Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Feasibility Research Report for Insuring

Aquaculture Bivalve Species

Deliverable 2: Feasibility Report

Contract Number: D11PX18748

Submitted to:

USDA-RMA

COTR: Mark Alderson

6501 Beacon Drive

Kansas City, Missouri 64133-4676

(816) 926-3270

Submitted by:

Watts and Associates, Inc.

4331 Hillcrest Road

Billings, Montana 59101

(406) 252-7776

twatts@wattsandassociates.com

Due Date: November 1, 2011

Compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Verified: October 21, 2011

This document includes data that shall not be disclosed outside of the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, 

or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose. The Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose 

the data to the extent provided in Contract D11PX18748. All pages of this document are subject to this restriction.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

i

Table of Contents

Section I. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................1

Section II. Introduction ...............................................................................................................3

II.A. Bivalve Trade and Exports............................................................................................13

II.B. Programs Supporting Bivalve Aquaculture ....................................................................13

II.C. Congressional Mandate .................................................................................................18

II.D. Agricultural Risk...........................................................................................................19

II.E. Research Approach........................................................................................................22

Section III. Bivalve Aquaculture Species...................................................................................27

Section IV. Bivalve Aquaculture Practices ................................................................................32

Section V. Bivalve Aquaculture Risks.......................................................................................39

Section VI. Feasibility Assessment............................................................................................42

Section VII. Applicability of the Existing Adjusted Gross Revenue Insurance Products to 

Bivalve Aquaculture Production..........................................................................................47

Section VIII. Summary of Findings...........................................................................................50

List of Tables

Table 1. Total and Aquaculture Bivalve Production (Metric Tons): 1950 and 2008 ....................7

Table 2. 2005 Bivalve Aquaculture Farms and Production by State...........................................10

Table 3. U.S. Bivalve Aquaculture Production Value: 2005......................................................12

List of Figures

Figure 1. Shells of Bivalves Commonly Used for Food ...............................................................5

Figure 2. Internal Anatomy of Two Bivalves...............................................................................6

Figure 3. World Bivalve Aquaculture Production as a Proportion of Total World Bivalve 

Production: 2000 through 2008....................................................................................7

Figure 4. World Bivalve Aquaculture Production (Metric Tons): 2000 through 2008 .................8

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Stakeholder Input

Exhibit 1. Listening Session Agenda

Exhibit 2. Stakeholder Comments

Exhibit 3. Sources of Producer Input
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

1

SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

According to the 2010 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report on the State of 

World Fisheries and Aquaculture, the United States ranks 13th in total aquaculture production

with approximately $1 billion in production annually. The 2007 Census of Agriculture reported

farmed production of all mollusks was approximately $243 million. While these values include 

culture of gastropods (specifically abalone), the bulk of molluscan aquaculture in the United 

States consists of bivalves. 

The bivalve aquaculture industry in the United States is extremely diverse. The industry 

comprises production of domesticated mollusks for human consumption and the production of 

―seed‖ for the farming of those bivalves. A wide variety of species are produced. The 2005 

Census of Aquaculture and the 2007 Census of Agriculture reports document mollusk farming 

offshore from every coastal state with the exception of Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, and 

Texas.

1

 Some harvest of wild mollusks is believed to occur in every coastal state. Good 

management practices are diverse, varying by state, species, and differences in 

microenvironments. Furthermore, production is managed for a variety of markets, including 

niche markets.

Bivalves grown commercially include more than a dozen species primarily identified as clams, 

mussels, oysters, and scallops. Bivalve farming occurs primarily in tidal and sub-tidal coastal 

areas and primarily is regulated by state agencies. Consequently, 22 different state regulatory 

environments are in place, overlain by federal shellfish sanitation and environmental 

requirements.

Bivalve producers encounter production risks similar to those for field crops. Producers are also 

subject to substantial institutional risks from regulations related to husbandry, sanitation, and 

handling.

2

 Especially in Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, loss of production to pollution is a 

major concern expressed by producers, most likely because of recent experiences with the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.3 Of the concerns identified by bivalve aquaculture producers, only 

those related to weather problems, unmanageable predation, and uncontrollable disease are 

typically considered insurable production perils for a federal crop insurance product. While 

stakeholder input nationwide addressed concerns about the impact of weather and regulatory 

requirements, much of the feedback was regionally disparate. Collectively, more than three 

quarters of respondents expressed the need for risk management related to weather; while only a 

few producers discussed the potential for losses to disease and predation (the likely insurable 

perils). Instead, regulatory issues and pollution were the predominant themes after weather risks.

There are private risk management products available covering producer-identified weather risks

and risk windows (perilous periods). There is also a private aquaculture mortality product 

 

1 USDA, NASS, 2006, Census of Aquaculture (2005), Table 1. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/aquacen2005_01.pdf, accessed October, 2011; USDA, NASS, 

2009, 2007 Census of Agriculture, State Data, Table 23. Mollusk aquaculture was reported in Alabama and Texas in the 1998 

Census of Aquaculture.

2 Many of the institutional risks either fall under the general category of ―good farming practice‖ or occur after the bivalves are 

removed from the environment where grown. These institutional risks are uninsurable under the Act.

3 The Contractor recognizes the Deepwater Horizon oil spill would be uninsurable under crop insurance. It is not clear producers 

presently recognize the distinction between natural events and man-made disasters.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

2

available to cover specific causes of loss identified by the insured (as opposed to mortality 

caused by multiple perils in a comprehensive multiple peril policy). As currently structured, 

these private named-peril products have exceptionally high premiums. Considering the 

experience of the RMA pilots for bivalves, these private products appear to be overrated (or to 

have rates that include extraordinary loads above and beyond pure risk premiums). 

Other than the RMA data for the existing pilots, the Contractor was not able to identify any

publicly available data collected consistently over time to support rating or underwriting for 

aquaculture insurance. Producers in the Pacific Northwest and Virginia indicated a willingness 

(in Virginia, an eagerness) to share personal farm-level data to support a new development effort

and major changes to the existing pilot for clams. However, the Contractor‘s efforts to obtain

any of these private data were not successful. In the absence of these data, it is difficult to 

project a scenario under which an individual yield-based insurance program could be developed.

While Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR/AGR-Lite) products provide a potential risk management

tool for bivalve producers, some growers expressed concerns that the requirements for this 

insurance are particularly burdensome for the industry. Inasmuch as producers are rarely 

growing more than two species today, limited diversification of production reduces the 

maximum percentage of the gross revenue that may be insured by limiting the maximum 

coverage level to 75 percent. Opportunities for diversification will only exist if the different 

bivalve aquaculture species (and not classes of species) are considered independently. Bivalve 

producers are unlikely to have sources of income based on land-based farming. The cost of the 

Cultivated Clam Pilot Insurance as currently structured appears to reflect the risk of production 

as demonstrated by the insurance experience. However, it should be noted that catastrophic 

weather events in 2011 affected both the oysters in Louisiana and clams on the East Coast.

The lack of available production data makes it infeasible to develop meaningful premium rates. 

Only in Virginia and the Pacific Northwest were there indications that farm-level data could and 

would be supplied for a development effort; although as noted earlier, the Contractor‘s efforts to 

collect these data were not successful. Producers in other areas were either satisfied with the 

products available under the pilot programs, indifferent to the requirements for development of 

an RMA product, or too involved in their production activities to take time to communicate with 

the Contractor.

Production of bivalves has many unique aspects (e.g., indeterminate time period to harvest, 

inventory that is for all practical purposes invisible, and effects of microenvironments on 

productivity) in addition to the issues identified previously that would need to be addressed in 

any insurance development effort. However, under the requirements for feasibility outlined in 

the Statement of Work (SOW) for this study, with currently available data, development of crop 

insurance for bivalve production is not feasible. 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

3

SECTION II. INTRODUCTION

The Statement of Work (SOW) for Project Number D11PX18748 identifies the objectives of the 

project as ―obtain[ing] analysis and information, determin[ing] the feasibility and identify[ing] 

issues related to potentially insuring Aquaculture Bivalve species, including but not limited to, 

(i) American Oysters (also called Eastern Oyster - Crassostrea virginica); 

(ii) Hard Clams (Mercenaria mercenaria); 

(iii) Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas); 

(iv) Manila Clams (Tapes philippinarium); or 

(v) Blue Mussels(Mytilus edulis),

...[As a result of this effort] a research report [will be produced] that assesses the likelihood of 

successfully developing an aquaculture insurance program, identify[ing] important issues about 

potentially insuring these aquaculture species and recommend[ing] the most viable type of 

insurance plan, if any, that is feasible.‖4 This document is the research report required by that 

SOW.

The United States Shellfish Industry

The commercial shellfish industry in the United States supports sales of crustaceans, 

echinoderms, and mollusks. While the markets are limited, the industry is diverse, including 

fresh and processed products from domestic and international sources. Many shellfish are sold 

live. Production is harvested from wild and farmed populations.

The crustaceans are a sub-phylum5 of the Phylum Arthropoda. Crustaceans in the U.S. food 

marketplace include crabs, crayfish (crawfish or crawdads), langoustines, lobsters, and shrimp. 

Substantial efforts, both in the United States and internationally, have addressed the farming of 

crustacean species. Generally, crustacean aquaculture is complicated by the extended larval 

stages of many species as well as multiple molts that characterize species used for human food. 

In the United States, efforts to grow shrimp and crayfish have been quite successful. More than 

anything else, this reflects a relatively short growing cycle. Depending on the species and 

location, these cycles range from two to six months. In contrast, lobsters and crabs have growing 

cycles measured in years (or even decades). The Contractor found no evidence of commercial 

crab aquaculture in the United States. In Asia, where shellfish aquaculture is more common, 

crab aquaculture operations have focused on the production of soft-shelled crabs, a value-added 

developmental stage in the crab life cycle. These operations depend on the harvest of hard shell 

crabs from natural populations and maintenance of these crabs until molting occurs. Lobster life 

cycles are even longer than those of crabs. Raising lobsters to market size requires extraordinary

human and physical resources. Commercial production for food is impractical. However, 

historically, U.S. lobster hatcheries have been maintained to produce juveniles to replenish 

natural (i.e., wild) stocks depleted by commercial harvests. 

Echinoderms are a phylum that includes sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and starfish. Animals in 

this phylum constitute a very specialized and extremely limited segment of the U.S. shellfish 

industry. Most U.S. sales of echinoderms are of wild or imported specimens. Farming of 

 

4 USDA, RMA, 2011, SOW, Project Number: D11PX18748, page 17.

5 A sub-phylum is a taxonomic rank between a phylum and class representing a group of organisms with morphological and/or 

developmental similarities.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

4

echinoderm species is concentrated in Asia6and Australasia.

7

 The Contractor found no evidence 

of commercial echinoderm aquaculture in the United States. As neither echinoderms nor 

crustaceans are bivalves, these shellfish types are not further discussed in this report. 

Mollusks comprise a diverse phylum of invertebrates, with more than 70,000 recognized 

species.8 The most common identifying features of the molluscan body are a complex nervous 

system, including elaborate sensory organs, a primitive brain, and a mantle,

9 which secretes the 

shells that characterize many species in the phylum. 

The phylum of mollusks is typically divided into eight to ten taxonomic classes, three of which 

include species commonly used for human foods. The molluscan classes used for food are the

gastropods (snails, abalone, and sea slugs), cephalopods (octopus and squid) and bivalves (clams, 

oysters, mussels, and scallops). As cephalopods and gastropods are not bivalves, these types are 

not further discussed in this report. 

Bivalves have been variously cataloged in taxa named Acephala (without a head), Bivalva, 

Bivalvia, Lamellibranchia (with thin plate gills), and Pelecypoda (hatchet footed). Regardless of 

the name used to classify the bivalves, the class is cohesive and relatively easy to identify in 

nature. The mantle of bivalves produces a shell divided into two elements (valves) connected by 

a hinge. Among the mollusks, only the bivalves have a shell composed of two hinged elements. 

Consequently, this distinctive shell morphology allows easy identification of the subjects of this 

report.

There are more than 9,000 living bivalve species (in more than 1,000 genera and more than 100 

families).10 Most bivalves are potentially edible; few are toxic (although toxic algae may be 

incorporated into their bodies under unfavorable conditions) and most have high protein content. 

However, many bivalves are too small to serve as a convenient source of human food. Other 

species, because of texture or flavor, are not considered palatable. Farmed bivalves are generally 

species that were first collected in the wild for food value. As wild stocks have been depleted, 

aquaculture techniques have been used to replenish these stocks. As a consequence, planting of 

aquaculture ―seed‖ has been introduced into environments where natural seed may also be 

present. To protect the planted crop, aquaculturists have developed a variety of exclosures (to 

keep out predators and competitors), enclosures (to maintain the identity and ownership of the 

crop), and anchoring mechanisms (to contain the crop and allow identification of individuals by 

age and ownership).

 

6

James, B.D., 2003, Captive breeding of the sea cucumber, Holothuria scabra, from India, 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5501e/y5501e17.htm, accessed June, 2011; Xilin, S., 2003, The progress and prospects of 

studies on artificial propagation and culture of the sea cucumber, Apostichopus japonicus, 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5501e/y5501e0x.htm, accessed June 2011.

7 Giraspy, B., 2007, Sea cucumber culture - New profitable aquaculture, 

http://www.topix.com/forum/business/aquaculture/TIVA49DK9374BJO0Q, accessed June, 2011.

8 Nicol, D., 1969, The Number of Living Species of Molluscs, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 251-254. 

9 The mantle is the dorsal body wall covering the visceral mass. In many, molluscan species the epidermis of the mantle secretes 

calcium compounds and proteins to create a shell. 

10 Huber, M., 2010, Compendium of Bivalves: A Full-color Guide to 3,300 of the World's Marine Bivalves, ConchBooks, 

Hackenheim, Germany.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

5

Bivalves used for food are generally categorized as clams, mussels, oysters, or scallops. The 

specific categorization reflects geographic location (a species called a soft shell clam in one

region might be called a cockle in another), shell form (scallops and cockles have bilaterally 

symmetrical shells, while the shells of mussels are generally thinner and darker than those of 

clams, cockles, and oysters, see Figure 1), and organization of the visceral11 mass (the scallop‘s

bodies are more compressed than the bodies of most other farmed bivalves) (Figure 2). 

Figure 1. Shells of Bivalves Commonly Used for Food

Clams Scallop Mussel Oyster

Source: W&A Research Department after historic illustrations without copyright restrictions.

 

11 The soft structures of the body.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

6

Figure 2. Internal Anatomy of Two Bivalves

European Flat Oyster Calico Scallop

AM - Adductor Muscle AM - Adductor Muscle

EC - Excurrent Canal EC - Excurrent Canal

G - Gill G- Gill

GO - Gonad IC - Incurrent Canal

IC- Incurrent Canal M - Mantle

M - Mantle O - Ovary

T - Testes

Source: Watts and Associates Research Department after United Nations, Food and 

Agriculture Organization, 2004, The Hatchery Culture of Bivalves: a Practical Manual, 

http://www.fao.org/ docrep/007 /y5720e/y5720e07.htm, accessed June, 2011.

Shell mounds demonstrate that bivalves have been a substantial component in the diets of 

humans since prehistoric times.

12 While these mounds reflect historical harvests of wild 

populations, more recent harvests by humans have been dominated by aquacultural production

(Table 1), primarily on Asian farms.13

 

12 Gentry, S.D., 1987, Utilization of Marine Mollusks by Inhabitants of the Texas Coast. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological 

Society 58: 215-248; Maine, Department of Conservation, 2004, 

http://www.maine.gov/doc/parks/programs/history/whaleback/index.htm, accessed may, 2011.

13 United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, https://www.was.org/meetings/AbstractData.asp?AbstractId=10786, 

accessed April, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

7

Table 1. Total and Aquaculture Bivalve Production (Metric Tons): 1950 and 2008

Category

1950 2008

Total 

Production

Aquaculture 

Production

Total 

Production

Aquaculture 

Production

Clams, Cockles 247,929 10,354 5,172,298 4,397,183

Mussels 166,975 70,878 1,711,351 1,624,727

Oysters 492,538 199,458 4,291,452 4,164,010

Scallops, Pectens 99,977 N.A. 2,174,345 1,410,830

TOTAL 1,007,419 280,690 13,349,446 11,596,750

Source: W&A Research Department after data from Lovatelli, A. 2006, Bivalve Framing: An overview of world

production. United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, 

https://www.was.org/meetings/AbstractData.asp?AbstractId=10786 and National Marine Fisheries Service, National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce, , 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/04_world2009.pdf, accessed April, 2011.

From 1950 to 2003, world wide bivalve aquaculture production increased almost 40 fold (Table 

1). Currently, approximately 95 percent of mussels and oysters, 85 percent of clams, and 65 

percent of scallops harvested world-wide are farmed (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. World Bivalve Aquaculture Production as a Proportion of Total World Bivalve 

Production: 2000 through 2008

Source: W&A Research Department after data from National Marine Fisheries Service, 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of 

Commerce, http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/04_world2009.pdf and prior years, 

accessed April, 2011.

