• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Data
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 Data sources






Group Title: Technical paper - Florida Sea Grant College Program ; no. 59
Title: Trends in the importation of selected fresh and frozen seafood products into the southeastern United States
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076611/00001
 Material Information
Title: Trends in the importation of selected fresh and frozen seafood products into the southeastern United States
Series Title: Technical paper Florida Sea Grant College Program
Physical Description: xii, 70 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Adams, Charles M
Lawlor, Frank J
Florida Sea Grant College
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant College Program
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1989
 Subjects
Subject: Fish trade -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Fishery products -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 70).
Statement of Responsibility: Charles M. Adams, Frank J. Lawlor.
General Note: "Florida Sea Grant publication."
General Note: "Project no. IR-88-3 ; NA86AA-D-SG068."
General Note: "November 1989."
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076611
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 21258026
lccn - 90621869

Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    List of Tables
        List of Tables
    List of Figures
        List of Figures 1
        List of Figures 2
        List of Figures 3
        List of Figures 4
    Executive summary
        Unnumbered ( 9 )
        Unnumbered ( 10 )
        Unnumbered ( 11 )
        Unnumbered ( 12 )
        Unnumbered ( 13 )
        Unnumbered ( 14 )
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Data
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Discussion
        All species
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
        Snapper
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
        Grouper
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 12
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
        Mahi-mahi
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 17
        Conch meat
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 20
            Page 23
            Page 24
        Corvina
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
        Black Drum
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 28
        Kingklip
            Page 31
            Page 30
            Page 32
            Page 33
        Lobster
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 33
            Page 36
            Page 37
        Scallops
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 37
            Page 41
        Shark
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 41
        Pompano
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 44
            Page 47
            Page 48
        Swordfish
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
        Red Drum
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 52
        Sea Trout
            Page 55
            Page 54
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
        King Mackerel
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 58
        Spanish Mackerel
            Page 62
            Page 63
            Page 61
            Page 64
        Marlin
            Page 65
            Page 64
        Tilefish
            Page 65
            Page 66
    Conclusions
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
    Data sources
        Page 70
Full Text
o10
5co
coP--2,


Technical Paper No. 59


TRENDS IN THE IMPORTATION OF
SELECTED FRESH AND FROZEN
SEAFOOD PRODUCTS INTO THE
SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES


CHARLES M. ADAMS


FRANK J. LAWLOR


rLORIDa-

GRANT-
COLLEGE PROORAM


FLORIDA SEA GRANT PUBLICATION









TRENDS IN THE IMPORTATION OF
SELECTED FRESH AND FROZEN
SEAFOOD PRODUCTS INTO THE
SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES


By
Charles M. Adams
Florida Sea Grant Marine Economist
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida. Gainesville, FL
Frank J. Lawlor, III
Florida Sea Grant Marine Agent
Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Palm Beach Gardens, FL



















Project No. IR-88-3
NA86AA-D-SG068
Technical Paper TP-59
Florida Sea Grant College Program
November 1989









TABLE OF CONTENTS


Text Page

List of Tables .............................................. ii

List of Figures ............................................. iii

Executive Summary .......................................... vii

Introduction .............................................. 1

Data .................. ... .................... ............ 2

Discussion .................................................. 5
All Key Species........................................ 5
Snapper .................................... .......... 9
Grouper ................................................. 12
Mahi-mahi ............................................... 17
Conch Meat .............................................. 20
Corvina .... ........... ................................ 25
Black Drum .............................................. 28
Kingklip ................................................ 30
Lobster ................................................. 33
Scallops .......................................... 37
Shark ......................................... ....... 41
Pompano ....................................... .... ... 44
Swordfish ............................................... 49
Red Drum ............................................ 52
Sea Trout ........................................ ...... 54
King Mackerel ........................................... 58
Spanish Mackerel ........................................ 61
Marlin ............................................... 64
Tilefish ................................................ 65

Conclusions ................................... ..... .......... 66

Data Sources ............ .................................. 70


i









LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

Table 1: Finfish and Shellfish Species Included ............ 4

Table 2: Summary of Import and Landings Data
by Species ....................................... 68








LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

Figure 1:


Figure 2:


Figure 3:


Figure 4:


Figure 5:


Figure 6:


Figure 7:


Figure 8:


Figure 9:


Figure 10:


Figure 11:


Figure 12:


Figure 13:


Figure 14:


Figure 15:


Figure 16:


Figure 17:


Imports of Key Species Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87.........................

Numbers of Key Species Imported Into.
Southeastern Ports of Entry 1983-87 ..............

Imports of Key Species Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen...........

Imports of Key Species Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Whole vs Fillets..........

Imports of Key Species By Countries of
Origin: 1983 and 1987 .........................

Southeast U.S. Snapper Landings and
Imports: 1983-87 .................................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Snapper Imports ................

Imports of Snapper Into Southeastern Ports
of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen ................

Imports of Snapper Into Southeastern Ports
of Entry: 1983-87 Product Forms ..................

Imports of Snapper By Country of Origin
1983 and 1987 ....................................

Southeast U.S. Grouper Landings and
Imports: 1983-87 ................................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution of
Southeast U.S. Grouper Imports ...................

Imports of Grouper Into Southeastern Ports
Of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen ...............

Imports of Grouper Into Southeastern Ports
Of Entry: 1983-87 Product Forms .................

Imports of Grouper By Country of Origin:
1983 and 1987 ....................................

Southeast U.S. Dolphin (Mahi-mahi)
Landings and Imports: 1983-87 ....................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Mahi-mahi Imports ...........


I








Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure

Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure

Figure


Figure


Figure


Figure


18: Imports of Mahi-mahi Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen...........

19: Imports of Mahi-mahi Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Product Forms.............

20: Imports of Mahi-mahi By Countries of
Origin: 1983 and 1987 .........................

21: Imports of Conch Meat Into Southeastern
U.S. Ports of Entry: 1983-87 ...................

22: Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Conch Meat Imports ............

23: Imports of Conch Meat Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen...........

24: Imports of Conch Meat By Countries of
Origin: 1983 and 1987 ......................

25: Southeast Corvina Imports: 1984-87.................

26: Three-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Corvina Imports................

27: Imports of Corvina Into Southeastern Ports
of Entry: 1984-87 Fresh vs Frozen...............

28: Imports of Corvina Into Southeastern Ports
of Entry: 1984-87 Product Forms..................

29: Imports of Corvina By Country of
Origin: 1985 and 1987 .............. ..........

30: Southeast U.S. Black Drum Imports:
1983-87 ..........................................

31: Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution of
Southeast U.S. Black Drum Imports ................

32: Southeast U.S. Kingklip Imports: 1985-87............

33: Three-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Kingklip Imports...............

34: Imports of Kingklip Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1985-87 Fresh vs Frozen .........

35: Imports of Kingklip Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1985-87 Product Forms.............

36: Southeast U.S. Lobster Landings And
Imports: 1983-87 ...................... ...........


Page









Figure

Figure 37:


Figure 38:


Figure

Figure

Figure


Figure 42:


Figure 43:


Figure 44:


Figure 45:


Figure 46:


Figure 47:


Figure 48:


Figure 49:


Figure 50:


Figure 51:


Figure 52:


Figure 53:


Figure 54:


Figure 55:


Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution of
Southeast U.S. Lobster Imports ...................

Imports of Lobster By Country of Origin:
1983 and 1987 ....................................

Southeast U.S. Scallop Imports: 1983-87............

Southeast U.S. Scallop Landings: 1983-87...........

Four-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Scallop Imports................

Imports of Scallops Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen .........

Imports of Scallops By Countries of
Origin: 1984 and 1987 ...........................

Southeast U.S. Shark Landings and
Imports: 1983-87 ............ ... ...... .........

Three-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Shark Imports...................

Imports of Shark Into Southeastern Ports
of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen................

Imports of Shark Into Southeastern Ports
of Entry: 1983-87 Product Forms..................

Imports of Shark By Countries of Origin:
1986 and 1987 ..................................

Southeast U.S. Pompano Landings and
Imports: 1983-87 .................................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution of
Southeast U.S. Pompano Imports...................

Imports of Pompano Into Southeastern Ports
of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen ...............

Imports of Pompano By Countries of
Origin: 1983 and 1987 .............. .........

Southeast U.S. Swordfish Landings and
Imports: 1983-87 ...............................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution of
Southeast U.S. Swordfish Imports..................

Imports of Swordfish Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen .........









Figure

Figure 56:


Figure 57:

Figure 58:


Figure 59:


Figure 60:


Figure 61:


Figure 62:

Figure 63:


Figure 64:


Figure 65:


Figure 66:


Figure 67:


Figure 68:


Figure 69:


Figure 70:


Figure 71:


Page


Imports of Swordfish By Countries of
Origin: 1983 and 1987 ............................

Southeast U.S. Red Drum Imports: 1983-87...........

Southeast U.S. Red Drum Landings:
1983-87 ..........................................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution of
Southeast U.S. Red Drum Imports...................

Imports of Red Drum Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen .........

Imports of Red Drum Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Product Forms............

Southeast U.S. Sea Trout Imports: 1983-87..........

Southeast U.S. Sea Trout Landings:
1983-87 ..........................................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. Sea Trout Imports...............

Imports of Sea Trout Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen .........

Imports of Sea Trout Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Product Forms.............

Imports of Sea Trout By Countries of
Origin: 1983 and 1987 ............................

Southeast U.S. King Mackerel Landings
And Imports: 1983-87 .............................

Five-Year Average Monthly Distribution
of Southeast U.S. King Mackerel Imports...........

Imports of King Mackerel Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Fresh vs Frozen .........

Imports of King Mackerel Into Southeastern
Ports of Entry: 1983-87 Product Forms............









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Imported seafoods have continuously represented over 50 percent
of the total edible seafood supplies in the U.S. since 1966. Since
1980, imports of edible seafood products have increased at an average
annual rate of over 6 percent, compared to a decline of about 2 percent
for domestic landings. Edible seafood imports reached 6.6 billion
pounds in 1987.

All Species

The total volume of imports of the 68 species arriving in the
southeast U.S. ports of entry increased from 17.4 million pounds in
1983 to 70.4 million pounds in 1987. As the total volumes of imports
have increased, so have the numbers of individual species imported.

Prior to 1986, the volume of frozen seafood products imported
into the southeast U.S. exceeded that for fresh products. However,
in 1986 and 1987, fresh imports exceeded frozen by approximately 25
percent.

In 1983, the major country of origin for imports was Mexico,
followed by Costa Rica, Peru, Honduras, Belize, and Bahamas. Mexico
was still the leading source in 1987, followed by Ecuador, Costa Rica,
Panama, Peru, and Chile.

Snapper

Imports of all species of snapper into southeastern U.S. ports
of entry increased from 4.8 million pounds in 1983 to 14.0 million
pounds in 1987. During this same period, snapper landings in the region
declined by an annual average rate of 6.8 percent. Imports exceeded
landings volumes for the first time in 1985.

Import volume of fresh snapper consistently exceeded that for
frozen products during the 1983-87 period. By 1987, fresh snapper
imports accounted for 87 percent of the total. In 1987, 90 percent
of the total snapper import volume was whole product.

In 1987, Mexico was the most important single source of snapper,
with Venezuela and Costa Rica each supplying 18 percent of the total
import volume.

Grouper

Grouper imports increased from .5 million pounds in 1983 to 8.9
million pounds in 1987. Grouper landings in the southeast region
remained stable through 1986, but decreased to 9.5 million pounds in
1987.

Import volumes of fresh grouper have dominated the southeastern
grouper import market since 1984, although declining somewhat in
importance relative to frozen product from 1986 to 1987. Grouper
imported in whole form remained the most important product form during
the 1983-87 period.


vii


I








Mexico was the most important source of grouper product from.1983
to 1987, providing approximately one half the total supply. Costa
Rica and Chile were also important sources of grouper.

Mahi-mahi

Mahi-mahi imports remained below 1 million pounds through 1985,
doubled in 1986, and increased dramatically to 7.4 million pounds in
1987. Landings of mahi-mahi in the southeastern region have been
relatively stable, with production increasing from 318,000 pounds in
1983 to 645,000 pounds in 1987.

Fresh product represented 74 percent of the total import volume
in 1986 and 83 percent in 1987. Whole product accounted for 84 percent
of the total volume in 1987.

In 1983, Southeast Asian sources dominated the mahi-mahi import
market. However, by 1987 Central and South American sources were
capturing the largest share of the market, with Ecuador and Costa Rica
accounting for 51 and 40 percent, respectively, of the total volume
of mahi-mahi import volume in 1987.

Conch Meats

Imports of conch meats into southeastern ports of entry increased
from 998,000 pounds in 1983 to 1.94 million pounds in 1987.

Conch meats were imported primarily in the frozen form, with less
than one percent imported as fresh product in 1987.

The major countries of origin for conch meat imports in 1987 were
British West Indies, Honduras, Colombia, Haiti, and the Dominican
Republic.

Corvina

Imports of Corvina were somewhat erratic prior to 1985. However,
corvina imports increased from 101,000 pounds in 1985 to 279,000 pounds
in 1987. Landings data for corvina are not available.

Corvina were imported primarily as fresh product. In 1987, 210,000
pounds were imported fresh, while the remaining 69,000 pounds were
frozen. In 1987 201,000 pounds were imported whole, while the remaining
.78,000 pounds were imported as fillets.

During the 1983-87 period, Costa Rica remained as the leading
source of corvina. Other important sources of corvina in 1987 were
Ecuador and El Salvador.

