aw. u

.v.
.7...

l .
. .. . pl 1‘
. , . . . _.
..... . r . . . . . , , , {WWI-D.
. . . , . 3.x 3

..
3

 

.7.
1...: . . E (1...).

:....y\.. .. 5......
31...... . . «41.2.. . l
r . 7

kn
{.

35....3:

.2.
n
’5

1
“$351...

.. .i :u,

.. .. ..
.58...fl...u£...wf
5.1.». rfiufl

.wnwivu. Fu.

:3: -
Sut'ulluel.
I4) :21 .

 

I , Quad-£53m... )hrr.
3‘72” . 3.. r T) I..- ....: Lu L’. O...

 

. IL‘

 

LIBRAI

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll olllsllllln

3 1293 015728

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Aquaculture Situation and Outlook Report Project
for the North Central Region

presented by

Jonathan C. Ferris

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree in Fish. & Wildl.

 

 

    

....///1.4

Date August 23, 1996

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlvorslty

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to romovo this chookout from your noon].

TO AVOID FINES totum on or Moro duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afflnnotivo Action/Equal Opportunity Inotltwon
Wanna-m

AQUACULTURE SITUATION AND OUTLOOK REPORT
PROJECT FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION
By

Jonathan Charles Ferris

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1996

ABSTRACT

AQUACULTURE SITUATION AND OUTLOOK REPORT
PROJECT FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION

By

Jonathan Charles Ferris

Aquaculture is defined as the farming of aquatic plants and animals. In the United
States, aquaculture is the fastest growing area of agriculture. Despite this fact, little
primary data concerning aquaculture is currently being collected on a regular basis. Most
of the grth of the US. aquaculture industry has been in the last 10-15 years. In the
19805 alone aquaculture production more than doubled and by 1993 reached an estimated
production of 716 million pounds.

The success of future development in the industry is dependent on careful analysis
of technical, institutional, and economic factors. Unfortunately, such analysis is currently
impossible due to a lack of consistent primary data collection. In order to collect such
data in the north central region a mail survey was developed.

Three states were used to test the survey: Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. This
report examines the means and processes utilized to create and distribute the survey, as
well as analyze the results. Based upon the results of the survey efforts in these states,
recommendations are made regarding changes that should be made to the format of the
survey itself , the way in which the survey should be administered, and how it should be
used in conjunction with other information to generate a situation and outlook report for

aquaculture in the North Central Region.

This work is dedicated to
my loving and patient wife, Pasha,

my Mother, Mary, and my late Father, Merrill.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by a grant to Michigan State University from the United
States Department of Agriculture. I would like to thank Dr. William Taylor for giving
me a chance to take on this project, and fulfill a lifelong dream in the process. A special
thanks goes to Dr. James Hilker for his willingness to serve on my graduate committee.
Dr. Ted Batterson and Dr. Donald Garling also deserve a special thanks for their
innumerable contributions in terms of time and advice. I am honored to have been given
a chance to associate with such fine individuals, whose honest thoughts and candid
comments made my years of study here at Michigan State an experience I shall always
treasure. I thank Jane Thompson for her efforts as graduate secretary, ensuring that my
graduate program was always on track, and offering a friendly smile with every visit.

I would like to extend a special thanks to Liz Bartels, whose wealth of knowledge
and freely given advice made the transfer to a new environment much easier. Her
challenging discussions and unique perspectives were always administered with the
understanding of mutual respect and friendship. I thank LaDon Swann and Dr. Joseph
Morris for their efforts in the development and distribution of the survey. I would also
like to thank Ralph Gann and Linda Lawson at the Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service

for all of their efforts in distributing and analyzing the surveys in Indiana and Illinois.

iv

I thank my Aunt and Uncle Drs. Jake and Maxine Ferris for their love and
support, as well as for their virtual adoption of my wife and myself during these past two
years. I thank my loving wife, Pasha, who gave up everything to follow me to Michigan
State, and whose selfless sacrifices made my dreams a reality. Her unwavering support
and faith in me made all of this possible. I will be forever indebted to her. Finally, I

thank my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in whom all things are possible.

PREFACE

The intent of this project was to produce a thesis that would identify the means
and processes necessary to collect and analyze aquaculture data in the north central US.
It was deemed that the most appropriate way to collect such data in the north central
region, or NCR, was a mail survey. Three states were used to test this survey: Illinois,
Indiana, and Michigan. This thesis examines the development, administration, and
results of this survey effort and is divided into three primary sections: introduction,
survey, and recommendations.

The Introduction examines the history and current status of the US. aquaculture
industry, as well as factors that have contributed to its growth. This section also sets
forth the need for aquaculture data collection, and discusses several caveats and
limitations inherent to data collection efforts in the NCR.

The Survey section is divided into four sub-sections: development,
administration, results, and discussion. The development and administration sub-sections
follow the survey process from beginning to end. The results and discussion sub-sections
examine each of the survey’s 11 sections.

Finally, the Recommendations section discusses changes that should be made to
the format of the survey itself, the way in which it should be administered, and how it
should be used in conjunction with other information to generate a situation and outlook

report for aquaculture in the NCR.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. x
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
THE SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 10
Development .......................................................................................................... 10
Administration ....................................................................................................... 14
Results .................................................................................................................... 16
Section 1: Production ................................................................................. 18

Section 2: Business Management .............................................................. 20

Section 3: Economics ................................................................................. 23

Section 4: Facilities .................................................................................... 27

Section 5: Marketing .................................................................................. 28

Section 6: Water Quality ............................................................................ 32

Section 7: Feeds/Feeding ........................................................................... 35

Section 8: Disease/Wildlife ........................................................................ 37

Section 9: Losses ........................................................................................ 38

Section 10: Miscellaneous ......................................................................... 39

Section 11: Comments ............................................................................... 44

Discussion .............................................................................................................. 46
Section 1: Production ................................................................................. 47

Section 2: Business Management .............................................................. 47

Section 3: Economics ................................................................................. 48

Section 4: Facilities .................................................................................... 49

Section 5: Marketing .................................................................................. 49

Section 6: Water Quality ............................................................................ 50

Section 7: Feeds/Feeding ........................................................................... 51

Section 8: Disease/Wildlife ........................................................................ 52

Section 9: Losses ........................................................................................ 52

Section 10: Miscellaneous ......................................................................... 53

Section 11: Comments ............................................................................... 54
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 55
Recommended changes to questions .................................................................... 58

vii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A- 1995 Aquaculture Survey ............................................................. 65
APPENDIX B- 1995 Aquaculture Survey Cover Letter ....................................... 72
APPENDIX C- 1995 Aquaculture Survey Follow-Up Material ............................ 73
APPENDIX D- NCRAC Aquaculture Extension Contacts ................................... 75
APPENDIX E- Additional Tables ......................................................................... 77
APPENDIX F - Revised Survey ............................................................................. 87
APPENDIX G- Summarized Comments ............................................................... 94
APPENDIX H- Additional Resources ................................................................... 96
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 97

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of producers and total gross sales by species, 1995. ............................. 19
Table 2. Production and holding facilities in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, 1995 ........ 29
Table 3. Feed usage by aquaculture operations in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan,

1995 ..................................................................................................................... 37
Table 4. Feed expenditures by aquaculture operations in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan,

1995 ..................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5. Section 2 raw data. .............................................................................................. 77
Table 6. Section 3 raw data ............................................................................................... 79
Table 7. Section 5 raw data. .............................................................................................. 80
Table 8. Section 6 raw data. .............................................................................................. 81
Table 9. Section 7 questions 1-2 raw data. ....................................................................... 83
Table 10. Section 8 raw data. ............................................................................................ 84
Table 11. Section 9 raw data. ............................................................................................ 85
Table 12. Section 10 raw data. .......................................................................................... 86

ix

Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 1 1.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

LIST OF FIGURES

United States annual per capita consumption of fish and shellfish, 1970-94. ..... 3
Value of United States edible fishery products imports and exports, 1991-94. ..4

Total number of questionnaires sent and number of responses received, either
by mail or telephone follow-up, by state, for the 1995 survey .......................... 17

Aquaculture business age structure in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, 1995. ..22

Number of respondents in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reporting the
majority of their sales from each business type, 1995 ....................................... 24

Distribution of gross sales by aquaculture operations in Illinois, Indiana, and
Michigan, 1995. ................................................................................................. 26

Percent of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan utilizing various
facility types, 1995. ........................................................................................... 30

Number of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reporting local,
in-state, out-of-state, and international sales, 1995. .......................................... 31

Percent of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan utilizing various water
sources, 1995. .................................................................................................... 33

Percent of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan utilizing various
methods of effluent discharge, 1995. ............................................................... 36

Mean losses as a percent of total production and corresponding dollar value
reported by producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, 1995. ..................... 40

Number of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reporting cause of
greatest loss by category, 1995. ...................................................................... 41

Producers’ anticipated production in the year 2000, relative to current levels
of production, 1995. ......................................................................................... 43

Figure 14. Willingness of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan to complete a
similar survey in the future, 1995. .................................................................. 45

xi

INTRODUCTION

Aquaculture is defined as the farming of aquatic plants and animals. Activities
commonly associated with this term include the production of popular fish and shellfish,
such as catfish, trout, shrimp, and clams. However, the aquaculture industry in the
United States is much more diverse than this, and includes everything from the rearing of
tropical aquaria fish, to the production of aquatic plants for food, pharmaceutical,
biomedical, and ornamental purposes. In the US, aquaculture is the fastest growing area
of agriculture (Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, 1993). In spite of this fact,
aquaculture has not always been considered by many to be an actual form of agriculture.
Efforts to define aquaculture as agriculture in the 1996 federal Farm Bill were defeated
when the definition was deleted during conference deliberations. However, some states
(e. g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio) have recently passed
legislation defining aquaculture as agriculture. Other states, e.g., Arkansas, Florida,
Maryland, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, also consider aquaculture as agriculture, and are
even starting to gather data and produce their own aquaculture reports, much like they
would for other agricultural commodities.

Aquaculture is not a new practice. The Chinese have been practicing aquaculture
for over 3,500 years (Stickney, 1994). Fishes in the carp family were first kept for
pleasure, then raised for food (Brown, 1977). Other countries, such as Egypt and Japan

have also practiced aquaculture for thousands of years. In Europe, fish farming began in
1

2
the 12th century in the eastern part of the continent, and by 1400 had moved across to

England (Hickling, 1962; Lovell, 1989). In the US, aquaculture has been practiced
since the 18308 (Parker, 1989). By the 18505, farmers were experimenting with buffalo
fish, bass, and crappie (Huner and Dupree, 1984). Most of the growth experienced by the
US. aquaculture industry, however, has been in the last 10—15 years. During the 19803,
US. aquaculture production more than doubled and by 1993 reached an estimated 716
million pounds, with a farm gate value of over $809 million (U SDC, NOAA, NMF S,
1995). This is compared to 1983 production, which was 308 million pounds with a farm
gate value of $261 million. Aquaculture accounts for approximately 181,000 jobs in the
US. and its total economic impact has been estimated at $5.6 billion annually (Dicks, et
aL,1996)

Several factors have helped create a climate that is conducive to the growth of
aquaculture in the US. Per capita consumption of fish and shellfish in the United States
increased to 15.2 pounds in 1994, 0.2 pounds more than in 1993, and 29% above the
1970 mark of 11.8 pounds (U SDC, NOAA, NMFS, 1995) (Figure 1). Another reason for
the growth experienced by the aquaculture industry is the apparent inability of the
commercial capture fishery to meet the demands placed upon it now and in the fiiture.
Many wild stocks are currently being harvested at or above sustainable yield levels and
reached 101.4 million metric tons in 1993 (F A0, 1995). The ability of the world’s
oceans to support similar catches into the future is doubtful. Marine capture fisheries
have been shown to be adversely affected by catches above 80 million metric tons per
year (FAO, 1995). Currently, the US. meets its demand for seafood through imports. In

1994, the US. imports of edible fishery products totaled $6.6 billion (Figure 2). Exports,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3
5
E
.5
E.
E
5
E E
U
EEEEEEEEEE§§§
Year
Figure 1. United States annual per capita consumption of fish and shellfish, 1970-94

(USDC, NOAA, NMFS, 1995).

 

 

 

 

 

I Imports
D Exports

Value ($1,000,000)

 

 

 

 

 

1991 I992 I993 I994

 

 

Figure 2. Value of United States edible fishery products imports and exports, 1991-94

(USDA, ERS, October 1995, LPD-AQS-Z).

 

5
on the other hand, were only $3.1 billion (USDA, ERS, 1995 [LPD-AQS-2]). Fisheries

imports are the leading contributor to the US. trade deficit among agricultural products,
and largest, afier petroleum, among all natural resources products (Joint Subcomittee on
Aquaculture, 1993). Domestic aquaculture can make a larger contribution to domestic
fisheries production, thereby reducing pressure on commercial fisheries and offsetting
costly imports.

In order for the aquaculture industry to take advantage of the currently favorable
growth climate, there are a number of constraining factors that will have to be overcome.
For example, growers must be able to find species that can be grown profitably with
existing culture techniques and methods. They must be able to acquire sufficient
operating capital to finance the operation and any permits needed to raise their species.
Markets must exist for these species once they are harvested. Producers must have some
understanding about how the market will respond to changing fish supplies. Changing
market supplies will cause changes in the prices that are received by producers for the
cultured species.

Successful enterprise planning and management requires that producers be able to
formulate informed price expectations before each growing period. This information is
important for those planning to expand or develop new aquaculture operations. Lack of
basic economic information both at the farm and market level may impede development
and growth of the industry. Future development must be undertaken carefully in order to
maximize potential growth opportunities within the industry both across the nation and
within the north central region, which will hereafier be referred to as the NCR. Species to

be produced must be selected with great care, giving considerations to the technical,

6
institutional, and economic factors that may constrain or impede future development.

Unfortunately, projections and information needed to evaluate these factors do not
exist for many of the species that might be of interest to producers in the NCR due to a
lack of consistent, basic primary data collection. Currently, the only agency consistently
collecting aquaculture data is the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), in cooperation with their satellite agencies in the states. NASS is only
collecting data for catfish and trout, two of the largest aquacultural industries in the US.
It is unlikely that NASS will expand their survey efforts to include other species unless
mandated by Congress, and given additional revenues to collect such data. They have
already had to reduce the frequency with which they produce the catfish and trout reports
due to budgetary restrictions.

