The Milkfish Broodstock-Hatchery Research and Development Program and Industry: a Policy Study

A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre for Economics econstor Make Your Publications Visible. zbw Israel, Danilo C. Working Paper The Milkfish Broodstock-Hatchery Research and Development Program and Industry: A Policy Study PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2000-05 Provided in Cooperation with: Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Philippines Suggested Citation: Israel, Danilo C. (2000) : The Milkfish Broodstock-Hatchery Research and Development Program and Industry: A Policy Study, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2000-05, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Makati City This Version is available at: <a href="/goto?url=http://hdl.handle.net/10419/127711" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/10419/127711 </a><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: </li><li style="flex:1">Terms of use: </li></ul>Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. <a href="/goto?url=http://www.econstor.eu" target="_blank">www.econstor.eu </a>Philippine Ins titute for Development Studies The Milkfish Broodstock-Hatchery Research and Development Program and Industry: A Policy Study Danilo C. Israel DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2000-05 The PIDS Discussion Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Institute. January 2000 For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact: The Res earch Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies 3rd Floor, NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, Philippines Tel Nos: 8924059 and 8935705; Fax No: 8939589; E-mail: [email protected] Or visit our website a<a href="/goto?url=http://www.pids.gov.ph" target="_blank">t http://www.pids.gov.ph </a>ABSTRACT This paper looks into the national R&D program for the production of hatchery-bred milkfish fry and the fledgling industry it has spawned with the end purpose of recommending courses of actions that the national <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">government can pursue for their furtherance. </li><li style="flex:1">The study concludes that </li></ul>hatchery-bred fry is necessary for milkfish culture to attain sustainable growth and international competitiveness in the coming years. Therefore, the government should continue to strongly support the R&D program and industry by exerting concrete measures to address the various technical, market, institutional and other problems which hinder them from fully becoming a vehicle of growth in the fisheries sector. The Milkfish Broodstock-Hatchery Research and Development Program and Industry: A Policy Study by Danilo C. Israel* <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">I. </li><li style="flex:1">Introduction </li></ul>Milkfish is the national fish of the Philippines not only because it is a favorite viand of the entire population. The milkfish industry is also an important component of the fisheries sector and the national economy, contributing significantly to output, employment, public revenues and nutrition. While milkfish is important, however, its production has been hindered by various problems in recent years. Among the most critical of these is the limited supply of fry. Milkfish production comes mainly from aquaculture and the availability of fry for stocking determines to a large extent the achieved levels of national production. In the past decade or so, the supply of fry, which comes mainly from the wild, has been declining rapidly (Ahmed et al. 1999). In contrast, the demand for fry has been growing steadily, brought about by the gradual intensification of culture practices and the shift in production toward milkfish farming in reaction to the decline of the prawn industry. *Ph.D. in Resource Economics and Research Fellow, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), NEDA sa Makati Bldg., 106 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City. While the problem of limited fry supply constrains the milkfish industry, it was actually already foreseen more than two decades ago. Back then, the national government commenced a research and development (R&D) program aimed at finding a technical solution to the problem. The specific objective was to develop a milkfish broodstock-hatchery technology that can produce significant quantities of hatchery-bred fry (The broodstock component of this technology involves the rearing in controlled conditions of both male and female juvenile milkfish to produce the mother milkfish or Sabalo and the spawning of eggs by the Sabalo. The hatchery component covers the hatching of the eggs and the rearing of the hatched larvae to nursery or growout stocking age, also in controlled conditions). Once commercialized, the technology was expected to significantly increase the domestic supply of milkfish fry in the short-term and become its major source over the long-term. Largely as a result of the above-mentioned R&D program, a fledgling milkfish broodstock-hatchery industry exists in the country at present. So far, however, this industry has not yet fully taken off as its output is still too low and inconsistent to significantly impact on total production. Nevertheless, expectations are high that given the right conditions, the industry will eventually produce at levels sufficient enough to fully meet the fry needs of milkfish culture. As its primary patron and at this juncture of development, the national government is facing important policy decisions related to the milkfish broostock-hatchery R&D program and industry. First and foremost, given the current state of affairs, should the government continue to invest public 2resources into the program? If so, at what levels should this investment be and into which priority areas should it be focused to attain the desired maximum impact? Beyond R&D, equally important questions need to be addressed. Since the milkfish broodstock-hatchery industry is still in the infantile stage, should the government get more actively involved in it to ensure survival and growth? If so, what courses of actions can the government do? More specifically, what necessary programs should the pertinent fisheries agencies implement to assist the industry? These and other related questions need answers for the government to decisively complete its mission of finding a lasting solution to the problem of limited availability of milkfish fry. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">II. </li><li style="flex:1">Objective, Organization and Data </li></ul>This paper looks into the national milkfish broodstock-hatchery R&D program and industry with the end purpose of recommending policies and courses of actions that can be pursued by the national government for their furtherance. The observed lack of policy-oriented studies which can be utilized as reference in relation to the R&D program and industry motivates this effort. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">The paper is organized as follows. </li><li style="flex:1">The next section reviews the </li></ul>milkfish industry vis a vis the entire fisheries sector and the national economy. This portion is intended to highlight the economic importance of the milkfish industry to the sector and the economy. The third section reviews the milkfish fry supply and demand situation and provides estimates of the future fry requirements. The purpose is to emphasize limited supply of fry as a major 3factor constraining milkfish production and evaluate the relevance of the development of the milkfish broodstock-hatchery technology as solution. The history and status of the milkfish broodstock-hatchery R&D program and industry are presented in the fourth section while the fifth section discusses the problems associated to them. concerns in the program and industry and determine where national government action is required. The penultimate section develops the The intention is to pinpoint important recommendations for addressing the problems while the last section provides the summary and conclusions. The paper utilizes secondary data gathered from the published indexes of fisheries agencies and the available relevant literature. It also uses primary information generated through interviews with key informants, including those from government fisheries agencies and the milkfish fry and grow-out industries. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">III. </li><li style="flex:1">The Milkfish Industry </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">3.1 </li><li style="flex:1">Production Impact </li></ul>The fisheries sector has been stagnating in recent years (Tables 1 and <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">For the 1979-1997 period, the average annual growth rate of total </li><li style="flex:1">2). </li></ul>fisheries production has been low, particularly in quantity terms. Furthermore, growth has been negligible or negative during a substantial part of the period. By individual subsectors, commercial fisheries generally performed in a similar way as total fisheries while municipal fisheries did worse. 4Table 1. Annual fisheries production, by subsector, Philippines, 1979-1997 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1979 </li><li style="flex:1">1980 </li><li style="flex:1">1981 </li><li style="flex:1">1982 </li><li style="flex:1">1983 </li><li style="flex:1">1984 </li><li style="flex:1">1985 </li><li style="flex:1">1986 </li><li style="flex:1">1987 </li><li style="flex:1">1988 </li><li style="flex:1">1989 </li><li style="flex:1">1990 </li><li style="flex:1">1991 </li><li style="flex:1">1992 </li><li style="flex:1">1993 </li><li style="flex:1">1994 </li><li style="flex:1">1995 </li><li style="flex:1">1996 </li><li style="flex:1">1997 </li><li style="flex:1">Average </li></ul>Quantity (Thousand Metric Tons) All sectors Commercial Municipal 1,581 501 839 1,672 489 895 1,773 495 939 1,897 526 978 2,110 519 1,146 445 2,080 513 1,089 478 2,052 512 1,045 495 2,090 546 1,072 471 2,213 591 1,061 561 2,268 600 1,069 600 2,371 637 1,105 629 2,503 701 1,132 671 2,599 760 1,147 692 2,626 805 1,084 736 2,632 824 1,014 794 2,721 859 993 2,784 893 972 2,769 879 909 2,767 885 925 2,290 660 1,022 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">608 </li><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li><li style="flex:1">241 </li><li style="flex:1">289 </li><li style="flex:1">340 </li><li style="flex:1">392 </li><li style="flex:1">869 </li><li style="flex:1">919 </li><li style="flex:1">981 </li><li style="flex:1">957 </li></ul>Value (Million Pesos) All sectors Commercial Municipal <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">10,537 11,644 </li><li style="flex:1">13,954 </li></ul>4,125 6,964 2,866 15,064 4,355 7,316 3,393 18,982 4,643 9,540 4,799 25,650 6,521 11,863 7,266 31,297 7,857 14,716 8,724 37,332 9,248 17,252 10,832 37,349 9,821 16,108 11,421 42,118 10,270 16,633 15,213 45,094 11,033 18,388 15,673 52,177 12,411 19,300 20,467 60,033 15,245 22,133 22,656 65,444 16,801 22,656 25,987 70,216 18,021 22,031 30,163 80,192 20,715 24,475 35,003 83,057 23,065 26,464 33,527 83,139 24,555 25,373 33,211 80,745 45,475 25,935 12,206 27,393 16,841 27,417 16,427 3,512 5,364 1,660 3,785 6,018 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1,842 </li><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li></ul>Source: BAS (various years) 5Table 2. Annual growth rates of fisheries production, by subsector, Philippines, 1980-1997 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1980 </li><li style="flex:1">1981 </li><li style="flex:1">1982 </li><li style="flex:1">1983 </li><li style="flex:1">1984 </li><li style="flex:1">1985 </li><li style="flex:1">1986 </li><li style="flex:1">1987 </li><li style="flex:1">1988 </li><li style="flex:1">1989 </li><li style="flex:1">1990 </li><li style="flex:1">1991 </li><li style="flex:1">1992 </li><li style="flex:1">1993 </li><li style="flex:1">1994 </li><li style="flex:1">1995 </li><li style="flex:1">1996 </li><li style="flex:1">1997 </li><li style="flex:1">Average </li></ul>Quantity (Percent) All sectors Commercial Municipal 5.76 -2.44 6.59 6.02 1.29 4.92 6.99 6.37 4.23 11.25 -1.33 17.13 13.46 -1.42 -1.16 -4.95 7.37 -1.36 -0.25 -4.02 3.52 1.82 6.68 2.58 -4.81 5.91 8.24 -1.07 19.11 2.49 1.49 0.72 6.88 4.55 6.17 3.38 4.97 5.58 9.98 2.47 6.64 3.82 8.45 1.32 3.17 1.03 5.94 -5.44 6.35 0.24 2.42 -6.49 7.77 3.38 4.23 -2.11 9.51 2.32 3.95 -2.08 5.74 -0.54 -1.58 -6.46 6.74 -0.10 0.63 1.68 -2.40 3.21 3.28 0.69 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">8.16 </li><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li><li style="flex:1">19.90 </li><li style="flex:1">17.39 </li><li style="flex:1">15.55 </li></ul>Value (Percent) All sectors Commercial Municipal 10.51 7.76 12.18 10.94 19.83 8.98 15.72 55.57 7.96 5.59 5.05 26.01 6.60 30.40 41.43 35.13 40.46 24.35 51.40 22.02 20.49 24.05 20.07 19.28 17.70 17.23 24.16 0.05 6.19 -6.63 5.44 12.77 4.58 3.26 7.06 7.43 10.55 3.02 15.71 12.48 4.96 15.06 22.84 14.68 10.70 9.01 10.21 2.37 7.29 7.27 -2.76 16.07 14.21 14.95 11.09 16.04 3.57 11.35 8.13 0.10 6.46 -4.12 -0.94 -2.88 5.62 7.96 12.37 12.05 9.92 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li><li style="flex:1">18.42 </li><li style="flex:1">33.20 </li><li style="flex:1">30.59 </li><li style="flex:1">14.70 </li><li style="flex:1">-4.22 </li><li style="flex:1">-17.45 </li><li style="flex:1">18.29 </li></ul>Source: Table 1 6In contrast to the commercial and municipal fisheries, aquaculture registered impressive average annual production growth rates for the 1979- 1997 period. In terms of volume and value of production, it also surpassed the other subsectors as the leading producer of fish by the second half of the nineties. This development highlights the increasing role of the aquaculture subsector as the main source of production growth in the entire fisheries sector. Despite its rosy performance, there are foreboding signs that the aquaculture subsector is also facing tough times like the rest of fisheries. The value of aquaculture production has dropped since 1995 while volume has decreased in 1997. This warns that aquaculture may follow in the way of commercial and municipal fisheries and worsen further the already difficult situation in the entire fisheries sector if nothing is done to effectively address its various problems. As mentioned, milkfish production comes mainly from aquaculture. This is reflected by the production figures for the 1979-1997 period which show the dominant contribution of aquaculture to total mikfish production (Tables 3 and 4). Commercial fisheries contributes almost nothing to total production while municipal fisheries has a positive but minimal contribution. The data suggests that any significant growth in milkfish output in the future can be realized practically only through aquaculture. As in the case of aquaculture and fisheries in general, the milkfish <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">industry is confronting serious challenges. In both quantity and </li><li style="flex:1">value </li></ul>terms, the production of milkfish has greatly declined during several years 7Table 3. Annual milkfish production, by subsector, Philippines, 1979-1997 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 </li><li style="flex:1">Average </li><li style="flex:1">1984 </li><li style="flex:1">1985 </li><li style="flex:1">1986 </li><li style="flex:1">1987 </li><li style="flex:1">1988 </li><li style="flex:1">1989 </li><li style="flex:1">1990 </li><li style="flex:1">1991 </li><li style="flex:1">1992 </li><li style="flex:1">1993 </li><li style="flex:1">1994 </li><li style="flex:1">1995 </li><li style="flex:1">1996 </li><li style="flex:1">1997 </li></ul>Quantity (Metric Tons) All sectors Commercial Municipal 133,244 134,754 236,331 252,157 245,258 238,039 193,837 184,910 199,246 191,982 195,648 213,751 237,071 170,459 152,198 161,486 158,324 153,759 159,948 190,126 0.00 982 0.00 163 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li></ul>364 0.05 187 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.06 </li><li style="flex:1">0.01 </li><li style="flex:1">0.05 </li><li style="flex:1">0.02 </li><li style="flex:1">0.01 </li><li style="flex:1">0.01 </li><li style="flex:1">0.03 </li><li style="flex:1">0.06 </li><li style="flex:1">0.22 </li></ul>175 0.05 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">11,305 </li><li style="flex:1">12,412 </li><li style="flex:1">6,699 </li><li style="flex:1">5,405 </li><li style="flex:1">1,719 </li><li style="flex:1">4,105 </li><li style="flex:1">2,752 </li><li style="flex:1">2,869 </li><li style="flex:1">2,948 </li><li style="flex:1">3,394 </li><li style="flex:1">3,233 </li><li style="flex:1">5,135 </li><li style="flex:1">7,466 </li><li style="flex:1">3,608 </li><li style="flex:1">3,943 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li><li style="flex:1">132,262 134,591 225,026 239,745 238,559 237,675 193,650 179,505 197,527 187,877 192,896 210,882 234,123 167,065 148,965 156,351 150,858 150,151 159,773 186,183 </li></ul>Value ( Million Pesos) All sectors Commercial Municipal 1,190 0 1,373 0 2,475 0 2,887 0 3,199 0 3,936 0 4,481 0 4,827 0 4,494 0 5,106 0 5,395 0 7,187 0 7,953 0 7,648 693 6,887 330 8,715 447 9,908 1,710 96 12,486 3,738 -<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">8,992 </li><li style="flex:1">5,744 </li></ul>1,384 94 -<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">-</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">0</li><li style="flex:1">97 </li><li style="flex:1">62 </li><li style="flex:1">68 </li><li style="flex:1">70 </li><li style="flex:1">119 </li><li style="flex:1">86 </li><li style="flex:1">157 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li><li style="flex:1">1,190 </li><li style="flex:1">1,373 </li><li style="flex:1">2,475 </li><li style="flex:1">2,887 </li><li style="flex:1">3,199 </li><li style="flex:1">3,936 </li><li style="flex:1">4,481 </li><li style="flex:1">4,827 </li><li style="flex:1">4,494 </li><li style="flex:1">5,009 </li><li style="flex:1">5,333 </li><li style="flex:1">7,120 </li><li style="flex:1">7,883 </li><li style="flex:1">6,836 </li><li style="flex:1">6,471 </li><li style="flex:1">8,111 </li><li style="flex:1">8,102 </li><li style="flex:1">8,748 </li><li style="flex:1">8,992 </li><li style="flex:1">5,340 </li></ul>Source: PCAMRD (1998) 8Table 4. Annual growth rates of milkfish production, by subsector, Philippines, 1980-1997 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1980 </li><li style="flex:1">1981 </li><li style="flex:1">1982 </li><li style="flex:1">1983 </li><li style="flex:1">1984 </li><li style="flex:1">1985 </li><li style="flex:1">1986 </li><li style="flex:1">1987 </li><li style="flex:1">1988 </li><li style="flex:1">1989 </li><li style="flex:1">1990 </li><li style="flex:1">1991 </li><li style="flex:1">1992 </li><li style="flex:1">1993 </li><li style="flex:1">1994 </li><li style="flex:1">1995 </li><li style="flex:1">1996 </li><li style="flex:1">1997 </li><li style="flex:1">Average </li></ul>Quantity (Percent) All sectors Commercial Municipal 1.13 0.00 -83.40 6,835.58 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">75.38 </li><li style="flex:1">6.70 </li><li style="flex:1">-2.74 </li><li style="flex:1">-2.94 </li><li style="flex:1">-18.57 </li><li style="flex:1">-4.61 </li><li style="flex:1">7.75 </li><li style="flex:1">-3.65 </li><li style="flex:1">1.91 </li><li style="flex:1">9.25 </li><li style="flex:1">10.91 </li><li style="flex:1">-28.10 </li></ul>-62.75 15.13 -10.71 -47.37 -4.74 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">6.10 </li><li style="flex:1">-1.96 </li><li style="flex:1">-2.88 </li><li style="flex:1">4.03 </li><li style="flex:1">2.61 </li></ul>56.63 520.86 2.49 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li></ul>9.79 6.54 0.00 -46.03 -0.49 0.00 -94.57 -0.37 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">0.00 -100.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li></ul>-68.20 10.04 0.00 138.80 -4.89 0.00 -32.96 2.67 -90.63 4.25 750.00 2.75 0.00 58.83 4.96 200.00 45.39 -3.51 100.00 -51.67 -0.47 270.00 -95.15 6.41 -48.63 2,790.37 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li><li style="flex:1">1.76 </li><li style="flex:1">67.19 </li><li style="flex:1">-18.52 </li><li style="flex:1">-7.30 </li><li style="flex:1">9.32 </li><li style="flex:1">11.02 </li><li style="flex:1">-28.64 </li><li style="flex:1">-10.83 </li></ul>Value (Percent) All sectors Commercial Municipal 15.33 0.00 80.31 0.00 16.63 0.00 10.81 0.00 23.03 0.00 13.85 0.00 7.72 0.00 0.00 7.72 -6.90 0.00 0.00 -6.90 13.62 0.00 5.66 0.00 33.22 0.00 10.65 0.00 -3.83 0.00 -9.95 -52.38 -27.51 -5.34 26.53 35.45 81.51 25.34 13.69 282.55 -39.10 -0.11 26.02 118.60 0.00 -27.98 0.00 13.80 21.35 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">3.43 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">0.00 </li><li style="flex:1">-35.81 </li></ul>6.47 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">8.72 </li><li style="flex:1">3.36 </li><li style="flex:1">70.52 </li></ul>-13.28 0.00 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Aquaculture </li><li style="flex:1">15.33 </li><li style="flex:1">80.31 </li><li style="flex:1">16.63 </li><li style="flex:1">10.81 </li><li style="flex:1">23.03 </li><li style="flex:1">13.85 </li><li style="flex:1">11.46 </li><li style="flex:1">33.51 </li><li style="flex:1">10.72 </li><li style="flex:1">7.96 </li><li style="flex:1">2.80 </li><li style="flex:1">13.35 </li></ul>Source: Table 3

The Milkfish Broodstock-Hatchery Research and Development Program and Industry: a Policy Study

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support