Black Drum

Imports of black drum were erratic during the 1983-87 period.
However, black drum imports experienced a slight increase from 64,000
pounds in 1983 to 69,000 pounds in 1987. Regional black drum landings,


viii









however, increased dramatically from 5.4 million pounds in 1983 to
10.8 million pounds in 1987.

Black drum were imported as fresh product. In addition, all
reported imports arrived in the whole form.

All imports of black drum reported in the southeast region during
the 1983-87 period originated from Mexico.

Kingklip

A total of 63,000 pounds of kingklip were imported during the
latter half of 1985. This volume increased to 483,000 pounds in 1986
and further increased by threefold to 1.5 million pounds in 1987.

Kingklip were imported primarily as frozen product. In 1987,
87 percent of the total import volume was frozen product. In addition,
the major product form was fillets, with one million pounds of fillets,
or 64 percent of the total import volume, being reported for 1987.

In 1987, 81 percent of the total import volume originated from
Chile, while imports from Peru accounted for 14 percent.

Lobster

Lobster imports totaled approximately 4 million pounds in 1983
and increased to 7 million pounds in 1986. Lobster imports then declined
to 5.5 million pounds in 1987, representing a decline of approximately
.21 percent from the previous year and roughly equal to import volumes
reported in 1984.

In 1987, 97 percent of the lobster import were received as frozen
product. In addition, lobster were imported primarily as tail meats.

A number of countries exported lobster to southeastern ports of
entry. Honduras was the most important single country source for lobster
imports, representing 23 percent of the total volume. Mexico and Bahamas
were also important sources.

Scallops

Scallops imports increased steadily from 1.9 million pounds in
1983 to 7.6 million pounds in 1986. Scallops imports then declined
to 4.7 million pounds in 1987, representing a 40 percent decline from
the previous year. In contrast, domestic scallop landings in the region
were very erratic during the 1983-87 period.

Scallops were imported into the southeast in the form of shucked
meats. In 1987, approximately 72 percent of the scallop meats were
imported as fresh product.

In 1987, Panama accounted for 91 percent of the total scallop
imports, while Chile and Peru accounted for 6 and 1 percent,
respectively.









Shark

Shark imports totaled 3,000 and 30,000 pounds in 1983 and 1984,
respectively. Shark imports increased dramatically to 2.2 million
pounds in 1987. Total reported regional landings volumes increased
from 1.4 million pounds in 1983 to 2.4 million pounds in 1987.

Of the total 2.2 million pounds imported in 1987, 68 percent were
received as frozen product. In addition, approximately three-fourths
of the total volume of shark imports reported for 1987 were received
in whole form. The remaining volume was reported as fillets, loins,
and portions.

In 1987, Ecuadorian imports accounted for 60 percent of the total
shark imports, with Peru, Chile, and Guyana accounting for 23, 5, and
5 percent, respectively.

Pompano

Pompano imports increased from 82,000 pound in 1983 to 342,000
pounds in 1985. Imports then declined to 106,000 pounds in 1987.
Regional landings of pompano approached 843,000 pounds in 1987,
representing an average annual increase since 1984 of 8 percent.

Frozen pompano represented approximately 66 percent of the total
volume imported in 1987. In addition, pompano were typically imported
in whole form, with only small quantities of fillets being reported
for 1987.

In 1987, Mexico supplied 51 percent of the total pompano imports,
with Peru and Ecuador supplying 39 and 10 percent, respectively.

Swordfish

Only 65,000 pounds of swordfish imports were reported for the
region in 1983. However, the volume of swordfish imports increased
steadily to approximately 3.7 million pounds in 1987. Regional swordfish
landings decreased from 4.8 million pounds in 1983 to 2.8 million pounds
in 1987.

In 1987, 93 percent of the imported swordfish were received as
fresh product. In addition, 95 percent of the swordfish were shipped
in the whole form.

Ecuador, Chile, Spain, and Brazil were the major suppliers of
swordfish for the Southeastern U.S. in 1987.

Red Drum

Red drum imports increased from approximately 200,000 pounds in
1983 to 626,000 pounds in 1986. Red drum imports then declined in
1987 to 272,000 pounds. Regional landings increased from 3.5 million
pounds in 1983 to 15.4 million pounds in 1986. Landings then decreased,
as a result of management initiatives, to 5.2 million pounds in 1987.








Red drum imports consisted almost entirely of whole, fresh product.
In 1987, whole and fresh product each represented approximately 98
percent of the total import volume.

Mexico accounted for virtually 100 percent of the reported red
drum imports for the southeastern region during the 1983-87 period.

Sea Trout

Sea trout imports increased from 716,000 pounds in 1983 to 839,000
pounds in 1984. Import volumes then decreased over the next four years
to 429,000 pounds in 1987. Regional landings alternately increased
and decreased during the 1983-87 period, with a 15 percent decline
from 18.4 million pounds in 1986 to 15.6 million pounds in 1987.

Fresh sea trout imports accounted for approximately 93 percent
of the total 1987 sea trout imports. In terms of product form, sea
trout were imported primarily in the whole form.

In 1987, Mexico accounted for 93 percent of the sea trout received
by regional ports of entry. Argentina and Panama also supplied product.

King Mackerel

King mackerel imports decreased from 1.2 million pounds in 1983
to 626,000 pounds in 1984. However, king mackerel imports exhibited
a steady increase to 1.8 million pounds in 1987. Regional landings
decreased from 6.7 million pounds in 1983 to 4.6 million pounds in
1987.

The majority of king mackerel imported in 1987 arrived as frozen,
whole fish.

Mexico supplied 96 percent of the 1987 king mackerel imports while
Peru and Panama supplied the remaining reported volume.

Marlin

Marlin imports totaled 471,000 pounds for 1987. Previous reported
import levels were very erratic. During the 1983-87 period, regional
landings increased from 38,000 pounds to 238,000 pounds.

Marlin imports typically arrive as fresh, whole product.
In 1987, Ecuador accounted for 91 percent of the marlin imports,
while Mexico, Grenada, and Antigua accounted for lesser volumes.

Tilefish

Prior to 1987, tilefish was being imported in small, inconsistent
quantities. In 1987, 39,000 pounds of tilefish were imported into
southeastern ports of entry. Regional landings of tilefish have declined
steadily since 1983, with 500,000 pounds being reported for 1987.








Tilefish imports arrived primarily as fresh product in the whole
form.

Mexico supplied 60 percent of the tilefish imported in 1987, with
Brazil and Argentina providing smaller volumes.








TRENDS IN THE IMPORTATION OF SELECTED FRESH AND
FROZEN SEAFOOD PRODUCTS INTO THE
SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES


Charles M. Adams
Food and Resource Economics Department,
University of Florida.

Frank J. Lawlor, III
Florida Sea Grant Extension Program,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida



INTRODUCTION

Imported seafoods are becoming an increasingly important source

of product for America's seafood consumer. Imported seafoods have

continuously represented over 50 percent of the total edible seafood

supplies in the U.S. since 1966. From 1966 to 1987, imports increased

at an average annual rate of approximately 5 percent, in contrast to

the domestic landings rate of increase of about 2 percent. Yet the

rate of increase in imports is becoming even greater. Since 1980,

imports of edible seafood products have increased at an average annual

rate of over 6 percent, compared to a decline of about 2 percent for

domestic landings. Imports of edible seafood products reached a record

6.6 billion pounds (round weight) in 1987, which accounted for 63 percent

of the total U.S. seafood supplies.

Although imports are important to U.S. seafood suppliers in general,

imported product is even more important in meeting the demand for certain

key southeastern species. Faced with a growing domestic demand for

high-quality finfish and shellfish products and stable sources of

domestic product, suppliers of key southeastern species will need to

become better informed of import product sources, product form, seasonal









availability and obtainable volumes. This information will be

particularly important to seafood suppliers wishing to begin import

activities or expand existing operations. In addition, regional fishery

managers need this information to gain a better appreciation for how

imported seafood is becoming an increasingly important element of the

domestic seafood market.

The purpose of this paper is to describe general trends in imports

for selected seafood products arriving at southeastern U.S. ports of

entry. These trends will be discussed in terms of volumes, seasonality,

fresh versus frozen, product form, and country of origin. The major

ports of entry will also be identified.


DATA

The paper presents import data collected by the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS). These data were originally reported in the

New Orleans "Goldenrod" Market News Report. Imports of many shellfish

and finfish products are reported each Wednesday in the New Orleans

Market News Report by port of entry, species, fresh or frozen, product

form (i.e. whole, fillet, loins, other), country of origin, and volume

received. "Whole" refers to product received eviscerated and/or head

off. Although seafood imports are reported on a Wednesday, a lag of

several days between product actually passing U.S. Customs and being

reported in the Market News Report may occur. Import weight presented

is product weight (i.e. weight of items received by Customs regardless

of product form -- not converted to whole weight). Where possible,

import volumes are compared to regional NMFS landings data for each

species. "Country of origin" refers to country where product was first

landed and exported (not transshipped).


i









availability and obtainable volumes. This information will be

particularly important to seafood suppliers wishing to begin import

activities or expand existing operations. In addition, regional fishery

managers need this information to gain a better appreciation for how

imported seafood is becoming an increasingly important element of the

domestic seafood market.

The purpose of this paper is to describe general trends in imports

for selected seafood products arriving at southeastern U.S. ports of

entry. These trends will be discussed in terms of volumes, seasonality,

fresh versus frozen, product form, and country of origin. The major

ports of entry will also be identified.


DATA

The paper presents import data collected by the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS). These data were originally reported in the

New Orleans "Goldenrod" Market News Report. Imports of many shellfish

and finfish products are reported each Wednesday in the New Orleans

Market News Report by port of entry, species, fresh or frozen, product

form (i.e. whole, fillet, loins, other), country of origin, and volume

received. "Whole" refers to product received eviscerated and/or head

off. Although seafood imports are reported on a Wednesday, a lag of

several days between product actually passing U.S. Customs and being

reported in the Market News Report may occur. Import weight presented

is product weight (i.e. weight of items received by Customs regardless

of product form -- not converted to whole weight). Where possible,

import volumes are compared to regional NMFS landings data for each

species. "Country of origin" refers to country where product was first

landed and exported (not transshipped).


i









A primary objective of the study was to compile the data, which

had never been databased, and examine trends in imports of species

key to the southeast U.S. region. For the purpose of the study, only

marine tropical and subtropical species (i.e. freshwater and cold

water marine species are not included), arriving from primarily Latin

American countries of origin, and entering southeastern ports of entry

(i.e. Brownsville/Port Isabel, TX; New Orleans, LA; Tampa, FL; Port

Everglades, FL; Miami, FL; West Palm Beach, FL; Savannah, GA; Charleston,

SC) were utilized. In addition, only data from fresh and frozen product

were analyzed (e.g. canned/cured products excluded). Imports of shrimp

products were also not included in the study since these data are already

comprehensively reported in the monthly NMFS report entitled "Shrimp

Statistics".

NMFS Market News data for 1983-1987 were utilized which included

eight ports of entry, 54 countries of origin, and 68 finfish and

shellfish species (Table 1). For the sake of brevity, only 18 species

are reported in this study. Species nomenclature was taken from the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration "Fish List".

For each species, the average monthly distribution import volumes

are discussed. The term "availability" is used in each of these

discussions. This term implies that the volumes of imported product

arriving each month reflects the relative availability of the species

in the original country of origin. The reader should note, however,

that this discussion does not account for volumes of a given species

which may have been exported to other destinations not reported by

NMFS Market News.








TABLE 1


FINFISH AND SHELLFISH

SPECIES INCLUDED


Albacore
Amberjack
Sea Bass
Cobia
Conch1
Congrio
Corvinal
Stone Crab
Lobster1
Mahi Mahil
Drum Black1
Drum Red
Flounder
Grouper'2
Grouper, Black
Grouper, Red
Grouper, Yellowedge
Grouper. Warsaw


Whiting
Kingclip1
Langostinos
Mackerel, King1
Mackerel, Spanishl
Marlin
Mullet
Octopus
Pomfrets
Pompano1
Scallops1
Shark1,2
Shark, Mako
Shark, Thresher
Sheepshead
Snapperl2
Snapper, Black
Snapper, Lane


Snapper, Mutton
Snapper, Mangrove
Snapper, Red
Snapper, Spotted
Snapper, Vermillion
Snapper, Yellowtail
Squid
Swordfish1
Tilefish1
Tongue
Triggerfish
Trout, Sea12
Trout, Sand
Trout, Spotted
Trumpeter
Tuna
Tuna, Big Eye
Tuna, Yellowfin
Wahoo


1
Species discussed in this study
2 Species discussed in aggregate, without details presented on individual species of grouper, snapper, or shark
4









DISCUSSION


All Species

The total volume of imports for the 68 species arriving in the

southeast U.S. ports of entry increased from 17.4 million pounds in

1983 to 70.4 million pounds in 1987 (Figure 1). This represents an

approximate fourfold increase or an annual percentage increase of 42

percent over the 5-year period. Monthly volumes varied considerably.

Although the seasonal distribution of imported product varies by species,

monthly 5-year averages indicate that import volumes for all species

remain fairly consistent from month to' month, with the late summer

and fall months accounting for a slightly larger share of the volume

for an average year.

