Hard Clam
Hard Clam

Hard Clam (farmed)

Merceneria mercenaria

Sometimes known as cherrystone, clam, hardshell, hardshell clam, littleneck, neck, Northern Quahog or quahog.

This species is farm-raised.

Summary

Hard clams are generally raised in bottom culture systems, which have relatively moderate environmental impacts. “Escape” via broadcast spawning may help to re-populate natural beds that have been depleted by overfishing or disease. Like other filter feeders, Hard clams improve water quality.

Criterion Points
Inherent Operational Risks 2.25
Feed 3.75
Pollution 4.00
Risk to Other Species 2.50
Ecological Effects 2.75
Final Score (average of criteria) 3.05
Color
Final Score Color
2.60 - 4.00
2.20 - 2.59
1.80 - 2.19
1.40 - 1.79
0.00 - 1.39

Last updated October 29, 2004.

Inherent Operational Risks

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

General System Design:

An aquaculture system's design is a good overall proxy measure for the likely effect of the operation on the environment. For example, open systems (e.g., net pens and net cages) are more likely to have pollution, disease, and escape issues than closed systems (e.g., recirculating tanks). With shellfish, which don’t require supplemental food input, the more important question is whether they are harvested on or off of the bottom.

1.00
This species is raised in a high risk system (e.g., net pens; net cages).
2.00
This species is raised in a moderate risk system (e.g., most ponds; raceways; bottom culture of mollusks).

Different systems are used during different phases of the clam’s life. There are three phases involved in farming hard clams: 1) the hatchery phase, 2) the nursery phase, and 3) growout. In the hatchery phase broodstock is induced to spawn, fertilization occurs, and larvae are allowed to grow until they reach the pediveliger stage. Tanks are typically used during the hatchery period. (Lorio and Malone 1995; Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). These can be flow-through, recirculating, or semi-recirculating. Raceway culture can be used briefly during the nursery stage after clam seed leave the hatchery but before they are placed in the field for growout (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). However, raceways are only used temporarily, depend on saltwater, and have gentle flows (HBOI 2004), therefore having little environmental impact. Floating nursery trays can be used in the nursery stage as well (Lorio and Malone 1995). The trays have a continuous water flow, which can be a horizontal or an upward flow (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). Once the clams reach about 12 mm, they are ready for planting. Hard clams are almost exclusively raised on bottom, in muddy/sandy substrate (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). The clams are covered in sediment, with protective mesh covering on top. Recently, some farmers in Florida and Georgia have been growing out their Hard clams in a “soft bag,” which is a pillow-like container constructed of nylon mesh material (HBOI 2004; Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). Outside of Florida, this remains a relatively uncommon practice as growth to market size seems to be stunted (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001).

3.00
This species is raised in a low risk system (e.g., re-circulating closed system; suspended culture of mollusks; zero-discharge ponds).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Species is raised at a high stocking density; OR there is a high density of sites in the geographic region, with evidence of environmental impact.

Grow-out densities are approximately 50 to 75 seed clams (7 to 15 mm) per square foot (Lorio and Malone 1995), although density can be as high as 150 per square foot according to Kraeuter and Castagna (2001). If the clams are not growing quickly, farmers will clear some out to lower density (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). There have been no density-related problems in Hard clam aquaculture operations.

-0.25
Operations do not incorporate best-available, cost-effective technology to reduce environmental impact.
-0.25
There are no effective zoning or permitting practices for siting of facilities.
-0.25
Government programs encourage expansion of high-impact systems.
+0.25
Species is raised at a low stocking density OR there is a low density of sites in the geographic region, which results in minimal impact to the natural ecosystem.
+0.25
Operations incorporate innovative culture methods that limit environmental impacts (e.g., polyculture).
+0.25
There are effective zoning or permitting practices for siting and operation of facilities (e.g., mandatory consideration of hydrographic characteristics; requirements for site rotation).

Controls on farm locations vary by state, region, and often by locality. Some of the permitting agencies include: the State Division of Fish and Wildlife in Rhode Island, The Division of Marine Fisheries in Massachusetts, the State Department of Agriculture’s Aquaculture Division in Connecticut, and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in New York. In most areas, it appears that it is often difficult to obtain submerged lands leases. For example, in Florida, submerged land leases are available only in areas where other resources are absent, such as sea grasses, reefs and wild shellfish beds that are of economic importance (HBOI 2004).

+0.25
Government programs preferentially encourage the expansion of low-impact systems over high impact systems.
2.25
Points for Inherent Operational Risks

Feed

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Ecological Footprint of Feed:

"Trash" fish, frequently used in developing countries, is an industry term used to refer to whole fish or fish parts fed to farmed fish without being processed into fish meal and fish oil.

Twenty percent was selected as a cut-off because carnivorous species (e.g., salmon; eel; tuna; cobia; etc.) generally consume greater than twenty percent fish products (fishmeal, fish oil, or trash fish), while omnivorous or herbivorous species (e.g., catfish; tilapia; carps; etc.) consume less than twenty percent fish products.

1.00
Typical aquaculture feed includes high levels of fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (i.e., >20% of the feed; e.g., salmonid feeds).
2.00
Typical aquaculture feed includes moderate levels of fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (i.e., <20% of the feed; e.g., tilapia and catfish feeds).
3.00
No feed is used (e.g., mollusks and seaweeds) or typical aquaculture feed includes no fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (e.g., paddlefish; filter-feeding carps).

No feed is used during the bulk of the animal's life. Some algae may be added to seawater during the hatchery stage (Lorio and Malone 1995). In one method the algae is raised in the hatchery by filtering seawater and then warming it to create an algal bloom. In another method, unicellular algal cultures are reared and added to the clam water at .5-1 L per 50 clams per day at 10x10^5 cells/mL. The preferred alga is the Tahitian Isochrysis. (Kreeuter and Castagna 2001)

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
When fish products are used, the major sources score low on the Wild-Caught Fisheries Ranking System.
-0.25
Feed contains greater than 10% of fish products and public or private sectors are not working to reduce fish content in feed.
-0.25
Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is high (i.e., >2.0; e.g., eel).
-0.25
Government policy promotes research, development and commercialization of carnivorous or other highly fishmeal-dependent species.
+0.25
When fish products are used, the major sources score high on the Wild-Caught Fisheries Ranking System; OR the source is innovative and ecologically sound (e.g., fisheries byproducts); OR no feed is used.

No feed is used.

+0.25
Feed contains less than 10% of fish products OR public and private sectors are working to reduce the fish content in feed; OR no feed is used.

No feed is used.

+0.25
Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is low (i.e., <1.3; e.g., salmon); OR no feed is used.

No feed is used.

+0.25
Government policy promotes research, development and commercialization of herbivorous species or other species not highly dependent on fishmeal.
3.75
Points for Feed

Pollution

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Typical effluent treatment procedures:

1.00
Effluent is not treated before discharge (e.g., salmon net pens).
2.00
Effluent is partially treated before discharge (e.g., infrequently discharged effluent from catfish ponds).
3.00
Effluent is substantially treated before discharge (e.g., recirculating shrimp systems; settling ponds; reconstructed wetlands); OR treatment is not necessary because supplemental feed is not used (e.g., molluscs or seaweeds).

Treatment of effluent is not necessary because supplemental feed is not used to farm hard clams (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Operations have demonstrated negative impacts on water quality or sediment/benthic characteristics (e.g., elevated nutrient levels; algal blooms; altered benthic communities).
-0.25
Pollutants (e.g., pesticides; parasiticides; antibiotics; plastic; nets; dead fish) are frequently discharged into the environment or otherwise not appropriately discarded.
-0.25
Effluent regulations do not exist, are lax, or are poorly enforced, which allows for degradation of the aquatic environment.
-0.25
Available technologies and practices to reduce or recycle waste (e.g., feed sensors; low-pollution feeds) are not used.
+0.25
Operations generally improve water quality or sediment/benthic characteristics (e.g., oyster farms).

Clams improve water quality by filtering out algae and other plankton, reducing levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, other nutrients and suspended solids (Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Chemicals (e.g., pesticides; parasiticides; antibiotics) are rarely or never used.

Antibiotics may be used during the short nursery stage, but are not used throughout most of the animal's life (Lorio and Malone 1995). This is primarily a research practice, and is rarely used in commercial production (Kraeuter, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Robust water quality regulations exist (e.g., permits required; discharge caps; strong enforcement), and regular monitoring occurs.

No controls are necessary for effluent from hard clam operations. However, water quality for growout areas is monitored by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program and local agencies, and contamination from PSP or bacterial outbreak leads to area closures (Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Innovative methods and practices to reduce or recycle wastes are used (e.g., integrated systems; effluent and solid wastes used as terrestrial fertilizer); OR innovative methods and practices are not needed because raising this species does not create waste.

Farming this species does not create waste.

4.00
Points for Pollution

Risk to Other Species

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Frequency and Impact of Escapes:

1.00
Farmed species regularly or intermittently escape into the wild AND escapes are non-native to the area or otherwise pose a risk to native populations or ecosystems (e.g., most non-native fish raised in outdoor facilities).
2.00
Escape frequency is not known OR farmed species is native to the area where it is raised and poses minimal risk to native populations or ecosystems (e.g., channel catfish in the US; most native mollusks).

The hard clams that are available in the U.S. market are all raised within the species native range, predominantly from Massachusetts to Florida. While introductions have occurred on the West coast and in Europe, they have not been commercially successful. There are major hard clam farming operations in Taiwan, but these clams do not enter the U.S. market (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). However, "escape" is common in clams, as they are broadcast spawners that are mature at one to two years of age (NYSC 2002). "Escape" via broadcast spawning may help to repopulate natural beds that have been impacted by overfishing and/or disease though.

3.00
Farmed species never (or virtually never) escape to the wild (e.g., species is raised in bio-secure facilities).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
This farmed species has been known to survive in the surrounding ecosystem if it escapes; OR would likely survive given its physiological requirements.
-0.25
This farmed species is known or is likely to compete with wild species for food or habitat if it escapes; OR this species is known or is likely to compromise the genetic integrity of the wild species (e.g., through spawning disruption, genetic introgression or establishment of feral stocks) if it escapes.
-0.25
This farmed species is known or is likely to amplify and transmit disease or parasites to wild populations (e.g., infectious salmon anemia or sea lice infestations) if it escapes.

QPX (Quahog Parasite Unidentified) is a disease that effects Hard clams in the northeastern states. It was first discovered in New Brunswick in 1969, and has since appeared in populations throughout the northeast. There have been no outbreaks south of Virginia. QPX infects farmed clam beds generally about a year after planting. When seed from a southern state (i.e., Florida, North Carolina) is moved to the north, the clams are far more susceptible to the disease than clams grown from seed that originates from the north. Scientists speculate that this is because the disease does not exist in the south, and therefore the clams have not built up resistance to it. It remains unknown what the infection source is. QPX is not found in hatcheries, indicating that the source is in the wild, and that the disease is transmitted from wild populations to farmed populations. Outbreaks in farmed populations do not seem to amplify the disease in wild populations (Kraeuter, pers. comm. 2004).

Hard clams are also affected by the ubiquitous Vibrio spp., which can lead to clam fatalities. Vibrio infections can be treated with antibiotics, but states caution against this because of increased resistance to the antibiotics. The best way to combat Vibrio in hatcheries is to improve cleanliness (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). Hatcheries only monitor their seed for disease if they are to be shipped to another state, so there is no assurance that contaminated seed will not be planted, nor is there any way to prevent the spread of the disease from farms once the clams are planted.

-0.25
Regulatory authorities are not adequately addressing the risks of escape or spread of disease associated with farming this species.
+0.25
This farmed species has not been known to survive in the surrounding ecosystem if it escapes; OR would not likely survive given its physiological requirements; OR farmed species is a native mollusc.

This farmed species is a native mollusk in most areas where it is raised. In most places where it has been introduced, the introductions have not been invasive, leading only to small, localized populations which are not of commercial significance (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001).

+0.25
Operations employ management protocols and techniques to limit the ecological impacts of escaped farmed fish (e.g., triploidy; sterilization); OR it’s unlikely that escaped individuals will either compete with wild species for resources, or compromise the genetic integrity of wild species.

As wild populations have been somewhat decimated, planted clams do not compete with wild populations, but complement them, and since the broodstock is not genetically different than the wild populations, the planted clams are unlikely to compromise genetic integrity (Shumway, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Operations employ effective disease and parasite management protocols (e.g., fallowing of pens; retaining water when disease outbreak occurs); OR incidence of disease or risk of retransmitting disease is low.
+0.25
Regulatory authorities are addressing the risks of escape and spread of disease associated with farming this species.

The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) coordinates water quality standards and the transfer of shellfish between states. Water quality regulation is necessary to ensure that the market product is not harmful to human health. Monitoring interstate shellfish transfers is important in preventing the spread of disease and invasive species between different locales. When the NSSP was created in 1988, many areas were immediately closed for harvest due to water quality problems, such as parts of Cape Cod. State and local agencies responsible for fisheries management (including the State Division of Fish and Wildlife in Rhode Island, The Division of Marine Fisheries in Massachusetts, the State Department of Agriculture’s Aquaculture Division in Connecticut, and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in New York) must comply with NSSP regulations (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). These agencies are responsible for issuing permits, overseeing leasing of beds, exercising control over uncertified areas, monitoring water quality and classifying areas along NSSP guidelines.

2.50
Points for Risk to Other Species

Ecological Effects

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Ecological sensitivity of site used for operations:

1.00
Operations are generally located in areas of high ecological sensitivity (e.g., coastal wetlands; mangroves).
2.00
Operations are generally located in areas of moderate ecological sensitivity (e.g., coastal and nearshore waters; rocky intertidal or subtidal zones; river or stream shorelines).

Hard clam farms occur in intertidal and subtidal zones of bays and other protected areas.

3.00
Operations are generally located in areas of low ecological sensitivity (e.g., land that is less susceptible to degradation such as land formerly used for agriculture or land previously developed).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Farming this species causes substantial damage to surrounding habitat, ecosystem or other resources (e.g., groundwater depletion; stream diversion; saltwater intrusion; soil salinization; loss of habitat for juvenile fish; loss of flood control; dredging hard bottoms; etc.).

Hard clam dredging may occur, depending on state regulations. Dredging appears to be a less frequent harvesting method then tonging or raking the area for clams; where dredging occurs it is probably over a limited area. Rake types commonly used to harvest Hard clams include the bullrake, shinnicock rake or oversized clam rake (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001). Dredging does not occur when clams are raised in trays (Lorio and Malone 1995; SRAC 1995). Since dredging appears to be very limited, points were not subtracted here.

-0.25
Harmful or lethal predator deterrents are used (e.g., bird/seal shootings; acoustic deterrent devices); OR operation otherwise harms wildlife (e.g., dolphin/seal entanglement; disrupting migration routes; bird/animal shooting).
-0.25
If seed is collected from wild sources, the intensity of collection is high enough to result in depletion of brood stock, wild juveniles, or associated non-target organisms (e.g., collection of postlarvae shrimp).
-0.25
Government policy encourages aquaculture operations to locate or expand in areas of high ecological sensitivity.
+0.25
Operations enhance habitat structure or function (e.g., constructed wetlands).

Hard clam farms in the United States generally improve water quality by reducing the potential for eutrophication and helping the recovery of wild stocks. In addition, clam farms provide enhance habitat structure. The mesh nets that are used to protect the clams become a substrate for macro-algal and other fouling communities, and thus act like a low lying reef and become home for many additional species. The presence of the mesh may also stabilize the bottom, thereby enhancing the area for reestablishment of submerged aquatic vegetation (Kraeuter, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Predator deterrents are not used OR predator deterrents are used but are not harmful or lethal (e.g., predator exclusion nets), AND operation does not otherwise harm wildlife.

Hard clam farms generally use nets as predator deterrents. A commonly used net is made of light density polyethylene, and is secured to the ground by laying heavy tubing around the edges or burying the edges under the substrate. These nets need to be checked regularly to ensure that they remain sealed. (Kraeuter and Castagna 2001) These nets are not known to harm or kill wildlife (Shumway, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Seed comes predominantly from hatcheries or on-farm sites (e.g., seed for trout); OR if seed is collected from the wild, it does not deplete brood stock, wild juveniles, or associated non-target organisms (e.g., collection of oyster or mussel spat).

Seeds come exclusively from hatcheries.

+0.25
Government policy encourages the growth of aquaculture operations in areas of low ecological sensitivity; OR protects sensitive habitats from aquaculture operations (e.g., prohibitions on cutting mangroves).
2.75
Points for Ecological Effects

References

Downey, R., Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association. Personal Communication. 18 May 2004.

FAO (2004). FAO Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. FISHSTAT Plus: Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Version 2.3.

Ford, S.E., J.N. Kraeuter, R.D. Barber, G. Mathis. Aquaculture-associated factors in QPX disease of hard clams: density and seed source. 2001. Aquaculture. 208:23-38.

HBOI (2004). Harbor Branch Oceanographic Insitute.Available online at: http://www.hboi.edu/aqua/pdfs/clams.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2004.

Kraeuter, John. Personal Communication. October 20, 2004.

Kraeuter, J.N. and M. Castagna, Eds. Biology of the Hard Clam. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science – 31. Elsevier. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Lorio, W.J. and S. Malone. 1995. Biology and culture of the northern quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, SRAC Publication No. 433. February, 1995.

Maryland Aquafarmer Online. Issue 2000-01. Winter, 2000. http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/Extension/Aquafarmer/Winter00.html

Marine Biological Laboratories Communications, September, 2001. http://www.mbl.edu/communications/publications/monthlys/Vol,%2011,%20No.%205,%20Sept.%2001/smolowitz.clams.html

NMFS (2004). NMFS foreign trade information. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/trade_cmprsn_by_product.html. Accessed 19 May 2004.

New York Seafood Council. Available online at: http://www.nyseafood.org/nysc/clams1.asp. Accessed March, 2002.

Shumway, Sandra. Department of Marine Sciences. University of Connecticut. Personal Communication. 24 May 2004.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, SRAC Publication No. 433. February, 1995.

WHOI Sea Grant. Shellfish disease and their control in local waters. April, 1998. Available online at: http://www.whoi.edu/seagrant/education/focalpoints/shellfish.html

BLUE OCEAN INSTITUTE

34 Muttontown Lane, PO Box 250, East Norwich, NY 11732 • 1-877-BOI-SEAS • seafood@blueocean.org