|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 253
Appendix D
Sociocultural Aspects of
Domestic Marine Aquaculture
SHIRLEY J. FISKE2 AND JEAN-PIERRE PLE3
INTRODUCTION
The emergence of a new industry means social change as well as techno-
logical change. There is no doubt, for instance, that the domestication of
plants for agriculture and the development of animal husbandry vastly changed
humans' way of living for millennia. On a smaller and more contemporary
scale, the introduction of technologies such as containerization in the mari-
time industry changed the labor requirements and social organization for
servicing vessels; the introduction of purse seines in the tuna fishery initi-
ated distant water fishing, changed labor requirements, and affected fishermen's
community and family life. The development of marine aquaculture is no
exception.
The introduction of marine aquaculture is not simply the manipulation
and culturing of fish and shellfish for human consumption it will reorga-
nize the social organization for producing fish for consumption, and it in-
volves changing or capitalizing on long-standing cultural attitudes and
practices.
In assessing the impact of new industries on social structures, the social
sciences look not just at technical factors such as number of ponds, species
cultured, or value of product, but at sociocultural aspects of the industry
such as the types of units of production, requirements for capital and labor,
and distribution of employment opportunities. Social scientists ask who
benefits and how are the benefits distributed throughout society? What
kind of effect will the technical change have on our social system? Will
such a change affect the way of life in communities where marine aquacul-
253
OCR for page 254
254
APPENDIX D
ture is adopted? How does the introduction of marine aquaculture affect
concentrations of capital, and to whom (or where) do the profits flow? Who
is employed and at what levels in the system? Is there social mobility
between strata in the system? What are the social attitudes or constraints
that affect the development of marine aquaculture, and how can these be
overcome?
Given the fact that marine aquaculture is the "domestication" of fish and
shellfish and the introduction of technology and social structures to accom-
plish this, the aim of the social sciences is to take a long-term perspective of
the associated social costs and benefits of such changes.
SCOPE AND METHODS
The social aspects of the marine aquaculture industry refer to the socio-
logical, demographic, and cultural elements of the marine aquaculture in-
dustry. These include the social structure created by the industry itself and
how it links with the larger society of which it is a part. Variables consid-
ered in an analysis of the social structure include the following:
· the units of production;
· social stratification among owners and between owners and laborers;
· ethnic, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of the afore-
mentioned;
· relationship of laborers to production and distribution of capital;
· concentration of producers into vertically integrated firms with pro-
cessing and marketing or distribution capabilities;
· the capitalization of production (or lack of it);
.
and
.
the marginalization of coastal laborers or the social mobility of such;
the way marine aquaculture relates to the cultural context of a commu-
nity or region.
Additional areas of interest encompass understanding how the enterprise
complements or conflicts with the values that underpin local residents' lives,
their work, or their decisions, and how it relates to the established social
structure for production of commodities.
Information on social aspects of marine aquaculture in the United States
is not readily available, but does exist in agency reports, industry surveys,
Sea Grant or U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) extension project
files. Because of the dispersed and relatively thin nature of sociocultural
information, this report is an attempt to develop a conceptual framework for
understanding the social aspects of marine aquaculture. Given the paucity
of data on the sociocultural aspects of marine aquaculture, the authors con-
OCR for page 255
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE
255
ducted an informal telephone survey with Sea Grant extension agents, area
specialists, and industry entrepreneurs. A list of respondents is available at
the end of the appendix. From these multiple sources, we present several
illustrative examples of how marine aquaculture has evolved differently in
various parts of the United States.
MARINE AQUACULTURE PROMOTION AS AN EXAMPLE
OF PLANNED CHANGE
From a social science perspective, marine aquaculture can be considered
as a type of planned change for economic development. Planned change
involves the deliberate introduction of new methods of technology or social
organization (including values) to change the mode of production of com-
modities, or behaviors toward any number of economic development goals,
including raising fish, shellfish, or mollusks. Currently, the U.S. govern-
ment encourages the growth of the marine aquaculture industry through
funding research and development of new species and new technologies,
and through extension efforts to encourage the adoption of such activities,
in collaboration with university researchers and private facilities. The im-
plicit goal is to increase the number of producers of farm-reared fish and
shellfish. Thus although the United States does not have an explicit marine
aquaculture development plan, the effort nonetheless fits the general model
of planned economic development.
