Catfish Yield Verification Trials

Final Report

May 1993-December 1996

A University of Arkansas COOPERATIVE EXTENSION PROGRAM, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, United States Department of Agriculture and County Governments Cooperating

Authors

CYVT Coordinator: Mr. David L. Heikes

Economic Analysts: Dr. Carole R. Engle, and Dr. Pierre Justin Kouka

A special thanks is extended to the Catfish Farmers of Arkansas for financially supporting this project. The authors would also like to acknowledge Dr. Craig Tucker and Dr. Ed Robinson for their contributions to the original recommendations for the verification. Also, this project would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of the following individuals:

Cooperating Catfish Producers

Farm Fresh Catfish Company - Chicot County
Mr. Mike Gafford, Mr. Brad Stringer, and Mr. Jerry Williamson

Top Cat Fishery - Ashley County
Mr. Carl Jeffers and Mr. Frank Pugh

Participating County Agents

Mr. Carl Hayden - Staff Chairman, Chicot County
Mr. Kenneth Williams - Staff Chairman, Ashley County

Agricultural Experiment Station Faculty - UAPB

Dr. Carole R. Engle, Economics - Coordinator of Aquaculture/Fisheries Center
Dr. Pierre Justin Kouka, Economics
Dr. Nikola Fijan, Fish Health (formerly)
Dr. Nathan M. Stone, Aquaculture

Cooperative Extension Faculty - UAPB

Mr. David Cline, Mr. Larry Dorman, Dr. Eric D. Park Extension Fisheries Specialists (formerly)
Mr. H. Steven Killian, Extension Fisheries Specialist
Dr. Hugh Thomforde, Extension Fisheries Specialist

Catfish Farmers of Arkansas

Mr. Van Pennington - Executive Director

Cooperative Extension Service

Mr. Michael D. Hamilton, S.E. District Program Leader
Dr. Tony E. Windham, Extension Economist - Management
Dr. Kelly J. Bryant, Farm Management, Cotton Economics

INTRODUCTION

The University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment Station have been conducting research verification trials for major row crops since 1980. The yield verification programs are interdisciplinary management programs in which all recommended production technology is applied in a timely manner on a commercial scale. In May of 1993, a pilot catfish verification program was initiated by the Arkansas Cooperative Extension System to provide production support to the catfish industry. Extension Fisheries Specialists and aquaculture researchers of the UAPB Aquaculture/Fisheries Center and district administrators of the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service designed the original program. The key components of the management protocol were: 1) moderate stocking rate of 6,000 to 6,500 head/acre (50-60 lb/1000 each) annually. 2) minimum requirement of 1hp/acre paddle-wheel aeration. 3) feeding twice/day at water temperatures between 22-32C. 4) multiple batch production scenario, harvesting when a minimum of 1,000 lb/acre reach 1.5 lb on the average, and 5) accurate record keeping. Initial funding was provided by the Catfish Farmers of Arkansas and the 1890 Cooperative Extension Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Production data were verified from four ponds over a three-year period with an average annual marketable yield of 4,971 lbs per acre. The estimated 1996 Arkansas state average is 2,508 lb/acre (Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA). The average pond size in the verification trials was 15 acres and the average annual stocking rate was 6,702 head per acre with fingerlings averaging 130 lbs/1000. The overall survival of the verification ponds was 65% with an average net feed conversion ratio of 2.02.

OBJECTIVES

Specific program objectives were as follows:

1. To conduct on-farm pond trials to verify the utility of research-based Extension recommendations with the intent of optimizing potential for profits.

2. To develop an on-farm database for the purpose of estimating the cost of production, feed conversion ratios, yield, and survival on commercial catfish ponds.

3. To help identify areas of production that require further research.

4. To improve or refine existing Extension recommendations which contribute to the profitable production of farm-raised channel catfish.

5. To increase county Extension agents' expertise in catfish production.

6. To utilize and incorporate data and findings from the CYVT program into Extension's educational program at the county and state level.

7. To develop and continue to refine specific management protocol for future trials.

MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL FOR ON-FARM TRIALS

CYVT Administration and Structure

Each year, the Catfish Yield Verification Technical Committee met to discuss and agree on recommended technology to be incorporated into the verification program. This committee was broad based and included research and Extension personnel with expertise in all subject matter relating to the production of catfish. The committee members also served as advisors throughout the three year production period. The CYVT coordinator was responsible for overseeing the implementation of the committee's recommendations.

Cooperators were chosen by the county Extension staff and the CYVT coordinator. The cooperators agreed to manage 2 ponds each according to recommendations from the Catfish Yield Verification Committee for a period of three years. The local county Extension agent visited the ponds weekly during the production season and verified all stocking, harvesting, and production inputs. The CYVT coordinator met with the county agent at the verification site on a weekly or bi-weekly basis as needed and made recommendations for action the following week. The following describes the management of the specific cooperator ponds in the program.

Cooperator Pond Management

Pond size varied from 10.6 to 20 acres (Table 1). Ponds A&B were on the same farm and were stocked initially in May of 1993. The verification period extended through September of 1995, resulting in a production period of approximately 2.33 years. This production period encompassed the majority of three full growing seasons, and two winters. These ponds had been in production for several years prior to being drained at the beginning of the trials. Ponds C and D were on the second cooperating farm and were brand new when the ponds were initially stocked in September 1993. The verification period for ponds C and D extended through September and December of
1996, resulting in production periods of 3 and 3.25 years respectively. The production periods for ponds C and D encompassed three full growing seasons as well as three full winters.

Table 1. Catfish yield verification pond size, initial stocking dates and final pond scrapping dates. (click here to see the figure)

Ponds A and B were stocked at an overall average rate of 5,970 and 6,295 head/acre/year with fingerlings averaging 0.065 lb and 0.073 lb respectively. (Table 2 ). Ponds C and D were stocked at a slightly higher rate to compensate for disease losses (Proliferative Gill Disease and Columnaris) that occurred shortly after the first stocking. The resulting standing crop (head/acre) was thought to be similar to ponds A and B at initial stocking. Another significant difference in stocking strategy was the larger average weight of fish stocked into ponds C and D, averaging 0.141 lb and 0.226 lb respectively (Table 2). The overall stocking rate for all ponds in the trial was 6,702 lb/acre/year with an average weight of 0.130 lb.

Table 2. Summary of stocking data indicating the pounds and head stocked into each of the catfish yield verification ponds expressed as a three-year average, 1996. (click here to see the figure)

All ponds were fed 32% protein floating catfish pellets. The feeding recommendation called for feeding twice a day when water temperatures were between 22 and 30C (70-86F). However, ponds A and B were fed once daily because feeding twice a day did not fit into the farm's overall management plan. Ponds C and D were located on a farm that was set up to feed twice a day throughout the summer months, whenever possible. Pounds of feed fed on a per acre per year basis were summarized in Table 3. Ponds C and D received almost twice as much feed on per acre per year basis. This was due to a more aggressive feeding and stocking strategy and also due to the fact
that smaller fish were stocked and harvested in ponds A and B.

Table 3. Feed fed (lb) and aeration usage for the catfish yield verification trials, 1996.

Dissolved oxygen levels were monitored throughout the spring, summer, and fall months. Oxygen levels were recorded from early evening through the early morning hours and electric aeration was turned on when oxygen levels dropped below 4 ppm. Emergency tractor paddle-wheel aerators were turned on when oxygen levels dropped below 2 ppm or whenever fish were piping at the surface. Each pond was equipped with paddle-wheel aeration at a rate of at least 1 hp per surface acre. Electric paddlewheel and emergency tractor paddlwheel aeration, expressed in terms of hours
per acre per year, are presented in Table 3. As a result of the higher feed inputs, aeration requirements were higher in ponds C and D. Hours of tractor aeration indicate how often fish were subjected to low oxygen stress.

Water quality was monitored on a weekly basis throughout the summer months to ensure that levels of total ammonia nitrogen, toxic un-ionized ammonia, nitrite, and chlorides were at acceptable levels. Chloride levels were maintained above 60 ppm through the addition of salt when needed.

Ponds were monitored visually for disease outbreaks and any disease problems were diagnosed by H. Steven Killian at the UAPB Extension Fish Diagnostic Laboratory in Lake Village AR. Fish were treated according to Extension recommendations. Ponds B, C and D were all treated with medicated feed (Romet) on at least one occasion for acute outbreaks of ESC (enteric septicemia of catfish). Hamburger gill (proliferative gill disease) and columnaris caused significant losses in pond C in the first year of production. Catfish anemia killed a significant number of large fish in pond D just
prior to the final harvest.

FISH PRODUCTION, SURVIVAL, AND FEED CONVERSION

Harvest

Harvesting commenced when records indicated that an adequate number of fish were ready to meet the demands of the existing market outlets for the particular farm. The producer was responsible for submitting samples to the plants and for making every reasonable effort to get the fish on the schedule at the processing plant. Producers agreed at the initiation of the CYVT that if fish were deemed "off-flavor" at time of harvest, the fish would be moved to another pond or purging facility.  These fish were counted as harvested for CYVT purposes of verifying commercial yield potential
when research-based Extension recommendations are implemented. Given that off-flavor is a marketing problem, it's cost is a marketing, not a production cost. The variability and uncertainty in off-flavor occurrence could likely obscure production results if not separated from production effects. Harvest data collected over the duration of the trials were totaled and divided by 3 years to determine "annual" results for all ponds. Inventory remaining at the end of the three year production period was verified by draining and scrapping-out each pond in order to calculate survival, feed
conversion, and yields.

Total pounds harvested as reported in Table 4 include the pounds of live fish that were recovered through the three-year production period including the pounds "scrapped" (total cleanout by seining and draining the pond) at the end of the study. The three-year average for pounds harvested in the verification ponds had a range of 4,398 to 6,687 lb/acre/year, with a mean of 5,542 lb/acre/year.  The three year average for head harvested in the verification ponds had a range of 3,673 to 4,988   head/acre/year, with a mean of 4,282 head/acre/year. The average weight of fish harvested in the verification ponds had a range of 0.98 to 1.82 lb, with a mean of 1.33 lb.


Table 4. Summary of harvested catfish weight, and population number (including ending inventory), expressed as a three-year average, and overall survival from each of the catfish yield verification ponds, 1996. (click here to see the figure)

The apparent differences in average weight harvested between Ponds A & B and Ponds C & D is likely due to differences in the timing of stocking fingerlings with respect to harvest. The majority of the 6 inch fingerlings stocked in ponds A and B in May of 1995, had only reached 0.5 lb by the end of the trials in September of 1995. This contributed to the relatively low overall average weight of fish produced in these ponds of 0.98 and 1.05 lb respectively. Ponds C and D were last stocked in
September of 1995 and all fish were of marketable size by September of 1996 when the trials in these ponds were terminated. This resulted in the relatively higher overall average weights of 1.47 and 1.82 in Ponds C and D (Table 4).

Overall survival was 84% and 66% in ponds A and B, respectively (Table 4). Low oxygen levels in the hauling tank delivering the fingerlings to pond B in May of 1994 may have caused higher mortality in that pond. Although very few mortalities were confirmed at the time of stocking, the pond did not perform as well as did pond A which was stocked with fingerlings from a different truck. Survival was 55% in both ponds C and D. Hamburger Gill (proliferative gill disease) and columnaris were diagnosed as causes of mortality in Pond C early in the program. Pond D had a
chronic, low level infection of ESC throughout the majority of the study and was followed by a case of anemia which killed a number of 2-3 lb fish just prior to the last major harvest. The fact that the last batch of fish stocked into ponds A and B were not held over the winter and were not large enough for "market" at the end of the study is at least in part responsible for the relatively higher survival rates reported for those ponds in table .

Yield

Yield in the verification ponds is presented in Table 5. The annual marketed yield reported in Table 5 is farm yield as measured on farms and is the annual pounds sold per acre over the three years of production. Annual marketed yield in the verification ponds ranged from 3,673 lb/acre/year in Pond B to 6,422 lb/acre/year in Pond D. The average annual marketed yield was 4,971 lb/acre/year. The overall average weight of fish marketed ranged from 1.38 in pond A to 1.83 in Pond D with an overall average marketed weight of 1.52.

Table 5. Annual Marketed Yield, Overall Net Yield, Average Weight of Fish Sold and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) in catfish yield verification trials, 1996.

aGross Feed Conversion Ratio = (lb feed fed ÷ lb fish marketed).
bNet Feed Conversion Ratio = (lb feed fed ÷ lb overall net yield).

Overall net yield is an indicator of biological production of fish in each pond. This value was obtained by subtracting the pounds of fish stocked from the total pounds of live fish accounted for through the end of the study (including the scrap). Thus, overall net yield measures the increase in fish weight regardless of the actual weight of fish sold. Overall net yield ranged from 3,939 lb/acre/year in Pond B to 6,422 lb/acre/year in Pond D (Table 5). The average overall net yield for the verification trials was 4,676 lb/acre/year.

The standard method for calculating the biological feed conversion ratio for a production study requires an ending inventory weight and is calculated by dividing the total pounds of feed fed by the total net increase in fish weight. However, in multiple batch production scenarios, commercial catfish ponds may be in production continuously for years. Thus, it is common practice for farmers to calculate an estimated feed conversion by dividing feed fed by pounds marketed regardless of pounds stocked or pounds of remaining inventory. For the purpose of this report, the standard biological feed conversion ratio is reported in Table 5 as Net FCR, and the FCR as calculated on
farms is referred to as Gross FCR. Actual net feed conversion ranged from 1.58 in Pond A to 2.70 in Pond D, with a mean of 2.02. Gross feed conversion ranged from 1.45 in Pond A to 2.09 in Pond D, with a mean of 1.70. The difference between the net and gross feed conversion values was more pronounced in Ponds C and D where larger fish were stocked (Table 5).

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

One of the objectives of yield verification is to verify and demonstrate that recommended Extension practices will improve net farm income. During this initial pilot project, the framework was established to collect information on production costs for economic analysis.

Direct Expenses

Direct expenses are those that require cash outlays during the year. Given that the fundamental management issues of the management protocol developed for this pilot program included changes in stocking density, feeding practices, and aeration rates, detailed records were maintained of the quantities used of fingerlings, feed (32% protein and medicated) and aeration (both electric floating paddlewheel aerators and tractor-powered PTO driven emergency paddlewheel aerators). The prices used for these inputs were determined based on prices reported in southeast Arkansas as of December, 1996.

Harvesting and hauling expenses were determined by the cost in southeast Arkansas charged by custom harvesters. Other expenses, including repairs and maintenance, fuel, chemicals, telephone, water quality, labor, accounting, and bird scaring expenses were prorated on a per-acre basis from Engle and Kouka (1996). Since both farms had salaried managers, management costs were included under fixed expenses. Interest on operating capital was charged for 9 months of the year at a rate of 11%.

Direct expenses for the CYVT ponds ranged from $2,159 to $4,404 per acre, Table 8. The breakeven price needed to cover the direct expenses ranged from $0.53/lb to $0.69/lb.

Fixed Expenses

Fixed expenses represent the cost of owning and using the ponds and equipment. These costs vary greatly among farms as farm size, management skill, and use vary. Data were not collected on CYVT farms on fixed expenses in this pilot program. However, estimates of fixed expenses are necessary to report net returns per acre. In order to present complete cost and returns estimates for the CYVT, fixed expenses were taken from Engle and Kouka (1996) and included at $402/acre in Table 8. It is recommended that, in future CYVT trials, data on fixed expenses are collected.
Management expenses were included under fixed expenses.

Total Expenses

Total expenses ranged from $2,561 to $4,806 per acre. Breakeven prices to cover total expenses ranged from $0.63 to $0.75/lb. Land expenses were not included in these costs. There is variation in land tenure circumstances across farms. In order to account for land use, a rent fee is charged.  Breakeven prices to cover total expenses and rent ranged from $0.66 to $0.76/lb.

Net Returns per Acre

Breakeven prices when compared to market prices provide information on profit margins per pound of product sold. However, the lowest breakeven price is not necessarily the point of maximum profit. Yields also affect per-acre net returns.

Income in Table 6 was based on a market price of $0.75/lb of catfish. This price is representative of prices over the period of the CYVT pilot program. At this price, net returns per acre ranged from $11 to $472 per acre.

Yields of catfish across the industry average approximately 3,000 lb/acre/year (USDA 1996). The production costs estimated for the verification ponds based on obtained yields in those ponds were substantially lower than the costs at yields of 3,000 lb/acre/year (Engle and Kouka, 1996).

However, market price of catfish and feed prices vary and can have a large effect on net returns. To account for these effects on the costs reported in this report, three sensitivity analyses were conducted. Table 7 presents a sensitivity analysis of net returns per acre for catfish prices ranging from $0.65/lb to $0.85/lb. The sensitivity analysis of the effect of the price of feed on net returns/acre is presented in Table 8, and table 9 presents combined effects of varying feed prices and catfish prices on net returns/acre.

Table 6. Estimated Costs and Returns for Catfish yield Verification Ponds, 1996. (click here to see the figure)

a Includes repairs & maintenance, fuel, chemicals, telephone, water quality, labor, accounting, and bird scaring. These were not collected on verification ponds, but were taken from Engle and Kouka (1996).

b Interest on operating capital is charged for 9 months.

c Total fixed expenses were taken from Engle and Kouka (1996) and include management expenses.

Table 7. Sensitivity of varying market price of catfish on net returns per acre in the catfish yield verification ponds, 1996. (click here to see the figure)

Table 8. Sensitivity analysis of the effect of the price of feed on net returns/acre, catfish yield verification ponds, 1996. (click here to see the figure)

Table 9. Sensitivity analysis of the combined effects of varying prices of catfish and catfish feed on net returns per acre averaged across the verification trials. (click here to see the figure)

BENEFITS OF CYVT PILOT PROGRAM

The CYVT program has been an excellent demonstration of the best management practices recommended for the production of food-sized channel catfish and provides a necessary intermediate step between small-pond research and the development of Extension's
recommendations to farmers. It has also served as an excellent training tool for county Extension
agents to learn more about catfish production. The process of developing the specific management
protocols for the verification ponds has been especially beneficial to research and extension
personnel and has encouraged an open dialogue and provided systematic structure for on-farm
interaction with producers.

Production Areas Identified that Require Further Research

Areas of production that require further research that have been identified through the yield
verification process include the following:

1) Survival of various sizes of fingerlings at stocking.

2) Inventory estimation techniques and procedures.

3) Stocking of graded vs. pond-run fingerlings in multiple-batch production.

4) Stocking rates in multiple-batch production.

5) Stocking in Fall vs. Spring.

6) Economics of aeration exceeding the established minimum of 1 hp/acre.

7) Economics of stocking fingerlings versus stockers in multiple batch production.

8) Winter feeding strategies.

Improved or Refined Extension Recommendations

The refining of Extension recommendations was a major objective of the yield verification program. It is only through the systematic implementation of existing Extension recommendations in a commercial setting that a more complete understanding of the limitations and shortcomings of those recommendations can be realized. The following list includes several refined Extension management recommendations that will be implemented in future verification programs in Arkansas:

1) Use of a graded-sample methodology to better describe fingerling populations at stocking for improved record-keeping and inventory tracking.

2) Use of an upper feeding limit of 150 lbs/acre/day based on a 4-5 day running average rather than on any given day to allow for true satiation feeding at high standing crops while still limiting overall nutrient input.

3) Use of a simplified winter-feeding recommendation for new farmers that emphasises feeding on warm days whenever levee conditions permit, rather than focusing on existing feeding guidelines that are useful as a reference, but not practical for most production facilities to implement.

4) Use of refined pond-bank sampling techniques to improve accuracy during fingerling transactions and for improved accuracy of head count determinations for foodfish at harvest.

5) Use of refined recommendations for record keeping with emphasis on key parameters that are most practical and important with regard to the profitable production of farm-raised channel catfish.

The verification experience also led to the development of a catfish grading machine designed to quickly divide a 30-40 lb sample of fingerlings into distinct size classes on the pond-bank for use with the "Sample-Graded Method" of describing fingerling populations at stocking.

Increased County Agent Expertise

Four county Extension agents were directly involved with the implementation of the catfish yield verification program and/or the collection of data. These agents have learned about current culture methods, pertenent record-keeping, and water quality analysis and interpretation of results. These agents now have a full understanding of the issues and problems facing the catfish aquaculture industry and have subsequently been more active in planning educational programs to better serve this clientele. In addition, other agents in Arkansas and specialists and agents in other states have become aware of the potential of yield verification.

Educational Programs at County and State Level Benefiting from CYVT

Another advantage of the yield verification program is that reports and updates on the program are disseminated to farmers through the county extension framework, which has heightened county agent awareness of the aquaculture industry and has enhanced county agent interaction with this particular clientele group. As an example, Mr. Carl Hayden, County Agent in Chicot County, AR, organized a Catfish Farm Worker Training Course. The verification program led to the realization that the individuals responsible for carrying out some of the most crucial tasks on the farms were not
necessarily those individuals who could attend the typical educational programs at larger meetings. Over 50 catfish farm workers attended the training course that covered all the basics of pond culture, water quality, oxygen management and farm safety.

Refinement of Specific Managent Protocols for Future Trials

Specific management protocols have been refined throughout this "pilot" yield verification program.  The specific management protocol that will be implemented in the next round of trials is included in

Appendix 1.

Research Projects Initiated

Research projects initiated at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff as a result of the CYVT program include fingerling survival studies, catfish aggression studies, development of a depletion method for catfish pond inventory, and the study of various control options for fire ants on fish pond levees. As a direct result of this preliminary program, a Southern Regional Aquaculture Center program entitled "Verification of Recommended Management Practices for Major Aquatic Species" has been implemented which will result in verification programs in Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
and North Carolina.

REFERENCES

Engle, C.R. and P.J. Kouka. 1996. Effects of inflation on the cost of producing catfish. The Catfish Bargaining Association. Belzoni, Mississippi. 101 pp. APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Specific Management Protocol for Future Yield Verification Trials.


Revised 05/12/97

Catfish Yield Verification Program

Specific Management Protocol for the Production of Food-Sized Channel Catfish

David L. Heikes, Coordinator

Co-Sponsored By

Arkansas Cooperative Extension & Catfish Farmers of Arkansas

INTRODUCTION

Extension yield verification programs have proven to be a very effective method of technology transfer for persons involved in the production of rice, cotton, wheat, and beef cattle since 1980. In May 1993, a preliminary aquaculture verification program was initiated by the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service to provide production support to the catfish industry.

Specific objectives were (1) to verify Extension recommendations; (2) to estimate cost of production, FCR, yield, and survival; (3) to identify research needs and update Extension recommendations; and (4) to develop and refine specific protocols for future verification trials.  Cooperators agreed to manage commercial ponds according to Extension recommendations over a three year period. Stocking and harvesting data were verified and farm records were collected for feed, aeration, and weekly water quality data.

Program specifics regarding the administrative framework and implementation procedures are outlined in a separate document entitled "The Catfish Yield Verification Program - Expectations, Planning, and Implementation - Guidelines". The specific management protocol outlined below reflects the current management recommendations for the catfish yield verification program based on the results and experiences of the preliminary verification program.

PROGRAM SUMMARY

Cooperating producers agree to manage 2 ponds each according to recommendations from the Catfish Yield Verification Committee for a period of 3 years. This Committee is composed of researchers and Extension specialists representing major areas of expertise such as pond management, water quality, fish health, and economics.

The local county extension agent will visit each farm weekly during the production season and will verify all stocking and harvesting procedures. The catfish yield verification coordinator will meet with the county agent on a weekly or bi-weekly basis as needed and will make recommendations for action the following week. If unexpected situations arise, it is the responsibility of the cooperator to contact the county agent or the coordinator for guidance. The county agent will collect production and water quality data each week and will maintain regular contact with the coordinator and the producer.

Remaining inventory at the end of the three year production study will be verified in order to calculate survival, feed conversion, and yields. Feed, aeration and other production expense data will be utilized to calculate specific operating expenses and the net returns above the cost of stocking, feeding and aeration.


PROGRAMS SPECIFICS

Site Selection

Ponds must be levee style and must be properly designed and built.
Preferred pond size is 12-15 acres (minimum size = 10 ac, maximum size = 20 ac).
Ponds must have all-weather levies and year-round access.
Ponds must be equipped with a minimum of 1 hp/ac electric paddle wheel aeration.
Ponds must be supplied with an adequate quantity and quality of groundwater.
Preference will be given to ponds that have recently been reworked or drained.

Pond Management

Pond Preparation

Preferred Method:
Pond should be drained and dried to the extent possible prior to stocking. Any remaining puddles should be treated to remove any trash fish. Pond should be pumped up within 2-3 weeks of initial stocking, and should be fertilized immediately with a liquid fertilizer (18-34-0, 1gal/acre) to establish an adequate bloom for weed control. Pond may also be stocked with grass carp if a weed problem starts to develop before feeding rates provide for an adequate bloom.

Alternate Method:
Under certain circumstances, it may not be possible, or practical, to start the verification with a clean dry pond. However, it is essential that the "beginning inventory" be verified and minimized to the extent possible prior to starting the verification process. In order to verify the "beginning inventory" it is essential that the cooperator agree to seine the pond three times with a small mesh fingerling seine. Fish caught in each of the three seine pulls must be weighed and removed from the pond. Data from these three seine pulls will be used in a "Depletion Estimation Program" (see appendix 1) that will give us a scientifically derived estimation of the remaining fish in the pond that will be considered our "beginning inventory".

Pond Stocking

Stocking Rate will be within the range of 6000-6500 head/ac, annually.
Fingerlings will be stocked in the early spring of each year.
Minimum fingerling size will be 60-70 lb/1000 (approximately 6")
Every attempt will be made to locate tightly graded fingerlings for stocking.
Describing the population:

Prior to loading the fingerling truck, two 10 lb samples will be weighed and counted to accurately determine the number of pounds to be loaded onto the hauling tanks to achieve our target stocking density. Accurate records of actual pounds loaded will be maintained.

Prior to off-loading the fingerling hauling truck (at the verification pond site), the fingerling size distribution will be described according to the "Sample Graded" method described here. This sample grading procedure will be carried out by Extension fisheries personal and will not be the responsibility of the cooperator. Two samples will be taken from each fingerling transport truck.  One sample will be taken toward the front of the truck, and one sample will be taken toward the rear of the truck. Each sample will consist of two full dips with a long handled fingerling dipnet, dipping from the bottom of the hauling tank to the top. The contents of the two fingerling dipnets (each sample) will be combined in a fish basket and handed down off the truck. Fish from the two
samples will be combined and then graded into four distinct size classes (less than 4", 4"-6", 6"-8", and greater than 8"). Subsamples of each size class will be weighed and counted to generate average weight data for each class. The total weight of each class will then be determined to describe the size distribution. If for any reason, the sample grading procedure can not take place immediately prior to off-loading, the county agent should make arrangements to take the samples as outlined above and hold them in hoopnets (available from the coordinator) until the sample can be graded. Information generated from the sample grading procedure will be entered as batch information in the Fishy 3.2 records management program to aid in tracking inventories and predicting harvest dates.

Feeding

The cooperating farmer, whenever possible, will feed the fish according to the feeding guidelines published in "A Practical Guide to Nutrition, feeds, and feeding of Catfish-1996 Revision". Because proper feeding is critical to the profitability of catfish production, and because it is an important part of the verification process, it may be necessary to spend a few extra minutes when feeding the verification ponds.

General Feeding Recommendations:

Feed Type: 28% (preferred) or 32% Floating 3/16" Pellets

Satiation Feeding: Fish will be fed as much as they will consume at each feeding without wasting feed, within the maximum feed limit outlined below.

Winter Feeding: At temperatures below 12 C (55 F), fish should be fed at least once per week, weather and levee conditions permitting.

Spring/Fall Feeding: At temperatures between 12 and 21C (55-70F), fish should be fed every other day.

Summer Feeding: At temperatures between 22 and 30C (70-86F), fish should be fed every day. It is preferable to feed two times per day, late morning and early afternoon whenever possible. When water temperatures are above 30C (86F), ponds should be fed only once per day.

Max. Feed Limit: Our goal is to limit our maximum feed input to an average of 100-120 lb/ac/day over any seven day period, with an absolute daily maximum of 150lb/ac/day. Rather than limit the amount of feed at each feeding, it is preferable to skip a day whenever necessary so that fish can be fed to satiation on the remaining feeding days.

Oxygen Management

The cooperating farmer will monitor daily oxygen fluctuations and initiate aeration when the dissolved oxygen concentration is expected to drop below 4ppm. The cooperating farmer will provide 1 hp/acre aeration for ponds in the program. A morning oxygen reading (7-9am) will be taken daily throughout the winter to monitor oxygen conditions.

Harvesting

Harvesting should commence when our records (Fishy 3.2) indicate that approximately
1,000lb/acre of fish have reached 1.5lb, with a minimum of 10,000lb ready for market. Every reasonable effort should be made to get these fish on a processor's schedule immediately. If, after a period of three weeks, the fish can not be scheduled for any reason, the cooperator must agree to harvest the fish and move them to another pond. This procedure will be repeated as often as necessary.

At harvest, we will sample 2 short basket loads (approximately 200 lb each) of fish per truckload to obtain the average weight of the harvested fish. The basket will be weighed and then set down on top of the truck and the fish will be counted into the hauling tank. This typically takes between 2 and 4 minutes per sample.

Water Quality Management

A Cooperative Extension Agent will take weekly water samples from the ponds to be analyzed for parameters which may affect fish health and pond performance. These parameters include temperature, pH, TAN, Nitrite, and Unionized ammonia. Chloride readings will be taken whenever nitrite readings are above 1 ppm or total ammonia readings are above 5 ppm. Alkalinity, hardness, and chlorides readings will be taken every 6 months or as necessary for pond treatments. A minimum of 60 ppm chlorides will be maintained throughout the trial period.

Water Quantity Management

A water column depth meter (WCDM) or staff gauge will be installed by CES and will be used to aid the cooperating farmer in using the 3/6 water management system. Ponds will be filled to 3 inches below the top of the overflow pipe. This allows for 3 inches of rainwater storage. If the water level falls in 6 inches below the overflow level the pond will be pumped up to the 3 inch level.

Fish Health Management

Weekly observations of pond health will be completed weekly by CES personnel. In addition, periodic health checks may be performed on fish during certain disease seasons or whenever fish health may have been compromised. The cooperating farmers will immediately report and transport suspect fish to the diagnostic laboratory and follow the recommendations of the fish health specialist.


Record Keeping

The cooperator must agree to maintain adequate records on the verification ponds on a daily basis.  These records should include:

1. Stocking Records

2. Harvest Records

3. Daily Feeding

4. Mortality Estimates

5. Oxygen High/Low and Hours of Aeration

6. Flavor Checks

7. Weekly Water Quality

8. Medications or Treatments

9. Pond Specific Operating Expenses

10.Water Pumping Information

The designated county Extension agents and program coordinator will collect all data on a weekly basis and will use the Fishy 3.2 computer program as a management tool for predicting harvest dates and feed inputs.

Reporting

Verbal quarterly reports will be available and an annual comprehensive report will be produced by the program coordinator. The cooperating farmers will be kept abreast of important trends in the data and notified of any observed potential problems. It is important that the cooperators realize that this information will be published and become public. However, no proprietary information other than that relating to the program ponds will be released without permission.

Catfish Yield Verification Committee:

Michael Hamilton

Dr. Carole R. Engle

David Heikes

Steven Killian

Dr. Andy Goodwin

Dr. Nathan Stone

Van Pennington

Accredited by North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

Commission on Institutions of Higher Education

30 N. LaSalle, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois, 60602-2504

1-800-621-7440/FAX: 312-263-7462

Updated 06/24/04