See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228735900
Commercial scale Penaeid shrimp demonstration in inland freshwater systems
Article
CITATIONS READS 2 222
3 authors:
Ferdinand Wirth Durwood Dugger Saint Joseph's University (PA, USA) BCI, Inc.
86 PUBLICATIONS 1,005 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Leroy Creswell University of Florida
26 PUBLICATIONS 235 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Marine Shrimp RAS production in fresh water. UF and FDACs View project
Containment Area Aquaculture Demonstration Program View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Leroy Creswell on 29 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration in Inland Freshwater Systems
Final Project Report for Cost Reimbursable Contract 007188 between FL DACS, Division of Aquaculture and University of Florida, IFAS
Submitted December 15, 2004 by:
Ferdinand F. Wirth, Ph.D. University of Florida, IFAS, Food and Resource Economics Department Indian River REC, 2199 South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, FL 34945
Durwood M. Dugger BioCepts International Inc. 5618 N. Old Dixie Hwy., Fort Pierce, FL 34945
LeRoy Creswell St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension 8400 Picos Road, Fort Pierce, FL 34945
Funding for this project provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Funding for this project provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture Services, Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner and Consumer Services, Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1 Introduction and Background Information 1
2 Facility Design and Construction 35
3 Shrimp Production Results 56
4 Economics and Marketing Research 82
5 Outreach and Information Dissemination 96
6 Conclusions and Recommendations 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY 103
APPENDICES 111
ii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Introduction Persistent low returns for citrus and the development and spread of diseases such as citrus canker and citrus tristeza virus have prompted citrus growers in central and south Florida to seek alternative or supplementary crops. Aquaculture, the production of aquatic plants and animals in a controlled environment, is one of the fastest growing sectors of U.S. agriculture, and there is strong interest in aquaculture among Florida citrus growers, especially in the Indian River area. Shrimp aquaculture, using the Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), has been practiced in Florida for 30 years. However, due to the competition for coastal land, it has primarily been limited to research, brood stock and hatchery operations. The establishment of a large marine shrimp aquaculture industry in Florida using traditional culture locations and techniques based upon saltwater and coastal land use is probably infeasible due to high land costs, competing land uses, and environmental regulations. Development of the aquaculture industry in coastal areas is also criticized on the basis of potential contamination from aquaculture effluents, construction of unsightly facilities that may discourage tourism, and obstruction to coastal navigation. In addition, there are often conflicts between fish farmers and commercial fishermen in coastal regions. Over the past 6-7 years, a few individuals and researchers have experimented with acclimating L. vannamei at approximately 3 weeks of age (minimum PL12) from saltwater to freshwater and culturing the resulting animals to market size in fresh waters high in dissolved minerals, especially chlorides, typical of the Floridan aquifer. The groundwater from the Floridan aquifer, a series of limestone strata that underlie most of the state of Florida, has the correct mineral balance to support these species. The Floridan is an abundant supply of water that is relatively unused in South Florida. In many parts of South Florida it does not meet state drinking water standards due to high levels of dissolved solids and chlorides, although farmers may use it for irrigation when higher quality water is not available. The South Florida Water Management District or SFWMD comprises parts or all of the 16 counties in South Florida. In these counties, total dissolved solids and chloride concentrations range from 250 to greater than 1,000 ppm in the Floridan aquifer with concentrations generally increasing with depth of the aquifer (Lichtler, 1972, Edwards 1989, SFWMD 1998). Many parts of the Floridan exceed 1,000 ppm chlorides and have been known to reach 2,000 ppm or more. Surficial aquifer waters, overlying the Floridan aquifer, range from 0-500 ppm chlorides and from 500 to over 1,000 ppm total dissolved solids (SFWMD 1998). Thus, use of water from the Floridan aquifer to culture marine shrimp would have limited impact on the overall management of water resources in South Florida.
1 Farms in South Florida account for over half of the state’s agricultural value and many of these farms have Floridan aquifer wells in place. These inland sites are already zoned and prepared for agriculture, and environmental concerns and competition with other uses and users would be tremendously decreased by the use of inland rather than coastal sites for aquaculture. With its abundant supply of suitable fresh water, warm climate, and strong agricultural industry, Florida has excellent potential for culturing marine shrimp species that can be acclimated to freshwater at inland sites. The various projects and experiments culturing L. vannamei in Florida have thus far not been convincingly economically feasible, and further have not been sufficiently coordinated or consolidated. There is a need to publicly demonstrate inland shrimp culture in fresh waters in outdoor, but closed, systems of a commercially large enough size and that exhibit greater control over production variables, including diseases and waste management.
The project is a partnership for a commercial scale demonstration of farming marine shrimp in a freshwater aquaculture system. The project is designed to prove feasibility of these technologies to existing farmers, ranchers, grove owners, and others in rural communities, as a means to stimulate economic activity through new crop revenues, job retention and job growth. This community driven project includes direct participation of farmers and businesses in designing, consulting, funding and administrating the project. The proposed environmentally responsible shrimp culture technology, coupled with opportunities for multiple uses of agricultural land and water will help achieve the goal of a more sustainable South Florida. Anticipated outcomes include incorporation of shrimp production into existing farms, new investment dollars by individuals and companies interested in this activity, and the creation of a number of supportive businesses such as hatchery, processing, feeds, distribution and marketing. These outcomes will result in adding new jobs and diversifying our agricultural economy sufficiently to help insulate it from the pressures of urban sprawl.
Project Objectives
The overall goal of the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project is to demonstrate shrimp pond aquaculture technologies and to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a shrimp aquaculture industry for south Florida. Specific objectives include:
(1) Construct two 1,500 sq. meter (0.37 acre) pond aquaculture production units with An appropriately sized retention and/or treatment system resulting in zero discharge; (2) Stock, feed, monitor, grow and record data of shrimp over the grant cycle; (3) Evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment system in meeting aquaculture BMPs; (4) Assess the potential to recycle effluent onto other agricultural crops; (5) Have farmers and interested persons visit, learn and participate in the demonstration;
2 (6) Compare results with other existing information on culturing penaeids in freshwater; and (7) Produce a written report complete with design, costs, marketing and economic evaluation on performance and transfer these results throughout the state.
Organization of this Report
This project report is organized into six chapters. Chapter one introduces the research problem, objectives, and provides background information on the marine shrimp farming industry and the U.S. shrimp market. Chapter two presents details on the demonstration facility design and construction. Chapter three details the shrimp production results for two crop cycles, including acclimation and nursing in the greenhouse, and growout in lined production ponds. Chapter four reviews the enterprise’s fixed and variable production costs and the results of market survey research on customers’ attitudes toward the harvested shrimp. Chapter five outlines outreach and information dissemination efforts designed to transfer project results and recommendations to project stakeholders, current shrimp farmers, and potential shrimp farmers. Chapter six discusses the general conclusions from this project and provides recommendations and directions for future research.
Background Information
The Marine Shrimp Farming Industry
Penaeid shrimp are farmed throughout the world primarily in salt and brackish water. The Pacific or western white shrimp, Penaeus vannamei (also known as Litopenaeus vannamei) is native to the Pacific coast from Mexico to Peru and is the leading farm raised species in the Western Hemisphere. This species breeds well in captivity, has a high hatchery survival, can be stocked at small sizes, has a uniform growth rate, and juveniles can be raised to adults who can then be maintained in captivity for spawning future generations. Shrimp aquaculture has primarily been developed in third world countries by the private sector along with participation by foreign governments and organizations such as the World Bank interested in developing economies and exportable products. From 1975 to 1985, the production of farmed shrimp worldwide increased 300% and from 1985 to 1995 it increased another 250% with a new world record in total cultured shrimp production of 815,000 metric tons set in 1999 (Rosenberry, 2001). However, the industry began to experience problems in 1987 due to waste management followed by disease pathogens and many leading shrimp farming counties including Taiwan, China, Thailand and Ecuador have since experienced erratic production cycles. These problems have led to the emergence of a clear need to develop the next generation of shrimp production systems that (1) focus on greater control over production variables, including diseases and waste management, (2) can be achieved in production systems that are more intensive, closed or semi-closed, and (3) recirculate or reuse more water.
3 Historically the commercial farming of marine shrimp throughout the world occurs on the coastal plain using waters of estuarine and oceanic origin. In 1981 an El Nino event in Ecuador caused coastal shrimp farms there to have their saline water sources diluted by rainfall runoff to near zero salinity. However, many shrimp farmers noted that their shrimp survived this El Nino event that lasted for months. Their low salinity growout survivability and success in Ecuador was noted by at least one aquaculturist in south Texas - Durwood M. Dugger. This farmer produced over 5,000 lbs. of Litopenaeus vannamei that year in ponds filled and supplied with Rio Grand River irrigation water with salinities less than 2 ppt. (Les Hodgeson, Marco Sales, Inc. Brownsville, Texas, personal communications.)
Shrimp culture in the United States has historically occurred in coastal areas in ponds using brackish water in South Carolina, Texas and Hawaii. In the continental United States, pressures from economic and environmental interests have caused potential shrimp farming researchers and entrepreneurs to increasingly examine the potential of more inland shrimp farming.
In recent years, pilot shrimp farms have been established in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. Researchers (Van Wyk, et al, 1998; Harvin, 2000; Samocha, et al, 2001; Lee, et al, 2001; Boyd, 2001) have reported on culturing L. vannamei at inland sites in freshwater ponds and indoor raceways in Texas, Arizona, Alabama and Florida. Boyd (2001) reported on pilot projects culturing shrimp inland in Alabama using groundwater taken from aquifers located at depths between 60-120 m and wells yielding 750 to 3,500 L/min of water ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 ppt salinity. Most of these farms seek to grow either L. vannamei or L. monodon. Both have shown a tolerance for growth in low salinity ground and well waters.
Pond production trials in Arizona showed high survivals of up to 100%, yields up to 2.3 Kg per sq. meter, and conversion ratios less than 1 that were feasible for ponds stocked at 20,000 PL per sq. meter in low salinity (1.8-2.6 ppt) ground water with intensive aeration (60 hp/ha). L. vannamei (Samocha, et. al, 2000) can be raised in low salinity geothermal water at inland sites without negative effect on growth and survival. The studies conducted in enclosed raceways in greenhouses in Arizona showed that juvenile shrimp (PL 8) could be acclimated to the low salinity well water and grown up to 1.5 gram each with yields approaching 2.3 Kg per square meter in 35 days. The well water had chlorides ranging from 796-985 ppm, sodium from 627- 820 ppm, and Total Soluble Salts of 1,843-2,591 ppm. Grow out trials, also in indoor raceways (98 square meters in surface area), showed that shrimp could be grown to a marketable size of 14-18 grams each in 107 days, with survivals ranging from 59- 86%, FCR ranging from 2.1-3.2, and production values ranging from 1.0-4.3 Kg per square meter. The authors concluded that L.vannamei can be cultured to marketable size in Arizona both in both indoor raceways and outdoor ponds. Economic feasibility was not addressed in the study.
4 Scarpa (1998, 1999) produced a recommended range of water quality parameters for the culture of L. vannamei in Florida freshwater that includes chlorides minimally greater than 300 ppm, total hardness greater than 150 ppm, total and alkalinity greater than 100 ppm. Harvin (2000) has previously presented information from small private pond production experiments in Florida producing one crop of L. vannamei annually that could yield on the order of 6,700 Kg/Ha (5,968 lbs/acre) or more. A prototype indoor three-phase raceway undergoing experimentation in Florida may be capable of producing 2.4-2.7 kg per sq. meter per crop with up to six crops per year (Van Wyk, 2001). Van Wyk, et al (1999) produced a manual on culturing marine shrimp in indoor recirculating freshwater systems in Florida. However, the economic model generated by the project required sales returns of 20- 70% above (then) current wholesale prices before profitability looked probable.
Most of these shrimp aquaculture pilot ventures have experienced some degree of technical success. However, none have declared economic success, as evidence by large scale expansion. The largest scale of these inland shrimp farming ventures, OceanBoy Farms, Inc., is located in Florida and consists of approximately 800 acres of low salinity production ponds located in south central Florida near Lake Okeechobee. However, this particular farm is funded with private investment dollars and it is unknown whether the farm is profitable or being sustained by investor funds. Recently, OceanBoy Farms achieved USDA organic certification and announced that the farm would only produce organic shrimp in the future, presumably to differentiate their product from competing shrimp products and achieve higher than normal market prices.
The crux of the problem facing development of an inland shrimp farming industry is an in-depth analysis of the economic feasibility of such a venture. There are myriad technical problems facing the development of inland/low salinity shrimp farming industry in the U.S. and, specifically, in the state of Florida (reuse and disposal of even low salinity waters, disposition of production waste by-products - both solid and liquid, and production processes that allow yields to compete with other shrimp producers around the world). However, it is a dearth of information on the economic feasibility of low salinity shrimp farming that primarily holds back the private sector from large scale investment in this potential agri-industry.
U.S. Market for Shrimp
The U.S. seafood market is a series of niche markets ranging from “live” markets catering to largely Asian consumers to white tablecloth restaurants offering limited- availability high cost product, such as swordfish and large sea scallops. American consumers spend more than $41 billion each year on a wide variety of fish and shellfish products. This total includes about $28 billion purchased in food service establishments and about $13 billion in retail stores. Away-from-home outlets now account for over 60 percent of total U.S. seafood consumption (Adams, 1998).
5 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates that approximately 1,500 plants manufacture seafood in the United States. Most are small businesses and many are family owned. Fish and seafood are distributed to restaurants and retail outlets throughout the United States by approximately 2,800 wholesale and distribution firms. These firms include both full-line distributors and those specializing in seafood.
In 1996, U.S. commercial fishermen landed almost 9.5 billion pounds of fish and shellfish at U.S. ports, valued at approximately $3.4 billion. Demand for seafood far exceeds what U.S. commercial fishermen and aquaculture producers can produce. This shortfall in domestic supply varies widely by product, but is most severe for fish blocks, tuna and shrimp.
Approximately 1,000 U.S. firms are in the business of importing fish and shellfish. Importers compete for products with buyers in Japan, Europe and other major markets. In 1996, these firms purchased more than 3.2 billion pounds of seafood valued at $6.7 billion, making the U.S. the second largest seafood import market in the world. Altogether, more than half the seafood consumed by Americans is imported. The American seafood industry is also the world’s largest exporter of seafood. In 1996, U.S. firms exported 2.1 billion pounds of seafood valued at $3.0 billion. The largest export markets are in Japan, followed by the European Community and Canada.
Shrimp Consumption
Shrimp is the leading seafood consumed in the U.S. (NFI, 2002). Many species of shrimp are consumed in the United States, but consumers have shown a strong preference for warm-water shrimp species, with white shrimp generally preferred (Keithly, et al., 1993). Shrimp is sold in a variety of fresh or frozen product forms, including whole or tails, shell-on or peeled, and round or split and deveined. Sales and shipments are reported by size categories of shell-on shrimp tails, defined by count per pound. Customary commercial size classifications in the U.S. are U/15 (under 15 shrimp/lb), 16/20, 21/25, 26/30, 31/35, etc. About half of all shrimp sold in the U.S. are medium-sized (41-50 count/lb) (Schumann, 2000), and consumers expect the count to be near the middle of the range, with all purchased shrimp consistently about the same size (Dore, 2000).
Most farmed shrimp for the U.S. market is currently packed as shell-on tails, although some is sold whole. Head-on shrimp is increasingly important in Europe, but the U.S. market for this product is still very small and consists primarily of oriental restaurants (Dore, 2000). The major product form for white shrimp is frozen, heads-off, 41-50 count shrimp (Schumann, 2000). There has been a gradual shift in preferences from canned and dried shrimp to fresh and frozen product forms (USDOC, 1996). Most of the growth in U.S. consumption of shrimp is in the form of raw headless, raw peeled, or cooked peeled shrimp (US Dept. of Commerce, 1996). U.S production of breaded shrimp increased from 122 million pounds (55.5 metric
6 tons) in 1992 to 152 million pounds (69 metric tons) in 2001, a 24.5 percent increase (NMFS, 2002).
There has been overall growth in consumption of shrimp since 1965. Per capita consumption increased slowly through the early 1980s from 1.4 pounds in 1980 to 2.0 pounds by 1985. From 1986 through 1996, per capita consumption slowly increased, fluctuating between 2.2 pounds and 2.5 pounds. Since 1996, per capita consumption skyrocketed from 2.5 pounds in 1996 up to per capita shrimp consumption of 3.4 pounds/person in 2001, a 36 percent increase over the 5-year period. The 2001 per capita shrimp consumption represents 23% of total U.S. seafood consumption (NMFS, 2002).
The tremendous increase in U.S. per capita shrimp consumption over the last several years can be attributed, in large measure, to decreases in shrimp prices caused by the large supply increases. Market behavior is characterized in part by the relationship between quantity of a product and its price, from both the producer’s (supply) perspective and the consumer’s (demand) perspective. The quantity of any food product, including shrimp, demanded by consumers is determined by: the product’s price, the price of other products competing for the consumer’s dollar, consumers’ incomes, and consumers’ tastes and preferences (Schaffner, et al., 1998). In general, as prices fall, producers are willing to supply less of their product, but consumers are willing to purchase more. ‘Elasticity’ refers to the ratio of the percent change in quantity demanded to a one percent change in price. The price elasticity of demand is a measure of the relative responsiveness of demand to changes in product prices. Demand is considered inelastic if this ratio is less than one. In this case, a 1% change in price produces less than a 1% change in demand (or supply). Participants at the First International Symposium on Sustainable Fish Farming in 1994 (Reinertsen and Haaland, 1995) observed that luxury species, such as lobster, shrimp, crab, salmon and flatfish, have a relatively inelastic demand. Shrimp Supply
Demand for shrimp in the U.S. far exceeds the supply produced by U.S. commercial fishermen and aquaculture producers. The total domestic supply of shrimp is simply the total of U.S. commercial landings plus aquaculture production plus imports minus exports. U.S. supply of all forms of shrimp (heads-off weight) increased from 819.7 million pounds in 1992 to 841.6 million pounds in 1996, an increase of only 2.7 percent. By 2001 total supply skyrocketed to 1.312 billion pounds, an increase of 55.9 percent from 1996 to 2001 (NMFS, 2002).
U.S commercial landings increased from 198 million pounds (head-off weight) in 1991 to 218.5 million pounds head-off weight (332.5 million pounds or 150,815 metric tons live weight) in 2000. This represented an increase of only 10.3 percent over the ten-year period. Landings in 2001 decreased 7.8 percent to 201.4 million pounds head-off weight (306.5 million pounds or 139,022 metric tons live weight (Johnson, 2001; NMFS, 2002).
7 During the 1995 – 2000 period, domestic U.S. aquaculture production increased from 2.2 million pounds (1,000 metric tons) in 1995 to 4.8 million pounds (2,169 metric tons) in 2000, an increase of almost 117 percent (NMFS, 2002). Despite this impressive growth rate, domestic farmed shrimp production accounts for less than 5% of the total U.S. supply (Harvey, 2002). The increase in domestic shrimp aquaculture production also failed to offset the decrease in commercial landings. U.S. shrimp exports (domestic and foreign re-exports) in 2001 were only 32.5 million pounds (14,756 metric tons), primarily shipped to Canada and Mexico (NMFS, 2002).
Imported shrimp, primarily farm raised, is the leading contributor to the U.S. seafood trade imbalance. Imports have increased significantly since the mid-1960s. Shrimp imports in 1998 totaled 695 million pounds, worth $3.1 billion, an increase of 5 percent from 1997. In 2001, 882.6 million pounds of shrimp were imported into the U.S., 121.8 million pounds more than the quantity imported in 2000, and increase of 16 percent in just one year. The 2001 imports, primarily from Southeast Asia, represented about 85% of the total U.S. supply. These imports were valued at $3.6 billion and accounted for 37% of the value of total edible fishery product imports (NMFS, 2002).
Two-thirds of U.S. shrimp exports originate in Asia. Imports from Asian countries, primarily Thailand, increased from 354.8 million pounds (product weight) in 1992 to 587.2 million pounds in 2001, a 65.5 percent increase. Imports from South America totaled 146.7 million pounds in 2001, 16.6 percent of U.S. imports. Ecuador has been the major South American supplier, but Ecuadorian imports have fluctuated wildly. Ecuadorian shrimp imports fell from 120.6 million pounds in 1992 to 97.2 million pounds by 1996, rebounded to 142.3 million pounds by 1998, then fell again to 111.1 million pounds in 1999, and 42.1 million pounds in 2000 (70 percent decrease from 1998). Imports from Ecuador increased to 59 million pounds (26,760 metric tons) in 2001 (Johnson, 2001; NMFS, 2002).
Venezuela has been the second leading source of imported shrimp from South America. Venezuelan imports grew from 7.8 million pounds in 1992 to 32.8 million pounds in 2000. Imports from Venezuela fell to 21 million pounds (9,517 metric tons) in 2001 (Johnson, 2001; NMFS, 2002).
Through October 2002, shell-on black tiger shrimp imports from Asia were down by 5.4 percent, with Thailand imports down sharply. Imports from white shrimp producing areas (primarily South America, China and Mexico) grew almost 14 percent from 2001. Brazil, China, and Venezuela all showed significant gains (Brown, 2003).
Frozen products accounted for 86 percent of imported shrimp (599 million pounds in 1998, up 5 percent from 1997), fresh shrimp for 1 percent and prepared products (breaded, canned, pre-cooked, etc.) for 13 percent of the total. Although frozen
8 products dominate shrimp imports, a growing portion of imported shrimp is now being shipped as prepared products. In 1998, prepared-shrimp imports totaled 89 million pounds, valued at $452 million, a 29 percent increase from 1997. Shipments of prepared shrimp are expected to continue outpacing increases in fresh and frozen products. The increases in prepared-shrimp imports are driven by higher away-from- home food consumption and the growth of food store sales of prepared meals.
Shrimp Prices
Shrimp prices vary according to a wide variety of factors including size, supply, quality, origin, and species or color (Yokoyama, et al., 1989). Price generally increases with the size of the shrimp, but users readily switch to adjacent size categories as relative prices fluctuate (Dore, 2000). The wholesale prices of shrimp, as of January 14, 2003 for Central and South American pond-raised white shrimp ranged from $1.95 for 91-110 count shrimp to $$11.10 for under 10-count per pound. The price for 41-50 count shrimp, the most popular size, was $3.15 per pound, lower than the 52-week average of $3.25. Priced had fluctuated from a 52- week low of $2.90 on August 22, 2002 to a 52-week high of $3.65 on April 16, 2002.
As stated previously, the price elasticity of demand for shrimp is relatively inelastic. An inelastic price elasticity of demand has ramifications for producers. An inelastic demand means that the quantity demanded does not change as much as the price. Hence, noting that total sales or revenue is price times quantity, a reduction in price increases the quantity demanded less than proportionally. Therefore, total revenues would be lower for the producers with the increase in supply (Lesser, 1993; Shang, 1990).
Another way to examine the effects of inelastic demand is to consider what happens when the quantity sold varies. For most agricultural and marine products, price changes occur mainly in response to changes in supply, demand being both relatively stable and inelastic. This is because of the biological nature and structure of agricultural production. (For all non-storable products, such as live animals and fresh meat, once produced, they are consumed; therefore the quantity sold is typically determined by the amount supplied.) Higher quantities decrease prices more than proportionally, while lower quantities increase prices more than proportionally. The significance of products with inelastic price elasticities of demand and variable supplies, such as shrimp, is clear: prices will be very unstable (Lesser, 1993; Schaffner, et al., 1998).
Figure 1.1 shows the monthly U.S. wholesale prices for Central and South American pond-raised white shrimp, 41-50 count from January 1995 through December 2002. Prices have been highly volatile. From 1995 through 1999, prices fluctuated between $4.00 - $5.00 per pound. In early 2000, prices climbed quickly to $6.00 per pound during a period of tight supplies caused by industry disease problems. Since mid-2000, as U.S. shrimp supplies skyrocketed, prices have slowly fallen 50% from the high of $6.10 in July 2000 to the 2003 average of $3.15 per pound.
9 7.00
6.00
d 5.00
4.00
3.00
Price per poun 2.00
1.00
0.00 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Date
Figure 1.1. U.S. Wholesale Shrimp Prices, Central & South American, Pond-raised White Shrimp, 41-50 count
Shrimp Buying Behavior and Product Preferences
Shrimp Dealers (Wholesale and Retail)
The retail food business in the United States is gigantic and dominated by supermarkets; the few remaining specialty retail seafood markets are on the coasts or in large cities such as Chicago, and many of these combine retail sales with a wholesale or restaurant business. Similarly, specialty wholesalers of seafood are located almost exclusively in coastal states or the largest inland cities and primarily supply restaurants (Dore, 2000). Activities associated with the wholesale, retail, and food service sectors of the seafood industry create significant economic activity within many non-coastal metropolitan areas of the country; this is becoming even more pronounced given the rapid development of inland aquaculture (Adams, 1998). Although some retail food stores do buy through wholesale grocers, most supermarkets are supplied through their own purchasing departments, with smaller chains more likely to buy direct (Dore, 2000). Market analyses for several aquaculturally produced finfish (Golz and Nelson, Wirth, et al., 1990) have demonstrated a strong retailer and wholesaler preference for highly processed product (fish fillets), consistent with a noted consumer preference for convenience and ease of preparation.
General information concerning retailer and wholesaler shrimp purchase behavior was extracted from three studies. Shang (1990) interviewed 63 fish distributors in Hawaii and found that the shrimp dealers sold shrimp in six forms: frozen head-off,
10 frozen peeled and deveined, breaded, canned, dried, and fresh. Frozen head-off was the most important category, accounting for about 70% of the total volume sold; fresh shrimp accounted for only 1% of the total volume. Dealers preferred large shrimp for frozen tails and frozen peeled and deveined shrimp. Firms that indicated foreign imports as their major supply source most often cited “best price” as their reason, firms that relied on U.S. supply sources did so for “best quality” or “steady supply.”
Schumann (2000) surveyed 87 Florida shrimp broker/distributors. Of 18 respondents to the question about willingness to purchase live shrimp, only 2 indicated that they currently purchase live shrimp and 6 confirmed that they would probably purchase live shrimp in the future. Shrimp buyers indicated a willingness to pay $3.50/lb - $4.80/lb for farmed shrimp in 1999, and an interest in marketing full shrimp farm production capacity.
Wirth and Davis (2004, 2003a) surveyed 3038 seafood dealers in the nine states comprising the southeastern U.S. Dealers were asked to describe their business in terms of the percentage of their total sales in each of four specified categories: wholesale to wholesale, wholesale to retail, retail, and other. For this report, dealers were classified as “wholesalers” if they indicated that more than 50% of their total sales were wholesale-to-wholesale and/or wholesale to retail. Similarly, dealers were classified as “retailers” if they indicated that more than 50% of their total sales were retail. Respondents were fairly evenly split between these designations, but approximately 70%of re sponding dealers re ported some retail sale s, suggesting that many seafood deale rs are diverse, sellin g in multiple markets.
Dealers were asked sev eral q uestions about their current shrimp buying practices. Of those responding, 85% (21 2) indicated that they currently purchase shrimp and reported their total annu al shr imp purchases. Table 1.1 presents the total pounds purchased by these dealers; about two-thirds of dealers who buy shrimp purchase 50,000 pounds or less annua lly. Almost 10% buy more than one million pounds annually.
11 Table 1.1. Number of Pounds of Shrimp Purchased Annually by Dealers who Sell Shrimp Pounds of Shrimp Number of Dealers Percent of Dealers 1 - 50,000 144 67.6 50,0001- 100,000 19 8.9 100,001- 250,000 20 9.4 250,001-1,000,000 12 5.6 1,000,001-5,000,000 9 4.2 more than 5,000,000 9 4.2
These dealers were also asked to list the percentage of their total shrimp purchases in each of several specified sizes and product forms. Figure 1.2 shows the percent of responding shrimp buyers who indicated they currently purchase any shrimp in the specified sizes and forms. The results indicate that shrimp dealers carry the full range of sizes from 16/20 count to counts smaller than 41/50 count. Figure 1.3 shows the shrimp product forms currently being purchased by responding shrimp dealers. The vast majority of shrimp dealers carry shrimp tails, but more than 50% of shrimp dealers purchase some whole, head-on shrimp. A significant proportion of shrimp dealers also purchase peeled & deveined (p&d) tails and peeled & undeveined (pud) tails.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
% shrimp dealers 30
20
10
0 larger than 16/20 21/25 26/30 31/35 36/40 41/50 smaller than 16/20 41/50 shrimp size
Figure 1.2. Percent of Shrimp Dealers Currently Buying Any Shrimp in Specified Sizes
12 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
% of shrimp dealers 30
20
10
0 wholetail s p&d tails pu d tails butterfly other shrimp product fo rm
Figure 1.3. Percent of Shrim p Dea lers Curre ntly Buyi ng Any Sh rimp in S pecified Forms
Seafood dealers w ere asked to ra te various shrimp product features from 0-10, with 10 indicating the feature is “ mostimportant” in their shrimp purc hase dec isions. Table 1.2 shows the mean r ating (ranking) of each product feat ure for all dealers combined andfor those iden tified as wholes alers or r etailers. Ra tings we re consistentamong wholesale rs an d retailers. Quality, freshness, and smell were the three most import ant shrimp prod uct feature s to the r esponding dealers, each with mean rating greater than 8.5. Production source (imported vs. wild-caught vs. farm- raised) and country-of-origin appear to be relatively unimportant to dealers. Dealers also do not consider the whole (head-on) shrimp form, or fresh (never frozen) state to be very important.
