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 Services, Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner.

Funding for this project provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture 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 aquiferwaters, 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 andcompetition 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 shrimpculture 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 includesdirect 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 asLitopenaeus 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 alkalinitygreater 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 announcedthat 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 specializingin 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 increasedfrom 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. Shipmentsof 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% fromthe high of $6.10 in July 2000 to the 2003 average of $3.15 per pound.

9

7.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02

Date

Pri

ce p

er p

ou

n

4.00

5.00

6.00d

d-raised

havior and Product Preferences

Figure 1.1. U.S. Wholesale Shrimp Prices, Central & South American, Pon White Shrimp, 41-50 count

Shrimp Buying Be

ts

d

ny non-coastal metropolitan areas of the country; this is becoming evenore pronounced given the rapid development of inland aquaculture (Adams, 1998).

nsistent with a noted consumer preference for conveniencend ease of preparation.

nHawaii and found that the shrimp dealers sold shrimp in six forms: frozen head-off,

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 coasor in large cities such as Chicago, and many of these combine retail sales with a wholesale or restaurant business. Similarly, specialty wholesalers of seafood arelocated almost exclusively in coastal states or the largest inland cities and primarily supply restaurants (Dore, 2000). Activities associated with the wholesale, retail, anfood service sectors of the seafood industry create significant economic activity within mamAlthough 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), coa

General information concerning retailer and wholesaler shrimp purchase behavior was extracted from three studies. Shang (1990) interviewed 63 fish distributors i

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 solfresh 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 treason, firms that relied on U.S. supply sources did so for “best quality” or “steadysupply.”

d;

heir

s

capacity.

irth and Davis (2004, 2003a) surveyed 3038 seafood dealers in the nine states omprising the southeastern U.S. Dealers were asked to describe their business in rms of the percentage of their total sales in each of four specified categories: holesale to wholesale, wholesale to retail, retail, and other. For this report, dealers ere classified as “wholesalers” if they indicated that more than 50% of their total ales were wholesale-to-wholesale and/or wholesale to retail. Similarly, dealers were

of re po s, suggestingle g

v uestions about their current shrimp buying practices. 5 2) indicated that they currently purchase shrimp and u imp purchases. Table 1.1 presents the total pounds a about two-thirds of dealers who buy shrimp purchase a lly. Almost 10% buy more than one million pounds

nnually.

Schumann (2000) surveyed 87 Florida shrimp broker/distributors. Of 18 respondentto the question about willingness to purchase live shrimp, only 2 indicated that theycurrently purchase live shrimp and 6 confirmed that they would probably purchaselive 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 farmproduction

Wctewwsclassified as “retailers” if they indicated that more than 50% of their total sales were

were fairly evenly split between these designations, but retail. Respondentsapproximately 70% sponding dealers re

re diverse, sellinrted some retail sale

ltiple markets.that many seafood dea rs a in mu

Dealers were asked se eral qOf those responding, 8

n% (21

reported their total an al shrpurchased by these de50,000 pounds or less

lers;nnua

a

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 hrimp dealers purchase some whole, head-on shrimp. A significant proportion of s

shrimp dealers also purchase peeled & deveined (p&d) tails and peeled &tails.undeveined (pud)

0

10

20

30

40

50

larger than

16/20

16/20 21/25 26/30 31/35 36/40 41/50 smaller tha

41/50

% s

hri

mp

dea

lers

60

90

100

n

shrimp size

Figure 1.2. Percent of Shrimp Dealers Currently Buying Any Shrimp in Specified Sizes

80

70

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

90

whole s pu butterfly

p product fo

erce p Dea ntly Buyi rimp in S

rs w to rag the f most in their s hase dec

.2 shows t ating ( ure for all dealers for tified alers or r tings we

among rs an Quality, freshness, and smell were the st import prod s to the r dealers,

ean 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

70

80

100

tail p&d tails d tails other

shrim rm

% o

f sh

rim

p d

eale

rs

Figure 1.3. P Forms

nt of Shrim lers Curre ng Any Sh pecified

Seafood deale ere asked te various shrimp product features from 0-10, with 10 indicatinTable 1

eature is “he mean r

important”ranking) of each product feat

hrimp purc isions.

combined and those iden as wholes etailers. Ra reconsistent wholesale d retailers.three mo ant shrimp uct feature esponding each withm

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

Feature

Mean Rating (Ranking)

