• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Procedures and data
 Results
 Literature and information sources...
 Appendix
 Glossary
 Front Cover
 Main
 Appendix






Title: Economic impacts of the aquaculture industry in Alabama in 2005
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089404/00001
 Material Information
Title: Economic impacts of the aquaculture industry in Alabama in 2005
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Stevens, Tom
Hodges, Alan
Mulkey, David
Publisher: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089404
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Alabama%20Aquaculture ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Executive summary
        Page i
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Procedures and data
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Results
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Literature and information sources cited
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Appendix
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Glossary
        Page 26
    Front Cover
        Addendum Cover
    Main
        Addendum 1
        Addendum 2
        Addendum 3
        Addendum 4
        Addendum 5
    Appendix
        Addendum A1
        Addendum A2
        Addendum A3
        Addendum A4
        Addendum A5
        Addendum A6
Full Text











Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Industry in Alabama in 2005


by


Tom Stevens, Alan Hodges, and David Mulkey




January 12, 2007


University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Food and Resource Economics Department


P.O. Box 110240
University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 32611-0240
352-392-1845
awhodges@ufl.edu
economicimpact.ifas.ufl.edu





Prepared under contract for Auburn University,
Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology.









Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Industry in Alabama, 2005.

Executive Summary

The positive economic impacts of aquaculture on the State of Alabama in 2005 were
evaluated using an IMPLAN input-output computer model of the State's economy. This
analysis was facilitated by the recent publication of the 2005 Census of Aquaculture by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and cost of production data provided by the Alabama Cooperative
Extension System and Auburn University.

Aquaculture in Alabama has grown rapidly since the 1980s, from nominal sales of less
than $8 million (M) in 1981, to more than $102 M in 2005. In 2005 there were 201 aquaculture
operations in Alabama with 594 paid and unpaid workers. Using data from the Census of
Aquaculture and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System, an IMPLAN model of the State of
Alabama was modified to more accurately represent its aquaculture industry. Economic impacts
were estimated under the assumption that 95.6 percent of Alabama's aquaculture production was
sold outside the State.

Direct, indirect and induced impacts for the State of Alabama were estimated for output,
value-added, labor income, other property type income, indirect business taxes and employment.
Direct impacts represent the revenues, income, taxes and jobs generated directly by the
aquaculture industry. Indirect effects occur when aquaculture operations use revenues from
sales made outside the State to purchase inputs from local suppliers, and in turn, when those
suppliers purchase from other local suppliers. Induced impacts from non-local revenues occur
when households of employees and business proprietors spend their income or profits for
personal consumption at other local (in-state) businesses. Total impacts equal the sum of direct,
indirect and induced effects, and measure the complete impact of an activity on Alabama's
economy.

Output impacts represent the total value of revenues or expenditures associated with an
activity or event. The total output impact of aquaculture on the State of Alabama was estimated
to be $222.8 million (M) in 2005. Value-added impacts measure labor income, property type
income, and indirect business taxes resulting from these revenues. The total value-added impact
of aquaculture on Alabama in 2005 was estimated at $67.5 M. Labor income represents earnings
by employees and proprietors of businesses impacted by aquaculture. Aquaculture's
contribution to labor income in Alabama was estimated to total $49 M for the year 2005.
Impacts from aquaculture on other property type income in the Alabama were estimated to total
$15.0 M for 2005. Other property income consists of rents, royalties, interest, dividends, and
corporate profits. Indirect business taxes include excise, property, and sales taxes, as well as
licensees and fees paid by businesses, but do not include taxes on profits or income. It was
estimated that $4.0 M in indirect business taxes were generated by Alabama aquaculture in 2005.
Employment impacts approximate the number of full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs created
by an economic activity. In 2005, it is estimated that 1,483 jobs were created by aquaculture in
the State of Alabama. For all types of economic impacts, the combined indirect and induced
effects of aquaculture's activities in the State exceeded its direct impacts.










Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Industry in Alabama, 2005.
by
Tom Stevens, Alan Hodges, and David Mulkey
January 12, 2007
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Food and Resource Economics Department
Gainesville, Florida

Introduction
Aquaculture in Alabama is dominated by catfish production and has grown rapidly since
the 1980s, from nominal sales of less than $8 million (M) in 1981, to more than $102 M in 2005
(Figure 1) (Alabama Cooperative Extension System). As the harvest of wild fish approaches the
capacity limits of the world's oceans, rivers and lakes, aquaculture will become an increasingly
important resource in meeting the future demand for fish and seafood products in the U.S. and
the world. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at Auburn
University, requested the Economic Impact Analysis Program1 at the University of Florida to
conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of Alabama's aquaculture industry on the State.
This analysis was facilitated by the recent publication of the 2005 U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Census of Aquaculture,
in October of 2006.
Economic impact analysis provides a more comprehensive assessment of how an industry
or event affects a regional economy, beyond its direct impacts (gross revenues or sales). Not
only can secondary impacts (indirect and induced) be estimated when new revenues enter a
regional economy, but impacts to specific types of businesses and institutions can be identified
as well. Estimating the size of aquaculture's economic impacts on Alabama makes it possible to
evaluate its relative importance to the State's overall economy and other industries or sectors
within its economy.






1 The Economic Impact Analysis Program is comprised of faculty at the University of Florida who have expertise in
regional and natural resource economics, are are available to provide technical assistance to industry groups,
government agencies and local communities for the purpose of conducting specific research and analysis of the
economic impacts of particular industries, regions, or situations. It is housed within the Department of Food and
Resource Economics.










Figure 1. Alabama Catfish Production: Sales, Water Surface Acres and Number of
Operations: 1981 2006.

120,000 400

| 105,000 .350

H 90,000 ------------------------ 300
co
75,000 I 1 I 250 ,

60,000 - ---T --- I 200

c 45,000- - 150
o
30,000 - 100

15,000 - 50
0 0




Sales ($ 1,000s) A-Water Surface Acres ---Operations

Source: Auburn University Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture, and the Alabama Cooperative
Extension System, http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/aquaculture/statistics.php.


The Alabama Aquaculture Industry
According to the 2005 Census of Aquaculture (USDA-NASS), there were 215

aquaculture operations in Alabama in 2005, with 25,351 water-acres in production, 594 paid and
unpaid workers (Table 1), and sales of over $102 million (M) (Figure 1, Tables 1 and 2). This

last number represents a 72 percent increase in nominal sales since 1998. Most of this increase

in sales is due to increasing yields in catfish production on a per acre basis. In 2005, almost 96

percent of all aquaculture sales in Alabama were from catfish production. The remaining 4

percent consisted of mostly game fish and crawfish sales. Total agricultural receipts for

Alabama (excluding forest products and government payments) were $4,097 M in 2005 (USDA-

NASS, Alabama Agricultural Statistics). Over 82 percent of these receipts came from livestock
and poultry production, with broiler production accounting for $2,409 M, or nearly 59 percent of

this total. In 2005, aquaculture comprised 2.5 percent of total agricultural commodity receipts

for Alabama. After Mississippi and Arkansas, Alabama ranked as the third largest producer of
aquacultural products in the nation that year.












Table 1. Employment in Alabama Aquaculture, 2005.
Paid 150 Paid less
days or than 150
Unpaid more days Total
--- -Number ---
191 237 166 594
Source: USDA- NASS, 2005 Census of Aquaculture.


Table 2. Alabama Aquaculture Sales by Type of Operation and Species, 2005 and 1998

2005 1998
Sales Sales Sales Sales
Type/species Farms $1,000 Percent Farms $1,000 Percent
Food Fish 201 99,458 96.75% 254 58,565 98.11%
Catfish 192 98,413 95.74% 250 58,222 97.53%
Tilapia 13 170 0.17% 6 (D) (D)
Other1 (D) 875 0.85% (D) (D) (D)
Sportfish 20 2,176 2.12% 8 292 0.49%
Baitfish 7 41 0.04% 2 (D) (D)
Crustaceans 8 933 0.91% 5 20 0.03%
Total 215 $102,796 100.00% 259 $59,694 100.00%
Source: USDA NASS, 2005 Census of Aquaculture.
1. Sales value for "Other" food fish is calculated as Total food fish sales minus Catfish and Tilapia sales.
(D) Figures were not disclosed in order to maintain confidentiality.



Catfish production in Alabama takes place predominately in the western central portion

of the State, in an area called the Blackland Prairie region (Figure 2) (Tucker et al.). In fact,

seven counties in this area (Dallas, Greene Perry, Sumter, Marengo, Hale, and Pickens) are

responsible for nearly 98 percent of the State's total catfish production. This region of Alabama

is well suited to constructed-pond aquaculture, with land that is nearly flat to moderately sloping,

and soils that have a sufficient clay content to maintain pond water levels. The catfish industry

in Alabama and the other leading southern states has achieved a substantial degree of vertical

integration. A significant proportion of feed mills and processing plants associated with

aquaculture are owned by producers, or are engaged in long-term contractual relationships with

producers and retail outlets. As a result, a high level of coordination takes place between feed

suppliers, producers and processors in the catfish industry.











