Premium
Economic feasibility of goldfish ( Carassius auratus Linn.) recirculating aquaculture system
Author(s) -
Mohammad Tanveer,
Moulick Sanjib,
Mukherjee Chanchal K
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
aquaculture research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.646
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1365-2109
pISSN - 1355-557X
DOI - 10.1111/are.13750
Subject(s) - internal rate of return , carassius auratus , payback period , biology , net present value , profitability index , aquaculture , fishery , stocking , modified internal rate of return , investment (military) , rate of return , zoology , return on investment , fish <actinopterygii> , economics , production (economics) , finance , investment performance , microeconomics , politics , political science , law
Economic analysis of a goldfish ( Carassius auratus Linn.) recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) with rearing tank capacity of 5 m 3 (RT5) has been evaluated based on two culture period in 2009 and 2010. The stocking density of goldfish was kept at 100 numbers per m 3 of rearing water volume. Furthermore, based on the data obtained from RT5, four more hypothetical RASs of rearing tank capacities of 10 m 3 (RT10), 20 m 3 (RT20), 50 m 3 (RT50) and 100 m 3 (RT100) were conceptualized for economic analysis that assess and compare the effects of economies of scale on profitability. The payback period, accounting rate of return (ARR), net present value (NPV), profitability index (PI) and modified internal rate of return (MIRR) were evaluated for the different water volumes (up to 100 m 3 ) assuming project life to be 10 years. The economic analysis revealed that a goldfish RAS with rearing tank capacity 20 m 3 onwards can be feasible with a payback period less than 4 years, accounting rate of return 54%, net present value of Rs 241820 and modified internal rate of return of 23%. Sensitivity analyses revealed that market price of fish was most sensitive followed by survival rate, labour, maintenance, FCR, initial investment, discount rate, electricity cost and feed cost respectively. Interestingly, feed cost was found to be the least sensitive one.