An Economic Comparison of Three Intensive Fish Production Systems 
 
by 
 
Micah Patrick Fern 
 
 
 
 
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
 Master of Science 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 3, 2014 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: aquaculture, economics, intensive systems,  
raceways, catfish, tilapia 
 
 
Copyright 2014 by Micah Fern  
 
 
Approved by 
 
Terry R. Hanson, Co-chair, Associate Professor of the School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and 
Aquatic Sciences 
Jesse A. Chappell, Co-chair, Associate Professor of the School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and  
Aquatic Sciences 
 William H. Daniels, Associate Professor of the School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic 
Sciences 
 
 
 
 
 
ii 
 
 
Abstract 
 
 
 A study was conducted to compare the economic costs and returns of three intensive 
aquaculture production systems located in Auburn and Browns, Alabama. The objective of this 
project was to examine the potential profitability of intensive aquaculture systems which utilize 
non-traditional methods of fish production. Three intensive fish production systems were chosen 
based on their use of modern aquaculture technologies and include an indoor recirculating tilapia 
system, an integrated tilapia/cucumber greenhouse system, and a catfish floating in-pond 
raceway system. Enterprise budgets were developed to analyze the economic feasibility, 
advantages and disadvantages of each system.  Economic comparisons were made among 
systems in three areas; specifically, fixed and variable cost of production and breakeven price.  
Additionally, total cost and net returns for each system were calculated.  
 Cost and return budget elements varied by system and were closely linked to the stage of 
development of each system as it is deployed on each commercial farm.  Lower net returns were 
associated with the systems that were newer and where managerial and operational procedures 
were being developed and where mechanical ?kinks? were still being worked out.  Systems that 
had two or three years of operational and marketing experience were more feasible.  Thus, these 
newer systems may likely take a few years after initiation to become viable commercial 
enterprises and reach their optimal levels of production and efficiency.  
 For this study, floating in-pond raceways were designed and built to improve upon 
traditional pond culture by offering reduced manpower, higher stocking densities, ease of
iii 
 
 feeding, grading and complete harvest, precise disease treatment, and collection potential of fish 
wastes. The calculated investment cost was $128,348 for the 24 raceway units ($5,348 per 
raceway) including cost for associated piers, electrical system, and machinery and equipment. 
The actual growth of catfish was tracked and the cost of production was calculated to be $1.58/lb 
for channel catfish and $1.43/lb for hybrid catfish. However, scenarios using data with improved 
efficiencies at a commercial scale had estimated cost of production of $0.72/lb for channel 
catfish, $1.56/lb for grass carp (a high value market item in china), and $0.83/lb for tilapia. 
An indoor recirculating tilapia system which has been in commercial production for four 
years was found to produce market-sized tilapia at $1.59/lb; and could be sold for $2.10/lb live 
weight, providing a $0.49/lb net return. In the integrated tilapia/cucumber greenhouse system the 
benefits of incorporating vegetable production with fish production were found to be worthwhile. 
Tilapia from this integrated, intensive system had a cost of production of $1.55/lb and cucumbers 
cost $0.25/lb to produce; and the system had a $0.73/lb net return based on $2.10/lb and $1.00/lb 
tilapia and cucumber selling price, respectively.   
iv 
 
 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
 The construction of the floating in-pond raceways was funded by Jubilee Farms (Leigh 
Holland), the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station, and the School of Fisheries, 
Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences. The construction phase of the raceway project would not 
have been possible without the resources and expertise graciously given by the Agriculture Land 
and Resources Management crew under the leadership of Robert Hensarling. I would like to give 
special thanks to Esau Arana and the raceway building team whose members include: Luke 
Foshee, Jeremy Pickens, Jason Danaher, Cole Wade, Tom Houston, Cole Chappell, Hao Sun, 
Bryan Weatherford, Preston Herring, Ginger Stuckey, Jake Gayle and Dave Perera. I am deeply 
indebted to Dr. Jesse Chappell and Dr. Terry Hanson who served as my mentors and were 
always willing to give up time to guide me through this project. Without their assistance and 
expertise this project could not have gotten done in a timely fashion. I would like to 
acknowledge and thank Dr. William Daniels for the large role he played in helping me through 
the academic processes involved in graduating. I am especially thankful for Jeremy Pickens, 
Jason Danaher, and those at the Dean Wilson Farm (Butch Wilson, Willard Powe, Matt Wilson, 
and Travis Wilson). Without their cooperation and patience during the data collecting process, 
this project would not have been possible. Finally, I appreciate the Foshee family (Wheeler, 
Marie, Mark, and Luke) whose kindness to me during my time at Auburn will never be 
forgotten.  
 v 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iv  
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vii  
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... x  
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xi 
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 
II. Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................. 8 
 Indoor Recirculating Tilapia System ................................................................................ 9 
 Floating In-Pond Raceway System ................................................................................. 13 
 Integrated Tilapia/Cucumber Greenhouse System ......................................................... 18 
III. Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 22 
            Floating In-Pond Raceway System ................................................................................. 22 
                     Investment Cost ..................................................................................................... 22 
          Production Parameters ........................................................................................... 25 
                     Enterprise Budget................................................................................................... 29 
                     Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................... 34 
            Indoor Recirculating Tilapia System .............................................................................. 49 
                     Investment Cost ..................................................................................................... 49 
          Production Parameters ........................................................................................... 52
vi 
 
                     Enterprise Budget................................................................................................... 55 
                     Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................... 57 
 Integrated Tilapia/Cucumber Greenhouse System ......................................................... 63 
                     Investment Cost ..................................................................................................... 63 
          Production Parameters ........................................................................................... 65 
                     Enterprise Budget................................................................................................... 68 
IV. Summary and Conclusion  .................................................................................................... 75 
References  .................................................................................................................................. 83 
 
 
vii 
 
 
List of Tables 
 
 
Table 3.1 Floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS), 1 cell (6 ft width x 24 ft length x 5 ft 
depth), construction and equipment cost, Auburn, Alabama, 2013 ........................... 23 
 
Table 3.2 Floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS), 24 cells (6 ft width x 24 ft length x 5 ft 
depth), construction and equipment cost, Auburn, Alabama, 2013 ........................... 24 
 
Table 3.3 Production parameters per RW for the floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS), 
Auburn, Alabama, 2013 ............................................................................................. 28 
 
Table 3.4 Scenario 1: Enterprise budget for the floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS), 24 
cells, producing advanced stockers (12 cells hybrid catfish and 12 cells channel 
catfish)  ....................................................................................................................... 31 
 
Table 3.5 Scenario 2: Enterprise budget for the floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS), 24 
cells, producing 0.39lb hybrid stockers ...................................................................... 32 
 
Table 3.6 Scenario 3: Enterprise budget for the floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS), 24 
cells, producing 0.24lb channel stockers .................................................................... 33 
 
Table 3.7 Scenario 1 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns above all expenses for 
24 mixed hybrid and channel catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price 
 .................................................................................................................................... 36 
 
Table 3.8 Scenario 1 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns above all expenses per 
ft2 with 24 mixed channel and hybrid catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed 
price ............................................................................................................................ 37
 
Table 3.9 Scenario 1 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated income above variable expenses 
for 24 mixed hybrid and channel catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed 
price ............................................................................................................................ 38 
Table 3.10 Scenario 1 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated income above variable expenses 
per ft2 with 24 mixed channel and hybrid catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and 
feed price .................................................................................................................... 39 
 
Table 3.11 Scenario 2 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated income above variable expenses 
for 24 hybrid catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price ...................... 40 
 
 viii 
Table 3.12 Scenario 2 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated income above variable expenses 
per ft2 with 24 hybrid catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price ......... 41 
 
Table 3.13 Scenario 2 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns above all expenses for 
24 hybrid catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price ............................ 42 
 
Table 3.14 Scenario 2 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns above all expenses per 
ft2 with 24 hybrid catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price ............... 43 
 
Table 3.15 Scenario 3 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns above all expenses for 
24 channel catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price .......................... 44 
 
Table 3.16 Scenario 3 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns above all expenses per 
ft2 with 24 channel catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price ............. 45 
 
Table 3.17 Scenario 3 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- income returns above variable expenses for 
24 channel catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price .......................... 46 
 
Table 3.18 Scenario 3 (FIPRS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated income above variable expenses 
per ft2 with 24 channel catfish RW, at varying fish selling price and feed price ....... 47 
 
Table 3.19 Scenario 1 (FIPRS): Survival sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns with 24 
mixed channel and hybrid catfish RW, at varying survival rates ............................... 48 
 
Table 3.20 Scenario 2 (FIPRS): Survival sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns with 24 
hybrid catfish RW, at varying survival rates .............................................................. 48 
 
Table 3.21 Scenario 3 (FIPRS): Survival sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns with 24 
channel catfish RW, at varying survival rates ............................................................ 48 
 
Table 3.22 Indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS), 10 production cells (8 ft width x 42 ft 
length x 4 ft depth), 5 stocker cells (8 ft width x 28 ft length x 4 ft depth), and 5 
fingerling cells (8 ft width x 14 ft length x 4 ft depth), construction and equipment 
cost, West Alabama .................................................................................................... 51 
 
Table 3.23 Production parameters for the indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS), West 
Alabama, 2013 ............................................................................................................ 54 
 
Table 3.24 Indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS) enterprise budget, 10 production cells and 
5 fingerling/stocker cells, West Alabama, 2013 ......................................................... 56 
 
Table 3.25 Indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns 
above all expenses at varying fish selling price and feed price .................................. 58 
 
Table 3.26 Indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated net returns 
above all expenses per ft2, at varying fish selling price and feed price ...................... 59 
 ix 
 
Table 3.27 Indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated income 
above variable expenses at varying fish selling price and feed price ......................... 60 
 
Table 3.28 Indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS): Sensitivity analysis- estimated income 
above variable expenses per ft2, at varying fish selling price and feed price ............. 61 
 
Table 3.29 Indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS): Survival sensitivity analysis- estimated net 
returns at varying survival rates ................................................................................. 62 
 
