0.8 ha of water, or two, 0.4 ha ponds. At that output price, the average annual returns to labor and management would be US$70/ha, US$411/ha and US$581/ha for farm sizes of 0.8, 1.2 and 1 .6 ha, respectively if new ponds were constructed. The corresponding average annual returns were US$725/ ha, US$1,1 1 1/ha and US$1 ,303/ha for 0.8, 1.2 and 1.6 ha, respectively if renovated ponds were used. Hence, a small-scale, extensive catfish farmer with 1.6 ha could earn from US$9002,000/yr by selling fish in retail or direct markets. Results Pertaining to Selling Fish to Pay Lakes The pay lake, or fee fishing industry in Kentucky has a stable demand for live catfish. There are over 60 pay lakes scattered across the state, many of which are 0.4-0.8 ha. Pay lakes require live fish delivered every month and, sometimes every week, between March and October of each year. While pay lakes typically prefer fish larger than 900 g, recent shortages have forced them to accept fish as small as 600 g. A recent survey of pay lakes indicated that they pay, on average, US$2.79/kg of fish (price excludes transportation cost), with a mean weekly demand of 470 kg/ha. In this section, we provide economic results for extensive catfish producers intending to sell most of their product to pay lakes. This scenario is likely for Kentucky because there are many farms that are capable of producing catfish solely to supply their neighborhood pay lakes. Some pay lake operators have also shown an interest in producing their own catfish. Our results indicate that the optimal stocking strategy for an extensive catfish grower supplying a pay lake market consists of stocking 2,915 catfish/ha every spring and an additional 448 catfish/ha every fall. One reason why this stocking strategy is different from the stocking strategy for foodfish sales is that the pay lake market allows fish to be sold only during March to October of each year. Hence, our economic model recomputed the best stocking strategy to maximize farmer income in a more restricted market. Breakeven price, over cash costs, were 1 6 MARCH 2007 US$2.97/kg, US$2.34/kg, US$2.13/kg and US$2.05/kg, for farms with 0.4, 0.8, 1.2 and 1.6 ha, respectively if new ponds were built in the first year, or US$2.66/kg, US$2.02/kg, US$1.78/kg and US$1.67/kg for farms with 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.6 ha, respectively if existing ponds were used. One institutional constraint of marketing fish to pay lakes is that the buyers would not enter readily into a contract with a catfish producer unless they were assured of a regular, reliable supply of fish. In this light, we evaluated the maximum amount of fish that a producer can supply consistently during the pay lake season of each year. Our results show that an extensive catfish producer can supply catfish consistently at 84 kg/ month, 190 kg/month, 285 kg/month or 380 kg/month during an annual pay lake season for farms with 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.6 ha, respectively. When compared to the average monthly demand of 1,880 kg/ha, it is clear that individual small scale extensive catfish producers would not be able to be major suppliers of pay lakes unless such farms had more than 1.6 ha in production. However, extensive farms could serve as minor suppliers to pay lakes to replenish fish stocks during times of strong fishing demand. Is Extensive Catfish Farming Right for You? The most profitable scenario that we have discussed involves farms employing existing ponds that have been renovated for aquaculture for extensive catfish production and the sale of fish to end users at a price of at least US$2.20/kg (live weight). The main constraint in operating in this market is the limited and unstable consumer demand for the product. Because there is a plethora of frozen catfish fillets available with retail grocers, producers must devise a marketing strategy that would substantially differentiate their product to the consumers. Freshness of their product is the obvious marketing emphasis. Marketing surveys in Kentucky have shown that rural communities and Asians/Hispanics in urban communities prefer fresh, whole or live catfish and are willing to pay in excess of US$2.20/kg for the product. These surveys have also identified Asian grocers that have in-store tanks designed to hold live fish for their customers. That market is the most profitable outlet for extensive catfish producers. One limitation farmers face in those markets is their ability to transport live fish. Although there are professional live haulers, they typically require more fish to fill up their trucks than most extensive catfish producers can supply. Additional research is needed to develop reliable, low cost live hauling systems that would allow farmers to transport sm?,ll batches of fish over short/medium distances (1-5 hour trips). In conclusion, we recommend that prior to investing in extensive catfish production, a producer should have the following resources: 1) existing farm ponds that can be converted to aquaculture use, 2) a reliable supplier of large (� 45 g) fingerlings and, 3) a local market for fresh/live fish or a neighborhood pay lake that would purchase catfish to top-off the fishing ponds during their busy season. We also recommend that, if a market could accept at least 1.5 t/yr of fish, producers should put at least 0.8 ha of water into production, resulting in breakeven prices (US$1.80/ kg) that are reasonable for retail sales. Notes 1 Aquaculture Research Center, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY References Hanson, T. and D. Sites. 2004. 2003 U. S. catfish database. Information report 2004-001. Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi USA. Masser, M., J. Jensen and J. Crews. 1994. Channel catfish production in ponds. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Circular ANR-195, Auburn University, Alabama USA. Swingle, H. S. 1958. Experiments on growing fingerling channel catfish to marketable size in ponds. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of Southeastern Game and Fish Commissioners. Tucker, L., C. E. Boyd and E. W McCoy. 1979. Effects of feeding rate on water quality, production of channel catfish, and economics returns. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:389-396. Wurts, W A. and F. Wynne. 1995. Sustainable channel catfish farming: low management production through modified stocking and feeding practices. World Aquaculture 26(3):54-59.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=