vigorous washing with seawater froma hose.

• Once separated by size, the larvae are bundled ina setting group on a piece of screening material,blotted with paper towel to remove excess water,and weighed for a count of the larvae (by weightto number conversion for given size).

• When a sufficient number of larvae are groupedfor the shipment, they can be wrapped (on pieceof screen) in a seawater-dampened paper toweland put in a plastic bag.

• The bags of larvae are placed into an insulated box(e.g., small Styrofoam cooler) containing a frozengel pack. The gel pack is insulated with paper pack-ing so larvae bundle does not come in direct con-tact with gel ice.

• To track temperature changes, a maximum-mini-mum thermometer or disposable temperaturelogger can be placed near the bundle of larvae.Temperature should remain in range of 5-8°C. Ad-ditional gel packs can be placed on top of the con-tents for longer trips. Transport time should bewithin 24 hours for best larvae setting success.

• The lid is placed on the container and taped sec-urely shut. The container is clearly labeled forshipment, including contact telephone numbersfor sender and receiver.

SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING

SCALLOP LARVAE AND SEED IN CULTURELarval and spat handling proceduresin remote settingScallop remote setting is based on the observationthat, after transport to a “remote” site (e.g., farmor nursery), a reasonably high percentage of scal-lop larvae (20-30%) can successfully metamorphoseor “set” in collector units in natural seawater andsurvive to be viable juveniles (S. Scrase, PacificAqua Products Inc., pers. comm.). This processhas many similarities to remote setting of Pacific oys-ters (Jones and Jones 1988, Roland and Broadley1991), but with some notable differences. For ex-ample, scallop setting can be done in ocean watersat ambient temperature instead of in heated tanksof seawater, as in standard oyster remote setting.

Scallop setting is usually done in spring (April toJune) in the Pacific Northwest as follows:

• At the shipping destination (e.g., remote settingsite) the larvae are resuspended in a clean plas-tic bucket (10 to 20 L) of seawater from the site toacclimate them to ambient temperature.

• A floating remote scallop setting facility or enclo-sure (Fig. 7) simply consists of a rectangular pe-rimeter float (5 m × 6 m) with a plastic tarpaulinsuspended inside it to enclose a volume of oceanwater. Inside the enclosure is an aeration system,which is simply an array of PVC tubing with smallholes at regular intervals, connected to a compressedair supply. Also placed inside are hundreds of spatcollectors, usually made of fine-meshed (2-3 mm)Japanese onion bags stuffed with Netlon, a syn-thetic mesh material with “memory” or old mono-filament fish netting (original method attributedto Toyosaku, in Ventilla 1982).

• The amount of larvae added to the setting pondis adjusted to achieve an optimum spat densitytarget of about 1,500 spat per collector (Ventilla1982), based on the anticipated setting rate (e.g.,30%). For example, if 500 collector bags are usedin a set at 30% settlement, then about 2.2 millionlarvae are added to the pond. Aeration is appliedto distribute the larvae evenly throughout the vol-ume for an even set in the collectors.

• After three to four days in the setting pond, whenthe larvae have had ample opportunity to swiminto the collectors, set, and attach to the Netlon,the collector bags are moved during cool conditions(morning or evening) to the nursery longline. Inthis system, the collector bags are attached ondroplines (10-15 nets per line) at intervals of about

Figure 7. Remote setting enclosure at scallop farm site.


the culture density as the animals grow in order tocontrol stress and minimize “biting” or conchiolin.The timing of sorting is usually determined by thescallop size. However, settlement of predators suchas the bivalve-eating flatworm, Pseudostylochusostreophagus (Quayle 1988), requires immediateattention to prevent heavy mortalities of seed incollector bags (S. Scrase, Pacific Aqua Products Inc.,pers. comm.). Fortunately, the timely transfer of theseed to clean pearl nets is highly effective in con-trolling predation by juvenile flatworms.

The recommended procedure for handling scallopseed during sorting operations involves workingquickly to minimize the time that seed is exposed—taking special care to avoid direct sunlight and windexposure. The sequence for the first sort of seed fromcollectors is as follows.

• The subsurface longline with collector bags isbrought to the surface, preferably during a coolperiod with high salinity (>26 ppt) present in sur-face waters. Check the salinity with a refractome-ter or salinometer.

• Collector bags are removed from droplines andmoved to shaded area. The use of tarpaulin cur-tains around the sorting area works well in sunnyweather. The contents of the collector bags areshaken and removed into sorting boxes positionedin a bench-height tank with flowing seawater. Thescallop seed are generally still attached to the Net-lon netting from the collector bag (Fig. 10) and,consequently, must be shaken off into the box wherethey collect on the screen at the bottom.

• When enough seed are removed from collectors,the box is lifted out of the tank and examined forunwanted items (e.g., predators) and treated ac-cordingly.

• Clean seed is scooped with a suitable volumetricscoop (i.e., seed count is based on count per vol-ume conversion for given seed size) and placed inpearl nets (Fig. 11) at the desired density (e.g.,60-80 seed per net for 1-2 mm seed).

• When a dropline of 15 nets (tied together in linearfashion) is loaded, it is tied onto the longline anddeployed in the ocean.

The next sort (at a size of about 3 mm) is performedto reduce stocking densities (to 10 scallops per net)and to provide clean pearl nets with larger meshfor improved water flow. At this time, the growingscallops are also sorted for uniformity (similar sizedseed grown together to reduce biting). The scallops

0.7 m for deployment below the thermocline and/or halocline (about 10-15 m) (Ventilla 1982).

Intermediate culture considerations“Intermediate culture” or rearing of scallops, usingthe Japanese method (Ventilla 1982, Ito 1991), re-fers to the rearing stage involving pyramid-shapedpearl nets (35 cm × 35 cm, Fig. 8) following nurseryrearing in seed collector bags. The last phase, finalgrowout, can be done in many ways (e.g., cylindri-cal or “lantern” nets, larger mesh pearl nets, ear-hanging, or bottom sowing, among others).

In general, for best growth and survival of scallops,it is better to handle them as little as possible with-out jeopardizing them to predators, excessive foul-ing, or overcrowding. Conditions will vary from siteto site with respect to growth rate and timing andseverity of settlement of biofouling organisms (e.g.,barnacles, mussels, tube worms) and predators (e.g.,starfish, crabs, flatworms). Careful monitoring ofthe site and scallop stock will provide guidance onthe appropriate timing of sorting and handlingsteps. Schedules developed for culture in Japan canonly be used as general guides because growth ratesand biotic communities are often quite different inthe Pacific Northwest (Walker 1993).

Handling procedures for scallop seed duringintermediate cultureA flow chart illustrating the handling steps for Jap-anese scallop culture in British Columbia is givenin Fig. 9. Thinning or sorting is needed to reduce

Figure 8. Seed is placed in pearl net for growout or holding.


are then deployed for the final growout stage (up to12-14 months if large scallops [12-14 cm] are to begrown; S. Scrase, Pacific Aqua Products Inc., pers.comm.). Large live Japanese scallops (12-14 cm)from British Columbia currently sell for about US$1.00 each at farmgate or landed value (Fig. 12).

PAPERWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL

SHIPMENTS OF LIVE SCALLOPS

Timely arrival at international destinations with aperishable product often involves making severalshipping connections and obtaining customs approv-al at the other end. When live scallops are to beshipped across national borders, make sure that youare aware of relevant trade and customs regula-tions. Do not assume anything! Some airport per-sonnel are not well informed with proper handlingand processing of live shellfish shipments. Difficul-ties with regulations may cause your scallops to beplaced in unprotected or uncontrolled storage, orsubject to temperature abuse. It is essential to ar-range for the live shipment to be met at its destina-tion by a competent representative to avoid this typeof problem. It may be well worthwhile to use pro-fessional specialists, such as customs brokers, toprepare shipping documents that will satisfy all tradeand health requirements at the foreign destination.

Figure 10. Seed on collector insert is shaken off into seedsorting boxes on vessel.

Figure 9. Flow chart of phases in B.C. culture of Japanesescallops. Time from spawning to final harvest of 10-14 cm livescallops ranges from 19 to 24 months, depending on method andgrowing conditions

LAND OR OCEAN NURSERY3-4 months

0.3 mm seed attached tonetting in fine mesh bags

FIRST SORTSeed removed from bagsand sorted by size into

pearl nets at 60-80 per net

SUSPENDED GROWOUTSECOND SORT

Seed sorted at 3 cm into pearl netsat 10 per net & 15 nets per drop

or into lantern nets at 10 per layer

HARVEST

10-14 cm

Total: 19-24 mo.

12-14 months

3-5 months

0.6-1.0 mm 1.0-1.6 mm >1.6 mm

INTERMEDIATE GROWOUT ATFARM SITE ON LONGLINES


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks the following people for assis-tance in providing information on certain scallophandling techniques: Tom Harper of Unique Sea-farms Ltd.; Rob Saunders and Barb Bunting of Is-land Scallops Ltd.; and Stephen Scrase of PacificAqua Products Inc.

REFERENCES

Bernard, F.R. 1983. Catalogue of the living Bivalvia ofthe eastern Pacific Ocean: Bering Strait to CapeHorn. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61. 102 pp.

Blackbourn, J., S.M. Bower, and G.R. Meyer. 1998.Perkinsus qugwadi sp. nov. (incertae sedis), a patho-genic protozoan parasite of Japanese scallops, Pati-nopecten yessoensis, cultured in British Columbia,Canada. Can. J. Zool. 76:942-953.

Bourne, N. 1988. Scallop culture in British Columbia.In: S. Keller (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth AlaskaAquaculture Conference. University of Alaska SeaGrant, AK-SG-88-04, Fairbanks, pp. 35-41.

Bourne, N. 1991. Fisheries and aquaculture: West coastof North America. In: S.E. Shumway (ed.), Scallops:Biology, ecology and aquaculture. Elsevier, Amster-dam, pp. 925-942.

Bourne, N.F., and R. Harbo. 1987. Size limits for pinkand spiny scallops. In: Status of invertebrate fisher-ies off the Pacific coast of Canada (1985/86). Can.Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1576:113-122.

Bourne, N., C.A. Hodgson, and J.N.C. Whyte. 1989. Amanual for scallop culture in British Columbia. Can.Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1694. 215 pp.

Bower, S.M., and G.R. Meyer. 1994. Causes of mortali-ties among cultured Japanese scallops, Patinopec-ten yessoensis, in British Columbia, Canada. In: N.F.Bourne, B.L. Bunting, and L.D. Townsend (eds.),Proceedings of the 9th International Pectinid Work-shop, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada, April 22-27, 1993.Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1994(1):85-94.

Bower, S.M, J. Blackbourn, and G.R. Meyer. 1998. Distri-bution, prevalence, and pathogenicity of the protozo-an Perkinsus qugwadi in Japanese scallops,Patinopecten yessoensis, cultured in British Columbia,Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:954-959.

Bower, S.M., J. Blackbourn, G.R. Meyer, and D.W. Welch.1999. Effect of Perkinsus qugwadi on various speciesand strains of scallops. Dis. Aquat. Org. 36:143-151.

Figure 11. Seed is placed in pearl net for growout, holding,or transfer.

Figure 12. Two-year-old P. yessoensis shucked open to checkmeat condition.


Cross, S.F. 1994. Oceanographic conditions conducive toculture of the Japanese scallop, Patinopecten yessoen-sis, in British Columbia, Canada. In: Bourne, N.F.,B.L. Bunting, and L.D. Townsend (eds.), Proceedingsof the 9th International Pectinid Workshop, Nan-aimo, B.C., Canada, April 22-27, 1993. Can. Tech.Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1994(2):9-14.

Cross, S.F., and B.C. Kingzett. 1992. Biophysical crite-ria for shellfish culture in British Columbia. BritishColumbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andFood, ISBN 0-7718-9332-9. 40 pp.

CSSP. 1995. Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program:Manual of operations. Fisheries and Oceans Cana-da and Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Culver, C.S., J.B. Richards, and H.M. Page. 2000.Manipulation of the cementing process of the pur-ple-hinge rock scallop, Crassadoma gigantea. Pre-sentation at National Shellfisheries Association,Seattle, WA, March 19-23, 2000.

Donaldson, J. 1991. Setting procedures: Ordering, ship-ping, and handling larvae: View from the hatchery.In: T.Y. Nosho and K.K. Chew (eds.), Remote settingand nursery culture for shellfish growers: Workshoprecord. University of Washington Sea Grant Pro-gram, WSG-WO 91-02, Seattle, pp. 7-10.

FAO. 1999. FAO-STAT database: http://apps.fao.org/.Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome.

Grau, G. 1959. Pectinidae of the eastern Pacific. Univ.South. Calif. Publ. Alan Hancock Found. Pac. Se-ries. 23. 208 pp.

Griffin, K.L., and M.L. Ward. 1992. Annual managementreport for the shellfish fisheries of the Eastern Aleu-tians area, 1991. In: Annual management report forthe shellfish fisheries of the Westward Region, 1991.Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Comm. Fish. Div., Reg.Inf. Rep. 4K92-9. Kodiak, pp. 109-126.

Harbo, R.M. 1997. Shells and shellfish of the Pacific North-west. Harbour Publishing, Madiera Park, B.C. 270 pp.

Harbo, R., and K. Hobbs. 1997. Scallop dive and trawlfisheries. In: R.M. Harbo and K. Hobbs (eds.), Pacif-ic commercial fishery updates for invertebrate re-sources (1994). Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.2369:37-43.

Heath, W.A. 1997. From harvest to market: Maintainingthe quality and value of live Manila clams (Tapesphilippinarum) In: B. Paust and J. Peters (eds.),Marketing and shipping live aquatic products.Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Ser-vice, NRAES-107, Ithaca. NY, pp. 180-185.

Heath, W.A., and S. Dobie. 2000. Shellfish production onBritish Columbia’s North Coast: An industry in tran-sition. Bull. Aquacul. Assoc. Canada 100(2):14-22.

Heath, W.A., and P.M. Gubbels. 1993. Estimated costsand returns for a scallop grow-out enterprise. Brit-ish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andFood, Aquaculture Industry Report 93-07. 24 pp.

Ito, H. 1991. Fisheries and aquaculture: Japan. In: S.E.Shumway (ed.), Scallops: Biology, ecology and aqua-culture. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1017-1055.

Jones, G., and B. Jones. 1988. Advances in the remotesetting of oyster larvae. British Columbia Ministryof Agriculture and Fisheries, ISBN 0-7718-8627-6,Victoria. 88 pp.

Kaiser, R.J. 1986. Characteristics of the Pacific weath-ervane scallop (Pecten [Patinopecten] caurinus,Gould 1850) fishery in Alaska, 1967-1981. AlaskaDept. Fish and Game, Comm. Fish. Div., Unpub-lished Report Cat. RUR-5J86-01.

Kelly, E.M. 1998. Determining economic feasibility of rockscallop (Crassadoma gigantea) aquaculture in Wash-ington State. Presented at the Scallop Culture Sym-posium at Aquaculture ‘98, Las Vegas, WorldAquaculture Society, Abstract.

Kingzett, B.C., and K.T. Pirquet. 1995. Towards qualityassurance: An information manual for BC shellfishgrowers. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture,Fisheries and Food, Aquaculture and CommercialFisheries Branch. 89 pp.

Kruse, G.H. 1994. Fishery management plan for com-mercial scallop fisheries in Alaska. Alaska Dept. Fishand Game, Comm. Fish. Manage. Dev. Div., DraftSpecial Publication 5, Juneau.


Kruse, G.H., and S.M. Shirley. 1994. The Alaska scallopfishery and its management. In: N.F. Bourne, B.L.Bunting, and L.D. Townsend (eds.), Proceedings ofthe 9th International Pectinid Workshop, Nanaimo,B.C., Canada, April 22-27, 1993. Can. Tech. Rep.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1994(2):170-175.

Lauzier, R.B., and G. Parker. 1999. A review of the biol-ogy and fisheries of the pink and spiny scallop. Ca-nadian Stock Assessement Secretariat ResearchDocument 99/153. 4pp.

Leighton, D.L. 1979. A growth profile for the rock scal-lop Hinnites multirugosus held at several depths offLa Jolla, California. Mar. Biol. 51:229-232.

MacDonald, B.A., R.J. Thompson, and N.F. Bourne. 1991.Growth and reproductive energetics of three scallopspecies from British Columbia (Chlamys hastata,Chlamys rubida, and Crassadoma gigantea). Can.J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:215-221.

NSSP. 1993. National Shellfish Sanitation Program man-ual of operations. Part I, Sanitation of shellfish grow-ing areas. Part II, Sanitation of the harvesting,processing and distribution of shellfish, 1993 revi-sion. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center forFood Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Seafood,Washington, DC 20204.

Osborne, J. 2000. A new approach to shellfish aquacul-ture development in British Columbia: The ClayoquotSound and Barkley Sound shellfish aquaculture steer-ing committees. Bull. Aquacul. Assoc. Canada 100(2):23-29.

Overaa, T. 2001. Live transport of the great scallop (Pect-en maximus). In: B.C. Paust and A.A. Rice (eds.),Marketing and shipping live aquatic products: Pro-ceedings of the Second International Conference andExhibition, November 1999, Seattle, WA. Universi-ty of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-01-03, Fairbanks.(This volume.)

Quayle, D.B. 1988. Pacific oyster culture in British Co-lumbia. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 218. 214 pp.

RaLonde, R. 1992. Shellfish aquaculture in Alaska: Itspromise and constraints. In: Growing shellfish inAlaska. University of Alaska Marine Advisory Pro-gram, Anchorage. Alaska’s Marine Resources 7(4):2-5.

Roland, W. and T.A. Broadley. 1990. A manual for pro-ducing oyster seed by remote setting. British Colum-bia, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,Aquaculture and Commercial Fisheries Branch,ISBN 0-7718-8918-6. 58 pp.

Saunders, R.G., and W.A. Heath. 1994. Recent develop-ments in scallop farming in British Columbia. Bull.Aquacul. Assoc. Canada 94(3):3-7.

Shirley, S.M., and G.H. Kruse. 1995. Development of thefishery for weathervane scallops, Patinopecten cau-rinus (Gould, 1850), in Alaska. J. Shellfish Res.14:71-78.

Sizemore, R.E., and L.Y. Palensky. 1993. Fisheries man-agement implications of new growth and longevitydata for pink (Chlamys rubida) and spiny scallops(C. hastata) from Puget Sound, Washington. J. Shell-fish Res. 12:145-146.

Starr, R.M., and J.E. McCrae. 1983. Weathervane scal-lop (Patinopecten caurinus) investigations in Oregon,1981-1983. Oregon Dept. Fish Wildlife Info. Rep. 83-10. 55 pp.

Stocker, M., and I. Perry (eds.). 2000. Report of thePSARC Invertebrate Subcommittee Meeting, Nov.28-29, 2000. In: Canadian Stock Assessement Sec-retariat Proceedings Series 2000-26. 16 pp.

Ventilla, R.F. 1982. The scallop industry in Japan. Adv.Mar. Biol. 20:309-345.

Walker, T.A. 1993. Island scallops: Farming the Japa-nese scallop in British Columbia. Aquaculture Mag-azine, May/June, pp. 38-49.

Yamaha Fishery Journal. 1990. Scallop aquaculture:Solving the mystery of good and poor harvests. Yama-ha Fishery Journal 34. 8 pp.


INTRODUCTION

Freshwater aquatic invertebrates have been har-vested or cultured in one form or another for de-cades. They have been used by small-scale fishingbait operations and cultivated and dried as addi-tives to commercial fish food. More important, theyare used by nature as food for a wide range of spe-cies from ducks to salamanders and fish. Aquaticinvertebrates supply all the necessary essential vi-tamins and nutrients in forms that are readily di-gestible. It is interesting to note that some of thesenutrients may be responsible for reduced mortali-ties as shown in studies done in Canada of theinvertebrate Gammarus lacustris used as a supple-ment and as a main diet for rainbow trout.

The lakes throughout Minnesota have an abun-dance of invertebrates. Indeed, it is a common jokehere that the mosquito is our state bird. By far themost popular species for commercial harvest andculture are the amphipods Gammarus lacustris andHyalella azteca. In terms of culturing or farmingthese small shrimp-like animals, it has been myexperience that nature has already created the bestmeans of culture. Thus, my business goal has beento duplicate nature on a scale that would balanceitself out when completely established or, at least,require only minimal manipulation on my part.Keep in mind that, although I have spent over tenyears in the field studying the nature of these andother organisms, this study was accomplished withlittle laboratory work and with no access to sophis-ticated equipment other than a microscope andmagnifying glass.

This extensive field study has persuaded me to de-velop a commercial venture involving the cultureand harvesting of freshwater invertebrates. As pio-neer harvesters of what may be a newly exploitedresource, those involved need to understand theplace and function of each of these species in a bal-anced ecosystem. For the purpose of this paper I

will first identify the invertebrates and then moveto harvest methods. Finally, I will discuss cultur-ing and marketing possibilities.

SPECIES AND GROUPS

UNDER CONSIDERATION

Crustaceans

Amphipods

Gammarus lacustris

Hyalella azteca

Branchiopods

Daphnia magna

Daphnia pulex

Cladocera

Copepods

Cyclops

Insects (immature stages)

Chaoborus americanus (“glassworms”)

Chironomids (“bloodworms”)

Aquatic invertebrates are the foundation of theentire aquatic food chain. In some cases, inverte-brates are responsible for the stable flow of plantfood energy to the higher animal levels and thusprovide a vital link that stabilizes the energy flowin active and healthy aquatic ecosystems. For ex-ample, by feeding on plankton (primarily photosyn-thetic algae), Daphnia populations are able to altervarious water quality levels produced by photosyn-thesis and, in turn, provide a control to the popula-tion of algae, other plankters, and possibly vertebratespresent in the system.

The Harvest and Culture of Live FreshwaterAquatic Invertebrates

Barry ThoeleLive Aquatics, Staples, Minnesota

126 Thoele: Harvest and Culture of Freshwater Invertebrates

Gammarus are commonly considered to be grazersfeeding on the plants, and, to some extent, on thephytoplankton. These important freshwater inver-tebrates also feed on bacteria and decomposing mat-ter on the lake bottom and are, in turn, eaten by otheraquatic invertebrates and vertebrates, including fish.

Chaoborus (“glassworms”) are also predators of in-vertebrate populations, including Daphnia andcopepods, and may be considered part of the plank-tonic community. They are, in turn, consumed atall stages of their development by higher inverte-brates and vertebrates including, to a very largeextent, fish. In our freshly dug ponds, Chaoboruswas the first species to show up in the pond, evenbefore there was food for them to eat.

Chironomids, on the other hand, are water filter-ing invertebrates that eat anything small enoughto get caught in their web. This feeding apparatusis capable of straining bacteria and the smallest ofinvertebrates.

Each of these species, with the exception of Daph-nia and the copepods, if given the opportunity, willalso feed on higher organisms such as newlyhatched fry. They are not predators of higher spe-cies by nature, but food supply and availability com-bined with the survival instinct can change thispredisposition. For this reason the size of the in-vertebrate should be closely considered when choos-ing food for young fish.

Most of these species exist in one form or another inevery corner of the world. However, care should betaken not to introduce a non-native species into nat-ural ecosystems. Careless actions of this sort will havenegative repercussions and could devastate the nat-ural balance of the system. It is my position that,with the exception of freshwater bodies severelyimpacted by humans and various damaging landpractices, most of these species will be present in ahealthy ecosystem.

HARVESTING SELECTED SPECIESGammarus lacustris, Hyalella azteca(Amphipods, scuds, freshwater shrimp)Amphipods typically live in shallows of naturallakes, although they are also found in rivers andstreams throughout the world. A good Gammaruslake will likely have good assemblage of submergedvegetation consisting of “cabbage,” milfoil, and coon-tail. Gammarus are not common in lakes with acid

water unless there is a high concentration of calci-um carbonate. Although one species of Gammarusdoes fairly well under these conditions, I will notdeal with that species here because it is not as plen-tiful and more study is needed to establish properhandling techniques.

Gammarus thrive in lakes that have cattail bor-ders. Some prairie pothole lakes are known to sus-tain enormous populations. In these situations, theonly limiting factors on Gammarus populations iswater depth and nearby agricultural practices, forexample, pesticide and herbicide use. Winter anox-ia, common to many northern lakes, is not a prob-lem with Gammarus since this invertebrate is ableto move to the underside of the ice and cling there.The organism is able to maintain this position, insome cases, for months at a time making only shortforays for food. Food is very abundant at this timebecause most other organisms have died and gasescreated by decomposition on the bottom tend to floatdetrital material to the surface. Many of these lakesalso have bottom accumulations of decomposingorganic matter several feet thick which produce vastamounts of hydrogen sulfide gas. Gammarus hasthe ability to survive in these conditions, attestingto their adaptability to different water types.

Open water harvesting is difficult and should onlybe done when absolutely necessary. This is becauseGammarus are only stable for harvesting when thewater temperature is below 48°F (9°C). Mortalitiesincrease exponentially with populations located inwarmer water. This needs to be carefully consid-ered when harvesting Gammarus for restockingprojects. The only way I have found that ensuresthe survival of viable brood stock is to confine har-vesting to the collection of overwintering adults.Gammarus species in Minnesota, and possibly else-where, overwinter as adults and, by the spring thaw,most have paired for mating or have mated. Thenthey wait for the ice to melt away from the shore-lines and for the water to warm before the femalesmolt and hatch the young.

For winter harvesting, I constructed a powered har-vester fondly named an “ice boat” that consists of a2.0-4.0 horsepower 12 or 24 volt electric motor, agraphite propeller, and a frame. The frame is con-structed to act as a buoyant sled that can travelalong the underside of the ice, using a 100 foot longflexible power cord and floating poly control ropes.Using this device, I have been able to harvest a cir-cle approximately 200 feet in diameter by workingin ever smaller concentric circles.


Nets constructed from nylon netting of variouswidths and sizes are towed behind the ice boat.Gammarus nets of up to 1⁄8 inch mesh were placed onrigid frames—fashioned somewhat after trawls usedfor harvesting ocean shrimp. The mouth of the un-der-ice net is variously sized to take advantage ofdifferent conditions under the ice. I found that2 ft × 4 ft was the most manageable overall. Small-er and deeper nets pull through the water more eas-ily. The best Gammarus net I use is 2 ft high × 4 ftwide × 8 ft diameter with the codend shaped in theform of a cone. This particular net configurationallows collected material to move to a collection bagthat is emptied by simply emptying the collectedorganisms into a bucket or cooler. In the case of anexceptional catch, something that does happen, thecollected organisms are scooped out of the trawlusing a small mesh hand net and carefully placedin a bucket or cooler.

I use 1⁄2 inch copper pipe with soldered elbows onthe corners to create a rigid frame for this drag.Two 12 ft brail or towing lines are added by tying aloop to the middle of the line and tying each end toa different corner. I found it easier to remove thenet from the ice if I attached both ends of one lineto one side of the net. A float consisting of closed-cell foam made for pipe insulation is affixed to theframe and floats the net against the ice and abovevegetation. In some cases, kicker chains are addedto the mouth of the net in order to gently disturbthe Gammarus as the net is towed over vegetation.These chains consist of a 24 inch piece of 1⁄2 inchPVC (polyvinyl chloride) attached to the rear of theice boat by a light nylon rope. At 4 inch intervals,pieces of very light steel or aluminum lamp chain12 inches long are attached to the PVC. The objec-tive is to drag the PVC in front of the net. The chaingently brushes against the Gammarus, causingthem to swim upward, we hope into the net.

Once set in motion, the ice boat is designed to oper-ate unattended in ever smaller concentric circles.Under normal working circumstances, a single setof 12 volt deep cycle lead acid batteries will furnishpower for up to 8 hours of continuous operation.This is based on the use of batteries using latesttechnologies, primarily GNB (Gould National Bat-teries, Inc.) group 31, 205 amp, tournament deepcycle batteries. Five to ten circles is about averageunder normal conditions before the net needs to beemptied. If the net is full after the first ten circles,the next time allow fewer circles because the re-sulting compression at the bottom of a full net when

emptying will raise mortalities and may damagethe overall viability of the harvest.

All invertebrates will suffer immediate frostbite ifexposed to subfreezing temperatures. Extreme careshould be taken when handling any invertebratesout of the water under these conditions. If it is nec-essary to harvest product under extreme conditions,a portable enclosure can be placed over the harvesthole and insulated coolers should be used to trans-port the product to holding tanks, avoiding any di-rect exposure to the frigid air. If long durationtransport is necessary following harvesting, oxygencan be used for aeration, but only coarse bubble dif-fusers should be used. I have transported productover the road during the winter for up to 24 hourswith the use of oxygen. These shipments consistedof up to 35 gallons of water holding approximately140 kg drained weight of product in two 120 galloninsulated holding tanks with suspension nets in thetanks to reduce compaction. Gammarus can easilybe shipped FedEx (Federal Express) or UPS (Unit-ed Parcel Service) second day air if they are pro-vided with ample room to avoid asphyxiation causedby compaction within the shipping container.

As stated, I prefer under-ice harvest because itis far more efficient than other methods. From a sin-gle 2 ft × 3 ft hole cut through the ice, a variety ofspecies can be harvested on any given pond. Afterthe hole has been cut and all small chips of ice havebeen removed, the net is attached to the ice boat andthe boat is passed through the hole. A small amountof power is applied to the boat to tighten the con-trol ropes. The net is then passed under the ice,ensuring that the brail lines are straight and taut.When the entire assembly is floating under the ice,power is applied to the unit and one need only feedthe power cord and the control rope through thehole as they are pulled by the unit. Once the rope isout to the desired length, a steady pull will turnthe ice boat in the direction of the control rope. Asthe net is towed, the wash from the propeller push-es large amounts of water and suspended materialincluding invertebrates through the net as it is be-ing towed in a circle around the harvest hole.

The size of the net mesh will determine the sizeand type of resident invertebrates that are caught.In some cases, several different species of Gam-marus, diving beetles, dragonflies, and severalspecies of mayfly may be present and collected in a1⁄8 inch mesh net. These will have to be sorted oncethey are brought to the storage facility or they can

128 Thoele: Harvest and Culture of Freshwater Invertebrates

be transported directly to a restoration project siteand introduced together as a balanced blend of or-ganisms to reestablish the food chain.

As stated above, different size meshes are used toharvest different invertebrates. Location is also afactor when looking for specific species. For exam-ple, Gammarus can be found in many ponds wherethey are the predominant species. The same can besaid for “glassworms” and Daphnia.

DaphniaWhen harvesting Daphnia as the primary species,larger lakes or ponds are usually easier to harvest.The plankton in these water bodies tend to isolatethemselves into dense aggregations, allowing forless sorting and less work overall. Nets are con-structed for this species of very fine nylon meshnetting or cotton shear. The basic design is similarto the Gammarus net with one important exception—these micro-invertebrates do not tolerate desic-cation or direct exposure to the atmosphere. To en-able them to remain in the water at all times, a bucketis attached to the codend of the net. This water-filled bucket is simply removed from the hole in theice and poured into a proper storage container. Inthis way compaction is also avoided. This is a factorto be considered when harvesting any aquatic in-vertebrate, as stress caused by compaction or pres-sure has shown to reduce the percentage of viableoffspring and can raise mortalities in the adults.

Using this strategy, invertebrates can be transport-ed directly to hauling tanks suspended in water andwithout exposure to subfreezing temperatures. Thismethod can also be used for Gammarus, although Ifound it to be unnecessary. This general method willwork for the harvest of most invertebrates with someminor alterations to accommodate organism size ordistribution.

Portable enclosures currently available for use inthe regional ice fishing industry are ideally suitedfor this type of harvesting and can greatly reducethe chance of exposure to subfreezing temperatures.Many are equipped with large deep sleds for ease oftransport to and from the ice.

CULTURE TECHNIQUES

Each invertebrate has unique needs in terms of wa-ter chemistry, temperature, and food requirements.

Each species is cultured in accordance with theseneeds. I have found the invertebrates under my studyto be easy to maintain and culture in the short term.However, in order to culture them on a scale largeenough to supply product to the aquaculture industryin quantities of 50-100 kg or more, it will be necessaryto construct artificial ponds. These culture systemsare actually artificial ecosystems including varioustypes of vegetation. Gammarus could be stocked inthis type of system, along with other invertebrates,for harvest in the fall and winter. Artificial systemsof this sort can be a benefit to all aquaculture facili-ties, both as a source of high quality food for the fishand also as a possible additional profit center for thefacility. Surplus invertebrates can be sold to otherfarming operations.

All of the species I have discussed exist in the wildin massive numbers and, when conditions are right,can be cultured at even higher densities. I have har-vested from ponds with wild populations as high as10,000 per cubic meter. Many ponds and lakesthroughout Minnesota sustain populations thathigh. Aquaculture operations in Asia, particularlythe producers of ornamental fish, have for years usedculture ponds and rice paddies to grow food for thefish because no dry food was available or needed.Everything from Moina to “bloodworms” has been cul-tured without the use of sophisticated instruments tomeasure water chemistry.

I have researched the practice of fertilizing pondsto promote algae bloom in order to reduce water clar-ity. This is done to deprive unwanted bottom-dwell-ing weeds of sunlight, effectively eliminating themfrom the system. In this body of information, noreference was located pertaining to the resident in-vertebrate population other than to speak of theirbiological oxygen demand (BOD) within the system.The use of invertebrates to alter water chemistry,reduce algae densities, and control aquatic vegeta-tion is only now being studied. Several companieshave undertaken the not-so-small task of restoringthe balance of diversity and ecology to systems thathave been over-taxed by many years of unchangingaquaculture, agricultural, or other uses.

With a healthy aquatic ecosystem and a diverse for-age base, we will all see better production in our ponds.With additional forage, the strain on any one partof the system will be lessened, providing a quickerrebound for harvested species and, in the end, bet-ter use of the resource.


MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION

In the time that I have been involved with liveaquatics, I have been contacted by companies asfar away as Amsterdam, China, and Russia thatare interested in purchasing product. Although thedemand is clearly there, the costs involved withshipping to these locations may be prohibitive un-less arrangements can be made to decrease the costof airfreight. The on-site culturing for each specificproduct is also a possibility.

However, I have found shipping within the conti-nental United States to be efficient and reliable,though a little on the expensive side. There are waysto overcome this obstacle and still provide reliablenext day or two day shipping through the use ofregional distributors and local shipping firms suchas Spee Dee Delivery in St. Cloud, Minnesota.Through the effective use of available transportinfrastructure, it is possible for an invertebrate dis-tributor to cover as much as a five state area. Smallregional shipping companies are able to deliverfreight within a five state area for as little as $6.00for a 15 inch × 11 inch × 12 inch container weighing10 lb. This is the average size and weight of a pack-age containing 2 kg of any product.

Regional distributors of invertebrate products couldbe established with minimal investment and spacerequirements. The bulk of the investment in a hold-ing and packaging facility would be in tanks andrefrigeration. With storage tanks consisting of re-cycled boxes with liners cut to fit from sheet poly-styrene, space can be kept to a minimum. Storageboxes of this sort can be laid flat until needed andshipping containers take little time to construct.Currently I spend about two hours a week construct-ing shipping containers.

Purchasing ready-made shipping containers was in-vestigated and discounted because our available drystorage area was insufficient to hold even a mini-mum order. These shipping containers varied in costand size. Only a few of these containers were ableto withstand the test specifications required byFedEx in order to comply with their current con-tainer strength standards. However, containers con-structed at our facility fit tightly together and theuse of 1.5 inch foam side walls create a rigid, near-ly crush-proof insulated container. These shippingcontainers surpass FedEx standards and we havenot had a single claim for damage.

All shipments are packed using a 1:2 ratio—that is1⁄3 water to 2 ⁄3 pure oxygen. The water temperatureat the time of packing is 42°F (6°C). This enablesthe distributor to ship 2 kg of Gammarus in 4 kgwater using a 15 inch × 11 inch × 12 inch shippingcontainer for up to two days of transport time with-out loss. As an added precaution, I use water satu-rated with oxygen when packing, though this ismore a cautionary matter than a necessity.

Heat is the major enemy in this shipping process.Shipping is faultless within the cold weathermonths from October through May. Once the tem-peratures are consistently over 60°F (16°C) ambi-ent air temperature, we use gel ice packs to avoidheating in the event of prolonged exposure to di-rect sunlight or the container being temporarilystored in a heated area. With these precautions, wecan ship well into May.

Summer has been a stumbling block for shippingand handling many of these invertebrate species.As the abundance of invertebrates increases overthe warm weather period, so do mortalities whenthe harvested product is handled. During the warmseason, species such as Gammarus are no longersuitable for restoration projects. Because of theirinability to survive cold tempering prior to ship-ping, these species do not show a lot of promise forwarm water harvest and summer sales.

On the other hand, Chaoborus are produced in mas-sive numbers throughout the warm water periodand are harvestable in some cases even from shore.I personally have harvested them from the ther-mocline of lakes with a fine mesh trawl at all timesof the year, though some sorting must be done toremove pupae and unwanted insects if they areharvested for aquarium culture.

AFTERWORD

The information I have put together in this reportis the culmination of years of painstaking field re-search and countless hours in college and publiclibraries. Little or no reference material was locat-ed specific to the large-scale collecting or culture.The techniques and inventions described are theproduct of years of hit-and-miss work and the ap-plication of a great deal of common sense. The iceboat is the accomplishment of my life and, as such,I hope that its additional uses and possibilities willbenefit everyone.


INTRODUCTION

Our project is focused on the post-harvest holdingand dry shipping of freshwater shrimp. The induc-tion of hibernation permits Japanese marketers toship Kuruma shrimp (Penaeus japonicus) live with-out water using chilled sawdust as the packagingmaterial (Yamaha Fisheries Journal 1989, Korringa1976). Only a certain type of sawdust is acceptable(Korringa 1976). Our research group in Puerto Ricois now in the process of developing similar strategies.

SHRIMP MARKETS

At the Marketing and Shipping Live Aquatic Prod-ucts ’96 conference, we reported that at some Japa-nese restaurants consumers were paying up to $200per pound for live shrimp. Recent investigations onthe Internet (www.sea-world.com, April 1998) indi-cate that Japanese markets were paying about 6.5times more for live products than for frozen.

Since the 1996 conference, the University of Puer-to Rico’s Food and Agricultural Research Entrepre-neurship Center (FARE) has been contacted by aNew York broker about supplying 10,000 poundsper week of live freshwater shrimp (Macrobrachi-um rosenbergii). With this information, the leader-ship of Puerto Rico’s Science and Technology Boardawarded our university group $398,000 to furtherdevelop “Waterless Shipping of Live Shrimp.”

The economic implications are important. Shrimp arehigh-priced food products and standard commoditiesworldwide. However, the Puerto Rican market andthose of other Central American countries are unableto support large aquaculture operations. Diverse ex-port markets outside of the Caribbean region mustbe located for these products. Our goal is to overcomethis limitation by developing practical methods forthe live transport of regionally produced shrimp tothe continental United States and other parts of the

world. It is also our goal to develop strategies of ship-ping live product in the most economical way possible.

The shrimp market in the United States and else-where is very significant. It has been demonstratedthat the growth in the U.S. food market is, for themost part, limited by population growth which isapproximately 2% per year (Behne 1983). However,the trade imbalance for shrimp in the U.S. marketexceeds this level of growth and is surpassed onlyby that for oil (NOAA 1990). With this marketingreality in mind, our group is attempting to developprocessing and marketing strategies in order thatthis region might be able to supply continental Unit-ed States and global markets with live shrimp. It isalso our intent to use this work as the foundationfor the expansion and increased viability of thePuerto Rican shrimp industry.

Our objective is to develop a practical shipping strat-egy to bring this product to the marketplace. TheUniversity of Puerto Rico owns a commercial shrimpfarm consisting of 52 one-acre ponds. Currently, thisfarm is our main project. University leadership hasrequested that we patent a working handling andshipping system and also market the shrimp cul-tured at this farm.

RESEARCH TOPICS

One of our objectives is to educate graduate students.At present four students are funded by this project.One student, Amarilis, is involved with the corre-lation between temperature change and metabolicactivity using HPLC techniques. Another student,Celida, will consider different metabolism rates asindicated by lactic acid changes during the trans-port of the animals. A recently enrolled student,Janneth, will be working on the development of ahandling system to keep internal container temper-ature within plus or minus 1° of 15°C. Another new

Optimizing Waterless Shipping Conditions forMacrobrachium rosenbergii

John Kubaryk and Carol HarperUniversity of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico

132 Kubaryk and Harper: Waterless Shipping of Macrobrachium rosenbergii

student, Belkis, is interested in working on the ap-plication of HACCP procedures to our system toensure that all food safety regulations are satisfied.

Research has been and is currently being conduct-ed in the following areas:

1. Development of strategies that can be used tooptimize relative humidity conditions to mini-mize the weight of water necessary to guarantee100% relative humidity conditions in a closedshipping container.

2. Determining the range of temperatures that in-duce reduced metabolism and concurrent cessa-tion of movement without mortality.

3. Studying the effect of rapid versus slow coolingrates on the survival of shrimp placed in the de-sired states of movement cessation and low met-abolic rate.

4. Determining the optimum initial and holdingtemperatures for use with live shrimp using thelow weight shipping container strategy.

ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITS

OF AQUATIC ANIMALS

In nature, aquatic animals confront highly unpre-dictable environmental conditions. As they striveto survive and reproduce, animals such as the fresh-water shrimp face various obstacles, including tem-porally or spatially limited food supplies andchanging temperature and oxygen levels. Adapta-tions to extreme conditions, particularly in termsof temperature, pH, and water activity or salinityconditions, are present in many aquatic animals(Jaenicke 1981). Metabolic rate depression is usedby both endotherms and ectoderms to survive harshenvironmental conditions related to temperatureand oxygen levels.

TemperatureCold tolerance is of particular importance in ourstudy of the freshwater shrimp. Temperatures be-low 14°C and above 35°C are generally reported tobe lethal to Macrobrachium (New and Singholka1985). It is apparent that induction of the desiredstate of low metabolism or chill coma will involvetemperatures well above those that result in theformation of ice crystals in the animal. However, itis possible that even nonlethal temperatures in theso-called non-freeze range may result in injury ordeath of the shrimp. Shrimp handling strategies

must consider a number of hazards. The commer-cial handling of this valuable product may unwit-tingly involve indirect chilling at depressedtemperatures that the animals can endure for onlya specific length of time. Holding the shrimp be-yond this period of time in shipping containers willresult in their injury or death. Likewise, direct chill-ing methods might be involved in which the drop tothe desired holding temperature takes place toorapidly. We are attempting to develop remedies forthese hazards.

OxygenSome aquatic invertebrates have the natural abili-ty to survive periods of air exposure or emersion.Such exposure is present when Macrobrachiumshrimp crawl out of ponds during periods of lowdissolved oxygen (DO) or when they form burrowsin flooded soils characterized by low oxygen levels.The shrimp can survive by reducing oxygen require-ments and/or utilizing anaerobic energy metabo-lism. In general, most crustaceans and subtidalmollusks have a much lower tolerance for environ-mental anoxia than those occupying the intertidalzone. However, all can still be termed to be euryoicin that they have varying abilities to use oxygenwhen available and anaerobic metabolism when itis absent. However, the duration of time that evenintertidal animals can survive emersion is limited.For example, the longest period of emersion that aparticular tropical intertidal chiton has in its nat-ural habitat is approximately six hours. However,when placed in an outdoor artificial aquarium, halfof the test individuals were alive after 24-36 hoursof air exposure (McMahon et al. 1991).

Also some aquatic invertebrates can moderate oxy-gen uptake by establishing a resting metabolic rateas a compensatory response to low oxygen avail-ability. Many of these same animals, when even low-er oxygen levels are encountered, can survive bycausing their resting metabolic rate to be indepen-dent of oxygen availability (Herreid 1980). This lat-ter level of oxygen adjustment is often referred toas the critical oxygen tension (Pc) and it has beenreported that crustaceans from poorly oxygenatedwaters have a lower Pc than those from well-oxy-genated waters (Felder 1979, Spotte 1983).

Rapid chilling vs. slow chillingDuring anaerobic metabolism there is a reductionin overall metabolism in some invertebrates, such as


bivalves, but not in others, such as crustaceans. Theresults from the series of studies that investigatedthe effects of rapid chilling were somewhat surpris-ing. Shrimp that had been rapidly chilled to thefinal holding temperature of 27°C experienced bettersurvival rates when reimmersed in room tempera-ture water than the shrimp that were slow chilledto the same temperature. These shrimp were slowcooled from 27°C to 15°C in water chilled 1°C every10 minutes, then removed and, following a holdingperiod, put in room temperature water. The shrimpthat were rapidly cooled were immediately placedin 15°C water and removed after movement stopped.

RecoveryThe time required for the slow-chilled shrimp toreturn to normal levels of activity was much longerthan the observed recovery time of the rapidly cooledshrimp, none of which died. One of the slow-cooledshrimp died. The rapidly cooled shrimp were alsomuch more animate than the slow-cooled animals,none of which fully recovered. This type of responseis also seen in insects where a cold-shock pretreat-ment improved survival at storage temperaturethrough a process called the rapid cold-hardeningresponse (Chen et al. 1987, Lee et al. 1987). Eventhough we did not look at energy stores of theshrimp used in this experiment, the fact that shrimpfed the day prior to pretreatment had significantly(P < 0.05) higher rates of survival, apparently cor-responding with that found in insects. In insects,the larger reserves of stored energy found in cold-selected breeding lines and/or the use of these re-serves at lower rates by resorting to low maintenancemetabolic levels, may protect them against chillinginjury compared to the control strain (Chen andWalker 1994).

These results also demonstrate that the stress as-sociated with capture by seining and transporta-tion to the packaging center was detrimental to thesurvival of the shrimp in a waterless environment.It is apparent that a recovery period is needed andthat harvesting and local transport should be com-pleted one day prior to packaging. After waterlessshipping overnight at 15°C, of the animals that hadbeen delivered to the shipping center 24 hours ear-lier and held overnight, 4 were alive and 8 weredead. The shrimp that were held at the seining lo-cation overnight before transport to the packagingarea and then undergoing the same treatment had2 survive and 11 die. The group consisting of ani-mals seined and transported the same day they werepackaged had no survivors.

Macrobrachium species are distributed throughoutthe tropical and subtropical areas of the world.Some species prefer clear water rivers, while thespecies under study in this project, M. rosenbergii,prefers extremely turbid waters (New and Singhol-ka 1985). The species are highly adapted to thesezones. For example, the freshwater crayfish, Or-conectes limosus, inhabits the mud zone of pollutedrivers. When it is removed from water and placedin an air environment, only a small drop in energyusage is observed. It would appear that during theseperiods of anoxia there is no corresponding drop inenergy usage such as that found in other speciessuch as bivalves (Gade 1983). Unlike the warmwater Macrobrachium, the crayfish Orconectes hasbeen successfully reared in ponds in the FingerLakes region of New York (Bardach et al. 1972). Atemperature of 14°C would be considered withintheir normal environmental range.

It is apparent that the reactions of these inverte-brates to aerial exposure or emersion tend to vary.This might begin to explain why shrimp, when ex-posed to a specific aeration treatment during whichthey are bathed in a constant current of air, had thebest survival versus that of shrimp placed in closedcontainers containing pure oxygen and compressedair. There is the possibility that carbon dioxide, aby-product of metabolism, accumulated in the sealedcontainers and overwhelmed the animals despitethe presence of high oxygen concentrations in thecontainers. It should be noted that when chiton areimmersed for a period of 17 hours, blood carbon di-oxide levels peak at 12 hours, which also corre-sponded to a minimum blood pH value (McMahonet al. 1991). This could be due to what is known asthe Bohr-Root effect. Regardless of the actual cause,the shrimp in our studies that have survived thestorage interval do not exhibit sections of their gillsclumped together or collapsed as has been observedin blue crabs exposed to air (DeFur et al. 1988).

Metabolic by-productsThe metabolic by-products that are toxic and are,consequently, of primary concern to shippers of liveanimals are ammonia and carbon dioxide. For thisreason, we have directed some of our attention tothe use of zeolites. Our work was reported at thefirst live shipping conference. Zeolites are crystal-line, hydrated alumino-silicates that have an amaz-ing array of chemical and physical properties. Theseproperties suggest that this mineral may become astandout among the various mineral amendmentsused in the agricultural industry, particularly as


the development of new aquaculture technologiesintensify (Mumpton and Fishman 1977). Whendried at 300-400°C for a few hours to remove thewater that fills the areas around the exchangeablecations, zeolites become capable of absorbing gasesincluding carbon dioxide. In their normal state, zeo-lites are some of the most effective ion exchangersknown to man and have also been used to removeammonia from waste waters (Kliivi and Semmens1980), to reduce noxious fumes of ammonia and hy-drogen sulfide from poultry houses (Ernst 1968), andto remove ammonia from recirculation systems usedin the production of aquatic animals for human con-sumption (Johnson and Sieburth 1974). In spite oftheir initial promise, it is surprising that we haveto report that the addition of zeolite to the storagechambers did not initially improve shrimp survival.

HANDLING PROTOCOL

The handling protocol used in this project is straight-forward. The day before the shrimp are to be pack-aged into the waterless shipping containers, they areseined, placed into transportation coolers providedwith aerators, and transported to the packaging area.Several hours later the shrimp are fed their normalcompounded feed and are then left overnight be-fore undergoing the cold treatment and packagingon the following day. Ammonia production is minimalsince they have been without food for some 16 hours.

Carbon dioxide buildupThe shrimp are next given a cool water pretreat-ment at 15°C for 15 minutes and are then placedinto the storage containers. However, it becameapparent that carbon dioxide, a by-product of res-piration, accumulated in the storage containers andthe zeolite was unable to deal with this buildup.This led us to try the use of carbon dioxide scaven-gers (Brody 1994). The addition of this strategy al-lowed us to significantly improve shrimp survivalto approximately 95% after 21-22 hours of storage.Current results show that the use of carbon dioxidescavengers (calcium hydroxide and sodium hydrox-ide) with either treated (pre-dried) or untreatedzeolite in high oxygen conditions result in bettersurvival rates than in shipments involving only highoxygen conditions. In addition, high oxygen condi-tions have been shown to result in better survivalrates than either aerated or compressed air condi-tions. Further tests will be run to determine thedegree to which treated and untreated zeolite sup-plements enhance survival rates.

Shrimp behaviorOur laboratory study involved four basic handlingsteps: (1) cold treatment, (2) packaging in a water-less storage container, (3) storage over a precise in-terval, and (4) reimmersion in water at roomtemperature. Our various experiments indicatedthat three different types of behavior were exhibit-ed by post-treatment shrimp. These behaviors aredescribed below.

The shrimp Macrobrachium, as do all members ofthe order Decapoda, have five pairs of walking legs,which have allowed them to become highly adaptedat crawling. They also have a large extended abdo-men that provides them the capability of rapid back-ward swimming by flipping their tail—an importantescape response. When placed directly in any of thepretreatment water baths for rapid cooling, the firstreaction of the shrimp was to rapidly swim in anydirection to escape the cold, even propelling them-selves out of the bath. Even though the cooling bathcontains seven inches of water with an additionalfive inches of freeboard, the ability of the shrimp topropel themselves a foot or more above the watersurface was impressive. We refer to this tempera-ture-induced behavior as propulsion-like. Theseshort-term bursts of rapid tail flipping are also seen,but not to the same extreme, when the stored shrimpare revived by reimmersion.

Some of the pretreated shrimp are placed in water-less storage or shipping containers that are satu-rated with pure oxygen, held at 15°C for up to 15hours, and then reimmersed in room temperaturewater. We found that these animals are much moreaggressive than normal shrimp and refer to thispure oxygen induced behavior as cannibalistic.

The final state, sometimes called the zombie state,refers to the behavior of animals that have survived24 hour storage periods. The criteria for determin-ing actual survival are quite simple. The test ani-mals should be capable of pumping water acrosstheir branchial chambers and to twitch and fan theirabdomen when they are reimmersed in room tem-perature water. However, if after approximately twohours they are obviously dead or do not show anysigns of returning to normal behavior, the shrimpare considered not to have survived.

Because the cold water pretreatment had such a dra-matic effect on the shrimp, we concluded that anes-thetizing the shrimp before subjecting themto this treatment might increase survival rates. It


has long been known that nitrogen is an effectiveanesthetic for insects (Hooper 1970). We found thatbubbling nitrogen through room temperature waterfor 15 minutes had no anesthetic effect on the shrimp.

AnesthesiaIndonesian clove oil is an effective anesthesia foruse in the hatchery rearing of the rabbit fish, Siga-nus argentes (Tamaru et al. 1995). We tested theeffect of different concentrations of eugenol (200-300 ppm), the active ingredient of clove oil. Initial-ly we experienced difficulties placing this oil intosolution. It is also caustic and disintegrated thepolystyrene holding containers. The problem wassolved by adding 3 g Tween 20 and 5 g Tween 60 to9 g eugenol, then adding a sufficient amount ofwater to fill a 100 ml volumetric flask, and stirringthe solution for 15 minutes. Even though the solu-tion worked well as an anesthetic, it did not signifi-cantly increase survival when used as a pretreatmentmethod. Shrimp survival was higher from just pre-chilling than from first anesthetizing the animalsand then prechilling. A possible explanation for thisis that clove oil may have an undesirable causticeffect on the crustaceans. Our research involvingthe development of optimal shipping methods forthis commercially important species will continue.

NOTES ON PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

Approximately 35-50 minutes are needed to placethe harvested shrimp into buckets, to rinse adheringmud, and to transfer the animals into unaerated con-tainers of pond water at ambient temperature. An-other 45 minutes is required to transport theseshrimp to the university processing area. We quick-ly learned that, in order to obtain the best survivalduring the post-harvest holding period, the seiningof the ponds and subsequent transport of the shrimpshould occur in the morning of the day prior to stock-ing into the storage containers. Also, it is best tofeed shrimp following harvest. This is somewhat sur-prising. However, feeding improves the survival rateeven though this practice would tend to produce ad-ditional amounts of ammonia. Working with thesebasic steps, it is our intent to come up with a work-ing system and to educate workers in the care andhandling of these shrimp.

Rapid chilling yields higher survival rateUpon arrival at the processing area, the shrimpare held in static tanks provided with aerators.

The tropical Macrobrachium lives only withinthe temperature range of 13-31°C, and when theshrimp are placed in the temperature range of 15-17°C they go into a semi-comatose state in whichthere is little activity or movement. We tested whatwould happen if the temperature of the water wasslowly lowered from the 25-27°C ambient tempera-ture of the processing building, to 15°C over 30 min-utes. We also investigated what might happen ifwe dumped the shrimp into water prechilled at15°C. Much to our surprise, we found that theshrimp that were dumped into the prechilled wa-ter had much higher survival rates during the stor-age period.

Containers for storage and shippingIn waterless shipping there is no water in the stor-age and shipping containers, other than the waterthat comes with the shrimp. After the shrimp havebeen chilled to 15°C for 15 minutes, they are removedfrom the water bath using a colander and gentlyshaken off. They are then ready for packaging.

The storage containers have carbon dioxide scaven-gers consisting of calcium hydroxide and sodium hy-droxide. For every 300 g of shrimp (individual sizerange 50-120 g), 1.5 g each of those two compoundsis placed with the shrimp to absorb the carbon di-oxide produced by the shrimp. After a series of tri-als using different gases, we now introduce a 100%oxygen atmosphere into the storage container. Whatwe are doing right now is very low tech. Our meth-ods and equipment will improve over time.

REVIEW OF CURRENT PROCEDURE

We place the shrimp into a comatose state (chilledto 15°C); place them in aluminum pie pans; intro-duce the scavengers; place each unit of shrimp intoa plastic bag (currently a Ziploc bag); fill the bagwith oxygen; and place these units into the storagecontainer (currently a refrigerator maintained at15°C). The use of this container as a commercialstorage container has its limitations, primarily be-cause the holding temperature fluctuates in therange of 14.5-16.5°C. An advanced environmentalcontainer is en route to our laboratory and we willbegin using this new system soon.

SurvivalWe have been able to attain 100% survival follow-ing 22 hours of dry storage. These shrimp regain


normal levels of activity and, within approximatelytwo hours, they are looking for food.

We use a practical definition of survival. If a shrimpthat has been held for the stipulated number of hoursin the storage container, after being placed in waterwith aerators, is able to bite you after an hour—weconsider this animal to have survived the handlingprocess. A somewhat different determination mustbe made for shrimp held for longer periods of time.

After 30 hours of dry storage, the shrimp are still alive.When they are placed in the recovery tanks they arecapable of moving water along their gills and theyflip around, but they generally die after a short pe-riod of time. Danford and Uglow (2001) provide uswith the idea that the shrimp, following the dry stor-age period, are attempting to dump large amountsof ammonia. Once our laboratory is properly set up,we will be able to use a recirculating system. We an-ticipate that the rapid removal of ammonia from theholding system will allow these shrimp to survive.

Other speciesAnother goal of our project is to develop a system ofmethodologies that can be adapted for use with oth-er aquatic animals. This will undoubtedly be diffi-cult because the various commercial species havedifferent temperatures and atmosphere needs. How-ever, we are in search of a basic procedure that canbe used in this developing industry.

AnesthetizingWe have made a number of mistakes in the courseof our project. For example, we thought that sur-vival rates would be increased if we anesthetizedthe shrimp first and then put them to sleep gentlyby slowly decreasing water temperature.

The aquaculture literature mentions the use of cloveoil as an anesthetic for fish. We investigated the ofclove oil to our developing handling process. Cloveoil presents several problems: (1) it is not misciblein water, (2) it is corrosive, (3) clove oil solution willburn through the Styrofoam. To make a long storyshort, after we found a way to place the oil into a work-able solution at the correct parts per million dosagerate to put the test animals to sleep, it did not helpa bit. We experienced a lower survival rate by us-ing the anesthetic first than by not using it at all.

We also examined the use of another anestheticthat is described in the literature. Nitrogen is fre-

quently used to anesthetize insect larvae. We bub-bled nitrogen in a water bath to investigate itseffect on freshwater shrimp. Nitrogen did not haveany effect on the shrimp. It did not work as an anes-thetic.

OxygenWe also had problems involving air. Initially in ourstudy we found that simple aeration worked best.This was accomplished by placing common tank aer-ators into our packages of dry shrimp. We flushedthe packages with atmospheric air. Following latertrials we found that the highest survival rates areachieved through the use of a 100% oxygen atmo-sphere. We also used commercial oxygen tablets com-monly used in the aquarium trade. We did not observeenhanced survival through the use of these tablets.

ZeolitesThree years ago at the first live conference, I re-ported on the use of zeolites to neutralize ammo-nia. Initially we had a good success with thissubstance. However, since our initial trials, resultshave been inconsistent. Consequently, we have notbeen able to make a decision about the continueduse of zeolites. Simply by listening to several of thereports given at this conference, we are gaining sev-eral ideas about why zeolites did not work to en-hance survival.

Our work with zeolites needs to be carefully de-scribed. We heat treated zeolite samples at 300-400°C for 3-4 hours to remove water. It was ourunderstanding that this procedure would enhancethe ability of zeolite to trap ammonia and carbondioxide. We have been wondering why this sub-stance has not worked as well as we thought itshould. We reported three years ago that zeolitesseemed to be beneficial because it removes ammo-nia from the water.

We were using 12 g zeolite per 300-400 g shrimp. Itis quite possible that the zeolite was functioning asexpected.

The shrimp survived dry storage for a substantialperiod of time. However, the problem appears whenthe shrimp are placed into the recovery tanks. Theysimply do not come out of it if held beyond a certainnumber of hours. It is now obvious from previousconference reports that the freshwater shrimp weredumping large amounts of ammonia into the recov-


ery water. The zeolite mixed in with the shrimp dur-ing dry storage may actually have helped pick upsome of this released ammonia. Up to this time, wethought that our survival problems were just tem-perature related. We now realize that we need tolook at ammonia buildup in the receiving water.Using an adequate recirculating system we shouldbe able to increase survival from 22 hours to 30hours and beyond.

NEXT STEP

In conclusion, our next step is to finish optimizingour handling and shipping procedure. We expect tocomplete this work by spring 2000 and then we willstart building containers. Our next goal is to con-duct actual shipments. We are now in the processof assembling a list of industry members at goodreceiving facilities who can participate with us onactual shipments. We hope to quickly work out thevarious logistical challenges including airline tech-nicalities and other considerations. Please contactus if you wish to become a participant.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the Puerto Rican Industri-al Development Company (PRIDCO) and the Na-tional Fisheries Institute for funding this research.PRIDCO is also funding the studies of four master’sdegree students at the University of Puerto Rico.

REFERENCESBardach, J., J.H. Ryther, and W.O. McLarney. 1972.

Aquaculture: The farming and husbandry of fresh-water and marine organisms. Wiley Interscience,New York. 868 pp.

Behne, J.R. 1983. Growth in a non-growth industry—expanding our horizons. Food Technol. 37:22-24,27.

Brody, A.L. 1994. Internal package gas scavengers andemitters. In: A.L. Brody, (ed.), Modified atmospherefood packaging. Institute of Packaging Profession-als, Herdon, VA, pp.19-30.

Chen, C.P., D.L. Denlinger, and R.E. Lee Jr. 1987. Cold-shock injury and rapid cold-hardening in the fleshfly, Sarcophaga crassipalpis. Physiol. Zool. 60:297-304.

Chen, C.P., and V.A. Walker. 1994. Cold-shock and chillingtolerance in drosophila. J. Insect Physiol. 40:661-669.

Danford, A.R. and R.F. Uglow. 2001. Physiological re-sponses of blue crabs, Callinectes sp., to proceduresused in the soft crab fishery in La Laguna de Termi-nos, Mexico. In: B.C. Paust and A.A. Rice (eds.),Marketing and shipping live aquatic products: Pro-ceedings of the Second International Conference andExhibition, November 1999, Seattle, WA. Universi-ty of Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-01-03, Fairbanks.(This volume.)

DeFur, P.L., A. Pease, A. Siebelink, and S. Elfers. 1988.Respiratory responses to blue crabs, Callinectes sapi-dus, to emersion. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 89A:97-101.

Ernst, R.A. 1968. The effects of ammonia on poultry.Feedstuffs 40:40.

Felder, D.L. 1979. Respiratory adaptations of the estua-rine mud shrimp, Callianassa jamaicense (Schmitt,1935) (Crustacea, Decapoda, Thalassinidae). Biol.Bull. 157:125-137.

Gade, G. 1983. Energy metabolism of arthropods andmollusks during environmental and functionalanaerobiosis. J. Exp. Zool. 228:415-429.

Herreid, C.F. 1980. Hypoxia in invertebrates. Comp. Bio-chem. Physiol. 67A:311-320.

Hooper, G.H.S. 1970. The use of CO2, N2, and cold to im-mobilize adults of Mediterranean fruit flies. J. Econ.Entomol. 63:1962-1963.

Jaenicke, R. 1981. Enzymes under extremes of physicalconditions. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. 10:1-67.

Johnson, P.W., and J.M. Sieburth. 1974. Ammonia re-moval by selective ion exchange, a backup systemfor microbiological filters in a closed-system aqua-culture. Aquaculture 4:61-67.

Kliivi, J.R., and M.J. Semmens. 1980. An evaluation ofpretreated natural zeolites for ammonium removal.Water Res. 14:161-168.

Korringa, P. 1976. Farming penaeid shrimp in Japan.In: P. Korringa, Farming marine fishes and shrimps:A multidisciplinary treatise. Elsevier Scientific Pub-lishing Co., Amsterdam, pp. 91-122.

Lee, R.E. Jr., C.P. Chen, and D.L. Denlinger. 1987. A rapidcold-hardening process in insects. Science 238:1415-1417.


McMahon, B.R., W.W. Burggren, A.W. Pinder, and M.G.Wheatly. 1991. Air exposure and physiological com-pensation in a tropical intertidal chiton, Chitonstokesii (Mollusca: Polyplacophora). Physiol. Zool.64:728-747.

Mumpton, F.A., and P.H. Fishman. 1977. The applica-tion of natural zeolites in animal science and aqua-culture. Anim. Sci. 45:1188-1203.

New, M.B., and S. Singholka. 1985. Freshwater prawnfarming. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 225, Rome.118 pp.

NOAA. 1990. Fisheries of the United States. NOAA Cur-rent Fishery Statistics No. 8900. 111 pp.

Spotte, D.G. 1983. Oxygen consumption and the wholebody lactate accumulation during progressive hy-poxia in the tropical freshwater prawn, Macrobrach-ium rosenbergii (de Man). J. Exp. Zool. 226:19-27.

Tamaru, C.S., C. Carlstrom-Trick, and W.J. FitzGerald.1995. Clove oil, Minyak cengkeh, a natural fish an-esthetic. In: Sustainable Aquaculture 95 Proceed-ings. Pacon International, P.O. Box 11568, Honolulu,HI 96828.

Yamaha Fishery Journal. 1989. Prawn culture: Spreadof technology sparks industrialization. Yamaha Fish-ery Journal 30. 8 pp.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

John Kubaryk graduated from Auburn Universityin 1980 with a Ph.D. in fish and animal nutritionand was hired as an assistant professor in 1980 bythe Department of Marine Sciences, University ofPuerto Rico, as a seafood technologist. Over the past18 years he has taught graduate classes and devel-oped research programs in the areas of aquaticnutrition, water quality, and seafood technology.From June 1991 until March 1998 he was directorof the Department of Marine Sciences.

Carol Harper graduated in 1991 from ColoradoState University with a Ph.D. in agricultural engi-neering, specializing in food engineering. Her mas-ter’s thesis from Oregon State University in 1985was on the live shipment of Dungeness crab. Afterdoing food safety research for the National Centerfor Food Safety and Technology in the Chicago officeof the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for fiveyears, she moved to Puerto Rico and is an associate

professor in the Department of Agricultural Engi-neering. She is currently doing research and teach-ing graduate and undergraduate courses in the areasof food engineering, food packaging, and food safety.


QUESTION: If the storage temperature is 15°C,what is the temperature of the recovery water?

J. KUBARYK: The recovery water is at room tem-perature or 25-27°C.

QUESTION: Have you experimented slowly withwarming the shrimp following dry storage?

J. KUBARYK: There seemed to be no difference whenwe brought them up slowly. However, after carefulexamination, we noticed that the shrimp actuallycame out of it better by warming them quickly.

QUESTION: Would the solubility of ammonia at alower temperature be less drastic to the shrimp?

J. KUBARYK: We have not started looking at thisquestion. Once we get the lab built, and it shouldbe done by December 1999, we will start thinkingabout what we are going to do about ammonia load-ing and the holding system requirements neededfor full recovery.

