A quacultural Engineering 6 ( 1987) 111 - 126

Submersible Structures for Shellfish Culture

G. W. R o b e r t s o n , M. J. Cashin, J o h n H. Merritt Canadian Institute of Fisheries Technology,TechnicalUniversityof Nova Scotia, PO Box 1000, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4, Canada
and

E. K o l b e Department of AgriculturalEngineering,Oregon State University,Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3906, USA

ABSTRACT Recent developments in aquaculture in Atlantic Canada have demonstrated a need for suitable structures for the growing of mussels and oyster~. One of the greatest difficulties encountered has been damage to rafts and other equipment caused by winter ice. In order to avoid this damage and some other difficulties, a growing system based on submersible structures has been proposed. Accordingly, four prototype systems made largely of wood with plastic vessels for floatation have been built and tested over a period of 18 months. The results have demonstrated the feasibility of submersible systems based on the prototypes.

INTRODUCTION Mussel and oyster culture Within the last ten years, there have been significant developments in off-bottom shellfish aquaculture in Atlantic Canada. Species that have been grown commercially using this technique include blue mussels (Mytilus edulis ), the native oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ), the European flat oyster ( Ostrea edulis) and scallops (Placopecten magellanicus). The grow-out technology used in Atlantic Canada has been borrowed from Japan, the United States and Europe. In a few instances local 111 Aquacuttural Engineering 0144-8609/87/S03.50-- Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England. 1987. Printed in Great Britain

112

G. W. Robertson, M. J. Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

growers have developed some innovative techniques to suit their particular needs. An expensive and critical part of the grow-out technology, namely floatation, has not been developed to suit conditions in Atlantic Canada. The most common floatation used is a lobster buoy of expanded polystyrene. Experience has shown this type to be inadequate because of the severe winter conditions the industry faces. Two of the main difficulties encountered are extreme winter damage from ice and water absorption by the buoys when they are sunk to avoid ice. Also, systems based on wooden rafts have been used. The rafts have suffered damage from the break-up of winter ice, even where they have been moved to a sheltered area before the onset of winter. It is reckoned that major developments in off-bottom shellfish aquaculture will rely primarily on two species: the blue mussel and the European flat oyster. The future success of the industry depends to some extent on finding appropriate floatation, however, to suit winter conditions in Atlantic Canada. Within the next 10 years, annual production of blue mussels is expected to reach 9 000 t (whole mussel in the shell) from the present level, mostly in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, of about 1500 t. The corresponding anticipated output for oysters is 2000 t. The production cycle for these species is in the range of 1 to 3 years depending on location. Based on these considerations and on current costs, annual expenditure for floatation, for materials only, can be expected to approach SCAN 500 000. In view of the need to reduce the difficulties encountered with the arrangements in use, especially the damage caused by ice, the present work was done to develop a submersible floatation system that would suit conditions in Atlantic Canada.

Floatation arrangements
Descriptions of various floatation arrangements for shellfish culture have been presented in the literature. These include raft culture in general and a few descriptions of submersible structures in particular. The University of Maine Sea Grant Program supported a project to develop a submersible raft for the culture of oysters. Two brief descriptions of this project (Anon, 1972; Schneider and Morin, 1973) indicate the submersible structure to be complex and expensive. Lifetime of the structure was not projected. Contact with the University of Maine Sea Grant Program has produced no further information on use or recent development of the concept. Kerr et al. (1980) briefly describe a few submersible raft concepts applicable to rigid floor cages for the culture of

