|
In This Edition - April 1997 Vol. 10 No. 1
Purdue/Maine Venture Test New Lobster Feed
The recently established Lobster Research Fellowship links two of
the country's major aquaculture research programs&emdash;the
University of Maine (UM) and Purdue University in Indiana. Initial
funding for the joint fellowship was provided by a longtime summer
resident of Maine who is an alumnus of Purdue. Matching funds were
contributed by the Soybean Association of Indiana. The fellowship
will coordinate lobster nutrition research at UM and Purdue, with a
focus on developing alternate types of feed for pounded lobsters.
Currently, lobster pound operators rely on fish
scrap&emdash;including salted herring and cod, as well as salmon and
grouper&emdash;as the predominant feed source for pounded lobsters.
Due to limited wild fish stocks, this feed source has become
increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain. To help solve this
problem, lobster industry researchers are testing new types of
affordable and readily obtainable feed. Recent studies point to soy
beans as a possible feed source. Soybean-based feed has already been
tested on the spiny lobster in the Caribbean, and researchers hope
that it will prove to be a viable food source for pounded American
lobsters in New England.
The research fellow will be based at UM, and will work closely
with Darrell Donahue and John Riley of the bio-resource engineering
department. Researchers will also collaborate with Paul Brown,
professor of aquaculture at Purdue's School of Agriculture, and with
members of the lobster pound industry.
Bob Bayer, director of the Lobster Institute at UM, sees this
cooperative effort as an important step towards the future of lobster
industry research. "We anticipate using this initial linkage as the
beginning of a longer-term project," says Bayer.
Back to
Beginning
Reserchers Test
Whale-Friendly Lobster Trap Lines
Northern right whales were once plentiful in New England waters.
Over the years, however, their numbers have decreased dramatically.
Now the species has reached a critical point, with as few as 300
Northern right whales remaining alive in the world today. The
Northern right whale has been classified as an endangered species and
is now protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
Right whale deaths are often due to interactions with humans
through boat collisions, pollution, and entanglement in fishing gear.
Responding to this problem, a federal court recently ordered the
state of Massachusetts to work on either altering or eliminating the
types of fishing gear responsible for the majority of right whale
entanglements. The court order not only means a change in lobster
gear technology in Massachusetts, but could also in Maine, where
courts will likely order similar measures in the future.
To help the lobster industry comply with the Massachusetts court
order, re searchers at the University of Maine (UM) are working with
the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association (MLA) to develop new types
of lobster gear. The goal is to develop a line that will break away
from the surface buoy with around 150 pounds of force. This would
enable an entangled whale to break free without injury.
John Riley, a UM bio-resource engineering professor, hopes to make a
viable breakaway line available to lobstermen in the near future.
"We're looking at different types of lines, as well as special knots,
aluminum rings, and clips designed as breakaways," says Riley. The
task, however, is not a simple one. Riley and other researchers in
Maine and Massachusetts are faced with determining just what is an
appropriate breaking strength for the line. It must be low enough to
protect the right whales, but high enough to stand up to the everyday
forces of waves and storms."The problem is, nobody knows how strong a
whale is, and there's no way to test this," says Riley.
Yet, despite these problems, researchers hope they will find a
solution that will not only protect the right whale, but will also
ensure the continued growth and prosperity of the lobster fishing
industry. According to Bill Adler, executive director of the MLA,
"I'm hopeful we can come up with something to show that fishermen are
concerned about the whale. But at the same time, we don't want to go
out of business."
Back to
Beginning
Lobster Institute
Thanks Ed Blackmore
Ed Blackmore, chair of the Lobster Institute's board of directors
for the past ten years, retired last month. For his parting remarks,
we asked Ed to share some of his insights on how the Institute has
changed since it began in 1987 and where he sees it going in the
future.
According to Ed, "Before the Institute was formed, a group of us
kept going down to Augusta to try to do things for the industry. They
all involved money and we couldn't get any money down there for
things like research or feasibility studies. We thought we weren't
getting anywhere there, so we decided to do something on our own.
"In the beginning, the Institute was more involved in lobster
management and was more political. Now, we're a little more
research-oriented, which may not excite the average lobsterman, but
it's part of the business and it many times bears fruit. Some things
we're looking at now, such as lobster processing studies, could also
bring interest from other universities who want to work with the
Institute, or from companies who might benefit from the research."
