NATIONAL MUSSEL S AND T PROGRAM

DOST MUSSEL Program B. Improved Grow-out Technology for Sustainable Mussel Industry

“Raft and Longline Culture of Green

Mussel, Perna viridis”
CARLOS C. BAYLON, Ph.D.
Program Leader

Liberato V. Laureta, UPV-(Iloilo) Renato C. Diocton, SSU-(Samar) Diony G. Cahilig, CapSU -(Capiz)
Project Leaders
2
Objectives

• Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two

hanging procedures in raft and long-line culture methods

• Establish the optimum space between hanging lines and spat

density for the raft and long-line method

• Determine the effect of food availability (primary production)

and stock density on the meat yield of mussels

• Compare growth and survival of hatchery-produced spats and

spats from the wild using raft and long-line method in sites with
potential for mussel culture
3
Culture Sites

• Canas Bay, Iloilo

• Maqueda Bay, Samar

• Sapian Bay, Capiz

4
 Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Construction of Raft
• 6x6 m bamboo raft

• Black plastic containers

(40 cm X 35 cm X 19 cm)
used as floats

• Four anchors (60” X 50” X

40”) tied on four sides

5
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Construction of Longline
• 50-m polypropylene rope

• Black plastic containers

(40 cm X 35 cm X 19 cm)
used as floats, 1 m apart

• Anchors (60” X 50” X 40”)

tied on both sides

6
 Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Stocking of Mussel

Collection from the Wild Manual Cutting Sorting and Counting

Deployment to the Raft/Longline Prophylactic Treatment (2ppm formalin ) Stocking of Mussel (200 pcs)
7
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Stocking of Mussel

Distance traveled from Sapian Bay to Cañas Bay (88.7 km) On-site stocking in Samar and Capiz
8
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Mussel Socks

Onion Bags (Samar) Cotton Gauze (Iloilo and Capiz) 9

Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Mussel hanger
• a two-meter long 10-mm
polyethylene (PE) rope
covered with cotton
gauze with attached
cylindrical cement sinker
weighing one kilogram

10
 Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Regular Monitoring and Laboratory Analyses

• Stock sampling
• Monthly water quality monitoring
• Phytoplankton Sampling
• Determination of Condition Index
• Organoleptic Analysis

11
 Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

RESULTS
Monthly Growth in Raft
10.0 Length 55.0 Weight
50.0 b
9.0 b 45.0
8.0 ILOILO
40.0
a SAMAR
7.0 35.0

Weight (g)
Length (cm)

CAPIZ
6.0 a 30.0
25.0
5.0
20.0 a
4.0 a
15.0
3.0 10.0
2.0 5.0
1.0 0.0
Initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Month Month

12
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Monthly Growth in Longline

10.0
Length 55.0 Weight b
9.0 b
50.0
8.0 45.0 ILOILO
a
7.0 a 40.0
SAMAR
Length (cm)

35.0

Weight (g)
6.0
30.0 CAPIZ
5.0 25.0
4.0 20.0
a
15.0
3.0 a
10.0
2.0 5.0
1.0 0.0
Initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Month Month

13
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods
Comparison of Growth in Raft and Longline
Length Weight
8.0 ILOILO a ILOILO a
Length (cm)

7.0 15.0

Weight (g)
a a
6.0 12.0
5.0 9.0 Longline
4.0 6.0
3.0 3.0 Raft
8.0 24.0
7.0 CAPIZ a 21.0 CAPIZ
Length (cm)

6.0 b 18.0 a

Weight (g)
5.0 15.0 b
4.0 12.0
3.0 9.0
6.0
2.0 3.0
10.0 0.0
9.0
a
b a
Length (cm)

8.0 SAMAR 50.0 SAMAR b

7.0

weight (g)
6.0 40.0
5.0 30.0
4.0 20.0
3.0 10.0
2.0 0.0
Initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Initial 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Month Month 14
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Percent Survival of Green Mussel in Different Sites

a
b b

a a

15
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Major Predators and Extraneous Organisms Attached to the Raft and Longline

16
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Condition Index in Cañas Bay, Iloilo

Raft Longline Significance

Iloilo 7.09 ± 0.25 7.37 ± 0.33 0.493

17
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Sensory Analysis of Cooked and Uncooked Mussels Cultured

in Longline and Raft in Cañas Bay, Iloilo

18
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods
Sensory Analysis of Cooked and Uncooked Mussels Cultured
in Longline and Raft in Maqueda Bay, Samar