Their survey efforts result in a high response rate (90% or better) due to the
encouragement to participate that comes from the Catfish Farmers of America and the
US. Trout Farmers Association. Processing reports for catfish are published monthly,
sales reports are published once a year, and inventory reports are published quarterly.
Trout reports are published once a year. States in the NCR that participate in these efforts
are Michigan (trout), Wisconsin (trout), and Missouri (catfish and trout).

Regulatory issues also play an important role in determining the economic
feasibility of an expanded aquaculture industry. Policy institutions can create both
impediments and incentives for aquacultural producers. Public policy that concerns
aquaculture generally can be classified as regulatory because of a state’s interest in
managing a common pool resource (fisheries and wildlife), commerce, and public health

(environmental pollution and food safety). These issues generally can be divided into

7
three broad categories: (1) regulation of commerce in what are traditionally regarded as

wildlife species, (2) regulation of environmental and health issues, and (3) in the NCR,
specific Great Lakes issues such as competition with sport fisheries and commercially
harvested free-ranging species.

If the US. aquaculture industry is to overcome all of these constraining factors, it
must have strong national leadership and direction. Recognizing that the aquaculture
industry cannot achieve full potential without such leadership and direction, in 1980 the
US. Congress created an opportunity for making significant progress in aquaculture
development by passage of the National Aquaculture Act (PL. 96-362). This act
addressed the importance of a strong domestic aquaculture industry and established the
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (J SA). The J SA is an interagency body that is
chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture. It has numerous responsibilities and provides
coordination and recommendations for federal aquaculture policy.

The Congress also amended the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 in Title XIV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1980 (PL.
97-98) by granting authority to USDA to establish aquaculture research, development,
and demonstration centers in the United States in association with colleges and
universities, state departments of agriculture, federal facilities, and non-profit private
research institutions. Five such centers have been established: one in each of the
northeastern, north central, southern, western, and Pacific regions. The mission of these
centers is to support aquaculture research, development, demonstration, and extension
education to enhance viable and profitable U.S. aquaculture which will benefit

consumers, producers, service industries, and the American economy. The 1996 Federal

8
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR) (PL. 104-127), otherwise known as

the Farm Bill, has reauthorized the Regional Aquaculture Center program at $7.5 million
per annum.

In 1993, the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) published an
aquaculture situation and outlook report (Hushak, 1993). It was written to fulfill the
desire of the NCRAC Board of Directors for a report of activities specific to this region’s
producers. It was hoped that the report would be beneficial to the aquaculture industry,
extension personnel, researchers, legislators, policy makers, and potential investors. The
report consisted of four components: an overview of the US. seafood industry; highlights
from two surveys of retail, wholesale and other food distribution channels; results of a
1991 survey of producers in this region; and an overview of the policy status of each of
the north central states.

Favorable response to the first report created a desire on the part of the NCRAC
Board of Directors to have another situation and outlook report published. It was decided
that a graduate student should generate the next report and produce a thesis identifying
the means and processes necessary to collect and analyze the data that would be used to
develop that and future reports. Due to a lack of primary data, except for some trout and
catfish data, it was determined that the most effective way of gathering aquaculture data
in the NCR was to use a mail survey.

There are many caveats and limitations inherent to any data collection effort
regarding the aquaculture industry in the NCR. The aquaculture industry in this region is
extremely diverse, and many unregulated growers/producers are hard to identify and

solicit for data. Particularly problematic in this area are individuals who produce tropical

9
fish and aquatic plants. Growers who produce most other fish species are required to

possess some type of permit, and obtaining lists of those individuals is much easier.
Finally, there is a widespread lack of understanding on the part of many producers
regarding the benefits of data collection.

Data collection can benefit producers in many ways. Collecting data fosters
recognition Of aquaculture as a vital economic industry, making it easier for producers to
obtain financing. Data collection also helps create potential markets through increased
public awareness of aquacultural products, and allows researchers to gain a better
understanding of the problems facing the industry and tailor their research efforts to find
solutions to these problems. Collected data can also be used to educate or persuade state
and federal governments to pass legislation that is in the best interest of the aquaculture
industry. Many producers fail to understand these benefits, and for this and other reasons

are unwilling to participate in survey activities.

"m4. «.6 11- 33(4-

THE SURVEY

DEVELOPMENT

The mail survey was designed with the assistance of Mr. LaDon Swann, Dr.
Joseph Morris, and Dr. Donald Garling. They are the aquaculture extension specialists in
Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan, respectively. Development of this survey began with the
examination of other investigations that had been previously conducted in the NCR, as
well as in other regions of the country. Specific questions were then selected based on
their relevance to the aquaculture production practices in the NCR. An initial survey was
drafted and sent out to all extension specialists in the region for review (APPENDIX D).
Specialists in four states: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin, distributed this early
draft, which contained many of the same questions as the final draft but was much more
lengthy due to a different format. Their comments and suggestions were then applied to
the survey and appropriate revisions were made. The process of review and revision was
repeated numerous times until all the parties involved were satisfied with the final survey
instrument. Three states were used to test the survey: Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan.

The result of the extensive review and revision process was a survey tool that
consisted of eleven basic sections (APPENDIX A). Section 1 dealt with production, and
consisted of a species code list and a table. The species code list was created to prevent

any confusion between species, and allow the respondents to abbreviate the species
10

"sat in]

11
names. The list contained 30 of what were determined to be the most commonly cultured

species in the NCR. The respondents were also given an opportunity to write in the
names of species that were not included in the list.

Section 2 contained ten questions that dealt with business management. The first
nine questions required the respondents to provide some general background information
concerning their operation. Included were questions relating to where fish were obtained,
how many years the operation had been carried out, whether or not they owned a farm
before starting their aquaculture business, etc. The last question asked the respondents to
indicate which of the following activities they were involved in: fish production, capture
of wild bait fish, fish wholesaler or live hauler, fee fishing, fish brokering, or “other.”
The respondents were also asked to indicate what percentage of their total sales came
from each activity.

Section 3 contained five questions that dealt with economic issues. Respondents
were asked to indicate how their operation was financed, what percentage of their total
gross annual income came from aquaculture, and estimate the total value of sales from
their aquacultural operation in 1995. Respondents were also asked to indicate how many
employees they had as well as whether or not their sales covered their cash costs. If they
indicated that their sales did cover their cash costs, they were asked if they felt this profit
was adequate compensation for their time and money investment.

Section 4 attempted to collect information on what types of facilities the
respondents utilized. To accomplish this, a simple table was used. Four facility types
were included in this table: ponds, raceways, cages/net pens, and tanks. For each of these

types the respondents were asked to indicate the number they used, if any, and an

ant emu-am

12
appropriate measure of size. For ponds, this was total surface acres, for raceways and

cages/net pens it was cubic feet, and for tanks it was gallons.

Section 5 contained five questions that related to marketing. Respondents were
asked to indicate where they sold their product, whether or not they processed the product
themselves, and whether or not they were members of a cooperative. They were also
asked if they transported their fish to market themselves, and finally, they were asked to
classify the demand for their product within a given year as constant, predictably
fluctuating, or unpredictable. 1

Section 6 contained six questions that involved water quality. Respondents were
asked to identify what water source(s) they utilized, their water use and flow rates, as well
as any aspects of water quality they monitored. They were also asked to estimate how
many times a year poor water quality reduced their production, and indicate where they
discharged their effluent.

Section 7 contained four questions that addressed feeds and feeding practices.
First, respondents were asked to indicate if they bought their feed from a local co-op or
mill, shipped from the manufacturer, or from another source. Next, they were asked to
indicate what type of feed they used: floating, sinking, or slow sinking. Finally, they
were asked to indicate their annual feed usage, as well as how much they spent on feed.

Section 8 contained four questions that dealt with disease and wildlife problems
that impact aquaculture. The first two questions asked the respondents to indicate how
often their stock experienced diseases and where they obtained their fish health
information. The third and fourth questions asked the respondents to indicate which

agencies helped them with wildlife damage control and whether or not predation was a

13
problem for their operation. If they indicated that predation was a problem, they were

asked to identify the predator type. Their choices were birds, mammals, or “other.”

Section 9 contained two questions that dealt with stock losses. The first question
simply asked the respondents if they had any losses from their operation in 1995. If they
indicated that they did, they moved on to question 2, which asked them what percentage
of their total operation these losses constituted, as well as a dollar amount. The
respondents were then asked to complete a table. The table asked the respondents to
indicate the percentage of their total losses that came from the following causes: diseases,
predation, poaching, escapement, poor water quality, and weather. A blank line was
included for the respondents to write in their own cause, if it did not fall into any of the
other categories.

Section 10 contained five questions that were unrelated to any of the other
sections, and was thus entitled “Miscellaneous.” The first two questions dealt with
membership in state or national aquaculture associations. The respondents were asked to
indicate whether or not they were members, and if so, if they felt their membership had
enabled them to increase their profits in any way. The third question asked them to
predict their production levels in five years as higher, no change, or lower. The last two
questions asked the respondents who they contacted when they needed to obtain
additional information about aquaculture and how often they would be willing to
complete a similar survey. This section was included so that individual states could
customize the survey by adding questions they felt should have been included, or which

dealt with specific issues in their states.

14
Finally, section 11 was left for comments. It consisted of approximately one-half

page of empty space for the respondents to write in their own thoughts, feelings, ideas,
complaints, etc. If they felt that they did not have enough room they were instructed to

write on the back of the page.

ADMINISTRATION

Administration methods varied by state. In Indiana and Illinois names and
addresses were provided to the Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service of those who were
on a list possessing a fish haulers and suppliers license, some other type of aquaculture
permit or license, or who were not on any list but were believed to be involved in
aquaculture. The Agricultural Statistics Service then conducted the survey using the
same methods that they employ for their other survey efforts. The initial mailing was
made on February 14, 1996. The first page of each survey contained information in
regards to the purpose of the survey, an assurance of anonymity and confidentiality, and
basic instructions. Also located on the first page was a numerical code that was assigned
to a specific producer. This allowed the statisticians to keep track of who had responded.
Approximately three weeks later, the survey was mailed again to those who had not
responded, and on March 25, telephone follow-ups were initiated.

In Michigan, the initial mailing was made on February 15, 1996. Surveys were
mailed to individuals whose names appeared on the 1995 game fish breeders list. This
list is published by the Fisheries Division of the Michigan Department of Natural

Resources and contains the names of those individuals who possess a game fish breeders

15
license. Instructions and general information regarding the survey were included in a

separate cover page (APPENDIX B). Also included with the survey were two envelopes,
one slightly smaller than the other one. Participants were instructed to place their
completed survey in the smaller envelope, which was blank, and then place that envelope
in the larger one, which was pre-starnped and addressed. This envelope also included a
numerical code in the lower left-hand comer that was assigned to a specific producer.
Completed surveys were returned to the aquaculture extension specialist who placed the
outer envelope with the numerical code in one box and the envelope containing the
survey in another box. These were collected by someone else, thus creating a double-
blind situation which prevented anyone from knowing from whom the individual surveys
were received. Respondents were asked to return the surveys by March 15. Follow-up
efforts began on March 22, with a postcard reminder being sent to those who had not yet
responded (APPENDIX C). Following the guidelines recommended by Dillman (1978),
the postcard included a tie to the previous letter, a thanks to early responders, a statement
explaining why participation was important, and an invitation for a replacement survey.
These aspects were included because they have been shown to improve response rates.
The survey was mailed a second time on April 12 to those who had still failed to respond.
The cover page was similar to the first follow-up postcard, and informed the producers
that this would be their last chance to participate, as surveys were to be returned by April
26 (APPENDIX C).

After all follow up efforts had been completed, the data were entered and
analyzed using the spreadsheet program Microsoft EXCEL”. For each state, four

worksheets were created to tabulate the responses to sections 1 and 4, as well as questions

1 6
3 and 4 in section 7, and question 2 of section 9. The first worksheet recorded the

number of producers raising each species, as well as the reported value for each species.
The second worksheet recorded the total number and size of each facility type reported by
producers. The third worksheet recorded the feed usage, as well as the amount of money
spent on feed reported by each producer. Finally, the fourth worksheet recorded the value
of losses reported by each producer, as well as the cause of loss. Once the data from each
survey had been entered into the appropriate worksheet, the results of the remaining
questions were entered into a separate spreadsheet. The number of respondents
answering each question, as well as the particular answer to each question was recorded
and reported both as a whole number and as a percentage of the total number of answers.
These results are presented in tabular form in APPENDIX B. These results are
recognized as being minimal, with many of the largest producers not participating, but do

provide a starting point to learn from and improve on in the future.

RESULTS

A total of 403 surveys were distributed in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Of
these, 325 (81%) were either returned or completed through a telephone interview (Figure
3). Ninety-three (29%) of the 325 who responded indicated that they earned income from
aquaculture in 1995; the other 232 (72%) indicated that they did not. Only those
reporting an earned income are included in this report. The 93 summarized reports were
divided almost evenly among the three states: 33 in Illinois, 31 in Indiana, and 29 in

Michigan. However, not every respondent answered all of the questions.

l7

 

 

I Sent El Responses

   

 

 

2004

 

Number of questionnaires

 

 

   

Illinois/Indiana Michigan

 

 

 

Figure 3. Total number of questionnaires sent and number of responses received, either

by mail or telephone follow-up, by state, for the 1995 survey.

1 8
Section 1: Production

The directions that preceded the first section asked the respondent to write in a
species code, identify which life stage was sold, and complete the production and value
columns. The directions specified that only one row was to be completed for each life
stage. The number of respondents correctly and thoroughly completing the columns
dealing with life stages and production was limited, therefore, only data concerning the

species raised and the value of sales were tabulated.

_ . .........1

The results of section 1 are summarized in Table 1. The 33 Illinois producers 1..
reported 1995 sales totaling $291,508. The top three species in terms of sales were
fathead minnows, rainbow trout, and tilapia, respectively. These three species accounted
for 58% of the total sales reported for 1995. Of the 30 species identified in the species
list, 22 were reported as sold in Illinois. In addition, one producer reported sales of
“other bait fish,” and five producers reported sales of “other” species.

The 31 Indiana producers reported 1995 sales totaling $785,727. The top three
species in terms of sales were channel catfish, grass carp, and hybrid bluegill,
respectively. These three accounted for 70% of the total sales reported for 1995. Indiana
producers reported sales of 24 different species, with one producer reporting sales of
“other bait fish,” and five more reporting sales of “other” species.