When asked about the Institute's future direction, Ed emphasized,
"I think the Institute should always be mindful of its beginning and
why it was formed&emdash;to serve the public interest. I think the
Institute should focus on the natural resource and the management of
it and work to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of people
involved in this industry."
We sincerelythank Ed for his many years of support and his
continuing dedication to the Lobster Institute.
Back to
Beginning
Grassroots GIS Project
Underway in Canada
Paul Kearney, part-time fisherman in Richibucto, New Brunswick,
Canada, has been using LORAN "C" coordinates of trap hauls in
Northumberland Strait to gather and analyze data for the last three
years. Following is a description of his grassroots research
initiative.
As Kearney says, "My cooperative research program began in 1995
with the dual goals of better understanding the lobster resource
while increasing yield for the average inshore fisherman. My lobster
GIS consists of a data-gathering and analysis program, conducted
directly from a working lobster boat. Using a simple, one-page form
that can also serve as a logbook, the fisherman records data every
day from each of his lines, including the number, size (canner/market
split), and sex of lobsters; depth and bottom type; LORAN "C"
coordinates; and current, as well as basic weather details.
"These data sets are then entered into a spreadsheet program,
resulting in 42 data points per day. These are then divided into
weekly sets and sorted into best and worst lines for a particular
week. I use commercial statistical analysis software to analyze the
data associated with these lines. The software is set up to produce a
box or rectangle representing the most productive areas for that
week.
"Finally, I plot these boxes on a GIS chart and can then decide
whether to return to a site to analyze it further&emdash; for
variables such as water temperature and specific bottom type&emdash;
or leave that area alone for a few weeks. For future research, I plan
to include data such as the number of shorts discarded, and the
number and size of egg-bearing females found and discarded."
Kearney hopes that his data will ultimately be used by the
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in conducting stock
appraisals. In the meantime, he's adding to the data bank of
information about the North Atlantic lobster population.
Back to
Beginning
Icebrand Teams Up With
Institute to Perfect Frozen Lobster
(adapted from an article by Nick Houtman, University of Maine
(UM) Public Affairs Department)
Frozen Maine lobster may become more commonplace in supermarkets
and restaurants as a result of a new collaboration between the
Lobster Institute and Icebrand Seafoods, Inc. of Portland, a
processor of Maine lobster products.
"In the past," says David Bengis of Icebrand, "Maine lobsters were
only sold live because of the consumer perception of fresh lobster.
This has changed because the quality of cryogenically frozen cooked
lobster is now comparable to live lobster. Customers are accepting
frozen lobster now more than ever before." In addition, frozen Maine
lobster can be marketed in areas where live lobster is not readily
available. If high quality frozen lobsters are available, many
retailers and chefs will choose the convenience of frozen products.
UM food scientists Al Bushway and Terry Work, and Bob Bayer,
director of the Lobster Institute, are working with Bengis to
fine-tune specialized cooking, freezing, and packing procedures.
Icebrand has years of experience in processing and marketing to
provide consistent product quality despite natural variation in
harvested lobsters. Research results are being applied in Icebrand's
plants and will soon be widely available.
"We will be looking at methods of enhancing shelf life and
maintaining lobster flavor over more than a year's time," says Bayer.
"We hope to patent the process being used and license the technology
to other lobster processors. The lobsters are being processed at the
Icebrand plant in Portland with sensory evaluation being done at the
food science department in Orono."
Bengis emphasizes the project's economic importance to Maine. "The
development of a sophisticated lobster processing industry in Maine
will be a boon to the state and local communities in need of
employment opportunities. This is a good example of applied research
which is so useful to industry."
The joint venture is an important step in promoting cooperation
between lobster processors and the Lobster Institute. "We hope that
other processors come to the Institute for advice in handling
lobster. If one processor puts inferior products on the market, we
all suffer," adds Bengis.
Back to
Beginning
Reducing Maximum
Size Could Help Industry
(by Jim Wilson, School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine)
At a Maine Lobstermen's Association (MLA) executive board meeting
earlier this winter, several members suggested that a lower maximum
size might help the industry exceed National Marine Fisheries
Service's (NMFS) overfishing threshold. That threshold is defined as
a situation when egg production is less than 10% of what is estimated
for a virgin fishery.
