Marketing opportunities for two ark clam species : blood ark clams (Anadara ovalis) and ponderous ark clams (Noetia pond...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Marketing opportunities for two ark clam species : blood ark clams (Anadara ovalis) and ponderous ark clams (Noetia ponderosa)
Series Title:
FAMRC Industry Report 05-1
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Degner, Robery L.
Southwell, Tiffany B.
Sturmer, Leslie N.
Morgan, Kimberly L.
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
2005

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:
AA00000202:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text


I;'. UNIVERSITY OF
'iFLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Marketing Opportunities for Two Ark Clam Species:

Blood Ark Clams (Anadara ovalis)
And

Ponderous Ark Clams (Noetiaponderosa)



By


Robert L. Degner, Tiffany B. Southwell, Leslie N. Sturmer,
and Kimberly L. Morgan


Industry Report 05-1
June 2005



Submitted in partial fulfillment of USDA-CREES Grant No. 2002-
34453-11946, entitled "Diversification for the Hard Clam Aquaculture
Industry Through Investigation of Blood Ark, Anadara ovalis, and
Ponderous Ark, Noetia ponderosa, Culture and Marketability."


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






. l,: UNIVERSITY OF
',FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey






.i.,i UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey t : L'L A

TABLE OF CONTENTS
T A B L E O F C O N TEN T S............................................................................ .................... i
TABLE OF TABLES .................. ................................. ....... .. .......... .. iii
T A B L E O F FIG U R E S .................................................................. ............................ v
A CKN OW LED GEM EN TS ....................................................................................... 1
A B S T R A C T .........3................................. .............................. ............... 3
E X E C U T IV E SU M M A R Y ................................................................................................ 5
IN T R O D U C T IO N .......... .............................. ................................. .. ............ 9
OBJECTIVES ..................................... .................................. .......... 10
PRO CED U RE ................................................................. ........ ............. 11
P h ase I P rocedu re................................................... ................. 11
Phase II Procedure ......... ............................ .. .. ...... .......... 13
P h ase III P ro cedu re ............................................................................. ................ .. 13
PHASE I FINDINGS: THE CURRENT MARKET SITUATION............................. 14
B lo o d A rk C lam s ................................. ........................................ 14
P on d erou s A rk C lam s .............. .......................................................... ..................... 17
PHASE I CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS FROM SHELLFISH DEALERS' SURVEY... 18
PHASE II FINDINGS: SHELLFISH SHIPPERS' EVALUATIONS OF BLOOD ARK
AND PONDEROUS ARK CLAM SAMPLES ........................................................ 18
G geographic D distribution of the Sam ples............................................. .................... 18
B lood A rk C lam s ................ .......... .. .................... .................... ...... ........ 19
Arrival Condition of Blood Ark Clam Samples ......................... .................. 19
Evaluation of Blood Ark Clams' Shell Appearance.................. ............. 20
Evaluation of Blood Ark Clams' Meat Color ......... .............. .................. 21
Blood Ark Clam Serving Methods and Taste Evaluations.................................. 22
Texture Ratings for Blood Ark Clams..................... .................... .............. 24
Size Preferences for Blood Ark Clams ......... ......... ........................... 24
Estimated Weekly Sales Of Blood Ark Clams ................................................... 26
General Observations on Blood Ark Clam s................................... .................... 27
Ponderous Ark Clams .................................................................. ...... ............ 28
Arrival Condition of the Ponderous Ark Clams ................................... ............... 28
Evaluation of Ponderous Ark Clams' Shell Appearance.............. ........... .... 29
Evaluation of Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color................................... ................. 30
Ponderous Ark Clam Serving Methods and Taste Evaluations............................ 31
Texture Ratings for Ponderous Ark Clams........................... ................ ............. 32
Size Preferences for Ponderous Ark Clams...................................... ............. 33
Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams ............. ....... .............. 34
General Observations on Ponderous Ark Clams .................................. ................. 35
Comparisons of Selected Attributes of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark Clams.......... 36
C O N C L U SIO N S......................................................... ..... .. .... ..... . ............ 37
REFERENCES ................... ............................ .. 39
A P P E N D IX A ................... ......................................... .......... ..... 4 1






S,:;' UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

Phase I, Shellfish Industry Questionnaires ......................................... ..... ......... 43
A P P E N D IX B ................................................................... 53
Phase II, Shellfish Industry Questionnaires .............. ........................................... 55
A P P E N D IX C ........................................................................................................ 6 1
Phase II, Shellfish Industry Comm ents............................ ............................ ..... 63
A PPE N D IX D ..................................................... 73
N U TRITION AL AN A LY SES............................................................ .............. 75
P ro c e d u re ............................................................................. 7 5
Blood A rk Clam s ......... ........................ ......... .. .... .......... 75
Ponderous Ark Clams ........................................... ................ 75
C om prison w ith H ard C lam s......................................................... ... ................. 75
A P P E N D IX E ................................................................... 77
SHELF LIFE EVALUATION ......................................................... .............. 79
P ro c e d u re ............................................................................. 7 9
Blood A rk Clam s ......... ........................ ......... .. .... .......... 80
Ponderous Ark Clams ................ .............................................. .. .............. 81
C om prison w ith H ard C lam s......................................................... ... ................. 83






.;i' li UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey : LORD

TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Questionnaires and Response Rates, Phase I............... 12
Table 2. Awareness of Blood Ark Clams Among Certified Shellfish Shippers ............. 14
Table 3. Reasons Why Previous Blood Ark Clam Dealers Are NOT Currently Selling
C lam s. .................... ... ....... ......... ..... ..... ........ ...... ....................... 14
Table 4. Locations and Size Categories of Firms Currently Selling Blood Ark Clams.. 15
Table 5. Current Sellers' Geographic Sources of Blood Ark Clams. ........................... 15
Table 6. Current Sellers' Destination Markets for Blood Ark Clams.......................... 16
Table 7. Number of Blood Ark Clams Sold in 2001 to Current Destination Markets. ... 16
Table 8. Certified Shellfish Shippers' Awareness of Ponderous Ark Clams. .............. 17
Table 9. Destinations of Samples and Response Rates, by U. S. Region, Phase II........ 19
Table 10. Respondents' Detection of Odor in Blood Ark Clams. ................................. 19
Table 11. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Shell Appearance, and Meat Color for Blood
A rk C lam s........................... ....... .... ...... .......................................... 2 0
Table 12. Taste Ratings by Serving Method for Blood Ark Clams.............................. 22
Table 13. Cooking Methods and Taste Evaluations for Blood Ark Clams. ................ 23
Table 14. Estimated Weekly Sales of Blood Ark Clams.............................................. 26
Table 15. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sales of Blood Ark Clams, by U. S. Region..... 26
Table 16. Detection of Odor in Ponderous Ark Clam s.................................................... 28
Table 17. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Shell Appearance and Meat Color for
Ponderous A rk Clam s. ................... ................................. .... .... ......... 29
Table 18. Taste Ratings by Serving Method for Ponderous Ark Clams....................... 31
Table 19. Cooking Methods and Taste Evaluations for Ponderous Ark Clams .............. 32
Table 20. Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams .................................... 34
Table 21. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sales of Ponderous Ark Clams, by U. S. Region.
....................................................................................................... . . . 3 5
Table 22. Paired t-values for Selected Variables Blood and Ponderous Ark Clams...... 36
Appendix C, Table 1. Respondents' Comments About Blood Ark Clams, Phase II
F indings.......................... ......... ...... ........... ..... .... .............. 65
Appendix C, Table 2. Respondents' Comments About Ponderous Ark Clams, Phase II
F in d in g s............................ .... ... ... .... ... .......... ....... ........ .............. 6 9
Appendix E, Table 1. Number of Blood Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated Storage. 80
Appendix E, Table 2. Number of Ponderous Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated
S to ra g e ..................................................................................................................... 8 2


- 111 -






. l,: UNIVERSITY OF
',FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey






., ,i UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey t : L'L A

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Description of Odor for Blood Ark Clams................................................ 20
Figure 2. Blood Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings.................................................. 21
Figure 3. Blood Ark Clam M eat Color Ratings............................................................ 22
Figure 4. Blood Ark Clam Serving Methods Used by Respondents. ............................. 23
Figure 5. Blood Ark Clam Texture Ratings.............................................................. 25
Figure 6. M ost Popular Blood Ark Clam Size .... ........... ...................................... 25
Figure 7. Description of Odor for Ponderous Ark Clams ........................................... 28
Figure 8. Ponderous Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings............................................. 30
Figure 9. Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color Ratings.................................................. 31
Figure 10. Ponderous Ark Clam Serving Methods Used by Respondents................... 32
Figure 11. Ponderous Ark Clam Texture Ratings.........................................................33
Appendix D, Figure 1. Nutrition Facts for Blood Ark Clams (left) and Ponderous Ark
C lam s (right).......................... .. ...... ......... ......................... ................. 76
Appendix E, Figure 1. Survival of Blood Ark Clams in Refrigerated Storage. ............ 81
Appendix E, Figure 2. Survival of Ponderous Ark Clams in Refrigerated Storage. ........ 83






. l,: UNIVERSITY OF
',FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey






,',:,i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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. 2002-34453-11946, entitled
"Diversification for the Hard Clam Aquaculture Industry Through Investigation of Blood
Ark, Anadara ovalis, and Ponderous Ark, Noetia ponderosa, Culture and Marketability."
The authors also thank the many shellfish firms nationwide that responded to our survey
and evaluated samples of these clams.






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,:',i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA

ABSTRACT

In 2002-2003, a survey of certified shellfish dealers in the U.S. was conducted to
determine the current state of the market and sales potential for aquacultured Blood Ark
(Anadara ovalis) and Ponderous Ark (Noetia ponderosa) clams. The survey revealed
extremely limited trade awareness of the two species of clams; over 90 percent of all
shellfish dealers were unfamiliar with them. Only one percent of responding firms reported
selling these species of clams in 2002, and sales were very limited. However, nearly one-
third of all respondents were willing to evaluate product samples of both species. In
November 2003, the sub-sample of 102 firms that had initially agreed to evaluate samples
of the two types of clams was contacted by telephone to confirm their willingness to
evaluate product samples. Of these, a total of 82 firms agreed to examine and evaluate
samples, but only 52 provided usable evaluations despite telephone follow up calls. The
consensus of responding firms was that both species of ark clams had limited appeal to
their traditional clam customers, but could be successfully marketed to ethnic consumers,
particularly Hispanics and Asians.






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,:'li N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
* Significant growth in Florida's hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) industry has
motivated aquaculturists to explore alternative molluscan shellfish species to reduce
potential production risks and augment market expansion. Diversity of species
could possibly provide some degree of protection against catastrophic losses.
* Two alternative clam species with commercial potential are the Blood Ark
(Anadara ovalis) and the Ponderous Ark (Noetia ponderosa). In the United States,
wild stocks of Blood Arks range from Massachusetts to Texas. They are also found
in the Caribbean and coasts of Brazil. The Ponderous Ark is found from Virginia to
Florida and from the Florida Keys to Texas. Wild stocks of the Blood Ark and
Ponderous Ark clams are currently harvested in North Carolina and Virginia in
limited quantities for ethnic markets in the United States.
* The development of a major fishery for these species has been limited by a variety
of factors, including dispersed wild ark clam populations, minimal understanding of
clam reproduction, isolated ethnic markets. Until recently, these clams have been
largely overlooked by the shellfish and fishing industries.
* This research quantifies the shellfish trade's present awareness and acceptance of
the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams as a first step in evaluating the economic
feasibility of producing these clams under aquacultured conditions. The basic
objective of this study was to determine the present market potential of Blood Ark
and Ponderous Ark clams in the U.S.
* This study was conducted in three phases. The first was a nationwide census of all
certified shellfish shippers (dealers). Questionnaires were mailed to 2,133 firms to
determine the current market situation for the two selected species of ark clams.
Phase I also identified 83 firms that were willing to evaluate live samples of the
clams for the second phase of the study.
* In Phase II, 83 firms received live samples of the two types of ark clams, and they
were asked to evaluate a number of basic product characteristics, including
appearance and organoleptic qualities. These cooperators were also asked to
estimate potential sales through their respective firms.
* Phase III focused on physical attributes of the ark clams, specifically nutritional
analyses of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clam meats, and on the shelf life of live
animals.
* PHASE I: About 92 percent of the responding shellfish firms have had no
experience with Blood Ark clams. Only one percent of respondent firms sold Blood
Ark clams during 2001, thus it is apparent that market exposure in the U.S. is
extremely limited.
* Among certified shellfish shippers that responded to the questionnaire, over 90
percent have had no experience with Ponderous Ark clams. Less than two percent
have seen them at trade shows, and only one percent sold them in the past. With
only one respondent currently selling Ponderous Arks, market exposure is presently
extremely limited.






.." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
* It appears that the present market for the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams is
extremely limited, due to limited trade knowledge of the products and inconsistent
supplies at the producer and consumer levels. Respondents mentioned the lack of
consistent supplies, limited market outlets and virtually nonexistent consumer
demand.
* On a positive note, some shellfish shippers indicated an interest in learning more
about these ark clam types. Out of 309 respondents, 97 provided mailing address
information and requested Blood Ark clam samples, and 96 gave contact
information in order to receive Ponderous Ark clam samples. However, when
samples became available, only 83 firms agreed to accept and evaluate them.
* PHASE II: Samples of the two ark clam species were harvested from approved
shellfish waters in mid-November 2003, and held overnight in a refrigerated facility
owned by a certified shellfish processor in Cedar Key, Florida. A sample of six
Blood Ark clams, ranging in size from medium to large, and a combined sample of
nine medium and six large Ponderous Ark clams were placed in separate small,
color-coded plastic mesh bags with the processor's dealer tags affixed to each bag.
The two bags of clams were placed in an insulated shipping container made of
expanded polystyrene foam along with a frozen eight-ounce gel pack. The foam
shipper was then placed inside a small, corrugated cardboard container along with
evaluation instructions and a one-page questionnaire for each type of clams. The
samples were shipped via a major courier service within several hours of
packaging, and delivered to all recipients before noon the next day.
* Nearly half of the 83 samples were sent to firms in the Northeast, and nearly one-
third went to firms in the South. Only two firms in the Midwest agreed to evaluate
samples; both were in the Chicago area. Approximately one-fifth of the samples
were shipped to firms on the west coast. Despite the care and diligence exercised in
gaining the cooperation of the shellfish dealers receiving samples, only 52 of the 83
provided completed product evaluations, even after several telephone follow-up
calls.
* The overwhelming majority of the sample recipients indicated that the samples
arrived in excellent condition, although several said their samples were slightly too
warm for optimum shellfish storage conditions. Respondents were asked whether or
not they could detect an odor from the samples, and 60 percent could not. Of those
that said they could detect an odor, a small minority described the odor as "slightly
unpleasant".
* Respondents were asked to rate the appearance of the shells using a zero to 10
rating scale where zero represented "very unattractive" and 10 "very attractive".
Both species of ark clams received mediocre evaluations, with average ratings of
approximately five. Critics complained of the black color and "fuzzy" or "furry"
appearance. There was concern that cleaning would be time consuming and costly.
* Meat color was evaluated using the same rating scale, and the attractiveness ratings
fared worse than that of shell appearance, with average ratings of 4.2 for Blood
Arks and only 3.6 for Ponderous Arks. A paired t-test indicated that the rating
differences were statistically significant. Meat color ratings were heavily skewed
towards the "very unattractive" end of the rating scale; nearly 15 percent of the






,:'li N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA
respondents gave a zero rating to Blood Arks, and 22 percent gave a zero rating to
meat color of Ponderous Arks. Most comments made with respect to meat color
were negative, criticizing the bloody appearance, but several were positive, stating
the clam meat was "colorful" and "normal after cooking".
* Respondents rated "taste" using a similar zero to 10 scale where zero represented
"very poor" and 10 "extremely good". Respondents were asked to rate taste if eaten
raw, and also to rate taste if eaten cooked. Mean ratings were just under five for
taste if eaten raw, and approximately five if eaten cooked. Taste ratings, whether
eaten raw or cooked, were not statistically different for the two types of ark clams.
* Texture was evaluated using a five-point semantic differential scale ranging from
"much too tough" to "much to soft", with the mid-point being "just right". Fifty-
five percent of the respondents said the Blood Arks were slightly or much too
tough, and 60 percent described Ponderous Arks using these terms. Texture
differences were not statistically significant for the two species of clams.
* When asked how many of each of the two kinds of clams they could sell each week,
just over half of the dealers said they could not sell any of the Blood Arks. About
one-fifth of all respondents stated that they simply did not know how many they
could sell. Eleven firms made positive sales projections, but these estimates were
extremely variable, ranging from only 30 to 170,000 per week.
* Sixty percent of the respondents felt they could not sell any Ponderous Ark clams.
About one-fifth said they did not know how many they could sell. Only eight firms
provided weekly sales estimates; their responses ranged from 30 to 120,000 clams.
* When asked for general comments about the ark clam samples, numerous
respondents said they had trouble cooking them. Comments were similar for both
types of clams. Many said it took too long for them to cook; some said they never
opened, and others said they were difficult to open, even when cooked.
* Marketability issues were also mentioned by respondents; although many of the
comments were negative, some were positive. Most positive comments reflected
opinions that both types of ark clams had appeal to ethnic markets, primarily Asian
consumers.
* As to the potential marketability of these species, the product evaluations and many
of the respondents' comments indicate that these two species of ark clams are
perceived as being too different from clams currently available on the market.
These findings, coupled with shellfish dealers' unwillingness to evaluate free
samples leads us to conclude that it is unlikely that there will be widespread,
mainstream demand for them.
* Despite the overall negative tone of these findings, market development proponents
should recognize the importance of ethnic markets in target locations on the East
and West coasts. Targeting seafood dealers in these areas with large Asian and
Hispanic populations could result in profitable niche markets.
* PHASE III: Comprehensive nutritional analyses were conducted for the Blood Ark
and the Ponderous Ark clams. Samples of cultured ark clams were collected from
their respective growing areas near St. Augustine (east coast of Florida) and Cedar
Key (west coast of Florida). An accredited private food-testing laboratory analyzed






.." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
100g samples of raw edible portions of both species. Official methods of analysis
were used following the AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists)
guidelines.
* Details of the nutritional analyses are found in Appendix D, Table 1. The Blood
Ark sample was found to be relatively low in calories (35) and total fat (0.5g), but
high in protein (7g). Cholesterol was relatively low (35 mg) and there was no
detectable carbohydrate in the sample. The 100g sample provided relatively low
daily values of vitamins A (6%) and C (2%), as well as calcium (6%). However,
Blood Ark meats are high in iron, providing 70 percent of daily requirements. The
sodium content was also quite high at 740 mg, which represents 31 percent of the
daily value.
* Ponderous Ark clams were also found to be low in calories (5) and total fat (1.0g)
and even higher in protein (1 g). Cholesterol was higher than in Blood Arks at 55
mg, representing 18 percent of the daily value, but carbohydrate was quite low (Ig).
In terms of percent of daily value, a 100 g serving of Ponderous Ark clams provides
6% of Vitamin A, 4% of Vitamin C, and 10% of calcium. Ponderous Arks are also
high in iron (50 percent of daily value). Sodium content is lower than in Blood Ark
clams, but at 480 mg still relatively high, providing 20 percent of daily value.
* Comparisons of hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) values with those for the ark
clams reveal the hard clam is slightly higher in calories and protein, but similar in
total fats, cholesterol and carbohydrate. Ark clams provide two to three times more
iron than hard clams, but they also provide ten times the amount of sodium, a
concern for consumers that must restrict their intake of sodium.
* To determine the survival of the ark clam species in refrigerated storage
(approximately 450F), a shelf life evaluation was conducted. Clams were handled
in accordance with accepted regulatory protocol during and after harvest.
Approximately 90 percent of the Blood Ark clams survived 14 days, and by the 21st
day, only 62 percent were alive. In contrast, 100 percent of the Ponderous Ark
clams survived 22 days, and 99 percent were still alive when the experiment was
terminated on Day 23.
* In summary, the current market for both Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams is
very limited in the U.S. Very few certified shellfish dealers are currently selling
them, probably less than one percent of all shellfish dealers. Further, there is
widespread lack of familiarity with these species.
* Producer groups should work with the Division of Marketing of the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to provide
information about Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams to potential dealers at
national seafood trade shows. Such information could also be incorporated into the
FDACS website to foster greater knowledge in the trade and to arouse dealers' and
consumers' curiosity. These promotional methods could serve as relatively
inexpensive promotional tools.






,',:,i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA

INTRODUCTION

Hard clams have been successfully cultured for commercial markets in Florida
since the late 1970s (Sturmer), but the enactment and implementation of the net ban in
1994 provided the economic motivation for rapid industry expansion. The development of
Florida's hard clam industry has proven to be mutually beneficial for fishermen adversely
impacted by the net ban and clam farmers. The rapidly growing clam aquaculture industry
has allowed fishermen to continue working on the water and has provided hard clam
aquaculturists with an experienced labor force.

Since 1993, farm gate sales of aquacultured hard clams have increased from $3.7
million to $18.2 million in 2001 (Philippakos et al; Florida Agricultural Statistics Services
[FASS]). In 2001, the Florida clam industry was comprised of 336 active growers; these
clam farmers sold 142 million clams in 2001 at an average price of 11 cents each (FASS).
All clams currently aquacultured in Florida are of the genus and species Mercenaria
mercenaria.

The rapid growth of Florida's hard clam industry has motivated aquaculturists to
explore alternative molluscan species. Production of additional species could reduce
potential production risks and foster market expansion. By culturing only one species of
clams, the industry is exposed to potential production risks. For example, if Mercenaria
mercenaria were particularly susceptible to a rare disease and an outbreak occurred in
Florida's major clam production areas, severe economic losses could result. Diversity of
species could possibly provide some degree of protection against such catastrophic losses.
A second reason to explore production of other molluscan species is to offer consumers
more choices, possibly increasing clam producers' total sales and profitability. Two
possible species for production and marketing diversity are the Blood Ark (Anadara ovalis)
and the Ponderous Ark (Noetiaponderosa).

In the United States, Blood Arks can be found from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to
Texas and the Caribbean to Brazil. The Ponderous Ark is found from Virginia to Florida
and from the Florida Keys to Texas (Abbott). Wild stocks of the Blood Ark and Ponderous
Ark clams are currently harvested on a limited basis for ethnic markets in the United States.
The development of a major fishery for these species has been limited by a variety of
factors. These factors include dispersed wild ark clam populations, limited understanding
of clam reproduction, and relatively small, isolated ethnic markets. Until recently, these
clams have been largely overlooked by the shellfish and fishing industries.

In the mid-1980s, a marketing survey of seafood dealers in the United States and
abroad (interested members of the shellfish trade received samples of live ark clams for
evaluation) failed to produce evidence of viable markets (Anderson et al. 1984, Anderson
and Eversole, 1985). Far Eastern markets proved to be most familiar with these clams, but
their local supplies were more than adequate, and prices were depressed. Low prices,
market saturation, and transportation logistics effectively eliminated the potential for these
clams to be marketed in the Far East.






.." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
Even though small commercial markets were being developed in the U.S. in the
early to mid 1980s, Anderson and his colleagues concluded from their studies that large
investments of time and money would be required to develop larger scale, successful
markets for these clams.

Despite their relatively pessimistic conclusions at that time, several factors have
emerged that give a glimmer of optimism for the possibility of developing larger domestic
markets for ark clams. One of the most significant factors is the continued growth of
Hispanic and Asian populations, demographic segments that are more likely to have some
degree of familiarity with ark clams.

Another positive factor is that a small fishery for arks, primarily the Blood Ark and
the Ponderous Ark, has continued to develop (mostly in Virginia) with landings reported
since 1993. Ark landings in the United States ranged in value from $30,300 in 1995 to
$136,480 in 1997. Arks are sold primarily as an ethnic food in Chicago, New York, Los
Angeles, and Washington D.C. or exported to Mexico (McGraw et al.), where an Ark
fishery has been in existence for many years. Anecdotal information indicates the demand
for Arks has outpaced the numbers that can be supplied by the Virginia fishery. Industry
professionals feel this increase in demand is in part due to increasing ethnic markets that
value the presence of hemoglobin in the clam meats. The presence of the blood pigment
hemoglobin results in the ark clam's characteristic orange coloration (Shirley Estes,
Executive Director, Virginia Marine Products Board, Newport News, VA, personal
communication).

OBJECTIVES

This research quantifies the shellfish trade's present awareness and acceptance of
the Blood Ark (Anadara ovalis) and Ponderous Ark (Noetia ponderosa) clams. The basic
objective of this study was to determine the current market potential of Blood Ark and
Ponderous Ark clams in the U.S. Specific objectives were to:

* Assess the magnitude of the current and potential domestic market for both types of
ark clams.
* Determine product attributes desired by the shellfish trade, especially size, meat
color, shell appearance, and taste.
* Educate shellfish wholesale dealers as to the market attributes of these alternative
molluscan shellfish species.
* Determine physical characteristics of the clams, specifically shelf life and
nutritional analyses.

In order to achieve these objectives, the study was conducted in three phases. The
first was a nationwide census of all certified shellfish dealers. The major focus of this phase
was to assess the current market situation for the two types of clams, including the trade's
knowledge levels about them and attitudes toward handling Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark
clams if adequate supplies were forthcoming. Phase I identified shellfish dealers that were






,:',i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA
willing to evaluate samples of both types of ark clams that were to be aquacultured in
Florida.

In Phase II, the firms identified in Phase I as potential marketers of Blood Ark and
Ponderous Ark clams were provided live samples for evaluation. Representatives of these
firms were asked to evaluate a number of basic product characteristics, including
appearance and organoleptic qualities. They were also asked to estimate potential sales
through their respective firms.

Phase III determined the shelf-life under typical commercial refrigeration and the
nutritional composition of each species.

PROCEDURE

Phase I Procedure

Because of budget constraints and the anticipated low incidence of familiarity with
Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams, a mail survey was selected as the primary data
collection method. The questionnaire was developed in consultation with several marine
extension specialists and University of Florida researchers. The questionnaire was pre-
tested with extension marine specialists, and after minor modifications submitted to the
Institutional Review Board of the University of Florida, where it was approved.

The questionnaire was designed to have a parallel structure for both the Blood Ark
clams and the Ponderous Ark clams. That is, after questions were asked about Blood Ark
clams, similar questions were asked about Ponderous Ark clams. In a concluding section,
there were general questions about the firm's sales in 2001 and respondents' willingness to
evaluate live samples of both types of clams (Appendix A).

The questionnaire was sent via first class U.S. mail to all firms on the Interstate
Certified Shellfish Shippers List. This list is maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and included all U.S. firms certified to ship molluscan shellfish. The list
constituted a complete enumeration of shellfish dealers in the United States, thus a
complete canvass was conducted. The initial mailing of a cover letter, informed consent
document, the questionnaire and a business reply envelope was sent to 2,133 firms. This
mailing was made in October 2002. Two weeks after the initial mailing, a reminder post
card was sent to all non-respondents.

Two versions of the cover letter were utilized in the initial mailing of the
questionnaires, with half of the firms receiving one version, and the other half the second.
Firms receiving the first version could only respond via U.S. mail. With the second
version, the firm had the option of responding by either the Internet or mail. This was done
to determine if the choice of response options would increase the overall response rate. The
firms given the option of completing the questionnaire via the Internet received unique
usemame-password combinations to allow access to the survey website and preclude
multiple responses. Offering respondents the option of responding via the Internet had
virtually no effect on the overall response rate.






UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Response rates from the initial mail survey were below expectations; therefore, a
systematic random sample comprised of ten percent of the non-respondents was selected
for telephone follow-up interviews. This procedure was used to determine if responses of
non-respondents were similar to those of the respondents. A sample of 180 non-
respondents was contacted by telephone in January 2003 and 96 usable responses obtained.
The removal of 285 questionnaires deemed undeliverable by the United States Postal
Service reduced the reachable universe of certified shellfish dealers to 1,848. In total, 309
(16.7 percent) complete questionnaires were recorded and comprised the final database
(Table 1). Of these, 206 (66.6 percent) arrived via postage-paid business reply envelopes
provided in the original mailed packet. Another 96 (31.1 percent) firms were contacted and
successfully interviewed via telephone. Additionally, seven firms (2.3 percent) responded
via the online version of the questionnaire.

Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Questionnaires and Response Rates, Phase I.

Description of items mailed and returned Number Percent
---- n ---- ----%----
Total questionnaires mailed 2,133 100.0
Undeliverable 285 13.4
Total questionnaires delivered 1,848 86.6


Questionnaires returned by mail 206 66.6
Questionnaires completed via telephone 96 31.1
Questionnaires completed via Internet 7 2.3
Usable questionnaires 309 100.0


Estimated number of eligible respondents 1,848 100.0
Adjusted response rate ------- 16.7

Due to the limited numbers of responses dealing with the familiarity and sales
experience of both types of ark clams, commonly used statistical tests such as Chi-square,
logit and probit analyses could not be administered with confidence. The responses of the
mail, phone and Internet respondents appeared similar upon inspection, and were analyzed
and discussed as one sample population. The apparent similarities in responses of those
answering by mail and responses from the telephone follow-up interviews lead us to
conclude that, despite the relatively low overall response rate, the findings from our sample
are representative of the entire shellfish industry.






,T'li N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA
Phase II Procedure

The procedure for Phase II, distribution and evaluation of live samples of
aquacultured Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams, is discussed in this section. Samples of
both ark clams were harvested from approved shellfish waters in mid-November, and held
overnight in a refrigerated facility owned by a certified shellfish processor in Cedar Key,
Florida. Harvesting, processing and refrigerated storage procedures followed the state
shellfish regulations administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services (FL Administrative Code, Chapter 5L-1). About noon the next day, a sample of 6
Blood Arks, ranging is size from medium to large, and a combined sample of 9 medium
and 6 large Ponderous Arks were placed in separate small, color-coded plastic mesh bags
with the processor's dealer tags affixed to each bag. One bag of each ark clam species was
placed in an insulated shipping container made of expanded polystyrene foam along with a
frozen 8-ounce gel pack. The foam shipper containing the two bags of clams and gel pack
was then placed inside a corrugated cardboard container measuring 6"x 8"x 4". Evaluation
instructions for the respondents and a one-page questionnaire (Appendix B) for each ark
clam sample were conspicuously placed inside the corrugated box, which was then sealed
and labeled for shipping. The samples were picked up by a major courier service within
several hours of packaging, and delivered to all recipients before noon the next day.

The 97 firms that had initially agreed to evaluate live samples of Blood Ark and
Ponderous Ark clams were contacted in early November 2003 to confirm their willingness
to participate in the study. Letters were sent to them, and follow-up phone calls were made.
When contacted by telephone, 14 firms refused to participate or had disconnected phones,
so samples were not sent to them. Thus, a total of 83 samples were distributed nationwide
for evaluation.

Phase III Procedure

Comprehensive nutritional analyses were conducted for both clam species.
Samples were collected from their respective growing areas in St. Augustine (east coast of
Florida) and Cedar Key (west coast of Florida). One hundred gram samples of meat (wet
weight) were shucked for each ark clam species and delivered in coolers to an accredited
private food-testing laboratory in Gainesville. Official methods were used following the
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) Official Methods of Analysis
(Horwitz, 2002).

To determine the survival of these two ark clam species in refrigerated storage,
evaluation of shelf life was conducted in April 2004. Procedures followed those developed
by Applewhite et al. (1996) and Otwell (1998) for determining shelf life of hard clams
Mercenaria mercenaria. The ark clams were checked daily for survival with the exception
of two days during the evaluation period. Gapped ark clams were determined to be
"commercially dead" when they did not respond by closing their shell to specified
agitation, or tapping, after the ark clams were held for a short time at room temperature.
Dead ark clams were counted and removed from the sample bags. The evaluation was
conducted until 50 percent of the ark clams died. Percent survival for each ark clam







UNIVERSITY OF
. FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


species was determined. Additional Phase III procedural details, findings and conclusions
are found in Appendices D and E.

PHASE I FINDINGS: THE CURRENT MARKET SITUATION

Blood Ark Clams

Among certified shellfish shippers that responded to the survey, 91.9 percent have
had no experience with the Blood Ark clam. Less than four percent have seen the clams at
trade shows, and less than two percent have sold the clams in the past (Table 2). With a
mere one percent of respondent firms currently selling Blood Ark clams, it is apparent that
market exposure in the U.S. is extremely limited.

Table 2. Awareness of Blood Ark Clams Among Certified Shellfish Shippers.

Awareness Levels Number Percent
---n--- ---%---

No experience 284 91.9
Have seen at trade shows 11 3.6
Sold in the past 5 1.6
Currently selling 4 1.3
No response 5 1.6
Total 309 100.0

Of the small number of dealers that have previously sold Blood Ark clams, two, or
40 percent, do not currently offer the product due to insufficient market demand (Table 3).
One respondent indicated that difficulties with product supply led him to discontinue clam
sales. Additional reasons given for terminating sales of Blood Arks included a need for
better product quality and a preference for farm raised clams.

Table 3. Reasons Why Previous Blood Ark Clam Dealers Are NOT Currently Selling
Clams.

Reason Number Percenta
-n-- ---%---

Not enough consumer demand 2 40.0
Supply problems 2 40.0
Poor quality 1 20.0
Need farm raised 1 20.0
Don't know 1 20.0
a Total does not sum to 100.0% because of multiple responses.






,, &Ti UNIVERSITY OF
',,FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Analysis of current sellers of Blood Ark clams by firm size (as indicated by 2001
sales) revealed one was a Florida-based firm with sales in the $1,000,000 to $4,999,999
range (Table 4). Two firms had sales in the range of $100,000 to $499,999 and were
located in Virginia and California. A fourth firm located in California did not reveal total
2001 sales.

Table 4. Locations and Size Categories of Firms Currently Selling Blood Ark Clams.
Percent of
State Number Respondents Annual 2001 Sales
--n-- -%---

Florida 1 25.0 $1,000,000 to $4,999,999
Virginia 1 25.0 $100,000 to $499,999
California 1 25.0 $100,000 to $499,999
California 1 25.0 N/A

The majority of current sellers obtained their clams from the East coast of the
United States (Table 5). In particular, two shippers obtained their clams from North
Carolina, which accounted for 50 percent of respondents' sources. Virginia and "Asia"
were also cited as Blood Ark clam sources, with Asian supplies available as frozen product
only.

Table 5. Current Sellers' Geographic Sources of Blood Ark Clams.
Percent of
Blood Ark Clam Sources Number Respondents
--n-- -%---

North Carolina 2 50.0
Virginia 1 25.0
Asia 1 25.0
Total 4 100.0

Current sellers indicated that the majority of their clams are shipped to U.S. East
coast destinations, specifically to New York and Washington, D.C. (Table 6). One
respondent had supplied Blood Ark clams to California markets. The reported volume of
Blood Ark clams sold was extremely variable and very limited. Two of the four firms that
sold the clams in 2001 reported annual sales of 16,000 and 1,000 clams, respectively
(Table 7). Three-fourths of the clams sourced from Virginia were sold primarily in the
winter months, with the remainder purchased in the fall months.

Shellfish shippers that reported 2001 sales of Blood Ark clams were queried on
prices paid for the product and their perceptions of overall product quality from their major
suppliers. One respondent indicated a range from a high of $0.25 per clam to a low of
$0.18 for an average price of $0.22 per clam. When asked to rate the quality of the Blood







UNIVERSITY OF
. FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Ark clams using a rating scale where 1=very poor and 10=excellent, North Carolina clams
received a rating of"9", while Virginia clams were assigned a perfect "10" value.

Table 6. Current Sellers' Destination Markets for Blood Ark Clams.
Percent of
Blood Ark Clam Destination Markets Number Respondents
--n-- -%---

New York 2 50.0
Washington, D.C. 1 25.0
California 1 25.0
Total 4 100.0

Table 7. Number of Blood Ark Clams Sold in 2001 to Current Destination Markets.

Blood Ark Clam Destination Markets Number of Clams Sold Percent
---n-- -%---

New York 16,000 94.1
Washington, D.C. 1,000 5.9
California N/a n/a
Total for responding firms 17,000 100.0

Current sellers were asked for suggestions as to how clam producers could increase
retail sales. Three recommendations were proposed: "Get more Blood Ark clams",
"Identify biomass producing areas", and "Increase supply, so it is not a limiting factor".
Inadequate supplies appear to be a significant limitation to market growth at present.

The majority of outlets that purchased Blood Ark clams are wholesalers followed
by specialty seafood retailers and large retail grocers. Clam buyers noted that Hispanics
characterized the primary ethnic market for this clam, with consumers of Asian descent
representing a viable secondary target market.

The average shelf life of fresh Blood Ark clams was reported to be 15 days. Two
respondent firms preferred the largest available size of Blood Ark Clams, defined as an
average 1.25 inches in shell width, 1.75 inches in shell length (long), and approximately 13
clams per pound. A third dealer favored the medium size clam, with an average width of
one inch, length of 1.5 inches, and 20 clams per pound. None of the firms ranked clams
described as "Small" (Average 34 inch wide, 114 inches long, 34 clams/pound) as either a
first or second choice. Firms were queried on their assessments of an ideal Blood Ark clam
meat color, and responses included either a light or medium color, or no preference
between light, medium or dark meats.






,T'li N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA
Ponderous Ark Clams

Among certified shellfish shippers that responded to the questionnaire, nearly 97
percent have had no experience with the clam, less than two percent have seen the clams at
trade shows, and only one percent has sold the clams in the past (Table 8). With only one
respondent firm currently selling the Ponderous Ark Clam, market exposure is presently
extremely limited. One previous Ponderous Ark clam dealer claimed that customers had
not recently requested the product, so sales had been discontinued.

Table 8. Certified Shellfish Shippers' Awareness of Ponderous Ark Clams.

Awareness Levels Number Percent
---n--- --%---

No experience 280 96.6
Have seen at trade shows 6 2.1
Sold in the past 3 1.0
Currently selling 1 0.3
Total 290 100.0

The sole Virginia firm that actively marketed Ponderous Ark clams in 2001 was
relatively small, reporting total annual 2001 company sales in the $100,000 to $499,999
range. This current seller obtained Ponderous Ark clams primarily from the Virginia coast,
and sold 100 percent of his volume, 4,000 clams in total, to markets in the Washington, D.
C. metro area. Three-fourths of the clams sourced from Virginia were sold primarily in the
winter months, with the remainder purchased in the fall.

The shellfish shipper that reported 2001 sales of Ponderous Ark clams was queried
on prices paid for the product and his perceptions of overall product quality from his
suppliers. This respondent indicated a range from a high of $0.25 per clam to a low of
$0.18 received per clam, for an average price of about $0.22 per clam. When asked to rate
the quality of the Ponderous Ark clams using a rating scale where 1=very poor and
10=excellent, this firm assigned an overall rating of "9" to the product. The average shelf
life of fresh Ponderous Ark clams was reported to be 15 days, and clam shell size and meat
color preferences were not specified.

According to the lone respondent that sold this clam species in 2001, the
predominant types of outlets that purchased Ponderous Arks were wholesalers and
specialty seafood retailers. This clam dealer also noted that Hispanic and Asian ethnic
groups represented typical Ponderous Ark clam consumers. The current seller proposed
identification of biomass producing areas and an increase in clam production as a way of
stabilizing supplies, which he/she felt would increase consumption.






.." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
PHASE I CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS FROM SHELLFISH DEALERS'
SURVEY

This research indicated that the present market for the Blood Ark and Ponderous
Ark clams is extremely limited, due to limited trade knowledge of the product and
inconsistent supply at the producer and consumer levels. If the respondents to our mail
survey were representative of the entire universe of certified shellfish dealers in the U.S., it
was estimated that only 24 were selling Blood Ark clams and only six were selling
Ponderous Ark clams in 2001. However, projecting results of the usable responses to the
universe probably overstates the true numbers of firms handling these two ark clams
because the telephone interviews of nearly 100 non-respondents revealed no firms handling
either of the ark clams.

In order to develop a domestic market for Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams, an
aggressive educational program targeting the shellfish trade and ethnic consumers will be
required. These results are virtually identical to those reached by a previous study which
concluded that extensive expenditures of time and money would be required to expand
demand for these clams (Anderson, et. al., 1985).

A few of the firms that did not report 2001 sales of Blood Ark or Ponderous Ark
clams offered some insight into the marketing dilemma facing producers of these clams.
For example, a few mentioned that a sluggish U.S. economy since the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks has depressed seafood sales in general. Equal numbers of respondents
mentioned the lack of consistent supply and quality of the available clams, limited market
outlets and virtually nonexistent consumer demand.

On a positive note, some shellfish shippers indicated an interest in learning more
about these clam types. Nearly one-third of all survey respondents indicated a willingness
to evaluate samples of Blood Ark or Ponderous Ark clams. Out of 309 respondents, 97
provided mailing address information and requested Blood Ark clam samples, and 96 gave
contact information in order to receive Ponderous Ark clam samples.

PHASE II FINDINGS: SHELLFISH SHIPPERS' EVALUATIONS OF
BLOOD ARK AND PONDEROUS ARK CLAM SAMPLES

Geographic Distribution of the Samples

Nearly half of the samples were sent to firms in the Northeast, and nearly one-third
went to firms in the South (Table 9). Only two firms in the Midwest agreed to evaluate
samples; both were in the Chicago area. Approximately one-fifth of the samples were
shipped to firms on the West coast. Despite the care and diligence exercised in gaining the
cooperation of the shellfish dealers receiving samples, only 52 of the 83 provided
completed product evaluations. Several telephone follow-up calls were made to non-
respondents without success. For most regions, the response rate was approximately 60
percent, but slightly higher in Southern states (Table 9).






,., i UNIVERSITY OF
,iFLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Table 9. Destinations of Samples and Response Rates, by U. S. Region, Phase II.
U. ReNumber of Number of
U. S. Region
Samples Shipped Questionnaires Returned Response Rate
--n ---- ----% ---- ----n ---- ----% ---- % ----

Northeast a 38 45.8 23 44.2 60.5
South b 26 31.3 18 34.6 69.2
Midwest 2 2.4 1 2.0 50.0
West d 17 20.5 10 19.2 58.8
Total 83 100.0 52 100.0 62.6
a Northeast Maine, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts b South Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia,
Maryland, Delaware Midwest Illinois d West California, Washington, Oregon


Blood Ark Clams

Arrival Condition of Blood Ark Clam Samples


Respondents were instructed to immediately refrigerate the samples upon arrival
and evaluate the same day. While most respondents evaluated the samples the day of
arrival (the third day after harvest) there were a few firms that waited several days before
evaluating the samples and completing the questionnaires. Although there were not enough
observations to conduct a statistical test of the relationships between respondents'
evaluation dates and ratings for arrival condition, examination of the arrival condition
ratings for the "late" evaluators compared with those evaluating the clams immediately
upon arrival revealed no appreciable differences.

Each questionnaire began with several questions to determine the arrival condition
of the samples. The first question asked whether or not the evaluator could detect an odor,
the rationale being that shellfish arriving in poor condition would have a strong, unpleasant
odor. Approximately 60 percent were unable to detect any odor (Table 10). Of the
remaining 40 percent (21 observations), only four described the detected odor as "slightly
unpleasant" while nine described the odor as "neutral", five described it as "slightly
pleasant" and three described it as "very pleasant" (Figure 1).

Table 10. Respondents' Detection of Odor in Blood Ark Clams.

Blood Ark Clam Odor Number Percent
-----n ----- -----% -----

Able to detect an odor 21 40.4
Unable to detect an odor 31 59.6
Total 52 100.0







".." UNIVERSITY OF
S. FLORIDA
Figure 1. Description of Odor for Blood Ark Clams.


Shellfish Industry Survey


9 (43%)


5 (24%)


4 (19%)


3 (14%)


o (0%)

Very Slightly
Unpleasant Unpleasant


Neutral

n = 21


Slightly Very Pleasant
Pleasant


In addition to asking about the odor of the clams, respondents were also asked to
evaluate "overall arrival condition" on a zero to ten scale where zero represented
"extremely poor" and ten represented "extremely good". The mean rating for this
evaluation was 9.4 (Table 11). Examination of the few less-than-perfect ratings revealed a
concern that several samples had arrived slightly too warm for optimum shellfish storage
(Appendix B, Table 1).

Table 11. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Shell Appearance, and Meat Color for Blood
Ark Clams.

Attribute Number Mean Rating Standard Deviation
--n --- --- % ---

Arrival Condition a 51 98.1 9.4 1.2
Shell Appearance b 51 98.1 5.2 2.9
Meat Color b 47 90.4 4.2 3.0
a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for arrival condition as 0 = extremely poor, 10 = extremely good. b
Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for shell appearance and meat color as 0 = very unattractive, 10 = very
attractive.


Evaluation of Blood Ark Clams' Shell Appearance


The Blood Ark clamshell is covered with a thick dark brown or black periostracum,
which is a fibrous noncalcareous covering. Exterior shell appearance was also evaluated
using a zero to ten rating scale where zero represented "very unattractive" and ten
represented "very attractive". The mean rating was 5.2, with a standard deviation of 2.9
(Table 11). The majority of the evaluations were clustered in the mid-point of the scale, but
nearly 12 percent rated the shell appearance a perfect "10" (Figure 2). Nearly 20 percent
rated the shell appearance as a "2" or lower.







Shellfish Industry Survey
Figure 2. Blood Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings.


,;T,< i UNIVERSITY OF
, ',,FLORIDA


7(14%)


4 (8%)
3(6%)
2 (4%)

II


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
O=extremely poor and 1 O=extremely good


Mean rating=5.3, std. dev.=2.9, n=51



Respondents made a few negative comments about the shell appearance, but no
favorable comments. Negative statements included "should have a cleaner shell to steam",
"black fuzz needs to be removed", "hard to clean organic material off shell", "hairy cover
not likeable", "shell stock looked good except for moss growth on shell", "fuzzy, dirty
appearance not desirable in this area", and "I would want to scrub before serving-looks
like not super sanitary" (Appendix C, Table 1).
Evaluation of Blood Ark Clams' Meat Color

Both ark clam species contain the blood pigment hemoglobin, which gives the meat
an orange to red coloration. Respondents were asked to rate the attractiveness of the Blood
Ark clam meat color using the same zero to ten scale where zero represented "very
unattractive" and ten represented "very attractive". The mean rating was 4.2, with a
standard deviation of 3.0. The ratings were skewed to the negative end of the scale; nearly
15 percent rated the meat color as a zero, or "very unattractive". About one third of all
respondents rated meat color as a "2" or below (Figure 3).

Most of the comments respondents made about the meat color were negative.
Examples of negative comments include "bad, bad, gross", "ugly meat", "blood appearance
borders on unappealing", and "looks like raw liver". A few comments were slightly more
forgiving: "raw ugly-cooked normal", "as far as these animals go, meat (color) is
acceptable", and "these are very colorful compared to other shellfish" (Appendix C, Table
1).






".." UNIVERSITY OF
i' FLORIDA
Figure 3. Blood Ark Clam Meat Color Ratings.


7(15%)


7(15%)
S6(13%)


Shellfish Industry Survey


7(15%)


4 (9%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%)


2 (4%)
1 (2%)

1 I ) I I


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
O=extremely poor and 1 O=extremely good

Mean rating=4.2, std. dev.=3.0, n=47



Blood Ark Clam Serving Methods and Taste Evaluations


8 9 10


Respondents were allowed the flexibility of serving the Blood Ark clam samples
raw, cooked, or both. They were asked to evaluate the taste for each way served. Half of
the respondents served them raw, and 42 of the 52 served them cooked (Table 12). Twenty-
two respondents sampled them both ways, raw and cooked.

Table 12. Taste Ratings by Serving Method for Blood Ark Clams.
Serving Method Number Mean Rating a Standard Deviation
Raw 26 4.8 2.5
Cooked 42 4.9 2.9
aRating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good.

Respondents were asked to rate taste for each cooking method using a zero to ten
scale where zero represented "very poor" and ten represented "very good". Mean ratings
were less than stellar; the mean ratings for Blood Ark clams were 4.8 and 4.9 for those
eaten raw and cooked, respectively (Table 12). A paired-t test (testing the differences
between cooked and raw ratings) showed the mean taste rating difference between cooked
Blood Ark clams to be 0.50, with a t-value of 1.14, which was not statistically significant at
the 0.05 probability level.

Respondents that cooked the clam samples were asked to indicate the cooking
method used, and thirty-two of the 42 respondents did so. Of those reporting the cooking







,., i UNIVERSITY OF
',FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


method used, the overwhelming majority, 84 percent, steamed them. Smaller numbers said
they microwaved or baked them (Table 13, Figure 4). When the ratings were examined by
cooking method, the rating for taste when steamed was 4.3, but it was 5.7 for those that
were microwaved and 7.0 for those baked. However, there were too few observations to
statistically test this relationship (Table 13).

Table 13. Cooking Methods and Taste Evaluations for Blood Ark Clams.

Cooking Method Number Percent Mean Rating a Standard Deviation
------n----- ------%-----

Steamed 27 84.4 4.3 3.0

Microwaved 3 9.4 5.7 2.1

Baked 2 6.2 7.0 0.0

Total 32 100.0 4.9 2.9
aRating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good.

Comments about Blood Ark clams' taste were mixed, with positive and negative
reactions about equal in number. Positive comments included "OK taste", "good flavor",
"different taste", "very good flavor", and "excellent taste and presentation". Negative
statements tended to focus on bitterness and strong flavor. Comments included "taste was
bitter", "they suck raw", "rather bitter", and several said "much too strong flavor". Several
respondents said they could not comment on the taste because the clam did not open,
despite extended steaming times (Appendix C, Table 1).

Figure 4. Blood Ark Clam Serving Methods Used by Respondents.





30


3


2


Microwaved


(I)
a)
()
6 20
0-
UI)
n 15
O
- 10
E
z
5

0


I


Raw


Steamed


Baked


Broiled






.." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
Texture Ratings for Blood Ark Clams

Respondents were asked to rate the texture of the Blood Ark clams using a five-
point semantic differential scale. The five points were defined as "much too tough",
"slightly too tough", "just right", slightly too soft", and "much too soft". Of the 45
respondents that answered this question, 13 percent said they were much too tough, and 42
percent said they were slightly too tough. Thirty-eight percent said they were just right, and
7 percent indicated that they were slightly too soft. No one said they were much too soft.
Thus, one can conclude that the overall texture was judged to be somewhat tougher than
ideal (Figure 5).

Respondents made positive and negative comments about the clam texture. On the
positive side one said "good texture", and another said "good flavor and texture". Most
comments were negative. Negative statements included "the clams were rubbery, but OK
taste", "texture was very poor", and "I found the clams to be tender, but still full of too
much liquid to say I honestly liked their texture. Even after waiting for a 'drying out
period' after initial steaming, I still found them 'visceral'. Too many thin, skinny
membranes to be chewed and swallowed".

Size Preferences for Blood Ark Clams

The clams included in the sample of Blood Ark clams ranged in sizes that would
generally be classified as "medium" to "large". The sample size averaged 1 34" in shell
length, 1 1/5" in shell width and 15 per pound. When asked which size would be most
popular in their market area, approximately one-fifth of the respondents were uncertain. Of
those that expressed an opinion, slightly less than one-fifth felt the medium-sized clam
would be more popular, and slightly over one-third felt the large-sized clams would be
preferred. Nearly half of the respondents felt that either would be acceptable (Figure 6).









Shellfish Industry Survey

Figure 5. Blood Ark Clam Texture Ratings.


20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
tA


,',ai UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA


19(42%)


6 (13%)


3(7%)


Much too Slightly too
Tough Tough


So (0%)

Just Right Slightly too Soft Much too Soft


n = 45




Figure 6. Most Popular Blood Ark Clam Size.





16


12(35%)


S/lI QOL\


Large
n = 34


Both Equally Popular


Medium


1A 7


u







".."" UNIVERSITY OF
i' WFLORIDA
Estimated Weekly Sales Of Blood Ark Clams


Shellfish Industry Survey


Respondents were asked how many Blood Ark clams their firms could sell each
week, if any, assuming that they were available on a year-round basis at prices
"comparable to hard clams from Florida". Of the 41 respondents that answered this
question, slightly over half said "none". Twenty-two percent indicated that they could
probably sell some, but would not provide an estimate, and 11 firms provided estimates
(Table 14).

Table 14. Estimated Weekly Sales of Blood Ark Clams.

Estimated Weekly Sales Number Percent
-----n----- -----%-----

Number reporting a positive value 11 26.8
Don't know 9 22.0
None 20 51.2
Total 52 100.0

Sales estimates provided by the 11 firms were extremely variable, ranging from 30
to 170,000 clams per week. The mean estimated clam sales figure for the 11 firms was just
over 20,500 clams per week per firm, but given the extreme variability of the estimates, the
mean is of little value. Out of the total estimated weekly Blood Ark clam sales of
approximately 226,000 animals, one west coast firm's estimate accounted for 170,000.
Five of the 11 firms estimated that their Blood Ark clam sales would be 1,000 or fewer;
three additional firms' estimates ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 per week, and only three
respondents thought they could sell more than 10,000 per week. Estimated sales were
analyzed on a regional basis, and found to be extremely variable as well. Sales estimates in
the Northeast ranged from 1,000 to 17,000 clams per week; in the South, estimates ranged
from 50 to 20,000 per week, and in the West from 30 to 170,000 clams (Table 15).

Table 15. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sales of Blood Ark Clams, by U. S. Region.

Region Number of Firms Number of Clams Sold
-----n----- -----n-----

Northeast 4 1,000 17,000
South 4 50 20,000
Midwest 0 --
West 3 30- 170,000
Total 11 30 170,000






,:',i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA
General Observations on Blood Ark Clams
Cooking Problems

Several respondents complained about the difficulties associated with cooking the
Blood Ark clams, and most dealt with lengthy cooking times and difficulties of opening.
Respondents' comments included "...only one clam opened after 15 minutes of steaming",
"did not open as quickly [as other types of clams]", "they would not open-could not eat",
and "hard to open with a knife".

Marketability

When asked for general reactions to the Blood Ark clams, many commented on
their potential marketability, and opinions were mixed. Many respondents dismissed them
with comments such as "not saleable in this area", and "overall attitude from samplers was
'GROSS'". One dealer put it slightly more eloquently "In comparison to many fine clams
available on the West coast, which are attractive, easy to cook, and very tasty with a
sweeter flavor, we do not feel these clams would be marketable in our marketing area".
One dealer also took issue with their name, saying "Blood Ark" is a "bad name".

Despite the negative reactions by many of the respondents, a few were more
charitable and several were even quite positive. Several dealers indicated current interest
in selling these clams. They remarked "[Blood Ark clams will be] very good in the future
market. Let me know when the clams are available", and "Glad to see them-have
customers with interest". Another semi-positive comment was "If they were cheap enough,
people may buy them". Several expressed the opinion that the Blood Ark clams would
have greatest appeal to ethnic populations, primarily Asians. This opinion was expressed
best by one dealer that stated "This type of clam would only be of interest to certain ethnic
groups. However, if you went after these specific markets, this clam could be successful".







".." UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA

Ponderous Ark Clams

Arrival Condition of the Ponderous Ark Clams


Shellfish Industry Survey


Because the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clam samples were harvested on the
same day, stored overnight in the same certified shellfish facility, and packed and shipped
in the same box, it was expected that the arrival condition of the two types of clams would
be very similar. Even so, respondents were asked the same questions about arrival
condition for each type of clam. The numbers of respondents that said they were able to
detect an odor for the Ponderous Ark samples were identical to those for Blood Ark clams
(Table 16).

Table 16. Detection of Odor in Ponderous Ark Clams.

Ponderous Ark Clam Odor Number Percent
-----n ----- -----%-----

Able to detect an odor 21 40.4
Unable to detect an odor 31 59.6
Total 52 100.0

Approximately 60 percent of the respondents were unable to detect an odor; those
that said they could detect an odor were then asked to describe it using a five-point
semantic differential scale ranging from "very unpleasant" to "very pleasant. Only one
respondent described the perceived odor of the Ponderous Ark clams to be "slightly
unpleasant" as compared with four for the Blood Arks. Of the remaining 20 respondents,
12 described the odor as evoking a "neutral" reaction, five described it as "slightly
pleasant", and three said it was "very pleasant" (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Description of Odor for Ponderous Ark Clams.


14
S12
U)
10
0
S 8
6
o
.0
4
E
0 2
z


5 (24%)


3 (14%)


0 (0%)


Very
Unpleasant


1 (5%)


Slightly
Unpleasant


Neutral

n = 21


Slightly Very Pleasant
Pleasant


I -






,',:,i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA
In addition to asking about the perception of odor, respondents were also asked to
evaluate the "overall" arrival condition of the Ponderous Ark clams on a zero to ten rating
scale where zero represented "extremely poor" and ten represented "extremely good".
Again, the overall arrival condition rating was virtually the same as for the Blood Ark clam
samples, with a mean rating of 9.4 (Table 17). The few less-than-perfect evaluations were
more than likely due to the samples arriving at a slightly higher than ideal temperature.

Table 17. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Shell Appearance and Meat Color for
Ponderous Ark Clams.

Attribute Number Percent Mean Rating Standard Deviation
---n --- --- %---

Arrival Condition a 50 96.1 9.4 1.1
Shell Appearance b 51 98.1 5.1 2.7
Meat Color b 50 96.1 3.6 3.0
a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for arrival condition as 0 = extremely poor, 10 = extremely good.
b Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for shell appearance and meat color as 0 = very unattractive, 10 = very
attractive.

Evaluation of Ponderous Ark Clams' Shell Appearance

The shell of the Ponderous Ark clam is covered with a thick, feltlike periostracum
that is dark brown to black in coloration. Exterior shell appearance was evaluated using a
zero to ten rating scale where zero represented "very unattractive" and ten represented
"very attractive". The mean rating was 5.1, with a standard deviation of 2.7 (Table 17).
Closer examination of the distribution of the ratings revealed that approximately 10 percent
of the respondents rated shell appearance a "10", or "very attractive". However, about one-
third of all respondent rated shell appearance a three or lower on the 10 point scale (Figure
8).

Respondents made a number of negative comments about the shell appearance, but
no positive ones. Negative comments included "Who wants to eat a clam with fur?"
"Hairiness and black color is unattractive and unappetizing-a problem", and "Shell is
hard to clean, a poor choice for whole clam garnish". One shellfish dealer said, "The
outside looks dirty...makes me think of bacterial environment and costly scrubbing". Most
of the comments mentioned the "fuzz" and black color (Appendix C, Table 2).







S UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
Figure 8. Ponderous Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings.


12
10 (20%)
10
a)
0t 8 7 (14%)
a) 6(12%)
S6-- 5(10%) 5(10%) 5(10%) 5(10%)
-4
E
4 (4%(8%)
2 2 1 %) 1 (2%)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
extremely poor and 10=extremely good

Mean rating=5.1, std. dev.=2.7, n=51



Evaluation of Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color

Meat color was evaluated with a zero to ten rating scale as well. Zero represented
"very unattractive", and ten "very attractive". The mean rating was 3.6, with a standard
deviation of 3.0 (Table 17). As one would expect from the relatively low mean value, the
distribution of the ratings is skewed towards the "unattractive" end of the scale, with 22
percent of the respondents evaluating the meat color as a zero, or "very unattractive"
(Figure 9).

Respondents were also asked to comment on the meat color. Virtually all comments
were negative (Appendix C, Table 2). For example, one respondent stated that the meat
was "Bad, bad, gross, bio-fouled!" Others said, "Very dark juice looks bloody-very
unappetizing", and "Clams in this area are spawning when red. People will not buy."
Another shellfish dealer summed up his opinion with "[The meat color is] too dark for
most clam consumers. Consumers want light colored meat. Even yellow turns them away.
They connect dark with a negative... something wrong!" Yet another said "I perceived [that
I had to] wash my hands thoroughly with soap after shucking and cooking these 'clams'.
Normally I do, but only as required. Yucky stuff."








Shellfish Industry Survey
Figure 9. Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color Ratings.


12 [1 (22%)
._ 10(20%)


,:,l i UNIVERSITY OF
, ',,FLORIDA
..9_0


6 (12%)
5(10%)
5 4 (8%) 4 (8%)
S) 3 (6%)
2(4%) 2(4%)
1 (2%)
1 l ,


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0=extremely poor and 10=extremely good

Mean rating=3.6, std. dev.=3.0, n=50



Ponderous Ark Clam Serving Methods and Taste Evaluations


8 9 10


As with the Blood Ark clams, respondents were allowed the flexibility of serving
the Ponderous Ark clam samples raw, cooked, or both. Of the 52 respondents, 27 sampled
them raw, and 44 cooked them in some manner (Table 18). Twenty-three respondents
sampled them both ways, raw and cooked.

Table 18. Taste Ratings by Serving Method for Ponderous Ark Clams.
Serving Method Number Mean Rating a Standard Deviation
Raw 27 4.8 2.6
Cooked 44 5.1 3.0
a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good.

Taste was evaluated using a zero to ten scale where zero represented "very poor",
and ten represented "extremely good". The mean taste rating for the raw clams was 4.8,
with a standard deviation of 2.6, and the mean taste rating for cooked clams was 5.1, with a
standard deviation of 3.0. A paired-t test (testing the differences between cooked and raw
ratings) revealed that the mean difference in taste ratings was 0.22 with a t-value of 0.45,
which was not statistically significant at the 0.05 probability level.

Respondents were asked to identify each cooking method used and rate taste for
each method using the same zero to ten rating scale. Thirty-two of the 44 respondents that
cooked the Ponderous Ark clams did so (Table 19, Figure 10).







UNIVERSITY OF
. FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Table 19. Cooking Methods and Taste Evaluations for Ponderous Ark Clams.

Cooking Method a Number Percent Mean Rating b Standard Deviation
-----n ----- -----

Steamed 27 84.8 4.3 2.9
Microwaved 4 12.5 5.7 1.3
Baked 1 3.1 7.0 0.0
Total 32 100.0 5.1 3.0
a Twelve respondents reported cooking Ponderous Ark Clams but failed to specify a cooking method.
b Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good. Numbers do not sum to 100
due to rounding.


Figure 10. Ponderous Ark Clam Serving Methods Used by Respondents.


30

5 25

I 20

4 15
0
^ 10
E
z 5

0


Raw


Steamed Microwaved


M 1 0


Baked


Broiled


Steaming was by far the most commonly used cooking method, reported by nearly
85 percent of those cooking the clam samples. The mean taste rating for steamed
Ponderous Ark clams was 4.3. Four respondents (about 12 percent) microwaved them, and
their mean taste rating was 5.7 on the 0 to 10 scale. One respondent baked the samples, and
rated taste as a "7". There were too few observations to statistically test for differences
among the cooking methods (Table 19).

Comments about taste were mixed, with about as many positive comments as
negative. One the positive side, respondents said the Ponderous Ark samples were "good
for sushi", "a good chowder clam", "the flavor was good", and "nice briny clam flavor".
Examples of negative comments included "they double suck raw", "rather bitter", "taste
too strong", and "did not like the taste; they were bitter and had an aftertaste" (Appendix C,
Table 2).

Texture Ratings for Ponderous Ark Clams

Respondents were asked to rate the texture of the Ponderous Ark clams using the
same five-point semantic differential scale used for Blood Arks. The five points were
defined as "much too tough", "slightly too tough, "just right", "slightly too soft", and






,:l i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA
"much too soft". Of the 49 respondents that rated texture, one-fifth said they were "much
too tough", and about 40 percent said they were "slightly too tough" (Figure 11).
Approximately one-third said the texture was "just right". Only two respondents said they
were "slightly too soft", and no one said they were "much too soft."

Respondents were not asked to comment specifically on their reaction to texture,
but several volunteered statements. One indicated that they texture would be acceptable to
their niche market, i.e., Asians, but several comments were negative. For example, one
stated, "Texture could be better", and another said "Very chewy [rated them "much too
tough"]". A final comment was related to cooking time required: "When I cooked these
clams they did not open, which lead to over-cooking and therefore [they were] way too
tough" (Appendix C, Table 2).

Figure 11. Ponderous Ark Clam Texture Ratings.

20
0- 18 (40%)
g 18 -17 (38%)
16
14 14
2 12
10 9 (20%)
8-
0
6 -
E 4 -2 (4%)
=2 o- (0%)

Much too Slightly too Just Right Slightly too Soft Much too Soft
Tough Tough
n = 45


Size Preferences for Ponderous Ark Clams

The Ponderous Ark clam samples were of relatively uniform size within the two
size categories shipped. The "medium" sized clams averaged 1 7/8" in shell length, 1 1/5"
in shell width and 17 per pound. The "large" sized clams averaged 2" in shell length, 1 1/3"
in shell width and 11 per pound. Respondents were asked to rate size using a five point
semantic differential scale which included "much too small", "slightly too small", "just
right", "slightly too large", and "much too large". Nearly two-thirds of the respondents
said they were "just right", but about one-third thought they were "somewhat too small"; 7
percent said they were "much too small", and 27 percent felt they were "slightly too
small". One could conclude that the medium to large-sized clams (12 to 24 per pound)
would be widely accepted as ideal.

Although comments on size were not directly solicited, a few respondents made
statements with regard to size when asked for general reactions, and virtually all were
critical of the smaller clams. One respondent stated, "These animals need to be






.." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
developed-current market thinks larger is better". A Maine dealer compared the
Ponderous Ark clams to his state's requirements that clams be two inches in diameter, with
a +/- size tolerance, implying that the Ponderous Ark clams were too small. Other
comments included "Smaller-sized clams failed to open when steamed", "Meats were
small", and "Some clams were too small". One respondent suggested that they be grown to
three inches in order to develop a product for processing (Appendix C, Table 2).

Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams

Respondents were asked how many Ponderous Ark clams their firms could sell
each week, if any, assuming that they were available on a year-round basis at prices
"comparable to hard clams from Florida". Of the 44 respondents that answered this
question, nearly 60 percent said "none". Twenty-two percent indicated that they could
probably sell some, but would not provide an estimate, and eight firms provided estimates
(Table 20).

Table 20. Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams.

Estimated Weekly Sales Number Percent
---n----- -----%-----

Number reporting a positive value 8 18.2
Don't know 10 22.7
None 26 59.1
Total 44 100.0

As was the case with Blood Ark clams, sales estimates provided by the eight firms
were extremely variable, ranging from only 30 to 120,000 clams per week. The mean
estimated clam sales figure for the eight firms was about 18,600 clams per week per firm,
but given the extreme variability of the estimates, the mean is of little value. Out of the
total estimated weekly Ponderous Ark clam sales of approximately 149,000 animals, one
West coast firm's estimate accounted for 120,000. Four of the eight firms estimated that
their Ponderous Ark clam sales would be 1,000 or fewer; three additional firms' estimates
ranged from 5,000 to 12,000 per week, and only one respondent thought he could sell more
than 12,000 per week, and this West coast firm estimated potential sales at 120,000 clams
per week. Estimated sales were analyzed on a regional basis, and found to be extremely
variable as well. Sales estimates in the Northeast ranged from 1,000 to 12,000 clams per
week; in the South, estimates ranged from 300 to 10,000 per week, and in the West from 30
to 120,000 clams (Table 21).






I, UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey `.. FLORIDA _
Table 21. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sales of Ponderous Ark Clams, by U. S. Region.

Region Number of Firms Number of Clams Sold
-----n----- -----n-----

Northeast 3 1,000- 12,000
South 2 300- 10,000
Midwest 0
West 3 30 -120,000
Total 8 30- 120,000


General Observations on Ponderous Ark Clams
Cooking Problems

After rating specific physical attributes of the Ponderous Ark clams, respondents
were asked for their general reactions to the samples. Many mentioned difficulties
associated with cooking and opening the clams. For example, one said, "they were
extremely difficult to open...our clams open much more readily. We found the clams
difficult to cook as the cooking times varied greatly. One opened up after six minutes, four
did not open after 10 minutes, and three opened after 35 minutes". Others observed "very
hard to open, even when cooked a long time", "failed to open when steamed", and "They
did not steam open after 10 minutes of hard steaming-actually had to pry open. Way too
much cooking time and work!"

Marketability

Despite a preponderance of negative observations for shell appearance, meat color
and taste and marketability, there were a few positive comments that related to market
potential for Ponderous Ark clams. For example, one said, "[I] have customers with
interest". Another observed, "It would take prior marketing tools and efforts to sell them.
After 30 years selling full-line seafood, this seems like an Asian item". Others said, "[I]
have no established market for the clam, [but there is] some use among Asian
communities" and "Could be a product that could be developed for Asian markets. Another
volunteered, "They [Ponderous Ark clams] are known as an expensive side dish in
Korea... could be a regular [sic] sold item for Korean and Japanese markets and restaurants,
and even exported to Korea".






.." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
Comparisons of Selected Attributes of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark
Clams

A paired t-test was used to compare respondents' ratings of arrival condition, meat
color, and taste ratings (cooked and raw) for the two types of ark clams to determine the
presence of any statistically significant differences in ratings. These variables were
measured using a numeric rating scale. The paired t-test utilizes each respondent's ratings
for each type of clam for each attribute; in order to have a valid observation, the respondent
must have rated each type of clam for the attribute so that a rating difference can be
calculated. The t-test is then based upon the mean difference over all respondents and the
variance associated with the individual rating differences.

Comparisons between Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams (Blood Ark ratings
minus Ponderous Ark ratings) revealed little difference between the two types of clams. As
expected, arrival condition ratings were not statistically different at the 0.05 probability
level (Table 22).

Meat color comparisons represented the only statistically significant difference
among other product attributes evaluated using the numeric rating scales. Respondents
showed a preference for the meat color of the Blood Ark clam over the Ponderous Ark, but
shell appearance and taste ratings (when eaten raw or cooked) were similar for both species
of clams (Table 22).

Two other product attributes, odor and texture, had been evaluated by respondents
via a semantic differential rating scale. Chi-square tests could not be used to analyze these
ratings to find if there were statistically significant differences between the two types of
clams because there were too few observations for valid tests. Visual examination of the
distribution of ratings for both odor and texture revealed little difference between Blood
Ark and Ponderous Ark clams.

Table 22. Paired t-values for Selected Variables Blood and Ponderous Ark Clams.

Attribute No. of Comparisons t-valuea
Arrival Condition 50 0.18
Appearance of shells 51 0.71
Color of the meat 47 2.06*
Taste Rating, eaten raw 26 0.95
Test Rating, eaten cooked 40 0.90
aPaired t-values are based upon the differences in individual respondents ratings of attributes of Blood Ark
and Ponderous Ark Clams, i.e. the ratings for Blood Arks minus the ratings for Ponderous Arks. An asterisk
indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 percent probability level.






,:',i N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA

CONCLUSIONS

The survey of all certified shellfish wholesalers (dealers) in the U.S. revealed very
limited distribution and sales of both the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams. About 92
percent of the responding shellfish firms had no experience with Blood Ark clams, and
nearly 97 percent have had no experience with Ponderous Ark clams. Further, only one
percent of respondent firms reported sales of either type during 2001, thus it is apparent
that market exposure in the U.S. is extremely limited. The initial trade survey showed very
limited knowledge about these clams among dealers. The few that were either currently
selling them or had sold them in the past cited several factors that had negatively
influenced their sales. These factors included lack of consistent supplies, limited market
outlets and virtually nonexistent consumer demand.

One can also conclude that there is relatively little interest in these ark clams among
certified shellfish wholesalers nationwide. Out of the 1,848 initial questionnaires which
requested information on the clams and offered free samples for evaluation, only 309
usable responses were obtained; of these, only 97 indicated a preliminary willingness to try
them, and when the samples were available, only 83 firms agreed to accept them. After
these firms received their samples, only 52 responded with product evaluations despite
numerous follow-up reminder calls. Of the 52 firms evaluating the samples, only 20 gave
an indication that they might be able to sell Blood Arks, and 18 indicated the possibility of
selling Ponderous Arks. These 18 to 20 firms represent about one percent of all certified
shellfish wholesalers in the U.S.

As to the potential marketability of these species, the product evaluations and many
of the respondents' comments indicated that these two species of ark clams are perceived
as being too different from clams currently available on the market. These findings,
coupled with shellfish dealers' unwillingness to evaluate free samples, leads us to conclude
that it is unlikely that there will be widespread, mainstream demand for them.

Despite the overall negative tone of these findings, market development proponents
should recognize the importance of ethnic markets in target locations on the East coast and
West coasts. Targeting seafood dealers in these areas with large Asian and Hispanic
populations could result in profitable niche markets.

Additionally, producer groups should work with the Division of Marketing within
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to provide
information about Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams to potential dealers at national
seafood trade shows. Such information could also be incorporated into the FDACS website
to foster greater knowledge in the trade and to arouse dealers' curiosity. These promotional
methods could serve as relatively inexpensive promotional tools.






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






IJ, UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey `.. FLORIDA _

REFERENCES
Abbott, R. T. (1974). American Seashells, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New
York, NY. 663 pp.
Adam, C. A. (2000, January). Since the Net Ban: Changes in Commercial Fishing in
Florida. Fact Sheet SOEF-117 produced for the Florida Sea Grant College
Program.
Anderson, W. D. and A. G. Eversole. (1985, June). Arks Is there a resource and a
market? Journal of .e//pllJil Research 5(31).
Anderson, W. D., W. H. Lacey III and A. G. Eversole. (1984). An investigation
concerning the feasibility of harvesting and marketing underutilized Anadara off
the coasts of. i,,th Carolina and Georgia. Report prepared for the Gulf and South
Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation under Grant Contact No. CASAFDI
22-18-17320, Charleston, South Carolina.
Applewhite, L., W.S. Otwell and L. Sturmer. (1996). Survival ofFlorida aquacultured
clams in refrigerated storage. Proc. 21st Ann. Seafood Sci. & Technolo. Soc. of the
Americas. St. Petersburg, FL.
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. (2002, June). Florida aquaculture sales exceed $99
million in 2001. Retrieved August 11, 2003 from:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/rtoc01.htm
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2002, February 13). Farm-
Raised Hard Clams: Buying, Handling and Storage Tips. Retrieved May, 2002
from: www.fl-seafood.com/newpages/HardClams.htm.
Horwitz, W. (2000.) Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th edition.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
McGraw, K., M.A. Castagna and S. D. Dennis. (1994). Some observations on arkshell
clams, Noetia ponderosa and Anadara ovalis, and implications for fisheries
management. Virginia Sea Grant College Program, Technical Report VSG-94-11.
Otwell, W.S. (1998). Survival and Microbial Consequences for Florida Farm-raised Hard
Clams through Tempering and Refrigeration. Final Report for Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 29 pp.
Philippakos, E. C. Adams, A. Hodges, D. Mulkey, D. Comer and L. Sturmer. (2001,
December). Economic impact of the Florida cultured hard clam industry. Sea Grant
Technical Paper SGR 123, Project No. SGEP-12.
Sturmer, Leslie N. (1999, May). Hard Clam Aquaculture in Florida. University of
Florida, Shellfish Aquaculture Extension Program.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2003). National Shellfish Sanitation Program, Model
Ordinance, Guide for the Control ofMolluscan Shellfish. Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation Conference, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Office of Seafood, Washington,
D.C. 427 pp.






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,',ai UNIVERSITY OF
',, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


APPENDIX A






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,<', i UNIVERSITY OF
,.,FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Phase I, Shellfish Industry Questionnaires






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,., : UNIVERSITY OF
',.FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Please complete this hard copy and return it in the enclosed business reply envelope.


Q1. Which of the following describe your experience with Blood Ark clams?
(Check only one)

A. Have no experience with Blood Ark clams whatsoever. (Skip to Q13)
B. Have seen Blood Ark clams at industry trade shows. (Skip to Q13)
C. Have sold Blood Ark clams in the past but not currently selling them.
If not currently selling them, why not? (Answer, then skip to Q6)


D. Currently selling fresh Blood Ark clams.

Q2. If you are currently handling fresh Blood Ark clams what states or countries are your
major suppliers? (List in order of importance)
A.
B.
C.
D.



Q3. To what four states do you ship the greatest volume of fresh Blood Ark clams? What
percentage of your fresh Blood Ark clams goes to each of these states?






UNIVERSITY OF
. FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Top 4 States for Fresh Blood Ark Clam Volume Percent
%
%
%
%



Q4. Approximately how many fresh Blood Ark clams did you sell in all of 2001?
(Give estimate in number of clams)___

What percentage of these were sold in the Winter (Jan. March)? %
What percentage of these were sold in the Spring (April June)? %
What percentage of these were sold in the Summer (July Sept.)? %
What percentage of these were sold in the Fall (Oct. Dec.)? %
TOTAL
100 %

Q5. In 2001, what were the lowest, highest, and average prices you paid for fresh Blood
Ark clams? (Give prices on a per clam basis)


Lowest price _

Highest price
Average price


_cents each

cents each
cents each


Q6. How would you rate the overall quality of fresh Blood Ark clams that you received
during the past year? (Use a rating scale where 10=excellent and O=very poor. You may
select any number from 0 to 10).


OVERALL QUALITY RATING:

Q7. What, if anything, could Blood Ark clam producers do to increase retail sales?






Q8. What types of outlets buy fresh Blood Ark clams from your firm?
(Check all that apply)








Shellfish Industry Survey
Other wholesalers (re-shippers)

Specialty seafood retailers
Small retail grocers


,', ai UNIVERSITY OF
,i.FLORIDA

SLarge retail grocers
SIndependent restaurants
Chain restaurants


Q9. In your opinion, what ethnic groups represent the most important markets for fresh
Blood Ark clams? (List in order of importance, where 1=most important and 4=least
important)

1st


3rd
4th


Q10. On average what is the shelf life of fresh Blood Ark clams?


Days from Harvest:

Q 1. Which of the following shell sizes of Blood Ark clams are most popular in your
market? (Rank 1st, 2nd, and 3rd)

Small Average 3 inch wide, 114 inches long, 34 clams/pound

Medium Average 1 inch wide, 12 inches long, 20 clams/pound

Large Average 14A inches wide, 134 inches long, 13 clams/pound


Q12. Which of the following meat colors of Blood Ark clams do you prefer?
(Check only one)

Lighter color
Medium color
Darker color
No preference






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey







,., i UNIVERSITY OF
i'FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Ponderous Ark Clams
(Noetia ponderosa)


Q13. Which of the following describe your experience with Ponderous Ark clams?
(Check only one)
A. Have no experience with Ponderous Ark clams whatsoever. (Skip to Q25)
B. Have seen Ponderous Ark clams at industry trade shows. (Skip to Q25)
C. Have sold Ponderous Ark clams in the past but not currently selling them.
If not currently selling them, why not? (Answer, then skip to Q18)






D. Currently selling Ponderous Ark clams.


Q14. If you are currently handling fresh Ponderous Ark clams what states or countries
are your major suppliers? (List in order of importance)
A.

B.

C.

D.


Q15. To what four states do you ship the greatest volume of fresh Ponderous Ark clams?
What percentage of your fresh Ponderous Ark clams goes to each of these states?

Top 4 States for Fresh Ponderous Ark Clam Volume Percent
%
%

%

%


I


I






UNIVERSITY OF
. FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Q16. Approximately, how many fresh Ponderous Ark clams did you sell in all of 2001?
(Give estimate in number of clams)

What percentage of these were sold in the Winter (Jan. March)? %
What percentage of these was sold in the Spring (April June)? %
What percentage of these was sold in the Summer (July Sept.)? %
What percentage of these was sold in the Fall (Oct. Dec.)? %
TOTAL 1(
%

Q17. In 2001, what were the lowest, highest, and average prices you paid for fresh
Ponderous Ark clams? (Give prices on a per clam basis)

Lowest price cents each


Highest price

Average price


cents each

cents each


Q18. How would you rate the overall quality of fresh Ponderous Ark clams that you
received during the past year? (Use a rating scale where 10=excellent and O=very poor.
You may select any number from 0 to 10).

OVERALL QUALITY RATING:

Q19. What, if anything, could Ponderous Ark clam producers do to increase retail sales?







