Technical Report EL-93-19September 1993

US Army Corps AD-A273 172of EngineersWaterways Experiment IU lhhihIIIStation

Containment Area Aquaculture Program

Economics and Marketing of Aquaculturein Dredged Material Containment Areas

by C-K Associates, Inc.

1OTIONO\V 2 11993

E

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited

---. 93-2876093 11 230 61 1 IHHI|11

Prepared for Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade namesdoes not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the useof such commercial products.

4ft' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Containment Area Aquaculture Program Technical Report EL-93-19September 1993

Economics and Marketing of Aquaculturein Dredged Material Containment Areasby C-K Associates, Inc.

17170 Perkins Road Accesion ForBaton Rouge, LA 70810 NTIS CRA&I-

DTIC T.A13Unanourcced

JustifiC..a .io,...........By

.................................... ..............-.......

Av.h_• il':ity Co'Jes

Dist Avpj; a-lor

SP;,CaiJ

vri-

Final reportApprove for Public r~esese; ftftbudon Is unlimnled.

Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Best Available CopyWashington, DC 20314-1000

Monitored by Environmental LaboratoryU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

US Army Corpsof Engineers NWaterways Experiment N

WtaterasEprmetSainotaong-ub~a~nDt

�C-K-A As iI.n

Engineers ;n .S.ryEnierWaewy Exerment StatIon.

Incl desbbli ogrphialrefrenes

An U S r of Engineers. Ill. U.S.

AmEnierWaterways Experiment Station.CtloiglnPbiV ContDainetAra

AquacmicturedProgram.nV.oSeries:uTechnicaldreport (U.S.iArmyoEnginee

Enier n .. Am nierWaterways Experiment Station). L9-9TA7. ll W34 n m.E-9-1(ehia9eor L9-9

8WNIAqucltr Prga.V eis Tcnclrpr U.S. ArFmy OFFICEeWaterway Eeimn Lttin AMY1-3-9

WAAT W34 no.EL-93-1i9ATIO

Contents

Preface ................................................ vi

I- Introduction .......................................... 1

2-The CAAP Demonstration Project .......................... 3

Background and Purposes ................................ 3Construction and Production ............................... 4Galveston District Costs .................................. 5

3-Evaluation of the Demonstration Project ...................... 8

M ethodology ......................................... 8Software program .................................... 8Sources of input data ................................. 9Fitting the data to the program ........................... 9

Economics Analyses .................................... 10Cash flow and crop budgets ............................. 10Crop evaluations ..................................... 15

Marketing Analyses ..................................... 24Recent shrimp market history ............................ 26Marketing the demonstration project shrimp .................. 27

Conclusions from Demonstration Project ...................... 31

4-Development of DMCA Model ............................ 33

Purposes and Requirements ............................... 33M odel Design ......................................... 34

5-Economic Potential of Selected Species ....................... 42

Introduction .......................................... 42Catfish .............................................. 43Crawfish ............................................ 45M ollusks ............................................ 47Hybrid Striped Bass .................................... 49

6-Literature Summary and Information Sources ................... 51

Introduction ......................................... 51Regulatory and Policy Agencies ............................ 51

Local ............................................. 51

iii

State .52.... ..... . . . ... ...... o ... o ... . . o 52Federal ........................................... 52

T cenial ............................................ 53Cooperative extension services ........................... 53Agricultural experiment stations .......................... 53Regional aquaculture centers ............................ 53Natioial Aquaculture Information Center .................... 54

Periodicals ........................................... 54

References ............................................. 57

Bibliography ............................................ 58

Appendix A: CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets ........... Al

SF 298

List of Tables

Table 1. CAAP Demonstration Project Stocking andProduction Record ............................... 6

Table 2. Summary of Galveston District Costs With and WithoutCAAP Demonstration Project ....................... 7

Table 3. 1986 Cash Flow Statement for CAAP DemonstrationProject ....................................... 11

Table 4. 1987 Cash Flow Statement for CAAP DemonstrationProject ....................................... 12

Table 5. 1988 Cash Flow Statement for CAAP DemonstrationProject ....................................... 13

Table 6. 1989 Cash Flow Statement for CAAP Demonstration

Project ....................................... 14

Table 7. 1986 Operating Budget for CAAP Demonstration Project .... 16

Table 8. 1987 Operating Budget for CAAP Demonstration Project .... 17

Table 9. 1988 Operating Budget for CAAP Demonstration Project .... 18

Table 10. 1989 Operating Budget for CAAP Demonstration Project .... 19

Table 11. 1987 Crop Summary ............................. 20

Table 12. 1988 Crop Summary ............................. 22

Table 13. Comparison of CAAP Demonstration Project to HypotheticalU.S. Shrimp Aquaculture Facilities .................... 25

Table 14. United State Shrimp Supply, 1950-1988 ................ 27

Table 15. United States Per Capita Shrimp Consumption, 1960-1988 ... 28

iv

Table 16. CAAP Demonstration Project Shrimp Production and SizeDistribution ................................... 29

Table 17. CAAP Demonstration Project Prices Received for Shrimp .... 30Table 18. CAAP Demonstration Project Prices of Ex-Vessel and

Wholesale Headless Shrimp Prevailing at Harvest ......... 31

V

Preface

This report describes research performed under Contract No. DACW39-89-C-0020, dated 17 February 1989, between the U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station (WES) and C-K Associates, Inc., Baton Rouge, LA. Thework was conducted under the Containment Area Aquaculture Program(CAAP), sponsored by Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(HQUSACE), and monitored by WES. The purposes of the research were toanalyze the economics of the CAAP demonstration project shrimp farm and touse the information learned from the demonstration to examine the economicfeasibility of aquaculture in dredged material containment areas (DMCA).

The principal investigators and authors of this report were David G.Marschall and Leona Burrell, C-K Associates, Inc., and Kenneth J. Roberts, amarine resource economist with Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

The authors are particularly grateful for the guidance and assistance ofMr. Richard Coleman, Environmental Laboratory (EL), WES, and members ofthe CAAP Field Review Committee, including Dr. Mark Konikoff, Universityof Southwestern Louisiana, Dr. Jurij Homziak, U.S. State Department andformerly EL, WES, Dr. Henry Tatem, EL, WES, and Messrs. Herbie Maurerand Rick Medina, U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED), Galveston. Specialthanks go to Mr. Durwood Dugger, Cultured Seafood Group, Laguna Vista,TX, who was the onsite manager of the demonstration project shrimp farm.This project benefitted also from the critical oversight of Mr. Jesse Pfeiffer, Jr.,Directorate of Research and Development, HQUSACE. The authors also wishto thank Ms. Nancy Hadley and Dr. John Manzi, South Carolina MarineResources Center, Mr. Braxton Kyzer, U.S. Army Engineer District,Charleston; Messrs. Glenm Earhart, Bob Blama, and Monty Franklin,U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore; and Mr. Ron Vann, U.S. Army Engi-neer District, Norfolk, for their contributions.

Contract Managers for this study were Mr. Coleman, CAAP Project Mana-ger, and Dr. Homziak, former CAAP Project Manager. The study was con-ducted under the direct supervision of Mr. E. J. Pullen, Chief, Coastal EcologyBranch, WES, and under the general supervision of Dr. Conrad J. Kirby,Chief, Ecological Research Division, and Dr. John Harrison, Chief, EL.

vi

At the time of publication of this report, Director of WES wasDr. Robert W. Whalin. Commander was COL Bruce K. Howard, EN.

This report should be cited as follows:

C-K Associates, Inc. (1993). "Economics and marketing of aqua-culture in dredged material containment areas," Technical ReportEL-93-19, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.

vii

1 Introduction

The Environmental Laboratory (EL), U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station (WES), conducted the Dredged Material Research Program(DMRP) from 1973 through 1978. One of the specific goals of the DMRPwas to "develop and test concepts for using disposal sites for productive pur-poses and consider the use of dredged material as a natural resource" (Saucieret al. 1978). Two work units funded under the DMRP that addressed produc-tive uses were: The Investigation of Mariculture as an Alternative Use ofDredged Material Containment Areas (DMCA), and The Demonstration ofMarine Shrimp Culture in an Active Dredged Material Containment Area.Important results of these two work units included:

a. Plant and animal species (400) were identified as potential cultureorganisms in DMCA's.

b. Small-scale studies with shrimp grown in dredged sediments showed nobiological limitations to mariculture.

c. Shrimp raised in a 20-acre containment area cell without supplementalfeedings grew at a rate comparable to wild shrimp (Saucier et al. 1978;Quick et al. 1978).

Over the last decade, environmental impacts have been given greater con-sideration in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) activities. One result ofthis has been a shift away from open-water disposal of dredged sedimentstoward more frequent use of disposal in confined upland sites. However, therehas also been increasing difficulty at the district level in obtaining suitableupland disposal sites. Landowners have been reluctant to allow use of theirproperty for sediment disposal without some benefits in return.

These factors, and the positive conclusions reached during the DMRP,contributed to a sustained interest in aquaculture within the USACE. TheContainment Area Aquaculture Program (CAAP) was thus initiated in 1986, asa development of the Environmental Effects of Dredging Program, to fullyexamine the beneficial-use concept of aquaculture with emphasis on moreeconomical and environmentally compatible site acquisition. The CAAP hadtwo major activities: a field demonstration of aquaculture in a DMCA on a

Chapter 1 Introduction

commercial scale, and the exchange of information on DMCA aquaculture todistricts, local sponsors, and the interested public.

Main'.,ance dredging in waterways often requires long-range planning toensti: ae availability of sites to deposit dredged material. The CAAP isexpected to reduce the difficulty of obtaining deposition sites by offering land-owners an inducement to cooperate with local USACE districts. This induce-ment can take the form of revenues to the landowner who leases his land foraquaculture, as well as savings to the aquaculturist in the costs related to pondconstruction. In addition, landowners and aquaculturists will receive technicalaquaculture assistance through information transfer from the CAAP demonstra-tion project in Brownsville, TX.

Containment area aquaculture can have positive impacts other than thosewhich directly affect the landowner and the district. An aquaculture operationwill provide employment for the local workforce, will stimulate the local econ-omy, and may improve wildlife habitat by the creation of protted. water-bodies. The program also represents resourceful land use and will foster amutually beneficial partnership between USACE and the private sector.

This report provides analyses of the economics and marketing of the fielddemonstration projecL The analyses identify and quantify the various costs ofa DMCA aquaculture venture that would be incurred by the USACE districtand the aquaculturist. Of particular interest are the savings to the landowner oraquaculturist who cooperates with the USACE. A PC-based model is also pre-sented which allows determination of the economic feasibility of rearing differ-ent species in containment areas of different sizes. Data from aquacultureliterature are used to "test" the feasibility of rearing catfish, crawfish, hybridstriped bass, and mollusks in DMCA's. Results of these feasibility tests areprovided. Finally, the data sources used in preparation of this report arearranged with other sources of aquaculture data to provide a useful referencesection for those interested in pursuing information further.

More detailed information on DMCA aquaculture is now available or willbe available in technical reports from the CAAP. These are listed in Chapter 6of this report. Topics addressed include: legal and institutional constraints;chemical suitability; site selection, acquisition, and planning; design and con-struction; and pond operations.

2 Chaplt 1 Introduction

2 The CAAP DemonstrationProject

Background and Purposes

After nearly a decade of deliberation concerning the potential use ofDMCA's for aquaculture, a large commercial-scale demonstration project wasestablished between Brownsville and Port Isabel, TX, late in 1986. The siteencompassed approximately 230 acres on the eastern side of the BrownsvilleShip Channel. The demonstration project had multiple purposes as cited byHomziak, Coleman, and Dugger? The purposes included:

a. Determination of design specifications and construction methods thatwould allow multiple use of DMCA's for both aquaculture and dredgedmaterial disposal.

b. Development of management strategies that would allow aquacultureoperations and material disposal to coexist.

c. Documentation of construction and production costs that would allowan objective evaluation of economic success to be made.

d. Compilation of the economic and technical information generated bythe demonstration.

For shrimp farm management, the USACE contracted initially withMariQuest, Inc., a California-based, full-service mariculture consulting anddevelopment company. The work of Mariquest was completed in 1989 byCultured Seafood Group, Inc., Laguna Vista, TX. The project was in opera-tion from 1986 to the fall of 1989.

The project was under the overall supervision of the WES CAAP managerswith onsite coordination and construction supervision of the U.S. Army Engi-neer District (USAED), Galveston, through the Brownsville Area Office. The

SJ. Homnziak, R. Coleman, and D. Dugger. (1987). "Development and operations of the Con-tainment Area Aquaculture Program (CAAP) demonstration shrimp farm" (unpublished).

Chapftr 2 The CAAP Dsionstabon Project 3

Brownsville Navigation District, an independent political entity of the State ofTexas, was the landowner and dredgeng sponsor.

Construction and Production

In 1986 and 1987, modifications for aquaculture were ma& to two largecontainment areas: Disposal Area (DA) A, 104 acres, and DA B, 116 acres.(These acreage figures have been adopted for consistency in calculations.Many aquaculture cost and production values are expiessed as "dollars peracre" or "pounds per acre.")

A 4-acre nursery pond was built adjacent to the two larger ponds and to thewater intake structures. Changes made to the existing DMCA's included rais-ing the perimeter levees to 12-ft elevation (el)1 above the pond bottom,widening the levee crown widths to between 12 and 15 ft, contouring the pondbottoms to facilitate drainage, and installing an in-levee water control/harveststructure.

Two crops of the white shrimp Penaeus vannamei were raised in 1987.After stocking and rearing postlarvae in the nursery pond, shrimp of both cropswere moved to Pond A for growout. The first crop was harvested in Septem-ber 1987 and produced 106,037 lb of whole shrimp with 75-percent survival.The second crop was harvested in December 1987 and produced 48,425 lbwith 56-percent survival. The two 1987 crops received semi-intensive man-agement, the most important aspect of which was daily feed rates of between1.5 and 3 percent of whole shrimp body weight. The total Pond A yield of154,062 lb represented a respectable 1,481 lb per acre for 19P,/.

In 1988, three growouts were attempted to demonstrate alterative produc-tion scenarios. Pond B was stocked at a similar rate as the 1987 crops andalso received semi-intensive management after having received dredged mater-ial the previous summer. Production of a mix of P. vanwamei andP. stylirostris totaled 70,459 lb or 607 lb per acre. Pond A was stocied withthe same two species, but shrimp were not fed (extensive management).Growth of the shrimp appeared to be satisfactory, but survival was limited toonly 3.4 percent due to predation by sea trout which had entered as postlarvaedue to a failure of the predator filter in the intake structure. The third alterna-tive was the stocking of a cool-tolerant species P. penicllatus during the win-ter of 1988-89. These shrimp were killed by unusually cold temperaturesduring February 1989.

One crop was attempted in 1989. This was also a mix of P. vannamei andP. stylirost"ri, but a worldwide shortage of postlarvae prevented finding

I All elevations (el) cited herein ae in feet referred to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum

(NGVD) of 1929.

4 Chapfr 2 The CAAP Damonstalon Project

sufficient good quality seed stock which and resulted in poor survival andgrowth. Final production was 31,206 lb of small shrimp, or approximately300 lb per acre.

Table I summarizes the production record for the six crops of the CAAPdemonstration project.

Once harvested, shrimp were transported to a processor where they weregraded, deheaded, packed, and frozen. Smaller shrimp were sold in the peeled,undeveined (PUD) product form. Shrimp were then kept in cold storage wherethey were sold from inventory at the discretion of ManQuest and based uponprevailing shrimp market prices. Revenue from shrimp sales was returned tothe U.S. Treasury.

An important aspect of the demonstration project was the opportunity todetermine the costs of pond construction and installation of a water control/harvest structure. These importnt start-up costs were later examined from theviewpoint of the aquaculturist as well as from the viewpoint of the USACEdistrict.

Galveston District Costs

The USAED, Galveston, Operations Division manages maintenanc-. dredg-ing in the Brownsville Ship Channel. District personnel calculated the costs tothe district of converting the two existing DMCA's, DA 4A and DA 4B, toaquaculture ponds.

DA 4A became the 104-acre Pond A. It was converted between 5 Marchand 8 May 1986. Work required moving 56,800 cu yd of material to construct9,566 lin ft of perimeter levee. In addition, 2,000 ft of ditch to facilitate drain-ing required moving 15,700 cu yd of material. Material moving costs and theinstallation of an in-levee water control/harvest structure amounted to$203,149. An additional $40,000 in costs were attributed to engineering,design, inspection, and administration. If the district not been meeting theneeds of a shimp farmer, these costs would probably have been $85,000 and$15,000, respectively.

DA 4B became the 116-acre Pond B. Conversion took place between27 March and 8 June 1987 and required moving 82,358 cu yd costs of materialto construct 12,000 lin ft of levee, District costs for construction were$90,055, and costs for engineering, design, inspection, and administration were$18,000. Estimates of these costs without the shrimp farm were $82,000 and$16,000, respectively. Table 2 summarizes the costs to the Galveston Districtwith and without the demonstration project.

The levee construction costs for DA 4B were considerably less than forDA 4A on a cubic-yard basis because the DA 4B costs were part of a larger

Chapter 2 The CAAP Demonstradon Project 5

z

CC

0

aCY0cc C-Itwo

_ L 13-

0c cm

cc- -- -L a -

co0

CC,

Chps Te5. DnntadnPoe

Table 2Summary of Galveston District Costs With and Without CAAPDemonstration Project

Costs kmxred With Estimaed Costs WithoutCost CatgMoy Dunonslratlon Project Demonetraton Project

DAM DA4B DA4 DA4B

Engiunerng. Design. Admninistration $40,000 $18,000 $15,000 $16,000

Construction $203.149 $90,055 $85,000 $82,000

Pond Cost Totals $243,149 $108,065 $100,000 $98,000

Project Cost Totals $351204 $198,000

dredging contract. They represented approximately one-fourth of the totalamount of levee work required under a $1.2 million contract. Levee costs forDA 4A were contracted separately.

Other costs for completion of the demonstration site were incurred by theshrimp farm operators. These included expenditures for caliche (a form ofroad aggregate used in south Texas) and for grading levee crowns to makethem suitable for vehicular traffic. Such costs will be necessary at most anysite and probably will be the subject of negotiation between the USACE dis-trict and the aquaculturist or landowner. The USACE district may bear all orpart of costs such as these if the items are required for or contribute to mater-ial disposal.

At the demonstration project site, caliche and levee grading costs wereborne by the operators because they were necessary for aquaculture and not foroperation of the containment areas.

Chapter 2 The CMAP Demonstration Prqet 7

3 Evaluation of theDemonstration Project

Methodology

The CAAP demonstration project was a simulated commercial venturewhich allowed the USACE to examine the commercial feasibility of DMCAaquaculture. It was subjected to the scrutiny that would be given similar aqua-culture operations. Besides the standard profit-and-loss determinations, thefinancial analyses were to quantify specifically those costs that would representa savings to the aquaculturist.

Software program

The WES project managers were provided monthly accounting sheets fromthe shrimp farm management contractor, MariQuest, Inc. This monthly identi-fication of costs was sent to the USACE for documentation prior to payment toMariQuest, Inc. These data were utilized in a software package calledAQUADEC, which is a compilation of budgeting and financial decision sup-port tools for the new or ongoing commercial freshwater or marine aquaculturebusinesses. AQUADEC was developed at the University of Florida byDr. Charles Adams of the Food and Resource Economics Department and canbe purchased through the Florida Sea Grant Program. This software packageallows the business manager to develop a wide variety of financial statementsand supportive information to aid in the decision-making process. Financialstatements which can be generated using AQUADEC include cost recoveryschedules, loan amortization schedules, income statements, monthly cash flowstatements, balance sheets, operating budgets, and others. The user can alsoperform breakeven analyses on price and production and can assess the finan-cial performance of the business through the use of a set of financial ratios.With these tools, the user can describe a 5-year planning horizon and a specificoperational year, vary key parameters (such as price received for a unit ofproduction), and ask "what if" questions of an economic financial nature.Individual aquaculture business managers can use AQUADEC to analyze pro-duction, financial and management scenarios, and evaluate the impact thatcertain changes could have on profitability.

8 Ch.pwr 3 EwMhIat of to Demonsaton Proje

Sources of Input data

The data used in the anlyses of the demon5.tration project came from foursources. The primary source was the monthly accounting records submitted byMariQuest. When the data in these records were not suited to the format ofAQUADEC, MariQuest's monthly narrative reports were relied on to clarifycost totals or categories. The monthly narrative reports were thorough sum-maries of all activities that took place at the shrimp farm including (amongothers) all personnel matters, purchases, stocking, harvesting, and sales. Thethird source of data was the WES Property List which identified all buildings,machinery, and equipment. The list was a detailed inventory of 180 items andthe acquisition cost of each. The final data source was a listing of costs pre-pared by the Operations Division of the Galveston District. This list identifiedthose costs described in Chapter 2 of this report that were incurred by thedistrict when the shrimp farm was constructed initially.