Submersible structures for shellfish culture

113

flatfish. Inflatable collars allow the cage to rise to the surface for harvest, cleaning and sorting. Korringa (1976) writes about a submersible system used in the northwestern section of the Black Sea in the USSR. In this region, ice and gale winds threaten the mussel 'parks' in winter, therefore it was necessary to develop a hibernation system. This system consisted of metal frames, each about 4.5 m in length and capable of holding 24 collectors, with half-grown mussels. PVC floats were attached to the top-side of the structure, while a cast iron anchor (approximately 300 kg) was attached to the bottom of the structure. This enabled the structure to maintain itself in an upright vertical position at a suitable depth below ice and wave action. Divers would re-surface the structures when feasible, sometime in the spring. Submerged culture of the shellfish might employ a support structure resting on the sea floor. Meixner (1976) describes such a subsurface frame supporting tray-reared oysters; it is marked at the surface by a single buoy. A barge or work boat periodically hoists the entire frame to the surface for harvesting, sorting and cleaning. Although good growth rates were reported for this German operation, economics was not discussed. A similar frame arangement, used to support string culture of oysters in New England, was reported by Matthiessen and Smith (1979). It was less than successful for reasons related more to the growth rates (location) and culture technique, than to the support equipment. Suspended culture of oysters and mussels from permanently moored rafts is a much more common practice. Milne (1972) describes many raft designs around the world, most commonly supporting string culture of oysters and/or rope culture of mussels. Floatation (at that stage of aquaculture development) was often provided by expanded plastics such as polystyrene (Shaw, 1971 ) with concrete, fiberglass, metal drums (Quasim et al., 1977) and bamboo poles also used in various locations. Good results and long raft life (about 10 years to date) have been experienced by commercial growers using aluminum rafts in Lake Bras d'Or, Nova Scotia. Practice on the US west coast has included the suspended culture of oysters using lantern nets, strings and trays. Quayle (1971) describes the string culture of oysters in British Columbia, using log rafts as the support structure. Heritage (1983) has reported on a mussel culture project in British Columbia in which both rafts with polystyrene floatation and longline systems were used. There were considerable losses of mussels from predation by waterfowl; this is a worldwide problem. Mussel culture from rafts has been practised in Puget Sound, Washington.

114

G. W. Robertson, M. J. Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

Construction of rafts varies with the grower. Several minor variations of a design for support of tray-cultured oysters are described in a series of papers on Australian research. In most of the tests, trays were slung beneath rafts constructed of plastic barrels in hardwood frames (Wisely et al., 1979b, c,d). Some rafts were constructed of 4-in plastic pipe, formed into a rectangular frame (Wisely et al., 1979a). Tolosa (1978) describes a ferro-cement buoy design proposed for long-line suspended mussel culture in the Philippines. Such a culture technique is common in New Zealand for the green-lipped mussel and has been described for oysters in Japan (Milne, 1972). Glass-reinforced plastic has been introduced into large rafts in Ireland (Hancock, 1982) and Spain (Figueras, 1982) in an effort to increase the life and reduce maintenance and the incidence of failure, particularly of buoyancy components. One raft design reported uses large polystyrene blocks to float the main support frame. However, ApriU and Maurer (1976) describe the difficulties of maintaining these types of rafts in open areas of Delaware Bay, due primarily to boating traffic and wave action. They further question the economics of raft culture in areas south of New England (given the market values in 1976). Such a question has also been raised by Matthiessen and Smith (1979) who discuss the economics of several culture techniques for a small producer in southern New England. They felt that, at a local oyster sale price of SUS 0"12 apiece, raft culture was not viable. Observations on mussel culture in a sheltered location in northern Norway, using a system of lines, floats and anchors, have been made by Wallace (1983). There were considerable difficulties caused by the formation of winter ice. Figueras (1982) has pointed out that when mussels are agitated by raft movement they close up and cease to feed, with consequent lack of growth. This factor has tended to rule out some exposed sites that would be attractive otherwise and suggests that lower, semi-submerged platforms would enable the exploitation of exposed sites and, as a further advantage, would enable the use of shorter, more economical ropes. It is interesting to note that in Ireland (Hancock, 1982) timber components of rafts have been pressure treated with preservatives, evidently without harm to shellfish. Also there is evidence to show that copper components can be used to prevent bio-fouling without detrimental effects (Huguenin and Huguenin, 1982).

Design guidelines
It appeared that concepts for submersible structures suitable for Atlantic Canada could not be adopted altogether from practices reported else-

