ARCHIVAL WEBSITE
You are viewing the archived website of Pond Dynamics / Aquaculture CRSP. When using this website, please understand that links may be broken and content may be out of date. You can view more information on the continuation of PD/A CRSP research archived at AquaFish Innovation Lab.
Marketing and Economic Analysis Research
PD/A CRSP Nineteenth Annual Administrative Report

Previous Section Table of Contents Next Section

Research Projects
Marketing and Economic Analysis Research

Subcontract No. RD010A-01

Staff
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Arkansas

Carole Engle US Principal Investigator
Siddhartha DasguptaUS Principal Investigator (through December 2001)
Ivano NeiraGraduate Research Assistant (Peru; CRSP funded)
Diony MonestimeUndergraduate Student (Haiti; from July 2000)
Nelson Omar Funez FloresUndergraduate Student (Honduras; from September 2000)


Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand

Harvey Demaine Host Country Principal Investigator


Escuela Agrícola Panamericana El Zamorano, Honduras

Daniel Meyer Host Country Principal Investigator

Background

The Continuation Plan 1996 envisioned a broader involvement of social scientists in the PD/A CRSP. The intended impact of CRSP research is greater economic and social returns to farmers who adopt CRSP-developed technologies. Quantifying those returns was one goal of Ninth Work Plan research. Reaching a better understanding of risk and farmers' perception of risk is valuable in order to develop and encourage the adoption of technologies was the focus of one Ninth Work Plan investigation. As production increases as a result of CRSP research, markets must be developed to keep pace with increasing supply. The development of domestic markets for tilapia in Honduras and Nicaragua was the focus of another investigation.

Work Plan Research

The following Ninth Work Plan investigations continued into the current reporting period:

Note: The schedules for 9MEAR3 and 9MEAR4 were modified. The revised schedules will appear in the Second Addendum to the Ninth Work Plan.

Networking

Engle has been corresponding electronically with Harvey Demaine of AIT in Thailand throughout the period; they have been collecting data and are awaiting additional input from the field.

As a result of her CRSP work, Engle was invited to participate in a proposal that is being submitted to the National Research Initiative on evaluating impacts of 1890 research in the US. 1890 extension programs and research, which are based at historically black colleges and universities, carry scientific knowledge of agriculture, resource management, human development, and technology to farmers and urban residents.

CRSP researchers conducted surveys in Nicaragua in August and September 2000. During this period, they had contact with Agnes Saborio, David Hughes, Aldo Gutierrez, and several farmers to obtain background information and implement the survey. These contacts have continued via email since the trip to Nicaragua.

Engle received several email requests for information on tilapia markets in Central America and a number of information requests during the trip for a USDA training program regarding research conducted under the CRSP.

The CRSP researchers were invited to write a series of six articles for the Global Aquaculture Advocate regarding the six Nicaragua and Honduras surveys conducted under the CRSP project. They also submitted two articles to Panorama Acuícola about the marketing survey results.

Educational Outreach

Engle and Valderrama were invited by USDA to participate in training programs in Honduras and Nicaragua. They visited with USDA personnel at the USAID mission and met other mission personnel. The training programs included host country scientists, government officials, extension agents, and shrimp-farming cooperatives. Engle and Valderrama co-authored a training manual based on CRSP-funded project results that is being published by the USDA training project. The manual, titled "Shrimp Farm Business Management and Economics: A Training Manual," is being published in English and in Spanish.

Engle used her Honduras shrimp industry work as the basis for a case study in a UAPB class on aquaculture economics and marketing, as well as CRSP-related shrimp budgets, risk analysis, and a mathematical programming model in a course module on analytical techniques.

Publications

Dasgupta, S. and C.R. Engle, 2000. Non-parametric estimation of returns to investment in Honduras shrimp research. Aquaculture Economics and Marketing, 4(3–4):141–156.
Fúnez, O., I. Neira, and C. Engle, 2001. Honduras survey: 50% of supermarkets to sell tilapia. Global Aquaculture Advocate, 4(2):89.
Neira, I., O. Fúnez, and C. Engle, 2001. Honduras survey shows potential for tilapia. Global Aquaculture Advocate, 4(1):86.
Valderrama, D. and C. Engle. 2001. Risk analysis of shrimp farming in Honduras. Aquaculture Economics and Marketing, 5(1–2):49–48.
Valderrama, D. and C.R. Engle, 2001. Efectos en la rentabilidad y las estrategias de manejo de las fincas en Honduras, por las tasa de sobrevivencia del camarón blanco. Panorama Acuícola, 6(4):40–41.
Valderrama, D. and C.R. Engle. The effect of survival rates of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei on net farm income and optimal management strategies of Honduras shrimp farms. Aquaculture. (submitted)

Presentations

Neira, I. and C. Engle. The Honduran market for tilapia: Restaurant and supermarket surveys. Presented to Aquaculture America 2001 at Orlando, Florida, 21–25 January 2001.
Valderrama, D. and C.R. Engle. The effect of survival rates of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei on net farm income and optimal management strategies of Honduran shrimp farms. Presented to Aquaculture America 2001 at Orlando, Florida, 21–25 January 2001.

Conferences

Aquaculture America 2001 at Orlando, Florida, 21–25 January 2001. (Engle, Neira, Valderrama)
PD/A CRSP Annual Meeting at Orlando, Florida, 26 January 2001. (Engle, Neira, Valderrama)

Development of Central American Markets for Tilapia Produced in the Region

Ninth Work Plan, Marketing and Economic Analysis Research 3 (9MEAR3)
Final Report

Carole R. Engle, Ivano Neira, Nelson Omar Fúnez, and Diony Monestime
Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
Pine Bluff, Arkansas, USA

Abstract

Domestic markets for farm-raised tilapia could reduce market risk by providing alternative market outlets. Surveys of restaurants, supermarkets, and fish markets were conducted in Honduras and in Nicaragua between 1999 and 2000. Tilapia was well known in both countries. Wild-caught tilapia was sold by a majority of fish market vendors in both countries. Market penetration of tilapia products was greater in Honduras than in Nicaragua. In Honduras 40% of supermarkets and 30% of restaurants sold tilapia compared to 21% of restaurants and 26% of supermarkets that sold tilapia in Nicaragua. Both restaurants and supermarkets in both countries indicated that tilapia sales had increased over the previous year. Half of respondents who were not selling tilapia indicated that they were likely to begin selling tilapia the next year. In Honduras the primary reasons for not selling tilapia were availability problems, lack of demand, and freshness. In Nicaragua, however, the fear on the part of consumers that freshwater fish may be from Lake Managua and may be contaminated was a major constraint to tilapia sales. Marketing strategies in Honduras could focus on sales of whole-dressed tilapia to larger chain supermarkets with specialized fish sections and to international and middle-high income clients. In-store demonstrations, samples, and point-of-purchase information should be used to increase demand. Restaurant sales in both countries could likely be enhanced through catch-of-the-day promotions in upscale restaurants that feature product information supplied by tilapia growers. Fish markets in both countries and supermarkets in Nicaragua do not appear to be viable market outlets because wholesale tilapia prices appear to be too low for farm-raised products.

Economic and Social Returns to Technology and Investment in Thailand

Ninth Work Plan, Marketing and Economic Analysis Research 4 (9MEAR4)
Final Report

Carole R. Engle
Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
Pine Bluff, Arkansas, USA

Harvey Demaine
Aquaculture and Aquatic Resources Management
Asian Institute of Technology
Pathumthani, Thailand

Siddhartha Dasgupta
Aquaculture Research Center
Kentucky State University
Frankfort, Kentucky, USA

Abstract

Thailand has a long and rich history of aquaculture production. The Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture Collaborative Research Support Program (PD/A CRSP) has been involved in fish production research in Thailand since 1983. The economic impact of new technologies will depend upon farm-level benefits of the new technologies. However, if the new technologies require resources at a level not readily available to farmers, then the overall adoption rates and economic impacts will be lower. This study compares three aquaculture production technologies in Thailand with a fertilization technology developed by the PD/A CRSP to evaluate the farm-level economic impacts. Enterprise budgets were developed for each production technology. Price and cost data used in the analysis were pre-1998 data. These were used to formulate a whole-farm mathematical programming model. Farm resource levels specified in the model were based on survey data of small-scale fish farmers in northeastern Thailand. The production technologies evaluated included an extensive polyculture system that included tilapia, a more intensive polyculture of herbivorous fish including tilapia, monoculture of sex-reversed tilapia, and production of hybrid catfish. The enterprise budget analysis indicated that profits were highest for the tilapia monoculture system, second highest for the hybrid catfish production system, third highest for the more intensive polyculture system, and lowest for the extensive polyculture system. However, total annual costs were highest for hybrid catfish production, followed in descending order by tilapia monoculture and more intensive polyculture, and were lowest for the extensive polyculture system. The majority of the costs of catfish production were for the feed, whereas feed, fry, and fertilizer costs were the most important cost categories for tilapia monoculture production. Urea and triple superphosphate (TSP) costs were most important for the more intensive polyculture system, whereas manure was the greatest cost for extensive polyculture production. Results of the whole-farm mathematical programming analysis showed that if adequate resources exist on the farm, the optimal production mix is to stock all ponds in tilapia monoculture in order to maximize profits. However, when the model was constrained to the level of resources typically available on farms in northeastern Thailand, four of five ponds would be stocked in the extensive polyculture system with only one pond stocked in tilapia monoculture. Parametric analyses indicated that operating capital was the key limiting factor and constraint. Net returns increased dramatically as operating capital levels increased and the mix of production technologies moved more towards the more profitable tilapia monoculture production. The technologies were not labor intensive and the availability of labor did not change the mix of production activities, even at very low levels of labor. Yield of monosex tilapia production was also a key factor. The analysis indicated that a yield of 4,000 kg ha-1 constituted a threshold below which the production mix excluded tilapia monoculture and substituted the more intensive polyculture system. The price analysis showed that, if tilapia prices fell to Baht 27 kg-1, the production mix would switch to the more intensive polyculture from tilapia monoculture. Feed and fertilizer prices, even at four times the level identified from the survey, did not affect the choice of production technology. Hybrid catfish production would only enter the mix if extremely high levels of operating capital were available and if the price of catfish were at least Baht 29 kg-1.


Previous Section Table of Contents Next Section