Economics Aquaculture Feeding

7/30/2019 Economics Aquaculture Feeding

1/219

505

ISSN0429-9345

FAOFISHERIES

TECHNICALPAPER

Economics of aquaculturefeeding practices inselected Asian countries


2/219

Cover photos:

Left top to bottom: Bag feeding method practised in carp farms in Andhra Pradesh, India(courtesy of J.K. Jena). Sea trawlers' bycatch consisting of unwanted small fish, shrimpand squids, mixed with rice bran and minced into a paste to be fed to African catfish raisedin earthen ponds in Phuket, Thailand (courtesy of Wing-Keong Ng). Industrially manufacturedpelleted feed for sutchi catfish, Bangladesh (courtesy of Nesar Ahmed).Right: Sun-drying of farm-made aquafeed in Bangladesh (courtesy of Mohammad R. Hasan).


3/219

Economics of aquaculturefeeding practices inselected Asian countries

Edited byMohammad R. Hasan

Aquaculture Management and Conservation ServiceFisheries and Aquaculture Management DivisionFAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2007

FAOFISHERIES

TECHNICALPAPER

505


4/219

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this informationproduct do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the partof the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning thelegal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specificcompanies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, doesnot imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference toothers of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-5-105874-9

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this informationproduct for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized withoutany prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fullyacknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or othercommercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders.Applications for such permission should be addressed to:ChiefElectronic Publishing Policy and Support BranchCommunication DivisionFAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italyor by e-mail to:[email protected]

FAO 2007


5/219

Prepara h cme

Improved feed management strategy including the use of optimal combinationsof fertilizers, feed ingredients and manufactured feeds has been advocated to be aprioritized area of study for small-scale aquaculture to lower feed cost and to optimizeproduction of aquatic species during different stages of their life cycles. Increasedunderstanding on the economics and cost-benefit analysis of these practices is one ofimportant pre-requisites for development of an improved feed management strategy.With this objective in view, the Aquaculture Management and Conservation Service(FIMA) of the FAO commissioned the implementation of six (6) case studies in

selected countries in Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, The Philippines, Thailand andViet Nam) to have a clear understanding on these practices as a part FIMAs regularwork programme on Study and analysis of feed and nutrients (including fertilizers)for sustainable aquaculture development under the programme entity Monitoring,Management and Conservation of Resources for Aquaculture Development. Inaddition, and as part of the FIMA work programme, a targeted training workshopon Data processing and analysis on the economic and bioeconomic assessments ofaquaculture feeding systems was organized in Bangkok, Thailand, 25 27 April 2006to review and analyze critical issues related to the conduct of appropriate economicassessments of aquaculture feeding systems. The workshop was jointly organized byFIMA of FAO and the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA).

Six country case study reports from Asia and a regional synthesis prepared based

on six country case studies are included in this document. The manuscripts containedin this technical paper were reviewed and technically edited by Mohammad R.Hasan. English editing was done by Mr. Richard Banks and Tim Huntington ofPoseidon. For consistency and conformity, scientific and English common names offish species were used from FishBase (http://www.fishbase.org/home.htm). Most ofthe photographs in the manuscripts were provided by the authors. Where this is notthe case, due acknowledgements are made to the contributor(s).

We acknowledge the contributions of Mr Raymon van Anrooy of FAO, MrPedro B. Bueno of NACA and Dr Md. Ferdous Alam of Bangladesh AgriculturalUniversity for their assistance while initiating the study, organizing the workshopand reviewing some of the manuscripts. Special thanks to Mr Richard Banks of

Poseidon and Mr Ulf N. Wijkstrm for their comments on all the country reports andsynthesis. Much gratitude is due to the case study authors, who faced an enormoustask and showed equally enormous patience with the editors. We acknowledge MsElena Irde for her assistance in word processing, Ms Tina Farmer and Ms FrancoiseSchatto for their assistance in quality control and FAO house style, Ms Elda Longofor layout design and Mr Jose Luis Castilla for general assistance. The publishingand distribution of the document were undertaken by FAO, Rome.

Finally, Mr Jiansan Jia, Service Chief and Dr Rohana P. Subasinghe, Senior FisheryResources Officer (Aquaculture), Aquaculture Management and Conservation Serviceof the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department are gratefully acknowledged forproviding the means, technical advice and moral support to initiate the study and tocomplete the publication.


6/219

v

Abrac

This technical paper provides an analysis of the economic implications of, and thereasons for, adopting various feeding practices for different fish species and aquaculturesystems in Asia. It comprises of six selected country case study reports from Asia(Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam) and an overallsynthesis ending with conclusions and recommendations.

Field survey for the case studies was carried out between 15 October 2005and 14 February 2006 and three hundred and fourty Asian fish farmers wereinterviewed about their fish feeding practices. In India and China selected farmers were

engaged in carp polyculture, in Bangladesh and Viet Nam they raised sutchi catfish(Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) and pangasiid catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmusand Pangasius bocourti) respectively, in Thailand hybrid catfish (Clarias gariepinus x C.macrocephalus). In the Philippines those undertaking polyculture of giant freshwaterprawn and milkfish participated. Prior to the random selection of farmers each nationalgroup of farmers had been stratified according to three broad categories of feedingpractices. These were (i) use of industrially produced pelleted feed (intensive farmers),(ii) use of industrial and farm-made feed mixes (semi-intensive), and (iii) use ofon-farm feeds consisting of a mixture of locally available feed ingredients (traditional/extensive). The 340 respondents represent these three feeding categories in about equalproportions, and include 60 farmers by country with the exception of India in which40 farmers were interviewed.

After completion of the field survey and the preliminary analyses, the researchersinvolved in the case studies met to agree on methods and an outline for country reports.After agreeing on the methodology and outline of the country reports, the authors ofthe case studies, for each feeding strategy and farming system, analyzed demographicfactors (including age and marital status, education and ownership structure), physicalcharacteristics (average number of ponds and average pond size), and other inputfeatures (stocking strategies, feeding practices, types of feed, frequency and intensityof feeding and labour utilization).

The case studies also identified the principal input costs, assessed the economic ratesof return (gross and net margins), returns to labour, land and capital, gross and nettotal factor productivity, break-even prices and production and returns on capital for

each feeding strategy. Problem areas were identified for the different farming systems.A statistical analysis using either regression analysis or the Cobb Douglas productionfunction established the existence, or non-existence, for each feeding strategy of therelationships between aquaculture production and or profit as the dependent variableand a number of independent factors.

Hasan, M.R. (ed.)Economics of aquaculture feeding practices in selected Asian countries.FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 505. Rome, FAO. 2007. 205p.


7/219

v

Ce

Preparation of this document iiiAbstract ivContributors viiAbbreviations and acronyms ix

EConoMiCs of AquACultuRE fEEding PRACtiCEs: A syntHEsis

of CAsE studiEs undERtAkEn in six AsiAn CountRiEs 1WALFREDO R. ROLA AND MOHAMMAD R. HASAN

Summary 1Introduction 3

General approach and methodology 4

Results and discussion 5

Conclusions and recommendations 29

Acknowledgements 31

References 31

EConoMiCs of AquACultuRE fEEding PRACtiCEs: BAnglAdEsH 33NESAR AHMED

Summary 33

Introduction 34



Conclusions 62

Acknowledgements 63

References 63

EConoMiCs of AquACultuRE fEEding PRACtiCEs: CHinA 65

XINHUA YUANSummary 65

Introduction 66



Profit model and efficiency analysis 92


Acknowledgements 96

References 96

EConoMiCs of AquACultuRE fEEding PRACtiCEs: PunjAB, indiA 99MANOJIT DEBNATH, M.C. NANDEESHA, ABHIJIT PAUL,MANIDIP ROY, ASHA DHAWAN AND P. E. VIJAY ANAND


8/219

v

Summary 99

Introduction 100



Conclusions 118

Acknowledgements 119

References 119

EConoMiCs of AquACultuRE fEEding PRACtiCEs: tHE PHiliPPinEs 121WALFREDO R. ROLA

Summary 121

Introduction 123





References 156

Appendix 158

EConoMiCs of AquACultuRE fEEding PRACtiCEs: tHAilAnd 159PONGPAT BOONCHUWONG, KULAPA BOONCHUWONG ANDKELWALIN NOORIT

Summary 159

Introduction 160



Conclusions 180


Appendix 181

EConoMiCs of AquACultuRE fEEding PRACtiCEs: ViEt nAM 183NGUYEN THANH PHUONG, LE XUAN SINH,NGUYEN QUOC THINH, HUYNH HAN CHAU,CAO TUAN ANH AND NGUYEN MINH HAU

Summary 183

Introduction 184





References 201

Appendix 202


9/219

v

Crbr

Nesar Ahmed, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh AgriculturalUniversity, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh. E-mail: [email protected]

P.E. Vijaya Anand, American Soybean Association, Lodi Road, New Delhi, India.E-mail: [email protected]

Cao Tuan Anh, College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, Can ThoCity, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected]

Kulapa Boonchuwong, Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries,Bangkok, Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]

Pongpat Boonchuwong, Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries,Bangkok, Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]

Huynh Han Chau, College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, CanTho City, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected]

