|
| |
 Member Login |
|
| | |
| |
 Aquaculture 2004 -
Meeting Abstract
|
531
linear programming analysis of optimal
production strategies for catfish Ictalurus punctatus farms |
| |
Steeve
Pomerleau* and Carole Engle
Aquaculture/Fisheries Center
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
P.O. Box 4912
1200 N. University Drive
Pine Bluff, AR
71601
spomerleau@uaex.edu
|
A 2-year
linear programming model was developed to determine the
optimal production strategy that maximizes net returns of a
catfish farm. The model's matrix was composed of 1,467
activities and 606 constraints. Activities included the choice
of stocking different sizes of fingerling in growout ponds for
multiple-batch production or stocking them at higher densities
for the production of different sizes of stockers. Fingerlings
could be purchased or produced on-farm from purchased fry.
Stockers could be grown to market size in single-batch
production. Stockers could be harvested and stocked for
growout at any month throughout the growing season. The model
was subject primarily to pond balance and fish balance
constraints. The matrix's coefficients were adapted from the
results of a series of pond studies conducted at the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on fingerling and stocker
production and growout.
The model
selected strategy 1 (Table 1) as the profit maximizing
strategy (including final inventory value). On the first year,
strategy 1 allocated 95% of the farm water-area to growout and
5% to 13-g fingerling production, which were stocked in
growout ponds the second year. On the second year, fingerling
production was replaced by stocker production because it
increased the value of the final inventory. However, options
selected in Year 1 would be better indicator of the long-term
optimal strategy for a catfish farm. Options selected in Year
2 (the last year of the model) are bias towards increasing
sales and fish inventory without considering the impact it may
have on the following years of production. Sensitivity
analysis indicated that the model was robust to large
variations in financial variables. However, Strategy 2 (Table
1) was selected at lower ranges of discounting rates, feed
prices, and fry prices. Strategy 3 (Table 1) was selected at
high foodfish prices and the lowest ranges of discounting
rates, feed prices, and fingerling prices.
|
| |
Copyright © 2001 -
2006 World Aquaculture Society All Rights
Reserved.
| | |
