U.S. aquaculture today is about where agriculture 
was 300 years ago, “very low in technology, but very 
high in promise and opportunity.” °° 
Several reasons account for the lack of develop- 
ment of this activity; the most significant is simply 
that the need did not exist. Coastal fishing people, 
following the patterns passed on by family and 
community, learned the skills needed to harvest the 
ocean’s living resources. 
Aquacultural methods have some basic technical 
problems that need to be worked out before wide- 
scale development will be practical, especially the 
high incidence of disease that afflicts culturing pools. 
Nonetheless, aquaculture does play a significant 
role in providing fish for the world. Nearly 10 per- 
cent of the world catch (13 billion pounds) comes 
from aquaculture facilities.** 
NOAA’s Aquaculture Plan, published in May 
1977, noted that several species showed promise for 
Table 3-10—Aquaculture development for the 
United States—1973 totals and 1990 potential 
1973 1990 
—million pounds— 
Salmon 61 245 
Oysters 20 200 
Catfish 48 120 
Trout (freshwater) 30 70 
Shrimp 2) 63 
Crawfish 10 30 
Clams 2.6 25 
Mussels —_— 25 
Lobster —_ 10 
Trout (seawater) — 10 
Abalone — 5 
Scallops — 5 
Pompano — 3 
Other 5.5 400 
1,211 
Total 177 
%U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries, Kent Price. Aquaculture Hearings before 
Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
Environment and Oceanography. Washington, D.C., Government 
Printing Office, March 15, 1977. 
57 U.S. Comptroller General, op. cit. note 4. 
increased expansion, including oysters, rainbow trout, 
and salmon. Table 3—10 contrasts the 1973 domestic 
aquaculture harvest with NMFS’s projected 1990 
harvest.°* 
The demand for fish in the Japanese diet has 
stimulated improved techniques of rearing and breed- 
ing in aquaculture. It\is estimated that the Japanese 
government spends 10 times as much as the United 
States on aquaculture research and subsidy.” 
A July 1977 NMFS document °® identified species 
as candidates for aquaculture development (table 
3-11). , 
Since that document was prepared, the Food and 
Agriculture Act of 1977 designated the Department 
of Agriculture as the lead agency for the development 
of aquaculture. The ramifications of this assignment 
are as yet unsure. The Department of Agriculture 
now has plans to develop the scientific, technological, 
and marketing bases for freshwater species only, such 
as catfish and trout. The 1977 Act gives Agriculture 
the legal authority for all aquaculture activities, but 
the development of marine aquaculture (mariculture) 
is and could continue to be the responsibility of both 
the Departments of Commerce and Interior. 
Table 3-11—Species groups included in the aqua- 
culture Implementation Plan 
Fishes: Anadromous: Pacific and Atlantic salmon, 
trout, striped bass 
Marine: Pompano, mullet, rabbit fish, thread- 
fin, tuna bait fish, etc. 
Freshwater: Catfish, trout, carps, perch, buf- 
falofish, etc. 
Crustaceans: Marine shrimp, freshwater prawn, lobster, 
freshwater crawfish, crabs 
Mollusks: Oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, abalone 
Other: Marine baitworms 
53 Tbid. 
°° Tbid. 
°oNMES, draft, “Proposed Addendum for Implementation 
Plan—Department’s Marine Fisheries Program for the Nation, 
July 1977. 
Federal Support of Fishery Research 
In the past, Federally supported fishery research 
has been fairly extensive and has concentrated on 
developing basic biological information about indi- 
vidual species. 
A survey of Federal fishery research done in 1973, 
compiled by NOAA, found nearly 1,500 projects in 
the general field of “nonhuman living systems” by 
eight departments and agencies. Table 3-12 sum- 
marizes the survey. 
In addition, the Departments of Agriculture and 
Transportation reported a few projects. Beyond this, 
fishery research is conducted by States and uni- 
versities. 
NOAA alone spends on the order of $40 million 
per year in fishery research. The figures for fiscal 
years 1974, 1975, and 1976 were $35.9 million, 
$41.9 million, and $44.5 million, respectively. The 
General Accounting Office study of the fishing in- 
dustry in 1976 was not able to produce an overall 
figure for Federal fishery research activity, an indi- 
cation that possible duplication exists. 
TI-35 