Manojit Debnath, College of Fisheries, Central Agricultural University, Lembucherra799 210, Tripura, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Asha Dhawan, Fisheries Department, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and AnimalSciences University, Ludhiana, 141004, Punjab, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Mohammad R. Hasan, Aquaculture Management and Conservation Service, FAOFisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]

Nguyen Minh Hau, College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, CanTho City, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected]

M.C. Nandeesha, College of Fisheries, Central Agricultural University, Lembucherra799 210, Tripura, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Kelwalin Noorit, Fisheries Economic Division, Department of Fisheries, Bangkok,Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]

Abhijit Paul, College of Fisheries, Central Agricultural University, Lembucherra799 210, Tripura, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Nguyen Thanh Phuong, College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University,Can Tho City, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected]

Walfredo R. Rola, Department of Community and Environmental Resource Planning(DCERP), College of Human Ecology (CHE), University of the Philippines at LosBaos (UPLB), Los Baos, Laguna., the Philippines. E-mail: [email protected]


10/219

v

Manidip Roy, College of Fisheries, Central Agricultural University, Lembucherra799 210, Tripura, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Le Xuan Sinh, College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, Can Tho

City, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected]

Nguyen Quoc Thinh, College of Aquaculture and Fisheries, Can Tho University, CanTho City, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected]

Xinhua Yuan, Freshwater Fisheries Research Center, Chinese Academy ofFishery Sciences, 9 West Shanshui Road, Wuxi, 214081 Jiangsu province, China.E-mail: [email protected]


11/219

ABBREViAtions And ACRonyMs

ADB Asian Development BankBCR Benefit Cost RatioBFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, the PhilippinesCNY Chinese YuanDanida Danish International Development AssistanceDAP Di-Ammonium PhosphateFC Fixed CostFCR Food Conversion Ratio

MAEP Mymensingh Aquaculture Extension Project, BangladeshMOFI Ministry of Fisheries, Viet NamMP Muriate of PotashMRD Mekong River DeltaNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationPCMARD Philippine Council for Marine and Aquaculture Research and

DevelopmentPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalSFP Stochastic Frontier ProductionSRS Stratified Random SamplingTC Total CostTE Technical Efficiency

TSP Triple Super PhosphateUS$ United States DollarVC Variable CostVND Vietnamese Dong


12/219


13/219

1

Emis f aquauure feeigraies: a syesis f asesuies uerae i six Asiauries

Walfredo R. RolaDepartment of Community and Environmental Resource Planning (DCERP)

University of the Philippines at Los Baos (UPLB), Los Baos, LagunaThe PhilippinesMohammad R. HasanAquaculture Management and Conservation ServiceFAO Fisheries and Aquaculture DepartmentRome, Italy

Rola, W.R. and Hasan, M.R. 2007.Economics of aquaculture feeding practices: a synthesis of

case studies undertaken in six Asian countries. In M.R. Hasan (ed.). Economics of aquaculture

feeding practices in selected Asian countries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 505. Rome,

FAO. pp. 131.

SUMMARYObjective of the study: The general objective of the study is to assess theeconomic implications of, and the reasons for, adopting various feeding practicesin aquaculture in Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines, Thailand andVietnam.

Methodology: Three categories of feeding practices were studied: extensive/traditional, semi-intensive and intensive through interviews with 340 randomlyselected fish farmers. In each of the six countries, with the exception of India,twenty respondents were interviewed for each feeding practice. In India fortyfarmers were interviewed as only two feeding practices (extensive/traditional andsemi-intensive) were studied. The type of species varied by country and included

sutchi catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) (Bangladesh), pangasiid catfish(Pangasianodon hypophthalmus and Pangasius bocourti) (Viet Nam), hybrid catfish(Clarias gariepinus x C. macrocephalus) (Thailand), carps (India and China), andprawn and milkfish (the Philippines). It should be noted that the analyses andfindings presented in this report concern only these species or species-groups andhence do not necessarily reflect economic consequences of feeding practices inother aquaculture sectors in these six countries, or elsewhere in Asia.

Results: production, profitability and feeding regimes. In order to establishthe nature and strength of the relationship between feeding practices andeconomic results the authors of the case studies have estimated and reviewedbenefit-cost ratios, break-even prices and break even production.

The combined results of the six case studies do not fully support the

hypothesis of a direct relationship between growing intensity of feeding on theone hand and an improving benefit cost ratio (BCR) on the other. The positiverelationship between commercial feeding and a relatively high BCR is supported


14/219

Economics of aquaculture feeding practices in selected Asian countries2

by the data from Thailand and the Philippines. However, data from Bangladeshand Viet Nam does not support this hypothesis as their best BCR performersare in fact the traditional farms. Data from China and India did not show anyconclusive pattern as the BCRs estimated for these two countries do not differ

much from one feeding practice to another.The lower the break-even price, in comparison to the market price, the better off

is the producer. In this sense aquaculture farms from Bangladesh and India are themost efficient as their break-even prices are the lowest, expressed as a percentageof the prevailing market or actual prices. The study reveals that aquaculturefarms in these two countries can afford to absorb a 43 percent reduction ofmarket prices and still break even. Aquaculture farms based in China, Thailandand the Philippines are somewhat more vulnerable to output price changes thanthey are in Bangladesh and India. Aquaculture farms in China, Thailand and thePhilippines would break even given a 31 to 32 percent reduction in output prices.The most vulnerable farms in terms of output price decrease are those in Viet

Nam. They cannot afford to absorb a decrease exceeding 15 percent.Often farmers gauge their skills and resilience to production failures bycomparing the productivity of their ponds with that needed to cover costs (break-even production levels) - the smaller the break-even production as proportion ofthe production achieved, the better. The estimated break-even production levelsper hectare vary widely in absolute figures amongst the farmers interviewed inthe six case studies in large part due to the differences of fish species produced.For all farm categories, the study reveals that China yielded the most favorableproportion of break-even production to actual production: 35 percent. Thisimplies that overall production levels in China could fall by up to 65 percentbefore the average Chinese carp farm reaches its break-even production level.Aquaculture farmers in Bangladesh, India, Thailand and the Philippines likewise

performed credibly with break-even proportions of 56, 58, 68 and 69 percentthus achieving production levels which were comfortably above the estimatedbreak-even production levels. The most vulnerable farms in terms of yieldfluctuations are those from Viet Nam where the break-even production level is86 percent indicating that the average Vietnamese catfish farmer produces at only14 percent above their break-even production level.

In respect of the connection between feeding and economically soundaquaculture the case studies did not reveal a very clear pattern. While data fromChina, the Philippines and Thailand supports the argument that intensifiedfeeding shall result in more efficient aquaculture farming, data from Bangladeshand Viet Nam demonstrated the reverse, that is, intensified feeding seem to result

in less efficient performances. In the case of India no clear pattern emerged.Results: use of feeds and their cost. The share of feed in total costs variedfrom a low 25.0 percent in China to a high of 86.5 percent in Viet Nam. Forthe six case studies combined, cost of feeds accounted for an average of 58percent, being the largest individual cost item, while fingerling acquisition andlabour costs represented 15.5 and 14.4 percent respectively of the total. Overall,combining the results from the 340 farms, variable costs accounted for 94.2percent of the total cost the remaining 5.8 percent being fixed costs.

In China intensive farms were major users of industrially manufactured feeds.On the average, for the sixty Chinese farms such feeds accounted for 75 percentof the total feed consumption. On aquaculture farms in Bangladesh and thePhilippines, respectively, industrial feeds accounted for 54 and 49 percent of total

feed consumption. In Thailand, and Viet Nam industrial feeds accounted for 35percent of the total while India was the least user at only 31 percent. In termsof absolute volume of industrially manufactured feed utilization however, Viet


15/219

3Economics of aquaculture feeding practices: a synthesis of case studies undertaken in six Asian countries

Nam and Thailand were the largest users while the Philippines and India usedthe smallest quantities.

Results: what promotes what hinders the use of a feeding strategy? Farmersreported that the most important enabling factors were improved water quality,

intensified commercial feeding and increased rate of stocking. While water qualityissues can be addressed both on and off the farm, intensified commercial feedingand increased stocking rate can be addressed rapidly if aquaculture farmers haveaccess to cheap credit. According to the analysis, other enabling factors are:effective disease control, better farm management, and improved quality of fry.

Farmers differ in what they consider to be important for increased productionaccording to the feeding strategies they use. Among intensive farmers, improvedwater quality, disease control and better management are identified as themost important factors. For semi-intensive farms, high stocking of fry, morecommercial feeds and improved water quality are priorities. As could beexpected, the most important enabling production factor reported by the

traditional farmer is intensified commercial feeding.Regardless of farm category, however, farmers have reported lack of capital tobe the most important obstacle to increased aquaculture production. This maynot be surprising as easy access to capital is required if farmers are to intensifyuse of commercial feeds and increase stocking rates.

Intensive (70 percent), semi-intensive (80 percent) and traditional farmers(78 percent) share concerns about the high cost of acquiring commercially orindustrially manufactured feeds. While traditional farmers readily recognize theimportance of commercial feeding, its high cost per unit has discouraged themfrom purchasing these types of feeds. Limited technical know-how was alsomentioned as a disabling factor.

As many as 92 percent of the respondents say they started fish farming

because they expected to make large profits. Farmers using intensive feedingstrategies are generally more educated than those using the other two feedingstrategies. So, educational attainment appears to be correlated with the feedingpractices that farmers adopt.

Recommendations: Four major recommendations are made to stakeholders: (i)consider a larger range of non-economic factors in future economic studies of feedsin aquaculture; (ii) lobby for easy access to credit by small-scale aquaculturists: (iii)governments should design and implement capacity building in farm management;and, (iv) implement action oriented research about the use of farm-made andindustrial feeds and devise ways to spread research findings to those concerned.

1. IntRodUctIon

1.1 RAtIonAlEAquaculture today comprises several different types of production systems. Many

different practices and technologies co-exist in prevailing production systems. Thesesystems are not static, they change over time. They change as most fish farmers, wishingto make profit, try to optimize their production systems by modifying what they do.Such changes of practices and technologies, e.g. from extensive to intensive feedingstrategies, in fact can be seen as a technological innovations at least at the local level

A very important component of any aquaculture production system is the feedingstrategy used and the various technologies that this strategy relies on. But differentfeeding strategies co-exist within the same production system. This fact is common in

Asian aquaculture and exemplified in this study. Are these feeding strategies all equallyprofitable in any one fish production system or do results depend significantly on thesurroundings in which they are used?


16/219


The six case studies presented in this report are expected to shed light on the extentto which economic considerations drive the use of three feeding practices in six fishfarming systems in six Asian countries.

1.2 objeives f e suyThe objective of the study is to assess the economic implications of adopting variousfeeding practices in aquaculture production in six selected Asian countries.

Specifically, this synthesis report aims to:(i) review the case study reports on the Economics of aquaculture feeding practices

that were undertaken in Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines, Thailand andViet Nam;

(ii) process and analyse the assembled data to arrive at an integrative comparativeanalysis of the different farm categories and countries:

(iii) prepare a consolidated report of the six country case studies highlighting thefollowing:

a) production (including feeding) practices,b) production costs,c) gross factor productivities or benefit cost ratio;d) production problems,e) break-even analyses (break-even price, break-even production), andf) conclusions and recommendations.

2. GEnERAl AppRoAch And MEthodoloGY

2.1 cmaraive aaysisThe case study provides a comparative analysis of three (3) different categories of feedingsystems/practices; namely: (1) extensive/traditional; (2) semi-intensive; and (3) intensive.

However, in order to enhance comparability of results obtained in different countriesonly one fish farming system was studied in each country. Three of these farming systemsare polyculture systems, the other monoculture of various types of catfish.

The case study in China focused on polyculture of carps, including silver, bighead,grass, black and crucian carps as well as Wuchang fish. The Bangladesh and Viet Namcase studies specifically focused on the monoculture of sutchi catfish (Pangasianodonhypophthalmus) and pangasiid catfish (Pangasianodon hypophthalmus and Pangasiusbocourti), respectively, while the Philippine case assessed the feeding practicesused in the polyculture of milkfish (Chanos chanos) and giant freshwater prawn(Macrobrachium rosenbergi) aquaculture. The case study in India looked at the feedingpractices in the polyculture of Indian major carps (catla Catla catla, rohu Labeo rohita,

mrigal Cirrhinus cirrhosus), Chinese carps (silver carp, grass carp) and common carp(Cyprinus carpio). In Thailand the study concerned monoculture of hybrid clariidcatfish (Clarias gariepinus and C. macrocephalus).

In the context of the study, traditional practice refers to a feeding practice in whichthe feeds utilized in the fish farms are sourced or developed on-farm or locally and arenot being sold or distributed commercially. Fish farms based on traditional feedingpractice generally use farm-made aquafeed and/or supplementary diets consisting ofa mixture of locally available feed ingredients. Farms with intensive feeding practicedepend largely on commercially manufactured pelleted feeds while a semi-intensivecategory refers to a feeding practice that combines the two with at least 25 percentof either one being utilized. Although the three farming systems in this report andelsewhere are often categorized into traditional, semi-intensive and intensive based on

their stocking density and feeding intensity and type of feed, it must noted that intensityof farming and so the feeding intensity vary widely between countries. For example, inthe traditional farming in Thailand, which uses locally sourced feed ingredients (e.g.,


17/219


poultry by-products), the fry stocking density is higher and the amount of feed used ismuch larger than what is commonly found in many other countries of Asia. Similarly, inViet Nam the stocking density and feeding intensity (i.e., amount of feed) used is similarfor three feeding systems (e.g., locally sourced home-made feed, mixture of home-made

and pellet feed and industrially manufactured pelleted feed) and consequently stockingdensity and feeding intensity often are higher than those used in other countries. Thesedifferences have to be taken into consideration when anaysing the case studies.

2.2 Assessme iiarsThis synthesis assesses the impacts of the various feeding practices in terms of: (i)gross revenues; (ii) gross margin/profit; (iii) net returns; (iv) break-even price levels;(v) break-even production levels; (vi) gross total factor productivity; and (vii) net totalproductivity. These indicators were estimated based on cost and returns tables derivedfrom survey questionnaires.

2.3 Samig eiqueEach country case study includes three representative feeding practices or systems,with the exception of the Indian carp culture, which only provides an analysis of thesemi-intensive and traditional aquaculture farms. Each feeding practice was analysedbased on a survey of 20 replicate farms. A total of 60 fish farms represented the samplesize for each country case study with the exception of India which had 40 respondents.The stratified random sampling (SRS) technique was utilized in selecting the individualsample farm. The SRS was directly applied on a general listing of fish farms obtainedfrom the study sites of the six countries.

2.4 daa ressig a aaysisIn general, a tabular analysis was employed to develop the cost and returns tables for

the various feeding practices observed in the study sites. The cost and returns analysisindicated the variable cost categories included feeds, fingerlings, fertilizers, labourand other miscellaneous inputs. The fixed costs and capital investments were alsodetermined. Gross revenues and net revenues were also identified. A cross sectionalanalysis using graphs, percent changes and relative proportions were adopted todetermine the relationship of feeding practices with selected impact indicators.

The various authors utilized regression analysis. They applied the Linear ProfitFunction models, Cobb Douglas Production and Profit Function models and TechnicalEfficiency analysis to determine the statistical significance and the nature and extentof the relationships between aquaculture production and profit levels as the dependentvariables and the factors (independent variables) that would explain their behavior.

This synthesis integrates the results of the country level statistical analyses done.

2.5 Se a urai f e suyThe study was conducted between 15 October 2005 and 14 February 2006. The study sitesare indicated in Figure 1. The sample sites included ten counties in the province of Jiangsuin China; municipality of Hagonoy in the province of Bulacan in the Philippines; BhalukaUpazila, Mymensingh district in Bangladesh; An Guiang Province in Viet Nam; Ludhiana,Gurudaspur, Patiala and Jalandhar districts in Punjab, India; and the provinces of KhonKaen, Kalasin, Saraburi, Nakorn Sawan, Suphan Buri, and Pathum Thani in Thailand.

3. RESUltS And dIScUSSIon

3.1 desrii f e suy areasThe study covered six countries in Asia: Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines,Thailand and Viet Nam. Bhaluka upazila was chosen as the study site in Bangladesh


18/219


being an important area for sutchi catfish aquaculture due its proximity to hatcheries,availability of ponds, low lying agricultural lands, warm climate, abundance of cheaplabour and favourable socio-economic conditions. In the case of China, Jiangsu provincewas selected as the study site due to its long history in aquaculture production. It isknown as the cradle land for aquaculture farming in China. The province is located atthe lower stream of the Yangtze River and the Huai River. It is rich in natural waterresources with a total pond area of 167 000 hectares. The study sites in Thailand arelocated in six provinces, of which three are located in the central plain region; two

are in the north eastern region and one in the northern region. The study site for thePhilippine case study is located in the municipality of Hagonoy, Province of Bulacan.The province is located in Region III among the eleven regions of the Government of

Figure 1

Ma f e suy sies


19/219


the Philippines. Of the total aquaculture production of the Philippines, the provinceof Bulacan accounted for about 5 percent. The study sites in Viet Nam included fourdistricts of An Giang province. This province is located along the branches of MekongRiver in Viet Nam. As in China, the study sites have the longest history of catfish

culture which started as cage culture during the 1960s. The Mekong River Delta(MRD) in the southern part of Viet Nam covers 12 percent of the total area of thecountry and has a huge potential for increasing aquaculture production in the country.The MRD comprises approximately 650 000 ha of freshwater bodies; the freshwatersurface area potentially expands to 1.7 million has during flooding periods. Ludhiana,Gurudaspur, Patiala and Jalandhar districts in Punjab, India, having major areas of carpaquaculture, were chosen as the study sites.

3.2 desrii f e resesRespondents have an average age of 46 years. Aquaculture farmer respondents from thePhilippines were the oldest at 51 years while those from Bangladesh were the youngest

at 39. Respondents representing traditional farms have an average age of 47 years whileintensive farm and semi-intensive farm respondents were younger with an averageage of 45 and 46 years, respectively (Table 1). Respondents from the traditional farmcategory have average household size of 5.2 while intensive and semi-intensive farmersreported slightly lower household sizes of 5.0 and 4.8, correspondingly. Respondentsfrom Bangladesh reported the largest household size at about six while China hasthe smallest household size at 4.4. Philippine respondents have an average householdsize of 5 while Viet Nam, Thailand and India reported average household sizes of4.7, 4.6 and 5.7 respectively (Table 2). In terms of aquaculture farming experience,intensive and traditional farm respondents reported being in the profession for about9 and 8 years, correspondingly. Respondents using semi-intensive feeding practiceswere slightly more experienced with 10.8 years. Respondents from China and the

Philippines were the more experienced with 12.7 and 12.3 years in aquaculture farmingwhile respondents from Thailand and India were less experienced with only 7.3 and 7.9years of aquaculture farming, respectively (Table 3).

TABLe 1

Average age f reses by aegry a ury

curyFarm aegry

A aegriesIesive Semi-iesive traiia

Bagaes 40 39 38 39

cia 49 49 52 50

piiies 49 52 52 51

Vie nam 44 46 45 44

taia 45 48 46 46Iia * 43 44 44

A uries 45 46 47 46

Not: cas stdy cad ot n inda dd not hav ntnsv fdn pactc

TABLe 2

Average use size f reses by aegry a ury

curyFarm aegry


Bagaes 5.8 5.9 6.0 5.9

cia 4.8 3.7 4.7 4.4

piiies 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Vie nam 4.4 5.2 4.6 4.7

taia 4.9 3.8 5.1 4.6Iia * 5.3 6.1 5.7

A uries 5.0 4.8 5.2 5.1



20/219


TABLe 3

Average years i farmig f reses by aegry a ury

curyFarm aegry


Bagaes 8.3 8.9 7.4 8.2

cia 13.7 12.2 12.4 12.7

piiies 15.0 14.0 8.0 12.3

Vie nam 3.2 11.8 7.8 7.6

taia 4.5 9.6 7.7 7.3

Iia * 8.4 7.5 7.9

A uries 8.9 10.8 8.4 9.4


A majority of the respondents had completed primary (34 percent) and secondaryeducation (38 percent). Only 16 percent had completed tertiary education. Elevenpercent of the respondents did not attend primary education (Table 4 and Figure 2).

Table 4 also indicates that intensive farmers were more educated than semi-intensiveand traditional farmers. Only two percent of intensive farmers did not completeprimary education compared with 14 and 18 percent of semi-intensive and traditionalfarmers, respectively. In addition, 48 percent of intensive farmers completed secondaryeducation compared to 32 and 34 percent for the semi-intensive and traditional farmers,respectively. The above statistics on educational attainment appear to have a degree ofcorrelation with the feeding practices adopted by the respondents. The more formallyeducated respondents had practised intensive and semi-intensive feeding practices infavour of the traditional method of aquaculture farming.

Aside from aquaculture farming, the respondents also engage in other economicactivities particularly agricultural crop production (23 percent) and other businessenterprises (7 percent). It is interesting to note that a larger proportion (36 percent)

of traditional farmers were simultaneously engaged in agricultural crop productionactivities compared with semi-intensive (21 percent) and intensive (6 percent)aquaculture farmers (Table 5). These findings suggest that traditional farmers donot solely rely on incomes derived from aquaculture business but tend to augmenttheir incomes by engaging in other economic activities particularly agricultural cropproduction.

3.3 Geera rfie f e farmsThree hundred of the farmers who participated in this study on the average each usedthree and one third ponds with a combined area just below three hectares. The fortyIndian farmers operated much larger farms. They averaged about 50 ponds with a

combined area just above 100 hectares (Table 6).Excluding the Indian farmers from the analysis, respondents from Thailand usedthe largest number of ponds six. They were followed by the Chinese respondentswho were operating an average of four ponds. Respondents from Bangladesh had thesmallest number of ponds - one.

Again considering only respondents outside India, aquaculture farmers from thePhilippines reported the largest combined pond area of 8.77 ha while Bangladeshrespondents reported the least at only 0.28 ha. By farm category, intensive farmersreported the largest number of ponds (3.8) while traditional farms had the least at 2.75.Similarly, intensive farms have the largest area for aquaculture production (4.51 ha)compared with semi-intensive (2.41 ha) and traditional farms (2.01 ha).


21/219


TABLe4

Euai

alaaimefresesbyae

gryaury

cury

Farmcatgory/lvlofduca

ton

Allaegries

Iesive

Semi-iesive

traiial

nE

p

S

t

tal

nE

p

S

t

tal

nE

p

S

t

tal

nE

p

S

t

tal

Baglaes

0

40

60

0

100

55

35

10

0

100

70

30

0

0

100

42

35

23

0

100

cia

0

30

45

25

100

0

35

40

25

100

0

50

40

10

100

0

38

42

20

100

piliie

s

10

20

20

50

100

0

25

30

45

100

10

30

35

25

100

7

25

28

40

100

Vienam

0

5

95

0

100

30

20

50

0

100

25

15

60

0

100

18

13

68

0

100

taila

0

65

20

15

100

0

90

10

0

100

0

75

20

5

100

0

77

17

6

100

Iia

0

5

50

45

100

0

30

50

20

100

0

18

50

32

100

All

2

32

48

18

100

14

35

32

19

100

18

38

34

10

100

11

34

38

16

100

Not:Casstudycarrdoutnindaddnothavntnsvfdngpractc;Ne=Noeducaton,

P=

Prmary,

S=Scondary,

T=Trtary

TABLe5

Majr

uaifefarmersbyaegry

fresesaury

cury

Farm

aegry/yefuai

Allaegries

Iesive

Semi-iesive

traiial

F

cp

B

Ft

o

tal*

F

cp

B

Ft

o

tal*

F

cp

B

Ft

o

tal*

F

cp

B

Ft

o

tal*

Baglaes

100

10

30

0

0

140

100

25

10

0

0

135

100

45

5

0

0

150

100

27

15

0

0

142

cia

100

10

0

10

5

125

100

35

0

0

5

140

100

35

0

0

0

135

100

27

0

3

3

133

piliie

s

100

0

35

0

0

135

100

0

15

0

0

115

100

0

15

0

5

120

100

0

22

0

2

123

Vienam

100

8

0

0

25

133

100

15

0

0

0

115

100

20

0

0

0

120

100

14

0

0

8

123

taila

100

0

0

0

0

100

100

0

0

0

15

115

100

70

0

0

0

170

100

23

0

0

5

128

Iia

100

50

5

5

0

160

100

45

0

0

0

145

100

47

3

3

0

100

All

100

6

13

2

6

127

100

21

5

1

3

130

100

36

3

0

1

140

100

23

7

1

3

125

Casstud

ycarrdoutnindaddnothavntnsvf

dngpractc;Not:F=fshfarmng,

CP=cropproducton,

B=ownbusnss,

FT=fshtradng,

O

=othrs

*Totalxcds100dutomultplrsponss


22/219


TABLe 6

ta umber a area f s by farm aegry a ury

cury

Farm aegryA aegries

Iesive Semi-iesive traiia

taumber f

s

ta area (a)

taumber f

s

ta area (a)

taumber f

s

ta area (a)

taumber f

s

ta area (a)

Bagaes 1.35 0.49 1.05 0.22 1.00 0.12 1.13 0.28

cia 2.90 2.70 4.50 2.65 4.85 6.23 4.08 3.86

piiies 3.95 16.88 2.75 7.28 2.05 2.16 2.92 8.77

Vie nam 1.95 1.50 2.65 0.69 2.50 0.86 2.37 1.02

taia 9.00 0.96 6.10 1.19 3.35 0.68 6.15 0.94

A five 3.83 4.51 3.41 2.41 2.75 2.01 3.33 2.97

Iia* 64.00 144.70 40.00 67.50 52.00 104.00

*Cas stdy cad ot n inda dd not hav ntnsv fdn pactc

The average area of a pond was1.21 ha, which ranged from a lowof 0.15 ha in Thailand to a highof 2.53 ha in the Philippines. VietNam and Bangladesh reported anaverage pond area of less than onehectare while respondents from theIndia and the Philippines reportedrespective average pond sizes of 2and 2.5 ha. Average pond sizes inBangladesh, India, Viet Nam and

the Philippines showed that averagepond area increases as the aquaculturefarms progress from traditional tointensive feeding practices (Table 7).

Table 8 indicates that singleownership of ponds generally prevailsin the study sites (63 percent). The

other types of ownership reported were singly leased (26 percent), multiple ownerships(8 percent) and jointly leased (3 percent).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No Education Primary Secondary Tertiary

ercent

Bangladesh China Philippines Viet Nam Thailand India

Figure 2

Euaia aaime f reses by ury

TABLe 7

Average area f s a waer e by aegry f reses a ury

cury

Farm aegryA aegriesIesive Semi-iesive traiia

Averagearea f

e

Average waere (m)

Averagearea f

e

Average waere (m)

Averagearea f

e

Average waere (m)

Averagearea f

e

Average waere (m)

Raiy dry Raiy dry Raiy dry Raiy dry

Bagaes 0.36 1.83 1.24 0.21 1.54 1.03 0.12 1.65 1.19 0.23 1.67 1.15

cia 1.27 2.27 1.88 0.74 2.50 1.89 3.96 2.49 2.01 1.87 2.42 1.93

piiies 4.18 1.47 0.98 2.38 1.41 0.99 1.02 1.43 0.88 2.53 1.44 0.95

Vie nam 1.42 3.52 3.18 0.27 3.80 3.33 0.25 3.79 3.19 0.44 3.76 3.23

taia 0.12 1.80 1.50 0.11 1.90 1.72 0.23 1.76 1.52 0.15 1.80 1.55

Iia 2.26 2.17 1.94 1.69 1.68 1.46 2.04 1.94 1.71

A 1.47 2.18 1.76 0.99 2.22 1.82 1.21 2.13 1.71 1.21 2.17 1.75


23/219


TABLe 8

tye f wersi f reses by aegry a ury

cury

Farm aegry/ye f wersiA aegries


SO MO SL JL Sm SO MO SL JL Sm SO MO SL JL Sm SO MO SL JL Sm

Bagaes 55 25 20 0 100 75 15 10 0 100 80 20 0 0 100 70 20 10 0 100

cia 20 0 80 0 100 25 15 60 0 100 35 5 55 5 100 27 7 65 2 100

piiies 50 20 20 10 100 75 10 15 0 100 45 10 45 0 100 57 13 27 3 100

Vie nam 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 100

taia 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 35 0 65 0 100 78 0 22 0 100

Iia* 30 15 35 20 100 65 0 25 10 100 48 7 30 15 100

A 65 9 24 2 100 68 9 20 3 100 60 6 32 2 100 63 8 26 3 100

*Cas stdy cad ot n inda dd not hav ntnsv fdn pactc; SO = snl ownshp, MO= mltpl

ownshp, SL = snly lasd, JL = jontly lasd

Seventy-two percent of the respondents reported that they use the fish farmsexclusively for fish culture while the rest of the respondents were using the fish farmsfor other purposes. Amongst such purposes are: as the raising of ducks and chickens onthe pond dikes in China and washing of clothes and dishes, for bathing and as a sourceof irrigation water for home gardening in Bangladesh. A higher percentage of intensivefarmers (74 percent) used the fish farms exclusively for fish production than did semi-intensive (71 percent) and traditional farmers (68 percent) (Table 9).

TABLe 9

p uiizai f reses by aegry a ury

cury

Farm aegryA aegries


FC MP Total FC MP Total FC MP Total FC MP TotalBagaes 70 30 100 40 60 100 5 95 100 38 62 100

cia 85 15 100 70 30 100 75 25 100 77 23 100

piiies 15 85 100 20 80 100 45 55 100 27 73 100

Vie nam 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 0 100

taia 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 0 100

Iia 95 5 100 80 20 100 88 12 100

A 74 26 100 71 29 100 68 32 100 72 28 100

Not: FC = fsh clt only; MP = mltppos

The major factor considered for engaging in fish farming was the expectation oflarge profits, as cited by 92 percent of the respondents. This expectation of high profits

caused a rapid expansion of catfish pond culture in Viet Nam during the last few years.The dramatic increase in inland aquaculture production in Bangladesh is also a reflectionof the expectation of high profits. An average annual growth rate of nearly 20 percentwas reported for this activity (Muir, 2003). All respondents from Viet Nam, Indiaand Thailand considered profitability to be the only factor that made them decide topursue the business while more than 75 percent of the farmer respondents from China,the Philippines and Bangladesh cited the same reason for going into the fish farmingbusiness. The other factors considered included access to fish culture technology andavailability of fingerlings each reported by 10 percent of farmers (Table 10).


24/219


TABLe 10

Mai fars siere by farmers i ueraig fis farmig ury

Farcury

Bagaes cia piiies Vie nam taia Iia A curies

prfiabiiy90 78 83 100 100 100 92

ow sumi 8 3 10 0 0 0 4

Aess fis uureegy

0 10 48 0 0 0 10

Fee avaiabiiy 0 7 15 0 0 0 4

Figerig avaiabiiy 2 2 22 33 0 0 10

ta* 100 100 178 133 100 100 118

*Total xcds 100 pcnt d to mltpl sponss, spcfcally fom th Phlppns

Table 11 shows the average number and type of farm labourers employed bycountry and farm category. Irrespective of farm category, an average of 11 workers was

employed per farm. China reported the highest number of average fish farm workersat 15 while Philippine respondents employ an average of 12 workers. Viet Nam andThailand employed the least number of workers at 8. Irrespective of farm category,average employments of full time, part time and occasional labourers were estimatedat 2, 3 and 6, respectively. Intensive, semi-intensive and traditional farms generated anaverage employment of 11, 13 and 10 workers respectively. In general labourers arehired for pond preparation, dike repair, pre-stocking activities, procurement of feeds,feeding and marketing related activities.

3.4 Farm rui raies

3.4.1 Stocking strategies

Stocking rates by aquaculture farmers varied by country, fish species and type of farm.Overall, stocking rates are generally higher on intensive and semi-intensive farms thanon traditional farms regardless of species. The main reason for these differences instocking rates by farm category is the relatively better financial capabilities of semi-intensive and intensive farmer. The trend of stocking rates by species in the region didnot demonstrate a clear pattern as indicated in Table 12.

TABLe 11

Average umber f farm aburers emye by aegry f reses a ury

cury

Farm aegryA aegries


Fu-ime

par-ime

oasia taFu-ime

par-ime

oasia taFu-ime

par-ime

oasia taFu-ime

par-ime

oasia ta

Bagaes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

cia 2 2 6 10 3 3 12 18 3 3 12 18 2 3 10 15

piiies 3 6 6 13 2 4 11 17 1 2 2 5 2 4 6 12

Vie nam 2 4 4 10 3 2 4 9 3 2 4 9 2 2 4 8

taia 2 4 3 9 4 4 0 8 1 4 4 9 2 4 2 8

Iia - - - - - - - - - - -

A 2 4 5 11 3 3 7 13 2 3 5 10 2 3 6 11

* Not: inda and Banladsh cas stds dd not hav th data to qantfy typ of fam labos mployd


25/219


TABLe 12

Average sig rae (./a/year) by seies, ury a farm aegry

curies & seiesFarm aegry


Bagaes pagas 35 900 23 575 12 065 23 847

cia

Grass ar 10 678 5 323 4 553 6 851

Ba ar 752 541 441 578

cruia ar 14 604 16 966 11 039 14 203

Bigea ar 2 393 2 160 1 365 1 973

Wuag fis 3 145 2 604 2 689 2 813

Siver ar 15 653 5 652 7 285 9 583

oer fises 2 068 1 414 53 1 178

piiies

Mifis 7 826 4 348 2 923 5 032

praw 27 798 26 329 26 500 26 876

Vie nam hybri afis 268 257 278 805 308 783 285 282

taia

pagasii afis 453 546 231 302 266 198 317 015

Iia*

Ru 6 820 6 518 6 669

caa 2 713 4 179 3 446

Mriga 6 190 4 607 5 398

cmm ar 5 368 3 121 4 203

Siver ar, grass ar, e. 3 894 2 511 3 202

*Not: Cas stdy cad ot n inda dd not hav ntnsv fdn pactc

3.4.2 Stocking strategy/frequency

Regardless of farm category, 65 percent of the respondents practised a single stockingstrategy and the remainder adopted multiple stocking. The majority of traditionalfarmers (78 percent) claimed that they practiced single stocking. On the other hand,single stocking was being practised by 56 and 59 percent of semi-intensive andintensive farmer respondents (Table 13). The data revealed that as aquaculture farmingintensified, multiple stocking increasingly became a common practice as farm operatorswere able to finance stocking and harvesting - particularly the cost of acquisition offish stocks.

Amongst those undertaking multiple stockings, the most widely practised stockingfrequency reported were two (35 percent) and three (51 percent) times a year. Only asmall number of farmers reported stocking frequencies of more than 3 times a year.

Low stocking frequencies were used largely to reduce the cost of harvesting and formarketing of fish.