Table 3.30 Integrated tilapia/cucumber greenhouse system (ITCGS), 2 cells (12 ft width x 88 ft 
length x 4 ft depth), construction and equipment cost, Auburn, Alabama ................. 64 
 
Table 3.31 Production parameters for the integrated tilapia/cucumber greenhouse system 
(ITCGS), Auburn, Alabama ....................................................................................... 67 
 
Table 3.32 Integrated tilapia/cucumber greenhouse system (ITCGS) enterprise budget, 2 cells, 
producing 1.0 lb tilapia, Auburn, Alabama ................................................................ 69 
 
Table 3.33 Summary comparison of three intensive fish production systems (FIPRS, IRTS, & 
ITCGS) ....................................................................................................................... 73 
 
Table 3.34 Summary table of variable and fixed cost for three intensive fish production systems 
(FIPRS, IRTS, & ITCGS) .......................................................................................... 74 
 
Table 4.1 Tilapia and cucumber production using 4 plant GH and 1 fish GH versus 1 plant GH 
and 1 fish GH (ITCGS), Auburn, Alabama ................................................................ 79
 
Table 4.2 Expectation production versus actual production data for the indoor tilapia 
recirculating system (IRTS), West Alabama, 2013 .................................................... 81 
 
Table 4.3 Commercial channel catfish production versus scenario 3 production for the floating 
in-pond raceway (FIPRS), 24 cells, Auburn, Alabama .............................................. 82
 
  
 x 
 
List of Figures 
 
 
Figure 2.1 A schematic of the indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS) in West Alabama .... 12 
 
Figure 2.2 A schematic of the floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS) at Auburn University, 
Auburn, Alabama. The system is located at pond S-6, a 26-acre pond .................... 16 
 
Figure 2.3 A schematic of the floating in-pond raceway system (FIPRS) at Auburn University, 
Auburn, Alabama. The system is located at S-1, a 23-acre pond ............................. 17 
 
Figure 2.4 A schematic of the integrated tilapia/cucumber greenhouse system (ITCGS) at 
Auburn, University, Auburn, Alabama ..................................................................... 21 
 
Figure 4.1 Four years of production data for the indoor recirculating tilapia system showing 
improvement over time in pounds produced and cash sales ..................................... 80 
  
 xi 
 
List of Abbreviations 
 
 
FIPRS Floating In-Pond Raceway System    
IPRS In-pond Raceway System 
ITCGS Integrated Tilapia/Cucumber Greenhouse System 
IRTS Indoor Recirculating Tilapia System 
FCR Feed Conversion Ratio 
RW Raceway 
GH Greenhouse 
  
 1 
 
Chapter I 
 
Introduction 
 
 
  
 Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing venues of agriculture (Larsen and 
Roney 2013). Fish production surpassed beef production in 2013 suggesting a global 
protein shift in human diet towards fish. Fish production is projected to continue 
increasing and is expected to continue to surpass other food protein resources 
(Blumenthal 2013). The global price of fish is steadily increasing due to a rising demand 
for a healthy protein source and is expected to continue to strengthen in years ahead 
(Blumenthal 2013; Holliman et al. 2008). Over-harvest and water pollution have 
restricted harvest and supply of wild-caught fish populations destined for human 
consumption and, consequently, increased demand towards farm-raised fish (Holliman et 
al. 2008). As predicted by aquaculture pioneers, with increasing human populations, the 
world will lean less on capture fisheries and depend more on farm-raised fish 
(Blumenthal 2013). Authors speculate 2013 may be the year farm-raised fish 
consumption surpasses wild-caught fish in the United States (U.S.) (Larsen and Roney 
2013). 
 In 2011, an estimated $423 million worth of food-sized catfish were produced 
making it the largest segment of U.S. aquaculture (USDA 2013).  The majority of catfish 
production is done in the southeast with the main producing states being Mississippi, 
Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas (USDA 2013). Alabama was ranked second in catfish 
production behind Mississippi with Alabama growers having produced 38 percent of total 
live weight harvested across the U.S. in 2012 (USDA 2013). There are currently around 
 2 
18,175 water acres being used in catfish production in Alabama, down 27 percent from 
2005 (USDA 2006; USDA 2013). In 2012, food-sized catfish sales in Alabama totaled 
more than $110 million with the average price per pound being $0.90 (USDA 2013). 
 As the second most popular food-fish in the world, there are conflicting views on 
whether or not tilapia are displacing catfish in the U.S. fish market because of their rapid 
rise in popularity (Blumenthal 2013). Improved genetics and the tilapia?s ability to grow 
well in a range of intensive systems have allowed the production of these species to 
advance quickly in the U.S. (Watanabe 2002).  In 2010, the U.S. continued to be the 
largest market for tilapia products with sales reaching over $840 million from imported 
fish alone (Fitzsimmons et al. 2011). Aggressive pricing by tilapia suppliers has allowed 
this species to take over in many markets, especially in the northeast (Blumenthal 2013). 
According to personal communications with industry personnel, Alabama tilapia growers 
produced around 200 tons of tilapia in 2013 at an average of $2.10/lb (Chappell 2014, 
personal communication).  
 Despite being a well-established segment of U.S. aquaculture, the catfish industry 
has been under duress the past decade with over 50 percent of its farmers leaving the 
industry (Stewart 2013). Farmers from Alabama and Mississippi have kept the most 
water area in catfish production despite the 109 percent increase in feed prices and 
wavering consumer base (Stewart 2013; USDA 2013). The profit margin for catfish 
farmers has become thin to nonexistent as input prices for production rise and sale prices 
decrease (Holliman et al. 2008). Surviving the current market and turning a profit for 
aquaculture producers will require organization to maximize efficiency in production past 
what traditional pond culture is capable of achieving (Holliman et al. 2008). Farm 
 3 
survival in many instances may require farmers to intensify production to stay profitable 
by producing more fish per unit volume, lower the cost per unit of product, and extend 
market access (Holliman et al. 2008).   
Moving past current pond culturing methods and selecting the right intensive 
production system is an important choice the industry must address to meet future 
demand. Such a system should be chosen based on its ability to produce greater amounts 
of fish using fewer resources and/or more cost-effective resources. Water, land, nutrient 
resources and energy are the main aquaculture resources for aquaculture which are 
becoming more scarce and expensive (Boyd et al. 2008; Schneider et al. 2005). Higher 
stocking densities tend to lower breakeven prices attracting fish farmers to intensive fish 
production systems despite their relatively high startup cost (Southworth et al. 2006). Out 
of the four basic types of fish culture systems, raceways have the potential to emerge as 
the most profitable (Masser and Lazur 1997). Advantages to raceway systems include 
reduced manpower, higher stocking densities, improved water quality, ease of feeding, 
grading and complete harvest, precise disease treatment, collection potential of fish 
wastes, and less off-flavor (Masser and Lazur 1997). 
Ponds are often referred to by farmers as ?black holes? because of the lack of control a 
producer has over the fish inventory and the growing environment once fish are released 
into the pond (Blumenthal 2013). Raceways were designed and have been further 
developed to solve these problematic issues arising from pond culture (Masser and Lazur 
1997). Blumenthal?s (2013) analysis of the catfish industry suggests problems with 
mortality, seining, feed conversion ratio (FCR), predators, disease, cannibalism and 
inventory knowledge.  Each could be significantly reduced with the use of raceway 
 4 
systems. Blumenthal?s survey found catfish farmers believed they had an average 45 
percent loss of their fish crop in each production cycle, which is high when compared to 
other agriculture or livestock production systems. The majority of mortalities were said to 
come from disease, cannibalism and bird predation. It was also noted that recent 
advances in raceway technologies have consistently demonstrated 90 percent survival.  
Historically, catfish and tilapia have been cultured in earthen ponds and have even 
been shown to do well when grown together with other fish species in polyculture 
(Rakocy and McGinty 1989). The development of the raceway concept originated in the 
trout industry decades ago and has since taken many forms culturing a number of 
different fish species (Hinshaw et al. 2004; Regan 2011). Fixed in-pond raceways were 
developed to help solve problems involved in pond culture (Regan 2011).  The fixed in-
pond raceway concentrates catfish into open-ended concrete cells while also allowing the 
co-culturing of secondary species like tilapia and paddlefish outside of the raceway cells 
to help with water quality (Brown 2010). Floating in-pond raceways were engineered 
with the same principles behind the fixed in-pond raceways (Regan 2011). Floating in-
pond raceways can be built using cheaper materials than concrete and do not involve 
permanently altering the pond (Masser and Lazur 1997; Regan 2011). Masser and Lazur 
(1997) designed wooden in-pond raceways with an airlift pump and waste removal 
system that traditional raceways and cages lacked.  
Unlike catfish, tilapia cannot overwinter in ponds in most regions of the U.S. Tilapia 
are a very resilient species with a low temperature tolerance making them a good species 
to culture in an indoor setting (Watanabe 2013). Culturing tilapia in temperature-
controlled structures like greenhouses or barns enables producers to grow tilapia year 
 5 
round (Watanabe 2013). Indoor fish culture has been integrated with hydroponics to 
produce a segment of aquaculture with rising popularity called aquaponics (Holliman et 
al. 2008; Rakocy et al. 2006). The integration of fish and plant production in a 
recirculating system allows for nutrient-rich waste products from cultured species to be 
used to produce plants of economic value (Holliman et al. 2008). The intensification of 
cultured species and niche markets for aquaponic products may be the necessary 
combination for profitability in an industry currently facing many obstacles (Blumenthal 
2013; Rakocy et al. 2006).  
With a number of intensive systems available it is essential to use careful 
financial planning to ensure the success of an aquaculture business. Such planning 
involves using economic tools and analyses to thoroughly comprehend the potential 
financial strengths and weaknesses of an enterprise (Engle 2012a). An enterprise budget 
is a tool available to farm managers to give insight on the potential profitability of an 
enterprise using a typical set of cost, prices, yields, and feed conversion (Engle 2012a). 
The information contained in an enterprise budget enables farmers to estimate breakeven 
prices, production cost, and select between competing production alternatives (Dillon 
1993). An enterprise budget consists of two major components, fixed cost and variable 
cost. The variable cost in this study included all items bought when the farm was 
producing fish while fixed cost items were present regardless of whether fish were being 
produced. Depreciation, which is defined as the cash value loss of capital items over 
time, is included to replace or account for their value as the equipment items wear out in 
the production process (Engle 2012b).  
 6 
Enterprise budgets are also helpful for looking at what it will take for a business 
to survive in the long run (Engle and Stone 1997).  In order to be viable in the long run, a 
farm must first survive the short run (the next year), which requires fish to be sold at a 
price to cover all the costs needed for fish production, i.e., the variable cost. The 
breakeven cost to cover the variable cost of production is equal to the variable cost 
divided by the pounds of fish produced (Engle 2012a; Engle 2012b). Farm survival 
requires sufficient funds to cover total cost, i.e., the variable and fixed cost.  The 
breakeven price is the fish selling price needed to produce enough income to cover 
expenses. The breakeven price to cover all production costs is equal to the total cost 
divided by the pounds produced (Engle 2012a; Engle 2012b). Gross income is the 
amount of sales revenue, while the net return is the overall income left after deducting all 
farm expenses from the gross income.  
The overall goal of this study was to present current fish farmers and future 
aquaculturists with an economic examination of different types of intensive production 
systems utilizing non-traditional pond methods of fish production. Three systems were 
chosen based on their use of modern aquaculture technologies and potential profitability. 
They include: 1) an indoor recirculating tilapia system (IRTS), 2) integrated 
tilapia/cucumber greenhouse system (ITCGS) and 3) a floating in-pond raceway system 
(FIPRS). The objectives of this study were to: 
1. Develop an investment spreadsheet that includes the total construction cost 
(fixed cost), depreciation, and interest on loans for the three systems.  
2. Determine the total operating cost (variable cost) for the three systems.  
 7 
3. Combine fixed and variable cost to determine the total cost of production for 
the three systems and calculate breakeven prices, total cost, and net return. 
4. Conduct sensitivity analyses for input (feed) and output (fish) prices to 
determine how varying prices for these items will affect production costs and 
profitability. 
  