The 29 Michigan producers reported 1995 sales totaling $1,482,997. The top
three species in terms of sales were rainbow trout, yellow perch, and brown trout,
respectively. Together, they accounted for 60% of the total sales. Michigan producers
reported sales of 17 different species, with one producer reporting sales of “other bait

fish.”

19

Table 1. Number of producers and total gross sales by species, 1995.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois Indiana Michigan

Producers Value (3) Producers Value ($) Producers Value (3)
Aquaria fish 3 6,500
Bass, Hybrid Striped 4 7,075
Bass, Largemouth 7 37,200 5 23,015
Bass, Smallrnouth 10 11,735 4 2,100 1 NR'
Bluegill 3 500 7 12,690 2 NR
Bluegill, Hybrid 6 4,975 6 108,000 5 75,747
Carp, Grass 2 NR 8 112,900
Carp, Koi 1 NR 8 16,500 2 NR
Catfish, Blue 3 33,225 2 NA2
Catfish, Bullhead 1 NA 2 10,200
Catfish, Channel 19 17,390 22 327,456 3 31,350
Catfish, Flathead 1 NA 2 NA
Crappie, Black 4 5,000 4 1,200 2 NR
Crappie, White
Crayfish 9 24,054 4 NA
Goldfish 1 NR 6 1,500 1 NA
Minnow, F athead 6 80,450 8 84,000 4 53,750
Perch, Yellow 1 NR 5 250 5 143,840
Pike, Northern 2 NR 2 NR
Salmon, Atlantic
Salmon, Chinook
Salmon, Coho
Shiner, Golden 2 NR 1 NA 1 NA
Sucker, White 1 NR
Sunfish, Redear 1 NA 6 21,000 1 NA
Tilapia 4 35,350 9 19,356
Trout, Brook 1 NA 7 45,260
Trout, Brown 1 NA 7 118,930
Trout, Rainbow 3 54,530 3 NA 20 881,030
Walleye 2 NR 3 6,600 4 77,800
Other Bait Fish 1 NR 1 NA 1 NR
Other 5 8,000 5 1 1,200
TOTAL3 291,508 785,727 1,482,997

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' Not reported to protect confidentiality, included in total.

2 Not available.

3 Includes species not reported singly.

 

20
Section 2: Bu_s_iness Management

Question I asked the respondents to identify if they raised fish, obtained fish and
held them for resale, or brokered fish. They were asked to check all that applied. Of the
92 responses, 70 (76%) indicated that they raised fish, 51 (55%) obtained fish and held
them for resale, and five (5%) brokered fish.

Question 2 asked the respondents to identify where they obtained their fish. They
were provided with three possible answers and asked to check all that applied. Of the 92
responses, 58 (63%) raised their own, 45 (49%) obtained their fish from in-state sources,
and 35 (38%) obtained them from out-of-state sources.

Question 3 asked the respondents if their current operation was their first
aquaculture business venture. If they responded “no,” they were asked to indicate
whether or not their first venture was successful. Of the 85 responses, 76 (89%) reported
“yes,” it was their first operation, while nine (11%) indicated “no,” it was not. Of those
who responded “no,” the results from Illinois were thrown out because while only one
individual responded “no,” four answered the question as to whether or not their first
venture was successful. Of the eight growers in Indiana and Michigan who responded
“no,” seven (88%) reported that their first venture was successfiil, while one (13%)
reported that it was not.

Question 4 asked the respondents to identify how many years they had an
aquaculture business. They were provided with five ranges: 0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-20
years, 21-30 years, and more than 30 years. Of the 92 responses, 34 (37%) reported 0-5

years, 14 (15%) reported 6-10 years, 16 (17%) reported 11-20 years, 19 (21%) reported

21
21-30 years, and 9 (10%) reported that they had carried out an aquaculture business for

more than 30 years (Figure 4).

Question 5 asked the respondents to identify whether or not their operation was a
family operation. In order to conserve space, it was decided not to go into further detail
and explain what was meant by “family operation” in the survey. We assumed that the
respondents would know that we were referring to whether or not they had other family
members involved in the operation. Of the 92 responses, 65 (71%) indicated “yes,” it
was a family operation, while 27 (29%) responded “no,” it was not a family operation.

Question 6 asked the respondents to indicate whether or not they took over an
existing aquaculture venture. Of the 92 responses, 14 (15%) responded “yes,” and 78
(85%) responded “no.”

Question 7 asked the respondents to indicate whether or not they owned a farm
before they started an aquaculture business. If they responded “yes,” then they were
asked to identify which type of farm. They were given five farm types to choose from:
hogs, dairy, beef, row crops, and “other.” They were asked to check all that applied. Of
the 91 responses, 31 (34%) indicated “yes,” they owned a farm before they started an
aquaculture business, and 60 (66%) indicated “no.” Of those who responded “yes,” eight
(26%) raised hogs, five (16%) operated a dairy farm, 11 (35%) raised beef cattle, 18
(58%) grew row crops, and nine (29%) indicated “other.”

Question 8 attempted to identify what types of inputs, if any, producers are
occasionally unable to acquire. The respondents were given four inputs: eggs,

fingerlings, feed, and “other.” They were asked to check any of those inputs that they had

22

 

 

Number of responses

 

 

 

o , . . . .-4 .
0:05 6to|0 11t020 zrroso >30

Number of years in operation

 

 

 

Figure 4. Aquaculture business age structure in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, 1995.

23
been unable to acquire when needed. Of the 35 that did respond, three (9%) indicated

eggs, seven (20%) indicated fingerlings, ten (29%) indicated feed, and 19 (54%) indicated
“other.”

Question 9 related to the tax status of the aquaculture operation. Respondents
were provided with six options (sole owner, partnership, corporation, joint venture,
affiliation with another company, and “other”) and asked which best described the tax
status of their operation. Of the 91 responses, 59 (65%) indicated that they were the sole
owner, seven (8%) indicated they were involved in a partnership, 18 (20%) indicated they
were incorporated, two (2%) indicated they were a joint venture, none were affiliated
with another company, and five (5%) indicated “other.”

Question 10, the last question in section 2, provided the respondents with six
types Of aquaculture activities (fish production, capture of wild bait fish, fish wholesaler
or live hauler, fee-fishing, broker, and “other”) and asked them to identify which ones
they were involved in by estimating the percentage of total sales that they derived from
each activity (Figure 5). By examining how many operations derived the majority of
their sales from each type of activity, it is possible to better classify the Operations. Of
the 88 responses, 54 (61%) derived the majority of their sales from fish production, three
(3%) from the capture of wild bait fish, 14 (16%) from wholesaling or live hauling, nine
(10%) from fee-fishing, two (2%) from fish brokering, and six (7%) from “other”
sources.

Section 3: Economics
Question I asked the respondents to identify how their operations were financed.

They were given four options: self, bank, family, and “other.” They were asked to check

24

 

 

 

 

l
l
l
l
l
I

i.

Type of business

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

011wr ......... ’
Broker 3‘ i
Fee-fishing . l l
- l
Wholesaler/live hauler l b
l I ]
Capture of wild bait fish 1 l I
l . , l .
Fishproduction . . I
1 fl ‘ I 1 fl
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of responses

 

 

Figure 5. Number of respondents in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reporting the

majority of their sales from each business type, 1995.

”roams-1'

25
all that applied. Of the 90 responses, 71 (79%) indicated that they financed their

operation themselves, 15 (17%) were financed through a bank, five (6%) were financed
by family members, and 12 (13%) through “other” means.

Question 2 asked the respondents to identify what percentage of their total gross
annual income was from aquaculture. They were given five ranges to choose from: 0-
24%, 25-49%, 50-74%, 75-99%, and 100%. Of the 88 responses, 50 (57%) indicated 0-
24%, 11 (13%) indicated 25-49%, 8 (9%) indicated 50-74%, 6 (7%) indicated 75-99%,
and 13 (15%) indicated 100% of their total gross annual income was from aquaculture.

Question 3 asked the respondents to estimate the total value of sales from their
aquaculture operation for 1995. They were given ten categories to choose from: less than
$2,500, $2,500-$9,999, $10,000-$24,999, $25,000-$49,999, $50,000—$99,999, $100,000-
$249,999, $250,000-$499,999, $500,000-$749,999, $750,000-$999,999, and $1,000,000
or more. Of the 90 responses (Figure 6), 27 (30%) indicated that their sales were less
than $2,500, 15 (17%) indicated sales between $2,500-$9,999, eight (9%) between
$10,000-$24,999, seven (8%) between $25,000-$49,999, seven (8%) between $50,000-
$99,999, 10 (11%) between $100,000-$249,999, three (3%) between $250,000-
$499,999,one (1%) between $500,000-$749,999, none between $750,000-$999,999, and
two (2%) reported sales of $1,000,000 or more.

Question 4 asked the respondents to indicate the number of workers that were
involved in the operation in addition to themselves. There were four different types of
workers: paid full-time, paid part-time, unpaid or family help, and students (if they were

an educator). They were asked to complete all that applied. Many respondents failed to

26

 

 

$1,000,000 or more "3

   
 
 
  
  

55000006749399 1,4,5
J
$250.000-S499,999 1W”

 

 

l

|

l

l

1

|

l $750.000-s999,999
1

|

1

’ ,
1 s 1 00,000.32499999 hi":- i; "I"
1

l

 

' ‘ J 1
‘V‘l. . . ‘
., . v 3].» an». _‘vh_‘<‘-.g’l( 'c' v. , ‘4
- ‘ "'- "'.'. 39:53.51”, . a 1 ‘
s 9 ., «.1,

Gross sales

325,000-349,999
s ‘0'000‘524399 .5”’is“;.»=>,:'::-.":=~:.:.:3...~ .

52500-39399 .5“... ,. .. ..

,1. , ' .
Rain-=- is n r .. ,9.

 

 

($2 500 7.3-?" -'.'- ‘3}- fl, {33‘1”} "TFT‘T‘WEEH‘I‘. ". T ' ' , . . . . - .
a! 'r -.fi-n‘,~. .. .~.. . ‘.: .:_ a A,
’ "AHJLM Ha . ")3;;'3""‘""‘~”-" "'r‘~ ~f\'.~' ‘~..' ‘.~ . $.12 '\.'.I.'... , s 71.. e . . r...
____.___._____.________

 

J l l l I I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Number of responses

 

 

 

Figure 6. Distribution of gross sales by aquaculture operations in Illinois, Indiana, and

Michigan, 1995.

27
complete the question properly, placing a check beside the type of worker instead of a

number. As a result, it was impossible to get an estimate of the number of each type of
worker. However, one can get an idea as to how many producers are utilizing each type
of worker. Of the 69 responses, 29 (42%) employed paid full-time workers, 26 (38%)
employed paid part-time workers, 33 (48%) utilized unpaid or family help, and four (6%)
utilized student help.

Question 5, the final question Of section 3, asked the respondents to indicate
whether or not their sales covered their cash costs. It was noted that cash costs include all
variable costs such as feed and electricity, as well as taxes, insurance, interest on loans,
etc. If they responded “yes,” they were asked to indicate if they felt this profit was
adequate to cover their time and money investment. Of the 89 responses, 60 (67%)
responded “yes,” their sales covered their cash costs, while 29 (33%) responded “no,”
they did not. Of those who responded “yes,” 22 (37%) felt this gross margin over cash
costs was enough to cover their time and money investment, while 23 (3 8%) did not. The
remaining 15 (25%) did not respond.

Section 4: Facilities

This section consisted of one question that took the form of a table in which the
respondents were given four production and holding facility types and were asked to
indicate how many of each type they used. They were also asked to provide the
appropriate measure of area or volume for each type. The four types were: ponds,
raceways, cages/net pens, and tanks. Ponds were measured in surface acres, raceways

and cages/net pens in cubic feet, and tanks in gallons. Results from this section are

28
summarized in Table 2. Illinois producers reported using 370 ponds (529 surface acres),

59 raceways (19,415 fi’), 46 cages/net pens (1,296 N), and 189 tanks (108,500 gallons).
Indiana producers reported using 1,035 ponds (541 surface acres), nine raceways (2,278
ft3), 54 cages/net pens (1,760 ft’), and 509 tanks (340,280 gallons). Michigan producers
reported using 152 ponds (100 surface acres), 69 raceways (95,375 fi’), two cages/net
pens (510 fi’), and 84 tanks (73,600 gallons). In these states, 62 (67%) used ponds, 18
(20%) used raceways, 15 (16%) used cages/net pens, and 41 (44%) used tanks (Figure 7).
Section 5: Marketing

Question I asked the respondents to identify where they sold their products. They
were given four choices: locally, in-state, out-of-state, and internationally. They were
asked to check all that applied. Of the 90 responses, 69 (77%) indicated that they sold
their product locally, 58 (64%) reported in-state sales, 29 (32%) reported out-of-state
sales, and five (6%) reported international sales (Figure 8).

Question 2 asked the respondents to indicate whether or not they processed their
product themselves. If they responded “no,” they were then asked if they would like to
do their own processing. Of the 86 responses, 37 (43%) responded “yes,” they processed
their products themselves, while 49 (57%) responded “no,” they did not. Of those who
responded “no,” six (12%) indicated they would like to do their own processing, while 29
(59%) indicated they would not. The remaining 14 (29%) did not respond.

Question 3 asked the respondents to identify whether or not they were a member
of a cooperative. If they responded “yes,” they were asked to indicate which type of

cooperative they were a member of: buying, selling, or advertising. They were asked to

29

Table 2. Production and holding facilities in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, 1995.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Type No. of Total
Respondents

Illinois Ponds Number 22 370
Surface Acres 20 529

Raceways Number 6 59

Volume (fi’) 3 19,415

Cages/Net Pens Number 7 46

Volume (ft’) 5 1,296

Tanks Number 14 189

Volume (gallons) 12 108,500

Indiana Ponds Number 19 1,035
Surface Acres 17 541

Raceways Number 2 9

Volume (fi’) 2 2,278

Cages/Net Pens Number 6 54

Volume (ft’) 4 1,760

Tanks Number 16 509

Volume (gallons) 14 340,280

Michigan Ponds Number 21 152
Surface Acres 21 100

Raceways Number 10 69

Volume (fi’) 8 95,375

Cages/Net Pens Number 2 2

Volume (ft’) 2 510

Tanks Number 1 l 84

Volume (gallons) 10 73,600

 

 

I "“1.qu

30

 

 

Tanks 5 '1

Cages/Net Pens H

Facility type

 

 

 

 

 

Percent

 

 

 

Figure 7. Percent of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan utilizing various facility

types, 1995.

31

 

 

El Local
I In-State

IOut-of-State
I Intcmational

 

 

Number of responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois Indiana Michigan

State

1

Figure 8. Number of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reporting local, in-

state, out-Of-state, and international sales, 1995.

 

32
check all that applied. If they responded “no,” they were not members of a cooperative,

they were asked if they would consider joining one. Of the 87 responses, four (5%)
responded “yes,” while 83 (95%) responded “no,” they were not members of a
cooperative. Of those who responded “yes,” one (25%) indicated being a member of a
selling cooperative and two (50%) indicated being members Of an advertising
cooperative. Of those who responded “no,” 20 (24%) indicated they would consider
joining a cooperative, while 16 (19%) indicated they would not. The remaining 47
(57%) did not respond.

Question 4 asked the respondents to identify whether or not they transported their
own fish to market. Of the 87 responses, 67 (77%) responded “yes,” they transported
their own fish to market, while 20 (23%) did not.

Question 5 asked the respondents to describe the demand for their products within
a given year. They were given three choices: constant, predictably fluctuating, and
unpredictable. They were asked to pick the choice that best described the demand for
their products. Of the 89 responses, 28 (31%) chose “constant,” 30 (34%) chose
“predictably fluctuating,” and 31 (3 5%) chose “unpredictable.”

Section 6: Water Qualifi

Question I asked the respondents to identify which water sources they utilized in
their operation. They were given seven choices: stream, surface runoff, lake, spring, well,
municipal water, and “other.” They were asked to check all that applied. Of the 65
responses, 12 (18%) used streams, 29 (45%) used surface runoff, 14 (22%) used lakes, 24
(37%) used springs, 53 (82%) used wells, 5 (8%) used municipal water, and 3 (5%) used

“other” sources (Figure 9).

33

 

 

Other f .

 

 

 

w l l l

—1

 

Well if _

.........................

 

 

Spring ., . .. .

 

Water source

 

 

 

 

Surface runoff , , .

 

..4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stream 1 [I I

 

 

Percent

 

Figure 9. Percent of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan utilizing various water

sources, 1995.

34
Question 2 asked the respondents to describe their water use. They were given

three choices: constant flow, intermittent, and only to refill. They were asked to select
the choice that best described their use. Of the 87 responses, 42 (48%) chose “constant
flow,” 19 (22%) chose “intermittent,” and 26 (30%) chose “only to refill.”

Question 3 asked the respondents to identify the flow rate of their source water in
gallons per minute (gpm). They were given three ranges to choose from: 0-500, 501-
1,000, and more than 1,000 gpm. Of the 71 responses, 54 (76%) indicated their flow rate
was between 0-500 gpm, nine (13%) between 501-1 ,000, and eight (11%) indicated their
flow rate was more than 1,000 gpm.

Question 4 asked the respondents whether or not they regularly monitored water
quality. If they responded “yes,” they were asked to indicate which aspects of water
quality they monitored. They were given six aspects to choose from: dissolved oxygen,
pH, ammonia, phosphorus, solids, and “other.” They were asked to check all that
applied. Of the 91 responses, 55 (60%) responded “yes,” they did monitor water quality,
while 36 (40%) did not. Of those who indicated they monitored water quality, 43 (78%)
monitored dissolved oxygen, 32 (5 8%) monitored pH, 27 (49%) monitored ammonia,
nine (16%) monitored phosphorus, 11 (20%) monitored solids, and 11 (20%) monitored
“other” aspects.

Question 5 asked the respondents to estimate how often poor water quality
reduced their production. They were given three choices: never, 1-3 times a year, and 4
or more times a year. Of the 86 responses, 36 (42%) indicated poor water quality never
reduced their production, 40 (47%) indicated it reduced production 1-3 times a year, and

10 (12%) indicated it reduced production 4 or more times a year.

35
Question 6, the last question in section 6, asked the respondents to indicate where

they discharged their effluent. They were given five choices: stream/river, pond/lake,
land application, do not discharge, and “other.” Of the 84 responses, 22 (26%) indicated
they discharged into a stream or river, 12 (14%) discharged into a pond or lake, 18 (21%)
utilized land application methods, 27 (32%) did not discharge at all, and 13 (15%) used
“other” methods (Figure 10).

Section 7: Feeds/Feeding

Question I asked the respondents to identify where they bought their feed. They
were given four choices: local co-op, local mill, shipped from manufacturer, and “other.”
They were asked to check all that applied. Of the 84 responses, 17 (20%) indicated that
they bought their feed at a local co-op, 27 (32%) from a local mill, 33 (39%) had it
shipped from the manufacturer, and 11 (13%) bought it from “other” sources.

Question 2 asked the respondents to indicate the type of feed they used. They
were given three choices: floating, sinking, and slow sinking. They were asked to check
all that applied. Of the 83 responses, 67 (81%) used floating feed, 39 (47%) used sinking,
and nine (11%) used slow sinking.

Question 3 asked the respondents to indicate how many pounds of feed they used.
They were given a blank line to write in their response. The results are presented in
Table 3. There were 71 total responses to this question, 23 from Illinois, 24 from
Indiana, and 24 from Michigan. Illinois producers reported using 1,503,575 pounds,
Indiana producers reported using 750,375 pounds, and Michigan producers reported using

418,800 pounds of feed.

36

 

 

No discharge
Landapplication ’_ H I' " ’

Pond/lake I

Method of effluent discharge

 

 

 

 

 

Percent

 

 

 

Figure 10. Percent of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan utilizing various

methods of effluent discharge, 1995.

37
Table 3. Feed usage by aquaculture operations in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, 1995.

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Reports Sum (lbs.)

ILLINOIS 23 1,503,575
INDIANA 24 750,375
MICHIGAN 24 418,800
TOTAL 71 2,672,750

 

 

 

 

Question 4 asked the respondents to estimate their annual feed costs (Table 4).
There were 69 total responses to this question, 21 from Illinois, 23 from Indiana, and 25
from Michigan. Illinois producers reported spending $186,485, with a mean of $8,880,

Indiana producers spent $122,476, with a mean of $5,325, and Michigan producers spent

$187,295, with a mean of $7,492.

Table 4. Feed expenditures by aquaculture operations in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan,

 

 

 

 

 

 

1995 .
State Reports Sum ($) Mean (5)
ILLINOIS 21 186,485 8,880
INDIANA 23 122,476 5,325
MICHIGAN 25 187,295 7,492
TOTAL 69 496,256 7,192

 

 

 

 

 

Section 8: Disease/Wildlife

Question I asked the respondents to indicate how often their stock experienced
diseases. They were given three choices: never, 0-3 times a year, and 4 or more times a
year. Of the 88 responses, 42 (48%) indicated their stocks never experienced diseases, 36

(41%) ex erienced diseases 0-3 times a year, and nine (10%) indicated their stocks
P

experienced diseases 4 or more times a year.

38
Question 2 asked the respondents to identify where they obtained their fish health

information. They were provided with four choices: veterinarian, fish disease specialist,
other producers, and “other.” They were asked to check all that applied. Of the 77
responses, five (6%) obtained information from veterinarians, 33 (43%) from fish disease
specialists, 25 (32%) from other producers, and 36 (48%) fi'om “other” sources.

Question 3 asked the respondents to identify which agencies helped them with
wildlife damage control. They were given five choices: none, local, state, federal, and
“other.” They were asked to check all that applied. Of the 82 responses, 68 (83%)
indicated that they did not receive any help, two (2%) received help from local agencies,
eight (10%) from state agencies, three (4%) from federal agencies, and three (4%) from
“other” sources.

Question 4, the last question in the section, asked the respondents to indicate
whether or not their stock experienced predation. If they responded “yes,” they were then
asked to identify the predator. They were given three choices: birds, mammals, and
“other.” They were asked to check all that applied. Of the 86 responses, 63 (73%)
responded “yes,” their stocks did experience predation, while 23 (27%) responded “no.”
Of those who responded “yes,” 59 (94%) indicated their stocks experienced bird
predation, 31 (49%) indicated their stocks experienced mammal predation, and 18 (29%)
reported “other” predators.

Section 9: Losses

Question I asked the respondents to indicate if they had any losses during 1995.

Of the 80 responses, 66 (83%) responded “yes,” they had losses during 1995, while 14

(18%) responded “no.”

39
Question 2 contained three parts: A, B and C. Part A asked the respondents to

write in the percentage of losses from their total operation, based on quantity. These
numbers were summed, and then a mean percentage was derived for each state. Part B
asked the respondents to estimate the dollar value of their losses, and write that figure on
the blank line provided. These numbers were also summed, and a mean dollar value was
derived (Figure 11). Part C consisted of a table with two columns. The first column
contained seven causes of losses: diseases, predation, poaching, escapement, poor water
quality, weather, and “other.” The second column contained blank lines on which the
respondents were asked to write in the percentage of their total losses that was attributed
to each cause. This allowed for the identification of what caused the majority of losses in
each operation (Figure 12). In Illinois and Indiana, the greatest cause of loss reported was
disease. Michigan producers reported predation as their greatest cause of loss.
Section 10: Miscellaneous

Question I asked the respondents to indicate whether or not they were a member
of any state aquaculture association. If they responded “yes,” they were asked to indicate
whether or not their membership had enabled them to increase their profits. Of the 90
responses, 47 (52%) responded “yes,” they were members of a state aquaculture
association, while 43 (48%) responded “no,” they were not. Of those who responded

yes,” 10 (21%) responded “yes,” their membership had helped them increase their

profits, while 28 (60%) responded “no” it had not. The other nine (19%) did not respond.

40

 

 

 

($5,485)

Percent

    

 

 

Illinois

Indiana Michigan

State

 

 

Figure 11. Mean losses as a percent of total production and corresponding dollar value

reported by producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, 1995.

41

 

 

 

 

4.. was"? ’~: .
001“ fiat-fiAlb-L-éd’az ..

 

l I
I I
I I
l

    

. I
l
l

‘ wcmcr gig? M. ." '1’ N:

I
i

  

 

 

Poor Water Quality " 1‘ .
I I ndiana .
l "‘ Dlllinois l
, Escapement .‘1 I

Category

- I

 

 

 

Poaching l

 
  

 

Predation TY“ .13.:— .

 

 

 

 

 

 

i I
l DiSCiISC E..’s~¥.:,“&;a23;;u;-17...».-..;..1...4 _l.L: -
‘ If 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 I 7
l I I l m I l I I
l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Number of responses

 

_l

 

 

Figure 12. Number of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reporting cause of

greatest loss by category, 1995.

42
Question 2 asked the respondents to indicate whether or not they were a member

of any national aquaculture association. If they responded “yes,” they were asked to
indicate whether or not their membership had enabled them to increase their profits in any
way. Of the 90 responses, 24 (27%) responded “yes,” they were members of a national
aquaculture association, while 66 (73%) responded “no,” they were not. Of those who
responded “yes,” four (17%) responded “yes” their membership had enabled them to
increase their profits, while 18 (75%) responded “no” it had not.

Question 3 asked the respondents to predict their anticipated production levels
five years in the future. They were given three choices: higher, no change, or lower.
There were 85 responses to this question, 31 from Illinois, 26 from Indiana and 28 from
Michigan. The number of producers in each state who anticipated higher production, no
change, or lower production is shown in Figure 13.

Question 4 asked the respondents to identify where they usually obtained
additional information about aquaculture. They were given five choices: cooperative
extension, sea grant agent, natural resource agency personnel, other fish farmers, and
“other.” They were asked to check all that applied. Of the 87 responses, 23 (26%)
obtained their information from cooperative extension sources, 18 (21%) from a sea grant
agent, 16 (18%) from natural resource agency personnel, 56 (64%) from other fish
farmers, and 35 (40%) from “other” sources.

Question 5 asked the respondents to indicate how often they would be willing to
complete a similar survey. They were given three choices: every year, every other year,

and “other.” Of the 87 responses, 53 (61%) indicated that they would complete a similar

43

 

 

M

o

In

E

o
I a

2 .
I $5 I. Higher
‘ g DNo change
i E Lower

:1

Z

 

 

 

’ Illinois Indiana Michigan

State

Figure 13. Producers’ anticipated production in the year 2000, relative to current levels

of production, 1995.

44
survey every year, 17 (20%) every other year and 17 (20%) responded “other” (Figure

14).
Section 11: Comments

A total of 19 respondents wrote in comments. However, this section was not
intended to be a tool that would gather any hard data. Rather, it was included to give
those involved in distributing the survey a chance to read what is on the respondent’s
mind, and keep up on any current issues that affect producers. Summarized comments

are listed in APPENDIX G.

45

 

Other

Every year
60%

year
20%

 

 

I
l
I
I
l
I
|
l

 

Figure 14. Willingness of producers in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan to complete a

similar survey in the future, 1995.

46

DISCUSSION

Efforts were made to collect data from all twelve states in the NCR through each
state’s aquaculture extension specialist. Extension personnel in each state were provided
with the survey instrument in two forms, hard copy and on diskette. The NCRAC does
not have the authority to compel the states to participate, nor should it, so participation in
this effort was strictly voluntary.

Of the twelve states in the NCR, eight participated in the survey efforts. Four of
these: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin, distributed an early draft of the survey.
This survey contained many of the same questions but was much more lengthy due to a
different format. The survey was later refined to make it easier to complete by providing
the respondents with boxes to check where possible, rather than having to hand-write
responses. The survey also underwent many other formatting changes which shortened it
from ten to seven pages.

The final draft of the survey was distributed by four states: Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, and Ohio. This document examines the survey results from Illinois, Indiana
and Michigan, hereafter referred to as “the survey area,” as a case study from which to
make recommendations on how to improve the survey itself and how it is conducted.
Ohio was not included because the surveys had not been returned in time to be included

in this report.

47
Section 1: Production

Producers in this survey area raised at least 33 different species in 1995 (Table l),
with a reported value of $2,560,232. These species included: various aquaria fish; hybrid
striped bass; largemouth and smallmouth bass; bluegill and hybrid bluegill; grass carp
and koi; blue, bullhead, channel and flathead catfish; black crappie; crayfish; goldfish;
fathead minnows; yellow perch; northern pike; golden shiners; white suckers; redear
sunfish; tilapia; brook, brown and rainbow trout; walleye; other species of bait fish; and
at least five more species listed as “other.” Very few producers raised only one species of
fish. Most producers raised multiple species, which allowed them to break into multiple
markets and meet consumer demands. Production in Illinois was dominated by fathead
minnows, a popular baitfish. Indiana production was dominated by channel catfish, a
warm-water species that requires a relatively long growing period. Michigan production
was dominated by trout, a cold-water species, and perch, a cool-water species, which are
more suited to the state’s waters.

Section 2: Business Management

The majority of producers in this survey area who responded indicated that they
raised some of their own fish and bought fish from other producers to raise. Only five
producers were involved in fish brokering. Over one-third of the producers bought fish
from out-of-state producers.

Aquaculture is a relatively young industry in this survey area, with over half of
producers reporting they had been in business for ten years or less (Figure 4). Only about
one-third of producers had been in business for more than 20 years. Of all the producers

in this survey area, almost 90% reported that this was their first aquaculture business

48
venture. There simply aren’t many existing aquaculture operations for sale due to the

relative young age of the industry, forcing interested parties to start their own operations.

In this survey area, over 70% of the operations were family run operations.
Approximately one-third of producers owned a farm before they started an aquaculture
business, with the most common type of farm being a row-crop farm. Most operations
were owned by a single owner (65%) and derived the majority of their income from fish
production (Figure 5).

Section 3: Economics

Producers in this survey area reported that the most common source of financing
for their aquaculture operations was self-financing. Banks were reported as financing
sources in only 17% of responses. Other family members assisted with financing in 6%
Of the responses.

Aquaculture was seldom the primary source of income for aquaculturists in this
survey area. Seventy percent of producers in this survey area reported that less than half
of their annual income was derived from aquaculture. Only 13% indicated that
aquaculture was their only source of income. This distribution is consistent with the
Observation that approximately one-third of producers reported their income from
aquaculture was less than $2,500 in 1995 (Figure 6). Only 17% of producers reported
income from aquaculture in excess of $100,000 in 1995.

The bottom line for any business venture is profit. One measure of profit is
“gross margin,” or more specifically “gross margin over cash costs.” Sixty-seven percent

of producers in this survey area realized some return toward compensating themselves for

49
their fixed costs (including family labor and management) and risk. Of these, only 38%

felt that their gross margins were adequate to cover these additional costs and risk.
Section 4: Facilities

Ponds were the most common type of facility reported, with 1,170 surface acres
reported in production (Figure 7). Tanks were the next most common facility reported,
with a total of 522,380 it3 reported in production. Producers also reported using raceways
totaling 117,068 ft3 , and cages/net pens totaling 3,566 ft3 (Table 2). These figures are
consistent with the prevailing climate, water sources, and species raised in each state.
Section 5: Marketing

The most common marketing location reported by producers was local markets.
Over three-fourths of producers reported that they sold their products locally, another
64% reported in-state sales, and only 32% of producers reported out-of-state sales (Figure
8). By marketing their products locally, producers can reduce transportation costs and
maximize profits. Another way producers can reduce transportation costs is to deliver
their product to market themselves, which 77% of producers reported they did.
Processing a product adds value, and many producers took advantage of this by
processing their products themselves. Of the responding producers surveyed in this
survey area, 43% did their own processing, and an additional 12% indicated that they
would like to.

Membership in a cooperative was relatively low among producers in this survey
area. Only 5% of responding producers in these states were members of either buying or
advertising cooperatives. However, 24% of those who were not members said that they

would consider joining one. Cooperative membership can be beneficial to producers in

50
many ways. Membership in a buying cooperative may allow them to purchase feed and

other inputs at reduced prices. Membership in an advertising cooperative can assist them
with the promotion of their products and location of new markets. Locating a variety of
markets helps producers to stabilize the demand for their products. This was a problem
for many producers, as 35% of responding producers described the market for their
product as unpredictable.
Section 6: Water Oualitv

In this survey area, the most common sources of water for aquaculture operations
reported by producers were wells and surface runoff (Figure 9). Eighty-two percent of
producers surveyed used wells in their operation and 45% reported using surface runoff.
In addition, 37% of producers reported using springs, which are the preferred source
when they are available. Wells may be costly if the water must be pumped out of the
ground. Surface runoff also can cause problems as it carries with it unwanted nutrients
and silt that can cause algal blooms and rapid sedimentation in ponds. Water from
springs flows without being pumped, making it a cheaper alternative to wells, and the
water quality is usually superior to surface runoff. Springs are also preferred because
their water tends to be more constant in terms of flow rate and temperature. Constant
flow rates were important to many aquaculturists in this survey area, as 48% of producers
surveyed described their water use as constant.

Water usage by aquaculture operations is typically measured in gallons per minute
(gpm). F low rates determine the amount of production possible in a typical operation by
allowing the producer to exchange the water in his/her system a certain number of times

per hour or day. The growth and survival of most fish species is directly correlated to

5 1
water quality, which is, in turn, correlated to the number of exchanges per hour or day.

The task for producers is to find a flow rate that will give them the optimum water quality
necessary for their fish species at economically viable production levels while
minimizing the costs of pumping. Over three-fourths (76%) of producers surveyed in
Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reported flow rates of less than 500 gpm.

Approximately one-third (32%) of producers in this survey area had no effluent
discharge from their operations (Figure 10). Of those that did discharge, the most
common method of discharge was into a stream or river (26%), and the next most
common method was land application (21%).

Maintaining water quality through routine monitoring is an essential part of any
aquaculture operation. Reflecting this is the fact that 59% of responding producers in this
survey area reported that water quality reduced their production at least once a year.
Sixty percent of responding producers indicated that they monitored water quality.
Dissolved oxygen levels, pH, and solids were the three most commonly monitored
aspects of water quality.

Section 7: Feeds/Feeding

For many producers feed is the single largest purchased input (Johnson, 1976),
and in some cases the cost of feed can reach 50% of total variable costs (Chopak and
Newman, 1993). For producers in this survey area, the mean cost per year for feed was
$7,192 in 1995 (Table 4). This cost is often compounded by the additional cost of
shipping the feed over long distances. Many producers tried to reduce their feed costs by
buying their feed from local sources, even other producers. The most common type of

feed used in the region was floating feed.

52
Section 8: Disease/Wildlife

Disease can be a serious problem for aquaculturists. High fish densities and poor
water quality can cause stress on fish stocks (Avault, 1996). In fish, as in other animals,
stress lowers their resistance to disease (Brown, 1993). Of the responding producers in
this survey area, 51% indicated that their fish stocks experienced diseases. The most
common sources of fish health information utilized by producers were fish disease
specialists and other producers.

Predation by wildlife is an inherent risk to aquaculture Operations, particularly
ones which use outdoor facilities. Of the responding producers in this survey area, 73%
reported that their stocks experienced predation of some kind. Birds were the most
common predators, followed by mammals. Dealing with wildlife predation can be
difficult, as many of the predators are protected under state, federal, or international law.
Only 16% of producers indicated that they received help with wildlife damage control
from local, state, or federal agencies.

Section 9: Losses

Losses due to diseases, predation, poaching, escapement, poor water quality and
weather are Common occurrences in aquaculture. In Illinois, these losses were, on
average, 25% of total production, and cost the producer an average of $4,873. Indiana
producers experienced the fewest losses in terms of average cost at $3,675. Michigan
producers experienced the fewest losses in terms of total production at just under 15%,
but they were second in terms of cost at $5,485 (Figure 11). It is interesting to note that
15 (45%) producers in Illinois, and 18 (58%) producers in Indiana attributed the majority

of their losses to disease, while only one (4%) Michigan producer identified disease as

53
the greatest cause of loss. In Michigan, 18 (78%) producers reported predation as the

greatest cause of loss, while only six (18%) in Illinois and three (10%) in Indiana reported
predation as the greatest cause of loss (Figure 12).
Section 10: Miscellaneous

As the aquaculture industry continues to grow, the need for producers to have an

association to represent them grows as well. State and national aquaculture associations 3‘.
g
assist their members by speaking for them at all levels of government, and by facilitating l
the dissemination of information. This is crucial in order for producers to keep up with 5-.
the latest technology and production methods. Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan all F

currently have state aquaculture associations. Many producers, however, choose not to
join such organizations because of privacy concerns, or fear of promoting competition.
Others simply do not believe that membership in such organizations will help them
increase their profits. This is reflected by the fact that only 52% of responding producers
in this survey area said that they were members of state aquaculture associations and only
24% indicated that they were members of a national aquaculture association. Of those
who indicated they were members of such associations, very few felt that their
membership had helped them increase their profits in any way. Only 21% of state
association members and 17% of national association members felt that their membership
had enabled them to increase their profits.

The final questions in this section of the survey asked the respondents to indicate
how they saw their future production levels, where they obtained additional aquaculture
information, and how often they would be willing to complete a similar survey. The

majority of producers in Illinois and Indiana anticipated higher levels of production in the

54
future relative to current production levels (Figure 13). Michigan producers, however,

were less optimistic, with only 32% anticipating higher production. This difference is a
reflection of the age of the aquaculture operations in these states. Michigan operations
are older on average (Figure 4) than operations in Illinois and Indiana, and many have
already reached their maximum production. Many operations in Illinois and Indiana are
just beginning, and have not yet reached maximum production.

Respondents also indicated that the majority of them (64%) obtained their
aquaculture information from other producers, as opposed to sea grant agents or natural
resource personnel. Eighty-one percent of producers surveyed reported that they would
be willing to complete a similar survey at least every other year (Figure 14).

Section 11: Comments

In regards to the comments section, the responses varied from apologies for late
returns to praises for the value of surveys. Frustration with state agencies and out-of-state
products was also expressed. NO trend was noticed in the comments, however, as they

were all different (see APPENDIX G).

RECOMMENDATIONS

The intent of this project was to produce a thesis that would identify the means
and processes necessary to collect and analyze aquaculture data in the north central US.
A mail survey was deemed the most appropriate method of collecting data, and the
survey was tested in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. As a result of this test, there are
many recommendations regarding the content and format of the survey that need to be
mentioned.

First, however, there needs to be some consideration given in regards to the
perceived benefits of a survey among producers. It is evident that many producers
declined to participate because they failed to understand the value of such information.
In the future, attempts need to be made to impress upon producers the importance of their
participation in such an effort at every opportunity. This should include discussing the
value of economic data reporting and surveys at aquaculture conferences, meetings,
workshops, or any other gatherings of producers within the region. State agencies that
have an interest or role in commercial aquaculture (e. g., natural resources, environmental
licensing/permitting, and agriculture agencies), state aquaculture associations, state
extension services, sea grant programs, and economic development groups in each of the
states in the NCR should be encouraged to provide input and support future information

gathering efforts.

55

56
Rationale for public support of information systems has been articulated in a

number of publications by James T. Bonnen, an agricultural economist at Michigan State
University. Those who may be interested in that justification will want to read his
chapter “The Economic Characteristics of Information and the Changing Role of Official
Statistics and Analysis” in a forthcoming book edited by David Zilbennan at the
University of California at Berkeley.

In the cover letter, the respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they
earned an income from aquaculture in 1995. If they indicated “no,” then they are asked
to return the survey. This eliminated producers who had just started aquaculture
operations and who had not yet sold any of their product. In the future, this question
should either be removed or reworded to include those producers. Also, a paragraph
outlining the importance and potential benefits of participating should be included.

In regards to the format of the survey itself, future survey efforts should always be
examined in light of the results from the previous survey. Methods of shortening and
simplifying future survey tools should always be considered. However, a certain level of
consistency between consecutive survey efforts should be maintained if comparisons are
to be made between the surveys.

This survey utilized several format styles that should be implemented in future
surveys. One such format style that is helpful is to include answer boxes for the
respondent to check, as opposed to including blank lines for them to write in their
response. This also helps by ensuring that all the answers will be consistent and legible.

Another helpful style is placing the answer boxes on the same line as the question. This

57
not only shortens the survey but also makes it easier for the respondent to find the correct

set of answers for each question.

Many of the questions in this survey could potentially have had multiple answers
and, therefore, included instructions for the respondent to “check all that apply.”
However, the method in which the results were analyzed was designed to capture only the
number of respondents who checked each possible answer, it did not capture
combinations of answers for each survey. For example, it is possible to identify the
number of operations who raise their own fish, or broker fish, but not the number of
operations who do both. Future methods of analyzing such questions should be designed
so that the identification of such combinations of answers is possible.

Another recommendation concerns the use of the word “other” as a potential
question answer. There are benefits and negatives to using this word. By including it as
a possible answer, you eliminate the possibility that respondents will not answer the
question because they do not see an appropriate answer, but you also end up with an
answer that is not easily analyzed. If a survey includes possible alternative answers that
capture the majority of responses, then the number of respondents who choose “other”
will be reduced. This is a good way to judge how well the question was constructed.
Whenever the word “other” was used as a possible answer in this survey, a short blank
line was also included for the respondent to write in exactly what they meant. Careful
question construction can prevent excessive use of the “other” response. This is best
accomplished by thoroughly discussing each question with individuals who are familiar
with the aquaculture industry in the area that is to be surveyed, thereby insuring that

appropriate answer boxes have been provided.

58
There are several recommendations that concern the first section of the survey.

The vast majority of the respondents failed to complete all of the columns in this section.
This may have been because they failed to understand the importance of this information.
Also, many of those who did respond failed to do so correctly. Instructions and an
example on the first page apparently failed to simplify responding to this section. Critical
to analysis of responses to this section was the instruction that only one row was to be
completed for each life stage. Many producers failed to do this, making it impossible to
determine the value or production of a single life stage. Despite the trouble that was
encountered involving the table in section 1, the species list that was provided along the
bottom Of the table did an excellent job of capturing the species produced in the survey
area. This is evident by the low number of producers reporting sales of “other” species.
However, the list should be arrayed along the top or bottom of the page to prevent

respondents from completing rows that are directly across from the species code.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO QUESTIONS

In this section each question to be changed will be presented as it appeared in the
original survey, recommended changes will be discussed, and the new question will be

presented.

59
Section 2: Question 10

Which of the following activities are you involved in and what % of your total sales does each constitute?