ALLDEALER

WHOLESAL COMBO/OTHER RETAILERSS

ERS

Quality 9.51 (1) 9.57 (1) 9.38 (1) 9.61 (1)ess 8.82 (2) 8.88 (2) 8.44 (5) 9.03 (3)

) 9.12 (2)rice 7.73 (4) 8.04 (5) 7.06 (10) 7.78 (4)

)

(12) 6.63 (10) 4.27 (15) 5.79 (12) resh 4.64 (13) 4.22 (15) 4.33 (14) 5.00 (13)

Whole 4.29 (14) 4.19 (16) 4.32 (14) ountry-of-

(16)

0)

FreshnSmell 8.75 (3) 8.66 (3) 8.31 (6PColor 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)ConsistentSize

7.37 (7) 7.70 (7) 8.94 (3) 7.10 (8)

Taste 7.17 (8) 7.19 (8) 8.56 (4) 7.38 (6)ConsistentTaste

6.93 (9) 6.97 (9) 9.31 (2) 6.94 (9)

Tails 6.49 (10) 6.42 (11) 7.13 (9) 6.79 (10Raw 5.88 (11) 5.86 (12) 5.33 (12) 6.08 (11) Frozen 5.82F

4.23 (14) COrigin

4.19 (15) 4.32 (13) 5.44 (11) 4.14 (15)

P & D 3.44 (16) 3.53 (18) 4.56 (13) 3.23Wild-Caught 3.40 (17) 3.73 (17) 4.06 (17) 3.16 (17) NutritionalValue

3.14 (18) 4.11 (16) 2.38 (19) 2.74 (19)

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 (2Cooked 1.50 (21) 2.04 (21) 0.93 (21) 1.25 (21)

Wirth and Davis (2003a) also performed a conjoint analysis experiment to determine tate,

s tofor

ve

ating results for buyers whoave similar preference or utility functions can be useful in modifying current

the relative importance of key shrimp product features (size form, refrigeration sand price) on dealers’ purchasing decisions (Table 1.3). Conjoint analysis, which has become a popular marketing research tool for designing new products, referany decompositional method that estimates the structure of buyers’ preferencesa product’s features, given the buyers’ overall evaluations of a set of alternatiproducts 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, aggreghproducts 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 Deale

Attribute Relative Importance*

rs

ALL DEALERS WHOLESALERS COMBO/OTHER RETAILERSSize 23.3 26.1 26.4 17.9State 2.2 4.4 1.9 5.5 Form 45.3 35.2 31.9 52.0Price 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 mto the product ut

oreility value than any other feature or feature level. Price contributed

r

sassociated 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 andfarmed finfish. In addition, most studies specifically explore consumer seafood preferences, rather than restaurant buyer purchase behavior. Shang (1990) urveyed 58 restaurants in Honolulu, Hawaii. Quality of the shrimp, characterized by rmness and color of flesh, was identified as a significant product characteristic at

were

statesn of

seafood restaurants included in the InfoUSA database for the southeastern states.

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 ofrozen) has no significant effect on the product rating, suggesting that dealers arecompletely 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 expenditure

sfithe restaurant level. High product quality, consistent supply, and lower pricesmost often cited as preconditions for increased sales.

Wirth and Davis (2002, 2001a) surveyed 2465 seafood restaurants in the ninecomprising the southeastern U.S. This sample represents the entire populatio

15

The survey included questions concerning the location, size and style of the restaurant, shrimp purchase behavior, willingness to buy directly from shrimp

rmers, and a conjoint experiment.

rt area,

e-$20 range,

nd 91% of the seafood restaurants reported an average dinner entrée price of $20.00 or less.

estaurant buyers were asked several questions concerning their current shrimp urchase 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

fa

One-third (32%) of the responding seafood restaurants were located in a resoand 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 findining establishments. The average dinner entrée price was in the $11a

Rp

1 .5

157 76.6

27 13.2

12 5.9

4 2.0

1 .5

3 1.5

205 100.0

6

211

0

1-50,000

50,001-100,000

100,001-250,000

250,001-1,000,000

1,000,001-5000,000

more than 5,000,000

Total

Valid

Invalid

Total

Number ofRestaurants

Percent ofValid

Responses

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

staurant shrimp buyers indicated that 50% or more of their total shrimp purchases re in the form of tails and 23% indicated that 100% of their shrimp purchases are in is form. Further, 89% of the respondents indicated that they currently purchase no hole shrimp. Shrimp farmers may have difficulty in marketing shrimp directly to staurants without first processing their product to remove the heads.

