Production and Marketing

University of Reading Department of Agricultural Economics & Management v11.

RAINBOW TROUT: `14, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

M.R. LEWIS.

Miscellaneous Study No.68 1980 Price £1.25 University of Reading Department of Agricultural Economics and Management

RAINBOW TROUT : PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

M. R. Lewis

Miscellaneous Study No. 68

1980 Price £1.25 ACICNOWLE WIEN TS

would like to adknowledge the assistance of the

First, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for financially supporting this study.

Secondly, the many farmers who responded to the postal survey and the farmers, wholesalers, retailers, restaurateurs and caterers who gave so generously of their time in personal interviews.

Thirdly, colleagues in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Management for their constructive criticisms and advice during the preparation of this report. I would particularly like to acknowledge my gratitude to Kr. Tony Giles for his guidance and encouragement throughout the research project and to Mr. Jim Burns for his insight and advice concerning the marketing aspects of the study. Special thanks are also due to Mrs. M. E. Owen for typing the report.

Readers will appreciate that the views expressed in this report are those of the author and not necessarily to be regarded as those of the above-mentioned institutions or individuals. CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I THE POSTAL SURVEY — (A) TROUT PRODUCTION

Introduction Survey response and number of table trout farms Annual output according to geographical areas Distribution of farm size New entrants

CHAPTER II CASE STUDIES ON FARM EXPANSION

CHAPTER III THE POSTAL SURVEY — (B) TROUT MARKETING

Introduction Market outlets . Size and form of trout sold Seasonality of production and sales Future marketing plans

CHAPTER IV TROUT CONSUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

Fish consumption and distribution The distribution system for trout Trout consumption in the United Kingdom Retail and producer trout prices

CHAPTER V AN EXAMINATION OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS TROUT

Introduction Fishmongers and other fresh fish retail outlets Hotels and restaurants Other agents in the fresh trout market Processers, wholesalers and retailers of frozen trout Consumer studies

CHAPTER VI CONCLUS.IONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX List of Tables

Table Page

1. Classification of survey response according to type of activity.

2. Estimated production of table trout, 1977-1981.

3. Estimated production of table trout, 1974-1981.

4. Estimated production of table trout from previous co-operators. 5

5. Estimated production of table trout from new entrants. 5

6. Table trout production according to geographical areas.

7. Estimated production of table trout in Europe.

8. Classification of farms according to size of production. 8

9. Production methods of new entrants. 9

10. Distribution of farm size of new entrants.

11. Farm production: actual and planned. 12

12. Distribution of table trout according to market outlets in 1979. 20

13. Size distribution of trout sold in 1979. 21

14. Type of trout sold ex-farm in 1979. 22

15. Pattern of monthly trout sales ex-farm in 1979. 23

16. Great Britain landings of fish, 1971-1978. 26

17. Estimated U.K. consumption of fresh, frozen and cured fish, 1964-1978. 26

18. Fish consumption in the home per capita. 27

19. Consumption of trout in the United Kingdom, 1974-1979. 34

20. U.K. trade in trout, 1977-1979. 36

21. Producer prices for trout, 1977-1979. 38

22. Retail fresh trout sales. 40 Appendix

1. Distribution of table trout according to market outlets in 1979. 67

2. Classification of market outlets used according to size of production in 1979. 67

3. Pattern of monthly trout sales according to size of farm in 1979. 68

4. Estimates of apparent U.K. human consumption of marine fish by retail outlet. 68

Figure

1. Distribution system for fresh trout. 31

2. Distribution system for frozen trout. 32

3. Retail prices for Rainbow trout in the United Kingdom. 37 INTRODUCTION

In 1979 we published a report on fish farming in Great Britain* which provided, for the first time, comprehensive data on the size and structure of the industry and also presented the results of a detailed enquiry into the economics of table trout production. The study concentrated largely on the process of production and the results raised important questions concerning, amongst other -things, the rate of growth of the industry. This report presents the findings of a subsequent twelve months? research project designed to examine the marketing of and the demand for trout and to provide up-to-date information on production and thereby answer some of the questions that had arisen earlier.

A postal survey was carried out in the autumn of 1979, two years after the initial survey, of all known trout producers in order to examine their actual and intended production levels. These results are presented in chapter I along with production data for the major European trout farming countries derived from other sources. Previously, in the summer of 1979, a series of case studies was carried out on a sample of trout farms that were known to be in the process of expansion. These results are described in chapter II with particular emphasis on the constraints that determine both the rate of expansion and the intended level of output. The postal survey was also used to obtain information covering the marketing outlets for trout, the size of fish produced and the seasonality of production and these results are described in chapter III.

The general trends in the consumption and distribution of fish are outlined in chapter IV, along with a diagrammatic presentation of the distribution channels for trout. Estimates of U.K. trout consumption levels in recent years are given based on our own production figures and net imports. This chapter concludes with an examination of retail and producer trout prices. The attitudes of consumers, fishmongers, hoteliers and restaurateurs, wholesalers and other agents in the fresh and frozen trout markets are discussed in chapter V. This information has come from our own research except the section concerning consumers? attitudes which has been based on the results of three other studies

* Fish Farming in Great Britain, Miscellaneous Study No. 67, University of Reading that have been undertaken in this field. The research projects reported on in this chapter are of a very exploratory nature and, in some cases, may be criticised for a lack of vigour. Nevertheless, they represent the first important steps in constructing a picture of the marketing situation with regards to trout in this country.

The concluding chapter draws out some of the more salient points of the report and is followed by a bibliography which we hope will be useful to those who wish to pursue further research in this field. It is not exhaustive but, in conjunction with the bibliography contained in our previous report, it does contain most of the relevant references to be found in the North American and United Kingdom literature. CHAPTER I THE POSTAL SURVEY — (A) TROUT PRODUCTION

IVTRODUCTION

• In the autumn of 1979 we carried out a postal survey, the main objective of which was to update the results of our first national survey undertaken two years previously. Whereas the first survey had sought information concerning all types of fish farming we were now restricting our attention to those farms producing trout for the table. In 1977 we had collated over 440 addresses primarily from the Regional Water Authorities (in England and Wales) and the River Purification Boards (in Scotland). From our previous results we were able to identify 166 addresses for inclusion in our second survey. These related primarily to farms that were known to be engaged in table trout production but also to farms about which we had no informa— tion at all. We also contacted our previous sources of addresses in order to update our list and this resulted in a further 119 addresses or •tnew entrants'. Thus we sent out 285 questionnaires in total.

The high response to the 1977 survey illustrated the point that, despite the plethora of surveys and official forms that farmers in general and fish farmers in particular have to complete, it is still possible to obtain a good response and, therefore, collate meaningful results. Consequently, as in 1977, a short and easily comprehensible questionnaire was constructed with the primary objective of collecting production data for the five years 1977-1981. We also took the opportunity to collect information on the seasonality of sales, the type and size of fish sold, the relative importance of different marketing outlets and also the future marketing intentions of respond— ents. Those who had not participated in the first survey received a slightly longer questionnaire which also covered the type of fish farming they were engaged in and the production methods they used.

SURVEY RESPONSE AND NUMBER OF TABLE TROUT FARMS

Table 1 gives a breakdown of responses according to the type of activity engaged in and it is gratifying to be able to report a very high response rate of 77%. This means that we can analyse the results relating to table trout production with a considerable degree of confidence. -2-

Table 1 Classification of surve res onse accordin to type of activity

England and Wales Scotland Great Britain No. No. No.

Table trout 96 39 135 47.4 Restocking 29 5 34 11.9 No activity 10 7 17 6.0 'Gone away' or 4 7 2.4 rAddress not known' 3 Others 17 11 28 9.8

Total returned 155 66 221 77.5 Nil response 45 19 64 22.4

Total 200 85 285 100.0

The table shows that just under half of those surveyed were engaged in the production of table trout (135 respondents). Wbilst for the majority this represented their sole fish farming activity, those farms selling to both the table and restocking markets are also included in this figure. From our first survey we know that at least 17 of the non-respondents produced trout for the table and we also had detailed information on their output. Eleven of these farms were located in England and Wales and six in Scotland, making a total of 107 table trout farms in England and Wales, 45 in Scotland and a combined total of 152 in Great Britain. This figure may be sub-divided into 101 farms which had taken part in the first survey (including the 17 non-respondents) and 51 farms who were new entrants. One hundred and forty-four of these farms were in production in 1979, the remaining eight coming into production in 1980 and 1981. We know of some 12-15 other farms Which we believe to be producing table trout but for which we have no accurate information and, therefore, we are not able to include their output. Nevertheless, we are able to estimate that there were approximately 160 table trout farms in operation in 1979. Thus, despite the amount of interest and publicity that has been generated, there are only a relatively small number of farms engaged in this activity. In our first report we reachc:d the same estimate of 160 table trout farms in Great Britain for 1977/78. On reflection we now feel that this was too high a figure for that time. We have -3—

now revised our estimates for several reasons. First, in our first report we anticipated that some 31 of the non—responding farms were engaged in table trout and we now know that this was too high an estimate. Secondly, we included several very small hobby—type activities in that total whereas these have now been excluded from our present estimate. (These are farms producing only a few thousand fish or less per annum.) Finally, a number of farms which we anticipated becoming table trout farms have not, in fact, done so. We should also note that some ten, mainly small, farms have closed down in 1978 and 1979 and a number of farms have switched from table trout to producing for the restocking market or, as is the case of some Scottish farms, have decided to produce salmon.

ANNUAL PRODUCTION ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS

Table 2 presents the annual production of table trout for the years 1977-1981. The first set of figures entitled '1979 survey results' relate to the 135 trout farms in Table 1 and the second set of figures entitled 'estimated output for non—respondents' relate to the 17 farms mentioned above. We are confident that these estimated figures are realistic and, therefore, that the figures given for estimated total production are as accurate as possible. Production has been measured on the basis of sales and not weight gain and, throughout the report, the figures relate to table trout only, that is, trout produced for sport and restocking purposes is excluded. The questionnaires were completed in late 1979 and so the historical figures for 1977 and 1978 and, to a large extent, for 1979 have a higher degree of reliability than the figures for 1980 and 1981. The figures show that production has more than doubled from a level of 2,158 tonnes in 1977 to 4,415 tonnes in 1979. Moreover, continued substantial increases are anticipated with a 1981 forecast production of some 7,442 tonnes. -4-

Table 2 Estimated roduction of table trout 1977-1981 (tonnes per annum)

1977, 1978 arm ,1980,* 1981*

1979 survey results:

England and Wales 1,369 2,076 2,914 38G0 4,850 Scotland 526 689 1,089 1,632 2,001

Great Britain 1,895 2,765 4,003 5,492 6,851

Estimated production for non-respondents:

England and Wales 140 171 203 258 303 Scotland 123 160 209 251 288

Great Britain 263 331 412 509 591

Total estimated production:

England and Wales 1,509 2,247 3,117 4,118 5,153 Scotland 649 849 1,298 1,883 2,289

Great Britain 2,158 3,096 4,415 6,001 7,442

* Planned production

The information obtained from this survey and from other research work has enabled us to revise the production figures for 1974.-..1.976 given in the first report. These figures have been slightly reduced because we now know that there was some double counting of trout production because either a farm was inadvertently included twice or the sale of live trout of market weight to other trout farms was included. The revised figures are presented in Table 3 along with the production figures and number of farms up to 1981. Tables 4 and 5 distinguish between the production of those farms included in the first survey and the production of new entrants. This enables us to compare the actual production of the previous co-operators with their previously stated intended level of production and hence provide a guide for the reliability of the current projections for 1980 and 1981. This exercise is made more difficult given that we have revised the production figures of 1974-1976. Never- theless, the figures show that the previous co-operators achieved a production of 2,854 tonnes in 1978 and 3,775 tonnes in 1979 compared to a planned production of 4,782 tonnes for 1978/79. (As was pointed out Table 3 Estimated production of table trout 1974-1981 (tonnes per annum)

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980* 1981* ,

England and Wales 841 (33) 1,043(42) 1,201 (55) 1,509(61) 2,247 (78) 3,117 (100) 4,118 (104) 5,153 (107)

Scotland 310 (15) 462 (23) 762 (30) 649 (28) 349 (35) 1,298 (44) 1,883 (45) 27 289 (45)

Great Britain 1,151 (48) 1,505 (65) 1,963 (85) 2,158 (89) 3,096 (113) 4,415 (144) 6,001 (149) 7,442 (152) , A

Table 4 Estimated production of table trout Table 5 Estimated production of table trout from previous co-operators from new entrants (tonnes per annum) (tonnes per annum)

1977 1978 1979 1980* .1981* 1977 1978 1979 ' 1980* 1981*

England and Wales 1,445 2,087 2,763 3,522 4,319 • England and Wales 64 160 ' 354 ' 596 834

Scotland 615 767 1,012 1,396 1,659 Scotland . 34 82 286 487 630

.. .

Great Britain 2,060 2,854 3,775 4,918 5,978 Great Britain 98 242 640 1,083 1,464 I

* Planned production Numbers in brackets refer to the number of farms 0.1. err

in the first report we were uncertain whether respondents were referring to 1978 or 1979). Thus actual production fell short of planned production and it is, therefore, not unreasonable to assume that actual production in 1980 and 1981 will not equal planned production as given in the tables. Some respondents tend to be over optimistic with regards to future output and, in any case, plans may not be fulfilled for a variety of reasons. However, the effect of such over-statement may be partly counterbalanced by new, and as yet unknown, fish farms coming into operation. It is also noticeable that whereas it was previously anticipated that Scottish production would increase at a much faster rate than that of England and Wales, the figures show that this has not occurred. Scottish output has expanded at a similar rate to that of England and Wales and contributed approximately 30 of the total throughout the period.

Table 6 shows the distribution of table trout production in England and Wales according to the Regional Water Authority areas. The three areas of Yorkshire, Southern and Wessex produce the bulk of the output contributing approximately 70% of the total. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that table trout farming is expanding in all areas with a considerable increase in production being expected in the Thames area in particular.