HARPER: I think a lot of our problem was that thezeolite did not make effective contact with the ammo-nia—the ammonia was around the gills of the shrimpwhile the zeolite was on the bottom of the container.

QUESTION: How effective are the carbon dioxidescavengers?

HARPER: The scavengers increased survival a lot.However, we have not measured anything yet. Weare now just beginning experiments. The grad stu-dents will begin to work on this sort of questiononce we select areas of concentration. The studentswill take over topics that have the best potential ofdeveloping into full-scale research projects.

AUDIENCE COMMENT: Perhaps when you re-water the shrimp following the dry transport peri-od, you may need to go through a two-phase program.The first step is to get them into water—providingthem enough water to dump the ammonia that theyhave been sequestering over the transport period.Then, let us say within 20-30 minutes, transferthem into the fresh water in which you hope they


will recover. In other words, get rid of the ammoniasomehow so that you do not have to depend upon abiofilter to get the job done.

J. KUBARYK: I am a nutritionist by training. Oneof my graduate students and I are using an out-door green water recirculating system for tilapia.We do not have any ammonia in this system. Weactually have clear green water systems where westock about 1,000 fish per cubic meter. We will lookat your suggestion. We might be setting up a recir-culating system in the lab based on what we havebeen doing outdoors. Of course, the problem withammonia only came to light yesterday with severalof the other talks.

QUESTION: Why are we considering the use ofHACCP in this project?

HARPER: Granted—the product is still alive. It isnot food yet, but that is going to come. HACCP isthere for seafood and we must be able to guarantee

that our product will be able to meet regulations.Do you absolutely need to use HACCP? No, you donot. This was clearly established at a recirculatingaquaculture conference in Roanoke, Virginia, twoyears ago. Live products do not require a HACCPplan. The reason we are looking at the developmentof a HACCP plan is because we are using differentchemicals. Even though the use of these productsis generally regarded as safe, we are planning toinvestigate this topic quite carefully. Another rea-son for our interest in HACCP applications is thatone of the graduate students has stated she wouldlike to look into this matter.

Hazard analysis is routine when dealing with whatwill eventually become foodstuffs. For example, Iknow that beef industries in some countries arekeeping a complete history so that authorities cantrace the product and know where it is coming from.If there are any problems, they can quickly locatethe source. I think this will eventually become truefor the live seafood industry.


INTRODUCTION

U.S. farmers produce $37 million per year in fatheadminnows, golden shiners, white suckers, goldfish,and other species that are marketed as sport fish-ing live bait (1998 Census of Aquaculture, USDA-NASS). Many farmers absorb the cost of fish thatdie between farm and retail bait shops. Varioustypes of mishandling can cause high mortalities.The best management practices recommended foruse with baitfish live holding and transport involvesthe careful use of water quality maintenance meth-ods and product handling strategies. This reportsummarizes management practices used to improvefish survival and increase profits.

MAINTAIN DISSOLVED OXYGEN

To add oxygen and remove accumulated carbon diox-ide, constantly agitate the holding water. This canbe done with a surface agitator or by bubbling air intothe water using a blower system. If the fish are ob-served to be struggling against currents created bybubbles, reduce the air flow or move the air stonesto create areas of quiet, yet well-oxygenated water.

The only way to ensure sufficient “air” in the hold-ing water is to measure dissolved oxygen (DO). Thismeasurement should be made at regular intervalswhen the tank is full of baitfish. Keep oxygen above4 ppm (parts per million). To estimate oxygen con-ditions in the absence of a DO measuring instru-ment, stand back and watch the behavior of thebaitfish. If the fish stay away from the surface andmove together in schools, there is probably enoughoxygen in the water. For new operations, the mosteconomical and practical approach to DO manage-ment is to purchase a prepackaged aeration sys-tem specifically sized for the volume and depth ofthe particular tanks and the maximum pounds offish to be held in these tanks.

DECHLORINATE WATER

Tap water must be dechlorinated before it is broughtin contact with fish. Water from most municipalsupplies contains 0.5-2.0 ppm residual chlorine.Water containing no more than 2 ppm residual chlo-rine can be dechlorinated through the addition of5 grams sodium thiosulfate per 100 gallons of citywater. Commercial preparations for dechlorinationare available from a variety of sources, includingpet shops. Special care must be taken when usingmakeup water carrying residual chlorine concen-trations above 2.0 ppm.

KEEP FISH COOL

Retailers loose most of their baitfish stock duringthe hot summer months. The best strategy is toplace the holding tanks in the coolest possible loca-tion, such as an air-conditioned room. Keep watertemperature below approximately 65°F (18°C).When fish are cool they release ammonia more slow-ly and do not use quite as much oxygen. Fish heldunder these conditions are subject to lower levelsof stress and, as a consequence, tend to experiencelower mortality rates.

PREVENT TEMPERATURE SHOCK

Major baitfish losses can be caused by temperatureshock at the time of delivery to the retailer. A sim-ple precaution can be used to reduce fish mortali-ties. Using a reasonably accurate thermometer,check the temperature of the holding water onboardthe hauling truck and the water in your vats ortanks. The hauling water will typically be 55-60°F(13-16°C). The newly delivered baitfish should beacclimated or “tempered” by slowly changing theirholding water temperature over a period of time.Temper fish by changing water temperature nomore than 10°F (6°C) in 20 minutes. Do not attempt

Keeping Baitfish Alive and Healthy in Holding Tanks:Tips for Retail Outlets

Hugh ThomfordeLonoke Agriculture Center, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Lonoke, Arkansas

142 Thomforde: Keeping Baitfish Healthy in Holding Tanks

the final transfer of the baitfish until water in theretail facility is within a few degrees of the haulingwater. If necessary, non-chlorinated ice can be usedto cool water (Fig. 1). Remember that rapid tem-perature changes kill fish!

HOLD THE AMMONIA

Fish slowly release ammonia as part of their nor-mal metabolic process. Even at low concentrations,ammonia is toxic to fish. If tanks are neglected andthe concentration of ammonia is allowed to increase,it is inevitable that many baitfish will die. The eas-iest and most reliable way to remove ammonia is toregularly change the water. Drain the tank to ap-proximately the 1/4 volume level and then refill withnew chlorine-free water. Frequent water exchang-es reduce stress on the baitfish because the accu-mulating ammonia is diluted.

In general, the maximum safe level for un-ionizedammonia is about 0.1 ppm, or 2 ppm total ammonianitrogen. The ammonia concentration should be mea-sured just before changing the water, when thiswaste product is at its peak concentration. A vari-ety of inexpensive test kits are available for themeasurement of ammonia. Over a period of time dur-ing which ammonia levels are carefully monitored,retail operator experience is usually adequate todetermine the frequency of holding water changes.If a retail facility does not have an ammonia test kit,change the baitfish holding water at least once a day.

DON’T FEED THE FISH

Feeding baitfish in vats will cause ammonia con-centrations to increase greatly! If it becomes neces-sary to feed the baitfish, additional changes will beneeded to flush a great deal more water throughthe tanks. Feed sparingly and only if the fish appearto be extremely thin. Watch them closely and makesure that the baitfish are actually eating the feed.

REPLACE LOST SALT

Because of the nature of the live transport and hold-ing business, baitfish experience some level of han-dling stress. Salt can provide some relief for this stress.The general recommendation for most bait shop sit-uations is to add 2 pounds of canning salt per 100gallons holding water. This addition should be done

only once, when the baitfish are first received, to re-place salts lost from handling stress. The careful ap-plication of salt also stimulates the release of mucus,which reduces susceptibility of baitfish to infections.

ROTATE STOCK

Even the smallest retail shop must have at leasttwo tanks in order to allow for stock rotation and tocontrol possible disease outbreaks (Fig. 2). In prep-aration for the arrival of a new batch of baitfish,one of these tanks should be drained and then al-lowed to dry. If the bottom of the tank cannot bedried completely, disinfect the tank by applying 3/4cup of household bleach per gallon of water and let-ting it stand for 5 minutes. When holding differentsizes or species of baitfish in the same tank, sepa-rate them with dividers. In order to control disease,never mix batches of fish.

DON’T OVERCROWD FISH

Every holding tank has a specific carrying capacityor recommended maximum density of baitfish. Asa general rule, fish density should not exceed morethan a pound of fish per 4 gallons of water. Someretailers hold only one pound of baitfish per 10 gal-lons. The more baitfish held in a tank, the more thattank will need to be flushed to eliminate ammonia.

Figure 1. Fish haulers add ice to keep water around 55-60°F(13-16°C). Low temperature reduces fish metabolism and im-proves hauling conditions.


REMOVE DEAD FISH

Dead fish spread disease, degrade water quality, andare unsightly. Check holding tanks several timesdaily, and remove dead fish.

WATCH YOUR WATER QUALITY

Widespread baitfish mortalities can be a problemin this industry. If batch after batch of fish die inthe tanks without explanation the water must betested to determine a possible cause. In such cases,the supplier should be asked if similar problemsare occurring at other bait shops on the deliveryroute. It is recommended that pH, oxygen, andammonia levels be measured. The local Coopera-tive Extension agent may also be able to help. Lowcost test kits are available for accurate and timelymonitoring of water quality conditions.

DON’T DISPOSE OF LIVE BAIT

INTO WATER SYSTEMS

The intentional release of live baitfish in the wildis illegal in some areas and is not recommended.Bait shop customers must be encouraged to disposeof unused live baitfish away from aquatic areas.

START OUT SMALL

Before plunging into the live baitfish industry, firstcomplete a pilot project. Conduct small-scale trialsto avoid large financial losses later on. It is recom-mended that the retailer develop and maintain anotebook. This compact collection of records shouldinclude important phone numbers; daily records foreach tank regarding water changes, temperatures,

and other water quality observations; the numberof fish added to the tank; and quantities removedlive and dead. This notebook will assist the retailerin remembering the strategies that work and thosethat do not in a given situation.

CONCLUSION

Proper handling of baitfish requires a good under-standing of the needs of individual baitfish speciesand water quality conditions required to keep themalive in holding tanks. Mishandling of baitfish willresult in large financial losses. The careful adherenceto the several handling strategies suggested in thisreport will significantly reduce the financial risksfaced by those involved in the retailing of baitfish.

.

Figure 2. Even the smallest retail shop must have at leasttwo tanks. This allows you to rotate stock and to control disease.


ABSTRACT

During the past decade’s boom in live seafood com-merce, Pacific Coast fishermen have identified“stress points” encountered during the at-sea han-dling and holding of fish and shellfish. These har-vesters have learned strategies to reduce the stressand increase the survivability of their catch. Matur-ing technology—both high-tech and low-tech—hasassisted in this learning process. Some harvesters,for example, praise oxygen bubblers, air stones, tita-nium chillers, and high-flow, tube-in-shell evapora-tors. Others, meanwhile, opt for simpler high-volumewater systems or pump-free designs that utilize arocking sea or the forward motion of a boat to main-tain their catch and minimize dead-loss.

INTRODUCTION

I think the most important lesson we can learn aboutwhat is going on with the development of at-sealive seafood holding systems is that HAACP, as aconcept, a protocol, and a means of quality control,is now being embraced at the point of production—on the fishing boats themselves. Fishermen, espe-cially Pacific Coast fishermen who have spent thelast 10 years working with live seafood, have hadenough time on the grounds to begin identifyingwhere the stress points are on the live products theyharvest and deliver.

The incentive for this application is obvious. Cali-fornia halibut fetches US $2.00 per pound fresh and$4.00 per pound live. Spot prawns that sell for $3.00US a pound fresh are $8.00 a pound live. That is aterrific incentive for fishermen to upgrade theirholding systems via the development of high techor low tech methods, to reduce mortalities, and todeliver a live healthy product that remains vigor-ous for a long period of time.

REFRIGERATION

One of the stress points that the fishermen haveidentified is, of course, the problem of keeping wa-

ter cold. Originally, for example, the literature sug-gested that 40°F (4°C) water was appropriate forthe live holding of spot prawns and that a similartemperature was suitable for rockfish. However,what fishermen have discovered is that 34-35°F(1.1-1.7°C) is more appropriate. Holding watermaintained within this narrow temperature rangeactually sends shrimp or rockfish into a state ofsemi-dormancy during which they excrete less waste,utilize less oxygen, and are easier to keep alive.

For this reason, more attention is being paid by theoperators of both small and large harvesting boatsto the most appropriate use of refrigeration systems.We are now seeing an increased use of titaniumaboard these boats—titanium grid chillers andtanks, single pass titanium evaporators, and so on.The use of titanium avoids the occurrence of toxiccopper ions leached from components in tradition-al refrigeration systems into the holding water. Also,considerable thought is being given to the most ef-ficient use of these refrigeration systems.

During this time, fishermen have been workingclosely with manufacturers to incorporate into themechanical systems aboard their vessels small re-frigeration units that can accommodate the size ofthese vessels and their fisheries. One example ofthis type of progress is the advent of titanium gridchillers that are actually full immersion chillers thatgo directly into live tanks. In addition, single passevaporators are used in concert with other waterquality equipment in closed recirculating systemsto recharge the holding water four to seven times aday. These systems remove waste materials whilekeeping the animals as cold as necessary.

We are seeing a ramped-up learning curve for fish-ermen in terms of refrigeration technology. Thanksto businesses like Aqua Logic and Integrated Ma-rine Systems, fishermen now can purchase modularrefrigeration systems that require no special exper-tise to install. These systems come almost prefabri-cated. All you have to do is hook up the inflow and

What’s New in Live Fish and Shellfish At-Sea Holding Systems:High Tech and Low Tech

Mick KronmanNational Fisherman Magazine, Santa Barbara, California

146 Kronman: Live Fish and Shelfish At-Sea Holding Systems

outflow lines and you are ready to go. It is apparentthat there is a general marriage occurring betweenthe fishermen and manufacturers at this level.

AERATION

Harvesters in different fisheries have learned thatgrid aerators and air stones are one way to increasethe amount of dissolved oxygen in a live holdingsystem. In many fisheries it seems like you justcannot get too much oxygen to the fish. California’slive sheepshead fishery is an example of this. I knowthat prawn fishermen in this region are also learn-ing this same lesson. Some prawn live harvestersare even beginning to experiment with pure oxy-gen bubblers, not unlike the systems displayed atthis conference by Point Four Systems.

There is some reticence among fishermen to moveto a system using oxygen, a highly combustiblematerial. Fishing boats generally do not have thecontrolled environments found at supermarkets andaquaculture facilities, but certainly some fishermenhave them onboard and are experimenting withthem successfully. With prawns, for example, youcan see the change right onboard—just like in asupermarket—where oxygen is released into thelive tank. The animals turn from a pale pinkish-white color to bright red almost instantly. So theincentive is there, although fishermen are very cau-tious about using compressed oxygen at sea. Manyof these harvesters are looking forward to workingwith manufacturers to develop safe and easily main-tainable onboard systems.

Fishermen are finding very successful low tech al-ternatives to the problem of aeration. Many fisher-men have built venturis into their water pumpingsystems. This is quite often done by just plumbinga “T” off of the pressure side of the aeration pumps,or their water pumps, and drawing in ambient airby way of the venturi effect, creating a practicaldissolved oxygen enhancement in their systems.

Another low tech solution that took fishermen tenyears to understand is that finfish survive better ina round tank rather than in a square tank. So weare seeing a lot of retrofits to round tanks on com-mercial fishing boats in the finfish fishery along thePacific Coast.

FILTERING

Fishermen have also realized that filtering and re-moving waste like ammonia and other materials is

very important—both in the finfish business and,of course, in prawn fisheries where the animals comeup covered with silt and mud. In addition to turn-ing over the onboard holding water three or fourtimes a day through the introduction of seawater,fishermen are starting to think about using biofil-tration when operating in situations where the flow-through strategy cannot be used. Biofilters like beadfilters are used throughout the aquaculture indus-try, but have been a challenge for the commercialfishing industry because they are fairly bulky insize. But adaptations in the filters themselves arenear—adaptations that may make them suitablefor onboard use in the live fish industry. I am refer-ring here to bead filters that serve both as a strain-ing medium and as a medium for growing two kindsof bacteria that turn waste products first into ni-trites and then into nitrates—turning toxic wastesinto forms that are relatively harmless to the fish.

Enough advancements have been made with thedesign and use of bead filters, that fishermen arenow for the first time considering importing thistype of technology onto their vessels. They are be-ginning to take advantage of filtration methodspresent in land-based aquaculture and holding sys-tem operations. Much of this technology has beenright there on the shoreline, but it is only now mak-ing the crossover into fishing industry.

HANDLING

The point of production or live harvesting is proba-bly the most critical place where benefits to thelanded product can accrue. All the work that thefolks in this audience undertake to keep those ani-mals alive in holding facilities and shipping facili-ties around the world can be greatly augmented byappropriate handling at sea. One of the things thatthe fishermen have learned is that the less you touchfish or shellfish with the human hands the better. Itappears that the very handling of finfish with thehuman hand quite often removes the protectiveslime that fish have as a natural barrier againstinfection in the environment. Once you remove thatslime, the fish becomes almost an instantaneousreceptor to bacteria. These bacteria start the down-ward cycle—making it very difficult for the peopleholding or transporting the fish to keep them alive.

Live harvesting fishermen have developed suchthings as net systems to make possible the properhandling of the fish and venting devices to deflategas bladders that have inflated when the fish aretaken from depth to the surface. The bottom line


theory is the less we touch these fish the better theywill be. The same goes for shrimp.

The way many fishermen make use of their receiv-ing tanks at sea is changing. Instead of leaving fishand shellfish in onboard tanks at night, for exam-ple, harvesters now often moor their animals by plac-ing them back into the sea using specially designedholding pens and other structures. They are beingvery careful about how they design and deploy thosereceivers. If, for example, they place the harvestedfish in barrels, they position these structures side-ways to the sea. They have found that fish endureless stress if they can swim horizontally rather thanif they are forced to mill about in a vertical column.

Also, wave motion has less of a jarring effect on ahorizontally placed receiver than one held in thevertical position.

Fishermen also moor receiving barrels so that thesea is three-quarters of the way to the top of thebarrels, reducing jarring and increasing water flowin the process. They use plastic, 55-gallon picklebarrels to which they add flotation and drill circu-lation holes so that buoyancy and water flow canbe adequately controlled. Using this design strate-gy, waves can lap up the structure yet the barrelsare not rocked about by the wave motion.

These are just a few of the practical methods fish-ermen are using to control the onboard environ-ments in which harvested fish and shellfish areheld. The photographs demonstrate some aspectsof this technology and some of the means by whichfishermen are trying to reduce stress loading on theanimals. I want to thank the manufacturers includ-ing Aqua Logic for providing this material.

HOLDING SYSTEMS ILLUSTRATED

Titanium grid chillers measuring only 36 inches tallby about two inches thick are becoming more com-monly used in regional live fisheries (not illustrat-ed). These chillers fit quite nicely into the tank of asmall fishing boat. You must remember that mostof the boats that are delivering live fish along thePacific Coast these days are in the range of 35-50feet. They are often very well adapted to this typeof fishery and also to this kind of technology. Thechiller’s titanium coils are tightly packed. Althoughtitanium does not offer the thermal conductivity ofcopper, thin-wall construction incorporated into its

design reduces this loss of efficiency to negligiblelevels. This is the kind of system that you will be see-ing more often in boats within the above length range.

Shrimp-handling (Fig. 1): After the shrimp comeaboard they are sorted on a 4 inch deep table filledwith water. They then slide untouched into wire-mesh cages positioned on a transport table. Thesecages are then stacked in the harvesting vessel’s re-frigerated live tank. Once the shrimp are placed onthe sorting table and are directed into the cagesand placed in refrigerated seawater, they are nottouched with human hands. The caged shrimp areready for transport and they will not be touchedagain. Keep in mind the general theme at workhere—the less touching the better.

Figure 2 provides an example of a biofiltration sys-tem that can be used onboard. The illustration isfrom a land-side facility, but it shows the loop inwhich biofilters can be incorporated. These filtershave fairly large capacities; however, it will be chal-lenging to get these units onto smaller fishing boats.Because of breakthroughs currently being made inbiofiltration technology involving the modificationof the beads and filter medium, it appears quite pos-sible that this component of a recirculation systemmay be converted into a manageable size and placedon fishing boats within the next couple of years.

The use of this type of onboard system has consid-erable practical value. In lobsters that are held thisway on land, biofiltration reduces mortality fromapproximately 15% down to 3%. Fishermen firmly

Figure 1. Stress reduction strategies aboard a shrimp ves-sel. Courtesy of Jon Chaiton, Inland Seafood Company, Atlanta,Georgia.


believe that importing this type of technology on-board their harvesting boats will further reduce thelevel of mortality.

Figure 3 is an example of one of the small integrat-ed refrigeration units that is typically seen on WestCoast live boats these days. On the upper right sideis a seawater inlet. The beauty of these systems isthat they are fisherman-friendly. You are not requiredto have any special expertise or technical knowl-edge to install the units on a fishing vessel. It wouldtake a day or, at the most, a day and a half to hookthese units up and make them a part of the vessel’slive holding system. In certain cases, some contractlabor may be needed if you do not have the neces-sary understanding of the system and facilities ortools to get the job done in a timely manner.

The same user-friendly technology has been appliedto the titanium tube-in-shell evaporator (Fig. 4). Inthis chilling unit, the refrigerant freon circulatesthrough the tubes and seawater is pumped aroundthe tubes. It is provided with a removable fiberglassshell that can be taken apart, cleaned, and reassem-bled with a series of O-rings. In this manner the seawa-ter cooling chamber can be cleaned of various detritus,barnacles, and other growth to keep heat-exchangecapacity of the unit at its greatest efficiency.

Figure 5 depicts a Santa Barbara, California, liveridgeback shrimp harvesting boat with a typicalabove-deck refrigeration system. The entire mechan-Figure 2. Small-scale biofiltration system.

Figure 3. Small integrated refrigeration unit intended foruse of small harvesting vessels. Courtesy of Mark Burn, spe-cialist in small-scale refrigeration systems, Integrated MarineSystems, Port Townsend, Washington.

Figure 4. Titanium tube-in-shell evaporator.

ical system is not visible, but it shows how theshrimp are handled. The shrimp are handled in fair-ly high densities. They seem to be able to tolerate thistreatment, even during day-fishing. However, thesedensities become less and less acceptable over timeas the fisherman proceeds into a second or third day.This is particularly true with the more sensitive spe-cies, the spot prawn. It is necessary to thin theseanimals—to handle and live store them in lower den-sities. Fishermen are learning about acceptable den-sities relative to mortality levels by trial and error.

The fact must be remembered that those involvedwith the Pacific Coast live rockfish fishery make useof every type of fishing vessels—ranging from kayaksto 35-foot boats. Much of the technology used aboardthese vessels is relatively basic and the solutions tomortality problems are low tech in nature. Figure 6is a classic reflection of what is happening in live fishfisheries in California. It is a high-tech aluminum


skiff on the back of a commercial sea urchin diveboat. The skiff is used to live harvest rockfish dur-ing periodic seasonal sea urchin closures. The fishare placed in the skiff live tank and then transferredto the holding tank aboard the mother ship (Fig. 7),tiny as it might seem, and then transported to shore.

Figure 8 shows a low-tech, pumpless water circula-tion strategy that is gaining popularity in PacificCoast live fish and shellfish fisheries. The intake de-vice services the skiff ’s live tank in a pump-free fash-ion. When the boat is planing, water shoots throughthe forward-facing scoop, through a system of plumb-ing and valving, and aft to the tank. Through the useof this pumpless system, the fisherman can regulatethe amount of water entering and exiting the tank.

Figure 5. Refrigeration system aboard a California ridge-back shrimp harvesting vessel.

Figure 6. Use of small catcher boats in the California liverockfish fishery.

Even when vessels employing this type of simpletechnology are at anchor in the evening, fishermencan adjust the water level in the tank with valvesso that active circulation can be maintained withthe sea much like in the case of a floating receiver.The regional harvesters have enjoyed great successat a very low cost using this low-tech means of keep-ing their animals alive. This is a relatively newwater circulation strategy in the fleet, but one thathas proved remarkably successful and the popular-ity of this design feature is sure to grow.

Figure 9 shows a crab shedding system on the U.S.East Coast. These systems are becoming more so-phisticated all the time. Regional crabbers have man-aged to get off the water and move their shedding

Figure 7. The rockfish are placed in a live tank and trans-ferred to the holding tank on the mother ship.

Figure 8. This intake device services the skiff ’s live tank ina pumpless water system. Water shoots through the forward-facing scoop, through plumbing, and aft to the tank.


operations inland by 20-40 miles. To accomplish thismove, various recirculation innovations have beenused, including protein skimmers (Figs. 10-11). Askimmer makes use of air carefully pumped throughthe system—the bubbles binding to contaminants,creating a bubbly slurry that is skimmed out of thesystem. Live facility operators have been able toreduce blue crab mortalities from as high as 60% downto 15-10% or even lower. The product is peeler crabsdestined for the soft-shell market. Once they haveshed their old shells, they are ready to market.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Mick Kronman is Pacific Bureau Chief at NationalFisherman Magazine. He has been with NationalFisherman for 17 years and also serves as a fisher-ies consultant.

Figure 9. A land-based live crab shedding system.

Figure 10. Counter-current protein skimmer.

Figure 11. Sidestream protein skimmer.


INTRODUCTION

This report is a discussion on live marketing andits utility in the Pacific halibut fishery. Descriptionsof the attitudes of halibut harvesters and the regu-latory requirements of the International PacificHalibut Commission (IPHC) are included. The mainpoints of this review are as follows:

1. The Pacific halibut industry is an old and suc-cessful fishery that remains in very good condi-tion. This stability predisposes this fishery toconservative management practices. Adaptationto change will probably be slow.

2. I am in the process of developing an innovationin which commercially captured Pacific halibutare live held in netpens, ongrown, and market-ed during the off-season period. Although theirnumber is steadily decreasing, some of my fel-low harvesters believe that I will damage cer-tain traditions underlying the stability of thefishery by pursuing this innovative strategy.I typically counter with the argument that I wantto perpetuate these essential traditions and, inorder to accomplish this goal, the managementsystem must change a bit. I believe that if wewant our children to have a chance to make aliving from the sea, fishing and marketing pro-cedures will have to change.

3. The fear of change among certain halibut har-vesters and managers is a driving force behindthe regulation of this fishery. These conserva-tive practices need to be adjusted to allow thePacific halibut fishery to adapt to changing worldconditions.

DISCUSSION

When our live holding project was described at theIPHC annual meeting in Seattle this year (1999),it immediately became an “international incident.”These negative emotions were felt mainly by buyerswho feared that a live holding strategy would takeaway their control over fishermen. Their main point

appeared to be that “the sky will fall” if I continuedmy experimental program. These buyers were themain group lobbying Canadian fishery managersto stop these “illegal actions.” Fortunately, a Cana-dian bureaucrat explained that my activities werenot illegal and that the live holding of Pacific hali-but was well within the bounds of the halibut treaty.

I showed a film the next day at the IPHC meetingand answered all their questions in a candid manner.I think that this information totally defused the re-maining animosity. In the end the American andCanadian conference boards (fishermen’s and otherindustry representatives who vote on industry initia-tives and regulations at the IPHC meetings) votednot to change the dead fish regulation that disallowsthe landing of round (live fish are round) product, butnot to hinder my project either. However, they weretoo apprehensive to “officially” endorse the project.

After the vote, fishermen told me that I should nottake the vote to heart and that they truly applaud-ed my efforts. One fellow actually stood up andspoke to the whole meeting, saying that my effortswere for the benefit of everyone and that I shouldbe supported. So, all in all, management came alongwith me in the course of a couple of days. Fishingindustry representatives from Alaska even askedfor my phone number so they could contact me inthe future for information.

The reasons for developing a practical halibut liveholding strategy are quite simple. A question thatshould be asked is—why now? Bruce Leaman (di-rector, International Pacific Halibut Commission)recently said, “I think everybody outside the indus-try that you mention this to will say, ‘This is toological. Why haven’t you guys been doing this allalong?’ ” The answer involves the traditional na-ture of the Pacific halibut fishery. This type of de-velopment has not come along because the regionhas had a very healthy fishery for 76 years. It isprobably the best wild fishery in the world. For gen-

Opportunity or Threat? Implications of the Live Halibut Fisheryin British Columbia from the Harvester Perspective

Kim MauriksDorcas Point Farms Inc. Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, Canada

152 Mauriks: Implications of Live Halibut Fishery in B.C.

erations harvesters have just gone out, fished, andearned a very good living.

However, about ten years ago, our world started toturn upside down as the market began to change. Ittook awhile for this new information to sink in. Theworld market now has top quality cultured productavailable year-round—a range of products compet-ing with our seasonal halibut product. If we do notmeet this marketing challenge, members of the hal-ibut industry will slowly lose their previously enjoyedmarket domination. This same thing has happenedin the salmon industry. If we meet the quality andavailability standards demanded in the changingmarketplace, there is no reason wild Pacific hali-but should be banished to second grade markets.

The title of this report includes the phrase “oppor-tunity or threat.” In order to get the most from thisresource, we must send our product into the mar-ketplace year-round and in the product form of high-est quality. I have no doubt that a new generationof these innovative marketers will be able to satis-fy all the concerns of the IPHC commissioners.

The halibut fishery has progressed toward a quotafishery that takes place eight months of the year. Itis a highly managed fishery, particularly in Canada,where we have a full validation system. We accountfor every pound of halibut harvested, except forthose caught in the sport fishery, which is not mon-itored to this same level of accuracy. To be sure,there may be a small degree of poaching. Pound forpound, however, the Pacific halibut fishery is prob-ably the best-managed fishery in the world.

This careful management is the reason that we stillhave a fishery. It is the reason we will be able tohandle all the data and sampling requirements orig-inating from the commission. Live holding mightactually provide opportunities for the collection ofadditional types of valuable data. For the first time,we will have a large volume of halibut being heldcaptive. This will allow projects, such as an inves-tigation into the nature of chalky halibut, whichwere never possible in the traditional fishery.

We will be able to handle all of the issues the direc-tor of the IPHC has brought up. During the courseof the project, we will handle the international trea-ty concerns. I hope that I will not have to become atreaty expert before this is all done. I also hope thatpeople will be logical about this issue. For exam-ple, a basic problem needs to be resolved right now.To stop us from bringing in live fish, managers are

using a dead fish quality rule that was meant toforce fishermen to dress their catch at sea, not lat-er at the dock. We wish to exceed this quality stan-dard. I suggest that we develop a workable set oflive fish rules and begin to deal with this new mar-keting opportunity in a constructive manner.

The fact is that many fishermen do not want to seean end to their traditional way of doing business. Ithas worked for the better part of a century, so whychange now? Most of our current problems with theindustry stem from the word “tradition,” and theresistance to our movement away from traditionalforms of business. Most people do not like change.For many in the industry, the initiative to move toan individual quota fishery was a huge leap. A fewyears of experience now tells us that this new wayof managing the fishery is working better than anyof us could have imagined. I think the developmentof the live holding strategy is one of the final stepsin the development of the Pacific halibut fishery.

Traditionally, commercial fisheries are supply driv-en. Simply stated, there are fish in the ocean, fish-ermen go out and catch them, and then they worryabout selling them or hiring somebody else to sellthem for later. Traditionally a fisherman would tryto catch the fish as fast as possible. However, in thisnew marketing age, we must act more like farmersand become vertically integrated all the way fromthe fisherman on the fishing vessel to the consumer.

We will undoubtedly continue to fish using the samemethods members of the industry have used for gen-erations, but we need to build up an inventory strat-egy like any other production business. The questionis—how are we planning to supply the expandingfresh market? At about the time Canada went intothe quota system eight years ago, the market’s ca-pacity for fresh fish was 400,000 pounds a week.Beyond this, the entire fresh market system wouldbecome clogged. Now, just over two million poundsa week can be moved into the fresh market. Thismarket sector has expanded in a major way and wemust become clever in satisfying the demand.

I have had fishermen come up to me and say, “Oh,now you’re going to compete with us in the frozenmarket during the winter. You’re going to be sell-ing and competing with our frozen product.” My re-sponse is that, first, a prime fresh product is notcompeting with a frozen product. It is an entirelydifferent product. We are dealing with differentgroups of consumers. I usually tell them that I ampulling my fish out of the regular market and, in a


very minuscule way, expanding a previously under-developed market sector for you. I am pulling myproduct away from the traditional winter seasonfrozen halibut market. I am expanding the marketinto the four months of the year in which fresh prod-uct is not available. I am further developing thefresh market. In the end, if we can produce a con-sistently high quality product, our efforts will in-crease the market for everybody.

The Canadian halibut quota in 1999 was 12.1 mil-lion pounds. My project did just under 1% of that quo-ta this year, 104,000 pounds. One percent is themaximum level allowed per fishing vessel in the hal-ibut fishery in Canada. The 104,000 pounds is mostdefinitely not a market—it is nothing compared toa market that can handle two million pounds offresh product a week. Potentially, we could take ourentire Canadian quota, save it for later retail sale,and sell it into those four winter months and westill would not have enough product for the off-sea-son. In addition, I am sure the market will keep onincreasing. I estimate that the world market wantsmore than 71 million pounds. This demand will besatisfied. It will be coming from Chile, Norway, Ice-land, and other fish farming countries in a big way.

As others at this conference have stated, we want tomake sure we are able to maintain a solid grasp onour share of that market. By applying a more flexi-ble approach to our fishery, in the future we will bein a better position to deal with halibut culture as itproliferates or deal with different product forms asthey are developed. At the very least, we must attainthe ability to compete with them on an even basis.

So, when dealing with and attempting to informother harvesters, my biggest issue is to show themthat this is not the end—the live holding market-ing strategy is a part of the future. I want my kidsto be able to fish. I think this innovation will allowour children to continue fishing and, simultaneously,open up a whole new world of market opportunities.

Are there other benefits associated with the way Imarket fresh halibut? When our fish is sold in LosAngeles or New York, I personally hear what thatbuyer thought about the fish. I quickly learn whatI have to change in terms of fishing practices, hold-ing practices, or in myriad other details. Before Ibegan to direct market the halibut into the freshmarket, the “game” was played out primarily be-tween the fisherman and the local buyer. The ques-tions are pretty much the same—are the halibuttwo days old or are they four days old? Every once

in a while, the local buyer gets stuck with a few10-day-old fish. Then he does the same thing to thewholesaler who, in turn, does the same thing to theretailer. In the end, the consumer ends up with whatsometimes is a very poor fish. The fisherman rare-ly find out about this. Some harvesters really donot care about this type of information. My systemis vertically integrated—we are directly connectedto the marketplace and its end users. I think thatthis is one of the most important lessons the aqua-culture industry has taught us.

Last year, the Pacific Halibut Council held a meet-ing to look at the marketing problems in the Pacif-ic halibut industry. John Forrester, formerly of StoltSeafarm, was present at this meeting. He was talk-ing about our marketing problems and, more specif-ically, about a pivotal problem within the commercialindustry. At the end of his presentation, Forrestersaid, “You guys have to get over your adversarialways. You have to work together instead of alwayspointing your fingers at each other. And you muststart looking at the whole marketing picture.” Atthis point, everyone looked at each other and said,“Adversarial? Not me. We’re fine.” As soon as Johnleft, though, the usual practice of blaming the “other”group or sector for the mounting problems continued.

CONCLUSION

I am happy to report that the International PacificHalibut Commission, the Department of Fisheriesand Oceans Canada, the Province of British Colum-bia, and the fishermen are getting behind this con-cept and are beginning to cooperate. The attitudethat “If I cannot do it, neither will you!” seems tobe fading for the first time. I believe they are ableto see clearly the opportunities made possible bythis new concept. Also for the first time, more thanjust a handful of harvesters thought it would be agood idea to allow fishermen to keep their halibutbycatch during the off-season if they have quotashares for it. In the past, nobody wanted to see oth-ers profit while they could not.

Marketing British Columbia halibut in this man-ner helps everybody by spreading the highest qual-ity product over a longer period of availability. Freshhalibut will no longer be a seasonal product andcan be made available year-round.

It will increase the overall marketability of all hal-ibut product forms throughout the marketplace.Maybe, after the passage of a century, the industryis finally starting to mature.


INTRODUCTION

The product form at landing for Pacific halibut hastraditionally been with gills and entrails removed.This form has been mandated by regulation of theInternational Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC)since 1995. This regulation was introduced to avoidthe quality problems associated with landings ofround fish during the short, intense fisheries of the1990s and to improve the opportunities for IPHCsamplers to obtain otoliths. However, the issue ofproduct form for halibut (e.g., whole, filleted,steaked, etc.) has never been significant for IPHC,rather it has been a market-driven issue. The man-date of IPHC has concerned primarily stock health,productivity, and accurate stock assessments.

Recently, an innovative approach to increasing theadded-value of halibut has been introduced in Brit-ish Columbia. Fish captured legally at sea underprovisions of the normal commercial fishery aretransported live to shore-based holding pens, forsubsequent sale during the closed season for halibutfishing. The intent of the project is to gain a higherunit value through the sale of fresh, wild fish through-out the year. The holding operation permits quali-ty, inventory, and delivery control of greater precisionthan during the regular halibut fishing season.

I would first like to profile the species and its fish-ery and then review some of the implications forhalibut management, should the practice of livelanding become a greater proportion of total hali-but landings. The British Columbia live-fish opera-tion raises a number of issues for IPHC. These issuescan be grouped under the headings of fishing prac-tices, holding practices, and regulatory issues.

FISHERY BACKGROUND

The International Pacific Halibut Commission hasbeen managing the Pacific halibut stock through-out its range since 1923 (Fig. 1). The IPHC was cre-ated at the request of the halibut industry to addressthe problems of resource depletion in the late 1910s.

The present-day fishery is far-removed in characterfrom those of previous times. Prior to 1991 in Canadaand 1995 in the United States, the fishery was reg-ulated primarily by controlling the fishing seasonlength. With the introduction of advanced naviga-tional technology and improved fishing gear in the1980s, the season length for the halibut fishery hadbegun to shrink from several months per year, toonly several days per year. This shortening occurreddespite a steadily increasing stock size in the 1980sand 1990s. In Alaskan waters, by the early 1990s,the season was composed of a series of one-day open-ings, often with limits governed by vessel size. Thefishery in British Columbia was only slightly longer.

These short, derby-style fisheries resulted in tremen-dous quality problems because vessels would set moregear than could be hauled in the 24-hour openings.Many of the harvested fish would not be dressed oriced for up to several days after capture. The move-ment to individual quota (IQ) management pro-grams in the United States and Canada was largelyin response to the quality and manageability prob-lems created by these derby fisheries. The IQ pro-grams allowed harvesters to set their own businessplans and devote more time to fish quality. The sea-son was extended to 245 days, from March 15 to No-vember 15 annually. The fishery is presently in the65-70 million pound range (net weight) and the aver-age fish size in the catch is approximately 25 pounds.

The four-month closure of the fishery creates a gapin the supply of fresh, wild halibut to the market.The live-fish holding project in British Columbia isan attempt to fill this gap, but it raises a number ofconcerns for IPHC.

FISHING PRACTICES

The IPHC expends considerable effort to include allsources of mortality in its stock assessment. Not allfish caught at sea may be suitable for live holdingand delivery to subsequent markets. Markets maypay a premium for fish of specific size ranges, condi-

Resource Management and Environmental IssuesConcerning Live Halibut Landings

Bruce M. LeamanInternational Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, Washington

156 Leaman: Live Halibut Landings

tion, or other features, which could introduce incen-tives to discard fish at sea that did not have appropri-ate characteristics for the markets being served. Ifsuch high-grading occurs at sea and is unrecorded,then an additional source of mortality which maynot be accounted for correctly in the assessment isimposed on the stock. If this unrecorded discardmortality is large, the stock assessment model willnot be capable of differentiating this increased mor-tality from lower recruitment. The net effect on es-timated abundance will be the same, but theinformation used to estimate relationships of stockand recruitment, as well as to project future stockscenarios, will be incorrect. Significant bias betweenthe commercial size limit and the fish retained forlive fish operations may also introduce bias into theestimated selectivity for the commercial fishery.

The scale of the live fish operation in British Colum-bia is presently small (about 1% of the total quota)and the impact of the imperfect data capture or waste-ful fishing operations would be almost undetectablein the stock assessment. However, the principle of re-sponsible fishing operations and accurate data cap-ture remains the same regardless of the scale of suchfishing. Prudent oversight of operations is required.

HOLDING PRACTICES

The practice of holding halibut in pens is still in itsinfancy on the west coast of North America andmuch knowledge of optimal procedures remains tobe acquired. Mortality of fish in holding pens is a

cost to the operator, who has a clear incentive tominimize such mortality. The IPHC’s prime con-cerns about holding practices relate to mortality inpens, potential disease issues, sampling, data in-tegrity, and tracking of fish to the point of sale.

The issues of mortality of Pacific halibut in holdingpens and data integrity are closely linked. In stan-dard landings of halibut, fish are tracked from thevessel to point of initial sale, all fish must be un-loaded from the vessel once unloading begins, andthe totals are recorded on a sales slip and accountedfor in the harvester’s IQ records. If fish are unloadedby the harvester into pens owned by the harvester,then the requirements for documentation may notbe met, since the fish would not yet be sold. A sys-tem of validation for removals and tracking of prod-uct to point of sale is clearly needed to ensure thattotal removals from the resource are accounted for.IPHC suggests that tagging and validation of fishat both input and output of pens would be required.Missing or loose tags would still have the corre-sponding fish counted as removals, and any fish founduntagged would need to be released back to the wild.

Transmission of diseases from pen holding opera-tions to wild fish is a concern for any operation opento the natural environment. The concern does not re-late to new diseases, but rather to the amplificationof existing diseases or parasites within the holdingenvironment. Since the holding of wild halibut in pensis still in its infancy, the time is opportune to estab-lish fish health protocols and the attendant monitor-

Figure 1. International Pacific Halibut Commission regulatory areas.


ing and screening procedures. These protocols arenecessary both to ensure the health of the penned fishand for assessing whether risks to wild stocks exist.

REGULATORY ISSUES

The primary regulatory issues for penned halibutconcern sampling opportunities, monitoring of penthroughput, and validation. IPHC samples random-ly from landings to obtain biological information onthe catch and aging structures for input to the stockassessment process. The aging structures areotoliths that must be taken from the inside of theotic capsules of the halibut skulls. Normally, theintensity of such sampling is on the order of 1-5%of the total quota by area and introduces no con-straint on commercial operations because fish aredead at the time of offloading. In the case of liveoffloads, fish would need to be killed to obtain theotoliths and the sampling would need to occur atinput to the holding pens to preserve randomnessin fish selection for sampling.

The preceding section noted the need for adequatevalidation of halibut throughput in holding pens.Validation of tag numbers and fish at both inputand output can be time-consuming and expensive,particularly for remote locations where validationpersonnel must be transported from some distance.However, the absence of such validation would cre-ate an unacceptable risk to the integrity of the datacapture for these removals. The regulations govern-ing IQ offloading in Canada presently require fullvalidation for each fish, which are subsequentlytagged on the tail for marketing purposes. Offloadsof U.S. IQ halibut must be processed through a reg-istered buyer but are validated only at the level oftotal weight by area. Enforcement staff have ex-pressed concern about the potential problems thatwould be created if holding pens and the associatedregistered buyers were distributed widely through-out Alaska, and fish could be offloaded directly tothese pens. The additional costs of the necessaryvalidation for such operations may introduce neweconomic constraints on the viability of halibut hold-ing in some jurisdictions.

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT

The Pacific halibut is managed jointly by the Unit-ed States and Canada. Regulations passed by theInternational Pacific Halibut Commission at its

annual meeting, and concurred with by the two gov-ernments, are to be incorporated into each coun-try’s domestic regulations. The derby fisheries notedabove created significant quality problems in hali-but because of the often substantial time thatelapsed between capture and processing of the fish.Fish would be brought in, round and un-iced, sim-ply because the vessel crew could not sacrifice thetime required to process, at the expense of less timespent fishing. The regulation requiring dressing offish (i.e., the gills and entrails removed) prior tooffloading was introduced by IPHC, and adoptedby the two countries, largely to address these qual-ity problems, but also to facilitate biological sam-pling by IPHC staff.

The advent of IQ fisheries with their slower paceand extended season, in conjunction with the now-standard process of dressing and icing fish at sea,eliminated the quality problems of the derby fish-eries. The regulation requiring dressing at sea re-mains in both the IPHC and U.S. regulations. Since1999 the Canadian government has explicitly re-jected this IPHC regulation, in order to permit le-gal offloading of live halibut to holding pens. Whilethe issue of live fish offloads is minor and one forwhich adequate validation framework can be de-veloped, IPHC would prefer to avoid having eithercountry reject regulations adopted within the IPHCvenue. Such selective adoption of regulations is nota sound course for a treaty-based organization, sinceit provides a poor precedent for successful imple-mentation of regulations governing more difficultissues. It is therefore highly desirable for the twocountries to resolve the acceptability of live fishholding within IPHC regulations.

SUMMARY

Live holding of Pacific halibut represents an innova-tive approach to increasing the added value of thecatch. Regulatory and international managementissues associated with this initiative should be re-solved, and adequate monitoring and validationprocedures should be implemented before the prac-tice becomes widespread. Long-term risks of hold-ing practices on the environment and interactionwith wild halibut stocks should also be assessed.With adequate measures to safeguard data integ-rity for fisheries management, live holding of hali-but for off-season sales could provide a year-roundsupply of fresh, wild halibut in the marketplace.


INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, fresh Pacific halibut, Hippoglossusstenolepis, is available in the marketplace only ona seasonal basis. During the off-season, a frozenproduct is available in limited supply. As a com-mercial fisherman trying to obtain maximum val-ue for my catch, I set up a project to develop methodsfor producing a consistent premium fresh productyear-round. Halibut were captured by longline dur-ing the annual commercial fishery and transportedin a live hold aboard the harvesting vessel to net-pens for ongrowing and eventual marketing. In thisway, enterprising halibut harvesters will be able toprovide a freshly harvested or live product everyday of the year. The initial market response hasbeen very favorable. We are marketing the fish asSterling Pacific Halibut because, in the aquacul-ture trade, sterling is the best.

THE FISHERY

The vessel used in this project is a 50-foot fiber-glass longliner, the Triple M II (Fig. 1). This vesselwas built by our family in the 1960s. She was thesecond freezer boat on the coast and was convertedfor live holding in 1999. The live holding systemconsists of an 18 cubic meter tank equipped with atitanium chiller and an oxygen injection system. Wefound that this system could hold about 6,000pounds of live fish. Over typical holding periods,mortalities could be kept at about 2%.

Harvesting trips are usually one to two days long.We fish within close proximity of the pens, some-where between one to six hours travel time. Theonly modification to our normal longline gear is theuse of barbless hooks. This makes for easy removalof the hook and, therefore, less damage and stressto the fish. We fished anywhere from 25 fathoms to150 fathoms in depth. It is interesting to note thatat shallower depths the fish were so lively that theywere too hard to handle. Consequently, it workedout better to place fishing gear at deeper depthsand harvest fish that were partially in shock. There

did not appear to be any long-term ill effects asso-ciated with harvesting halibut from deeper depths.

The gear is soaked or fished for about two to fourhours. This is enough time to get a sufficient numberof fish on the hooks while minimizing their capturetime and exposure to sea lice. We found that up toabout two-meter seas were tolerable for the fish—any more than that and our mortalities would risesubstantially.

When we begin hauling the longline, the first job isto record the bottom temperature with a tempera-ture probe snapped to the groundline. This temper-ature is programmed into the refrigerated seawater(RSW) computer that controls water temperaturein the vessel holding system. We keep the tempera-ture in the hold at 0.5°C lower than that of the bot-tom water to calm the fish.

As the fish come aboard, they are placed on the ex-amining table where the hook is removed and anyadhering sea lice are rinsed off. The halibut are thenmeasured and examined for injuries (Fig. 2). Thelength measurement is taken to determine if the fishis of legal size (32 inches/82 cm minimum) and to

Sterling Pacific Halibut: A New Approach

Kim MauriksDorcas Point Farms Inc., Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, Canada

Figure 1. The vessel used in this project is a 50-foot fiber-glass longliner, the Triple M II.

160 Mauriks: Sterling Pacific Halibut

determine the weight using length-weight tables.In this way, we calculate the amount of product soas to not overload the hold. The fish are then gentlyplaced in the vessel holding tank.

OFFLOADING PROCEDURE

When we offload the halibut, the water in the holdis pumped down to about a three-foot depth so thecrew can work properly. The fish are gently placedinto a wet brailer in lots of about 10 fish or 250pounds. This varies with the size of the fish. Largefish are lifted on their own so as not to harm thesmaller ones. The brailer is of web design and isprovided with a vinyl liner. This liner has a regularpattern of slots to allow water drainage. Ideally, wewould like to retain the water around the halibut,but the quota validation system requires a weightmeasurement for management of the halibut fishery.

Once the weight is recorded, the fish are placed ina sorting tank (Fig. 3) where they are sorted forbest use. Each fish is tagged with its own numberso it can be followed through the holding and mar-keting process.

The fish are sorted into three groups:

1. The first group is intended for long-term rear-ing and later marketing. These fish must be in-perfect shape, with clear eyes, normal skin col-oration, and no significant injuries.

2. The second group is selected for placement in anacclimation-harvest pen. These fish have visi-

ble signs of stress or an injury. We harvest fromthis pen on a weekly basis and market the fishthat we feel are not suitable for long-term rear-ing. The fish that have recovered from the stressassociated with capture are then transferred toone of the long-term holding pens.

3. The third group is selected for immediate har-vest. These are fish that we feel will not surviveuntil the next scheduled harvest.

ONGROWING

The pen site we are using is in Quatsino Sound atthe northwestern tip of Vancouver Island, BritishColumbia. The sound is sufficiently protected toallow for year-round live holding and off-seasonharvesting. We use four 15 m × 15 m × 20 m deepsalmon pens that have been altered with a polyeth-ylene frame to provide them with a flat bottom. Thewater temperatures at 20 m ranges between 8 and12°C and the dissolved oxygen (DO) readings rangefrom 6 to 10 ppm.

The fish are monitored daily with an underwatervideo camera to observe feeding and record the gen-eral condition of the fish. Divers are sent down reg-ularly to remove any mortalities and inspect theintegrity of the pens. This year we suffered an 8%loss due to mortality. We feel this mortality levelwas largely the result of two factors:

1. Inadequate feeding.

2. The external parasite (Entobdella hippoglossi).

Figure 2. As the fish come aboard they are examined for in-juries.

Figure 3. The fish are placed in a sorting tank.


The live held halibut are fed a ration of speciallyformulated pellets. Since our fish are large and notaccustomed to eating pellets, the Norwegian-stylepellets did not work very well. We found that ourfish prefer a large moist feed, such as chunks ofsalmon or squid. We were told that this response isnormal and that the fish would eventually changeover to the pellet diet. However, this changeoverperiod proved to be unacceptable because the lossof growth potential is too great and the fish get in aweakened state that leads to other problems. There-fore, we will be experimenting with different feedtypes this year to maximize feeding response. Weobserved a very good response with a sausage-stylefeed and will develop it further this year.

Because of the above-mentioned diet problem, thehalibut did not achieve any net gain in weight. Thelongest period some of the fish were held was 10months. Some fish were obviously very well fed, butthe majority were underfed. We ended up with a2.8% net weight loss—the loss due to mortality wasgreater than our growth. We were not able to gen-erate this figure until the pens were completelyempty in March 2000. Another problem surfaced atthis time. Unfortunately, the fish bit off the growth-monitoring identification tags from each other. Thetags were more appealing than the pellets.

Because the fish were in a stressed state from cap-ture and weak because of the lack of proper feed,they were more susceptible to parasites. Entobdel-la hippoglossi is a monogenean skin parasite thatis present on the fish when they are captured. Withthe higher holding densities and higher water tem-peratures in the pens, the parasite has ideal grow-ing and transmission conditions. In Norway,infestations of this parasite have resulted in loss ofappetite and mortality. Our experience this yearseems to confirm this. Feeding behavior and para-site infestation are closely linked. Improvements ineither area will help overall. This coming seasonwe will treat the fish for the parasite onboard be-fore they are placed in the pens, thereby minimiz-ing the introduction of the parasite into the holdingsystem. We experimented this year with freshwa-ter baths and were very encouraged by the results.

In addition to parasite and water temperature prob-lems, our holding site is also subject to occasionalharmful algal blooms. British Columbia is subjectto these plankton blooms from late July to the mid-dle of September. During the blooms, the halibutfaired quite well in comparison to the salmon at anearby farm. The salmon farm suffered consider-

able losses, while the halibut merely lost their ap-petites with very little immediate mortality. Howev-er, this also contributed to the feeding problem,which seems to be at the center of all our concerns.

HARVESTING

Being able to harvest halibut in order to take bestadvantage of market demand is what this projectis all about. Presently we are removing between2,500 to 5,000 pounds of halibut during each har-vest. The bottom of the pen is raised to the surfaceto facilitate the removal of the fish and then low-ered until the next harvest (Fig. 4). The fish arebrailed into a stun tank containing slush and car-bon dioxide, held there for about 5 minutes, andthen bled. These processing steps are all containedwithin the hull of the transport vessel. The fish arethen shipped in slush totes to the processing plantby ship and truck. The trip requires a total elapsedtime of about 3 hours.

The key to our live inventory project is our abilityto supply our customers with consistently high qual-ity product throughout the year. This coming yearwe will explore the possibility of marketing theproduct live—i.e., transporting live fish directly toa final customer. So far, we have not had any re-quests for live halibut for the restaurant market.However, we have been approached by internationalaquarium wholesalers in need of live fish for dis-play purposes.

Figure 4. The bottom of the pen is raised to the surface tofacilitate the removal of the fish and then lowered until thenext harvest.

162 Mauriks: Sterling Pacific Halibut

CONCLUSION

The market cannot get enough of our product. How-ever, before we can increase production to meet thisdemand we must be confident of our husbandrypractices for maintaining the stock in the pens.Everything hinges on our ability to reduce the eco-nomic risk to an acceptable level by improving thesehusbandry techniques. Until we can count on a cer-tain level of weight gain, we will be unable to makethe infrastructure investments needed to increaseour production. In order for the concept to be via-ble, growth must accompany the greater market-ability. We are optimistic about our prospects.


INTRODUCTION

The total number of fish in California’s nearshorearea is unknown. Therefore, fishery managers do notknow how many fish can be safely harvested. Recenttrends involving reduced landings strongly suggestresource overexploitation. Both commercial and rec-reational fisheries are utilizing this resource. Com-mercial and recreational fishers as well as resourcemanagers agree that the harvest needs to be reducedto a sustainable level. However, no agreement hasbeen reached on how to go about accomplishing thisgoal, nor on how the resource should be allocatedamong users.

Historically, commercial use of these nearshore re-sources has been minimal. Many commercial hook-and-line fishers who traditionally fished offshorehave now switched to the more valuable nearshorelive-fish fishery. This movement has been broughtabout by the more restrictive trip limits and quo-tas (Appendix 1) imposed by the Pacific FisheryManagement Council (PFMC) and the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the sig-nificantly higher price paid per pound for live fish.

Currently, the nearshore fishery is managed by boththe CDFG and the PFMC. Groups concerned aboutthis fishery include sport fishing organizations,environmental groups, commercial passenger fish-ing vessel operators, recreational fishers, other re-source users, managers, and the CaliforniaLegislature. The intensity of fishing on the near-shore fishery stocks and concerns about the sus-tainability of these stocks have led to the passageof the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 (MLMA)and the Nearshore Fisheries Management Act of1998 (NFMA). Both legislative acts significantly andfundamentally change the way California’s marineresources are managed by transferring manage-ment authority for nearshore fisheries from the statelegislature to the Fish and Game Commission (FGC).

The MLMA mandates that scientifically based fish-eries management plans be used to manage Cali-

fornia’s fisheries. Long term sustainability is thegoal of these plans. The CDFG is currently in the pro-cess of developing a nearshore fishery managementplan with input from various user groups. Resourceusers providing input include members of the sportand commercial fishing industries, aquaculture in-dustries, coastal and ocean tourism and recreationindustries, marine conservation organizations, lo-cal governments, marine scientists, and the public.

The commercial nearshore live/premium fish fisherybegan in California in the mid-1980s and has in-creased substantially over the years. The fisheryoccurs over rocky habitat from the intertidal zoneout to about 15 fathoms. In 1998, nearshore fishlandings totaled 670 metric tons (417 tons in theform of live product) with an ex-vessel value of $3.3million ($2.7 million for live product). The poten-tially high profit and low overhead of this uniquefishery have caused a tremendous increase in thenumber of fishers—from 76 in 1989 to over 1,000in 1999. All agree that there are too many fishersin the nearshore fishery, but again, cannot agree onhow to reduce the numbers.

Several factors make it difficult for resource man-agers to monitor and collect biological samples fromthis nontraditional fishery. These include the largenumber of participants; numerous landings andlanding sites; the time constraints imposed by theneed to deliver live fish to the ultimate consumeras quickly as possible; language and cultural barri-ers; and uncooperative fishers and buyers. The in-dustry needs to join resource managers in findingsolutions. In short, the industry needs to be activein the management process.

Fishers need to become more conscientious stew-ards of the resource by staying within quotas andobserving size and catch restrictions. This includesthe returning of sublegal fish after proper hook re-moval and careful swim bladder deflation. The in-dustry needs to promote and encourage conservationamong fishers, buyers, and retailers in order for

Resource Management Issues in California’s CommercialNearshore Live/Premium Finfish Fishery

Christine PattisonCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Morro Bay, California

164 Pattison: Management of California’s Live/Premium Finfish Fishery

management plans to succeed. It is crucial that in-dustry cooperate with biologists collecting fisherydata. Biologists need accurate and reliable infor-mation to develop effective fishery managementplans. With little biological knowledge, resourcemanagers must take a more conservative approachand use more restrictive measures to manage theresource.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFCALIFORNIA’S COMMERCIAL

NEARSHORE FISHERY

There is considerable concern for the status of Cal-ifornia’s nearshore fish stocks and the impact thatthe commercial live/premium fishery is having onthese stocks. We do not know how many fish are inthe nearshore environment, how many fish larvaeare produced, or how many fish are ultimately re-cruited into the fishery. Certain types of fish mor-tality or removal, such as undocumented landings,mortalities as a result of catch and release fishing,natural mortalities (e.g., predation), and naturalweather events, such as El Niño, have not beenquantified. We also do not know the extent of mor-talities due to loss of habitat (filling in of estuar-ies), habitat degradation, water quality changes,temperature changes, and pollution (e.g., runofffrom urban areas). Due to the lack of knowledgeregarding populations in the nearshore environ-ment, resource managers must take a precaution-ary approach in setting allowable harvest levels.

The management goal is to establish a maximumsustainable yield (MSY), which is defined as thehighest average yield over time that does not resultin a continuing reduction in stock abundance. MSYtakes into account fluctuations in abundance andenvironmental variability. Some of the basic fish-ery management tools used to achieve MSY include:

1. Limiting the harvest by quotas and size limits.

2. Limiting fishing efficiency by gear restrictions.

3. Limiting fishing effort by restricting number offishers, areas open to the fishery, fishing timeor season (Appendix 1).

The MLMA mandates the development of a near-shore fishery management plan by September 1,2002, and provides for the FGC to adopt regula-tions implementing the plan. The FGC may alsoadopt interim management measures to regulatethe take of nearshore fish stocks until a fisherymanagement plan is adopted. Currently, the FGC

is developing a restricted access (limited entry) pro-gram for the California nearshore fishery with aproposed control date between May 1, 1999 andDecember 31, 1999. It is also proposing a moratori-um on the issuance of new Nearshore Fishery Per-mits after May 15, 2000. Regulations adopted bythe commission may include, but are not limitedto, establishing restricted access areas, requiringsubmittal of landing and permit information includ-ing logbooks, and regulating fishing seasons, areas,and gear. Interim harvest guidelines for individualfish species or species groups may also be established.

The MLMA established commercial size limits forten nearshore species. Nearshore species were de-fined in the NFMA as:

• Rockfish (Sebastes).

• California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher).

• Greenlings (Hexagrammos).

• Cabezon (Scopaenichthys marmoratus).

• California scorpionfish (Scorpaena guttata).

• Other fish species found primarily in rocky reefor kelp habitat in nearshore waters may also beincluded.

The MLMA requires that all commercial fishingvessels be registered and requires the possessionof a Nearshore Fishery Permit to take, possess, orland any of the ten nearshore species. In addition,federal regulations require that groundfish speciesfor which there is a size limit must be sorted priorto weighing. This weight must be reported sepa-rately on the CDFG receipt (Appendix 1). All of theseregulations are important management steps that,if enforced statewide, will help fishery biologistsquantify landings and more accurately estimate, byspecies, the number and pounds of fish being re-moved from the nearshore ecosystem.

If any regulations are to be effective in protectingthe nearshore fishes, it is essential that fishers andbuyers be well informed about the following:

1. Concept of sustainable fisheries.

2. Identification of species.

3. Importance of size limits.

4. Importance of allowing more fish to reproducebefore being harvested.

5. The basic biology of the nearshore fishes, espe-cially the rockfishes, which are slow-growing,long-lived, and residential, and have irregular re-cruitment patterns.


Another critical element in the management of near-shore fish is rigorous enforcement of regulations andthe verification of species composition in marketcategories with market sampling.

Recommendations for additional management mea-sures:

1. Change the California Fish and Game Code frompermissive to restrictive (e.g., nothing can beharvested unless it is specifically permitted).

2. Establish legal minimum size limit for brownrockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) of 12 inches TL.Sample length data from Morro Bay port com-plex for 1993 through 1998 indicates that 38%of the sampled fish were below 12 inches TL.Twelve inches is the length at which 50% of thefemales are mature. California Assembly Bill1241 (California Assemblyman F. Keeley) in-cluded a legal minimum size limit of 12 inchesTL for brown rockfish. However, California Sen-ate Bill 1336 (California Senator M. Thompson)listed legal minimum size limits for the nearshore with the exception of the brown rockfish.Due to the order in which the bills were signedby then Governor Pete Wilson, Senate Bill 1336(California Senator M. Thompson), which didnot include a minimum size limit for brown rock-fish, took precedent over Assembly Bill 1241 listthat included the brown rockfish.

3. Restrict commercial fishing gear to rod-and-reelin designated nearshore areas around major rec-reational ports. This will reduce the amount ofcommercial fishing effort in areas most frequent-ed by recreational fishers.

4. Encourage fishers to use voluntary logbooks.Logbooks would provide biologists with crucialinformation on effort, gear, fishing location, spe-cies, and bycatch. This information is neededto describe and understand the nearshore fish-ery. Biologists theorize that as areas geograph-ically close to ports are overfished, fishers movefarther from ports into more remote areas and/or increase fishing effort to maintain catch levels.Information from logbooks would answer thesequestions.

CALIFORNIA’S COMMERCIAL

NEARSHORE FISHERY

Preliminary 1998 commercial landings of nearshorelive/premium fishes reported on CDFG market re-ceipts were 670 tons (417 tons live) with an ex-vessel

value of $3.3 million ($2.7 million live) (Table 1).The number of documented landings is approxi-mately 40,000 annually. The number of undocu-mented landings is unknown, but it is suspected tobe quite substantial. There are 1,200 miles of coast-line in California, with nine major port complexeswith a total of 110 other ports, and hundreds of ad-ditional locations where fish can be landed (launchramps, boat slips, docks, piers, beaches, etc).

The principal goal of this nontraditional fishery isto deliver the fish, live and in a good condition, tothe ultimate consumer in as timely a manner aspossible. Trucks or vans equipped with aerated tanksare used to transport fish directly to fish markets,restaurants, and individuals. Many fishers deliverand sell their own catch. All these elements havecomplicated the required documentation of landings.

Ex-vessel prices ranged from $0.20 to $12.00 perpound, with an average price of $2.50 per pound.Prices vary with the species, condition, and size ofthe fish. Many fish do not survive the rigors of cap-ture and transport and are sold dead, often at great-ly reduced prices. Because of their decreased value,dead fish that were intended for the live-fish mar-ket may be discarded at sea, used as bait, discard-ed at the dock, sold to another market, given away,or taken home for personal use. These fish may notbe reported on a landing receipt. Under currentrestrictive quotas, fishers cannot economically af-ford to have dead fish counted against their quota.Consequently, the tendency is for only the highpriced live fish to be recorded on the receipt.

This fishery has increased substantially since 1988and continues to supply California’s Asian commu-nities with live and premium quality fishes. Priorto 1988, the price per pound for line-caught rockfishranged from $0.50 to $1.50. The impetus of this fish-ery is the unprecedented high price paid for live fish.

Another driving force behind the development ofthis fishery is the modest capital investment re-quired to enter it. Vessels of the nearshore fisheryrange in size from 8 ft (kayak) to 67 ft. The pre-dominate vessel is a 14-20 foot light aluminum skiffwith an outboard engine. Larger vessels may serveas mother ships for several smaller skiffs. Somefishers rent or borrow vessels while others fish fromshore. Before 1999, many kayaks and smaller boatswere not registered with CDFG as commercial ves-sels. When landing records were summarized, un-registered boats were not distinguishable from oneanother. A further complication was that some fish-


ers used more than one boat during the calendaryear. Fishers used multiple boats due to the factthat quota limits were placed on the boat rather thanfisher. The use of additional vessels is also due to boatdamage caused by fishing near the rocky shoreline.

In 1998, 802 fishers made at least one landing ofnearshore fishes. However, the most active partici-pants (landings of at least 500 kg during the year)numbered only 237 (Table 2). These active fisherslanded 90% of the total statewide landings.

Nearshore fishes were caught with a variety of geartypes including hook-and-line, trap, and net, as wellas by divers. Hook-and-line gear was the reportedmethod for 72% of statewide landings (Table 3).Hook-and-line gear included rod-and-reel; horizon-tal and vertical set lines; pipes (sticks) consisting ofshort (4-8 ft) sections of PVC pipe (rebar or cable)with up to 15 (typically 5) hooked leaders attached;and groundfish troll lines. Pipes are generally bait-ed with frozen squid and fished (soaked) for 1-2hours depending on how much gear is being used.Baited traps are often soaked for 24-48 hours. Fish-ers traveled farther from their home ports and ex-plored more remote fishing grounds as the demand

for live/premium fishes continued and the resourc-es close to ports declined.

The nearshore fishery occurs year-round, but month-ly landings are highly variable due to weather. Be-cause the fishery occurs from the intertidal zone outto about 15 fathoms, but primarily less than 5 fath-oms, it is very dependent upon good weather andocean conditions that allow fishing close to the rockyshoreline.

California began sampling the commercial live/pre-mium fishery in 1993. When fish are offloaded atmarkets, biologists collect information on species,length, and weight. Live fish landings were not iden-tified as live in the landing records until 1994. Fishlandings are recorded by market categories, not in-dividual species. This is an important consideration-when attempting to describe landings by species. Amajor goal of market sampling is to determine thespecies composition of the different market catego-ries. From the combination of sample data and land-ing data, estimates are made of total pounds landedby species. Species composition along with lengthand weight information is used to monitor the fish-ery over time. Unfortunately, in many ports, biolo-

Table 1. Annual landings in metric tons of top ten nearshore finfishes in Califor- nia in 1998.a

Northern Central Southern California California California California

Market category t Value ($1,000s) t t t

Cabezon 152 1,067 31 121 <1Black rockfish 84 103 66 18 <1Gopher rockfish groupb 67 395 4 63 <1Bolina rockfish groupc 62 270 3 59 <1California sheephead 56 341 <1 1 55California scorpionfish 45 168 0 <1 45Blue rockfish 41 56 21 20 <1Grass rockfish 35 369 5 31 0Lingcodd 29 79 8 22 <1Copper rockfish 22 60 15 6 <1Subtotal 593 2,908 151 342 101Other fishes 77 341 22 38 13Total 670 3,249 175 381 114

a Preliminary 1998 CDFG market receipt landing data.b Includes market category gopher rockfish.c Includes market category brown rockfish.d Only live landings. Landings January-July 1998.


gists are unable to sample live fish landings becauseof time constraints, uncooperative fishermen andbuyers, and cultural and language barriers.

Landings are reported in market categories thatinclude specific (e.g., “cabezon”) and nonspecific(e.g., “small rockfish”) categories. Markets typical-ly buy fish in groups based on value, not species. In1998, CDFG sampling of market categories indi-cated that specific categories might contain fromone to seven species while nonspecific categoriesmay contain from three to twelve species. For ex-ample, market sampling in Morro Bay found thespecies composition of the market category desig-nated as cabezon to include cabezon, grass rockfish(Sebastes rastrelliger), kelp greenling (Hexagram-mos decagrammus), and copper rockfish (Sebastescaurinus).

Approximately one hundred different market cate-gories of marine fishes were documented as landedlive in 1998. Only twenty-nine categories areincluded here: eighteen rockfish, five target-ed species, and six incidental categories.Four categories (red, unspecified, small rock-fish groups, and lingcod, Ophiodon elonga-tus) included both nearshore and offshorecatches. Only live fish were included fromthese four categories.

Landings of cabezon, black rockfish (Sebastesmelanops), gopher rockfish (Sebastes carna-tus) group, bolina rockfish group, Californiasheephead, and California scorpionfish cate-gories dominated the harvest with 466 tons(304 tons live). These groups comprise 70%of statewide landings, and have an ex-ves-sel value of $2.3 million ($2.0 million live)(Table 1).

The regional distribution of the California fisheryis as follows:

1. Northern California

• Including the port complexes of Eureka andFort Bragg.

• Landings totaled 175 tons (61 tons live).

• Produced 26% of statewide landings, with anex-vessel value of $550,000 ($374,000 live).

• Landings were dominated by black rockfish,cabezon, blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus),copper rockfish, lingcod, China rockfish (Se-bastes nebulosus), and vermilion rockfish (Se-bastes miniatus) categories which accountedfor 82% of the area’s landings.

• Line gear caught 97% of the landings.

2. Central California

• Including the port complexes of Bodega Bay,San Francisco, Monterey Bay, and Morro Bay

Table 2. Number of fishers landing nearshore finfishes in 1998.a

Northern Central SouthernNumber of fishers California California California California

< 50 kg (<110 lb) 323 58 198 8050 to <500 kg (110 to <1,105 lb) 341 71 182 93500 to <5,000 kg (1105 to <11,050 lb) 206 56 113 38>5,000 kg (>11,050 lb) 31 8 19 4Total 901 193 512 215

aPreliminary 1998 CDFG market receipt landing data.Note: Some fishers operate in more than one area.

Table 3. Percentage of annual landings of nearshore finfishes by gear type in 1998.a

Gear Northern Central Southern type California California California California

Line 72 97 80 34Trap 22 <1 18 45Netb 3 2 2 15Dive <1 0 0 5Other <1 <1 <1 1

aPreliminary 1998 CDFG market receipt landing data.bIncludes trawl and other net types.Note: Some fishers may use more than one gear type during a trip


• Landings totaled 380 tons (280 tons live)

• Produced 57% of statewide landings, with anex-vessel value of $2.2 million ($1.9 millionlive)

• Central California landings were dominatedby cabezon, gopher rockfish group, bolina rock-fish group, grass rockfish, lingcod, and bluerockfish categories, which accounted for 83%of the area’s landings (Table 1).

• In terms of statewide statistics, the port ofMorro Bay was number one in both landings(131 tons, 20% of total) and ex-vessel value($973,000, 30% of total).

• Line gear caught 80% of the landings followedby trap gear at 18%.

3. Southern California

• Including the port complexes of Santa Barbara,Los Angeles, and San Diego.

• Landings totaled 114 tons (75 tons live).

• Produced 17% of statewide landings, with anex-vessel value of $548,000 ($423,000 live).

• Landings were dominated by California sheep-head, California scorpionfish, kelp greenling,and leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata) cat-egories, which accounted for 95% of the area’slandings Table 1.

• Trap gear caught 45% of the landings followedby line gear at 34% and net at 15%.

CONCLUSIONS

There are concerns about the status of the near-shore fish populations and a lack of knowledge about

stock identification, abundance, and recruitment.Because of these issues, conservative approaches tointerim management with substantially lower har-vest levels are required. Currently, resource man-agers are compelled to severely limit individualfishers to reduce the harvest in the nearshore fishfishery. In addition to state regulations, federalgroundfish regulations apply to most of the speciestargeted in the nearshore fishery.

In 1999, more restrictive harvest levels began im-pacting the nearshore fishers. In 2000, severe cutswere made in the rockfish and lingcod allowablecatch levels. Both the commercial and recreationalfisheries have closed periods (Appendix 1). ThePFMC asked the governors of Washington, Oregon,and California to declare a state of disaster in thecommercial groundfish fisheries. Such a proclama-tion could lead to federal disaster relief assistancepursuant to the provisions of the Magnuson Act. Oneof the main problems is excess fishing capacity. TheFGC is currently considering several interim man-agement measures, one of which is restricting ac-cess through a limited entry program.

As a biologist, my goal is to have a long-term sus-tainable harvest in both the commercial and recre-ational nearshore fisheries. I hope that is the goalof the industry, as well, and that scientists, resourcemanagers, industry, and other groups can work to-gether to achieve a healthy and sustainable near-shore fishery.


APPENDIX 1.SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS

AFFECTING THE NEARSHORE FISHERY

The groundfish fishery within state waters (0 to 3nautical miles) is managed by the California De-partment of Fish and Game (CDFG) and in federalwaters (3 to 200 nautical miles) by the NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through recom-mendations made by the Pacific Fishery Manage-ment Council (PFMC). California adopts federalgroundfish regulations. The Sebastes complex (rock-fish), cabezon, greenlings, lingcod, and Californiascorpionfish are all considered groundfish. Both thestate and federal regulations apply to vessels fish-ing and landing fish in California. In addition, fed-eral regulations require that groundfish species forwhich there is a trip limit, size limit, or optimumyield must be sorted prior to weighing and theweight reported separately on the CDFG landingreceipt. Open access fishery applies to vessels fish-ing without a Federal limited entry permit or per-mitted vessels using non-endorsement gear. TheCommercial Fishery Harvest Guidelines are allo-cated between the Open Access Fishery and Limit-ed Entry Fishery. The majority of nearshore fishesare harvested by line and trap gear in the open ac-cess fishery. Details of regulations are printed inthe California Fish and Game Code and the Feder-al Register. To avoid repetition, if restrictions re-mained the same next year they are not listed inthe following year. Only when restrictions changedare they listed.

19941. Federal. Effective January 1, 1994. Commer-

cial Open Access Fishery: Limited to no morethan 10,000 pounds of rockfish per trip and nomore than 40,000 pounds per calendar monthper vessel.


cial Open Access Fishery: Limited to 20,000pounds of lingcod during any calendar monthper vessel. Minimum size for lingcod is 22 inchestotal length (TL).

19963. State. Effective January 1, 1996. Commercial:

Set lines limited to not more than 15 hooks per

line and no more than 150 hooks per vessel inwaters within one nautical mile of the main landshore.

19974. Federal. Effective October 1, 1997. Commer-

cial Open Access Fishery: Limited to 15,000pounds of lingcod during any calendar monthper vessel.


cial Open Access Fishery: Limited to 1,000pounds of lingcod during any two-month fishing period per vessel. Minimum size for lingcodis 24 inches TL.

6. Federal. Effective July 1, 1998. CommercialOpen Access Fishery: Limited to no more than10,000 pounds of rockfish per trip and 33,000pounds per month per vessel.

7. Federal. Effective July 1, 1998. CommercialOpen Access Fishery: Limited to 250 poundsof lingcod per month per vessel.

8. Federal. Effective August 1, 1998. Commer-cial Open Access Fishery: Lingcod may notbe taken, retained, possessed, or landed.

9. Federal. Effective September 1, 1998. Com-mercial Open Access Fishery: Limited to nomore than 33,000 pounds of rockfish.

10. Federal. Effective October 1, 1998. CommercialOpen Access Fishery: Area north of 42°50′N(Cape Blanco) closed to take of rockfish. Areasouth of 42°50′N (Cape Blanco) limited to no morethan 10,000 pounds of rockfish per trip and 33,000pounds per month per vessel.


cial Open Access Fishery: Area north of 40°30′N(Cape Mendocino) limited to no more than 3,600pounds of rockfish per month per vessel. Areasouth of 40°30'N (Cape Mendocino) limited tono more than 2,000 pounds of rockfish per monthper vessel.

12. State. Effective January 1, 1999. Commercial:Minimum size limits for the following nearshorespecies: black-and-yellow rockfish (Sebastes chry-somelas) 10 inches TL, cabezon (Scopaenichthys


marmoratus) 14 inches TL, greenlings (genusHexagrammos) 12 inches TL, California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) 12 inches TL,Chinarockfish (Sebastes nebulosus) 12 inches TL, go-pher rockfish (Sebastes carnatus) 10 inches TL,grass rockfish (Sebastes rastrelliger) 12 inchesTL, kelp rockfish (Sebastes atrovirens) 10 inchesTL, and the California scorpionfish (Scorpaenaguttata) 10 inches TL. Possession of a NearshoreFishery Permit is required to take, possess, orland any of the above mentioned ten species.Limits finfish traps to 50 traps per permitteeand requires trap doors to be secured open atnight. Requires all commercial fishing vesselsto be commercially registered.

13. Federal. Effective April 1, 1999. CommercialOpen Access Fishery: Area north of 40°30′N(Cape Mendocino) limited to no more than 12,000pounds of rockfish per month per vessel.

14. Federal. Effective April 1, 1999. CommercialOpen Access Fishery: Limited to 250 poundsof lingcod per month per vessel. Open season:April 1–November 30 only.

15. Federal. Effective October 1, 1999. CommercialOpen Access Fishery: Area south of 40°30′N(Cape Mendocino) limited to no more than 500pounds of rockfish per month per vessel.

16. Federal. Effective October 1, 1999. Commer-cial Open Access Fishery: No lingcod maybe retained or landed.


cial: Rockfishes grouped into assemblages ofNearshore, Shelf, and Slope for managementpurposes.

18. Federal. Effective January 1, 2000. Commer-cial Open Access Fishery: Area south of 36°N(near Lopez Point) closed January through Feb-ruary to the commercial take or possession ofnearshore rockfish. Area north of 36°N (nearLopez Point) north to 40°10′N (near Cape Men-docino) closed March through April to the com-mercial take or possession of nearshore rockfish.

19. Federal. Effective January 1, 2000. Commer-cial Open Access Fishery: No more than 550pounds of nearshore rockfish may be landed dur-ing any 2-month cumulative period south of40°10′N (near Cape Mendocino). No more than1,000 pounds of rockfish may be landed duringthe 2-month cumulative periods north of 40°10′N(near Cape Mendocino).

20. Federal. Effective January 1, 2000. Commer-cial Open Access Fishery: No retention oflingcod.

21. State. Effective January 1, 2000. Recreation-al: Area south of 36°N (near Lopez Point) closedJanuary through February to the take or pos-session of nearshore and shelf rockfish. Areanorth of 36°N (near Lopez Point) to 40°10′N (nearCape Mendocino) closed March through Aprilto the recreational take or possession of nearshore and shelf rockfish and lingcod. Rockfishbag limit of 10 fish. Minimum size limits for thefollowing nearshore species: cabezon 14 inchesTL, greenlings 12 inches TL, California scorpi-onfish 10 inches TL, and lingcod 26 inches TL.


ABSTRACT

Wild stocks of fish are of great value to British Co-lumbia. To protect these stocks, both federal andprovincial agencies have developed regulations tominimize potential impacts associated with theimportation and transfer of aquatic species. Importregulations for finfish, mollusks, and crustaceansdestined for human consumption, ornamental trade,research and bioassays, and aquaculture are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

Current consumer interest and good shipping meth-ods allow live aquatic species to be shipped globally,often into new areas. This has aided the formation ofnew industries associated with these transfers andhas led to the availability of new species in the foodmarket and aquarium trade. However, such activi-ties need to be controlled to minimize negative en-vironmental impacts on fish stocks in the receivingarea. Many species are destined for strict contain-ment (for human consumption or aquarium use),never to be released into natural fish habitat. Othersare shipped to be used for aquaculture where theymay be held in strict containment. Or they may beintroduced directly to open waters, for instance beachculture of oysters or bait fish.

While levels of risk to fish habitat and organismsin that habitat vary with the introduced species andthe destination, all transfers have the potential tohave some impact in the receiving area. In somecases, it may not be the release of the purposelyintroduced species that is deleterious to native spe-cies, but rather the inadvertent release of diseaseagents or accompanying nuisance species.

To protect native species, importations of live fishinto British Columbia and transfers within the prov-ince are controlled through the federal FisheriesAct, through provincial regulations under the Wild-life Act, and under the Aquaculture Regulations.In addition, species imported for human consump-

tion are under the jurisdiction of the Fish InspectionAct administered by the Canadian Food InspectionAgency (CFIA) to address concerns for human health.

REGULATORY CONTROL

The Fishery (General) Regulations under the Ca-nadian Fisheries Act outline the license requirementsfor the release of fish into fish rearing facilities andinto fish habitat (Table 1). In addition, the FisheriesAct contains the Pacific Fishery Regulations, 1993,which include a section on the prohibition of cer-tain species from import into British Columbia (Ta-ble 2). All shipments of live salmonids must complywith the Fish Health Protection Regulations regard-less of the use of the fish (human consumption,aquaculture, etc.). These regulations are describedin more detail in the section on aquaculture below.A section of the Provincial Wildlife Act, specificallyBritish Columbia Reg. 261/83, applies to freshwa-ter finfish moved within the Province (Table 3). Also,the pertinent appendices of the Convention of In-ternational Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)Regulations apply to the importation of live fish intoBritish Columbia. Fish imported live for human con-sumption must meet the conditions of the Fish In-spection Act.

HUMAN CONSUMPTION

All fish imported for human consumption must fol-low the Fish Inspection Act of the CFIA to ensurewholesomeness. In addition, certain species listedunder Section 5 of the Pacific Fishery Regulations,1993, are prohibited from import. Under special con-ditions, these species may be licensed if a risk as-sessment carried out on the proposed importationindicates that conditions of risk mitigation can re-duce the risk to native stocks to an acceptable level.For instance tilapia imports will only be licensed ifthe fish come from a fish-health inspected facility,where no salmonid fish are present in the watersupply, and only if the effluent water at the receiving

Shipping Live Fish into British Columbia, Canada:Basic Regulatory Requirements

Dorothee KieserDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada

172 Kieser: Shipping Live Fish into B.C.

site is discharged into the municipal sewage system.These conditions are in place to minimize the poten-tial transfer of fish disease agents to local stocks, es-pecially salmonids, and to reduce the likelihood oftilapia entering British Columbia fish habitat.

If the finfish (other than salmonids) and inverte-brate species are destined strictly for human con-sumption and are not listed in Table 2, they need tomeet only the criteria set by CFIA to ensure thereare no human health concerns. Examples of suchtransfers are the importation of live rockfish, geo-duck, clams, mussels, and crabs. However, import-ers must keep in mind that the transfer of such fishand shellfish into fish habitat or fish rearing facil-ities is illegal. Companies wishing to import anylive species for human consumption should contactthe closest CFIA office for licensing requirements.

Live salmon, trout, char, and all other fish of thefamily Salmonidae may only be imported into Can-ada (or from one province to another) if an importpermit has been obtained from a Local Fish HealthOfficer (LFHO) in the Region into which the fish willbe shipped. Lists of contact addresses for LFHOsin different regions are available from the author.

For more details on the salmonid import require-ments, see the section on Aquaculture below.

ORNAMENTAL TRADE

Similar to the requirements in effect for fish import-ed for human consumption, the fish species listedunder Section 5 of the Pacific Fishery Regulations,1993, are prohibited from import for ornamental oraquarium holding. A license may be granted if riskmitigation conditions are in place. Such mitigationmeasures may include health testing requirementsat the source, quarantine holding, and veterinaryinspection in the recipient facility after arrival. Oneexample is the importation of ornamental koi, whichbelong to the same genus as the carp (Cyprinus).Appendix 1 gives the requirements to obtain a li-cense to import koi and other listed ornamental spe-cies. These requirements are intended to minimizethe potential for the introduction of fish disease agentsand parasites to native stocks. The need for thesesafeguards is demonstrated by the many examples inthe scientific literature of fish pathogens being re-leased into new areas through the transfer of livefish (Ganzhorn et al. 1992).

Table 1. Fishery (General) Regulations, under the Canadian Fisheries Act, pertaining to the transfer oflive fish.

PART VIIIRELEASE OF LIVE FISH INTO FISH HABITAT AND TRANSFER OF LIVE FISH TO A FISH REARING FACILITY

54. In this Part, “licence” means a licence to release live fish into fish habitat or to transfer live fish to a fish rearingfacility.

Release or Transfer of Fish55. (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall, unless authorized to do so under a licence,

(a) release live fish into any fish habitat; or(b) transfer any live fish to any fish rearing facility.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of fish that is immediately returned to the waters in which it was

caught.

Licence to Release or Transfer Fish56. The Minister may issue a licence if

(a) the release or transfer of the fish would be in keeping with the proper management and control of fisheries;(b) the fish do not have any disease or disease agent that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish; and(c) the release or transfer of the fish will not have an adverse effect on the stock size of fish or the genetic characteristics of fish or fish stocks.

Licence Fee57. There is no fee for a licence issued under this Part.


Table 2. Pacific Fishery Regulations, 1993, which prohibit the importation of species listed below.

GENERAL PROVISIONSImport of Fish

5. No person shall bring into the Province any live fish of a species set out in Schedule VIII.

SCHEDULE VIII(Section 5)PROHIBITED IMPORT LIVE FISH

Column I Column II

Item Common Name of Species Scientific Name of Species

1. Bass, Bluegill, sunfish Acantharchus, Ambloplites, Centrarchus, Enneacanthus, Lepomis, Micropterus, Morone, Perca, Percina, Pomoxis, and Stizostedium

2. Blackfish (Sacramento) Orthodon3. Bowfin Amia calva4. Buffalo fish Ictiobus5. Carp Catla, Cirrhina, Ctenopharyngodon, Cyprinus,

Hypophthalmichthys, Labeo, and Mylopharyngodon6. Catfish Clarias, Ictalurus, and Noturus7. Drum (Sheepshead) Aplodinotus8. Eel Anguilla9. Minnow (Fathead) Pimephales10. Gars Lepisosteus11. Lamprey Ichthyomyzan, Lampetra, and Petromyzon12. Pike Esox13. Quillback and Carpsucker Carpiodes14. Roach Leuciscus15. Rudd Scardinius16. Shad and Alewife Alosa and Dorosoma17. Stickleback Apeltes, Culaea (Eucalia), Gasterosteus, and Pungitius18. Sucker Catostomus, Cycleptus, Erimyzon, Hypenelium,

Minytrema, and Moxostoma19. Tilapia Tilapia20. Moon snail Polinices21. Oyster crab Pinnotheres22. Oyster drill Thais, Ocenebra, and Urosalpinx23. Rock lobster Jasus


For all of the intended uses listed above (humanconsumption, ornamental trade, and bioassays andresearch) only species listed Table 2 require a FishTransplant/Import license. However, for aquacultureuses and if fish are to be transferred into fish habi-tat, the requirements listed below come into effect(see Table 1).

AQUACULTURESalmonidsThe primary regulatory framework for all transfersof salmonids into Canada and between Canadian prov-inces is given in the Fish Health Protection Regula-tions (FHPR). In addition, British Columbia hasdeveloped policies which govern the importation ofAtlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and all Oncorhynchusspecies.

The FHPR apply to all fish of the family Salmonidaeand are designed “to prevent the spread of infectiousdiseases through inspection of production facilities’fish stocks, and to control the movement of infectedfish. Compliance with these Regulations requirethat four consecutive satisfactory inspections overa period of not less than 18 months must be conduct-ed at a facility prior to certification” (Departmentof Fisheries and Oceans 1984). Only fish certifiedunder the FHPR are eligible for an import permit.

The federal policies that regulate the importationof Atlantic and Pacific salmon into British Colum-bia stipulate the following:

1. Only eggs are allowed to be imported. Fry orlater life stages are not permitted. Because eggscan be surface-disinfected, this requirement sig-nificantly reduces the type and numbers of fishdisease agents that can accompany the shipment.

2. The source facility must be FHPR certified. Cer-tification assures that the source farm has beeninspected for disease agents of concern a mini-mum of four times in the previous 18 months.

3. Quarantine holding is required. Eggs and result-ing fry must be held in quarantine with stricteffluent disinfection and discharge to ground fora minimum of 120 days after the fry have hatched.This ensures that fish pathogens discharged fromthe facility will not enter fish-bearing waters.

4. Post-importation health testing schedules mustbe followed. Fry must be tested for disease agents

Table 3. Regulations pursuant to the British Co-lumbia Wildlife Act to the transport, pos-session, and traffic in live fish.

Page 438 The British Columbia Gazette—Part II July26, 1983

B.C. Reg. 261/83, filed July 15, 1983, pursuant to theWILDLIFE ACT [Section 110(2)(h)(aa)]. Order in Coun-cil 1186, approved and ordered July 13, 1983.On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieu-tenant Governor, by and with the advice and consentof the Executive Committee, orders that the followingregulation is made:

FRESHWATER FISH REGULATION

Interpretation1. In this regulation “fish” means a freshwater species of

(a) Order Petromyzoniformes (lampreys), or(b) Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes)

and their eggs and juvenile stages butdoes not include

(c) goldfish, or(d) species of ornamental tropical fishes

Offences2. A person commits an offence where he

(a) has in possession,(b) transports, or(c) traffics in live fish unless authorized by a

permit.—A.J. BRUMMET, Minister of En- vironment; W.R. BENNETT, Presiding Member of the Executive Council

Ornamental fish of tropical origin are exempted un-der the provincial Wildlife Act from the regulationson transport, traffic, and possession of finfish. How-ever, they must still meet federal requirements(such as the Pacific Fishery Regulations).

BIOASSAYS AND RESEARCH

Conditions similar to importation of the ornamen-tal species apply when fish are imported for bio-assays and research. Fish species listed in Section5 of the Pacific Fishery Regulations, 1993, are pro-hibited from import. Under certain conditions a li-cense may be granted if on the basis of a riskassessment and mitigation steps, risks to native spe-cies are considered minimal.


of concern every 30 days throughout the quar-antine holding period, and again prior to sea wa-ter entry.

Pacific oysters and Manila clamsSeed may only be imported from health certifiedsources to licensed aquaculture sites.

All other species of finfish, mollusks, andcrustaceansAll importations of species of fish (finfish, mollusks,and crustaceans) which are to be used in aquacultureor to be transferred to fish-bearing waters and thatare not covered by the above categories, must be ap-proved by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Science.Import permits may be granted after an assessmentof the health, genetic, and ecological risks and whenrisk management measures are in place to ensureminimal impact on fisheries resources, habitat, oraquaculture (Dextrase 1999). As an example, sourcesof interest for species such as geoducks, blackcod,etc., to be cultured in British Columbia would havea thorough review by the federal-provincial FishTransplant Committee. To initiate the licensingprocess, the proponent should contact the committeeat the author’s address to obtain the most currentinformation on the transplant review requirements.

CONCLUSION

Some members of industries handling live aquaticspecies consider these requirements very restric-

tive. However, given the monetary, social, and en-vironmental values of the native stocks and the vastnumber of examples where both intentional andaccidental introductions of new species or new ge-netic stocks have had profound effects on local eco-systems, great caution is necessary to assure thatintroductions do not negatively impact on the re-ceiving ecosystem.

If you wish to import live fish species into BritishColumbia, please contact the author by mail, email([email protected]), or by fax (250-756-7053) or telephone (250-756-7069) for further in-formation on obtaining a license. A Web site onintroductions and transfers is being prepared.

REFERENCES

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1984. Fish HealthProtection Regulations: Manual of Compliance. Fish.Mar. Serv. Misc. Spec. Publ., revised. 43 pp.

Dextrase, A.J., and M.A. Coscarelli. 1999. Intentionalintroductions of nonindigenous freshwater organ-isms in North America. In: R. Claudi and J. Leach(eds.), Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: Vectors,biology, and impacts. Lewis Publishers, Washington,DC, pp. 61-98.

Ganzhorn, J., J.S. Rohovec, and J.L. Fryer. 1992. Dis-semination of microbial pathogens through introduc-tions and transfers of finfish. In: A. Rosenfield andR. Mann (eds.), Dispersal of living organisms intoaquatic ecosystems. Maryland Sea Grant Publica-tions, College Park, MD.


APPENDIX 1.Fisheries and OceansPêches et Océans

PROCEDURE FOR THE IMPORTATION OFRESTRICTED NON-FOOD FISH INTOBRITISH COLUMBIAKoi carp and more than forty other genera of fishare listed in the B.C. (General) Fishery Regulationsas prohibited from import into British Columbia.Special requirements must be met before permis-sion can be granted to bring these fish, or their eggs,into the Province. Upon application for importation,the Fish Transplant Committee may recommendapproval of such an importation if the conditions list-ed below can be met by the importer:

1. Fish must be destined for display only. Fish des-tined for release into natural waters of the prov-ince will not be approved;

2. The importer must provide an approved con-tainment system (see Section I) for holding ofthe imported fish by this procedure;

3. Fish must be held in the approved containmentsystem until written approval for transfer (seeSection II) from that system is received from theTransplant Committee; and

4. In case of mortalities, the inspecting officermust be called to obtain a diagnosis. Mortalitiesmay have to be sent to a diagnostic laborato-ry for evaluation.

I) Inspection of containment system:

a) Inspection of the containment system must becarried out by a member of the Fish TransplantCommittee or designate (“approved inspector”).

b) The containment system must be in an enclo-sure separate from all other fish. The system mustconsist of a self-contained tank or series of tankswhose effluent must be disinfected, dischargedto ground or disposed of into municipal sewage.

c) No other fish may be present in the containmentsystem.

d) Fish must be secure from predation and theft.

e) The inspection report must include a completedescription of the system including volume ofcontainers and effluent, method of effluent dis-

posal, treatment of effluent or exchange waterand postal address of its owner and the locationof the containment system.

II) Inspection of fish and approval for transfer:

a) Fish must be inspected by an approved inspec-tor within 48 hours of arrival and again after21 days at the isolation facility. They may thenbe released for transfer to other units if the in-spection results, and (where necessary) testingof mortalities is satisfactory. No live fish maybe removed from the containment system untilofficially released in writing by a member ofthe Federal-Provincial Fish Transplant Com-mittee (the only exception may be for the pur-poses of fish health testing, where the inspectorrequires live fish to be moved to a fish healthlaboratory).

b) If evidence of infectious disease development ispresent, or undiagnosed mortalities have ocurred,the holding period in the containment systemmay be extended.

c) If any pathogen of concern is detected during theinspection or any fish-health testing, the fish willnot be permitted to be transferred from the con-tainment system and may have to be destroyed.

d) Approval for transfer will be considered only ifboth inspections were satisfactory.

e) Should two separate groups of imported fish beheld in the same isolation enclosure, no fish maybe removed from the enclosure until the finalinspections on both groups have been satisfac-tory and written approval for transfer has beenobtained.

f ) If no inspection is carried out within 30 days ofthe importation of the fish, the imported fishand any fish sharing the water supply may beseized.

The costs of all inspections, diagnostic work, andany other costs associated with the importationmust be borne by the applicant.

Please note that without approval from the Depart-ment of Fisheries and Oceans, it is illegal to releaseor transfer live fish into the natural (fish-bearing)waters of the province.


QUESTION: (to K. Mauriks) I notice that you callyour business Dorcas Point Farms. Do you marketyour fish as farm fish or as wild caught halibut?

K. MAURIKS: Dorcas Point just happens to bewhere I live. To work with government grants andto get farm sites and other things, we needed a namethat portrayed what we were trying to do, so wejust threw “Farms” in there. We are marketing thefish as “Sterling Pacific Halibut” because, in the aqua-culture trade, sterling is the best. There has neverbeen product trademarked as Sterling Pacific Hali-but, so that is what we are marketing it as.

QUESTION: (to K. Mauriks) Earlier you said youjust bled the fish when they go to market. Does thatmean that you do not remove the gills and entrails?

K. MAURIKS: The IPHC regulation states that,at the dock, no fish can be landed with gills and en-trails intact. This was enacted to force harvestersto dress at sea to raise the quality from when thederby fishery mentality was still active. We now havea quota fishery. What we do is live hold the fish in thenetpens, then stun and bleed them, and send themoff to a processing plant, because we cannot processthe fish at the pen site. At this point, the gills and theentrails are removed in the seafood plant. Whatev-er product form is needed will come out of this plant.

QUESTION: (to K. Mauriks) I am interested in whatyou must do after you start feeding the fish. Doesyour operation fall under farmed fish regulation?

K. MAURIKS: Yes, it does. There are strict rules con-cerning what you can and cannot do on an aquacul-

ture site. We are currently in a gray area. Are wefarmers or are we fishermen? Are we ponding orpounding? There are a bunch of different names forit.

This live holding strategy is being done in otherparts of the world with bluefin tuna and Atlanticcod on our East Coast, but not wild halibut. Euro-pean farms are dealing with cultured halibut—weare dealing with wild halibut. I cannot ask anybodyfor help because nobody has had to deal with theseproblems before, for example, how to get feed tolarge wild fish in these kinds of densities.

They do not want us to use wet feed (primarilychunked chum salmon), because you can get intoall sorts of water quality problems. However, thesesame managers realize that we are dealing with awild fish and we have to get some suitable food intothem—to tease them into eating. Basically, they justsaid, “Kim, we realize what you’re trying to do here,but minimize your use of wet feed.” We are going tobe working with different forms of feed and expectthat the quality will be going up.

QUESTION: (to K. Mauriks) Can you give me somereasons why you would be less likely to high gradehalibut. [Note: “High grading” refers to the practiceof selecting out certain fish size categories, usuallyfish of a larger size, and rejecting the remainder.]

K. MAURIKS: I did not have any reasons to highgrade in the normal halibut fishery. Everythingcould be sold at such a good price. In the normalhalibut fishery involving “dead product,” commer-cial buyers sometimes pay a higher price for larger

Resource Management Issues: Question and Answer Session

Bruce M. LeamanInternational Pacific Halibut Commission, Seattle, Washington

Kim MauriksDorcas Point Farms Inc., Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, Canada

Christine PattisonCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Morro Bay, California

178 Discussion: Resource Management Issues

fish. This is probably the greatest incentive for fish-ermen to high grade and it probably does happenonce in a while. This is a personal moral matterthat you cannot dictate to people.

In our case, we are now getting such a good price.Also, the fishing is slower the way we are doing it.I am not going to release any that I do not have torelease unless they are undersized. Every one isprecious and we need a certain amount of cash flow.

So we kill the few that we bring in that are not per-fect for the pen. These fish still go out on a one- ortwo-day fresh basis. It is still a very high quality prod-uct and the system is in place to move it to market.So, there is no reason for us to high grade the fish.

QUESTION: (to K. Mauriks) Have you made anyobservations on the frequency of chalky fish com-ing out of your netpens?

K. MAURIKS: We have been looking at this prob-lem since day one with our halibut. The buyers havebeen trying to find out if there is anything that wecan do in terms of selective fishing or fish handlingmethods to reduce or eliminate the problem. Nothinghas jumped out of our data at this point. The occur-rence of chalky halibut in our fish is random. I thoughtI had actually figured it out this year. We have hadtwo fish out of 2,000 or so that were chalky. That iswell below the industry standard. I thought that wemust have been doing everything perfectly. Maybe itis the stunning and the bleeding, because we weredoing these steps in the best manner possible.

And then, all of a sudden in early September, afterwe went through the peak of the water temperaturein late August, we brought in a load of halibut thatwas 10% chalky—out of nowhere. We had not hadchalky fish all summer and then, all of a sudden,we had chalky fish.

This chalkiness was in freshly caught fish. It wasnot from the pen-held fish. Consequently, I thoughtthat we now have some chalkiness in the area. Wewere thinking then that perhaps the condition wasdietary or had something to do with the environment.

We decided to take the next market order from fishthat had been held in the pens. These fish had notbeen in the wild for two or three months. They wereoff the diet that wild fish would have been eating.They were getting a mixture of pellets and chumsalmon. Unfortunately, we had the same 10% ofchalky halibut.

Then the next harvest after this was a mix. But,again, we had it. Who knows—we got a fairly con-trolled experiment going on here and maybe we willfind out what is going on with the fish. We are go-ing start looking at meat samples because theremight be something that we can do in a holdingsituation. If the fish are caught from the wild, theremight be nothing that can be done to take care ofthis problem. Maybe we will come up with an an-swer that will help the industry.

B. LEAMAN: If I could make an additional com-ment on this matter. We did several experiments thisyear looking at various treatments: stunning, stun-ning and bleeding, just bleeding, and then no treat-ment. And then we did a lot of work on looking attemperatures of the fish, time on deck, temperatureof the fish when they come out of the water, tem-perature when they went into the hold and so forth.

We have not been able to complete a detailed analy-sis of this time and temperature data. At this point,nothing gross jumps out as a mitigating factor toexplain the occurrence of chalkiness. It could be thatthe predisposition to chalkiness is precapture innature—whether it be exercise on the hook, wheth-er it be temperature, or low oxygen—we are not sure.

You understand that the ultimate cause of this meatquality problem is low pH in the flesh—there is toomuch acidity. It appears to be very knife-edged whenthe fish become chalky, a sudden transition appearsto be present. But the actual ultimate cause of this isnot certain. As mentioned, it may be precapture orit may be temperature related or caused by low oxy-gen water. And it could be caused by what they arefeeding on.

QUESTION: (to B. Leaman) Question concerningthe distribution of chalkiness in individual fish.

B. LEAMAN: Most of the work that has been doneso far suggests that chalkiness starts developingfrom the tail forward. Although I have talked to onebuyer who said that he has observed chalkiness inthe center part of the fillet, most other folks haveseen it developing from the tail and the dorsal areaforward into the center part of the fillet.

One of the projects that we are considering is somemeans of testing pH of the flesh at the time of cap-ture. That might give us some indication aboutwhere we might direct future research on this prob-lem. Then again this may be something that is anindustry issue—more so than a IPHC issue.


FREDRIK SVERRE: We believe that the chalki-ness is due to parasites similar to those present inyour herring. We believe we can develop a vaccineagainst it. Maybe in the future we might be able tohelp wild fishery management and live holding toreduce the effects of the chalkiness.

QUESTION: (to K. Mauriks) Are you planning tomove to the next step in the next couple of years tostart adding cultured halibut to your pens?

K. MAURIKS: Yes, I am going to look at supplyingcultured halibut in the future. In my view, this issomething that is coming. For sure I do not want tohave a smaller and smaller portion of the world’ssupply of halibut.

If it is possible, we will move in that direction. How-ever, it is not a consistent process yet. But if it isgoing to be, I want to be a part of this movementand to do it right. This is partially why I am hereright now. I am setting up the husbandry process,the marketing, and the whole infrastructure thatwill be needed. If, down the road a ways there de-velops the need for a cultured supply, we will hitthe ground running and we already have the market.

QUESTION: (to K. Mauriks) If you are going to goahead with the concept of working with culturedhalibut, a number of questions become involved. Ex-perience on the East Coast, with a range of fisher-ies that are now gradually moving toward theaddition of cultured stock to a wild supply, is that itdoes impose very serious problems for the manage-ment of the existing fisheries. I do not think it real-ly should do this, but it does.

There is a very considerable constraint on the properdevelopment of the cultivated stock because of themanagement regulations for the existing wild stock.Is this something that you are beginning to address?You will soon run into problems with root stock sup-ply, particularly with the type of regulations whichwill suddenly say you cannot trade in these hali-but, even though you have owned them since theywere very small because they are less than 25pounds or whatever else it may be. Might this alsobe something that the IPHC will begin to address?

K. MAURIKS: To tell you the truth, I have beenbusy fishing. What you are referring to is a waysaway. I have not looked at this.

B. LEAMAN: Some aspects of that are of fair con-cern to us and undersized fish (fish below the IPHC

minimum legal size) in the marketplace is an im-portant one right now. I just finished looking at theissue of how much western Pacific halibut of pri-marily Russian origin is being imported into NorthAmerica. This really frustrates the ability of theenforcement folks who are trying to enforce a 32-inch size limit in North America when you have adifferent size limit or no size limit at all in Russiaand fish are showing up in the domestic marketplace.

This really complicates the problem for enforce-ment. It is not insurmountable, but it is a signifi-cant problem right now. The same thing might occurif you do not have adequate tracking of the productcoming out of an aquaculture operation. I do notthink that this is insurmountable, either. I think thatif we are going to move in some of these directions,then we need to do the planning right now to set upthe kind of infrastructure, the kind of regulatoryframework, and the monitoring framework neces-sary that will allow this kind of operation work . . .if this is the direction that we want to go.

COMMENT: A couple of comments in regard to de-velopment of this in the aquaculture industry. Ihave been involved with this form of development.Number one, it is quite possible to create a reason-able paper trail so that you can insure that under-sized fish are coming from hatcheries and not fromwild stocks. It is been done with several other spe-cies and it is not an insurmountable object.

Number two is that, along with this, no free gov-ernment has enough police power to watch everydock, every roadway, every entry port. The best wayto get compliance is to work with the people in theindustry because ultimately they are going to bethe best enforcement people.

COMMENT: In the United States this matterwould be handled on a state by state level. The stategovernments are going to have to deal with this is-sue. Products they produce in their states are whatthey are concerned with—a good example would beabalone culture in California. Obviously, in Cali-fornia the farmers sell two and three inch abaloneinto markets all over the world that have been pro-duced by aquaculture. Yet, prior to this, there wasminimum size in the commercial harvest that pre-vented small abalone from entering the market-place. I think that the state is going to have to bereasonable—as long as the product has beenmarked or tagged . . . that there is a paperworktrail to go along with the product that is, in fact, anaquaculture product.

180 Discussion: Resource Management Issues

Some states may still refuse to move in this direc-tion. I can only guess that the State of Florida would,at some point in the future, perhaps ten years downthe road, reject the proposal to support farmed spinylobster because of the product’s small size . . . be-cause of the fact they could not tell if it was, in fact,harvested from the wild and short sized. But I thinkit is only a matter of time before they have to comearound and work with us in order to get the aquac-ulture product and the wild-caught product into themarketplace.

QUESTION: I have a hot question that you may notwant to answer. What kind of reaction do you expectfrom the Alaska fisheries managers concerning thisplan?

B. LEAMAN: There are a number of concerns thathave been expressed by the commissioners and theyare generally reflecting the concerns of the constit-uents that they represent. Probably the biggest oneis fear of aquaculture. People are simply afraid oflosing their livelihood because of the loss of marketto another form of product.

The second of the major objections in Alaska is en-forcement for this type of business. This is why Iam suggesting that—and this goes along the linesof a previous comment—no nation has enough po-lice force to watch everything that might happen.This should not be the approach. It should be fullvalidation and this may be the cost of doing businessin this manner. The IPHC does not have a positionpro or con on this matter. At this point, all we aresaying is that here are the guidelines that we thinkare important for decent resource management.

The monitoring of removals and inputs and so forthis one of the key things that has made the IPHCwork. We monitor all kinds of removals ranging fromincidental mortality elsewhere, bycatch, and soforth. What we are talking about here is just sim-ply another removal. You need to have the appro-priate framework for monitoring this removal aswell.

Some of the people in the enforcement groups inAlaska are, I think, approaching this developmentfrom the perspective that “this has to be enforced,”as opposed to what kind of mechanism do we needto make sure this is monitored. There may be anissue here in terms of education or whatever. I am-giving you the perspective of what I think might becoming from that group.

COMMENT: I would like to add one additionalpoint to allow this group to better understand wherehalibut is coming from. At the moment halibut farm-ing is growing at the same speed as the farmed salm-on harvesting. In terms of halibut farming, we arenow at the same level that the farmed salmon in-dustry was several years ago. Today salmon farm-ers are producing 900,000 metric tons of salmon ayear. In 25 to 30 years halibut farming may reachthe same production level. We need to recognize thathalibut is a superior fish compared to any other fishout there in the marketplace. If the demand is there,production will be there as well.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the Pacific halibutindustry needs to adopt aquaculture into their over-all production. This needs to be done in order to bepart of the market expansion, to follow the growthof future market share or else we will be left behind.Also, this investment has to start while the marketvalue of the fish is high so that we can afford tostay with it if the prices drop thirty years from now.

QUESTION: (to B. Leaman and C. Pattison) Wehave heard the description of the California situa-tion in terms of live rockfish fisheries development.Concerning the Canadian live fishery situation, whatis going on in Canada?

B. LEAMAN: This will be a short answer in termsof what is happening in the British Columbia livefishery. Keep in mind that I left this fishery a num-ber of years ago. The resource status is quite poorin British Columbia. This probably has a lot to dowith the nature of regulations that were not putinto effect during the early development of thesefisheries. It became a classic gold rush fishery, wherethe fishery got going and found itself on a rollercoaster before there was any chance to even under-stand some of the biology behind these animals. Be-cause they are rockfishes, they are extremelylong-lived with low annual productivity.

The situation right now, concerning the live fish fish-ery, is that many folks are coming forward and say-ing that they have been discarding a lot of fish. Andso mortality that was assessed through looking atjust the removals seen at the dock was not neces-sarily the appropriate estimate for total removals.Again, I think that this is a monitoring issue.

QUESTION: (to C. Pattison) Have there been anyproposals in California to do a similar sort of grow-out procedure for rockfish?


C. PATTISON: Are you interested in long-termholding or the actual culturing of rockfish? You aretalking about long-term holding. The answer is no,not that I know of. Probably somebody has thoughtabout it or looked into it—and may even be doingit. Again, I am not aware of it. But with these newquotas, the fisheries are greatly reduced. With thisnewly limited resource, I imagine that we will beseeing more and more of this development in thefuture. Members of the California live industry dovery short-term holding right now, just a couple ofdays until the buyer comes to a location to offload.They are just using netted pens in bays.


ABSTRACT

The lucrative live reef fish trade, centered in South-east Asia, has increased markedly since the early1990s. Hong Kong is the major importer, accountingfor about 60% of the total trade, currently estimat-ed at about 50,000 metric tons annually. Traditional-ly, fishes came from the South China Sea. As demandgrew, local sources became progressively depletedand importers sought live fish from more distantregions, now ranging from the Seychelles to Fiji. Thisexpansion brought with it a new problem, that ofciguatoxic fishes, which caused an unprecedentednumber of cases of ciguatera in Hong Kong in 1998and 1999, and seriously undermined public confidencein food fish. The trade has also been criticized for theextensive use of sodium cyanide to catch some spe-cies in some areas and for aggregation fishing.

This paper examines the diversity of fishes tradedin Hong Kong, their value, and the many factorsaffecting prices. The major problems currently af-fecting the trade, over-exploitation, unsafe (ciguatoxic)fish, and destructive fishing methods, and possiblesolutions to such problems are explored and prospectsfor the trade evaluated.

INTRODUCTION

Although fish have long been kept alive until shortlybefore cooking in parts of Asia, the substantial in-ternational trade in live reef fishes for food that wesee today only began to develop in the 1980s and hasexpanded particularly rapidly since the early 1990s.Today, the trade in all of Asia is worth an estimatedUS $600-700 million (about 50,000 metric tons of fish),with Hong Kong, the major importer, consumingand re-exporting to southern mainland China about60% of the fishes in trade ($300-400 million US)(see review by Johannes and Reipen 1995, Chan 2001).

Although a wide range of marine invertebrates isalso traded alive for food, tropical reef fish repre-sent the major component in both value and vol-ume (see Chan 2001). Live reef fish are also traded

for ornamental purposes but this article is concernedonly with the live reef fish trade (LRFT) for the pur-pose of consumption. While most fishes in trade arewild-caught at a marketable size, there is also a sig-nificant mariculture sector involving the wild cap-ture of juveniles and sub-market-sized fish for culture(growout), which will be discussed.

Since Hong Kong is the major importer of live reeffish, I shall focus on Hong Kong’s role in this trade.Economically, the trade is important to Hong Kong,exceeding by several times the total value of its en-tire traditional (dead/frozen) fish fishery (Lee andSadovy 1998). It represents at least 10% of the valueof all foodstuffs imported (in 1997 total foodstuffs—meat, dairy/eggs, seafood, vegetables, nuts—import-ed were valued at $6.01 billion US, Fong and Anderson2000). The economic and biological factors that beardirectly on the Hong Kong LRFT are thereforeimportant to the local economy, and, as we shall see,also have repercussions far into the Indo-Pacific. Othercountries with significant LRF businesses are Taiwan,Singapore, mainland China (largely through HongKong), and Chinese communities in Malaysia andAustralia.

This extremely lucrative trade is experiencing sev-eral difficulties that go beyond the recent economicdownturn in Southeast Asia and which need to beresolved for a safe and sustainable, high value fish-ery. In assessing problems and prospects, I focuson four areas: growth and expansion of the HongKong-based LRFT, composition and value of theHong Kong trade, the problem of ciguatera (illnesscaused by natural fish poisoning), and the impactof the trade on fish stocks.

PROFILE OF THE TRADEGrowth and expansion ofthe Hong Kong–based LRFTThe sale of fish, both freshwater and marine, keptalive until just before cooking, has long been popu-

The Live Reef Food Fish Trade in Hong Kong:Problems and Prospects

Yvonne SadovyThe University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

184 Sadovy: Live Reef Food Fish Trade in Hong Kong

lar in parts of Asia and particularly in southern Chi-na, among Cantonese Chinese. Fishes were originallycaught locally, or raised in marine and freshwaterculture (Johannes and Riepen 1995, Akimichi 1998).

By the late 1960s, marine fishes sold alive in HongKong were coming from sectors of the South ChinaSea ever more distant from Hong Kong, with theconsequence that the public was exposed to a widevariety of fishes. The increasing wealth at the timestimulated the market for these desirable fishes, par-ticularly for a range of grouper species, as well asfor species in several other reef fish families, such asthe humphead (also known as the Napoleon or Maori)wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus), for their fine textureand flavor. Growth in the trade, with animals orig-inating far from Hong Kong, was made possible byhigh retail prices, which allowed for high transportcosts, while improvements in transport times, ves-sels, and networks facilitated trade with areas for-merly inaccessible.

International trade was originally conducted by seain the Southeast Asia region, and, as demand in-creased and fish stocks became depleted, businessesmoved farther into the islands of the South ChinaSea (Johannes and Riepen 1995). By the mid-1970s,the Philippines became a major source country andin the 1980s, businesses moved to Indonesia and thetrade became so profitable that fishes were also trans-ported by air. One business started working in Palauin 1984 with a large live fish vessel (vivier) (Johannesand Riepen 1995). In the 1990s, businesses movedfarther east and west: to the Maldives in 1993 andthe Marshall and Solomon islands by the mid-1990s.Today, trade is conducted as far away as Fiji to theeast (Yeeting 1999), with at least one trial shipmentcoming out of the Seychelles (Bentley and Aumeer-uddy 1999), to the west of Hong Kong. Viviers canbe very large, with capacities attaining 30 metric tons.

The Hong Kong trade is based either on the collectionof fish by fishers on Hong Kong vessels, or throughthe purchase of fish directly from fishers or middle-men in source countries. Capture methods includehook and line, fish trap, and cyanide, the latter par-ticularly in Indonesia and the Philippines, the twomajor supply countries. Fishing may be carried outlegally, sometimes under joint-venture arrange-ments, or illegally, by poaching (e.g., Johannes andRiepen 1995, Bentley 1999). In some cases, cyanidehas evidently been introduced by middlemen or HongKong–based businesses. For some species, cyanideis the major collection method applied; its use is

widely banned for fishing but it is evidently readilyavailable throughout the region.

Live fish are also obtained through the process ofgrowout (mariculture). This involves the capture ofjuveniles or small, sub-market sized adults, andtheir maintenance in floating cages or ponds untilthey attain marketable size. Growout occurs insource countries, and there is also an internationaltrade in juveniles for growout in demand countries.Major source countries for grouper juveniles are thePhilippines and Thailand. Hatchery rearing of grou-per to supply juveniles for growout is successfullyoperated at commercial levels only in Taiwan.

Composition and valueof the Hong Kong tradeAbout 40 species are involved in the LRFT withcertain species and sizes of fish particularly highlyvalued. The most important fishes in terms of bothvolume and overall value are approximately 30 spe-cies of grouper (Serranidae), especially the tigergrouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus), the marbled(or flowery), grouper (E. polyphekadion), and lowvolumes of the highly valued giant grouper (E. lan-ceolatus) and high-finned grouper (Cromileptes alti-velis). Other high value species, albeit traded in lowvolumes, are several wrasses (Labridae), with onespecies, the humphead wrasse, particularly highlyprized. Other predominantly reef species that aretraded include the snappers (Lutjanidae), particular-ly Lutjanus argentimaculatus (mangrove snapper),species of jack (Carangidae), grunt (Haemulidae),parrotfish (Scaridae), scorpionfish (Scorpaenidae),and the temperate water sea breams (Sparidae).The majority of these fishes are wild-caught eitheras market-size adults, or as juveniles or sub-marketsize adults that are then grown-out. A small pro-portion of the total trade in live reef fish is culturedfrom hatchery-reared juveniles, mainly two grou-per species, Epinephelus coioides (green grouper) andE. malabaricus (malabar grouper). Preferred sizesrange from 0.8-1.2 kg for single plate-serving sizeto banquet-size servings (Johannes and Riepen 1995).

The value per kilogram of fishes in Hong Kong’strade varies markedly depending on several factors,the most important of which are species, season/festivities, demand/supply, general economic situ-ation, wild/cultured source and, for some species,absolute body size. An additional factor, ciguatera(fish poisoning), became evident in 1998 and is dis-cussed in more detail below. Data on wholesale priceswere obtained from informal interviews carried out


at wholesale markets by the Agriculture, Fisheriesand Conservation Department of the Hong KongSpecial Administrative Region (AFCD-HKSAR) withindependent advice to the author from a major in-dustry participant, Patrick Chan of Brightfuture Ltd.

Imports of live reef fish are monitored in several waysin Hong Kong, none of them fully comprehensive(Sadovy 1998). Imports by air and on non–Hong Konglicensed vessels are collected through the submis-sion of trade declarations at import and summarizedby the Department of Census and Statistics. Thesedata include weights and total values of shipmentsand, since 1997, also several details by species underthe Harmonized Code system. Additional data onprices and species composition are collected on a vol-untary basis by AFCD from wholesale markets.These data are estimated to represent the importsof about 50% of major fish traders in Hong Kong andhalf the total volume of live marine fish imported intoHong Kong by fishing vessels (AFCD, pers. comm.).

Data are presented for major imported species (Fig.1) in terms of both wholesale price in $ HK per kg (US$ are pegged to the HK $ at a rate of US $1 = HK $7.8)and monthly, or multi-month, volumes traded fromJanuary 1997 to June 1999, inclusive. The collectionof voluntary data began in January 1997 and was orig-inally based on three-month totals, with monthlydata from July 1998. The AFCD prices given in Fig. 1should be taken as approximate and are used for il-lustrative and comparative purposes only; they mayoverestimate wholesale values by as much as 20%(P. Chan, Brightfuture, Hong Kong, pers. comm.).Mark-up from wholesale to retail is between 100%and 150%.

The price per kilogram and tonnage data indicateseveral trends. The highly variable monthly importvolumes show a clear inverse relationship with pricefor most species. Volume imported depends on anumber of factors, including available supply andvarious festivities such as Chinese New Year (Jan-uary or February), winter solstice, and weddingbanquets which cluster around auspicious dates.Prices also depend on species (particularly highlyvalued are the humphead wrasse, giant grouper,and coral trout, especially the leopard coral trout,Plectropomus leopardus, and the spotted coral trout,P. maculatus), either for their taste, their color (redis particularly auspicious), or for other intrinsicvalues such as medicinal importance. The regionaleconomic downturn, starting with a sharp drop inthe Hang Seng index in late 1997, generally damp-ened the retail market for expensive live reef fish.

Size within a species may be important. For exam-ple, smaller, plate-sized, humphead wrasse and gi-ant grouper are worth more per kilogram thanlarger individuals which have to be carved up priorto sale (Lau and Parry-Jones 1999). Lower pricesgo to snappers and other reef fishes, as well as “cul-tured” fish, which fetch prices about 20% lower thanwild-caught fish of the same species. This is likelya question of perception in most cases; taste-testsusing the malabar grouper strongly suggest thatmost people cannot tell the difference (OmniTrak1997). Prices have also dropped across the board sincepeaking in the mid-1990s (see Johannes and Riepen1995), prior to the economic problems in the region,when some species fetched prices 3- to 4-fold higher.

An additional factor that caused significant pricedeclines were two major incidents in Hong Kong,in 1998 and 1999, representing hundreds of casesof ciguatera. Ciguatera is a condition in humans, afood poisoning, caused by eating fish that harborciguatoxins. It is a natural phenomenon in certainreef species areas of the Indo-Pacific (and westerntropical Atlantic) (see details below). The major in-cidents took place in early 1998 and early 1999,sending prices down by as much as 60% (P. Chan,Brightfuture, Hong Kong, pers. comm.) and under-mining public confidence in fish (see Fig. 1 and pric-es for early 1998). The price decline applied to allfishes and not just those recognized to pose a greaterrisk; freshwater and cultured species, which do notnormally pose any risk of ciguatera, were also avoid-ed following these cases. The tiger grouper was oneof the species implicated.

The problem of ciguatera and its impacton tradeCiguatera (fish poisoning) is a serious health prob-lem in the tropics and subtropics (Chan et al. 1992),one that is likely to grow with increasing interna-tional trade in reef fishes. Ciguatera has not histor-ically been a problem in Southeast Asia (ciguatoxinsare biotoxins not commonly reported from fishes inthe northern South China Sea) and so the generalpublic is largely naïve to ciguatera. However, withincreasing numbers of live fish being brought intothe region from known hotspots of ciguatoxic fish-es in the western Pacific (e.g., Lewis 1986),ciguatera is expected to represent a significant prob-lem in Hong Kong, and for other importing econo-mies, as demand for live reef fish grows. A largeproportion of the species in the local LRFT is poten-tially ciguatoxic (Lee and Sadovy 1998). Ciguatera


Figure 1. Weight (kg) and average wholesale prices (HK $) per kg of 12 categories of live reef fishesimported into Hong Kong by sea between January 1997 and June 1999 (except f, j, k, and l which run fromJanuary 1998). Data are provided three times a month (as originally collected) and then monthly. Prices werecollected by interviews with fish traders at Aberdeen and Mong Kok wholesale markets. Values should onlybe used for illustrative and comparative purposes since they were not rigorously collected. Left axis is theweight × 10,000 kg (solid line and squares) and right axis is price (HK $) (dashed line and triangles). Prices for


giant grouper and humphead wrasse vary markedly depending on size (smaller individuals fetch more perkilogram than larger ones). Prices are averages of small and large fish. The arrows for h., tiger grouper,approximately represent the periods in early 1998 and early 1999 when many cases of ciguatera were reported.The tiger grouper was the species implicated in some of the cases. Interviews were conducted by the Departmentof Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation of the HKSAR.


causes diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,loss of muscle coordination, hot and cold feeling re-versal, and pain and itching. These symptoms mayrecur for as long as 6 months. Death occasionallyoccurs (U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices 1999)

Available figures indicate a marked increase in con-firmed ciguatera cases in Hong Kong from the 1980sinto the 1990s. Although it was little known in HongKong prior to 1984, between 1984 and 1988 therewere 23 cases of ciguatera poisoning reported af-fecting 182 people locally (Hong Kong Standard 27/5/88). In the last decade, the number of reportedcases has increased from seven cases between 1988and 1990, to more than 400 in 1998 (Hong KongDepartment of Health) (Fig. 2). Doctors, however,believe that the actual number of cases is muchhigher and that most incidents are either unreport-ed, or misdiagnosed as food poisoning (Chan et al.1992).

Ciguatera is a significant health and resource prob-lem in tropical areas because of its erratic, and oftenunpredictable, spatial and temporal distribution, al-though hotspots have been documented (Lewis 1986).It is particularly problematic for nations wishing toexport fishes that risk bearing ciguatoxins (Dalzell1992), and for places, like Hong Kong, that are naïve

to the risk of ciguatera and without a monitoring pro-gram to tackle the issue. Moreover, based on conver-sations with the author, some importers themselvesappear to be largely unaware of, or unconcerned about,the potential risks of importing ciguatoxic fishes. Asone example, an importer knowingly brought a ship-ment of ciguatoxic fishes into Hong Kong (the fisheshad been tested prior to arrival), and when request-ed by the government not to land them, divertedthe shipment for sale in mainland China.

The increase in cases of ciguatera in Hong Kong inthe late 1990s came about because of two factors.The first was the unwitting expansion of the tradeinto areas where ciguatoxic fishes are prevalent(Fig. 3). The second is that Hong Kong has no offi-cial measures to protect the public from ciguatoxicfishes imported live. This is, in part, because “livefish” is not considered to be food in Hong Kong andhence is not subject to rigorous monitoring or con-trols. Informal testing, of unknown accuracy, of im-ported fish is evidently carried out sporadically, butthe government has no official means of preventingthe sale of toxic live fish in Hong Kong. Moreover,the Hong Kong government seems unwilling to pro-tect its public by monitoring for country of originand prohibiting sale of fish imported from suspectareas, as is done elsewhere (Table 1). Although gov-ernment posters are distributed with warnings, Ihave never seen one posted in any major retail area,with the exception of one on Lamma Island, west-ern Hong Kong, which had had the warning re-moved, leaving attractive pictures of suspect species!

The impact of LRFT on fish stocksThe valuable LRFT has placed an unprecedented pres-sure on populations of certain larger reef fishes inSoutheast Asia, and increasingly beyond, to satisfya rapidly increasing demand. This pressure has led toprobable overfishing of many species, and poses athreat to certain particularly vulnerable species. Inmany areas, it has also brought about the introduc-tion of a fishing method that involves the use of thepoison, sodium cyanide (e.g., Barber and Pratt 1997).

The expansion of the trade to areas far into thePacific and Indian oceans has occurred largely be-cause of depletions of populations of target speciesin Southeast Asia. Estimates of sustainable yieldin this region suggest that current levels of exploi-tation are unsustainable (K.A. Warren-Rhodes,NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA,pers. comm.) and Hong Kong businessmen reporthaving to move ever further in search of sufficient

Figure 2. Number of people affected monthly by ciguaterabetween January 1995 and June 1999. Official figures of theHealth Department of the HKSAR.


supplies. The types of larger reef fishes targetedcannot withstand heavy levels of exploitation be-cause of their life histories which include long life,slow growth, and relatively low replacement rates.Concerns over sustainability caused Palau to ceaseparticipating in the LRFT in 1988, to recommencebriefly in the early 1990s, while the Seychelles hasdecided to limit severely the number of businessesoperating because of concerns over sustainability(Johannes and Riepen 1995, Bentley and Aumeer-uddy 1999).

Apparent depletions are further exacerbated by sev-eral factors. Fishing approaches that target spawn-ing aggregations, where catchability is high andwhere a large proportion of spawning animals canbe removed in a short period (e.g., Johannes 1997,Johannes and Lam 1999, Rhodes 1999), are becom-ing increasingly common and are potentially damag-ing to stocks. The targeting of plate-size individualsmeans that, in several larger species (such as hump-head wrasse, giant and tiger groupers), preferredtrade sizes are in the juvenile size range. More re-cently, smaller fish have been particularly sought,possibly because they generally pose a lower threatof ciguatera, or are cheaper. Properly managed fish-eries by and large eschew the taking of juveniles as

being poor fishing practice with the potential forproducing growth overfishing, and, ultimately, re-cruitment overfishing.

Another potential cause of overfishing is the wild-capture of juveniles and sub-market size adults formariculture growout (Sadovy and Pet 1998). Mil-lions of small juveniles are captured for growoutand trade each year. It is unknown what volumes ofextraction are sustainable but, in some areas, thereare concerns that catches of juveniles are declining(pers. comm. during field visits to Philippines andThailand). Moreover, the impacts of juvenile cap-ture on future stock sizes may be significant in someareas. Concerns over limits to fry supply have led tobans on fry export, or export below certain sizes, inVietnam, Malaysia, and China, although significantillegal export persists (Sadovy, unpubl. data).

There is also concern over the status of particular-ly vulnerable and valuable species included in theLRFT, in particular the humphead wrasse and thegiant grouper. These species appear to be natural-ly uncommon, probably long-lived, and, given whatwe know of species with similar life history traits(Jennings et al. 1999), unlikely to be able to with-stand current levels of exploitation. Wherever the

Figure 3. Map showing locations in the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean where the LRFT is conducted (white star in blackcircle). Black stars show general areas exploited by the LRFT where fishes can be ciguatoxic.


humphead wrasse has been targeted, numbers havedropped rapidly, leading to enough concern to im-plement export prohibitions of the species, or of cer-tain sizes of the species (Palawan in the Philippines,Indonesia, and Maldives). Moreover, concerns overoverexploitation and resultant conservation statusled to the inclusion of both species on the 1996 IUCN(International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture) Red List, a signal that wild populations maybe seriously affected by current and projected lev-els of fishing pressure (Baillie and Groombridge1996).

The use of sodium cyanide has probably elicited themost concern in the LRFT. Cyanide is a toxin that,ironically, has long been used to take live fish, firstin the ornamental reef fish trade and, more recent-ly, for food fishes. The toxin is widely used, espe-cially in the Philippines and eastern Indonesia(Barber and Pratt 1997, Erdmann and Pet-Soede1997). The concern over cyanide is that it can, un-der certain conditions, kill coral (Jones and Steven1997) and could potentially damage the reef eco-system itself, destroying the habitat that reef or-ganisms depend upon. Its use is also known to resultin wasteful bycatch in the form of nontarget organ-isms that cannot escape the poison and thereforedie. The extent of such bycatch is unknown but,under circumstances where cyanide solution is ap-plied and water circulation is low, it is likely to besubstantial. It is a destructive fishing technique thatis spreading with the LRFT. Its use cannot be con-doned under any circumstances. In the Philippines,the International Marinelife Alliance (IMA) has es-tablished cyanide detection laboratories to certifyfish as cyanide-free prior to export. Programs have

been introduced in the Philippines by the HaribonFoundation, IMA, and others, to train fishers inhook and line fishing to reduce the increasinglyentrenched dependence on cyanide.

CONCLUSIONS: PROBLEMS AND

PROSPECTSThere are three major impediments to a safe, sus-tainable, and cyanide-free LRFT.

1. The impacts of the LRFT on wild stocks, andparticularly on vulnerable species, need to beexamined because fishing levels are evidentlyunsustainable. The targeting of spawning aggre-gations, because of their extreme vulnerabilityto fishing and history of extirpation followingoverfishing, should be strongly discouraged and/or regulated or, ideally, avoided. Source countrieswill have to consider implementing export quotasor introducing protected areas to safeguard localstocks. Particularly vulnerable species, such asthe humphead wrasse and the giant grouper,may have to be phased out of the LRFT, if tak-en from the wild. The excessive take of juvenilesor sub-market size adults from the wild for thepurpose of growout also needs to be examined todetermine sustainable levels of harvest. Waste-ful bycatch taken by certain fishing techniquesshould also be reduced.

2. To ensure a safe food supply to importing econ-omies, measures are needed to address the prob-lem of ciguatoxic fishes. At present, given theabsence of a reliable “dockside” method for de-tecting ciguatoxins or fail-safe laboratory proce-dures for the range of toxins involved, the most

Table 1. Examples of regulations relating to ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP).

European Union: Article 5, Directive 91/293/EEC prohibits marketing for human consump-tion poisonous fish . . . or fishery products containing biotoxin such asciguatera toxins or muscle-paralyzing toxins.

USA: HACCP Guidelines, preventive measures for naturally occurring toxinsinclude making sure that incoming fish have not been caught in an area forwhich there is a CFP advisory or for which there is knowledge of a CFP problem.

Australia: Applies HACCP guidelines (see USA); dead and live fish are treated similarly(Ross Marriott, Australia, June 9, 1998, pers. comm.) Sale of specified spe-cies prohibited.

Tahiti: Sale of specified ciguatoxic species prohibited.

Puerto Rico: Sale of specified ciguatoxic species prohibited.


practical approach would be to follow the ini-tiative of other economies in dealing with thisissue by avoiding the import of fish from areaswhere ciguatoxic fishes are commonly encoun-tered. In Hong Kong, the government would havethe necessary authority to prohibit the importand sale of contaminated or suspect live fish ifthis were classified as food.

3. The use of destructive fishing methods, especiallythe widespread application of cyanide, shouldbe eliminated and is to be abhorred in any well-practiced fishery. Programs that involve cyanidedetection, together with a commitment from theindustry not to trade in fishes found to be, or sus-pected to have been, taken with cyanide are need-ed to tackle this problem. Destructive or waste-ful fishing approaches, such as those sometimesused to take juveniles for growout (e.g., the bagor fyke net) should be identified and eliminat-ed (e.g., Johannes and Ogburn 1999).

The long-term prospects of the LRFT depend on howthe problems of overfishing, unsafe (ciguatoxic) fish,and destructive fishing are addressed. Solutionsrequire not only action by source countries but alsoby demand centers, by the industry, and by region-al intergovernmental organizations involved inmarine resource use, such as APEC (Asia-PacificEconomic Cooperation). Possible measures for adop-tion include reciprocal agreements on cyanide-freecertification, close monitoring of trade by speciesand source country (to avoid species/sources impli-cated in ciguatoxins), and an eco-labeling program(such as that proposed by the Marine StewardshipCouncil) which identifies fish captured and culturedsustainably. An evaluation of the role of maricul-ture in the LRFT is also needed to determine wheth-er, if conducted properly, it can reduce pressure onwild stocks without causing additional problems ofcoastal pollution, increased pressures on wild fishstocks for feed, etc.

Current levels of exploitation for live reef fish areapparently unsustainable. If a well-managed mari-culture industry cannot adequately substitute wild-caught fish to allow for a sustainable fishery sec-tor, the result will ultimately and inevitably befewer of the preferred live fish on the market. Thismeans higher prices to the consumer. Given thatthese fish are part of a luxury food market, it isappropriate that consumers absorb the true costsof harvesting limited stocks of wild animals, costs

currently being subsidized by lost future revenuesfrom overfished stocks, often in impoverished ar-eas, and environmental degradation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to the following who have helped meto prepare this manuscript or enabled me to attendthe meeting in Seattle: Michelle Legault, RachelWong, Bob Johannes, Patrick Chan, Brian Paust,and John Peters.

REFERENCES

Akimichi, T. 1998. Live grouper trade and ethno-net-works in Southeast Asia. Proceedings APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] Workshop on theImpacts of Destructive Fishing Practices on the Ma-rine Environment, December 1997, Hong Kong, pp.240-248.

Baillie, J., and B. Groombridge. 1996. 1996 IUCN redlist of threatened animals. IUCN (InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature), Gland, Swit-zerland.

Barber, C.V., and V.R. Pratt. 1997. Sullied seas: Strate-gies for combating cyanide fishing in Southeast Asiaand beyond. World Resources Institute, Washington,DC.

Bentley, N. 1999. Fishing for solutions: Can the live tradein wild groupers and wrasses from Southeast Asiabe managed? TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, PetalingJaya, Malaysia.

Bentley, N., and R. Aumeeruddy. 1999. The live reef fish-ery in the Seychelles. Secretariat of the Pacific Com-munity Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6:5-7.

Chan, P.S.W. 2001. Marketing aspects of the live seafoodtrade in Hong Kong and the People’s Republic ofChina. In: B.C. Paust and A.A. Rice (eds.), Market-ing and shipping live aquatic products: Proceedingsof the Second International Conference and Exhibi-tion, November 1999, Seattle, WA. University ofAlaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-01-03, Fairbanks. (Thisvolume.)

Chan, T.Y.K., A.Y.W. Chan, and J. Sham. 1992. The clin-ical features and management of ciguatera fish poi-soning. J. Hong Kong Med. Assoc. 44(2):119-121.


Dalzell, P. 1992. Ciguatera fish poisoning and fisheriesdevelopment in the South Pacific region. Bull. Soc.Path. Ex. 85:435-444.

Erdmann, M.V., and L. Pet-Soede. 1997. An overview ofdestructive fishing practices in Indonesia. Proceed-ings APEC Workshop on the Impacts of DestructiveFishing Practices on the Marine Environment, De-cember 1997, Hong Kong, pp. 25-34.

Fong, Q.S.W., and J.L. Anderson. 2000. Assessment ofthe Hong Kong shark fin trade. INFOFISH Interna-tional 1/2000:28-32.

Jennings, S., J.D. Reynolds, and V.C. Polunin. 1999. Pre-dicting the vulnerability of tropical reef fishes to ex-ploitation with phylogenies and life histories. Cons.Biol. 13:1466-1475.

Johannes, R.E. 1997. Grouper spawning aggregationsneed protection. Secretariat of the Pacific Commu-nity Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 3:13-14.

Johannes, R.E., and M. Lam. 1999. The live reef foodfish trade in the Solomon Islands. Secretariat of thePacific Community Live Reef Fish Information Bul-letin 5:8-15.

Johannes, R.E., and N.J. Ogburn. 1999. Collecting grouperseed for aquaculture in the Philippines. Secretariatof the Pacific Community Live Reef Fish Informa-tion Bulletin 6:35-48.

Johannes, R.E., and M. Riepen. 1995. Environmental,economic and social implications of the live reef fishtrade in Asia and the western Pacific. Report to theNature Conservancy and the South Pacific ForumFisheries Agency, Oct. 1995, pp. 1-82.

Jones, R.J., and A.L. Steven. 1997. Effects of cyanide oncorals in relation to cyanide fishing on reefs. Mar.Freshw. Res. 48:517-522.

Lau, P.P.F., and R. Parry-Jones. 1999. The Hong Kongtrade in live reef fish for food. TRAFFIC East Asiaand World Wide Fund for Nature, Hong Kong.

Lee, C., and Y. Sadovy. 1998. A taste for live fish: HongKong’s role in the live reef fish trade. ICLARM Quar-terly 21(2):38-42.

Lewis, N.D. 1986. Epidemiology and impact of ciguaterain the Pacific: A review. Mar. Fish. Rev. 48(4):6-13.

OmniTrak Group Inc. 1997. Summary on the taste testbetween the mariculture and the wild-caught mala-bar grouper. The Nature Conservancy. Available fromOmniTrak HQ, 841 Bishop Street, Honolulu, HI,96813.

Rhodes, K.L. 1999. Grouper aggregation protection inproactive Pohnpei. Secretariat of the Pacific Com-munity Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6:14-15.

Sadovy, Y. 1998. The live reef fish trade: A role for im-porters in combating destructive fishing practices—example of Hong Kong, China. Proceedings APECWorkshop on the Impacts of Destructive FishingPractices on the Marine Environment, December1997, Hong Kong, pp. 200-207.

Sadovy, Y., and J. Pet. 1998. Wild collection of juvenilesfor grouper mariculture: Just another capture fish-ery? Secretariat of the Pacific Community Live ReefFish Information Bulletin 4:36-39.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services foodcode, HACCP guidelines (Hazard Analysis CriticalControl Point). Washington, DC.

Yeeting, B.M. 1999. Live reef fish developments in Fiji.Secretariat of the Pacific Community Live Reef FishInformation Bulletin 6:19-24.


ABSTRACT

Hong Kong is the biggest live seafood market inSoutheast Asia. As the economy of the People’s Re-public of China (PRC) has grown in the past fewyears, the demand for live seafood has increasedtremendously. Although a small quantity of liveseafood is imported into the PRC directly, the ma-jority of this product is re-exported from Hong Kongbecause the latter is a free port and has no restraintson the importation of seafood. Consequently, in ad-dition to the substantial local demand, Hong Kongserves as a gateway for live seafood going into thePRC market.

This report is a general review on the various typesof live seafood products entering the Hong Kong andPRC markets. Also covered are air and sea trans-portation considerations, including product safetyfactors and Hong Kong import formalities and cus-toms requirements.

INTRODUCTION

Hong Kong is one of the major live seafood marketsin the world. Eating a wide variety of seafood in-cluding live seafood items is a tradition of the peo-ple living along the southeast coast of China. Overthe past three decades, the restaurant industry inHong Kong has improved the methods to cook sea-food. This “eating culture” has been gradually ac-cepted by the people inhabiting neighboringcountries, particularly those with large Chinesepopulations including Taiwan, Singapore, Malay-sia, and Thailand.

Following the adoption of the open door policy inthe PRC, live seafood has also been introduced tothis vast country—first to the Shenzhen EconomicZone which is located just next to Hong Kong. NowHong Kong–style live seafood restaurants can beseen in Beijing, Shanghai, and the other big citiesof the PRC, even in the distant province of Tibet.Because of the large market demand in the PRC,

the quantity of seafood coming into Hong Kong,which has traditionally served as a gateway to thePRC, is enormous.

TYPES OF LIVE SEAFOOD FOR THE

HONG KONG MARKET

The major types of live seafood brought into HongKong include live reef fish, lobsters, mantis prawns,crabs, prawns, and shellfish

Live reef fishThe reef fish imported into Hong Kong are general-ly caught in the regions below 30° latitude in bothin the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Gen-erally, bottomfish found on coral reefs within theseregions are acceptable to the Hong Kong live mar-ket. The highest-priced fish include highfin grou-per and humphead wrasse, with current prices atabout US $64.00 per kilogram. The medium pricedfish include various types of coral trout and arepriced at about $38.00 per kilogram. The low pricedfish include various types of grouper and are pricedat approximately $20.00 per kilogram. The indus-try estimates that about 30,000-35,000 tons of livereef fish are imported into Hong Kong each year,with about 50-55% of this amount being re-export-ed to the PRC.

LobstersSpiny lobsters from tropical regions and rock lob-sters from south Australia are the most popularlobsters used by restaurants in Hong Kong and thePRC. Rock lobsters from south Australia occupyalmost 55% of the total market for lobsters. TheAustralian lobster season is closed between Mayand October of each year. During this closure period,lobster supply decreases and prices go up. Somerestaurants will switch over to using crayfish andlobsters from North America during this period.

Marketing Aspects of the Live Seafood Trade in Hong Kong andthe People’s Republic of China

Patrick S.W. ChanBrightfuture Industries Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

194 Chan: Marketing Live Seafood in Hong Kong and PRC

Crayfish are cheaper compared to the typical mar-ket prices for spiny lobster. Also, crayfish are notvery popular because the shell of the crayfish is hardand does not match up very well with the traditionalChinese cuisine. At present spiny lobsters shippedfrom Cuba, Florida, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia,Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam,Myanmar, India, and South Africa are imported tothe Hong Kong market. In 1998 more than 9,000tons of lobsters were imported into this market.

Mantis prawnsGiant mantis prawns are very popular in HongKong seafood restaurants. The prawns are caughtin the wild and imported from Indonesia, Thailand,Vietnam, and Cambodia. The preferred size for thislive product is over 30 cm, but those in the range of20-30 cm are also acceptable.

CrabsMud crabs are imported from Pakistan and Sri Lan-ka because of their low price. The mud crabs origi-nating from the PRC and Vietnam are also well likedby Hong Kong consumers because of the general con-sensus that they taste better. Dungeness crabs fromCanada, king crabs from Australia, and snow crabsfrom Canada and Japan are also available in the HongKong market. From August to November of each yeara large quantity of freshwater hairy crabs are im-ported from Zhejiang Province in the PRC. In thepast, the hairy crabs were caught from the wild, butthis species is now cultured because of the large de-mand. These cultured crabs are gradually becom-ing acceptable to the market. The success in theculture of hairy crabs points to a business opportuni-ty for other countries with similar growing conditions.Individual crabs weighing 300 grams or more mayreach US $50.00 per kilogram. The mud crab sea-son is between September and November of each year.

PrawnsThe trawlers operating from Hong Kong are able toprovide a sufficient supply of prawns for the localmarket between late February and late October.These fishing operations are affected when thenortheast monsoon begins to blow in the SouthChina Sea. Christmas and the Chinese New Yearare the best marketing periods for imported frozenprawns that are normally imported from Austra-lia, United States, and Southeast Asia. In additionto wild prawns, cultured prawns, mainly in the form

of black tiger prawns, are regularly imported fromThailand by air and from the PRC by land trans-port over the border. The price for cultured prawnsis normally cheaper during the summer, as themortality is higher. The price will pick up when theweather becomes cooler.

ShellfishLive abalone is the most popular shellfish sold in theHong Kong market. Most abalone is 4-5 cm in sizeand is imported mainly from Taiwanese abalone cul-ture centers. Small quantities of a similar type ofabalone are imported from the PRC. However, dueto the growing market demand in the PRC, the major-ity of this abalone is sold locally. In addition to thecultured product, wild abalone of 20 cm size fromSouth Africa is also acceptable in the Hong Kongmarket. Geoduck clams from the West Coast of Can-ada are welcomed in both Hong Kong and the PRCmarkets because the skin of this clam is white andlooks cleaner than other species. The skin of clamsfrom the U.S. East Coast is typically black and isnot welcomed by the restaurants even though theytaste the same. Other live shellfish, for examplecultured scallops from Korea and razor clams fromScotland, are imported to Hong Kong, but the quan-tities are limited.

Other live seafood such as coconut crabs, snowcrabs, and giant freshwater eels are also importedto Hong Kong. However, the total quantity is small.

TRANSPORT OF LIVE SEAFOOD BY SHIPLive reef fish is the major single live seafood itemfor the Hong Kong market. About 30,000-35,000tons of live reef fish are imported from overseascountries. The majority of this live fish is importedby ship. This quantity does not include the fishcaught by the local fishermen in the reefs of theSouth China Sea. Countries now exporting live reeffish to Hong Kong include Indonesia, Malaysia,Philippines, Australia, Solomon Islands, Kiribati,Marshall Islands, India, Mayanmar, Thailand, Viet-nam, the Maldives, Seychelles, and Fiji. In otherwords, live fish carriers are able to bring fish fromcountries as far as 6,000 nautical miles from HongKong in a single voyage of less than 25 days.

Currently, live fish traders use two types of live fishcarriers. The first type is the traditional fishingvessel of Hong Kong. This design was first intro-duced from Scotland. The original design was ametal hull trawler operating in the North Sea and


is capable of operating in rough sea conditions. Ship-builders in Hong Kong followed this design and be-gan to build the ship using timber instead of metal.

Almost 99% of Hong Kong fishermen use woodenfishing vessels because they can be exempted fromobtaining proper qualification for navigation. Thispolicy has been used by the local authorities becausethe majority of the fishermen are poorly educatedand are unable to attend any training courses fornavigation. Various types of local carriers and liveholding vessels are also used in this industry (Fig. 1).

Apart from trawling, some of the vessels are builtwith live wells for fishermen involved in live fishoperations. Initially the vessel was about 50-60 feetin length and with engine size of less than 300 horsepower (HP). Now some vessels are built up to 120feet in length with engine power of up to 1500 HP.A 120-foot live harvesting vessel is typicallyequipped with 30-40 live wells and holds about 20tons of live fish (Fig. 2.)

Some traders now use metal hull live fish carriers(Figs. 3, 4). Some of these vessels are second-handlive fish carriers bought from Japan. Others are smallcargo ships or tuna vessels converted to live fish car-riers. Generally speaking, the live well capacity in ametal hull vessel is larger than that possible in a livecarrier made from timber, as the latter type vesselrequires more live well partitions to support the hull.

Both types of vessels share one thing in common—they use water inlets and outlets installed in thehulls. These through-hull facilities provide for goodwater circulation during sailing, the water flow eachhour reaching ten times the tank holding capacity.All carriers are also equipped with strong pumpingsystems that are required to maintain water circu-lation when the vessel is stationary, such as whenloading and discharging fish.

Although they are equipped with good pumping facil-ities, special attention must be paid to the followingsituations during loading and unloading live fish.

1. Tide movements. The oxygen content of the sur-face water will be lower during low tide, andexposure with the heated seawater from shal-low areas is a high risk for the fish being loadedinto the carrier.

2. Air pressure. Low air pressure will force thefish to move toward the surface of the waterwhere the temperature is higher and where thereis also less dissolved oxygen in the water.

3. Water temperature. Fish will become more ac-tive when placed in warmer water. The oxygenconsumption of fish may double or triple withevery 10°C rise in temperature. This is partic-ularly important to consider when the fish areunder stress such as during loading and unload-ing. When the fish become scared, they tend toschool tightly together in a small area of thelive well. This may result in drastic drop in oxy-gen content in this small volume of water. Goodwater circulation is a proper solution for thisproblem and the transfer of fish to different livewells by rotation also can help. When the livewells are loaded at 70% of the full capacity, it ispreferable to inject pure oxygen into the waterthrough the use of diffusers.

The holding capacity of a particular live well dependson the characteristics of the reef fish. The average

Figure 1. A Taiwanese local fish carrier.

Figure 2. A 120-foot live harvesting vessel is typicallyequipped with 30-40 live wells and holds about 20 tons of live fish.


holding ratio is between 8 to 14:1 (i.e., 8-14 tons ofwater for each 1,000 kg unit of fish). The size of fishis also an important factor to be considered whendetermining live well holding capacity because 20tails of fish weighing 1 kg each will use more oxy-gen than one tail of fish weighing 20 kg. Snapper isa more active fish than grouper while the latter re-quires more floor space. The vessel officer supervis-

ing the loading of fish needs to be flexible and havegood observation abilities. The success of each ship-ment of fish relies on the experience of the officerconcerned and his timely and accurate actions.

Buyers from Hong Kong prefer to select and weighthe fish immediately before loading. This is certainlynot a good arrangement as it is more stressful tothe fish. However, this is an effective way to avoidthe risk of weight loss, theft, and mortality by mis-handling after weighing. No Hong Kong buyer hasever used a vacuum fish pump.

TRANSPORT OF LIVE SEAFOOD BY AIR

With an increasing amount of experience and im-proved skills and equipment, more and more liveseafood is being transported by air, particularlythose products with higher selling prices. General-ly speaking, live fish is the most difficult live itemto transport by air. However, skills and equipmenthave improved and presently the survival rate oflive fish is very good, particularly if the total trans-portation time is less than 24 hours. All types ofseafood face the same problem once they aretransported by air, such as water quality changes.Once the fish are packed in the shipping container,there is hardly any chance to change the water, sothe condition of the initial supply of water has to bemaintained until the live products arrive in thebuyer’s hand. The following factors must be consid-ered when delivering live seafood by air:

• Oxygen content of the water.

• Avoidance of carbon dioxide buildup.

• Avoidance of detrimental changes in pH level.

• Avoidance of detrimental changes of temperature.

• Buildup of fish discharges.

• Loss of fish surface mucus.

Some of these factors are interrelated. In otherwords, if a correct step is taken a few problems canbe avoided. A well-equipped holding and packingcenter will improve the chance of success in the ship-ment of live products transported by air.

AIR TRANSPORT HOLDING AND

PACKING CENTER

A good holding and packing center should have thefollowing characteristics:

• Be located near the airport.

Figure 3. Metal hull live fish carrier.

Figure 4. Live well in metal hull fish carrier.


• Be located near the seaside or with good supplyof seawater.

• Have access to a reliable power supply.

• Be equipped with holding pools furnished withchilling facilities.

• Have a packing area.

• Have loading and unloading areas for transport.

Once the fish are packed in a shipping container, thewater therein provides only a limited amount of sur-vival time for the fish. Every minute counts whenpacking live seafood for air transportation. An expe-rienced operator knows how much time the packingteam requires to pack one box, so the team will startpacking with just enough time for them to finish theirtask and move the container to the airport in time forthe flight. It is ideal for the packing center to be situ-ated not more than a 30 minutes drive from the air-port. Operating costs can be reduced if seawater canbe pumped directly to the center. This also cuts downthe cost of water for the holding facilities that are es-sential for all packing centers. An emergency sup-ply of water will be needed to save lives if the conditionof the water in the holding pools turns bad suddenly.

All live seafood items should be starved for at least24 hours before they are packed to avoid the inev-itable occurrence of vomiting of undigested food whichwill then pollute the holding water. This purging willlead to detrimental pH changes and kill the packedseafood. Live reef fish can be given a freshwaterbath for 2-3 minutes when they are first delivered tothe center. Fish will vomit the undigested food infreshwater and this bath also kills various kinds ofworms and parasites attached to the body of the fish.

The temperature of the holding water should be inthe range of 21-23°C. Because reef fish normallylive in water within the temperature range of 24-30°C, a gradual reduction of this temperature inthe holding pool will make the fish inactive and lessstressed. Other types of seafood such as lobsters,mantis prawns, and crabs should be kept in sepa-rated holding pools with the same temperature.However, with shellfish, the freshwater bath shouldbe avoided. The water in all holding pools shouldbe well circulated. Water must be passed through abiofilter in order to neutralize ammonia content.Oxygen content can be improved by injection of airthrough the use of an air compressor and diffusers.

The temperature of water should be lowered a fur-ther 2-3°C prior to packing. This chilling process

must be slow and be completed in about four hours.Packing water should be at the same temperatureas that of the holding pool. An anesthetic agent willbe used in the water if the fish are packed in poly-ethylene bags. The packing water should be able tocool the fish to near the pseudo-hibernation point.The anesthetic is an additional measure to ensurethat the fish will not become too active when thewater temperature warms during the transporta-tion period. It must be noted that the use of anes-thetics is not approved for food fish and seafood inmost markets. Even if anesthetics are approved forfood products, the purge period following deliverywould probably be greater than the usual pre-pur-chase holding time. In spite of this, anesthetics arecommonly used in Southeast Asia.

The Australian live fish exporters were the first touse a plastic bin to transport live fish by air to HongKong. This particular bin is insulated and able tohold about one ton of water. A battery-operated airpump is fitted in the upper compartment of the binand injects air into the water by way of a diffuser.This shipping container is also provided with a sim-ple skimmer. Each bin is able to hold about 240 kgof live fish and the survival rate is very good if thecontainer can be delivered to the buyer within 24hours. Because the water temperature can be wellmaintained in the bin, no anesthetic is used. How-ever, the cost of returning the bins to the originat-ing exporter is very costly.

Packing live fish in polyethylene bags and expand-ed polystyrene boxes requires a skillful workingteam. Fish are packed in a 1:3 or 4 fish-to-waterratio (1 kg fish to 3-4 kg of water), depending onthe type of fish involved and the total transporttime. During shipment, the fish are maintained inthe stage of pseudo-hibernation. They are weighedand put inside the bag that is already positioned inthe polystyrene box. The box is passed onto the sec-ond worker who is responsible for injecting pureoxygen into the bag and securing the bag with elas-tic bands. The box is then passed to the final work-er who will check the packing, add coolant, and sealthe polystyrene box with sealing tape. An experiencedworking team can complete one box in one minute.

Lobster must be held without food for several daysprior to shipment. However, lobster will begin todigest their muscle tissue and build up waste if theyare not given food for too long a period of time. Dur-ing packing, the lobsters are cooled to the pointwhere they become inactive—normally 17-18°C fortropical lobsters and 4-6°C for cold-water lobsters.


Lobsters can be placed in expanded polystyreneshipping containers with their tails banded and packedin layers separated by moist newspapers. Normally,no more than three layers of lobsters should be packedin one box. Wood shavings and polystyrene chips havebeen placed between lobsters with good result. It isalso very common to see tropical lobsters rolled up innewspaper in order to control their movements. Thismethod has proved to be quite successful. Other ex-porters roll the lobsters in dry sand, a practice thattends to calm the lobsters during transportation.Suppliers in tropical countries commonly apply thispractice to small lobsters. Lobsters can survive up to40 hours without water as long as they are kept in anenvironment with the relative humidity over 70% andthe temperature maintained in the range of 16-18°C.

Mantis prawns also require similar control over foodintake prior to shipment. The general practice is tolower the water temperature slowly until the prawnsshow sign of pseudo-hibernation. These prawns shouldbe packed individually and placed inside a plasticcone to avoid body damage during transport. Theprawns are oriented in a vertical position inside thepolystyrene box. Packing them in layers is not rec-ommended because their bodies are too soft to with-stand the pressure. They can survive up to 24 hoursif the humidity and temperature can be maintainedwithin a certain range during the transport period.

With abalone, no food should be given for at least 2-3 days prior to export. The abalone are weighed andplaced inside a plastic basket before returning tothe water for the cooling process. This basket is thenplaced inside a plastic bag that is filled with pureoxygen before final sealing. Abalone can survive upto 36 hours in a cool and moist environment.

The majority of the live prawns shipped to HongKong are black tiger prawns. No food is given to theprawns for at least two days prior to harvest from theculture ponds. Prawns should be cooled to a temper-ature that achieves a state of lethargy. The chillingprocess must be carefully monitored and water tem-perature should not be depressed lower than 18°Cor the prawns will be killed. About 6 kg of prawns areplaced inside a polyethylene bag that is filled withpure oxygen. A cooling agent such as a gel pack mustbe used to maintain the temperature inside the poly-styrene box.

Since the market prices of certain other types ofshellfish and crayfish are quite low, it is not finan-cially viable to transport them by expensive air ser-vice. Should there be any need for these products to

be sent by air, the rules for air transportation haveto be observed. The rate of successful deliveries re-lies on the experience of the exporter and updatedinformation on weather, flight delays, and the cargoclearance time at the destination. Live seafood sur-vive better at lower temperatures, so every effort mustbe made to ensure the packing temperature is main-tained until the cargo is delivered to the buyer.

IMPORT FORMALITIESAir cargoHong Kong is a free port and does not levy any cus-toms tariffs or duties on imports. Hong Kong alsodoes not maintain anti-dumping laws and counter-vailing duty laws. There are no value-added or gener-al service taxes. However, the cargo-handling chargeis about HK $1.4 per kilogram. A consignee can col-lect the cargo on production of the airway bills anda letter of authorization from the consignor or compa-ny stamps. Normally, a consignee will be appointedby a transportation company to withdraw cargo fromthe airport. The rental of a truck is normally betweenHK $500 and HK $900, depending on the capacity ofthe vehicle. If the live seafood is sent in polystyreneboxes, additional labor charges will be required forthe loading and unloading of the boxes to the vehicle.

Airway billAn airway bill must be prepared by the shipper’scargo handling agent. The original copy goes withthe cargo and a photocopy is faxed to consigneeswho will be responsible for the withdrawal of thecargo from the Hong Kong airport.

Certificate of originA certificate of origin is not generally required. Butcheck with the buyer since it may be needed in cer-tain circumstances.

Import and export declarationImport and export declaration must be made by theconsignee within 14 days after the importation orexportation of any article other than cargo for trans-shipment, transit, or for exhibition purposes with avalue less than HK$1,000. The information con-tained on the declaration is used primarily by theCensus and Statistics Department to enforce the var-ious regulations related to import and export decla-rations.


Customs inspectionPhysical inspection of the goods at the airport willbe conducted on a selective basis after the inspec-tion of the airway bill. The customs hours for gen-eral cargo are Monday though Friday 0800 to 1500.However, live products and perishables can receiveclearance outside of regular customs office hours.

Health certificateLive marine fish are exempt and do not require ahealth certificate. However, a health certificate forchilled and frozen fish is required. All crayfish andshellfish require health certificates and the originalcopy must be attached to the cargo. The health certif-icate of the imported marine product must be issuedby the competent authority in the country of originstating that

• The marine product is processed and packed un-der hygienic conditions.

• The marine product does not contain any substanceincluding biotoxins, contaminants like pesticides,trace metals, etc. in such amount as to be poison-ous, harmful, or injurious to health.

• The marine product is fit for human consumptionand is permitted to be sold as food in the countryof origin.

For marine products coming from cholera infectedregions, the following additional certification is alsorequired:

• The marine product was not collected from areaswhere any cholera case has been reported.

• The marine product has been found to be free fromthe infection of cholera vibrios.

General informationThe Hong Kong International Airport is about 50 kmfrom the city. A very good highway network connectsthe airport to the city. Normally, it takes about 35-40minutes to reach the urban areas. However, a total of2-3 hours is usually needed for the transportationworkers to clear the cargo and deliver the containersto the consignee. The air temperature could reach 35°Cbetween mid-May to late September. Sufficient cool-ants must be used to maintain the proper packingtemperature.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Mr. Chan has served as chairman of the Hong KongChamber of the Seafood Merchants Limited since1998. The HK Chamber represents 95% of the livereef fish importers and wholesalers and 65% of thelive seafood retailers in Hong Kong. The HK Cham-ber is a legally registered organization that repre-sents the industry and voices the views of this diverseindustry to the government and public. Since 1998,the Chamber has assisted both the Hong Kong Ag-riculture and Fishery and Health Departments todeal with food poisoning incidents relating to live reeffish containing ciguatera toxin. Mr. Chan is alsoGeneral Manager of Brightfuture Industries Lim-ited, one of the major live reef fish importers in HongKong. He has extensive experience in the live seafoodindustry and in-depth knowledge of seafood marketsin Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China.


ABSTRACT

Each year about 30,000-35,000 metric tons of livereef fish are imported into Hong Kong from thePhilippines, Australia, the Maldives, Vietnam,Malaysia, and Thailand. Of this amount, 55-60% isre-exported to the PRC. Traditions in Hong Kongand the PRC each call for their own types and sizesof fish. Different importation methods are also re-quired in each of these two markets.

In Hong Kong, a well-developed relationship andprotocol exists between importers, who run live fishcarriers, retailers, who hold fish for distribution torestaurants, and the seafood restaurants themselves.This relationship may be changing as some restau-rant chains buy fish directly from wholesalers and asmore overseas suppliers begin sending live fish by air.

Rules regarding importing live seafood to the PRCare also very complex. Import taxes and chargesare levied by the PRC Central Government, as wellas by other government departments. Different cit-ies charge different rates and have different importclearance policies. Several alternative pathwaysinto the country also exist, with varying levels ofrisk and legality. Foreign traders wishing to enterthe PRC market may want to secure the help ofHong Kong agents.

INTRODUCTION

Among all the live seafood trading in Hong Kong,live reef fish has the largest share of the market.Each year about 30,000-35,000 metric tons of livereef fish are imported into Hong Kong, with a totalwholesale value of US $490 million. Because of theconstant demand from the People’s Republic ofChina (PRC) market, about 55-60% of the live fishis re-exported to the PRC. The majority of this livefish is exported to the PRC through a special ar-rangement that requires paying only part of the fullimport duties. Since there are traditional differencesbetween the two places, different types and sizes of

fish are needed in these two markets. This reportinvolves a broad discussion of the wholesale, retail,and exporting of live reef fish and other live sea-food species in Hong Kong and adjacent territories.

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG IMPORTERS,WHOLESALERS, RETAILERS, AND

RESTAURANTS

People normally find that the price paid for a livereef fish in a Hong Kong seafood restaurant is ex-ceedingly high. This has created a wrong impres-sion for members of the public and particularly theforeign suppliers of live fish. They may have a feel-ing that they were deceived by the Hong Kong buy-ers because their selling price is so low.

In fact, an imported live fish is required to go throughseveral traders before it reaches the restaurant. Awell-developed relationship among the importers,wholesalers, retailers, and seafood restaurants isclearly seen in live reef fish trading in Hong Kong.The operations of the importer and wholesaler re-quire large amounts of capital. The annual busi-ness turnover of a major wholesaler in Hong Kongwill reach US $25 million. One 15 metric ton ship-ment of live fish imported via ship may involve anexpenditure of $250,000, an amount that is beyondthe capability of most retailers and normally canbe handled only by the wholesaler. Retailers buyfish from wholesalers and control market distribu-tions. Seafood restaurants are the end users.

Live reef fish importers run one or more live fishcarriers. Foreign agents are appointed who are re-sponsible for the arrangement of adequate quanti-ties of fish and the clearance to take or harvest fishin the country. Those substantial importers who ownfloating cage stations in Hong Kong also act aswholesalers, as they have sufficient facilities to holdsuch large quantities of live fish. Small importerssell their fish to the wholesaler and the latter sells

Wholesale and Retail Marketing Aspects of the Hong KongLive Seafood Business

Patrick S.W. ChanBrightfuture Industries Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

202 Chan: Live Seafood Wholesale and Retail in Hong Kong

the fish to the retailers after taking an 8-14% prof-it. Retailers hold their fish in their shops until theycan be sold. The marketing officers of the retailingshops telephone the restaurants in their sales net-works each morning to take orders. The fish is de-livered to the restaurants that afternoon. As thereis risk of mortality during the holding period, retail-ers normally take a profit of 25-35% and the restau-rants then mark up an additional 100-150% profit.

This system has been maintained for many years,as importers and wholesalers like to sell their fishas quickly as possible to avoid loss from mortality.They are not interested in the sale of small quanti-ties to restaurants, even though they can earn more.However, this situation has changed because oper-ators with a chain of restaurants have bought fishdirectly from the wholesalers in the recent two orthree years. This situation was not seen in the pastand now restaurant operators have to take what-ever means possible to cut operating costs.

As handling skills have improved over recent years,more and more overseas suppliers have begun tosend live fish to Hong Kong by air. As the quantityin each shipment is small, a number of retailershave started importing live fish by air and do notrely completely on the wholesalers. At the momentthe situation is chaotic and the identities of busi-nesses serving as wholesalers and retailers are dif-ficult to define. General speaking, the wholesalerswith their sea importing capability are still takingthe leading role in live reef fish trading in Hong Kong.

COUNTRIES FROM WHICH LIVE

SEAFOOD IS IMPORTED

About 50% of the live reef fish supply is importedfrom Indonesia, closely followed by the Philippines,Australia, Maldives, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thai-land. Live reef fish exports from Indonesia beganin 1988. Most of the suppliers are Indonesian Chi-nese who normally set up their floating cage sta-tions at suitable locations and mobilize fishermenin the nearby area to catch fish. Fish are boughtfrom these fishermen and are held at the holdingstations until they have enough quantity to notifythe Hong Kong buyer to send a live fish carrier tocollect the fish. This method of operation will con-tinue in most of the regions in Indonesia, as thereis no other means of transport to export the fish.However, in big cities like Jakarta and Bali, whereinternational airports are available, suppliers op-erate their own live fish carriers and buy fish fromfishermen from regions within a four or five day

voyage. Their accumulations are periodically sentto Hong Kong by air. These suppliers also collectand export lobsters.

Suppliers from Cairns in Australia, Manila in thePhilippines, Sabah of Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thai-land rely heavily on air transportation and nowmore than 80% of the catches are sent to Hong Kongby air. It is apparent that air transportation has be-come increasingly important to live reef fish trading.

Almost all lobsters are sent to Hong Kong by air.Each year more than 9,000 metric tons of live lob-sters are imported. The Australian lobsters com-prise more than 50% of the market.

PAYMENT AND TRADING RULES INHONG KONG

Wholesalers normally settle an account with theimporters within one week after the sale. If the fishcannot be sold instantly the wholesaler is requiredto buy the fish at a price agreeable to both partiesand the risk will then be transferred to the whole-saler. The relationship between the importer andwholesaler is close and it is not uncommon to seethe wholesaler provide financial aid to the import-er. This is seen particularly when the importer’slive carrier or ship needs urgent repair or an addi-tional deposit for future shipment of fish is needed.

Retailers are required to settle their bills within 10 to14 days. However, because the economy has declinedover the past two years, unsettled accounts havedragged on for 4-6 weeks. A discount of 3% is givento retailers to compensate them for the water on thefish during the process of fish weighing.

Retailers get higher profits from restaurants. How-ever, the normal restaurant payment term is 30-45days. The payment schedule from restaurants lo-cated in big hotels is even longer. In addition, res-taurant operators periodically “force” retailers tosubscribe to dinner coupon campaigns during spe-cial business promotions. Participation in this typeof promotion may require several tens of thousandsof HK dollars a year. Retailers also pay 3% of theirtotal sales for the year as a commission to the res-taurant staff. This commission normally comes dueprior to the Chinese New Year.

It would appear that all the benefits go to restau-rant operators. However, we must understand thatHong Kong is one of the most expensive places tolive in the world and that businesses are requiredto pay very high employee salaries and premise


rentals. Nevertheless, operating a restaurant is avery profitable business. In Hong Kong about 95%of restaurants are Chinese restaurants and most ofthem sell live seafood.

RE-EXPORT OF SEAFOOD TO THE PRCAn import tax of about 17% is paid for seafood ex-ported from Hong Kong to the PRC. Additionalcharges are also levied by other government depart-ments and, at present, different cities are chargingdifferent rates. The policy for import clearance oflive seafood is also different from area to area. Thissituation is applied not only to seafood but also toall imported commodities, which is very confusing.However, organizations with strong backgroundsare given quotas to import various types of seafoodat much lower tax rates. Some of these quotas aresold to seafood traders. Those who do not possessquotas must find other ways to import seafood.

In the past seven or eight years, a large amount oflive seafood has been imported to the PRC via asmall port of Yantian, which is located on the eastborder of the New Territories of Hong Kong. ShaTau Kok is designated for the culture of fish and islocated just adjacent to Yantian. The culture fish-ermen in Sha Tau Kok are allowed to sell their prod-ucts in Yantian and a fishing cooperative was formedmany years ago. The cooperative managed to ob-tain special approval from the authorities and, as aconsequence, an import tax of only 3% is levied forall products from Sha Tau Kok.

The fishermen in Sha Tau Kok have made good useof this privilege and act as the transport agents fortraders who wish to bring live seafood to Yantian.It is an open secret that much of this imported sea-food is not cultured product, and bribes are offeredto the officers concerned to facilitate the importclearance. This channel for importing seafood hasbecome more and more difficult because the PRCCentral Government has taken drastic action toeliminate smuggling activities. Recently severalshipments of seafood were detained and heavy fineswere imposed. However, live seafood import activi-ties are still going on.

Following the opening of the new airport in HongKong, a new live seafood entry point was establishedin Shekou which is an economic industries zoneadjacent to the western border of Hong Kong. A fewHong Kong transportation companies are now co-operating with the state owned organizations in this

zone that have seafood import quotas needed todeliver seafood destined for traders in the PRC.Several fishing vessels are plying the waters be-tween Shekou and Tung Chung, which is a port onlya five minute drive from the Hong Kong airport.At present, a large quantity of live seafood import-ed by air is entering the PRC using this channel.The service charge placed on these imports coverscustom clearance, import tax, and transportationservice. Different types of seafood are required topay different service charge rates. Nevertheless,this importation channel can save a lot of time andthe service charge is cheaper than the normal im-port duty.

Shekou also provides the convenience for thosemarketers who wish to redistribute seafood to oth-er big cities like Shanghai and Beijing. The Shen-zhen airport is about a 25 minute drive fromShekou. Currently, some Hong Kong operators haveset up holding centers in Shekou and are providingholding and repackaging services for live seafoodtraders in the PRC.

Starting in 1996, Australian lobster suppliers man-aged to send their products directly to the PRC with-out going through the traders in Hong Kong. Theyworked with operators who can readily make pay-ments in foreign currency. However, following theimplementation of a new policy from PRC CentralGovernment in 1997, no foreign currencies are al-lowed to be remitted out of the country. The Chi-nese currency, the RMB, is not a hard currency andthere is a control on removing RMB from the coun-try. A large number of Australian marketers werehard hit by this new policy, and could not get theirmoney back after sending their lobsters to the PRC.

In the past, seafood operators in big cities such asBeijing and Shanghai relied on local retailers tosupply them with product from Yantian. A problemarose with these retailers because many of them,after securing a line of credit with the traders inYantian, just ran away with the cargo. The chanc-es of locating them was slim because they only op-erated with a truck and a hand phone. Many HongKong seafood operators set up shops in Yantian a fewyears ago and most of them have suffered huge lossesfrom these unreliable clients. At the moment, oper-ators in Yantian, most of whom are local people,are very cautious about selling their products. How-ever, they are able to change the RMB into HongKong currency by way of the black market and, inthis way, are still able to survive in the industry.

204 Chan: Live Seafood Wholesale and Retail in Hong Kong

As can be seen, the live seafood trading situation inthe PRC is very complicated. It is not advisable forforeign traders to sell their products directly to thePRC until the situation is clear. It will be much eas-ier and safer if they gain the assistance of a HongKong agent or sell their products directly to HongKong traders.

MARKETED FISH SPECIES

Nine of the most common fish marketed live arelisted in Table 1.

Preferred types of live reef fish for the HongKong and PRC marketsRed coral trout (Fig. 1) is the most commonly usedmedium priced fish in both Hong Kong and the PRC.Red color signifies “fortune” in the Chinese tradi-tion. All Chinese hosts would like to present a redcoral trout at dinner receptions celebrating wed-dings, birthdays, and other celebrations. At present,the red coral trout destined for the Hong Kong andPRC markets are captured from the wild and thetaste of the fish is good.

The word “fish” has the same pronunciation as theChinese word that represents “plentiful.” This is avery important “sign” in the traditional agricultur-al society of China. At all dinner receptions, fish is

a necessary item on the menu. If people cannot af-ford coral trout, then they can use green grouper(Ching Pan) (Fig. 2) as an alternative. Ching Pan ismostly supplied by aquaculture operators and, as aconsequence, the supply is very steady. However,the situation in the PRC is different because peopleare inclined to use freshwater fish at their recep-tions if they cannot afford the expensive fish species.

Following the recent economic crisis in Southeast Asia,high priced fish are no longer so popular. So Mei (Fig.3) and Lo Shu Pan (Fig. 4) are expensive because theytaste good and their supply is limited. In the PRC,the fish that are served at a reception dinner indi-cate the importance of the guest. It also shows thatthe host is capable of affording the expensive fish.This has become a tradition in the commercial fieldin the PRC. Officials from state-owned organizationslike to order expensive seafood at their social gath-erings as the bills only go to their organizations. Infact, most of the people in the PRC are not able toafford these costly seafood meals. They just take theopportunity to enjoy themselves at the expense oftheir employer. Lately, this situation has been recti-fied following the implementation of an anti-corrup-tion policy by the PRC Central Government. Thesituation in Hong Kong is different. Apart from socialfunctions, people will order an expensive meal of fishafter they have made some easy money like winningfrom horse racing or profit from the stock market.

Table 1. Marketed fish species with common names and Hong Kong local names.

Scientific name Common name Local name

High priced fish Cheilinus undulatus Humphead wrasse So Mei Cromileptes altivelis High-finned grouper Lo Shu Pan

Medium priced fish Plectropomus areolatus Spotted coral trout Sai Sing Plectropomus leopardus Red coral trout Tung Sing

Low priced fish Epinephelus polyphekadion Flowery grouper Charm Pan Epinephelus malabaricus Green grouper Ching Pan Epinephelus bleekeri Brownspotted grouper Chi Ma Pan Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Tiger grouper Lo Fu Pan



J. CHAITON: Would you describe fish mortalityproblems observed along the route from supplier towholesaler to retailer to restaurant? Also, what doyou do with your dead fish?

P. CHAN: There are some mortalities. When becom-ing involved with this type of transportation, it is mostimportant that you carefully determine fish condition.If fish condition is good, mortality will be lower. It isdifficult to say what the average mortality might bebecause the condition of the fish can be so different.

Concerning the second question, because our tradeis mainly for live fish, the price for the dead fish,provided they are in good condition, is only one fifthof the live fish price.

QUESTION: Are there any problems with the waterquality in Hong Kong associated with keeping the fishalive?

P. CHAN: Hong Kong water is not very good be-cause our pollution control is not well developed.Also there is rapid development in areas neighbor-ing Hong Kong. In addition, water temperatureschange rapidly. During the summer our water tem-perature can rise to about 31°C while in winter thewater temperature can drop to about 15°C. For trop-ical fish, this is quite a big challenge. Consequent-ly, we have to be very careful. In terms of live seafoodwholesalers, when the fish arrive they want to sellit as soon as possible. However, once the fish ar-rives at the retail shop, because of their ability touse temperature controls, filter systems, and ster-ilizing systems, the fish will survive much better.

QUESTION: Concerning the red coral trout, is themeat white or red?

P. CHAN: The meat color is white.

Figure 1. Plectropomus leopardus, red coral trout (Tung Sing)are now the most popular fish in Hong Kong. Wholesale price isabout US $38-40.00/ kg.

Figure 2. Epinephelus malabaricus, green grouper (ChingPan) is purchased as an alternative to more favored fish.

Figure 3. Cheilinus undulatus, humphead wrasse (So Mai).

Figure 4. Cromileptes altivelis, high-finned grouper (Lo ShuPan) is an expensive fish.


INTRODUCTION

This paper provides an overview of Irish live crus-tacean fisheries. Ireland is positioned in the NorthAtlantic with an extensive continental shelf areato the west. However, most of the live crustaceanfisheries are in inshore waters, primarily within thesix-mile limit, although some extend out to 12 miles.About 83% of the Irish fleet or approximately 1,700vessels are inshore craft under 15 meters in lengthfishing up to 12 miles from the coast. The largestnumbers of inshore vessels are found on the westcoast of the country, particularly in areas like Gal-way and Mayo, because of the large number of shel-tered inshore bays in the area. In these bays, muchof the fishing is done using small vessels up to 5 min length termed punts (or more traditionally, cur-rachs) and powered by outboards. All Irish crusta-cean fisheries with the exception of crawfish usepots or creels. With the exception of shrimp potsthey are typically D-shaped in cross section andconstructed from plastic coated steel with a steelbar base and netted sides. The heavy base and Dshape ensure that the pots right themselves nomatter how they land on the seabed. The crabs orlobsters enter via two soft eye entrances on oppo-site sides of the pot attracted by a cen-tral bait bag. Variations include lighterhomemade versions used by vesselswithout power haulers, constructedwith timber bases and hoops of uPVCpipe (unplasticized polyvinyl chloride)and weighted with small amounts ofconcrete.

The average annual landings of themain crustacean species are:

• Brown crab—6,000-7,000 metric tons

• Lobster—500-700 metric tons

• Velvet crab—300 metric tons

• Shrimp—400-500 metric tons

• Spider crab—150 metric tons

• Crawfish—25 metric tons

Official statistics for landings by the inshore sectorestimate the total value of the landed catch to be30 million Irish pounds (35 million U.S. dollars).The breakdown of the catch is shown in Fig. 1. Thischart includes mariculture production such as Pa-cific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), bottom culturedmussels, etc. The levels of brown crab landings bythe inshore sector are probably underestimated. Theoffshore brown crab fishery is the only other signif-icant contributor to crustacean landings.

SPECIES PROFILESBrown crabBrown crab (Cancer pagurus), while closely relatedto the Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) found onthe North American west coast, is much more robust-ly built (Fig. 2). The majority, usually around 80%,of crab landed in the fishery are female. The Irishfishery has distinct offshore and inshore segments.The offshore sector is prosecuted by four purposebuilt vivier “supercrabbers” which have a total an-nual catch of about 3,500 metric tons. These ves-sels fish up to 60 miles offshore and in water depths

An Overview of Irish Live Crustacean Fisheries

Ian LawlerIrish Sea Fisheries Board, Dunlaughaire, Ireland

Figure 1. Composition of the fisheries catch in Ireland, including mariculture.

Crawfish1%

Edible Crab1%

Scallop1%

Whelk4%Salmon

5%

Lobster15%

Flat Oyster**7%

Periwinkle7%

Gigas Oyster*19%

Shrimp6%

Blue Mussel*6%

Demersal species22%

Clam*2%

Crab claws2%

Other10%

Velvet Crab2%

208 Lawler: Live Crustacean Marketing in Ireland

to 200 meters working up to 2,500 22-inch pots perboat. During the initial development of the fisherypots up to 36 inches were used. However, as thecatches stabilized it was found that the smaller potswere easier to handle and store. They will haulabout half of these pots (1,250 pots) per day in windspeeds up to force seven. These are very seaworthyvessels, 18 meters in length, built of steel with fullshelterdecks and equipped with 30 cubic meter vivi-er tanks capable of holding 10 metric tons of crab.Figure 3 shows one of the vessels, the MFV PeadairElaine. This vessel is equipped with a hydraulichatch to close up the shelterdeck when fishing op-erations are not in progress, particularly duringrough weather. In the photo the vessel is shooting,or deploying pots. The pots are shot at full speed—around nine knots—with pots going over the side

every seven seconds. Figure 4 shows the “shooter”—the crewmember deploying the pots standing at theshooting table. Immediately on his left is a steelbar on which the eyesplices of the 2 fathom legs orbranch lines are threaded. These are spaced at 14fathom intervals on the mainline. The procedurecommences with the marker buoy and weight atone end of the mainline being shot away, and thefirst branch line eyesplice is removed from the steelbar by the shooter. He then attaches a pot to thebranch line by passing of a toggle of 25 mm uPVCplastic pipe attached to the pot by a short length ofrope through the eyesplice. As the mainline runsout it then pulls the pot over the side, with the helpof a shove to the pot from the shooter. As the shoot-er awaits the pot being pulled over the side he read-ies the next branch line by removing the eyesplicefrom the steel bar. Generally two crewmen keep theshooter supplied with baited pots. When he is shoot-ing at full speed, the total elapsed shooting time isabout seven seconds or less per pot. The advantageof this system is that, if the mainline becomes tan-gled, all that will happen is this steel bar will bendand the eyesplices are pulled off and over the side.When tangles occur the crew retreat to a safe dis-tance until the tangle goes over the side and the ves-sel has slowed sufficiently to safely clear the problem.

Figure 5 is of the retrieval station with one crew-member on the stand wearing a safety harness. Thepots are hauled to the surface using a slave haulerand then pulled aboard. Figure 6 is a close-up ofthe eyesplice and toggle. When vessels first triedout this system a concern was the strength of link.When tested it was found that 14 millimeter ropebroke before the toggle. After the crabs are cleared

Figure 3. The MFV Peadair Elaine, one of four offshore su-percrabber vessels built to fish brown crab off Ireland. The ves-sel is shooting (deploying) pots.

Figure 2. Brown crab (Cancer pagurus), Ireland’s major crus-tacean fishery.

Figure 4. Crewmember deploying brown crab pots on theMFV Peadair Elaine.


from the pot, the bait bag is cleaned and rebaited.The bait is commonly frozen herring or mackerel,rejects from a processing line. It is important thatold bait is removed, as it starts to repel crab if it ismore than 48 hours old. The crabs are then nicked(Fig. 7). The French nicking method, in which theligament underneath the dactylus of the claw is cut,

prevents the crabs from damaging one another. Thecrabs are then placed in the vivier tank. Figure 8shows crewmembers emptying the vivier tank.When it is full there is usually crab to a depth of fourfeet. On this occasion the total crab weight was over10 tons. When landing the crab care has to be takennot to use containers with drainage holes that per-mit the tips of the crab legs to protrude, as whenthey are placed on the quay or in the vivier truck theycan be broken off. During the course of transport theresultant blood loss can cause significant mortalities.

The majority of brown crab landed by the offshorefishery is shipped live to the north of France. Thetypical shipping procedure involves the use of sim-ple vivier trucks equipped with water tanks andaeration systems. The total transport time to Franceis usually about 30 hours. This is about the maxi-mum length of time that crab survive in the viviertrucks in current use. Recently, there has been alot of interest in the use of airfreight to transportlive crab to destinations farther afield.

In contrast to the offshore fishery, the inshore fisheryis far more varied, using vessels ranging from puntswith outboards to well-built GRP vessels of about 13meters in length. The latter type of vessel can fishup to 1,000 pots; however, 200-400 is more usual.

The northwest coast has the largest inshore fisheryjust inshore of the area worked by the large super-crabbers. Elsewhere around the coast brown crab

Figure 5. Crewmember at crab pot retrieval station on theMFV Peadair Elaine. The pots are hauled to the surface usinga slave hauler, and then pulled aboard.

Figure 6. Close-up of the eyesplice and toggle on the crabpot deploy-retrieval system, MFV Peadair Elaine.

Figure 7. Brown crab (Cancer pagurus) during the nickingprocess. The French nicking method, in which the ligament un-derneath the dactylus of the claw is cut, prevents the crabsfrom damaging one another.


is mainly a bycatch of other fisheries such as thevelvet crab or lobster. There is, however, a trend to-ward an all year fishery for crab among the largerinshore vessels. Figure 9 shows a traditional north-western crab vessel, this one of a design derived fromNorse origins which used to be very common alongthe northwest coast. This vessel is about 10.5 metersin length with 4 crew. Landings can be up to 150 40-kg boxes per day. In this area most of the inshorecatch is processed. On the more modern GRP ves-sels in use, wells or vivier tanks are increasing in use.

LobsterIn common with the inshore crab fishery the Europe-an lobster (Homarus gammarus) (Fig. 10) fishery isworked by a varied fleet ranging from punts upward.The larger vessels usually fish about 900 pots, but200-400 pots is average around the coast. This fish-ery tends to be seasonal and confined to the summermonths from May to about October. This is becausethe lobsters are not very active and hence not easilycaught during the winter. Due to overexploitation,lobster is no longer the major component of trapfisheries and is now a bycatch to brown crab andvelvet crab in many areas. Because of this Irish fish-ermen became interested in the management tech-niques used in the Maine lobster industry and withthe assistance of the Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM)made a number of visits to observe the fishery priorto introducing similar measures in Ireland, in par-ticular the V-notching of female lobsters (Fig. 11).Backed by appropriate legislation prohibiting thelanding and sale of V-notched lobsters and with theassistance of European funding, a number of regionalV-notch programs have been instituted. These pro-grams usually involve fishermen’s cooperatives towhich all fishermen make annual contributions. Thefunds are used, along with matching EuropeanPESCA Programme funds, to “buy back” berried fe-male lobsters that are V-notched prior to release byan authorized person such as a fishery officer. It isestimated that 60,000 female lobsters have beennotched and released since 1995. The V-notchesappear to last through at least three molts, duringwhich time it is hoped they breed a few times. Inaddition one local fishermen’s group has funded theconstruction of a lobster hatchery and releases 20,000juveniles per year, while other groups have pur-chased substantial numbers of juveniles from otherhatcheries for release in their own areas. Given therecapture rates reported in studies elsewhere, the

cost/benefit of this activity needs to be considered.Figure 12 is a 15 meter GRP lobster pot vessel fish-ing off the Aran Islands on the west coast. The ves-sel is equipped with twin-engines due to the natureof the coast being worked. This type of vessel is be-coming increasingly popular for use by the larger,more year-round operators, fishing lobster andbrown crab. More typical inshore fishing vessels are8-12 meters in length.

After capture lobsters are generally held “dry” un-der damp sacking as most vessels do not have vivi-er tanks. In most instances, at the end of the day’sfishing they are placed in a large floating box knownas a keep pen. The lobsters are banded to keep themfrom damaging one another. They are retained inthe floating pens until a large quantity buyer comesaround with a vivier truck, or a sale can be arrangedwith a local buyer. Local buyers will hold the lob-ster in large holding ponds. The pond in Fig. 13 istypical flow-through lobster pond.

Velvet crabThe velvet crab, Necora puber, is a portunid crabtypically of about 60-100 millimeters carapace width(Fig. 14). They are fished by many of the smallerinshore vessels, as velvet crab are very much aninshore species. The fishery is year-round in someareas, such as Galway, where large inshore shel-tered bays are located. Velvet crab are generally ex-ported live to Spain, though some are processedprior to export. They are typically tightly packed inorange crates to reduce their opportunities to fightand damage one another, and are shipped in stan-dard vivier transports. They do not tolerate long ex-posures in air.

ShrimpShrimp, Palaemon serratus (Fig. 15), are generallyfished by the smallest vessels in the fleet. The typ-ical vessels are punts fishing 100 to 200 pots (Fig.16). The shrimp pots are usually light plastic potsof French manufacture. This winter fishery extendsfrom October to January. Much of the product isprocessed ashore, cooked, and exported in that fash-ion. However, a significant amount of the harvest isnow exported to France in vivier trucks. Cylindricalpots are used, each weighing about two pounds. Theshrimp are held alive by the fishermen, typically inpots with the entrance blocked by foam.


Figure 8. A crewmember empties the vivier tank. When thetank is full the brown crab depth is four feet.

Figure 9. Traditional northwestern inshore crab vessel, ofNorse design. This vessel is about 10.5 meters in length withfour crew. Landings can be about 150 40-kg boxes per day.

Figure 10. European lobster (Homarus gammarus). Due tooverexploitation, lobster is no longer the major component oftrap fisheries in Ireland, and is now a bycatch to brown craband velvet crab in many areas.

Figure 11. A V-notched female European lobster. A resourcemanagement program in Ireland marks berried females withthe V-notch. Fishermen who catch the marked lobsters are re-imbursed to return them to the sea to breed.

Figure 12. A 15 meter GRP lobster pot vessel fishing off theAran Islands, west coast of Ireland. The vessel is equipped withtwin engines. This type of vessel is becoming increasingly pop-ular for use by the larger, year-round operators, fishing lobsterand brown crab.

Figure 13. Local buyers hold the lobster in large, flow-through holding ponds.


Spider crabSpider crab, Maja squinado, (Fig. 17) grow up to halfa meter across the legs, and are mainly fished in thesouthwest of Ireland where they are most abundant.This species is usually harvested during a summerfishery from May to October. Spider crabs molt inJuly and August, interrupting the commercial fish-ery. The brown crab pots previously described areused in this fishery with one variation. The fisher-men use a 10-inch plastic funnel located on the topof the pot to allow this rather large and gangly ani-mal to enter the pot. This design is also suitable forspiny lobster or crawfish. Spider crabs are mainlyexported live to Spain.

CrawfishLast and probably least in terms of Irish crustaceanlandings is the crawfish, a spiny lobster, Palinuruselephas (Fig. 18). Along the west coast of the coun-try this resource has been overfished by tangle net-ting. Landings have declined from 270 metric tonsat the peak of trap fisheries in the 1960s, down to180 metric tons with the introduction of tangle netsin the 1970s, to a current catch of 10-20 metric tonsannually. As crawfish need a wide entrance to a trapthey escape quite easily and typically traps have tobe hauled twice a day. The introduction of tanglenets, which are hauled every two or three days, re-sulted in a large increase in catches which couldnot be sustained. Efforts are now being made to

Figure 14. The velvet crab, Necora puber, is a portunid crabtypically of about 60-100 millimeters carapace width.

Figure 15. The fishery for shrimp, Palaemon serratus, ex-tends from October to January.

Figure 16. Shrimp are generally fished by the smallest ves-sels in the fleet. This punt can fish 100 to 200 pots.

Figure 17. Spider crab, Maja squinado, grow up to half ameter across the legs, and are mainly fished in the southwestof Ireland where they are most abundant.


restrict tangle netting for crawfish in Ireland. Irishcrawfish are exported live to France and Spain.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion it may be seen from the above thatcrustaceans, particularly those for the live trade, arethe lifeblood of much of the Irish inshore fleet. It ishoped that improved management measures, par-ticularly for species such as lobster, will not onlyensure the long term viability of the resource butimprove the return in conjunction with appropriateinfrastructural developments. The potential of oth-er species such as Norway lobster or scampi (Neph-rops norvegicus) which forms the basis of a valuableinshore potting fishery for the live market on thewest coast of Scotland is currently being explored.

LITERATURE SOURCES

BIM. 1999. Irish inshore fisheries sector: Review andrecommendations. BIM (Bord Iascaigh Mhara). IrishSea Fisheries Board, Dublin.

Lawler, I., F. Nolan, and P. Waters. 1997. Capture, han-dling and storage of live prawns. BIM report. IrishSea Fisheries Board, Dublin.

Pfeiffer, N., E. Magee, B. Ball, B. Munday, and I. Lawler.1995. A review of shellfish potting activities onthe west coast of Ireland. Report to DGXIV. Direc-torate General for Fisheries, European Commission,Brussels.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Ian Lawler graduated from Trinity College in Dub-lin, Ireland, with a Ph.D. in zoology in 1994. His the-sis was on the growth and morphology of the scallopPecten maximus around the Irish coast. He hasworked on various projects, including the problemof ghost fishing, regional fisheries investigations,and shellfish pot fisheries. He now works for theFisheries Development Division of Bord IascaighMhara, the Irish Sea Fisheries Board, a semi-statedevelopment agency that promotes sustainable de-velopment of the sea fisheries sector. The FisheriesDevelopment Division is pursuing new fishingopportunities, developing new technical conserva-tion measures and inshore fisheries management,improving catch quality, and is involved with therestructuring and modernization of the fishing fleet.

Figure 18. The crayfish, Palinurus elepha, a spiny lobster, hasbeen overfished by tangle netting along the west coast of Ireland.


INTRODUCTION

This paper is about the construction of a commer-cial live seafood transshipment facility. I will de-scribe a facility and some present general thoughtsabout what it takes to build one, including the majorcomponents. A separate paper provides a more de-tailed description of the components associated withsuch a facility. In this second report I also explainthe function of these components, what their im-portance is, and when you should use them in dif-ferent systems.

DESCRIPTION OF TRANSSHIPMENT

FACILITIES

Live seafood and other live aquatic products passthrough a transshipment facility on their way todistant markets. This type of facility can be thoughtof as a fish or shellfish “hotel.” The product ischecked in, evaluated for quality, inventoried, andgiven a chance to recover from the rigors of the tripto the facility. Then, when the product has regainedits strength and the market is ready, the product isrepackaged and shipped to a domestic or interna-tional market destination. This destination couldbe a distributor, a wholesaler, or a restaurant.

Along the West Coast of the United States a lot oftransshipment facilities have opened in the last tenyears or so. In addition to transshipping, thesebusinesses also often engage in the buying and sell-ing of seafood, which is a separate business in it-self. Figures 1-3 show some examples of holdingtanks used as transshipment facilities.

CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DESIGNINGA LIVE SEAFOOD TRANSSHIPMENT

FACILITY

One of the first planning items to consider prior towriting the necessary formal business plan for alive transshipment facility involves species selec-

tion. Is the facility intended primarily for the hold-ing of finfish or for shellfish? What are the biophys-ical or life-support requirements for each of thedifferent species that will eventually be consideredin the business plan?

Related to this decision concerning species selectionis the sizing and capabilities of the facility. Prospec-tive investors should develop a business plan witha long-term perspective. People often build facili-ties which, within a year, seem to be too small fortheir needs. So it is good to look ahead and build afacility that balances cost and capacity as well as abuilt-in capability to expand at a future date.

Several more subtle planning matters also need tobe considered. If you are considering the construc-tion of a transshipment facility, it is also importantto remember that quarantine measures need to bebuilt into the system. Chances are you will be re-ceiving a mix of species from different suppliers,domestically or possibly even internationally, allbringing in the potential for different viruses, dif-ferent pathogens, and different parasites. The pro-posed system must be able to separate these

The Construction of a Commercial Live Seafood TransshipmentFacility: Review of General Specifications

Jon ChaitonEmerald Partners, Marietta, Georgia

Figure 1. Clam holding tanks in North Carolina. It’s mostlyan outdoor facility, although they have processing equipmentindoors.

216 Chaiton: Construction of a Live Seafood Transshipment Facility

animals and provide each group with an indepen-dent water supply.

The proposed facility must be able to accommodatecertain handling strategies. For example, anotherauthor, Patrick Chan, mentions that you can givemarine species a quick dip and they will regurgitatetheir stomach contents. This is a great prophylacticmethod for preventing transference of parasites intoyour system. We tend to dip the freshwater fish insalt water and the saltwater fish in freshwater toinduce this preventive reaction. The active para-sites on the fish, in the gill covers, and around theeyes do not like this salinity change and try to leavethe environment. The proposed system, of course,will be preplanned to facilitate this strategy and toallow for the proper disposal of the cast-off parasites.

The size and type of the individual subsystems with-in a larger system need to be considered. Will thewater have to be heated or chilled? Are you going touse freshwater, salt water, or brackish water? Areyou planning to provide long-term holding or areyou going to specialize with short-term holdingonly? For example, Kim Mauriks explained that hehas a long-term holding pen and a short-term hold-ing pen for his Pacific halibut. A number of addi-tional decisions need to be made when dealing withthe topic of subsystems—total plant volume and car-rying capacity being major areas of concern.

THE BUSINESS PLAN

Once these various ideas and considerations havebeen well thought out, you need to start drafting a

formal business plan. One of the most importantlessons that a business plan can provide is to tellyou which areas of the project have not been prop-erly thought out. The investment in a transship-ment facility should commence only after thebusiness plan has been completed and found to becomplete and accurate.

Generally speaking, your business plan should startout with a fact sheet or a corporate profile describ-ing the proposed business. This can be done in out-line form. A short introduction should followexplaining what you are trying to accomplish andthe rationale behind the overall scheme. The busi-ness plan should include a management plan, aproduction plan, and a marketing plan—all of whichare extremely important.

The management plan should identify the teams ofpeople who are going to work with various sectionsof the proposed business activity—individuals whoare involved in a hands-on manner. The goals andschedules for each team should be carefully estab-lished. Specifically state what kind of interactionspeople involved with the project should have in or-der to reduce opportunities for disputes later on inthe planning process. A properly drafted manage-ment plan will help ensure that everyone involvedin the planning process understands their role inthe organization and its development.

The business plan should also include a financialplan that, in turn, will generate a variety of finan-cial projections such as total return on investment.

Figure 2. A typical North Carolina crab shedding system.Note the lights strung over the top and the shallow trays wherethe crabs’ molting schedule is monitored. These trays are typi-cally made out of wood painted with epoxy or fiberglass resin.

Figure 3. This shows the sump for a swirl-separator at alobster transshipment facility we built in Boothbay, Maine. Aswirl separator is a centrifugal filter that operates passively.The pipes are the manifold distribution–water supply lines tothe area where the bio towers are going to be.


You also need a section that deals with risks andopportunities. If it is your intent to write a busi-ness plan as part of an effort to seek investment fromothers, your prospective investors will want to knowwhat the worst-case scenario could be and to learnabout built-in contingency strategies. I am not say-ing you need to pound it home, but you need to letpeople know that you are aware of the down side ofthis business and have preformed recovery plansin mind. Even if you are not looking for money, if youare just writing the business plan for yourself, youneed to recognize the risks associated with the project.

A construction plan, should new construction or ren-ovations be needed, should also be incorporated intothe business plan. The construction subsection with-in the business plan need not necessarily have blue-prints per se, but carefully drawn schematics areoften helpful.

FACILITY PLANNING

The first thing to consider when constructing a fa-cility of this type is site selection. Site selection isvery important because you’re going to have to livewith the site for quite a while, possibly very long-term. You will need to carefully consider water re-sources and the various options associated withwater sources, water transport, and wastewaterdisposal. These and other site selection criteria willneed to be carefully considered. Also, is this a newsite or are you refurbishing an existing facility?

When determining prospective sites and your vari-ous construction options, consider how much mon-ey you have to work with. Is it better to get into anew facility that has been carefully designed withall your business needs in mind—at a higher cost?Or can you convert an existing structure into a rea-sonably functional facility—possibly at a lower cost?

Logistics and demographics also play an importantrole in site selection. Evaluate your access to domes-tic, local, and international markets. How far areyou from the major airports? How far are you fromthe supply of products that you will be receiving?Are you on an island? You need to think in terms ofnumber of hours to airports serviced by commer-cial carriers and distances to major trucking lines.

Another important category of items to be consideredincludes licenses, permits, and plans required by fed-eral, state, county, and city governments for theconstruction and use of the proposed facility. A press-ing issue that has become conspicuous over the past

five to ten years is the matter of waste permits.Will you be allowed to release the effluent from theoperation back into the sea or some other receivingwater body after the water has passed through yourclosed or open system? You will need to obtain per-mits for whatever you do and this particular partof the permitting process can take months or yearsbefore everything is in order and the plant is oper-ating. Obviously, all these things need to be doneahead of time because the government in your areawill probably prohibit you from starting up the oper-ation if you do not have a particular permit in place.

SCHEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

Schematic considerations in the business planencompass a variety of things. For example, whencompleting the construction sub-plan, you need todevelop plans that carefully define product flowwithin the proposed plant. This includes such thingsas product arriving at and leaving your plant, yourinternal product handling, packaging and transportsystem, among others. How does the product getfrom the vessel that brings it to your plant into yourholding water? Then how is the product moved outof the plant to another transport vessel or vehicle?Will it be processed or will it be repackaged andshipped out exactly the way it came in? You needto do a number of detailed flow charts showing howand where product will move through your facility.This is a very important consideration and must beproperly completed. Otherwise you and your work-ers will be running into each other, or trying to moveproduct in opposite directions and constantly knock-ing heads.

Your water supply system needs to be considered.Do you have a steady source of water supply froman inlet, a bay, or an ocean? Are you on well wateror river water? If you are using water from a bay orinlet, you will need to determine if you will haveaccess to this supply of water on a 24 hour basis oronly at high tide.

You need to take a close look at the type of waterrecirculation system that will work best in the plant.Incidentally, the wastewater from this system mayneed to be pretreated, perhaps by initial chlorinat-ing and then dechlorinating. The local municipalauthorities will let you know about the type and ex-tent of wastewater treatment that will be required.

The plant aeration system—compressors, blowers,and supply lines—also needs to be carefully consid-ered. Are your holding tanks so deep that you will

218 Chaiton: Construction of a Live Seafood Transshipment Facility

be required to use compressors instead of blowers?Incidentally, compressors typically have a lowervolume of aeration as opposed to blowers. What kindof oxygenation system will be needed to support liveproduct held at high loading densities?

You will also need to consider your water tempera-ture control system. You may have to heat or chillwater to accommodate the live holding of specificspecies. Again, the piping diagrams, blueprints, andthe entire schematic of the temperature control sys-tem has to be laid out as a separate sub-plan with-in the formal business plan.

Cleaning systems are routinely overlooked and leftout of the planning process for facility construction.Plans need to be completed not only for the clean-ing and sanitation of the floor and handling equip-ment, but also for the interior of the pipes. The entirewater transport system must be carefully consid-ered. Pathogenic organisms such as Vibrio can eas-ily build up anywhere in the system from the waterintake to the outflow effluent. Unnoticed and un-reachable contamination of this sort will cause tre-mendous problems down the road. Among otherproblems, your operation may become contaminat-ed with Pseudomonas, which will exhibit itself as apink, blotchy coloration on the sides of your tanks.

These things can be very difficult to eradicate onceyou get them. The proposed facility needs a careful-ly considered plan to address these issues. The wa-ter transport system can be designed so that youwill be able to chlorinate sections of the piping on aregular basis—sterilizing and rinsing these sectionsout—and then reconnecting them to the recircula-tion system. If you choose to ignore these concerns,it will only be a matter of time before they comearound and bite you back.

Electrical power supply is still another concern tobe dealt with when planning a live-holding facility.Many kinds of power systems and backup powersystems are available commercially. You may beconsidering a mobile system such as a vessel or atruck, or a static, land-based system. Your powersystem is critical to the integrity and continuousoperation of the plant, so do not rely on a singlesource of power. If you need to, buy a standby gen-erator and hook it up to your essential components,possibly a water pump or, more important, the aera-tion system. You can get away with not having wa-ter pumping capability for a period of time, if it isan emergency situation, but you always need to have

that water aerated or oxygenated. Aeration is criti-cal to the live holding function of the facility.

Each of the various systems mentioned above needsa separate plan and schematic, and probably a sep-arate set of construction blueprints. I am often askedwhen it is necessary to use a blueprint, when to useschematics, and when the backs of napkins are goodenough. Well, I think the back of a piece of scratchpaper is a great place to start, but a considerableamount of additional thinking will be required.From this starting position you will develop sche-matics. Then, before beginning construction, youwill need a set of blueprints.

You need to have blueprints because it is a goodidea to have a licensed architectural engineer signoff on the construction documents. In doing so, theseprofessionals assume some liability for the build-ing and its proper operation. If an accident occurs—for example, a wall breeches or water floods out of atank and injures somebody because the tank wallwas not thick enough or was otherwise built im-properly and did not have enough reinforcing steel—the liability often falls to the architectural engineer.This person stated that the wall in question shouldnot have broken. Given the nature of this liability,engineers are not willing to sign off on poorly con-ceived plans. It is very important to think aboutthis issue of liability.

CONSTRUCTION

Before you break ground there are many additionalthings to consider. Contact your municipality to de-termine if any pipelines, wires, or cables are nearyour building site. You need to look at all the plansand schematics that have been drawn out for theproposed facility and think of them in terms of tiers,starting with plant components at the deepest ex-cavation level.

This deepest level probably includes water supplylines, water drain lines, and below-ground sumps thatthe holding tanks drain into (Fig. 3). Once these com-ponents are carefully examined, direct your atten-tion to the ground level components of the overallsystem. Above ground considerations might includetruck access, shelters of various types, and the struc-ture or building that will cover the whole operation.

During component installation, you will need to payclose attention electrical connections. Electrical andcertain mechanical connections need to be properly


coded when a wet, washed down environment isinvolved. If you have open electrical receptacles,somebody is going to get shocked. If electrical sys-tem components are not grounded properly, again,somebody is going to receive an electrical shock. Isuggest that you hire a fully licensed electricianfamiliar with wet application of electrical compo-nents for this type of work.

The need for professional design assistance can beclearly seen when working with concrete. In terms ofconcrete work, the use of fiberglass fiber is nowextremely common. You can add fiber to a yard ofconcrete for about an additional five dollars per yard.In our immediate area, this supplement places theprice for a cubic yard of concrete somewhere in therange of $80.00-$90.00 to the average builder.

The pounds per square inch (psi) rating of the con-crete is important to consider. Walls can be made of3,000 psi or 5,000 psi concrete, with or without fiberand steel. This decision should be made by the archi-tect because inadequately designed concrete struc-tures can crack, causing potential problems. It is verydifficult to fix cracks in tanks once they have appeared.I am not saying that defects such as this cannot berepaired, but it can be quite costly. Incidentally, wedo not cut expansion joints in tanks. Because con-crete expands and contracts with temperature, anexpansion joint is placed in the concrete where weexpect or want a crack to occur. When holding tanksare designed we cannot allow cracks, so plenty ofsteel and other reinforcement are used to maintainthe integrity of the tank or other component.

Other systems are involved in the construction of alive holding facility. Each of these systems will needto be carefully covered in the business plan.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Once construction has been completed on a partic-ular section of the holding system, it is importantto test this subsystem before starting operations.If you were working 16 feet underground laying inwastewater pipes, you will need to put temporary

plugs in them and pneumatically test them usingair pressure before they are buried under compact-ed soil and a layer of concrete. If a leak is discov-ered in a pipe that is 16 feet underground with aslab over it and a big tank on top of it, the situationcan quickly become a mess.

Who should do the actual construction work? I amoften asked how to determine if a general contrac-tor should be called in for the job. In some cases theowner can be the general contractor and just hiresubcontractors to do the job. This decision dependson your experience, your confidence, your money,and how you want the thing to come out based onyour options. I would suggest that if you are notsure about something in the overall constructionplan, for example, the placement of a particularcomponent, do not guess. It would be wise to getprofessional help in that area. We all have an ideaabout how these systems work and how we wantthings to function, but building an entire systemcan be fairly overwhelming when you begin to lookat all the different schematics and all the differentprocesses involved. I think it is good to get as muchhelp on the initial portion of the construction projectas possible, so that once the facility is erected, itwill work to your satisfaction.

Always remember to be prepared and have your con-tingency plans ready and well-practiced when emer-gency situations arise. A closed recirculating systemthat is full of product needs a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week baby-sitter. These systems require atremendous amount of time. A tremendous inven-tory investment is also involved.

You are advised to stick with market-driven prod-ucts. If you fill your plant with more speculativeproducts that you hope to find markets for, you mayend up with marketing failures and, as a conse-quence, not be able to see the full life expectancy ofyour plant. You will probably be out of business.

Finally, get professional help when you have ques-tions about the construction and operation of a liveholding facility.


SUMMARY

Eating imported live seafood such as lobsters, geo-duck clams, and other species has become stylishamong the Chinese people. These consumers arerather particular about their food and are also veryconcerned about “face-saving” while entertainingguests. You can now find many well-decorated sea-food restaurants serving live seafood dishes in ev-ery big city in China, even in far inland regions suchas Lhasa (the capital city of the Tibet Autono-mous Region) and Urumqi (the capital city of theXing jiang Autonomous Regions).

Essentially, this huge market fascinates market-ers and other people engaged in the business. How-ever, the live industry in the People’s Republic ofChina (PRC) is experiencing some problems whichcome from Chinese central government policies thatcontrol the importation of live seafood. Also, theindustry has been impacted by the Asian financialcrisis. The following is a general survey dealing withthe market for imported live seafood in Shanghai.

FROM CURIOSITY TO

INITIAL PROSPERITY

During the time of Mao Zhedong, Chinese insistedon strict adherence to thrift. People never had ad-ditional desires beyond those in their lives. Howev-er, following China’s reform process and opening tothe outside world, since 1991 imported live seafoodhas been gradually introduced to consumers inmainland China. At first, foreign live seafood wastransferred via boat from Hong Kong. Although thiswas an illegal practice because the items were notcleared through Chinese Customs, live seafood stillsuccessfully pushed into our market. However, thisextended illegal dealing raised the concern of theChinese government.

In late 1996, the Agriculture Department of the PRCapproved a policy that permitted its affiliated com-panies to acquire tariff-free quotas for the importa-

tion of live seafood. However, these large state-runcompanies, such as Shanghai Fisheries General,Beijing Blue Water, Liaoning Pelagic Fisheries, andothers, just sold their quotas and did not directlyinvolve themselves with the deals. During 1997-1998, live seafood trading became more active. Be-ginning at this time, it became common for morethan 20 containers of Australian live rock lobster (700kg per container) to reach Shanghai on a daily basis.

DIVERSE FOREIGN LIVE SEAFOOD

SPECIES IN THE SHANGHAI MARKET

To this date, many kinds of live seafood from differ-ent nations have been introduced into the Shang-hai market. In this metropolis you can find almost allthe same foreign live seafoods as are available andpopular in Hong Kong. This availability may be at-tributed to chefs working in the Shanghai seafoodrestaurants—most of them are “Hongkongese.” Theyare bringing many popular seafood dishes into Shang-hai and their cuisine is now spreading nationwide.

Foreign live seafood in our market range from high-valued fish from Indonesia and Australia to lobsterfrom locations such as Australia, New Zealand, In-donesia, South Africa, Mexico, and the United States.Other popular products include crab from Canada,the United States, Australia, and Southeast Asiannations, shrimp from Thailand, geoduck clams fromCanada and the United States, abalone from Aus-tralia and Taiwan, and oysters from Canada.

Among the various foreign live seafood suppliers,Australia and New Zealand have taken most of thelobster share; Canada and the United States over-whelm the geoduck clam share and also play animportant role in crab supply. Table 1 shows thetotal amount of live seafood imported into theShanghai market from January 1998 to July 1998.Table 2 shows seafood values, from trading compa-nies with tariff-free quotas who sell to clients. Notethat the statistics in Table 2 are conservative.

An Insight into the Shanghai Market for Imported Live Seafood

Thomas LiuShanghai World Ocean Trading Co. Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

222 Liu: Shanghai Market for Imported Live Seafood

SHANGHAI CURRENTLY RANKS IN THETOP POSITION IN THE CHINESE LIVESEAFOOD MARKETIn the People’s Republic of China there are threeimportant live seafood markets—Shanghai, Yantian(a Shenzhen city very near to Hong Kong), andBeijing. Shanghai is the most influential and larg-est distribution center of imported live seafood. Thisposition of prominence is due to several factors. Notonly is Shanghai an international airline port, butthe city is also located in the center of East Chi-na—the most developed area in China. Over 60% ofall imported live seafood is consumed there. Shang-hai has become a barometer for the whole seafoodmarket. Yantian is a place that is used for the smug-gling of seafood. Large amounts of smuggled liveseafood are transferred from here to Shanghai. Ifthe central government of the PRC issues good tradepolicies such as a tariff-free quota, Yantian will losemuch of her former brilliance. The amount of totalforeign live seafood imported directly into Beijingis far less than that imported to Shanghai.

The most famous live seafood markets in Shanghaiare located in the Tongchuang Road area. Almostall of the top wholesalers from across the nationhave set up shops there. It is very noisy and busy.

HOW TO IMPORT LIVE SEAFOOD

INTO CHINA

There are three ways of importing live seafood intoChina.

The first way is the illegal way via Hong Kong. Weorder various goods, for example, lobsters, from for-eign suppliers and hire a designated consignee inHong Kong who has the means to ship the live prod-uct to Yantian by boat. After being placed in recon-ditioning tanks in Yantian for one day, the lobstersare then shipped to Shanghai via domestic airline.We have to pay 9.00 RMB per kg (based on the useof 700 kg lobster containers) to the consignee. Theconsignee is not responsible for the goods if theyare confiscated by the customs authorities. So, thisimportation method is full of risks and greatly in-creases costs.

The second, legal, way to import live seafood in-volves paying taxes. The official tariffs in the PRC forimported live seafood are high. The tariff rate is35% for lobsters and 30% for other products. In ad-dition, our government imposes another 13% as anincrement tax.

The third way to import live seafood is to buy tar-iff-free quota from one of the state-run companies.This strategy proved to be attractive to the market-

Table 1. Value of live seafood imports into Shang- hai, January-July 1998.

Source

Australia and New Zealand US $45 millionCanada and the United States US $18.3 millionThailand US $9.8 million

Table 2. Live seafood imported into Shanghai.

Lobster Geoduck clams Crab Shrimp (over 95% from (from Canada (about 70% Dungeness (from1998 Aust. and N.Z.) and U.S.) from Canada and U.S.) Thailand)

Jan. 272 16.1 53.2 270Feb. 200 11.2 36.4 190Mar. 180 11.2 56.0 210Apr. 172 14.0 53.0 210May 219 15.0 61.6 167June 212 14.0 70.0 97July 250 19.6 102.0 2Total 1,505 101.1 432.2 1,146

Units: metric tons


ers involved with live trade. Unfortunately, the poli-cy did not last for very long and was suspended inApril 1999.

Now let us make a close study of the costs involvedin the importation of live products into the PRC,using as examples rock lobsters from Australia andNew Zealand and geoduck clams from North Amer-ica. At the time of this writing, the Chinese curren-cy, the RMB, has a conversion ratio (RMB:$US) of8.4:1.0. Table 3 shows added costs for live lobsterin the Shanghai market.

It is clear why people take major risks to transferAustralian and New Zealand rock lobsters to thePRC via Hong Kong—profits can be substantial.Now rock lobster marketers from Australia and NewZealand are adopting similar strategies to ship prod-uct directly to the mainland. When deciding the mosteconomical way of importing other kinds of prod-ucts, consider the geoduck clam and tariffs ratifiedby Chinese Customs. Table 4 shows added costs forgeoduck clams in the Shanghai market. Many liveseafoods, such as geoduck clams, Dungeness crabsetc., are still directly shipped into Shanghai legally.

SEAFOOD MARKET CHAIN IN CHINA

Generally speaking, those who are directly involvedin this business are private companies or other self-owned operations. Some of these organizations arelarge enough to accept several whole containers ofgoods. Figure 1 is the sales flow chart or for typicaltransactions.

In order to better survive in this increasingly fiercemarket, trading companies and trading agents tendto be closely tied with foreign suppliers and topwholesalers. Indeed, some unhappy things, such asdelaying payment or refusing to pay for a shipmentbased on false goods inspections, have occurred inour market. These cases are infrequent and will be-come fewer as our market gradually matures. Also,these problems may be avoided if you take the timeto select an honest and responsible trading partner.

PROFIT

The profits associated with this type of businessare often not as substantial as expected and are some-times disappointing to the parties involved. Theaverage margin of profit at the wholesale level wasformerly 50%. Currently, the average profit marginis in the range of 1-5% and sometimes at a loss. Profitat the retail level is now about 3-8%. In spite of theseconstraints, the margin of profit for foreign (import-ed) live seafood dishes can be as high as 30-50%.The reasons for these moderate levels of profit are:

1. It is impossible to control the amount of foreignlive seafood shipped into Shanghai. If wholesalers cannot sell all the goods in their holdingpools, it becomes necessary for them to cut theprice to clean out stocks that are no longer fitto keep.

2. The demand for imported live seafoods thathave already been marketed in Shanghai ap-pears not to be increasing. Influenced by the Asianfinancial crisis, China’s economy is also depressed.

Table 3. Added costs for live lobster in the Shanghai market.

Illegal way Pay tax Buy tariff-free quota

9.00 RMB/kg Customs approved price 7.00 RMB/kg (charged by for lobster—$25.00/kg (charged by government) bold consignee)

7.00 RMB/kg Tariff: $25 × 35% = $8.75 domestic freight

5% loss due to Increment tax: transportation ($25 + $8.75) × 13% = $4.39

Total: 9.00 RMB + 7.0 RMB Total: ($8.75 + $4.39) × Total: 7.00 RMB/kg + ($25 × 8.3 × 5%) = 8.3 = 109.0 RMB/kg 26.40 RMB/kg

RMB:$US = 8.4:1

224 Liu: Shanghai Market for Imported Live Seafood

Table 4. Added costs for geoduck clams in the Shanghai market.

Illegal way Pay tax Buy tariff-free quota

May charge 400 RMB/case Customs approved price for 7.00 RMB/kg (a few people monopolize) geoduck clams—$6.00/kg (charged by government)

Does not include Tariff: [(40 lb × 0.454) × domestic freight $6] × 30% = $32.70

Increment Tax: [(40 lb × 0.454) × $6 + $32.70] × 13% = $18.40

Total (not including other loss) Total: ($32.70 + $18.40) × Total: (40 lb × 0.454) × is far higher than 400 RMB 8.3 = 424.10 RMB 7.00 RMB =127.10 RMB

State-run companiesor their agents

Retail

Deliver tosupermarkets

Foreign suppliers

Trading companiesor agents

Top wholesalers

Sub-wholesalers

Sales netoutsideShanghai

Deliver torestaurants

Packingandshipping

Figure 1. Seafood market chain, or sales flow chart, for typical transactions in China.


3. The cost of importing live seafood has also sharp-ly increased. Added cost factors include tariffs,other taxes, and fluctuating currency conversionrates. Consumers are not willing to bear all theseextra fees.

Table 5 shows the wholesale prices of geoduck clamsand Dungeness crabs in the Shanghai market dur-ing January to July 1998. Note that the prices arefor class 1 geoduck clams. Class 2 geoduck are low-er by 300-600 RMB per case. Importing costs in-clude a 7.00 RMB per kg quota fee. The source ofthis data is a wholesaler specializing in the whole-sale marketing of geoduck clams and Dungeness crab.

SUMMARY

The live seafood trade provides an important en-richment to our traditional dishes. Without a doubt,the trade benefits both our consumers and our res-taurant industry which, until recently, has lackedthe supplement provided by live seafood.

However, in order to balance foreign monetary ex-changes, our government has placed controls on thisand other trades that do not strongly influence the

basic necessary needs of our society. Fortunately,this control is likely to be only temporary. The prob-able short-term nature of these controls is due tothe following developments:

1. China is now applying to become a member ofthe World Trade Organization (WTO). In orderto abide by WTO trade standards, the tariff onlive seafood must be dropped by a considerableamount.

2. China is now making plans for the developmentof diversified sources of seafood and supportsthe development of seafood culture strategies.However, it is difficult to culture many seafoodspecies that are currently being imported be-cause of the nature of our water resources.

3. China is now looking forward to a period of great-er economic prosperity.

For these reasons, it is easy to insist that the liveseafood trade must have a bright future in China.Foreign suppliers who are able to introduce intoChina new delicious live products at the right price,or who have developed new technologies to handleor culture live seafood, will find great benefits inour market.

Table 5. Wholesale prices for geoduck clams and Dungeness crabs on the Shanghai market, 1998.

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July

Geoduck 4,430 4,050 3,850 3,530 3,250 3,200 3,150

Dungeness 1,600 1,680 1,705 1,350 1,310 1,280 1,160

RMB per 40 lb case.


INTRODUCTION

This report will give a basic understanding of theHazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)approach to seafood safety control. We will discusswhat HACCP means to live shippers and briefly cov-er the hazards associated with live fish, crustaceans,and mollusks.

OVERVIEW OF THE

HACCP CONCEPT

First, I want to address issues raised in an editorialpublished recently in Infofish International. The is-sue focuses on the following quote from this editorial:

“For most industries and regulatory personnel,understanding of the concept of HACCP per se wasa difficult task, compounded by diverse interpreta-tions and expert opinion albeit confusing, on thesubject. However, the dust is settling and mostambiguities have been cleared, thanks to a seriesof national and international initiatives.” (Source:Editorial, Seafood quality and regulatory measures.Infofish International, 5/99:3)

HACCP should not be a difficult idea to convey. Itis a very easy concept that can be explained in justa few minutes.

There are essentially two parts to HACCP. The firstis the hazard analysis part which can also be describedas the “do we have a problem?” part of the safety anal-ysis. The second part of the program involves criti-cal control points or the “how we are going to takecare of our problems” part of the program.

Keep in mind that this is a very easy concept. In thecase of seafood safety, you examine your product todetermine if anything is there that will hurt or makeyour consumers sick. If a hazard is identified at aspecific processing step, then you go to the secondpart and determine how you are going to take careof this problem. This is the basic nature of HACCP.

At the time HACCP was first announced by the Pills-bury Corp. and U.S. military laboratories, the majorgroups who helped initiate the program, we did nothave the seven principles that now define this pro-gram. Later, when the National Science Foundation(U.S.) recommended that all food industries useHACCP as a way of controlling safety problems, a com-mittee was formed that developed these seven guid-ing principles. I think they are excellent principles.

The first of these principles involves the “HA” seg-ment of HACCP—hazard analysis. You conduct ahazard analysis. In the case of shipping a seafoodproduct, you check to see if there is anything aboutthe product that has the potential of causing peo-ple harm, making them sick, or killing them, whichis, of course, the most serious thing that you could do.

The second part of the program involves what youdo if you have one of these problems. Principles 2-7outline how to take care of a problem. They are verylogical and easy to apply to your situation. In thissecond step, you decide where in your processingsequence you can get rid of this hazard. Sometimesyou find yourself dealing with a hazard that youcannot get rid of. The place to stop this type of prob-lem is right at the start of the processing sequence.For example, you will not accept shellfish that con-tains a toxin that you cannot later get rid of, likeparalytic shellfish poisoning. You just will not ac-cept that batch of shellfish.

Often there will be some way to get rid of the haz-ard. You will choose a point in the production chainat which to accomplish this. It could be at the receiv-ing end where you reject some raw product that con-tains something you cannot control, or it could belater in the process. In the case of pathogens, forexample, you can cook them to death. There aremany possible places in the production chain for acritical control point.

You also need to establish critical limits to ensurethat the method of getting rid of that hazard actu-

The National Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical ControlPoint Program and the Live Seafood Industry

Donald KramerUniversity of Alaska Marine Advisory Program, Anchorage, Alaska

228 Kramer: HACCP and the Live Seafood Industry

ally does so. To determine if the critical limits arebeing met, you must monitor them. If these criticallimits are not met, you then must take correctiveaction and verify that this corrective action is work-ing. Finally, the regulatory people want to see records.This concludes the seven guiding HACCP principles.

The seven steps are very simple. However, this doesnot mean that you have just completed the entireHACCP training course, because we go into theprinciples in detail.

HACCP FOR SAFETY OR

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Another issue raised by the same editorial in In-fofish International is illustrated by the followingquotation:

“Nearly 35 per cent of the world’s catch ends up onthe international market; as much as 50 per centcoming from developing countries. Aptly so, seafoodindustries in the developing world have been quickto adopt modern methods and approaches to quali-ty assurance. In keeping with the developments inmajor markets, countries exporting fish and fish-ery products in Asia, Africa and Latin America haverecognized Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point(HACCP) as the basis for their seafood quality as-surance programs.”

What does it mean when you say you have a HACCPprogram? To some people, it means they have aquality assurance program. To the U.S. regulatorypeople, it means that you have a food safety pro-gram. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) seafood regulation zeros in on safety—thisis the only area of concentration. Although thereare some other provisions in the regulation relatedto sanitation, the HACCP part of the regulation fo-cuses in on safe seafood. Likewise, the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) red meat and poultryregulation focuses on safety. Future regulationspertaining to dairy products, fruit juices, eggs, andother food groups will probably also focus on safe-ty. Food safety is the recurrent theme.

Guides published by the Seafood HACCP Alliancehave been written with safety in mind. TheHACCP Alliance’s Encore HACCP Manual, a techni-cal publication dealing with fresh and frozen finfish,cooked ready-to-eat crustaceans, and smoked fish, andthe closely related topic of sanitation also focuseson safety. However, several other food inspection

organizations in the United States and the worlduse HACCP to focus on topics in addition to safety.For example, the National Marine Fisheries Ser-vice uses HACCP to cover quality and economic fraud.

Other countries look at HACCP in various ways.For example, Canada has integrated HACCP withtheir quality management program. When this pro-gram first came out, there were 12 critical controlpoints that processors were required to address.That system was re-engineered in 1997 and now hasthree parts. The first of these HACCP sections fo-cuses on safety. In addition to part one, there is aprerequisite plan part dealing with plant environ-ment and recall programs and the program elementknown as RAPP. RAPP stands for Regulatory Ac-tion Points Plan and essentially ensures that no taint-ed, decomposed, or unwholesome product is sent tomarket. The Canadian Quality Management Plan(CQMP) is now similar to the United States withregard to HACCP. The HACCP part of the CQMPnow allows processors to identify the critical controlpoints and use them for the processing of safe food.

In 1993, Chile developed a technical and adminis-trative document titled “For regulating the HACCP-based quality assurance program.” HACCP is be-ing used a bit differently in Chile. It is used for foodsafety, but also as the basis for a quality assuranceprogram.

Ireland provides another example concerning theinterpretation of HACCP provisions. I have a quotefrom an Irish fish processor: “I would sum up HACCPas follows. Plant proud, production oriented, quali-ty oriented, personnel oriented, customer satisfac-tion.” I could go on with a dozen of these quotesand descriptions of other uses of HACCP. In thesecases, HACCP is used as a way of solving a prob-lem—a solution methodology.

You can use HACCP for other uses including proto-cols for the live handling of seafood species. TheHACCP approach is simply a way of taking care ofa problem. HACCP can be used in all kinds of prob-lem solving efforts. However, when it is used to referto something other than safety, please call it some-thing else. U.S. regulatory people would like theterm “critical control point” to be applied only tothe topic of food safety. When you use the HACCPapproach for quality assurance, call it a “quality as-surance control point.” not a “critical control point”(CCP). The term “critical” to regulators means thatif you do not eliminate the hazard at this control point,somebody is going to get sick or be injured. Then they


will probably sue you, something that the regulatorypeople will not like. They might react by shutting downyour plant or placing an embargo on your product.

So, when you use CCP use it for a HACCP programfor food safety. If you want to use the HACCP ap-proach for quality assurance, do so. It is an excel-lent approach. Just call your control points “qualityassurance control points.”

Likewise, the seafood HACCP Alliance is publishinga manual, in which they will discuss sanitation con-trol points. Although they discuss sanitation alongwith safety, I would advise you to keep your sanita-tion standard operating procedure (SSOP) as a sepa-rate document. Keep your quality assurance programas a separate program, as well. Your HACCP programshould then be restricted to the topic of food safety.

ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS

I have now taught parts of about 50 HACCP train-ing courses. Chuck Crapo and I have been travel-ing all over Alaska in the effort to educate theindustry about this program. In the course of thiswork, we have seen that the major difficulty is de-termining when a hazard is significant—when ahazard must be controlled. A hazard is significantwhen the regulatory people say that it must be con-sidered significant. Significant means:

1. It is reasonably likely to happen.

2. It has the potential to make someone sick or tocause injury.

It is our hope that the regulators will allow seafoodindustry members to use their industry experienceto determine when a hazard is truly significant. Theregulatory agencies have stated that they will co-operate with industry with regard to this matter.FDA has published a guide intended to help pro-cessors and others put together HACCP plans.Among other things, this guide lists a broad rangeof hazards. We are finding that this guide is beingused almost as part of the regulation. We hope thatthe regulatory people will accept that a perceivedhazard is not significant if industry has adequatereasons to support this determination.

HACCP AND THE LIVE

SEAFOOD INDUSTRY

There appears to be the impression that live sea-food does not fall under HACCP because it is not

yet an actual food. The theory is that the harvest-ers and retailers are exempt if the product is keptalive from one link in the marketing chain to thenext. Following this reasoning, HACCP does nothave to be considered because the product is notyet a food—it is still a live animal. Members of thelive industry should be advised that the regulatorswill probably make a decision very quickly regard-ing who in the chain is going to be responsible forthe identification of significant hazards and thedevelopment of a HACCP plan.

What are the possible hazards? First, marine lifesometimes comes with toxins. Alaska is, of course,very concerned about paralytic shellfish poison (PSP).In the case of live fish there is the potential forciguatera contamination. Somebody somewherealong the marketing chain will have to make a de-cision as to whether the product is free of toxins.

All kinds of things can occur in the environmentthat can lead to contamination. Participants instates that have large agricultural industries haveto worry about chemicals that get into rivers, lakes,and coastal areas. Furthermore, contaminants canbe in the water, on the harvesting boat, on the trans-porting boat, or in the holding pond water. The un-intentionally or deliberate addition of chemicals (forexample to control disease) and pharmaceuticalsmight also be a problem.

A seafood processor who converts fish into a finalproduct may occasionally add preservatives or nu-tritional additives. The seafood industry does notoften do this, but certainly the cereal industry andothers do. Many of the products that we eat arefortified with supplemental nutrients. Color mayoccasionally be added, as well. In live shipping, sup-plements may be added to prevent disease or re-duce the activity of the fish. These need to beexamined as potential hazards.

With some products, bacterial growth is a problem.One example in the marine environment is thegroup of microbial organisms known as vibrios.Vibrios can survive in temperatures as low as 41-46°F. If temperatures get high enough during yourtransportation scheme, vibrios can increase in thelive product. This is certainly a consideration whendealing with bivalve mollusks. Raw molluskan shell-fish are covered in the seafood HACCP regulationas a separate section. They are commonly trans-ported live and the regulators want to make surethat they come from waters that are clean and freeof pathogens. They have a very defined tagging pro-

230 Kramer: HACCP and the Live Seafood Industry

cedure. A certain amount of identifying informationmust be placed on the tag which must remain withthe product all the way through the transport chainwhether or not they are transported live or inshucked form.


QUESTION: What are the relative roles of the U.S.Department of Commerce and the Food and DrugAdministration regarding HACCP?

KRAMER: HACCP for seafood products is in thebailiwick of the FDA. They have the regulation andthey enforce the regulation. The U.S. Department ofCommerce does not have any responsibility for en-forcing HACCP. However, the U.S. Department ofCommerce has a voluntary program to do inspectionsand check your HACCP plan. Their program dif-fers in that their version of HACCP covers more thanjust seafood safety—it covers quality and economicfraud. Foreign countries tend to like the Depart-ment of Commerce program because they have someassurance of quality as well as safety. As mentioned,this is not a regulatory function as with the FDA.

QUESTION: How do you determine when a risk orhazard is unacceptable? Do you have to show thatit is unacceptable or do you show that it is acceptable?

KRAMER: That is a difficult question. There aredifferent levels of acceptability. We allow the pres-ence of Vibrio vulnificus. However, as many as eightto ten people die each year from V. vulnificus. But ifone person dies from Clostridium botulinum it isconsidered a major problem. The seafood industryin Alaska had one botulism problem in the 1970sand another in the 1980s—problems that cost mil-lions of dollars and caused companies to go bank-rupt. Yet, we have other toxins and marine organismsthat kill as many as half a dozen to a dozen peopleevery year and we “accept” that.

You have to make the decision based on your bestinformation. Nobody wants to cause someone to beill, partly because you will probably be sued—aneconomic hardship. I do not think any food produc-er wants to make people sick or to have anybodydie as a result of consuming their food product. Youneed to do your best to determine if this is likely tooccur. I know that “likely to occur” is not a quantita-tive concept—it is a best guess based on past histo-ry, information present in the literature, informationfrom CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and otheragencies, and information from FDA. This oftenends up being a compromise between the producerand the regulators. They have to come up with asolution as to whether something has to be con-trolled or not.


SUMMARY

The Lacey Act is the U.S. federal law governing abroad range of commercial activities including thelive shipment of fish and shellfish. This act, sinceits revision in 1981, regulates the shipment of allfish and wildlife, dead or alive, from egg to the adultlife stage. Application of the Lacey Act can conflictwith individual state laws. Consequently, comply-ing with the dictates of this body of regulations canbe confusing and frustrating for live shippers. Asan owner of a private aquaculture operation thatships live product worldwide, I will present the prob-lems associated with regulatory compliance fromthe shipper’s point of view.

INTRODUCTION

In his contribution, Don Kramer made some inter-esting points related to the topics I cover in thispaper. Dr. Kramer stressed human health issuesassociated with live shipping—specifically food safe-ty issues. He also noted that there are no HACCPregulations covering fish as long as they are alive.However, we do have other regulations that havean important bearing on this industry. This otherbody of regulations relates to fish health. In fact,some of the concepts behind these fish health regu-lations are more stringent, at least in philosophy,than those that deal with human health issues.

Many, if not most, of the fish health regulations beingreferred to here are based on the principle of zerotolerance to a long list of bacteria and viruses. We donot often have this degree of stringency in human foodhealth regulations. Consequently, as I will describe,there are anomalies in some of these regulations.

I reviewed a very similar topic a couple of yearsago at this same conference. I learned that some ofmy listeners were frightened by the content of thatpresentation and thought that I might have beentrying, in essence, to scare other producers awayfrom the live shipping industry by providing a re-

view of the heavy-handed regulation present in theindustry. Today I will again present practical infor-mation about the nature of regulation in this in-dustry. I am not trying to eliminate competition inthe section of the industry in which AquaSeed op-erates. I wish only to present an objective interpre-tation of an important business planning concern.

I will describe the body of regulations, the LaceyAct, which comprises the most stringent portion offish health regulations present in the live industryworldwide. My message is that you, as a member ofthis industry, must watch this regulatory “bar” orhurdle. Great caution will be needed, because Ithink this bar will be further elevated in the fu-ture. You will need to abide by the Lacey Act, some-thing that may prove to be very difficult. Asmembers of this sector of the live industry, we areexcluded from many markets simply because we,as producers operating within the United States,cannot meet these regulations and, consequently,cannot conduct our business. I encourage you to lookat the current mass of regulations and be certainthat you do not fall into any of a number of traps asyou develop new markets.

In this report I cover the fish health regulations thatpertain specifically to salmonids—salmon and troutspecies in the United States and internationally. I amusing salmonids as an example because this is thesection of the live seafood industry that I am involvedwith and have been working in for the last 20 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE AQUASEED

CORPORATION

I will start with a brief overview of what the Aqua-Seed Corporation attempts to do. AquaSeed Corpo-ration is a breeder of Pacific salmon. We breed cohosalmon and Donaldson steelhead. We have accu-mulated a 30-year history for the selective breed-ing of coho salmon. Our effort is based on a classicalbreeding program that we purchased from Camp-

Restraints to Shipping Live Product:Lessons from the AquaSeed Corporation Experience

Per HeggelundAquaSeed Corporation, Seattle, Washington

232 Heggelund: Restraints to Shipping Live Product

bell’s Soup in 1991. Campbell’s began developingthis program in the early 1970s as a cooperativeproject with University of Washington Sea Grant.The breeding protocol was patterned after a simi-lar program developed in the poultry industry. Sinceour acquisition of the program, AquaSeed has seena salmonid growth rate that is five times faster thanthat of our stock when the start-up program wasinitiated in the 1970s.

We sell the eyed eggs, or embryos, of coho salmonand steelhead. We also sell a few fry and smolts,which are in the category of live fish. I have beenworking with these live products through AquaSeedfor about 15 years. I have been involved in the salm-on farming industry since 1980 and was involvedin the importation of Norwegian salmon to the WestCoast of North America in 1981. I believe that itwas the first time this farmed Atlantic species wasimported into the western United States.

Our company’s headquarters are located in Seat-tle, Washington. Our production facility is locatedjust south of Olympia in the small town of Roches-ter. It is in an inland location and has available freshwater that is totally pathogen free. We pump thiswater from wells at the rate of about 5,000 gallonsa minute. Our main markets are Japan and Chile.We operate a marketing company in Chile and selldomestically in the United States, as well.

REVIEW OF THE LACEY ACT

With that background, I will now cover the U.S. fed-eral laws that govern shipment of live seafood andshellfish. These laws govern AquaSeed’s ability toship and control associated certification procedures. Iwill also look at some of the pertinent state laws thatare on the books. In the United States, we do not havea uniform federal law dealing with fish health specif-ically, so every state must have its own set of laws.The Lacey Act sits on top of these state laws and pro-vides federal penalties for these laws.

The Lacey Act was the first fish and wildlife lawthat was signed in the United States with enact-ment around 1900. Originally, its purpose was to aremove wild game from commerce.

Like so many other pieces of legislation, the LaceyAct has been rewritten and various amendments havebeen made to it over the years. The last rewrite oc-curred in 1981, when Congress merged three otherwildlife laws or acts into the Lacey Act. That is whenfish became an official part of the Lacey Act.

Because the Lacey Act deals specifically with wildanimals and birds, livestock is exempt from it. How-ever, we do not have a definition for livestock thatspecifically includes fish. As a consequence, fish andmollusks are not exempt from the dictates of theLacey Act. All fish and shellfish are included in theLacey Act, whether we farm them or catch them inthe wild. That is essentially our problem as farm-ers—we have been sucked into the Lacey Act in away that makes some of us uncomfortable. We havewitnessed at least three or four cases in which fishfarmers, primarily trout farmers, have been suedand taken to court under the Lacey Act. In three ofthese cases, the resulting litigation has had a dev-astating effect on their business.

Even if you are in a business like ours where youare dealing with the eggs and fry from farmed ani-mals that we have laboriously domesticated overthe past 30 years, you will still be part of the LaceyAct. Somebody within the regulatory structure couldpick up some aspect of your business and reallymake things difficult for you.

As can be seen, the Lacey Act is being used to fed-eralize penalties if state or international laws arebroken. Using an example from another session atthis conference, the International Pacific HalibutCommission’s international treaty could, technical-ly, be enforced by the Lacey Act.

The Lacey Act is enforced by two agencies—the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department ofInterior, and the National Marine Fisheries Serviceunder the Department of Commerce. They have dualresponsibilities and both agencies are fully involvedwith the implementation of the Lacey Act. For exam-ple, the Lacey Act is often used to prosecute foreignfleets or fishing activities that break either interna-tional treaties or U.S. treaties and laws. The LaceyAct also gives teeth to the state regulations. If youdo not comply with a state regulation, the federalgovernment can prosecute you under the Lacey Act.

OUTLINE OF REGULATIONS

GOVERNING EXPORTATION

I would like to review the export documentationneeded in order to ship products such as those mar-keted by the AquaSeed Corporation. Again, theserequirements specifically pertain to salmon andtrout. As mentioned previously, in many cases theserequirements are more stringent than those in-volved with the shipment of live mussel and other


types of live seafood. The documentation processhas become rather complicated. I am hoping thatover time the government, working in a coopera-tive manner with industry, will be able to stream-line the process. For example, we would like to useelectronic documents. Currently we must completethe required documents entirely by hand and placea blue signature upon the completed forms. The en-tire process has become quite cumbersome.

Among other things, we are required to completetwo forms for the State of Washington. The first formdeals with all imports or transfers of live finfishwithin Washington and must be used whenever anyproducts, not just salmonids, are moved through theState of Washington. The second form covers fishhealth regulations involving required tests for vi-ruses and bacteria. The diseases that need to betested for vary from species to species. It is a multi-ple-use form for the export, import, or transfer ofproduct between facilities.

Several years ago, the state came up with a supple-mental certificate to be completed by the shipper.If you are bringing product into the state, this cer-tificate must be included with the shipment. We pro-posed to state workers and the Department of Fishand Wildlife that we just add a box to a form incurrent use and continue to use just one form. Lit-tle progress has been made.

In addition to the previously mentioned state trans-fer permit, an underlying certificate is required. Itmust be signed by a veterinarian who has testedthe fish for the different diseases. Quite a few dis-eases must be screened. This is the third piece ofpaper from the State of Washington that we encoun-ter when shipping salmon and trout.

There is very little uniformity in certificates usedwithin states or between states. Forms originatingfrom the State of Oregon are very different fromthose from Washington. If we intended to ship myproduct from Washington to Oregon, we would beobliged to use a transfer permit in the State of Wash-ington, a health certificate, and Oregon’s form, aswell.

An additional form, this one federal, from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service is sometimes required.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agen-cies assigned the task of enforcing the Lacey Act.This document is a certificate that is directly linkedto the Lacey Act. We have now been exempted fromusing this form when we export salmon products

such as eyed salmon eggs. However, when we im-port from across the federal border, we need to com-plete this item.

Similar to the way the State of Washington dealswith the non-native species, Maine requires a ze-bra mussel certificate. The supplier must sign thisdeclaration. So, if you are working with farmingoperations in Maine, this export declaration mustbe completed in addition to the regular health cer-tificates previously described.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS

There are approximately 50 different fish healthregulations in the United States that are currentlyactive. Adherence to this body of regulations canbe very confusing. In addition, every country in theworld has its own set of regulations. Obviously,this does not simplify the process of conductinginternational business. The Office International desEpizooties (OIE), located in Paris, attempts to stream-line international and national fish health regula-tions. This agency is now part of the World TradeOrganization and is playing a bigger role thanpreviously. These international workers are now inthe process of developing what I would describe asfairly stringent regulations. These fish health regu-lations are beginning to mirror the regulations weare currently dealing with in terms of salmon andtrout species.

CONCLUSION

Using history as a guide, I would say that the baris gradually being raised for us—not just for salm-on and trout, but for almost all live seafood. Thisconcerns me because, in the long run, it will ham-per international trade. This is a problem that ourindustry will be forced to deal with.

On the international level, I think that the best fo-rum to address this concern is through the OIE.Unfortunately, this organization is currently littlemore than an academic technical organization with-out much input from the industry. There is no indus-try panel, for example, something that is needed tokeep the developing body of regulations from becom-ing impractical.

The paperwork load encountered when complyingwith these regulations is horrendous. Also, the an-imal testing required by these same regulations isimpractical. For example, all of the live fish andshellfish being tested have to be killed. Industry

234 Heggelund: Restraints to Shipping Live Product

members cannot just take blood samples in a man-ner similar to what is done with livestock and, forthat matter, humans. These are lethal samples andthis sacrifice has become extremely costly for theindustry. This is something that we are currentlytrying to change.

We are also trying to have our farm products rede-fined as livestock in the United States. The thoughthere is that if the industry can gain the livestockdesignation, our products would then be looked uponas farmed animals and would be out from underthe Lacey Act. We have a petition in front of theU.S. Secretary of Agriculture requesting this redef-inition. It has taken a long time and we still do nothave this more appropriate designation.

I hope that changes like this will simplify our indus-try. We have an infant industry that is being overbur-dened with fish health regulations. There are far toomany agencies involved and it is constraining thedevelopment of the live industry. It may come to passthat sectors of our industry will have to deal withseparate regulations. For example, the livestockproducts such as farmed fish and shellfish wouldbe regulated differently from fish that are used forenhancement. We may have to consider options suchas this in order to develop a viable farmed fish andshellfish industry in the United States. We are sim-ply not able to accomplish this important task un-der the present regulatory environment.


QUESTION: What would you say are the most sig-nificant hazards posed by your product and how doyou handle them to minimize those hazards in termsof fish health?

HEGGELUND: In terms of fish health? Well, rightnow, we have to do lethal sampling of all our fishand have them checked according to regulations thatare established by recipient countries, in this caseeither Japan or Chile. We follow them to the teeth—you cannot afford not to.

QUESTION: What level of testing would you con-sider to be appropriate in order to handle what youconsider to be the legitimate hazards that are asso-ciated with your product?

HEGGELUND: First of all, we have to go to thetraditional livestock-type sampling, meaning non-lethal testing, where we take blood samples andthen run statistical inferences on whatever diseas-

es we are concerned with. We also have to recog-nize the fact that we can never have zero tolerancefor any type of organism. It is impractical. We usedto have zero tolerance provisions in the UnitedStates on human food with the Delaney Clause un-der the Food and Drug Act. However, this was re-moved about three years ago. We have to set tolerancesthat are realistic, rather than zero. Zero is not arealistic tolerance. Many of these items will have tobe negotiated with the concerned parties, so I donot have a particular number to give you right now.

QUESTION: A comment concerning the previousanswer. Even if you are sampling for vibrios or ISA(infectious salmon anemia), zero tolerance is not in-volved. Rather, what is involved is the statisticaldetection level technical limit using a sample of 150fish. I am well aware of the situation on the EastCoast where we found that a vaccine being used hadstatistically few, but nonetheless a few living organ-isms carried by the vaccine. The vaccine actuallycreated the disease that it was meant to control.My point is that this problem was not detected us-ing standard detection systems. Zero tolerance isonly a statistical level of safety.

HEGGELUND: Yes. Disease testing is only as goodas the methodology that is being used. People inthe industry are extremely concerned about the newsensitive testing methods that are coming out, suchas DNA probes. These new strategies can sampleand detect fragments of a pathogen, rather than thewhole viable pathogen. We feel that we do not needto detect the pathogen, rather we need to deal withthe disease. These are fish and health disease reg-ulations—not pathogen regulations. So we may haveto look at changing the philosophy of these regula-tions, because they are impractical for us to livewith. Also, we see the regulatory bar being raised.We are now looking for more bugs and, on top ofthat, we are getting methodology that is more sen-sitive. We see this as a problem.

QUESTION: How are the regulations here in theUnited States compared to Norway? Are the regu-lations more stringent there than here?

HEGGELUND: There is a total ban on salmonsmolts and eyed eggs transported into Norway. TheNorwegians do not accept them, period. We see thesame situation in other countries, for example NewZealand and Australia. To some extent, part of Can-ada is also involved. To give you a specific example,we can transport a smolt from British Columbia tothe State of Washington. We, however, cannot ship


smolts into British Columbia. In terms of the regu-lations in Norway, a ban is about as strict as youcan get. I have transported eyed eggs from Scandi-navia into the State of Washington and other partsof the United States.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Per Heggelund, a native of Norway, came to theUnited States in 1965. He holds a B.S. from the

University of Washington School of Fisheries. Inaddition, he holds an M.S. in food science and anM.B.A. in finance and international business. Heheld a faculty position at the University of Alaskaas a seafood specialist and later worked with theNational Food Processors Association in Seattle andWashington, D.C. In the early 1980s, he pioneeredthe importation of farmed salmon from Norway tothe U.S. West Coast. Later he obtained federal per-mits to import eyed eggs to the Pacific Northwest.


INTRODUCTION

This report is about the three Rs—risks, regula-tion, and romantic naturalism. Shipping live aquat-ic animals or plants from one part of the world toanother part involves some risks to both the send-ing and the receiving ecosystems. In today’s world—where there is risk, there is regulation, and,frequently, an emotional outcry to “save the eco-system.” Persons in the business of shipping liveplants and animals must be aware of the regula-tions, should be aware of any risks associated withthe movement of their products, and probably willbenefit by being able to predict the responses ofthose individuals and groups who oppose transportof live products on the basis of wishing to preserveecosystems in their “natural condition.”

We hear frequent references to a “global economy”and the implications of international trade, multina-tional corporations, and instant communications fromanywhere on earth. Increasingly, we also live in a “glo-bal ecosystem.” News reports from New York earlierthis fall were filled with alarm concerning “new”strain of encephalitis. Where did it come from? Howdid it get here? What effects will it have? Environ-mentalists are focused intensely on “native” speciesand “natural” ecosystems. Are these concerns valid?If so, to what extent? And what can and should be done?What is the manager, business or resource, to do?

RisksRisks can be assessed systematically and, frequent-ly quantitatively. However, “arguments from igno-rance,” in which claims based only on perceptions,or even fabrications, are made, must be identifiedand condemned for what they are. Risk assessmentscan be done at various levels, depending on subjec-tive judgments as to the probable effects that couldtake place if the species being shipped were to be-come established in the receiving ecosystem. Riskassessment procedures are quite well established.

RegulationsRegulations concerning the shipment of live aquat-ic products have been imposed by federal govern-ments, state governments, and local governments.For better or worse, it is the responsibility of theshipper to know these regulations. In the UnitedStates, import regulations are based primarily onthe injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act.However, the Lacey Act also provides support forstate or local regulations pertaining to wildlife whentransport across jurisdictional boundaries is in-volved. In most other nations, jurisdiction for regu-lating the import or export of live products restswith the national governments.

Romantic naturalismMuch of the argument against transport of liveaquatic plants and animals is based on philosophiesfounded in “romantic naturalism.” Is this how eco-systems really function? Should ecosystems be stud-ied and evaluated as functional systems, or only asstructural systems? Is nature perfect? In additionto the topics mentioned, specifically risks and reg-ulations, the role and philosophical basis for such“environmental” concerns will be discussed.

REGULATORY CONCERNS

In terms of the regulations and related topics, I speaknot so much as a regulator because I do not do thattype of thing in my current position, but rather Ispeak as a senior scientist. If there is a motive thatI might be carrying into this meeting, it would be theplea that we can bring a lot of this discussion aboutlive commerce down to science. Frankly, we can makemuch of the regulatory discussion about the devel-oping live industry a lot more scientific than it hasbeen. I might add that in the process of work, we willbe able to reduce a lot of the rhetoric and a lot of theemotions that are involved. Consequently, I am speak-ing more from this perspective than as a regulator.

Shipping Live Aquatic Products: Biological, Regulatory, andEnvironmental Considerations

John G. NickumU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado

Opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author, not necessarily those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

238 Nickum: Considerations in Shipping Live Aquatic Products

Yes—I do have experience with this topic of livecommerce. For several years I was responsible forthe interpretation of Title 50 of the Lacey Act—inju-rious wildlife regulations. I think that this work islargely why I am at this conference. Again, howev-er, I would like to make the statement that we as agroup must try to move to a working position wherewe can be a little more scientific—a position wherewe actually do some of the science that we think wehave already done. It will be to everyone’s benefit ifthe industry can come from this rational base.

In this report, I comment on three different regula-tory concerns, and then work into more detailedreviews of these topics in order to take a realisticlook at some of the risks associated with the live trade.I will then talk about how this type of review canlead to regulation and then incorporate into a shortdiscussion about this how we look at the environment.

REVIEW OF SOME BASIC REALITIES

I would like to start with a simple fact. There aresix billion people in this world at this time. In termsof world commercial trade, this singular fact has atremendous influence on what is done in terms ofthe movement of products and also how things aredone. Relative to live shipment and the live aquat-ic products industry, this can only mean that themarkets are there—no question about it. The re-tail prices mentioned about live products in HongKong markets may be world highs. However, thereare markets in other parts of the world where pric-es are nearly as high. In short, the markets are thereand the movement of live products will occur.

I think we must deal with this reality. Now, in thecourse of the rapid development of this industry,can we also remain reasonable? I think the follow-ing is also an important fact. A point drawn fromChaiton’s talk at this conference is the need for li-censed engineers when a complex live holding sys-tem is designed and built. These people are invarious ways accountable for the structure and func-tion of the systems they develop. Now moving awayfrom the construction of physical systems towardthe development of management systems, there areno licensed professional resource biologists. Thepoint is that the design of a physical system, suchas a live holding facility, is a highly predictable pro-cess. A good architectural engineer will say that thisphysical system will work and it should work. Asbiologists, we are not willing to go out on that limb.We do not say that this system will or will not work.

So for biological systems the issue is what level ofrisk is acceptable. There is tremendous uncertain-ty in the biological world and a lot of the regulationgoverning this work reflects the uncertainty. In to-day’s society, we want to have zero risk. This, ofcourse, is impossible. However, we do make the at-tempt to establish regulations on the basis of zerorisk, at least in a philosophical sense.

AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:THE LACEY ACT IN PERSPECTIVE

Per Heggelund (AquaSeed Corporation, Seattle,Washington) mentioned the Lacey Act and some ofthe problems that come from this body of regula-tions. This act is acknowledged to be a risk reduc-tion system, not as a risk elimination system. Yet,we do end up in the situation of wanting to have allof the risk eliminated, rather than just simply re-duced. A question I like to ask sometimes with re-spect to this topic is “what do we know and how dowe know it?” Within what limits do we know things?

Taking another look at this question from theHACCP perspective would be “is it likely to resultin an unacceptable risk to the environment?” Thisis where a lot of the regulations start to come apart.Regulations tend to unravel when we put specificlimits to such things as identifying unacceptablelevels of risk, because of all the uncertainties.

I would make the suggestion that we need to try tomove back to the point of knowing what the uncer-tainties are. We need to quantify the things aboutwhich we are certain and move in that direction. Oneof the things that I deplore in the literature describ-ing the environmental world is the fact that so manyscientists are speaking about environmental risk,but they are not speaking scientifically. There can bea huge difference between a scientist speaking gener-ally and a scientist speaking scientifically. Try to keepthis in mind. Always try to ask that question, with-in what limits do we know this? Having arrived atthis point, I think we can start making some progress.

In any case, at this time in history there are liveaquatic products moving from one part of the worldto another. There will be some risks and where thereis risk there is going to be regulation. Can this move-ment be an acceptable type of a risk in this globaleconomy and this global ecosystem?

At this point, it might be good to ask is it reallyreasonable to think in terms of an environment that


is perfect? I often hear the statement made that aparticular ecosystem is the product of millions ofyears of evolution. Are the ecosystems out aroundus the products of millions of years of ecosystem—or of evolution? Well, I guess it depends on how youlook at it. Some of the critters that are out therecould be traced way back to the earliest times. ButI think that if we went back say about 15,000 yearswe will see a very different environment around thisarea. At about that time there were continental icesheets impacting the region and they drasticallyaffected what was going on, particularly in north-ern latitudes. So the bottom line to this line ofthought is that ecosystems are dynamic and we needto look at them as dynamic functional systems, notjust as static structural systems.

When you try to explain the function of an ecosys-tem, to actually explain how an ecosystem works andto predict how it will work, it becomes a very diffi-cult task. Going back to our earlier discussion aboutthe certified architectural engineer, that job is sim-ple in terms of explaining how the system to be builtwill work. The natural ecosystem, on the other hand,is very complex and we tend to lose the quantifica-tion for the thing we are attempting to understand.

And so, we then find it convenient to fall back onsomething that a lot of people in the environmentalfield call the “precautionary principle,” which is “whenin doubt don’t take a chance.” Do no harm. The prob-lem, though, is what does it mean to not take a chance.What is “doing no harm”? Keeping it the way it was?Taking it back the way it was 300 years ago? I donot know the answer to these questions. There is ahuge uncertainty here as far as I am concerned.

It is possible to look at these risks in a systematicmanner. A series of risk analysis systems have beendeveloped—the passive approach being one strate-gy. This and other approaches, in turn, can lead intodecision support systems. A decision support sys-tem will tell you have checked all the different placeswhere something could go wrong. You can incorpo-rate into these systems the degree of certainty oruncertainty. Using this strategy, you can at leastknow that you have touched all the bases and cometo understand the level of probability that some-thing will go wrong.

You will then have to make a subjective judgmentabout the proposed project. Or, perhaps, you canresort to the wisdom of our Congress in Washing-ton, D.C., allowing those folks to make the decisions

for us. In this manner, we can find out whether a par-ticular risk can be considered to be acceptable or not.

I would contend again that ecosystems are dynam-ic—they can accept some change. The reality is thatthey will accept some forms of change. Consequently,our job is to figure out how to predict this change anddetermine how to make it as beneficial as possible.

A document that contains some interesting itemsrelative to what is and is not a substantial risk isthe Congressional Research Service Report for Con-gress on Harmful Non-Native Species, dated Sep-tember 15, 1999. At this point distribution has notbeen made to the general public. I volunteered toreview it and thereby obtained a copy. It states thataquatic nuisance species are nonindigenous species.It says that something that is not in its naturalplace—it really cannot be a nuisance if it is in itsnatural place—is, in fact, a nuisance species. How-ever, if we look at ecosystems from a functionalstandpoint, there are places, for example, in theMidwest where nonindigenous species such as blackbullheads and yellow perch have clearly becomeaquatic nuisance species.

My argument is that native species can also becomenuisances. We need to look at what is happening,what the effects might be, and try to quantify thesituation as best we can before continuing into aproject. At any rate, this report to Congress rela-tive to non-native species does indicate that harmusually comes from the non-natives. The documentalso acknowledges that most of our food supplycomes from non-native species. Many other prod-ucts come from non-native species.

Some of these products come from controlled andmanaged ecosystems in which various functionalaspects are quite predictable. For example, a corn-field in the middle of Iowa is a functional ecosys-tem. It is a carefully structured ecosystem and istightly managed. It has a high input of energy, ahigh input of nutrients, and predictable output.There is an argument as to whether it is efficientor not, but it is an ecosystem.

Can we go to that extreme of extending this discus-sion to the aquatic world. Yes—some catfish ponds,carp ponds, and tilapia ponds do approach the lev-el of a cornfield. But as you move out into the broad-er environment, more uncertainty is introduced.Looking at what is happening in this world, thisparticular document goes on to list the federal laws,


acts of Congress, and then the rules and regulationsthat have developed to implement the necessary reg-ulations. And, yes, the lead regulation is the LaceyAct—the first item reviewed. There are 13 othermajor regulatory items that also relate to the po-tential harm caused by nonindigenous species.

There is an interesting statement made relative tothe Lacey Act that should be mentioned here. Itstates “moreover, grounds for exclusion (for prevent-ing something from being imported) were expand-ed beyond the traditional harm to agriculture,horticulture and forestry interests to include harmto wildlife and wildlife resources.” This has also beeninterpreted as including fisheries. Then the draft-ers of this document go on to make the statementthat the inclusion of the above-mentioned extendedgrounds for exclusion could mean that nearly anynon-native species could be considered for exclusionsince most, perhaps all, ecologists would hold thatthe inclusion of any non-native species risks harmto wildlife resources.

The point is clearly made that if the movement ofany non-native can be considered harmful, this ac-tion will become subject to Lacey Act action. I wouldsay that this position is almost conventional wis-dom among “environmentalists” at this point. How-ever, I do not think that it is a conventional wisdomamong “ecologists.” Ecologists and environmental-ists have concerns about the environment. Ecolo-gists, however, are professional biologists who knowthe quantitative limits of what they do and do notknow.

At any rate, the Lacey Act has two very differentaspects to its structure that work together. One as-pect is related to injurious wildlife. Anything thatis interpreted as being potentially injurious to wild-life or wildlife resources can be excluded from en-tering the United States. The other aspect of theLacey Act supports and defends various state andforeign laws. Any action that is a matter of a stateregulation, a foreign regulation, a treaty, or what-ever is supported by the Lacey Act.

The Lacey Act has the potential of elevating some-thing that was a misdemeanor at the state level intoa federal felony. If you violate a state regulation inthe taking, transporting, possessing, selling, import-ing, and/or exporting of a fish and wildlife product,you have violated the Lacey Act. It is the Lacey Actviolation that really has the potential of grabbingyou, not the state regulation that was involved. It

is this act of violating the state regulation that is aviolation of the Lacey Act. When this unfortunateevent occurs, you must proceed to uniform sentenc-ing laws and the penalties can be quite severe. Con-sequently, you have to be very careful.

This is why Per Heggelund has to know all about50 states in which his customers reside—each statehas extremely different regulations. Here is an ex-ample of the complexities involved. I noticed thesignature on the bottom of one of those transportforms—the signature of a highly respected veterinar-ian. Now the State of Illinois four or five years backabsolutely rejected his signature because the stateauthorities did not think he was the right person tosign the document even though the veterinarian inquestion is an extremely well qualified profession-al person. This points out the differences from onestate to another. To have shipped something intoIllinois with his signature would have been a viola-tion of state law, and the persons involved with theshipment could have been prosecuted under theLacey Act. As far as I know, nothing ever happenedin this particular situation, but you get into somereally awkward situations under such regulations.

Incidentally, the Lacey Act dates back many yearsand is related to events that occurred in New York,Pennsylvania, and that general area. Shippers ofwildlife product went back and forth across the bor-der and literally thumbed their noses at manage-ment folks on the other side, saying, “Hey, I hunteddeer in New York. I’m selling them in Pennsylva-nia. Isn’t that tough.” Well, the federal governmentprovided the teeth behind the solution for this prob-lem and the Lacey Act was born.

The question about the challenged veterinarian isa different situation from poached deer in Pennsyl-vania, but the laws and regulations are still verymuch in place. As pointed out by others attendingthis conference, the responsibility rests squarelywith the person in charge of the movement as towhether this movement is legal.

THE THREE RS

A lot of what I have been talking about up to thispoint in the report relates more to the rhetoric in-volved in the regulation of this industry rather thanthe real science involved. I think that we need tofall back to another one of our “Rs.” Recall that thethree Rs being discussed in this report are risk, reg-ulation, and romantic naturalism.


Romantic naturalism was a philosophy that wasvery much in vogue in the late 1700s and early1800s. There has been a rebirth of this idea in re-cent years. Romantic naturalism states that any-thing that is natural is perfect and if anything isnot natural, then it is really bad.

This is the reason for my recurrent plea for thoseinvolved to understand things as functional systems.What is the proper measure of the tolerance of thesefunctional systems? Ecosystems can be very—letus add a fourth “R”—they can be very resilient.Resilience is part of the fabric of a natural ecosys-tem. If you really want to get a dose of what it meansto be resilient, start reading some of the reportsthat paleontologists put out. They talk about blue-green algae and bacteria that have been on this plan-et for billions of years. Over this period, they havenot changed much. However, they have toleratedenormous changes in the environment around them.

Now, I do not think that this would be an environ-ment in which we would fit very well—that one backthere during the earliest of times with the so-calledprokaryotic critters. There is not much room forhumans in that picture. So really what we shouldbe talking about is what is the resilience or, put-ting it another way, what are the limits of the sys-tems we have, in this day and age? Do we reallywant to push them to these limits? I would suggestprobably not. Therefore, it becomes imperative forus to try to understand the nature of these function-al systems and what their functional limits may be.

It is obvious that we are not going to have the luxuryof maintaining an ecosystem structure exactly as itwas 300 years ago, 3,000 years ago, or 30,000 yearsago. This is because now there are six billion peo-ple in this world and this large population is clamor-ing for products from all over the world. They are goingto move product and there are going to be changes.

ARGUMENTS FROM IGNORANCE

We are finding interesting changes. For example,something that has moved into many areas in theGreat Plains is a grass known as crested wheatgrass. It is very draught resistant, serves as a goodsoil cover, and provides a lot of forage. However,most of the growth of this grass is above ground,where most of the native grasses do their work be-low ground. Consequently, crested wheat grasslends itself to a different sod producing system. Isthis a problem? We really do not know the answerto this question yet.

You can look at similar examples throughout all ofthe different species that have been moved aroundand their effects on these natural systems. We needto recognize the potential we have in the form ofrisk assessment systems and on decision supportsystems to check all the bases—to know what therelative certainties and uncertainties may be. We thensimply proceed to make the best decisions possible.

We cannot afford to deal with what philosopherscall arguments from ignorance. The precautionaryprinciple is one such argument. I can easily makethe argument that if Per Heggelund transports oneof his Donaldson trout to Minnesota, it will causeirreparable damage to the aquatic ecosystems inMinnesota. Does he have to prove I am wrong? Isuggest that since I made the statement that thistransaction is damaging, then I need to prove thatI am right.

However, in today’s world, the argument for igno-rance will often prevail. If a manager makes a state-ment that something might go wrong, that therecould be a risk involved here, that the transfer maypush this ecosystem beyond its functional limits(although this is usually not the argument), thenthe precautionary principle will be brought out andthe transaction will not occur. The usual argumentis that the transfer will change the structure of theecosystem. For some people this means an irrevers-ible change. The ecosystem will be changed foreverand, clearly, if the structure has changed then thefunction of the system must also change. Let us tryto know what our limits are and then productivelywork within those limits.

Finally, I would like to add to my “Rs” of risk, regu-lation, romantic naturalism and, more recently, re-silience, another R without which I think all of ourefforts tend to go down the tubes. Let us add a fifthR and call it respect for each other—respect for thework that we do and respect for the businesses weare in. Then we can start to move forward into thesechallenging areas of global commerce.


QUESTION: I am curious about the impact of theLacey Act on commercially harvested live seafoodas well as on farmed seafood, for example, live salm-on, that is commercially harvested and shipped aslive product or whatever.

J. NICKUM: In general, the regulations implement-ing the injurious wildlife part of the Lacey Act would


say that if the product is harvested from the watersof North America and brought directly to port, thisis not included in the section dealing with injuriouswildlife. I do not think that language has changed.

However, if the same North American product wasdiverted to a Japanese ship and was initially trans-ported to Japan and then came back again acrossthe ocean, there would be the possibility of it beingmixed in with all kinds of things from Asia. At thispoint, the shipment then would be subject to LaceyAct regulations. In general, commercial harvestsfrom the surrounding waters of North Americawould not be included in the exclusions mentionedin the Lacey Act. The shipment in question mightbe subject to state regulation, and, if there was aviolation of state regulation, then the penalty partof the Lacey Act would kick in.

QUESTION: When you say North America, doesthis also include Canada?

J. NICKUM: Normally Canada would be includedwithin this broad zone. Our interpretation has beenthat you really cannot draw a line in the water—there are no magic barriers there.

QUESTION: If I could add, I think the terminolo-gy is if they are taken from the waters of NorthAmerica, that they have to be landed in the United

States to be exempt from Title 50 of the Act. So, ifthe product is taken in North American waters andlanded in Canada, you will still have to have a Title50 certificate to bring them to the United States.

QUESTION: Why have the states developed dif-ferent sets of regulations?

J. NICKUM: A lot of the confusion over the matterof state regulations goes back to the fact that in theU.S. Constitution all rights and privileges not spe-cifically reserved to the federal government are giv-en to the states. Fish and wildlife matters, as ageneral rule, were not reserved to the federal gov-ernment. Therefore, they are state domain and thestates are extremely jealous over this managementauthority. So we have ended up with 50 differentsets of wildlife and associated regulations with theexception of Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endan-gered Species Act, and a few other items of this type.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

John G. Nickum received his M.S. in zoology andbotany from the University of South Dakota andhis Ph.D. in zoology and microbiology from South-ern Illinois University. He has served as the Region-al Science Officer and Research Coordinator inDenver, Colorado, for the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService since 1998.


INTRODUCTION

Two kinds of nonindigenous species are associatedwith the trade in live products. One type is the liveproducts themselves. The target product species fallunder very high levels of scrutiny—for environmen-tal safety and other kinds of regulations. Manytimes this scrutiny has been invited by the industry,in order to insure uniform standards across the in-dustry.

Non-target or hitchhiking species, on the otherhand, are pests, pathogens, and other species ofunknown status that might come along with theproduct. They come in the packing material, thewater, or the packaging. They may also be attachedto or living in the target species, as with diseaseorganisms. This suggests that, in addition to theproduct and its handling, the handling and dispos-al of packaging has potential for bringing theseunintentional introductions.

I am focusing on these unintentional introductionsbecause they’re very difficult to get a handle on. Itis a risk assessment approach that focuses on wherethe problems might be. We can take a systematicapproach to understanding the risk, rather thanpainting the whole industry with the same brush.We can look at what particular products or practic-es might be a problem and then work on adaptingto those. My risk assessment framework looks moreat the institutional arrangements—what people aredoing as they process a product.

Why are nonindigenous species a problem? Becausethey not only have regulatory and managementpractice implications for the industry, but also be-cause a number of parts of the industry are affect-ed by them. Pests affect the industry directly if theyget into holding facilities, and can affect the prod-ucts that you’re working with. In oyster culture, anumber of pests and pathogens can greatly increasethe cost of doing business and decrease the valueor quantity of yield of the product.

I have been doing research for the last few years onnonindigenous species. I’ve worked with people onthe side of industry, government, and nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs)—people approaching theproblem from many different perspectives. ScottSmith and I worked closely to bring to Washingtonstate an awareness of exotic species and why theyare a problem.

When I attended the live shipment conference sever-al years ago, I was struck by the fact that not everyproduct and not every process was the same in termsof the risk it might pose for introducing nonindige-nous species. Unintentional introductions are par-ticularly difficult to get a handle on, because, if youthink of it in HACCP terms, the hazard analysis ismade very complicated by not knowing where to look.

New products are often emerging, and are comingfrom new sources. Often the operators may be verysmall, and they may change the products that theyship throughout the year, or as markets emerge.Sometimes there are no strong industry associationswith whom you can start.

I am interested in characterizing these diverse path-ways. After this is done, we can target education inbest management practices on portions of the indus-try where the risk actually lies, rather than develop-ing very broad regulatory approaches that might applyto the whole industry and maybe not appropriately.

INVASION

An invasion of nonindigenous species begins withmany species in a source region, which may be nativeto that region or non-native. Then there’s a stage oftransport in which live colonists arrive in the hostregion. This is the first big hurdle for anything that’shitchhiking along with a product, because it has tosurvive the transport, arrive alive, and be releasedinto the host environment. So just that act of release,or of not releasing, is a major barrier to an invasion.

Do Live Marine Products Serve as Pathways for theIntroduction of Nonindigenous Species?

Annette M. OlsonUniversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington

244 Olson: Live Marine Products and the Introduction of Nonindigenous Species

Even if live colonists are released into the environ-ment, they may or may not become established. Ifthey do establish, an invasion has occurred. Only ifthey have undesirable impacts, though, would wecall them a nuisance species. Not all invaders arenuisance species.

Even intentional introductions, species that areintentionally introduced because they are intend-ed to do some good, show a very low rate of successor establishment. Even when you handpick themto be introduced into your environment, they fre-quently just don’t take. The area in which this isbest known is in biocontrol, where people are bring-ing in insects to control other insects or pest plants.Something like 1% of the biocontrol introductionsare actually successful.

Therefore, if it’s just a random process, fewer andfewer species are present and capable, as you gothrough these stages of invasion, of becoming anuisance species. Once they are alive and in thehost environment, they can spread from any pointin a secondary fashion. Sometimes the transport ofproducts might be involved in spread, as well as inbringing them into a new host environment.

METHODOLOGY

I characterized the pathways in terms of the fac-tors that affect the risk that a species is going tomove from one stage to the next of the invasion. Iidentified three kinds of factors:

• Biology and ecology of the organisms.

• Human activities.

• Characteristics of the vectors themselves—thephysical objects, like shipping crates and vessels,that are moved from place to place.

My focus is on the human activities, the transportstage. This is the stage in which one goes from asource environment to a host environment. We canbreak that stage down into smaller pieces:

• Harvesting in the source habitat

• Handling

• Packaging

• Shipping

• Marketing

• Use

• Waste disposal

These human activities are the factors that we canactually control to change the level of risk. We cando different things in harvesting, for example, orhandle the products differently when we’re market-ing, or educate users to dispose of them differently.

The vectors that might be associated with thesedifferent activities are as follows:

• The equipment for harvest and processing.

• Packaging containers and media.

• Ballast in holding systems.

• Distribution in marketing facilities.

• Cartons.

• Coolers or vehicles that they’re transported in.

• Disposal options that are available.

I mapped my research onto the sequence of activi-ties. In the first scoping-type stage, I was learningfrom shippers, marketers, and users what was ac-tually used in the Puget Sound region. Then I iden-tified potentially risky products.

I surveyed marketers and users. If there was nomarket for use of a product in the host region, wesaid this pathway is provisionally closed. In otherwords, for the purposes of this hazard assessment,which we wanted to do quickly, we didn’t want tospend lots of time and money trying to understanda pathway that’s closed.

If this product or type of product had been used inthe host region, we could have sampled shipmentsof that product to see whether they’re carrying anyhitchhikers. Then we could have surveyed suppli-ers to see whether there was anything about theirpractices that might have been contributing to thepresence of hitchhikers. In all cases then, this ini-tial scoping, which involved interacting with folksin the industry, was also directed back in terms ofeducational products toward the industry.

We didn’t want to look at things that were alreadybeing addressed by existing nuisance species poli-cy and management. We didn’t want to look at ship-ping because ballast water studies are well underway. There’s already oversight in the area of aquac-ulture and mariculture, so there wasn’t a need forus to dig into that more. Public and private aquariaare, at least in our state, the target of an educa-tional campaign, to inform people about nonindig-enous species.


We chose to look at scientific specimens, live sea-food, and live bait. Our study of live bait illustrateshow the protocol of defining a pathway as provi-sionally closed might work.

RESULTSScientific specimens and live seafoodFor our pilot study we ordered two shipments ofscientific specimens. One was fucus, or rockweed,which is used in developmental biology studies. Theother was mixed algae, which includes several sea-weed species used in a biology lab class to teachhow to identify algae. We also ordered three ship-ments of Maine lobster through contacts that wefound over the Internet.

We went through these shipments, and classifiedthe fauna and flora present in the shipments. Inaddition to the target taxa, which for animals werethe lobsters, there were numerous nontarget taxafound in all these shipments. Most of them wereisopods, some were amphipods, and a few wereworms. We identified them to the lowest taxonomiclevel that we could, using a dissecting microscope,but we didn’t identify any to species.

Among the flora, there were between three and sixnontarget species. We didn’t count diatoms but therewere many diatom species. Overall, we found thatthere were 21 or 22 multicellular species in the sci-entific specimens, and between five and eleven spe-cies in the live seafood. These species were foundlargely in the packing material.

We determined that seaweeds themselves, becausethey’re such a rich habitat for invertebrates, are arelatively high-risk product. Who ships seaweeds?It’s mostly educational institutions. One of the firstthings that we chose to do with our research fund-ing was to develop a brochure for the research ed-ucation and testing community, the people who receivelive products for educational research purposes.That brochure is produced by Washington Sea Grant.

One of the features of the brochure, which might beparticularly useful for the industry, is a graphic thatshows escape routes. These are the different ways“hitchhikers” could get out of your institution and intothe environment. The graphic could be very easilytailored for the industry as an educational product.

Live baitThe third pathway that we looked at was live bait.There are several subpathways within it:

• Local bait shops that import bait for retail sale.

• Recreational users who increasingly can orderdirectly from the Internet.

• Users who transport from out of state.

• Suppliers who stock bait vending machines.

• Possibly some other existing, but as yet unrecog-nized pathways.

For this portion, we had a two-phase study; in ourpilot study, we did a telephone survey of local baitshops. We identified all of the local bait shops inthe Seattle area using two different phone directo-ries, called all of them, and made site visits to sev-en of them. We also called five suppliers, lookingfor the same pattern of nonindigenous species thatoccur in the seaweed packaging for bait marts.

First, we found that seven of the local bait shopssold or shipped live bait. We didn’t ask whether thebait was from marine sources, but we visited all ofthose shops, and none of them had marine bait.

We called the suppliers, and found that none of themshipped live marine bait to Washington state. Thesame suppliers who were shipping live marine baitto the San Francisco Bay area were not shipping itto Washington state. Therefore, we regarded livebait as a provisionally closed pathway.

Subsequently, we did a much more extensive tele-phone survey of retailers in Washington’s coastalcounties. Since they are the only counties likely tocontain shops selling live marine bait, you couldsay that we covered the whole state. First, we iden-tified likely retailers of live bait, removing shopsthat were located inland. In Washington, the bound-aries of several coastal counties run from PugetSound up to the crest of the Cascades. We decidedthat shops in towns in the Cascades probablyweren’t carrying marine bait, so we removed themfrom our list.

That left us with 110 shops from which we drew arandom sample. I can’t exaggerate the importanceof having a random sample when you’re doing thiskind of study, or you can severely compromise yourresults. However, we did a stratification, in which wemade sure that we got at least two shops from eachcounty. In one case, Skagit County, we couldn’t do that.

We also resampled all of the shops from the pilotstudy, and administered a simple telephone ques-tionnaire to 41 shops. We did not conduct any sitevisits or survey suppliers for this study. We had an

246 Olson: Live Marine Products and the Introduction of Nonindigenous Species

excellent response rate, with only 22% of the peo-ple we called saying they didn’t want to talk to us,or not answering the telephone.

A majority did not carry live bait at all. They weremarine oriented and were carrying frozen bait.Those who carried live bait got it from a local source.Those who imported bait got it from Oregon, whichwere actually earthworms. No imported marine baitwas being brought in. It looks to us like people do notship live bait from Maine for use in marine watersin Washington. If I’m wrong, I want to hear about it.

METHOD EVALUATION

For rapid identification of risks associated with a com-mercial pathway, a telephone survey of a randomsample of retailers can be reliable. We got the sameresults from doing this very extensive survey as wedid from a very limited one. Site visits to a subsam-ple of the retailers and telephone surveys of supplierscan be used to test the reliability of those telephonesurvey results.

Constructing the list from which to draw the randomsample is nontrivial. This is where I think that indus-try associations can be very helpful, because, whenyou’re already organized, you have your mailing listof members, and can then draw randomly amongthose.

Finally, pilot studies can be particularly helpful inidentifying flaws in the survey instrument. I men-tioned that we forgot to ask whether the live baitwas marine in our first telephone survey, which wecorrected in our subsequent one.

CONCLUSION

This problem has some real dimensions. There aresome real threats, both to the environment and tothe industry from nonindigenous species. However,these threats don’t need to be overblown. Sometimesthe consequences can be very negative, but it is pos-sible to find out where the problems are and handlethem very reasonably in an educational context.

The other point is that the level of concern is rising,and the regulatory bar is being raised. Regulatory ap-proaches have one very serious limit, though, and thatis enforcement. The human resources to implement

regulatory approaches are already stressed beyondtheir limits.

What we really need is education and self-educa-tion, so that people don’t do the simple thing andtoss the seaweed into Puget Sound, but do the equal-ly simple thing of tossing it into the wastebasketand sending it to the landfill.


QUESTION: I’m a little stumped as to why there’sno live marine bait coming into Washington. Is itjust that the local suppliers are adequate, or arethere state regulations?

A. OLSON: There is a regulatory dimension to it,but that is not what is causing it. The permit pro-cess is triggered by a permit application. Since moststate resources go toward regulating the aquacul-ture industry, bait shops don’t submit permit appli-cations. The regulation could probably technicallyapply to them, but the ability to actually implementthat as a regulatory approach is pretty limited.

It was quite funny that when we went to these shopsin our pilot study, and asked them if they had anylive marine worms, they were puzzled. They said,“Why don’t you go out and dig your own?” There-fore, I think that there is a tradition of private indi-vidual users harvesting their own bait. That couldeasily change, though.

So, I wouldn’t say that this pathway is foreverclosed. In fact, I’m working with Washington SeaGrant to develop a brochure targeted to the baitshops on our original list. It will make them awareand ask them to inform their customers about therisk, because the real risk actually falls with thecustomers in the bait arena.

QUESTION: Were any of the bait shops exportingfrom Washington state?

A. OLSON: Yes, but we did not look at exports. Weknow that there’s some export to Oregon and viceversa, but we weren’t looking at that element, be-cause of the nature of our funding. We were tryingto assess risks for Puget Sound.

QUESTION: How many of the beasts that came onthe algae scientific specimens were alive?


A. OLSON: We didn’t count anything that wasn’talive.

QUESTION: Did you try putting them into, for ex-ample, an aquarium with Puget Sound water, tosee what would actually take?

A. OLSON: No. We were trying to develop a rapidscreening process, which would allow us to deter-

mine if something requires further inspection or not.Those types of questions would be very valid onesto follow up with research specimens.

However, because the research community has beena vector in the past, we decided that it was moreimportant to inform them about the problem, thanto spend a year trying to determine exactly how bigthe problem is.


ABSTRACT

The expanding live seafood market has created asignificant and increasing potential for accidentalintroductions of live seafood species into northeastPacific coastal waters. Of 36 marine and estuarinebivalve species available in western U.S. retailmarkets, only 13 are native to this region. Elevenof the 23 species that are nonindigenous to thenortheast Pacific (nearly half of the total) were in-troduced intentionally. Measures to prevent suchintroductions are warranted. However, state legis-lative and resource agency efforts to manage non-indigenous species have been difficult to implement.Laws of this sort, for example, create uneven com-petition among production industries in differentstates. Efforts to reduce the risks of introduced spe-cies from the seafood trade are most likely to beeffective at federal and international levels. Re-search, education, and cooperation should be em-phasized, rather than rules and regulations.

INTRODUCTION

Introductions of marine and estuarine nonindige-nous species from ballast water traffic (Carlton andGeller 1993, Cohen et al. 1995) and aquaculturepractices (Carlton 1975, 1979; Rosenthal 1980;Mann 1983; Chew 1990) are attracting intense in-terest. Meanwhile, other mechanisms of introduc-tion, such as the live seafood trade, which may alsobe important, have largely escaped attention. Shellsof nonindigenous clams imported to the northeastPacific as live seafood are found occasionally as theremains of bait fishing activities on river and oceanshores (e.g., Carlton 1975, Coan 1998, Chapman andMiller 1999). These shell remains are evidence thatlive seafood species can be transported into geo-graphical areas where accidental or intentionalintroductions are possible (Chapman and Miller 1999).

Past introductions of nonindigenous species suchas oysters and soft-shell clams for seafood marketsdemonstrate that accidental or intentional intro-ductions of seafood species have occurred. Intro-duced species, once brought into a region, areunconstrained by political or economic boundariesand, therefore, become the concern of entire bio-geographic regions. Many seafood species are ex-ported outside of their natural ranges to areaswhere they do not yet have reproducing populations.The seafood trade may appear to be a minor mech-anism for introduction of marine and estuarine spe-cies in comparison with the volumes of ballast waterreleased by merchant marine traffic (Carlton andGeller 1993) or aquaculture (Mann 1983, Chew1990), but the correlation is poor between the scaleof the actual mechanism involved and the proba-bility of introduction (Carlton 1999). Unauthorizedintroductions associated with seafood have occurred(McMahan 1982, Cohen et al. 1995, Cohen and Carl-ton 1997). The live seafood trade could be a vectorfor introducing species around the world.

We examined native and nonindigenous marine andestuarine bivalve species sold as live seafood on theWest Coast of the United States for this analysis.Because introduced species are not affected by politi-cal boundaries, all coastal waters of the entire north-east Pacific are the geographical regions of concern.

METHODS

Common bivalve seafood species of the northeastPacific, documented in publications, personal ob-servations, communications, or Internet postingsare included in this survey. An introduced speciesis defined as a reproductive population that is es-tablished by human activity where it did not occurpreviously. The origins and introductions of bivalvespecies of the northeast Pacific markets are inferred

Live Seafood: A Recipe for Biological and Regulatory Concern?

Todd W. Miller and John W. ChapmanOregon State University, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon

Eugene V. CoanCalifornia Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California

250 Miller et al.: Live Seafood: A Recipe for Biological and Regulatory Concern?

from previously published records or using the cri-teria for introduced species summarized in Carlton(1979) and Chapman and Carlton (1991 and 1994).

RESULTS

All 36 species surveyed (Tables 1 and 2) occur withinmarine or estuarine waters between the latitudes30° and 60°N and are able survive in similar stor-age and shipping conditions. Twenty-three of these36 seafood species are nonindigenous to the north-east Pacific (Table 2). Fourteen of the 23 nonindig-enous species have disjointed distributions—theyoccur on opposite sides of continents or on differentcontinents (Table 2, column 3). These 14 speciesthus appear to have been introduced. The oceanquahog may occur naturally in both Europe andeastern North America, but the remaining 13 spe-cies, 56.5%, appear to have been introduced some-where in the world outside of their natural ranges.

NATIVE SPECIES

Thirteen native northeast Pacific species that areharvested and sold only in the western UnitedStates (Table 1) are of little threat to northeast Pa-cific ecosystems. The smooth venus (Table 1), pri-marily a tropical species imported to the United

States from western Mexico, lives in higher tem-peratures than occur in the more northern north-east Pacific waters where it is sold.

Low and high risk categories ofnonindigenous speciesThe potential risks of introducing nonindigenousseafood species from retail markets (Table 2) areboth consequential and variable in nature. Nonin-digenous northeast Pacific seafood species can beclassified into categories of risk (Table 2, column 4)including:

1. Species introduced in the past, from which har-vests of local populations are made for local mar-kets.

2. Species cultured to marketable size in local wa-ters from introduced spat.

3. Species that have been introduced locally butare not harvested locally, the market sourcebeing foreign.

4. Imported species available only from foreignsources.

The magnitudes of ecological risk resulting fromintroducing these nonindigenous species into the

Table 1. Native marine bivalve mollusks available in northeast Pacific live sea-food markets.

Native origin and species Common name Distribution

Western North AmericaChlamys hastata Spiny scallop a WNAa,b,c

Chlamys rubida Reddish scallop,a pink scallop WNAa,b,c

Clinocardium nuttallii Nuttall cockle,a basket cockle WNAa,b,c

Mytilus californianus California mussela WNAb,c

Mytilus trossulus Foolish mussela WNAb,c ENAd

Ostrea conchaphila Olympia oystera WNAb,c

Panopea abrupta Pacific geoducka WNAb,c

Patinopecten caurinus Weathervane scallopa WNA a,b,c

Protothaca staminea Pacific littlenecka WNA a,b,c

Saxidomus nuttalli California butter clama WNA a,b,c

Siliqua patula Pacific razora WNA a,b,c

Tresus capax Fat gapera WNA a,b,c

Western MexicoChione fluctifraga Smooth venusa MEXb,e

ENA=Eastern North America, WNA=Western North America, MEX=Mexico.aTurgeon et al. 1998; bHarvest region; cKozloff and Price 1997; dBrunel et al. 1998; eAbbott and Dance 1982.


Table 2. Scientific and common names of nonindigenous bivalve mollusks available live in seafood mar-kets of the northeast Pacific.

Native origin Risk and species Common name Distribution category

Eastern North AmericaArctica islandica Ocean quahoga ENAa,b EUc 4Argopecten irradians Bay scallopa ENAb,a EAd 4Cyrtodaria siliqua Northern propellor clama ENAb,a 4Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster,a Atlantic oyster ENAa,b WNAa,b 1,2Ensis directus Atlantic jackknifea ENAa,b EUe 4Mercenaria mercenaria Northern quahog,a bay quahog ENAa,b WNAa EUf 3Mya arenaria Softshell,a Atlantic softshell ENAa,b WNAa EUg 3Mytilus edulis Blue mussel,a Atlantic blue mussel ENAa,b WNAa EUh CHh 3Petricolaria pholadiformis False angel winga ENAa,b WNAa EUi 3Placopecten magellanicus Sea scallop,a Atlantic sea scallop ENAa,b 4Spisula solidissima Atlantic surf clama ENAa,b 4

EuropeOstrea edulis Edible oyster,a flat oyster ENAb EUb,d WNAb,d 2Mytilus galloprovincialis Mediterranean mussela WNAb,j EUb,c EAk WAl 1,2

South AmericaProtothaca thaca Chilean clam ARb,m 4Ostrea puelchana Argentine oyster ARb,n,o 4

East AsiaAnadara granosa Blood clam EAb,p 4Crassostrea gigas Pacific oystera WA AU CHb EA EU 1,2

J NZ MEXb,d WNAb,d

Crassostrea sikamea Kumamoto oyster AU Jb,q WNAb,q 1,2Mizuhopecten yessoensis Japanese weathervanea Jr WNAb,s 1,2Venerupis philipanarum Japanese littleneck,a Manilla clam EA EUb,d WNAb,d 1,2

New ZealandChione stutchburyi New Zealand cockle NZb,t 4Paphies australis Pipi clam NZb,u 4Perna canaliculus Green mussel NZb,v 4

AR=Argentina, AU=Australia, CH=Chile, EA=Eastern Asia, ENA=Eastern North America, EU=Europe, J=Japan, WA=Western Africa, MEX=Mexico,NZ=New Zealand, WNA=Western North America.

Risk categories: (1) species introduced in the past, from which harvests of local populations are made for local markets; (2) species cultured tomarketable size in local waters from introduced spat; (3) species that have been introduced locally but are not harvested locally, the market sourcebeing foreign and; (4) imported species available only from foreign sources.

aTurgeon et al. 1998; bHarvest region; cTebble 1966; dChew 1990; eEssnik 1986; fMann 1983; gCarlton 1975; hSeed 1992; iCoan 1997; jMcDonald andKoehn 1988; kLee and Morton 1985; lHockey and van Erkom Schurink 1992; mUrban and Campos 1994; nFernandez Castro and Bodoy 1987;oArakawa 1990; pYin et al. 1994; qBanks et al. 1994; rChunde et al. 1995; sSaunders and Heath 1994; tDobbinson et al. 1989; uHooker and Creese1995; vSiddall 1980.


northeast Pacific varies among habitats, categories,species, regions, and over time. Fully marine andestuarine species are unlikely to be successfullyintroduced into freshwater systems and freshwa-ter species are of little risk in estuarine or marinesystems. A species may be independently reproduc-tive in particular bays or estuaries or specific lati-tudes, for instance, but require active culturing inothers. A species may be successfully introduced forculture at one time, but later decline to unprofitableproduction rates because of, for example, environ-mental changes of one sort or another. Introduc-tion of imported spat for culture to marketable sizein coastal waters was widely practiced in the past(Barrett 1963) and then discontinued (Chew 1990).

The eastern oyster, the Pacific oyster, the Japaneselittleneck clam (Chew 1990) and, recently, the Ku-mamoto oyster (Banks et al. 1994) (Table 2) wereintroduced into the northeast Pacific for commer-cial harvests and spawn naturally in some areas ofWashington (risk category 1). However, each ofthese species must be raised from spat (risk cate-gory 2) to reach economical densities for commer-cial harvests. Previous methods of transplantingspat into local waters directly from their native re-gions were discontinued due to the great expensesrequired and the associated pest species that wereunintentionally introduced with them (Carlton1979, Chew 1990). The ecological effects of estab-lished populations of these risk category 1 and 2species and their associated introduced species arepoorly known, but could be substantial. Withoutclimate or other environmental changes, or exten-sive human intervention, however, these species donot appear to be spreading further. Additional risksfrom these category 1 and 2 species, due to retailactivities, may be small. Moreover, the recent spatgrow-out methods from larvae produced in local lab-oratories and hatcheries prevent associations withother species. The risks of introducing associated pestspecies with category 2 species by recent culturemethods are minor.

The ecological risk for category 3 species are alsoalready occurring and unlikely to change due toretail activities. They are not cultivated locally forthe retail market and it is unlikely that they willspread beyond their present distributions by acci-dental or unauthorized introductions. In the ab-sence of environmental or climate changes thatcould cause these species to spread or proliferate,they also are less likely to produce greater ecologi-cal effects than those already present.

High risk category 4 speciesThe 12 risk category 4 nonindigenous species (Ta-ble 2) are the greatest concern for resource manag-ers since they are not yet successfully introducedinto the northeast Pacific. Of these species, two havebeen introduced beyond their native range and posea serious and immediate risk of being introducedto the northeast Pacific. The Atlantic jackknife,Ensis directus, in particular, has successfully in-vaded and now dominates in benthic habitats inparts of northern Europe. The remaining 10 speciesare not known to be introduced outside of their natu-ral range, and thus may pose less risk of being intro-duced to the coastal waters of the northeast Pacific.

The northeast Pacific may be disproportionatelyvulnerable to aquatic introductions. San FranciscoBay, California, is among the most intensely invad-ed aquatic environments in the world (Cohen et al.1995) and the rate of invasions is increasing (Co-hen and Carlton 1998). Seafood species may fit intothe same pattern. Of 13 endemic northeast Pacificseafood species (Table 1), only Mytilus trossulus (7.6%)has been introduced to other regions in the world(Brunel et al. 1998). In contrast, 13 of the 23 (56.5%)imported species (Table 2) have been introduced tothe northeast Pacific or elsewhere. Thus, the pro-portion of species imported to the northeast Pacificthat have been introduced anywhere in the worldis higher than the proportion of native northeastPacific species that have been successfully exported.

Other mechanisms for introductionsThe magnitude of present marine and estuarineintroductions is just now being discovered and stud-ied (Cohen and Carlton 1998, Eno et al. 1997, Gelleret al. 1997, Carlton 1999). At the same time, globalmarkets for live seafood are expanding. Nonindig-enous marine species imported initially as foodshould be included in ongoing risk assessments re-viewing other mechanisms for introduction.

The major vectors and processes that take placeduring invasions of aquatic ecosystems can be dis-tinguished only from the patterns apparent in var-ious documented global invasions. These globalpatterns, including dispersal, survival, and local ex-tinctions of nonindigenous species, are all but un-known in marine and estuarine systems (Carlton1999). Ballast-water traffic, fouling communities onhulls of seagoing ships, aquaculture activities, andfisheries and wildlife introductions are attracting


substantial interest as vectors of aquatic introduc-tions (e.g., Carlton 1979, Cohen et al. 1995, Eno et al.1997, Smith 1998). However, they may not be theonly mechanisms at work. Other possible vectors forintroduction, including the seafood trade, should notbe discounted as sources for major pest species (e.g.,Cohen et al. 1995, Cohen and Carlton 1997). Theabsence of reported, unauthorized introductions ofseafood species is not evidence that they do not occur.

The entire diversity of commercially available livemarine and estuarine species capable of introduc-tion into northeast Pacific waters is not included inTable 2. Not included are other major taxa trans-ported around the world alive, including:

• Fish, crustaceans, and gastropods.

• Species available only to restaurants.

• The live bait trade.

• The aquarium and pet industry.

• Species listed only in customs records of live inter-cepts not sanctioned in U.S. commercial trade agree-ments.

• Species recorded in inter- and intra-state transportpermits.

• Species potentially available for dispersal into north-east Pacific waters after introduction by any mech-anism to Canada or Mexico.

Potential impacts of introducedseafood speciesThe benefits of accidentally introduced bivalves areunlikely to outweigh their economic, ecological, andsocial costs. The seafood industry depends on dis-ease-free, sustainable fisheries. These fisheries arevulnerable to introduced pests, pathogens, compet-itors, predators, and species that alter ecosystemprocesses and fisheries production. Seafood is notfrequently monitored for non-human parasites andpathogens for which native species may not havedefenses (Bower et al. 1994). Introduced bivalvescan alter the trophic dynamics and other criticalprocesses of their new ecosystems (Rosenthal 1980,Griffiths et al. 1992, Kimmerer et al. 1994, Barber1997, Thayer et al. 1997). The risks associated withthe introduction of seafood species and their ulti-mate costs are likely to increase as global trade inlive seafood increases.

Even a small fraction of nonindigenous species thatprove to be harmful can produce large costs. Theestimated annual cost associated with problems cre-

ated by the introduced Asian freshwater clam, Cor-bicula fluminea, is $1 billion (Pimentel et al. 1999).The estimated annual costs of the introduced greencrab, Carcinus maenas, in the United States is $44million (Pimentel et al. 1999). Green crabs wereprobably introduced to the northeast Pacific coastby marine algae used to pack shipments of live lob-sters from the northwest Atlantic (Cohen et al.1995). Estimates of the annual economic costs as-sociated with the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sin-ensis, in California are not available but may bemany millions. All three introductions are associat-ed with the seafood trade (Carlton 1979, Cohen etal. 1995) and may have become established becauseof accidental or unauthorized releases into north-east Pacific waters.

Limiting the potential for seafoodintroductions: State levelThe majority of nonindigenous seafood species avail-able in northeast Pacific markets have already beenintroduced somewhere in the world. It is unneces-sary to gather additional evidence in order to gainan understanding of the significant risks associat-ed with further introductions. It is obvious that acritical need for action exist. Mandates by federalagencies under the Clean Water Act to require au-thorization or permits to import alien aquatic spe-cies into the United States, such as the Lacey Act,have not been enforced (Johnston 1999). Other thanlimitations from international trade agreements,live seafood imports are nearly unrestricted exceptfor a few individual species (Horwath 1989). Thelegal liability for those responsible for successfulintroductions of seafood species is unclear. Thesecircumstances may change as the new interagencyInvasive Species Council, established by ExecutiveOrder 13112, becomes effective. Meanwhile, thestates are responsible for their own protection(Charles Wahle, NOAA Invasive Species Coordina-tor, pers. comm., June 1999). This absence of feder-al rules places an unfair onus on the states to dealwith a national and international problem. Statelaws and regulations are often resisted by indus-tries because they create uneven interstate compet-itive advantages within industries.

The history of Oregon House Bill 3071 and OregonDepartment of Fish and Game Administrative Rule635-056 partially illustrates these problems. HB3071 (located at gopher://gopher.leg.state.or.us:70/00/measure.dir/House_Measures/hb3000.dir/hb3071g.a) introduced by Representative Terry


Thompson of Newport to the 1999 Oregon StateLegislature, contained provisions for the State Fishand Wildlife Commission, by rule, to establish andmaintain a list of invasive, aquatic animal speciesthat have the potential of harming native andanadromous fish runs in Oregon. The bill also out-lawed the transport of live, invasive, aquatic ani-mal species or introduction of species into the watersof the state except under a permit issued by theOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The in-tent was to deter individuals from transportingunwanted aquatic “pests” as live bait, game fish,and live seafood species into the state (TerryThompson, pers. comm., June 1999). HB 3071 waswithdrawn after two amendments, introduced atthe request of the Port of Portland and the Colum-bia River Steamship Operators Association, whichexcluded the shipping industry from the provisionsof the bill and greatly increased the requirementsfor enforcement (Merriman 1999).

Oregon Administrative Rule 635-056-0000, de-signed “to regulate nonnative wildlife to protect na-tive wildlife,” classifies all non-native species as“Prohibited,” “Controlled,” or “Noncontrolled.” Nonon-native seafood species presently has the “Non-controlled” designation, a category that does not re-quire a permit. For “Controlled” species, animportation permit may be required as set forth bythe commission. For species that are not listed inthis rule or pursuant to OAR 635-056-0140, no per-son may import, sell, exchange, or offer to purchase,sell, or exchange the species or any part thereof inOregon until the species is classified. This prohibi-tion is effective as of 1 January 2000, except for thezebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, and the mit-ten crab, Eriocheir sinensis, for which prohibitionbecame effective on 1 January 1999. Species willbe designated as “Noncontrolled,” based on “scien-tific information” that the species presen ts a lowrisk of harm to native wildlife.

Limiting the potential for seafoodintroductions at federal andinternational levelsFederal rules and regulations on nonindigenousspecies are more likely to be passed and to be effec-tive than state regulations due to the extensive scaleof the problem. All benefits from actions at locallevels could be lost without international coopera-tion from at least Mexico and Canada. This cooper-ation also may be more workable and effectivethrough greater awareness and education than by

rules and regulations. Stronger measures mayprove difficult to implement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank James T. Carlton, Maritime Studies Pro-gram, Williams College, Mystic Seaport, CT;Charles Wahle, National Ocean and AtmosphereAgency, Washington, DC; and Anja Robinson, De-partment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon StateUniversity, for comments and discussions of themanuscript and valuable references. This paper alsogreatly benefited from discussions and commentswith Jim Golden and John Johnson, Oregon Depart-ment of Fish and Wildlife, on the seafood industry.Susan Gilmont and Janet Webster, Guin Library,OSU, are thanked for many difficult referencesfound and delivered on short notice. We thankRepresentative Terry Thompson for providing uswith the history of HB 3071. Jeff Daniels, presi-dent, Marinelli Seafood, Seattle, greatly assistedwith the list. This paper was partially fundedby Oregon Sea Grant NA36RG045, Project R/NIS-01-PD to JWC from the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration to the Oregon StateUniversity Sea Grant College Program and byappropriations made by the Oregon State Legisla-ture. The views expressed here are those of theauthors alone and do not necessarily reflect theviews of NOAA, EPA, or any of their subagencies,the views of any private companies, or other indi-viduals.

REFERENCES

Abbott, R.A., and S.P. Dance. 1982. Compendium of sea-shells. E.P. Dutton, Inc., New York.

Arakawa, K.Y. 1990. Commercially important species ofoysters in the world. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 17:1-13.

Banks, M.A., D.J. McGoldrick, W. Borgeson, and D.Hedgecock. 1994. Gametic incompatibility and ge-netic divergence of Pacific and Kumamoto oysters,Crassostrea gigas and Crassostrea sikamea. Mar.Biol. 121:127-135.

Barber, B.J. 1997. Impacts of bivalve introductions onmarine ecosystems: A review. In: M. Azeta, K. Takay-anagi, M.P. McVey, P.K. Park, and B.J. Keller (eds.),Proceedings of the 25th UJNR aquaculture panelsymposium. Bulletin of the National Research In-stitute of Aquaculture, Yokohama, Japan, Supple-ment 3, pp. 141-153.


Barrett, E.M. 1963. The California oyster industry. Ca-lif. Dep. Fish Game Fish Bull. 123:1-103.

Bower, S.M., S.E. McGladdery, and I.M. Price. 1994. Syn-opsis of infectious diseases and parasites of commer-cially exploited shellfish. Ann. Rev. Fish Dis. 4:1-199.

Brunel, P., L. Bosse, and G. Lamarche. 1998. Catalogue ofthe marine invertebrates of the estuary and Gulf ofSaint Lawrence. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 126.

Carlton, J. T. 1975. Introduced intertidal invertebrates.In: R.I. Smith and J.T. Carlton (eds.), Light’s manual:Intertidal invertebrates of the central Californiacoast. 3rd edn. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, pp.17-25.

Carlton, J.T. 1979. History, biogeography, and ecology ofthe introduced marine and estuarine invertebratesof the Pacific coast of North America. Ph.D. thesis,University of California, Davis.

Carlton, J.T. 1999. The scale and ecological consequenc-es of biological invasions in the world’s oceans. In: T.Sandlund et al. (eds.), Invasive species and biodiver-sity management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, TheNetherlands, pp. 195-212.

Carlton, J.T., and J.B. Geller 1993. Ecological roulette:The global transport of nonindigenous marine organ-isms. Science 261:78-82.

Chapman J.W., and J.T. Carlton. 1991. A test of criteriafor introduced species: The global invasion by theisopod Synidotea laevidorsalis (Miers, 1881). J.Crust. Biol. 11:386-400.

Chapman J.W., and J.T. Carlton. 1994. Predicted discov-eries of the introduced isopod Synidotea laevidorsa-lis (Miers, 1881). J. Crust. Biol. 14:700-714.

Chapman, J.W., and T.W. Miller 1999. The odd northeastPacific records of the bivalve Arctica islandica(Linnaeus, 1767): Bait remnants? The Festivus31(5):55-57.

Chew, K.K. 1990. Global bivalve shellfish introductions.World Aquacult. 21(3):9-22.

Chunde, W., W. Yaoxian, and C. Suzhi. 1995. Some intro-duced molluscs in China. Sinozoologia 12:180-191.

Coan, E.V. 1997. Recent species of the genus Petricola inthe eastern Pacific (Bivalvia: Veneroidea). The Ve-liger 40:298-340.

Coan, E.V. 1998. A bivalve oddity from an Oregon beach.The Festivus 30(3):40.

Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1997. Transoceanic trans-port mechanisms: The introduction of the Chinesemitten crab Eriocheir sinensis to California. Pac. Sci.51:1-11.

Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating inva-sion rates in a highly invaded estuary. Science279:555-558.

Cohen, A.N., J.T. Carlton, and M. Fountain. 1995. Intro-duction, dispersal and potential impacts of the greencrab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, Cali-fornia. Mar. Biol. 122:225-237.

Dobbinson, S.J., M.F. Barker, and J.B. Jillett 1989. Ex-perimental shore level transplantation of the NewZealand cockle Chione stutchburyi. J. Shellfish Res.8:197-212.

Eno, N.C., R.A. Clark, and W.G. Sanderson (eds.). 1997.Non-native marine species in British waters: A re-view and directory. Joint Nature Conservation Com-mittee. Peterborough, U.K.

Essnik, K. 1986. Look out for Ensis directus. Bull. Estu-ar. Brackish Water Sci. Assoc. Lond. 45:22-23.

Fernandez Castro, N., and A. Bodoy. 1987. Growth of theoyster Ostrea puelchana (d’Orbigny) at two sites ofpotential cultivation in Argentina. Aquaculture65:127-140.

Geller, J.B., E.D. Walton, E.D. Grosholz, and G.M. Ruiz.1997. Cryptic invasions of the crab Carcinus detect-ed by molecular phylogeography. Mol. Ecol. 6:901-906.

Griffiths, C.L., P.A.R. Hockey, C. Van Erkom, C. Schu-rink, and P.J. Le Roux. 1992. Marine invasive alienson South African shores: Implications for communi-ty structure and trophic functioning. S. Afr. J. Mar.Sci. 12:713-722.

Hockey, P.A.R., and C. van Erkom Schurink. 1992. Theinvasive biology of the mussel Mytilus galloprovin-cialis on the southern African coast. Trans. R. Soc.S. Afr. 48:123-140.


Hooker, S.H., and R.G. Creese. 1995. The reproductivebiology of pipi, Paphies australis (Gmelin, 1790) (Bi-valvia: Mesodesmatidae). 2. Spatial patterns of thereproductive cycle. J. Shellfish Res. 14:17-24.

Horwath, J.L. 1989. Importation or shipment of injuriouswildlife: Mitten crabs, U.S. Fed. Reg. 54(98):22286-22289

Johnston, C.N. 1999. Why ballast water dischargesshould be regulated under the Clean Water Act. In:J. Pederson (ed.), First National Conference on Ma-rine Bioinvasions. Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, Cambridge, p. 2.

Kimmerer, W.J., E. Gartside, and I.J. Orsi. 1994. Preda-tion by an introduced clam as the likely cause of sub-stantial declines in zooplankton in San FranciscoBay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 113:81-93.

Kozloff, E.N. and L.H. Price. 1997. Phylum Mollusca:Class Bivalvia. In: E.N. Kozloff and L. H. Price (eds.),Marine invertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. Univ.Washington Press, Seattle, pp. 258-288.

Lee, S.E., and B. Morton. 1985. The introduction of theMediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis intoHong Kong. Malacol. Rev. 18:107-109.

Mann, R. 1983. The role of introduced bivalve molluscspecies in mariculture. J. World Maricult. Soc.14:546-559.

McDonald, J.H., and R.K. Koehn 1988. The mussels Myti-lus galloprovincialis and M. trossulus on the Pacificcoast of North America. Mar. Biol. 99:111-118.

McMahon, R.F. 1982. The occurrence and spread of theintroduced Asiatic freshwater clam, Corbicula flu-minea (Muller), in North America: 1924-1982. Nau-tilus 96(4):134-141.

Merriman, E. 1999. Shipping industry kills invasive spe-cies bill. Capital Press, Salem Statesman Journal30, May 21.

Miller, T.W. 1995. First record of the green crab, Carci-nus maenas, in Humboldt Bay, California. Calif. Fish& Game 82:93-96.

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 1999.Environmental and economic costs associated withnon-indigenous species in the United States. Bio-

Science, Draft copy www.news./cornell.edu/Jan99/species_costs.html.

Rosenthal, H. 1980. Implications of transplantations toaquaculture and ecosystems. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42:1-14.

Saunders, R.G., and W.A. Heath. 1994. New develop-ments of scallop farming in British Columbia. Bull.Aquacult. Assoc. Can. 94-2:3-7.

Seed, R. 1992. Systematics, evolution, and distributionof mussels belonging to the genus Mytilus. Am. Mal-acol. Bull. 9:123-137.

Siddall, S.E. 1980. A clarification of the genus Perna(Mytilidae). Bull. Mar. Sci. 30:858-870.

Smith, S.S. 1998. Washington State aquatic nuisancespecies management plan. Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Tebble, N. 1966. British bivalve seashells. Alden Press,Osney Mead.

Thayer, S.A., R.C. Haas, R.D. Hunter, and R.H. Kushler.1997. Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha effects onsediment, other zoobenthos, and the diet and growthof adult yellow perch (Perca flavescens) in pond en-closures. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54:1903-1915.

Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G.Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M. Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves,C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema,F.G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams.1998. Common and scientific names for aquatic in-vertebrates from the United States and Canada:Mollusks. American Fisheries Society, Special Pub-lication 26.

Urban, H.J., and B. Campos. 1994. Population dynam-ics of the bivalves Gari solida, Semele solida andProtothaca thaca from a small bay in Chile at 36degrees S. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 115:93-102.

Yin, B., Y. Teng, and Y. Jiang. 1994. Studies on transpor-tation and handling of the live Arca granosa. Shan-dong Fisheries/Qilu Yuye 11(2):6-8.


ABSTRACT

This paper summarizes the range of negative eco-logical, human health, and socioeconomic conse-quences caused by introductions of non-nativeaquatic species, and discusses examples from inva-sions by freshwater and marine plants and animals.Uncertainty about the scale, nature, and timing ofimpacts complicates efforts to predict whether anon-native species introduction will cause problemsin a specific location. Therefore, a conservative poli-cy approach should consider all relevant possibilities.

INTRODUCTION

Characterizing environmental risk involves analy-sis of the probability that an event will occur andthe extent of any resulting injuries (Davies 1999).Therefore, when evaluating the risk posed by theshipping and marketing of live aquatic products, itis important to look at both potential introductionpathways and the potential effects if a species isintroduced outside its native range. While introduc-tion pathways can be analyzed within the limits ofhow a particular species is handled, it is importantto take a comprehensive view of the potential im-pacts. Infamous last words of “this species can’tbreed, outcompete, etc. under these conditions” arenot uncommon in episodes of non-native species in-vasions.

Although the biology of a plant or animal may be wellunderstood in its native range, it is impossible to pre-dict with 100% accuracy how that species will behavein a new environment with different stimuli (Ruizet al. 1997). For example, a crab that typically doesnot prey on oysters in its native range may become asignificant oyster predator at a new location underthe right conditions. A species’ rate of spread in onelocation may also be extremely different from howquickly the same species invades another region(Grosholz 1996).

This paper will examine all theoretical impacts of non-native species introductions linked to the marketing

and transportation of live aquatic products, not justthose that have already been experienced from thispathway. One consequence of the inherent uncertaintyin invasion biology is a confusing interplay betweenreferences to “non-native” species versus “invasive”or “nuisance” species. Many non-native aquatic or-ganisms, such as Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas)currently being cultured in the Pacific Northwest,are considered beneficial by the majority of society. Insome cases, evidence exists that non-native aquaticplants and animals can benefit certain native species(OTA 1993). The scope of this paper is focused on thepotential negative impacts from non-native speciesintroductions, but a truly comprehensive risk assess-ment also needs to consider positive interactions.

Harmful effects from aquatic invasions can be di-vided into three main impact categories:

• Ecological

• Human health

• Socioeconomic

As with any classification, these distinctions oftenblend together, as it is becoming increasingly rec-ognized that ecological effects inevitably mean hu-man health and economic impacts. Therefore, manyof the examples used in this paper to illustrate aspecific impact can cross into other categories. It isimportant to keep this overlap and synergy in mindwhen attempting to gauge the summation of impactsfrom a particular non-native species introduction.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTSHabitat alterationCumulatively, invasive species present a tremen-dous risk to ecological health and are cited as a ma-jor factor behind the listing of threatened andendangered species in the United States (Wilcoveet al. 1998). Among ecological impacts, habitat al-teration is a key problem caused by both invasiveplants and animals. Because invasive species are diffi-cult to eradicate, these changes are often long-term.

Review of Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species: What’s at Risk?

Paul HeimowitzOregon State University Extension Sea Grant, Oregon City, Oregon

258 Heimowitz: Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species

For example, a number of species of the Atlanticcordgrass Spartina have been established on theWest Coast. Spartina alterniflora is one of the mosttroubling because it grows lower in the intertidalzone of estuaries and is capable of rapidly convert-ing open mudflat habitats into monotypic meadows.Shellfish that require open mudflats, including com-mercially important species like the Pacific oyster,are displaced. Open mud feeding areas used by shore-birds are also reduced (Daehler and Strong 1996).

An invasive variety of the marine algae Caulerpataxifolia has recently carpeted thousands of acresin the Mediterranean, drastically transformingbenthic habitats (Goldschmid 1999). Non-nativespecies can also significantly damage water quali-ty in aquatic habitats. Common carp, Cyprinus car-pio, are known to destroy vegetation and increasewater turbidity and siltation to the detriment ofnative fish and wildlife (Fuller et al. 1999). Aquaticweed infestations can seriously reduce light pene-tration in rivers and lakes and, after they die offand decay, cause oxygen levels to plummet. Throughfood web connections, invasive species can createnew opportunities for exposure to contaminants.Asian clams (Potamocorbula amurensis) in SanFrancisco Bay may be leading to harmful accumula-tion of trace elements like selenium in sturgeon andother bottom feeders (Thompson and Luoma 1999).

PredationAlthough obviously not an issue with invasiveplants, predation is another serious impact of non-native species introductions. Native prey species mayhave adapted defense mechanisms while co-evolv-ing with native predators, but they are vulnerableto new predatory “tricks” when an invader arrives.

The European green crab is an example of a gener-alist predator that has successfully established it-self on many foreign coasts. Green crabs consumea variety of prey, including bivalves, gastropods,worms, algae, barnacles, and other crabs. This spe-cies has been blamed for dramatic declines in thenumbers of soft-shell clams Mya arenaria in thenortheastern United States, and appears to be amajor controlling force in the distribution of cer-tain intertidal organisms (Cohen et al. 1995). Recent-ly arrived to the west coast of North America, greencrabs have raised concerns about impacts to nativeshellfish and commercial aquaculture operations.

At their extreme, predatory impacts from invasivespecies can lead to disappearance of native species.For example, introduced large-mouth and small-mouth bass have been linked to a number of localnative fish and amphibian extirpations in the Amer-ican Southwest (Fuller et al. 1999). Invasive speciescan also cause indirect predation effects. Large shellsfrom veined rapa whelks (Rapana venosa) recentlyintroduced to Chesapeake Bay have provided an op-portunity for local hermit crabs to reach previouslyunrecorded sizes, potentially increasing their preda-tory impact on oyster spat (Harding and Mann 1999).

CompetitionInvasive species can harm native plants and ani-mals by competing for space, food, or other resourc-es. By taking over large areas of benthic habitat inthe Great Lakes, zebra mussels (Dreissena polymor-pha) have led to significant declines in native mus-sels and may be affecting spawning success ofspecies like lake trout. Achieving densities greaterthan 10,000 per square meter, zebra mussels playa major role in filtering phytoplankton from thewater column. This can then limit feeding opportu-nities for zooplankton and other invertebrates. Sim-ilar trophic impacts have been experienced in SanFrancisco Bay due to the filter-feeding dominanceof Potamocorbula amurensis (Ruiz et al. 1997).Where space, food, or some other critical factor limitsthe abundance of life within a particular communi-ty, the successful expansion of an invasive organismimplies that other community members have lesscompetitive advantage and may experience a decline.

DiseasesAnother ecological impact from invasive aquaticspecies is the introduction of new diseases andpathogens to native and commercially valuable spe-cies. This has been a very important issue forshrimp aquaculture, where importation of non-na-tive shrimp species has led to outbreaks of viral andbacterial infections. Beyond economic impacts toshrimp growers, these diseases have the potentialof affecting native species. For example, in 1998 theTexas Parks and Wildlife Department reported thefirst occurrence of “white spot” disease in one na-tive shrimp found near aquaculture facilities inBrownsville (Texas Agricultural Extension Service1998). Citing another example, the Asian tapeworm


Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis was likely intro-duced to native fish in the United States by grasscarp introduced from China (Fuller et al. 1999).

HybridizationFinally, invasive species can alter ecological com-munities by hybridizing with natives. This is a lesscommon, but potentially serious, impact. Hybrid-ization can result in a loss of genetic purity andreduced reproduction for native species, which canbe particularly serious when threatened or endan-gered populations are involved. For example, intro-duced brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis are knownto hybridize with native bull trout, Salvelinus con-fluentus, and the resulting hybrids are generallysterile (Fuller et al. 1999). Escapes of farmed At-lantic salmon in Puget Sound have raised concernsabout potential genetic impacts to Pacific salmon(Volpe 1999, Stenson 1998).

HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS

In addition to the ecological implications of inva-sive species as disease agents, impacts to humanhealth are another important issue. Although notdirectly related to the live aquatic products trade,cholera epidemics provide frightful illustrations ofthe fact that invasive species can be both invisibleto the naked eye and deadly to people. In 1991, anepidemic of cholera hit South America, killing over10,000 people and infecting over one million dur-ing the next 4 years. Although other factors wereinvolved, contaminated ballast water discharged inLatin American ports has been pointed to as a like-ly source of that water-borne disease (Bright 1998).Studies in Chesapeake Bay have found occurrenceof at least one form of the Vibrio cholerae bacteriain 100% of sampled ships coming from foreign ports(Rawlings et al. 1999).

Similarly, although human impacts from toxic redtides are not always linked to non-native species, theincreased frequency of these events has been linkedto global transportation of dinoflagellates and theircysts in ballast water (Hallergraeff and Bolch 1991).

The recent arrival of Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheirsinensis) to California has raised fears about hu-man illness directly related to seafood consumption.The Chinese mitten crab has been reported to hostthe Oriental lung fluke (Paragonimus westermani),a flatworm that has infected many people in Asiaand causes tuberculosis-like respiratory problems.

The lung fluke and its freshwater snail primary hostspecies have not been detected in the recent Cali-fornia invasion of mitten crab, but potential infec-tion pathways exist (Veldhuizen and Stanish 1999).

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

Socioeconomic costs go hand-in-hand with losses ofnatural resources. For example, the European greencrab’s fondness for shellfish has not only changedintertidal food webs, but also has economically dam-aged aquaculture operations on the Atlantic andPacific coasts of North America. This invader has beenassigned responsibility for major declines in com-mercial soft-shell clam production in New Englandand Canada. Its continuing impacts on commercialand native shellfish in the United States cost an esti-mated $44 million annually (Lafferty and Kuris 1996).

Extreme efforts to eradicate a non-native speciescan magnify the scope of impact. Efforts to elimi-nate infestation of a South African sabellid marineworm plaguing California abalone led to intention-al destruction of commercial abalone stock in the1990s, causing revenue losses that, in some cases,put aquaculture operations out of business (Culveret al. 1997).

Non-native species invasions and control effortsinvolve significant costs to recreation. Fast-grow-ing, tangled mats of Hydrilla have become a majornuisance to anglers, swimmers, and boaters in cer-tain states. Infestations of this aquatic weed in twolakes in Florida alone have cost approximately $10million per year in recreational losses (Center etal. 1997). Whirling disease, caused by the non-na-tive parasite Myxobolus cerebralis, has caused sig-nificant disruptions to recreational trout anglers—most recently to prized fisheries in the vicinity ofYellowstone National Park (Whirling Disease Foun-dation 1999). When invasive species reduce oppor-tunities for viewing native plants and animals,fishing, boating, shellfish gathering, and other rec-reational activities, these social impacts cause eco-nomic ripples in the form of lost tourism dollars toaffected communities.

Invasive species also generate substantial costs forcontrol and facility maintenance and repair. Zebramussels (Dreissena polymorpha) provide an infa-mous example. The ability of the zebra mussel toclog water intake pipes, shut down power plants,and transform freshwater habitats have led to dam-ages and control costs estimated at as high as $5billion per year (Pimentel et al. 1999). During the

260 Heimowitz: Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species

1980s, expenses from similar impacts to nuclearpower plants and other facilities caused by the Asianclam Corbicula fluminea were calculated at $1 bil-lion annually (OTA 1993). An estimated $100 mil-lion is spent each year to manage aquatic weeds,the majority being non-native (OTA 1993). The re-cent invasion of Chinese mitten crab in Californiahas disrupted commercial shrimp fisheries, in-creased operation costs of water diversion facilities,and raised concerns about bank and levee damage(Veldhuizen and Stanish 1999).

Finally, although measurement is difficult and apoint of controversy, non-native species invasionsinvolve a real cost to certain human aesthetic val-ues. To some, there is a high value to maintainingthe look and composition of aquatic ecosystems fromone generation to the next. Any artificial changes tothese natural areas, such as replacement of a dom-inant native fish with a non-native fish, damages that“existence” value. Contingent valuation studies,such as determining “willingness to pay” for pre-venting a non-native introduction, may have a role infuture efforts to quantify these impacts (Randall 1987).

CONCLUSION

The above list represents a range of potential impactsfrom invasive species introductions. Most will notoccur for a given species, and as noted previously,may stack up differently for a given species basedon a particular set of environmental conditions.Many of the examples in this paper illustrate moresevere consequences, but there are certainly manycases where impacts are less dramatic and, conse-quently, sometimes studied and reported less, as well.

Severity depends as much on the value assigned tothe affected resources as it does on the site-specificbehavior and population dynamics of an invader. Forexample, the economic impact of establishing a Eu-ropean green crab population in a highly invaded andpolluted habitat with low commercial shellfish abun-dance will likely be much smaller than in a habitatrich with native shellfish and supporting commer-cial aquaculture operations. To further complicaterisk characterization, there are often significant lagtimes between an invasion and the identification ofresulting problems. From the Mediterranean fruitfly to many invasive weeds, non-native species maybecome locally established for decades before theirextent and negative impacts reach a scale that at-tracts attention (Carey 1996). The Asian copepodPseudodiaptomus inopinus has become very abun-dant in certain northwestern estuaries (Cordell and

Morrison 1996). While this animal has certainlycaused changes to food web dynamics and otheraspects of the ecosystem, it is undetermined whethernatural resources are being harmed or will be 20years from now. The numbers of invasive species likeP. inopinus with uncertain impacts typically outnum-ber those that are known to cause harm.

Repeating an earlier point, environmental risk eval-uation involves analysis of the likelihood that anevent will occur and the degree of any resulting in-juries. There are at least some physical science prin-ciples that can help estimate the probabilities offailure for methods to contain shipments of live non-native species. But what does one do with all thisuncertainty when trying to estimate the damagesassociated a non-native species invasion? Some ecol-ogists have developed models and statistical rulesto help narrow the range of possibilities, but mostagree that such predictions are nearly impossible(Ruiz et al. 1997). Ultimately, it becomes a policyquestion. When reviewing an application to importa new live seafood product, should extreme, worstcase possibilities of all applicable ecological, humanhealth, and socioeconomic impacts be taken intoaccount? Or should only documented impacts fromthe same species in the same geographic region beconsidered? Past experiences suggest that a conser-vative approach be followed.

REFERENCES

Bright, C. 1998. Life out of bounds: Bioinvasion in a bor-derless world. W.W. Norton, New York

Carey, J.R. 1996. The incipient Mediterranean fruit flypopulation in California: Implications for invasionbiology. Ecology 77:1690-1697.

Center, T.D., J.H. Frank, and F.A. Dray. 1997. BiologicalControl. In: D. Simberloff et al. (eds.), Strangers inparadise. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 245-266.

Cohen, A.N., J.T. Carlton, and M.C. Fountain. 1995. In-troduction, dispersal, and potential impacts of thegreen crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay,California. Marine Biology 122:225-237.

Cordell, J.R., and S.M. Morrison. 1996. The invasiveAsian copepod Pseudodiaptomus inopinus in Oregon,Washington, and British Columbia estuaries. Estu-aries 19:629-638.


Culver, C.S., A.M. Kuris, and B. Beede. 1997. Identifica-tion and management of the exotic sabellid pest inCalifornia cultured abalone. California Sea GrantPublication T-041, La Jolla.

Daehler, C.C., and D.R. Strong. 1996. Status, prediction,and prevention of introduced cordgrass Spartina spp.invasions in Pacific estuaries, USA. Biol. Conserv.78:51-58.

Davies, J.C. (ed.). 1999. Comparative risk analysis in the1990’s. In: Comparing environmental risks: Tools forsetting government priorities. Resources for theFuture, Washington, DC, pp. 4-19.

Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams. 1999. Non-in-digenous fishes introduced into inland waters of theUnited States. American Fisheries Society SpecialPublication 27, Bethesda, MD.

Goldschmid, A. 1999. Essay about Caulerpa taxifolia. In:Marine biology I. Colloquial Meeting of Marine Bi-ology I, Salzburg, May 6, 1999. University ofSalzburg. http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/piero-fun/ct/caulerpa.htm.

Grosholz, E.D. 1996. Contrasting rates of spread for in-troduced species in terrestrial and marine systems.Ecology 77:1680-1686.

Haellegraeff, G.M., and C.J. Bolch. 1991. Transport oftoxic dinoflagellate cysts via ships’ ballast water.Mar. Pollut. Bull. 22:27-30.

Harding, J.M., and R. Mann. 1999. Habitat and prey pref-erences of veined rapa whelks (Rapana venosa) inthe Chesapeake Bay: Direct and indirect trophic con-sequences. In: First National Conference on MarineBioinvasions, Abstracts, January 24-27, 1999. Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant, Cam-bridge, MA.

Lafferty, K.D., and A.M. Kuris. 1996. Biological controlof marine pests. Ecology 77:1989-2000.

OTA. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the Unit-ed States. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-gress, OTA-F-565, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 1999.Environmental and economic costs associated withnon-indigenous species in the United States. CornellUniversity, June 12 report. http:/www.news.cornell.edu/ releases/Jan99/ species_costs.html.

Randall, A. 1987. Resource economics: An economic ap-proach to natural resource and environmental poli-cy. John Wiley & Son, New York.

Rawlings, T.K., G.M. Ruiz, S. Schoenfeld, F.C. Dobbs, L.A.Drake, A. Huq,and R.R. Colwell. 1999. Ecology andballast-mediated transfer of Vibrio cholerae O1 andO139. In: First National Conference on Marine Bio-invasions, Abstracts, January 24-27, 1999. Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant,Cambridge, MA.

Ruiz, G.M., J.T. Carlton, E.D. Grosholz, and A.H. Hines.1997. Global invasions of marine and estuarine hab-itats by non-indigenous species: Mechanisms, extent,and consequences. Am. Zool. 37:621-632

Stenson, B. 1998. Net pen pollution threats get full hear-ing. In: Sound and Straits Newsletter, February. Peo-ple for Puget Sound, Seattle, WA.

Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1998. Exotic dis-ease found in wild shrimp near Brownsville. CalhounCounty Marine Advisory Newsletter, 5/98, Port La-vaca, TX.

Thompson, J., and S. Luoma. 1999. Food web and con-taminant flow effects of an exotic bivalve in SanFrancisco Bay, California. In: First National Con-ference on Marine Bioinvasions, Abstracts, January24-27, 1999. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologySea Grant, Cambridge, MA.

Veldhuizen, T.C., and S. Stanish. 1999. Overview of thelife history, abundance, and impacts of the Chinesemitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis. California Depart-ment of Water Resources, Sacramento.

Volpe, J.P. 1999. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Brit-ish Columbia and the biology of invasion. In: FirstNational Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, Ab-stracts, January 24-27, 1999. Massachusetts Insti-tute of Technology Sea Grant, Cambridge, MA.

Whirling Disease Foundation. 1999. Whirling diseasefound in Yellowstone National Park. Whirling Dis-ease Foundation, Bozeman, MT. http://www.whirling-disease.org/whirling/ynp.html.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, andE. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled spe-cies in the United States. BioScience 48(8):607-615.


INTRODUCTION

I operate a small shellfish farm on Totten Inlet inPuget Sound, Washington, and have been an activemember in the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers As-sociation. The association has about 120 membersin Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, andBritish Columbia. This report provides informationon exotic species, specifically one exotic species thatis threatening the Washington shellfish industry—the green crab. I will provide some informationabout how our industry has dealt with the problemof the green crab as it has reared its ugly head alongthe West Coast.

GREEN CRAB AND OTHER EXOTICS

The green crab has made its way around the worldfrom its original home in Western Europe at least inpart through human mediated pathways. This is notsomething that has just happened by natural means—humans have facilitated the movement of the greencrab by transmitting it unwittingly. It is now presentin South Africa, the East Coast of the United States,and along the West Coast of the United States whereit was first sighted in 1989 in San Francisco Bay.

Since that time, the green crab made its way north-ward and is now pretty well established in most ofthe coastal embayments in California includingnorthern California, Oregon, and Washington. A fewyears ago, it was noted in Washington’s Willapa Bay.It now appears that the green crab is here to stay,although it is too early to say for sure.

Willapa Bay is a very important oyster growing re-gion in Washington. Washington is the second mostimportant oyster producing state in the UnitedStates. Consequently, many millions of dollars ofcultured shellfish product in Willapa Bay are at riskdue to the spread of this invasive crab species.

As far as we know, the shellfish industry is not re-sponsible for the transmission of this species up the

West Coast over the last few years. I think that mostevidence points to the fact that the green crab hasbeen spreading on its own. The green crab is ableto reproduce and possibly its larval stages arespread by ocean currents. Fortunately, our indus-try cannot be fingered for that.

However, it is true that the activities of molluskanshellfish growers are a potential vector for thespread of this crab. There are plenty of examplesfrom the past where those involved with oyster andshellfish culture have been guilty of accidental in-troductions. Probably the best example of this typeof introduction is the oyster drill. The drill is a smallgastropod that came over from Japan in shipmentsof Pacific oyster seed. These were brought over tothe West Coast in great quantities. The drill hasbecome firmly established in many bays in PugetSound and has become a real pest. Many oystergrowers expend a great amount of energy and mon-ey dealing with this species. Another introductioninto this region was the Manila clam which was anaccidental but, fortunately, has proved to be a morebeneficial hitchhiker.

Members of the shellfish industry must adhere tosome basic strategies to make sure that we are notthe actual vectors facilitating the movement of theseexotic species. We do not want to witness the greencrab become the same sort of problem as is current-ly present with the oyster drill.

PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF THE

GREEN CRAB

Regional shellfish growers have taken steps to com-ply with regulations developed to prevent the spreadof the green crab. These steps pertain to the ship-ment of seed oysters, clams, mussels, and geoduck,and to the shipping of mature product or shell stock.This is a difficult task because there are many ship-ments of both seed and shell stock oysters and oth-

Impact of the Green Crab on the Washington State ShellfishAquaculture Industry

Charlie StephensKamilche Sea Farms, Shelton, Washington

264 Stephens: Impact of Green Crabs on Washington Shellfish Aquaculture

er shellfish, up and down our coast between Cali-fornia, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.Movements to Alaska are not as pronounced.

The regulations are currently not being applied to theshipment of finished market-ready product from thegrower to the retailer and to the ultimate consumer.This terminal portion of the market chain is notconsidered to be a realistic potential channel for thetransmission of green crab. In the case of shipmentsof live finfish in tanks, this may become an issue.

The main prevention measure required for imma-ture shellfish is a chemical dip of all seed shippedfrom green crab infested areas to growing areas,particularly those located in Washington that arecurrently free of green crab. This treatment involvesa chlorine dip typically for one hour. Visual inspec-tions, record keeping, and reporting activities arealso required by regulation. As can be imagined,this adds considerably to the cost of seed shellfish.

The handling of shell stock involves equally strin-gent requirements. Growers have been required toinstall systems that completely separate shell stockoriginating from infected areas from shell stock thatis grown and harvested from non-infected areas.The key requirement is the total separation of thosetwo systems—cross-contamination does not occur.

For example, when oysters are harvested and movedfrom Humboldt Bay, which is now considered agreen crab area, to Willapa Bay or to Puget Sound,they first have to be thoroughly washed at the har-vest site. After the oysters are transported and un-loaded at processing plants in the Puget Sound orWillapa Bay areas, the trucks used for the haul arepressure-washed and chemically treated, typicallywith a chlorine solution. All of the loading docksand tub containers have to be kept separate fromother equipment. Even forklifts that are used forthe movement of product from green crab infectedareas have to be kept completely separate from theequipment that is designated for noninfected ar-eas. This is also true for processing areas and stor-age facilities, such as the coolers.

In processing operations, the shucking line mustbe run completely separate from other product sothat there can be no chance of product co-minglingat any step along the way. In actual practice, theprocessors often designate certain days of the weekwhen they will shuck only product from areas thatrequire these additional regulations.

This list of precautions continues after the productis shucked, processed, and packaged. Afterward, theplant has to be thoroughly cleaned of all shell anddebris from raw product that originated from theinfected areas. This debris must be collected andstored in a separate upland site so there is no chanceof co-mingling. This also includes the wash materi-al. Large volumes of fresh water are used in thewashing of plants involved with the handling ofshell stock and finished product. All of this wash-down debris has to be channeled into a separatedrain system and disposed of separately on an up-land site. Finally, the floor drains need to be chem-ically treated following the completion of processing.

In addition to all of the above, a number of inspec-tions and reports have to be done on a daily basis.These requirements include performing visual in-spections, filling in charts, and reporting to theagencies involved with preventing the furtherspread of this animal. Also, the precautions that Ihave mentioned apply for any site. If an oystershucking plant is located on the water, for exam-ple, right on a bay, the operator must comply witheven stricter requirements. These stricter require-ments include having screens on the floor drainswhere any wash water is going to flow. The facilityoperator also must have shields or fencing aroundthe plant so that there is no chance of a renegadegreen crab making a desperate dash for open water.

Here is another example of how strict these contain-ment strategies have become. The conveyor systemsthat bring product into the plants are typically open.However, when product is brought from HumboldtBay or other green crab infected areas, those con-veyors have to be completely enclosed. Green crabsare very wily and have good survival instincts. Emptyshell leaving the plant following processing needsto go through a blast heat tunnel, so that it is effec-tively sterilized once it leaves the plant. That shellmust also be disposed of in a separate upland site.

As you might expect, all of these additional stepsadd significantly to the cost of the product. Thereare not only additional capital costs associated withthe physical facilities to meet these requirements,but also increased daily operational costs becausemany of the precautions are behavior and manage-ment items.

Although my company is not directly affected bythese kinds of regulations and costs, I have talkedto a number of my fellow shellfish growers to get


an idea what the total dollar amount is when itcomes to complying with these new regulations. Ihave come up with a very rough calculation fromthese interviews. Capital costs for these additionsamount to about $75,000 at this point for our in-dustry coastwide. The operating cost escalationis even more important—amounting to about$185,000 over the last couple of years. The capitalcosts are one-time costs, but the operating costs aregoing to go on for the foreseeable future.

CONCLUSION

The main message that I would like to give is that,although no one likes to have to deal with yet an-other regulation, members of the industry feel thatthese precautions are practical and that they arethings we can live with. We have complied with therequired regulations and feel that a good workingrelationship has been established with the agen-cies. Quite a bit of trust has been built, which isnecessary for any regulation to be effective.

Effective compliance with these regulations willearn the industry two big payoffs.

1. We have a great deal of confidence that the shell-fish industry is not contributing to the problem.If green crab are discovered somewhere in PugetSound tomorrow, we have a great deal of confi-dence that it will not be our industry found re-sponsible for the spread.

2. Perhaps even more important, we hope that anenvironmentally conscious public will perceive theshellfish industry as good stewards of a commonnatural resource. That is no small thing when weare marketing something to the general public.


QUESTION: Are the oysters produced in potential-ly affected areas selling in the marketplace at re-duced prices? The second part of the question is,the shellfish tags which accompany the product tothe marketplace, do they denote that they are com-ing out of potentially infested waters?

C. STEPHENS: I do not know the answer to thefirst question. The second question is a good one. Itmakes me think that maybe we should pick up onit as a marketing advantage. All of our product hasto be properly tagged anyway with warning labelsand the whole nine yards. It might be to our advan-tage to put on those tags, “This product is guaran-

teed to be harvested and grown in a green crab-free area.”

QUESTION: You mentioned the costs to your in-dustry of avoiding the spread the green crab intonew areas. What about in California where thegreen crab are already present? Are green crabsnegatively affecting the California oyster industry?

C. STEPHENS: Yes, they are to some extent. How-ever, the shellfish culturing activity in this partic-ular region, for example, in Tomales Bay, is notnearly as extensive as it is in Oregon and Washing-ton. So there is not the opportunity for the greateconomic loss of the type we would have here inWashington and Oregon.

But there has been predation by green crab on most-ly young Pacific oysters that are grown in what wecall rack-and-bag culture. Actually, it is now be-lieved that rack-and-bag culture, although it is agreat way to grow oysters, might also be the per-fect environment for growing green crab. They cancrawl into the bags, which are made of quarter- tohalf-inch mesh, at a small growth stage and theneat their way to nirvana. Nothing else can get atthem while they are in the bags.

QUESTION: What is the extent of financial lossesin the rack-and-bag operations?

C. STEPHENS: Just the last few years people havebeen seeing some economic impacts to their oys-ters in bags. I do not know the actual extent of theselosses.

QUESTION: What would be the advantage of tag-ging your oysters as coming from a certified greencrab-free area? It seems to me that this would con-vey no advantage in terms of product quality. How-ever, it would put at a commercial disadvantagethose people who do have green crab, not throughany malpractice on their part but through randommisfortune. It seems to me that there are no safetyissues involved. There may be some environmentalissues, but if your oysters are clean and properlywashed, there is no reason why you would need tored flag them as green crab impacted. The onlything I can see in this tagging idea is that it wouldcreate concerns in those areas that happen to beaffected by green crabs.

C. STEPHENS: Yes indeed. I think that commentwas a little bit ill-advised on my part. I am affected

266 Stephens: Impact of Green Crabs on Washington Shellfish Aquaculture

by the fact that shellfish growers are currentlypainted as being bad guys in many ways. We arealways looking for ways to promote ourselves as thegood guys.

QUESTION: I am not convinced that it is, in fact,an ill-advised comment. You could relate this to thevoluntary declaration systems that are in place andare used by some shellfish growers or suppliers.They receive added value because the marketplaceperceives that there is added value to the productbecause it has been “declared” as basically beingclean of some problem.

In the same light, you could potentially project thisidea and say that these oysters are clean and para-site free, and, as a consequence, obtain value addedin the marketplace. This would, in fact, promote theline of thinking in the customer base that followsthe line, “If that’s clean, what have I been eatingthis whole time?” I am sorry that this comment isnecessary. It is all part of competition and as sea-food suppliers, we should try to present the bestseafood to the public.

C. STEPHENS: Right—there are many aspects to it.

QUESTION: Are there any signs of the green crabin British Columbia?

HEIMOWITZ: The green crab has already leap-frogged into the southern Vancouver Island area,probably by the larval dispersal with ocean currents.Those currents eventually come into Puget Soundand Strait of Georgia area, as well.

C. STEPHENS: It is not a forgone conclusion that,because we have green crab in our waters, our wholeindustry is suddenly going to collapse. We can takemany steps.

ANITA COOK: I work with Washington State Fishand Wildlife. I am the Puget Sound coordinator forgreen crab monitoring. One comment I need to makeis that we are not sure yet what is going to happenwith this animal. Unusual events may be occurringin these impacted areas and no one knows what isrequired to develop established populations. At leastin Washington, we are trying to monitor the prob-

lem and to keep the green population “pool” at thelowest possible size to discourage further green crabextensions. It appears that the green crab growsvery rapidly, so they may also have a shorter lifespan. If you do not have one of these unusual oceanclimate events during the periods when the adultgreen crab are present, then maybe they will not beable to continue their range extension.

Also worth noting here is the apparent fact thatthere was a sighting back in 1961 of green crab inWillapa Bay. This sighting is documented in Rick-etts and Calvin [Between Pacific Tides, Fourth Edi-tion, page 379]. This is a dependable sightingalthough we have not been able to gain further in-formation—how many were present and so on. It isobvious that green crabs were present in WillapaBay and disappeared later. Also, the red rock crabis capable of beating up on the green crab.

C. STEPHENS: In areas where the red rock craband the green crab co-occur in California, the redrock crab is our best ally. It is hard for a shellfishgrower to admit that the red rock crab can be anally, but it really can be.

QUESTION: In my work, I found that other bi-valves are much more at risk from green crab pre-dation than oysters. I am wondering if oystergrowers are essentially taking responsibility for allthe other shellfish industries or is it more of a coop-erative effort?

C. STEPHENS: I am not sure if I can speak foreveryone, but I think most shellfish growers see mol-luskan shellfish—oysters, clams, mussels, and geo-ducks—as one industry.

QUESTION: Are all of these practices you are talk-ing about used shellfish-industry-wide and not justfor oysters?

C. STEPHENS: Yes. In fact, the permits that theState Department of Fish and Wildlife sign withindividual companies are not specifically for oys-ters. These same practices also have to occur withclams, mussels, and geoducks. Right now the oys-ter is the main product that is being shipped northand south.


INTRODUCTION

The development of a seafood ultrasonic proberepresents the integration of the principles of vet-erinary medicine with Smart Acoustics™ technolo-gy. The health approach was developed by theLobster Science Centre, Atlantic Veterinary College,and the acoustics innovations were provided byGuigné International Limited (GIL). The purposeof the probe, initially developed for use with theAmerican lobster Homarus americanus, is to deter-mine lobster meat yields and lobster health on aninstantaneous basis with a non-invasive acousticapproach.

BACKGROUND TO THE DEVELOPMENT

OF AN ULTRASONIC PROBE

The genesis of the Lobster Ultrasonic (LU) Probe(patent pending) was twofold:

1. Researchers at the Atlantic Veterinary Collegewere conducting nutritional research on lobsterdiets and needed an accurate, rapid method ofdetermining meat yields.

2. Similarly, food scientists at the Prince EdwardIsland Food Technology Centre needed to deter-mine meat yields for value-added processing inthe lobster industry.

In addition, Clearwater Fine Foods Inc. (CFFI) ofBedford, Nova Scotia, one of the world’s largestshippers of live lobsters, was interested in the po-

tential of the ultrasonic lobster probe to aid han-dling and market decisions.

Initial funding for the “proof-of-concept” study wasprovided to GIL by the Industrial Research AssistanceProgram (National Research Council of Canada). Ad-ditional developement funds were provided by CFFI.

In Canada, annual landings of lobster total about38,000 metric tons, with a landed value of CAN $420million in 1998 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). Inthe United States, the annual landings are about28,000 metric tons. The economic impact of this tra-ditional fishery is highly significant to the fishingcommunities of eastern North America.

The Atlantic Veterinary College has an excellentAquatic Animal Facility, which facilitates researchon crustaceans in a highly controlled environment.However, determining the health of marine species,especially crustaceans, can be difficult. The prima-ry reason we focus on lobster health is that 10-15%of the value of the lobster is lost, for various rea-sons, after the lobster is trapped. Many infectiousand non-infectious stressors affect lobster health.The triad of host-parasite-environment changes sig-nificantly after lobsters are caught. Recent lossesin the Long Island Sound lobster fishery demon-strate the need for a crustacean health monitoringprogram. We anticipate that the LU Probe can beused by various sectors of the lobster fishery, in-cluding fishers, buyers, biologists, processors, ex-

A New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield,Using Advances in Acoustic Probing

R.J. Cawthorn and A. BattisonAtlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown,Prince Edward Island, Canada

J. Guigné, K. Klein, and Q. LiuGuigné International Limited, Paradise, Newfoundland, Canada

A. MacKenzie, R. MacMillan, and D. RainnieAtlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown,Prince Edward Island, Canada

268 Cawthorn et al.: Using Acoustic Probing to Monitor Lobster Meat Yield

porters, and veterinarians, to develop a LobsterHealth Surveillance Program.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACOUSTIC PROBE

During development of the LU Probe, we noted thata lobster is composed of two different acoustic media—fluid (i.e., hemolymph) and solid (i.e., muscle =meat). The proportions of these vary, depending onthe physiological status of the lobster. Several acous-tic parameters were examined during the course ofthis research: attenuation, frequency, location, repro-ducibility, and velocity. We have determined that cer-

tain points on the crusher claws (Fig. 1) provide ahighly reproducible signal for determining meat yields.

Our study included detailed dissections to deter-mine the locations of internal structures (i.e., apo-demes) (Fig. 2). We determined several biologicaland health parameters for each lobster: carapacelength, sex, weight, hemocyte counts (two methods),differential hemocyte count, osmolality of hemolymph,hemolymph protein (two methods), and prophe-noloxidase levels. Overall we accepted the null hy-potheses that higher meat content in lobsters

Figure 2. Dissection of lobster crusher claw to demonstratelocation of apodeme. Arrow in (upper) claw points to white apo-deme; in (lower) cross section, apodeme is the white horizontalstructure.

Figure 3. An example of an acoustic result, showing thatvelocity increases with increasing meat yield in the crusher clawof a lobster.

Figure 1. Range of lobster crusher claws used to determine optimum location of transducers for the LU Probe.


Figure 4. Prototype LU Probe test bed. Pneumatic cylinders,with use of pressure regulator, hold lobster in place.

Figure 5. Live lobster in LU Probe test bed. Signal genera-tion and processing unit is at the right side of the figure.

results in faster sound speeds (Fig. 3) and that high-er meat yield results in more acoustic energy loss.

We now have a high degree of precision (accuracy)in determining meat yield in lobsters. The LU Probesystem presently consists of a handheld measure-ment probe with signal generation and processingunit. Our prototype LU Probe test bed functionedvery well (Figs. 4, 5).

The ultrasonic coupling gel facilitates acoustictransmission and reception and fills any gap betweenthe flat face of the transducer and the curved shellof the lobster. The gel is water soluble and nontoxic.

Note that we have “ground-truthed” the acousticsignals by developing a freeze-drying methodology

Figure 6. Freeze-dried lobster “I.” Fully meated, hard shelllobster. High meat yield.

Figure 7. Freeze-dried lobster “II.” Poorly meated, not quitehard shell lobster. Medium meat yield.

Figure 8. Freeze-dried lobster “III.” Very poorly meated, softshell lobster. Low meat yield.

270 Cawthorn et al.: Using Acoustic Probing to Monitor Lobster Meat Yield

(manuscript in preparation) to determine meat yieldin lobsters (Figs. 6, 7, 8). Consequently there is com-plete integration between the acoustic approach andthe health approach to determining meat yields.

CONCLUSION

We now recognize that there are correlations be-tween acoustic signals and some health parameters,i.e., total hemolymph protein. We anticipate thatwe can develop a new paradigm of lobster health

utilizing Smart Acoustics™ technology. Furtherapplications include determining meat yield andhealth status of other species of lobsters, crabs, andshrimps. Perhaps we can use a similar acoustic in-novation to determine the health status of variousbivalves or the size of pearls in the cultured pearloyster industry.

In summary, the LU Probe provides a cost-effective,instantaneous, noninvasive tool to determine meatyields in live lobsters. Eventually the LU Probeshould be able to determine lobster health in a sim-ilar manner.


ABSTRACT

When aquatic animals are removed from their natu-ral environment they show a series of compensatoryresponses up to a point designated CL—the criticallimit. Beyond this point there are pathological chang-es leading to overt disease or intrinsic quality loss.Many of the practices and methods used commonlythroughout the shellfish live trade, worldwide, mayimpose serious stresses that, collectively, impair theanimals’ physiological compensatory responses.

The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point(HACCP) system, widely used in the food industry,is shown to be an effective means of assuring con-sistently high product quality. HACCP involvesidentifying aspects of holding and distribution sys-tems that are potentially harmful to the animals(as identified by their physiological performances)and then providing alternative procedures. Such ascheme offers obvious advantages over traditionalquality control systems, based on visual inspectionsof product that may have deteriorated, i.e., preven-tion is better than cure.

Here, we give the results of a series of physiologi-cal studies on the responses of the spiny lobster,Panulirus interruptus, to several of the most com-mon stressors it may encounter during its live mar-keting. The application of HACCP procedures to aparticular case study where handling steps taking

Using HACCP Principles and Physiological Studies to ImproveMarketing Practices for Live Crustaceans

S. Gomez-JimenezCentro de Investigacion en Alimentacion y Desarrollo (CIAD), Hermosillo, Mexico

R.F. UglowUniversity of Hull, Hull, U.K.

R. Pacheco-AguilarCentro de Investigacion en Alimentacion y Desarrollo (CIAD), Hermosillo, Mexico

L.O. Noriega-OrozcoCIAD-Guaymas Unit, Guaymas, Mexico

place between the point of capture and throughoutthe marketing chain is examined. Attention isdrawn to those aspects of the chain of handling stepsthat were considered potentially harmful and to theestablishment of the animals’ tolerance limits to them.

INTRODUCTION

The HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical ControlPoint) methodology, was developed in the 1960sjointly by the Pillsbury Company and the U.S. SpaceProgram (Leaper 1997). A high level of testing wasimplemented by the company to ensure that the foodproduced for the astronauts was safe. As this couldnot be achieved by finished product testing alone,the HACCP concept was initiated. HACCP is de-rived from “Failure Mode and Effect Analysis,” anengineering system that looks at a product and allits components and manufacturing stages, and asks“What can go wrong within the total system?”

According to Huss (1993), traditional food qualitycontrol has been microbiological in nature and basedon three principles:

1. Education and training.

2. Inspection of facilities and operations.

3. Microbiological testing.

272 Gomez-Jimenez et al.: Using HACCP to Improve Live Crustacean Marketing Practices

He notes that these programs were aimed at im-proving the understanding of the causes and effectsof microbial contamination in order to improve han-dling and ensure compliance with prescribed stan-dards and procedures. In addition, there was aheavy reliance on post-process testing to determineif the process was in compliance with establishedcriteria. Thus, this system was essentially a reac-tive one, with problems being discovered only afterthey had already occurred.

HACCP, by contrast, recognizes the fact that qual-ity cannot be “inspected” into the product. Rather,the HACCP system attempts to analyze the partic-ular product or process, to identify and quantify thepotential hazards, and to take steps to ensure thatthe likelihood of their occurrence is reduced or elim-inated and to document the whole process. Morti-more and Wallace (1994) summarize the HACCPprocess as follows:

1. Look at your process/product from start to finish.

2. Decide where hazards could occur.

3. Put in controls and monitor them.

4. Write it all down and keep records.

5. Ensure that it continues to work effectively.

The HACCP concept was first applied to low acidi-ty canning products (Huss 1993). Since then, manygovernments have laid down new HACCP-basedstandards for the production and marketing of fish-ery products. Although the HACCP system was orig-inally designed for use in food safety and hastraditionally been used in this area, the HACCPprinciples are also applicable to other non-foodgoods (Mortimore and Wallace 1994).

The decision to apply the HACCP principles to livemarketing procedures involving aquatic animals isdue to the high mortalities that this specializedtrade has been experiencing and the loss of intrin-sic quality of the animals upon delivery to the mar-ketplace. These events have caused great economiclosses to some fisheries (Uglow et al. 1986, Mac-Mullen 1986). It must be noted that reliable infor-mation from individual companies concerningmortality rates of species traditionally marketed inlive form is difficult to obtain. However, a few avail-able reports exist describing the high mortalitiesrecorded during the live marketing of crustaceansincluding Necora puber, Cancer pagurus, and Carci-nus maenas (Whyman et al. 1985, MacMullen 1986,Uglow et al. 1986, Hosie 1993).

The aim of the present study is to apply HACCPprinciples to a segment of the live marketing chainof the spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus, in or-der to identify those steps that are critical to thequality and survival of the animals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There are 26 lobster fishing cooperatives in the BajaCalifornia, Mexico, currently catching the resource(Fig. 1). The entire marketing chain is very long andquite complex because each cooperative is free tosell its live product to any buyer, using either theirown or the buyer’s live holding and shipping system.To follow this complete chain from point of captureto final destination (Asian markets in most cases),and/or to follow each of the 26 marketing chains fromthese cooperatives, is beyond the scope of this study.

A cooperative located in Bahia Magdalena accept-ed an invitation to participate in this preliminaryHACCP application study. A five-day visit was madeto Bahia Magdalena (Magdalena Island) in Janu-ary 1997. Also, a questionnaire was developed tocollect information from fishermen and administra-tive managers of the lobster fishing cooperatives.

The seven principles of HACCP methodology canbe expanded into fourteen basic steps (CampdenFood and Drink Research Association 1992). Be-cause of the core importance of these steps in theHACCP methodology, they will be described belowwith modifications to allow for applications involv-ing live animals and their physiological responsesto the identified handling procedures.

Step 1. Terms of referenceThis first step in HACCP analysis provides the frame-work for the rest of the process. It outlines the scopeof the plan and ensures that top management is firm-ly committed to the process. It allows those involvedin the process, production, and line management, forexample, to be informed and to gain their support, asthis is crucial to the successful implementation of theHACCP plan. The relevant product or process is out-lined here, as well as the hazard category.

Step 2. HACCP team selectionKirby (1994) recommends that a multidisciplinaryteam be drawn up, incorporating management, qual-ity assurance, and the production personnel involvedin the particular process under consideration. This


is necessary as the support of all involved is crucialfor the successful implementation of the system. Inaddition, a range of knowledge and skills is neededto develop a HACCP plan. It is important that therequired resources, such as reference materials thataffect the quality and mortality of the product, areavailable to the team. Access to field conditions and/or live-holding facilities is also important.

Step 3. Product descriptionAt this stage, product composition, structure, meth-od of handling, holding methods, and transportingconditions are described. This will be importantwhen determining what hazards are involved andtheir severity. This exercise puts a clear picture of theproduct in the minds of the team and allows them tofocus on the various activities involved in the process.

Step 4. End-use identificationThis step allows the product to be categorized ac-cording to its associated risks category, when themain user and the handling methods are identified.

Step 5. Process flow diagramThe preparation of a process flow diagram, outliningall the steps that are involved in the particular pro-cess, is essential. This requires a degree of under-standing and familiarity with the entire operation,and generally involves the production personnel. Theprocess flow diagram serves to focus the study onthe process and clearly shows all the relevant activi-ties, including delays, as well as indicating the vari-ous process specifications, equipment, and materials.

Step 6. Verification on siteOnce the process flow chart has been elaborated,its accuracy must be verified “on site.” Any devia-tions should be noted and the necessary changesmade to the diagram. The team should then con-firm that the amended chart now accurately depictsthe process. Records of the changes should be made.

Figure 1. Cooperative fishing areas. The circle symbol shows where the study was performed.


Step 7. Listing of hazards and relevantcontrol measuresThis step involves the identification of all the condi-tions, connected to the process or product, that posea threat to the intrinsic quality and mortality of theanimal. Identification and rating as a potential haz-ard, or not, is done according to the likelihood ofthe occurrence of a hazard and the severity of its ef-fect. This is done for every step of the process. Thosehazards that are rated sufficiently likely to occur, andof sufficient severity, are then listed and the possi-ble control measures are established.

Step 8: CCP determinationOnce the various physiological, immunological, andother hazards have been identified and rated, theirCritical Control Points can be determined using theCCP “decision tree” (Fig. 2).

Step 9: Establishment of critical limits (CL)for each CCPA target level for each hazard that has been identi-fied should be set. This level will be set in the min-imum or maximum values that can be safely reachedwithout causing loss of intrinsic quality or the deathof the animal. Such limits may be a specified maxi-mum or minimum temperature or a minimum recov-ery time after emersion. Other limit levels, such asmaximum ambient ammonia in the holding tanks andmaximum and minimum salinities, can also be set.

Step 10: MonitoringMonitoring is critical, as it could mean the differ-ence between an effective or failing program. Mon-itoring allows the process managers to determine ifthere is a loss of control or the potential for one,depending on how stable the observed values arerelative to the CL. Thus corrective action can betaken before complete loss of control occurs. At thisstep it is necessary to establish when and how themonitoring will be done, and who will do it.

Step 11: Corrective action proceduresWhen the monitoring activities indicate noncompli-ance with the target levels, steps have to be takento intervene and correct the problem. An action planfor this activity should be drawn up, indicating:

1. Actions to be taken immediately, who should beinformed, and in what manner.

2. What will be done with the weak/dead animal.

3. Which steps will be taken to determine the sourceof the problem, in order to prevent a recurrence.(The emphasis here is on prevention—the keyconcept of HACCP.)

4. Who is responsible for making the relevant deci-sions.

Step 12: Verification proceduresThis is to ensure that the system is working as in-tended. The verification procedures consist of check-ing that all the CCP are monitored and that all thedata recorded are under the critical limits established.It is also important to include validation of theHACCP plan as part of the verification procedures.

Step 13: Documentation and record keepingIt is essential that all above activities and relevantcollected data are properly documented. Theserecords allow the management staff to spot and cor-rect undesirable trends or patterns that may be vi-tal to ensuring product quality and survival.

Figure 2. CCP decision tree. Answer the questions in sequenceat each step for the identified hazard.


Step 14: Review of the HACCP planA periodic review of the HACCP plan may becomenecessary for a number of reasons.

1. Problems or complaints about the product.

2. Intrinsic quality or mortality risk related to thespecies.

3. New information on hazards or risks.

Thus the need for periodic review is clear, as thisallows HACCP to be proactive in the managementand control of the various hazards associated withthe live marketing of crustaceans.

RESULTS

With this preliminary HACCP application, it wasnot possible for our team to complete all 14 steps ofthe HACCP methodology. Some of these steps aremissing because their application at this stage wasunrealistic because of the distances of the journeysinvolved and other logistical considerations.

The following results summarize this preliminaryHACCP application dealing with the live market-ing of crustaceans:

Application of step 1 (Terms of reference)Although this step was carried out with some ini-tial involvement of the management of the cooper-ative, it did not involve the fishermen in any greatdetail. Sporadically, some of these harvestersshowed interest, but there was a noticeable lack ofcommunication about this HACCP project betweenthe two parties. In order for a HACCP program tobe successful, it is necessary to develop a strategythat motivates the fishermen and assures their in-volvement and interest in the project. At this stage,this probably will require collaborative input froma sociologist or psychologist operating within theHACCP team.

The product details were summarized as follows:“Live animals that are required to go through a se-ries of handling, holding, and transport proceduresto reach the final market.” The hazard category in-volves those hazards associated with their survivaland the maintenance of their intrinsic quality.

Application of step 2 (HACCP team selection)During this preliminary effort, a multidisciplinaryteam could not be drawn up because of the restric-tions mentioned in step 1. However, a preliminaryteam was formed that was able to obtain informa-tion on the different processes involved and to ac-cess field conditions and/or live-holding facilities.

Application of step 3 (Product description)The product is a live animal. It is a lobster withanatomical features, such as antennae, that are high-ly vulnerable to physical damage and which, whendamaged along the chain, represent a site of bloodloss that weakens the animal. In addition, other partsof its anatomy, such as appendages and carapace, arealso fragile and damage or losses to these leads to ananimal being weaker and thus a poor candidate fortransport. Such animals will probably be rejected atthe market because of their unattractive appearanceand clear loss of intrinsic quality. Excessive handlingprocedures, such as repeated weighing, are consid-ered a problem because they greatly increase thechance of physical damage. Additional hazards arethose related to the distribution of the consignedanimals, especially emersion and seawater qualityvariables such as ammonia, nitrite, oxygen levels,and salinity. When being consigned, emersion at hightemperatures, especially at the beginning of the sea-son (October), must be avoided as much as possible.

Application of step 4 (End-use identification)The intended end-users of this product are generalconsumers and there are no particular risks asso-ciated with them.

Application of step 5 (Process flow diagram)The live lobster flow chart is shown in Fig. 3. Itshows all the significant handling steps, from pointof capture to the point of first sale.

Application of step 6 (Verification on site)The verification of the flow chart was carried outwithin a week following the first visit and no sig-nificant changes were made in that specific sectionof the market chain.


Applications of steps 7 and 8 (List ofhazards and relevant control measuresand CCP determination)The data showing the identified hazards throughthe marketing chain, their ratings, and control mea-sures are provided in Table 1.

Application of step 9 (Establishing criticallimits (CL) for each CCP)Table 2 shows the critical limits, monitoring, cor-rective actions, records, and verification proceduresdeveloped during the course of this project. In set-ting the critical limits, it was necessary to consultthe relevant literature. Where possible, the criticallimits used in this exercise are specific to P. inter-ruptus. However, if data were not available, infor-mation dealing with other crustaceans wasconsidered.

DISCUSSION

The reasons for the high mortalities that can stilloccur in this trade have been investigated by a num-

ber of authors (Uglow et al. 1986, Hosie 1993, Reg-nault 1994, Schmitt 1995, Whiteley 1995, Taylor andWaldron 1997, Jussila et al. 1997, Paterson et al.1997) on several crustacean species, including Neph-rops norvegicus, Cancer pagurus, Necora puber,Panulirus cygnus, and Homarus gammarus. Themain conclusion drawn is that the accumulatedstresses imposed on the animals throughout theirmarketing may act to weaken the animal or evencause its death.

The assured delivery of a consignment of lobstersin good condition and with a low mortality requiresthe diligent use of criteria capable of recognizingstress in lobsters and of procedures for reversingthe effects of this stress at the successive stages inthe market chain. This is where HACCP principlescan have a positive impact on the improvement ofquality and reduction of mortality rates in this in-dustry. In this preliminary HACCP application, thepreparation of the flow chart provided an opportu-nity to list in systematic order all the potential haz-ards involved in this particular section of the marketchain. It also allowed the opportunity to establishand test control measures, some of which are spe-

Figure 3. Live Lobster flow chart.


cies-specific, using the laboratory data reported inGomez-Jimenez 1998.

It is not our contention that the application ofHACCP methodology will solve all the problemsfaced by this industry. It is necessary to implementan intensive training program on the handling andother relevant techniques to all fishermen and de-cision-makers in the cooperatives in order to in-crease their awareness of the need for animal care.In this respect, the involvement of social special-ists would be useful. Furthermore, more empirical

research is still needed to establish the normal pro-file of conveniently measured stress indicators ateach stage of handling in this Baja fishery, so thatabnormal situations can be identified and remediedusing HACCP principles.

The benefits of applying preventive approaches,such as HACCP, in the live crustacean trade maylead to an improvement in the overall intrinsic qual-ity of the animals and a reduction in mortalitiesthat will improve the prospects of profitable tradein the international market place.


Tab

le 1

. Ris

k a

nal

ysis

: id

enti

fied

haz

ard

s an

d t

hei

r co

ntr

ol m

easu

res.

Ide

nti

fied

Is t

he

iden

tifi

ed h

azar

d

J

ust

ify

the

C

ontr

olP

roce

ss s

tep

h

azar

d

l

ikel

y to

occ

ur?

Yes

/No

d

ecis

ion

mea

sure

s

Pro

du

ct: L

ive

spin

y lo

bst

er1.

Day

bef

ore

catc

hin

gN

one

–

2. C

atch

ing

peri

oda.

Tem

pera

ture

in

crea

seYe

s*D

irec

t su

nli

ght

incr

ease

sA

void

dir

ect

sun

ligh

t on

(

Cap

ture

)bo

dy t

empe

ratu

re, c

ause

sth

e an

imal

s. U

se m

eth

ods

desi

ccat

ion

, an

d sp

eeds

up

that

mai

nta

in a

hig

h r

elat

ive

inte

rnal

hyp

oxia

.h

um

idit

y (e

.g. c

over

ing

wit

hw

et s

acki

ng)

.

b. P

hys

ical

dam

age

Yes*

Wh

en c

atch

is

good

th

e L

eave

a f

ree

side

to

wal

k an

dbo

at i

s fu

ll w

ith

lob

ster

s a

llow

cat

chin

g pr

acti

ces.

on f

loor

an

d th

is m

akes

th

etr

ansi

t on

boar

d di

ffic

ult

.

3. R

etu

rn t

o sh

ore

Non

e–

4. T

ran

sfer

lob

ster

s fr

oma.

Ph

ysic

al d

amag

eN

oB

oats

are

sm

all

and

boat

to

“kee

p po

t”th

eref

ore

dail

y ca

tch

is n

ot l

arge

en

ough

to

cau

se p

hys

ical

dam

age.

5. L

eave

“ke

ep p

ot”

a. P

hys

ical

dam

age

Yes*

Th

ere

is n

o u

nif

orm

ity

inR

edu

ce t

he

den

sity

an

d

te

ther

ed a

t se

ath

e “k

eep

pot”

an

d l

imbs

the

dura

tion

in

side

th

eca

n b

e ea

ten

by

fish

.“k

eep

pot.

” R

edes

ign

th

e“k

eep

pot.

”

b. T

empe

ratu

re i

ncr

ease

No

Bec

ause

th

ere

is e

nou

ghw

ater

cir

cula

tion

.

6. T

ran

sfer

lob

ster

s fr

oma.

Ph

ysic

al d

amag

eYe

sU

se o

f in

adeq

uat

e cr

atew

are.

Ade

quat

e cr

atew

are

tail

ored

“kee

p po

t” t

o cr

atew

are

to m

orph

olog

ical

fea

ture

s of

th

esp

iny

lobs

ters

.

7. W

eigh

an

d re

turn

cra

tes

ofa.

Tem

pera

ture

in

crea

seYe

sL

ong

queu

es t

o de

live

rA

void

dir

ect

sun

ligh

t.

lo

bste

rs t

o bo

atth

e an

imal

s in

to t

he

plan

t.


8.

Tra

nsp

ort

from

isl

and

a. T

empe

ratu

re i

ncr

ease

No

Sh

ort

tim

e an

d th

e sp

ecie

s is

to

mai

nla

nd

a

nd

desi

ccat

ion

tole

ran

t to

th

ese

con

diti

ons.

9.

Tra

nsf

er c

rate

s of

lob

ster

s N

one

–

i

nto

a p

rovi

sion

al p

lan

t

10. T

empo

rary

sto

rage

,a.

Hig

h t

empe

ratu

res

and

Yes*

*E

xtre

me

con

diti

ons

for

Red

uce

th

e st

orag

e ti

me

un

til

buye

r’s

tru

ck a

rriv

es

low

rel

ativ

e h

um

idit

yth

e an

imal

s.to

th

e m

inim

um

or

appl

y a

tim

e-te

mpe

ratu

re c

ontr

ol.

11. W

eigh

an

d tr

ansf

er l

obst

ers

a. P

hys

ical

dam

age

Yes*

At

the

end

of t

he

proc

edu

re,

To a

void

tra

nsf

er f

rom

on

e

i

nto

bu

yer’

s cr

atew

are

it i

s po

ssib

le t

o ob

serv

e m

any

crat

ewar

e sy

stem

in

to a

not

her

.lo

st a

ppen

dage

s.

12. T

ran

spor

t of

lob

ster

s to

a. E

mer

sion

No

Th

e te

mpe

ratu

re d

uri

ng

a b

uye

r’s

prem

ises

tran

spor

t is

low

an

d ti

me

is s

hor

t.

13. W

eigh

, gra

de, a

nd

tran

sfer

a. P

hys

ical

dam

age

Yes*

Exc

essi

ve h

andl

ing

and

To a

void

tra

nsf

er f

rom

in

to h

oldi

ng

tan

ksat

th

e en

d of

th

e pr

oced

ure

one

crat

ewar

e sy

stem

man

y ap

pen

dage

s ca

n b

e lo

st.

into

an

oth

er.

14. S

tora

ge o

f li

ve a

nim

als

ina.

Ph

ysic

al d

amag

eYe

s**

Den

sely

pac

ked

anim

als

Avo

id d

ense

pac

kin

g w

hen

hol

din

g ta

nks

un

til

nex

tin

duce

d an

tago

nis

tic

beh

avio

r.ke

pt i

n w

ater

.

s

ale

b. H

igh

am

bien

t Y

es**

Exc

reti

on o

f an

imal

s.C

ontr

ol o

f am

mon

ia l

evel

s

am

mon

ia l

evel

san

d u

tili

ze a

n a

ppro

pria

tesy

stem

for

rem

ovin

g am

mon

iafr

om t

he

wat

er.

c. L

ow o

xyge

n c

once

ntr

atio

nYe

s**

Inad

equ

ate

air

syst

em a

nd

Con

trol

of

diss

olve

d ox

ygen

.qu

ick

rem

oval

of

oxyg

en f

rom

stre

ssed

an

imal

s.

d. S

alin

ity

chan

ges

Yes*

*U

se o

f fr

esh

wat

er i

ce t

o co

olC

ontr

ol o

f sa

lin

ity.

dow

n s

eaw

ater

tem

pera

ture

and

evap

orat

ion

.

e. T

empe

ratu

re c

han

ges

Yes*

*H

igh

tem

pera

ture

in

crea

ses

Con

trol

of

wat

er t

empe

ratu

re

an

d co

olin

g r

ate

met

abol

ic r

ate.

Du

rin

g ab

rupt

and

appr

opri

ate

cool

ing

rate

tran

sfer

to

low

tem

pera

ture

s th

efo

r th

e sp

ecie

s pr

ior

to p

acki

ng.

anim

al m

ay a

uto

tom

ize

som

e or

all

of i

ts l

imbs

as

a sh

ock

reac

tion

.

* T

hes

e h

azar

ds c

an b

e el

imin

ated

in

th

e fu

ture

th

rou

gh a

n i

nte

nsi

ve t

rain

ing

at t

he

fish

erm

an l

evel

in

ord

er t

o es

tabl

ish

goo

d h

andl

ing

prac

tice

s fo

r li

ve a

nim

als.

** T

hes

e w

ere

the

CC

P i

den

tifi

ed a

nd

thei

r cr

itic

al l

imit

s ar

e se

t in

Tab

le 2

.


Table 2. Critical limits, monitoring, corrective actions, records, and verification procedures for livespiny lobster.

CCP Process Identified Control Criticalno. step hazard measures limit

1 10. Temporary storage, High temperature Reduce the No longer than until buyer’s and low relative storage time to 2 h or truck arrives humidity the minimum or

Apply time- 8-14°C for 12 htemperaturecontrol

2a 14. Storage of live Physical Avoid dense No more than 30 kg/ m2

animals in damage packing when for short term storage holding tanks kept in water reduce to 5-10 kg/m2 for

longer-term

2b 14. Storage of live High ambient Control of No higher than 6 mg/L animals in ammonia levels ammonia holding tanks levels

2c 14. Storage of live Low oxygen Control of No less than 85 % animals in concentration dissolved saturation holding tanks oxygen

2d 14. Storage of live Salinity changes Control of No lower than 32 ppt animals in salinity No higher than 38 ppt holding tanks

2e 14. Storage of live Temperature Control of water Water temperature: animals in changes and temperature and 12-14°C holding tanks. cooling rate appropriate cooling rate

prior to packing

Cooling rate: 0.6 to1.0°C/hour


Monitoring Corrective What, how, when (frequency) actions Records Verification

Time (h): checking entrance time. Temporary return of Storage Every salelobsters into “keep pot” formand then into the sea,until the sale is made or

Time-temperature: Transfer lobsters to a Storage Every salechecking entrance time controlled temperature formand temperature in the storage room (8-14°C)storage room every h. for 12 h.Monitoring should be madeusing an ambient thermometerand checking the entrancetime and date, every time a loadof lobster is put into the storage room.

Total weight of lobsters Transfer the excess lobster’s Tank For everythat are placed in each weight into another tank or a monitoring consignmenttank. Weight of lobsters provisional container. form receivedwhen they are placed inthe tanks.

Measuring water ammonia Partial change of water Tank Dailylevels twice an hour during and review of the biological monitoringthe first 4 h after a new load of filters. formlobsters is put into the system,and thereafter continue monitoringevery 8 h. Using a commercial kit

Measuring water oxygen Add temporary large air Tank Dailyconcentration every h during diffuser until safe level is monitoringthe first 4 h after a new load reached. Check the aeration formof lobsters is put into the system. Amend the water:system, and thereafter continue biomass ratio.monitoring every 8 h. Using anoxygen electrode.

Measuring salinity levels At low levels: adjust the Tank Dailyevery 6 h during summer salinity by adding commercial monitoringand twice a day at other salts for artificial seawater. At formseasons using a portable high levels: adjust the salinityrefractometer. adding fresh water.

Checking water temperature Adjust the thermostat of the Tank Dailyevery 6 h using a clearly visible cooling system and review the monitoringthermometer. origin of the failure. form

When starting the cooling rate, Adjust the thermostat of the Cooling rate For everymeasure water temperature cooling system and review the form shipmentevery 15 min and calculate origin of the failure.

the cooling rate.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the cooperatives from Northwest Mexicofor allowing access to their premises and supplyingus with lobsters for the physiological studies. Weare grateful to Armando Vega and Jeronimo Espino-za from CRIP-La Paz for logistical and technicalsupport, and to CONACYT-Mexico and CVCP-Hullfor financial support.

REFERENCES

Campden Food and Drink Research Association. 1992. Apractical guide to HACCP implementation. Camp-den Food and Drink Research Association TechnicalManual 38. Gloucestershire, UK.

Gomez-Jimenez, S. 1998. Some physiological and immu-nological responses of the spiny lobster, Panulirusinterruptus (Randall, 1840), to practices used in itslive marketing in the Baja California fishery. Ph.D.thesis. Univerisity of Hull, UK.

Hosie, D.A. 1993. Aspects of the physiology of decapodcrustaceans with particular reference to the livemarketing of Cancer pagurus and Necora puber.Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, UK.

Huss, H.H. 1993. Assurance of seafood quality. Techno-logical Laboratory, Ministry of Fisheries, Denmark.

Jussila, J., J. Jago, E. Tsvetnenko, B. Dunstan, and L.H.Evans. 1997. Total and differential haemocyte countsin western rock lobsters (Panulirus cignus George)under post-harvest stress. Mar. Freshwater Res.48:863-867.

Kirby, R. 1994. HACCP in practice. Food Control.5(4):230-236.

Leaper, S. (ed.). 1997. HACCP: A practical guide. Camp-den and Chorleywood Food Research Association(CCFRA), Gloucestershire, UK.

MacMullen, P.H. 1986. An assessment of damage andmortality of the brown crab during vivier transport.Sea Fish Industry Authority Tech. Rep. 294. UK.

Mortimore, S., and C. Wallace. 1994. HACCP: A practi-cal approach. Chapman & Hall, London.

Paterson, B.D., S.G. Grauf, and A.S. Ross. 1997. Haemo-lymph chemistry of tropical rock lobsters (Panuli-rus ornatus) brought onto a mother ship from acatching dinghy in Torres Strait. Mar. FreshwaterRes. 48:835-838.

Regnault, M. 1994. Effect of air exposure on ammoniaexcretion and ammonia content of branchial waterof the crab Cancer pagurus. J. Exp. Zool. 268:208-217.

Schmitt, A.S.C. 1995. Aspects of the physiology of somecrustaceans species with particular reference to theirlive marketing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, UK.

Taylor, H.H., and F.M. Waldron. 1997. Respiratory re-sponses to air-exposure in the southern rock lobster,Jasus edwardsii (Hutton) (Decapoda: Palinuridae).Mar. Freshwater Res. 48:889-897.

Uglow, R.F., D.A. Hosie, I.T. Johnson, and P.H. Mac-Mullen. 1986. Live handling and transport of crus-tacean shellfish: An investigation of mortalities. SeaFish Industry Authority Tech. Rep. 280, UK.

Whiteley, M.N. 1995. The physiological basis of the abil-ity of the lobster, Homarus gammarus (L.), to sur-vive out of water and its commercial exploitation.Ph.D. thesis. University of Birmingham, UK.

Whyman, S., R.F. Uglow, and P.H. MacMullen. 1985. Astudy of the mortality rates of the velvet crab dur-ing holding and transport. Sea Fish Industry Au-thority Tech. Rep. 259, UK.


INTRODUCTION

This report focuses on live seafood shipping compo-nents and systems. While there are many types oflive holding systems, certain components and prac-tices are similar for all applications—from mobilesystems for boats or trucks, to static systems in-side a land-based plant. The ultimate goal for all ofthese systems is the same—whether you are ship-ping by air, by sea, or land, you want to get yourproduct to market alive.

SHIPPING CONTAINERS

First, the obvious fact is that live product mustsomehow be contained in a bag, a box, or a tank toprotect it from the outside environment and to al-low for at least some control over the interior envi-ronment of this container. One type of commonlyused container is the one-way tank or box that istypically discarded at the other end of the marketchain. Most often the containers are in the form ofStyrofoam boxes. Another option is a reusable tankor box. Each different type of shipping containerhas its pros and cons. Obviously, the reusable typeneeds to be sent back and this necessity can addtremendously to the cost of getting the product tomarket. Those involved in the industry are only tooaware of the complicated logistics involved in get-ting the containers back for reuse.

The product can be shipped while held in a smallpool of water or, in some cases, without any waterat all. We call this latter method “dry,” although itincludes small quantities of water. The maintenanceof high levels of relative humidity coupled with care-fully controlled internal temperature are criticalconsiderations.

In order to be successful in this business, a numberof complexities need to be confronted. For example,sourcing the seafood products and needed equip-ment is important. If you are thinking about bring-ing a product from a distant source, and a product

of equal or better quality is available from a short-er distance, you need to look in that direction. Youmust remain informed about supply and marketconditions and everything else in between. Thelonger the animals are in transit, the harder it ison them. From the time the animals are removedfrom the water to the time they get to the kitchen,the animals are undergoing stress. It is the cumu-lative effect of this stress that will ultimately killthe animals. Of course, if severe enough, the stressat any one of the steps along the marketing chaincould also be lethal. Financial risk in the live busi-ness can be severe.

HOLDING TANKS

There will be holding tanks onboard the fishing ves-sels and at the holding facilities. The type, shape,material, and size of the holding tanks varies de-pending on the application.

Holding tanks need to be built of materials thatare not toxic to the animals. A variety of technicalissues is involved. For example, fiberglass by itselfis not even waterproof. It needs to have a final gelcoat to create the waterproofing layer. In additionto being nontoxic and able to hold water, the mate-rial used in the construction of a holding tank alsoneeds to be durable and easily washable. Smoothsurfaces are important when it comes to mainte-nance, cleaning, and sanitation.

The size and number of tanks in a proposed facili-ty will depend on the volume of live product that isanticipated. However, the shape of that tank canvary. If you have live fish that typically like to swimin one direction, as opposed to remaining quietlyat or near the bottom, you probably will need roundtanks. Many people put fish in rectangular tanksbecause they fit nicely into most spaces and havetraditionally been used for live holding of fish. Butthe shape of the holding tank should depend onthe nature of the fish and how it behaves in the tank.

Live Seafood Holding Systems:Review of Systems and Components

John ChaitonEmerald Partners, Marietta, Georgia

284 Chaiton: Components of Live Seafood Holding Systems

The size and number of holding tanks and associ-ated water supply considerations will depend on youroperation. Consider how long you are planning tohold the products when making this determination.You may want to have a smaller, perhaps different-ly shaped, receiving tank to temporarily hold prod-ucts before they go into your system for longer termholding. If you will be receiving numerous small ship-ments from different suppliers, the use of severalsmall units, instead of a single large holding tank,can help reduce cross-contamination. Disease preven-tion is the positive outcome for this strategy; how-ever, several small tanks will cost more on a cost-per-pound basis to operate rather than one larger unit.

WATER PUMPS

The type of water pumps needed depends on theapplication. If you will be pulling water from a well,a specific type of pump will be needed. A recircula-tion system will require a different type of pump.For example, if your holding operation is onboard atruck, a 12 volt pump might be needed.

The typical water pump consists of a motor and apump. Water should not contact any part of the mo-tor, but it will contact the pump, which should con-tain no corrosive or toxic metals. Some pumps havenon–stainless steel washers and bolts that will rustin a saltwater environment. This is why we use tita-nium components, for example, in chillers. Certaintypes of stainless steel will not last long in salt water.

The type of motors used in a pumping system needsto fit your application. For example, when haulinglive seafood, if you have a small generator onboardyour truck, you can use 110 volt electric current.However, you should have a backup pump that ispowered by the available 12 volt system, or 24 voltfor diesel trucks. Backup systems are necessary incase there is a problem with the generator and youneed to circulate water. Backup systems for waterpumping and aeration are essential, whether on atruck, on a vessel, or in a land-based or static plant.

Water pumping can use a variety of power sources.You can use hydraulic and pneumatic systems. Hy-draulic systems involve fluid movement to conveypower and pneumatic systems involve air or gas move-ment. You can use air compressors to drive pumps.Hydraulic pumps are great, but remember, oil andwater do not mix. If you are using hydraulics or con-sidering using this type of system, make sure youmaintain the system so that no hydraulic fluid leaksin or around any of your holding tanks.

There is also something to be said for a newly ap-plied mobile power source for auxiliary pumps—solar power backup systems. Some live haulers havesolar panels fastened to their trucks which, in turn,feed electric power to storage batteries used forbackup power support, should there be a problem.

You might also consider the use of inverters, whichconvert DC electrical power to AC and run off of abattery. This will allow you to run an electric pumpoff the battery serving the engine of the vehicle.Inverters are not very expensive and are highlyrecommended for backup use.

FILTERS

Water filters are very important to the overall op-eration of a live holding system. A filtration systemcan include mechanical, chemical, and biologicalfiltration and combinations thereof. The size, use,care, and application of these filters will determinewhether your product gets to market in great shapeor dies before it ever gets the chance to be deliv-ered. The financial aspects of your proposed busi-ness will dictate how you will deal with thiscomponent in the holding system. You cannot af-ford to skimp on filtration. I feel that you need toover-filter in order to provide for at least a smallmargin of safety. Frequently you will be advised bya consultant or make the determination based onyour own calculations that you need a certainamount of filter surface area to handle a particularproduct biomass. If you determine that a small ad-ditional financial investment will double the poten-tial size of your biological filter, I say why not makethis investment? You do not want biological filtra-tion capacity to be a limiting factor in your system.

Mechanical filtrationFigure 1 shows various particle sizes (in microns) thatcan be removed with different types of filtration. Me-chanical filtration uses a mechanical method to re-move particles. The first method is known as coarsescreening. Typically, it is possible to remove particlesdown to 100 microns with coarse filtration. Theproblem is that the finer mechanical filters will quicklybecome saturated with particles and require morecleaning and backwashing. If you are busy runningyour operation, as I imagine everyone is, you do nothave time to backwash fine particulate filters sev-eral times a day.

Another type of filtration is sedimentation. Usingthis filtering strategy, the effluent from the tank is


moved through a place of quiescence where the watermoves very slowly and is not agitated. Some peopleeven use the holding tank itself as a settling tank,a strategy that I do not encourage because I like tokeep the water moving in the holding tanks. In asettling tank, the particulate matter with heavierspecific gravity will rain out and land on the bottomof the tank. Later, after a substantial amount of sed-iment has built up, it can be removed by vacuuming.

Another type of filter, known as a tube settler, typ-ically works down to particle size of about 75 mi-crons. Related granular filters work very well. Abead filter, which uses grains instead of a screen toremove particulate material from the effluent, is atype of granular filter. The fluid travels through agranular bed and can remove particles down toabout 20 microns.

Foam fractionation, an important part of any closedrecirculation system, is used to remove minute par-ticles of 30 microns or less. A foam fractionator, orprotein skimmer, is a cylindrical tube. Water entersat the top of this tube and comes out the bottomand air enters at the bottom and comes out the top.This crosscurrent creates a foam of proteins at thetop of the unit. There is typically an upside-downfunnel at the top of the unit in which the foam buildsup. The foam bubbles out the top of the funnel, spillsdown over the sides and drains into a collection ves-sel. This removes very fine solids and decreases thebiological load for the nitrifying bacteria.

Biological filtration and nitrogenThe nitrogen cycle (Fig. 2) can be thought of in sim-ple terms. Animals excrete ammonia, which is con-verted to nitrite by a type of bacteria known asNitrosomonas. Nitrite is then converted to nitrateby Nitrobacter bacteria. It is important to remem-ber that ammonia is highly toxic. Nitrite is proba-bly even more toxic while nitrate is far less toxic.Each species that rotates though the holding facil-ity has a different tolerance to these compounds.For example, Maine lobster has a much strongertolerance to nitrate than most fish species.

Given a properly working biological filter, the wa-ter ammonia level will spike when product is add-ed to the holding tank and then will decline with time.Then there will be a spike in nitrite, which will alsoeventually drop. As nitrite drops, nitrate increases.

Only two things cause the nitrate level to go down.One is through water exchange. This can be accom-plished by simply draining some of the old waterand adding new water to bring the tank up to itsfull working volume. In this case, if the nitrate lev-el is 200 mg per liter, and 50% of the water is re-placed, theoretically the nitrate level should dropto approximately 100 mg per liter.

Figure 2. Nitrogen cycle. At the top are total solids. Also indi-cated are the biological oxygen demand (BOD), total ammoniumnitrate (TAN), and other components that make up ammonia load.

Figure 1. Particle sizes removed using various filtrationmethods.


It is important to note that sufficient water ex-change may occur just in the daily operation of aholding facility. The water that is spilled on the floorwhen the animals are placed in and taken out ofthe tanks is replaced with what is called makeupwater. This daily replacement with makeup watermay be sufficient to control the gradual nitrate ac-cumulation in the system.

The other method for removing nitrate is called de-nitrification. In this process, nitrate is convertedback to nitrite and then released as nitrogen gas.People in the ornamental or aquarium trade areexperts at this. Also, large aquaculture facilities inIsrael use denitrification on a commercial basis.

Denitrification involves a series of anaerobic reactions.It is a bit tricky because, if the system is not workingproperly, nitrate is converted back to nitrite, whichis 20 times more toxic than nitrate. This can lead tomortalities. Advances have been made in making thedenitrifying process less risky. Dr. Phillip Lee in Texashas designed a component system that uses a com-puter controlled real-time reaction. I believe that thissystem is currently on the market. This componentis simply plugged into the side of a tank and denitri-fies the water by converting the nitrate to nitrite andthen to nitrogen gas which is released to the atmo-sphere. Depending on the size of the operation, thismay be a cost effective strategy for the reduction ofnitrate. Denitrification provides for better waterquality, and decreases the costs associated with hav-ing available large volumes of makeup water. Wheth-er the cost is in the synthetic sea salt needed to makeseawater or in buying or otherwise obtaining highquality water, there is a cost to replacement of hold-ing water.

Bead filtersBead filters function as both biological and mechan-ical filters. They work through straining, settling,interception, and adsorption. Straining involves thedirect capture of large particles as they pass into smallopenings between the beads. Settling is the sinkingof suspended solids onto the surface of the beads.When small particles fall directly onto the surfaceof a bead, they are captured and adsorbed onto thesticky biofilm. This is a very important part of thissystem component, because this biologically activelayer or biofilm is distributed throughout the unit.

The filtering capacity of a bead filter depends onthe size of the unit. In a typical live holding system,100% of the water traveling through the handling

system does not have to be filtered or chilled on eachpass. If you attempted this type of water process-ing, your chiller and filter systems would have tobe relatively large. Biofilter units are expensive. Thefilter system on the left in Fig. 3, a BF (biofilter) 100,probably costs US $20,000-25,000 before installation.It is equipped with a 3 horsepower motor on topthat needs electrical connections, starters, etc. Thereis also a cost associated with just moving it around.It is about 14 feet tall. Components such as thesecan take a lot of room and can be expensive to pur-chase and maintain.

Once you realize that there is no real practical rea-son to run all the water through the filter or chiller,you may then realize that you can use somethinglike the third model. This is an example of a me-chanical filter that also operates as a biological filter.

Figure 3. Motorized bead filters.

Figure 4. Nitrogen cycle on the surface of a filter bead.


The beads provide a fair amount of surface area(Fig. 4). The amount of surface area within a filteris a function of total volume, bead size, porosity,and bead shape. The more surface area within afilter, the more sites available for the adhesion ofnitrifying bacteria. When nitrifying bacteria attachto the available surfaces, they begin convertingammonia to nitrite, and nitrite to nitrate, result-ing in better water quality.

However, you should not entirely rely on one of theseunits to provide you with sufficient surface area todenitrify the holding water in the system. Make sureyour biofilter is more than adequate. Use this unitas a mechanical particulate filter with an added bo-nus—it accomplishes denitrification as well.

Smaller versions of non-motorized bead filterswould work quite well onboard a vessel because theycan be tucked in the corner of a deck and fasteneddown. They work very well as a particulate filter—a capability that can be useful in many marine ap-plications. For example, shrimp tend to regurgitategut contents when put under stress and this willcauses a lot of mucus and particulate matter to getinto the holding water. Bead filters are good forstraining out some of this debris, mucus, and slime.Furthermore, bead filters can be cleaned easily.

In addition, if you are planning to be more than 20hours in transit, you will be able take advantage ofsome of the biological nitrification that bead filtersare capable of performing. If you are hauling fishor shellfish for only a few hours, there will not bethe need to convert ammonia to nitrite, and nitriteto nitrate. Bead filters need more than a few hoursto accomplish this conversion and, in some cases,they will need days to significantly reduce accumu-lated nitrate levels.

The biofilm or bacteria associated with the properaction of bead filters must be kept active. If you arecontemplating a live product journey of 24 hoursor longer and need a properly conditioned filter, youcan plug a small bead filter or another kind ofbiofilter into the static holding system in the holdingfacility and circulate water on a separate loop throughthat filter. This will keep the bacteria inside the fil-ter fully activated and ready to consume ammoniaand nitrite. Then, when it is time to pick up or de-liver your product, you can plug this small, porta-ble biofilter into the system on the truck or boat.The biofilter will already be charged up and readyto go without a 30 day conditioning period. Thispreconditioning strategy will help on long hauls.

A small porthole is normally built into the side of abead filter. This allows you to observe the conditionof the beads. When the beads are clean, they arevery white. After use, the beads may become brownor encrusted with particles and a bed of sludge mayaccumulate in the bottom layer of the beads.

Cleaning a bead filter by backwashingSome bead filters are designed to be backwashed(Fig. 5), and cleaning this type of filter can be accom-plished quite easily. The unit needing cleaning is firstisolated from the live holding system. The valves areclosed so the water does not flow into and out of theunit. The motor, on top, is turned on. The motor hasa stainless steel shaft that runs down the center ofthe unit and is equipped with two or three propellersalong its length that mix up the beads. Some caremust be taken not to overmix the beads. During thisperiod of mechanical agitation, each bead is scrapingagainst the next. If you scrape them too much, it ispossible to remove all the biofilm—the nitrifying bac-teria. This could virtually “kill” your filter, requiringan extensive period of reconditioning before it regainsits previous biofiltering capacity. Therefore, turn onthe agitation motor for perhaps 15 seconds. The wash-ing process does not take long once the propellers startagitating the beads. You can observe the progress ofthe washing cycle through the porthole window.

When the motor is shut off, the beads float to thetop of the cone and the debris falls to the bottom of

Figure 5. Bead filter backwash schematic, showing the beadbed in the upper half. Water enters from the pipe on the rightside, goes through a U-pipe, passes up through the beads, andexits above.


the unit. Depending on the species involved and thelength of service since the last washing, the entirebottom part of the bead chamber may now be filledwith sediment. After you understand how a beadfilter works, you can then easily switch a few valvesto flush or pull the sediment out of the collectingcone through a siphon.

Bubble washing a bead filterAnother type of bead filter can be cleaned by bub-ble washing (Fig. 6). In order to mix or agitate thebeads, which are in the upper chamber, air entersfrom the bottom of the unit and passes up throughthe restricted neck. Then you open a release valveand it pulls the beads with it. The action of the airmoving up through the beads and the water flow-ing down scrubs the beads just the right amount.During bubble washing, the water that has becomesaturated with sediment is lost. These bead filterscan concentrate large amounts of sediment, and thewaste material can be carried away with a singlewashing. This is good because there are costs asso-ciated with water, even if it is just the electricityused to pump it into the live holding facility.

Biotower filtersIn a biotower, which is a large cylindrical vessel,air and water are pumped in from the bottom andwater is drained out at the top. In order for this

unit to operate properly, it is very important to haveadequate aeration. If the filter is not functioningproperly, there will be water movement channelingand anaerobic areas within the filter.

PARTICLE SIZE

In live holding water, the number of particles thatare five to ten microns is substantial relative to thenumber of larger particles in the water. That is, thesize of most of the particulate matter that needs tobe removed from the holding water is tiny. Using acombination of protein skimmers and biofilm adhe-sion in biological filters, it is possible to remove vir-tually all contaminants. If you have a separate loopfor the biological filter in which only a percentageof the water passes through the filter at one time,this cleaning result will not occur in the first pass,but eventually the waste particles will all be removed.

If a large percentage or possibly all of your holdingwater is going through a biological filter at once—fan-tastic. Waste particles will be removed faster and thebacteria will convert ammonia to nitrite and nitratefaster. It is simply a matter of what you can afford.

A higher percentage of bigger particles (50-100 mi-crons) are removed at each pass of water through afilter. Since the majority of the particles are tiny, itis good to put as much water through your biologi-cal filter as possible. Again, the degree and intensityof filtration is dependent on cost. I would recom-mend that you put all of the holding water througha biofilter. Depending on conditions, it may be quiteexpensive to put all of your water through a partic-ulate filter. To save money, you can use a branch ofthe biofilter to filter out the particulate matter.

Water and system sterilizersA few words need to be mentioned about water ster-ilization. The addition of a sterilizing component toyour overall system can be a good idea because itwill reduce the risk of disease. If you are going to usean ultraviolet (UV) or ozone sterilizer in your watersystem, some care must be taken to make sure thatthis component is going to be effective. If you areusing UV equipment, make sure that the UV bulbshave been properly maintained.

Chemicals can be useful clean water systems whenthere is no live product in the system. You also needto clean out the intake and effluent lines to kill any

Figure 6. A bead filter that is cleaned by bubble-washing.


vibrios that may be growing on the surface of thepipes. The ability to accomplish this cleaning andsterilizing task needs to be built into the live hold-ing system.

TEMPERATURE AND SALINITY CONTROL

As in the case of particulate removal or proteinskimming, you do not need to heat or chill 100% ofthe water with each pass through the system. Also,heating or chilling can run as a separate loop. Withproper attention to the efficient use of valving, youcan use the same pumps that power your filtrationsystem to drive holding water through a chiller orheater.

OXYGENATION

Two main types of hardware are used to aerate oroxygenate the holding water—blowers and compres-sors. Which method is better depends on the depthof the water in the holding system. This comes downto a question about air volume vs. air pressure. Thedesired results will dictate which equipment is bestto use.

Diffusers are a very important part of the oxygen-ation process. The smaller the bubbles placed in thetanks the better the exchange of oxygen moleculeswith the water. Many people carry oxygen tanksthat they get from welding companies on board theirboats or trucks. These live carriers bleed oxygenfrom the tanks through either diffusers or needlevalves into the main flow of water. With the addi-tion of metering and flow devices, it is possible tomonitor the amount of oxygen going into the water.

Figure 7 provides an example of a mechanical oxy-genator or aerator. There are also oxygen genera-tors on the market, which are air filters that sieveout the nitrogen molecules and the few carbon di-oxide molecules that are present in atmospheric air.Using this type of equipment, it is possible to pro-duce gas at the 92% oxygen level. One kilowatt hourof electric power will provide you with about one cubicmeter of oxygen.

STRIPPING TOWERS

Stripping towers, also known as packed towers, re-move carbon dioxide from the holding water. Tow-ers of this sort are typically only needed in staticsystems. If you are thinking about holding a good

amount of product for a long period of time, it willprobably be necessary to strip the carbon dioxideout of the system. As part of the normal respiratoryprocess, fish are removing oxygen from the waterand producing carbon dioxide.

A stripping tower should be placed after the biolog-ical filter and just before the treated water returnto the holding tank. The water going into the hold-ing tank will have less carbon dioxide in it. Thestripping tower will help maintain pH levels as well.

A stripping tower can operate under pressure orpassively, through gravity, in which case the watercomes in the top and goes out the bottom. Towerscan be provided with what are known as bioballsthat scatter and fragment water movement. Tow-ers can also have a fractionation plate in which theholding water blows against a flat surface or a coneto make the water spray. This will also help in theremoval of accumulated carbon dioxide.

POWER

You always need to have backup sources for all thepower systems in the proposed facility pneumatic,hydraulic, or electrical power provided by genera-tors, batteries, or the sun. Backup system must bekept ready for immediate use during times of emer-gency. If you do not have frequent need to use anyof your backup power systems, turn the backupequipment on once a month to make sure that themachinery is still in good working order. In terms ofseveral power systems, it is possible to purchaseautomatic switchover controls for immediate accessto backup power. Automatic switchover controls canalso start and stop backup generators automatical-ly each month to test the readiness of your system.

Figure 7. A mechanical oxygenator/aerator.


DISEASE CONTROL AND CROSS-CONTAMINATION PREVENTION

Cross-contamination can be a real problem in a liveholding facility. If you are in the process of design-ing a system with different live holding tanks fordifferent products transported from different loca-tions, you need to practice important prophylacticmeasures in order that you do not cross-contami-nate one tank with the contents from another tank.

If a pathogen, like a parasite or virus, has becomeembedded in one holding tank, whether it is in afilter or in the pipes supplying water to a tank, youmust ensure that it is not transferred to any othertank. The biological and financial consequences ofcross-contamination can be devastating. In additionto the partitioning of plumbing and other waterhandling components, attention must be given tothe development of handling protocols. For exam-ple, you cannot use a dip net in one tank and thenwalk over and use the same dip net in a differenttank. You need to make sure to clean and sanitizethat dip net first. Ideally, the dip net should be des-ignated for use only in a particular tank.

It is always a good idea to clean and give a sanitiz-ing dip to cage systems used to transport live fishor shrimp. Preventive measures should be used bothwhen the cages come into your plant and before theyare used again. Disease control is an imperativewhen dealing with live aquatic animals.

HELPFUL INFORMATION

Always have available basic spare parts for all com-ponents in your system, particularly for critical com-ponents. If you do not have an impeller or certaintype of seal sitting on the shelf, when a pump failsyou will not be able to immediately fix the item. Ifyou need that specific tank or series of tanks for

product holding, you are in trouble. Carefully main-tain an inventory of needed supplies so that youwill be able keep your facility in full operation andstay on top of problems.

When operating a live holding system, you havelegal, moral, and financial responsibilities to every-one and to yourself. If you think that there is thepotential for a human health hazard in your sys-tem, you need to address it. HACCP procedures(Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) provide avery convenient procedure for reviewing productquality and plant operation, and also for managinga live facility over the long term. Remember to keepgood records and log books. A paper trail is veryimportant to the successful operation of a business,especially when a problem occurs.

You need to know how your holding and transportsystem affects the price and marketability of yourrange of live products. The condition of the productupon arrival at the marketplace has everything todo with how much money you are going to make orlose in the transaction. There is no in between—if youare not making money, then you are losing money.

Finally, delayed stress syndrome is the culminationof various forms of stress that have impacted a prod-uct from time of harvest to the time it gets to themarket. This syndrome is an important cause of prod-uct mortality. Examine every possible way to decrease,if only slightly, each stress point along the way. Lookat each step in the transport chain and ask ques-tions such as: How can we handle the product less?How can we keep the rate of metabolism down? Howcan we keep the ammonia out of the system? Not onlywill a clear focus on stress reduction help the animalsthat pass through your live holding system, but willalso benefit your business clients. Customer satis-faction affects price and marketability and will goa long way to sustain your business enterprise.