TABLe 13

Sig sraegy a frequey by farm aegry, a uries

Sraegy/frequeyFarm aegry

Iesive Semi-iesive traiia A pere

Sraegy

Sige sig 59 68 94 221 65

Muie sig 41 52 26 119 35

A 100 120 120 340 100

Frequey

2x er year 10 23 9 42 35

3x er year 28 23 10 61 51

4x er year 2 6 2 10 9ciuus 1 0 5 6 5

ta 41 52 26 119 100


26/219


3.4.3 Feeding practice

Feeding ratesThe average annual feeding rates per hectare by type of feeds are shown in Table

14. Aquaculture farms from China were major users of industrially manufacturedfeeds accounting for 75 percent of the total feed consumption regardless of farmcategory (Figure 3). They are followed by aquaculture farms from Bangladesh andthe Philippines where industrially manufactured feeds respectively account for 54 and49 percent. On aquaculture farms in Thailand and Viet Nam the same type of feedaccounted for 35 percent of the total while India was the least user at only 31 percent.In terms of absolute volume of industrially manufactured feed utilization however,Viet Nam and Thailand were the largest users while the Philippine and India-basedfarms were the lowest. Among intensive farms, industrially manufactured feeds werethe only feed used except in the Philippines and China. In the Philippines, about 65percent of the volume of feeds used, were industrially manufactured while in China

only 7 percent of total volume of feeds were of farm-made origin and the remaining 93percent were industrial feeds. It was also noted that semi-intensive farms in Bangladeshresorted to full utilization of farm-made feeds at an average of 13 010 kg per ha peryear. On the average, annual feeding rates among traditional farms in Bangladesh perha were estimated at 2 054 kg of rice bran, 2 071 kg of wheat bran and 1 665 kg of oilcake; for an aggregate annual feeding rate per ha of 5 790 kg. The use of farm-made andsupplementary feeds is likewise high on semi-intensive farms in Viet Nam (96 percent),the Philippines (72 percent) and Thailand (67 percent).

Among semi-intensive farms, use of industrially manufactured feeds is dominant inIndia (74 percent), and China (46 percent). On semi-intensive farms in Viet Nam and inthe Philippines industrially manufactured feeds occupy a lower proportion of total feedat 4 and 28 percent, respectively.

Frequency and intensity of feedingA summary of data on feeding frequency is shown in Table 15. For all farm categories,the most widely practised feeding frequency was once a day as reported by 68 percentof the respondents. Feeding frequencies of more than once a day and once or twice aweek were observed by 16 percent and 12 percent of the respondents, respectively, whilean irregular feeding frequency was only noted among four (4) percent of the respondents.It is noted that frequency of feeding increases as the fish pond operation becomes moreintensive. Only seven percent of traditional farms practised a feeding frequency of morethan once a day compared with 20 and 21 percent among semi-intensive and intensivefarms. These findings may imply that feed management is of least importance among

traditional farmers. However, these farmers may be guided by their limited capabilityto supply the feed more frequently as well as their difficulties in sustaining the largerexpenditures associated with an increase in feeding.

3.5 Regia maraive aaysis f rui ss

3.5.1 All farmsThe percentage distribution of aquaculture farm production cost by item for all farmcategories are shown in Table 16 and illustrated in Figure 4. Feeds accounted for thelargest percentage of the total cost at 58 percent while fingerling acquisition and labourcosts represented 15.5 and 14.4 percent of the total, respectively. Other variable costaccounted for only 4.9 percent while the cost of fertilizer represented 1.3 percent.

Variable costs accounted for 94.2 percent of the total cost while the remaining 5.8percent are classified as fixed costs. The percentage distribution of feed costs amongall farm categories varied from a low 25 percent in China to a high of 86.5 percent in


27/219


Viet Nam. In regard to the percentage cost distribution of fry/fingerlings a high of 42.2percent was noted in China compared to a low 6.2 percent in Bangladesh and Thailand.As a proportion of the total, labour cost has been high in the Philippines (34.2 percent)compared to Viet Nam (0.30 percent). The labour cost in Viet Nam, considering the

huge amount of feed handled due to the high feeding rate (as high as 1.47 tonnes/ha/dayin some cases), is unusually low and deserve special mention. These statistics illustratethe very important role of feeds in the total cost of production in aquaculture farms. Assuch, decision-making in terms of the quality and quantity of feed is a major aspect ofthe production process.

TABLe 14

Feeig rae (g/a/year) by ye f fees, farm aegry a ury (as fe basis exe fr

cia a e piiies were feeig raes are sw ry maer basis)

cury/ye f feeFarm aegry

Iesive % Semi-iesive % traiia % A %

Bagaes

Iusria fee 22 370 100 0 0 0 0 7 457 54

Farm-mae fee 0 0 13 010 100 5 970 100 6 327 46ta 22 370 100 13 010 100 5 790 100 13 723 100

cia Iusria fee 14 202 93 3 621 46 0 0 5 941 75Farm-mae fee 1 078 7 4 296 54 1 500 100 1 932 25

ta 15 280 100 7 917 100 1 500 100 7 873 100piiies

Iusria fee 2 950 65 391 28 0 0 1 114 49Farm-mae fee 1 615 35 1 316 72 844 100 1 158 51

ta 4 565 100 1 707 100 844 100 2 272 100taia

Iusria fee 92 160 100 64 903 33 2 516 2 53 078 35Farm-mae fee 0 0 134 779 67 155 984 98 96 921 65

ta 92 160 100 199 682 100 158 500 100 149 999 100Vie nam

Iusria fee 397 177 100 22 783 4 0 0 139 987 35Farm-mae fee 0 0 507 119 96 270 189 100 259 102 65

ta 397 177 100 529 902 100 270 189 100 399 089 100Iia*Iusria fee 6 494 74 0 0 3 247 31Farm-mae fee 2 313 26 12 322 100 7 318 69

ta 8 806 100 12 322 100 10 565 100

*Not: Cas stdy cad ot n inda dd not hav ntnsv fdn pactc; fam-mad fd ncld fd ppad

on-fam as wll as spplmntay fd consstn of mxt of fd ndnts and/o snl fd ndnt.

TABLe 15

Feeig frequey by farm aegry, a uries

Feeig frequeyFarm aegry

Iesive Semi-iesive traiia A pere

oe a ay 55 79 98 232 68Mre a e a ay 21 24 8 53 16oe/wie a wee 24 15 1 40 12Irreguar feeig 0 2 13 15 4

ta 100 120 120 340 100Not: Th data fo ntnsv fdn ncldd fv conts only as inda cas stdy dd not ncld ntnsv

fdn pactc.

TABLe 16

Reaive rri (i ere) f aquauure rui s by s iem, a farm aegry

cs iemcury

A uriesBagaes cia Iia piiies Vie nam taia

A. Variabe s1. labur s 8.1 24.1 14.4 34.2 0.3 5.5 14.42. Feriizer 1.9 0.1 4.8 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.33. Fry/figerigs 6.2 42.2 11.2 15.7 11.4 6.2 15.54. Fees 71.8 25.0 47.0 36.3 86.5 81.4 58.0

5. Miseaeus 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.16. oer variabe/

miseaeus iuss 5.5 7.6 9.6 2.8 1.5 2.1 4.9

Suba 93.7 99.0 87.8 89.2 99.7 96.0 94.2B. Fixe ss 6.3 1.0 12.2 10.8 0.3 4.0 5.8ta 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


28/219


3.5.2 Intensive farmsAt the regional level, intensive farmshave allocated 68.8 percent of thetotal production budget on feedsalone. Costs of fry/fingerlings and

labour respectively accounted for14.3 and 9.3 percent of the totalwhile fertilizer cost only represented0.6 percent of the total (Table 17 andFigure 5). These findings indicatethat feed cost has been a majorcost item among intensive farms andshould require careful management.The high proportion of feed coststo total production costs has been

particularly noted in Viet Nam, Thailand and Bangladesh. Intensive farms in Chinaand the Philippines have reported relatively lower proportions of feed costs to total

production costs. China and the Philippines have invested relatively higher proportionson fry/fingerlings and labour costs. Variable and fixed costs accounted for 96.8 and 3.2percent of the total costs, correspondingly.

Figure 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Banglade

sh

China

Philippin

es

Thailand

Viet

Nam

Percent

Commercial Farm-made

1. tye f fee use iesive farms

(i ere)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ban

glad

esh

Chi

na

Philip

pine

s

Tha

iland

VietN

amIndia

Percent


2. tye f fee use semi-iesive farms

(i ere)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ban

glad

eshChi

na

Philip

pines

Tha

iland

Vie

tNam

India

Percent


3. tye f fee use raiia farms

(i ere)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ban

glad

eshChina

Philip

pines

Tha

iland

Vie

tNam India

Percent


4. tye f fee use, average fr a farms

(i ere)

0.14.9 5.8 14.4

15.5

1.3

58.0

Labour costMiscellaneous

Fertilizer

Other variable costs

Fry/Fingerlings

Fixed cost

Feeds

Figure 4

Reaive rri (ere) f aquauure rui

s by iem, a farm aegries a a uries


29/219


TABLe 17

Reaive rri f aquauure rui s (i ere) by s iem a ury,

iesive farms

cs Iemcury

A uriesBagaes cia piiies Vie nam taia

A. Variabe s

1. labur s 6.9 18.8 15.6 0.2 4.8 9.3

2. Feriizer 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.6

3. Fry/figerigs 5.3 38.7 16.4 6.3 4.6 14.3

4. Fees 75.8 32.4 56.2 92.5 87.2 68.8

5. Miseaeus - - - - 0.2 0.1

6. oer variabe/miseaeus iuss

4.3 8.8 3.9 0.9 0.8 3.7

Suba 94.5 98.9 92.6 99.9 98.0 96.8

B. Fixe ss 5.4 1.1 7.4 0.1 2.0 3.2

ta 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Not: Cas stdy cad ot n inda dd not hav ntnsv fdn pactc

3.5.3 Semi-intensive farmsAt the regional level, semi-intensive farms have allocated55.5 percent of the total budgeton feed acquisition. Thisproportion is about 13 percentlower than the share of feedexpenditure in intensive farms.Costs of fry/fingerlings andlabour among semi-intensive

farms have been estimated at16.7 and 15.8 percentage ofthe total, respectively. Semi-intensive farms started toconfront some financial difficulties and hence lesser proportions are spent on feed.However, variable costs remained very important at 94.5 percent of the total productioncosts (Table 18 and Figure 6). Over 68 percent of the total costs have been spent onfeed by semi-intensive farms in Viet Nam, Thailand and Bangladesh. Semi-intensivefarms in China and the Philippines had the least percentage spent on feed at 21 and 28percent, correspondingly.

TABLe 18

Reaive rri (i ere) f aquauure rui s by s iem, semi-iesive

farms

cs Iemcury


A. Variabe s

1. labur s 8.9 25.3 13.9 42.3 0.3 4.3 15.8

2. Feriizer 2.0 0.1 4.8 0.5 - 0.7 1.5

3. Fry/figerigs 6.7 45.4 12.1 18.9 11.7 5.8 16.7

4. Fees 68.8 21.0 47.6 28.4 86.5 81.2 55.5

5. Miseaeus - - - - 0.1 0.1

6. oer variabe/miseaeus

iu ss

6.5 7.4 9.4 2.8 1.1 3.0 4.9

Suba 92.9 99.2 87.3 92.9 99.7 95.0 94.5

B. Fixe ss 6.9 0.8 12.7 7.1 0.3 5.0 5.5

ta 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.0

9,28 0,6 14,3

68,8

3,20,1

3,7

Labour cost Fertilizer Fry/Fingerlings

Feeds Miscellaneous Other variable costs

Fixed costs

Figure 5


s by iem, iesive farms, a uries


30/219


3.5.4 Traditional farmsThe cost of feeds on traditional farms has been estimated at 45.2 percent of totalproduction costs. Among the three farm categories this is, not unexpectedly, the lowestshare. The second most important cost item among traditional farmers is labour which

accounted for 21.6 percent of the total. A moderate percentage proportion of 18.4percent has been defrayed on purchases of fry/fingerlings. Part of the cost of labour isfor unpaid family labour. The time spent by family labour has been monetized in theanalysis. So the relatively higher use of family labour among traditional farms mayimply that they are low on cash. The proportion of labour costs among traditionalfarms in the Philippines and China have been respectively estimated at 56.5 and 36.9percent, respectively (Table 19 and Figure 7).

TABLe 19

Reaive rri f aquauure rui s (i ere) by s iem, raiia farms

cs Iem

cury


A. Variabe s1. labur s 12.6 36.9 14.9 56.5 0.3 8.6 21.62. Feriizer 0.5 - 4.8 - - 0.8 1.13. Fry/figerigs 9.5 47.0 10.4 12.1 21.7 9.6 18.44. Fees 58.5 10.7 46.4 11.2 73.6 72.2 45.25. Miseaeus 0.0 - 0.6 - - 0.3 0.46. oer variabe/miseaeus iuss

9.7 4.7 9.9 1.0 3.7 3.0 5.4

Suba 91.0 99.3 88.4 80.8 99.3 94.3 92.1B. Fixe ss 9.0 0.7 11.6 19.2 0.7 5.7 7.7ta 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8

3.6 Regia maraive

aaysis f emi iiars

3.6.1 Gross factor productivities(benefit cost ratio)The region-wide summary of grossfactor productivities or benefit costratios (BCRs) by country and farmcategories is shown in Table 20.The region-wide average benefit-cost ratio for all farm categorieshas been estimated at 1.59 which

implies an income of US$1.59 for adollar of expenditure in aquacultureproduction. BCR estimates werehighest among intensive farms (1.70)

and lowest among traditional farms (1.46) which indicates that in general andthroughout the region all three (3) farm categories have been able to generate benefitsfrom their investments in aquaculture production. High BCRs were recorded for theaverage aquaculture farms in both the Philippines and Bangladesh. Viet Nam andChina reported the lowest BCRs at 1.22 and 1.34, respectively.

The best performers among intensive farms are those based in the Philippines(2.66) and Thailand (1.71). Among semi-intensive farms high BCRs of 2.01, 1.81 and1.76 are respectively generated by aquaculture farms from the Philippines, India and

Bangladesh. In the case of traditional farms, Bangladesh has recorded the highest BCRof 2.12 while India has provided a respectable BCR of 1.75. The Philippine basedtraditional farms only were able to break even.

Labour costMiscellaneous

Fertilizer


Fry/Fingerlings

Fixed costFeeds

0.1 4.95.5 15.8

1.5

16.7

55.5

Figure 6Reaive rri (ere) f aquauure rui

s by iem, semi-iesive farms, a uries


31/219


The findings at the regional level do not fully establish the direct relationshipbetween intensified feeding practice and the BCR coefficient. The positive relationshiphas been supported by the data from Thailand and the Philippines. However, datafrom Bangladesh and Viet Nam did not support this hypothesis as their best BCR

performers are the traditional farms. Data from China and India were inconclusive asBCRs estimated for these two countries under different feeding practices were verysimilar. It is interesting to note that while the individual country reports indicaterelatively low absolute incomes among traditional farms, their high BCR values implythat their low cost of production makes them viable.

3.6.2 Break-even pricesThe break-even price measures theprice level(s) by which an enterpriseis able to recover its productioncosts. For most farms the break-

even price level lower than the actualprices received for fish and thus canbe expressed as a proportion, orpercentage, of the latter. Break-evenprices were calculated based on acombined average of prices for allspecies produced on the farms1.

The performance of the farmersby farm category and by countrycan be assessed by examining theproportion of the market price thatcorresponds to the estimated break-

even price. A comparison of break-even prices relative to actual prices is presented inTable 21 and Figures 1013.

The overall break-even price level for all countries was estimated at US$0.53 per kgwhich amounts to 67 percent of the actual market price of US$0.78 per kg. The break-even prices recorded by aquaculture farms in Bangladesh and India appeared to be themost efficient of those studied. In these two countries they amount to only 57 percentof the market price. Likewise aquaculture farms in China, Thailand and the Philippineappear to be less vulnerable tooutput price changes given thattheir respective break-even pricesamount to about 68 and 69 percent

of prevailing market prices. VietNam is the least performer. For theaverage Vietnamese fish farmer inthis study the break-even price (at85 percent) is just below the marketprice. These price relationshipsindicate that aquaculture farms inBangladesh can afford to absorb a 43percent reduction in market pricesand still break even. Aquaculturefarms from China, Thailand and thePhilippines can still break even if

Labour cost

Miscellaneous

Fertilizer


Fry/Fingerlings

Fixed costFeeds

0.55.4

7.721.6

1.1

18.4

45.2

Figure 7


s by iem, raiia farms, a uries

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Banglade

sh

China

India

Philippin

es

Viet

Nam

Thailand A

ll

Figure 8

Beefi s rais: a farm aegries

1 In order to facilitate comparisons authors used one currency for both inputs and outputs. Local currencieswere converted into their US$ equivalents.


32/219


nensve

Semi-intensive

Traditional

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Bangladesh China India Philippines Vietnam Thailand All

Bangladesh China India Philippines Vietnam Thailand All

Bangladesh China Philippines Vietnam Thailand All

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Figure 9

Beefi s rais by ury

exposed to a 31-32 percent reduction in output prices. The most vulnerable farmersin terms of output price decreases were those from Viet Nam who can only afford toabsorb a 15 percent output price decrease and still break even.

Considering intensive farms only, the estimated break-even price was US$0.54/kg,and the observed average market price was US$0.84/kg. This break-even price represents65 percent of the actual market price. These figures imply that on the average intensivefarms can absorb significant price changes and still achieve profitability. Looking atintensive farms by country the result is almost the same. The exception is farms in

Viet Nam. In Viet Nam the break even price was only 9 percent below the marketprice. However, in general intensive farms in the region can absorb even a significantreduction in their output prices.


33/219


In the case of semi-intensive farms, the break-even price at US$ 0.55/kg was almostidentical to that recorded for intensive farmers, while the average market price wasconsiderably lower at US$ 0.76/kg. This implies that the situation of semi-intensivefarmers is somewhat worse than that of intensive farmers, the break-even price

reaching 72 percent of the market price.But the situation varied considerably amongst the semi-intensive farms. Farms in

India and Bangladesh were well off recording break-even prices amounting to as littleas 55and 57 percent, respectively of market prices. The semi-intensive farms mostvulnerable to output price fluctuations were those in Viet Nam and China where farmswould just cover costs if output prices rose by 17 and 19 percent respectively.

While traditional farmers achieved as high prices for their fish (US$ 0.75/kg) asdid farmers using semi-intensive feeding strategies, their costs per kg produced werehigher reaching US$ 0.59/kg. This means the average traditional farmer could afford adrop in fish prices of 23 percent and still cover his costs. The study thus indicates thatthe traditional farms were more vulnerable to decreases in output prices than either

intensive or semi-intensive aquaculture farms. But, differences amongst countriesare large. If fish prices were to fall generally for fish from traditional farms the leastaffected would be farms in Bangladesh for which the break-even price reaches only 47percent of the market price. The most vulnerable traditional farms are those based inthe Philippines where fish prices have to increase for farmers to break even.

Overall, the 100 farmers using intensive feeding strategies seem more able to covertheir costs than do the 120 using semi-intensive feeding strategies. These in turn appearbetter at this than do the 120 farmers using traditional feeding strategies. While this istrue when comparing these three groups it is not always true when making this samecomparison on a case study basis. While the 20 intensive farms based in the Philippinesand the 20 intensive farms in Thailand have stronger break-even price structure then dotheir co-nationals who use semi-intensive and traditional feeding practices, traditional

farmers in Bangladesh, China and Viet Nam have a better break-even price situationthan their compatriots using more modern feeding practices.

TABLe 21

cmaraive aaysis f aua rie a brea-eve rie by ury, a seies (US$/g)

cury

caegryA aegries


Auarie

Brea-everie

prrif brea-eve wi

aua rie(%)

Auarie

Brea-everie

prrif brea-eve wi

auarie (%)

Auarie

Brea-everie

prrif brea-eve wi

aua rie(%)

Auarie

Brea-everie

prrif brea-eve wi

auarie (%)

Bagaes 0.62 0.37 60 0.62 0.35 57 0.62 0.29 47 0.62 0.35 57

cia 1.11 0.73 66 0.98 0.79 81 1.02 0.61 60 1.04 0.71 68

piiies 0.93 0.51 55 0.94 0.72 77 0.95 1.22 128 0.93 0.64 69

Vie nam 0.66 0.60 91 0.54 0.45 83 0.56 0.42 75 0.59 0.50 85

taia 0.88 0.51 58 0.75 0.57 76 0.67 0.55 82 0.79 0.54 68

Iia* 0.74 0.41 55 0.72 0.42 58 0.73 0.42 57Acuries 0.84 0.54 65 0.76 0.55 72 0.76 0.59 77 0.78 0.53 67

* Not: inda dd not hav ntnsv fdn pactc n ts stdy sts

3.6.3 Break-even productionThe break- production level is the volume of production needed to recover total

production costs at the prevailing output prices. A comparative analysis of break-even production levels by country and feeding strategy is presented in Table 22 andFigure 14.


34/219


The estimated break-even production levels per hectare for each country varywidely in absolute figures due to the differences in size and metabolisms of the farmedfish species. Comparing farmers in the six countries, without considering fish feedingstrategies, the study reveals that Chinese farmers were most successful as 35 percent

actual production would enable the average farmer to break even. This implies thatthe overall current aquaculture production levels in China could fall by up to 65percent before the average farm reaches a break-even production level. Aquaculturefarmers from India, Bangladesh, Thailand and the Philippines likewise performedcredibly having break-even production levels of 56, 58, 68 and 69 percent. All areproduction levels that are comfortably above estimated break-even production. Themost vulnerable farms in terms of yield fluctuations are those in Viet Nam as theirproduction volumes on the average are only 14 percent above break-even volumes.

The results differ somewhat when each of the three feeding strategies is analyzedseparately. However, Chinese farmers remain the most secure. The intensive, semi-intensive and traditional farms in China have break-even production levels well below

50 percent of recorded production volumes (respectively 29 and 43 and 44 percent).Amongst other groups of farmers (see table 22) only traditional farmers in Bangladeshreach a similar level (47 percent). The most exposed and probably least efficient farmsare the traditional farms in the Philippines. In fact, these farms are unlikely to continuefor long unless economic and/or technical conditions change as recorded productionlevels were below break-even volumes.

Among intensive farms, onlythe Viet Nam-based farms can beconsidered as highly vulnerable tosignificant drops in their productionlevels. Intensive farms in the otherfive countries exhibited production

levels showing significant marginsto break-even production implyingthat they are capable of handling alsodrastic reductions in production.

In regards to semi-intensivefarms, those in China, Indiaand Bangladesh can afford toabsorb significant reductions inproductivity levels and still breakeven, while farms in Philippines andThailand can not afford to lower

their production levels by morethan 24 percent. It is not onlyin the Philippines that traditionalfarmers are vulnerable to downwardfluctuations in production. Thisalso applies in Thailand (break-evenproduction amounting to 81 percentof production) and Viet Nam (77percent).

A review of break-even productiondata from the six countries and thethree feeding strategies does not

exhibit a clear pattern. On the onehand, data from China, Thailandand the Philippines supports the

Actual price Break-even price

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Bangladesh China Philippines Viet Nam Thailand India AL L

US$/kg

Figure 10

Aua a brea-eve ries f a farm aegries

by ury


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

US$/kg

Bangladesh China Philippines Viet Nam Thailand ALL

Figure 11

Aua a brea-eve ries f iesive farm aegry

by ury


35/219


argument that intensified feeding shallresult in more efficient aquaculturefarming in this case illustrated bylarge production volumes relative to

break-even estimates. On the otherhand, data from Bangladesh andViet Nam demonstrate the reverse- intensified feeding result in lessefficient performances.

3.7 prui rbems

3.7.1 Enabling production factorsThe respondents cited severalfactors that contribute to efficient

aquaculture production. The mostimportant enabling factors andreported by about 25 percent ofthe 340 respondents were goodwater quality, intensified feedingwith commercially manufacturedfeeds, and, high rates of stocking(Table 23). While water qualityissues can be addressed both onand off the farm, increased use ofcommercial manufactured feedsand higher stocking rates often

require that farmers have access tocheap credit. Other factors whichfarmers reported would contributeto efficient production were:effective disease control (23 percentof respondents), better management(19 percent), and use of good qualityfish fry (13 percent).

Among intensive farmers,improved water quality (31 percent),disease control (28 percent) and

better management (19 percent) areidentified as the most importantfactors in any strategy intending to inincrease productivity. In particular,Chinese farmers have reported theirinability to focus on these factorsas their major problem. For semi-intensive farmers, higher stockingrates for fry, more commercialfeeds and improved water qualityare their priorities for increasing aquaculture production. These problems have beenmore pronounced in Viet Nam and China. As perhaps could be expected, amongst

traditional farmers as many as 35 percent of respondents reported that the mostimportant enabling production factor is intensified commercial feeding. This is alikely consequence of the fact that the average traditional aquaculture farmer lacks the


Bangladesh China Philippines Viet Nam Thailand India ALL

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

Figure 12

Aua a brea-eve ries f semi-iesive farm

aegry by ury


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Bangladesh China Ph il ippines V iet Nam Thai land India ALL

g

Figure 13

Aua a brea-eve ries f raiia farm aegry

by ury

All categoriesIntensive Semi-intensive Traditional

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

B an gl ad es h Ch in a Ph il ip pi nes Vi et Nam Th ai lan d In di a

Break-evenproduction

(%)

Figure 14

prri (i ere) f brea-eve rui aua

rui by farm aegry a ury


36/219


TABLe22

cmaraiveaalysisfaualruia

break-everui(kg/a/year)

byuryafarm

aegry

cury

caegry

Allaegries

Iesive

Semi-iesive

traiial

Aual

rui

(A)

Break-eve

rui

(B)

%

fB

A

Aualrui(A)

Break-eve

rui

(B)

%

fBA

Aual

rui

(A)

Break-eve

rui

(B)

%

fBA

Aual

rui

(A)

Break-eve

rui

(B)

%

fBA

Baglaes

13945

8478

61

7705

4377

57

3380

1

593

47

8343

4816

58

cia

38251

11085

29

16111

6891

43

9343

4

132

44

21235

7369

35

piliie

s

3012

1669

55

882

674

76

578

742

128

1491

1027

69

Vienam

240199

218749

91

243887

210913

86

157452

121

128

77

213846

183596

86

taila

108943

63457

58

82904

63280

76

62182

50

633

81

84676

57895

68

Iia*

-

-

-

5699

3151

55

5853

3

353

57

5772

3252

56

*Not:Ca

sstudycarrdoutnindaddnothavntnsvfdngpractc

TABLe23

Eablig

farsireaseruibyfarm

aegry,alluries

Eabligfar

Farm

aegry

Iesive

Semi-iesive

traiia

l

Allaegries

n.

%

n.

%

n.

%

n.

%

Mrem

merialfees

16

20

27

34

28

35

71

30

higskigffry

13

16

29

36

22

28

64

27

Qualiyfr

y

13

16

14

18

5

6

32

13

Beerma

ageme

19

24

16

20

10

13

45

19

diseaserl

22

28

15

19

17

21

54

23

Imrve

waerqualiy

31

39

25

31

26

33

82

34

Analysso

nlyncludddatafromC

hna,

thPhlppns

,ThalandandVtNam


37/219


financial capacity to purchase commercial feeds. Region-wide, one third of traditionalfarmers also consider that improved water quality would contribute much to enhancetheir production. This is a problem common to all farm categories.

3.7.2 Disabling production factorsTable 24 summarizes information on disabling factors, that is those factors that createobstacles for farmers who want to increase product

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kshetrimayum-pradipkumar-singh
View:	237 times
Download:	0 times

Economics Aquaculture Feeding

Documents