FRESH-WATER MUSSELS AND MUSSEL INDUSTRIES. 39 
The latest data are found in detailed statistical reports of the Bureau of Fisheries 
covering the territory of mussel fishery by sections.? In 1912 about one-third of the 
territory produced 19,715 tons, valued at $294,606, and another third produced in the 
following year 23,317 tons, at a value of $382,210. The remaining third, including the 
Mississippi River, canvassed for 1914, a year of very poor fishery, yielded 8,539 tons, 
bringing to the fishermen $148,960. It seems a fair estimate that the total production 
of shells varies in different years from 40,000 to 60,000 tons, with a value of from 
$800,000 to upward of $1,000,000 (not including the value of pearls sold). The shells 
consumed in manufacture in 1912 aggregated 55,671 tons.? 
The territory surveyed for 1912 comprised the southern portion of the Gulf drainage 
and the southern portion of the Mississippi Basin up to and including the Ohio River 
and up to, but not including, the Missouri or its tributaries. Arkansas was credited 
with nearly one-half of the total production. The average price of shells in Arkansas 
was nearly $20 per ton, but the average ton price for the entire region was $14.94 (1912). 
The territory covered in 1913 was that north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. 
The Illinois and Rock Rivers were credited with more than half of the total product 
for this territory and year, and, although the average price of shells in those streams 
was about $14 per ton, the average ton price for the territory and year (1913) was $16.82. 
For 1914 the survey covered the Mississippi River and its tributaries from Kansas 
northward. The Mississippi River produced more than three-fourths of the tonnage, 
and the average price per ton for that river was $19.47 per ton, as against $17.44 average 
ton price for all streams covered in the survey for that year. 
Combining the three surveys, it is found that the average price per ton of all shells 
was $16 for that period. Shells have advanced so materially in price during the years 
from 1914 to 1919 that the average price per ton is now about 100 per cent higher. 
The history of the fresh-water mussel fishery since the beginning of the button 
industry has been marked by a continual extension of territory from the point of origin 
on the Mississippi River near Muscatine, lowa. The rate of spread has been directly 
correlated with the rate of depletion of the more central territory. At various times 
the Wabash, the Ohio, the Illinois, and the rivers of Arkansas (White, Black, and St. 
Francis) have taken turn as the principal seats of mussel fishery. That the spread 
of the fishery has not been to the eastward and southward alone is shown by the fact 
that the fisheries have been prosecuted in South Dakota and Kansas and extensively in 
Minnesota. Unquestionably Lake Pepin in the Mississippi River between Minnesota 
and Wisconsin has recently been yielding a greater quantity of shells per linear mile 
than any other stream or portion of a stream. 
The principal mussel streams are listed in the table following. The total value of 
the pearl and shell product is shown, as well as the year of the survey, and the last 
column indicates what proportion of the total income of the mussel fishery in each stream 
is derived from pearls. The data are taken from the statistical bulletins previously cited. 
a [Fresh-water mussel fishery of streams tributary to the Gulf of Mexicofrom the Ohio River southward in 1912.) Report, 
U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, p. 26-30. Washington. 
[Fresh-water mussel fishery of streams tributary to the Great Lakes and the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers northof the Ohio 
and east of the Mississippi River in 1913.) Report, U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1915, p. 64-69. Washington. 
[Fresh-water mussel fishery of the Mississippi River and its western tributaries from Kansas northward in 1914.) Report, 
U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1916, p. 55-57. Washington. 
b [Fresh-water pearl-button industry of the United States in 1912.) Report, U. S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1914, p. 
31-34. Washington. 
