International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Sciences (IJEES) Vol.

7 (4): 859-864 (2017)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

FEED COST/PRODUCTION INCOME ANALYSIS OF SEABASS

(Dicentrarchus labrax) AQUACULTURE

Birol Baki1, Şennan Yücel2

1
Sinop University, Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Aquaculture, Sinop, Turkey;
2
Sinop University, Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries Basic Science, Sinop, Turkey;

Email: bbaki@sinop.edu.tr; sennanyucel@hotmail.com;

Received April, 2017; Accepted June, 2017; Published August, 2017;

UOI license: http://u-o-i.org/1.01/ijees/85653234

ABSTRACT

In the study, the ratio of the cost of the feed used during the period from caging of seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) to
its harvest to production income was determined. The data, which were obtained from a company breeding seabass
in the Aegean Sea, on the fish amount and feed amount used during a production period were evaluated. Moreover,
the average wholesale price of seabass during the harvest period in 2016 and the average price of feed for each
period were also evaluated. Other operating costs during a production period (rent, fry, salary, equipment purchases,
depreciation, marketing, fuel, etc.) were ignored in the study. Feed in aquaculture, with its role in feeding, its
environmental impact and cost, is an issue emphasized in the sector. Quality feeds are required to obtain required
amounts of growth in fish. Quality feed production depends on raw material sources. In fish aquaculture, feed cost
has the highest share in the total cost during the production period. According to the study, feed/production income
ratio of fish weighing 100-150 g, which do not have a market demand, was 0.85, whereas feed/production income
ratio of fish weighing over 200 g was 0.64. Although the market demand for seabass is over 300 g, feed cost of fish
weighing below 200 g was proportionately high and the facilities were able to earn income with the sales of fish
weighing over 350 g.

Keywords: Seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax, Aquaculture, Feed Cost, Production İncome

INTRODUCTİON

Aquaculture production is rapidly increasing worldwide (FAO, 2016). There are reports stating that the natural water
products and stocks of the seas have been decreasing due to various reasons. According to some projections, in the
following years, water products obtained through aquaculture will surpass the production obtained through hunting
(S.De Silva, 2001). It is of great importance that the quality and affordability of aquaculture products is improved in
parallelism with increasing production.
Feeding of cultured fish is a very important issue. Feeding activities have a great influence on growth. In
aquaculture, knowing the feed quality and the effect of feed on growth and production cost is as important as
knowing feeding and growth performance. Knowing the properties of feed raw materials is necessary to determine
the growth performance of fish and to carry out economic analysis.

859
 Birol Baki1, Şennan Yücel2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feed constitutes the main production cost of the facilities. Facilities may use different rations of feeds and feeds with
different properties, even for the same species. This may result in increasing feed costs, economic losses and
negatively-affected water environments. Especially as a result of the ongoing search for raw materials due to
economic considerations and ration studies that are still in progress, the issue frequently highlighted by the facilities
is feed. Moreover, fish feed production recently became one of the highest growing sectors in the agribusiness
around the world (R.W.Hardy, 2010).
Among the European countries, Turkey ranks second after Norway in aquaculture and its aquaculture production in
2015 reached 240,334 tons (TUİK, 2016). With its 75,164 tons of seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) production in
2015, Turkey is the leading seabass producer in Europe (FEAP, 2015).
Seabass, as a frequently cultured fish in Turkey, is in demand in the market both in its fresh and in its refrigerated
forms. In the international market, it is usually preferred in its uncleaned and unsliced form. As we diverge from the
Mediterranean market, there emerges a market with a higher customer expectation and customers with relatively
higher incomes. The biggest consumers of sea fish are France, Spain and Italy and they are a large market for
seabass. The production in these countries fails to meet their demand. This leads to an increased production demand
in Turkey (Y.Alparslan and T.Baygar, 2009).
In the study, the ratio of feed cost to production income during the period from the caging of the fish to its harvest
was determined.

MATERİALS AND METHOD

The study was carried out during the period between June 2015 and October 2016 in a facility farming seabass in
cages in the Aegean Sea. The number of fish and feed amount during the production period of the facility were
evaluated. Moreover, average wholesale price during the harvesting period in 2016 and average feed price for each
period were also obtained from the facility.
Other operating costs during the production period of the facility (rent, fry, salary, equipment purchases,
depreciation, marketing, fuel, etc.) were excluded from the calculations.
In the study, feed conversion rate (FCR), survival rate (%), biomass (kg), total feed cost ($), feed cost ($) (kg/fish),
sales revenue ($), and economic conversion rate were calculated with the following formulas:

Biomass (kg)= Total Fish Number x Average Fish Weight

Where:
Survival rate (%)= Dead Fish Number / Total Fish Number
Total Feed Cost ($)= Total Feed Amount x Average Feed Cost ($)
Feed Cost ($) (kg/fish)= Total Feed Cost ($) / Harvested Fish Number
Sales Revenue ($)= Harvested Fish Number x Average Sale Price ($)
FCR= Consumed Fish Amount (kg) / Weight Gain (kg)
Economic feed conversion rate= FCR x Average Feed Cost ($)

The calculations and plots were performed by using Microsoft Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics 21 package
program.

RESULTS

Seabass weighing 9 g at the beginning of the study reached 450 g after 14 months. The survival rate of the fish at the
end of the harvesting period was 78.9% (Figure 1).

860
International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Sciences (IJEES) Vol. 7 (4): 859-864 (2017)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. Fish weight (g) and survival rate (%) Figure 2. Biomass value (kg)

The biomass value amounting to 1170 kg at the beginning of the study increased with increasing fish weight and
reached 45688.5 kg at the end of the study (Figure 2).
The consumed fish amounts during the study had dropped during the periods of optimum water temperatures for
seabass. The lowest consumed feed amount was observed in the initial period and during February-April; the highest
consumed feed amount was observed in the period between July and the final period. Feed conversion rate (FCR),
which is one of the best indicators of the rentability of feed, was 1.71 in the initial period, reached 4.31 in the period
in which it reached its most unfavorable value and was 1.45 at the end of production. Except for the initial period,
feed conversion rate decreased at lower water temperatures and increased at optimum water temperatures (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Total Consumed Feed Amount (kg)-FCR

In the period between the initial period and September, feed cost was 30419.8 $ and reached 156309.75 $ in the final
period (Figure 4). In the study, the highest economic conversion rate was 5.80 and was determined in the initial
period; in the periods of low water temperatures, economic conversion rate decreased depending on feed
consumption (Nov-Feb: 3.20) and its lowest value was 1.96 and was determined in the harvesting period (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Feed Cost ($) Figure 5. Economic Feed Conversion Rate

861
 Birol Baki1, Şennan Yücel2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The sales revenue of seabass weighing over 100 g was calculated based on the market price in each period (Figure
6). Considering the entire stock, the revenue of seabass in November, when average seabass weight was 115 g, was
75,615 $; when average seabass weight reached 205 g, its revenue was 129,945 $ and when it reached 225 g, 270 g
and 450 g (final period), its revenue was 140,229 $, 167,434 $ and 244,890 $, respectively. Between the final period
and July, the revenue increased by approximately 32%.

Figure 6. Fish Sales Revenue ($) Figure 7. Fish Weight and Feed Cost-Production
Income ($) Values

The seasonal feed cost and production income plot showed that feed consumption values and feed cost increased
with increasing fish weight and especially in the 450 g harvest fish (weighing over 270 g), income showed a
satisfying increase with respect to the increase in feed cost (Figure 7). In the final period, feed cost increased by
29.78% and was 46.26% of the total production income.

Figure 8. Feed Cost/Production Income Ratio

The investigation of the periods when fish weight was over 100 g showed that feed cost/production ratio was 0.85 in
October and was 0.69 in February in which feed consumption was at its lowest value and was 0.64 at the end of the
study (Figure 8).

CONCLUSIONS

In aquaculture, feed, with its role in feeding and growth and its environmental impact and cost, is an issue
emphasized by the sector. To obtain growth at desired rates, high quality feeds are required. High quality feed

862
International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Sciences (IJEES) Vol. 7 (4): 859-864 (2017)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

production increases the feed cost, depending on the raw material used in production. In the study, the ratio of feed
cost to production income during the period from the caging of seabass to its harvest was determined.
The goal in aquaculture is to obtain maximum possible survival rates with minimum costs and reaching the
harvesting period as soon as possible. In aquaculture, feed constitutes the majority of the production cost
(A.Y.Korkut et al., 2007; N.Birici et al., 2014). M.Ural and M.Balcı (2007) stated that facilities encountered
economic hardship during feed procurement and production was negatively affected by the increase in costs due to
increasing exchange rates.
It is known that, in aquaculture, feed cost has the highest share among the total costs during a production period
(61.46%-B.Çetin and M.Bilgüven, 1991; 63.4%-O.Yavuz et al., 1995; 53-67.3%-G.Gier, 1998; 32.7%-M.Sayılı et
al.,1999; 50.9%-A.Aydın, 2000; 50.9%-E.M.Kocaman et al., 2002; 51%-M.Karataş et al., 2008; 47.86%-O.Aydın
and M.Sayılı, 2009; 67.8%-M.Dağtekin et al., 2011; 70.15%-E.Öztürk and Z.Bayramoğlu, 2011; 67.85-74.98%-
E.Kocaman and M.Sayılı, 2014; 53%-T.Tolon et al., 2016; 63.4%-H.Ekmekçi and M.Gül, 2017).
In this study, feed cost of a facility was determined, without considering investment and production costs. Moreover,
production income during the periods in which seabass weighed over 100 g was also calculated. In the study,
feed/production income ratio of seabass weighing 100-150 g, which do not have a market demand, was 0.85, while
feed/production income ratio of seabass weighing over 200 g was 0.64. Although seabass harvesting weight in the
international market is over 300 g, it was determined that fish weighing below 200 g entailed proportionately higher
feed costs and sales of fish weighing over 350 g will provide better returns. Increase in fish weight decreased the
ratio of feed cost in production income; hence, determining harvesting weights by also considering the market
demands will be of benefit to facilities.

REFERENCES

Alparslan, Y., Baygar, T. 2009. The importance, the status and the marketing situation of sea bass in Turkey and the
World. ABMYO Journal, 13, 31-40;
Aydın, A. 2000. Structural and economical analysis of designed trout fish farms in Erzurum province. Msc Thesis,
Ataturk Univ Fac of Sci Dept of Fish Erzurum;
Aydın, O., Sayılı, M. 2009. Structural and economical analysis of trout culture fish farms in Samsun province. GOU
Agri Fac Bull, 26 (2): 97-107;
Birici, N., Şeker, T., Balcı, M., Çelik, B., Kılıç, A. 2014. Structural and Economic Analysis of Trout Breeding
Farms in Elazýð Province. Yunus Research Bulletin (2): 23-48;
Çetin, B., Bilgüven, M. 1991. Structural and economical analysis of trout culture fish farms in South Marmara
Region. Aegean Unv Fish Symp in 10th in Edu, pp180;
Dağtekin, M., Yılmaz, E., Gürel, M. 2011. General Structure and Economic Analysis of Fish Farms in Ordu
Province-Turkey. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg., 17 (5): 699-706;
De Silva S.S. 2001. A Global Perspective of Aquaculture in The New Millennium. In R.P. Subasinghe et all, (Eds.),
Aquaculture in The Third Milleennium. Pp. 431- 459. NACA, Bankok, Thailand, and FAO, Rome, Italy;
Ekmekçi, H., Gül, M. 2017. Economic Structure and Problems of Trout Enterprises: A Case of Fethiye. Turkish
Journal Of Agriculture-Food Science And Technology, 5(1): 33-42;
FAO, 2016.The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5798e.pdf (Date of access: 07.12.2016);
FEAP, 2016. European aquaculture production report 2005-2015 (FEAP),
www.feap.info/shortcut.asp?FILE=1402 (Date of access: 17.12.2015);
Hardy R.W. 2010. Utilization of plant proteins in fish diets: effects of global demand and supplies of fishmeal.
Aquaculture Research, 41, 770-776;
Gier, G. 1998. Economical Analysis of sea bream and sea bass fish farms. Doc thesis, Istanbul University, Institute
of Science and Technology, p 100;
Karataş, M., Sayılı, M., Koç, B. 2008. Structural and economical analysis of trout culture fish farms in Sivas
Province. BIBAD J Bio Sci Res, 1 (2): 55-61;
Kocaman, E., Sayılı, M. 2014. Economic Analysis of Rainbow Trout Farm in Gümüşhane Province. Anadolu J Agr
Sci, 29(1): 36-45. DOI: 10.7161/anajas.2014.29.1.36;

863
 Birol Baki1, Şennan Yücel2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kocaman, E.M., Aydın, A., Ayık, Ö. 2002. Structural and economical analysis of trout farms in Erzurum city. Ege
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol:19 (3-4):319-327;
Korkut, A.Y., Kop, A., Demirtaş, N., Cihaner, A. 2007. Determination methods of growth performance in fish
feeding. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol:24 (1-2):201-205;
Öztürk, E., Bayramoğlu, Z. 2011. Economic Analysis of Trout Farming Enterprises Within Cage in Keban Dam
Lake. Msc Thesis, Selçuk University, Institute of Science and Technology Farming Economy Dept. p52;
Sayılı, M., Karataş, M., Yücer, A., Akça, H. 1999. Structural and economical analysis of trout culture fish farms in
Tokat Province. Ekin J, 7, 66-72;
Tolon, T., Emiroğlu, D.İ., Tahancı, U. 2016. Technical and Economical Investigation of Rainbow Trout
(Onchorhychus mykiss) Production Farms in Fethiye District (Turkey). Journal of Agricultural Faculty of
Gaziosmanpasa University, 33 (2), 135-146;
TUİK, 2016. Fishery Statistics 2015. Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara, Turkey. tuikapp. tuik. gov.tr/ medas/
?kn=97 &locale=tr (Date accessed: 20.03.2017);
Ural, M., Balcı, M. 2007. Evaluations of Aquaculture in East and Southeastern Anatolia Present Fisheries Farms and
Problems. Science and Eng. J of Fırat Univ. 19 (4), 481-492;
Yavuz, O., Kocaman, M., Ayık, Ö. 1995. Structural and economical analysis of trout culture fish farms in Erzurum
Province. J Agr Fac Univ Ataturk, 26 (1): 64-75;

864
Copyright of International Journal of Ecosystems & Ecology Sciences is the property of
Health & Environment Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.