 8 
 
Chapter 2 
 
Materials and Methods 
 
 
 
Enterprise budgets were developed for each system using standard farm 
management procedures, this included the development of a depreciation schedule (using 
straight-line depreciation), other fixed costs such as interest on investment loans, and 
repairs and maintenance. The economic lives of items were calculated to most accurately 
reflect the expected lifetime use of each item. The economic life for capital items 
associated with the FIPRS were based on discussions with experienced industry 
personnel familiar with equipment being in the water for long periods of time. The 
managers for the IRTS and ITCGS estimated the useful life of capital items for their 
systems based on expectations they had for the duration each item could be used until 
needing to be replaced. Variable costs were calculated from data for each system. Each 
system had its own unique aspects; the FIPRS and ITCGS are experimental systems at 
the Auburn research station while the IRTS has been in existence and operational for four 
years. We still do not have true knowledge on how long the equipment, machinery, and 
capital goods will last so these are the best estimates after discussing economic life 
expectancies with experienced industry personnel.  
Comparisons were made between competing enterprises to determine relative 
profitability (Dillon 1993). Sensitivity analyses were applied to enterprise budgets to 
show the effect of varying market prices for fish and the feed input price on net returns.  
This is an important tool to evaluate the overall risk of an enterprise and to identify 
critical factors in order to predict alternative outcomes (Dillon 1993). The information 
 9 
collected for the enterprise budgets in this study came from two primary sources (FIPRS 
and Dean Wilson Farm) and one secondary source (Danaher, Ph.D. and Pickens, 
presentation). 
  
Indoor Recirculating Tilapia System (IRTS) 
Construction and production data were collected from a commercial-scale IRTS 
system located on a 428-acre catfish farm in Browns, Alabama. The recirculating system 
was housed in a barn (70 ft width x 170 ft length x 16 ft height) which contained 15 
raceways (8 ft width x 42 ft length x 4 ft depth).  There were five fiberglass grow-out 
raceways (12,000 gallons each), five wooden raceways (15,000 gallons each), and five 
cement raceways (6,000 gallons each, Figure 2.1). Five cement raceways were divided 
into a 5,000 gallon sections for stocker sized-fish (stocker tanks) and a 1,000 gallon 
section for fingerlings (nursery tanks). Five of the fiberglass grow-out raceways had a 
built-in solids removal and biological filtration system and five of the wooden grow-out 
raceways were equipped with polygeyser bead filters. Wooden walkways were 
constructed to allow easy access to each raceway. Water was supplied to the system from 
an outdoor pond reservoir (6 acre) and a 6-inch well (120 gallons per minute (gpm) at 
78?F steady water temperature). The water for the grow-out raceways was recirculated 
back to the same tanks after passing through the respective filtration systems. The cement 
raceways were flow-through systems and wastewater was pumped into an outdoor 
collection pond.  
Aeration for the grow-out raceways was supplied by two 25-horsepower (hp) 
blowers (Roots rotary lobe blower, 25-hp, Dresser Inc.) and diffuser tubes lining the 
 10 
bottom sides of each raceway while aeration for the cement raceways was supplied by 
two 1.5-hp blowers (regenerative blower, 1.5-hp, Sweetwater?). A wood burner (outdoor 
wood furnace, 500,000 btu, Central Boiler, Inc.) was used during winter months to heat 
water, which was pumped through PVC pipes placed in the raceways. The barn was 
equipped with an electrical system (PowerFlex 400, 240-volt 3-phase, Allen Bradley), 
monitoring system (pond monitoring system, In-Situ Inc.), and backup generator (natural 
gas/propane generator, 35-kW 3-phase, Cummins Onan). The monitoring system 
recorded water temperatures and oxygen levels on two-minute feedback intervals and 
also included an autodialer, recirculating system monitor, and computer-aided 
management system. The autodialer was programmed to notify system managers during 
emergency situations, such as when there was a power outage or a low dissolved oxygen 
(D.O.) concentration event. The D.O. monitoring system was installed in each raceway 
and used the computer-aided management program to oversee the measurements for the 
entire system. The barn was also equipped with a water quality lab to monitor pH and 
water salinity levels once daily, ammonia once a week, and other water quality 
parameters as needed.  
Tilapia were sourced from the E. W. Shell Fisheries Center, Auburn, Alabama; 
Americulture Inc., Animas, New Mexico; and Aquasafra, Brandenton, Florida. The 
fingerlings were stocked into the five nursery tanks almost biweekly throughout the 
production year. Fingerlings ranged from 0.018-0.176 ounces each and were moved to 
the five stocker tanks after 10 weeks in production. After 20 weeks in production the 
tilapia were stocked into the grow-out tanks and held for an additional 20 weeks or until 
they reached market size. The fish were offered a 36 percent protein commercial floating 
 11 
feed (Cargill Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana) multiple times a day in amounts appropriate 
with the percent body weight. Production data used in this study were collected from 
personal communications with the system manager and farm records. It should be noted 
the production system, in part, was initially built in 2010 but the production data used in 
this study only came from the 2012-2013 records after the cement tanks were 
constructed. 
The construction cost for the IRTS were assimilated to estimate an investment 
cost close to the actual cost of the system. The capital, machinery, and equipment cost 
were determined and placed into a fixed cost category for further economic analysis. The 
production data from the 2012-2013 farm records were used to establish production 
parameters to accurately estimate the required operational expenses. Items associated 
with producing the tilapia were organized into a variable cost category and used to 
develop an enterprise budget for the system.  
Once the enterprise budget was completed, sensitivity analyses tables were 
developed to show the effect of varying market prices received per pound of tilapia and 
feed costs on net returns. A survival sensitivity analysis table was also developed to 
examine how net returns above variable and total cost would be affected by a range of 
survival percentages.  
  
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Figure
 2.1. A sc
he
matic 
of the indoor
 re
circ
ulatin
g ti
lapia
 syst
em (I
RTS) in We
st Al
aba
ma. 
 