Figure 2. Alabama Study Area Showing Percent of Total State Production from Its Seven
Largest Catfish Producing Counties in 2005.

:. ~ ". ., ..... amilton ,
irdemrnn ,1rar..r-:H ,lrin T E'N N E S S E E Franklinr
\ ,L.ee Lrr .t,, Ih.C- a Lin. lr, larlon .,Chattanooga p.Fi
on c i corr Lauderdale Madison.. Jackson :

TIF "al. : .. .. .imeston Hl untsuille : a
re .. Colbert.... .. ..- *fl r i .
Slawrene Morgan o .- e al ;hun ri:
S: Franklin Mrshal De Kalb :
Jetnarrlt lararshalladega
Marion 1 Winston Cullman." ..... heroke r k '
SI""-: .......... .. .*" :* Etow ah Pol "" ....
.10r o. .... .: v: ..... : .......'- "- o .
:.rr:. ........ :. Blount ....
Sama. ':Walker auldr,.-n Ath
; ,: Fayette ; St. "l glCalhoun .. FJIu o
... ...*. G ..!""'.Birringham "-- : leburne ai ollh .
L c.Lo nde.. Jefferson Talladega" I H
otsel.g. 1. uscaloosa':. 3 r. i. v nd (ovf
U N I:T:E D S TA TE : : p.'
I c. .tn :........ ...' .
-:t.:.n L ^ -3 ., L'' Coosa Top T .G..E..
15% .Hle Bibb : : : Up-or
IPPI A B A M A 'allapoosai Chambe
.: e e r 1 ........ ; .......:.....
'": r1 : : .. 0 *"" -" ""16 .T~hct '*
4.9% P~rr l Autauga Elmore .... Lee : Ta i
ou:r Dll 1 m ;l..t, aIIh omery .." Coluribus;.
Lu:e, dl umef 14% M- on Russell 10a,,rn"
5.5% 14" ,ntgomrr:" ............o
hr:ootw I-1 rrer.I Lowndes i. Bullock .... ;lte, rt
% r ...*
.. :.. w lco A la b a m a i : .. iI../ ," ... '.. ....r.
tWicox Alabama
:.....................i Barbour .utrr. i \
""l k : :. Pike Bar' bour 'rrc'
.. ClarKe "..- Butler censha i R3r..i. ?d
: n e .. ...... .... ... ..... .r, d. I "
e Monroe : Henry alhu'.ir
%..... .. ... :,. Dale ...
ashingtor .: Conecuh :" Coffee ., BaerI
.: '". ....:....... ... .. Covington : .
*:* :-e : n:-: ....... :..... -: n M illeI .- .: l
Escambia Geneva ouso
*. :f & ~ : : rr,,no .. ..
S Mobile / 'aur
*- ..arret.a : Holrrie- JC n cr
obile- int Ck. "__
0 Baldwin Poca
*.r --.on .a tor, F L. O R I. D...A
.: l .'r,. 'ri l9hour, .
.. .alholan

0 u / f o f M e x i c C :O lT Lb,-l1e1t .*". I


Source: USDA -NASS, Alabama Annual Statistics Bulletin, 2006.
lil. p ii. ..I.. Iv/Statistics by_State/Alabama/Publications/AnnualStatisticalBulletin/2006/pg47.pdf







4









Objectives


The objectives of this study were to:
1. Review published reports on economic impacts of the aquaculture industry in the
United States.

2. Compile available data on quantities, prices, sales, and employment for
aquaculture products in Alabama from the USDA/NASS Census of Aquaculture
(2005), and other sources.

3. Compile information on costs of production for the major aquaculture products of
catfish, shrimp and crawfish from State extension economists in Alabama and
Mississippi.

4. Construct an input-output (I-O) model for the state of Alabama using the
IMPLAN modeling software and associated databases.

5. Develop a customized production function for the aquaculture sector in the I-O
model based on Alabama production cost data, to better represent local production
practices and economic linkages.

6. Estimate direct, indirect, induced and total economic impacts for output
(revenue), value added, employment, labor income, other income, and indirect
business taxes, by major economic sector for the year 2005.

7. Provide a written final report to project sponsors that details all analytical
methods, data sources, findings, qualifications, and conclusions.

Scope and Limitations
This analysis utilizes input-output (I-O) analysis to evaluate the positive economic
contributions, in terms of sales or revenues, income, taxes and jobs resulting from aquaculture
production in the State of Alabama. It does not measure or account for any changes in the
quality of life or the environment for the State that may result from these activities. Also,
possible effects on regional prices for goods, services, or real estate are not factored into, or
predicted by, standard I-O analysis. The secondary (indirect and induced) economic impacts
estimated by I-O analysis are derived from the backward linkages of an industry with its input
suppliers, employees, proprietors and associated government entities, and are largely based on

5









national averages. As a result, the accuracy of the estimated secondary impacts rests on the
assumption that the economic relationships between businesses, employees, consumers and
institutions in Alabama are similar to those of the national economy. Generally, indirect and
induced economic impacts are presumed to occur within twelve months of the primary or direct
impacts of an event or activity. The economic impacts of forward linked industries that process,
distribute and market Alabama aquaculture products were not evaluated in this study. As with
any empirical estimation, the accuracy of the results depends directly on the accuracy of the
inputs. It was not within the scope of this study to verify or validate the accuracy of data
provided by the USDA Census of Aquaculture, Auburn University or the Alabama Agricultural
Extension System.

Study Area Definition and Description.
The composition and size of the study area can have a significant effect on the results of
an impact analysis. Geographic location of the event or activity of interest, the relevant
government/political jurisdictions, and the degree of economic integration within the region are
the important criteria for determining the appropriate study area. As specified in the sponsored
research contract, the activity of interest is aquaculture in Alabama. To best capture both
primary and secondary impacts, it is important to include geo-political areas where employees
and business owners not only work, but live and spend their earnings. A review of Census
Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis (US Department of Commerce) commuting pattern
data for the year 2000 revealed that over 97 percent of individuals who worked in Alabama that
year, also lived there. Examining data on commuting patterns for agricultural workers in
Alabama revealed that over 93 percent these workers or proprietors also live inside the State.
Based on these statistics, it is the authors' opinion that the degree of economic integration within
Alabama is sufficient to capture the bulk of economic impacts generated by its aquaculture
industry.

Regional Economic Impact Analysis: Background
The economic impacts estimated in this study are based on input-output (I-O) analysis
and models. I-O analysis is a standard technique for estimating broad regional economic impacts
that result from changes in economic activity of a specific industry sector or group of sectors in a
particular region. I-O models are mathematical representations of a regional economy









formulated in terms of transactions between industries, employees, households, and governments
(Schaffer, 1999).
The Food and Resource Economics Department is a licensed user of the IMPLAN
Professional 2 economic impact modeling system. IMPLAN is system of software and databases
that can be used to quickly construct input-output models and estimate economic multipliers and
impacts. It includes data on economic activity in the U.S at the county level for 531 different
industry and institutional sectors based on the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS). 3 Within NAICS and IMPLAN, businesses are classified into specific industry sectors
based on their primary product or service. This extensive database allows economic I-O models
to be constructed for individual counties, multi-county regions, or states within the U.S. For this
analysis, the IMPLAN I-O model representing the economy of the State of Alabama was based
on 2003 data.
The types of economic impacts typically estimated with I-O models include output,
value-added, labor income, other property type income, indirect business taxes, and employment.
Output impacts represent the total value of revenues or expenditures associated with an activity
or event. Value-added impacts measure labor income, property type income, and indirect
business taxes resulting from these revenues. Labor income represents earnings by employees
and proprietors of affected businesses. Other property type income consists of rents, royalties,
interest, dividends, and corporate profits. Indirect business taxes include excise, property, and
sales taxes, as well as licensees and fees paid by businesses, but do not include taxes on profits or
income. Employment impacts approximate the number of full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs
created by an economic activity. Each of these measures represents a different way of assessing
the size or contribution of a particular activity to a regional or national economy.
Economic impacts can occur in three ways: direct, indirect and induced. Direct impacts,
represent the additional revenues, value-added, income, and jobs generated directly by business
activity, consumer spending, or government transfers within a study area. Whether indirect or
induced impacts occur depends on the source of dollars causing the direct impacts. When new or


2 Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG), 2004. IMPLAN, Economic Impact and Social Accounting Software, and data
for Florida. Stillwater, MN. www.implan.com.
IMPLAN Pro uses a sectoring scheme similar to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): For
details see http//www.implan.com/librarv/df files/implan sectoring 2001.ndf .









outside dollars enter a regional economy, either through expenditures by visitors from outside the
region, from the sale (export) of goods and services to areas outside the local region, or
institutional transfers, additional economic repercussions will occur in the form of indirect and
induced impacts. Indirect impacts occur as businesses use revenues originating from outside
the region to purchase goods and services from local suppliers. This secondary, or indirect
business, generates additional revenues, income, jobs and taxes for the local economy. Induced
impacts from nonlocal revenues occur when the households of employees and business owners
(and those of their local suppliers) spend their earnings or profits at other businesses in the area
for consumer goods and services. Again, additional revenues, income, jobs and taxes for the
regional economy result from this activity. Indirect economic impacts indicate how important
outside revenues are to area businesses that primarily serve other businesses. Induced impacts
point to how significant outside revenues are for area businesses that primarily serve consumers.
A glossary of input-output terminology is provided at the end of this report.