Table 6 Table trout production according to geok-raphical areas (tonnes per annum

England and Wales 1977 1978. 1979 1980* 1981*

Anglian 144 189 209 226 256 North West 101 161 171 260 345 Southern 273 528 899 1,002 1,077 Severn-Trent 15 22 42 73 85 South West 34 68 83 138 161 Thames 94 170 342 646 737 Wales 13 25 52 94 124 Wessex 357 433 526 680 1,025 Yorkshire 451 626 758 954 1,298 Isle of Man 27 25 35 45 45

Total ' 1,509 2,247 3,117 4,118 5,153 Scotland 649 849 1,298 1,883 2,289

GREAT BRITAIN 2,158 3,096 4,415 6,001 7,442

nommatipmmonsimell limmgaginimmimole Oiramorslimmollmalr

* Planned production -7-

Table 7 compares the 1978 and 1979 production figures for the major European producers. France, Italy and Denmark produce two-thirds of the total production and Great Britain is about half-way down the table contributing less than six per cent of the total. It is very significant that none of the major producers increased their production in 1979 indicating, perhaps, that they have reached a plateau in their production. The only country to show a comparable increase to that of Great Britain (a 42% increase between 1978 and 1979) was that of Norway (35% increase). But Norway's output consists mainly of large-sized trout and so is more in competition with salmon than with table trout. Northern Ireland has been included as a separate entry in the table below because this area was not covered by our survey. Northern Ireland output has exhibited steady increases in the past and this is expected to continue for the next few years.

Table 7 Estimated •roduction of table trout in Euro e (tonnes per annum)

1978 1979 2L2hatlat

France 18,000 18,000 . Italy 17,840 18,000 + 1 Denmark 17,500 14,000 -20 Spain 7,800 9,000 +15 Germany 7,500 7,000 - 7 Great Britain 3,100 4,400 +42 Norway 2,200 3,000 +36 Austria 1,300 1,300 = Eire 400 400 . Switzerland 400 400 ---: Belgium 300 300 = N. Ireland 200 250 +25

76,540 76,050 - 1

Source: Federation of the Danish Trout Industry

DISTRIBUTION OF FARM SIZE

Table 8 shows the distribution of farms according to their size of production and also the combined output of farms in each different category. The figures show the importance of the larger-sized farm and also how an increasing number of farms are, or hope to be, producing over 100 tonnes per annum. In 1979, 13% of all farms (the largest 19 farms) contributed 62% of total output. In contrast, during that same year, over one-half of the farms were producing less than 10 tonnes each per annum and this group contributed only 8.6% of total output. The projected figures for 1981 probably understate the number and output of the smaller sized farms because new units will probably come into being 14111dh are not yet known about. The 1981 figures show that some 19 farms hope to be producing over 100 tonnes per annum. In fact, the majority of these hope to be producing at this level in 1980. Histori- cally, the larger farms have, with some exceptions, been located in England and many of these farms are still increasing their output. Nevertheless, by 1981 it is anticipated that there will be eight Scottish farms producing over 100 tonnes per annum though their average size will be much smaller than that of the English farms in the same category.

Table 8 Classification of farms accordin to size of roduction. with total tonna e roduced in each cate orv

1977 1979 1981 Tonnes per farm No. Total No. of Total No. of Total per annum of farms tonnes farms tonnes farms tonnes ,

England and Wales 0-10 39 143 59 300 46 236 11-20 7 107 13 211 16 287 21-50 7 239 16 548 28 940 51-100 5 369 6 428 6 480 101+ 3 651 6 1,630 11 3,210

Total 61 1,509 100 3,117 107 5,153

Scotland . 0-10 10 52 19 79 10 48 11-20 7 128 5 79 11 183 21-50 9 292 13 465 11 406 51-100 1 , 60 6 507 5 325 101+ 1 117 1 168 1 8 1,327 Total 28 649 J 44 1,298 45 2,289 • Great Britain 0-10 49 195 78 • 379 56 284 11-20 14 235 18 290 27 470 21-50 16 531 29 1,013 39 1,346 51-100 6 429 12 . 935 11 805 101+ 4 768 7 1,798 19 4,537

Total 89 2,158 144 4,415 152 7,442 1 -9-

NEU ENTRANTS

It was noted in the introduction to this chapter that 119 of the questionnaires sent out related to farms that had started fish farming activity since 1977 and we have termed these the 'new entrants'. Some 96 of these questionnaires were returned and 51 related to table trout farms, 39 in England and Wales and 12 in Scotland. Table 9 shows the production methods employed by the new entrants. Some farms use more than one method and the pattern is similar to that of established farms with the predominant importance of pond and tank systems. Cage units are being developed in Scotland but there does not seem to have been the dramatic increase that was previously expected to occur. There are more cage farms being built than indicated in the table but quite a number of these are being built for salmon production.

Table 9 Production methods of new entrants

__-_- No. of Ponds Tanks Raceways Cages farms

England and Wales 24 17 11 2 39 Scotland 3 7 1 4 12

Great Britain 27 24 12 6 51

Table 10 Distribution of farm size of new entrants accordiria to 1981 projected production (tonnes per annum)

All 0-10 11-20 21-50 51-100 101+ sizes

England and Wales 18 7 12 1 1 39 Scotland 4 3 2 - 3 12 - Great Britain 22 1 10 14 1 4 51 Table 10 shows the projected distribution of farm size of these new entrants for 1981. The figures show that the majority of new farms are fairly small producers with only four farms expecting to produce over 100 tonnes per annum and only one farm in the 51-100 tonnes category. Some of these farms will expand further after 1981? but this will not dramatically alter the pattern of farm sizes shown. The growth in the number of small farms is a reflection on the potential of the sites that are now being exploited and also on the type of entrepreneurs entering fish farming. It is particularly noticeable that only one farm out of the 36 new English and Welsh farms anticipates to be producing over 100 tonnes in 1981, whilst there are three Scottish farms, in this category and they are all sea— based cage units.

• -11—

CHAPTER II CASE STUDIES ON FARM EXPANSION

Given that the growth in production, even during these early years of the industry's development, comes mainly from the expansion of existing farms, it is informative to look at the process and pattern of growth at the farm level. From our previous contact with the industry we knew of a considerable number of farms that were planning to increase their production and a sample of these was visited. The objective of these visits was to identify the constraints upon expansion, the costs involved and the motives for expanding. Iro were also interested in the factors determining the rate of growth.

All the farms contacted agreed to participate in the survey and 13 farms were visited. For reasons of economy we did not include Scottish farms but there was a wide distribution of English farms with nearly all the Water Authority regions being represented. With regard to systems of production the farms were evenly divided between tanks and ponds with one farm utilising cages. Most of the farms operated hatcheries and five farms were totally self—sufficient in eggs from their own broodstock. One farm was considering giving up hatchery production because of water quality problems. Most of the farms were exclusively table trout units, but two farms sold substantial quantities of fish for restocking.

Table 11 gives the actual and planned production of each farm for the period 1974-1981. Thus we can see in each case how many years it has taken, or the farm plans to take, to build up to full production. The figures underlined are the full output levels. Where the farm does not plan to reach full production by 19817 it is not possible to say how long the growth period will take. Therefore, for three farms a figure is given indicating how long the farm has been in existence prior to 1981 and this is accompanied by a plus sign indicating that further growth is planned after 1981. The figure given in the column entitled 'Construction started' is, as the title suggests, the year in which the first building work was actually embarked upon. In many cases the site had been purchased prior to this date or, if already owned, planning permission had previously been applied for.

The ten farms that plan to reach full production by 1981 have an average growth period of five years, with a range of two to nine years. This should be regarded as a low estimate because it is probable that Table 11 Farm Production : Actual and Planned

-1 Construction Number 1 Code System 1974 1975 started 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 of I years

1 Tanks 1976 - ? 45 45 45 45 1 2 2 Tanks 1972 5 10 40 40 42 6 35 100 9 3 Ponds 1975 - - 2 3 5 10 10 10 4 4 Tanks 1976 _ _ - - 17 27 a 35 4 5 Ponds 1976 - - - 5 8 16 20 25 5+ 6 Tanks . . 1976 - - - 7 10 10 15 20 5+ 7 Cages 1977 _ - - 25 GO 200 200 3 8 Ponds 1976 - - - 4.5 7.5 15 20 20 4 9 Ponds 1976 _ _ - 35 54 75 95 5 10 Tanks 1971 r 10 •• 12 15 18 20 18 20 20 7 11 Ponds 1976 - - - 14 18 24 and Tanks a 25 4 . . 12 Ponds 1976 - - - - 15 18 30 40 5+ 13 Ponds 1973 - - • 1 3 5 6 10 15 8

1. This column shows the number of years taken by each farm to reach maximum production, assuming that plans are fulfilled. A plus sign is shown where it is known that the farm will require more years than are shown to reach maximum production. -13—

at least some of the farms will not reach their 1980 and 1981 targets and also the three farms not included are all expected to take over five years. It is interesting to note that the farms started in the early 1970s (1971-1973) have taken the longest time to reach full production (eight to nine years). This may be due to the peculiarities of these three particular farms in our survey, but it does seem that in 'those early years farms tended to expand much more cautiously than present day entrants. Also there was very little information available concerning trout production at this time and so each producer had to learn from his own mistakes. Although it should also be pointed out that this is still largely the case today with very little dissemination and exchange of ideas amongst trout producers.

The main determinant of the rate of expansion was the availability of capital. In general, the farms that were fully developed within three to four years were able to undertake the construction of the site fairly rapidly by employing outside contractors. In contrast those entrepreneurs who were operating on a low budget would often undertake all the construction work themselves and this .was inevitably very time consuming. Moreover, such farms often rely on sales revenue to finance capital expenditure and again this will mean a time lag. These low budget farms are mainly the smaller, family operated type of unit. In discussion these entrepreneurs often emphasise the advantages of building-,up slowly as opposed to rapid development. They stress that slow beginnings enable them to learn the necessary husbandry skills and also learn from their mistakes before it is too late. Also these farms rely heavily on local marketing outlets which can only be developed by personal contact. This takes time but by expanding slowly over a number of years they are able to develop their market accordingly.

When it is possible to employ managers and workers who have had previous experience in fish farming then it is possible to grow rapidly without incurring disaster. In contrast, difficulties may arise where capital intensive farms employ managers with insufficient experience and still hope to expand rapidly. In such circumstances such farms may find themselves in a vicious circle in that they are forced to expand quickly in order to obtain income from sales which will enable them to pay off interest charges. Through haste they might be led into unnecessary production difficulties or take risks which could lead to further financial problems; In other words management is a crucial element in the cost structure and it cannot be assumed that spare managerial capacity can automatically be harnessed to increase scale and profits.

Obtaining fish supplies (whether eggs or fry) was not considered to be a constraint on expansion and few farms had experienced difficulties in obtaining supplies. There was some concern expressed over the future supply of certified disease free eggs given the expansion of the industry and tighter restrictions on imports.

We come now to consider the constraints upon the level of output and the ways which were being adopted or considered in order to overcome them. On nearly • all the farms the major and often only constraint was the quantity and quality of water and it was this factor that determined planned or actual levels of output. One farm utilising a pond system had a relatively large quantity of water available but was not seeking necessarily to maximise output. Instead, the intention was to create a fully comprehensive farm producing both for the table and the restocking markets and selling live fish of all sizes. The other farm which was not constrained by water availability was the cage unit based in a gravel lake. The company concerned estimated that the potential of their first trial site was 200 tonnes and when this was operating profitably they would develop other sites. This company owned a large number of gravel lakes and although many would not be suitable for fish farming, a significant number probably would. There is likely to be an element of conflict between those who would like to see such gravel lakes utilised for fish farming and the large and increasing demand made upon such lakes by the leisure industry (fishing, water sports and other recreational pursuits). This conflict would be lessened if it is proved possible to combine the activity of fish farming with recreational use, particularly in some of the larger lakes. Given that the number of such lakes are increasing each year, we could well see considerable growth in this type of fish production in the future. Having said this one mist not overlook the many management problems of freshwater cage systems*.

It is interesting to note that only two of those farms with limited water were considering increasing production by means of water

* See, for example, Dr. M. van Lukauicz, 1979, "The different possibilities of managing gravel pits".' Eleventh Fishery Management Training Course, Two Lakes, Romsey. Jansen Services. recirculation although on many farms the water travels through more than one holding facility on its passage through the farm. On one of the two farms it would be necessary to buy some of the adjacent land because there is no physical room for building ponds and channels on the existing site. The other farm had plenty of site room available for construction purposes.

Three farms used oxygenating equipment, two of which were dependent upon it throughout the year, while the third used it as a stand-by in hot, dry seasons. One manager commented that the use of such equipment was not only an insurance against low oxygen levels, but it also kept the water ice-free during the winter. Two other farms were considering investing in some oxygenating equipment and one of these managers hoped it would boost his effective water supply by one million gallons a day.

Whilst most of the farms were constrained on their existing sites by the availability of water this did not necessarily deter all of them from considering expansion on other sites. Besides the cage farm, two farms owned other sites though they were both very small in terms of production potential and would be operated in conjunction with the existing main unit. The owner of one of the larger farms was part- owner in another fish farm in order to spread the financial risk of fish farming. This would also enable him, in the event of a fish 'wipe-out' on his main unit, to restock with fish much more easily than if he had to purchase from the main trade suppliers.

Three producers were actively seeking to purchase other sites though in one case this was primarily in order to establish a farm shop rather than increase production. The site in question was well located for this with only a small quantity of water which was to be used for holding fish prior to selling. One farm was considering purchasing and developing a freshwater farm and had already found a possible site whilst the third farm was considering developing a sea- water cage unit and also had a possible site available. Both of these farms would be operated as new and distinct companies, partly as a means of raising capital and also to ensure independence and security for the existing units.

All of the farms which were still in the process of expansion were seeking to increase their labour efficiency. Indeed, most were planning to expand without taking on extra employees. This simply -16-

confirms that this is the major economy of scale as indicated in our first report. Only four of the farms involved were planning to take on extra labour and in two cases they were going to engage permanent paid staff to replace family or student labour. It is important to point out that labour had not necessarily been previously under- utilised on these farms because in the early stages there is often a considerable amount of construction work to be undertaken. As this construction work is completed labour is released for the day to day running of the farm.

An examination of the marketing policies on each farm was carried out in order to assess the interaction between marketing and production decisions. The most obvious point to make is that none of the farms were experiencing marketing difficulties to the point that they were having to cut back on their output. Marketing matters exercised no constraint on the level of output on these farms. One or two of the farms which had taken many years to build up emphasised the advantage of having a longer time in order to develop markets. Thus the marketing strategy did influence the rate of expansion on some farms, but it was not the prime influence. In chapter III we describe the type and relative importance of the different marketing outlets utilised by farms of varying sizes and as these survey farms conform to this pattern there is no need to discuss this here. Suffice it to say that seven farms were primarily dependent on wholesale outlets and five farms were primarily dependent on the local hotel and restaurant outlets with one farm equally dependent on the hotel and restaurants on the one hand and local retail shops on the other. As we shall see in the next chapter, many farms are now trying to spread their production more throughout the year and four of the farms visited specifically mentioned this as something they were actively seeking to achieve. For some of them this fitted in well with a policy of increasing the size range for selling fish.

Two farms reported that competition in the local market from other producers was affecting their marketing strategy. Both of these farms were located in the South where there is a concentration of trout producing farms. They were both seeking to obtain better prices by developing their own farm shops and the one farm already sold almost a third of its output of 27 tonnes at the farm gate which is an exceptionally- high tonnage for this outlet. Overall, the farms were hoping to retain their present marketing pattern in the future. Fhilst some recognised that they might have to increase the quantity they sold wholesale, others were hoping to increase their local sales in order to obtain a better return. One interviewee reported that the increasing cost and possible scarcity of fuel was making him reconsider his marketing policy of delivering the bulk of his trout to local outlets. Two farms had, through personal contact, markets available abroad but the quantity of fish involved was insignificant and they were unsure whether they wanted to develop this market in the future. For them it was a very time- consuming and high cost exercise selling trout abroad.

One of the purposes of this part of the study was to determine the motives behind expansion. Many of the smaller farms were expanding to maximum output because it was only at this level that they felt they would survive in the long run. In contrast, the larger farms were expanding in order to make a greater financial return and also to enable them to operate at a size which would justify establishing some form of processing unit on the farm. It was also noticeable that the level at which it was felt necessary to be producing, in order to be viable, varied from situation to situation. Thus, one is reminded how difficult it is to determine a minimum size of unit without first being able to describe what type of farm it is in terms of capital intensity, holding facility, development costs and so on.

In our first report a detailed inquiry into the economics of table trout production was undertaken with a sample of just over 30 farms. It became apparent that the tremendous variation in farm size, system and management practices made the calculated average results rather meaningless and considerable caution had to be exercised in interpreting the results. In this present study it was the intention to measure the marginal costs of expansion on the trout farms visited but conceptual and practical difficulties were encountered which have made it impossible to be precise about this. In particular, co-operators were unable to distinguish between expansion that was taking place as a result of achieving a more efficient use of existing resources (which would have been achieved anyway) and expansion due to applying additional resources whose effects are slow in maturing into a steady stream of output. We did not encounter any fish farmer who was increasing throughput by any simple process such as intensifying the rate of feed input. -18-

• When examining marginal costs we are in theory seeking to identify those costs which are necessarily incurred in increasing output. In the short run one would be thinking in terms of variable costs such as fish purchases and feed, whilst in the long run one would also take into account the increase in fixed costs such as labour and deprecia- tion. Although it would be possible to identify such costs for a hypothetical or 'ideal-type' farm it is much more difficult to identify such costs on farms in the real world. For instance, during the developmental stage labour is employed in order' to run the unit and to construct facilities and so expand the size of the unit. Thus the total labour bill should be sub-divided into the operational cost element and the capital cost element and such a division is not easily determined although we have done this where possible in the earlier costings. It should also be pointed out that whilst it may be possible to identify marginal costs by drawing up some hypothetical budgets for a number of case studies, one could not necessarily justify amalgamating these results and presenting them in terms of marginal costs for the industry. Indeed, the very concept of marginality means that the economics of expansion reflects the particular circumstances of the individual, rendering generalisations difficult if not impossible and undesirable. A great deal depends on the resource situation on each'farm and what will be marginal in one case will not be in another. The situation can only really be explored with the aid of partial budgets for individual farms which is why, in this report, this question has been explored on a case study basis. -19-

CHAPTER III THE POSTAL SURVEY - (B) TROUT MARKETING

INTRODUCTION

This chapter continues the presentation of the postal survey results by examining the response to the marketing questions that were included in the questionnaire. We will discuss here the marketing of trout as carried out by producers and in later chapters we will look at the activities of other agents engaged in the marketing of trout. The figures given in the tables relate to the 1979 production year and are the collated results for the 135 respondents in Table 1. Some questionnaires were incomplete in certain respects and, therefore, only the output of farms providing the requested information is shown in each of the tables.

MARICET OUTLETS

Respondents were asked to record the proportion of table trout they sold to different types of outlets and the results are given in Table 12. The output of those large producers who operated their own processing units is included in the wholesale category. The output was distributed as follows: 80% through the wholesale outlet, nearly Vo through local hotels and restaurants, 7.4% at the farm-gate and just over 0 through local retail outlets. Whilst these figures show clearly the dominance of the wholesale outlet, it is interesting to note that over 800 tonnes (20% of total output) are sold in a more direct way. The figures also indicate differences in the pattern of distribution between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain. As expected, because of their isolation from centres of population, Scottish farms sell a higher proportion through the wholesale outlets and only a very small proportion of their output is sold at the farm- gate (3% compared to 9% in England and Wales). Scottish farms also sell comparatively less to local hotels and restaurants, but they sell proportionately more to local retail outlets than English and Welsh farmers. Table 12 market outlets in 1939

Local hotels Local Farm gate Wholesale Total , and restaurants retail

England and Wales tonnes 259.8 27303 102.8 2,258.0 2,893.7

% 9.0 9.4 3.6 78.0 .100.0

Scotland tonnes 34.0 724 63.5 917.4 1,086.9 % 3.1 6.6 5.8 84.4 ,100.0

Great Britain tonnes 293.8 345.3 166.3 3,175.4 3,980.6 501 7.4 8.7 4.2 79,8 100.0

Table ly in the Appendix, presents a breakdown of the distribution

of table trout according to market outlets for each area in England and

Wales. This shows that there are considerable geographical differences

with some areas (e.g. the South West and Thames) selling only one—quarter

of their output to the wholesale outlets whilst producers in the South and Yorkshire areas sell over 0 of their output to wholesale outlets. These figures are obviously affected by the fact that the majority of

the large farms are located in the Southern, Yorkshire and Wessex areas

and inevitably sell the bulk of their output to wholesale outlets.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that the farms in the heavily

populated Thames area sell over one—third of their output at the farm—

gate and the farms in the popular tourist area of the South West sell

over one—half of their output to hotels and restaurants.

Table 2, in the Appendix, dhows the use of outlets by farms in

different size categories. We are concerned here with a total of

127 farms for Which information was available and the percentage figures refer to the number of farms in each size grouping using that

particular outlet. The majority of farms use more th.an one outlet

and there are farms in each size category using each type of outlet.

SIZE IffID FORM OF TROUT SOLD

Respondents were asked to indicate what proportion of fish they sold at various different sizes. It was not always clear whether respondents were recording the percentage of fish 17.21g1Lt sold at each different size or the percentage of fish numbers sold at each -21-

size. Nevertheless, Table 13 -presents- the results and clearly shows the predominance of the 8-10-oz. size fish. Whereas several years ago the bulk of fish sold was 'probably within the 6-8-oz. category, now nearly one half of all sales are in the 8-10-oz. group. That the size of the traditional 'portion' of fish is increasing is also indicated by the fact that nearly 20% of fish sales are in the 10-12-oz. size range. There is a slight geographical difference with Scottish farms having proportionally higher sales of the largest sized fish. Trout weighing over 1-Ib. acc&unt for only 3.0 of total sales and so the use oflarge trout has not yet developed to any significant extent.

Table 13 Size distribution,of trout sold. in 1979 (ounces)

. All 32+ • 8;10 10-42 12-16 16-32 sizes 1 • . .

England and Wales tonnes 727.3 1,358.1 602.7 122.2 33.9 49.4 21893.7 of 100.0 P - 25.1 46.9 20.8 4,2 1.2 1.7

Scotland tonnes 260.1 515.6 170.2 • 63.2 8.6 43.9 1i061.9 % 24.5 48.6 16.0 ' 5.9 0.8 4.1 .100.0

Great Britain tonnes ,987,4 1,8730 772.9 , 185.4 42.5 93.3 3,955.6 %. . 25.0 ' 47.4 19.5 . 4.7 1.1 2.3 100.0

Table 14 shows the proportion of trout that is sold fresh, frozen and smoked from the farm. . These figures indicate the degree of processing that is carried out by producers and they do not take into account the freezing and smoking undertaken by other agents in the industry. Therefore, they do not purport to give the full picture with regards to the pattern of trout purchases by the consumer. The figures indicate that producers sell approximately 8 0 of their output fresh, 16% frozen and gg smoked. The bulk of the fresh trout is sold tin the round', but nearly 9%; of fresh sales are sold gutted. These 265 tonnes would include those fish gilled and gutted and sold chilled by the larger producers with their own freezing plants and also the. fish supplied by smaller producers direct to local outlets. Five farms produced over 80% of the 633 tonnes of frozen trout, the rest being produced by a host of mainly small producers. These farms utilise large domestic type freezers to supply frozen trout to local outlets. Several of the large farms which sell fresh trout supply freezing and processing companies and probably something in the order of 25-30% of all trout produced is sold in a frozen form. It is mainly the smaller farms that contribute the bulk of the smoked trout output of 74 tonnes. Some producers sell to specialised smoking companies, but the output of smoked trout is only a very small percentage of total production. There is a noticeable geographical difference in that a much higher percentage of Scottish trout is processed at the farm level compared to England and Wales. Thus, 26.6% of Scottish output is frozen by producers compared to 12.1% in England and Wales.

Table 14 Type of trout sold ex—farm in 1979

Fresh Fresh All Frozen Smoked in the round gutted types

England and Wales tonnes 2,277.8 217.9 350.0 48.0- 2,893.7 . 56 78.7 7.5 12.1 1.7 .100.0

Scotland , tonnes 707.6 47.2 283.5 26.1 1,064.4 . or 10 66.5 4.4 26.6 2.5 100.0,

Great Britain tonnes 2,985.4 265.1 633.5 74.1 3,958.1 0,p 75.4 6.7 16.0 1.9 100.0

SEASONALITY OF PRODUCTION AND SALES

Respondents were asked to record their trout sales on a monthly basis and the results are given in Table 15. Given that there is virtually no storage of trout at the farm level, the seasonal pattern of sales is identical to that of production. The figures clearly show the seasonal nature of production and sales with nearly 47/0 of sales taking place in the four months of July to October inclusive. (If production was even, 33% of sales would occur in this period.) Given the publicity over dumping of fish in hot dry spells, it is perhaps surprising that sales are not more peaked in the summer months than they appear to be, although it is probable that the monthly sales pattern varies from year to year depending on weather conditions. Scottish output exhibits a greater degree of seasonality compared to England and Wales and also the peak of Scottish output occurs later in -23- the year. Thus Scottish producers sell 44% of their output in the last four months of the year whilst those in England and Wales sell 34.0. Similarly, whilst the trough in English and Welsh output occurs in January and February with 12% of sales in that period, the trough in Scottish output occurs in March and April with only 9.0 of sales.

Table 15 Pattern of monthly trout sales ex-farm in 1979

Jan./Feb. Mar./April May/June July/Aug. Sept./Oct. Nov./Dec. Total

England and Wales tonnes 344,7 402.0 532.4 600,2 600.8 388.3 2,868.5 5g 12.0 14.0 18.6 20.9 249 13.5 .100.0

Scotland tonnes 120.3 ' 944 159.8 192.1 264.1 179.3 1,009.9 % 11.9 ' 9.3 15.8 19.0 26.2 17.8 .100.0

Great Britain tonnes 465.0 496.2 692.3 792.3 864.9 567.6 3,878.4 5S 12.0 12.8 . 17.9 20.4 22.3 14.6 100.0 - . .

It is generally assumed that the larger farms are more able to achieve a constant output throughout the year compared with the smaller farms. The results were analysed to see if this is, in fact, the case and these are presented in Table 3 in the Appendix. The table shows that the farms in the largest sized category (100+ tonnes) did achieve the most constant output and those farms in the smallest sized category (0-10 tonnes) had the most marked peak in output (29% of sales in July and August). Apart from this the results were rather inconclusive with the three other size groupings all exhibiting the same degree of spread of sales although for some reason they seem to peak at different times of the year.

FUTURE MARKETING PLANS

Respondents were asked whether they intended to make any changes in their marketing strategies and 43 responded in the affirmative. The questionnaire gave no indication of what possible changes they might consider and so it was very interesting to see that nearly all of the responses could be classified into four clearly definable types of change. Fourteen producers (32% of those anticipating change) indicated that they would endeavour to increase the proportion of their output that they sold at the farm-gate and to local outlets. Twelve (28%) wanted to increase the degree of processing that they undertook on the farm (either freezing or smoking). Eleven (26%) stated that their intention was to spread their sales more evenly throughout the year and nine (4%) said that they would increase the size range of the trout they sold. There were several other comments including three who wanted to increase their wholesale sales, one who was interested in establishing an export market and one who was interested in the possibilities of forming a co-operative. Most of the 43 who responded to this question represented farms at the lower end of the size range and, therefore, the implementation of these changes would not seriously affect the overall pattern of marketing, Nevertheless, the comments r. made are a reflection on some of the current trends in the industry and they certainly indicate the future pattern of marketing for the smaller producer. The lack of response from .the larger producers on this question may indicate either that they are well satisfied with their existing strategies (perhaps they see no alternatives?) or else that they are anticipating making changes but they were not prepared to divulge what these might be. -25-

CHAPTER IV TROUT CONSUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

FISH CONSUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

• In order to place our discussion on trout into context we will briefly examine the overall trends in fish consumption and distribution. Whilst these trends may be familiar to the reader, it is necessary to identify them at this point because of their relevance to our main theme. It would be a short-sighted exercise to examine the marketing of trout in isolation from other fish.

Table 16 gives the annual landings of fish for Great Britain in the years 1971-1978. Landings are sub-divided into the three categories of demersal wet fish, pelagic weffish and shell-fish with separate figures for certain individual species. The distinction between demersal and pelagic wet fish is important for our purposes because it enables us to differentiate twhitet fish and 'fat' fish. The demersal or white fish catch has historically provided the bulk of fish for human consumption whilst the pelagic or fat fish catch has made little contribution in this respect.

• Despite some fluctuations the 1960s saw a gradual increase in total' landings which continued into the 1970s reaching a peak in 1973. In the two subsequent years landings fell markedly particularly. in 1975 though there has been a recovery, since. then. Throughout the period there has been a substantial decline in demersal landings (falling by 284,000 tonnes) and this has resulted in a fall-off in fish for human consumption. Much more seriously, however, has been the disproportion- ate fall-off in the popular eating fish, that is, cod, haddock and plaice. This particularly applies to cod where landings have fallen by over half during the 1970s. Haddock landings have also continued to fall throughout the period, particularly in 1978. Plaice landings have increased slightly in recent years althoughthey are still lower than their 1971 level. The other vey noticeable trend is the changing composition of the pelagic catch with the devastation of the herring catch being balanced by a dramatic increase in the mackerel catch. These changes have come about not only as a result of the Icelandic fishing dispute, but also due to general over-exploitation as in the case of the herring stocks. Table 16 Great Britain landingp of fish 1971-1278 (thousand tonnes)

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 I 1978 v.....,—....— , Demersal Cod 305 301 273 267 242 211 ' 147 125 Haddock 181 157 149 126 113 128 123 82 Plaice 44 40 38 29 • 28 32 36 32 Other 181 171 198 215 193 199 189 188

Total 711 669 658 637 575 569 494 427

Pelakic Herring 143 146 151 141 107- 85 40 15 Mackerel 6 9 21 30 48 87 187 321 Other 53 64 101 86 62 98 110 117

Total 202 219 274 257 217 270 336 452

Total Net Fish 913 887 932 894 792 839 830 880

Total Shell-fish 51 54 66 61 63 78 74 64

TOTAL ALL FISH 964 942 998 954 855 917 ' 904 945

Source: Annual Abstract of Statistics Rounding may cause slight discrepancy in totals.

.1422112.1 • Estimated U.K. consumption of fresh t frozen, and cured fish 1964-1922 (kg. per head per annum)

1964, • 1968 • 1972 1976 1917, 1978

7.7 7.6 6.4 6.5 5.7 5.8

Source: Annual Abstract of Statistics Table 18 Fish consumption in the horn..L.22L.2221La-

(oz. per week)

1964 1969 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Fresh, processed and shell-fishl 3.36 2.67 2.16 2.08 1.91 1.97 1.88 1.80) ) 3.67 2.69 3.24 3.63 n'.a. 2 Prepared 2.03 1.85 1.85 1..57 1.47 1.47 1.45 1.17)

Frozen3 0.55 0.94 1.04 1.06 0.96 1.05 1.26 1.20 1.18 1:29 1.27 1.20 n.a.

Total fish4 5.94 5.46 5.05 4.71 4.34 4.46 4.58 4.17 4.25 3.98 4.51 4.83 n.a.

Source: National Food Survey

1, Fresh (i.e. not frozen when sold), smoked, salted, dried fish and shell-fish. 2. Canned, bottled and cooked fish (including fried fish) and fish.products not frozen. 3. Frozen fish and frozen convenience products (e.g. fish fingers). 4. These are the published figures and they are not always consistent with the total of items 1-3. -28-

The 1970s have also seen substantial price increases for fish relative to other food items and fish is no longer regarded as a cheap source of protein. Table 17 shows the accompanying decline in consumption from 7.7 kg. per head in 1964 to. 5.8 kg. per head in 1978 (a decline of 25%). Table 18 also gives the trend in fish consumption and indicates a slightly larger decline in consumption for the same time period (28%). Table 18 is restricted to fish consumption in the home whereas the previous table also includes fish consumed in institutions and catering establishments and, therefore, is the more appropriate series to use vihen examining overall trends in fish consumption. Table 18 has been included in order to show the changing composition of fish consumption. Consumption of fresh, processed and shell-fish declined by Oro between 1964 and 1977. On the other handl_ frozen fish consumption increased by 11810 during the same period. Thus, whereas frozen fish represented only 9% .of consumption in 1964, by 1977 it accounted for nearly 2910 of fish consumption in the home. Frozen fish consumption reached a peak in 1976 and dropped back in the following two years but the 1979 figures to date indicate that the upward trend will be re-continued. As we shall see later this change-over from fresh fish to frozen fish and frozen convenience products has implications when it comes to the marketing of trout.

We come now to examine the marketing outlets for fish and their changing importance in recent years. Most noticeably there has been a marked decline in the numbers of the oldest traditional outlet - the fishmonger. Accurate figures are not available, but the White Fish Authority estimate that their numbers have fallen from over 8,000 in the early 1960s to approximately 4,000 in 1978. Two retail inquiries conducted by the Business Statistics Office produced estimates for 1976 and 1977 of 3,257 and 3,372 respectively. These surveys covered companies listed on the V.A.T. register by virtue of their main business (in value terms) and as such would exclude companies with an annual turnover below £5,000. It is likely, therefore, that the B.S.O. numbers of outlets are somewhat under-estimated. The most dramatic decline occurred in the 1960s with the rate of decline slowing up considerably since then. The causes are generally said to be the increased cost of fish in relation to other foods, the growth of the frozen food industry and increased rent and rates. In 1977 Retail Business made the following interesting comments:- -29—

"There is little doubt that the decline in the numbers of fishmongers in the last fifteen years or so has made it increasingly difficult for the consumer in some cases to find a satisfactory retail source for fresh fish. This is especially the case in the smaller inland towns and rural areas. To some extent the continued fall in the numbers of fishmongers reflects the highly independent nature of most operations. There are few groups with as many as ten shops and only one national chain with more than one hundred outlets (]KacFisheries). This makes the individual business much more vulnerable to such factors as the decline of the areas on which the shops have built their trade, closure of leases, site redevelopments, retirement of the owner/manager, etc. Even more important has been the long term decline in turnover in real terms. A survey of fishmongers carried out by the W.F.A. in 1969 painted a rather depressing picture of an ageing and highly conservative group of businessmen lacking the energy and imagination to combat the difficulties of their situation. There is little evidence of any general improvement since then."

The number of market stalls and mobiles have declined, but only marginally so with a 6% decline between 1961 and 1971. Similarly, the numbers of fish friers have slightly declined, but their changing fortunes need not concern us here. Of more interest is the increasing importance of. the frozen fish outlets as a result of the increase in consumption of frozen fish. Besides the freezer centres, which concentrate on the larger packs, nearly every supermarket and grocer now sell frozen fish. This is an' inevitable corollary of the growing importance of the free zing industry, and, as we have already seen, the increasing consumption of frozen fish fillets and frozen fish convenience products. It is difficult to obtain accurate figures, but the White Fish Authority have estimated that frozen fish sales from supermarkets, freezer centres and other retail cabinets have increased by 47% between 1974 and 1978 (see Table 4 in the Appendix). Incidentally, this table also shows that the quantity of fish handled by fishmongers has remained fairly constant since 1974. Whilst the trends outlined above have been fairly easily delin- eated, it is much more difficult to determine what the future trends will be. The decline in the catch in recent years has meant that many freezing and processing companies have found it an increasingly competitive and difficult industry to operate in. Moreover, in some cases, there has been a switch to species more suitable for retailing fresh rather than frozen. Mackerel, for instance, is a fish suitable for smoking but much less suitable for freezing purposes. Perhaps the changing attitude of supermarkets to fish retailing is a response to these changes. They started with frozen fish, then added prepacked chilled fish and have now gone tall the way' by adding fresh fish sales as well. It is probably the growing interest of supermarkets in this area of fresh fish retailing that has caused the levelling-off in the decline of the number of fishmongers and wet-fish departments recorded above. If the fish now being caught are more suitable for retailing fresh then this will have benefited the traditional fishmonger as well as the supermarket wet-fish counters.

THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR TROUT

Let us now look more specifically at the distribution system for trout. When discussing the results of the postal survey we analysed the importance of the different outlets to the producers. From the data available it was possible to distinguish four categories - farm- gate, local hotels and restaurants, local retail and wholesale. It was noted that the last category in particular represented several different possibilities. Figures 1 and 2 attempt to portray in a diagrammatic form the possible channels of distribution for fresh and frozen trout.* Looking at Figure 1 we see that there are many possible combinations and permutations in the marketing links for fresh trout. Whereas it is possible for the producer to supply all the outlets direct, this is unlikely in the case of the supermarket or caterer because they often require such large supplies of trout. Those producing a large quantity of trout tend to sell all of their output at the wholesale level which means they sell either on the large fish markets (Billingsgate and others) or to a national wholesaleror possibly to a

* These two figures are• based on an original presentation by Dr. Phillip Smith (see bibliography). -31-

2jsa219_2, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR FRESH TROUT

P R 0 D U

Billingsgate National and Regional Wholesalers Fish Markets

Local Wholesalers

Ne v

Farm Institutional Hotels and Gate Caterers I Restaurants Supermarkets o .

Normal supply routes

Less usual supply routes -32—

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR FROZEN TROUT

P R 0 D UCER S

Independent Producer Frozen Food Integrated Co—operatives Manufacturers Producers 1 1 mmaimpriraiwyg.laramma

Wholesalers

"NY

Institutional Hotels and Home—Freezer Supermarkets Caterers Restaurants Centres

411100MONIMPOOMMK

Normal supply routes

Less usual supply routes -33-

local wholesaler. Although all the possible links have to be put in for completeness in general it is unlikely that the trout will pass through more than one 'middle man'. The national wholesalers, for instance are tending more and more to obtain their supplies direct from the farms rather than fish markets and then supply direct to the outlets rather than through the smaller local wholesalers. Neverthe- less, there are examples of more than one middle-man operating, for example, where hotels and restaurants obtain their supplies from a local wholesaler who has b-aught on one of the fish markets.

It can be seen from Figure 2 that the distribution system for frozen trout is rather more straightforward compared to that of fresh trout. Basically it is the larger producers who are involved in frozen trout production either by operating their own freezing plant or by co-operating with other producers in a joint freezing plant or by selling their trout to frozen food manufacturers and processors. The specialist plants dealing only in trout may have been set up by trout producers, but they are often separate legal entities and will buy trout from other producers as well as those with financial investment in the company. It is noticeable that many of the outlets utilising frozen trout also use fresh trout. Thus some hotels and restaurants will buy frozen trout and supermarkets will often have trout in the frozen food departments as well as on the wet-fish counter (if they have got one). The term 'independent integrated producers' in the diagram refers to the large producers who operate a freezing plant, but we should also remember that some of the farms producing only a small output occasionally undertake Some freezing of fish. This is obviously on a small scale using domestic type freezers and they tend to freeze when they have a glut of fish.

• Finally, we should also mention *smoked trout. Again, there are many possible distribution links with smoking being undertaken at the farm level (often on quite small units); at localised and specialised . . smoking and processing companies and also at plants belonging to the larger national processing companies. Most smoked trout is used by the catering industry and particularly in the high class hotels and restaurants. Retail sales of smoked rout are much less important. ..34i...

TROUT CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

There are no statistics available for trout consumption, but it is possible to calculate them from the data simply by adding together the figures for trout production to the figures for net imports and assuming that there are no changes in stocks. It should be reiterated here that our production figures exclude the sport catch and, therefore, our estimates of consumption are slightly on the low side. Because the overseas trade figures relate to the United Kingdom, it is necessary to add the estimated trout production of N. Ireland to the production figures we have obtained for Great Britain. Table 19 shows U.K. trout production has risen from a level of 1,300 tonnes in 1974 to 4,665 tonnes in 1979. During this same period net imports have declined from a level of 1,667 tonnes to 1,001 tonnes. In 1978 trout consumption was dust under 4,000 tonnes which is equal to approximately 2.5-oz. per person per year. This compares with a total fish consumption in 1978 of 240-oz. per person per year and, therefore, trout represents only Ito of total fish consumption.

Table 19 Consumption of trout in the United Kingdom 1974-1979 (tonnes per annum)

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Production: .

Great Britain 1,151 1,505 1,963 • 2,158 3,096 4,415 N. Ireland 150 175 200 175 200 ,250 r Total 1,301 1,680 2,163 2,333 3,296 4,665

Net Imports 1,667 1,489 1,072 1,024 . .641. 1,001

Consumption 2,968 1, 3,169 3,235 3,357 5,666

Imports as a% 21% of consumption 56% 4750 33% 31% -35—

The decline in net imports took place primarily during the three years 1974-1976 and, apart from 1978, imports have since remained at a level of just over 1,000 tonnes per annum. In 1978 there was a considerable drop in imports to a level of 640 tonnes, but this appears to have been a temporary decline. The import-saving role of home production is clearly demonstrated in the percentage figures given at the bottom of the table. These show that the contribution of net imports to total consumption has declined from 56% in 1974 to 4% i 1979. From 19744978 the increase in home production has been, to a considerable extent, at the expense of imports and consequently the rate of trout consumption has grown steadily but modestly throughout this period. But in 1979 there was a considerable increase in consumption (44% more than 1978) brought about by both a rise in home production and a return to pre 1978 import levels.

Table 20 gives a more detailed breakdown of U.K. trade in trout for the three years 1977-1979. During this period there has been a slight decline in the importation of fresh trout from a level of 178 tonnes in 1977 to 150 tonnes in 1979. It is interesting to note that, whilst in 1977 nearly 100% of fresh imports was supplied by Eire and Denmark (67% and 32% respectively), by 1979 Italy was also a major supplier of such imports. Thus, in 1979 these three countries each supplied approximately 44 tonnes or 29% of the total. Most imported trout comes in a frozen form and it was because of a decline of some 400 tonnes of frozen trout in 1978 that there was such a big drop in net imports in that year. As with fresh trout, the source of frozen trout has also changed slightly in these three years. . Whereas in 1977 Denmark supplied 50 and japan supplied 43%, by 1979 their respective shares were 71p% and 13%, the bulk of the romaining 'imports being supplied by Norway and Australia. There is a small trade in exports of trout (mainly frozen) from the U.K. and this trade has declined in volume during these three years. The export market is not concentrated in any particular country and consists of fairly small consignments sent to over 30 countries. ...36.

Table 20 U.K. trade in trout 1977-1979

1977 ' 1973 ' 1979 •

tonnes • tonnes c tonnes . . Fresh (includ— . ' ing chilled) Imports 178.48 260,159 159,32 239,565 - 149.78 . 243,367 . Exports 21.45 . 35,805 12.86 35,842 . 21.88 56,980

157.03 224,354 146,46 194,723. , 127.90 186,387

. . Frozen Imports 970.19 1,731,723 569.18 966,049 937.69 1,709,668 Exports ' 102.96 .218,144 • 74.86 158,200 64.27 i.138,692 80.23 1,513,579 494.32 807,849 873.42 J 1570,976 NET IMPORTS 1,024.26 1,737,933 640.78 1,002,572 1,001.32 1,757,363

RETAIL AND PRODUCER TROUT PRICES

We come now to examine the retail and producer prices for trout. The National Federation of Fishmongers record the weekly retail prices of fish in eight different geographical areas. They obtain'information from 12 shops within each area, these shops being selected in order to provide a good cross-section of types and sizes of establishments. Unfortunately, the recording of trout prices did not start until October 1978 which means that there is no long run price data available for trout. Figure 3 presents the trend in trout prices for the period November 1978 to December 1979. -. These prices relate to 8-12-oz. ungutted fish. The figure shows the average price for all areas and also the prices prevailing in four of the eight regions. In general, the average price has fluctuated between the two levels of 105 and 113 pence per pound. There was a noticeable dip in prices at the beginn- ing of July, though after this prices recovered to end at a level of some 5-6 pence more than the previous year. The prices for the four different regions are shown in order to demonstrate that. there are marked geographical differences in price. For instance, in the West the price of trout was consistently high at 120 pence per pound whilst in the Belfast and Central London areas trout prices were 100 pence per Retail PeLoos for Rainbow Trout in th.s...ati.:12.ULA_In pound or less. The data for the South Midlands demonstrates that in some regions prices might fluctuate considerably.

The prices received by producers are recorded by the British Trout and Salmon Marketing Association on a quarterly basis. Table 21 presents the results for the 1977-1979 period and relates to the price paid for trout ex—pond in 250—lb. minimum consignments. Prices were lower throughout 1978 compared to 1977 and 1979 and it would have been interesting to compare the retail prices for the same period. In 1979, where it is possible to compare the producer and retailer prices, we find that the two price series are not closely correlated. For instance, the dip in retail prices during June and July is not reflected in the producer prices. Nevertheless, the retail price did rise at the end of the year and this is a reflection of the gradual rise in producer prices.

Table 21 Producer pri\ces_lalmai_laalim (pence per lb.)

,.. . 1977 1978 1979

Quarter 12 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Average price 63.5 58.3 55.1 '54.6 52.3 52.1 53.4 55.4 57.0 59.2 60.0 n.a. -39-

CHAPTER V AN EXAMINATION OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS TROUT

INTRODUCTION

We have already described the pattern of trout distribution through different marketing outlets and assessed their relative importance from the producers' point of view. In this chapter we discuss further the marketing of trout and, in particular, desaribe our findings -concerning the attitudes of those involved throughout the chain of distribution. . We have not directly examined consumer attitudes towards trout because we considered this to be .a complex . area of study which we would have difficultyin effectively covering in the short time period available for this study. Moreover, some studies have already. been undertaken in this field and there would be little point in 'duplicating such work. These studies are described at the conclusion of this chapter. Our approach has been to contact .and. question those who, in some way, are engaged in the. selling or marketing of trout in one form or another. Thus we have contacted fishmongers, and other fresh fish retailers, hoteliers and restaurateurs, wholesalers, frozen fish distributors, supermarket managers and so, on. We regard the attitudes of these people to be very important because they exercise .great.influence in the market. The purpose was not only to examine attitudes towards trout but also to find out more about the actual. practice and experience.,of those involved in selling trout. Thus we took the opportunity to collect 'information on prices, preferred sizes, difficulties in obtaining supplies, marketing trends and other relevant points. Before we examine the findings it should be pointed out that because the surveys covering fishmongers, hoteliers and restaurateurs were confined to the Reading area, the results may not be applicable to other parts of the country.

FISHMONGERS AND OTHER FRESH FISH RETAIL OUTLETS

During May 1979, 14 fresh fish retailers were visited, all within a ten mile radius of Reading. Despite the fact that they had not been forewarned of the visit all agreed to co-operate in the survey and answer questions concerning their attitudes towards and sales of trout. All but two of the outlets visited were traditional fishmonger shops one of the two being a supermarket with a fresh fish counter, the other being a market stall. All, but one, of them sold trout, the exception being the market stall.' The manager of this stall offered two reasons as to why he did not sell trout. First, he stated that he had never sold trout because there was no demand for it from his customers. Secondly, he believed that there were greater disease risks in handling trout compared to other fish and he remembered reading something to this effect in the trade press. (Although he did not specifically refer to smoked trout this is probably what he had in mind.)

Table 22 presents data on the size range, quantity sold and price charged for trout .for each of the outlets visited. Before• discussing these figures it is necessary to make two comments. First, some of the fishmongers also supplied local hotels and restaurants and/or operated a mobile on; a fish round. This explains Why the figures for quantity sold varies so much from outlet to outlet, because the figures given refer to total sales for the business and not shop sales only. Secondly, it would have been useful to express the quantity of trout sold as a proportion of total fish sales in either physical or financial terms, but unfortanately it was not possible to obtain this information and in two cases we were unable to obtain a figure for the average quantity of trout sold per week. If it had been -possible to express trout sales as a proportion of fish sales it would have been slightly easier to examine the effect of price upon sales.

Table 22 Retail fresh trout sales: May1979

Size Range Quantity Price Location , . (oz.) (lbs. per week) •(E) ..------Ascot 8-10 28 1.15 Henley 8-10 150 1.20 Maidenhead 840 ? 1.00 Maidenhead 8-10 . 84 .98 Reading 8-12 50 1.10 Reading 8-12 28 1.10 • .85) Reading 8-24 71 35 1.10) - . Reading 12-14 112 1.10 Slough ' 8-10 70 .98 1 Wallingford ' 644 224 1.10 I Windsor 8-10 28 1.10 Windsor 6- 8 42 .98 Ubkingham 6-10 ? 1.13 1 •

All, but one, of the shops had been charging the same price from January to May 1979, that is the price recorded at the time of the visit. Thus the figures given for physical trout sales refer to the average weekly sales during this period. The supermarket was that one shop that had not been operating a constant price and had been running a special offer on trout prior to the time of the visit. Thus, two prices are shown for this outlet, the special offer price and the normal price. Excluding the supermarket there is a price range of 22 pence per pound between the different outlets visited. Whilst this seems a large variation in such a small geographical area, it is worth noting that the three outlets charging 98 pence per pound all belonged to the same national chain (Maclasheries) and seven of the remaining nine outlets were all charging between £1.10 and £1.15 per pound with £1.10 being the most popular price. Most of the trout sold was white-fleshed, 840-oz. fish, though a few shops specialised in. slightly smaller or larger fish. There was one exception, and again this was the only supermarket in the survey, and this shop sold a significant number of larger fish of up to lf-lb.

Producers and retailers alike are naturally interested in the price elasticity of their*products, that is, the extent to which, other things being equal, sales increase/decrease as prices decrease/increase. The figures in the table do not really help us to examine this relation- ship for the reasons given above. Also, because retail trout prices have been fairly static or changed fairly slowly through time, it is difficult to accurately determine the effect of price on sales. Never- theless, in our survey we asked the managers to what extent price determined or influenced sales and several interesting points emerged.

First, the supermarket 'which had offered a special offer on trout had experienced a dramatic increase in sales during the offer period. Sales more than doubled when the price was reduced by 15 pence per pound. Obviously this was for a limited period only and sales may not have maintained this level if the lower price was retained over a longer period. Moreover, sales of trout may.have.declined in other local outlets during this period. Secondly, the three chain shops were following company policy of promoting trout and keeping trout prices below gl per pound. All three shops reported increased sales because of this price policy and at one shop it was estimated that they were selling 50 more trout compared to what they would otherwise expect to sell. Thirdly, there were noticeable differences in the managers' attitudes towards trout associated with the• prices they were charging. Those Who had operated special offers or were trying to maintain relatively low prices emphasised the fact that trout was a 'good buy' and compared very favourably with other fish. In contrast, those charging over £1.10 per pound regarded trout solely in terms of a luxury food item that would be bought for special occasions. This difference in attitude must surely influence the fishmonger when ho is advising customers on which type of fish they should purchase.

Each fishmonger was asked whether there was a seasonal pattern to trout sales and the answer in most cases was that there was a fairly constant level of sales throughout the year. That trout is no longer a highly seasonal dish is a reflection - on its availability throughout the year and its adaptability in terms of different methods of cooking. In winter months it is generally purchased for baking whilst in summer months it is grilled, often for use with salad dishes. Nevertheless, three outlets thought that they had slightly higher summer sales primarily because of tourist trade. It should be remembered that the geographical area covered by the survey does not have a .large net inflow of population during the tourist season. This is in contrast to areas like the South-West where they experience a much higher level of trout sales during this season.

The independent fishmongers in the survey were questioned on their pricing policy for trout and the margin they aimed for. In all but three cases they aimed for the same gross margin as on other fish (i.e. 30-3510). The three exceptions were all seeking lower than average margins and aiming for something in the range of 35-20. This did not necessarily mean that they were charging less for their trout on the blab because they might be buying-in at a higher price.

• Most of the outlets obtained their trout from either local wholesalers, direct from Billingsgate or the trout was purchased centrally as in the case of the supermarket and the three chain shops. Only two outlets obtained their trout direct from a farm and in the one case this was only an occasional batch. Whilst the lack: of direct farm to shop marketing links recorded in this survey may be due to the relatively few farms operating in this fairly small geographical area, it was interesting to note that several fishmongers commented on the • -43

probIems associated with buying direct from farms. In fact, three outlets had previously obtained their trout direct but had now discontinued doing so. In every case they had been collecting the trout themselves and commented that this was both time consuming and expensive in terms of transport costs. In contrast, perhaps it is significant that the .one shop that still relied solely on trout bought direct from a farm had the fish delivered in. Certainly it appears to be the case that those producers who wish to obtain a higher price by selling direct to the retailer must undertake the transportation of the fish. The comment was also made that some producers could not guarantee continuity of supply and there was often a related problem of not being able to guarantee the specific sizes of fish that the shop required.

• In a previous chapter reference was made to the declining number ,of fishmongers. The effect of this has inevitably meant less fresh fish outlets and, therefore, less opportunities to market trout to the public; Whilst the deficiencies in the coverage of retail outlets is obviously serious for fresh fish sales in total, it is particularly a problem for a product like trout where, as the result of increased productiont.there is a need, to expand market coverage and total sales. Fortunately, the possible growth in the number of supermarket fresh fish counters present new avenues to the trout seller. Reference has also 'been made to the tendency for fishmongers .to be rather conservative in their outlook and policies and, therefore, unable to respond to changing conditions. Whilst we would not want to comment on the general validityof this explanation of the decline• in the number of fishmongers, our, survey did reveal some interesting corroborations of this point. For instance, it is very noticeable that those shops which were most aggressive in terms of trout marketing (particularly with regards to lower prices) were the three chain shops and the supermarket. 'The growth of the supermarket fish counter may. well result in more effective promotion of fish at the retail level, to the obvious benefit of trout sales. On the other hand, one of the most important roles of the traditional fishmonger in the past has been that of educating the consumer on fish preparation and cooking. Such a service is of , tremendous importance in an age when many housewives are relatively ignorant concerning the basic culinary principles of dealing with fish. Indeed, this is regarded as one of the major difficulties in expanding the sales of fresh trout. • Whether the fishmonger behind the super— market counter will have the same degree of personal contact with the customer and, therefore, the opportunity (and the willingness) to perform a similar role remains to be seen.

Finally, before we leave our discussion on fishmongers there are two general comments to make. First, one fishmonger reported that because of the difficulties in obtaining labour he was operating on the basis of a higher margin per unit and lower volume of physical sales than he would otherwise like to do. This simply confirms that the cost and scarcity of labour is one of the problems of fishmongering today. The other point we should like to make is that several of the for fishmongers reported that they were in the habit of freezing trout future use. This particularly applies to the smaller shops who were obtaining only one delivery of trout per week and so they would freeze a certain percentage for sales during the latter part of the week. Also, one fishmonger was in the habit of freezing trout for future use if he obtained supplies at a particularly good price. Whilst one can appreciate the rationale of freezing from the fishmonger's point of view, it cannot be emphasised too strongly that this practice is detrimental to the quality of the trout when it eventually appears on the slab. This could well result in consumer dissatisfaction and a consequent loss of sales which would be hard to recapture. The . problem with freezing undertaken by fishmongers is two—fold. . First, they are inevitably freezing fish which have been killed for some time, but to obtain best results from freezing it is necessary to freeze imnediately after death, that is, before any deterioration has set in. Secondly, fishmongers use the larger domestic—type freezers and these are not as suitable as the large commercially used -plate or blast freezers. This is because one obtains a better finished product' if the fish is frozen quickly as is possible with these commercial freezers. Having made these comments, it is necessary to emphasise that it is only a small minority of fishmongers who undertake freezing on their own premises and they are the ones Which have a low turnover in trout.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS

In October 1979 a survey was undertaken of hotels and restaurants within a ten mile radius of Reading. Twelve establishments were contacted, the objective being to discover the attitudes and policies -45-

of hoteliers and restaurateurs towards trout. Explanatory letters were sent out and appointments arranged by means of the telephone. Either the manager or the proprietor was interviewed though sometimes both participated and occasionally the chef also took part. Some information was collected concerning the policies of some of the national hotel and restaurant chains and this will be presented at the conclusion of this section.

The establishments visited could not be described as specialist fish restaurants but they all included trout on their menus. Two offered trout only as a 'starter' and two only as a main dish, the other eight offering both options. One proprietor stated that he did not offer trout as a main meal because it has a 'short season'. Thus, despite the growth of the industry and the publicity of recent years, there are still caterers who are ignorant concerning the existence and availability of farmed trout. Obviously one cannot generalise from such a small survey, but it would ha useful to know whether such . ignorance occurs to any great extent throughout the catering trade, because it must be one of the factors influencing the decision whether or not to offer trout. The other restaurant not offering trout as a main course stated that their policy was to offer set meals and trout did not fit in as a main course given that they inclUded the traditional fish course. With regard to those which did not offer trout as a starter, one reported that they preferred smoked mackerel, and the other stated that there was insufficient demand for trout which resulted in wastage when they had previously included it on the menu. This was because they had been using frozen trout Which came in a block and they would often have to throw fish away because they were unable to use all the fish immediately after thawing.

Trout was generally regarded as a very good dish to offer as a starter or fish course. This would be a 5-6-oz. fish, either plain or smoked, and although most of the places visited had relatively small sales, it was regarded as an excellent complement to other meals and was often used in set meals. Few of those interviewed expected their sales to increase, but all of them intended to continue offering it on their menus. In contrast to this general agreement on the value and use of 5-6-oz, trout, there was a divergence of viewpoints on the best way to present trout as a main meal. -46

Tradit.ionally, the norm has been to present an 8-oz. portion of trout of whitish grey complexion, but in our survey only three establishments offered this type of fish, and one of these also offered other sizes. The others had increased the portion size to 12-14-oz. and/Or 14-16-oz., and one place specialised in trout of li-lbs. and over. Moreover, they were very critical of the 8-oz. fish because it did not offer value for money to the customer whereas the larger fish had a higher percentage of edible flesh. It is interesting to note that the two places using only 8-oz. trout were the only two in the survey utilising frozen fish, all the others purchasing fresh fish. Perhaps this is an indication that the frozen fish companies have not adapted to changed conditions, though it is unlikely that the other restaurateurs would buy frozen even if larger portion sizes were available. The other major change has been the increasing use of pink-fleshed trout and all of those selling trout of 12-oz. and larger preferred pink-fleshed to white-fleshed trout. This is because white-fleshed trout is not a pure white as, for example, Dover sole is, but is more a greyish colour and so tends to look 'off-colour'. A pink-fleshed trout is much more attractive to look at. This is important because customers teat with their eyes' and the appearance of each dish is an important contributory factor in the enjoyment of the meal. Several commented that they had difficulty in obtaining pink-fleshed trout and others said that sometimes the 'pinking' was not consistent throughout the whole fish and/or was too light in colour.

Six of the establishments obtained their trout direct from a farm and either fetched the fish or had them delivered-in. The others obtained their supplies from local wholesalers and; in general, these were the ones who had complaints. These complaints were mainly concerned with the colour of the trout because wholesalers deal mainly in white-fleshed trout. This is because they obtain their supplies from the fish markets or direct from the larger farms (who are the main suppliers of these markets). This fish is predominantly white- fleshed because these producers seem more reluctant than others to use pigmented feed. It is difficult to know the reason for this. Perhaps it is because the demand for pink-fleshed trout is not generally known or it may be that the price at the Wholesale level is insufficient to justify the use of pigmented feed. Several restaurateurs intuitively felt that farmed trout had less flavour than river -47- or wild trout, but they recognised that their customers could not tell the difference. Most were well satisfied with the texture and conform- ation of farmed trout.

Questions were asked concerning future sales and, of those who offered trout as a main meal, one-half were anticipating to increase their sales. The others were either unprepared to forecast their future sales or else were expecting fairly constant sales. Trout was very popular with all the hoteliers and restaurateurs and several reasons were given as to why this is so. First, trout is probably the most versatile fish available to the chef. It can be grilled, smoked, poached or baked and served With a variety of sauces or wines. Also, large trout .can be cooked whole and carved at the table. Secondly, trout is now a relatively cheap fish to buy. This is important to the restaurateur because it enables him to balance his prices and he will charge a higher percentage mark-up on low cost inputs like trout compared to expensive inputs like Dover sole. Despite this • higher mark-up trout is still one of the lowest priced fish dishes on the menu. Thirdly, trout is now available throughout the year and prices have been relatively stable in recent years. This has enabled the restaurateur to look ahead and plan his set meals with a certain degree of confidence that he will be able to obtain supplies and also that the overall price will not be prohibitive.

Obviously, it is very difficult to determine future trends but it does seem that there have been steadily rising sales of trout through hotels and restaurants in recent years and many in the catering trade see no reason why this should not continue. If, in the 1980s, this country enters into a period of severe economic depression, then there is no doubt that the market for trout will be seriously affected. But if We assume a relatively healthy economic climate then the tendency for more and more people to eat out (often on a regular basis) will increase and this will enhance trout sales. It is also interesting to note that the increase in VAT to 15% has not seriously affected the restaurant trade. Although several reported a slight decline in business when the new rate first came in, it appears that the level of trade has now increased again. One tup-markett restaurant reported that although the TAT increase had not affected the number of customers, it had affected the type of meals requested. In this establishment it was no longer customary to sell a bottle of wine with every meal and, furthermore, many people were choosing at the cheaper end of the menus. The effect of this had been to increase trout sales because this was the cheapest fish dish they offered. The proprietor did point out that this may be a temporary phenomenon and in any case it was difficult to be certain about cause and effect.

This survey has indicated that the outlook for trout sales in restaurants is encouraging. One reason for this is that trout is very suitable for set business lunches and quite a number of restaurants are dependent on this type of trade. Many businessmen prefer to eat fish at lunch-time, partly in anticipation of a meat meal in the evening. Hence, restaurants will include fish like trout on the set lunches, but not on the ta la carte' menus. But there are also those who will eat fish in the evenings and it may well be that this is because many people do not have the culinary skills to cook fish in the home. There were those in the survey who felt that the market for trout had not been fully developed. For instance, several said that they could make greater use of large trout (5-lbs. +) for banqueting purposes. Filleted trout would also increase the demand for trout from the catering trade because big trout giving 8-10-oz. fillets would give a much higher percentage of edible fish flesh. Soused trout dishes could be developed to replace soused herring. Others were interested in the potential of trout products like pat, although this would be of a rather delicate flavour which would not necessarily be suitable for business lunches. There was one restaurant which specialised in large portion size trout of over one pound and offered five main dishes. They sold over 250 'trout meals per month which represented something in the order of 10 of fish sales. They were gradually establishing a reputation for large trout which gave value for money and this was resulting in a build-up of regular customers and steadily increasing sales. This is not to say that every restaurant should follow this particular path of development, but it does illustrate the potential market that is available for trout.

Having interviewed those associated with the independent and family- type hotels and restaurants, it was interesting to look at the policies of the national catering chains, one a restaurant business, the other a hotel chain. The former may be described as aiming for the 'mass market', whilst the latter operated more in the 'up-market' sector. Neither chain sold smoked trout because of the disease risk, but both -49—

offered trout as a main meal. Uhereas the hotel .04p4p, 4a4 a,l,ways sold portion size trout, the restaurant chain had introduced it for the first time in a few selected outlets in 1977. The trial had proved successful and by 1979 they were selling trout through 15% of their outlets. The hotel chain sold mainly 7-9-0z, portion trout as a main course or as a fish course for a banquet. Their portion size had increased from an original size of 5-6-oz., and they hoped to sell 9-12-oz. fish in the future. They sold mainly fresh fish Which they obtained from carefully selected and vetted fish farms. Most oP the trout was pink-fleshed. They had experienced a growth in sales of trout in the 1960s but not since, though they anticipated an up-swing in sales especially if new trout dishes and products, as mentioned above, are developed.

The restaurant chain is in some ways the more interesting of these two case studies because they were aiming for the mass narket. Obviously their success or failure in this area has important implications for the future development of the trout market. They obtained their trout from a wholesaler and were offering two main sizes - an 8-oz. portion and a 10-oz. portion. Because they were still in the development stage they were unable to say which was the most successful size to offer in terms of sales. Trout is at the top-end of their menus and has no real competitors (occasionally. scampi). All the indications are that their sales of trout will increase and they were particularly attracted to farmed trout because of its relatively stable price.

Pinally, as mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the necessary geographical and numerical limitations on our survey may affect the general validity of our results. It is an accepted fact. that there are regional differences in eating habits and it may well be that such differences exist in the demand for trout. Trout has always had an 'up-market' association which suggests that sales would be higher in the economically more prosperous South. It was hoped that we could examine this proposition by looking at the regional sales of the national restaurant chain. Unfortunately most of the restaurant outlets belonging to this chain were located in the South and so this was not possible. This leads us to make the further and final comment here that there are probably more restaurants per head of population in this area than in the other regions and hence higher trout sales. -50,—

OTHER AGENTSINAa. THE FRESH TROUT MARKET

The majority of fresh trout distributed in Great Britain passes through the hands of either a national wholesaler or a trader on one of the regional fish markets. As part of our study we visited an example of each in order to ascertain their current appreciation of the trout marketing situation. The national wholesaler supplied traditional fishmongers, smaller wholesalers and also some supermarket outlets. This particular wholesaler purchased direct from producers who delivered the trout into the regional depots. The wholesaler delivered fish daily (except Mondays), but trout was normally delivered twice a week. Their main concern was the decline in their trade brought about by the reduction in the number of fishmongers. As a consequence of this they have had to rationalise their distribution system, create more inland depots and deliver only to main shopping centres. Thus they no longer deliver to shops in rural areas. Despite the upheavals in the trade in recent years, they are confident that there will always be a market for fresh fish even if the traditional fishmonger goes out of business. One other point of interest is that they had proportionately greater sales of trout in the South East region compared to other areas.

The fish trader was also concerned about the decline in the number of fishmongers because these were his main customers although he also supplied small wholesalers and hotels and restaurants. He reported that the quality of farmed trout had improved because producers were now more experienced in fish management techniques. For instance, most trout coming onto the market are now adequately starved before killing (which increases keeping quality). As a seller of trout his main difficulty was in coping with the irregularity of supply. He described how there was a tendency for gluts to occur during the summer when hot, dry periods force producers to sell trout because of water and oxygen deficiencies. Inevitably, the price falls during these periods and this explains why those who supply the markets during these periods only are very disappointed with the return they receive. He was confident that there would always be a market for fresh trout and mentioned the fact that the fresh fish trade could sell trout of all sizes which was not necessarily true of the frozen fish trade. He was concerned about the negative attitudes of some of the fish— mongers he dealt with and quoted the example of those who preferred higher margins with a lower turnover to maximum turnover.

PROCESSORS WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS OF FROZEN TROUT,

Finally, we come to ex-nine the attitudes of a group of businessmen who are playing an increasingly important part in the marketing: of trout, that is, those involved in the production and distribution of frozen trout. We have already noted the rising importance of frozen fish products and many believe that the future success of trout marketing depends upon this frozen food sector. During our study we visited two processors of home produced trout, one distributor of imported frozen trout and four retailers of frozen trout (two supermarket chains and two home freezer centre chains). We will describe both their activities and their attitudes concerning trout in order to give a general picture of what is happening in this sector.

The first processing company we visited was a specialist trout processing unit which was set up to market the output of several large trout farms. Roughly 50% of the throughput was sold fresh tin the round' to wholesalers and through fish markets, 33% was sold frozen and the rest was gutted and gilled and sold chilled. They were steadily increasing the proportion of frozen sales but would always retain fresh sales to maintain flexibility. . The fresh trade is able to take the surplus fish during the summer and also large fish which cannot be graded for freezing. Although they have no problem in selling their frozen fish and in fact have more orders than they can fill, they must be very careful not to expand their frozen sales above that which they can maintain throughout the year. Probably the most important factor in this market is regularity of supply and, therefore, sales must be restricted to the quantity of fish being produced during mid-winter. As producers are able to even out their production during the year, so it would be easier for the processor to guarantee and sell a larger proportion of frozen fish. This company sells both one fish• and two fish (12-oz.) packs to supermarkets and a 5-1b. pack for caterers. In the future they may also sell a 2-1b. pack to frozen food centres. Given that most of their customers are experiencing sales growth and also that they are receiving enquiries from new customers, this particular processing company felt optimistic about their future sales. One interesting point to make is that one of the advantages of frozen trout is that it can be stored, but this company stated that this was -52--

not a viable policy for them.