 13 
 
Floating In-Pond Raceway System (FIPRS) 
This portion of the study was conducted in two traditional earthen ponds, S-6 (26 
acres) and S-1 (23 acres), located in Auburn, Alabama. The raceways were built and 
assembled at the Agriculture Land and Resources Management Center in Auburn and 
then transported to the ponds. Each FIPRS contained 12 floating raceways attached to a 
floating wooden dock (Figure 2.3 and 2.4). Each raceway (6 ft width x 20 ft length x 5 ft 
depth) was attached to an aluminum water-moving unit (6 ft width x 4 ft length x 3 ft 
height). A PVC frame fitted with 31 diffuser tubes (100 ft in total) rested inside an 
aluminum hood and was connected to a blower by seven feet of Rollerflex suction hose. 
Two raceway units shared a 1.5-hp blower (regenerative blower, 1.5-hp, Sweetwater?) to 
supply airflow to the water moving units.  
The raceways were constructed using a 0.79-inch PVC liner (18 ft width x 20 ft 
length) attached to an aluminum frame (6 ft width x 20 ft length) fitted with 1-inch x 1-
inch PVC coated metal screen. Each wall running length-wise of the raceway was 
supported by two pieces of treated lumber (2 inch width x 12 inch length x 5 ft height) 
joined at the top by 20 feet of low-profile aluminum uni-strut. The front and back of the 
raceways had removable aluminum frames (5.5 ft width x 5 ft length) fitted with 1 inch x 
0. 5-inch PVC coated metal screens. Two 8-inch diameter PVC pipes, 20 feet long were 
attached to the top of the walls and held in place by galvanized pipe clamps.  
The raceways in the 26-acre pond (S-6) were placed 45 feet from the pond?s edge 
to achieve at least 8 feet of water depth. Raceways and blowers were attached to a 
floating wooden dock (8 ft width x 96 ft length) with an additional 45 feet of dock being 
 14 
attached so the raceways would be accessible from the pond bank. A second set of 
floating raceways were placed in a 23-acre pond (S-1) which had adequate water depth 
without the need of additional floating docks aside from those required to access the 
raceways and blowers. A backup generator (power generator, 20-kW, Eaton Corporation) 
and propane tank were installed for each system in case of a power outage.   
Catfishes were stocked (E. W. Shell Fisheries Center, Auburn) into six raceways 
with fingerlings ranging from 0.59-0.75 inches total length (0.95-1.76 ounces each). Two 
raceways were stocked with mixed strains of channel catfish, two raceways with mixed 
strains of blue catfish, and two raceways with hybrid catfish (blue x channel). The fish 
were offered a 32 percent protein commercial floating feed (Alabama Feed Mill, 
Uniontown, Alabama) and fed to satiation once daily. Raceways were sampled once 
every two weeks to monitor growth. Production data collected for the FIPRS was based 
on fish grown over a five-month period. It should be noted these crops of fish were an 
initial test batch for this specific FIPRS; consequently, raceways had a lower stocking 
rate than expected for the future and were not fed aggressively. Minimal mortalities were 
observed throughout the culture period.  
A list of actual construction costs and equipment purchases was developed for the 
FIPRS units. Economic components (capital cost, equipment and machinery cost, repairs 
and maintenance, and annual depreciation) were calculated for the investment cost 
associated with the FIPRS at ponds S-6 and S-1. Costs for structures like wells or ponds 
were not included in the enterprise budgets throughout this study if previously existing at 
the site before system construction was initiated. The 59 land acres holding the two ponds 
 15 
where the FIPRS units were owned by Auburn University, thus pond construction and 
land purchase were excluded from the financial analysis.  
Field data assimilated over the culture period served as the production parameters 
used to estimate the required operational expenses. Three stocking scenarios were 
developed to project the production data estimated from the five-month study over the 
entire system utilizing the 24 available cells. The first scenario shows the potential 
profitability of culturing channel and hybrid catfish. The second scenario illustrates the 
potential profitability of a hybrid catfish-only system while the final scenario projected 
the profitability of an all channel catfish system. Enterprise budget simulations were 
developed for the three scenarios based on the five-month production study. The income 
above total cost for each enterprise budget was the return to the land, labor, and 
management resources. Interest on equipment and machinery purchases, operating capital 
and FIPR construction costs were charged at 8 percent per annum and is included in the 
financial analysis.  
 Once the enterprise budget simulations were complete, sensitivity analyses were 
conducted to compare the impact of fluctuating feed prices and individual stocker selling 
prices would have on the net returns for each scenario. The scenario we used were as 
follows: catfish were sold as individuals rather than per pound to increase profit 
opportunity reflecting the strategy most farmers would employ to keep returns in line 
with a positive rate of return, given high input cost associated with small scale as opposed 
to forced marketing on a wholesale schedule to processors. Sensitivity analyses were then 
applied to net returns above all cost and above variable cost only at varying survival 
percentages to see if the system in each scenario could become profitable in the long run. 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Figure
 2.2 A sc
he
matic o
f the
 floating i
n-pond r
ace
wa
y syst
em (FIP
RS
) a
t Aubur
n Unive
rsity, Aub
urn, Ala
ba
ma. T
he
 
syst
em i
s loca
ted a
t S
-6, a
 26
-ac
re pond.
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Figure
 2.3 A sc
he
matic o
f the
 floating i
n-pond r
ace
wa
y syst
em (FIP
RS
)  a
t Aubur
n Unive
rsity, Aub
urn, 
Ala
ba
ma. T
he
 syst
em i
s l
oc
ated 
at S
-1, a
 23
-ac
re p
ond.
 
 18 
Integrated Tilapia/Cucumber Greenhouse System (ITCGS) 
Information on the ITCGS was gathered from secondary sources (Danaher 2012; 
Danaher 2013; Danaher et al. 2013a; Danaher et al. 2013b; Danaher et al. 2013c; Pickens 
2013, personal communication).  The ITCGS model is located on the E. W. Shell 
Fisheries Center facility in Auburn, Alabama. The study site consisted of two 
greenhouses (30 ft width x 96 ft length x 14 ft height), one containing fish raceways and 
the other containing plant production structures (Figure 2.2).  The greenhouse equipped 
for fish production contained two raceways supplied by both rain-water reservoir and a 
well water source. Each 25,000 gallon raceway (12 ft width x 88 ft length x 4 ft depth) 
was constructed using HDPE membrane liner, wood, and reinforced with steel channel 
iron beams to strengthen the side-walls.  
Continual aeration was supplied by two 1.5-hp blowers (regenerative blower, 1.5-
hp, Sweetwater?) and diffuser tubing running the length of the bottom side walls of the 
raceways. Each raceway was equipped with an airlift device tasked to slowly direct 0-5 
gallons per minute of system water to a 500 gallon solids settling tank (clarifier) installed 
on the outside of the greenhouse. The clarifiers allowed up to 25 percent of the raceway?s 
water volume to pass through daily at a rate of five gpm. Water passing through the 
clarifier flowed to a polishing sump tank which could be used for watering plant and 
vegetable crops in the adjacent greenhouse equipped for plants. The fish system raceways 
required 100-250 gallons of water replacement each day to make up for the water being 
used for solids removal and to irrigate plants on test in the plant greenhouse. An auto-
dialer system was installed to notify system managers of problems specifically pertaining 
to power outage, low water levels or low D.O. concentrations. A heating unit capable of 
 19 
burning corn, wood pellets and such re-newable fuels was used during winter months to 
heat water, which was pumped through insulated PVC pipes placed in the raceways for 
use as heat exchangers to warm the water to ? 82?F. The fish greenhouse had two 
temperature-controlled end wall and gable fans to cool the greenhouse during the 
summer. Shade cloth was also installed during summer to manage excessive solar heat 
build-up.  
The plant greenhouse was equipped with a cooling pad, two end-wall fans and a 
gable fan, and ten HAF-fans to manage greenhouse temperature during the summer.   A 
pipe loop from the corn/wood fired heater coupled to a fan equipped radiator as well as 
gas fired heater (natural gas/propane heater, 150,000 btu, Modine) was employed to 
maintain temperatures appropriate for the plants on tests during the winter season. An 
irrigation controller, pump, and pump start relay were installed to irrigate (fertigate) the 
plants using the water from the polishing/sump tank attached to the fish system. The 
irrigation system was plumbed into an automated timer pre-programmed by the system 
manager. 
Data describing the construction, equipment, and machinery costs for the plant 
and fish greenhouses were compiled to determine an investment cost appropriate with 
this particular system (Pickens 2013). These items were organized into a fixed cost 
category for further discussion on the economic feasibility of an ITCGS. General 
production data was provided by the operator and used to establish production parameters 
to estimate operation expenses associated with growing an annual crop of tilapia and 
cucumbers. Yearly operation cost estimates and fixed cost were put into an enterprise 
budget to determine net returns and breakeven prices. The enterprise budgets for all 
 20 
systems included values on a per square foot basis rather than per foot cubed to allow the 
vegetable production of the ITCGS to be included in further discussion and comparisons. 
The enterprise budget for this system serves as a discussion point for the potential 
profitability of incorporating vegetable production into fish production. Sensitivity 
analysis was not applied to the ITCGS.  
  
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  F
igure
 2.4 A sc
he
matic o
f the
 int
egr
ated til
apia/c
uc
umber
 gr
eenhouse
 syst
em (I
TCGS
) a
t Aubur
n, U
niver
sit
y, Aubur
n, 
Ala
ba
ma. 
 
 22 
 
Chapter 3 
 
Results and Discussion  
 
 
 
Floating In-Pond Raceway System 
 
Investment Cost- The cost to construct one research-scale FIPR cell (with a 
portion of floating dock) was $2,917 and the associated gear and equipment cost was 
$2,431, for a total cost of $5,348 (Table 3.1). The construction cost for a 24-cell FIPRS 
unit was $69,996 with machinery and equipment cost of $58,352 for a total cost of 
$128,348.  Annual depreciation was $7,131 for the capital items and was $2,762 for 
equipment items (Table 3.2). Brown (2010) conducted a study on a six-cell, fixed in-pond 
raceway system (IPRS) with a total investment cost of $113,279. The fixed-IPRS system 
offered 6694 ft3 of fish culture area while for an additional $15,069 of investment cost the 
FIPRS units provided an additional 4250 ft3 area for fish culture. 
It should be noted the initially constructed FIPRS units were designed for 
research, extension, and demonstration purposes much like the small pond facilities 
found at the E.W. Shell Aquaculture Center (also built to accommodate aquaculture tour 
groups) and comprise less volume than would be used in commercial farm settings. The 
floating dock access way was built 60 percent wider than what would be necessary on a 
farm to allow larger groups of visitors to view the FIPRS. The electrical system was 
designed to accommodate both the current raceways and future research project needs; 
consequently, it is more expensive to assemble than what would normally have been 
spent on an appropriately sized electrical system for the raceways. Thus, capital and 
equipment cost could probably be reduced by $5,000 to $10,000 for this size unit. 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 Production Parameters (Table 3.3) ? It has to be noted that the following 
production data are for the first run in the newly constructed FIPRS unit and a steep 
learning curve was expected and observed.  As more operational experience is gained and 
the capacity and function of the system is explored, greater production quantities 
produced at lower cost are expected.  Additionally, of the six cells stocked, only three had 
reportable results. Data from the other cells experienced unexpectedly high losses 
(explained below) that could be partially explained by not having known the exact 
number of fish stocked in each cell. 
Channel and hybrid catfish fingerlings, ranging from 0.79-0.75 inches total length 
(0.95-1.76 ounces), were grown for an average of 142 days to produce advanced stockers 
with an average weight of 0.34 lb. Each raceway was stocked with a mean (x) of 5,358 
fingerlings, at a mean density of 12 fish per cubic foot. Channel and hybrid catfish 
fingerling costs were set for this analysis using industry norms at $0.11 and $0.18 each, 
respectively, while the selling price for the stockers were $0.40 and $0.50 per individual, 
respectively. The latter prices were conservative estimations based on the selling prices 
for similar products. The FIPR cells described in this analysis are small experimental 
units that, if used as described, would most likely be found on smaller farms producing 
fish for recreational ponds or direct retail markets rather than for wholesale. Smaller 
 27 
farms personally marketing their product to customers have the ability to set the price as 
opposed to selling to a processor who sets the price. This will be important to keep in 
mind when later discussing how the price received per fish should be adjusted achieve a 
positive rate of return.    
The channel catfish demonstrated a higher survival rate, at 99.7 percent, while 84 
percent of the hybrid catfish survived to harvest. Lower stocking rates may have played a 
role in the low number of recorded mortalities and lack of disease outbreaks (in this 
initial production run for the new FIPRS units). Unaccounted fish losses, which were 
never harvested or collected as mortalities, proved problematic to explain during this 
study. For example, one raceway cell was found to be missing approximately 50 percent 
of the channel catfish initially stocked and was excluded from the study analysis because 
it was considered an outlier. The actual hybrid catfish survival percentage is most likely 
closer to 99.7 percent survival of the channel catfish but was left at 84 percent because of 
the lack of accounting for missing fish. After other causes were ruled out, and due to the 
location and lack of security at the facility site, theft was the most logical explanation for 
the missing fish. The need for security is a factor that needs to be understood about the 
FIPRS system but could be addressed and overcome on commercial farms by employing 
appropriate security measures. At the same time, the confinement production approach 
featured in FIPRS which employ covering netting easily eliminates avian predation 
documented to cause significant economic damage in traditionally managed production 
ponds.  
At the end of the growing season, the calculated FCR from data at harvest was 
1.6:1 for channel catfish and 1.7:1 for hybrid catfish. The fish were fed to satiation once 
 28 
daily. It is calculated that the hybrid catfish consumed 0.16 tons more feed than the 
channel catfish during the course of the study. The higher FCR for hybrid catfish is likely 
due to the increased number of unaccounted fish compared to the channel catfish 
raceways. The price for feed was $532 per ton with 0.81 and 0.97 tons of feed offered to 
channel and hybrid catfish, respectively.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 29 
  
Table 3.3 Production parameters per RW for the floating in-pond raceway 
system (FIPRS), Auburn, Alabama, 2013. 
  Unit 
Channel 
catfish  
Hybrid 
catfish 
Pounds stocked lb/RW 375 455 
Fingerling cost for 7" fingerlings (6" to 8" range) $/ea 0.11 0.18 
Fingerling weight, 7" fingerling lb/1,000  70 85 
Survival  % 99.7 84 
Selling price for advanced stocker $/ea 0.40 0.50 
Average harvest weight lb 0.24 0.39 
Average days for catfish to reach target size days 142 142 
Feed price, 32% protein $/ton 532 532 
Total amount fed, per RW tons 0.81 0.97 
Feed conversion rate   1.6 1.7 
Repair and maintenance cost per RW $/year 41 41 
Daily electrical use per RW KWhr 19.40 19.40 
   
 30 
 Enterprise Budgets - Feed, fingerlings, and energy for aeration accounted for 92 
percent of the variable cost with fingerling cost being the largest single variable expense 
in all three scenarios. In a commercial operation, feed cost would normally be the largest 
operational cost, however, because of non-aggressive feeding during the initial five-
month study of the raceways, feed was the second most expensive operation cost. 
 Scenario 3 was the only enterprise to demonstrate a positive net return to cover 
total and variable cost. In the case of scenarios 1 and 2, the income above variable cost, 
an indicator of short-term profitability, was positive.  This can be interpreted as the 
operation can continue producing fish for now as all cash costs are covered by the 
revenue; however, the farm manager would need to make changes over time to ultimately 
cover all costs so that the long-term net return would eventually become positive 
(D?Abramo et al. 2013). 
Scenario 1 (12 raceway cells growing channel catfish and 12 raceway cells 
growing hybrid catfish): The average cost to produce a 0.34 lb channel or hybrid catfish 
stocker was $0.46 per individual. This cost consisted of $0.33 per individual to cover 
operational or variable cost and $0.13 per individual to cover fixed cost (Table 3.4). The 
net return above variable cost when using mixed catfish species was $13,681 ($4.75/ft2) 
while the net return above total cost was $-1,841 ($-0.64/ft2), (Table 3.4).  
Scenario 2 (24 raceway cells growing hybrid catfish): The calculated 
breakeven price was $0.42 per individual and $0.56 per individual to cover variable and 
total cost, respectively (Table 3.5). The income above variable cost were $9,157 
($3.18/ft2) and $-6,365 ($-2.21/ft2) for the net returns above total cost. Scenario 2 
 31 
demonstrated the highest feed and hybrid fingerling cost of the three scenarios which, 
consequently made it the least profitable scenario of the three in the long-term. 
Scenario 3 (24 raceway cells growing channel catfish): The cost to produce 
each stocker-sized channel catfish was $0.38 per individual. This amount consisted of 
$0.26 per individual to cover variable cost plus an additional $0.12 per individual to 
cover fixed cost (Table 3.6). The net return above variable and total cost was $18,205 
($6.32/ft2) and $2,684 ($0.93/ft2), respectively.  
 32 
     
 33 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 34 
  
 
  
 35 
Sensitivity Analysis ? The sensitivity analyses revealed slight adjustments in 
selling price could lead to long-term profitability against the defined feed price range 
(Tables 3.7-3.18). For the sensitivity analyses, feed prices ranged from $450 to 650/ton, 
in $10 increments, while prices received for channel and hybrid catfish stockers ranged 
from $0.25 to $0.60/individual and $0.30- $0.65/individual, respectively.  
In the first scenario, net returns above total cost became positive within the feed 
price range when the average price received for catfish stockers was $0.50/individual 
(Table 3.7 and Table 3.8). The mixed catfish raceways held positive net returns above 
variable cost down to $0.40/individual regardless of feed price (Table 3.9 and Table 
3.10). At the lowest feed price ($450/ton) and the highest average selling price 
($0.65/individual), the highest amount of income (covering all costs) this system was 
projected to produce within the given parameters was $24,138 ($8.38/ft2).  
The second scenario was projected to produce income over its variable cost, 
regardless of feed price, with a selling price as low as $0.45 per individual (Table 3.11 
and Table 3.12). The selling price to cover total cost could only decline to as low as $0.60 
per individual and still producing positive income (Table 3.13 and Table 3.14). This 
analysis illustrated that a completely hybrid system (in the initial ?learning curve? of the 
FIPRS unit at Auburn) would most likely not survive over the long run unless the current 
selling price per individual fish was raised by $0.10 each (or a higher survival rate was 
achieved). Given the lowest feed price and highest selling price, this system was 
projected to make $11,861($4.12/ft2) of income above total cost. 
The sensitivity analysis for scenario three provided the most promising results. 
Profits were made above the total cost at the current price set for channel catfish stockers 
 36 
($0.40 each) regardless of the simulated fluctuation in feed prices (Table 3.15 and Table 
3.16). The price received per fish could be as low as $0.30 and the enterprise could still 
survive in the short run at any feed price in the given range (Table 3.17 and Table 3.18). 
The channel catfish cultured in FIPRS would generate the highest return above total cost 
of the three scenarios at $30,004 ($10.42/ft2) given the lowest feed cost and the highest 
selling price per individual. 
The net returns above total cost differ from the net returns above variable cost by 
adding on the amount to cover fixed cost. Producing positive net returns above total cost 
is related to long-term profitability while positive income above variable cost is related to 
short-term profitability (D?Abramo et al. 2013). The three scenarios proved capable of 
short-term viability, but only the third scenario using channel catfish could sustain long-
term profitability. 
The survival percentages used in the sensitivity analyses ranged from as low as 65 
percent to a high of 100 percent survival. In the case of first and second scenarios, the 
income above variable cost was positive down to as low as 70 percent survival while net 
returns above total cost remained positive down to 95 percent survival (Table 3.19 and 
Table 3.20). At 100 percent survival, the hybrid catfish stocked FIPRS was more 
profitable than the channel FIPRS. The third scenario using channel catfish remained 
profitable above variable cost down to 65 percent survival and had potential for long-
term profitability to as low as 95 percent survival (Table 3.21). The results of the survival 
sensitivity analyses demonstrate how efforts to reduce or eliminate mortality rate the 
most critical element leading to long-term profitability for this system. 
  
 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 38 
 
  
 39 
 
 
 
  
 40 
   
 41 
 
 42 
    
 43 
   
 44 
   
 45 
  
 46 
    
 47 
   
 48 
     
 49 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 50 
Indoor Recirculating Tilapia System  
 
Investment Cost - Construction cost for the production barn housing the tilapia 
production raceway systems and electrical wiring were $146,000 (Table 3.22). The 
raceways consisted of five fiberglass tanks ($28,000 each), five wooden tanks ($5,000 
each) and five epoxy-painted cement block tanks ($4,400 each).  Other construction 
capital items totaled to $118,900.  The machinery and equipment needed for the barn cost 
$89,480. The financial investment required for this system was $544,380 with an annual 
depreciation of $36,829. The IRTS offered the largest fish culturing area with 20,720 ft3 
but at three times the investment cost of the FIPRS ($128,348, Table 3.2).  
It should be noted that this system has undergone changes since its construction in 
2010. After several years of operation, the farm manager would now recommend not 
using the site built wooden tanks and PolyGeyser filters. The wooden tanks were reported 
to have short lifespan due to a wet environment and lack structural integrity while the 
PolyGeyser filters were said to be labor intensive to operate and maintain. The more 
expensive fiberglass tanks last longer and are less problematic but still require significant 
labor cost to operate. The best construction and system option according to the 
collaborating farm manager was to build the entire system using formed cement tanks, 
which are more cost-effective and have demonstrated long lifespans.  This would reduce 
the capital construction cost by $90,400 (assuming a PolyGeyser filter was used for each 
cement grow-out tank). 
The pond and well used in supplying water to the barn existed previously on the 
farm so pond construction cost were excluded from the capital cost of the barn system. 
Land purchases were also excluded from the capital cost because the barn was 
 51 
constructed on farm property. A 152-mm well was installed to supply the barn with fresh 
water and is included in the investment cost ($25,000). Interest on equipment and 
machinery purchases, operating expenses, and barn construction cost was charged at 8 
percent and is included in the financial analysis. Labor cost for the construction of the 
IRTS are not included in the total capital item cost. 
  
 52 
     
 53 
 Production Parameters ?Nursery (Table 3.23) - Tilapia fingerlings (0.018-0.176 
ounces per piece) were purchased for an average of $0.15 per fingerling and were stocked 
into the nursery tanks (134 ft3) at a mean density of 52 fish per cubic foot. This amounted 
to an effective stocking rate of 6881 fingerlings per nursery tank.  When tilapia 
fingerlings reached 0.12 lb they were collected from the primary nursery tanks, weighed 
and re-stocked into the secondary nursery tanks (668 ft3) at nine fish density per cubic 
foot.  After having been cultured in the nursery and stocker tanks for 20 weeks, the fish 
had reached a mean 0.65 pounds and were moved into a grow-out system tank.  Market 
size for the live tilapia was 1.27 lb and market price was nominally $2.10/lb.  The 
production cycle typically required 280 days from 0.018-0.176 ounces fingerling size; but 
some stock, likely including a higher level of females, demonstrated atypical slow growth 
were moved to a small holding pond adjacent to the barn and held for springtime sales 
into recreational markets where they would be sold at $4.00/lb.  Stocker-sized (0.12-0.65 
lb) fish were occasionally sold at a price of $0.60/stocker.  For the purpose of financial 
accounting in the enterprise budget, it was decided to value the unsold fish inventory 
present in the raceways on December 31st, 2013.  This was done to account for the 
biomass value on hand and within a production cycle, not yet sold, but having already 
been fed (feed and other variable input cost are in the budgets).  The unsold inventory 
was valued at $0.28/fingerling and was the input cost invested in the fish to this point.  
On average, grow-out tanks were fed a mean 0.72 tons of feed a month with a 
total of 5.26 tons of feed fed by the time the fish were sold. An FCR of 1.5:1.0 was 
achieved for a number of tanks but the mean FCR experienced was 1.9:1.0.  The mean 
survival rate from fingerling to market-sized fish approximated 80 percent. 
 54 
Each raceway used 62-kWh of electrical energy per day. A number of additional 
inputs were applied while producing fish. These included salt (NaCl), sodium 
bicarbonate, formalin, pro-biotic bacteria, and chemical reagents for the water quality lab.  
The salt and sodium bicarbonate was bought at $5.20 (50 lb bag) and $15.68 per bag (40 
lb bag), respectively.  Muck Reducing Pure-Bacteria (pro-biotic) was purchased $32.95 a 
gallon and applied weekly to grow-out tanks at a rate of 1 ounce per 1000 gallons. 
Formalin (37%) was used primarily for general health maintenance on young fingerlings 
being cultured in the cement raceways and cost $550 per 55 gallon drum. 
The FIPRS and ITCGS are small systems capable of being run by a single 
operator; as a larger system, the IRTS required a full-time and part-time employee in 
addition to the system manager. Labor charges were included in the operating cost 
assuming a 40 hour and 20 hour week for the full-time and part-time employee, 
respectively. Nine dollars an hour was the set rate to cover employment cost.  
  
 55 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 56 
Enterprise Budget- The data collected from farm records covering a two year 
period from December 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 were used to develop an enterprise 
budget which illustrates a year?s worth of production and the cost necessary for 
producing 166,258 pounds of tilapia (Table 3.24).  Forty-five percent of the bio-mass 
produced and described in the enterprise budget were in inventory present in the tanks as 
of December 31, 2013 and scheduled to be sold the next (2014) year when they reach full 
market weight. The analysis of enterprise data revealed a breakeven price of $1.19/lb 
which covers operation cost. An additional $0.40 was required to cover fixed cost.  The 
income received from fish sales above variable cost and net returns above all cost were 
$139,597 ($27.71/ft2) and $73,731 ($14.64/ft2), respectively. 
Feed, electricity, labor, and fingerling purchases accounted for 89 percent of all 
operational cost.  Feed represented 46 percent of all variable cost and was the largest 
single operational expense. Feed cost during this period of analysis ranged from $760/ton 
to $820 /ton and a mean value of 790/ton was noted.  While in prior years significantly 
more stock was marketed to recreational interests, less than two percent of fish produced 
in the fish barn in 2013 were moved to the outdoor holding pond to be sold as bass forage 
fish. 
 
  
 57 
  
  
 58 
Sensitivity Analysis (Tables 3.25-3.28)?  Prices received for tilapia varied from $1.25/lb 
to $1.60/lb for the analyses focusing on income above variable cost; and ranged from 
$1.75/lb to $2.10/lb for analyses focusing on net returns above all cost. The two ranges 
were used to identify the conditions wherein feed cost relative to tilapia sales prices 
would result in a mix of negative and positive outcomes. Feed prices ranged from $690 to 
$890/ton.  Net returns above all cost were positive across any of the varied feed prices 
when sales price received for tilapia was $1.95/lb (Table 3.25 and Table 3.26) and for 
income above variable cost when sales price received was  $1.50/lb (Table 3.27 and 
Table 3.28).  This analysis illustrates the stability of growing tilapia with this system 
against the volatility of market prices. 
The survival percentages ranged from 30 to 100 percent survival across grow-out 
systems (Table 3.29).  With no mortalities or at least very high survival, the system had 
the potential to return  $158,175 ($31.40/ft2) and $224,042 ($44.47/ft2) of income above 
total cost and above variable cost, respectively.  The IRTS has the ability to be profitable 
in the short-run even if only 50 percent of its fish produced in 2013 were sold.  In order 
be profitable at current market prices for live tilapia, long-term mean survival rates above 
70 percent are required. 
  
 59 
 
  
 60 
  
 
  
 61 
 
 
  
 62 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 63 
  
 
 
 
  
 64 
Integrated Tilapia/Cucumber Greenhouse System  
 Investment Cost - Information used to develop Tables 3.30 through 3.32 came 
from secondary sources (Danaher 2012; Danaher 2013; Danaher et al. 2013a; Danaher et 
al. 2013b; Danaher et al. 2013c; Pickens 2013, personal communication).  The 
investment required for the plant and fish greenhouses were $17,905 and $34,358, 
respectively, with annual depreciation at $939 and $3,072, respectively (Table 3.30).  
Additional structures were required for the fish production system increasing the 
investment about  $16,500 more than the plant greenhouse whose only additional 
structure was a trellising system.  The fish greenhouse was equipped with two large wood 
framed production tanks (12 ft wide x 88 ft length x 4 ft depth; 25,000 gallons), two 
clarifiers (500-gallon, 4 ft diameter x 6 ft height), an air system (310 feet of 2-inch PVC 
pipe connected the two blowers to antimicrobial diffuser tubing along the bottom sides of 
the raceways), and plumbing for the tanks (400 feet of 2-inch PVC pipe delivered water 
from the well, a 3-inch PVC pipe airlift delivered tank water to the clarifiers through 20 
feet of 2-inch PVC pipe, and 40 feet of 2-inch PVC pipe used for draining the tanks).  
The machinery and equipment items needed for fish production cost $16,336 and 
$10,041 for plant production.  An evaporative cooling pad and liquefied petroleum (LP) 
gas fired heater was installed in the plant greenhouse while the fish greenhouse required 2 
units, 1.5 HP regenerative blowers, a corn/wood pellet burner (for primary heating of the 
greenhouse), and a back-up generator. The overall investment required for the combined 
tilapia-cucumber system was estimated at $78,640 with an annual depreciation of 
$10,345.  
  
 65 
 
 
 
  
 66 
 Production Parameters (Table 3.31) - Information for the production parameters 
used to project one year of tilapia and cucumber production utilizing the greenhouse 
system in Auburn, Alabama came from secondary sources (Danaher 2012; Danaher 2013; 
Danaher et al. 2013a; Danaher et al. 2013b; Danaher et al. 2013c; Pickens 2013, personal 
communication) and provides an accurate means to analyze and compare to the two prior 
described intensive systems detailed in this study.  The analysis of this system required 
assimilation of data as well as some cost to be assumed and estimated. The cost for 0.24 
lb tilapia stockers was fixed at $0.35/stocker and the price per cucumber seed was $0.52.  
The production cycle per crop of fish and cucumbers was 120 and 100 days, respectively.  
The harvest weight for tilapia was 1.00 lb and the stocking rate was 4,200 fingerlings per 
raceway (one fish per cubic foot). Twenty pounds of cucumbers were harvested from 
each cucumber plant per crop.  Both tilapia tanks received 2.25 tons of commercial 
floating feed at priced at $790/ton per crop with an assumed FCR of 1.5: 1.0. The plants 
received alternating amounts of fish water and fertilizer over the course of the year.  
Tilapia and cucumbers were assumed to be sold at $2.10/lb and $1.00/lb, respectively.  
The electrical power use of the plant greenhouse was determined to be 30-kWh 
per day while the fish greenhouse needed utilized 100-kWh per day.  The actual repairs 
and maintenance for the fish greenhouse was $676 for the year and $359 for the plant 
greenhouse.  While in production, the tilapia production system need required 10 bags 
(50 lb) of hydrated lime priced at $10 per bag to maintain an appropriate pH (7.5-8.5) and 
$400 of additional water quality related chemicals for the year (chemical replacements 
for frequently used water quality analysis tests, i.e., pH, alkalinity, ammonia, or nitrites).  
Four hundred dollars was estimated and allotted for chemicals that might be needed for 
 67 
pest control in the plant greenhouse.  The heating energy used in greenhouses were 
estimated at $155 and $343 of corn and LP gas for heat during the winter months, 
respectively.  
  
 68 
   
 
 69 
  
 Enterprise Budget - The enterprise budget developed for the ITCGS using the 
defined production parameters to project one year of integrated production revealed three 
crops of fish and cucumbers could produce 23,940 lb of tilapia and 47,779 lb of 
cucumbers (Table 3.32).  The gross receipts for tilapia production were $50,274 and 
$47,779 for cucumbers.  The breakeven price for tilapia was $1.16 per lb to cover 
variable expense and an additional $0.39 per lb to cover fixed cost.  The breakeven price 
to produce cucumbers was $0.25 per lb.  This amount consisted of $0.14 per lb to cover 
operational cost and $0.11 per lb for fixed costs. The system-wide net return above 
variable expenses was $63,641 ($12.75/ft2) and $49,116 ($9.84/ft2) above total cost. 
Feed and fingerlings accounted for 64 percent of the overall operational cost for 
the ITCGS.  The major operational expense for the cucumber enterprise was the cost to 
heat the greenhouse. Land and well construction costs were not included for this 
enterprise budget.  The well supplying water to the fish greenhouse previously existed 
and Auburn University owns the land at the ITCGS location. In actual adoption of this 
technology in Alabama, we assumed the operator/manager would also own the land.  
Labor cost were also excluded from the enterprise budget and thus, the enterprise budget 
represents a return to the land, labor, and management resources.  
  
