|
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!
|
RSS
HIDE