reathwre

Shrimp Size

other size

smaller than 41/50

41/50

36/40

31/35

0

21/2

16/20

100

90

60

0

10

0

26/3

5

Perc

ent R

esta

ura

nts

Curr

ently B

uyin

g S

ize

80

70

50

4

30

20

F nt o aurants ntly Buying Specified Shrimp Sizes igure 1.4. Perce f Rest Curre

17

Shrimp Product Form

other formbutterflypud tailsp&d tailss

0Perc

ent R

esta

ura

nts

Curr

ently B

uyin

g F

orm

50

40

30

20

10

100

90

80

70

60

tailwhole

Figure 1.5. Percent of

S d restau yers were asked s the importance of various shrimpproduct features. The seafood restaurant buyers were asked to rate various shrimp

at the feature is “most important” in eir shrimp purchase decisions. The mean ratings for each product feature are

re withins for the

tage

ket

Restaurants Currently Buying Specified Shrimp Forms

eafoo rant bu to asses

product features from 0-10, with 10 indicating ththshown in Table 1.5. Not surprisingly, quality and taste are most important productfeatures 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 athe control of shrimp farmers, are the third and fourth highest rated featuremajority of restaurant buyers. Consistency may represent a competitive advanfor 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 marresistance 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 ProductFeature

MeanRating

StandardDeviation

Quality 9.88 0.68Taste 9.63 1.29Consistent size 9.60 1.22Consistent taste 9.56 1.31Smell 9.39 1.53Price 9.34 1.41Size 9.29 1.54Freshness 9.18 2.11Tails 8.44 2.96Raw 8.04 3.39Color 7.79 2.59Frozen 7.31 2.99

3.00 3.44Imported 2.57 3.11

Country of origin 5.07 3.94P & D 4.90 4.26Nutritional value 4.61 3.50Fresh (not frozen) 3.94 3.69Farm-raised 3.67 3.67Wild-caught

Whole 2.28 3.47Cooked 1.47 2.92

The low importance ratings of several shrimp product features, especially for fres(not frozen), farm-raised, wild-caught, and imported are not favorable for farm-raiseshrimp. The restaurant buyers preferred frozen shrimp instead of fresh shrimpFurther, they did not seem to care whether the shrimp were farm-raised, wild-caught

r imported. This result suggests that shrimp farmers w

hd.,

ill not have a competitive r

omarketing advantage because their product is farm-raised, instead of wild-caught oimported.

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 almost60% 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 littleor 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.

arge size (26-35 tails/pound) shrimp had a higher utility value than extra-large (16-L25 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 thsize 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 expensiverestaurants, in particular, indicate a willingness to purchase the largest (typically most expensive) size of shrimp, in the form of tails, directly from shrimp farmers. Aprice premium in the restaurant market may offset any

an

processing costs for the hrimp farmer. However, research has not clearly identified any characteristics of s

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

rm,

ncome,

uct.e in quantity to a one-percent

hange in price (income). Demand is termed elastic if the elasticity exceeds one (in e

t

asing with increasing price.

Since total sales or revenue is price times quantity sold, when the price elasticity of emand is inelastic, a reduction in price increases the quantity demanded less than

d, they areer

everal studies have examined consumer expectations for shrimp and seafood in r and

aroma that is characteristic of the species (Dore, 2000). Consumers are influenced y nutrition and health considerations in their decision to purchase shrimp or other eafood (Gempesaw, et al., 1995; Nauman, et al., 1995), although there are limits to

oltz, 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

The literature addresses three distinct aspects of consumer purchase behavior for shrimp and seafood in general: (1) preferences for species, size, and product fo(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, iand household size.

In economics, the price (income) elasticity of demand succinctly describes the relationship between price (income) and quantity demanded for a particular prodPrice (income) elasticity refers to the percentage changcabsolute value), while it is called inelastic if the value lies between zero and on(Lesser, 1993). An inelastic demand means that the quantity demanded does nochange 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 decre

dproportionally 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 produceconsumed; the quantity sold is typically determined by the amount supplied. Highquantities decrease prices more than proportionally, while lower quantities increaseprices 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).