The second processing company was a much larger concern dealing primarily with caught fish but also with. other frozen food products. They had been marketing trout for many years and had experienced a substantial increase in sales in recent times. Approximately 700 of their trout is taken by the catering industry, most of the remainder being sold through home-freezer centres. They also sell some pink- fleshed trout which they import from Norway. Although they were concerned that rising costs of transport might affect the restaurant trade they were confident that an increase in retail trade would more than compensate for this. Their main concern was that of educating the public to eat whole fish again. They believe that not only have people lost the art of cooking fish but also they do not know how to eat whole fish and consequently are disappointed when they find it very bony. Thus on their packaging they explain how to tackle a trout as well as giving serving suggestions. This educational need applies to those who eat out as well as those who eat at home.

A third frozen food company was visited which dealt mainly in those products which they could ladd value' to like vegetables and fish fingers. Rainbow trout does not really fit into this pattern but they had been selling it since the early 1970s. They obtained their trout already frozen .and packaged from abroad and supplied both retail and catering packs. They had to a large extent priced themselves out of the market and sales had declined in recent years. They continued to supply trout because it was a complementary product to prawns and plaice and also because they hoped to ,gain from any national increase in demand. Despite the fall in their trout sales they were not planning any major policy changes to avert this trend.

The two supermarkets visited both started selling frozen trout in 1976 and despite small initial sales, trout was now a successful and established product for both companies. The most interesting point to emerge was their different policies with regard to the size of retail pack. Whereas the one supermarket chain had started with one fish per box and had switched to two fish per box, the other had started with a two fish box and switched to a one fish box. The former now sold a 12-oz. two fish pack retailing at £1.19 in the summer of 1979. Whilst they recognised that a 6-oz. fish was not necessarily the best type of fish to eat (that is rather bony), they believed that this was a very good unit price. A larger pack of, say,- 2-x 8-oz. fish would have to retail at g1.150-k£1.60 and they thought that this would be unsuccessful. The other supermarket had changed from a two fish to a one fish pack because of customer complaints that the two fish were not of equal size and this made meal presentation difficult. The processing company was happy to supply one fish packs because this made fish grading much easier. Both supermarkets were now satisfied with the level of frozen trout sales and the one company in particular anticipated rising sales. Also both were interested in the possibility of selling fresh or chilled trout. It is recognised in the trade that there is often a much greater turnover in chilled products compared to ,frozen products.

Finally, we contacted two home-freezer chains. They both sold a 12-oz. two fish pack and one of the chains also sold a 2-113. catering pack. The latter sold trout through over 150 outlets and because of this required large and regular supplies of frozen trout. In the past they had bought abroad for price reasons and also because they needed continuity of supply, but.in the future they might well look more to the home market for supplies. Each product has to achieve a certain rate of turnover to justify its cabinet space and trout had proved to be successful on this criterion. Although trout represented only a minute proportion of total sales it was a useful product to sell and they expected sales to increase slightly. Similarly, the other company had experienced a slight increase in sales in recent months although trout was still .a very insignificant product in terms of turnover.

The overall impression gained from these visits is that frozen trout has established itself as a profitable item in supermarkets ,and freezer centres. Moreover, the steady, if unspectacular, growth during the past two years seems to have given those .involved a certain degree of confidence for the future. The importance of attractive packaging was often stressed and after some initial changes most retailers are now well satisfied with what is currently available. It was also emphasised that sales are determined by 'value' which is the best combination of price and quality. Thus, although trout is regarded as an 'up-market' product the unit price is very important. -54—

CONSUMER STUDIES

Despite the increasing awareness of the importance of marketing for the future development of fish farming in Great Britain, there has been little research undertaken in order to provide the necessary data for informed decision making. For instance, prior to 1977 there had been no research undertaken in the field of consumer attitudes towards trout. However, an increasing number of people are now engaged in research concerning some aspect of fish farming and in 1977 and 1978 three studies were completed which examined consumer attitudes and buyer behaviour towards trout. These studies were carried out by students as partial fulfilment of their degree or diploma courses and such projects are primarily undertaken in order to test the students' ability with the consequence that the collection of data is often of secondary importance. Thus this type of research has obvious limitations particularly where the use of small samples raises questions concerning the general validity of the results. Nevertheless, the information obtained from these three studies represents all the available data, to date, in this particular area. Moreover, if these students had not independently chosen such original and relevant research topics even this information would not be available.

The first survey (see Fish Farmer 2 (3) p.52) presented the results of a questionnaire completed by 100 housewives in S.E. London. Of 26 different species of fish consumed in the home trout came equal tenth in order of popularity alongside such fish as skater sole and. smoked haddock. The most popular species were the traditional cod, plaice and haddock, followed by kipper, salmon, dog-fish, mackerel and shell-fish. Twenty-nine housewives had purchased trout on at least one occasion. The main reasons given for not buying trout were as follows: it was too expensive (37%); it was not liked (20%); it was not known (14%) or it had not been tried (17%). A very small percentage of non-buyers gave the following reasons: it was too bony; it was difficult to cook and it was a restaurant fish only. The survey also confirmed the increasing importance of frozen and convenience fish and the preference for filleted fish compared to whole fish. Forty-two of the housewives objected in principle to intensive fish farming, but it was felt that this did not affect their choice of fish, especially since nearly 85% did not realise that trout was farmed. ...55..

The second survey to be completed was that done by White (see bibliography) in Stirling in 1978. The objectives of this study were to examine fish eating habits with particular emphasis on trout. The aim was to determine whether the purchase of trout fitted in with general eating habits or varied with demographic characteristics. The reasons for non-buying of trout were also examined. Although 100 housewives were visited in their homes a response rate of 74%; was obtained and, therefore, the results relate to only 74 completed questionnaires. The most interesting result to emerge was that although only 11% of those interviewed bought trout (8 out of 74), a large number were given trout by fishermen in the family or friends (45 out of 74 or 61%). This atypical result illustrates the point that trout produced for sporting purposes is eventually consumed and, therefore, should be included in the consumption figures for trout. The survey also showed a very different pattern of fish consumption in the home with haddock and smoked haddock being the two most important species consumed. (Cod and plaice were relatively low on the list in terms of popularity of fish consumed.) Although one might question some of the figures obtained from this small sample, it is true that there are regional differences in the consumption of fish and this might well be important for the future marketing of trout.

In the Stirling survey the main, reasons given for not buying trout were that it was too expensive (32a, the housewives 'never thought' to buy trout (28%) or they were given trout (17g). Other reasons given were that it takes too- long to prepare trout (0), the family do not like it (7%) or that it was not available (0). The majority of respondents said they knew how to gut. and cook trout and, therefore, this would not be a major reason for non-buying of trout, but a considerable number stated that they would prefer hot to- gut trout and so this could be an inhibiting factor to trout sales. Seventeen per cent said that they did not buy trout because they were given it; but it is difficult • to determine the overall effect' of such a large proportion of the sample being given trout. On the negative side 'there are those who would not want to pay for a product they are already receiving free whilst on the positive side many more consumers are- familiar with preparing, cooking and eating trout than would otherwise be the case. The author concluded that the future prognosis for trout sales was not good because. -56—

... the purchase of trout was incompatible with present consumer • eating habits in that it demands more culinary effort and knowledge in its preparation compared with more traditional forms of fish.

in the light of predictions of future trends in changes in consumer habits, i.e. less culinary inclination and knowledge, an increase in the number of wives working, and an increase in the demand for convenience foods, a large increase in trout sales to the levels of those fish forming part of the nation's staple diet is not favoured."

Thus, trout tin the round' was regarded as having only a small segmented market which could only be increased if it was possible to produce trout in a more prepared form such as filleted trout.

The third • study was conducted in the Southampton and Winchester area in 1978 (see Heron in bibliography). The objectives• of the study were to examine the frequency of fish and trout purchasing, to establish the type and size of trout that the housewife preferred, to see whether housewives would be prepared to buy unconventional forms of trout and to assess the degree of awareness concerning the retail price of trout. The survey was relatively large with over 1,000 completed questionnaires and so one can discuss the results with confidence.

Approximately 60%; of those surveyed never purchased trout, 31% purchased trout less than once a month and 9% purchased trout once a month or more. In contrast the figures for fresh fish were 21%, 30 and 45% respectively. Sixty-three per cent of housewives preferred their trout fresh, cleaned and gutted, 13.6% fresh and ungutted, 200 frozen and 9% smoked. (The percentage figures add up to over 100 because several people answered more than once to the choices offered.) With regard to size of trout, 44% preferred 8-oz., 37% one pound and 21% over two pounds. Whilst 37% said they would not buy novel forms of trout, 45% were prepared to buy filleted trout, 18% would buy trout steaks and 0 would buy trout 13a-6e. Thus the results confirm that there is a demand for larger trout and also that there are consumers who will be prepared to try novel forms of trout. Unfortunately, the results give no indication of the prices that could be charged for different sizes and forms of trout. Another result was that those who did not purchase trout thought that the price was much higher than it actually was and the author suggested that if the actual price .was more widely known then more people would be encouraged to buy. The results of the other two surveys would seem to support this because those who did not buy trout as they thought it was too expensive may well have believed that trout, was more ..expensive than it actually is. More research is needed in this area of consumer attitudes towards trout, particularly with regard to the factors determining the decision whether.or: not to purchase. The influence of price, whether imagined or actual, is one such factor. that needs further investigation. -58—

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS

This study has set out to provide up—to—date information on the production and marketing of trout in Great Britain. The high level of co—operation obtained from those involved in, or associated with, the industry is one indication of the highly relevant nature of this type of study. Hitherto, there has been relatively little research undertaken into the economic aspects of fish farming — either its production or marketing — and, whilst this may have been justifiable in the past, given the relatively small size of the industry, this situation can hardly be justified from now on. As the industry expands there will be an increasing need for the provision of data which will enable producers to market their output as effectively as possible. The essential requirement will be for information on production and marketing trends but other research will also be required. For instance, research into the consumer acceptability of new products would be highly relevant to the problem of increasing trout consumption. As will be pointed out below, the marketing of trout is an increasingly complex activity and whilst there are encouraging signs in the market, there are also some underlying difficulties to be overcome.

Our results have shown substantial increases in United Kingdom output of trout from a level of 1,300 tonnes in 1974 to a current output of 4,665 tonnes in 1979. Furthermore, considerable increases in output are anticipated and our survey indicated a projected output for Great Britain of 7,440 tonnes for 1981. Whilst we are confident that the historical figures presented in this report are accurate, we would like to add a cautionary note with regard to future estimated output. It is well known that producers' plans are not always fulfilled or are completed over ,a longer time span than anticipated. Thus, whilst substantial increases in production will occur over the next few years, we would not want to state categorically what these increases might be. Nevertheless, at present rates of expansion trout output could be somewhere in the order of 10,000 tonnes by the mid-1980s. Approximately two—thirds of this output will be produced in England and Wales and one—third in Scotland. Thus, whereas it was previously anticipated that Scotland would soon be producing an equivalent output to that of England and Wales, it is now apparent -59--

that this will not be the case. For instance, only one-quarter of recently established farms were located in Scotland although their average projected size was higher than that of English and Welsh new entrants.

Our examination of those farms that have recently been established highlighted the continuing importance of the small, family-type unit with 62% of such farms planning an annual output of 20 tonnes or less. This illustrates the wellknown fact that there is a lack of suitable natural sites for large fish farming operations. Similarly, it is the availability of water that is the major constraint which prevents existing farms from expanding their output. Nevertheless, an interesting development in recent years has been the use of gravel-pit lakes for trout farming and, assuming that the management problems are overcome, this represents a potential growth area in the future. Whilst the characteristics of the site were the main determinants of the size of output, the rate of expansion was determined by the availability of capital and, to a lesser extent, the marketing strategy.

The results relating to the seasonality of production are encouraging and show that many producers do recognise the importance of producing a constant output throughout the year. Whilst it is. probable that another very dry period like that of the summer of.1976 would lead to dumping of fish and consequently market disruption, one can now be reasonably confident that such problems are not an inevitable occurrence in a normal year. Another change that has occurred at the farm level is the increased size of fish portions, this being a response to market demands.

When producers were asked what marketing changes they were anticipating making in the future, the most common response was that they hoped to increase their local sales. . This trend takes on a special significance when we remember the declining number of fishmonger shops, particularly in rural areas. The decline in fishmonger shops is detrimental to the trout market because it reduces the number of potential fresh trout outlets. However, it was pointed out that this decline has slowed down considerably and it was also noted that a number of supermarket chains are now interested in selling fresh fish. Thus, despite the increasing preference for frozen convenience products, one can be reasonably confident that a retail market for fresh fish will -60-

continue to exist in the future. Moreover, fresh trout competes very well in this market. Fresh trout is also a particularly good product for the restaurateur and it is anticipated that restaurant sales of trout will increase in the next few years. Trout has become popular in this trade in recent years because it is versatile, it has been relatively low priced, and it has exhibited considerable price stability. One very important element in ensuring increased restaurant sales of trout will be whether the restaurateur obtains the exact type and quality of fish he requires. There was some evidence to suggest that this does not always occur and it is vital that the marketing chain transfers relevant information to the producer. This is not necessarily easy to achieve because the situation is complicated by the fact that different types of restaurants have different requirements. Thus, sup-markett restaurants are now specialising in larger, pink-fleshed trout, whilst those restaurants aiming for the mass market prefer the smaller, more traditional portion sizes. One way of ensuring that requirements are met is for the producer to sell direct to the restaurateur, but this is only feasible for the smaller producers and even then is not always satisfactory.

Whilst-we would want to emphasise the continuing role of fresh trout sales, it is undoubtedly true that the future development of the market will depend to a large extent on what happens in the frozen trout sector. Frozen trout has now proved itself as a.viable product in many supermarkets and freezer centres. Moreover, those involved in this sector. anticipate gradually rising sales in the next few years. But there is a question mark over whether the output of home produced frozen trout will grow to meet such an increased demand. This will depend on the availability of processing and freezing facilities which cannot be justified on the majority of farms. This is because the provision of such facilities is expensive and it remains to be seen who will provide the capital for such investment. There are several possibilities. It might be that as more and more producers appreciate the advantages of the frozen trout market there will be co-operative ventures in processing and freezing facilities. Given the lack of interest in co-operation it is more likely that producers will link up with the frozen food manufacturers who will carry out the processing function. Also, the large companies directly involved in fish farming may have access to ample internal funds and, therefore, they could construct their own processing and freezing facilities. Moreover, they would probably seek to process more trout than they could produce and, therefore, would buy-in trout from other producers. What is certain is that the capacity to freeze hone produced trout must increase in order to meet the demands of the market.

In the previous chapter we noted how consumption had increased fairly modestly up to 1978 and then increased considerably in 1979. It was also shown that both producer and retail prices for trout remained firm throughout 1979. To what extent this rise in consumption and these prices are attributable to the modest promotion campaign that has been undertaken in recant years is impossible to calculate. But, what is certain, is that, given the sort of increases in output that are likely to occur in the next few years, such promotion and advertising will become more and more necessary in order to expand the market. 'Whilst we believe that there are reasonable grounds for optimism in both the fresh and frozen trout sectors, this does not mean that expansion of the local market will occur automatically. Whilst it is not difficult to list the advantages of trout (versatility, stable price, standard size, etc.), one also has to take into account the generally low level of consumption of fish in the U.K. Many housewives are reluctant to prepare and cook whole fish and, in any case, there is an increasing demand for convenience foods. Thus, in the fresh trout sector, there is a need for culinary education and in the frozen sector the industry will have to ensure that the housewife is aware of the existence of frozen trout and that it represents value for money. The demands of the different sectors of the trout market are such that they require different advertising and promotion packages. One not only has to differentiate between the fresh and frozen sector but also within the fresh sector. For instance, to retain the custom of both the 'up- market' restaurants and the 'mass market' restaurants one could not afford to promote one brand image that did not appeal to either. In the future trout advertising may well have to consist of both a general awareness campaign directed at the consumer and more specific advertising directed at the retailers and restaurateurs. This would be one way of ensuring that the right image for trout was promoted in each of the different sectors of the market.

Fish occupies a very secondary position in the market compared to other foods. In the past trout producers have been able to market all of their output, but in the future, with the prospect of continuing increases in production, it will become more and more necessary to establish and develop orderly and efficient marketing methods. -63—

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Annnerham, J.R. 1974 Consumer attitudes towards channel catfish in Proceedings of Fourth Annual Catfish Processors Workshop, ed. by J. C. Wilson.

Angel, L.J. and 1978 The Nation's Food — 40 years of change. Hurdle, G.E. Economic Trends, April, p.97-101.

Anon. 1970 Special Report No. 4. Fresh Fish — Retail Business 146, April, p.46-56.

Anon. 1970 Special Report No. 4. Frozen Fish — Retail Business 148, June, p.41-46.

Anon. 1971 Production and Marketing of Catfish in the Tennessee Valley. Conference Proceedings, Jane 30th.July 1st.

Anon. 1976 In search of substitutes for cod. British Food Journal, September/ October, p.139 and 148.

Anon. 1977 Special Report No. 2. The Retail Market for Fresh Fish. Retail Business 234, August, p.28-39.

Anon. 1978 Aquaculture in the United States — Constraints and Opportunities. Report of a Committee to the U.S. Senate. National Academy of Sciences. Washington D.C. 123 pp.

Anon. 1979 Fresh or Frozen — a detailed examina— tion of the facts, figures and background of this rapidly changing area of food supply. British Food Journal, March/April, p.50-51.

Anon. 1979 In search of the ideal fish. Fish Farmer 2 (3), p.53.

Anon. 1979 Producers must aim for continuity of supply. Fish Farmer 2 (2), p.57.

Bateman, M. 1976 Finding a market for your trout. Two Lakes Eighth Fishery. Management Training Course Report. Published by Jansen, p.183-188.

Camden Food Preservation 1978 U.K. Trade Exports in Fresh, Preserved Research Association and Semi—Preserved Meat, Poultry, Fish, Milk, Cream, Butter and Cheese for the period 1st January-31st December, 1977. Part 11 of the 1978 issue of the Statistical Review of the U.K. Food Industry. Camden Food Preservation 1978 U.K. Trade Imports in Fresh, Preserved Research Association and Semi-Preserved Meat, Poultry, Fish, Milk, Cream, Butter and Cheese for the period 1st January-31st December, 1977. Part IV of the 1978 issue of the Statistical Review of the U.K. Food Industry.

Cross, D.G. 1974 Freshwater fish as food in the E.B.C. Journal of the Institute of Fisheries Management 5 (4), P.96-100..

Davies, R. 1978 'Phone-in discovers the local market outlets. Fish Farmer 2 (1), p.I2-13.

D,oesburg, J.J. 1978 The future of fish: including species under-utilised at present, for human consumption. Marine Policy 2 (2)1 p.154-156.

Erickson J.E. 1970 Methods for calculating• civilian per capita consumption of fresh and frozen shell-fish. Working Paper No. 144. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Division of Economic Resources.

Erkins, B. 1972 Bob Brans talks trout marketing. Fish Farming Industries, April and June.'

Frost and Sullivan Inc. 1977 Report 478 - The Fish Farming Market (U.S.A.). .Available from 106 Fulton Street, New York, or 104-112 Marylebone Lane, London.

Griffiths, E.J. 1976 Is there more room for fish in the housewife's shopping basket? Report Paper No. 6, Fish Expo. 1976, Melbourne. Australian Government Service.

Hare, D.J. 1974 A new market for trout farmers in Two Lakes Sixth Fishery Management Training Course Report. Published by Jansen, p.170-177.

Heron, N. 1978 The importance of research and development of trout marketing in Britain. Diploma in Fish Farming and Fisheries Management. Hampshire College of Agriculture.

House of Commons 1978 Fifth Report from the Expenditure Committee - The Fishing Industry, Vol. I-IV, H.M.S.O.

House of Commons 1978 Fisheries Research and Development Board Third Report, H.M.S.°.

Keay, J.N. and Hardy, R. 1978 Fish as food - part 1 : The fisheries resource and its utilisation. Process Biochemistry. July, p.2-4. -65—

Keay, J.N. and Hardy? R. 1978 Fish as food — part 2 : New methods of processing for maximal utilisation of the fisheries resource. Process Biochemistry. August, p.20, 21 and 28.

Lackington„ P.S. 1978 Marketing of farmed fish in Proceed— ings of Conference on Fish Farming and Wastes. 4-5 January, 1978. Ed. by C.M.R. Pastakia.

Lewis, M.R. 1979 Fish farming in Great Britain — an economic survey with special reference to Rainbow trout. Miscellaneous Study No. 67, University of Reading, 74pp,

McAnuff, 1979 Towards a strategy for fish farming in the U.K. Food Policy. August, p.178-193.

Mull, W.C. and Fair, A.J. 1970 Selected aspects of the market demand for rainbow trout in Atlanta and N.E. Georgia. University G.A. W.C.C. Business Administration, 9pp.

Nash, C.E. 1979 Structure of U.S. Aquaculture — developments in politics, organisation and research. Food Policy. August, p.204-215.

Nichols, J.P. and 1971 A. marketing system — the step beyond La,cewell, R.D. production. American Fish Farmer 2 (5), p.18-20.

1977 Aquaculture Plan prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and Office of Sea Grant. Ed. by J. B. Glude, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 41pp,

Parker, R.G.B. 1979 Fish farming in Europe — commercial and political dimensions. Food Policy. August, p.194-203.

Pippin, K. and 1975 Retail Market Potential for Farm— Morrison, W.R. Cultured Catfish. Agricultural Experimental Station. Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, U.S.A. Bulletin 799, 22pp.

Price Commission 1976 Prices and Margins in the Distribution of Fish. Report No. 14. H.M.S.°. 32pp.

Rawitscher, M.' and 1979 Research report — energy requirements Mayer, J. of mechanised agriculture. Food Policy. August, p.216-218. -66--

Rawlerson, R.C. and 1973 Demand for farm-raised channel catfish Trotter, WX, in supermarkets - analysis of a selected market. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service Marketing Research Report No. 993. 21PP.

Ronsivalli, L.J. 1976 The role of fish in meeting the world's food needs. Marine Fisheries Review, a (6), p.I-3.

Sedgewick, S.D. 1978 The future for the U.K. freshwater fish farming industry - the way ahead. R.A.S.E. Conference, Fish Farming in Perspective, 12th December.

Sedgewidk, S.D., 1979 Frozen trout give producers a flexible Wallace, Morray market. Fish Farmer 2 (3), p.7.

Shearer, C.L. 1978 The Future of Trout Farming in Great Britain. Unpublished honours degree thesis in Commerce 1977/78. University of Edinburgh.

Shepherd, C.J. 1978 Aquaculture: some current problems and the way ahead. Proceedings of Royal Society of Edinburgh, :ai B, p.215-222.

Smith, P. 1978 Trout farming for food production, R.A.S.E. Conference.

Sutherland, R. 1979 The potential for fish farming as an ancillary farm enterprise. North of Scotland College of Agriculture Farm Management Review No. 12. May, p.15-19.

Wagner, L.C. 1972 an Evaluation of the Market for pan sized Salmon. Washington University. Seattle. Graduate School of Business Administration N . 73100403. 55pp.

Weir, .Lnne 1979 Aggressive efforts needed to halt decline in sales. Fish Farmer 2 (2), p.56.

Weir, _Anne 1979 Trout makes little impact on housewife. Fish Farmer 2 (3), p.52.

White Fish Authority 1971-1978 Fish Retailer Purchase Study Reports.

White, S.J. 1978 11Survey of Consumer Fish Eating Habits in Stirling Burgh. M.Sc. Technolog- ical Economics, Stirling University.

Young, T. 1977 A Study of the Demand for Fish in the United Kingdom. University of Manchester, Department of Agricultural Economics. Bulletin 158. 77PP. APPENDIX

••

Table 1 Distribution of table trout according to market outlets in 1979

Local hotels Farm gate Local retail Wholesale Total and restaurants

England and Wales tonnes 5/7 tonnes % tonnes cA tonnes $" tonnes

, Anglian 20.4 9.3 49.6 23.8 2.1 1.0 136.5 65.5 208.6 North West 12.7 7.9 30.6 19,1 4.3 2.7 113.0 70.4 160.5 Southern 9.1 1.0 9.3 1.1 . 14.7 1.7 840.9 96,2 874.5 Severn Trent 8.4 19.9 4.7 11.1 8.5 19.9 20.9 49.1 42.5 South Wrest 10.3 12.3 42.6 51.0 9.4 11.3 21.2 25.4 83.5 Thames 112.9 33.5 101.5 30.1 33.9 16.0 89.0 26.4 337.3 . Wales 9.3 22.0 10.6 25.3 0.8 1.9 21.3 50.7 42.0 Wessex 654 13.2 21.4 4.3 14.3 2.9 393.0 79.6 493.8 Yorkshire 11.6 1.9 2.5 0.4 14.8 2.4 587.2 95.3 616.0 Isle of Man ------35.0 100.0 35.0

TOTAL 259.8 9.0 273.3 9.4 102.3 3.6 2,258,0 78.0 2,893.7

Scotland 34.0 . 3.1 72.0 6.6 63,5 5.8 917.4 84.4 1,086.9

Great Britain 293.8 7.4 345.3 8.7 166.3 4.2 3,175.4 79.8 3,980.6

Table 2 Classification of market outlets used according to'size of production in 1979

Size of output Hotels and Local No. of farms N Farm gate Wholesale in (tonnes per annum) restaurants retail each category

No. Y No. % No. ri.;' No. %

0-10 51 75 52 76 35 51 28 41 .68 , 11-20 9 56 10 62 7 44 7 44 16 21-50 17 •63 13 67 9 33 26 96 * 27 51-100 6 60 8 80 7 70 10 100 10 101+ 2 33 1 17 1 17 6 100 6

All Farms 85 67 89 71 59 46 77 61 127 -68-

Table 3 Pattern of monthly trout sales according to size of farm in 1979

Size category Jan./Feb. Mar./April May/June July/Aug. Sept./Oct. Nov./Dec. Total in tonnes p.a.

0-10 tonnes 21.9 36.0 57.7 84.2 55.9 31.7 287.6 5; 7.6 12.5 20.1 29.3 19.4 11.0 100.0

11-20 tonnes 24.3 36.8 57.0 51.1 42.2 28.6 240.0 10.1 15.3 23.7 21.3 17.6 11.9 100.0

21-50 tonnes 89.1 105.8 166.4 180.2 183.2 123.1 847.8 5 10.5 12.5 19.6 21.3 ' 21.6 14.5 100.0

51-100 tonnes 89.1 102.2 141.3 184.7 205.3 122.4 845.0 or P 10.5 12.1 16.7 21.9 24.3 14.5 100.0.

101+ tonnes 240.6 215.4 270.0 292.1 378.3 261.6 1,658.0 5; 14.5 13.0 16.3 17.6 22.8 15.8 100.0

, All sizes tonnes 465.0 496.2 692.3 792.3 864.9 567.6 3,878.4 5; 12.0 12.8 17.9 20.4 22.3 14.6 100.0

Table 4 Estimates of apparent* U.K. human consumption of marine fish by retail outlet '000 metric tons (landeLualatLtgaizalaai)-

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

Fish Mongers/6 156 149 159 157 157 Fish Friers 157 178 166 139 146 Supermarkets** ) ( 93 96 100 ) Freezer Centres** 116 127 (,44 46 50 ) Other Retail Cabinets** ) (19 20 . 21 Other Outlets+ 426 398 378 350 311

TOTAL 355 852 859 807 785

* Landings bought for U.K. human consumption plus imports intended for human consumption minus exports intended for human consumption plus or minus the net change in stock of quick frozen white fish. Excludes shellfish ** Frozen fish only Includes schools, prisons, staff canteens, restaurants, snack bars, grocer-mongers, mobiles, meals-on-wheels. Source: White Fish Authority I.

ISBN 0 7049 0688 0