Q20. What types of outlets buy fresh Ponderous Ark clams from your firm?
(Check all that apply)


Other wholesalers (re-shippers)


Large retail grocers


Specialty seafood retailers Independent restaurants
Small retail grocers Chain restaurants
Q21. In your opinion, what ethnic groups represent the most important markets for fresh
Ponderous Ark clams? (List in order of importance, where almost important and
4=least important)
1st






, T'li UNIVERSITY OF
i',FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Q22. On average what is the shelf life of fresh Ponderous Ark clams?
Days from Harvest:


Q23. Which of the following shell sizes of Ponderous Ark clams are most popular in
your market? (Rank 1s, 2nd, 3rd and 4th)

Small Average /4 inch wide, 114 inches long, 32 clams/pound
Medium Average 1 inch wide, 12 inches long, 24 clams/pound
Large Average 14A inches wide, 13/4 inches long, 12 clams/pound
Extra Large Average 1% inches wide, 2/4 inches long, 7 clams/pound

Q24. Which of the following meat colors of Ponderous Ark clams do you prefer?
(Check only one)
Lighter color
Medium color
Darker color
No preference

Q25. Which of the following categories best describes your total shellfish sales for 2001?
(Check appropriate answer)


Less than $100,000
$100,000 to $499,999
$500,000 to $999,999


$1,000,000 to $4,999,999
$5,000,000 to $9,999,999
$10,000,000 or more







UNIVERSITY OF
. FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Q26. Which of the following aquacultured clams, if any, would you be willing to evaluate
next year (Fall of 2003)? (Check appropriate boxes (es) and provide name, address, etc.
below)


I want to evaluate a sample of Blood Ark Clams
I want to evaluate a sample of Ponderous Ark Clams


NAME


TITLE


STREET


CITY


STATE


TELEPHONE (


EMAIL


O Yes
O Yes


O No
O No


ZIP






,',ai UNIVERSITY OF
',, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


APPENDIX B






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,<', i UNIVERSITY OF
,.,FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Phase II, Shellfish Industry Questionnaires






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey









Shellfish Industry Survey


Blood Ark Clam Questionnaire (Anadara ovalis)
(Orange Mesh Bag)


Arrival Condition

(1) Please smell the Blood Ark clams.
Are you able to detect an odor or not? [Check one]
No Yes

If yes, how would you describe the odor? [Check one]
1 2 3


Very
Unpleasant


Slightly
Unpleasant


Neutral


,i, :l UNIVERSITY OF
',FLORIDA


4
Slightly
Pleasant


(2) Please circle the number that reflects overall arrival condition:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely
Poor
Comments:

(3) Please rate the appearance of the shells [Circle one number]:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very
Unattractive

(4) Please rate the color of the meat (entire animal) [Circle one number]:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very
Unattractive
Comments:


8 9 10
Extremely
Good


8 9 10
Very
Attractive


8 9 10
Very
Attractive


(5) Please rate the taste for the serving methods) you used [Circle one number]:


If eaten raw:
0 1
Very
Poor


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely
Good


If cooked, circle the cooking method (steamed, microwaved, baked, or broiled), then rate taste
[Circle one number]:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very Extremely
Poor Good

(6) Please rate the texture of the Blood Ark clams [Circle one number]:


Much Slightly
Too Tough Too Tough


Just
Right


Slightly
Too Soft


5
Much
Too Soft


(7) There are two size grades of Blood Ark clams in the orange mesh bag, "medium" and "large".
Which size do you feel would be most popular in your market area? [Check one]
SMedium __ Large __ Both equally popular __ Do not know


5
Very
Pleasant







".." UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey
(8) If Blood Ark clams were available year round at prices comparable to hard clams from Florida, how
many, if any, do you feel you could sell each week? [Enter number per week]
SBlood Ark clams per week

(9) Please give us your general reaction to these Blood Ark clams (use back if necessary):









Shellfish Industry Survey


Ponderous Ark Clam Questionnaire (Noetia ponderosa)
(Black Mesh Bag)


Arrival Condition
(1) Please smell the Ponderous Ark clams.
Are you able to detect an odor or not? [Check one]
No Yes

If yes, how would you describe the odor? [Check one]
1 2 3


Very
Unpleasant


Slightly
Unpleasant


Neutral


,','i UNIVERSITY OF
S,,FLORIDA


4
Slightly
Pleasant


5
Very
Pleasant


(2) Please circle the number that reflects overall arrival condition:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely
Poor
Comments:

(3) Please rate the appearance of the shells [Circle one number]:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very
Unattractive

(4) Please rate the color of the meat (entire animal) [Circle one number]:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very
Unattractive
Comments:


8 9 10
Extremely
Good


8 9 10
Very
Attractive


8 9 10
Very
Attractive


(5) Please rate the taste for the serving methods) you used [Circle one number]:


If eaten raw:
0 1
Very
Poor


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely
Good


If cooked, circle the cooking method (steamed, microwaved, baked, or broiled), then rate taste
[Circle one number]:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Very
Poor


(6) Please rate the texture of the Ponderous Ark clams [Circle one number]:
1 2 3 4
Much Slightly Just Slightly
Too Tough Too Tough Right Too Soft


(7) Please rate the size of the Ponderous Ark clams:
1 2 3
Much Slightly Just
Too Small Too Small Right


4
Slightly
Too Large


Extremely
Good


5
Much
Too Soft


5
Much
Too Large







S UNIVERSITY OF
t FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


(8) If Ponderous Ark clams were available year round at prices comparable to hard clams from Florida,
how many, if any, do you feel you could sell each week? [Enter number per week]
SPonderous Ark clams per week

(9) Please give us your general reaction to these Ponderous Ark clams (use back if necessary):






,',ai UNIVERSITY OF
',, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


APPENDIX C






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,', :i UNIVERSITY OF
I ',,FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Phase II, Shellfish Industry Comments






fi-. UNIVERSITY OF
,, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






:'-. U UNIVERSITY OF
OFLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey LDA



Appendix C, Table 1. Respondents' Comments About Blood Ark Clams, Phase II Findings.
Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
1 Clam was interesting in looks. Taste was bitter.

2 Good for sushi.
3 Very good in the future market. Let me know when the
clams are available.
4 Should have cleaner shell to Hard to open with a knife. The clams were rubbery but
steam. OK taste.
5
6 Sent out whole. They like the ponderous ark better.
7 The appearance is the major factor for selling this
product. Comparable to others, seems Asian market is
your best bet.
8 Red in color. This type of clam would only be on interest to certain
ethnic groups. However, if you went after these specific
markets, this clam could be successful.
9 The color of the Good flavor and texture.
meat is a turnoff
10 Would have a hard time competing against our black soft
shell mud clams, sweet and tender, state of ME has 2"
shell size on clams with 10% tolerance.
11 Raw ugly/cooked They suck raw.
normal/not as furry.
12 Bad, bad gross. Salty but tough when raw, steamed: took way too long,
safety issue. Brown steam water would not cut! Health
issue. Shell nicer shape than other sample. How clean
shell before steaming? Water after steaming "gross":
brown with stuff in it? Overall attitude from samplers,
"GROSS".
13







~i UNIVERSITY OF
.FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
14 As far as these Clams need to be larger.
animals go, meat is
acceptable.
15 As far as I know no one eats them. We throw them away
for junk.
16 Not bad. Comparable to Northern wahoganays, which I
do not sell.
17 Ice pack was Cooked ones are imported from Korea, which does not
all melted. give much flavor. Will be a good selling item if prices are
right.
18 Dirt on clams and redness of People in this area will not buy them because of the dirt
clams. on clams and the redness in clam.
19 Very good flavor, ugly meat.
20
21 Could be a product a market could be developed for.
22 Fresh, good overall appearance, different taste.
23 All alive and Bulk fuzz needs to Fuzz and blood a problem.
cold. be removed, blood
appearance borders
on unappealing.
24 Looks like raw In comparison to many fine clams available on the West
liver. Coast which are attractive, easy to cook, and very tasty
with a sweeter flavor, we do not feel these clams would
be marketable in our marketing area. Due to the very
heavy shells, the shelf life would probably be good,
however, at the same time shipping costs would be more
expensive. We are sorry that our answers are brutally
frank and wish we could be more positive.
25 They wouldn't open could not eat.
26 My feelings are the same for both clams except this clam
was easy to cook and get out of shell.






:'-. U UNIVERSITY OF
OFLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey LDA


Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
27 Hard to clean organic material off This clam was hard to clean which would make them a
shell, poor choice for use as a whole garnish, i.e.: white clam
sauce or marinara.
28 Very unattractive. Very unattractive open rapidly when steamed meat
tasted all right but the color, texture and overall
appearance was very poor. The color was much too dark.
29 Not able to sell to my customers.
30 Rather bitter in taste, volume of meat relating to shell size
poor. In my opinion, these would be more valuable for
their shells.
31 Shell stock Dark color blood Not appetizing.
temp average juice.
50 degrees.
32 Not saleable in this area.
33 Temp of clams I do not like the blood. Temp of clams 58 degrees. Not
58 degrees. enough ice in package. Product needs to be 40 degrees or
below.
34
35 Interior of box Hairy cover not likeable. Not as white! Dark I elected to steam the blood ark clams, as I feel steaming
was warm gel chocolate brown is the way of the future. I found the clams to be tender,
packs melted stomach. but still full of too much liquid to say I honestly liked
but clams firm. their texture. I did however steam them only until they
opened and then sampled. After 3 days of adequate cold
storage, I found the blood ark clams "edible" but no
desirable. Even after waiting for a "drying-out period"
after initial steaming, I still found them "visceral". Too
many thin skinny membranes to be chewed and
swallowed. Just to me though, but I love eating clams.
Overall 3 out of 10. Upon steaming blood arks, already
noticed they did not steam open as quickly.
36 Cool in good If they were cheap enough, people may buy them. They
shape. would not be good for steamed half shells.
37 Shell stock looked good to me The reddish color Shell stock looked good to me except for moss growth on







~i UNIVERSITY OF
0tFLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
except for moss growth on shell. not attractive, shell. Good texture, good flavor compared to ME hard
shell clam. Only drawback is red blood color when eaten
raw. Didn't cook any.
38 Due to clams being Due to clams being almost black, they lefts a black film
almost black, they in the pan. Not good and only one clam opened after 15
lefts a black film in minutes of steaming.
the pan.
39 The larger blood clam would be easier for us to sell, as
our customers prefer the larger size. I could easily sell 3
to 5k lbs. weekly.
40 Very nice, They are very The clams were shipped 11/17 and our test was done
clean colorful compared 11/21.
appearance. to other shellfish.
41 Fuzzy dirty 'appearance' Bad name, fuzzy dirty 'appearance' not desirable in this
area compared to hard shell clam or midneck clam.
42 Could eat raw or steamed. Liked salinity vs. ponderous
arks.
43 I would want to scrub before Better than Some chefs preferred ponderous while others preferred
serving looks like not super- ponderous arks. blood. I found few chefs that were ready to jump on
sanitary. product.
44
45
46 Not suitable for this area where we have our own hard
clams.
47
48 Glad to see them have customers with interest.
49 The blood ark was not as strong as the ponderous ark
clam.
50 Much too strong flavor.
51 Excellent taste and presentation.
52 Clams travel Lighter meat Don't have a market. There is a limited Asian market in
well. usually a positive. NYC for these clams. I have no exposure to those mkts.






:~'. U UNIVERSITY OF
OFLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey R


Appendix C, Table 2. Respondents' Comments About Ponderous Ark Clams, Phase II Findings.
Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
1 Had better taste than others, but needed something to
spice it up, I steamed in water only.
2 Good for sushi.
3 Very good for the future market.
4 Could not open more than two clams by
steaming/boiling/microwaving or with a knife.
5
6 Looked like something for the Oriental market.
7 Again, the appearance, taste and texture of clams
designate good sales for our niche market. This would be
a hard sell compared to other clams.
8 Red in color. Most American clam eaters would not find this type of
clam desirable. It is very popular, however, among
certain ethnic groups. If marketed specifically this type of
shellfish would be very successful.
9 Flavor good (color not). Texture could be better. Good
chowder clam.
10 Would have hard time competing against our black soft
shell mud clams, sweet and tender, state of ME has 2"
shell size on clams with 10% tolerance.
11 Kind of They double-suck raw / Good cooked / Unique.
furry.
12 Shell square-shaped (weird). Bad, bad, gross, Shell square-shaped (weird). Growth of other creatures
bio-fouled. looked bad. When opened blood juice on shucking hand.
"To sell must hide processing (cooking) from everyone.
No way in traditional recipes. Terrible visual." I needed
(perception) to wash hands thoroughly with soap after
shucking and cooking these "clams". Normally I do, but
only as required. Yucky stuff.
13
14 Pretty gross to me! Theses animals need to be developed. Current market







~i~- UNIVERSITY OF
0tFLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
thinks large is better.
15 As far as I know no one eats them, we throw them away
for junk.
16 When I cooked these clams they did not open which lead
to over-cooking and therefore way too tough.
17 Ice pack was Know as an expensive side dish in Korea, but cannot be
melted. imported unless cooked, which takes away the flavor.
Could be regularly sold items for Korean and Japanese
market and restaurants, and even exporting to Korea.
18 Too much blood and dirt. Too much blood, customer will not buy anything that
looks like that. Too much dirt on shells. Clam in this area
are spawning when red. People will not buy.
19 Bland taste.
20
21 Could be a product that could be developed for Asian
markets.
22 Nice, well-rounded product.
23 All alive and Blood appearance borders on Fuzz and blood a problem.
cold. unappealing.
24 Well-packed Appearance hairiness and black Very dark juice Appearance hairiness and black color unattractive;
but gel was color unattractive; shape OK. looks bloody very shape OK. The black color of the raw meat and juice is
melted. unappetizing. not very appealing or appetizing. The inside of the shell
is very attractive and would be wonderful for serving,
however, the meat was not attractive or appetizing, the
raw clam was extremely difficult to open for a Westerner,
as our clams open much more readily. We found the
clams difficult to cook as the cooking times varied
greatly. Out of clams, 3 opened after 35 minutes, 1 after 6
minutes, 4 did not open after 10 minutes. If over-cooking
toughens the clam meat, preparation of the clams would
be difficult. The broth was fairly good but the color was
not appetizing.
25 Visually much different than what New England is






:'-. U UNIVERSITY OF
OFLORIDA
Shellfish Industry Survey LDA


Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
accustomed to. Very bloody wouldn't want to eat them
uncooked. Nice briny clam flavor. Very chewy.
26 It is what it is buy I have been a fisherman all my life I would eat anything
most people would that comes out of the sea, but these clams would be very
not like color, hard to sell. They don't taste better than a hard clam and
look worse. The price would have to start very low to
encourage people to try them also the name is not very
enticing. Mussel clam would market better. The meat
looks somewhat like a mussel. This clams was also very
hard to open even when cooked a long time and the juice
was dark.
27 Again, shell hard to clean, which makes them a poor
choice for whole clam garnish.
28 Too dark very The smaller-sized clams failed to open when steamed.
unappetizing. The larger opens opened but were very unappealing.
29 Not able to sell to my customers.
30 Rather bitter in taste, meats were small and dark in color.
Not very marketable in this area (NE).
31 50 degrees. Unacceptable to replace hard shell clams but product if
grown to 3"+ possible market for processing, canning,
etc.
32 Not saleable in this area.
33 Temp @ time First time I saw them, not very First time I saw them, not very attractive. Do not like the
of arrival 58 attractive, blood. Temp @ time of arrival 58 degrees. Package needs
degrees. more ice. Product should be 40 degrees or below.
34
35 Warm cooler Less brown than Better than blood arks they did not steam open after 10
product blood ark. minutes of hard steaming. Actually had to pry open the
OK! shells to get them open. Way too much cooking time and
work! The other had a much better "steamed" texture, but
was so hard to get to. Overall I would rate the ponderous
ark higher in every category except cooking time. I only
steamed; maybe others had better luck with micro, broil,







.f.i- UNIVERSITY OF
0tFLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Obs. No. Condition Appearance Color General Reactions
etc. Hope people did broil, micro. Good luck!
36 Cool in Dark. More long than round and meat more... like blood.
good shape.
37 Red blood color. Did not like the taste. Bitter and had an aftertaste.
38 Who wants to eat a clam with fur? Meats are light to Who wants to eat a clam with fur? Some clams too small,
dark brown. the small clams had no black on them and were tender. It
seems you sent three different species.
39 Definitely a blood I feel these are probably a more pleasant clam to look at
clam. and possibly a higher quality clam than the blood ark.
40

41 Fuzzy appears dirty. Dark. Fuzzy appears dirty. Do not see a market in my area.
42 Raw and steamed OK, prefer steamed vs. raw or baked.
43 Like inside of shell's appearance No used to It would take prior marketing tools and efforts to sell
outside looked dirty to me and appearance takes them. After 30 years selling full line seafood this seems
makes me think of bacterial some getting used like an Asian item. Tough visually, can be decent flavor
environment and costly scrubbing. to. if you get past visual. Overall, raw shucked appearance
hard to stomach, I eat raw oysters on the /2 shell for
breakfast frequently.
44
45
46 They're no substitute for necks. Not likely to be popular
here.
47
48 Have customers with interest.
49 Too strong of taste compared to the blood ark clams.
50
51 They did not open upon steaming.
52 Clams have Too dark. Have no established market for clam. Some use among Asian
good shelf communities. Too dark for most clam consumers. Consumers
life. want light-colored meat. Even yellow turns them away. They
connect dark with a negative something wrong!






,',ai UNIVERSITY OF
',, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


APPENDIX D






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,:'li N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA

NUTRITIONAL ANALYSES

Procedure

Comprehensive nutritional analyses were conducted for the Blood Ark clam and the
Ponderous Ark clam. Samples of cultured ark clams were collected from their respective
growing areas in St. Augustine (east coast of Florida) and Cedar Key (west coast of
Florida). One hundred grams of meat (wet weight) were shucked for each ark clam
species. The meat samples were delivered in coolers to an accredited private food-testing
laboratory in Gainesville. Official methods were used following the AOAC (Association
of Official Analytical Chemists) Official Methods of Analysis (Horwitz, 2002).

Blood Ark Clams

The nutrition facts and labeling for cultured Blood Ark clams are provided below
(Appendix D, Figure 1). These facts are determined for a serving size of 100 grams of raw,
edible portion. This serving is low in calories (35) and total fat (0.5 g) and high in protein
(7 g). Cholesterol is relatively low (35 mg), with the serving portion representing 12
percent of the daily value. There is no detectable carbohydrate (0 g) in this portion. In
terms of percent daily value, a serving of Blood Ark clams provides six percent of Vitamin
A, two percent of Vitamin C, and six percent of calcium. Blood Ark meats are high in iron
(70% of daily value), which is most likely associated with the presence of hemoglobin and
erythrocytes in the clam meats. Of note is the high sodium content (740 mg) that
represents 31 percent of the daily value. Even for a saltwater mollusk, which is a
suspension feeder, this level is particularly high. One plausible explanation for this may
be that the meat sample (wet weight) contained fluids from within the shells. These
trapped fluids may have abnormally increased the sodium content.

Ponderous Ark Clams

The nutrition facts and labeling for cultured Ponderous Ark clams are provided
below (Appendix D, Figure 1). These facts are determined for a serving size of 100 grams
of raw, edible portion. Like the Blood Ark clams, this serving is low in calories (50) and
total fat (1.0 g), and even higher in protein (11 g). Cholesterol is higher than in the Blood
Ark sample at 55 mg, representing 18 percent of the daily value. There is little
carbohydrate (1 g). In terms of percent daily value, a serving of Ponderous Ark clams
provides six percent of Vitamin A, four percent of Vitamin C, and ten percent of calcium.
Ponderous Ark meats are also high in iron (50 percent of daily value), again most likely
associated with the blood pigment content. Although the sodium content (480 mg) is lower
than that for the Blood Ark clams, it is still relatively high representing 20 percent of the
daily value.

Comparison with Hard Clams

A nutritional analysis for the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria was obtained from
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Seafood and
Aquaculture Marketing. Approximate nutritional values for four ounces (114 grams) of
raw, edible portion consisted of the following: Calories-80; Calories from fat-10; Total Fat-








Shellfish Industry Survey


UNIVERSITY OF
t FLORIDA


1 gram; Saturated Fat-0 gram; Cholesterol-45 milligrams; Sodium-65 milligrams;
Carbohydrate-0 gram; Protein-18 grams; Calcium-4 percent Recommended Daily Intake;
and, Iron-20 percent Recommended Daily Intake. Information on Vitamin A and Vitamin
C values was not available.

When comparing these hard clam values with those obtained for the ark clams, the
hard clam is slightly higher in calories and protein, but similar in total fats, cholesterol and
total carbohydrate. Greater differences between the hard clam and ark clams are found in
the iron and sodium values. Ark clams provide two to three times the percent daily values
for iron than hard clams, whereas ark clams contain ten times the amount of sodium than
hard clams. Like the hard clam and other molluscan shellfish, ark clams are a nutritious
and excellent source of protein. Ark clams are especially good sources of iron and
calcium. However, based on these results consumers who must restrict their intake of
sodium should take these nutritional facts into consideration or reduce their portion size.

Appendix D, Figure 1. Nutrition Facts for Blood Ark Clams (left) and Ponderous Ark
Clams (right).


Nutrition Facts
Serving Size (100g)
Servings Per Container
Amount Per Serving
Calories 35 Calories from Fat 5
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0.5g 1 %
Saturated Fat Og 0%
Cholesterol 35mg 12%
Sodium 740mg 31%
Total Carbohydrate Og 0 %
Dietary Fiber less than 1 gram 4 %
Sugars 3g
Protein 7g

Vitamin A 6% Vitamin C 2%
Calcium 6% Iron 70%
"Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000
calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher
or lower depending on your calorie needs:
Calories: 2.000 2.500
Total Fat Less than 65g 80g
Saturated Fat Less than 20g 25g
Cholesterol Less than 300mg 300mg
Sodium Less than 2,400mg 2.400mg
Total Carbohydrate 300g 375g
Dietary Fiber 25g 30g
Calories per gram:
Fat 9 Carbohydrate 4 Protein 4


Nutrition Facts
Serving Size (100g)
Servings Per Container

Amount Per Serving
Calories 50 Calories from Fat 5
% Daily Value'
Total Fat 1g 1%
Saturated Fat Og 0%
Cholesterol 55mg 18%
Sodium 480mg 20%
Total Carbohydrate 1 g 0%
Dietary Fiber less than 1 gram 4 %
Sugars 3g
Protein 11 g

Vitamin A 6% Vitamin C 4%
Calcium 10% Iron 50%
"Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000
calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher
or lower depending on your calorie needs:
Calories: 2.000 2,500
Total Fat Less than 65g 80g
Saturated Fat Less than 20g 25g
Cholesterol Lessthan 300mg 300mg
Sodium Less than 2.400mg 2,400mg
Total Carbohydrate 300g 375g
Dietary Fiber 25g 30g
Calories per gram:
Fat g Carbohydrate 4 Protein 4






,',ai UNIVERSITY OF
',, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


APPENDIX E






".." UNIVERSITY OF
, FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey






,T'li N DIVERSITY OF
Shellfish Industry Survey `.FLORIDA

SHELF LIFE EVALUATION

Molluscan shellfish are typically shipped as live shellstock and adequate shelf life is
an important product attribute. Federal regulations require that live mollusks be placed in
refrigerated storage (<450F) within a predetermined time/temperature harvest matrix in
order to reduce probable levels of Vibrio bacteria (FDA, 2003). For these reasons, the shelf
life of live Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams was investigated to assure product quality
and safety.

Procedure

To determine the survival of these two ark clam species in refrigerated storage,
evaluation of shelf life was conducted in April 2004. Procedures followed those developed
by Applewhite et al. (1996) and Otwell (1998) for determining shelf life of hard clams
Mercenaria mercenaria. Blood Ark clams were harvested from a commercial shellfish
aquaculture lease located in the Intercoastal Waterway on the east coast of Florida at 8:00
AM on March 31, whereas Ponderous Ark clams were harvested from a commercial lease
in the Gulf of Mexico on the west coast of Florida at 9:00 AM on the same day. Bottom
water temperatures at the time of harvest were recorded. Immediately post harvest, ark
clams were transported in coolers under ambient conditions to the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission's marine laboratory in Cedar Key. At 1:00 PM ark
clams were received at the laboratory and placed under tempering conditions at 680F
following protocols defined in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, Model
Ordinance, Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish, VIII@.03 OPTION 1.E (FDA,
2003) and the Comprehensive Shellfish Control Code, Rule Chapter 5L-1.013(3)(b),
Florida Administrative Code. During tempering, 100 ark clams were randomly selected
from each species, of which a sub-sample of 25 was measured and weighed. Each ark clam
sample of 100 was then placed into polyethylene tubular netting, which is typically used by
shellfish dealers in bagging and transporting hard clams.

As defined in the harvest time/temperature matrix per Rule Chapter 5L-1.008(5),
FAC, molluscan shellfish must be placed into refrigeration within 12 hours of the time of
harvest during the month of April. If tempering is included as an alternative post-harvest
process, then the time to refrigeration can be extended up to 16 hours from the time of
harvest. Ark clams were placed into a thermostat-controlled refrigerator set at the standard
storage temperature of 450F on March 31 at 7:30 PM. Air temperatures were recorded
inside the refrigerator using a minimum/maximum thermometer. The ark clams were
checked daily for survival with the exception of two days during the evaluation period.
Gapped ark clams were determined to be "commercially dead" when they did not respond
by closing their shell to specified agitation, or tapping, after the ark clams were held for a
short time at room temperature. Dead ark clams were counted and removed from the
sample bags. The general conditions of the ark clams during storage were also noted. The
evaluation was conducted until 50 percent of the ark clams died. Percent survival for each
ark clam species was determined.







".."" UNIVERSITY OF
A FLORIDA
Blood Ark Clams


Shellfish Industry Survey


Water temperature at the time of harvest of the Blood Ark clams was 670F. The
clams used in the Blood Ark sample averaged 1 7/8" in shell length, 1 14" in shell width
and 12.6 per pound. During the shelf life evaluation, minimum air temperatures in the
refrigerator averaged 41.40F (+/-3.30F) and maximum air temperatures averaged 52.4F
(+/-2.50F). The overall average daily temperature was 46.90F (+/-2.70F). The
noncommercial refrigerator used in this study was not able to maintain air temperatures
consistently below 45 F.

The first Blood Ark mortality occurred on the fourth day of the evaluation.
Mortalities were not noted again until the tenth day when five Blood Ark clams did not
respond to agitation. Mortalities then occurred almost daily, with the number of mortalities
increasing rapidly after the 19th day. On Day 23, the cumulative number of dead Blood Ark
clams was 57 and the shelf life evaluation was terminated (Appendix E, Table 1).

Appendix E, Table 1. Number of Blood Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated Storage.

Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead


-----n-----


---- n-----


3-31-2004
4-01-2004
4-02-2004
4-03-2004
4-04-2004
4-05-2004
4-06-2004
4-07-2004
4-08-2004
4-09-2004
4-10-2004
4-11-2004
4-12-2004
4-13-2004
4-14-2004
4-15-2004
4-16-2004
4-17-2004
4-18-2004






,',:;i UNIVERSITY OF
S',,FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead
----n--- ------n-----

4-19-2004 19 10 23
4-20-2004 20 6 29
4-21-2004 21 9 38
4-22-2004 22 11 49
4-23-2004 23 8 57
Total 23 57 57

Survival of Blood Ark clams in refrigerated storage was 99 percent or greater
during the first nine days of the evaluation. Survivals dropped below 90 percent and 50
percent after Days 13 and 23, respectively (Appendix E, Figure 1). After the first week of
the evaluation, liquid began accumulating in the bottom of the tray holding the Blood Ark
bag. The tray was wiped clean daily thereafter. In addition, gaping occurred frequently in
the live Blood Ark clams and agitation was required before they would close. The
remaining live ark clams at the end of the evaluation sounded "hollow" and a strong odor
was detected. A commercial mortality of greater than five percent would be considered
unacceptable by the shellstock shipper industry, thus the shelf life of Blood Ark clams
harvested under spring conditions may be limited to ten days. During warmer water
temperatures experienced in summer months, shelf life may be further reduced, thus
limiting shipment of live Blood Ark clams during that time period.

Appendix E, Figure 1. Survival of Blood Ark Clams in Refrigerated Storage.
10010010099 99 99 99 99 99
100 94 92 90 88 88 87
--I I ONEME 9098888


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Days


Ponderous Ark Clams

Water temperature at the time of harvest of the Ponderous Ark clams was 680F.
The clams used in the Ponderous Ark sample averaged 2" in shell length, 1 3/8" in shell







. UNIVERSITYOF Shellfish Industry Survey
FLORIDA
width and 10.5 per pound. During the shelf life evaluation, minimum air temperatures in
the refrigerator averaged 41.40F (+/-3.30F) and maximum air temperatures averaged 52.4F
(+/-2.50F). The overall average daily temperature was 46.90F (+/-2.70F). The
noncommercial refrigerator used in this study was not able to maintain air temperatures
consistently below 45 F.

The first Ponderous Ark mortality occurred on the twenty-third day of the
evaluation. This was the same day that the Blood Ark evaluation was concluded since over
50 percent of those ark clams had died. It was decided to terminate the Ponderous Ark
evaluation on the same day (Appendix E, Table 2).

Appendix E, Table 2. Number of Ponderous Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated Storage.

Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead
------n----- -----------

3-31-2004 0 0 0
4-01-2004 1 0 0
4-02-2004 2 0 0
4-03-2004 3 0 0
4-04-2004 4 0 0
4-05-2004 5 0 0
4-06-2004 6 0 0
4-07-2004 7 0 0
4-08-2004 8 0 0
4-09-2004 9 0 0
4-10-2004 10 0 0
4-11-2004 11 0 0
4-12-2004 12 0 0
4-13-2004 13 0 0
4-14-2004 14 0 0
4-15-2004 15 0 0
4-16-2004 16 0 0
4-17-2004 17 0
4-18-2004 18 0
4-19-2004 19 0 0
4-20-2004 20 0 0
4-21-2004 21 0 0






,., :i UNIVERSITY OF
'FLORIDA


Shellfish Industry Survey


Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead
------n---- -----n-----

4-22-2004 22 0 0
4-23-2004 23 1 1
Total 23 1 1

Survival of Ponderous Ark clams in refrigerated storage was 100 percent during the
first 22 days of the evaluation. Only on Day 23 did the survival drop to 99 percent. The
majority of the Ponderous Ark clams remained tightly closed throughout the evaluation
with no liquid accumulating on the bottom of the tray holding the Ponderous Ark bag.
There was no gapping observed in the remaining live ark clams and no odors were detected
(Appendix E, Figure 2).

Appendix E, Figure 2. Survival of Ponderous Ark Clams in Refrigerated Storage.


100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


100 100100100 99


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Days


Comparison with Hard Clams


A baseline for the survival of Florida farm-raised hard clams during refrigeration
was obtained for product harvested from commercial aquaculture leases in the Gulf of
Mexico during April through October 1997 (Otwell, 1998). In April, 100 percent of the
hard clams survived for seven days after placement in refrigerated storage. After ten days,
the survival of hard clams dropped to 90 percent. In this study, the Blood Ark clams
showed similar responses to refrigerated storage as hard clams. It may be that like hard
clams, survival of Blood Arks may be reduced when harvested during the warmer summer
months. However, extending the tempering protocol to its full duration of 16 hours may
help prolong the refrigerated shelf life of Blood Arks as it has with hard clams. The
tolerance of live Ponderous Ark clams to refrigerated temperatures exceeds that observed
for hard clams and other molluscan shellfish, such as oysters. These results demonstrate
that commercial distribution of live shellstock of both ark clam species is achievable.






UNIVERSITYOF Shellfish Industry Survey
FLORIDA
Alternative harvesting, handling and storage techniques, such as tempering, used to
increase survival of hard clams in refrigerated storage when harvest water temperatures
exceed 80F should also be considered for the Blood Ark clam.




Full Text

PAGE 1

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Marketing Opportunities for Two Ark Clam Species: Blood Ark Clams ( Anadara ovalis) And Ponderous Ark Clams ( Noetia ponderosa) By Robert L. Degner, Tiffany B. So uthwell, Leslie N. Sturmer, and Kimberly L. Morgan Industry Report 05-1 June 2005 Submitted in partial fulfillment of USDA-CREES Grant No. 200234453-11946, entitled “Diversificatio n for the Hard Clam Aquaculture Industry Through Investigation of Blood Ark, Anadara ovalis, and Ponderous Ark, Noetia ponderosa, Culture and Marketability.” Cooperative Extension Service and Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Food and Resource Economics Department Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, Florida

PAGE 2

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 3

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................i TABLE OF TABLES........................................................................................................iii TABLE OF FIGURES........................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................1 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... .3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................9 OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................10 PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................11 Phase I Procedure..........................................................................................................11 Phase II Procedure........................................................................................................13 Phase III Procedure.......................................................................................................13 PHASE I FINDINGS: THE CURRE NT MARKET SITUATION..................................14 Blood Ark Clams..........................................................................................................14 Ponderous Ark Clams...................................................................................................17 PHASE I CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS FR OM SHELLFISH DEALERS’ SURVEY...18 PHASE II FINDINGS: SHELLFISH SHIPPE RS’ EVALUATIONS OF BLOOD ARK AND PONDEROUS ARK CLAM SAMPLES................................................................18 Geographic Distribution of the Samples.......................................................................18 Blood Ark Clams..........................................................................................................19 Arrival Condition of Blood Ark Clam Samples.......................................................19 Evaluation of Blood Ark Clam s’ Shell Appearance.................................................20 Evaluation of Blood Ark Cl ams’ Meat Color...........................................................21 Blood Ark Clam Serving Methods and Taste Evaluations.......................................22 Texture Ratings for Blood Ark Clams......................................................................24 Size Preferences for Blood Ark Clams.....................................................................24 Estimated Weekly Sales Of Blood Ark Clams.........................................................26 General Observations on Blood Ark Clams..............................................................27 Ponderous Ark Clams...................................................................................................28 Arrival Condition of the Ponderous Ark Clams.......................................................28 Evaluation of Ponderous Ark Clams’ Shell Appearance..........................................29 Evaluation of Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color.......................................................30 Ponderous Ark Clam Serving Meth ods and Taste Evaluations................................31 Texture Ratings for Ponderous Ark Clams...............................................................32 Size Preferences for Ponderous Ark Clams..............................................................33 Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams..................................................34 General Observations on Ponderous Ark Clams......................................................35 Comparisons of Selected Attributes of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark Clams............36 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................37 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................39 APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................41

PAGE 4

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey ii Phase I, Shellfish Industry Questionnaires...................................................................43 APPENDIX B...................................................................................................................53 Phase II, Shellfish Indus try Questionnaires..................................................................55 APPENDIX C...................................................................................................................61 Phase II, Shellfish Industry Comments.........................................................................63 APPENDIX D...................................................................................................................73 NUTRITIONAL ANALYSES......................................................................................75 Procedure..................................................................................................................75 Blood Ark Clams......................................................................................................75 Ponderous Ark Clams...............................................................................................75 Comparison with Hard Clams...................................................................................75 APPENDIX E...................................................................................................................77 SHELF LIFE EVALUATION......................................................................................79 Procedure..................................................................................................................79 Blood Ark Clams......................................................................................................80 Ponderous Ark Clams...............................................................................................81 Comparison with Hard Clams...................................................................................83

PAGE 5

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA iii TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Questi onnaires and Response Rates, Phase I.................12 Table 2. Awareness of Blood Ark Clams Am ong Certified Shellfish Shippers..............14 Table 3. Reasons Why Previous Blood Ark Clam Dealers Are NOT Currently Selling Clams........................................................................................................................14 Table 4. Locations and Size Categories of Firms Currently Selling Blood Ark Clams..15 Table 5. Current Sellers’ Geogra phic Sources of Blood Ark Clams...............................15 Table 6. Current Sellers’ Destina tion Markets for Blood Ark Clams..............................16 Table 7. Number of Blood Ark Clams Sold in 2001 to Current Destination Markets....16 Table 8. Certified Shellfish Shippers’ Awareness of Ponderous Ark Clams..................17 Table 9. Destinations of Samples and Res ponse Rates, by U. S. Region, Phase II..........19 Table 10. Respondents’ Detection of Odor in Blood Ark Clams.....................................19 Table 11. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Sh ell Appearance, and Meat Color for Blood Ark Clams.................................................................................................................20 Table 12. Taste Ratings by Servi ng Method for Blood Ark Clams..................................22 Table 13. Cooking Methods and Taste Evaluations for Blood Ark Clams.....................23 Table 14. Estimated Weekly Sales of Blood Ark Clams..................................................26 Table 15. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sales of Blood Ark Clams, by U. S. Region.....26 Table 16. Detection of Odor in Ponderous Ark Clams.....................................................28 Table 17. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Shell Appearance and Meat Color for Ponderous Ark Clams...............................................................................................29 Table 18. Taste Ratings by Serving Me thod for Ponderous Ark Clams...........................31 Table 19. Cooking Methods and Taste Eval uations for Ponderous Ark Clams...............32 Table 20. Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams..........................................34 Table 21. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sales of Ponderous Ark Clam s, by U. S. Region. ............................................................................................................................... ....35 Table 22. Paired t-values fo r Selected Variables Blood and Ponderous Ark Clams......36 Appendix C, Table 1. Res pondents’ Comments About Blood Ark Clams, Phase II Findings.....................................................................................................................65 Appendix C, Table 2. Responde nts’ Comments About Ponde rous Ark Clams, Phase II Findings.....................................................................................................................69 Appendix E, Table 1. Number of Blood Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated Storage.80 Appendix E, Table 2. Number of Ponderous Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated Storage......................................................................................................................82

PAGE 6

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey iv

PAGE 7

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA v TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Description of O dor for Blood Ark Clams........................................................20 Figure 2. Blood Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings......................................................21 Figure 3. Blood Ark Clam Meat Color Ratings................................................................22 Figure 4. Blood Ark Clam Serving Methods Used by Respondents................................23 Figure 5. Blood Ark Clam Texture Ratings......................................................................25 Figure 6. Most Popular Blood Ark Clam Size..................................................................25 Figure 7. Description of Odor for Ponderous Ark Clams.................................................28 Figure 8. Ponderous Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings...............................................30 Figure 9. Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color Ratings.........................................................31 Figure 10. Ponderous Ark Clam Servi ng Methods Used by Respondents.......................32 Figure 11. Ponderous Ark Clam Texture Ratings.............................................................33 Appendix D, Figure 1. Nutrition Facts for Blood Ark Clams (left) and Ponderous Ark Clams (right).............................................................................................................76 Appendix E, Figure 1. Survival of Blood Ar k Clams in Refrigerated Storage................81 Appendix E, Figure 2. Survival of Ponderous Ark Clams in Refrigerated Storage.........83

PAGE 8

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey vi

PAGE 9

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are particularly grateful to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (USDACSREES) for funding this study under USDA Grant No. 2002-34453-11946, entitled “Diversification for the Hard Clam Aquaculture Industry Th rough Investigation of Blood Ark, Anadara ovalis, and Ponderous Ark, Noetia ponderosa, Culture and Marketability.” The authors also thank the many shellfish firm s nationwide that responded to our survey and evaluated samples of these clams.

PAGE 10

2 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 11

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3ABSTRACT In 2002-2003, a survey of certi fied shellfish dealers in the U.S. was conducted to determine the current state of the market a nd sales potential for aquacultured Blood Ark ( Anadara ovalis) and Ponderous Ark ( Noetia ponderosa ) clams. The survey revealed extremely limited trade awareness of the two species of clams; ove r 90 percent of all shellfish dealers were unfamiliar with them. Only one percent of responding firms reported selling these species of clams in 2002, and sa les were very limited. However, nearly onethird of all respondents were willing to ev aluate product samples of both species. In November 2003, the sub-sample of 102 firms that had initially agreed to evaluate samples of the two types of clams was contacted by telephone to confirm their willingness to evaluate product samples. Of these, a total of 82 firms agreed to examine and evaluate samples, but only 52 provided usable evaluati ons despite telephone follow up calls. The consensus of responding firms was that both species of ark clams had limited appeal to their traditional clam customers, but could be successfully marketed to ethnic consumers, particularly Hispanics and Asians.

PAGE 12

4 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 13

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 5EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant growth in Florida’s hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) industry has motivated aquaculturists to explore alternative molluscan shellfish species to reduce potential production risks and augment mark et expansion. Diversity of species could possibly provide some degree of protection agai nst catastrophic losses. Two alternative clam species with co mmercial potential are the Blood Ark ( Anadara ovalis ) and the Ponderous Ark ( Noetia ponderosa ). In the United States, wild stocks of Blood Arks range from Mass achusetts to Texas. They are also found in the Caribbean and coasts of Brazil. Th e Ponderous Ark is f ound from Virginia to Florida and from the Florida Keys to Te xas. Wild stocks of the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams are currently harveste d in North Carolina and Virginia in limited quantities for ethnic markets in the United States. The development of a major fishery for th ese species has been limited by a variety of factors, including dispersed wild ark clam populations, minimal understanding of clam reproduction, isolated ethnic market s. Until recently, these clams have been largely overlooked by the shellf ish and fishing industries. This research quantifies the shellfish trad e’s present awareness and acceptance of the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams as a first step in ev aluating the economic feasibility of producing these clams under aquacultured conditions. The basic objective of this study was to determine the present market potential of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams in the U.S. This study was conducted in three phases. The first was a nationw ide census of all certified shellfish shippers (dealers). Questionnaires were mailed to 2,133 firms to determine the current market situation for the two selected species of ark clams. Phase I also identified 83 firms that were willing to evaluate live samples of the clams for the second phase of the study. In Phase II, 83 firms received live samples of the two types of ark clams, and they were asked to evaluate a number of basic product characteristics, including appearance and organoleptic qualities. These cooperators were also asked to estimate potential sales through their respective firms. Phase III focused on physical attributes of the ark clams, specifically nutritional analyses of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark cl am meats, and on th e shelf life of live animals. PHASE I : About 92 percent of the respondi ng shellfish firms have had no experience with Blood Ark clams. Only one percent of respondent firms sold Blood Ark clams during 2001, thus it is apparent that market exposure in the U.S. is extremely limited. Among certified shellfish shi ppers that responded to the questionnaire, over 90 percent have had no experience with Ponde rous Ark clams. Less than two percent have seen them at trade shows, and only one percent sold them in the past. With only one respondent currently selling Ponder ous Arks, market exposure is presently extremely limited.

PAGE 14

6 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey It appears that the present market for the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams is extremely limited, due to limited trade knowledge of the products and inconsistent supplies at the producer and consumer le vels. Respondents mentioned the lack of consistent supplies, limited market outle ts and virtually nonexistent consumer demand. On a positive note, some shellfish shippers indicated an interest in learning more about these ark clam types. Out of 309 respondents, 97 provided mailing address information and requested Blood Ark clam samples, and 96 gave contact information in order to receive Ponderous Ark clam samples. However, when samples became available, only 83 firms agreed to accept and evaluate them. PHASE II : Samples of the two ark clam spec ies were harvested from approved shellfish waters in mid-November 2003, and he ld overnight in a re frigerated facility owned by a certified shellfish processor in Cedar Key, Florida. A sample of six Blood Ark clams, ranging in size from medium to large, and a combined sample of nine medium and six large Ponderous Ark clams were placed in separate small, color-coded plastic mesh bags with the pro cessor’s dealer tags a ffixed to each bag. The two bags of clams were placed in an insulated shipping container made of expanded polystyrene foam along with a frozen eight-ounce gel pack. The foam shipper was then placed inside a small, corrugated cardboard container along with evaluation instructions and a one-page que stionnaire for each type of clams. The samples were shipped via a major cour ier service within several hours of packaging, and delivered to all re cipients before noon the next day. Nearly half of the 83 samples were sent to firms in the Northeast, and nearly onethird went to firms in the South. Only tw o firms in the Midwest agreed to evaluate samples; both were in the Chicago area. Approximately one-fifth of the samples were shipped to firms on the west coast. Despite the care and diligence exercised in gaining the cooperation of the shellfish deal ers receiving samples, only 52 of the 83 provided completed product evaluations, even after several telephone follow-up calls. The overwhelming majority of the sample recipients indicated that the samples arrived in excellent condition, although severa l said their samples were slightly too warm for optimum shellfish storage cond itions. Respondents were asked whether or not they could detect an odor from the sa mples, and 60 percent could not. Of those that said they could detect an odor, a small minority de scribed the odor as “slightly unpleasant”. Respondents were asked to rate the appear ance of the shells using a zero to 10 rating scale where zero represented “very unattractive” and 10 “very attractive”. Both species of ark clams received medioc re evaluations, with average ratings of approximately five. Critics complained of the black color and “fuzzy” or “furry” appearance. There was concern that cleani ng would be time consuming and costly. Meat color was evaluated using the same ra ting scale, and the attractiveness ratings fared worse than that of shell appearan ce, with average ratings of 4.2 for Blood Arks and only 3.6 for Ponderous Arks. A pa ired t-test indicated that the rating differences were statistically significant. Meat color ratings were heavily skewed towards the “very unattractive” end of the rating scale; nearly 15 percent of the

PAGE 15

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 7 respondents gave a zero rating to Blood Arks and 22 percent gave a zero rating to meat color of Ponderous Arks. Most comm ents made with respect to meat color were negative, criticizing the bloody appear ance, but several were positive, stating the clam meat was “colorful” and “nor mal after cooking”. Respondents rated “taste” using a similar zero to 10 scale wher e zero represented “very poor” and 10 “extremely good”. Respondent s were asked to ra te taste if eaten raw, and also to rate taste if eaten cooked. Mean ratings were just under five for taste if eaten raw, and approximately five if eaten cooked. Ta ste ratings, whether eaten raw or cooked, were not statistically different for the two types of ark clams. Texture was evaluated using a five-point se mantic differential scale ranging from “much too tough” to “much to soft”, with the mid-point being “just right”. Fiftyfive percent of the respondents said the Blood Arks were slig htly or much too tough, and 60 percent described Ponderous Arks using these terms. Texture differences were not statistically sign ificant for the two species of clams. When asked how many of each of the two ki nds of clams they could sell each week, just over half of the dealers said they could not sell any of the Blood Arks. About one-fifth of all res pondents stated that they simply did not know how many they could sell. Eleven firms made positive sales projections, but these estimates were extremely variable, ranging from only 30 to 170,000 per week. Sixty percent of the respondent s felt they could not sell any Ponderous Ark clams. About one-fifth said they di d not know how many they co uld sell. Only eight firms provided weekly sales estimates; their responses ranged from 30 to 120,000 clams. When asked for general comments about the ark clam samples, numerous respondents said they had trouble cooking them. Comments were similar for both types of clams. Many said it took too long for them to cook; some said they never opened, and others said they were di fficult to open, even when cooked. Marketability issues were also menti oned by respondents; although many of the comments were negative, some were positive. Most positive comments reflected opinions that both types of ark clams had a ppeal to ethnic markets, primarily Asian consumers. As to the potential marketability of thes e species, the product evaluations and many of the respondents’ comment s indicate that these two species of ark clams are perceived as being too di fferent from clams currently available on the market. These findings, coupled with shellfish dealers’ unwillingness to evaluate free samples leads us to conclude that it is unlikely that there wi ll be widespread, mainstream demand for them. Despite the overall negative tone of thes e findings, market development proponents should recognize the importance of ethnic ma rkets in target lo cations on the East and West coasts. Targeting seafood dealer s in these areas with large Asian and Hispanic populations could resu lt in profitable niche markets. PHASE III : Comprehensive nutritional analyses were conducted for the Blood Ark and the Ponderous Ark clams. Samples of cultured ark clams were collected from their respective growing areas near St. A ugustine (east coast of Florida) and Cedar Key (west coast of Florida). An accredited private food-testing la boratory analyzed

PAGE 16

8 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey 100g samples of raw edible portions of both species. Official methods of analysis were used following the AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) guidelines. Details of the nutritional analyses are found in Appendix D, Table 1. The Blood Ark sample was found to be relatively low in calories (35) and total fat (0.5g), but high in protein (7g). Cholesterol was re latively low (35 mg) and there was no detectable carbohydrate in the sample. The 100g sample provided relatively low daily values of vitamins A (6%) and C (2%), as well as calcium (6%). However, Blood Ark meats are high in iron, providing 70 percent of daily requirements. The sodium content was also quite high at 740 mg, which represents 31 percent of the daily value. Ponderous Ark clams were also found to be low in calories (5) and total fat (1.0g) and even higher in protein (11g). Choleste rol was higher than in Blood Arks at 55 mg, representing 18 percent of the daily va lue, but carbohydrate was quite low (1g). In terms of percent of daily value, a 100 g serving of Ponderous Ark clams provides 6% of Vitamin A, 4% of V itamin C, and 10% of calcium Ponderous Arks are also high in iron (50 percent of da ily value). Sodium content is lower than in Blood Ark clams, but at 480 mg still relatively hi gh, providing 20 percent of daily value. Comparisons of hard clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ) values with those for the ark clams reveal the hard clam is slightly hi gher in calories and pr otein, but similar in total fats, cholesterol and carbohydrate. Ark clams provide two to three times more iron than hard clams, but they also pr ovide ten times the amount of sodium, a concern for consumers that must re strict their intake of sodium. To determine the survival of the ark clam species in refrigerated storage (approximately 45 F), a shelf life evaluation was conducted. Clams were handled in accordance with accepted regulatory pr otocol during and after harvest. Approximately 90 percent of the Blood Ar k clams survived 14 days, and by the 21st day, only 62 percent were alive. In cont rast, 100 percent of the Ponderous Ark clams survived 22 days, and 99 percent we re still alive when the experiment was terminated on Day 23. In summary, the current market for bot h Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams is very limited in the U.S. Very few certified shellfish dealers are currently selling them, probably less than one percent of a ll shellfish dealers. Further, there is widespread lack of familiarity with these species. Producer groups should work with the Division of Marketing of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Cons umer Services (FDACS) to provide information about Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams to potential dealers at national seafood trade shows. Such informati on could also be incorporated into the FDACS website to foster greater knowledge in the trade and to arouse dealers’ and consumers’ curiosity. These promotiona l methods could serve as relatively inexpensive promotional tools.

PAGE 17

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 9INTRODUCTION Hard clams have been successfully cultu red for commercial markets in Florida since the late 1970s (Sturmer), but the enac tment and implementation of the net ban in 1994 provided the economic motivation for rapid industry expansion. The development of Florida’s hard clam industry has proven to be mutually beneficial for fishermen adversely impacted by the net ban and clam farmers. Th e rapidly growing clam aquaculture industry has allowed fishermen to continue worki ng on the water and has provided hard clam aquaculturists with an experienced labor force. Since 1993, farm gate sales of aquacultured hard clams have increased from $3.7 million to $18.2 million in 2001 (Philippakos et al; Florida Agricultural Statistics Services [FASS]). In 2001, the Florida clam industry was comprised of 336 active growers; these clam farmers sold 142 million clams in 2001 at an average price of 11 cents each (FASS). All clams currently aquacultured in Florida are of the genus and species Mercenaria mercenaria The rapid growth of Florida’s hard cl am industry has motivated aquaculturists to explore alternative molluscan species. Production of addi tional species could reduce potential production risks and fo ster market expansion. By culturing only one species of clams, the industry is expos ed to potential production risks. For example, if Mercenaria mercenaria were particularly susceptible to a ra re disease and an outbreak occurred in Florida’s major clam production areas, severe economic losses could result. Diversity of species could possibly provide some degree of protection against such catastrophic losses. A second reason to explore production of other molluscan species is to offer consumers more choices, possibly increasing clam prod ucers’ total sales and profitability. Two possible species for production and ma rketing diversity are the Blood Ark ( Anadara ovalis) and the Ponderous Ark ( Noetia ponderosa ). In the United States, Blood Arks can be found from Cape C od, Massachusetts to Texas and the Caribbean to Brazil. The Ponder ous Ark is found from Virginia to Florida and from the Florida Keys to Texas (Abbott). Wild stocks of the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams are currently harvested on a limited basis for ethnic markets in the United States. The development of a major fishery for thes e species has been limited by a variety of factors. These factors include dispersed wild ark clam populations, limited understanding of clam reproduction, and relatively small, is olated ethnic markets. Until recently, these clams have been largely overlooked by th e shellfish and fishing industries. In the mid-1980s, a marketing survey of s eafood dealers in the United States and abroad (interested members of the shellfish tr ade received samples of live ark clams for evaluation) failed to produce evidence of viable markets (Anderson et al. 1984, Anderson and Eversole, 1985). Far Eastern markets proved to be most familiar with these clams, but their local supplies were more than adequa te, and prices were depressed. Low prices, market saturation, and transporta tion logistics effectively elimin ated the potential for these clams to be marketed in the Far East.

PAGE 18

10 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Even though small commercial markets were being developed in the U.S. in the early to mid 1980s, Anderson and his colleagues concluded from their studies that large investments of time and money would be requir ed to develop larger scale, successful markets for these clams. Despite their relatively pessimistic conclusions at that time, several factors have emerged that give a glimmer of optimism for the possibility of developing larger domestic markets for ark clams. One of the most signi ficant factors is the continued growth of Hispanic and Asian populations, demographic segments that are more likely to have some degree of familiarity with ark clams. Another positive factor is that a small fish ery for arks, primarily the Blood Ark and the Ponderous Ark, has continue d to develop (mostly in Virg inia) with landings reported since 1993. Ark landings in the United States ranged in value from $30,300 in 1995 to $136,480 in 1997. Arks are sold primarily as an ethnic food in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. or exported to Mexico (McGraw et al.), where an Ark fishery has been in existence for many years. Anecdotal information indicates the demand for Arks has outpaced the numbers that can be supplied by the Virginia fishery. Industry professionals feel this increase in demand is in part due to increasing ethnic markets that value the presence of hemoglobin in the clam meats. The presence of the blood pigment hemoglobin results in the ark clam’s charact eristic orange coloration (Shirley Estes, Executive Director, Virginia Marine Products Board, Newport News, VA, personal communication). OBJECTIVES This research quantifies the shellfish trad e’s present awareness and acceptance of the Blood Ark ( Anadara ovalis ) and Ponderous Ark ( Noetia ponderosa ) clams. The basic objective of this study was to determine th e current market potential of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams in the U.S. Specific objectives were to: Assess the magnitude of the current and pot ential domestic market for both types of ark clams. Determine product attributes desired by the shellfish trade, espe cially size, meat color, shell appearance, and taste. Educate shellfish wholesale de alers as to the market attr ibutes of these alternative molluscan shellfish species. Determine physical characteristics of the clams, specifically shelf life and nutritional analyses. In order to achieve these objectives, th e study was conducted in three phases. The first was a nationwide census of all certified shellfish dealers. The major focus of this phase was to assess the current market situation for the two types of clams, including the trade’s knowledge levels about them and attitudes to ward handling Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams if adequate supplies were forthcoming. Phase I identified shellf ish dealers that were

PAGE 19

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 11 willing to evaluate samples of both types of ark clams that were to be aquacultured in Florida. In Phase II, the firms identif ied in Phase I as potential marketers of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams were provided live sample s for evaluation. Representatives of these firms were asked to evaluate a number of basic product charac teristics, including appearance and organoleptic qualities. They we re also asked to estimate potential sales through their respective firms. Phase III determined the sh elf-life under typical commer cial refrigeration and the nutritional composition of each species. PROCEDURE Phase I Procedure Because of budget constraints and the antici pated low incidence of familiarity with Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams, a mail su rvey was selected as the primary data collection method. The questionnaire was devel oped in consultation with several marine extension specialists and University of Flor ida researchers. The questionnaire was pretested with extension marine specialists, a nd after minor modifications submitted to the Institutional Review Board of the Univer sity of Florida, where it was approved. The questionnaire was designed to have a parallel structure for both the Blood Ark clams and the Ponderous Ark clams. That is after questions were asked about Blood Ark clams, similar questions were asked about Ponde rous Ark clams. In a concluding section, there were general questions about the firm’s sales in 2001 and respondents’ willingness to evaluate live samples of both types of clams (Appendix A). The questionnaire was sent via first class U.S. mail to all firms on the Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers Li st. This list is maintain ed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and included all U.S. firms certified to ship molluscan shellfish. The list constituted a complete enumeration of shellf ish dealers in the United States, thus a complete canvass was conducted. The initial mailing of a cover letter, informed consent document, the questionnaire and a business re ply envelope was sent to 2,133 firms. This mailing was made in October 2002. Two week s after the initial mailing, a reminder post card was sent to all non-respondents. Two versions of the cover letter were utilized in the initial mailing of the questionnaires, with half of the firms receiving one version, and the other half the second. Firms receiving the first version could only respond via U.S. mail. With the second version, the firm had the option of responding by either the Internet or mail. This was done to determine if the choice of response options would increase the overall response rate. The firms given the option of completing the ques tionnaire via the Intern et received unique username-password combinations to allow access to the survey website and preclude multiple responses. Offering respondents th e option of responding via the Internet had virtually no effect on the overall response rate.

PAGE 20

12 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Response rates from the initial mail survey were below expectations; therefore, a systematic random sample comprised of ten percent of the non-res pondents was selected for telephone follow-up interviews. This proced ure was used to determine if responses of non-respondents were similar to those of the respondents. A sample of 180 nonrespondents was contacted by telephone in Ja nuary 2003 and 96 usable responses obtained. The removal of 285 questionnaires deemed un deliverable by the United States Postal Service reduced the reachable uni verse of certified shellfish dealers to 1,848. In total, 309 (16.7 percent) complete questionnaires were recorded and comprised the final database (Table 1). Of these, 206 ( 66.6 percent) arrived via postage -paid business reply envelopes provided in the original mailed packet. Anothe r 96 (31.1 percent) firms were contacted and successfully interviewed via telephone. Additio nally, seven firms (2.3 percent) responded via the online version of the questionnaire. Table 1. Disposition of Mailed Questi onnaires and Response Rates, Phase I. Description of items mailed and returned Number Percent ----n-------%---Total questionnaires mailed 2,133 100.0 Undeliverable 285 13.4 Total questionnaires delivered 1,848 86.6 Questionnaires returned by mail 206 66.6 Questionnaires completed via telephone 96 31.1 Questionnaires completed via Internet 7 2.3 Usable questionnaires 309 100.0 Estimated number of eligible respondents 1,848 100.0 Adjusted response rate ------16.7 Due to the limited numbers of responses dealing with the familiarity and sales experience of both types of ark clams, commonly used statistical tests such as Chi-square, logit and probit analyses could not be administ ered with confidence. The responses of the mail, phone and Internet respondents appeared similar upon inspection, and were analyzed and discussed as one sample population. The appa rent similarities in responses of those answering by mail and responses from the te lephone follow-up interviews lead us to conclude that, despite the relatively low overa ll response rate, the findings from our sample are representative of the entire shellfish industry.

PAGE 21

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 13Phase II Procedure The procedure for Phase II, distributi on and evaluation of live samples of aquacultured Blood Ark and Ponder ous Ark clams, is discussed in this section. Samples of both ark clams were harvested from approved sh ellfish waters in mid-November, and held overnight in a refrigerated facility owned by a certified shellfish processor in Cedar Key, Florida. Harvesting, processing and refrigerat ed storage procedures followed the state shellfish regulations administered by the Flor ida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FL Administrative Code, Chapter 5L-1 ). About noon the next day, a sample of 6 Blood Arks, ranging is size from medium to la rge, and a combined sample of 9 medium and 6 large Ponderous Arks were placed in sepa rate small, color-coded plastic mesh bags with the processor’s dealer tags affixed to each bag. One bag of each ark clam species was placed in an insulated shipping container made of expanded polystyrene foam along with a frozen 8-ounce gel pack. The foam shipper cont aining the two bags of clams and gel pack was then placed inside a corrugated cardboard container measuring 6”x 8”x 4”. Evaluation instructions for the respondents and a one-page questionnaire (Appendix B) for each ark clam sample were conspicuously placed insi de the corrugated box, wh ich was then sealed and labeled for shipping. The samples were pi cked up by a major courier service within several hours of packaging, and delivered to all recipients before noon the next day. The 97 firms that had initially agreed to evaluate live samples of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams were contacted in early November 2003 to confirm their willingness to participate in the study. Letters were sent to them, and follow-up phone calls were made. When contacted by telephone, 14 firms refused to participate or had disconnected phones, so samples were not sent to them. Thus, a to tal of 83 samples were distributed nationwide for evaluation. Phase III Procedure Comprehensive nutritional analyses were conducted for both clam species. Samples were collected from th eir respective growing areas in St. Augustine (east coast of Florida) and Cedar Key (west co ast of Florida). One hundred gram samples of meat (wet weight) were shucked for each ark clam species and delivered in coolers to an accredited private food-testing laboratory in Gainesville. Official methods were used following the AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) Official Methods of Analysis (Horwitz, 2002). To determine the survival of these two ark clam species in refrigerated storage, evaluation of shelf life was conducted in Apr il 2004. Procedures follo wed those developed by Applewhite et al. (1996) a nd Otwell (1998) for determining shelf life of hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria The ark clams were checked daily for survival with the exception of two days during the evaluation period. Gapped ark clams were determined to be “commercially dead” when they did not re spond by closing their shell to specified agitation, or tapping, after the ark clams were held for a short time at room temperature. Dead ark clams were counted and removed from the sample bags. The evaluation was conducted until 50 percent of the ark clams die d. Percent survival for each ark clam

PAGE 22

14 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey species was determined. Additi onal Phase III procedural deta ils, findings and conclusions are found in Appendices D and E. PHASE I FINDINGS: THE CURR ENT MARKET SITUATION Blood Ark Clams Among certified shellfish shippers that re sponded to the surv ey, 91.9 percent have had no experience with the Blood Ark clam. Less than four percent have seen the clams at trade shows, and less than two percent have sold the clams in the past (Table 2). With a mere one percent of respondent firms currently selling Blood Ark clams, it is apparent that market exposure in the U.S. is extremely limited. Table 2. Awareness of Blood Ark Clams Among Certified Shellfish Shippers. Awareness Levels Number Percent ---n-----%--No experience 284 91.9 Have seen at trade shows 11 3.6 Sold in the past 5 1.6 Currently selling 4 1.3 No response 5 1.6 Total 309 100.0 Of the small number of dealers that have previously sold Blood Ark clams, two, or 40 percent, do not currently offer the product du e to insufficient market demand (Table 3). One respondent indicated that difficulties with product supply led him to discontinue clam sales. Additional reasons given for termina ting sales of Blood Arks included a need for better product quality and a preference for farm raised clams. Table 3. Reasons Why Previous Blood Ark Clam Dealers Are NOT Currently Selling Clams. Reason Number Percenta ---n-----%--Not enough consumer demand 2 40.0 Supply problems 2 40.0 Poor quality 1 20.0 Need farm raised 1 20.0 Don’t know 1 20.0 a Total does not sum to 100.0% because of multiple responses.

PAGE 23

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 15 Analysis of current seller s of Blood Ark clams by firm size (as indicated by 2001 sales) revealed one was a Florida-base d firm with sales in the $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 range (Table 4). Two firms had sales in the range of $100,000 to $499,999 and were located in Virginia and California. A fourth fi rm located in California did not reveal total 2001 sales. Table 4. Locations and Size Categories of Firms Currently Selling Blood Ark Clams. State Number Percent of Respondents Annual 2001 Sales ---n-----%--Florida 1 25.0 $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 Virginia 1 25.0 $100,000 to $499,999 California 1 25.0 $100,000 to $499,999 California 1 25.0 N/A The majority of current sellers obtained their clams from the East coast of the United States (Table 5). In particular, tw o shippers obtained their clams from North Carolina, which accounted for 50 percent of re spondents’ sources. Virginia and “Asia” were also cited as Blood Ark clam sources, with Asian supplie s available as frozen product only. Table 5. Current Sellers’ Geogra phic Sources of Blood Ark Clams. Blood Ark Clam Sources Number Percent of Respondents ---n-----%--North Carolina 2 50.0 Virginia 1 25.0 Asia 1 25.0 Total 4 100.0 Current sellers indicated that the majority of their clams are shipped to U.S. East coast destinations, sp ecifically to New York and Wa shington, D.C. (Table 6). One respondent had supplied Blood Ark clams to Ca lifornia markets. The reported volume of Blood Ark clams sold was extremely variable a nd very limited. Two of the four firms that sold the clams in 2001 reported annual sa les of 16,000 and 1,000 clams, respectively (Table 7). Three-fourths of the clams sourced from Virginia were sold primarily in the winter months, with the remainde r purchased in the fall months. Shellfish shippers that reported 2001 sales of Blood Ark clams were queried on prices paid for the product a nd their perceptions of overall pr oduct quality from their major suppliers. One respondent indicated a rang e from a high of $0.25 per clam to a low of $0.18 for an average price of $0.22 per clam. When asked to rate the quality of the Blood

PAGE 24

16 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Ark clams using a rating scale where 1=very poor and 10=excellent, North Carolina clams received a rating of “9”, while Virginia clams were assigned a perfect “10” value. Table 6. Current Sellers’ Destin ation Markets for Blood Ark Clams. Blood Ark Clam Destina tion Markets Number Percent of Respondents ---n-----%--New York 2 50.0 Washington, D.C. 1 25.0 California 1 25.0 Total 4 100.0 Table 7. Number of Blood Ark Clams Sold in 2001 to Current De stination Markets. Blood Ark Clam Destination Markets Number of Clams Sold Percent ---n-----%--New York 16,000 94.1 Washington, D.C. 1,000 5.9 California N/a n/a Total for responding firms 17,000 100.0 Current sellers were asked for suggestions as to how clam produ cers could increase retail sales. Three recommendations were proposed: “Get more Blood Ark clams”, “Identify biomass producing areas”, and “Inc rease supply, so it is not a limiting factor”. Inadequate supplies appear to be a significant limitation to market growth at present. The majority of outlets that purchase d Blood Ark clams are wholesalers followed by specialty seafood retailers and large retail grocer s. Clam buyers noted that Hispanics characterized the primary ethnic market for th is clam, with consumers of Asian descent representing a viable secondary target market. The average shelf life of fresh Blood Ark clams was reported to be 15 days. Two respondent firms preferred the largest availa ble size of Blood Ark Clams, defined as an average 1.25 inches in shell width, 1.75 inches in shell length (long) and approximately 13 clams per pound. A third dealer favored the me dium size clam, with an average width of one inch, length of 1.5 inches, and 20 clams per pound. None of the firms ranked clams described as “Small” (Average inch wide 1 inches long, 34 clams/pound) as either a first or second choice. Firms were queried on their assessments of an ideal Blood Ark clam meat color, and responses included either a light or medium color, or no preference between light, medium or dark meats.

PAGE 25

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 17Ponderous Ark Clams Among certified shellfish shippers that re sponded to the questionnaire, nearly 97 percent have had no experience with the clam, le ss than two percent have seen the clams at trade shows, and only one percen t has sold the clams in the pa st (Table 8). With only one respondent firm currently selling the Ponderous Ark Clam, market exposure is presently extremely limited. One previous Ponderous Ar k clam dealer claimed that customers had not recently requested the product, so sales had been discontinued. Table 8. Certified Shellfish Shippers ’ Awareness of Ponderous Ark Clams. Awareness Levels Number Percent ---n-----%--No experience 280 96.6 Have seen at trade shows 6 2.1 Sold in the past 3 1.0 Currently selling 1 0.3 Total 290 100.0 The sole Virginia firm that actively marketed Ponderous Ark clams in 2001 was relatively small, reporting total annual 2001 company sales in the $100,000 to $499,999 range. This current seller obtai ned Ponderous Ark clams primarily from the Virginia coast, and sold 100 percent of his vo lume, 4,000 clams in to tal, to markets in the Washington, D. C. metro area. Three-fourths of the clams sourced from Virginia were sold primarily in the winter months, with the remainder purchased in the fall. The shellfish shipper that reported 2001 sales of Ponderous Ark clams was queried on prices paid for the product and his perceptions of overall product quality from his suppliers. This respondent indicated a range from a high of $0.25 per clam to a low of $0.18 received per clam, for an average price of about $0.22 per clam. When asked to rate the quality of the Ponderous Ark clams usin g a rating scale where 1=very poor and 10=excellent, this firm assigned an overall rati ng of “9” to the product. The average shelf life of fresh Ponderous Ark clams was reported to be 15 days, and clam shell size and meat color preferences we re not specified. According to the lone respondent that sold this clam species in 2001, the predominant types of outlets that purchas ed Ponderous Arks we re wholesalers and specialty seafood reta ilers. This clam dealer also no ted that Hispanic and Asian ethnic groups represented typical Ponderous Ark clam consumers. The current seller proposed identification of biomass producing areas and an increase in clam production as a way of stabilizing supplies, which he/she felt would increase consumption.

PAGE 26

18 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey PHASE I CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS FROM SHELLFISH DEALERS’ SURVEY This research indicated that the presen t market for the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams is extremely limited, due to lim ited trade knowledge of the product and inconsistent supply at the produc er and consumer levels. If the respondents to our mail survey were representative of the entire univers e of certified shellfish dealers in the U.S., it was estimated that only 24 were selling Bl ood Ark clams and only six were selling Ponderous Ark clams in 2001. However, projecti ng results of the usable responses to the universe probably overstates the true number s of firms handling these two ark clams because the telephone interviews of nearly 100 non-respondents revealed no firms handling either of the ark clams. In order to develop a domestic market fo r Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams, an aggressive educational program targeting the shellfish trade and ethnic consumers will be required. These results are vi rtually identical to those re ached by a previous study which concluded that extensive expenditures of time and money would be required to expand demand for these clams (Anderson, et. al., 1985). A few of the firms that di d not report 2001 sales of Blood Ark or Ponderous Ark clams offered some insight into the marke ting dilemma facing producers of these clams. For example, a few mentioned that a sluggi sh U.S. economy since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has depressed seafood sales in general. Equal num bers of respondents mentioned the lack of consistent supply and qu ality of the available clams, limited market outlets and virtually nonexistent consumer demand. On a positive note, some shellfish shippers indicated an interest in learning more about these clam types. Nearly one-third of all survey resp ondents indicated a willingness to evaluate samples of Blood Ark or Pondero us Ark clams. Out of 309 respondents, 97 provided mailing address information and reque sted Blood Ark clam samples, and 96 gave contact information in order to r eceive Ponderous Ark clam samples. PHASE II FINDINGS: SHELLFIS H SHIPPERS’ EVALUATIONS OF BLOOD ARK AND PONDEROUS ARK CLAM SAMPLES Geographic Distribution of the Samples Nearly half of the samples were sent to fi rms in the Northeast, and nearly one-third went to firms in the South (Table 9). Only two firms in the Midwest agreed to evaluate samples; both were in the Chicago area. Approximately one-fifth of the samples were shipped to firms on the West coast. Despite the care and diligence exercised in gaining the cooperation of the shellfish dealers recei ving samples, only 52 of the 83 provided completed product evaluations. Several tele phone follow-up calls were made to nonrespondents without success. For most regions, the response rate was approximately 60 percent, but slightly higher in Southern states (Table 9).

PAGE 27

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 19 Table 9. Destinations of Samples and Re sponse Rates, by U. S. Region, Phase II. U. S. Region Number of Samples Shipped Number of Questionnaires Returned Response Rate ---n ------% ------n ------% ----% ---Northeast a 38 45.8 23 44.2 60.5 South b 26 31.3 18 34.6 69.2 Midwest c 2 2.4 1 2.0 50.0 West d 17 20.5 10 19.2 58.8 Total 83 100.0 52 100.0 62.6 a Northeast – Maine, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts b South – Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgi a, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware c Midwest – Illinois d West – California, Washington, Oregon Blood Ark Clams Arrival Condition of Blood Ark Clam Samples Respondents were instructed to immediat ely refrigerate the samples upon arrival and evaluate the same day. While most res pondents evaluated the samples the day of arrival (the third day after harvest) there were a few firms that waited several days before evaluating the samples and completing the questionnaires. Although there were not enough observations to conduct a sta tistical test of the relati onships between respondents’ evaluation dates and ratings for arrival condition, examina tion of the arrival condition ratings for the “late” evaluators compared with those evaluating the clams immediately upon arrival revealed no a ppreciable differences. Each questionnaire began with several ques tions to dete rmine the arrival condition of the samples. The first question asked whethe r or not the evaluator could detect an odor, the rationale being that shellfish arriving in poor condition would ha ve a strong, unpleasant odor. Approximately 60 percen t were unable to detect a ny odor (Table 10). Of the remaining 40 percent (21 observa tions), only four described th e detected odor as “slightly unpleasant” while nine describe d the odor as “neutral”, five described it as “slightly pleasant” and three described it as “very pleasant” (Figure 1). Table 10. Respondents’ Detection of Odor in Blood Ark Clams. Blood Ark Clam Odor Number Percent ----n --------% ----Able to detect an odor 21 40.4 Unable to detect an odor 31 59.6 Total 52 100.0

PAGE 28

20 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Figure 1. Description of O dor for Blood Ark Clams. In addition to asking about the odor of th e clams, respondents were also asked to evaluate “overall arrival condition” on a zero to ten s cale where zero represented “extremely poor” and ten represented “extr emely good”. The mean rating for this evaluation was 9.4 (Table 11). Examination of th e few less-than-perfect ratings revealed a concern that several samples had arrived sli ghtly too warm for optimum shellfish storage (Appendix B, Table 1). Table 11. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Sh ell Appearance, and Meat Color for Blood Ark Clams. Attribute Number Mean Rating Standard Deviation --n ----% --Arrival Condition a 51 98.1 9.4 1.2 Shell Appearance b 51 98.1 5.2 2.9 Meat Color b 47 90.4 4.2 3.0 a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for arrival condition as 0 = extremely poor, 10 = extremely good. b Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for shell appearance and meat color as 0 = very unattractive, 10 = very attractive. Evaluation of Blood Ark Cl ams’ Shell Appearance The Blood Ark clamshell is covered with a thick dark brown or black periostracum, which is a fibrous noncalcareous covering. Exte rior shell appearance was also evaluated using a zero to ten rating scale where zer o represented “very unattractive” and ten represented “very attractive”. The mean ra ting was 5.2, with a standard deviation of 2.9 (Table 11). The majority of the evaluations were clustered in the mid-point of the scale, but nearly 12 percent rated the shell appearance a perfect “10” (Figure 2) Nearly 20 percent rated the shell appearance as a “2” or lower. 3 (14%) 5 (24%) 4 (19%) 0 (0%) 9 (43%)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Very Unpleasant Slightly Unpleasant NeutralSlightly Pleasant Very Pleasant n = 21Number of Responses (%)

PAGE 29

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 21 Figure 2. Blood Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings. 4 (8%) 6 (12%) 6 (12%) 6 (12%) 2 (4%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 6 (12%) 7 (14%) 2 (4%) 3 (6%)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 012345678910 0=extremely poor and 10=extremely good Mean rating=5.3, std. dev.=2.9, n=51Number of Responses (%) Respondents made a few negative comments about the shell a ppearance, but no favorable comments. Negative st atements included “should have a cleaner shell to steam”, “black fuzz needs to be removed”, “hard to cl ean organic material off shell”, “hairy cover not likeable”, “shell stock l ooked good except for moss growth on shell”, “fuzzy, dirty appearance not desirable in this area”, and “I would want to scrub before serving—looks like not super sanitary” (Appendix C, Table 1). Evaluation of Blood Ark Clams’ Meat Color Both ark clam species contain the blood pigment hemoglobin, which gives the meat an orange to red coloration. Respondents were as ked to rate the attractiveness of the Blood Ark clam meat color using the same zero to ten scale where zero represented “very unattractive” and ten represented “very at tractive”. The mean rating was 4.2, with a standard deviation of 3.0. The ra tings were skewed to the negative end of the scale; nearly 15 percent rated the meat color as a zero, or “very unattractive”. Ab out one third of all respondents rated meat color as a “2” or below (Figure 3). Most of the comments respondents made about the meat color were negative. Examples of negative comments include “bad, bad, gross”, “ugly meat”, “blood appearance borders on unappealing”, and “looks like raw li ver”. A few comments were slightly more forgiving: “raw ugly—cooked normal”, “as far as these animals go, meat (color) is acceptable”, and “these are very colorful comp ared to other shellfish” (Appendix C, Table 1).

PAGE 30

22 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Figure 3. Blood Ark Clam Meat Color Ratings. 7 (15%) 6 (13%) 3 (6%) 4 (9%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 4 (9%) 4 (9%) 7 (15%) 2 (4%) 7 (15%) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 012345678910 0=extremely poor and 10=extremely good Mean rating=4.2, std. dev.=3.0, n=47Number of Responses Blood Ark Clam Serving Met hods and Taste Evaluations Respondents were allowed the flexibility of serving the Blood Ark clam samples raw, cooked, or both. They were asked to ev aluate the taste for each way served. Half of the respondents served them raw, and 42 of the 52 se rved them cooked (T able 12). Twentytwo respondents sampled them both ways, raw and cooked. Table 12. Taste Ratings by Servi ng Method for Blood Ark Clams. Serving Method Number Mean Rating a Standard Deviation Raw 26 4.8 2.5 Cooked 42 4.9 2.9 a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good. Respondents were asked to ra te taste for each cooking method using a zero to ten scale where zero represented “very poor” and ten represented “very good”. Mean ratings were less than stellar; the mean ratings for Blood Ark clams were 4.8 and 4.9 for those eaten raw and cooked, respectivel y (Table 12). A paired-t test (testing the differences between cooked and raw ratings) showed the mean taste rating difference between cooked Blood Ark clams to be 0.50, with a t-value of 1.14, whic h was not statistica lly significant at the 0.05 probability level. Respondents that cooked the clam samples were asked to indi cate the cooking method used, and thirty-two of the 42 responde nts did so. Of those reporting the cooking

PAGE 31

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 23 method used, the overwhelming majority, 84 perc ent, steamed them. Smaller numbers said they microwaved or baked them (Table 13, Figure 4). When the ratings were examined by cooking method, the rating for taste when steamed was 4.3, but it was 5.7 for those that were microwaved and 7.0 for those baked. Howe ver, there were too few observations to statistically test this relationship (Table 13). Table 13. Cooking Methods and Taste Evaluations for Blood Ark Clams. Cooking Method Number Percent Mean Rating a Standard Deviation ------n----------%----Steamed 27 84.4 4.3 3.0 Microwaved 3 9.4 5.7 2.1 Baked 2 6.2 7.0 0.0 Total 32 100.0 4.9 2.9 a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good. Comments about Blood Ark clams’ taste were mixed, with positive and negative reactions about equal in number. Positive co mments included “OK taste”, “good flavor”, “different taste”, “very good flavor”, and “excellent taste and pr esentation”. Negative statements tended to focus on bitterness and strong flavor. Comments included “taste was bitter”, “they suck raw”, “rather bitter”, and several said “much too strong flavor”. Several respondents said they could not comment on the taste because the clam did not open, despite extended steaming times (Appendix C, Table 1). Figure 4. Blood Ark Clam Serving Methods Used by Respondents. 27 26 3 2 00 5 10 15 20 25 30 RawSteamedMicrowavedBakedBroiledNumber of Responses

PAGE 32

24 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Texture Ratings for Blood Ark Clams Respondents were asked to ra te the texture of the Blood Ark clams using a fivepoint semantic differential scale. The five points were defined as “much too tough”, “slightly too tough”, “just right ”, slightly too soft”, and “much too soft”. Of the 45 respondents that answered this question, 13 perc ent said they were much too tough, and 42 percent said they were slightly too tough. Th irty-eight percent said th ey were just right, and 7 percent indicated that they were slightly t oo soft. No one said they were much too soft. Thus, one can conclude that the overall text ure was judged to be somewhat tougher than ideal (Figure 5). Respondents made positive and negative comm ents about the clam texture. On the positive side one said “good texture”, and anot her said “good flavor and texture”. Most comments were negative. Negative statements included “the clams were rubbery, but OK taste”, “texture was very poor”, and “I found the clams to be tender, but still full of too much liquid to say I honestly liked their te xture. Even after waiting for a ‘drying out period’ after initial steaming, I still found them ‘visceral’. Too many thin, skinny membranes to be chewed and swallowed”. Size Preferences for Blood Ark Clams The clams included in the sample of Blood Ark clams ranged in sizes that would generally be classified as “medium” to “lar ge”. The sample size averaged 1 ” in shell length, 1 1/5” in shell width and 15 per pound When asked which size would be most popular in their market area, approximately one-fifth of the respondents were uncertain. Of those that expressed an opini on, slightly less than one-fifth felt the medium-sized clam would be more popular, and slightly over one-t hird felt the large-si zed clams would be preferred. Nearly half of the respondents fe lt that either would be acceptable (Figure 6).

PAGE 33

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 25 Figure 5. Blood Ark Clam Texture Ratings. Figure 6. Most Popular Blood Ark Clam Size. 0 (0%) 3 (7%) 6 (13%) 17 (38%) 19 (42%)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Much too Tough Slightly too Tough Just RightSlightly too SoftMuch too Soft n = 45Number of Responses (%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 MediumLargeBoth Equally Popular n = 34Number of Responses6 (18%) 14.7 (47%) 12 (35%)

PAGE 34

26 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Estimated Weekly Sales Of Blood Ark Clams Respondents were asked how many Blood Ar k clams their firms could sell each week, if any, assuming that they were av ailable on a year-roun d basis at prices “comparable to hard clams fr om Florida”. Of the 41 res pondents that answered this question, slightly over half said “none”. Tw enty-two percent indicated that they could probably sell some, but would not provide an estimate, and 11 firms provided estimates (Table 14). Table 14. Estimated Weekly Sales of Blood Ark Clams. Estimated Weekly Sales Number Percent -----n---------%----Number reporting a positive value11 26.8 Don’t know 9 22.0 None 20 51.2 Total 52 100.0 Sales estimates provided by the 11 firms we re extremely variable, ranging from 30 to 170,000 clams per week. The mean estimated clam sales figure for the 11 firms was just over 20,500 clams per week per firm, but given th e extreme variability of the estimates, the mean is of little value. Out of the tota l estimated weekly Blood Ark clam sales of approximately 226,000 animals, one west coast firm’s estimate accounted for 170,000. Five of the 11 firms estimated that their Blood Ark clam sales w ould be 1,000 or fewer; three additional firms’ estimates ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 per week, and only three respondents thought they could sell more th an 10,000 per week. Estimated sales were analyzed on a regional basis, and found to be ex tremely variable as well. Sales estimates in the Northeast ranged from 1,000 to 17,000 clams per week; in the South, estimates ranged from 50 to 20,000 per week, and in the West from 30 to 170,000 clams (Table 15). Table 15. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sale s of Blood Ark Clams, by U. S. Region. Region Number of Firms Number of Clams Sold -----n---------n----Northeast 4 1,000 – 17,000 South 4 50 – 20,000 Midwest 0 -West 3 30 – 170,000 Total 11 30 – 170,000

PAGE 35

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 27 General Observations on Blood Ark Clams Cooking Problems Several respondents complained about the difficulties a ssociated with cooking the Blood Ark clams, and most dealt with lengthy cooking times and difficulties of opening. Respondents’ comments included “…only one cl am opened after 15 minutes of steaming”, “did not open as quickly [as ot her types of clams]”, “they would not open—could not eat”, and “hard to open with a knife”. Marketability When asked for general reactions to the Blood Ark clams, many commented on their potential marketability, and opinions were mixed. Many respondents dismissed them with comments such as “not saleable in this area”, and “overall attitude from samplers was ‘GROSS’”. One dealer put it sl ightly more eloquently “In co mparison to many fine clams available on the West coast, which are attr active, easy to cook, and very tasty with a sweeter flavor, we do not feel these clams w ould be marketable in our marketing area”. One dealer also took issue with their na me, saying “Blood Ark” is a “bad name”. Despite the negative reactions by many of the respondents, a few were more charitable and several were even quite positive. Several dealers indicated current interest in selling these clams. They remarked “[Blood Ark clams will be] very good in the future market. Let me know when the clams are available”, and “Gla d to see them—have customers with interest”. Another semi-pos itive comment was “If they were cheap enough, people may buy them”. Several expressed th e opinion that the Bl ood Ark clams would have greatest appeal to et hnic populations, primarily Asians This opinion was expressed best by one dealer that stated “This type of clam would only be of interest to certain ethnic groups. However, if you went after these specific markets, this clam could be successful”.