 

A. Fish production = _ % of total sales

B. Capture of wild bait fish = __ % of total sales

C. Fish wholsealer or live hauler = __ % of total sales

D. Fee-fishing operation = __ % of total sales

E. Broker = _ % of total sales

F. Other = __ % of total sales
TOTAL = 100%

Many respondents appear to have become confused and indicated the percentage
of their total income (including non-aquacultural income) derived from each activity.
This was apparent when the numbers they provided did not add up to 100%. In the
future, this question could be simplified by breaking it into two separate questions. The
first one would ask the respondents to check a box beside each activity that they are
involved in. The second question would ask them to check a box beside the single

activity that makes up the majority of their aquaculture sales.

(1)Which of the following activities are you involved in? (Check all that apply)

1:] Fish production Cl Capture of wild bait fish D Fish wholesaler or live hauler Cl Fee-fishing operation Cl Broker
[3 Other

(2) From which of the following activities did you derive the majority of your sales in 1996?

1:] Fish production U Capture of wild bait fish 1: Fish wholesaler or live hauler I] Fee-fishing operation C] Broker
:1 Other

Section 3: Question 4

How many workers are involved in the operation in addition to yourself? (Complete all that apply)
Paid Full Time Employees Unpaid or Family Help
Paid Part Time Employees Students (Only if you are an educator)

The intent of this question was that each respondent would write in a number
beside each type of employee. Apparently, this was not made clear enough, as many

respondents simply checked each type of employee involved in their operation. In the

60
future, this question would be better served by either asking the respondents to check an

actual range of numbers or circling a number in a string of numbers provided beside each

employee type.

How many workers are involved in the operation in addition to yourself? (Circle the correct number beside each

category)
012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 >10 Paid Full-Time Employees 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 >10 Unpaid or Family Help
012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 >10 Paid Part-Time Employees 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 >10 Students (Only ifyou are an

educator)

Section 6: Question 5

How often would you estimate poor water quality reduces your production?

I: Never 3 1-3 times a year I: 4 or more times a year

The question should be reworded to read “How often would you estimate poor
water quality reduced your production in 1995?” As it is, the answers to this question did
not actually provide any information about 1995. Also, the words “a year” should be
removed from the answers. Similar questions include questions 1 and 4 in section 8.
These questions should also have included “1995” in their wording and “a year” should

have been removed from the answers. Also, questions 3 and 4 should be switched.

How often would you estimate poor water quality reduced your production in 1996?

'3 Never Cl 1-3 times 2 4 or more times

Section 7: Question 1

Where do you buy your feed? (Check all that apply)
C Local co-op C Local mill [3 Shipped from manufacturer 1] Other

The first answer box that is included is not necessary as a later question asks the
respondents to indicate whether or not they are members of a cooperative. Also, enough
respondents wrote in that they bought their feed from other producers that this response

warrants its own answer box.

61
Where do you buy your feed? (Check all that apply)

3 Other producers E Local mill Cl Shipped from manufacturer 3 Other

Section 9: Question 2

A. Based on quantity, the percent of those losses from your total operation? %
B. What was the estimated dollar value of those losses? 5
C. What of the following, as percent of the total, was attributed to those losses?

C_ause Percent

Diseases
Predation

Poaching

Poor water quality

Weather

Other
TOTAL 100% of Losses

As it is, the question asks the respondents to estimate the dollar value of their
losses and then estimate the percentage of their total losses attributable to each cause.
These two questions could be combined into one by simply asking them to write in an
estimated dollar value of the losses attributed to each cause. These figures could then be
summed to provide a total value of losses. Also, if the respondent has correctly
completed the table in section 1, it would be possible to calculate the percentage of losses

from their total sales.

If you answered yes, please write in the dollar value of losses attributed to each cause

Cause Value (5)
Diseases

Predation __
Poaching
Escapement

Poor water quality
Weather

Other

62
The final recommendation regarding the format of the survey concerns the design

of section 11. Very few respondents actually wrote in any comments. This section
would be better served by a few leading questions that ask the respondent to comment on
current issues of importance to their state. The content of such questions should be
determined by individuals who are familiar with the current issues in each state, such as
the state aquaculture extension specialists. This section could also be included as a
separate sheet, so that it could be separated and forwarded to, for example, the extension
specialists in each state, allowing them to better serve their producers. Based upon these
recommendations, a revised version of the survey has been included in APPENDIX F.

In regards to the administration of the survey, the need for a standard survey
distributed by all twelve states in the NCR is clear. The current situation, in which
several states are conducting their own surveys, or not collecting data at all, is not
conducive to the preparation of a situation and outlook report that accurately represents
the aquaculture industries in this region. Undertaking a survey effort such as the one
involved in this project is not an easy task and it is unrealistic to expect that every state
will have the resources, either in terms of time or money, to participate. Therefore,
financial resources to either reimburse the states, or distribute directly to them will need
to be secured in the fitture. The less complex the arrangement the better, so the preferred
situation would be one in which all aspects of the survey are conducted under the
auspices of a single agency.

As data collection efforts become more and more refined in the future, it will be
possible to begin comparing data from various years. No effort was made to compare the

data collected from this survey effort to any previous efforts as there was no common

63
baseline that would render a comparison possible. Once such a baseline is developed, it

will be possible to make more accurate statements regarding observed trends.

The process of refining future surveys and data collection efforts should be
iterative in nature, with improvements after each iteration. With each new iteration, there
should be four primary goals: include more producers, improve on the survey, increase
response rates, and improve methods of analyzing the data. Currently, many producers
are excluded from survey efforts simply because it is extremely difficult to identify them.
Identifying unregulated producers is particularly difficult and may be impossible until
they are required to possess some type of permit, or report to some type of agency, from
which a list of names could be generated.

Improving future surveys will mean seeking the input not only of producers, but
also those who work closely with them, e. g., extension specialists, sea grant agents, or
state aquaculture association personnel. Future efforts should be made to explore
methods of shortening the survey, creating simpler and more precise questions, and
making responses easier to analyze. Response rates are likely to only be increased by
impressing upon producers the importance of economic data collection, and their
involvement in that collection. This will only be accomplished by impressing upon
producers the benefits of participation, as described earlier. The help of key individuals
and agencies respected in the aquaculture industry will be needed to achieve this goal.

The task of developing the survey and analyzing the data collected, as was
undertaken in this project, is enormous. The NCRAC administrative staff simply does
not have the experience, time, or resources necessary to carry out such survey efforts. In

the future, this task should be contracted out to an individual or group who specializes in

64

survey development, administration, and analysis, such as someone in a university’s
department of agricultural economics and/or rural sociology or an agricultural statistics
service. This task could be eased in the future by conducting comprehensive surveys
every five years and shorter surveys in the interim years.

Finally, I would like to identify some helpful sources of information which were
invaluable in this effort and which would be for future undertakings. State aquaculture
extension specialists (APPENDIX D) were invaluable in terms of their close connections
with the aquaculture industries in their respective states and their insightful comments in
regard to the survey. Also, state agricultural statistics services, especially Indiana’s,
which handled all aspects of distributing and collating data for the surveys conducted in
Indiana and Illinois. In the future, other sources of information may be useful, including
state aquaculture coordinators and the J SA. The Internet is also becoming a useful source
of aquaculture information as more and more information goes on-line, including
USDA’s aquaculture situation and outlook reports as well as the NASS’s trout and catfish
reports. One of the most useful sites currently available on the world wide web is the
Aquaculture Network Information Center (AquaNIC) which is maintained at Purdue
University. For details concerning how to contact some of these different resources see

APPENDIX H.

APPENDIX A

1995 Aquaculture Survey

65
APPENDIX A

1995 AQUACULTURE SURVEY
Please Return by March 15, 1996

 

Did you earn income from aquaculture in 1995? [:1 Yes [:1 No

If you checked yes, please continue. If you checked no, please return this survey.

 

SECTION 1: PRODUCTION

1. On the next page, please indicate which species you sell using the appropriate species
code (in bold caps), how they are sold (by checking the appropriate column), your
total production of each species by pounds or number, and total value of 1995 sales.

If you sell more than one life stage of a species, please complete a row for each
stage. See example below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXAMPLE:
HOW SPECIES ARE SOLD PRODUCTION VALUE
Species Code Eggs Fry Fingerlings F004 Fish Pounds Number Dollars
RBT x > ' j 7 ‘ N * 125,000 ’-"S2,500 7
RBT x 500,000 $200,000
CC x   * ' f * ' 300,000 x ' $18,000 1'
YP x 10,000 $21,700

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aquaria Fish ........ AQF
Bass, Hybrid Striped . HSB
Bass, Largemouth . . . . LMB

Bass, Smallmouth . . . . SMB

Bluegill ............. BG
Bluegill, Hybrid ..... HBG
Carp, Grass .......... GC
Carp, Koi ........... KC
Catfish, Blue ......... BC

Catfish, Bullhead . . . . BHC

Catfish, Channel ...... CC
Catfish, Flathead ..... FC
Crappie, Black ...... BCR
Crappie, White ..... WCR
Crayfish ........... CRF
Goldfish ............ GF

Minnow, Fathead . . . FHM

Perch, Yellow ........ YP
Pike, Northern ....... NP
Salmon, Atlantic ..... ATS

Salmon, Chinook . . . . CKS

Salmon, Coho ......... CS
Shiner, Golden ....... GS
Sucker, White ........ WS
Sunfish, Redear ....... RS
Tilapia ............... T
Trout, Brook ........ BKT
Trout, Brown ....... BRT
Trout, Rainbow ..... RBT
Walleye ............. W
Other Baitfish ........ OB
Other . . . . Write in Species

66

 

 

APPENDIX A
HOW SPECIES ARE SOLD PRODUCTION VALUE
Species Eggs Fry Fingerlings Food Fish Pounds Number Dollars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67
APPENDIX A

SECTION 2: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

In your operation, do you... (Check all that apply)

[:1 Raise fish 1:] Obtain fish and hold for resale 1:] Broker fish

Where do you obtain your fish? (Check all that apply)

1:] Raise your own D ln-State 1:] Out-of-State

Is this your first aquaculture business venture?

El Yes [:1 No If no, was your first venture successful? El Yes D No

How many years have you carried out an aquaculture business?

130-5 Clo-10 [:111-20 [321-30 DMore than 30

Is your aquaculture activity a family operation? [:1 Yes 1:] No

Did you take over an existing aquaculture venture? [:1 Yes 1:] No

Did you own or operate a farm before you started your aquaculture business?

[:1 Yes D No

If yes, what kind of farm? (Check all that apply)
I] Hogs [3 Dairy 1:1 Beef 1:] Row Crops El Other

Check any of the inputs that you have been unable to acquire when needed. (Check all that apply)

[:1 Eggs [:1 Fingerlings D Feed [:1 Other

Which best describes the tax status of your aquaculture operation?

 

E] Sole Owner 1:] Partnership D Corporation El Joint Venture
El Affiliation with another company 1:] Other

 

Which of the following activities are you involved in and what % of your total sales does each constitute?

A. Fish production = % of total sales
B. Capture of wild bait fish = °/o of total sales
C. Fish wholesaler or live hauler = % of total sales
D. Fee-fishing operation = % of total sales
E. Broker = % of total sales
F. Other = % of total sales

 

Total = 100%

68
APPENDIX A

SECTION 3: ECONOMICS

1.

2.

How is your operation financed? (Check all that apply)

[3 Self El Bank [:1 Family 1:] Other

What percent of your total gross annual income comes from aquaculture?

 

Cl 0%-24% Chm-49% 1:1 50%-74% 1:] 75%-99% D1009.

Estimate the total value of SALES from your aquacultural operation for 1995.

[:1 less than 52,500 D $100,000-5249.999
Cl $2,500-559,999 1:] 52500005499999
[:1 510,000-524,999 Cl 55000005749999
1:] 525,000-549,999 1:] 57500005999999
[:1 550,000-599,999 [:1 $1,000,000 or more

How many workers are involved in the operation in addition to yourself? (Complete all that apply)

Paid Full Time Employees Unpaid or Family Help

Paid Part Time Employees __ Students (Only if you are an educator)

Do your sales cover your cash costs? (Cash costs include all variable costs such as feed and electricity, as well as taxes, insurance,
interest on loans, etc.)

[:1 Yes El No

If yes, do you feel this profit is adequate to cover your time and money investment‘El Yes 1:] No

SECTION 4: FACILITIES

1.

What types of production and holding facilities do you have? (Check all that apply and provide requested measure of size)

PONDS: Number: Total Surface Area: acres
RACEWAYS: Number: Total Volume (length X width X depth): ft3
CAGES/NET PENS: Number: Total Volume (length X width X depth): ft3

TANKS: Number: Total Gallons:

SECTION 5: MARKETING

1.

Where do you sell your product? (Check all that apply)

El Locally 1:1 In-State [:1 Out-of-State D Intemationally

69
APPENDIX A

Do you process your product yourself?

(3 Yes D No If no, would you like to? D Yes D No

Are you a member of a cooperative?

D Yes D No If yes, what type? (Check all that apply) D Buying D Selling [1 Advertising

If no, would you consider joining one?l:l Yes E] No

Do you transport your own fish to market?

D Yes D No

How would you best describe the demand for your products within a given year?

E] Constant [:I Predictably fluctuating E] Unpredictable

SECTION 6: WATER USE/QUALITY

i.

What water source(s) do you utilize? (Check all that apply)

E] Stream D Surface Runoff [3 Lake D Spring El Well
E] Municipal Water [3 Other

 

 

 

2. Which best describes your water use?

[:1 Constant flow [:1 Intermittent [3 Only to refill
3. What is the flow rate of your source water in gallons per minute?

[3 0500 El son-1,000 Cl More than 1,000
4. Do you regularly monitor water quality? (Check all that apply)

D Yes D No If yes, which aspects?l:] Dissolved Oxygen [:1 pH D Ammonia

[:I Phosphorus [:1 Solids C] Other

5. How often would you estimate poor water quality reduces your production?

E] Never E] l-3 times a year D 4 or more times a year
6. Where do you discharge your effluent? (Check all that apply)

D Stream/River D Pond/Lake E] Land Application [:1 Do Not Dischargelj Other
SECTION 7: FEEDS/FEEDING

I.

Where do you buy your feed? (Check all that apply)

[:1 Local co-opL—J Local mill [3 Shipped from manufacturer [:1 Other

 

3.

4.