There are typically three elements in the successful introduction of
planned change: (1) appropriate technology; (2) a perceived benefit-flow
strategy; and (3) an identified institutional strategy.
Appropriate technology is an integral part of planned change. The ma-
jority of the U.S. effort has focused on developing technology (including
biotechnology) that will produce a reliable, profitable crop. Appropriate
technology also means technology aimed "appropriately" at the adopter,
knowledge of the target audience, and awareness of the social and economic
effects of adopting the new technology. Benefit-flow strategy means that
there is a clear flow of benefits and that people can see themselves as part
of the process of the flow of benefits. When this occurs, people are more
likely to adopt a new way of doing things (like raising fish) or new technol-
ogy. Institutional strategy refers to identifying the best method to imple-
ment marine aquaculture through the institutions, nonprofit organizations,
academic, and voluntary associations that exist in the target population.
Within the framework of planned change, social sciences can provide
information in the following areas: (1) understanding the adoption of ma-
rine aquaculture as an enterprise, (2) identifying consumer attitudes and
refining strategies for marketing specific products, and (3) identifying unin-
tentional or long-range social impacts.
OCR for page 256
256
Understanding Adoption of Marine Aquaculture as an Enterprise
APPENDIX D
Studies on adoption of innovations are a mainstay of rural sociology and
development anthropology. The set of theories for understanding the prob-
lems and opportunities in adoption of innovations has been addressed re-
cently by the Farming Systems Research (FSR) approach to rural economic
development. The FSR approach has been successful in increasing production
of commodities such as genetically manipulated sorghum and millet, accord-
ing to conditions specified by local farmers. The FSR approach starts with the
assumption that farming (or aquaculture) is an integrated and systemic set of
activities that includes the household, marketing channels, and production
units. Through investigation of the cultural context of the production unit
activity, FSR targets the concerns of the household or production unit, such
as lack of credit, the lengthy and problematic permitting process, lack of
labor to attend to fish ponds or to guard against poachers, or attitudes such
as fear of losing freedom and time for other activities. We need to under-
stand the integrated social aspects of farming (or aquaculture) production
and perceived constraints in order to encourage adoption. Such a strategy
could be fruitfully applied in the case of marine aquaculture development.
Identifying Consumer Attitudes and Refining Marketing Strategies
Social science information can improve acceptance and promotion of
marine aquaculture products through understanding consumer attitudes and
through marketing. Psychometrics and a branch of anthropology called cog-
nitive anthropology have a long history in studying marketing behavior. A
recent example is a southeast Atlantic campaign to promote underutilized
species of recreational fish on the basis of studies of fishermen's percep-
tions and the development of a targeted "marketing campaign" for selected
species with a high preference factor.
Techniques similar to this market development can be applied to the
introduction of new, hybrid, or transgenic farm-raised animals. Consumer
beliefs and attitudes about cultured products have not yet been systemati-
cally examined for opportunities to market products. Social sciences are
useful in gauging consumer attitudes toward products such as hybrid striped
bass or triploid oysters, and in designing marketing campaigns for new
products or underutilized products. Each species will have its own set of
advantages and disadvantages and can be marketed for growth in niche or
mass markets. For example, cultured oysters can capitalize on the health
concerns of consumers by promoting the relative bacterial safety of cultured
or depurated oysters. Hybrid striped bass has a bland, white meat that may
be appropriate for mass rather than niche marketing techniques. It is useful
to know the depth, breadth, and dimensions of consumer perceptions, re-
OCR for page 257
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE
257
gardless of whether they are judged rational by producers and scientists.
Growing consumer concerns, such as the belief that antibiotics are overused
in pen-reared fish or the desire by consumers to avoid wild-caught fish
because of by-catch issues, are potential candidates for promotional cam-
paigns, but it is necessary first to understand the dimensions of these
consumer perceptions.
Identifying Unintentional and Long-Range Social Impacts
It is important to anticipate the challenges and opportunities marine aqua-
culture is likely to face, and to know the direction in which the industry is
headed. In terms of community acceptance, social sciences are useful in
anticipating community resistance on issues of multiple use, wastewater
concerns, siting, and aesthetics, or the value of marketing marine aquacul-
ture as a solution to problems regarding endangered species by-catch or
overfishing of wild stock.
