FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 79. NO 2 



Table 4. — Foreign catches from western Alaska waters during 1977 and 1978. Source: 



Smith and Hadlev itext footnote 13). 



i6r 



14 



w 12 



a 

 o 

 2 10 



ia 



(/5 6 



CO 



UJ 



> 



*< A 



5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

 CATCH RATE t per day on grounds 



45 50 



Figure 2. — Break-even price versus catch rate for vessel t3rpe 1, 

 delivering to a floating processor (solid) and delivering to a 

 shore-based processor 75 nmi from the fishing grounds (dashed). 

 Dotted lines indicate required ex-vessel prices for a catch rate of 

 10 t/d. 



0) 



a. 



O 

 O 



lij 



o 



oc 

 a 



CO 



X 



5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

 CATCH RATE t per day on grounds 



45 50 



Figure 3. — Break-even price versus catch rate for vessel type 2. 

 delivering to a floating processor (solid) and delivering to a 

 shore-based processor 75 nmi from the fishing grounds i dashed). 

 Dotted lines indicate required ex-vessel prices for a catch rate of 



10 t/d. 



which it was found that ex-vessel prices under the 

 sea delivery mode could be 50% less than under 

 the port delivery mode and still yield the same 

 profit to the fisherman. 



Another criterion for comparing harvest 

 methods is the weight of whole fish harvested per 

 volume of diesel fuel consumed, hereafter referred 

 to as the fuel efficiency. At a catch rate of 10 t/d the 

 fuel efficiency for vessel type 1 is 3.2 kg/1 if deliver- 

 ing to port and 4.3 kg/1 if delivering at sea. For 

 vessel type 2 fuel efficiencies at 10 t/d are 4.0 kg/1 

 and 5.5 kg/1 for port and sea delivery modes, re- 

 spectively. Thus, the fuel efficiencies increase by 

 34% (vessel 1) and 36% (vessel 2) under the sea 

 delivery mode. 



If the expected average catch rate is high (> 29 



t/d for vessel 1 or >22 t/d for vessel 2), then the 

 relative advantages of sea delivery increase since 

 the hold capacity becomes limiting under the port 

 delivery mode. 



Comparison of Vessel Types 



Based on the above results, it can be seen that 

 the break-even price required by vessel type 2 is 

 about 49% less than that required by vessel type 1, 

 given the same catch rate. Alternatively, for any 

 given ex-vessel price, the catch rate required by 

 vessel type 1 to cover costs is about twice as high as 

 that for vessel type 2. Furthermore, fuel efficien- 

 cies for the second vessel type are about 28% 

 higher than those of vessel type 1. 



308 



