Click here for the Southside Sentinel, then click on Oyster Gardening for a recently made video featuring MOG Brian Wood.  Great job Brian.  Click here for the full article by Reid Pierce Armstrong appearing in The Rivah.

Did you see the Daily Press article (transcribed from the Washington Post) Aug. 2 about the Success of the Great Wicomico Reef? Here is the video that goes with it.  You can also read the article online.

Visit
http://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/oyster_aquaculture_survey.php
for links and photos

Survey reflects rapid expansion of Virginia¹s oyster aquaculture
Margaret Pizer | June 29, 2009

Virginia¹s oyster hatcheries saw a more than 18-fold increase in the number
of seed and larvae sold between 2007 and 2008, according to a survey of
shellfish farmers conducted by researchers from the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science's Sea Grant Extension Program. The survey also found that
hatcheries are predicting an additional four-fold increase in sales in 2009.

³This impressive growth is almost entirely due to sales of eyed oyster
larvae to growers using remote-setting techniques,² says Tom Murray, VIMS
Marine Business Specialist and Director of Virginia Sea Grant¹s Marine
Extension Program.

Remote setting, also called spat-on-shell, is a method of oyster cultivation
that involves allowing larvae to settle and metamorphose on old oyster
shells in land-based tanks. The shells with attached spat are then planted
directly on the bottom, without cages or other structures. This allows for
more economical production of clumped oysters that are suitable for
shucking. Virginia hatcheries began selling oyster larvae in 2008, as
spat-on-shell methods caught on, and more than 498 million larvae and seed
were sold. Projected hatchery sales for 2009 come to 1.66 billion.

Oyster aquaculture, based on remote setting of disease-resistant oyster
seed, is replacing Chesapeake Bay¹s traditional oyster fishery, which has
declined significantly in recent years, primarily as a result of endemic
oyster diseases and increasing wildlife predation of seed oysters.

Murray and Aquaculture Specialist Mike Oesterling have been surveying
Virginia clam and oyster farmers annually beginning with the 2004 crop year.
The 2008 crop survey documents a small decline in clam plantings and sales
but continued growth in oyster aquaculture. More than 185 million farmed
clams‹worth $27.3 million‹were sold by Virginia growers last year‹down 13
percent from an estimated 2007 sale of 212 million clams. About 9.8 million
farmed oysters went to market in 2008‹up from 4.8 million in 2007, and
surpassing the industry prediction of 7.3 million.

³The sale of farmed oysters by Virginia growers has increased ten-fold since
our initial survey covering the 2004 crop,² says Oesterling. ³In previous
years, hatchery production of seed seemed to be a limiting factor in the
growth of our oyster aquaculture industry, but the data suggest that
hatcheries are ramping up production to meet the demand for seed and
larvae.²

The study notes overall growth in employment in shellfish aquaculture while
indicating the difficulty in estimating actual employment numbers for what
are still relatively small oyster culture operations.

The complete report can be downloaded at
http://web.vims.edu/adv/aqua/MMR2009_5.pdf

__________________________________________________________________

What's Happening with the Asian Oyster

The following article (in red) was in the Daily Press on 4/7/2009.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-now-asian-oysters-bay-0406,0,1912101.story

No more Asian oysters in Chesapeake Bay

By Cory Nealon | 757-247-4760
2:57 PM EDT, April 6, 2009

The Army Corps of Engineers said Monday it will stop the introduction of Asian oysters in the Chesapeake Bay and instead focus on rebuilding the native oyster population.

The announcement, made in conjunction with Virginia and Maryland, comes after almost five years of research.

It is a victory for environmentalists, who say introducing the larger and more disease-resistant Asian oysters to the bay poses too many environmental risks.

"It poses unpredictable ecological risks," said Col. Dionysios Anninos, Norfolk District Commander of the Army Corps.

Lynton Land has authored an excellent article (shown below) summarizing events associated with the introduction of the Asian "Suminoe" oyster Crassostrea ariakensis to the Chesapeake Bay. Just as he completed the article, the Seafood Council withdrew the request to proceed with the introduction of the Asian Oyster . See Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal, March. 26 front page (http://www.gazettejournal.net/articles.php?artid=1891). 

The Asian "Suminoe" Oyster Crassostrea Ariakensis

The availability of Chesapeake Bay's native oyster (Crassostrea virginica) for harvest has declined dramatically as the result of two diseases, MSX and Dermo, overharvesting, especially by dredging which causes massive habitat destruction, and because of poor water quality. Great strides are being made to develop disease-resistant strains of the native oyster and to increase the numbers of disease-resistant oysters by a rapidly expanding aquaculture effort and by "spat-on-shell" which places hatchery-grown spat attached to clean shell on public and private oyster grounds. Everybody believes these efforts should continue.

Some people, primarily commercial interests, believe that a non-native oyster should be introduced into Chesapeake Bay, as has happened successfully in other coastal areas, in order to provide a larger number of harvestable oysters. The argument is that a non-native oyster might be disease-resistant and even grow faster. Introduction of non-native species has already been tried unsuccessfully in Chesapeake Bay, and one disastrous consequence was the introduction of the disease MSX. The other disease, Dermo, is endemic, but is now more widespread probably because the existing small populations of native oysters in the Bay are stressed by poor water quality. The Asian "Suminoe" oyster Crassostrea ariakensis is the latest non-native species to be promoted. Organizations like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (1) oppose the introduction of a non-native species.

A vast amount of taxpayer money has been spent researching whether introducing the non-native species would have net positive or net negative effects on the oyster industry and the Bay, and a vast number of words have been written (e. g. 2, or search www.bayjournal.org). The latest report is a 1500 page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the US Army Corps of Engineers (3). The rationale behind the EIS process is also available (4). Aside from wondering why ACOE, and not an organization like the National Academy of Sciences, is responsible for this decision, the EIS took 5 years to produce, cost $17 Million and reached no conclusion.

Here are some of the still unanswered questions:
Does more than one species of C. ariakensis exist?
Does C. ariakensis form reefs, or are they "rock oysters" that just inhabit hard substrate?
Could C. ariakensis become another "Zebra mussel" and foul water intake structures, etc?
How would the two species (virginica and ariakensis) compete for space?
Would the two species interbreed?
How would C. ariakensis respond to existing Bay predators? It has a thinner shell.
Could C. ariakensis introduce new diseases, like Bonamia?
Is C. ariakensis susceptible to existing diseases in the Bay other than MSX and Dermo?
Does C. ariakensis tolerate low oxygen conditions as well as C. virginica?
Does C. ariakensis pose a greater, lesser or similar health risk for human consumption?
What are realistic economic and cultural impacts of introducing C. ariakensis?

The Virginia General Assembly mandated VIMS to develop a strategic plan for shellfish research in 1995 (5). VIMS determined that C. gigas exhibited unremarkable growth, disease tolerance and taste compared to the native oyster, and turned its attention to C ariakensis. By 2000 VIMS had concluded that triploid ("unable" to reproduce) C ariakensis showed promise, and field trials began, and continue, to determine its usefulness in aquaculture. Unfortunately, it was recently reported (6) that a "... Maryland oyster gardener who reviewed the 1,500-page [ACOE] document discovered huge math errors in the EIS which, when corrected, suggested that an introduction of the foreign species would be inevitable from the large-scale aquaculture option." In other words, there now seem to be only two options: 1) stick with the native oyster C. virginica, or, 2) turn C. ariakensis loose (if it hasn't already happened.)

Most scientists and all environmental organizations oppose introduction of C. ariakensis, and there is growing opposition to the use of "triploid" organisms. Watermen are split. Some believe that we should continue to concentrate on reviving native oyster populations, both in aquaculture and on natural grounds using hatchery-produced "spat-on-shell." Others believe that triploid C. ariakensis provides an invaluable shucked product in summer. The jury is still out, and like many other decisions made by government, it remains to be seen whether science (don't decide anything until we are more certain of the answers to some of the critical questions) or commerce (turn it loose so money can be made) will prevail.

(1) http://www.cbf.org/site/DocServer/1015_CBF_EIS_Position__3_.pdf?docID=13243
(2) http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/docs/oystereisoverview.pdf
(3) http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/OysterEIS/EIS/homepage.asp
(4) http://noaa.chesapeakebay.net/eis.aspx
(5) http://web.vims.edu/abc/CA.html?svr=www
(6) http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=3534

Dr. Lynton S. Land 03/26/09