BUDGET ANALYSIS OF PENAEID SHRIMP HATCHERY FACILITIES

J. World Maricul. SOC. 1 2 ( 2 ) :305-321 (1981)

BUDGET ANALYSIS OF PENAEID SHRIMP HATCHERY FACILITIES

Michael Johns, Wade G r i f f i n , Addison Lawrence1 and Joe Fox1

ABSTRACT

One o f t h e c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s i n commercial penaeid shrimp c u l t u r e product ion i s t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f p o s t l a r v a e t o s tock grow-out ponds. This s tudy i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e economic f e a s i b i l i t y o f r e a r i n g penaeid shrimp from n a u p l i i t o p o s t l a r v a e (hatchery phase) . The f a c i l i t y design used i s based on t h e hatchery opera ted by Texas A&M Universi ty a t Gal- veston, Texas. The Generalized Budget Simulation Model f o r Aquaculture developed a t Texas A&M Univers i ty w a s used f o r t h e a n a l y s i s .

A ten-year p lanning horizon was used f o r t h e a n a l y s i s . S ix d i f f e r - e n t systems ranging i n s i z e from 5 ten-metr ic ton tanks t o 60 ten-metric t o n tanks w e r e examined. Annual c o s t and r e t u r n budgets w e r e developed f o r t h e s i x systems assuming they opera ted 6 and 1 2 months p e r year . Investment c o s t s , break-even p r i c e s and q u a n t i t i e s , and n e t present value w e r e es t imated f o r each system.

could be p r o f i t a b l e above and inc luding 20 tanks f o r those opera t ing only s i x months annual ly and above and inc luding 10 tanks f o r those o p e r a t i n g 1 2 months annual ly .

Resul t s show t h a t commercial h a t c h e r i e s , using 10-metric ton tanks,

INTRODUCTION

One o f t h e key elements i n t h e success of commercial shrimp c u l t u r e o p e r a t i o n s i s t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of s u f f i c i e n t numbers of pos t la rvae , a t t h e proper t i m e i n t h e product ion c y c l e , t o m e e t t h e requirements of the product ion u n i t . P r i o r s t u d i e s have demonstrated t h e t e c h n i c a l f e a s i - b i l i t y o f r e a r i n g c e r t a i n penaeid shrimp s p e c i e s from n a u p l i i t o post- l a r v a e (Hudinaga and K i t t a k a 1966; Cook and Murphy 1969; Mock and Murphy 1971; S a l s e r and Mock 1977; Mock e t a l . 1977,1980) and hatchery systems f o r both i n t e n s i v e and ex tens ive l a r v i c u l t u r e e x i s t .

lTexas A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n and Department of Wild l i fe and F i s h e r i e s Sciences, Texas A&M Univers i ty , 4301 Waldron Road, Corpus C h r i s t i , TX 78418.

l e g e S t a t i o n , TX 77843. 2Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, Texas A&M Univers i ty , Col-

305

Before s i g n i f i c a n t f i n a n c i a l commitments are made, however, pros- p e c t i v e i n v e s t o r s and lending i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l r e q u i r e information on t h e economic p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e s e systems. Economic s t u d i e s i n shrimp l a r v i c u l t u r e have genera l ly been lacking i n s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e , a l - though t h e r e have been a number of economic s t u d i e s on hatchery systems f o r mar icu l ture organisms o t h e r than penaeid shrimp (Aquacop 1979; I m e t a l . 1976; Lipschul tz and Krantz 1978, 1980). Economic analyses of pe- nae id shrimp hatchery systems providing information on t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of var ious s i z e f a c i l i t i e s varying i n tank number, l abor requirements f o r t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s , and c o s t s and r e t u r n s f o r systems o f d i f f e r e n t produc t ion capac i ty are n o t a v a i l a b l e . Information i n t h e s e v i t a l areas of i n t e r e s t would enable i n v e s t o r s and c r e d i t o r s t o a t l e a s t conceptual ize t h e economic p o t e n t i a l f o r i n t e n s i v e l a r v a l product ion f a c i l i t i e s f o r e x i s t i n g technology.

c o s t s , c o s t s and r e t u r n s f o r penaeid shrimp hatchery systems u t i l i z i n g 5, 1 0 , 20, 30, 40 , and 60 ten-metr ic ton (MT) tanks , and t o determine t h e f a c i l i t y s i z e which captures most of t h e a v a i l a b l e economies of s i z e . Annual cash flows a r e c a l c u l a t e d f o r a 10-year planning horizon, along with oppor tuni ty c o s t s and break-even p r i c e s and q u a n t i t i e s .

The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s s tudy are t o estimate i n i t i a l investment

METHODS AND DATA

This paper d e s c r i b e s t h e economics of s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t s i z e hatcheries based on t h e system operated by Texas A&M Univers i ty a t t h e Na- t i o n a l Marine F i s h e r i e s Serv ice Laboratory, Galveston, Texas. The hatch- e r y design i s w e l l documented i n l i t e r a t u r e ; a d e s c r i p t i o n can be found i n Cook and Murphy (1969) , along with modi f ica t ions as descr ibed i n Mock and Murphy (1971) , S a l s e r and Mock (1974) , and Mock e t a l . (1974, 1980) . The ha tchery f a c i l i t y a t Galveston uses 2 MT t a n k s , whereas i n t h i s a n a l y s i s 10 MT tanks a r e used s i n c e t h e s e are now being used i n commer- c i a l opera t ions (Simon 1981).

e r a l i z e d Budget Simulat ion Model f o r Aquaculture developed a t t h e Depart- ment of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, Texas ALM Univers i ty , College S t a t i o n , Texas ( G r i f f i n e t a l . 1980) . The budget s imula tor c a l c u l a t e s budgets based on i temized c o s t s and r e t u r n s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s i z e f a c i l i t y on a t o t a l and p e r t e c h n i c a l u n i t ( p e r tank) b a s i s . The f a c i l i t y s i z e s in- v e s t i g a t e d vary i n tank number (5 , 1 0 , 20, 30, 40 , and 60) while holding tank s i z e i s cons tan t a t 10 MT.