As the total volumes of imports have increased, so have the numbers

of species imported. Although snapper, grouper, seatrout, swordfish,

and mackerel continue to be important mainstays, new species such as

congrio, dorado, pomfrets, corvina, kingklip, mako shark, and others

are being imported in increasing amounts. In 1983, a total of 32 species

were being reported by Customs (Figure 2). By 1987, the number of species

had risen to 60. The growing strength of the U.S. seafood market has

provided inroads for some of these lesser known, "non-traditional"

species. Development of markets for such species may become increasingly

important if the domestic demand for seafood continues to grow at current

paces.

Prior to 1986, the volume of frozen seafood products imported

into the southeast U.S. exceeded that for fresh products. In 1983,

the volume of frozen exceeded fresh product by nearly threefold (Figure

3). However, in 1986 and 1987, fresh imports exceeded frozen by

approximately 25 percent.






Figure 1


IMPORTS OF KEY SPECIES INTO
SOUTHEASTERN PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87

Pounds (millions)

70.4


60


50.6


24.9


1983.


1984


1985 1986
Year


1987


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 2


NUMBERS OF KEY SPECIES IMPORTED
INTO SOUTHEASTERN PORTS OF ENTRY
1983-87


Number of Species
70


fn ---


40 "M&35
30 W


20 -


1983


1984


1985 1986
Year


1987


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


20 4-
BgajtaI Hja









Seafood is imported in a variety of product forms. Brokerage

reports indicate that product is received in whole form, fillets, loins,

portions, and "other". The latter term refers primarily to shellfish

products, such as crab meat, lobster tails, and scallop meats. The

predominant product form in general, for all species imported during

the 1983-87 period was whole product. However, the importance of this

product form declined following 1986 (Figure 4). For example, whole

product represented 93 percent of the seafood imports in 1983, but

declined to 58 percent in 1987. A rapid increase in the import volume

of fillets (6.8 million pounds in 1986 to 15.5 million pounds in 1987)

suggests an increase in demand for the more processed finfish products.

Although the advent of reporting miscellaneous product forms in 1986

somewhat clouds the message statistically, the data suggest that the

import market is responding to an increased market demand for prepared

(i.e. filleted) finfish product.

Major sources of imported product also changed over the 5-year

period. In both 1983 and 1987, six countries provided at least 70

percent of the seafood import volume, while the remaining 30 percent

was exported to the southeastern U.S. from a number of other countries.

The leading six countries, however, changed following 1983 (Figure

5). In 1983, the major country of origin for imports was Mexico (31

percent), followed by Costa Rica, Peru, Honduras, Belize, and Bahamas.

By 1987, three new countries had moved into the top six, with all six

contributing a more equal share of the seafood export market to the

U.S. Mexico was still the leading source in 1987, followed by Ecuador,

Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, and Chile. Other countries exporting lesser

volumes to the U.S., include Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, and

Argentina.





Figure 3

IMPORTS OF KEY SPECIES INTO
SOUTHEASTERN PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (millions)


1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Year

Fresh M Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 4


IMPORTS OF KEY SPECIES INTO
SOUTHEASTERN PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
WHOLE vs FILLETS


Pounds (millions)


1 1
0
1983 1984 1985 1986
Year

Whole Product Fillets

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


1987








Snapper

Imports of all species of snapper into southeastern U.S. ports

of entry increased from 4.8 million pounds in 1983 to 14.0 million

pounds in 1987 (Figure 6). This reflects an average annual percentage

increase of 33 percent. Snapper imports nearly doubled from 1984 to

1985. The significance of these imported products to meeting domestic

demand for snapper is suggested by comparing southeast snapper landings

to imports. As imports increased during the 1983-87 period, landings

of snapper in the southeast declined by annual average rate of 6.8

percent. Imports exceeded landings volume for the first time in 1985.

Landings of snapper declined dramatically in 1987, as import volume

continued to rise. The monthly distribution of snapper imports is

somewhat. variable, with peak 5-year averages occurring in April, July,

and September (Figure 7). Imported snapper products are apparently

not as readily available in the winter months.

Market News data identifies several species of snapper being

imported into southeastern ports of entry. Those include black, lane,

mutton, red, spotted, vermillion, yellowtail, and tomatoo" snapper.

In addition, a large category of unclassified volume is reported.

In 1987, the unclassified snapper imports represented 88 percent of

the total volume, followed by red (9 percent), yellowtail (2 percent),

and lane (1 percent). The remaining species represented only a small

volume of the total.

Import volume of fresh snapper consistently exceeded that for

frozen products. In 1983, fresh snapper imports represented 68 percent

of the total snapper imports (Figure 8). By 1987, fresh snapper imports






Figure 5

IMPORTS OF KEY SPECIES BY
COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN: 1983 and 1987




Ecuador
Costa Rica 13%
Honduras .14% Costa RFce

18% Chile
Bahamas 9%

Mexico Panama
31% 10%
Other
25% Peru Other
Belize 10% 29%
5%
1983 1987
17:4 million Ibs 70.4 million lbs




DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 6


SOUTHEAST U.S. SNAPPER LANDINGS AND
IMPORTS: 1983-87

Volume (Ibs) (Millions)
16
14
12 ---
10







83 84 85 86 87
Year

SE Landings SE Imports

DATA SOURCE: NMFS data. Import
product weight given. All species
Included.







Figure 7

FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. SNAPPER IMPORTS
Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Report
Data. Data pertains to 1983-87.


Figure 8

IMPORTS OF SNAPPER INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN


Pounds (millions)
14
12 -
10 .
8
6 --


2
0
1983


2Ijt~


1984


1985
Year


1 Fresh M Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


1986


1987









accounted for 87 percent of the total. Frozen snapper imports in 1987

(1.8 million lbs.) were only slightly higher than reported for 1983

(1.6 million pounds).

Snapper is primarily imported in whole form. In 1987, 12.6 million

pounds of whole snapper was imported to southeastern U.S. ports of

entry, which represented 90 percent of the total snapper import volume

(Figure 9). This percentage distribution between whole and filleted

product has remained relatively constant during the 1983-87 period.

The major countries of origin for snapper products has remained

relatively constant over the past five years. In 1983, Costa Rica

and Mexico contributed 44 and 30 percent, respectively, of the total

volume of snapper imports reported (Figure 10). Brazil and Venezuela

were also major sources of product. By 1987, Mexico remained the most

important single source of snapper, with Venezuela and Costa Rica each

supplying 18 percent of the volume arriving at southeastern U.S. ports

of entry. Panama and Guatemala provided 12 and 5 percent, respectively.

The Central American region has, therefore, become the leading source

of snapper products for the southeastern U.S. region. Approximately

86 percent of the total volume of snapper imports arrived through Miami.

The remaining volume arrived through Brownsville and Port Everglades.


Grouper

The volume of grouper imports into the southeastern U.S. increased

dramatically during the 1983-87 period. Grouper imports increased

from .5 million pounds in 1983 to 8.9 million pounds in 1987 (Figure

11). This represents an average annual increase of 122 percent over

the five-year period! Grouper landings in the Southeast region remained

stable through 1986, but decreased to 9.5 million pounds in 1987.


I






Figure 9


IMPORTS OF SNAPPER INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
PRODUCT FORMS


Pounds (millions)
IA,


- 1


1983 191


84 1985 1
Year

SWhole E Fillets


986 1987


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 10


IMPORTS OF SNAPPER BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
1983 AND 1987


Costa Rica
44% %


Mexico
30%


Brazil
8%
Other
S10% Venezuela
18%
Venezuela
8%


1983
4.8 Million Lbs


Costa Rica
18%
Guatemala
5%
/ Panama
/ 12%


Other
21%
1987
14.0 Million Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports








This represents an annual average decrease in grouper landings of 5.8

percent since 1983. Grouper imports are relatively more abundant in

the fall months, with April also being an important month for grouper

import arrivals (Figure 12).

Several varieties of grouper are imported from Latin American

sources. In 1987, the species reportedly imported were black, red,

yellowedge, and warsaw grouper. As with snapper, the majority of grouper

imported were unclassified by Customs. This unclassified category

represented 96 percent of the total grouper imports in 1987. Yellowedge

and red grouper represented 2 and 1 percent of the total, respectively.

Import volumes of fresh grouper have dominated the southeastern

grouper import market since 1984 (Figure 13). However, the rate of

increase in fresh imports declined dramatically from 1986 to 1987.

During the same period, frozen grouper imports increased from 1.4 million

pounds to 1986 to 3.3 million pounds in 1987, after having remained

stable for 1983 to 1985. Currently unavailable data for 1988 will

be needed to determine if the increased importance of frozen grouper

will continue.

Grouper imported in whole form remained the most important product

form during the 5-year period. However, filleted grouper accounted

for 33 percent of total import volumes in 1987. Loins and portions

were of less importance, representing only 2 percent of the total (Figure

14).

During the 1983-87 period, three countries provided over 80 percent

of the imported grouper product arriving at southeastern U.S. ports

of entry (Figure 15). Mexico was the most important source of grouper

product from 1983 to 1987, providing approximately one half the total


I









accounted for 87 percent of the total. Frozen snapper imports in 1987

(1.8 million lbs.) were only slightly higher than reported for 1983

(1.6 million pounds).

Snapper is primarily imported in whole form. In 1987, 12.6 million

pounds of whole snapper was imported to southeastern U.S. ports of

entry, which represented 90 percent of the total snapper import volume

(Figure 9). This percentage distribution between whole and filleted

product has remained relatively constant during the 1983-87 period.

The major countries of origin for snapper products has remained

relatively constant over the past five years. In 1983, Costa Rica

and Mexico contributed 44 and 30 percent, respectively, of the total

volume of snapper imports reported (Figure 10). Brazil and Venezuela

were also major sources of product. By 1987, Mexico remained the most

important single source of snapper, with Venezuela and Costa Rica each

supplying 18 percent of the volume arriving at southeastern U.S. ports

of entry. Panama and Guatemala provided 12 and 5 percent, respectively.

The Central American region has, therefore, become the leading source

of snapper products for the southeastern U.S. region. Approximately

86 percent of the total volume of snapper imports arrived through Miami.

The remaining volume arrived through Brownsville and Port Everglades.


Grouper

The volume of grouper imports into the southeastern U.S. increased

dramatically during the 1983-87 period. Grouper imports increased

from .5 million pounds in 1983 to 8.9 million pounds in 1987 (Figure

11). This represents an average annual increase of 122 percent over

the five-year period! Grouper landings in the Southeast region remained

stable through 1986, but decreased to 9.5 million pounds in 1987.


I







Figure 11


SOUTHEAST U.S. GROUPER LANDINGS AND
IMPORTS: 1983-87

Volume (Ibs) (Millions)


84 85
Year


86 87


S SE Landings SE Imports

DATA SOURCE: NMFS data. Import
product weight given. All species
included.


Figure 12


FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. GROUPER IMPORTS

Pounds (thousands)
600

500

400

300

200

100

0


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun


Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Month


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Report
Data. Data pertains to 1983-87.






Figure 13

IMPORTS OF GROUPER INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (millions)


12-

0
1983 1984 1985
Year

Fresh Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


1986 1987


Figure 14


IMPORTS OF GROUPER INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
PRODUCT FORMS

Pounds (millions)


2


U
1983 1984 1985 1986
Year

SWhole E Fillets Others

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


1987








supply. Costa Rica and Chile provided an additional 12 and 10 percent,

respectively, in 1987. Ecuador also became an important source by

1987, providing 7 percent of the total volume exported to the

southeastern U.S. The remaining 20 percent was supplied by Ecuador,

Dominican Republic, Argentina, Panama, Guyana (in order of importance),

and others. Miami served as the major port of entry for grouper

products. Approximately 82 percent of the grouper imports arrived

through Miami, with 18 percent arriving in Brownsville. Lesser volumes

arrived in Savannah, Port Everglades, West Palm Beach and New Orleans.


Mahi-Mahi (Dolphin)

Mahi-mahi imports remained below 1 million pounds through 1985,

doubled in 1986, and increased dramatically to 7.4 million pounds in

1987 (Figure 16). Monthly distribution of imported product is fairly

even, with peak 5-year average months being April, May, and June (Figure

17). Landings of mahi-mahi in the southeast region have been fairly

stable, with production increasing from 318,000 pounds in 1983 to 507,000

pounds in 1986. Landings then increased to 645,000 pounds in 1987.

Import volumes exceeded landings for the first time in 1985.

Prior to 1986, mahi-mahi was imported primarily as frozen product

(Figure 18). In contrast to snapper and grouper, however, the majority

of mahi-mahi imported into southeastern ports of entry since 1985 has

been fresh product. In 1986, fresh product represented 74 percent

of the total import volume. This increased to 83 percent in 1987.

Prior to 1987, the composition of the total volume of mahi-mahi

imports was not consistently dominated by either whole or filleted

product. However, whole product accounted for 84 percent of the total

volume in 1987, as compared to 74 percent in 1986 (Figure 19 ). The






Figure 15


IMPORTS OF GROUPER BY COUNTRY OF
ORIGIN: 1983 AND 1987


Costa Rica


Costa Rica
. 12%
&chile
10%


Chile
15%

Other
13%


Other
19%
1983 1987
.5 Million Lbs 8 9 Milhon Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 16


SOUTHEAST U.S. DOLPHIN (MAHI-MAHI)
LANDINGS AND IMPORTS: 1983-87

Volume (Ibs) (Millions)
0 ---------------------------------------------


6- --. ---


2
2 -----------------


86 87


Year


SSE Landings


SSE Imports


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Data.
Import product weight given.


