United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection Service

Veterinary

Services

National

Animal Health

Monitoring

System

December 2010

Catfish 2010

Part I: Reference of Catfish Health and

Production Practices in the United States,

2009
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mention of companies or commercial products does not

imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA

over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees

nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned.

Product names are mentioned solely to report factually

on available data and to provide specific information.

USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

(970) 494-7000

Email: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov

#580.1210

Cover photo courtesy Stephen Ausmus,

Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / i

Items of Note

The Catfish 2010 study is the third investigation of the industry by the National Animal

Health Monitoring System. This study is a broad look at management, production, and

health practices across the various facets of the catfish industry, including breeding,

hatching, and foodsize-fish growout. This report focuses on the breeding and hatching

components of the industry.

Breeding management

Catfish breeding is concentrated in a relatively small portion of the industry (8.8 percent of

all operations). Channel catfish remains the primary species bred by the industry.

Improvements in the reliability and cost effectiveness of artificial spawning of female

channel catfish and male blue catfish have increased the availability of hybrid fingerlings

for growout. Almost one-fifth of catfish breeders had blue catfish broodfish inventory in

2009. Ultimately, 12.9 percent of fry hatched in 2009 were channel x blue catfish hybrids.

The percent of broodfish culled was 14.4 percent, even though more than one-half of

breeding operations did not cull any broodfish. Overall, 17.0 percent of broodfish were

lost to disease, predation, or other problems in 2009. Fighting, other causes (including

catastrophic events such as flooding), and unknown causes played a much greater role in

broodfish losses than did disease.

Hatchery operation

Not all of the catfish hatcheries in the four study States were operated in 2009. The

hatcheries that were operated all had their own broodfish and likely produced their own

eggs for hatching. Operations that did not use their hatcheries may have been seeking to

reduce costs associated with breeding catfish and operating hatcheries or reacting to

decreased demand for fry and fingerlings. The National Agricultural Statistics Service

reported a 22 percent decline in water surface acres used for catfish production between

January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2010, as well as a 41 percent decrease in fingerlings

over the same time period.1
ii / Catfish 2010

Egg health and management

About one-half of hatcheries treat egg masses to control bacterial and fungal infections

prior to placing the egg masses in hatching troughs. A higher percentage of larger

hatcheries compared with smaller hatcheries treat prior to placing egg masses. Regular

turning of egg masses, adequate water circulation, and lower egg-mass densities in

hatching troughs also aid in control of diseases. More than 80 percent of hatcheries use

paddles to circulate water in hatching troughs. A small percentage of hatcheries (8.6

percent) stocked more than 30 egg masses per 100 gallons of water; almost one-half of

operations (47.7 percent) stocked 1 to 15 egg masses per 100 gallons. Some of the

water flow rates may also be inadequate in some hatcheries. Almost three-fourths of

eggs survived to hatching in 2009; most losses were attributed to infertility, fungal

infections, and bacterial egg rot.

Fingerling health and management

Fry were raised to fingerlings on 12.8 percent of catfish operations in the four study

States. Fingerling operations tended to be smaller in the East region than in the West

region (16.1 and 231.6 total surface acres of ponds, respectively) and in average number

of fry stocked in 2009 (698,000 and 15,797,000 fry respectively). The regional difference

likely results from the location of larger catfish operations in the Mississippi Delta area,

which is in the West region. Vaccination for enteric septicemia of catfish (ESC) and

columnaris was not widely practiced by fingerling producers (3.9 and 9.7 percent of

operations, respectively). Approximately two-thirds of fry survived from stocking to

harvest. Almost half (45.8 percent) of the fry/fingerlings lost prior to harvest were lost due

to unknown causes, while ESC and columnaris each caused the loss of about one-fifth of

the fry/fingerlings. Antibiotics were used to treat bacterial diseases on 28.9 percent of

fingerling operations. Although three antibiotics were used to treat bacterial disease,

Aquaflor® was used by the highest percentage of fingerling operations that used

antibiotics (60.2 percent).

Reference

1.Catfish Production. National Agricultural Statistics Service, January 29, 2010.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CatfProd//2010s/2010/CatfProd-01-29-2010.pdf
USDA APHIS VS / iii

Acknowledgments

This report was a cooperative effort between two U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

agencies: the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Thanks to the NASS enumerators who contacted catfish producers and collected the

data. Their hard work and dedication were invaluable. Thanks also to the personnel at the

USDA–APHIS–Veterinary Services’ Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health for their

efforts in generating and distributing this report.

All participants are to be commended, particularly the producers whose voluntary efforts

made the Catfish 2010 study possible.

Larry M. Granger

Director

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health
iv / Catfish 2010

Suggested bibliographic citation for this report:

USDA. 2010. Catfish 2010 Part I: Reference of Catfish Health and Production Practices in

the United States, 2009. USDA–APHIS–VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO.

#580.1210

Contacts for further information:

Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Bruce Wagner (970) 494-7000

Information on reprints or other reports: Ms. Abby Fienhold (970) 494-7000

Email: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov

Feedback

Feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding the Catfish 2010 study reports are

welcome. Please forward correspondence via email (to NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov) or

submit feedback via online survey (at http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov; click on “FEEDBACK

on NAHMS reports”).
USDA APHIS VS / v

Introduction 1

Study Objectives and Related Outputs 3

Terms Used in This Report 4

Selected Highlights of Catfish 2010 Part I 7

Section I: Population Estimates 9

A. Distribution of Catfish Production Phases 9

B. Broodfish Management 11

1. Broodfish lines 11

2. Broodfish by age 14

3. Annual cycle rate (cull rate) of broodfish 15

4. Reasons for culling 18

5. Broodfish loss 18

6. Seasonal feeding practices 20

7. Protein level of feed 21

8. Stocking of forage fish 22

C. Spawning Management 25

1. Number of spawning ponds 25

2. Draining and renovation of spawning ponds 26

3. Broodfish stocking densities 29

4. Female-to-male ratio in spawning ponds 31

D. Hatchery Management 32

1. Egg masses 32

2. Hatchery water management 36

3. Density of egg masses in hatching troughs 41

4. Turning of egg masses 42

E. Egg Health Issues 43

1. Survival of eggs until hatching 43

2. Causes of egg loss 45

3. Fungal/bacterial prevention and treatment 48

F. Fry Management 54

1. Number and species of fry hatched 54

2. Length of time fry left in fry troughs 55

3. Primary feed in fry troughs 56

4. Number of feedings per day for fry 57

5. Fry trough disinfection 57

6. Fry use 58

7. Raising of fry to fingerlings 58

Table of Contents
vi / Catfish 2010

G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking 59

1. Placement of fry in raceways or tanks prior to stocking 59

2. Number and size of fry/fingerling ponds 60

3. Treatment of fry/fingerling ponds before stocking 63

4. Stocking of fry/fingerling ponds 64

5. Number of days between filling ponds and stocking 67

6. Number of years between complete renovations of fry/fingerling ponds 68

7. Fertilization of fry/fingerling ponds 69

8. Insect control in fry/fingerling ponds 72

9. Chloride level 73

10. Salt use 74

H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking 75

1. Fry feed type 75

2. Fry feeding frequency 76

3. Protein level of feed 78

4. Primary method for monitoring dissolved oxygen 79

5. Horsepower of fixed aeration 80

6. Water quality testing 81

I. Fingerling Health Issues 84

1. Vaccination for enteric septicemia of catfish (ESC) 84

2. Average age of fry at ESC vaccination 85

3. ESC vaccination of fry intended for on-farm growout 86

4. ESC vaccination of fry intended for sale as fingerlings 86

5. Outbreaks of ESC in ponds containing vaccinated fingerlings 87

6. Columnaris vaccination 88

7. Average age of fry at columnaris vaccination 89

8. Columnaris vaccination of fry intended for on-farm growout 90

9. Columnaris vaccination of fry intended for sale as fingerlings 91

10. Outbreaks of columnaris in ponds containing vaccinated fingerlings 91

11. Survival of stocked fry until harvest 94

12. Causes of fingerling loss 94

13. Primary treatment for ESC outbreaks 101

14. Laboratory diagnosis 102

15. Use of medicated feed 104

16. Snail control 106
USDA APHIS VS / vii

Section II: Methodology 108

A. Needs Assessment 108

B. Sampling and Estimation 109

1. State selection 109

2. Operation selection 109

3. Population inferences 109

C. Data Collection 109

1. Phase I 109

D. Data Analysis 110

1. Validation and estimation 110

2. Response rates 110

Appendix I: Sample Profile 111

Appendix II: U.S. Catfish Acreage Inventory and Operations 113

USDA APHIS VS / 1

Introduction

Introduction

Catfish 2010 is the third study of health and production management practices on U.S.

catfish operations by the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). NAHMS, a

nonregulatory program of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), is designed to help meet the Nation’s animalhealth information needs.

NAHMS undertook its first national study of the catfish industry with the Catfish ’97 study,

which was the first national examination of production and health management practices

for the industry. The second national study, Catfish 2003, also examined production and

health management practices, but in more detail than the initial study. Catfish 2003 also

focused on breeding and fingerling management, prevalence of disease problems, and

the issue of off-flavor in foodsize-fish production systems.

Catfish 2010 is the third NAHMS catfish study and, like its predecessors, was designed to

provide participating operators and the industry with valuable information on health and

management practices on U.S. catfish operations. The third study also examined

vaccination practices and the use of hybrids of channel and blue catfish, and it evaluated

in more depth the trends in practices over time.

This report is the first in a series of reports documenting Catfish 2010 results. Specific

objectives of Catfish 2010 are described in Section II (Methodology).

The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collaborated with APHIS

Veterinary Services to query catfish producers in four participating States: Alabama,

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These four States represented the Nation’s major

catfish-producing States, accounting for the following aspects of catfish production:

• 53.5 percent of all U.S. catfish operations for January 2008 (latest available);

• 91.5 percent of the total national catfish sales in 2009; and

• 91.3 percent of the water surface acres to be used for catfish production from

January 1 through June 30, 2010.

In January 2010, NASS enumerators administered a questionnaire—either by phone or

through a personal visit—to all known catfish producers in the four participating States.

The overall usable response rate was 83.9 percent, with 424 respondents to the

questionnaire (Alabama had 127 respondents, Arkansas had 77, Louisiana had 13, and

Mississippi had 207).
2 / Catfish 2010

Introduction

All NAHMS Catfish 2010 publications are based on data collected from these producers

during this one collection period. The major publications are described below:

• Part I: Reference of Catfish Health and Production Practices in the United States,

2009—focuses on aspects of disease and production of catfish fingerlings;

• Part II: Reference of Catfish Health and Production Practices in the United States,

2009—focuses on aspects of disease and production of foodsize fish;

• Part III: Reference of Catfish Health and Production Practices in the United States,

2009—trends.

The methodology used in Catfish 2010 is documented in the last section of each report.

Further information on NAHMS studies and copies of reports are available at

http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov.

For questions about this report or additional copies, please contact

USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7

2150 Centre Avenue

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000
USDA APHIS VS / 3

Introduction

1. Investigate foodsize-fish production practices

• Part II: Reference of Catfish Health and Production Practices in the United States, 2009,

expected March 2011

2. Describe fingerling production practices

• Part I: Reference of Catfish Health and Production Practices in the United States,

2009, December 2010

• Part III: Changes in the U.S. Catfish Industry, 1997–2009, expected May 2011

3. Address a broad range of fish health issues

• Part I: Reference of Catfish Health and Production Practices in the United States,

2009, December 2010

4. Quantify the magnitude of the problem of off-flavor

• Info sheet, expected January 2011

Study Objectives and Related Outputs
4 / Catfish 2010

Introduction

Terms Used in

This Report

Agitator: A vertical paddle that spins to aerate water in a small area (1/10 horsepower

electric motor with a blade attached).

Air stones: Porous stones attached to an air source to create air bubbles.

Bacterial infection: Sometimes called bacterial egg rot. It often occurs when egg masses

contain large numbers of infertile eggs or when egg hatching baskets are crowded,

reducing water circulation. The condition is often recognized when egg masses begin to

fall apart prematurely, before embryos develop eye spots. Infected egg masses also will

feel slimy, which occurs when bacteria destroy the egg shell. If the problem progresses,

prematurely hatched embryos without eye spots often will be found on the trough bottom.

Breeding operation: For this study, a breeding operation is defined as one that breeds

catfish for egg collection.

Broodfish: Adult catfish (male and female) intended for use in spawning.

Channel x blue hybrid catfish: First-generation offspring from an artificial mating of a

female channel catfish and a male blue catfish.

Degassing: The process of removing excess gas (particularly nitrogen) from water.

Egg mass: Eggs from a single female catfish, naturally held together by a gelatinous

substance. Egg masses are sometimes referred to as spawns.

ESC: Enteric septicemia of catfish, an economically important bacterial disease of catfish;

also known as hole-in-head disease.

Fingerling: A 1- to 8-inch fish, generally larger than fry but smaller than foodsize fish.

Foodsize fish: Fish of marketable size, generally more than 10 inches long and up to

3 pounds in weight.

Fry: Newly hatched fish less than 1 inch long.

Fungal infection: Fungus growth on infertile or dead eggs that occurs when water

temperature is below 78°F. Appears as a white or brown cotton-like growth.

Growout: The process of raising fingerlings to harvest size (generally 1.3 to 3.0 pounds).
USDA APHIS VS / 5

Introduction

Hardness: The quality in water that is imparted by the presence of dissolved salts,

especially calcium sulfate or bicarbonate.

Hatchery: Portion of operation devoted to hatching eggs and the initial rearing of fry.

Ich (pronounced “ick”): Also known as white spot disease, Ich is caused by a protozoan

parasite, Ichthyophthirius multifiliis. Ich typically occurs in freshwater fish in aquariums and

hatcheries and is characterized by white nodules on the skin that can coalesce, causing

the skin to slough. Many affected fish die. Ich can also affect the gills.