Submersible structures for shellfish culture

115

where. Therefore it was considered necessary to develop new designs. The following general guidelines were used: (1) The structure with suspended shellfish collectors must be easily submerged to a depth of 1"5 m or more below the surface. Ordinarily this would take place in winter to avoid damage and loss by floating ice. Submerging at other times may be desirable, however, depending upon location in order to: prevent a surface concentration of mussel larvae from settling on oysters; avoid collisions with surface craft; minimize damage to structures due to excessive wakes from large vessels or from waves resulting from storms; decrease chance of damage or theft by passers-by; prevent exposure to possible surface pollutants, for example from a small oil spill; deal with possible local residents' complaints that floating structures affect their visual enjoyment of the shore area. (2) Configuration of the structure must be compatible with common maintenance and harvesting p r o c e d u r e s - hauling collectors or nets into a boat, or hoisting nets for cleaning and/or sorting. (3) The structures must be rugged enough to withstand handling during maintenance and deployment and wave and current action during moorage. (4) Air floatation (if used) cannot be exposed above water because of potential rifle shots from vandals, especially during the hunting season. (5) The structures, over their expected lifetime, should not be susceptible to marine borer damage since in some areas borer populations are common. Nor can certain wood preservatives be used without evidence that their use will have no effect on the shellfish or endanger public health. (6) On the assumption that the life of the structure would be at least 7 years, the cost of materials should not exceed SCAN 5.00 per mussel collector (30 kg) or a corresponding value of SCAN 10.00 per oyster lantern net (60 kg). (All costs given below are for the year 1983.) MATERIALS A N D METHODS
General considerations

After a review of various alternatives, principally arrangements based on lines and floats and on rafts, it was decided to develop submersible rafts.

116

G. W. Robertson, M. Z Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

This preference was based largely on the view that servicing and harvesting would be easier. Furthermore, it was concluded that air floatation using plastic vessels should be examined and that wood as the main material of construction for the raft and anchors of concrete and/or stone should be used. Three rafts based on the first design, Prototype I, were placed in the water on site at Beaver Harbour, Nova Scotia, in July 1983. Three more Prototypes, II, III and IV followed late in 1983. Observations were made until December 1984. Mussels and oysters were being grown cbmmercially at Beaver Harbour, by suspended culture from surface rafts made of wood with blocks of expanded polystyrene for floatation. The mussels were grown on collectors of 'Vexar' plastic mesh and the oysters in lantern nets. The harbour is large with a substantial wharf and is well sheltered, partly by islands. There was not much boat traffic. Water depth over much of the harbour was in the region of 10 m and the height of tide was approximately 1-5 m. Detailed calculations (not presented) were made on each raft design in order to estimate raft weight and carrying capacity and to determine stability when submerged and when floating. The number of mussel collectors to be carried by the rafts (noted in the Figure captions) was calculated on the assumptions that the top of the raft would be 1.5 m below the water surface at low tide and 3-0 m below at high tide and that the maximum weight, in air, of each collector with mature mussels would be 45 kg. No buoyancy was attributed to the wood. This left a substantial margin of safety for fouling of the raft, etc. in that the normal weight of the collector with mature mussels was 30 kg and the weight at which the raft would lose buoyancy and sink was reckoned to be 53 kg. Some mussel collectors were installed on the rafts in the trials but not up to the rated capacity in all cases. A 6-m fiberglass service boat, used for general operations at Beaver Harbour, was used to carry out much of the work on site but a larger (fishing) vessel had to be used on one occasion, for installation of the largest raft, Prototype II. A small portable air compressor was used to provide air for floatation and scuba diving gear was used by two divers who assisted in the operations.

Prototype I
Prototype I, shown in a sketch in Fig. 1, was based on an initial concept. Three models were built. The cross members were for the support of

Submersible structures for shellfish culture

117

Fig. 1. Prototype I (model 3). Overall dimensions: 1.2 x 1.8 x 3.7 m high. Buoyancy:
plastic pipe. 204 mm diameter, 2 x 43 dm3. Anchor: modified concrete building block, 25 kg. Number of mussel collectors: 7 (210 kg). seven mussel collectors. Two lengths of plastic sewer pipe c a p p e d at the top and o p e n at the b o t t o m were used for floatation. Air could be p u m p e d into or exhausted from the pipes by means of a U-tube m a d e especially for the p u r p o s e and c o n n e c t e d to the air compressor. Alternatively, a diver could admit air directly from his own air supply. After tests on the first m o d e l of Prototype I in a swimming pool and some modifications, the three models of Prototype I, with only minor differences between them, were built and deployed on site.

118

G. W. Robertson, M. J. Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

Prototype II
Prototype II, shown in Fig. 2, was designed to carry 89 mussel collectors. Plastic barrels were used for floatation. They were available at low cost from food processors. Each barrel had two small openings at the top (bottom as installed in the raft). One opening, 38 mm in diameter, was left uncapped. The other, larger, opening was fitted with a cap through which a small rigid plastic pipe was inserted in order to allow the passage

Fig. 2. Prototype 11. Overall dimensions: 3.7 x 3.7 x 4.6 m high. Buoyancy: 8 plastic barrels, each 214 dm a. Anchor: 6 half-barrels of concrete, approx. 1400 kg. Number of mussel collectors: 89 (2670 kg).

Submersible structures for shellfish culture

119

of air into and out of the barrel. These pipes were connected together in two sets of four barrels by lines of flexible PVC tubes with valves. Thus the top four barrels were used by themselves to provide the required buoyancy when submerged and when raising the raft to the surface. Air was admitted to the bottom set only after the raft had surfaced, in order to raise the supports clear of the water surface for ease of servicing and harvesting. The loose ends of the plastic tubes were attached to the top of the raft when not in use and recovered by divers when required. The anchor for Prototype II consisted of six half-barrels (ordinary steel drums of 200-liter capacity) filled with concrete and connected to the raft by chains imbedded in the concrete, rope and shackles which allowed easy connection and avoided twisting and wear of the line and connections. Its weight was 1420 kg. A small winch was installed on a surface raft, one of the regular rafts used on the site, in order to carry the anchor to the desired location. It was used to raise the anchor at high tide, from a point where the anchor had been deposited on the shore at low tide. A fishing vessel was used to assist with the towing and positioning of the raft and anchor.

Prototype III
Prototype III, shown in Fig. 3, was along lines similar to Prototype II but smaller with only one barrel and for 22 mussel collectors. It was not designed to be stable, by itself, when floating at the surface but required the use of a hoist in the service boat to maintain stability. The hoist is shown in Fig. 4. The anchor consisted of one-quarter of a barrel filled with concrete, connected as for Prototype II, weighing 120 kg. The raft, with anchor attached, was floated and towed into position using the small service boat.

Prototype IV
Prototype IV, shown in Fig. 5, was designed to carry 74 mussel collectors. Unlike the other rafts it rested on the sea bed, standing on four legs of 73 mm (3-in schedule 40) steel pipe. It was made from a regular surface raft with the addition of the legs and a floatation system including plastic barrels, air lines, etc. Fish netting was installed at the corners of the raft to retain beach-stones which were used as ballast. Cones (not shown in Fig. 5) were attached to the legs to discourage predators. Because this raft tended to tip while being submerged or raised, it was necessary to build a separate floatation device to stabilize it. This stabili-

120

G. W. Robertson, M. J. Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

Fig. 3. Prototype Ili. Overall dimensions: 1.2 x 1.2 x 0-9 m high. Buoyancy: 1 plastic barrel, 214 dm 3. Anchor: 1/4 barrel of concrete, approx. 120 kg. Number of mussel collectors: 22 (660 kg). zation unit, consisting of a steel f r a m e and four barrels with its o w n p n e u m a t i c system, was attached temporarily to the top of the raft, in the middle. It was used only w h e n lowering or raising the raft, so could have b e e n used with a n u m b e r of rafts.

Submersible structures for shellfish culture

121

b
e

(1

Fig. 4. Hoist apparatus for Prototype III. (a) Column, length 1.8 m x 51 mm x 51 mm hollow steel section; (b) boom, length 1.2 m x 51 mmx 51 ram; (c) built-up base to fit existing mount; (d) 1-t hand winch; (e) pulley; (f) nylon rope.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Prototype I
Prototype I p r o v e d to be unsuitable on two main counts: the cost was too high and problems were experienced in maintaining the raft stable and stationary. T h e cost of materials per mussel collector was S C A N 10.54 of which the plastic pipe accounted for m o r e than S C A N 5.00, for the cheapest model. T h e Prototype I rafts were found to have drifted from theft original locations and to have sunk, with loss of mussels, on two occasions after stormy weather. Observations on the a m o u n t of air in the pipes showed that the rate of loss of air, which would have been due mainly to diffusion at the water/air interface, was intolerably high. This loss of air contributed to the difficulties.

122

G. W. Robertson, M. J. Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

Fig. 5. Prototype IV. Overall dimensions: 3.7 x 3.7 x 3.0 m high. Buoyancy: 4 plastic barrels, each 214 dm3.Anchor: not required. Number of mussel collectors: 74 (2220 kg). Prototype II Prototype II functioned as anticipated but on account of its large size was difficult to manouver into position and required deep water, approximately 10 m. Also, with the small compressor, the time required to raise the raft was about 7 min. In contrast to Prototype I, the observed rate of loss of air from the barrels was low. T h e materials cost per mussel collector was S C A N 4.14, not including any allowance for the extra equipment (surface raft and winch and extra boat) required.

Prototype III
Prototype III was manouvered easily and operation of the small hoist from the service vessel was straightforward. T h e materials cost was S C A N 2.65 per mussel collector, not including the cost of the hoist, lower than the cost for any of the other rafts. T h e costs of the various components for Prototype III are listed in Table 1.

Submersible structuresfor shellfish culture

123

TABLE 1 Material Costs for Prototype III (1983 SCAN)

Component Main flame Fasteners Material 38 89 mm (nominal 2 4") spruce lumber 9.5 63.5 mm (s ~ 2~")galvanized bolt assembly 9.5 102 mm (] 4") galvanized bolt assembly 51 x51 x 3 m m ( 2 x 2 x ~ ' ) aluminum angle High density polyethylene barrel 13 mm (")schedule 40 PVC pipe 13 mm (")schedule 40 PVC 90 elbow 6 mm (]') clear PVC tubing Concrete and 45 gallon steel drum 13 mm (")polyethylene rope 13 mm (")galvanized thimble 9.5 mm (]') galvanized shackles Quantity 19.5m 36 4 1-2m 1 1.2 m 1 9"1 m 1/2 3-0 m 2 2 Total Cost 16.00 4.79 1-05 5.75 10-00 1.64 0-40 3.30 6.00 1.30 3"00 5.10 58.33

Corner bracket fasteners Floatation system

Anchor Anchor assembly

Prototype IV
P r o t o t y p e IV was installed not far f r o m shore in D e c e m b e r 1983 and there w e r e plans to m o v e it to d e e p e r water a few days later. A particularly severe s t o r m arose, however, b e f o r e the raft could be m o v e d . T h e raft was severely d a m a g e d and n o t r e p a i r e d and r e t u r n e d to the water until M a y 1984. T h e sea b e d was soft, and over the c o u r s e of the s u m m e r , the legs sank fully 1.5 m. Consequently, the collectors t o u c h e d the b e d and the mussels w e r e lost to predators. This raft might have given b e t t e r results on a firm bed. T h e materials cost was S C A N 5.33 p e r mussel collector, not including the cost of the stabilization unit.

Mussel growth and some other factors

T h e mussels g r o w n o n the s u b m e r g e d rafts w e r e c o m p a r e d visually with mussels g r o w n on the regular surface rafts. E x p e r i e n c e d observers concluded that the g r o w t h rates o n the s u b m e r g e d rafts w e r e at least as g o o d and possibly better. F u r t h e r observations w o u l d be required to determine the o u t p u t of mussels and of oysters and w h e t h e r the n o r m a l growth periods w o u l d apply.

124

G. W. Robertson, M. J. Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

There was no evidence of damage to any of the rafts through wood borer infestation. Substantial growths of seaweed, notably on Prototypes II and III, were observed when the rafts were brought to the surface and inspected in May 1984. Kelp had grown on Prototype II; it was confined to the top 2 m of the raft and was pulled off easily. Prototype M, in contrast, although it was within a few hundred metres of the other raft, was covered by a green alga that had to be scraped off. Based on these observations, almost certainly the growth of mussels on the submersible raft will be satisfactory. As far as infestation by wood borers is concerned, the present results are encouraging but the ti'ial period was too short and the raft sites too few to allow general conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS It was not possible to continue the observations beyond December 1984. Furthermore, conditions can vary from one site to another. Therefore only a few conclusions, based on results over a period of about 18 months in the field, can be reached. The results have shown that a submersible raft can be installed and serviced adequately, using air for floatation and with a simple service vessel and a few mechanical aids. Based on these observations, output of mussels and raft life are likely to be satisfactory, at a materials cost of less than SCAN 5.00 per mussel collector. Because of its low cost and ease of operation from a small boat, Prototype III would appear to be a suitable design for the Beaver Harbour site. Of course it would be possible to build a larger raft with similar characteristics. Also the need for assistance from a diver could be eliminated by the provision of an airtight buoyancy tank and a simple means of connecting and disconnecting the winch line at the top of the raft.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work was done under contract from the Department of Supply and Services for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with G. A. Post and M. Simmons of the Aquaculture Corporation of Nova Scotia who largely instigated the project.

Submersible structuresfor shellfish culture REFERENCES

125

Anon (1972). Design of submersible rafts for aquaculture and systems analysis of hatchery procedures. Univ. of Maine Sea Grant Program Report R/AG, pp. 23-5. Aprill, G. & Maurer, D. (1976). The feasibility of oyster raft culture in east coast estuaries. Aquaculture, 7, 147-60. Figueras, A. ( 1982). Mussel production set to rise. World Fishing, 31 ( 12 ), 30. Hancock, R. (1982). Irish mussel raft farming. World Fishing, 31 (5), 19. Heritage, G. D. (1983). A blue mussel, Mytilus edulis Linnaeus, culture pilot project in south coastal British Columbia. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 1174, i-vii, 1-27. Huguenin, J. E. & Huguenin, S. S. (1982). Biofouhng resistant shellfish trays. J. Shellfish Res., 2 ( 1 ), 41-6. Kerr, N. M., Gillespie, M. J., Hull, S. T. & Kingwell, S. J. (1980). The design, construction and location of marine floating cages. Presented as part of the Cage Rearing Symposium, University of Reading, 26-27 March 1980; sponsored by Institute of Fisheries Management. Korringa, P. (1976). Mussel fanning Russian-style in the Black Sea. In: Farming Marine Organisms Low in the Food Chain, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 207-31. Matthiessen, G. C. & Smith, L. J. (1979). Analysis of methods for the culture of Crassostrea virginica in New England. Proc. World Mariculture Soc., 10, 609-23. Meixner, R. (1976). Culture of Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in containers in German coastal waters. FAO Technical Conference on Aquaculture, Kyoto, Japan, 26 May-2 June 1976. Paper FIR: AQ/Conf/76/E.28. Milne, E H. (1972). Floating cages and rafts. In: Fish and Shellfish Farming in Coastal Waters, Fishing News Books Ltd, London, pp. 129-46. Quasim, S. Z., Parulekar, A. H., Harkantra, S. N., Ansari, Z. A. & Nail A. ( 1977). Aquaculture of Green Mussel Mytilus viridis L: Cultivation on ropes from floating rafts. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 6 (June), 15-25. Quayle, D. B. (1971 ). Pacific Oyster raft culture in British Columbia. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd Can., No. 178. Schneider, W. L. & Morin, R. H. (1973). Design of submersible rafts for aquaculture and systems analysis of hatchery procedures. Univ. of Maine Sea Grant Program Annual Report R/A6, pp. 28-30. Shaw, W. N. ( 1971 ). Oyster culture research -- Off-bottom growing techniques. The American Fish Farmer, August 1971, 16-21. Tolosa, R. T. (1978). Ferrocement buoys for mussel culture. SEAFDEC Quarterly Report, 2 (3), 22-4. Wallace, J. C. (1983). Spatfall and growth of the mussel, Mytilus edulis, in hanging culture in the Westfjord area (88 5' N), Norway. Aquaculture, 31 (1), 89-94. Wisely, B., Holliday, J. E. & Reid, B. L. (1979a). Experimental deepwater culture of the Sydney Rock Oyster (Crassostrea commercialis, Saccostrea cucullata ): II. Ponton Tray cultivation. Aquaculture, 16, 141-6. Wisely. B.. Holliday, J. E. & Reid, B. L. (1979b). Experimental deepwater

126

G. W. Robertson, M. J. Cashin, J. H. Merritt, E. Kolbe

culture of the Sydney Rock Oyster (Crassostrea commercialis): III. Raft cultivation of trayed oysters. Aquaculture, 17, 25-32. Wisely, B., HoUiday, J. E. & Reid, B. L. (1979c). Experimental deepwater culture of the Sydney Rock Oyster (Crassostrea commercialis): IV. Pilot production of raft oysters. Aquaculture, 17, 77-83. Wisely, B., Holliday, J. E. & Bennett, B. (1979d). Experimental deepwater culture of the Sydney Rock Oyster (Crassostrea commercialis): V. Commercial raft trials. Aquaculture, 18, 191-201.