Mexico
51%






Figure 17


FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. MAHI-MAHI IMPORTS


350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News data.
Data refers to 1983-87.



Figure 18


IMPORTS OF MAHI-MAHI INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (millions)
.T


-ssr -rol


1983


1984


1985
Year


1986


1987


Fresh Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports









dramatic increase in the volume of whole product may be due to the

versatility demanded by a strengthening domestic restaurant market

for mahi-mahi, although market data are not available to support this

hypothesis.

A shift in countries of origin has occurred for mahi-mahi during

the 1983-87 period (Figure 20). Approximately 99 percent of the mahi-

mahi exported to the southeastern U.S. ports of entry in 1983 originated

from oriental countries. Taiwan and Japan provided 65 and 34 percent,

respectively, of the total volume in 1983. By 1987, however, Central

and South American sources were dominating the market. Ecuador and

Costa Rica accounted for 51 and 40 percent, respectively, of the total

volume of mahi-mahi import volume in 1987. The remaining 9 percent

came primarily from Peru. All reported mahi-mahi imports arrived through

Miami.


Conch Meat

The commercial harvest of queen conch in Florida has not been

allowed since 1985. As early as 1971, Florida commercial fishermen

were significantly restricted in the volume of conch meat they could

harvest. Although landings of whelk and helmet conch continues in

relatively small amounts (i.e. approximately 5000 pounds in 1987),

the market demand for conch meat has continued to remain strong.

Therefore, imported conch meat, which has historically been an important

source of product for the domestic market, exhibited a recent dramatic

increase in volume. Imports of conch meats (which includes product

from a variety of species) into southeastern ports of entry increased

from 998,000 pounds in 1983 to 1.94 million pounds in 1987 (Figure

21). This represents a doubling of import volume over the five-year








supply. Costa Rica and Chile provided an additional 12 and 10 percent,

respectively, in 1987. Ecuador also became an important source by

1987, providing 7 percent of the total volume exported to the

southeastern U.S. The remaining 20 percent was supplied by Ecuador,

Dominican Republic, Argentina, Panama, Guyana (in order of importance),

and others. Miami served as the major port of entry for grouper

products. Approximately 82 percent of the grouper imports arrived

through Miami, with 18 percent arriving in Brownsville. Lesser volumes

arrived in Savannah, Port Everglades, West Palm Beach and New Orleans.


Mahi-Mahi (Dolphin)

Mahi-mahi imports remained below 1 million pounds through 1985,

doubled in 1986, and increased dramatically to 7.4 million pounds in

1987 (Figure 16). Monthly distribution of imported product is fairly

even, with peak 5-year average months being April, May, and June (Figure

17). Landings of mahi-mahi in the southeast region have been fairly

stable, with production increasing from 318,000 pounds in 1983 to 507,000

pounds in 1986. Landings then increased to 645,000 pounds in 1987.

Import volumes exceeded landings for the first time in 1985.

Prior to 1986, mahi-mahi was imported primarily as frozen product

(Figure 18). In contrast to snapper and grouper, however, the majority

of mahi-mahi imported into southeastern ports of entry since 1985 has

been fresh product. In 1986, fresh product represented 74 percent

of the total import volume. This increased to 83 percent in 1987.

Prior to 1987, the composition of the total volume of mahi-mahi

imports was not consistently dominated by either whole or filleted

product. However, whole product accounted for 84 percent of the total

volume in 1987, as compared to 74 percent in 1986 (Figure 19 ). The







Figure 19


IMPORTS


OF MAHI-MAHI INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
PRODUCT FORMS


Pounds (millions)


1983


1984


1985
Year


1986 1987


Whole Fillets

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 20


IMPORTS


OF MAHI-MAHI BY COUNTRIES OF
ORIGIN: 1983 AND 1987


Costa Rica
- 40%


Other
1%


JOther
9%


WA fl


65


1983
.118 Million Lbs


Ecuador t
51%
1987
7.4 Million Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


~e~-~


Jaoan


6


Tai








period. The greatest year-to-year increase, however, occurred in 1984.

The monthly distribution of conch meat imports indicates that

availability increases during the late spring and summer months, with

an additional peak occurring during the late fall (Figure 22).

Conch meats are imported primarily in the frozen form. Virtually

all of the product imported in 1987 was frozen (Figure 23). Less than

one percent was reportedly imported as fresh. There is no information

on the specific product forms in which the meats are imported. It

is likely the meats are simply imported as whole, cleaned meats ready

for further preparation.

The major countries of origin for conch meats remained relatively

constant over the 1983-87 period (Figure 24). In 1983, the major sources

of conch meats were British West Indies (35 percent), Belize (20

percent), Colombia (18 percent), and Haiti (14 percent). The Turks

and Caicos Islands contribute the largest percent of the production

reported for the British West Indies. The Dominican Republic and Mexico

also accounted for a smaller share of the 1983 import volumes. The

list of major sources has changed slightly since then. The major

countries of origin for conch meat imports in 1987 were British West

Indies (32 percent), Honduras (28 percent), Colombia (17 percent),

Haiti (10 percent), and the Dominican Republic (10 percent). Jamaica

and Belize contributed 8 and 7 percent, respectively. Therefore, the

most notable changes have been that Belize has become less important

as a source of conch meat, while Honduras and the Dominican Republic

have increased their respective share of the market. Ninety percent

of the conch imports arrived through Miami, while the remaining

quantities arrived through Port Everglades and West Palm Beach.









dramatic increase in the volume of whole product may be due to the

versatility demanded by a strengthening domestic restaurant market

for mahi-mahi, although market data are not available to support this

hypothesis.

A shift in countries of origin has occurred for mahi-mahi during

the 1983-87 period (Figure 20). Approximately 99 percent of the mahi-

mahi exported to the southeastern U.S. ports of entry in 1983 originated

from oriental countries. Taiwan and Japan provided 65 and 34 percent,

respectively, of the total volume in 1983. By 1987, however, Central

and South American sources were dominating the market. Ecuador and

Costa Rica accounted for 51 and 40 percent, respectively, of the total

volume of mahi-mahi import volume in 1987. The remaining 9 percent

came primarily from Peru. All reported mahi-mahi imports arrived through

Miami.


Conch Meat

The commercial harvest of queen conch in Florida has not been

allowed since 1985. As early as 1971, Florida commercial fishermen

were significantly restricted in the volume of conch meat they could

harvest. Although landings of whelk and helmet conch continues in

relatively small amounts (i.e. approximately 5000 pounds in 1987),

the market demand for conch meat has continued to remain strong.

Therefore, imported conch meat, which has historically been an important

source of product for the domestic market, exhibited a recent dramatic

increase in volume. Imports of conch meats (which includes product

from a variety of species) into southeastern ports of entry increased

from 998,000 pounds in 1983 to 1.94 million pounds in 1987 (Figure

21). This represents a doubling of import volume over the five-year







Figure 21

IMPORTS OF CONCH MEAT INTO SOUTHEASTERN
U.S. PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87


Volume (Ibs) (millions)


0.5 --


84 85
Year


86 87


DATA SOURCE: Market News Reports



Figure 22

FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. CONCH MEAT IMPORTS


Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News data.







Figure 23


IMPORTS OF CONCH MEAT INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (millions)
2.5

2-

1.5 -



0.5

0
83 94 85 86 87
Year

Fresh M Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 24

IMPORTS OF CONCH MEAT BY COUNTRIES OF
ORIGIN: 1983 AND 1987




BWl BWI
Other35 32
3% Colombia
17%





20% 14% 10% Haiti
108%

1983 .. 1987
1.0 Million Lbs 1.94 Million Lbs




DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports

24








Corvina

The market for corvina has apparently strengthened in recent years.

The term "corvina" loosely refers to a variety of species primarily

in the Cynoscion, Isopisthus, and Micropogonius genera. These species

are also referred to in regional markets as croaker, seabass, seatrout,

and others. Thus, the exact definition of "corvina" is rather loose.

Imports of corvina were somewhat erratic prior to 1985. Regular monthly

shipments of corvina were not reported prior to the fall of 1984.

One relatively large shipment of "corvina" (approximately 212,000 pounds)

was reported in Miami for March 1983. Given the import quantities

prior to and following 1983, the accuracy of the report is of question.

Regular shipments of corvina began to appear in Market News reports

in February 1985 and continued through the end of 1987 (Figure 25).

Imports of corvina increased from 101,000 pounds in 1985 to 279,000

pounds in 1987. Landings data for corvina are not available. The

monthly distribution of import shipments (for years 1985-87 only)

indicates that corvina are more available during the winter and spring

months, with the largest import quantities being reported during February

and May (Figure 26).

Corvina are imported primarily as fresh product. In 1987, 210,000

pounds were imported fresh, while the remaining 69,000 pounds were

frozen (Figure 27). The predominant product form for corvina imports

is whole product. In 1987, 201,000 pound were reportedly imported

whole, while the remaining 78,000 pounds were imported as fillets (Figure

28). In 1986, a small quantity (approximately 5,000 pounds) were

reportedly imported as portions or loins.






Figure 25

SOUTHEAST U.S. CORVINA IMPORTS:
1984-87


Pounds (thousands)


250 ---- --


200 H---


100 --


50 -


0
84


85 86
Year


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 26

THREE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. CORVINA IMPORTS


Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports.
Data for 1986-87 only.





Figure 27
IMPORTS OF CORVINA INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1984-87
FRESH vs FROZEN
Pounds (thousands)


250

200 -

150

100

50 -


L


S 84 85 86 87
Year
Fresh E Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 28
IMPORTS OF CORVINA INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1984-87
PRODUCT FORMS
Pounds (thousands)
250

200 -

150

100 -

50

0
84 85 86 87
Year
Whole Fillets 1 Other
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


I









The major countries of origin for corvina have changed somewhat

since 1985 (Figure 29). In 1985, Costa Rica supplied 48 percent of

the total corvina imports. Venezuela, Chile, and Mexico accounted

for 17, 16, and 13, percent of the total import volume, respectively.

Costa Rica remained as the leading source of product in 1987 (38

percent), while Ecuador (25 percent) and El Salvador (10 percent)

replaced Chile and Venezuela as major sources of corvina. Mexico's

contribution to the total volume of corvina exported to the U.S. remained

relatively constant at 14 percent for 1987. Other countries exporting

corvina to the U.S. during 1985-87 period included Brazil, Panama,

and Guyana. Miami was the sole port of entry for corvina imports during

the 1983-87 period.


Black Drum

Imports of black drum were somewhat erratic during the 1983-87

period (Figure 30). Black drum imports decreased from 64,000 pounds

in 1983 to 38,000 pounds in 1984. Imports then increased dramatically

in 1985 to a reported 125,000 pounds, but then decreased to 69,000

pounds in 1986 and 1987. Although 1984 and 1985 were erratic, annual

import volumes for black drum averaged 73,000 pounds over the five-year

period. The average monthly distribution of landings during the

five-year period suggests that black drum are most available during

the fall and winter months and less available during the spring and

summer (Figure 31). The peak five-year average months were January

and February. Landings for black drum in the southeast region increased

steadily during the five-year period. Black drum landings increased

from 5.4 million pounds in 1983 to 10.8 million pounds in 1987. This

represents an average annual percentage increase in black drum landings

of 20 percent.







Figure 29

IMPORTS OF CORVINA BY COUNTRY OF
ORIGIN: 1985 AND 1987


Costa Rica
a48QY


Costa Rica
1 39%


Other
6%


17%


1985
101,000 Lbs


Ecuador
25% /


Mexico
14%


1987
279,000 Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Report



Figure 30
SOUTHEAST U.S. BLACK DRUM IMPORTS:
1983-87

Pounds (thousands)
lAn


120 --


60

40

20

0


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Chile
16%


Mexico
13%


Other
13%


El Salvador
10%


SVel


I


nezuela








Black drum is imported as fresh product. In addition, all black

drum imports reported during the 1983-87 period were shipped in whole

form. All imports of black drum reported in the southeast region during

the 1983-87 period originated from Mexico. The major port of entry

for black drum is Brownsville, Texas.


Kingklip

Kingklip represents another species that is relatively new to

the domestic seafood market. The common market term "kingklip" refers

to several species in the Genypterus genus. Imports of kingklip were

not reported until mid-1985 and were inconsistent until 1986 (Figure

32). Only 63,000 pounds of kingklip were reported during the latter

half of 1985. This increased to 483,000 pounds in 1986 and further

increased by threefold to 1.5 million pounds in 1987. Although

consistent data exists for only two years, the monthly distribution

of kingklip imports is erratic with no single season demonstrating

a dominance in product availability (Figure 33). Landings data are

not readily available for kingklip and the percentage of total production

that eventually finds its way to the U.S. market is unknown.

Kingklip is imported primarily as frozen product (Figure 34).

In 1987, approximately 1.3 million pounds, or 87 percent of total import

volume, were imported frozen. The remaining 215,000 pounds were imported

as fresh product. The predominant product form of imported kingklip

was fillets (Figure 35). One million pounds of fillets, or 64 percent

of total import volume, were imported in 1987. Approximately 500,000

pounds were imported in whole form. The remaining 20,000 pounds were

imported as loins or portions.









The major countries of origin for corvina have changed somewhat

since 1985 (Figure 29). In 1985, Costa Rica supplied 48 percent of

the total corvina imports. Venezuela, Chile, and Mexico accounted

for 17, 16, and 13, percent of the total import volume, respectively.