Hatchery product ion d a t a w a s used f o r t h e fol lowing assumptions re-

Budgets f o r t h e var ious s i z e f a c i l i t i e s w e r e der ived using t h e Gen-

garding s tocking o f tanks and product ion. These d a t a w e r e used as a b a s i s f o r formulat ing t h e subsequent budgets: 1) s tocking dens i ty of 100 n a u p l i i / l i t e r , 2 ) s u r v i v a l o f 60% from n a u p l i i t o p o s t l a r v a e , 3 ) metamorphosis from Ni ( f i r s t n a u p l i a l s t a g e ) t o PL5 (five-day-old pos t la rvae) w i l l t ake 1 7 days on t h e average (Simon 1981) . Given t h e s e assumptions each 10 MT tank can t h e o r e t i c a l l y produce 600,000 s t a g e 5 p o s t l a r v a e per run. There i s an average of 1.67 runs p e r month o r one run each 18 days beginning i n March and ending i n August. March repre- s e n t s t h e ear l ies t d a t e i n which t h e hatchery could produce f o r grow-out f ac i l i t i e s l o c a t e d i n Texas. August i s t h e l a tes t d a t e g iv ing s u f f i c i e n t grow-out t i m e f o r a f a l l crop i n Texas. Budgets were a l s o determined f o r a 12-month product ion per iod assuming supply t o both fore ign and domestic

306

grow-out f i rms. The average o f 1 .67 runs p e r month a l s o holds f o r the 12-month product ion scheme. The above budgets were ca lcu la ted taking i n t o account c e r t a i n schedul ing and management problems t h a t tend t o arise when dea l ing wi th t h e m a s s c u l t u r e of b i o l o g i c a l organisms. These budgets were c a l c u l a t e d using 75% of t o t a l capac i ty of t h e f a c i l i t y , assuming such problems as n a u p l i i non-ava i lab i l i ty , pump o r power f a i l u r e , or o t h e r product ion problems.

Various assumptions have been made as t o p r i c e s , insurance, financ- i n g o f c a p i t a l assets, t a x e s and deprec ia t ion . Cost of insurance, f i - nancing, and t a x e s r e f l e c t t h e c o s t s t h a t would be incur red by a firm o p e r a t i n g along t h e middle t o lower Texas c o a s t a l a rea . Many of t h e c o s t s are s t r i c t l y local and vary wi th t h e s i z e and organiza t iona l framework o f t h e f i rm. Current 1981 p r i c e s f o r f i x e d and v a r i a b l e c o s t i t e m s w e r e used i n t h e budget a n a l y s i s . C a p i t a l investment ( f ixed) items ( s t r u c t u r a l components, l and , machinery and equipment) a r e representa- t i v e o f t h e south Texas c o a s t a l area.

FIXED INPUT PRICES

P r i c e s f o r such f i x e d i t e m s a s s t r u c t u r a l components, machinery, and equipment were der ived a t through correspondence with d e a l e r s , sup- p l y ca ta logues , and r e t a i l p r i c e s . Machinery f o r t h e hatchery u n i t con- sists o f a t r u c k and emergency genera tor . P r i c e s f o r t h e s e i t e m s were assumed t o be $13,000 and $8,400, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Land value i s estimated t o be $3,75O/ha f o r Texas c o a s t a l land. I t was assumed t h a t t h e minimum land purchased would be 2 . 0 ha, r e g a r d l e s s of f a c i l i t y s i z e . Building cons t ruc t ion costs are es t imated a t $430.40/m2 and represent the founda- t i o n , metal frame cons t ruc t ion , i n s u l a t i o n , plumbing, e l e c t r i c a l wiring, a i r -condi t ion ing , and i n t e r i o r f i n i s h . Archi tec t and engineer ing fees were es t imated a t 10% o f t h e c a p i t a l improvements c o s t and surveying was a f l a t f e e o f $5,500. Managerial i n p u t s are c a l c u l a t e d a s $2,00O/month f o r t h e manager and $1,500 monthly f o r s a l a r i e d technic ians .

c h a i r s , f i l i n g c a b i n e t s , and o t h e r o f f i c e furn ish ings . Hatchery labora- t o r y equipment c o n s i s t s o f microscopes, sa l inometer , food processor , i c e machine, Hydrolab, l a b c a r t s , a i r blower, f i l t e r s , glassware, buckets, submersible pumps, l i g h t banks, a s e p t i c t r a n s f e r hood, tanks , re f r igera- t o r s , thermometers, and var ious o t h e r labora tory equipment.

Other f i x e d i n p u t s inc lude o f f i c e equipment which includes desks,

DEPRECIATION

Depreciat ion i s c a l c u l a t e d on a s t r a i g h t - l i n e b a s i s tak ing i n t o account t h e deprec iab le l i f e of each i n d i v i d u a l i t e m i n years and salvage value. Salvage value i s def ined a s t h e percentage o f t h e i n i t i a l p r i c e t h a t could be reclaimed a t t h e end o f t h e deprec iab le l i f e of t h e item. The equat ion f o r deprec ia t ion using t h e s t r a i g h t - l i n e method can be ex- pressed as fol lows:

oc - sv D = - n '

where D i s t h e annual r a t e o f d e p r e c i a t i o n , OC is t h e o r i g i n a l c o s t (value) o f t h e asset, S V i s t h e salvage value a t t h e end of t h e

3The use o f t r a d e names i n t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n does not imply ment o f commercial products .

economic

endorse-

307

l i f e o f t h e asset, and n is t h e es t imated l i f e of t h e a s s e t i n years .

FINANCING

Loan terms vary depending on lending agent , l o c a t i o n , type of f i rm, and c a p i t a l a s s e t s involved. I n t h i s s tudy , e x t e r n a l f inanc ing w a s con- s idered . Of t h e i n i t i a l investment , 75% was assumed t o be borrowed. The equat ion f o r c a l c u l a t i n g i n t e r e s t i s :

P * I N V I = - 2

where I i s annual i n t e r e s t , P is p e r c e n t of i n i t i a l investment borrowed, I N V i s i n i t i a l investment i n t h e f a c i l i t y and i i s t h e i n t e r e s t rate. The model recognizes 3 d i f f e r e n t i n t e r e s t rates: short- term (1 y e a r ) , intermediate- term (2-5 y e a r s ) , and long-term (5+ y e a r s ) . I n t e r e s t r a t e s f o r t h e s e t e r m s are 21%, 19%, and 17%, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

INSURANCE

Various t y p e s o f insurance are requi red f o r a hatchery f a c i l i t y . These inc lude insurance on c a p i t a l assets, proper ty , and employees of t h e f a c i l i t y .

The hatchery b u i l d i n g i s insured a g a i n s t f i r e , wind, and storm and inc ludes extended coverage a t an annual r a t e of 4.5% of t h e appraised value. Machinery ( t r u c k ) i s insured a t a rate o f 76% o f t h e replacement value.

Personnel insurance ( s a l a r i e d ) is Worker's Compensation and is ca l - c u l a t e d a t an annual rate of $8.17 p e r $100.00 o f annual p a y r o l l .

TAXES

A f i r m w i l l be s u b j e c t t o an a r r a y o f d i f f e r e n t t a x e s depending on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e chosen. This s tudy assumes t h e organiza- t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e t o be a corpora t ion . The t a x e s computed inc lude r e a l p roper ty t a x , s o c i a l s e c u r i t y t a x , unemployment t a x , and f e d e r a l income tax .

$100.00 o f 20% of t h e t o t a l value o f b u i l d i n g s , machinery, equipment, and improvements.

income with t h e t a x f o r any one employee not t o be appl ied t o income over $29,700.

nual employee p a y r o l l and t h e employment t a x r a t e . Here w e are assuming an employee t a x r a t e o f 0.8% appl ied t o each employee's f i r s t $6,000.

Because o f t h e complexity o f t a x l a w s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n accounting methods and corpora te s t r u c t u r e s , income t a x i s f igured on a simple cash method o f accounting. This assumes a l l taxable income i s included f o r t h e t a x a b l e year i n which t h e payment i s received (Barry e t a l . 1979) . Deductions f o r t a x a b l e income inc lude cash opera t ing expenses, i n t e r e s t on loans , deprec ia t ion , unemployment t a x , p roper ty t a x , and insurance. A 1981 t a x schedule w a s used i n t h e a n a l y s i s .

The real proper ty t a x rate w a s assumed t o be $2.44 appl ied t o every

Employer's p o r t i o n o f s o c i a l s e c u r i t y t a x i s 6.65% of t h e employee's

Unemployment t a x i s c a l c u l a t e d by f ind ing t h e product o f each an-

Severa l r e c e n t changes i n t a x a t i o n methods (e .g . , Economic Recovery Act 1981) w i l l p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t t h e t a x s t r u c t u r e o f shrimp c u l t u r e

308

f i rms. The model used i n t h i s s tudy d id n o t t a k e i n t o account these new procedures , a l though modi f ica t ions w i l l be made f o r f u t u r e analyses .

VARIABLE INPUT PRICES

Unit p r i c e s f o r v a r i a b l e i n p u t s were der ived from b i o l o g i c a l supply ca ta logues and retail p r i c e s and are assumed t o remain constant over the e n t i r e planning horizon.

Naupl i i used f o r s tocking are purchased a t a c o s t of $1.00/1000 animals. The q u a n t i t y purchased i s commensurate with t h e assumptions above on s tocking d e n s i t i e s and tank c a p a c i t i e s . Feed inc ludes Artemia c y s t s and those chemicals s p e c i f i c a l l y used f o r a l g a l production. Fuel c o s t s a r e determined f o r a t ruck (average usage, 124.2 km/week) and an emergency genera tor . Regular gaso l ine h a s a p r i c e of $ 0 . 3 2 / l i t e r and d i e s e l f u e l a va lue o f $0 .285/ l i te r . U t i l i t i e s were c a l c u l a t e d using t h e c u r r e n t rate f o r south Texas and es t imated usage based on ava i lab le information. Water usage w a s added t o u t i l i t i e s and was ca lcu la ted a t $15-$30/month depending on f a c i l i t y s i z e . Telephone c o s t s a r e approximated a t $200/month.

Suppl ies f a l l i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : o f f i c e s u p p l i e s , shipping s u p p l i e s , and product ion suppl ies . O f f i c e s u p p l i e s a r e grouped together as one u n i t and are approximated a t a monthly c o s t of $100. Shipping s u p p l i e s inc lude Styrofoam sh ipping boxes, p l a s t i c shipping bags, t ape , oxygen, and rubber bands. Unit p r i c e s f o r shipping s u p p l i e s are $5.00, $0.06, $1.00, $0.42, and $0.01, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Product ion suppl ies in- c lude a i r s t o n e s , a i r l i n e tub ing , microscope s l i d e s , o t h e r expendable i t e m s and glassware. Chemicals used i n t h e hatchery include Maracyn I and Maracyn 11, and EDTA. Unit p r i c e s f o r t h e s e i tems a r e $O.lO/tak f o r Maracyn I and I1 and $O.O5/g f o r EDTA.

A l s o included i n t h e v a r i a b l e i n p u t s are r e p a i r and maintenance on machinery and equipment. Repair and maintenance values w e r e ca lcu la ted by t a k i n g a percentage o f t h e i n i t i a l c o s t o f t h e i t e m and tak ing i n t o cons idera t ion t h e d u r a b i l i t y and length of l i f e f o r each p iece of equipment. Repair c o s t s are computed a s an annual value and prora ted over 1 2 months.

CASH FLOW BUDGETING

The cash flow budget is a measure of t h e p r o j e c t e d t iming and mag- n i tude of cash inf lows and outf lows f o r t h e bus iness under cons idera t ion , f o r a given per iod o f time and information from it can be used f o r investment a n a l y s i s .

s u b j e c t i v e undertaking. Each i n v e s t o r must se t those s tandards of per- formance f o r t h e investment which are most meaningful i n terms of h i s own s i t u a t i o n . However, without some set of e s t a b l i s h e d set of c r i t e r i a f o r eva lua t ion , no b a s i s f o r d e c i s i o n would e x i s t . For t h i s s tudy , th ree methods of d i scr imina t ion w e r e es tab l i shed--ne t p r e s e n t value of cash flow, economic p r o f i t , and break-even a n a l y s i s .

The f e a s i b i l i t y of any investment a l t e r n a t i v e i s a t b e s t a very

NET PRESENT VALUE

By t a k i n g i n t o account t h e t i m e value of expendi tures and earnings, t h e n e t p r e s e n t value (NPV) method al lows one t o make a r e a l i s t i c com- par i son o f f u t u r e r e t u r n s with i n i t i a l expendi tures . This is done by d iscount ing t h e expected f u t u r e r e t u r n s by an appropr ia te discount r a t e

309

over t h e planning horizon o f t h e p r o j e c t . The d iscount r a t e used f o r t h e a n a l y s i s i s 19.75% and i s based on t h e r e t u r n from Baa bonds (14.75%) p l u s a r i s k f a c t o r o f 5% s i n c e shrimp h a t c h e r i e s are a r e l a t i v e l y new indus t ry . A NPV value g r e a t e r than zero means t h e investment is economi- c a l l y p r o f i t a b l e . I n t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s NPV w a s es t imated consider ing t h e owner's investment a s 25% of t h e c a p i t a l investment and remaining 75% financed. The formula used t o c a l c u l a t e NPV is:

N NPV = -1NV + 1 Pn (1 + a)-"

n = l

where NPV i s t h e n e t p r e s e n t va lue o f t h e cash flow, I N V i s t h e i n i t i a l investment (equi ty c a p i t a l ) , N i s t h e planning horizon i n y e a r s , n i s t h e s p e c i f i c per iod i n years (1, 2 , 3 , ..., N ) , Pn i s t h e n e t cash in- flow f o r per iod n , and d i s t h e d iscount r a t e .

Of course, manipulat ion o f t h e d iscount r a t e w i l l n a t u r a l l y a f f e c t t h e n e t p r e s e n t va lue , and t h e choice of t h e most meaningful r a t e of discount i s always a very d i f f i c u l t p a r t of investment a n a l y s i s . For t h i s s tudy , t h e d iscount rate w a s chosen from t h e next b e s t a l t e r n a t i v e f o r investment of equal amounts of c a p i t a l .

ECONOMIC PROFIT

Economic p r o f i t he lps t o eva lua te t h e investment p o t e n t i a l of t h e hatchery as opposed t o an a l t e r n a t i v e investment. I n t h i s s tudy , t h e same t h e o r i e s d i scussed above wi th r e s p e c t t o d iscount r a t e s a p p l i e s t o t h e choice o f rates f o r economic p r o f i t .

BREAK-EVEN PRICE AND BREAK-EVEN QUANTITY

The break-even p r i c e f o r a given q u a n t i t y of shrimp p o s t l a r v a e is t h a t p r i c e necessary f o r t o t a l revenue t o equal t o t a l c o s t . The break- even q u a n t i t y f o r a given p r i c e p e r u n i t can be i d e n t i f i e d a s t h a t quan- t i t y necessary f o r t o t a l revenue t o equal t o t a l c o s t .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The a n a l y s i s f i r s t looks a t t h e investment f o r 6 d i f f e r e n t s i z e fa- c i l i t i e s and then gross r e c e i p t s and c o s t s f o r each s i z e system f o r t h e 2 product ion per iods are ca lcu la ted . Three cr i ter ia--economic p r o f i t , n e t p r e s e n t va lue , and break-even ana lys i s - -a re examined t o eva lua te t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f each s i z e system and each product ion per iod . F i n a l l y , economies of s i z e are discussed.

INVESTMENT

T o t a l f a c i l i t y investment does n o t depend on t h e number of months a f a c i l i t y is operated b u t only on t h e s i z e of t h e f a c i l i t y . Tota l d o l l a r investment (bottom of Tables 1 and 2 ) i n c r e a s e s from j u s t over $0.25 m i l - l i o n f o r t h e 5-tank system t o j u s t over $2.2 m i l l i o n f o r t h e 60-tank sys- t e m . I n t h e 6-month product ion scheme investment/1000 decreases substan- t i a l l y from almost $17 i n t h e 5-tank system t o j u s t under $9/1000 i n the 20-tank system (Fig. 1). Between 20 and 40 tanks p e r u n i t investment decreases much more slowly and between 40 and 60 tanks increases s l i g h t l y . This i n c r e a s e between 40 and 60 tanks i s due t o an increase i n water s t o r a g e capac i ty and b u i l d i n g space. I n t h e 12-month production

310

Table 1. Annual Budgets f o r Penaeid Shrimp Hatcheries U t i l i z i n g 5 Tanks f o r 6 Months and 1 2 Months, Respect ively, a t 75% Capacity and Year 6 i n a 10-Year Planning Horizon

Product ion scheme (months) ( 6 ) (12)

1. G r o s s Receipts from Pos t la rvae Product ion

2. V a r i a b l e Cost (VC) Seed Stock (Naupl i i ) Repair and Maintenance Fue 1 Feed and Ration Supplements Chemicals Labor U t i l i t i e s Suppl ies P a y r o l l Taxes

T o t a l Variable C o s t (TVC)

Returns Above Variable Cost

3. Fixed Cost (FC) S a l a r i e d Personnel Depreciat ion In t e re s t Insurance Taxes Overhead

Tota l Fixed C o s t (TFC)

Tota l Cost (TVC + TFC = TC)

N e t Before Tax Returns

Income Tax

N e t A f t e r Tax Return

Required Return t o Equity C a p i t a l

Economic P r o f i t

Break-even P r i c e

Break-even Product ion (x 1,000)

Tota l F a c i l i t y Investment

5 Tanks

$ 225,000

$ 50,000 2,509 2,568 2,472 6,244

52,696 7,800

15 ,781 8,170

$ 148,240

$ 76,760

$ 114,000 40,180 65,238 17,271

9,216 475

$ 246,380

$ 394,620

$ -169,620

$ 0

$ -169,620

$ 18,494

$ -188,114

$ 17.54

39,462

$ 374,571

5 Tanks

$ 450,000

$ 100,000 2,509 3,180 4,944

12,488 97,392

7,800 30,289 14,829

$ 273,431

$ 176,569

$ 114,000 40,180 65,717 17,272

9,320 475

$ 246,964

$ 520,395

$ -70,395

$ 0

$ -70,395

$ 18,494

$ -88,889

$ 11.56

52,039

$ 374,571

3 1 1

Table 2. Summary of Annual Budgets for Penaeid Shrimp Hatcheries Utiliz- ing 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 Tanks for 6 and 12 Months, Respec- tively, at 75% Capacity and Year 6 in a 10-Year Planning Horizon

- - P r o d u c t i o n scheme (months)

(61 (12) (6) (121

1.

2 .

3 .

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9 .

10.

11.

12.

1.

2.

3 .

4.

5.

Gross Receipts from P o s t l a r v a e P r o d u c t i o n

T o t a l V a r i a b l e C o s t

T o t a l F i x e d C o s t

Total C o s t

N e t Before Tax R e t u r n s

N e t F e d e r a l Income Tax

N e t A f t e r Tax Returns

Requi red Return t o E q u i t y C a p i t a l



Break-even P r o d u c t i o n ( i n units o f 1 ,000)

T o t a l F a c i l i t y I n v e s t m e n t

Gross R e c e i p t s from P o s t l a r v a e P r o d u c t i o n


T o t a l F ixed C o s t

T o t a l C o s t

Net Before Tax R e t u r n s

6. N e t F e d e r a l Income Tax

7. N e t A f t e r Tax R e t u r n s

8 .

9.

10 .

11.

12.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.




Break-even P r o d u c t i o n ( i n u n i t s of 1.000)

T o t a l F a c i l i t y I n v e s t m e n t

Gross R e c e i p t s from P o s t l a r v a e P r o d u c t i o n


T o t a l F ixed C o s t

T o t a l c o s t

N e t Before Tax Returns

N e t F e d e r a l Income Tax

N e t A f t e r Tax R e t u r n s




Break-even P r o d u c t i o n [ i n u n i t s o f 1 ,000)

T o t a l F a c i l i t y Inves tment

10 Tanks

$ 450,000 $ 900,000

$ 223,950 $ 409,582

$ 327,597 $ 276,249

$ 551,547 $ 685,831

$ -101,547 $ 214,169

$ 0 $ 101,279

$ -101,547 $ 115,652

$ 25,692 $ 25,692

$ -127,239 $ 89,960

$ 12.26 $ 7.62

55,154 68,583

$ 520,347 $ 520,347

30 Tanks

$ 1,350,000 $ 2,700,000

$ 586,252 $ 1,131,282

$ 470,432 $ 470,704

5 1,056,684 $ 1,601,986

293,316 $ 1,098,014

$ 137,686 S 507,847

$ 158,392 S 592,929

S 54,131 $ 54,131

$ 104,261 $ 538,798

$ 7.83 $ 5.93

105 ,668 160,198

5 1,096,324 $ 1,096,324

60 Tanks

$ 2,700,000 $ 5,400,000

5 1 , 0 5 6 , 0 1 2 $ 2,051,927

$ 760,422 $ 760,738

$ 1,816,434 $ 2,812,615

$ 883,566 $ 2,587,335

$ 409,201 $ 1,192,935

$ 477,127 $ 1,397,162

$ 110,453 $ 110,453

5 366,674 $ 1,286,709

$ 6.73 $ 5.21

181,643 281,266

$ 2,237,018 $ 2,237,018

20 Tanks

$ 900,000 $ 1,800,000

$ 402,957 $ 775,447

$ 331,650 $ 359,451

$ 734.607 $ 1,134,898

$ 165,393 $ 665,102

$ 78,842 $ 308,708

$ 89,313 $ 359,156

$ 38,341 $ 38,341

$ 50,972 $ 320,815

$ 8.16 $ 6.30

73,460 113,489

$ 776,529 $ 776,529

40 Tanks

$ 1,800,000

$ 745,643

$ 586,691

$ 1,332,334

$ 467,666

$ 217,887

$ 252,541

$ 71,127

$ 181,414

$ 7.40

133 ,233

$ 1,440,543

$ 3,600,000

$ 1,421,695

$ 586,999

$ 2,008,694

$ 1,591,306

$ 734,762

$ 859,306

$ 71,127

$ 788,179

$ 5.58

200,869

$ 1,440,543

312

scheme investment/1,000 PL drops rapidly between 5 and 20 tanks ($8.32 to $4.32) then much less rapidly between 20 and 40 tanks. Again investment/unit increases slightly between 40 and 60 tanks.

*Number of t a n k s

- ?? -12 month

1 10 10 .00 20 .00 3 0 . 0 0 110.00 5 0 . 0 0 6OiO0

NUMBER OF P L ' S [ X 100001 x 1 0

Figure 1. Investment/l,OOO postlarvae for the 6- and 12-month production schemes vs number of units of postlarvae produced.

RETURNS

Gross receipts for each facility size, assuming 75% capacity and 6 and 12 month production schedules, are given in Tables 1 and 2. In the 6-month operation, gross receipts range from $225,000 for the 5-tank system to $2.7 million for the 60-tank system. Gross income in the 12- month production period was twice the 6-month period, that is, $450,000 for a 5-tank system and $5.4 million for the 60-tank system.

313

COSTS

Stocking c o s t w a s t h e major v a r i a b l e c o s t (VC) i t e m a t each f a c i l i t y s i z e and product ion scheme with t h e except ion o f t h e 5-tank 6-month sys- t e m i n which labor w a s t h e major c o s t i t e m . This c o s t v a r i e s from 34% t o 58% from t h e s m a l l e s t t o t h e l a r g e s t f a c i l i t y , respec t ive ly . The p r i c e f o r n a u p l i i w a s assumed t o be cons tan t a t $1.00/1,000 f o r a l l fa- c i l i t ies . Stocking costs may be g r e a t l y reduced with t h e i n c l u s i o n of a maturat ion u n i t running concomitantly with t h e hatchery. Johns e t a l . (1981) examines t h e economic f e a s i b i l i t y o f a maturat ion f a c i l i t y which produces s u f f i c i e n t n a u p l i i to s tock a 60-tank hatchery on an annual b a s i s and estimates t h a t n a u p l i i can be produced f o r $0.50 o r less per 1,000.

The second major v a r i a b l e c o s t i tem i s labor . Labor requirements f o r t h e var ious f a c i l i t i e s covered 3 s h i f t s (day, evening, and n ight ) and were among s e v e r a l ha tchery areas. These area inc lude a lgae c u l t u r e , Artemia ( b r i n e shrimp) c u l t u r e , p o s t l a r v a e c u l t u r e , and packing and shipping. Although i t i s more advantageous t o have l a b o r , more o r less, spe- c i a l i z e d i n a c e r t a i n a r e a , some of t h e labor force i s assumed t o s h i f t about as t h e labor requirements o f t h e product ion process s h i f t from one area t o another wi th in t h e f a c i l i t y . This assumption u t i l i z e s labor t h a t would otherwise be i d l e a t c e r t a i n s t a g e s i n t h e product ion cycle . The l a b o r requirements f o r t h e range o f f a c i l i t y s i z e s was assumed t o be 1 0 , 1 2 , 19 , 26, 29, and 33 people f o r tanks 5 through 60, respec t ive ly . Percentage-wise labor ranged from 36% o f VC i n t h e 5-tank system t o 1 7 % i n t h e 60-tank system f o r both t h e 6- and 12-month opera t ions . With re- cen t advances i n computer technology and i ts a p p l i c a t i o n t o hatchery and o t h e r labor i n t e n s i v e aquacul tura l systems, much o f t h i s labor requi re - ment can b e reduced.

Suppl ies , which c o n s i s t p r i m a r i l y of shipping s u p p l i e s , represent an average o f 11% o f VC items f o r both annual and semi-annual production. For those h a t c h e r i e s producing p o s t l a r v a e s o l e l y f o r l o c a l pond systems, t h i s charge can be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced. Although i n most cases shipping costs are included i n t h e p r i c e t o t h e buyer, h e r e shipping c o s t s are c a l c u l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y from t h e p r i c e o f p o s t l a r v a e t o determine t h e a c t u a l c o s t o f shipping.

Of t h e f i x e d c o s t s (FC), s a l a r i e d personnel make up an average 40.5% and range from 46% i n t h e 5-tank system t o 31% i n t h e 60-tank system. S a l a r i e d personnel c o n s i s t o f a manager, a s s i s t a n t manager, and s a l a r i e d technic ians .

Depreciat ion i n c r e a s e s from 16% o f FC i n t h e 5-tank system t o 30% of FC i n t h e 60-tank system. Depreciat ion i s t h e second major f ixed cost i t e m . Interest i s t h e t h i r d major f ixed c o s t i t e m and i s calcu- l a t e d a t an annual r a t e varying from 17 t o 21% depending on t h e l i f e of t h e i t e m . I n t e r e s t as a p e r c e n t o f FC f e l l from 5 tanks t o 20 tanks ( 2 7 % t o 20%) and rose aga in from 20 t o 60 tanks (20% t o 27%).

i s t h e summation o f t o t a l VC and t o t a l FC. The extremes f o r TC a r e j u s t under a ha l f m i l l i o n d o l l a r s f o r t h e 5-tank system t o j u s t under $3 m i l - l i o n f o r t h e 60-tank system. Figure 2 shows t h e average t o t a l revenue (TR/1,000 PL) and average t o t a l c o s t (TC/1,000 PL) f o r both product ion schemes. Average revenue (AR) i s cons tan t a t $10/1,000 f o r both 6- and 12-month schemes and it equiva len t t o t h e s e l l i n g p r i c e . By comparing TC and TR on a q u a n t i t y of PL produced b a s i s , t h e 6- and 12-month schemes

The t o t a l c o s t (TC) f o r each system is shown i n Tables 1 and 2 and

314

can be d i r e c t l y compared t o one another . c o s t (AC) f i r s t without income taxes included as a cost (BT) and sec- ondly with income taxes (AT) t h e e f f e c t o f income t a x on AC can be visu- a l i z e d .

Also, by comparing average

Figure 2 . Annual "average revenue" and long-run "average cos t" per u n i t produced before and a f t e r income t a x e s by number of p o s t l a r - vae produced assuming 75% capac i ty .

Figure 2 shows s e v e r a l i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t s . F i r s t , and most obvious i s t h a t on a 6-month schedule both t h e 5- and 10-tank systems a r e above t h e AR l i n e (on both BT and AT b a s i s ) i n d i c a t i n g negat ive p r o f i t (AC>AR). This occurs f o r t h e 10-tank 12-month system. I t is worth not ing here a l s o t h a t by opera t ing a 5-tank system f o r 1 2 months as opposed t o 6 months reduces AC from n e a r l y $18 t o less than $12/1,000 PL. Second, a

315

5-tank 12-month opera t ion has a lower AC than t h e 10-tank 6-month opera- t i o n , t h i s being due t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n investment/1,000 as seen i n Figure 1 f o r each product ion scheme. F i n a l l y , a break-even s i t u a t i o n OCCUTS where A C = A R . For t h e 6-month scheme t h i s occurs a t a production o f 69,750 u n i t s (1 u n i t = 1 , 0 0 0 PL) and 62,910 u n i t s f o r t h e 12-month scheme. Below t h i s break-even p o i n t , AC f a l l s below AR (AC<AR), thus p o s i t i v e p r o f i t s are demonstrated.

ECONOMIES OF SIZE

Fur ther i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Figure 2 r e v e a l s t h e economies of s i z e gained by i n c r e a s i n g t h e u n i t s o f p o s t l a r v a e produced ( i . e . , number of t a n k s ) f o r both product ion schedules . Looking f i r s t a t t h e AC curves f o r t h e 6-month schemes, AC d e c l i n e s r a p i d l y between 5 and 2 0 tanks due t o t h e d e c l i n e i n both per -uni t investment and product ion c o s t s ( i . e . , l a b o r ) . From 20 t o 60 tanks both t h e before and a f t e r t a x AC curves de- c l i n e less rap id ly . Therefore , f o r a 6-month schedule a 20-tank f a c i l i t y captures most o f t h e economies o f s i z e , a l though t h e r e are considerable economies captured even a f t e r 60 tanks. Another p o i n t t o br ing out here i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e before and a f t e r t a x AC curves f o r t h e 6-month product ion schemes. A t 60 tanks t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s j u s t over $1.50, meaning t h a t a t a product ion l e v e l o f 270,000 u n i t s income t a x i s $1.50 of average c o s t . Turning to t h e 12-month AC curves , cons iderable econo- m i e s o f s i z e are captured between 5- and 10-tank systems, t h e 20-tank system captur ing t h e most economies. Between 20 and 60 tanks t h e curve tends t o f l a t t e n o u t . The AC curve decreases i n s lope due t o decreasing p e r u n i t VC and FC. s i g n i f i c a n t economies o f s i z e i n t h e number purchased and opera t ing c o s t as tank number increases . Labor i n VC and s a l a r i e d personnel i n FC a r e o t h e r examples where s i g n i f i c a n t economies o f s i z e are generated. I n t h e 12-month scheme t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e before and a f t e r t a x AC i s $2.21 f o r t h e 60-tank system.

For example, i n machinery and equipment t h e r e are

ECONOMIC PROFIT

So f a r t h i s a n a l y s i s has looked a t account ing p r o f i t which does not consider t h e r e t u r n on t h e owner's o r i g i n a l investment (down payment) o r e q u i t y c a p i t a l . Economic p r o f i t t a k e s i n t o account t h e opportuni ty c o s t of t h e owner's e q u i t y c a p i t a l . Equity c a p i t a l i n t h i s a n a l y s i s i s based on a 25% down payment of t h e t o t a l investment i n t h e f a c i l i t y .

posed t o an a l t e r n a t i v e investment, a requi red rate o f r e t u r n i s estab- l i s h e d . By adding t h e r e t u r n on an a l t e r n a t i v e investment , say corpor- ate bonds (14.75%/year) , t o a r i s k f a c t o r , say 5%/year , a requi red r a t e o f r e t u r n o f 19.75% i s derived. A s an example, t h e owner's e q u i t y capi- t a l i n a 30-tank ha tchery i s $274,081 (.25 x 1,096,324) and h i s required ra te o f r e t u r n t o h i s $274,081 investment would be $54,131 (274,081 x .1975). The requi red r a t e o f r e t u r n f i g u r e s i n Tables 1 and 2 range from approximately $18,494 f o r t h e smallest system t o $110,453 f o r t h e l a r g e s t system. A s wi th account ing p r o f i t , economic p r o f i t i s negat ive f o r t h e 5- and 10-tank 6-month systems and t h e 5-tank 12-month system and p o s i t i v e f o r a l l t h e l a r g e r systems. The impl ica t ion here i s t h a t when economic p r o f i t i s p o s i t i v e t h e investment i n t h e hatchery f a c i l i t y i s b e t t e r than t h e next b e s t a l t e r n a t i v e (corpora te bonds) f o r t h e equi ty c a p i t a l . This impl ies t h a t f o r t h e 6-month product ion schemes only t h e 20- t o 60-tank systems are a b e t t e r investment than corpora te bonds.

To eva lua te t h e investment p o t e n t i a l o f a shrimp hatchery a s op-

316

BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS

There are 2 types of break-even a n a l y s i s considered here: p r i c e of p o s t l a r v a e and q u a n t i t y produced. Break-even p r i c e (BEP) is t h e p r i c e requi red , a t t h e given rate o f product ion, t o j u s t equal t o t a l c o s t . As shown i n T a b l e s 1 and 2 and i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 3, BEP f a l l s i n the 6- month product ion scheme from almost $18 i n t h e 5-tank system t o less than $7 i n t h e 60-tank system. In o t h e r words, f o r a 5-tank system t o cover t o t a l c o s t s ($394,620) it would have to charge a t least $17.54. For t h e 6-month scheme t h e BEP f a l l s r a p i d l y t o $12.26 f o r the 10-tank and t o $8.16 f o r t h e 20-tank systems, reaching a l o w a t $6.73 f o r a 60- tank system. The BEP f o r a 5-tank system assuming a 12-month production scheme i s $11.56; t h i s f a l l s t o a low o f $5.21 f o r t h e 60-tank system.

I 10 10.00 2 0 . 0 0 30.00 40 .00 50.00 60 .00

NUMBER OF P L ' S ( X 100001

Figure 3. Break-even p r i c e (BEP) f o r penaeid shrimp ha tcher ies u t i l i z - i n g 6- and 12-month product ion schedules by number of post- l a r v a e produced.

317

The BEP shows t h a t even though a p r i c e of $10/1,000 was assumed, i f p r i c e dropped below $5.21 ($6.73 f o r a 6-month product ion per iod) none of t h e f a c i l i t i e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n would be p r o f i t a b l e .

Break-even product ion (BEQ) i s t h e q u a n t i t y of product ion requi red , a t t h e given p r i c e ($10/1,000) t o j u s t equal t o t a l c o s t . Here BEQ is approximately 175% of product ion f o r a 5-tank 6-month system. BEQ i s 116% o f product ion f o r t h e 5-tank 12-month system and 52% of product ion f o r the 60-tank 12-month opera t ion . Break-even q u a n t i t y i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 4.

0 0

Figure 4. Break-even q u a n t i t y (BEQ) f o r penaeid shrimp ha tcher ies u t i - l i z i n g 6- and 12-month product ion schedules by number of post- l a r v a e produced.

NET PRESENT VALUE

The r e s u l t s of t h e n e t p r e s e n t value a n a l y s i s are t h e same as analysis o f economic p r o f i t . I n t h e 6-month product ion scheme, both t h e 5- and 10-tank systems show negat ive NPV, imploying t h a t i t would not be an acceptab le investment based on t h e given discount rate. The same is t r u e f o r t h e 5-tank 12-month scheme. Investment i n t h e o t h e r p o s i t i v e valued f a c i l i t i e s would be acceptab le a t t h e given d iscount r a t e (Table 3 ) .

318

T a b l e 3. N e t P resent Value o f Hatcheries i n Year 6 of a 10-Year Planning Horizon f o r a 6- and 12-Month Product ion Season

No. o f t a n k s 6-montha 12-montha

5 $ -83,675 $ -83,675 10 $ -110,351 $ 1,030,889 20 $ 779,249 $ 3,189,166 30 $ 1,413,589 $ 5,247,591 40 $ 2,231,806 $ 7,576,097 60 $ 4,191,892 $ 12,268,110

aBased on n e t a f t e r t a x r e t u r n s .

CONCLUSION

Since hatchery systems a r e a r e l a t i v e l y new i n d u s t r y , t h e r e i s a c e r t a i n r i s k a s s o c i a t e d i n t h e i r es tab l i shment . Therefore, it i s wise i n i t i a l l y t o minimize investment p e r u n i t ( i . e . , minimize loss ) u n t i l experience i n both opera t ing and managing a ha tchery f o r penaeid shrimp is acquired. Figure 1 shows t h a t most o f t h e economies o f s i z e f o r investment are captured by a 20-tank system f o r both product ion per iods. The t o t a l investment f o r a 20-tank system is l e s s than a mi l l ion d o l l a r s ($776,529) , y e t t h e n e t a f t e r t a x r e t u r n s (Table 2 ) a r e p o s i t i v e and sub- s t a n t i a l enough f o r p o s i t i v e growth o f t h e firm. The added r i s k of in- v e s t i n g i n a 60-tank system ($2.23 m i l l i o n ) does not war.rant t h e small decrease i n c o s t p e r u n i t when f i r s t s t a r t i n g up t h e business . There- f o r e , on t h e b a s i s o f assumptions e s t a b l i s h e d and maintained within the framework o f t h e model, commercial h a t c h e r i e s o f t h e assumed design and l o c a t e d on t h e middle t o l o w e r Texas c o a s t could be p r o f i t a b l e above and inc luding 20 tanks f o r those opera t ing only i n t h e domestic market and above and inc luding 10 tanks f o r those s e r v i c i n g both fore ign and domes- t i c i n t e r e s t s . I t w a s shown, however, t h a t f o r 6- and 12-month schemes a 20-tank system captured most of t h e economies of s i z e f o r t h e systems descr ibed.

The r e s u l t s and a n a l y s i s i n t h i s s tudy are dependent e n t i r e l y upon t h e assumptions i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e program. Four assumptions having major impact are t h e p r i c e of $10/1,000 f o r p o s t l a r v a e , t h e production season length , t h e constancy o f t h e p r i c e o f i n p u t s and product , and the ready market f o r pos t la rvae .

Because o f t h e uncer ta in ty o f p r i c e s f o r goods and s e r v i c e s and because o f t h e design o f t h e model, i n p u t and o u t p u t p r i c e s are held con- s t a n t through t h e 10-year planning horizon. Even though t h i s assumption has a major impact on t h e outcome o f t h e budgets it does not a f f e c t i t s use a s a planning t o o l f o r p o t e n t i a l hatchery f i rms.

I n terms o f f u t u r e research t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l a r e a s t h a t r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . These a r e a s inc lude income t a x l a w s and how they apply t o shrimp c u l t u r e f a c i l i t i e s . The c o s t of permits f o r these f a c i l i t i e s i s another f a c t o r f o r cons idera t ion . F i n a l l y , s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s needs t o be accomplished f o r those i t e m s having a major e f f e c t on t h e firm. These are, i n decreasing order o f c o s t : s tocking and labor i n v a r i a b l e c o s t and s a l a r i e d personnel , deprec ia t ion , and i n t e r - es t charges i n f i x e d c o s t .

319

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work i s a r e s u l t of a research program sponsored by t h e Texas AM Univers i ty Sea Grant College Program, supported by t h e Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis t ra t ion, O f f i c e of Sea Grant, Department o f Commerce under G r a n t #04-7-158-44108 with t h e Texas A g r i c u l t u r a l Ex- periment S t a t i o n (Technical A r t i c l e N o . 17223).

LITERATURE CITED

Aquacop. 1979. I n t e n s i v e l a r v a l c u l t u r e o f Macrobrachium rosenberq i i :

Barry, P . J., J. A. Hopkins, and C. B. Baker. 1979. F inancia l Manage-

a c o s t s tudy. Proceedings World Maricul ture Socie ty 10:429-434.

ment i n Agr icu l ture , 2nd e d i t i o n . I n t e r s t a t e P r i n t e r s and Pub- l i s h e r s , Inc . , Danvi l le , Ill.

Cook, H. L . , and M. A. Murphy. 1969. The c u l t u r e of l a r v a l penaeid

G r i f f i n , W. L . , C. M. Adams, and L. A. Jensen. 1980. A genera l ized s imula t ion model f o r aquacul ture . (Unpublished manuscr ip t ) .

Hudinaga, M . , and J. Kit taka . 1966. S t u d i e s on t h e food and growth of l a r v a l s t a g e s of a prawn, Penaeus japonicus , with re ference t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of p r a c t i c a l m a s s c u l t u r e . Information B u l l e t i n on Planktonology (Japan) 13: 83-94,

hatchery product ion o f P a c i f i c o y s t e r seed: a research r e p o r t . Proceedings Nat iona l S h e l l f i s h e r i e s Associat ion 66:81-94.

shrimp. Transac t ions American F i s h e r i e s Socie ty 98:751-754.

I m , K. H . , R. S . Johnston, and R. D. Langmo. 1976. The economics of

Johns, M. A . , W. L. G r i f f i n , A. L. Lawrence, and D. L. Hutchins. 1981. Budget a n a l y s i s of shrimp maturat ion f a c i l i t y . Journa l World Mari- c u l t u r e Socie ty 12(1):104-109.

Lipschul tz , F . , and G. E. Krantz. 1978. An a n a l y s i s of o y s t e r hatchery product ion of cu l tched and c u l t c h l e s s o y s t e r s u t i l i z i n g l i n e a r pro- gramming techniques. Proceedings Nat iona l S h e l l f i s h e r i e s Associa- t i o n 68:s-10.

Lipschul tz , F . , and G. E . Krantz. 1980. Product ion opt imiza t ion and economic a n a l y s i s o f an o y s t e r (Crassos t rea v i r q i n i c a ) hatchery on t h e Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA. Proceedings World Maricul ture Socie ty 11:580-591.

shrimp from egg t o pos t la rvae . Proceedings World Maricul ture So- c i e t y 1:143-156.

nary eva lua t ion o f a c losed system f o r shrimp c u l t u r e . Proceedings World Mar icu l ture Socie ty 8:335-369.

Mock, C. R . , D. B. Revera, and C. T. Fontaine. 1980. The l a r v a l c u l t u r e of Penaeus s t y l i r o s t r i s using modi f ica t ions of t h e Galveston labora- t o r y technique. Proceedings World Mar icu l ture Socie ty 11:102-117.

Mock, C. R . , and M. A. Murphy. 1971. Techniques for r a i s i n g penaeid

Mock, C. R . , L. A. Ross, and B. R. Salser. 1977. Design and prel imi-

S a l s e r , B. R . , and C. R. Mock. 1974. Equipment used for t h e c u l t u r e o f l a rva l penaeid shrimp a t t h e Nat ional Marine F i s h e r i e s Serv ice Gal- veston Laboatory. Congreso Nacional de Oceanografia 5:22-25.

320

Simon, C. M. 1981. Design and operation of a large-scale, commercial penaeid shrimp hatchery. Journal World Mariculture Society 12 (2) : this volume.

321

Documents

BUDGET ANALYSIS OF PENAEID SHRIMP HATCHERY FACILITIES