13 Table 1.2. Mean Rating and Ranking of Shrimp Features in Purchase Decisions Product Mean Rating (Ranking) Feature ALL WHOLESALERS COMBO/OTHER RETAILERS DEALERS Quality 9.51 (1) 9.57 (1) 9.38 (1) 9.61 (1) Freshness 8.82 (2) 8.88 (2) 8.44 (5) 9.03 (3) Smell 8.75 (3) 8.66 (3) 8.31 (6) 9.12 (2) Price 7.73 (4) 8.04 (5) 7.06 (10) 7.78 (4) Color 7.61 (5) 8.04 (4) 7.44 (8) 7.44 (5) Size 7.51 (6) 7.80 (6) 8.13 (7) 7.27 (7) Consistent 7.37 (7) 7.70 (7) 8.94 (3) 7.10 (8) Size Taste 7.17 (8) 7.19 (8) 8.56 (4) 7.38 (6) Consistent 6.93 (9) 6.97 (9) 9.31 (2) 6.94 (9) Taste Tails 6.49 (10) 6.42 (11) 7.13 (9) 6.79 (10) Raw 5.88 (11) 5.86 (12) 5.33 (12) 6.08 (11) Frozen 5.82 (12) 6.63 (10) 4.27 (15) 5.79 (12) Fresh 4.64 (13) 4.22 (15) 4.33 (14) 5.00 (13) Whole4.23 (14) 4.29 (14) 4.19 (16) 4.32 (14) Country-of- 4.19 (15) 4.32 (13) 5.44 (11) 4.14 (15) Origin P & D 3.44 (16) 3.53 (18) 4.56 (13) 3.23 (16) Wild-Caught 3.40 (17) 3.73 (17) 4.06 (17) 3.16 (17) Nutritional 3.14 (18) 4.11 (16) 2.38 (19) 2.74 (19) Value Farm-Raised 3.00 (19) 3.36 (19) 2.31 (20) 3.01 (18) Imported 2.73 (20) 3.26 (20) 2.93 (18) 2.65 (20) Cooked 1.50 (21) 2.04 (21) 0.93 (21) 1.25 (21)
Wirth and Davis (2003a) also performed a conjoint analysis experiment to determine the relative importance of key shrimp product features (size form, refrigeration state, and price) on dealers’ purchasing decisions (Table 1.3). Conjoint analysis, which has become a popular marketing research tool for designing new products, refersto any decompositional method that estimates the structure of buyers’ preferences for a product’s features, given the buyers’ overall evaluations of a set of alternative products that are pre-specified in terms of levels of different features (Green and Srinivasan, 1978). Using conjoint analysis, a researcher can analyze a heterogeneous product market and obtain results that can be highly disaggregated to homogeneous groups of buyers. Alternatively, aggregating results for buyers who have similar preference or utility functions can be useful in modifying current products or services and in designing new ones for selected market segments (Green and Wind, 1975).
14 Table 1.3. Relative Importance of Shrimp Product Features to Seafood Dealers Attribute Relative Importance* ALL DEALERSWHOLESALERS COMBO/OTHER RETAILERS Size 23.3 26.1 26.4 17.9 State 2.2 4.4 1.9 5.5 Form 45.3 35.2 31.9 52.0 Price 29.1 34.3 39.8 24.7 * Relative Importance does not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Product form is the most important shrimp product feature for dealers, contributing almost 50% to the rating decision. Tails are strongly preferred, and contributed more to the product utility value than any other feature or feature level. Price contributed almost 30% to the decision and is slightly more important than size. As expected, the highest preference was for the lowest price and the largest size. State (fresh or frozen) has no significant effect on the product rating, suggesting that dealers are completely indifferent to the shrimp refrigeration state in their shrimp purchasing decisions. Results were fairly consistent between all dealers combined and the wholesaler and retailer groups, except that form is more important and size is less important to retailers.
Seafood Restaurants
Away-from-home outlets now account for over 60 percent of the expenditures associated with total U.S. seafood consumption (Adams, 1998), and a large proportion of the products of the aquaculture industry are intended for the restaurant market. In the U.S., shrimp is mainly consumed in restaurants. Further, in restaurants that serve any seafood, shrimp is the seafood most likely to be found on the menu (Dore, 2000). Today, even restaurants that are located far inland may offer seafood menu items, including shrimp, based on air-transported fresh seafood (USDOC, 1996). Restaurant consumption of seafood is expected to benefit from long-term increases in disposable income and a strong domestic economy that boosts sales in the restaurant and foodservice sectors (Dore, 2000; USDA, 2000).
Despite the popularity of shrimp in U.S. restaurants, information about seafood restaurant buyers’ attitudes, preferences and purchase behaviors toward shrimp is extremely limited; most recent research was found to focus on wild-caught and farmed finfish. In addition, most studies specifically explore consumer seafood preferences, rather than restaurant buyer purchase behavior. Shang (1990) surveyed 58 restaurants in Honolulu, Hawaii. Quality of the shrimp, characterized by firmness and color of flesh, was identified as a significant product characteristic at the restaurant level. High product quality, consistent supply, and lower prices were most often cited as preconditions for increased sales.
Wirth and Davis (2002, 2001a) surveyed 2465 seafood restaurants in the nine states comprising the southeastern U.S. This sample represents the entire populationof seafood restaurants included in the InfoUSA database for the southeastern states.
15 The survey included questions concerning the location, size and style of the restaurant, shrimp purchase behavior, willingness to buy directly from shrimp farmers, and a conjoint experiment.
One-third (32%) of the responding seafood restaurants were located in a resort area, and approximately 25% each were located in a rural or suburban area. Only 18% of responding seafood restaurants were located in urban areas. The majority of the restaurants (59%) described themselves as casual, with another 21% characterizing themselves as family style. Only seven percent (7%) described themselves as fine dining establishments. The average dinner entrée price was in the $11-$20 range, and 91% of the seafood restaurants reported an average dinner entrée price of $20.00 or less.
Restaurant buyers were asked several questions concerning their current shrimp purchase practices. Fifty-eight percent (58%) indicated they purchase no shrimp from Florida, while 16% indicated Florida as their sole source, and 22% indicated they purchase all of their shrimp from suppliers in the U.S. outside Florida. Others indicated various proportions purchased from Asia, South or Central America, and other unspecified sources. Most purchases were through a seafood wholesaler; 72% indicated all of their shrimp is purchased through a wholesaler. Annual shrimp purchases are shown in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4. Pounds of Shrimp Purchased Annually by Seafood Restaurants
Percent of Number of Valid Restaurants Responses Valid 0 1 .5 1-50,000 157 76.6 50,001-100,000 27 13.2 100,001-250,000 12 5.9 250,001-1,000,000 4 2.0 1,000,001-5000,000 1 .5 more than 5,000,000 3 1.5 Total 205 100.0 Invalid 6 Total 211
Figure 1.4 indicates the percent of restaurant buyers who indicated that they currently purchase shrimp in the specified sizes. The restaurants purchase a wide range of shrimp sizes, which reflects the diversity of the shrimp menu items in a typical seafood restaurant. The greatest number of restaurants purchase the smallest shrimp size, and the largest size is purchased by very few seafood
16 restaurants. This diversity of shrimp sizes purchased suggests that there may be market potential for virtually all sizes of farm-raised shrimp.
Figure 1.5 illustrates the product forms currently purchased by the seafood restaurants. Tails clearly dominate shrimp purchases. More than 80% of the restaurant shrimp buyers indicated that 50% or more of their total shrimp purchases are in the form of tails and 23% indicated that 100% of their shrimp purchases are in this form. Further, 89% of the respondents indicated that they currently purchase no whole shrimp. Shrimp farmers may have difficulty in marketing shrimp directly to restaurants without first processing their product to remove the heads.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Percent Restaurants Currently Buying Size 16/20 26/30 36/40 smaller than 41/50 21/25 31/35 41/50 other size
Shrimp Size Figure 1.4. Perce nt o f Rest aurants Curre ntly Buying Specified Shrimp Sizes
17 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Percent Restaurants Currently Buying Form whole tails p&d tails pud tails butterfly other form
Shrimp Product Form Figure 1.5. Percent of Restaurants Currently Buying Specified Shrimp Forms
Seafoo d restau rant bu yers were asked to asses s the importance of various shrimp product features. The seafood restaurant buyers were asked to rate various shrimp product features from 0-10, with 10 indicating that the feature is “most important” in their shrimp purchase decisions. The mean ratings for each product feature are shown in Table 1.5. Not surprisingly, quality and taste are most important product features for the majority of the responding restaurant buyers. Smell, price, size and freshness are also very important features for the large majority of restaurants. It is encouraging to note that consistent size and consistent taste, features that are within the control of shrimp farmers, are the third and fourth highest rated features for the majority of restaurant buyers. Consistency may represent a competitive advantage for farmed shrimp over wild-caught. Raw shrimp are highly preferred over cooked shrimp, and most of the buyers also considered the shrimp tails product form an important feature, suggesting again that shrimp farmers may encounter initial market resistance to the whole shrimp product form.
18 Table 1.5. Importance Rating of Shrimp Product Features in Purchase Decisions (Scale from 0-10, 10 Most Important)
Shrimp Product Mean Standard Feature Rating Deviation Quality 9.88 0.68 Taste 9.63 1.29 Consistent size 9.60 1.22 Consistent taste 9.56 1.31 Smell 9.39 1.53 Price 9.34 1.41 Size 9.29 1.54 Freshness 9.18 2.11 Tails 8.44 2.96 Raw 8.04 3.39 Color 7.79 2.59 Frozen 7.31 2.99 Country of origin 5.07 3.94 P & D 4.90 4.26 Nutritional value 4.61 3.50 Fresh (not frozen) 3.94 3.69 Farm-raised 3.67 3.67 Wild-caught 3.00 3.44 Imported 2.57 3.11 Whole 2.28 3.47 Cooked 1.47 2.92
The low importance ratings of several shrimp product features, especially for fresh (not frozen), farm-raised, wild-caught, and imported are not favorable for farm-raised shrimp. The restaurant buyers preferred frozen shrimp instead of fresh shrimp. Further, they did not seem to care whether the shrimp were farm-raised, wild-caught, or imported. This result suggests that shrimp farmers will not have a competitive marketing advantage because their product is farm-raised, instead of wild-caught or imported.
Restaurant buyer preferences for four shrimp product attributes, size, state, form and price, were assessed through the use of a conjoint analysis experiment, included as part of the mail survey by Wirth and Davis (2002, 2001a). The calculated relative importance of each feature is presented in Table 1.6.
19 Table 1.6. Relative Importance of Each Shrimp Product Feature to Seafood Restaurants
Attribute Range of Utility Relative Importance* Size 1.057 21.9% State 0.190 3.9% Form 2.875 59.7% Price 0.696 14.4% *Relative Importance does not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Product form was the most important shrimp product feature, contributing almost 60% of total utility. Tails were strongly preferred, and contributed more to the product utility than any other feature or feature level. In general, restaurant buyers have little or no interest in the whole shrimp product form. These results reinforce the conclusion that shrimp farmers interested in marketing directly to seafood restaurants may be required to offer shrimp tails, rather than whole shrimp. Large size (26-35 tails/pound) shrimp had a higher utility value than extra-large (16- 25 tails/pound) shrimp for the seafood restaurants and both large and extra-large were preferred to medium size (36-50 tails/pound) shrimp. Price, with its relative importance of only 14% for the seafood restaurant buyers, was less important than size and far less important than form. State (fresh or frozen) had little effect on the product rating, suggesting that restaurant buyers are virtually indifferent to the shrimp refrigeration state in their shrimp purchase decisions. Restaurants may generally be unwilling to pay extra to purchase fresh shrimp instead of frozen shrimp, which precludes restaurant marketing and product differentiation of fresh shrimp on the basis that they have never been frozen. One positive aspect of seafood restaurants’ preference structure is the relative unimportance of price to the seafood restaurant buyers, which suggests that restaurant buyers may be willing to pay a price premium for a high quality, farm- raised shrimp product with consistent taste and consistent size. The more expensive restaurants, in particular, indicate a willingness to purchase the largest (typically most expensive) size of shrimp, in the form of tails, directly from shrimp farmers. A price premium in the restaurant market may offset any processing costs for the shrimp farmer. However, research has not clearly identified any characteristics of farm-raised shrimp that confer a competitive advantage and justify a price premium, given buyers’ preference for frozen shrimp over fresh shrimp and the relative indifference of seafood restaurant buyers to farm-raised versus wild-caught and imported shrimp (Wirth and Davis, 2001a).
20 Consumers
The literature addresses three distinct aspects of consumer purchase behavior for shrimp and seafood in general: (1) preferences for species, size, and product form, (2) the effect of purchase considerations such as price and perceptions of freshness and safety, and (3) the influence of demographic factors such as age, race, income, and household size.
In economics, the price (income) elasticity of demand succinctly describes the relationship between price (income) and quantity demanded for a particular product. Price (income) elasticity refers to the percentage change in quantity to a one-percent change in price (income). Demand is termed elastic if the elasticity exceeds one (in absolute value), while it is called inelastic if the value lies between zero and one (Lesser, 1993). An inelastic demand means that the quantity demanded does not change as much as the price (income). Shrimp appears to be both price-inelastic and income-inelastic, with expenditures for fresh and frozen shrimp increasing with increasing income and decreasing with increasing price.
Since total sales or revenue is price times quantity sold, when the price elasticity of demand is inelastic, a reduction in price increases the quantity demanded less than proportionally and total revenue falls. Another way to examine the effects of inelastic demand is to consider what happens when the quantity sold varies. For non-storable products, such as live animals and fresh meat, once produced, they are consumed; the quantity sold is typically determined by the amount supplied. Higher quantities decrease prices more than proportionally, while lower quantities increase prices more than proportionally. “The significance of products with inelastic price elasticities of demand and variable supplies is clear: prices will be very unstable” (Lesser, 1993).
Several studies have examined consumer expectations for shrimp and seafood in general. Consumers demand freshness; the shrimp must have a pleasant flavor and aroma that is characteristic of the species (Dore, 2000). Consumers are influenced by nutrition and health considerations in their decision to purchase shrimp or other seafood (Gempesaw, et al., 1995; Nauman, et al., 1995), although there are limits to the amount consumers are willing to spend on “healthy” foods. It should be noted that consumers are often doubtful about the safety of seafood in the market, and tend to perceive aquaculturally produced seafood, in general, as safer than wild- caught (Nauman, et al., 1995; Foltz, et al., 1999; Wang, et al., 1995). Consumers also increasingly value convenience and ease of preparation, and this influences their purchase decisions for seafood.
The heaviest consumers of shrimp or seafood tend to be well-educated, affluent adults in the 35 - 55 age range (Dore, 2000). Coastal residents are significantly more likely to consume seafood than inland residents; experience with fresh seafood and purchase frequency of seafood decline with increasing distance from the sea (Nauman, et al., 1995; Wessells, et al., 1994; Dore, 2000). Per capita consumption
21 of seafood in Florida far exceeds the national average (Schumann, 2000) and the southeast region together with the inland border states consume approximately 37% of the shrimp consumed in U.S. homes (Prochaska and Andrew, 1974).
Numerous demographic factors, including urbanization, region, race, ethnicity, age, diet status, and income significantly affect the likelihood of eating shellfish at home. Individuals living in urban and suburban areas are more likely to eat shellfish at home than individuals living in rural areas. Individuals from the Northeast and West regions of the U.S. are more likely to eat shellfish at home than those from the South. Hispanics are more likely to eat shellfish at home than non-Hispanics, and blacks are more likely to eat shellfish at home than whites (Nayga and Capps, 1995). White households are only about half as likely as non-white households to be frequent at-home consumers of seafood (Nauman, et al., 1995; Cheng and Capps, 1987), so the growth of immigrant populations and the increasing popularity of ethnic cuisines is probably a positive indicator for shrimp consumption in the U.S. (Dore, 2000). Expenditures for fresh and fresh-frozen shrimp are lower if children are present in the household (Cheng and Capps, 1987). Age and income are also positively related to eating shellfish at home. Since the U.S. population is becoming older, there may be increasing opportunities to market shrimp to older Americans (Nayga and Capps, 1995).
Region, urbanization, employment, diet status, household size, age, and income are demographic variables that affect the likelihood of eating shellfish away from home. Prior research suggests that race does not seem to significantly affect consumption of shellfish away from home (Nayga and Capps, 1995). Individuals living in urban areas are more likely to eat shellfish away from home than residents of non-urban areas. As household size increases, there is a decreasing affinity to eat shellfish away from home. In general, restaurant consumption of seafood decreases if childre n are present in the hous ehold (Hanson, et al., 1995). Similar to at home shellfish consumption, age and income are positively related with the likelihood of consuming shellfish away from home (Nayga and Capps, 1995).
The remainder of this section reports results of a six-page consumer survey developed and administered by mail in June 2001 to a randomly selected stratified sample of 5000 households in nine southeastern U.S. states (Wirth and Davis, 2003b, 2001b). The survey instrument consisted of 53 questions. Consumers were asked a range of questions relating to demographic characteristics, general shopping habits, and shrimp preferences and purchasing behavior. The shrimp purchasing behavior questions elicited information about both away-from-home shrimp consumption, i.e. restaurant consumption, and at-home shrimp consumption. The mail survey included a conjoint analysis experiment to quantify the relative importance of various shrimp features to consumers.
When asked whether any member of their household eats shrimp, 96% of the consumers responded positively. Those who indicated that no member of their household eats shrimp were asked to indicate their reasons for not eating shrimp.
22 Among these consumers, the most frequently reported reason for not eating shrimp was “doesn’t like the taste”.
Away-from-home Consumption:
Consumers were asked how often they eat shrimp away from home; responses are summarized in Table 1.7. The most frequent response was once per month (28%), followed closely by once every three months (25%). Black and Hispanic respondents report more frequent away-from-home shrimp consumption than do white respondents. Consumers were also asked to identify the proportion of their restaurant meals that include shrimp. The most frequent response (24%) was two meals in ten, and the mean was 3.34 meals in ten, with a standard deviation of 2.40. Black and Hispanic respondents also indicated a higher proportion of restaurant meals that include shrimp.
Table 1.7. Frequency of Away-from-Home (Restaurant) Shrimp Consumption
Percent of Number of Valid Consumers Responses Valid never 10 2.0 once every six months 76 15.1 once every three months 125 24.9 once per month 142 28.2 twice per month 106 21.1 other 44 8.7 Total 503 100.0 Invalid 29 Total 532
The consumers were asked to describe the types of shrimp dishes they purchase in restaurants. Their responses are presented in Figure 1.6. The most frequently selected dish was breaded, fried shrimp; 71% of those responding indicated that they order shrimp in this form.
23 400
300
200
100
0 Number of Consumers, N=532
shr sh b broiled shrimpboiled or s tails in sa shri shr other shrimp dish r rea imp in im m imp ov pc de p over pasta d & f o s ckta t u er r alad r ea ce ie i d m ic l e e d
Figure 1.6. Shrimp Dishes Ordered in Restaurants
Only 18% of consumers indicated that their shrimp purchases at restaurants vary by season; these consumers were asked to rank the four seasons in terms of restaurant shrimp. Overall, restaurant purchases of shrimp appear to be lowest in winter and highest in summer among those whose purchases vary seasonally.
At-home Consumption:
Consumers were asked an array of questions related to their preferences and purchase behavior for shrimp to be consumed at-home. About 84% of survey respondents indicated that they purchase shrimp for at-home consumption. The frequency of at-home shrimp consumption is presented in Table 1.8. Consumers were most likely to report eating shrimp at home about once every three months (27%), followed closely by once per month (26%) and twice per month (25%). Black respondents appear to eat shrimp at home more frequently than other respondents.
24 Table 1.8. Frequency of At-Home Shrimp Consumption
Percent of Number of Valid Consumers Responses Valid never 4 1.0 once every six months 64 15.6 once every three months 110 26.8 once per month 106 25.8 twice per month 104 25.3 other 23 5.6 Total 411 100.0 Invalid 121 Total 532
Consumer responses concerning the refrigeration states, product forms and sizes of shrimp purchased for at-home consumption are presented in Figures 1.7 – 1.9. The most popular product state, form, and size were fresh, never frozen (72%), and shell-on tails (61%) in the 26-30 count/lb size (51%). In general, black respondents are more likely than others to purchase shrimp in a breaded form.
The high response for fresh, never frozen shrimp is significant for shrimp producers hoping to sell their shrimp in this refrigeration state. However, fresh shrimp are not widely available in supermarkets, and it is possible that consumers mistake thawed, previously frozen shrimp for fresh, never frozen shrimp. A surprising 31% of consumers report purchasing whole, head-on shrimp. These are very encouraging results for U.S. shrimp farmers, who primarily wish to sell fresh, whole shrimp, thus minimizing the need for processing permits and formal HACCP food safety programs.
The locations where shrimp is purchased for at-home consumption are shown in Figure 1.10. Shrimp for at-home use was most likely to be purchased in a supermarket (65%) or at a seafood market (43%). Consumers also reported the frequency of shrimp purchases from a grocery store and from a seafood market. For both of these purchase locations, "once every few months" was the most likely frequency for shrimp purchases. This is consistent with the frequency reported overall for shrimp purchased for at-home use. Both black and Hispanic respondents more frequently purchase shrimp while grocery shopping than do white respondents.
25 400
300
200
100
0 Number of Consumers, N=532 fr pre individually frozen f o e roze th sh, zen nev v e iously f n r state in er fro blo roz c e k n
Figure 1.7. Shrimp Refrigeration States Purchased for At-home Use
400
300
200
100
0 Number of Consumers, N=532 hon wh sh p p b o ele ele re th ole, ell e& e& e aded r -o dede form h nta e a d u d- ils e n v d e e in v d in e d
Figure 1.8. Forms of Shrimp Purchased for At-home Use
26 400
300
200
100
0 Number of Consumers, N=532 16 21-25 26-3 3 36 41-50/ s o 1 ma th -20 -35 -40 e 0 ller than 50/lbr s /lb /lb /lb /lb /lb lb iz e
Figure 1.9. Sizes of Shrimp Purchased for At-home Use
400
300
200
100
0 Number of Consumers, N=532
su su smal seafood health fo roadside dock other plac p p er ce er l gr o ma r bo ocery ma n rket od store stand te a e r rk t e t
Figure 1.10. Places where Shrimp is Purchased for At-home Use
27 Consumers who purchase shrimp while grocery shopping were asked to indicate factors that influence their purchase decision. Responses are presented in Figure 1.11. Price and appearance of the shrimp were the most frequently selected factors, indicated by 72% and 54% of responding consumers, respectively. Consumers were also asked whether the availability of recipes or preparation information is important; 33% indicated that this is at least somewhat important.
Consumers were asked to indicate the importance of 21 shrimp product features in their purchases for at-home consumption by rating each feature on a scale from 0 – 10, with 10 most important. The mean ratings for those features were then sorted to indicate a ranking, or relative importance; the results are shown in Table 1.9. The four most highly rated, or most important, features for both white and black respondents were freshness, quality, taste and smell. For both of these groups, purchase price was the seventh most highly rated feature. However, among the small set of Hispanic consumers responding, purchase price was the second most highly rated feature, following only freshness.
The importance rating attached to farm-raised and wild-harvested as shrimp product features was very low. The mean rating for farmed shrimp was higher than that for wild-harvested; fresh shrimp was rated more highly than frozen, and the mean rating for shell-on tails was higher than that for peeled and deveined shrimp, and both of these forms were more highly rated than whole shrimp.
400
300
200
100
0 Number of Consumers, N=532 appe store dispprice size store e adv coup n ti s o u me p t tr ec he a o ition o ia rf ran n f ye lo ac a tor c lay ertise lval a cc e r as ue io m n n t
Figure 1.11. Factors Influencing Shrimp Purchases
28 The consumer utility and relative importance of four specific, farmer-controllable shrimp product attributes (size, state, form and price) in purchasing shrimp for home use were assessed through a conjoint analysis experiment, included as part of the mail survey by Wirth and Davis (2003b, 2001b). The aggregate conjoint results were also segmented by race for each of three racial groups: white, black, and Hispanic.
The utilities for all shrimp features and feature levels are shown in Table 1.10. The signs and magnitudes of the feature level utilities indicate that large shrimp are preferred, with medium and x-large shrimp considered about equally desirable; this is consistent with consumer reports of sizes of shrimp they currently buy or would be willing to buy direct. Fresh shrimp are strongly preferred to frozen, with previously frozen shrimp considered least desirable, and peeled and deveined shrimp tails are strongly preferred to shell-on tails with whole shrimp least desirable. The preference for fresh, never frozen shrimp is encouraging for shrimp producers, but the strong preference for peeled and deveined shrimp tails indicates a potential obstacle to direct marketing without processing. In addition, preference decreases approximately linearly with increasing price.
29 Table 1.9. Mean Ratings and Rankings for Shrimp Product Features Shrimp ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC Feature Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Rating Rating Rating Rating freshness 9.53 1 9.44 1 9.97 1 9.91 1
quality 9.23 2 9.23 2 9.19 4 8.45 5
taste 9.12 3 9.07 3 9.32 3 8.78 4
smell 8.83 4 8.74 4 9.39 2 8.82 3
consistent 7.94 5 7.84 5 8.80 5 7.80 7 taste color 7.86 6 7.77 6 8.74 6 7.20 9
purchase 7.84 7 7.76 7 8.45 7 9.00 2 price fresh 7.58 8 7.51 8 7.53 8 7.27 8 state tails 6.97 9 6.99 9 6.29 13 6.90 11
size 6.81 10 6.85 10 6.42 12 7.00 10
consistent 6.44 11 6.31 11 6.47 10 7.89 6 size raw 6.34 12 6.23 12 7.03 9 5.67 14
peeled & 5.52 13 5.28 13 5.61 15 6.78 13 deveined nutritional 5.21 14 4.89 15 6.17 14 6.80 12 value frozen 5.16 15 5.18 14 4.74 19 4.80 15/16 state country 4.87 16 4.63 16 6.43 11 3.90 17 of origin whole 4.53 17 4.45 17 5.48 16 4.80 15/16 form cooked 4.10 18 3.93 18 5.19 17 3.00 19
farmed 3.29 19 2.97 19 4.80 18 3.80 18
wild – 3.02 20 2.81 20 3.17 20 2.89 20 caught Imported 2.50 21 2.31 21 3.07 21 2.56 21
30 Table 1.10. Calculated Consumer Utility for Each Shrimp Product Feature Level*
Attribute & Level ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC constant (mean) 4.457 4.426 4.947 4.616 size x-large -0.124 -0.097 -0.082 -0.495 size large 0.291 0.295 0.281 0.263 size medium -0.167 -0.198 -0.199 0.232 state fresh 1.082 1.124 0.792 0.929 state frozen -0.440 -0.471 -0.019 -0.616 state prev. frozen -0.642 -0.653 -0.773 -0.313 form whole -0.863 -0.922 -0.281 -0.586 form shell-on tails 0.075 0.099 -0.003 -0.192 form p & d tails 0.788 0.823 0.281 0.778 price $5.00/lb 1.320 1.241 1.845 1.626 price $9.50/lb -0.013 0.027 0.120 -0.586 price $14.00/lb -1.307 -1.268 -1.965 -1.040 * differences between racial groups are not statistically significant
The relative importance of each feature is the range of utility over all levels of that feature, expressed as a percentage of the sum of the utility ranges for all features. The calculated relative importance of each feature for the aggregate data and each of the three racial groups is presented in Table 1.11. Price is the most important feature for all consumers, but it is more important to both black and Hispanic consumers than to white consumers. As expected, preference decreases with increasing price. Refrigeration state and form are about equally important for white and Hispanic consumers, and size is relatively unimportant. For black consumers, size and form are both relatively unimportant.
Table 1.11. Relative Importance of Each Shrimp Product Feature to Consumers ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC Feature Relative Relative Relative Relative Importance Importance Importance Importance Size 7.1% 7.6% 7.5% 12.0% State 26.7% 27.2% 24.4% 24.4% Form 25.6% 26.7% 8.8% 21.5% Price 40.7% 38.5% 59.4% 42.1%
The shrimp feature relative importance results for black and Hispanic consumers should be interpreted with caution. First, since the Hispanic sample size is very small, with only 11 Hispanic consumers providing preference ratings, the results may not be representative of Hispanic consumer shrimp product feature preferences. Second, the statistical significance of feature coefficients may affect the computation of feature relative importance.
31 Consumers were presented with a series of statements concerning shrimp quality and comparisons of wild-caught or imported shrimp with U.S. farm-raised shrimp. They were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a Likert scale, a 5-level scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Responses to each of these questions are presented in Tables 1.12 – 1.15. To every question contrasting U.S. farm-raised shrimp with imported shrimp or with wild-harvested shrimp, the most frequent response was "don't know". This is consistent with the general unfamiliarity of these consumers with U.S. farm-raised shrimp.
Most consumers (73%) agreed “water pollution is the primary cause of unsafe shrimp.” The vast majority (86%) also agreed "it is important to know the date when the shrimp were harvested." However, the harvest date is rarely shown on shrimp purchased through grocery stores. This result suggests that shrimp farmers may be able to differentiate their farm-raised shrimp and add market value by showing the harvest date on the shrimp package.
Consumers responded somewhat less strongly to "it is important to know the state or country shrimp were harvested from before purchasing" (62% agreed). This suggests that a country-of-origin label may be of limited benefit in marketing farm- raised shrimp directly to consumers.
Table 1.12. Consumer Response to the Statement:
It is important to know the date when the shrimp were harvested.
Percent of Number of Valid Consumers Responses Valid don't know 19 3.9 strongly disagree 11 2.2 somewhat disagree 8 1.6 neutral 33 6.7 somewhat agree 95 19.3 strongly agree 327 66.3 Total 493 100.0 Invalid 39 Total 532
32 Table 1.13. Consumer Response to the Statement:
Farm-raised shrimp are of higher quality than wild-harvested shrimp.
Percent of Number of Valid Consumers Responses Valid don't know 236 47.2 strongly disagree 6 1.2 somewhat disagree 22 4.4 neutral 118 23.6 somewhat agree 67 13.4 strongly agree 51 10.2 Total 500 100.0 Invalid 32 Total 532
Table 1.14. Consumer Response to the Statement: Farm-raised shrimp are safer than wild-harvested shrimp.
Percent of Number of Valid Consumers Responses Valid don't know 204 41.1 strongly disagree 4 .8 somewhat disagree 18 3.6 neutral 90 18.1 somewhat agree 125 25.2 strongly agree 55 11.1 Total 496 100.0 Invalid 36 Total 532
33 Table 1.15. Consumer Response to the Statement: U.S. farm-raised shrimp are safer than imported shrimp.
Percent of Number of Valid Consumers Responses Valid don't know 201 40.4 strongly disagree 3 .6 somewhat disagree 8 1.6 neutral 67 13.5 somewhat agree 123 24.7 strongly agree 96 19.3 Total 498 100.0 Invalid 34 Total 532
34 CHAPTER 2
FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Project Site Selection
A number of sites within the IRREC 700 acre land holdings were considered for the Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project. Ultimately the potential to expand the project became the overriding factor in locating it on a 200 acre tract that did not have immediate development plans. The site consisted of pine and palmetto scrub. The site is located immediately next door to the St. Lucie County Agriculture Extension Center. This convenient proximity allowed the potential use of the Center's offices, classrooms, parking and kitchen facilitie s to be used by the Project.
Fig. 2.1 Site Selection and Land Clearing
The site was surveyed and staked out by DAC's engineer Phillip Metcalf. Gulf Stream Construction began clearing the brush and roots. Once this was accomplished Gulf Stream began the excavation and movement of earth that would become the Project's four production ponds, its Storm Water Retention Pond and the borrow pit where the majority of the earthen structure's dirt would be taken from.
Project Planning
The conceptual design of the project was developed by the Project Manager, BCI, Inc. and Durwood M. Dugger. This conceptual plan was then turned into engineering plans by Mr. Phil Metcalf working out of DACs Okeechobee office. During the construction of the Project, as is often the case a number of factors caused the design to change some what. Th e m ost notable of which was the enlargement of the Storm Water Retention Pond (SWRP) and the borrow pit. The borrow pit was enlarged primarily because the water table prevented the contractor from going deeper to obtain the necessary soil. Instead he had to enlarge the dimensions of the borrow pit to acquire the necessary yardage.
