Use of wild fish and other aquatic organisms as feed in aquaculture in the Asia-Pacific 101
TABLE 16
Equilibrium feed costs at various prices (in US$/kg) and conversion efficiencies (CE) for trash
fish/low-value fish in comparison with commercial pellet feed
Country Commercial pellet feed Trash fish
Price CE Cost Price CE Cost
Indonesia 1.00 2.64 2.64 0.25 10.55 2.64
Thailand 0.26 10.30 2.64
Viet Nam 0.20 13.20 2.64
Source: Sim (2006)
for 51.8 percent of the total production costs in cage systems and 57.5 percent of the
costs in pond systems. By comparison, feed cost in Viet Nam is relatively lower at
23.4 percent. This is mainly due to the lower cost of trash fish/low-value fish (US$0.20/
kg), the associated feeding practices, and the fact that farmers often procure their own
trash fish/low-value fish, thereby reducing the need to purchase this resource. Farmers
in Cat Ba Island tend to withhold feeding if trash fish/low-value fish are not available
or when the weather limits active feeding by fish.
As feed accounts for a major portion of the production costs for grouper farming, it
is important that the cost is kept as low as possible and that feed efficiency is improved.
Figure 16 depicts the trends of CE and cost of production of one kilogram of grouper
on farms in Thailand, Viet Nam and Indonesia. Analysis of the available data on CE
(X) and cost of production (Y) for Thai and Vietnamese grouper farmers who use trash
fish/low-value fish shows a positive linear relationship between these two parameters.
These trends are:
Thailand (Figure 16a): Y = 0.587X + 0.837 (R^2 = 0.907; P<0.01), and
Viet Nam (Figure 16b): Y = 0.292X + 5.536 (R^2 = 0.337; P<0.05).
Similar trends were recorded for the three countries (Thailand, Viet Nam and
Indonesia) combined (Figure 16c). As expected, these analyses indicate that higher CE
results in higher cost of production. There was insufficient data to determine the effect
BOX 6
Small-scale farmers and the use of trash fish/low-value fish
From the study by Sim (2006), it is apparent that the only option available to many
small-scale farmers in remote areas is to feed their cultured stocks with trash fish/low-
value fish, which the farmers
often catch on a regular basis. As
these practices are linked to local
tradition and culture, efforts to
change them may jeopardize the
livelihoods of many small-scale
farmers, fishers and other small-
scale operators. Attention should
be focused on assisting these
farmers to adopt better farming
practices, including improved use
of the trash fish/low-value fish
that they procure themselves through transformation into moist pellet, improved feed
management and proper husbandry and health management.Photo: Fish farmer with fishing gear used to catch trash fish/low-value fish to feed
cultured stock