PAGE 36

28 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Ponderous Ark Clams Arrival Condition of the Ponderous Ark Clams Because the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clam samples were harvested on the same day, stored overnight in the same certified shellfish faci lity, and packed and shipped in the same box, it was expected that the arri val condition of the two types of clams would be very similar. Even so, respondents we re asked the same questions about arrival condition for each type of clam. The numbers of respondents that said they were able to detect an odor for the Ponderous Ark sample s were identical to t hose for Blood Ark clams (Table 16). Table 16. Detection of Odor in Ponderous Ark Clams. Ponderous Ark Clam Odor Number Percent ----n ---------%----Able to detect an odor 21 40.4 Unable to detect an odor 31 59.6 Total 52 100.0 Approximately 60 percent of the respondents were unable to detect an odor; those that said they could detect an odor were th en asked to describe it using a five-point semantic differential scale ranging from “v ery unpleasant” to “ver y pleasant. Only one respondent described the perceived odor of the Ponderous Ark clams to be “slightly unpleasant” as compared with four for the Bl ood Arks. Of the rema ining 20 respondents, 12 described the odor as evoking a “neutral” reaction, five described it as “slightly pleasant”, and three said it wa s “very pleasant” (Figure 7). Figure 7. Description of Odor for Ponderous Ark Clams. 3 (14%) 5 (24%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 12 (57%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Very Unpleasant Slightly Unpleasant NeutralSlightly Pleasant Very Pleasant n = 21Number of Responses (%)

PAGE 37

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 29 In addition to asking about the perception of odor, respondents were also asked to evaluate the “overall” arrival condition of th e Ponderous Ark clams on a zero to ten rating scale where zero represented “extremely poor” and ten represented “extremely good”. Again, the overall arrival condition rating was vi rtually the same as for the Blood Ark clam samples, with a mean rating of 9.4 (Table 17) The few less-than-perfect evaluations were more than likely due to the samples arriving at a slightly higher than ideal temperature. Table 17. Evaluations of Arrival Condition, Shell Appearance and Meat Color for Ponderous Ark Clams. Attribute Number Percent Mean Rating Standard Deviation --n ----%--Arrival Condition a 50 96.1 9.4 1.1 Shell Appearance b 51 98.1 5.1 2.7 Meat Color b 50 96.1 3.6 3.0 a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for arrival condition as 0 = extremely poor, 10 = extremely good. b Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined for shell appearan ce and meat color as 0 = ve ry unattractive, 10 = very attractive. Evaluation of Ponderous Ar k Clams’ Shell Appearance The shell of the Ponderous Ark clam is c overed with a thick, fe ltlike periostracum that is dark brown to black in coloration. Exterior shell ap pearance was evaluated using a zero to ten rating scale where zero represen ted “very unattractive” and ten represented “very attractive”. The mean rating was 5.1, wi th a standard deviation of 2.7 (Table 17). Closer examination of the dist ribution of the ratings revealed that approximately 10 percent of the respondents rated shell appearance a “ 10”, or “very attractive”. However, about onethird of all respondent rated sh ell appearance a three or lowe r on the 10 point scale (Figure 8). Respondents made a number of negative co mments about the shell appearance, but no positive ones. Negative comments included “Who wants to eat a clam with fur?” “Hairiness and black color is unattractive an d unappetizing—a proble m”, and “Shell is hard to clean, a poor choice for whole clam ga rnish”. One shellfish dealer said, “The outside looks dirty…makes me think of bacter ial environment and costly scrubbing”. Most of the comments mentioned the “fuzz” and black color (Appendix C, Table 2).

PAGE 38

30 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Figure 8. Ponderous Ark Clam Shell Appearance Ratings. 2 (4%) 1 (2%) 7 (14%) 6 (12%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 1 (2%) 5 (10%) 5 (10%) 10 (20%) 5 (10%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 012345678910 0=extremely poor and 10=extremely good Mean rating=5.1, std. dev.=2.7, n=51Number of Responses Evaluation of Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color Meat color was evaluated with a zero to te n rating scale as well. Zero represented “very unattractive”, and ten “v ery attractive”. The mean ra ting was 3.6, with a standard deviation of 3.0 (Table 17). As one would exp ect from the relatively low mean value, the distribution of the ratings is skewed towards the “unattractive” end of the scale, with 22 percent of the respondents evaluating the m eat color as a zero, or “very unattractive” (Figure 9). Respondents were also asked to comment on the meat color. Virtually all comments were negative (Appendix C, Table 2). For exam ple, one respondent st ated that the meat was “Bad, bad, gross, bio-fouled!” Others said, “Very dark juice looks bloody—very unappetizing”, and “Clams in this area ar e spawning when red. People will not buy.” Another shellfish dealer summed up his opinion with “[The meat color is] too dark for most clam consumers. Consumers want light colored meat. Even yellow turns them away. They connect dark with a negative…something wrong!” Yet another said “I perceived [that I had to] wash my hands thoroughly with soap after shucking and cooking these ‘clams’. Normally I do, but only as required. Yucky stuff.”

PAGE 39

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 31 Figure 9. Ponderous Ark Clam Meat Color Ratings. 11 (22%) 2 (4%) 6 (12%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%)2 (4%) 3 (6%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 10 (20%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0123456789100=extremely poor and 10=extremely good Mean rating=3.6, std. dev.=3.0, n=50Number of Responses Ponderous Ark Clam Serving Me thods and Taste Evaluations As with the Blood Ark clams, respondents we re allowed the flexibility of serving the Ponderous Ark clam samples raw, cooked, or both. Of the 52 respondents, 27 sampled them raw, and 44 cooked them in some mann er (Table 18). Twenty-three respondents sampled them both ways, raw and cooked. Table 18. Taste Ratings by Serving Method for Ponderous Ark Clams. Serving Method Number Mean Rating a Standard Deviation Raw 27 4.8 2.6 Cooked 44 5.1 3.0 a Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good. Taste was evaluated using a zero to ten scale where zero represented “very poor”, and ten represented “extremely good”. The m ean taste rating for the raw clams was 4.8, with a standard deviation of 2.6, and the mean taste rating for cooke d clams was 5.1, with a standard deviation of 3.0. A paired-t test (t esting the differences between cooked and raw ratings) revealed that the mean difference in taste ratings was 0.22 w ith a t-value of 0.45, which was not statistically signifi cant at the 0.05 probability level. Respondents were asked to identify each c ooking method used and rate taste for each method using the same zero to ten rating s cale. Thirty-two of the 44 respondents that cooked the Ponderous Ark clams did so (Table 19, Figure 10).

PAGE 40

32 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Table 19. Cooking Methods and Taste Evaluations for Ponderous Ark Clams. Cooking Method a Number Percent Mean Rating b Standard Deviation -----n---------%----Steamed 27 84.8 4.3 2.9 Microwaved 4 12.5 5.7 1.3 Baked 1 3.1 7.0 0.0 Total 32 100.0 5.1 3.0 a Twelve respondents reported cooking Ponderous Ark Clams but failed to specify a cooking method. b Rating Scale of 0 to 10 was defined as 0 = very poor, 10 = extremely good. c Numbers do not sum to 100 due to rounding. Figure 10. Ponderous Ark Clam Serv ing Methods Used by Respondents. Steaming was by far the most commonly used cooking method, reported by nearly 85 percent of those cooking the clam samp les. The mean taste rating for steamed Ponderous Ark clams was 4.3. Four respondents (about 12 percent) microwaved them, and their mean taste rating was 5.7 on the 0 to 10 scale. One respondent baked the samples, and rated taste as a “7”. There were too few observations to statistically test for differences among the cooking methods (Table 19). Comments about taste were mixed, w ith about as many positive comments as negative. One the positive side, respondents sa id the Ponderous Ark samples were “good for sushi”, “a good chowder clam”, “the fla vor was good”, and “nice briny clam flavor”. Examples of negative comments included “the y double suck raw”, “rather bitter”, “taste too strong”, and “did not like the taste; they were b itter and had an afte rtaste” (Appendix C, Table 2). Texture Ratings for Ponderous Ark Clams Respondents were asked to ra te the texture of the Ponde rous Ark clams using the same five-point semantic differential scale used for Blood Arks. The five points were defined as “much too tough”, “slightly too to ugh, “just right”, “sligh tly too soft”, and 4 1 0 2727 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 RawSteamedMicrowavedBakedBroiledNumber of Responses

PAGE 41

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 33 “much too soft”. Of the 49 respondents that rate d texture, one-fifth sa id they were “much too tough”, and about 40 percent said they were “slightly too tough” (Figure 11). Approximately one-third said the texture was “just right”. Only two respondents said they were “slightly too soft”, and no one said they were “much too soft.” Respondents were not asked to comment sp ecifically on their reaction to texture, but several volunteered statemen ts. One indicated that they texture would be acceptable to their niche market, i.e., Asians, but severa l comments were negative. For example, one stated, “Texture could be better”, and anot her said “Very chewy [rated them “much too tough”]”. A final comment was related to cooking time required: “When I cooked these clams they did not open, which lead to over-cooking and therefore [they were] way too tough” (Appendix C, Table 2). Figure 11. Ponderous Ark Clam Texture Ratings. Size Preferences for Ponderous Ark Clams The Ponderous Ark clam samples were of relatively uniform size within the two size categories shipped. The “medium” sized clam s averaged 1 7/8” in shell length, 1 1/5” in shell width and 17 per pound. The “large” sized clams averaged 2” in shell length, 1 1/3” in shell width and 11 per pound. Respondents were asked to rate size using a five point semantic differential scale which included “m uch too small”, “slightly too small”, “just right”, “slightly too large”, and “much too la rge”. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents said they were “just right”, but about one-thi rd thought they were “s omewhat too small”; 7 percent said they were “much too small”, and 27 percent felt they were “slightly too small”. One could conclude th at the medium to large-si zed clams (12 to 24 per pound) would be widely accepted as ideal. Although comments on size were not dire ctly solicited, a few respondents made statements with regard to size when asked for general reactions, and virtually all were critical of the smaller clams. One respondent stated, “These animals need to be 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 9 (20%) 17 (38%) 18 (40%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Much too Tough Slightly too Tough Just RightSlightly too SoftMuch too Soft n = 45Number of Responses (%)

PAGE 42

34 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey developed—current market thinks larger is better”. A Maine dealer compared the Ponderous Ark clams to his stat e’s requirements that clams be two inches in diameter, with a +/size tolerance, implying that the P onderous Ark clams were too small. Other comments included “Smaller-sized clams faile d to open when steamed”, “Meats were small”, and “Some clams were too small”. One respondent suggested that they be grown to three inches in order to develop a produc t for processing (Appendix C, Table 2). Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams Respondents were asked how many Ponderous Ark clam s their firms could sell each week, if any, assuming that they were available on a year-round basis at prices “comparable to hard clams fr om Florida”. Of the 44 res pondents that answered this question, nearly 60 perc ent said “none”. Twenty-two percent indicated that they could probably sell some, but would not provide an estimate, and eight firms provided estimates (Table 20). Table 20. Estimated Weekly Sales Of Ponderous Ark Clams. Estimated Weekly Sales Number Percent -----n---------%----Number reporting a positive value 8 18.2 Don’t know 10 22.7 None 26 59.1 Total 44 100.0 As was the case with Blood Ark clams, sales estimates provided by the eight firms were extremely variable, ranging from only 30 to 120,000 clams per week. The mean estimated clam sales figure for the eight fi rms was about 18,600 clam s per week per firm, but given the extreme variability of the estimates, the mean is of little value. Out of the total estimated weekly Ponderous Ark clam sales of approximately 149,000 animals, one West coast firm’s estimate acc ounted for 120,000. Four of the eight firms estimated that their Ponderous Ark clam sales would be 1,000 or fewer; three additional firms’ estimates ranged from 5,000 to 12,000 per week, and only one respondent thought he could sell more than 12,000 per week, and this West coast firm estimated potential sales at 120,000 clams per week. Estimated sales were analyzed on a regional basis, and found to be extremely variable as well. Sales estimates in th e Northeast ranged from 1,000 to 12,000 clams per week; in the South, estimates ranged from 300 to 10,000 per week, and in the West from 30 to 120,000 clams (Table 21).

PAGE 43

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 35 Table 21. Ranges of Estimated Weekly Sales of Ponderous Ark Clam s, by U. S. Region. Region Number of Firms Number of Clams Sold -----n---------n----Northeast 3 1,000 – 12,000 South 2 300 – 10,000 Midwest 0 -West 3 30 – 120,000 Total 8 30 – 120,000 General Observations on Ponderous Ark Clams Cooking Problems After rating specific physical attributes of the Ponderous Ark clams, respondents were asked for their general reactions to the samples. Many mentioned difficulties associated with cooking and opening the clam s. For example, one said, “they were extremely difficult to open…our clams open much more readily. We found the clams difficult to cook as the cooking times varied greatly. One open ed up after six minutes, four did not open after 10 minutes, and three opened after 35 minut es”. Others observed “very hard to open, even when cooked a long time”, “failed to open when steamed”, and “They did not steam open after 10 minutes of hard steaming—actually had to pry open. Way too much cooking time and work!” Marketability Despite a preponderance of negative observations for shell appearance, meat color and taste and marketability, there were a few positive comments that related to market potential for Ponderous Ark clams. For exam ple, one said, “[I] have customers with interest”. Another observed, “It would take pr ior marketing tools and efforts to sell them. After 30 years selling full-line s eafood, this seems like an Asian item”. Others said, “[I] have no established market for the clam [but there is] so me use among Asian communities” and “Could be a product that could be developed for Asian markets. Another volunteered, “They [Ponderous Ark clams] ar e known as an expensive side dish in Korea…could be a regular [sic] sold item for Ko rean and Japanese markets and restaurants, and even exported to Korea”.

PAGE 44

36 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Comparisons of Selected Attribute s of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark Clams A paired t-test was used to compare res pondents’ ratings of arrival condition, meat color, and taste ratings (cooked and raw) for the two types of ark clams to determine the presence of any statistically significant di fferences in ratings. These variables were measured using a numeric rating scale. The pair ed t-test utilizes each respondent’s ratings for each type of clam for each attribute; in order to have a valid observation, the respondent must have rated each type of clam for the attribute so that a rating difference can be calculated. The t-test is then based upon the mean diffe rence over all re spondents and the variance associated with the individual rating differences. Comparisons between Blood Ark and Ponde rous Ark clams (Blood Ark ratings minus Ponderous Ark ratings) revealed little di fference between the two types of clams. As expected, arrival condition rati ngs were not statistically di fferent at the 0.05 probability level (Table 22). Meat color comparisons represented the only statistically si gnificant difference among other product attributes evaluated us ing the numeric rating scales. Respondents showed a preference for the meat color of the Blood Ark clam over the Ponderous Ark, but shell appearance and taste ratings (when eaten raw or cooked) were similar for both species of clams (Table 22). Two other product attributes, odor and text ure, had been evaluated by respondents via a semantic differential rating scale. Chi-squa re tests could not be used to analyze these ratings to find if there were statistically si gnificant differences between the two types of clams because there were too few observations for valid tests. Visual examination of the distribution of ratings for bot h odor and texture revealed l ittle difference between Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams. Table 22. Paired t-values fo r Selected Variables Blood and Ponderous Ark Clams. Attribute No. of Comparisons t-valuea Arrival Condition 50 0.18 Appearance of shells 51 0.71 Color of the meat 47 2.06* Taste Rating, eaten raw 26 0.95 Test Rating, eaten cooked 40 0.90 aPaired t-values are based upon the differences in indi vidual respondents ratings of attributes of Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark Clams, i.e. the ratings for Blood Arks minus the ratings for Ponderous Arks. An asterisk indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 percent probability level.

PAGE 45

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 37CONCLUSIONS The survey of all certified sh ellfish wholesalers (dealers) in the U.S. revealed very limited distribution and sales of both the Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams. About 92 percent of the responding shellfish firms ha d no experience with Bl ood Ark clams, and nearly 97 percent have had no experience with Ponderous Ark clams. Further, only one percent of respondent firms reported sales of ei ther type during 2001, t hus it is apparent that market exposure in the U.S. is extremely limited. The initial trade survey showed very limited knowledge about these clams among dealer s. The few that were either currently selling them or had sold them in the past cited several factors that had negatively influenced their sales. These factors included lack of consistent supplies, limited market outlets and virtually nonexistent consumer demand. One can also conclude that there is relative ly little interest in these ark clams among certified shellfish wholesaler s nationwide. Out of the 1,848 initial qu estionnaires which requested information on the clams and offered free samples for evaluation, only 309 usable responses were obtained; of these, only 97 indicated a preliminar y willingness to try them, and when the samples were available, only 83 firms agreed to accept them. After these firms received their samples, only 52 responded with product evaluations despite numerous follow-up reminder calls. Of the 52 firms evaluating the samples, only 20 gave an indication that they might be able to sell Blood Arks, and 18 indicated the possibility of selling Ponderous Arks. These 18 to 20 firms represent about one percent of all certified shellfish wholesalers in the U.S. As to the potential marketability of thes e species, the product evaluations and many of the respondents’ comments indicated that these two species of ark clams are perceived as being too different from clams currently available on the market. These findings, coupled with shellfish dealers’ unwillingness to evaluate free samples, leads us to conclude that it is unlikely that there will be widespread, mainstream demand for them. Despite the overall negative tone of thes e findings, market development proponents should recognize the importa nce of ethnic markets in target locations on the East coast and West coasts. Targeting seaf ood dealers in these areas with large Asian and Hispanic populations could result in profitable niche markets. Additionally, producer groups should work w ith the Division of Marketing within the Florida Department of Agriculture a nd Consumer Services (FDACS) to provide information about Blood Ark and Ponderous Ar k clams to potential dealers at national seafood trade shows. Such information could al so be incorporated into the FDACS website to foster greater knowledge in the trade and to arouse dealers’ curios ity. These promotional methods could serve as relatively inexpensive promotional tools.

PAGE 46

38 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 47

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 39REFERENCES Abbott, R. T. (1974). American Seashells, 2nd edition Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY. 663 pp. Adam, C. A. (2000, January). Since the Net Ban: Changes in Commercial Fishing in Florida Fact Sheet SOEF-117 produced fo r the Florida Sea Grant College Program. Anderson, W. D. and A. G. Eversole. (1985, June). Arks Is th ere a resource and a market? Journal of Shellfish Research 5(31) Anderson, W. D., W. H. Lacey III and A. G. Eversole. (1984). An investigation concerning the feasibility of harvesting and marketing underutilized Anadara off the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia. Report prepared for the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Founda tion under Grant Contact No. CASAFDI 22-18-17320, Charleston, South Carolina. Applewhite, L., W.S. Otwe ll and L. Sturmer. (1996). Survival of Florida aquacultured clams in refrigerated storage Proc. 21st Ann. Seafood Sci. & Technolo. Soc. of the Americas. St. Petersburg, FL. Florida Agricultural Statisti cs Service. (2002, June). Florida aquaculture sales exceed $99 million in 2001. Retrieved August 11, 2003 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/rtoc0l.htm Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2002, February 13). FarmRaised Hard Clams: Buying, Handling and Storage Tips Retrieved May, 2002 from: www.fl-seafood.com/newpages/HardClams.htm. Horwitz, W. (2000.) Official Methods of Anal ysis of AOAC Intern ational, 17th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. McGraw, K., M.A. Castagna and S. D. Dennis. (1994). Some observations on arkshell clams, Noetia ponderosa and Anadara ova lis, and implicatio ns for fisheries management Virginia Sea Grant College Pr ogram, Technical Report VSG-94-11. Otwell, W.S. (1998). Survival and Microbial Consequences for Florida Farm-raised Hard Clams through Tempering and Refrigeration Final Report for Florida Department of Agriculture and Cons umer Services. 29 pp. Philippakos, E. C. Adams, A. Hodges, D. Mulkey, D. Comer and L. Sturmer. (2001, December). Economic impact of the Florida cultured hard clam industry. Sea Grant Technical Paper SGR 123, Project No. SGEP-12. Sturmer, Leslie N. (1999, May). Hard Clam Aquaculture in Florida University of Florida, Shellfish Aquaculture Extension Program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2003) National Shellfish Sanitation Program, Model Ordinance Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Admini stration, Office of Seafood, Washington, D.C. 427 pp.

PAGE 48

40 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 49

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 41 APPENDIX A

PAGE 50

42 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 51

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 43 Phase I, Shellfish Industry Questionnaires

PAGE 52

44 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 53

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 45 Please complete this hard copy and return it in the enclosed bu siness reply envelope. Blood Ark Clams ( Andara ovalis ) Hispanics call it "pata de mula" Japanese call it "akagai". Q1. Which of the following de scribe your experience with Blood Ark clams ? (Check only one) A. ____ Have no experience with Blood Ark clams whatsoever. (Skip to Q13) B. ____ Have seen Blood Ark clams at industry trade shows. (Skip to Q13) C. ____ Have sold Blood Ark clams in the past but not curr ently selling them. If not currently se lling them, why not? (Answer, then skip to Q6) ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ D. ____ Currently selling fresh Blood Ark clams. Q2. If you are currently handling fresh Blood Ark clams what states or countries are your major suppliers? (List in order of importance) A. _________________________________________ B. _________________________________________ C. _________________________________________ D. _________________________________________ Q3. To what four states do you ship the greatest volume of fresh Blood Ark clams? What percentage of your fresh Blood Ark clams goes to each of these states?

PAGE 54

46 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Top 4 States for Fresh Blood Ark Clam Volume Percent % % % % Q4. Approximately how many fresh Blood Ark clams did you sell in all of 2001? (Give estimate in number of clams)___________________________________ What percentage of these were sold in the Winter (Jan. – March)? _________% What percentage of these were sold in the Spring (April June)? _________% What percentage of these were sold in the Summer (July – Sept.)? _________% What percentage of these were sold in th e Fall (Oct. – Dec.)? _________% TOTAL 100 % Q5. In 2001, what were the lowest, highest and average prices you paid for fresh Blood Ark clams ? (Give prices on a per clam basis) Lowest price _________ cents each Highest price _________ cents each Average price _________ cents each Q6. How would you rate the overall quality of fresh Blood Ark clams that you received during the past year? (Use a rating scale where 10=excellent and 0=very poor. You may select any number from 0 to 10) OVERALL QUALITY RATING: ____________ Q7. What, if anything, could Blood Ark clam producers do to increase retail sales? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Q8. What types of outlets buy fresh Blood Ark clams from your firm? (Check all that apply)

PAGE 55

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 47 ____ Other wholesalers (re-shippe rs) ____ Large retail grocers ____ Specialty seafood retailers ____ Independent restaurants ____ Small retail grocers ____ Chain restaurants Q9. In your opinion, what ethnic groups represent the most important markets for fresh Blood Ark clams ? (List in order of importance, where 1=most important and 4=least important) 1st ___________________________ 2nd ___________________________ 3rd ___________________________ 4th ___________________________ Q10. On average what is the shelf life of fresh Blood Ark clams ? Days from Harvest: ___________ Q11. Which of the following shell sizes of Blood Ark clams are most popular in your market? (Rank 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) __________ Small – Average inch wide, 1 inches long, 34 clams/pound __________ Medium – Average 1 inch wide, 1 inches long, 20 clams/pound __________ Large – Average 1 inches wide, 1 inches long, 13 clams/pound Q12. Which of the following meat colors of Blood Ark clams do you prefer? (Check only one) ____ Lighter color ____ Medium color ____ Darker color ____ No preference

PAGE 56

48 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 57

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 49 Ponderous Ark Clams ( Noetia ponderosa ) Q13. Which of the following de scribe your experience with Ponderous Ark clams ? (Check only one) A. ____ Have no experience with Ponderous Ark clams whatsoever. (Skip to Q25) B. ____ Have seen Ponderous Ark clams at industry trade shows. (Skip to Q25) C. ____ Have sold Ponderous Ark clams in the past but not curre ntly selling them. If not currently se lling them, why not? (Answer, then skip to Q18) ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ D. ____ Currently selling Ponderous Ark clams. Q14. If you are currently handling fresh Ponderous Ark clam s what states or countries are your major suppliers? (List in order of importance) A. ___________________________ B. ___________________________ C. ___________________________ D. ___________________________ Q15. To what four states do you sh ip the greatest volume of fresh Ponderous Ark clams ? What percentage of your fresh Ponderous Ark clams goes to each of these states? Top 4 States for Fresh Ponderous Ark Clam Volume Percent % % % %

PAGE 58

50 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Q16. Approximately, how many fresh Ponderous Ark clams did you sell in all of 2001? (Give estimate in number of clams) _____________________________ What percentage of these were sold in the Winter (Jan. – March)? ________% What percentage of these was sold in the Spring (April June)? ________% What percentage of these was sold in the Summer (July – Sept.)? ________% What percentage of these was sold in th e Fall (Oct. – Dec.)? ________% TOTAL 100 % Q17. In 2001, what were the lowest, highest and average prices you paid for fresh Ponderous Ark clams ? (Give prices on a per clam basis) Lowest price _________cents each Highest price _________cents each Average price _________cents each Q18. How would you rate th e overall quality of fresh Ponderous Ark clams that you received during the past year? (Use a rating scale where 10=excellent and 0=very poor. You may select any number from 0 to 10). OVERALL QUALITY RATING: _________________ Q19. What, if anything, could Ponderous Ark clam producers do to increase retail sales? ________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______ Q20. What types of outlets buy fresh Ponderous Ark clams from your firm? (Check all that apply) ____ Other wholesalers (re-shippe rs) ____ Large retail grocers ____ Specialty seafood retailers ____ Independent restaurants ____ Small retail grocers ____ Chain restaurants Q21. In your opinion, what ethnic groups represent the most important markets for fresh Ponderous Ark clams ? (List in order of importance, where 1=most important and 4=least important) 1st ________________________

PAGE 59

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 51 2nd ________________________ 3rd ________________________ 4th ________________________ Q22. On average what is the shelf life of fresh Ponderous Ark clams ? Days from Harvest: ___________ Q23. Which of the following shell sizes of Ponderous Ark clams are most popular in your market? (Rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th) __________ Small – Average inch wide, 1 inches long, 32 clams/pound __________ Medium – Average 1 inch wide, 1 inches long, 24 clams/pound __________ Large – Average 1 inches wide, 1 inches long, 12 clams/pound __________ Extra Large – Average 1 inches wide, 2 inches long, 7 clams/pound Q24. Which of the following meat colors of Ponderous Ark clams do you prefer? (Check only one) ____Lighter color ____Medium color ____Darker color ____No preference Q25. Which of the following cat egories best descri bes your total shellf ish sales for 2001? (Check appropriate answer) ____ Less than $100,000 ____ $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 ____ $100,000 to $499,999 ____ $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 ____ $500,000 to $999,999 ____ $10,000,000 or more

PAGE 60

52 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Q26. Which of the following aquacultured clams, if any, would you be willing to evaluate next year (Fall of 2003)? (Check appropriate boxes (es) and provide name, address, etc. below) I want to evaluate a sample of Blood Ark Clams Yes No I want to evaluate a sample of Ponderous Ark Clams Yes No NAME____________________________________TITLE__________________________ STREET _________________________________________________________________ CITY________________________________STATE______________ZIP_____________ TELEPHONE (_______)_____________________EMAIL_________________________

PAGE 61

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 53 APPENDIX B

PAGE 62

54 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 63

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 55 Phase II, Shellfish Industry Questionnaires