The proportions of bivalves derived from farming have trended up slightly over the last ten

years. The proportion produced by aquaculture (Figure 3) has not been significantly affected by 

substantial differences in aquaculture harvests from year to year (Figure 4). Most likely this 

reflects the relationship between bivalve aquaculture productivity and the productivity of wild 

stocks.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Clams

Oysters

Mussels

Scallops
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

8

Figure 4. World Bivalve Aquaculture Production (Metric Tons): 2000 through 2008

Source: W&A Research Department after data from National Marine Fisheries Service, National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce, , 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/04_world2009.pdf and prior years, accessed April, 

2011.

U.S. aquaculture production involves more than a dozen species, including the species identified 

in the SOW, as well as:

Bay scallops (Argopecten irradians),

European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis),

Calico scallop (Argopecten gibbus)

Geoduck clams (Panopea abrupta or alternatively P. generosa),

Giant Clam (Tridacna gigas),

Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea sikamea),

Mediterranean Mussels (Mytilus galloprovencialis),

Olympia Oysters (Ostrea lurida), and

Sea Scallops (Pecten maximus and Placopecten magellanicus).

The majority of bivalves harvested in U.S. waters are farmed. The sea scallop sector is the one 

commercial bivalve sector that is an exception to this pattern. While more than half the sea 

scallops harvested world wide are farmed, U.S. harvests are still primarily wild sea scallops. 

A substantial deterrent to scallop farming relative to the farming of other bivalves is the 

substantial motility of the scallop. Scallops can swim by rapid, and occasionally repeated,

closure of the shell. This closure forces water from within the shell, ―jetting‖ the animal as a 

reaction to the action of the expelled water. A single closure of a sea scallop shell can convey 

the animal as much as ten meters.14 Consequently, while most bivalve aquaculture enclosures are 

used to facilitate harvest and exclude predators, scallop ―corrals‖ are used to assure the crop 

remains within the producer‘s ―rangeland.‖ In addition, the growth of scallops is substantially 

impacted by movement of the animal. Enclosures racked by wave action are less productive than 

those that are more stationary.

 

14 Serb, J. 2006, Pecten Resources: Characters: Swimming, http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/faculty/SerbJ/pectensite/characters.html, accessed June, 2011.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year

Production (Metric Tons)

Clams

Oysters

Mussels

Scallops
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

9

Most U.S. scallop farming focuses on bay and/or calico scallops, which have a shorter 

production cycle and a smaller range of motion (i.e., they cannot or do not swim as far), and 

consequently are easier to farm. Nonetheless, sea scallop farming is on the rise in Alaska, 

Florida, and New England.15 These efforts to raise this more challenging crop likely reflect the 

relatively high per-pound price of scallops compared to many other farmed bivalves.

U.S. aquacultural production of all mollusks16 generates approximately $250 million of farmlevel income.

17

 To put this value in perspective, the value of U.S. production of fresh market 

cucumbers is comparable to the value of all molluscan aquaculture production combined. 

Individual bivalve species generate incomes similar to those of specialty crops such as 

artichokes, Brussels sprouts, and honeydew melons. 

Production Locations

A relatively small number of states dominate bivalve production in the United States (Table 2). 

The top six bivalve production states accounted for more than 80 percent of annual production in 

2005, the most recent date when United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data are available. While the major production states are 

located near major markets for bivalves, the presence of the market may depend on the 

availability of the bivalves as much as the location of the production depends on the presence of 

the markets.

 

15 Shumway, S.E. and Parsons, G.J., 2006, Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture, Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam.

16 The USDA Census of Agriculture does not differentiate between different molluscan groups. The 2010 Census of 

Aquaculture, which allowed the different molluscan groups to be differentiated was ―cancelled‖ prior to the distribution of 

surveys, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Getting_Started/Guide_to_Census_Products/index.asp, accessed 

April, 2010.

17 USDA, NASS, 2008, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 23, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/ 

Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/usv1.txt, accessed April, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

10

Table 2. 2005 Bivalve Aquaculture Farms and Production by State

State Farms Production 

Value ($1000)

Alaska 25 (D)

California 21 20,064

Connecticut 27 (D)

Florida 154 10,694

Louisiana 135 28,499

Maine 32 2,861

Massachusetts 138 6,157

New Jersey 67 2,820

New York 13 (D)

North Carolina 56 761

Oregon 21 11,584

Rhode Island 11 (D)

South Carolina 35 2,505

Virginia 53 29,028

Washington 174 63,710

All Other States 18 <6,850

TOTAL 980 203,183

(D) Data withheld to protect confidentiality

Source: USDA, NASS, 2006, Census of Aquaculture (2005), 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/AQUACEN.pdf, Accessed April, 2011

The geographic distribution of production, the perishable nature of the crop, and the dependence 

in most states on leased ―land‖

18 for farming operations help maintain the relatively modest scale 

of most bivalve production, processing, and distribution operations.

Data

Data for most segments of the bivalve aquaculture industry and for the industry collectively are 

extremely limited, sporadic, and in many cases anecdotal. Comparison of data between reports 

is hampered due to different data collection methods and analytical procedures. For example, 

some reports of bivalve production are by number grown (inventory), others report numbers 

harvested, and still others report harvested weight. Harvest weights may or may not include the 

shell. In production data for scallops, there is a further challenge because only part of the scallop 

is commonly eaten. While the whole scallop is edible, the adductor muscle19 (see Figure 2) is the 

element most commonly eaten. There is also a limited market for adductor muscles with gonads 

attached. For scallops, harvest data may report the in-shell weight, the weight of the entire 

fleshy body, or just the weight of the adductor muscle. Similarly, in certain markets only the 

foot20 of certain large clams is eaten. For these large clams, the remainder of the visceral mass is 

waste or a byproduct. Consequently, the ―meat weight‖ for some clams comprises the whole 

body, while for others it is limited to the weight of the ―harvested‖ foot. These differences 

 

18 Whether it is seabed or the water column above the leased area.

19 The adductor muscle, the muscle used to close the shell, is the portion of a scallop eaten in the United States.

20 In many mollusks the fleshy portion of the body can be divided into a muscular projection called the foot and a softer, more 

variable visceral mass. The orientation of the muscles in the foot allows the foot to extend or contract.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

11

further complicate analysis of the ―total‖ bivalve production data, particularly when multiple 

independent sources of data are subject to aggregation.

Commercial fisheries data, including some data for bivalves, are collected by National Marine 

Fisheries Services (NMFS) regional staff. Weight, quantity, and value data are computed 

monthly and annually by state, sub-region, and nationwide. However, NMFS commercial 

landings data for bivalves treats the group generically rather than as individual species and then 

generally compiles data for both finfish and shellfish, including non-bivalve species, into a 

comprehensive production measure. Inasmuch as the bivalve valuations represent approximately 

one percent for the total fisheries harvest values, these comprehensive data are not useful for 

insurance development. Furthermore, ―farm-level‖ data are not available from these series. 

Only one series the Contractor has examined provided any farm-level data. That series is the 

data series collected by RMA for the Cultivated Clam Pilot Insurance Program. Due to the 

paucity of farm-level data, econometric methods are not suitable to ―bridge‖ between aggregate 

and farm-level production patterns.

Furthermore, in June of 2011, Cynthia Clark, Administrator of NASS, announced to the Council 

of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics that the 2010 Census of Aquaculture was 

suspended due to funding issues.21 As a result, the most comprehensive snapshot of the U.S. 

bivalve aquaculture production is in the 2005 Census of Aquaculture, which is already dated.

For the purpose of insurance development, a focus on production value rather than production 

weight or numbers might be less ambiguous. However, for many producers in the bivalve 

sectors, revenue involves a substantial added-value component, including potential receipts from 

processing, wholesale marketing, distribution, and retail sales. As the bivalve aquaculture sector 

has grown, some larger producers have provided processing and marketing services (at both the 

wholesale and retail levels) for smaller producers. This change in focus from production to 

processing complicates the analysis of revenues for vertically integrated producers, yet there are 

no exceptionally large processors who might supply extensive private data series to support the 

development for RMA insurance products. Instead, a development effort would require 

compilation of data from a broad sample of producers of all sizes (though the largest are not 

exceptionally large by agricultural standards).

Finally, species differences among bivalves as diverse as Tridacna gigas and Argopecten 

irradian make it almost impossible to consider bivalves as a single crop. Tridacna gigas is a 

tropical clam that can weigh as much as 500 pounds. When grown using aquaculture techniques,

it is generally harvested when it reaches a weight of one to ten pounds. Argopecten irradians are 

bay scallops that grow in cooler marine waters and reach a harvestable size at a weight of about 

an ounce. Furthermore, substantial varietal differences within a species, especially among 

oysters and hard clams, make it difficult to extrapolate aquaculture data and information from 

one geographic region to another since different varieties are grown in different regions.

 

21 USDA, NASS, 2011, National Agricultural Statistics Service, http://www.copafs.org/UserFiles/file/NASSPresentation.pdf, 

accessed July, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

12

Industry Sectors

Clams and oysters are the preponderant bivalve aquaculture crops (Table 3), representing more 

than 90 percent of the total U.S. bivalve aquaculture production value in 2005. In 2005, 

Washington and Virginia generated almost 60 percent of the U.S. clam aquaculture value. Clam 

production in Virginia was almost exclusively of hard clams; Connecticut and Florida also 

produced substantial hard clam crops. Clam production in Washington focused on Manila 

clams, an introduced species, with only limited production of native hard clam species. 

Table 3. U.S. Bivalve Aquaculture Production Value: 2005

Group Production Value 

($1,000)

Clams 84,874

Mussels <6,108

Oysters 102,896

Other Bivalves >9,305

TOTAL 203,183

Source: W&A Research Department after USDA, NASS, 2006, Census of Aquaculture (2005), 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/AQUACEN.pdf, accessed April, 2011

In 2005, Louisiana and Washington generated more than 55 percent of the U.S. oyster 

aquaculture production value. Oyster production in Louisiana was almost exclusively of eastern 

oysters; oyster production in Washington focused (just less than 90 percent) on Pacific oysters. 

California also produces substantial Pacific oyster crops.22 Stakeholders reported a marked 

increase in oyster production in Virginia.

In 2005, just over 7.5 percent of U.S. bivalve aquaculture production was of mussels and ―other 

bivalves‖ (scallops, giant clams, cockles, etc.). Data on these minor types are sparser than are 

the data for clams and oysters. 

It is important to note, the self-identification of production in historic USDA surveys may have 

masked some production and producer populations. While aquaculture production is considered 

an agricultural practice by USDA, not all producers consider their activities to be agricultural. 

Some consider themselves ―fisherman,‖ even if they are planting seed to improve their ―catch.‖ 

In general, producers own the bivalves they are raising. To maintain sustainable harvests, many 

bivalve fishermen have been ―seeding‖ their fishing grounds for decades. What has changed in 

the last 25 years is an emphasis on leased or owned ―cropland‖ and, to a more limited extent, 

better mechanisms for distinguishing the farmed crop from wild animals.

23

 

The leases of bivalve cropland are generally made with state agencies (e.g., Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources (Pennsylvania and New York), Department of Natural 

Resources (Alaska, Washington, and South Carolina), Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission (Florida), Marine Resources Commission (Virginia) and similar agencies). The 

leases generally have a cash basis; consequently, for crop insurance purposes, the lessee can be 

 

22 USDA, NASS, 2006, Census of Aquaculture (2005), 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/AQUACEN.pdf, Accessed April, 2011

23 These would include enclosure/exclosures and focus on particular species and varieties.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

13

considered to have a 100 percent share of the crop. In this arrangement, the leaser does not 

retain any of the risk related to crop production. 

II.A. Bivalve Trade and Exports

In 2009, about 84 percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. was imported. Almost half the 

imported seafood is farmed. Although the U.S. aquaculture industry is ―vibrant and diverse,‖ it 

currently meets less than ten percent of U.S. demand for all seafood. Aquaculture products like 

clams, mussels, and oysters supply less than two percent of American seafood demand.24 The 

United States consistently runs a trade deficit for seafood.

II.B. Programs Supporting Bivalve Aquaculture

Producers can avail themselves of a variety of support programs from the federal, state, and 

private sectors. Some of these programs specifically address risk. Others assist in risk 

management by providing information that allows the producer to make informed decisions. 

Programs available to bivalve aquaculture operations generally are described herein. Purchased 

risk management programs supporting individual operations are also addressed in this section of 

the report.

Federal Programs

Federal programs are offered primarily by agencies and services of the USDA, National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Agencies within the USDA serving the bivalve industry and services provided

are listed first followed by those of the EPA and NOAA. Bivalve producers are not eligible for 

marketing loans, price supports, or direct payments based on current or historical production. 

The programs that support the industry are therefore outside the traditional ―farm program‖ 

umbrella.

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

Bivalve producers benefit from general services of AMS including the following programs:

Promotion and Research,

Marketing and Economic Research,

Organic Standards, and

Country of Origin Labeling.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting and 

promoting U.S. agricultural health, administering the Animal Welfare Act, and carrying out 

wildlife damage management activities. APHIS has been tasked with responsibility for 

enforcing the obligations of the United States under phytosanitary rules such as the Codex 

Alimentarius, responding to animal and plant health import requirements of other countries, and 

assisting in negotiating science-based trade restrictions.

 

24 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries Service, 2010, FishNews September 10, 2010, 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishnews/2010/09102010.htm, accessed March, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

14

APHIS programs important to the bivalve industry include:

 Import and Export Services

o Animal and Animal Product Import and Export Information

o International Trade

o Sanitary and Phytosanitary Management (Trade Facilitation)

 Veterinary Services

o Laboratory Information and Services

o Monitoring and Surveillance

o Professional Development Training

 Wildlife Service

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA, formerly Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service (CSREES))

The NIFA is the federal administrative authority that offers programs in research, extension, and 

education to provide important educational and consultancy resources for producers in all areas, 

including bivalve aquaculture producers. The extension services also provide programs for 

consumers that support consumption of bivalves, including bivalves grown in the United States 

using aquaculture techniques.

Economic Research Service (ERS)

ERS provides data and analysis on bivalve product supply and demand, as well as information on 

industry structure, pricing, trade, production policies, production systems, and processing. ERS 

reports of particular interest include:

 Aquaculture Data: Volume and Value of U.S. Imports of Selected Fish and Shellfish 

Products

 Animal Production and Marketing Issues Briefing Room

 Trade Codes

 International Trade and Food Safety

Farm Service Agency (FSA)

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) provides financial assistance to producers facing losses from 

natural disaster (i.e., drought, flood, fire, freeze, tornadoes, pest infestation, and other 

―calamities‖). FSA‘s Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) provides payments 

to producers of non-insurable crops when low yields, loss of inventory, or prevented planting 

occur due to a natural disaster. Eligible producers include landowners, tenants, or sharecroppers 

who share in the risk of producing an eligible crop. The average non-farm adjusted gross income 

of the producer cannot exceed $500,000. A payment limitation of $100,000 per individual or 

entity per crop year applies. The natural disaster causing the loss must occur before or during 

harvest and must directly affect the eligible crop. Bivalves are an insurable crop in some 

counties with CAT coverage available; NAP assistance payments are not available for those 

bivalves in the counties where they are insurable. Furthermore, ―in previous communication 

between RMA‘s Spokane Regional Office (RO) and the Washington State FSA office, the RO

was told that the national FSA office determined that shellfish did not meet the definition of a 

―controlled environment‖ and therefore did not qualify for coverage under the NAP program.‖25 

 

25 USDA, RMA, October, 2011, personal communication from the Contracting Officer‘s Technical Representative.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

15

However, the Contractor received producer testimony of NAP assistance payments for bivalve 

aquaculture losses in the Mid-Atlantic states and FSA offices in Florida and Massachusetts 

indicated producers of clams and oysters were eligible for NAP assistance in specified counties. 

The specific rules for inclusion of aquaculture production under the FSA programs are contained 

in 7 CFR 1437.303.

26 These appear to exclude native species cultured on the sea floor from NAP 

assistance programs. Apparent inconsistencies in the application of NAP eligibility rules in 

different locations may undermine the usefulness of the program as a dependable risk mitigation 

strategy for producers.

Aquaculture block grants were used in 2006 to support producers adversely affected by 

hurricanes.

FSA‘s Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program provides benefits to 

producers for 2008 through 2011 crop year farm revenue losses due to natural disasters. It is the 

successor to earlier ad hoc crop disaster programs. For 2009 and subsequent crop years, 

producers or legal entities whose average non-farm income exceeds $500,000 are not eligible. A 

―farm‖ is eligible for a SURE payment when a portion of the farm is located in a county covered 

by a qualifying natural disaster declaration (USDA Secretarial Declarations only) or a contiguous 

county, or the actual production is less than 50 percent of the normal production. For producers 

to be eligible for SURE payments, they must have obtained available purchased risk 

management instruments for all crops through either the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act) or 

NAP. The farm‘s SURE guarantee cannot exceed 90 percent of the expected revenue for the 

farm (i.e., there is a ten percent deductible). Producers must suffer a ten percent production loss 

to at least one crop of economic significance on their farm in order to be eligible for a SURE 

payment. A qualifying loss must be caused by a natural disaster. A crop of economic 

significance contributes at least five percent of the expected revenue for a producer‘s farm. A 

limit of $100,000 applies to the combination of payments from SURE and the livestock disaster 

programs.

FSA‘s Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, & Farm-raised Fish (ELAP) program

provides emergency relief to producers of farm-raised ―fish‖ grown in controlled environments. 

It covers losses from disaster such as adverse weather or other conditions, such as blizzards and 

wildfires not adequately covered by any other disaster program. Most aquaculture does 

technically occur in ―controlled environments;‖ producers of bivalve nursery stock may also be 

eligible because of the controlled production environment for their operations. The Secretary of 

Agriculture must have declared a disaster in a county for ELAP payments to be made to that 

county or adjacent counties.

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

FSIS employees identify, assess, and define emerging and standing issues affecting procedures, 

policies, activities, or resources for consideration by the committee. They are responsible for 

identifying food safety concerns associated with production, transportation, and marketing. 

These FSIS personnel are also responsible for outreach and liaison activities to develop and 

sustain risk reduction strategies in agricultural production.

 

26 CFR, Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter XIV, Subchapter B, Part 1437, Subpart D, Section 1437.303.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

16

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)

FAS maintains links to relatively limited number of resources for aquaculture producers. These 

links focus on sites that identify production practices and data, including the UN FAO import 

and export data.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

NASS is the primary data collection and publication service of the USDA. Its data series are 

widely used by producers, businesses, and researchers. Bivalve aquaculture data were collected 

as a supplement to the Census of Agriculture in 1998 and again in 2005. The 2010 Census of 

Aquaculture was suspended due to funding constraints. 

Risk Management Agency

The Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) and Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite (AGR-Lite) policies are 

available to some bivalve producers. These insurance plans provide whole farm revenue 

insurance coverage, based on a producer‘s Schedule F of the IRS Form 1040 tax return. 

These are whole-farm revenue plans of insurance which protect producers from revenue losses 

resulting from unavoidable natural disasters and from market fluctuations. Most farm-raised 

crops, including aquaculture production, are eligible to be insured under these plans. AGR-Lite 

can be used alone or in conjunction with other federal crop insurance plans, but not in 

conjunction with AGR insurance. The applicability and utility of AGR and AGR-Lite to bivalve 

aquaculture are discussed in a separate section of this report. RMA currently offers an individual 

insurance program for Cultivated Clams and a Group Risk Plan for Oysters. These plans are 

discussed more extensively later in this report.

Rural Development (RD, formerly Rural Business–Cooperative Service (RBS)) 

RD is a small agency with limited funding and staff whose purpose is to finance and facilitate 

development of small and emerging private business enterprises, and promote sustainable 

economic development in rural communities.27 This agency could potentially serve aquaculture 

producers. However, the Contractor was able to identify only limited RBS programs supporting 

bivalve aquaculture.28

Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection agency has effluent limitations guidelines concentrating on

aquatic animal production (aquaculture) facilities. The regulations apply to facilities that 

generate wastewater from their operations and discharge that wastewater directly into waters of 

the United States. The guidelines include a focus on total suspended solids. These standards 

apply to existing and new aquaculture facilities that:

1) Use flow-through, recirculating, or net pen systems; 

2) Directly discharge wastewater; and 

 

27 USDA, RD, 2011, Business, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/Business.html, accessed May, 2011.

28 USDA, RD, 2003, Value-added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants, 

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ny/toolbarpages/rbspages/valueadded.htm, accessed July, 2011; USDA, RD, 2005, No Shell 

Game: Oyster co-op hopes to revive Mystic‘s faded shellfish industry, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/jul05/shell.htm, 

accessed July, 2011; USDA, RD, 2005, News Release: USDA Grant Supports Maryland Agriculture and Natural Resource 

Industry, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/md/MD%20AG%20&%20Nat%20Resource%20-Sep%2005%20-%20PR.htm, accessed 

July, 2011
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

17

3) Produce at least 100,000 pounds of ―fish‖ a year.

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

NOAA‘s administers the National Sea Grant College Program. The National Sea Grant College 

Program works with 32 state Sea Grant programs. These state-level programs provide support 

for scientists, engineers, educators, and outreach experts at more than 300 universities. The Sea 

Grant program addresses a variety of topics important to bivalve aquaculture and complements 

the similar efforts of extension programs supported by the USDA.

The Fisheries Statistics Division of the National NOAA Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

provides data summaries for U.S. commercial fisheries landings. These landings can be sorted 

by species and include landings of wild and farmed clams, mussels, and oysters. Data are not 

available for farmed scallops. Landings differ from production, in some ways being more 

similar to farm-gate sales. Valuation of bivalves is on a meat weight basis. Price data can be 

extrapolated from these data. 

State Government Programs

State programs and regulations affect bivalve production. State statutes or codes generally 

define an administrative office and/or an administrator responsible for licensing and enforcing 

minimum husbandry, sanitary, and environmental standards for shellfish operations. Some states 

have regulations that replace or complement federal sanitary or environmental standards. The 

various regulations are similar to federal standards, often referencing them as minima. The 

purpose of these regulations is to reduce risks of diseases and contamination of shellfish

products.29

States oversee and regulate processing and distribution activities. While regulation not 

associated with ―crop‖ production is outside the scope of this feasibility assessment, it 

contributes to institutional risks that may impact producer well-being.

Private Insurance Inventory

Private insurance companies offer coverage to commercial bivalve aquaculture operations; 

available coverage is described below. These products do not mirror the structure of any existing 

FCIC insurance, including the existing pilots for bivalves. Instead they focus on limited, 

producer-identified, named perils. Some of these perils (e.g., hurricane, storm surge, etc.) are 

also insured causes of loss under the existing RMA bivalve aquaculture pilots. Others (pollution, 

industrial accidents, etc.) are not insured causes of loss under the existing RMA bivalve 

aquaculture pilots and are not insurable under the Act. 

Mortality (Inventory) Insurance Coverage

Private ―mortality‖ insurance for bivalve aquaculture crops is available from Lloyds.

30 Agents 

selling this product in the United States indicated the insurance can be structured to cover any 

 

29 See for example The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, Department of Public Health, 2002, Rules and 

Regulations Pertaining to the Processing and Distribution of Shellfish, R21-14-SB and State of Alaska, Department of 

Environmental Conservation, 2007, 18AAc34, Seafood Processing and Inspection.

30 Global Aquaculture Insurance Consortium, 2009, Products, http://www.globalaquains.com/Products.aspx, accessed April, 

2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

18

one cause of mortality (e.g., reduction of salinity) or any combination of causes of loss the 

producer chooses to name. While this insurance is available worldwide and allows the producer 

to specify the insured causes of loss, the Contractor was not able to identify any participation in 

the United States. The policy has relatively high premiums and does not cover losses from all 

causes of loss. However, mortality coverage from Lloyds has generated interest in Asia and 

South America.

Weather Insurance Coverage

Private weather insurance is available from a number of traditional and online insurance 

companies. These products are often reinsured by major reinsurance companies (e.g., Munich 

Re, Swiss Re, Renaissance Re, etc.). The policies are generally ―one off‖ contracts, customized 

to reflect specific named perils identified by the insured. This insurance can be structured to 

cover any one weather event (e.g., extreme cold or excessive rainfall) or combinations of 

weather the producer chooses from available options. These policies have relatively high 

premiums, are not subject to premium subsidies, and cover losses only from the specific named 

perils. 

Loss of Income Coverage

Loss of income coverage is available to businesses from the private insurance industry. Loss of 

income insurance covers losses resulting from damage to structures and equipment. Due to the 

small role of buildings in bivalve aquaculture and the ability to manage risk to equipment 

through back-up systems, interest in this insurance is limited. Only one stakeholder, a new 

producer, expressed any interest in this kind of risk management. Loss of income coverage may 

not be available for older facilities. 

Basic Business Liability

Basic liability insurance is available.

Employers Contingent Liability

Employers Contingent Liability is available with the ability to add employees as insureds.

Private Data Services

General information about weekly seafood price (i.e., a U.S. wholesale market summary) is 

available from Urner Barry‘s Seafood Price-Current. Testimony about these data indicated they 

are aggregate data incorporating both farm-gate and processor prices and prices for farmed and 

wild mollusks. Along with the NOAA landings data, these appear to be the only consistentlycollected data for bivalve pricing available. 

II.C. Congressional Mandate

Most federally subsidized insurance for agricultural producers focuses on crop plant production 

or on offering price or margin coverage for certain crops. Price based coverage is also available 

for many livestock species. The 2008 Farm Bill31 calls for research activities addressing 

federally subsidized insurance for aquaculture:

 

31 Public Law 110-234 (the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act). See Title XII (Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance 

Programs, Subtitle A - Crop Insurance and Agricultural Disaster Assistance, Section. 12023). 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

19

―AQUACULTURE INSURANCE POLICY.—

(A) DEFINITION OF AQUACULTURE.—In this subsection:

(i) IN GENERAL.—The term  ̳aquaculture‘ means the propagation 

and rearing of aquatic species in controlled or selected 

environments, including shellfish cultivation on grants or 

leased bottom and ocean ranching.

(ii) EXCLUSION.—The term  ̳aquaculture‘ does not include the 

private ocean ranching of Pacific salmon for profit in any State 

in which private ocean ranching of Pacific salmon is 

prohibited by any law (including regulations).

(B) AUTHORITY.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the date of 

enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 

the Corporation shall offer to enter into 3 or more contracts 

with qualified entities to carry out research and development 

regarding a policy to insure the production of aquacultural 

species in aquaculture operations.

(ii) BIVALVE SPECIES.—At least 1 of the contracts described in 

clause (i) shall address insurance of bivalve species, 

including—

(I) American oysters (Crassostrea virginica);

(II) hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria);

(III) Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas);

(IV) Manila clams (Tapes philippinarium); or

(V) blue mussels (Mytilus edulis).

(C) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—Research and development 

described in subparagraph (B) shall evaluate the effectiveness of 

policies and plans of insurance for the production of aquacultural 

species in aquaculture operations, including policies and plans of 

insurance that—

(i) are based on market prices and yields;

(ii) to the extent that insufficient data exist to develop a policy 

based on market prices and yields, evaluate how best to 

incorporate insuring of production of aquacultural species in 

aquaculture operations into existing policies covering adjusted 

gross revenue; and

(iii) provide protection for production or revenue losses, or both.‖

II.D. Agricultural Risk

Generally, sources of risk in agriculture include production, price (market), financial,

institutional, and human (personal) risk. With the exception of an increase in the mobility of 

disease because of a global market for bivalves, risks associated with the aquaculture industry 

have not changed substantially over the last three to four decades. 

Most U.S. bivalve aquaculture production is on a relatively small scale and is sold into niche 

markets. Producers for these niche markets are vulnerable due to their modest size and the 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

20

limited diversity of their operations. A moderate loss of inventory can lead to a much more 

substantial loss of market. Later, the loss of a market may have a negative impact on revenues, 

even if the crop can be sold. The highly perishable nature of shellfish creates additional risks for 

the producer, and gives buyers potentially important market power that can affect the prices 

actually realized by a producer. As a consequence of these many risks, bivalve aquaculture 

producers have a need for risk management tools. However, the fundamental question addressed 

in this report is whether it is feasible to provide federally-subsidized crop insurance under the 

terms of the Act as an element in the aquaculture producer‘s risk management tool portfolio.

Production Risk

Mortality is a typical element of bivalve production. Excess seeds are ―planted‖ in the 

production area to accommodate anticipated losses to ―normal‖ mortality. Excess mortality

results in reduced production. Aquaculture production risks include weather, disease, predation, 

equipment failure, and input (primarily seed) quality. These later two would not be insurable 

causes of loss under the Act. 

Production risk can be systemic or idiosyncratic. Systemic risks, such as wide temperature 

excursions, affect all operations in a region. Other elements of production risk for bivalve 

aquaculture operations are idiosyncratic, affecting individual growers. Examples of idiosyncratic 

production risk include an isolated disease outbreak, localized predation, or a wind-driven drying 

of a particular production location.

Weather-related production risk in bivalve aquaculture production is caused by high and low 

temperatures, excess precipitation, and wind. Weather affects the production of a relatively large 

number of individual producers every year. The effects of the 2011 Mississippi River flooding 

on oyster production in Louisiana have been documented in a wide variety of paper and digital 

media. Yet the effects of the flooding did not impact all producers in Louisiana. To further 

complicate analysis of this flooding, diversion of river water into bayous by the Army Corps of 

Engineers apportioned the damages in patterns that did not reflect the natural disaster. 

Bivalve diseases are caused by bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses. Disease risk includes 

chronic disease losses and catastrophic diseases. Chronic diseases slowly erode production and 

consequently affect profits. Catastrophic losses can lead to the ruin of entire industry sectors. 

Bonamiasis is caused by a parasite called Bonamia ostreae. First identified in United States in 

oysters from Europe, B. ostreae was moved to California and then subsequently transported with 

oyster seed to Brittany, France. There it led to the demise of the flat oyster industry throughout 

Europe. Fortunately, although catastrophic losses may be directly linked to practices associated 

with aquaculture of the bivalves, such catastrophic disease losses are rare.

The spread of disease in aquaculture operations differs somewhat from spread of disease in 

traditional livestock operations because the aqueous environment provides a medium more 

amenable to movement of the causative agents. Potential disease pathogens may be endemic in 

the environment where the bivalves are raised. Decreased resistance to disease may result from 

physical stress characterizing high density production. High concentrations of metabolic waste 

products, poor nutrition, low oxygen and/or high carbon dioxide concentrations, extremes of 

acidity or alkalinity, and poor sanitation can all stress the crop. Consequently, good management 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

21

practices are essential to limiting disease in the aquaculture crop, and producers typically do use

appropriate practices to manage their crops. 

Price Risk

Bivalve prices, like the prices of most crops, are subject to market forces. As noted previously, 

much of the seafood sold in the United States is imported. The prices of imported shellfish have 

an impact on the prices of locally produced shellfish. However, locally produced bivalves 

command a premium. The size of the premium reflects competitive national and international 

production. Several processors reported that because of the local premium, which can apply to 

an area as small as a single bay or estuary, there is no broadly applicable market price for 

bivalves produced by aquaculture. Import prices could be used to establish a proxy price for the 

crop, but the proxy could underestimate the value of the crop by a substantial factor. (Threefold 

differences were reported by one processor for oysters from one bay as compared with those 

from a nearby location. The differences between local production and imported production are 

even greater). Nonetheless, risks associated with baseline bivalve prices can result in 

considerable variability in the economic situation of individual producers and the bivalve 

aquaculture industry as a whole. 

NOAA Fisheries Statistics Division maintains data on commercial fisheries landings. These 

include aggregate data on quantity and value. Consequently, generalized price data can be 

extrapolated from the landings data; however, the price is generally based on meat weight. In 

addition, generic information about weekly seafood price (i.e., a U.S. wholesale market 

summary) is available from Urner Barry‘s Seafood Price-Current. Testimony about these data 

indicated they are also aggregate data and incorporate both farm-gate and processor prices and 

prices for farmed and wild mollusks. As noted previously, these appear to be the only 

consistently collected pricing data available. 

Inputs in the bivalve aquaculture industry are relatively limited. While input price changes affect 

the producer, no individual producer or any representative of producers indicated that risks 

associated with input costs were an issue of great concern.

Financial Risk

A bivalve producer‘s primary source of financial risk stems from capital and labor investment. 

Another financial risk is the potential need to borrow funds to manage cash flow. Concern about 

financial risk was reflected in producer comments concerning both flooding and oil spills in the 

Gulf of Mexico production region. However, it should be noted, financial risk as it is defined 

here is not an insurable risk under the Act.

Institutional Risk

Institutional risk of concern to bivalve aquaculture producers includes husbandry standards, 

environmental policies, and handling standards. In addition to outright bans on marketing, 

changing sanitary regulations are a constant source of concern.32 Most quarantines and 

 

32 e.g., Central Coast News, 2010, Shellfish Quarantine at Morro Bay Estuary, http://www.kcoy.com/story/13762534/shellfishquarantine-at-morro-bay-estuary?redirected=true, accessed May, 2011; California Department of Public Health, 2011, 

Preharvest Shellfish Protection and Marine Biotoxin Monitoring Program, 

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/environhealth/water/Pages/Shellfish.aspx, accessed May, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

22

restrictions on harvest are short-lived. Nonetheless, any regulatory action that interferes with the 

normal course of business has the potential to cause loss of revenues and markets.

Furthermore, actions by the Army Corps of Engineers to limit flooding in Louisiana in the spring

of 2011 resulted in substantial fresh water flow into estuaries used for bivalve aquaculture. Such 

practices to control waterway flows represents an institutional risk unique to agriculture in lowlying areas, including elements of the aquaculture industry. It is not clear that the Basic 

Provisions address the lack of insurability of this risk factor.

Human or Personal Risk

Bivalve aquaculture operations must manage human risk in compliance with the Occupational 

Safety and Health (OSH) Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Costs of complying 

with OSH standards for protecting workers do not appear to have a substantial impact on the cost 

structure of production operations. Hazards include cuts and abrasions, infection (e.g., tetanus 

infections), mechanical injury from equipment, drowning, and hearing loss due to excessive 

noise. In addition, as in most agricultural operations, key personnel are subject to retirement, 

death, and divorce. These risks would clearly fall outside the purview of federal crop insurance. 

It should be noted, human and personal risks are not insurable risks under the Act.