Costa Rica remained as the leading source of product in 1987 (38

percent), while Ecuador (25 percent) and El Salvador (10 percent)

replaced Chile and Venezuela as major sources of corvina. Mexico's

contribution to the total volume of corvina exported to the U.S. remained

relatively constant at 14 percent for 1987. Other countries exporting

corvina to the U.S. during 1985-87 period included Brazil, Panama,

and Guyana. Miami was the sole port of entry for corvina imports during

the 1983-87 period.


Black Drum

Imports of black drum were somewhat erratic during the 1983-87

period (Figure 30). Black drum imports decreased from 64,000 pounds

in 1983 to 38,000 pounds in 1984. Imports then increased dramatically

in 1985 to a reported 125,000 pounds, but then decreased to 69,000

pounds in 1986 and 1987. Although 1984 and 1985 were erratic, annual

import volumes for black drum averaged 73,000 pounds over the five-year

period. The average monthly distribution of landings during the

five-year period suggests that black drum are most available during

the fall and winter months and less available during the spring and

summer (Figure 31). The peak five-year average months were January

and February. Landings for black drum in the southeast region increased

steadily during the five-year period. Black drum landings increased

from 5.4 million pounds in 1983 to 10.8 million pounds in 1987. This

represents an average annual percentage increase in black drum landings

of 20 percent.







Figure 31

FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. BLACK DRUM IMPORTS

Pounds (thousands)
.qn .


25 -


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug- Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports





Figure 32

SOUTHEAST U.S. KINGKLIP IMPORTS:
1985-87

Pounds (millions)
1R .


85

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


86
Year


'------------








Black drum is imported as fresh product. In addition, all black

drum imports reported during the 1983-87 period were shipped in whole

form. All imports of black drum reported in the southeast region during

the 1983-87 period originated from Mexico. The major port of entry

for black drum is Brownsville, Texas.


Kingklip

Kingklip represents another species that is relatively new to

the domestic seafood market. The common market term "kingklip" refers

to several species in the Genypterus genus. Imports of kingklip were

not reported until mid-1985 and were inconsistent until 1986 (Figure

32). Only 63,000 pounds of kingklip were reported during the latter

half of 1985. This increased to 483,000 pounds in 1986 and further

increased by threefold to 1.5 million pounds in 1987. Although

consistent data exists for only two years, the monthly distribution

of kingklip imports is erratic with no single season demonstrating

a dominance in product availability (Figure 33). Landings data are

not readily available for kingklip and the percentage of total production

that eventually finds its way to the U.S. market is unknown.

Kingklip is imported primarily as frozen product (Figure 34).

In 1987, approximately 1.3 million pounds, or 87 percent of total import

volume, were imported frozen. The remaining 215,000 pounds were imported

as fresh product. The predominant product form of imported kingklip

was fillets (Figure 35). One million pounds of fillets, or 64 percent

of total import volume, were imported in 1987. Approximately 500,000

pounds were imported in whole form. The remaining 20,000 pounds were

imported as loins or portions.








Figure 33


THREE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. KINGKLIP IMPORTS

Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports.
Data only for 1985-87 period.

Figure 34


IMPORTS OF KINGKLIP INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1985-87
FRESH vs FROZEN


1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0


Pounds (thousands)


85 86
Year

-Fresh Frozen


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
32









The primary source of kingklip since 1985 has been Chile. All

of the kingklip imports received in 1985 originated from Chile. In

1987, 81 percent of the total import volume originated from Chile,

while imports from Peru accounted for 14 percent. Other countries

that have exported small kingklip to the U.S. include Argentina, Mexico,

and Ecuador. Virtually all of the kingklip imports were received through

Miami Customs, with only a very small volume being reported as received

through Brownsville.


Lobster

The majority of lobster received by Customs in southeastern ports

of entry originate from Latin American countries. Although NMFS Market

News reports do not indicate species names for imported product, some

indication of the variety of lobster is implied by the country of origin.

Given the predominant Latin American origin, it is therefore assumed

that the lobster products received by southeastern ports of entry and

included in this report are warm-water spiny lobster varieties. A

very small quantity of cold-water lobster (i.e. American lobster) is

received from Canada and France. Since the objective of this study

was to focus on tropical and subtropical species, these Canadian and

French imports are not included in this report. It is further assumed

that these imports are not transshipped from Latin American sources.

*In addition, products referred to as "langostinos" in the Market News

Reports are not included in the following discussion due to the small

quantities reported. Further, imports of Spanish or "bulldozer" lobsters

are not reported in the Market News reports.

Reported imports of lobster from the Latin American region increased

steadily from 1983 to 1986 (Figure 36). Lobster imports totaled







Figure 35.

IMPORTS OF KINGKLIP INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1985-87
PRODUCT FORMS


1200
1000
800
-600
400


Pounds (thousands)


~2*


200 . .
0
85 86
Year

SWhole Fillets Z Other

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 36

SOUTHEAST U.S. LOBSTER LANDINGS AND
IMPORTS: 1983-87

Pounds (millions)
8










83 84 85 86 87
Year

SE Landings SE Imports

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports.
Landings data represent spiny lobster.


I








approximately 4 million pounds in 1983 and increased to approximately

7 million pounds in 1986. This represented an average annual increase

of 24 percent. Reported lobster imports then declined to 5.5 million

pounds in 1987, a decline of approximately 21 percent from the previous

year and roughly equal to import volumes observed in 1984. The volume

of lobsters imported from Latin America sources is somewhat erratic

on a monthly basis (Figure 37). However, apparent availability peaks

in the fall, with reduced product available in the summer months.

Although imports of lobsters (i.e. spiny lobsters) into southeastern

ports of entry have in general been increasing over recent years, this

reported volume represents a small percentage of the total U.S. spiny

lobster import volume. Total U.S. spiny lobster imports (fresh and

frozen) for 1987 totaled 145 million pounds. Thus, reported southeastern

regional imports accounted for approximately 4 percent of total U.S.

spiny lobster imports. The following discussion will pertain only

to that import volume reported in the NMFS Market News reports.

Lobster exported from the Latin American region into the southeast

U.S. are received primarily as frozen product. In 1987, approximately

97 percent (5.3 million pounds) of the lobster imports were frozen.

In addition, lobster is imported primarily as tail meats. Product

forms other than whole tail meats (i.e. whole lobster, tail meat pieces,

and others) are not reported by NMFS.

A number of Latin American countries export lobster to Southeastern

ports of entry (Figure 38). Of these, Honduras, Bahamas, and Mexico

have maintained important shares of the total reported import volume

from the Latin American region to the Southeastern U.S. ports of entry.

Other than these major sources of lobsters, there has been some









The primary source of kingklip since 1985 has been Chile. All

of the kingklip imports received in 1985 originated from Chile. In

1987, 81 percent of the total import volume originated from Chile,

while imports from Peru accounted for 14 percent. Other countries

that have exported small kingklip to the U.S. include Argentina, Mexico,

and Ecuador. Virtually all of the kingklip imports were received through

Miami Customs, with only a very small volume being reported as received

through Brownsville.


Lobster

The majority of lobster received by Customs in southeastern ports

of entry originate from Latin American countries. Although NMFS Market

News reports do not indicate species names for imported product, some

indication of the variety of lobster is implied by the country of origin.

Given the predominant Latin American origin, it is therefore assumed

that the lobster products received by southeastern ports of entry and

included in this report are warm-water spiny lobster varieties. A

very small quantity of cold-water lobster (i.e. American lobster) is

received from Canada and France. Since the objective of this study

was to focus on tropical and subtropical species, these Canadian and

French imports are not included in this report. It is further assumed

that these imports are not transshipped from Latin American sources.

*In addition, products referred to as "langostinos" in the Market News

Reports are not included in the following discussion due to the small

quantities reported. Further, imports of Spanish or "bulldozer" lobsters

are not reported in the Market News reports.

Reported imports of lobster from the Latin American region increased

steadily from 1983 to 1986 (Figure 36). Lobster imports totaled







Figure 37



FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION

OF SOUTHEAST U.S. LOBSTER IMPORTS

Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 38

IMPORTS OF LOBSTER BY COUNTRY OF
ORIGIN: 1983 AND 1987


Colombia
4%
Bahamas
115%


Bahamas
18%

Other
5%
Mexico
10%


Hondura:
24%


Honduras
42%


1983
3.9 Million Lbs


Belize

Other

Jamaica

19%
1987
5.5 Million Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports








volatility in terms of single country sources of lobster from the Latin

American region. In 1983, Honduras accounted for 42 percent of the

import volume, while Bahamas, Belize, and Mexico accounted for 18

percent, 16 percent, and 10 percent, respectively. The remaining 14

percent originated from at least 12 other countries, including British

West Indies, Colombia, Costa Rica, Haiti, and Panama. By 1987, Honduras'

share (although still the most important single country source) had

declined to 23 percent. Mexico and Bahamas contributed 18 and 13 percent

respectively. The remaining volume was supplied by 15 other countries,

the most important of which were Panama, Belize, Costa Rica, Jamaica,

and Colombia. Miami is the major port of entry for lobster imports.

In 1987, 78 percent of the total lobster import volume arrived in Miami.

Brownsville, (12 percent), Port Everglades (6 percent), West Palm Beach

(3 percent) and New Orleans (less than 1 percent) served, as less

important export destinations.


Scallops

Scallop imports reported in NMFS Market News for southeastern

ports of entry originate primarily from the Latin American region.

Market News reports, however, do not indicate the species of scallops

being imported. Given that scallops originate from widely dispersed

countries in the Latin American region, several species may be

represented by the total import volume.

Imports of scallop meats into southeastern ports of entry during

the 1983-87 period have followed the same general trend as exhibited

by lobster imports (Figure 39). Scallop imports increased steadily

from 1.9 million pounds in 1983 to 7.6 million pounds in 1986,

representing an average annual increase of 60 percent. Southeastern









scallop import volume then declined to 4.7 million pounds in 1987 or

a 40 percent decline from the previous year. Total scallop imports

into the U.S. have also been increasing over the past ten years.

However, total U.S. scallop imports (as did southeast regional imports)

decreased to 40 million pounds in 1987 from the record 48 million pounds

in 1986 -- a 17 percent decrease. Scallop imports reported for

southeastern ports of entry represent approximately 10 percent of the

total U.S. scallop meat imports. In contrast to imported product,

domestic scallop landings were very erratic during the 1983-87 period.

Landings peaked in 1984, due to Florida calico scallop production (Figure

40). Though somewhat erratic, scallop meat imports do not appear to

be characterized by increased availability during any given season

(Figure 41). The following discussion pertains only to those scallops

being received by Customs in southeastern ports of entry.

Scallops are imported into the southeast in the form of shucked

meats. There are no reports of scallops being imported as breaded

or specialty products. In 1987, approximately 72 percent of the scallop

meats were imported as fresh product (Figure 42). The remained were

imported in frozen form.

Considerable change has occurred in the ranking of sources for

scallop meats arriving at southeastern ports of entry (Figure 43).

In 1984, imports from Peru represented 81 percent of the total volume.

Chile accounted for 12 percent, while Japan and Costa Rica accounted

for 5 and 1 percent, respectively. In 1987, Panama accounted for 91

percent of the total scallop imports, while Chile and Peru accounted

for 6 and 1 percent respectively. Other countries contributing lesser

volumes include Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Mexico, and







Figure 39
SOUTHEAST U.S. SCALLOP LANDINGS:
1983-87

Pounds (millions)


50
50 -


40


30 -


20 -


lo-



83 84

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Landings Data.


85 86


Figure 40
SOUTHEAST U.S. SCALLOP IMPORTS:
1983-87

Pounds (millions)


83 84 85
Year
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports

39


86 87






Figure 41

FOUR-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. SCALLOP IMPORTS
Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports.
Data refers to 1984-87.




Figure 42

IMPORTS OF SCALLOPS INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN


Pounds (millions)

4

2 -------

1 --" --

0
83 84 85
Year

Fresh B Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
40


7117








volatility in terms of single country sources of lobster from the Latin

American region. In 1983, Honduras accounted for 42 percent of the

import volume, while Bahamas, Belize, and Mexico accounted for 18

percent, 16 percent, and 10 percent, respectively. The remaining 14

percent originated from at least 12 other countries, including British

West Indies, Colombia, Costa Rica, Haiti, and Panama. By 1987, Honduras'

share (although still the most important single country source) had

declined to 23 percent. Mexico and Bahamas contributed 18 and 13 percent

respectively. The remaining volume was supplied by 15 other countries,

the most important of which were Panama, Belize, Costa Rica, Jamaica,

and Colombia. Miami is the major port of entry for lobster imports.

In 1987, 78 percent of the total lobster import volume arrived in Miami.

Brownsville, (12 percent), Port Everglades (6 percent), West Palm Beach

(3 percent) and New Orleans (less than 1 percent) served, as less

important export destinations.


Scallops

Scallop imports reported in NMFS Market News for southeastern

ports of entry originate primarily from the Latin American region.

Market News reports, however, do not indicate the species of scallops

being imported. Given that scallops originate from widely dispersed

countries in the Latin American region, several species may be

represented by the total import volume.

Imports of scallop meats into southeastern ports of entry during

the 1983-87 period have followed the same general trend as exhibited

by lobster imports (Figure 39). Scallop imports increased steadily

from 1.9 million pounds in 1983 to 7.6 million pounds in 1986,

representing an average annual increase of 60 percent. Southeastern








Venezuela. Virtually all of the scallop meats imported into the

southeast and reported by NMFS were received in Miami.


