Production Practices of

Successful Catfish Producers

Jimmy Avery, Ph.D.

Extension Aquaculture Leader
National Warmwater Aquaculture Center
Mississippi State University
 Contributors
• Dr. James Steeby, NWAC
• Dr. Craig Tucker, NWAC
• Charlie Hogue, NWAC
• Dr. Les Torrans, USDA CGRU
• Paul Dees, Dillard Farms
• Keith King, Dillard Farms
• Brent Johnson, Aqua Farms, Inc.
 US Catfish Acreage 2001-2005

200,000 185,700 184,900

174,900
170,100
175,000
158,100
Acres

150,000

125,000

100,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
USDA NASS. 2001-2005.
 US Catfish Acreage 2001-2005

200,000 185,700 184,900

175,000
174,900
170,100 -15%
158,100
Acres

150,000

125,000

100,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
USDA NASS. 2001-2005.
 Reasons for Loss of Farms
• Record low fish prices for 30 months
• Rising input costs (feed, equipment)
• Import competition
• Increased indebtedness
• Failure to reinvest in infrastructure
 Reasons for Loss of Farms
• Record low fish prices for 30 months
• Rising input costs (feed, equipment)
• Import competition
• Increased indebtedness
• Failure to reinvest in infrastructure

Many were excellent farmers!

 Catfish Price Recovery
75 $ 0.73
70
Cents / Lb

$ 0.70
65 2003
2004
60 $ 0.58
2005

55

50
ct

c
n

r
b

n
ar

v
g

p
ay

Ju
Ap

De
No
Fe
Ja

Se
Ju

Au

O
M

M
 Current Challenges
• Rising input costs (fuel, labor)
• Domestic competition from other protein
sources
• Import competition
• Tightening foodfish supplies
• Projected shortage of fingerlings
• Increasing disease losses
• Decreasing production levels on many
farms
 Limits of Catfish Production
Impact Production
Limitations (% Decrease) (lbs/acre)
Maximum Potential - 30,000
Water Temperature 50% 15,000
Year Round Demand 20% 12,000
Infectious Disease 20% 9,600
Bird Depredation 10% 8,640
Dissolved Oxygen 22% 6,740
Off-flavor 15% 5,728
 Management Implications
Few of the limitations are manageable
• Water temps – uneconomical
• Year round demand – market driven
• Infectious disease – problematic, increasing
• Bird depredation – difficult to negate
• Dissolved oxygen – feasible, expensive
• Off-flavor – feasible
 Management Implications
Few of the limitations are manageable
• Water temps – uneconomical
• Year round demand – market driven
• Infectious disease – problematic, increasing
• Bird depredation – difficult to negate
• Dissolved oxygen – feasible, expensive
• Off-flavor – feasible
Will max yield = max profit??
 Management Implications
Reduce the Cost of Production
• There is rarely one area where significant
cost reductions can be attained.
• The more profitable businesses manage
many costs 2-5% more efficiently than their
competitors.
Developing a Farm Plan
Components of the Plan
• Financial
z Investing in proven strategies
z Booking feed (amount vs. protein)
• Production
z Minimize time in pond
• Marketing
z Sell fish based on size and flavor; not price
• Personnel
• Strategic
z Maintenance (equipment & ponds)
Pond Maintenance
Pond aging reduces useable pond volume

New Pond Old Pond

Erosion

Year-15
3 ft 1.25 ft water
1.25 ft

Sediment
 Sediment Accumulation

Caused by:
• Erosion from pond levees
• Aerators gouge sediments from bottom
• Very little accumulation is waste products
Management implications
• Harvest difficulty
• Decreased production
(higher FCRs)
• Increased aeration
 Pond Rebuilding

• After 6-7 years, start rebuilding 10% of ponds

each year
• Build ponds with a 6 ft average water depth
z Deeper ponds are more expensive to construct
but have a longer useful file
• Drain shallow ponds every 3 years or use
them for fingerling ponds
• Making pond levees wider will not affect the
sediment accumulation
Improving FCRs
 Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR)
• Individual Pond (Biological FCR)
z Possible in batch culture (ex. fingerlings)
z May be based on multiple months
• Whole Farm (Economic FCR)
z Pounds of Feed fed : Pounds of Fish sold
z Based on assumption that beginning and
carryover inventory are rather constant from
year to year
z Based on a single year
 Biological FCR

• Unlikely to match on
Fish Size FCR
commercial scale
unless accounting 0.75 lb 1.4 – 1.5
for losses 1.25 lb 1.6
• Not much size 2.0 lb 1.8
variation until you 5.0 lb 3.5 – 5.0
get over 3 pounds

Robinson & Li. 2005.

