Abstract
The U.S. catfish industry has adopted several production practices which embody varying degrees of economic risk. Employing commercial farm data, this study quantified the economic risks associated with six catfish food fish production strategies. Stochastic Monte Carlo simulations employing established enterprise budgets found fish yield, feed price, and feed conversion ratio contributing highly to variations in the cost of production. While multiple-batch (MB) farming of channel catfish was the least risky strategy, both MB and intensively aerated production were stochastically dominant (second-order) to low-intensity single-batch production. Split-pond and intensively aerated hybrid catfish production demonstrated consistently lower production costs and were stochastically dominant (second-order) to medium-intensity single-batch production. Multiple-batch and intensively aerated production of channel catfish were more susceptible to price (market) risk while hybrid catfish production was more susceptible to yield (production) risks. First order stochastic dominance of split-pond technology on larger farms as compared to low-intensity culture on smaller farms suggested that yield increasing intensive production practices supersede low-intensity technologies and help achieve economies of scale. Study results provide critical information on the relative risk associated with different catfish production strategies under varying economic and market conditions.
Acknowledgments
Additionally, this work would not have been possible without the cooperation of U.S. catfish farmers. We would like to sincerely thank them for their participation. Errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.
Notes
1 See, for example, Asche et al. (Citation2021), Cantillo and Van Caillie (Citation2023), Engle and Sapkota (Citation2012), Engle, van Senten, et al. (Citation2021), Khan et al. (Citation2018), Lebel et al. (Citation2021), Moor, Ropicki, Anderson, et al. (Citation2022), Moor, Ropicki, et al. (Citation2022), Parker et al. (Citation2020), Petrolia et al. (Citation2022), Theodorou et al. (Citation2020), Valderrama and Engle (Citation2001), and Zitti and Guttormsen (Citation2022).
2 Multiple batch systems involves continuous stocking and harvesting allowing year round production while single batch systems involves annual stocking and clean harvesting of ponds. Refer Kumar, Engle, et al. (Citation2021) for details about further differences.
Asche, F., Anderson, J. L., Botta, R., Kumar, G., Abrahamsen, E. B., Nguyen, L. T., & Valderrama, D. (2021). The economics of shrimp disease. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 186, 107397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2020.107397 Cantillo, J., & Van Caillie, D. (2023). Understanding European aquaculture companies’ perceived risks and risk management practices. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2022.2162625 Engle, C., & Sapkota, P. (2012). A Comparative analysis of the economic risk of hybrid striped bass fingerling production in ponds and indoor tanks. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 74(4), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2012.685214 Engle, C. R., van Senten, J., Parker, M., Webster, D., & Clark, C. (2021). Economic tradeoffs and risk between traditional bottom and container culture of oysters on Maryland farms. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 25(4), 472–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2021.1938295 Khan, M. A., Roll, K. H., & Guttormsen, A. (2018). Production risk of pangas (Pangasius hypophthalmus) fish farming. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 22(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2017.1284941 Lebel, L., Jutagate, T., Phuong, N. T., Akester, M. J., Rangsiwiwat, A., Lebel, P., Phousavanh, P., Navy, H., Maung Soe, K., & Lebel, B. (2021). Climate risk management practices of fish and shrimp farmers in the Mekong region. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 25(4), 388–410. volumehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2021.1917727 Moor, J., Ropicki, A., Anderson, J. L., & Asche, F. (2022). Stochastic modeling and financial viability of mollusk aquaculture. Aquaculture, 552, 737963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.737963 Moor, J., Ropicki, A., & Garlock, T. (2022). Clam aquaculture profitability under changing environmental risks. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 26(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2022.2058113 Parker, M., Lipton, D., & Harrell, R. M. (2020). Impact financing and aquaculture: Maryland oyster aquaculture profitability. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 51(4), 874–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12702 Petrolia, D. R., Walton, W. C., & Cebrian, J. (2022). Oyster economics: Simulated costs, market returns, and nonmarket ecosystem benefits of harvested and non-harvested reefs, off-bottom aquaculture, and living shorelines. Marine Resource Economics, 37(3), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1086/719969 Theodorou, J. A., Moutopoulos, D. K., & Tzovenis, I. (2020). Semi-quantitative risk assessment of Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis L.) harvesting bans due to harmful algal bloom (HAB) incidents in Greece. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 24(3), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2019.1708994 Valderrama, D., & Engle, C. R. (2001). Risk analysis of shrimp farming in Honduras. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 5(1–2), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300109380277 Zitti, M., & Guttormsen, A. G. (2022). Climate risk and financial disclosure in salmon aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2022.2143934 Kumar, G., Engle, C. R., Avery, J. L., Dorman, L., Whitis, G. H., Roy, L. A., & Xie, L. (2021). Characteristics of early adoption and non-adoption of alternative catfish production technologies in the U.S. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 25(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657305.2020.1803446 Additional information
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding sources of this work which include a student assistantship from Mississippi State University (Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture), USDA-NIFA Hatch Project Accession Number 1013160, NOAA Sea grant award number NA21OAR4170091, and MAFES-SRI.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6709-8119
![Sample our Environment & Agriculture journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5934/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Agriculture.jpg"})