Shark

Imports of shark did not appear regularly in the Market News reports

until 1985. Prior to that, shark imports were only occasionally reported

and in small quantities. For example, shark imports in 1983 and 1984

were 3,000 and 30,000 pounds, respectively. Although shark imports

increased to only 60,000 pounds in 1985, quantities were arriving at

southeastern ports of entry on a more regular basis. Shark imports

increased dramatically to 768,000 pounds in 1986 (Figure 44). Shark

imports increased even more dramatically in 1987, with a nearly threefold

increase from the previous year to 2.2 million pounds. The five-year

average monthly distributions of shark imports indicate that most shark

imports arrive in the late summer and fall months (Figure 45).

Southeastern U.S. regional landings of shark has increased steadily

since. 1983. Total reported landings volumes of all species increased

from 1.4 million pounds in 1983 to 2.4 million pounds in 1986. Landings

volumes then increased sharply to 4.3 million pounds in 1987. Imported

shark represented about 50 percent of the regional shark landings in

1987.

Shark imports are received primarily as frozen product (Figure

46). Of the total 2.2 million pounds imported in 1987, 1.5 million

pounds (68 percent) were received as frozen product. The remaining

700,000 pounds were imported fresh. In addition, approximately 1.6

million pounds of the total 2.2 million pounds of shark imports reported

for 1987 were reportedly received in "whole" form (i.e. headed,

eviscerated, and without tails or fins) (Figure 47). Approximately







Figure 43

IMPORTS OF SCALLOPS BY COUNTRIES OF
ORIGIN: 1984 AND 1987


Jaosn

/ "Chile
/ 12%
.. Other
2%
Peru\ -.
81 %


1984
2.6 Million Lbs


Panama
91%


1987
4.7 Million LiS


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports





Figure 44

SOUTHEAST U.S. SHARK LANDINGS AND
IMPORTS: 1983-87

Pounds (millions)
8 -


0
83 84 85 8
Year

Landings B Imports

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
42


Chile
%er
3%







Figure 45
THREE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. SHARK IMPORTS


Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports.
Data refers to 1986-87.




Figure 46
IMPORTS OF SHARK INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN


Pounds (millions)


83 84 85
Year

SFresh M Frozen


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


~









600,000. pounds were imported, as fillets, with the remaining volume

reported as loins or portions. Although the imports of shark are likely

represented by a variety of species, the reported data only recognizes

two distinct market names -- mako and thresher. In 1987, mako shark

represented approximately 51 percent of the total shark imports.

Thresher shark accounted for 29 percent. Unclassified species

represented 19 percent, with the remaining one percent being shark

fins.

The major single country sources of shark changed considerably

during the 1985-87 period (Figure 48). Prior to 1986, Mexico was the

leading reported supplier of shark. However, in 1986, Mexico supplied

only 5 percent of the total shark imports. That same year Peru supplied

80 percent of the product, followed by Ecuador (10%). In 1987,

Ecuadorian imports accounted for 1.3 million pounds (60 percent) of

the total shark imports. Peruvian imports totaled 500,000 pounds (23

percent). Chile and Guyana each accounted for 5 percent of the total

import volume. Other countries that exported shark to southeastern

ports of entry in 1987 include Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and Venezuela.

The major port of entry for shark is Miami. Lesser quantities of shark

imports arrive in Brownsville and New Orleans.


Pompano

Import volumes of pompano received in the Southeastern U.S.

exhibited considerable variability during the 1983-87 period. Pompano

imports of 82,000 pounds in 1983 declined to only 24,000 pounds in

1984 and then increased to a peak of 342,000 pounds in 1985 (Figure

49). Import volumes then declined again to 166,000 pounds and 106,000








Venezuela. Virtually all of the scallop meats imported into the

southeast and reported by NMFS were received in Miami.


Shark

Imports of shark did not appear regularly in the Market News reports

until 1985. Prior to that, shark imports were only occasionally reported

and in small quantities. For example, shark imports in 1983 and 1984

were 3,000 and 30,000 pounds, respectively. Although shark imports

increased to only 60,000 pounds in 1985, quantities were arriving at

southeastern ports of entry on a more regular basis. Shark imports

increased dramatically to 768,000 pounds in 1986 (Figure 44). Shark

imports increased even more dramatically in 1987, with a nearly threefold

increase from the previous year to 2.2 million pounds. The five-year

average monthly distributions of shark imports indicate that most shark

imports arrive in the late summer and fall months (Figure 45).

Southeastern U.S. regional landings of shark has increased steadily

since. 1983. Total reported landings volumes of all species increased

from 1.4 million pounds in 1983 to 2.4 million pounds in 1986. Landings

volumes then increased sharply to 4.3 million pounds in 1987. Imported

shark represented about 50 percent of the regional shark landings in

1987.

Shark imports are received primarily as frozen product (Figure

46). Of the total 2.2 million pounds imported in 1987, 1.5 million

pounds (68 percent) were received as frozen product. The remaining

700,000 pounds were imported fresh. In addition, approximately 1.6

million pounds of the total 2.2 million pounds of shark imports reported

for 1987 were reportedly received in "whole" form (i.e. headed,

eviscerated, and without tails or fins) (Figure 47). Approximately






Figure 47
IMPORTS OF SHARK INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
PRODUCT FORMS

Pounds (millions)
I


u-


83


85
Year


SWhole E Fillets

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports






Figure 48

IMPORTS OF SHARK BY COUNTRIES OF
ORIGIN: 1986 AND 1987


Ecuador
9%
Mexico

Peru o1tr
80% 5%



1986
768,000 Lbs


Chile
5%
Other
7%
Guatemala
4%


Peru
23%
1987
2.2 Million Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports

45








pounds in 1986 and 1987, respectively. Pompano imports have- been

relatively small in comparison to southeast regional landings. Reported

landings of pompano in the southeast region declined 16 percent from

1983 to 1984. However, landings exhibited a steady increase during

the 1984-87 period (Figure 49). Pompano landings approached 843,000

pounds in 1987, representing an average annual increase since 1984

of 8 percent. The monthly distribution of pompano imports is somewhat

erratic. Imports tend to increase in the spring, with July and October

being peak months (Figure 50).

Except in 1984 and 1986, the volume of frozen pompano imports

has exceeded that of fresh product. Frozen pompano represented

approximately two-thirds of the total volume imported in 1987 (Figure

51). In addition, pompano is typically imported in whole form. Only

a small quantity of fillets were imported in 1987.

The distribution of pompano imports across major countries of

origin has changed somewhat over the 1983-87 period (Figure 52). Mexico

continued to be the major supplier of pompano over the five-year period.

Mexican imports accounted for 99 percent of the pompano to arrive at

southeastern ports of entry in 1983. Costa Rica supplied the remaining

small volumes. In 1987, Mexico supplied 51 percent, with Peru and

Ecuador supplying 39 and 10 percent, respectively. Peruvian pompano

imports first began showing up in NMFS Market News data in 1985, when

Peru accounted for 86 percent of the pompano imports for that year.

The major ports of entry for pompano are Miami and Brownsville, with

only a small portion of product arriving through New Orleans in 1987.









600,000. pounds were imported, as fillets, with the remaining volume

reported as loins or portions. Although the imports of shark are likely

represented by a variety of species, the reported data only recognizes

two distinct market names -- mako and thresher. In 1987, mako shark

represented approximately 51 percent of the total shark imports.

Thresher shark accounted for 29 percent. Unclassified species

represented 19 percent, with the remaining one percent being shark

fins.

The major single country sources of shark changed considerably

during the 1985-87 period (Figure 48). Prior to 1986, Mexico was the

leading reported supplier of shark. However, in 1986, Mexico supplied

only 5 percent of the total shark imports. That same year Peru supplied

80 percent of the product, followed by Ecuador (10%). In 1987,

Ecuadorian imports accounted for 1.3 million pounds (60 percent) of

the total shark imports. Peruvian imports totaled 500,000 pounds (23

percent). Chile and Guyana each accounted for 5 percent of the total

import volume. Other countries that exported shark to southeastern

ports of entry in 1987 include Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and Venezuela.

The major port of entry for shark is Miami. Lesser quantities of shark

imports arrive in Brownsville and New Orleans.


Pompano

Import volumes of pompano received in the Southeastern U.S.

exhibited considerable variability during the 1983-87 period. Pompano

imports of 82,000 pounds in 1983 declined to only 24,000 pounds in

1984 and then increased to a peak of 342,000 pounds in 1985 (Figure

49). Import volumes then declined again to 166,000 pounds and 106,000







Figure 49


SOUTHEAST U.S. POMPANO LANDINGS AND
IMPORTS: 1983-87


1000


800 -

600

400

200


Pounds (thousands)


83 84 85
Year


86 87


Landings E Imports

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 50
FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. POMPANO IMPORTS

Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports






Figure 51

IMPORTS OF POMPANO INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORT'S OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (thousands)
350
300 -
250 -
200 .
150 -
100
50

83 84 85 86 87
Year

SFresh Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports





Figure 52

IMPORTS OF POMPANO BY COUNTRIES OF
ORIGIN: 1983 AND 1987


Mexico
51%


Mexico
93%


Costa Rica Ecuador
7%10%


1983
82,000 Lbs




DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
48


Peru
39%
1987
106,000 Lbs








Swordfish

Swordfish import volumes during the 1983-87 period increased

dramatically (Figure 53). In 1983, only 65,000 pounds of swordfish

imports were reported for the region. The volume of swordfish imports

increased steadily to approximately 3.7 million pounds in 1987. This

represents an increase of over 50-fold during the 5-year period.

Swordfish landings in the southeast region, in contrast, declined

steadily from 1983 to 1987. Regional swordfish landings decreased

from 4.8 million pounds in 1983 to 2.8 million pounds in 1987. This

represents an average annual decline in landings of 22 percent. Recently

enacted regional management policy, which effectively eliminated the

commercial fishery for billfish, does not apply to broadbill swordfish.

Swordfish imports are apparently available on a consistent year round

basis, with small increases in monthly import volumes being noted for

spring and fall (Figure 54).

The majority of swordfish imported during the 1983-87 period were

received as fresh, whole fish (whole swordfish denotes eviscerated

fish with the head, tail, and fins removed) (Figure 55). In 1987,

93 percent of the swordfish were shipped fresh. In addition, 94 percent

of the imported swordfish were received in whole form. Only about

2.5 percent were received as portions and/or loins, while the remaining

volume was imported in filleted form. In terms of product form, whole

fish was the predominant form imported during the 1983-87 period

The major countries of origin for swordfish imports changed over

the 1983-87 period (Figure 56). In 1983, Canada accounted for over

84 percent of the very small volume of swordfish imports reported in






Figure 53


SOUTHEAST U.S. SWORDFISH LANDINGS AND
IMPORTS: 1983-87'

Pounds (millions)


83


85
Year


86 87


I Landings M Imports

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 54

FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. SWORDFISH IMPORTS


Pounds (thousands)


150


i0


0


Jan Feb Mar Apr May


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News


Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Reports

50


----I~ Y~-


------ ----- ssss- ---------


..I







Figure 55

IMPORTS OF SWORDFISH INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN


Pounds (millions)


3.5
3
2.5 -.




0.5
0.50- .. .. .... ___
83 84 85 86 87
Year

Fresh Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports




Figure 56


IMPORTS OF SWORDFISH BY COUNTRIES OF
ORIGIN: 1983 AND 1987


Canada
85% A


Peru
8%
Brazil
8%


1983
65,000 Lbs


Chile
23%

Brazil
12%


Ecuador Spain
48% 16%
Mexico
1%
1987
3.7 Million Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports








the southeast U.S. However, as the volume of swordfish imports began

to increase, Canada no longer continued to supply swordfish imports

to the region. At the same time, Spain, Chile, Brazil, and Ecuador

began to emerge as major suppliers. By 1987, Ecuador (44 percent),

Chile (21 percent), Spain (15 percent), and Brazil (11 percent) were

the major suppliers of swordfish imports for the southeastern U.S.

Over 99 percent of the imported swordfish passed through Customs in

Miami.


Red Drum (Redfish)

The volume of red drum imports received by southeastern U.S. ports

of entry was somewhat erratic during the 1983-87 period (Figure 57).

Red drum imports were approximately equal in 1983 and 1984. However,

import volumes increased by 60 percent in 1985 and further. increased

in 1986 to 626,000 pounds. Red drum imports then declined in 1987

to 272,000 pounds. Southeastern landings of red drum, on the other

hand, exhibited a dramatic and continuous increase from 1983 to 1986

(Figure 58). Landings increased from 3.5 million pounds in 1983 to

15.4 million pounds in 1986. However, given the virtual shutdown of

the fishery in federal waters in 1987, regional landings decreased

to 5.2 million pounds that year. Given the apparent strong market

demand for red drum during this period, the reported decline in imports

as landings were declining is inexplicable. Not withstanding the

unexplained decline in imports, the apparent levels of red drum imports

represented a small portion of the total supply in the market place.

If the demand for red drum remains strong, and substitute species are

not found, the more recent closure of the commercial red drum fishery

in state, as well as federal, waters will likely intensify the importance







Figure 57

SOUTHEAST U.S. RED DRUM IMPORTS:
1983-87
Pounds (thousands)


83 84
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


85 86
Year


Figure 58

SOUTHEAST U.S. RED DRUM LANDINGS:
1983-87
Pounds (millions)


83 84
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
53


85
Year


II~DBF~









of foreign sources for red drum. The monthly distribution of red drum

imports is variable, with apparent availability being lowest during

the late spring and summer months (Figure 59).