Fitting the data to the program

It was recognized by the CAAP managers that there would be potentialadvantages and disadvantages to having a third party analyze the economicsand marketing of the demonstration project. A positive aspect was the oppor-tunity to have the shrimp farm analyzed as a pure business and not as a dem-onstration. There was corresponding difficulty, however, in analyzing recordsas much as 3 years after they had been submitted to WES by MariQuest.Though MariQuest kept thorough accounts, the use of AQUADEC, a standardbusiness analysis program, meant that shrimp farm data had to be "fitted" afterthe fact to a format that was perhaps not flexible or sensitive to the nature ofthe demonstration project Certain assumptions were made and problems wereencountered that warrant further explanation.

Seven categories of costs ranging from accounting to management expenseswere recorded separately by MariQuest. These were lumped as general andadmini•rative (G&A) in AQUADEC. Operating expenses were placed into10 categories: feed, fuel, labor, fringe benefits, leases, rent, repair and mainte-nance, seed stock general supplies, and other (postage, printing, telephone,travel, etc.). The C -,/ charges by MariQuest were treated as an operatingexpense for two reasons. The first is the large number of different costs cate-gorized as G&A. The second is that the focal point of a demonstration analy-sis is the monthly cash flow, and trating G&A as overhead would haveunderestimated the cash needs.

Monthly cash flow analyses do not match monthly accounting records fortwo reasons. Some elements of the monthly demonstration project cost sub-missions may have reappeared in a subsequent month due to negotiationsbetween MariQuest and WES. Also, the categories of costs kept by MariQuestdid not correspond with those required by AQUADEC.

Chapter 3 Evauation of Oiw Demonsbra"on Projec 9

The major items on the property list were categorized to place them in anAQUADEC cost-recovery subroutine. Buildings were designated as propertywith a useful life of 20 years and a total value of $39,045. Machinery wasdifferentiated from equipment The former was assigned a useful life of7 years and had a total value of $171,767. Equipment was given a useful lifeof 5 years and totaled $91,596.

Two crop years were analyzed, 1987 and 1988, but the demonstration pro-ject also produced shrimp harvests in 1989. A difficulty with the accountingsystem arose due to the expenditure of funds in 1988 for shrimp harvested in1989. The accounting system was not designed to report expenses by crop.Consequently, an unknown amount of the expenses in late 1988 actuallyshould be attributed to the 1989 shrimp harvest The evaluation did notinclude an adjustment for this accounting inflexibility. This inflexibility alsorestricts the ability to analyze thoroughly and compare the extensive and semi-intensive crops. Shrimp crop information was recorded in the monthly reportsprepared by MariQuest. These reports did not include accounting reports butdid indicate expenses by crop for what MariQuest cited as key productioncosts. These include postlarvae, feed, diesel, harvest labor only, and process-ing costs. Total hours of Port Isabel staff were reported monthly, also.

Economics Analyses

Cash flow and crop budgets

A cash flow summary of the demonstration project is depicted by year for1986 through 1988 in Tables 3 through 6.

The computer program used to analyze cash flow treats monthly negativecash balances as if an operating loan had been obtained. Consequently, inter-est payments for keeping the shrimp farm operating were incurred imme-diately. By December 1987, the accrued interest on the operating loan reached$44,233. It was not until that month that any receipts from shrimp sales wererealized. This was the case in spite of two harvests from Pond A in 1987.Immediate sales would have reduced operating loan interest and produced aninterest savings; however, the demonstration project did not function in thisway. An actual commercial venture would have indeed faced the mountingoperating loan principal and interest burden.

The most useful element of the cash flow tables is the Total Cash OperatingExpense row. Total cash operating expenses for 1987 were $477,280 com-pared to sales of $37,979. Approximately $245,000 of the 1987 crop harvestwas actually sold in 1988. If all 1987 production had been sold in 1987, thetotal sales of $283,304 would have been insufficient to cover cash operatingexpenses of $477,280 and prior year cash operating expenses of $59,040.Cash expenses of $1.89 were experienced for each dollar of sales. The com-parative numbers for each of the years are evident in the cash flow tables.

10 ChapWr 3 Evaluation of the Demonstration Project

0 . . . . . . 1 0 0 .a - 1 1 -1 - 0 . 0 0 0. a .1 O a 0 .

IL . . I I I . a a a a a a a a a a a

0 a a . a a a a a a a a a1 aa a

.5.~ a a1 a a 1- 0. 01 a

0.

U)

0

L 9 a- a aaaaaaaa1

Chate a avkato af th Dennt a .o Prja aaaa aaaaaaaaa.aaaaa

.a mm. •a.Uk2U . ..... .i 3 i 1 u""

n.-lol- -H

0 _

. 1 -

, II

o - ! q -'.' - .. .=4 a -

E ,

,. iijIliiiiIi Iii ii

12 Chapter 3 Evaluation of the Dernonstration Project

Ir - - -

, *****I5il 1 I

0

1 S ' 1 S1S.... ---- 5- -Ia

o - .- I. . . . !

"ml i

0o I! I ~..... . l "

E

0

Chpe Eauton of ... .. .. Den11tao ProjctI 1

U.. *** .0000000 0 *.*o 0 Iitso

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 .10 jj 5j0

0 00 ** ** * -000 000 +j lei .1e

c -

3 : 100 0 . 0 0 I0 I00 0 0 Ij

.. . .IaiI !1

14o

Chp 3 Eveo i n~ of00 0 In jjndm P 0

Some of the 1988 harvest was sold in 1989. As stated previously, some of theexpenses listed in 1988 related to the last crop grown to maturity in 1989.The combined influence of more expenses in the 1988 table for the 1989 cropand some 1988 crop sales ($66,062) occurring in 1989 produced a major cashshortfall. The computer program thereby calculated an operating loan as it didfor 1987.

The financial data were condensed and depicted as crop budgets for each ofthe operating years in Tables 7 through 10 as a means of conveying informa-tion to readers not concerned with cash flow.

The cash flow and crop budget tables quickly serve to identify the negativefinancial situation resulting from two demonstration crop years. Had the dem-onstration project been a commercial venture, it would have required invest-ment capital to initiate the shrimp farm business and large operating loanswould have been required afterwards. For purposes of initiating the analysis,the investment capital needed for start-up, buildings, machinery, and equipmentwas projected. The cash flow table for 1987 shows a new loan entry of$160,859 for the year. This was derived by assuming that a commercial ven-ture must meet approximately one-half of its investment needs with equitycapital. Because this was expended in 1986 as equity capital, there is no entryin the cash flow. One-half of machinery and equipment was to be borrowedfunds with one-half needed in January and one-half needed in July (Table 4).Although this is somewhat arbitrary, it is consistent with the attempt to provideinsight into differences between the demonstration project and a commercialventure. The funds borrowed to meet the building needs were received inJanuary 1987. The total for buildings, machinery, and equipment needs fromequity and borrowed sources totaled approximately $302,000.

Crop evaluations

The CAAP shrimp farm was a large-scale experiment in which differentstocking and growout strategies were both demonstrated and tested. Analysesbased solely on financial criteria would show only financial losses. To allowan analysis for comparison with private ventures, a crop evaluation approachwas developed. This approach is less comprehensive but may be acceptablefor identifying the specific favorable and unfavorable aspects of demonstrationproject crop production. Monthly accounting reports and growout summarieswere used to approximate crop results in relation to important operatingexpenses. Crop comparisons for 1987 and 1988 were developed for thisevaluation.

Table I shows the results of two crops from Pond A in 1987. The initialobservation is that each crop was produced for similar costs, $2.18 versus$2.08 per pound of tails. The second crop was actually produced at a muchlower cost than is evident from Table 11. The higher $0.23-per-pound cost forprocessing Crop 2 was due to approximately one-third of Crop 2 being pro-cessed and sold as PUD shrimp. Note, however, that the lower total cost of

15Chapter 3 Evaluation of the Demonlstration Project

0 i I . . .* * .16

* 066 ** 0 6

*~ 61 066 0

Is s

JI

16 Chp"3-ý 1 o" "10P

I 1- 151*1! 12 I

I l

*1 1 I 81~ d *!

*4 11

'4

NO 6 1 1*

00z

o V-

Chate 3 Evaluation--- -- of th -enntro Prjct1

-j i

I

.a

C .-

0 •

0

E -

18l Chate 3I Evlato of the Dernonstrati Projec

aa

0

"001

I'-

18 Chapter 3 Evaluation of U,. Demnonstraton Project

* * * 6 600

0e

6 0 0o

6 6 0 o

is 6 6 o

C 6 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 s

* 6 0 6..* 6

6 - 0 - - - 0 - - - -

0 0E

O. I ~S13SI !!!S 351

S-h... . ..0

Cp 3 * o ft ono ojc 19"*0ma'C

Chapter 3 EvalUation of the Demonstraton Prjc 19

- - = -.-- =

2 A8

*10

j. A.= .. o • = •

4NW

49_

0

E cE-8

20 Chapter 3 Evaluation of tie Demfonstration Project

Crop 2 was for a smaller shrimp. This late-season crop incurred lower costs,in part, because smaller shrimp, in general, are cheaper to produce. Althoughsmaller shrimp are regularly observed to have better feed conversion, the sig-nificantly lower feed cost for Crop 2 was related to colder weather when itwas not feasible to feed.

The relative efficiency of these actual documented costs compared to othercommercial operations could not be determined. Feed cost estimates by Law-rence, Johns, and Griffin (1984) and Parker (1988) were both $1.01 per poundof tails. The CAAP demonstration project results of $0.60 and $0.28 perpound of tails for feed are significantly enough below these published esti-mates to indicate a measure of success. The marked difference between thepublished estimates and the CAAP demonstration project costs was found inthe cost per pound of postlarvae. The CAAP demonstration project showed auniform cost of $0.83 to $0.89 per pound for postlarvae. This compares to$0.64 per pound (Lawrence, Johns, and Griffin 1984) and $0.55 per pound(Parker 1988). During the period when postlarvae were being purchased forstocking the demonstration project, the price of postlarvae fluctuated from$6.50 per thousand to $15.00 per thousand. The difference between actualdemonstration project experience and reference estimates may not be real;however, it is the only comparison suitable from the general geographic area.The postlarvae cost per thousand was comparable with the exception ofCrop 1. The purchase price cost per thousand for Crop 1 was twice that ofCrop 2. However, Crop 2 had a higher cost per pound of production. Thelower survival experienced in Crop 2 produced the higher effective cost

Two crops were produced in 1988. A summary of that year's results isshown in Table 12. There were important differences between the 1987 cropsand the 1988 crops. Crop 3, grown in Pond A, was the extensive trial that hada low stocking density. Crop 4, grown in Pond B, was a semi-intensive trialundertaken after the pond had received dredged material.

The January, 1989, narrative report by MariQuest noted disappointingresults for the 1988 crops. In June, 130 mph winds occurred, and in Septem-ber, hurricane Gilbert disturbed conditions late in the growout. The extensivetrial in Pond A experienced significant mortality due to predation by sea trout.Pond B had fundamental problems from the start due to poor shipping of post-larvae and possibly due to disease. Crop 3, the extensive trial in Pond A, wasnot an economic success. Table 12 shows a total per pound cost of $8.53 forproducing 2,785 lb of tails. The low number of shrimp harvested causes thepostlarvae cost to be $6.43 per pound which would be an unacceptable produc-tion cost for a commercial operation. However, if the average postlarvae costof $0.97 per pound of Crop A in Pond B were substituted for the $6.43 perpound cost, the total per pound production cost for shrimp from Crop 3 wouldhave been $2.11. The extensive management approach used for Crop 3 wassuccessful at producing a limited crop of large shrimp with no feed cost. Thefeed cost can be one of the three highest production costs along with post-larvae and harvest costs. Those shrimp that did survive until harvest weresome of the largest produced at the demonstration project This could indicate

21Chapter 3 Evaluation of die Demonstration Projed

-- -N- r, g - --

P-N CL-

.35

E 7 -

C.c~OC E

LL ; a

22Chptr3 vauak o teDewntr~ Pojc

that for many containment areas, extensive management is perhaps the bestalternative. (It must be noted that the "total" entries of Tables 11 and 12 aretotals of only the cost entries in the tables. The prior cash flow tables indicatethat there were other expenses.)

Crop 4, the semi-intensive effort in Pond B, can be compared to the 1987crops. Postlarvae costs were higher per pound because mortality resulted infewer pounds of harvested shrimp to cover the postlarvae expense which hadbeen incurred at the reasonable price of $8.80 per thousand. Feed and dieselcosts were significantly higher on a per-pound basis than the costs of feed andfuel for Crop 2 in 1987. Crop 4 in 1988 resulted in a tripling of per-poundfeed costs over that of Crop 2 in 1987. These two growout efforts had similarsurvival rates and produced shrimp of similar size. However, the total criticalcosts of $2.87 per pound for Crop 4 exceeded the market prices for the shrimpproduced. This situation will be separately analyzed for 1987 and 1988 in thefollowing section on marketing.

As has been pointed out previously, the demonstration project provided anopportunity to examine different options for stocking, management, and pro-duction. The two crops produced in Pond A in 1987 were the closest to actualcommercial practices and can be used to evaluate the economic potential ofaquaculture in a DMCA. Crops 1 and 2 could represent a production year inan ongoing business. To evaluate economic potential, yield and productioncosts can be compared to values from aquaculture literature. This is, ofcourse, a limited comparison that shows selected production costs and ignoresstart-up costs associated with the first year of the demonstration project. On aphysical yield basis, the two harvests from Pond A in 1987 produced154,62 lb of whole shrimp. This represents a yield of 1,485 lb per acre.Because 75 percent of the shrimp consumed in the United States are imported,comparison to foreign aquaculture operations is relevant. R. Rosenberry(1990) reports in the September/October 1990 issue of Aquaculture Magazinethat the average yield for farmed shrimp from Mexico is 765 lb per acre, fromEcuador it is 593 lb per acre, and the Western Hemisphere average is 2,654 Ibper acre.

Texas A&M researchers Hollin and Griffin (1985) used a yield of approxi-mately 950 lb per acre of whole shrimp in analyzing a hypothetical Texas farmof 20 ponds of 25 acres each with one harvest per year. For a 20-acre pond inSouth Carolina, Pomeroyt used a yield of 250 lb per acre of whole shrimp. Itis apparent from these figures and the demonstration project yield of 1,485 lbper acre that containment area aquaculture has the potential for at least limitedsuccess.

Mainland U.S. shrimp aquaculture occurs principally in south Texas and inSouth Carolina. Shrimp research data from these two states are available in

I R. S. Pomeroy. (1990). "Estimated cats of marine shrimp in one 20-acre existing ricefield

impoundment, South Carolina, 1990" (personal communication).

Chapter 3 Evaluation of to Demonatraon Proct 23

the aquaculture literature and provide comparative data for yields as well asproduction costs.

From the previously cited references for Texas and South Carolina, selectedproduction costs from the demonstration project are compared in Table 13 tosimilar costs for producing farm-raised shrimp from hypothetical aquacultureoperations in these two states. The South Carolina example is based on theexperience of shrimp farmers and researchers using existing rice fieldimpoundments for shrimp ponds. Due to the more northerly latitude, SouthCarolina aquaculturists attempt only one crop per year. All of the per-poundproduction costs from the demonstration project used for comparison are rea-sonably close to those theoretical values used by South Carolina researcherPomeroy.

The Texas example represents a large "agribusiness" shrimp farm of over500 acres and provides contrast with the smaller South Carolina pond of20 acres. With the exception of fuel costs, the labor, postlarvae, and feedcosts incurred at the containment area site agree well with the theoretical costschosen by Texas researchers Hollin and Griffin (1985).

Some of the difficulties of comparing harvest and production costs figuresfor U.S. aquaculture arise because there are relatively few companies produc-ing cultured shrimp and there is no domestic reporting system that provides areservoir of data. Moreover, the data that are available reflect the trends inU.S. shrimp fanning toward smaller ponds of 5 to 20 acres each and higherintensity management of more densely stocked animals. The expectation isthat with smaller ponds, closer management is possible. The demonstrationproject ponds were considerably larger than those used for comparison ofharvest figures. The respectable yield of 1,485 lb per acre may attest to theskills of the demonstration project managers, but the large pond size makescomparisons to figures from research literature less direct. Nevertheless, theBrownsville shrimp farm thus demonstrated that aquaculture in a DMCA isquite feasible, based on both yield and production costs.

Marketing Analyses

Marketing decisions can have as great an impact on profits as operation andproduction decisions. One of the critical choices made early in planning thedemonstration project was the decision to raise shrimp. Other critical decisionsmade prior to harvests involved the timing of shrimp sales and the forms ofthe shrimp products to be sold. All of these decisions were influenced by thenational and worldwide shrimp markets.

24 Chapwr 3 Embuadwon of h Duanetation Project

-ILI- - -

let 4

U,

aDl:5

S- - --41c-

06- I.'.*0

I" 1 -6 -201%-

Chper3E~uto o w omN-nPjld2

Recent shrimp market history

The CAAP demosttion project began in 1986. Shrimp supply andmarkets prior to that time wenr the impetus for consideraton of domesticshrimp aquaculture investments. The 1980's to that point had been a period ofrenewed consumer interest in the health aspects of seafood. Development ofshrimp farming businesses in South America and Asia was frequently reportedin trade and general-public-oriented publications. A common element ofdescriptions in the published material was that the domestic shrimp fishery wasmature and fully developed. Shrimp supply from domestic-capture fisherieswas thought to be in a no-growth phase. All grounds had been discovered andfished to full capacity. It was assumed that profitable aquaculture would occurdue to the constraint on domestic supply and increasing seafood consumption.Aquaculture of shrimp arose as a potentially new element in the supply side ofthe market, and supplies from aquaculture sources exerted more influence thancorresponding poundage increases from natural fisheries.

Table 14 shows in millions of pounds the quantities of shrimp in inventory,the quantities landed (includes cultured), and the quantities imported. From1950 to 1988, the U.S. shrimp supply increased by 4.2 percent annually.However, during the recent period from 1980 to 1988, the growth rate in sup-ply increased 5.8 percent annually. Domestic production during this recentperiod did not increase. Essentially all new supplies required to satisfy theincreased consumer interest in seafood came from import sources. It was anadditional 340 million pounds of imported shrimp that the prospective domes-tic shrimp farm investor in the mid-1980's would have had to contend with ina quest for profits.

A noteworthy result of the shrimp supply increase was the relatively dimin-ished role of inventories in the shrimp industry. From Table 14, it is evidentthat as import supplies increased., inventories did not build. It had been acharacteristic of the U.S. shrimp industry that annual inventories would bebuilt late in the year for marketing during winter months. Generally, thebuildup of inventories was rewarded with higher winter and Lenten-seasonprices. However, the greater degree-of-supply certainty arising from foreignaquaculture sources diminished the need and incentive for late-year storage.Storage and resale now occurs more to meet the needs of wholesalers. Moreshrimp were marketed each year without beginning inventories (January) show-ing a related increase. The shrimp market became more "current" as a resultof large supplies coming from countries developing their aquaculture potential.

This marketing situation was characterized by increasing supplies beingsold more quickly and directly. Shrimp sales reflect consumption in theUnited States. Figures from 1960 through 1988 are shown in Table 15.Shrimp consumption trends have been upward in response to both favorableeconomic conditions in the 1980's and rising availability. The pace of shrimpsupply growth (5.8 percent annually) clearly outstripped the country's annualpopulation increase of only 1 percent. Inventories failed to build which indi-cated that prices and promotions were being used to keep the market

26 chapW 3 Evaluation of the Demonstration Project

Table 14Unltud States Shrimp Supply, 1950-1908

NMub of PoudS

Yew a halamI Luwmgy hInpomI Total

1960 16 121 44 181

1965 32 154 60 246

1960 48 155 125 329

1965 49 152 181 382

1970 69 224 248 542

1975 82 200 232 523

1976 54 246 272 572

1977 72 286 272 632

1978 94 257 240 591

1979 65 206 269 540

1980 88 206 258 554

1981 78 219 259 556

1982 65 176 320 561

1963 58 156 421 635

1964 71 188 422 681

1985 61 207 452 720

1986 62 244 492 798

1987 59 224 483 866

1968 67 203 496 868

NOTE: The total column represents total supply prior to accountng for end inventory and a small amount ofexports.

unburdened. Even the favorable national economic situation could not preventa negative impact on prices. Following the 100,000,000-lb import increase of1983, a generally unfavorable price trend confronted aquaculture investors by1985-86. Since that time, the importation of white shrimp from China hasincreased. Most of the Chinese fanned shrimp were in the 41-60 count sizes,thereby resulting in a price decrease in 1988. Even larger shrimp are not insu-lated from price weakening. In 1989, prices for the 30-count and largershrimp were much lower. Major increases in the supply of farm-raised tigershrimp from Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines resulted in a decrease inproduction from other countries.