70
APPENDIX A

What type of feed do you use? (Check all that apply)

[:1 Floating Cl Sinking Cl Slow Sinking

How many pounds of feed would you estimate you use in a year?

 

How much would you estimate you spend on feed each year? 5

 

SECTION 8: DISEASE/WILDLIFE

I.

How ofien does your stock experience diseases?

D Never C] 0-3 times a year El 4 or more times a year

Where do you get your fish health information? (Check all that apply)

D Veterinarian E] Fish Disease Specialist [3 Other producers C] Other

 

Which agencies help you with wildlife damage control? (Check all that apply)

[3 None I] Local [:1 State C] Federal El Other

Does your stock experience predation?

D Yes D No

If yes, by what? (Check all that apply) '3 Birds E] Mammals D Other

 

 

SECTION 9: LOSSES

1.
2.

Did you have any losses during 1995? D Yes D No
If you answered yes,
A. Based on quantity, the percent of those losses from your total Operation? %

 

B. What was the estimated dollar value of those losses? 3
C. What of the following, as percent of the total, was attributed to those losses?

 

Cause Percent

Diseases

 

Predation

 

Poaching

 

Escapement

 

Poor Water Quality

 

Weather

 

Other

 

 

 

Total 100% of Losses

71
APPENDIX A

SECTION 10: MISCELLANEOUS
Are you a member of any state aquaculture association?

D Yes D No
If yes, has your membership enabled you to increase your profits in any way? D Yes D No
2. Are you a member of any national aquaculture association?

[3 Yes D No

If yes, has your membership enabled you to increase your profits in any way? [3 Yes D No

3. How do you see your production in 5 years? I] Higher D No change D Lower

4. When you need to obtain additional information about aquaculture, who do you usually contact?
(Check all that apply)

D Cooperative Extension E] Sea Grant Agent '3 Natural Resource Agency Personnel
D Other Fish Farmer(s) D Other

 

5. How often are you willing to complete a similar survey?

[:1 Every year D Every other year CI Other

 

SECTION 11: COMMENTS (if you need more room, feel free to write on the back)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATIONI!

APPENDIX B

1995 Aquaculture Survey Cover Letter

72
APPENDIX B

February 15, 1996

Fish Farmer
Address

Dear (Name),

The enclosed survey is being conducted by the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) in
cooperation with the Michigan aquaculture extension specialist. This joint project is aimed at benefitting
the producers and the existing programs developed for the benefit of producers. All data that is collected
will be used to assist NCRAC in the evaluation, promotion and development of aquaculture as an important
component of this region's agriculture. Those completing the survey will be entitled to copies of the
summarized data which will be included in the 1996 North Central Regional Aquaculture Industry
Situation and Outlook Report.

Your anonymity and confidentiality will be assured using a double blind technique. This prevents anyone
from knowing who the responses were received from. Completion of this survey should take no more than
30 minutes. Participation in this effort is strictly voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, may
refuse to complete certain sections, or decline to answer any question you do not feel comfortable with.
Should you choose not to complete any part of this survey, you will still be entitled to a copy of the results.
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.

In order to assure your anonymity and confidentiality, when you have completed your survey, please place
it in the unmarked envelope, and then place that envelope in the envelope marked with the number on it.
Please return the survey by March 15, I996.

If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact your state aquaculture extension
specialist listed below.

We look forward to your cooperation.

Sincerely,

(Signature) (Signature)

Dr. Donald Garling Jonathan Ferris

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Research Assistant

Michigan State University North Central Regional Aquaculture Center
9A Natural Resources Building Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1222 East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

Phone: (517) 353-1989 Phone: (517) 353-1962

Fax: (517)432-1699 Fax: (517) 353-7181

APPENDIX C

1995 Aquaculture Survey F ollow-Up Material

73
APPENDIX C

March 22, 1996

On February 15, a questionnaire concerning aquaculture production in Michigan was
mailed to you, as someone whose name was on the list of those who possess a gamefish
breeders license.

If you have already completed and returned it to us please accept our sincere thanks. If
not, please do so today. Because of the relative small size of the aquaculture industry in
Michigan, it is extremely important that yours be included in the study if the results are to
accurately reflect the aquaculture industry in Michigan.

If by some chance you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced, please call
me at (517), 353-1962, and I will get another one in the mail to you today.

Sincerely,
(Signature)

Jonathan Ferris
Research Assistant

 

74
APPENDIX C

April 12, 1996

Fish Farmer
Address

Dear (Name)

I am writing to you about our study of aquaculture production in Michigan. We have not
yet received your completed questionnaire.

To date, about 43% of the questionnaires have been returned. This is encouraging, but
whether or not we will be able to accurately assess the status of the aquaculture industry
in Michigan depends upon you and the others who have not responded. This study is
aimed at benefitting producers by assisting the North Central Regional Aquaculture
Center in the evaluation, promotion, and development of aquaculture as an important
component of this region’s agriculture.

We realize that this is a busy time of the year, and that you may have misplaced your
original survey, so we have included another one. Simply place the completed
questionnaire in the unmarked envelope, and then place that envelope in the marked one
with the number on it. Even if you did not earn income from aquaculture, please check
the appropriate box on the first page and return the survey by April 26. This will be the
final follow-up.

Your contribution to the success of this study will be appreciated greatly.
Sincerely,
(Signature)

Jonathan Ferris
Research Assistant

APPENDIX D

NCRAC Aquaculture Extension Contacts

 

STATE

Indiana/Illinois

Iowa

Kansas

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Dr. Joseph E. Morris

Mr. Charles Lee

Dr. Donald L. Garling

Mr. Jeffrey L. Gunderson

Mr. Robert A. Pierce II

75

 

APPENDIX D
CONTACT ADDRESS/PHONE/FAX
Mr. Ladon Swann Aquaculture Specialist

Department of Animal Science

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

PH: (317) 494-6264 FAX: (317) 494-9347

Aquaculture Specialist

Department of Animal Ecology

Iowa State University

124 Science 11

Ames, IA 50011-3221

PH: (515) 294-4622 FAX: (515) 294-7874

Department of Animal Science & Industry
Kansas State University

Call Hall

Manhattan, KS 66506

PH: (913) 532-5734 FAX: (913) 532-5681

Fish Culture Specialist

Department of Fisheries & Wildlife
Michigan State University

9A Natural Resources Building

East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

PH: (517) 353-1989 FAX: (517)432-1699

Minnesota Sea Grant Extension Program
University of Minnesota-Duluth

2305 East 5th Street

Duluth, MN 55812

PH: (218) 726-8715 FAX: (218) 726-6556

Fish & Wildlife Specialist

School of Natural Resources

University of Missouri-Columbia

1-25 Agriculture Building

Columbia, MO 65211

PH: (573) 882-4337 FAX: (573) 882-1977

 

Nebraska

North Dakota

Ohio

South Dakota

Wisconsin

76

APPENDIX D

Dr. Terrence B. Kayes

Dr. David L. Klinkebiel

Dr. John Hochheimer

Mr. Larry Tidemann

Mr. Fred P. Binkowski

Dept. of Forestry, Fisheries & Wildlife
University of Nebraska-Lincoln

12 Plant Industry Building

East Campus Mall

Lincoln, NE 68583-0814

PH: (402) 472-8183 FAX: (402) 472-2964

Carrington Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University

Box 219

Carrington, ND 58421

PH: (701) 652-2951 FAX: (701) 652-2055

Piketon Research & Extension Center
1864 Shyville Road

Piketon, OH 45661-9749

PH: (614) 289-2071 FAX: (614)292-1953

Cooperative Extension

South Dakota State University

Agriculture Hall 154, Box 2207
Brookings, SD 57007

PH: (605) 688-4147 FAX: (605)688-6065

Senior Scientist

Center for Great Lakes Studies

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

600 E. Greenfield Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53204

PH: (414) 382-1723 FAX: (414) 382-1705
(414) 382-1700

APPENDIX E

Additional Tables

TF8 mfl'hti 3 '

llrs'r‘jufi.

nI-nt'- :1

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

Table 5. Section 2 raw data.
QUESTION 1 ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
Responses 32 3 1 29
Raise fish 25 24 21
Obtain fish and hold for resale 13 16 22
Broker fish 2 2 1
QUESTION 2
Responses 32 3 1 29
Raise your own 19 21 18
In-state 9 12 24
Out-of-state 11 17 7
QUESTION 3
Responses 28 28 29
Yes 27 24 25
No l 4 4
(If no,)
Yes 3 4 3
No 1 0 l
QUESTION 4
Responses 32 3 1 29
0-5 12 15 7
6-10 7 3 4
11-20 5 3 8
21-30 8 3 8
>30 0 7 2
QUESTION 5
Responses 32 31 29
Yes 21 20 24
No 11 11 5
QUESTION 6
Responses 29 32 3 1
Yes 9 4 1
No 20 28 30

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E
Table 5 (cont’d).
ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 7
Responses 32 30 29
Yes 14 12 5
No 18 18 24
(If yeS,)
Hogs 4 4 0
Dairy 2 1 2
Beef 5 4 2
Row crops 9 8 1
Other 4 4 1
QUESTION 8
Responses 1 5 1 5 5
Eggs 0 1
Fingerlings 3 3 1
Feed 6 1
Other 10 6 3
QUESTION 9
Responses 32 30 29
Sole owner 18 21 20
Partnership 3 1 3
Corporation 7 7 4
Joint Venture 1 1 0
Affiliation with another 0 0 0
company
Other 3 0 2
QUESTION 10
Responses 3 1 29 28
Fish production 18 22 14
(majority of sales)
Capture of wild bait fish 2 0 1
(majority of sales)
Fish wholesaler or live hauler 6 4 4
(majority of sales)
Fee-fishing operation 0 1 8
(majority of sales)
Broker (majority of sales) 1 1 0
Other (majority of sales) 4 1 1

 

 

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
Table 6. Section 3 raw data.
ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 1
Responses 30 3 1 29
Self 25 21 25
Bank 6 5 4
Family 1 2 2
Other 4 5 3
QUESTION 2 .
Responses 31 28 29
0-24% 20 17 13
25%-49% 2 3 6
50%-74% 5 1 2
75%-99% 1 1 4
100% 3 6 4
QUESTION 3
Responses 28 24 28
<$2,500 11 11 5
$2,500-$9,999 4 4 7
$10,000-$24,999 2 3 3
$25,000-$49,999 3 1 3
$50,000-$99,999 1 0 6
$100,000-$249,999 4 3 3
$250,000-$499,999 1 2 O
$500,000-$749,999 1 0 O
$750,000-$999,999 0 0 0
$1,000,000 or more 4 0 1
QUESTION 4
Responses 21 22 26
Paid full time 10 12 7
Paid part time 8 8 10
Unpaid or family 10 6 17
Students 2 2 O
QUESTION 5
Responses 30 30 29
Yes 21 18 21
No 9 12 8
(If yes,)
Yes 7 9 6
No 5 4 14

 

 

80
APPENDIX B

Table 7. Section 5 raw data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 1
Responses 30 3 1 29
Locally 20 24 25
In-state l8 19 21
Out-of-state l 1 13 5
Internationally 0 3 2
QUESTION 2
Responses 3 1 27 28
Yes 11 14 12
No 20 13 16
(If no,)
Yes 2 1 3
No 15 7 7
QUESTION 3
Responses 3 1 28 28
Yes 0 4 0
No 3 1 24 28
(If yes,)
Buying 0 0 0
Selling 0 1 0
Advertising 0 2 0
(If no,)
Yes 6 7 7
No 11 3 2
QUESTION 4
Responses 32 27 28
Yes 28 20 19
No 4 7 9
QUESTION 5
Responses 32 30 27
Constant 11 I3 4
Predictably fluctuating 9 9 12
Unpredictable 12 8 1 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 1
APPENDIX E

Table 8. Section 6 raw data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 1
Responses 19 1 7 29
Stream 1 5 6
Surface runoff 14 11 4
Lake 7 6 1
Spring 3 6 15
Well 19 17
Municipal water 2 3
Other 1 1 1
QUESTION 2
Responses 30 29 28
Constant flow 9 9 24
Intermittent 9 8 2
Only to refill 12 12 2
QUESTION 3
Responses 24 21 26
0-500 22 17 15
501 -1 ,000 l 2
>1 ,000 I 2 5
QUESTION 4
Responses 32 30 29
Yes 18 22 15
No 14 8 14
(If yes,)
Dissolved oxygen 12 19 12
pH 10 15 7
Ammonia 10 14 3
Phosphorus 5 4 0
Solids 6 4 1
Other 3 4 4
QUESTION 5
Responses 3 l 27 28
Never 16 5 15
1-3 times a year 11 17 12
4 or more times a year 4 5 1

 

 

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E
Table 8 (cont’d).

QUESTION 6 ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
Responses 3 l 26 27
Stream/river 4 4 l4

Pond/lake 6 2 4

Land application 7 3

Do not discharge 10 10 7

Other 6 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

83
APPENDIX B

Table 9. Section 7 questions 1-2 raw data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 1
Responses 29 28 27
Local co-op 8 6 3
Local mill 7 11 9
Shipped from manufacturer 10 10 13
Other 5 2
QUESTION 2
Responses 28 28 27
Floating 20 24 23
Sinking 9 1 1 19
Slow Sinking 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10.

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

Section 8 raw data.

ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 1
Responses 3 1 29 28
Never 17 1 0 l 5
0-3 10 15 11
4 or more 4 4 l
QUESTION 2
Responses 29 25 23
Veterinarian 0 3 2
Fish disease Specialist 11 12 10
Other producers 7 8 10
Other 1 8 8 10
QUESTION 3
Responses 29 24 29
None 24 22 22
Local 1 1 0
State 3 0 5
Federal 0 0 3
Other 2 l 0
QUESTION 4
Responses 30 27 29
Yes 21 16 26
No 9 11 3
(If yes,)
Birds 18 15 26
Mammals 5 7 19
Other 9 3 6

 

 

 

 

 

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E
Table 11. Section 9 raw data.

ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 1
Responses 29 25 26
Yes 24 17 25
No 5 8 l
QUESTION 2
Responses 33 3 1 23
Disease (majority) 15 18 1
Predation (majority) 6 3 18
Poaching (majority) 0 0 1
Escapement (majority) 1 l 0
Poor water quality (majority) 4 5 0
Weather (majority) 3 1 3
Other (majority) 4 3 0

 

 

86
APPENDIX E

Table 12. Section 10 raw data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN
QUESTION 1
Responses 32 29 29
Yes 13 19 15
No 19 10 14
(If yes,)
Yes 1 7
No 10 5 13
QUESTION 2
Responses 32 29 29
Yes 5 l2 7
No 27 17 22
(If yes,)
Yes 0 2 2
No 6 8 4
QUESTION 3
Responses 3 1 26 28
Higher 21 1 8
No change 8 6 17
Lower 2 2
QUESTION 4
Responses 30 28 29
Cooperative extension 5 11 7
Sea grant agent 2 12 4
Natural resource agency personnel 4 5 7
Other fish farmer(s) 14 18 24
Other 16 10 9
QUESTION 5
Responses 3 1 28 28
Every year 22 16 15
Every other year 3 5 9
Other 6 7 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

Revised Survey

 

87
APPENDIX F

1996 AQUACULTURE SURVEY
Please Return by (DATE), 199?

 

Did you earn income from aquaculture in 1996? 1:] Yes D No

If you checked yes, please continue. If you checked no, please return this survey.

 

SECTION 1: PRODUCTION

1. On the next page, please indicate which species you sell using the appropriate species
code (in bold caps), how they are sold (by checking the appropriate column), your
total production of each species by pounds or number, and total value of 1996 sales.
If you sell more than one life stage of a species, please complete a row for each stage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXAMPLE:
HOW SPECIES ARE SOLD PRODUCTION VALUE
Species Code Eggs Fry Fingerlings Food Fish Pounds Number Dollars
RBT * f f x f ,   ' ‘ 125,000 .-‘ -”52,500:
RBT X 500,000 $200,000
cc . 3_ x 1   . , I f 300,000  2 518,000 ,
YP X 10,000 $21,700

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F
HOW SPECIES ARE SOLD PRODUCTION VALUE
Specres Eggs Fry F ingerlmg Food Pounds Number Dollars

Aquaria Fish .............. AQF Catfish, Flathead ........... F C Shiner, Golden ............. GS
Bass, Hybrid Striped ....... HSB Crappie, Black ............ BCR Sucker, White .............. WS
Bass, Largemouth ......... LMB Crappie, White ........... WCR Sunfish, Redear ............ RS
Bass, Smallmouth .......... SMB Crayfish ................. CRF Tilapia ..................... T
Bluegill ................... BG Goldfish .................. GF Trout, Brook .............. BKT
Bluegill, Hybrid ........... HBG Minnow, Fathead ......... FHM Trout, Brown ............. BRT
Carp, Grass ................ GC Perch, Yellow .............. YP Trout, Rainbow ........... RBT
Carp, Koi ................. KC Pike, Northern ............. NP Walleye ................... W
Catfish, Blue ............... BC Salmon, Atlantic ........... ATS Other Baitfish .............. OB
Catfish, Bullhead .......... BHC Salmon, Chinook .......... CKS Other .......... Write in Species
Catfish, Channel ............ CC Salmon, Coho .............. CS

89
APPENDIX F

SECTION 2: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

l.

10.

II.

In your operation, do you... (Check all that apply)

Cl Raise fish [:1 Obtain fish and hold for resale [:1 Broker fish

Where do you obtain your fish? (Check all that apply)

I: Raise your own D ln-State [I Out-of-State

Is this your first aquaculture business venture?

E] Yes [:I No If no, was your first venture successful? D Yes D No

How many years have you carried out an aquaculture business?

Clo-5 Clo-10 Elli-20 [321-30 DMore than 30

Is your aquaculture activity a family operation? [:1 Yes [:1 No

Did you take over an existing aquaculture venture? D Yes D No

Did you own or operate a farm before you started your aquaculture business?

[3 Yes [:1 No

If yes, what kind of farm? (Check all that apply)
[I Hogs [:1 Dairy D Beef B Row Crops [:1 Other

Check any of the inputs that you have been unable to acquire when needed. (Check all that apply)

[3 Eggs [3 Fingerlings D Feed D Other

 

Which best describes the tax status of your aquaculture operation?

E] Sole Owner D Partnership D Corporation [:1 Joint Venture
D Affiliation with another company D Other

 

Which of the following activities are you involved in? (Check all that apply)

D Fish production D Capture of wild bait fish [I Fish wholesaler or live hauler [:I Fee-fishing operation

D Broker C] Other

From which of the following activities did you derive the majority of your sales in 1996?
[J Fish production [:1 Capture of wild bait fish [:1 Fish wholesaler or live hauler D Fee-fishing operation

[:1 Broker C] Other

90
APPENDIX F

SECTION 3: ECONOMICS

1.

How is your operation financed? (Check all that apply)

1] Self 1:] Bank [:1 Family C] Other

What percent of your total gross annual income comes from aquaculture?

 

Dove-24% U25%49% 135090-749. Elmira-99% D100%

Estimate the total value of SALES from your aquacultural Operation for 1995.

El less than 52,500 D $100,000-5249.999
1:] $2,500-559,999 Cl 52500005499999
[3 510,000-524,999 Cl 5500,000-5749,999
1:] 525,000-549,999 D 5750,000-5999,999
Cl 550,000-599,999 Cl 51,000,000 or more

How many workers are involved in the operation in addition to yourself? (Circle the correct number beside each category)

012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910>10 Paid Full-Time Employees 012 3 4 5 6 7 8910 >10 Unpaid or Family Help

012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 >10 Paid Part-Time Employees 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO >10 Students (Only ifyou are an educator)

Do your sales cover your cash costs? (Cash costs include all variable costs such as feed and electricity, as well as taxes, insurance,
interest on loans, etc.)

[3 Yes E] No

If yes, do you feel this profit is adequate to cover your time and money investment? [3 Yes I] No

SECTION 4: FACILITIES

What types of production and holding facilities do you have? (Check all that apply and provide requested measure of size)

PONDS: Number: Total Surface Area: acres
RACEWAYS: Number: Total Volume (length X width X depth): fi’
CAGES/NET PENS: Number: Total Volume (length X width X depth): fi3

TANKS: Number: Total Gallons:

SECTION 5: MARKETING

1.

Where do you sell your product? (Check all that apply)

D Locally D In-State D Out-of-State D lntemationally

91
APPENDIX F

Do you process your product yourself?

D Yes D No If no, would you like to? D Yes D No

Are you a member of a cooperative?

D Yes D No If yes, what type? (Check all that apply) D Buying El Selling D Advertising

If no, would you consider joining one? [:1 Yes [:I No

Do you transport your own fish to market?

D Yes D No

How would you best describe the demand for your products within a given year?

[:1 Constant D Predictably fluctuating El Unpredictable

SECTION 6: WATER USE/QUALITY

What water source(s) do you utilize? (Check all that apply)

[:1 Stream D Surface Runoff [3 Lake El Spring [3 Well
D Municipal Water D Other

 

 

 

 

2. Which best describes your water use?
'3 Constant flow I: lnterrnittent '3 Only to refill
3. What is the flow rate of your source water in gallons per minute?
1] 0-500 [:1 501-1,000 [:1 More than 1,000
4. Do you regularly monitor water quality? (Check all that apply)
[:1 Yes D No If yes, which aspects? '3 Dissolved Oxygen E] pH [:1 Ammonia
[3 Phosphorus El Solids D Other
5. How ofien would you estimate poor water quality reduced your production in 1996?
[:1 Never B 1-3 times D 4 or more times
6. Where do you discharge your effluent? (Check all that apply)
[:1 Stream/River Cl Pond/Lake Cl Land Application 1:] Do Not DischargeD Other
SECTION 7: FEEDS/FEEDING
1. Where do you buy your feed? (Check all that apply)
C] Other Producers D Local mill El Shipped from manufacturer [3 Other
2. What type of feed do you use? (Check all that apply)

[3 Floating D Sinking D Slow Sinking

3.

4.

92
APPENDIX F

How many pounds of feed would you estimate you use in a year?

How much would you estimate you spend on feed each year? S

 

SECTION 8: DISEASE/W ILDLIF E

I.

How often did your stock experience diseases in 1996?

[:1 Never Cl 1-3 times [3 4 or more times

 

2. Where do you get your fish health information? (Check all that apply)
[:1 Veterinarian [3 Fish Disease Specialist C] Other Producers D Other
3. Did your stock experience predation in 1996?
1:] Yes Cl No
If yes, by what? (Check all that apply) D Birds [:1 Mammals C] Other
4. Which agencies help you with wildlife damage control? (Check all that apply)
[:1 None [:1 Local E State I: Federal D Other
SECTION 9: LOSSES
1. Did you have any losses during 1996? D Yes [:1 No
2. If you answered yes, please write in the dollar value of losses attributed to each cause.

Cause Value (5)

Diseases

Predation

Poaching
Escapement

Poor Water Quality
Weather

Other

SECTION 10: MISCELLANEOUS

I.

2.

Are you a member of any state aquaculture association?
D Yes D No
If yes, has your membership enabled you to increase your profits in any way? D Yes

Are you a member of any national aquaculture association?

D Yes [:1 No

If yes, has your membership enabled you to increase your profits in any way? D Yes

DNO

DNO

93
APPENDIX F

3. How do you see your production in 5 years? D Higher E] No change [:1 Lower

4. When you need to obtain additional information about aquaculture, who do you usually contact?

(Check all that apply)
[:1 Cooperative Extension D Sea Grant Agent D Natural Resource Agency Personnel
[:1 Other Fish Farmer(s) D Other

 

5. How ofien are you willing to complete a similar survey?

D Every year [:1 Every other year D Other

 

SECTION 11: COMMENTS (Please provide any thoughts you have concerning the following questions. If you have additional
comments that are not related to these questions, feel free to write them on the back of this page)

1. (QUESTION ?)

2. (QUESTION ?)

3. (QUESTION ?)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION !!

APPENDIX G

Summarized Comments

94
APPENDIX G

ILLINOIS

Hoped to have better production numbers next year.

Apologized for the need for a second survey.

Did not plan to raise fish in 1996 due to time and labor requirements of other crops.
Was looking for a partner to invest in the business, has problems with winter-kill.
Hoped to get more involved in state and national aquaculture associations, is
developing a library of fish culture and disease references, would appreciate
information concerning association contacts and additional references.

Production values represented inventory, minimal sales until processing plant

becomes operational.

INDIANA

Leases pay-lake to relatives, is a live hauler.

Wholesale live bait dealer only, does not raise fish.

Small operation now, plans to increase production after retirement, gave away
production this year to create demand.

Began operation to sell food-size fish but couldn’t find enough markets, so has since
converted to a fee-fishing operation.

Pet store, sells 60 freshwater species and 10 saltwater species.

J ust getting started as a hauler of live tilapia to an oriental market, good demand for a

quality product.

95
APPENDIX G

MICHIGAN

- Has not raised fish Since 1994 due to health problems.

0 Trying to work with Michigan Department of Natural Resources was very trying.

0 Should try to keep aquaculture from becoming too regulated, should keep a common
sense approach.

0 Has limited water resources, most of work was done for small research projects or as
a hobby.

o Expressed frustration with trying to compete with aquaculture products from other
states that are less expensive, unable to receive help from extension personnel.

0 Acknowledged surveys as a useful tool for gathering information, realized producers
can obtain grants more easily if information from the farm is available.

- Apologized for the delay, indicated that 95% of fish were processed at the farm and

sold directly to restaurants and fish markets.

APPENDIX H

Additional Resources

96
APPENDIX H

Agricultural Staistics Service

For information regarding the agricultural statistics service in a particular state, look
under the government section of the local phone directory. For assistance with general
agricultural statistics, information about the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(N ASS), its products or services, contact the NASS information hotline at 1-800-727-
9540, or E-mail: NASS@AG.GOV.

AguaNIC

WWW: http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/
TELNET: www.ansc.purdue.edu

For further information about AquaNIC, contact Mark Einstein at 1-317-494-4862, or E-
mail: meinstei@hub.ansc.purdue.edu

USDA Aquaculture Ogtloofik Reports

Subscriptions to the printed version of these reports, which are published twice a year, are
available from the ERS-NASS order desk. Call toll-free, 1-800-999-6779. Subscriptions

are $1 5/year, and ERS-NASS accepts MasterCard and Visa. The order desk can also
provide information regarding how to access these reports electronically.

USDA Trout Reports

For information on trout production, call Jim Brewster at 1-202-720-8784, office hours
are 8:00 am. to 4:30 pm. ET. He can also provide instructions on how to access the
information electronically.

LIST OF REFERENCES

97

LIST OF REFERENCES

Brown, BE. 1977. World Fish Farming: Cultivation and Economics. Westport,
Connecticut. AVI Publishing Company, Inc.

Chopak, C.J., and JR. Newman. 1993. Aquaculture. Page 17 in Status and Potential of
Michigan Agriculture: Highlights. Special Report 32. Michigan State University
Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing.

Dicks, M.R., R. McHugh, and B. Webb. 1996. Economy-Wide Impacts of US.
Aquaculture. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report P-946.
Oklahoma State University.

Dillman, DA. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). World Agriculture:
Towards 2010, an FAO Study. 1995. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Hickling, GP. 1962. Fish Culture. London: Faber and Faber.

Huner, J.V., and H.K. Dupree. 1984. Warmwater Fish Farming: a Thriving Industry.
Pages 1-5 in H.K. Dupree and J .V. Huner, editors. Third Report to the Fish
Farmers. Washington, DC: US. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hushak, L]. 1993. North Central Regional Aquaculture Industry Situation and Outlook
Report. Volume 1. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center Publications
Office, Iowa State University, Ames.

Johnson, R. 1976. Aquaculture in Michigan-Descriptive Profiles. MS. Thesis, Michigan
State University, East Lansing.

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. June 1993. Aquaculture in the United States: Status,
Opportunities, and Recommendations. A Report to the Federal Coordinating
Council on Engineering, and Technology, US. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.

Lovell, T. 1989. Nutrition and Feeding of Fish. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

98

Parker, NC. 1989. History, Status, and Future of Aquaculture in the United States.
Critical Reviews in Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 1. CRC Press, Inc.

Stickney, RR. 1994. Principles of Aquaculture. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

USDA, ERS (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service).
October 1995, LPD-AQS-Z. Aquaculture Situation and Outlook. Commodity
Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.

USDA, ERS (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service).
1994. Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1979-92. Economic Research
Service, US. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

USDC, NOAA, NMF S (United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. Fisheries
of the United States, 1994. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 9400. United States
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

"1111111111111111111: