Ikejime Not

 WBOC, Maryland Bill Could Boost Chesapeake Bay Watermen with Japanese Fishing Technique

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has thrown his support behind new legislation aimed at improving the Chesapeake Bay while bolstering the industries that rely on its waters.

The proposed Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act includes several measures designed to clean the bay and support local watermen. One provision in the bill would allow watermen to use a Japanese fish processing technique called ikejime without requiring a license. Ikejime, which involves driving a spike into a fish’s brain and threading a cord through its spine, is known for preserving the quality of the meat.

"It definitely adds a different level because when a fish is taken out of the water it can release adrenaline, and that adrenaline can release, I believe, lactic acid in the fish, which I think breaks down the muscles in the fish," said Nick Hargrove, owner of Wittman Wharf, a catfish processing plant.

Hargrove says ikejime could increase the value of fish sold by Maryland watermen. However, concerns remain over federal regulations. "It’s gonna be down to how the USDA views that. If they consider it a form of processing, then that's gonna cause a lot of issues for the fishermen to be able to perform those tasks on the boat and not in a controlled environment," Hargrove said.

Despite potential regulatory challenges, Hargrove believes the practice could benefit both processors and commercial fishermen. "In the world where fishermen are getting quota reductions all the time, to just do a simple process like this that can add more value to their catch is a win-win situation for both the processors and the commercial fishermen," he said.

Does is it really make the fish better? Is it more effective than the tried and true method of whacking the fish over the head with a baseball bat? I have my doubts. Fresh caught fish are pretty good without it, I can't imagine a significant improvement. It might help the taste be preserved during transport, shipping and handling, but only if it were practiced immediately. I wouldn't trust the average commercial fisherman to do that, they'd be more likely to pull it out of the tanks at the end of the day and do it to the whole catch, and then claim a bonus price. 

Those Newfangled Chesapeake Blues

Catfish, that is. From the Balmer Sun, the best explanation of the regulations that make the invasive Blue Catfish far less economical to commercially fish. As blue catfish overwhelm the Chesapeake Bay, barriers remain to weeding them out

Blue catfish, with their telltale whiskers and silvery cerulean skin, are likely even more hazardous than the snakeheads. Known to balloon in size by feeding on an incredible variety of estuarine life, the invasive catfish are gaining notoriety thanks to their abundance.

But Maryland seafood processors argue that the effort to remove blue cats from the bay for commercial sale has long been hampered by regulations. And even as the catfish continue to seize territory in the Chesapeake — endangering key species from blue crabs to Atlantic menhaden — it’s unclear whether there is sufficient momentum to loosen the red tape.

Unlike with other fish species, every time seafood houses plan to cut up a shipment of blue catfish from a waterman, an inspector from the U.S. Department of Agriculture must be on-site, and the seafood house can’t process any other fish at the same time.

 

The inspection rules were written into the 2008 federal Farm Bill, supported by catfish farmers, who wanted to boost their product with more stringent inspection requirements amid foreign competition. But USDA didn’t actually take authority over catfish from the Food and Drug Administration, which handles other seafood industries, until 2015.

“This was a rule that was many years in the making, because it was unusual,” said William James, a consultant for advocacy groups such as the Catfish Farmers of America. “The catfish industry wanted to be different. They wanted to subject themselves to these increased demands in order to acquire the USDA logo, and enhance the reputation of the product that they sell.”

As a result, USDA inspectors must be present at least once per shift when catfish are being processed. The agency provides the inspections without charge during business hours. And for establishments processing invasive catfish, overtime and holiday pay has been covered by congressional funding since 2021.

 

Maryland lawmakers from Annapolis to Capitol Hill, desperate to slow the population growth in the bay, have opposed the regulations for the wild catfish industry. But as legislators in Washington draft the next five-year Farm Bill, the future remains uncertain, said Keisha Sedlacek, who directs federal advocacy programs for the Annapolis-based Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

There have been some victories, she said, including language inserted by Republican U.S. Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland into the federal omnibus spending bill for FY2023 requiring the agriculture secretary to ”work with the states in the Chesapeake Bay area to assist fishermen and processors dealing with invasive blue catfish.”

But transferring inspection authority for wild-caught catfish back to the FDA has been more challenging, she said.

What government agency has ever willingly given up authority? 

The Wombat came through with Late Night With Rule 5 Sunday: Double-Scoop Swimsuit Edition! 

USDA Finds Farm Progress on 'Bay Diet'

USDA finds reduction in runoff near Chesapeake Bay

Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are using conservation methods more than ever to reduce water pollutants, according to a study released Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The study found that runoff of eroding soil, phosphorus and nitrogen fell significantly between 2006 and 2011.

"It's a big, important deal," USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said during a conference call with reporters. "What we found is conservation is working."

Yes, it is a big deal for the 'Bay Diet.' While I don't know off hand exactly how much that Bay Diet calculates that the farmers need to cut back to achieve the goals they purport to achieve, I'm willing to bet that the amounts are based on older research, which will have thus misrepresented the amount and ease with which the farmers will be able to make further reductions.  The agriculture industry has been insisting throughout the process of the creation of the 'Bay Diet' that farmers had mad progress that they weren't being given credit for.  They may be right.

Meanwhile, environmentalists weren't giving an inch:

"We agree with many of the findings and are happy farmers are stepping up," said Beth McGee, senior water quality scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "The only way we're going to restore the bay is to reduce agricultural pollution."

Source

Which is, of course, not strictly true.  Since agriculture only contributes about 33% to 43% of the nutrient pollution to the Bay, the equivalent cuts could be made in the the other primary sources (urban storm water and point sources i.e. sewage).  However, it would be extremely difficult.