II.E. Research Approach

In general, the Contractor‘s research and analysis of the bivalve aquaculture sectors was guided 

by the language of the Act and a focus on the criteria for feasibility as outlined in the SOW. The 

Contractor sought first to develop an understanding of relevant bivalve aquaculture literature, 

current economic conditions, available government programs, and characteristics of the industry

sectors, including currently available risk management tools. The Contractor gathered 

information concerning stakeholders‘ potential interest in federally-subsidized insurance 

products. Subsequently, the Contractor identified perils and economic risks faced by the bivalve

aquaculture producers, paying particular attention to stakeholders‘ most significant risk 

management concerns and expressed needs. The Contractor completed an analysis of the risks

associated with the identified, insurable perils. The Contractor also sought to understand the 

applicability of an AGR-like product for the industry stakeholders. The Contractor then applied

RMA‘s criteria for feasibility to evaluate the risk management through insurance of the insurable 

perils identified in the preceding step. Finally, after a systematic analysis, the Contractor 

assessed the feasibility of developing federally-subsidized, stakeholder-acceptable, actuariallysound, non-market distorting crop insurance products for bivalve aquaculture production.

RMA‘s criteria for feasibility identify the requirements to establish an appropriate feasibility 

recommendation for crop insurance development activities in the broadest terms. Section 2.4.1 

of the SOW states: 

―The contractor when recommending a possible insurance program needs to keep 

in mind the following criteria:

 Conform to RMA's enabling legislation, regulations, and procedures that 

cannot be changed;

 The insured's and their agents must be will to pay the appropriate price 

for the insurance;
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

23

 The insurance product must be effective, meaningful and reflects the 

actual risks of the producers;

 The perils affecting production must be identified and categorized as 

insurable and non-insurable;

 Be ratable and operable in an actuarially sound manner;

 Contain underwriting, rating, pricing, loss measurement, and insurance 

contract terms and conditions;

 There must be an appropriate geographic distribution of production to 

ensure a sound financial insurance program;

 There must be enough interest for the risk to be spread over an acceptable 

pool of insureds;

 Customers must not be able to select insurance only when conditions are 

adverse;

 Moral hazards must be avoidable or controllable;

 There must be no change of beneficial gain; and

 There must be no change in market behavior or market distortions that 

change the quantity supplied or shift the supply curve.‖ 

This list by itself provides a context for the evaluation of the feasibility of a proposed insurance 

product. However, the test of feasibility requires additional context. For this evaluation the 

additional contextual information is as follows:

The proposed insurance coverage must conform to RMA’s enabling legislation, regulations, 

and procedures that cannot be changed. The enabling legislation is Title 7, Chapter 36, 

Subchapter I of the U.S. Code, as amended.33 Amendment of this code requires an act of 

Congress. The Regulations and Procedures implementing this Act are the responsibility of the 

FCIC Board of Directors and USDA RMA. While the Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the

2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, requires ―research activities addressing federallysubsidized insurance for aquaculture,‖ the research and development ―shall evaluate the 

effectiveness of policies and plans of insurance for the production of aquacultural species in 

aquaculture operations, including policies and plans of insurance that—

(i) are based on market prices and yields;

(ii) to the extent that insufficient data exist to develop a policy based on market prices and

yields, evaluate how best to incorporate insuring of production of aquacultural species in 

aquaculture operations into existing policies covering adjusted gross revenue; and

(iii) provide protection for production or revenue losses, or both.‖

Producers or their agents must be willing to pay the appropriate price for the insurance. 

Since the study was initiated by an Act of Congress, there is a priori evidence of some customer 

interest. The willingness of producers or their agents to pay will be influenced by the coverage 

available and the costs associated with the insurance offer.

The insurance product must be effective, meaningful and reflect the actual risks of the 

producers. If the risks are identified and appropriately categorized as to insurability (i.e., reflect 

 

33 See for example http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sup_01_7_10_36_20_I.html.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

24

the actual risks), an effective product will provide insurance that appropriately addresses the 

frequency and severity of potential losses. The producers‘ perception of the utility of the 

insurance and the ability of the insurance to protect the insured from financial failure affect the 

meaningfulness of the product.

The perils affecting production must be identified and categorized as insurable and noninsurable. The proposed insurance product must address definitive causes of loss that can be 

observed and quantified, and that are insurable under the authorizing legislation. Measurement 

of the outcomes of the enterprise must be such that the uninsurable portions of reduction in 

productivity or production-based revenues can be identified and quantified. If this is not 

possible, then uninsurable losses may be indemnified to the detriment of the taxpayer and the 

approved insurance provider.

Insurable causes of loss for FCIC programs must meet at least two criteria. First, a cause of loss

must have natural (as opposed to man-made) origins. Second, an insurable cause of loss must 

result in a determinable and measurable amount of loss. A cause of loss that is due to nonnatural events can be easily manipulated by an unscrupulous individual (moral and/or morale 

hazard). If the existence of the loss or the amount of the loss cannot be established, there is no 

manner in which an accurate and fair indemnity can be determined. 

The development of crop insurance requires identification of perils, classification of those perils 

as insurable or non-insurable, and actuarial assessment of the risks associated with those perils. 

Most crop insurance addresses either production risks, price risks, or the combined outcomes in 

the form of revenue risks. Changes in production and revenues resulting solely from 

management decisions are not insurable. However, variations in production or revenue caused 

by natural events beyond the producer‘s control are potentially insurable, as are changes in 

revenues resulting from market fluctuations under some accepted approaches.

The insurance product must be ratable and operable in an actuarially sound manner. It 

must be possible for an actuarially-sound premium rate to be determined. This is fundamentally 

a question of data availability in terms of quantity of statistically valid observations or of the 

quality of non-quantifiable (judgmental) observations. It is secondarily a question of the nature 

of perils and the ability to associate production and/or revenue data with those perils.

The insurance product must contain underwriting, rating, pricing, loss measurement, and 

insurance contract terms and conditions. To develop these elements, appropriate management 

practices can be defined and required of stakeholders. Appropriate loss controls must be 

available. Unless controllable losses are managed and excluded from insurance, an insurance 

program will not have an actuarially sound basis and will tempt the purchaser to manipulate 

profits through fraud or deceptive practices.

There must be an appropriate geographic distribution of production to ensure a sound 

financial insurance program. An appropriate geographic distribution of insurance risk is 

required to address the need for insurance that is responsible to the taxpayer, since stakeholders 

operating in a limited geographic area could face collective catastrophic loss not protected by the 

insurance pool funds. The Contractor understands this requirement to apply to the entire FCIC 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

25

portfolio in the aggregate, which is distributed throughout the United States. Furthermore, the 

bivalve aquaculture sectors have wide geographic distribution.

There must be enough interest for the risk to be spread over an acceptable pool of insureds. 

An appropriate pool size is also required to address the need for insurance that is responsible to 

the taxpayer, since a limited pool could face collective catastrophic loss not protected by the 

insurance pool funds. A sufficient number of stakeholders, who are not identically affected by 

perils, must be willing to buy the insurance as part of an overall farm risk management strategy. 

Without an appropriate pool of insured enterprises, the insurer faces the risk of catastrophic 

losses. Indemnities in excess of the realized premiums may occur, increasing the subsidy costs 

to the taxpayer. The Contractor understands this requirement also applies to the entire FCIC 

portfolio in the aggregate, which involved more than 1.1 million policies and almost $80 billion 

of insured liability in 2010.

Customers must not be able to select insurance only when conditions are adverse. At the 

time of enrollment the purchaser must be unable to predict the outcome. If the purchaser can 

predict the outcome at the time of enrollment, not only will adverse selection occur, but 

unscrupulous purchasers could ―farm‖ the insurance to maximize profits. Only unpredictable 

outcomes fall into the category of appropriately insurable risks. Predictable outcomes do not 

include risks, but are characterized by certainty.

Moral hazards must be avoidable or controllable. There must be a clearly defined outcome or 

phenomenon to be insured and the outcome must be subject to random variation; the variation in 

outcome must be separable into that part which can or might be manipulated, and that part which 

cannot be controlled.

There can be no chance of beneficial gain. If an insured individual benefits unduly from 

participation in the program, that gain introduces the possibility that the insurance would change 

the status of the insured within the pool of stakeholders. Insurance should be only a vehicle to 

manage risk; there should be no possibility that indemnity payments will become a fundamental 

element of the typical income stream.

There must be no unacceptable change in market behavior or unacceptable market 

distortions in terms of either a change in quantity supplied or shift in the supply curve. 

The intent of crop insurance is not to manage the market, but to manage risks faced by individual 

producers. If the insurance unduly increases production, shifts production to new regions, or 

creates unfair advantages for individual stakeholders or particular production regions, then the 

market distortions will invalidate the rating developed in a neutral market. This presents a 

danger to stakeholders, to the market itself, and to the insuring entity. Localized interest in 

insurance has the potential to affect markets if the local area becomes significantly more 

productive because of the insurance. If the locality is a small element of the market, such

broader market distortion is unlikely.

If these criteria are met, insuring a proposed crop should be feasible, appropriate underwriting 

should be possible, and development of the program will fulfill both the needs of the stakeholder 

and the requirements of being responsible to taxpayers and to the industry.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

26

The remainder of this report is organized into three elements describing respectively the U.S. 

bivalve aquaculture species; common production practices, and risks affecting production. 

These are followed by a general feasibility assessment, a discussion of the adjusted gross 

revenue approaches, and a summary of findings.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

27

SECTION III. BIVALVE AQUACULTURE SPECIES

Of the more than 9,000 living bivalve species, the SOW identifies the five most commonly 

grown in the United States as a subject of this report with the stipulation that additional species 

should not be excluded from consideration. The Contractor identified nine additional species 

reportedly grown in the United States, including:

Bay scallops (Argopecten irradians)

34

,

European flat oysters (Ostrea edulis)

35

,

Calico scallops (Argopecten gibbus)

36

Geoduck clams (Panopea abrupta or alternatively P. generosa)

37

,

Giant Clams (Tridacna gigas)

38

,

Kumamoto oysters (Crassostrea sikamea)

39

,

Mediterranean Mussels (Mytilus galloprovencialis)

40

,

Olympia Oysters (Ostrea lurida)

41

, and 

Sea Scallops (Pecten maximus and Placopecten magellanicus)

42

The major farmed bivalves (i.e., those identified in the SOW), as well as Geoduck clams and 

blue mussels, were first collected in the United States from the wild for their food value. They 

are now farmed in relatively large numbers in the regions where they occurred naturally. Other

species, such as the European flat oyster, were introduced into the wild as native species,

declined, primarily due to over-fishing and changes in the environment due to pollution. Still 

others, such as C. sikamea and M. galloprovencialis have been brought to the United States 

solely for use in aquaculture. Brief descriptions of the 14 species identified as farmed in the 

United States follow. This discussion includes identification of various production practices that 

are described in Section IV.

Argopecten gibbus (Calico Scallop)

A. gibbus, a swimming scallop, is native to the shallower waters above the continental shelf from 

Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. Since wild populations of scallops in North America have 

 

34 Blake, N.J., C. Adams, R. Degner, and D. Sweat, 2000, Aquaculture and Marketing of the Florida Bay Scallop in Crystal 

River, Florida, http://aquaticcommons.org/2550/1/Florida_Bay_Scallops.pdf, accessed May, 2011; Blake, N.J. and S. 

Shumway, 2006, Bay scallop and calico scallop fisheries, culture and enhancement in eastern North America in Developments 

in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, Volume 35: 945-964.

35 Lavoie, R.E., 2006, Oyster Culture in North America History, Present and Future, The 1st International Oyster Symposium 

Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan, July 2005. Oyster Research Institute News, 17: 1 – 11.

36 Blake, N.J. and S. Shumway, 2006, Bay scallop and calico scallop fisheries, culture and enhancement in eastern North America 

in Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, Volume 35: 945-964.

37 Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2011, DNA and Geoduck Aquaculture, 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ShellfishAquaticLeasing/Pages/aqr_aqua_geoduck_aquaculture.aspx, 

accessed August, 2011.

38 Heslinga, G. A., F. E. Perron and O. Orak. 1984. Mass culture of giant clams in Palau. Aquaculture 39, 197-215.; Heslinga, G. 

A., T. C. Watson and T. Isamu. 1990. Giant Clam Farming. Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation (NMFS/NOAA), 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 179 p., 

39 Lavoie, R.E., 2006, Oyster Culture in North America History, Present and Future, The 1st International Oyster Symposium 

Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan, July 2005. Oyster Research Institute News, 17: 1 – 11.

40 Taylor Shellfish Farms, 2011, Our Shellfish, http://www.taylorshellfishfarms.com/ourStore-mussels-mediterranean; accessed 

August, 2011.

41 Lavoie, R.E., 2006, Oyster Culture in North America History, Present and Future, The 1st International Oyster Symposium 

Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan, July 2005. Oyster Research Institute News, 17: 1 – 11.

42 Anonymous, 2007, Edgewater Foods Inte (EDWT) - Description of business, 

http://www.hotstocked.com/companies/e/edgewater-foods-inte-EDWT-description-62102.html, accessed August, 2011. 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

28

only recently declined, aquaculture of scallops is not as well developed in the United States as 

the culture of clams and oysters. Broodstock for aquaculture of scallops was historically 

collected from the wild. Less often, spat are collected from the wild. The most common

management practice for grow-out, derived from Asian practices, is using tiered (lantern or 

pearl) nets. Producers suspend the nets containing the crop between buoys. Calico scallops 

require approximately a year to grow to harvestable size.

Argopecten irradians (Bay Scallops)

A. irradians is native to Atlantic coastal waters from Nova Scotia to Florida with a distinct 

subspecies (A. irradians amplicostatus) in the Gulf of Mexico. Broodstock spawns at one year 

of age. Larvae initially attach to substrate, but become free swimming as they mature. Bay 

scallops are minor contributors to the U.S. commercial scallop fisheries, with just over one

million pounds of adductor muscle meat from wild and farmed bay scallops harvested annually 

over the last ten years. Markets are developing for live and half shell scallops, but the survival 

time after harvest is much shorter than the time the meat can be kept. However, bay scallops can 

be important to local economies. Bay scallops have been grown out in tanks, lantern nets, 

floating cages, and in ponds. In southern coastal Georgia and Florida, bay scallops can attain a 

harvestable size in seven to nine months.

Crassostrea gigas (Pacific Oysters)

C. gigas is native to the Pacific coast of Asia and has been introduced in North America. Due to

its fecundity, it is considered an invasive species. The Pacific oyster is out-competing the native 

Olympia oyster in Puget Sound, Washington. Spat are raised in sea- or land-based upwell 

systems. Out-growing techniques primarily are sea-based. The oysters may be planted out

directly on the sea floor, planted out in bottom cages, or planted out on lines or in cages 

suspended from docks or floats. The practice chosen depends on local custom and requirements

imposed by the local environment. Pacific oysters are ready for harvest in 18 to 30 months. 

Crassostrea virginica (American or Eastern Oysters)

C. virginica is native to the Atlantic Coast of North America and the Gulf of Mexico. C. 

virginica has also been introduced into farming operations in the Pacific Northwest. Triploid 

individuals43 (which do not interbreed with wild populations) have recently been used for 

aquaculture, eliminating some of the environmentalists‘ concerns about escape of farmed 

specimens into the wild. As with C. gigas, spat are raised in sea- or land-based upwell systems 

or in a combination of the two, with the younger spat being grown on land. Outgrowth is 

initially in bags and/or cages, with older stock planted out, maintained in on bottom cages, or 

suspended. Producers and extension staff indicated eastern oysters may be ready for harvest in 

as little as nine months after planting. However, due to non-uniform rates of growth and a desire 

to harvest oysters of different sizes, sequential harvests may carry some individuals from a 

planting cohort for as long as three years.

Mercenaria mercenaria (Hard Clams)

M. mercenaria is native to the east coast of North America and is the most commonly farmed

bivalve in the United States. M. mercenaria produced on aquaculture operations are generally 

 

43 Hybrids with three copies of each chromosome.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

29

grown on the bottom under netting or screens, or in cages. Hard clams44 thrive when they are 

buried, so there is a tension between the better management of predation in cages and the better 

access to the sediments when the clams are planted. In the wild, hard clams are found on 

beaches of mixed sand, gravel, and mud, generally buried just beneath the surface. They are 

commonly harvested using shovels or rakes. Similar harvest practices are used for cultured 

clams. Harvest from cages is more efficient.

As with all bivalves, clams have an indeterminate growth pattern; there is not a set final size. 

Instead, as a clam ages, provided adequate food is available, it generally gets larger. Harvest 

sizes for hard clams vary enormously with the market. Cultivated clams may be as small as an 

inch across the shell measured parallel to the hinge when harvested for processing uses. More 

commonly, progressively larger littleneck, middleneck, topneck, cherrystone, and chowder clams 

are marketed as supply and demand warrant. Pricing varies somewhat by size, with smaller 

clams generally commanding a premium per-piece price. Naming conventions vary somewhat 

by region, as do market units (piece, pound, and bushel being the most common).

Mytilus edulis (Blue Mussels)

M. edulis are native to the Arctic, North Atlantic, and North Pacific Oceans, where they thrive in 

cold waters. They grow in dense mats, attached by byssal threads to hard surfaces. They are

found mainly in protected waters where they can grow to a length of about 3 inches in 12 to 18 

months. Mussel seeds are planted in areas where growing conditions are favorable. For 

suspended culture, mussel spat are collected on short ropes. These are transferred to floats, 

where the mussels are grown to marketable size. The ropes may be enclosed in mesh tubes to 

exclude predators. For bottom culture, larger seed mussels, often collected from wild beds, are

spread over a lease site. These bottom-cultured mussels grow more rapidly at the reduced 

densities.