Observations from outside the United States on social aspects of marine
aquaculture in developing countries can provide valuable insights into these
issues (Meltzoff and LiPuma, 1985-1986; Bailey, 1988; Shang, 1990; Weeks,
1990~. While the context of marine aquaculture development is very differ-
ent abroad, the underlying processes and issues are comparable to the situa-
tion in the United States. The investigators have noted that the nutritional
base of local populations suffers as the production shifts toward the lucra-
tive export market; that the development of marine aquaculture affects land
values, resulting in the displacement of certain groups; that the water body
becomes privately controlled as opposed to open to multiple use and public
access; that the local employment base is augmented; that there is not much
mobility among labor, manager/technical, and ownership roles; and that
changes in production techniques and processes of economic development
affect the amount and distribution of community wealth (Smith, 1991~.
The focus of marine aquaculture development has implications for the
mix and provision of services such as extension, education, credit, and
research and development. For example, if the objective is to encourage
investment in marine aquaculture by small producers such as household
units, the extension effort would be different than if the aim is to encourage
individuals who have access to venture or foreign capital.
To carry the example further, if the goal is to create a labor-intensive
industry that contributes income across a broad population base, it seems
logical to concentrate on those types of marine aquaculture that promote
that goal (e.g., soft-shell crabs or small-scale pen rearing of salmon as in
Maine). On the other hand, if the goal is to produce large amounts of
biomass as efficiently as possible with intensive aquaculture methods (where
potential aquaculturists are likely to be experienced businessmen and
OCR for page 258
258
APPENDIX D
women diversifying from other industries such as liquor distilling or poul-
try), the potential adopters likely have different research or extension needs
than household production units.
Finally, demographic information on the developing United States ma-
rine aquaculture industry helps forecast labor, education, and training re-
quirements. Social scientists can help identify the challenges that lie ahead
and must be faced including contentious issues of conflicts with recre-
ational boating, multiple use, and questions about who benefits (distribu-
tional questions) and about who bears the costs (externalities). Anticipating
these areas of potential conflict ahead of time helps avoid costly court
battles, lawsuits, and social protest. It promotes effective advocacy for an
emerging industry that is realistically based on facts and knowledge about
the social milieu.
Up to now, we have focused on the conceptual framework of marine
aquaculture as a type of planned change and the value of addressing socio-
cultural aspects of marine aquaculture. To make this more concrete, we
turn now to selected illustrative examples in marine aquaculture develop-
ment in order to highlight the differences and variability in social and
cultural aspects.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
The purpose of this section is to provide snapshots of various forms of
marine aquaculture in the United States. These examples show that the
forms that marine aquaculture takes depend on the historical and cultural
background of specific regions in the United States, legislative require-
ments in individual states, the capital requirements of particular species,
land use and demographic constraints in particular areas, and many other
factors. We have chosen a few marine aquaculture efforts that are already
technically and economically feasible and are fairly well established. Given
the paucity of systematic data, these cases serve as illustrative examples of
the diversity in social structure and sociocultural dimensions involved in
marine aquaculture in the United States.
Oyster Growing in the State of Washington
The state of Washington is one of the leading producers (by volume) of
cultured oysters. The social organization is traditional and is characterized
by multigenerational enterprises organized around kin-based lineages. Sev-
eral (four to five) of these family operations operate vertically integrated
enterprises from the hatchery to processing operations.
The origins of the social organization of this industry trace back to the
nineteenth century when Washington joined the Union and the new state
OCR for page 259
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE
259
legislature passed a law permitting public tidelands to be deeded to private
individuals for the express purpose of oyster farming. The law stipulated
that such deeded lands must remain in continuous oyster production or
ownership would revert back to the state. As a result, many of the oyster
farms currently in operation are well-established commercial enterprises in
their second or third generation of continuous ownership. Deeded areas can
be transferred between parties at market prices, with the condition that the
new owner must continue to use the tidelands to farm oysters. Several of
these deeded farms also operate their own hatcheries and process their
oyster harvest.
The state no longer sells deeds to submerged lands, and a moratorium on
leasing public tidelands was enacted in the late 1980s. No public funds are
expended to seed deeded farms, but the state does support a program to seed
public oyster beds. The newer farms on leased tidelands tend to be smaller
enterprises than the original family farms on deeded lands.
The oyster farms in Washington generally tend to be labor intensive, not
necessarily in terms of numbers of laborers required but in terms of func-
tions performed. This is especially true of harvesting and shucking oysters.
Seasonality of labor supply is not an issue. Oysters can be raised and
harvested year-round.
Labor requirements are a function of the size of particular firms and the
management skills of individual operators. Although Caucasians are the
dominant ethnic group for operators and laborers, many Asians are now
entering the industry as laborers. Those entering the industry as owners/
operators typically have some background in oyster raising since there is
long tradition of the industry in the state.
The primary difficulty in expanding oyster production in Washington
does not appear to be a lack of capital because large amounts of money are
not needed to start raising oysters. Instead, the constraints are physical—
lack of suitable locations. The best sites are already producing oysters, and
water quality problems and multiple-use conflicts render other sites less
desirable for raising oysters (even if the leasing moratorium were to be
lifted).
Salmon Ranching in Alaska
Alaska's cold and clean waters, large expanses of uninhabited areas, and
protected waterways are all desirable attributes for siting fish farms. Amidst
the opportunity for lucrative private enterprise, the state of Alaska has tried
to balance public good and private interests through a unique institutional
arrangement for salmon aquaculture. There is a prohibition on private, for-
profit salmon farming (pen rearing and sale of fish without release into the
common property fishery), but salmon ranching (the release of hatchery-
OCR for page 260
260
APPENDIX D
raised fish to supplement wild stocks) is permitted and is carried out by a
mix of state-owned hatcheries and licensed, private, nonprofit (PNP)
hatcheries. Currently, there are 19 hatcheries operated by the state and 21
operational PNP hatcheries.
Salmon ranching was authorized by the state legislature in the early
1970s in response to an ailing salmon fishing industry. Catches were at all-
time lows, and the development of an enhancement program to serve the
state in years of both lean and bountiful salmon harvests was envisioned by
Alaskans. The state hatchery program was initiated in 1971 with the cre-
ation of the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Devel-
opment (FRED) in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In 1974, the
state-owned and managed program was expanded to permit private non-
profit salmon ranching. The intent was to authorize the private ownership
of salmon hatcheries by qualified nonprofit corporations.
Permits for PNP salmon ranching are granted by the state to qualified
private individuals or associations. The permits are nontransferable and re-
main valid until rescinded by the state. Since 1974, only three PNP salmon
ranching facilities have failed, which suggests that private nonprofit salmon
aquaculture can be highly successful. The incentive to become involved in
nonprofit salmon ranching is twofold. First, operators are permitted to use
revenues to pay for annual operating loans, capital loans, and staff salaries.
Second, the large PNP corporations have a Board of Directors whose mem-
bers may include representatives from environmental, scientific, recreational,
and subsistence harvest interests, but it consists primarily of commercial
fishermen representing trollers, seiners, and gill-netters. These fishermen
stand to profit from the release of millions of additional juvenile salmon
(925.2 million in 1990) that can be harvested later during commercial open-
. . ~ . I. .
sings In the various Its nerves.
The PNP hatcheries include both large operators (about one-fourth
showed revenues of more than $1 million) and smaller operators, common-
ly described as the "mom-and-pop" variety. The larger salmon hatcheries
tend to be operated by regional aquaculture associations composed of limited
entry license holders (the commercial fishermen noted above), and they
usually employ up to 30 individuals on a full-time basis, with additional em-
ployees on a seasonal basis. The smaller operators consist largely of individu-
als with backgrounds in the fishing industry, and employ approximately five
individuals on a full-time basis and hire additional employees for seasonal
work.
The concept of private for-profit salmon ranching is not likely to be
considered in the state of Alaska, particularly as long as wild-harvest fisher-
men dominate the politics of state fisheries. Over the last three years,
however, operational responsibilities for some of the state-operated hatch-
OCR for page 261
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE
261
cries have been transferred to PNP regional aquaculture associations;
some state policymakers, including some members of the Alaska Legisla-
ture, believe that the state should no longer be in the business of operating
those public hatcheries that benefit primarily commercial fishermen.
Baitfish, Trout, and Yellow Perch in the Great Lakes
Even though they represent freshwater systems, it is important to address
aquaculture in the Great Lakes region for several reasons. Despite the fact
that these states are not "ocean" states, they are "marine" states in that they
are eligible to participate in many federal marine programs such as coastal
zone management, marine sanctuaries, Sea Grant, and national seashores.
Additionally, the Great Lakes states are coastal states, and aquaculture de-
velopment in this region may experience the same conflicts and challenges
as the conventional coastal states have experienced, particularly with re-
spect to sociocultural aspects. Developments in Minnesota and Michigan
are addressed next.
Minnesota
Aquaculture in Minnesota can be traced back to nineteenth century Euro-
pean immigrants who practiced trout farming in Scandinavia. Today, there
are about 150 licensed aquaculture producers in Minnesota, of which 75 are
involved in baitfish species, 50 in trout farming, and the reminder in other
species (walleye, sunfish, paddlefish, and carp) used for private stocking
purposes. Baitfish aquaculture is supported by an additional 475 licenses
for the wild harvest of baitfish. Holders of wild-harvest baitfish licenses
supply baitfish aquaculture operators with wild stock for grow-out. Baitfish
aquaculture has come to dominate fish farming activities in Minnesota through
an elaborate intra- and interstate distribution network, resulting in an indus-
try now worth $50 million annually. In contrast to baitfish, nearly all of the
farm-raised trout is consumed locally and the industry value is considerably
smaller.
It appears that three main social groups have engaged in aquaculture in
Minnesota. The first group includes individuals traditionally associated with
harvesting wild resources through trapping, hunting, and fishing. This group
specializes largely in the baitfish sector, both as wild harvest collectors and
as aquaculture operators. The second group includes farmers and other land-
owners who have a water resource (i.e., a pond or a lake) on their land
and see aquaculture as a supplemental source of income. The third group
involved in aquaculture is entrepreneurs with engineering or science back-
grounds.
OCR for page 262
262
Michigan
APPENDIX D
As in Minnesota, aquaculture in Michigan began in the nineteenth cen-
tury, and some of the fish farms in operation today began during the 1920s.
In contrast to the situation in Minnesota, Michigan aquaculture is domi-
nated by trout farming—rainbow and brook. Other farmed species include
large- and smallmouth bass, sunfish, yellow perch, walleye, and baitfish.
Of the 110 aquaculture license holders in the state, only about 20 percent
could be considered profit-motivated business operations, with the remain-
der involved in aquaculture for various other reasons. Of these operators,
five to six farms produce 80 percent of the trout. These farms employ
seven to eight individuals year-round, with another one to two individuals
hired during harvest periods. The majority of operators involved in aquac-
ulture are mom-and-pop types of operations or small producers primarily
interested in earning supplemental income. Some of these smaller operators
are also involved in related businesses such as trout brokering and
programs promoting aquaculture at county fairs and other events.
The state of Michigan has begun leasing older state hatchery facilities,
which have been retired from state service to local governments. The hatcheries
are then leased to private aquaculture operators who operate the hatcheries
as profit-making fish farms and in some cases as local tourist attractions.
The leasing of the state's hatchery facilities to local governments is an
example of an institutional strategy designed to promote and maintain a
public role in Michigan's aquaculture development.
Aquaculture can serve to support and maintain regional cultural tradi-
tions. For instance, in many parts of the Upper Midwest (particularly Wis-
consin and Michigan), the "Friday night fish fry" is a local cultural tradi-
tion. The preferred fish for fish fries is yellow perch, but Great Lakes
yellow perch harvests have declined significantly. The preference for yel-
low perch is so strong that area restaurants are willing to pay much higher
prices (sometimes in the neighborhood of four to five times) for yellow
perch when it is available, in lieu of the other kinds of fish. Currently,
technology constraints prevent the development of a yellow perch aquaculture
industry. If such constraints could be overcome, yellow perch aquaculture
could reduce stress on wild stocks, reduce the region's dependence on outside
sources for fish, and help promote and continue a local cultural tradition.
Texas Shrimp Farming
With imports contributing nearly 75 percent of the shrimp consumed in
the United States, there would seem to be a strong incentive to develop a
viable domestic shrimp marine aquaculture industry in this country. How-
ever, along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida, the part of the country
OCR for page 263
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE
263
that is most suitable for shrimp aquaculture, shrimp farms operate only in
the state of Texas.
The social structure of shrimp farming in Texas is characterized by two
opposite types: large and heavily capitalized intensive shrimp production
with foreign financing or venture capital, and small producer firms, primar-
ily family operations in which shrimping is one of a number of income-
generating strategies, fitting the model of "occupational multiplicity."