Red drum imports consist almost entirely of whole, fresh product.

In 1987, whole and fresh product each represented approximately 98

percent of the total import volume (Figures 60 and 61). During the

1983-87 period, frozen product and fillets have each consistently

represented less than 10 percent of the total import volume.

Mexico accounted for virtually 100 percent of the reported red

drum imports for the southeastern region during the 1983-87 period.

Other countries exporting reportedly small quantities of red drum into

the Southeastern U.S. include Costa Rica and Ecuador. Brownsville

is the major port of entry for red drum products.


Sea Trout

Sea trout imports decreased steadily from 1984 to 1987 (Figure

62). Imports of sea trout increased from 716,000 pounds in 1983 to

839,000 pounds in 1984. However, import volumes decreased by nearly

one-half over the next four years to 429,000 pounds in 1987. Since

1984, sea trout imports have decreased by an average annual rate of

approximately 20 percent. Southeastern regional landings of sea trout,

although somewhat erratic, also exhibited a recent decline (Figure

63). Landings alternately increased and decreased during the 1983-87

period, with a 15 percent decline from 18.4 million pounds in 1986

to 15.6 million pounds in 1987. Seasonal availability of sea trout

imports is about evenly distributed across the months, with the winter

and spring exhibiting small peaks in import volumes (Figure 64).








the southeast U.S. However, as the volume of swordfish imports began

to increase, Canada no longer continued to supply swordfish imports

to the region. At the same time, Spain, Chile, Brazil, and Ecuador

began to emerge as major suppliers. By 1987, Ecuador (44 percent),

Chile (21 percent), Spain (15 percent), and Brazil (11 percent) were

the major suppliers of swordfish imports for the southeastern U.S.

Over 99 percent of the imported swordfish passed through Customs in

Miami.


Red Drum (Redfish)

The volume of red drum imports received by southeastern U.S. ports

of entry was somewhat erratic during the 1983-87 period (Figure 57).

Red drum imports were approximately equal in 1983 and 1984. However,

import volumes increased by 60 percent in 1985 and further. increased

in 1986 to 626,000 pounds. Red drum imports then declined in 1987

to 272,000 pounds. Southeastern landings of red drum, on the other

hand, exhibited a dramatic and continuous increase from 1983 to 1986

(Figure 58). Landings increased from 3.5 million pounds in 1983 to

15.4 million pounds in 1986. However, given the virtual shutdown of

the fishery in federal waters in 1987, regional landings decreased

to 5.2 million pounds that year. Given the apparent strong market

demand for red drum during this period, the reported decline in imports

as landings were declining is inexplicable. Not withstanding the

unexplained decline in imports, the apparent levels of red drum imports

represented a small portion of the total supply in the market place.

If the demand for red drum remains strong, and substitute species are

not found, the more recent closure of the commercial red drum fishery

in state, as well as federal, waters will likely intensify the importance







Figure 59

FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. RED DRUM IMPORTS

Pounds (thousands)
70















Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 60

IMPORTS OF RED DRUM INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (thousands)
600
























83 84 85 86 87
Year

Fresh Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
555
40 .

30 .

20 ..




Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 60

IMPORTS OF RED DRUM INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (thousands)
600

500--

400 .....

300 .- -

2001..

10 0 -

83 84 85 86 87
Year

1 Fresh M Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports

55









of foreign sources for red drum. The monthly distribution of red drum

imports is variable, with apparent availability being lowest during

the late spring and summer months (Figure 59).

Red drum imports consist almost entirely of whole, fresh product.

In 1987, whole and fresh product each represented approximately 98

percent of the total import volume (Figures 60 and 61). During the

1983-87 period, frozen product and fillets have each consistently

represented less than 10 percent of the total import volume.

Mexico accounted for virtually 100 percent of the reported red

drum imports for the southeastern region during the 1983-87 period.

Other countries exporting reportedly small quantities of red drum into

the Southeastern U.S. include Costa Rica and Ecuador. Brownsville

is the major port of entry for red drum products.


Sea Trout

Sea trout imports decreased steadily from 1984 to 1987 (Figure

62). Imports of sea trout increased from 716,000 pounds in 1983 to

839,000 pounds in 1984. However, import volumes decreased by nearly

one-half over the next four years to 429,000 pounds in 1987. Since

1984, sea trout imports have decreased by an average annual rate of

approximately 20 percent. Southeastern regional landings of sea trout,

although somewhat erratic, also exhibited a recent decline (Figure

63). Landings alternately increased and decreased during the 1983-87

period, with a 15 percent decline from 18.4 million pounds in 1986

to 15.6 million pounds in 1987. Seasonal availability of sea trout

imports is about evenly distributed across the months, with the winter

and spring exhibiting small peaks in import volumes (Figure 64).








Figure 61


IMPORTS OF RED DRUM INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
PRODUCT FORMS


Pounds (thousands)
600

500-
400- -

300

200

100
0
83 84 85
Year

i Whole Fillets

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


87


Figure 62

SOUTHEAST U.S. SEA TROUT IMPORTS:
1983-87

Pounds (thousands)


83 84 85 86
Year
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
56






Figure 63


SOUTHEAST

Pounds (millions)


U.S. SEA TROUT LANDINGS:
1983-87


151 ---


84 85


86 87


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 64
FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. SEA TROUT IMPORTS


Pounds (thousands)


Jan Feb Mar Apr


May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month


Oct Nov Dec


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


If~gllllmi~P~


1








Sea trout is imported primarily as fresh product. In 1983, fresh

sea trout imports represented 58 percent of the total sea trout imports.

By 1987, fresh sea trout imports accounted for approximately 93 percent

of the total (Figure 65). In terms of product form, sea trout is

imported primarily in the whole form. Fillets have traditionally

represented less than 10 percent of the total import volume (Figure

66). Market News import data specify only two species of sea trout

being imported -- spotted and sand. In 1987, 36 percent of the sea

trout imported were spotted and less than 1 percent were sand trout.

The largest percentage of the total volume were reported generically

as "sea trout".

Mexico has continued to be the most important source of sea trout

exports. In 1983, Mexico supplied 96 percent of the import volume.

In 1987, Mexico accounted for 93 percent of the sea trout reportedly

received by southeastern ports of entry (Figure 67). The remaining

volume was received from Argentina (4 percent) and Panama (3 percent).

Other countries exporting sea trout during the 1983-87 period include

Brazil and Venezuela. The majority of the sea trout imports were

reportedly received by Customs in Brownsville. Smaller volumes were

received in Miami and Savannah.


King Mackerel

King mackerel imports decreased from 1.2 million pounds in 1983

to 626,000 pounds in 1984 (Figure 68). Following 1985, king mackerel

import volume exhibited a steady increase to 1.8 million pounds in

1987. In contrast, regional domestic landings generally decreased

during the 1983-87 period. Southeastern regional landings decreased

from 6.7 million pounds in 1983 to 4.6 million pounds in 1987. The






Figure 65

IMPORTS OF SEA TROUT INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN

Pounds (thousands)
1000

800

600 --

400

200 .

0
ROO t ---- _^----------- ---



83 84 85 86 87
Year

Fresh M Frozen

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 66

IMPORTS OF SEA TROUT INTO SOUTHEASTERN
PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
PRODUCT FORMS

Pounds (thousands)
1000

800- -----

600

400

200-

83 84 85 86 87
Year

SWhole i Fillets -

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports
59






Figure 67

IMPORTS OF SEA TROUT BY COUNTRIES OF
ORIGIN: 1983 AND 1987


Mexico
96%


1983
716,000 Lbs


Other
4%Mexico 93%


Argentina 4
Panama 3%


1987
429.000 Lbs


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports



Figure 68

SOUTHEAST U.S. KING MACKEREL LANDINGS
AND IMPORTS: 1983-87
Pounds (millions)
7,.


IL


83 84 85 8
Year
SLandings Imports

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports








recent establishment of quotas in federal and some state waters likely

played a role in the declining regional landings during the five-year

period. Imported king mackerel are more readily available in the

late winter and spring, with peak 5-year monthly averages occurring

in February, March, April, and May (Figure 69).

In 1987, the majority of imported king mackerel arrived as frozen

product. This was also the case in 1983 and 1984. However, fresh

product dominated import volumes in 1985 and 1986 (Figure 70). Although

the preference for fresh versus frozen product by domestic buyers is

somewhat unclear, the specific product form demanded by initial buyers

is revealed by the data. During the 1983-87 period, the predominant

product form imported was whole fish (Figure 71). With the exception

of 1984, fillets and other (i.e. loins, portions, etc.) product forms

were less than 10 percent of the total import volume.

The distribution of king mackerel import volumes across major

countries of origin remained relatively constant during the 1983-87

period. In 1983, Mexico was responsible for 100 percent of the king

mackerel imports. In 1987, Mexico supplied 96 percent of the king

mackerel imports, while Peru (3 percent) and Panama (1 percent) supplied

the remaining volume. Venezuela also supplied king mackerel imports

to the southeastern U.S. during the five-year period. In 1987, roughly

two thirds of the king mackerel imports were received in Miami, with

the remaining volume arriving in Brownsville.


Spanish Mackerel

Imports of Spanish mackerel were also not reported in the Market

News reports on a regular basis until 1987. Prior to that, small

inconsistent volumes of Spanish mackerel imports were reported. Imports








Sea trout is imported primarily as fresh product. In 1983, fresh

sea trout imports represented 58 percent of the total sea trout imports.

By 1987, fresh sea trout imports accounted for approximately 93 percent

of the total (Figure 65). In terms of product form, sea trout is

imported primarily in the whole form. Fillets have traditionally

represented less than 10 percent of the total import volume (Figure

66). Market News import data specify only two species of sea trout

being imported -- spotted and sand. In 1987, 36 percent of the sea

trout imported were spotted and less than 1 percent were sand trout.

The largest percentage of the total volume were reported generically

as "sea trout".

Mexico has continued to be the most important source of sea trout

exports. In 1983, Mexico supplied 96 percent of the import volume.

In 1987, Mexico accounted for 93 percent of the sea trout reportedly

received by southeastern ports of entry (Figure 67). The remaining

volume was received from Argentina (4 percent) and Panama (3 percent).

Other countries exporting sea trout during the 1983-87 period include

Brazil and Venezuela. The majority of the sea trout imports were

reportedly received by Customs in Brownsville. Smaller volumes were

received in Miami and Savannah.


King Mackerel

King mackerel imports decreased from 1.2 million pounds in 1983

to 626,000 pounds in 1984 (Figure 68). Following 1985, king mackerel

import volume exhibited a steady increase to 1.8 million pounds in

1987. In contrast, regional domestic landings generally decreased

during the 1983-87 period. Southeastern regional landings decreased

from 6.7 million pounds in 1983 to 4.6 million pounds in 1987. The






Figure 69

FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION
OF SOUTHEAST U.S. KING MACKEREL IMPORTS
Pounds (thousands)


400


300


200


100


0


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month


DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


Figure 70

IMPORTS OF KING MACKEREL INTO
SOUTHEASTERN PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
FRESH vs FROZEN
Pounds (thousands)


1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0


83 84 85
Year
SFresh M Frozen
DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


t--
L


3









Figure 71

IMPORTS OF KING MACKEREL INTO
SOUTHEASTERN PORTS OF ENTRY: 1983-87
PRODUCT FORMS

Pounds (thousands)
2000

1500 -


1000 -........


500


0
83 84 85 86 87
Year

Whole E Fillets

DATA SOURCE: NMFS Market News Reports


I








recent establishment of quotas in federal and some state waters likely

played a role in the declining regional landings during the five-year

period. Imported king mackerel are more readily available in the

late winter and spring, with peak 5-year monthly averages occurring

in February, March, April, and May (Figure 69).

In 1987, the majority of imported king mackerel arrived as frozen

product. This was also the case in 1983 and 1984. However, fresh

product dominated import volumes in 1985 and 1986 (Figure 70). Although

the preference for fresh versus frozen product by domestic buyers is

somewhat unclear, the specific product form demanded by initial buyers

is revealed by the data. During the 1983-87 period, the predominant

product form imported was whole fish (Figure 71). With the exception

of 1984, fillets and other (i.e. loins, portions, etc.) product forms

were less than 10 percent of the total import volume.

The distribution of king mackerel import volumes across major

countries of origin remained relatively constant during the 1983-87

period. In 1983, Mexico was responsible for 100 percent of the king

mackerel imports. In 1987, Mexico supplied 96 percent of the king

mackerel imports, while Peru (3 percent) and Panama (1 percent) supplied

the remaining volume. Venezuela also supplied king mackerel imports

to the southeastern U.S. during the five-year period. In 1987, roughly

two thirds of the king mackerel imports were received in Miami, with

the remaining volume arriving in Brownsville.


Spanish Mackerel

Imports of Spanish mackerel were also not reported in the Market

News reports on a regular basis until 1987. Prior to that, small

inconsistent volumes of Spanish mackerel imports were reported. Imports








reported for Spanish mackerel in 1985 and 1986 totaled 11,000 and 28,000

pounds, respectively. However, a dramatic increase in imports were

reported for 1987 with the total volume increasing to 118,000 pounds.