Marketing the demonstration project shrimp

Revenue generation for the demonstration project was not a simple matterof pricing the harvest. As the cash flow tables indicate, sales were fromfrozen inventories. The sales from 1987 occurred primarily in 1988. This

Chapter 3 Evaluaion of the Detronagalion Prjec 27

Table 15United States Per Capita Shrimp Consumption, 1960-1988

Yew Pomde/copIm

1960 1.1

1965 1.2

1970 1.4

1975 1.4

1960 1.4

1961 1.5

1862 1.5

1963 1.7

1964 1.9

1965 2.0

1966 2.2

1967 2.3

1968 2.4

includes Crop I production harvested in September 1987 and likely sold pri-marily as shell-on frozen headless in January and February of 1988. TheCrop 2 production included the sale of two shrimp forms, shell-on frozenheadless and PUD. Approximately one-third of the Pond 2 harvest was pro-cessed into PUD shrimp. The sales records used to identify the timing of salesgenerally were not conducive to differentiating between 1987 crops. However,the one-third of Pond 2 production that was peeled was essentially all of thatform associated with the 1987 yield. Only 330 lb of PUD shrimp were pro-cessed from the first crop. With this information, the 1987 shrimp crop salesreports could be used to identify when PUD shrimp (i.e. Crop 2) were sold.

The size distribution of shrimp for each crop is indicated in Table 16. Theextensive approach of Pond A in 1988 produced the largest shrimp. Crop 1 in1987 had the next largest shrimp followed by Crop 2 in 1987 and Crop 4 in1988 with similar sizes.

The total revenue from shrimp sales is a result of the size mix and theprevailing price. The prevailing price was reviewed from two perspectives.First, prevailing prices during the month of harvest and the period of sale weredeveloped from published sources. The second price perspective is the price atex-vessel and wholesale. This perspective identifies whether or not a priceover wild supplies was received. The total revenue then depends on the sizedistribution (Table 16) and dates of sales. Shrimp prices are directly related tosize with larger shrimp bringing higher prices. The domestic shrimp market isaffected by a ,complex set of international factors. Imported shrimp can pro-vide as much as 70 to 75 percent of supply. Fluctuations and uncertainty in

28 Chapler 3 Evaiuation of twe Demonstration Project

Table 16

CAAP Demonstration Project Shrimp Production and Size Distribution1907 19"1

(Numdbwflouand) crop 1 % crop 2 % Crop 3 % Crop 4 %

U 16 0 0 5.3 .01

16-20 0 0 31.4 0

21-25 0 0 1.1 .01

26-30 .1 0 9.5 .01

31-35 3.8 2.0 42.3 .6

36-4j 29.4 13.3 7.9 55

41-50 47.9 4.5 .9 32.0

51-60 16.3 10.6 .3 34.9

61-70 1.6 12.3 .2 16.0

71-80 .4 26.5 0 4.0

80+ .5 30.8 1.1 6.7100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total Pounds 6,175 29.051 2.785 44.390

international shrimp supplies have made the practice of delaying domestic salesmore risky for shrimp harvesters.

Crop 1 of 1987 could not be specifically identified when sold because ofrecordkeeping procedures. Table 16 shows that the predominant sizes har-vested were the 36-50 count. The 1987 Crop 1 disposition record indicatedthat most of these shrimp would have been sold in December 1987 andJanuary/February 1988. A similar comparison for Crop 2 (December harvest)and the sales record indicate that most of these shrimp were likely sold inAugust and October of 1988. The October sales were predominately PUDshrimp. It is noteworthy from a marketing perspective that Crop 3 had a10 percent stocking of P. stylirostris. Harvest size distribution shown inTable 16 indicates a larger average size shrimp. Shrimp farm managersreported that the larger shrimp were P. stylirostris and represented 80 percentof the crop value. A comparison of selected sale date prices received and areference wholesale price standard from New York were made and reported inTable 15.

The New York reference price should be approximately $0.10 per poundhigher to reflect transportation expenses. In general, the demonstration projectreceived prices for shell-on frozen headless shrimp that were comparable toNew York prices (Table 17). Crop 2 of 1987 produced approximately10,000 lb of shrimp in headless categories 71-80 and 80+. Because of thesmall size, MariQuest had these processed into PUD shrimp as a means ofgaining higher revenue. This choice actually produced a substantial loss. Ahigher processing cost was incurred for the peeling, and additional cost was

Chapter 3 Evaluation of the Demonstration Project 29

Table 17CAAP Demonstration Project Prices Received for Shrimp

Price Received Per N oew YorkSelected Sale Dale Selected Size Category Pound Wholesale Price

December, 1987 36-40 3.50 3.60

January, 1988 31-35 4.40 4.6536-40 3.55 3.7541-50 3.10 3.30

February, 1988 36-40 3.70 3.9041-50 3.29 3.30

March, 1988 51-60 3.00 2.85

April, 1988 51-60 2.79 3.00

August. 1988 61-70 2.25 2.3571-80 1.90 2.10

October, 1988 90-110 PUD 2.37 3.15110-130 PUD 2.21 3.30130-150 PUD 1.98 2.30

November, 1988 41-50 3.35 3.8051-60 3.12 3.15

January, 1989 51-60 3.15 3.30

February, 1989 31-35 4.85 4.9061-70 2.85 2.90

incurred when the shrimp were placed in storage for 9 to 10 months. Table 18indicates that the PUD shrimp were predominately in the 90+ size category.Actual prices received in October 1988 were in the range of $1.98 to $2.37 perpound. Ex-vessel prices for shell-on tails in December 1987, the date of Crop2 harvest, were in the $1.80 to.$2.35 range. Thus, processing costs could havebeen saved on the 10,000 lb at a savings of approximately $0.25 per pound. Itshould be noted that PUD shrimp prices at the time the shrimp were processedwere much higher. The PUD shrimp price range was $3.55 to $3.85 inDecember 1987, thus prompting the decision to have the small shrimp pro-cessed. Shrimp farm management reported that by the time of sale inOctober 1988, prices had been falling progressively and almost no PUDshrimp were being sold in the south Texas market at any price. The averagePUD shrimp price was $1.59 per pound higher at harvest than at the date ofsale. The result was a total foregone revenue of approximately $16,000.

The comparisons of ex-vessel fresh prices and New York wholesale frozenprices at the time of harvest with wholesale frozen prices received byMariQuest (Tables 17 and 18) indicate that favorable marketing results wereachieved. While there were some exceptions, notably the PUD shrimp choice,most sales of frozen shrimp tails paid for the processing costs. Selling proces-sed frozen tails was a better choice than selling at ex-vessel fresh prices.

30 Chapter 3 Evaluation of the Demonstraiion Project

Table 18CAAP Demonstration Project Prices of Ex-Vessel and Wholesale HeadlessShrimp Prices Prevailing at Harvest

_Ex-Vmel' Fresh Wholesale' Frozen

Crop I - September, 198736-40 $2.95 $3.7041-50 $2.60 $33551-60 $2.55 $3.25

Crop 2 - December, 198751-60 $260 $3.0561-70 $2.50 $2.9571-80 $1.85 $2.75

Crop 3 - November. 198816-20 $6.13 $80021-25 $5.13 $7.1026-30 $4.95 $5.7531-35 $4.05 $4.75

Crop 4 - November, 198836-40 $3.45 $4.1541-50 $3.25 $3.8051-60 $2.45 $3.1561-70 $2.00 $2.95

' Ex-vessel western Gulf of Mexico reported by the Nabonal Marine Fisheries Servce (NMFS).2 Wholesale prices ex-warehouse New York reported by NMFS.

The speculation with the small shrimp processed as PUD's resulted in salesapproximately $16,000 lower than sale immediately at wholesale frozen prices.This speculation represented an unfortunate marketing decision but resulted inan important lesson being learned.

Conclusions from Demonstration Project

Although the demonstration project was a commercial-scale operation, itwas not designed as a commercial operation would be. Existing aquaculturetechnology for smaller ponds was adapted to the demonstration site whereexisting containment areas of over 100 acres each already existed. Despite thisorigin, the project met the purposes for which it was established and generatedmuch new information to give perspective for future aquaculture in DMCA's.

The project did reveal a significant value to the lowered start-up or entrycosts. Containment area levee cost estimates by the USAED, Galveston, were$1,600 and $900 per acre for Pond A and Pond B, respectively. When com-pared to aquaculture literature, these values appear closer to the per-acre valuefor smaller ponds. The demonstration project ponds were 100+ acres each butwere compared to cost data from the literature for smaller ponds near 20 acreseach. Engineering, surveying, designing, and permitting work, if performed bythe USACE, could be worth $400 per acre. For the demonstration project, thecombined capital savings was estimated to be $271,000. The annual drain on

Chapter 3 Evaluation of the Demonstration Project 31

cash flow of the estimated $271,000 start-up capital needs would have been$63,000.

In an industry known for scarcity of funds available from financial institu-tions, this capital savings is both real and valuable. Investors characteristicallyprovide a high share of an aquaculture project's start-up capital because mostprojects lack full institutional support. Not only could the lowered immediatedemand on cash outflow increase chances for company success, but a DMCAaquaculture venture would be available to a wider number of prospective com-panies. This is an outlook which will be of value not just to large containmentareas like those at the demonstration project, but to smaller sites suited to moreintensive operations or part-time operators.

The value to a new aquaculture facilty's investor(s) of DMCA use is, up tono%%, unquantified. Whatever quantification there could be will produce site-specific numbers. The USACE and aquaculture companies have similar needsfor accessible sites, perimeter levees, containment areas (ponds) of varioussizes, water-retaining soils, and wvater control in impoundments. When theseneeds can be met on a site that is technically conducive to aquaculture, an eco-nomic opportunity exists.

The major potential investment-reducing incentive to use a DMCA is thepond construction cost. Parker (1988) identified coastal pond constructioncosts of $1,000 per acre in Texas. Catfish farm levee costs are also well docu-mented. Keenum and Waldrop (1988) provide an estimate for catfish pondconstruction of $840 per acre. This estimate was reflective of eight ponds of17 acres each in a system. Wet soils of coastal areas and the remoteness ofsites could make DMCA projects more costly. The large pond size of thedemonstration project made construction costs lower on a per-acre basis. Useof a pond construction value to prospective culturists of $800 per acre forDMCA culture appears to be a reasonable point for reference.

There is also value to reducing investment capital needs for engineerirng,designing, surveying, and permitting. To the extent that the USACE, or portsand waterway districts provide these services, an additional value of $400 peracre could occur. Using estimates of investment needs from the aquacultureliterature, a combined value for pond engineering, design, surveying, permit-ting, and construction of $1,200 per acre can be justified.

For the approximately 230-acre CAAP demonstration project, this amountsto $271,000. The reduction of investment capital needs may be as importantto increasing lender support as it is to lowering break-even costs since capitalavailability is a well known constraint in the aquaculture industry.

32 Chapter 3 Evaluation of the Demonstration Project

4 Development of DMCAModel

Purposes and Requirements

Once the demonstration project was established and produced real-worlddata, specific start-up costs and crop returns were identified and quantified.These demonstration results were then used in formulating a computer modelthat allows a user to "test" the economic feasibility of raising various animalsin DMCA's of different sizes.

The primary objective of the DMCA model is to provide a spreadsheettemplate with the features necessary to input specific data, perform "what-if'scenarios, and obtain calculated results which will enable the user to makesound economic and marketing decisions which must be considered prior tostarting an aquaculture business.

Specific requirements of the model were to:

a. Be useful to USACE district personnel, landowners, and aquaculturists,none of whom are experts at both dredging and aquaculture.

b. Be flexible to analyze selected variables that may be peculiar to certainspecies in different parts of the country.

c. Separate expenditures of the aquaculturist and the USACE district

d. Be PC-compatible, portable, and designed for the novice PC user tooperate with a minimum amount of computer knowledge.

After reviewing several economic models (Chapter 6) and because of theunique nature of DMCA aquaculture, a special model was developed andtested with existing data from the field demonstration to identify specific start-up investments, variable and fixed costs, and potential crop returns over aspecified period of time. The final analysis of the worksheet provides theaquaculturist with the differences in annual expenses, net income/loss, and cashbalance figures with and without financial assistance from the USACE district.

Chapter 4 Developrner of DMCA Mode 33

This model is not a substitute for the in-depth analyses of an aquaculturebusiness that would be required by a lernder or a financial backer. Neither is itan accounting system. It is, however, a good means for making an initialappraisal of the economic feasibility of a project.

Model Design

The DMCA spreadsheet model (Economics and Marketing Worksheets) is acombination of six worksheets developed with Lotus 1-2-3, a software productof the Lotus Corporation. The worksheets accept and calculate data for

a. Construction costs.

b. Initial investment costs.

c. Annual variable costs.

d. Annual fixed costs.

e. Annual sales summary.

f. Annual income statement and annual cash balance statement

The spreadsheet format will accept initial input, perform required calcula-tions, and update figures from pp 1 to 6 of the.Economics and Marketingworksheets. Once the worksheets are filled in, individual or multiple parame-ters can be changed, and the results of these changes can be viewed immedi-ately. This is a significant advantage of the spreadsheet format. However, thesix worksheets are designed so that they can be used without the computerperforming all of the calculations.

The worksheets require the user to input a number of cost figures. Thesefigures may have to be estimates, as in the length of a pond levee, or they mayrequire some research into typical values from aquaculture literature or experts.Examples of these are the cost of fingerlings or the number of pounds of aspecies that may be harvested per acre.

Although the worksheets require considerable input, they are structured toassist the potential aquaculturist in initiating a thorough preproject evaluation.Standard financial analysis concepts are incorporated to prompt the user toconsider the full range of factors and to appreciate their relationships.

This computer model is not comparable to programs such as AQUADECwhich took many months or years to develop. It does not perform complexcalculations nor does it account for such things as declining rates of deprecia-tion or interest. Further, it will not, by itself, calculate multiyear scenarios.

34 Chapt 4 Devielopmt of DMCA Model

Explanations of the use of the individual worksheets follow, but two applica-tions will be mentioned at this point. For analyzing a crop that requires2 years before harvest, the user may have to run the model twice to calculateannual costs that would be incurred prior to sale of the product. Each year ofoperation should be different for many of the variable costs and similar formany of the fixed costs. This would be true of analyzing a hybrid striped bassoperation or a clam farm. For analyzing the effects of periodic material dis-posal by the local USACE district, the model can be run once for each yearduring which aquaculture would occur and once for a year of disposal.Income and expense figures can then be added and averaged to determine theeffect of a missed opportunity to harvest and sell a crop.

Appendix A provides a copy of the User's Guide to the Economics andMarketing Worksheets and displays results of worksheet analyses of selectedspecies (Chapter 5).

The worksheets are illustrated on the following pages as figures, parts athrough f, and are accompanied by a brief explanation of the contents of eachworksheet.

The economics computer model developed to analyze DMCA aquacultureoperations is available on diskette from:

Program ManagerContainment Area Aquaculture ProgramCE-WES-ER-CU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry RoadVicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199

Chapter 4 Development of DMCA Model 35

>~

LDo8

INI7Pa

ot a! a!et(

NU

ou di

36j Chpe 4t Deeomn ofDC oe

IR

4-I-

ij' 8,

aa

W33

-4m

Chapar 4Deveopffnt o DMC M~dl 3

CcC

~8

> c

Uv

Id1dIII1!Idohpb 4 DeeSm ofDC o

38~

Ito w

.41

E! 5

ca 4 S)

00

~ I 1 j@~~g~Ig

4 WI :dzChate 4Ieeomnf MAMdl3

0.

Ic

34 3

CO)

4 0 * 1 r4 D e v e l op me n o f D M C A M m

gill I II

I II

fil:lU2 w

Chate 0 eo~a MAMm4

5 Economic Potential ofSelected Species

Introduction

With the results of the demonstration project availabte for guidance, theDMCA aquaculture computer model was developed to allow an assessment ofthe economic potential of different species. The model worksheets describedin the previous section can be used with data for virtually any species and canassist the potential aquaculturist in assessing the economics of any size DMCAoperation.

Four evaluations were conducted as part of this research: catfish, crawfish,hybrid striped bass, and clams/oysters. Each of the target animals was exam-ined for three scenarios: "low/break-even," "average," and "good." Cropvalues and harvest figures were taken from aquaculture literature to use in theworksheets to create the "average" scenario. The "low/break even" and "good"scenarios could have been created by adjusting any number of input figures.However, to keep the scenarios comparable, only the market price per pounu(or other unit of sale) or the yield per acre for a given species was adjusted.Copies of the spreadsheets for each species are found in the appendix.Because all of the "average" scenarios resulted in positive net incomes andcash balances, "good" scenarios were not considered particularly useful forinclusion in this report. Instead two "low/break-even" scenarios were created.For the "average" scenario, all six spreadsheets were used to calculate the netincome and cash balance. For the "break-even" scenarios, it was necessary touse only pg 5 - Annual Sales Summary - on which either the total harvest orthe price per unit was adjusted, and pg 6 - Annual Income Statement andAnnual Cash Balance Statement - on which the results of those adjustmentswere displayed.

The analyses examine hypothetical facilities that cover a range of DMCAsizes, but all are considered to be on a scale that can be managed by anowner/operator with part-time hired labor. All returns are to the owner/operator whos .lary has not been included as a project expense. Yields forthe "average" scenarios were somewhat below those that could be harvested toreflect the uncertainty of performance and management at a DMCA. The

42 Chapw 5 Emxwk Potonla of SekcMd Spcies

prices for harvested products reflect average to below-average levels to accountfor potentially higher transportation costs. The remoteness of containmentsites and possible additional costs necessary to transport products to markets orprocessors warranted the lower costs.

The evaluation species were chosen because they represent a broad range ofcultured animals. Catfish are perhaps the most commonly grown fish cropboth in regional extent and dollar value. Hybrid striped bass is another finfish,but is a species not yet widely cultured. It is expected to become a populartable item and may be wclll suited to DMCA's. Crawfish were evaluatedbecause crawfish fanning is not capital intensive and is a common income-supplementing crop. Crawfish are grown in many states and have broadpotential. Finally, oysters and dams were evaluated together because mollusksare sessile organisms that require little management. They may be well suitedfor growth in small DMCA's on the crowded eastern seaboard.

Catfish

The commercial culture of freshwater catfish occurs in approximately 15states. These include coastal states and inland states with numerous navigationsystems requiring dredging. Freshwater catfish are a versatile species and havebecome the top finfish crop among domestic farmers. In 1990, approximately350,000,000 lb were produced and marketed. Farms range from small, single-pond, fee-fishing businesses to corporately owned, multipond systems of1,000 acres or more. While there are some businesses endeavoring to growcatfish in tanks and raceways, over 90 percent of catfish will continue to beproduced in ponds.

Capital investment levels for catfish farms range from $1,500 to $2,500 peracre which does not include the cost of land purchase. Land suitable for cat-fish farming in the major producing areas such as Mississippi could range from$800 to $1,500 per acre. Use of containment sites could save this amount ofinvestment capital. The other capital investment requirements for catfish farm-ing include levees, wells, vehicles, aerators, buildings, and miscellaneousequipment. Essentially all commercial catfish operations use subsurface water.Drilling large, deep wells at a DMCA may not be practical or necessarybecause catfish production in DMCA's would likely use surface water. ADMCA catfish farm would have lower capital investment requirements withoutwells, and pumps for surface water use are less costly than pumps used fordeep wells. The large amount of earth moving required to make levees forcatfish farming also represents a considerable capital investment. Landownersin catfish producing areas of Louisiana and Mississippi are developing pondsystems for $250 to $300 per acre.

Pond sizes in the delta areas of Mississippi and Louisiana are trendingdownward. As stocking levels increase and management intensifies, there isthe need for more aeration, medication, and careful attention. Many catfishponds are in the 10- to 15-acre size range, which indicates that smaller

Chapter 5 Economic Potential of Selected Species 43

DMCA's can be suitable for catfish production. The practice of filling pondsand replacing water as needed rather than draining to achieve a harvestdecreases the need for large drainage structures. One aspect of containmentsites is the occasional need for receiving dredged material. Catfish ponds inpractice are normally taken out of production every 4 to 6 years for pondbottom and levee improvements. Coordinating this with the dredging cyclemay be possible.