Procedures and Data
Building input-output models that reasonably estimate the economic impacts of a
particular industry in given region requires data on all the related industries and institutions in
that region. IMPLAN databases are constructed from data from numerous government sources
for industry and regional economic data such as the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industry and institution data is organized in
IMPLAN using a 531 sector scheme, which is similar to the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS). In IMPLAN, aquaculture is combined with other types of
animal production including swine, dairy and sheep operations into a sector called "Animal
production- except cattle and poultry" (IMPLAN Sector 13). This IMPLAN sector
corresponds to NAICS sectors 1122, 1124, 1125, and 1129 combined. Since more detailed data
on aquaculture in Alabama is available, the IMPLAN model was adjusted to more accurately
reflect this particular industry and region. Detailed data on catfish production was obtained from
the 2005 Census of Aquaculture (USDA NASS) (Tables 1 and 2), Brown et al., and personal










correspondence with John Adrian and James Yeager at the Alabama Agricultural Extension

System 4 (Table 3). Since 96 percent of aquaculture sales in Alabama in 2005 were catfish, the

industry was treated as if it was catfish production.



Table 3. West Alabama Catfish Enterprise Budgets, 2004 and 2005 .

2004 2005
$/acre percent $/acre percent
Operating revenues $3,257.80 $3,549.11

Operating expenses
Feed $1,721.60 61.89% $1,593.24 51.81%
Labor $261.82 9.41% $319.14 10.38%
Utilities $119.88 4.31% $176.96 5.75%
Chemicals $51.28 1.84% $69.92 2.27%
Machine hire $68.80 2.47% $125.33 4.08%
Machine repair $186.15 6.69% $176.68 5.74%
Interest $151.22 5.44% $239.12 7.78%
Fuel $76.23 2.74% $116.45 3.79%
Insurance $28.41 1.02% $32.11 1.04%
Property taxes $5.01 0.18% $9.06 0.29%
Cash rent $67.68 2.43% $35.64 1.16%
Miscellaneous $32.65 1.17% $55.65 1.81%
Pond and building repair $11.15 0.40% $126.13 4.10%
Total operating expenses $2,781.88 100.00% $3,075.43 100.00%
Net operating income $475.92 $473.68
Machinery depreciation $156.98 $154.91
Pond/Building depreciation $38.60 $44.84
Total depreciation $195.58 $199.75

Net Income $280.34 $273.93
Sources: John L. Adrian Jr., Professor, Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology, Alabama Cooperative
Extension Systems, Auburn University, AL, October, 2006.
Joseph J. Yeager, Extension Economist- Farm Business Management, Alabama Fish Farming Center,
Alabama Cooperative Extension Systems, Greensboro, AL, November 2006.
Brown et al., 2006.

Expenses represent averages per acre of water area.







4 John L. Adrian Jr., Professor of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology, 308A Comer Hall, Auburn
University, AL, October, 2006.
Joseph J. Yeager, Extension Economist Farm Business Management, Alabama Fish Farming Center, 529
Centerville St, Greensboro, AL, November 2006.










For the purposes of this economic impact analysis, it was necessary to make several

modifications to the catfish production budget in Table 3. The budgets in Table 3 were based on

an accrual accounting system, where revenues were adjusted for estimated changes in the
inventory of catfish in ponds. Since economic impacts are based on sales, the budgets had to be

converted to a cash basis. After consulting with Adrian and Yeager, this conversion was carried

out by adding the cost of fingerlings to both the expenditure and revenue sides of the budget.

These expenditures were estimated as 16 percent ($585.80) of total operating expenditures for
2005. The 2005 budget in Table 3 also shows an eleven fold increase in pond and building

repair expenditures over 2004. This was due to damages caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

in 2005. To prevent this anomaly from distorting the impact results, the value for pond and
building repairused in this analysis was set equal to its average for 2004 and 2005 ($68.64).

Finally, in order to capture some of the ongoing capital investment costs involved in catfish

production, annual depreciation expenses for ponds, buildings and machinery were treated as
normal production expenditures. The revised 2005 enterprise budget for modeling catfish

production in Alabama is presented in Table 4.


Table 4. Modified Alabama Catfish Enterprise Budget, 2005.
Revenues Average per acre of water
Value of catfish production $4,102.02
Other receipts $32.89
Total Revenues $4,134.91

% of total % of total
Operating expenditures Amount $ expenditures. revenues
Feed $1,593.24 41.89% 38.53%
Fingerlings $585.80 15.40% 14.17%
Labor $319.14 8.39% 7.72%
Utilities $176.96 4.65% 4.28%
Chemicals $69.92 1.84% 1.69%
Machine hire $125.33 3.30% 3.03%
Machine repair & depreciation $331.59 8.72% 8.02%
Interest $239.12 6.29% 5.78%
Fuel $116.45 3.06% 2.82%
Insurance $32.11 0.84% 0.78%
Property taxes $9.06 0.24% 0.22%
Cash rent $35.64 0.94% 0.86%
Miscellaneous $55.65 1.46% 1.35%
Pond & building repair & depreciation $113.48 2.98% 2.74%
Total $3,803.49 100.00% 91.98%

Net income $331.42 8.02%









To apply the modified budget to the IMPLAN model, individual budget items must be
converted and allocated to the appropriate IMPLAN industry sectors. This allocation is
presented in Table 5. The first three columns of this table contain the budget items, their
amount, and percentage of total expenditures, including value-added, which equals employee
compensation, profits, property taxes and other income. The allocation of those budget item
expenditures to IMPLAN industry sectors is shown in the fourth, fifth and sixth columns of
Table 5. The sector names and numbers are given in the fourth column. The selection of
IMPLAN sectors for this allocation was based on sector descriptions provided in the IMPLAN
Pro Users Guide and a review of production literature published by the Alabama Cooperative
Extension System and the Mississippi State University Extension Service. In all but one
instance, the allocation of individual budget items among multiple IMPLAN sectors was carried
out evenly. An exception was made for Machine Repair expenditures where only 10 percent
was allocated to Tire Manufacturing and 30 percent was allocated to each of the remaining three
sectors selected for that budget item. The budgeted amount and percentage of total revenue
allocated to each IMPLAN sector are given in the fifth and sixth columns of Table 5. The
percentages given in the sixth column were used to customize the production function for
IMPLAN sector 13 (Animal production- except cattle and poultry).
The value-added components of the enterprise budget are shown in the bottom quarter of
Table 5. These values were calculated by multiplying the percent of total revenues shown in the
last column of Table 4, by 2005 aquaculture revenues ($102.796 M) for each value-added
category. These values were then used to modify the Study Area Data section for sector 13 of
the IMPLAN model. In this case: labor expense was allocated to Employee Compensation;
profits were designated as Proprietary Income; property taxes were allocated to Other Business
Taxes; and other receipts were assigned to Other Property Income.
Additional modifications to the IMPLAN model were made to bring it into alignment
with specific information available on Alabama aquaculture, and to adjust other default modeling
parameters, which were not realistic for the State and aquaculture production. First, Adrian and
Yeager indicated that eighty percent of feed purchases, and five percent of fingerling purchases
took place within the State of Alabama. Since these items represented significant portions of the
total budget and were substantially different from the Regional Purchase Coefficients estimated
by the IMPLAN model, the values in IMPLAN were adjusted accordingly. To accommodate the









Table 5. Alabama Catfish Enterprise Budget with Budget Item Allocation to IMPLAN Sectors, 2005.

$ per
Input Expenditure Water- Percent % of Total
Items acre of Total IMPLAN Sector Name (number) Amount Revenues
Feed $1,593.24 38.53% Other animal food manufacturing (47) $1,593.24 38.531%
Fingerlings $585.80 14.17% Animal production- except cattle and poultry (13) $585.80 14.167%
Utilities $176.96 4.28% Power generation and supply (30) $176.96 4.280%
Chemicals $69.92 1.69%
Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing (150) $17.48 0.423%
Nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing (156) $17.48 0.423%
Phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing (157) $17.48 0.423%
Pesticide & other agricultural chemical manufact. (159) $17.48 0.423%
Machine hire $125.33 3.03% Agriculture and forestry support activities (18) $125.33 3.031%
Machine repair $331.59 8.02%
Tire manufacturing (179) $33.16 0.802%
Motor vehicle parts manufacturing (350) $99.48 2.406%
Automotive repair and maintenance (483) $99.48 2.406%
Commercial machinery repair & maintenance (485) $99.48 2.406%
Fuel $116.45 2.82% Petroleum refineries (142) $116.45 2.816%
Insurance $32.11 0.78% Insurance agencies, brokerages, & related (428) $32.11 0.777%
Pond & building repair $113.48 2.74%
Maintenance & repair of nonresidential buildings (43) $56.74 1.372%
Other maintenance and repair construction (45) $56.74 1.372%
Cash Rent $35.64 0.86% Real estate (431) $35.64 0.862%
Miscellaneous $55.65 1.35%
Wholesale Trade (390) $18.55 0.449%
Accounting & bookkeeping services (438) $18.55 0.449%
Veterinary Services (449) $18.55 0.449%
Interest $239.12 5.78% Monetary authorities & depository credit intermediaries (430) $239.12 5.783%
Total input expenditures $3,475.29 84.05% $3,475.29 84.048%

Value added
Labor $319.14 7.72% Employee compensation $319.14 7.718%
Profits $298.53 7.22% Proprietary Income $298.53 7.220%
Property taxes $9.06 0.22% Indirect Business Taxes $9.06 0.219%
Other income $32.89 0.80% Other property income $32.89 0.795%
Total value-added $659.62 15.95% $659.62 15.952%

Total inputs + value-
added = Revenues $4,134.91 100.00% $4,134.91 100.000%










80 percent figure for local feed purchases it was necessary to double the State's Other Animal
Food Manufacturing sector (47) capacity. The default IMPLAN model for Alabama also
included foreign exports and institutional sales of sector 13 products. Since it was doubtful that
this was actually the case for aquacultural products from Alabama, these values were set to zero.
This completed the modifications to the production function for the analysis.
A final calculation to industry sales data was needed to estimate the proportion of
aquacultural production that was exported from the State. This is the proportion that brings in
outside revenues or dollars into Alabama and generates multiplier (indirect and induced) effects.
This was carried out by comparing catfish consumption in Alabama to the rest of the United
States. A private study for the Catfish Institute in 1998 (Dean, Hanson and Murry), estimated
regional differences in per-capita catfish consumption for the U.S. in 1998. Estimates ranged
from 2.94 pounds per-capita per year for the south-central region of the U.S, to 0.17 pounds for
the Northeast. The average per-capita consumption for the U.S. as a whole was estimated at 1.04
pounds per-capita. Using this data in conjunction with U.S. Census population estimates for
2005, the proportion of Alabama catfish production exported outside the State was estimated at
95.65 percent. As presented in Table 6, the amount of catfish consumed within Alabama was
estimated by multiplying its 2005 population of 4,557,808 (Census Bureau), by 2.94 pounds,
which equals 13,399,956 pounds. Dividing this number by the estimated total consumption for
the U.S. and subtracting that percentage from one (1), gives the exported percentage in the
bottom row of the fifth column of Table 6. Thus, the sales values used to estimate the indirect
and induced effects from aquaculture production is 95.65 percent of $102.796 M, or $98.327 M.
To complete the economic impact estimation, $98.327 M was entered into the modified
IMPLAN model as revenues for sector 13. Within this value was deflated to 2003 prices within
the IMPLAN software, so that it would conform to the year of the data used to build the model.
Once the impact estimates were generated, the software can be used to re-inflate the values back
to 2005 dollars. The results of this impact analysis are presented in the following section.











Table 6. Estimation of the Proportion of Alabama Catfish Sales Inside and Outside the
State, 2005.
Estimated Estimated Estimated
per capital total Percentage Value of
Geographic 2005 consumption consumption, oftotal Alabama
Area Population 1 Ibs. 2 Ibs. consumption Sales
US population 296,410,404 1.04 308,266,820 100.00% $102,796,000
AL population 4,557,808 2.94 13,399,956 4.35% $4,468,408
US pop. AL 291,852,596 1.01 294,866,865 95.65% $98,327,592
1. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html
2. Mississippi State University Extension Service, http://www.msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2317.pdf



Results
Summary results of the economic impact analysis of Alabama Aquaculture are shown in

Table 7. Output, value-added, labor income, other property type income, indirect business taxes

and employment impacts are shown in individual table rows. The local direct, and nonlocal
direct, indirect, induced effects and total economic impacts are reported in separate table

columns. Direct impacts are the revenues, income, taxes and jobs generated directly by the

aquaculture industry. Direct impacts result from both local and non-local revenues, but only
non-local (out of state) revenues generate indirect and induced effects. As previously described,

indirect effects occur when directly impacted businesses use revenues originating from outside

the region to purchases inputs (goods and services) from local suppliers and in turn, when those
suppliers purchase from other local suppliers. Induced impacts from non-local revenues occur

when the households of employees and business proprietors (and their local suppliers) spend
their income or profits for personal consumption at other local instatee) businesses. Total

impacts are the sum of these direct, indirect and induced effects, and measure the complete
impact of an activity as it ripples through a regional economy. All results in Table 7 are stated in

2005 dollars.











Table 7. Economic Impacts of the Alabama Aquaculture Industry, 2005. a
Impacts Impacts from Impacts
from Local Non-Local from All
Impact Type/Level Revenues Revenues Revenues
Units Direct Direct Indirect $Induced Total
Output $4.47 $98.33 $73.55 $46.45 $222.79
Value Added 8 $0.71 $15.69 $23.01 $28.11 $67.53
Labor Income $0.67 $14.69 $14.68 $18.51 $48.54
o
Other Prop. Type Income $0.04 $0.78 $6.70 $7.46 $14.98
Indirect Bus. Taxes $0.01 $0.22 $1.63 $2.15 $4.00
Employment Jobs 26 569 373 515 1,483
aTotal impacts equal the sum of direct, indirect and induced impacts. Value-added impacts equal the sum of labor
income, other property type income, and indirect business taxes. Employment represents both full-time and part-
time jobs.


The total output impact generated by Alabama's aquaculture industry was estimated to be

$222.8 million (M) in 2005, including $4.5 M from local revenues and $218.3 Min impacts from
non-local revenues (Table 7). The estimated total output impact from non-local revenues was

comprised of $98.3 M in direct effects, $73.6 M in indirect effects, and $46.5 M from the
induced effects.
Value-added impacts represent the sum of labor income, other property type income, and

indirect business taxes. The total value-added impact of Alabama aquaculture for 2005 was
estimated at $67.5 M (Table 7). Labor income represents the sum of employee compensation

and proprietor profits associated with Alabama aquaculture and was estimated to equal $48.5 M.
Other property type income consists of rents, royalties, interest, dividends and other corporate

profits. This impact was estimate to be $15.0 M for Alabama in 2005. An estimated $4.0 M in
indirect business taxes, which represent excise, property, and sales taxes, as well as business and
licensing fees, resulted from the aquaculture industry in 2005. This figure does not include taxes
on income or profits.

Employment impacts estimate the number of full and part-time jobs created by an
economic activity. A total of 1,483 jobs were estimated to have resulted from the direct, indirect
and induced effects of the aquaculture industry in Alabama during 2005 (Table 7). Twenty-six

jobs resulted from local sales of aquaculture products, and total of 1,457 resulted from sales
made outside the State.









The implicit multipliers of these impacts are shown in Table 8. Implicit multipliers are
equal to the indirect, induced or total impacts divided by the direct impacts, so direct impact
multipliers are equal to one by definition. In this case the direct impact used to calculate the
multiplier is equal to the sum of the direct impact from both local and non-local revenues.
These numbers can be interpreted by saying that for every one dollar of revenue (output)
generated by aquaculture in Alabama, $2.12 in revenues are generated for the State as a whole.
Or, for every $1.00 in labor income generated by aquaculture in Alabama in 2005, there was a
$3.11 increase in total labor income for the State. With respect to jobs, the results indicate that
for every job created within the aquaculture sector, nearly 2.45 jobs are generated altogether
within the State. The multipliers for Other Property Type Income and Indirect Business Taxes
are often large for agricultural industries. This is because their direct contributions for these
types of value-added impacts are relatively small, as can be seen in Table 7.


Table 8. Implicit Multipliers for Economic Impacts from Non-local Revenues Generated
by the Aquaculture Industry of Alabama, 2005.

Impact Type/Effect Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 1.000 0.715 0.452 2.124
Total Value Added 1.000 1.403 1.714 4.074
Labor Income 1.000 0.956 1.205 3.118
Other Prop. Type Income 1.000 8.195 9.122 18.273
Indirect Business Taxes 1.000 7.242 9.532 17.731
Employment 1.000 0.627 0.865 2.447


More detailed breakouts of these impacts by two-digit aggregate NAICS sectors are
provided in Appendix A, Tables Al through A6, for output, value added, labor income, other
property type income, indirect business taxes and employment respectively. The aggregate
NAICS industry sectors with the largest output impacts from aquaculture were: Agriculture,
Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting; Manufacturing; Government; Finance and Insurance; and
Construction (Table Al). Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting generated over 47 percent
of the total output impacts. This was a result of the direct impacts of aquaculture belonging to
this aggregate Agriculture sector. The sector with the next largest output impact was
Manufacturing. Most of manufacturing's impact occurred at the indirect level. This represents
sales by the "Other Animal Food Manufacturers" sector within the State which provides feed for
aquaculture operations. The manufacturing sector captured 22.4 percent of the total output









impact (Table Al). Government accounted for the third largest output impacts at $11.83 M or
5.31 percent of the total output impact. With $7.32 M in output impacts, Finance and Insurance
was the fourth largest aggregate sector impacted by aquaculture in the State. The fifth ranked
sector was the Construction industry at $6.76 M.
The distribution of impacts for value-added (Table A2) and labor income (Table A3) are
similar to output, except that the Government and Manufacturing swapped places as the second
and third ranked sectors, and Retail Trade and, Health and Social Services beat out Construction
as the fifth ranked sector. Government received the largest portion of Other Property Type
Income impacts from aquaculture, followed by Finance and Insurance, Manufacturing, Utilities,
and Real Estate (Table A4). For indirect business taxes (Table A5), Wholesale Trade and Retail
Trade were the first and second ranked sectors, followed by Government, Utilities and Real
Estate. Employment impacts (Table A6) were distributed in a pattern similar to value-added
impacts, with Retail Trade taking the forth slot and Other Services ranking in fifth place.

Summary
From 1998 to 2005, aquaculture sales in Alabama increased by over 72 percent, during a
period when many of the more traditional types of agriculture in the State struggled. While
aquaculture is not nearly the largest agricultural sector in Alabama, it is still the third largest
livestock industry in the State, behind poultry and cattle. With an expanding worldwide demand
for fish protein meeting increased restrictions on the harvest of wild fish and seafood, the
importance of aquaculture to the nation's food supply is destined to grow.
By calculating how Alabama aquaculture uses its revenues to pay employees and
purchase inputs, and then estimating how households of employees and business proprietors
spend those earnings at other businesses, economic impact analysis can be used to evaluate the
total impact of aquaculture for the State. Output, value added, income and jobs are basic units
for measuring such economic activity. Estimating the size of these economic indicators makes it
possible to evaluate and compare the impact of aquaculture in Alabama to other activities or
sectors in the State. The total economic output impacts of aquaculture for the State of Alabama
were estimated to be $222.8 M in 2005. This impact included $67.5 M in value-added, $48.5 M
in labor income, $15.0 M in other property income and $4.0 M in indirect business taxes. It is
also estimated that Alabama aquaculture was responsible for generating a total of 1,483 full and
part-time jobs for the State in 2005.









Literature and Information Sources Cited


Alabama Cooperative Extension System, and Auburn University, Department of Fisheries and
Allied Aquaculture. "Value of Channel Catfish Harvested and other Statistics from the U. S. by
State 1981-2005"
http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/aquaculture/documents/cfishdata022106.xls

Brown, Stephen G., W. Holt Hardin, Robert G. Lisec, W. Hal Pepper, Jerry S. Pierce, J. Jamie
Yeager, and John Adrian. 2006. "Alabama Farm Analysis Association Summary Report, 2006",
AGEC0801-06, Department of Agricultural Economics, Auburn University.

Crews, Jerry R. and Jesse A. Chappell, "U.S. Catfish Industry Situation in 2005 and Outlook for
2006", Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology,
Auburn University, AL
http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/aquaculture/documents/CATFISHACES20052006.doc

Crews, Jerry R. and Jesse A. Chappell, "2005 Alabama Aquaculture Factsheet", Alabama
Cooperative Extension System, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn
University, AL
http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/aquaculture/documents/AOUAACES2005.doc

Dean, Stuart, Terrill Hanson and Steve Murray, "Economic Impact of the Mississippi Farm-
Raised Catfish Industry at the Year 2003" Mississippi State University Extension Service.
http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2317.pdf

Hason, Terry and Dave Sites, "Catfish Database", Information Report 2006 01, Mississippi
State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, March, 2006.
http //msucares. com/aquaculture/catfish/database_05.pdf

Masser, Michael, John Jensen, and Jerry Crews, "Channel Catfish: Production in Ponds"
Circular ANR-195, Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Alabama A & M and Auburn
Universities, 1997. www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-0195/ANR-0195.pdf

Schaffer, William A. "Regional Impact Models", Regional Research Institute, West Virginia
University. 1999, http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/Schaffer/index.html

Tucker, Craig, Jimmy Avery, Carole Engle and Andrew Goodwin, "Industry Profile: Pond-
Raised Channel Catfish", USDA Risk Management Agency, Mississippi State University, and
University of Arkansas, May, 2004.
http://www.agecon.msstate.edu/Aquaculture/pubs/Catfish_Industry Profile.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS),
Alabama Statistical Office, "2006 Alabama Agricultural Statistics: Bulletin 49", 2006.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics by State/Alabama/Publications/Annual Statistical
Bulletin/pg04.htm









USDA NASS, "Census of Aquaculture (2005)" Volume 3, Special Studies Part 2, 2002 Census
of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census of Agriculture/2002/Aquaculture/index.asp

USDA NASS, "1998 Census of Aquaculture" 1997 Census of Agriculture.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm

USDA NASS, "Catfish Production" July 26, 2006.
http://usda.mannlib.corell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1016

USDA NASS, "Catfish Processing" August 21, 2006.
http://usda.mannlib.corell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1015

USDA NASS, Alabama Agricultural Statistical Service, "Alabama Agricultural Statistics 2006"
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics by State/Alabama/Publications/Annual Statistical Bulletin
/2006/pg47.pdf

US Department of Commerce (DOC), Census Bureau, "County-To-County Worker Flow Files",
2000. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html

USDOC, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Economic Accounts, Census Journey
to Work, 2000. http://bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/jtw/default.cfm










Appendix A


Table Al. Output Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 4.47 98.33 2.84 0.38 106.02 47.59% 1
31-33 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 44.15 5.84 49.99 22.44% 2
92 Government & non NAICs 0.00 0.00 1.67 10.15 11.83 5.31% 3
52 Finance & insurance 0.00 0.00 4.88 2.44 7.32 3.29% 4
23 Construction 0.00 0.00 2.44 4.32 6.76 3.04% 5
81 Other services 0.00 0.00 3.73 1.57 5.29 2.38% 6
62 Health & social services 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.83 4.83 2.17% 7
22 Utilities 0.00 0.00 3.41 0.98 4.39 1.97% 8
44-45 Retail trade 0.00 0.00 0.22 4.15 4.37 1.96% 9
42 Wholesale Trade 0.00 0.00 2.50 1.70 4.20 1.88% 10
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.97 3.88 1.74% 11
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.00 0.00 2.71 1.02 3.72 1.67% 12
53 Real estate & rental 0.00 0.00 1.21 2.22 3.43 1.54% 13
72 Accommodation & food services 0.00 0.00 0.24 2.06 2.30 1.03% 14
51 Information 0.00 0.00 0.31 1.09 1.40 0.63% 15
56 Administrative & waste services 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.74 1.14 0.51% 16
21 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.19 0.72 0.32% 17
55 Management of companies 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.19 0.54 0.24% 18
61 Educational svcs 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.17% 19
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.28 0.13% 20
_Total 4.47 98.33 73.55 46.45 222.79 100%
* 2005 dollars












Table A2. Value-added Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.71 15.69 1.62 0.16 18.17 26.91% 1
92 Government & non NAICs 0.00 0.00 0.46 8.79 9.25 13.70% 2
31-33 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 5.61 1.48 7.09 10.50% 3
52 Finance & insurance 0.00 0.00 3.50 1.38 4.87 7.22% 4
44-45 Retail trade 0.00 0.00 0.16 3.12 3.29 4.87% 5
42 Wholesale Trade 0.00 0.00 1.90 1.29 3.19 4.73% 6
23 Construction 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.82 3.07 4.55% 7
62 Health & social services 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.01 3.01 4.46% 8
22 Utilities 0.00 0.00 2.38 0.60 2.98 4.42% 9
81 Other services 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.81 2.64 3.91% 10
53 Real estate & rental 0.00 0.00 0.82 1.48 2.30 3.41% 11
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.24 2.26 3.35% 12
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.56 2.02 3.00% 13
72 Accommodation & food services 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.94 1.06 1.57% 14
56 Administrative & waste services 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.42 0.66 0.98% 15
51 Information 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.45 0.59 0.87% 16
21 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.11 0.38 0.56% 17
55 Management of companies 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.11 0.31 0.46% 18
61 Educational svcs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.20 0.29% 19
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.24% 20
_Total 0.71 15.69 23.01 28.11 67.53 100%
* 2005 dollars












Table A3. Labor Income Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.67 14.69 1.89 0.10 17.35 35.73% 1
92 Government & non NAICs 0.00 0.00 0.32 5.39 5.71 11.77% 2
31-33 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 4.11 1.06 5.16 10.64% 3
23 Construction 0.00 0.00 1.13 1.57 2.70 5.56% 4
62 Health & social services 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.61 2.61 5.38% 5
52 Finance & insurance 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.73 2.07 4.26% 6
44-45 Retail trade 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.95 2.05 4.23% 7
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.00 0.00 0.85 1.12 1.97 4.06% 8
81 Other services 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.63 1.93 3.98% 9
42 Wholesale Trade 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.72 1.79 3.68% 10
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.43 1.45 3.00% 11
22 Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.19 0.89 1.84% 12
72 Accommodation & food services 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.66 0.74 1.52% 13
53 Real estate & rental 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.39 0.59 1.22% 14
56 Administrative & waste services 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.34 0.54 1.12% 15
51 Information 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.30 0.61% 16
55 Management of companies 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.24 0.49% 17
61 Educational svcs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.39% 18
21 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.15 0.30% 19
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.24% 20
_Total 0.67 14.69 14.68 18.51 48.54 100%
* 2005 dollars












Table A4. Other Property Type Income Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
92 Government & non NAICs 0.00 0.00 0.14 2.91 3.05 20.34% 1
52 Finance & insurance 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.59 2.68 17.92% 2
31-33 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 1.26 0.39 1.66 11.06% 3
22 Utilities 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.32 1.65 10.99% 4
53 Real estate & rental 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.85 1.33 8.88% 5
42 Wholesale Trade 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.29 0.71 4.76% 6
44-45 Retail trade 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.58 0.61 4.06% 7
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.04 0.78 -0.30 0.05 0.57 3.77% 8
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.11 0.50 3.33% 9
81 Other services 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.11 0.43 2.85% 10
62 Health & social services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 2.46% 11
23 Construction 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.23 0.34 2.25% 12
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.26 1.70% 13
51 Information 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.23 1.57% 14
72 Accommodation & food services 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.19 0.21 1.41% 15
21 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.19 1.24% 16
56 Administrative & waste services 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.70% 17
55 Management of companies 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.44% 18
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.23% 19
61 Educational svcs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01% 20
Total 0.04 0.78 6.70 7.46 14.98 100%
* 2005 dollars









Table A5. Indirect Business Tax Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
42 Wholesale Trade 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.28 0.69 17.24% 1
44-45 Retail trade 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.59 0.63 15.64% 2
92 Government & non NAICs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 12.25% 3
22 Utilities 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.09 0.45 11.13% 4
53 Real estate & rental 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.24 0.38 9.40% 5
81 Other services 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.07 0.28 7.05% 6
31-33 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.03 0.27 6.68% 7
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.01 0.22 0.03 0.01 0.26 6.53% 8
52 Finance & insurance 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.12 3.08% 9
72 Accommodation & food services 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.11 2.84% 10
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.07 1.75% 11
51 Information 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 1.41% 12
21 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.05 1.19% 13
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 1.00% 14
23 Construction 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.93% 15
62 Health & social services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.80% 16
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.42% 17
56 Administrative & waste services 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.41% 18
55 Management of companies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13% 19
61 Educational svcs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11% 20
_Total 0.01 0.22 1.63 2.15 4.00 100%
* 2005 dollars












Table A6. Employment Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs % order
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 25.84 568.66 83.12 5.36 682.98 46.11% 1
92 Government & non NAICs 0.00 0.00 3.92 111.63 115.55 7.80% 2
31-33 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 79.58 20.47 100.05 6.75% 3
44-45 Retail trade 0.00 0.00 4.21 79.01 83.22 5.62% 4
81 Other services 0.00 0.00 44.19 33.77 77.96 5.26% 5
23 Construction 0.00 0.00 30.99 43.71 74.71 5.04% 6
62 Health & social services 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.36 60.36 4.07% 7
72 Accommodation & food services 0.00 0.00 5.26 45.82 51.08 3.45% 8
52 Finance & insurance 0.00 0.00 26.78 15.02 41.80 2.82% 9
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.00 0.00 20.95 19.80 40.75 2.75% 10
42 Wholesale Trade 0.00 0.00 20.09 13.68 33.77 2.28% 11
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.00 0.00 22.77 9.95 32.71 2.21% 12
56 Administrative & waste services 0.00 0.00 9.66 16.17 25.83 1.74% 13
53 Real estate & rental 0.00 0.00 8.90 16.83 25.73 1.74% 14
61 Educational svcs 0.00 0.00 0.10 8.51 8.61 0.58% 15
22 Utilities 0.00 0.00 6.22 1.82 8.03 0.54% 16
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.00 0.00 0.86 6.22 7.08 0.48% 17
51 Information 0.00 0.00 1.53 4.30 5.83 0.39% 18
55 Management of companies 0.00 0.00 2.30 1.15 3.44 0.23% 19
21 Mining 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.48 1.53 0.10% 20
Total 25.84 568.66 372.66 514.14 1,481.30 100%
* 2005 dollars









Glossary


Direct effects/impacts: Direct impacts, represent the revenues, value-added, income, or jobs that
result directly from an economic activity within a regional economy.
Employment or Jobs: Represents the total numbers of wage and salaried employees as well as
self-employed jobs. This includes full-time, part-time and seasonal workers measured in
annual average jobs.
Indirect Business Taxes: Include sales, excise, and property taxes as well as fees and licenses
paid by businesses during normal operations. It does not include taxes on profits or income.
Indirect effects/impacts: Indirect effects occur when businesses use revenues originating from
outside the region, or study area, to purchase inputs (goods and services) from local
suppliers. This secondary, or indirect business, generates additional revenues, income, jobs
and taxes for the area economy.
Induced effects/impacts: Induced effects or impacts occur when new dollars, originating from
outside the study area, are introduced into the local economy. Induced economic impacts
occur as the households of business owners and employees spend their earnings from these
enterprises to purchase consumer goods and services from other businesses within the region.
This induced effect generates additional revenues, income, jobs and taxes for the area
economy.
Input-Output Analysis: The use of input-output models to estimate how revenues or
employment for one or more particular industries, businesses or activities in a regional
economy impact other businesses and institutions in that region, and the regional as a whole.
Input-Output Models: A mathematical representation of economic activity within a defined
region using inter-industry transaction tables or matrices where the outputs of various
industries are used as inputs by those same industries and other industries as well.
Labor Income: All forms of employment compensation, including employee wages and
salaries, and proprietor income or profits.
Local revenues/expenditures: Local revenues or spending represent simple transfers between
individuals or businesses within a regional economy. These transactions do not generate
economic spin-off or multiplier (indirect and induced) effects.
Margins: Represent the differences between retail, wholesale, distributor and producers prices.
Non-local revenues/expenditures: When outside or new revenues flow into a local economy
either from the sale of locally produced goods and services to points outside the study area,
or from expenditures by non-local visitors to the study area, additional economic
repercussions occur through indirect and induced (multiplier) effects.
Other Property Type Income: Income in the form of rents, royalties, interest, dividends, and
corporate profits.
Output: Revenues or sales associated with an industry or economic activity.
Total Impacts: The sum of direct, indirect and induced effects or economic impacts.
Value-added: Includes wages and salaries, interest, rent, profits, and indirect taxes paid by
businesses.













Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Processing and Production Industries

in Alabama in 2005


An Addendum to:



Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Industry in Alabama in 2005


by


Tom Stevens, Alan Hodges, and David Mulkey


September 17, 2007


University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Food and Resource Economics Department


P.O. Box 110240
University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 32611-0240
352-392-1845
awhodges@ufl.edu
economicimpact.ifas.ufl.edu





Prepared under contract for Auburn University,
Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology.









Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Processing and Production Industries

in Alabama in 2005



This paper is an addendum to a report submitted in January of 2007 that evaluated the
economic impacts of production aquaculture (primarily catfish) in the State of Alabama during
2005.1 The analysis described here supplements the earlier report by separately evaluating the
economic impacts generated by the processing of aquacultural catfish products in Alabama in
2005. Data for this supplemental analysis were provided by John Adrian and James Yeager with
the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and Auburn University. 2
There were 3 catfish processors located in Alabama in 2005. The combined sales of
these operations for 2005 were reported to be $151,231,871. It was also reported that 1,290
individuals were employed at these operations that year. An estimated 94.66 percent of the total
output of these operations was sold to nonlocal buyers outside the State of Alabama. Thus,
$143.1 million (M) of the $151.2 M in total sales of processed catfish represented new dollars
entering the State's economy, which generated multiplier (indirect and induced) effects for the
State.
Except as explicitly stated below, the scope, limitations, assumptions and methodology
for this supplemental analysis are identical to those described in the original report. As before, a
mathematical Input-Output (I-O) model of the State of Alabama was constructed to estimate
these economic impacts using the IMPLAN Professional data and software package. 3Within
IMPLAN, data on the U.S. economy is organized in a 531 sector scheme (including social
accounts), which is similar to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The
IMPLAN sector used to represent catfish processing is named Seafood Product Preparation and
Packaging (sector 71). This corresponds to NAICS sector 3117, which has the same name.



1 Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Industry in Alabama in 2005, by Tom Stevens, Alan Hodges, and David
Mulkey, January 12, 2007. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
2 John L. Adrian Jr., Professor of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology, 308A Comer Hall, Auburn
University, AL.
Joseph J. Yeager, Extension Economist Farm Business Management, Alabama Fish Farming Center, 529
Centerville St, Greensboro, AL.
3Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG), IMPLAN, Economic Impact and Social Accounting Software, and data for
Alabama (2003). Stillwater, MN. www.implan.com.









Since sales and employment data were available for Alabama's catfish processing
industry/sector, the IMPLAN model was adjusted to reflect these numbers. Specifically, the
industry output per worker ratio was adjusted to $117,234 ($151,231,871 + 1,290) for IMPLAN
sector 71. To avoid double counting impacts from live catfish production (which were already
estimated in the original report) the regional purchase coefficients for IMPLAN sectors 13
(Animal production, except cattle and poultry and eggs) and 16 (Fishing) were set to zero.
These two sectors represented the primary unprocessed seafood or aquaculture inputs for
IMPLAN sector 71.
Once these modifications were completed, the estimated total output value of catfish
processing ($151,231,871) in Alabama was applied to the IMPLAN model as revenues
generated by sector 71. To conform with national data used to build the model, this value was
deflated to 2003 prices within the IMPLAN software. After the impact estimates were
generated, the results were re-inflated back to 2005 dollars.
Summary results of the economic impact analysis of Alabama Aquaculture are shown in
Table 1, and are stated in 2005 dollars. Output, value-added, labor income, other property type
income, indirect business taxes and employment impacts are shown in individual table rows.
The local and nonlocal direct, indirect, induced effects, along with the total economic impacts for
the industry are organized in separate table columns. Direct impacts are comprised of the
revenues, income, taxes and jobs that result directly from the catfish processing industry. Direct
impacts or effects are generated by both local and non-local revenues, but only non-local (out of
state) revenues generate indirect and induced effects. Indirect effects occur as goods and
services are sold to directly impacted businesses by their local suppliers, who in turn purchase
their own inputs from other local suppliers. Indirect impacts from the production of live catfish
are not represented in these results because they were already captured in the original study.
Induced impacts from non-local revenues occur when the households of employees and business
proprietors (and their local suppliers) spend their income or profits for personal consumption at
other Alabama businesses. Again, induced impacts generated from the associated production of
live catfish are not represented in these results. The total economic impacts equal the sum of




4 In this way the IMPLAN model could be used to estimate the impacts of processing activities exclusive of any
impacts associated with producing live fish.









these direct, indirect and induced effects, and measure the complete impact of catfish processing

sales on Alabama as these dollars filter through the State's economy.



Table 1. Economic Impacts of the Alabama Aquaculture Processing Industry, 2005. a
Impacts Impacts from Impacts
from Local Non-Local from All
Impact Type/Level Revenues Revenues Revenues
Units Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total
Output 6 8.08 143.16 54.90 59.94 266.07
Value Added 8 1.17 20.77 29.92 36.47 88.34
Labor Income _- 0.91 16.13 18.19 24.21 59.44
Other Prop. Type Income = 0.24 4.29 8.07 9.54 22.15
Indirect Bus. Taxes 0.02 0.35 3.66 2.72 6.75
Employment Jobs 69 1,221 442 670 2,402
aTotal impacts equal the sum of direct, indirect and induced impacts. Output impacts include value-added plus the
costs of other inputs. Value-added impacts equal the sum of labor income, other property type income, and
indirect business taxes. Employment represents both full-time and part-time jobs.


Output impacts represent the total value of revenues or expenditures associated with an
activity or event. The total output impact of aquaculture processing on the State of Alabama was
estimated to be $266.1 million (M) in 2005. Value-added impacts measure labor income,

property type income, and indirect business taxes resulting from these revenues. The total value-
added impact of aquaculture processing in Alabama in 2005 was estimated at $88.3 M. Labor
income represents earnings by employees and proprietors of businesses impacted by aquaculture.

Catfish processing's contribution to labor income was estimated to total $59.4 M. Impacts from
aquaculture processing for other property type income and indirect business taxes were estimated
to total $22.1 M and 6.75 M respectively. Other property income consists of rents, royalties,
interest, dividends, and corporate profits. Indirect business taxes include excise, property, and

sales taxes, as well as licensees and fees paid by businesses, but do not include taxes on profits or
income. Employment impacts approximate the number of full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs

created by an economic activity. In 2005, an estimated 2,402 jobs were created either directly or
indirectly by aquaculture processing within the State.









More detailed breakouts of these impacts by two-digit aggregate NAICS sectors are
provided in Appendix A, Tables Al through A6, for output, value added, labor income, other
property type income, indirect business taxes and employment respectively. The aggregate
NAICS industry sectors with the five largest Output impacts from aquaculture were:
Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Government, Construction and Professional-Scientific
Technological Services (Table Al). Since food processing is classified as a manufacturing
sector, and since the production of fish was explicitly excluded in this study, it is not surprising
that nearly 64 percent of the total output impacts were captured within this aggregate sector.
The distribution of impacts for value-added (Table A2) are similar to output, except that the
Retail Trade, and Health and Social Services pushed Construction and Professional-Scientific
Services out of the top five. Similarly for Labor Income, Construction was replaced by Health
and Social Services (Table A3). The top five industries responsible for the Other Property
Income impacts were Manufacturing, Government, Wholesale Trade, Real Estate, and Finance
and Insurance (Table A4). Typically the trade industries dominate in impacts related to indirect
business taxes. For catfish processing, Wholesale and Retail Trade contributed over 56 percent
of these types of impacts (Table A5). Employment impacts (Table A6) were distributed in a
pattern similar to value-added impacts, except Construction beat out Health and Social Services
in belonging the five largest sectors.
The impacts of catfish/aquaculture processing can be combined with the impacts
presented in Table 7 of the original report for Alabama catfish production. These combined
impacts are presented below in Table 2. Combined output impacts of the aquaculture industry
(production and processing) in Alabama are estimated to have totaled nearly $489 M during
2005. Aquaculture production and processing contributed almost $156 M in value-added
impacts to the economy of Alabama that year. Nearly $108 M of that consisted of labor income.
The remaining value-added impacts were comprised of $37.1 M in other property type income
and $10.7 M in indirect business taxes. It is estimated that a combined total of 3,885 jobs were
created by the production and processing of aquacultural products (catfish) in Alabama during
2005.











Table 2. Combined Economic Impacts of the Alabama Aquaculture Production and
Processing Industries, 2005. a

Impact Type/Level Total Economic Impacts
Units Production Processing Combined
Output 6 222.79 266.07 488.86
Value Added 8 67.53 88.34 155.86
Labor Income 48.54 59.44 107.99
Other Prop. Type Income 14.98 22.15 37.13
Indirect Bus. Taxes 4.00 6.75 10.75
Employment Jobs 1,483 2,402 3,885
a Total impacts equal the sum of direct, indirect and induced impacts. Output impacts include value-added plus the
costs of other inputs. Value-added impacts equal the sum of labor income, other property type income, and
indirect business taxes. Employment represents both full-time and part-time jobs.


Summary
By tracing how revenues from the sale of Alabama processed catfish flow through its

economy as plants purchase inputs, and as households of employees and proprietors spend their

earnings, economic impact analysis can be used to provide a comprehensive assessment of the

total impact of this industry for the State. Output, value added, income and jobs are basic units
for measuring such economic activity. Estimating the size of these economic indicators makes it

possible to evaluate and compare the impacts of catfish processing in Alabama to other activities

or sectors in the State.










Appendix A


Table Al. Output Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Processing Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
31-33 Manufacturing 8.076 143.156 11.040 7.433 169.705 63.78% 1
42 Wholesale Trade 0.000 0.000 15.836 2.171 18.007 6.77% 2
92 Government & non NAICs 0.000 0.000 0.900 13.505 14.405 5.41% 3
23 Construction 0.000 0.000 1.586 5.864 7.450 2.80% 4
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.000 0.000 3.822 2.560 6.382 2.40% 5
44-45 Retail trade 0.000 0.000 0.897 5.225 6.122 2.30% 6
62 Health & social services 0.000 0.000 0.001 6.009 6.009 2.26% 7
52 Finance & insurance 0.000 0.000 2.203 3.089 5.292 1.99% 8
53 Real estate & rental 0.000 0.000 2.193 2.808 5.001 1.88% 9
81 Other services 0.000 0.000 2.813 2.003 4.817 1.81% 10
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.000 0.000 3.346 1.316 4.662 1.75% 11
55 Management of companies 0.000 0.000 4.335 0.237 4.571 1.72% 12
22 Utilities 0.000 0.000 2.631 1.274 3.905 1.47% 13
72 Accommodation & food services 0.000 0.000 0.473 2.586 3.059 1.15% 14
51 Information 0.000 0.000 1.167 1.392 2.558 0.96% 15
56 Administrative & waste services 0.000 0.000 1.097 0.959 2.056 0.77% 16
21 Mining 0.000 0.000 0.374 0.248 0.622 0.23% 17
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.000 0.000 0.086 0.481 0.567 0.21% 18
61 Educational svcs 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.464 0.478 0.18% 19
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.000 0.000 0.087 0.314 0.401 0.15% 20
Total 8.076 143.156 54.901 59.938 266.071 100.00%
* 2005 dollars













Table A2. Value-added Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Processing Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
31-33 Manufacturing 1.172 20.775 2.144 1.892 25.983 29.41% 1
42 Wholesale Trade 0.000 0.000 12.044 1.651 13.696 15.50% 2
92 Government & non NAICs 0.000 0.000 0.260 11.775 12.035 13.62% 3
44-45 Retail trade 0.000 0.000 0.674 3.926 4.600 5.21% 4
62 Health & social services 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.756 3.757 4.25% 5
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.000 0.000 2.084 1.614 3.699 4.19% 6
53 Real estate & rental 0.000 0.000 1.438 1.879 3.317 3.76% 7
52 Finance & insurance 0.000 0.000 1.522 1.748 3.270 3.70% 8
23 Construction 0.000 0.000 0.717 2.481 3.198 3.62% 9
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.000 0.000 2.118 0.720 2.838 3.21% 10
55 Management of companies 0.000 0.000 2.464 0.135 2.599 2.94% 11
81 Other services 0.000 0.000 1.316 1.035 2.351 2.66% 12
22 Utilities 0.000 0.000 1.440 0.782 2.222 2.52% 13
72 Accommodation & food services 0.000 0.000 0.248 1.187 1.435 1.62% 14
56 Administrative & waste services 0.000 0.000 0.648 0.551 1.199 1.36% 15
51 Information 0.000 0.000 0.509 0.579 1.089 1.23% 16
21 Mining 0.000 0.000 0.195 0.137 0.332 0.38% 17
61 Educational svcs 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.237 0.244 0.28% 18
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.199 0.238 0.27% 19
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.186 0.236 0.27% 20
Total 1.172 20.775 29.920 36.472 88.339 100.00%
* 2005 dollars










Table A3. Labor Income Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Processing Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
31-33 Manufacturing 0.910 16.127 1.566 1.352 19.956 33.57% 1
42 Wholesale Trade 0.000 0.000 6.749 0.925 7.674 12.91% 2
92 Government & non NAICs 0.000 0.000 0.194 7.411 7.605 12.79% 3
62 Health & social services 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.254 3.254 5.47% 4
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.000 0.000 1.583 1.453 3.036 5.11% 5
44-45 Retail trade 0.000 0.000 0.421 2.452 2.873 4.83% 6
23 Construction 0.000 0.000 0.643 2.156 2.799 4.71% 7
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.000 0.000 1.477 0.556 2.033 3.42% 8
55 Management of companies 0.000 0.000 1.894 0.103 1.997 3.36% 9
81 Other services 0.000 0.000 0.930 0.798 1.728 2.91% 10
52 Finance & insurance 0.000 0.000 0.704 0.921 1.625 2.73% 11
72 Accommodation & food services 0.000 0.000 0.162 0.827 0.989 1.66% 12
56 Administrative & waste services 0.000 0.000 0.525 0.447 0.972 1.64% 13
53 Real estate & rental 0.000 0.000 0.434 0.491 0.926 1.56% 14
22 Utilities 0.000 0.000 0.461 0.243 0.705 1.19% 15
51 Information 0.000 0.000 0.307 0.280 0.587 0.99% 16
61 Educational svcs 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.229 0.236 0.40% 17
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.128 0.165 0.28% 18
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.131 0.155 0.26% 19
21 Mining 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.055 0.130 0.22% 20
Total 0.910 16.127 18.191 24.214 59.442 100.00%
* 2005 dollars













Table A4. Other Property Type Income Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Processing Industry by Aggregate NAICS
Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
31-33 Manufacturing 0.242 4.295 0.536 0.503 5.576 25.17% 1
92 Government & non NAICs 0.000 0.000 0.066 3.749 3.815 17.22% 2
42 Wholesale Trade 0.000 0.000 2.692 0.369 3.061 13.82% 3
53 Real estate & rental 0.000 0.000 0.794 1.081 1.875 8.47% 4
52 Finance & insurance 0.000 0.000 0.765 0.754 1.519 6.86% 5
22 Utilities 0.000 0.000 0.739 0.417 1.156 5.22% 6
44-45 Retail trade 0.000 0.000 0.124 0.726 0.851 3.84% 7
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.000 0.000 0.588 0.140 0.728 3.29% 8
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.000 0.000 0.471 0.135 0.606 2.74% 9
55 Management of companies 0.000 0.000 0.530 0.029 0.559 2.52% 10
62 Health & social services 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.463 0.463 2.09% 11
81 Other services 0.000 0.000 0.260 0.145 0.406 1.83% 12
51 Information 0.000 0.000 0.164 0.242 0.405 1.83% 13
23 Construction 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.296 0.359 1.62% 14
72 Accommodation & food services 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.234 0.291 1.31% 15
56 Administrative & waste services 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.090 0.195 0.88% 16
21 Mining 0.000 0.000 0.094 0.067 0.161 0.73% 17
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.059 0.074 0.33% 18
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.038 0.048 0.22% 19
61 Educational svcs 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.01% 20
_Total 0.242 4.295 8.072 9.541 22.150 100.00%
* 2005 dollars













Table A5. Indirect Business Tax Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Processing Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors,
2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name million$* million$* million$* million$* million$* % order
42 Wholesale Trade 0.000 0.000 2.604 0.357 2.961 43.89% 1
44-45 Retail trade 0.000 0.000 0.129 0.748 0.877 12.99% 2
92 Government & non NAICs 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.615 0.615 9.12% 3
53 Real estate & rental 0.000 0.000 0.210 0.306 0.516 7.65% 4
31-33 Manufacturing 0.020 0.353 0.041 0.037 0.451 6.68% 5
22 Utilities 0.000 0.000 0.239 0.122 0.361 5.35% 6
81 Other services 0.000 0.000 0.126 0.092 0.218 3.23% 7
72 Accommodation & food services 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.126 0.156 2.31% 8
52 Finance & insurance 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.073 0.126 1.87% 9
51 Information 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.058 0.097 1.43% 10
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.024 0.077 1.14% 11
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.026 0.057 0.84% 12
55 Management of companies 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.002 0.043 0.64% 13
21 Mining 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.016 0.042 0.62% 14
23 Construction 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.030 0.040 0.59% 15
62 Health & social services 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.040 0.59% 16
56 Administrative & waste services 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.013 0.032 0.48% 17
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.019 0.024 0.35% 18
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.009 0.14% 19
61 Educational svcs 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.09% 20
_Total 0.020 0.353 3.656 2.717 6.746 100.00%
* 2005 dollars













Table A6. Employment Impacts from the Alabama Aquaculture Processing Industry by Aggregate NAICS Sectors, 2005.

Non- Non- Non-
NAICS Local local local local Relative Size
Sector Industry Direct Direct Indirect Induced Total Share Rank
number Name Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs % order
31-33 Manufacturing 69 1,221 75 26 1,392 57.96% 1
92 Government & non NAICs 0 0 3 156 159 6.61% 2
42 Wholesale Trade 0 0 127 17 145 6.02% 3
44-45 Retail trade 0 0 17 99 117 4.85% 4
23 Construction 0 0 18 60 78 3.25% 5
62 Health & social services 0 0 0 75 75 3.14% 6
81 Other services 0 0 29 43 72 2.98% 7
72 Accommodation & food services 0 0 10 58 68 2.83% 8
54 Professional- scientific & tech. svcs. 0 0 31 26 56 2.35% 9
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 0 0 33 13 46 1.92% 10
56 Administrative & waste services 0 0 25 21 46 1.92% 11
53 Real estate & rental 0 0 16 21 38 1.56% 12
52 Finance & insurance 0 0 14 19 33 1.37% 13
55 Management of companies 0 0 28 2 29 1.22% 14
51 Information 0 0 6 5 12 0.48% 15
61 Educational svcs 0 0 0 11 11 0.45% 16
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 0 0 3 8 11 0.44% 17
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 0 0 1 7 8 0.32% 18
22 Utilities 0 0 5 2 7 0.29% 19
21 Mining 0 0 1 1 1 0.06% 20
Total 69 1,221 442 670 2,402 100.00%
* 2005 dollars




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs