Although eastern oysters, to a degree, are cultured in southeastern Massachusetts, the overwhelming energy devoted to marine aquaculture in Massachusetts and elsewhere on the East Coast is to the culture of northern quahogs, also called littlenecks or hard clams.

BACKGROUND

        Two quotes from the eminent treatise on the Massachusetts quahog industry, written in 1910 by Dr. David Belding, a biologist with the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Game, lend some perspective to the present discussion:

        To the popular demand for the LittleNeck, can be attributed the rapid development of the quahog industry during the last ten years. This development has furnished employment for hundreds of men, and has given the quahog an important value as a seafood.  What it will lead to is easily seen.  The maximum production was passed a few years ago, constant overfishing caused by excessive demand is destroying the natural supply, and there will, in a few years, be practically no commercial fishery, unless measures are undertaken to increase the natural supply.  Quahog farming offers the best solution at the present time, and gives the promise of permanent success.
        In the warm waters of coastal States in the south, where the quahog develops more rapidly, there are large areas which as yet have not suffered from the effects of overfishing, as has been the case with the northern beds in New England and New York, but it will be only a short time before the history of ruthless spoilation will be repeated, as already quahogs from the south are being shipped to the New England markets.

PRESENT STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY

        Since its commercial beginnings during the early 1980s, farming of quahogs on Cape Cod and in southeastern Massachusetts has developed from experimental plants into businesses that now form most or all of the incomes for more than 80 individuals and families.  In the space of 8 yr, harvests of cultured littlenecks have increased from less then one million in 1986 to more than an estimated 14 million for 1994.  The present quahog aquacultural industry is centered in Wellfleet where it began.  Lesser segments of industry are in the Towns of Provincetown, Orleans, Yarmouth, Barnstable, Mashpee, Bourne, and Wareham.  Other ventures still in the startup phase are beginning or planned for Martha’s Vineyard, Brewster, Harwich, Westport, and possibly Chatham.  In general, most of the industry continues to take place on intertidal flats on the north side of the cape, but increasingly, work is being done to utilize shallow-water sites on the south side of the cape.
        Although increasingly successful, local quahog aquaculture is not a mature industry.  In many respects, it is still a startup venture undergoing growing pains.  One major problem is the inadequacy of the planted stocks that survive the vagaries of nature.  At any particular site, it is often not enough to survive a few years in order to make a success of a quahog aquacultural venture.  Many natural cycles of particularly severe weather occur infrequently and may not yet have been experienced, and therefore may not have been adequately guarded against.  Natural biological cycles can result in sets of plants or animals that have the potential to smother and kill small quahogs rapidly.  Examples are massive sets of potentially smothering macroalgae, such as codium, or large sets of animals, such as mussels, setting on protective netting.  Many more subtle problems may not be recognized by a grower until the crop has been damaged.  One of the hardest lessons for most aquaculturists to appreciate is that they must not lose a significant portion of a crop.  Owing to the lengthy startup time needed to develop a harvestable crop, and the large initial investment in seed, gear, and labor, significant losses of stock can often be financially fatal to the typically undercapitalized aquaculturist.
        When dealing with town regulating authorities, there may be conflicts with local shellfishermen, recreational groups, or environmental groups.  Even though the industry is nearly 10-yr old and has proven to be totally beneficial and positive, we shellfish leaseholders, in general, and not just ARC, often encounter friction with other users of nearshore areas.  I would like to address these problems, in particular, as they are the management issues that will most affect future growth of the industry in Massachusetts.
        The industry involves the use of public “lease areas,” a practice new to most towns, excepting Wellfleet which has a tradition of shellfish leases dating back hundreds of years.  Often, local authorities are at a loss as to how to deal with applications for shellfish culture lease areas.  They harbor many misconceptions in this regard.  A general misconception is that leaseholders and/or towns need to be protected from large outside entities that somehow may take over the business from locals.  This will never happen.  Given the nature of the business, especially the fact that leased areas are often remote and totally unsecured, local control of leases by persons knowledgeable with that particular area will always be necessary.  There is no evidence that leased areas will be overtaken by large corporations, either here or elsewhere.  On the contrary, help from outside sources often can enable a new leaseholder to succeed by the use of joint efforts.  Leasing of suitable sea bottom should be viewed as a highly desirable business development project within the towns.
        Another misconception is that the success of shellfish aquaculture will be detrimental to the wild shellfishery.  This has not proven true.  If anything, local success of shellfish aquaculture has resulted in better prices for the wild shellfishery product.  It has opened new markets, thereby increasing demand for both the cultured and the wild product.  In any event, culture of littlenecks is not just a local phenomenon.  Culture practices like those employed in Massachusetts are now widespread along the entire East Coast.  Given the nature of the shellfish business, local wild shellfishermen are now in head-to-head competition with aquacultural products from New Jersey, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Florida, whether they know it or not.  This competition for markets will only increase in the future.  The only way to retain some control over the local market price is to increase local production.
        There has been speculation that, somehow, shellfish aquaculture might degrade the environment, either by physically harming the sea bottom or somehow harming the biological diversity of local ecosystems.  I have as much experience as anyone in observing the long-term effects of shellfish aquaculture.  For many of the same reasons as anyone else who cares about our environment and ecosystems, and because the natural environment gives me my livelihood, I am more objective about it than one might suppose.  If we culturists should harm the overall balance of natural systems, we would tend to put ourselves out of business, for we depend upon these systems to nurture and grow our  shellfish.
        Shellfish aquaculture strictly benefits the marine environment.  Over time, one sees that culture activities actually function in similar ways to those artificial oceanic reefs.  The nets and cages actually promote all manner of life in and around them by providing temporary shelters for all kinds of juvenile marine plants and animals.  All of our marine waters once held much higher levels of shellfish before man began to harvest them.  Shellfish are filter feeders and remove both plankton and particulate matter from the water column.  In doing so, they remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous from the marine system.  No doubt, this benefits the modern marine environment which must deal with elevated loadings of nutrients as a result of man’s activities upon the land and waters.

TM 109 main page