 Economic FCR
• Primary determinant on profits
• Even well performing farms
operate in the 2.3 to 2.5 range
• Decrease by 0.1 unit results in a
savings of about $50/acre/year
 Improving FCRs
Three Primary Influences
• Mortality
• Feeding Practices
• Depredation
Minimizing Mortalities
Proactive Fish Health Management
• Be aware of losses and trends
• Minimize the amount of stress and physical
injury to fish
• Maintain adequate chloride levels and
aeration
• Submit fish sample to verify diagnosis
• Consider the economics of action and non-
action
Proactive Fish Health Management
• Check fish for clinical signs (trematodes,
etc.) whenever they are being seined or
transported
• If economically justified, initiate treatments
before disease intensification or reduction
of feed intake
 Treatment Considerations

Must consider:
• Cost effectiveness (losses vs. expense)
• Probability of subsequent outbreak
(temperature window)
• Ability to treat targeted fish (mixed sizes)
• Diagnosis (mixed infections)
 Restricted Feeding Regime
Research indicates that restricting feed
during an ESC outbreak reduces
mortality
• Based on temperature or onset of losses
• Cessation or alternate day feeding of non-
medicated feed
 Medicated Feeds
Medication options:
• Romet ® (5-d treat, 3-d wd)
• Terramycin® (10-d treat, 21-d wd)
• Aquaflor® (10-d treat, 12-d wd)
• Veterinary Feed Directive Drug
• Licensed Vet must write order
• 2 year record requirement
 Vaccines
• AQUAVAC-ESC® does appear to increase
resistance to ESC
• Results have been somewhat variable
• Expensive – Must be able to justify costs
• Protection is not absolute,
must be viewed as a tool to
help control infection
Monitoring Water Quality
 Ammonia
• Low in summer (0.5 ppm TAN)
• Increases through fall (4-5 ppm TAN)
z Peak mid-October (5-6 weeks after peak
feeding)
• Nitrite concentrations
peak 2-4 weeks after
peak ammonia
concentrations
 Ammonia and Nitrite
14
12
10
8 NITRITE
6 TAN
4

2
0
8/21 9/21 10/21 11/21
 Ammonia Management
• Little or no practical short-term management
options available
• More practical to take preventive approach
z Reasonable stocking rates
z Harvest often as practical to avoid excessively
high standing crop of fish
z Use good feeding practices
• Moderate rates
• Be sure all feed offered is consumed
 Monitoring Ammonia
• Only reason to monitor is to predict potential
nitrite problems
• Monitor every other day following a bloom
crash
• Monitor weekly during cooler months
• Otherwise, not necessary
 Nitrite
• TAN converted to NO2 (nitrite)
• NO2 normally converted to NO3 (nitrate)
• Disruption in cycle leads to buildup of NO2
• Causes “Brown Blood”
disease
• More frequent in fall
and spring
 Nitrite Management
• Chlorides in water prevents uptake across
the gill membrane
• Common salt (NaCl) is cheapest source
• Maintain at least 10:1 ratio of chlorides to
nitrites
• Some prefer 20:1 ratio
• General rule: 100–
150 ppm chlorides
 Water Blood
Cl - Cl -
Cl- Cl-
Cl - Cl-
Cl - Cl -
Cl- Cl-
NO2- Cl -
Cl - Cl- NO -
2
Cl - Cl - Cl-
Cl - Cl- Cl-
10:1 chloride nitrite ratio Cl- Cl- Cl-
Low probability of NO2-
Binding to receptor Cl-
Cl-
 Monitoring Nitrite
• August: Measure chloride levels and add salt
to 100 ppm in all ponds
• Begin measuring NO2 weekly beginning in
mid-October
• Re-check chloride levels when NO2 is
elevated or flushing has occurred
• Check NO2 daily if Cl:NO2 ratio approaches
10:1
 Increasing Available Aeration

• Levee Pond Average

= 1 hp/acre
• Recommended level
= 2 hp/acre
• Higher Production
= 3 - 6 hp/acre
 Raising Minimum DO
• Intensification made possible by increased
aeration
• Variation among farms concerning when
aeration is initiated
z Begin at 5 ppm,
maintain 3-4 ppm
z Begin at 2 ppm
z Begin when fish
show stress
 Research Results
Aeration Target
Production Parameter 5.0 ppm 2.5 ppm 1.5 ppm
Feed Consumption 100% 93.7% 54.9%
Net Production 100% 100% 46.0%
Aeration Hours 100% 38% 16%
Harvest Weight 100% 100% 69.5%
FCR (No difference)
Survival (No difference)

L. Torrans. 2004.
 Conclusions
• Delaying aeration until 2.5 ppm DO had little
impact on production
• Delaying aeration until 1.5 ppm DO
decreased most production parameters by at
least 30%
• If feed is consumed, it will be converted
similarly among a range of DOs
• Results may not be extrapolated directly to
large commercial ponds

L. Torrans. 2004.
Refining Feeding Practices
 Importance of Feeder
• Has direct control of
50% of operating costs
• Must be able to spend
the time necessary to
feed properly
• Must communicate with
others concerning fish
behavior
 Feeding Practices
• Comments refer to feeding healthy fish,
4-5 inches and up
• If fish eat it (and live), they will convert it
efficiently
• Recommendations are to be
considered as guidelines
• No single method optimum

Robinson and Li. 2005.

 Feeding Practices
• 28% protein feed with 3% or less animal
protein
• Feed to satiation in a single, daily feeding
• May offer second feeding to fish that fed
extremely well (avoid wasting feed)
• No difference in time of day to feed except
logistics and avoiding peak oxygen
demand

Robinson and Li. 2005.

 Feeding Practices
• Feed over as wide an area as possible
(40-50% may not respond when fed along
one levee)
• Winter feeding can be beneficial (especially
in fingerlings), feed based
on temperature
• Avoid wasting feed

Robinson and Li. 2005.

Reducing Depredation
 Bird Depredation
Develop an Active Plan
• Match resources with estimated losses
z Estimated $7.1 million for cormorants
• Seek assistance from USDA Wildlife
Services (permits & roost dispersal)
• Cooperate with area producers in permitted
harassment
• Stay vigilant
 Bird Depredation
Erect Exclusion Devices
• Effective against cormorants
• Posts every 60 feet
• #12 untarred string, 2-3 feet
above water
• Orange flagging every 15
feet
• $100 for a 10-acre pond
• Easily removed for harvest
 Bird Depredation
Consolidate Ponds
• Cluster fingerling and
stocker ponds closer to
high traffic areas
• Consider modular
cropping system to keep
vulnerable fish out of
foodfish ponds
Inventory Assessment
 Inventory Assessment
FISHY 2005
• Computer software available from CFA
• Improved reports including NASS output
• Easily customized for feeding and mortality
Spreadsheets
• MS Excel
 Inventory Assessment
Ground proof computer projections
• Communicate pond side observations with
computer analyst
• Accurate weights and counts on harvest
and stocking
Use realistic loss projections
• Suggest 1.5 – 2% each month in addition
to observed catastrophic losses
Zeroing Ponds Out
 Switching to Modular System
• Single batch - large fingerlings stocked
once per year
• Multiple batch - small fingerlings stocked
at high rates or at various times
• Modular system - fry to fingerlings,
fingerlings to stockers, and stockers
placed into foodfish ponds
Multiple-batch Growout Pond
Production Fingerlings

Modular
Production
Growout Pond (7 mo)
Fingerlings Stockers (6 mo)
 Switching to Modular System
• Economics of multiple-batch systems
becomes more tenuous with processors’
desire for increased size of harvested
product (1.5 to 2.0 lb)
• More opportunity for proactive fish health
management due to similar size fish
• Stockers for final growout phase exceed size
that is commonly susceptible to bird
depredation
 Research Results – 50,000/A
Diet Mean Weight Survival Production
(% Protein) (lb) (%) (lb/A)
2005*
35 0.42 67.2 14,095
32 0.32 65.3 10,126
2004**
35 0.21 72.6 7,516
*Stocked 32 lb/1000 fingerlings
**Stocked 22 lb/1000 fingerlings
180-day growout
Fed to satiation

L.R. D’Abramo. 2005.

 Switching to Modular System
• Better water quality in foodfish ponds due
to lower stocking rates (4,500 – 5,500)
• Less deductions due to out-of-specification
fish size
 Switching to Modular System
• Better water quality in foodfish ponds due to
lower stocking rates
• Less deductions due to out-of-specification
fish size

Better control of inventory (No surprises!)

Minimizing Off-flavor Delays
 Off-flavor
• Sporadic, unpredictable flavor taints
from odorous water-borne
compounds
• Adds at least 5 cents per pound to
production cost
• $30 million impact per year
 Off-flavor Management
• Copper sulfate treatments
• Diuron treatments (where allowed)
• Time!!
 Copper Sulfate Treatment
• Developed for use in moderately hard waters
typical of the MS Delta region (75-200 ppm)
• 5 pounds / acre / week when water
temperatures are above 70°F
• Crystals in double burlap bag placed 20-30
feet in front of paddlewheel aerator till
completely dissolved (2-3 hours)
 Copper Sulfate Treatment
Results of 3-year “on-farm” trial
• 50% reduction in the number of all off-flavor
episodes and 75% reduction in the number
of MIB episodes
• 85% reduction in the duration of off-flavor
episodes
• About $3.50/acre per week treatment cost
 Copper Sulfate Treatment
Results of 3-year “on-farm” trial
• 17% increase in hours of emergency
aeration
• Increased levels of total ammonia and
nitrite, although concentrations never
increased to dangerous levels
 Diuron Treatment
• 0.5 ounces of 80WP / acre-foot
• Apply weekly until fish are on-flavor
• A maximum of 9 applications / year
• Slurry applied into aerator current
• Treat only when water temperatures
are above 70° F
 Diuron Treatment
• Producer surveys indicated that farmers
rated diuron moderately to highly effective
• Processor surveys show a decreased
percentage of non-acceptable fish since
diuron was approved for use
 Effective Use of Algicides
• Algicides do not work on off-flavors that are
not caused by algae
• Algicides are ineffective at water temps
below 60-70°F
• Initiate fall treatments to reduce off-flavors in
fish scheduled for harvest in winter
 Effective Use of Algicides
• If fish are off-flavor, considerable time will be
required for then to “clean up”
• Time for algicide to work
• Time for fish to purge the odorous chemical
• The time required to “clean up” varies with
water temperature
• In warm water, 3-5 weeks is an optimistic guess
• So plan ahead
Questions?