Operating costs should be similar between conventional sites and contain-ment sites. The cost of power to operate pumps and aerators may be higher ifa containment site is isolated. However, this cost may not be necessarybecause many catfish farmers invest in generator sets to produce their elec-tricity on site.

Marketing costs could be higher at a containment site. This would consistof the harvest and hauling cost to a processing plant. The preferred and com-mon means of marketing catfish begins with the delivery of live fish to theprocessing plants. In those instances where sites are isolated from efficient,reliable live-harvest and hauling companies, a DMCA catfish farmer couldexperience higher costs.

The CAAP spreadsheet program was used to evaluate a system of four20-acre ponds. Total construction costs were estimated to be $102,453. Thisamount included costs of levees, water control structures, access roads, andpreconstniction costs such as permitting and sediment testing. Of the total,$86,453 was identified as the USACE contribution. The aquaculturist's con-struction cost amounted to $16,000. An additional investment of $67,725 forequipment was necessary. The growth of catfish to market size of approxi-mately 1.25 lb was assumed to have occurred within the year. The catfishharvest of 280,000 lb equates to 3,500 lb per acre and gross sales at $0.75 perpound amounted to $210,000. A net income estimate of $30,000 resulted afterdeducting total expenses of approximately $180,000. The break-even yield peracre was approximately 3,000 lb. If the fish price were to decrease to $0.65per pound, the harvest per acre would have to be 3,462 lb per acre to breakeven. Thus, the original assumption of a 3,500-lb per acre yield actually turnsout to be the break-even yield. The price range of $0.65 to $0.75 per poundcovers the recent historical range for catfish farming. However, in 1990, abargaining association maintained a delivered price of $0.80.

As previously indicated, the analysis was conducted as if an owner/operatorcontrolled the farm. This is the reason that no expenditures for salariedemployees such as a manager were included. The net income from the esti-mating procedure is reflective of returns to an owner/operator's equity, man-agement, and labor contribution to the business. A defensible estimate ofsalaried management expense is $31,250. It includes a manager's base salaryof $25,000 plus an additional 25 percent for payroll taxes and fringe benefits.Net income and cash balance estimates would be reduced by this expense inthe event that the operator salary was paid.

44 ChapAr 5 Economic Potential of Selected Species

The net income estimate accounts for the savings arising from CE participa-tion which amounts to $27,017 nmually in this scenario. The annual impacton the cash balance was estimated to be $16,210. The improved annual netincome and cash balance make DMCA catfish culture feasible in this caseeven though both the yield of 3,500 lb per acre and the sale price of $0.75 perpound are below the industry average.

Crawfish

The commercial culture of red swamp crawfish (Procambarus clarkii)occurs in approximately nine states. Many other crawfish species are availablein the United States on which to develop other aquaculture businesses in thefuture. The demonstrated adaptability of the red swamp crawfish to conditionsfrom Maryland to Texas will make it the primary crawfish species for consid-eration in containment area business development. Aquaculturists in 1990were estimated to have produced 80,000,000 lb from what are well-established,feasible sites. Farms range from single-pond, income-supplementing opera-tions of 10 acres to large operations of more than 1,000 acres. This range ofpond and business sizes indicates that crawfish are a suitable species to thediverse DMCA sites available.

Crawfish fanning technology is completely pond-based. Intensive culturesuch as tank or tray water reuse systems are not cost competitive. Thus, forDMCA crawfish culture to be feasible, it must be competitive with pond-culture businesses. A description of the capital investment, operating cost, andmarketing aspects of the conventional culture businesses will identify possibledifferences for the DMCA crawfish grower.

A crawfish farm of 40 acres can serve as the basis for description of invest-ment requirements. The cost of land is, of course, widely variable. InLouisiana there are 125,000 acres devoted to crawfish farming. Land rangesfrom $800 to $1,500 per acre. Farmers using rented land typically pay on thebasis of 20 percent of gross revenue. Levees are minimal in comparison tomost other aquaculture operations. Levee height need not exceed 3 ft. Awater depth of 18 to 24 in. is normal.

A means of pumping surface water is necessary. Water recommendationsfor crawfish include pumping at the rate of 100 gal per minute per acre. Asurface agitating aerator is also recommended. A harvest boat, referred to as acrawfish combine, is essential. Crawfish harvesting occurs in the range of 100to 150 days per year. Baited traps are used in harvesting. The number oftraps varies by site but 20 per acre can be considered an average.

Investment at a DMCA would be lower than for a conventional operationdue primarily to savings in land cost and levee construction. Operating costsshould be similar between the two types of sites. Bait, fuel, and laborinvolved in harvesting can be up to 70 percent of operating costs. A possibledifference in operating costs difference is the vegetation used by the crawfish

Chapter 5 Economic Potential of Selected Species 45

as a food source. Containment areas likely do not have the desired aquaticvegetation. Various preferred rice varieties can be established by annual plant-ing. Though this is done on many crawfish farms that do not have the desiredaquatic vegetation, the cost of planting rice is not necessarily an additional costof operating at a DMCA.

Marketing costs consist primarily of grading, sacking, and transporting.These should be no different at a containment site. Location of DMCA'scloser to cities because of ports and harbors may facilitate direct marketing.Slightly lower transportation costs and the advantage of higher sales prices arepossible unique aspects of DMCA crawfish farming.

The CAAP spreadsheet program was used to evaluate a two-pond system ofapproximately 40 acres. Total construction costs were estimated to be$18,504. This amount includes levees, water control structures, and precon-struction costs such as permitting and sediment testing The USACE contribu-tion amounted to $17,204 and the aquaculturist's construction cost amounted to$1,300. An additional investment of $25,200 for equipment was necessary.The crawfish harvest was estimated to be 40,000 lb or 1,000 lb per acre. Atthe crawfish price of $0.60 per pound, the break-even yield per acre is slightlyabove 800 lb. If crawfish prices were to decrease to $0.49 per pound, the40,000-1b harvest would only produce sales to cover expenses. Prices abovethis $0.49 level are conservative for amuas outside of the major producing stateof Louisiana. Since crawfish are harvested from 50 to 150 days per year, thehigher prices encourage the intcnsification of harvesting effort. This in turncould offset the effects of some decrease in average yield if a DMCA is notideally suited for crawfish production.

As previously indicated, the analysis was conducted as if an owner/operatorcontrolled the farm. This is the reason that no expenditures were included forsalaried employees such as a manager. The net income from sales is a returnto the owner/operator's equity, management, and labor contribution to thebusiness. Crawfish farming operations of this size would require approxi-mately 6 hours daily for harvest and management activities to be completed.At the rate of $15 per hour, the annual management expense for 80 days inclu-sive of payroll taxes and fringe benefits would be $9,000. The net incomeestimate for an owner/operator was $4,574 for the "average" case. This placesthe owner/operator at an effective hourly rate of $7.50. For many prospectivecrawfish farmers seeking to supplement income, this wage could be aninducement.

The value of the USACE involvement saves the crawfish farmer approxi-mately $4,700 annually. This savings could make crawfish farming financiallyfeasible. The impact on the cash balance was estimated to be approximately$3,000. This amounted to about one-half of the $6,639 cash balance positionof the crawfish farm. Thus, USACE participation with the crawfish farmeressentially doubled the net cash balance.

46 Chapar 5 Economic Potmntil of Selected Species

Mollusks

New techmologies to enhance the farming of mollusks, particularly hardclams and oysters, have stimulated investor interest. The continued stressplaced on coastal waters from pollutants is one reason new technologies arebeing considered. Discharge of treated sewage, untreated stonmwater runoff,industrial discharges, and erosion of wetlands combine to reduce the amount ofquality growing areas. Fluctuations in water quality cause periodic closures ofharvest grounds. Consequently, the supply of mollusks has become unreliable.This now occurs at a time when record seafood consumption levels are beingreported. The situation with the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is par-ticularly noteworthy. The combined effects of disease and habitat declines inthe Chesapeake Bay led to a 65-percent decrease in production between 1985and 1990. Eastern oyster production in 1990 was 22,000,000 lb below the1980-85 average. Gulf of Mexico production has not shown either an upwardor downward trend recently. In the Pacific northwest, hatcheries are producingspat to use in the remote setting of oysters. While the west coast oyster (Cras-sostrea gigas) would be considered an exotic on the east and Gulf coasts, thisnew technology is being applied to eastern oysters in the Gulf states. Thepossibility exists to apply hatchery and oyster-setting technology more widelyand test the grow-out cof oysters at a DMCA.

The market prospects for sale of the oysters is exceptionally good. Theredoes not appear to be much reason for optimism for the natural fisheries torebound and overcome the 22,000,000-lb shortfall. In response to the marketshortage, prices for oysters received by producers more than doubled between1983 and 1989. Production of more oysters from aquaculture would simplycontribute to the restoration of some of the former supply. New markets neednot be sought nor is competition from cheaper imports likely to occur. Half-shell or shucked oysters have little competition from foreign supply.

The situation and outlook for hard clam production is more optimistic com-pared to eastern oysters. Hard clams (Mercenaria) are becoming a focus ofheightened research and commercial development The high price paid forclams and the wide consuming area make the hard clam a good candidate forinvestment. Hatchery techniques reliably produce seed clams for stocking.Large quantities of seed can be produced at relatively low cost. An impedi-ment has been labor in the culture process and the prevention or minimizationof mortality due to predators. If aquaculture can reduce the dependence onnatural systems for spawning and seed production and can reduce losses topredators, then commercial successes will increase.

Hard clam production in the United States has not been an expandingindustry in terms of supply. During the 1980's, hard clam landings fluctuatedbetween 9 and 18,000,000 Ib of meat. The average annual landing for thedecade was 13.5 million pounds of meat The average for 1985 through 89was 12.3 million pounds. This was notably lower than the 14.7-million-poundaverage of 1980 through 1984. The decrease in supply identifies a marketshortage that aquaculture could fill Clam prices received by producers

47Chapter 5 Economic Potential of Selecitd Species

increased more than 50 percent from 1983 to 1989. While less than the priceincrease for oysters, clam prices increased faster than the inflation rate for theperiod. This increase in real prices is part of the stimulus for increased invest-ment in hard clam aquaculture. A large part of the new investor interest canbe attributed to the emergence of new technology. Besides hatcheries produc-ing seed clams, advances have been made in alternative means by which tocombine nursery stocks and operations for growout to market size. Growoutto preferred market size can take place by use of intertidal pens, subtidal softbags, or subtidal beds. Each of these systems had a positive cash flow whenanalyzed on the basis of financial criteria (Adams and Pomeroy 1990).

Use of a DMCA to culture mollusks commercially must be subjected tomore rigorous evaluation than other species. The positive financial results ofthe hard clam analyses were for traditional growing areas. Such areas areselected for good water flow because of the filter-feeding nature of mollusks.Containment areas are not designed to allow tidal exchange routinely or occa-sionally. Thus, it would be important for prospective clam/oyster culturists toconsult with biologists and USACE personnel regarding changes necessary tomake a DMCA productive.

It, ould be noted that 2 to 3 years are required for growth to commercialsize. ing this period protection from boat traffic, poaching, and predatorsis critical. DMCA culture of hard clams may eliminate the need for predatorcontrol if water filtration is used when the pond is filled. Such costly invest-ments as harvest bags or pens may not be necessary.

The CAAP spreadsheet program was used to evaluate a single pond ofapproximately 40 acres for the culture of hard clams. There are several tech-nologies for growing clams such as the use of wire baskets, soft mesh bags,trays, or pens for use in subtidal waters. For a DMCA that could have a softsediment layer on the bottom, soft mesh bags were chosen as a culture tech-nique for analysis. It is recognized that this is an emerging technology. Totalconstruction costs were estimated to be $27,504. This amount includes levees,water control structures, and preconstruction costs such as permitting andchemical analyses of sediments and water. The USACE contribution wasestimated to be $23,704 and the aquaculturist's construction cost amounted to$3,800. An additional investment of $41,700 for equipment was necessary.Harvest in year 2 was estimated to be 1,000,000 clams. At the clam price of$0.17 each, the break-even yield would be approximately 550,000 clams. Theassumed price is below recent historical levels to rcflect a price net of trans-portation cost. Containment sites are likely to be more remote and the need todeliver clams to market alive could combine to increase marketing/transportingcosts above average.

As previously indicated, the analysis was conducted as if an owner/operatorcontrolled the clam farm. This is the reason that no expenditures for salariedemployees such as a manager were included. The net income from sales is areturn to an owner/operator's equity, management, and labor contribution tothe business. The clam farm analysis already includes substantial hired labor

48 Chaptar 5 Economic Potendi of Selected Species

expenses because the clam farm needs a more highly skilled person routinelyon site. The owner/operator's contribution to the clam farm was estimated at$37,500 annually inclusive of payroll taxes and fringe benefits. Net incomeand cash balance estimates would be lower by twice this amount to account forthe 2-year management expense. The net income estimate includes theapproximately $12,000 of savings arising from USACE participation over the2-year crop cycle. The impact on the cash balance annually was estimated tobe approximately $2,600 for a cycle savings of $5,200.

Hybrid Striped Bass

The commercial-scale culture of hybrid striped bass (HSB) in the UnitedStates began in the latter 6 months of the 1980's. They are being farmed insuch diverse locations as semiarid sections of the southwest, the deep south,and the mid-Atlantic states. Several technologies are used. Companies in thesouthwest generally use intensive management. This includes geothermal-heated fresh water used in circular tanks to grow HSB at high densities.Companies in the deep south and mid-Atlantic states more commonly useconventional ponds. However, some tank culture operations do exist.

Since DMCA's occur in a range of sizes and locations, they are suitable fculture of HSB given the characteristics of existing culture operations. Pondsused for conventional HSB culture tend to be smaller than other finfish ponds.Most finfish pond experience in the United States is related to catfish. Litera-ture on catfish pond production commonly refers to ponds of 15 to 20 acres.HSB ponds have, at this early stage of the industry, been 3 o 10 acres. Thisis advisable strategy in the early stages of this species' adaption to pond cul-ture. Many DMCA's are small enough to fit this pattern or are large enoughfor interior levees to be established.

Containment sites also are located in widely ranging salinities. Most HSBoperations use fresh water even though brackish water culture is possible.Thus, containment sites in freshwater areas may be the first to be attempted.Wells are usually the source of the fresh water in pond operations. To benefitfrom participation with the USACE, a DMCA aquaculturist may forego mak-ing a significait capital improvement to the site such as a freshwater well.Capital-use efficiency would be improved if well costs were not incurred. Thecombined capital expense savings on the levee, well, etc. is a benefit ofDMCA use. Surface water would have to be used with caution with all con-tainment area sites. A DMCA site manager would have to develop and oper-ate a reliable screening process to remove predator and nuisance species fromentry to a pond where HSB were being raised.

The technology for HSB pond operations appears to require holding the fishinto a second year. Raising HSB may therefore require ponds that can accom-modate a reduction in fish density per acre. As fish grow to a larger size, theirdensity will have to be reduced by transfer of some number to adjacent pondsor cells. The DMCA aquaculturist will have to allow for this and have more

Chapter 5 Economic Potentl of Selected Species 49

than one pond or cell. An alternative, given one pond, is to stock the fish atlow enough density to account for the desired biomass density in 2 years.

The capital investment savings related to levees, land leveling, water con-trol structures, wells, pent~its, etc. related to DMCA aquaculture are significant.A caution is necessary in regard to HSB due to the current managementapproach of a two-pond system. The number of containment sites with twodisposal ponds or the cost of adding a levee to a single pond site will changethe financial situation.

The CAAP worksheet program was used to evaluate a two-pond system ofapproximately 40 acres. Total construction costs were estimated to be$65,882. This amount includes levees, water control structures, access roads,and preconstruction costs such as permitting and sediment testing. TheUSACE contribution was estimated to be $54,882, and the aquaculturist'sconstruction cost amounted to $11,000. An additional investment of $47,600for equipment was necessary. HSB harvest in year 2 was estimated to be145,800 lb or 3,645 lb per acre. This combination produced a large netincome reflective of the high investor interest in HSB aquaculture. At the fishprice of $2.50 per pound, the break-even yield per acre is slightly below2,000 lb. If fish prices were to decrease to $1.00 per pound, the harvest peracre would be 4,700 lb for break even to occur. This level of harvest isunlikely given HSB technology in such large ponds.

As previously indicated, the analysis was conducted as if an owner/operatorcontrolled the farm. This is the reason that no expenditures for salariedemployees such as a manager were included. The net income from sales is areturn to an owner/operator's equity, management, and labor contribution tothe business. An estimate of salaried management expense is $37,500 annu-ally, inclusive of payroll taxes and fringe benefits. Net income and cashbalance estimates% ',dd be lower by twice this amount to account for theexpense of 2 years of management. The net income estimate accounts for thesavings arising from USACE participation. The value of USACE participationsaves the aquaculturist approximately $17,000 annually. This improves the netincome significantly. The impact on the annual cash balance was estimated tobe approximately $10,000. For the 2-year production cycle, the net incomestatement reflects about a $34,000 increase with USACE participation for thefirst harvest. The corresponding estimate of net cash balance after harvest is$20,000 higher with USACE participation.

50 Chapter 5 Economic Potental of Selected Species

6 Literature Summary andInformation Sources

Introduction

In addressing the economics and marketing of DMCA aquaculiure, severalgeneral and technical fields were reviewed for pertinent literature and guid-ance. These fields include the CAAP, DMCA aquaculture, aquaculture busi-ness planning and economics, and the culture of shrimp, catfish, crawfish,hybrid striped bass, clams, and oysters. Data sources that have been cited orused in preparation of this report are listed in this section by topic. They arepreceded by a description of sources that can be consulted for either additionalor more current information.

Sources of additional information are categorized as:

a. Regulatory/policy.

b. Technical.

c. Periodicals.

The international nature of aquaculture and frequent domestic industry changescan make lists of information sources quickly outdated. Addresses maychange, but agency and publication names identified in the following listshould remain reliable. Listed with each source is a description of the types ofinformation available.

Regulatory and Policy Agencies

Local

a. Zoning commission: permits, variances.

b. Environmental: potential water discharge permit comments, solid wastedisposal permit comments.

Chapter 6 Uterature Summary end Infomoalion Source 51

State

a. Fisheries department: permits to raise exotic species, inspection fordisease presence in fingedings and imported broodstock, procedures forharvesting bxoodstock, transportng/marketing product, wetlands permitcomments.

b. Natural resources/environmental quality department: wetlands permit,water use permit, water discharge structure design and permit, regula-tion of residual chemicals in soil.

c. Agriculture department: potential source of limited financialinducements.

d. Coastal zone management office: permit to build consistent with state'scoastal management plan, comment on other agency permits, possibledesign constraints.

Federal

a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: permit to construct in wetland, con-tainment area availability, design recommendations for containment areaaquaculture, permit for structure in navigable waterway.

b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: water discharge permit, waste-water treatment review, pesticide registration, and research anddevelopment.

c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of Interior): permitcomments regarding habitat; excellent background in fish hatcherysystems, water use procedures, fish health.

d. National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Department of Commerce):permit comments; role in importation of exotic species, harvest ofbroodstock; expertise in culture of marine species; source of inter-national information on culture industries; statistical reports on fisheries,landings, and seafood consumption in the United States.

e. Department of Agriculture: primary funding agency for aquacultureresearch and information extension programs, regular publisher aquacul-ture situation and outlook report, source of construction and operatingloan financing through the Farmers Home Administration.

f. Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture): soil map-ping information for use in complying with permits, levee, and waterstructure design assistance from engineering staff.

52 Chapter 6 Literature Summary &d Information Sources

8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration potWialle in aqppval of med-ications to treat diseases, monitoring of cheicals in product

Technical

Cooperative extension evces

This source of technical information is Federal. State, axn locally funded.Each county has an Extension Service office ofte listed in th white pages ofthe telephone booL The Land Grant University in each state has ExtensionService specialists located at the University. Biological, veterinary, e Womics,engineering, and other specialists are available to answer information requests.This is an excellent source of publications, newsletters, conferences, andvideotapes.

Agricultural experiment stations

Each Land Grant University conducts research at experiment stations and inacademic departments. Individual researdcers may be able to provide"in-process" insight to specific projects. Relevant academic departments andprojects can be identified by the university's director of the Agricultural Exper-iment Stations. Larger universities may have a coordinator of aquaculuprograms.