19
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods
Economic Analysis of Raft and Longline (Iloilo)
Fixed Cost
RAFT LONGLINE
Item Qty Unit Unit Total Life Dep Item Qty Unit Unit Total Life Dep (6
Cost Span (6 mos) Cost Cost Span mos)
Bamboo 72 pc 70 5040 1.5 1680 (Yr)
Plastic Container 30 pc 35 1050 3 175 Tom weights 100 pc 15 1500 5 150
Binder 5 roll 75 375 1.5 125 Onion bag 25 bag 12 300 0.5 300

Anchor Weights 4 pc 600 2400 5 240 Polypropylene

64 m 30 1920 5 192
Polypropylene 40 m 30 1200 5 120 Rope

Rope PlasticContainer 51 pc 35 1785 5 178.5

Mussel Spats 8 pail 400 3200 0.5 3200 PE Rope(10mm) 1 roll 1650 1650 5 165
Tom weights 100 pc 15 1500 5 150 Anchor weights 2 pc 400 800 10 40
Onion bag 18 bag 6 108 0.5 108 PE Rope (8mm) 2.5 roll 650 1625 5 162.5
PE Rope(10mm) 0.5 roll 1650 825 0.5 825 Mussel Spats 5 pail 400 2000 0.5 2000
Labor (Cnstrn) 18 per 250 4500 1.5 1500 Labor (Cnstrn) 6 per 250 1500 5 150
20198 8123 13080 3338
60594 24369 39240 10014
20
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods

Economic Analysis of Raft and Longline (Iloilo)

Variable Cost

Variable Cost (Longline) Longline Raft

Labor (Safeguarding) 12000 12000
Fuel (10 Liters per month) 3600 3600
Labor (Stocking) 1500 1500
Repair (every 3 months) 1000 2000
Misc 1000 1000
TOTAL 19100 20100

21
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in
raft and longline culture methods
Economic Analysis of Raft and Longline (Iloilo)
Longline Raft
Total Fixed Costs 20,028 48,738
Total Variable Costs 19,100 20,100
Total Costs 39,128 68,838
Total Revenues (3 lines/raft 105,000 105,000
for 2 harvest)
Profit 65,872 36,162
Return on Investments 167. 87% 59.68%
Payback Period 0.596 year 1.68 years
Break-even price PhP 13.04 PhP 31.87
Assumptions (for revenue calculation): 50% survival, 200 mussels/hanger,
0.035 kg/mussel, 100 hangers, Php50/kg 22
Objective 2: Establish the optimum space between hanging lines and spat density for the raft
and long-line method

Space Between Hanging Lines and Spat Density Experiment

Experimental Diagram

23
Objective 2: Establish the optimum space between hanging lines and spat density for the raft
and long-line method

Growth in length in Cañas Bay, Iloilo

8.0
a a a a a
7.0 a
6.0

5.0
Length (cm)

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
100 200 400 100 200 400
0.5 1
Spat Density
Space

24
Objective 2: Establish the optimum space between hanging lines and spat density for the raft
and long-line method
Growth in weight in Cañas Bay, Iloilo
30.0
a
25.0 a
a a
a
20.0 a
Weight (g)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
100 200 400 100 200 400
0.5 1
Spat Density
Space

25
 Objective 3: Determine the effect of food availability (primary production) and stock density on
the meat yield of mussels

Culture in two sites with different levels of Chlorophyll a and Particulate Organic Matter (POM)

Monthly Chlorophyll a in two sites

0.18

0.16

0.14
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)

0.12

0.1
High Level of Chl a
0.08 (Lawi)
0.06 Low Level of Chl a
0.04 (Balcon)

0.02

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Month

26
Objective 3: Determine the effect of food availability (primary production) and stock density on
the meat yield of mussels

Monthly POM in two sites

4.5

3.5

3
POM (mg/L)

2.5
High Level of POM
2
(Lawi)
1.5
Low Level of POM
1 (Balcon)

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Month

27
Objective 3: Determine the effect of food availability (primary production) and stock density on
the meat yield of mussels

Pooled Chlorophyll a and POM between two sites

Site Mean±SE Significance

High 0.11±0.01
Chlorophyll a 0.009
Low 0.08±0.01
High 2.87±0.13
POM 0.009
Low 2.34±0.14

28
Objective 3: Determine the effect of food availability (primary production) and stock density on
the meat yield of mussels

Monthly phytoplankton in Lawi, Guimaras

180000
Dinoflagellates (Ceratium
160000
49%, Gymnodinium 16%,
140000 Protoperidinium 12%)
120000 Diatoms (Chaetoceros 63%,
Nitzschia 10, Hemialus 7%)
Cells/L

100000
80000
Green (Chlorella 45%,
60000 Nannochloropsis 45%,
40000 Euglena 10%)
20000 Blue Green (Oscillatoria
92%, Anacystis 8%)
0
November December January February March April
Month