PAGE 64

56 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 65

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 57 Blood Ark Clam Questionnaire (Anadara ovalis) (Orange Mesh Bag) Arrival Condition (1) Please smell the Blood Ark clams. Are you able to detect an odor or not? [Check one] _____No _____Yes If yes, how would you describe the odor? [Check one] 1 2 3 4 5 Very Slightly Neutral Slightly Very Unpleasant Unpleasant Pleasant Pleasant (2) Please circle the number that reflects overall arrival condition : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely Extremely Poor Good Comments: ______________________________________________________ (3) Please rate the appearance of the shells [Circle one number]: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Very Unattractive Attractive (4) Please rate the color of the meat (entire animal) [Circle one number]: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Very Unattractive Attractive Comments: ______________________________________________________ (5) Please rate the taste for the serving method(s) you used [Circle one number]: If eaten raw : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Extremely Poor Good If cooked circle the cooking method (steamed, microwaved, baked, or broiled), then rate taste [Circle one number]: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Extremely Poor Good (6) Please rate the texture of the Blood Ark clams [Circle one number]: 1 2 3 4 5 Much Slightly Just Slightly Much Too Tough Too Tough Right Too Soft Too Soft (7) There are two size grades of Blood Ark clams in the orange mesh bag, “medium” and “large”. Which size do you feel would be most popular in your market area? [Check one] ____ Medium ____ Large ____ Both equally popular ____ Do not know

PAGE 66

58 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey (8) If Blood Ark clams were available year round at prices comparable to hard clams from Florida, how many, if any, do you feel you could sell each week? [Enter number per week] _____________ Blood Ark clams per week (9) Please give us your general reaction to these Bloo d Ark clams (use back if necessary):

PAGE 67

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 59 Ponderous Ark Clam Questionnaire (Noetia ponderosa) (Black Mesh Bag) Arrival Condition (1) Please smell the Ponderous Ark clams. Are you able to detect an odor or not? [Check one] _____No _____Yes If yes, how would you describe the odor? [Check one] 1 2 3 4 5 Very Slightly Neutral Slightly Very Unpleasant Unpleasant Pleasant Pleasant (2) Please circle the number that reflects overall arrival condition : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Extremely Extremely Poor Good Comments: ______________________________________________________ (3) Please rate the appearance of the shells [Circle one number]: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Very Unattractive Attractive (4) Please rate the color of the meat (entire animal) [Circle one number]: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Very Unattractive Attractive Comments: ______________________________________________________ (5) Please rate the taste for the serving method(s) you used [Circle one number]: If eaten raw : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Extremely Poor Good If cooked circle the cooking method (steamed, microwaved, baked, or broiled), then rate taste [Circle one number]: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Extremely Poor Good (6) Please rate the texture of the Ponderous Ark clams [Circle one number]: 1 2 3 4 5 Much Slightly Just Slightly Much Too Tough Too Tough Right Too Soft Too Soft (7) Please rate the size of the Ponderous Ark clams: 1 2 3 4 5 Much Slightly Just Slightly Much Too Small Too Small Right Too Large Too Large

PAGE 68

60 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey (8) If Ponderous Ark clams were ava ilable year round at prices compar able to hard clams from Florida, how many, if any, do you feel you could se ll each week? [Enter number per week] _____________ Ponderous Ark clams per week (9) Please give us your general reaction to these Ponder ous Ark clams (use back if necessary):

PAGE 69

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 61 APPENDIX C

PAGE 70

62 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 71

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 63 Phase II, Shellfish Industry Comments

PAGE 72

64 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 73

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 65 Appendix C, Table 1. Respondent s’ Comments About Blood Ar k Clams, Phase II Findings. Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions 1 Clam was interesting in looks. Taste was bitter. 2 Good for sushi. 3 Very good in the future market. Let me know when the clams are available. 4 Should have cleaner shell to steam. Hard to open with a knife. The clams were rubbery but OK taste. 5 6 Sent out whole. They like the ponderous ark better. 7 The appearance is the major factor for selling this product. Comparable to others, seems Asian market is your best bet. 8 Red in color. This type of clam would only be on interest to certain ethnic groups. However, if you went after these specific markets, this clam could be successful. 9 The color of the meat is a turnoff. Good flavor and texture. 10 Would have a hard time competing against our black soft shell mud clams, sweet and tender, state of ME has 2” shell size on clams with 10% tolerance. 11 Raw ugly/cooked normal/not as furry. They suck raw. 12 Bad, bad gross. Salty but tough when raw, steamed: took way too long, safety issue. Brown steam water would not cut! Health issue. Shell nicer shape than other sample. How clean shell before steaming? Water after steaming “gross”: brown with stuff in it? Overall attitude from samplers, “GROSS”. 13

PAGE 74

66 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions 14 As far as these animals go, meat is acceptable. Clams need to be larger. 15 As far as I know no one eats them. We throw them away for junk. 16 Not bad. Comparable to Northern wahoganays, which I do not sell. 17 Ice pack was all melted. Cooked ones are imported from Korea, which does not give much flavor. Will be a good selling item if prices are right. 18 Dirt on clams and redness of clams. People in this area will not buy them because of the dirt on clams and the redness in clam. 19 Very good flavor, ugly meat. 20 21 Could be a product a market could be developed for. 22 Fresh, good overall appearance, different taste. 23 All alive and cold. Bulk fuzz needs to be removed, blood appearance borders on unappealing. Fuzz and blood a problem. 24 Looks like raw liver. In comparison to many fine clams available on the West Coast which are attractive, easy to cook, and very tasty with a sweeter flavor, we do not feel these clams would be marketable in our marketing area. Due to the very heavy shells, the shelf life would probably be good, however, at the same time shipping costs would be more expensive. We are sorry that our answers are brutally frank and wish we could be more positive. 25 They wouldn’t open – could not eat. 26 My feelings are the same for both clams except this clam was easy to cook and get out of shell.

PAGE 75

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 67Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions 27 Hard to clean organic material off shell. This clam was hard to clean which would make them a poor choice for use as a whole garnish, i.e.: white clam sauce or marinara. 28 Very unattractive. Very unattractiv e – open rapidly when steamed – meat tasted all right but the color, texture and overall appearance was very poor. The color was much too dark. 29 Not able to sell to my customers. 30 Rather bitter in taste, volume of meat relating to shell size poor. In my opinion, these would be more valuable for their shells. 31 Shell stock temp average 50 degrees. Dark color – blood juice. Not appetizing. 32 Not saleable in this area. 33 Temp of clams 58 degrees. I do not like the blood. Temp of clams 58 degrees. Not enough ice in package. Product needs to be 40 degrees or below. 34 35 Interior of box was warm – gel packs melted but clams firm. Hairy cover not likeable. Not as white! Dark chocolate brown stomach. I elected to steam the blood ark clams, as I feel steaming is the way of the future. I found the clams to be tender, but still full of too much liquid to say I honestly liked their texture. I did however steam them only until they opened and then sampled. Afte r 3 days of adequate cold storage, I found the blood ark clams “edible” but no desirable. Even after waiting for a “drying-out period” after initial steaming, I still found them “visceral”. Too many thin skinny membranes to be chewed and swallowed. Just to me though, but I love eating clams. Overall 3 out of 10. Upon steaming blood arks, already noticed they did not steam open as quickly. 36 Cool – in good shape. If they were cheap enough, people may buy them. They would not be good for steamed half shells. 37 Shell stock looked g ood to me The reddish color –Shell stock looked g ood to me exce p t for moss g rowth on

PAGE 76

68 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions except for moss growth on shell. not attractive. shell. Good texture, good flavor compared to ME hard shell clam. Only drawback is red blood color when eaten raw. Didn’t cook any. 38 Due to clams being almost black, they lefts a black film in the pan. Due to clams being almost black, they lefts a black film in the pan. Not good and only one clam opened after 15 minutes of steaming. 39 The larger blood clam would be easier for us to sell, as our customers prefer the larger size. I could easily sell 3 to 5k lbs. weekly. 40 Very nice, clean appearance. They are very colorful compared to other shellfish. The clams were shipped 11/17 and our test was done 11/21. 41 Fuzzy dirty ‘appearance’ Bad name, fuzzy dirty ‘appearance’ not desirable in this area compared to hard shell clam or midneck clam. 42 Could eat raw or steamed. Liked salinity vs. ponderous arks. 43 I would want to scrub before serving – looks like not supersanitary. Better than ponderous arks. Some chefs preferred ponderous while others preferred blood. I found few chefs that were ready to jump on product. 44 45 46 Not suitable for this area where we have our own hard clams. 47 48 Glad to see them – have customers with interest. 49 The blood ark was not as strong as the ponderous ark clam. 50 Much too strong flavor. 51 Excellent taste and presentation. 52 Clams travel well. Lighter meat usually a positive. Don’t have a market. There is a limited Asian market in NYC for these clams. I have no exposure to those mkts.

PAGE 77

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 69 Appendix C, Table 2. Respondents’ Comments About Ponderous Ar k Clams, Phase II Findings. Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions 1 Had better taste than others, but needed something to spice it up, I steamed in water only. 2 Good for sushi. 3 Very good for the future market. 4 Could not open more than two clams by steaming/boiling/microwaving or with a knife. 5 6 Looked like something for the Oriental market. 7 Again, the appearance, taste and texture of clams designate good sales for our niche market. This would be a hard sell compared to other clams. 8 Red in color. Most American clam eaters would not find this type of clam desirable. It is very popular, however, among certain ethnic groups. If marketed specifically this type of shellfish would be very successful. 9 Flavor good (color not). Texture could be better. Good chowder clam. 10 Would have hard time competing against our black soft shell mud clams, sweet and tender, state of ME has 2” shell size on clams with 10% tolerance. 11 Kind of furry. They double-suck raw / Good cooked / Unique. 12 Shell square-shaped (wei rd). Bad, bad, gross, bio-fouled. Shell square-shaped (weird). Growth of other creatures looked bad. When opened blood juice on shucking hand. “To sell must hide processing (cooking) from everyone. No way in traditional recipes. Terrible visual.” I needed (perception) to wash hands thoroughly with soap after shucking and cooking these “cl ams”. Normally I do, but only as required. Yucky stuff. 13 14 Pretty gross to me! Theses animals need to be develo p ed. Current market

PAGE 78

70 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions thinks large is better. 15 As far as I know no one eats them, we throw them away for junk. 16 When I cooked these clams they did not open which lead to over-cooking and therefore way too tough. 17 Ice pack was melted. Know as an expensive side dish in Korea, but cannot be imported unless cooked, which takes away the flavor. Could be regularly sold items for Korean and Japanese market and restaurants, and even exporting to Korea. 18 Too much blood and dirt. Too much blood, customer will not buy anything that looks like that. Too much dirt on shells. Clam in this area are spawning when red. People will not buy. 19 Bland taste. 20 21 Could be a product that could be developed for Asian markets. 22 Nice, well-rounded product. 23 All alive and cold. Blood appearance borders on unappealing. Fuzz and blood a problem. 24 Well-packed but gel was melted. Appearance hairiness and black color – unattractive; shape – OK. Very dark juice looks bloody – very unappetizing. Appearance hairiness and black color – unattractive; shape – OK. The black color of the raw meat and juice is not very appealing or appetizing. The inside of the shell is very attractive and woul d be wonderful for serving, however, the meat was not attractive or appetizing, the raw clam was extremely difficult to open for a Westerner, as our clams open much more readily. We found the clams difficult to cook as the cooking times varied greatly. Out of clams, 3 opened after 35 minutes, 1 after 6 minutes, 4 did not open after 10 minutes. If over-cooking toughens the clam meat, preparation of the clams would be difficult. The broth was fairly good but the color was not appetizing. 25 Visuall y much different than what New En g land is

PAGE 79

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 71Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions accustomed to. Very bloody – wouldn’t want to eat them uncooked. Nice briny clam flavor. Very chewy. 26 It is what it is buy most people would not like color. I have been a fisherman all my life I would eat anything that comes out of the sea, but these clams would be very hard to sell. They don’t taste better than a hard clam and look worse. The price would have to start very low to encourage people to try them also the name is not very enticing. Mussel clam would market better. The meat looks somewhat like a mussel. This clams was also very hard to open even when cooked a long time and the juice was dark. 27 Again, shell hard to clean, which makes them a poor choice for whole clam garnish. 28 Too dark – very unappetizing. The smaller-sized clams failed to open when steamed. The larger opens opened but were very unappealing. 29 Not able to sell to my customers. 30 Rather bitter in taste, meats were small and dark in color. Not very marketable in this area (NE). 31 50 degrees. Unacceptable to replace hard shell clams but product if grown to 3”+ possible market for processing, canning, etc. 32 Not saleable in this area. 33 Temp @ time of arrival 58 degrees. First time I saw them, not very attractive. First time I saw them, not very attractive. Do not like the blood. Temp @ time of arrival 58 degrees. Package needs more ice. Product should be 40 degrees or below. 34 35 Warm cooler – product OK! Less brown than blood ark. Better than blood arks – they did not steam open after 10 minutes of hard steaming. Actually had to pry open the shells to get them open. Way too much cooking time and work! The other had a much better “steamed” texture, but was so hard to get to. Overall I would rate the ponderous ark higher in every category except cooking time. I only steamed; ma y be others had better luck with micro, broil,

PAGE 80

72 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Obs. No. Condition Appearan ce Color General Reactions etc. Hope people did broil, micro. Good luck! 36 Cool – in good shape. Dark. More long than round and meat more…like blood. 37 Red blood color. Did not like the taste. Bitter and had an aftertaste. 38 Who wants to eat a clam with fur? Meats are light to dark brown. Who wants to eat a clam with fur? Some clams too small, the small clams had no black on them and were tender. It seems you sent three different species. 39 Definitely a blood clam. I feel these are probably a more pleasant clam to look at and possibly a higher quality clam than the blood ark. 40 41 Fuzzy appears dirty. Dark. Fuzzy appear s dirty. Do not see a market in my area. 42 Raw and steamed OK, prefer steamed vs. raw or baked. 43 Like inside of shell’s appearance – outside looked dirty to me and makes me think of bacterial environment and costly scrubbing. No used to appearance – takes some getting used to. It would take prior marketing tools and efforts to sell them. After 30 years selling full line seafood – this seems like an Asian item. Tough visually, can be decent flavor if you get past visual. Overall, raw shucked appearance hard to stomach, I eat raw oysters on the shell for breakfast frequently. 44 45 46 They’re no substitute for necks. Not likely to be popular here. 47 48 Have customers with interest. 49 Too strong of taste compared to the blood ark clams. 50 51 They did not open upon steaming. 52 Clams have good shelf life. Too dark. Have no established market for clam. Some use among Asian communities. Too dark for most clam consumers. Consumers want light-colored meat. Even yellow turns them away. They connect dark with a negative – something wrong!

PAGE 81

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 73 APPENDIX D

PAGE 82

74 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 83

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 75NUTRITIONAL ANALYSES Procedure Comprehensive nutritional analyses were conducted for the Blood Ark clam and the Ponderous Ark clam. Samples of cultured ar k clams were collected from their respective growing areas in St. Augustine (east coast of Florida) and Cedar Key (west coast of Florida). One hundred grams of meat (wet weight) were shucked for each ark clam species. The meat samples were delivered in coolers to an accredited private food-testing laboratory in Gainesville. Of ficial methods were used following the AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) Offici al Methods of Anal ysis (Horwitz, 2002). Blood Ark Clams The nutrition facts and labeling for cultu red Blood Ark clams are provided below (Appendix D, Figure 1). These f acts are determined for a serv ing size of 100 grams of raw, edible portion. This serving is low in calories (35) and total fat (0.5 g) and high in protein (7 g). Cholesterol is relati vely low (35 mg), with the se rving portion representing 12 percent of the daily value. There is no detect able carbohydrate (0 g) in this portion. In terms of percent daily value, a serving of Blood Ark clams pr ovides six percent of Vitamin A, two percent of Vitamin C, and six percen t of calcium. Blood Ark meats are high in iron (70% of daily value), which is most likely a ssociated with the presence of hemoglobin and erythrocytes in the clam m eats. Of note is the high sodium content (740 mg) that represents 31 percent of the daily value. Even for a saltwater mollusk, which is a suspension feeder, this level is particularly hi gh. One plausible ex planation for this may be that the meat sample (wet weight) contai ned fluids from within the shells. These trapped fluids may have abnormally increased the sodium content. Ponderous Ark Clams The nutrition facts and labeling for cultu red Ponderous Ark clams are provided below (Appendix D, Figure 1). These facts are determined for a serving size of 100 grams of raw, edible portion. Like the Blood Ark clam s, this serving is low in calories (50) and total fat (1.0 g), and even higher in protein ( 11 g). Cholesterol is higher than in the Blood Ark sample at 55 mg, representing 18 percen t of the daily value. There is little carbohydrate (1 g). In terms of percent daily value, a serving of Ponderous Ark clams provides six percent of Vitamin A, four percen t of Vitamin C, and te n percent of calcium. Ponderous Ark meats are also hi gh in iron (50 perc ent of daily value), again most likely associated with the blood pigment content. Although the sodium cont ent (480 mg) is lower than that for the Blood Ark clams, it is sti ll relatively high represen ting 20 percent of the daily value. Comparison with Hard Clams A nutritional analysis for the hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria was obtained from the Florida Department of Ag riculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Seafood and Aquaculture Marketing. Approximate nutrition al values for four ounces (114 grams) of raw, edible portion consisted of the following: Calories-80; Calories from fat-10; Total Fat-

PAGE 84

76 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey 1 gram; Saturated Fat-0 gram; Choleste rol-45 milligrams; Sodium-65 milligrams; Carbohydrate-0 gram; Protein-18 grams; Calc ium-4 percent Recommended Daily Intake; and, Iron-20 percent Recommended Daily Inta ke. Information on Vitamin A and Vitamin C values was not available. When comparing these hard clam values with those obtained for the ark clams, the hard clam is slightly higher in calories and pr otein, but similar in total fats, cholesterol and total carbohydrate. Greater differences between the hard clam and ark clams are found in the iron and sodium values. Ark clams provide two to three times the percent daily values for iron than hard clams, whereas ark clams contain ten times the am ount of sodium than hard clams. Like the hard clam and other molluscan shellfish, ark clams are a nutritious and excellent source of protein. Ark clam s are especially good sources of iron and calcium. However, based on these results cons umers who must restri ct their intake of sodium should take these nutritional facts into consideration or reduce their portion size. Appendix D, Figure 1. Nutrition Facts for Blood Ark Clams (left) and Ponderous Ark Clams (right).

PAGE 85

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 77 APPENDIX E

PAGE 86

78 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey

PAGE 87

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 79SHELF LIFE EVALUATION Molluscan shellfish are typically shipped as live shellstock and adequate shelf life is an important product attribute. Federal regulat ions require that live mollusks be placed in refrigerated storage (<45F) within a predet ermined time/temperature harvest matrix in order to reduce probable levels of Vibrio bacteria (FDA, 2003). Fo r these reasons, the shelf life of live Blood Ark and Ponderous Ark clams was investigated to assure product quality and safety. Procedure To determine the survival of these two ark clam species in refrigerated storage, evaluation of shelf life was conducted in Apr il 2004. Procedures follo wed those developed by Applewhite et al. (1996) a nd Otwell (1998) for determining shelf life of hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria Blood Ark clams were harveste d from a commercial shellfish aquaculture lease located in th e Intercoastal Waterway on the east coast of Florida at 8:00 AM on March 31, whereas Ponderous Ark clams were harvested from a commercial lease in the Gulf of Mexico on the west coast of Florida at 9:00 AM on the same day. Bottom water temperatures at the time of harvest we re recorded. Immediat ely post harvest, ark clams were transported in coolers under ambient conditions to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissi on’s marine laboratory in Cedar Key. At 1:00 PM ark clams were received at the laboratory and placed under tempering conditions at 68F following protocols defined in the Nationa l Shellfish Sanitation Program, Model Ordinance, Guide for the Control of Mo lluscan Shellfish, VIII@.03 OPTION 1.E (FDA, 2003) and the Comprehensive Shellfish Cont rol Code, Rule Chapter 5L-1.013(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. During temper ing, 100 ark clams were randomly selected from each species, of which a sub-sample of 25 was measured and weighed. Each ark clam sample of 100 was then placed into polyethylen e tubular netting, which is typically used by shellfish dealers in bagging and transporting hard clams. As defined in the harvest time/temperat ure matrix per Rule Chapter 5L-1.008(5), FAC, molluscan shellfish must be placed into refrigeration within 12 hours of the time of harvest during the month of April. If temper ing is included as an alternative post-harvest process, then the time to refrigeration can be extended up to 16 hours from the time of harvest. Ark clams were placed into a thermost at-controlled refrigerator set at the standard storage temperature of 45F on March 31 at 7: 30 PM. Air temperatures were recorded inside the refrigerator usi ng a minimum/maximum thermometer. The ark clams were checked daily for survival with the exception of two days during the evaluation period. Gapped ark clams were determined to be “co mmercially dead” when they did not respond by closing their shell to specifi ed agitation, or tapping, after th e ark clams were held for a short time at room temperature. Dead ar k clams were counted and removed from the sample bags. The general conditions of the ar k clams during storage we re also noted. The evaluation was conducted until 50 percent of the ark clams died. Percent survival for each ark clam species was determined.

PAGE 88

80 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Blood Ark Clams Water temperature at the time of harves t of the Blood Ark clams was 67F. The clams used in the Blood Ark sample averaged 1 7/8” in shell lengt h, 1 ” in shell width and 12.6 per pound. During the sh elf life evaluation, minimum air temperatures in the refrigerator averaged 41.4F (+/-3.3F) and maximum air temperatures averaged 52.4F (+/-2.5F). The overall average daily temperature was 46.9F (+/-2.7F). The noncommercial refrigerator used in this study was not able to maintain air temperatures consistently below 45 F. The first Blood Ark mortality occurred on the fourth day of the evaluation. Mortalities were not noted again until the te nth day when five Blood Ark clams did not respond to agitation. Mortalities then occurred almost daily, w ith the number of mortalities increasing rapidly after the 19th day. On Day 23, the cumulati ve number of dead Blood Ark clams was 57 and the shelf life evaluati on was terminated (Appendix E, Table 1). Appendix E, Table 1. Number of Blood Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated Storage. Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead ------n----------n----3-31-2004 0 0 0 4-01-2004 1 0 0 4-02-2004 2 0 0 4-03-2004 3 0 0 4-04-2004 4 1 1 4-05-2004 5 0 1 4-06-2004 6 0 1 4-07-2004 7 0 1 4-08-2004 8 0 1 4-09-2004 9 0 1 4-10-2004 10 5 6 4-11-2004 11 2 8 4-12-2004 12 2 10 4-13-2004 13 0 10 4-14-2004 14 2 12 4-15-2004 15 0 12 4-16-2004 16 1 13 4-17-2004 17 4-18-2004 18

PAGE 89

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 81 Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead ------n----------n----4-19-2004 19 10 23 4-20-2004 20 6 29 4-21-2004 21 9 38 4-22-2004 22 11 49 4-23-2004 23 8 57 Total 23 57 57 Survival of Blood Ark clams in refriger ated storage was 99 percent or greater during the first nine days of the evaluation. Survivals dr opped below 90 percent and 50 percent after Days 13 and 23, respectively (Appendi x E, Figure 1). After the first week of the evaluation, liquid began accumulating in the bottom of the tray holding the Blood Ark bag. The tray was wiped clean daily thereafter. In addition, gaping occurred frequently in the live Blood Ark clams and agitation was required before they would close. The remaining live ark clams at the end of the evaluation sounded “hollow” and a strong odor was detected. A commercial mortality of grea ter than five percent would be considered unacceptable by the shellstock shipper industr y, thus the shelf life of Blood Ark clams harvested under spring conditions may be limited to ten days. During warmer water temperatures experienced in summer months shelf life may be further reduced, thus limiting shipment of live Blood Ark clams during that time period. Appendix E, Figure 1. Survival of Blood Ark Clams in Refrigerated Storage. 100100100 999999999999 94 92 9090 8888 87 77 71 62 51 430 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617181920212223 Days Survival (%) Ponderous Ark Clams Water temperature at the time of harvest of the Ponderous Ark clams was 68F. The clams used in the Ponderous Ark sample averaged 2” in shell length, 1 3/8” in shell

PAGE 90

82 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey width and 10.5 per pound. During the shelf life evaluation, minimum air temperatures in the refrigerator averaged 41.4F (+/-3.3F) a nd maximum air temperatures averaged 52.4F (+/-2.5F). The overall average daily temperature was 46.9F (+/-2.7F). The noncommercial refrigerator used in this study was not able to maintain air temperatures consistently below 45 F. The first Ponderous Ark mortality occu rred on the twenty-third day of the evaluation. This was the same day that the Blood Ark evaluation wa s concluded since over 50 percent of those ark clams had died. It was decided to terminate the Ponderous Ark evaluation on the same day (Appendix E, Table 2). Appendix E, Table 2. Number of Ponderous Ark Clam Mortalities in Refrigerated Storage. Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead ------n----------n----3-31-2004 0 0 0 4-01-2004 1 0 0 4-02-2004 2 0 0 4-03-2004 3 0 0 4-04-2004 4 0 0 4-05-2004 5 0 0 4-06-2004 6 0 0 4-07-2004 7 0 0 4-08-2004 8 0 0 4-09-2004 9 0 0 4-10-2004 10 0 0 4-11-2004 11 0 0 4-12-2004 12 0 0 4-13-2004 13 0 0 4-14-2004 14 0 0 4-15-2004 15 0 0 4-16-2004 16 0 0 4-17-2004 17 0 4-18-2004 18 0 4-19-2004 19 0 0 4-20-2004 20 0 0 4-21-2004 21 0 0

PAGE 91

Shellfish Industry Survey UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 83 Date Day Number Dead Number Cumulative Dead ------n----------n----4-22-2004 22 0 0 4-23-2004 23 1 1 Total 23 1 1 Survival of Ponderous Ark clams in refr igerated storage was 100 percent during the first 22 days of the evaluation. Only on Day 23 did the survival drop to 99 percent. The majority of the Ponderous Ark clams remained tightly closed thr oughout the evaluation with no liquid accumulating on the bottom of the tray holding the Ponderous Ark bag. There was no gapping observed in the remain ing live ark clams and no odors were detected (Appendix E, Figure 2). Appendix E, Figure 2. Survival of Ponderous Ark Clams in Refrigerated Storage. 100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100100 990 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1234567891011121314151617181920212223DaysSurvival (%) Comparison with Hard Clams A baseline for the survival of Florida fa rm-raised hard clams during refrigeration was obtained for product harvested from commer cial aquaculture leas es in the Gulf of Mexico during April through Oc tober 1997 (Otwell, 1998). In April, 100 percent of the hard clams survived for seven days after placemen t in refrigerated storage. After ten days, the survival of hard clams dropped to 90 percent. In this study, the Blood Ark clams showed similar responses to refrigerated storag e as hard clams. It may be that like hard clams, survival of Blood Arks may be reduc ed when harvested during the warmer summer months. However, extending the tempering pr otocol to its full duration of 16 hours may help prolong the refrigerated shelf life of Bl ood Arks as it has with hard clams. The tolerance of live Ponderous Ark clams to refrig erated temperatures exceeds that observed for hard clams and other molluscan shellfish, such as oysters. These results demonstrate that commercial distribution of live shellstock of both ark clam species is achievable.

PAGE 92

84 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Shellfish Industry Survey Alternative harvesting, handling and storage techniques, such as tempering, used to increase survival of hard clams in refriger ated storage when harvest water temperatures exceed 80F should also be considered for the Blood Ark clam.