Large-scale intensive shrimp aquaculture in Texas is currently performed
by two large commercial operators, both owned by Taiwanese interests.
The smaller-scale operations are comprised of about six to eight smaller
producers, generally family-operated enterprises. In this latter category,
only one operator is considered a commercial enterprise (i.e., a for-profit
business). The remaining small operators engage in marine aquaculture to
supplement their income as one of a number of income-generating strate-
gies. Such occupational multiplicity is an important strategy for ensuring
family income during lean times.
People entering shrimp marine aquaculture at the small producer level
include shrimpers who have left the fishery and individuals with back-
grounds in poultry, among others. They tend to be of Caucasian origin,
while individuals of other ethnic backgrounds are employed as staff.
Labor requirements per acre are small, with a slight increase necessary
during harvest time or if operating a hatchery. Workers usually acquire
their skills from on-thejob training, and individuals with advanced degrees
are increasingly available. Many of the marine aquaculture specialists com-
ing out of Texas universities are finding jobs in Latin America where there
are more employment opportunities than in Texas.
Difficulties in increasing production include regulatory and financial con-
straints. The state~recently banned the importation of exotic species of fish,
including juvenile shrimp from out-of-state hatcheries. The only in-state
hatchery, operated by one of the large Taiwanese farms, is not able to
supply all the needs of the other Texas farms. As a result, many of the
small producers are not able to stock their ponds and consequently are not
able to produce a harvest. The financial constraint is attributable to the
recent condition of the Texas banking sectors in which many banks and
savings and loan companies have been forced into bankruptcy. A potential
investor in marine shrimp aquaculture in Texas would have to depend al-
most exclusively on private investment capital.
The political and sociocultural milieu for marine aquaculture in Texas is
improving. There has been a recent shift in state responsibility for marine
aquaculture development from the Department of Natural Resources to the
Department of Agriculture, and appointment is expected of a state marine
aquaculture liaison officer to coordinate development between the state
agencies and the legislature. Traditional Texan cultural values also favor
OCR for page 264
264
APPENDIX D
marine aquaculture development. Texans place high esteem on indepen-
dent farming activities. Small-scale shrimp farms have typically been wel-
comed, and there does not seem to be strong adverse reaction to the owner-
ship and development of the two largest shrimp farms in Texas by Taiwanese
interests. Commercial shrimpers apparently accept shrimp marine aquacul-
ture operations. The lack of opposition may be attributable to the small
total output of marine shrimp aquaculture, the fact that shrimp aquaculture
does not interfere with marine navigation, or the view that shrimp aquacul-
ture is a means to reduce the importation of shrimp.
Soft-Shell Crabs in Mid- and South Atlantic
The expansion of the soft-shelled crab industry is a success story that is
intimately tied with the social fabric and culture of commercial watermen in
the mid- and south Atlantic. The 1988 gross value of the crop has been
estimated to be approximately $4.5 million. The development of soft-shell
crab marine aquaculture has benefited small producers, in this case families,
in particular, families who have been traditionally engaged in seafood har-
vesting as crabbers or watermen. Most soft-shell crabs are collected by
watermen and monitored by their families using simple, often homemade
methods such as holding pens. Some use more sophisticated recirculating
flow-through systems. There is usually little value-added work to the prod-
uct bY the producers and most crabbers are not involved in distributing or
~ ~ ---- rip
marketing the crabs.
Sea Grant marine extension specialists and agents have worked with
crabbers to improve the holding and handling techniques, and the effort has
paid off. Total labor involved in harvesting and supervising the crabs
throughout the Southeast and mid-Atlantic probably exceeds that of other
types of producers, and a decentralized approach to supply and production
has evolved to date. Small-scale fisheries tend to provide greater employ-
ment opportunities than large-scale enterprises. Additionally, small-scale
fisheries often allow opportunities for laborers to become owners of the
production unit, whereas large heavily capitalized farms often preclude
that possibility (Pollnac and Poggie, 19911. In the United States, there is
an unspoken judgment that capital intensive is better because it is likely to
use capital more efficiently. The social impact, however, is the trade-off
between greater employment opportunities for people and the potential
for social mobility in small-scale marine aquaculture versus the efficiency
of more highly intensive and capitalized marine aquaculture operations.
In soft-shell crab production there is usually a division of labor within
the household, with wives in charge of monitoring the progress of the peel-
ers. This takes close supervision and requires checking the pens every few
hours. Although biologists typically see the constraints on this industry as
OCR for page 265
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE
265
the availability of a supply of peelers, other constraints include the avail-
ability of family labor to monitor the molting crabs because the "window of
opportunity" to harvest them is narrow.
Soft-shell aquaculture development in Georgia is typical of the situation
throughout the mid-Atlantic states, although the numbers of families or
individuals involved is much greater in Maryland, Virginia, and North Caro-
lina than in Georgia. There are around 14 to 15 soft-shelled crab producers
in the state of Georgia, employing about 30 individuals. All but one are
mom-and-pop operations run by active crabbers. The men usually harvest
and/or purchase peeler crabs from other crabbers, and the women help col-
lect the shed crabs from facilities adjacent to the home. All the operators
are Caucasian, although one wife is Asian. Most soft-shell crabs are shipped
frozen or live to northern markets with little further processing. This fits
the model of the household as the production unit, division of labor by age
and sex, and product or occupational multiplicity within the family-based
production unit.
The growth in popularity and production of soft-shell crabs has fueled
the development of specialized processors. At least one soft-shelled crab
entrepreneur on Maryland's Eastern Shore has taken advantage of interna-
tional demand for soft-shelled crabs. The businessman, who was an execu-
tive in the poultry industry, has a sophisticated processing and packaging
plant that relies on local watermen to collect and deliver crabs to his pro-
cessing plant. From the processing plant the soft-shelled crabs are exported
directly to Japan.
Salmon and Mussels in Maine
To the people of Maine, particularly those living in remote coastal
communities, the ocean is traditionally viewed as a working resource that
provides economic opportunity. With these values as background, marine
aquaculture has been largely accepted on its merits, namely, as another
useful way to obtain products from the sea. Early in the development of
aquaculture, there was opposition because of fears that the ocean bottom
would be "rented" exclusively by a few individuals. Today marine aquacul-
ture is viewed less as a competitor and more as a natural expansion of the
state's fishery resources and as an opportunity to diversify sources of in-
come. State law upholds the importance of protecting traditional fishing
rights and giving priority consideration to the needs of lobstermen and
shrimpmen by prohibiting marine aquaculture development in areas that
interfere with traditional lobster grounds or with established nearshore
navigation routes.
In the process, marine aquaculture in Maine has been transformed from a
white-collar occupation pursued by wealthy outsiders, investors, scientists,
OCR for page 266
266
APPENDIX D
and the curious, into a blue-collar occupation in the same tradition as fish-
ing for herring, scallops, or lobsters. This transformation occurred as the
potential for profits from marine aquaculture became evident.
Pen rearing of salmon is the most successful type of marine aquaculture
practiced in Maine, with a projected 1992 value of $88 million (by compari-
son, lobster was valued at $46 million in 1989~. There are four or five large
salmon producers, but the majority of salmon farms (about one-half to two-
thirds) are small producers family operations employing three to seven
workers. Individuals generally come from fishing backgrounds, such as
lobster, herring, or scallops, or else from other marine industries. The indi-
viduals are most often Caucasian and could be characterized as "Down
Easters" families that have lived for generations in eastern Maine.
Marine aquaculture developed in Maine under the politically expedient
premise that it could not interfere with the operations of traditional fisher-
ies. As a result, salmon pens have had to be located in remote bays and
coves away from traditional fisheries, particularly away from inshore areas
used by lobstermen. This requirement not only satisfied the needs of wild-
harvest fishermen, but in turn provided a new economic resource to those
isolated communities in which the pens were located. Recent research
suggests that aquaculture operations have enhanced lobster harvest in areas
under the fish pens. Recognizing these mutual benefits, a lobster coopera-
tive on Swans Island has entered into a formal agreement with salmon farm
operators permitting the salmon farmers to tap into lobster market and dis-
tribution channels.
The culture of mussels has also become a recognized addition to Maine's
working ocean concept. The state currently has one large mussel producer
employing 35 full-time and 30 part-time workers, but many more mussel
operations are small, family-type producers with two to three workers each.
All mussel farms are located on sites leased by the state. For these small
producers, mussel culture is usually an on--the-side enterprise in addition to
their regular occupations as lobstermen, oystermen, or shrimpmen. As in
the case with salmon, mussel culture is viewed not as a competitor but
rather as a legitimate partner among all ocean-related industries.
CONCLUSION
In addition to a change in technology from capturing wild fish to raising
them in captivity, the introduction of marine aquaculture entails social
changes. Domestic marine aquaculture development is likely to cluster
around two general social structural types. The first type is small-scale
aquaculture where the household or extended family is the production unit
(such as soft-shell crabs, small-scale salmon pen rearing, some shrimp
aquaculture). Aquacultural production will probably be one of a number
OCR for page 267
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE
267
of occupations being exploited at any one time (occupational multiplicity.
This type of social arrangement for aquaculture preserves the relationship
of producer to the product and generates income across large numbers of
households. It helps ensure economic stability in rural coastal areas that
often are economically depressed. The social value of marine aquaculture
to a broadly distributed population of family-based units of production,
in which aquaculture is predominately a part-time occupation, should
not be overlooked or underestimated. Income distribution is an important
aspect of economic and family stability in rural and economically depressed
areas.
A second type of marine aquaculture seems to be heavily capitalized
enterprises, backed by industry, venture, or foreign capital. These busi-
nesses are likely to be intensive shrimp farms or large-scale salmon pen
rearing operations. In terms of producing greater amounts of fish for con-
sumption by the American public and offsetting U.S. balance of payments
deficits, this type of aquaculture development is valuable. In short, there are
important roles for each type of aquaculture.
Undoubtedly, many questions remain including what role marketing can
play in improving marine aquaculture acceptance by the public; who the
potential beneficiaries are among social groups to further marine aquacul-
ture development; and what sociopolitical conflicts will have to be resolved
to maximize marine aquaculture growth. Answers to these questions and
further regulatory and technological advancements can help the United States
maximize its marine aquaculture potential.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the following indi-
viduals for providing background information or assistance in preparing the
vignettes included in this report.4 Dallas E. Alston, Department of Marine
Sciences, University of Puerto Rico; Bob Brick, Aquaculture Management
Associates, College Station, Texas; Fred S. Conte, Aquaculture Specialists,
Cooperative Extension, University of California, Davis; Rick DeVoe, South
Carolina Sea Grant Consortium; David Dow, Executive Director, Lobster
Institute and Sea Grant Extension Specialists, Maine Sea Grant Program;
Kevin Duffy, Salmon Rehabilitation and Enhancement Coordinator, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game; Mike Ednoff, Aquaculture Development
Representative, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
John Ewart, Delaware Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service; Don Garling,
Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University
and Extension Fisheries Specialists; David Landkamer, Assistant Aquacul-
ture Extension Specialists, Minnesota Department of Fish and Wildlife; Carter
Newell, Great Eastern Mussel Farm; Terry Nosho, Aquaculture Extension
OCR for page 268
268
APPENDIX D
Specialist, University of Washington Sea Grant; Mac V. Rawson, Director,
University of Georgia Sea Grant College Program.
NOTES
1. The views expressed herein represent the authors' and do not neces-
sarily represent the views of the federal government, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, or the National Sea Grant College
Program.
2. Program director for Social Science and Marine Policy, National Sea
Grant College Program.
3. Doctoral student, College of Marine Studies, the University of Dela-
ware.
4. The views expressed by these individuals do not represent the official
position of any organization with whom they may be affiliated.
REFERENCES
Bailey, C. 1988. The social consequences of tropical shrimp mariculture develop-
ment. Ocean and Shoreline Management 11: 31-44.
Meltzoff, S., and E. LiPuma. 1985-1986. The social economy of Coastal resources:
Shrimp Mariculture in Ecuador. Culture and Agriculture No. 28 (Winter).
Pollnac, R.B., and J.J. Poggie. 1991. Introduction. Pp. 1-18 in Small-Scale Fishery
Development: Sociocultural Perspectives, J. Poggie and R. Pollnac, eds. Kingston,
R.I.: International Center for Marine Research Development, University of Rhode
Island.
Shang, Y.C. 1990. Socioeconomic constraints of marine aquaculture in Asia. World
Marine Aquaculture 21~1~:34-43.
Smith, C.L. 1991. Patterns of wealth concentration. Human Organization 50~11:50-
60.
Weeks, P. 1990. Marine aquaculture development: An anthropological perspec-
tive. World Marine Aquaculture 21~3~:69-74.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
aquaculture development