Mytilus galloprovencialis (Mediterranean Mussels)

M. galloprovincialis are native to the Mediterranean, Black, and Adriatic Seas. They have been 

introduced in the eastern North Atlantic (especially the French, English, and Irish coasts), parts 

of the western African coast, and in the Pacific Northwest. Mediterranean mussels grow rapidly 

and have lower oxygen requirements than many native species. They are grown using suspended 

culture techniques; otherwise their culture is similar to that of native mussel species.

Ostrea edulis (European Flat Oysters)

O. edulis are native to Europe, from Norway to Portugal, and North Africa. European flat 

oysters have an unusual taste, variously described as metallic or tannic. They are prized for their 

unique shape (flatter and less rough than most oyster species) and unusual flavor. Consequently,

European flat oysters command a premium price. Invasive populations have appeared in eastern 

North America following introduction in the middle of the 20th Century. O. edulis is farmed in 

California, Maine, and Washington. European populations have declined due to disease, 

pollution, and over-fishing. 

 

44 A number of other calms used for food, including Butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus) and Mahogany clams (Arctica 

islandica), are also called hard clams. These other hard clams are of limited commercial interest in the United States and the 

Contractor found no evidence they are farmed in this country.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

30

The culture of European flat oysters is similar to that used for native American species. Growth 

is somewhat slower and concerns about disease limit interest in adoption as a standard species. 

In France, European flat oysters harvested from the Bélon River are called Bélon oysters, a name 

used for marketing some of the cultured European flat oysters in the United States. The disease 

risk/uncertainty associated with this species likely make it a poor candidate for insurance 

development at this time. 

Panopea abrupta (Alternatively P. generosa - Geoduck Clams)

P. abrupta are native to subtidal waters of the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and British Columbia. 

The common name, pronounced ―gooee-duck‖ has a variety of spellings including geoduck, 

goiduck, or gweduck. The geoduck is the largest burrowing clam, historically reaching an 

average size of over two pounds in the Puget Sound. The largest geoduck verified by the

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife weighed 8.16 pounds. Geoduck clams grow 

rapidly, generally reaching 1.5 pounds in 3 to 5 years. In the wild, they attain their maximum 

size by about 15 years, and can live at least as long as 168 years.45 Unique among the 

aquaculture species, geoduck clams bury themselves two to three feet deep in the ocean floor. 

The siphon and mantle are so large they cannot be drawn into the shell. Geoduck clam juveniles 

are planted in PVC pipes placed in rows and regularly spaced within the row. Consequently, the 

cropland appears more like a row crop field than bivalve farmland. The PVC pipes are removed 

as the crop matures. While the long life cycle of the geoduck clam introduces some 

complications in maintaining an active inventory, the systemic planting patterns simplify that 

chore.

Pecten maximus (Sea or King Scallops)

P. maximus are native to the eastern North Atlantic Ocean. They are among the largest of the 

scallops and important to the fisheries where they are native. Due to their large size and highquality meat, attempts have been made to introduce them in a number of areas. The culture of 

the king scallops is relatively new. Wild spat are often used and both hatchery and nursery 

activities are limited. Substantial genetic variation in the resulting crop has limited the utility of 

this species.

Placopecten magellanicus (the Most Common Sea Scallops in U.S. Production)

P. magellanicus are native to the cooler waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, with important

fisheries from Labrador to North Carolina. They prefer cooler waters and consequently thrive in 

deeper waters the further south they are found. Sea scallops are particularly sensitive to water 

quality and temperature. Due to their importance to wild fisheries, P. magellanicus have been 

introduced outside endemic locations. The mobility of sea scallops requires substantial 

enclosures (while most other shellfish are in cages to exclude predators). As sea scallops are 

sensitive to motion, wave action that moves suspended culture gear can reduce productivity, or in 

extreme cases increase mortality. Scallops grown in suspension systems are monitored regularly 

and transferred into bags with larger mesh as they grow. Harvest generally occurs after 18 to 30 

months.

 

45 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011, Geoduck Clams, http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/geoduck/, accessed 

May, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

31

Tapes philippinarium (Manila Clams)

T. philippinarium are native to the western Pacific Ocean. They have reportedly been farmed in 

Japanese waters for more than a century. Manila clams were introduced into the waters of the 

Hawaiian Islands in the early days of the 20th Century. An accidental introduction to the Pacific 

coasts of the United States in the 1930s in a shipment of C. gigas seed led to the establishment of 

the species and eventual spread along the entire U.S Pacific coast. The rapid growth of the 

Manila clam makes this species invasive (i.e., it displaces similar native clams from their niche), 

but also makes the clam a strong candidate for farming. Development of triploid lines for culture 

has limited the ecological threat from introduction in new aquaculture locations. The culture of 

Manila clams is similar to that of the hard clam. Marketing focuses on smaller individuals. 

Regulations to limit the spread of Manila clams to the Gulf of Mexico limit the potential of the 

species as a crop in the Gulf coastal waters.

Tridacna gigas (Giant Clam)

T. gigas are native to the South Pacific and Indian Oceans. They are one of a number of giant 

clam species and the largest living bivalve. T. gigas rival even the largest extinct bivalve 

specimens in size. Giant clams are valued for their shell and for their meat. One unique feature 

of giant clam aquaculture is a potential market for use in saltwater aquariums (i.e., as a pet). 

Except for their remarkable size and longevity, the culture of T. gigas is otherwise similar to the 

culture of smaller bivalves. Seeds are planted when the nursery crop reaches a size of three to 

seven inches. Marketable size for meat and shell is achieved after approximately ten years. 

Marketable size for aquariums is realized sooner. Due to their efficiency as filter feeders and 

their rapid growth rate, a longer grow-out period yields substantially larger individuals. Giant 

clams are being cultured in Hawaii, Palau,46 Australia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The 

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources lists the giant clam as 

vulnerable to extinction, introducing a barrier to trade for the aquaculture harvest.

 

46 Formerly a United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under the administrative authority of the United States, but 

now independent.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

32

SECTION IV. BIVALVE AQUACULTURE PRACTICES

Aquaculture production of bivalves requires three activities in sequence: hatchery, nursery, and 

grow-out activities. Biologically, the hatchery element comprises the release of eggs and sperm

by broodstock, fertilization of the egg by the sperm, development of free-swimming larvae from 

the fertilized egg (zygote), and then a series of metamorphoses through various larval stages into 

a miniature mollusk (the ―seed‖) that looks essentially like a smaller version of the adult bivalve.

The one consequential difference between the seed and a mature adult is that the seed does not 

have reproductive capabilities; the reproductive organs of the seed are immature and 

incompetent. In the nursery phase, seeds are raised to an appropriate size for planting. In the 

grow-out phase, the young bivalves are planted and maintained until they reach a marketable 

size.

Hatchery Activities47

The gametes (eggs and sperm) of bivalves are also called spawn. In nature, spawn may be 

released into the environment or fertilized within the mantle of the bivalve. In either case, the 

zygotes divide and develop to produce larvae (trochophore, veliger and pediveliger), and then

―spat.‖ The spat are miniature versions of the adult bivalves. In aquaculture operations, spat of 

appropriate size are called seed.

Each time a mature, female bivalve spawns,

48 she produces hundreds of thousands or even 

millions of eggs.49 Males release sperm either at the time the female spawns or just afterwards. 

The sperm fertilize the eggs with a relatively high frequency of success, even in nature. After 

fertilization, sequential cell divisions produce microscopic larvae that are motile, but in nature 

generally drift in the currents where they were released. The larvae feed on plankton, grow 

(through cell division and cell enlargement), and metamorphose (change their structure) from 

trochophores, to veligers, and finally to pediveligers. The pediveliger larvae eventually settle on 

a suitable substrate and begin life as juveniles whose growth is then measured by changes in the 

size of the fleshy body and shell. 

The substrate for settling can include rocks, submerged wood or metal, dock pilings, and plant or 

animal structures. Some settled bivalves are motile, scallops being the most motile, while others 

are sessile. Mussels, oysters, and giant clams are among the least motile of settled bivalves; they 

tend to stay where they have settled for the rest of their lives.

Historically, seed bivalves for aquaculture operations were collected from the wild. Since 

settling of the larvae is dependent on an appropriate substrate, spat could be collected from the 

 

47 Helm, M.M. and N. Bourne, 2004, Hatchery Culture of Bivalves: A Practical Manual, Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations; Wallace, R.K., P. Waters. and F.S. Rikard, 2008, Oyster Hatchery Techniques, 

https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/206/, accessed May, 2011; N.H. Hadley and J.M. 

Whetstone, 2007, Hard Clam Hatchery and Nursery Production, 

https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/198/, accessed May, 2011; Braley, R.D., 1992, The Giant 

Clam: A Hatchery Manual, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; Hardy, D, 2006, Scallop Farming, 

Elsevier; Feldman, K., B. Vadopalas, D. Armstrong, C. Friedman, R. Hilborn, K. Naish, J, Orensanz, J. Valero , J. Ruesink , A. 

Suhrbier, A. Christy, D. Cheney and J.P. Davis, 2004, Comprehensive Literature Review and Synopsis of Issues Relating to 

Geoduck (Panopea abrupta) Ecology and Aquaculture Production, Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

48 ―Spawn is both a noun referring to the gametes and a verb referring to the release of the gametes.

49 Davis, H.C., and P.E. Chanley, 1956, Spawning and Egg Production of Oysters and Clams, Biological Bulletin, Vol. 110, pp. 

117-128.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

33

wild by providing appropriate substrate in an area where larval bivalves were developing 

naturally. The substrate with attached seed could then be moved to a nursery or grow-out area, 

depending on the size of the seed. Collection of natural spat introduces a substantial element of 

uncertainty into aquaculture production.

When spat are collected from the wild, there is no control over the characteristics of the 

broodstock. In some ways this might be seen as an advantage, since natural selection should 

result in the survival of hardy spat from strong stock. However, since collection of spat from the 

wild likely involves a number of different parents over a potentially extended period, the 

developing bivalves are not particularly uniform in age, size, or potential rate of developmental. 

For a farming activity, these differences produce a less uniform crop than can be obtained from 

hatchery stock.

The preparation of seed in hatcheries provides a number of advantages over collection of wild 

spat. In hatchery operations, there is greater control over the selection of broodstock. Diet and 

water quality can be controlled in the hatchery. Broodstock can be conditioned to spawn based 

on the requirements (timing, numbers, size, etc.) for seed. 

Controlled release of spawn is most commonly achieved by controlling water temperature, water 

circulation, and salinity in the hatchery environment or by hormonal injection. Following 

spawning, the larvae are fed a variety of algae, beginning with microalgae and advancing to 

larger phytoplankton. 

One of the principal activities in the hatchery is the culture of the algae to be fed to the larval 

bivalves. Provision of appropriate nutrients, circulation of the growth medium, and disease 

control all require relatively sophisticated facilities. Consequently, the hatchery is in many ways 

more like a laboratory than a farm. The algal culture required for rearing hatchery seed stock is 

in some ways the equivalent of raising feed to support the growth of livestock (cattle, swine, or 

poultry). However, one substantial difference between raising feed for a livestock operation and 

raising algae (feed) for a bivalve hatchery is the scale of the animals being fed. The bivalve 

larvae are initially so small they can only be observed with the assistance of a microscope. 

Due to the plentiful supply of food, settlement of larvae in hatcheries typically occurs somewhat 

faster than in the wild. Settlement media in the hatchery are designed to assist with the 

collection of spat and distribution of seed to and on the farming operations. The settlement 

environment in the hatchery may include coated or roughened plastic sheets, tubes, or mesh; 

shell chips; whole shells; gravel; and ceramic forms. All these are easily collected and can be 

handled with minimal damage to the spat. While commercial hatcheries try to minimize loss of 

spawn and spat, the nature of the development of bivalves in the hatchery phase involves 

substantial reduction in the number of viable individuals over time. The dynamics and structure 

of the facilities and operation is designed to accommodate these changes in number. Larvae of 

similar ages and developmental stages are maintained together. The age cohorts move through 

the hatchery together. The growing environment is maintained to optimize development of the 

larvae.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

34

Federal insurance has never been available for bivalve aquaculture hatcheries. Many hatchery 

operations occur indoors. Weather, disease, and predation risks are managed by the design of the 

hatchery facilities and the practices used to raise the seed. Private insurance for the facilities (but 

not necessarily for the stock) is available, as is private business interruption insurance.

Nursery Activities50

As mentioned previously, seed are raised in aquaculture nurseries to an appropriate size for 

planting. Some nurseries operate their own hatcheries, but many bivalve nursery operations

purchase seed. If the nursery does purchase seed, smaller seed is less expensive. It is also easier 

to transport smaller seed because of the reduced volume of each individual within the population. 

Nurseries require more space and greater access to seawater than hatcheries. Consequently, 

although a hatchery may be located away from the shore, nurseries are generally located 

immediately adjacent to or in the sea. In either case, the principal requirement for a nursery is a 

current of seawater over the developing bivalve population. The seawater provides food for the 

developing shellfish as well as a supply of oxygen. Nurseries provide somewhat less control 

over the environment than do hatcheries. Consequently, nursery operations are exposed to 

greater unmanageable perils than are hatchery operations. Both land-based and marine (nearshore or off-shore) nurseries are briefly described below.

Land-based Nurseries

In land-based bivalve nurseries, the seed grows to an appropriate size in large tanks (troughs). 

The seeds are partitioned, either among different troughs or within a trough, into appropriate 

populations for management. Pumps provide a constant flow of seawater through the troughs 

(generally drawing water from the ocean and returning it after it has been used). As the seawater 

flows through the trough, it delivers a steady supply of oxygen and food for the developing seed, 

and removes metabolic waste products. 

A land-based system allows relatively precise control of flow rates and some control of the 

content of the nutrient stream. The feed water stream can be monitored (manually or 

automatically) and supplemented with cultured algae and other nutrients as necessary to maintain 

optimal growth rates. Flow rates can be adjusted to control temperature and nutrient content. 

The two principal configurations for on-land nurseries are raceway and upwell systems.

In the raceway system the seed are maintained in a large trough. Seawater flows through the 

trough as a stream, from one end of the trough to the other. This trough system will be familiar 

to anyone who has visited a fish hatchery. Since the flow covers a large area sequentially, seed 

in one part of the raceway are exposed to a different growth environment than those in other 

portions of the tank. Seeds near the end of the raceway are exposed to less food and more waste 

 

50 Flimlin, 2000, Nursery and Grow-out Methods for Aquacultured Shellfish, 

http://www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/nrac00002_shellmeth.pdf, accessed May, 2011; N.H. Hadley and J.M. Whetstone, 

2007, Hard Clam Hatchery and Nursery Production, https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/198/, 

accessed May, 2011; Braley, R.D., 1992, The Giant Clam: A Hatchery Manual, Australian Centre for International 

Agricultural Research; Hardy, D, 2006, Scallop Farming, Elsevier; Feldman, K., B. Vadopalas, D. Armstrong, C. Friedman, R. 

Hilborn, K. Naish, J, Orensanz, J. Valero , J. Ruesink , A. Suhrbier, A. Christy, D. Cheney and J.P. Davis, 2004, 

Comprehensive Literature Review and Synopsis of Issues Relating to Geoduck (Panopea abrupta) Ecology and Aquaculture 

Production, Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

35

products than the seeds near the beginning of the raceway. The farther from the input the seeds

are located, the lower the nutrient content of the water that flows past them. These differences in 

water quality are addressed by moving the seed to different locations within the raceway and/or 

by moving the seed to different raceways as they grow.

Large troughs are also a common element of on-land, upwell nursery systems. However, in the 

upwell system, the volume within the trough is subdivided by incorporation of a number of 

―silos‖ within the trough. Seeds are distributed into racks, bags, nets, or cages within the silos. 

This facilitates handling. 

The feed stream into each silo is from bottom to top (hence the adjective ―upwell‖). The feed 

stream in one silo is independent of that in other silos within the trough. Due to this 

independence and the subdivision of the trough volume, the seed collectively are exposed to a 

more uniform environment. However, the increased surface area within an upwell system 

requires substantial additional maintenance of the physical environment. The surfaces within 

both the raceway and upwell systems must be cleaned of biofilms, macroalgae, and potential 

competitive or disease organisms, but the upwell systems have substantially greater surface area 

per unit volume than raceway systems. This increases the effort required for cleaning. There is 

also a greater resistance to flow within the upwell system. This requires a larger investment in 

pumping and control equipment for these systems.

A bivalve nursery producer must choose a land-based system that reflects the available financial 

and labor resources. Balance can be obtained by combining both types of systems, using upwell 

tanks for younger seed and raceways for larger seed.

Near-shore and Off-shore Nurseries

Near-shore and off-shore nurseries generally incorporate the elements of a land-based upwell

nursery system into a dock (near-shore) or float (off-shore). The design of the marine system 

uses the natural currents and tides to provide some or all of the flow of seawater over the 

developing seed and limits the need for pumps.

In these marine operations, silos and sluice boxes (to control flow of the water over the seed) are 

hung below the surface of the water. Mesh bags or screens hold the seed. The physical design 

of the structure causes the water to move through the nursery from bottom to top. As the seeds

grow, they are moved to bags or screens with larger holes and maintained at densities that 

support appropriate growth. 

Both floats and docks are susceptible to damage or losses to weather. Excessive wave action can 

eject bags from the silos or shift the seed to one side of the float. When the seeds are 

concentrated in a small area, access to food and oxygen is limited, which in turn limits growth 

and reduces survival.

All bivalve aquaculture equipment, including nursery bags, floats, silos, netting, and monitoring 

equipment needs to be cleaned periodically to remove fouling organisms. Some power and a 

source of water are required for cleaning the seeds and the equipment.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

36

Once seeds are large enough, they can be transferred into nursery bags which can be ―planted‖

inter-tidally or sub-tidally. Under these circumstances, associated nursery activities are 

equivalent to the grow-out counterparts with the exception that the nursery seeds are smaller than 

grow-out stock. 

Federal insurance for seed in raceways and in nursery bags planted was an element of the 

Cultivated Clam Pilot (04-0116) insurance program in some counties in some states. Language 

regarding raceways was eliminated in the 2008 Cultivated Clam Pilot Provisions (08-0116). The 

Special Provisions of insurance for some counties in Florida still support insurance of nurserysized clams planted in bags.

Grow-out Activities

During the grow-out stage of bivalve culture, the producer ―plants‖ seed and grows the seed to a 

larger, marketable size. Typically, the grow-out process starts with seed purchased from a 

nursery. However, some operations support both nursery and grow-out activities or hatchery, 

nursery, and grow-out activities. 

As with all animal husbandry, growing out bivalves requires provision of food, maintenance of 

an appropriate environment, prevention of disease, and control of predators. Seed for grow-out

is planted either directly on the sea floor, in exclosures on the sea floor, or suspended from floats 

(in troughs, cages, or bags or suspended on lines) depending on the species being grown, weather 

conditions, and local custom. Inasmuch as clams require sediments for their development, seed 

is generally planted on the sea floor covered by netting or in exclosures that in turn are planted 

on the sea floor. Local experience over time is useful in determining appropriate planting 

densities. However, it is important to note the specific conditions on a farm will greatly impact 

the carrying capacity51 of a particular plot. Consequently, the best planting density in one area 

can be quite different from the best density in even an immediately adjacent area.

Feeding the bivalve during growing-out entails ensuring an adequate flow of phytoplankton-rich

water around the crop. This is accomplished primarily by selection of the ―cropland,‖ and by 

ensuring the seed are planted at an appropriate density. Most cropland is controlled by states and 

generally involves obtaining a lease from the requisite state authority. In some operations, 

especially during the earlier grow-out periods, pumps are used to assure an adequate flow of 

water across the developing racks of shellfish. 

The maintenance of an appropriate environment for growth depends first on the selection of the 

specific planting location within a leasehold (depth, proximity to fresh water flows, substrate, 

currents, and tides all affect the areas within a lease appropriate for planting), and then on control 

of fouling organisms. Both algae and invertebrates can foul the seed and the gear that surrounds 

them. Both types of fouling influence the flow of water and consequently the availability of 

food, dissolved oxygen concentrations, and the concentration of organic and inorganic waste 

products in the water. 

 

51 The carrying capacity is the maximum population of a species the environment can sustain indefinitely.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

37

The fouling organisms are removed by squeegeeing, brushing, or scraping. This maintenance 

often occurs during inventory and harvest. The antifouling activities can damage the developing 

seed, especially when it is extremely young.

Unlike many land-based crops planted on a particular day and most commercial livestock born 

on a specific day, a cohort of bivalves planted on a single day is not ready to harvest at one time. 

The young bivalves in any given population are generally quite similar at planting, but some 

grow faster than others. Consequently, some are ready to harvest earlier than others. While 

general practice is to harvest all the individuals in a single planting cohort within about a year 

(i.e., there is rarely more than a year between the first harvest from the planting and the last),52

species, growing conditions, and market forces may extend the total length of the grow-out 

period for a single age cohort considerably.53

Paradoxically, much leased aquaculture land historically has been less productive than land used 

for natural (not farmed) bivalve populations. The states have considered aquaculture as a 

mechanism to increase the overall production of shellfish by incorporating management in areas 

where natural production is smaller. Consequently, regional data on natural bivalve productivity 

and harvest may not be particularly useful in establishing appropriate practice calendars and the 

potential productivity of newly leased land. Furthermore, historical productivity focuses on 

productivity that occurs on the sea floor. Since clams are generally raised on the sea floor, these 

data may have some relevance to clam aquaculture. However, mussels, oysters, and scallops are 

frequently farmed using suspended cultures. This limits the utility of data generated from natural 

populations for aquaculture crops grown under this practice.

The major predators of cultured bivalves are bony fish (e.g., flounder, drum, puffer, and tautog), 

cartilaginous fish (e.g., rays and sharks), crabs, snails (e.g., whelks, moon snails, oyster drills), 

starfish, water fowl, and humans. Non-human predators are generally controlled by exclosures. 

Nets or screens can be used to cover seed planted on the sea floor. These are anchored with 

weights or attached to the sea floor with stakes. Materials used to weight the edges of nets 

include rebar, PVC pipes and rods, stone bags, and lead weights or line. Human predators in the 

form of poachers can be controlled to some extent by signage, monitoring systems, and legal 

action. Over time, as harvests have increased in aquaculture areas and decreased among natural 

populations, cultures that tolerated poaching have been replaced by greater respect for the 

property rights of the producer.

Small seed requires a small mesh for exclosures (as small as 1/8 inch), but these finer exclosures 

foul more easily and must be cleared more often. Consequently, the smaller meshes are 

exchanged for larger mesh as the bivalves grow. The structure of the mesh needs to reflect the 

particular predators present. Plastic is more commonly used, especially for younger seed, but 

metal or plastic-covered metal may be required when the predominant predators can destroy the 

plastic mesh. One producer described a scenario in which a large fish took plastic mesh bags 

into its mouth, consumed the enclosed seed, and then spit out the bag. The fish quickly learned 

the bags contained easily obtained and abundant food. Such a scenario clearly requires careful 

selection of exclosure materials, mesh size, and placement. 

 

52 Karen Hudson, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, personal communication.

53 John Vigloitta, President, Mobjack Bay Seafood, personal communication.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

38

The most important aspect of predator exclusion by nets or screens, as opposed to exclusion in 

bags and cages, is to ensure the edges are appropriately anchored so even relatively small 

predators cannot get under the nets. This is one reason bags or cages are favored in some 

production areas and in some locales within a production area. Depending on the species being 

grown, bags or cages may be anchored to the sea floor or suspended from floats. Some predators 

are restricted primarily to the sea floor. Others may prey upon bivalves regardless of whether 

they are raised in floating bags or being raised on the bottom.

In areas where winter ice forms occasionally, producers may be faced with the dilemma of 

whether to remove the enclosing mesh or screens. Removal exposes the crop to predators. 

Failure to remove the cover can result in additional damage if ice does scour the sea floor. In 

other areas, the mesh or screen are removed as a standard practice. In these areas, the question is 

the timing of the removal. Premature removal will expose the crop to greater predation. Late 

removal can result in scouring damage and loss of equipment. 

Grow-out success rates are highly variable depending on seed size, locale, and management 

practices. While the 70 percent survival rate used in the Cultivated Clam Pilot Insurance may 

have reflected an industry average for clams at the time of development of the pilot, testimony 

suggests it is likely to be low for the best producers. Several experts and oyster producers 

indicated they would not be in business if that were the level of their grow-out success. 

However, the Contractor was not able to obtain data to verify this testimony empirically.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

39

SECTION V. BIVALVE AQUACULTURE RISKS

Growers are sensitive to the difference between common (systemic) risk and idiosyncratic risk. 

Production risks have not changed substantively over the past several decades. However, during 

that time natural reproductive populations have changed substantially.

Production Risk

Production risks facing bivalve producers include weather, disease, and predation. Weatherrelated risks are of greatest concern, generally followed by predation, and finally disease. 

Disease risk includes both catastrophic losses and chronic disease losses, which more slowly 

erode profits. 

It is useful to keep a sense of the producer‘s perspectives on loss severity. A ―catastrophic loss‖ 

means the loss (mortality) of an entire inventory. No quantifiable estimates of variation are 

available. One of the criteria for feasibility requires ―Losses covered under the proposed 

insurance product must be adjustable.‖ However, adjustment of losses does not appear any more 

challenging than for many crops, where multiple causes of loss may occur within a growing 

season and losses are not established until harvest. A method for handling production to count of 

bivalves that are not harvested on or before the end of the insurance period will present a 

challenge to development of an effective insurance product.

Weather

During the listening sessions and in interviews, producers identified two distinct categories of 

weather concerns: severe storms and extended periods of extreme weather. The principal 

weather perils of concern are those named in the pilot cultivated clam insurance program: 

hurricane, storm surges (and tidal waves), abrupt and extreme changes in salinity, and winter 

storm damage (icing and freezing). The data available from this pilot program, including 

measurement of losses tied to specific weather events, along with existing weather data, provide 

a mechanism to assess the relative risk of weather for various regions within the production 

areas. Stakeholders indicated there was not a specific weather event that ―kept them awake at 

night.‖ Instead, abnormally severe weather conditions were a substantial concern.

It is important to note one perilous weather event may have dissimilar effects on different 

species, different production practices, and different microenvironments within a production 

region. For example, within an estuary, excessive rainfall may substantially reduce salinity in 

areas where rivers enter the sea, but have little effect on areas outside the channel cut by the 

entering river water. During an excessive-wind event during the winter months, the windward 

side of a bay may experience substantial icing damage, while the leeward side may be insulated 

from the damage by the movement of the water driven by the winds. Similarly, storm surges do 

not affect all areas uniformly. 

Predation

The major predators of cultured bivalves are bony fish (e.g., flounder, drum, puffer, and tautog), 

cartilaginous fish (e.g., rays and sharks), crabs, snails (e.g., whelks, moon snails, oyster drills), 

starfish, water fowl, and humans. Non-human predators are generally controlled by exclosures. 

Human predators (i.e., poachers), while controlled to some extent by signage, monitoring 

systems, and legal action, would be an uninsurable cause of loss under any Federal Crop 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

40

Insurance Corporation program. Since poaching by definition is an activity carried out stealthily, 

determining the amount of uninsured loss associated with it is difficult. Stakeholders generally 

indicated confidence in their ability to manage risks associated with predation. Nonetheless, the 

required management practices to limit this predation introduce the need for substantial 

underwriting requirements for any crop insurance program.

Disease

Disease prevention and control are given continual management attention. Hard clams have 

notably few infectious diseases, compared to other bivalve mollusks, and to date no broadreaching problems due to infectious diseases have been observed in bivalves raised by 

aquaculture in the United States. There is, however, a reasonable concern that disease events

may increase as production densities increase.54

Signs of infectious disease include gaping (inability to hold the valves closed), shell deformities,

deposits on the inner shell surfaces, excess mucus production, watery meats, dark, pale, or 

discolored meats, and lesions or ulcers. However, it should be noted these symptoms also may 

be associated with adverse environmental conditions. Pathogens can potentially infect all life 

stages of cultured bivalves. Organisms of particular concern include QPX (Quahog Parasite 

Unknown), Perkinsus spp. (an oyster disease), Chlamydiales, and Rickettsiales. Other locally 

important disease-causing organisms will likely be identified during a development effort.

Quahog Parasite Unknown (QPX)

QPX is a significant pathogen of hard clams found in high salinity areas. Moderate infections 

slow growth and reduce the quality of the meat. QPX mortality is highest when additional 

stressors, such as unusually low temperatures or very high population density, affect the 

shellfish.

Perkinsus

Perkinsus are protozoans that cause Dermo disease in eastern oysters. Although Perkinsus are 

occasionally found in hard clams, they do not cause disease symptoms in clams. Infection 

results in failure to thrive, poor meat quality, and loss of adductor muscle strength (leading to 

gaping). High temperatures and low salinity increase the effects of Dermo disease.

Chlamydia

Chlamydia are common intracellular symbionts in bivalves. Chlamydia-like organisms (CLO) 

can cause damage to digestive tissues. CLO are found more frequently in cultured bivalves than 

in wild stocks, likely because of ease of transmission or increased stress in high-density culture. 

Rickettsia

Rickettsia are another common intracellular bacteria in bivalves. Rickettsia-like organisms 

(RLO) cause localized damage to gills, but RLO infections are rarely fatal. Like CLOs, RLOs 

are found more frequently in cultured bivalves than in wild populations. 

 

54 Elston, R.A., 1990, Mollusc Diseases: Guide for Shellfish Farmers, University of Washington. 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

41

Many marine organisms can parasitize bivalves. These can include parasitic nematodes, 

flatworms, and copepods. These parasites cause thickened areas of flesh called granulomas. 

While the number of granulomas in an infected individual is generally too low to cause 

impairment of function, their presence may affect the marketability of the shellfish.

Proper maintenance of the stock can effectively limit disease losses. By design, aquaculture 

operations are maintained at high densities relative to natural populations. The stock density 

(animals per unit area) must be suitable for the animal size to limit transmission of diseases. 

Furthermore, fouling must be managed to assure adequate flow of the seawater through the 

population, as poor circulation stresses the stock and can potentially increase the concentration of 

infective agents. Finally, scouting at appropriate intervals helps to identify problems and assure 

healthy stock.

Uninsurable Causes of Loss of Interest to Producers

Producers identified concerns about a number of uninsurable causes of loss during the 

stakeholder information gathering exercises of this study. Foremost among the concerns was the 

changing regulatory environment in which they operate. While the producers acknowledge the 

importance of appropriate regulations, the production environment created by frequent changes 

in leases, sanitation requirements, and food safety issues are of concern. Many of these issues 

affect post harvest practices and hence are not an insurable cause of loss. Even institutional risk 

due to quarantine is not likely to be insurable because of the challenges with rating such a risk.

Losses to pollution are a second category of loss of concern to producers that are not insurable 

under the Act. The movement of water in an aquaculture operation amplifies the effects of point 

sources of pollution. Consequently, losses are increased both within an operation and between 

operations. In spite of the significant impacts of major pollution events like the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, pollution should not be an insurable cause of loss, but is more appropriately 

addressed as a subject of civil actions.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

42

SECTION VI. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

Bivalve producers face production risks. Changes in ―yield‖ result from causes similar to those

affecting the yield of field and row crops. However, the variability in production of bivalves 

grown under appropriate management practices appears to be somewhat lower for bivalves than 

for plant crops. Under normal circumstances, barring a catastrophic event or dramatic changes in 

production practices, annual productivity appears to be relatively constant. 

Insuring aquaculture production raises challenges that do not complicate development of crop 

insurance for plants. A single bivalve seed will either survive (and can then be carried to a 

harvestable size) or die. This rigid dichotomy is not characteristic of most crops.

Due to the unique nature of bivalve production, the feasibility analysis of a production insurance 

product for this sector must address not only the literature on agricultural risk, but also 

stakeholders‘ perceptions about the perils that concern them. A great many risks in the bivalve 

industry are managed using non-insurance approaches. For example, the crop can be moved 

from microenvironments where risk is temporarily high (algae bloom) to locations where the 

risks are lower (an average oceanic environment). Risk can be further mitigated by removing the 

crop from the sea for short periods (including risky periods), or it can be divided to reduce 

density. This division consequently manages the risks affected by proximity to other individuals. 

Furthermore, because there is no moment when the crop is  ̳ripe,‘ production harvest timing can 

be used to avoid periods of exceptional risk. Even under normal management, the crop is 

removed from the sea, inventoried, culled, and harvested multiple times during the production 

cycle. The number of times these activities are repeated allows the producer to avoid conditions 

that might lead to several sources/causes of production losses.

Due to seasonal variations in market price, the timing of harvest can be used to affect total crop 

revenues. The indefinite size for harvest allows the crop to be maintained until a time that 

optimizes revenue. 

Regardless of their ability to limit the effects of risks on production, producers express concern 

about weather events and to a lesser extent disease. They are also concerned with domestic and 

international market outcomes that affect their revenues because these market forces affect prices 

received. Finally, producers expressed concern about bio-security requirements and competition; 

stakeholders of bivalves in general are subject to substantial institutional risks from regulations 

related to husbandry, quarantine, and sanitation.

Of these concerns, only weather and uncontrollable disease are typically considered insurable 

production perils. Loss of markets due to international competition and institutional risks, while 

affecting stakeholder‘s net revenue, are outside the purview of production (yield-based) 

insurance as it is typically defined. 

For bivalves, there is a challenge in establishing harvest attributes so as not to provide insurance 

past the harvest as is required by the Act. NASS reports the value of aquaculture production sold 

as established by the Census of Agriculture survey instruments. While the NASS methodology 

is sound, the valuation is challenged by the level of industry diversity and dispersion as well as 

by vertical integration within the industry. To some extent, prices are implicit in the ERS reports 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

43

on exported shellfish.

55

 However, it is important to note the ERS reports necessarily address 

farmed and wild bivalves together and the ERS reports specifically note whole and processed 

bivalves are aggregated in their analysis.56 While the data provide an appropriate snapshot of 

relative changes in bivalve harvest value over time, they are not ―farm-gate‖ prices actually 

received ―at harvest.‖

There are federal crop insurance programs that insure livestock margins and price, and nursery 

insurance that addresses nursery inventory rather than yield or revenue based on yield and 

market price as required by the contract and 7 USC 1522 (12)(C)(i). The margin and price 

insurance are generally structured on markets that trade in the livestock as a commodity and 

offer robust price discovery; no such markets exist for bivalves. The inventory insurance for 

nursery is based on a cumbersome, annual, contracted pricing exercise which would be difficult 

to duplicate for bivalves. Bivalve prices are local and reflect substantially different geographic 

outcomes of production. Furthermore, there are no price standards for bivalves beyond the seed 

stage before they are mature and harvestable. Finally, underwriting and monitoring inventorybased programs have proven to be problematic because of the relatively rapid changes in total 

inventory from moment to moment.

In addition to the issues raised previously, Section 2.4.1 of the SOW requires the Contractor to 

keep in mind the criteria of feasibility when recommending a possible insurance program. These 

are addressed sequentially below.

The proposed insurance coverage must conform to RMA’s enabling legislation, regulations, 

and procedures that cannot be changed. The enabling legislation, Title 7, Chapter 36, 

Subchapter I of the U.S. Code, as amended has already been used to develop two crop insurance 

policies for bivalve aquaculture: the Cultivated Clam Pilot Program (see 2008-0116) and the 

Oyster Group Risk Plan (see 09-grp-oysters). The existence of these plans provides a priori

evidence RMA‘s enabling legislation, regulations, and procedures that cannot be changed can 

support development of appropriate insurance documents for bivalve insurance. Adjusted Gross 

Revenue insurance in its current forms (whether AGR or AGR-LITE) have little appeal for 

bivalve producers. Changes in the contracts for these products would likely be required to assure 

appropriate and attractive coverage for bivalves under an AGR approach.

Producers or their agents must be willing to pay the appropriate price for the insurance. 

Since the study was initiated by an Act of Congress, there at first glance also appears to be a 

priori evidence of some stakeholder interest in insurance. Furthermore, pilots have been 

initiated in response to producer interest following a natural disaster (clams after the 1996 

hurricane season) and through the development process supported by section 508(h) of the Act

(the oyster GRP program). However, as noted previously, the willingness of producers or their 

agents to pay is influenced by the coverage available and the costs associated with the insurance 

offer. The declining participation in the clam pilot suggests there is more limited interest in 

broad, multi-peril insurance than the development of the existing pilots would have suggested. 

 

55 Clams, mussels, oysters and scallops.

56 USDA, ERS, 2011, Aquaculture Data: Volume and value of U.S. exports of selected fish and shellfish products, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/aquaculture/FishShellfishExports.htm, accessed May, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

44

Furthermore, commercial named peril insurance products are available for bivalve mortality 

and/or loss-of-income due to named perils.

The insurance product must be effective, meaningful and reflect the actual risks of the 

producers. Some perils of concern to producers (pollution and regulatory barriers) are 

uninsurable. The producer‘s perception of the utility of the insurance will be greatly influenced 

by exclusion of uninsurable risks that affect the producer‘s cash flow and revenue. Coverage of 

insurable perils will not protect the insured from financial failure from many of the perils of 

concern. Producers have suggested a high deductible is an insurance construct they could 

endorse to gain access to ad hoc disaster programs. They are concerned with the low payment 

maximum under the NAP program introduced by the 2008 Farm Bill. Their concern appears to 

be catastrophic losses (though with a higher level of coverage than supported by the Catastrophic 

Risk Endorsement) rather than protection for smaller year-to-year yield or revenue variability.

The perils affecting production must be identified and categorized as insurable and noninsurable. Due to the nature of the crop, it is difficult to attribute changes in inventory to 

specific causes of loss. This attribute is no different than many other crops that can be affected 

by multiple causes of loss during a growing season. Attributing the exact amount of loss to any 

one of several causes is difficult. However, the evidence that a cause of loss occurred can be 

found. Substantial underwriting efforts will be required. However, the recent loss history under 

the Cultivated Clam Pilot insurance program suggests this is not an insurmountable barrier.

Be ratable and operable in an actuarially sound manner. Excepting the data collected by 

RMA for the existing pilot programs, there are no public data to allow rating or underwriting of 

operation-level yield variability. Published regional data are also limited. Private data 

documenting regional yields is confidential and sometimes closely held. The Contractor believes 

in the current environment, it is not feasible to collect sufficient production data for traditional 

insurance development efforts. Some measure of productivity can be extracted from data on 

inventories (e.g., the inventory data collected under the Cultivated Clam Pilot program), but the 

precision of this extrapolated productivity assessment would not be at a level normally used in 

rating crop insurance. It may be possible to collect production data by survey, particularly in 

areas where producers have expressed an interest in bivalve insurance for oyster crops. The 

success of these efforts would depend on participation levels since an unbiased sample would be 

necessary for insurance development efforts. Such a survey would be limited by the constraints 

imposed by the Paperwork Reduction Act. At the present time, availability of data for rating is a 

barrier to feasibility. 

Contain underwriting, rating, pricing, loss measurement, and insurance contract terms and 

conditions. While most diseases are controllable and their impact on production manageable, 

the conditions which substantially impact production from operation to operation or time to time 

are limited named perils (generally catastrophic weather events) for which some insurance is 

commercially available. It is possible to structure an inventory-based policy for these perils 

similar to the product available for cultivated clams. However, market acceptance would be 

influenced by price. The experience with participation in the Cultivated Clam Pilot program 

suggests acceptance of such a product would be limited.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

45

The Contractor spoke to buyers of bivalves at a number of seafood wholesalers. In every case 

the prices offered were based on the species, supply, demand, the size of the individual bivalves, 

the waters where the crop was grown and the existing relationships between the producer and the 

buyer. In other words, every sale is unique and not governed by broader markets. This appears 

to be the case for both domestic and imported production. No organized exchanges offer futures 

contracts for live clams or processed clam products (frozen clams, clam meat, etc.). Historical 

aggregate data are available for purchase. In spite of extensive efforts, the Contractor was 

unable to identify any long-term data series for farm-level prices, in either public or private 

domains that were collected and managed by consistent methods. Nonetheless, in the shorter 

term, the data collected by Urner Barry and by NOAA could be used to establish prices for 

insurance purposes. Due to the large differences in prices realized, it is unclear if these generic 

prices would be accepted by producers as a basis for insurances. Some testimony suggested ―any 

insurance‖ would be welcomed, while others argued it was better to be covered under programs 

for uninsured crops than to be insured by a program that did not reflect individual producer‘s 

financial circumstances.

There must be an appropriate geographic distribution of production to ensure a sound 

financial insurance program. The Contractor understands this requirement to apply to the 

FCIC portfolio, which is distributed throughout the United States. Furthermore, the bivalve 

sector has wide geographic distribution, even if individual species and varieties are grown in 

more limited geographic areas. This requirement is not seen as an insurmountable barrier to 

feasibility. That being said, there are two geographic barriers to development. The first is the 

limited production area within the country, the individual states, and even within individual 

counties. The risk within the production region (at any scale) is not uniformly spread 

geographically. Consequently, it is conceivable that producers in areas with limited risk will be 

less likely to participate than producers in regions with greater risk. Map areas for premium 

rates most likely would be needed to appropriately match the risk to the rate.

There must be enough interest for the risk to be spread over an acceptable pool of insureds. 

The Contractor understands this requirement also applies to the FCIC portfolio, which involved 

more than 1.1 million policies and almost $80 billion of insured liability in 2010. However, the 

Contractor has noted there was no evidence of broad interest among the bivalve aquaculture 

stakeholders in most regions for bivalve production insurance.

Customers must not be able to select insurance only when conditions are adverse. The 

occurrence of potentially insurable perils of greatest concern (weather perils) cannot be predicted 

by the insured. However, some production units are more susceptible to the impact of adverse 

weather. Consequently, although adverse selection based on conditions is not possible, adverse 

selection based on location is possible unless the insurance is appropriately structured.

Developing county, bay, estuary, or seabed maps of special risk areas would be a daunting and 

potentially costly task. However, some insurance structure that recognizes individual risk 

profiles will be important to assure broad participation in an insurance program.

Moral hazards must be avoidable or controllable. Avoiding moral hazard would require 

substantial underwriting constraints. This requirement has already been demonstrated in the 

Cultivated Clam Pilot program. Data for development of the underwriting for species other than 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

46

clams are limited at best. Although generic appropriate practices can be identified, at the present 

time, the information asymmetries need to be overcome, requiring a rigorous development effort.

Without substantial underwriting efforts, inventory insurance introduces substantial opportunities 

for fraud, waste, and abuse when the inventory and its valuation are both controlled by the 

producer.

There can be no chance of beneficial gain. Avoiding the potential for beneficial gain would 

also require the underwriting constraints described previously. The information asymmetries 

that exist can only be overcome by substantial and rigorous development effort.

There must be no unacceptable change in market behavior or unacceptable market 

distortions in terms of either a change in quantity supplied or shift in the supply curve. 

The industry is minute and subject to substantial changes from year to year. Market forces shape 

many operational decisions, including harvest times. While market forces will also influence the

purchase of insurance, it is unlikely the introduction of appropriately-rated production insurance 

would change market behavior noticeably. Other market forces will continue to dominate the 

behavior of the markets and render the effects of crop insurance on the markets less significant.

A particular challenge in considering the feasibility of bivalve insurance is the long and 

somewhat flexible production period. 

It does not appear a simple yield policy is feasible for the bivalve industry. Some issues with the 

adjusted gross revenue insurance products, as they exist, have already been delineated. If a gross 

revenue approach is to be used for bivalve aquaculture, a development effort to provide an 

appropriate structure, policy materials, and rating for the industry would need to be undertaken. 

In such a development, consideration of the incorporation of hatchery and nursery operations as 

diversifying factors could be undertaken. Moreover, the role of diversification in establishing 

maximum coverage levels would have to be reexamined to address the specific needs of 

aquaculture. Diversity of an operation might include different species, different markets, 

different practices (e.g., on bottom or suspended, in cages or planted out), and geographic factors 

(e.g., east side or west side of a bay). All these introduce elements of diversity that should buffer 

the effects of a perilous event on the overall productivity of an operation, and consequently on 

the effects of that productivity on gross revenues.

An appropriately structured gross revenue product could be attractive to a segment of the 

industry and might address their risk management needs in a way that was attractive to the 

insurance industry as well At the same time, some of the moral hazards of yield and inventory 

based approaches might be mitigated. It is worth noting that many aquaculture operations are 

vertically integrated, and therefore revised underwriting rules would require special 

consideration in an AGR framework.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

47

SECTION VII. APPLICABILITY OF THE EXISTING ADJUSTED GROSS REVENUE 

INSURANCE PRODUCTS TO BIVALVE AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION

AGR and AGR-Lite, as they are currently structured, are not suited for most bivalve aquaculture 

operations. AGR and AGR-Lite policies insure the revenue of an entire farm rather than insuring 

the yield of or revenue from an individual crop. Both plans use information from the producer's 

Schedule F tax forms and current year expected farm revenue to calculate the revenue guarantee. 

AGR

The AGR insurance was first offered for crop year 1999. The pilot provides protection against 

low revenue resulting from unavoidable natural events and market fluctuations during the 

insurance year. Covered revenue includes income from agricultural commodities, as well as 

limited amounts of income from animals and animal products (including production from

aquaculture in ―a controlled environment.‖)

57

. The Standards Handbook, Policy Provisions, and 

Crop Insurance Handbook are mute on the meaning of ―controlled environment.‖ Consequently, 

the Contractor has interpreted this phrase to indicate the collected aquaculture crop does not 

consist exclusively of ―wild‖ individuals.

58

AGR coverage is available to U.S. citizens or legal residents who:

 Have structured their operation in the same way for tax purposes for seven years, unless a 

change in an operation‘s tax structure is reviewed and approved by the insurance 

provider; 

 Produce agricultural commodities primarily in pilot counties (and contiguous non-pilot 

counties); 

 File a calendar-year or fiscal-year farm tax return; 

 Have liability not exceeding $6.5 million; 

 Purchase traditional federal crop insurance, if available, when more than 50 percent of 

expected income is from insurable commodities; and 

 Earn no more than 35 percent of expected allowable income from animals and animal 

products. 

These constraints, and especially the allowable limit on animal products, provide substantial

barriers to participation in the AGR program by bivalve producers, most of whom have bivalve 

aquaculture as their sole agricultural activity. Furthermore, the premium structure is based on 

the diversity of the production. This creates a disincentive to participate since rates for 

operations with limited diversity are substantially higher than the perceived or actual risks faced 

by bivalve aquaculture producers. The Contractor acknowledges most persons involved in 

aquaculture produce one or at most two species. Hence, disaggregating bivalve production into 

individual species will not resolve this issue. Participants in the industry argue that production 

methods (bottom culture, floats, etc.) are effectively different crops. In addition, they argue that 

a nursery produces a different crop than the crop produced in the grow-out phase. In other 

words, they wish to see a single species disaggregated into multiple production practices and 

production operations to achieve a diversity score.

 

57 USDA, RMA, 2007, Adjusted Gross Revenues Standards Handbook, FCIC-18050 (1-2007), page 7.

58 Especially for crops raised on the bottom, exclusion of wild individuals would be nearly impossible.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

48

The insurable causes of loss for AGR insurance include revenue loss due to ―unavoidable natural 

occurrences during the current or previous insurance year or due to market fluctuations that 

cause a revenue loss during the current insurance year.‖

59 ―Negligence, mismanagement, or 

wrongdoing by the policyholder, the policyholder‘s family, household members, tenants, 

employees, or contractors; crop abandonment; and bypassing of acreage‖ are not insurable 

causes of loss.60

The requirement that an aquaculture operation be structured in the same way for tax purposes for 

seven years likely discourages consideration of AGR by some bivalve aquaculture producers. 

Several stakeholders indicated their operations changed substantially over relatively short time 

periods. Entry into the industry is encouraged by existing participants. Many operations recruit 

family members to join the business as success allows such expansions of ownership and 

responsibility. In some regions, hatchery and nursery operations (i.e., vertical integration) are 

incorporated into existing grow-out entities. In both cases, the form of ownership may change 

from individual to partnership to subchapter S corporation to another form of a ―person‖ as 

defined by the Basic Provisions.

Many producers do not prepare their own taxes. The IRS indicates aquaculture operations can be 

appropriately reported on IRS schedules C or F.61 The requirement that the revenue be reported 

on Schedule F thus may present an impediment for some producers. Many aquaculturists were 

fisherman who transitioned to aquaculture production as populations of wild bivalves became 

more limited. It is less common for a farmer or rancher to become a bivalve aquaculturist. 

Consequently, a choice to use schedule C to report the enterprise income for tax purposes may 

present a barrier to eligibility for insurance, especially for vertically integrated enterprises. 

There is some flexibility in the use of Schedule F data in the establishment of an insurance 

contract for AGR insurance. The standards for AGR allow for the preparation of substitute 

Schedule F forms, while AGR-Lite allows ―other IRS Schedules that contain allowable income 

and expense information‖ to be used. Nonetheless, the additional paperwork and bookkeeping 

requirements may be perceived by producers as a barrier to participation.

AGR insurance is available in all counties in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, as well as in specified counties in 

California, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

Washington. Consequently, as currently available, AGR would exclude insurance of bivalve 

aquaculture in Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Texas. Adjustments to the counties where AGR insurance is available 

would be required to provide bivalve aquaculture insurance in all counties in New York and 

Washington where bivalves are farmed.

AGR-Lite

The AGR-Lite insurance was first offered for crop year 2003. Like the AGR pilot, the AGR-Lite 

insurance provides protection against low revenue resulting from unavoidable natural events and 

 

59 USDA, RMA, 2007, Program Aid Number 1906, http://www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/rme/agr.pdf, accessed July, 2011.

60 USDA, RMA, 2007, Adjusted Gross revenue-Lite Policy Provisions (07-AGR-Lite), 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/2007/agr-lite.pdf, accessed August, 2011.

61 Internal Revenue Service employee 1000221259, personal communication, July, 2011.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

49

market fluctuations during the insurance year. Covered revenue includes income from 

agricultural plants, animals (including production from aquaculture in ―a controlled 

environment‖62), and animal products (such as eggs and milk).

The eligibility for AGR-Lite is similar to that for AGR, with the exception that the liability limit 

for AGR-Lite is $1 million and the limitation on animals and animal products is modified from 

an upper limit on the percentage of gross income that is allowable (AGR) to a provision that 

allows rejection of the application if the underwriting capacity for livestock has been exceeded. 

The constraint on liability introduces an occasional barrier to participation. Most operations are 

small, but an increase in size is an almost universal goal among producers. The issues with 

premium structure, as well as issues with coverage level links to diversity of production were 

clearly identified by producers as barriers to participation. The insurable causes of loss for 

AGR-Lite are consistent with those identified for AGR. The requirement that an aquaculture 

operation be structured in the same way for tax purposes for seven years likely discourages 

consideration of AGR-Lite by bivalve aquaculture producers. As noted previously, stakeholders 

indicated their operations changed substantially over relatively short time periods. One final 

barrier to participation is the requirement that the revenue be reported on Schedule F. While this 

seems logical once a producer has decided to participate in the AGR-Lite program, the 

requirement for historical records, which reflects appropriate underwriting standards, might 

require substantial changes in tax documents already filed and introduce challenges regarding 

documentation of the break-out of expenses into various aspects of a vertically integrated 

operation.

AGR-Lite is available in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming, as well as in specified counties in Alaska, New York, and Pennsylvania. 

Consequently, as currently available, AGR-Lite would exclude insurance of bivalve aquaculture 

in California and Louisiana, two states with substantial production already, and in Mississippi 

and Rhode Island, states with appropriate coastal waters for such production. Depending on the 

location of production, adjustments might need to be made in the counties in Alaska where 

AGR-Lite is available.

Conclusions Regarding the Adjusted Gross Revenue Insurance Approach for Insurance of 

Bivalve Aquaculture Production

There are many attractive elements of the adjusted gross revenue approach for insurance of 

bivalve aquaculture production. It eliminates some issues related to maintenance of a crop 

inventory, it establishes a clear set of documentation requirements, and it incorporates IRS fraud 

penalties as an incentive for appropriate behavior. That being said, simply insuring producers 

through the existing AGR and/or AGR-Lite products is sure to minimize participation by the 

aquaculture producer population in crop insurance programs. This has important implications 

for producer eligibility for both operating loans and disaster payments. 

 

62 USDA, RMA, 2007, Adjusted Gross Revenues Standards Handbook, FCIC-18050 (1-2007), page 7.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

50

SECTION VIII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Although modest in size, the U.S. bivalve aquaculture industry is vibrant and energetic. It has 

tremendous potential for growth and the potential to replace imported shellfish with domestic 

production. Currently, the United States imports more than 80 percent of its seafood, with 

approximately half of those imports derived from aquaculture operations. While the U.S. 

agricultural trade balance is favorable, the seafood trade deficit has grown to over $9 billion. 

According to the 2010 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report on the State of 

World Fisheries and Aquaculture, the United States ranks 13th in total aquaculture production. 

Total U.S. aquaculture production is about $1 billion annually. Only about 20 percent of U.S. 

aquaculture production is of marine species; the farming of bivalves accounts for about twothirds of total U.S. marine aquaculture production.63

The bivalve aquaculture industry in the United States is extremely diverse. The 2005 Census of 

Aquaculture and the 2007 Census of Agriculture reports document mollusk farming off shore 

from every coastal state with the exception of Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi, and Texas. 

Mollusk aquaculture was reported in Alabama and Texas in the 1998 Census of Aquaculture. A 

wide variety of species are produced. Good management practices are diverse, within a state and 

for a species. The production is managed for a variety of markets, including niche markets. This 

pattern is best illustrated by the number of sizes by which the hard clams are marketed.

Most bivalve aquaculture producers have modest operations. Nonetheless, stakeholders report 

an increase in the number of employees on a ―typical‖ operation and establishment of production 

as a primary source of income. As the industry has matured over the last decade, vertical 

integration within individual operations has increased. Consequently, a single operation may 

include hatchery, nursery, grow-out, processing, and even trucking. Less common is the 

incorporation of wholesale and retail sales into a grow-out operation. One effect of the increased 

complexity and sophistication of bivalve farms is higher capital costs. This in turn increases the 

need for risk management strategies, including crop insurance. 

As in most agricultural ventures, lending institutions tie operating loans to availability of and 

participation in insurance programs. Consequently, development of the industry is inhibited by 

the limited availability of appropriately priced insurance, while availability of insurance is 

limited by the size of the industry. A few producers indicated NAP provided sufficient 

―protection‖ to get a new start after a catastrophic loss. However, the limitations on NAP 

payments make this true for only the smallest operations. Where FCIC insurance is available, 

producers outside the pilot area feel they are at a substantial disadvantage. 

Over the course of interactions with stakeholders, the Contractor gathered feedback (Appendix 

A) from 27 producers, 4 processors, 5 extension officers, and 4 individuals representing the 

insurance industry. While stakeholder input nationwide addressed concerns about the impact of 

weather and regulatory requirements, much of the feedback was regionally disparate. In the Gulf 

Coast, much of the producer concern was tied to the potential for losses to pollution, reflecting 

the Deepwater Horizon spill. In the Northeast and Northwest, concerns focused on catastrophic 

 

63 United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011, Aquaculture in the United 

States, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/us/welcome.html, accessed July, 2011
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

51

weather and the implementation of regulatory programs increasing the cost of operations. 

Collectively, more than three quarters of respondents expressed the need for risk management 

related to weather; only a few producers discussed the potential for losses to disease and 

predation. Instead, regulatory issues and pollution were the predominant themes after the 

weather.

While AGR/AGR-Lite products seem an attractive insurance option for bivalve producers, some

expressed concerns that the requirements for this insurance are particularly burdensome for the 

industry. Limited diversification of production reduces the maximum amounts of insurance and 

coverage levels available to producers. Market vulnerability is not an insurable cause of loss 

under any federal crop insurance program, and should not be; yet separating the effects of the 

international market forces driving much of the revenue from farm-level price issues requires 

data that are currently not available.

The lack of publicly available production data makes the prospect for development of 

meaningful premium rates infeasible unless private data is obtained. Only in Virginia and the 

Pacific Northwest were there indications that farm-level data could and would be supplied for a 

development effort. As the Contractor is aware from numerous previous efforts, the potential for 

suitable data and obtaining the data itself are very different things. The Contractor‘s efforts to 

obtain any of these private data were not successful. Producers in other areas were either 

indifferent to the requirements for development of an RMA product, satisfied with the products 

available under the pilot programs, or too involved in their production activities to take time to 

communicate with the Contractor.

Any development effort would be challenging and could not simply mirror a field crop 

development effort. Producers did not express a high degree of satisfaction with the existing 

Cultivated Clam program; hence, a new model likely will be needed. To be feasible and 

successful, in addition to being supported by appropriate production and pricing data, any 

development would need to:

 Address the many unique aspects of production of bivalves, including the substantial 

diversity between types and locales; 

 Acknowledge substantial producer and unit level differences in production and 

production potential;

 Incorporate appropriate underwriting. Fortunately, good management practices in these 

regions are more clearly delineated than they were ten years ago. Simply defining 

predominant practices is a basic essential to developing any product and has been very 

difficult to date.

 Obtain sufficient producer-level (or unit-level) production data over a series of years in a 

geographic region representative of the proposed pilot region. Ideally, these would 

represent a diversity of producers within the region and contain yield information in 

consistent terms through time.

 Obtain broadly representative market pricing information over a series of seasons (as 

production is marketed year-round, a continual series would be more useful than annual 

aggregations) for the equivalent of ―farm-gate‖ production before any post harvest valueadded costs are incurred.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

52

As the industry grows nationwide and matures in other states, the lessons learned in the existing 

Cultivated Clam Pilot and Louisiana Oyster GRP pilot might support the expansion of the 

industry and the subsequent improvement of the existing risk management tools. However, 

under the requirements for feasibility outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) for this study, 

with currently available data, development of crop insurance for bivalve production is not 

feasible. 
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

Appendix A

Stakeholder Input

Exhibit 1. Listening Session Agenda

Exhibit 2. Stakeholder Comments

Exhibit 3. Sources of Producer Input
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A1

Exhibit 1. Listening Session Agenda
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A2

Bivalve Aquaculture Insurance Feasibility Study

Listening Session Agenda

Introductions

 Watts and Associates, Inc.

 Attendees

W&A is under contract with the United States Department of 

Agriculture Risk Management Agency to make an assessment of 

feasibility under the Crop Insurance Act

 Background Information 

 FCIC Insurance Feasibility Contracts

 W&A History and Capabilities

Purpose

 Identify risks

 Identify insurance issues 

 Identify interest in federally subsidized crop insurance

Feedback

 Interest

 Risks

 Production Activities

 Markets

 Available Data

Questions
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A3

Exhibit 2. Stakeholder Comments (sorted by theme1)

 

1 Comments were made by producers unless marked with an (e) to identify a comment made by an extension agent, an (i) to 

identify a comments made by an insurance industry stakeholder, or a (pr) to identify a comment made by a processor. The 

Contractor believes all processors who made comments were also producers.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A4

Comments addressing whether producers have knowledge of crop insurance programs

If the price is right I would be interested.

I would be interested.

Depends on the price.

How much would it cost?

After the spill we didn‘t get a dime from the insurance.

The insurance we have isn‘t worth a [expletive deleted].

I buy the clam insurance but it hasn‘t paid off yet.

The NAP insurance [sic] is all I need. (pr)

Where can I get a copy of a policy?

Does the government insurance cover me for liability?

How about business interruption?

I don‘t believe there is insurance available in North Carolina for oysters. 

There‘s a lot of history in Florida that has created the problem there. (i)

For AGR, very few people farm more than one species. 

AGR rates are three times what they should be. (i)

I don‘t see anyone being willing to buy AGR [as it is currently structured]. (e)

The GRP approach might be a reasonable thing to do.

We‘re interested.

Our company has been coming to the table [to discuss insurance with the Government] for 

three years.

Either revise the insurance or drop it.

We [don‘t feel] people at RMA have been listening.

There are a lot of companies that feel the product doesn‘t reflect current practices.

The unit structure doesn‘t reflect our risk or practices. Two separate areas with separate 

leases are treated as a single entity when they can‘t be treated that way.

It doesn‘t make sense to base aquaculture insurance on the structures for land based crops.

The definitions in the [clam] insurance just don‘t make sense the way things are done.

We are just good at what we do and pray for good weather.

This is apples [field crops] and oranges [aquaculture].

The risks in the clam insurance are the ones that matter.

A catastrophic policy is what we need.

We would buy-up.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A5

We need something different from what we have.

Comments addressing producers risk management needs

Salinity doesn‘t affect everyone in the [bay or estuary] the same. (e)

The current insurance risks are right: salinity, freeze, hurricane, storm surge.

What species would be covered?

For AGR, very few people farm more than one species. 

What risks would be insured? We just don‘t see losses outside normal attrition.

The Army Corps [of Engineers] is really messing with our crops.

The GRP approach might be a reasonable thing to do.

Each operation is different. Even two sides of a stream will be different.

Either revise the insurance or drop it.

Sit down and talk with us about how we actually do things.

The unit structure doesn‘t reflect our risk or practices. Two separate areas with separate 

leases are treated as a single entity when they can‘t be treated that way.

Crops a short distance away may have totally different productive potential.

We are just good at what we do and pray for good weather.

Major weather events are our biggest concern.

We try to control everything we can.

The risks in the clam insurance are the ones that matter.

A catastrophic policy is what we need.

We would buy-up.

We need something different from what we have.

We are open to anything that will give us some [coverage].

Comments addressing willingness to participate in a crop insurance program

If the price is right I would be interested.

I would be interested.

Depends on the price.

How much would it cost?

The insurance we have isn‘t worth a [expletive deleted].

The NAP insurance [sic] is all I need. (pr)

AGR rates are three times what they should be. (i)
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A6

I don‘t see anyone being willing to buy AGR [as it is currently structured]. (e)

The industry is growing and we need insurance to keep it growing.

The GRP approach might be a reasonable thing to do.

Our company has been coming to the table for three years.

We‘re frustrated. 

Either revise the insurance or drop it.

There‘s a lot of money in aquaculture. If we could just get started with something that works 

for aquaculture....

A catastrophic policy is what we need [for oysters].

We would buy-up.

We need something different from what we have.

We are open to anything that will give us some [coverage].

Comments addressing what improvements are needed to enhance the effectiveness of the 

existing insurance programs

The NAP insurance [sic] is all I need. (pr).

There‘s a lot of history in Florida that has created the problem there. (i)

Florida is an outlier.

What species would be covered?

I don‘t see anyone being willing to buy AGR [as it is currently structured]. (e)

Each operation is different. Even two sides of a stream will be different.

Either revise the insurance or drop it.

The unit structure doesn‘t reflect our risk or practices. Two separate areas with separate 

leases are treated as a single entity when they can‘t be treated that way.

There is a lot of interest [in Virginia] in sharing our thoughts about how the insurance [could 

be improved or should be structured].

It doesn‘t make sense to base aquaculture insurance on the structures for land based crops.

Crops a short distance away may have totally different productive potential.

The definitions in the [clam] insurance just don‘t make sense the way things are done.

The 30% [natural] loss has nothing to do with our reality.

We [Virginia] have what it takes to develop a program that is actuarially sound.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A7

Comments addressing other concerns or issues with insurance

After the spill we didn‘t get a dime from the insurance.

Salinity doesn‘t affect everyone in the [bay or estuary] the same. (e)

The current insurance risks are right: salinity, freeze, hurricane, storm surge.

There‘s a lot of history in Florida that has created the problem there. (i)

Florida is an outlier.

The industry is growing and we need insurance to keep it growing.

The GRP approach might be a reasonable thing to do.

Each operation is different. Even two sides of a stream will be different.

Regardless of the insurance structure, we will manage our crop to get the best crop. The 

insurance is asking us to use practices that have been obsolete for 20 years.

There are a lot of companies that feel the product doesn‘t reflect current practices.

The unit structure doesn‘t reflect our risk or practices. Two separate areas with separate 

leases are treated as a single entity when they can‘t be treated that way.

There is a lot of interest [in Virginia] in sharing our thoughts about how the insurance [could 

be improved or should be structured].

It doesn‘t make sense to base aquaculture insurance on the structures for land based crops.

Crops a short distance away may have totally different productive potential.

The definitions in the [clam] insurance just don‘t make sense the way things are done.

There‘s a lot of money in aquaculture. If we could just get started with something that works 

for aquaculture....

This is apples [field crops] and oranges [aquaculture].

Major weather events are our biggest concern.

The risks in the clam insurance are the ones that matter.

A catastrophic policy is what we need.

We would buy-up.

We need something different from what we have.

We are open to anything that will give us some [coverage].

We have what it takes to develop a program that is actuarially sound.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A8

Comments addressing any issues, policy limitations or other factors associated with the 

existing pilot insurance programs that have inferred or required the growers to change 

there farming practices to meet insurability requirements

Regardless of the insurance structure, we will manage our crop to get the best crop. The 

insurance is asking us to use practices that have been obsolete for 20 years.

There are a lot of companies that feel the product doesn‘t reflect current practices.

The unit structure doesn‘t reflect our risk or practices. Two separate areas with separate 

leases are treated as a single entity when they can‘t be treated that way.

Comments addressing potential underwriting requirements

There‘s a lot of history in Florida that has created the problem there. (i)

Florida is an outlier.

The GRP approach might be a reasonable thing to do.

Each operation is different. Even two sides of a stream will be different.

Either revise the insurance or drop it.

Regardless of the insurance structure, we will manage our crop to get the best crop. The 

insurance is asking us to use practices that have been obsolete for 20 years.

There are a lot of companies that feel the product doesn‘t reflect current practices.

The unit structure doesn‘t reflect our risk or practices. Two separate areas with separate 

leases are treated as a single entity when they can‘t be treated that way.

We can track stuff month to month with oysters [but not with clams].

There is no question we know what goes in and what comes out.

We keep track of bags, cages, lines. We all do that.

Even if it is under a net, we know what we have.

The 30% [natural] loss has nothing to do with our reality.

Every clam counts. We know what we have.

Virginia has reasonably mature clam and oyster industry. We have enough shellfish 

aquaculture going on to merit further study.

We have what it takes to develop a program that is actuarially sound.

Comments addressing what type of risk management model/plan of insurance would be 

appropriate for the crop

The NAP insurance [sic] is all I need. (pr)

For AGR, very few people farm more than one species. 

AGR rates are three times what they should be. (i)
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A9

I don‘t see anyone being willing to buy AGR [as it is currently structured]. (e)

The industry is growing and we need insurance to keep it growing.

The GRP approach might be a reasonable thing to do.

Either revise the insurance or drop it.

There is a lot of interest [in Virginia] in sharing our thoughts about how the insurance [could 

be improved or should be structured].

It doesn‘t make sense to base aquaculture insurance on the structures for land based crops.

There‘s a lot of money in aquaculture. If we could just get started with something that works 

for aquaculture....

This is apples [field crops] and oranges [aquaculture].

A catastrophic policy is what we need.

We would buy-up.

We need something different from what we have.

I would need to talk to people about how they feel about an inventory approach to insurance.

We are open to anything that will give us some [coverage].

Comments addressing pricing for the crop

I pay as little as I can. (pr)

I sell for what the market will bear.

Each sale is a one-off deal. (pr)

There isn‘t really a market price. What I can sell a clam for affects what I am willing to pay. 

(pr)

Comments addressing data availability

I have thirty years of records that I could share.

I have production data from 2000 through the current year.

I would share my records, but I‘m not sure you could understand them.

We [don‘t feel] people at RMA have been listening.

We can track stuff month to month with oysters [but not with clams].

There is no question we know what goes in and what comes out.

We keep track of bags, cages, lines. We all do that.

Even if it is under a net, we know what we have.

The 30% [natural] loss has nothing to do with our reality.

Every clam counts. We know what we have.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A10

Most of my records are paper records prior to last year.

We would open our books.

We would be happy to collate our records for you.
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18764/0001

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A11

Exhibit 3. Sources of Stakeholder Input
Feasibility Report for Insuring Bivalve Species

Use or disclosure of information or data Risk Management Agency

contained on this sheet is subject to the Contract No: D11PX18748

restrictions on the title page of this report.

A12

Sources of Stakeholder Input (by State)

Input was obtained from stakeholders in the states shaded green.