29
Objective 3: Determine the effect of food availability (primary production) and stock density on
the meat yield of mussels

Monthly phytoplankton in Balcon Melliza, Guimaras

70000

60000 Dinoflagellates (Ceratium

70%, Protoperidinium 12%,
50000 Gymnodinium 8%)
Diatoms (Nitzschia 23%,
40000
Cells/L

Navicula 13%, Thalassionema

30000 15%)
Green (Nannochloropsis 77%,
20000 Chlorella 23%)
10000
Blue Green (Oscillatoria 100%
0
November December January February March April
Month

30
Objective 3: Determine the effect of food availability (primary production) and stock density on
the meat yield of mussels

Monthly growth in length

8
a
7

6
b
5
Length (cm)

0
Initial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Month

31
Objective 3: Determine the effect of food availability (primary production) and stock density on
the meat yield of mussels

Monthly growth in weight

30

25 a

20
Weight (g)

15

10 b

0
Initial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Month

32
Objective 4: Compare growth and survival of hatchery-produced spats and spats from the
wild using raft and long-line method in sites with potential for mussel culture

Culture of Hatchery-produced Spats and Spats from the Wild

Spat collector with hatchery- PVC pipes covering the spat collector
produced spats
33
Objective 4: Compare growth and survival of hatchery-produced spats and spats from the
wild using raft and long-line method in sites with potential for mussel culture

Monthly growth in length

7 a
a
6

5
Length (cm)

4 Wild

3 Hatchery-produced

1
Initial 1 2 3 4 5
Month

34
Refinement of the Longline Method

New design for longline

• 20-m PP rope as
main line
• Black plastic
containers used as
floaters, 2m apart
• Secondary line
added where
mussel hangers
are attached

35
Refinement of the Longline Method

Length of Socks Experiment

Different length of
socks
(1m, 2m, 3m)

36
Refinement of the Longline Method

Monthly growth
6 14.0
Length 13.0
Weight
5.5 1-m 1-m a
12.0
a
2-m a 11.0 2-m
5 a a
a 10.0
Length (cm)

3-m

Weight (g)
3-m
9.0
4.5
8.0
7.0
4
6.0
5.0
3.5
4.0
3 3.0
Initial 1st 2nd 3rd Initial 1st 2nd 3rd

37
Refinement of the Longline Method

Comparison of Onion Bag and Cotton Gauze as Mussel Sock

Onion bag (red) and

cotton gauze (white)

38
Refinement of the Longline Method
Monthly growth
8 35
a
7.5 Length Weight
a a
30
7
a
25
Length (cm)

6.5

Weight (g)
6 20 Cotton gauze
5.5
Onion bag
15
5
4.5 10
4
5
3.5
3 0
Initial 1 2 3 4 5 6 Initial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Month Month

39
THANK YOU!

40
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in raft and long-line culture methods

Growth Rate Using Raft and Longline in Three Sites

CULTURE Growth rate Growth rate

SITE
SYSTEM (cm/month) (g/month)

Raft Culture ILOILO 0.59 2.42

System
SAMAR 0.70 3.49

CAPIZ 0.74 2.86

Longline ILOILO 0.45 2.00

Culture
System SAMAR 0.70 3.49

CAPIZ 0.72 2.68

41
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in raft and long-line culture methods

42
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in raft and long-line culture methods

Monthly phytoplankton collected in Cañas Bay, Iloilo

43
Objective 1: Determine growth and survival of mussel spats using two hanging procedures in raft and long-line culture methods

Monthly phytoplankton collected in Maqueda Bay, Samar

44
Statistical Analyses

Length and weight in Cañas Bay, Iloilo

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Length Equal
variances 2.017 .162 -.117 51 .907 -.01913 .16301 -.34638 .30812
assumed
Equal
variances not -.111 36.377 .912 -.01913 .17167 -.36716 .32890
assumed
Weight Equal
variances .138 .712 1.891 51 .064 1.67939 .88822 -.10379 3.46257
assumed
Equal
variances not 1.929 50.263 .059 1.67939 .87057 -.06898 3.42776
assumed

45
 Length and weight in Maqueda Bay, Samar

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Length Equal
variances .812 .373 -5.005 42 .000 -.42091 .08410 -.59063 -.25118
assumed
Equal
variances
-5.005 41.981 .000 -.42091 .08410 -.59064 -.25118
not
assumed
Weight Equal
variances 1.713 .198 -5.726 42 .000 -3.78273 .66057 -5.11581 -2.44964
assumed
Equal
variances
-5.726 37.744 .000 -3.78273 .66057 -5.12028 -2.44517
not
assumed
46
 Length and weight in Sapian Bay, Capiz
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Length Equal
variances 41.438 .000 -8.088 34 .000 -.81759 .10109 -1.02303 -.61216
assumed
Equal
variances
-8.088 21.617 .000 -.81759 .10109 -1.02745 -.60773
not
assumed
Weight Equal
variances .297 .589 4.168 34 .000 1.13667 .27274 .58238 1.69095
assumed
Equal
variances
4.168 33.236 .000 1.13667 .27274 .58191 1.69142
not
assumed

47
 Percent survival in Canas Bay, Iloilo

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Survival Equal
variances 2.628 .180 6.223 4 .003 10.07667 1.61919 5.58107 14.57226
assumed

Equal
variances not 6.223 2.678 .012 10.07667 1.61919 4.55440 15.59893
assumed

48
 Percent survival in Maqueda Bay, Samar

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Survival Equal
variances .979 .379 -44.491 4 .000 -15.20667 .34179 -16.15564 -14.25770
assumed

Equal
variances
-44.491 3.293 .000 -15.20667 .34179 -16.24166 -14.17167
not
assumed

49
 Percent survival in Sapian Bay, Capiz

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Survival Equal
variances .647 .466 4.907 4 .008 4.66000 .94975 2.02306 7.29694
assumed
Equal
variances 4.907 3.660 .010 4.66000 .94975 1.92371 7.39629
not
assumed

50
 Space and Density
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Type III Sum of
Source Dependent Variable Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model Length 1.993a 5 .399 1.129 .376
Weight 139.227b 5 27.845 1.463 .244
Intercept Length 1129.882 1 1129.882 3.201E3 .000
Weight 9747.938 1 9747.938 512.166 .000
Space Length .002 1 .002 .007 .935
Weight 24.565 1 24.565 1.291 .269
Density Length .753 2 .376 1.066 .362
Weight 42.902 2 21.451 1.127 .343
Space * Density Length 1.204 2 .602 1.706 .206
Weight 50.325 2 25.162 1.322 .288
Error Length 7.412 21 .353
Weight 399.688 21 19.033
Total Length 1233.525 27
Weight 11488.631 27
Corrected Total Length 9.405 26
Weight 538.915 26
a. R Squared = .212 (Adjusted R Squared = .024)

b. R Squared = .258 (Adjusted R Squared = .082) 51

 Chl a and POM levels in two sites
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Length Equal
variances 2.052 .168 -4.247 19 .000 -1.76364 .41524 -2.63275 -.89453
assumed
Equal
variances -4.316 18.070 .000 -1.76364 .40859 -2.62181 -.90546
not
assumed
Weight Equal
variances 9.663 .006 -5.249 19 .000 -17.48473 3.33117 -24.45695 -10.51250
assumed
Equal
variances -5.398 15.526 .000 -17.48473 3.23929 -24.36879 -10.60067
not
assumed
52
 Pooled Chl a and POM levels
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Chlorophyll Equal
_a variances 2.767 .101 2.680 63 .009 .02687 .01002 .00684 .04690
assumed
Equal
variances
2.634 55.246 .011 .02687 .01020 .00643 .04731
not
assumed
POM Equal
variances .182 .671 2.706 63 .009 .52227 .19301 .13657 .90796
assumed
Equal
variances
2.739 63.000 .008 .52227 .19065 .14129 .90324
not
assumed

53
 Hatchery-produced spats and spats from wild

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Length Equal
variances .562 .458 -1.837 38 .074 -.22667 .12341 -.47650 .02317
assumed
Equal
variances -1.930 16.896 .071 -.22667 .11745 -.47459 .02126
not
assumed
54
 Cotton gauze and Onion bag
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Length Equal
variances 6.247 .021 .968 21 .344 .34697 .35841 -.39839 1.09233
assumed
Equal
variances
.944 15.044 .360 .34697 .36754 -.43622 1.13016
not
assumed
Weight Equal
variances 3.853 .063 1.755 21 .094 5.86523 3.34202 -1.08488 12.81533
assumed
Equal
variances
1.727 17.648 .102 5.86523 3.39578 -1.27925 13.00970
not
assumed
55
 Length of Socks

ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Length Between Groups .315 2 .157 .435 .652
Within Groups
10.134 28 .362
Total
10.449 30
Weight Between Groups 23.980 2 11.990 1.027 .371
Within Groups
326.985 28 11.678
Total
350.965 30

56
U N I V E R S I TY OF T H E P H I L I P PI NE S – V I S A YA S
Mi a gao , I l o ilo