Given that consistent data exists for only one year, no discernible

trends in monthly distribution of imports is recognized. Landings

of Spanish mackerel have exhibited a steady increase in the Southeast

region since 1984. Landings declined from 6 million pounds in 1983

to 4.1 million pounds in 1984. However, landings increased steadily

during the 1984-87 period with landings in 1987 reported to 6.6 million

pounds. Therefore, imported Spanish mackerel represents a small

percentage of total supplies.

Spanish mackerel is imported primarily as frozen product. In

1987, 97 percent of the Spanish mackerel imports arrived as frozen

product. In addition, 96,000 pounds (81 percent) of the total Spanish

mackerel imports were received in whole form. The remaining 19 percent

were reported as fillets.

Peru was the sole source of Spanish mackerel sports reported

for 1985 and 1986. Peru continued to be the major source in 1987 with

96 percent of the total import volume attributed to that single country

source. However, Panama (1 percent) and Mexico (3 percent) also served

a role in supplying relatively small quantities to the U.S. market.

Miami served as the major port of entry for Spanish mackerel imports,

with small quantities being received in Brownsville.


Marlin

Marlin imports were very inconsistent and arrived in small

quantities prior to 1987. It is questionable whether the available

data fully describe the market for marlin imports during the 1983-86









period. Reported marlin imports, however, increased to 471,000 pounds

in 1987. This may reflect more accurate data collection procedures

and/or a stronger domestic market for marlin products. Market News

data do not specify the species of the imported marlin (i.e. blue,

white, other). The monthly distribution of marlin imports is difficult

to assess with only one year of data available for all seasons. Reported

southeastern U.S. regional landings of marlin increased steadily from

1983 to 1987. Over the five-year period, marlin landings increased

from 38,000 pounds to 238,000 pounds. Recently enacted management

measures for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic region of the U.S.

have effectively eliminated the commercial fisheries for marlin in

the region.

Marlin imports typically arrive as fresh product. In 1987, 439,000

pounds of product arrived fresh, while the remaining 32,000 pounds

were imported as frozen product. Marlin arriving as "whole" product

is the predominant product form, with only a small portion of the

imported volume arriving as fillets.

Although only small quantities of marlin were reportedly being

imported prior to 1987, the major sources of this product were Thailand,

Chile, and Peru. In 1987, Ecuador accounted for 91 percent of the

marlin imports, while Mexico (6 percent), Grenada (2 percent), and

Antigua (1 percent) accounted for the remaining volume. Miami is the

primary port of entry for marlin imports, with Brownsville receiving

only 6 percent of the total volume.


Tilefish

Tilefish imports, as was the case for marlin, shark, and Spanish

mackerel, reportedly arrived only in very small quantities prior to








reported for Spanish mackerel in 1985 and 1986 totaled 11,000 and 28,000

pounds, respectively. However, a dramatic increase in imports were

reported for 1987 with the total volume increasing to 118,000 pounds.

Given that consistent data exists for only one year, no discernible

trends in monthly distribution of imports is recognized. Landings

of Spanish mackerel have exhibited a steady increase in the Southeast

region since 1984. Landings declined from 6 million pounds in 1983

to 4.1 million pounds in 1984. However, landings increased steadily

during the 1984-87 period with landings in 1987 reported to 6.6 million

pounds. Therefore, imported Spanish mackerel represents a small

percentage of total supplies.

Spanish mackerel is imported primarily as frozen product. In

1987, 97 percent of the Spanish mackerel imports arrived as frozen

product. In addition, 96,000 pounds (81 percent) of the total Spanish

mackerel imports were received in whole form. The remaining 19 percent

were reported as fillets.

Peru was the sole source of Spanish mackerel sports reported

for 1985 and 1986. Peru continued to be the major source in 1987 with

96 percent of the total import volume attributed to that single country

source. However, Panama (1 percent) and Mexico (3 percent) also served

a role in supplying relatively small quantities to the U.S. market.

Miami served as the major port of entry for Spanish mackerel imports,

with small quantities being received in Brownsville.


Marlin

Marlin imports were very inconsistent and arrived in small

quantities prior to 1987. It is questionable whether the available

data fully describe the market for marlin imports during the 1983-86









period. Reported marlin imports, however, increased to 471,000 pounds

in 1987. This may reflect more accurate data collection procedures

and/or a stronger domestic market for marlin products. Market News

data do not specify the species of the imported marlin (i.e. blue,

white, other). The monthly distribution of marlin imports is difficult

to assess with only one year of data available for all seasons. Reported

southeastern U.S. regional landings of marlin increased steadily from

1983 to 1987. Over the five-year period, marlin landings increased

from 38,000 pounds to 238,000 pounds. Recently enacted management

measures for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic region of the U.S.

have effectively eliminated the commercial fisheries for marlin in

the region.

Marlin imports typically arrive as fresh product. In 1987, 439,000

pounds of product arrived fresh, while the remaining 32,000 pounds

were imported as frozen product. Marlin arriving as "whole" product

is the predominant product form, with only a small portion of the

imported volume arriving as fillets.

Although only small quantities of marlin were reportedly being

imported prior to 1987, the major sources of this product were Thailand,

Chile, and Peru. In 1987, Ecuador accounted for 91 percent of the

marlin imports, while Mexico (6 percent), Grenada (2 percent), and

Antigua (1 percent) accounted for the remaining volume. Miami is the

primary port of entry for marlin imports, with Brownsville receiving

only 6 percent of the total volume.


Tilefish

Tilefish imports, as was the case for marlin, shark, and Spanish

mackerel, reportedly arrived only in very small quantities prior to








1987. In 1987, 39,000 pounds of tilefish were imported into southeastern

ports of entry. Similarly with marlin, this may indicate an increase

in accuracy in data collection and/or an strengthening in the domestic

market for imported tilefish. Landings for tilefish in the southeastern

region have been declining steadily since 1983. Tilefish landings

have declined from 2.3 million pounds in 1983 to approximately 500,000

pounds in 1987. This represents a average annual decline of 15 percent.

Tilefish imports arrive primarily as fresh product in "whole"

form. In 1987, only 10 percent of the imported tilefish arrived as

fillets. Mexico is the leading source of tilefish. In 1987, Mexico

supplied 60 percent of the tilefish that was reported to have been

imported into southeastern ports of entry. Other sources of tilefish

during the 1986-87 period were Brazil and Argentina. The major port

of entry for tilefish imports was Brownsville, with smaller volumes

arriving in Miami.


CONCLUSIONS

Imported seafoods represent an increasingly important share of

the total U.S. seafood supplies. Since the mid 1960's, imported seafood

has continuously represented over 50 percent of the total domestic

edible seafood supplies. More recently, imports of edible seafood

products have increased at an average annual rate of over 6 percent

since 1980. This increase is in stark contrast to a decline of

approximately 2 percent for domestic landings.

The general trend toward an increased dependence on imported

seafoods has also been found to exist in the market for many species

of importance in the southeastern U.S. The volume and diversity of

seafood imports arriving at southeastern U.S. ports of entry has








1987. In 1987, 39,000 pounds of tilefish were imported into southeastern

ports of entry. Similarly with marlin, this may indicate an increase

in accuracy in data collection and/or an strengthening in the domestic

market for imported tilefish. Landings for tilefish in the southeastern

region have been declining steadily since 1983. Tilefish landings

have declined from 2.3 million pounds in 1983 to approximately 500,000

pounds in 1987. This represents a average annual decline of 15 percent.

Tilefish imports arrive primarily as fresh product in "whole"

form. In 1987, only 10 percent of the imported tilefish arrived as

fillets. Mexico is the leading source of tilefish. In 1987, Mexico

supplied 60 percent of the tilefish that was reported to have been

imported into southeastern ports of entry. Other sources of tilefish

during the 1986-87 period were Brazil and Argentina. The major port

of entry for tilefish imports was Brownsville, with smaller volumes

arriving in Miami.


CONCLUSIONS

Imported seafoods represent an increasingly important share of

the total U.S. seafood supplies. Since the mid 1960's, imported seafood

has continuously represented over 50 percent of the total domestic

edible seafood supplies. More recently, imports of edible seafood

products have increased at an average annual rate of over 6 percent

since 1980. This increase is in stark contrast to a decline of

approximately 2 percent for domestic landings.

The general trend toward an increased dependence on imported

seafoods has also been found to exist in the market for many species

of importance in the southeastern U.S. The volume and diversity of

seafood imports arriving at southeastern U.S. ports of entry has









increased steadily since 1983. Regional markets for these seafood

products have become more dependent on foreign sources to provide the

volumes demanded for many traditional and non-traditional species.

Specific trade patterns that emerged in 1987 for seafood imported into

southeastern ports of entry (Table 2) provide interesting insight into

how the market is changing. Change is not only occurring in terms

of sheer volume, but also in terms of fresh versus frozen, product

form, seasonality, country of origin, and species diversity.

Volume

Imports of 68 tropical and subtropical marine species (excluding
shrimp) arriving at southeastern U.S. ports of entry increased from
17.4 million pounds in 1983 to 70.4 million pounds in 1987. This sharp
overall increase was even more dramatic for some selected species,
such as snapper, grouper, mahi-mahi, corvina, and swordfish. For some
species, annual imports now exceed annual regional landings.

Fresh versus Frozen

Prior to 1986, the volume of imported frozen seafood products
exceeded that for fresh products. However, fresh imports exceeded
frozen by approximately 25 percent in both 1986 and 1987. The import
markets for many important species, such as snapper, grouper, shark,
sea trout, tilefish, and mahi-mahi was dominated in 1987 by fresh
imports.

Product Form

The predominant product form imported during the 1983-87 period
was whole product. The overall importance of this product form, however,
declined somewhat over this period. Whole product represented 93 percent
of the seafood imports in 1983, but declined to 58 percent in 1987.
Imports of many traditionally important species continue to arrive
primarily as whole product (i.e. snapper, mahi-mahi, shark, pompano,
swordfish, sea trout, king mackerel, and tilefish).

Seasonality

As the U.S. domestic demand for seafood has strengthened, the
availability of imports, for many species, has become less seasonally
erratic. Although most species continue to exhibit greater import
volumes during certain seasons, product on a species-by-species basis
is generally available on a year-round basis.












TABLE 2 Summary of 1987 Landings and Import Data by Species


Southeast Imports


species


.lbs.1


Fresh (F) vs
Frozen (Z)2.


Product
Forms2


Seasonal
---------- ---------


2 II FL


Snapper
Grouper

Mahi-mahi
Coach

Corvina
Black Drum

Ktngklip
Lobster

Scallops
Shark

Pompano
Swordfish

Red Drum
Sea Trout

King Mackerel
Spanish Mackerel

Marlin
Tllefish

ALL SPECIES


7.9
9.5

.6
<.1

NA4
10.8

NA
4.6

10.0





5.2
15.6
4.6
6.6

.2
.5

NA*4


14.0
8.9

7.4
1.9

.3
<.1

1.5
5.5

4.7
2.2

.1
3.7

.3
.4

1.8
.1

.5
<.1

70.4


SP, SM
SP, F

SP
SP, SM, F

W, SP


W, SP, P
F, W

SP, SM
SM, F

SP, SM, F
SP, F

F, V
W, SP

SP
*

*
*

IA4


Major Countries
__ofrlln ..--------


MX, VZ, CR, PA
MX, CR, CH, EC

EC, CR
BWI, HO, CO, HA, DR

CR, EC, ES, MX
MX

CH, PU
HO, MX, BA, BE, PA

PA, CB
EC, PU, CR, CU

MX, PU, EC
EC, CH, SP, BR

MX
MX, AR, PA

MX, PU, PA
PU, MX, PA

EC, MX
MX

MX, EC, CR, PA, PU, CH


1Units of one million
2Reported as percent
3Season where import volumes
4Not available


are greatest (SM-sumer, F-fall, V-winter, SP-spring)


Southeast
Landings









Country of Origin

The major sources of imported product has changed over the 1983-87
period. Although this study focused primarily on imports originating
from Latin America, considerable change in the specific countries and
market share among exporting countries was documented. In 1983, Mexico
was the most important single country source of imported product for
southeastern U.S. ports of entry. Mexico contributed 31 percent of
the recorded import volume, followed by lesser amounts from five other
Latin American countries. These six countries represented approximately
70 percent of the total import volume. By 1987, Mexico remained the
leading single source of imported seafood, but three of the top six
countries has been replaced. Although these six countries still
accounted for approximately 70 percent of the total import volume,
the market share among these countries was more evenly distributed.
For some species, Latin American sources have replaced countries which
have historically been important sources of product. For example,
Japan and Taiwan were the most important sources of mahi-mahi in 1983.
By 1987, the market for imported mahi-mahi was dominated by Ecuador
and Costa Rica.

Species Diversity

Along with the increase in import volume, the number of individual
species imported has also increased (i.e. 32 in 1983; 60 in 1987).
Several "non-traditional" species, which are not produced by commercial
fishermen in the southeastern U.S. region, have been represented by
continuously increasing levels of imports.

As the demand for seafood in the U.S. continues to strengthen,

increased pressure will be exerted on domestic seafood suppliers to

find alternative sources of seafood. The import market will likely

continue to grow in importance in the near future. Specifically, an

increased dependence on Latin American countries for supplies of

tropical/subtropical finfish and shellfish species will continue to

develop. Upward trends in import volumes for traditional and

non-traditional species will probably continue over the next few years.

The long-term rate of increase may be of question, however, given the

unknown yield potential from foreign wild stocks of certain species.

An astute player in the import seafood market will keep abreast

of changes in the market related to fresh versus frozen, product form,

species diversity, seasonality, and countries of origin. A knowledge


I!




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs