Economic impacts of alternative regulatory scenarios on the Florida fresh half shell oyster industry

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Economic impacts of alternative regulatory scenarios on the Florida fresh half shell oyster industry
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Morgan, Kimberly L.
Stevens, Thomas J. III
Degner, Robert L.
Larkin, Sherry L.
Adams, Charles M.
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Notes

General Note:
Industry Report 10-1

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
System ID:
AA00000198:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

UFW UNIVERSITY of
Ur FLORIDA
IFAS


Economic Impacts of Alternative Regulatory Scenarios on the
Florida Fresh Half Shell Oyster Industry


By

Kimberly L. Morgan, Thomas J. Stevens, III, Robert L. Degner, Sherry L.
Larkin, and Charles M. Adams


Industry Report 10-1






April 2010









Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida


































































ii










TABLE OF CONTENTS


TAB LE O F CON TEN TS ............................................................. ....................... iii
TA B LE O F TA B LE S .... ............................ ........................ .. .. .... .............. iv
T A B L E O F F IG U R E S ............................................................................ ...................... vi
A C K N O W LE D G M EN T S ......................................................... ................................ vii
E X E C U T IV E SU M M A R Y ............................................................................................... ix
IN T R O D U C T IO N ........ ........................................................ .. ........ .. ........... 2
T h e In du story ................................................................................................... . . 3

T he Situation ................................................. 4

O B JE C T IV E S .................................................................................................... . . 5
P R O C E D U R E S ....................................................................... 6
F IN D IN G S ....................................................................... 7
Overall Oyster Industry ........................................................ ......... 7

Sum m er O yster H harvest ....................................................................... 10

Sum m er C losure Scenarios ....................................................................... 12

Estimated Revenues of Summer Closure Scenarios .................................... 13
Estimated Employment of Summer Closure Scenarios .......................................... 22
Estimated Secondary Impacts/Contributions of Summer Closure Scenarios ........... 24
CON CLU SION S.......................... ............ .............. 26
R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................... ........ ...... 28









TABLE OF TABLES


Table 1. Numbers of oyster harvesters with dockside revenues from oysters and all other
saltw ater species, 2004............. ............................... 6
Table 2. Oyster harvesters' total annual revenues from oysters and all other saltwater
species, 2004 ................................................................ ........... ..... 8
Table 3. Annual revenues from oysters received by Florida harvesters, 2004 ................. 9
Table 4. Analyses of 2004 dockside revenues paid to harvesters, by decile ...................... 9
Table 5. Actual dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, 2004 ............. 10
Table 6. Total dockside revenues of Florida oyster harvesters who ONLY harvest during
the five-m month and three-m month periods ................................ .................... 11
Table 7. Total dockside revenues of Florida oyster harvesters who DO NOT harvest
during the five-month or three month periods. ................................................... 11
Table 8. Descriptions of various scenarios involving alternative closure periods for fresh
shellstock sales and levels of substitution of PHT (frozen) shellstock for fresh half shell
produ ct ....................... .................................... ....... .......... ..... 12
Table 9. Scenario 1: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month
using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004 average
m o n th ly p ric e s a ............................................................................................................... 1 3
Table 10. Scenario 2: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year time period, 2000 2004, and
2004 average m monthly prices. a............................ ............................... ...... ............... 14
Table 11. Scenario 3: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average m monthly prices. ...................... ...... .......... ... .............. 15
Table 12. Scenario 4: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average m monthly prices. ...................... ...... ......... .... ........... .. 16
Table 13. Scenario 5: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average m monthly prices. ...................... ...... ......... .... ........... .. 17
Table 14. Scenario 6: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average m monthly prices. ...................... ...... .......... ... .............. 18
Table 15. Scenario 7: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average monthly prices. .................... ........ ........... ................ 19
Table 16. Hypothetical total dockside and F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster
products harvested under various scenarios................ ............................. ........... 20
Table 17. Hypothetical annual labor requirements based upon average landings, 2000-04,
adjusted for various closure periods and production levels of PHT (frozen) oysters....... 23









Table 18. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under various scenarios. .................................. ........................................ 26
Appendix Table 1. Hypothetical monthly F.O.B. sales of Florida fresh half shell and
shucked oysters using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and
2004 prices. ............................................................................... 29
Appendix Table 2. Hypothetical annual F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster
products under various closure scenarios with partial replacement of fresh half shell
product w ith PH T (frozen) product............ .......................................... .............. 30
Appendix Table 3. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 1.a........................................... ................... 32
Appendix Table 4. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 2.a................................. ................................ 32
Appendix Table 5. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 3. a .................. .................... ................. 33
Appendix Table 6. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 4. a .................. .................... ................ 33
Appendix Table 7. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 5. a .................. .................... ................. 34
Appendix Table 8. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 6. a ........... ......... ............................................ 34
Appendix Table 9. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 7. a .............................................................. 35









TABLE OF FIGURES


Figure 1. Percent of active harvesters by percent of 2004 revenues............... ................ 7
Figure 2. Reported commercial Florida oyster landings, 2004 and 2000-04 average........ 8
Figure 3. Total dockside revenues for all types Florida oysters harvested under current
situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios........................... 21
Figure 4. Total F.O.B. revenues for all types Florida oysters harvested under current
situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios........................... 22









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The authors are particularly grateful to the United States Department of Agriculture's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (USDA- CSREES) for
funding this study under USDA Grant No. 2004-34483-14575 entitled "Implementing
Post Harvest Treatments in Commerce of Florida Oysters.". The authors would like to
express their gratitude to the consulting members of the Florida oyster industry for their
insights into the intricacies of oyster harvesting and processing requirements. They were
especially helpful in the formative stages of this project. The authors also express thanks
to faculty members of the Aquatic Food Products Lab of the Food Science and Human
Nutrition Department, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, for their time and assistance in completing this project. The authors
thank our reviewers, Dr. Leslie Sturmer, Ms. Jennifer Clark, and Mr. David Heil for
their helpful comments and suggestions. Many thanks offered to FRE Editor Ms. Carol
Fountain for her detailed review of the manuscript.


































































viii










EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The purpose of this study was to examine the economic impacts of possible closures of
the fresh half shell oyster market for varying time periods with the intention of
protecting consumers from V. vulnificus infections. Economic impacts were estimated
for harvesters, processors, and the overall economies of Franklin and Gulf Counties in
Florida.

During the 2004 calendar year, 496 individuals harvested and sold Florida oysters. Of
these, 448 sold only oysters (90%) while 48 sold oysters and some other saltwater
species. Dockside revenues received by the 496 harvesters for oysters were estimated to
total nearly $3 million in 2004.

Approximately 50 percent of the harvesters accounted for over 90 percent of the oyster
revenues. Examination of the 2000-2004 average oyster dockside revenues reveals
seasonal total revenues of about 31 percent for May-September and 19 percent for
June-August. There were 213 harvesters (42.9%) that did not operate during the May-
September period. There were 262 (52.8%) that did not harvest oysters during the June-
August period (Table 7).

Using average quantity of oyster landings for 2000-2004 and 2004 dockside prices,
seven unique scenarios were examined to determine the economic impacts on harvesters,
processors, and the overall economy of Franklin and Gulf Counties in Florida. Average
landings for the five-year period were used to provide a more stable long-term average.
Each scenario assumed a different combination of regulatory closures and post-harvest
treated (PHT) oyster utilization (Table 8).

In conclusion, in the worst-case scenarios, closure of the fresh half shell market for five
months or three months with minimal or no frozen PHT product replacement would
cause economic losses to harvesters, processors, and the overall regional economy.
Reductions in harvesters' dockside revenue and processors' F.O.B. gross revenues would
be about 25 and 16 percent, respectively, for the five-month and three-month closures.

Replacement levels of 25 and 50 percent of historical fresh half shell sales with the
frozen PHT product may be unrealistic with respect to the biological and logistical
feasibility of accelerating the harvest of shellstock requirements for the closure periods
to earlier months (i.e., March and April).

Even if 25 or 50 percent replacement levels are achievable in the marketplace and
processors' gross F.O.B. revenues are increased, there are no assurances that these gross
revenues will result in sustainable profitability to the processors. Furthermore, the large
investment required for PHT processing and economies of scale may preclude all but a
very few processors from participating in the frozen PHT market.


































































1










INTRODUCTION


The American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) has been a popular shellfish food
since the discovery of the Americas, and can be found off the coasts of the Northern
U.S.-Canadian Atlantic waters down to the Gulf of Mexico (Lutz et al. 2003; Lorio and
Malone 1994). However, oyster aficionados have long adhered to the old adage "only eat
oysters during the 'R' months." Although this maxim originated in the days before
refrigeration become commonplace, it likewise holds true in modern times due to the
prevalence of the bacteria V vulnificus. The naturally occurring V vulnificus is more
prolific in warmer waters, such as Florida's Gulf Coast, particularly during the summer
months of May, June, July, and August. Consumption of shellfish meats containing V.
vulnificus can result in severe illness and loss of life for specific "at-risk (Probably a
good idea to provide using FDA as a source the average annual number of US cases -30
to 35 and the average annual mortality rate -50%).
The results of a 2000-01 nationwide consumer survey revealed that 43 percent of
the respondents ate oysters occasionally, with an average rate of 2.6 times per month
(Hanson et al. 2003). Consumers appear to recognize the risks associated with eating raw
oysters, as nearly one-half of those who eat oysters rated them the "least safe" seafood
relative to twelve alternative shellfish and finfish products. The researchers discovered
that 43 percent of oyster consumers would eat more oysters if the depuration (process of
flushing oysters with V. vulnificus-free water for a specified period of time prior to
harvest) method was used on the product, with a mean willingness to pay an extra 34
cents per depurated oyster.
Flattery and Bashin (2003) conducted a survey prior to the release of intensified
V. vulnificus consumer education efforts by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
(ISSC). The research established a baseline meant to indicate current levels of awareness,
behaviors, and consumption patterns of raw oyster consumers. Nearly 2,000 telephone
interviews were conducted from late 2001 through February 2002, with consumers
located in California, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas being targeted. The authors
concluded that 37 percent of at-risk consumers were eating raw oysters less often in an
attempt to reduce their risk of illness; however, 42 percent of the at-risk groups were not
changing their consumption behavior. Overall, they discovered that "misconceptions
about how to reduce one's risk of V vulnificus infection are widespread."
Shapiro et al. (1998) summarized data concerning V vulnificus infections that
occurred in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas from 1988 through 1996. The data
was sourced from the Gulf Coast Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), which collects case information as provided on a volunteer basis by
medical health professionals. The researchers discovered that V vulnificus infections
peaked in the warmer summer months, and that 79 percent of all cases were traced
directly back to Louisiana and Florida sources of harvested oysters. In sum, the
researchers suggested that while V. vulnificus cases were rare, the infection is "highly
lethal" and that "restricting the use of oysters harvested in warm Gulf waters to cooked or
other suitably processed products may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality."
The Florida V vulnificus Risk Reduction Plan for Oysters was established in 2001
with the stated goal to assure a significant reduction in V. vulnificus septicemia illnesses









through a combination of consumer education, processing incentives, and if necessary,
processing controls (FDA 2007). This plan outlined specific administrative procedures,
responsibilities, and goals for the state of Florida, along with any other states that had two
or more confirmed annual cases of V vulnificus illnesses traced back to oysters harvested
or processed in Florida. The Florida Department of Health illness data revealed that
consumption of contaminated Florida oysters resulted in an annual average of 8.8
illnesses reported during the 1995-99 baseline period that was established by the plan.
There are four post-harvest processing (PHP) options available to oyster
processors: irradiation, cryogenic individual quick-freezing (IQF) followed by frozen
storage, cool pasteurization, and hydrostatic pressure. The process of irradiating oysters
has been in use by some U.S. processors for fifteen years. Low doses of gamma
irradiation were proven to be "effective in reducing large concentrations of both
pathogenic and non-pathogenic Vibrios to non-detectable levels" (Andrews, Jahncke, and
Mallikarjunan 2003). This study also conducted consumer panels which provided
evidence that the irradiated oysters did not possess significantly different sensory
qualities relative to non-irradiated oysters, and shelf life was maintained beyond two
weeks.
A 2003 report generated by the Division of Aquaculture, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) revealed the results of a survey concerning
post-harvest treatment capacity among Florida Certified Shellfish Processors. A total of
41 processors who handled oysters completed the survey, which characterized any
current and expected post-harvest treatment activities and any influencing factors and
concerns related to this type of processing. Of these, only one firm had IQF technology in
place, and seven stated that they were in the construction phase. Five firms indicated that
they had plans to purchase post-harvest treated product from other dealers.
Three PHT technologies were evaluated by the Research Triangle Institute with
respect to their ability to reduce V. vulnificus levels and the economic impacts associated
with each treatment method (Muth et al. 2000). While this study found that oyster
processors were interested in adopting these technologies to reduce V. vulnificus levels
and allow for greater storability, concerns remained about consumer acceptance of treated
oysters, adaptability of PHT across oyster species, and the accessibility of PHT facilities
to low-volume processors unable to install independent equipment.
In a 2001 study conducted by the FDACS Bureau of Seafood and Aquaculture
Marketing, panelists were offered a sample of three oysters served on the half shell,
where either two had been treated by the freezing process to control V vulnificus and one
was a fresh oyster, or vice versa. Consumers accurately detected a difference between the
samples in 37 cases (55% of the panelists). Interestingly, the researchers discovered that
there was no significant preference expressed by this group, as 49 percent preferred the
fresh oysters while 51 percent indicated that they preferred the previously frozen oysters.
The Industry
The commercial oyster industry in Florida represents an important component of
the overall commercial seafood industry. Florida is the fourth most important U.S. state
in the production of Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica). The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf)
region produces over 70 percent of the total U.S. supply of Eastern oysters. Florida
typically produces approximately 8 percent of the total Gulf-region eastern oyster









production. In addition, oysters are an important part of the complement of species
commercially targeted in Florida. Oysters are the sixth most important species, in terms
of dockside value, landed by the Florida commercial fishing industry. Over 95 percent of
the total annual harvest of oysters in Florida comes from the Apalachicola Bay region
adjoining Franklin and Gulf Counties. Given the relatively undiversified nature of the
economies of these two counties, which are dominated by forestry and tourism, the
commercial oyster fishery is an important addition to their economies.
Eastern oysters harvested in Florida comprise an important segment of the overall
Gulf-region seafood sector. Oysters are processed as a shucked product, as well as being
directed as shellstock into the lucrative half shell, raw consumption market. The oyster
processing industry in Florida is comprised of firms that shuck and/or ship shellstock to
markets within Florida and to markets throughout the United States. Florida oyster
processors handle not only Florida-harvested oysters, but also oysters harvested from
other states within the Gulf region. In fact, approximately 60 percent of the total volume
of oysters processed in Florida comes from other Gulf-region states. Florida oysters are
also utilized in further value-added processing, and enter the final retail and food service
markets in a variety of product forms.
The Situation
Oysters are consumed in a variety of product forms. However, one of the most
popular and traditional ways to consume oysters is the "raw on the half shell" option.
Oysters utilized in this manner are harvested from approved waters, sorted/washed and
bagged/boxed by the processor, shipped at approved temperatures to the retail setting,
and consumed raw by the final consumer. The entire process of moving oysters from the
harvesting site to the final consumer is regulated by the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program and the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Program. This is due to the potential
health risks associated with the possible consumption of a raw product taken from a
natural, aquatic environment where pathogens may occur. Although a raw product, for
most consumers the ingestion of raw oysters containing V. vulnificus poses very little, if
any, health risk. However, for a very small segment of the consuming public, the
ingestion of raw molluscan shellfish containing V. vulnificus carries with it significant
health risks. For example, individuals with a compromised immune system may be at risk
when consuming raw oysters containing V. vulnificus.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has oversight responsibility
concerning the regulation and monitoring of health and sanitation issues concerning raw
molluscan shellfish consumption. Of particular interest to the FDA is the incidence of
illness associated with a specific pathogen, V vulnificus, which occurs naturally within
marine environment. The ingestion of the V vulnificus bacteria typically poses little risk
of illness when consumed by a healthy adult with a normally functioning immune system.
However, V vulnificus septicemia illness can occur when raw oysters are consumed by
an individual with a compromised immune system. Individuals with liver disease, low
stomach acid, or undergoing chemotherapy are a subset of those individuals who may be
at an increased risk of contracting V. vulnificus septicemia if they consume raw oysters.
And since the levels of V. vulnificus within oysters are typically elevated during the
months of the year when water temperatures are higher, such as May through September,









the FDA and ISSC have begun focusing efforts to enhance safety assurance on that
period during each year.
During the 1995-2004 period, there was an average of 8.9 reported cases of V.
vulnificus septicemia in Florida resulting from the consumption of oysters harvested from
all U.S. waters. However, during that same period, there were on average 3.1 (Florida)
and 4.3 (U.S.) reported cases of V vulnificus septicemia, respectively, resulting from the
consumption of oysters harvested only from Florida waters. The FDA has determined
that these illness levels are unacceptable and has established illness reduction targets that
each source state must obtain. For example, the rate of confirmed shellfish-borne V
vulnificus septicemia illnesses reported collectively by California, Florida, Louisiana, and
Texas from the consumption of commercially harvested raw or undercooked oysters must
be reduced by an average of 60 percent from the average illness rate observed for 1995-
1999 of 0.303 cases per million (unit of population). If this target is not achieved, the
NSSP has a management plan that could, among other provisions, close shellfish growing
areas for the purpose of harvesting oysters intended for the raw, half shell market when
the average monthly maximum water temperature exceeds 75 degrees Fahrenheit. More
specifically, the NSSP may require closure of shellfish growing areas for the purpose of
harvesting oysters intended for the raw, half shell market from May through September,
although a shorter closure period could possibly be considered (although, for year 2010
the ISSC has accepted new stringent time to refrigeration controls).
The purpose of this study is to examine the economic consequences of an NSSP
or FDA-mandated closure during all or a portion of the May-September period. Such a
closure would impact not only the harvesters, but also the shellfish processors; the local
businesses that supply goods and services to the harvesting, wholesaling, and processing
sectors; local restaurants; and other businesses within the region. Thus the benefits gained
from illness reduction may come at a cost to the local economy. This study will examine
the consequences to those sectors and develop estimates of the economic impact of
several oyster harvesting closure scenarios. This information will help resource managers
better understand the changes in economic activities that will result from the potential
FDA or NSSP management provisions, so that economic and social health objectives can
be appropriately incorporated into the decisions affecting the commercial oyster industry
in Florida.

OBJECTIVES

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the economic impacts of
possible closures of the fresh half shell market for varying time periods with the intention
of protecting consumers from exposure to V vulnificus infections. Economic impacts
were estimated for harvesters, processors, and the overall economies of Franklin and Gulf
Counties located in the "Big Bend" area of the Florida Panhandle region, which
represents the majority of oyster harvesting waters in the state.
The specific objectives were to (1) determine the average monthly oyster landings
and dockside prices received by Florida's oyster harvesters during the 2000-04 time
period; (2) compute the percentage of total harvested yields sold as fresh half shell versus
shucked product; (3) review the harvest quantity and price data for seasonal trend
patterns and variations; (4) determine the post-harvest processing capabilities of the









fishery; (5) estimate the internal and external impacts under various summer closure
scenarios that are currently under consideration, and (6) estimate the internal and external
economic impacts under various summer closure scenarios in combination with various
levels of post-harvest treatment capacity. This information can be used to provide
guidance to regulatory agencies and stakeholders that are involved with ensuring the
availability and safety of oysters harvested from Florida's waters.

PROCEDURES

In order to estimate the economic impacts associated with potential closures of the
Florida oyster fisheries, Marine Fisheries Trip Ticket data for 2004 were collected from
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). All individuals engaged on the
commercial harvest of saltwater species from Florida waters are required to purchase an
annual license from Florida Wildlife Commission. Upon the return of a fishing vessel to
the docks, a trip ticket is issued, and harvested species type, volume, and price received is
recorded. In 2004, the data revealed that more than 90 percent of harvesters brought in
oysters exclusively on each trip, while less than 10 percent harvested both oysters and
other saltwater species on a single trip (Table 1).

Table 1. Numbers of oyster harvesters with dockside revenues from oysters and all other
saltwater species, 2004.

Source of Revenue Number of Harvesters Percent of Harvesters


Exclusively oysters 448 90.3
Oysters AND other saltwater species 48 9.7

Total oyster harvesters 496 100.0
Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket Data.


Major oyster processors were contacted so that accurate industry averages could
be computed using actual data from the 2004 season. Processors were asked to estimate
the percentage of fresh half shell versus shucked product, shucked yields by month, and
monthly F.O.B. wholesale prices paid for fresh half shell and shucked oysters. Processors
were also queried about their access to, and interest in, post-harvest processing facilities
as well as the costs and prices associated with providing a PHP oyster to the half shell
consumer market. These values were used to generate seasonal trends and served as the
basis for the development of post-harvest processing capacity and suggested harvest
limitations that might be considered to reduce the risk of consumer exposure to V
vulnificus infections.
Florida's oyster fishery relies on labor supplied by local residents; therefore any
required harvest closure periods would result in economic impacts that resonate
throughout the Franklin and Gulf Counties of Florida. To estimate these impacts, an
input-output model was utilized using the IMPLAN software and databases (MIG).
IMPLAN model parameters for employment, labor costs, and proprietor income were









adjusted to conform to average values derived from trip ticket data, survey results, and
industry-expert opinion.

FINDINGS


Overall Oyster Industry
In 2007, Florida oyster harvesters landed nearly 2.4 million pounds of product
valued at almost $5.4 million that were collected during 26,309 total trips (FFWC).
Between 1994 and 2003, the waters off of Franklin and Gulf Counties supplied an
average of 81.4 percent of the total oysters harvested in Florida, ranging from a high of
90.6 to a low of 67.6 percent in the years 2000 and 1996, respectively (Figure 1). In 2004,
Florida harvested oysters were valued at nearly $3 million, representing 96.4 percent of
the total value of trips recorded by 496 harvesters (Table 2). This information highlights
the importance of accurately measuring the economic value of proposed oyster fishery
closures, as the majority of the economic impact in Florida will be confined to the
participants and other input and support providers of Franklin and Gulf Counties.


Figure 1. Percent of active harvesters by percent of 2004 revenues.


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%


20% 40% 60% 80%
Percent of annual 2004 revenue


100%


To confirm the validity of the 2004 Trip Ticket oyster landings data, the number
of 60-pound sacks recorded was plotted along with the average annual number of sacks
harvested throughout Florida over the five-year period from 2000 to 2004 (Figure 2). The
oyster reproductive cycle peaks in the summer months, resulting in smaller and less
desirable meat qualities and relatively lower harvest rates relative to the winter and spring
months. In addition to poorer meat quality, warmer summer waters are presumed to
contribute to higher V vulnificus infections. Strong jumps in harvested volumes occurred
from October through December, as the oysters are collected and sold to the more










profitable half shell market. This seasonal peak from October through April also
coincides with the influx of Florida's winter residents, "Spring Break" tourism activities,
and holiday occasions.

Table 2. Oyster harvesters' total annual revenues from oysters and all other saltwater
species, 2004.
Number of Percent of Revenues by Percent of Total
Source of Revenue Harvesters Harvesters Species Revenues
(Dollars)

Oysters 496 100.0 2,998,588 96.4
All other saltwater
species 48 9.7 110,670 3.6

Total, all species 496 100.0 3,109,258 100.0
Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket Data. See Appendix Table 1 for detailed breakdown.


Figure 2. Reported commercial Florida oyster landings, 2004 and 2000-04 average.


35,000
28,891 30,918
30,000 27.823 27.709
26.966 26.947
264 29.164
5 25,000 -5
S20.874 6.3
240 24.734 19.906 22.426
20,000 17.748
20.629 19.916
S15000 17.846 19.28 16.354
16.677
E \ 12.374
10,000
z 968

5,000
6.093
0 I I I
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

-*- 2004 Trip Ticket actual landings
2000-2004 FL Fish & Wildlife Cons. Comm. average landings



As in other fisheries, 112 harvesters (22.3%) earned relatively low incomes of less
than $500 annually for Florida oysters harvested in 2004 (Table 3). Another 21 percent of
harvesters reported gross incomes ranging from $2,000 to $4,999 during this same year.
According to Trip Ticket data, only one harvester received between $40,000 and $49,999,
while four others collected incomes ranging from $30,000 to $39,999 in 2004. In total,
these five individuals represented only one percent of all licensed oyster harvesters that
actively collected and sold product in 2004.










Table 3. Annual revenues from oysters received by Florida harvesters, 2004.
Gross Income Number of Harvesters
(Dollars)
40,000 49,999 1
30,000 39,999 4
20,000 29,999 23
10,000- 19,999 86
5,000 9,999 80
2,000 4,999 104
1,000- 1,999 45
500-999 41
<500 112
TOTAL 496
Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket data.

To further delve into the division of 2004 dockside revenues paid to oyster
harvesters, the 496 total individuals were split into 10 decile groups, each with about 50
harvesters (Table 4). The first decile group contained harvesters who received an
approximate annual average of $22,000 each, accounting for a total of $1.1 million, or
nearly 37 percent, of all revenues. The second decile group contained harvesters who
earned an average of $13,707 each in 2004, representing 22.4 percent of all revenues.
Harvesters in the third and fourth decile groups earned an average of $9,405 and $6,221,
respectively, in 2004, and combined with the first two deciles, these four groups represent
85 percent of total revenues. In sum, less than one-half of the total number of active
harvesters in 2004 accounted for just over 90 percent of annual revenues (Figure 1).

Table 4. Analyses of 2004 dockside revenues paid to harvesters, by decile
2004 Dockside Revenues
Approximate Mean
Decile a (per harvester) Total by Decile
(Dollars) (Dollars) (Percent) (Cum. Pct.)
First 22,000 1,100,046 36.7 36.7
Second 13,707 671,640 22.4 59.1
Third 9,405 470,236 15.7 74.8
Fourth 6,221 311,034 10.4 85.2
Fifth 3,922 196,096 6.5 91.7
Sixth 2,566 128,300 4.3 96.0
Seventh 1,434 70,272 2.3 98.3
Eighth 625 31,255 1.0 99.3
Ninth 290 14,226 0.5 99.8
Tenth 110 5,484 0.2 100.0
TOTALS N.A. 2,998,588 100.0 N.A.
aThere were 496 total harvesters. Thus, there are approximately 50 harvesters in each decile.









Summer Oyster Harvest
Because this study is primarily concerned with understanding the impacts of
potential summer closures, the actual dockside revenues received by Florida harvesters
were analyzed on a monthly basis (Table 5). Total oyster quantities sold in 2004 were
242,625 bags, each containing 60 pounds of oysters in the shell. December and
November harvested quantities of 60-pound bags totaled 30,918 and 29,164, respectively,
and together represented nearly $789,000, or 26.3 percent, of 2004 revenues. October,
January, and March oyster harvest totals each represented approximately 10 percent of
annual revenues, with between 24,501 and 25,378 60-pound bags sold.
Overall, the lowest-grossing months were the months from May through
September, with recorded September oyster harvests of just over 5,000 bags (2% of total
annual harvest), representing the lowest month in 2004 (Table 5). Of these summer
months, July's harvest of 19,284 bags accounted for just 7.6 percent of total 2004
revenues. Should the suggested summer closure period have occurred during the months
of May through September in 2004, a total of 67,485 bags would not have been
harvested, representing total revenue losses of nearly $800 million, or 26.7 percent of
annual revenues. If the closure period was limited to the three months of June, July, and
August, quantities of 44,546 bags would not have been collected, and the oyster fishery
would have lost $523,575, or 17.5 percent, of 2004 revenues.

Table 5. Actual dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, 2004.
Percent of
Time Period Quantities Sold Total Revenue Annual Revenue
(No. 60-lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent)
January 24,501 308,205 10.3
February 20,529 252,101 8.4
March 24,734 301,136 10.0
April 19,916 337,836 7.9
May 17,846 215,836 7.2
June 15,577 185,987 6.2
July 19,284 228,021 7.6
August 9,685 109,567 3.7
September 5,093 60,178 2.0
October 25,378 311,084 10.4
November 29,164 388,654 13.0
December 30,918 399,984 13.3
TOTALS: 242,625 2,998,588 100.0
Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket data. See Appendix Table 1 for detailed breakdown.

To further explore the summer oyster harvest situation relative to the 2004 data,
total dockside revenues of those individuals who harvested product exclusively in the
five- and three-month periods were analyzed (Table 6). Only 14 harvesters chose to
collect and sell oysters during the five months of May through September, earning a total
of $6,503. When limited to the three months of June through August, the data revealed
that nine individuals sold oysters for a total of $2,503. As the summer oysters are not
known to possess the preferred meat qualities desired by the half shell market, it was
suspected that these summer-only harvesters might have sold their oysters as a shucked









product. Interestingly, only $910 and $287 were received by these summer-only
harvesters for shucked oyster meats sold during the five- and three-month periods,
respectively. This indicated that 86 percent of revenues received by these harvesters
resulted from sales of their product for consumption in the half shell form.


Table 6. Total dockside revenues of Florida oyster harvesters who ONLY harvest during
the five-month and three-month periods.
Dockside Revenues
Closure Period Number of Harvesters Total Shucked Product Only a
(-------------Dollars----------- )

Five months 14 6,503 910
(May September)

Three months 9 2, 053 287
(June August)

a According to major Franklin County-based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is
shucked, with the remainder going to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that
oysters sold for shucking command the same price as those going for the fresh half shell market.

Conversely, oyster harvesters that did not harvest any product during either of the
two defined summer periods in 2004 would potentially be unaffected by either of the
proposed hypothetical closures. Of the 496 license holders with 2004 landings, 213, or
42.9 percent, did not sell product during May through September (Table 7). This group
earned nearly $356 thousand in total revenues, representing about twelve percent of the
oyster fishery earnings. There were 262, or 52.8 percent, of licensed harvesters with
landings that chose not to go out to harvest oysters during the June through August
summer months. The nine-month harvested volumes of these individuals accounted for
almost $550 thousand (18.3 percent) of 2004 revenues.


Table 7. Total dockside revenues of Florida oyster harvesters who DO
during the five-month or three month periods.


NOT harvest


Number of Percent of total Total Percent of total
Length of closure harvesters harvesters revenues revenues
(Dollars)
Five months 213 42.9 355,737 11.9
(May-September)

Three months 262 52.8 549,657 18.3
(June August)
a Percentage of total harvesters is based upon 496 SPL holders that had landings in 2004.
b The percentage of revenue is based upon total revenues of 2,998,583.
Source: Compiled from Trip Ticket data.









Summer Closure Scenarios


Various scenarios have been suggested by members of the oyster fishery and the
ISSC as possible options that are designed to meet the goal of reducing V. vulnificus
infections traced back to Florida harvested (Table 8). Scenario 1 describes the current
situation as presented in the initial portion of this report, and does not include any
summer closure periods or post-harvest process requirements or restrictions. This
scenario is used as the benchmark by which all the other scenarios are compared.
Scenarios 2 and 3 provide estimates of the potential losses incurred by the industry
should the oyster fisheries close from May through September (five months) or from June
through August (three months), respectively.

Table 8. Descriptions of various scenarios involving alternative closure periods for fresh
shellstock sales and levels of substitution of PHT (frozen) shellstock for fresh half shell
product.

Scenario Description


1 Current situation, no fresh half shell closures (benchmark scenario).
2 Fresh half shell closure for five months (May-September), no sales of PHT
(frozen) product.

3 Fresh half shell closure for three months (June-August), no sales of the PHT
(frozen) product.

4 Fresh half shell closure for five-month period, with 25 percent of average half shell
sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per case,
or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product.

5 Fresh half shell closure for five-month period, with 50 percent of average half shell
sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per case,
or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product.

6 Fresh half shell closure for three-month period, with 25 percent of average half
shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per
case, or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product.

7 Fresh half shell closure for three-month period, with 50 percent of average half
shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per
case, or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product.



Scenarios 4 and 5 take the conditions included under the second case and allow
for either a 25 or 50 percent substitution of post-harvest treated product released to the
half shell consumer market during the closure months of May through September,
respectively (Table 8). Expectations about the prices and yields for a post-harvest treated
half shell oyster were provided by processors that have experience with the PHT oyster









market. PHT half shell oysters were expected to sell for 42 cents apiece, and yields were
assumed to average 162 frozen half shell oysters per bushel. These same market price and
yield assumptions were used in Scenarios 6 and 7, which took the third case of closure
months from June through August and allowed for either a 25 or 50 percent substitution
of the PHT product for sale during the proposed closure months.

Estimated Revenues of Summer Closure Scenarios

For the last four scenarios involving provision of the PHT product to the summer
half shell consumer market, it was assumed that the additional oysters required to meet
the estimated 25 and 50 percent substitution summer supplies were harvested, frozen, and
stored during the months of March and April. Other assumptions included the use of
average dockside revenues received by licensed oyster harvesters, during each of the
months of 2004, and the average monthly oyster landings recorded by FWRI during the
five-year period of 2000 to 2004. Average annual dockside revenues to oyster harvesters
from 2000 to 2004 exceeded $3.3 million. The average annual harvest during this period
was 269,513 60-pound bags (Table 9).

Table 9. Scenario 1: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month
using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004 average
monthly prices. a
Percent of
Average Annual
Time Period Quantities Sold Total Revenue Revenue
(No. 60-lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent)
January 28,891 365,181 11.0
February 27,823 342,225 10.3
March 25,956 314,322 9.4
April 23,504 281,818 8.5
May 20,874 253,834 7.6
June 17,748 211,373 6.3
July 19,906 232,303 7.0
August 15,354 175,041 5.3
September 12,374 148,245 4.5
October 27,709 345,807 10.4
November 22,426 305,447 9.2
December 26,947 353,810 10.6
GRAND TOTALS 269,513 3,329,404 100.0
a Scenario 1 is the no fresh half shell closure, current situation. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed
breakdown.

Using Scenario 1 as a benchmark, the five month summer closure under Scenario
2 would result in a 26.4 percent, or $887 thousand, reduction in annual dockside revenues
to harvesters (Table 10). The harvested quantity estimates were based on the assumption
that average monthly harvests were limited to 14 percent of recorded average collection
levels and sold strictly as a frozen shucked product. During this five-month period, the










largest harvest (2,922 bags), occurred in May, while the September harvest was reduced
to 792 bags, which represented less than one percent of total 2004 dockside revenues.
Scenario 3 applied the same assumptions of Scenario 2, except that the closure period
was for only the three months, June, July and August (Table 11). Overall, for this three
month closure scenario, average annual dockside revenues were reduced by 16 percent,
or $532 thousand, compared to the benchmark scenario.

Table 10. Scenario 2: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year time period, 2000 2004, and
2004 average monthly prices. a


Time Period


January
February
March
April
May b
June b
July b
August b
September b
October
November
December
GRAND TOTALS
Percent change from Scenario 1


Quantities Sold
(No. 60-lb. bags)
28,891
27,823
25,956
23,504
2,922
2,485
2,787
2,150
1,732
27,709
22,426
26,947
195,332
-27.5


Total Revenue
(Dollars)
365,181
342,225
314,322
281,818
35,537
29,592
32,522
24,506
20,754
345,807
305,447
353,810
2,451,521
-26.4


Percent of
Average Annual
Revenue
(Percent)
14.9
14.0
12.8
11.5
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.0
0.8
14.1
12.5
14.4
100.0
N.A.


a Scenario 2 is fresh half shell closure for five months (May-September), no sales of the PHT (frozen)
product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown.
b Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County-based
dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the
half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same
price as those going for the fresh half shell market.









Table 11. Scenario 3: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average monthly prices. a
Percent of
Average Annual
Time Period Quantities Sold Total Revenue Revenue
(No. 60-lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent)
January 28,891 365,181 13.1
February 27,823 342,225 12.2
March 25,956 314,322 11.2
April 23,504 281,818 10.1
May 20,874 253,834 9.1
June b 2,485 29,592 1.1
July b 2,787 32,522 1.2
August b 2,150 24,506 0.9
September 12,374 148,245 5.3
October 27,709 345,807 12.4
November 22,426 305,447 10.9
December 26,947 353,810 12.6
GRAND TOTALS 223,926 2,797,308 100.0
Percent change from Scenario 1 16.9 16.0 N.A.
a Scenario 3 is fresh half shell closure for three months (June-August), no sales of the PHT (frozen) product.
b Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County-based
dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the
half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same
price as those going for the fresh half shell market. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown.


Scenarios 4 and 5 evaluated the potential financial gains of releasing PHT frozen
oysters at levels equal to 25 and 50 percent, respectively, of the average monthly amounts
that are currently harvested and sold to the fresh half shell market during the months of
May through September. Overall, replacing 25 percent of the fresh half shell market with
PHT oysters during a five-month summer closure would result in an estimated 20 percent
decrease in both the total number of bags sold and total revenue to the fishery relative to
the benchmark scenario (Table 12). In Scenario 5, where 50 percent of the usual five-
month summer harvest was replaced by PHT oysters, the industry would sustain 14 and
13 percent losses in quantities sold and total annual revenue, respectively (Table 13). It is
important to note that in both Scenarios 4 and 5, it is assumed that fresh half shell
consumers would accept the PHT product as a perfect substitute for raw oysters during
the summer months. In addition, these figures are based on the feasibility of increasing
harvested quantities in March and April for PHT processing and summer sales. It is also
assumed that the industry would purchase sufficient equipment to treat and then store the
PHT product.










Table 12. Scenario 4: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average monthly prices. a
Percent of
Average Annual
Time Period Quantities Sold Total Revenue Revenue
(No. 60-lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent)
January 28,891 365,181 13.7
February 27,823 342,225 12.8
March b 35,229 426,613 15.9
April b 32,778 392,997 14.7
May 2,922 35,537 1.3
June 2,485 29,592 1.1
July 2,787 32,522 1.2
August 2,150 24,506 0.9
September 1,732 20,754 0.8
October 27,709 345,807 12.9
November 22,427 305,447 11.4
December 26,947 353,810 13.2
GRAND TOTALS: 213,877 2,674,990 100.0
Percent change from Scenario 1 20.3 19.7 N.A.
a Scenario 4 is fresh half shell closure for five-month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown.
b Months during which additional quantities of shellstock are harvested for sale during May-September as a
PHT (frozen) product.
' Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County-based
dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the
half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same
price as those going for the fresh half shell market.












Table 13. Scenario 5: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average monthly prices. a
Percent of
average annual
Time period Quantities sold Total revenue revenue
(No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent)
January 28,891 365,181 12.6
February 27,823 342,225 11.8
March b 44,501 538,904 18.6
April b 42,050 504,175 17.4
May 2,922 35,537 1.2
June 2,485 29,592 1.0
July" 2,787 32,522 1.1
August 2,150 24,506 0.8
September 1,732 20,754 0.7
October 27,709 345,807 11.9
November 22,426 305,447 10.5
December 26,947 353,810 12.2
GRAND TOTALS: 232,422 2,898,460 100.0
Percent change from Scenario 1 -13.8 -12.9. N.A.
a Scenario 5 is fresh half shell closure for five-month period, with 50 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown.
b Months during which additional quantities of shellstock are harvested for sale during May-September as
PHT (frozen) product.
Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County-based
dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the
half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same
price as those going for the fresh half shell market.

The projected revenue changes resulting from the PHT replacement scenarios
with a three-month fishery closure during June, July, and August (Scenarios 6 and 7) are
presented in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. Not surprisingly, these shorter closure
periods with PHT replacement resulted in smaller total revenue losses than PHT
replacement with five-month closures (Scenarios 4 and 5). In Scenario 6, with 25 percent
PHT replacement, the fishery would experience 12 and 13 percent losses in quantities
sold and total annual revenue, respectively (Table 14). Where one-half of the normal
fresh half shell market was replaced by PHT oysters in Scenario 7, the quantity sold
diminished by almost 9 percent and total dockside revenues were reduced by nearly 8
percent (Table 15).














Table 14. Scenario 6: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average monthly prices. a
Percent of
Average Annual
Time Period Quantities Sold Total Revenue Revenue
(No. 60-lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent)
January 28,891 365,181 12.4
February 27,823 342,225 11.7
March b 31,654 383,329 13.1
April b 29,203 350,141 11.9
May 20,874 253,834 8.6
June 2,485 29,592 1.0
July" 2,787 32,522 1.1
August 2,150 24,506 0.8
September 12,374 148,245 5.1
October 27,709 345,807 11.8
November 22,426 305,447 10.4
December 26,947 353,810 12.1
GRAND TOTALS: 235,323 2,934,638 100.0
Percent change from Scenario 1 12.7 11.9 N.A.
a Scenario 6 is fresh half shell closure for three-month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown.
b Months during which additional quantities of shellstock are harvested for sale during June-August as a
PHT (frozen) product.
Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County-based
dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the
half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same
price as those going for the fresh half shell market.














Table 15. Scenario 7: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by
month, using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and 2004
average monthly prices. a


Time Period


January
February
March b
April b
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
GRAND TOTALS:
Percent change from Scenario 1


Quantities Sold
(No. 60 lb. bags)
28,891
27,823
37,352
34,901
20,874
2,485
2,787
2,150
12,374
27,709
22,427
26,947
246,720
-8.5


Total Revenue
(Dollars)
365,181
342,225
452,336
418,465
253,834
29,592
32,522
24,506
148,245
345,807
305,447
353,810
3,071,969
-7.7


Percent of
Average Annual
Revenue
(Percent)
11.9
11.1
14.7
13.6
8.3
1.0
1.1
0.8
4.8
11.3
9.9
11.5
100.0
N.A.


a Scenario 7 is fresh half shell closure for three-month period, with 50 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown.
b Months during which additional quantities of shellstock are harvested for sale during June-August as a
PHT (frozen) product.
Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County-based
dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the
half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same
price as those going for the fresh half shell market.


As anticipated by industry participants, five- or three-month summer closures of
fresh oysters would result in significant industry losses. Dockside revenues resulting from
the five- and three-month closures were estimated to decline by 26 and 16 percent,
respectively (Table 16, Figure 4). The actual F.O.B. gross revenues lost by the oyster
fisheries under Scenarios 2 and 3 were estimated to equal $1,226,526 and $888,944,
respectively. While the quality of the fresh half shell product harvested during the
summer is known to be inferior to oysters harvested during the cooler months, it is
important to emphasize that these scenarios were developed using historical F.O.B. prices
paid for this exact product type and quality.













Table 16. Hypothetical total dockside and F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster
products harvested under various scenarios.
Total Total F.O.B.
Dockside Gross
Scenario Revenues A% a Revenues A% a

(Dollars) (Percent) (Dollars) (Percent)
Scenario 1 (Current, no fresh half 3,329,404 0.0 5,789,123 0.0
shell closure)
Scenario 2 (5-mo. fresh half shell 2,451,521 -26.4 4,342,597 -25.0
closure)
Scenario 3 (3-mo. fresh half shell 2,797,308 16.0 4,900,179 15.4
closure)
Scenario 4 (5-mo. fresh half shell 2,674,990 19.7 5,594,398 -3.4
closure, 25% replacement w/PHT)
Scenario 5 (5-mo. fresh half shell 2,898,460 12.9 6,846,200 + 18.3
closure, 50% replacement w/PHT)
Scenario 6 (3-mo. fresh half shell 2,934,638 11.9 5,669,458 -2.1
closure, 25% replacement w/PHT)
Scenario 7 (3-mo. fresh half shell 3,071,969 -7.7 6,438,736 + 11.2
closure, 50% replacement w/PHT)

aPercent change relative to Scenario 1.










Figure 3. Total dockside revenues for all types Florida oysters harvested under current
situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios.


$3.5

$3.0

_$2.5



$1 ,-
$1.5

a $1.0 -

$0.5


,


- I I_


Current Situation


5-month closure (May-
Sept)


3-month closure (June-
Aug)


ONoPHT 025%PHT 51"I''.PHT





Consideration of the potential for replacement of fresh half shell product with
PHT oysters produced some interesting results. Again, it is important to reiterate that
these replacement scenarios were based on the following assumptions: (1) that consumers
would accept the PHT oysters as replacements; (2) that the industry would be able to
harvest the additional volume in March and April; (3) that this industry had the
processing capabilities, storage facilities, and labor available to meet the requirements of
PHT processing; and (4) that the relatively higher prices the market would pay for this
relatively safer substitute would hold at the current levels. Under these conditions, results
indicated that in two of the four proposed scenarios, total F.O.B. gross revenues would
actually increase (Table 16, Figure 4). In particular, Scenario 5 (where fresh half shell
harvesting was shut down from May through September and PHT replacement oysters
were sold at levels equivalent to 50 percent of historical levels during this time) resulted
in an 18.3 percent increase in F.O.B. revenues over the current no-closure scenario
(Scenario 1). However, total dockside revenues earned by oyster harvesters were
estimated to drop from 8 to 20 percent relative to the historical earnings achieved with no
summer harvest restrictions.


I










Figure 4. Total F.O.B. revenues for all types Florida oysters harvested under current
situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios.


$7.0

$6.0

$5.0

$4.0

$3.0

$2.0

$1.0

$0.0 T


5.8
ef ----


-43
I---


4 t)
C


Current Situation 5-month closure (May- 3-month closure (June-
Sept) Aug)
ONoPHT 025%PHT *50%PHT


Estimated Employment of Summer Closure Scenarios


The traditional oyster fishery is labor-intensive. Oysters are typically harvested
using hand-tools (tongs) from small boats in shallow coastal waters. On board,
undersized oysters are hand-culled back into the water to help maintain future stock. The
remaining harvestable oysters are temporarily packed in burlap bags. Once onshore, the
oysters are sorted, cleaned, and packed or processed, also by hand, in preparation for
shipment to their final destination. Oysters intended for the shucked market are typically
processed in a central location and immediately packaged and frozen for resale. In the
case of the half shell market, the majority of processors do not pre-shuck the oysters, as
this is done by the final retail or consumer outlet. For processors that have adopted the
PHT technology and invested in the necessary freezing and storage equipment, additional
labor must be hired and investments in training incurred.
Estimated labor requirements for the six alternative PHT scenarios are shown in
Table 17. Estimated harvester numbers for each scenario were based on data provided by
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Average employment and
revenue data were used to estimate employment by shellstock and shucking operations
for six alternative scenarios. It is estimated that all six closure scenarios would result in
fewer oyster harvesters and workers in shellstocking operations. The greatest reductions
in employment would occur for the five-month closure without PHT replacement in


pr__


MPL










Scenario 2. The smallest reduction in worker numbers occurs in Scenario 7, the three-
month closure with PHT replacement. It is estimated that Scenario 7 would lead to about
a 6 percent reduction in the number of oyster industry workers, compared to a 20 percent
reduction under Scenario 2.


Table 17. Hypothetical annual labor requirements based upon average landings, 2000-04,
adjusted for various closure periods and production levels of PHT (frozen) oysters.
Type of Labor
Gross
F.O.B.
Scenario Values Harvesters a Shellstock b Shucking b Total
(Dollars) (---------------- Employees ----------------)

Scenario 1 (Current, no 5,789,123 233 199 198 630
fresh half shell closure)

Scenario 2 (5-mo. fresh 4,342,597 169 135 198 502
half shell closure)

Scenario 3 (3 mo. fresh 4,900,179 194 160 198 552
half shell closure)

Scenario 4 (5 mo. fresh 5,594,398 185 151 198 534
half shell closure, 25%
replacement w/PHT)

Scenario 5 (5 mo. fresh 6,846,200 201 167 198 566
half shell closure, 50%
replacement w/PHT)

Scenario 6 (3 mo. fresh 5,669,458 204 170 198 572
half shell closure, 25%
replacement w/PHT)

Scenario 7 (3 mo. fresh 6,438,736 214 179 198 591
half shell closure, 50%
replacement w/PHT)

a Full-time harvester equivalents (FTEs) are based upon the average quantities harvested in Florida over the
five-year period, 2000-2004, as reported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
the following assumptions: (1) that 75 percent of the dockside value accrues to labor (Anderson et. al.
1996) and (2) a full-time harvester earned the equivalent of the annual minimum wage ($10,712) in 2004.
b Estimated labor employed at 37 firms selling shellstock ranged from 4 to 6, and averaged slightly over 5
persons per firm; labor at processing firms shuckerss) were estimated to average about 14 employees, but
the numbers estimated for individual firms varied widely, depending on the size of operation.










Estimated Secondary Impacts/Contributions of Summer Closure Scenarios

Secondary economic impacts or contributions of alternative oyster harvesting and
processing scenarios were estimated using a regional economic input-output model of
Franklin and Gulf Counties that was constructed using the IMPLAN Pro software and
databases.' The IMPLAN model was based on 2003 economic data which were collected
by various federal and state government agencies, including the U.S. Department of
Commerce and U.S. Department of Labor. Details on IMPLAN software and databases
can be found at http://www.implan.com.
The estimated gross revenues calculated for each scenario were entered into the
IMPLAN model as new economic activity for the Fishing Industry (Sector 16) and the
Seafood Product Preparation and Packing Industry (Sector 71).2 The economic
relationships embodied in these IMPLAN sectors are based on national data for all types
of fishing and seafood processing activities in the United States. Because of the special
nature of Florida's oyster industry, these national economic relationships are not
completely appropriate for this analysis. Consequently, the model was modified to better
represent Florida's oyster industry. These modifications included increasing the share of
value-added components in the harvesting/fishing sector production function to 75
percent of total revenues, and similarly, setting the value-added share of the seafood
processing production sector's production function to 70 percent of total revenues. Also,
the average revenues and compensation per worker for IMPLAN sectors 16 and 71 were
adjusted to match actual local industry averages (Table 17).
The types of economic impacts or contributions estimated using the input-output
models include output, value-added, labor income, other property income, indirect
business taxes, and employment. These contributions can occur through direct, indirect,
or induced effects. The total economic contributions of an event or activity equal the sum
of these direct, indirect, and induced contributions. Output contributions represent the
total value of revenues or expenditures associated with an activity. Value-added measures
the labor income, other property income, and indirect business taxes derived from these
revenues. Labor income represents earnings by employees and proprietors of oyster
businesses. Other property type income represents corporate profits in addition to
payments for rents, royalties, dividends, and interest. Indirect business taxes include
excise, property, and sales taxes, as well as licenses and fees paid by businesses, but not
taxes on profits or income. The estimated number of annual full-time, part-time, and
seasonal jobs resulting from an industry's activity is represented by Employment impacts.
Each of these measures represents a different way of assessing the importance or
contribution of an economic activity to a region.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all oysters sold from Gulf and
Franklin Counties were harvested by operations based inside the two counties and that


1 When the economic importance of an industry or activity is evaluated under these assumptions, it is more
appropriate to refer to the estimated economic impacts as economic contributions (Watson, Wilson,
Thilmany, and Winter 2007).
2 Oyster revenues were deflated to 2003 price levels to match the IMPLAN model year data using Bureau
of Labor Statistics price indices. Once the secondary economic contributions were estimated, they were
then "re-inflated" back to 2004 levels, using the same indices.









these oysters were all sold to buyers located outside the area. The consequence of these
assumptions is that all oyster revenues can be treated as "new" dollars for the economy of
Gulf and Franklin Counties. In input-output analysis, new dollars generate secondary
economic impacts or contributions through indirect and induced effects. Direct effects are
generated by all revenues and jobs created by an industry regardless of their origin. These
direct effects (total F.O.B gross revenues) were estimated in the previous section. Indirect
economic effects or contributions occur when oyster harvesters and processors purchase
goods and services required to carry out their business from local suppliers. Additional
revenues and jobs are created for the local economy when this occurs. Induced effects
occur when oyster business owners and employees spend their earnings from harvesting
and processing activities for personal consumption in the local economy. Again,
additional jobs and revenues are generated in local consumer related businesses that
fulfill these demands. The total economic contributions of industry activity for the local
area equal to the sum of these direct, indirect, and induced effects.
Summary output contributions of the seven summer closure scenarios are
presented in Table 18. The scenarios are presented along individual table rows, with
direct, indirect, induced, and total impacts given in separate columns. The percent change
in output contributions from benchmark Scenario 1 is given in the last column of Table
18. Estimated value-added, labor income, other property income, indirect business taxes,
and employment impacts are provided in Appendix Tables 3 through 9.
The benchmark closure scenario had an estimated total economic output
contribution of $13.7 million on the two-county economy in 2004. This was generated by
a direct impact of $5.59 million in revenues. This means that oyster sales for the two-
county area have a total multiplier effect of about 2.36. This is a relatively large
multiplier effect, but one that is not uncommon for labor intensive industries like oyster
fisheries. About 54 percent of the secondary contributions of oyster sales were generated
by indirect effects and 46 percent by induced effects (Table 18). This relationship roughly
holds for all the scenarios. In comparison to the benchmark, Scenarios 2 and 3 result in a
25.6 and 15.8 percent reduction in total output impacts or contributions to the area's
economy, respectively, due to the five- and three-month closures during the warmer
months. For Scenario 4, the five-month closure with 25 percent PHT replacement results
in a total output contribution was just 3.5 percent below the benchmark. With a 50
percent PHT replacement during a five-month closure (Scenario 5), the total impact of
the industry is actually estimated to increase, by 18.7 percent above the benchmark, to
$16.2 million. In Scenario 6, the three-month closure with 25 percent PHT replacement is
estimated to result in a 2.1 percent decrease in economic contribution to the area. In
proportion to Scenario 5, the three-month closure with a 50 percent PHT replacement in
Scenario 7 is estimated to generate an output contribution of $15.2 million, which is 11.5
percent higher than benchmark Scenario 1.












Table 18. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under various scenarios.
Summary Impacts
Scenario Direct Indirect Induced Total A% a
(--------- Million Dollars ---------) (Percent)
Scenario 1 (Current, no fresh half 5.789 4.255 3.612 13.655 N.A.
shell closure)
Scenario 2 (5 mo. fresh half shell 4.343 3.107 2.705 10.155 -25.6
closure)
Scenario 3 (3 mo. fresh half shell 4.900 3.549 3.055 11.504 -15.8
closure)
Scenario 4 (5 mo. fresh half shell 5.594 4.100 3.490 13.184 -3.5
closure, 25% replacement w/PHT)
Scenario 5 (5 mo. fresh half shell 6.846 5.094 4.274 16.214 + 18.7
closure, 50% replacement w/PHT)
Scenario 6 (3 mo. fresh half shell 5.669 4.160 3.537 13.366 -2.1
closure, 25% replacement w/PHT)
Scenario 7 (3 mo. fresh half shell 6.439 4.770 4.019 15.228 + 11.5
closure, 50% replacement w/PHT)
aPercent change relative to Scenario 1.



CONCLUSIONS


The economic impacts or contributions of six alternative oyster harvesting
closure/treatment scenarios were evaluated in this study for Franklin and Gulf Counties in
Florida for the purpose of determining the most economically favorable approach to
reducing human illness caused by V vulnificus bacteria found in fresh oysters harvested
from Gulf of Mexico waters in the summer months. As calculated in the benchmark
scenario (Scenario 1), the oyster industry employed 496 harvesters who earned annual
revenues of just about $3 million in 2004. Should the industry be forced to close for the
five warm-season months (from May through September), harvester and processor
revenues would be reduced by 26 and 25 percent, respectively, and would have a
negative economic impact on the oyster industry in Franklin and Gulf Counties in
Florida. Using post-harvest treatments (PHT) to treat and store oysters caught in cooler
months of the year has the potential to mitigate some of the negative economic
consequences of harvesting closures.
Although the development and use of post-harvest treatments (PHT) to store
oysters caught in cooler months of the year has the potential to mitigate some of the
negative economic consequences of harvesting closures, the benefits of PHT may be









difficult to realize because of higher F.O.B. prices required to recover higher processing
and storage costs for PHT oysters. An additional issue is the degree of market acceptance
by seafood wholesalers, retailers, and consumers accustomed to a fresh half shell product
at lower prices. A definitive assessment of the market potential for frozen PHT oysters
could not be made by this study because of anomalies in the supply chain for fresh half
shell oysters caused by hurricanes in 2004 and 2005.
While the opportunity to replace the lost fresh half shell shares with a PHT
product represents an alternative revenue source, any estimated economic impacts or
contributions are dependent on the underlying assumptions, which require additional
research to establish the validity of these results. In particular, the ability of fisheries to
sustain additional harvested volumes in the proposed months of March and April without
incurring severe stock depreciations has not been established. Another concern is the
difficulty of realizing the estimated sales levels for the PHT product due to higher F.O.B.
prices necessitated by processing and storage costs. Marketing acceptance of the PHT
product by wholesalers, retailers, and consumers is a valid concern of the oyster industry
members. Even if estimated PHT oyster sales levels are achievable, there is no assurance
that gross revenues will result in sustainable profitability to the processors. Finally, the
large investment required for PHT processing facilities and likely significant economies
of scale in the operation of these facilities could limit the adoption of this technology by
the industry.










REFERENCES


Andrews, L. M. Jahncke, and K. Mallikarjunan. 2003. Low dose gamma irradiation to
reduce pathogenic vibrios in live oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Journal of
Aquatic Food Product Technology 12(3):71-82.
FDA. 2007. History of the National .\l//llJll Sanitation Program. NSSP Guide for the
Control of Molluscan .\lhlljihl http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-
SpecificInformation/Seafood/FederalStatePrograms/NationalShellfishSanitationPr
ogram/UCM061549
Flattery, J. and M. Bashin. 2003. A Baseline Survey of Raw Oyster Consumers in Four
States. http://www.issc.org/clientresources/Education/BaselineSurvey.pdf
Florida Aquaculture. 2003. Special Issue: Interstate .'lillJi\l Sanitation Conference
[Issue 25]. Division of Aquaculture, Florida Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL (July).
Hanson, T., L. House, S. Sureshwaran, B. Posadas, and A. Liu. 2003. Opinions of U.S.
consumers toward oysters: Results of 2000-2001 survey. Bulletin 1133, Division
of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS (July).
Lorio, W. and S. Malone. 1994. The cultivation of American oysters (SRAC Publication
#432). Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, LA (October).
Lutz, C.G., P. Sambidi, and R.W. Harrison. 2003. Oyster industry profile. Agricultural
Marketing Resource Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (September).
Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2004. IMPLAN Pro, Economic Impact and Social
Accounting Software, and Data. Stillwater, MN. http:// www.implan.com.
Muth, M.K., D.W. Anderson, S.A. Karns, Brian C. Murray, and J.L. Domanico. 2000).
Economic Impact of Requiring Post-harvest Treatment of Oysters: Final Report
[RTI Project #7466.000]. Research Triangle Institute, Center for Economics
Research, Research Triangle Park, NC (March).
Shapiro, R.L. S. Altekruse, B. Hutwagner, R. Bishop, R. Hammond, W. Wilson, B. Ray,
S. Thompson, R.V. Trauxe, and P.M. Griffin. 1998. The role of Gulf Coast
oysters harvested in warmer months in Vibrio vulnificus infections in the United
States, 1988-1996. The Journal ofInfectious Diseases 178(3): 752-759.
Steinback, S. 2004. Using ready-made regional input-output models to estimate
backward-linkage effects of exogenous output shocks. Review of Regional Studies
34(1): 7-71. http://www.economy.okstate.edu/rrs/ issue.asp?volume=34&issue=l
Watson, P., J. Wilson, D. Thilmany, and S. Winter. 2007. Determining economic
contributions and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Journal of
Regional Analysis and Policy 37(2): 140-146. http://www.jrap-
journal. org/pastvolumes/2000/v37/F37-2-6.pdf














Appendix Table 1. Hypothetical monthly F.O.B. sales of Florida fresh half shell and
shucked oysters using average annual landings over the five-year period, 2000-04, and
2004 prices.
Quantities Sold
Time Total
Period Fresh Half shell Shucked Revenuea
(60 lb. bag) (Percent)b (Dollars) (60-lb. bag) (Gallons)' (Percent)b (Dollars) (Dollars)
January 24,846 10.7 484,501 4,045 3,286 12.1 147,886 632,387
February 23,928 10.3 466,594 3,895 3,165 11.6 142,420 609,014
March 22,322 9.6 435,275 3,634 2,952 10.8 132,860 568,135
April 20,214 8.7 394,169 3,291 2,674 9.8 120,313 514,482
May 17,952 7.7 350,065 2,922 1,553 5.7 72,193 422,258
June 15,263 6.6 297,626 2,485 1,320 4.8 61,379 359,005
July 17,119 7.4 333,823 2,787 1,481 5.4 68,844 402,667
August 13,205 5.7 257,494 2,150 1,142 4.2 53,102 310,597
September 10,642 4.6 207,518 1,732 920 3.4 42,796 250,313
October 23,830 10.3 471,827 3,879 3,152 11.6 146,563 618,389
November 19,287 8.3 381,876 3,140 2,551 9.4 118,621 500,497
December 23,174 10.0 458,848 3,773 3,065 11.2 142,531 601,379
ANNUAL 231,781 100.0 4,539,616 37,732 27,261 100.0 1,249,507 5,789,123
a Revenues based upon F.O.B. prices of 19.50 and 19.80 per 60-lb. bag of shellstock for the January-
September and October-December, respectively, for the Fresh half shell product, and 45.00 and 46.50 per
8-lb. gallon for the January-April and May-December periods, respectively, for shucked product. Prices are
based upon data obtained from four major oyster processors in Florida for the 2004 calendar year.
According to major Franklin County-based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is
shucked, with the remainder going to the half shell market.
b Percentages are based upon the average annual totals.
Yields of 4.25 pints and 6.50 pints per 60- lb. bag of shellstock were used for the May-September and
October-April periods, respectively, to estimate shucked product quantities. These yields represent the
average reported by four major oyster processors in Florida in the 2004 calendar year.
Source: The quantity harvested in Florida five-year period 2000-2004 was reported by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission.














Appendix Table 2. Hypothetical annual F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster
products under various closure scenarios with partial replacement of fresh half shell
product with PHT (frozen) product.
Annual Sales and Revenues b


Scenario a


Sales

(60-lb. bags)


Scenario 1 (Current)

Fresh half shell

Shucked

Totals

Scenario 2 (5-mo. closure)

Fresh half shell

Shucked

Totals

Scenario 3 (3-mo. closure)

Fresh half shell

Shucked

Totals

Scenario 4 (5-mo. closure, 25%
replacement w/PHT)

Fresh half shell

PHT half shell

Shucked

Totals

Scenario 5 (5-mo. closure, 50%
replacement w/PHT)
Fresh half shell

PHT half shell

Shucked


231,781

37,732

269,513


157,600

37,732

195,332


186,194

37,732

223,926




157,600

18,545

37,732

213,877




157,600

37,090

37,732


Sales Units

(Physical Units)


231,781 bags

27,261 gals.

N.A.


157,600 bags

27,261 gals.

N.A.


186,194 bags

27,261 gals.

N.A.




157,600 bags

20,863 cases

27,261 gals.

N.A.




157,600 bags

41,727 cases

27,261 gals.


Gross
Revenues

(Dollars)


4,539,616

1,249,507

5,789,123


3,093,090

1,249,507

4,342,597


3,650,672

1,249,507

4,900,179




3,093,090

1,251,801

1,249,507

5,594,398




3,093,090

2,503,603

1,249,507










Annual Sales and Revenues b

Scenario a

Gross
Sales Sales Units Revenues

(60-lb. bags) (Physical Units) (Dollars)

Totals 232,422 N.A. 6,846,200

Scenario 6 (3-mo. closure, 25%
replacement w/PHT)

Fresh half shell 186,194 186,194 bags 3,650,672

PHT half shell 11,397 12,821 cases 769,278

Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507

Totals 235,323 N.A. 5,669,458

Scenario 7 (3-mo. closure, 50%
replacement w/PHT)

Fresh half shell 186,194 186,194 bags 3,650,672

PHT half shell 22,794 25,643 cases 1,538,556

Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507

Totals 246,720 N.A. 6,438,736

a Scenarios are all based upon the average quantities harvested over the 5-year period 200-2004 (FWC) and
estimated 2004 F.O.B. prices for fresh half shell and shucked products. PHT (frozen) oyster prices are
estimated for 2005.
b Annual sales and revenues are based upon the following information. Yields of 4.25 pints and 6.50 pints
per 60-lb. bag of shellstock were used for the May-September and October-April periods, respectively, to
estimate shucked product quantities. These yields represent the average reported by four major oyster
processors in Florida in the 2004 calendar year. Yields of PHT (frozen) oysters are based upon a 250 count,
60 lb. bag, with a packout of 65 percent, or approximately 162 per 60-lb. bag. Revenues based upon F.O.B.
prices of 19.50 and 19.80 per 60-lb. bag of shellstock for the January-September and October-December,
respectively, for the half shell product, and 45.00 and 46.50 per 8-lb. gallon for the January-April and May-
December periods, respectively, for shucked product. Prices are based upon data obtained from four major
oyster processors in Florida for the 2004 calendar year. Prices for PHT (frozen) oysters were estimated to
range from $55.00 to $65.00 per case of 144. Revenue calculations are based upon the mid-point price of
$60.00 per case, or $0.42 cents per oyster.













Appendix Table 3. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 1.a
Summary Impacts
Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total
(Million Dollars)
Output 5.789 4.255 3.612 13.655
Value added 1.722 3.023 2.300 7.045
Labor income 1.338 2.300 1.301 4.939
Business taxes 0.029 0.114 0.230 0.373
Jobs 397 517 49 962

Implicit Multipliers
Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 1.000 0.735 0.624 2.359
Total value added 1.000 1.756 1.336 4.092
Labor income 1.000 1.720 0.972 3.692
Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.944 7.913 12.856
Employment 1.000 1.302 0.123 2.423
a Scenario 1 is the no fresh half shell closure, current situation.


Appendix Table 4. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 2.a
Summary Impacts
Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total
(Million Dollars)
Output 4.343 3.107 2.705 10.155
Value added 1.348 2.207 1.723 5.278
Labor income 1.047 1.677 0.975 3.699
Business taxes 0.023 0.085 0.172 0.280
Jobs 334 376 36 746

Implicit Multipliers
Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 1.000 0.715 0.623 2.338
Total value added 1.000 1.637 1.278 3.916
Labor income 1.000 1.601 0.931 3.532
Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.748 7.569 12.317
Employment 1.000 1.126 0.108 2.234
a Scenario 2 is fresh half shell closure for five months (May September), no sales of PHT (frozen)
product.










Appendix Table 5. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 3. a
Summary Impacts
Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total
(Million Dollars)
Output 4.900 3.549 3.055 11.504
Value Added 1.492 2.521 1.946 5.959
Labor Income 1.159 1.917 1.100 4.177
Business Taxes 0.025 0.096 0.194 0.316
Jobs 358 430 41 829


Implicit Multipliers Direct
Output 1.000
Total Value Added 1.000
Labor Income 1.000
Indirect Business Taxes 1.000
Employment 1.000
a Scenario 3 is fresh half shell closure for three months (June


Implicit Multipliers
Indirect Induced
0.724 0.623
1.690 1.304
1.654 0.949
3.835 7.722
1.201 0.115
- August), no sales of PHT


Total
2.348
3.994
3.603
12.557
2.316
(frozen) product


Appendix Table 6. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida
harvested under Scenario 4. a


oyster products


Summary Impacts
Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total
(Million Dollars)
Output 5.594 4.100 3.490 13.184
Value added 1.671 2.913 2.223 6.807
Labor income 1.299 2.216 1.257 4.772
Indirect business taxes 0.028 0.111 0.222 0.361
Jobs 388 498 47 933

Implicit Multipliers
Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348
Total value added 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994
Labor income 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603
Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557
Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316
a Scenario 4 is fresh half shell closure for five-month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product.










Appendix Table 7. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 5. a
Summary Impacts
Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total
(Million Dollars)
Output 6.846 5.094 4.274 16.214
Value added 1.995 3.619 2.722 8.336
Labor income 1.550 2.756 1.539 5.845
Indirect business taxes 0.034 0.136 0.272 0.441
Jobs 443 620 58 1,121

Implicit Multipliers
Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348
Total value added 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994
Labor income 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603
Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557
Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316
a Scenario 5 is fresh half shell closure for five-month period, with 50 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product.

Appendix Table 8. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 6. a
Summary Impacts
Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total
(Million Dollars)
Output 5.669 4.160 3.537 13.366
Value added 1.691 2.955 2.252 6.899
Labor income 1.314 2.249 1.274 4.836
Indirect business taxes 0.029 0.112 0.225 0.365
Jobs 392 505 48 944

Implicit Multipliers
Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348
Total value added 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994
Labor income 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603
Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557
Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316
a Scenario 6 is fresh half shell closure for three-month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product.










Appendix Table 9. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products
harvested under Scenario 7. a
Summary Impacts
Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total
(Million Dollars)
Output 6.439 4.770 4.019 15.228
Value added 1.890 3.389 2.559 7.838
Labor income 1.468 2.580 1.447 5.496
Indirect business taxes 0.032 0.128 0.256 0.415
Jobs 425 580 54 1,060

Implicit Multipliers
Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348
Total value added 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994
Labor income 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603
Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557
Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316
a Scenario 7 is fresh half shell closure for three-month period, with 50 percent of average fresh half shell
sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product.




Full Text

PAGE 1

Economic Impacts of Alternative Regulatory Scenarios on the Florida Fresh Half S hell Oyster Industr y By Kimberly L. Morgan, Thomas J. Stevens, III, Robert L. Degner Sherry L. Larkin, and Charles M. Adams Industry Report 10 1 April 2010 Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Food and Resource Economics Department Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, Florida

PAGE 2

ii

PAGE 3

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... iii TABLE OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ iv TABLE OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ............................... ix INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 2 The Industry ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 3 The Situation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4 OBJECTIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5 PROCEDURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 6 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 7 Overall Oyster Industry ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 Summer Oyster Harvest ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 Summer Closure Scenarios ................................ ................................ ........................... 12 Estimated Revenues of Summer Closure Scenarios ................................ ................. 13 Estimated Employment of Summer Closure Scenarios ................................ ............ 22 Estimated Secondary Impacts/Contributions of Summer Closure Scenarios ........... 24 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 26 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 28

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Numbers of oyster harvesters with dockside revenues from oysters and all other saltwater species, 2004. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6 Table 2. Oyster harvesters' total annual revenues from oyster s and all other saltwater species, 2004. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 8 Table 3. Annual revenues from oysters received by Florida harvesters, 2004. .................. 9 Table 4 Analyses of 2004 dockside revenues paid to harvesters, by decile ...................... 9 Table 5. Actual dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, 2004. ............. 10 Table 6. Total dockside revenues of Florida oyster harvesters who ONLY harvest during the five month and three month periods. ................................ ................................ .......... 11 Table 7. Total dockside revenues of Flori da oyster harvesters who DO NOT harvest during the five month or three month periods. ................................ ................................ 11 Table 8. Descriptions of various scenarios involving alternative closure periods for fresh shellstock s ales and levels of substitution of PHT (frozen) shellstock for fresh half shell product. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 Table 9. Scenario 1: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month using avera ge annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 13 Table 10. Scenario 2: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, using av erage annual landings over the five year time period, 2000 2004, and 2004 average monthly prices. a ................................ ................................ ......................... 14 Table 11. Scenario 3: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by mon th, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 Table 12. Scenario 4: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 Table 13. Scenario 5: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17 Table 14. Scenario 6: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvester s, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 Table 15. Scenario 7: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harves ters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 Table 16. Hypothetical total dockside and F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster products harvested under various scenarios. ................................ ................................ ..... 20 Table 17. Hypothetical annual labor requirements based upon average landings, 2000 04, adjusted for various closure periods and p roduction levels of PHT (frozen) oysters. ...... 23

PAGE 5

v Table 18. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under various scenarios. ................................ ................................ ................... 26 Appendix Table 1. Hypothetical monthly F.O.B. sales of Florida fresh half shell and shucked oysters using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 prices. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 29 Appendix Table 2. Hypothetical annual F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster products under various closure scenarios with partial replacement of fresh half shell product with PHT (frozen) product. ................................ ................................ .................. 30 Appendix Table 3. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 1. a ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 Appendix Table 4. Summary of ec onomic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 2. a ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 Appendix Table 5. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Sce nario 3. a ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 Appendix Table 6. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 4. a ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 Appendix Table 7. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 5. a ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 Appendix Table 8. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florid a oyster products harvested under Scenario 6. a ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 Appendix Table 9. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 7. a ................................ ................................ ............................ 35

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Percent of active harvesters by percent of 2004 revenues. ................................ .. 7 Figure 2. Reported commercial Florida oyster landings, 2004 and 2000 04 average. ....... 8 Figure 3. Total dockside revenues for all types Florida oysters harvested under current situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios. ............................ 21 Figure 4. Total F.O.B. revenues for all types Flori da oysters harvested under current situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios. ............................ 22

PAGE 7

vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Cooperative S tate Research, Education, and Extension Service (USDA CSREES) for funding this study under USDA Grant No. 200 4 344 8 3 14575 Implementing Post Harvest Treatments in Commerce of Florida Oysters The authors would like to express their gratitude t o the consulting members of the Florida oyster industry for their insights into the intricacies of oyster harvesting and processing requirements They were especially helpful in the formative stages of this project. The aut hors also express thanks to facul ty members of the Aquatic Food Products Lab of the F ood S cience and H uman N utrition Dep ar t ment I nstitute of F ood and A griculture S ciences U niversity of F lorida, Gainesville, Florida, for their time and assistance in completing this project. The authors t hank our reviewers, Dr. Leslie Sturmer, Ms. Jennifer Clark, and Mr. David Heil for their helpful comments and suggestions. Many thanks offered to FRE Editor Ms. Carol Fountain for her detailed review of the manuscript.

PAGE 8

viii

PAGE 9

ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of th is study was to examine the economic impacts of possible closures of the fresh half shell oyster market for varying time periods with the intention of protecting consumers from V. vulnificus infections. Economic impacts were estimated for harvesters, proce ssors, and the overall economies of Franklin and Gulf Counties in Florida. During the 2004 calendar year, 496 individuals harvested and sold Florida oysters. Of these, 448 sold only oysters (90%) while 48 sold oysters a nd some other saltwater species. Doc kside revenues received by the 496 harvesters for oysters were estimated to total nearly $3 million in 2004. Approximately 50 percent of the harvesters accounted for over 90 percent of the oyster revenues. Examination of the 2000 2004 average oyster dock side revenues reveals seasonal total revenues of about 31 percent for May September and 19 percent for There were 213 harvesters (42.9%) that did not operate during the May September period. There were 262 (52.8%) that did not harvest oysters during the June August period (Table 7). Using average quantity of oyster landings for 2000 2004 and 2004 dockside prices, seven unique scenarios were examined to determine the economic impacts on harvesters, processors, and the overall economy of Frankli n and Gulf Counties in Florida. Average landings for the five year period were used to provide a more stable long term average. Each scenario assumed a different combination of regulatory closures and post harvest treated (PHT) oyster utilization (Table 8) In conclusion, in the worst case scenarios, closure of the fresh half shell market for five months or three months with minimal or no frozen PHT product replacement would cause economic losses to harvesters, processors, and the overall regional economy. Reductions in harvesters' dockside revenue and processors' F.O.B. gross revenues would be about 25 and 16 percent, respectively, for the five month and three month closures. Replacement levels of 25 and 50 percent of historical fresh half shell sales wit h the frozen PHT product may be unrealistic with respect to the biological and logistical feasibility of accelerating the harvest of shellstock requirements for the closure periods to earlier months (i.e., March and April). Even if 25 or 50 percent repla cement levels are achievable in the marketplace and processors' gross F.O.B. revenues are increased, there are no assurances that these gross revenues will result in sustainable profitability to the processors. Furthermore, the large investment required fo r PHT processing and economies of scale may preclude all but a very few processors from participating in the frozen PHT market.

PAGE 10

1

PAGE 11

2 INTRODUCTION The American oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) has been a popular shellfish food since the discovery of the Americ as, and can be found off the coasts of the Northern U.S. Canadian Atlantic waters down to the Gulf of Mexico (Lutz et al. 2003; Lorio and Malone 1994). However, oyster aficionados have long adhered to the old adage "only eat oysters during the 'R' months." Although this maxim originated in the days before refrigeration become commonplace, it likewise holds true in modern times due to the prevalence of the bacteria V. vulnificus The naturally occurring V. v ulnificus is more prolific in warmer waters, such a s Florida's Gulf Coast, particularly during the summer months of May, June, July, and August. Consumption of shellfish meats containing V. vulnificus can result in severe illness and loss of life for specific "at risk good idea to provide u sing FDA as a source the average annual number of US cases ~30 to 35 and the average annual mortality rate ~50%). The results of a 2000 01 nationwide consumer survey revealed that 43 percent of the respondents ate oysters occasionally, with an average r ate of 2.6 times per month (Hanson et al. 2003). Consumers appear to recognize the risks associated with eating raw oysters, as nearly one half of those who eat oysters rated them the least safe seafood relative to twelve alternative shellfish and finfis h products. The researchers discovered that 43 percent of oyster consumers would eat more oysters if the depuration (process of flushing oysters with V vulnificus free water for a specified period of time prior to harvest) method was used on the product, with a mean willingness to pay an extra 34 cents per depurated oyster. Flattery and Bas h in (2003) conducted a survey prior to the release of intensified V. vulnificus consumer education efforts by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC). The research established a baseline meant to indicate current levels of awareness, behaviors and consumption patterns of raw oyster consumers. Nearly 2,000 telephone interviews were conducted from late 2001 through February 2002, with consumers located in Cal ifornia, Florida, Louisiana and Texas being targeted. The authors concluded that 37 percent of at risk consumers were eating raw oysters less often in an attempt to reduce their risk of illness; however, 42 percent of the at risk groups were not changing their consumption behavior. Overall, they discovered that "m isconceptions V v ulnificus infection are widespread. Shapiro et al. (1998) summarized data concerning V. vulnificus infections that occurred in Alabama, Florida Louisiana and Texas from 1988 through 1996. The dat a was sourced from the Gulf Coast Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which collects case information as provided on a volunteer basis by medical health professionals. The researchers discovered that V. vulnificus infections peaked in the warmer summer months, and that 79 percent of all cases were traced directly back to Louisiana and Florida sources of harvested oysters. In sum, the researchers suggested that while V. vulnificus cases were rare, the infection is "highly lethal" and that "restricting the use of oysters harvested in warm Gulf waters to cooked or other suitably processed products may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality." The Florida V. vulnificus Risk Reduction Plan for Oysters was established in 2001 with the stated goal to assure a significant reduction in V. v ulnificus septicemia illnesses

PAGE 12

3 through a combination of consumer education, processing incentives, and if necessary, processing controls ( FDA 2007 ). This plan outlined specific administrative procedures, responsibilities, and goals for the state of Florida, along with any other states that had two or more confirmed annual cases of V v ulnificus i llnesses traced back to oysters harvested or p rocessed in Florida. The Florida Department of Health illness data revealed that consumption of contaminated Florida oysters resulted in an annual average of 8.8 illnesses reported during the 1995 99 baseline period that was established by the plan. There are four post harvest processing (PH P ) options available to oyster processors: irradiation, cryogenic individual quick freezing (IQF) followed by frozen storage cool pasteurization, and hydrostatic pressure. The process of irradiating oysters has been in use by some U.S. processors for fifteen years. Low doses of gamma irradiation were proven to be "effective in reducing large concentrations of both pathogenic and non pathogenic Vibrios to non detectable levels" (Andrews, Jahncke, and Mallikarjunan 2003). This study also conducted consumer panels which provided evidence that the irradiated oysters did not possess significantly different sensory qualities relative to non irradiated oysters, and shelf life was maintained beyond two weeks. A 2003 report gener ated by the Division of Aquaculture, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) revealed the results of a survey concerning post harvest treatment capacity among Florida Certified Shellfish Processors. A total of 41 processors who hand led oysters completed the survey, which characterized any current and expected post harvest treatment activities and any influencing factors and concerns related to this type of processing. Of these, only one firm had IQF technology in place, and seven sta ted that they were in the construction phase. Five firms indicated that they had plans to purchase post harvest treated product from other dealers. Three PHT technologies were evaluated by the Research Triangle Institute with respect to their ability to re duce V. vulnificus levels and the economic impacts associated with each treatment method (Muth et al. 2000). While this study found that oyster processors were interested in adopting these technologies to reduce V. vulnificus levels and allow for greater s torability, concerns remained about consumer acceptance of treated oysters, adaptability of PHT across oyster species, and the accessibility of PHT facilities to low volume processors unable to install independent equipment. In a 2001 study conducted by th e FDACS Bureau of Seafood and Aquaculture Marketing, panelists were offered a sample of three oysters served on the half shell where either two had been treated by the freezing process to control V. vulnificus and one was a fresh oyster, or vice versa. Co nsumers accurately detected a difference between the samples in 37 cases (55% of the panelists). Interestingly, the researchers discovered that there was no significant preference expressed by this group, as 49 percent preferred the fresh oysters while 51 percent indicated that they preferred the previously frozen oysters. The Industry The commercial oyster industry in Florida represents an important component of the overall commercial seafood industry. Florida is the fourth most important U.S. state in the production of Eastern oysters ( Crassostrea virginica ). The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) region produces over 70 percent of the total U.S. supply of Eastern oysters. Florida typically produces approximately 8 percent of the total Gulf region eastern oyster

PAGE 13

4 produc tion. In addition, oysters are an important part of the complement of species commercially targeted in Florida. Oysters are the sixth most important species, in terms of dockside value, landed by the Florida commercial fishing industry. Over 95 percent of the total annual harvest of oysters in Florida comes from the Apalachicola Bay region adjoining Franklin and Gulf Counties. Given the relatively undiversified nature of the economies of these two counties, which are dominated by forestry and tourism, the c ommercial oyster fishery is an important addition to their economies. Eastern oysters harvested in Florida comprise an important segment of the overall Gulf region seafood sector. Oysters are processed as a shucked product, as well as being directed as she ll stock into the lucrative half shell raw consumption market. The oyster processing industry in Florida is comprised of firms that shuck and/or ship shellstock to markets within Florida and to markets throughout the United States. Florida oyster processor s handle not only Florida harvested oysters, but also oysters harvested from other states within the Gulf region. In fact, approximately 60 percent of the total volume of oysters processed in Florida comes from other Gulf region states. Florida oysters are also utilized in further value added processing, and enter the final retail and food service markets in a variety of product forms. The Situation Oysters are consumed in a variety of product forms. However, one of the most popular and traditional ways t o consume oysters is the "raw on the half shell option. Oysters utilized in this manner are harvested from approved waters, sorted/washed and bagged/boxed by the processor, shipped at approved temperatures to the retail setting, and consumed raw by the fi nal consumer. The entire process of moving oysters from the harvesting site to the final consumer is regulated by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program and the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Program This is due to the potential health risks associate d with the possible consumption of a raw product taken from a natural, aquatic environment where pathogens may occur. Although a raw product, for most consumers the ingestion of raw oysters containing V. vulnificus poses very little, if any, health risk. H owever, for a very small segment of the consuming public, the ingestion of raw molluscan shellfish containing V. vulnificus carries with it significant health risks. For example, individuals with a compromised immune system may be at risk when consuming ra w oysters containing V. vulnificus The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has oversight responsibility concerning the regulation and monitoring of health and sanitation issues concerning raw molluscan shellfish consumption. Of particular interest to the FDA is the incidence of i llness associated with a specific pathogen, V. vulnificus which occurs naturally within marine environment The ingestion of the V. vulnificus bacteria typically poses little risk of illness when consumed by a healthy adult wi th a normally functioning immune system. However, V. vulnificus septicemia illness can occur when raw oysters are consumed by an individual with a compromised immune system. Individuals with liver disease, low stomach acid, or undergoing chemotherapy are a subset of those individuals who may be at an increased risk of contracting V. vulnificus septicemia if they consume raw oysters. And since the levels of V. vulnificus within oysters are typically elevated during the months of the year when water temperatu res are higher, such as May through September,

PAGE 14

5 the FDA and I SS C have begun focusing efforts to enhance safety assurance on that period during each year. During the 1995 2004 period, there was an average of 8.9 reported cases of V. vulnificus septicemia i n Florida resulting from the consumption of oysters harvested from all U.S. waters. However, during that same period, there were on average 3.1 (Florida) and 4.3 (U.S.) reported cases of V. vulnificus septicemia, respectively, resulting from the consumptio n of oysters harvested only from Florida waters. The FDA has determined that these illness levels are unacceptable and has established illness reduction targets that each source state must obtain. For example, the rate of confirmed shellfish borne V. vulni ficus septicemia illnesses reported collectively by California, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas from the consumption of commercially harvested raw or undercooked oysters must be reduced by an average of 60 percent from the average illness rate observed for 1 995 1999 of 0.30 3 cases per million (unit of population). If this target is not achieved, the NSSP has a management plan that could among other provisions, close shellfish growing areas for the purpose of harvesting oysters intended for the raw, half shel l market when the average monthly maximum water temperature exceeds 75 degrees Fahrenheit. More specifically, the NSSP may require clos ure of shellfish growing areas for the purpose of harvesting oysters intended for the raw, half shell market from May thr ough September, although a shorter closure period could possibly be considered (although, for year 2010 the ISSC has accepted new stringent time to refrigeration controls) The purpose of this study is to examine the economic consequences of an NSSP or FDA mandated closure during all or a portion of the May September period. Such a closure would impact not only the harvesters, but also the shellfish processors; the local businesses that supply goods and services to the harvesting, wholesaling, and processin g sectors; local restaurants; and other businesses within the region. Thus the benefits gained from illness reduction may come at a cost to the local economy. This study will examine the consequences to those sectors and develop estimates of the economic i mpact of several oyster harvesting closure scenarios. This information will help resource managers better understand the changes in economic activities that will result from the potential FDA or NSSP management provisions, so that economic and social healt h objectives can be appropriately incorporated into the decisions affecting the commercial oyster industry in Florida. OBJECTIVES The overall purpose of this study was to examine the economic impacts of possible closures of the fresh half shell market for varying time periods with the intention of protecting consumers from exposure to V. vulnificus infections. Economic impacts were estimated for harvesters, processors, and the overall economies of Franklin and Gulf Count ies located in the "Big Bend" area of the Florida Panhandle region, which represents the majority of oyster harvesting waters in the state The specific objectives were to (1) determine the average monthly oyster landings and dockside prices received by Florida's oyster harvesters during the 2000 04 time period; (2) compute the percentage of total harvested yields sold as fresh half shell versus shucked product; (3) review the harvest quantity and price data for seasonal trend patterns and variations; (4) determine the post harvest processing capabilities of the

PAGE 15

6 fishery; (5) estimate the internal and external impacts under various summer closure scenarios that are currently under consideration, and (6) estimate the internal and external economic impacts under various summer closure scenarios in combination with various levels of post harvest treatment capacity. This information can be used to provide guidance to regulatory agencies and stakeholders that are involved with ensuring the ters. PROCEDURES In order to estimate the economic impacts associated with potential closures of the Florida oyster fisheries, Marine Fisheries Trip Ticket data for 2004 were collected from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). All indiv iduals engaged on the commercial harvest of saltwater species from Florida waters are required to purchase an annual license from Florida Wildlife Commission Upon the return of a fishing vessel to the docks, a t rip t icket is issued, and harvested species type, volume, and price received is recorded. In 2004, the data revealed that more than 90 percent of harvesters brought in oysters exclusively on each trip, while less than 10 percent harvested both oysters and other saltwater species on a single trip (T able 1). Table 1. Numbers of oyster harvesters with dockside revenues from oysters and all other saltwater species, 2004. Source of Revenue Number of Harvesters Percent of Harvesters Exclusively oysters 448 90.3 Oysters AND other saltwater species 48 9.7 Total oyster harvesters 496 100.0 Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket Data. Major oyster processors were contacted so that accurate industry averages could be computed using actual data from the 2004 season. Processors were asked to estimate the percentage of fresh half shell versus shucked product, shucked yields by month, and monthly F.O.B. wholesale prices paid for fresh half shell and shucked oysters. Processors were also queried about their access to, and interest in, post harvest processing facilities as well as the costs and prices associated with providing a PH P oyster to the half shell consumer market. These values were used to generate seasonal trends and served as the basis for the development of post harvest processing capacity and su ggested harvest limitations that might be considered to reduce the risk of consumer exposure to V. vulnificus infections. required harvest closure periods would result in e conomic impacts that resonate throughout the Franklin and Gulf C ount ies of Florida To estimate these impacts, an input output model was utilized using the IMPLAN software and databases (MIG). IMPLAN model parameters for employment, labor costs and propri etor income were

PAGE 16

7 adjusted to conform to average values derived from trip ticket data, survey results, and industry expert opinion. FINDINGS Overall Oyster Industry In 2007, Florida oyster harvesters landed nearly 2.4 million pounds of product valued at al most $5.4 million that were collected during 26,309 total trips (FFWC). Between 1994 and 2003, the waters off of Franklin and Gulf Counties supplied an average of 81.4 percent of the total oysters harvested in Florida, ranging from a high of 90.6 to a low of 67.6 percent in the years 2000 and 1996, respectively (Figure 1). In 2004, Florida harvested oysters were valued at nearly $3 million, representing 96.4 percent of the total value of trips recorded by 496 harvesters (Table 2). This information highlight s the importance of accurately measuring the economic value of proposed oyster fishery closures, as the majority of the economic impact in Florida will be confined to the pa rticipants and other input and support providers of Franklin and Gulf Counties. Fi gure 1. Percent of active harvesters by percent of 2004 revenues. To confirm the validity of the 2004 Trip Ticket oyster landings data, the number of 60 pound sacks recorded was plotted along with the average annual number of sack s harvested throughout Florida over the five year period from 2000 to 2004 (Figure 2). The oyster reproductive cycle peaks in the summer months, resulting in smaller and less desirable meat qualities and relatively lower harvest rates relative to the winte r and spring months. In addition to poor er meat quality, warmer summer waters are presumed to contribute to higher V. vulnificus in fections Strong jumps in harvested volumes occurred from October through December, as the oysters are collected and sold to the more

PAGE 17

8 profitable half shell market. This seasonal peak from October through April also coincides with the influx of Florida's winter residents, "Spring Break" tourism activities, and holiday occasions. Table 2. Oyster harvesters' total annual revenues f rom oysters and all other saltwater species, 2004. Source of Revenue Number of Harvesters Percent of Harvesters Revenues by Species Percent of Total Revenues (Dollars) Oysters 496 100.0 2,998,588 96.4 All other saltwater species 48 9.7 110,670 3.6 Total, all species 496 100.0 3,109,258 100.0 Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket Data. See Appendix Table 1 for detailed breakdown. Figure 2. Reported commercial Florida oyster landings, 2004 and 200 0 04 average. As in other fisheries, 112 harvester s (22.3 % ) earned relatively low incomes of less than $500 annually for Florida oysters harvested in 2004 (Table 3). Another 21 percent of harvesters reported gross incomes ranging from $2,000 to $4,999 during this same year. According to Trip Ticket data, only one harvester received between $40,000 and $49,999, while four others collected incomes ranging from $30,000 to $39,999 in 2004. In total, these five individuals represented only one percent of all licensed oyster harvesters that actively collected an d sold product in 2004.

PAGE 18

9 Table 3. Annual revenues from oysters received by Florida harvesters, 2004. Gross Income Number of Harvesters (Dollars) 40,000 49,999 1 30,000 39,999 4 20,000 29,999 23 10,000 19,999 86 5,000 9,999 80 2,000 4,99 9 104 1,000 1,999 45 500 999 41 < 500 112 TOTAL 496 Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket data. To further delve into the division of 2004 dockside revenues paid to oyster harvesters, the 496 total individuals were split into 10 decile groups, ea ch with about 50 harvesters (Table 4). The first decile group contained harvesters who received an approximate annual average of $22,000 each, accounting for a total of $1.1 million, or nearly 37 percent, of all revenues. The second decile group contained harvesters who earned an average of $13,707 each in 2004, representing 22.4 percent of all revenues. Harvesters in the third and fourth decile groups earned an average of $9,405 and $6,221, respectively, in 2004, and combined with the first two deciles, th ese four groups represent 85 percent of total revenues. In sum, less than one half of the total number of active harvesters in 2004 accounted for just over 90 percent of annual revenues (Figure 1). Table 4. Analyses of 2004 dockside revenues paid to harves ters, by decile a There were 496 total harves ters. Thus, there are approximately 50 harvesters in each decile. Decile a 2004 Dockside Revenues Approximate Mean (per harvester) Total by Decile (Dollars) (Dollars) (Percent) (Cum. Pct.) First 22,000 1,100,046 36.7 36.7 Second 13,707 671,640 22.4 59.1 Third 9,405 470,236 15.7 74.8 Fourth 6,221 311,034 10.4 85.2 Fifth 3,922 196,096 6.5 91.7 Sixth 2,566 128,300 4.3 96.0 Seventh 1,434 70,272 2.3 98.3 Eighth 625 31,255 1.0 99.3 Ninth 290 14,226 0.5 99.8 Tenth 110 5,484 0.2 100.0 TOTALS N.A. 2,998,588 100.0 N.A.

PAGE 19

10 Summer Oyster Harvest Because this study is primarily concerned with understanding the impacts of potential summer closures, the actual dockside revenues received by Florida harvesters were analyzed on a monthly basis (Table 5). Total oyster quantities sold in 2004 were 242,625 bags, each containing 60 pounds of oysters in the shell. December and November harvested quantities of 60 pound bags totaled 30,918 and 29,164, respectively, and toge ther represented nearly $789,000, or 26.3 percent, of 2004 revenues. October, January, and March oyster harvest totals each represented approximately 10 percent of annual revenues, with between 24,501 and 25,378 60 pound bags sold. Overall, the lowest gr ossing months were the months from May through September, with recorded September oyster harvests of just over 5,000 bags (2% of total annual harvest), representing the lowest month in 2004 (Table 5). Of these summer months, July's harvest of 19,284 bags a ccounted for just 7.6 percent of total 2004 revenues. Should the suggested summer closure period have occurred during the months of May through September in 2004, a total of 67,485 bags would not have been harvested, representing total revenue losses of ne arly $800 million, or 26.7 percent of annual revenues. If the closure period was limited to the three months of June, July, and August, quantities of 44,546 bags would not have been collected, and the oyster fishery would have lost $523,575, or 17.5 percen t, of 2004 revenues. Table 5. Actual dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, 2004. Source: Compiled from 2004 Trip Ticket data. See Appendix Table 1 for detailed breakdown. To further explore the summer oyster harvest situation relative to the 2004 data, total dockside revenue s of those individuals who harvested produc t exclusively in the five and three month periods were analyzed (Table 6). Only 14 harvesters chose to collect and sell oysters during the five months of May through September, earning a total of $6,503. When lim ited to the three months of June through August, the data revealed that nine individuals sold oysters for a total of $2,503. As the summer oysters are not known to possess the preferred meat qualities desired by the half shell market, it was suspected that these summer only harvesters might have sold their oysters as a shucked Time P eriod Quantities S old Total R evenue Percent of A nnual R evenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 24,501 308,205 10.3 February 20,52 9 252,101 8.4 March 24,734 301,136 10.0 April 19,916 337,836 7.9 May 17,846 215,836 7.2 June 15,577 185,987 6.2 July 19,284 228,021 7.6 August 9,685 109,567 3.7 September 5,093 60,178 2.0 October 25,378 311,084 10.4 November 29,164 388,654 13.0 D ecember 30,918 399,984 13.3 TOTALS: 242,625 2,998,588 100.0

PAGE 20

11 product. Interestingly, only $910 and $287 were received by these summer only harvesters for shucked oyster meats sold during the five and three month periods, respectively. This ind icated that 86 percent of revenues received by these harvesters resulted from sales of their product for consumption in the half shell form. Table 6. Total dockside revenues of Florida oyster harvesters who ONLY harvest during the five month and three mon th periods. Dockside R evenues Closure P eriod Number of H arvesters Total Shucked P roduct O nly a ( -----------------Dollars --------------------) Five months (May September) 14 6,503 910 Three months (June August) 9 2, 053 287 a According to maj or Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same price as those goi ng for the fresh half shell market. Conversely, oyster harvesters that did not harvest any product during either of the two defined summer periods in 2004 would potentially be unaffected by either of the proposed hypothetical closures. Of the 496 license holders with 2004 landings, 213, or 42.9 percent, did not sell product during May through September (Table 7). This group earned nearly $356 thousand in total revenues, representing about twelve percent of the oyster fishery earnings. There were 262, or 5 2.8 percent, of licensed harvesters with landings that chose not to go out to harvest oysters during the June through August summer months. The nine month harvested volumes of these individuals accounted for almost $550 thousand (18.3 percent) of 2004 reve nues. Table 7. Total dockside revenues of Florida oyster harvesters who DO NOT harvest during the five month or three month periods. Length of closure Number of harvesters Percent of total harvesters a Total revenues Percent of total revenues b (Dollar s) Five months (May September) 213 42.9 355,737 11.9 Three months (June August) 262 52.8 549,657 18.3 a Percentage of total harvesters is based upon 496 SPL holders that had landings in 2004. b The percentage of revenue is based upon total revenues of 2,998,583. Source: Compiled from Trip Ticket data.

PAGE 21

12 Summer Closure Scenarios Various scenarios have been suggested by members of the oyster fishery and the ISSC as possible options that are designed to meet the goal of reducing V. v ulnificus infections traced back to Florida harvested (Table 8). Scenario 1 describes the current situation as presented in the initial portion of this report, and does not include any summer closure periods or post harvest process requirements or restrictions. This scenario is used as the benchmark by which all the other scenarios are compared. Scenarios 2 and 3 provide estimates of the potential losses incurred by the industry should the oyster fisheries close from May through September (five months) or from June through Aug ust (three months), respectively. Table 8. Descriptions of various scenarios involving alternative closure periods for fresh shellstock sales and levels of substitution of PHT (frozen) shellstock for fresh half shell product. Scenario Description 1 Cu rrent situation, no fresh half shell closures ( b enchmark scenario). 2 Fresh half shell closure for five months (May September), no sales of PHT (frozen) product. 3 Fresh half shell closure for three months (June August), no sales of the PHT (frozen) prod uct. 4 Fresh half shell closure for five month period, with 25 percent of average half shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per case, or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product. 5 Fresh half shell closure for five month period, with 50 percent of average half shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per case, or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product. 6 Fr esh half shell closure for three month period, with 25 percent of average half shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per case, or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product. 7 Fresh half shell closure for three month period, with 50 percent of average half shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product at a price of $60.00 per case, or $0.42 each, and frozen yields of 162 oysters per bushel of fresh product. Scenarios 4 and 5 take the conditions included under the second case and allow for either a 25 or 50 percent substitution of post harvest treated product released to the half shell consumer market during the closure months of May through September, respectively (Tab le 8). Expectations about the prices and yields for a post harvest treated half shell oyster were provided by processors that have experience with the PHT oyster

PAGE 22

13 market. PHT half shell oysters were expected to sell for 42 cents apiece, and yields were assu med to average 162 frozen half shell oysters per bushel. These same market price and yield assumptions were used in Scenarios 6 and 7, which took the third case of closure months from June through August and allowed for either a 25 or 50 percent substituti on of the PHT product for sale during the proposed closure months. Estimated Revenues of Summer Closure Scenarios For the last four scenarios involving provision of the PHT product to the summer half shell consumer market, it was assumed that the addit ional oysters required to meet the estimated 25 and 50 percent substitution summer supplies were harvested, frozen and stored during the months of March and April. Other assumptions included the use of average dockside revenues received by licensed oyster harvesters during each of the months of 2004, and the average monthly oyster landings recorded by FWRI during the five year period of 2000 to 2004. Average annual dockside revenues to oyster harvesters from 2000 to 2004 exceeded $3.3 million The average annual harvest during this period was 269,513 60 pound bags (Table 9). Table 9. Scenario 1: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month using average annual landings over the five year period, 200 0 04, and 2004 average monthly pri ces. a Time P eriod Quantities Sold Total Revenue Percent of Average Annual Revenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 28,891 365,181 11.0 February 27,823 342,225 10.3 March 25,956 314,322 9.4 April 23,504 281,818 8.5 May 20,874 253,834 7. 6 June 17,748 211,373 6.3 July 19,906 232,303 7.0 August 15,354 175,041 5.3 September 12,374 148,245 4.5 October 27,709 345,807 10.4 November 22,426 305,447 9.2 December 26,947 353,810 10.6 GRAND TOTALS 269,513 3,329,404 100.0 a Scenario 1 is the no fresh half shell closure, current situation. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown. Using Scenario 1 as a benchmark, the five month summer closure under Scenario 2 would result in a 26.4 percent, or $887 thousand, reduction in a nnual dockside rev enues to harvesters (Table 10). The harvested quantit y estimates were based on the assumption that average monthly harvests were limited to 14 percent of recorded average collection levels and sold strictly as a frozen shucked product. During this five mon th period, the

PAGE 23

14 largest harvest ( 2,922 bags ), occurred in May, while the September harvest was reduced to 792 bags, which represented less than one percent of total 2004 dockside revenues. Scenario 3 applied the same assumptions of Scenario 2, except that t he closure period was for only the three months, June, July and August (Table 11). Overall, for this three month closure s c enario, average annual dockside revenues were reduced by 16 percent, or $532 thousand, compared to the benchmark s c enario. Table 10. Scenario 2: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year time period, 2000 2004, and 2004 average monthly prices. a Time P eriod Quantities S old Total R evenue Percent of A verage A nn ual R evenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 28,891 365,181 14.9 February 27,823 342,225 14.0 March 25,956 314,322 12.8 April 23,504 281,818 11.5 May b 2,922 35,537 1.4 June b 2,485 29,592 1.2 July b 2,787 32,522 1.3 August b 2,150 2 4,506 1.0 September b 1,732 20,754 0.8 October 27,709 345,807 14.1 November 22,426 305,447 12.5 December 26,947 353,810 14.4 GRAND TOTALS 195,332 2,451,521 100.0 Percent change from Scenario 1 27.5 26.4 N.A. a Scenario 2 is fresh half shell clos ure for five months (May September), no sales of the PHT (frozen) product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown. b Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percen t of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same price as those going for the fresh half shell market.

PAGE 24

15 Table 11. Scenario 3: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a Time Period Quantities Sold Total Revenue Percent of Average Annual Revenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 28,891 365,181 13.1 February 27,823 342,225 12.2 March 25,956 314,322 11.2 April 23,504 281,818 10.1 May 20,874 253,834 9.1 June b 2,485 29,592 1.1 July b 2,787 32,522 1.2 August b 2,150 24,506 0.9 Septembe r 12,374 148,245 5.3 October 27,709 345,807 12.4 November 22,426 305,447 10.9 December 26,947 353,810 12.6 GRAND TOTALS 223,926 2,797,308 100.0 Percent change from Scenario 1 16.9 16.0 N.A. a Scenario 3 is fresh half shell closure for three month s (June August), no sales of the PHT (frozen) product. b Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder goin g to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same price as those going for the fresh half shell market. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown. Scenarios 4 and 5 evaluated the potent ial financial gains of releasing PHT frozen oysters at levels equal to 25 and 50 percent, respectively, of the average monthly amounts that are currently harvested and sold to the fresh half shell market during the months of May through September. Overall, replacing 25 percent of the fresh half shell market with PHT oysters during a five month summer closure would result in an estimated 20 percent decrease in both the total number of bags sold and total revenue to the fishery relative to the benchmark scena rio (Table 12). In Scenario 5, where 50 percent of the usual five month summer harvest was replaced by PHT oysters, the industry would sustain 14 and 13 percent losses in quantities sold and total annual revenue, respectively (Table 13). It is important to note that in both Scenarios 4 and 5, it is assumed that fresh half shell consumers would accept the PHT product as a perfect substitute for raw oysters during the summer months. In addition, these figures are based on the feasibility of increasing harvest ed quantities in March and April for PHT processing and summer sales. It is also assumed that the industry would purchase sufficient equipment to treat and then store the PHT product.

PAGE 25

16 Table 12. Scenario 4: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida ha rvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a Time Period Quantities Sold Total Revenue Percent of Average Annual Revenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 28,891 365 ,181 13.7 February 27,823 342,225 12.8 March b 35,229 426,613 15.9 April b 32,778 392,997 14.7 May c 2,922 35,537 1.3 June c 2,485 29,592 1.1 July c 2,787 32,522 1.2 August c 2,150 24,506 0.9 September c 1,732 20,754 0.8 October 27,709 345,807 12. 9 November 22,427 305,447 11.4 December 26,947 353,810 13.2 GRAND TOTALS: 213,877 2,674,990 100.0 Percent change from Scenario 1 20.3 19.7 N.A. a Scenario 4 is fresh half shell closure for five month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half s hell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown. b Months during which additional quantities of shellstock are harvested for sale during May September as a PHT (frozen) product. c Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oyst ers sold for shucking command the same price as those going for the fresh half shell market.

PAGE 26

17 Table 13. Scenario 5: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a Time period Quantities sold Total revenue Percent of average annual revenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 28,891 365,181 12.6 February 27,823 342,225 11.8 March b 44,501 538,904 18.6 April b 42,050 504, 175 17.4 May c 2,922 35,537 1.2 June c 2,485 29,592 1.0 July c 2,787 32,522 1.1 August c 2,150 24,506 0.8 September c 1,732 20,754 0.7 October 27,709 345,807 11.9 November 22,426 305,447 10.5 December 26,947 353,810 12.2 GRAND TOTALS: 232,422 2,89 8,460 100.0 Percent change from Scenario 1 13.8 12.9. N.A. a Scenario 5 is fresh half shell closure for five month period, with 50 percent of average fresh half shell sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown. b Months during which additional quantities of shellstock are harvested for sale during May September as PHT (frozen) product. c Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same price as those going for the fresh half she ll market. The projected revenue changes resulting from the PHT replacement scenarios with a three month fishery closure during June, July, and August (Scenarios 6 and 7) are presented in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. Not surprisingly, these shorter clo sure periods with PHT replacement resulted in smaller total revenue losses than PHT replacement with five month closures (Scenarios 4 and 5). In Scenario 6, with 25 percent PHT replacement, the fishery would experience 12 and 13 percent losses in quantitie s sold and total annual revenue, respectively (Table 14). Where one half of the normal fresh half shell market was replaced by PHT oysters in Scenario 7, the quantity sold diminished by almost 9 percent and total dockside revenues were reduced by nearly 8 percent (Table 15).

PAGE 27

18 Table 14. Scenario 6: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Florida harvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a Time P eriod Quantities S old Total R evenue Percent of A verage A nnual R evenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 28,891 365,181 12.4 February 27,823 342,225 11.7 March b 31,654 383,329 13.1 April b 29,203 350,141 11.9 May 20,874 253,834 8.6 June c 2,485 29,592 1.0 July c 2,787 3 2,522 1.1 August c 2,150 24,506 0.8 September 12,374 148,245 5.1 October 27,709 345,807 11.8 November 22,426 305,447 10.4 December 26,947 353,810 12.1 GRAND TOTALS: 235,323 2,934,638 100.0 Percent change from Scenario 1 12.7 11.9 N.A. a Scenari o 6 is fresh half shell closure for three month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown. b Months during which additional quantities of shellstoc k are harvested for sale during June August as a PHT (frozen) product. c Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with th e remainder going to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oysters sold for shucking command the same price as those going for the fresh half shell market.

PAGE 28

19 Table 15. Scenario 7: Hypothetical dockside revenues paid to Flori da harvesters, by month, using average annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 average monthly prices. a As anticipated by industry participants, five or three month summer closures of fresh oysters would result in significant industry losses. Dockside revenues r esulting from the five and three month closures were estimated to decline by 26 and 16 percent, respectively (Table 16, Figure 4). The actual F.O.B. gross revenues lost by the oyster fisheries under Scenarios 2 and 3 were estimated to equal $1,226,526 and $888,944, respectively. While the quality of the fresh half shell product harvested during the summer is known to be inferior to oysters harvested during the cooler months, it is important to emphasize that these scenarios were developed using historical F.O.B. prices paid for this exact product type and quality. Time P eriod Quantities S old Total R evenue Percent of A verage A nnual R evenue (No. 60 lb. bags) (Dollars) (Percent) January 28,89 1 365,181 11.9 February 27,823 342,225 11.1 March b 37,352 452,336 14.7 April b 34,901 418,465 13.6 May 20,874 253,834 8.3 June c 2,485 29,592 1.0 July c 2,787 32,522 1.1 August c 2,150 24,506 0.8 September 12,374 148,245 4.8 October 27,709 345,80 7 11.3 November 22,427 305,447 9.9 December 26,947 353,810 11.5 GRAND TOTALS: 246,720 3,071,969 100.0 Percent change from Scenario 1 8.5 7.7 N.A. a Scenario 7 is fresh half shell closure for three month period, with 50 percent of average fresh hal f shell sales replaced by the PHT (frozen) half shell product. See Appendix Table 2 for detailed breakdown. b Months during which additional quantities of shellstock are harvested for sale during June August as a PHT (frozen) product. c Months during which no fresh half shell sales are permitted. According to major Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shucked, with the remainder going to the half shell market. The analysis in this table also assumes that oys ters sold for shucking command the same price as those going for the fresh half shell market.

PAGE 29

20 Table 16. Hypothetical total dockside and F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster products harvested under various scenarios. Scenario Total D ockside R evenues a Total F.O.B. G ross R evenues a (Dollars) (Percent) (Dollars) (Percent) Scenario 1 (Current, no fresh half shell closure) 3,329,404 0.0 5,789,123 0.0 Scenario 2 (5 mo fresh half shell closure) 2,451,521 26.4 4,342,597 25.0 Scenario 3 (3 mo fresh half shell closure) 2,797,308 16.0 4,900,179 15.4 Scenario 4 (5 mo fresh half shell closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) 2,674,990 19.7 5,594,398 3.4 Scenario 5 (5 mo fresh half shell closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) 2,898,460 12.9 6,846, 200 + 18.3 Scenario 6 (3 mo fresh half shell closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) 2,934,638 11.9 5,669,458 2.1 Scenario 7 (3 m o. fresh half shell closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) 3,071,969 7.7 6,438,736 + 11.2 a Percent change relative to Scenario 1.

PAGE 30

21 Figure 3. Total dockside revenues for all types Florida oysters harvested under current situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios. Consideration of the potential for replacement of fresh half shell prod uct with PHT oysters produced some interesting results. Again, it is important to reiterate that these replacement scenarios were based on the following assumptions: (1) that consumers would accept the PHT oysters as replacements; (2) that the industry wou ld be able to harvest the additional volume in March and April; (3) that this industry had the processing capabilities, storage facilities, and labor available to meet the requirements of PHT processing; and (4) that the relatively higher prices the market would pay for this relatively safer substitute would hold at the current levels. Under these conditions, results indicated that in two of the four proposed scenarios, total F.O.B. gross revenues would actual ly increase (Table 16, Figure 4). In particular, Scenario 5 (where fresh half shell harvesting was shut down from May through September and PHT replacement oysters were sold at levels equivalent to 50 percent of historical levels during this time) resulted in an 18.3 percent increase in F.O.B. revenues over the current no closure scenario (Scenario 1). However, total dockside revenues earned by oyster harvesters were estimated to drop from 8 to 20 percent relative to the historical earnings achieved with no summer harvest restrictions.

PAGE 31

22 Figure 4. Total F.O.B. revenues for all types Florida oysters harvested under current situation and various hypothetical closure and replacement scenarios. Estimated Employment of Summer Closure Scenarios The traditional oyster fishery is labor intensive. Oysters are t ypically harvested using hand tools (tongs) from small boats in shallow coastal waters. On board, undersized oysters are hand culled back into the water to help maintain future stock. The remaining harvestable oysters are temporarily packed in burlap bags. Once o n shore, the oysters are sort ed, cleaned, and packed or processed, also by hand, in preparation for shipment to their final destination. Oysters intended for the shucked market are typically processed in a central location and immediately packaged an d frozen for resale. In the case of the half shell market, the majority of processors do not pre shuck the oysters, as this is done by the final retail or consumer outlet. For processors that have adopted the PHT technology and invested in the necessary fr eezing and storage equipment, additional labor must be hired and investments in training incurred. Estimated labor requirements for the six alternative PHT scenarios are shown in Table 17. Estimated harvester numbers for each scenario were based on data pr ovided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Average employment and revenue data were used to estimate employment by shellstock and shucking operations for six alternative scenarios. It is estimated that all six closure scenarios would result in fewer oyster harvesters and workers in shellstock ing operations. The greatest reductions in employment would occur for the five month closure without PHT replacement in

PAGE 32

23 Scenario 2. The smallest reduction in worker numbers occurs in Scenario 7, th e three month closure with PHT replacement. It is estimated that Scenario 7 would lead to about a 6 percent reduction in the number of oyster industry workers, compared to a 20 percent reduction under Scenario 2. Table 17. Hypothetical annual labor requ irements based upon average landings, 2000 04, adjusted for various closure periods and production levels of PHT (frozen) oysters. Type of Labor Scenario Gross F.O.B. Values Harvesters a Shellstock b Shucking b Total (Dollars) ( ----------------------Employees ------------------) Scenario 1 (Current, no fresh half shell closure) 5,789,123 233 199 198 630 Scenario 2 (5 mo. fresh half shell closure) 4,342,597 169 135 198 502 Scenario 3 (3 mo. fresh half shell closure) 4,900,179 194 160 198 552 Scen ario 4 (5 mo. fresh half shell closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) 5,594,398 185 151 198 534 Scenario 5 (5 mo. fresh half shell closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) 6,846,200 201 167 198 566 Scenario 6 (3 mo. fresh half shell closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) 5,669 ,458 204 170 198 572 Scenario 7 (3 mo. fresh half shell closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) 6,438,736 214 179 198 591 a Full time harvester equivalents (FTEs) are based upon the average quantities harvested in Florida over the five year period, 2000 2004, as reported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the following assumptions: (1) that 75 percent of the dockside value accrues to labor (Anderson et. al. 1996) and (2) a full time harvester earned the equivalent of the annual minimum w age ($10,712) in 2004. b Estimated labor employed at 37 firms selling shellstock ranged from 4 to 6, and averaged slightly over 5 persons per firm; labor at processing firms (shuckers) were estimated to average about 14 employees, but the numbers estimated for individual firms varied widely, depending on the size of operation.

PAGE 33

24 Estimated Secondary Impacts /Contributions of Summer Closure Scenarios Secondary economic impacts or contributions of alternative oyster harvesting and processing scenarios were estimated using a regional economic input output model of Franklin and G ulf C ounties that was constructed using the IMPLAN Pro software and databases. 1 The IMPLAN model was based on 2003 economic data which were collected by various federal and state gove rnment agencies, including the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Labor. Details on IMPLAN software and databases can be found at http:// www.implan.com The estimated gross revenues calculated for each scenario were entered into the IMPLAN model as new economic activity for the Fishing Industry (Sector 16) and the Seafood Product Preparation and Packing Industry (Sector 71) 2 The economic relationships embodied in these IMPLAN sectors are based on national data for all types of fishing and s eafood processing activities in the United States. Because of the special nature of Florida's oyster industry, these national economic relationships are not completely appropriate for this analysis. Consequently, the model was modified to better represent Florida's oyster industry. These modifications included increasing the share of value added components in the harvesting/fishing sector production function to 75 percent of total revenues, and similarly, setting the value added share of the seafood process the average revenues and compensation per worker for IMPLAN sectors 16 and 71 were adjusted to match actual local industry averages (Table 17). The types of economic impac ts or contributions estimated using the input output models include o utput, v alue added, l abor i ncome, o ther p roperty i ncome, i ndirect b usiness t axes and e mployment. These contributions can occur through direct, indirect, or induced effects. The total eco nomic contributions of an event or activity equal the sum of these direct, indirect and induced contributions. Output contributions represent the total value of revenues or expenditures associated with an activity. Value added measures the l abor i ncome, o ther p roperty i ncome, and i ndirect b usiness t axes derived from these revenues. Labor income represents earnings by employees and proprietors of oyster businesses. Other p roperty t ype i ncome represents corporate profits in addition to payments for rents, ro yalties, dividends and interest. Indirect b usiness t axes include excise, property, and sales taxes, as well as licenses and fees paid by businesses, but not taxes on profits or income. The estimated number of annual full time, part time and seasonal jobs resulting from an industry s activity is represented by Employment impacts. Each of these measures represents a different way of assessing the importance or contribution of an economic activity to a region. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed th at all oysters sold from Gulf and Franklin Counties were harvested by operations based inside the two counties and that 1 When th e economic importance of an industry or activity is evaluated under these assumptions, it is more appropriate to refer to the estimated economic impacts as economic contributions (Watson, Wilson, Thilmany, and Winter 2007). 2. Oyster revenues were deflate d to 2003 price levels to match the IMPLAN model year data using Bureau of Labor Statistics price indices Once the secondary economic contributions were estimated, they were then re inflated back to 2004 levels using the same indices.

PAGE 34

25 these oysters were all sold to buyers located outside the area. The consequence of these assumptions is that all oyster revenues can be treated as "new" dollars for the economy of Gulf and Franklin Counties. In input output analysis, new dollars generate secondary economic impacts or contributions through indirect and induced effects. Direct effects are generated by all revenues and jobs c reated by an industry regardless of their origin. These direct effects (total F.O.B gross revenues) were estimated in the previous section. Indirect economic effects or contributions occur when oyster harvesters and processors purchase goods and services r equired to carry out their business from local suppliers. Additional revenues and jobs are created for the local economy when this occurs. Induce d effects occur when oyster business owners and employees spend their earnings from harvesting and processing a ctivities for personal consumption i n the local econom y Again, additional jobs and revenues are generated in local consumer related businesses that fulfill these demands. The total economic contributions of industry activity for the local area equal to th e sum of these direct, indirect and induced effects Summary output contributions of the seven summer closure scenarios are presented in Table 18. The scenarios are presented along individual table rows, with direct, indirect, induced, and total impacts g iven in separate columns. The percent change in output contributions from benchmark Scenario 1 is given in the last column of Table 18. Estimated value added, labor income, other property income, indirect business taxes, and employment impacts are provided in Appendix Tables 3 through 9. The benchmark closure scenario had an estimated total economic output contribution of $13.7 million on the two county economy in 2004. This was generated by a direct impact of $5.59 million in revenues. This means that oyst er sales for the two county area have a total multiplier effect of about 2.36. This is a relatively large multiplier effect, but one that is not uncommon for labor intensive industries like oyster fisheries. About 54 percent of the secondary contributions of oyster sales were generated by indirect effects and 46 percent by induced effects (Table 18). This relationship roughly holds for all the scenarios. In comparison to the benchmark, Scenarios 2 and 3 result in a 25.6 and 15.8 percent reduction in total o economy, respectively, due to the five and three month closures during the warmer months. For Scenario 4, the five month closure with 25 percent PHT replacement results in a total output contribution was just 3 .5 percent below the benchmark. With a 50 percent PHT replacement during a five month closure (Scenario 5), the total impact of the industry is actually estimated to increase, by 18.7 percent above the benchmark, to $16.2 million. In Scenario 6, the three month closure with 25 percent PHT replacement is estimated to result in a 2.1 percent decrease in economic contribution to the area. In proportion to Scenario 5, the three month closure with a 50 percent PHT replacement in Scenario 7 is estimated to genera te an output contribution of $15.2 million, which is 11.5 percent higher than benchmark Scenario 1.

PAGE 35

26 Table 18. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under various scenarios. Summary Impacts Scenario Direc t Indirect Induced Total a ( --------Million Dollars ------------) (Percent) Scenario 1 (Current, no fresh half shell closure) 5.789 4.255 3.612 13.655 N.A. Scenario 2 (5 mo. fresh half shell closure) 4.343 3.107 2.705 10.155 25.6 Scenario 3 ( 3 mo. fresh half shell closure) 4.900 3.549 3.055 11.504 15.8 Scenario 4 (5 mo. fresh half shell closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) 5.594 4.100 3.490 13.184 3.5 Scenario 5 (5 mo. fresh half shell closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) 6.846 5.094 4.274 16.214 + 18.7 Scenario 6 (3 mo. fresh half shell closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) 5.669 4.160 3.537 13.366 2.1 Scenario 7 (3 mo. fresh half shell closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) 6.439 4.770 4.019 15.228 + 11.5 a Percent change relative to Scenario 1. CONCLUS IONS The economic impacts or contributions of six alternative oyster harvesting closure/treatment scenarios were evaluated in this study for Franklin and Gulf C ounties in Florida for the purpose of determining the most economically favorable approach to re ducing human illness caused by V. vulnificus bacteria found in fresh oysters harvested from Gulf of Mexico waters in the summer months. As calculated in the benchmark scenario (Scenario 1), the oyster industry employed 496 harvesters who earned annual reve nues of just about $3 million in 2004. Should the industry be forced to close for the five warm season months (from May through September), harvester and processor revenues would be reduced by 26 and 25 percent, respectively and would have a negative econ omic impact o n the oyster industry in Franklin and Gulf C ounties in Florida. Using post harvest treatments (PHT) to treat and store oysters caught in cooler months of the year has the potential to mitigate some of the negative economic consequences of harv esting closures. Although the development and use of p ost h arvest treatments ( PHT ) to store oysters caught in cooler months of the year has the potential to mitigate some of the negative economic consequences of harvesting closures, the benefits of PHT may be

PAGE 36

27 difficult to realize because of higher F.O.B. prices required to recover higher processing and storage costs for PHT oysters An additional issue is the degree of market acceptance by seafood wholesalers, retailers, and consumers accustomed to a fresh half shell product at lower prices. A definitive assessment of the market potential for frozen PHT oysters could not be made by this study because of anomalies in the supply chain for fresh half shell oysters caused by hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. While th e opportunity to replace the lost fresh half shell shares with a PHT product represents an alternative revenue source, any estimated economic impacts or contributions are dependent on the underlying assumptions, which require additional research to establi sh the validity of these results. In particular, the ability of fisheries to sustain additional harvested volumes in the proposed months of March and April without incurring severe stock depreciations has not been established. Another concern is the diffic ulty of realizing the estimated sales levels for the PHT product due to higher F.O.B. prices necessitated by processing and storage costs. Marketing acceptance of the PHT product by wholesalers, retailers, and consumers is a valid concern of the oyster ind ustry members. Even if estimated PHT oyster sales levels are achievable, there is no assurance that gross revenues will result in sustainable profitability to the processors. Finally, the large investment required for PHT processing facilities and likely s ignificant economies of scale in the operation of these facilities could limit the adoption of this technology by the industry.

PAGE 37

28 REFERENCES Andrews, L. M. Jahncke, and K. Mallikarjunan. 2003. Low dose gamma irradiation to reduce pathogenic vibrios in live oysters ( Crass os trea virginica ). Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology 12(3):71 82. FDA 2007. History of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. NSSP Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product Spe cificInformation/Seafood/FederalStatePrograms/NationalShellfishSanitationPr ogram/UCM061549 Flattery, J. and M. Bashin. 2003 A Baseline Survey of Raw Oyster Consumers in Four States http://www.issc.org/client_resources/Education/BaselineSurvey.pdf Florida Aquaculture. 2003. Special Issue: Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference [Issue 25]. Division of Aquaculture, F lorida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services Tallahassee, FL (July) Hanson, T., L. House, S. Sureshwaran, B. Posadas and A. Li u. 2003. Opinions of U.S. consumers toward oysters: Results of 2000 2001 survey. Bulletin 1133, Division of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University Mississippi State, MS (July) Lorio, W. and S. Malone. 1994. The culti vation of American oysters (SRAC Publication #432). Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA (October) Lutz, C.G., P. Sambidi and R.W. Harrison. 2003. Oyster industry profile. Agricultural Marketing Resource Cente r, Iowa State University Ames, IA (September) Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2004. IMPLAN Pro, Economic Impact and Social Accounting Software, and Data Stillwater, MN. http:// www.implan.com. Muth, M.K., D.W. Anderson, S.A. Karns, Brian C. Murray and J. L. Domanico. 2000). Economic Impact of Requiring Post harvest Treatment of Oysters: Final Report [RTI Project #7466.000]. Research Triangle Institute, Center for Economics Research, Research Triangle Park, NC (March) Shapiro, R.L. S. Altekr u se, B. Hutwagn er, R. Bishop, R. Hammond, W. Wilson, B. Ray, S. Thompson, R.V. Trauxe, and P.M. Griffin. 1998. The role of Gulf Coast oysters harvested in warmer months in Vibrio vulnificus infections in the United States, 1988 1996. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 17 8 (3): 752 759. Steinback, S 2004. Using r eady m ade r egional i nput o utput m odels to e stimate b ackward l inkage e ffects of e xogenous o utput s hocks Review of Regional Studies 34 ( 1 ): 7 71. http://w ww.economy.okstate.edu/rrs/ issue.asp ?volume=34&issue=1 Watson, P J Wilson, D Thilmany, and S Winter 2007. Determining e conomic c ontributions and i mpacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 37 ( 2 ): 140 146. http://www.jrap journal.org/pastvolumes/2000/v37/F37 2 6.pdf

PAGE 38

29 Appendix Table 1. Hypothetical monthly F.O.B. sales of Florida fresh half shell and shucked oysters using averag e annual landings over the five year period, 2000 04, and 2004 prices. Quantities Sold Time Period Fresh Half shell Shucked Total Revenue a (60 lb. bag) (Percent) b (Dollars) (60 lb. bag) (Gallons) c (Percent) b (Dollars) (Dollars) January 24,846 10.7 48 4,501 4,045 3,286 12.1 147,886 632,387 February 23,928 10.3 466,594 3,895 3,165 11.6 142,420 609,014 March 22,322 9.6 435,275 3,634 2,952 10.8 132,860 568,135 April 20,214 8.7 394,169 3,291 2,674 9.8 120,313 514,482 May 17,952 7.7 350,065 2,922 1,553 5 .7 72,193 422,258 June 15,263 6.6 297,626 2,485 1,320 4.8 61,379 359,005 July 17,119 7.4 333,823 2,787 1,481 5.4 68,844 402,667 August 13,205 5.7 257,494 2,150 1,142 4.2 53,102 310,597 September 10,642 4.6 207,518 1,732 920 3.4 42,796 250,313 October 23,830 10.3 471,827 3,879 3,152 11.6 146,563 618,389 November 19,287 8.3 381,876 3,140 2,551 9.4 118,621 500,497 December 23,174 10.0 458,848 3,773 3,065 11.2 142,531 601,379 ANNUAL 231,781 100.0 4,539,616 37,732 27,261 100.0 1,249,507 5,789,123 a Reve nues based upon F.O.B. prices of 19.50 and 19.80 per 60 lb. bag of shellstock for the January September and October December, respectively, for the Fresh half shell product, and 45.00 and 46.50 per 8 lb. gallon for the January April and May December period s, respectively, for shucked product. Prices are based upon data obtained from four major oyster processors in Florida for the 2004 calendar year. According to major Franklin County based dealers, approximately 14 percent of the local oyster harvest is shu cked, with the remainder going to the half shell market. b Percentages are based upon the average annual totals. c Yields of 4.25 pints and 6.50 pints per 60 lb. bag of shellstock were used for the May September and October April periods, respectively, t o estimate shucked product quantities. These yields represent the average reported by four major oyster processors in Florida in the 2004 calendar year. Source: The quantity harvested in Florida five year period 2000 2004 was reported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

PAGE 39

30 Appendix Table 2. Hypothetical annual F.O.B. gross revenues from all Florida oyster products under various closure scenarios with partial replacement of fresh half shell product with PHT (frozen) product. Annual Sa les and Revenues b Scenario a Sales Sales Units Gross R evenues (60 lb. bags) (Physical U nits) (Dollars) Scenario 1 (Current) Fresh half shell 231,781 231,781 bags 4,539,616 Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507 Totals 269,513 N .A. 5,789,123 Scenario 2 (5 mo closure) Fresh half shell 157,600 157,600 bags 3,093,090 Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507 Totals 195,332 N.A. 4,342,597 Scenario 3 (3 mo closure) Fresh half shell 186,194 186,194 bags 3,65 0,672 Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507 Totals 223,926 N.A. 4,900,179 Scenario 4 (5 mo closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) Fresh half shell 157,600 157,600 bags 3,093,090 PHT half shell 18,545 20,863 cases 1,251,801 Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507 Totals 213,877 N.A. 5,594,398 Scenario 5 (5 mo closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) Fresh half shell 157,600 157,600 bags 3,093,090 PHT half shell 37,090 41,727 cases 2,503,603 Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507

PAGE 40

31 Annual Sa les and Revenues b Scenario a Sales Sales Units Gross R evenues (60 lb. bags) (Physical U nits) (Dollars) Totals 232,422 N.A. 6,846,200 Scenario 6 (3 mo closure, 25% replacement w/PHT) Fresh half shell 186,194 186,194 bags 3,650,672 PHT half shell 11,397 12,821 cases 769,278 Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507 Tot als 235,323 N.A. 5,669,458 Scenario 7 (3 mo closure, 50% replacement w/PHT) Fresh half shell 186,194 186,194 bags 3,650,672 PHT half shell 22,794 25,643 cases 1,538,556 Shucked 37,732 27,261 gals. 1,249,507 Totals 246,720 N.A. 6, 438,736 a Scenarios are all based upon the average quantities harvested over the 5 year period 200 2004 (FWC) and estimated 2004 F.O.B. prices for fresh half shell and shucked products. PHT (frozen) oyster prices are estimated for 2005. b Annual sales and revenues are based upon the following information. Yields of 4.25 pints and 6.50 pints per 60 lb. bag of shellstock were used for the May September and October April periods, respectively, to estimate shucked product quantities. These yields represent the average reported by four major oyster processors in Florida in the 2004 calendar year. Yields of PHT (frozen) oysters are based upon a 250 count, 60 lb. bag, with a packout of 65 percent, or approximately 162 per 60 lb. bag. Revenues based upon F.O.B. pri ces of 19.50 and 19.80 per 60 lb. bag of shellstock for the January September and October December, respectively, for the half shell product, and 45.00 and 46.50 per 8 lb. gallon for the January April and May December periods, respectively, for shucked pro duct. Prices are based upon data obtained from four major oyster processors in Florida for the 2004 calendar year. Prices for PHT (frozen) oysters were estimated to range from $55.00 to $65.00 per case of 144. Revenue calculations are based upon the mid po int price of $60.00 per case, or $0.42 cents per oyster.

PAGE 41

32 Appendix Table 3. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 1. a Summary I mpacts Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total ( Million Dolla rs ) Output 5.789 4.255 3.612 13.655 Value a dded 1.722 3.023 2.300 7.045 Labor i ncome 1.338 2.300 1.301 4.939 Business t axes 0.029 0.114 0.230 0.373 Jobs 397 517 49 962 Implicit Multipliers Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Tota l Output 1.000 0.735 0.624 2.359 Total v alue a dded 1.000 1.756 1.336 4.092 Labor i ncome 1.000 1.720 0.972 3.692 Indirect b usiness t axes 1.000 3.944 7.913 12.856 Employment 1.000 1.302 0.123 2.423 a Scenario 1 is the no fresh half shell closure, curre nt situation. Appendix Table 4. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 2. a Summary I mpacts Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total ( Million Dollars) Output 4.343 3.107 2.705 10.155 Value a dded 1.348 2.207 1.723 5.278 Labor i ncome 1.047 1.677 0.975 3.699 Business t axes 0.023 0.085 0.172 0.280 Jobs 334 376 36 746 Implicit Multipliers Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total Output 1.000 0.715 0.623 2.338 Total v alu e a dded 1.000 1.637 1.278 3.916 Labor i ncome 1.000 1.601 0.931 3.532 Indirect b usiness t axes 1.000 3.748 7.569 12.317 Employment 1.000 1.126 0.108 2.234 a Scenario 2 is fresh half shell closure for five months (May September), no sales of PHT (frozen ) product.

PAGE 42

33 Appendix Table 5. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 3. a Summary Impacts Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total (Million Dollars) Output 4.900 3.549 3.055 11.504 Value Add ed 1.492 2.521 1.946 5.959 Labor Income 1.159 1.917 1.100 4.177 Business Taxes 0.025 0.096 0.194 0.316 Jobs 358 430 41 829 Implicit Multipliers Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348 Total Value A dded 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994 Labor Income 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603 Indirect Business Taxes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557 Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316 a Scenario 3 is fresh half shell closure for three months (June August), no sales of PHT (frozen) pr oduct Appendix Table 6. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 4. a Summary I mpacts Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total ( Million Dollars) Output 5.594 4.100 3.490 13.184 Value a dded 1.671 2.913 2.223 6.807 Labor i ncome 1.299 2.216 1.257 4.772 Indirect b usiness t axes 0.028 0.111 0.222 0.361 Jobs 388 498 47 933 Implicit Multipliers Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348 Total v a lue a dded 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994 Labor i ncome 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603 Indirect b usiness t axes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557 Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316 a Scenario 4 is fresh half shell closure for five month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half shell sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product.

PAGE 43

34 Appendix Table 7. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 5. a Summary Impacts Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total (Million Do llars) Output 6.846 5.094 4.274 16.214 Value added 1.995 3.619 2.722 8.336 Labor income 1.550 2.756 1.539 5.845 Indirect business taxes 0.034 0.136 0.272 0.441 Jobs 443 620 58 1,121 Implicit Multipliers Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirec t Induced Total Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348 Total value added 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994 Labor income 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603 Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557 Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316 a Scenario 5 is fresh half shell closure for five month period, with 50 percent of average fresh half shell sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product. Appendix Table 8. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster products harvested under Scenario 6. a Summary Impacts Su mmary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total (Million Dollars) Output 5.669 4.160 3.537 13.366 Value added 1.691 2.955 2.252 6.899 Labor i ncome 1.314 2.249 1.274 4.836 Indirect b usiness t axes 0.029 0.112 0.225 0.365 Jobs 392 505 48 944 Im plicit Multipliers Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348 Total v alue a dded 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994 Labor i ncome 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603 Indirect b usiness t axes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557 Employment 1.000 1.20 1 0.115 2.316 a Scenario 6 is fresh half shell closure for three month period, with 25 percent of average fresh half shell sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product.

PAGE 44

35 Appendix Table 9. Summary of economic output impacts from all Florida oyster pro ducts harvested under Scenario 7. a Summary Impacts Summary Impacts Direct Indirect Induced Total (Million Dollars) Output 6.439 4.770 4.019 15.228 Value added 1.890 3.389 2.559 7.838 Labor income 1.468 2.580 1.447 5.496 Indirect business taxes 0.032 0.128 0.256 0.415 Jobs 425 580 54 1,060 Implicit Multipliers Implicit Multipliers Direct Indirect Induced Total Output 1.000 0.724 0.623 2.348 Total value added 1.000 1.690 1.304 3.994 Labor income 1.000 1.654 0.949 3.603 Indirect business taxes 1.000 3.835 7.722 12.557 Employment 1.000 1.201 0.115 2.316 a Scenario 7 is fresh half shell closure for three month period, with 50 perent of average fresh half shell sales replaced by PHT (frozen) half shell product.