PARTICIPANTS

Charles M. AdamsInstitute of Food and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaP.O. Box 110240Gainesville, Florida 32611-0240

Harry AkoCollege of Tropical Agriculture and Human ResourcesHonolulu, Hawaii

Arnt AmbleSINTEF Fisheries and AquacultureN-7465 [email protected]

Rich BaileyUniversity of HawaiiHonolulu, Hawaii

A. BattisonAtlantic Veterinary CollegeUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetown, Prince Edward IslandCanada C1A 4P3

Christopher BrownHawaii Institute of Marine BiologyKaneohe, Hawaii

R.J. CawthornAtlantic Veterinary CollegeUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetown, Prince Edward IslandCanada C1A 4P3

Jon ChaitonEmerald Partners355 Nottingham Dr.Marietta, Georgia [email protected]

Patrick S.W. ChanBrightfuture Industries Limited2/F, Kwun Ton Wholesale Fish Market10 Tung Yuen St.Yau TongKowloon, Hong [email protected]

John W. ChapmanDepartment of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityHatfield Marine Science CenterNewport, Oregon [email protected]

Eugene V. CoanCalifornia Academy of SciencesDepartment of Invertebrate ZoologySan Francisco, California 94118-4599

Brian ColeUniversity of HawaiiKaneohe, Hawaii

Stephen E. CrawfordInternational Marine Resources130 Water St.Eastport, Maine 04631

Angela R. DanfordUniversity of HullDepartment of Biological SciencesHull, U.K. HU6 [email protected]

Robert L. DegnerInstitute of Food and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaP.O. Box 110240Gainesville, Florida 32611-0240

John GarlandClearwater Fine Foods Inc.757 Bedford Hwy.Bedford, Nova ScotiaCanada B4A [email protected]

S. Gomez-JimenezCentro de Investigacion en Alimentacion y Desarrollo (CIAD)Apdo. Postal No. 1753C.P. 83000Hermosillo, [email protected]

J. GuignéGuigné International Limited685 St. Thomas LineParadise, NewfoundlandCanada A1L 1C1

Carol HarperDepartment of Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of Puerto RicoP.O. Box 9030Mayaguez, Puerto Rico [email protected]

Bill HarrowerFinfish Extension BiologistBritish Columbia Ministry of Fisheries2500 Cliffe AvenueCourtenay, British ColumbiaCanada V9N [email protected]

William A. HeathBritish Columbia Ministry of Fisheries2500 Cliffe Ave.Courtenay, British ColumbiaCanada V9N [email protected]

Per HeggelundAquaSeed Corporation4530 Union Bay Pl. NE # 100Seattle, Washington [email protected]

292 Participants

Paul HeimowitzOregon State University Extension Sea Grant200 Warner-Milne Rd.Oregon City, Oregon [email protected]

George IwamaProfessor, Faculty of Agricultural ScienceUniversity of British Columbia208-2357 Main MallVancouver, British ColumbiaCanada V6T [email protected]

Dorothee KieserDepartment of Fisheries and OceansPacific Biological StationNanaimo, British ColumbiaCanada V9R [email protected]

K. KleinGuigné International Limited685 St. Thomas LineParadise, NewfoundlandCanada A1L 1C1

Donald KramerUniversity of Alaska Marine Advisory Program2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.Anchorage, AK 99508-4140

Mick KronmanNational Fisherman MagazineP.O. Box 40214Santa Barbara, California [email protected]

John KubarykDepartment of Marine SciencesFood Science and Technology ProgramUniversity of Puerto RicoP.O. Box 9013Mayaguez, Puerto Rico [email protected]

Sherry L. Larkin,Institute of Food and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaP.O. Box 110240Gainesville, Florida [email protected]

Ian LawlerIrish Sea Fisheries BoardP.O. Box 12, Crofton RoadDublin, [email protected]

Bruce M. LeamanInternational Pacific Halibut CommissionP.O. Box 95009Seattle, Washington [email protected]

Donna J. Lee,Institute of Food and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaP.O. Box 110240Gainesville, Florida 32611-0240

Thomas LiuShanghai World Ocean Trading Co. Ltd.30 Gao An Rood # 103ShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China 200030

Q. LiuGuigné International Limited685 St. Thomas LineParadise, NewfoundlandCanada A1L 1C1

A. MacKenzieAtlantic Veterinary CollegeUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetown, Prince Edward IslandCanada C1A 4P3

R. MacMillanAtlantic Veterinary CollegeUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetown, Prince Edward IslandCanada C1A 4P3

Kim MauriksDorcas Point Farms Inc.1429 Dorcas Point Road,Nanoose Bay, British ColumbiaCanada V9P [email protected]

Todd W. MillerDepartment of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityHatfield Marine Science CenterNewport, Oregon [email protected]

J. Walter MilonInstitute of Food and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaP.O. Box 110240Gainesville, Florida 32611-0240

John G. NickumU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceP.O. Box 25486Denver, Colorado [email protected]

L.O. Noriega-OrozcoCIAD-Guaymas UnitP.O. Box 284 C.P. 85400Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico

Lucía Ocampo V.Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste (CIBNOR)P.O. Box 128La Paz, [email protected]

Paul G. OlinUniversity of California Sea Grant2604 Ventura AvenueSanta Rosa, California [email protected]


Annette M. OlsonSchool of Marine AffairsUniversity of WashingtonP.O. Box 355685Seattle, Washington [email protected]

Toril OveraaPB 596707 [email protected]

R. Pacheco-AguilarCentro de Investigacion en Alimentacion y Desarrollo (CIAD)Apdo. Postal No. 1753C.P. 83000Hermosillo, SonoraMexico

Christine PattisonCalifornia Department of Fish and GameOcean Fisheries Research213 Beach StreetMorro Bay, California [email protected]

Hans-Peder PedersenCapella TechnologiesEsteustadvien 1577049 [email protected]

D. RainnieAtlantic Veterinary CollegeUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetown, Prince Edward IslandCanada C1A 4P3

Bernard E. RollinDepartment of PhilosophyColorado State UniversityFort Collins, Colorado 80523-0015

Carlos RosasLab. De Biologia Marine ExperimentalUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoApdo. Post 69 Ciudad del CarmenCampeche, [email protected]

Yvonne SadovyDepartment of Ecology and BiodiversityUniversity of Hong KongPok Fu Lam RoadHong Kong, [email protected]

David J. ScarrattHatchery International2695 Highway 201, RR #3Bridgetown, Nova ScotiaCanada B0S [email protected]

John SeccombeAquahort Ltd.52 Maraetai Heights RoadMaraetai Beach 1705Auckland, New [email protected]

Charlie StephensKamilche Sea FarmsSE 2741 Bloomfield RoadShelton, Washington [email protected]

Clyde S. TamaruHawaii Sea Grant College ProgramUniversity of Hawaii2525 Correa Road, HIG 205Honolulu, Hawaii [email protected]

Barry ThoeleLive AquaticsRoute 1, Box 240Staples, Minnesota [email protected]

Thea ThomasP.O. Box 1566Cordova, Alaska [email protected]

Hugh ThomfordeUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffLonoke Agriculture CenterP.O. Box 357Lonoke, Arkansas [email protected]

R.F. UglowDept of Biological SciencesUniversity of HullHull, U.K. [email protected]

Craig A. WatsonTropical Aquaculture LaboratoryUniversity of Florida1408 24th Street S.E.Ruskin, Florida [email protected]


INDEX

AA New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield, Using

Advances in Acoustic Probing, 267-270AALAC. See American Association for Accreditation of

Laboratory Animal Careabalone. See also California; shellfish

culture in California, 179, 259exports to Hong Kong, 194, 198, 221

acoustic probingA New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield,

Using Advances in Acoustic Probing, 267-270description, 268-270

Adams, Charles M., 63adrenaline, relation to stress, 20aeration. See also oxygen; water quality

at-sea holding tank, 146in baitfish tank, 141in-plant, 217-218

Aerococcus viridans, 10aesthetics

handler considerations, 109marketplace considerations, 102, 103

agriculture. See also aquacultureanimal rights and, 36-37

air bladderdeflation, 163grouper, 57-58rupture of, 46, 50venting, 146air pressure, effect on captive fish, 195air transport. See also emersion effects; transportin general, 10, 59-60, 73-74

for SE Asia market, 196-198, 202IATA standards, 61for kelp, 101, 102for lobster, 57for ornamentals, 73-74, 87, 88, 93stress effects, 39

Ako, Harry, 73Alaska. See also British Columbia; Canada

halibut fishery, 180Handling and Shipping of Live Northeast Pacific Scallops:

Larvae to Adults, 111-124Norton Sound, 99paralytic shellfish poisoning, 227, 229Prince William Sound, 99Shipping and Handling the Marine Algae Macrocystis

in Alaska, 99-103algae. See also algal blooms; plants; seaweed

aquaculture, 90as bivalve food, 105invasive, Caulerpa taxifolia, 258in ponds, 128Shipping and Handling the Marine Algae Macrocystis

in Alaska, 99-103toxic algae testing costs, 106

algal blooms, in farms, 161

Amble, Arnt, 45American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal

Care (AALAC), 43American Quarter Horse Association, 35Ammolock, 91ammonia. See also biofilter; carbon dioxide; nitrate

discussed, 3, 10, 91, 142pH levels and, 58in recirculation system, 52relation to oxygen consumption, 24, 81zeolite use, 80, 133-134, 138

ammonia efflux. See also wasteAtlantic cod, 50as indicator of stress, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12-13, 14-15, 28scallops, 108shrimp, 133, 136-137

An Overview of Irish Live Crustacean Fisheries, 207-213anesthetic. See also clove oil; sedatives

clove oil, 61local, 28for reef fish, 197for shrimp, 134-135, 136

anemonesFlorida harvest, 63Florida live harvest, 67

angelfish, Florida live harvest, 66Animal Ethics and the Live Aquatic Animal Trade, 35-44Animal Liberation (Singer), 36animal rights

Animal Ethics and the Live Aquatic Animal Trade, 35-44Animal Rights Advocacy, Public Perception, and

the Trade in Live Animals, 27-33anti-cruelty ethic, 36-37corporate response to, 41livestock showing industry, 42New Zealand, 60public perceptions of, 36

Animal Rights Advocacy, Public Perception, and the Tradein Live Animals, 27-33

animal rights organizations (AROs), 29animal testing, 35Animal Welfare Act, 42antibiotics. See also bacteria; disease

cautions with, 80aquaculture industry. See also farming; mariculture

British Columbia, import of fish for, 174-175China, 203crab, 194Impact of the Green Crab on the Washington State

Shell fish Aquaculture Industry, 263-266Japan, 114list of suppliers, 84-86prawns, 194reef fish, grouper, 184releases into environment, 249, 252-253

Aquaculture Regulations (Canada), 171aquarium market, 61, 87. See also ornamental fisheryAquaSeed Corporation, overview, 231-232Aquatic Farm Act of 1988, 112Aristotle, 37AROs. See animal rights organizations

296 Index

Ascophyllum nodosum scorpioides, Live Rockweed ( Ascophyl-lum) used as a Shipping Medium for the Live Trans-port of Marine Baitworms from Maine, 95-97

Asia. See also China; Hong Kong; specific countrieslobster imports, 57ornamental production, 89pond techniques, 128

Asia boxes, 76Asian Americans

animal rights issues, 27-33, 41demand for product, 165

Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), 260Asian clam (Potamocorbula amurensis), 258Asian copepod (Pseudodiaptomus inopinus), 260Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus opsarichthydis), 259Atlantic cod. See also cod

aquaculture, 177Atlantic jackknife (Ensis directus), 252Atlantic salmon. See also salmon

escape from farms, 259Audubon Society, 30Australia. See also New Zealandanimal rights activism, 35exports to SE Asia, 194, 201, 202, 221, 223holding and transport facilities, 60import restrictions, 234live reef fish imports, 183lobster exports, 193

Austropotamobius pallipes, emersion effects, 14

BBaby Fay incident, 36bacteria. See also disease; pathogens

in biofilter, 146fish vulnerability to, 146immunity to antibiotics, 80Nitrobacter, 285Nitrosomonas, 285UV control of, 53, 54-55, 288Vibrio contamination, 218, 224, 229-230, 259, 289

bag limits, for live ornamentals, 70Bailey, Rich, 73baitfish industry, 79-80

disposal concerns, 96, 143, 249invertebrates, 125Keeping Baitfish Alive and Healthy in Holding Tanks:

Tips for Retail Outlets, 141-143Live Rockweed ( Ascophyllum) used as a Shipping Medi-

um for the Live Transport of Marine Baitwormsfrom Maine, 95-97

non-target species in packing material, 245-246ballast water. See also disease; pathogens

organisms in, 244, 249, 252, 259Barton, Dr. Bruce, 20bass, as introduced species, 258Battison, A., 267Bay of Fundy, lobster, 51Baynes Sound, 114bead filter. See also biofilter; filtering

cleaning, 287-288discussed, 286-288preconditioning, 287

bear hunting, 35Beijing Blue Water, 221Belgium, imports, 106Billingsgate Market, 52BIM. See Bord Iascaigh Mharabioassay, fish imports for, 174biocontrol, 244biofilter. See also filtering

ammonia removal, 52, 54, 197at-sea system, 146, 147conditioning, 56operation, 285-286as system component, 54, 58

biotechnology, and ethics 39-40biotower filter, 288. See also filteringbiotoxin monitoring. See also disease

scallop fishery, 113black market

China, 201, 203, 221, 222in live ornamentals, 70live reef fish, 189

black rockfish, 167Black Sea, alien invertebrates in, 96blackcod. See also cod

import into British Columbia, 175blood glucose

relation to cortisol, 20-21stress indicators, 28temperature-dependence, 12

blood lactate, during emersion, 12, 14blood protein levels, during emersion, 12, 15blood urate levels, during emersion, 12, 14bloodworm, 128. See also Glycera dibranchiatablue cod. See also cod

live handling, 57, 60blue crab (Callinectes sp.). See also Callinectes sapidus

air exposure and dehydration effects, 5-6animal interactions and handling, 4characteristics, 2mortality reduction, 150Physiological Responses of Blue Crabs (Callinectes sp.)

to Procedures Used in the Soft Crab Fishery inLa Laguna de Terminos, Mexico, 1-8

responses to stress, 1-8water quality and salinity effects, 4-5

blue rockfish, 167, 168. See also rockfishblueprints, for commercial facility, 218Bodega Bay. See also California

rockfish landings, 167The Body Shop, 35Bohr-Root effect, 133bolina rockfish, 167, 168Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM), 210Borneo, 90boxes

Asia boxes, 76Florida boxes, 75-76Hawaii boxes, 76for shipping, 75

boycotts, 30, 31, 38-39Brett, Dr. Roland, 19


brill, 60British Columbia. See also Alaska; Canada

green crab introduction, 266Handling and Shipping of Live Northeast Pacific

Scallops: Larvae to Adults, 111-124Opportunity or Threat? Implications of the Live Halibut

Fishery in British Columbia from the HarvesterPerspective, 151-153

Patinopecten yessoensis culture, 114-115Resource Management and Environmental Issues

Concerning Live Halibut Landings, 155-157salmon transport, 20Shipping Live Fish into British Columbia, Canada:

Basic Regulatory Requirements, 171-176aquaculture, 174-175bioassays and research, 174ornamental trade, 172-174

Sterling Pacific Halibut: A New Approach, 159-162brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). See also trout

hybridization, 259Brown, Christopher, 73brown crab (Cancer pagurus). See also crab

holding and transport, 1Irish landings, 207

French nicking method, 209marketing, 272, 276nitrogen metabolism, 10species profile, 207-210

bull trout, hybridization, 259bullfight, 41business plan, for commercial facility, 216-217butterflyfish, 70

Ccabezon. See also rockfish

California fishery, 164, 167, 168calcium hydroxide, 135California. See also San Francisco

AB 1241 (Keeley), 165abalone culture, 179animal rights controversy, 30-31, 38-39at-sea holding systems, 145-150commercial nearshore fishery, 165-168exotic introductions, 95, 96, 97, 252, 258, 260, 263, 265Fish and Game Commission, 30, 31green crab introduction, 263, 265groundfish industry regulations, 169herring sac roe fishery, 100horse slaughter legislation, 35ornamental production, 89Resource Management Issues in California’s Commercial

Nearshore Live/Premium Finfish Fishery,163-170

rockfish fishery, 148-149, 163-170, 180closed periods, 168-169

SB 1336 (Thompson), 165scallop culture, 113wild animal harvesting, 31

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 163, 169California Fish and Game Commission, 163California scorpionfish, 164, 167California sheephead, 146, 164, 167

Callinectes danae, 1, 2Callinectes rathbunae, 1, 2Callinectes sapidus. See also blue crab

Mexican fishery, 2oxygen consumption during emersion, 10United States fishery, 2

Cambodia, exports to SE Asia, 194Campbell’s Soup, 231-232Canada. See also Alaska; British Columbia

A New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield,Using Advances in Acoustic Probing, 267-270

animal rights activism, 35bear hunting, 35eastern, Short-Term Holding and Live Transport

of Aquatic Animals: An Overview of Problemsand Some Historic Solutions, 51-56

exportsto Hong Kong, 194to SE Asia, 221

HACCP integration, 228Canadian Quality Management Plan, 228Regulatory Action Points Plan (RAPP), 228

halibut quota, 153Handling and Shipping of Live Northeast Pacific

Scallops: Larvae to Adults, 111-124import restrictions, 234imports

from US, 64quarantine requirements, 174

Lacey Act application to, 242mussel storage, 54Shipping Live Fish into British Columbia, Canada:

Basic Regulatory Requirements, 171-176Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), 171Canadian Quality Management Plan (CQMP), 228Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP), 115, 116Carassius auratus, transport, 80carbon dioxide. See also ammonia; oxygen

accumulation, 54, 55-56, 82, 108shrimp, 133, 134

scavenging, 135, 138stripping towers, 289

Caribbean, exports to US, 64carp (Cyprinus carpio)

environmental impacts, 258, 259ponds, 239temperature requirements, 92transport, 39

catch and release program, 39catfish pond, 239cattle industry, 37, 39, 43, 139

castration, 43-44inspection and safety, 228

Caulerpa taxifolia, 258Cawthorn, R.J., 267CDC. See Centers for Disease ControlCDFG. See California Department of Fish and GameCenters for Disease Control (CDC), 230CFIA. See Canadian Food Inspection AgencyChaiton, John, 215, 238, 283chalky fish syndrome. See also disease; parasites

halibut, 178-179

298 Index

Chan, Patrick, 193, 201, 216Chaoborus sp., harvesting and culture, 126, 129Chapman, John W., 249char, importation into British Columbia, 172Cheilinus undulatus. See wrasseChesapeake Bay

Callinectes sapidus fishery, 2invertebrate co-shipment, 96

chicken industry, 37Chile

exports to, 153, 234HACCP implementation, 228

China, 129. See also Hong Kong; TaiwanAn Insight into the Shanghai Market for Imported Live

Seafood, 221-225how to import live seafood, 222-223market chain, 223profit, 223-225

Beijing Blue Water, 221exports to Hong Kong, 194fish export ban, 189imports

Beijing, 203live reef fish, 183, 188, 201, 203-204port of Yantian, 203, 222Sha Tau Kok, 203Shanghai, 203Shekou entry point, 203tax rates, 203

Liaoning Pelagic Fisheries, 221Marketing Aspects of the Live Seafood Trade in Hong

Kong and the People’s Republic of China,193-199

Shanghai Fisheries General, 221China rockfish, 167Chinatown. See also Asian Americans; San Franciscoanimal rights controversy, 27-33Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, 31Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), exotic introduction,

253, 254, 259, 260chironomids, harvesting and culture, 126chiton, blood chemistry, 133Chlamys rubida, background, 112-113chlorine, 79-80. See also water qualitychlorine dip, to prevent pathogens, 264cholera, 199CIBNOR, Experimental Shrimp Farm, 23ciguatera. See also disease

in live reef fish, 183, 184, 185-188, 190-191ciliates, 10CITES. See Convention of International Trade in Endangered

Speciesclams

British Columbia import regulations, 175import into British Columbia, 172introduced, 253

Clayoquot Sound, 114Clean Water Act, 253

cleansing. See also filteringin-plant sanitation, 218, 228for infection prevention, 142, 264, 290shellfish, 116water and system sterilizers, 288-289

Clearwater Fine Foods, 267Clearwater Lobsters, 10, 55Clearwater Seafoods, 52clove oil. See also anesthetics

as anesthetic, 135, 136clown fish, culture and harvest, 63clown loach. See also ornamental fisherieshandling steps, 90-92

Coan, Eugene V., 249cod

aquaculture, 177California fishery, 167Holding Tank System for Reconditioning Transport

of Live Cod Recently Captured in Deep Water,45-50

live handling, 57Cohen, Dr. Andy, 96coho salmon. See also salmonaquaculture, 231-232

Cole, Brian, 73Colorado

animal research, 39, 40fishery, 39steel-jawed trap, 35

Columbia, ornamental production, 89Columbia River Steamship Operators Association, 254comb jelly, depredations, 96concrete, for commercial facility, 219Congiopodus leucopaecilus, live handling, 57Constraints to Shipping Live Product: Lessons from the

AquaSeed Corporation Experience, 231-235The Construction of a Commercial Live Seafood Transship-

ment Facility: Review of General Specifications, 215-219

Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species(CITES), 171

copper rockfish, 167. See also rockfishcoral trout (Plectropomus leopardus). See also reef fishharvest, 185, 193, 204, 205cordgrass (Spartina sp.). See also plantsnon-native establishment, 258cortisol

in egg, 21-22relation to stress, 20, 28, 49

Corydoras sp.pH requirements, 91transport, 80

Costa Rica, ornamental production, 89CQMP. See Canadian Quality Management Plancrab

crab shedding system, 149-150cultured, 194dismemberment, 39export to SE Asia, 194, 221Florida live harvest, 63, 66-67import into British Columbia, 172introduced species, 253


Crangon crangon, stress-induced changes in, 4Crassadoma gigantea. See also scallopbackground, 113-114Crassostrea gigas. See oystersCrawford, Stephen E., 95crayfish (Palinurus elephas). See also lobster

emersion effects, 14, 133exports to SE Asia, 193-194Ireland, 207Irish landings, 207species profile, 212-213

crested wheat grass, 241cross-tolerance. See also stress

cold shock, 22heat shock, 21

crustaceans. See also shellfishAn Overview of Irish Live Crustacean Fisheries, 207-213British Columbia import regulations, 175carbon dioxide levels, 55-56

CSSP. See Canadian Shellfish Sanitation ProgramCuba, exports to SE Asia, 194curio market, compared to live market, 70customs broker, 121cyanide, use in reef fishery, 183, 184, 188, 190, 191Czech Republic, ornamental production, 89

Ddamselfish, Florida live harvest, 66Danford, Angela, 1, 9, 54Daphnia sp., harvesting and culture, 125, 128Deep Cove Fisheries, 57, 58, 61Degner, Robert L., 63diatoms, 245dinoflagellates, 259discus fish, temperature requirements, 92disease. See also antibiotics; bacteria; biotoxin monitoring;

ciguatera; invertebrates; parasitesat growout, 114chalky fish syndrome, 178-179infectious salmon anemia, 234paralytic shellfish poisoning, 227, 229potential for, 215, 229prevention procedures, 216, 264, 290Pseudomonas, 218testing for, 233

lethal testing, 233-234unintentional release of, 171-172Vibrio, 218, 229-230, 234, 289

diving beetle, 127Dixon Entrance, 112Do Live Marine Products Serve as Pathways for the Introduc-

tion of Nonindigenous Species?, 243-247dog. See also animal rights

laboratory, 40, 41-42domestic animals. See also animal rights

“Bill of Rights” for, 35as companion animals, 36

Dorcas Point Farms, 177dragonfly nymph, 127Drouin, Hélène, 54, 55

Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). See also crabharvest for SE Asia, 194, 223

Eeducation. See also research

for handlers, 106importance of, 109, 246

eel, export to Hong Kong, 194Effect of Long-Haul International Transport on Lobster

Hemolymph Constituents and Nitrogen Metabolism,9-18

electrical supply, for commercial facility, 218-219, 289emersion effects

Callinectes sp., 5-6Homarus americanus, 12-15

enforcementHACCP, 229Lacey Act, 233in live trade, 179-180recreational harvesting, 71

Entobdella hippoglossi. See also halibut; parasiteseffect on halibut, 160-161

environment. See also sustainabilityconsiderations about, 109, 171, 229ecosystem considerations, 238-241habitat alteration, 257-258live animal trade effect on, 31Live Seafood: A Recipe for Biological and Regulatory

Concern?, 249-256Resource Management and Environmental Issues

Concerning Live Halibut Landings, 155-157Review of Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species: What’s

at Risk?, 257-261Shipping Live Aquatic Products: Biological, Regulatory,

and Environmental Considerations, 237-242Epinephelus

coioides, harvest, 184malabaricus, harvest, 184

ethicsanti-cruelty ethic, 36-37biotechnology and, 39-40handler considerations, 109

Eureka, rockfish landings, 167Europe. See also specific countries

animal rights activism, 35lobster imports, 57North American shipments to, 53Norway bivalve exports to, 105ornamental production, 89

exotic species, Review of Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species:What’s at Risk?, 257-261

Ffacilities

The Construction of a Commercial Live SeafoodTransshipment Facility: Review of GeneralSpecifications, 215-219

planning for, 217

300 Index

Farfantepenaeus californiensis, Critical Oxygen Point in Yel-lowleg Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus californiensis): A Po-tential Species for the Live Seafood Trade, 23-25

farming, 61. See also aquaculture industryamphipods, 125based on fleet-harvested fish, 45-46live ornamentals, 88, 90mariculture, 92pen rearing as, 177scallops, 106, 111-112

fathead minnow, 141FDA. See Food and Drug Administrationfeeding

additives and supplements, 229effect on water quality, 177live fish, 60recommendations against, 142, 197relation to recovery, 133, 135in transport, 50, 78, 198

FHPR. See Fish Health Protection RegulationsFiji, reef fishery, 183, 184, 194filtering. See also biofilter; cleansing; water quality

at-sea holding tank, 146bead filters, 286-288biofilters, 285-286biotower filter, 288in general, 284granular filter, 285mechanical filter, 284-285protein skimmer, 56, 285tube settler filter, 285water and system sterilizers, 288-289

fishBritish Columbia import regulations, 175observing, 59pain affecting, 28, 31, 39, 42Physiological Stress Response in Fish, 19-22stress

cellular stress response, 21confinement stress, 21cross-tolerance, 21field measurement, 21generalized stress response, 19-20measuring responses, 20-21measuring responses primary, secondary, tertiary

responses, 20sensitivity, 39

fish food, 125. See also feedingFish Health Protection Regulations (FHPR) (British Colum-

bia), 174Fish Inspection Act (Canada), 171Fisheries Act (Canada), 171fishing, catch and release program, 39fishing industry. See also animal rights

attitude toward product, 52proactive role for, 39-40, 60, 61public perception of, 30, 31-32, 39

fishing vesselCalifornia rockfish fishery, 148-149, 165-166halibut fishery, 159Irish fishery, 207-208, 211, 212live transport by, 194-196

flatworm, 114, 259predation by, 120

Florida. See also ornamental fisheriesanimal rights activism, 42-43commercial collection in, 65-68

saltwater products license, 67-68exports to SE Asia, 194live organism harvesting, 63

angelfish, 66damselfish, 66surgeonfish, 66

live ornamentalsDe Soto County, 88in general, 63-71, 87-89Hillsborough County, 88, 89stock status, 70

spiny lobster farming, 180Florida boxes, 75-76Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 63Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 65Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI), 65Florida Sea Grant College Program, 63Florida’s Ornamental Marine Life Industry, 63-71flounder

live handling, 57live transport, 49

flow charts, 217Floyd, Ruth, 91Flynn, Sheridan, 55FMRI. See Florida Marine Research Institutefood chain, exotic species in, 258Food and Drug Act, Delaney Clause, 234Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 228Fort Bragg. See also California

rockfish landings, 167France. See also Europe

imports from UK, 209, 210, 213scallop imports, 106

freshwater clam (Corbicula fluminea). See also clamcosts, 253

freshwater dip. See also diseasefor regurgitation and parasite removal, 216

freshwater species, The Harvest and Culture of Live Freshwa-ter Aquatic Invertebrates, 125-129

fucus. See also packing material; seaweedas packing material, 245

furanace, 80

Ggaffkemia. See Aerococcus viridansGammarus sp., harvest and culture, 125-129Garland, John, 9gas bladder. See air bladderGaskel, George, 39geoduck

exports to Hong Kong/China, 194, 221, 223, 225import into British Columbia, 172, 175

giant grouper (Epinephelus lanceolatus). See also grouperharvest for SE Asia trade, 184, 185, 189-190

gluconeogenesis, 20


Glycera dibranchiata, Live Rockweed ( Ascophyllum) usedas a Shipping Medium for the Live Transport ofMarine Baitworms from Maine, 95-97

glycogenolysis, 20golden shiner, 141goldfish, 141Gomez-Jimenez, S., 271Goodall, Jane, 36gopher rockfish, 168gorgonians, Florida live harvest, 67grass rockfish, 167, 168. See also rockfishGreat Lakes, zebra mussel introduction, 96green crab (Carcinus maenas). See also crab

dessication, 14Impact of the Green Crab on the Washington State

Shellfish Aquaculture Industry, 263-266as introduced species, 96, 253, 259metabolism during emersion, 10preventing spread of, 263-265

greenlings, 164, 167groundfish industry regulations. See also rockfish

California, 169grouper. See also specific species

air bladder problems, 57-58harvest for SE Asia trade, 184-185, 193, 196, 204live handling, 57-58

growout. See also aquaculture; farmingreef fishery, 184

Guigné International Limited, 267Guigné, J., 267Gulf Coast. See also Florida; Mexico

Callinectes sapidus fishery, 2Gulf Stream, 105

Hhabitat alteration, 257-258. See also environmentHACCP. See Hazard Analysis Critical Control Pointhairy crab. See also crab

harvest for SE Asia, 194Haiti, exports to US, 64halibut. See also halibut fishery

live vs. fresh price, 145Opportunity or Threat? Implications of the Live Halibut


otolith samples, 155, 157Resource Management and Environmental Issues Con-

cerning Live Halibut Landings, 155-157Sterling Pacific Halibut: A New Approach, 159-162

halibut fisheryaquaculture, 177, 180background, 155chalky fish syndrome, 178-179feeding, 160-161fishing practices, 155-156, 159-160harvesting, 161holding practices, 156-157, 177-178international management, 157offloading procedure, 160regulatory issues, 157

Halifax, 9Sea Hive Corporation, 52

handlingavoiding touching fish, 146-147by buyer, 196general recommendations, 146-147Live Fish Handling Strategies from Boat to Retail

Establishment, 57-61lobster, compared to fish, 58-59scallops, quality control and mortality, 108stress-induced changes, 4, 9, 14-15

Haribon Foundation, 190Harper, Carol, 131The Harvest and Culture of Live Freshwater Aquatic

Invertebrates, 125-129Hawaii

ornamental production, 89Shipping Practices in the Ornamental Fish Industry,

73-86Hawaii boxes, 76hazard analysis. See also safety

The National Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical ControlPoint Program and the Live Seafood Industry,227-230

Using HACCP Principles and Physiological Studiesto Improve Marketing Practices for Live Crusta-ceans, 271-282

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), 231, 238,243, 290

overview, 139, 145, 227-228heat shock, to reduce subsequent stress, 21heat shock protein (HSP). See also temperature

relation to stress, 21Heath, William A., 111Heggelund, Per, 231, 238, 240, 241Heimowitz, Paul, 257hemolymph constituents

Effect of Long-Haul International Transport onLobster Hemolymph Constituents and NitrogenMetabolism, 9-18

hemolymph changes, 12, 14-15hermit crab. See also crab

Florida live harvest, 67predation by, 258

herringsac roe fishery, 100, 103spawn-on-kelp fishery, 99-103

prices, 102Hexagrammos. See greenlingshigh-finned grouper (Cromileptes altivelis). See also grouper

harvest for SE Asia trade, 184, 193Hippoglossus stenolepis. See halibutHOBO Temperature Logger, 11holding. See also transport

Keeping Baitfish Alive and Healthy in Holding Tanks:Tips for Retail Outlets, 141-143

Live Seafood Holding Systems: Review of Systems andComponents, 283-290

filtering, 284-285holding tanks, 283-284shipping containers, 283water pumps, 284

302 Index

holding (continued)lobster, small-scale land-based, 53-54mussels, 54Short-Term Holding and Live Transport of Aquatic Animals:

An Overview of Problems and Some HistoricSolutions, 51-56

What’s New in Live Fish and Shellfish At-Sea HoldingSystems: High Tech and Low Tech, 145-150

holding tank. See also pens; pound; reconditioningat-sea, 145-150, 194-196construction features, 58discussed, 283-284disease transmission from, 156-157disinfection, 142fish densities in, 45, 46-48, 76-78, 80, 142, 148

reef fish, 195-196Holding Tank System for Reconditioning Transport

of Live Cod Recently Captured in Deep Water,45-50

mortality, 156-157round vs. square, 49, 146, 147, 283use with pens, 147

Homarus americanus. See lobsterHong Kong. See also China

import formalities, 198-199imports, 60

crabs, 194live reef fish, 193lobster, 193-194mantis prawns, 194prawns, 194shellfish, 194

Live Reef Food Fish Trade in Hong Kong: Problemsand Prospects, 183-192

composition and value of trade, 184-185impact on fish stocks, 188-190payment and trading rules, 202-203problems and prospects, 190-191re-export to PRC, 203-204relationships among importers, wholesalers,

restaurants, 201-202species preferences, 204trade profile, 183-184, 201, 238

Marketing Aspects of the Live Seafood Trade inHong Kong and the People’s Republic of China,

193-199ornamental production, 89Wholesale and Retail Marketing Aspects of the Hong

Kong Live Seafood Business, 201-205The Horse Whisperer, 36HSP. See heat shock proteinHSP-70, 21Hull, U.K., air transport of lobster, 9-18Humboldt Bay, 264humidity, during emersion, 14, 51, 53humphead wrasse, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184, 185, 189-

190, 193Hyalella azteca, harvest and culture, 125-129Hydrilla, 259hyperglycemia, during emersion, 11, 15

IIATA standards, air transport, 61“ice boat,” 126-129Iceland, exports to, 153ignorance, arguments from, 241IMA. See International Marinelife Allianceimmune system, stress effects on, 20Impact of the Green Crab on the Washington State Shellfish

Aquaculture Industry, 263-266India

exports to SE Asia, 194ornamental production, 89

Indonesia. See also Asiaexports to SE Asia, 194, 202, 221exports to US, 64ornamental production, 89reef fishery, 184

Industrial Research Assistance Program (Canada), 267infectious salmon anemia (ISA), 234. See also diseaseInfofish International, 227, 228International Marinelife Alliance (IMA), 190International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), 151, 155international shipments, scallops, paperwork requirements,

121Internet, 30Invasive Species Council, 253invertebrates. See also disease; parasites

damage to kelp by, 100harvest as ornamentals, 65, 68, 69The Harvest and Culture of Live Freshwater Aquatic

Invertebrates, 125-129pain experienced by, 42

animal rights activism, 32removal

from bivalves, 116from fish, 159

unintentional transport and release, 95-97, 171, 245investment, 106IPHC. See International Pacific Halibut CommissionIreland. See also Europe; United Kingdom

An Overview of Irish Live Crustacean Fisheries, 207-213HACCP implementation, 228

Island Scallops Ltd., 114Italy. See also Europe

imports, 106Iwama, George, 19

Jjack, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184Japan. See also Asia

exports to Hong Kong, 194Optimizing Waterless Shipping Conditions for Macro-

brachium rosenbergii, 131-139Patinopecten (Mizuhopecten) yessoensis, 114-115US exports to, 64, 234

spawn-on-kelp market, 99-103Jasus edwardsii, emersion effects, 15


Kkanamycin, 80Karl Wilhelm, 47Keeping Baitfish Alive and Healthy in Holding Tanks:

Tips for Retail Outlets, 141-143kelp greenling, 167Kieser, Dorothee, 171Kiribati, exports to SE Asia, 194Klein, K., 267koi carp. See also carp

temperature requirements, 92Kolbe, Ed, 55Korea. See also Asia

exports to Hong Kong, 194Kramer, Donald, 227, 231Kronman, Mick, 145Kubaryk, John, 131

LLacey Act, 231, 253. See also regulation

interpretation, 237, 238, 240, 241-242review of, 232

lake trout. See also troutdepredations on, 258

Laminaria, 99, 102Larkin, Sherry, 63, 90Lawler, Ian, 207Leaman, Bruce, 151, 155, 177Lee, Donna J., 63Lee, Dr. Phillip, 286Levenes’ test, 11light, in fish handling, 92, 93Lilliefor’s test, 11lingcod, 167, 168. See also codLitopenaeus vannamei postlarvae, temperature and Pcr corre-

lation, 24Littorina saxatilis, 96Liu, Q., 267Liu, Thomas, 221Live Ornamental Fish (LOF) code (HTS 030110), 63Live Reef Food Fish Trade in Hong Kong: Problems and Pros-

pects, 183-192live rock. See also Florida

culture and harvest, 63discussed, 90Florida live harvest, 66, 67regulations, 65

live sanddiscussed, 90Florida live harvest, 67regulations, 65

Live Seafood: A Recipe for Biological and Regulatory Con-cern?, 249-256

Live Seafood Holding Systems: Review of Systems and Com-ponents, 283-290

live transport. See also transportvs. processing, 109

livestock showing industry, 42

Lo Shu Pan, 204lobster crate, 51lobster (Homarus gammarus). See also crayfish; spiny lobster

(Panulirus interruptus)A New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield,

Using Advances in Acoustic Probing, 267-270animal rights concerns, 39, 40Effect of Long-Haul International Transport on

Lobster Hemolymph Constituents and NitrogenMetabolism, 9-18

exports to SE Asia, 193, 197-198, 202, 221handling, compared to fish, 58-59holding systems, 52

biofiltration for, 147-148small-scale land-based, 53-54

Irish landings, 207V-notching of female lobster, 210

quality control, 61Short-Term Holding and Live Transport of Aquatic Animals:


species profile, 210transport, 39, 52-53

Lobster Science Center, 267Long Island Sound, lobster fishery, 267Lutjanus argentimaculatus, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184

MMcCleese, Dr. Don, 55McIntyre Bay, 112MacKenzie, A., 267MacMillan, R., 267Macrobrachium rosenbergii, Optimizing Waterless Shipping

Conditions for Macrobrachium rosenbergii, 131-139Macrocystis. See also seaweed

Shipping and Handling the Marine Algae Macrocystis inAlaska, 99-103

Maine. See also lobsterLive Rockweed ( Ascophyllum) used as a Shipping Medi-

um for the Live Transport of Marine Baitwormsfrom Maine, 95-97, 245-246

zebra mussel certificate, 233Maine Department of Marine Resources, 97Malaysia

exports to Hong Kong, 194, 201, 202fish export ban, 189live reef fish imports, 183ornamental production, 89

Maldivesexports to SE Asia, 194, 201, 202reef fish exports, 184

management, Resource Management Issues in California’sCommercial Nearshore Live/Premium Finfish Fishery,

163-170Manila clam. See also clam

introduction, 263mantis prawns. See also prawns

harvest for SE Asia trade, 194, 198Mao Zhedong, 221marbled grouper (Epinephelus polyphekadion). See also grou-

perharvest for SE Asia trade, 184

304 Index

mariculture. See also aquaculture industry; farmingChina, 225farming, 92oysters, 207

Marine Information System, 65Marine Life Management Act of 1998 (MLMA), 163marketing, 106, 152, 217, 219

in general, 60Using HACCP Principles and Physiological Studies

to Improve Marketing Practices for LiveCrustaceans, 271-282

Marketing Aspects of the Live Seafood Trade in Hong Kongand the People’s Republic of China, 193-199

Marshall Islandsexports to SE Asia, 194reef fishery, 184

Mauriks, Kim, 151, 177, 216mayfly nymph, 127media, 41, 42Mediterranean, exotic algae introduction, 258metabolism. See also nitrogen metabolism

effect on of handling stress, 4relation to oxygen capacity and temperature, 24, 56temperature effects on, 195

Mexicoblue crab (Callinectes sp.) fishery

Ciudad Del Carmen, Campeche fishery, 2responses to stress, 1-8

Critical Oxygen Point in Yellowleg Shrimp (Farfantepenae-us californiensis): A Potential Species for the LiveSeafood Trade, 23-25

exports to China, 221exports to SE Asia, 194ornamental production, 89Using HACCP Principles and Physiological Studies to

Improve Marketing Practices for Live Crustaceans,271-282

MFV Peadair Elaine, 208Miller, Todd W., 249Milon, J. Walter, 63Minnesota, 241

The Harvest and Culture of Live Freshwater AquaticInvertebrates, 125-129

MLMA. Marine Life Management Act of 1998Moina, 128mollusks. See also shellfish

British Columbia import regulations, 175monitoring

A New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield,Using Advances in Acoustic Probing, 267-270

biotoxin monitoring, 113monk fish, live handling, 57, 60, 61Monterey Bay. See also California

rockfish landings, 167Monterey Bay Aquarium, 30Morro Bay. See also California

rockfish fishery, 165, 167, 168Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 29MS-222. See tricane methane sulfonatemud crab. See also crab

harvest for SE Asia, 194

mudflats, cordgrass invasion, 258mussels. See also shellfish

holding and transport, 54import into British Columbia, 172Norway, 105shipment procedure, 53, 54

Myanmar, exports to SE Asia, 194Mytilus trossulus, introductions, 252Myxobolus cerebralis, 259

NNapoleon, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184National Cattlemen’s Association, 35National Institutes of Health, 35, 43National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 169National Science Foundation (NSF), 227National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), 54, 115, 116The National Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

Program and the Live Seafood Industry, 227-230Nature, 39Nearshore Fisheries Management Act of 1998 (NFMA), 163Nereis virens, Live Rockweed ( Ascophyllum) used as a Ship-

ping Medium for the Live Transport of Marine Bait-worms from Maine, 95-97

net, stress effect on fish, 20New York, crayfish culture, 133New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,

38New York Times, 35New Zealand. See also Australia

animal rights activism, 35“Code of Compliance for Export,” 58exports to SE Asia, 194, 221, 223import restrictions, 234lobster exports, 57

NFMA. See Nearshore Fisheries Management Act of 1998Nickum, John G., 237nitrate. See also ammonia

denitrification, 286toxic accumulations, 58

Nitrobacter, 285nitrogen

as anesthetic, 134-135, 136biofilter function and, 285-286

nitrogen metabolism. See also ammonia; metabolismEffect of Long-Haul International Transport on Lobster

Hemolymph Constituents and Nitrogen Metabolism,9-18

Nitrosomonas, 285NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Servicenon-native species, unintentional introduction, 95-97, 126Noriega-Orozco, L.O., 271Norway. See also Europe

exports to, 153Live Transport of the Great Scallop (Pecten maximus),

105-109salmon import restrictions, 234, 235

Norway lobster, 213


Nova Scotia. See also CanadaA New Direction for Monitoring Lobster Meat Yield, Us-

ing Advances in Acoustic Probing, 267-270air transport of lobster, 9-18lobster holding and transport, 51-56mussel storage, 54

NSF. See National Science FoundationNSSP. See National Shellfish Sanitation Program

OOcampo, Lucía V., 23ocean quahog, 250Office International des Epizooties (OIE), 233OIE. See Office International des EpizootiesOkhotsk Sea, 114Olin, Paul G., 27Olson, Annette M., 243Opportunity or Threat? Implications of the Live Halibut


Orconectes limosus, emersion, 133Oregon

Administrative Rule 635-056, 253-254bait use, 246exotic introductions, 263HB 3071, 253import regulations, 233

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 254Oriental lung fluke (Paragonimus westermani), introduction,

259Ornamental Fish Industry, 87-93ornamental fishery. See also Florida

British Columbia import regulations, 172-174Florida’s Ornamental Marine Life Industry, 63-71live reef fish, 183Ornamental Fish Industry, 87-93

Florida’s ornamental aquaculture industry, 87-89handling steps, 90-92other international sources, 89wild harvesting, 89-90

Shipping Practices in the Ornamental Fish Industry,73-86

fish pack density, 76-78freight considerations, 73-74packing procedures, 78-79receiving fish, 80-82shipping additives, 79-80shipping bags, 74-75shipping boxes, 75-76

otolith samples, halibut, 155Overaa, Toril, 105oxygen. See also aeration; oxygen consumption; recirculation

supplemental, 56, 58, 93, 129, 136aeration, 141, 143, 289aggression stimulation, 134at-sea mechanisms, 146injection, 159oxygen bubblers, 146

in transit, 73, 83, 91

oxygen consumptionconformity and regulation, 24critical oxygen point establishment, 23Critical Oxygen Point in Yellowleg Shrimp (Farfantepenae-

us californiensis): A Potential Species for the LiveSeafood Trade, 23-25

during emersion, 9-10, 132relation to temperature, 108

oxygen supply, relation to mortality, 45, 46-47oyster drill. See also pathogens

introduction and establishment, 263oysters (Crassostrea gigas)

British Columbia import regulations, 175culture, 207, 257, 265export to China, 221farmed with scallops, 113non-native, 252Norway, 105transport, 51, 53

PPacheco-Aguilar, R., 271Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, 263Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 163, 169packing material. See also seaweed

alternatives to seaweed, 97, 111, 198chilled sawdust, 131Do Live Marine Products Serve as Pathways for the In-

troduction of Nonindigenous Species?, 243-247dry sand, 198invertebrate inhabitants, 95, 96-97, 245newspaper, 198qualities required of, 116

pain. See also animal rightsanti-cruelty ethic, 36-37in fish, 28, 31, 39, 42

pair bonding, in ornamental fish, 90Pakistan, exports to SE Asia, 194Palaemon serratus. See shrimpPalau, reef fish exports, 184Papua New Guinea, exports to SE Asia, 194paralytic shellfish poisoning, 227, 229. See also diseaseparasites. See also disease; invertebrates; pathogens

ciliates, 10conditions required by, 107detecting, 78, 82, 159, 160-161flatworm, 114, 120oyster drill, 263Perkinsus qugwadi, 114preventing transference of, 215-216resistance to, 114treatments, 78parrotfish, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184pathogens. See also bacteria; disease; parasitesin ballast water, 244, 249, 252, 259destroying, 227, 264Do Live Marine Products Serve as Pathways for the In-

troduction of Nonindigenous Species?, 243-247in ornamental fishery, 90-91oyster drill, 263

306 Index

Patinopectencaurinus, background, 111-112, 114(Mizuhopecten) yessoensis, background, 114-115

Pattison, Christine, 163, 177Pecten maximus, Live Transport of the Great Scallop (Pecten

maximus), 105-109Pedersen, Hans-Peder, 45pens. See also holding tank; pounds

disease transmission from, 156-157halibut fishery, 160-161lobster, 210processing plants and, 177

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 27, 29,30, 32, 39, 42

Perkinsus qugwadi, scallop resistence to, 114permits

imports into Canada, 172, 175live ornamental harvesting, 65

saltwater products license (FL), 67-68Nearshore Fishery Permit (CA), 164saltwater products license (SPL), 67Washington shellfish industry, 266for waste discharge, 217

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, 63Pet Products News Buying Guide, 68PETA. See People for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalsPFMC. See Pacific Fishery Management CouncilpH

ammonia and, 58, 81buffering, 58, 79factors affecting, 54, 82, 91, 197relation to halibut chalkiness, 178relation to oxygen consumption, 24phenicol, 80

Philippines. See also Asiaexports to SE Asia, 194, 201, 202reef fishery, 184, 190

Physiological Responses of Blue Crabs (Callinectes sp.) toProcedures Used in the Soft Crab Fishery in La Lagu-na de Terminos, Mexico, 1-8

Pickering, Alan, 21Pillsbury Corp., 227, 271plankton bloom. See algal bloomsplants. See also algae

Florida harvest, 63, 70, 87-88invasive species, 258, 259, 260Live Rockweed ( Ascophyllum) used as a Shipping Medi-

um for the Live Transport of Marine Baitwormsfrom Maine, 95-97

plastic bags. See also transportammonia-permeable, 92shipping with, 74-75

poaching, reef fishery, 184Point Four Systems, 146polystyrene bins, 59, 61ponds, 239. See also aquaculture

crayfish, 133Florida live ornamentals, 88for invertebrate culture, 128

Port of Portland, 254pot, for live catch, 58

pounds, Shipping and Handling the Marine Algae Macrocystisin Alaska, 99-103

prawns. See also shrimp; spot prawnexport to SE Asia, 194, 198

Prince Edward Island. See also Canadamussel storage, 54

processing, vs. live organism trade, 109, 152-153protein skimmer, 56, 285. See also filteringPseudomonas. See also disease

contamination, 218public health concerns. See also hazard analysis; safety

live food industry, 31Puerto Rico, Optimizing Waterless Shipping Conditions for

Macrobrachium rosenbergii, 131-139Puget Sound. See also Washington

exotic introductions, 263salmon farming, 259

purging. See also water qualityin transport, 59, 197

QQualicum Bay, 114quality assurance, with HACCP, 228-229quality control, achieving, 31, 61, 108-109quality indicators, scallops, 107quarantine requirements, 174, 215Quatsino Sound, halibut fishery, 160Queen Charlotte Islands, 112queen conch, awareness campaign about, 71quinaldine, 79-80quota system, in halibut fishery, 152

Rrabbit fish, 135rainbow trout. See also trout

toxicant exposure, 21Rainnie, D., 267RAPP. See Regulatory Action Points Planrecirculation. See also aeration; oxygen; water quality

ammonia buildup, 52, 139, 197ocean-going container, 52-53small-scale land-based, 53-54, 217through-hull facilities for, 195

reconditioning. See also holding tankHolding Tank System for Reconditioning Transport of

Live Cod Recently Captured in Deep Water,45-50

scallops, 108record keeping

hazard analysis and, 228, 274-275proactive recommendations for, 139, 165tagging, 229-230recreational harvesting, live ornamentals, 65, 70-71red rock crab, 266. See also crabRed Sea, ornamental fish exports, 64red tide, 259reef environment, erosion effects on, 19-20reef fisherycyanide use, 183, 184, 188, 190, 191


record keeping (continued)exports to Hong Kong, 183-192, 193, 194growout, 184, 191Live Reef Food Fish Trade in Hong Kong: Problems and

Prospects, 183-192composition and value of trade, 184-185impact on fish stocks, 188-190problems and prospects, 190-191trade profile, 183-184

refrigeration. See also temperature controlat-sea holding system, 145-146

regulations. See also Lacey Actanimal rights activism affecting, 35Constraints to Shipping Live Product: Lessons from the

AquaSeed Corporation Experience, 231-235for export, 232-233, 234in live ornamental trade, 70Live Seafood: A Recipe for Biological and Regulatory

Concern?, 249-256Shipping Live Aquatic Products: Biological, Regulatory,

and Environmental Considerations, 237-242Shipping Live Fish into British Columbia, Canada: Basic

Regulatory Requirements, 171-176Regulatory Action Points Plan (RAPP), 228reproductive system, stress affecting, 20, 21research. See also education

animal rights and, 35, 37, 43fish imports for, 174, 245, 247Using HACCP Principles and Physiological Studies to

Improve Marketing Practices for Live Crusta-ceans, 271-282

Research Council of Norway, 46Resource Management and Environmental Issues Concerning

Live Halibut Landings, 155-157Resource Management Issues: Question and Answer Session,

177-181Resource Management Issues in California’s Commercial

Nearshore Live/Premium Finfish Fishery, 163-170restaurants. See also retailing

An Insight into the Shanghai Market for Imported LiveSeafood, 221-225

holding and display systems, 53-54Hong Kong, relationships among wholesalers and res-

taurants, 201-202marketing procedures, 60

restoration, invertebrate species for, 127-128retailing. See also restaurants

Keeping Baitfish Alive and Healthy in Holding Tanks:Tips for Retail Outlets, 141-143

Live Fish Handling Strategies from Boat to Retail Es-tablishment, 57-61

Review of Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species: What’s at Risk?,257-261

Ricketts and Calvin, 266risk. See also safety

of introduced species, 250-252in live seafood industry, 237, 239, 240Review of Impacts of Aquatic Exotic Species: What’s at

Risk?, 257-261rock lobster. See Jasus edwardsii

harvest for China trade, 193, 221, 223rock wool, for packing material, 18

rockfish, 164, 165California, 148-149, 164-168import into British Columbia, 172

Rofan, Bob, 92Rollin, Bernard E., 35romantic naturalism, 237, 240-241Rosas, Carlos, 1Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

(RSPCA), 39RSPCA. See Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

AnimalsRussia, 129

halibut exports, 179

SSadovy, Yvonne, 183safety. See also hazard analysis; risk

Live Seafood: A Recipe for Biological and RegulatoryConcern?, 249-256

Live Seafood Holding Systems: Review of Systems andComponents, 283-290

The National Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical ControlPoint Program and the Live Seafood Industry,227-230

Shipping Live Aquatic Products: Biological, Regulatory,and Environmental Considerations, 237-242

salinity. See also saltrelation to ammonia efflux, 4-5relation to oxygen capacity and temperature, 24

salinity difference, stress related to, Callinectes sp., 4-5salmon

aquaculture, AquaSeed Corp., 231-232disease, infectious salmon anemia, 234importation into British Columbia, 171, 172

for aquaculture, 174-175smolt, 20transport, stress effects, 20, 21

salmonella, 31salt. See also salinity

adding to fish water, 21, 78, 79, 82, 91-92, 142saltwater products license (SPL), 67. See also permitsmarine life endorsement (MLE), 67, 69San Francisco. See also California

animal rights controversy, 27-33, 38-39rockfish landings, 167

San Francisco Bay, alien introductions, 95, 96, 97, 252, 258,263

San Francisco Estuary Institute, 96sand dollar, Florida harvest, 63sandworm. See Nereis virensSanta Barbara. See also California

shrimp harvest, 148-149scallops. See also spiny scallop (Chlamys hastata)

cultured, 194Handling and Shipping of Live Northeast Pacific Scal-

lops: Larvae to Adults, 111-124harvesting practices, 115-116

farmed Japanese, 116live mature, 115spiny and pink, 115-116

larvae, transport, 117-119

308 Index

scallops (continued)larvae and spat, handling, 119-120Live Transport of the Great Scallop (Pecten maximus),

105-109mechanical shucking, 112, 113recommended handling practices for live mature scal-

lops, 115-116gaping, 115

seedhandling, 120-121transport, 117

transport, 53air transport, 116-117larvae, 117-119paperwork requirements, 121seed, 117

scampi (Nephrops norvegicus), 213mortality, 276nitrogen metabolism, 10

Scarratt, David J., 51Scopaenichthys marmoratus. See cabezonScorpaena guttata. See scorpionfishscorpionfish, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184Scotland. See also United Kingdom

exports to Hong Kong, 194SDS, exposure to fish, 21sea bream, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184sea conditions, effect on fish, 49, 147, 159Sea Hive Corporation, 52, 55Sea of Japan, 114sea perch, live handling, 57, 60sea urchin, packaging, 51-52seahorse, in ornamental trade, 64seasickness, fish susceptibility to, 49seaweed. See also algae; packing material

Live Rockweed ( Ascophyllum) used as a Shipping Medi-um for the Live Transport of Marine Baitwormsfrom Maine, 95-97

as packing material, 18, 51, 52invertebrates found in, 95, 96-97, 245, 253

Sebastes rastrelliger, 167. See also rockfishSeccombe, John, 57sedatives. See also anesthetic

for shipping, 79-80Selye, Hans, 19Semicossyphus pulcher. See sheepheadSeward, 112Seychelles, reef fishery, 183, 184, 194Sha Tau Kok, 203Shanghai. See also China

An Insight into the Shanghai Market for Imported LiveSeafood, 221-225

Shanghai Fisheries General, 221shark, 58Shekou entry point, 203shell market, compared to live market, 70shellfish. See also crustaceans

An Overview of Irish Live Crustacean Fisheries, 207-213British Columbia import regulations, 175effects of stress upon, 3export to SE Asia, 194

shellfish (continued)holding and transporting practices, 1, 197pain experienced by, 39Using HACCP Principles and Physiological Studies to

Improve Marketing Practices for Live Crusta-ceans, 271-282

What’s New in Live Fish and Shellfish At-Sea HoldingSystems: High Tech and Low Tech, 145-150

shipping. See transportshipping containers, 283. See also holdingShipping Live Aquatic Products: Biological, Regulatory, and

Environmental Considerations, 237-242shrimp

Critical Oxygen Point in Yellowleg Shrimp (Farfantepe-naeus californiensis): A Potential Species for theLive Seafood Trade, 23-25

disease associated with, 258export to SE Asia, 221holding systems, 147-150Irish landings, 207Optimizing Waterless Shipping Conditions for Macro-

brachium rosenbergii, 131-139species profile, 210stress-induced changes in, 4, 287“white spot” disease, 258

Siganus argentes (rabbit fish), 135Singapore. See also China; Hong Kong

exports to US, 64live reef fish imports, 183ornamental production, 89

Singer, Peter, 36skate, 60Smith, Scott, 243smooth venus, 250snails, Florida live harvest, 63, 66, 67snapper, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184, 185, 196So Mei, 204Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA),

animal rights controversy, 31sodium hydroxide, 135soft-shell crab (Mya arenaria). See also crab

green crab predation, 258, 259sole, 60Solomon Islands, reef fishery, 184South Africa, exports to SE Asia, 194, 221South America

exports to China, 221ornamental production, 89

South China Sea, reef fishery, 183southern pigfish, live handling, 57, 60Spain. See also Europe

animal rights activism, 41imports, 106

from UK, 212, 213Spanish hogfish, 70Spee Dee Delivery, 129spider crab (Maja squinado). See also crab

Irish landings, 207species profile, 212


spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). See also lobsterdessication, 14farming, Florida, 180HACCP principles for, 271-272harvest for SE Asia trade, 193, 194nitrogen metabolism, 10

spiny scallop (Chlamys hastata). See also scallopbackground, 112-113harvesting, 115-116

SPL. See saltwater products licensespot prawn. See also prawns

handling and tank densities, 148live vs. fresh price, 145

Sri Lanka. See also Asiaexports to SE Asia, 194ornamental production, 89

stacking, in transport, 61starfish, Florida live harvest, 63, 67state law, Lacey Act support for, 240-242steel-jawed trap, 35, 38steelhead, aquaculture, 231Stephens, Charlie, 263Sterling Pacific Halibut: A New Approach, 159-162Sterling Pacific Halibut, 177Strait of Georgia, scallops, 112, 113, 114stress

blue crab (Callinectes sp.) fishery, responses to stress,1-8

causescapture, 133high fish density, 46, 142pH, 82temperature, 46

cross-tolerancecold shock, 22heat shock, 21

defining, 19effect on quality, 107fish

cellular stress response, 21confinement stress, 21cross-tolerance, 21field measurement, 21generalized stress response, 19-20measuring responses, 20-21sensitivity, 39

harvest-induced, 115indicators

ammonia efflux, 2regurgitation, 59

Physiological Stress Response in Fish, 19-22as precusor to mortality, 3scallops, 107

stripping towers, carbon dioxide, 289“Structure and Competitiveness of Florida’s Tropical Ornamen-

tal Marine Species Industry,” 68sulfa-based drugs, 80Sumatra, 90Sundnes, Gunnar, 46surgeonfish, Florida live harvest, 66survival, definition, 136

sustainability. See also environmentAlaska scallops, 112concerns about, 27, 29-30Irish crustacean fishery, 212-213reef fishery, 188-190, 191

IUCN Red List, 190wild harvesting, 89-90

Sweden, “Bill of Rights” for farm animals, 35swim bladder. See air bladderswine industry, 39, 41swordfish, boycotts, 30

Ttagging programs, shellfish, 265-266Taiwan. See also China; Hong Kong

exports to China, 221live reef fish imports, 183

Tamaru, Clyde S., 73Tampa International Airport, 88, 89temperature control

Aquahort Heat’n’Chill pump, 59at-sea chiller systems, 147-148, 159with freshwater ice, 106in holding facility, 61, 218, 289refrigeration, 145-146tracking, 119in transit, 18, 52, 59, 79, 83

temperature effectsbaitfish, 141invertebrates, 126, 127, 129metabolism, 195, 197mortality, 39, 56, 126ornamental fish, 81, 92parasites, 107Pcr, 24semi-dormancy, 145shrimp, 132-133, 135

propulsion-like behavior, 134stress, 46

temperature monitoring, HOBO Temperature Logger, 11temperature shock, preventing, 141-142tetracycline, 80Texas, ornamental production, 89Texas Parks and Wildlife, 258Thailand. See also Asia

exports to SE Asia, 194, 201, 202, 221exports to US, 64ornamental production, 89reef fishery, 184

“The care and handling of lobsters” (McCleese/Wilder), 55-56Thoele, Barry, 125Thomas, Thea, 99Thomforde, Hugh, 141Thompson, Terry, 253-254Tibet, 193, 221tiger barbs, 80tiger grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus). See also grouperharvest for SE Asia trade, 184tiger prawn. See also prawns

culture and harvest, 194, 198

310 Index

tilapiaBritish Columbia import regulations, 171-172stress reactions, 22

Tobago, exports to US, 64Todgham, Ann, 21Tomales Bay, 265. See also CaliforniaTotten Inlet, 263transport. See also air transport; holding; transshipment

Constraints to Shipping Live Product: Lessons fromthe AquaSeed Corporation Experience, 231-235

dry, 283scallops, 107-108

Holding Tank System for Reconditioning Transportof Live Cod Recently Captured in Deep Water,

45-50home-made shipping containers, 129Live Fish Handling Strategies from Boat to Retail

Establishment, 57-61live transport by ship, 194-196live transport vs. processing, 109lobster transportation systems, 52-53mussels, 54ornamentals

boxes, 75-76fish pack density, 76-78, 80, 142, 195-196in general, 74plastic bags, 74-75, 197

packing material inhabitants, 95, 96-97polystyrene bins, 59, 61, 197shipping additives, 79-80Shipping Live Aquatic Products: Biological, Regulatory,

and Environmental Considerations, 237-242Short-Term Holding and Live Transport of Aquatic Animals:


stress-related effects, 39, 60transshipment

The Construction of a Commercial Live SeafoodTransshipment Facility: Review of GeneralSpecifications, 215-219

business plan, 216-217facility planning, 217

trawling, for live catch, 58tricane methane sulfonate (MS-222), 79-80Trinidad, exports to US, 64Triple M II, 159tropical fish. See also ornamental fishery

Florida production, 63-64trout

brown, confinement stress, 21disease affecting, 259hybridization, 259importation into British Columbia, 172rainbow, fish food and additives, 125

trumpeter, live handling, 57tuna

aquaculture, 177boycotts, 30

turtles, 38

UUFAW. See Universities Federation for Animal WelfareUglow, Roger F., 1, 9, 271ultraviolet (UV), for bacteria control, 53, 54-55, 288United Kingdom. See also Ireland

An Overview of Irish Live Crustacean Fisheries, 207-213animal rights activism, 32, 39, 41exports

to Europe, 106to Hong Kong, 194

quality control, 61United States

animal rights activism, 35baitfish industry, 141Callinectes sapidus fishery, 2exports to SE Asia, 193-194, 221National Shellfish Sanitation Program, 115net imports of live ornamental marine life, 63trade in live ornamentals, 64-65wholesaler survey, 68-69

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), animalcruelty issues, 38

Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), 39University of Florida, Ruskin facility, 87University of Puerto Rico, Food and Agricultural

Research Entrepreneurship Center, 131U.S. Customs, 64U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 228, 230U.S. Department of Commerce, 230U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Lacey Act enforcement, 233ornamental fish oversight, 64

U.S. International Trade Commission, 63USDA. See U.S. Department of AgricultureUsing HACCP Principles and Physiological Studies to

Improve Marketing Practices for Live Crustaceans,271-282

UV. See ultraviolet

VVancouver Island, 114. See also Canada

green crab introduction, 266veal, 40veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa), impact on Chesapeake

Bay, 258velvet crab (Necora puber). See also crab

holding and transport, 1, 14Irish landings, 207marketing, 272, 276metabolism during emersion, 10species profile, 210

Venezuela, ornamental production, 89vermilion rockfish, 167. See also rockfishVibrio contamination, 218, 224, 229-230, 259, 289. See also

bacteria; diseaseVietnam

exports to SE Asia, 194, 201, 202fish export ban, 189

Vijayan, Matt, 21


WWalgren, Congressman, 43Washington

bait use, 246hazardous waste program, 43Impact of the Green Crab on the Washington State

Shellfish Aquaculture Industry, 263-266import regulations, 233scallop fishery, 113

waste. See also ammonia effluxin herring sac roe fishery, 100, 103

waste dischargedisease prevention and, 264permits, 217

wateradequate supplies of, 217for cleansing shellfish, 116makeup water, 286

water pumps. See also holding tankdiscussed, 284

water quality. See also aeration; filtering; recirculationdechlorination, 141feed type affecting, 177invertebrates affecting, 128for ornamental fish transport, 91pollution affecting, 205stabilizers, 79-80stress related to, 4-5tests, 143

Watson, Craig A., 87weathervane scallop. See Patinopecten caurinusWetlok boxes, 102whales, 36What’s New in Live Fish and Shellfish At-Sea Holding

Systems: High Tech and Low Tech, 145-150

When Elephants Weep, 36white sucker, 141Wholesale and Retail Marketing Aspects of the Hong Kong

Live Seafood Business, 201-205wild harvesting, ornamental fishery, 89-90, 92Wilder, Dr., 55-56wildlife, live animal trade effect on, 31Wildlife Act (Canada), 171Willapa Bay. See also Washingtongreen crab introduction, 263-264, 266World Trade Organization (WTO), 225wormweed. See also seaweed

Live Rockweed ( Ascophyllum) used as a ShippingMedium for the Live Transport of MarineBaitworms from Maine, 95-97

wrasse, harvest for SE Asia trade, 184, 185, 189-190, 193WTO. See World Trade OrganizationWyoming, fishery, 39

YYantian, 203, 222yellowleg shrimp. See Farfantepenaeus californiensisYellowstone National Park, 259

Zzebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)

exotic introduction, 96, 254, 258, 259Maine certificate, 233

zeolite. See also ammonia; carbon dioxidegas absorption, 80, 91, 133-134, 136-137, 138use in transport, 80, 91, 133

Documents

Marketing and Shipping - nsgl.gso.uri.edu