Regional aquaculture centers

A cooperative effort of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and universitieshas resulted in the formation of regional aquaculture centers. These are centersthat fund research and extension programs at cooperating universities. Mostinformation available from a center's office will reflect information generatedby universities. The five regional aquaculture centers are:

a. Northeastern Regional Aquaculture CenterSoutheastern Massachusetts UniversityNorth Dartmouth, MA 02747(508)999-8157

b. Western Regional Aquaculture CenterSchool of FisheriesCollege of Ocean and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98195(206)543-4290

Chapter 6 Ltkmum Summuy and Imm•w Soe 53

c. Center for Tropical & Subtropical AquacuhureThe Oceanic InstituteMakapuu PointMaimanalo, HI 96795(808)259-7951

d. North Central States Regional Aquaculture CenterFisheries & Wildlife Department13 Natural Resources Bldg.Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824(517)353-1962

e. Southern Regional Aquaculture CenterDelta Branch Experiment StationP. O. Box 197Stoneville, MS 38776(601)686-9311

National Aquaculture Information Center

Both practical and technical reference Support is available. Internationalliterature is indexed and abstracted in a database called Aquatic Sciences andFisheries Abstracts. Aquaculture: A Guide to Federal Government Programs,a 1987 publication identifying Federal programs, is available from the Aqua-culture Information Center. The Center is part of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture's National Agriculture Library. Most of the services are free. It islocated in Beltsville, MD.

Aquaculture Information CenterU.S. Department of Agriculture10301 Baltimore Boulevard, Room 304Beltsville, MD 20705-2351(301) 344-3704

Periodicals

There are many regularly published sources of information. Those listedbelow include magazines, journals, and newsletters. Due to the rapidly evolv-ing aquaculture industry, no list can be considered complete. CooperativeExtension Service personnel should be able to assist in procuring newlydeveloped periodicals.

Aquaculture Digest9434 Kearny Mesa RoadSan Diego, CA 92126

54 Chaptr a Ustrma Summe rd and Mwmaion Sources

This is a monthly report on marine fish and shellfish farming. It is availableby subscnptin

Aquacul- r MagazmeP. 0. Box 2329Asheville, NC 28802

This a a bimonthly magazine of freshwater and marine aquaculture develop-ments. It is available by subscription.

Aquafann LetterBox 14260Benjamin Franklin StationWashington, DC 20044

This is a timely newsletter that covers regulatory and policy matters primarilyfocused on Washington, DC. It is available by subscription.

Catfish News/Aquaculture NewsAquacom, Inc.P. 0. Box 4566Jackson, MS 39296

This is a monthly publication covering aquaculture with emphasis on catfisl.but inclusive of most domestic freshwater development. It is available bysubscription.

Fish Farmer34 Amberly DriveWoodhamWeybridgeSurrey, KT 153SLEngland

This is an international magazine. The "International File" supplement coversinformation on marketing, financial planning and technology.

Fishery Market News ReportNational Marine Fisheries ServiceWorld Trade Center2 Canal Street, Suite 400-HNew Orleans, LA 70130-1206

This is a source of varied information on natural fisheries. It includes amonthly summary of marketing and price data on farm raised catfish. It isavailable by subscription.

Chapter 6 Uteture Summary and Inbromation Sources 55

Fisheries of the United StatesSuperitee of DocumentsGovernment Printiang OfficeWashington. DC 20402

This is an annual report incilusive of production, import, export, consum on.and price statistics. It is prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

INFORSHP. O. Box 10899Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 50728

This is a bimontldy publication inclusive of articles on overseas aquacultmand market development. It is available by subscription.

Journal of the World Aquaculture SocietyWorld Aquaculture SocietyRoom 143, J.M. Parker ColiseumLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, LA 70803

This is a professional journal including scientific articles on all aspects of fishfanming. It is available by subscription.

Salmonid Magazine506 Ferry St.Little Rock, AR 72202

This is a trade magazine with information and articles on the trout and salmonindustries. It is published quarterly and is free to members of the U.S. TroutFarming Association.

Shrimp NotesShrimp World, Inc.417 Eliza StreetNew Orleans, LA 70114

This is a specialized newsletter that is a market news analysis coveringdomestic and international shrimp supply and marketing developments. It isavailable by subscription.

Water Farming Journal3400 Neyrey Dr.Metairie, LA 70002

This is a newspaper on current events in the aquaculture industry.

56 Chaptbr U6wasm Sufwm y awd Initomaon Sourcs

References

Adams, C., and Pomeroy, R. (1990). "Preliminary finanial feasibility analy-sis for hard clam mariculture systems," Staff Paper 381, Food and ResourceEconomics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Hollin, D., and Griffin, W. L. (1985). "Preliminary economics of shrimpmariculture in Texas." Texas Shrimp Farming Workshop. GeorgeChamberlain, Michael Haby, Russell Miget, ed., Texas Agricultural Exten-sion Service, Corpus Christi, TX.

Keenum, M. E., and Waldrop, J. E. (1988). "Cash flow analysis of farmraised Cash production in Mississippi," Agricultural and Forestry Experi-ment Station Technical Publication No. 73, Mississippi State University,MS.

Lawrent,•, A. L., Johns, M. A., and Griffin, W. L. (1984). "Shrimp maricul-ture: state of the art," Sea Grant Publication TAMU-S6-84-502, TexasA & M University, College Station, TX.

Parker, J. C. (1988). "Shrimp farm investment analysis for outdoor ponds inTexas." Mariculture Consultant, Hadingen, TX.

Quick, J. S., Milligan, D. J., Hill, S. E., Hover, R. J., and Mcilhenny, W. F.(1978). "Field demonstration shrimp mariculture in dredged material con-tainment areas," Technical Report D-78-53, U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Rosenberry, R. (1990). "World shrimp farming, can the western hemispherecompete with the eastern?" Aquaculture Magazine 16(5), 60-64.

Saucier, R. T., Calhoun, C. C., Jr., Engler, R., Patin, T. R., and Smith, H. K.(1978). "Executive overview and detailed summary," Technical Report DS-78-22, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Refosnm 57

Bibliography

DMCA Aquaculture

Coleman, R. E., Konikoff, M., and Dugger, D. "Containment area aquaculturepond operations" (technical report in preparation), U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Homziak, J., Hayes, D., and Veal, D. "Design and construction of aquaculturefacilitie in dredged material containment areas," (technical report in prep-aration), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,MS.

Homziak, J., and Lunz, J. D., ed. (1983). "Aquaculture in dredged materialcontainment areas proceedings," Miscellaneous Paper D-83-2, U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Lunz, J. D., and Konikoff, M. (1988). "Use of dredged material containmentareas for aquaculture." The Ecology and Management of Wetlands 2.

Lur, J. D., Nelson, D. A., and Tatem, II. E. (1984). "Aquaculture indi ;O'ed material containment areas." Proceedings of the ConferenceDredging '84. Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, 235-253.

Quick, J. S., Miiligan, D. J., Hill, S. E., Hover, R. J., and Mcllhenny, W. F.(1978). "Field demonstration of shrimp mariculture in dredged materialcontainment areas," Technical Report D-78-53, U.S. Army Engineer Water-ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Robertshaw, S., McLaughlin, R., and Love, D. (1993). "Legal and institu-tional constraints on aquaculture in dredged material containment areas,""Technical Report EL-93-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentStation, Vicksburg, MS.

Saucier, R. T., Calhoun, C. C., Jr., Engler, R., Patin, T. R., and Smith, H. K.(1978). "Executive overview and detailed summary," Technical ReportDS-78-22, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,MS.

58 e•bigraphy

Tatem, H. E. (1988). "Determination of the chemical suitability of a dredgedmarial containment area for aquaculture," Technical Report EL-90-12,U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Wilson, J., Homziak, J., and Coleman, R. E. "Site selection, aquisition, andplanning for aquaculture in dredged material containment areas" (technicalreport in prepartion), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.

Aquaculture Business Planning

Hanson, J. S., Griffin, W. L., Klinefelter, D. A., and Fisher, D. V. (1988)."Developing an aquaculture business proposal," Texas A&M AgriculturalExperiment Station, College Station, TX.

Muir, J. (1988). "Aquaculture consultancy services - the realities," INFOFISHInternational, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Parker, N. C. (1989). "History, status, and future of aquaculture in the UnitedStates," Aquatic Sciences Journal, 1(1).

Roberts, K. J., and Harper, C. D. (1988). "Aquaculture investment analysisguide," Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana CooperativeExtension Service, Baton Rouge, La.

Shrimp Culture

Adams, C. M., and Prochaska, F. "Principal economic factors determiningU.S. shrimp prices at alternative market levels" (unpublished manuscript),Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL.

Adams, C. M., Prochaska, F., and Spreen, T. H. (1987). "Price determinationin the U.S. shrimp market," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,Clemson, SC.

Hollin, D., and Griffin, W. L. (1985). "Preliminary economics of shrimpmariculture in Texas," Texas Shrimp Farming Workshop, GeorgeChamberlain, Michael Haby, Russell Miget, ed., Texas Agricultural Exten-sion Service, Corpus Christi, TX.

Johns, M., Griffin, W., Lawrence, A. L., and Fox, J. (1981). "Budget analysisof penaeid shrimp hatchery facilities," Journal of the World MaricultureSociety 12(2).

Biblioray 59

Lawrence, A. L., Johns, M. A., and Griffin, W. L. (1984). "Shrimp mad-culture: state of the art," Sea Grant Publication TAMU-S6-84-502, TexasA & M University, College Station, TX.

Pardy, C. R., Griffin, W. L., Johns, M. A., and Lawrence, A. L. (1983). "Apreliminary economic analysis of stocking strategies for penaeid shrimp cul-ture," World Mariculture Society, 14.

Parker, J. C. (1988). "Shrimp farm investment analysis for outdoor ponds iiiTexas," Mariculture Consultant, Harlingen, TX.

Parker, J. C., and Hayenga, W. (1979). "An analysis of the investment con-siderations for penaeid shrimp mariculture in pond systems," Texas A&MUniversity, College Station, TX.

Pawlyk, P. W., and Roberts, K. J. (1984). "Forecasting U.S. shrimp prices:A comparison of three different models" (unpublished manuscript), Centerfor Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Pruder, G., Wyban, J., and Ogle, J. (1985). "U.S. marine shrimp farmingindustry: current status of domestic producers," Gulf Coast Research Labo-ratory Consortium, Oceanic Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA.

Rhodes, R. J., Sandifer, P. A., Hopkins, S., and Whetstone, J. M. (1987)."Financial analysis of semi-intensive penacid shrimp farming in SouthCarolina: April, 1987 update," South Carolina Marine Resources Center,Charleston, SC.

Rhodes, R. J., Sandifer, P. A., and Whetstone, J. M. (1987). "A preliminaryfinancial analysis of semi-intensive penaeid shrimp fanning in SouthCarolina," Technical Report No. 64, South Carolina Marine ResourcesCenter, Charleston, SC.

Roberts, K. J., and Pawlyk, P. W. (1984). "The U.S. market - looking for-ward toward 1990," Proceedings of Shrimp World One, Shrimp World, Inc.,New Orleans, LA.

Rosenberry, R. (1990 (Sep - Oct)). "World shrimp farming, can the westernhemisphere compete with the eastern?" Aquaculture Magazine, 16(5),60-64.

Catfish Culture

Aquaculture Task Force. (1987). "Catfish aquaculture: A decision-makingguikebook," Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, Baton Rouge, LA.

60 graphy

Crews, J., and Jensen, J. W. (1989). "Budget and sensitivity analyses forAlabama catfish production," Alabama Cooperative Extension Service,Auburn, AL.

Delienbarger, L. E., Vandeveer, L. R., and Lavergne, D. (1987). "The eco-nomics of catfish production." Proceedings of the Louisiana AquacultureConference 1987. R. C. Reigh, ed., Louisiana State University AgriculturalCenter, Baton Rouge, LA.

Hatch, V., Denham, R., Hebicha, H., and Jensen, J. (1987). "Economic analy-sis of channel catfish egg, fry, fingerling, and food fish production inAlabama," Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Circular 291, Auburn,AL.

Keenum, M. E., and Waldrop, J. E. (1988). "Cash flow analysis of farmraised catfish production in Mississippi," Agricultural and ForestryExperiment Station Technical Publication No. 73. Mississippi StateUniversity, MS.

. (1988). "Economic analysis of farm-raised catfish production inMississippi," Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station,Mississippi State University, MS.

Pennington, V. (1985). "Catfish production cost estimates for farms withlevel land," Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, Pine Bluff, AR.

Pomeroy, R. S., and Luke, D. B. (1986). "Budgets and cash flow statementsfor South Carolina catfish production," South Carolina Agricultural Experi-ment Station, Clemson, SC.

Clam Culture

Adams, C., and Busby, D. (1989). "An economic overview of Florida hardclam production, value, and market channels," Department of Food andResource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Adams, C., and Pomeroy, R. (1990). "Preliminary financial feasibility analy-sis for hard clam mariculture systems, Staff Paper 381, Food and ResourceEconomics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

de Franssu, L. (1990). "North American clam market," INFOFISH Interna-tional, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

* (1990). '"he world market for bivalves," Globefish ResearchProgram, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,New York.

BioWgphy 61

Crawfish Culture

Brunson, M. W. (1989). "Double cropping crawfish with sorghum inLouisiana," Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge, LA.

Dellenbarger, L. E., Vandever, I . R., and Clarke, T. M. (1987). "Estimatedinvestment requirements, production costs, and breakeven prices for craw-fish in Louisiana," D.A.E. Research Report No. 70, Louisiana AgriculturalExperiment Station, Baton Rouge, LA.

Gabel, S. J., and Easley, J. E., Jr. (1989). "Costs of producing crawfish inNorth Carolina" (unpublished manuscript), North Carolina CooperativeExtension Service, Raleigh, NC.

Haby, M. G., and Younger, W. R. (1990). "Texas crawfish aquaculture,"Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, TX.

LaCaze, C. (1981). "Crawfish fanning," Louisiana Department of Wildlifeand Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA.

Pomeroy, R. S., and Kahl, K. H. (1987). "Crawfish in South Carolina:development and current status of the industry," South Carolina AgriculturalExperiment Station, Bulletin 661, Clemson, SC.

Roberts, K. J. (1984). "Financial information for crawfish farming," Proceed-ings of the 1984 Louisiana Crawfish Farmers Association Annual Meeting.Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, Baton Rouge, LA.

Hybrid Striped Bass Culture

Brown, J. W., Easley, J. E., Jr., and Hodson, R. G. (1988). "Investment andproduction costs for the hybrid striped bass X white bass in NorthCarolina," UNC Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh, NC.

Harvey, P. A., Kirkley, J. E., Richardson, L. M., and Sanko, J. J. (1990)."Hybrid striped bass aquaculture survey and market potential," Dept. ofMarine Advisory Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester,VA.

Helfrich, L. A., Livey, G. S., and Neves, R. J. (1988). "Hybrid striped bassfanning: a review of research and development opportunities," ResearchSeries No. 2. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech Uni-versity, Blacksburg, VA.

Hodson, R., Smith, R., McVey, J., Harrell, R., and Davis N. (1987). "Hybridstriped bass culture: status and perspective," University of North CarolinaSea Grant College, UNC-$6-87-03, Raleigh, NC.

62 Biblogrphy

Liao, D. S. (1987). "The economic and market potential for hybrid bass: apreliminary evaluation," Journal of the World Aquaculture Society,16,151-157.

McCraren, J. P. (1989). The Aquaculture of Striped Bass: A Proceedings.Cooperative Extension Service, University of Maryland, UM-SG-MAP-84-01, College Park, MD.

Smith, T. I. J. (1988). "Aquaculture of striped bass and its hybrids in NorthAmerica," Aquaculture Magazine - JanuarylFebruary.

_ (1989). Semi-intensive pond production of market-size stripedbass X white bass hybrids," World Aquaculture, 20(1).

_ (1989). "Striped bass and its hybrids," Journal of the WorldAquaculture Society, 20(1).

Bibfiography 63

Appendix ACAAP Economics andMarketing Worksheets

The User's Guide for the worksheet program is reproduced on the follow-ing page. It provides the step-by-step instructions for operating the program.

The appended worksheets which follow the User's Guide were used toevaluate the economic feasibility of selected species. Each species was ana-lyzed with figures to produce an "average" scenario which was followed bytwo "break-even" scenarios. These were created by adjusting the yield and theprice received per uniL Only pp 5 and 6 of the worksheet were changed toshow the results of the break-even scenarios.

AlAppendx A CMAP Economics and MmkeNgV Worksheets

USER'S GUIDE

CONTAINMENT AREA AQUACULTURE PROGRAMECONOMICS AND MARKETING SPREADSHEETS

The Containment Area Aquacultue Program (CAAP) spreadsheets were designed to be used by Lotus1-2-3, Version 2.2 with Allways (to print the reports). The Allways program is set up as Application3 and is assigned to the key sequence <Alt> <F9> (press the <Alt> and <F9> keys simultaneouslyto activate it).

The spreadsheets are divided into five directories of the floppy disk as follows:

= > Blank CAAP spreadsheets (ready for data entry)\CATFISH = > Catfish example from manmal\CLAMS = > Clams example from manual\CRAWFISH = > Crawfish example from manual\HSB = > Hybrid Striped Bus example from manual

To view the spreadsheets for a certain model, select /FD (File, Directory) from the Lotus menu, andenter the appropriate directory. For example, if your floppy disk is in Drive B: and you want to workwith the Catfish model, type /FDB:CATFISH and press <Enter>. Next, retrieve (File, Retrieve) themain menu spreadsheet (DMCAMENU) from the model by pressing /FRIMCAMENU and pressing<Enter>. A menu for the different spreadsheets in the model will be presented at the top of the screen;highlight the appropriate spreadsheet and press <Enter>. For example, to view the Annual VariableCost spreadsheet, highlight VARIABLE-COSTS by pressing the right arrow key twice followed by<Enter>.

Each of the six spreadsheets in the model will have several options displayed at the top of the screenwhen it is first retrieved. Typically, these will be EDIT, SAVE, PRINT, the next successive spreadsheet,and MAIN-MENU. For example, in the Annual Variable Costs spreadsheet, the menu will be:

EDIT = > Select this option to place you at the first <-Insert" cell of thespreadsheet. After editing is complete, press <Alt> M and the menuwill reappear.

SAVE = > Save the spreadsheet if any edits were made.PRINT = > Print the spreadsheet using Allways (setup as APP3).FIXED-COSTS = > Retrieve the Annual Fixed Cost spreadsheet (the next

spreadsheet of the model). This option title will varybetween spreadsheets.

MAIN-MENU = > Retrieve the Main Menu (DMCAMENU).

To select an option, highlight it with the arrow keys and press <Enter>.

If you have any questions concerning these models, please contact Dave Marachall or Alan Schuetz atC-K Associates, Inc., in Baton Rouge, Louisiana at (504) 755-1000.

A2 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.S. ARMY CUM OFEN•IK$ Pagp I o 6

Date COTALGNW AREA AQUACaL2TJ Pt RJOLAMmCf4A7C AND MdARXWTAU WVLFB

SCO N ST R U C TIO N C O STS

DIRT VOLUME Per LNAR FOOT CALCULATION

A - TOP Width FL <-lainB,-BASE Width 0 FL BD-(SI+S2)xH+AH - HEIGHT "FL <-lain

Si - INNER SLOPE Ft. <-Iait

52 - OUTER SLOPE FL <-linm

DIRT VOLUME AND COST CALCULATIONS

VOLUME,- 0 CU. PT. per LINEAR FT. (A + B)/2 x H

LENGTH - LINEAR FT. <-Inert

TOTALVOLUME - 0 CU. YD. (VOLUME x LENGTH / 27)

DIRT MOVINGCOST: PER CU. YD. <-Iain

USCOE'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A. LEVEE (Dirt Moving) COST SD (Dirt Moving Cost x Total Voluim)

B. WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE(S) _<-lIedt

C. ACCESS ROAD <-laint

D. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (permits, tiss, etc.) <-laint

USCOE'S Tota Cuarctin• Coin (A, 3, C, D) S)

AQUACULTURIST'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

E: POND IMPROVEMENTS (sedi, haoping, a.) <-Ilai

F. SITE IMPROVEMENTS & UTLITIES (p.n, pilinp,Septic ysm, electricity, wowte, etc.) <-Insert

G. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (pemits, tet, etc.) <-Inai

H. CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION <__c-ain

Aqcaultarist's Total Ccautcmstk Costn (E, F, 0, H) $S

USCOE & AQUACULTURIST'S TOTAL CON5TRUCTION COSTS $0

Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets A3

MIN JTA1NJff MME AQUAC!JLCW. IAWECQX AND MAf4NM 01=389"UB

&wda MUAL DrVE"DNT COmf

EQUIMENTCOrST

AERATOR & SCREEN _______- win"eBOAT & MOTOR _______- In1serBUILDING (Food S~oae ______<- IhsertBUILDING (OMIceSerVIa) ________- IrnsrCHEMICALS _______- IrnsrCOOLERS _______- IrnsrFEED BINS _______<- InswetFEEDERS _______- IrnsrFLOATS _______- IrnerGENERATORS _______- IrnsrHARVEST BASKETS _______- IrnsrHARVEST MACHINE _______- InsertMESH BAGS ______- IrnetMOWER ___ __<- IrseanNETS _______- IrnstNIGHT LIGHTS ______<- Iianer

PUMP SHED _______- IrnetTRAILER _______- IrseanTRAPS _______<- IrseanVALVES _______- InsetVEHICLES _______- IrnstWATER PIPE ______<- InsertWELL & PUMPS ______<- IrnsrWET SUIT I SCUBA _______<- IrnsrOTHER: Miacolluuieo _ ____<- IrnsrOTHER:_______ ______<- IrnsrOTHER: <_______ _____'- InsertOTHER:_______ ______<- Irnsr

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $O

INTIAL an vEasMENT COSTS SUMMARY

Aquaculturlat's Investment CostsTotal Equipmentl Costa $OTotal ConstructIon Costs (Page 1): 0

Total Investmen costs $0

USCOE'S Investmenwt CostaTotal Construction Costa (Page 1) $0

Total Aquacsufurlst's & USCOE'S InitiralIeslment Costa so

A4 Appendx A CMAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.&. ARMY CUM OFw pe PO306

Daft COWTAMUWT AREA AQUA, CLTAU PROWZJMBODmUI AND MAfAWI7 WVXXA

&oim ANMUAL VAIABME COSTS

VARIABLE PRODUC710M COUS

BAIT <-instCHEMICALS <-inunrtFEED <-inertFERTILIZER <-InotFINGERUNGS I POSTLARVAE <_-inertFUEL <-inrtHARVESTING <_-i4nHAUUNG <-imer

HIRED LABOR & PAYROLL TAX <-insrtICE <-inertMANAGER <-InsertPROCESSING <-insertREPAIRS & MAINTENANCE <-InsertSACKS <--IrnertSEED <-InsSUPPUES <-InmertTRANSPORTATION <-inertUTILITIES (Elecftcty, Telephone, Etc.) <-InsertOTHER: <-InenOTHER: <-InserOTHER: <-InsertOTHER: <-Insert

A. SUB-TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $0

OPERA77NG LOAN COSTS

B. % of Variable Costs Borrowed <-Insert

C. Total Amount of Operating Loan $0 (Ax B)

D. Term of Operating Loan (Years) <-Insert

E. Annual Operating Loan Payment NA (C I D)

F. % of Interest on Operating Loan <-Insert

G. Interest Paid on Operating Loan $0 (C x F)

H. TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $0 (A + G)

Appendx A CAAP Economics and Markeng Worksheets A5

U&S AXlEY COM OWEUND nSM Page 4 of 6DOWe CONTAAlNMET AX94 AQUACVJL7Edt.E PROGL41W

EWAV)AG9= AMD MAL WI W RESE

%Hi= ANNUAL FXD= COM1

AQUACULTUPLWS EXE~TRSS DEPREIATIN

A. Total Investment Costs $0 (From Page 2)

B. Amortization Schedule (Years) _____ <-4nIsf

C. Annual Investment Deprecdation NA (AlI B)

D. % ot Initial Investment Borrowed ______ -nhe

E. Amount of Investment Loan $0 (A xD)

F. Term of Loan (Year) ______<-Insert

G. Annual Principal Payment NA (ElF)

H. % of Interest On Investment Loan ______<-Insert

1. Interest Paid on Investmentl Loan $0 (E x H)

J. Annual Insurance Premiums ______<-insert

K. Salaried Employees and Payroll Taxes ____ <-Insert

L. Miscellaneous _ ____<-Insert

M. Other_________ ___ <-Insert

TOTAL FIXED COSTS NA (C.I.J.K)

AQUACULTURIST'S FIED COMTS SAVINGS

(Based on Value of USCOE'S Contribution to Total Construction Coats)

AA. USCOE'S Total Construction CONSt $0 (From Page 1)

BB. Amortization Schedule (Years) 0 (B above)

CC. Annual investment Depreciation NA (AA/ BB)

DD. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 0% (D above)

EE. Total Amount of investment Loan $O (AA x DD)

FF. Term of Loan (Year) 0 (F above)

GG. Annual Principal Payment NA (EE IFF)

HH. % of Interest on Investment Loan 0% (H above)

Iu. interest PaidonlInvestment Loan So (EE xHH)

AQUACULTURIST's FIXED COSTS SAVINGS NA (CC +IQ)

A6 Appencix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U&5 ARMYf CVM OFAW Sk P"ge 5 of 6Deft COAXIVMEHT ARMA AQUACUILTURE P110OW

-CA111 AND -LRWZ WORAWMBT

ANNUAL SALE SUMMAARY

SPECIES: Specie

UNIT: Units

HARVM~ I

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTEM_______ <-humr

PRICE PER UNIT ________<-Inst

AMOUNT OF SALE O0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES _ ______<-Insw

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE NA (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE NA (Total Sales / No. of Acres)

NUMBER OF ACRES ________<-Inset

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE NA (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE NA (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOTfAL ANNUAL SATE $0 (Harvests I & 2)

Appendix A CMAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets A7

U.&. ARMY CUM- OkFRUW RS Page 6 of

Dfte WNFMARINBF AREA AQUACEJL7tJR PRGRAMM-CAUK AND MALRUM7V *RKFWW

spagimANNUAL WNCMIE STATEOW~

Total Annumal Sale so s

A. Total Variable Couts (Pg. 3) so 6B. Total Fixed Costs (Pt.4) NA N

Total Expenses with USCOE NAIN

C. USCOE FIXED COST SAVINGS (Pg. 4) NTotal lExpenses wlout USCOE W

NET INCOME NA5)N

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

NET INCOME NA *A

LOAN PRINCIPMSOperating Loan Payrnent (Pg. 3. E) NA MAInvestmen Loan Paymient (Pg. 4, G) MA WA

Total Loan Principals NA NA

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) MAIturiat's Fixed Cowt Savings)

DERECIATIONAquaCWUlturlat nvetment (Pg. 4. C) NA 4tAUSCOE Investment (Saving) (Pg. 4. CC) $O MA

Total Deprecaton NA NA

CASH BALANCE, (c) NA W& N(Net Income - Principals Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOES PARTICIA77ON

ANNUAL NEPW CM DIMFhMC NA (a) - (b)

ANNUAL CAMH BALANCE IDIFFEIRECE NA (0) - (d)

A8 Appendix A GAAP Economics and Marketing Worksetsf

US. ARMY 00RMS OF RMWNE5 Pa 1 of 6

09/r3/0/90 d•WTA1NER AREA AQUACELTYJRE PROOGRMECONDAUCS AND MA.7NCZ•G WOWHET

Catfish CONSTRUCTION COSTS

DIRT VOLUME per LINEAR POOT CALCULATION

A - TOP Width 14 Ft. <-JiutB-BASEWidth 60 Ft. B-(SI1S2)xH÷A

H - HEIGHT 6.5 Ft. <-Inset

Si - INNER SLOPE 3.0 Ft. <-Jnert

S2 - OUTER SLOPE 4.0 Ft. <-Insert

DIRT VOLUME AND COST CALCULATIONS

VOLUME - 239 CU. FT. per LINEAR FT. (A + B)/2x H

LENGTH= 11,200 LINEAR FT. <-Insect

TOTAL

VOLUME = 99,089 CU. YDS (VOLUME x LENGTH I 27)

DIRT MOVINGCOST: $0.60 PER CU. YD. <-Insert

USCOE'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A. LEVEE (Dirt Moving) COST $59,453 (Dirt Moving Cost x Total Volume)

B. WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE(S) 15,000 <-Insert

C. ACCESS ROAD $2,000 <-Insert

D. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (permits, tests, etc.) $10,000 <-Insert

USCOE'S Total Coestructiom Costs (A, B, C, D) $86,453

AQUACULTURIST'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

E: POND IMPROVEMENTS (seeding, shaping, etc.) $2,000 <-Insert

F. SITE IMPROVEMENTS & UTLTnIES (piers, pilings,septic system, electricity, water, etc.) $6,000 <-Insert

G. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (permits, tests, etc.) $6,000 <-Insert

H. CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION $2,000 <-Insert

Aquacultuuist's Total Cotructio Costa (E, F, G, H) $16,000

USCOE & AQUACULTURIST'S TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $102,453

Appencix A CAAP Economics and Marketg Worksheets A9

U.S. ARMYf COMPS OF A?4NRBRS Page 20of6

0913V0M CONTAZ1lMNNF AME AQUAC!JLT1RU PROGAMt

EWNommaC AND MAW1T7iJG WWMBF~fT

catfish INITAL INVESTMNT COST

EQIJIFWENT COSTS

AERATOR A SCREEN $12,000 <- InsertBOAT & MOTOR 1.425 <- InsertBUILWING (Foodl Storage) 5,000 <- InsertBUILDING (OffWceIrv"c) 8,500 <- InsertCHEMICAL.S ______<- InsertCOOLERS ______<- Insert

FEED BINS __ ____<- Insert

.FEEDERS 3,000 <- InsertFLOATS __ ___<- Insert

GENERATORS ______<-. Insert

HARVEST BASKETS ______<- InsertHARVEST MACHINE _ _____<- Insert

MESH BAGS ______<- Inawert

MOWER 2,000 <- InsertNETS ____ __<- Insert

NIGHT UIGHTS _______- InsertPUMP SHED 1.200 <- InsertTRAILER ___ ___<- Insert

TRAPS __ __<- Insert

VALVES 1o000 <- InsertVEHICLES 18.000 <- insertWATER PIPE 2,200 <- InsertWELL & PUMPS 12,000 <- InsertWET SUIT I SCUBA _ _____<- Insert

OTHER: Miscellanbeous 1,400 <- InsertOTHER: ________ ___ ___<- Insert

OTHER: _________ ______<-- Insert

OTHER: _________ ______<- Insert

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $67.725

iNiTA INvESTMENT COSTS SUMhMARY

Aquaculturlats Investment CostsTotal Equipment COst $67,725Total Construction Costs (Page 1): 16,000

Tota Invstmffl ONS$83,725

A10 Appendix A OMAP Econornics and Marketing Worksheets

U.& AXRMY CORPS OF NGINERS Page 3 of 6

09/30/90 CONrAfINENT AREA AQUACULTUNW PROXRAM

E00NOMICS AND MARKEIING WORKSBEET

Catfish ANNUAL VARIABLE COSTS

VARIABLE PRODUCTION COSTS

BAIT <-InsertCHEMICALS 5,600 <-InsertFEED 70,000 <-InsertFERTILIZER <-InsertFINGERLINGS I POSTLARVAE 19,600 <-InsertFUEL 2,500 <-InsertHARVESTING 16,800 <-InsertHAULING <-InsertHIRED LABOR & PAYROLL TAX 2.400 <-InsertICE <-InsertMANAGER <-InsertPROCESSING <-InsertiEPAIRS & MAINrENANCE 14,000 <-Insert

SACKS <-InsertSEED <-InsertSUPPLIES <-insertTRANSPORTATION <-InsertUTILITIES (Electricity, Telephone, Etc.) 8,000 <-InsertOTHER: <-InsertOTHER: <-insertOTHER: <-InsertOTHER: <-Insert

A. SUB-TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $138,900

OPERATING LOAN COSTS

B. % of Variable Costs borrowed 75% <-Insert

C. Total Amount of Operating Loan $104,175 (A x B)

0. Term of Operating Loan (# of Yrs.) 5 <-Insert

E. Annual Operating Loan Payment $20,W35 (C I D)

F. % of Interest on Operating Loan 12% <-Insert

G. Interest I did 3n Operating Loan $12,501 (C x F)

H. TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $151,401 (A + G)

Appendix A CAAP Economics aid Madun Worksheets All

U.S. ARMYi CORPS OF NG5dRg Pale 4 0 6

09/30/90 CONFANENT AREA AQUACULIWJN PROG=AM

ECONOMICS AND MRARU77N UV~tLSmT

Saffish AN AL FIX COSTS

AQUACULTURIST'S EXPERN URS DJUPRECIA1ON

A. Total Investment Costs $83.725 (From Page 2)

B. Amortization Schedule (Years) 5 <-insert

C. Annual Investment Depreciation $16,745 (Al B)

D. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 75% <-Insert

E. Amount of Investment Loan $62,794 (A x D)

F. Term of Loan(# Yrs. ) 10 <-Insert

G. Annual Principal Payment $6.279 (E I F)

H. % of Interest on Investment Loan 15% <-Insert

I. Interest Paid on Investment Loan $9.419 (E x H)

J. Annual Insurance Premiums $2,000 <-Insert

K. Salaried Employees and Payroll Taxes .<-Insert

L. Miscellaneous <-Insert

M. Other <-Insert

TOTAL FIXED COSTS $28,164 (C+I+J+K)

AQUACULTURIST'S FIXED-COST SAVINGS

(Based on Value of USCOE'S Contribution to Total Construction Costs)

AA. USCOE'S Total Construction Costs $86.453 (From Page 1)

BB. Amortization Schedule (Years) 5 (B above)

CC. Annual Investment Depreciation $17,291 (AA / BB)

OD. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 75% (D above)

EE. Total Amount of Investment Loan $64,840 (AA x DD)

FF. TermofLoan (#Yrs.) 10 (FAbove)

GG. Annual Principal Payment $6,484 (EE I FF)

HH. % of Interest on Investment Loan 15% (H above)

II. Interest Paid on Investment Loan $9.726 (EE x HH)

AQUACULTURIST'S FIXED-COST SAVINGS $27,017 (CC + II)

A12 Appndx A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U&S AX~ff COPS OPZAUINNBR Page 5 Of 609/30/91 CONFARGM WIT AREA AQUA4CULITJRE PROGRAM

SE0WNOMI(44PJAWI02M1 WORKSBEST

ANNUAL SALES SUMMARY

SPECIES: Catfish

UNIT: P10006

mum EHARVWT I

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 280,000 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT $0.75 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $210,000 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 80 <-Inser

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 3.500 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $2,625 (Total Sales / No. of Acres)

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Inset

PRICE PER. UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (UnIts Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 80 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOT~AL ANNUAL SALES $210,000 (Harvests I & 2)

Appendix A CMAP Ecoonorngcs and Marks"n WorksheetsA1

U.S. ARMYf CORPS OF ENOB EER Paeg 6 of 609/30/90 CoNTABDMEWT AREA AQMACUrLITUR PROGRAM

ECONOAMYC AND MALRU77NO WORMSJIZT

CatfishANNUAL INCOMB SrATEtfENT

REVENUJE Mid USCOE W/b* MO~B

Totai Annual Sales $21 0.000 6210,000

EXPENSES

A. Total Variabl Coats (Pg. 3) $151,401 4151AEAa. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) 528.164 S28164

Total Expenses with USCOE $179,565 $179,565

C. USCOE FiXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) V27.017Tejtal Expenses wlout USCOS 26,8

NET INCOMfE () $30,435 (b) $8,418

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

NETINC~bfE $30,435 A1

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3, E) $20,835 $20,835Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4, G) $6,279 6,7

Total Loan Pricipals $27,114$2,1

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) $.8(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Coat Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $16,745 '416,745USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) $so1*9

Total Depreciation $16,745$403

CASH BALANCE (C) $20,066(d $38(Net Income - Principals + Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOB'S PARTICI1PATION

ANNUAL NET IWOKE DIFREC 27.017 (a) - b

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE DIFRNE$16,210 (c) - c

A14 Appendix A CMAP Economics and Marketinig Workshets

U.&. ARMY CUM OF EAKW S Pope i01609/30/9 CONFABONMrT AREA AQUA4CULITJR PRCXPRAMt

-CAAC AND MALRX3TVh WVOWSBRET

ANNUAL SALES SU1MMRY

SPECIES: Catfish

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 280.000 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT $0.65 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $182,000 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 80 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 3,500 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $2,27 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 80 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TW~AL ANNUAL SATE $182,000 (Hrvests I & 2)

APPendlx A CMAP Economics and Marko"winWorkshsets A15

U.& ARA' CORPS OFNGINEZRS Page 6 of 609/30/9 CONVTAINMENT~ AREA AQUACEIL77JR PRCOM"I

ENOMAMS AND MAURKEWN WORKSEAWB

ANNUAL INCOMdE STATEMCENT

REVENUJE Irm LSCE MWM L

Total Annujal Sales 8182.000 04112A00

EXPENSES

A. TotaliVaria.ble COMt (Pg. 3) $151.401 1"61401B. Total Fixed Coat (Pg. 4) $01.164 $01,164

Total Expenses with USCOE $179.565 $179.658

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) .427.017Total Expenses wlout USCOE S=0X58

NET INCOM[E (a) $2,435 .(b) ($24,562

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

SOperain Ionvestment LaPymns(Pg. 4, E)E208)

(Aquacuhturlst's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturlst's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $16,745 416,745USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) s0 17,291

Total Depreciation $16,745 .3A

CASH BALANCE WC) ($7,934)(d ($4"(Net Income - Principals + Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOB'S PArTICPATION

ANNUAL NET INCOME DFERENCE $27,017 (a) - b

ANNUL CAH BAANC 13D RE21-m-$16,210 (c) - (d

A16 Appendlx A CAAP Economics and Marketing Wodrstmeft

US ARM'r aOn wOF aNM s Pole 5o16

09/30/90 aoFnAIONWF AREU AQUACILTVJ MOORAM-COAVAIM AND -ALAIR'1'J7W U

ANNUAL &ALE SUMMARY

SPECIES: Catfish

UNIT: ..uds

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 240,000 <-Inern

PRICE PER UNIT b0.75 <-immt

AMOUNT OF SALE 8180,000 (Unit Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 80 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED / PER ACRE 3.000 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE 4,250 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

EL4RYBST 2

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 80 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOAp•xAL CM•PENomALs $180,000 MHaeveng W A

.,ppendix A C.'P Economicsand Maw,, Workshft A17

U.S. ARMY CORP OF NOHMRS Page 6 of 609/30M9 CONTARINMNT AREAL AQUA CULTURE PROGRAM

FEWNO119= AND MARWU7T WRLWBET

catfish ANNUAL DICOXdE STATEUMEN

REVENUE Ru UCX) __________

Total Annual Sales 61601000 99,0

EXPENSES

A. Total Varibl COOa (Pg. 3) $151 .401 :4151.401B. Total Fixed Costa (Pg. 4) 28,6184 4=16,14

Total Expenses with USCOE $179.565.17X

C. USCOE FiXCED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) 07,0117Total Expenses wlout USCOE S .8

NET INCOME, (a) $485 () ( A

ANNUAL CAMH BALANCE STATEMHNT

LOAN rRI?1CIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3. E) $20.835 420,835Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4, G) $6.279 *.7

Total Loan Prlcipals $27,114 214

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) 508(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquacufturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $16,745 *16,745USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) so*7,9

Total Depreciation $16,745 4.3

CASH BALANCE Wa ($9,934) C 4wl(Net Income - Principals.+ Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOB'S PARTICIPATION

ANNUAL NET INCOME DMFREC $27,017 (a) - (b)

ANNUL CAH BAANCE$16,210 q) - (d)

A18Appenclix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Workhetets

U.S. ARMY VRM OP ENUDLERS Pop 1.16

09/30/90 MWNAffMNJdT NAR AU•ACiLTU7M PROE(X)NOVW=A ALMUMMAXW WO)RXSRET

Crfish CONSTRUCTION COSTS

DIRT VOLUME per LINEAR FOOT CALCUIATION

A - TOP Width 2 Ft. <-amsrtB-BASE Width 14 Ft. BD-(SI÷S2)xH+AH - HEIGHT 3.0 FL <-Insert

SI - INNER SLOPE 2.0 Ft. <-Insert

S2 = OUTER SLOPE 2.0 FL <-Insert

DIRT VOLUME AND COST CALCULATIONS

VOLUME- 24 CU. Fr. per LINEAR FT. (A + B)/2 x H

LENGTH- 1,320 LIN1AR PT. <-Insert

TOTAL

VOLUME - 1,173 CU. YDS (VOLUME x LENGTH i 27)

DIRT MOVINGCOST: $0.60 PER CU. YD. <-Insert

USCOE'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A. LEVEE (Dirt Moving) COST $704 (Dirt Moving Cost x Total Volume)

B. WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE(S) 1,500 <-Insert

C. ACCESS ROAD $0 <-Insert

D. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (permits, tests, etc.) $15,000 <-Insert

USCOE'S Total Cowsstmun Cast. (A, B, C, D) $17,204

AQUACULTURJST'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

E: POND IMPROVEMENTS (seed•g, shaping, etc.) $300 <-Insert

F. SITE IMPROVEMENTS & UTILITIES (piers, pilin,septic ytem, elecricity, water, oet.) $o <-Iraft

G. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (permits, test., etc.) $1,000 <-Inet

H. CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION $0 <-Insert

Aquaulburs Total Cmostuction Costs (E, F, G, H) $1,300

USCOE & AQUACULTURISTS TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $18,504

Appencix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets A19

U.s ARMY CORPS OF NCNNERS Page 2 of 6

09/30/90 0DNTAM' 'JYT AREA AQUACTEJ JE PROGRAMECONOMCS AND MARKB77N WOEKSHW

Crawfish ENITLAL DqVEST ENqT COSTS

EQUIPMENT COrST

AERATOR & SCREEN $500 <- InsertBOAT & MOTOR <- InsertBUILDING (Feed Storage) 500 <- InsertBUILDING (OfficelSenice) <- InsertCHEMICALS <- InsertCOOLERS 1.200 <--InsertFEED BINS <- InsertFEEDERS <- InsertFLOATS <- InsertGENERATORS <- InsertHARVEST BASKETS <_- InsertHARVEST MACHINE 5,000 <- InsertMESH BAGS <_- InsertMOWER 600 <- InsertNETS <- InsertNIGHT UGHTS <- InsertPUMP SHED 400 <-- InsertTRAILER <- InsertTRAPS <- InsertVALVES <- InsertVEHICLES 6,500 <- InsertWATER PIPE <- InsertWELL & PUMPS 10,000 <- InsertWET SUIT I SCUBA <- InsertOTHER: Miscellaneous 500 <- InsertOTHER: <_- InsertOTHER: <- InsertOTHER: <_ In&:.

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $25200

RNUTUAL MvESTUmNrT CO(ST SUMMARY

Aquacuiturlsts Investment CostsTotal Equipment Costs $25,200Total Construction Costs (Page 1): 1,300

Total Investment Costs $26,500

USCOE'S Investnent CoatsTotal Construction Costs (Page 1) $17,204

Total Aquacuftutst's & USCOE'S Initial Invesument Costs $43,704

A20Appencix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.S. Akin' COM OF NtUINZMR Page 3 of 609/30/90 CONLIJNMJNT AREA AQUACEJL2TRE PROGRAM

ZONOM10CS AND MARAWWN WOWKBEFT

C~rawfish ANNUAL VARIABLE COST

VARIABLE PRODUCTION COSTS

BAIT 65,500 <-InsertCHEMICALS ______<-Insert

FEED 1,600 <-InsertFERTILIZER ______<-Insert

FINGERLINGS / POSTLARVAE ______<-Insert

FUEL 1,800 <-InsertHARVESTING ______<-Insert

HAUUING ______<-Insert

HIRED LABOR & PAYROLL TAX 1,500 <-InserICE ____ _<--Insert

MANAGER ______<-Insert

PROCESSING ______<-Insert

REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1.100 <-InsertSACKS 200 <-InsertSEED ______<--Insert

SUPPLIES ______<-Inuer

TRANSPORTATION ______<-Insert

UTILITIES (Electricity. Telephone, Etc.) ______<-Insert

OTHER: ___________ ___<-Insert

OTHER: ___________ ___<-Insert

OTHER: _______________<-Insert

OTHER: _______________<-Insert

A. SUB-TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $11,700

OPERATING LOAN COSTS

B. % of Variable Costs borrowed 25% <-Insert

C. Total Amount of Operating Loan $2,925 (A x B)

D. Term of Operating Loan (# of Yrs.) 5 <-Insert

E. Annual Operating Loan Payment $585 (Cl/ D)

F. % of Interest on Operating Loan 15% <-Insert

G. Interest Paid on Operating Loan $439 (C x F)

H. TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $12,139 (A.+ G)

A21Appendlx A CAAP Economics and Markceting Worksheets

U.S. ARMYf CORPS OF ENOINEMR Pape 4 of 609/30/9 CONTAINaME AREA AQUACUILTUP.E PROGRAM

ECONOMICS AND MALRXWiNO WORfSIIEE

Crawfish ANNUAL FIXED COSTS

AQUACULTURIST'S EXE~TISIDEPRECIATIN

A. Total Investment Costs ERR (Fromn Page 2)

B. Amortization Schedule (Years) 5 <-Insert

C. Annual Investment Depreciation ERR (A/ B)

D. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 50% <-Insert

E. Amount of Investment Loan ERR (A x D)

F. Term of Loan ( #Yrs. ) 5 <-Insert

G. Annual Principal Payment ERR (E I F)

H. % of Interest on Investment Loan 15% <-Insert

I. Interest Paid on Investment Loan ERR (E x H)

J. Annual Insurance Premiums _______<-Insert

K. Salaried Employees and Payroll Taxes $0 <'LInsert

L. Miscellaneous $0 <-Insert

M. Other _______________<-Insert

TOTAL FIXED COSTS ERR (C+l.J4'K)

ýgg

AQUACULTURIST'S FIXED-COST SAVINGS(Based on Value of USCOE'S Contribution to Total Constuction Costs)

AA. USCOE'S Total Construction Costs $17,204 (From Page 1)

SB. Amortization Schedule (Years) 5 (B above)

CC. Annual Investment Depreciation $3,441 (AA / BB)

DD. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 50% (D above)

EE. Total Amount of Investment Loan $8,602 (AA x DD)

FF. Term of Loan ( #Yrs. ) 5 (F Above)

GG. Annual Principal Payment $1,720 (EF I FF)

HH. % of Interest on Investment Loan 15% (H above)

11. Interest Pald on Investment Loan $1,290 (EE x HH)

AQUACULTURIST'S FIXED-COST SAVINGS $4,731 (CC.+ 11)

A22 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

US. ARY CORPS OPFRNGINWES Page 50of609/30/9 CONTAlNWHT AREA AQUACfXTJtTJR PROGRAM

ECONOMI0CS AND AL4AW1Th IARWSKEET

ANNUAL SALES SUMM4ARY

SPECIES: Crawfish

UNIT: pounds

HLARVEST 1

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 40,000 <-Inser

PRICE PER UNIT $0.60 <-Inser

AMOUNT OF SALE $24.000 (Units Harvested x Puice per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Inser

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 1,000 (Total Units Harvested I No, of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $600 (Total Sales / No. of Acres)

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOTAL AJ~NTAL SATE $24,000 (Harvests 1 & 2)

Appendix A CAAP Economics and marketing WorksheetsA2

U.S ARMf CUM CFZ?17WNWES Page 6oaf 609/30190 CX* AiOL liT ARBA AQUA CTLITIRE PROOXAAM

ECONOMICS AJYD MAW1ThU7 *%rJRUlBfETf

•Craw-fish ANNUAL INCOME STA1TEMCTf

Total Annual Sales $24 .000 $24.O000

EXPENSES

A- Total Variable Costs (Pg. 3) $12.139 SM1239B. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) $7.=6 X i268

Total Expenses with USCOE $19.426$942

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4)Total Expenses W/out USCOE $24,157

NET INCOMEf (a) $4.574 (b) ($157

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STAT~dBNT

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3, E) $585 $8Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4,6G) $2,650 Z$2,650

Total Loan Pricipals; $3,235S01

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) $,2(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $5,300USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) so 43,41

Total Depreciation $5,300 $,4

CASH BALANCE (C) $6,639 (d) .$3,62=(Net Income - Principals + Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOB'S PARTICIPATION

ANNUAL NEr INCOIE DIFERENCE $,3 a b

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE DIFRENCE $3,01 1 (c) - (d)

A24 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Workshafts

U.s. AREM CORM OF •WW•E Page 5Ofs09/30150 CONAI"YW AREA AQUACLTMJE SROORAM

BW0NUhXlAN S L=70 MAWI WJ U KST

ANNUAL SALES SUMMARY

SPECIES: Crawfish

UNIT: haunds

]B"•VwBS 1

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 40,000 <c-Insr

PRICE PER UNIT $0.49 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $19,600 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-.Insrt

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 1,000 (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $490 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

•E"VT 2

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Inset

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Unit Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOT(YAL ANNAL SATLE- $19,00 (Harvests 1 & 2)

Appendix A CAAP Economics and Mutaing Wofheets A25

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENO1JGIERS Page 6 of 6

09/30/90 CONTADIMENT AREA AQUACULTURE PROGRAM

ECONOMICS AND MARKETING WORKSHZEET

Crawfish ANNUAL INCOME STATEMENT

REVENUE With USCOE W/ot USCOE

Total Annual Sales $19,600 $19,600

EXPENSES

A. Total Variable Costs (Pg. 3) $12,139 $12,139

B. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) $7,288 $7,288Total Expenses with USCOE $19,426 $19,426

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) $4,731Total Expenses w/out USCOE $24.157

NET INCOME (a) $174 (b) %4,557)

AI•UAL CASh jSALANCb S TATEMENT

NET INCOME $174 ($4,557)

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3, E) $585 $585Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4, G) $2,650 $2,650

Total Loan Pricipals $3,235 $3,235

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) $1,720(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $5,300 $5,300USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) $0 $3,441

Total Depreciation $5,300 $8,741

CASH BALANCE (c) $2,239 (d) ($7P2)(Net income - Principals + Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOE'S PARTICIPATIONS... . ......... .. .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T X. . .... .: • . . . :' % •• . :•:"•i••i¢•• . .. .

ANNUAL NET INCOME DIFERENCE $4,731 (a)- (b)

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE DIFFERENCE $3,011 (c)- (d)

A26 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.& AR WORM OPC RNO EERS Page 5 of 609/30/90 CONTA•DY•EPT AREA AQUACULT"U• PROGRAM

ECONO 3CS AND MAREBPO Wo smRET

ANNUAL SALES SUMMARY

SPECIES: Crawfish

UNIT: Pounds

HARVEST I

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 33,000 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT $0.60 c-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $190800 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 825 (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $495 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

HARVEST 2

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TGTAL ANNUAL SALES $19,600 (Harvests 1 & 2)

Appencix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets A27

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENO5IMIM Page 6 of 6

09/30/90 CONTANENT APEA AQ•AJILMJE PROGRAMECONOMIS AND ARKB1TM0 svRcsxrr

Crawfish ANNUAL INCOME STATEME

REVENUE wra uswz w/dw U1AM

Total Annual Sales $19,800 $19M0

A. Total VariaNe Costs (Pg. 3) $12.139 S12,139B. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) $7,288 7.2088

Total Expenses with USCOE $19,426 $19,M

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) #4.731Total Expenses wlont USCOE $24.157

NET INCOME (a) $374 : (b) (_

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

NET INCONM $.W4 :(4•/

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3, E) $585 $585Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4, G) $2,650 $2,650

Total Loan Pricipals $3.235 $3=

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) $1,720(Aquaculturist's FAxed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $5,300 $,3USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) $0 $3,441

Total Depreciation $5,300 $8,741

CASH BALANCE (C) $2,39(d) MI(Net Income - Principals + Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOB'S PARTICIPATION

ANNUAL NET INCOME DIFCER $4N731E () - (b)

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE DIFFERENCE $3,011 (C) - (d)

A28 Apooencx A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U&S ARMY COM OP AM00MM Popg 1 o16

09/30/9 CONTADINMEN AREot AQ(JACIL7TURE PRXOOXAM

EWNOA"CC AND MAL4=mO WRKSMUW

Clama CONSTRUCTON COSTS

DIRT VOLUME par LINEAR POCY C-ALCULATION

A -TOP Width 2 FL <-IonstB -BASE Width 14 FL D -(S1+S2) xH +AH - HEIGHT 3.0 Ft. <-Iiuet

S I - INNER SLOPE 2.0 Ft. <-Insert

S2 - OUTER SLOPE 2.0 FL <-Imnst

DIRT VOLUME AMD COST CALCULATIONS

VOLUME - 24 CU. FT. per LINEAR FT. (A + B)/2 x H

LENGTH 1,320 LINEAR FT. <-Insert

TOTALVOLUME -1, 173 CU. YDS (VOLUME x LENGTH 127)

DIRT MOVINGCOST: $0.60 PER CU. YD. <-Insert

USCOB'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A. LEVEE (Dirt Moving) COST $704 (Dirt Moving Cost x Total Volume)

B. WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE(S) 1,000 <-Inset

C. ACCESS ROAD $0 <-Insert

D. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (permits, tust, etc.) $15,000 <-Inser

USCOB'S Total Cam~ondie Caots (A, B, C, D) $23,704

AQUACULTURIST'S CONMUCTION COSTS

E: POND IMPROVEMENTS (seeding, uhunping, eft.) $300 <-Insert

F. SITE IMPROVEMENTS & UTrILITIES (pier, pilings,septic system,. electricity, wate, etc.) $1,500 <-Imnst

G. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (perit, tests, etc.) $1,500 <-Insert

H. CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION $500 <-laner

Aquaculturarts Total Causbuctimi Caomb (E, F, 0, H) $,0

USCOB & AQUACULTURIST'S TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $27,504

Appericix A CAAP Economics and Manotfing Worksheets A29

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Page 2 of 6

09/3090 CONTAINMNT AREA AQUACULTURE PROGRAMECONOMICS AND AL4RKJUIN WORKSHEET

Clams INI1TAL INVESTMENT COSTS

EQUIPMENT COSTS

AERATOR & SCREEN <- InsertBOAT & MOTOR 8,500 <- InsertBUILDING (Feed Storage) <- InsertBUILDING (Office/Service) <- InsertCHEMICALS <- InsertCOOLERS <- InsertFEED BINS <- InsertFEEDERS <- InsertFLOATS 600 <- InsertGENERATORS <- InsertHARVEST BASKETS <- InsertHARVEST MACHINE <- InsertMESH BAGS 18,200 <- InsertMOWER <- InsertNETS <- InsertNIGHT LIGHTS <- InsertPUMP SHED <- InsertTRAILER 1,000 <- InsertTRAPS <- InsertVALVES <- InsertVEHICLES 11,000 <- InsertWATER PIPE <- InsertWELL & PUMPS 500 <- InsertWET SUIT I SCUBA 1,100 <- InsertOTHER: Miscellaneous 800 <- InsertOTHER:- <- InsertOTHER: <- InsertOTHER: <- Insert

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $41,700

.. . ...::. .... .. ~Y ..~t .... ..X.. . . . . .....

ORTIA.L INV&STMENTf COSTS S~bOMARY

AquacuEturist's Investment CostsTotal Equipment Costs $41,700

Total Construction Costs (Page 1): 3,800Total Investment Costs $45,500

USCOE'S Investmet CostsTotal Construction Costs (Page 1) $23,704

Total Aquaculturist's & USCOE'S Initl Investment Costs $69,204

A30 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.S. ARMIY CORPS OF EJGNOWRS Page 3 of 609f30190 CONTAINMENT AREA AQUACUILIJR.E PRORM"

ECONOMICS AND MARKETIXNG WORKSHEET

C~ms ANNUAL VARIABLE COSTS

Uo.~ x-1 7VARIABLE PRODUCTION COSTS

BAIT ______<-Insert

CHEMICALS ______<-Insert

FEED ______<-Insert

FERTILIZER _______<-Insert

FW'GERUNGhf3S '0 OSTLARVAE _ ___<-Insert

FUEL 1,900 <-InsertHARVESTING ______<-Insert

HAULING ______<-Insert

HIRED LABOR & PAYROLL TAX 2,500 <-InsertICE _______<-Insert

MANAGER ______<-Insert

PROCESSING ______<-Insert

REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,800 <-InsertSACKS ______<-Insert

SEED 40,000 <-InsertSUPPLIES 200 <-InsertTRANSPORTATION ______<-Insert

UTILITIES (Electricity, Telephone, Etc.) _______<-Insert

OTHER: _______________<-Insert

OTHER: _______________<-Insert

OTHER: _______________<-Insert

OTHER: _______________<-Insert

A. SUB-TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $46,400

OPERATING LOAN COSTS

B. % of Variable Costs borrowed 50% <-Insert

C. Total Amount of Operating Loan $23,200 (A x B)

D. Term of Operating Loan (# of Yrs.) 5 <-Insert

E. Annual Operating Loan Payment $4,640 (C / 0)

F. % of Inter'est on operating Loan 12% <-Insert

G. Interest Paid on Operating Loan $2,784 (C x F)

H. TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $49,184 (A + G)

Appendcix A CAAP Economics and Marketing WorksheetsA3

U.S. ARMYf CORMPSC OP tR&IIIZE Page 4 of 609/30M9 CDNFARIMBNT AREA AQUACEULTTJR PROGRAM

EC)OMIACS AND ML4A~rKBIVG RORWLHIEBT

clama ANNUAL FIXED COST

AQUACULTURIST'S EX mnvmURs DEPRECIATION

A. Total Investment Costs $45.500 (From Page 2)

B. Amortization Schedule (Years) 5 <-Insert

C. Annual Investment Depreciation $9,100 (A/ B)

D. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 50% <-Insert

E. Amount of Investment Loan $22,750 (A x D)

F. Term of Loan ( #Yrs. ) 10 <-Insert

G. Annual Principal Payment $2,275 (El/ F)

H. % of Interest on Investment Loan 12% <-insert

1. Interest Paid on Investment Loan $2,730 (E x H)

J. Annual Insurance Premiums $1,000 <-Insert

K. Salaried Employees and Payroll Taxes $0 <-Insert

L. Miscellaneous $1,400 <-Insert

M. Other__________ ___ <-Insert

TOTAL FIXED COSTS $12,830 (C.I.J.K)

AQUACULTURIST'S FIX(ED-COST SAVINGS(Based on Value of USCOE'S Contribution to Total Construclion Coats)

AA. USCOE'S Total Construction Costs $23,704 (From Page 1)

BB. Amortization Schedule (Years) 5 (B3 above)

CC. Annual Investment Depreciation $4,741 (AA I BB)

DD. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 50% (D above)

EE. Total Amount of Investment Loan $11,852 (AA x DD)

FF. Term of Loan (# Yrs. ) -10_ (F Above)

GG. Annual Principal Payment $1,185 (EEl/ FF)

HH. % of Interest on Investment Loan 12% (H above)

II. Interest Paid on Investment Loan $1,422 (EE x HH)

AQUACULTURIST'S FIXED-COST SAVINGS $6,163 (CC + 11)

A32M

A32 Appendx A CAAP Econofnics and Marketing Worksheets

US. ARMY COWSM OF NGINERS Page 5 of 6

0913019 WONFAHOSWT AREA AQIJACULTUIRE PROGRAMECONOMICS AND MARKE71tNG WVREShuEr

ANNUAL SALES SUMMARY

SPECIES: Clams

UNIT: Each

UD.ARVESTS" n

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 1,000,000 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT $0.17 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $170,00 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 25,000 (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE i FER ACRE $4,250 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

]1&.V,]I,. 2

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-insedo

AMOUNT OF SALE so (Units Hammued x Prime per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40. <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE so (Towtales I No. of Acres)

TOTAL ANNUAL SAIMJ• $170,000 (Harvests I & 2)

Appendix A CAAP Econiomics and Markeing WorksheetsA3

U.& ARMY , rcoRPs OF ENGINEERS Page 6 of 609/30/90 CONrAINMET AREA AQUACULTIRE PROGRAM

ECONAOM•CS AND MLARgTZIN WORKSREF

Clams ANNUAL INCOME STAT ENT

REVENUE W'i• USDOE W/aw USNDE

Total Annual Sales $170,000 $170,000

EXPENSES

A. Total Variable Costs (Pg. 3) $49,184 49.184B. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) $12,830 12.,830

Total Expenses with USCOE $62,014 $62,014

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) 4, , 163Total Expenses w/out USCOE $6M,177

NET INCOME (a) $107,986 (b) $101,823

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

NET INCOME $107,986 $101.823

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3, E) $4,640 $4,640Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4, G) $2,275 $2,275

Total Loan Pricipals $6,915 $8,915

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) $1,185(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $9,100 . 9,100USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4. CC) $0 4$4,741

Total Deprecdation $9,100 $13,841

CASH BALANCE (c) $110,171 (d) *$10Z564(Net Income - Principals + Deprecation)

VALUE OF USCOE'S PARTICIPATION

ANNUAL NET INCOME DC $6,163 () - (b)

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE DU1%FWNCE $2,607 (C) - (

A34Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Workshemt

U&S. ARMY COX OF PWMBS Pop 5oi6

0190 oJTAINM•mN Ala AQUACTEJLflR PROOR"V AND w s o r7 s

ANNUAL SAL SUMMARY

SPECIES: ChaM

UNIT: Each

HARVEST I

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 1 000.000 <-Iner

PRICE PER UNIT $0.09 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $90,000 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Inert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 25.000 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $2,250 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

HARVEST 2

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Uit Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-inert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE so (Total SalesINo. ofAcre)

TOTAL ANNUAL SALES 890,000 (Harvests1 &2)

Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets A35

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF EWCUu Page 6 of 6

09/30/90 WONFA MOMWrT flt AQUACJLTUE M(XMAMEWNWGOAK! AND MAURKEVN O*LWSEBT

lANNUAL DICOME STATEMSBN

REVENUE Wai SO OE W/bw UK=

Total Annual Sales $90.000 $10,00

EXPENSES

A. Total Vaiuable Costs (Pg. 3) $49.164 *49.184B. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) $12,8N0 612,830

Total Expenses with USCOE $62.014 $,0

C. USCOE AXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) $,163Total Expenses wlout USCOE M,177

NET INCOME (a) $27,98 (b) SM.=

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STAT1SIEWI

NET INCOhM $27,9W6 $21=

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3. E) $4,640 64,640Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4. G) $2,275 *2*75

Total Loan Pricipals $6,915 WI,16

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4. EE)(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4. C) $9.100 ,Ia;00USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) s0 $4,741

Total Deprecation $9,100 -,1

CASH BALANCE (c) $30,171 (d)(Net Income - Principals Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOB'S PARTICIPATION

ANNUAL NT INCOM D $6,163 (a) - ()

A36 Appendix A CLAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.& ARMY WM OF ENV IRS Pag. safe09/30/90 COY4TAINMWET AREA AQUAWfLTIJD PROGOLW1

=0011111 AND MAR4I7WW WROUW

ANNUAL SALE SUMM4ARY

SPECIES: Ch=m

UNIT: Each

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 500,000 <-Inser

PRICE PER UNIT 50.17 <-Ifnet

AMOUNT OF SALE $85.000 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <--Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 12,500 (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE 82,125 (Total Sales/INo. of Acres)

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Inurtt

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Inser

AMOUNT OF SAL.E $0 (Units Harvest'id x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested / No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

A37Appecidx A CMAP Economics and Marlwting Worksteets

U&S AR"Y COP OF EAKN74Z Page 6 of 609/30/9 CONTADNMRT AREA AQUACVJLTEJRB PROGRAM

EBWMYWA9 AND AARU7TWO 10VRUIET

LlamaANNUAL INCOME STAT12SEN

REENEWA USWF _ _ _ _ __I

TOMa AnnUal Sales 865,000 $1=

EXPENSES

A. Total Vuriable Costs (Pg. 3) $49,184 $49,184B. Total Fbted Costs (Pg 4) $1 2,830 *12,830-

Total Exesswith USCOE $62,014MA

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) W~6Total Expenses wlouft USCOE ,7

NET INCOME (a) $22,966 () 66

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

LOAN PRICIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3, E) $4,640 $*4,640Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4,6G) $2,275 $12,27

Total Loan PrIcipals $6,915 $,1

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) $,8(Aquaculturlst's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $9,100 $9600USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) so *4,7411

Total Depredation $9,100 $3

CASH BALANCE (c) $25,171 ýc 2J4(Net Income - Principals + Depreciation)

VALUE OF~ USCOE'S PARTICIPATION

ANNUAL CASH BALANC!E DIFFERENCE $W c d

A38 Appendx A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.S. ARMY CORPS OP ENODNER Page 1 of 6

003" COANTAINMENT AREA AQUACULT(JRE PROGRAM

ECONOMICS AND MARXWiN WORKHE

Hybrid Std Bass CONSTRUCTION COSTS

DIRT VOLUME per IUNEAR FOOT CALCULATION

A - TOP Width 13 Ft. <-InsertB - BASE Width 59 Ft. 8 - (S1.+2) x H + AH - HEIGHT 6.5 Ft. <-Insert

SI - INNER SLOPE 4.0 Ft. <-Insert

S2 - OUTER SLOPE 3.0 Ft. <-Insert

DIRT VOLUME AND COST CALCULATIONS

VOLUME - 232 CU. FT. per LINEAR FT. (A + B)/2 x H

LENGTH- 6,600 LINEAR FT. <-Insrt

TOTAL

VOLUME - 56,803 CU. YDS (VOLUME x LENGTH / 27)

DIRT MOVINGCOST: $0.60 PER CU. YD. <-Insert

USCOE'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

A. LEVEE (Dirt Moving) COST $34,082 (Dirt Moving Cost x Total Volume)

B. WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE(S) 7,800 <-Insert

C. ACCESS ROAD $3,000 <-Insert

D. PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS (permits, tests, etc.) $10,000 <-Insert

USCOE'S Tota Cetauction Comts (A, B, C, D) $54,882

AQUACULTURIST'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS

E: POND IMPROVEMENTS (seeding, saping, etc.) $1,000 <-wnert

F. SITE IMPROVEMENTS & UTJTIES (pier, piing,septic system, electricity, water, etc.) $3,000 <-Insert

G. PRECONSTRUCrION COSTS (permits, tests, etc.) $6,000 <-Insert

H. CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION $1,000 <-Insert

Aquculkurist's TOts Cautctia Cot (E, F, 0, H) $11,000

USCOE & AQUACULTURXSTS TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $65,882

Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets A39

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF EJGOIEERS Page 2 of 6

09/30/90 CONTAINMENT AREA AQUACULTCIRE PROGRAM

ECONOMICS AND ARKETI1NG WOESII ET

jHybrid Stripe Bass INITIAL INVESTMENT COSTS

EQUIPbMwer COSTS

AERATOR & SCREEN $12,000 <- InsertBOAT & MOTOR 1.425 <- InsertBUILDING (Feed Storage) 5,000 <- InsertBUILDING (Office/Service) 8,500 <- InsertCHEMICALS <_- InsertCOOLERS <_- InsertFEED BINS <C- InsertFEEDERS 3,000 <- InsertFLOATS <_- InsertGENERATORS <_- InsertHARVEST BASKETS <- InsertHARVEST MACHINE <_- InsertMESH BAGS <- InsertMOWER 2,000 <- InsertNETS <C- InsertNIGHT UGHTS <_- InsertPUMP SHED 1,200 <- InsertTRAILER <_- InsertTRAPS <C- InsertVALVES 1,000 <- InsertVEHICLES 18,000 <- InsertWATER PIPE 2.200 <- InsertWELL & PUMPS 12,000 <- InsertWET SUIT I SCUBA <C- InsertOTHER: Miscellaneous 1,400 <- InsertOTHER: <c- InsertOTHER: <_- InsertOTHER: <C- Insert

TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST $67,725

4INrIAL INDvZSTMiiNT COSTS SUMMARY

Aquaculturisrs Investment CostsTotal Equipment Costs $67,725Total Construction Costs (Page 1): 11,000

Total Investment Costs $78,725

USCOE'S Investment CostsTotal Construction Costs (Page 1) $54,882

Total Aquaculturist's & USCOE'S Initia Investment Costs $133,607

A40 Appendix A CMP Economics and Murting Woaths

U.S. ARMY (CXRPS Or 2NGNEERS Page 3 of 6

09/30/90 CONTAROWMNT AREA AQUACUL1"TJU PROGRAM

FiOGNOMICS AND MAR WiNG WORESRET

Hjyhd. jdMjjua ANNUAL VARIABLE COSTS

VARIABLE PRODUCTION COSTS

BAIT <-InsertCHEMICALS 600 <-InsertFEED 65.000 <-InsertFERTILIZER <-InsertFINGERLINGS I POSTLARVAE 16,000 <-InsertFUEL 6,800 <-InsertHARVESTING 5,500 <-InsertHAULING <-InsertHIRED LABOR & PAYROLL TAX 2,500 <-InsertICE <-InsertMANAGER <-InsertPROCESSING <-InsertREPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,000 <-InsertSACKS <-InsertSEED ._<-InsertSUPPLIES <-InsertTRANSPORTATION <-Insert

UTILITIES (Electricity, Telephone, Etc.) 1,500 <-InsertOTHER: <-InsertOTHER: <-InsertOTHER: <-InsertOTHER: <-Insert

A. SUB-TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $105,900

OPERATING LOAN COSTS

B. % of Variable Costs borrowed 75% <-Insert

C. Total Amount of Operating Loan $79,425 (A x B)

D. Term of Operating Loan (# of Yrs.) 5 <-Insert

E. Annual Operating Loan Payment $15,885 (C I D)

F. % of Interest on Operating Loan 12% <-Insert

G. Interest Paid on Operating Loan $9,531 (C x F)

H. TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $115,431 (A + G)

Appendix A CAAP Economics and Madwting Woarkshts A41

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINYESrS Page 4 of 6

09/30/90 CONTAI•MENT AREA .4 QUAC LT URE PROGRAM

ECONOMICS AND MALRlEFINVG WORLSF.EET

Hybrid Stri6pZd Bass ANNUAL FIXED COSTS

AQUACULTURIST'S EXPENDrFURES I DEPRECIATION

A. Total Investment Costs $58,600 (From Page 2)

B. Amortization Schedule (Years) 5 <-Insert

C. Annual Investment Depreciation $11,720 (A I B)

D. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 75% <-Insert

E. Amount of Investment Loan $43,950 (A x D)

F. Term of Loan ( # Yrs. ) 10 <-Insert

G. Annual Principal Payment $4,395 (E I F)

H. % of Interest on Investment Loan 15% <-Insert

I. Interest Paid on Investment Loan $6,593 (E x H)

J. Annual Insurance Premiums $1,500 <-Insert

K. Salaried Employees and Payroll Taxes $0 <-insert

L. Miscellaneous $0 <-Insert

M. Other - <-Insert

TOTAL FIXED COSTS $19,813 (C+I+J+K)

.................. ~~......,`--,",,*,,._*_. .. ." .1

AQUACULTURIST'S FIXED-COST SAVINGS(Based on Value of USCOE'S Contribution to Total Construction Costs)

AA. USCOE'S Total Construction Costs $54,882 (From Page 1)

BB. Amortization S%.,'r'ule (Years) 5 (B above)

CC. Annual Investment Depreciation $10,976 (AA I BB)

DD. % of Initial Investment Borrowed 75% (D above)

EE. Total Amount of Investment Loan $41,161 (AA x DD)

FF. Term of Loan (# Yrs. ) 10 (F Above)

GG. Annual Principal Payment $4,116 (EE /FF)

HH. % of Interest on Investment Loan 15% (H above)

II. Interest Paid on Investment Lowr. $6,174 (EE x HH)

AQUACULTURIST'S FIXED-COST SAVINGS $17,151 (CC + II)

A42 Appencix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENOGNERS Page 5 of 6

09/30/90 CONTARINMNT AREA AQUA CUL7TUR•E PROGRAMECONOMICS AND A4RKETING WORKSHEET

ANNUAL SALES SUMMARY

SPECIES: Hybrid Strýj~~ Bas

UNIT: Pound

ELARVEST I

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 145,800 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT $2.50 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $364,500 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 3,645 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $9,113 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

ELAVMSI 2

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOTAL ANNUAL SALES $364,500 (Harvests I & 2)

Appendx A CAAP Economics and Mhkfting Woksheets A43

U.S ARMY CORPS OFENOC4EERS Page 6 of 609/30/90 CONTAINMENT AREA AQUACUL TURD PR(RAM

ECONOMICS AND AW iN0 WORKSHEET

Hybrid Striped Bass ANNUAL INCOME STATEMENT

REVWNUE With USOE w__ __ EUO

Total Annual Sales $364,500 $34,5

EXPENSES

A. Total Variable Costs (Pg. 3) $115,431 $115.431B. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) $19,813 619.813

Total Expenses with USCOE $135,244 M135,244

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) 617.151Total Expenses wlout USCOE .$152,394

NETINCOME (a) $229.257 (b) =212,106

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

N~r INCOME $229,257 $212,106

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3. E) $15,885 $15.885Investment Loan Payment (Pg. 4, G) $4,395 C4*95

Total Loan Pricipals $20,280 $21)=

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4, EE) S 1 4,116(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPRECIATIONAquaculturist's Investment (Pg. 4, C) $11,720USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) $0 610,976

Total Depreciafion $11,720 $22

CASH BALANCE (c) $220,697.(d) :210,(Net Income - Principals + Depreciation)

VALUE OF USCOE'S PARTICIPATION

A-pe---x'A-C--P-Economics.and.Marketing.WorksheetAN UAL NEr INCOM $1~ee es7,151 (a) ... ......ANNUA CAS•H BALAN•CE DC $10,290 (q) - (d)

A44 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.S ARMY COP OF NR<JOINBS Pug. 5 OfUG09/30/90 CA'FAINJW(FARtEA AQUACCILTVJRE PROGRA4M

ECON00IIES AND MLARrZWTWG * SEDW

ANNUAL SALES SUMMARY

SPECIES: Hybrid Snriped Bas

UNIT: Pumbd

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 60.000 <-Insr

PRICE PER UNIT $2.50 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $150,000 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED/I PER ACRE 1,500 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $8,750 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SAL.E I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TT~AIL ANNUAL SALE $150,000 (Harvests 1 & 2)

Appenix A CMAP Economnics and Marketing Worksheets A45

uH.a. ARMY CORPS OP Page 6 of 609/30/90 CoN'rAD3W ARZA AOUACULTUME PROOR"U

ECONOMCS AND JiAL4AKEMV0 rJSM

Hybrid Stdrc_ Bass ANNUAL INCOME STATEMENT

wREVENU w USCOE Most E40

Total Annual Sales $150,000 $150,000

EXPENSES

A. Total Variable Costs (Pg. 3) $115,431 $116,4319. Total Fixed Costs (Pg. 4) $19,813 $19,813

Total Expenses with USCOE $135,244 $135,244

C. USCOE AXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) $17,151Total Expenses wlout USCOE S2,8

NET INCOME (a) $14,757 (b) ($2e394)

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEME

USCOMES $14,757LaPmt(g4E

LOAN PRINCIPALSOperating Loan Payment (Pg. 3, E) $15,885 $15,815Irvestmetm Loan Payment (Pg. 4, G) $4,395 $41,9

Total Loan Precipalst $11,280 $0.20

USCOE'S Investment Loan Payments (Pg. 4o EE) )4,118(Aquaculturist's Fixed-Cost Savings)

DEPV O C S TAIONAquacul4urist's Investment (Pg. 4d C) $11,720 M11s720USCOE Investment (Savings) (Pg. 4, CC) so $10,976

Total Depredlation $11,720$2,9

CASH BALANCE Mc $6,197 (d) 0;4,04(Net Income - Principals + Depreciation)...• •.I

VALUE OF USO'S PART7ICPATKON

ANNUAL NET INCOME D • (CE $17,L15l (a)- •o)

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE DI ERNC- $10.2"0 (d) - (N)

A46 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Worksheets

U.S. ARY CORPS OP ENGINEERS Page 5ot 6

09/30/90 CONTAJNENT AREA AQUAC•CL TURBS PROGRAM

ECONOMICS AND MALRKETING WORKSHEET

ANNUAL SALES SUMMARY

SPECIES: Hybrid Striped Bass

UNIT: Pounds

HARVEST I

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 145.800 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT $1.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $145.800 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 3,645 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $3.645 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

HAMIMM 2

TOTAL UNITS HARVESTED 0 <-Insert

PRICE PER UNIT 0.00 <-Insert

AMOUNT OF SALE $0 (Units Harvested x Price per Unit)

NUMBER OF ACRES 40 <-Insert

UNITS HARVESTED I PER ACRE 0 (Total Units Harvested I No. of Acres)

AMOUNT OF SALE I PER ACRE $0 (Total Sales I No. of Acres)

TOTApLp nAx.NNUAL S S E145,800 (HaMvests e & 2)

Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Workshaets A47

09/30M9 WOMNGORIWFAMIA AQUACVLI T= PE WJRAMPae66

ftbW agis ANNUAL DINCOE STATEMENT

TOWa AnnUal Sales 8145,800

A. Total Varlls Costs (Pg 3) $115.431 *1,3B. Total FedCosts fPg 4) $10,813.801

TOMa Expanise with USCOE $135.244*W2

C. USCOE FIXED-COSTS SAVINGS (Pg. 4) 1,5Total Expense Wlou USCOE 5.4

NET INCOME (a) 810,557) OBM~

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE STATEMENT

LOAN PRNCIPAISOperat~n Loan Parinen (Pg. 3.,E) $15,665 $M5M9InveStment Loan Paymen (Pg. 4, G) 84,395 U

Total Loan Pricipais 820.2110

USCOE'S Ifvewd~f~l Loan Paymnwts (Pg. 4, EE) ,1(Aquacultusrl's Fixed-Cost Saving)

DEPRBCIATIONAquacufturat's Investment (Pg. 4. C) $11,720 411,720USCOE Invesment (Sav*ng) (Pg. 4. CC) $0 *07

ToWa Deprdelaion $11,720

CASH BALANCE (C) $1,907 () #A(Not Income - PrIncipals+ Deprecaton)

VALUE OF USCOB'S PARXIOCPATICI4

ANULNET INCME IFEEC $17,151 (a) -(b)

ANNUAL CASH BALANCE DIFRNE$10,290 (c) -(d

A48 Appendix A CAAP Economics and Marketing Workshets

Form AovedREPORT LDOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-o0M

Public reorting b•.rdefn for this collection of information is estimvatee to average hou.r aer response. including the time for reviewing instruction- searching existflg data Sources.gatherin and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the cotle•tion of information Send comments regarding this bu:rden estimate or any other aswect of thiscllectionl of inforfmatorf, ,ncluding suggestions tor reducing this Ourdefn to Washington Headquarters Servces. Diretorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 tefsoernODavs Highway. Suite 1204. Arhngton. VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwort Reduction Projext (0704-0 18). Washington. DC 205•3

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

September 1993 Final report4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS

Economics and Marketing of Aquaculture in Dredged Contra No.Material Containment Areas DACW39-89-C-0020

6. AUTHOR(S)

C-K Associates, Inc.

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

C-K Associates, Inc.17170 Perkins RoadBaton Rouge, LA 70810

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

U. S. Army Corpcv of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-1000; Technical ReportU. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station EL-93-19Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road,Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Available for National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield, VA 22161

12a. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

High land and construction costs hinder development of pond-based aquaculture in the United States. Apartnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may reduce these constraints. The dredged materialcontainment areas (DMCA) operated by the USACE are structurally similar to aquaculture ponds and typically areused by the USACE only once every 3 to 10 years. With the Corps and navigational interests contributing to dikeconstruction and land acquisition, the costs of aquaculture may be reduced while providing the Corps with theadtitional disposal areas needed to maintain our nation's waterways. The Containment Area Aquaculture Program(CAAP) was established to investigate the feasibility of DMCA aquaiture from biological, economic, engineer-ing, and legal perspectives. The technical feasibility of DMCA's was demonstrated in 42- and 47-ha DMCA'snear Brownsville, TX. Pumps, filters, and drainage structures were added to these DMCA's to accommodateaquaculture operations and a 1.6-ha nursery pond was constructed. During a 3-year period, four crops of penaeidshrimp were raised. Production rates averaged 670 kgiha of whole shrimp (range: 338 to 1,143 kg/ha) with51 percent survival (range: 23 percent to 74 percent). Total production for the four crops was 116,088 kg ofwhole shrimp (71,878 kg tails), and this was sold for over $475,000.

(Continued)

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Aquaculture DMCA 120Beneficial uses Economics 16. PRICE CODE

CAAP17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED INSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-1S295-102

13. (Concluded).

This report gives a general overview of the economics and marketing of aquaculture products raised inDMICA's. AQUADEC, a computer program developed under the Florida Sea Grant Program for examining thefeasibility of aquaculture enterprises, was used to generate financial statements for the Brownsville demonstrationproject, including cost recovery schedules, loan amortization schedules, income statements, monthly cash flowstatements, balance sheets, and operating budgets. Exact values for these parameters cannot be obtained becauseof differences between the input requirements of AQUADEC and the records kept by the Corps and contractorsrunning the demonstration farm; however, some general conclusions can be made. The Brownsville shrimp farmshowed that aquaculture in a DMCA is feasible, based on both yield and production costs. Compaied to a typi-cal aquaculture operation, the major potential incentive to using a DMCA is the reduction in pond constructioncosts. For the demonstration project, the combined capital savings from having USACE participation was esti-mated at $271,000, or about $1,200 per acre. In an industry known for scarcity of funds available from financialinstitutions, this capital savings is valuable. The value of using a DMCA beyond the initial construction costsare difficult to estimate and probably would vary significantly on a project-by-project basis.

Several hypothetical aquaculture enterprises were studied to examine the trade off between reducedconstruction/operation costs and reduced access to the ponds because of dredging operations. All operationsinvolving catfish, crawfish, hard clams, and hybrid striped bass should benefit from using DMCA's. These sim-ulations were done with a series of six Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets that can be easily modified to investigate spe-cific scenarios. The worksheets accept and calculate data for construction costs, initial investment costs, annualvariable costs, annual fixed costs, annual sales and summary, annual income statements, and annual cash balancestatements.