 |
Viability of trout farming in Papua New Guinea |
|
|
1 Pages 1-10 |
▲back to top |
|
|
1.1 Page 1 |
▲back to top |
Draft Final
5 April 1994
Viabiliiy of T�out Fa�min9
in Papua New C\\uinea
Kiyoshi Masuda, Robert Vonole and Petrus Sagom
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Kanudi, Port Moresby
Papua New Guinea
|
|
1.2 Page 2 |
▲back to top |
Summary
Jt stutfg was cmufucteato investigate tliefinanciaal ntfecmwmicfeasifiifi:tg oftrout
farming in tlie !lfigfifmufs ofPapua 9{.e:w <juinea. 9{.eassarg aata we.re colkcteafromtwo
trout farms, one tfg curn.er operating 9{ppalia '1Tout 
!l\\$0,000for operationalcost eac/i. gear to protfuce tfie 10 tonfisliwliicl at tfie curtnre price
mofm9u(.aup!an/eitap!rfoafrimt.f/'(l1.51ie n<eYtKp,gr)ogfeinteirsa4te05%a!olf(/t5l,i0e i0nig0 triaolscsfoisstlaistua!feitsiins c5o0m%e,omfa!tfQienogpae� ratingOOO
cost. It costs !1($.00to protfuce one /Qfogramoftrout w/iicf are sofifat!l(/.50. '11ei pagfiacfc
perio4for tfie initia!capitale;cpemfiture is 2.02 gears. 'lJenefit-Cost ratio at 10 % tfiscount
rate is 1.13 am{tfie interna£rate-of-return cafcuiatetffor 10 gears was 26.36 %. !itfftliese
values int!icatetf a ligi fiEJ profoafife nature oftroutfarming in Papua 9{pJJ <juinea.
!Jluweve,r tfiefinanciaf£ easifiifitg oftroutfarming is ligi fiEJ tfepemfent on twofactors:
seffing pria offisliatu!protfuction scafe oftlieJann. .J'lsensiti:uirg anafi;sis nm on tfie
spreatfslieet motfe� re:veaiet!tliat troutfarmingrequiresat feast 9(6.0<YK,g price to� tfie
farmingoperation projitafik witlini lOgears at tfiefarmscafe of10 ton/gear protfuction.
'11ie minimu.m protfuction scafe to� tfiefarming projitafife is 6 ton/gear at tfie curer nt
price of'.i(/.5(YKs·
'11ie current trout price, !l(/.5CYK,g, is verg ligi licomparetf to tlie price outsUfe tfie countrg.
Jlustra£ian trout cost onfy 1(?,.3(YK,g Ot tlie farmgate. %:Yulever, iftlie fisli are airfaiglitet!
for a sma[v[ ofumefrom.91JasJrt (ia, tfiefinalCI!f price in tfie !!Dgli!amf.s woufiffie arowuf
9(10.0<YK,g. '1ei1 price ofPapua 9(.ew <juinea trout lias fieen increasing 4.25 % everg gear
since tfie 9(.ottmi time {1970s to current, on average)wlicil is virtualyl uncfiaJtgetfif
injfa.tion is consUferetf. '1fisi ligi li price can onfy fie sustaitwffor a sliort to metfium term as
fong as tfie protfuction fe:ve( remains at tfie current fow fe:veLijtfie nationaftrout
protfuction fe:ve( increases witli mang new troutfarms estafi{isfietf, tliere wi([fie competition
among tfie protfucers am{tfie price wilftfrop.
j[ trout marl(et questionian re surveg was contfuctetf nationwUfe on tfie major potentiaftrout
fiugers in Papua 9(.ew <juinea. 'Basetfon tlie resufts, troutfisli is viewetf as a tafik tef ficacg
am{tliere is a marl(et in tliis countrg wlicli is wiOlng to pag 11Wre tlian tfie current trout
price at g./jtpalia, XJ.5CYK,g. '1i1e main marfi:!.t are liotefs atu!cf:ufis in tlie !/{igfifa.ntfs
incfuaing tfie mining companies. 'Iliere is nofre.slifisli currentfy availafik in tfie !/{igfifa.ntfs
at a reasonafik price am{witli a consumer preferret!taste ant!fresliness equivaknt to
farmetftrout. 'Iliere is a (imitetfmarfi:!.t in tfie coast wfie;re trout liave to compete witli tfie
·
sa& waterfisli.
'1ie1financia(feasifiilitg ofPapua 9{.ew <juinea troutfarming is fiasetf on tfie ligi li se{{ing
price wliicl is realizetffig ta/(ing atfvantage ofa sma[[protfuction suppfging tfie (imitetf
premium marl(et. It is not rea(istic to ezyect a sutftfen increase in tfie protfuction kvef
fiecause tliere is a (imitetf marl(et. '1ei1 liistorica( protfuction of20 ton/gear at 9(.otuni is tfie
proven capacitgoftlie Papua 9{.ew <juinea trout marf(g.t. 'Iliere was no evitfence tliat
!J(ptuni!Farm e;cperiencetfang tfijficuftg in mar/(f.ting am{tfie actuafnationa( marl(et
capacitg is e;cpectetf to fiefairfg fa.rger tfian tfie 20 ton/gear. Jfowever, tfiere is noguarantee
to afisorfi protfuction afiove tliis revel '1i1e rfevefopment oftfie trout inrfustrg sfioufiffie
cfosefy 11Wnitoretf so tliat tlie inrfustrg remains viafik andprofitafik in tfie fong term.
iii
|
|
1.4 Page 4 |
▲back to top |
cost ofegg proauctiofn romag01Jemment fiatclierg wou1i£not fie clieaper at tlie egg
prduction scak e;r;pecteifiaseion tlie current aemamf. 'Ifie cost ofegg importation remains .
clieoper tfian. tlie cost ofegg proauction unfess tlie numfier ofegsg to fie proauceafiecomes
more tfian.1.9mil,niols acroc aing to tliis sttufy. J'l proauction over 9 miffion egsg is even
requimffor a government liatcliery wii:fi a figi fi overfieatfcost require/to fie competitive
wifi: i tlie cost ofegg importationfromJiustrafia. One miffion eggs proauction wourafie
appropriate as tlie proauction scak ofgovernment liatclierg if con.struect i1W.W J'lt tliis scak
offingerfing proauction, it is economica[ in. tlie sliort to mdium tenn to import egsg ratfier
tfian. to proauce tliem aomestica[fg. 'Ifie economics anifinanciafviafiitity ofestafiBsfigni a
nationafco«water liatcliery mustjustify tlie government in.vestment. .
'Ifie estafi[isfiment ofgovernment national co«water liatcliery may not fiefaumcia[fg viafife
as weigfieiout again.st in.itiafestafi[isfiment cost ofpfigsicaffacittties pfus overfieatfani
operat:iorzf1c[ osts compare/to income aciro.c ngfromtlie safes offingerfings fiy t.lie liatclierg.
It is e;r;pecteitliat tlie safes offingerfings wiffyie«an insignificant profit margin. to tlie
fiatclierg consUfering in.itia{feve[ ofgovernment in.Vestment, operationa{ana OVerfieatfcosts,
aniincome to fie eameifrom mar/(etafife sizefisfi. 'Ifie opportunity cost (government
in.Vestment costforgone}oftlie government liatcliery wifgf enera[fg fie fiigfi fiotfi in. tlie sliort
anifong ron mtJ#tgfingerfing proauction anaaistrifiution a not toofinancia[fg attractive
area ofoperation afonefor tlie government liatcliery. !However, aespite tliefinanciaf
viafiifity anicost consUferation oftliegovernment estafi[isfigin animanaging lie nationaf
corawater liatcfierg, tlie associate/spin-offfienefits ana otfier anci[r[a y service fienefits tlie
estafi[isfiment oftlie goilernment liatcliery wifffiring wourafienefit tlie provinces ani
country as a wliofe ana provUfes a genuinejustification ofgovernment fiuififing a liatcliery.
'Ifie associate/ana anci[r[a y service fienefits oftlie government liatclierg in.cfuaes training,
avai!afiifity offingerfings aomesticaffy at feast cost, stimulusfor tlie aeVewpment of
OJ:jUaeufture inaustry in. tlie country, e[imination ofquarantine ana cust011S1 aefays ani
contro[ ofegg aisease importation in.to tlie country.
Importation efegsg ana incufiation to aistrifiute tliefingerfings to tlie pn'vate sector is an
aftemate optionfor tlie government supporting tlie aevefupment oftlie troutfarming in. tliis
country. It aoes not cost mucfi ana sti[[fienefits tlie potentia[ troutfarmers wfio are
interesteain. starting tlie newfisfifarming in. tlie !lfigfr!anrfs. 'Iliis option wourafie ta!(en as
a starting pointfor tlie government tofacifitate tlie aevewpment oftroutfarming in Papua
'l{ew (juinea.
'Ifirougfiout tlie liistory oftroutfarming.in ?apua 'l{ew (juinea, tlie government support lias
fieen [imiteiinfinancia[ assistance. 'lfiere is [ittfe evUfence oftecf;n.ica{supports provUfeito
privatefaT1f1S rom tfie government, speciaffyjrom tlie nationa{government. .9ls evUfenceifiy
tlie fiigfi mortafity at 'l{Jtpalia 'Trout :Farm tliere are neerfs at tfie privatefar1S1 to improve in
tedin.ica[ capafiifity. CuTTentfy tliere is no persor. speciaft.zei:r.. �outfarming in tlie
'Department of:Fisfieries ana Marine :I(esources. 'Ifie 'Department neerfs to improve its
tecfin.ica[ capafiifity to provUfe tedin.ica[ support ana aavise in tfie aevewpment oftrout
farming in tlie Papua 'l{ew (juinea.
iv
|
|
1.5 Page 5 |
▲back to top |
Recommendations
On the basis of the trout study conducted in the five highlands provinces of Papua
New Guinea, the following recommendations are being made;
1 . 'Ifie trout sttufg lias concfiufeatliat troutfanign is viabfe in Papua 9{e:w <Juinea.
'Ifie q:Jepartment of�isfteries amfMarine !l(esources must pfay afacilitating rofe in
aeveloping tfre trout maustrg in Papua 9{e:w <Juinea.
2. On tfre oasis of tfre viability of tfre toutfannig maustrg in Papua 9{e:w <Juinea, tfre
q)epartment of�isfteries amfmarine !l(esources continue to assist in pro'l[iling
tecfmicafaavice am[support to tfre trout maustrg am[to interesteafarme:rs wanting
to invest in tfre aevefopment of troutfarming fiusiness in tfre countrg. Cunsiilering
tfre current unaer-suppfidconaition of tfre trout mark;f.t in tfre Wgfi!amfs, at feast a
few new troutfarms of tfre similar scafe as 9{upalia fie estafi[isfted.
3. 'Ifie q:Jepartment of�isfteries amfMarine !l(esources monitor tfre aomestic trout
proauction (supp(g) ana market (aemanrf) ana work dose(g witli tfre e;rjsting trout
farmers tograaualfg aevefop am[e;rpamf tfre iniustrg witliout aepressing tfre current
premiumprice wliifc is tfre oasis of tfre profitafiility of tfre maustrg, in tlie. short to
mdiumterm, am[to support tfre maustrg to fie competitive am[increase tecfmicaf
capafiifity in tfre fong run.
4. 'Ifie q:Jepartment of�isfteries ana Marine !l(esources estafifisli in tfre short to mdium
term afingerfing proauction ana supp(g systemto meet tfre aemaniof trout
fingerfingsfromtfre e;rjsting am[potentia[ troutfarmers am[tfre aemanifromtfre
provincia[ governmentfor river stocf(jng. It is appropriate to liave one miflion
fingerfing supp(g capacity as a scafe of nationa[ cofifwater liatcftery. Jlt tliis scafe of
fingerfing proauction, it is economica[ to importfertifizea eggs ratfrer tlian to
reproauce tfremfromfoca[ firooa stock_kept in tfrefarm. 'Ifie cost of estafi[isligni a
fingerfing supp(g systemshoufiffiejustifidtecfmicaffy ana economicaf(g.
5. '1fie q:Jepartment of�isfreries ana Marine !l(esources conauct a mini troutfingerfing
proauction ana aistrifiution project at a suitafi(e site at �gusug[ over a 2 months
project perioa coinciiling witfi tfre trout spawning season in Jlustra[ia as a
government eJ(perimentaf project to aocument costs ana fiXJ(g profifems invo[vea
fiejore tfre government commits itself into tfre construction of tfre nationa[ cofif
water trout liatcfrery in tfre countrg.
6. '1fie q)epartment of�isfreries ana :Marine !l(esor!rces, tfirougfr..i�s annua[ fimfgetary
provisions, fie responsifi(efor tfre management ana operation of tfre proposea nationa[
cofifwater trout liatcfreryfacilities wlicif wif{function as a proauction ana
aistrifiution centerfor troutfingerfings ana as a government researcfi ana
aquacu[ture training centerforfarmers in Papua 9{e:w <Juinea.
v
|
|
1.6 Page 6 |
▲back to top |
1. �
·
<Jwm
provinces
amf{oca£
onaipUicu.Eture aevefopmenfin tfie figi lifatufs,
tfie q)epartment of
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Mr. Robin Kosi, Manger of Nupaha Trout Farm for
his cooperation and assistance in making available his farm records and files for this
study. The authors are also grateful to Mr. Karl Rocky Gendua for being with the
study team most of the time in Goroka and for providing the guided tour with the
study team to Kegesugl in the Simbu Province. The authors are greatly indebted to
Mr. Yaunggao Uiyasi, former Managing Director of Nokondi Investment Pty. Ltd., for
willingly allowing the authors access to the Nokondi files on Kotuni Trout Farm. The
authors also thank Mr. Baia Huke and Kotuni landowners for allowing the team to
use the.Kotuni Trout Farm files and documents kept in the farm manager's office at
Kotuni Farm, for without these information the analysis on Kotuni operations would
have not been possible. The authors gratefully acknowledge cooperation and
assistance of Mrs. Betty Higgins, Manager of Lake Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm, for the
reception and discussion on her farm operation.
During the course of this study in the Highlands Provinces, the authors greatly
appreciated the cooperation and fruitful discussions held on the trout study with DPI
assistant secretaries and government officials in particular, Mr. Ian Mopafi, AS DPI
Easter Highlands Province, Mr. Jack Mulake, Provincial Advisor, and Mr. Peter ·
Kamis, Provincial Executive Officer, and Mr. John Waiange, OIC, Gembogl Poteto
Project, Simbu Province, Mr. Greg Onesi, AS DPI, Mr. Ronald Handape, Divisional
Planner, and Mr. Vincent Sonk, Provincial Fisheries Officer, Southern Highlands
Province, and Mr. Korua Komp, AS DPI, Mr. Stewart Hawthorn, Provincial Fisheries
Officer, and Mr. Tep Mandip, Fisheries Project Officer, Western Highlands Province.
In the trout feed manufacturing industry, the authors thank Mr. Geoff Landsdown,
Feed Mill Manager of Tablebirds, and Mr. Jim Gregg, Manager of Associate Mills
Ltd. in Lae for their usual cooperation in accepting the study team to discuss the
trout and carp feed production requirement for aquaculture industry in Papua New
Guinea. To the people met and talked to who were formerly associated with the
commercial operation of Kotuni Trout Farm during its operation, we thank Mr.
Douglas Powley and Mr. Simon Kanau for talking to the study team during the trout
study.
Whilst in Easter Highlands, the authors thank in particular the Honorable Provincial
Minister for DPI Mr. Walter Nomber for finding time in his busy schedule to meet
briefly with the study team on the trout �tudy. The authors thank Mr. Joseph Gabut,
Secretary for the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources for Department for
giving the study team an opportunity to conduct this study.
Finally, the authors thank the village landowners of Kotuni village, the village people
and any other person met directly of indirectly and has one way or another to make
this trout study possible.
vii
|
|
1.8 Page 8 |
▲back to top |
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Background
History of Trout Introduction, Culture and River Stocking in the
Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kotuni Trout Farm
.........................................................
2
Marketing of Kotuni Trout . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................
Trout Farming Facility at Kotuni Farm 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: Lack of On-Site Farm Manager and Flood Disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Frustrations of the Kotuni People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
Government Financial Support to Kotuni Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
Financial Situation of Kotuni Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
Nupaha Trout Farm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....
. . ...............
...................
12
Fish Farming Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Unlivable Business Expansion By Nupaha Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Dispute and Temporary Closure of Nupaha Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9
Kegesugl Trout Hatchery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9
Hatchery Facilities at Kegesugl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Hatchery Breeding Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Lake Pindi Yaundo Enterprise Pty. Ltd. Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Mendi Trout Hatchery And Komea Fish Trap Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Views of Provincial Governments on Trout Farming Development
in the Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Eastern Highlands Provincial Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Simbu Provincial Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Southern Highlands Province . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Western Highlands Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Enga Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Chapter 2: Technical Specification of Trout Farming at
Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Far.ms
Growth of Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Survival of Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Harvest Size
: . . . . ·
....
.... ...
..
. . . . . . . . . . . ..·.· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
Annual Fish Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Crop Cycle of Trout Farming in PNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Feed Conversion Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
viii
|
|
1.9 Page 9 |
▲back to top |
Stocking Density and Carrying Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 40
Water Exchange Rate
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . . .
.
..
.......
. . . . . ·.
Feeding with Minced Ox Liver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Smoking Process for Kotuni Trout Fillets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Water Intake Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Water Supply System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Reservoir Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Fish Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Earthen Production Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Ch�pter 3: Cost of Trout Farming
Cost of Imported Eyed Ova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Income from Fish Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Cost of Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Cost of Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Cost of Physical Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Cost of Marketing and Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Chapter 4: Financial Analysis of Trout Farming in the
·
Highlands
Financial Performance of Nupaha Trout Farm . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Model for Economic Analysis of Trout Farming in the Highlands . . . . . . . . 68
Analysis of a Model on Trout Farming Using the Spread Sheet
73
Program
. . . . . . ................................................
Effect of Farm Scale on Profit 76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of Fish Price on Profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Conclusion on Financial Feasibility of Trout Farming in PNG . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Chapter 5: Market for PNG Farmed Trout
Image of Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Important Characteristics of Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Fresh Fish Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Buying Price of Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Acceptability of Frozen and Smoked Trout
. . ; .
.......
.
................
88
Market for the Farmed Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
International Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Price Determining Mechanism of PNG Trout . . . . . .·.·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Chapter 6: Cost and Benefit of National Cold Water
Hatchery
Cost of Egg Production by Government Hatchery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
ix
|
|
1.10 Page 10 |
▲back to top |
Alternate Option for the Government to Support the Development ' >
of Trout Farming in PNG ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 . . . . . . . . . .
...............
....
Chapter 7: Conclusion
.. .
.
. .. .
�
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
. ·.
•
. ................
103
Reference
. .
.
.
.. .
.
. ...... .
. .. . . . .. .
.
. .. .'....................
107
Appendices . ......... 11O . . . ... • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . • . . . . . . . . . •
Appendix 1 : National Fisheries Council Resolution on the Trout
Study
........................... . . . . . ..............................
111
Appendix 2: Terms of Reference for Engaging an Aquaculture
Economist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2
Appendix 3: Travel Itinerary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
Appendix 4: List of People Met and Discussed with During the
Trout Study in the Highlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6
Appendix 5: Record of Discussions -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 8
Appendix 6: Results of Water Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 34
Appendix 7: Record of A Potential Trout Farming Site Visit at Minj
. . . .
.
1 39
Appendix 8: Categorized Expenditure at Nupaha Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . 1 41
Appendix 9: Trout Marketing Survey Questionnaire
. . 143 . . .
. . . . . . .
..
.....
Appendix 1 0: Financial Model of Trout Farm in the Highlands of
PNG (Diskette) . . . . . . . . . 1 47 . . .
.....
. . . .
...
. . . . .
.
. . . . . .
. . . . ............
x
|
|
2 Pages 11-20 |
▲back to top |
|
|
2.1 Page 11 |
▲back to top |
List of Tables
Table 1 . Major Customers of Kotuni Trout Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Inventory of Kotuni Trout Farm Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3. Government Financial Assistance to Kotuni Trout Farm
Operation, 1 975-1 981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
Table 4. Financial Statement of Kotuni Trout Farm Pty. Ltd., 1 979-1984. . . . . . 1 3
Table 5. Progress of Construction of Nupaha Trout Farm, 1 989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
Table 6:
Table 1.
Inventory of Nupaha Trout Farm Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Expenditure on Nupaha Trout Farm Facilities, Manager's
House and Zauka Lodge as Categorized in the Following Cost
Items by Mr. Robin Kosi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Table 8. Record of Trout Fingerling Mortality at Lake Pindi Yaundo
Trout Farm, 1 4 January - 20 January, 1 994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 9. Estimated Fish Stock in the Harvest Tanks at Nupaha Trout
Farm on 1 oth February 1 994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 1 0. Summary of Egg and Fry Survival during the Incubation and
Nursery Period at Kotuni Hatchery in . 1 98 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 34
Table 1 1 . Records of Fish Stocks in the 1 983 Farm Diary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 12. Calculated Annual Production from Nupaha Trout Farm Based
on the Number of Eggs Imported and 2 1 .5 % Overall Survival
Rate . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 37 .
.
.........
...
.........
.............
...........
Table 1 3.
Farming Calendar of Trout Farming in
PNG.
. . . . . .
........
.....
..
...
38
Table 1 4. Amount of Feed Applied to Trout and Estimated Feed
Conversion at Nupaha Trout Farm in the First Three Year of
Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 1 5. Solubility of Oxygen (mg/I) at Different Altitude and Water
Temperature i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..............................
41
Table 1 6. Oxygen Consumption (mg/kg of fish/hour) by Rainbow Trout at
Resting Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 1 7. Water Quality of Omahaiga Creek at Kotuni Trout Farm and
Zogazoi Creek at Nupaha Trout Farm, near Goroka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 1 8. Cost of Trout Eyed Ova·lmportation for 1 00,000 eggs from
Tasmania to Goroka based on the Operation at Nupaha Trout
Farm during 1 989 - 1 991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 1 9. Cost of Eyed Ova Importation at Kotuni Trout Farm in 1 980
and 1 981 .
. ........................................... .. . ........... ·
53
Table 20. Product Form and Unit Price of Fish Sales at Nupaha Trout
Farm .
....................................................... .......
54
Table 2 1 . Value of Fish Sales at Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
xi
|
|
2.2 Page 12 |
▲back to top |
Table 22. Customers Purchasing More than K500 Worth of Trout at Any· ·
One Time from Nupaha Trout Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Table 23. Comparison of Annual Fish Sales in Value Estimated from Two
Different Data Source in Each Farming Operational Year at
Nupaha Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 24. Product Form and Average Price of Trout Sold from Kotuni
Trout Farm during 1 978 - 1 984. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 25. Employment of Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 26. Cost of Trout Farming Facilities at Nupaha Trout Farm
according to Mr. Kosi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 27. Farming Characteristics of Nupaha Trout Farm Used for
Financial Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 28. Initial Capital Expenditure, Annual Depreciation and
Maintenance Costs for Trout Farming Facilities at Nupaha
Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 29. Financial Performance of Nupaha Trout Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 30. Indicators for Evaluation of Nupaha Trout Farm Financial
Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 3 1 . Vehicle Operation Distance and Electricity Usage by Trout
Farm Financial Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 32. Financial Summary of Hypothetical Model Trout Farming
Based on the Date from Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms. (unit: . . . . . 74
kina)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.· .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Table 33. Cash Flow Projection for Hypothetical Model Trout Farming
Based on the Data from Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms. . . . . . . . . . . 75
Table 34. Values of Financial Performance Indicators Calculated for the
1 O ton Production Trout Farming Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 35. Financial Summary of Trout Farm Model at Various Production
Capacity. (unit: Kina) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 36. Cash Flow for the Hypothetical Trout Farming at Different
Production Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 37. Cash Flow of Trout Farming at Vari6us Fish Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 38. Image of Trout in Answers to the Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 39. Most Important Characteristics of Trout (not frozen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 40. Price of Fresh Fish (not frozen) the Respondents are Dealing
With. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ; . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 41 . Potential Buying Price of farmed Trout in PNG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 42. Number of Respondents Answered to Question on
Acceptability of Frozt!n Trout and Sm.oked Trout.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 43. Cash Flow Projection for Hypothetical Model Trout Farming
Based on the Data from Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms (No
Hatchery Option). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
xii
|
|
2.3 Page 13 |
▲back to top |
'11..Stity ef- ~""'""I..'PJ(g
Table 44. Comparison of Cost for Egg Production and Cost of Egg
Importation (unit; kina)....................... ~ ...................... .
|
|
2.4 Page 14 |
▲back to top |
List of Figures
Figure 1 . Location of Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2. Facilities at Kotuni Trout Farm in the 1 980s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3. Layout of Nupaha Trout Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4
Figure 4. Expenditure for Nupaha Trout Farm including Zauka Lodge
Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Figure 5. Kegesugl Trout Hatchery, Gembogl District, Simbu Province. . . . . . . 20
Figure 6. Lake Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm, Mt. Wilhelm, Gembogl Dist.
Simbu Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 7. Fish Trap at Komea, Southern Highlands Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 8. Calculated Growth of Rainbow Trout at Nupaha Trout Farm
Based on Observations during the Study Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 9. Water Temperature at Nupaha Trout Farm Measured by Mr.
Robin Kasi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 1 0. Survival Rate of Trout Eggs after Arrival During the First and
Second Incubation at Kotuni Trout Farm in 1 981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 1 1 . Cumulative Feed Application at Nupaha Trout Farm. The data
points (white circles) indicate the time of feed purchased. The
feed purchase data for 1 991 -92 operation are incomplete. . . . . . . . 40
Figure 1 2. Intake Structure of Nupaha Trout Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 1 3. Primary Filtration Chambers of Kotuni Trout Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 1 4. Circular Fish Holding Tank at Nupaha Trout Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 1 5. Fish Sales From Nupaha Trout Farm (Incomplete Data for the
period of May 1 991 - April 1 994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 1 6. Summary of Fish Sales Records (Invoice Statement Sheets)
Obtained from the Manager's House at Kotuni Trout Farm.
These sales records cover only aipart of the total sales
records of the farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 1 7. Price Trend of Dressed Fresh Trout in Papua New Guinea
Based on Farm Gate Price of Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farm. . . . . . 58
Figure 1 8. Purchase Price of Trout Feed by Nupaha Trout Farm in 1 989
- 1 993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .· . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 1 9. Weekly Wages (bars) and Number of Laborers (line) at
Kotuni Trout Farm from July 1 980 to June 1 991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
"'
Figure 20. Monthly Expenditure at Nupaha Trout Farm from April 1 989 to
December 1 990, Based on Sales Dockets Records Provided
by Nupaha Trout Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
xiv
|
|
2.5 Page 15 |
▲back to top |
Figure 2 1 . Flow Chart of Logical Sequence to Determine the Fish.
Production Capacity in the Financial Model for Trout Farming
in the Highlands of PNG. . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 22. Effect of Farm Scale on Profit of Trout Farming. �.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 23. Required Capital for Starting a Trout Farming of Various
Production Capacity Based on the Trout Farming Model. . . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 24. Effect of Fish Price on the Profit in Trout Farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 25. Number of Kotuni Farm Major Customers Classified by
Business Type by Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 26. Components of Current Fish Selling Price (K7.50/kg) at 1 0
ton/year Annual Production Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 27. Cost of Egg Production in the Country and Egg Importation
from Australia at Various Egg Production Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 28. Occupied Percentage of Production Tank in the Current
Production System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
xv
|
|
2.6 Page 16 |
▲back to top |
List of Photographs
Photo 1 . Kotuni Trout Farm in the 1 980s. Photograph duplicated from .
Nokondi Investment files. . ........................................ � . . 4
Photo 2. Nupaha Trut Farm , January 1 994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
Photo 3. Raceway Pond Designed by John Bado, former Fisheries
Officer, Southern Highlands Province. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Photo 4. Existing Condition of Filtration Chamber at Kotuni Trout Farm. . . . . . . . 47
Photo 5. . Pipe Line from the Intake to the Reservoir Tank at Nupaha
Trout Farm.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
Photo 6. Nursery Tank at Nupaha Trout Farm (4 meter diameter). . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Photo 7.
Detail of Water Supply Pipe of Nursery Tank (4 m dia.). Note
that the ground level is higher than the tank bottom level. The
outside soil support the iron sheet wall against the water
pressure from the inside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Photo 8.
Detail of Iron SheetWall. The sheet are welded and riveted to
joint together. Bitumen paint coating is applied every year to
prevent_ rusting and water seepage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
xvi
|
|
2.7 Page 17 |
▲back to top |
Chapter l: Background
· Following the National Fisheries Council Meeting in Goroka in May 1 992, the
Council cited "A Report on Trout Consultancy in Papua New Guinea" conducted in
1 991 which concluded the technical feasibility of trout farming but did not address
the economic and financial viability of trout farming. Because of the importance of
the trout study and an increasing interest for trout farming in the Highlands, the
Council endorsed that:- .
1 . The Department of Fisherie. s and Marine Resources commissions a study to
assess the economic viability and nutritional value oftrout farming and
hatchery operations in PNG.
2. The report ofthe study be made available prior to the. next NFC.
3. Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources to upgrade existing hatchery
facilities .
A copy of the National Fisheries Council Resolution on the Trout Study and Terms
of Reference of the study is appended as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of this report.
History of Trout Introduction, Culture and
River Stocking in the Highlands
The first introduction of trout in Papua New Guinea was conducted in 1 949 by Sir
Hudson Fysh of the Hallstron Trust when 20,000 brown trout fingerlings were flown
up directly from Boggy Creek Hatchery, Oberon in New South Wales and released
into the river Arlat Nondugl and Waghi river in the Western Highlands (Blichfeldt,
1 972 and 1 974)1• Trout introduction were intended for game fishing for the early
European settlers in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.
The second trout importation took place in 1 952 by the Bulolo Gold Dredging
Company of 1 0,000 eyed rainbow trout from New Zealand, hatched on site and
8,000 fry were released into the rivers in Bulolo. Fish caught were recorded from 5"
to 9" in March 1 953 and from 1 0" to 1 2" in June 1 954 (Blichfeldt, 1 974).
In 1 956 a trout hatchery built by the Collins Brothers of Goroka at the Kotuni Creek
imported eyed eggs of rainbow trout from Australia for stocking the Omahaiga river.
In 1 964, 1 0,000 brown trout fingerlings flown up from Australia in a chartered
aircraft, encountered a five hour delay in Port Moresby and resulted in only 700
eggs surviving, 300 fingerlings were distributed into the Gumanch river and 400
were released into the Baiyer river in the Western Hi�hlands Province (Blichfeldt,
1 974). A further 2000 rainbow trout fry were imported from Jindabyne, NSW in 1 964
and were also released into the Gumanch and Baiyer rivers in the Western
Blichfeldt, D. R. 1972. Account of Hatching of Eyed Rainbow Trout Ova in Mendi: July
September. 1972. Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries.
Blichfeldt, D. P. 1974. Summary of Trout Hatching at Mendi 1973. DASF
1
|
|
2.8 Page 18 |
▲back to top |
·
Highlands;. Unfortunately, the
trout population flourished. ·
bro· wn
trout
population
did
not
survive
but
the
rainbow
In 1968, the Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries imported brown trout
fingerlings from Ballarat in Victoria and 300 fingerlings were released in the
Mangani River in Mendi, southern Highlands, 360 fingerlings at laro River at Yalibu,
400 fingerlings at Nebilyer River and 200 at the Gumanch Rivers in Western
Highlands. No records were available on the progress of fish releases in Mt. Hagen
but brown trout juvenile fish were caught at Nebilyer in 1 973 (Blichfeldt, 1 974).
Brown Trout were also put into Lake Pindi Yaundo at Mt. Wilhelm in the Simbu
Province.
In 1 970, the Department ofAgriculture, Stock and Fisheries imported BOO rainbow
trout fingerlings from Hume Weir Trout Farm in Albury for Kagua and Tari Local
Government Councils for stocking the laro River (400 fingerlings) at Kagua and the
Piwa River (400 fingerlings) at Tari in the Southern Highlands Province.
Initial trials of hatching imported eggs of rainbow trout were attempted in Mendi in
1 971 with feeding dry feed and resulted in the release of 2000 swim-up fries
imported from Hume Weir Trout Farm in Australia. The second batch of imports was
50,000 rainbow trout eggs received from Victoria of which 28,850 fish were released
into the rivers. Following this trial hatching, rearing and distribution of fingerlings
throughout the highlands provinces proved successful and feasible.
In early 1 973 both expatriate and local anglers were making good catches of trout
fish. This stimulated a lot of interests among expatriates and locals alike in trout
fishing.
Over the three hatchery periods in Mendi from 1 971 to 1 973, a quarter of a million
rainbow trout got distributed throughout the highlands, from tributaries ofthe Ramu
River in the East to headwaters of the Sepik River in the West. This three year
period was apparently the most intensive time of trout introduction in the PNG
history. The summarized table of distributed points is shown in West and
Glucksman (1 976)2.
Kotuni Trout Farm
The Kotuni Trout Farm near Goroka (Figure 1 ) was set up in 1 973 as an
experimental trout farming project by two expatriate employees, Mr. Ian Holder,
Assistant Manager of Air Niugini, and Mr. David Hunter, Air Traffic Controller with
the Department of Civil Aviation in Goroka. About 200 rainbow trout fingerlings were
brought from the Mendi Trout Hatchery for the trial trout farming project at Kotuni.
Results from the experimental farming was very encouraging, rainbow trout grew to
marketable sizes. The natural condition was just suitable for a major trout farming
industry to be commercially developed which will bring in tourism and related
businesses for the local people and province as a whole.
2
West, G. J. and Glucksman,J. 1 976. Introduction and Distribution of Exotic Fish in Papua
New Guinea. Papua New Guinea Agricultural Journal, 27(1 & 2).
2
|
|
2.9 Page 19 |
▲back to top |
�
.s
·r
Ii;
l
'� '"
....
""
.E..
0
u..
-
:::>
.0..
1--
0
..c::
0 c..
•
- Q)z :::>
... ""C
::>:
.52'>
c:
0
u.. ·-
c:
- ::>:
:0 :.:
-
0
c:
- 0
·-
� 0
0
-.I
|
|
2.10 Page 20 |
▲back to top |
.. ... . ••i J- ••
' •.I
I
.1··,. "
.. •.I
·> •.,
.,
,
Pholo I. Ko!uniTrout Farm
in the 1980s. Photograph
duplica!ed from Nokondi
lnveslment files.
I n 1 974 Kotuni Trout Farm was formerly registered as a company and commenced
commercial farming operation using private capital funds from the project initiators,
managers and sole shareholders, Mr. David Hunter K10,000.00 (66.67%) and
K5,000.00 (33.33%) from Mr. Ian Holder. During its operations Kotuni Trout Farm
encountered severe funding constraints to meet its operational expenses. The farm
tried securing loan funding from commercial banks and from the then Eastern
Highlands Area Development Authority. Nokondi plilrchased 60 % worth of share in
1 976 and became the primary shareholder of Kotuni Farm. With this capital
expansion and these additional funding assistance, Kotuni Trout Farm became able
to expand the farm facilities, and set the company on a sound financial footing.
The manager of Kotuni Trout Farm in 1 974 made an offer to the Eastern Highlands
Area Authority with 1 00,000 rainbow tout fingerlings if the Authority would purchase
from the farm at AU$ 500 per 1 000 fry for stocking all the rivers in the Eastern
Highlands Province. From 1 973 up until 1 975 fingerlings were being sold to farmers
at K0.50/fish.
Marketing of Kotuni Trout
In 1 975, Kotuni Trout Farm switched its operation from fingerling production to plate
sized fish production (250 - 350 g). The change was made i n response to an
4
|
|
3 Pages 21-30 |
▲back to top |
|
|
3.1 Page 21 |
▲back to top |
Kotuni Trout Farm
Primary
Fllteratlon
Chamber
rbecue
ut
Barbecue
Hut
Immediate
Growing
Tank
Earthen
Ponds
Production
Tanks
Manager's
House
Nursery Tanks
Overflow
Catchment Tanks
Supervisor's House
staff House
Smoke House
Procesing
Building
Mini Hydro
Generator
Agure 2. Facilifies at KotuniTrout Farm in the 1980s.
5
|
|
3.2 Page 22 |
▲back to top |
upsurge in trout demand from the local business communities in Goroka and the
copper mining projects in Bougainville and O K Tedi. The fingerling demand was
good but income ·derived from it's sale was not profitable compared to income
expected from production and sale of table sized fish. This demand driven shift in
production by Kotuni Farm necessitated the first ever commercial trout trial
production to be launched in PNG. Kotuni Farm was able to produce 7-10 tons of
fish in its first year of commercial table sized fish production in 1 975. The Study
team understood from discussions with Mr. Karl Gendua, former supervisor, that
Kotuni Trout Farm only concentrated on trout fingerling production in the first two
years (1 974-1 975). From 1 975 onwards, Kotuni Trout Farm switched from fingerling
production to plate sized (250 - 350 grams) fish production.
Kotuni Trout Farm was producing and selling trout in both fresh and smoked forms
to it's clients around PNG. Marketable size trout were filleted and deboned (bones
are pick.ed by twizers) and then smoked. Smoked trout fillets were sold at
K2.50/piece and fresh whole trout (250 - 350 grams) were sold at K5.50/Kg. The
demand for Kotuni fish was good. Kotuni Farm never experience any difficulties in
marketing the fish throughout PNG according to Mr. Gendua. Kotuni Clients were all
over the country as indicated on the list of customers in Table 1 .
Fresh whole fish or smoked fillets from Kotuni Trout Farm were sold at the farm site
or through orders from clients all over Papua New Guinea. A great proportion of the
marketing of fish produced by Kotuni Trout Farm were sold and distributed through
an associated company, Seafood Marketing Pty. Ltd. based in Goroka town.
Seafood Marketing Pty. Ltd. winded up operations in 1 979. Mr. David Hunter was
·
also the major share holder of Seafood Marketing Pty. Ltd.
Trout Farming Facility at Kotuni Farm
· About fifteen kilometers from Goroka and occupying one hectare of land known as
Kapiri Katoka, portion 536, Milinch Goroka, Fourmile Karimuk, Eastern Highlands
Province is Kotuni Trout Farm. This farm is just next to the Omahaiga creek, the
source ofwater to the farm. It discharges water at a rate of 1 80 m3/min per second
according to a measurement by Waterboard for designing of a mini-hydro generator
installation (pers. comm. with Mr. Gendua).
The water supply system of Kotuni Farm consist1of PVC piping and open canal. The
PVC piping caters for the needs for hatchery and fingerlings production, while the
open canal supplies water to the production ponds. A total of five 4" sewer PVC pipe
channel water into the farm. Three of these pipes take water to the storage tank.
From the storage tank, one directly supplies water to the hatchery and four 2" PVC
pipes filtered water to the four 4m diamf;lter nursery tanks. Water to the 9m diameter
immediate growing tank is supplied directly by two separate 4" PVC pipE;s. The
production ponds consists of two 1 2 m corrugated iron sheet tanks and 5x1 2m
earthen ponds for these production tanks. The open canal obtain unfiltered water
from the water intake and distribution Lit'lvice to fill in these production. tanks and
ponds. Water to these tanks and ponds flow adjacent to the farm road along an
open drain, then goes into the farm through a 1 O" diameter concrete culvert.
6
|
|
3.3 Page 23 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 1 . Major Customers of Kotuni Trout Farm.
/\\'ii Nluglni
Angco Ply. Lid.
Australian High Commison
Goroka
-
N.C.D.
E.H.P.
N.C.D.
415
7,186
136
9,129
Super market
Mess
Mess
Club
Coast
Coast
.
H�
Coast
W. H. D.C.
Ml Hagen
W.H.P.
924 Mess
Highlands
Bird of Paradise Hotel
Goroka
E.H.P.
1 2 Hotel
Highlands
Chlmbu Lodge
Kundiawa
Slmbu
Hotel
Highlands
Spinners OK Tedi
l'ububll
W.P.
Mining camp
Highlands
Carpenters Blg-C
Carpenters .
Lae
Ml Hagen
-
W.H.P.
74 Club
Club
Coast
Highlands
Collins & Leahy
Goroka Coffee Shop
Goroka
Goroka
E.H.P.
E.H.P.
5fiT
532
Super market
Restaurant
Highlands
Highlands
Goroka Meat Mart
Goroka
E.H.P.
780 Retailer
Highlands
Hagen Park Hole!
Mt. Hagen
W.H.P.
81 Holel
Highlands
Highlander Hotel
Mt. Hagen
W.H.P.
34 Hotel
Highlands
Huon Gulf Hotel
Lae
Morobe
612 Hotel
Coast
Kainantu Lodge
Kalnantu
E.H.P.
31 Hotel
Highlands
Kaivuna Hotel
Rabaul
E.N.B.
395 Holel
Coast
Lae Lodge
Lae
Morobe
2,774 Hotel
Coast
Lantern Lodge
Goroka
E.H.P.
769 Hotel
Highlands
MulNns Bay Marine
Pl. Moresby
N.C.D.
131 Mess
Coast
Madang Resort Hotel
Mdang
E. Sepik
1 1 1 Hotel
Coast
Melanesian Hotel
Lae
Morobe
756 Hotel
Coast
Minj ·Tribal Tops
Mlnj
W.H.P.
13 Hotel
Highlands
Minogere Lodge
Goroka
E.H.P.
2 Hotel
Highlands
Mendl Hotel
Mendi
S.H.P.
Hotel
Highlands
Plumes & Arrsm
Mt. Hagen
W.H.P.
86 Hotel
Highlands
Pine Lodge
Bulolo
Morobe
90 Hotel
Highlands
Pacific wholesale
Lae
Morobe
836 Wholesaler
Coast
Seplk Motel
Wewak
E. Sepik
51 Hotel
Coast
Smugglers Inn
Madang
E. Sepik
303 Hotel
Coast
Steamslps Trading
Pl. Moresby
N.C.D.
1 Super market
Coast
Steamship Trading
Goroka
E.H.P.
30 Super market
Highlands
Steamship Trading
Mt. Hagen
W.H.P.
55 Super market
Highlands
Travelodge
Travelodge
Pl Moresby
Rabaul
N.C.D.
E.N.B.
-' II
1,661
449
Hotel
Hotel
Coast
Coast
Windjammer Beach Motel
Wewak
E. Sepik
Hotel
Coast
Pacific Helicopters
Goroka
E.H.P.
342 Club
Highlands
P.N.G. Forest Products
Bulolo
Morobe
88 Retailer
Highlands
Papua Hotel
Pine Lodge Hotel
Pl. Moresby
Bulolo
N.C.D,
Morobe
92 Hotel
Hotel
Coast
Highlands
Lae Yacht Club
Lae
Morobe
392 Club
Coast
West New Britain Fisheries
Kimbe
P.N.G. Fish Marketing
Pl. Moresby
lnte(I Human Assist. Program Boroko
Kaiap Orchid Lodge
Wabag
W.N.B.
N.C.D.
N.C.D.
Eng a
174
1,191
193
Fish depot
Wholesaler
Club
Hotel
Coast
C·.:dr St
Coast
Highlands
Highlands Pharmacy
Goroka
E.H.P.
56 Club
Highlands
Ubaigubl Lodge
Hotel
Highlands
* Quantity of fish shown in the table was hand written on the original table. The period of fish sales were not known.
7
|
|
3.4 Page 24 |
▲back to top |
Water supplied to run the 1 2 t<J/A hydroelectric generator is the overflow from the
two ponds through a 20" iron pipe. At the time of this study, the farm was not in use
and the generator vandalized and eventually removed. The 65 m2 processing house
is still standing, but the freezer and the packaging materials had since disappeared.
A small 1 0 m2 workshop was still there minus the tools. To smoke trout, a 1 2 m2
smoke house was used with electricity generated from the hydro-generator to power
the smoker. Approximately 1 0 kg offillets can be smoked each day. This ability to
smoke tout has been permanently impaired when the farm closed down and the
equipment wrecked. The manager's and the farm supervisor's house are presently
occupied by the landowners.
Kotuni Trout Farm had two 1 2m diameter tanks and two 5x25m earthen ponds used
for growing fish out. Each of these ponds and tanks had its capacity to hold 20,000 -
25,000 fish of 250 g harvest size, thus the production capacity of Kotuni Trout Farm
was about 1 00,000 fish of 250 g size which was equal to 25 tons per year. To
support this fish production Kotuni Farm had various fish farming facilities. A short
description of each facility is presented in Table 2.
Lack of On-Site Farm Manager and Flood Disaster
Mr. David Hunter and Mr. Ian Holder managed Kotuni Trout Farm from 1 973-1 981 .
Because they were both full time employees of the Department of Civil Aviation in
Goroka, they were both working and living in town and did not fully devote daily
management and supervision to workers at the farm. Daily operation of Kotuni Trout
Farm was done by seven permanent laborers including Mr. Karl Gendua, as local
farm supervisor who was also an employee at Civil Aviation and Mr. Hunter as
Manager. In 1 978, Mr. Hunter resigned from the Department of Civil Aviation
because he could not renew his contract. This was in line with the government
policy of localization which started after the Independence of PNG. Mr. Hunter's
leaving PNG was not related to the farm operation (pers. comm. with Mr. Gendua).
He sold off his shares of Kotuni Farm in 1 982 and officially left Kotuni Farm
Management. During 1 978 - 82, Mr. Hunter stayed for a while in Australia but
remained mostly in Goroka. The reason for remaining in the country after he
resigned was to establish a sound economic base for the Kotuni Trout Farm. The
correspondence in the Nokondi file indicated that Mr. Hunter was employed by the
provincial government for a while during this period as a fisheries officer. He
formulated an expansion and development plan for Kotuni Farm with three main
points:
1 . Expansion of fish farming facility to be able to produce over 20 ton/year
2. Secure a full-time on-site manager at Kotuni
3. Establish a marketing outlet for ttie produced trout
In 1 981 , according to the Mr. Hunter's plan, a Canadian CUS03 Volunteer, Mr. Karl
Kroeker was recruited by Nokondi Investment to succeed Mr. Hunter in managing
Kotl'.mi Trout Farm. Mr. Kroeker h�d a zoology background (BSc). Mr. Gendua who
already had 1 0 years experience at Kotuni Farm and was in charge of the farm
when Mr. Hunter left, assisted Mr. Karl Kroeker to manage the farm. Mr. Karl
Gendua resigned from Kotuni Trout Farm in 1 982.
3
Canadian University Services Overseas
8
|
|
3.5 Page 25 |
▲back to top |
Table 2. Inventory of Kotuni Trout Farm Facility
Fish Ponds
Nursery Tank 4 m
4 Fingerling nursery tanks. Capacity, up to 25,000 of 50-70 g
diameter
sized fish per tank. Corrugated iron sheet.
Overflow 7 m
1
Outlet water from the fingerling nursery tanks were stored in
Catchment diameter
this tanks before flowing out of the farm. Fingerlings
Tank
accidentally escaped with the overflowed water were caught
in this tank.
Immediate
9m
1
Intermediate rearing tank between nursery tanks and
Growing diameter
production tank. These tanks were also used to adjust
Tank
number of fish in production ponds when the latter were
crowded.
Earthen Ponds 25 x 5 m
2 Production tank to hold up to 20,000 fish of 250 g harvest
size. Corrugated iron sheet.
Production Tank 1 2 m
2 Production ponds to hold up to 25,000 fish of 250 g harvest
diameter
size.
HatcheN
50 m2
1
Metal framed, concrete floored building with a hatchery
facility of up to 200,000 egg rearing capability at any one
time. The equipment consisted of 80 cm fiberglass tanks
with water supplied through plastic pipes from a 20,000 liter
filtration tank. The building had a lockup storage for 6 tons of
trout food.
Processing House 65 m2
1
The cordwood building was equipped with freezer, hot water
unit, stainless steel and fiberglass sink units, large packing
area, wooden tables and two sets of 1 2 kg scales and a set
of 50 kg hanging scales.
Generator House
1
This was an open-plan timber framed building which houses
a 1 2 'tWA Hydro Electric Generator supplying all the
electrical needs for the farm. The backup petrol generator
was also stored here.
Smoke House
1 2 m2
1
A timber framed building with electric smoker for smoking up
to 1 O kg of fillets per day. (This building has now collapsed.)
!Workshop
1 0 m2
1
Equipped with work bench, tools, racks, shelves, etc.
Barbecue Facilities
These consisted of large covered areas made from
traditional materials for up to 60 people with wooden bench
tables and 6 barbecue plates. There were also public toilet
facilities in the farm. (This facility had also collapsed).
Manager's House
1
The General Managers House was a large three bed roomed
house with all facilities and a large garden. One of the three
bed rooms was converted to be the farm office.
1supeivisor's house
1
The supervisors house was a two bedroom house with a
large garden.
Source: Nokondi Investment Pty. Ltd. File.
In 1 983, Mr. Karl Kroeker extended his s<irvice for another year and left Kotuni Farm
in December 1 983. During his last year, the 20 ton production/year was achieved. A
British VSO, Mr. Powley Douglas, was brought in by Nokondi Investment to succeed
Mr. Karl Kroeker and to manage Kotuni Trout Farm. During his employment with
Nokondi Investment as a business service volunteer, he managed Kotuni Trout
9
|
|
3.6 Page 26 |
▲back to top |
"
Farm and other Nokondi projects such as coffee, cattle and real estate businesses.
Mr. Powley had no trout farming background. He worked and lived in Goroka town,
but not at the Farm site at Kotuni to manage the Farm on a daily basis. During Mr.
Powley Period, the farm lost a lot of fish (10,000-20,000 fish according to Mr.
Gendua) through floods that brought grass, wooden debris and materials to block
the filter system at the intake and stopped the water supply.
According to Mr. Karl Gendua, when the flood came in, the water became muddy
and the water supply had to be stopped to avoid the muddy water flowing into the
ponds. The canal and water filter system had to be cleaned out quickly. The farm
usually need 7 casual workers to handle the emergency situation during flooding
times. Larger fish in the production ponds stood the low levels of oxygen when the
water supply was stopped during heavy flooding. Fingerlings and fry were not able
to tolerate the high turbidity and low oxygen. Without an on-site manager, it was
difficult to deal with such an emergency situation to handle these flood disasters at
the Farm.
Mr. Yaunggao Uiyassi, Chairman of Nokondi Investment, in a discussion with the
authors, remembered the Farm was losing a lot offish in the last years of Kotuni
Farm operations between 1983-1984. This forced Nokondi Investment Pty. Ltd. to
close down the trout farm operations. According to Mr. Uiyassi a local village laborer
fined by the manager was accused of putting poison in the water source and killed
many fish in the hatchery. The authors believed this alleged criminal case,
regardless of whether it was true or not4, indicated the deteriorating relationship
between the farm and the village people. The daily management of the farm, when
the manager was staying in town, was actually done by the local villagers working at
the farm. Without the cooperation of the villagers working at the farm, the manager
would have found it impossible to operate the farm. The meaning of accusation by
the farm manager against the villager (in the sense of Papua Niugini way is against
the whole clan members and relatives) was not taken lightly by the Kotuni people.
Frustrations of the Kotuni People
On the 14th January, 1994, the authors were met at Kotuni Farm site by the Kotuni
Village Councilor Mr. Jack Gahe and a crowd of 30 people, men, women and
children who asked what have we now come to do this time at the farm. An angry
young man5 asked the authors whether we have now come with the money to start
up Kotuni Trout Farm.
The Councilor, Mr. Jack Gahe, was furious about promises made by politicians to
provide financial assistance to revive Kotuni Trout Farm. He mentioned a politician
who had promised to give K30,000.00 QUt was withdrawn by the new government.
Councilor Gahe also angrily told the authors of a visit by politicians and government
4
According to Mr. Karl Gendua this was a cover up by the Manager who lost a lot of fish
"during the floods because he never based on the farm. The villages of Kotuni also pointed out that
the flood (not malicious poisoning but natural deserter) was the major reason for the fish loss.
•
This villager is still keeping a bounced check for K30,00.00 signed and given to the people
by a local politician supposedly for reviving Kotuni Trout Farm during a campaign visit to Kotuni
village at the 1 992 election campaign. The politicians never made it into the government during vote
counting.
10
|
|
3.7 Page 27 |
▲back to top |
officials to Kotuni Trout Farm in 1 992 which costed the people K3,000.00 to prepare
mumus and singsings to welcome these politicians and government officials.
The villagers also told of a recent visit to Kotuni Trout Farm in 1 993 by two
Americans5 who went to the farm, looked at the facilities and during discussions with
the landowners and the villagers promised them of investing money into
redeveloping the farm facilities and bring back Kotuni Trout Farm into production.
The villagers also put on a mumu and singsings to welcome these two Americans.
According to one of the landowner's estimate it had cost the villagers about
K2,000.00 worth of food, materials, transportation and general preparations for the
occasion. It was quite understandable to the authors for the village Councilor and
the people in the crowd to be angry during our visit to Kotuni Trout Farm. The village
people's interest and their kind welcome with the mumus and singsings during those
two visits by the politicians, government officials and the two Americans have not
been returned to the Kotuni people with any development to Kotuni Trout Farm.
The Councilor and the Kotuni Village people especially the landowners are keen
and want Kotuni Trout Farm to be redeveloped and operated again. According to
the village people, Kotuni Trout Farm during it's operation, generated a lot of
economic benefits for the local people. It provided employment and income, a
source of income through the sale of artifacts, vegetables and orchids. The farm
attracted tourists and Goroka town residents to use the farm barbecue facilities.
Government Financial Support to Kotuni Trout Farm
Since 1 975 to 1 98 1 , for 6 years on 1 0 separate instances the Government7
committed continuous funding assistance to Kotuni Trout Farm. These funding
support came in the form of bank loans, funding support for Kotuni, grants, short
. term loans, payment for shares or payments for fingerlings under the Rural
Improvement Programme (RIP). The total funding assistance amounted to
K1 02,063.75 as shown in Table 3. Apart from these, there were other Provincial
Government financial commitments and financial guarantees to Kotuni Trout Farm
by the Government. It is believed that funds were also committed to Kotuni under
the Government Guarantee Scheme.
In 1 976 Nokondi Investment came into involvement in the management of Kotuni
Trout Farm with a larger amount of money brought as the share payment and the
fingerling purchase payment by the provincial government. The increased capital
was used for the expansion of the farm facilities such as the earthen ponds, circular
tanks, expansion of the fish processing building, manager's house and a fish
smoking kiln. The expansion of these facilities was important to accommodate the
increasing production capacity of 1 0"1 5r:n tons per year. In 1 980-81 , another set of
large financial assistance by provincial government was injected into the Kotuni
Farm to realize the Mr. Hunter's farm expansion plan as explained later. Funding By
1 983 Kotuni Trout Farm reached an all time high production record of 20 tons of fish
per yec11 .
•
They were company officials of Treylor Enterprise, USA .
7
Government Funds which on this case belonging to PNG Development Bank as Government
owned, Eastern Highlands Area Authority which later became Eastern Highlands Provincial
Government in 1977 and Nokondi Investment a Business Arm of the Eastern Highlands Provincial
Government and owns 65% of Kotuni Trout farm.
11
|
|
3.8 Page 28 |
▲back to top |
Table 3. Government Financial Assistance to Kotuni Trout Farm Operation,
1975-1981.
1975 PNG Development Bank
Loan
AU$25,000.00
(K19,230.76) ·
1975 Eastern Highlands Area
Fingerling Payment for Distribution in EHP
K6,300.00
. I ------------r------ Authority
1976 Eastern Highlands Area
Authority
Rivers
Share Payment in Kotuni Trout Farm
K16,000.00
1976 '-----1 Local People (politician)
Share Payment in Kotuni Trout Farm
K2,900.00
1976 Eastern Highlands Area
1
Authority under RIP Fund
1976 Eastern Highlands Area
' Authority under RIP Fund
Fingerling Payment for Distribution in EHP
Rivers
Share Payment in Kotuni Trout Farm
K10,000.00
K10,000.00
1977 Eastern Highlands Provincial Short Term Loan to Kotuni Trout Farm
Government
K9,000.00
1979 Nokondi Investment Pty. Ltd. Short Term Loan to Kotuni Trout Farm for
importation of 200,000 eggs
K1,763.75
1980 Eastern Highlands Provincial Funding Support to Kotuni Trout Farm
K25,000.00
L _ _ _,_ _ _ _ __ Government
1981 Eastern Highlands Provincial
Government
Operation
Grant to Kotuni Trout Farm
K20,000.00
Source: Nokondi Investment File on Kotuni Trout Farm
Financial Situation of Kotuni Trout Farm
Kotuni Trout Farm operated for a total of 1 2 years (i.e. 1 973-1984). The Annual
Financial Statements8of Accounts for Kotuni Trout Farm was only available for 5
years (from 1 979-1 984) were reviewed. The net profit and accumulated profit for the
five years is shown in Table 4 below.
If the above Annual Financial Statements were genuine statements of accounts
representing the financial state of affairs of Kotuni Trout Farm in those years of
operation, Kotuni Trout Farm never made any profit in these years, except in 1 983
when the farm made a small net profit of K5,955.00. Total Net loss amounted to
K82,250.00. The farm was carrying accumulated loses amounting to K89,724.00 at
the end of it's operation in 1 984. As it will be revealed later in the analysis of trout
farming (Chapter 4), Kotuni Farm operation was making profit. The authors believe
the financial statements are not reflecting the real situation of Kotuni Farm operation.
Nupaha Trout Farm
Six years after Kotuni Trout Farm closed down in 1 984, Zauka Trout Farm, now
Nupaha Trout Farm was established between the years 1 989 and 1 990 through a
8
All Annual Financial Statements of Accounts for Kotuni for the 5 years operation were not
signed and stamped by the Directors or Company Secretary. It is believed these statements were
used for Board of Directors meetings between Kotuni Trout Farm, Nokondi Investment and Eastern
Highlands Provincial Government.
12
|
|
3.9 Page 29 |
▲back to top |
Table 4. Financial Statement of Kotuni Trout Farm Pty. Ltd., 1 979-1984.
1 979
1980
1981
1 982
1 983
1984
Total
(1<29,327.00)
(K1 7.379.00)
(K56,844.00)
(K16,594.00)
not available
not available
(K53,669.00)
(K6,267.00)
(K47,714.00)
KS,955.00
(K89,724.00)
(K42,01 0.00)
(K82,250. 00)
Source: Nokondi Investment File on Kotuni Farm
European Economic Community (EEC)9 funding (a total disbursement of K85,000)
as a c:Ommunity project under EEC Micro Project Programme. Nupaha Trout Farm
(Figure 3) is located on traditional (native) land at Nupaha Village, about 8 km
northeast drive out of the main town of Goroka. The farm is part of the Zauka
Development Cooperation which also operates the Zauka Lodge and the defunct
Robsco Security Service. These three business are owned by Mr. Robin Kosi (a
former community school teacher).
Fish Farming Facility
The construction of Nupaha Trout Farm took about 9 months (April 1 989 - January
1 990) to complete. The construction stages of the farm is shown in Table 5.
The Nupaha Trout Farm facilities consist of the intake piping system from the
Zogazoi river source, reservoir, hatchery, fingerling and production tanks, farm
manager's residential house, generator shed (Table 6) and 5 accommodation house
units on the hillside as part of Zauka Lodge also owned by Mr. Kosi.
Layout of Nupaha Trout Farm is illustrated in Figure 3. Five 4" sewer PVC pipes
transport water from the Zogazoi river 200 m upstream through a crude inlet
structure. Each of these 4" pipes have a maximum capability to convey
approximately 1 5 litters of water per second to the farm. These five PVC pipes
channel water to a concrete reservoir capable of holding 24 m3 of water and
equipped with seven 4" PVC outlet pipes to channel water to the farm, one pipe to
1
the hatchery, two to the production tank, one each to the two other production tanks
and two to the fingerling rearing tanks (Figure 3). The production tank can
accommodate about 1 0,000 fish of the harvest size (250 g). The three production
tanks can hold up to 7.5 ton (= 1 0,000 fish/tank x 0.25 kg/fish x 3 tanks). This is fish
holding capacity matches with the w.ater supply as discussed later in Chapter 2:
Tech, 1ical Specification. The farm production capacity is about 8 ton/year, or about
1/3 of the Kotuni Trout Farm.
l.lnlivable Business Expansion By Nupaha Trout Farm
The Expenditure of Nupaha Farm, according to information given by Mr. Robin Kosi,
was analyzed for the period from April 1 989 to June 1 990 (one expenditure in
•
The EEC Funding Program is currently being administered through the Office of International
Development Assistance (OIDA) in the Department of Finance and Planning.
13
|
|
3.10 Page 30 |
▲back to top |
RGooarodktao_ _ __
Town
D
Generator (80KV )
for Zauka
Lodge Project
Manager's House
Drain pits
. . :J
..
:·::=;�rz!� � :;: . . .
!:
;:
. ••
· .: 1-.: ·�·
l .r.:'1'.t:
1 .::
.
.
� ; 1·. ; : ...
ti.:. -•l.
..
� Worker's
House
d storage
Nursery
Tanks
4mdla .
• w_9-
Zogazol Creek
Rgure 3. Layout of Nupaha Trout Farm
Bridge to Zauka
Lodge
t
|
|
4 Pages 31-40 |
▲back to top |
|
|
4.1 Page 31 |
▲back to top |
Photo 2. NupahaTrout Farm January 1 994.
|
|
4.2 Page 32 |
▲back to top |
Table 5. Progress of Construction of Nupaha Trout Farm, 1989.
April-May • Purchase of materials for the farm
1 989
• Chopped trees, built gabbion baskets and direct water to the farm
June 1 989 • Completed 1 harvesting pond
• Bought cement mixture and more building materials for the farm.
• Project account changed from PassbookAccount To Check Account.
July 1989
• Provincial Works Coordinator assisted on farm engineering work at farm.
• General Manager of Nokondi Investment, Mr. Douglas Powley once manager of
Kotuni Trout Farm, provided technical advise to Robin Kosi on trout Farming.
• Constructed temporary hatchery shed
• Engaged private carpenter to do building of the farm at K3,000
• Planned to build manager's residential house at farm
• Purchased building materials.
August
1 989
• Hatching boxes were borrowed from Kotuni Trout Farm
• Mr. Douglas Powley continued to assist Mr. Kosi
• Temporary piping fitted into temporary hatchery shed, put reserve tank, diverted
water from river into the tanks and hatchery.
September •
1989
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
Received first batch of eggs on 7 September through Talair.
Incubated eggs and hatched after a week
Dug drains for piping water from river, built dam to divert water to farm.
Transport pipes, cement, gate valves from Lae to farm site.
Complied 2 primary tanks for fingerlings
Lost 20-30,000 eggs during incubation.
Engaged a former worker from Kotuni to assist with incubation
Started feeding fish with trout starter.
Used portable generator for power.
October
1 989
• EEC Project Consultant visited farm on 12 October 1989.
• Project committee discussed possible recruitment of volunteer to manage the farm
and the Zauka lodge.
• Removed fingerlings from temporary hatchery to 2 primary tanks. Fingerlings grew
5 cm long, 1 cm width
• Piping from dam to reservoir almost completed.
• Commenced putting inside walling of house.
• Farm experienced heavy raining and blockage of water from intake to storage tank.
November •
1 989
•
•
•
Completed 2 harvesting tanks, main reservoir, water piping to farm
Residential house almost completed except plumbing and electrical work
Expected March 1 990 to complete all farm construction
Discussed lodge construction with project committee
December • Fish grew big to be transferred to harvest tanks
1989 -
• Wood, leaf and grasses flowed into farm causing water quality problems.
January
• 16,000 fish transferred from primary tanks to secondary tanks
1 990
• Pulled down temporary hatchery shed to build new hatchery building using bricks.
• Completed residential house.
• Waiting for approval from EEC to construct the lodge.
• Planned to construct another harvesting tank.
Intention to install 2 way radio between town office and farm.
Source: Progress Report Submitted to the Donor Agency (EEC) at OIDA Office
October 1 990). The total expenditure during 3% was K1 92,530 (Table 7). The
monthly summary expenditure is shown in Figure 4. The expenditure is broadly
divided into two time spans of expenditures. The first set of expenditures started i n
April 1 989 and ended in June 1 990. After six months later expenditure commenced
16
|
|
4.3 Page 33 |
▲back to top |
Table &. Inventory of Nupaha Trout Farm Facilify
Water Intake
Gabbion basket dam, Brick structure concrete canals
including spill way and concrete box, sluice gates.
Water supply pipe from PVC pipes and fittings (4"), 6 pipes installed, 4 pipes are in
he Intake to storage tank use. Iron pipe for bridging the river, approximately 200 m
distance.
Storage tank
Brick structure cement tank, 20 m3. gate valves and piping,
Ark mesh wire and copra wire are placed over the tank to
screen the materials suspended in the water
Water supply pipes from PVC Pipes and fittings (4"), l)atchery and nursery tanks (2")
storage tank to fish tanks
and hatchery
Nursery tiinks
Corrugated iron sheet wall coated with bitumen paint.
Concrete base with arch mesh iron wire reinforcement.
Cemented drain pit. PVC pipe water supply and drainage. 4
m diameter.
Production Tanks
Corrugated iron sheet wall coated with bitumen paint.
Concrete base with arch mesh iron wire reinforcement.
Cemented drain pit. PVC pipe water supply and drainage. 8
m diameter.
Earthen Pond
1 5 x 5 m excavated pond with cemented drain canal. Not
stocked with fish yet.
Hatchery
Iron sheet roof, timber framed. Concrete floored building.
Feed storage lockup room. Sink, and freezer equipped.
1 set
1 set
1 set
1 set
3 sets
3 sets
1 pond
1 set
again in January 1 991 and continued until March 1 992. The first and second
. expenditures were for the construction of Nupaha Trout Farm and the Zauka Lodge,
respectively, according to Mr. Kosi's classification. The total expenditure for Nupaha
Trout Farm was K81 ,973 most of which was spent in the first expenditure period and
the total expenditure for Zauka Lodge was K1 1 0,556 most of which was spent in the
second expenditure period.
Mr. Kasi received K85,000 from EEC for NupahaTrout Farm project. He also
suggested that an additional K55,000 was given by EEC for the Zauka Lodge
Project which the study team could not confirm. Assuming the expenditure data
provided are correct, there is about K53,000 deficit (= K1 92,000 -K85,000 -
K55,000) which is assumed to have come from the profit of the trout farming project
operated in three cycles of operations during the period shown in the Figure 4.
Mr. Kasi also operated a security comp;my and a PMV10 bus business after 1 990.
The installation of mobile radio in January 1 990 suggested that a security company,
Robsco Security Services, would have been operating after 1 990. The PMV bus and
the security company have ceased operation. The dates of closure of these
businesses are not known. Zauka Lodge has not started c,perating although
construction of the buildings including plumbing and electrical work have been
completed.
10
PMV (Public Motor Vehicle): Public passenger transportation business using minibus (15 - 25
seater). The most common means of public transportation in PNG.
17
|
|
4.4 Page 34 |
▲back to top |
Table 7. Expenditure on Nupaha Trout Farm Facilities, Manager's House and Zauka
Lodge as Categorized in the Following Cost Items by Mr. Robin Kosi.
Production
Fish Fanning
K84, 888.59
Transport
Fish Fanning
K4,065.67
Fuel
Fish Fanning
K516.80
Vehicle Expenses
Fish Fanning
K58.50
Wages
Fish Fanning
K1,800.00
Labor
Fish Fanning
K1,299.60
stationery
Fish Fanning
K60.41
Marketing
Fish Fanning
K3,227.00
Customs Fee
Fish Fanning
K1 ,001 .60
Customs Agent Entry Fee
Fish Fanning
K74.16
Lodge·
Tourist Lodge
K340.88
Property Rent
Tourist Lodge
K2,620.00
Building Materials
Tourist Lodge
K91,636.73
Building Materials, Timber
Tourist Lodge
K785.09
Building Materials, Cement
Tourist Lodge
K162.23
I
Further clarification is required from Mr. Robin Kosi on the components of items purchased and
categorized in those cost items in the table. "Production", for example, was taken by the authors
to mean anything related to production of Nupaha trout Fann and the managel's house. "Building
materials" were taken to mean the materials for construction ofthe Zauka Lodge.
300.0 00
Zauka Lodge Project
(K1 1 1 ,000)
250.0 00
... 200.0 00
c
g,
a..
1 50.0 oo
:�g 100.0 00
w
5000.00
Nupaha Fann Project
(K82,000)
0.00
'E
�
..
c:
"
..,.
"
"'
�
il
0
�
.1l
E
..
0
0..
<:-:
..
2
'E
�
..
c:
"
..,.
.c
..
LL
1" i) •
"'
�
�
.c
il
0
�
.1l
E
..
0
0..
<:-:
..
2
'E
�
..
c:
"
...,
.c
..
LL
1" i)
"'
�
�
.i1ll
0
�
.1l
E
..
0
0..
..
2
.c
L.L.
'E
Cl.
<(
..
c
"
...,
"
"'
�
�
.c
-!l
0
- ~ I 1989 I_19_ 90 JI~-~199I1.___I_1992_.
Figure 4. Expenditure for Nupaha Trout Farm including Zauka Lodge Project.
18
|
|
4.5 Page 35 |
▲back to top |
The main issue central to EEC funding was in the establishment of a trout farm with
the Nupaha Community. Mr. Kosi took the initiative in organizing his family members
and the community at large to setup a business venture that will help bring
employment and an opportunity for cash earnings to the Nupaha Community. During
.1 989 - 92, Mr. Kosi had a lot of income (K85,000 for Nupaha Trout Farm Project,
K55,000 for Zauka Lodge Project, and K53,000 from fish sales) available to him at
his disposal to invest in other business activities other than the trout farm only. This
big income available to him seemed to lead to Mr. Kosi's decision not to reinvest the
money back into the farm but began constructing the Zauka Lodge, started Robsco
Security firm and a PMV bus company. These crucial investment decisions taken by
Mr. Kosi had a lot of adverse financial bearing on the financial viability and future
expansion of Nupaha Trout Farm. There was competition of allocating resources
between the fish farm, Zauka Lodge, Robsco Security Services and the PMV bus
business providing a squeeze on financial liquidity problem for Mr. Kosi to
concentrate on the fish farm whilst managing the other business all at the same
time.
Expansion of the Zauka Lodge Development Corporation was too fast and within a
relative short time. Consequently, the Robsco Security Service became defunct. The
Zauka Lodge still has to be completed before it is able to bring cash earnings.
Dispute and Temporary Closure of Nupaha Trout Farm
During the time of visit to Nupaha Trout Farm the authors were not able to confirm
from the farm manager the involvement of village community people in the
management oftrout farm being a Community Village Project when it first got EEC
funding in 1 989. In a record of the project committee meeting, there were about 8
committee members in the project.
Towards the end of 1 992 Mr. Kosi could not import trout eggs because of the
difficulty he had in obtaining a permit to import eggs from Australia. This forced him
to cease the farming operation temporarily for one year, according to Mr. Kosi.
However, at the time of our visit to the farm in January 1 984, one of the farm
employee informed the authors that there was a dispute between Mr. Kosi and
members of his business group on the management of the farm and the lack of
benefits from the project to the people. This dispute could be the another
explanation why the farm temporarily ceased op�ration in 1 992. The dispute was
resolved in July 1 993 the farm began operating again and Mr. Kosi imported
1 80,000 eggs from Tasmania in two batches.
Kegesugl �out Hatchery
The Kegesugl Trout Hatchery (Figure 5) is located at the foot of Mt. Wilhelm in the
Gembogl District about 2 hours drive from Kundiawa town in the Simbu Province.
This hatchery was e&tablished in 1 975 - 76 by the provincial government under the
supervision of Mr. Karl Gendua, the former supervisor of Kotuni Trout Farm. The
construction budget of K57,000 was secured under Rural Improvement Programme.
The purpose of this farm was to produce and stock fingerlings into the Simbu
provincial rivers. Production of table sized fish was not aimed at the farm according
19
|
|
4.6 Page 36 |
▲back to top |
Stream from
underground
�\\���
Manager's
House
D
I
~0
DOfcif e
,<)'":J '~
Kunal Hausa
D
Reservolre
1111 2.5 rn dio '
Nursery tonJ.118!,,,.
, ~._._., ...............
Hatchery
DPI
Potato
Project
Area
Figure 5. Kegesugl
Trout Hatchery,
Gembogl District,
Simbu Province.
to Mr. Gendua. The hatchery operated in 1 976 but ceased operation due to funding
problem. In 1 985 to 87 the hatchery operated again with the budget of 1<24,000 from
Rural Improvement Prgramme. Mr. Geni:lua managed the farm during this period,
too. A Japanese volunteer, Mr. lkawa, was attached to this farm during this second
phase of operation. The hatchery closed down in 1 987 and the facilities have been
left idle and run down ever since. Simbu Provincial DPI is currently utilizing �ha
hatchery site for a potato seeding experimental project. The authors met Mr. John
Waiange, OIC Gembogl Potato Project, who now lives on the Kegesugl Hatchery
site at Mt. Wilhelm.
20
|
|
4.7 Page 37 |
▲back to top |
Hatchery Facilities at Kegesugl
The existing rundown facilities available on the site are: a manager's house (now
occupied by Mr. Waiange), an office, a volunteers house, a water reservoir (cement
tank), 2 fingering tanks (3.5m diameter circular tank), an hatchery building, a
concrete walled earthen pond (4.7 x 9.31 m), a dam (spring water source) and 2
kunai houses (Figure 5).
The source water of this farm is a small stream originating from a spring located
upstream not farfrom the farm. The water temperature measured was 1 4 •c which
was 2 °C higher than the river water temperature around the area. The water supply
from the spring was 0.1 9 m3/min at the time of the team's visit, which is enough to
produce about 600 kg of table sized fish (250 g). The hatchery was able to produce
about 40,000 swim-up fry at any one time.
Hatchery Breeding Program
In 1 986, 40,000 eggs were imported and another 1 00,000 eggs imported in June
1 987. Fish were produced and released into the rivers every month or whenever
asked. The number of fish released to rivers at any one time was 200-400 fish.
Some fish caught in the rivers were over 500 g. The interest of the local people was
high on trout seeding. Over 30 rivers in Simbu province were planted with trout seed
during 1 986-1987.
Apart from producing trout fingerlings from imported eggs, table fish production was
also an objective of the hatchery. ,lkawa (1 986)11 reported that the hatchery had
conducted test market operation from September to December 1 987 and the market
response was good although details of fish price and amount of fish sold were not
recorded.
A correspondence in a file found in the Manager's Office at Kotuni Farm indicated
that Mr. David Hunter, the founder of Kotuni Trout Farm, originally proposed to the
Simbu Provincial Government the establishment of a hatchery in the upper Simbu
area which was then later established as the Kegesugl Trout Hatchery. In Mr.
Hunter's original idea, the upper Simbu hatchery was to be established to supply
domestically produced fingerlings to avoid costly importation for Kotuni Trout Farm.
Mr. Hunter, in the very beginning of Kotuni time, already had the recognition that
Kotuni was not a suitable site for trout reproduction and with correct scientific basis
he identified the Kegesugl area to be suitable for the PNG trout spawning project
location.
Lake Pindi Yaund_o Enterprise Pty. Ltd.
Trout Fann
The Lake Pindi Yaundo Enterprise Pty Limited Trout Farm (Figure 6) is the latest
addition to th9 Papua New Guinea's trout farming history. The farm is located at the
foot of Mt. Wilhelm, 25 minutes walk further up from the Kegesugl hatchery.
11
Jkawa, R (1986). Progress Report submitted to DPI Simbu. Mr. lkawa was a JOVC volunteer
who worked at the hatcheiy from Januaiy 1 986 to December 1 987
21
|
|
4.8 Page 38 |
▲back to top |
Naf\\.rol Dam
to divert
Wotertrom
Jmbuko stream
Reseivolr
Tonk
PVC Supply
~e (Pressure
Plpe,41
lmbuka stream
�rsecy
(da. 3.65
Concrete
Grow-outPondil
(4x6m)
NPreowduEcatriothnePnond.
(4 X 6 m)
Figure 6. Lake Pindi
Youndo Trout Form,
Mt. Wilhelm,
Gembogl Dist.
Simbu Province
This brand new farm is owned by Mr. Ken Higgins and Mrs. Betty Higgins. Mrs.
Higgins is from the Bundi area, but clain)s traditional right to the land on which her
farm stands. Though she claims ownership of the land, she had to pay K3,000 to har
clan members that claim ownership of the land as a sign of good faith and to avoid
likely future land disputes. Like the land on which the Kegesugl Trout hatchery is
sited on, Mrs. Higgins land is State property. She had it leased to her for agricultural
purpose.
22
|
|
4.9 Page 39 |
▲back to top |
Process of securing the land from the government and negotiating with the village
people to start a trout farm began in 1 982. Then three years after, construction
began on the farm and in 1 987 it was completed. The Higgins had built their private
trout farm at a cost of K65,000 (according to the farm owner, Mrs. Betty Higgins).
The money was used only on the construction of the hatchery, the two 24 m3
concrete production ponds, four 1 1 m2 corrugated iron tanks, a good water intake
device, the water supply and drainage system and approximately 260 m2 of concrete
floor. During the construction stage, Mrs. Betty Higgins employed 1 8 laborers at K40
per fortnight. After construction, she now employs 3 people. Being the manager of
the farm, Mrs. Betty Higgins looks after the day to day management of the farm.
Nestled at the base of Mt. Wilhelm and sited at 2,675m above the sea level, the
Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm receive water from the Pindi and the Yaundo Lakes
through the lmbuke River. Location of the farm is on a good site with no major
problem ofwater intake system blockage. Through the creek level rises and cause
some concern, no floods has yet been experienced by the farm as often occurs at
the Nupaha and Kotuni Farms. An elaborately built weir is able to filter debris, settle
the silt and store water for farm use. From the storage tank, seven 4" pressure PVC
pipes distribute water to the hatchery, the four nursery tanks and the two concrete
ponds. Water drainage from the hatching and rearing tanks/ponds are pooled
together at an open sump and drained by a 1 0" drainage pipe into the lmbuka creek.
The water temperature reading at the intake of the lmbuka River and of the fish
holding tanks was 1 2°C which is ideal for trout incubation.
Of the K65,000 the owner said was spent on the farm, it is most likely more than half
of her cost is on concrete. Concrete is used extensively, form the water
intake/filtration/storage system, the hatchery, the two grow-out ponds and the
working area of the farm is made of concrete. Water reticulated to the farm would
relatively be cheaper than Kotuni or Nupaha as the distance from the water intake
structure to the hatchery and the trout rearing tanks/ponds is quite short.
About one kilometer separates the farm property from the residential area where the
owner and worker residence are. Apart from the farm itself, the Higgins operates a
walkabout sawmill from which they derive some income. A small hydro-generator is
able to provide electricity to the residential area. Mrs. Higgins' another concern is on
having a road to her farm property maintained in order that farm products be sold
outside the Kegesugl area and store goods be bought in. Not only does she deal
with trout, she also provides a means through which ordinary village people can
have some cash income. Mrs. Higgins produces and buys fresh vegetables from the
Kegesugl people and sells then in Lae or have these freighted to Port Moresby. She
can only do this if there is a good road. ·At the moment the condition of the road is
good as far as it goes to the Gembogl District. Past the Gembogl District, the road
condition begins to deteriorate.
The first batch of eggs for this farm arrived on the 2nd September 1 993. The 50,000
eggs were imported from Sevrup Fisheries in Tasmania12• About 22,000 fish died
12
Servup Fisheries Ply. Ltd. P. 0. Box 77, Bridport, Tasmania 7254, Australia, Telephone
(003) 56 1 1 04, Fax (003) 56 1688. Attn.: Alec Purves. Currently this hatchery is the only source for
PNG trout egg importation.
23
|
|
4.10 Page 40 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 8. Record of Trout Fingerling Mortality at Laka Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm, 14
January - 20 January, 1994.
14Jan
15 Jan
1 6 Jan
17 Jan
18 Jan'
1 9 Jan
20 Jan
:lOO
500
:lOO
200
500
500
500
300
500
700
500
500
400
800
700
500
500
300
:lOO
7:00 am
12:00 noon
3:53 pm
6:00 pm
8:21 pm
9:00 am
1:00 pm
6:00 pm
8:15 am
3:37 pm
7:00 pm
8:00 am
4:28 pm
6:30 pm
9:00 am
12:00 noon
6:00 pm
Dead fish: 20
Dead fish (Number not recorded)
Dead fish: 5
Dead fish (No. not recorded)
Dead fish: 10+1=11
- Dead fish: 20 30
Dead fish: 20
after hatching. The cause of death is not known. Upon the egg's arrival from
Australia in Goroka, a helicopter was hired at K500 to carry the eggs to the farm site
at Mt. Wilhelm. The cost of the egg import was K1 ,000 and the import duty was
K450. Mr. and Mrs. Higgins were concerned that the current import duty of 50%
levied on egg is a disincentive for rural village development projects like trout
· farming.
Mrs. Higgins imported her feed from Aqua-Feed, Australia through Farmset in
Goroka at K60 per 20 kg bag which is equivalent to K1 50/50 kg bag and 5 times
more expensive than the PNG made trout starter feed. The company label
guarantees 60 % crude protein in the feed. Despite using this very expensive feed
she lost a large number of fry after hatching. The high grade feed is supposedly
sufficient in nutritional quality for the swim-up fry, She did not use minced ox liver to
supplement the feed. Mrs. Higgins as a new starter in trout farming continually faces
technical problems in rearing the fish at the Farm. Table 8 show trout fingerling
mortality at the farm during the authors visit.
Mendi Trout Ha<.chery And Komea Fish
Trap Station
When the Mendi tro1Jt hatchery b.l.lilding was completed in 1 971 under Department
of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries Supervision, the hatchery got its first imports of
2000 eyed ova from Hume Weir Trout Hatchery, Victoria, Australia for hatching and
distribution into the rivers (Franklin, 1 971 ). Subsequent egg importation and
hatching followed after that for hatching and stocking rivers in the highland areas.
24
|
|
5 Pages 41-50 |
▲back to top |
|
|
5.1 Page 41 |
▲back to top |
Photo 3. Raceway
Pond Designed by
John Bado, former
Hsheries Officer,
Southern Highlands
Province.
This historical hatchery was abandoned because of dispute over land ownership
and Elecom has also moved onto the site.
A new hatchery located below the Mendi town beside the Managing river was visited
by the authors. According to Mr. Vincent Sank, Provincial Fisheries Officer in Mendi,
the construction of the 2 carp ponds, security fencing and the hatchery building cost
K80,000 and was built by the Works and Supply Department in 1 987.
Adjacent to the hatchery, the Mangani River joins with the Mendi River and runs
alongside the hatchery site. The intake canal opens above the usual level of river
water and the farm is supplied only when the river flood. When the hatchery was
built, a weir was also constructed on the Mendi River to channel water to the farm.
Construction of the first weir was set at an obtuse angel and this resulted in no
water being channeled to the hatchery and the ponds. Likewise, the second weir
built some years after was not reinforced enough and this resulted in the weir
collapsing under the pressure of the river when it flooded. Another construction of
weir is required to raise the water level above the intake mouth.
There is a potential of water pollution and waste dl'.imping into the Mendi River from
the car workshops and PMV vehicles washing upstream as the Mendi River runs
through Mendi town (Cadwallader, 1 991 ). The water temperature measured at 9:30
am was 1 6 oC which would rise up 1 8-1 9 oC in the later after noon. This farm is not
suitable for use in trout hatchery because of higher water temperature and potential
risk of water pollution. Much of the activities of the Southern Highlands Province
now is geared toward carp culture as far as the fisheries activities in the province
goes. The present site is being used to hold ad distribute carp fingerlings brought
from Aiyura. As Southern Highlands Provincial DPI is intending now, this farm is
better be used as carp fingerling stock ponds before distributing farmers. Photo 3
shows the raceway pond (now used as water supply canal) at Mendi Hatchery at the
time of the authors' visit.
The Komea Trout Fish Trap project (Figure 7) was an off shoot of the Mendi
Hatchery project. The Komea fish trap using the Komea river at Komea village, 2
25
|
|
5.2 Page 42 |
▲back to top |
Brooder Holding Pond
J:l Ascending fish r7
for spawning .,.,.,
Mandi Road
Hgure 7. Hsh Trap at
Komea, Southern
Highlands Province
hours drive from Mendi town, was established in the 1 970's by fisheries officers for
trapping matured trout fish for stripping and hatching of eggs.
A weir was constructed across the Komea River with gabbion basket to lead the
ascending mature broods into a circular raceway pond. When the fish are observed
in the raceway pond, the entrance was shut out and the fish left inside the raceway
ponds were
are ready.
taken
out
for
examination
of
maturity'
and
following
inseminations
if
they
The success of the Komea Fish Trap Project is not fully understood. Blichfeldt
(1 974) reported the capture of 1 mature female trout with 1 000 ripe ova but no
details of hatching mentioned. No details or results of the stripping and hatching
operation at Komea was available from-the DPI office in Mendi. Komea Stripping
Station was closed down due to demand for land compensation payment. Payment
required by the land owner, Mr. Pando Kimu, was K15,000. This amount of money
was never paid by the government. The fish trap is no longer operating and only the
drainage and cement ;:i-Jnd structure are left overgrown with grass at the site. Figure
7 shows the structure of the fish trap at Komea.
26
|
|
5.3 Page 43 |
▲back to top |
Views of Provincial Governments on Trout
Fanning Development in the Highlands
During the course of the study, meetings and discussions were held with the
Provincial Government, DPI and fisheries officers on the purpose of the trout study
being undertaken and to gauge their views and comments particularly on trout
farming, carp and general aquaculture development in the highlands. For further
details of the discussions with each particular province, the records of discussions
can be referred to in Appendix 5. Based on these discussions with the provinces
their views and comments on trout farming were as follows:-
Eastern Highlands Provincial Government
The Eastern Highlands Provincial Government fully supported the establishment
and expansion of trout farming development in the province. But before any trout
farming development is undertaken, market and demand for trout and fingerlings be
first ascertained. This was, according to Mr. Ian Mopafi, Assistant Secretary for DPI,
because trout is an expensive fish which can only be afforded by the high bracket of
income earners. The majority of people are low income earners and cannot afford
1<7.50 per kg for trout and therefore can only resort to buying cheaper protein
substitutes such as tinned fish and lamb flaps to feed their large families.
According to Mr. Mopafi, Eastern Highlands Province has already got an established
commercial trout farm and therefore should pursue trout, carp and other fisheries
activities in the Province. Mr. Mopafi suggested that trout farming should now be
rationalized within the highlands region and cordination and development should
also be ratipnalized rather than having separate hatcheries in the provinces. Mr.
Mopafi further suggested that Kotuni Trout Farm be reestablished as a National
Cold Water Hatchery and be supported by the National Department of Fisheries and
Marine Resources for training, technical advise and fingerling production and let
Nupaha Trout Farm concentrate on commercial production.
The whole trout farming development program in the Highlands should be controlled
and restructured so that not too many farms are established and therefore difficult to
manage with numerous problems. If trout farming is limited to a lesser number of
farms only, then it should be easy to control fish supply and fish price on the market,
better control over fish quality and reduce risk of individual farmers importing foreign
·
fish diseases into the country,
Simbu Provincial Government
In the Simbu Province, there were two potential trout farming sites proposed by the
Provincial DPI office, the Kegesugl hatchery at Mt Wilhelm and a site at Kerowagi
which the authors were not able to visit because a tribal fight was on in the area13 at
the time of visit.
During discussion at the Provincial DPI office, Mr. Jack Mulake, Principal Advisor,
DPI, stated that despite the Provincial Government past funding commitment of
13
On this day 1 9th January 1 994, the Provincial Government declared the whole Province a
tribal fighting zone for the next three months.
27
|
|
5.4 Page 44 |
▲back to top |
1<24,000 for trout seeding program, the lack of funds and technical support have
largely contributed to the downfall of thetrout farming development in general in the
province. But despite all these setbacks, there was a lot of interest shown by the
Province and the people in trout farming projects. As a sign of its commitment to
fisheries development in the Province, the Simbu Provincial Government has
created an RD02 position in their structure for a Fisheries officer to be based at
Kegesugl in line with the setting up of the Regional Fisheries Office establishment in
Mt. Hagen.
The Simbu Province, according to Mr. Mulake, not only wanted to go into hatchery
production of trout for restocking their streams and rivers but much of the work will
also be on carp production and pond constructions. He noted that 350 carp ponds
were recorded when the last survey was conducted in 1 986.
Whilst in &imbu, discussions were also held with Mr. Peter Kamis, Provincial
Executive Officer, who highlighted two main problems affecting projects; lack of
funding in the province and the lack of coordination from National Departments to
Provincial Departments. Mr. Kamis took the authors to assess a potential trout farm
site at Kauglke River near the Danglagu Catholic Mission Station about 30 minutes
drive from Kegesugl hatchery. The results of water quality analysis conducted at the
site is shown in Appendix 6.
Southern Highlands Province
D�iasncduaspseio,nDsivwiseiroenhael lPdlawnitnheMr ar.nGd rMegr.
Onesi, Assistant Secretary, DPI; Mr. Ronald
Vincent Sonk, Provincial Fisheries Officer.
Discussions on fisheries activities, particularly on trout farming was limited because
the only officer, Mr. John Badu, who had worked on trout projects in Mendi for over
30 years had resigned. However, according to Mr. Greg Onesi, the main emphasis
in the Province is now on carp in line with the current UNICEF program on child
health and nutrition.
Western Highlands Province
In Mt. Hagen, Western Highlands Province, the authors talked to Mr. Korua Komp,
Assistant Secretary, DPI, Mr. Stewart
and Mr. Tep Madip, Fisheries Officer.
Hawthorn,
Pr'ovincial
Fisheries
Officer
(VSO)
During the discussion, Mr. Komp informed that trout fingerlings were stocked in the
Western Highlands in the 1 960's but he did not know whether the people were
catching them or not. Mr. Komp suggested the establishment of a central trout
hatchery for seeding rivers and for farming purposes for the people to use that
opportunity for trout farming.
When Mr. Komp was asked what the policy at Western Highlands was on fisheries,
he mentioned that priority at the moment was to develop carp farming and
establishing breeding centers in the Districts. As Western Highlands Province does
not have the expertise on trout farming, it was difficult to assist trout farmers but
seeding of rivers with trout should be undertaken.
·
28
|
|
5.5 Page 45 |
▲back to top |
.', i, ·:.,=;~. ·:~·--- ...... .:
:·:,:·-
·' Mr. Hawthorn's view was that carp was the main emphasis in the Western Highiands
and should be farmed in the province because it will benefit a lot more people that
would trout. Mr. HaWthorn further commented that trout farming is too expensive and
has proven to not work in PNG in the past as in the experience of Kotuni Farm in the
Eastern Highlands Province. According to Mr. Hawthorn, foreign expertise from
overseas is needed to make trout farming work in PNG.
Enga Province
Enga Province was very keen in both carp and trout farming. DPI Assistant
Secretary, Mr. Edison Paugari, during discussions14 in Wabag said, DPI would like
to buy carp and trout fingerlings to stock the rivers in the province. The demand in
the Province was great for both carp and trout fingerlings because there were a lot
of interest from the local people seeking assistance from the DPI office.
A marketing distribution of either carp or trout to be based in Enga would be ideal to
serve the interest of farmers in the province. According to Mr. Paugari, DPI intends
to teach farmers carp farming but there has to be a continuous supply and
availability of fingerlings. Mr. Paugari thought the National Department of Fisheries
and Marine Resources would be more reliable to supply both carp and trout
fingerlings to interested village farmers.
14 ·
This discussion with Mr. Edison Paugari was based on the meeting held i n December 1993,
just before this study commenced.
29
|
|
5.6 Page 46 |
▲back to top |
Chapter 2: Technical Specification of Trout
Farming at Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms
Growth of Trout
Trout eyed ova imported from Australia on 7 September, 1 989, hatched in one week
at Nupaha Trout Farm, according to the Nupaha Trout Farm Progressive Report
dated 5 October 1 989 submitted to EEC Micro-Project Consultant. They grew to 5
cm long and were transferred from the hatchery to the nursery tanks in October. The
fish were later transferred to the harvest tanks in January, 1 990. According to Mr.
cKeorsei,msoonmyeoffisNhuwpaehrea
big enough
Trout Farm
to sell (over 200 g) when the
was held in the eighth month
Official Opening
from the importation
(May 1 990). Mr. Kosi said it took 8 to 1 2 months to rear trout to the table size (250
g) at Nupaha.
When the authors visited Nupaha Trout Farm in the second week of January 1 994,
the fish imported on 23 June 1 993 was about 70 g in the harvest tank. The fast
350
300
IL 250 +-------
___ _ ___ __
'ii'
E..
.� 9 200
.s::.
"
u::
0
:l: 150
.!!'
�
100
50
0
0
261
391
0
100
200
300
400
Days after Hatching
30
Figure 8. Calculated Growth of
RainbowTrout at Nupaha Trout
Farm Based on Observations
during the Study Period.
|
|
5.7 Page 47 |
▲back to top |
18
17
7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 1 1 :00 12:00 1 3:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 1 8:00 19:00
Time
rigure 9. Water Temperature at Nupaha Trout Farm Measured by Mr. Robin Kosi
growing group of fish were over 1 50 g when the authours visited the farm again
about one month later. Assuming trout grows following a simple cubic equation;
Weight = B(Days)3, where B is a constant, the observed weight at two different time
determines the constant B = 1 .40 x 1 o-s.
Weight =1.40xlfr5(Days}3
The necessary number of days required to grow 250 g fish size according to this
equation (Figure 8) is 261 days or 8.6 months. These observations were for the fast
growing fish which were about 1/3 of the imported fish in June. This growth
estimation based on the two observations confirmed the explanation on the growth
of trout at Nupaha by Mr. Kosi.
Mr. Karl Gendua, former supervisor of Kotuni Trout Farm, also informed the authors
that trout at Kotuni had grown to their harvest sizei of 250 g in 8 - 1 0 months. Most of
the fish reached the table size in the following 5 months.
The growth of trout depends mainly on water temperature. Water temperature at
Nupaha Farm varies from 1 3 •c to 1 7 •c according to the measurements recorded
by Mr. Kosi (Figure 9). The constant water temperature at the upper end within the
suitable water temperature range for rainbow trout enables this fast growth.
Based on the experience at Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farm, fast growing trout
reaches the 250 g table size· in 8 - 1 0 months and most of them reach the same size
in the following 5 months. Figure 8 illustrates the growth curve of rainbow trout at
Nupaha trout farm based on the observation during the study period and information
provided by Mr. Kosi.
31
|
|
5.8 Page 48 |
▲back to top |
Survival of Trout
Mr. Kosi operated 3 cycles of trout farming from 1 989 to 1 991 before he temporarily
ceased operation in 1 992. H e imported 80,000 eggs on 7 September 1 989. He lost
20,000 - 30,000 fish during the first month (mostly during the incubation period) and
transferred 1 6,000 fish from the nursery tank to the harvest tank in January
according to the Nupaha Trout Farm Progress Report. The survival at this point
was, therefore, 20 % from the egg stage to 3 months old fingerlings size. However,
the authors were unable to obtain the survival record for the period after incubation
and for the other years. Mr. Kosi remembered that he lost many fish during the first
farming operation (1 989 - 90) because of his inexperience in trout farming. He
mentioned in the progress report that he obtained assistance from former Kotuni
Trout Farm workers who taught him the techniques of incubation and fry nursing at
the Nup�ha Trout Farm. The survival offish in the following years were better
compared to the first year, although Mr. Kosi was not able to give any quantitative
information on these years, either.
Most of the fish were sold at K7.50 per kilogram from Nupaha Trout Farm in 1 990
-1993. If there were complete sales record, the authors could have made an
estimate of the total fish weight and their survival. Unfortunately, the sales
information obtained (for the period from May 1 991 to April 1 993) were incomplete.
The best information to use to make an estimate of fish survival at Nupaha Farm
were the records for the current operation which started in June 1 993. When the
authors visited the farm on 1 0 February 1 994, Mr. Kosi had just completed sorting
and transferring the fish. The authors were able to obtain his estimate on fish stock
as shown in Table 9. The number of fish in the No. 3 tanks which held the group of
large fish were physically counted one by one. The numbers of fish in the No. 1 and
No. 2 tanks were based on Mr. Kosi's estimate from the daily observa'tions. The total
number of fish in the farm on 1 0 February 1 994 was 43,000.
Mr. Kosi started the current 1 993 - 94 farming operation in June. He imported eggs
in two batches. The first batch of 1 00,000 eggs arrived on 23 June, 1 993. The
second batch of 80,000 eggs arrived on 1 6 August, 1 993. Mr. Kosi did not operate
the farm in the previous year (1 992 - 93) and there was no fish in the farm when he
imported the eggs in June, thus all the fish in the.1tanks observed by the authors on
Table 9. Estimated Fish Stock in the Harvest Tanks at Nupaha Trout Farm on 10th
February 1994.
Harvest Tank No. 1
Harvest Tank No. 2
Harvest Tank No. 3
Nursery Tank No. 1
Nursery Tank No. 2
Nursery Tank No. 3
Total fish stock
:-:.:-:·:·:·:···=·=···=·=·=·=···:·:·:·:·:·:···:·:·:·:� .., :·.· ··•·· .·••.••·•·.·.·...·.·.•.· .
50 - 1 00 g
70 - 1 20 g
1 00 - 1 50 g
< 50 g
32
1 0,000
1 6,000
1 2,000
5• OOu
0
0
43,000
Estimated
Estimated
Counted
Estimated
|
|
5.9 Page 49 |
▲back to top |
10 February 1994 were from the previous year's importation of a total of 180,000.
The fish survival rate at the time of the author's observation from the eggs was,
therefore, 23.9 % (= 43,000 /18,000 x 100).
All the fish observed had already grown over 50 grams (Table 9). It was expected
that the mortality rate after this stage was very low. According to Mr. Kosi's
experience, he assured the authors that he can expect over 90 % survival of the fish
observed to grow to the marketable size of 250 g. If it is assumed 90 % survival of
the current fish till the time of fish sales, the total number of fish to be sold would be
387,000. The overall survival from the egg stage to the harvest size would be 21.5
%. This is a very low survival rate. Mr. Kosi is killing nearly 80 % of the fish during
his operation.
Mortal,ity after coming out of the hatchery was very low compared to the period
inside.the hatchery. Most of the fish died during the incubation and fry period before
they were transferred from the hatchery to the outside nursery tanks, according to
Mr. Kosi. Interview with Mr. Gendua also confirmed that the survival of fish after
transferring to the outside tanks was good. Mr. Gendua's estimation was 90 % for
survival during the time of outside nursery tank rearing to the harvest size.
According to Mr. Kosi, the number of dead eggs picked every day was usually in the
order of several thousands. Mr. Kosi does not have the record of survival of his egg
incubation. But, he was experiencing a large number of mortality during the
incubation period.
·
Mr. Karl Kroeker recorded in the 1981 Kotuni Farm Manager's Diary the daily counts
of dead eggs during incubation in 1981. The eggs were imported in two batches.
The first batch of eggs arrived on 6 August 1981. The farm ordered 100,000 eggs
but the hatchery in Tasmania expected a high mortality of the eggs and shipped
140,000 eggs instead. The eggs started hatching in just three days up until the 14th
1 00
90
80
-
"�'
70
..
�
;;
60
50
>
�
40
(:/I) 30
20
10
0
1
23
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
r~ Days Aller Arrival of Eggs
First Incubation · --1- Second Incubation
Figure 1 0. Survival Rote o!Trout Eggs oher Arrival During the Fiist and Second Incubation of KotuniTrout Form in
1981.
33
|
|
5.10 Page 50 |
▲back to top |
; : .•: :·;_:-
.· Table 10. Summary of Egg and Fry Survival during the Incubation and Nursery Period at
Kotuni Hatchery in 1981 .
6-Aug-81 ·
1 42,000
25-Sep-81
80,000
26-Aug-81
(Survival rate)
85,137
(60.0 %)
1 0-0ct-81
73,820
(92.2 %)
1 9-Nov-81
21 -Dec-81
Final Survival Rate when Transferring to Nursery Tanks (21 Dec. 1 98 1 )
222,000
1 58,957
1 05,625
93,800
42.25%
,·
day. As expected the morality rate was high. Daily death count recorded on the diary
was 1 ,000 - 1 7,000 fish. The final estimate of survival rate for incubation was 59.9 %
on the 22nd day (Figure 1 0). The second batch of eggs arrived on 25 September
1 981 and this time the eggs were in good condition. The number of eggs imported
was 80,000. According to the diary, the order was made for 60,000 eggs. It seemed
that the Tasmanian hatchery always shipped some additional eggs to compensate
for the expected mortality. The survival rate was good this time (Figure 1 0). The
number of dead eggs picked every day was less than 1 000. The final estimate of
survival on the 1 6th day was 92.3%.
The record of Mr. Kroeker also mentioned the number of fry transferred from the
hatchery to the outside nursery tanks (Table 1 0). According to the record, the
overall survival at the time of transfer was 42.25 %15 for the two batches of eggs
imported in 1 98 1 . Most of the mortality occurred were due to the quality of eggs
rather than technical problems at the hatchery. Although there were some fish
mortality even after they were transferred to outside ponds, especially during the
time of heavy rain (flooding), most of the mortality occurred when the fish were still
in the hatchery. The number of dead fish was less than 1 000 at the time of flooding
but was usually less than 1 00 fish. The loss of fish in the outside tanks and ponds
were small in terms of number or overall survival rate for the whole farming period.
Harvest Size
When the fish grow larger than 250 g they are harvested for sales at Nupaha Trout
Farm. Therefore, the actual fish size for sales is slightly bigger than 250g.
Mr. Kosi has sold fish at K7.50/kg or K2.00/fish. This pricing v·as based on the
average fish size. To him and the customers the choice of sales unit does not make
-1•
-
-
----
The first
------
batch of 1 981
-~--
eggs from
-----------------------
Tasmania hatchery was poor in quality. Th" hatchery
-
-
expected a high mortality and shipped 40,000 additional eggs on top of the ordered number of
100,000 eggs. For the second batch the hatchery shipped 20,000 additional eggs. If the number of
additional eggs were subtracted from the calculation of survival rate and the ordered number
(100,000 + 60,000=160,000) was used as the original number of eggs, the survival rate would be
58.6% which is quite reasonable.
34
|
|
6 Pages 51-60 |
▲back to top |
|
|
6.1 Page 51 |
▲back to top |
any difference. In other words, the price of 1<7.50/kg is equivalent to 1<2.00/fish.
Thus,
K:l.5 = K2.00
lkg
I.fish
K:l.5
Ikg
- -
K:l.5
3 .75.fish
1 kg = 3. 75fish
I
I.fish = 3_75 kg =0.267 kg = 267g
Based on the assumption that the fish price of 1<7.50/kg is equivalent to 1<2.00/fish,
the fish weight sold to clients was at 267 g.
Kotun! Trout Farm also harvested the fish after they reached to 250 g marketable
size. According to the 1 983 Farm Diary, the 1 2 m diameter tanks which were used
as the holding tanks for trout ready to be sold or processed for smoking contained
250 - 300 g size fish. The size offish sold from Kotuni Trout Farm seemed larger
than the size of fish currently sold from Nupaha Trout Farm, although 250 g is the
normal harvest size for both farms. These differences are considered to be based
on the scale of farming. Nupaha Trout Farm is smaller in production scale and the
products seemed to be sold out quickly before the fish grow much larger than 250 g
size.
Annual Fish Production
Kotuni Trout Farm produced 20 tons of trout in 1 982 - 83 according to a Kotuni Trout
Farm brochure and other records found in the Farm files and in the Nokondi files.
The sale price of fresh whole trout was K5.5/kg in 1 983. Therefore, the total gross
fish sales should be about K1 1 0,000, if Kotuni Farm actually produced the 20 tons
offish. However, according to the Annual Financial Statement of Accounts for the
year 1 983, the income from the fish sales in 1 983 was 1<76,870. The analysis of
sales dockets resulted in a very small amount, K901 6.08, in 1 982 - 83. The authors
had little data to substantiate the claimed 20-ton production at Kotuni Farm until the
records of fish stocks were found in the 1 983 Kotuni Farm Diary.
1
Table 11. Records of Fish Stocks in the 1983 Farm Diary.
New 40 ft Tank
Old 40 ft Tank
River Side Pond
BBQ Side Pond
30 ft Tank
1 2 ft Tanks
Total
250 g
246 g
48 g
260 g
35 g
28 g
9,093 kg
1 2,000
23,000
20,000
1 3,800
20,000
1 0,000
98,800
35
250 g
250 g
1 60 g
250 g
95 g
17,756 kg
1 8,000
1 7,000
20,000
1 3,800
24,800
93,600
|
|
6.2 Page 52 |
▲back to top |
There were summarized records of fish stocks in the 1 983 Kotuni Farm Diary16•
Some of the diary records are shown in Table 1 1 . These stock estimates were done
for determination of the feed amount and the estimate is considered accurate. On 4
April 1 983, there were 98,800 fish weighing about 9 tons in total in Kotuni Trout
Farm. The month of April was the time just before the main fish harvest season
starts. About half of the fish had already reached the harvest size of 250 g by this
month. By the middle of the harvest season, 1 July 1 983, there were 256,600 fish in
the ponds: The difference of 5,200 fish were sold. The fish grew larger and the total
weight increased to .1 7.7 tons. Most of the fish grew to the harvest size of 250 g and
were sold. If all the 98,800 fish being stocked on 4 April 1 993 grew to 250 g size,
the total production for the year should be 24.7 tons. Although the farm lost some
fish due to water quality problems associated with flooding in the river, there was no
record of any great loss in the diary. Thus, it was reasonably assumed that the 20
ton pr�duction was actually achieved by Kotuni Farm.
As in the case of Kotuni Trout Farm, the fish sales record at Nupaha Trout Farm
was not complete and the effort to estimate annual production from the fish sales
record resulted in a much smaller number offish than expected. The Nupaha annual
total fish sales income was K29,01 2.68 for the year 1 990-91 operation (sales period
from May 1 991 to April 1 992) and K17,675.1 3 for the year 1 991 -92 operation (sales
period from May 1 992 to April 1 993). At the sales price of K7.50/kg, these sales
were equivalent to 3.87 tons oftrout for the year 1 990-91 operation and 2.36 tons
for the year 1 991-92 operation. The sales records analyzed were not complete and
the summation for the years resulted in an underestimation of the actual fish
production at Nupaha Trout Farm.
The most reliable estimate for the total fish production at Nupaha Trout Farm was
made, as in the case of Kotuni Trout Farm, from the fish stocking in the ponds which
was observed by the authors during the time of the study. Based on Mr. Kosi's
counting and daily observation, the number of fish stocks on 1 0 February 1 994 at
Nupaha Farm was 43,000 (Table 9). If 90 % of all the fish grew to the harvest size of
250 g, which is reasonably expected from the size offish (50 - 1 50 g) which were
large enough to resist the adverse environmental condition, the total production
should be 9.67 tons (which is equivalent to a fish sales income of K72,562.50 at
K7.50/kg). Mr. Kosi temporarily ceased farming operation in 1 992-93. All these fish
were from the eggs imported in 1 993 in two batphes. Thus, the expected production
of all the 9.67 tons was for the year 1 993-94 operation period.
Mr. Kosi imported 1 80,000 eggs in 1 993 and had produced 43,000 fish of 50 - 1 50 g
size at the time of this study. Assuming conservatively that 1 0 % of the fish were lost
before the harvest, the overall survival rate from eggs to 250 g harvest size would
be 21.5 % as discussed rarlier. Based on the number of imported eggs and the 21 .5
% survival rate, the annual production for the Nupaha Trout Farm in the past
operations would have been 4.3 ton in the 1 989-90 operation, 5.4 tons in the
1 990-91 operation, and 5.4 tons in the 1 991-92 operation (Table 1 2).
According to Mr. Kosi, he experienced a lot of technical problems in the first year of
operation and killed a lot of fish compared to the following years of operations. The
16
1983.
This diary is thought to be recorded by Mr. N. Epoke, Supervisor of Kotuni Trout Farm in
36
|
|
6.3 Page 53 |
▲back to top |
Table 12. Calculated Annual Production from Nupaha Trout Farm Based on the Number of
Eggs Imported and 21.5 % Overall Survival Rate.
Period
Number of Eggs lmported
!Assumed Survival Rate
Number of Fish Produced
Harvest Size
Total Fish Production
Total Sales in Value
1 009 - 00 1 �0 - 91 1 �1 - � 1 9� - ro 1 �3 - �
80,000 1 00,000 1 00,000
0
1 80,000
21.5 % 21.5 % 21 .5 %
21.5 %
1 7,200 21,500 21 ,500
38,700
250 g 250 g 250 g
250 g
4,300 kg 5,375 kg 5,375 kg
0
9,675 kg
K32,250 K40,312 K40,312
0
K72,562
survival of fish in the first year would be lower than the assumed 2 1 . 5 % which is
based on the observation in 1 993 operation. This factor was not considered in the
calculation shown in Table 12. Mr. Kosi also informed the authors that there was a
major loss of fish when the fish were already over 1 50 g size during the year
1 990-91 operation due to accidental stoppage of water supply (A gate valve was
closed). All the fish in the harvest tank (over 1 0,000) were killed. Mr. Kosi could
have managed to sell about half of the dead fish. The production of the year
(1 990-91 ) should have also been lower than the values in Table 1 2.
Crop Cycle of Trout Farming in PNG
The current farming operation (1 993-94) at Nupaha Trout Farm is the fourth
operation period for Mr. Robin Kosi. His fish survival rate is still lower than the
record in Kotuni Farm. He imported the eggs in two batches for the first time this
year. His farming operation and technical management is improving year after year
but has not been firmly established yet. The Kotuni operation at its closure in 1 984
was already 1 2 years of experience and its technical management have been
established. The following description is a summary of the annual farming events
based on the records of Kotuni Farm in the 1 980s and based also on information
provided by Mr. Kosi and Mr. Gendua. In the farming calendar (Table 1 3), it is
assumed that the importation of eggs were made in June and August. The
description is given here to provide an generaliz6d idea on operation of PNG trout
farming practice.
Trout farming in PNG starts with the importation of fertilized trout eggs
from Australia. The eggs are available from June to September
corresponding to the trout spawn_ing season in Australia. Due to the
high water temperature (13 - 1 7 °C) used for the incubation of eggs,
trout starts hatching in the first week and completes hatching by the
third week. Fish were kept for a month inside the hatchery and fed with
finely minced ox liver.
Very finely ground dry feed are fed together with the minced
liver. Ground dry feed is made of starter feed ground into fine powder.
The amount of dry feed is gradually increased and substituted with
minced meat. When fish are ready for transferring to the outside
37
|
|
6.4 Page 54 |
▲back to top |
;·._. ,...
·t-,
nursery tanks in July - August, they are fed with dry feed only. The size
of the fish at the time of transferring to the outside nursery tanks is
about 1 - 1 .5 inch and less than 1 gram.
Fish in the outside nursery tanks are fed with starter feed. The
fish were frequently checked forweight and total number by sample
counting and weighing. Feed amount is determined according to the
trout feeding schedule with the results of sample counting and
weighing.
In August after all fry are transferred out of the hatchery, the
second batch of eggs are imported. Incubating trout fry in two batches
·
with a time span of two or three months allows the farmer to utilize
efficiently the facility for a longer period of the year.
In August - September, the second batch of fry were reared in
the hatchery and nursed in the same manner as the first batch. By the
·end of September, all fry nursery is completed for the year.
Starting from October, the next four months are the main
growing season for the fish. Fish are continuously checked for weight
and number and fed intensively with compound dry feed. Starter feed
with 40 % crude protein are used for about three months and gradually
changed to grower feed which contains about 36 % crude protein. Fish
are transferred to the harvest tanks around November (the 6th month)
at about 5 inches or around 50 grams. Fish in the harvest tanks are
fed with grower feed only.
Table 13. Farming Calendar of Trout Farming in PNG.
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 1 0
Month 1 1
Month 12
Month 1 3
Importation of eggs. Incubation starts. Trout start hatching in the first week.
Start feeding with finely minced ox liver in the second week. Hatching
complete in the third week. Start feeding with powdered trout starter
togetherwith minced ox liver in the third week.
Dry feed gradually increased to substitute minced ox liver feed.
Transferring fry to outside nursery tanks. Fish are fed with dry feed (starter
feed ) only.
Importation of second batch of eggs and start incubation.
Transferring second batch fry to outside nursery tanks. Complete fry
incubation and fry nursery for th� year. Fish fed with starter feed.
Fingerling nursery. Rainy season starts (need an additional check on water
quality). Size sorting. Fish fed with starter feed.
Continuous size sorting and start transferring fast growing fish to harvest
tanks. Feed is gradually changed from starter feed to grower feed.
Main growing month for fish. Fish are fed with grower feed. Intensive
feeding. Sorting continues.
Main growing month. Intensive feeding and sorting.
Start harvesting and selling fish.
Main harvest month.
Main harvest month.
Main harvest month.
Complete most of fish sales. Egg importation for the next year. Incubation
starts.
38
|
|
6.5 Page 55 |
▲back to top |
Rainy season starts in October and the river water source
frequently becomes turbid and brings various materials washed out
from the catchment basin which deteriorates water quality and even
causes a reduction of water supply by clogging the supply pipes. An
additional care is necessary to monitor water quality and to prepare
emergency plans to handle flooding problems.
Fast growing fish become large enough to sell (250 g) in the 9th
(8th - 1 0th) months or February when harvesting starts. The slower
growing fish reach the 250 g table fish size in the next 5 months and
ready for harvest and sales. Most of the fish grown from the eggs
imported in the last year are harvested and sold by June.
Before completing fish harvest for the last year's fish, the farm
should prepare again for egg importation and incubation for the next
y�ar.
Feed Conversion Ratio
Feed purchased by Nupaha Trout Farm for the first three cycles of farming
operations is presented in Table 1 4 and the cumulative amount offeed applied each
year is shown in Figure 1 1 17• In the first year (1 989-90), Mr. Kosi spent a total of
K9, 1 1 1 for the feed weighing 8,742 kg in total, of which 3,800 kg was grower feed,
4,850 kg was starter feed, and 92 kg dry weight equivalent of ox liver. Based on the
production estimate of 4,300 kg for the first year, assuming 21 .5 % overall survival,
the Feed Conversion Ratio was 2.03 for the first year. The farming set up in the first
year at Nupaha Farm was not complete. He used a temporary hatchery shed. He
lost many fish due to lack of practice in the first year. Considering it was his first
year in the farming operation, this feed conversion ratio of 2.03 is not bad. In the
second year, Mr. Kosi used 9,521 kg of feed to produce 5375 kg (based on the
assumed survival rate of 21.5 %). Therefore, the feed conversion ratio estimated for
the second year was 1 .77. These feed conversion ratios were better than expected
from the feeding practice at Nupaha Farm and from the quality of the PNG trout
feed. Mr. Kosi does not use any feeding schedule. He determines the amount of
feed based on the observed appetite of fish during the feeding time. The trout feed
used in Nupaha Trout Farm is manufactured in Lae Feed Mills. The starter feed
contains 40 % crude protein and the grower feed contains 36 % crude protein
Table 14. Amount of Feed Applied to Trout and Estimat! ed Feed Conversion at Nupaha Trout
Farm in the First Three Year of Operation.
Year 1 (1 989 - 1 990) 3,800 4,850
92 8,742
Year 2 (1 990 - 1 991 ) 7,200 2,300
21 9,521 5,375 kg 1 .77
Year 3 (1 991 - 1 992)
Record not complete
5,375 kg
• Ox liver weight is converted on the assumption of 80 % moisture. The actw•.Lwet weight of fresh
liver was 1 02.5 kg in Year 1 and 26.3 kg in Year 2.
17
These feed purchase records are all the records Mr. Robin Kosi could find in his office on
special request by the authors. The authors believe the records are complete or nearly complete for
the first and second years.
39
|
|
6.6 Page 56 |
▲back to top |
1000
! 900
!� 800
� 7000
0!l.
.uc 600
ill
.5
c
500
�
"
E111
i"i """
0
,-1 l� 300
.,
E11
• 200
i
uE" 1000
Egg
l
o L_J__-1------ir----+-----+-.::......:.....+---+-----t--+---t------,
JuJ.89
Oct-89
Jan.-90
May-90
Aug-90
Nov-90
Mar-91
Jun.91
Sep-91
Oec-91
Apr-92
Rgure 11. Cumulative Feed Application at Nupoha Trout Farm. The data points (white circles) indicate the time of feed
purchased. The feed purchase data for 1991 -92 operation ore incomplete.
according to the manufacturer's analysis. These protein contents are about 1 0 %
less than the high-grade trout feed (Cadwallader, 1 991 )18 for which the feed
conversion ratio of 1 .2 - 1 .6 is usually expected. Because Mr. Kosi is not use a
proper feeding schedule and the feed quality is lower, it is expected that the feed
conversion of PNG feed is poorer than these values. However, the calculated feed
conversion ratio is comparative to the high-grade trout feed used in other countries.
Mr. Karl Kroeker recorded on 21 December 1 991 in the 1 981 Kotuni Farm Dairy for
his evaluation of the 1 981 farming operation as follows;
"....., weight gains has been adequate (20 - 25 % increase per week)
and the Feed Conversion is good (1 .4:1 - 2.2: 1 )."
Mr. Karl Gendua, the former supervisor of Kotuni Farm and the former Officer In
Charge of Kegesugl Trout Hatchery, uses a feed conversion ration of 1 .61 for
projecting estimated production from the applied feed amount. His feed conversion
is based on the experience at the Kotuni and Kegesugl. Therefore, the feed
conversion estimated for Nupaha Trout farm for the first and second years of
operations are about the same level .COIJlpared to the Kotuni experience. Similar
feed conversions were observed by Mr. Karl Kroeker in 1 981 and Mr. Karl Gendua.
Stocking Density and Carrying Capacity
The harvesting tanks at Nupaha Trout Farm is 8 m in diameter and 1 .0 m water
height. The water volume is 50 m3• The tanks were stocked with 1 0,000 - 1 6,000 fish
when the authors visited the farm in February, 1 994 (Table 9). Thus, the stocking
density in the harvest tanks was 200 - 320 fish/m3 at the time Mr. Kasi plans to keep
18
Phil Cadwallader. 1 991. Report on Trout Consultancy in Papua New Guinea.
40
|
|
6.7 Page 57 |
▲back to top |
the
the
fish until
stocking
the fish
density
grow to the harvest size of 250 g.
on weight basis would be 50 - 80
kAgt/mth3e•
harvest time,
This is a very
therefore,
high
stocking density.
According to the 1 983 Kotuni Farm Diary, the number of fish in the 1 2 m diameter
tanks (1 1 3 m3 water volume) was kept bellow 20,000 - 25,000. From these records,
the calculated stocking density was 1 77 - 221/m3 in number and 44 - 55 kg/m3 in
weight.
The carrying capacity (maximum weight of fish to be supported by the facility) of
trout farm is determined by water supply (more precisely oxygen supply) to the
ponds rather than water volume in the ponds or water surface area of the ponds.
According to Mr. Robin Kosi, full opening of four 4" pipes just balances the level of
water in the reservoir. If more than 4 pipes are fully opened the level of water drops
and eventually empties the reservoir because the supply from the intake through the
5 pipes of 4" diameter is not enough. If the total usage of water at the farm is less
than the full 4 pipe discharge, then water overflows from the reservoir. This means
the capacity of water supply at the farm is 4 times of the 0.92 m3/min, or 3.68 m3/min.
At the water temperature ( 1 5 °C) and altitude (1 800 m) of Nupaha Trout Farm, the
solubility of oxygen is 8.16 mg/I (Table 1 5). As the turbulent Zogazoi River is well
oxygenated, the level of oxygen in the source ·water is assumed always at this
saturation level as the measurements during this study confirmed (Appendix 6).
Therefore the oxygen supply to the farm through the 3.68 m3/min of water is;
8.16 mg/I x 1000 llm3 x 3. 68 m3/min = 30, 028.8 mg/min = 1,801, 728 mg/hour
The fish inside the tank consumes the oxygen supplied through the inlet water.
However, all the oxygen supplied (1 ,801 ,778 mg/hour) cannot b e used by the fish. If
all oxygen is consumed by fish there is no oxygen in the water outflowing from the
tank and fish cannot survive. Rainbow trout can tolerate low oxygen down to 3.5
mg/I (Tasiro, et al., 1 974). Therefore the available oxygen to the fish is the
difference between the level at the source (8.1 6 mg/I) and the minimum level (3.5
mg/I), or 4.66 mg/I/. The oxygen supply that is available to the fish is then;
4. 66 mg/I x 1000 llm3 x 3. 68 m3/min = 1 7,14{$.8 mg/min = 1,028,928 mg/hour
·'
Table 15. Solubility of Oxygen (mg/I) at Different Altitude and Water Temperature.
12
1 0.77
9.58
9.04
14
1 0.29
9.16
16
9.86
18
9.45
8.41
20
9.08
8.08
41
8.53 8.05 7.59
7.48
7.06
7. 1 9 6.78
6.4
|
|
6.8 Page 58 |
▲back to top |
Table 16. Oxygen Consumption (mg/kg of fish/hour) by Rainbow Trout at Resting Condition.
Body Wt (g)
5
10
15
20
1
1 44
258
360
453
2
1 33
236
332
41 8
5
118
208
295
373
10
1 07
1 87
268
338
25
91
1 60
232
293
50
80
1 39
204
258
1 00
69
1 17
1 76
221
200
58
96
1 49
1 89
250
54
90
140
1 77
300
51
84
1 33
1 68
Oxygen consumption by rainbow trout at resting stage is shown in Table 1 6. At the
local water temperature ( 1 5 °C) at Nupaha, the harvest sized fish (250 g) consuIT)es
140 mg/hour of oxygen per kg of fish. Active fish consumes about 1 . 1 times more ·
than when they are at the resting condition (Tasiro, et al., 1 974). The available
oxygen supplied by the inlet water deviled by this consumption rate by weight of fish
gives the carrying capacity of Nupaha Trout Farm based on the water supply.
1,028,928 mg/hour
l . I x 140 mg/hour/kg 668l kg = 6· 7 10n
According to the calculation, the Nupaha water supply of 3.68 m3/min can support
6.7 ton of fish at any one time. Since the present trout farming cycle takes about one
year from the importation of eggs to harvesting, this carrying capacity of Nupaha
Trout farm is the annual production capacity.
The water volume in the 8 m diameter tank is 50 m3• According to the above
calculation the maximum stocking density for the 8 m harvest tanks is 214/m3 of 250
g size fish. The Kotuni Trout Farm water supply was not functioning at the time of
visit and there was no water supply measurement taken. However, since the
Nupaha tank design is basically a duplication of Kotuni Trout Farm, the capacity
could be assumed to be about the same level. The water holding capacity of 1 2 m
diameter harvesting tanks is 1 1 7 m3• Therefore, at the same maximum stocking
density of 21 4/m3 of 250 g size fish, the.maximum stocking density for the 1 2 m
diameter harvesting tank is 25,000 fish. According to the 1 983 Kotuni Farm Diary,
this was the level the farm had been maintaining, implying that the practiced
stocking density agreed with the theoretical capacity.
Water Exchange Rate
The water supply to a production pond at Nupaha Trout Farm is 0.92 m3/min
according to the measurement made during the study. The water volume of an 8 m
diameter production tank is 50 m3 at the average water depth of 1 .0 m. Therefore,
42
|
|
6.9 Page 59 |
▲back to top |
the water exchange rate of the tank is (50 m3/0.92 m3/min =) 54 minutes or about
one hour. That is, the water in the tank exchanges every hour, on average. .
Feeding with Minced Ox Uver
Today's high-grade starter feed can be applied alone to the first stage of swim-up fry
just after absorption of the yolk. No supplementary fresh liver is required. However,
the special starter feed of trout farming is expensive and not available domestically.
Use of the starter feed produced in Lae Feed Mill alone is thought to be not
nutritionally sufcif ient for swim-up fry. Feed supplement offresh ox liver is ·
necessary. The feeding of ox liver was a common technique in the past but no
longer practiced in most of the countries where the high-grade starter feed is
available. The technique to feed with ox-liver is explained below according to Mr.
Karl Gendua, former supervisor of Kotuni Trout Farm.
Ox-liver is finely ground and passed through a fine strainer. A large
tea strainer with metal mesh is used to strain the meat. The purpose of
straining is to remove the large and hard meat particles from the
processed meat. Frozen ox-liver can be used as the feed. Only the
liver passed through the strainer is used. A small amount of salt and
water is added to the liver and blended in an electric kitchen blender.
The liver becomes a little harder because of the salt added. The
blending adds air into the liver to make it lighter. The processed liver
paste is ready to be fed to swim-up fry. After the yolk is absorbed and
the fry are able to swim, the liver is applied. For the first 2 weeks, only
the processed ox liver is given to the fish. The liver paste is shed by
finger action to sprinkle over the water surface in the trough. It is
usually applied over at the upper end of the trough so that the water
flow carries the particles down towards the other end. About 80 kg of
ox liver is needed to cater for 1 00,000 fry.
After 2 weeks from the start of feeding with ox-liver, powdered
starter feed is applied together with ox-liver. The starter feed is finely
ground with a pestle and mortar. Only very fine particles (dust or
powder) are used first to give to the fry together with ox-liver. After
feeding with powdered dry starter feed together with ox-liver for one
wameeoku,ntthoefadmryofuenetdoifsoixn-clirveearsgeidvesnubisstrietudtuincg�dthgeraoxd-uliavlelyr.aOnvdetrhethe next
three weeks, the ox-liver is totally substituted by the dry feed and only
the starter feed is given to the fry.
Smoking Process for Kotuni Trout Fillets
The following description on. '>making method of Kotuni trout fillets was found in a
hand written paper left in the manager's office. The Kotuni Smoked fillets was
greatly appreciated by many people. The sales of smoked trout accounted for about
6 % of the total sales during 1 978 - 84 according to the analysis of sales dockets. It
was favored over the Australian smoked salmon (according to some
correspondence in the Kotuni Farm Files), and the smoked trout fillets were once
exported on a trial basis to be an export item to Australia from Kotuni Trout Farm.
43
|
|
6.10 Page 60 |
▲back to top |
''The trout are caught i n hand nets and brought to the processing
building where they are killed, gutted and washed in cold water. The
trout are then filleted by hand and soaked in a warm (50 "C) brine
solution (75 % water, 1 5 % salt, 9 % honey and 1 0 % ground pepper)
for 1 5 minutes. The fillets are then hung in ttie smoker unit and cold
smoked (40 °C) for one hour followed directly by hot smoking (70 °C)
for one and a half hours. After this period the fillets are left to dry
lightly for 1 12 hour where upon they are wrapped in polyethylene film
and immediately frozen and stored at -20 •c until required for
packaging and dispatch. The whole process from start to finish takes
approximately four hours."
Water Quality
River is tised as the source of water for trout farming in PNG. Being situated at 0 - 7°
South latitude, the water temperature does not fluctuate seasonally in the
Highlands. Both Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms are located near Goroka, the
second largest town in the H ighlands (Figure 1 ). Kotuni Trout Farm is located about
1 0 km north of Goroka town at an altitude of 1 900 m. The water source was taken
from Omahaiga creek originating from Mt. Otto (3546 m). Another stream originated
from Mt. Otto, Zogazoi creek, is used as the water source for portable water for
Goroka tov.in. Nupaha Trout Farm is located along the Zogazoi creek, a few hundred
meters upstream from the dam for the Goroka town portable water supply.
Some basic water quality tests were carried out during the field study. The water in
both Omahaiga creek at Kotuni and Zogazoi creek at Nupaha are similar in the
basic nature (Table 17). Both creeks are soft water with total hardness value around
30 mg/I as CaC03• Alkalinity was about the same level. Conductivity was also low.
The pH was neutral. Dissolved oxygen was at 1 00 % saturation at the altitude and
temperature. Dissolved oxygen concentration in a production pond of Nupaha Trout
Farm was 5.3 mg/I and by 2.5 mg/I bellow the level in the water source in the
Zogazoi creek. This amount of oxygen was consumed by the fish stocked at a high
density (up to 1 6,000 fish of 50 - 1 50 g size per tank) in the tank.
Table 17. Water Quality of Omahaiga Creek at Kotuni Trout Farm and Zogazoi Creek at
·
Nupaha Trout Farm, near Goroka.
Water Temperature
1 7 •c (14:30)
Alkalinity
pH
24 mg/I as CaC03
7.5
DO at the Source
7.8 mg/I
DO at the Production Pond 5.3 mg/I
Conductivity
45 µmiio
Hardness
35 mg/I as CaC03
Turbidity
Clear
Note: DO denotes Dissolved Oxygen
16 °C (15:30)
38 mg/I as caco,
Mercury filled Glass
thennometer
Hach® digital titrator
7.2
! �niversal pH indicator
7.9 mg/I
Hach® tltrator
Hach® titrator
43 !Jmho
Hach® conductivity meter
29 mg/I as CaC03 Hach® digital titrator
Clearer than Zogazoi Visual observation
creek
44
|
|
7 Pages 61-70 |
▲back to top |
|
|
7.1 Page 61 |
▲back to top |
Water temperature measured at the farm sites were 1 6 •c (Omahaiga creek) and 1 7
°C (Zogazoi Creek). The temperature measurements were taken in the late
afternoon and it was expected that these temperature recordings were high during
the day. According to measurements taken by Mr. Robin Kosi, water temperature
varies from 1 3 •c at night and 1 7 •c in the afternoon, but there was no significant
seasonal differences. This rage is within the upper limit of suitable water
temperature for trout farming. Although rainbow trout may survive in water
temperature above 20 °C, but the suitable water temperature for trout farming is
bellow 1 8 °C. The temperature requirement for reproduction of rainbow trout below
1 3 •c and is different from the temperature requirement for grow-out or fattening
trout.
"It has known that rainbow trout reared in the water temperature above
1 5 •c does not maintain normal gonad development. Even if their
gonad increased the volume, the egg can not be stripped out or the
fertilization rate of the eggs would be very poor. The ovulation
mechanism of fish reared above the optimum water temperature is
affected by the high temperature, and eggs in the gonad would be
absorbed by body without ovulation. It is commonly accepted that the
optimum water temperature for spawning of rainbow trout is below 1 3
•c. It is required that water temperature at the time one month before
the peak spawning season should be below 1 4.5 •c to have a good
quality eggs. In the years when water temperature at this time was
above 1 4.5 °C, fertilization rate of produced eggs was poor (30 - 50
%)" (Tasiro, et. al.. 1 974)19•
The water temperature at Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms are suitable for fattening
of trout farming but not for trout reproduction. Constant temperature within the
optimum range is ideal for growing-out of trout. Trout under these condition suffer
minimal stress throughout their life and continue to grow.
Water Intake Structure
In the first year of fish farming operation in 1 989, Mr. Kosi used a temporary water
intake and supply system as well as a temporary thatched roof hatchery for the
incubation and fry nursery because his permanert intake structure and hatchery had
not been completed yet. The water of Zogazoi creek was dammed at the farm site
and diverted through a 4" flexible hose to use for incubation and nursery of fry.
Although Mr. Kosi lost many eggs and fry during the incubation period in the first
year, he managed to produce sufficient number of fingerlings needed for his
growing-out in the production ponds. The intake structure of Mr. Potie who operates
a trout farm at a very small scale (7x1 5 _m rectangular earthen pond with 2,000 fish)
is also very simple. The stream water is diverted by simply piling up stones along
the side of the stream. It is possible to use these simple water diversion structure in
trout farming. However, there is a great risk of flooding into the farm from the steam
flowing on the side of the farm.
19
Tasiro, F., Tachikawa W., Kamala T., Tamura E., Aoe H., and Yabe Y. 1 974. Rainbow Trout
. Fish Fanning Lecture Series. Vol. 1 0. Midori Shobow Co., Ltd. (in Japanese).
45
|
|
7.2 Page 62 |
▲back to top |
box
,...
SBcorxeen
Figure 1 2. Intake Structure of
Nupoho Trout Form.
The permanent structure of intake, water supply pipes, and hatchery were
completed in the first quarter of 1 990. Nupaha Trout Farm takes water from Zogazoi
creek about 200 m upstream from the farm site. A part of the stream water was
diverted into a cemented canal (Figure 12). Gabbion baskets are used to control the
water course from the creek into the canal. The water is filtered to keep larger
materials and other dirt by an iron screen sluice gate and from where it flows down
to the concrete box to get into the water supply pipes. The inlet openings of the
water supply pipes are placed under an iron screen box to further filter the smaller
materials escaping through the first filtration before the water got into the pipe. This
screen often gets clogged with materials from the Zogazoi creek when the creek
causes flooding, and needed to be continuously checked and cleaned out during the
flood period.
The intake system of Kotuni Trout Farm has a more advanced design than Nupaha
Trout Farm. The stream water is taken into the farm from a naturally diverted small
water course which ends like a water fall of abut 1 .5 m head. The water is dammed
above the water fall and -taken into the farm. There is a primary filtration system
placed at the water fall. The filtration system consists of two simple iron boxes of
approximate dimensions of 50 x 50 x 200 cm in which large sized gravel are filled
(Figure 1 3). The photograph of this iron box (Photo 4) shows a ruined picture of its
current existing condition. Various material suspended or floating in the water are
46
|
|
7.3 Page 63 |
▲back to top |
/ Waterfrom Source Stream
Level of Intake
Divertlon Canal
Photo 4. Existing
Condition of Filtration
Chamber at Kotuni
Trout Farm.
/
Filtered Water to hatchery adn ponds
Figure 13. Primary Filtration Chambers of Kotuni Trout Farm.
filtered out and flow over the filled gravel and the filtered water is drawn from the
bottom of the box and channeled to a concrete reservoir tank to be supplied the
farm. Unlike the screen bar filter used at Nupaha Farm, this filtration system does
not clog and requires Jess maintenance. .
Water filtration is one of the most important technical fields where more
improvements are required for PNG trout farming. Accidental loss of eggs, fry and
fingerlings in a large quantity in the order of thousands were repeatedly mt:f1tioned
in the records of Kotuni Trout Farm. Nupaha Trout Farm is experiencing a high
mortality rate during the incubation and fry nursery periods because of the water
problems associated with flooding. When the study authors visited Nupaha Farm
just after a heavy rain in February 1 994, the water in the production tanks was
brownish and muddy in color with transparency of Jess than 1 0 cm. No fish could be
47
|
|
7.4 Page 64 |
▲back to top |
seen because of the muddy water except some swimming at the surface. Fish were
already 50 - 1 50 g size and strong enough to resist the turbidity and no fish was
dying. If the fish were small or in po0r health or the condition were prolonged, they
could have been in a great danger of being killed.
Water Supply System
Nupaha trout farm uses PVC piping to transfer water from the intake to the farm for
about 200 m distance. There were 6 pipes of 4" diameter for this purpose. The pipe .
used at Nupaha Farm is called "sewer pipe" or "slope pipe" which is suitable for
plumbing work in a residential house. The pipe wall thickness was not as thick as
"pressure pipe" which is used where piped water is exerted with high pressure. The
cost of pressure pipe is much expensive than sewer pipe. Most of the pipe line were
not placed under the ground but exposed to the air. There was a depression of land
along'the course of the pipe line where it was supported with H-shaped iron frame
across (Photo 5).
An open canal system is used in Kotuni Trout Farm for supplying water from the
water intake to the farm which is located 20 m upstream at the end of the farm.
Cement hume piping was used across the road. The production tanks and ponds of
Kotuni Trout Farm are much larger than those in Nupaha Trout Farm. Approximately
3 times more water (i.e., ..3/. = 1 .7 times larger diameter pipe, 6 - 8 inch diameter)
than Nupaha Trout Farm requires to cater for the fish production at Kotuni Farm. It is
not economical to·use PVC pipe for the supply of a large quantity ofwater, Large
diameter sewer pipes are not available because the thin pipe wall does not support
the shape. Pressure pipe of large diameter is very expensive.
Reservoir Tank
The water transported through PVC pipes from ttie intake is stored in a 20 m3
storage tank before distribution into the fish tanks and the hatchery at Nupaha Trout
Photo 5. Pipe line
from the Intake lo
the Reservoir Tank
at Nupaha Trout
Farm.
48
|
|
7.5 Page 65 |
▲back to top |
Fann. The basic function of this tank is to keep a constant pressure on the supply
water at the delivery point. If the water supply stopped completely at the source, it ·
would take only 6 - 7 minutes to empty the tank at the water exchange rate of
Nupaha fish tank (3.7 m3/min). Therefore the tank would not function as a backup
water tank. It is questionable if Nupaha Fann needed this size.of reservoir. The
design of the reservoir tank at Kotuni Trout Fann seemed to be based on the
recognition of this function and simply had a small (about 1 m3) concrete box located
at the intake.
Fish Tanks
Circular tank (Figure 14) made of corrugated galvanized iron sheet has been used as
the basic water holding structure for trout fanning in PNG. Corrugated iron sheet
tanks are commonly used as house hold water storage in PNG. Rain water falling
over ropf is collected through gutters and stored in the iron tanks fOr house hold use.
Iron sheet and all other fabrication materials are available throughout PNG. Raceway
system typical to trout farming in North America and Europe has not been used in
PNG yet.
Circular fish tanks used in Kotuni and Nupaha Trout fanns are the same in their basic
design. A new trout farm at the fOot of Mt. Wilhelm, Lake Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm,
also has a similar design for the trout tanks. The fish tank consists of concrete base,
corrugated iron sheet wall and PVC piping water supply and drain system. The size
of tanks varies from 4 m diameter for nursery tank to 12 m diameter for the
production tanks used at Kotuni Farm. The height of the tank (measured inside) is 55
cm for the nursery tanks and less than 1 .2 m for the production tanks regardless of
the size. The bottom of the tank is made of a 1O - 20 cm thick concrete reinforced
· with arch mesh wire over a layer of stone foundation (1 o - 20 cm thick). There is a
gentle slope on the floor of the tank so that the water can drain out smoothly. The
· production tank (8 m diameter) has a 4" PVC water supply pipe, and two 4" PVC
pipes to drain water. The drain stand pipes are located at the center of tank. There
are numerous small holes·cs - 1 0 mm diameter) on the surface of the stand pipe wall
to strain water. The water level inside the tank is controlled by the height of the pipe
end raised in the drain pit and pore diameter on the drain stand pipe. The iron sheet
surface is periodically painted with bitumen coated to prevent rusting and seepage.
Photo 6. Nursery
Tonk at Nupaha
Trout Farm (4
meter diameter}.
49
|
|
7.6 Page 66 |
▲back to top |
800
Drain Pipes
Detail Cross Section
Water surface
Concrete Floor �
(20 cm thlch with
arch mesh wire
reinforcement)
Water from
Reservoir Tank
Corrugated
Iron sheet
Stone wall and
/ soil to support
Iron sheet
Outside
-E-1and
level
Rgure 14. Grculor rish Holding Tonk at Nupoho Trout Form.
Earthen Production Pond
Kotuni Trout Farm is equipped with two earthen production ponds. The size of the
pond is 1 25 m2 (25 m x 5 m) and hold up to 20,000 fish of 250 g size. Area of this
pond is larger than the 1 2 m diameter circular tanks which had 1 00 m2 and could
hold 25,000 fish of 250 g size because the water exchange in the earthen pond was
not as fast as the circular tanks. Concrete structure was used only at limited places
such as for the part of the side walls and at the drain gate.
Nupaha Trout Farm is also constructing an earthen pond which uses the drain water
from the circular tanks. The type of earthen pond is similar to that of Kotuni Farm, i.
50
|
|
7.7 Page 67 |
▲back to top |
Photo 7. Detail of Water
Supply Pipe of Nursery
Tank (4 m dia.). Note that
the ground level is higher
than the tank bottom
level. The outside soil
support the iron sheet wall
against the water pressure
from the inside.
Photo 8. Detail of Iron Sheet Wall. The sheet
are welded and riveted to joint together.
Bitumen paint coating is applied every year
to prevent rusting and water seepage.
e., limited concrete use. The pond wall is shaped with a layer of boulders. The pond
is basically a simple dugout pond and can not be supplied with a large quantity of
water unlike raceway ponds because the fast water flow erodes the soil and walls.
Lake Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm is also constructing an earthen ponds similar to the
Kotuni ponds
cheaper than
but smaller
that of iron
csiirzceudla(r6taxn4k.mIt).sCeeomnsstrtuhcattiothnecousset ooffeeaarrtthheennp.poonnddisas
supplemental production pond is common pattern to expands production capacity
after primary system was completed with iron tanks.
51
|
|
7.8 Page 68 |
▲back to top |
Chapter 3: Cost of Trout Farming
Cost of Imported Eyed ova
Mr. Kosi made a bank telegraphic transfer of AU$1 ,3SO.OO (K896.89) to a hatchery
in Australia for 80,000 eyed ova on 7 August 1 989 for the first year of trout
production. The ex-hatchery cost was AU$0.0169/egg (1 . 1 2 toea/egg). There were
bank charge and cable cost of K24.00. The total cost to order the 80,000 eggs was
K920.89. According to Mr. Kosi the air freight was about K1SO from Tasmania to
Goroka.
A facsimile record (9 July 1 990) indicated that Mr. Kosi transferred AU$2,SOO to the
same hatchery for 1 SO,OOO eggs in 1 990. The ex-hatchery cost was AU$0.01 67/egg.
Customs declaration form dated 1 9 August 1 991 showed that Mr. Kosi paid
AU$2,671 .4S (K2003.1 9) for live eggs. The cost of egg was AU$0.0178/egg (1 .34
toea/egg). The customs import duty levied egg import is at 50 % of the egg FOB
value, K1001 .60. Mr. Kosi used a local forwarding and customs agent to clear the
eggs and paid a fee of K37.08 to the agent.
Air freight from Australia to Port Moresby was roughly KS.DO/kg. Eyed ova were
packed in insulated cardboard boxes. Eggs were kept moist and cold during the
transportation. It does not contain water. Weight of the package containing S0,000
eggs is about 7 kg comprising of 4 kg of the weight of eggs and 3 kg of the weight of
the container. Therefore, the cost of air freight for 1 00,000 eggs would be about
K70.00 (= KS.DO/kg x 7 kg/box of S0,000 eggs x 2 boxes)20•
Air freight from Port Moresby to Goroka is about K2.00/kg. For 1 00,000 eggs with a
weight of 1 4 kg the domestic transportation cost is K28.00. The total freight cost for
1 00,000 eggs therefore would be about K100.00. Table 1 8 summarizes the cost of
1 0,000 egg importation from Tasmania to Goroka.
Table 18. Cost of Trout Eyed Ova Importation for 100,000 eggs from Tasmania to Goroka
based on the Operation at Nupaha Trout Farm during 1989 - 1991 .
Egg (ex-hatchery)
K0. 0 1 S
;• .
1 00,000
K1 ,SOO
Air Freight to Port Moresby
KS.00/kg
14 kg
K 70
Air Freight to Goroka
K2.00/kg
14 kg
K 28
Customs duty
@SO %
K 7SO
Forwarding agent fee
K 37
Total Egg Importation Cost
K2,385
20
There was no record on the actual consignment of the eggs kept by Mr. Kosi. These weight
and freight cost estimate were based on the information found in existing literature.
52
|
|
7.9 Page 69 |
▲back to top |
Table 19. Cost of Eyed Ova Importation at Kotuni Trout Farm in 1980 and 1981.
Number of Eggs
Cost of Eggs
Freight
Total
80,000
60,000
. AU$500.00
K333
AU$360.00
1<240
AU$101 .09
K68
AU$60.00
K40
AU$601 .09
K400
AU$420.00
1<280
Source: 1 981 Fann Manager's Diary, Kotuni Trout Fann. ·
Mr. Karl Kroeker, Kotuni Trout Farm Manager in 1 980 - 1 983, recorded the cost of
fish importation made in 1 980 and 1 981 in his 1 981 Kotuni Farm Diary is shown in
Table.'1 9. He did not mention anything on customs duty21• The eggs were imported
from the same hatchery, Servup Fisheries in Tasmania. Cost per egg was about
AU$0.006 (K0.004, @K1 .00 = AU$1 .50}. It seems that the egg cost had increased
about 5 times in 1 0 years from 1 980 to 1 990.
Income from Fish Sales
Mr. Robin Kosi provided the authors a large number of original fish sales receipts,
cash sales records made at the farm site, and credit sales records. The total sales
value of all these records amounted to K39,000. The period covered by these sales
records was from May 1 991 to April 1 993. Therefore, these fish sold were reared
from the second egg importation (1 990) and third egg importation (1991 ). No record
was provided for the fish sales for the first year operation (1 989-90). Monthly total of
the sales records were summarized and presented in Figure 1 5.
' The total number of fish sales in these records were 824 of which 524 sales were
sold on per piece of fish basis and 293 sales were made on per kg basis. In almost
60.0 00
500.00
� 40.0 00
�g_
30.0 00
"'
d.:c 200.0 00
100.0 00
0.00
c
�
..,
-
�
..,
~---19_9_1_ _~1 t....l_ _ _ _ _1_9_9_ 2 _ _ _ ___,lc.....l_1_9_93_~
Figure 15. rish Soles From Nupoho Trout Farm (Incomplete Data for the period of Moy 1991 - April 1 994).
53
|
|
7.10 Page 70 |
▲back to top |
Table 20.• Product Form and Unit Price of Fish Sales at Nupaha Trout Farm.
Fresh
Fillet
K12.00 /kg
2
Fresh
Fillet
K12.50 /kg
1
Fresh
Whole
K2.00 /fish
529
Fresh
Whole
K6.00 /kg
4
Fresh
Whole
1<7.00 /kg
3
Fresh
Whole
1<7.50 /kg
2B1
Frozen
Whole
1<7.50 /kg
1
Live
Fingerling
KO.BO /fish
2
Live :.
Fingerling
K1.00 /fish
1
Total'Number of Fish Sales
B24
This table is based on the records of fish sales provided by Mr. Kosi. The record covers the period
from April 1 991 to March 1 993. The records are not complete and only a part of total fish sales from
the farm.
all cases of fish sales, the unit selling price was K2.00/fish when sold by piece, and
1<7.50/kg when sold by kg (Table 20). In a small cases fish were sold as live
fingerlings and as fillets. The price of fingerlings were high, KO.BO/fish.
Most of the fish sales were small in terms of value. Out of the B24 total fish sales
records analyzed, 523 sales were for sales of K10 or less (Table 21 ). A large part of
the farmed fish products were sold directly from the farm to individual customers
who were coming to the farm from Goroka town.
Those customers who purchase a large amount of fish at a any one time are
repeatedly purchasing from Nupaha Trout Farm. The major customers purchasing
Table 21 . Value of Fish Sales at Nitpaha and Kotuni Trout Farms.
0 - 10
523
3,1 92.9
1 ,020
5,31 7.05
1 0 - 50
1 74
4,2B7.77
607
1 2,352.74
50 - 1 00
1 00 - 500
54
3951 .03
.I - 44
9595. 1 0
77
5,544.6B
251
62,597.55
500 - 1 000
24
17, 973.53
30
21 , 333. 1 2
1 000 - 2000
4
5,2B7.5
2
2, 0B5.30
>2000
1
_ , 2400.00
0
0
Total
B24
46,6B7.B
1 ,9B7
1 09,230.44
Period of Record
April 1 991 - March 1 993
January 1 97B to May 1 9B4
The data used forthis table were not complete for the recorded period. Only available records of
total fish sales from the two farms were included for the analysis.
54
|
|
8 Pages 71-80 |
▲back to top |
|
|
8.1 Page 71 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 22. Customers Purchasing Mora than K5DO Worth of Trout at Any One Time from
Nupaha Trout Farm.
Bird of Paradise Hotel
K5,250.00
7
North Goroka Butcher
K750.00
1
Goroka Meat Processors
K4,1 00.00
5
Place PNG Pty. Ltd.
K3,750.00
4
Collins & Leahy Pty. Ltd.
K1 ,537.50
1
Goroka Tech Collage
K1 ,350.00
2
Porgera Joint Venture
K2, 8 1 2.50
4
SMAF/Kaintiba
K2,900.00
2
IPAO Catering
K4,436.03
4
This table is based on the records of sales provided by Mr. Kosi. The record covers the period from
April 1991 to March 1993. The record are not complete and only a part of total fish sales from the
farm.
more than K500 worth of fish at a any one time are shown in Table 22. The number
of sales transactions are also shown iri Table 22.
As discussed in the previous Chapter on Technical Information, the authors
confirmed that the total fish stock at the time of the farm visit in February 1 994 was
approximately 43,000 fish which were reared from a total of 1 80,000 eyed ova
imported in two batches in 1 993. More than 90 % of these fish were expected to
survive to the harvest size of 250 grams. The best estimate of survival rate is 21 .5 %
for the current year 1 993-94.
Mr. Kosi imported 1 00,000 eggs in each year of the second and the third years
(1 990 and 1 991 ). If the same overall survival rate (21 .5 %) was assumed for these
years, the total number of fish harvested (250 g) was about 21 ,500 fish (1 00,000 x
0.215) in each year, which makes 5,375 kg. At the average sales price of K7.50/kg,
this amount of fish is equivalent to K40,31 2,50 sales income accrued to the farm.
Harvest season starts from the 8 - 1 0th month after the importation of eggs. Since
the eggs were purchased in July 1 990 and in August 1 991 , the fish sales should
have started in April - May in the following years. Most of the fish sales made from
May 1 991 to April 1 992 were assumed for the batch of eggs imported in July 1 991
(the second year operation), and most of the fish sales made from May 1 992 to April
were assumed for the fish imported in August 1 992 (the/hird year operation). Based
on these assumptions, the total fish sales value calculated for the sales record were
K29,012.68 for the second year operation and K17,675.1 3 for the third year
operation (Table 23). Iliese total sales values were much smaller than the expected
value of about K40,000 based on the fosh stock obser11ed during t:1e study period.
Nearly half of the fish sales records were not made available to the authors. Mr.
Kosi himself informed the authors that the records could be incomplete and some
large sales were not included in the records he provided.
21
Current Customs Regulation was revised in 1 987.
55
|
|
8.2 Page 72 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 23. Comparison of Annual Fish Sales in Value Estimated from Two Different Data
Source in Each Farming Operational Year at Nupaha Trout Farm •
Time of Egg
Importation
September 1 989
July 1 990
Fish Sales Period
Total Fish Sales
Estimated from
Docket Records
May 1 990 -
April 1 991
no record available
May 1 991 -
April 1 992
K29,01 2.78
Total Fish Sales
Expected from
Survival Estimate*
K32,250.00
K40,000.00
* Overall survival rate = 21.5 % from eyed ova to the harvest size of 250 g.
August 1 991
May 1 992 -
April 1 993
K17,675.1 2
K40,000.00
When the authors visited the rundown Kotuni Trout Farm during the study period,
they found a large number of documents and records on the farm operation in the
manager's office. After obtaining approval for access to these files, the authors
reviewed the records. There were 1 4 books of invoice statement that contained the
duplicate carbon copies of fish sales records from the farm. The total fish sales
value of these records was K1 09,230.43. The period covered for the records was for
over 5 years, from 1 1 January 1 978 to 1 7 May 1 984. The total number of sales
transactions in these books were nearly 1 ,987 cases. The monthly summary of
these sales records is shown in Figure 1 6.
Fish production from Kotuni Trout Farm reached 20 tons in 1 982-83. This maximum
production level was substantiated by the total fish stocks in the farm recorded in
the 1 983 Kotuni Farm Diary. At the Kotuni fish sales price of K5.50/kg in 1 983, the
gross fish sales income should be about K1 1 0,000 for the operational year 1 982-83
alone. It was obvious that the sales records kept in the manager's house at Kotuni
were only a small part of the total fish sales records of the farm.
Based on the analysis made with these sales records find in the manager's office,
most of the fish (91 .7 %) were sold as fresh whole trout from Kotuni Farm. Guts and
gills of the fish were removed. The price of fresh whole trout was K4.50/kg in the
earlier years before 1 979 and thereafter fish price increased to K5.50/kg. The
overall average price for the whole period from 1 978 to 84, was K5.42/kg.
Fish were sold in various forms in addition to fresh whole form as shown in Table
24. By weight about 93 % of the fish were sold in the form of fresh whole products.
Smokec:j fillets were sold mostly in the 1 980's at price of K6.60/kg or K1 .36/piece.
The total weight of smoked trout fillO!$ was about 1 ,220 kg (5.6 % of the total fish
weight sold). A small amount of fish were sold as frozen whole or smoked whole
fish. Fish heads which were byproducts of smoked trout fillets were also sold'in a
very small amount.
56
|
|
8.3 Page 73 |
▲back to top |
1 0000
9000
8000
- ;'c:i: i
7000
6000
.Il.l 5000
ii
I/)
.Icll
u:
4000
3000
2000
1 000
0
.r .c.o.
..c•.,:.,
.0.0!0....
<(
...0:.0.!.:.J:,..
.00..
t;
0
.O>..
.c.•.:,.,
.O.>. .O.>.
.0!..
<(
•
.::.;.,
.O>..
t;
0
0 00
..c.•,:,.
000
.0!..
.00.0!.
:::J
<( ...,
0 00
t;
0
..0.c•..0,:.,.
0.0..
.0!..
<(
..0.:.0.!.:.J:.,.
.0.0 .
t;
0
0N0
c•:
.:.:., :J
0N0
.0!..
<(
0..N:.0.!:..,:J
0N0
t;
0
.0".c.0'',:,.
0"0'
.0!..
<(
0"..:.0'!.:.J:.,
C<'I>O
>
0
z
0"0""
..0
Q)
lL
Rgure 16. Summary of Fish Sales Records (Invoke Statement Sheels) Obtained from the Manager's House at Kotuni
Trout Farm. These sales records cover only a part of the total sales records of the farm.
The farm gate price of fresh whole trout fish in PNG was increased from K4.50/kg in
the late 1 970s (early Kotuni sales price) to K?.50/kg in 1 989-91 (Nupaha sales
price). The trend of farm gate price over the last 1 6 years (from January 1 978 to
February 1 993) based on a regression analysis of all sales records for fresh whole
trout for Kotuni and Nupaha Farms resulted in an increase of 1<2.99 from K4.60 to .
K?.59 during the same period analyzed. The increasing trend of trout price is shown
in Figure 1 7. Ori average over the 1 6 year period, trout price increased by 4.25 %
every year. This rate of increase is not very different from the annual inflation of
other commodity price in the country, 3 - 7 % (National Center for Development
Studies, 1 993)22, and indicated that the trout price was virtually unchanged in terms
of real value (purchasing power) over the last 1 5 years in this country.
Table 24. Product Form and Average Price of Trout Sold from Kotuni Trout Farm during
1978 - 1984.
Fresh Whole
K5.42 /kg
K1 00, 1 52.91
20,204 kg
"
K1 .38 /fish
K1 06.36
82 pieces
Frozen Whole
K5.34 /kg ·
1<293.92
56 kg
- - - - - - ~ Smoked Fillet
"
K6.60 /kg
K1 .36 /piece
K841 .95
K7,778.30
1 83 kg
5,929 pieces
Smoked Whole
Fresh Head
"
K1 .40 /fish
K1.00 /kg
K0.1 O /piece
K42.00
K14.00
K1.00
j 30 pieces
1 4 kg
1 0 pieces
Source: Sales Docket Records
57
|
|
8.4 Page 74 |
▲back to top |
8
7.5
7
"e"t &.s
�8
g8 5.5
-
•
• ••
�5
�"
4.5
-
•
4
•
3.5
3 -1---+--J---4------1---+---+----lf.---+---t---t---+----t---r----;------;i---;----,
Jun-n Jun.7. 8 Jun-79 Jun-80 Jun-81 Jun-82 Jun..38 Ju� Jun-85 Jun-86 Jun-87 Jun-88 Jun-89 Jun-90 Jun-91 Jun-92 Jun-93 Jun-94
Price Trend
• Kotuni Price
0 Nupaha Price
Agure 17. PriceTrend of Dresdse Fresh Trout in Papua New Guinea Based on Farm Gate Price of Kotuni and Nupaha
Trout Farm.
Cost of Feed
The feed conversion ratio for the first and second year operation at Nupaha Trout
Farm was estimated as 2.03 and 1 .77 through the analysis of feed purchase and
estimated fish production based on the survival rate and the number of eggs
imported. The feed conversion ratio for the 1 981 operation was recorded as 1 .4 -
2.2 by Mr. Karl Kroeker in his Kotuni Farm Diary. Mr. Karl Gendua who had a lot of
experience of trout farming in Kotuni and Kegesugl for more than ten years used the
ratio of 1 .61 for production projection from the feed amount. Lae Feed Mills is the
sole trout feed supplier to PNG trout farmers except in the early stages of Kotuni
Trout Farm. From these historical and current data on the feed conversion values, it
can be safely assumed that the feed conversion for trout farming in PNG is 2.0 or
less (the better).
Nupaha Trout Farm paid about K600/ton for Grower feed and K625/ton for starter
feed in the first year of operation. The purchase price was cheaper in the second
year (Figure 1 8). Mr. Kosi does not hav� a good storage place. Because of the
problem of storage, in the current operation (1 993 - 94), he arranged with Simkor
Didiman Supplies23 for the purchase of trout feed at K2B.42/50 kg bag for starter
feed and K27.30/50 kg bag for grower feed. This was equivalent to K568.40/ton and
K546.00/ton, respectively.
22
Anonymous. 1993. The Papua New Guinea Handbook 1 993. National Center for
Development Studies, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.
23
The major agriculture product supplier in the Highlands and Momase region.
58
|
|
8.5 Page 75 |
▲back to top |
700
650
� 500'E'
-
l sso
:;
e
.'.O. 500
....
8 "450
. .... •
•
0= 0
•
0
..
0
•
00 0
..
•
0
•
<D 0 0
0
0
•0 Grower
• Starter
400
Apr�9
Oct�9 May-00 Nov-00 Jun-1l1
Dec-91
Jul-92
Jan-1l3 Aug-1l3 Mar-1l4
Rgure 18. Purchase Price ollrout Feed by Nupaha Trout Form in 1989 - 1993.
Trout fry were fed with finely minced ox liver during the time they were kept in the
hatchery. Ox liver feeding starts after the fry becomes able to swim up. The swim-up
·
fry are fed only with m.inced ox liver for about two weeks. From .the third week,
powdered starter feed are fed together with ox liver and gradually substituted with
the ox liver. After 6 weeks from hatching, the fry are fed only with dry feed and when
they are ready the fry are transferred to the outside nursery tanks. According to Mr.
Karl Gendua, about 80 kg of minced ox liver is needed to cater for 1 00,000 fry with
an assumed survival rate of 80 % from eggs to fry (i. e., catering for 1 25,000 eggs).
In the second year of operation at Nupaha Farm, Mr. Kosi purchased a total of 1 09
kg of ox liver to feed the fry hatched from the 1 00,000 egg importation24• Mr. Kosi
made a special agreement with Collins & Leahy Pty. Ltd.25 to secure a reliable
supply source of fresh ox liver. The cost of ox liver,was K1 .50/kg.
Trout fish are fed with starter feed when they are less than 5 - 6 inches long or
about 50 - 70 g. After the fish are transferred to the harvest tanks at about this size
they are fed with grower feed until the fish grow to the harvest size of 250g. Thus,
assuming the feed conversion is roughly the same in both periods, starter feed is
used approximately 20 - 30 % and grower feed is used approximately 70 - 80 % of
the total feed. In the second year of Kotuni Operation, Mr. Kosi used a total of 9,605
kg of dry feed of which 24 % (2,300 kg) was starter feed and 76 % {7,200 kg) was
grower feed.
24
In the first year (1989 - 90), Mr. Kosi purchased a large amount (461 kg) of minced ox liver
because he ran out of trout starter feed for fingerlings.
"'
The biggest wholesaler and distributor in the Highlands region. They deal with general
merchandising and wholesaling.
59
|
|
8.6 Page 76 |
▲back to top |
J
I
a·
~r
i,
~
I~
jMlsslng~
~
WNkly ... Wage... (Kina)
88~
81
12.Jun-31
15-May-31
29-May-31
1-May-31
3-Apr-31
17-Apr-31
2().Mar-31
6-Mar-31
2().fab-31
6-Fab-31
23-Jan-31
9-Jan-31
26-[lec.8()
12-Dac-80
28-Nov-80
14-Nov-80
31-0ct-80
111-0ct-80
2-0ct-80
19-Sap-80
5-Sap-80
26-Aug-80
15-Jul-80
29-Jul-80
12-Aug-80
g
1.Jul-80
|
|
8.7 Page 77 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 25. Employment cif Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms.
Record Period
Fish Production Level
Management Staff
Permanent Laborer
Temporary Employment
Total Labor Hours
1 981 -84
1 5 - 20 ton/year
Manager x 1 person
Supervisor x 1 person
4 persons
7 persons
1 7,1 28 hours
1 990-92
5-7 ton/year
Manager x 1 person
4 persons
4 persons
"'·
Labor employment information for Nupaha Trout Farm was provided by Mr. Robin
Kosi for 6 months from 1 February to 1 9 July 1 991 . During this period, Mr. Kosi had
employed between 1 8 - 20 laborers including securities at the farm. Total wage cost
over this period amounted to K6334.00. He told the authors that he paid
K50.00/fortnight (if worked for a full fortnight). This wage rate is equivalent to
K0.45/hour (1 4 days per fortnight and 8 hours per day). Wages paid per worker
ranged between K20 - 30 per fortnight according to the working hours, except one
person who was paid K1 DO/fortnight. Mr. Kosi was working on the construction of his
residential house at the farm and the same laborers were engaged both on the fish
farming operation and building constructions. It was impossible to separate the
wages component paid for the farming operation from that of the residential house
construction.
Currently, Mr. Kosi employs four permanent workers daily at the trout farm. When
the authors visited the farm repeatedly between January - February, there was
always a person working at the farm who stays in a thatched house at the farm. Mr.
Kosi employs an additional 3 - 4 persons temporarily whenever he requires extra
labor such as when there is a flood, harvesting, or incubation. When the river floods
in the rainy season, various materials and dirt sometimes clog the supply pipe and
could cause reduction or even complete stoppage of water coming through the
pipes to the farm. On such occasion, Mr. Kosi needs extra workers at the farm site
to clean the water intake system to the farm. He also employs extra workers during
incubation period for picking dead eggs. Mr. Kosi pays wages according to the
actual time people worked. Expenditure for the required laborers of these extra and
temporary workers constitute about 20 % of the total cost of labor for the fish
farming operation. Mr. Kosi manages all aspects of the farm operation, technical as
well as financial and marketing. The· production from Nupaha Farm was 5 - 7 tons
per year. A summary of staffing at Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms is shown in
Table 25.
61
|
|
8.8 Page 78 |
▲back to top |
,.
.'Tliuifity ef'1Jou,7'"'711itw ;i,.~
Cost of Physical Faclllty ·
Fish farming facilities at Nupaha Trout Farm consists ofwater intake (1 ), water
supply pipe system (1 ), storage tank (1 ), nursery tanks (3), production tanks (3),
earthen pond (1 ), and hatchery (1 ). Descriptions of each facility has been made
earlier in Chapter 1 (Figure 3 and Table 6).
Table 26. Cost of Trout Farming Facilities at Nupaha Trout Farm according to Mr. Kosi.
Intake
Gabbion ·
23
18
434
Brick structure concrete canals including
spill way and concrete box, sluice gates
1
1 ,200
1 ,200
Water :;upply pipe
from the intake to
storage tank
PVC Pipes and fittings (4")
Iron Pipe for Bridging the river
1
4,800
4,800
1
260
260
Storage tank
Brick structure cement tank
1
300
300
Gate Valves and piping
1
300
300
Ark mesh wire and copra wire
1
110
110
Water supply pipes PVC Pipes and fittings (4")
from storage tanks to
tanks and hatchery PVC Pipes and fittings (2")
1
100
1 00
1
21 0
21 0
Nursery tanks
Concrete base
3
300
900
Corrugated iron sheet including fitting cost,
bitumen paint and arch mesh iron wire for
base reinforcement
3
500
1 ,500
. Production Tanks
Piping and drain pit
Concrete Base
3
80
240
3
850
2,550
Corrugated iron sheet including fitting cost,
bitumen paint and arch mesh iron wire for
base reinforcement
3
1 ,300
3,900
Piping and drain pit
3
1 30
390
Earthen Pond
Excavation
1
1 ,200
1 ,200
Concrete works
1
1 00
1 00
Hatchery
Building
1 12,000 12,000
Piping
1
1 80
1 80
Incubators
1
350
350
Feed storage pallet
1
60
60
Cupboard in Feed storage room
1
400
400
Sink and processing table
1
260
260
Freezer
1
870
870
Electrical works
Wiring
1
500
500
Generator
1
5,000 . , 5,000
Fencing
1
600
600
Landscaping
Includes Land clearance
1
2,500
2,500
Total for Physical Facilities for Fish Fanning
41,214
Source: Mr. Kosi's Own Estimate
62
|
|
8.9 Page 79 |
▲back to top |
According to Mr. Kosi, the total cost of the farming facilities was K41 ,214.00 (Table
26). His farming facility was constructed using local labor. Construction cost would
be considerably higher had he used professional construction contractors. The
basic design of facilities was apparently copied from Kotuni Farm. Mr. Kosi
consulted many people formerly involved in the Kotuni Farm operation. He planned
and did material estimate, purchased the necessary materials needed and
supervised the construction of the farm. Provincial government helped the project
mainly through the assistance and advise of a fisheries officer. There was little
technical advise sought from the national government. Mr. Kasi did not engage any
professional architect. There was no drawing or cost estimate available that was
professionally done.
Mr. Robin Kosi constructed the farm manager's house at a cost of K4S,OOO along
with the trout farm facilities. He had made an inquiry through OIDA to recruit a
volunteer'to manage the trout farm and tourist lodge. The high expenditure on the
housing construction was partly to meet the condition of employment required by the
foreign volunteer accommodation. Presently this house is used as a residential
house by Mr. Kosi. According to Mr. Kasi, the total grant of KSS,000 from EEC was
spent on the trout farming facility which included the K4S,OOO for the manager's
house.
The fish holding capacity of 8 m diameter tank at Nupaha Trout Farm was estimated
at 2.S ton/year based on the water supply to the tank. The total fish production
capacity with 3 units of 8 m diameter tank was, therefore, 7.S ton/year. A total cost of
approximately K40,000 was necessary to construct the trout farming facility.
At a production scale of 2S tons capacity, the Kotuni Farm facilities listed in Table 2
(Chapter 1 : Background) are necessary to efficiently operate the farm except the
barbecue facilities which were used to attract tourists and people of Goroka town.
These facilities if constructed now would cost about K1 SO,OOO - K200,000.
Cost of Marketing and Promotion
Nupaha Trout Farm is currently in its fourth operational year. The farm temporarily
stopped operation in 1 992-93. For the next three years of farming, Mr. Kosi had
obtained a preliminary agreement for Collins and L!'lahy Pty. Ltd. to purchase all the
fish produced by Nupaha. Collins and Leahy is the largest grocery distributor in the
Highlands. The buying price of the fish has not yet been agreed upon between the
two parties. According to Mr. Kasi, he was prepared to compromise on the price of
K7.00/kg which is KO.SO/kg lower than his current farm gate price. In other words, he
thought based on his experience in the last operations, he was spending about
KO.SO/kg (or about 6.7% of the fish price) for marketing and promotion in various
expenses.
63
|
|
8.10 Page 80 |
▲back to top |
Chapter 4: Financial Analysis of Trout Farming
in the Highlands
Technical specifications and major costs involved in trout farming at Nupaha and
Kotuni Trout Farms were discussed in the preceding Chapters. In this Chapter, each
cost component and income were P.Ut together to evaluate the financial performance
of Nupaha Trout farm. Further, based on the discussions made in the previous
Chapters, a financial model of trout farming is created using a spread sheet
computer program27, with sensitivity analysis done to evaluate the effect of the
financial variables on the farm performance. The financial feasibility of trout farming
based on:the model derived from the Nupaha and Kotuni data was evaluated by
various financial performance indicators including internal rate-of-return and cash
flow.
Financial Performance of Nupaha Trout Farm
The record generously presented by Mr. Kosi on his private trout farm enterprise
was not sufficient to make the financial evaluation of his.farm with the actual
expenditure and income record. Both expenditure and income data obtained were
not complete. In addition to that, the expenditure record was mixed with the
expenditures made for other new projects which started simultaneously along with
the Nupaha Trout Farm. Mr. Kosi started constructing a tourist lodge at the farm site
(Zauka Lodge Project) and he also started operating a PMV business and a security
company, all around about the same period (1 990 - 92). A lot of building materials
as well as laborers were used for multiple activities of his ambitious business plan.
There were nearly three thousand receipts presented by Mr. Kosi for the years 1 989
and 1 990, which were categorized and summarized by month (Appendix 1 0, and
Figure 20). However, the authors were not able to separate the expenditure on
building materials for the fish farming component from expenditures made for the
other business activities.
The actual costs and income for the Nupaha Trout Farm project were used in the
analysis as
information
rmeuqcuhesatsedpoasnsdibnleecferosmsatrhyefodristchuesasnioanly1 isnisthbeutprwehviicohuswseerectnioontsa.vFainilaabnlceial
to obtain during the study was supplemented with the best available data sources.
The data for the Kotuni Farm obtained from the farm manager's office greatly
supplemented the lack of data for Nupaha Farm.
The current farming operation (1 993 - 94) is the fourth operation from the beginning
of the project. The farm first imported 80,000 eggs in September 1 989 which was the
6th month later after EEC started releasing the cash grant for the project. The
construction of the farm was not complota and a temporary kunai thatched roof
hatchery with a water supply through a flexible hose was used. Mr. Kosi did not
have any experience in trout farming and faced many technical problems. The farm
performance in that year was poor. Mr. Kosi killed many fish during the first year.
This spread sheet program is attached as Appendix 1 1 .
64
|
|
9 Pages 81-90 |
▲back to top |
|
|
9.1 Page 81 |
▲back to top |
' ,. ,·'
. . .·.
. 140.0 00
� 120.0 00
:!!
g_ 100.0 00
= ,"c- .,'.
80.0 00
§. 60.0 00
w
b
;0c; 40.0 00
:::; 20.0 00
0.00
"' "' "'
�
a.
<(
00
>...
::;;:
00'
c
.::.s,.
"'
�
.:.:s.,
"'
00'
Ol
�
"'
b" .
en
�"'
0
"'
�
0
z
"'
00
6"
0
"0''
.c ....,
"0 '
Li"lL
0
m
."!'.
::;;:
"0.!'.
a.
<(
"0'
>...
::;;:
0
o,>
c
.::.s.,
"0'
...!
.:.:s.,
00 0
m'
Ol
::s
<(
m
"a.
en
m
;';
0
"0 '
>
0
z
"0'
"6
0
Figure 20. Monthly Expenditure at Nupaha Trout Farm from April 1989 to December 1990, Based on Sales Dockets
Records Provided by Nupaha Trout Form.
His second and third year operations were better than the first year. The technical
performance of the farm set in the following analysis was based on the second and
third years which was mainly the basis of the farm description given by Mr. Kosi.
The actual financial records for the second year operation were most abundant
compared to the other years of operation. The assumed fish farming variables of
Nupaha Trout Farm in which the financial analysis were made are presented in
Table 27.
Total capital expenditure at the beginning of the project was K66,200.67 from which
K41 ,21 1 4 directly related to fish farming operation, Cost breakdown of farming
facilities were presented in the previous Chapter (Cost of Trout Farming). The
additional expenses were spent on the manager's house and vehicle purchase. The
construction cost of the manager's house was K45,000 which is more than the total
Table 27. Farming Characteristics of Nupaha Trout Farm Used for Financial Analysis.
Water Supply
Distance from Intake
Annual Fish Production
Production Tank Diameter
Production Tank Number
Nursery Tank Diameter
Nursery Tank Number
Number of Eggs Imported
Survival from Egg ;;:; Harvest Size Fish .
Harvest Size
Total Dry Feed
Labor, Man-Month
Fish Selling Price
65
3.69 m3/min
l 200 m
I
I 5.3 ton
I
B Im
I
I3 tanks
I
4 Im
I
I3 tanks
I
I 1 00,000 eggs
I
I 21.5 %
I
250 g
1 0.6 ton
I 60 man-month
I
I 7.5 K/kg
I
|
|
9.2 Page 82 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 28. Initial Capital Expenditure, Annual Depreciation and Maintenance Costs for
Trout Farming Facilities at Nupaha Farm.
Intake
Water Supply Piping
Storage Tank
Nursery tanks
Production Tanks
Hatchery
Hatchery Equipment
Electrical works
Fencing
Land clearance
Tools
Manager's House
Vehicle
Total
1 ,634
5,370
71 0
2,640
6,840
12,000
1 ,940
5,500
600
2,500
1 ,800
1 5,000
9 ,666
66,200
25
0
65.36
10
0
537
25
0
28.4
10
0
264
10
0
684
25
1 ,200
432
5
0
388
3
0
600
25
3,000
480
5
5,800
773
4,252
5
81.7
5
268.5
5
35.5
5
132
5
342
5
600
5
97
10
550
5
30
10
1 80
10
1 ,500
15
1 ,450
5,267
cost of the fish farming facilities. The quality of the house is very high. The house is
Mr. Kosi's usual resident and also used as the managing office for.the Zauka Tourist
Lodge located at the farm site. It is obvious that the high covenant house is not
necessary to fulfill the managing purpose of the fish farming project. Only 1/3 of the
total expenditure (K45,000/3 =K15,000) is accounted for the value of the trout
farming component, assuming an even contribution of the cost of the house to each
of the three activities (i. e., fish farming, lodge management, and private resident).
Regarding the vehicle actually purchased by Mr. Kasi, there was a same condition
as the house. Mr. Kasi purchased a brand new 4-wheel drive utility truck at the cost
of 1<29,000. This vehicle has also been used for his multiple business activities, and
only 1 /3 of the value is accounted for the trout farming component.
Cost of depreciation and maintenance was calculated using the straight-line method
with the estimated useful life time and salvage values of the facility. The rates
applied to calculated depreciation and maintenanhe for each trout farming facility
are shown in Table 28.
Each component of the operational cost for Nupaha Trout Farm was discussed in
the previous Chapter (Cost of Trout Farming). Table 29 shows the summary of
financial performance of the Nupaha: Trout Farm based on the discussion made
previously. The calculation basis of the value used in the financial analysis are also
shown in Table 29.
The analysis resulted in a net p1 ofit of K9,240 i"rom the annual gross fish sales of
K39,750 subtracted from the total annual operational cost of K30,509. Some of the
indicators for evaluation of the farm performance were calculated based on the
above analysis (Table 30).
66
|
|
9.3 Page 83 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 29. Financial Performance of Nupaha Trout Farm.
Annual Operating Cost
Egg, 1 00,000 eggs
Feed
Labor
Vehicle Operation
Energy
Marketing and Promotion
Processing and Packaging
Depreciation
Maintenance
Total Co�
Fish Sales
I.
1<2,385.00
K5,966.96
K6,000.00
K1 ,800.00
1<200.00
1<2,651.33
K1 ,987.50
K4,252.09
K5,266.70
K30,509.58
(Table 16)
(FCR=2.0, 25% starter, 75% grower, ox liver)
(60 man-month, @K50/fn)
(30000 km/year, @7km/liter, @K0.42/literl)
(6.67 % of gross sales)
(5 % of gross sales)
Annual Income
K39,750.00 @K7.5/kg
Net Profit
K9,240.42
Table 30 shows the indicators for the evaluation of the financial performance of trout
farming at Nupaha Trout Farm. About 1/3 (30.29 %) of the operating costs is
expected to return to the farm as annual income. The annual income accounts for
about 1 4 % of the initial investment outlay and it is expected to recover the initial
investment of K66,200 (after depreciation) in 4.91 years. Certainly, in the case of
Nupaha Trout Farm, all the initial capital investment was covered by a cash grant
aid through EEC micro project scheme and actually costed very little28 for Nupaha
Trout Farm, and all the operational profit is earned as net profit from the first year of
operation. The break even price is KS.76/kg which is about 2S % lower than the
actual price of K7.SO/kg. It takes about KS.76 to produce one kilogram of fish that
are sold at k7.SO/kg. The break even production is 4 ton and above for Nupaha
Farm to make profit. Generally, all the indicators show the financial condition of trout
farming at Nupaha Trout Farm is good.
Tabla 30. Indicators for Evaluation of Nupaha Trout Farm Financial Performance.
Rate of return on initial cost
Rate of return on operating cost
Production per water surface area
Production per rr.an-month
Production per unit feed
Payback period
Break even price
Break-even production
1 .96 %
30.29 %
3S. 1 S kg/m2
88.33 kg/man-month
O.S kg/kg feed
4.91 years
KS.76 /kg
4,067.94 kg
=(K9.240/K66,200)1 00
=(K9.240/K30,509)1 00
=5,30k0 g/3(8•+4•)m'
=5,30k0 g/60m-m
=5,30k0 g/10,60k0 g
=K66,200/(K9,240+K4252)
=K30,509/5,30k0 g
=K30,539/K7.5
"
Only the vehicle (1<29,000) was purchased with Mr. Kosi's own money among the major
facilities and equipment when he started the project.
67
|
|
9.4 Page 84 |
▲back to top |
When the authors visited Nupaha Trout Farm in January - February 1 994, Mr. Robin
Kosi seemed to be facing a lot offinancial problems. His telephone and facsimile
machine were not working because of unpaid bills for months. The photocopy
machine was out of order. His new PMV business and security company which he
started in 1 990-92 collapsed and shut down. Zauka Lodge project construction had
completed but yet to start operating. When this study was conducted Mr. Kosi was
applying for a financial assistance through the Department of Fisheries and Marine
Resources. These financial troubles were, however, not directly related to the
viability of trout farming. Mr. Kosi's business plan was too ambitious and expanded
too fast in a short time. The overall business management was not systematically
organized and the overall project planning was poor and uncoordinated. In terms of
income generating power, only the fish farming activity was successful. But all the
money generated from the fish farming was invested into the other business
activitiel! which did not make profit and continuously absorbed the profit generated
from the fish farming in the last three years of operations.
Mr. Kosi did not have any debt because he started his farming project with the grant
aid from the EEC micro-project scheme. Both the PMV and security company have
closed down. The lodge project has not started operation. The fish farming was the
only possible source of income that supported the other failed business activities.
The closure of the other business activities and the continuous operation of fish
farming indirectly prove the profitability offish farming.
Model for Economic Analysis of Trout Farming in the Highlands
A theoretical model for economic analysis was created for trout farming in the
Highlands based on the records of Nupaha Trout Farm and Kotuni Trout Farm
obtained during this study.
'Although the model is based on the Nupaha Trout Farm data, some specific
conditions of Nupaha Trout Farm are not considered standard for the trout farming
in PNG. For example, the Nupaha Trout Farm was started with a grant aid from EEC
and all the capital expenditure were covered by the cash assistance. This is
obviously not expected for other people. In the financial model analysis, a loan of 8
% interest and a loan period of 5 years are used as the financial source of the
capital expenditure. In some technical performance and site condition are also too
specific to be considered as a general condition. ,For example, the survival rate of
21 .5 % estimated from the actual data in Nupaha Trout Farm is too low to be
considered as a generalized value for trout farming in PNG. Kotuni data showed the
survival rate to be about 42 % with a very poor egg condition. More realistically 50
% can be assumed as a standard survival rate for PNG. These main deviations from
the actual Nupaha Farm case applied in order for making the model more general
are explained below.
1 . Use of loan to cover the initial capital expenditure: The amount of loan is set
at the total amount of initial capital expenditure. The loan interest is 8% and
period is 5 years. A grace period of 3 years is allowed before starting
repayment. Only the interest was paid during the first three years.
2. Survival rate of 50% as explained above.
68
|
|
9.5 Page 85 |
▲back to top |
3. Distance from the intake to the farm. The actual distance at Nupaha Trout
Farm is about 200 m. This is because of the special land ownership condition
at Nupaha site. At Kotuni Farm, the distance is about 30 m. At Lake Pindi
Yaundo Trout Farm it is about 20 m. Nupaha case is considered too long to
be a standard case. In the analysis, 1 00 m is set as the distance.
4. Costs of physical facilities are calculated based on the material and unit cost
estimates rather than Mr. Kosi's own estimation.
Brief explanations of spread sheet trout farm model are made in the following
sections. The detail and actual calculation formula can be found in the appended
spread sheet program.
Variables
Variables are given values that can be changed in the model. The following
variables are used in the model.
1 . Altitude of the farm site (m above sea level).
2. Water temperature (°C)
3. Water supply (m3/min): the water available to the farm.
4. Fish harvest size (g)
5. Diameter of production tank (m)
6. Manager's salary and supervisor's salary (Kina)
7. Fish sales price (K/kg)
Determination of Production Capacity
In the commercial farming of trout, the fish stocking density is limited by the
dissolved oxygen available to the fish for their respiration. The fish production
capacity of the farm is determined by the available dissolved oxygen concentration
in the water. Torrential river water is used for trout farming in PNG. The dissolved
oxygen concentration in torrential river water is always at the saturation level which
is dependent on atmospheric pressure and water temperature. In the model,
dissolved oxygen concentration was determined from the altitude (which determines
primarily the pressure) and water temperature.
Oxygen consumption of fish mainly depends on the size of the fish and the water
temperature. Both determinants were given in the model as variables, and from
which the dissolved oxygen consumption per kg of fish was determined.
The maximum available fish biomass in the water was determined from the
calculated dissolved oxygen available to the fish divided by the dissolved oxygen
consumption by the fish. The flowchart of logical sequence (Figure 2 1 ) shows the
determination of fish production capacity in the spread sheet model.
Determination of Fish Tank Size and Cost
Circular tank made of corrugated iron sheet and concrete floor was used as the
primary production tank. Use of earthen ponds were also given as an option in the
model.
Water·exchange rate is fixed at 1 .0 times/hour (i.e., a full tank volume of water
exchanges every hour) which was based on the actual measurement at Nupaha
69
|
|
9.6 Page 86 |
▲back to top |
.
',
-,.'
·,:..;
.
Water Supply
r----, C J... Altitude
A1mosphoric ·
(m3/min)
• - -� Pressure
Water
Temperature
_____)'-,. Dissolved
0xygen
Concentration
(mg/I)
Dissolved
Oxygen
Supply
Fish Production
Dissoved
(mg/min)
Capacity
Oxygen
Consumption
' ~ _ _ . Fish Weight
suppoted by
by fish (mg/kg/min)
the water supply
(kg}
,
·•.
Fi"gure 21. Flow Chart of logical Sequence to Determine the rash Production Capacily in the Financial Model for Trout
Farming in the Highlands of PNG.
Tout Farm. The temperature and atmospheric pressure is the same as the water
source. Therefore, the capacity of this water flowing into the production tank that
support the fish weight can be determined through the same logical sequence as the
determination of production capacity for the farm. The result of maximum fish weight
to be supported by the supplied water is the fish holding capacity of the tank. The
production capacity of the farm was divided by this fish holding capacity to obtain
the necessary number of production tank.
The diameter of production tank was given as a variable. The height is fixed at 1 .4
m (1 .2 m water depth with 0.2 m free board) from the actual measurement of
Nupaha and Kotuni. Concrete of 0.2 m thickness over the stone laying (0.2 m thick)
was used at the foundation of the fish tank. Arch mesh wire was used for reinforcing
the cement. The cost of fish production tank was determined based on the
dimension and the calculated number of fish tanks.
The number and cost of nursery tank was also determined in the similar way as the
production tank. The size of fish at transfer to the production tank was fixed at 50 g
and the proper dissolved oxygen consumption rate by the 50 g size fish at a given
temperature was used to calculate the fish holdi'ng capacity of the nursery tank. The
water exchange rate for the nursery tank was fixed at 4 times/hour (i.e., a full volume
water exchanges in every 1 /4 hour). The size of the nursery tank was also fixed at 4
m diameter rather than given as a variable based on the observation at Nupaha and
Kotuni Trout Farms.
Hatchery Size and Cost
Hatchery size is determined based on the incubation space needed for the required
number of eggs to be used. The required number of eggs was determined with the
assumed 50 % survival and the production capacity.
A feed storage space is provided in the hatchery. The space need for feed storage
is determined based on the maximum feed quantity for one month. At the end of the
70
|
|
9.7 Page 87 |
▲back to top |
i"•. growing season, fish are fed at 1 .3 % of the body weight at the standard feeding
schedule. Thus, the fish holding capacity (= production capacity for the farm) x
0.01 3 x 30 days is used as the required feed storage volume which was converted
to a space with an assumed feed stack height of 3 m. Sink and processing space
were provided in the calculation to determine the total floor space for the hatchery.
The cost of hatchery building was calculated at a unit cost of K200/m2 which is
based on the Nupaha Hatchery costing.
Cost of Other Building Facilities
Other buildings included as the necessary facility forfish farming are; processing
house, generator house, workshop, and manager's house. The space and cost were
based on the measurement at Kotuni Trout Farm. The cost of the manager's house
is accounted as a 1 0 % of total initial capital expenditure.
Cost for. Fencing and Land Clearance
The farll'l land area is determined as 1 0 times of the water surface area (tank area).
Cost of land clearance is calculated based on the unit cost of K0.50/m2• The
approximate perimeter length was calculated as 2 x (square root of the farm). The
cost of fencing is determined based on the unit cost of K20/5 m.
Vehicles and Other Equipment
The cost of K10,000 is fixed for a utility truck regardless of the size of farming. The
cost of incubators, troughs, and feeding tank are included in the hatchery
equipment.
Cost of Eggs
From the fish production capacity (kg), the number of harvest size fish are
calculated and it is further converted to the number of eggs by multiplying the
survival rate (given as a variable) from the eggs to the harvest size.
The unit cost of egg is fixed at K0.02/egg. The freight was determined based on the
weight of the container plus the weight of eggs (total weight 7 kg per 50,000 eggs).
Air freight from Tasmania to Port Moresby is calculated as K5.00/kg and from Port
Moresby to Goroka is K2.00/kg. The current import duty rate of 50 % was applied to
the FOB value of eggs.
Cost of Feed
The feed conversion rate of 2.0 (dry feed: wet fish) is used in the calculation. This is
a conservative estimate as discussed previously, and the actual feed cost might be
lower than the amount used in the model. The dry feed weight was calculated as
twice the weight of the total fish production with the assumed feed conversion rate
or 2.0. One fourths of the total dry feed weight are calculated as starter feed and the
rest is calculated as grower feed. The price of starter feed is K28.42 per 50 kg bag
and that of grower feed is K27.30 per 50 kg bag. The cost of ox liver is accounted at
a rate of 80 kg per 1 00,000 eggs at K1 .50/kg.
Cost of Wages
Labor record at Kotuni Trout farm showed the farm employed 1 7, 1 28 hours-person
in a year for fish production of 1 5 ton. This is equivalent to about 5.7 mam-months
71
|
|
9.8 Page 88 |
▲back to top |
. :; } r ...
per tqn of fish production. This rate (5.7 man-month/ton) is used in the calculation.
Wage rate is given as a variable of the model.
Cost of Vehicle Operation and Cost of Energy
One utility truck is included as the necessary vehicle equipment. Annual travel
distance is assumed to be dependent on the fish production at the following values
(Table 31 ). The cost of vehicle operation is calculated at fuel efficiency of 7 km/liter
diesel. Electricity is assumed supplied from Elecom at the monthly amount shown in
Table 31 on monthly electricity charge.
Table 31 . Vehicle Operation Distance and Electricity Usage by Trout Farm Financial Model
Vehicle Travel Distance (km/year}
Electricity Usage per year (Kina/year)
20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
200
300
400
500
600
Cost of Marketing and Promotion, and Cost of Processing and Packaging
A flat rate (6.67 %) of gross fish sales is applied to the calculation of the cost of
marketing and promotion. This is based on Mr. Kosi's experience as discussed i n
the previous Chapter. Similarly, a flat rate of 5 % of gross fish sales i s used to
calculate the cost of processing and packaging.
Cost of Depreciation and Maintenance
Straight line method of depreciation was used to calculate the depreciation cost.
The estimated useful economic life time of the facilities and equipment are shown
later in Table 32.
Income
. Fish sales and bank loans are the only source of income from fish farming used in
the model. The farm gate price is given as a variable. The amount offish to be sold
is equal to the fish production which is calculated as explained above.
Commercial loan for a small scale agriculture project at an annual interest rate of 8
% is used as the major source of financing for the initial capital expenditure. All the
initial capital expenditure is assumed to be paid by the loan. That is, the amount of
loan at the initiation of the project is equal to the fimount of the total capital
expenditure. There is three year grace period for'wavier of repayment during which
only the interest is paid monthly. From the fourth year the amount for annual
amortization started paying back to complete the repayment in 5 years.
Evaluation of Analysis
According to the input variable, the spread sheet model determines the size of the
physical facilities and cost them out according to the explanation above. Based on
the results of the production and physical facility determination, the annual
operating cost and fish sales are calculated. The results are shown in the output
page with the indicators for evaluating the farm operation. The program then
generates a cash flow for ten years. The net annual profit calculated for each year
over the ten years are converted to present value with appropriate discount rate and
used to determine the internal rate-of-return (IRR). The cash flow for 1 0 years and
72
|
|
9.9 Page 89 |
▲back to top |
_,_,_ ...
[. the discounted benefit and profit values are automatically generated by the program
! in a spread sheet.
The indicators for financial evaluation of the model farm to be generated according
to the variable input are shown below. The formula used to calculated these
indicators are according to Pillay (1 993)29• The definitions of these indicators are
shown below;
Profit = Income - Total Operating Cost
Rate
ofReturn
on
Im.ti.al
Cost
=
Profit
Initial Cost
Profit
Rate ofReturn on Operating Cost = 0'Perati"ng Cost
pay00ck p,en.od
=
Initial Cost
.
Profit+AnnualDepreciation
Break-evenPn.ce
=·
Operating Cost
productw" n
Break-even Producti.on
=
Operating Cost
pn.ee
Internal Rate-of-Return is also calculated after the cost and profit are converted to
present values with appropriate discount rates.
Analysis of a Model on Trout Farming Using the Spread Sheet Program
Using the spread sheet of trout farming model created, hypothetical trout farming
operations were analyzed. The financial summary for a 1 0 ton production system
with the following conditions are shown in Table 32. The cash flow statement is
shown in Table 33.
The results of the financial summary show even a better financial viability of trout
farming compared to the Nupaha case. This is because the conditions set in this
model in order for the model to be more general improved the financial condition
further from the Nupaha case. The values of financial performance indicators
calculated for the 1 0 ton production system are shown in Table 34. According to the
results, the initial cost for the 1 0 ton production system is K61 ,853. Annual
operational cost is K49,685 and the fish sales makes a gross income of 1<75,004,
leaving K25,319 net profit. This annual net profit is equivalent to the 40.93 % of the
initial investment and the payback period is only 2.02 years. According to the cash
flow analysis, the farm would start making money from the second year and it will
pay off the initial investment by the 5th year after repayment of the initial bank loan.
Benefit-cost ratio calculated at 1 0 % .discount rate for 1 0 years is 1 . 1 3 indicating the
profitability of this farming business. An 'investment with a benefit- cost ratio greater
than one can be considered as feasible, although evaluation of this value is subject
to the choice of the discount rate_ Discount value of 1 O % is usually applied
(Toriyama, 1 980).30 The calculated value of IRR for 1 0 years i:; 26.4 % and shows a
high feasibility. The evaluation of internal rate-of-return depends on the economic
29
Pillay, T,V.R. 1 990. Aquaculture. Principles and Practices. Fishing News Books. Oxford,
London.
"'
Toriyama, M. 1980. Theory and Practice of Feasibility Study. Nihon Kaihatu Service.
Toranomon, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese).
73
|
|
9.10 Page 90 |
▲back to top |
Table 32. Financial Summary of Hypothetical Model Trout Farming Based on the Date from
Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms. (unit: kina)
W- Supply
Farm area
Distancefrom Intake
Anun al Floh -
Pn>duction Tank .
Nursery Tank
Survival from egg to - - fooh
Harvest Size
Fann gate price
Produ tion System
4.-46 cu mlmln
0.5 ha
100 m
10 ton
5 tanks
5 tanks
50 %
250 g
7.5 K/kg
Initial Costs
15 oe. 1aoo m above sea Savel
a m dlameler
4 m diameter
Intake and
r88riO8Yf
Gabbion, cement intake, reservoir
2,195.09
25
Watersupplypipes PVC piping
3,471.43
10
ProductionTanks Circular, cortgaru ed Iron sheet
6,742.42
10
Earthen Ponds
25x5 m, cemenled gate
0
Nursery Tanks
4 m dia. circular, corargu ted iron shete
1,758.38
10
Hatchery
Concreto llo,ro PVC piping, food storage
8,580.37
25
Procesnis g House Timber framed, concrete floero d
Generator House 10 sq. m
4,875.32
25
1 ,500
25
Manager's House
7,50.0 49
25
Worlcshop
1 ,500
10
Fencing
2,545.67
Land clearince
IVehicle
IFreezr
IG-tor
I
ITools
I
IIncubator
I
I I Feeding trough
lTotal
l
2,50.0 16
10,000
5
2,66.6 84
5
I 2,000
5
I 2,666.84
3
6001
5
I 750
5
I 61,853.02
Variable costs
Egg
Food
Labor
Vehicle Operation
Energy
Marketing and Promotion
Processing and Packaging
Fixed Costs
Depreciation
Maintenance
Annual Operating Cost
Sub total
2,498.16
1 1 , 128.73
10,960.05
3,571.43
3,600
5,00.0 33
3,750.25
40,508.94
Sub total
5,228.18
3,948.73
•~
9 ,176.9
O
0
0
0
858.04
243.77
0
1 ,50.0 1
0
87.8
347.14
674.24
175.84
308.89
185.26
60
24-0.02
1 50
5,000
266.68
200
0
0
0
I
1 ,000
480,03
. 360
688.95
120
150
5,228.18
80,005 eggs
20 ton
57.1 man-month
5
109.75
5
173.57
5
337.12
10
0
5
87.92
5
429.02
5
243.77
5
75
10
750.05
5
75
10
1 ,000
5
133.34
10
200
10
266.68
5
30
5
37.5
3,948.73
Income
:r::n~H':ijjjij:}@HWM@@l{ti@tfflt@fJ]=:u::n:n@Ittl@IfHlHz~;i;iq~_\\ii)dHiMtHIHffWMJM@@WP1M@lH@HMWlW%l%t:\\Htlf%:i(ttif1HH
Net Profit
74
|
|
10 Pages 91-100 |
▲back to top |
|
|
10.1 Page 91 |
▲back to top |
*"""' . " ...,....".,.,,,...,__*'""""·...,.,...,_ 4 "1'11'!,"!'!It;..!l'!!'fyP!!lllll.il!IIIIUWM.AQ•Y:U•;;t
Table 33. Cash Flow Projection for Hypothetical Model Trout Farming Based on the Data from Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms.
Annual Production
10 ton
unit: Kina
Year
1
2
Cash inflow
_II_______ l-----•------1--------------· GrossIncome
Loans
II Total
30,001.96
61 ,853.02
91 ,854.98
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
75,004.91
0
75,004.91
!!Cash outflow
Capital cost
61 ,853.02
0
0 2,666.84
0 10,550.16 2,666.84
0
0 2,666.84
Operating Cost
49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84 49,685.84
Loan and Interest Repayment
4,948.24 4,948.24 4,948.24 17,318.85 16,329.2 1 5,339.55 14,349.9 1 3,360.25
0
0
Total cash outflow
Net cash fkiw
.II
Accumulated profit
1 1 6,487.1
. -24,632.12
54,634.08
20,370.83
54,634.08
20;310..
69,671.53
.· 66,015.04
75,575.54 66,702.58
:�;!': _ _i - '- ''
63,046.09
49,685.84
52,352.68
-24,632.12 .,4,261.29 . ' 1.5.to9.5f · ::,�j ;44�;9� 30;�.32;1� i
•
16'4�48 ·.•. .
.·
--.I
01
- - - . . . . . . . - - - r - - - - - - - 1 1 _11- - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - , . . . - - - - - - - - . - - - - , - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - -
IIFinancial Benefit (Income)
30,001.96 . 75,004.91 75,004.91 75,004.91 75,004.91 75,004.91 75,004.91 75,004.91 75,004.91
75,004.91
- - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1C-1o- st(C- apttal- cost- + Op- eratin- g cos- t) - 1- 1 1 ,53- 8.86-4- 9,685- .84
~Net Benefit
-81,536.89 25,319.07
49,685.84
25,319.07
52,352.68
22,652.23
49,685.84
25,319.07
60,236
14,768.91
52,352.68
22,652.23
49,685.84
25,319.07
49,685.84
25,319.07
52,352.68
45,307.48 Total
l
Discounted Finar;..:ial Benefit (10 %)
Oiscounted Cost (1 0%)
IDiscounted Net Benefit
Benefit-Cost Ratio at 10 % Discount
~ 27,274.51
101 ,398.96
-74,1 24.45
61 ,987.53
41 ,062.68
20,924.85
' . 1.13
56,352.3 51 ,229.36
I 37,329.71 35,757.58
19,022.59 15,471.78
46,572.15
30,851
1 5,721 .15
42,338.31
34,001.65
8,336.67
38,489.38
26,865.2
1 1 ,624.17
34,990.34
23,178.81
1 1,811.53
Oncludlnga salvage value of
I I K 22,655.25 at 10th Year)
I ~ 31,809.4
21,071.65
10,737.76
28,917.64
20,184.22
17,467.99
419,960.92
371,701 .46
56,994.04
_N11e-t B-e-ne-fit-Di-sc-ou-nt-ed;a-tp-er-ce,nt-ag-e-of---,--------,-------,--------,------,---,----....--------,-------;1_ Total _1 f
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - ~ ! _ ._ _ I 26.36 -64,526.95 15,857.02 12,548.98 8,885.03 7,859.27 3,628.02 4,403.72 3,895.32 3,082.69 4,385.55
-1.33
,,.....!!
11
!RR
26.36 %
r~
';.l
J.
!t
i
|
|
10.2 Page 92 |
▲back to top |
Table 34. Values of Financfal Performance Indicators Calculated for the 10 ton
Production Trout Farming Model.
Rate of return on initial cost
Rate of return on operating cost
Production per water surface area
Production per man-month
Payback period
Break even price
Break-even production
Benefit Cost Ratio ( 1 0 % discount rate)
Internal Rate-of-Return
40.93 %
50.96 %
31 .83 kg/m2
1 75.1 5 kg/man-month
2.02 years
4.97 K/kg
6,625 kg/year
1.13
26.4 %
condition of the country. As an approximate indications, 1 2 % is used for less
developed countries and 8 % is used for developed countries. (Toriyama, 1 980). ·
The calculated value of IRR for trout farming in PNG shows a very high value of rate
of return without question.
Effect of Farm Scale on Profit
The feasibility of trout farming depends on the farm scale. Although the sizes of the
physical facilities are dependent on the production scale, there is a minimum
requirement for making a farm production system functional. When the farm size is
very small, the operation cost will be also small but the capital expenditure can not
be smaller than a certain level. It would take a very long time to recover the initial
capital expenditure by a small annual operational profit when the production scale is
2500
200
1500
..
c
Si:
1000
a
s
Break-Even (1.9 ton)
10
15
20
25
Annual Fish Production (ton/year)
30
35
Figure 22. Effect of Form Scale on Profit of Trout Forming.
76
|
|
10.3 Page 93 |
▲back to top |
'"
'1is.1 llJtef'IiM,."'"W"in¥J(g
1able 35. tinancial Summary of Trout Farm Model at Various Production Capacity. (unit: Kina)
I ;supply (cu mflnln)
- 1111911(ha)
from inlalao (m) .
Production System
I I I I I I 0.46
0.89
1.84
2.23
4.46
11.eel
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.25
0.5
0.75
100
100
100
100
100
100
u2I
1
100
I 11.15
1.25
100
'13.38
1.5
100
~
•
·1>·..-·-~TJatrn.lkiJn?uim~b~e-=rtfi.xtii(w.t.1m.1
tt:tf.lIWlt
1
~ltJlllif:W.i
1
klli!Hf.Iili
2
%®1*¥1t.i'
3
illiitWi?:i~
5
tt1ttt~tiil.
7
t1ttttll114
9
iittftttl~AA·
12
ltilli.t~
14
•"
,
TanklKlmber
1
1
2
3
5
7
9
11
13
from egg lo harvest size fish (%)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Size (g)
I
I 250 2561
250 I
250 I
I 250
250 I
I 250
250 1
I 250
81111 gate price (Kl)glc
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
Initial Costs
anc1 .-
supply plpeis
Pn>dudlon Tanks
IEarthen Ponds
INurs&JY Tanks
!Hatchery
IProcesnsi g -
lGenerator House
"~~
IFencing
Iland clearance
jvehlcle
IFrarzae
IGenerator
!Tools
IIncubator
IFeeding trough
ITotat
I
Initial Expenditure
I I I I I I I I 220.46 "438.03 659.51 1,097.55 2,195.09 3,292.6"4 4,390.18 5,487.73 8,585.27
I I I I I I I 1,708.18 1,902.44 2,100.21 2,491.36 3,471.43 1 4,451.5 5,431.57 6,411.65 1,391.n
I I I I I I I I 1,461.28 1,481.28 2,m.87 4,109.65 6,742.42 9,390.79 12,039.16 16,003.91 18,636.68
0I
0I
0I
0I
0I
0I
0I
0
0I
I I I I I I I I 403.4
403.4 742.14 1 ,080.89 1,758.38 2,420.27 3,097.76 3,775.26 4,437.15
I I I I I I I I 2,554.6 3,121.51 3,698.68 5,280.19 8,580.37 12,320.56 15,620.75 18,920.94 22,661.12
I l I I I I I I 489.72 9n.88 1,46"4.78 2,437.66 4,875.32 7,312.98 9,750.64 12,188.3 14,625.96
0l
0I
0l
l I I I 0
1 ,500
1,500
1,500
1 ,500
I 1,500
I I I I I I I ~ 753.41 1,496.73 2,253.51 3,750.25 7,50.0 49 11,250.74 15,00.0 98 18,751.23 22,501.47
1 ,500
1 ,500
1,500
1 ,500
1 ,500
1 ,500
1 ,500
1 ,500
1,500
I I I I I I I I 806.81 1,137.18 1,395.36 1,80.0 05 2,545.67 3,117.79 3,60.0 12 4,025.05 4,409.23
I I I I I I I I 251.14 498.91 751.17 1,250.08 2,500.16 3,750.25 5,00.0 33 6,250.41 7,50.0 49
I I I I I I I I I 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
I I I I I I I I I 267.68 532.17 801.25 1,333.42 2,66.684 4,00.0 26 5,333.68 6,667.1 8,00.0 52
I
200 I 3001
I I I I I 500
1 ,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
I 6,000
I I I I I I I I I 267.88
532.17
I 801.25 1,333.42 2,66.6 84 4,00.0 26 5,333.68
6,667.1 8,00.0 52
I
200 I
2001
200 I
400 I
I I I I I 500
1 ,000
1,200
1,400
1,800
I
250 I
I 250
I 250
500 I
I I I I I 750
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,250
I I I I I I I 21,334.8 24,748.71 I 29,995.53 39,36"4.52 61,853.02 I 83,558.04 104,298.85 126,298.661147,80.0 13
Annual Operating Cost
I
lVariable costs
IEgg
IFeed
ILabor
!Yehicle Operation
IEnergy
lMarketing and Promotion
tProcesis ng and Packaging
~Fixed Costs
Depreclation
IMaintenance
1Total Cost
I
LFish Sales
I
I
I 290.09
527.96
I I 770.12 1,249.08 2,498.16 3,747.24 4,996.31 6,245.39 7,445.47
I I I 1,117.86 2,220.76 3,343.61 5,564.36 11,128.73 16,693.09 22,257.46 27,821.82 33,386.18
I I 1,100.92 2,187.1 3,292.93 5,480.03 10,960.05 16,440.08 21,920.1 27,400.13 32,880.151
I I 2,142.86 2,142.86 2,142.86 2,857.14 3,571.43 4,285.71
5,000
I 5,000 5,714.29
I 1,800
1 ,800
1 ,800
2,400
I 3,600
4,800
6,000
6,000
I 7,200
I 502.28
! I I 997.82 1,502.34 2,50.0 16 5,00.0 33 7,50.0 49 10,00.0 65 12,50.0 82 15,00.0 98
I 376.71
I I I I 748.37 1,126.76 1,875.12 3,750.25 5,625.37 7,500.49 9,375.61 11,250.74
I
I I I I l I I I I I 1,914.3 2,158.65 2,608.62 3,409.31 5,228.18 7,092.89 8,853.32 10,745.38 12,608.53
I I I I I I I I .I I 1,574.91 1,771.98 2,075.19 2,619.9 3,948.73 5,247.05 6,501.65 7,822.08 9,119.62
I I I I I I I I I I 10,819.92 14,555.48 18,662.42 27,955.11 49,685.84 71,431.91 93,029.99 112,911.23 134,605.96
Income
I,
I I I I I I I I I 7.534.13 14,967.35 . 22,535.11 37,502.45 75,004.91 112,507.36 150,009.81 I1s1,s12.21 22s,014.n
Net Profit
lNet Profit
I -3,285.8 I I I I I I I I 411.86 3,8n.69 9,547.35 25,319.07 41,075.45 56,979.83 74,601.04 90,408.76
Rate of retum on h:aitial cost
Rate of return on operating cost
Production perwater surface area
Payback period
I -15.4
I I -30.37
I I 15.99
-15.56
Performance indicators
1.66
I 2.83
I 31.76
9.63
12.91
20.75
23.91
4.63
24.25
I 34.15
I 26.53
3,04
I 40.93
I 50.96
I 31.83
2.02
49.16
I 57.5
I 34.11
1.73
54.63
61.25
35.37
1.58
I 59.07
I 66.07
I 33.72
1.48
61.17
67.17
34.6
1.43
Break even price
10.77
7.29
6.21
5.59
4.97
4.76
4.65
4.52
4.49
Break-even production
1,443
1,941
2,488
3,727
6,625
9,524 12,404 15,055 17,947
77
|
|
10.4 Page 94 |
▲back to top |
Table 36. Cash Flow for the Hypothetical Trout Farming at Different Production Scales.
3 ton Income
Coat
Net Profit
39,01 O
51,058
-12,048
22,535
21,062
1,473
22,535
21,062
1 ,473
22,535
'ZT,8lr:l.
-5,3'ZT
22,535 22,535
26,581 32,812
-4,046 -10,277
22,535
26,423
-3,888
22,535
25,141
-2,606
22,535
18,662
3,873
22,535
19,464
3,071
5 ton Income
Coat
Net Profit
54,365
70,469
-16,103
37,502
31,104
6,398
37,502
31,104
6,398
37,502
40,31 1
-2,808
37,502
38,347
-845
37,502
45,718
-8,215
37,502
38,421
-91 9
37,502
36,458
1,045
37,502
'ZT,955
9,547
37,502
29,289
8,214
6 ton Income
Coat
Net.Prof�
60,774
77,949
-17,175
45,037
35,190
9,847
45,037
35,190
9,847
45,037
45,343
45,037
43,057
1 ,979
45,037
50,794
-5,758
45,037
43,290
1 ,746
45,037
41,005
4,032
45,037
31,769
13,268
45,037
33,370
1 1 ,666
7 ton Income
Coat
Net Prorrt
69,530
88,378
-18,848
52,470
39,836
1 2 , 634
52,470
39,836
12,634
52,470
51,410
1 ,000
52,470
48,767
3,702
52,470
57,190
-4,720
52,470
49,080
3,390
52,470
46,437
6,032
52,470
35,952
16,518
52,470
37,81 8
14,652
10 Income
ton leoat
Net Profrt
9 1 ,855 75,005 75,005 75,005 75,005 75,005 75,005 75,005 75,005 75,005
1 1 6,487 54,634 54,634 69,672 66,01 5 75,576 66,703 63,046 49,686 52,353
-24,632 20,371 20,371
5,333 8,990
-571 8,302 1 1 ,959 25,319 22,652
20 Income
ton
Net Profit
164,303
205,673
-41,370
150,010
101 ,374
48,636
150,010
101 ,374
48,636
150,010
1'Z7,567
22,442
150,010 150,010
120,565 134,996
29,445 15,01 3
150,010
122,561
'ZT,449
150,010
1 15,559
34,451
150,010
93,030
56,980
150,010
98,364
51,646
30 Income
ton Coat
Net Prorrt
237,806 225,015 225,015 225,015 225,015 225,015 225,015 225,015 225,015 225,015
294,230 146,430 146,430 183,991 173,625 192,91 1 176,895 166,531 134,606 142,606
-56,424
1
78,585
78,585
41,024
51,390
32, 104
48,1 1 9
58,484
90,409
82,408
very small. In general, in commercial production, � large scale farming operation is
more cost effective and generate a large profit.
The spread sheet model farm created is used to evaluate the effect of farm scale on
the feasibility of farming by setting the production capacity at different levels (Table
35). The relationship between the farm production capacity and profit according to
the result is plotted in Figure 23. the-cash flows are shown in Table 35. The
following description is based on the output of the spread sheet program analyzed
on the hypothetical trout farm at various production scale.
Acixi;ding to the results of the spread sheet analysis, the farm scale that makes
more than 1 .9 ton/year makes a net profit (Figure 22). Below the farm scale of this
production level, the operating expenses are greater than the gross income and
operations continuously increase accumulated loss. Above this production scale the
farm would generate a profit. At a farm scale of 3 ton/year, the farm still has a debt
78
|
|
10.5 Page 95 |
▲back to top |
� 1500
:.:
1000
500
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Annual Fish Production (ton/year)
figure 23. Required Capital for Starling a Trout Farming of Various Production Capacity Based on the Trout Farming Model
f
of about 1<28,000 at the end of 1 0th year (Table 36). At a farm scale of 6 ton/year
production, the farm starts making profit in the third year but the profit is still small
and the financial situation of the farm is marginal for the first 8 years. Above a farm
scale over 6 ton/year production, the farm financial situation improves very much. At
7 ton/year production scale, the farm makes profit in the third year after paying off
the initial capital investment. Therefore, below the farm scale of 6 ton/year, the
farming operation would not practically feasible. The initial capital expenditure
required for the 6 ton/year production farm is K42,752 according to the spread sheet
model. Above this farm scale, the larger the farm scale, the more the profit of the
farm is.
Analysis of the effect of farm scale on the profit of trout farming (Table 35, Table 36
and Figure 22) clearly indicated that trout farming requires a large amount of initial
capital investment for physical facility construction as well as for working capital. In
the case of a 1 0 ton/year production scale, it requires about K50,000 of the working
capital in addition to the bank loan for the physical facilities which cost K62,000:The
combined capital of about K1 1 6,000 is required to start a trout farming of 1 0
ton/year production scale farm. The .total capital needed to prepare for starting farms
of 20 ton scale and 30 ton scale are approximately 1<200,000 and K300,000,
respectively (Figure 23).
Effect of Fish Price on Profit
A sensitivity analysis on the effect of fish price on profit is done using the spread
sheet model. As revealed above, profitability of trout farming in the Highland is
highly dependent on the farm scale or production capacity of the farm. The model is
developed based on the actual data from Nupaha and Kotuni farms whose
79
|
|
10.6 Page 96 |
▲back to top |
. 1200
1000
800
� 800
-400
Cost of Production
2000
0
IBreak-Even (.K4.36/kg)!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fish Farm Gate Price (Kina/kg)
r19ure 24_ Effect of fish Price on the Profit in Trout Farming_
production capacity were 7.S ton/year and 2S ton/year, respectively. The model is
thought to be more realistic in this production range_ Results obtained outside this
range by extrapolations might not be realistic_·Therefore, as a standard condition for
the price analysis, a production level of 1 0 ton/year is fixed for the farm scale, which
is in the production range.
· At a farm scale of 1 0 ton/year production capacity, the break-even price for trout
farming is K4.36/kg (Figure 24). Below this price, the farm operational cost is greater
than the expected income and the farm loses money every year. The current price of
K7.SO is 71 % higher than the break-even price. However, similar to the production
scale discussed above, the profit around the break-even price is too small to make
the farm operate profitably. Based on the cash flow analysis in which a loan
equivalent to the initial capital expenditure is borrowed at an 8 % interest for S years
with 3 year grace period before starting repayme.nt, the farm operation does not
make profit bellow KS.DO/kg price within ten years. At K6.00/kg fish price, the farm
start generating profit after paying off the initial investment at the 7th year. Above
this fish price level the farm operation becomes very profitable (Table 37).
Therefore, the practical level of minimum price that makes farm operation profitable
is above K6.00/kg. Between KS.DO/kg and K6.00/kg, the farm operation would be
marginal in the first 1 0 years although it_ should become profitable in the long term
basis.
Conclusion on Financial Feasibility of Trout Farming in PNG
Using the spread sheet of the trout farm model created from the data obtained
during the survey, it was concluded that trout farming in the Highlands is
economically feasible. All the financial performance indicators calculated for the
Nupaha Trout farm as well as for the hypothetical trout farm which is considered to
be representative for a more general situation with a set up close to Nupaha or
80
|
|
10.7 Page 97 |
▲back to top |
. . ·. Table 37. Cash Flow of Trout Farming at Various Fish Price.
•
1,_,.,
Colt
Net Profit
129,300
184,121
-54,820
eo,005
86,822
-6,817
-
eo,005 eo,005 eo,005 so,005
86,822 1 1 1 ,616 104,725 1 19,269
-6,817 -31 ,610 -24,720 -39,263
.. .
eo,005
106,945
-26,940
eo,005
100,055
-20,050
80,005
79,038
967
80,005
84,372
-4,367
5 kln8
Income
Colt
Net Proft
139,301 100,007 100,007 100,007 100,007 100,007 100,007 100,007 100,007 100,007
190,278 90,980 90,980 1 1 6,173 109,251 1 23,762 1 1 1 ,407 104,484 83,036 88,370
..flJ,977
9,027
9,027 -16,167 -9,244 -23,756 -11,400 -4,478 16,971 1 1 ,637
6 klna
Income
Cost :
Net Profit
149,302 120,008 120,008 120,008 120,008 120,008 120,008 120,008 120,008 120,008
196,436 95,137 95,137 120,731 113,776 128,256 1 15,669 108,914 87,034 92,367
-47,134 24,870 24,870
-723
6,231 -8,248
4,139 1 1 ,094 32,974 27,641
7 klna Income
Cost
Net Profd
159,302
202,594
140,009
99,295
140,009
99,295
140,009
125,289
140,009
1 1 8,302
140,009
1 32,750
140,009
120,330
140,009
1 1 3,344
140,009
91,031
140,009
96,365
-43,291 40,714 40,71 4 1 4,721 21 ,707
7,260 19,679 26,665 48,978 43,644
8 klna
Income
Cost
Net Profd
169,303 160,010 160,010 160,010 160,010 160,010 160,010 160,010 160,010 160,010
208,752 1 03,453 103,453 129,846 122.828 137,243 1 24,792 117,773 95,029 100,362
-39,449 56,558 56,558 30,164 37,183 22,767 35,219 42,237 64,982 59,648
10 klna Income
Cost
Net Profit
189,304 20,0 013 20,0 013 20,0 013 20,0 013 20,0 013 20,0 013 20,0 01 3 20,0 013 200,01 3
221,067 1 1 1 ,768 1 1 1 ,768 138,961 131,879 146,230 133,715 126,633 103,024 108,358
-31,763 88,245 88,245 61,052 68,134 53,783 66,298 73,380 96,989 91 ,655
Kotuni Trout farms indicated a profitable nature of trout farming business. However,
the financial viability is highly dependent on the two factors; farm scale and fish
sales price. To be a financially viable form business it requires that the farm should
be large enough to produce at least 6 ton/year. And, the fish sales price should be
higher than K6.00/kg at the farm scale of 1 0 ton/year annual production. Obviously
these two factors are inter related. For example it is quite understandable that the
price can be further reduced without losing the financial viability if the production
scale is very large.
The question arises, then, if trout farming is viable, why did Kotuni Trout Farm
closed down in 1 984? Why did Nupaha Trout Farm ceased operation in 1 992 and
Mr. Kosi is facing continuous financial problems?
The answer to these questions are provided in the beginning of this report in the
Background Chapter. The main reason of Kotuni Farm closure was the conflict
between landowners and the farm. In the financial statement of Kotuni Trout Farm
for the Year 1 984, the extra ordinary loss of fish valued at K40,000 was pointed out
81
|
|
10.8 Page 98 |
▲back to top |
as the reason of financial loss in that year which eventually became the last year of
operation of Kotuni Farm. Fish usually die when they are small because of less
resistance to adverse environmental changes. Even if a very large number of fish is
lost as long as the fish are small it would not be·a crucial factor for the whole
farming operation because the cost of egg was not high and the fish died in an early
stage had not taken up a large investment in feed cost. A good example of this is
seen in the survival data of Nupaha Trout Farm. Mr. Kosi is killing nearly the 80 % of
·
fish imported as eggs during his operations but still the farm is making profit. If the
fish lost are of a larger size, then it would severely affect the financial situation of
the farm because a large amount Of investment through feed and labor have already
been taken up by the fish. At the Kotuni fish price (K5.50/kg) in 1 984, K40,000 is
equivalent to 7,272 fish of 250 g harvest size, or 1 8,1 82 fish of 1 00 g size, or 36,364
fish of 50 g size. If this number of fish were killed it would be a big event at Kotuni
village. However, the authors could not confirm any such big loss of fish from the
villagers, although fish thefts and loss of fish through flooding are repeatedly
recorded in the Kotuni Farm Diary. It would be truly an extra ordinary thing if no one
remembers such a large fish loss event. The authors are quite doubtful about the
fish loss story as the reason for the closure of Kotuni Farm. As suggested in the first
chapter, the authors are taking the fish loss statement as a symbolic expression of
deteriorated relationship between the farm management and the local landowners.
The deteriorated relationship is expressed with very strong words in the farm dairy:
"Laborers are accusing me of stealing
money, while they are the worst ones.
Very poor working atmosphere.
"
Fish would be lost not in a single event due to malicious villager's conduct but
frequently by flooding because there was no farm manager on the farm site and the
farm was operated by the workers who were being accused by the management.
In addition to the deteriorated relationship with the landowners which hampered
day-to-day operation, there is un-transparency in the financial condition of Kotuni
Trout Farm all through out the history of the farm. The farm seemed to be actually
managed by Mr. David Hunter during the 1 970s and after he left the country, Mr.
John Petersen was managing at the top. There was no record available at the top
level of management. For example, it was a simple calculation that the fish sales
income of 20 ton production in 1 982-83 at the fish price of K5.50/kg should be
K1 1 0,000, while the financial statement for the year said that K67,000 was the fish
sales income. There was no record on the whereabouts of the remaining balance of
the money.
On the technical side, Kotuni Farm had a successful history. Based on the
experience in management of Kotuni Farm in 1 970s, Mr. David Hunter planned to
establish a sound economic base for trout farming at Kotuni. He remained in the
country until 1 981 after he lost his job in the Civil Aviation Department in 1 978 only
because of Kotuni Trout Farm expansion, according to the correspondence filed at
Nokondi Investment Pty. Ltd. His Kotuni expansion plan to make the farm
economically viable composed of the following sound recommendations:
82
|
|
10.9 Page 99 |
▲back to top |
1 . Increase the farm scale over 20 ton/year production capacity by expanding ·
the farm facility
2. Secure a technically viable on-site farm manager.
3. Establish a marketing outlet for the produced trout.
Mr. Hunter was employed as a provincial executive officer and realized all the above
points in the Kotuni project. Point 1 is important for making the farm viable, for trout
farming is sensitive to the farm scale as already revealed in the previous chapter.
Mr. Hunter was clearly recognizing this point and successfully drew funding from the
provincial government and banks to realize the planned facility expansion.
Point 2 is also very crucial for improvement of the trout farming financial viability.
The flooding was a continuous technical problem at Kotuni Trout Farm all
throughout its history. When the Omahaiga creek floods it brings leaves, pieces of
wood, and other material washed from the catchment of the creek. These materials
cause blockage at the intake. The water becomes very muddy during the flood and
severely affect the health of the small fish especially eggs and fry. Great losses of
the small fish were frequently recorded in the farm dairy. An on-site farm manager
with a sound scientific background was needed to solve this technical problem. This
was realized by the successful recruitment of a CUSO volunteer as the farm
manager. The housing and salary (K10,000/year) for the volunteer was a
prerequisite for the recruitment of the CUSO volunteer, both of which were made
possible through Eastern Highlands Provincial financial assistance.
Point 3 (marketing) was also important for the viability of Kotuni Trout Farm. Mr.
David Hunter also successfully managed to arrange a marketing outlet by
establishing Seafood Marketing Pty. Ltd. based in Goroka town as the sole
distributor of fish from Kotuni Trout Farm. This arrangement was not difficult
because Mr. Hunter was a major shareholder and the main person operating
Seafood Marketing Pty. Ltd. Unfortunately, this marketing company closed down in
1 979 before Point 1 and Point 2 became realized. Mr. Hunter also later established
marketing contacts with buyers for Kotuni trout both around and in Australia through
trial markets with smoked trout which obtained favorable acceptance. Again these
market development efforts was never materialized because Kotuni had to close
down in 1 984.
With these improvements made during 1 978 - 1 981 , the farm increased production
and reached the maximum level of 20 ton/year in 1 982-83 under Mr. Karl Kreoker's
management. The production level before Mr. Kreoker came to the farm was about
1 0 - 1 5 ton/year. Therefore, in terms of technical management, Kotuni Trout Farm
had achieved quite a successful history in the last phase of its operation. Contrary
to this achievement, the farm eventually had to close down in 1 984. The sudden
closure of Kotuni Farm at the time when the farm's technical capability was
expanding was unusual. This was an extra ordinary sequence that can not be
understood by the authors. The authors believe
management decision by Nokondi Pty. Ltd. was
trheelatreedastoonsoomf tehiusn.mkynsotwenrioreuasson
at
the top level of management. About the same time when the decision to close the
farm was already made, Mr. David Hunter and Mr. John Pertersen sold off their
share in Kotuni Farm in 1 982 - 83 and officially left the farm management. Soon
after the farm was closed down in 1 984.
83
|
|
10.10 Page 100 |
▲back to top |
Although the authors do not understand the real reason of Kotuni's closure, it is
certain that the financial viability of the farm was not the main cause. The production
had been increased to over 20 ton/year one year before the closure and all the fish
were sold. There was no financial reason to close the farm. Mr. Douglas Powley who
was the last manager of the Kotuni Farm when it was closed down clearly stated in a
telephone interview that the Kotuni farm was making profit.
It was already mentioned in Chapter 1 (Background) that the reason of Nupaha
closing down operation in 1 992 -93 was not due to financial problems. According to
Mr. Kosi, trout eggs were not available in that particular year (i. e., a technical
reason). According to local landowners, dispute between the villagers and the farm
forced the farm operation to.temporarily cease operation (i. e., a social reason). The
EEC funded "community" project of Nupaha Trout Farm was started in 1 989. But the
true nature of this so called community project was solely a private business
managed by a single proprietor, Mr. Kosi. He is contributing funds for village
projects or assists children with school fees and other various means. Some of
contributions are difficult to evaluate in terms of economic value. As a prominent
successful business person from the village it is his assumed responsibility to make
a reasonable contribution whenever a village event occurs. Mr. Kosi is supporting a
small scale trout farmer in the village by supplying free fingerlings and providing
. technical advice. However, as far as management of Nupaha farm is concerned
there is no evidence of the farm being a community project. It is naturally
understood that the dispute between the landowners and Mr. Kosi has a root in the
context of the community nature of the project as was initially started.
It was also discussed in the previous chapters that the current financial difficulties of
Mr. Kosi was caused by the unviable business expansion. He started trout farming,
pMV bus business, security firm and the tourist lodge all at once. As stated earlier
only the trout farming has continued to operate to date. The PMV bus service and
security company have failed to make money and shut down. The tourist lodge has
not operated yet. Only trout farming is making money which was the only potential
financial source for the capital to establish and operate the PMV bus business and
security company, apart from the EEC cash grant used for trout farming physical
facility and Zauka lodge construction. Therefore, the involvement of these multiple
business operation itself is an indirect proof for the viability of Nupaha trout farming.
84
|
|
11 Pages 101-110 |
▲back to top |
|
|
11.1 Page 101 |
▲back to top |
Chapter 5: Market for PNG Farmed Trout
In the previous Chapter, it was concluded that trout farming is financially viable in
the Highlands at a farm scale of Nupaha or Kotuni Trout Farm at the current price of
1<7.50/kg. It was also revealed that the farm financial viability is quite sensitive to the
price of the produced fish and it is required to have the fish sales price above
KS.DO/kg.
The current trout farm gate price of Australian rainbow trout is AU$3.50 ( ,
1 993)31• At a current exchange rate of K1 .OO:AU$1 .50, it is equivalent to 1<2.33/kg
and costs only 1/3 of the Nupaha trout price. The PNG trout price is even said to be
6 times higher than the North American farmed trout price (Tomich and Stockwell,
1 991 )¥. It is expected that if trout farming becomes popular in PNG there will be
competition among local farmers for the price. Further, if trout consumption
increases due to the development of trout farming in PNG it would attract the
Australian trout imports into PNG. Competition with the foreign producers would also
potentially reduce the fish price in PNG. It is important to look into the price
mechanism of PNG trout in order to predict the future potential of trout farming.
Questionnaires on trout fish market (Appendix 9) were sent to selected potential
trout fish customers in PNG. There were 21 responses on the questionnaire of
which 1 0 were from hotels and social clubs and 1 1 respondents were from retail or
wholesalers. Twelve respondents were from the coastal area and 9 respondents
were from the Highlands. Some results are summarized in the following section.
Image of Trout
Out of 21 respondents, 1 2 (57.1 %) had favorable images of trout as their sales
products (Table 38). Hotels and clubs in the Highlands answered with most
favorable images. Some favorable answers are shown bellow:
• Superb tasty fish. To be sold quickly (Coast, Hotel)
• Good popular product (Highlands, Hotel)
• Good fish. Adds variety to marine products (Coast, Retailer)
• Fast-moving item on shops and market (Hlghlands, Retailer)
• Restraint item if priced reasonably (Highlands, Hotel)
• Appearing if can be delivered in good condition at right price (Coast, Hotel)
• Interested very much in dealing trout (Coast, Hotel)
Retailers and wholesalers are less interested in trout as their business product.
Some responses with negative images of trout are:
31
Consultants report for Nupat:s'Trout Farm Management. Citation to be shown. The copy of
report is in Aiyura.
···
32
Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fisheries and Coastal Resources Management and
Deveiopment Project, Papua New Guinea. Asian Development Bank technical Assistance No.
1 306-PNG, Working Paper No. 1 0. (Prepared by Agrodev Canada Inc. for the Government of Papua
New Guinea and the Asian Development Bank).
85
|
|
11.2 Page 102 |
▲back to top |
Tabla 38. Image of Trout in Answers to the Questionnaire.
Coast
Hotel/club
7
5
1
1
Retailer/wholesaler
5
2
1
2
Highlands Hotel/club
3
3
0
0
Retailer/wholesaler
6
2
2
2
Total
21
12
4
5
• Not a lot sold on the coast (Coast, Hotel)
• Not suitable for wholesale business (Coast, Retailer)
• Too many small bones, different from salt water fish. (Coast, Retail)
• Not a fast selling item, Selected market only. (Highlands, retail)
Trout is viewed as an expensive and delicious fish by many business owners and
managers who were respondents to the questionnaire. Both negative and positive
images are based on this common image. For retailers and wholesalers the fish
seems too expensive to be sold quickly even though their main customers are those
who are in the highest income bracket in this country. i. e., public servants,
expatriates and business owners. Trout are too expensive to sell at retailers and
wholesalers and, thus creating, the negative image as a sales product. Trout are
most wanted fish in hotels and social clubs where customers are prepared to spend
K1 0 or more for a piece of fish on a plate. Thus, the managers of hotels and clubs
have a positive image on trout as their sales products.
Important Characteristics of Trout
Most respondents consider freshness or taste are the most important characteristic
for fresh fish (i. e., not frozen fish) (Table 39). This answer is related to the image of
trout. As a very expensive and delicate fish, most of the respondents consider price,
size or guaranteed supply as only the second important characteristics to the taste
or freshness which are virtually indistinguishable.
~~111r~--••-•ri:1mr~~1t•n•1L; Table39. MostImportant Characteristics ofTrout(notfrozen).
Taste of fish
8
Freshness of fish
7
I
Guaranteed supply
1
Size of fish
1
Price q,f fish
1
t - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Easinessforpreparation
0
Other
0
- - - - - - - - = J Total responded
18
86
|
|
11.3 Page 103 |
▲back to top |
fresh Fish Price
The price of fresh fish at which the respondents are currently dealing with is K2 -
K4/kg at the coastal areas (Table 40). Most coastal respondents who have
experience in buying trout in the past used air transportation to obtain trout which
would have costed about K1 - 3/kg (for transport), making the CIF price at the
delivery point nearly K1 0 for a kilogram oftrout. For respondents from the coast,
trout is one of the fresh fish alternatives available from the local market. Although
most of the respondents have a positive image of trout as their sales product, it is
not easy for the K10-trout to compete with the salt water fish which cost K2 - K4/kg
only.
No respondent from the Highlands answered that they are dealing with fresh fish.
Trout are the only fish available for some of the Highlands respondents who are
aware of trout produced at Nupaha Trout Farm. Even at high class hotels in the
Highlan�s. seafood dishes are being prepared from frozen fish according to the
respondents. Although major towns in the Highlands are connected by the
Highlands highways with Lae and Madang, cold storage transportation are not
developed yet in the Highlands. One respondent also pointed out that it is risky to
travel to the coast every week to get fish (because of security problems on the road
at night).
Table 40. Prii:e of Fresh Fish (not frozen) the Respondents are Dealing With.
Coast
Highlands
Hotel/club
Retailer/wholesaler
Hotel/club
Retailer/wholesaler
1<2.50 - K4.00 /kg
1<2.00 - K3.00 /kg
Not dealing with (All respondents)
Not dealing with (All respondents)
Buying Price of Trout
Potential buying price of trout fish, if available, as answered by the respondents
varied by area and by business type (Table 41 ). Acceptable price for trout is higher
in the Highlands than in the coast, and it is higher in hotel/clubs than in retailer
/wholesalers. These answers are in accordance with the results of fresh fish price
that the respondents are paying currently as shown above. In the Highlands, fresh
l
fish is not available and, thus, the demand for fresh fish is high pushing up the
acceptable trout fish price. The price responded with by the Highlands hotel/clubs
and retailer/wholesalers are K8.67/kg and K5.00/kg on average, respectively.
Although the number of respondents were small, the averages prices for Highlands
were statistically different from the price answered by coastal respondents (Table
41).
Price answered with by the Highlands retailer/wholesalers was K5.00/kg which is
about the price of the fresh fish if air-freighted from the coast (fish:K2-3/kg +
freight:K1 -2/i<g + handlir1g charge). This price implies that salt water fish from coast
is a potential competitor to farmed trout produced in the Highlands.
87
|
|
11.4 Page 104 |
▲back to top |
Highlands Hotel/club
KB.67 a
Retailer/wholesaler KS.00 a b
Coast
Hotel/club
K4.57 b
Retailer/wholesaler 1<2.00 c
* Averages marked with different letters are statistically different.
3
1<2.30
3
K3.61
7
1<2.23
4
K0.00
It should be noted that the price responded with by coastal hotel/clubs is K4.57 on
average which is higher than the price they are paying for the salt water fish
available at the coast (K3 - 4/kg). This indicates that the hotels and clubs are giving
a special prime price to trout, although trout is one of the fish alternatives among
other coastal salt water fish.
In the previous chapter, it was concluded that about K6.00/kg is needed to make
trout farming profitable within 1 0 years if the farm production capacity is 1 0 ton/year.
Only the price answered by the Highlands hotel/clubs is higher than K6.00/kg. The
Highlands retailer/wholesalers and coastal hotels answered prices close to this
value and these business categories could be potential markets for farmed trout but
there would be severe competition with the coastal fish. Only a limited market is
expected in these business and area categories at the current farming system and
level of production. The price given by respondents indicated that the major market
for trout fish is the Highlands hotels and clubs that includes mining camps and
messes of large corporations.
Acceptability of Frozen and Smoked Trout
Frozen trout is accepted by about half of the respondents (Table 42). The other half
of respondents rejected frozen trout. Because the freshness and taste was the main
importance for trout, it was expected that the frozen fish was not attractive to many
respondents.
Table 42. Number of Respondents Answered to Question on Acceptability of Frozen Trout
and Smoked Trout.
Coast
Hotel/club
5
2
7
0
Retailer/wholesaler
2
3
3
2
Highlands Hoteliclub
1
2
2
1
Retailer/wholesaler
2
4
4
2
Total
10
11
16
5
88
|
|
11.5 Page 105 |
▲back to top |
Figure 25. Number of Kotuni Form Major Customers Clasis fied by Business Type by Area.
Smoked trout was strongly preferred by the respondents. Sixteen respondents out of
21 answered that they liked smoked trout. High grade smoked trout and salmon are
known as quality value added products. One Highlands hotel respondent made a
remark in which he wrote that they are paying 1<22/kg to K50/kg for smoked salmon.
Smoked trout was once a special product from Kotuni Trout Farm. The sales of
smoked products did help a lot in market of Kotuni products especially in the last
years of the farm's operation in the 1 981-84. Correspondence filed in the Kotuni
Farm manger's office indicated that their smoked products were preferred over the
Australian smoked salmon. The management once tried to export the products to
Australia through Seafood Marketing Pty. Ltd. The smoking process of Kotuni
smoked trout is shown in the technical information (Chapter 2).
Market for the Farmed Trout
The above analysis of the questionnaire respondents indicated that the hotels and
clubs in the Highlands are the main potential customers for farmed trout. Currently,
there is no available fresh fish in the Highlands at a reasonable price and with
satisfactory taste and freshness. Trout could be the only source for fresh fish in the
Highlands. Their acceptable price (K8.75/kg according to the questionnaire) is
above the current price of Nupaha Trout Farm (K7.50/kg), indicating the under
supply condition of trout market.
There might be a small market among coastal hotel/clubs and Highlands
retailer/wholesalers but for these customers trout is one of the alternative fish
available from the sea. Their acceptable price for trout according to the
questionnaire response is K4.50 - K5.00/kg and a little below the minimum price that
makes trout farm financially viable for the production scale of 1 0 ton/year. Trout are
viewed as a superb quality fish and could fetch a higher price. With trout farmer's
effort to reduce the cost of production33, a small trout market could be found in the
33
Some of the ways for reducing the cost of production are; increasing the farm scale,
89
|
|
11.6 Page 106 |
▲back to top |
coastal hotel/clubs and Highlands retailer/wholesalers. But, the market for farmed
trout in this business and area categories are not expected to be large because of
. the high competition with the salt water fish available to them.
Smoked trout is a special table luxury and there is a special market for the product
at a very high price. However, itcan not be a day to day item on a family table and
the market size is limited.
·
Kotuni customers categorized by business type and by area (Figure 25) generally
agrees with the above summary of customers. The most important customers are
hotels, mining ·camps, and expatriate messes. Some supermarkets purchased trout
from Kotuni Farm but the.buying quantities were not large. Mining camps were the
largest customers for trout in PNG. These customer types are the same for Nupaha
Trout F:arm (Table 22).
All the farmed trout in Kotuni Farm had been sold out. Nupaha Trout Farm also sold
all the fish without reducing the price. The price set by the these PNG trout farms
were high compared to the trout price outside PNG. Nevertheless, there has been a ·
definite market to absorb the farmed trout at the price. However, the total market
potential for trout is not expected to be large. The market that can absorb fish at
1<7.50/kg can not be large. Kotuni Trout Farm sold all the 20 ton of trout produced in
1 983 within the country. There is no evidence that Kotuni had a difficulty in sales of
these fish and, therefore, the domestic market capacity is expected fairly higher than
20 ton/year. But there is no guarantee above this level for sales of trout fish in the
domestic market in PNG.
International Market
. The current price of 1<7.50/kg consists of about 2/3 of the cost and 1/3 of the profit.
The cost of production is approximately K5.00/kg of fish. The breakdown of the cost
components is shown in Figure 26. Feed and labor are the largest expenditure items
accounting for about 1/4 each of the total operational cost. There is some allowance
to reduce the price by cutting the profit which is expected to happen when there are
many trout farmers involved in trout production in PNG. However, as discussed in
the previous chapter, it would be difficult to reduce the price below K6.00/kg (for a
farm scale of 1 0 ton/year fish production).
The current Australian trout price is K2.33/kg as mentioned in the beginning of this
chapter. It is obvious that the current PNG farmed trout is not able to compete in the
international market as far as the farming system and the level of production scale
remain at the current level. There is no international market expected for PNG
farmed trout in the immediate future.
Samuel et. al. (1 992)34 in their study of economics of commercial trout production
stated;
improving the survival rate, using earthen ponds production system which cost less than corrugated
"tank
system, increasing the tank size, etc.
Samuel H. Logan and W. E. Johnston.
1
992.
Economics
of
Commercial
Trout
Production.
Aquaculture, 1 00: 25 - 46.
90
|
|
11.7 Page 107 |
▲back to top |
Depreciation
Maintenance Egg
Processign and
Packaging
Feed
Marketing and
Promortion
Vehicle Operation
Agure 26. Componenls of Current fJSh Selling Prke (K7.50/kg) al l0 ton/year Annual Production Scale.
"Feed is the largest cost component in trout production, frequently
accounting for more than half the operating cost (Gockowski and
Keller, 1 988: Level, 1 989). In his study of world fish farming, Brown
(1 983) shows feed cost as 48 - 57 % of variable operating costs.
Gockowski and Keller (1 988) found feed cost to be about 50 - 56 % of
the variable cost. Easley (1 977) estimates feed to be 34 - 35 % of total
operating costs and additionally analyzed the impact of changes in
feed prices on .the cost of production."
Compared to these average percentage of feed cost in the operational costs
generally found in other country, the percentage of feed cost in PNG (Figure 26) is
low (about 25 %) in the total operating costs. Compared to the other country, the
PNG feed is not expensive (Cadwallader, 1 991 ), but not cheaper either because
most of the ingredients are imported. The small percentage of feed cost is not
because of the cheaper cost of feed but because of relative large expenses in other
components. Especially, the labor cost- is high in PNG accounting for about the
91
|
|
11.8 Page 108 |
▲back to top |
same percentage as the feed component in the operational cost. This skewed cost
component pattern compared to the general expenditure pattern in other countries is
related to the scale of farming. Feed is proportionally equal to the level or amount of
production, while most of other costs have a minimum required level to make the
farming operational. Therefore, as scale of farming becomes small, there will be a
relative increase of other costs compared to feed cost. On the other hand, as scale
of production increases, the proportion of feed cost increases compared to the other
costs. Trout farming larger than 1 00 ton/year production scale are common in
Europe and U .S.A. As production scale increases it is reasonably expected for PNG
trout farming that the proportion of other cost components will decrease so that the
overall cost of production can be reduced. At the same production level like the·
international competitor with over 1 00 ton/yearfrom a single farm, a PNG trout farm
has a great advantage in the constant optimum water temperature throughout the
year while there is a disadvantage in cost offeed which have to be produced from
the imported feed ingredients. It is not impossible for future of the PNG trout farming
industry to successfully compete in the international trout market if the development
of the industry is viewed in the long run. However, in a short term perspective, there
is no prospect to complete successfully in the international market for PNG trout
farming which is based on a high fish sales price and small scale production.
Price Determining Mechanism of PNG Trout
It is pointed out in the analysis of the trout marketing questionnaire survey that the
current Nupaha trout price is about competing with the saltwater fish from the coast
if air-freighted to the Highlands.
With air freight (K5.00/kg) and import duty for fresh fish (50 %), the Australian trout
at the price of K2.33/kg at their farm gate would amounted to about KB - 1 O/kg. This
price is a little higher than the Nupaha trout price. It is considered that the current
and historical price of trout in PNG has been virtually determined by the imported
price of Australian trout, and on the basis of competition with the coastal salt water
fish. A supportive evidence is the virtual stable fish sales price in the last 1 5 years
(Figure 1 7) if considered the inflation.
Australian trout is not easy to enter into the PNG trout market. Although the farm
gate price in Australia is cheap, the air freight and cost of processing to keep the
freshness of trout that makes the imported product competitive to the local PNG
trout is not cheap.
Trout farming is financially viable in PNG. There is a definite market for trout in the
domestic market as shown by the experience of Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms
which sold all the fish produced. But the viability of trout farming is quite sensitive to
the farm scale and the selling price. The market for trout is limited in the domestic
market mainly in the Highlands hotels and clubs and not expected to be large. The
high price has been maintained taking advantage of small production. If many trout
farms are established in the country and the production level increased, there would ,
be competition among the trout farmers and potentially with Australian trout
producers, then the price would drop. In other words, it is impossible to increase the
production scale without sacrificing a drop in the selling price. The current high
selling price is kept in association of the small production level. These two factors
92
|
|
11.9 Page 109 |
▲back to top |
are Closely interrelated. From this perspective, it is not realistic to expect a sudden
increase in the production level in the near future without expecting a corresponding
drop in the selling price. It is not realistic either to worry about any sudden decrease
in the selling price or possible collapse of PNG trout farming industry unless the
production level is increase drastically.
The current domestic price which is realized by taking advantage of the small
production is the basis of the current PNG trout farming. It is possible and should be
· aimed to be achieved to gradually increase the scale of production of the PNG trout
industry while reducing the selling price and cost of production so that the trout
industry becomes competitive in the international market on a long term basis.
However, for the short to medium term planning purposes the characteristic of the
high selling price which is associated with the small production level should be
·
considered as the foundation and the basis of the industry.
93
|
|
11.10 Page 110 |
▲back to top |
Chapter 6: Cost and Benefit ·of National Cold
Water Hatchery
Cost of Egg Production by Government Hatchery
Phill Cadwallader (1 991) recommended the establishment of a national cold water
hatchery to produce trout eggs for the development of PNG trout industry based
mainly on the technical feasibility of the trout farming in the Highlands. Unavailability
of trout fingerlings is the largest technical obstacle for development of trout farming
in PNG. There is no trout fingerlings available in PNG and, therefore, any person
wanting to.start trout farming has to import eggs from overseas and incubate them in
their own hatcherie.s. The incubation and fry nursery is the most difficult part of trout
farming technically and it is not easy to go through successfully without experience.
Mr. Kosi of Nupaha Farm experienced a lot of technical problems during the first
year of incubation and fry nursery. One former Kotuni employee assisted him
technically. Without this assistance, it would have been difficult to learn the
technique oftrout fry nursery and incubation. The PNG made trout starter feed is not
suitable for the swim-up fry to be given alone. Ox liver is a necessary supplementary
feed. The use of ox liver is no more standard method of trout fry nursery and the
technique is not available in books. Mrs. Betty Higgins of Lake Pindi Yaundo Trout
Farm at Mt. Wilhelm has also experienced a lot of mortality during her first year of
fry nursery. In addition, for many local villagers who are interested in starting trout
farming, the bureaucratic and quarantine process of live egg importation and the 50
% import duty would be simply difficult to deal with. If trout fingerlings are available,
it will certainly help many of those interested people to start trout farming.
If trout fingerlings are locally available in the Highlands, each farmer does not need
to be equipped with a hatchery which is the single most expensive cost item in the
construction of physical facilities for trout farming. Another analysis was performed
using the spread sheet model trout farm explained in the previous chapter for
optional trout farming without hatchery
The modification necessary to use the
manoddeolbftoarint�inisg
locally available fingerlings.
analysis are as follows:
1 . Cost for hatchery building is omitted from the initial capital expenditure.
2. Cost for incubator trough and box are also omitted from the initial capital
expenditure.
3. Above reduction in capital expenditure affected the calculation in
depreciation and maintenance costs to be reduced accordingly.
4. Cost of egg importation is substifuted by the cost of fingerling purchase w�ich
is calculated with an assumed survival rate of 80 % from the fingerlings to the
harvest size fish of 250g, and an assumed unit cost of fingerlings at
KO. 05/fish.
.
5. Labor cost calculated for egg picking and for 50 % of rainy season temporary
employment is subtracted.
6. Technical supervisor's salary is omitted as a reduced cost for technical
management.
94
|
|
12 Pages 111-120 |
▲back to top |
|
|
12.1 Page 111 |
▲back to top |
With these modification for no-hatchery option, farm operation at the marginal
condition with the hatchery option becomes profitable. For example, the farm with a
production capacity at 5 ton/year was not making money in the first 1 0 years (Table
36 in Chapter 4: Financial Analysis), but with no hatchery option it turns to be
profitable in the third year although the annual accumulated profits are small until
the 8th year (Table 43).
The above analysis for a no hatchery option for trout farming demonstrated a
potential benefit of establishing a national hatchery for trout fingerling distribution. If
trout fingerlings are available domestically, it certainly helps a lot of interested small
scale business personnel who are interested in starting trout farming in the
Highlands.
Howev�r. the establishment of trout hatchery would cost a lot of public investment.
The cost and benefit of establishing a national hatchery should be evaluated. As
discussed in the analysis of marketing questionnaire, the market for PNG farmed
trout is expected to be limited.
To make a cost estimate for national trout hatchery, the basic reproduction biology
of PNG trout is needed. However, there is very little data available for reproduction
of trout in PNG. The natural populations of trout are confirmed in many places in the
Highlands (e. g., Polvsen35, 1 993; Vonole and Masuda36, 1 994) and there is no
doubt on the existence of natural reproduction of trout in PNG. However, there is no
record of artificial breeding yet in PNG. According to a progress report submitted to
the Simbu Provincial Government, a Japanese volunteer attached to Kegesugl Trout
Hatchery was rearing trout with a clear mind for use in reproduction. However, at the
end of his two year term, the fish reared for nearly three years after hatching (the
size was not recorded) were not able to have eggs. It is not known whether this is
because of unsatisfactory quantity of feed given as he mentioned in his report or
natural spawning biology of trout under PNG condition. Kotuni farm being operated
for 1 2 years did not leave any record of spawning (although it should not have been
difficult for them to keep a small number of fish without harvesting for several years).
This is probably related to the higher temperature not suitable for reproduction of
trout at Kotuni.
Without accurate information available on the sp.\\awning biology of PNG trout, it is
unavoidable to take a safer side within the allowance to make cost estimate for
fingerling production for PNG. The following assumptions are made for this purpose:
1 . Female fish become reproducible in the third year at the fish size 2 kg. The
second and the first year fish are not able to reproduce eggs.
2. 3,500 eggs are produced from one female fish of 2 kg size.
3. Fish weight at the end of the 1 st year is 250 g, and at the end of the 2nd year
is 1 kg.
35
Polvsen, Anders F. 1 993, Observations on the biology and ecology of rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss, and its implications for fisheries in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea.
"F'l:PNG8V5o/0n0ol1e.
Field Document No. 2 1 .
and Masuda, 1 994. A feasibility
study
report
on
trout
farming
at
Nium
and
Kosipe,
Woitape District. Central Province. DFMR Research Paper no.
95
|
|
12.2 Page 112 |
▲back to top |
Table 43. Cash Flow Projection for Hypothetical Model Trout Farming Based on the Data from Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms (No Hatchery
Option). (unit: Kina)
Annual Production
5 ton
'!',.- _;. ,:_ .
Year.
Cash inflow
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - ~ - ~ - ~ - - - - - - , 1Gro-ss-In-com-e--------+---+ 15,0-00-.98--3-7-,50+ 2.45---37-,50-2.-45+-37-,50-2.-45--3-7,5-0-2.4-5 --37-,5-02-.45;--37-,5-02+ .45 --37-,5-02-.45--3-7;,50.2..45..-37-,5-02-.45------' .
Loans
33,684.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1·
Total
46,665.31 37,502.45 37,502.45 37,502.45 37,502.45 37,502.45 37,502.45 37,502.45 37,502.45 37,502.45
Cash outflow
Capltal cost
33,664.33
0
0
1 ,333.42
0
7,600.08
1 ,333.42
0
0 1 ,333.42
Operating Cost
26,301.22 26,301.22 26,301 .22 26,301.22 26,301 .22 26,301 .22 26,301 .22 26,301 .22 26,301 .22 26,301 .22
Loan and Interest Repayment
2,694.75 2,694.75 2,694.75 9,431.61
8,892.66 8,353.71
7,814.76 7,275.82
O
0
Total cash outflow
Net cash flow
62,660.29
-13,994.98
28,995.96
8,506.49
28,995.96
8,5Q6.�9
Accumulated profrt
(0
O') Financial Benefit (Income)
Cost (Capital cost + Operating cost)
Net Benefit
Discounted Financial Benefrt (1 O %)
Discounted Cost (1 Oo/o)
Discounted Net Benefit
Benefit-Cost Ratio at 10 o/o Discount
1 5 ,000.98
59,985.55
-44,984.57
1 3,637.26
54,532.32
-40,895.06
1 .06
37,502.45
26,301 .22
1 1 ,201 .24
30,993.76
21 ,736.54
9,257.22
37,502.45
26,301.22
1 1 ,201 .24
28,176. 1 5
19,760.49
8,415.65
37,502.45
27,634.64
9,867.82
25,614.68
1 8,874.83
6,739.85
37,502.45
26,301.22
1 1 ,201 .24
23,286.07
16,330.99
6,955.09
37,502.45
33,901.3
3,601 .16
2 1 , 1 69 . 1 6
19,136.4
2,032.76
37,502.45
27,634.64
9,867.82
1 9,244.69
14,1 80.94
5,063.75
37,502.45
26,301.22
1 1 ,201.24
17,495.17
12,269.71
5,225.46
37,502.45 37,502.45
26,301.22 27,634.64
1 1 ,201.24 1 8,526.95 Total
(lncludinga aalvage value of
K 8,659.13 at 1oth Year)
1 5,904.7 14,458.82 209,980.46
1 1 ,154.28 1 0,654.35 1 98,630.85
4,750.42 7,142.94 14,688.08
Net Benefit Discounted at percentage of
18.16
IRR
-38,072.5
8,023.46
, I · 18.16 %
6,790.62
5,063.05
4,864.13
1 ,323.52
3,069.42
2,948.83
2,495.73
Total
3,493.68
. -0.07
|
|
12.3 Page 113 |
▲back to top |
4. 50 % of the female fish grown to 2 kg are used for artificial reproduction.
5. There is a 20 % mortality each year. Therefore, the 2nd year fish and 1 st
year fish are 1 20 % and 1 44 % more in number compared to the 3rd year
fish.
6. Male:female ratio is 1 : 1 .
Based on these assumptions, the total weight of brood fish required for various
number of eggs were calculated and plugged in the spread sheet model which in
turn calculated the necessary size of the farm facility and costing made for the
required brood fish production. For a government hatchery to operate, there are
overhead costs for government officials and office expenses in addition to the cost
directly involved in the fish production. The overhead cost amounting 1<25,000/year
being a OIC salary of K15,000/year and office running cost of K10,000/year was
added,separately on top of the cost of fish production calculated as above. The cost
of egg importation was calculated with the same method as explained in the spread
sheet model. The results of calculations are shown in Table 44.
According to the calculation, the cost of egg production in the country becomes
cheaper after the number of eggs produced increased over 1 . 9 million if only direct
cost of fish production was considered (Figure 27). For the government hatchery
which requires additional assumed overhead cost of 1<25,000, it requires to produce
more than 9 million eggs to be competitive with the cost of egg importation from
Australia.
The current production of trout in the country is about 6 ton/year from Nupaha Trout
Farm. The historical maximum level of trout production was 20 ton/year by Kotuni
Farm. For a production target for the immediate future it is not realistic to target
2500
Cost rA egg importation
2000
1500
i
g_
§
1000
Cost ofegg production
with Gov. C>.terhead
Cost of egg production
500
oL--...-. -4!------1f-------+-----+-----i--+-----1
0
2000000
. 400
- .. C:.JOO
300
1000
12000
I
Number of Eggs
Rgure 27. Cost of Egg Production in the Country and Egg Importation from Australia al Various Egg Production Number.
97
|
|
12.4 Page 114 |
▲back to top |
Table 44. Comparison of Cost for Egg Production and Cost of Egg Importation (unit; kina).
I
!TPorrogdoulcNtioolnionol Fllh
IRequired No ol250 g - fioh
ISllYVlIa
1Roqukod number olftngerlngls
ISllIVlaY In halchery
IRequited No olegog
IE9118 perfemale brodo
IRale of usablefemale
IRequired Noolfomale brood
IWeightolfomale brodo
ITolal weight olfemale brodo
!survival rrom:2nd to 3rd year
IRequired Nc>ol2nd yr. Female
IWeight ol2ndyr. Female
ITotal weight ol2ndyr. Female
ISurvival from 1st to 2nd year
IRequired No ol 1styoro
Female
IWeight ol1st year Female
ITotal weightol 1styr. Fomole
ITolal fomole weight
ITolal malceweight
ITolal fiohweight
ICoto olprod<Jctlon
ICoto olEgg production/egg
IGovernment Overhead (OIC)
IGOYomment OY8IMad
ITotal operational cost
IRevised COG! olproduction/egg
ICapHal cost
Egg Production Cost
I
I I I I "°°I I I 50
82.5
75
100
200
300
700r 500
600
I I I I I I I I 200,000 250,000 30,0 000 '40,0 000 80,0 000 1,20,0 000 1,60,0 000 2,00,0 000 2,40,0 000 2,80,0 000
0.5
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 I
I I I I I I I '40,0 000 50,0 000 60,0 000 80,0 000 1,60,0 000 2,40,0 000 3,200,00014,00,0 000 4,80,0 000 5,60,0 000
0.5
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 I
0.5 1
I l I I I I I I 80,0 000 1,00,0 000 1,200,000 1,60,0 000 3,20,0 000 4,80,0 000 6,..,.0 000 8,00,0 000 9,60,0 000 11,200,00
0
3,500
0.5
457
I 3.500
0.5 I
571 I
I 3,500
0.5 I
6861
I 3,500
0.5 I
914 I
3,500
0.5
1 ,829
I 3,500
0.5 1
I 2,743
I 3,500
0.5 I
I 3,657
I 3,500
0.5 I
I 4,571
I 3,500
0.5 1
5,486
I 3,500
0.5 I
I 6,400
2,000
I l I 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
I I I 2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
I 2,000
914
I I I 1,143
1,371
1,829
3,657
I I I I 5,486
7,314
9,143 10,971 12,800
0.8
0.8 I
0.8 I
0.8 I
0.8
0.8 I
0.8 I
0.8 I
0.8
0.8 I
571
714 I
I 1 ,000
I 1 ,000
571 I 714 I
0.8 I
0.8 I
I714 8931
I 250 2501
179 I 2231
l I 1,664 2,080
I I 1,664 2,080
I I 3,329 4,161
I I 20,071 23,189
I 857
I 1,143
I 1 ,000
I 1 ,000
I I 857
1,143
0.8 I
0.8 I
I I 1,071
1 ,429
250 I 250 I
268 I 357 I
I I 2,496
3,329
I I 2,496 3,329
I I 4,993 6,657
I I 26,571 . 34,295
2,288
1 ,000
2,286
0.8
2,857
250
714
6,657
6,657
13,314
82,685
I I I 3,429
4,571
5,714
I I I 1,000
1,000
1,000
I I I 3,429 4,571
5,714
0.8 I
0.8 I
0.8 I
I I 4,286
5,714
7,143
I 250
250 I
250
I 1,071
1,429 I 1,786
l 9,986 13,314 16,643
I 9,986 13,314 16,643
I 19,971 26,629 33,286
I - 90,962 119,278 147,563
6,857
I 8,000
1 ,000
I 1 ,000
6,857
I 8,000
0.8
I 0.8
8,571
l 10,000
250
250 I
2,143
I 2,500
I 19,971 23,300
I 19,971 23,300
I 39,943 46,600
I I 173,745 200,178
I 0.03
I 15,000
I 10,000
I 45,071
I 0.06
I 31,973
I 0.02
I 15,000
I 10,000
I 46,189
0.05 I
I 34,806
I 0.02
I 15,000
I 10,000
I 51,571
I 0.04
I 39,229
I 0.02
I 15,000
I 10,000
I 59,295
0,04 I
I 44,934
0.02
15,000
10,000
87,685
0.03
75,361
I 0.02
I 15,000
I 10,000
I 115,962
I 0.02
I 104,095
0.02
15,000
10,000
144,278
0.02
132,847
0.02
15,000
10,000
172,563
0.02
161,417
I I 0.02
0.02
I 15,0001 15,000
I I 10,000 10,000
I I 198,745 225,178
I I 0.02
0.02
I I 189,031 217,646
ICost olEggs
IFreight from Tasmania. to
POM
IFreight from POM to GKA
INo ofeggs required
ICost ofeggs
INo ofeggs package
IWt of cargo
ICoot
ITolal egg Importation COG!
I 0.02
I5
I
2
I 80,0000
I 16,000
I
17
I 119
I 833
I 16,833
Eggs Importation Cost
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
5
5
2
1 ,00,0 000
20,000
21
147
1,029
21,029
2
1,20,0 000
24,000
25
175
1,225
25,225
2
1,60,0 000
32,000
33
231
1,617
33,617
2
3,20,0 000
6!1.000
65
455
3,185
67,185
2
�.80,0 000
96,000
97
679
4,753
100,753
0.02
5
2
6,40,0 000
128,000
129
903
6,321
134,321
0.02
5
2
8,00,0 000
160,000
161
1,127
7,889
167,889
0.02
0.02 I
5
I5
2
2I
I 9,60,0 000 11,20,0 000
I 192,000 224,000
193
225 I
1,351
I 1,575
I 9,457 11,025
I 201,457 235,025
Cost Effective in
Difef rence
Import Import Import Import Import Import Import Import Hatchery Hatchery
28,238 27,160 26,346 I_ 25,678 20,500 15,209
9,957
4,674 -2,712 -9,847
more than 1 00 ton/year for an annual total production from the country. At the
· harvest size of 250 g and an assumed mortality of 50 % from eggs stage to the
harvest size fish, the required number of eggs is 800,000 (= 1 00,000 kg /0.250g
/0.5) for the 1 00 ton/year production. For planning purposes, one million egg
production would be adequate as the production scale of the government hatchery
for the immediate future of trout farming. As shown in Figure 27, below 1 .9 million
egg level, it is cheaper to import eggs rather than to produce them from local brood
98
|
|
12.5 Page 115 |
▲back to top |
fish. For a government hatchery to operate and produce this low level of eggs a
large subsidy is expected every year because the cost of production including the
overhead is much cheaper than the income earned from the sale of fingerlings at an
assumed selling price of K0.05 per fingerling. If the government hatchery sell
fingerlings above this selling price, it would not be economical for individual trout
farmer. The current cost of fingerling production is approximately K0.05 per eggs
being composed of K0.03 for egg importation cost and K0.02 for feed, labor and
other costs. Even if some technical benefit have been taken into account, buying
fingerlings from the government hatchery at the cost above KO.OS/fingerling would
not benefit private farms.
Alternate Option for the Government to Support the Development of
Trout Farming in PNG
Having a government hatchery is not only for supplying the seed fish to the trout
farmers. There are many potential spin-off benefits from the government hatchery.
There are reliable local information that PNG trout are reproducing all throughout
the year in natural streams (Vonole and Masuda, 1 994). If this is true, it might be
possible to produce trout fingerlings in the off-season of the Australian trout
spawning season. This will enable the domestic farmer to start trout farming at any
time of the year as and when the tank space is available under the current
production cycle. The fish are sold within 5 months and the production tanks are
occupied only about half of the capacity in a year in the current production cycle
(Figure 28). If the fish are available in the off-season, the unoccupied production
tanks can be filled with the fish and the tanks be fully utilized throughout the year.
This will shorten the payback period and make the farming a quick income return
business.
''°"
""'
80"
�
� 7"'
�•
•
""'
l..
.. -
11'
II
a-
.,,.
� ""'
5
D0 Unoccupied
• Ocupled
""
'"
•
•
'l
?;"
�
"
•
�
ii
.8
E
s
�
"'
�.x
.8
E
z�
!
E
�
ii'
"
•
•
-c '!
2
�
�•
•
e
�•
'E
�
,;-
Agure 28. Occupied Percentage of Production Tank in the Current Production System.
99
|
|
12.6 Page 116 |
▲back to top |
Research aspects will be handled by the government hatchery. There are many
uncertainty especially on the reproduction biology of trout in PNG. Local studies on
trout spawning biology will benefit the trout industry through increasing the
production of egg and fry. With no record of disease and potential for all year
around production of eggs, it is not realistic to hope that PNG becomes an exporter
of trout eggs to Australia and other countries. Farming technology is also needed to
be improved. For example, the use of earthen ponds is expected to reduce cost of
facility construction and should be studied in connection with the growth and feed
efficiency. The uniform weather condition prevailing in the Highlands are special in
the tropical country of PNG. To take advantage of these unique conditions in trout
farming, there is a need for research in the local conditions. As far as natural
condition is concerned, there is no limitation in the availability of suitable clear cold
water in this country and it is not impossible to develop a large scale trout farming
(1 00 - 500 .ton/year from a single farm) which could compete in the international
market.
Training of local farmers will also a important function of the government hatchery
which will certainly benefit a great number of people. The benefit of training is
difficult to evaluate in terms of money.
These additional benefit should be taken into account when considering the
establishment of a national hatchery. However, the present trout farming in PNG is ·
based on the high fish price which i s realized by taking advantage of the small scale
of production. At the moment, there are only two tout farms currently in PNG. As
discussed above, it is not realistic t o assume any sudden increase in production
level without sacrificing the high price. The potential for trout industry is not
expected to be large based on the expected market situation in a short term
perspective. Then, the establishment of full scale government hatchery may not be,
in the short term, a cost effective way to support the development of trout farming
without fully ascertaining the long term future potential of the industry on the basis of
a large government investment.
If a million egg production is targeted for national government hatchery, the cost of
facility construction would be roughly K100,000 - 1<200,00037 and each year K50,000
would be required as annual operational cost, although a larger part of operational
cost would be recovered as inco m e from the fingerling sales.
Trout farmer will be beneficial if fin g e rlings are available locally mainly because
individual farms and interested farmers do not need to have hatchery which is the
single most expensive cost item in t h e physical set up of a trout farm. One
alternative to realize this without investing a large public money is to import eggs
and incubate them by the government to supply fingerlings to the private farmers
and interested farmers.
Lake Pindi and Yaundo Trout Farm i s located at the foot of Mr. Wilhelm at an
altitude of 2,500 m above the sea l evel. The water temperature is between 1 0 - 1 3
37
This cost estimate is based on our study which is derived from the data on Nupaha and
Kotuni. It is usual that the government estimate (specially estimate by the Department of Works)
would become several times of estimate by the private sector because of high government overhead
cost.
1 00
|
|
12.7 Page 117 |
▲back to top |
•c and most suitable for trout reproduction. Trout in the natural streams around the
area is flourished with natural population of trout. The owner of the farm is willing to
allow the government to use their facility in return of Fisheries Department technical
assistance given to them. The water supply at the farm is large enough to cater for
the demand expected from the provincial governments and potential individual
farmers.
One sensible option of government facilitating the development of the trout industry
at minimal cost is to revive the Kotuni Trout Farm. The physical facilities of Kotuni
Farm are still available at the farm site. The farm is located at 1 900 m above sea
level and the water temperature is about 1 5 •c which is good for trout farming
(growing out) but higher than required temperature for reproduction. The farm is not
suitable for the site for the national hatchery because of the relatively higher water
temp�rature although Cadwallader ( 1 991) recommended it.
The national government involvement in the development oftrout farming in PNG
has been very little historically. The trout farming development in PNG was lead by
the private sector, namely Kotuni Trout Farm and Nupaha Trout Farm, and most
recently Lake Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm. Provincial government of Eastern
Highlands was supportive of trout farming activity mainly with the financial
assistance to Kotuni. There is very little evidence of national government
involvement regarding the operation of Kotuni Farm. The establishment of Nupaha
Trout Farm was done by Mr. Kosi. There were some financial and technical
assistance from the Eastern Highlands provincial government. But there was no
evidence of national government supporting in technical aspects which were very
·
much needed especially during the first year of operation.
Prior to the Kotuni Farm establishment, Southern Highlands Provincial government
played a major role in stocking of trout fish in natural rivers. During 1 971 - 73, over a
quarter of a million fingerlings were stocked in the Highlands rivers, not only in
rivers of Southern Highlands Province but also in rivers of other Highlands
Provinces. Some trout distributed in these rivers survived and reproduced to
establish natural population which was utilized by the local people as a
supplemental protein food source and as a source of income. There is no doubt on
the benefit of this activity to local people. All Highlands provincial governments are
supporting this activity (see Chapter 1 : Backgrpund). However, evidence indicated
that the national government (Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries Division)
discouraged this activity in the name of natural conservation and later restricted
transplantation and introduction of any fish in 1 970's.
Trout farming is a commercial activity and the private sector should remain as the
leading player for its development. However, it is the responsibility of the national
government to monitor and appropriately support the industry and create a favorable
condition for the development of trout farming in this country. There is an apparently
lack of support by the national government. For example, the authors from the
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources were not able to answer the
question asked by Mr. Kosi of Nupaha Trout Farm and Mr. and Mrs. Higgins of Lake
Pindi Yaundo Trout Farm why there is a high import duty (50 %) levied on the trout
eggs while the national government is committed to the development of the
aquaculture in its policy.
101
|
|
12.8 Page 118 |
▲back to top |
The lack of support by the national government comes from the lack of technical
capability. There is no national biologist specialized in trout farming. There has
been no activity in this field by the government. The national government has been
isolated from the private sector. In order to provide appropriate service to the private
sector farmers and facilitate the industry in its development, the national Department
of Fisheries and Marine Resources should increase its technical capability. Trout
farming is a viable economic activity as concluded in this study. Its development
should be pursued although any large public investment need to be justified.
To develop the capability of the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources in
this field, realistically there is a need for a base station where the government
officers practice and develop skills. Kotuni can be a potential site for the
establishm�nt of such a fisheries training center.
1 02
|
|
12.9 Page 119 |
▲back to top |
Chapter 7: Conclusion
The spread sheet analysis of the model trout farm derived from the data collected
and analyzed during the study concluded that trout farming operations practiced at
Nupaha and Kotuni Farms are financially viable basically because of a very high
selling fish price realized by taking advantage of small scale production which is the
two main characteristics of the PNG trout farming. The financial viability of trout
farming is sensitive these two factors, the farm scale of operation and fish sales
price. According to the analysis, the farm scale of operation should be large enough
to produce at least about 6 ton/year in order for the farm to be more profitable. The
fish sales price must be higher than K6.00/kg at the farm production scale of 1 0
ton/year. The farm size or the scale of operation of the farm and the fish selling
price are inter-related. The larger the scaled of operation, the more the fish sales
price can be reduced without very much affecting the profitability margin of the farm.
The closure of both Kotuni Trout Farm in 1 984 and the temporary closure of Nupaha
Farm in 1 992 were not due to economic, financial or marketing problems. The
records of Kotuni Trout Farm suggested a deteriorated relationship between the
management and the workers (and landowners) at the final phase of Kotuni Farm
operation. The management frequently accused the workers of being lazy, not
attending to flood problems, stealing fish and tempering with the farm facilities. In
turn, the local workers leveled accusations on the management for stealing money,
exerting excessive payment demands by landowners and threats to disrupt
operations. Another problem which also affected the operation of Kotuni Farm was
the lack of on-site manager to supervise the workers and manage the day to day
operation of the farm which made it difficult to deal quickly with catastrophic flooding
problems and loss of fish. This was a technical problem throughout the history of
Kotuni. The manager living in Goroka town and the farm was left to a local farm
supervisor and the workers who were being accused by the management. It would
have been difficult for the manager to react quickly to the floods and stop the fish
dying. The unavailability of a full time manager living at Kotuni Farm and the
frequent disputes between the workers and the management made the people
uncooperative to stop major floods killing the fish.
From 1 975 - 1 981 , Kotuni Trout Farm was heavily supported financially by the
Government, through the PNG Development Bank, The Eastern Highlands Area
Authority and the Eastern Highlands Provincial Government through a total funding
assistance for K1 02,073.75 on 1 0 separate occasions. The Eastern Highlands
provincial Government also guaranteed up to 80 %, under the Government
Guarantee Scheme, funding for a loan form Wespac Bank to Kotuni Farm. In spite
of all these financial assistance, the Financial Statement for Kotuni Trout Farm for
1 979 - 1 984 showed Kotuni Trout Farm was carrying a total accumulated loss over
the period of K89,724.00 and a total net operating loss of K82, 250. 00 over the same
period. The reason or cause of these heavy losses were not categorically specified
but were grossly termed as extraordinary loss on the Financial Statements. Kotuni
Farm, according to the Financial Statement, for the first time ever during its 1 2 years
1 03
|
|
12.10 Page 120 |
▲back to top |
of operation, made a small profit of K5,955.00 in 1 983 when the farm was already
preparing to close down operations in the following year of 1 984. The authors could
not establish why Kotuni was getting a lot of financial assistance from the
government and successfully expanding production but yet continued to accumulate
. operating losses until the end of its final year of operation when the farm had to
make a profit and close operation.
There was an untransparency in the financial affairs of Kotuni Trout Farm during its
operation under the management of Mr. David Hunter who was responsible for the
operational aspects as well as onsite management and Mr. John Peterson who was
managing at the top level of management. No records was available at the top level
management. Discrepancies were made in the calculation offish sales income of 20
ton production in 1 982-83 at the sales price of K5.50/kg should have been
accoupted to K1 1 0,000.00 but the Financial Statement declared K67,000 as fish
sales income. It is not known where the difference of the money went to.
On the technical management of the Kotuni Trout Farm, Mr. David Hunter was the
only farm manager who successfully tried to establish and expand the farm to
operate on a sound and profitable manner. In his planned expansion of Kotuni
Farm, Mr. Hunter secured financial assistance from the Government and the
commercial banks to finance and expand the farm production facilities in order to
increase production to over 20 tons per year. Mr. Hunter also secured an on-site
farm manager and built a house for him to live at Kotuni and be able to handle
flooding problems. As operational manager, Mr. Hunter established a market
distribution outlet in Goroka town to market Kotuni produced trout, introduced
smoked trout fillets and conducted trial export markets to Australia with Kotuni
smoked trout fillets. With these improvements during 1 978 - 1 98 1 , Kotuni Trout
Farm production reached an all time high of 20 tons in 1 982-83 under the new
manager Mr. Karl Kroeker. Thus with these improved technical management Kotuni
Trout Farm achieved quite a successful history and achievement during its last
years of operation. But in spite of these success and achievements in production,
Kotuni unfortunately had to close operation in 1 984. The decision of this sudden
closure of Kotuni Farm in 1 984 by the top management of Nokondi Investment at the
time when the farm's technically capability had been improved, production increased
to 20 tons, market for fresh and smoked trout was expanding and the farm for the
first time made a profit in 1 983, was mysterious and cannot be understood by the
authors.
·
The main reason surrounding the decision for Nokondi management to close Kotuni
could not be fully understood by the authors. The closure of Kotuni was certainly not
related to its financial viability. The farm increased production to 20 tons in 1 982-83
and did not face any difficulties in marketing all the fish. Therefore, there was no
financial or economic justification for Nokondi to go ahead and close the farm.
In the case of Nupaha Trout Farm, the temporary closure of the farm operation in
1 992-93 was n;:it because of-financial, economic or marketing problems. During the
study, Mr. Kosi informed the authors that eggs were not available in that year.
However, according to a local clan member and landowner working at Nupaha,
there was a dispute between Mr. Kosi and his business group members in 1 992-983
which had caused the temporary closure of the farm. The reason of the dispute were
1 04
|
|
13 Pages 121-130 |
▲back to top |
|
|
13.1 Page 121 |
▲back to top |
local group members of trout farm business were not getting enough benefit from
the trout farm project. Therefore, the reason of the temporary closure was either
technical (egg availability) or social (dispute), or probably both.
Nupaha Trout Farm originally started off with a generous EEC financial assistance
of K85.000.00 as a community project for the Nupaha people to be coordinated by
Mr. Robin Kosi. After all construction of the farm facilities were completed in 1 989
-90, the emphasis on the farm as a community project became less and less
important and the farm gradually become the sole private business for Mr. Kosi.
Thus the dispute between Mr. Kosi and his business group members were quite
understandable because Nupaha Trout Farm project was originally meant to be a
village community project to benefit all village and not just one person.
Because of the nature of Nupaha Trout Farm which originally started off as a
community project, Mr. Kosi is being mindful of his responsibility to the community
by contributing money towards village projects, school fees for children and various
other village and church projects which are quite difficult to quantify in economic
value. Being new to trout farming, Mr. Kosi learnt farming through hands on
experience and became successful. Mr. Kosi is now assisting a small scale trout
farmer by supplying free fingerlings and technical advices. These effort by Mr. Robin
Kosi resolved the dispute and Farm commenced operation in 1 993. This difference
should be emphasized in comparison to the Kotuni Case which permanently closed
soon after the expatriate managers left the farm. Technically, Nupaha Farm is still
need to improve much to achieve the level of Kotuni Farm in the 1 980s. However,
the Nupaha management can understand the community in terms of people and
society because he is originally from the village and part of his people. The Kotuni
management view of the local villagers was limited to their economic function as
workers. The relationship from the view point of the management is strictly between
management and employee in the modern sense of capitalism. However, the views
from the landowners was not necessarily the same and probably in conflict from that
of the management. The authors are not suggesting which view is good or not, but
trying to point out that the capability to understand and react appropriately to the
villagers made a lot of difference in the operation of the trout farm between Kotuni
and Nupaha Farms. Even if a project performed well technically and financially as in
the case of Kotuni Farm the project can not be necessarily beneficial to the people if
the profit was not returned into the local econqmy and society. There is a
reasonable suspition that a large portion of Kotuni profit was transferred out to
Australia, and was not reinvested in this country.
The current financial difficulties experienced by Mr. Kosi was caused by the
unviable business investments. He went into the PMV bus business, security firm
and the construction of Zauka Lodge. The lodge, bus business and the security
company were thought to be started using income generated from the fish farming
operation. The bus business and the security company have all closed down and
the Zauka lodge is as yet to start operating since its construction in 1 992.
Results received and analyzed from respondents in a trout market questionnaire
survey conducted on PNG farmed trout nationwide indicated that hotels and clubs in
the highlands were the main customers for trout. Most of the respondents in the
trout market survey considered freshness or taste as important characteristics for
1 05
|
|
13.2 Page 122 |
▲back to top |
fresh fish rather than price, size and guaranteed supply of fish. The trout market
survey showed no respondents from the highlands who is dealing with fresh fish but
if trout were readily available in the highlands the potential buying price would be as
high as KB.67/kg which is not only higher than the current Nupaha selling price of
K7.50/kg but also indicated the high demand and limited supply of fresh fish in the
highlands.
Results from the trout market survey also showed that retailers and wholesalers in
the coastal area less prefer trout because of an already available salt water fish. On
the other hand retailers and wholesalers in the highlands considered trout as an
expensive fish which is slow to sell. Hotels and clubs both in the coastal areas
(37%) and highlands (43%) prefer trout as their sales products. The export market
potential for PNG farmed trout in the immediate future looks bleak and cannot
compe�e on the international market under the current sale and level of production
compared to large scale trout productions overseas. The current price for PNG trout
is K7.50/kg compared to the current Australian trout price of 1<2.33/kg (AU$3.50/kg)
which makes PNG trout uncompetitive on the export market.
Given the PNG's current production capacity of 1 0-1 2 ton/year, the cost of feed and
labor cannot be easily absorbed by the small scale of operation compared to a large
scale trout producerwith reduced cost of operation. In the long term as PNG's
production capacity of the trout industry is gradually expanded the trout industry can
compete successfully on the international market. The basis of current Nupaha
selling price of K7.50/kg seems to be determined by the import price of Australian
trout. The cost of air-freight and other charges and duties amounting to KS.DO
determining the PNG trout price of between K7.00 - B.00/kg. As also evident in the
trout market survey, salt water fish from the coast which sells at K3.00 - 4.00/kg and
cost K1 .00 - 2.00/kg for airfreight to the highlands is competing with the current
Nupaha Trout sales price of K7.50/kg.
An analysis done on the cost and benefits of a national cold water hatchery
indicated that the establishment of a national trout hatchery for the production and
distribution of trout fingerlings which will be made readily available to interested
small scale trout farmers wanting to go into trout farming in the highlands. For
government to established a national cold water. hatchery it will cost a lot of initial
capital investment to build the physical facilities, apart from the overhead and
maintenance costs of the hatchery facilities. It is estimated, based on Kotuni and
Nupaha Farms, that it will cost at least K1 00,000 - 1<200,000 to build a national
government trout hatchery and an additional KS0,000 operational cost annually to
produce one million eggs as the scale of production for the government hatchery in
the short to medium term. This construction estimate is based on the data on
Nupaha and Kotuni where construction was done with limited budget and finance.
All the five provincial governments in the five highlands provinces visited and talked
to during this trout study overwhelmingly supported trout farming development and
river stocking with trout fingerlings in their respective provinces.
106
|
|
13.3 Page 123 |
▲back to top |
Reference
Most of reference for this report are original documents obtained from Nupaha Trout
Farm and Kotuni Trout Farm. Over 2,000 pages of original documents including
cash book, time wages recording sheets, correspondences, dairies, ledgers,
photographs, are photocopied with the permission. All these photocopied references
are shelved and registered in the Library of national Department of Fisheries and
Marine Resources, Kanudi, Port Moresby.
Anon. 1 976-1984. Nokondi Files on Kotuni Trout Farm, vol. 1 , vol. 2 and vol. 3.
No,kondi Investment Pty. Ltd. Eastern Highlands Provincial Government.
(Photocopied Documents in this Study. Library of Department of Fisheries
and Marine Resources, Kanudi, Port Moresby.)
Anon. 1 973-1993. Files of Kotuni Trout Farm. vol. 1 , vol. 2 and vol. 3. Kotuni Trout
Farm Pty. Ltd, Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province. (Photocopied
Documents in this Study. Library of Department of Fisheries and Marine
Resources, Kanudi, Port Moresby.)
Anon. 1 978-84. Carbon Copies of Receipt Dockets for Trout Fish Sales. Kotuni
Trout Farm Pty. Ltd, Eastern Highlands Province.
Anon. 1 994. Trout Marketing Questionnaire Survey. (Files of the answer sheets from
the respondents).
Blichfeldt, D. R. 1 972. Account of Hatching of Eyed Rainbow Trout Ova in Mendi:
July September. 1 972. Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries.
Blichfeldt, D. P. 1 974. Summary of Trout Hatching at Mendi 1 973. Department of
Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries.
Epoke, N. 1 983. Kotuni Trout Farm Supervisor's Diary 1 983. (Photocopied
Documents
Resources,
in this Study.
Kanudi, Port
Library of
Moresby.)
Departr' :nent
of
Fisheries
and
Marine
Copland, J. W. 1 981 . Report on Short Aid Assignment in Papua New Guinea
Regarding Trout Export Industry Program. Regional Veterinary Laboratory,
Department of Agriculture, Benalla, Victoria, Australia. 8 pp.
Gare, H. C. 1 973. Letter to J. Glucksman. DASF, re: Policy on fish introduction to
Lakes Aunde and Paunde, Mt. Wilhelm. PNG National Parks Board. 1 p.
-,
Gendua, Karl. 1 994. Rehabilitation of Kotuni Trout Farm. Proposal.
Kosi, Robin. 1 989-93. Correspondence Files of Nupaha Trout Farm. Nupaha Trout
Farm, Eastern Highlands Province. (Photocopied Documents in this Study.
1 07
|
|
13.4 Page 124 |
▲back to top |
Library of Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Kanudi, Port
Moresby. )
Kosi, Robin. 1 989 to 1 990. Progressive Report of Nupaha Trout Farm Project.
Report Submitted to European Economic Community through Office of
International Development Assistance, Waigani, Port Moresby. (Photocopied
Documents in this Study. Library of Department of Fisheries and Marine
Resources, Kanudi, Port Moresby.)
Kosi, Robin. 1 989, 1 990, and 1 991 . Filed Photocopies of Receipt Dockets for
Expenditure on Nupaha Trout Farm Project.
Kosi, Robin. 1 989-1 992. Feed Purchase Record. (Photocopied Documents in this
Stuay. Library of Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Kanudi,
Port Moresby).
Kroeker, Karl. 1 98 1 . Kotuni Trout Farm Manager's Diary 1 98 1 . (Photocopied
Documents in this Study. Library of Department of Fisheries and Marine
Resources, Kanudi, Port Moresby).
Kasi, Robin. 1 991-93. Fish Sales Records at Nupaha Trout Farm. (Carbon copies of
original fish sales records including direct sales at the farm site and credit
sales).
Kosi, Robin, 1 994. List of Estimated Cost for Physical Facility Construction at
Nupaha Trout Farm. (Photocopied Documents in this Study. Library of
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Kanudi, Port Moresby.)
Pillay, T.V.R. 1 990. Aquaculture. Principles and Practices. Fishing News Books.
Oxford, London.
Sogom, Petrus. Undated. Aquaculture Reports (Papua New Guinea) Volume 9:
Trout. Fisheries and Survey Branch, Department of Primary Industry, Port
Moresby. (A complied reports, letters, memos, etc. including those by
Blichfeldt, Copland and Gare cited here), Library of Department of Fisheries
and Marine Resources, Kanudi, Port Moresby.
Samuel H. Logan and W. E. Johnston. 1 992. Economics of Commercial Trout
Production. Aquaculture, 1 00: 25 - 46.
Polvsen, Anders F. 1 993, Observations on the biology and ecology of rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss, and its implications for fisheries in the Highlands of
Papua New Guinea. Fl:PNG85/001 . Field Document No. 2 1 .
Tasiro, F., Tachikawa W., Kamata T., Tamura E., Ace H., and Yabe Y. 1 974.
Rainbow Trout . Fish Farming Lecture Series. Vol. 1 0. Midori Shobow Co. ,
Ltd. (in Japanese).
Toriyama, M. 1 980. Theory and Practice of Feasibility Study. Nihon Kaihatu Service.
Toranomon, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese).
1 08
|
|
13.5 Page 125 |
▲back to top |
Tomich and Stockwell, 1 99 1 . Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fisheries and
Coastal Resources Management and Development Project, Papua New
Guinea. Asian Development Bank technical Assistance No. 1 306-PNG,
Working Paper No. 1 0. (Prepared by Agrodev Canada Inc. for the
Government of Papua New Guinea and the Asian Development Bank).
Vonole and Masuda, 1 994. A feasibility study report on trout farming at Nium and
Kosipe, Woitape District, Central Province. DFMR Research Paper no.
Consultants report for Nupaha Trout Farm Management. Citation to be shown. The
copy of report is in Aiyura.
1 09
|
|
13.6 Page 126 |
▲back to top |
Appendices
1 . National Fisheries Council Resolution on the Trout Study
2. Terms of Reference for Engaging an Aquaculture Economist
3. Travel Itinerary
4. List of People Met and Discussed with During the Trout Study
'
5. Re�ord of Discussions
6. Results of Water Quality Analysis
7. Record ofA Potential Trout Farming Site Visit at Minj, Western
Highlands
8. Categorized Expenditure at Nupaha Trout Farm
9. Trout Marketing Survey Questionnaire
1 0. Financial Model of Trout Farm in the Highlands of PNG (Diskette)
110
|
|
13.7 Page 127 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 1: National Fisheries Council Resolution on the Trout Study
TITLE: TROUT FARMING
BACKGROUND:
A recent consultancy on trout farming in PapuaNew Guinea recommended the
establishment of a national coldwater hatchery using existing hatchery facilities.
Funding for the upgrading ofthe.facilities would be provided from government
sources.
The question ofthe economic viability trout farming was not adequately addressed
in the consultancy and insufficient data is currently available to resolve this issue. For
this reason, the Department ofFinance and Planning is not in a position to approve
funds for the hatchery project.
RESOLUTIONS:
The National Fisheries Council resolves that:-
1. The Department ofFisheries and Marine Resources commission a study to assess the
economic viability and nutritional value oftrout farming and hatchery operations in PNG.
2. The report ofthe study be made available prior to the next NFC.
3. Department ofFisheries and Marine Resources to upgrade existing facilities including
hatchery.
111
|
|
13.8 Page 128 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 2: Terms ofReference for Engaging an Aquaculture Economist
BACKGROUND
Trout seeding of rivers was engage by the Highlands provinces since the early 60"s.
Within this period the Kotuni Trout Farm was established as a pilot project farm to
determine the feasibility of farming trout on a commercial basis. No records of this
farm was available with it closed down in 1 975. The reasons behind the eventual
closure of this farm was considered go to be both economic and technical.
To address the technical aspects of trout culture, a consultant was engaged by the
tDeecphanritcmalelyn,ttohfeFeisnhveirroiensmaenndtsMwaarsingeoRodesfoour rtcheesdienv1e9lo9p1m. eHnist
report indicated that
of a trout hatchery and
its culture: The economic aspect was not addressed to identify problem area in
which a trout entrepreneur can overcome to have a profitable farm.
TERMS OF REFERENCE:
The Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources require a consultant to carry
out a feasibility study into the economic feasibility of establishing trout farming in
f� PNG. The consultant will in close consultation with the Secretary of the Department
of Fisheries and Marine Resources undertake the
1 . Review existing PNG literature pertaining to.!§mLhatchery and culture paying
particular attention to the Cadwallader Report.
2. Carry out site inspection of active trout hatchery/farm facility in the Highlands
region.
3. Consultant with various private and government organizations with interest in
trout culture.
4. Assess the economic viability of establishing and operating a profitable trout
farm with emphasis on :
a. marketing aspects
b. cost factors/cost of production
c. supply and demand consumption factors
d. prospectives for exporting of trout products
e. training requirements for trout farmers
f.
price elasticity
g. diseconomics factors
5. Consider and recommend opticr,3 for a cost effective operation of trout
farming in PNG.
112
|
|
13.9 Page 129 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 3: Travel Itinerary
1 1 Jan. 8:55 - 1 1:00
(Tue)
Mr. R Vonole departed Jackson's Airport, Port at 8:55 am. Met by Mr.
Robin Kosi, Manager of Nupaha Trout Farm at Goroka
Airport and brought him to Bird of Paradise Hotel to check in.
14:30
II Dr. K. Masuda and Mr. P. Sagom arrived from Aiyura and checked in at the
Bird of Paradise Hotel, Goroka
15:00
Arranged PTB vehicle for use on study and made appointments for
meetings on the trout study
II
19:00 - 22:00 Held a meeting with Mr. Robin Kosi to discuss the program for the trout
study before commencement.
II
12 Jan. 1 0:30 - 1 1 :30 Met with Mr. Walter Mombe, Provincial DPI Minister and Mr. Ian Mopafi,
(Wed)
,,'
Assistant Secretary for DPI, Eastern Highlands Province, to discuss the
tout study.
1 3:40 - 1 5:26 Talked to Mr. Karl Rocky Gendua o Kotuni Trout Farm and Kegesugl Trout
Hatchery in Simbu.
ll
16:00 - 18:05 Visited Kotuni Trout Farm
II
13 Jan. 1 0:00 - 16:30 Conducted project site study at Nupaha Trout Farm on the facility and
(Thu)
II reviewed files and records made available by Mr. Robin Kosi on the farm.
16:30 - 1 7:00 Accompanied form Nupaha Farm by Mr. Poli Aizae, a village trout farm
owner to visit his integrated trout and carp farm at Samagoni village within
the Nupaha area.
14 Jan. 8:00 - 1 8:00
(Fn)
lRevisited Kotuni Trout Farm to examine facilities. water and
physical set up of the farm. Found the farm managers' records in the
Imanager's office. Talked to landowners and Kotuni villagers on Kotuni
ITrout Farm.
20:00 - 22:00 Talked to Mr. Yaunggau Uiyasi, Managing Director ofNokondi Investment,
the business arm of the Eastern Highlands Provincial Government, and 65
% share holder of Kotuni Trout Farm Ply Ltd. Mr. Yaunggau generously
allowed authors access to information left in the manager's office in Kotuni
Trout Farm.
1 5 Jan. 8:00 - 1 8:00
l (Sat)
16 Jan. 8:00 - 14:00
(sun)
Reviewed records and information on Kotuni Trout Farm generously made
available by Nokondi Investments.
II
II Drove to Kotuni and talked to landowners of Kotuni Trout Farm and picked
up Manager's files and records at Kotuni Trout Farm.
Held discussion with Mr. Robin Kosi at Nupaha Trout Farm. Examined the
water intake and supply system upstre.am of water source.
II
16 Jan 7:45 - 16:00
(Sun)
Read and reviewed historical files, records and information on Kotuni Trout
Farm operations. Photocopying of relevant information on Kotuni and
Nupaha Trout Farms.
1 7 Jan. 7:45 - 1 6:00
(Mon)
Continued review, reading, and photocopying records, files on Kotuni and
Nupaha Trout Farms. Held discussion with Mr. Karl Gendua on Kotuni
Trout Farm.
1 8 Jan. 1 7:30 - 21 :OO Held a meeting with Mr. Robin Kosi on Nupaha Trout Farm operation.
(Tue)
1 9 Jan. 9:00 - 12:00 Left Goroka and drove to Kundiawa. Mr. Karl Gendua Accompanied
(Wed)
authros on the trip to Simbu Province.
1 3:00 - 14:30 Met with Mr. Jack Mulake, Provincial Advisor, DPI, Simbu provincial
government. Also talked to Mr. Peter Kamis, Provincial Executive Officer,
Simbu Government.
113
|
|
13.10 Page 130 |
▲back to top |
1 9 Jan. 16:00 - 17:30 Accompanied by Mr. Peter Kamis to evaluate a potential trout farm site at
(Wed)
Kualke River near the Denglagu Catholic Mission Station, Upper Simbu.
1 8:00
Checked in at Mr. Amore! Umba's Guest House at Kegesugl, Mt. Welhelm.
20 Jan. 8:00 - 1 8:00
(Thu)
Visited Kegesugl Trout Hatchery and examined the facilities. Discussed
with Mr. John Waiange, OIC, Gembogl Potato Project, where the run-down
trout hatchery is located presently. Also visited a new privately built trout
farm owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ken Higgins at Mt. Willhelm.
21 Jan. 8:00 - 16:00 Left Kegesugl, Simbu Province, and drove to Mendi, Southern Highlands
(Fri)
Province. Checked in at Kiburu Lodge, Mendi.
II
16:30 - 18:00 Met with Mr. Greg Onesi, Assistant Secretary, DPI, and Mr. Ronald
Handape, Divisional Planner, Department of Southern Highlands.
1 9:30 - 21 :30 Met with Vincent Sonk, Provincial Fisheries officer, Mendi, Department of
Southern Highlands.
22 Jan. 1 9:30 - 21 :30 Reviewed and analyzed record on Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farm brought
(Sat)
form Goroka.
23 Jan 8:00 - 1 3:45
(Sun)
Accompanied by Mr. Greg Onesi, AS DPI, and Mr. Vincent Sonk,
Provincial Fisheries Officer, to visit the Mendi hatchery and the run down
Komea River Trout fish Trap.
24 Jan. 1 0:30 - 1 5:00 Checked trout of Kiburu Lodge and drove down to Mt. Hagen town.
(Mon) 1 5:30
Checked in at Highlander Hotel, Mt. Hagen.
25 Jan. 8:30 - 14:30
(Tue)
Drove to lalibu District to examine a potential trout farming site. Did water
analysis at the Konjo River at Yawalinda village. Also looked at the newly
build carp pond for Mr. Patrick Rama at Yameyame village.
14:30 - 16:30 Drove back to Mt. Hagen.
26 Jan. 1 5:00
(Wed)
Discussed trout and carp farming in the Western Highlands Province with
Mr. Korua Komp, AS DPI, Mr. Stewart Hawthorn, Provincial Fisheries
Officer (VSO), and Mr. Tep Mandip, Provincial Fisheries Officer, Mt.
Hagen, Department of Western Highlands.
27 Jan. 12:00 - 1 9:00 Checked out of Highlander Hotel and drove to Lae, Morobe province.
(Thu)
Stopped at Aiyura Highlands Aquaculture Development Centre Office to
unload records and files borrowed from Kotuni and Nupaha Trout Farms for
photocopying.
28 Jan. 9:00 - 1 1 :00 Discussed with Mr. Goeff Lansdown, Feed Mill Manager, Table bird, Lae,
(Fri)
Morobe Province.
II
12:00 - 12:30 Discussed with Mr. Jim Gregg, Manager Associate Mills Limited and Lae
Feed Mills Pty. Ltd. Lae, Morobe Province.
II
29 Jan.
(Sat)
Mr. P. Sagom returned to Aiyura. Dr. Masuda and Mr. Vonole flew to Port
Moresby.
II
30 Jan.
Mr. P Sagom flew to Port Moresby.
(Sun)
I!
1 Feb. 14:00 - 1 5:00 Briefing with Mr. Joseph Gabut, Secretary, DFMR, on the trout study.
I (Mon) I
I
I
II (second phase)
8 Feb.
(Mon)
Traveled back to Goroka to collect further information on Kotuni and
Nupaha trout Farm and to verify incomplete farm information with Mr.
Robin Kasi.
I
16:30 - 17:30 Visited Nupaha Trout Farm to meet Mr. robin Kosi and observed the farm
operation.
I
114
|
|
14 Pages 131-140 |
▲back to top |
|
|
14.1 Page 131 |
▲back to top |
9 Feb. 1 3:00 - 14:00 Explained and requested specific information needed to analyze the farm
(Tue)
operation form Mr. Kosi.
19:00 - 21 :OO Held a meeting with Mr. Karl Gendua on future of the Kotuni Trout Farm.
1 0 Feb. 14:00 - 1 8:00 Visited Nupaha Trout Farm to make additional observation on physical
0/Jed)
facilities and issues with Mr. Kosi.
II
1 9:00 - 21:00 Discussed further with Mr. Kosi and Mr. Gendua on trout farming.
II
I11 Feb. 7:00 - 20:00
(Thu)
Drove from Goroka and met in Minj, Western Highlands province, by Dr.
John Konga who accompanied authors to Wasine village to examine a
potential trout farming site at wasine River.
12 Feb. 1 0:00 - 12:00
(Fn)
12
Discussed with Mr. Kosi.
11
Left Goroka and arrived i n Aiyura. Stayed i n Aiyura Fisheries Research
II Station to analyze data and do fisheries draft report write up for circulation.
Finalized Trout Farming Study Report and presented to the Secretary for
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources.
II
115
|
|
14.2 Page 132 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 4: List of People Met and Discussed with During the Trout Study in
the Highlands.
1 . Mr. Walter Nomber, Provincial DPI Minister, Eastern Highlands Province.
2. Mr. Ian Mopafi, Assistant Secretary for DPI, Eastern Highlands Province.
3. Mr. Karl Rocky Gendua, former Provincial DPI officer previously involved with
trout and carp projects in the Highlands Provinces.
4. Mr. Robin Kosi, Manager, Nupaha Trout Farm, Goroka Eastern Highlands
Province.
5. Mr. Daniel Maino, Community School Teacher, Kotuni, Eastern Highlands
Province.
6. Mr. Kupi Lautape, Landowner, Kotuni, Eastern Highlands Province.
7. Mr. Poti Aizal, Owner of a village trout farm at Samagoni village, Nupaha,
Eastern Highlands Province.
8. Mr. Yaunggau Uiyasi, Managing Director of Nokondi Investments, Eastern
Highlands Province.
9. Mr. Baia Huke, landowner currently residing in former Kotuni Managing
Director's house at farm site.
1 0. Mr. Jack Mulake, Principal Advisor, DPI Simbu Provincial Government.
1 1 . Mr. Peter Kamis, Provincial Executive Officer, Simbu Provincial Government.
1 2. Mr. John Waiange, OIC, Gembogl, Potato Project, Department of Simbu,
Simbu Province.
13. Mrs. Betty Higgins, Manager, Lake Pindi Yaundo Enterprise, Mt. Wilhelm,
Simbu Province.
1 4. Mr. Greg Onesi, Assistant Secretary, DPI, Mendi, Department of Southern
Highlands.
1 5. Mr. Ronald Handape, Divisional Planner, Mendi, Department of Southern
Highlands Province.
1 6. Mr. Vincent Sonk, Provincial Fisheries Officer, Mendi, Department of
Southern Highlands.
1 7. Mr. Comis, District Manager, lalibu District, Southern Highlands Province.
1 8. Mr. Patrick Roma, former District Finance Officer, lalibu District.
116
|
|
14.3 Page 133 |
▲back to top |
1 9. Mr. Yamba Kasi, Youth Coordinator, lalibu District.
20. Mr. Kewa Kera, Councillor, Kendal Ward, lalibu District, Southern Highlands
Proovince.
21. Mr. Korua Komp, AS DPI, Mt. Hagen, Western Highlands Province.
22. Mr. Stewart Hawthorn, Provincial Fisheries Officer, Mt. Hagen , Western
Highlands Province.
23. Mr. Tep Madip, Fisheries Project Officer, Mt. Hagen, Western Highlands
Province.
24. Mr. Geoff Landsdown, Feed Mill Manager, Tablebirds, Lae, Morobe Province.
25. Mr. Jim Gregg, Manager, Associated Mills Limited, Lae Feed Mills Pty.
Limited, Lae, Morobe Province.
27. Mr. Douglas Powley, former Managing Director of Kotuni Trout Farm in the
1 970's and now currently working with the Commonwealth Development
Corporation (CDC) in Port Moresby.
28. Mr. Kanau Simon, former employee of the PNG Fish Marketing Corporation
form 1 980-1082 and now Managing Director of Seafood Exporter Pty.
Limited, Port Moresby.
29. Dr. John Konga, Mt. Hagen, Western Highlands Province.
30. Mr. Joseph Gabut, Secretary, Department of Fisheries and Marine
Resources.
117
|
|
14.4 Page 134 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 5: Record of Discussions
According to Mr. Mopafi, the Eastern Highlands Provincial Government fully support
the establishment and expansion of trout farming in the province. But before trout
farming development could be expanded there is a need to first establish whether
there is a demand and market for fish, as well as for fingerlings. This according to
Mr. Mopafi should be done first because trout is an expensive fish which can only be
afforded by the high bracket of income earners. The majority of people who are low
income earners cannot afford paying K6.5/kg for trout and therefore can only resort
to buying other affordable protein substitutes such as tin fish and lamp flaps to feed
their family.
In the case of Kotuni Trout Farm, the big question also being asked by Eastern
Highlands Provincial Government is why did the Kotuni Farm close down, was it
because of poor management or lack of market? The present trout study is also
currently being geared to try to investigate why Kotuni Farm closed down. The
provincial DPI was not involved in the operation of Kotuni Farm and the Provincial
DPI does not have information on the management of the Farm. The provincial
business arm, Nokondi Investment, was the proper institution that have information
regarding the management of Kotuni Farm, according to Mr. Ian Mopafi.
It has always been the collective regional view of the five Highlands provinces with
regard to agriculture, livestock and fisheries development in the Highlands region
that Eastern Highlands already has gotten an established commercial trout farm in
the Province and therefore should pursue trout, carp and other fisheries activities,
according to Mr. Mopafi. Western Highlands is better situated to pursue cattle,
livestock and coffee development, while Southern Highlands and Simbu Provinces
should concentrate on the sheep industry development. According to Mr. Mopafi,
trout farming should now be rationalized within the region and cooperation and
development should be realized rather than having separate individual provinces
each wanting to set up separate hatcheries in their provinces.
A possible option put forward by Mr. Mopafi was to have Kotuni reestablished as a
national cold water hatchery to be funded and supported by national DFMR for
training, technical advise and fingerling distribution, and let Nupaha Trout Farm
concentrate on commercial production. The whole trout farming development
program in the Highlands should be controlled and restructured so that not too many
farms are established and difficult to manage with numerous problems. If trout
farming is limited to a lesser number of farms only, then it should be easy to know
the exact demand on fish and fingerlings, easy to control supply and price of fish on
the market and better control over fish quality and reduces risk of importation of
foreign fish disease into the country.
118
|
|
14.5 Page 135 |
▲back to top |
Establishment, Ownership. and Management
Kotuni Trout Farm was established in 1 973 by an Australian expatriate employed
with the Department of Civil Aviation, Mr. David Hunter. Around about the same time
a lot of trout eggs are being imported from Australia to stock the rivers in Eastern
Highlands for diet supplement for the local people. Trout fish become popular
among the business communities who mostly demanded table sized fish. There
were also demand for fingerlings from Simbu, Enga, Western Highlands and Central
Provinces.
Kotuni Trout Farm got a financial assistance from the government in 1 973 when the
Agricultural Bank gave K10,000 (K15,000?) for improvement on the hatchery
facilities, ponds and water piping systems. The money was released by Agricultural
Bank through a local member of Parliament and a member of Board of Directors of
the Agriculture Bank, the late Honorable Mr. Sinake Giregire. In 1 975 Kotuni Trout
Farm also got another funding support of K10,000 from the Eastern Highlands
Provincial Government. With K10,000 (K15,000?) given by the Agriculture Bank in
1 973 and an additional K20,000 from both Mr. Hunter and Mr. Holder, the farm was
established.
This farm was owned by Mr. David Hunter and Mr. Gendua according to Mr Gendua.
Though Mr. Gendua mentioned Mr. Hunter owning the farm with him assisting and
also working as a part owner. Mr. Ian Holder who held 1 0,000 shares with Mr.
Hunter were both principal partners in the business. Mr. Hunter held 1 0,000 shares
in the Kotuni Trout Farm.
A conflicting version given by Mr. Gendua in the shareholder of Kotuni Farm when it
started was; Mr. Gendua: AU$800.00, David Hunter: AU$5,000.00, Ian Holder :
AU$4,000. Sometime after when the principal capital had been established with
shares sold by other share holders, Mr. Gendua estimated that K60,000 was the
capital and the share equity holding in Kotuni Trout Farm was; EHP government
65%, David Hunter 25%, and Kotuni Villagers 1 0%. However, from correspondence
of the Nokondi Investment, the principal capital was K40,000 and not K60,000 as
suggested by Mr. Gendua (per. comm. with Mr. Yaunggao on 1 4 January). All share
in the Kotuni Trout Farm is now 100 % owned by Nokondi Investment.
When Mr. Hunter could not get a job with the EHP government in 1 982, he left the
country. A year later, Mr. Gendua left for Simbu. In 1 983/84, Mr. Douglas Powley
managed the farm. The Kotuni Trout Farm has already been making money when
David Hunter came into management.
Early Operation: Switch from Fingerling to Tab l e Sized Fish Production
Kotuni Farm was established initially for the purpose of producing trout fingerlings
for stocking into the EHP and the other highlands provinces. In the initial stage,
119
|
|
14.6 Page 136 |
▲back to top |
50,000 eyed ova were imported from Australia. With 20 % mortality, 40,000
fingerlings were usually produced per annum. From 1 973 up until 1 975 fingerlings
were sold to at K0.50/fish.
In 1 975, Kotuni ceased production of fingerlings and switched to plate sized fish
production from then on. Fingerling production was only for two years (1 973-74)
according to Mr. Karl Gendua. The sudden switch by Kotuni Farm from fingerling to
market size fish production only was in response to an upsurge in trout demand
from the local business communities in Goroka, the Highlands and copper mining
projects in Bougainville and Ok Tedi. There was money to be made in table sized
fish than fingerling. This demand driven shift in production by Kotuni Farm
necessitated the first ever commercial trout trial production to be launched by Kotuni
in 1 975. Kotuni Farm produced about 5 -7 ton of table sized trout in the first year
(1 975), and increased the production every year thereafter. The selling price of
marketable trout of about 1 50 - 300 grams ranged between K3.50 - 4.00/kg whole
fresh or frozen fish.
The demand for fish in the country during Kotuni operation was very good. They
never experienced difficulties in marketing the fish according to Mr. Gendua.
Actually the switching of the production from fingerlings to table fish was due to
customer demand. Fingerling demand was good but profitability in this venture was
not as much as profitable compared to the production of table fish. Kotuni clients
were all over the country as indicated by the attached list of customers.
Later Operation, Table Sized Fish Production
From 1 975 - 1 980, the farm was producing between 1 0 - 1 5 tons of trout. Normally
for trout to grow and gain the required marketable weight range of 250 - 300 grams,
1 0 - 1 2 months at a water temperature of 1 6 •c was required. Kotuni Trout Farm
used to hold about 80,000 - 1 00,000 eggs annually in the farm. The farm was also
importing eggs 2 times a year from Australia. According to Mr. Gendua about 20
tons offish were produced at the peak period from the Kotuni Farm.
Kotuni Farm was producing and selling trout in both fresh and smoked forms to its
clients around PNG. According to Mr. Karl Gendua, marketable size trout were
filleted and deboned (bones are picked up by tweezers) and then smoked. Smoked
trout fillets from Kotuni farm were sold at K2.50/piece, while the fresh whole trout of
250 - 300 grams were sold at k5.50/kg.
Feed
Trout feed was imported from Australia until 1 976. But this sometimes took 2 - 3
months to arrive in the country. Within the 2 -3 months when the farm was "waiting"
for trout feed to come in from Australia, chicken broiler feed would have been given.
Kotuni Trout Farm obtained feed formula from the Rural Chemical Industries in
Queensland with the help of the Australian Trade Commission. This formula was
given to the Lae Feed Mills to prepare and manufacture trout feed which they are
currently doing. The quality of feed was satisfactory and from then on all feed were
purchased from the Lae Feed Mills. The feed was analyzed by A.G.J. Tacon, FAQ
Feed Expert, in 1 986 and found that it contained 1 O % less required protein level.
However, the farm did not have major problems with health and growth. John W.
120
|
|
14.7 Page 137 |
▲back to top |
,-~opland, a veterinarian engag�? in 1 981 in the trout farm exporting in�ustry study,
· reported excellent health condition of the fish produced from the Kotum Farm.
r
~- According to Mr. Gendua, the maximum production of 20 tons at Kotuni Farm was
produced using 47 tons of feed in 1 982 when he left the farm. This indicates a feed
conversion ratio of 2.35 which is poor as trout FCR is about 1 . 2 - 2.0. If this 20 tons
was dressed weight, the whole fish weight would have been 23.5 ton with an
assumed dressing percentage of 85 %. The feed conversion then would have been
2.00 which was reasonable as the ratio in the 1 970s.
In 1 976 Kotuni Farm was paying K18.00/50 kg bag for starter and K15.00/50 kg bag
for grower. In comparison Nupaha Farm is now paying K29.50/50 kg bag for starter
and K27.50/50 kg bag for grower.
Chronological Record of Kotuni Farm According To M r. Gendua
1 973
David Hunter and Karl Gendua started the farm with their investment (AU$5000 by
David, AU$800 by Karl and AU$4000 by Jan Holder). David and Karl operated the
farm. Ian Holder was a shareholder but not involved in the operation of the farm.
1 973 - 1 974 Operation was fortrout fingerling production only. The fingerlings were sold to
Highlands Provinces and Central Province at the price of K0.50/fish. The farm
produced 20,000 - 30,000 in the first year and increased the production to 40,000 in
later years.
1 975
The farm successfully conducted a market trial of producing table size fish with 7 - 1 O
tons production. The farm was also continued to sell the fingerlings.
1 976
Shares were sold to Nokondi. The farm ceased fingerling production and switched to
table size fish production.
1 976 - 82
The table fish production was 1o - 1 5 tons per year and increased every year. The
farm expanded the physical facility with the assistance from the Provincial
Government. At the maximum year, the production was 20 tons per year. Large
earthen ponds were constructed. Large (40 feet diameter) circular tanks were
constructed. Managers house was constructed.
1 982
David Hunter left the country because he could not extend his contract with the
Department of Civil Aviation.
1981 Canadian volunteer, Karl Kroeker, attached to the farm as the farm manager.
1 982-83 Mini-hydro was constructed am:I installed.
1983 Karl Gendua resigned the farm due to personal conflict with the manager.
1983 Dec. Douglas Powley succeeded Karl and managed the farm as a part of olher businesses
of Nokondi Investment.
1 983/84 Lost a large number of fish.
1 984 The farm was closed.
Other factors in the
Laborer
Supervisors wage
Super visors House
1 2 'r<:'JA Hydro Generator
of the farm according to Mr. Gendua
7 K10.00/fn
1 K109.00/fn
1 K7,000.00
1 K3,000.00
K1 ,820.00/year
K2,834.00/year
K7,000.00
K3,000.00
New
Old, brought in from
Kaintiba.
1 21
|
|
14.8 Page 138 |
▲back to top |
Kotuni Trout Farm was started by David Hunter and Mr. Gendua with their private
investment of AU$5000 by David and AU$800 by Mr. Gendua and AU$4000 by Ian
Holder. The share was sold 1 00 % to NOKONDI in 1 976, and the two former owners
became the employee of Nokondi. David Hunter became a contract manager of the
farm. This was the next year the farm successfully concluded the first year test
operation of table fish production in 1 975 with 7 - 1 0 tons of annual production.
According to Mr. Yaunggao, the business of trout farm went quite well in the 1 970s.
Annual production expanded 5 tons every year during these years according to Mr.
Karl Gendua. The farm obtained financial assistance from the provincial government
for expansion of production facilities during this period. Larger earthen ponds, large
circular tanks, expansion of processing building, manager's house, smoking kiln
were built with the generous assistance.
Day to day operation of farm was done by 7 permanent laborers and Mr. Karl
Gendua under the management of David Hunter. In 1 982, David Hunter left the
farm38• A Canadian volunteer, Mr. Karl Kroeker was attached to the farm. According
to Mr. Gendua, Kroeker had a zoology background but his farming experience was
poor. Mr. Karl Gendua has already 1 0 years experience at the Kotuni Farm. It is
expected that practically Mr. Gendua was in charge of the farm operation after David
hunter left the farm. The farm management was empowered to the inexperienced
Kroeker by Nokondi.
Mr. Gendua had personal conflict with Mrs. Kroeker who also seemed to run the
farm, and resigned in 1 983. Kroeker extended his two year service term for another
year and left the country in 1 984. British VSO, Powley Douglas, succeeded Kroeker
and was manager of the Kotuni Farm. He had a business service volunteer attached
to Nokondi and involved in many other Nokondi projects such as coffee, cattle and
real estate. He had no trout farming background at all. He stayed in Goroka town,
but not at the farm site at Kotuni, and managed the farm from there. During the
Douglas period, the farm lost a number of fish (1 0,000 - 20,000 fish according to
Gendua) by flooding that brought foreign material to block the filter system '3t the
intake and stopped water supply39 into the farm.
38
I n 1 982, Mr. David Hunter left the country because he could not extend his contract with the
Civil Aviation Department . His leaving from PNG was no relation to the farm operation (pers. comm.
with Karl).
39
The Kotuni Villagers also pointed out that the accidental loss by the flood was the reason of
the closure of Kotuni Farm.
1 22
|
|
14.9 Page 139 |
▲back to top |
Mr. Yaunggau was not involved in the actual farm operation at all. He only believed
whatever the managers report said. The manag·er was responsible for the financial
as well as the technical operation of the farm. Feed and imported eggs were bought
by the money earned from the sales of fish. He pointed out that the reason Kotuni
closed down was the loss offish during the final years of the operation, especially
during the time of Douglas management. During this time the farm was operated
without an on-site manager. The discussion with Mr. Yaunggao and the authors
raised on the question of technical capability on the farm management during the
Douglas management period.
Mr. Yaunggao remembers that farm lost a large number of fish in the last years of
Kotuni Farm in 1 983, and in 1 984. This forced Nokondi to close down its trout farm
operations. According to Mr. Yaunggau, a local labor fired by the manager was
accused of putting poison in the hatchery water source and killed all the fish in the
hatchery. The villager was actually caught by police and jailed. The team believes
that this alleged criminal case, regardless of whether this was true or not40, indicates
the deteriorated relationship between the farm and the village people. The daily
management of the farm with the manager who was staying in the town was actually
done by the local villagers. Without the cooperation between the two parties it was
impossible to operate the farm during the final years of the Kotuni Farm. The
meaning of accusation by the farm manager against the villager (presumably in the
sense of PNG, was against the whole village) is obvious that the farm manager
abandoned the farm operation.
'0
This is a cover-up made by the managers who lost fish by flooding without staying in the
farm according to Mr. Gendua. Most fish was lost by the flooding accident and the managers who did
not stay in the farm made the story to cover up their mistakes. The villagers of Kotuni also said that
flood was the major reason of the fish loss.
1 23
|
|
14.10 Page 140 |
▲back to top |
Kiyoshi and Petrus went to Kotuni to obtain some data on water quality and to talk to
Mr. Baia Huke, the landowner, on accessing some farm records which were left
behind when the farm closed down. We drove up to the village about a kilometer
from the farm in search of Mr. Huke where we met up with Mr. Jack Gahe, the Kotuni
Councillor and a crowd of 30 people.
Mr. Gahe was furious about promises made by politicians in providing assistance to
the Kotuni Trout Farm to reactivating it. He mentioned a certain politician and a sum
of 1<20,00041 that was drawn by the national government in 1 992 to be given to the
Kotuni people to start up the farm again. That money never got to serving the
purpose it was supposed to. It was withdrawn when the Wingti government was
formed42•
When these politicians came to visit the Farm, and talk to the Kotuni people, these
simple villagers contributed approximately K3,000 to prepare mumus and groups
were engaged in providing singsings. Even when two Americans43 visited the farm,
mumus and sngsing were prepared for them at a cost of about K1 ,000 - 2,000.
These two Americans promised to redevelop the farm and get it back into trout
production again. Understandably, Mr. Gahe was furious because the time, the
preparations they made, and the enthusiasm that the Kotuni people had only
vanished when these people disappeared.
The contention of the Kotuni people is that funds be made available to redeveloping
the resources instead of cheap politics and research. Water resources of the
Omahaiga River is suitable to farming trout so there is no further need to do other
research work. Mr. Gahe wanted funds to be provided so that they will commence
farm operation.
Management guidelines and a skilled manager be engaged to run the farm in a
skilled manner. The Kotuni people will work on the farm as laborers to assist in its
general upkeep and in servicing the farm as transporting goods to and from Kotuni.
When the farm was operating as Kotuni Trout Farm, it also provided an additional
income in the sale of artifacts, vegetables and orchids, and tourists as well as
Goroka residents were able to use the farm barbecue facility to enjoy the day.
41
Tr,� amount made in the check was actually 1<20,000.00. (Petrus) . The source for Robert told
the amount was K30,000.00.
42
Available sources in Goroka informed the authors that the money amounting to K30,000 in a
check payment to Kotuni Trout Farm was later paid and diverted into the account of a former BCL
geologist, now a villager, who had strongly campaigned for the politician during the election.
43
Identification of the American was confirmed later in Goroka as Mr. Richard Treylor and his
associate of Treylor Enterprise, USA.
1 24
|
|
15 Pages 141-150 |
▲back to top |
|
|
15.1 Page 141 |
▲back to top |
According to Mr. Gahe, the farm became unprofitable due to mismanagement. Not
on the part of the Kotuni people, but on the part of the farm manager who was not at
the farm site when he ought to. The Councillor also mentioned a report by Mr.
Douglas Powley implicating that the Kotuni people stopped further operation, this,
he said was not true.
1 25
|
|
15.2 Page 142 |
▲back to top |
Twe groups in the Simbu Province have asked for assistance in setting up trout
projects in the Province. One group is the Bokokowa group in Kerowagi. This group
is the Simbu Provinces Deputy Secretary's group. The other group is the Provincial
Executive Officer's Group in the Gembogl area.
According to Mr. Jack Mulake, the Simbu Provincial Government has created an
RD02 position in their structure for the recruitment of a Fisheries Officer to be
based at Kegesugl in line with the establishment of the Regional Fisheries Office in
Mt. Hagen. Much of he work will be an carp ponds and Mr. Mulake noted that 350
ponds were recorded when survey was carried out in 1 986.
Lake Pindi Yaundo Enterprise Trout Farm was set up at the foot of Mt. Wilhelm but
Mr. Mulake does not seemed to know much abut the existence of this farm.
Apart from these two groups, Mr. Mulake wanted the province to go into hatchery
production of trout for restocking their provincial streams and rivers. According to
MR. M ulake, despite Provincial Government past commitment of K24,000 in 3 years
of trout seeding program operated at Kegesugl Trout Hatchery, the lack of finance
and technical support have contributed largely to the downfall of trout farming
development in general in Simbu. But the fact remains is that the interest of the
people in trout farming project is high.
1 26
|
|
15.3 Page 143 |
▲back to top |
Mr. Peter Kamis expressed uncertainties on the future of projects in the province in
light of the current debate over the abolition of Provincial Government System.
The problem Mr. Kamis highlighted were;
1 . Finance, i.e., lack of funding for projects in the province, and
· 2. Lack of coordination from national department to Provincial Departments
on projects.
The interest with regards to trout farming in the province, according to Mr. Kamis, is
there, but the abolishment of Provincial Government System means there will not be
anyone talking of projects now in the Department. Mr. Peter Kamis cited the
K300,000.00 allocation for Members Erectorate Funds for 1 994 which members of
the Department wants to use up as quickly as possible before the National
Government abolish the Provincial Government. Mr. Kamis also made mention of
two project funds being set up by the Simbu Provincial Government but could not be
endorsed by the Provincial Executive Council. These projects funds were; the
Provincial Government Scheme and the Capital Guarantee Scheme. According to
Mr. Peter Kamis, the Provincial Government of Simbu had actually allocated
K25,000 in 1 994 for coffee projects but can these coffee projects be sustainable is
another matter. This funding will be benefit to the local people.
Mr. Peter Kamis took the authors to access the Kauglke River, as his potential site
for trout farming. The water is near Danglagu Catholic Mission Station. Water
temperature taken was 1 2 °C. The river water was clear, rocky bottomed and fast
flowing. The river was suitable for both trout reproduction and trout fattening project.
The altitude reading with an altimeter was 2497 m above sea level.
1 27
|
|
15.4 Page 144 |
▲back to top |
Trout was stocked in the early 60's in the WHP but there is not much information
whether people were catching it. The feasibility of farming trout was suggested to
Mr. Korua, but he was not sure whether it is technical feasibility or economic
feasibility.
Stewart's personal view was that carp should be farmed by the people in Western
Highlands Province because it was able to benefit a lot more people than would
trout. Trout farming is expensive in terms of cost of construction, operation, and
personnel. This all adds up to scarce funds that could be used in developing a
resource where most village people can benefit. In developing trout farming, a
relatively small number of people will benefit. Foreign experts are required to
manage a trout hatchery/farm. The trout farms that are in PNG have not worked
because the risks involved is high and expert from overseas is required to make it
work.
When Korua was asked what the policy at WHP is on fisheries, he mentioned that
priority at the moment is to develop carp farming and establishing breeding centers
in the Districts. As WHP does not have the expertise on trout farming, it is difficult
for them to assist farmers but seeding of rivers with trout should be taken. He
suggested establishment of a Central Hatchery for trout. If there is trout for seeding
of rivers or for farming purpose then the people will use that opportunity.
1 29
|
|
15.5 Page 145 |
▲back to top |
Tablebirds Feed Mills was quite willing to produce 2.0 tons of trout at a minimum on
demand. This minimum quantity is based on the machine capacity. The mill has a
pelleter suitable to press and form pellets and there would be no technical problem
to produce fish feed. They were also prepared to manufacture carp feed. Both trout
and carp feed can be manufactured by Tablebirds in line with a feed formula
requirement DFMR will have to come up with.
Currently, Lae Feed Mills is manufacturing trout feed and tablebirds cannot take this
production of trout feed from Lae Feed Mills as this may cause differences between
the two companies. Tablebirds is producing feed only for their poultry company and
are not accepting any order from outside companies.
Like Tablebirds, Associated Mills and Lae Feed Mills also expressed similar keen
interest in increasing trout feed production based on a DFMR feed formula provided
bulk purchase and demand is available to justify an increased production is
economical. Their minimal capacity is also 2 ton and current demand for Robin Kasi
is below this level. His order is usually less than 1 ton at a time because of the small
operational scale and limited feed storage space. Special arrangements necessary
to produce small quantity of feed is pushing the price of trout feed. The cost of
production would be less if the order was increased over 2 ton at a time. The
manager gave the assurance that if the order was increased over 2 tons, he can
give a better price. For example. if the order for Robin and Betty Higgins were
combined to make over 2 tons production, the feed can be sold at a lower price that
they are currently providing to Robin.
According to Tablebirds, trout feed may contain as high as 50% protein while for
chicken feed 22% protein is for grower and 20% protein for starter. If protein
ingredients are not available, it will be imported and cost of ingredients can be built
into the cost of feed to farmers. The current trout feed produced by Lae Feed Mills
contains 30% protein in grower feed and 40% in starter feed. In March 1 991 , Phil
Cadwallader pointer out in his report that the protein percentage in the Lae Feed
Mills' trout feed was about 1 0% less than in the trout feed used in Australia. Phil
wrote to the Manager of Lae Feed Mill and gave the formula for improved trout feed.
According to the Manager of Lae Feed Mill, the formula given to him does not
improve the protein contents {Obviously he did not take the formula into production\\
In his opinion which the authors agree with, protein content in trout feed should be
decided taking into account economics of farming operation. Betty Higgins is
importing feed from Aqua-Feed Australia, and she is paying K60 per 20 kg which is
5 times higher than the trout feed produced at Lae Feed Mill. This expensive
1 30
|
|
15.6 Page 146 |
▲back to top |
imported feed obviously cannot offset the 5 times higher cost of production. What is
the economic rationale of producing 50% protein feed?
Feed formula is normally sent to Unitech for analysis. Tablebirds gave us the
analysis of major ingredients used for chicken feeds.
According to Lae Feed Mills, the current trout feed formula was obtained from
Sydney. They have a special feed nutritionist for trout feed there. The ingredients
used in the feeds were:- fFish meal, premix, blood meal, soybean, mill run, salt,
lime, minerals and calorie fill. The manager refused to give the percentage of each
of these ingredients as the feed ration is the nutritionist's property and he cannot
release it. He provided the authors with the analysis of the trout feed including
amino acids analysis which is shown bellow. The analysis is theoretical based on
the analysis of each ingredients and their composition is not based on the actual
results of the finished products. The Lae Feed Mills Manager said, today's
technology tells us that the theoretical analysis is satisfactory enough to make
practical decisions. Feed should have a shelf life of 3 months according to the
Manager of Lae Feed Mills.
Nutritional Analysis (volume %) of PNG Trout Feed
NPtl,F!.!}e:(1=:=,.,,::t:i
.•·-·• : · ·
rn:t:,t1tt:tr:rt@mw~r tt<:t;:i:t::I!/§m#.~r
Protein
36.06
39.99
Fat
6.33
6 .42
Fiber
5.38
5.46
Ash
8.09
8.76
Calcium
1 .51
1 .69
Available Phosphorus
0.76
0.85
Phosphorus
1 .07
1 .16
Salt
0.87
0.95
IAmino Acid
M ethionine
Methionine+Cysteine
II Lysin
l Tryptophan
Arginine
Threonine
Leucine
II Linoleic acid
II lsoleucine
Phenyl-alanine
Valine
II Histidine
Glycine
Phenyl-analyne+Tyrosine
1 .03
1 .44
2.48
0.41
2.1 1
1 .41
2.73
1 .03
1 .39
1 .69
1 .94
1.10
2.03
2.77
1 .12
1 .56
2.79
2.39
1 .58
3.04
0.07
1 .58
1 .86
2.15
1 .2
2.26
3.09
131
|
|
15.7 Page 147 |
▲back to top |
Mr. Simon Kanau was once an emproyee of the PNG Fish Marketing Corporation
(FMC) which closed down in 1 982 but was involved in arranging trout from Kotuni to
be marketed throughout Papua New Guinea.
According to Mr. Kanau, FMC played a coordinating role in organizing the sale of
trout fish from Kotuni to markets in Port Moresby through Travel Lodge. Mr. Kanau
said Kotuni was producing and selling a lot of both fresh whole trout and whole
smoked trout to these hotels in Port Moresby. Whole fresh trout were being sold at
K12.00 per kg and whole smoked trout at K14.00 per kg.
Mr. Kanau further said that during its operation, FMC requested the government to
impose a ban on the imports of salmon into Papua New Guinea for three years 1 980
to 1 98244• The import ban on salmon into PNG protected the local trout farm at
Kotuni and forced the hotels and retailers in Port Moresby to buy fresh trout at K1 2
per kg and smoked trout at K14 per kg.
Mr. Simon Kanau was very eager to talk to the study team about FMC's previous
involvement with Kotuni trout farm.
The PNG Fish Marketing Corporation only operated from 1 980 and closed down in 1 982.
1 32
|
|
15.8 Page 148 |
▲back to top |
The following ' a discussion held over the telephone between Robert Vonole and Mr.
Douglas Powley.
When asked what was the situation when Kotuni Trout Farm was just about to close
down, Mr. Douglas said that there were a lot of disputes between the landowners
and the farm management which created a lot of uncertainties and continuity of
operating Kotuni Farm. According to Mr. Douglas, there were a lot of expectation of
the local people who were share holders and expecting to receiving benefits form
the farm which were never fulfilled. This lead to a villager blocking the water intake
into the farm and this killed a lot offish. In 1 986 - 87, according to Mr. Douglas, the
Provincial Government also bought out the shares of the landowners. This was
when the relationship between the landowners and the farm has deteriorated very
much.
On the commercial viability and operation of Kotuni Farm, Mr. Douglas said Kotuni
Trout Farm was operating profitably. In 1 983 - 84, according to Mr. Douglas, the
farm made profit.
As far as deciding on a possible site or location for the establishment of a national
coldwater hatchery, Mr. Douglas thinks Kotuni would not be a good location
because the temperature is not really suitable. Mr. Douglas suggested 1 0 km further .
upstream toward the foot of Mt. Otto be suitable for a hatchery but needs to be
investigated. Douglas further pointed out that Kegesugl would be a better choice for
a hatchery than Kotuni.
Mr. Douglas Powley said he would be willing to further talk to the authors on Kotuni
operation if they so wish.
1 33
|
|
15.9 Page 149 |
▲back to top |
}:Appendix 6: Results of Water Quality Analysis, � '
Water Quality at Nupaha Farm
Date and Time: 1 3 January, 1 994. 1 4:30-1 5:00
Place: Nu aha Trout Farm
ater Temperature
lkalinity
pH
DO at the Source
DO at the Production
Pond
Conductivity
Hardness
24 mg/I as
CaC03
7.5
7.8 mg/I
5.3 mg/I
45 µmho/cm
35 mg/I as
CaC03
by Hach digital titrator
by universal pH indicator
by Hach titrator
Contains 1 5,000 fish of approx. 1 00 g
size
by Hach conductivity meter
by Hach digital titrator
Water Supply
Diameter of Tank: 4 m
Height of water: 0.33 m
Volume of Water: 4. 1 5 m3 (=(4/2)2x0.33)
Time Required to Fill Up: 4 min. 30 sec (=4.5 min.)
Discharge: 4.15 m3/4.5 min. = 0.922 m3/min
According to Robin, opening of 4 gate valves keep the water level constant at the
reservoir, and opening of 5 gate valves reduces and dry up the reservoir. This
means the capacity of water supply to the farm is 4 full capacity pipes (4"). The
measurement above was for one fully opened pipe. Therefore, approximately 4
times of the above measurement would be the capacity ofwater supply for the
Nupaha Trout farm. That is 4 x 0.992 m3/min = 3.69 m3/min.
Comment
Water temperature measured by Robin shows the temperature fluctuate from 1 2 °C
in the early morning to 1 7 °c in the late afternoon. This is in the upper bordering
range of trout rearing temperature. The water is a soft water with neutral pH. The
higher temperature would promote higher growth but it also give stress to the cold
water fish that typically prefers below 1 5 °C water temperature. When the fish got
trouble in the health, it may cause water quality deteriorate such as accumulation of
ammonia in the water. Or when it is heavy rair in the upper stream region, the water
source became turbid and bring into the tank many material washed over the
catchment basin which may include a source of water quality deterioration. Due to
the small buf.faring capacity associated with the soft water, the water resist little
against the water quality detefioration. This-would be a reason why Mr. Kosi has a
higher mortality than the Kotuni Farm.
1 34
|
|
15.10 Page 150 |
▲back to top |
6: Results of Water Quality Analysis, '16.1 2
Water Quality at Kotuni Farm
38 mg/I as CaC03 by Hach digital titrator
7.2
by universal pH indicator
0 in Omahanga R.
7.9 mg/I
by Hach titrator
IDO the intake filter box
7.9 mg/I
II
"CH~oa-nrdd-nuec-stisv-ity
-
+
-
-
43 µmho/cm by Hach conductivity meter
-29-mg-/I + as C-aC-03-b-y H-ac-h d-igi_ tal ti_ trato_r _
_
J
i
ITurbidity
Clear. By visual observation. Compared to the water at
Nupaha Farm which was clear but had some turbidity by
I suspended material, the water of Kotuni River is clearer.
Comment
The basic nature of water is similar to the water of Nupaha Farm, soft water with a
neutral pH. DO level is probably at the 1 00 % saturation at the temperature and
altitude. Water temperature reading was 1 •c lower than the reading at Nupaha.
Kotuni farm water is more suitable to trout farming in terms of water temperature, al
though both the waters are at the upper limit range for trout farming.
The time of measurement was about the same and weather was also similar,
partially cloudy and slight shower in the afternoon. An important difference between
the water of the two farms is its turbidity level. The Kotuni farm has a clearer water
source than the Nupaha farm. During the rainy season Robin has to employ
frequently laborers (as often as 2-3 times per week) to clean the intake and screens
in the farm tanks. Each time a large flood come, he has to ask the villagers to help
with the cleaning. The condition is very dangerous. The Kotuni farm had the same
problem but the frequency was 2 times a year on average according to Karl. This is
a large difference due to the intake structure. Kotuni Intake is equipped With gravel
filter system, while the Nupaha intake does not. Only metal mesh filter is installed
which is easily covered and blocked by foreign material such as leaves in the water,
resulting in reduction or stoppage of water flow.
In comparison to the Nupaha water, the water source of Kotuni farm is better suited
for trout farming because of lower water temperature and lower turbidity.
Water Supply Capacity
According to Mr. Karl Gendua. The water supply capacity to the whole Kotuni farm is
40,000 gallons per min. (=152 m3/min) which is unbelievably large. This is based on
the measurement by the Waterboard for designing the mini-hydro. The estimate
may be referring to the discharge of the Kotuni stream. The record is needed to be
checked.
1 35
|
|
16 Pages 151-160 |
▲back to top |
|
|
16.1 Page 151 |
▲back to top |
' Appendix 6: Results of Water Quality Analysis, 11-. a
Water Quality in Kegesugl Area
Kangluke River at 1/ukql (Peter Kamis's olace at 2490 m by altimeter)
Date: January 20, 1 994, Time: 1 7:00
Water Temperature: 12 •c
pH: 7.5
Alkalinity: 26 mg/I as CaC03
Total Hardness: 45 mg/I as CaC03
Kegesugl Trout Hatchery (2500 m by altimeter)
Date: January 20, 1 994, Time: 1 0:30 - 1 1 : 1 0
Water Temperature: 1 4 •c
pH: 7.3 (between 7.0 and 7.5)
Alkalinity: 42 mg/I as CaC03
Total Hardness: 1 8 mg/I as CaC03
Dissolved oxygen in reservoir cement tank: 7.9 mg/I
Dissolved oxygen in circular tank: 7.7 mg/I
Water supply at reservoir cement tank: O. 19 rn31min
Lake Pindi Yaundo Trout Hatchery (Ken/Betty Higgins' Farm. 2675 m bv altimeter)
Date: 26 January, 1 994, Time: 1 2:1 5 - 1 2:50
Water temperature: 12 •c
pH: 7.2 (between 7.0 and 7.5)
Alkalinity: 24 mg/I as CaC03
Total Hardness: 1 5 mg/I as CaC03
DO in reservoir tank: 6.6 mg/I
DO in Tank No. 3: 6.3 mg/I
Comments:
Water in the Kegesugl area was colder (12 °C) than that in Goroka. According to
Betty, water temperature at her farm is 9-1 0 •c and constant during the dry season.
This is the suitable water temperature for incubation. Annual water temperature
range of 9 - 1 2 •c is ideal for trout reproduction. All waters measured so far are soft
waters (do not contain high levels of minerals; calcium and magnesium mostly).
According to Betty, the water is clear all around the year except during a short time
of heavy rain. Her water intake does not need any emergency clean up during the
rain unlike Nupaha and Kotuni intakes which require a great deal of labor to clean
up. Most fish seemed to be lost by flooding (stoppage of water supply and muddy
water) in both latter farms. Two favorabl_e factors contributes to this difference; 1 )
water itself is cleaner than Goroka water, 2 ) she has a better and more expensive
intake structure. Robin has the poorest and cheapest structure of intake and
suffering froni the heavy labor requirement. If he had spent enough money properly,
his labor charge now would be smaller. Robin needs to build a better filtration
·
structure.
Water supply to Kegesugl Trout Hatchery is a spring water and water temperature is
higher (14 °C) than the river water (12 °C). Quantity of water supplied is 0. 1 9 m3/min.
1 36
|
|
16.2 Page 152 |
▲back to top |
to a Japanese book, this is enough to rear 40,000 swim-up fry. This
.. ·
.
number is exactly
experience at the
the same
hatchery.
as Karl told us as the capacity of the
This farm can be used as a hatchery
hatchery from
with limited
his
production.
Bucket Dimension
Upper diameter:
32 cm
II
Lower diameter
25.5 cm
II
Height
30 cm
II
Upper cross sectional area
II 804.25 sq. cm
Lower cross sectional area
II 510.71 sq. cm
- - - - - - - - - - 1 1 Average cross-sectional area
Volume
657.48 sq. cm II -
1 9,724.29 cu cm
Time required to fill up Average time
Discharge
I
II
6.16 sec
II
II
3,200.44 cu cm
/sec
II
II 1 92.03 liter/min
0.1 9 cu m/min II
1 37
|
|
16.3 Page 153 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 6: Results of Water Quality Analysis, '}to.. 4
Water Quality in the Southern Highlands
Date
Time
Water Temperature
lkalinity
pH
DO
Conductivity
Hardness
23 January,
1 994
9: 1 1 - 9:39
16
46
8.0
8.3
91 .2
43
23 January,
1 994
1 2:00 - 1 2:45
13
10
7.0
8.1
6.3
6
25 January,
1 994
12:43 - 1 3:05
18
·c
32
mg/I as CaC03
7.5
mg/I
7.6
54.8
µmho/cm
23
mg/I as CaC03
The water quality of Mendi River taken to the provincial Mendi hatchery is different
from other sites. It is moderately hard with alkalinity 46 mg/I and hardness 43 mg/I
adsurCinagCt0hi3s•
Conductivity
study.
(91
.2
µmho)
is
also
higher
than
the
other
places
measured
On the contrast, the water of Komea river where KomeaTrout fish trap was set up is
extremely soft water. Its conduetivity is only 6.3 µmho/cm which is almost pure
water. Alkalinity and hardness also was very low. This water is not recommended to
use as fish farming water because of too low buffering capacity. Acidity or other
chemical substances input will easily alter the chemical nature of this water, such as
pH.
The water temperature was recorded at 1 8 •c. The altitude measured by altimeter
was 1 930 m above sea level. The altitude was higher than Nupaha and Kotuni Trout
Hatchery but the water temperature was not lower. This is because of the
geographical condition. The site visited is located in an extensive flat land and water
flow was slow so that the water can absorb a lot of heat from ambient air and
radiation from the sun. The water is not suitable for trout farming because of higher
temperature. If the water is stored in a tank or pond, its temperature would be a little
higher than at the source. The maximum temperature expected in the tank would
exceed the allowable temperature of 1 8 •c for trout culture.
1 38
|
|
16.4 Page 154 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 7: Record ofA Potential Trout Farming Site Visit at Minj
·· Date ofVisit: 1 0 February, 1 994
The Secretary for the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources and the acting
FAS for Research, Economics and Marketing of DFMR requested the authorsto
acess a river in Minj on its potential for trout farming. Whilst in Goroka, the authors
drove out to Minj and were met in Minj by Dr: John Konga who took the team to
Wasine village to examine the Wasine River. The water was analyzed for basic
water quality.
From observation, the Wasine River originates from an upstream riot farm from the
site and flows past the proposed project site and through Wasine village. The
Wasine river is clean and flows through the rocky bottomed river at a temperature of
1 6 •c. Because the measurement was done in the afternoon (1 3:40). the
temperature was expected to fluctuate within the range of a few degrees below this
·
temperature (about 1 3 - 1 6 °C) indicating suitability of the water for trout farming.
This water temperature range is the same as for Nupaha and Kotuni Trout Farms.
Because the stream origin was not far from the proposed site, severe flood problem
(turbid water bringing various material from the forest which may block the water
supply) would not be expected.
The site was located on a steep hill and right along the stream. According to the
local information, the stream does not flood over the project site. However, it would
be necessary to construct a protection wall along the upper end of the proposed
farm to prevent stream water flooding into the farm area.
The stream was small (about 3 - 5 meter wide and less than 30 cm deep). The
potential production from the stream would be roughly less than 20 ton/year by
observation using all the stream water. The time of authors' visit was during the
rainy season and it was expected that the river source would become smaller in the
dry season, though the answer by the local people was that the river does not
change in its flow volume. It is safer to assume the production capacity about 1 0
tons per year for planning purposes.
The site was located at the highest location in the valley (Wasine vall,ey) and 2 - 3
km off the end of a drivable road. The construction of road would be very expensive
probably even higher than the total construction cost of physical facility for trout
farming itself. Careful evaluation of the cost involved in construction of all facility
should be made taking the limited production capacity into consideration.
According to Dr. Konga, the i:;roposed frout farm project at Wasine village has been
initiated both by the Prime Minister and Mr. Jemie Graham, from Wasine village and
Deputy Leader of the Peoples Democratic Movement, the party leader of which is
Prime Minister Paias Wingti. Dr. Konga informed the authors that funding of
K200,000 has been identified for the pr0posed trout farming at Wasine village
including other villages. Dr. Konga said he will be the coordinator of the proposed
project at Wasine village and other village community projects in the neighboring
villages. There will be an agriculture colloge graduate for supervising the technical
1 39
|
|
16.5 Page 155 |
▲back to top |
aspect of the project. The Wasine Trout project, according to Dr. Konga, will benefit
500 - 600 people.
Result of Water Quali
i:;;i:;;:
Date and Time
1 0 February, 1 994. 1 2:30 - 1 3:00
Water Examined
Wasine River, Near Minj, Western Highlands Province
Water Temperature
1 6 °C
Alkalinity
pH
36 mg/I as CaC03 by Hach digital titrator
7.5
by universal pH indicator
DO at the Source
7.2 mg/I
by Hach titrator
Hardness
31 mg/I as CaC03 by Hach digital titrator
Aquatic Insects observed Stone fly (+++), mayfly (+++). dragon fly (+) nymphs.
1 40
|
|
16.6 Page 156 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 8. Categorized Expenditure at Nupaha Trout Farm (1989)
Category
Subcategory
I . Apr
I I I J't~i&\\ Jun
Jul
Aug 1· Sep .·
Oct .·. \\ . No'v , f\\;;' ·•'0,· e�::·-:.l':·��:1':
IConstruction
cement
I
l
I
I
I
I
I 890
l
I 92.6
I 230
I
I
I I 1 ,212.6
I Material
concrete
!
I
j
I
l
I
I
I
I65
I 345
I 492.9
I I I 345 1 ,063.25 2,31 1.15
I
electrical
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I 279.36
I 542.88
I I 4.4
826.64
I
flooring
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
l
0I
I
fence
I
I
j
I I 527.12
I 581.7
I
I
I70
I 89.5
I 35.9
I j 98.1 1 ,402.32
I
fittings
I
I
I
I
I I 1 1 1 .5
l
I I 469
265.02
I I l 746.3
198.15 1 ,789.97
I
gabbion
I
l
I
I 120
j
I
I
I 250
I 250
I
l 625
l 1 ,245
I
glass
I
I
1
I
I
I
I 6.5
I
I 20.8
I
I 27.3
I
gravel
I
I
I
I
I
I
72 1
I 73.6
I 190
I I 335.6
I
iron materials
I
I
I 216
I l 37.5
442.2
I
I 904.6
I I 154.4
792.54
I I 2,547.24
l
mini-hydro
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
l
I
I
0I
I
masonary item
l
I
I
I
I
I I 1 ,000.45
I
I l 1 ,000.45
l
nails
I
5l
65.4
I 37.6
I I 49.03
1 06.49
I 15.8
.I l 13
292.32
I
plambing
I
I
I l 65.1 1 ,491 .06 3,806.64
l 532.6
I I I 34
932.33 6,861 .73
I
paint
I 9 1 .8
I I 25.85
301.77
I I 1 9.4
1 82.82
I l 338.3
959.94
I
windows
I
l 13.5
I 23.78
I 75.4
I
I j 1 1 .36
124.04
IEggs
I
l 944.89
I 78.24
I
I
l I 1 ,023.13
IFeed
I
I l 1 5 1 ,293.8
I 106.5
I 584.5
I I 1 ,999.8
ILabour
I
290
I 200
I 200
I 1 , 1 0 0
I I 1 ,790
IMark. &Prom.
I
1
I
I 192
I
I 192
IOffice
4.1
I 7.7
10.75
9.05
I 378.75
I 38.59
I 245
I 65.16
I 759.1
ITimber
flooring
I
I 1 ,1 09.61
l
I I 1 ,109.61
I
plywood
I 130
I 220.1
I l I 1 64.65
514.75
I
timber
209.55
21 9.841
I 171.8 2,1 92.54 3,508.1 3
360.85
I 471.73
I I 82.63 7,217.07
j
window sill
I
54.86
27 I
I
I I 81.86
lTools
1 , 724.37
33.88
I 24.7
39.85
397.58
64.61
I I I 137.16
153.45 2,575.6
lTransport
100
I 1 1 0
55
150
12
I 830
I I 895
2,152
!Vehicle
129.91
30.38
I
77.4
239.8
I 148.6
I 88.41
I 714.5
IWalfare
ITotal
1 ,854.28
1 ,241.03
I
I . 2,098,24
866.75
"
120.25
5,326.81 12,979.57
5,471.08
. ·. r·.: ·.• I I I 160
I I 29.9
310.15
6,775.03 4,763.09 41.,375.88
|
|
16.7 Page 157 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 8. Categorized Expenditure at Nupaha Trout Farm (1990).
)Category
IConstruction
I Material
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IEggs
IFeed
ILabour
IMark. & Prom.
IOffice
ITimber
!
!
I
ITools
)Transport
IVehicle
IWaifare
lTotal
Subcategory
Icement
Iconcrete
Ielectrical
I
lfence
Ifittings
Igabbion
Iglass
!gravel
Iiron materials
Imini�hydro
Imasonary item
Inails
Iplambing
paint
windows
flooring
plywood
timber
window sill
Jan
I
I
I
293.36
Feb
I
I
l 1 1 2.7
1
I
I 149.39
I
I
Mar
575
702.35
. Apr
I 230
I
I
391.97
393.28
447.65
44.18
May
I
I
I 65.34
66
216.57
41 .58
363.23
89.98 1 ,045.63
383.05
401.31
270
20.45
1 ,671 .42
476.87
3.2
4
1 ,062.02
100
241.92
100
236.93
1 ,025.84
206.7
30.12
33.9
640.89
333.77
9.03
72.77
292.93
1 ,981.71
1 ,317.9
I
I 100
I
I
I I 882.57
I
I
I
I
I I 237.61
I
I 70.2
I I 339.2
l
I 217
I I 264.85
I
I
12.6
I
I
I
I 1 1 6
I 48.19
I
I 76.42
I 1 ,200
I 78.64
I
73.46
49.92
308.3
1 ,257.57
3,1 76.86
201
246.31
7,191 .67 3,037.34 1 1 ,780.6
1 ,1 85.45
4.8
1 68.6
656.73
27.85
46.9
70
201.1
4,459.65
1 , 1 88.25
1 56.99
0.6
I
I 1 0 .4
I 221.75
I
I 76.25
I
I 463.63
I
3,274.37
Jun
· Jul
Aug
Sep 1 Oct
Nov
Dec
I 1990 total
I
I 144.34
I 741 .54
I 367.5
I75
I l 2,133.38
I
I
I
8I
I
I
8I
I 80.48
I
I 1 2.96
I 19.95
I 1 3.77
I I 58.2 1 ,065.75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I 383.4
I
I
I
I I 449.4
I I 337.7
I I I I 74.6
681.59
1 94.07
243.39
I 67.42 3,043.34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I1 5
I 74.4
622.81
I
l
l
I
0
143.6
I I 202.52
100.14
I
I 54.95 2,784.41
I 1 9,438.61
I
I
I 19,438.61
I
I
I
I 542.04
1 1 .2
1 3.59
28.91
I 23.67
I 32.7
I 56.67
I 8.12
405.98
1 58.34
56.8 I
I
I 1 84.91
50.79
I 1 0 .79
28.05
253.6
588.9
I 4,568.63
I 2,604.22
I 1.5
1 19.05
I 9.9
349.38
I
I
0
609
I
300
20
25
I I 12.5 6,639.81
I
828
I 122.05
I I 1 ,219.64
I
I
I
0I
I
5.9
I 423.45
227.9
29.96
284.31
I I 346.5 2,279.45
I
I
93.05
3.4
I 146.37
I
I
57.94
93.34
I 754.58
I
29.5
I 537. 1 9
837
621.24
I 532.03 4,978.82
I
I
36.16
3.54
I 1 37.75
I 67.5
374.71
I 232.8
250.35
207.32
236 . 1 1
1 43.98
I 5,228.4
I
29
I
I
30
I 1 , 747
I 147.05
I 96.1
I 1 64.8
87.42
36
I 58.1 1 1 ,844.01
I
I
I
0I
I I 768.18 1 ,923.79 1 ,707.55 22,816.83 2,072.12 2,933,67 1 ,492.85 63,458.62
|
|
16.8 Page 158 |
▲back to top |
Appendix 9: Trout Marketing Survey Questionnaire
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND MARINE RESOURCES
Serial No.
Trout Marketing Survey Questionnaire
Purpose ofquestionnaire
This trout market survey questionnaire is part of a study conducted by the National
Department ofFisheries and Marine Resources (DFMR) to assess the economic and financial
viability of trout farming in the Highlands.
Confidentiality ofInformation
Please note that the information collected in this trout market survey by DFMR will be
strictly kept confidential and for DFMR use only for the purpose ofthis study and will not, in
any circumstances, be disclosed to any person.
Report
Copies of the final report ofthe study can be made available upon request, to clients
involved in this trout market survey. Request can be made through the Secretary ofDFMR,
P. 0. Box 165, Konedobu or call on phone No. 21 4522 and fax No. 21 4369.
1 43
|
|
16.9 Page 159 |
▲back to top |
l'Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
f Province: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
' Name of Shop:
City or Town:
Name ofRespondent:
PAodsdirteiossn:.o_fR_es_pon_den_t: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
- - - - - Telephone No.: - - - - - - - - - - - -Fax-N-o.: - - - - - - - - - -
. 1 . Are you currently purchasing fresh fish (not frozen)? ( a Yes, a No )
Ifyes, please fill in the information below about the fresh fish.
Name offish
Purchase
Approximate
Price/kg Quantity/month
Month/year Purchase source
K
/kg
K
/kg
K
/kg
K
/kg
K
/kg
K
/kg
K
/kg
Ifno, why?
kg/month
kg/month
kg/month
kg/month
kg/month
kg/month
kg/month
months/year
months/year
months/year
months/year
months/year
months/year
months/year
2. What do you think oftrout as your sales product? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
3. Have you ever purchased trout fish produced in Papua New Guinea? (C Yes, a No )
lfyes, when?
How many kilograms per month?
kg/month
How many month per year? .
months/year
Ifno, why? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Page I
1 44
|
|
16.10 Page 160 |
▲back to top |
Iffresh trout is available all year around, how many kilograms per month do you wish
to buy at the price given below ? How many month per year you wish to buy them?
At KIO/kg:
At K S/kg:
At K 6/kg:
At K 4/kg:
At K 2/kg:
;:; .
At K I/kg:
-_-_-_-_;kkgg//mmoonntthh,,
_ _ _kg/month,
_ _ _ _kg/month,
--gk-' /month,
--g'-k /month,
-------'months/year
_ _____,;months/year
_ _____,;months/year
--om'- nths/year
--o-m' nths/year
--o'-m nths/year
r s. Iffresh trout is available only in a limited time ofyear (February to May), do you still
(,
wish to purchase them at the prices you have given above? (C Yes, C No )
~~-
Ifyes, please give us total kilograms you wish to buy during the four months.
__k_ g/4 months
lfno, please give us new amounts oftrout you wish to buy, as in the Question 4, under
the limited time supply condition.
At KIO/kg:
At K 8/kg:
At K 6/kg:
At K 4/kg:
At K 2/kg:
At K I/kg:
--g'-k per 4 months (January to April)
.kg per 4 months (January to April)
kg per 4 months (January to April)
--g'k- per 4 months (January to April)
kg per 4 months (January to April)
kg per 4 months (January to April)
6. What is the most important characteristic ofa fresh fish? ii tick only one appropriate
answer.
a taste offish
a size offish
a freshness offsh
a easiness for preparation/cooking
a guaranteed supply
a price of fish
a other, please specify_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
7. Will you reduce buying imported frozen fish iffresh trout is available? (CYes, CNo)
If
yes, how much proportion oftotal frozen fish would you reduce?
% oftotal frozen fish.
Ifno, why?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
8. Do you like to buy frozen trout? ( C Yes, C No )
9. Do you like to buy smoked trout? ( C Yes, C No )
1 45
|
|
17 Pages 161-170 |
▲back to top |
|
|
17.1 Page 161 |
▲back to top |
' 1 o. What type of fish do you purchase currently? Please give us information below for
each type of fish you deal with. Do not repeat the information on fresh fish in Question
No. I. Exclude all canned fish.
Approximate
Type offish
Price/kg Quantity/month Month/year Purchase Source
~~irP~~:1YM2f~·::t1~~:;:;;::;;; ;:::;:;:::R~;:~:§!!ggg ;,:i::::;::~;,;'.,:~gp§:;~gli.µgq :;:\\;i!3i)Vl.94fYF ~filg;mf~~~Pi~~~;:~~~~i.:iii
Frozen whole fish
K
/kg
kg/mon
mon/yr
Frozen fillets
K
/kg
kg/mon
mon/yr
-Sm-ok-ed-/d-rie-d
fish
--
-
1
-
-K -
-
/kg
-1
-
-
-
kg/mon
---1
-
mon/yr
----
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
Prawns, robsters, and
K
/kg
kg/mon
mon/yr
crayfish
All other type of fish,
except fresh fish and
canned fish
K
/kg
kg/mon
mon/yr
1 1 . lffresh carp is available, do you wish to buy them? What is the acceptable buying price
you expect for carp?
a Yes, I want to buy fresh carp. Price acceptable is K.
/kg.
C No, I do not want to buy carp because
. 1 2. lfyou have any comment on this questionnaire or anything on trout, please feel free to
write here.
Thank you for giving your time. We will utilize the valuable information for development of
trout farming in this nation.
1 46