aquaculture economics & management an overview of ... department of fisheries, university of...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN]On: 12 February 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 780716405]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aquaculture Economics & ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100763

An overview of aquaculture in Turkey: With emphasis on sea bass and seabreamFerit Rad a; Gülten Köksal b

a Faculty of Fisheries, Dept. of Aquaculture, University of Mersin, Mersin, Turkey b Faculty ofAgriculture, Department of Fisheries, University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey

To cite this Article Rad, Ferit and Köksal, Gülten(2000) 'An overview of aquaculture in Turkey: With emphasis on sea bassand sea bream', Aquaculture Economics & Management, 4: 3, 227 — 239To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13657300009380271URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380271

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100763

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380271

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

COUNTRY REVIEW

An overview of aquaculture in Turkey: with emphasis onsea bass and sea bream

FERIT RAD1 & GÜLTEN KÖKSAL2

1 University of Mersin. Faculty of Fisheries, Dept. of Aquaculture. Mersin. Turkey2 University of Ankara, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries. 06110, Ankara, Turkey.

Abstract

Aquaculture is a relatively recent industry in Turkey, enjoying great potential for develop-ment. Both freshwater and marine aquaculture are being practised in over 800 operationalunits. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sea bream (Sparus aurata), Sea bass (Dicen-trarchus labrax), comprise 90% of the total production, together with Atlantic salmon (Salmosalar), Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), Shrimp (Penaeidae spp.) and Mussel (Mytilus gal-loprovincialis). Total aquaculture production reached 45 450 t in 1998, constituting 9% oftotal national fisheries production. Sea bass and sea bream farms are located along AegeanSea and Mediterranean coasts and comprised 16% of the total number of aquaculture enter-prises and 30% of total aquaculture production in 1997. Supplies of these two species havebeen steadily increasing in Turkey and other producing countries since 1990 resulting in mar-ket saturation and declining prices both locally and internationally. Mediterranean speciesincluding Epinephelus spp., Puntazzo puntazzo and Pagrus pagrus, are considered to be newcandidates offering good prospects for mariculture.

Keywords: Aquaculture, Sea bass. Sea bream, Turkey

Introduction

Turkey is situated in the Eastern Mediterranean region, 3% of its territory is in Europe and97% in Asia. Its mainland coastlines comprise: 1 695 km on the Black Sea, 2 805 km on theAegean and 1 677 km on the Mediterranean Sea (Muthoo & Onul, 1996). Agriculture, includ-ing capture fisheries and aquaculture accounted for 13.5% of Turkey's US $ 191.3 billionGNP in 1997 (Anon. 1998a). The GNP is projected to be US $ 803.0 billion in the year 2025(Anon. 1999a). The growth rate in GNP was 7.4% in 1997(Anon. 1998a). Economic crises inSouth Asia and Russia had a negative impact on economic growth in Turkey in 1998 but in-dicators show signs of recovery, with growth in 1999 expected to be around 2.5% (Çetinkaya1999).

Correspondence Ferit Rad, University of Mersin, Faculty of Fisheries, Department of Aquaculture.Mersin, Turkey. Tel: 0090-324-361 00 01/682, Fax: 0090-324-361 00 51, Email: [email protected].

Aquaculture Economics and Management 4(3/4) 2000 121

Downloaded By: [Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN] At: 08:57 12 February 2010

228 An overview of aquaculture in Turkey • F. Rad & G. Köksal

The population of Turkey is estimated as 65.3 millions (1998) of which 60% live inurban centers and the rest in rural areas. Average national income per capita was US $ 3 130in 1997 (Anon. 1999b).

Turkish fisheries landings reached a peak level of 676 000 t in 1988 mainly due to in-crease in anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) landings from Black Sea (Anon. 1998b). This wasfollowed by a sharp decline in overall capture fisheries production between 1989-1992 due tolack of appropriate management and over-fishing in the Black Sea. An apparent recovery hasbeen observed since 1993. In 1997 fisheries production of Turkey was 500 2601, of which 45450 t came from aquaculture and the remainder from marine and inland capture fisheries(Anon. 1998b). The share of aquaculture in overall fisheries production increased fromaround 1.5% in 1990 to 9% in 1997. In consumption terms, 90.8% of the production was con-sumed domestically as fresh or processed products and 3.9 % was used in fish meal and fishoil production (Anon. 1998b). Export and import of fisheries products in 1997 were 35 7911(US $ 128.0 million) and 40 3241 (US $ 52.3 million) respectively (Anon. 1999c). FollowingEU decisions, limiting the import of fresh seafood from Turkey in June 1998, exportsdropped to 9 6741 (US$ 35.2 million) towards the end of 1998 (Anon. 1999c). This issue wasresolved towards the end of 1998 and export was resumed.