 70 
     
 71 
 
 There are advantages and disadvantages associated with every production and 
cropping system and profitability in both the short- and long-term is critical.  Farmers and 
aquaculturists should carefully note what comprises a successful intensive and integrated 
system.  Maximizing production per unit area, while maintaining profitability over a 
range of volatile input and output market prices, and covering capital investments in a 
reasonable amount of time are important when choosing any intensive production system. 
Table 3.33 summarizes the important facets of the enterprise budgets developed 
for comparing the three intensive fish production systems analyzed in this study.  In 
terms of fish culture area, the IRTS utilized the largest area with 20,720 ft3.  The IRTS 
demonstrated greater profitability than the FIPRS (the FIPRS data was from a ?shake-
down? production cycle meant to gain student operational experience and solve other 
mechanical problems in its initial run).  Compared to the other systems, the IRTS 
required the highest investment cost at more than $540,000.  While decisions on 
operating inputs can change annually, capital investment decisions are made less often 
and typically involve more money; and changing, altering, or reversing a capital 
investment decision can be difficult and costly (Kay and Edwards 1994).  The sensitivity 
analyses applied to the IRTS suggests that it is a ?hardy? enterprise meaning that it holds 
up well against the volatility of market prices for both inputs and revenue.  Profitability 
was achieved for both the short- and long-term regardless of drastic fluctuations of fish 
selling prices, feed cost, and fish survival.  The FIPRS system was more susceptible to 
changes in market prices due to since catfish stockers are a relatively low-value in terms 
of wholesale market value compared to the live sales of tilapia. All three scenarios 
growing catfish in the FIPRS could potentially be profitable by selling the fish in the 
 72 
appropriate markets that allow the producer to dictate the selling price while avoiding 
wholesale markets.   
 Systems featuring greater levels of control (over animals) like the ones examined 
in this study, will become more important and common in the future as global human 
populations increase and land and water for farming decrease in abundance.  Intensive 
fish production systems continue to move increasingly close to maximizing fish 
production on a system volume basis as well as for that of the land.  The ITCGS offered 
the least expensive way to produce fish per unit area (ft2) of production area when 
vegetable production was included in the enterprise to partially offset fish production cost 
(Table 3.34). In the IRTS, fish production cost was more than 50 percent higher to 
produce fish on a per cubic foot basis than in the small FIPRS and ITCGS fish-plant 
greenhouse system analyzed here. When we consider output of fish and associated sales 
to retail and recreational buyers willing to pay $1.25-1.75 per pound of catfish for 
example, the value of the approach looks more appealing. Keeping the control of setting 
the selling price for products in the hands of the operator protects smaller-scaled farm?s 
survival from being dictated by outer forces, i.e., commercial processors. 
 The FIPRS units in this study were designed for replicated research much like the 
half-acre research plots in Auburn. While practical for research purposes, these units 
were not designed for commercial production. Further, larger scale FIPRS units 
developed within the commercial sector in West Alabama contain water volumes ranging 
from 3000-5000 cubic feet. These units are of a scale more appropriate to commercial 
marketing processors. The cost per unit volume decreases as unit size increases; for 
example, the cost per unit volume (ft3) of a FIPR cell is $11.72 while the larger FIPR 
 73 
cells (10 ft wide x 40 ft long x 5 ft depth) currently being installed in West Alabama 
offers three times more production area at half the cost per cubic foot. Producers should 
keep in mind that manageability of the system is more important than lowering the cost 
per unit volume, at a certain point units can become to large to be managed effectively.  
Incorporating vegetable production within an integrated system approach 
alongside fish production is another business route that could be taken by aquaculturists 
and farmers.  The ITCGS utilizes the nutrient-rich wastewater from the fish tanks to serve 
as a partial fertilizer for plant/vegetable production.  Fertilizer cost within a greenhouse 
vegetable or ornamental plant enterprise are the most expensive element of the plant 
production budget while the cost of feed is the most costly item for the fish production 
budget. Although the cucumbers in this study were not grown solely using the fish 
wastewater, the fish effluent does dramatically reduce fertilizer cost which in effect 
reduce the breakeven price for vegetable production; in addition, this combination has 
market appeal to some consumers.  The ITCGS required the least capital, equipment, and 
machinery investment with almost half the fish production area as the FIPRS yet yielded 
$46,771 more in gross receipts above the FIPRS.  Again, the small-scale FIPRS 2013 
production trail was a learning period and performance is expected to improve in the 
years ahead.  When we consider the FIPRS as a retail system for recreational clients and 
not a wholesale or production model the approach is far more attractive. The combination 
of fish production with marketing and with a suite of high-value vegetable products can 
be very profitable.  While the ITCGS is a small system it was projected to earn 95 percent 
more than the net return above all cost for the FIPRS and 67 percent of what the IRTS 
returned to the investment.  
 74 
 
     
 75 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 76 
 
Chapter 4 
 
Summary and Conclusion 
 
 
 
 Intensifying fish production enterprises to earn an improved rate of return has 
been an objective the more progressive sectors of the aquaculture industry has made 
toward positive advances in recent years. Improved technologies can provide opportunity 
to advance our ability to grow larger amounts of fish with increasing efficiency while 
using less water and space.  Intensive aquaculture is a promising solution to feeding a 
growing global human population expected to approach 10 billion by 2040.   
 Integrated systems like the ITCGS are yet another option with tremendous 
potential for profitability.  The greenhouses offer relatively low investment cost and are 
an efficient way to enhance production per ft2.  Utilizing fish waste collected from 
modern systems to produce high value crops sets the ITCGS apart from the other 
production systems. Because the ITCGS is an experimental unit, its true potential for 
commercial production could not be utilized. It is estimated three additional plant 
greenhouses could be run utilizing the wastewater coming from one tilapia greenhouse 
(Pickens 2013, personal communication). Production on this scale would result in around 
70 percent more profit at double the investment cost (Table 4.1) 
 The IRTS is the only system discussed in this study which has proven capable of 
operating on a commercial scale at the time of this analysis.   One should expect a steep 
learning curve when putting an intensive system into commercial production as operators 
and mangers need time to adjust to this new technology and become familiar with its 
working parts and learn to quickly and efficiently resolve arising issues.  The IRTS is a 
 77 
good example of a production system which continues to evolve through both scientific 
inquiry and trial and error.  Figure 4.1 illustrates the learning curve for the tilapia barn 
(IRTS).  The start-up years after its initial construction did not result in large amounts of 
fish sales.  In 2013, however, after only four years in production, 70 percent more fish 
were harvested and sold than in the previous three years combined.  And, it is not only 
improving the efficiency and output of the system?s production, but it also takes time to 
develop market outlets to sell the produced goods. 
 Economic planning is an important preliminary step before deciding on an 
intensive fish production system.  Enterprise budget analysis is a useful too, for not only 
projecting potential profitability but also for comparing annual production data to pre-
decided production goals.  Production goals should be ambitious but realistic and 
measurable.  Table 4.2 is an example of the projected goals and profitably versus actual 
production data for the IRTS.  The farm manager set ambitious yet achievable goals and 
though there is room for improvement, the system produced fairly close to what was 
originally planned.  Sensitivity analysis is another important economic tool for testing an 
operations ability to produce a profit over a range of varying market prices.  The 
sensitivity analyses done for this study showed the IRTS more capable of staying 
profitable over a wide range of market prices and survival percentages than the FIPRS. 
 Unique systems like the ones discussed in this study have all been designed to 
improve upon previous system iterations by means of combined efficiency and output.  
The FIPRS, for example, has similar benefits as the fixed-IPRS but can be built using 
cheaper materials and give farm managers the freedom to relocate the raceways to other 
ponds. The small units described here are most appropriate to smaller stakeholders for 
 78 
producing and marketing more toward retail and recreational customers. Because this 
study was the first trail using the newly constructed FIPRS we do not know the outcome 
of the unaccounted fish. The variable survival observed in the FIPRS study could be due 
to theft, escapes, death, or stocking-rate calculation error. Measures should be taken when 
testing this system in the future to protect the raceways from animal predation and human 
interference as well as routine inspections for each cell to ensure fish are not escaping 
from damaged areas.  
The initial production trial did not represent our best effort at producing fish and 
will likely parallel the anticipated learning curve we saw in the commercial IRTS system. 
Having learned more about the FIPRS through trial and error done in this study, future 
research should be done to learn about the potential of these units on a commercial scale. 
It is of interest to examine how different the outcome could have been using commercial 
production parameters from Brown?s (2010) study on the IPRS rather than the results 
from our initial ?shake down? of the FIPRS system.  The channel catfish data of food-
sized fish produced were calculated in the enterprise budget for the FIPRS to show what 
it might have looked like to grow fish to market-size as opposed to advanced stockers 
(Table 4.3). The FIPRS stood to make 45 percent more income above variable cost and 
85 percent more in net returns above total cost when producing food-sized channel 
catfish. Although these small units are essentially experimental research plots, their 
significance begins to emerge when operating on a commercial scale.  
Future trials to be done using the FIPRS units should also include culturing 
different fish in the units. Cremer et al. (2014) noted his group?s production data for a 
commercial scale IPRS to produce 5.76 lb grass carp (a very high value market item in 
 79 
China); when applied to the system in Auburn, the FIPRS produced 93,174 lb of grass 
carp with $32,236 of net returns above total cost and $47,758 of income above variable 
cost (sold at $1.90/lb according to the fish market in the Auburn area). If commercial 
scale tilapia production was projected utilizing the FIPRS system (in accordance with the 
production parameters discussed for the stocker and grow-out phases of production) the 
result was 115,336 lb of market sized-tilapia produced in 30 weeks which was 20 percent 
more than what the IRTS system produced in 2013. This resulted in $162,716 of income 
above variable cost and $146,716 of net returns above total cost.  
Future research is needed on the carrying capacity limitations of ponds (and pond 
volume) when systems like the FIPRS units are installed. The fish in the raceways have 
the first run at the oxygen being pumped into the system but it is known that 
approximately 95 percent of oxygen in a pond is used by the other organisms besides fish 
(Boyd 2014, personal communication); the resulting effect on the biota existing outside 
the FIPRS is not well understood. It is thought that the FIPRS will essentially create a 
river within a pond driving a large amount of mixing which could be beneficial to the 
organisms in the pond.  Regardless of the carrying capacity of the pond, there could also 
be behavioral limitations to each fish species preventing productive growth at a higher 
stocking rates. The commercial production of channel catfish, tilapia, and grass carp in 
the previously mentioned FIPRS production scenarios were stocked in accordance with 
the stocking density of the corresponding studies, which was 2.83, 1.08, and 1.65 lb per 
ft3, respectively. These studies have shown these stocking densities to be appropriate for 
raceways without experiencing behavioral limitations from overcrowding.  
 