At the request of MLA, a research team, headed by Jim Wilson at
the University of Maine's School of Marine Sciences, adapted NMFS's
overfishing computer model and applied it to the question of a lower
maximum size. The model estimates that a 4.75-inch maximum would
increase egg production about 30% &emdash; enough to get the industry
just above the overfishing threshold, while a 4.5-inch maximum would
increase egg production almost 100% and put the industry well above
the threshold.
Why does a lower maximum size produce these strong results? There
are several reasons. A 5-inch maximum means most lobsters must molt
at least three times after reaching legal size in order to reach the
maximum. Since female lobsters in Maine generally molt only once
every two years after they are mature, this means the animals are "in
the fishery" for about six years. If the combined chance of being
caught and dying of natural mortality is, for instance, 80% a year,
the chances of reaching five inches are not good. For example, out of
1000 lobsters, 800 die or are caught the first year; 160 the second
year, 32 the third year and seven or eight the fourth. Only one
lobster out of 1000 is likely to make it five years. (Males, on the
other hand, tend to molt every year and so are only in the fishery
for about three years before they reach the maximum.)
But if egg-bearing females are V-notched, a small but significant
number are going to be "out of the fishery" for at least three and
maybe five years. Instead of dying off at 80% a year, V-notched
females die only from natural mortality or at a rate of about 10% a
year. Out of 1000 V-notchers, about 590 are likely to make it to the
fifth year. V-notching really changes the odds. Without V-notching,
almost no female lobsters would make it to the maximum; with
V-notching, probably 50-60% of those V-notched are likely to make it.
If 10% of females are notched, then 5% or 6% will make it to the
maximum.
Decreasing the gauge also greatly increases the chance of a female
lobster getting to the maximum. A half-inch decrease means about one
molt, or two years less time, "in the fishery." As shown above, with
no V-notching, about 32 out of 1000 might make it to 4.5-inch size.
With V-notching, that number more than doubles&emdash;by how much
depends upon how many eggers are actually notched. In short,
V-notching and a lower maximum size together significantly improve
estimated egg production in the fishery.
Another significant benefit of a lower maximum size is the
reduction in risk. Last year, for example, winds and water
temperature together apparently resulted in a very low rate of
settlement of fourth stage lobsters. If that were to happen several
years in a row and the fishery depended only on egg production from
just legal-size lobsters (i.e., no V-notching or maximum size), there
would be a high risk of failure five or six years afterwards.
However, with a sizable population of maximum-sized lobsters, egg
production would continue and the risk of recruitment failure would
be much less. This is one reason why an effective maximum size would
have a better conservation effect than an equivalent (in terms of egg
production) increase in the minimum.
Another way of looking at this is that natural, unfished
populations usually have many older individuals. Young and juveniles
are abundant but have very high mortalities. When populations are
fished, however, most of the older members of the population are
eliminated, leaving only juveniles and just mature adults. An
effective maximum size, on the other hand, comes close to imitating
the population profile that exists in a natural population.
In addition, the economic loss of an effective maximum is
relatively low, about three lobsters in a hundred are lost from the
market.
If an effective maximum size were enforced uniformly in all
states, a lower maximum would reduce the incentive for draggers to
target lobsters. Even if it were only enforced within a part of the
fishery, say the Gulf of Maine, a possession rule would help greatly.
Notes on the model: The model is an adaptation of a model first
used by Mike Fogarty and Joe Idoine of the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The model simulates the
life history of a lobster from the period just before legal size
until death. In this version of the model, one lobster at a time goes
through the model. At each stage in its life, the probability of a
natural death, being caught, getting V-notched, molting, egging out,
etc. is calculated according to the size of the lobster. Each year,
the probability of all of these events is calculated and the model
randomly chooses the "route" the lobster will take. Many of the
probabilities built into the model are not known with great
precision. Consequently, the most reasonable use of the model is to
"explore" the implications of different policies, such as a lower
maximum size.
Back to
Beginning
Another View
(By Steve Smith, fishman, Outer Cape, Massachusetts)
V-notching and maximum size have been lobster management tools in
the state of Maine for 50 years&emdash;long enough to prove whether
they're useful as resource management tools. When considering the two
measures, one can take two approaches. The first is the method used
by state and federal biologists which uses size compositions to show
significance. In sea-samplings in all states, at least 90% of all
lobsters are caught in the first molt into legal size. The next molt
(to approximately 1-1/2 pounds) accounts for nearly all the remaining
10%. What few lobsters are left would then have to survive at least
two more molts in order to be "eligible" to be protected by maximum
size&emdash;not, in itself, much of a group to maintain egg
production to support the kind of fishing effort placed on the new
recruits. As far as the V-notches that are found in Maine's
sea-sampling data, the DMR News (as reported in Commercial Fisheries
News, August 1995) states that only 17% of all V-notches throughout
the state are egg-bearing, whereas 50% should be if V-notching were
successful. Furthermore, a large part of those are not even mature
enough to bear eggs.
The second approach to these two measures, any "non biologist"
could use. All one would need to know is that a 3-pound male lobster
is legal to be caught anywhere and sold to market. It is below
maximum size and of course, since it is male, would not be V-notched.
Contact any market that buys from inshore lobstermen and ask for 100
each of 1-pound, 2-pound, and 3-pound lobsters. Find out what is
readily available as to maximum size lobsters.
If one had trouble finding enough 3-pound lobsters at the market,
how could there possibly be very many 4-pound and larger lobsters
within the protected maximum size group? After all, those would have
needed to molt from the 3-pound size group. The next step, take
whatever is available of all the 1-pound to 3-pound lobsters and
examine the ratio of males to females in each group. Since the larger
the lobster, the higher the percentage of fecundity in that group,
one should find a progressively higher percentage of male lobsters
since, of course, all of the egg-bearing females are being V-notched
and returned to the sea. But if the ratio of males to females is
closer to 50-50, there could not be an abundance of females still in
the resource biomass. And, in fact, that 50-50 ratio is just what is
found, by sea samples in every state, regardless of V-notching.
V-notching and maximum size are ideas that look great in print
but, in the test of time, have not produced. It's time to try raising
the minimum gauge and reducing, or at least capping, the effort.
Back to
Beginning
Summit Brings
Industry & Science Together
On February 26-27, almost 100 fishermen, scientists, managers, and
other interested parties from Nova Scotia to Long Island Sound met at
the Maine Fishermen's Forum in Rockport to give their various
perspectives on the most appropriate management and conservation
options for the Atlantic states' lobster fishery. The Summit provided
a neutral place where stakeholders could come together to discuss
opposing viewpoints and offer critical input before the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) finalizes a management
plan next fall.
On the first day of the Summit, speakers presented background
information on the state of the resource; new predictive research
studies that may aid in stock assessment; grassroots research and
development efforts; the economics of proposed management options;
and the pros and cons of various management measures including
maximum/minimum gauge and V-notching, closed areas and seasons, day
restrictions, individual transferable quotas and traps (ITQs/ITTs),
and trap limits.
Workshop participants divided up into seven working groups which
met during the morning of the second day to discuss whether they
thought lobster stocks are overfished and if current management is
adequate, to propose additional management measures (if any) that
would be appropriate in the short- and long-term, and to suggest
potential collaborations between fishermen and scientists to gather
data for stock assessments used in managing the fishery.
By the end of the general discussion in the afternoon, it was
clear that everyone had different views on whether the resource is
overfished, the status of the brood stock, and what management
measures would be best. However, the main thing they could agree on
was that the answers to these questions, in many cases, depended on
what area or region was being considered. Although most participants
agreed that it was acceptable to apply some management measures
throughout the entire range of the fishery, they also thought many
measures should be determined on a regional basis.
Jim Wilson, resource economist at the University of Maine and a
presenter at the Summit, emphasizes this point. As Wilson says, "What
we're learning is that we don't have to have uniform rules over the
whole range of the stock and we can take a lot of the decisions about
what we do and decentralize those decisions to go down to as local
level as possible. You want the person making the decision to be the
person who is going to bear the cost of being wrong and get the
benefits of being right. If we do this, we're going to end up with a
lot better management in this fishery."
The Lobster Summit was sponsored by the New England Aquarium in
Boston, the Maine Lobstermen's Association, and the Lobster
Institute.
Back to
Beginning
Go to Bulletin Menu
|
