Search

Edwardsiellosis of catfish caused by Edwardsiella ictaluri and Edwardsiella piscicida remains one of the most significant diseases in U.S. catfish aquaculture. Economic losses related to this disease are currently unknown. This work sheds light on the losses associated with E. ictaluri and E. piscicida in catfish aquaculture. The robust economic approach employed is grounded in farm-level production data and long-term disease trends in the industry. Direct farm-level economic losses from Edwardsiellosis ranged from −$3,485 to −$13,320/ha causing industrywide economic losses of −$5.2 to −$17.6 million/year. The lost revenue due to Edwardsiellosis ranged from −$8.4 to −$24.8 million/year causing a negative economic impact of −$15.5 to −$45.9 million/year. The economic losses and negative impacts of Edwardsiellosis are relatively greater on the foodfish sector compared to the fingerling sector. This work provides a platform for a more accurate estimation of the true economic impacts of diseases for aquaculture sectors for which commercial farm data is available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is widely used as a measure of feed use efficiency in commercial aquaculture production and research. Surprisingly, little work has focused on the factors that affect FCR in plankton‐based, commercial ponds despite the widespread use of FCR as a production metric. Proposals to use FCR as a numeric standard for environmental regulation (mandatory or voluntary) raise questions as to whether FCR meets the reliability and consistency requirements of a good metric, and whether it would lead to desired behavioral changes. This article summarizes FCR data from university research verification programs conducted on US catfish farms and databases developed from commercial farm records. The relevant research literature is synthesized with respect to factors that affect FCR. US catfish is used as a case study because pond‐level data from verification trials (Extension/research‐led on‐farm trials of best available science) and commercial farm records are available. While specific to US catfish production, the analysis provides insights into factors affecting FCR that likely apply to other pond‐based aquaculture species. Commercial verification of pond data showed (1) significant variation in FCR (coefficients of variation from 1% to 47%) among ponds with similar stocking, feeding, and aeration rates; (2) significant effects of survival on FCR; and (3) no significant effects on FCR of yield, feed type, management, or production system. Improvements in FCR would occur with improved survival that requires improved management of federally protected fish‐eating bird populations and development of additional, effective vaccines for diseases. FCRs were found to not exhibit the degree of reliability and consistency required for use as an effective metric or numeric standard for regulatory purposes. Use of FCR for mandatory or voluntary regulation is unlikely to lead to behavioral changes by farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seafood is the food group with the highest share traded, and the U.S. is the world's largest seafood importer, importing 79% of the seafood consumed. Hence, a study examining the impacts of the measures to contain COVID-19 on U.S. seafood imports will not only show how U.S. seafood availability has been affected, but will also give strong indications of how resiliently the global seafood markets have worked through the pandemic. We find that U.S. imports of seafood actually increased in 2020 and 2021, suggesting supply chains were able to adapt to potential disruptions. Moreover, for the 14 largest product forms imported to the U.S., there are no strong price movements. Given that there is a global market for most species groups, this adaption also suggests that the markets have worked quite well beyond the U.S. Hence, while there have undoubtedly been market shocks associated with the COVID-19 measures such as the reduction in demand from the restaurant sector and the increased sales in the retail sector, opportunities seem to balance out challenges, and the supply chains for seafood to the U.S. have been highly resilient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the economic effects of regulations on US aquaculture farms provides insights into which compliance costs create the greatest compliance burden on farms. This can further guide strategies to improve the efficiency of regulatory frameworks and potentially reduce on‐farm compliance costs while maintaining adequate oversight. This study estimated the regulatory compliance burden on US catfish farms as part of a national effort to quantify the cost of regulations on US aquaculture farms. Completed survey interviews of catfish farms in the major catfish‐producing states covered 63% of the total US catfish production area. Total regulatory costs of the US catfish industry were estimated at $45 million annually. Lost farm revenues (measured as the value of lost production, the value of markets lost from regulations, and the value of business opportunities lost because of regulations) were estimated to be $35 million per annum. Catfish‐producing states outside the Alabama/Arkansas/Mississippi region had the highest ($2856/ha) and Alabama the lowest ($1127/ha) regulatory costs per hectare among the surveyed states. The greatest regulatory cost burden on catfish farms ($18 million) was caused by environmental regulations related mostly to the management of federally protected piscivorous migratory birds, followed by labor regulations ($12 million), and taxes/insurance ($7 million). Regulatory costs ($/kg) were 2.6 times higher on smaller (<80 ha) farms relative to larger (>300 ha) farms. Attention is needed to identify alternative regulatory frameworks that provide the same degree of regulatory oversight but are more cost‐efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The catfish industry is the largest U.S. aquaculture sector and a major contributor to the rural economies of the Southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Economic contributions of this industry to the tristate region were estimated using an input-output modeling approach with the IMPLAN database and software (Impact Analysis for Planning MIG, Inc.). An analysis-by-parts approach was employed as the IMPLAN database does not disaggregate the catfish sector from other livestock industries which have expenditure patterns that differ substantially from those of catfish. All major actors of the catfish industry, i.e. feed mills, hatcheries, foodfish farms, and processing plants, were surveyed to obtain their expenditure patterns and output in terms of sales. Data were obtained from 68 farms (hatcheries and foodfish combined), four feed mills, and eight processing plants in the tristate region. Sales and expenditure values were converted to coefficients employing standard enterprise budgeting techniques and imported to the IMPLAN model for estimating industry contributions during 2019. The direct output from the catfish industry ($1.10 billion) generated a total economic contribution of $1.91 billion. The industry directly employed 4,298 people and created an additional 4,868 jobs in the tristate economy for a total employment effect of 9,166 jobs. Catfish industry spending created an indirect economic effect of $552 million in other secondary sectors that supplied production inputs and services. The induced economic effect generated from household spending amounted to $254 million. Some of the key sectors influenced by the catfish industry were grain farming, banking and financial institutions, truck transportation services, electricity generation, equipment, and machinery manufacturing. The industry also generated $78 million in local, state, and federal taxes. This study provides critical insights for policymakers and others into the contribution of the U.S. farm-raised catfish industry to local and regional economies as well as its diverse-industry interconnections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple‐batch production is the most widely practiced method of raising channel catfish. Producers are increasingly adopting intensified production practices in multiple‐batch systems by increasing stocking density and aeration rates as a means to improve cost efficiencies. Proven stocking recommendations are required for the efficient implementation of recent developments in multiple‐batch production. Twelve 0.4‐ha ponds were understocked with 17,484, 20,612, and 26,124 fingerlings/ha (mean weight = 40 g/fish) over equal weights of carryover fish (0.46 kg/fish @ 4,589 kg/ha). Fish were fed once daily to apparent satiation with a 28% protein floating feed and aerated with a single 7.4‐kW electric paddlewheel aerator. Density‐dependent significant differences were absent for gross, net, daily net yields, marketable yields (≥0.54 kg), growth (g/day), and survival. Sub‐marketable yield (<0.54 kg) and feeding rate increased significantly with increased understocking density. Economic analysis revealed increased breakeven prices and diminished net returns with increased stocking density when sub‐marketable fish were not considered as revenue. These differences in production costs and profits among the three treatments became minimal when sub‐marketable fish were included as revenue. All three density treatments attained positive annual net cash flows. This study validates channel catfish understocking densities of 17,000–26,000 fish/ha to improve cost efficiency in intensively aerated, multiple‐batch production systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]