Demand projections for fisheries products indicate that Turkey will face an annual supplydeficit of 95 0001 in the beginning of 21st century (Gözgözoglu 1997). In this regard aquacul-ture is of strategic significance as far as food security and socio-economic issues are con-cerned. Within this framework, Turkish government has been encouraging aquaculturethrough credit provisions, seed production and publicly funded research and development(Gözgözoglu 1997).

This overview aims to present an objective picture of the Turkish aquaculture sector,with further emphasis on biotechnical and economic aspects of its key areas of sea bass andsea bream production. Insights into future developments are also discussed.

Specific Market Data

Characteristics offish consumptionAnnual per capita consumption of fish is low in Turkey (7.5 kg), below the world average of13 kg (Josupeit 1995). Availability of fisheries products and dietary traditions appear to bethe main factors limiting the consumption offish. Though, the prices of many fish species arecompetitive with meat and poultry, Turkish consumers prefer the latter due to their ease ofuse in traditional dishes and wider availability. Thus, it is not surprising to see that the ratio ofconsumption of meat to fish is 5 to 1 (Anon. 1994a). Nevertheless, 98.5% of Turkish familiesconsume fish at least once a year and the perception of fish as a 'healthy' food item is thenorm among the majority of consumers (Anon. 1996a).

Anchovy {Engraulis encrasicolus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and whiting(Merlaingius euxinus) are the predominant species consumed regularly by all socio-economicclasses and along with horse mackerel (Tracharus tracharus) characterize Turkish market andare regarded as national fish species (Anon. 1996a). Certainly, anchovy is the dominant spe-cies as far as consumption and landings are concerned.

The income elasticity of fish is estimated as 0.4 and 0.92 in the lowest and highest in-come groups respectively. For the high-priced fish species the income elasticity was found tobe 1.33. Price elasticity of meat, poultry and fish has been estimated as -0.45, -0.52 and -0.43respectively (Anon. 1996a).

Turkish consumers prefer fresh fish to processed products. However, consumption rate offresh fish is showing a decreasing trend and has decreased from 87% in 1970's to 78% in

Aquaculture Economics and Management 4(3/4) 2000


F. Rad & G. Köksal • An overview of aquaculture in Turkey 229

1990's (Elbek 1993). This trend has been accelerated by increasing consumption of cannedfish (tuna) in the recent years, around 20001 in 1994 (Anon. 1996a).

Aquaculture products enjoy a relatively positive image among Turkish consumers (74%)and rainbow trout seems to be the most well-known farmed fish species among consumersfollowed by carp (Cyprinus carpió), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), sea bream (Spamsaurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchns labrax) (Anon. 1996a).

Characteristics of distribution channels and trendsIn 1997, 72.6% (in volume) of fisheries products was handled by commissioners and whole-salers. Fishermen cooperatives and direct sales to consumers constituted 3.7 and 3.0% of theoverall trade respectively. The remaining was purchased by canning (3.4%) and fishmeal in-dustries (17.5%) (Anon. 1998b).

The main wholesalers are localized in Istanbul, Samsun, Trabzon and Izmir (Anon.1996a). However; there are also small fish docks and local markets along the Black Sea,Marmara, Aegean and the Mediterranean coasts (Anon. 1994a).

The distribution patterns of aquaculture products are more or less similar to capture fish-eries products and about 75% of the products reach the consumers through wholesalers(Anon. 1994a). Some fish farmers have contracts with wholesalers and some sell directly toretailers in large cities (Anon. 1996a).

In an attempt to reduce the length of distribution channels many large-scale fish farmssuch as Bagci Trout (Province of Mugla) and Liman Trout (Province of Bilecik) have estab-lished their own marketing network, particularly in the trout farming industry where the do-mestic market plays an important role. Farm-gate sales are very common among medium andsmall-scale fish farms enabling them to increase profitability by applying retail rather thanwholesale prices. In tourist areas many farms run their own restaurants.

Since sea bass and sea bream production is export-oriented, the home market for thesespecies is not as significant as for rainbow trout. In 1996, about 80% of the production wasexported, mainly to Italy, Greece and France (Anon. 1996a). Industrial scale sea bass and seabream farms such as Pinar Seafood (Province of Izmir) and Kiliç Seafood (Province of Mugla)have established their own export mechanisms and infrastructure. Small farms have contractswith export companies through which their products reach the international markets. The vol-ume of supply of sea bass and sea bream to domestic market and price formation in the homemarket depends on the developments in the export markets and mainly Italy.

Supermarket chains are becoming important retail outlets for aquaculture products in therecent years. Many supermarket chains (Real, Metro, Migros) sell fresh, processed and liveaquaculture products. This trend is relatively new in the Turkish market and it is difficult tofind any data for comparison but, is probably far behind Europe as far as the volume of trade(Stephanis 1995; Paquotte 1995) is concerned. However, the prospects are very promisingand in the coming years the share of supermarkets in overall trade is expected to increase.

Sectoral Management in Aquaculture

Government policyGovernment policy towards aquaculture development emanates from statements and goals inthe Seventh Five-year Plan (1996-2000). Protection and control of natural environment, in-crease of output by effective and continuous utilization of resources, improvement of farm-ing, efficient reorganization of the institutional structure, improvement of cold-storage andfreezing facilities at marketing stage and supporting R&D constitute the theoretical frame-work of government policies regarding fisheries (including aquaculture) (Anon. 1996b). The




most solid and specific action regarding aquaculture has been the preparation of a draft masterplan for development of aquaculture by cabinet in 1998. This draft will be materialized in1999 (Anon. 1998c).

Administrative structure and legislationThe Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) is responsible for development, ad-ministration and control of aquaculture in the country through legislation in 1971 (Law no.1380). However, a number of other ministries and institutions are also involved in decision-making processes regarding different aspects of aquaculture e.g. licensing, planning, envi-ronmental monitoring, allocation of sites and leasing procedures.

With a central administration in Ankara, MARA has 80 provincial bodies. Aquaculturerelated activities i.e. technical evaluation of license application, authorization for other minis-tries to issue leases for sites, authorization for Agricultural Bank to offer subsidized loans,collection of statistics and issuing licenses for relevant imports are administrated by GeneralDirectorate of Agricultural Production and Development (Anon. 1994a).

Local Infrastructure

Education and extension servicesThere are over 18 educational institutions (either faculty or department) in Turkey offeringunder-graduate and post-graduate studies in fisheries and aquaculture (Anon. 1995a). Thereis so far no organized government extension services for aquaculture. However; universitiesoccasionally hold training courses, conferences or workshops. A number of aquaculture re-search institutes within the body of MARA and universities also offer technical and consul-tancy services. There are also several private consultancy offices.

Seed production facilitiesThe majority of trout farms in the country (93%) have their own hatcheries for fingerling pro-duction. A number of seed production facilities within the body of MARA and universitiesalso offer seed for on-growing purposes.

On-growing is the norm in mariculture and only a few enterprises have their own hatch-eries (Pinar Seafood in Izmir Province, Kihç Seafood in Mugla Province). However, there are 2governmental (Beymelek and Giivercinlik) and 10 privately owned marine hatcheries offeringsea bass and sea bream juveniles for on-growers. The private marine hatcheries have a theo-retical capacity of 14 million juveniles per annum (Korkut 1998). In 1997, 12-13 million ju-veniles were produced (Keskin, personal communication, 1998).

Fishmeal and feed manufacturersIn 1997, 21 000 t of anchovy were processed for meal and oil, compared with 106 000 t in1994 (Anon. 1998b). Due to a decrease in anchovy landings the number of meal and oil facto-ries has decreased from 21 to 12 in recent years (Anon. 1996a). The supply of fishmeal ishighly dependent on importation.

However; the fish feed industry has been steadily developing and there are now 7 majorfish feed factories supplying different varieties of dry feeds (including extruded feeds) tofreshwater and marine farms.



F. Rad & G. Kñksal • An overview of aquaculture in Turkey 231

Financial support and creditsInvestment certificates (aquaculture, processing) are awarded to successful applicants (includ-ing foreign investments) which entitles them to various investment incentives e.g. Income taxand VAT exemption (Gözgözoglu 1997).

Aquaculture is also offered subsidized interest loans for capital costs and operationalcosts through the Agriculture Bank of Turkey. In 1997, the amount of subsidized loans pro-vided by the Agriculture Bank to fish farmers reached US$ 20 million (Usman 1998).

Characteristics of Production and Trends

Aquaculture is a relatively recently established sector in Turkey, starting from 1980"s (Anon,1996a) and showing a rapid growth in 1990's. Both freshwater and marine aquaculture arepractised. Number of licensed farms has increased from 70 in 1985 to 895 in 1997 (Figure 1).

Turkey enjoys a good potential for development of both freshwater and marine aquacul-ture (Anon. 1994a; Anon. 1996a), with some 200 natural lakes, 750 reservoirs, 159 barrages,9xlO9 m3 of underground water potential and an extensive coastline of 8 333 km suitable formariculture with sheltered bays (Aegean Sea), productive coastal lagoons and ready access(Anon 1995a; Acara 1996). The irrigation and energy-oriented South Eastern Anatolia Project(SAP) consisting of several dams and a huge irrigation network will supply a further 220thousand ha of water surface (Gözgözoglu 1997) in the near future, providing notable potentialfor freshwater aquaculture.

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1997

Year

Fig. 1 Trends in establishment of aquaculture enterprises (Based on data from Kürüm 1994; Emreand Kürüm 1998).

Except for Atlantic salmon {Salmo salar) aquaculture species of interest to Turkey are allindigenous or have been introduced some years ago and are now well established (Anon.1994a). These are; Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sea bream (Spams aurata), Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), Common carp (Cyprinus carpió), Shrimp (Penaeidae spp.) andMussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis).

The distribution of farms by species, project capacities and actual production figures for1997 is given in Table 1. For number of farms and production figures, Turkish aquaculturesector is characterized by 3 species namely; rainbow trout, sea bass and bream. Rainbowtrout farms constituted almost 71% of the total number of aquacultural enterprises in 1997.Mariculture. specifically sea bass and sea bream farms comprise about 16% of the total num-ber, while the remaining 13% consists of carp, salmon, mussel and shrimp farms. In produc-




tion terms, rainbow trout is the dominant subsector constituting 63% of total aquaculture pro-duction in 1997.

Table 1 demonstrates that sea bass and sea bream on-growing farms are operating wellabove their projected capacities (8 900 t), both in terms of absolute production figures (13800 t) and their theoretical share (15%) in overall production, constituting 30% of the actualproduction in 1997. In 1997, average yield per site for sea bass and sea bream, correspond to98 t, well above the average yield per farm in other subsectors e.g. trout, carp and Atlanticsalmon. With only 6% of farms having an annual production of above 100 t/year (Figure 2),this phenomena is mainly due to contribution of large-scale farms such as Pinar and Kiliç Sea-food producing about 1000 tons per year (Çahin 1997) and operating in several sites with theirown hatcheries.

Table 1 Distribution of Turkish fish farms by species, project capacity and actual1997 (Based on data from Emre and Kürüm 1998 and Anon. 1998b).

Farms

Species No %

Capacity

Tons %

Actual Productionin 1997

Tons %

production figures in

Performance in1997

Tons/site

Rainbow troutCarpSea bass & Sea breamMusselShrimpAtlantic Salmon'Total

634971417313

895

70.810.815.70.80.41.5

100.0

29 00010 7008 9004 600

3406 300

59 840

48.518.015.07.50.5

10.5

100.0

28 500800

13 8002 000

30050

45 450

63.02.0

30.04.50.40.1

100.0

45.08.0

98.0286.0100.0

4.0

-

* Most of their production is of large rainbow trout rather than salmon

31-100 ton tea r 1°°+ tons^ear6%

5-30 tons^ear88%

Fig. 2 Size distribution among sea bass and sea bream farms (Based on data from, Anon. 1996b).

The shares of rainbow trout, sea bass and sea bream in overall production have beensteadily increasing since 1990 (Figure 3), with sea bass and sea bream showing slight fluctua-tions. This was due to the partial reliance of on-growing operations particularly, in sea breamon catches of wildjuveniles.




•0Raiibow toutEä Seabass

ijQSeabieam

p O theis

Year

Fig. 3 Trends in Turkish aquaculture production: breakdown by species (Fisheries Statistics, variousyears; Anon. 1991; 1992; 1993; 1994b; 1995b; 1996c; 1997; 1998b)

Trend indices for production of sea bass and sea bream since 1991 are given in Table 2.The relative growth in sea bass production has been greater since 1994 due to the reliablesupply of hatchery produced juveniles making production planning possible. The pattern ofgrowth has been less stable in sea bream production where on-growing operation has beenmore dependent on catches of wild juveniles, though, in 1998 hatchery production of seabream has been successful (Keskin, 1999, personal communication)

Table 2 Production index for sea bass and sea breama

Year

1991199219931994199519961997

Tons777808

31582 2292 77352106 300

Sea bassIndex (1994=100)

3536142100125234283

Tons910937

10296 0704 8476 3207 500

Sea breamIndex (1994=100)

15151710080104124

a Based on Fisheries Statistics, various years

Biotechnical Aspects of Sea Bass and Sea Bream Farming

Sea bass and bream on-growing is dominantly carried out in floating cages (95%), thoughthere are also a few land-based facilities using earthen ponds (i§gören 1995). Along the Turk-ish coast on the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean, climatic and marine conditions are veryfavorable for the culture of these species, and the abundance of suitable sheltered sites on theAegean coastline in particular has had a positive impact on initial investment costs, with in-expensive wooden in-shore cages with dimensions of 5x5x5m commonly employed for on-growing. However; in a recent attempt to resolve issues of user conflict and site allocationbetween mariculture and tourism sectors, farms operating in-shore have been required to shifttheir activities off-shore within five years and will therefore need to use more complicatedand expensive off-shore cages. This is regarded as a positive step towards a more ecologicallysustainable mariculture.




The on-growing period for market size fish varies depending on the initial weight ofstocking material. For sea bream on-growing to harvest size of 250-350 g takes 12-14months, while bass are grown to 400-1000 g in 16-24 months (i§gören 1995). The averagemortality rate throughout on-growing is about 20% for both species. This criterion is highlydependent on the initial size of stocking juveniles. For example, survival rate of hatchery pro-duced sea bass (1-3 g) throughout on-growing varies between 75 to 92%. Harvesting densitiesare about 10 to 18 kg/m3 (Çahin 1995).

Feed conversion ratio, formerly around 3: 1 in previous years due to poor quality of feedand inadequate managerial skills, has improved to an average FCR of around 2 in recent yearsfor both species (Ertürk, personal communications, 1998).

Labor efficiency in small-scale farms (1-40 t/year) is low, varying between 1.9 to 8.2t/person-year (icgören 1995), while in larger farms efficiency could be as high as 25.0t/person-year (Dorlay, personal communications, 1998). This is based on 10 working hoursdaily and 300 working days, the coefficient being 1 for the 16-49 age group (Aras 1988).

Characteristics of Demand and Trends in Prices

The unpredictability of supply level (due to partial dependence of on-growing operations onwild juvenile stocks) and the dependence of demand on fluctuating export levels have pre-vented the formation of stable supply and demand in sea bass and sea bream farming.

The overall supply and international trade in farmed sea bass and sea bream is not aslarge as salmon or shrimp. The Mediterranean EU countries, Italy, Spain and France, are themain consumers. Italy is the major market for Turkey, absorbing 70% of its production(Anon 1996a). Supply and demand developments in Italy, therefore; have a major role in theformation of prices and supply level in the domestic market. Though North European coun-tries are seen to have potential, new market penetrations are still at the development stage andfurther promotion activities are needed.

Table 3 Annual changes in supply and market prices of sea bass and sea bream in the Mediterra-nean regiona.

Sea bass

Supply

Year Tons

An.change(%/year)

Average price

US $/kg

An.Change(%/year)

Sea bream

Supply

Tons

An.change(%/year)

Average price

US$/kg

An.change(%/year)

1990199119921993199419951996

3 9216 744

10 14916 76317 09222 24826 472

Average annualchange

75.072.050.565.02.0

30.019.0

45.0

16.515.516.79.78.58.88.4

2.0-6.08.0

-42.0-12.5

3.5-4.5

-7.5

4 5686 4749 657

12 8082132024 36632 727

61.042.049.032.566.514.034.0

43.0

14.013.212.99.08.08.28.4

1.0-6.0-2.0

-30.0-11.0

2.52.5

-6.0a Based on data from Anon. 1998d

Contrary to demand, supplies of fanned sea bass and bream have been steadily increasingin the Mediterranean region, production of sea bass rising from 3 9211 in 1990 to 26 472 t in1996, and corresponding to an average annual increase of 45% in supply. Sea bream produc-tion has also increased from 4 568 t in 1990 to 32 727 t in 1996 with an average annual in-




crease of 43%. The upward trend in supply has been accompanied by a downward trend inprices of both species, particularly for sea bass which used to fetch a higher price than seabream in the past. On average, the annual decrease in price of sea bass has been around 7.5%in the Mediterranean region (Table 3). Similarly prices of sea bass and bream in the Italianmarket have decreased by more than 60% in the last seven years (Caggiano 1999). In 1990average prices of sea bass and sea bream in the Milan wholesale market were US$27.70 andUS$24.00 per kg respectively. In 1994, the sea bass price dropped to US$11.25 per kg whilebream was sold at US$12.5 per kg in the Italian market (Anon, 1996a). Average prices for seabass and sea bream in the Italian market were 7.97 and 7.20 ECU/kg respectively in 1998(Anon. 1999d). In November 1999 the price (CD7) of sea bass in the Milan wholesale markethas been reported to be 3.0 Euro/kg (Hough 1999, personal communications).

The domestic market for these two species are mainly confined to the Aegean region andIstanbul, sea bream being very popular in the Aegean region (Izmir being the major market)and sea bass being more familiar to consumers in Istanbul. Prices at home have been naturallyaffected by developments in export markets, showing a declining trend and similar patternssince 1993. Prices (ex-farm) have dropped from US$17.5-14.0 in 1992 to US$ 6.3-5.4 per kgin 1997 (Table 4), the decline being much sharper for sea bass gradually fetching a similarprice to sea bream due to over-supply (Figure 4 and 5). In January 1999 ex-farm prices of seabass and bream were around US$4.60 to 5.00 per kilogram (Ertiirk, 1999, Personal communi-cation). The weighted aggregate price index (Newbold 1988) for sea bass and sea bream aregiven in Table 4.

Table 4 Weighted aggregate price index for sea bass and sea breama

Year Mean Price (US$/kg) Fisher's Ideal Price IndexSea bass Sea bream 1992=100

199219931994199519961997

17.57.86.06.26.56.3

14.05.05.05.75.65.4

100.041.035.038.038.537.0

1 Based on prices from Fisheries Statistics, various years and Jçgôren 1995

7000

6000

H 5000

ß 4000o-H

U 3000

o 2000

1000

0

• . 19

• . 17

. , 1 5 *

• 13 £

• H 5

•,'g g-H

• • 7 KCM

• , 5• • 3

1992 1993 1995

Year1996 $: Production

I—Prne

Fig. 4 Price evolution for sea bass (Based on Fisheries Statistics, various years and içgoren, 1995)



2 3 6 An overview of aquaculture in Turkey • F. Rad & G. Köksal

Fig. 5 Price evolution for sea bream (Based on Fisheries Statistics, various years and îçgoren, 1995)

Financial Aspects and Expected Developments

Official financial data regarding the economic performance of sea bass and bream farms inthe country are scarce, making it difficult to conduct any cost-benefit analysis. However; asmall number of academic studies provide financial data for previous years (içgoren 1995;Çahin 1995).

The results of survey carried out by i§gören (1995) covering 96 farms indicate that themean production costs for sea bass and sea bream in the 92-93 season were US$5.4 and 5.20per kg respectively. 1994-95 season production costs estimates for both species are aroundUS$5.5 per kg (Çahin 1995). The authors have not been able to find more recent consistentproduction cost and cost structure data, making it difficult to comment on trends. However;slight reduction is expected due to lower prices of hatchery raised juvenile which ranged be-tween US$0.20-0.35 for sea bass and bream respectively in 1998 (Keskin, personal commu-nication, 1999), compared with 1995 price of hatchery raised juvenile of about US$0.40-0.45(Anon 1996a).

Regardless of the declining costs, the downwards trend in prices of table sized sea bassand bream (Table 3), are a clear indicator of declining profit margins in the sector, not only inTurkey but also in other producing countries. Sea bass and sea bream farms are now goingthrough a critical period similar to that for Atlantic salmon in early 1990's due to over-supplyand stagnant price. In this regard, small and industrial scale farms seem to be in a better posi-tion than medium-scale ones. Small-scale owner-operated farms (1-30 t/year) have the com-parative advantages of using family labor and local markets (at farm-gate sales), while theindustrial scale farms (>100 t/year) have advantages of scale economy, a more efficient andorganized marketing network, and better financial resources allowing them to withstand criti-cal periods. The results of economic optimization modeling carried out by l§gören (1995) in-dicate that the optimum capacity for sea bass and sea bream on-growing is 282 t/year. It willnot be surprising to see more integrated and large-scale farms in the future.

Increasing the demand by finding new export markets, promoting domestic consumption,shortening the marketing chain, product diversification, market segmentation and value-addition, along with more effective managerial techniques for lowering production costs areof crucial importance as far as the sustainability of the sea bass and sea bream farms are con-cerned. Species diversification and new candidates species (mainly Mediterranean species)may also offer good prospects. In this regard, the results of R&D activities carried out byPmar Seafood on common sea bream {Pagms pagnts) are promising (Çahin 1997).



F. Rad & G. Köksal • An overview of aquaculture in Turkey 2 3 7

With regard to competition, shorter on-growing periods and earlier harvesting due to fa-vorable climatic and marine conditions (§ahin 1995) combined with lower energy, labor anddepreciation costs appear to be Turkey's comparative advantages (Anon. 1996a).

Concluding Remarks

Surveys (Anon. 1994a; 1996a) indicate that Turkey enjoys good potential for development ofaquaculture. However; as far as administrative, policy and legal issues are concerned, certainconstraints exist including; decentralized administrative and managerial structure, excessivebureaucracy involved in licensing and site leasing procedures, lack of a integrated nationalmaster plan for promotion of aquaculture and an aquaculture-specific legislation, remain to beresolved. Fortunately, these issues have been discussed in the Seventh Five-year Plans andpositive actions have been foreseen, some of which will be in effect in 1999, e.g. more effec-tive administration. There are also encouraging initiations towards the preparation of a na-tional action plan and an aquactulture-specific legislation by the Ministry of Agriculture(Anon. 1998c).

Overall aquaculture production is expected to rise in the coming years. Improved farmmanagement and productivity in existing farms, introduction of new potential species foraquaculture and SAP project (South Eastern Anatolia Project) will contribute to this end.However, the growth of aquaculture sector in the new millennium will not be as fast as early1990's due to declining profit margins. Major investments in the new millennium are ex-pected to be towards production of new candidate species and processing.

Government policy towards aquaculture and the main aim of farms have focused onstimulating production, without wider economic considerations. However; demand-stimulating policies will have to be implemented to improve profitability in the sector, andfuture competition for resources may require closer appraisal of comparative costs and bene-fits.

The composition of farmed species is expected to change in the coming years. Mediterra-nean species (Epinephelus spp., Puntazzo puntazzo, Pagrus pagrus) offer good prospects; asmay Black sea turbot (Scopthalmus maeticus) and Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baeri). Mus-sel culture also seems to be promising and is expected to increase. Sea bass and sea breamproduction may stabilize around its present level due to limited demand and declining prices,though species composition may change, increasing production in favor of new Mediterra-nean species in present farms. Rainbow trout will however, continue to be the backbone ofaquaculture in Turkey.

While Japan appears to be a new potential market and a partner for turbot aquaculture,Lebanon is becoming a new market for Turkish sea bass and sea bream. Mediterranean EUcountries will however continue to be an important market for Turkish seafood and the cus-tom union with EU will form a good platform for cooperation and trade in the future. Being amajor consumer, Italy will continue to play a decisive role in the evolution of sea bass and seabream prices, which are not expected to rise.

Processing will gain further interest, as domestic demand for value-added products willcontinue to increase along with increased GNP per capita. Declining prices for fresh productsmay also accelerate this process. A number of industrial scale trout farms have already startedfeasibility studies.

The aquaculture sector is very dynamic in Turkey and will continue to use its compara-tive advantage in terms of biological diversity, potential domestic market, climatic conditionsand geographical position. Effective promotion and advertising campaigns to increase domes-tic demand, improving farm management and productivity to decrease production costs, re-



2 3 8 An overview of aquaculture in Turkey • F. Rad & G. Köksal

search and development of value-added products and new species, concepts of quality man-agement and product image, environmental considerations and sustainability will be key is-sues for the coming years.

References

Acara, A. (1996) The marine coastal zone management and scientific research priorities.Turkish Journal of Marine Sciences, 2, 185-192.

Anon. (1991) 1990 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1992) 1991 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1993) 1992 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1994a) Survey of Inland Waterbodies and Fish Farms of Turkey. Ministry of Agricul-

ture and Rural Affairs. Cofrepeche-Gersar BRL, Ankara.Anon. (1994b) 1993 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1995a) Fisheries and fisheries industry (in Turkish). State Planning Organisation,

DPT, Ankara.Anon. (1995b) 1994 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1996a) Survey of existing internal and external markets for Turkish fisheries products

and future market prospects (in Turkish). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.Macalister Elliott and Partners Ltd., Ankara.

Anon. (1996b) List of Turkish fish farms (in Turkish). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Af-fairs, Ankara.

Anon. (1996c) 1995 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1997) 1996 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1998a) Capital Dergisi, 4.Anon. (1998b) 1997 Fisheries Statistics. State Statistics Institute, Ankara.Anon. (1998c) Structural reforms in agricultural policies (in Turkish). Resmi Gazete, 23524.Anon. (1998d) Aquaculture Production Statistics (1987-1996). FAO, Rome.Anon. (1999a) Hürriyet Gazetesi, 16 February 1999.Anon. (1999b) Hürriyet Gazetesi, 5 January 1999.Anon. (1999c) Export and import data, Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade, Ankara.Anon. (1999d) Eurofish Magazine, 1/99. FAO, Eastfish, Copenhagen.Aras, A. (1988) Agricultural Accounting (in Turkish). Aegean University, Faculty of Agricul-

ture, 486, İzmir.Caggiano, M. (1999). Fish freshness and quality assessment for sea bass and sea bream. In:

CIHEAM-FAO Workshop on Global Quality Assessment in Mediterranean Aquacul-ture. 29 Nov.-l Dec. Barcelona, Spain.

Çetinkaya, H. (1999) Istanbul stock market celebrates with champagne (in Turkish). HiirriyetGazetesi, 25 February 1999.

Elbek, A.G. (1993) Problems in export of fisheries products, EU and Turkey (in Turkish). In:Proceedings of Chamber of Agricultural Engineers Symposium on Fisheries.14-15 Oc-tober 1993, Ankara, Turkey.

Emre, Y. & Kürüm, V. (1998) Trout farming (in Turkish). Minpa pess, Ankara.Gözgözoğlu, E. (1997) The Fishery Industry in Turkey. FAO, Eastfish, Copenhagen.İşgören, D. (1995) Economic optimisation of sea bream and sea bass farms in South Aegean

region (in Turkish). Ph.D. thesis, Aegean University.Josupeit, H. (1995) Global overview on fish consumption. In: Proceedings of seminar of the

CIHEAM network on socio-economic and legal aspects of aquaculture in the Mediter-ranean. Marketing of Aquaculture Products. 11-13 October 1995, Greece.




Korkut, A.Y. (1998) Aquaculture and fish feed industry in Turkey (in Turkish). TarumDünyasi Dergisi, 2, 26-29.

Kürüm, V. (1994) Productivity of fish farms (in Turkish). Tarm ve Köy Dergisi. 112, 6-9.Muthoo, M.K. & Onul, T. (1996) Agriculture in Turkey. FAO. Published by Turkish Bank of

Agriculture, Ankara.Newbold, P. (1988) Statistics for Business and Economics. Prentice-Hall International Inc.,

New Jersey.Paquotte, Ph. (1995). The seafood markets in the Northern Mediterranean countries. In: Pro-

ceedings of seminar of the CIHEAM network on socio-economics and legal aspects ofaquaculture in the Mediterranean. Marketing of Aquaculture Products. 11-13 October1995, Greece.

Stephanis, J. (1995) Mediterranean aquaculture industry trends in production, markets andmarketing. In: Proceedings of seminar of the CIHEAM network on socio-economic andlegal aspects of aquaculture in the Mediterranean. Marketing of Aquaculture Products.11-13 October 1995, Greece.

Çahin, D. (1997) 44,000 tons of fish was produced in 1000 farms (in Turkish). EkonomistDergisi, 19, 33-39. Istanbul.

Şahin, M. (1995) Seabass and bream in floating cages in Turkey. In: Proceedings of seminarof the CIHEAM network on socio-economic and legal aspects of aquaculture in theMediterranean. Aquaculture Production Economics. 17-19 May 1995, France.

Usman, A. (1998) Aquaculture needs help (in Turkish). Dünya Gazetesi, April 1998.



aquaculture economics & management an overview of ... department of fisheries, university of...

Documents