122 
bulletin of the bureau of fisheries. 
Other methods of myticulture are followed in certain localities. Goode (1887), 
describing some of the European methods, says: 
In the North Sea these [spat collectors] consist of large numbers of trees, from which the smaller 
branches have been cut, and which are planted in the bottom of the sea at such a distance from the 
shore that their upper portion is partially laid bare at low water. After four or five years they are 
raised, stripped, and replaced by others. In the Bay of Kiel, Germany, alone about 1,000 of these trees 
are annually planted and about 1,000 tons of mussels are brought on the market. Bad seasons occur, 
however, both with respect to quality and quantity, owing to various causes. In the Adriatic the 
mussels are raised on ropes extended between poles rammed into the ground. The ropes are raised and 
stripped once in eighteen months. 
The question now arises, Which is the better method for artificially propagating 
mussels on our coast ? This depends on two factors; (1) the quality of mussels produced, 
and (2) the actual expense of propagation as compared with the financial return. 
Though I unfortunately can not answer this question now, I can throw a little light on 
it from the experience of others. In France, where labor is cheap, the buchot system 
is most profitable, while in England, where the cost of labor is much higher and where 
favorable localities for buchot culture are few, the bed system has to be employed. 
That the buchot method of culture is not practicable for the Scottish coast is very 
evident from the extensive report of Fullarton (1891), whose conclusion I quote: 
The buchot experiment, therefore, does not promise to yield in Scotland the same good results as 
in France. This is due to the character of the mud along our shore, to the climatal conditions of our 
Scottish waters, and the influence of these on animal life. But the financial aspect of the question, as 
shown above, is absolutely fatal to the system. I can not conceive what modifications of the buchot 
system would be likely to yield results which would benefit the fishermen of Scotland, nor mitigate in 
any important degree the mussel famine; while the bed system only requires to be developed in suitable 
localities in order that fishermen may obtain an ample supply of bait at a cheap rate and on sound 
financial principles. 
Calderwood (1895) states that the buchot system of culture has been tried on a small 
scale at five different places in Scotland, and in every case was a failure. At Little 
Ferry the mussels were washed from the structures by gales; at Tain one buchot was 
covered with shifting sand, while another erected in an unfortunate position yielded 
little return. At Inverness the cost of handling the mussels was found prohibitive 
and at Montrose the system was found unsatisfactory because the mussels fell from the 
laths, which were used instead of branches. Where the cost of building material and 
labor are high, the buchot system will be found unprofitable. 
Herdman (1894) believes that mussels grown on buchots are no better than those 
grown on beds, and thinks the buchot system is necessary only in localities where the 
mud is soft and so constantly depositing as to prohibit a bed of mussels from being estab- 
lished. Lebour (1907), describing the mussel beds of Northumberland, believes that 
the bed system is the only suitable method of cultivation on the coast and that the 
buchot system is not a practical one to apply even at Budle Bay and Holy Island, 
which regions are best adapted for their use. 
In view of the facts just stated, and especially in consideration of the high cost 
of building material and of labor in the United States, the prospects are very poor for 