Krill: Species of small marine shrimp commonly dried and sold as fish food.

Operation average: The average value for all operations. The value reported for each

operation is summed for all operations reporting; the sum is then divided by the number of

operations reporting. For example, operation average number of fry hatched in 2009

(shown on p 54) is calculated by summing the reported average number of fry hatched

over all operations divided by the number of operations.

Paddles: Attached to a horizontal rotating bar over hatching troughs; promote water

movement over eggs to simulate the natural fanning action of a male catfish’s tail.

Pond-run channel catfish: Fish originating from foodsize-fish production ponds that lack

the documented history of genetic improvement that is usually associated with identifiable

broodfish lines. (Some hatcheries might perform some type of mass selection, such as

retaining the largest fingerlings, or fingerlings from the earliest spawn, to use as broodfish.

Such fish might be called “unselected commercial lines.”)

Population estimates: Estimates in this report are provided with a measure of precision

called the standard error (abbreviated within as Std. Error). A 95-percent confidence

interval can be created with bounds equal to the estimate, plus or minus two standard

errors. If the only error is sampling error, the confidence intervals created in this manner

will contain the true population mean 95 out of 100 times. In the example to the left, an

estimate of 7.5 with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits of 5.5 to 9.5 (two times the

standard error above and below the estimate). The second estimate of 3.4 shows a

standard error of 0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0. Alternatively, the 90-percent

confidence interval would be created by multiplying the standard error by 1.65 instead of

2. Most estimates in this report are rounded to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0, the

standard error was reported (0.0). If there were no reports of the event, no standard error

was reported (--).
6 / Catfish 2010

Introduction

Raceway: A structure with a continual flow of water; used to hold fish.

Regions:

• East: Alabama and eastern Mississippi.

• West: Arkansas, Louisiana, and the delta of Mississippi.

Renovation: The draining and drying of ponds, followed by removal of accumulated

sediments and rebuilding of levees.

Sac fry: Newly hatched fry that still have an external yolk sac evident.

Sample profile: Information that describes characteristics of the sites from which Catfish

2010 data were collected.

Size of operation: Operation size is based on January 1, 2010, inventory.

Spawns: See egg masses.

Swim-up fry: Newly hatched fry that seek food by swimming to the water surface,

typically 3 to 4 days after hatching.

Trough: Generally a flat-bottom wooden, fiberglass, or metal structure about 8 feet long,

2 feet wide, and 20 inches deep, with a water inlet at one end and drain at the other.

Vaccination: Only two vaccines are in use in the catfish industry: one for ESC and one for

columnaris. Fry are vaccinated by being immersed in a bath containing the vaccine.

Production Phase Small Large 

Breeding operations 2,000 or fewer broodfish More than 2,000 broodfish 

Hatchery operations 1,000 or fewer egg masses More than 1,000 egg masses 

Fingerling operations 1 million or fewer fry stocked More than 1 million fry stocked 
USDA APHIS VS / 7

Introduction

Most catfish operations (94.1 percent) raised foodsize fish. Smaller percentages bred

catfish for egg collection (8.8 percent), operated a hatchery (7.4 percent), and/or raised fry

to fingerlings (12.8 percent).

More than two-thirds of catfish breeding operations maintained broodfish lines of pond-run

channel catfish (69.4 percent). About one-fifth of breeding operations (19.4 percent)

maintained broodfish lines of blue catfish; it is likely many of these operations produce

channel x blue hybrid catfish. Maintained by 11.1 percent of operations, the Goldkist/

Harvest Select line is the most widely used distinct line of channel catfish.

Approximately one of seven (14.4 percent) broodfish was culled in 2009, relative to the

January 1, 2010, inventory. Of broodfish culled in 2009, almost 7 of 10 (69.8 percent) were

culled because of old age. Of broodfish on all operations, the majority (81.1 percent) are

3 to 5 years old, and only 2.6 percent are more than 6 years old.

More than one-half of catfish breeding operations (54.1 percent) did not cull any broodfish

in 2009, while about one-tenth of operations (10.8 percent) culled 21 percent or more

broodfish in 2009, relative to the January 1, 2010, inventory.

In 2009, 17.0 percent of broodfish were lost to disease, predation, or other problems.

Broodfish losses were higher in the East region (43.5 percent) than the West region

(15.8 percent).

Most catfish breeding operations stocked at least 1,000 pounds of broodfish per acre in

spawning ponds (54.0 percent of operations, and 81.4 percent of broodfish). Although

almost one-third of operations (32.5 percent) stocked less than 800 pounds of broodfish

per acre, the percentage of all broodfish stocked at this density was relatively low

(4.5 percent).

Overall, almost three-fourths of eggs (74.2 percent) brought into the hatchery survived to

hatching. The percentage of all eggs typically surviving to hatching did not differ between

small (80.6 percent) and large (73.3 percent) hatcheries.

Infertility accounted for the highest percentage of eggs (10.0 percent) brought into the

hatchery that did not hatch in 2009 and affected almost one-half (48.3 percent) of

operations. Fungal or bacterial infections accounted for the loss of 5.1 percent of all eggs

brought into the hatchery.

The majority of hatcheries (74.0 percent) used chemicals to prevent fungal or bacterial

infections in hatching troughs. A higher percentage of large hatcheries than small

hatcheries (91.6 and 63.1 percent, respectively) used at least one chemical to prevent

Selected Highlights of Catfish 2010 Part I
8 / Catfish 2010

Introduction

fungal or bacterial infections. Copper sulfate, formalin, Betadine®, and salt were each

used by at least one-fourth of hatchery operations (38.4, 32.2, 28.8, and 26.0 percent,

respectively).

In 2009, the average number of fry hatched per hatchery operation was 16,256,000. Large

operations hatched an average of 38,673,000 fry, compared with 1,644,000 for small

operations. Most fry produced at hatcheries were stocked on the operation (81.2 percent),

as opposed to being sold (18.8 percent).

More than one-fourth of fingerling operations (27.0 percent) tested water quality in

fry/fingerling ponds at least once a month in 2009. A higher percentage of large operations

than small operations tested water quality at least once a month (37.7 and 17.9 percent,

respectively). A higher percentage of small operations (42.8 percent) than large operations

(24.9 percent) did not test water quality in fry/fingerling ponds in 2009.

Overall, 3.9 percent of fingerling operations vaccinated any fry against enteric septicemia

of catfish (ESC) in 2009. On operations that vaccinated any fry for ESC, 12.3 percent of

fry were vaccinated. All of the fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry for ESC

vaccinated fry that were intended for sale as fingerlings, but only on customer request.

The columnaris vaccine became available for use by the catfish industry in 2009. Overall,

9.7 percent of fingerling operations vaccinated at least some fry for columnaris in 2009. Of

fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry for columnaris in 2009, more than four-fifths

(80.2 percent) vaccinated at least some of the fry that were intended for sale as

fingerlings. About two-fifths (40.5 percent) vaccinated a portion of the fry for sale based on

customer request, about one-fifth (19.8 percent) vaccinated a portion of the fry for sale

regardless of customer request, and about one-fifth (19.9 percent) vaccinated all fry

intended for sale.

Fry/fingerling losses were attributed to a number of causes. Nearly one-half of operations

(48.0 percent) reported losses due to predation. About one-fifth of operations (19.3

percent) lost some fry to ESC, while 17.4 percent lost some fry to columnaris. Almost

three-fourths of operations lost some fry to unknown causes (71.1 percent).

Three medicated feeds (Terramycin®, Romet®, and Aquaflor®) are approved by the Food

and Drug Administration to treat disease problems in catfish. Aquaflor is the newest

antimicrobial available for use in fingerlings and is the only antimicrobial approved for

treatment of both ESC and columnaris. In 2009, 28.9 percent of fingerling operations fed

medicated feed to fry. Of these operations, 60.2 percent fed Aquaflor, and a higher

percentage of large operations than small operations used Aquaflor (75.2 and 42.9

percent, respectively).
USDA APHIS VS / 9

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Distribution of Catfish Production Phases

Section I: Population Estimates

A. Distribution of

Catfish Production

Phases

During 2009, most catfish operations (94.1 percent) raised foodsize fish. A higher

percentage of operations bred catfish for egg collection, operated a hatchery, or raised fry

to fingerlings in the West region than in the East region. Regardless of region, however, a

higher percentage of operations raised fry to fingerlings than either bred catfish for egg

collection or operated a hatchery. Some breeding operations did not operate a hatchery;

these operations might have allowed eggs to hatch in breeding ponds.

Percentage of all catfish operations by production phase in 2009, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Production Phase Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Bred catfish for 

egg collection 7.5 (0.5) 10.6 (0.7) 8.8 (0.4) 

Operated a hatchery 5.5 (0.5) 10.1 (0.7) 7.4 (0.4) 

Raised fry to 

fingerlings 9.9 (0.6) 17.1 (0.8) 12.8 (0.5) 

Grew out 

foodsize fish 93.7 (0.5) 94.8 (0.4) 94.1 (0.3) 
10 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–A. Distribution of Catfish Production Phases
USDA APHIS VS / 11

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

Note: For this study, a breeding operation is defined as one that bred catfish for egg

collection in 2009.

1. Broodfish lines

More than two-thirds of catfish breeding operations maintained broodfish lines of pond-run

channel catfish (69.4 percent). Blue catfish lines were maintained on about one-fifth of

breeding operations. The maintenance of blue catfish likely indicates these operations

produce channel x blue hybrid catfish. The “other” catfish line included primarily

unspecified lines. The Goldkist/Harvest Select line is the most widely used distinct line of

channel catfish.

a. Percentage of breeding operations that had the following broodfish lines on January 1,

2010, and by size of operation:

B. Broodfish

Management

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Broodfish) 

 Small 

(2,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 2,000) All Operations

Broodfish Line Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

NWAC103 5.3 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 2.8 (0.0) 

Kansas 0.0 (--) 5.9 (0.8) 2.8 (0.4) 

Goldkist/ 

Harvest Select 10.5 (0.1) 11.8 (1.1) 11.1 (0.5) 

Auburn 10.5 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 5.6 (0.1) 

Blue catfish 21.1 (0.2) 17.6 (1.1) 19.4 (0.5) 

Other channel 

catfish line 10.5 (0.1) 17.7 (1.1) 13.9 (0.5) 

Pond-run 

channel catfish 63.2 (0.3) 76.4 (1.2) 69.4 (0.6) 
12 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

The percentage of operations that maintained broodfish lines, with the exception of

Auburn and blue catfish, was higher in the West region than in the East region.

b. Percentage of breeding operations that had the following broodfish lines on January 1,

2010, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West 

Broodfish Line Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

NWAC103 0.0 (--) 5.6 (0.1) 

Kansas 0.0 (--) 5.6 (0.7) 

Goldkist/Harvest Select 5.6 (0.7) 16.7 (0.8) 

Auburn 11.1 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 

Blue catfish 22.2 (0.2) 16.7 (1.0) 

Other channel catfish line 11.1 (0.1) 16.7 (1.0) 

Pond-run channel catfish 66.7 (0.6) 72.2 (1.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 13

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

Pond-run channel catfish represent the highest percentage of broodfish maintained by

catfish breeding operations (82.3 percent). In the East region, the Goldkist/Harvest Select

line was the next highest percentage of broodfish. Blue catfish represented only

3.6 percent of all broodfish, but the species represented a higher percentage of broodfish

in the East region (10.7 percent) than in the West region (3.0 percent).

c. Percentage of broodfish by broodfish line present on January 1, 2010, on all operations,

and by region:

Percent Broodfish 

Region

East West All Operations

Line Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

NWAC103 0.0 (--) 0.4 (0.0) 0.4 (0.0) 

Kansas 0.0 (--) 1.6 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2) 

Goldkist/Harvest Select 23.9 (2.5) 3.1 (0.3) 4.7 (0.4) 

Auburn 2.0 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 0.2 (0.0) 

Blue catfish 10.7 (0.4) 3.0 (0.2) 3.6 (0.2) 

Other channel 

catfish line 0.6 (0.0) 7.9 (0.6) 7.3 (0.5) 

Pond-run 

channel catfish 62.8 (2.1) 84.0 (1.1) 82.3 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
14 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

2. Broodfish by age

Channel catfish are able to breed at 2 years of age but breed more reliably at 3 years or

older. Channel catfish more than 6 years old might produce fewer eggs per pound of fish,

are more difficult to handle, and might not be able to adequately use spawning containers.

On all operations, 81.1 percent of broodfish are 3 to 5 years old. A higher percentage of

broodfish in the East region than in the West region were less than 3 years old (22.1 and

10.1 percent, respectively) or more than 6 years old (26.1 and 0.7 percent, respectively).

Percentage of broodfish by age on all operations, and by region:

Percent Broodfish 

Region

East West All Operations

Age (Years) Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Less than 3 22.1 (0.7) 10.1 (0.6) 11.1 (0.5) 

3 to 4 16.1 (0.2) 41.4 (1.1) 39.4 (1.1) 

5 34.7 (1.8) 42.2 (1.3) 41.7 (1.2) 

6 1.0 (0.0) 5.6 (0.4) 5.2 (0.3) 

More than 6 26.1 (0.9) 0.7 (0.0) 2.6 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 15

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

3. Annual cycle rate (cull rate) of broodfish

The number of broodfish culled in 2009 represents about one-seventh (14.4 percent) of

the January 1, 2010, inventory of broodfish. Considering the additional impact of death

loss, these cull rates are consistent with few broodfish being more than 5 years old.

a. Percentage of broodfish culled in 2009 relative to January 1, 2010, broodfish

inventories, and by size of operation:

Percent Broodfish Culled 

Size of Operation (Number of Broodfish) 

Small 

(2,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 2,000) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

14.2 (0.0) 14.4 (1.0) 14.4 (0.9) 
16 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

More than one-half of breeding operations (54.1 percent) did not cull any broodfish in

2009. A higher percentage of small breeding operations (60.0 percent) did not cull any

broodfish compared with large breeding operations (47.1 percent). Cull rates higher than

21 percent occurred on only 10.8 percent of breeding operations.

b. Percentage of breeding operations by percentage of broodfish culled in 2009, and by

size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Broodfish) 

 Small 

(2,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 2,000) All Operations

Percent 

Broodfish Culled Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

0 60.0 (0.4) 47.1 (1.4) 54.1 (0.7) 

1.0 to 10.9 15.0 (0.1) 29.4 (1.4) 21.6 (0.7) 

11.0 to 20.9 15.0 (0.6) 11.8 (0.8) 13.5 (0.5) 

21.0 or more 10.0 (0.1) 11.7 (0.8) 10.8 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 17

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management
18 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

4. Reasons for culling

Of broodfish culled in 2009, almost 7 of 10 (69.8 percent) were culled primarily because of

old age. The primary reason for the next highest percentage of culled broodfish

(23.3 percent) was poor appearance (conformation problems).

Percentage of broodfish culled in 2009 for the following primary reasons:

Reason for Culling Percent Broodfish Culled Std. Error 

Old age 69.8 (2.5) 

Weight 0.1 (0.0) 

Poor health 0.1 (0.0) 

Poor reproductive success 4.2 (0.3) 

Business or financial reasons 2.5 (0.2) 

Poor appearance 

(conformation problems) 23.3 (2.2) 

Total 100.0 

5. Broodfish loss

Broodfish loss in the East region was extremely high compared with that in the West

region. Catastrophic loss on some operations influenced the overall loss.

Combined, the 2009 broodfish loss (17.0 percent) and broodfish culling (14.4 percent;

table B.3.a) equaled almost one-third of the January 1, 2010, broodfish inventory.

a. Percentage of broodfish lost to disease, predation, or other problems in 2009, and by

region:

Percent Broodfish Lost 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

43.5 (2.9) 15.8 (0.5) 17.0 (0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 19

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

Fighting caused broodfish loss on more than one-third (34.6 percent) of operations and

accounted for almost one-half (48.8 percent) of total broodfish loss. More than

15.0 percent of operations reported broodfish loss from unknown causes, other causes,

and predation; each of these reasons for loss accounted for more than 10.0 percent of

total broodfish loss. Within the “other” reason for loss, specific causes were related to

either low oxygen or flooding problems. Two bacterial diseases, enteric septicemia of

catfish (ESC) and columnaris, each caused broodfish loss on 11.5 percent of operations,

but these diseases did not cause a high percentage of the total broodfish loss (0.9 and

1.4 percent, respectively).

b. For the listed reasons for loss, percentage of breeding operations that lost broodfish,

percentage of broodfish lost, and percentage of total loss:

Reason for 

Loss 

Percent 

Operations Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Broodfish 

Lost 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Total Loss 

Std. 

Error 

Enteric 

septicemia of 

catfish (ESC) 

11.5 (0.7) 0.2 (0.0) 0.9 (0.1) 

Columnaris 11.5 (0.7) 0.2 (0.0) 1.4 (0.2) 

Proliferative gill 

disease (PGD) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 

Winter kill 3.8 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.5 (0.0) 

Visceral toxicosis 

of catfish (VTC) 3.8 (0.1) 0.4 (0.0) 2.5 (0.1) 

Fighting 34.6 (0.9) 8.3 (0.6) 48.8 (3.0) 

Predation 15.4 (0.7) 1.8 (0.2) 10.9 (1.1) 

Other 15.4 (0.5) 3.2 (0.2) 18.9 (1.5) 

Unknown 23.1 (0.7) 2.8 (0.2) 16.1 (1.5) 

Total 17.0 (0.5) 100.0 
20 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

6. Seasonal feeding practices

The frequency with which breeding operations fed broodfish varied seasonally. In the

spring through early summer (prespawning and spawning), the highest percentages of

operations fed broodfish daily (35.2 percent) or every other day (35.1 percent). By

midsummer and fall (postspawning), the percentage of operations that fed every third day

increased to 27.0 percent from 18.9 percent in spring/early summer; this difference likely

resulted at least in part from a reduction in the percentage of operations that fed daily.

Over winter, the highest percentage of operations (43.3 percent) fed less often than every

third day and the next highest percentage of operations (35.1 percent) fed according to an

“other” feeding regimen; for winter, this primarily meant that no feed was fed.

Percentage of breeding operations by seasonal feeding frequency for broodfish:

Percent Operations 

Season

 Spring/Early 

Summer Midsummer/Fall Winter

Feeding 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Daily 35.2 (0.5) 29.8 (0.5) 2.7 (0.0) 

Every other day 35.1 (0.7) 32.4 (0.7) 8.1 (0.4) 

Every third day 18.9 (0.6) 27.0 (0.6) 10.8 (0.1) 

Less often than 

every third day 5.4 (0.1) 8.1 (0.5) 43.3 (0.7) 

Other 5.4 (0.1) 2.7 (0.0) 35.1 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 21

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

7. Protein level of feed

More than two-thirds of breeding operations (69.4 percent) primarily fed broodfish feed

that was 32 percent protein. More than 15.0 percent of operations (16.7 percent),

however, fed broodfish feed that was only 28 percent protein, which is below some

recommendations. Inadequate protein in the diet can result in poor egg quality and

quantity.

Percentage of breeding operations by protein level primarily fed to broodfish in 2009:

Percent Protein Level Percent Operations Std. Error 

28 16.7 (0.4) 

32 69.4 (0.6) 

35 5.6 (0.4) 

Other 8.3 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 
22 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

8. Stocking of forage fish

Stocked forage fish serve as a supplemental food source for broodfish. Almost one-half of

breeding operations (48.7 percent) stocked some forage fish, and some operations

stocked more than one species of forage fish. The highest percentage of operations

(27.0 percent) stocked tilapia. Almost one-fifth of operations (18.9 percent) stocked “other”

species of forage fish, which were mostly sunfish species. Threadfin shad were stocked

by 16.2 percent of operations.

Tilapia, also a food fish, are prolific spawners, but they are tropical in nature and do not

tolerate low temperatures. In fall, tilapia become lethargic; this makes them easy prey for

broodfish. The inability of tilapia to overwinter is considered a benefit because a

population cannot become established.

a. Percentage of operations that stocked the following species as food sources for

broodfish:

Species Percent Operations Std. Error 

Fathead minnows 5.4 (0.1) 

Threadfin shad 16.2 (0.4) 

Gizzard shad 2.7 (0.0) 

Tilapia 27.0 (0.6) 

Other 18.9 (0.3) 

None stocked 51.3 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 23

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

A higher percentage of small breeding operations stocked forage fish than did large

breeding operations, and a higher percentage of breeding operations in the East region

stocked forage fish than did operations in the West region. These findings are likely

influenced by the fact that 80.3 percent of the small breeding operations are located in the

East region and 82.5 percent of the large operations are in the West region (data not

shown).

b. Percentage of breeding operations that stocked forage fish in broodfish ponds as a

supplemental food source for broodfish, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Broodfish) 

Small 

(2,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 2,000) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

55.0 (0.4) 41.2 (1.4) 48.7 (0.7) 

c. Percentage of breeding operations that stocked forage fish in broodfish ponds as a

supplemental food source for broodfish, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

63.2 (0.5) 33.4 (1.1) 
24 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–B. Broodfish Management

Photo courtesy Peggy Greb, Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / 25

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Spawning Management

C. Spawning

Management

1. Number of spawning ponds

Percentage of breeding operations by number of spawning ponds used in 2009:

Number Spawning Ponds Percent Operations Std. Error 

1 27.1 (0.4) 

2 to 3 24.3 (0.4) 

4 to 5 24.3 (0.7) 

6 or more 24.3 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 

2. Draining and renovation of spawning ponds

Spawning ponds that are not new should be drained every year or two to improve water

quality for breeding. Some experts believe ponds should be drained and dried every year,

based on anecdotal evidence that suggests spawning success declines if fish are left in

the same pond for more than a year.

More than three-fourths of large operations (76.5 percent) usually drain ponds every 1 to

3 years, whereas only one-half of small operations (47.4 percent) usually drain ponds that

frequently. Nearly three-fourths of operations (74.2 percent) do not regularly renovate

ponds (i.e., they wait 6 or more years between renovations), which is not surprising

because the process is complex and expensive relative to draining and drying.
26 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Spawning Management

a. Percentage of breeding operations by usual number of years between draining and

drying of spawning ponds and between complete renovations of ponds, and by size of

operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Broodfish) 

Small 

(2,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 2,000) All Operations

Number Years 

Between... Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Draining and drying of ponds 

1 to 3 47.4 (0.4) 76.5 (1.4) 61.1 (0.7) 

4 to 5 15.8 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 8.3 (0.1) 

6 or more 36.8 (0.3) 23.5 (1.4) 30.6 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Complete renovations of ponds 

1 to 3 23.5 (0.2) 14.3 (0.4) 19.4 (0.3) 

4 to 5 11.8 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 6.4 (0.1) 

6 or more 64.7 (0.3) 85.7 (0.4) 74.2 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 27

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Spawning Management

For all breeding operations, the average interval between draining and drying of ponds is

3.9 years. With more than three-fourths of large operations draining and drying ponds

every 1 to 3 years (table C.2.a), the average number of years between drainings is only

2.9 years. At 4.8 years, the interval between drainings for small operations is much higher,

reflecting the fact that fewer small operations (47.4 percent, table C.2.a) drain and dry

ponds every 1 to 3 years. The average time between complete renovations for all

operations is almost 10 years.

b. Average number of years between draining and drying of spawning ponds and average

number of years between complete renovations of spawning ponds, and by size of

operation:

Average Number of Years 

Size of Operation (Number of Broodfish) 

 Small 

(2,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 2,000) All Operations

Procedure Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error 

Draining and 

drying of ponds 4.8 (0.0) 2.9 (0.1) 3.9 (0.1) 

Complete renovation 

of ponds 8.4 (0.1) 11.7 (0.2) 9.9 (0.1) 
28 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Spawning Management
USDA APHIS VS / 29

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Spawning Management

3. Broodfish stocking densities

Maximum recommended broodfish stocking densities are about 1,200 pounds per acre.

Although one-third of all breeding operations (35.1 percent) stock broodfish at a density of

1,200 pounds per acre or more, two-thirds of all broodfish (67.0 percent) are on these

operations. One-third of breeding operations (32.5 percent) stock at very low densities

(less than 800 pounds per acre); consequently, these operations account for a low

percentage of broodfish (4.5 percent).

Percentage of operations and percentage of broodfish by broodfish stocking density

(pounds per acre):

Stocking Density (lb/acre) 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Broodfish 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 800 32.5 (0.5) 4.5 (2.6) 

800 to 999 13.5 (0.7) 14.1 (7.5) 

1,000 to 1,199 18.9 (0.4) 14.4 (8.8) 

1,200 or more 35.1 (0.7) 67.0 (12.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
30 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Spawning Management
USDA APHIS VS / 31

Section I: Population Estimates–C. Spawning Management

4. Female-to-male ratio in spawning ponds

Female-to-male ratios ranging from 1:1 to as high as 4:1 have been shown to have equal

spawning success. More than 85 percent of all operations (86.1 percent) usually used

female-to-male ratios between 1:1 and 3:1 in spawning ponds. About one-fifth of small

breeding operations (21.1 percent) usually used an “other” ratio, compared with

5.9 percent of large operations. The survey did not capture data on “other” ratios used.

Percentage of breeding operations by typical female-to-male broodfish ratio in spawning

ponds, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Broodfish) 

 Small 

(2,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 2,000) All Operations

Female-toMale Ratio Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

1 to 1 15.8 (0.1) 29.4 (1.3) 22.2 (0.7) 

2 to 1 42.1 (0.4) 29.4 (1.2) 36.1 (0.6) 

3 to 1 21.0 (0.2) 35.3 (1.4) 27.8 (0.7) 

Other 21.1 (0.2) 5.9 (0.2) 13.9 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
32 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

D. Hatchery

Management

1. Egg masses

Overall, 9.0 percent of catfish operations had a hatchery, but only 7.4 percent of

operations operated a hatchery in 2009. Operations that had a hatchery but did not

operate it in 2009 might have purchased fry from another hatchery.

a. Percentage of catfish operations that had a hatchery for hatching catfish eggs and

percentage of operations that operated a hatchery in 2009, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Hatchery Status Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Had a hatchery 7.1 (0.5) 11.8 (0.7) 9.0 (0.4) 

Operated a 

hatchery in 2009 5.5 (0.5) 10.1 (0.7) 7.4 (0.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 33

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

All operations that operated a hatchery in 2009 had their own broodfish, so they likely

produced the eggs that were hatched in the hatchery.

b. For operations that operated a hatchery in 2009, percentage of operations by broodfish

inventory status:

Broodfish Inventory Status Percent Operations Std. Error 

Hatchery with own broodfish 100.0 (--) 

Hatchery with no broodfish 0.0 (--) 

More than one-third of operations (35.6 percent) that produced catfish fry in 2009 placed

500 to 1,999 egg masses in the hatchery.

c. For operations that produced catfish fry in 2009, percentage of operations by number of

egg masses brought to the hatchery for hatching:

Number of Egg Masses Percent Operations Std. Error 

1 to 199 26.1 (0.5) 

200 to 499 13.0 (0.2) 

500 to 1,999 35.6 (0.7) 

2,000 or more 25.3 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 
34 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

In 2009, operations brought an average of 1,585 egg masses into hatcheries. Egg

masses had an average weight of 1.9 pounds.

d. Average number of egg masses, average total pounds of eggs, and average pounds

per egg mass for eggs brought to the hatchery for hatching in 2009:

Average 

Number of 

Egg Masses 

Std. 

Error 

Average 

Total Pounds 

of Eggs 

Std. 

Error 

Average 

Pounds per 

Egg Mass

Std. 

Error 

1,585 (48) 2,680 (128) 1.9 (0.0) 

Treating egg masses with Betadine® or some other appropriate compound before they

are placed in a hatchery helps control bacterial and fungal diseases. According to some

recommendations, however, eggs should be treated immediately after they are placed in

the hatching trough to reduce extra handling and associated problems.

Approximately one-half of all hatcheries (48.2 percent) typically treat egg masses before

placing them in the hatching trough; however, two-thirds of small hatcheries (68.4 percent)

do not treat egg masses before placement.

e. Percentage of operations by usual treatment of egg masses before they are placed into

hatching troughs, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Treatment Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Betadine® (iodine 

compounds) 21.1 (0.6) 66.6 (1.7) 38.5 (0.8) 

Other compound 10.5 (0.1) 8.4 (1.1) 9.7 (0.4) 

Do not treat 68.4 (0.6) 25.0 (1.5) 51.8 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 35

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management
36 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

2. Hatchery water management

More than one-half of hatcheries (57.7 percent) used water obtained directly from a well.

Compared with surface water, well water has the advantage of generally being free of

diseases, wild fish, suspended matter, and pollutants. Water obtained directly from a well,

however, can have issues associated with supersaturation of gases; 16.2 percent of

hatcheries used well water that was stored in a holding pond, which prevents problems

with supersaturated gases and also facilitates availability of water. Only 9.8 percent of

hatcheries used water that was obtained from a creek or a watershed and subsequently

stored in a holding pond.

a. Percentage of hatchery operations by primary source of water used in hatchery:

Water Source 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Well water stored in a holding pond 16.2 (0.4) 

Water from a creek or a watershed, 

then stored in a holding pond 9.8 (0.1) 

Water directly from a well 57.7 (0.7) 

Mixture of water directly from a 

well and from a holding pond 13.0 (0.2) 

Other 3.3 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 

Well water may be supersaturated with gases or have a relatively low temperature. Of the

hatcheries that used water directly from a well, about one-half degassed or heated the

water before using it in the hatchery.

b. For hatchery operations that used water directly from a well, percentage of operations

that degassed and/or heated water used in the hatchery:

Treatment Percent Operations Std. Error 

Degassed 55.1 (1.1) 

Heated 44.6 (1.2) 
USDA APHIS VS / 37

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

For a typical 100-gallon hatching trough, between 2 and 5 gallons of water should flow

through the trough per minute; this flow rate provides adequate water exchange to

maintain water quality. Overall, the average water flow rate in each hatching trough was

5.6 gallons per minute, with the average rate being 2 gallons per minute higher for small

operations than for large operations.

c. Average water flow rate (gallons per minute) for each hatching trough, and by size of

operation:

For 22.7 percent of operations, the average water flow rate in each hatching trough was

1 to 3 gallons per minute. If the hatching troughs on these operations are the usual

100-gallon size, then the flow may be inadequate. Trough size was not recorded in this

study.

d. Percentage of hatchery operations by average water flow rate (gallons per minute) in

each hatching trough:

Gallons per Minute Percent Operations Std. Error 

1 to 3 22.7 (0.6) 

4 to 5 49.8 (0.8) 

6 or more 27.5 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 

Average Flow Rate (Gallons per Minute) 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

6.2 (0.0) 4.2 (0.0) 5.6 (0.0) 
38 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

To circulate water, a higher percentage of hatcheries used paddles in hatching troughs

(80.5 percent) than in fry troughs (9.7 percent). For fry troughs, the majority of hatchery

operations (70.8 percent) used air stones to circulate water. The study did not collect

information on “other” methods of circulating water.

e. Percentage of hatchery operations by method of circulating water in hatching troughs

and fry troughs:

Percent Operations 

Hatching Troughs Fry Troughs 

Method

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Paddles 80.5 (0.3) 9.7 (0.4) 

Air stones 35.4 (0.7) 70.8 (0.7) 

Agitators 9.8 (0.1) 9.8 (0.4) 

Other 25.9 (0.6) 25.9 (0.6) 

Water with low mineral content is not recommended for use in hatcheries because low

calcium levels can result in poor hatching and survival. Water hardness of at least

20 parts per million (ppm) is recommended, and about three-fourths of hatcheries

(74.2 percent) used water with hardness of 20 ppm or more. (For water hardness levels,

parts per million usually refers to 1 milligram of calcium carbonate per liter of water.)

f. Percentage of hatchery operations by water hardness (parts per million) used by

hatcheries:

Hardness (ppm) Percent Operations Std. Error 

1 to 19 25.8 (0.9) 

20 to 50 17.5 (0.8) 

51 or higher 56.7 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 39

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

The overall average water hardness for hatchery operations was 109.3 ppm. The average

water hardness of hatcheries in the East region was higher than that for the West region

(123.6 and 95.9 ppm, respectively). Consequently, it is not surprising to note that, during

2009, more than one-half of hatcheries in the West region (52.5 percent) added calcium

to maintain water hardness, while only 14.3 percent of hatcheries in the East region added

calcium.

g. Average hardness (parts per million) of water used by hatcheries, and by region:

Average Hardness (ppm) 

Region

East West All Operations

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

123.6 (1.3) 95.9 (2.8) 109.3 (1.6) 

h. Percentage of hatchery operations that added calcium to water during 2009 to maintain

hardness, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

14.3 (0.2) 52.5 (1.2) 35.1 (0.9) 
40 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

Hatcheries need to maintain 5 to 6 ppm of dissolved oxygen in water in hatching troughs

and fry troughs because eggs and fry have relatively high oxygen requirements.

Hatcheries can oxygenate the water through some of the water circulation methods

(table D.2.e), but they also can add liquid oxygen.

About one-fourth of hatcheries (25.6 percent) use liquid oxygen to help control dissolved

oxygen. A higher percentage of hatcheries in the West region (41.0 percent) use this

practice compared with hatcheries in the East region (7.1 percent).

i. Percentage of hatchery operations that use liquid oxygen in the hatchery to control

dissolved oxygen, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

7.1 (0.1) 41.0 (1.3) 25.6 (0.8) 

Photo courtesy David Nance, Agricultural Research Service
USDA APHIS VS / 41

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

3. Density of egg masses in hatching troughs

Egg masses should not be overcrowded in hatching troughs. Overcrowding can inhibit

water circulation, potentially causing problems with dissolved oxygen levels. Overlapping

of egg masses can facilitate the transfer of bacterial or fungal diseases.

During 2009, most hatcheries (91.4 percent) placed fewer than 31 egg masses per

100 gallons. The average number of egg masses per 100 gallons was 19.8.

a. Percentage of hatchery operations by density of egg masses (number of egg masses

per 100 gallons of water) in hatching troughs in 2009:

Density 

(Egg Masses per 100 Gallons) 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 15 47.7 (0.9) 

16 to 30 43.7 (0.9) 

31 or more 8.6 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 

b. Average density of egg masses (number of egg masses per 100 gallons of water) in

hatching troughs in 2009:

Average Density 

(Egg Masses per 100 Gallons) Std. Error 

19.8 (0.2) 
42 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–D. Hatchery Management

4. Turning of egg masses

Egg masses should be turned over on a regular basis to check for infected or dead eggs.

A majority of hatcheries (53.0 percent) turned eggs at least three times daily during 2009.

Percentage of hatchery operations by number of times per day egg masses were turned

in 2009:

Times per Day Percent Operations Std. Error 

Not turned 10.1 (0.2) 

1 to 2 36.9 (0.8) 

3 or more 53.0 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 43

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

E. Egg Health

Issues

1. Survival of eggs until hatching

In 2009, at least 50 percent of eggs survived until hatching on the majority of hatchery

operations (89.7 percent). On more than one-half of hatcheries (55.2 percent), more than

75 percent of eggs survived to hatching. More than one-fifth of small hatchery operations

(22.2 percent) had more than 90 percent of eggs survive to hatching.

a. Percentage of hatchery operations by percentage of eggs brought to the hatchery that

survived to hatching in 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Percent Eggs 

Surviving to Hatching Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Less than 50 5.6 (0.1) 18.2 (1.2) 10.3 (0.5) 

50 to 75 38.9 (0.6) 27.2 (1.8) 34.5 (0.8) 

76 to 90 33.3 (0.6) 54.6 (1.9) 41.3 (0.8) 

91 to 100 22.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 13.9 (0.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
44 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

Overall, almost three-fourths of eggs (74.2 percent) survived to hatching in 2009. The

percentage of eggs that survived to hatching did not differ by size or region of hatchery

operation.

b. Percentage of eggs brought into the hatchery operation (weighted by number of egg

masses) that survived to hatching in 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Eggs 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

80.6 (4.1) 73.3 (4.1) 74.2 (3.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 45

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

2. Causes of egg loss

Of all eggs brought into the hatchery, almost one-fifth failed to hatch because of infertility

(10.0 percent) or unknown causes (9.0 percent). Combined, fungal and bacterial

infections caused the loss of 5.1 percent of eggs brought into the hatchery.

a. Percentage of eggs brought into the hatchery operation (weighted by number of egg

masses) that did not hatch in 2009, by cause:

Cause Percent Eggs Std. Error 

Fungal infections 3.5 (2.1) 

Bacterial egg rot (or other 

bacterial infections) 1.6 (0.7) 

Infertility 10.0 (3.3) 

Other known causes 1.7 (1.4) 

Unknown causes 9.0 (4.5) 

Total 25.8 
46 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues
USDA APHIS VS / 47

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

About one-half of hatcheries reported egg loss due to unknown causes and infertility

(55.0 and 48.3 percent of operations, respectively). Although fungal infections did not

cause the loss of a high percentage of eggs, they did cause egg loss on 38.9 percent of

operations. Bacterial egg rot caused egg loss on 25.7 percent of operations.

b. Percentage of hatchery operations with any eggs that did not hatch, by cause:

Cause Percent Operations Std. Error 

Fungal infections 38.9 (0.7) 

Bacterial egg rot (or other 

bacterial infections) 25.7 (0.7) 

Infertility 48.3 (0.8) 

Other known causes 9.6 (0.6) 

Unknown causes 55.0 (0.8) 
48 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

3. Fungal/bacterial prevention and treatment

Measures to prevent disease in hatchery operations include a variety of practices, such as

maintaining adequate water flow and quality (including dissolved oxygen levels) and

keeping egg hatching baskets from being overcrowded. Additionally, chemicals can help

prevent disease problems.

Three-fourths of all hatcheries (74.0 percent) used some type of chemical treatment to

prevent fungal or bacterial infections in hatching troughs during 2009. Copper sulfate,

formalin, Betadine®, and salt each were used by at least one-fourth of hatcheries. More

than 90 percent of large hatcheries (91.6 percent) used some preventive chemical

treatment compared with 63.1 percent of small hatcheries.

a. Percentage of hatchery operations that used chemicals to prevent fungal or bacterial

infections in hatching troughs during 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Preventive 

Chemical Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Betadine® 

(iodine compounds) 21.1 (0.6) 41.4 (1.8) 28.8 (0.8) 

Copper sulfate 15.7 (0.6) 75.2 (1.7) 38.4 (0.8) 

Formalin 31.6 (0.3) 33.3 (1.7) 32.2 (0.7) 

Hydrogen peroxide 15.8 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 9.7 (0.4) 

Salt 36.9 (0.5) 8.5 (1.1) 26.0 (0.6) 

Any 63.1 (0.4) 91.6 (1.1) 74.0 (0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 49

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues
50 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

On average, eggs were treated 1 to 1.5 times per day, depending on the chemical used.

The number of times eggs were treated did not vary substantially by size or region of

hatching operations.

b. Average number of times per day hatchery operations used chemicals to prevent

fungal or bacterial infections in hatchery troughs during 2009, and by size of operation:

Average Number of Times per Day 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Preventive 

Chemical Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error Avg. 

Std. 

Error 

Betadine® 

(iodine compounds) 1.0 (0.0) 1.3 (0.2) 1.3 (0.2) 

Copper sulfate 1.0 (0.0) 1.3 (0.2) 1.3 (0.2) 

Formalin 1.3 (0.3) 1.6 (0.3) 1.5 (0.2) 

Hydrogen peroxide 1.0 (0.0) NA* 1.0 (0.0) 

Salt 1.5 (0.4) 1.0 (0.0) 1.3 (0.3) 

* Not applicable. No large operations used hydrogen peroxide to prevent fungal or bacterial infections 

in hatching troughs during 2009 (table E.3.a.). 
USDA APHIS VS / 51

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

The primary disease concerns for catfish eggs are bacterial and fungal infections, which

can spread quickly once the disease-causing organisms are present. The pattern of

chemical use for treatment of fungal infections is very similar to that for treatment of

bacterial diseases (tables E.3.c and E.3.d), and the general pattern for chemical use for

treatment also is similar to that for prevention (table E.3.a). Overall, more than three-fifths

of hatchery operations used one or more chemicals to treat infections in hatching troughs

during 2009—61.4 percent used them to treat fungal infections and 61.3 percent used

them to treat bacterial infections. Almost 30 percent of operations used formalin or copper

sulfate to treat fungal or bacterial infections, while about 20 percent used salt or Betadine.

A higher percentage of large operations than small operations used copper sulfate to treat

fungal infections (58.5 and 10.5 percent, respectively). A higher percentage of small

operations than large operations used salt (31.6 and 8.5 percent, respectively).

c. Percentage of hatchery operations that used chemicals to treat fungal infections in

hatching troughs during 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Treatment 

Chemical Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Betadine® 

(iodine compounds) 15.8 (0.6) 25.0 (1.5) 19.3 (0.7) 

Copper sulfate 10.5 (0.7) 58.5 (1.8) 28.8 (0.9) 

Formalin 31.6 (0.3) 25.0 (1.7) 29.1 (0.7) 

Hydrogen peroxide 10.5 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 6.5 (0.4) 

Salt 31.6 (0.6) 8.5 (1.1) 22.8 (0.6) 

Any 57.9 (0.4) 66.9 (1.7) 61.4 (0.7) 
52 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues

d. Percentage of hatchery operations that used chemicals to treat bacterial infections in

hatching troughs during 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Treatment 

Chemical Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Betadine® 

(iodine compounds) 10.5 (0.7) 33.5 (1.7) 19.3 (0.8) 

Copper sulfate 10.5 (0.7) 58.5 (1.8) 28.8 (0.9) 

Formalin 31.6 (0.3) 25.0 (1.7) 29.1 (0.7) 

Hydrogen peroxide 10.5 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 6.5 (0.4) 

Salt 26.3 (0.6) 8.5 (1.1) 19.5 (0.6) 

Any 52.6 (0.5) 75.4 (1.5) 61.3 (0.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 53

Section I: Population Estimates–E. Egg Health Issues
54 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Fry Management

F. Fry Management 1. Number and species of fry hatched

In 2009, the average number of fry produced in a catfish hatchery operation was

16,256,000. On average, large hatcheries hatched over 23 times more fry than did small

hatcheries (38,673,000 compared with 1,644,000).

a. Operation average number of fry hatched in 2009, and by size of operation:

The majority of fry hatched during 2009 were channel catfish (87.1 percent), with

channel x blue hybrid catfish accounting for most of the rest (12.9 percent). More than

90 percent of hatcheries produced some channel catfish fry, while 9.5 percent of

hatcheries produced channel x blue hybrids. Notably, 6.5 percent of hatcheries produced

blue catfish fry, but these fry were a negligible percentage (less than 0.1 percent) of all fry

hatched. This low percentage of blue catfish fry might indicate that these fish will be used

as broodfish rather than as foodsize fish for market.

b. Percentage of fry hatched, by species, and percentage of operations that hatched the

species during 2009:

Catfish Species

Percent 

Fry 

Std. 

Error 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

Channel 87.1 (1.0) 93.6 (0.1) 

Channel x blue hybrid 12.9 (1.0) 9.5 (0.6) 

Blue 0.0 (0.0) 6.5 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 

Operation Average Number of Fry Hatched

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

1,644,000 (38) 38,673,000 (1,104) 16,256,000 (578) 
USDA APHIS VS / 55

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Fry Management

2. Length of time fry left in fry troughs

Although fry with attached yolk sac can be stocked into fry/fingerling ponds, survival is

likely better if fry are not stocked until they have fully absorbed the yolk sac and been fed

for a brief period. About one-half of hatchery operations (51.7 percent) left fry in fry

troughs for 4 to 7 days past swim-up. Only about one-fifth of hatcheries (19.3 percent) left

fry in troughs 8 or more days. No operations in the West region released yolk-sac fry.

Percentage of hatchery operations by how many days fry were normally left in fry troughs

past swim-up during 2009, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Days Left in 

Fry Trough Past 

Swim-up Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Release sac fry 7.1 (0.9) 0.0 (--) 3.2 (0.4) 

1 to 3 21.4 (0.3) 29.4 (1.2) 25.8 (0.7) 

4 to 7 50.0 (0.7) 53.2 (1.3) 51.7 (0.8) 

8 or more 21.5 (0.8) 17.4 (1.0) 19.3 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
56 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Fry Management

3. Primary feed in fry troughs

The highest percentage of hatchery operations (51.7 percent) used catfish starter as the

primary feed for fry in fry troughs during 2009. About one-third of operations (35.4 percent)

fed fry primarily salmon/trout starter.

About 1 of 10 small hatchery operations (10.6 percent) used “other” feeds as the primary

feed for fry in fry troughs. The majority of these “other” feeds were fines/meal. No large

operations fed either “other” primary feeds or nothing to fry in fry troughs.

Percentage of hatchery operations by primary feed fed to fry in fry troughs during 2009,

and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Primary Feed Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Catfish starter 52.6 (0.5) 50.1 (1.8) 51.7 (0.8) 

Salmon/trout starter 31.6 (0.3) 41.6 (1.8) 35.4 (0.7) 

Krill 0.0 (--) 8.3 (1.1) 3.2 (0.4) 

Other 10.6 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 6.5 (0.1) 

Nothing fed to fry 

in fry troughs 5.2 (0.7) 0.0 (--) 3.2 (0.4) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 57

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Fry Management

4. Number of feedings per day for fry

Two-thirds (66.3 percent) of the hatcheries that fed fry in fry troughs fed them five or more

times per 24-hour period. The highest percentage of operations (46.2 percent) fed fry

seven or more times per day.

For hatchery operations that fed fry in fry troughs during 2009, percentage of operations

by number of times fry were fed in a 24-hour period:

5. Fry trough disinfection

All large hatcheries typically disinfect fry troughs between batches of fry. A majority of

small operations (78.9 percent) also typically disinfect troughs between batches of fry, but

the remaining one-fifth of small operations either disinfect annually (10.6 percent) or do

not disinfect troughs (10.5 percent).

Percentage of hatchery operations by frequency of fry trough disinfection, and by size of

operation:

Number Times Fed Per 

24-hour Period Percent Operations Std. Error 

1 to 2 13.5 (0.2) 

3 to 4 20.2 (0.5) 

5 to 6 20.1 (0.5) 

7 or more 46.2 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Egg Masses) 

 Small 

(1,000 or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1,000) All Operations

Frequency* Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Between 

batches of fry 78.9 (0.2) 100.0 (0.0) 87.0 (0.2) 

Annually 10.6 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 6.5 (0.1) 

Do not disinfect 10.5 (0.1) 0.0 (--) 6.5 (0.1) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

* “Other” was also listed as an option for frequency of fry trough disinfection, but no participants chose that 

response. 
58 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–F. Fry Management

6. Fry use

Most fry produced at hatcheries were stocked on the operation (81.2 percent).

Percentage of fry produced in 2009 that were sold or stocked on the operation:

Percent Fry Std. Error 

Sold 18.8 (8.4) 

Stocked on the operation 81.2 (8.4) 

7. Raising of fry to fingerlings

Of all catfish operations, 12.8 percent raised fry to fingerlings during 2009 (see table, p 9).

A higher percentage of operations raised fry to fingerlings in the West region than in the

East region (17.1 and 9.9 percent, respectively).

Percentage of all catfish operations that grew any fry to fingerlings in 2009, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

9.9 (0.6) 17.1 (0.8) 12.8 (0.5) 
USDA APHIS VS / 59

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

G. Fry/Fingerling

Pond Management

Prior to Stocking

1. Placement of fry in raceways or tanks prior to stocking

Fry may be moved from the fry trough to another tank or trough before they are placed in

a fry/fingerling pond. This practice gives fry more time to develop and grow before being

placed in a pond. A small percentage of all fingerling operations (11.5 percent) used this

practice, but it was used by a higher percentage of operations in the East region

(17.4 percent) than in the West region (6.9 percent).

a. Percentage of fingerling operations that moved swim-up fry from fry troughs to

raceways or tanks before stocking them into fry/fingerling ponds during 2009, and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

17.4 (0.6) 6.9 (0.7) 11.5 (0.5) 

Of operations that placed fry temporarily in tanks or raceways, two-thirds (66.7 percent of

operations) moved the fry into the fry/fingerling ponds when they were an average of 8 to

14 days old.

b. For fingerling operations that placed fry in raceways or tanks during 2009, percentage

of operations by average age of fry (days) when they were moved from the raceway or

tank to fry/fingerling ponds:

Average Age 

(Days after Hatching) Percent Operations Std. Error 

4 to 7 0.0 (--) 

8 to 14 66.7 (2.1) 

15 or more 33.3 (2.1) 

Total 100.0 
60 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

2. Number and size of fry/fingerling ponds

More than one-third (34.7 percent) of fingerling producers had 11 or more fry/fingerling

ponds, whereas one-fifth (21.1 percent) had 1 to 2 ponds. A higher percentage of

operations in the West region (45.0 percent) had 11 or more ponds compared to

operations in the East region (21.7 percent). In the East region, the highest percentage of

operations (34.8 percent) had one to two ponds.

a. Percentage of fingerling operations by number of fry/fingerling ponds used for

production during 2009, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Number of 

Fry/Fingerling 

Ponds Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

1 to 2 34.8 (0.9) 10.3 (0.9) 21.1 (0.7) 

3 to 4 21.7 (0.7) 13.8 (1.0) 17.3 (0.6) 

5 to 6 8.7 (0.4) 13.7 (0.9) 11.5 (0.6) 

7 to 10 13.1 (0.8) 17.2 (1.2) 15.4 (0.7) 

11 or more 21.7 (0.8) 45.0 (1.5) 34.7 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 61

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking
62 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

During 2009, the average number of fingerling ponds in production per operation was

15.6. The average pond size was 8.7 surface acres, and overall, fingerling operations had

an average total surface acreage of 136.5 acres. The average number of ponds and the

average pond and total surface acres were higher for fingerling operations in the West

region than for those in the East region. Fingerling ponds in the West region averaged

10.0 acres in size compared with 2.6 acres in the East region.

b. For fingerling operations, average number of ponds, average pond size (surface acres),

and average total surface acres of ponds used for fingerling production in 2009, and by

region:

Average 

Region

East West All Operations

Parameter Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error 

Number of ponds 6.1 (0.1) 23.2 (1.1) 15.6 (0.6) 

Pond size 

(surface acres) 2.6 (0.1) 10.0 (0.2) 8.7 (0.2) 

Total surface acres 16.1 (0.5) 231.6 (11.3) 136.5 (6.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 63

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

3. Treatment of fry/fingerling ponds before stocking

Preparing fingerling ponds helps minimize predation problems and establish the proper

zooplankton populations used as a food source. Ponds can be drained and dried or

drained and poisoned to remove fish predators. Chlorine, rotenone, and antimycin A are

all approved toxicants registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

About 75 percent of all fingerling operations either drained and dried (45.0 percent of

operations) or drained and poisoned (29.5 percent) their fingerling ponds prior to stocking

in 2009. An additional 11.8 percent of operations poisoned ponds without draining them. A

higher percentage of small operations than large operations drained and dried fingerling

ponds (59.2 and 29.1 percent, respectively).

Percentage of fingerling operations by procedure that best describes the treatment of fry/

fingerling ponds before stocking in 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

 Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Treatment Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Drained and dried 59.2 (1.1) 29.1 (1.5) 45.0 (0.9) 

Drained and 

poisoned 14.9 (1.0) 45.8 (1.6) 29.5 (0.9) 

Poisoned but 

not drained 7.4 (0.6) 16.8 (1.0) 11.8 (0.6) 

Neither drained 

nor poisoned 18.5 (0.8) 8.3 (0.7) 13.7 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
64 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

4. Stocking of fry/fingerling ponds

Fingerlings stocked in the spring can reach stocking size in 4 to 5 months, especially

when stocked at lower densities. Consequently, many fingerlings can be moved to

foodsize-fish production ponds after the summer growing season. Producers might keep

some fingerlings over winter to meet spring stocking requirements or to produce larger

fingerlings for stocking. Fingerlings also might be kept over winter because they did not

sell.

Of the fingerling ponds in production in 2009, 73.2 percent were stocked with fry that

hatched in 2009. Of the total water surface acres of ponds used for fingerling production

in 2009, however, only 61.2 percent of surface acres were stocked with fry hatched in

2009.

a. Of fry/fingerling ponds used for production in 2009, percentage stocked with fry hatched

in 2009, and by region:

Percent Ponds Stocked 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

81.6 (1.2) 71.5 (2.0) 73.2 (1.7) 

b. Of total water surface acres of ponds used for fingerling production in 2009, percentage

stocked with fry hatched in 2009, and by region:

Percent Water Surface Acres Stocked 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

64.7 (2.1) 61.0 (1.8) 61.2 (1.7) 
USDA APHIS VS / 65

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

The average number of fry stocked into fry/fingerling ponds on individual operations

declined from about 11.5 million in 2008 to 9.7 million in 2009. More fingerlings were

stocked on operations in the West region, where most of the overall decline occurred.

c. Operation average number of fry stocked into fry/fingerling ponds in 2008 and 2009,

and by region:

Operation Average Number of Fry (x1,000) 

Region

East West All Operations

Year Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error 

2008 859 (24) 18,106 (814) 11,493 (534) 

2009 698 (17) 15,797 (797) 9,711 (502) 

Stocking density affects health, growth rate, and survival of fish. More than one-half of

fingerling operations (57.7 percent) stocked fewer than 100,000 fry per acre. This

percentage was influenced strongly by the high percentage of fingerling operations in the

East region that stocked at that rate (69.6 percent). In the West region, more than

one-third of fingerling operations (34.6 percent) stocked fry at 200,000 or more per acre.

d. Percentage of operations by rate of stocking of fry/fingerling ponds in 2009, and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Stocking Rate 

(Fry/Acre) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Not stocked 0.0 (--) 3.4 (0.5) 1.9 (0.3) 

Fewer than 100,000 69.6 (1.0) 48.3 (1.5) 57.7 (0.9) 

100,000 to 149,000 21.7 (1.0) 37.9 (1.4) 30.8 (0.9) 

150,000 to 199,000 8.7 (0.4) 13.8 (1.0) 11.5 (0.6) 

200,000 or more 8.7 (0.4) 34.6 (1.4) 23.2 (0.8) 
66 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

More than two-thirds of fry/fingerling ponds stocked in 2009 (67.5 percent) were stocked

at a rate of fewer than 150,000 fry per acre.

e. Percentage of fry/fingerling ponds by stocking rate in 2009, and by region:

Percent Ponds 

Region

East West All Operations

Stocking Rate 

(Fry/Acre) Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 100,000 64.3 (1.1) 30.2 (1.5) 36.8 (1.3) 

100,000 to 149,000 16.5 (1.0) 34.1 (2.0) 30.7 (1.6) 

150,000 to 199,000 7.0 (0.3) 4.6 (0.4) 5.0 (0.3) 

200,000 or more 12.2 (0.6) 31.1 (2.2) 27.5 (1.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 67

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

5. Number of days between filling ponds and stocking

Newly filled ponds might not have the proper zooplankton bloom present to serve as a

food source for fry. The zooplankton population develops over time, especially in the

presence of fertilizer. If ponds are filled too long before being stocked, the potential

increases for problems with predatory aquatic insects.

A majority of fingerling operations (55.6 percent) normally wait for 7 to 14 days after filling

ponds before stocking fry, while one-fourth of operations (25.0 percent) normally wait for

15 or more days. A higher percentage of small operations than large operations (25.0 and

12.5 percent, respectively) normally wait less than 7 days before stocking.

a. For fingerling operations that drained fingerling ponds before stocking in 2009,

percentage of operations by usual number of days between filling fingerling ponds with

water and stocking with fry, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Days Between 

Filling and Stocking Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 7 25.0 (1.1) 12.5 (1.3) 19.4 (0.9) 

7 to 14 50.0 (1.3) 62.5 (1.9) 55.6 (1.1) 

15 or more 25.0 (1.1) 25.0 (1.8) 25.0 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
68 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

On average, large fingerling operations normally wait 12.3 days between filling ponds with

water and stocking fry, whereas small operations wait 17.8 days.

b. For fingerling operations that drained fingerling ponds before stocking in 2009, average

usual number of days between filling fry/fingerling ponds with water and stocking fry, and

by size of operation:

6. Number of years between complete renovations of fry/fingerling ponds

Almost four-fifths of fingerling operations (79.0 percent) normally wait 6 or more years

between complete renovations of fry/fingerling ponds. On average, operations wait

9.3 years between complete renovations of fry/fingerling ponds.

a. Percentage of fingerling operations by usual number of years between complete

renovations of fry/fingerling ponds:

Years Between 

Complete Renovations Percent Operations Std. Error 

1 to 5 21.0 (0.8) 

6 to 10 57.8 (1.1) 

11 or more 21.2 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 

Average Number of Days

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

17.8 (0.4) 12.3 (0.3) 15.4 (0.3) 
USDA APHIS VS / 69

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

b. Average usual time (in years) between complete renovations of fingerling ponds:

Average Time (Years) Std. Error 

9.3 (0.1) 

7. Fertilization of fry/fingerling ponds

As noted above, fertilizing fingerling ponds promotes a bloom of beneficial zooplankton,

providing food for fry. In 2009, 46.2 percent of fingerling operations fertilized fry/fingerling

ponds. The percentage of operations fertilizing fingerling ponds did not differ between

regions.

a. Percentage of fingerling operations that fertilized fry/fingerling ponds in 2009, and by

region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

47.8 (0.9) 45.0 (1.5) 46.2 (0.9) 
70 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

About three-fourths of operations that fertilized fingerling ponds in 2009 began fertilizing

ponds at least 7 days before stocking fry (76.3 percent). The delay between fertilizing and

stocking ponds provides time for zooplankton populations to develop in the ponds. More

than one-third of operations in the East region (37.5 percent) fertilized 15 or more days

before stocking, compared with only 7.6 percent of operations in the West region.

b. For operations that fertilized fry/fingerling ponds in 2009, percentage of operations by

number of days between beginning fertilization and stocking ponds, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Days Between 

Beginning Fertilization 

and Stocking Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Fewer than 7 25.0 (1.1) 23.0 (1.8) 23.7 (1.2) 

7 to 14 37.5 (1.2) 69.4 (2.0) 57.3 (1.4) 

15 or more 37.5 (1.2) 7.6 (1.2) 19.0 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 71

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking
72 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

Of operations that fertilized fry/fingerling ponds in 2009, about three-fourths (75.1 percent)

used inorganic fertilizers or a combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Measuring

and controlling the amount of nutrients being put into the pond is easier with inorganic

fertilizers than organic fertilizers.

c. For operations that fertilized fry/fingerling ponds in 2009, percentage of operations by

primary fertilizer used in the ponds, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Primary 

Fertilizer Used Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Organic (e.g., 

cottonseed, fish 

feed) 

27.3 (0.9) 23.0 (1.9) 24.9 (1.1) 

Inorganic (e.g., urea, 

ammonium nitrate) 27.3 (0.9) 61.7 (2.1) 46.0 (1.3) 

Combination of 

organic/inorganic 

fertilizers 

45.4 (1.1) 15.3 (1.5) 29.1 (1.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

8. Insect control in fry/fingerling ponds

Newly stocked fry are small and vulnerable to predatory aquatic insects. Controlling

aquatic insects can reduce predation losses. A higher percentage of operations in the

West region (58.7 percent) than in the East region (26.1 percent) treated ponds to control

insects.

Percentage of operations that treated ponds to control insects after filling the fry/fingerling

ponds with water in 2009, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

26.1 (0.9) 58.7 (1.4) 44.3 (0.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 73

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

9. Chloride level

High chloride levels in ponds help protect against nitrite exposure, which can lead to

brown blood disease—the impairment of oxygen transportation in the blood. Chloride

levels in excess of 100 ppm are considered adequate to preclude the need to regularly

monitor nitrite levels. Average chloride levels during summer months exceeded 100 ppm

in both the East and West regions.

Operation average chloride level in fry/fingerling ponds (parts per million) during summer,

and by region:

Operation Average Chloride Level (ppm) 

Region

East West All Operations

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

194.6 (6.8) 138.1 (7.3) 153.5 (5.7) 
74 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–G. Fry/Fingerling Pond Management Prior to Stocking

10. Salt use

If chloride levels in ponds are not sufficiently high, fingerling producers can add salt.

Almost one-third of fingerling operations (30.9 percent) routinely added salt to fry/

fingerling ponds during 2009, and 7.7 percent added salt in response to health problems.

A higher percentage of fingerling operations in the East region than in the West region did

not add salt to ponds during 2009 (78.3 and 48.2 percent, respectively).

Percentage of fingerling operations by use of salt in fry/fingerling ponds during 2009, and

by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Salt Use Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Routinely added salt 

to maintain a desired 

chloride level 

13.0 (0.8) 44.9 (1.5) 30.9 (0.9) 

Added salt only in 

response to health 

problems 

8.7 (0.4) 6.9 (0.8) 7.7 (0.5) 

Did not add salt 78.3 (0.8) 48.2 (1.5) 61.4 (0.9) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 75

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking

1. Fry feed type

During 2009, almost all fingerling operations (94.2 percent) provided some feed to fry

before they accepted larger floating feeds. Fines or meals and crumbles were the primary

feeds used by the highest percentages of operations (38.4 and 25.1 percent,

respectively).

Percentage of fingerling operations by primary type of feed provided in 2009 to fry before

the acceptance of floating feeds:

Feed Type Percent Operations Std. Error 

Fines or meals 38.4 (0.9) 

Crumbles 25.1 (0.9) 

Pellets 11.5 (0.6) 

Fry starter 17.3 (0.6) 

Other 1.9 (0.1) 

No feed provided 5.8 (0.5) 

Total 100.0 

H. Fingerling Pond

Management after

Stocking
76 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking

2. Fry feeding frequency

Fingerling feeding frequency during 2009 varied by season. In spring, when fry were

present, almost one-half of operations (46.2 percent) usually fed fry at least twice a day.

This percentage dropped to 26.9 percent of operations in the summer, 15.4 percent in the

fall, and 1.9 percent in the winter. In the summer and fall, the highest percentages of

operations usually fed once a day (57.7 and 53.9 percent, respectively).

Of operations that reported an “other” feeding frequency for winter (80.8 percent), about

two-thirds either fed irregularly as needed or did not feed. Most of the remaining one-third

fed between one time per week and one time per month.

Percentage of fingerling operations by how often fry/fingerlings were usually fed in each

season during 2009:

Percent Operations 

Season

Spring Summer Fall Winter

Feeding 

Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

At least 

twice daily 46.2 (0.9) 26.9 (0.8) 15.4 (0.7) 1.9 (0.3) 

Once a day 38.4 (0.9) 57.7 (0.9) 53.9 (0.9) 5.8 (0.3) 

Every other day 9.6 (0.5) 9.6 (0.6) 25.0 (0.8) 11.5 (0.5) 

Other 5.8 (0.4) 5.8 (0.5) 5.7 (0.3) 80.8 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 77

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking
78 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking

3. Protein level of feed

Intermediate-sized fingerlings (greater than 2 inches but less than 5 inches long) can be

fed higher protein levels (35 percent protein). Protein levels of 28 to 32 percent are

suitable for fingerlings less than 2 inches or greater than 5 inches in length.

Almost one-half of fingerling operations (49.1 percent) primarily fed floating feed with

32 percent protein to fry/fingerlings in 2009. Roughly equal percentages of fingerling

operations primarily fed floating feed with 28 percent protein, 35 percent protein, or “other”

protein levels. The “other” protein levels specified by respondents were primarily a

combination of 36 and 38 percent protein.

Percentage of fingerling operations by percentage of protein in the floating feed primarily

fed to fry/fingerlings in 2009:

Percent Protein Percent Operations Std. Error 

28 15.7 (0.7) 

32 49.1 (0.9) 

35 17.6 (0.7) 

Other 17.6 (0.6) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 79

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking

4. Primary method for monitoring dissolved oxygen

Hand monitors were the only primary method fingerling operations used to measure

dissolved oxygen in fry/fingerling ponds during 2009. Of all fingerling operations,

73.1 percent primarily used hand monitors to measure dissolved oxygen, while

26.9 percent did not regularly monitor dissolved oxygen levels. A higher percentage of

small fingerling operations than large operations did not regularly monitor dissolved

oxygen levels (35.7 and 16.6 percent, respectively).

Percentage of fingerling operations by primary method used to regularly monitor dissolved

oxygen in fry/fingerling ponds during 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Monitoring Method Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

Automated sensors 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Hand monitor 

(oxygen meter) 64.3 (1.0) 83.4 (0.8) 73.1 (0.7) 

Other 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Did not regularly 

monitor dissolved 

oxygen levels 

35.7 (1.0) 16.6 (0.8) 26.9 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
80 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking

5. Horsepower of fixed aeration

Recommended fixed aeration rates range from 2 to 2.5 horsepower (hp) per acre, but the

value varies with many factors, including stocking density and feeding rate. Overall,

fingerling operations used 1.6 hp of fixed aeration per surface acre of fry/fingerling ponds.

The average horsepower of fixed aeration was higher for large operations than for small

operations (1.8 and 1.5 hp/acre, respectively).

Average horsepower of fixed aeration per surface acre of fry/fingerling ponds, and by size

of operation:

Average Horsepower

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Average Std. Error Average Std. Error Average Std. Error 

1.5 (0.0) 1.8 (0.0) 1.6 (0.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 81

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking

6. Water quality testing

More than one-fourth of fingerling operations (27.0 percent) tested water quality in fry/

fingerling ponds at least once a month in 2009. A lower percentage of small operations

(17.9 percent) tested water quality at least once a month compared with large operations

(37.7 percent). A higher percentage of small operations (42.8 percent) than large

operations (24.9 percent) did not test water quality in fry/fingerling ponds in 2009.

a. Percentage of fingerling operations by frequency of water quality testing in fry/fingerling

ponds in 2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Testing Frequency Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error 

At least once 

a month 17.9 (0.7) 37.7 (1.6) 27.0 (0.9) 

Less than once 

a month 21.4 (1.0) 20.8 (1.3) 21.2 (0.8) 

In response to health 

problems only 17.9 (0.8) 16.6 (1.2) 17.3 (0.7) 

Not tested 42.8 (1.1) 24.9 (1.1) 34.5 (0.8) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
82 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking
USDA APHIS VS / 83

Section I: Population Estimates–H. Fingerling Pond Management after Stocking

Of operations that tested water quality in fingerling ponds at least once a month in 2009, a

higher percentage tested at least once a month for ammonia (92.4 percent) than for

chloride (78.4 percent) or nitrite (85.8 percent).

b. For operations that tested water quality in fry/fingerling ponds at least once a month in

2009, percentage of operations by number of times per month fry/fingerling ponds were

tested for specific chemicals:

Percent Operations 

Chemicals Tested

Ammonia Chloride Nitrite

Times per Month Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

0 7.6 (0.6) 21.6 (1.4) 14.2 (0.8) 

1 to 2 46.0 (2.1) 49.9 (2.0) 35.6 (1.8) 

3 to 4 46.4 (2.1) 28.5 (1.9) 50.2 (2.0) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
84 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

I. Fingerling

Health Issues

1. Vaccination for enteric septicemia of catfish (ESC)

Only 3.9 percent of fingerling operations vaccinated any fry for enteric septicemia of

catfish (ESC) in 2009. None of the small fingerling operations or East region operations

vaccinated fry for ESC.

a. Percentage of fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, and by

size of operation:

b. Percentage of fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, by

region:

Percent Operations

Region

East West

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

0.0 (--) 7.0 (0.8) 

On operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, 49.1 percent of fry were

vaccinated. The percentage of fry vaccinated for all fingerling operations was

12.3 percent.

c. For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, percentage of fry

vaccinated:

Percent Fry Std. Error 

49.1 (1.2) 

Percent Operations

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

0.0 (--) 8.5 (0.9) 3.9 (0.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 85

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

d. For all fingerling operations, percentage of fry vaccinated against ESC:

Percent Fry Std. Error 

12.3 (9.6) 

2. Average age of fry at ESC vaccination

Fry should be at least 7 days old before they are vaccinated for ESC. On average, fry

were vaccinated 15.1 days after hatching.

For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, operation average

number of days after hatching that fry typically were vaccinated:

Operation Average Days Std. Error 

15.1 (0.6) 

Photo courtesy of David Heiken, Agricultural Research Service
86 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

3. ESC vaccination of fry intended for on-farm growout

All of the fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC vaccinated a portion of

the fry that were intended for growout on their operations.

For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, percentage of

operations by vaccination practice for fry intended for growout on the operation:

Vaccination Practice 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

All fry intended for growout on operation 0.0 (--) 

A portion of the fry 100.0 (0.0) 

None of the fry 0.0 (--) 

No fry growout on this operation 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 

4. ESC vaccination of fry intended for sale as fingerlings

All of the fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC vaccinated a portion of

the fry that were intended for sale as fingerlings, but only on customer request.

For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, percentage of

operations by vaccination practice for fry intended for sale as fingerlings:

Vaccination Practice 

Percent 

Operations 

Std. 

Error 

All fry intended for sale 0.0 (--) 

A portion of the fry for sale 

based on customer request 100.0 (0.0) 

A portion of the fry for sale 

regardless of customer request 0.0 (--) 

None of the fry intended for sale 0.0 (--) 

No fry for sale 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 87

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

5. Outbreaks of ESC in ponds containing vaccinated fingerlings

Vaccination does not necessarily protect all vaccinated individuals against disease. All

fingerling operations that vaccinated fry against ESC experienced outbreaks of ESC in

ponds with vaccinated fingerlings. Additionally, all of these operations fed medicated feed

to vaccinated fish in ponds and still had outbreaks.

a. For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, percentage of

operations that had any outbreaks of ESC that year in ponds that contained fingerlings

vaccinated for ESC:

Percent Operations Std. Error 

100.0 (0.0) 

b. For fingerling operations that had any outbreaks of ESC in ponds that contained

fingerlings vaccinated for ESC in 2009, percentage of operations that gave medicated

feed to those vaccinated fish:

Percent Operations Std. Error 

100.0 (0.0) 

Of operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC, about one-half of the operations

(51.0 percent) said survival of fingerlings was better in ponds with vaccinated fish than in

ponds without vaccinated fish, while the other one-half (49.0 percent) said survival was

the same. Growth was reported to be the same regardless of vaccination status.

c. For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against ESC in 2009, percentage of

operations by performance (survival and growth rates) of fingerlings in ponds with

ESC-vaccinated fish compared with performance of fingerlings in ponds without

ESC-vaccinated fish:

Percent Operations 

Performance Measure

Better Same Worse Don’t Know 

Rate Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Survival 51.0 (5.6) 49.0 (5.6) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 100.0 

Growth 0.0 (--) 100.0 (0.0) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 100.0 
88 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

6. Columnaris vaccination

The columnaris vaccine became available for use by the catfish industry in 2009. Overall,

9.7 percent of fingerling operations vaccinated at least some fry for columnaris in 2009,

with a higher percentage of large operations (16.8 percent) than small operations

(3.6 percent) vaccinating fry. The percentage of operations vaccinating fry for columnaris

did not differ by region.

a. Percentage of fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009,

and by size of operation:

b. Percentage of fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009,

by region:

Percent Operations

Region

East West

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

8.7 (0.4) 10.5 (0.9) 

Percent Operations

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

3.6 (0.3) 16.8 (1.1) 9.7 (0.6) 
USDA APHIS VS / 89

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

On operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, 39.6 percent of fry were

vaccinated. For all fingerling operations, 17.0 percent of fry were vaccinated.

7. Average age of fry at columnaris vaccination

Fry should be at least 7 days old before they are vaccinated for columnaris, and some

references recommend 10 days. On average, fry were vaccinated 20.6 days after

hatching.

For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, operation

average number of days after hatching that fry typically were vaccinated:

Operation Average Days Std. Error 

20.6 (0.8) 

Percent Fry

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

1.6 (1.6) 17.3 (8.7) 17.0 (8.6) 

c. For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, percentage

of fry vaccinated, and by size of operation:

Percent Fry

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

40.0 (0.0) 39.6 (8.4) 39.6 (8.3) 

d. For all fingerling operations, percentage of fry vaccinated against columnaris, and by

size of operation:
90 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

8. Columnaris vaccination of fry intended for on-farm growout

Of fingerling operations that vaccinated fry for columnaris in 2009, about three-fifths of

operations (60.3 percent) routinely vaccinated a portion of the fry that were intended for

growout on their operations. About one-fifth (19.8 percent) routinely vaccinated all the fry

intended for growout on their operations, and the remaining one-fifth (19.9 percent) did not

grow out fry on the operation. Consequently, of fingerling operations that vaccinated for

columnaris in 2009 and that grew out fry on the operation, all routinely vaccinated at least

some of the fry intended for growout on their operations.

For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, percentage of

operations by routine vaccination practice for fry intended for growout on the operation:

Vaccination Practice Percent Operations Std. Error 

All fry intended for growout on operation 19.8 (1.6) 

A portion of the fry 60.3 (2.9) 

None of the fry 0.0 (--) 

No fry growout on this operation 19.9 (2.9) 

Total 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 91

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

9. Columnaris vaccination of fry intended for sale as fingerlings

Of fingerling operations that vaccinated for columnaris in 2009, more than four-fifths

(80.2 percent) vaccinated at least some of the fry that were intended for sale as

fingerlings. About two-fifths of operations (40.5 percent) vaccinated a portion of their fry

intended for sale based on customer request, while one-fifth (19.8 percent) vaccinated a

portion of the fry intended for sale regardless of customer request. Another one-fifth of

vaccinating operations vaccinated all fry intended for sale (19.9 percent).

For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, percentage of

operations by vaccination practice for fry intended for sale as fingerlings:

10. Outbreaks of columnaris in ponds containing vaccinated fingerlings

Columnaris outbreaks occurred in ponds containing vaccinated fingerlings on

40.5 percent of operations that had vaccinated fry in 2009. All operations that experienced

columnaris outbreaks in ponds containing vaccinated fingerlings fed medicated feed to

fish in those ponds.

a. For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, percentage

of operations that had any outbreaks of columnaris in ponds that contained fingerlings

vaccinated for columnaris:

Percent Operations Std. Error 

40.5 (2.9) 

Vaccination Practice Percent Operations Std. Error 

All fry intended for sale 19.9 (2.9) 

A portion of the fry for sale 

based on customer request 40.5 (3.2) 

A portion of the fry for sale 

regardless of customer request 19.8 (1.6) 

None of the fry intended for sale 19.8 (1.6) 

No fry for sale 0.0 (--) 

Total 100.0 
92 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

b. For fingerling operations that had any outbreaks of columnaris in ponds that contained

fingerlings vaccinated for columnaris in 2009, percentage of operations that gave

medicated feed to those vaccinated fish:

Percent Operations Std. Error 

100.0 (0.0) 

Of operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, 40.5 percent said that

survival was better in ponds with vaccinated fingerlings than in ponds without vaccinated

fingerlings. A similar percentage of operations (39.7 percent) responded that survival was

about the same. A majority of operations (60.4 percent) indicated that fingerlings in ponds

with vaccinated fish and fingerlings in ponds without vaccinated fish had about the same

growth rate. None of the operations responded that survival or growth was worse in ponds

with vaccinated fingerlings than in ponds without vaccinated fingerlings. One-fifth of

operations did not know how the performance of vaccinated fry compared with that of

unvaccinated fry.

c. For fingerling operations that vaccinated any fry against columnaris in 2009, percentage

of operations by performance (survival and growth rates) of fingerlings in ponds with

columnaris-vaccinated fish compared with performance of fingerlings in ponds without

columnaris-vaccinated fish:

Percent Operations 

Performance Measure

Better Same Worse Don’t Know 

Rate Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Pct. 

Std. 

Error Total 

Survival 40.5 (2.9) 39.7 (3.1) 0.0 (--) 19.8 (1.6) 100.0 

Growth 19.8 (1.6) 60.4 (2.5) 0.0 (--) 19.8 (1.6) 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 93

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues
94 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

11. Survival of stocked fry until harvest

The operation average percent survival of fry stocked in 2009 until harvest as fingerlings

was 66.7 percent. The percent survival of fry (weighted by the number of fry stocked in

2009) was similar (65.1 percent) to the operation average percent survival. Similarly,

operation averages and fry averages by fingerling operation size were similar. These

results indicate a fairly uniform fry survival rate across the breadth of fingerling operation

sizes.

For stocked fry during 2009, operation average and fry average (weighted by the number

of fry stocked in 2009) percent survival until harvest as fingerlings, and by size of

operation:

12. Causes of fingerling loss

Almost three-fourths of fingerling operations (71.1 percent) lost at least some fry/

fingerlings in 2009 to unknown causes. With large numbers of fry being stocked in ponds

and not readily visible, it can be very difficult to observe losses and identify some causes

of fish loss. Almost one-half of operations (48.0 percent) lost fry/fingerlings to predation.

Trematodes and gill parasites caused losses on a relatively low percentage of operations

(1.9 percent each).

No losses were attributed to channel catfish virus (CCV) infection, which is surprising

because CCV is a disease of young fish. On 38.5 percent of all fingerling operations,

however, all fry/fingerling loss was attributed to unknown causes (data not shown).

Average Percent Stocked Fry 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Survival Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error Avg. Std. Error 

Operation average 64.4 (0.3) 69.4 (0.5) 66.7 (0.3) 

Fry average 69.2 (4.2) 65.0 (4.4) 65.1 (4.4) 
USDA APHIS VS / 95

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

A higher percentage of small fingerling operations than large operations lost fry/fingerlings

to predation (57.2 and 37.4 percent, respectively). Conversely, a higher percentage of

large operations lost fry/fingerlings to ESC (29.3 percent) and columnaris (21.0 percent)

than did small operations (10.7 and 14.3 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of fingerling operations that lost any fry/fingerlings to the following causes in

2009, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Cause Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Enteric septicemia of 

catfish (ESC, hole-inhead disease) 10.7 (0.8) 29.3 (1.5) 19.3 (0.8) 

Columnaris 14.3 (0.7) 21.0 (1.3) 17.4 (0.7) 

Proliferative gill 

disease (PGD, 

hamburger gill 

disease) 

0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Channel catfish 

virus (CCV) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Trematodes 3.6 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 1.9 (0.1) 

Gill parasites 3.6 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 1.9 (0.1) 

Ich 7.1 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 3.8 (0.2) 

Predation 57.2 (1.1) 37.4 (1.4) 48.0 (0.9) 

Other known causes 3.6 (0.3) 8.4 (1.0) 5.8 (0.5) 

Unknown causes 75.0 (1.0) 66.6 (1.4) 71.1 (0.8) 
96 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues
USDA APHIS VS / 97

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

A much higher percentage of fingerling operations in the East region lost fry/fingerlings to

predation than did operations in the West region (69.6 and 31.0 percent, respectively).

ESC caused losses on 27.7 percent of operations in the West region compared with

8.7 percent in the East region. Conversely, columnaris caused losses on 21.7 percent of

operations in the East region compared with 13.9 percent in the West region.

b. Percentage of fingerling operations that lost any fry/fingerlings to the following causes in

2009, by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West 

Cause Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Enteric septicemia of catfish 

(ESC, hole-in-head disease) 8.7 (0.7) 27.7 (1.3) 

Columnaris 21.7 (0.8) 13.9 (1.1) 

Proliferative gill disease 

(PGD, hamburger gill disease) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Channel catfish virus (CCV) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Trematodes 4.3 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 

Gill parasites 4.3 (0.3) 0.0 (--) 

Ich 8.7 (0.4) 0.0 (--) 

Predation 69.6 (0.9) 31.0 (1.3) 

Other known causes 4.3 (0.3) 6.9 (0.8) 

Unknown causes 65.2 (1.0) 75.7 (1.3) 
98 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

The percentages of fry/fingerlings lost to specific causes present a much different picture

than the percentages of operations that had losses due to specific causes. Although

predation was observed on a high percentage of operations, only 10.5 percent of overall

losses were attributed to that cause. The highest percentage of fry/fingerling loss

(45.8 percent) was attributed to unknown causes. Two bacterial diseases, ESC and

columnaris, combined to represent 39.3 percent of all fry/fingerling loss. Variability

associated with these estimates of fry lost by cause makes it difficult to identify important

differences in loss by operation size or region.

c. Percentage of fry/fingerlings (weighted by the number of fry stocked in 2009) lost to the

following causes, and by size of operation:

Percent Fry/Fingerlings Lost 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Cause Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Enteric septicemia of 

catfish (ESC, hole-inhead disease) 12.5 (9.4) 20.3 (11.3) 20.2 (11.2) 

Columnaris 3.0 (1.6) 19.4 (11.5) 19.1 (11.4) 

Proliferative gill 

disease (PGD, 

hamburger gill 

disease) 

0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Channel catfish virus 

(CCV) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Trematodes 2.2 (2.2) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 

Gill parasites 2.5 (2.4) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (0.0) 

Ich 3.4 (2.3) 0.0 (--) 0.1 (0.0) 

Predation 29.2 (11.3) 10.2 (7.4) 10.5 (7.3) 

Other known causes 1.5 (1.5) 4.3 (3.6) 4.3 (3.5) 

Unknown causes 45.7 (13.0) 45.8 (18.4) 45.8 (18.2) 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 99

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues
100 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

d. Percentage of fry/fingerlings (weighted by the number of fingerlings stocked in 2009)

lost to the following causes, by region:

Percent Fry/Fingerling Lost 

Region

East West 

Cause Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

Enteric septicemia of catfish 

(ESC, hole-in-head disease) 12.6 (8.8) 20.4 (11.4) 

Columnaris 18.7 (10.2) 19.1 (11.7) 

Proliferative gill disease 

(PGD, hamburger gill disease) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Channel catfish virus (CCV) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Trematodes 1.5 (1.5) 0.0 (--) 

Gill parasites 1.6 (1.7) 0.0 (--) 

Ich 2.3 (1.7) 0.0 (--) 

Predation 38.7 (10.3) 9.8 (7.4) 

Other known causes 1.0 (1.0) 4.4 (3.6) 

Unknown causes 23.6 (13.2) 46.3 (18.7) 

Total 100.0 100.0 
USDA APHIS VS / 101

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

13. Primary treatment for ESC outbreaks

 As reported above (table H.12.a), about one-fifth of all fingerling operations (19.3 percent)

lost some fry stocked in 2009 to ESC. Recent research suggests that feeding fish may

increase mortality by increasing oral exposure to the pathogen, so some treatment

approaches focus on feed type and feeding frequency.

When all operations were asked about their primary treatment for fry/fingerlings with ESC,

about three-fifths of operations (59.6 percent; data not shown) reported that they had had

no ESC outbreaks. For the 40.4 percent of operations (data not shown) that reported a

primary treatment for fry/fingerlings with ESC, the highest percentage (66.7 percent) used

medicated feed as the primary treatment for ESC. Another 28.5 percent of operations took

fish off feed as the primary treatment for ESC.

For fingerling operations reporting a primary treatment for fry/fingerlings with ESC,

percentage of operations by treatment:

Primary Treatment Percent Operations Std. Error 

Medicated feed 66.7 (1.5) 

Regular feed on alternate 

days (reduce feed) 0.0 (--) 

Take off feed 28.5 (1.5) 

Other 4.7 (0.7) 

Total 100.0 
102 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

14. Laboratory diagnosis

Submitting samples to a diagnostic laboratory can help producers diagnose disease and

identify potential remedial actions. Many producers, however, might have experience in

identifying disease problems or think that diagnostic information will not help them choose

a course of action.

Only one-fourth of fingerling producers (25.0 percent) submitted any fingerling samples to

a diagnostic laboratory, although the percentage that submitted a sample was higher in

the West region than in the East region (34.5 and 13.0 percent, respectively).

The reasons for submitting samples cited by the highest percentages of operations were

detecting a problem early (21.1 percent) and confirming a cause of disease

(13.5 percent).

Percentage of fingerling operations that submitted any fingerling samples to a diagnostic

laboratory, by reason for submission and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Reason Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Detect problem early 13.0 (0.8) 27.5 (1.3) 21.1 (0.8) 

Confirm cause of 

disease 13.0 (0.8) 13.8 (1.1) 13.5 (0.7) 

Identify unknown 

disease 8.7 (0.4) 3.5 (0.6) 5.8 (0.4) 

Other reason 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 0.0 (--) 

Any reason 13.0 (0.8) 34.5 (1.4) 25.0 (0.9) 
USDA APHIS VS / 103

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues
104 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

15. Use of medicated feed

Antimicrobial use in animal agriculture currently is receiving much attention. In the catfish

industry, medicated feed is used to treat disease problems.

In 2009, 28.9 percent of fingerling operations fed medicated feed to fry. A slightly higher

percentage of large operations than small operations used medicated feed (33.5 and

25.0 percent, respectively).

a. Percentage of fingerling operations that fed medicated feed to fry in 2009, and by size

of operation:

Percent Operations

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

25.0 (0.9) 33.5 (1.5) 28.9 (0.8) 
USDA APHIS VS / 105

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

Terramycin®, Romet®, and Aquaflor® are all approved by the Food and Drug

Administration for use in catfish feed. Aquaflor is the newest antimicrobial available for

use on fingerlings and is the only antimicrobial approved for treatment of both ESC and

columnaris, the two most important bacterial diseases of catfish.

Of operations that fed medicated feed in 2009, 60.2 percent fed Aquaflor, and a higher

percentage of large operations used Aquaflor compared with small operations (75.2 and

42.9 percent, respectively). About one-fourth of operations (26.6 percent) used Romet.

b. For operations that fed medicated feed to fry/fingerlings in 2009, percentage of

fingerling operations by type of medicated feed used, and by size of operation:

Percent Operations 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Medicated Feed Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Terramycin® 28.5 (1.5) 0.0 (--) 14.2 (0.8) 

Romet® 28.5 (1.5) 24.8 (2.1) 26.6 (1.3) 

Aquaflor® 42.9 (2.2) 75.2 (2.0) 60.2 (1.5) 
106 / Catfish 2010

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

Operations that fed Aquaflor to fry/fingerlings fed, on average, 26.2 tons of the medicated

feed in 2009. Operations that fed the other medicated feeds to fry/fingerlings fed much

smaller amounts in 2009: on average, 1.6 tons of Romet and 0.1 ton of Terramycin. Large

operations fed 39.6 tons of Aquaflor during 2009, compared with 10.8 tons for small

operations.

c. For operations that fed medicated feed to fry/fingerlings in 2009, average tons of

medicated feed fed, and by size of operation:

16. Snail control

Ramshorn snails are an intermediate host in the complex life cycle of the trematode

Bolbophorus spp., an important parasite in the catfish industry. Snails must be present for

the trematode to complete its life cycle in the catfish production environment, but the

presence of snails does not necessarily mean that operations will have trematode

problems. About one-fourth of fingerling operations (23.1 percent) reported having a

problem with snails in fry/fingerling ponds in 2009.

a. Percentage of fingerling operations that had a problem with snails in any fry/fingerling

ponds in 2009, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error 

26.1 (0.9) 20.7 (1.2) 23.1 (0.8) 

Average Tons 

Size of Operation (Number of Fry Stocked) 

Small 

(1 Million or Fewer) 

Large 

(More than 1 Million) All Operations

Medicated Feed Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Terramycin® 0.3 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 

Romet® 0.4 (0.0) 2.6 (0.4) 1.6 (0.2) 

Aquaflor® 10.8 (1.2) 39.6 (3.4) 26.2 (2.0) 
USDA APHIS VS / 107

Section I: Population Estimates–I. Fingerling Health Issues

All fingerling operations were asked if they used measures to control snails, regardless of

whether they had reported a snail problem. No operations that did not report a snail

problem used snail-control measures; consequently, the absence of snail problems was

not directly due to control measures.

About one-fifth of fingerling operations (19.2 percent) used one or more measures to

control snails. The highest percentages of operations used weed control (11.6 percent)

and copper (11.5 percent) to control snails. Some operations with snail problems did not

use any control measure, as evidenced by the percentage of operations with snail

problems (23.1 percent, table I.16.a) compared with the percentage of operations that

implemented any control measure (19.2 percent).

b. Percentage of operations that used the following measures to control snails in fry/

fingerling ponds, and by region:

Percent Operations 

Region

East West All Operations

Measure Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error 

Lime 13.0 (0.5) 3.4 (0.6) 7.7 (0.4) 

Copper 17.4 (0.8) 6.9 (0.8) 11.5 (0.6) 

Weed control 8.7 (0.4) 13.8 (1.1) 11.6 (0.6) 

Biological control 0.0 (--) 3.4 (0.6) 1.9 (0.3) 

Any measure 21.7 (0.8) 17.3 (1.2) 19.2 (0.7) 
108 / Catfish 2010

Section II: Methodology

 Section II: Methodology

A. Needs

Assessment

NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting industry

members about their information needs and priorities during a needs-assessment phase.

The planning for the Catfish 2010 study involved an extensive effort to obtain input from

representatives of producer organizations, universities, State and Federal catfish health

and production personnel, and others allied with the industry.

Three focus group meetings—one each in Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi—were

held in January 2009. Producers, extension agents, university researchers, and other

State and Federal employees were invited to participate in focus groups in their respective

States. These groups were asked to identify broad study objectives and to begin

prioritizing topics. Discussions with participants and other individuals continued after the

meetings to help finalize study objectives.

Specific objectives for the NAHMS Catfish 2010 study:

1. Investigate foodsize-fish production practices. Management practices for foodsize fish

are continually evolving as producers refine their methods and adjust to changes in

market demands. Areas of investigation to meet this objective include stocking

practices (use of stocker ponds, stocking size, strain of fish, and timing of stocking);

feeding practices (protein level, seasonal feeding, especially in the fall); pond

management (draining, pond size, and maintenance schedule); and general practices

(aeration, oxygen and water quality monitoring, harvesting). Use of channel x blue

hybrid catfish, vaccination practices, and trends over time also were points of focus.

2. Describe fingerling production practices, specifically broodfish management, hatchery

management, vaccination practices, fingerling pond management, fingerling stocking,

and feeding practices.

3. Address a broad range of fish health issues, including estimation of operation- and

pond-level prevalence of reported foodsize-fish disease problems (columnaris, enteric

septicemia, proliferative gill disease, winter kill, ich, anemia, visceral toxicosis of catfish,

and trematodes); fingerling disease problems (columnaris, enteric septicemia, channel

catfish virus, and ich); control practices; treatment practices; and risk factors.

4. Quantify the magnitude of the problem of off-flavor in terms of the percentage of ponds

annually affected by off-flavor and the duration of off-flavor episodes. Assess the use of

diuron and copper sulfate as pond treatments.
USDA APHIS VS / 109

Section II: Methdology

B. Sampling and

Estimation

1. State selection

NASS publishes catfish production estimates annually. NAHMS contracts with NASS to

provide a statistically reliable sample from the NASS sample frames. A goal for NAHMS

national studies is to include States that account for at least 70 percent of the animal and

producer populations in the United States. The initial review of States identified four major

States (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) as having 91.5 percent of the

inventory (as measured by sales for 2009) and 53.5 percent of all U.S. catfish operations

on January 1, 2008 (latest available).

2. Operation selection

Through NASS, operations were selected in the four participating States (Alabama,

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). Essentially all catfish producers on the list

sampling frame were selected. This list frame provided complete coverage of catfish

producers in the four States on January 1, 2010. There were 695 operations selected for

the study.

3. Population inferences

Inferences from data collection cover the population of producers with any catfish in the

four study States. These States accounted for 53.5 percent of all catfish operations in the

United States as of January 1, 2008, and 91.5 percent of all catfish sales in the United

States (see Appendix II). Census data were used to adjust for response and nonresponse

within each State and size group to allow for inferences back to the original population

from which the sample was selected.

C. Data Collection 1. Phase I

NASS enumerators in each of the four States administered the General Catfish

Management Report (GCMR) from January 2 to January 29, 2010. The interview took just

under 1 hour to complete.
110 / Catfish 2010

Section II: Methodology

D. Data Analysis 1. Validation and estimation

Initial data entry and validation for the GCMR were performed in the individual NASS State

offices. Data were entered into a SAS data set. NAHMS staff in Fort Collins, CO,

performed additional validation on the entire data set after data from all States were

combined.

2. Response rates

Of the 695 operations on the NASS list sampling frame, 67 had no catfish on January 1,

2010, and were therefore ineligible for the NAHMS Catfish 2010 study. Of the remaining

628 operations to be contacted, 424 operations participated in the Catfish 2010 study, and

only 78 operations (11.2 percent of the total sample) refused to participate in the study.

 Measurement Parameter 

Response Category 

Number 

Operations 

Percent 

Operations Contacts Usable2 Complete3

No catfish on 

January 1, 2010 67 9.7 x x 

Out of business1 92 13.2 x x 

Refusal 78 11.2 x 

Survey complete 424 61.0 x x x 

Out of scope 

(research farm, etc.) 4 0.6 

Inaccessible 30 4.3 x x 

Total 695 100.0 

Percent of total 

operations 95.1 83.9 61.0 

1

Operations that sold land and/or catfish and had no intention of returning to catfish business. 

2

Usable operation—respondent provided answers to inventory questions for the operation (either zero or 

positive number on hand). 

3

Survey complete operation—respondent provided answers to all or nearly all questions for at least one 

operation. 
USDA APHIS VS / 111

Appendix I: Sample Profile

Appendix I: Sample Profile

A. Responding

Operations

1. Responding operations by pond size

Size of Foodsize-Fish Pond (Acres) Number of Responding Operations* 

1 to 19 71 

20 to 49 84 

50 to 149 124 

150 or more 120 

Total 399 

*Twenty-five responding producers did not raise foodsize fish. 

2. Responding operations by region

Region Number of Responding Operations 

East 252 

West 172 

Total 424 

3. Responding operations by State

State Number of Responding Operations 

Alabama 127 

Arkansas 77 

Louisiana 13 

Mississippi 207 

Total 424 
112 / Catfish 2010

Appendix I: Sample Profile

4. Responding operations by operation type

Operation Type Number of Responding Operations* 

Breed catfish 37 

Operate hatchery 31 

Raise fry to fingerlings 54 

Grow out foodsize fish 399 

*Sum is greater than 424 because a number of operations are of multiple types. 
USDA APHIS VS / 113

Appendix II: U.S. Catfish Acreage Inventory and Operations

Appendix II: U.S. Catfish Acreage Inventory and Operations

A. Regional

Summary

State 

Number Surface Acres 

Intended for Use 

January 1–June 30, 2010 

Water Surface Acres 

Used/Intended for 

Production 

Jan 1–Jun 30 2009 Total 

Sales 

(x$1,000)

January 1, 

2008, 

Number of 

Operations4 Foodsize Fingerlings Broodfish 2009 2010 

Alabama1 19,200 380 120 22,100 19,800 90,688 252 

Arkansas1 16,600 2,200 250 25,000 19,200 44,914 155 

California 1,100 190 80 2,400 1,500 8,074 55 

Louisiana1 1,700 50 0 6,300 1,800 8,395 31 

Mississippi1 52,000 9,700 1,300 80,200 64,000 196,787 427 

North 

Carolina 1,600 200 50 2,200 1,900 5,495 53 

Texas 2,600 190 70 3,800 2,900 12,644 149 

Other 

States2 1,900 1,300 370 4,900 3,700 5,570 495 

Total1

Percent of 

U.S. 

89,500 

(92.6%) 

12,330 

(86.8%) 

1,670 

(74.6%)3 

133,600 

(90.9%) 

104,800 

(91.3%) 

340,784 

(91.5%) 

865 

(53.5%) 

Total U.S. 96,700 14,210 2,240 146,900 114,800 372,567 1,617 

1 Study States. 

2 States whose estimates are not shown and States suppressed because of disclosure concerns. 

3 Excluding Louisiana. 

4

Source: NASS Catfish Production report, January 30, 2009 (most recent State-level publication for number of operations). 

January 1, 2009, U.S. operations equaled 1,306; January 1, 2010, U.S. operations equaled 994.