35 Table 2.1 Pond Design Criteria Project UF/IFAS, IRREC Aquaculture Project Fact Sheet Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 12/2/04 Work Description Pond Design Criteria Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Construction Assumptions: Ponds Built 4 Prescribed (Grant) Pond Area 1500 m2 16146 ft2 Pond Drain/flow-fill requirements Pond Inside Dimensions* Per Pond Vol. 543048 gal. 2055437 L Shoulder length ft. 221 ft 67.4 mTotal Pond Vol. 2,172,192 gal. 8221747 L Shoulder width ft. 73 ft 22.3 m Minutes Hours GPM Water line length ft. 208 ft 63.4 m 1440 24 377 Water line width ft. 61 ft 18.6 m Water Depth Avg 6ft 1.8m 73 ft. X Side wall volume loss 3528 ft3 Pond Volume 72600 ft3Pond # 1 Pond # 2 Pond # 3 Pond # 4 Pond Surface Area (As built) 16133 ft2 1499.35 m2 Growout Growout Growout Retention Pond Water Surface Area 12688 ft2 1179 m2 0.29 ac 0.12 ha 221 ft. Y Pond Earthwork levee ht. (earth moved) 8 ft high water tables.) levee slope 2 levee crown 12 ft12 73 12 | ------61------| 12 12 12 cross sectional volume 8 yd3/lin.ft. 6 8 levees - x 682 ft/3 |------76------| levees - y 1105 ft/3 Cubic yards of earth moved 14825 yd3 Site Road 400 13 2385yd3 Turn-a-round 100 100 2741yd3 1126 yd3 Road 15,951 yd3
*Total avg. levee height above ground is 6 feet with 2 feet in the ground and 2 foot of pond free board with an avg. water depth of 6 ft. Because of the small pond size, most levee material will be hauled. (Going deeper than 2 feet below grade will undoubtedly cause water intrusion problems with the liner and drainage system.
36 Facility Design and Construction
Well Specifications & Water Quality Parameters
It has been well established that Litopenaeus vannamei will perform well in some low salinity waters and those waters down to Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of 1,500 depending on the specific combinations of ions in them. (Bray et al., 1994). The general experience in Florida that the deeper one drills the higher the TDS, but there are occasional exceptions to this rule where certain anomalies allow high TDS water to come near to the grounds surface... With this in mind a phone survey was accomplished early on with the local well drillers within a 60 mile radius of the Shrimp Project. The survey solicited the experience of the drillers with high TDS wells. It was found that one driller had made a well of 120 feet approximately 1 mile from the Shrimp Project site. This well had produced water in the 2-3000 TDS range and was capped off because of its high mineral content and lack of potability. The driller believed that the high TDS water from this comparatively shallow well was caused from aquifer contamination by much deeper and older wells in the immediate area. These older wells had been drilled in the last 50 years and their steel casings were rusting through allowing the deep high TDS of the free flowing Floridan Aquifer - normally found below 1,000 feet to rise up and leak through the perforated casing into the shallow 120 aquifer. Since deep wells into the Floridan Aquifer can cost as much as $100,000, it was decided to drill a well on site in the 120 foot aquifer and see if we could access the high TDS water. The well was drilled by Domer, Inc. Unfortunately, the highest TDS water obtained from this well was about 500 - very low TDS. Water samples were taken from the well to Dr. Rolland Laramore at the Aquatic Animal Health Lab operated by Bonnie, Hopkins and Laramore, Inc. of Vero Beach, Florida. Dr. Laramore performed a short term bioassay on the water using post larvae Litopenaeus vannamei. The results showed the well caused complete mortality within a few hours.
With additional funding from DACs and UF, a second deeper well was made by Domer, Inc. This well was steel cased and stopped at 1070 feet. Water samples from the free flowing well showed the TDS to between 2100 and 2300 - which we considered acceptable. Dr. Laramore performed a second bioassay and had very good survival for and extended period. He said he saw no reason given the limitsof his two week bioassay why this well water should not perform well as the Shrimp Projects primary growout water resource. (See Table 2.2)
37 Fig. 2.2 Deep Well Installation and Completion
Table 2.2 Deep Well Analysis and Comparison Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 12/10/04 Work Description Deep Well Analysis Comparison To Other Low Salinity Shrimp Farms Analysis by Harbor Branch Environmental Laboratory Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Alabam Arizona - Florida - Texas - PARAMETER Results 800' Results 940' Results 1070' UNITS a -11* 7* 2* 9* Alkalinity 260 160 150 mg/L CaCO3 Arsenic ND ND 0.0026U mg/L Barium 0.021 0.0237 0.053 mg/L Boron 0.17 0.158 0.18 mg/L Cadmium ND ND 0.00070U mg/L Calcium 97 65 110 mg/L 86 494 74 961 Hardness Ca 240 162 280 mg/L CaCO3 Hardness CaCO3 440 370 680 mg/L CaCO3 Chloride 390 440 1100 mg/L 2274 2016 1023 3479 Chromium 0.0021 ND 0.0018U mg/L Copper ND ND 0.0014U mg/L Initial pH 7.6 Iron 4.6 0.040 0.13 mg/L Lead ND ND 0.0030U mg/L Magnesium 49 52 87 mg/L 21 86 83 581 Manganese 0.079 0.0056 0.0038U mg/L Mercury ND ND 0.000060U mg/L Potassium131220mg/L8115515 Selenium ND ND 0.0021U mg/L Silver ND ND 0.0010U mg/L Sodium 260 290 600 mg/L Sulfide, as S-- 0.50 6.9 3.1 mg/L Total Dissolved 1100 1200 2100 mg/L Total Phosphorus 0.031 ND 0.012U mg/L Zinc ND ND 0.011 mg/L * Number of farms in the respecti ve states
38 Nursery Greenhouse
There are a number of serious risks to shrimp - especially small shrimp that are stocked into exposed, outside shrimp ponds:
Lethal Temperature ri sks - The sub-tropical climate of south Florida has temperature potentials of 34 to-4 d egrees Celsius - or even lower in extremes. Extended (more than 12 hours) water t emperatures below 11 degrees Celsius have shown to be lethal for L. vannamei . L. monodon may be even more sensitive. Unseasonably low temperatures in either the spring or fall could spell disaster for Florida shrimp ponds located outside.
Predation risks - Eyela sh shrimp Stage 12 post larvae arriving from the hatchery are easy prey for a numbe r of species of water beetles and dragon fly nymph larvae.
Economic loss risk- E ven in the best cases when temperatures are not extremely low and when insect p reda tors are not present - shrimp post larvae stocked into outside ponds may sti ll cause their farmer a loss of money. Cool spring weather in Florida extended later than normal in 2004. These low temperatures also represented a potentia l loss of growth in the standard 5 month commercial shrimp growout. This is beca use those cool no growth days experienced at the beginning of the growout in the spr ing - become a penalty to the farmer when he has to harvest smaller than normalo r smaller than anticipated shrimp.
The solution to these risk problems is the use of a temperature moderated or controlled nursery fac ility. In Florida, green houses have been used for shrimp and tropical fish nurseries for some time. It was decided to use a greenhouse nursery system for the IRREC Economic Shrimp Demonstration as well. The primary justifications being the elimination of cold risk, insect predation, and the potential of having more and large r (more days of optimum growing temperatures) higher value shrimp, and the increa sed potential for a two crop outside pond system.
Nursery Greenhouse Design and Construction
The Project erecteda commercial greenhouse (30'x96') in January of 2004. Within its confines were cons tructed four rectangular/oval raceway tanks 9. These tanks used Schedule 80 pip ers as their vertical wall supports and treated lumber side walls. The tank floors were sloped to a drain system near the center of one end. (See Fig. 2.12.)
The four nursery tank s were designed with a redundant aeration system and recirculating system. The first aeration and recirculation system was composed of 20 one and half inch a irlifts down each side of each tank. The simple airlifts were composed of a twofo ot length of inch and half Sch. 40 PVC pipe. Each airlift pipe was attached to afram e made of the same PVC material that attached to the tank wall above the water l ine by stainless steel screws at three points along each of the
39 two airlift frames of each tank. A piece of 3/16 inch polypropylene irrigation tubing was fixed into a whole at the bottom of each airlift to provide a steady stream of air bubbles to operate each airlift.
Fig 2.3 Air Lift Pump and Support Rack
The each PP tube was attached to a two inch PVC header attached on the wall of the tank over the airlift frame. The tube was pressed into the appropriate sized whole in the airlift header - no fitting was required due to the comparatively low pressure of the air. (See Fig. 2.3)
Each airlift header's air flow was controlled by a single two inch PVC ball valve where the header began at central end of the tank. It was estimated that each airlift pump - of the 40 per tank pumped approximately 40 GPM from the bottom of the tank to the surface. Each airlift pump pipe was set at a 60 degree semi-vertical angle such that its discharge was directional in the angle of the flow. to further affect the airlifts flow control each end of the two foot airlift tube was cut off at 45 degree angle such that the open end of the bottom of the airlift opened into the oncoming tank current and discharged in the direction of the tank current. (See Fig. 2.4)
40 Fig. 2.4 Working Air Lift Pump Discharges
The second aeration and recirculating of the redundant system consisted of multiple spray bars (4) in each tank. A 200 GPM swimming pool centrifugal pump powered the spray bar system. The pump picks up water from a central drain sump that each of the four tanks drain into via its own independent 6" PVC drain line. Each drain line is equipped with stand pipe level control the pump pushes water from the common drain sump through a 10 cubic foot fiberglass bead filter. Water filtered by the bead filter was then pushed through two inch PVC lines to the spray bars one each of the four tanks in the green house. Each spray bar had 10 holes 3/32" in diameter drilled along its face. Each spray bar was connected at the center of the tank to its opposing twin. Each spray bar spays in opposite directions on opposite sides of the tank thereby creating an oval flowing current around the raceway.
The oval flow in each of the four tanks was controlled by a center wall constructed of two inch Sch. 40 PVC pipe. The wall was formed when the pipe frame was covered by 30 mil HDPE pond liner material. The rectangular wall prevented the mixing of the current entrained by the spray bar.
Water from the line of orifices in the spray bar face were angled to strike the tank's water surface at a low angle of incidence thereby creating a "pushing" affect on the water surface as it injected both water and entrained air into the tanks water surface.
41 The desired affect of both the airlifts and the spray bars was to create an oval flow within the rectangular tank. This flow would aerate the water as well as suspend excess food and waste particles - except at two points on the down stream end of the tanks center wall. Here an eddy around the center wall would allow heavier waster particles to collect in a small controlled area on the bottom of the tank where they could easily be manually removed.
Fig. 2.5 Recirculating System Spray Bars
Each tank was equipped with a six inch drain. The drain was formed at the deepest point of the tank in the center of the radius of one end. The drain itself was made of a six inch Sch. 40 PVC - 90 degree elbow which was welded into a twelve Sch. 40 PVC cap. The elbow received the stand pipe on its vertical end and its horizontal end was connect to a six inch PVC line connected to the common central drain sump. The twelve cap surrounding the vertical arm of the elbow - open side up was used to receive a twelve inch screen frame. The screen frame prevents the post larvae shrimp from leaving the tank with the recirculated water. The elbow and cap welded cap unit were connected to six inch drain and set in a concrete collar to stabilize it.
Water from all four tanks was carried to a common sump. A four by six by four foot deep PP box was used for the sump. Within the sump was also located a lift pump
42 used to send any excess water from the system to the Storm Water Retention Pond. The sump also acted as a basin in which to harvest the juvenile shrimp. The harvest could be accomplished in a framed net basket, or using a shrimp pump. (See Figure 3.4)
43 Fig. 2.11 Green House Shrimp Nursery Airlift System
Greenhouse S h rimp Nursery Layout an d Construction Details GREENH OSU E SHRIMP NRU SE RY 12/026/03 Low Psre sure Air Lift Pu mps Reqd. by: S onny Williamson N IREEC Aq. Adv. Com. Ch. LW PRESSURE AIR – 2 “AIR LIFT PUMPS Work by: D urwood M. Dugger Project Manager BCI, Inc. Lift Drain to Storm Water Retention Pond
Top View Flow
Well Water
Covered Harvest Sump and Lift Station
Drains – 6”
Flow Flow
= 40 W Florescent Lights Air Lift Pumps Blowers = 110/220 V Outlet
44 Fig. 2.12 Green House Shrimp Nursery Water System
GREENHO USE SHRIMP NURSERY Discharge from bead filter “Drain” or “Backwash” to SWRP Pump Driven Spray Bar Recirc. And Aeration System
Spray bars with recirc. water from sand filter Sand filter
Top View Flow
Flow
45 Fig. 2.13 Green House Shrimp Nursery Center W all
AIR LIFT PUMP (1.25”) AND CENTER WA LL COMBIN ATION
(2” PVC Pipe frame w/ 60 mil HDPE cover. Right Side Center Wall
Left Side Center Wall
Center Wall and Tank Wall Air Lifts Air Manifold and airlift pump air lines Spray Bar – Recirc. Water
46 Fig. 2.14 Gree n H ouse Shrimp Nursery Sectio n al V iews
Green House Nursery System - Tank and Harvest System Cross Section .
Tank Side View
Green House Nursery Cross Section At Center of Green House
Hold-Down Line Stabilizer Recirc./Spray Bar Lines For Center Wall Air Lift Manifold
47 Fig. 2.15 Green House Shrimp Nur sery Standpipe Drain System
Tank Drain and Le vel Control Details
6”
Stand Pipe Sleeve
Stand Pipe Level Control
36 “
30 “ Stand Pipe Screens
12” Cap set in concrete to receive standpipe screen – 6” Elbow is set inside of and welded to the cap to receive the 6” standpipe.
48 To Harvest Sump Fig. 2.16 Green House Shrimp Nursery Cover and Liner Fastening
Greenhouse Frame, Cover, and Liner Details
Cover Inside Layer
Dead Air Space Sloped liner frame seals against greenhouse cover - prevents jumping shrimp from stranding.
Liner
Outside PE Cover + Shade Cloth Pressure Treated lumber
Cover Attachment Spline
Pressure Treated lumber
49 Growout Pond System Design and Constructio n
Pond System
The growout pond system consists of four lined ponds. The ponds are designed to occupy a surface area of 1500 square meters. As such the ponds are approximately 221'x73' with an average depth of water of six feet plus two feet of free board. The ponds inside slopes were built at a two to one slope, since they would be lined and not experience erosion. While the slopes of the exterior levees of the pond's perimeter levees and the SWRP's levees were built at a three to one slope. (See Fig.2.2)
Lining
Of the four production ponds built, two ponds were lined with 30 mil generic HDPE and two were lined with 30 mil Firestone EPDM. Some or most of both synthetic liners were donated. Both materials come in large and very heavy rolls that require heavy equipment to off load as well as to position pond side.
The HDPE liner was less expensive material wise, but it required a professional crew of 6 installers equipped with a $15,000 fusion welder to seam the 20 foot wide rolls of HDPE into one continuous leak proof liner. The HDPE is very stiff, especially when the weather is cool. This lack of flexibility requires numerous seams to be made in order to form the liner smoothly into pond corners. Repairs of the HDPE are problematic since there are no solvents or glues that will adhere to the HDPE - especially after it weathers. Even with a trained and experienced installation crew the fusion welder requires constant adjustment - just when the sun goes behind a cloud. Temperature changes can cause the welder to burn through the liner when it's too hot or produce brittle, incompletely bonded welds when it's too cool. It is truly an art form.
The EPDM on the other hand is much more flexible, requiring less contouring seams. Seams that are required are joined with a solvent bonded seaming tape. The EPDM took less than half the installation labor and time to install. In fact, the EPDM liner on this project was installed by two professional installers and a few "volunteer" high school students from the Eckerd Youth Leadership Program. While installation is easier than with HDPE if was found that it does some experience to determine the correct amount of glue and its proper application to make the seaming tape work properly.
50 Fig. 2.6 HDPE Installation
Fig. 2.7 EPDM Installation
51 Filling System
Each of the four ponds is filled by a four inch Sch. 40 PVC pipe header that runs under ground from the site's deep well to the ponds and across the deep end of their levee. Each pond has a four inch fill line coming off the underground header. This line is controlled by a four inch PVC union ball valve. The deep well pump supplying this fill line is capable of pumping 400 GPM into to any one pond. This gives the capability of filling any one pond in 24 hours.
Even though the deep well Floridan Aquifer water has significant amounts of hydrogen sulfide in it, it has not been necessary to degas the water prior to pumping into the ponds and or nursery tanks. This is because of the high level of mixing and aeration that is achieved in Project's pond and nursery tank systems.
Drain System
Each pond was equipped with a twelve inch PVC drain connecting it to the SWRP. The drain and overflow system consisted of a twelve inch PVC - 90 degree elbow connected to the twelve inch horizontal drain line. The vertical leg of the elbow was set in a three foot by four inch thick concrete collar at the lowest point in the pond bottom. Once set in the concrete the elbow is capable of receiving and supporting a 12 inch vertical PVC pipe that is ten feet long and that acts as the stand pipe. At the six foot point of the vertical pipe a series of window like openings are cut. Each window is two feet high by four inches and cut such that the bottom of the rectangular opening comes to a vee shaped point - rather than flat. The vee shaped bottom is increase flow rates by increasing the surface of the orifice opening.
Fig. 2.8 Pond Standpipe Drain System
52 Center Wall
As in the green house nursery tanks - the design concept of the pond system was also that of the oval raceway. Each pond was equipped with a center wall. The center wall was supported by 13 center post made of 4 inch Sch. 40 PVC pipe 10 feet in length. Each post of the center wall was set into a used truck tire filled with concrete. The base of each pipe post had a steel reinforcement rod through holes in the bottom of the post that prevented the post from working loose out of the concrete tire center. The post with concrete/tire bases were set approximately twelve feet a part down the center line of each pond with the first and last post being at the center of the end radius of each pond. As in the nursery tanks, the center wall's purpose was to train the flow of the oval current around the pond and encourage solid waste deposition at specific points of the pond.
Aeration System
Unlike the nursery tanks the Project's ponds did not have redundant aeration and recirculation systems, but did have multiple paddle wheel aerators. Paddlewheel aerators are neither the most efficient aerator nor the most efficient mixing device for pond aeration. However, they are the most efficient at doing both simultaneously with one piece of equipment. Each pond was initially installed with two - two horse power electrical (220 V, three phase) paddle wheel aerators. Later it became evident that at least one additional (a total of 3) would be required per pond. The paddlewheels were placed such that each pushed the oval current in the same direction. The paddle wheels were located on the radius of each end of the pond with the deep end of the pond receiving two paddle wheels - one on either side. (See Fig. 2.2.)
Fig. 2.9 Oval Raceway Pond Paddlewheel Aeration and Mixing System
53 Storm water Retention Pond (SWRP)
In order that no water be lost from the ponds and off the Project site during heavy rainfall events - regulations require that a Storm Water Retention Pond be designed such that if would collect and contain all overflow from the ponds during a 100 year rainfall event. This earthen pond was designed and constructed immediately west of the shrimp production ponds. It was equipped with a drain identical to the four shrimp production ponds - minus the concrete collar. The 12 inch drain was installed at the lowest point in the north end of the SWRP and connected to the barrow pit pond.
Borrow Pit Pond
Because the projects ponds were relatively small, additional soil had to be collected to build the production ponds levee such that the bottom of these ponds were above the existing ground water table. Other wise the lined shrimp production ponds would have had water seeping under the liners during periods of high rainfall that raised the local water table. The required dirt fill to build the production pond and the SWRP produced a borrow pit pond on three sides of the project proper - on the east, north and west sides of the project.
Shrimp Transfer and Harvest Systems
Shrimp can be harvested at on a small scale with dip nets, or seines, or even cast nets. These however are very inefficient methods and also often damage both the shrimp that are harvested and as well as those that escape and are left behind. There are generally two basic conceptual methods of commercially harvesting shrimp from a pond.
The first is to use a bag or basket to receive the shrimp from the ponds drain when it is harvested. Harvest bags are notorious for splitting when they are full of shrimp. The also tend to damage the shrimp when they become too heavy causing the shrimp to be pressed against the bags net mesh.
The second method uses center intake centrifugal food pump "shrimp pump" to take the shrimp from a collecting basin or from the drain pipe of the pond or tank. The design of the nursery tanks allowed either with its use of the sump. However, the pond system had no drain sump. Because the shrimp pump is more efficient man power wise in either transferring shrimp or harvesting shrimp, it was decided to purchase one. PRAqua, Ltd. of Canada produces a light weight 6 inch shrimp pump. With this pump shrimp could be transferred live from the nursery, between ponds, or harvested live from any one pond with a minimum support crew.
54 Fig. 2.10 Transfer and Harvest Shrimp Pump
55 CHAPTER 3
SHRIMP PRODUCTION RESULTS
Nursery Production - First Crop
Prior to receiving post larvae shrimp from the Shrimp Culture, Inc. hatchery in the Florida Keys, the shrimp project made the nursery tanks ready to receive them. To accomplish this, the tanks were filled half full of filtered sea water from the sand point beach well in front of the Florida Institute of Technology's - Vero Beach Marine Lab. The sea water was hauled by a Florida Division of Forestry water tanker truck as donated contribution to the Project. The sea water which arrived near 36 ppt. was diluted to 12 ppt. in three of the green house nursery tanks. T
The Project received its first PLs on April 5, 2004, about 3 PM in the afternoon. The shrimp were shipped in standard card board box/Styrofoam ice chest containers. Each of the 15 containers had two double tropical fish bags filled with about 3- 5 liters of water cooled to about 20 degrees C. Each bag was filled with an atmosphere of pure oxygen. Each bag contained about 10,000 shrimp Stage 12 post larvae. Stages younger than 12 do not have the osmoregulatory ability developed sufficient to allow them to acclimate to low salinity water. Each bag was twisted shut and sealed with a rubber ligature. When the sealed poly bags were taken from their shipping boxes, they were floated in the Nursery Tanks so that the bags would temperature acclimate to the tank temperatures. (See Fig. 3.1).
Once the PL shrimp were within 2 degrees o f th e same temperature of the nursery tank - the bags were open and divided equally between two of the four nursery tanks such that each tank received about 100,000 PLs.
Fig. 3.1 Receiving and Acclimating Post Larvae in Greenhouse Nursery
56 The PLs were immediately fed with Dr. Rolland Laramore's post larvae feeds. Feeds were added at 10% of the PLs estimated body weights per day. An acclimating incoming flow of the Projects well water was initiated such that the salinity would be diluted down at a rate of about 1-2 ppt. per day. This rate of acclimation brought the shrimp from the 12 ppt. that they were stocked in on their first day, down to a salinity of 2.5 ppt. in about a week. Through out the nursery rearing of the juveniles they were fed three times per day. Water quality was monitored daily. The tank bottoms were scrubbed with a small push broom daily to prevent adherence of solid waste to the bottom of the tank and their ultimate anaerobic decay. Any accumulation of solid waste were removed as necessary - particularly near the end of the nursery grow out.
Aeration and recirculation flows were gradually increased as the post larvae grew. Recirculation flows were increased from about 30 GPM per tank to 50 GPM per tank. Well water as added to the tanks such that tanks averaged between 5-10 % exchanger per day.
Fig. 3.2 Greenhouse Nursery Tanks With Juvenile Shrimp
When outside temperatures were above 24 degrees C the Crop 1 juvenile shrimp were transferred to the open ponds on May 11. They were approximately 0.10 grams each. The transfer was accomplished by draining each nursery tank into the central drain and harvest sump. A screened basket was located in the sump to separate the juvenile shrimp from their tank water. The basket was allowed to fill with shrimp to the point where it appeared to be prudent to stop the process. Once shrimp were stocked the basket containing the shrimp was raised out the sump by a rope hoist. An overhead suspended scale was used to weigh the shrimp. The scale had been tared with the basket prior to the weightings. The weights of shrimp were recorded and by dividing the individual shrim p weight into the amount of shrimp weighed - a total count on the harvest shrimp could be obtained.
57 Fig. 3.4 Harvesting Nursery Juvenile Shrimp for Transfer to Growout
Once weighed and counted the shrimp were transported outside in a tank trailer fabricated specifically for that purpose. The projects small utility vehicle pulled the tank trailer to its designated pond and the shrimp were drain released into the pond by gravity.
Fig. 3.5 Transporting Nursery Juvenile Shrimp to Growout Ponds
58 Table 3.1 Nursery Production Summary- Crop 1
Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004) Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 5/11/04 Work Description Crop 1 - Nursery Production Summary Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Seedstock Ordered Ordered from hatchery = 275000 Estd. Shipping Overage = 0.10 302500 Estd. Shipping loss = 0.05 Estd. total received = 287375
Estimated Tank # 3 to Pond #1 Tank #2 to Pond # 3 Estd. Nursery Stocking 143688 Estd. Nursery Stocking 143688 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 122134 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 122134 Estd. Nursery Transfer loss = 0.05 Estd. Nursery Transfer loss = 0.05 Estd. # stocked in ponds = 116028 Estd. # stocked in ponds = 116028
Calculated - Tank # 3 to Pond #1 Tank #2 to Pond # 3 Samples based on 100 shrimp dipped out of bucket population, counted and weighed. Sample 1 9.2 g. Sample 1 8.8 g. 2 11.6 2 10.3 3 12.3 3 13.3 4 10.5 4 11.9 Avg. 10.9 Avg. 11.1
Avg. individual wt. = 0.1090 g. Avg. individual wt. = 0.1108 g. Lbs. gross shrimp wt. in harvest basket 43 lbs Lbs. gross shrimp wt. in harvest basket 46 lbs Estd. Water Error = 0.3 Estd. Water Error = 0.3 Lbs. net shrimp wt. in harvest basket 29 lbs Lbs. net shrimp wt. in harvest basket 5 31 lbs Calculated Nursery Survival = 0.84 Calculated Nursery Survival = 0.88 CalculatedTransferred to Pond = 119,998 CalculatedTransferred to Pond = 126,341 Calculated Pond Area Stocking = 80 m2 Calculated Pond Area Stocking = 84 m2
59 Nursery Production - Second Crop
Post larvae for the projects second crop wa s received on June 10, 2004. Sea water had been hauled by Ranger Construction, Inc. The Florida Forestry water tanker used for the first crop was occupied putting out forest fires. It was planned that three crops be stocked in the second crop. This would allow a comparison between three ponds and three intensive tank productions systems inside the Project's green house nursery. A total of 450,000 PL 12s were received and stocked equally into three of the nursery raceway tanks. The acclimation and rearing procedures were followed the same protocols as the first crop. The acclimation was completed and once again Dr. Laramore's post larval and juvenile shrimp feeds were used. One thing that was noted in the first crop was the need for a fine particulate feed in order not to have solid waste build up in the tanks. During crop 2 any course feeds such as the Laramore "J" diets were ground to a powder before use.
Growth in the second crop appeared to be more rapid and more uniform than in the first nursery crop. With the availability of increased staff resources, it was possible to both measure and weigh nursery samples and begin to establish a length weight chart for this specific variety of L. vannamei.
60 Table 3.2 Nursery Production Summary- Crop 2
Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004) Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 6/10/04 Work Description Crop 2 - Nursery Summary Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Seedstock Ordered
Ordered from hatchery = 450000 Estd. Shipping Overage = 0.10 495000 Estd. Shipping loss = 0.05 Estd. total received = 470250
Estimated Tank # 1 to Pond #2 Tank #2 to Pond #2 Tank #3 to Pond #2
Estd. Nursery Stocking 156750 Estd. Nursery Stocking 156750 Estd. Nursery Stocking 156750 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 133238 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 133238 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.8513 3238 Estd. Nursery Transfer loss = 0.00 Estd. Nursery Transfer loss = 0.05 Estd. Nursery Transfer loss = 0.05 Estd. # stocked in Pond 2 = 133238 Estd. # stocked in ponds = 126576 Estd. # stocked in ponds =12 6576
Estd # shrimp stocked in Pond 2 = 386389 Avg. individual wt. = 1.0000 g. Lbs. gross shrimp wt. in harvest 851.077 lbs Calculated Nursery Survival = 0.90 CalculatedTransferred to Pond = 386389 Calculated Pond Stocking Density = 328 m2
61 Growout Production - Crop 1
Stocking
The juvenile shrimp were stocked from the nursery tanks into Pond 1 and Pond 3. Pond 1 was stocked with 119,998 shrimp making a stocking density of 80 per square meter. Pond 3 was stocked with 126,341 making a stocking density of 84 per square meter. (See Crop 1 - Nursery Summary)
Aeration
The growout ponds were aerated from day one 24 hours a day. This was to maintain oxygen levels and to suspend waste particles to insure that they were aerobically digested.
Fig. 3.6 Oval Raceway Growout Pond Paddlewheel Aeration
Feeding and Sampling
Feed for the project was produced by Zeigler Bros., Inc. The feed was 35% protein and in a 3/32" pelleted form. The feed was stored in a rented, insulated, air conditioned, storage building. The feed was shipped to the site in road freight trucks on pallets, but in less than container load quantities.
Initially for the first few weeks the shrimp in the growout ponds were fed just once a day. Feeding was accomplished by hand broadcasting from the side of the levee. Unlike in traditional lower density growouts - where there is and effort made to distribute the feed all over the pond - in the oval raceways it was deemed most efficient to through feed in the highest velocity current areas of the pond and let the current distribute the feed. This way feed would not accumulate in any dead areas of the ponds where the shrimp would be less likely find and eat the feed.
As the biomass increased, feed was broadcast by hand in the early morning and then just before dark in the afternoons. These are the two periods of the day when the shrimp are the most active. Feed quantities were determined by sampling each
62 pond's shrimp population once a week. When the shrimp were under 2 grams they were sampled using a 20 foot seine with a 1/8 inch mesh size. After the shrimp were above 2 grams, they were caught by an 8 foot radius cast net with a 1/4 inch square mesh. Each ponds sample was measured from the orbit to the telson to establish and record its length. The shrimp's length was then compared to a length wt. chart. When the project increased its staffing resources the shrimp were both measured in length and weighed individually. The average individual weight of the shrimp in the sample was then used to calculate the estimated biomass of shrimp in the pond. The shrimp biomass is then fed a percentage of their body weight per day. For this study a 5% body weight of feed was assumed.