 80 
 
Table 4.1 Tilapia and cucumber production using 4 plant GH and 1 fish GH versus 
1 plant GH and 1 fish GH (ITCGS), Auburn, Alabama. 
  Unit 
4 plant GH 
1 fish GH 
1 plant GH 
1 fish GH 
Investment cost $ 162,476 78,640 
Annual depreciation $ 21,106 10,345 
Cucumber production lb/year 191,117 47,779 
Tilapia production lb/year 23,940 23,940 
Selling price per lb of tilapia $/lb 2.10 2.10 
Selling price per lb of cucumber $/lb 1.00 1.00 
Cucumber sales $/year 191,117 47,779 
Tilapia sales $/year 50,274 50,274 
Variable cost (cuc. & fish) $/year 54,692 34,412 
Income above variable cost $ 186,699 63,641 
Fixed cost (cuc. & fish) $/year 29,716 14,525 
Total cost (cuc. & fish) $/year 84,408 48,937 
Net return above total cost $ 156,983 49,116 
GH = greenhouse 
  
 81 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 
50000 
100000 
150000 
200000 
250000 
2010 201 1 2012 2013 
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
 
a
n
d
 
P
o
u
n
d
s
 
Y e ar  
P ounds  of t i l a pi a  
s ol d 
Ca s h va l ue  of 
t i l a pi a  s ol d 
Figure 4.1 Four years of production data for the indoor recirculating tilapia system 
showing improvement over time in pounds produced and cash sales. 
 82 
  
Table 4.2 Expectation production versus actual production data for the indoor 
tilapia recirculating system (IRTS), West Alabama, 2013. 
  Unit Expected  Actual  
Stocking rate to nursery tank fingerlings/tank 6,500 6,881 
Harvest weight lb 1.5 1.27 
Survival  % 95 80 
FCR   1.5 1.9 
Feed amount per crop tons 5.2 5.26 
Production cycle weeks 32 40 
Fingerlings stocked fingerlings/year 156,000 182,745 
Total feed fed ton/year 144 116 
Tilapia sales $/year 385,842 337,779 
Variable cost $/year 217,163 198,182 
Income above variable cost $/year 168,678 139,597 
Fixed cost $/year 65,866 65,866 
Total cost $/year 283,030 264,048 
Net return above total cost $/year 102,812 73,731 
   
 83 
Table 4.3 Commercial channel catfish production versus scenario 3 production for 
the floating in-pond raceway (FIPRS), 24 cells, Auburn, Alabama. 
  Unit 
Brown 2010 
food-size 
fish 
production 
data 
Scenario 3 
stocker fish 
production 
projection 
Stocking density  fish/ft3 8 11 
Fingerlings stocked fingerlings/year 79,416 128,592 
Selling Price $/lb & $/indiv. 0.90 0.40 
Survival  % 95.1 99.7 
Total feed fed, 24 RW ton/year 52 19 
Feed amount per crop tons 2.16 0.81 
FCR 
 
1.5 1.6 
Harvest weight lb 1.31 0.24 
Pounds harvested lb 98,277 30,769 
Production cycle week 32 20 
Catfish sales $/year 88,449 51,282 
Variable cost $/year 55,098 33,077 
Income above variable cost $/year 33,352 18,205 
Fixed cost $/year 15,521 15,521 
Total cost $/year 70,619 48,599 
Net return above total cost $/year 17,830 2,684 
Scenario 3 production can be found in the results section Table 3.6. 
  
 84 
 
References 
Boyd, C. E., M. Polioudakis, and G. N. Whitis. 2008. Direct energy use in channel catfish 
production. Global Aquaculture Advocate 11(4): 48-50. 
Boyd, C. E. 2014. Personal communication.  
Blumenthal, G. 2013. Catfish industry analysis and consensus building. World 
Perspectives, Inc. Washington, D.C., USA. 
Brown, T. W. 2010. Intensive culture of channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus and hybrid 
catfish Ictalurus punctatus x Ictalurus furcatus in a commercial-scale, in-pond 
raceway system. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Fisheries and Allied 
Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. 
Chappell, J. A. 2014. Personal communication.  
Cremer, M., J.A. Chappell, Z. Jain, and Z. Enhau. 2014. New intensive pond aquaculture 
technology demonstrated in China. Global Aquaculture Advocate 1: 60-62. 
Danaher, J. J., J. M. Pickens, J. L. Sibley, J. A. Chappell, T. R. Hanson, and C. E. Boyd. 
2012. Research in aquaponics. Presentation. Aquaculture America Meeting, Las 
Vegas, Nevada, USA.  
Danaher, J. J., J. M. Pickens, J. L. Sibley, J. A. Chappell, T. R. Hanson, and C. E. Boyd. 
2013a. Dewatered aquaculture effluent as substrate amendment for tomato 
transplant production. Presentation. Aquaculture America Meeting, Nashville, 
Tennessee, USA.  
Danaher, J. J., J. M. Pickens, J. L. Sibley, J. A. Chappell, T. R. Hanson, and C. E. Boyd. 
2013b. Growth of tomato seedlings in commercial substrate amended with 
 85 
dewatered aquaculture effluent. International Journal of Vegetable Science, DOI: 
10.1080/19315260.2013.809622. 
Danaher, J. J., J. M. Pickens, J. L. Sibley, J. A. Chappell, T. R. Hanson, and C. E. Boyd. 
2013c. Potential benefits of aquaculture effluent. Presentation. Aquaculture 
America Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.  
Danaher, J. J. 2013. Phytoremediation of aquaculture effluent using integrated 
aquaculture production systems. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Fisheries 
and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA.  
Dillon, C. R. 1993. Advanced breakeven analysis of agricultural enterprise budgets. 
Agricultural Economics 9: 127-143. 
D?Abramo, L. R., T. R. Hanson, S. K. Kingsbury, J. A. Steeby, and C. S. Tucker. 2013. 
Production and associated economics of fingerling-to-stocker and stock-to-grow-
out modular phases for farming channel catfish in commercial-size ponds. North 
American Journal of Aquaculture 75: 133-146. 
Engle, C. R. and N. M. Stone. 1997. Developing business proposals for aquaculture 
loans. SRAC No. 381. 
Engle, C. R. 2012a. Introduction to financial management of aquaculture business. SRAC 
No. 4400. 
Engle, C. R. 2012b. Determining the profitability of an aquaculture business: using 
income statements and enterprise budgets. SRAC No. 4402. 
Fitzsimmons, K., R. Martinez-Garcia, and P. Gonzalez-Alanis. 2011. Why tilapia is 
becoming the most important food fish on the planet. Proceedings of the 
 86 
International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture. Shanghai, China (2011): 9-
19. 
Hinshaw, J. M., G. Fornshell, and R. Kinnunen. 2004. A profile of the aquaculture of 
trout in the United States. USDA Risk Management Agency, Mississippi State 
University, Mississippi, USA. 
Holliman, J. B., J. Adrian, and J. A. Chappell. 2008. Integration of hydroponic tomato 
and indoor recirculating aquacultural production systems: an economic analysis. 
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.  
Kay, R.D., and W. M. Edwards. 1994. Farm Management. Third edition. New York, 
McGraw-Hill, cited from pp 282-89.  
Larsen, J., and J. M. Roney. 2013. Farmed fish production overtakes beef. Available: 
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2013/update114. (Accessed October 
8, 2013). 
Masser, M. P. and A. Lazur. 1997. In-pond raceways. SRAC No. 170.  
Pickens, J. M. 2013. Personal communication.  
Rakocy, J. E., M. P. Masser, and T. M. Losordo. 2006. Recirculating aquaculture tank 
production systems: aquaponics- integrated fish and plant culture. SRAC No. 454. 
Rakocy, J. E. and A. S. McGinty. 1989. Pond culture of tilapia. SRAC No. 280. 
Regan, R. M. 2011. Bio-economic factors affecting feasibility of floating in-pond 
raceway systems: a stella modeling approach. M.S. thesis. Auburn University, 
Auburn, Alabama, USA.  
 87 
Schneider, O., V. Sereti, E. H. Eding, and J. A. J. Verreth. 2005. Analysis of nutrient 
flows in integrated intensive aquaculture systems. Aquaculture Engineering 32: 
379-401. 
Southworth, B. E., N. Stone, and C. R. Engle. 2006. Production characteristics, water 
quality, and cost of producing channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus at different 
stocking densities in single-batch production. World Aquaculture Society 37(1): 
21-31. 
Stewart, J. 2013. US catfish industry bleeding finally stops.  Available: http://ww 
w.undercurrentnews.com/2013/07/03/us-catfish-industry-bleeding-finally-
stops/#.UjcieWR4baA. (Accessed October 8, 2013). 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. 2005 Census of Aquaculture. 
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA.  
United States Department of Agriculture/National Agriculture Statistics Service 
(USDA/NASS). 2013. Production and inventory of channel catfish. United States 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA. Available: http://www.na 
ss.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/cfpd0113.pdf. 
Watanabe W.O., T. M. Losordo, K. Fitzsimmons, and F. Hanley. 2002. Tilapia 
production systems in the Americas: technological advances, trends, and 
challenges, reviews. Fisheries Science 10(3-4): 465-498.