63 Table 3.3 Crop 1 Feed Summary
Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004) Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 12/6/04 Work Description Crop 1 Feed Summary Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. CROP 1 - POND 1 CROP 1 - POND 3 Feedings (lbs.) Feedings (lbs.) Date Date A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 11-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 11-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 12-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 12-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 13-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 13-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 14-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 14-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 15-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 15-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 16-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 16-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 17-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 17-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 18-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 18-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 19-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 19-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 20-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 20-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 21-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 21-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 22-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 22-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 23-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 23-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 24-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 24-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 25-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 25-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 26-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 26-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 27-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 27-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 28-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 28-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 29-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 29-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 30-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 30-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 31-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 31-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 1-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 1-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 2-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 2-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 3-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 3-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 4-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 4-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 5-Jun-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 5-Jun-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 6-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 6-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 7-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 7-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 8-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 8-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 9-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 9-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 10-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 10-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 11-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 11-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 12-Jun -04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 12-Jun-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 13-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 13-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 14-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 14-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 15-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 12.5 15-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 12.5 16-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 12.5 16-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 12.5 17-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 12.5 17-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 12.5 18-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 12.5 18-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 12.5 19-Jun-04 Saturday 0.0 12.5 19-Jun-04 Saturday 0.0 12.5 20-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 12.5 20-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 12.5 21-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 12.5 21-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 12.5 22-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 12.5 22-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 12.5 23-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 20.0 23-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 20.0 24-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 20.0 24-Jun-04 Thursday 0.0 20.0 25-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 20.0 25-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 20.0 26-Jun-04 Saturday 0.0 0.0 26-Jun-04 Saturday 0.0 0.0 27-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 20.0 27-Jun-04 Sunday 0.0 20.0 28-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 20.0 28-Jun-04 Monday 0.0 20.0 29-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 20.0 29-Jun-04 Tuesday 0.0 20.0 30-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 20.0 30-Jun-04 Wednesday 0.0 20.0 1-Jul-04 Thursday 0.0 20.0 1-Jul-04 Thursday 0.0 20.0 2-Jul-04 Friday 0.0 20.0 2-Jul-04 Friday 0.0 20.0 3-Jul-04 Saturday 0.0 20.0 3-Jul-04 Saturday 0.0 20.0 4-Jul-04 Sunday 0.0 20.0 4-Jul-04 Sunday 0.0 20.0 5-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 20.0 5-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 20.0 6-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 20.0 6-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 20.0 7-Jul-04 Wednesday 0.0 25.0 7-Jul-04 Wednesday 0.0 25.0 8-Jul-04 Thursday 0.0 25.0 8-Jul-04 Thursday 0.0 25.0 9-Jul-04 Friday 0.0 25.0 9-Jul-04 Friday 0.0 25.0 10-Jul-04 Saturday 0.0 25.0 10-Jul-04 Saturday 0.0 25.0 11-Jul-04 Sunday 0.0 25.0 11-Jul-04 Sunday 0.0 25.0 12-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 25.0 12-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 25.0 13-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 25.0 13-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 25.0 14-Jul-04 Wednesday 20.0 20.0 14-Jul-04 Wednesday 20.0 20.0 15-Jul-04 Thursday 20.0 20.0 15-Jul-04 Thursday 20.0 20.0 16-Jul-04 Friday 20.0 20.0 16-Jul-04 Friday 20.0 20.0 17-Jul-04 Saturday 9.0 0.0 17-Jul-04 Saturday 9.0 0.0 18-Jul-04 Sunday 20.0 20.0 18-Jul-04 Sunday 20.0 20.0 19-Jul-04 Monday 20.0 20.0 19-Jul-04 Monday 20.0 20.0 20-Jul-04 Tuesday 20.0 20.0 20-Jul-04 Tuesday 20.0 20.0 21-Jul-04 Wednesday 9.0 20.0 21-Jul-04 Wednesday 9.0 0.0 22-Jul-04 Thursday 20.0 20.0 22-Jul-04 Thursday 20.0 20.0 23-Jul-04 Friday 20.0 20.0 23-Jul-04 Friday 20.0 20.0 24-Jul-04 Saturday 0.0 20.0 24-Jul-04 Saturday 0.0 20.0 25-Jul-04 Sunday 0.0 0.0 25-Jul-04 Sunday 0.0 0.0
64 26-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 20.0 26-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 20.0 27-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 25.0 27-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 20.0 28-Jul-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 28-Jul-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 29-Jul-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 29-Jul-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 30-Jul-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 30-Jul-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 31-Jul-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 31-Jul-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 1-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 1-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 2-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 2-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 3-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 3-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 4-Aug-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 4-Aug-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 5-Aug-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 5-Aug-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 6-Aug-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 6-Aug-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 7-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 7-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 8-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 8-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 9-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 9-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 10-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 10-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 11-Aug-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 11-Aug-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 12-Aug-04 Thursday 0.0 25.0 12-Aug-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 13-Aug-04 Friday 0.0 25.0 13-Aug-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 14-Aug-04 Saturday 0.0 25.0 14-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 15-Aug-04 Sunday 0.0 25.0 15-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 16-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 16-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 17-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 17-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 18-Aug-04 Wednesday 0.0 25.0 18-Aug-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 19-Aug-04 Thursday 0.0 0.0 19-Aug-04 Thursday 55.0 0.0 20-Aug-04 Friday 0.0 25.0 20-Aug-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 21-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 21-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 22-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 22-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 23-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 23-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 24-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 24-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 25-Aug-04 Wednesday 38.0 38.0 25-Aug-04 Wednesday 38.0 38.0 26-Aug-04 Thursday 38.0 38.0 26-Aug-04 Thursday 38.0 38.0 27-Aug-04 Friday 38.0 38.0 27-Aug-04 Friday 38.0 38.0 28-Aug-04 Saturday 38.0 38.0 28-Aug-04 Saturday 38.0 38.0 29-Aug-04 Sunday 38.0 38.0 29-Aug-04 Sunday 38.0 38.0 30-Aug-04 Monday 38.0 38.0 30-Aug-04 Monday 38.0 38.0 31-Aug-04 Tuesday 38.0 38.0 31-Aug-04 Tuesday 0.0 38.0 1-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 1-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 2-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 2-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 3-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 3-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 4-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 4-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 5-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 5-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 6-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 6-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 7-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 7-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 8-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 8-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 9-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 9-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 10-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 10-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 11-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 11-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 12-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 12-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 13-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 13-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 14-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 14-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 15-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 15-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 16-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 16-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 17-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 17-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 18-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 18-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 19-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 19-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 20-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 20-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 21-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 21-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 22-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 22-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 23-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 23-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 24-Sep-04 Friday 0.0 50.0 24-Sep-04 Friday 0.0 50.0 25-Sep-04 Saturday 0.0 50.0 25-Sep-04 Saturday 0.0 50.0 26-Sep-04 Sunday 0.0 50.0 26-Sep-04 Sunday 0.0 50.0 27-Sep-04 Monday 0.0 50.0 27-Sep-04 Monday 0.0 50.0 28-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 28-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 29-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 29-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 30-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 30-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 1-Oct-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 1-Oct-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 2-Oct-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 2-Oct-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 3-Oct-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 3-Oct-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 4-Oct-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 4-Oct-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 5-Oct-04 Tuesday 49.7 57.1 5-Oct-04 Tuesday 48.6 57.3 6-Oct-04 Wednesday 50.2 57.7 6-Oct-04 Wednesday 49.0 57.8 7-Oct-04 Thursday 50.7 58.2 7-Oct-04 Thursday 49.4 58.4 8-Oct-04 Friday 51.2 58.7 8-Oct-04 Friday 49.8 58.9 9-Oct-04 Saturday 51.6 59.3 9-Oct-04 Saturday 50.2 59.4 10-Oct-04 Sunday 52.1 59.8 10-Oct-04 Sunday 50.6 60.0 11-Oct-04 Monday 52.6 60.4 11-Oct-04 Monday 51.0 60.5 12-Oct-04 Tuesday 53.1 60.9 12-Oct-04 Tuesday 51.3 61.1 13-Oct-04 Wednesday 53.6 61.4 13-Oct-04 Wednesday 51.7 61.6 14-Oct-04 Thursday 54.1 62.0 14-Oct-04 Thursday 52.1 62.2 15-Oct-04 Friday 54.5 62.5 15-Oct-04 Friday 52.5 62.7 16-Oct-04 Saturday 55.0 63.0 16-Oct-04 Saturday 52.9 63.2 17-Oct-04 Sunday 55.5 63.6 17-Oct-04 Sunday 53.3 63.8 18-Oct-04 Monday 56.0 64.1 18-Oct-04 Monday 53.7 64.3 19-Oct-04 Tuesday 56.5 64.6 19-Oct-04 Tuesday 54.1 64.9
65 20-Oct-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 20-Oct- 04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 21-Oct-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 21-O ct -04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 22-Oct-04 Friday 0.0 0.0 22-Oct-04 Friday 0.0 0.0 23-Oct-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 23-Oct-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 24-Oct-04 Sunday 0.0 50.0 24-Oct-04 Sunday 0.0 80.0 25-Oct-04 Monday 0.0 50.0 25-Oct-04 Monday 0.0 80.0 26-Oct-04 Tuesday 0.0 50.0 26-Oct-04 Tuesday 80.0 80.0 27-Oct-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 27-Oct-04 Wednesday harvest harvest 28-Oct-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 28-Oct-04 Thursday 29-Oct-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 29-Oct-04 Friday 30-Oct-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 30-Oct-04 Saturday 31-Oct-04 Sunday 0.0 50.0 31-Oct-04 Sunday 1-Nov-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 1-Nov-04 Monday 2-Nov-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 2-Nov-04 Tuesday 3-Nov-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 3-Nov-04 Wednesday 4-Nov-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 4-Nov-04 Thursday 5-Nov-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 5-Nov-04 Friday 6-Nov-04 Saturday 0.0 50.0 6-Nov-04 Saturday 7-Nov-04 Sunday 0.0 50.0 7-Nov-04 Sunday 8-Nov-04 Monday 0.0 50.0 8-Nov-04 Monday 9-Nov-04 Tuesday 0.0 50.0 9-Nov-04 Tuesday 10-Nov-04 Wednesday 0.0 50.0 10-Nov-04 Wednesday 11-Nov-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 11-Nov-04 Thursday 12-Nov-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 12-Nov-04 Friday 13-Nov-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 13-Nov-04 Saturday 14-Nov-04 Sunday 0.0 65.0 14-Nov-04 Sunday 15-Nov-04 Monday 0.0 80.0 15-Nov-04 Monday 16-Nov-04 Tuesday 0.0 80.0 16-Nov-04 Tuesday 17-Nov-04 Wednesday 0.0 80.0 17-Nov-04 Wednesday 18-Nov-04 Thursday 80.0 80.0 18-Nov-04 Thursday 19-Nov-04 Friday harvest harvest 19-Nov-04 Friday harvest harvest 3273.5 6560.5 3842.0 5237.0 Total Feed C1 - P1 = 9834.0 lbs Total FeedC1 - P3 = 9079.0 lbs Pond Shrimp Yield = 4345 lbs Pond Shrimp Yield = 3053 lbs Feed Conversion Summary Feed Conversion Ratio = 2.3 :1 Feed Conversion Ratio = 2.97 :1
66 Table 3.4 Feed Acquired For Shrimp Poject
Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 12/10/04 Work Description Feed Acquired For Shrimp Project Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Date Source Shipments Lbs Value Nursery Feed Acquisitions 4/2/2004 Laramore Donation 120$ 1,800.00 5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb PL-C 150$ 1,200.00 5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb J400 Juvenile 150$ 825.00 420$ 3,825.00 Pond Grow Out Feed Acquisitions 4/15/2004 Zeigler 14 bags(55lb) E30 * 770$ - 4/15/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 4400$ 1,482.80 4/15/2004 Zeigler Donation Freight$ 753.90 7/30/2004 Zeigler 100 bags(55lb) SI35 5500$ 1,858.00 7/30/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 4400$ 894.40 9/20/2004 Feed water damaged in hurricanses and discarded. -880$ (297.26) 10/6/2004 Zeigler 100 bags(55lb) SI35 5500$ 1,999.00 10/22/2004 Zeigler 20 bags SI35E 1100$ 427.80 10/22/2004 Zeigler 30 bags SI30 1650$ 580.20 11/8/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750$ 949.50 11/16/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750$ 949.50 12/10/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750$ 949.50 (unused) Total Growout Feed Used 27940$ 9,597.84 $ 10,547.34 Grand Total 31110$ 14,372.34 * Feed: (costs include frt. except as specified)
Feed Fed as of 12/6/04 from pond feeding records. Crop 1 18913.0 lbs Crop 2 9010.0 lbs Total 27923.0 lbs
Water Quality
Water quality - primarily temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements were taken in the morning and the afternoons. As the biomass of both shrimp - and most especially phytoplankton built in the ponds, the diurnal oxygen demand and differentials became more and more extreme. In an effort to reduce the phytoplankton bloom, molasses was added to each pond. Initially the molasses was added at a .25 to 1 ratio by weight - .25 pounds of molasses to one pound of shrimp feed. The algal blooms continued to become denser. In addition high nitrite levels were becoming evident. A shrimp die off was noted in Pond 3. At that point the molasses level was increased to .5 to 1. With this ratio of molasses the heterotrophic bacterial began to displace the dominant algal bloom. The ponds went from a bright green color to a dark brown. Diurnal oxygen swings in demand ceased. To be sure that the heterotrophic bacteria did not create too much oxygen demand a third 2 horsepower paddle wheel was placed in both Pond 1 and Pond 3.
Unfortunately, the arrival of Hurricane Jeanne caused and emergency transfer of the shrimp from the Nursery to Pond 2. This emergency procedure prevented the use of
67 the prescribed sampling and sample treatment protocols. Sediment and water samples were taken from the Pond 3 during its harvest. Those samples were taken to the UF Soil and Water Testing Laboratory. At the time of this writing the test results had not been received.
In discussing the TDS with local agriculture specialist it seems clear that water with a TDS of 2100 can not be used for the irrigation of most crops with out salting out that land over time. This would seem to infer that any use of the pond effluent flocculants or sediments would also require separating it from the high TDS water or leaching it.
It should be noted that there was a material difference between Ponds 1 and 3. Pond 1 was lined with HDPE material and Pond 3 was lined with Firestone EDPM. There were no differences in growth or observable performance between the two shrimp populations. However, there were notable differences in the liners in terms of management. The HDPE is extremely slick. This made it difficult for personnel to stand on the slopes during sampling or other pond maintenance activities. The EDPM being rubber like was not slick above the water line, but was just as slick as the HDPE below the water line. There were also notable differences in predatory bird activity and behavior with the different liners. The HDPE did not provide a useable foothold for wadding birds until a water line dried protein and dead algae film developed. Here on this dried film the birds could find purchase. White herons were the primary wading birds feeding.
68 Table 3.5 Crop Water Quality Summary Crop 1 and Crop
Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 12/10/04 Work Description Water Quality Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Crop 1 - Pond 1 Crop 1 - Pond 3 Crop 2 - Pond 2 Crop 2 - Pond 3 Crop 2 - Pond 3
Date Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 1-Jun-04 Tuesday 2-Jun-04 Wednesday 28.3 5.5 3-Jun-04 Thursday 4-Jun-04 Friday 5-Jun-04 Saturday 6-Jun-04 Sunday 7-Jun-04 Monday 8-Jun-04 Tuesday 28.6 6.68 28.3 6.7 9-Jun-04 Wednesday 10-Jun-04 Thursday 11-Jun-04 Friday 28.7 6.20 28.9 6.7 12-Jun-04 Saturday 13-Jun-04 Sunday 14-Jun-04 Monday 29.0 15-Jun-04 Tuesday 16-Jun-04 Wednesday 29.0 29.0 6.5 17-Jun-04 Thursday 28.3 6.50 28.5 6.57 18-Jun-04 Friday 28.6 6.68 28.3 6.7 19-Jun-04 Saturday 28.6 6.70 28.3 6.7 20-Jun-04 Sunday 29.1 6.40 28.9 6.5 21-Jun-04 Monday 29.0 6.49 29.0 6.6 22-Jun-04 Tuesday 28.7 6.45 28.5 6.5 23-Jun-04 Wednesday 28.3 6.70 28.1 6.7 24-Jun-04 Thursday 27.7 7.00 27.8 7 25-Jun-04 Friday 27.3 28.6 6.20 6.30 27.4 28.1 6.35 6.7 26-Jun-04 Saturday 26.5 29.2 6.00 6.30 26.1 29.1 6.32 6.3 27-Jun-04 Sunday 28.7 6.60 28.3 6.6 28-Jun-04 Monday 28.6 6.30 29.0 6.5 29-Jun-04 Tuesday 29.1 6.00 28.5 6.7 30-Jun-04 Wednesday 28.7 6.20 28.9 6.7 1-Jul-04 Thursday 29.0 6.00 28.9 6.5 2-Jul-04 Friday 28.3 5.50 28.3 6.3 3-Jul-04 Saturday 4-Jul-04 Sunday 28.2 6.00 28.3 6.3 5-Jul-04 Monday 28.1 6.00 28.0 6.3 6-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.8 6.70 27.9 6.9 7-Jul-04 Wednesday 27.8 6.50 27.7 6.6 8-Jul-04 Thursday 27.9 6.90 27.9 6.7 9-Jul-04 Friday 27.6 6.10 27.6 6.1 10-Jul-04 Saturday 28.2 6.00 27.8 6.2 11-Jul-04 Sunday 28.6 6.00 28.3 6.1 12-Jul-04 Monday 13-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.8 6.40 27.7 6.7 14-Jul-04 Wednesday 6.40 10.50 15-Jul-04 Thursday 28.8 30.1 6.40 28.7 6.1 8.95 16-Jul-04 Friday 28.8 6.40 28.7 6.1 17-Jul-04 Saturday 27.8 6.30 27.5 6.4 18-Jul-04 Sunday 27.7 6.30 27.5 6.6 19-Jul-04 Monday 27.2 8.20 27.2 8.3 9 20-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.5 8.00 21-Jul-04 Wednesday 22-Jul-04 Thursday 23-Jul-04 Friday 28.5 6.1 24-Jul-04 Saturday 28.7 5.90 5.50 28.5 6.1 5.5 25-Jul-04 Sunday 28.7 4.90 29.0 4.9 26-Jul-04 Monday 28.3 5.1 27-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.8 6.10 28.3 5.1 28-Jul-04 Wednesday 27.6 5.70 28.1 5.3 29-Jul-04 Thursday 30-Jul-04 Friday 27.3 5.40 27.8 6.1 31-Jul-04 Saturday 28.5 5.20 28.7 5.4 1-Aug-04 Sunday 27.4 6.10 27.3 6.1 2-Aug-04 Monday 3-Aug-04 Tuesday 27.3 5.80 27.1 5.4 4-Aug-04 Wednesday 27.2 6.80 27.1 6.7 5-Aug-04 Thursday 26.8 7.10 26.7 6.9 6-Aug-04 Friday 27.5 5.90 27.4 6.3 7-Aug-04 Saturday 8-Aug-04 Sunday 9-Aug-04 Monday 10-Aug-04 Tuesday 11-Aug-04 Wednesday 27.3 5.50 29.3 5.6 12-Aug-04 Thursday 28.3 4.90 28.3 5.6 13-Aug-04 Friday 28.1 4.50 28.0 5.6 14-Aug-04 Saturday 27.3 4.80 27.2 6.4 15-Aug-04 Sunday 27.2 4.60 27.2 6 16-Aug-04 Monday 17-Aug-04 Tuesday 27.9 6.60 28.1 8.7 18-Aug-04 Wednesday 28.4 4.50 5.78 28.3 29.4 5 7.22
69 19-Aug-04 Thursday 28.4 29.6 4.36 5.23 28.4 29.5 5.06 6.7 20-Aug-04 Friday28.430.54.435.1528.330.85.637.55 21-Aug-04 Saturday28.730.95.219.0028.730.25.757 22-Aug-04 Sunday27.127.15.766.4026.827.06.367.6 23-Aug-04 Monday 26.9 6.92 27.0 8.4 24-Aug-04 Tuesday 27.2 7.78 27.3 8.19 25-Aug-04 Wednesday 26-Aug-04 Thursday 27-Aug-04 Friday 28-Aug-04 Saturday 29-Aug-04 Sunday 30-Aug-04 Monday 31-Aug-04 Tuesday 27.9 5.90 27.6 4.76 1-Sep-04 Wednesday 2-Sep-04 Thursday Nusery Tanks to Pond 2 3-Sep-04 Friday 29.0 30.3 7.3 8.6 4-Sep-04 Saturday 28.7 29.9 6.8 7.7 5-Sep-04 Sunday 28.3 29.5 5.23 8.13 6-Sep-04 Monday 27.0 27.1 6.6 7.6 7-Sep-04 Tuesday 28.2 6.2 8-Sep-04 Wednesday 29.0 30.3 5 5.66 9-Sep-04 Thursday 28.7 29.9 5.09 6.64 10-Sep-04 Friday 28.3 29.5 5.23 8.13 11-Sep-04 Saturday27.428.46.227.1727.628.66.488 28.729.53.726.36 12-Sep-04 Sunday27.229.05.887.5327.329.25.958.3128.430.04.396.27 13-Sep-04 Monday27.428.77.207.7327.528.97.679.0628.229.45.757.63 14-Sep-04 Tuesday 27.2 27.8 6.00 7.58 27.6 28.0 8.72 28.1 28.2 4.65 8.64 15-Sep-04 Wednesday 27.1 28.7 7.36 7.10 27.6 26.9 7.37 8.7 28.1 28.4 8.44 16-Sep-04 Thursday 27.5 5.50 27.6 5.5 28.1 4.31 17-Sep-04 Friday 28.1 29.3 7.15 8.21 28.2 29.4 8.07 8.9 29.0 30.3 5 5.66 18-Sep-04 Saturday27.829.15.077.7827.829.35.548.2628.729.95.096.64 19-Sep-04 Sunday27.428.85.348.1127.629.15.588.7528.329.55.238.13 20-Sep-04 Monday26.326.66.746.9926.526.77.427.7227.027.16.67.07 21-Sep-04 Tuesday 24.7 6.96 26.9 6.89 28.2 5.54 22-Sep-04 Wednesday 25.7 7.10 24.8 6.36 25.2 6.13 23-Sep-04 Thursday 27.0 6.80 25.7 27.0 7.21 6.97 26.1 27.2 7.2 7.63 24-Sep-04 Friday 25.1 6.02 25.2 6.07 25.6 5.74 25-Sep-04 Saturday 25.3 5.47 25.2 5.89 25.5 5.79 26-Sep-04 Sunday 25.6 7.02 25.7 6.32 25.7 7.1 27-Sep-04 Monday25.227.26.707.9025.227.46.926.6225.427.47.18.14 28-Sep-04 Tuesday 26.2 6.05 26.4 6.5 26.5 6.88 29-Sep-04 Wednesday 26.7 5.78 6.2 7.3 30-Sep-04 Thursday 26.8 5.25 27.0 5.4 27.3 6.3 1-Oct-04 Friday 27.6 29.5 5.60 5.81 27.6 29.4 5.4 5.24 28.0 29.7 6.69 6.95 2-Oct-04 Saturday 27.2 28.9 5.24 6.66 27.2 29.3 5.4 6.14 27.8 29.4 6.14 7.94 3-Oct-04 Sunday 26.7 28.5 5.52 7.25 26.9 28.9 5.5 6.64 27.3 29.1 5.95 8.27 4-Oct-04 Monday 26.8 5.22 27.0 5.0 27.4 5.7 5-Oct-04 Tuesday 26.4 5.59 25.8 5.4 28.1 6.2 6-Oct-04 Wednesday 26.5 5.60 26.7 6.6 27.1 6.8 7-Oct-04 Thursday 25.3 6.00 25.5 6.3 26.0 6.17 8-Oct-04 Friday 23.9 6.66 6.32 23.9 26.4 7.1 7.46 24.7 26.7 5.77 9.36 9-Oct-04 Saturday 24.4 26.3 5.92 6.10 24.3 26.5 6.6 7.56 25.1 26.9 5.32 8.49 10-Oct-04 Sunday 25.1 26.9 5.81 5.47 25.4 27.1 6.8 6.78 25.9 26.5 5.76 7.6 11-Oct-04 Monday 25.9 26.3 5.19 6.00 26.1 26.4 5.4 6.3 26.6 25.0 3.21 5.8 12-Oct-04 Tuesday 25.6 26.4 5.81 5.76 25.7 26.6 6.1 6.36 25.9 26.6 5.6 7.31 13-Oct-04 Wednesday 25.5 27.5 5.47 5.44 25.7 27.8 5.9 6.09 25.9 27.8 5 8 14-Oct-04 Thursday 25.1 27.0 5.90 5.90 25.3 27.3 7.1 7.27 25.7 27.6 6.66 7.65 15-Oct-04 Friday 25.3 26.6 5.80 6.45 25.5 26.8 6.0 7.49 26.2 27.3 4.67 7.9 16-Oct-04 Saturday 22.4 23.8 6.74 8.17 22.6 24.0 6.6 8.63 23.6 24.8 6.14 9.69 17-Oct-04 Sunday 21.7 24.1 7.05 7.90 21.9 24.3 6.7 8.88 22.8 24.9 5.38 9.41 18-Oct-04 Monday 23.2 24.4 7.28 7.00 23.2 25.6 6.4 8.26 23.8 5.02 8.8 19-Oct-04 Tuesday 25.3 5.80 25.1 6.7 25.6 5.26 20-Oct-04 Wednesday 27.7 26.8 7.02 7.51 26.2 27.2 7.4 8.5 26.1 27.1 7.35 9.02 21-Oct-04 Thursday 25.0 27.1 6.32 7.78 25.5 27.4 8.3 9.46 25.6 27.5 6.8 9.85 22-Oct-04 Friday 25.5 26.0 4.83 4.92 25.6 26.1 5.9 5.66 25.0 26.5 5.62 5.39 23-Oct-04 Saturday 24.2 26.0 4.43 7.82 24.4 26.3 4.8 8.7 24.3 26.5 4.02 8.9 24-Oct-04 Sunday 23.7 25.2 6.26 8.60 24.0 25.7 6.8 9.88 24.4 25.9 5.34 10.95 25-Oct-04 Monday 23.3 6.07 23.8 6.5 24.1 4.8 26-Oct-04 Tuesday 23.1 6.07 23.6 6.6 23.9 4.65 27-Oct-04 Wednesday 24.0 6.28Pond C1 - P3 Harvested 24.2 4.92 28-Oct-04 Thursday 24.0 25.6 7.92 8.25 23.8 25.3 7.61 9.45 29-Oct-04 Friday 26.5 9.61 26.4 10.67 30-Oct-04 Saturday 24.6 26.3 6.17 8.88 24.7 26.6 5.71 9.77 31-Oct-04 Sunday 23.9 25.7 6.33 9.44 24.5 26.2 5.68 8.78 1-Nov-04 Monday 25.0 26.0 9.27 8.52 25.6 27.5 6.8 9.41 2-Nov-04 Tuesday 25.4 26.6 6.75 7.92 25.0 26.5 5.62 8.8 3-Nov-04 Wednesday 25.0 26.8 6.20 8.06 24.3 26.5 4.02 4-Nov-04 Thursday 25.6 26.8 7.67 8.52 26.8 5.34 9.02 5-Nov-04 Friday 24.8 24.7 8.60 7.55 Pond 2 split to Pond 3 & 4 6-Nov-04 Saturday 21.7 24.2 7.78 8.93 22.5 24.0 7.37 7.9 22.5 24.5 7.37 8.47 7-Nov-04 Sunday 22.3 8.11 21.6 8.23 23.5 7.39 8-Nov-04 Monday 22.7 10.00 23.8 8.01 22.9 8.72 9-Nov-04 Tuesday 21.4 8.82 22.2 8.9 21.8 8.81 10-Nov-04 Wednesday 22.2 9.69 21.8 10.23 21.6 10.04 11-Nov-04 Thursday 22.0 7.57 21.5 7.99 21.6 8.03
70 12-Nov-04 Friday 23.2 24.3 9.88 9.30 23.2 23.9 10.08 9.84 23.3 24.0 10.18 10.13 13-Nov-04 Saturday 23.7 24.2 7.23 8.70 22.4 24.0 7.39 8.65 22.5 24.1 7.2 8.83 14-Nov-04 Sunday 23.2 7.03 22.9 23.6 7.07 7.96 23.1 23.7 6.96 7.39 15-Nov-04 Monday 21.1 8.23 20.8 8.26 20.6 7.95 7.95 16-Nov-04 Tuesday 21.7 9.24 20.8 9.96 20.9 10.12 17-Nov-04 Wednesday 21.8 9.09 21.3 8.69 22.2 8.4 18-Nov-04 Thursday 24.2 6.39 21.1 8.18 22.4 7.79 19-Nov-04 Friday Pond C1 - P1 Harvested 20-Nov-04 Saturday 22.7 10.48 22.8 10.54 21-Nov-04 Sunday 23.0 10.64 23.1 10.71 22-Nov-04 Monday 23.1 9.75 23.3 9.76 23-Nov-04 Tuesday 22.0 8.57 22.3 8.75 24-Nov-04 Wednesday 22.8 8.89 22.8 8.71 25-Nov-04 Thursday 22.3 10.24 22.4 9.86 26-Nov-04 Friday 20.8 21.8 10.3 9.43 20.9 21.8 9.95 9.37 27-Nov-04 Saturday 22.1 23.3 7.71 9.61 22.4 23.4 7.31 9.85 28-Nov-04 Sunday 22.2 23.5 7.46 9.94 22.3 23.6 7.31 10.43 29-Nov-04 Monday 21.0 24.0 7.74 8.87 21.2 23.8 9.03 9.27 30-Nov-04 Tuesday 20.7 23.3 8.34 9.09 21.2 21.9 8.76 10.32 1-Dec-04 Wednesday 22.6 23.7 9.59 10.1 22.4 23.5 9.8 11.02 2-Dec-04 Thursday 23.0 7.02 23.9 5.88 3-Dec-04 Friday 22.1 10.7 22.1 11.52 4-Dec-04 Saturday 5-Dec-04 Sunday 6-Dec-04 Monday 7-Dec-04 Tuesday 8-Dec-04 Wednesday 9-Dec-04 Thursday 10-Dec-04 Friday Pond C2 - P4 Sold
Crop 1 Production Results
Ponds 1 and 3 used in Crop 1 were very similar in performance through most of the growout. However, a die off occurred in Pond 3. The die off was attributed to a combination of low DO and excessive Nitrites. It might also have been those factors along with the depletion of one or more of the critical ions such as calcium, potassium and magnesium. Once water was exchanged as soon as the die off was observed - all negative factors seemed to be mediated. Since staff limitations and budge limitations precluded daily mineral analysis it is impossible to make a specific diagnosis. What can be said is that the Project's well water was sufficiently endowed with the necessary elements to correct the problem. From that point on a 50% by volume of the pond was exchanged one day per week. To eliminate the nitrite build up additional molasses was added and this problem too went away. No substantial die offs were noted in Pond 1.
71 Table 3.6 Crop 1 Production Summary
Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004) PrincipleInv estigaFerdinandWirth , Ph.D., LeRoy R. Cre swell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 6/10/04 Work Description Crop 1 production Summary Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Crop 1 - Pond 1 Crop 1 - Pond 3
Estimated Avg. Calc. # of Harvest Estimated Avg. Calc. #of Harvest Sample Donations Shrimp Shrimp in and Other Disposition of Sample Donations/ Recievers of Shrimp Shrimp in and Other Dates Wts. /Gifts Wt. Samples Wt. Totals Shrimp Wts. Gifts Shrimp Wt. Samples Wt. Totals
11/19/04 54228 2150 Lbs. Sold 28018 0 Repl. 18664 740 Proj. Sup. D on. 631 2Loss5 Est. Harvest 11/19/04 2995 Lbs. Total Harve st Wt.
11/17/04 18 18 454 11/15/04 210 DG=110 18 5297 11/9/04 30 18 757 11/3/04 24 18 605 10/28/04 79 DG=55 18 1993 10/27/04 72 Sold 18 1816 Harvest 18 56889 2255.5 Lbs. 10/19/04 59 DG=35 13 2060 32 DG=20 18 807 10/12/04 47 DG=35 12 1778 24 17 641 10/5/04 22 11 908 18 16 511 9/21/04 36 DG=20 9.2 1777 32 DG=20 15 969 9/15/04 22 DG=10 8 1249 18 12 681 8/31/04 18 7.42 1101 18 81022 8/24/04 14 6.64 957 12 6.2 879 8/3/04 12 4.49 1213 8 4.29 847 7/26/04 12 3.72 1465 12 3.59 1518 7/13/04 12 2.6 2122.132558095 7/6/04 4 1.75 1038 5 1.72 1320 6/22/04 3 1.3 1048 3 0.89 6/15/04 2 0.74 1227 2 0.65
HURRICANE AND HARVEST NOTATIONS * Harvest Overage - shrimp ad dedto insure 10 lbs. 225 169 * Estimated shrimp blown out o f pond 1 during the two hu rricanes (Ft2 = 6600 Shrimp/Ft2 = 0.30 ) Shrimp lost = 1980 131 Lbs. 131 Stocking Density = 119998 80m2 Stocki ng Density 126341 84 m2 Total Ind. Sampled = 19774 Total I nd. Sampled = 10430 Total Wt. Samples At Harvest = 915lbs Total Wt. Samples A t Harvest = 414 lbs Total Number Shrimp Produced 126132 Total Number Shri mp Produced = 67319 Total Pond Production = 4345lbs Total Pond Product ion = 3053 lbs Estimated Survival = 1.05 Estimated Survival = 0.53 Harvest Density = 84m2 Harve st Density = 45 m2
72 Growout Production - Second Crop
Stocking
The plan to stock Ponds 2, 3 and 4 for Crop 2 after Pond 3 of Crop 1 was harvested, had to be abandoned due to Hurricanes Francis and Jeanne. In fact the day before Francis hit - when it was obvious that there would be no reprieve from this storm, the shrimp were pump transferred to Pond 2. The shrimp in Nursery Tanks 1,2 and 3 were each drained down into the sump in the greenhouse where they were picked up by the intake line of the shrimp harvest pump. The pump was connected by over 200 feet of six inch hose and PVC pipe to pond 2. Due to the proximity of the storm no attempt was made to quantify the number of shrimp transferred. The entire transfer of the estimated 4-500,000 juvenile shrimp took less than two hours. No apparent damage was caused to the shrimp.
Fig. 3.7 Nursery Harvest and Pump Transfer
73 Feeding and Sampling
Feeding and sampling was accomplished as in Crop 1, using the same assumptions up to December. Based on the feed conversions - above 2:1 in Crop 1 it was decided to drop the feed rate down to 3 % rather than 5$ as in Crop 1. However, with the advent of temperatures below 24 degrees in November there were many days when only half feed rations were given due to the reduced growth rates.
In addition to monitoring dissolved oxygen, the taste of the shrimp was monitored throughout the growout. Due to the heterotrophic nature of the pond culture process there was concern that off flavors might develop. To monitor off flavors a taste panel was set up. This was accomplished by dividing each weekly sample between staff and volunteers that composed the taste panel. While this is an admittedly informal taste panel, each member had years of experienced tasting aquaculture food products and specifically farmed shrimp. Each was also familiar with off flavor taste in these foods and therefore would know what would constitute and off flavor.
74 Table 3.7 Crop 2 Feed Summary Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004) Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 12/6/04 Work Description Crop 2 Feed Summary Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. CROP 2 - POND 2 CROP 2 - POND 3 CROP 2 - POND 4 Feedings (lbs.) Feedings (lbs.) Feedings (lbs.) Date Date Date A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 1-Sep-04 Wednesday Split Pond 2 into Ponds 3 and 4 2-Sep-04 Thursday Stocked 12.0 7-Nov-04 Sunday 40.0 40.0 7-Nov-04 Sunday 40.0 40.0 3-Sep-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 8-Nov-04 Monday 40.0 40.0 8-Nov-04 Monday 40.0 40.0 4-Sep-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 9-Nov-04 Tuesday 40.0 40.0 9-Nov-04 Tuesday 40.0 40.0 5-Sep-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 10-Nov-04 Wednesday 40.0 40.0 10-Nov-04 Wednesday 40.0 40.0 6-Sep-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 11-Nov-04 Thursday 40.0 40.0 11-Nov-04 Thursday 40.0 40.0 7-Sep-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 12-Nov-04 Friday 40.0 40.0 12-Nov-04 Friday 40.0 40.0 8-Sep-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 13-Nov-04 Saturday 40.0 40.0 13-Nov-04 Saturday 40.0 40.0 9-Sep-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 14-Nov-04 Sunday 40.0 40.0 14-Nov-04 Sunday 40.0 40.0 10-Sep-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 15-Nov-04 Monday 40.0 40.0 15-Nov-04 Monday 40.0 40.0 11-Sep-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 16-Nov-04 Tuesday 40.0 40.0 16-Nov-04 Tuesday 40.0 40.0 12-Sep-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 17-Nov-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 17-Nov-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 13-Sep-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 18-Nov-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 18-Nov-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 14-Sep-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 19-Nov-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 19-Nov-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 15-Sep-04 Wednesday 30.0 30.0 20-Nov-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 20-Nov-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 16-Sep-04 Thursday 30.0 30.0 21-Nov-04 Sunday 0.0 65.0 21-Nov-04 Sunday 0.0 65.0 17-Sep-04 Friday 30.0 30.0 22-Nov-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 22-Nov-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 18-Sep-04 Saturday 30.0 30.0 23-Nov-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 23-Nov-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 19-Sep-04 Sunday 30.0 30.0 24-Nov-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 24-Nov-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 20-Sep-04 Monday 30.0 30.0 25-Nov-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 25-Nov-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 21-Sep-04 Tuesday 30.0 30.0 26-Nov-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 26-Nov-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 22-Sep-04 Wednesday 30.0 30.0 27-Nov-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 27-Nov-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 23-Sep-04 Thursday 30.0 30.0 28-Nov-04 Sunday 0.0 65.0 28-Nov-04 Sunday 0.0 65.0 24-Sep-04 Friday 30.0 30.0 29-Nov-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 29-Nov-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 25-Sep-04 Saturday 30.0 30.0 30-Nov-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 30-Nov-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 26-Sep-04 Sunday 30.0 30.0 1-Dec-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 1-Dec-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 27-Sep-04 Monday 30.0 30.0 2-Dec-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 2-Dec-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 28-Sep-04 Tuesday 30.0 30.0 3-Dec-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 3-Dec-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 29-Sep-04 Wednesday 30.0 30.0 4-Dec-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 4-Dec-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 30-Sep-04 Thursday 30.0 30.0 5-Dec-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 5-Dec-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 1-Oct-04 Friday 30.0 30.0 6-Dec-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 6-Dec-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 2-Oct-04 Saturday 30.0 30.0 7-Dec-04 Sunday 7-Dec-04 Sunday 3-Oct-04 Sunday 30.0 30.0 8-Dec-04 Monday 8-Dec-04 Monday 4-Oct-04 Monday 30.0 30.0 9-Dec-04 Tuesday 9-Dec-04 Tuesday 5-Oct-04 Tuesday 30.0 30.0 10-Dec-04 Wednesday 10-Dec-04 Wednesday 6-Oct-04 Wednesday 38.0 38.0 11-Dec-04 Thursday 11-Dec-04 Thursday 7-Oct-04 Thursday 38.0 38.0 12-Dec-04 Friday 12-Dec-04 Friday 8-Oct-04 Friday 38.0 38.0 13-Dec-04 Saturday 13-Dec-04 Saturday 9-Oct-04 Saturday 38.0 38.0 14-Dec-04 Sunday 14-Dec-04 Sunday 10-Oct-04 Sunday 38.0 38.0 15-Dec-04 Monday 15-Dec-04 Monday 11-Oct-04 Monday 38.0 38.0 16-Dec-04 Tuesday 16-Dec-04 Tuesday 12-Oct-04 Tuesday 38.0 38.0 17-Dec-04 Wednesday 17-Dec-04 Wednesday 13-Oct-04 Wednesday 38.0 38.0 18-Dec-04 Thursday 18-Dec-04 Thursday 14-Oct-04 Thursday 38.0 38.0 19-Dec-04 Friday 19-Dec-04 Friday 15-Oct-04 Friday 38.0 38.0 20-Dec-04 Saturday 20-Dec-04 Saturday 16-Oct-04 Saturday 38.0 38.0 21-Dec-04 Sunday 21-Dec-04 Sunday 17-Oct-04 Sunday 38.0 38.0 22-Dec-04 Monday 22-Dec-04 Monday 18-Oct-04 Monday 38.0 38.0 23-Dec-04 Tuesday 23-Dec-04 Tuesday 19-Oct-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 24-Dec-04 Wednesday 24-Dec-04 Wednesday 20-Oct-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 25-Dec-04 Thursday 25-Dec-04 Thursday 21-Oct-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 26-Dec-04 Friday 26-Dec-04 Friday 22-Oct-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 27-Dec-04 Saturday 27-Dec-04 Saturday 23-Oct-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 28-Dec-04 Sunday 28-Dec-04 Sunday 24-Oct-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 29-Dec-04 Monday 29-Dec-04 Monday 25-Oct-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 30-Dec-04 Tuesday 30-Dec-04 Tuesday 26-Oct-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 27-Oct-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 28-Oct-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 29-Oct-04 Friday 75.0 75.0 30-Oct-04 Saturday 75.0 75.0 31-Oct-04 Sunday 75.0 75.0 1-Nov-04 Monday 75.0 75.0 2-Nov-04 Tuesday 75.0 75.0 3-Nov-04 Wednesday 75.0 75.0 4-Nov-04 Thursday 75.0 75.0 5-Nov-04 Friday 75.0 75.0 6-Nov-04 Saturday 75.0 75.0 Split and transferred to Ponds 3 & 4
2599.0 2611.0 400.0 1700.0 400.0 1700.0 Total Feed Pond C2 - P2 = 5210.0 Total Feed Pond C2 - P3 = 4705.0 Total Feed Pond C2 - P4 = 4305.0
75 Water Quality
Water quality in Crop 2 was generally better than in Crop in terms of dissolved oxygen because of the lower temperatures. Of course the lower metabolism of the shrimp also generates lower nitrogenous waste as well. Water quality results can be found in the Water Quality section of Crop 1 where the results of both Crop 1 and Crop 2 are combined for the sake of comparison.
Harvest
Harvest was accomplished using the PRAqua shrimp pump. The intake hose of the pump was attached to the drain of the pond to be harvested. The discharge hose and pipe were connected to the small dewatering tower that was designed for the pump. The pond was drained down to about the half way point of the ponds depth. At that point the stand pipe was removed from the pond drain and the shrimp were allowed to leave the pond. As is typical of most shrimp ponds, the majority of the shrimp come out of the pond with the very last of the pond water. The shrimp are separated somewhat from the pond water as they pass over the grating of the dewatering tower. Successive shrimp push the shrimp off the grating and out of the dewatering towers discharge pipe. Since it was decided to sell the Project's shrimp live, the dewatering tower discharged the shrimp into a six foot diameter, three foot deep fiberglass tank. The tank served two purposes. It acted as a wash tank to rinse pond debris, mud, silt, etc. off the shrimp and it kept them alive until they were dipped out and placed into a plastic bag for a customer.
Fig. 3.8 Pond Pump Harvest System
76 Throughout the growout weekly samples were taste tested by an informal taste panel. No off flavors were detected prior to harvest. However, after harvest of Pond 3 (the first pond harvested) there were comments from consumers off flavors. Since no taste test had produced any off flavor results from either Pond 1 or Pond 3 shrimp up to the harvest, it was theorized that the flavo rs h ad develop ed post ha rvest . In talking to consumers it became apparent that in an effort to provide the shrimp to the consumer "live " a s state law requires , there had been insufficient washing of the shrimp to remove the actual pond wate r and sedime nts from t hem. Tho ugh consumers were give the shrimp live right out of the harvest tank - it was up to the consumer wash the shrimp and to place the shrimp on ice. What we found was that most of the off flavor complaints came from consumers who did not wash the shrimp immediately when they got home. Many ju st put them in their refrigerat ors mu ch like they would do with cooked shrimp from their grocer. (See marketing section for further discussions of this problem.)
After the harvest of Pond 3 and its minor, but significant off flavor complaints, a complete review of our harvest process was made. We decided the primary problem was a lack of sufficient clean water to rinse the shrimp with as they were harvested. In the harvest of Pond 3 the shrimp were collected from the dewatering tower in a 6 foot diameter fiberglass tank. However, only pond water was circulated through the tank. With the harvest of Pond 1 an additional the harvest receiving fiberglass tank was also connected to the one of the Project's potable wells to provide a clean source of clean rinse water. This eliminated almost all complaints of off flavors in the harvest of Pond 1 (the second pond harvested in Crop 1).
Fig. 3.9 Shrimp Production From Crop 1
77 Crop 2 Production Results
Crop production data is given below in Table 3.8. Immediately following the Crop 2 Production Results is a side by side comparison of both Crop 1 and Crop results in Table 3.9. While Crop 2 performed even better than Crop 1 during its nursery phase - both in growth and apparent survival, declining seasonal temperatures have severely limited the growth of those shrimp in the Crop 2 growout. Unless a second crop of shrimp can be started in May it is unlikely that a second crop of shrimp will be large enough to have enough value to justify its costs.
78 Table 3.8 Crop 2 Production Summary Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004) Principle InvestigaFerdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 6/10/04 Work Descriptio nCrop 2 produ ction Summary Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc. Crop 2 - Pond 3 Crop 1 - Pond 4 Harvest Harvest and and Estimated Avg. Calc. # of Other Estimated Avg. Calc. # of Other Sample Shrimp Shrimp in Wt. Sample Shrimp Shrimp in Wt. Dates Wts. Wt. Samples Totals Wts. Wt. Samples Totals 12/10/04 Pond C1 - P4 Sold 12/6/04 3 5.4 252 3 5.4 252 12/1/04 3 5.1 267 3 5.1 267 11/17/04 3 4.8 284 3 4.8 284 Crop2- Pond 2 Pond 3 and 4 stocked form Pond 2 Nov. 16th. 11/6/04 6 3.7 736 10/28/04 6 3.5 778 10/20/04 8 2.4 1513 10/12/04 5 1.1 2064 10/5/04 4 1.73 1050 9/21/04 2 1.3 698 9/15/04 2 1 908 9/2/04 1 1 454 8202 Pond 2 stocked from Nursery Tanks 1,2 & 3 Sept, 2n d
Sytocking Densit =193194 129 m2 Stocking Density 1931941 29 m2 Estd. Mortality by 12/6 = 0.05 9 660Estd. Mortality by 12/6 =0 .05 9660 Tledbotal Ind. Samp y 12/6 = 4502 Total Ind. Sampled by 12/6 = 4502 Total Wt. Samp les by 12/6 = 54 lbs Total Wt. Samples At H arvest =54 l bs Estd. Shrimp B iomass by 12/6 = 179032 2 129 lbs Total Number Shrimp Produced = 1835352183 l bs Syastanding Densit of 12/6 = 119 m2 Harvest Density = 122 m2 Fteeed used to da =4 705lbs Feed used to date = 4305 lbs F.21:CR = 2 1 FCR = 1.97 :1
79 Table 3.9 Intensive Closed System Shrimp Pond Production Comparison Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004) Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Cre swell Project Manager BCI, Inc. Date 12/2/04 Work Description Intensive Closed Syste mShrimp Pon d Production Comparison Table Work by Durwood M. Dugger - B CI, Inc. Annual Production/ Crops/ Density Salinity Survival Harvest Days 2 2 Production Crop (kg/m ) Year (shrimp/m ) (ppt) (%) FCR Weight (g) to Harvest 1 Wood Brothers Shrimp Farm (Arizo na) Farm Average 4.6 tons/h a N/A N/A58 1.80-2.60 46 2.4 19.8 N/A 2 Arizona Mariculture Associat es 1.6-2.0 kg/m2*N/A5*80-100 1.70-6.30 N/A N/A 20.0* N/A 3 Regal Farms (Texas) 4.5 tons/ha N/A 1-240 11.00 65 2.0 17.5 1.0 N/A 4 Duda and Sons (Florida) 1998 5.7 tons/ha N/A 2150-70 0.23 63 2.9 4.9 145 1999 7.4 tons/ha N/A 2150-70 0.23 65 2.3 9.1 160 5 HarborBranch Oceanograph ic Instit ute Single-Phase 4.14+/-0.80kg/m2 2.07+/-0.40 2153+/-38 0.70 77+/-14 1.59+/-0.24 14.1+ /-2.6 180 Three-Phase 7.20+/-1.26 kg/m2 1.20+/-0.21 6128+/-21 0.70 61+/-12 1.74+/-0.11 15.9+/ -3.05 180 6 Matan Negev Shrimp Farm (I srael) 4 kg/m2*N/A2-3*N/A 3.00-5.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A * projected N/A Not Available 7 UF IRREC Williamson Aquac ulture Center
Crop1-Pond 1 Crop 1 Pond 3 StockingDensity 119,99 8Stocki ng Density 126341 Pond Size 0.29 ac.Pond Size 0.29 ac. Total Production 434 5 lbs.Total P roduction 3053 lbs. Total Shrimp Harvested 12613 2Total S hrimp 67319 OverallSurvival 1.0 5Overa ll Survival 0.53 HarvestDensity 8 4 m2Harve st Density 45 m2 Production/acre 1491 9 lbs/ac. Produ ction/acre 10483 lbs/ac. Production/hectare 677 3 k/ha.Produ ction/hectare 4759 k/ha. Production/ft2 0.3 2 lb./ft2 Produ ction/ft2 0.23 lb./ft2 Production/m2 3.4 5 k/m2 Produ ction/m2 2.42 k/m2 FCR2.2 6 FCR 2.97
Crop 2 - Pond 3* Crop 2 - Pond 4 * StockingDensity 193,194Stocki ng Density 0 Pond Size 0.29 ac.Pond Size 0.29 ac. Total Production 2129 lbs.Total P roduction 0 lbs. Total Shrimp Harvested 17903 2Total S hrimp 0 OverallSurvival 0.9 3Overa ll Survival 0.00 HarvestDensity 11 9 m2Harve st Density 0 m2 Production/acre 731 1 lbs/ac. Produ ction/acre 0 lbs/ac. Production/hectare 331 9 k/ha.Produ ction/hectare 0 k/ha. Production/ft2 0.1 6 lb./ft2 Produ ction/ft2 0.00 lb./ft2 Production/m2 1.6 9 k/m2 Produ ction/m2 0.00 k/m2 FCR2.2 1 :1 FCR 1.97 :1 * All data as of 12/ 6/04. * All data as of 12/6/04.
80 Table 3.10 Shrimp Project - Key Dates Nov. 2002 project site selection completed. January 2003 site clearing begins. February 2003 pond construction begins. March 10, 2003 1st well excavation begins. June 26, 2003 HDPE pond liner installed. January 2004 Greenhouse nursery construction begins. January 26, 2004 EDPM liner is installed. March 30, 2004 green house nursery completed. April 5, 2004 received approximately 300,000 1st shipment of PL 12s from GMSB into nursery. May 11, 2004 transfer 1st nursery crop of nursery juveniles (0.1 grams avg. wt.) to outside growout ponds - #1 and # 3. June 10, 2004 received 2nd shipment of about 450,000 PL 12s from GMSB into nursery. September 2, 2004 transfer 2nd crop of nursery juveniles (0.3-0.4 grams avg. wt.) to outside growout Pond #2. September 4, 2004 Hurricane Francis passes over shrimp project - destroys greenhouse. October 27th, 2004 1st harvest and sale of shrimp (avg. 18-19 grams whole) from project. September 25, 2004 Hurricane Jeanne passes over shrimp project with damage to surrounding trees and the addition of a lot of leaf debris to ponds. October 19, 2004 - Dugger cooks shrimp sample for the County Ag. Agents and Staff as a harvest . Promotion at St. Lucie Cty. Ag. Center. Results in one Ag. Center Staff member (Marsha Hiott selling over 500 lbs. of harvested shrimp. October 27, 2004 Pump harvest of Pond 3 - 9,849 lbs. per acre. November 6, 2004 Pump transfer and splitting of Pond 2 into Ponds 3 and Pond 4. November 19, 2004 Pump harvest of Pond 1 - 13,671 lbs. per acre.
81 CHAPTER 4
ECONOMICS AND MARKETING RESEARCH
Generally, the primary interest in establishing viable aquaculture industries is for the purpose of domestic consumption, export, employment opportunities, income distributions, or a combination of these objectives. These development objectives cannot be achieved if producers do not attaina m inimum i ncom e and p rofita bility. The producers’ profit or net income per unit of land or water area (Y) is mainly affected by production (Q), the cost o f p roduc tion and mar ketin g (C), and the price received (P), as sho wn in the basic e qu ation:
Y =QP – C
Increases in yield, reductions in costs, and increases in price are the major means of increasing profits. To determine the profitability of a business for the coming yearor several years, managers of farm businesses must estimate costs and returns for future periods of time. A projection of annual costs and returns for a business enterprise is commonly referred to as an enterprise budget.
In contrast to an enterprise budget, an enterprise account is a summary of costs and returns for some historic period such as the past year, and is obtained from the records of the business. This project was a one -y ear demons trat ion, rat her than an ongoing business, so the economic analysis will be limited to an enterprise account of capital constructi on costs, plus cos ts and re turn s for a on e-s eason (April 1, 2004 – December 31, 2004), two-crop shrimp growout cycle.
It should be noted that enterprise accounts may be useful in preparing enterprise budgets for newshrimp far ms, but e nte rprise acc ounts se ldom provid e all o f the data needed for an enterprise budget. Even a shrimp farmer who expects to duplicate this facility using the identical system of production may expect different input prices, product prices, and/or production levels in the future. Furthermore, changes in shrimp prices expected may suggest that a different combination of variable input and/or timing of production would be more profitable in the future. In some cases, shrimp farmers will want to estimate the costs assuming a different set of buildings, machinery, or equipment than those used in this demonstration project.
Economic Costs of Shrimp Culture
The costs of producing the same species varies from region to region due to differences in climatic and topographical conditions, in the technology used, in the distance from farms to input sources and output markets, in the prices of inputs, etc. Production costs also vary from farm to farm within a region because of differences in management skill, farm size, and technology. The major production costs in aquaculture are construction, feed, stocking materials, labor, water, marketing,
82 interest rates, and land costs. In many cases, the costs of the last three items are beyond the control of individual shrimp farmers.
Costs can be categorized in various ways, but division into two broad categories, fixed costs and variable costs, is appropriate for most econ omic analyses. In developing enterprise budgets, it is important for a farm manager to distinguish between fixed and variable costs.
The distinction between fixed and variable costs is also important in decision- making. Only variable costs should be considered by the manager in deciding what to produce, how to produce, and how much to produce in the short run. Fixed costs will remain at the same level regardless of these decisions.
Fixed Costs
Fixed costs are those that do not change with (are not a function of) the level of output. These costs remain the same whether or not output is produced. Farm management publications typically term fixed costs as “ownership costs” and distinguish between fixed cash and n oncash co sts. O ne ch aracte risti c of fix ed costs is that they are not under the control of the farm manager in the short run. They exist and at the same level regardless of how much or how little the resource is used. The only way they can be avoided is to sell the item, which can be done in the long run.
Table 4.1 summarizes the fixed costs associated with construction of the IRR EC Shrimp Demonstration facility. A detailed itemization of fixed costs is included as Appendix 4.1. Fixed costs totaled $540,097.30 and are sorted into three categories: (1) fixed capital construction costs, (2) materials, equipment and supplies costs, and (3) annual recurring fixed costs.
At $489,585.90 the costs of construction are the major fixed costs (90% of total) associated with development of the facility. Capital construction costs included the engineering costs, construction costs, and construction labor for (1) two wells, a shallow well dug to a depth of 120 feet, and a deep flowing well dug to 1070 feet to access Floridan aquifer water with high total dissolved solids, (2) four lined production ponds with accompanying stormwater retention pond and borrow pits, (3) a nursery greenhouse with four lined tanks and necessary systems, and (4) an emergency generator system.
The size, shape, and depth of the ponds and the clearing work required was the major fixed cost. Generally, the larger the pond size, the greater the efficiency of land and water utilization and the lower the construction costs. On the other hand, the smaller the pond size, the greater the convenience of pond management and the lower the earthwork maintenance. Economy of construction and operation, efficiency of operation, and productivity of the pond are usually the primary factors in determining the size, shape, and depth of a pond.
83 Table 4.1 IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project Fixed Cost Summary
FIXED CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 489,585.90
Engineering and Surveying: 17578.75 Well Construction:7 8525.62 Well Water Testing: 2860.37 Emergency Generator: 2 6671.00 Earthmoving: Pond and Roadway Construction 10 3439.68 Liners and Installation: 4 9582.51 Nursery Greenhouse Construction:3 2132.11 Electrical Contractor: 6 3318.90 Construction Labor:11 5476.96
MATERIALS, EQUIPME NT AND SUPPLIES COSTS 48,061.40
Equipment: Paddlewhe els 7234.46 Equipment: other pump1 s & motors 6981.75 Water testing & shrimp sampling equipment and sup plies: 1834.91 Pond supplies/equipment: 7497.33 Nursery supplies/equipment: 7017.65 Miscellaneous Supplies: 6886.21 Harvest supplies: 609.09
ANNUAL RECURRING FIXED COSTS: 2,450.00
Aquaculture Certification: 50.00 Storage Building Rental: Mobile Storage Group 2400.00
Fixed costs for materials, equipment, and supplies cost an additional $48,061.40, approximately 10% of the capital construction costs. Materials and equipment included an assortment of paddlewheels, pumps, testing equipment and miscellaneous supplies. Annually recurring fixed costs included the $50 annual aquaculture certification fee payable to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and $200 monthly for rental of an air conditioned, metal storage trailer for feed and equipment.
Se veral categories o f fixed co s ts were no t evaluated d uring this project. These include opportunity costs of alternative uses of farm assets, a land charge for the use of owned land, depreciation on buildings and equipment, real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and repair, and interest payments on loans.
Variable Costs
Variable costs are those that change with the level of output. They are a function of the amount produced and do not occur unless the operator attempts to produce a product. Expen ses for shr imp PLs , fee d, labor, fuel, and harvesting are examples of
84 typical variable costs in shrimp farming. Variable costs are also often called “operating costs” in farm management publications. The farm manager has control over variable costs at a given point in time. They can be increased or decreasedat the manager’s discretion and will increase as production increases.
Table 4.2 summarizes the variable costs associated with operating the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration facility. A detailed itemization of variable costs is included as Appendix 4.2. Variable operating costs totaled $99,217.37 for the crop production season. Project Management ($53,886.65) was the highest variable cost. Normally, a commercial shrimp farmer would serve as project manager, saving these costs.
Feed represented the next most imp ortant variable cost item fo r intensive shrimp aquac u ltur e. The high cost offeed w asdue, in pa rt, tohigh t ra nsportation costs. There are no shrimp feed mills in Florida, and feed must be transported from Pennsylvania. Shipping costs skyrocketed after the area was hit by two hurricanes in Sept embe r 2004. Tru ckin g co mpan ies were relu ctant tohaul into Florida because there were no backhauling opportunities. For example, in early October an order for 100 pounds of Zeigler SI-35 feed cost $1,118 for the feed plus an additional $881 for shipping.
One useful way to examine variable costs is to compute each variable cost per pound of shrimp output. Based on the facility’s output of 11,710 pounds of shrimp, feed represents more than $1.21 per pound of shrimp produced in the facility. Cost of feed per pound of shrimp produced depends primarily on two elements: the conversion ratio of shrimp feed to flesh and the unit price of feed. The cost of feed can be reduced by an improvement in the conversion ratio, by lowering the unit price of feed, or by a combination of these two factors. The establishment of a shrimp feed mill in Florida would significantly reduce the cost of feed.
Labor costs for technicians were based on two full-time technicians from September through December, to distribute feed and monitor water quality seven days per week. The project manager handled all labor prior to the hiring of the technicians, with routine assistance from the principal investigators. For a commercial shrimp farm, the shrimp farm operator would normally have one full-time technician year- round, unless the facility operation included automated feeding and water monitoring.
A reliable supply of high quality shrimp seed (PL12s), obtained at a reasonable cost, is one of the most important requirements for successful shrimp aquaculture. This facility purchased PL12s from GMSB Hatchery in Summerland Key, Florida. Getting the shrimp PLs from a domestic source confers marketing advantages – the harvested shrimp can be labeled a “Product of the USA.” Mandatory country-of- origin labeling regulations for both wild and farmed seafood will go into effect in April 2005.
85 Table 4.2. IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project Variable Cost Summary and Cost of each Input per Pound of Shrimp Output (11,710 lbs)
$/lb shrimp ANNUAL VARIABLE (OPERATING) COSTS: 99,217.37 8.47
Shrimp PLs: 5646.19 0.482 Feed: (costs include freight) 14237 .72 1.216 Leabor: Project Managem nt53886 .65 4.602 Labor: Tech nicians 14057.10 1.200 Nursery Saltwater for acclimation: 0. 00 0.000 Molasses: (cost for pickup in Clewiston) 471.39 0.040 Electricity: monthly 10367.43 0.885 Harvest supplies: 550. 89 0.047
In any discussion of fixed versus variable costs, it should be noted that the inclusion of a cost in the variable category for decision-making typically depends on the period of time considered. In general, as the length o f the p lannin g per iod in creases, the number of costs t hat are includ ed in the varia b le category in creases , a nd vice versa. For example, at the beginning of the crop year, all shrimp PL and feed costs are considered variable cos ts . How ever, once t he juvenile s hri mp hav e b een transferred from the greenhouse to the ponds, the cost of the PLs, feed consumed, and other greenhouse production expenses alreadyincu rred ar e fixed . A ny dec isions to use additional variable inputs, therefore, depend on the manager’s estimate of the additional variable costs and expected returns at that time. At harvest time, all costs incurred up to that time are fixed . Thus, the decision to harvest or not to harvest the shrimp crop depends on whether the expected returns from the shrimp crop are greater than the costs that are variable at that point in time – harvesting and marketing costs.
Revenues from Shrimp Marketing
As with any business, the success of aquatic farming ventures depends ultimately on the marketability of the product. Products have frequently been selected for aquaculture development primarily based on ease of culture without regard to demand, and development of aquaculture products has historically caused prices to plummet, perhaps below the cost of production, as supply has increased dramatically (Josupeit, Lem and Lupin, 2001). According to Shang (1990, 1981) a species has commercial development potential if, in addition to its biotechnical feasibility, there is a ready market at prices that provide a reasonable profit, with marketing infrastructures and channels that are adequate and efficient in handling increased production.
86 One of the stated objectives of the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project was to evaluate the marketing of shrimp grown at t he facility. U.S. farm-raised shrimp cannot compete effectively on price with imports in fresh-frozen shrimp commodity markets for the most popular forms and sizes. One of the most feasible marketing alternatives, especially during the early stages of shrimp culture industry development, is for U.S. shrimp farmers to market their products directly to consumers. Further, although some farms will undoubtedly develop processing capability, the food safety requirements (HACCP), equipment, packaging and marketing required to assure the success of value-added products are beyond the capability or interest of many farmers. Thus, the shrimp product forms leaving the farm will generally be live shrimp or fresh, head-on shrimp.
One potential obstacle to direct marketing of farmed shrimp is the general unfamiliarity of U.S. consumers with whole, head-on shrimp. Head-on shrimp is increasingly important in Europe, but the U.S. market for this product is still very small (Dore, 2000). As noted in the Literature Review section of Chapter 1, Wirth and Davis (2003b, 2001b) reported that 72% of southeastern U.S. consumers who replied to a mail survey indicated that they would be willing to purchase farm-raised shrimp directly from a farmer. Of those consumers who indicated a willingness to buy directly from shrimp farmers, 39% indicated a willingness to buy whole, head-on shrimp, with males more likely than females to be willing to purchase whole shrimp. This is the product form of primary interest to shrimp producers interested in selling direct to consumers.
Wirth and Davis (2003b, 2001b) also reported that the most frequently selected location where individuals were willing to buy shrimp direct was a fish farm (62%) followed closely by a community farmers' market (56%). In Florida, a shrimp farmer can sell his farm product live without any special permits. However, any shrimp farmer offering product direct to the public in any form other than live is considered a processor and must obtain a Food Permit fromthe Florida Department of Agricul ture and Consumer Services. The permit costs $284 per year and requires an inspection, an approved source of ice, and the use of a licensed kitchen for processing.
To investigate the dynamics of the direct mark et for pondside sales of live shrimp directly to Florida consumers, theIRREC shri mp demonstration project decided to sell its first shrimp crop directly to interested in dividuals. On October 27 , 2004 the first of the two ponds (Pond 3) of shrimp (35-4 0 count tail size) from the first crop was harvested and sold livepondside to indiv iduals who had placed advanced reservations for shrimp. The pool of potential customers for this first harvest was limited to (1) UF/IFAS IRREC employees, (2)employees of the USDA Agr icultural Research Service Horticultural Research Laboratory in Fort Pierce, Florida , (3) St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension employees, (4) St. Lucie County employees from three departments located at the county’s administrative offices in Fort Pierce, and (5) Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution Aquaculture Division staff. Potential customers were notified of the sale, and advance reservations solicited, by
87 e-mail. Appendix 4.3 is a copy of the e-mail solicitation. Shrimp prices started at $3.40 per pound for five pounds, with quantity discounts according to the following schedule:
Weight Price/lb Total Price 5 lb $ 3.40 $ 17.00 10 lb 3.00 30.00 20 lb 2.75 55.00 50 lb 2.50 125.00
The e-mails for the Octobe r 27, 2004 harvest sale generated 56 orders for 2,470 pounds of shrimp. A total of 2,320 pounds of live shrimp were sold, and generated $6,242.50 gross receipts. The average sal e price of $2.69 per pound was considerablyhigher than the $1.80 - $1.90 per pound that would have been received from a wholesaler. Unfortunately, there were considerable delays removing the last 400 – 500 pounds of shrimp from the pond after the p ond had been 95% drained. The concentrated sediments in the bottom of the pond imparted a very strong, negative smell to the shrimp that was exacerbated by some customers who failed to clean the shrimp and stored them in their refr igerators or freezers bagged in pond water. Several customers also reported an unsatisfactory “ pond” flavor. As a result, several customers were unhappy with the shrimp. Five customers received refunds totaling $615(240 pounds) and five customers received repla cement shrimp (80 pounds) from the second sale, described below.
Given the success of the October 27, 2004 harvest, the princip al investigators decided to repeat the live, pondside shrimp sale fo r the second, and last, pond (Pond 1) from the first shrimp crop. The second harvest sale took place on November 19, 2004. The procedure for soliciting advance orders was similar to the previously used e-mail procedure. However, the pool of potential customers notified by e-mail was expanded to include employees of Indian River Community College and the St. Lucie County School Board, both located in Fort Pierce, Florida. In addition, the Palm Beach Post newspaper announced the sale as part of an in-depth articleabout the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project. The e-mail addres s for ordering shrimp was included in the newspaper article.
The e-mail announcement for the November 19, 2004 harvest sale is included as Appendix 4.4. To test consumers’ willingness-to-pay for live shrimp sold pondside, the minimum order size was increased from five pounds to 10 pounds, and the shrimp selling price was increased by $1.00 per pound for this second harvest sale according to the following schedule:
Weight Price/lb Total Price 10 lb $ 4.00 $ 40.00 20 lb 3.75 75.00 50 lb 3.50 175.00
88 The e-mail and newspaper announcements for the November 19, 2004 harvest sale generated 88 confirmed orders for 2,230 pounds of shrimp, and 27 contingent orders for 605 pounds, contingent upon supply availability. Despite long lines and waiting times up to three hours, 75 customers purchased 2,150 pounds of shrimp and generated $7,732.50 in gross receipts, an average of $3.60 per pound. Numerous potential customers were unable to wait for the shrimp and left the facility without having their orders filled.
The shrimp from the second crop, growing in two ponds (Ponds 3 & 4) were too small by December 6, 2004 to sell to individuals. Pond 3 was estimated to hold 179,032 small shrimp (130-count tails) with a biomass of 2,129 pounds. Pond 4 was estimated to hold 183,535 130-count shrimp with 2,183 pounds of total shrimp biomass. Williamson Cattle Company, an Okeechobee, Florida cattle and citrus operation with 400 acres of catfish in Alabama, purchased the 2,183 pounds of shrimp in Pond 4 for $0.95 per pound, generating $2,073.85 gross receipts. The $0.95 purchase price was based upon the wholesale, New York FOB price for 130- count frozen shrimp tails of $1.60 per pound in mid-November (as reported by Urner Barry) minus the standard $0.65 per pound processor fee for processing and transportation. The shrimp in Pond 3, valued at $2,022.55 (based upon $0.95 per pound) are being retained as carryover inventory by the Indian River REC Shrimp Demonstration Project and will be monitored for growth until harvest in late spring 2005.
The 8,542 pounds total weight of shrimp sold, the $13,360 total net sales (gross receipts minus refunds) of shrimp sold, and the $2,022.55 value of shrimp carryover inventory retained is summarized below in Table 4.3:
Table 4.3. Summary of total weight of shrimp sold, total net sales, and carryover inventory
Date Weight (lbs) Size (ct/lb) Net Sales ($) Carryover ($) 10-27- 04 2,320 35 - 40 6,242.50 ----- 10-27-04 (240) 35 - 40 (615.00) ----- 11-19-04 2,150 35 - 40 7,732.50 ----- 12-06-04 2,183 130 2,073.85 ----- 12-06-04 2,129 130 ----- 2,022.55
Totals 8,542 lbs $ 15,433.85 $ 2,022.55
Finally, it should be noted that according to the terms of the original grant contract between the University of Florida/IFAS and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 5 percent of total receipts from the shrimp demonstration project must be paid to the FDACS Division of Aquaculture for deposit in the General Inspection Trust Fund. Five percent of the $15,433.85 net sales is $771.69.
89 Marketing Research
Each consumer purchasing live shrimp at the October 27, 2004 and November 19, 2004 harvest sales was given a 5-page market research survey, along with an explanatory letter and a stamped business reply envelope. Recipients were instructed to complete the survey after they had cooked and tasted the shrimp they purchased live from the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project. Individuals who purchased more than 10 pounds of shrimp were questioned about the number of families sharing the shrimp purchase, and were given one survey for each family. Shrimp purchasers at the November 19, 2004 harvest who had purchased shrimp at the October 27, 2004 harvest were not given additional surveys. A total of 252 surveys were distributed during the two harvests, 132 at the October 27, 2004 harvest and 120 at the November 19, 2004 harvest. Sixty-eight completed surveys were returned, generating a 27% response rate through December 10, 2004. Forty- one respondents (60.3%) purchased shrimp on October 27, 2004 and 27 respondents (39.7%) purchased shrimp on November 19, 2004.
The purpose of the survey was to elicit additional information about consumer attitudes toward these shrimp and shrimp purchased for at-home consumption. Consumers were asked a range of questions relating to demographic characteristics, general shopping habits, and shrimp preferences and purchasing behavior. Shrimp preference questions identified consumer preferences for various refrigeration states, product forms, and sizes of shrimp. The survey also investigated consumer perceptions about farm-raised shrimp by asking consumers to state their level of agreement with several statements comparing U.S. farm-raised shrimp with wild-caught and imported shrimp. Additional questions asked about knowledge and attitudes toward seafood quality, seafood safety, and country-of- origin labeling.
Consumer preference or acceptance toward the IRREC shrimp was measured through a series of questions that asked respondents to rate the shrimp in terms of appearance, flavor, texture, and overall like. All ratings were based on a 7-point hedonic scale, where 1 = extremely dislike, 4 = neither like nor dislike, and 7 = extremely like.
Sixty-seven survey respondents provided appearance ratings (Table 4.4). The mean rating was 6.13, suggesting that respondents very much liked to appearance of the shrimp. Only four respondents (16.4%) issued appearance ratings of 4 or lower.
90 Table 4.4. Respondents’ ratings of overall APPEARANCE of the shrimp (7-point scale)
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 2.00 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.00 1 1.5 1.5 3.0 neither like nor 2 2.9 3.0 6.0 dislike 5.00 7 10.3 10.4 16.4 6.00 29 42.6 43.3 59.7 extremely like 27 39.7 40.3 100.0 Total 67 98.5 100.0 Missing System 1 1.5 Total 68 100.0
The mean respondent rating for overall shrimp texture was 6.0, suggesting that respondents liked the texture of the shrimp very much (Table 4.5). Only 6 respondents (8%) issued a texture rating of 4 or lower.
Table 4.5. Respondents’ ratings of overall TEXTURE of the shrimp (7-point scale)
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 2.00 2 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.00 1 1.5 1.5 4.5 neither like nor 3 4.4 4.5 9.0 dislike 5.00 9 13.2 13.4 22.4 6.00 26 38.2 38.8 61.2 extremely like 26 38.2 38.8 100.0 Total 67 98.5 100.0 Missing System 1 1.5 Total 68 100.0
The mean rating for flavor was 5.4, suggesting that the majority of respondents liked the flavor of the shrimp. However, 16 respondents (24%) issued flavor ratings of 4 (neither like nor dislike) or lower. As described previously, the shrimp harvested near the end of the October 27, 2004 harvest had a strong, offensive odor that resulted in significant replacements or refunds. To determine if the odor problem affected the flavor ratings, the ratings for flavor were examined for each harvest date (Table 4.6). The results show that all 16 respondents who provided flavor ratings of 4 or lower purchased their shrimp on October 27, 2004. All respondents who purchased shrimp on November 19, 2004 rated flavor at 5 or higher. These results clearly suggest that the flavor ratings were adversely affected by the offensive smell that occurred with some of the shrimp from the October 27, 2004 harvest.
91 Table 4.6. Overall FLAVOR* Harvest date cross tabulation to examine FLAVOR ratings by harvest date
Harvest October November 27, 2004 19, 2004 Total Flavor extremely dislike Count 4 0 4 % within 10.0% .0% 6.0% Harvest 2.00 Count 4 0 4 % within 10.0% .0% 6.0% Harvest 3.00 Count 5 0 5 % within 12.5% .0% 7.5% Harvest neither like nor Count 3 0 3 dislike % within 7.5% .0% 4.5% Harvest 5.00 Count 6 4 10 % within 15.0% 14.8% 14.9% Harvest 6.00 Count 10 7 17 % within 25.0% 25.9% 25.4% Harvest extremely like Count 8 16 24 % within 20.0% 59.3% 35.8% Harvest Total Count 40 27 67 % within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Harvest
Ther a tings for the overall likeability of the shrimp were very similar to the flavor results, probably for the same reasons. Eleven respondents (16.6%) provided overall like ratings of 4 or less (Table 4.7). However, all 10 respondents who rated overa ll likeability at 3 or less purchased shrimp during the October 27, 2004 harvest. Twen ty -six of 27 respondents (95.3%) from the November 19, 2004 harvest issued overall likeability ratings of 6 or 7, suggesting that the respondents very much liked the shrimp overall.
92 Table 4.7. Overall LIKE* Harvest date cross tabulation to examine overall LIKE ratings by Harvest date
Harvest October November 27, 2004 19, 2004 Total Overall extremely dislike Count 2 0 2 % within Harvest 5.1% .0% 3.0% 2.00 Count 6 0 6 % within Harvest 15.4% .0% 9.1% 3.00 Count 2 0 2 % within Harvest 5.1% .0% 3.0% neither like nor Count 0 1 1 dislike % within Harvest .0% 3.7% 1.5% 5.00 Count 9 0 9 % within Harvest 23.1% .0% 13.6% 6.00 Count 11 11 22 % within Harvest 28.2% 40.7% 33.3% extremely like Count 9 15 24 % within Harvest 23.1% 55.6% 36.4% Total Count 39 27 66 % within Harvest 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Shrimp purchasers were also asked to give their opinions on the level of difficulty in cleaning and preparing whole shrimp at home, using a 7-point scale where 1 = very difficult, 4 = neutral, and 7 = very easy. Table 4.8 shows that there was a wide range of opinions, with 18 respondents (26.5%) indicating that cleaning and preparation are difficult. Nineteen percent were neutral, while 37 respondents (54.4%) indicated that cleaning and preparation was easy to very easy. These results suggest that the cleaning and preparation of whole shrimp at home will not be a major constraint to direct sales of whole shrimp to consumers.
Table 4.8. Difficulty in cleaning and preparing whole shrimp at home (7-point scale)
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid very 4 5.9 5.9 5.9 difficult 2.00 1 1.5 1.5 7.4 3.00 13 19.1 19.1 26.5 neutral 13 19.1 19.1 45.6 5.00 12 17.6 17.6 63.2 6.00 15 22.1 22.1 85.3 very easy 10 14.7 14.7 100.0 Total 68 100.0 100.0
93 Respondents were also asked if the process of clean ing, heading, peeling, and preparing whole shrimp would prevent them from repurchasing whole shrimp (Table 4.9). The results suggest that the cleaning, heading, peeling, and preparation process will not serve as an impediment to whole shrimp sales. Fifty-eight respondents (85.3%) indicated that processing would not prevent repurchase. Only 10.3% of respondents would not repurchase because of the processing requirements of whole shrimp.
Table 4.9. Respondents indicating whether the cleaning, heading, peeling, and preparation process would prevent repurchase of whole shrimp
Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No 58 85.3 85.3 85.3 uncertain 3 4.4 4.4 89.7 Yes 7 10.3 10.3 100.0 Total 68 100.0 100.0
To explore price perceptions and willingness-to-pay for whole, fresh shrimp, respondents were asked the following price scenario question: “Typically at retail establishments, shrimp tails (previously frozen or frozen) are sold at an average price of $6.00 to $7.00 a pound. How would you feel about paying $5.00 for a pound of the shrimp (whole, fresh, never frozen) you just tasted? Possible responses were based on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = too expensive, 4 = fair price, and 7 = it’s a bargain. The responses, shown in Table 4.10 suggest a strong probability that shrimp farmers can sell whole, fresh shrimp for $5.00 per pound. Only 14 respondents (20.9%) gave a response of 3 or lower, suggesting that $5.00 per pound would be too expensive. The respondents who felt that $5.00 per pound was too expensive were predominantly October 27, 2004 purchasers. Nineteen respondents (28.4%) felt that $5.00 per pound was a fair price. More than 70% of November 19, 2004 purchasers responded with ratings of 5, 6, or 7, suggesting that a $5.00 per pound price was more than fair, and 40.7% of the November 19, 2004 respondents felt that $5.00 per pound is a bargain. This result suggests that Florida shrimp farmers selling live shrimp direct to consumers will be able to charge up to $5.00 per pound with little market resistance.
94 Table 4.10. Price * Harvest date cross tabulation to examine attitude toward paying $5.00/lb for whole fresh shrimp when frozen tails are selling for $6.00 – $7.00 per pound in retail stores (by harvest date)
Harvest October November 27, 2004 19, 2004 Total Price too Count 9 0 9 expensive % within 22.5% .0% 13.4% Harvest 3.00 Count 4 1 5 % within 10.0% 3.7% 7.5% Harvest fair price Count 12 7 19 % within 30.0% 25.9% 28.4% Harvest 5.00 Count 2 4 6 % within 5.0% 14.8% 9.0% Harvest 6.00 Count 2 4 6 % within 5.0% 14.8% 9.0% Harvest it's a bargain Count 11 11 22 % within 27.5% 40.7% 32.8% Harvest Total Count 40 27 67 % within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Harvest
95 CHAPTER 5
OUTREACH AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
The Shrimp Economic Demo has disseminated its results in a number of venues. Numerous news releases were developed by IRREC's PR person Robin Koestoyo, and an Open House was also planned by Robin Koestoyo. Public workshops were also developed and performed by LeRoy Creswell to respond to the interest that has been generated in the local area regarding low salinity shrimp farming. It should be noted that the workshops received agro-business attendees from as far as Tampa and St. Petersburg. The following are examples of the how the Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project has disseminated its experiences and knowledge to the public:
Open House
The University of Florida/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project UF/IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Open House and Shrimp Boil Marine shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei,recently harvested at the UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project. The UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project was made possible by generous in kind donations provided by the following individuals and the organizations and companies they represent. Their support is greatly appreciated.
Frank “Sonny”Williamson Jr. , Williamson Cattle Dr. Rolland Laramore, Bonnie, Hopkins and Co. Laramore Inc. Travis Murphy, River Country Citrus Inc. Dr. Megan Davis, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Doug Coward, St. Lucie Board of County Institution Commissioners David Feltenberger, HydroMentia Howard Searcy, Gulfstream Contractors Inc. Mark Zivojnovich, HydroMentia David Neill, Big Red Tomato Packers Inc. Durwood Dugger and Dr. Darryl Jory, BCI Inc. Anita Neal, UF/IFAS St. Lucie Cooperative Dr. Sabine Alshuth and Gary Koser, Indian River Extension Community College Tom Zeigler, Zeigler Bros. Feed Inc. George Pantuso, Circle H Citrus Robert Heideman, Aquatic Eco-Systems Stuart McGahee, PE, Dragonfly Engineering Inc. Mark Yunker, Yunker Plastics Inc. Dr. Junda Lin, Florida Institute of Technology John Heathcote, Specialty Products Division- Chuck Syfrett, Syfrett Feed Co. Firestone, Inc. Ranger Construction Co. Inc. Phillip Metcalf and Camilo Gaitan, Florida Pat Widden, U.S. Sugar Corporation Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Water Policy David McMahon, OceanBoy Farms Inc. Joseph Spataro, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Forestry
96 Program Monday, November 15, 2004 2:00 p.m Welcome Brian Scully, Professor and Director University of Florida/IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center Comments Sherman Wilhelm Director, Division of Aquaculture Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Joe Joyce UF/IFAS Executive Associate Vice President Ann Bolduc Aide to State Sen. Ken Pruitt Frank “Sonny” Williamson Jr. UF/IFAS Aquaculture Advisory Subcommittee Chair Ferdinand Wirth UF/IFAS Associate Professor and Principal Investigator LeRoy Creswell UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Sea Grant Extension Agent and Co-Principal Investigator Brian Scully, Professor and Director Closing Words Shrimp Boil
The University of Florida/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project is the first publicly-owned food species aquaculture research facility south of Gainesville. Its mission is to identify alternative crops for growers in south Florida. Shrimp is the first commodity studied. Work began five years ago with the organization of the Indian River Research and Education Center Aquaculture Advisory Subcommittee on which Frank “Sonny” Williamson Jr. serves as chair. He said the committee was formed to initiate research because agriculturalists depend on the university to provide them with information about the science and economics of aquaculture and to determine which Aquaculture products would be the most viable for them as alternative crops. UF/IFAS Associate Professor Ferdinand Wirth obtained a grant from The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Aquaculture Division for nearly a quarter of a million dollars to start construction of the project in 2002. Additional funding was provided by UF/IFAS.
97 Durwood Dugger, an internationally renowned aquaculture specialist with expertise in shrimp culture, designed the project and has managed its operation through the planning, construction and production stages. This month, the first shrimp harvest was reaped from the project’s four grow-out ponds with an outstanding yield and quality product, according to Dugger. Further research is planned with other commodities such as tiger shrimp, pompano and other finfish. The data collected from farming shrimp, and additional product research findings will be provided to the region’s growers who are considering aquaculture products as alternative crops. LeRoy Creswell, UF/IFAS Sea Grant Extension Agent, will work with growers to develop their aquaculture production sites. He can be contacted at the UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Extension (772) 462-1660.
Palm Beach Post Article
Farm-raised shrimp are the future of Florida's aquaculture industry FORT PIERCE— Frank "Sonny" Williamson, Okeechobee County cattleman and citrus grower, pronounced them "sweet, mild and very tasty." Williamson was one of several dozen people downing Pacific White shrimp Monday afternoon during the first harvest of the crustaceans during an open house and shrimp boil at the University of Florida's Aquaculture Demonstration Project off Picos Road. Florida ranks third in aquaculture production of all types, but the industry's backbone has been ornamental fish for aquariums, said Ferdinand Wirth, associate professor and the project's principal investigator. "If ornamentals have been the backbone, food species such as shrimp represent the future potential," Wirth said. The farm's four "grow-out" ponds and the greenhouse where shrimp the size of an eyelash begin their life at the site will help researchers perfect the practical application of aquaculture and study its economic viability. Construction began in 2002 with a grant for almost a quarter of a million dollars from the state Agriculture Department. Additional money provided by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences brought the start-up costs to just under $600,000 to date, Wirth said. Farmers need to diversify so they're not dependent on one or two crops, said Williamson, chairman of the institute's aquaculture advisory subcommittee. Land grant universities such as UF have a duty to provide agricultural producers with information about the science and economic feasibility of new ventures such as aquaculture. There's definite interest on the part of growers of other commodities. "They're going to wait until they see some figures out of the university that will show it can be successful," Williamson said. The first crop of 2,400 pounds of shrimp, harvested Oct. 27, and the next crop popping out this week show shrimp farming can be done at the site.
98 Research also is planned with other seafood such as tiger shrimp, pompano and other finfish. The facility's shrimp will be sold beginning Friday as live shrimp to the public for $4 a pound, with a minimum purchase of 10 pounds, Wirth said. Florida is home to 10 shrimp farms, seven of which produced $5 million worth of shrimp in 2003, according to the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. The problem has been that private producers have been loath to share production data, Wirth said, but the data collected at the demonstration facility will be the basis for a profitability analysis. "Is it a profitable enterprise? We hope so, and we think so," said LeRoy Creswell, the project's co-principal investigator with the UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension Service. "Those things are yet to be determined." Sherman Wilhelm, director of the state Division of Aquaculture, said shrimp are now the nation's top seafood. Aquaculture is becoming more of a necessity all the time, and it's a natural because the demand is there. "The world's population is demanding protein," he said. "It isn't going to be all coming from red meat." • Pacific White shrimp from the University of Florida's Aquaculture Demonstration Project will be available, by pre-order only, to the public beginning Friday. • Consumers must buy a minimum of 10 pounds; the price is $4 a pound. • The shrimp will be sold live. • To order, e-mail Ferdinand Wirth at [email protected].
By Susan Salisbury Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 16, 2004
99 SeaGrant Workshops by R. LeRoy Creswell
November 24, 2004
Dear XXX
Thank you for your interest in the UF/IFAS Shrimp Demonstration Project. Despite the unprecedented hurricane season, we successfully harvested shrimp at yields which exceeded our expectations. Although we had hoped to begin some workshops in September, they were postponed due to the storms.
You are cordially invited to attend a workshop “Raising Marine Shrimp in Florida’s Freshwater”, to be held at the St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension office at 8400 Picos Rd., Ft. Pierce, 34945 (see attached map). Four workshops are scheduled for December 13th, 14th, 16th, and 17th, from 1 to 4 pm. Note that these are different dates for the same workshop, so you need only to sign-up for the one that is most convenient to you. Other dates may be set later in the year if there is sufficient interest.
Workshops will require a minimum of five attendees to be held and a maximum of 15 per workshop. Registration will be on a “first come – first serve” basis. A nominal fee of $5 will be asked to defray the cost of printing materials.
Topics to be covered include: An Overview of Shrimp Culture Types of Systems Used to Culture Shrimp Pond design Water Quality Feeding, Growth and Survival Permits and BMPs Marketing andEconomics
Of course, the workshop will include a tour of the shrimp demonstration site.
To register contact Laura at 772-462-1660, and let her know which workshop date you wish to attend.
Kind regards,
LeRoy Creswell Florida Sea Grant Cooperative Extension
100 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Litopenaeus vannamei can be raised in St. Lucie County's Floridan aquifer water at densities of at least 75/m2 without the use of supplemental mineral additions. L. vannamei can be produced without any apparent signs of toxicity in tanks or ponds lined with either HDPE or EPDM synthetic liners. It is very difficult to grow two crops per year without a heated greenhouse nursery, especially if there are cold Spring temperatures Managing the balance between algae and bacteria populations in ponds is challenging but necessary o Molasses works well – ratio of ½ lb. per lb. of feed High quality shrimp can be produced in St. Lucie County using Floridan Aquifer water - providing those shrimp are rinsed in clean potable water as part of the harvest process. Those shrimp can be sold to an enthusiastic public market at or above retail prices. Advanced sales over 2,000 lbs. per event can be generated using only internet notification of local entities that employee significant numbers of people at or above the average income.
Recommendations
Given the continued decline of the US dollar and the decline commodity market prices for shrimp in sizes less than 30 grams, it will be difficult for a business or an industry to develop in Florida using only a seasonal growout of shrimp. Given that the United States continues to produce the least expensive animal feed ingredients and feeds, a U.S. based shrimp producer who can optimize all their production and marketing economies will have a significant competitive advantage. There are significant economies of size or increasing returns to size in shrimp farming. To optimize these production and marketing economies, a producer would have to be of a scale significant enough to afford an internal hatchery (with appropriate genetic selection programs), a feed mill, a shrimp processing and packaging plant (with new product development capabilities) and the means to market, distribute and sell their own production. The Florida Department of Agriculture should support research that advances the aforementioned business models. Specifically, shrimp production technology that can produce shrimp year-round in a factory-like environment.
101 The Florida Department of Agriculture should also support further research to determine how to separate, leach and beneficially utilize and/or market the flocculent by-product from heterotroph ic forms of aquaculture. To further encourage an aquaculture industry in the State of Florida, the state should encourage commercial concerns to locate an aquaculture feed product mill in the state.
102 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Chuck. “Selected Factors Affecting Seafood Markets in the United States.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 29, no. 1 (1998):8-17.
Aquacop. 1991. Modeling of resistance to salinity shocks of Penaeus vannamei postlarvae. Aquatic Living Resources 4:169-174.
Boehlje, Michael D. and Vernon R. Eidman. 1983. Farm Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 806 pp.
Boman, B.J., 1999. Managing salinity in citrus irrigation water. IRREC Report FTP- 1999-8, University of Florida, IFAS, Indian River Research and Education Center, Fort Pierce, FL.
Boyd, C.E., 2001. Inland shrimp farming and the environment. World Aquaculture Magazine, pp.10-12, Vol. 32, No. 1.
Bray, W.A., Lawrence, A.L., and Leung-Trujillo, J.R. 1994. The effect of salinity on growth and survival of Penaeus vannamei, with observations on the interaction of IHHN virus and salinity. Aquaculture 122:133-146.
Browdy, C.L. and J.S. Hopkins, eds. 1995. Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming, Aquaculture ’95, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Castell, J.D. 1979. Review of lipid requirements of finfish. In: Halver J. and E., Tiews K. (Eds), Proceeding of the World Symposium of Finfish Nutrition and Fishfeed Technology, Hamburg, Germany, V1. Heenemann, Berlin, pp59-84.
Castille, F. L. and Lawrence, A. L. 1981. The effect of salinity on the osmotic, sodium and chloride concentrations in the hemolymph of Euryhaline shrimp of the genus Penaeus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 68A:75-80.
Cawthorne, D. F., Beard, T., Davenport, J. and Wickins, J. F. 1983. Responses of juvenile Penaeus monodon Fabricius to natural and artificial sea waters of low salinity. Aquaculture 32:165-174.
Chen g , Hsiang-tai and Orals Capps, Jr. Demand for Disaggregate Fish and Shellfish Species in the United States. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 87-2. May 1 9 87.
Davis , D. A., Bierdenbach, J. and Lawrence A. L. 1990. Qualitative effects of dietary mineral supplementation , salinity and substrate on growth and Tissue Mineralization for Penaeus vannamei. World Aquaculture Society Meeting. Halifax, Canada. 1990.
103 Diop, H ., R.W. Harrison and W.R. Keithly. “Impact of Increasing Imports on the U.S. Southeastern Region Shrimp Processing Industry 1973-1996.” Paper presented at the AAEA Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN., 8 -11 August 1999.
Dixon, H.M. 1999. Bait shrimp production in Florida. Global Aquaculture Advocate 2(6):20.
Dixon, H.M. and F. Whitney. Commercial Recirculating System for Bait Shrimp Production in Florida. Global Aquaculture Advocate. (In press)
Dore, Ian. SHRIMP Supply, Products and Marketing in the Aquaculture Age. Toms River, New Jersey: Urner Barry Publications, Inc., 2000.
Edwards, R. E. and D.E. Roberts, 1989. Inland Aquaculture of Red Drum in Freshwater from the Floridan Aquifer: A Feasibility/Demonstration Project. Aquaculture Market Development Aid Program, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL.
Ferraris, R. P., Parado-Estepa, F. D., Ladja, J. M. and de Jesus, E. G. 1986. Effect of salinity on osmotic, chloride, total protein and calcium concentrations in the hemolymph of the prawn Penaeus monodon (Fabricius). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 83A:701-708.
Fielder, D. S., Bardsley, W. J. and Allan, G. L. 2001. Survival and growth of Australian snapper, Pagrus auratus, in saline groundwater from inland New South Wales, Australia. Aquaculture 201: 73-90.
Foltz, J., S. Dasgupta and S. Devadoss. “Consumer Perceptions of Trout as a Food Item.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2(1) (1999): 83- 101.
Gempesaw II, C. M., R. Bacon, D.R. Wessells and A. Manalo. “Consumer Perceptions of Aquaculture Products.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77 (December 1995): 1306-1312.
Golz, Theresa K. and William C. Nelson. “Markets for Northern Plains Aquaculture – Case Study of Tilapia.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 429, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, October 1999.
Green, P.E. and V. Srinivasan. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5 (1978):103-123.
Green, P.E. and Y. Wind. “New Ways to Measure Consumers’ Judgments.” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1975, pp 89 -108.
104 Hanson, Gregory D., Robert O. Herrmann, and James W. Dunn. “Determinants of Seafood Purchase Behavior: Consumers, Restaurants, and Grocery Stores.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77 (December 1995): 1301-1305.
Harpaz, S. and Karplus, I. 1991. Effect of salinity on growth and survival of juvenile Penaeus semisulcatus reared in the laboratory. Israeli Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh 43:156-163.
Harvey, David J. 2002. “Aquaculture Outlook.” Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, LDP-AQS-15, March 2002.
Harvey, D. 2001. Aquaculture Outlook. USDA-ERS, LSP-AQS-13, Washington, DC. Harvin, J.L., 2000. A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Culture of the marine shrimp, Penaeus vannamei, in freshwater ponds. Aquaculture America ‘99 Book of Abstracts
Hutchins, D.L., G.W. Chamberlain, and J.C. Parker. 1979. Length-weight relations for several species of Penaeid shrimp cultured in ponds near Corpus Christi, Texas. Proc. World Mariculture Society 10:565-570.
Johnson, Howard M. 2001 Annual Report on the United States Seafood Industry. Jacksonville, OR: H.M. Johnson and Associates.
Josupeit, Helga, Audun Lem and Hector Lupin. 2001. “Aquaculture Products: Quality, Safety, Marketing and Trade” in Aquaculture in the Third Millennium (Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome.
Kay, Ronald D. and William M. Edwards. 1994. Farm Management. McGraw-Hill Series in Agricultural Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 458 pp.
Keithly, W.R., K.J. Roberts and J.M. Ward. “Effects of Shrimp Aquaculture on the U.S. Market: An Econometric Analysis.” In Aquaculture: Models and Economics, Eds Upton Hatch and Henry Kinnucan, Westview Press, Boulder, CO., 1993: 125-126.
Kumulu, M. and Jones, D.A. 1995. Salinity tolerance of hatchery-reared postlarvae of Penaeus indicus H. Milne Edwards originating from India. Aquaculture 130:287- 296.
Lee, P.G., C. Zuercher, C. Davies, A.L. Lawrence, T. Samocha, G. Woods and P.E. Turk. 2001. Biosecure, commercial, inland marine shrimp raceway production and environmentally isolated, SPF broodstock culture systems. Book of Abstracts, Aquaculture 2001, World Aquaculture Society, Orlando, FL
Lee, P.G. 2000, Biosecurity and Closed Recirculating Systems. Global Aquaculture Advocate, Volume 3, Issue 5.
105 Lesser, William H. 1993. Marketing Livestock and Meat. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Lichtler, W.F., 1972. Appraisal of water resources in the east central Florida region. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology Report 61. Tallahassee, FL.
Lignot, J. H., Cochard, J. C., Soyez, C., Lamarire, P. and Charmantier, G. 1999. Osmoregulatory capacity according to nutritional status, molt stage and body weight in Penaeus stylirostris. Aquaculture 170: 79-92.
Mair, J. McD., 1980 Salinity and water-type preferences of four species of postlarval shrimp (Penaeus)from west Mexico. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 45:69-82.
Mantel, L. H. and Farmer, L. L. 1983. Osmotic and Ionic Regulation. In: Mantel, L. H.(Ed.), The Biology of Crustacea Volume 5: Internal Anatomy and Physiological Regulation. Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 54-143.
Marangos, C., Brogren, C. H., Alliot, E and H. J. Ceccaldi. 1989. The influence of water salinity on the free amino acid concentration in muscle and hepatopancreas of adult shrimps, Penaeus japonicus. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 17: 589- 594.
McMahon, D.Z., B. Baca, T. Samocha and D.E. Jory. Florida’s first inland, commercial-scale shrimp farm: developing protocols for inland culture of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) with zero discharge in low-salinity ponds. Global Aquaculture Advocate. (In press)
Meade, James. W. 1989. Aquaculture Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhard. 175 pp.
Menz, A. and B.F. Blake. 1980. Experiments on the growth of Penaeus vannamei Boone. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 48(2): 99-111.
National Fisheries Institut e (NFI). 2 0 02. “Se afood’s Top Ten”. http://www.nfi.org/news/to p ten.php .
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). “Fisheries of the United States, 2001.” http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus01/
Nauman, F. A., C. M. Gempesaw, J.R. Bacon and A. Manalo. “Consumer Choice for Fresh Fish: Factors Affecting Purchase Decisions.” Marine Resource Economics, 10 (1995): 117-142.
106 Nayga, Rodolfo M. and Oral Capps, Jr. “Factors Affecting the Probability of Consuming Fish andShellfish in the Away from Home and at Hom e Markets.” Jour. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 27(1), July 1995: 161-171.
Parado-Estepa, F. D., Ferraris, R. P., Ladja, J. M. and de J esus, E. G. 1987. Responses of intermolt Penaeus indicus to large fluctuations in environmental salinity. Aquaculture 64:175-184.
Prochaska, F.J. and C.O. Andrew, “Shrimp Processing in the Southeast: Supply Problems and Structural Changes.” Southern J. Agr. Econ. (1974): 247-252.
Robertson, L., Lawrence, A. L. and Castille, F. 1993. Interaction of salinity and feed protein level on growth of Penaeus vannamei. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 2: 43- 54.
Rosas, C., Ocampo, L., Gaxiola, G., Sanchez, A. and Soto, L.A. 1999. Effect of salinity on survival, growth, and oxygen consumption of postlarvae (PL10-PL21) of Litopenaeus setiferus. Journal of Crustacean Biology 19:244-251.
Rosenberry, R., 2001, Shrimp News, http://members.aol.com/brosenberr/Home.html
Rosenberry, B. 2000. World Shrimp Farming. Number 12. Shrimp News International. San Diego, CA.
Samocha, T.M., A.L. Lawrence, C.R. Collins, C.R. Emberson, J.L. Harvin, and P. Van Wyk. 2001. Development of integrated environmentally-sound inland shrimp production technologies for Litopenaeus vannamei. Book of Abstracts, Aquaculture 2001, World Aquaculture Society, Orlando, FL
Samocha, T.M., Davis, A. D., Lawrence, A. L., Collins, C. R. and Van Wyk, P. 2001. Intensive and super-intensive production of the Pacific white Litopenaeus vannamei in greenhouse-enclosed raceway systems. Book of Abstracts, Aquaculture 2001. Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Page 573.
Samocha,T. M., Guajardo, H., Lawrence, A. L., Castille, F. L., Speed, M., McKee, D. A. and Page, K. I. 1998. A simple stress test for Penaeus vannamei postlarvae. Aquaculture 165:233-242.
Samocha, T.M., L. Hamper, C.R. Emberson, A.D. Davis, A. Balafas, D. McIntosh, A.L. Lawrence, P.G. Lee and G.F. Wood, 2000. Potential tools for development of a sustainable and biosecured shrimp farming industry. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Shrimp Mariculture Research, Corpus Christi, TX.
Scarpa, J. and D.E. Vaughan, 1999. Freshwater culture of the marine shrimp, Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture America ‘99 Book of Abstracts.
107 Scarpa, J., 1998. Freshwater recirculating systems in Florida. Pages 67-70. In: S.M. Moss, Editor, Proceedings of the US Marine Shrimp Farming Program, Biosecurity Workshop, Oceanic Institute, Waimanalo, Hawaii.
Schaffner, David J., William R. Schroder and Mary D. Earle. 1998. Food Marketing, An International Perspective. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Schoffeniels, E. 1970. Isosmotic intracellular regulation in Maja squinado Risso and Penaeus aztecus Yves. Archives Internationales de Physiologie et de Biochimie 78: 461-466.
Schumann, Don. Indian River Aquaculture. Personal Communication, 2000.
Shang, Yung C. Aquaculture Economic Analysis: An Introduction. Advances in World Aquaculture, Volume 2. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, 1990.
Shang, Yung C. 1981. Aquaculture Economics: Basic Concepts and Methods of Analysis. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 153 pp.
Shiau, S. Y. and Hsieh J-.F. 2001. Dietary potassium requirement of juvenile grass shrimp Penaeus monodon. Fisheries Science 67:592-595.
Smith, L. L. and Lawrence, A. L. 1990. Feasibility of penaeid shrimp culture in inland saline groundwater-fed ponds. Texas Journal of Science 42:3-12.
South Florida Water Management District. 1998. Upper East Coast Water Supply Plan, Volumes I, II and III. West Palm Beach, FL.
Spaargaren, D. H. and Haefner, P. A., Jr. 1987. The effect of environmental osmotic conditions on blood and tissue glucose levels in the brown shrimp, Crangon crangon (L.). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 87A: 1045-1050.
Tacon, A.G., J.J. Cody, L.D. Conquest, S. Divakaran, I.P. Forster, and O.E. Decamp. 2002. Effect of culture system on the nutrition and growth performance of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone) fed different diets. Aquaculture Nutrition, 8: 121-137.
Tsuzuki, M.Y., Cavalli, R.O. and Bianchini, A. 2000. The effects of temperature, age, and acclimation to salinity on the survival of Farfantepenaeus paulensis postlarvae. J. World. Aquacult. Soc. 3:459-468.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service. 2000. Aquaculture Outlook. Washington, DC, March 13, 2000.
108 United States Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. “The1996 Southeast Regional Report” in Our Living Oceans: The Economic Status of U.S. Fisheries. Washington DC, pp 1-103.
Van Wyk, P. 2000. Culture of Penaeus vannamei in Single-Phase and Three-Phase Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Global Aquaculture Advocate 3(3):41-43.
Van Wyk, P., M. Davis-Hodgkins., R. Laramore, K.L. Main, J. Mountain, and J. Scarpa. (2000). Production of Marine Shrimp in Freshwater Recirculating Aquaculture Systems, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Bob Crawford. Tallahassee, Florida.
Van Wyk, P.M. Designing efficient indoor shrimp production systems: a bioeconomic approach. Pp. xx-xxx. In: Browdy, Craig L., and Jory, Darryl, E. editors. 2001. The New Wave, Proceedings of the Special Session on Sustainable Shrimp Culture, Aquaculture 2001. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States.
Villalon, Jose, R. 1991. Practical manual for semi-intensive commercial production of marine shrimp. Texas Sea Grant Program, PO Box 1675, Galveston, TX.77553- 1675. U.S.A.
Wang, Q., C. Halbrendt, and N. Caron. “Differences between Retailer and Consumer Concerns about Seafood Safety: Evidence from Survey Data.” Proceedings of NE- 165 Conference: Economics of Reducing Health Risk from Food. Washington DC, June 6-7, 1995.
Wessells, C. R., S.F. Morse, A. Manalo and C. M. Gempesaw II. “Consumer Preferences for Northeastern Aquaculture Products: Report on the Results of a Survey of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Consumers.” Rhode Island Experiment Station Publication No. 3100, December 1994.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2004. “Dealer Preferences - U.S. Shrimp Producers Face Challenges, Rewards in Domestic Market.” Global Aquaculture Advocate, 7(5): 30-32.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2003a. “Seafood Dealers’ Shrimp Purchasing Behavior and Preferences.” Journal of Shellfish Research, 22(2), August: 581-588.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2003b. “Survey: U.S. Consumers Willing to Buy Farm-Raised Shrimp.” Global Aquaculture Advocate, 6(5): 82-84.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2002. “Survey Tests Restaurant Attitudes Toward Farm-Raised Shrimp.” Global Aquaculture Advocate, 5(2) April: 82-83.
109 Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2001a. Seafood Restaurant Shrimp Purchasing Behavior and Attitudes Toward Farm-Raised Shrimp. Staff Paper 01-19, Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. December 2001.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2001b. Assessing Potential Direct Consumer Markets for Farm-Raised Shrimp. Staff Paper 01-13, Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. September 2001.
Wirth, F.F., C.K. Halbrendt, and G.F. Vaughn. “Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass.” University of Delaware, College of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 488, November 1990.
Yokoyama, K.M., S.T. Nakamoto, and K. Wanitprapha. “Shrimp Economic Fact Sheet.” Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Hawaii, July 1989.
Zajicek, P. 1998. The rules have changed in Florida. Aquaculture Magazine 24(3): 26-32.
110 Appendix 2.1 Construction Specifications UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Phone (772) 468-3922 Indian River Research and Education Center sc 240-3922 2199 South Rock Road Fax (772) 468-5668 Fort Pierce, FL 34945-3138 Internet www.irrec.ifas.ufl.edu
TO: River Country Citrus, Inc. Mr. Travis Murphy 1313 W. Midway Rd. Fort Pierce, FL 34982 772/467-8677
EARTHMOVING SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE U. F. SHRIMP PROJECT
GENERAL BIDDING INFORMATION
The contractor shall build, compact and grade pond bottoms and levees around five ponds as described and specified in this document, the attached engineer's drawings and notes. The bid award will be based on the following factors: type of equipment, experience in similar types of work, less any donated services, start date, the completion date and the contractors total bid price.
DEADLINE FOR BIDDING
It is hereby understood and mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto that the deadline to deliver bids for the described project is March 17 and that this time is an essential condition to compete in the bidding process. DEAD LINE FOR COMPLETION OF DELIVERY
It is hereby understood and mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto that the time of delivery - which is thirty (30) days from March 17th and that this time is an essential condition of this contract and shall be guaranteed by suitable performance bond.
111 If said vendor shall neglect or fail or refuse to furnish and deliver the equipment within time herein specified, then said vendor does hereby agree, as a part consideration for the awarding of this contract to pay to University of Florida, Indian River Research and Education Center - Account Number 193 the sum of $ 300/per day, as partial liquidated damages, for loss of use and/or additional costs incurred by the University for administration of the contract during such delay.
Provided, that the vendor shall, within seven (7) days from the beginning of such delay, notify the owner in writing of the cause(s) of the delay, who shall ascertain the facts and extent of the delay and notify the vendor within a reasonable time of his decision in the matter.
If the vendor shall be delayed in the completion of his work by reason of unforeseeable causes beyond his control and without his fault or negligence, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine, restrictions, strikes, riots, civil commotion's, freight embargoes or priority regulations, the period herein above specified for the completion of his work shall be extended by such times as shall be fixed by the University.
BUILD, COMPACT AND GRADE CONSTRUCTING FIVE PONDS
All filling material shall be laid down into the levees in layers less than six inches thick - per pan scrapper/tractor pass.
CRITICAL GRADE REQUIREMENTS
The contractor understands that the grade of the pond bottoms in the four production ponds is critical to their operation and the contractor agrees to establish and maintain grade on these pond bottoms to within plus or minus 1 inch. The grade on the levee slopes is less critical and can be established and maintained to plus or minus 3-4 inches. The grade of the percolation pond and the borrow pit can be established and maintained to plus or minus 3-4 inches
OTHER CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
The bidding contractor should note that contractor will be responsible for all features on the drawing related to the construction of the ponds. This includes: x the installation of the corrugated plastic overflow pipes (supplied by contractor), x setting of safety posts on levees, x setting of light posts at the four corners of the ponds, x adding and grading an approximate 12" of fill to incoming road, utility pad, turn-around pad. x the construction of the earthen access and egress ramps at the north and south ends of the center line levee.
112 x the "boxing", spreading and compaction of the shell material (supplied by UF) on the incoming road (12'x300'), the turn-around pad (100'x100'), the utility pad (50'x50'), and the access ramp including the center levee top (14'x 388').
CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY INSURANCE
The Contractor shall purchase from And maintain with a company or companies lawfully authorized to do business in Florida such insurance as will protect the Contractor from claims set forth below which may arise out of or result from the Contractor's operations under the Contract and for which the Contractor may be legally liable, whether such operations be by the Contractor or by a Subcontractor or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. All insurance policies shall be issued and countersigned by representatives of such companies duly authorized for the State of Florida and shall be written on ISO standard forms or their equivalents. The Contractor shall provide the ISO Commercial General Liability policy for general liability coverage. All liability policies shall provide that the University is a named additional insured as to the operations of the Contractor under the University- Contractor Agreement and shall provide the Severability of Insured's Provision. The University shall be exempt from, and in no way liable for, any sums of money, which may represent a deductible in any insurance policy. The payment of such deductible shall be the responsibility solely of the Contractor and/or Subcontractor providing such insurance. This insurance shall protect the Contractor from the following claims:
A. Claims under worker's or workmen's compensation, disability benefit and other similar employee benefit acts which are applicable to the work to be performed.
B. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, occupational sickness or disease, or death of the Contractor's employees.
C. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death of any person other than the contractor's employees.
D. Claims for damages insured by usual personal injury liability coverage including claims which are sustained (1) by a person as a result of an offense directly or indirectly related to employment of such person by the Contractor, or (2) by another person.
E. Claims for damages, other than to the work itself, because of injury to or destruction of tangible property, including loss of use resulting there from.
F. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, death of a person or property damage arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.
113 G. Claims involving contractual liability insurance applicable to the Contractor's obligations in the A.I.A. General Conditions.
The required Contractor's Liability Insurance shall be written for limits of not less than $100,000 per person, $300,000 per occurrence. Cov erages, whe ther w ritte n o n an occurrence or claims-made basis, shall be maintained without interruption from date of co mmenceme nt of work until date of final payment and termi na tio n of an y coverage required to be ma intained after final p ayment. The required ins urance shall include co ntractual liability insurance applicable to the cont ractor's o bl igations in the A.I.A. Gen eral Conditions, and coverage for the "XCU" exposure.
Worker's Compensation - The Contractor shall secure and maintain for the life of this Agreement, valid Worker's Compensati on Insurance as required by chapter 440, Florida St atutes. Automobiy le Liabilit - The Contractor shall secure and maintain, during the life of this Agreement, Automobile Liability insurance on all vehicles against bodily injury and property damage in at least the amount of $100,000.00 per person, $ 3 00,000.00 pe r occurrenc e.
Certificate s of Insura nce - The Contractor shall file with the University Certificates of Insurance acceptableto the University pr ior to the commencement of work. These Certificate s and the in suran ce policies which a re required shall conta in a provision that cover ages afforded under the policies will no t be cancel ed or allo wed to exp ire until at lea st 30 days prior w ritten notice ha s been given to the University. If any of the foregoing insurance coverages are required to remain in force after final payment an additional certificate evidencing continuation of such cov e rage shall be submitted with the final App lication for Payment as requ ired by Subp a ra graph 9.10.2, A.I.A. General Conditions. The Contractor shall furnish one copy of the Certificateof Insuran ce which shall be dated and show the name of th e i nsured Contractor, the specific job by name and job number, the name of the insurer, the number of the policy, its effective date, and its termination date.
PropertyI nsurance - The Contractor shall purchas e and maintain from a company or companies lawfully auth oriz ed to do business in Florida, property insurance, written on a Buil d er's Risk comp leted value form, in th e amount of the initial contract sum, as well as , subsequent m od ifications for the entire work a t th e site on areplacem ent cost basisinlew . Such property surance shall be maintained, un ss otheris e provided in the contract documents o r otherwise agreed in writing by all persons and entities who areb eneficiaries of su ch insurance, un til final payment has bee n ma de as provided in the A.I.A. Gene ral Conditions or unt il no person or entity other than the University has an insura ble interest in the property requir ed to be co ve re d, whichever is earlier. This in surance shall in clude interests of the Uni ve rs ity, the Contractor, and Sub-contra ctors in the work.
Property insurance shall b e on a Special Causes of Loss form or itseq u ivalent, including reasonable compensation for Architect/Engineer's services and expenses
114 required as a result of such insured loss. The Contractor shall purchase and maintaint he Building O rdin ance Endorsement. If the prop erty insurance pr ovides deductibles the Contra ctorshall pa y c osts not coveredbd ecause of such eductibles.
Before an exposure to loss may occur, the Contractor shall file with t h e U niversi ty a copy of ea ch policy t hat inc ludes the required Property Insurance co ve ra ges. Ea ch policy sha ll contain all gene rally applicable conditions, defin i tions, exc lu sions an d endorsements related toth is project. Each policy shall contain a provisio n that th e policy will not be canceled or allowed to expire until at least 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the University.
A loss insured under property insurance shall be adjusted by the Univ e rsity as fiduciarya nd made pay able to the University asfiduciary fo r the in u re ds, as the ir interests may appear. The Contractor shall pay Subcontractors their just shares of insurance proceeds receive d by the Contracto r, and by appropriate agreements, written wh ere leg ally requir ed for validity, shall require Subcontractors in similar manner.
The Unive rsity as fidu ciary shall, upon occurrence of an in sured loss , de posit in a separate account proceedsso received, which the University shall d is trib ute in accordance with suchagre ement as the parties in interest may reach, or in accordance with an award based on a resolution of a matte r in dispu te , in which case thep rocedure sh all be as provided in the A.I.A. General Conditions. If after such loss no other special a greement is made, replacem ent of dama g ed p ropert y shall be coveredby approp riate Change Order.
CONTRACTOR NOTICE - Shall implement - a drug-free workplace p rog ram in accordance with the require ments of Section 440.1 02, Florida Statutes.
Sincerely
Ferdinand F. Wirth Durwood M . Dugger, BCI , In c. Assistant Professor Shrimp Economic DemoP ro ject Man ager Universityof Florida, IF AS IndianRiver Re search an d Ed ucation Indian Riv er Research and Education Center Center University of Florida 2199 South Rock Road 5618 N. Old Dixie Hwy. Fort Pierc e, FL 34945-3 138 Fort Pierc e, FL 34946 Phone: 77 2.468.3922, e xt. 111 Phone 772/33 2-1046 Fax: 772. 468.3973 E-mail: duggerdm@earth li nk. net E-mail: [email protected] s.uf l.edu
115 IFAS FACILI TIES PLANNING and OPERA TIONS
Bid Criteria Electrical Service Installation, Building No. 7358
Provide proposals for the installation of the electrical service in building #7358. Estimates are to be based on the following criteria.
1. Work shall comply with all local and state codes and regulations governing the installation of required e quipment. 2. The project will be permitted with and inspected by Environmental Health and Safety . 3. All electrical circuitswill be installed in EMT r aceways. 4. All EMT fittings will be compression type. 5. All junction boxes and fi xture covers will be Weather Tig ht. 6. All receptacles will have In Use outlet covers. 7. All service risers and raceways penetrating the ground will be Ridge Pipe. 8. Horizontal underground raceways maybe PVC pipe. 9. All circuit runs will be surface mounted on interior walls. 10.Electri cal panel boa rds and devices being installe d are to be man u fac tured b y Squar e “D”. 11.All electrical outlets ar e to be commercial grade. 12.Receptacle circuits will have not more than three outlets per circuit . 13.All equ ipment circu its ar e to be installed as dedicated circuits. 14.All 120 -volt circuits will b e installed with 20 AMP bre akers. 15.Fluorescent lightingfixtu res will be 2 tubes, 4 fo ot Moisture Resis ta nt fixtures . 16.All electrical fixturehang ers and supports will be c onstructed of g a lvani zed m etal. 17.Maintadsa in a clean an fe work area.
All estimates and any quest ions regarding this project are to be directed to:
Bruce Musselwhite Engineer Facilities Planning and Ope rations. Building 106 Mowry Road P.O. Box 110850Gainesv ille, Fl. 32611-0850 Phone No . 352- 392-6488 Fax No. 352-392- 6488
116 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK
Project Number:
Location: Indian River REC, Ft Pierce, Building 7358
Project Manager: Bruce Musselwhite
Project Description: Install Electrical system in Green H ouse.
Services Required: Provide design for review and permitt ing, instal l a 10 0 Amp Electrical service andpane l, lighting, and circuits to supp ort Green H o use equipment.
Major Pro ject Eleme nts: Provide an electrical design for review by Facilities and occupant showing distribution and panel schedules, ris er diagrams, an d ci rcuit distribution. Include panel, fixture, and lighting sub mittals for approva l. Pe rmit pr oject with Envir onmental H ealth and Safety at the Un iversity of Florida. Co o rdina te installation schedule with I FAS Facilitie s Project Manager. Install panels and fixtures per schedule. Call for requ ired inspections, substantial completion and final.
Schedule Requireme nts:
Design Review: By Facilities Planning and EH&S.
Construction Budget:
Total Project Budget:
Preferred Method of Cons truction: Electrical Contractor
117 March 7, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached is a copy of the design engineering drawings f or Universityo f Fl orida’s Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration in Inland Fresh Water System.
The drawings shouldbe us ed at this time for bidding purposes only . They are under final review by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS).
A final set of construction d rawings will be produced, once a co ntrac to r is chose n and a pre-constructionmee ting between this contra ctor, FDACS and I FAS represent ative oc curs. The project will be constructed acc ording to th a t set of sig ned and sealed drawings.
Any questions or concerns about the drawings s hould be addressed to:
Phillip Metcalf – FDACS, Office of Ag. Water Policy Phone: 863-462-5885 Email: metcalp@do acs.state.fl.us
118 Appendix 2.2 Engineering Construction Drawings
119 120 Engineering As Built Drawings
121 122 Appendix 4.1 IR REC SHRIMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FIXED COST DETA ILS
FIXED CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Engineering and Survey ing: 17578.75 2/21/2003 Phil Metcalf - Construction drawings 75hrs@$70 donation 5250 FDACS 3/17/2003 Carter Assoc Surveying services 1808.75 11/14/2003 FP&L Easement engineering 1500.00 11/15/2003 Crossroads Const Well, electric, generator engineering 5490.00 11/15/2003 Crossroads Const Miscellaneous fees 180.00 12/8/2004 Dragonfly Engin. Engineering & drafting as-built plans donation 3350.00
Well Construction: 78525.62 2/10/2003 Domer's Shallow Well 15606.00 Domer's Deep Well 57943.37 11/26/2003 Domer's Deep Well Pump 4976.25
Well Water Testing: 2,860.37 5/16/2003 HB2015514 Shallow Well 532.50 6/15/2003 Rolland Laramore Bioassays on shallow well donation ????? 10/21/2003 HB2016941 Deep Well 800' 616.87 10/27/2003 HB2016941 Deep Well 800' 51.00 10/27/2003 HB201 6989 Deep Well 940' 765.00 11/4/2003 HB2017069 Deep Well 1070 TDS 130.00 12/15/2003 Rolland Laramore Bioassays on deep well donation ????? 12/8/2004 HB2020318 Deep Well 1070 765.00
Emergency Generator: 26671.00 11/15/2003 Crossroads Emergency generator, delivered 20576.00 Const. 11/20/2003 Crossr oads Generator slab & extension, wall 6095.00 Const.
Earthmoving: Pond and Roadway Construction 103439.68 1/13/2003 Williamson CC Initial site clearing donation 1650.00 2/10/2003 River CountryC Site clearing & road const 4423.25 4/3/2003 River CountryC Addl site clearing 1400.00 4/4/2003 River CountryC Earthmoving contract 48032.00 6/2/2003 Southern Culvert 15'x30' alum culvert 249.00 6/10/2003 St. Lucie Co. Coquina FL rock - 563.71 yds@18 donation 10146.78 6/11/2003 Sawmill Trucking Coquina rock delivery; 52.5hrs@$50 2625.00 6/26/2003 River CountryC Seeding pond levees 1549.00 6/26/2003 River CountryC Borrow pit expand 3999.00 6/27/2003 River CountryC Contract changeorder 1961.00 6/23/2003 River CountryC Emergency pond repair & redress 4711.75 9/15/2003 Sod Services Sod pond levees 4550.00 1/9/2004 Sod Services Sod retention pond levee 1664.00 1/12/2004 Gulfstream 12'x40' culvert/flap gate 1600.00 4/20/2004 Contech Southern culverts 4878.90 6/30/2004 Gulfstream donated heavy equipment services 10000.00
123 Liners and Installation : 49582.51 4/17/2003 Williamson CC Haul 2 rolls HDPE to WCC donation 210.00 5/1/2003 OceanBoy Farm 3 rolls 30-mil HDPE donation 7500.00 6/13/2003 ComancoInstall 44,313 sqf t liner ponds 1&2 13622.08 6/20/2003 Amer. Port. Toilet 105.00 6/26/2003 River CountryC Anchor Trenching - Ponds 1&2 2500.00 6/30/2003 Williamson CC Transport 2 HDPE rolls 280.00 1/21/2004 Gulfstream Ponds3-4 reshape, liner trench 3500.00 2/27/2004 Firestone EPDM liner:ponds 3&4; 44,313'@.36 donation 15953.00 2/27/2004 Yunker Plastics EPDM installation 5912.43
Nursery Greenhouse Construction: 32132.11 12/13/2003 Turner PVC materials 664.03 12/15/2004 Crossroads Const Greenhouse permit fees 93.00 12/17/2003 CP Enterprises Quonset Greenhouse pkg & erection 17785.70 1/8/2004 Turner 3"PVC, screws, fittings 719.35 1/8/2004 Home Depot 50 treated 2'x12'x12' 748.50 1/9/2004 Turner PVC pipe and fittings 1966.04 1/12/2004 Turner Fittings, valves, bits, PVC glue 552.83 1/15/2004 American Fasten TEK screws (400) #14x3" 26.00 1/21/2004 Turner TEK screws, bolts, nuts, washers 69.59 1/21/2004 Gulfstream Floor, set sump, drain pipe/fixtures 7000.00 1/22/2004 Home Depot Lumber, treated 1439.73 1/28/2004 Factory Direct TEK screw (600) #14x2.5" 48.00 2/4/2004 Home Depot Sacrete, bolts, turnbuckles, washers 45.33 2/10/2004 Home Depot Lumber treated & portland cement 102.04 2/10/2004 Home Depot Lumber, treated 36.72 3/8/2004 L Creswell Reimburse Grainger strapping kit 63.45 3/8/2004 Turner Fittings, screws, screw eyes 188.82 3/29/2004 Aquatic EcoS Nylon screening standpipes 108.07 4/9/2004 Turner Banding & banding buckles 138.60 4/12/2004 R. Creswell Reimburse PVC materials 11.96 4/22/2004 Aquaculture Sys Omni threaded ball valve 49.69 5/5/2004 Tractor Supply Pulleys, rachets for transfer system 21.68 7/8/2004 Wal-Mart White rock gravel 14.51 7/8/2004 Turner PVC and tap screws 33.51 7/6/2004 Aquatic EcoS PVC and mesh for media boxes 204.96
Electrical Contractor: 63318.90 5/1/2003 Applebee Elec Pond electrical installation 22832.00 6/5/2003 Applebee Elec Trailer & well electric installation 1425.00 11/15/2003 Applebee Elec Generator, deep well, service panel 17075.00 12/15/2003 FP&L Fee for electrical service 2358.00 Feb-04 Applebee Elec Greenhouse electrical service 10742.18 5/6/2004 Applebee Elec rewire pump 1754.98 5/6/2004 Applebee Elec check out pump 224.00 5/18/2004 Applebee Elec wire motors for paddlewheels 542.44 5/20/2004 Applebee Elec replace overloads with larger size 101.22 5/24/2004 Applebee Elec labor & materials for greenhouse 240.11 8/30/2004 Applebee Elec hookup paddlewheels 1075.73 10/22/2004 Applebee Elec wire and hookup paddlewheels 2499.90 10/26/2004 Applebee Elec Add'l paddlewheel support 2448.34
124 Construction Labor: 115476.96 Durwood Dugger Project Mgmt 10/02/02 - 03/31/04 81910.00 5/1/2003 Williamson CC Dissa/haul HBOI greenhouses donation 2260.00 6/17/2003 Williamson CC Install concrete pads in ponds donation 726.09 6/30/2003 Williamson CC water lines - well to 1&2 donation 987.00 7/2/2003 Williamson CC Dock labor at WCC donation 1375.00 7/2/2003 Williamson CC Install docks - ponds & retention donation 2200.00 7/3/2003 Williamson CC Install posts and dividers, Ponds 1&2 donation 2658.00 11/15/2003 Crossroads Const Const. Mgr profit - well, generator, elec. 6000.00 12/9/2004 Williamson CC skilled labor 01/01/04 - 12/09/04 donation 17360.87
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES COSS T
Equipment: Paddlewheels 7234.46 04/04 - Hydromentia 20 USED paddlewheels@$200 donated 4000.00 09/04 6/6/2003 Aquatic Eco S 6 paddlewheel motor s 990.00 6/30/2003 Williamson CC haul paddlewh eels fro m 296.00 Hydromentia 7/7/2004 Aquatic EcoS 4 Paddlewheel motors 695.40 10/14/2004 Aquatic EcoS 2 paddlewheel motors & gear boxes 808.13 10/15/2004 Aquatic EcoS 2 paddlewheel motors 444.93
Equipme nt: other pu mps & 16981.75 motors 6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS Sweetwater and cent. pumps 2081.70 3/31/2004 Aquatic EcoS Hanging scale 349.93 7/19/2004 PR Aqua Transfer Pump, Dewater Tower 14550.12
Water testing & shrimp s am pling equipment and s u pplies : 1834.91 6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS DOmeter, pH, YSI Spec & reagents 1320.20 6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS Nitrite, pH, Potassium starter kit 43.40 3/31/2004 Aquatic EcoS Ohaus scale, refractometer 261.31 5/6/2004 Aquatic EcoS Nitrite reagent replacement kit 40.50 10/21/2004 Aquatic EcoS Ohaus Scout scale 169.50
Pond supplies/equipment: 7497.33 6/11/2003 Turner Rope & pipe for dividers 2824.20 6/20/2003 Home Depot Lumber for dividers 286.04 6/20/2003 Aquatic EcoS PVC couplings, valves, netting donation 2201.72 7/2/2003 Williamson CC Dock materials - ponds and retention donation 800.00 5/5/2004 Home D e po t Lumber, hanger nails , bolts, washe rs 126.21 5/6/2004 Aquatic E co S gate valves 113.80 7/8/2004 Turner Rope, screws, washers, nylon ties 158.92 7/20/2004 HBOI gate and ball valves 800.00 7/28/2004 Turner 8" pvc & clamps for standpipes 135.78 8/5/2004 Home Depot Liquid Nails for standpipe 3.72 8/6/2004 Turner PVC, nuts, washers for standpipes 12.02 8/9/2004 Turner PVC & Cleaner - pond water valves 34.92
125 Nursery supplies/equipment: 7017.65 1/28/2004 Aquatic EcoS Blowers (2) & float switches (2) 1290.00 1/28/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria fresh & salt gals donation 74.30 1/30/2004 Turner Rustol, saw b lades, chalk, knife 37.66 1/30/2004 Aquaculture Sys Bead filter, co ntrollers, relays 3426.09 3/9/2004 Home Depot Flotec 1.5hp pump & saw blades 208.96 3/10/2004 Publix Joy Liq. Dish detergent 14.06 3/10/2004 Pinch a Penny Chlorine 40.80 3/10/2004 Home Depot Reel mount, rubber plug & cord 78.36 3/12/2004 Home Depot Hose & reel, electric cord, nozzles 111.89 3/26/2004 Home Depot Trash can, W D-40, caulk, glue gun 77.36 3/31/2004 Turner Rope f or sha decloth 12.60 3/29/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria fresh H2O (4 x gal) 100.07 4/1/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria concentrate (gal) 264.78 4/2/2004 Home Depot Channel lock plier and 4" vise 60.82 4/9/2004 Turner Band tool 84.00 4/12/2004 R. Creswell Aqua ammon ia and acid 9.36 4/20/2004 Home Depot Fittings and b atteries 7.47 5/7/2004 Turner Washers, tap screws, nylon ties 16.73 7/12/2004 HBOI Kaldness Bio -filter media 999.00 8/11/2004 Home Depot Roof coater brooms (2) 7.34 8/24/2004 Praxair O2 regulator 96.00
Miscellaneous Supplies: 6886.21 5/23/2003 Big Johns Gate material s 686.40 6/20/2003 Home Depot Keys for stora ge trailer 7.19 6/20/2003 Home Depot Tools and ha rdware 534.68 7/21/2003 Home Depot garden hoses (2) & nozzle 56.47 7/21/2003 Home Depot Push brooms (2) 77.94 12/8/2003 Turner Hose adaptors 40.24 1/26/2004 Home Depot Handles (2) - push brooms 10.94 1/28/2004 Wal-Mart Paper towels 10.58 4/7/2004 Home Depot Rubber Maid Garden Cabinet 189.00 4/7/2004 HBOI tracking trailers (2) 60.00 4/14/2004 Home Depot 10' 2x4s, coater broom 13.05 4/22/2004 Aquatic EcoS Juv. transport tank and cage fittings 321.96 5/5/2004 Wal-Mart boat fenders, padlock, scale 104.02 5/6/2004 Turner PVC elbow a nd pipe 34.62 5/7/2004 Turner O-ring for tran sfer tank 3.28 5/7/2004 Turner PVC for transfer tank 15.03 5/10/2004 Turner PVC cement for transfer assembly 15.88 5/12/2004 Home Depot Bungees, snap hooks, eye snap 39.68 6/23/2004 Home Depot Sacrete (168) and lumbe r 630.34 7/8/2004 Home Depot Dustpan, bru sh, screwdriver set 36.05 7/8/2004 Dugger Sacrete, sc re ws, PVC slips/adapters 724.92 7/8/2004 Home Depot Garbage can and straps 68.03 7/26/2004 Home Depot 4' fiberglass stepladder 118.00 8/4/2004 Amazon Hose PVC Suction hose 6" x 100' 786.00 8/27/2004 Turner PVC, couplin gs, ties for transfer 261.23 9/1/2004 Turner PVC & coupli ngs for emer. transfe r 611.26 9/20/2004 Home Depot folding table s and shelving units 124.91 9/20/2004 Home Depot Saw blades, hammers - GH disass. 92.30
126 10/4/2004 Home Depot Blades, saws, tools for GH disass. 221.96 10/5/2004 Advance Auto paddlewheel oil 11.88 10/20/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel 50-gal trash can 303.56 10/25/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel 50-gal trash can 151.78 11/8/2004 Turner Rope 0.5" white nylon (600') 126.00 11/16/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel Transh, wringer buck. 354.99 11/20/2004 Turner 4 Hose clamps 3.60 12/3/2004 R. Creswell reimburse hose clamps & WD-40 13.48 12/7/2004 Home Depot 11' black nylon ties 24.96
Harvest supplies : 609.09 10/25/2004 H ome Depot Pails and handles 22.78 10/25/2004 Tractor Supply Two 2-bu. Baskets 27.02 10/25/2004 Turner Tap screws, washers, nuts, hose clamps 40.37 10/25/2004 Roberts of FL Big ws heel 50-gal trash can 151.78 10/26/2004 Home Depot Door pulls, wooden stakes 22.74 10/26/2004 Turner hose clamps & PVC male adapters 11.24 10/26/2004 Turn er PVC Ls, ho se clamps, tap screws 37.16 10/26/2004 Staples Ca sh box 13.00 11/16/2 004 Boynton Pump adapter/s hrim p harvest 200.50 11/16/2004 Boynton Pump well screen 82.50
OTHER ONE-TIME EXPENSES:
Open House Expenses: 4,742.48 11/16/2 004 Diamond R Fert. Extinguis h Pl us fireant control 157.50 11/24/2 004 S taples Reem of Exceptional business paper 20.98 11/29/2004 Parks Rental folding chairs 80.00 11/30/2 004 Scott Sibley Wo rld Court Grill cate ri ng 750.00 12/10/2 004 Gulfstrea m Cleanup, graor ding fop en ho use 3734.0 0
UF/IFAS Facility Sign: 500.00 500.0 0
127 Appendix 4.2. IRREC SHRIMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECT VARIAB LE COST DETAILS ($)
Shrimp PLs: 5,646.19 3/12/2004 GMSB 270,000 PL1 2s 1957.50 4/4/2004 D. Dugger trans p ort exp enses 179.50 5/18/2004 GMSB 450,000 PL12 s 3262.50 6/9/2004 D. Dugger transport expenses 246.69
Feed: (costs include freight) Lbs 14,237.72 4/2/2004 Laramore Larval feed donation 120 1800.00 4/15/2004 Zeigler 14 bags(55lb) E30 donation 770 156.52 4/15/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 donation 4400 894.40 4/15/2004 Zeigler Freight on Zeigler donation 753.90 5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb PL-C 150 1200.00 5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb J400 Ju venile 150 825.00 7/30/2 004 Zeigler 100 bags(55lb) SI35 5500 1858.00 7/30/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 4400 894.40 10/6/2004 Zeigler 100 bags(55lb) SI35 5 500 1999.00 10/22/2004 Zeigler 20 bags SI35E 1100 427.80 10/22/2004 Zeigler 30 bags SI30 1650 580.20 11/8/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.50 11/16/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.50 12/10/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.50
Labor: Project Management 53886.65 4/13/2004 Durwood Dugger 03/26 - 04/08/04 1480.40 4/27/2004 Durwood Dugger 04/09 - 04/22/04 2960.80 5/11/2004 Durwood Dugger 04/23 - 05/06/04 2960.81 6/8/2004 Durwood Dugger 05/21 - 06/03/0 4 2960.81 6/22/2004 Durwood Dugger 06/04 - 06/17/04 2960.80 7/1/2004 Durwood Dugger 06/18 - 07/01/04 2960.80 7/15/2004 Durwood Dugger 07/02 - 07/15/04 2960.81 7/29/2004 Durwood Dugger 07/16 - 07/29/04 2960.80 8/12/2004 Durwood Dugger 07/30 - 08/12/04 2960.81 8/26/2004 Durwood Dugger 08/13 - 08/26/04 2072.56 9/9/2004 Durwood Dugger 08/27 - 09/09/04 2960.81 9/23/2004 Durwood Dugger 09/10 - 09/23/04 2960.80 10/7/2004 Durwood Dugger 09/24 - 10/07/04 2960.81 10/21/2004 Durwood Dugger 10/08 - 10/21/04 2960.80 11/4/2004 Durwood Dugger 10/22 - 11/04/04 2960.81 11/18/2004 Durwood Dugger 11/05 - 11/18/04 2960.80 12/2/2004 Durwood Dugger 11/19 - 12/02/04 2960.81 12/16/2004 Durwo4od Dugger 12/03 - 12/16/0 2960.80 12/30/2004 Durwood Dug ger 12/17 - 12/3 0/04 2960.81
Labor: Technicians 14057.10 9/9/2004 Payroll 08/27 - 09/09/04 1830.05 9/23/2004 Payroll 09/10 - 09/23/04 1830.05 10/7/2004 Payroll09/24 - 10/07/04 367.36 10/21/2004 Payroll 10/08 - 10/21/04 1352.22
128 11/4/2004 Payroll 10/22 - 11/04/04 1651.10 11/18/2004 Payroll 11/05 - 11/18/04 1756.58 12/2/2004 Payroll 11/19 - 12/02/04 estimated: 1756.58 12/16/2004 Payroll 12/03 - 12/16/04 estimated: 1756.58 12/30/2 004 Payroll 12/17 - 12/30/04 estimated: 1756.58
Nursery Saltwater for acclimation: ????? 3/15/2004 FDACS Forestry tanker truck from FIT donation ????? 3/15/2004 FIT, Vero Beach 15,000 ocean well water donation ????? 6/15/2004 Ranger Const. tanker truck from FIT donation ????? 6/15/2004 FIT, Vero Beach 15,000 ocean well water donation ?????
Molasses: (cost for p icku p in Clewiston) t otal pounds = 14680 lbs 471.39 8/26/2004 U.S. S ugar Corp 251 miles at $0.375 2500 lbs 94.13 9/14/2004 U.S. Sugar Corp 252 miles at $0.375 3000 lbs 94.50 10/5/2004 U.S. Sugar Corp 251 miles at $0.375 3200 lbs 94.13 10/19/2004 U.S. Sugar Corp 252 mile s at $0.375 2980 lbs 94.50 12/15/2 004 U.S. Sug a r Corp 251 m iles at $0.375 3000 lbs 94.13 projected
Electricity: monthly 10367.43 3/15-4/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse only estimate 535.00 4/15-5/15/04 FP&L Gree n house and 2 ponds (1/2) estimate 1100.00 5/15-6/15/04 FP&L Two pon ds o nly estimate 1 100.00 6/15-7/15/04 FP&L Greenhou se & 2 ponds 1596.67 7/15-8/15/04 FP&L Greenhou se & 2 ponds, heavy aeration 2375.83 8/15-9/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse (1/2) & 3 ponds 360.23 Hurricane 9/15- FP&L 3 ponds only & hurricane 1461.24 10 /15/04 10/15- FP&L 3 ponds (1/2) ; 2 ponds (1/2) 938.4 6 11 /15/04 11/15- FP&L Two ponds only estimate 900.00 12/15/04
Harvest supplies: 550.89 10/21/2 004 Uline Pol y bags (2 ctn),13"x18" 250/ctn 208 .78 10/26/2 004 Staples Cash box, rec eipt pad, labels, envelopes 35.03 10/27/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse sandwiches/ drinks for crew 22.04 10/29/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse debriefing lunch 122.38 11/10/2004 Uline Poly bags (1 ctn),13"x18" 250/ctn 105.14 11/16/2004 Miller Bearings V-belt for harvest pump 10.88 11/20/2 004 F. W irth Reimburse sandwichr es/ drinks fo crew 24.50 11/20/2 004 F. W irth Reimburse sn a cks & beverages for crew 17.75 11/24/2004 Staples Sales receipt book - 3 pa rt 4.39 Ice 0
129 Appendix 4.3. Text of E-mail Announcing October 27, 2004 Shrimp Sale and Soliciting Advance Orders
October 18, 2004
Dear HBOI and USDA aquaculture faculty and staff,
Good News! The IRREC shrimp aquaculture project is ready to harvest its first crop. The harvest date is still uncertain because we have to harvest an entire pond at one time to comply with Florida legal requirements – we have to sell the shrimp live, rather than bagged on ice. So, we have to make sure we can sell all the shrimp in the pond. We are targeting the harvest for one evening next week, between 4:00 – 6:00 pm. We will give at least two days notice of the harvest.
The shrimp will be live, large size and should yield about 35 tails per pound. Buyers should bring bags, coolers and ice for their shrimp. The prices and quantity discounts are:
WeightU U UPrice/lbU UTotal PriceU
5 lb $ 3.40 $ 17.00 10 lb 3.00 30.00 20 lb 2.75 55.00 50 lb 2.50 125.00
The shrimp will be sold by advance reservation only, for pickup at the IRREC Aquaculture Demonstration project at 8500 Picos Road, just west of the St. Lucie Cooperative Extension offices. Payment by cash or check payable to the Treasure Coast Agricultural Research Foundation.
Please reply by e-mail ([email protected] )UTH as soon as possible to reserve your shrimp. Provide your name, e-mail address, phone number, and quantity of shrimp being reserved.
Ferdinand F. Wirth Associate Professor of Food and Resource Economics University of Florida, IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center 2199 South Rock Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34945-3138 Phone: 772.468.3922 x111 Fax: 772.468.3973
Email: [email protected] UTH
130 Appendix 4.4. Text of E-mail Announcing November 19, 2004 Shrimp Sale and Soliciting Advance Orders
November 10, 2004
Dear Friends of UF/IFAS,
Good News! The University of Florida/IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center shrimp aquaculture project is ready to harvest its second pond of large th shrimp. The harvest date is next Friday, November 19P .P We are offering bulk quantities of live shrimp, as they are harvested from the pond, at below-retail prices to you, your co-workers and your friends. Purchasers will be asked to take a market research questionnaire to complete after eating some of the shrimp.
The shrimp will be live, large size and should yield about 35 - 40 tails per pound. Shrimp will be sold in 10-pound units. The prices and quantity discounts are:
WeightU U UPrice/lbU UTotal PriceU
10 lb $ 4.00 $ 40.00 20 lb 3.75 75.00 50 lb 3.50 175.00
The shrimp will be sold by advance reservation only, for pickup between 2:30 pm – th 5:00 pm on Friday, November 19P P at the IRREC Aquaculture Demonstration project at 8500 Picos Road, just west of the St. Lucie Cooperative Extension offices. We have a supply of bags available, so buyers are urged to bring their own coolers and ice. Those buying 20 pounds or more will need large coolers.
Payment is expected when you pick up the shrimp. Payment by cash (exact change) will be accepted, but we strongly prefer checks payable to the Treasure Coast Agricultural Research Foundation.
Please reply by e-mail ([email protected] )UTH as soon as possible to reserve your shrimp. Provide your name, e-mail address, phone number, and quantity (number of pounds) of shrimp being reserved. Orders will be accepted through Thursday, th November 18P .P
Ferdinand F. Wirth Associate Professor of Food and Resource Economics University of Florida, IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center 2199 South Rock Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34945-3138 Phone: 772.468.3922 x111 Fax: 772.468.3973 Email: [email protected]
131 Appendix 4.5. Text of Cover Letter Accompanying Shrimp Market Research Surveys, printed on St. Lucie County Extension Letterhead
October 26, 2004
Dear Shrimp Purchaser:
Thank you for purchasing live shrimp from the UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project. Your support for this research and demonstration project is appreciated. There has been a great deal of interest in developing a shrimp farming industry in the southern United States to help meet the increasing demand for seafood. Shrimp farmers have distinct production advantages over traditional shrimp suppliers. The farmer can customize his product to match buyer needs.
One goal of this shrimp project is to identify direct markets for U.S. farm-raised shrimp and to determine which shrimp product features are most important to consumers. You are one of a small number of Florida seafood consumers who are being asked to give information on shrimp purchasing behavior and preferences by completing the enclosed questionnaire. Information gained in this study will help current and future U.S. shrimp farmers produce shrimp products which most closely match U.S. consumer needs. Participation in this research may also be helpful to you in evaluating your own preferences toward shrimp products.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. There are no anticipated risks, compensation, or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this study. However, in order for the results to truly represent the needs of all shrimp consumers, it is important that each questionnaire be completed and returned in the enclosed business reply envelope. Completion of the questionnaire should take no longer than 10 - 15 minutes, and you must be 18 or older to complete the questionnaire.
Your complete confidentiality is assured. You and your household will not be identified or connected with the questionnaire in any way and participation is totally anonymous. Results will only be reported as aggregate or summarized data. The information gathered in this study might be published in professional journals or presented at scientific meetings, but will not be accessible as individual data.
If you have any questions about this research study or the questionnaire, please contact me at (772)462-1660. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
LeRoy Creswell Marine Extension Faculty
132 Appendix 4.6. Consumer Shrimp Preferences Survey Distributed to Shrimp Purchasers at the October 27, 2004 and November 19, 2004 Pond Harvest Sales
133 Florida Consumer
Shrimp Preference Survey
Please cook and eat some of the UF/IFAS Aquaculture Project shrimp before completing this questionnaire.
First, we would like to know your impressions about the shrimp you purchased from UF/IFAS:
1. Overall, how much do you like the APPEARANCE of these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely neither like extremely dislike nor dislike like
2. Overall, how much do you like the FLAVOR of these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely neither like extremely dislike nor dislike like
3. Overall, how much do you like the TEXTURE of these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely neither like extremely dislike nor dislike like
4. Overall, how much do you LIKE these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely neither like extremely dislike nor dislike like
5. Typically at retail establishments, shrimp tails (previously frozen or frozen) are sold at an average price of $6.00 to $7.00 a pound. How would you feel about paying $5.00 for a pound of the shrimp (whole, fresh, never frozen) you just tasted? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 too fair it’s a expensive price bargain
6. How difficult do you think whole shrimp is to clean and prepare at home? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Neutral Very Difficult Easy
7. Would the process of cleaning, heading, peeling and preparing whole shrimp prevent you from repurchasing whole shrimp? (circle only one answer)
YES NO UNCERTAIN
134 We would like to know about your household’s preferences and interests in shrimp for at-home consumption.
8. What percentage of the shrimp you consume at home is obtained from of the following sources: (For example, if you purchase fish from a seafood market half of the time and from a grocery store the other half of the time, your answer would be 50% Seafood Market and 50% Grocery Store or Supermarket. All answers should total 100%.)
SUPER CENTER (Wal-Mart, etc.) SHRIMP FARM GROCERY OR SUPERMARKET FROM FISHERMAN, AT DOCK OR BOAT SEAFOOD MARKET RECREATIONAL CATCH ROADSIDE STAND OTHER (please specify)
9. What percentage of the shrimp you consume at home is obtained in each of the following refrigeration states: (All answers should total 100%.) FRESH (Never frozen) FROZEN IN BLOCK PREVIOUSLY FROZEN OTHER (please specify) INDIVIDUALLY FROZEN, LOOSE
10. What percentage of the following forms of shrimp do you most frequently purchase for home use? (All answers should total 100%.)
WHOLE (HEAD-ON) PEELED AND UNDEVEINED (PUD) TAILS TAILS (SHELL-ON)) BREADED PEELED AND DEVEINED TAILS OTHER (please specify)
11. What percentage of the shrimp you purchase falls in each of the following sizes (tail count per pound): (All answers should total 100%.)
16 - 20 COUNT (extra large) 36 - 40 COUNT (medium) 21 - 25 COUNT 41 - 50 COUNT 26 - 30 COUNT (large) SMALLER THAN 50 COUNT 31 - 35 COUNT OTHER (please specify)
Now we would like to ask you some questions about farm-raised (or aquacultured) shrimp.
12. Do you currently buy farm-raised shrimp? (circle only one answer) YES NO UNCERTAIN
13. Would you be willing to purchase farm-raised shrimp directly from a farmer? YES NO UNCERTAIN
If NO, please explain why not:
14. If YES, at which locations would you be willing to purchase farm-raised shrimp directly from a farmer? (circle all that apply) 1 AT SHRIMP FARM 4 FAIR OR FESTIVAL 2 ROADSIDE STAND 5 FARM INTERNET WEBSITE 3 COMMUNITY FARMERS MARKET 6 OTHER (please specify)
15. Which forms of farm-raised shrimp would you be willing to buy directly from a farmer? (circle all that apply)
1 WHOLE (HEAD-ON) 4 PEELED AND UNDEVEINED (PUD) TAILS 2 TAILS (SHELL-ON)) 5 BREADED 3 PEELED AND DEVEINED TAILS 6 OTHER (please specify)
16. Which sizes of farm-raised shrimp (tail count per pound) would you be willing to buy from a farmer? (circle all that apply) 1 16 - 20 COUNT (extra large) 5 36 - 40 COUNT (medium) 2 21 - 25 COUNT 6 41 - 50 COUNT 3 26 - 30 COUNT (large) 7 SMALLER THAN 50 COUNT 4 31 - 35 COUNT 8 OTHER (please specify)
135 17. We can learn a lot about your shrimp buying preferences from your ratings of a series of shrimp products that differ across seven different shrimp features: species, size, refrigeration state, product form, purchase price, country of origin label, and product source label. Each feature has three different levels, as follows:
Species: 3 levels, based on shrimp species - White, Black Tiger, Brown (brown or pink) Size: 3 levels, based on tail count per pound - Medium (36-50), Large (26-35), X-large (16-25) State: 3 levels based on refrigerated state in the store - Fresh (never frozen), Previously Frozen, Frozen Form: 3 levels: Whole shrimp (head-on), Tails (head-off, shell-on), P&D Tails (peeled & deveined) Purchase price: 3 levels based on price per pound - $5.00, $7.50, $10.00 Country of Origin label: 3 levels - product of USA, product of Another Country, origin Not Identified Product Source: 3 levels based on source of product - Farm Raised, Wild Harvest, source Not Identified
Please rate the 19 shrimp products listed below, based on your preference in purchasing shrimp for your home use. More than one product may have the same rating if you have the same preferences for the products. Use a scale from "0" to "20" where: 0 = least preferred combination of product feature levels 20 = most preferred combination of product feature levels
ҙҗ P R O D U C T F E A T U R E S җ җ ѽ Shrimp Size Refrig. Product Purchase Country Product Rating Species (Tail count State Form Price of origin Source per pound) Label Label examples:
20 a. White X-large Fresh P&D Tails $5.00/lb USA Farm Raised
13 b. Tiger Large Prev. Frozen Tails $7.50/lb Another Country Wild Harvest
0 c. Brown Medium Frozen Whole $10.00/lb Not Identified Not Identified
1. White Large Frozen P&D Tails $5.00/lb USA Wild Harvest
2. White Medium Frozen Tails $7.50/lb Not Identified Farm Raised
3. Brown Medium Prev. Frozen P&D Tails $7.50/lb USA Not Identified
4. Tiger X-large Prev. Frozen Whole $7.50/lb Not Identified Wild Harvest
5. Brown X-large Fresh Whole $5.00/lb USA Farm Raised
6. Brown Medium Fresh Tails $10.00/lb Another Country Wild Harvest
7. White Large Fresh Whole $10.00/lb Not Identified Not Identified
8. Brown Large Frozen Whole $7.50/lb Another Country Not Identified
9. Brown Large Prev. Frozen Tails $5.00/lb Not Identified Farm Raised
10. Tiger X-large Frozen Tails $5.00/lb Another Country Not Identified
11. Brown X-large Frozen P&D Tails $10.00/lb Not Identified Wild Harvest
12. Tiger Large Prev. Frozen P&D Tails $10.00/lb Another Country Farm Raised
13. Tiger Medium Fresh P&D Tails $5.00/lb Not Identified Not Identified
14. Tiger Large Fresh Tails $7.50/lb USA Wild Harvest
15. White X-large Fresh P&D Tails $7.50/lb Another Country Farm Raised
16. White X-large Prev. Frozen Tails $10.00/lb USA Not Identified
17. Tiger Medium Frozen Whole $10.00/lb USA Farm Raised
18. White Medium Prev. Frozen Whole $5.00/lb Another Country Wild Harvest
19. White Medium Fresh Whole $5.00/lb USA Farm Raised
136 We would like to ask you some general questions about food quality and food safety. 18. How much have you seen, read, or heard about food quality? (circle only one number)
1 A GREAT DEAL 4 NOT MUCH 2 SOME 5 NOTHING AT ALL
19. How much have you seen, read, or heard about food safety? (circle only one number)
1 A GREAT DEAL 4 NOT MUCH 2 SOME 5 NOTHING AT ALL
20. How knowledgeable are you about choosing the highest quality fresh seafood? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Moderately Extremely Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
21. How knowledgeable are you about seafood safety issues? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Moderately Extremely Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
22. Have you ever purchased ready-to-eat foods through the Internet? YES NO UNCERTAIN
23. If YES, how were they prepared and shipped? (circle all answers that apply)
FRESH CANNED BOTTLED FROZEN
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about shrimp quality, and the statements comparing U.S. farm-raised shrimp with wild harvested shrimp and imported shrimp. (circle only one answer for each statement) ------Level of Agreement------
24. It is important to know the Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t shrimp harvest date before Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know purchasing
25. It is important to know the Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t shrimp country of origin Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know before purchasing
26. I prefer farm raised Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t to wild harvested shrimp Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
27. Farm raised shrimp are Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t of higher quality than wild Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know harvested shrimp
28. Farm raised shrimp are Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t safer than wild harvested Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
29. U.S. farm raised shrimp Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t are of higher quality than Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know imported shrimp
30. U.S. farm raised shrimp Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t are safer than imported shrimp Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
137 Finally, we would like to know a little about you and your household
31. What is your zip code? 32. In which Florida county do you live?
33. Which of the following best describes the area in which you live? (circle only one number)
1 RURAL AREA 3 URBAN AREA 2 SUBURBAN AREA 4 RESORT AREA
34. What is your gender? (circle only one answer) MALE FEMALE
35. What is your age? (circle only one number)
1 0 - 20 4 51 - 65 2 21 - 35 5 66 OR OLDER 3 36 - 50
36. What is your marital status? (circle only one number)
1 SINGLE 3 DIVORCED 2 MARRIED 4 WIDOWED
37. What is your ethnic origin? (circle only one number)
1 WHITE/CAUCASIAN 5 NATIVE AMERICAN 2 BLACK/AFRICAN-AMERICAN 6 BI-RACIAL OR MIXED ETHNIC 3 HISPANIC, LATINO, CHICANO 7 OTHER (please specify) 4 ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
38. What is the highest level of education you completed? (circle only one number)
1 SOME HIGH SCHOOL 4 ASSOCIATE (or other 2 year technical) DEGREE 2 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 5 BACHELOR’S (or other 4 year) DEGREE 3 SOME COLLEGE COURSES 6 ADVANCED/PROFESSIONAL DEGREE
39. Which of the following best describes your employment status? (circle only one number)
1 EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 4 RETIRED 2 EMPLOYED PART-TIME 5 UNEMPLOYED, LOOKING FOR WORK 3 HOMEMAKER 6 UNEMPLOYED, NOT LOOKING FOR WORK
40. Does anyone in your immediate family farm or ranch for a living? YES NO UNCERTAIN
41. How many people live in your household, including yourself? (circle only one number)
1 ONE 3 THREE 5 FIVE 2 TWO 4 FOUR 6 SIX OR MORE
42. What is your annual household income before taxes? (circle only one number)
1 $0 - $20,000 4 $60,001 - $80,000 2 $20,001 - $40,000 5 $80,001 - $100,000 3 $40,001 - $60,000 6 $100,001+
Thank you for completing this survey. Your contribution to this research effort is very greatly appreciated. Please return this completed survey in the Business Reply Envelope provided, or mail the completed survey to: LeRoy Creswell, St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension, 8400 Picos Road Ste 101, Fort Pierce, Florida 34945-3045
DACS-P-00068 138
View publication stats