Sgeneral. Consumers demand freshness; the shrimp must have a pleasant flavo

bsthe 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, andtend to perceive aquaculturally produced seafood, in general, as safer than wild-caught (Nauman, et al., 1995; F

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 popularityof 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 becomingolder, there may be increasing opportunities to market shrimp to older Americans (Nayga and Capps, 1995).

ehold size, age, and income areemographic variables that affect the likelihood of eating shellfish away from home.

hildre ehold (Hanson, et al., 1995). Similar to at home hellfis income are positively related with the likelihood of

both away-from-homeshrimp consumption, i.e. restaurant consum

mail survey included a conjoint analysis experiment to quantify the relative

egion, urbanization, employment, diet status, housRdPrior 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 way from home. In general, restaurant consumption of seafood decreases if a

c n are present in the housh consumption, age ands

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 stratifiedsample 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 hopping habits, and shrimp preferences and purchasing behavior. The shrimp s

purchasing behavior questions elicited information aboutption, and at-home shrimp consumption.

Theimportance 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

s report more frequent away-from-home shrimp consumption than do hite respondents. Consumers were also asked to identify the proportion of their

of 2.40.

was “doesn’t like the taste”.

Away-from-home Consumption:

Consumers were asked how often they eat shrimp away from home; responses aresummarized in Table 1.7. The most frequent response was once per month (28%), followed closely by once every three months (25%). Black and Hispanic respondentwrestaurant meals that include shrimp. The most frequent response (24%) was twomeals in ten, and the mean was 3.34 meals in ten, with a standard deviationBlack 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

10 2.0

76 15.1

125 24.9

142 28.2

106 21.1

44 8.7

503 100.0

29

532

never

once every six months

once every three months

once per month

twice per month

other

Total

Valid

Invalid

Total

Number ofConsumers

Percent ofValid

Responses

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

other shrimp dish

shrimp over rice

shrimp

over pasta

tailsin sauce

boiledor steam

ed

broiledshrim

p

breaded & fried

shrimp

cocktail

shrimp in salad

Num

ber

of C

onsum

ers

, N

=532

400

300

200

100

0

Figure 1.6. Shrimp Dishes Ordered in Restaurants

Only 18% of consumers indicated that their shrimp purchases at restaurants vary by erms ofto be lowest in

inter and highest in summer among those whose purchases vary seasonally.

8. Consumers

season; these consumers were asked to rank the four seasons in testaurant shrimp. Overall, restaurant purchases of shrimp appearr

w

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

equency of at-home shrimp consumption is presented in Table 1.frwere 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%). Blackrespondents appear to eat shrimp at home more frequently than other respondents.

24

Table 1.8. Frequency of At-Home Shrimp Consumption

4 1.0

64 15.6

110 26.8

106 25.8

104 25.3

23 5.6

411 100.0

121

532

never

once every six months

once every three months

once per month

twice per month

other

Total

Valid

Invalid

Total

Number ofConsumers

Percent ofValid

Responses

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

at consumers mistake thawed,reviously frozen shrimp for fresh, never frozen shrimp. A surprising 31% of onsumers report purchasing whole, head-on shrimp. These are very encouraging

s

0. Shrimp for at-home use was most likely to be purchased in a upermarket (65%) or at a seafood market (43%). Consumers also reported the

r

.

widely available in supermarkets, and it is possible thpcresults for U.S. shrimp farmers, who primarily wish to sell fresh, whole shrimp, thuminimizing the need for processing permits and formal HACCP food safety programs.

The locations where shrimp is purchased for at-home consumption are shown inFigure 1.1sfrequency of shrimp purchases from a grocery store and from a seafood market. Foboth 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

other state

f

in

ck

individually frozen

prev

n

fresh, nev

zen

200

100

0

rozen

blo

iously froze

er fro

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

nsu

me

rs,

N=

53

2

400

300

Figure 1.7. Shrimp Refrigeration States Purchased for At-home Use

other form

bree

&undev

e

&devein

ell-ontails

ole, head-

400

00

0

aded

peled

eined

peled

ed

shwh

on

Num

ber

of

Consum

ers

, N

=532

300

2

100

igure 1.8. Forms of Shrimp Purchased for At-home Use F

26

ot

400

her size

maller than 50/lb

lb

36-40

26-316-20

s41-50//lb/lb0/lb/lb/lb

31-35

21-25

Num

ber

of

Consum

ers

, N

=532 300

200

100

0

Figure 1.9. Sizes of Shrimp Purchased for At-home Use

other plac

400

300

er boat

stand

odstore

market

oceryrket

nter

docko

roadside

health fo

seafood

small gr

superma

super ce

100

0Nu

mb

er

of

Co

nsu

me

rs,

N=

53

2

200

Figure 1.10. Places where Shrimp is Purchased for At-home Use

27

Consumers who purchase shrimp while grocery shopping were asked to indicatefactors 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 ineir purchases for at-home consumption by rating each feature on a scale from 0 –

ed to

ding, purchase price was the second most ighly rated feature, following only freshness.

roduct

more highly than frozen, and the mean rating r shell-on tails was higher than that for peeled and deveined shrimp, and both of

p.

th10, with 10 most important. The mean ratings for those features were then sortindicate 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 responh

The importance rating attached to farm-raised and wild-harvested as shrimp pfeatures was very low. The mean rating for farmed shrimp was higher than that forwild-harvested; fresh shrimp was ratedfothese forms were more highly rated than whole shrim

other factor

special occasion

time

of year

nutritional valertisem

layce

ue

coupon

store adv

ent

sizeprice

store disp

appearan

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

nsu

me

rs,

N=

53

2

400

300

200

100

0

igure 1.11. Factors Influencing Shrimp PurchasesF

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

ils indicates a potential obstacle to erence decreases

preference for peeled and deveined shrimp tadirect marketing without processing. In addition, prefapproximately linearly with increasing price.

29

Table 1.9. Mean Ratings and Rankings for Shrimp Product Features ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANICShrimp

FeatureMean

Rating Rating RatingRank

RatingRank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean

freshness 9.53

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

smell 8.83 4 8.74 4 9.39 2 8.82

consistent 7.94 5 7.84 5 8.80 5 7.80 7

1 9.44 1 9.97 1 9.91 1

4

3

tastecolor 7.86 6 7.77 8.74 6 7.20 9

purchaseprice

7.84 7 7.76 7 8.45 7 9.00 2

freshstate

7.58 8 7.51 8 7.53 8 7.27 8

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

consistentsize

6.44 11 6.31 11 6.47 10 7.89 6

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

6.17 14 6.80 12

15/16

form5/16

18 3.93 18 5.19 17 3.00 19

20

21

6

deveinednutritional 5.21 14 4.89 15 valuefrozenstate

5.16 15 5.18 14 4.74 19 4.80

countryof origin

4.87 16 4.63 16 6.43 11 3.90 17

whole 4.53 17 4.45 17 5.48 16 4.80 1

cooked 4.10

farmed 3.29 19 2.97 19 4.80 18 3.80 18

wild –caught

3.02 20 2.81 20 3.17 20 2.89

Imported 2.50 21 2.31 21 3.07 21 2.56

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 Importance

RelativeImportance

RelativeImportance

RelativeImportance

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 nd comparisons of wild-caught or imported shrimp with U.S. farm-raised shrimp.

with each statement on a Likert cale, a 5-level scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Responses

when

aThey were asked to indicate their level of agreementsto each of these questions are presented in Tables 1.12 – 1.15. To every questioncontrasting 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 thegeneral unfamiliarity of these consumers with U.S. farm-raised shrimp.

Most consumers (73%) agreed “water pollution is the primary cause of unsafeshrimp.” The vast majority (86%) also agreed "it is important to know the datethe shrimp were harvested." However, the harvest date is rarely shown on shrimppurchased 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.

19 3.9

11 2.2

8 1.6

33 6.7

95 19.3

327 66.3

493 100.0

39

532

don't know

strongly disagree

somewhat disagree

neutral

somewhat agree

strongly agree

Total

Valid

Invalid

Total

Number ofConsumers

Percent ofValid

Responses

32

Table 1.13. Consumer Response to the Statement:

Farm-raised shrimp are of higher quality than

wild-harvested shrimp.

236 47.2

6 1.2

22 4.4

118 23.6

67 13.4

51 10.2

500 100.0

32

532

don't know

strongly disagree

somewhat disagree

neutral

somewhat agree

strongly agree

Total

Valid

Invalid

Total

Number ofConsumers

Percent ofValid

Responses

able 1.14. Consumer Response to the Statement: T

Farm-raised shrimp are safer than wild-harvested shrimp.

204 41.1

4 .8

18 3.6

90 18.1

125 25.2

55 11.1

496 100.0

36

532

don't know

strongly disagree

somewhat disagree

neutral

Percent of

somewhat agree

strongly agree

Total

Valid

Invalid

Total

Number ofConsumers

ValidResponses

33

Table 1.15. Consumer Response to the Statement:

U.S. farm-raised shrimp are safer than imported shrimp.

201 40.4

3 .6

8 1.6

67 13.5

123 24.7

96 19.3

498 100.0

34

532

don't know

strongly disagree

somewhat disagree

neutral

somewhat

Percent ofNumber ofConsumers

ValidResponses

agree

strongly agree

Total

Valid

Invalid

Total

34

35

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 ki s to be used by the Project. tchen facilitie

Fig. 2.1 Site Selection and Land Clearing

The site was surveyed and staked out by DAC's engineer Phillip Metcalf. GulfStream Construction began clearing the brush and roots. Once this was ccomplished Gulf Stream began the excavation and movement of earth that would

d theabecome the Project's four production ponds, its Storm Water Retention Pond anborrow 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 factorscaused the design to change some what. T e menlargement of the Storm Water Retention Pond (SWRP)

h ost notable of which was the and the borrow pit. The

orrow pit was enlarged primarily because the water table prevented the contractor soil. Instead he had to enlarge the

dimensions of the borrow pit to acquire the necessary yardage.

bfrom going deeper to obtain the necessary

36

Table 2.1 Pond Design CriteriaProject UF/IFAS, IRREC Aquaculture Project Fact Sheet

Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell

Pond Drain/flow-fill requirements

Per Pond Vol.

Total Pond Vol.

Minutes

1440

73 ft.

Pond # 1

Growout

221 ft.

12 73 12 |

6 8

Road 400

-a-round 100

Project Manager BCI, Inc.

Date 12/2/04

Work Description Pond Design CriteriaWork by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc.

Construction Assumptions:

Ponds Built 4

Prescribed (Grant) Pond Area 1500 m2 16146 ft2

Pond Inside Dimensions*

Shoulder length ft. 221 ft 67.4 m 2,

Shoulder width ft. 73 ft 22.3 m

Water line length ft. 208 ft 63.4 m

Water line width ft. 61 ft 18.6 m

Water Depth Avg 6 ft 1.8 m

Side wall volume loss 3528 ft3

Pond Volume 72600 ft3 P

Pond Surface Area (As built) 16133 ft2 1499.35 m2

Pond Water Surface Area 12688 ft2 1179 m2

0.29 ac 0.12 ha

Pond Earthwork

levee ht. (earth moved) 8 ft

high water tables.)

levee slope 2

levee crown 12 ft ------6

cross sectional volume 8 yd3/lin.ft.

levees - x 682 ft/3 --|

levees - y 1105 ft/3

Cubic yards of earth moved 14825 yd3 Site

Turn

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.

543048 gal.

172,192 gal.

Hours

24

ond # 2

Growout

1------| 12

|------76----

13

100

2055437 L

8221747 L

GPM

377

X

Pond # 3 Pond # 4

Growout Retention

Y

12 12

2 385 yd3

2 741 yd3

1126 yd3

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 TDSwells. 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.

ned from this well was about 500 - very

. Rolland Laramore at the Aquatic

s ofbioassay why this well water should not perform well as the Shrimp

Unfortunately, the highest TDS water obtailow TDS.Water samples were taken from the well to DrAnimal 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 byDomer, 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 weconsidered acceptable. Dr. Laramore performed a second bioassay and had very good survival for and extended period. He said he saw no reason given the limithis two weekProjects primary growout water resource. (See Table 2.2)

37

Fig. 2.2 Deep Well Installation and Completion

Table 2.2 Deep Well Analysis and ComparisonProject University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project

Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell

Project Manager BCI, Inc.

Date

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.

PARAMETER Results 800' Results 940' Results 1070' UNITSAlabam

a -11*

Arizona -

7*

Flori

2

Texas -

9*Alkalinity 260 160 150 mg/L CaCO3Arsenic ND ND 0.0026U mg/LBarium 0.021 0.0237 0.053 mg/LBoron 0.17 0.158 0.18 mg/LCadmium ND ND 0.00070U mg/LCalcium 97 65 110 mg/L 86 494 7 961Hardness Ca 240 162 280 mg/L CaCO3Hardness CaCO3 440 370 680 mg/L CaCO3Chloride 390 440 1100 mg/L 2274 2016 10 3479Chromium 0.0021 ND 0.0018U mg/LCopper ND ND 0.0014U mg/LInitial pH 7.6Iron 4.6 0.040 0.13 mg/LLead ND ND 0.0030U mg/LMagnesium 49 52 87 mg/L 21 86 8 581Manganese 0.079 0.0056 0.0038U mg/LMercury ND ND 0.000060U mg/LPotassium 13 12 20 mg/L 8 11 5 51Selenium ND ND 0.0021U mg/LSilver ND ND 0.0010U mg/LSodium 260 290 600 mg/LSulfide, as S-- 0.50 6.9 3.1 mg/LTotal Dissolved 1100 1200 2100 mg/LTotal Phosphorus 0.031 ND 0.012U mg/LZinc ND ND 0.011 mg/L

12/10/04

* Number of farms in the re ve states

da -

*

4

23

3

5

specti

38

Nur

Thestoc

Lethpotethanlethtemloca

Preeas

EcolowoutsFlorreprgrowthesma

Thecontropsystjusthavshri

Nur

Theits cusewall(Se

Thereci20 ocomwaswall

sery Greenhouse

re are a number of serious risks to shrimp - especially small shrimp that are ked into exposed, outside shrimp ponds:

al Temperatu sks - The sub-tropical climate of south Florida has temperature ntials of 34 to egrees Celsius - or even lower in extremes. Extended (more 12 hours) wa emperatures below 11 degrees Celsius have shown to be

al for L. vanna . L. monodon may be even more sensitive. Unseasonably low peratures in e the spring or fall could spell disaster for Florida shrimp ponds ted outside.

dation risks - E sh shrimp Stage 12 post larvae arriving from the hatchery are y prey for a nu r of species of water beetles and dragon fly nymph larvae.

nomic loss ris ven in the best cases when temperatures are not extremely and when inse re tors are not present - shrimp post larvae stocked into ide ponds ma ll cause their farmer a loss of money. Cool spring weather in ida extended later than normal in 2004. These low temperatures also esented a poten l loss of growth in the standard 5 month commercial shrimp out. This is bec use those cool no growth days experienced at the beginning of

growout in the sp ing - become a penalty to the farmer when he has to harvest ller than normal r smaller than anticipated shrimp.

solution to these risk problems is the use of a temperature moderated or trolled nursery fa ility. In Florida, green houses have been used for shrimp and ical fish nurserie for some time. It was decided to use a greenhouse nurseryem for the IRREC Economic Shrimp Demonstration as well. The primary ifications being th elimination of cold risk, insect predation, and the potential of ing more and lar r (more days of optimum growing temperatures) higher value mp, and the incr sed potential for a two crop outside pond system.

sery Greenhouse Design and Construction

Project erected commercial greenhouse (30'x96') in January of 2004. Within onfines were co tructed four rectangular/oval raceway tanks 9. These tanks d Schedule 80 p ers as their vertical wall supports and treated lumber side s. The tank floo were sloped to a drain system near the center of one end.e Fig. 2.12.)

four nursery tan s were designed with a redundant aeration system and rculating system The first aeration and recirculation system was composed of ne and half in irlifts down each side of each tank. The simple airlifts were posed of a tw ot length of inch and half Sch. 40 PVC pipe. Each airlift pipeattached to a e made of the same PVC material that attached to the tank above the wa ine by stainless steel screws at three points along each of the

re ri-4 dter tmeiither

yelambe

k - Ect p

y sti

tiaaro

cs

egeea

ansiprs

k.

ch ao foframter l

da

39

twowasbub

airlift frames of each tank. A piece of 3/16 inch polypropylene irrigation tubing fixed into a whole at the bottom of each airlift to provide a steady stream of air

bles to operate each airlift.

Thethewhopres

Eacwhepumtankangtheangtank

Fig 2.3 Air Lift Pump and Support Rack

each PP tube was attached to a two inch PVC header attached on the wall oftank over the airlift frame. The tube was pressed into the appropriate sized le in the airlift header - no fitting was required due to the comparatively low sure of the air. (See Fig. 2.3)

h airlift header's air flow was controlled by a single two inch PVC ball valve re the header began at central end of the tank. It was estimated that each airlift p - of the 40 per tank pumped approximately 40 GPM from the bottom of the to the surface. Each airlift pump pipe was set at a 60 degree semi-vertical

le such that its discharge was directional in the angle of the flow. to further affectairlifts flow control each end of the two foot airlift tube was cut off at 45 degree le such that the open end of the bottom of the airlift opened into the oncoming current and discharged in the direction of the tank current. (See Fig. 2.4)

40

nsisted of multiple M swimming pool centrifugal pump powered

from a central drain sump that each independent 6" PVC drain line. Each drain

er from the Water filtered by

inch PVC lines to the spray bars one in

y bar was connected at the center of the ite directions on opposite

flowing current around the raceway.

controlled by a center wall constructed of

ed the mixing of

y bar face were angled to strike the tank's eby creating a "pushing" affect on the

water surface as it injected both water and entrained air into the tanks water surface.

Fig. 2.4 Working Air Lift Pump Discharges

The second aeration and recirculating of the redundant system cospray bars (4) in each tank. A 200 GPthe spray bar system. The pump picks up water of the four tanks drain into via its own line is equipped with stand pipe level control the pump pushes watcommon drain sump through a 10 cubic foot fiberglass bead filter. the bead filter was then pushed through two each of the four tanks in the green house. Each spray bar had 10 holes 3/32"diameter drilled along its face. Each spratank to its opposing twin. Each spray bar spays in oppossides of the tank thereby creating an oval

The oval flow in each of the four tanks was 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 preventthe current entrained by the spray bar.

Water from the line of orifices in the sprawater surface at a low angle of incidence ther

41

42

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 Recirculatin

a six inc 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 stabiliz

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

g 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

h

e it.

43

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)

44

Fig. 2.11 Green House Shrimp Nursery Airlift System

GR O S N R RYP s m

EENHLow

Ure

E SHRIMPsure Air Lift

UPu

SEps

N

FlowTop View

Lift Drain to Storm Water Retention Pond

Air Lift Pumps

LW PRESSURE AIR – 2 “AIR LIFT PUMPS

Blowers

Drains – 6”

= 40 W Florescent Lights

= 110/220 V Outlet

Greenh h

Layo d Co 12/026/03

Reqd. b onnREE

Work b urwrojectCI, Inc

ous

ut an

y: SI

y: DPB

e S rimp Nursery

nstruction Details

y WilliamsonC Aq. Adv. Com. Ch.

ood M. DuggerManager.

Flow

Flow

Well Water

Covered Harvest Sump and Lift Station

45

Fig. 2.12 Green House Shrimp Nursery Water System

Flow

Flow

Top View

Spray bars with recirc. water from sand filter

GREEN USE SHRIMP NURSERYHO

Pump Driven Spray BarRecirc. And Aeration System

Discharge from bead filter “Drain” or “Backwash” to SWRP

Sand filter

46

F allig. 2.13 Green House Shrimp Nursery Center W

Spray Bar – Recirc. WaterAir Manifold and airlift pump air lines Center Wall and Tank Wall Air Lifts

AIR L WA ATIONIFT PUMP (1.25”) AND CENTER LL COMBIN

(2” PVC Pipe frame w/ 60 mil HDPE cover.

Left Side Center Wall

Right Side Center Wall

47

G n H n iews Fig. 2.14 ree ouse Shrimp Nursery Sectio al V

Tank Side View

Green House Nursery CrAt Center of Green

oss SectionHouse

Hold-Down LinFor Center Wal

e Stabil

lizer

GrTa

eennk a .

House Nursery System - nd Harvest System Cross Section

Recirc./Spray Bar Lines

Air Lift Manifold

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.

To Harvest Sump

. sery System

48

Fig 2.15 Green House Shrimp Nur Standpipe Drain

Stand Pipe Level Control

Stand Pipe Screens

Stand Pipe Sleeve

36 “

30 “

6”

Tank Drain an veld Le Control Details

4949

Fig. 2.16 Green House Shrimp Nursery Cover and Liner Fastening

Greenhouse Frame, Cover, and Liner Details

Outside PE Cover + Shade Cloth

Pressure Treated lumber

Cover Attachment Spline

Sloped liner frame seals against greenhouse cover - prevents jumping shrimp from stranding. Dead Air Space

Cover Inside Layer

Liner

Pressure Treated lumber

Growout Pond System Design an n

Pond System

he growout pond system consists of four lined ponds. The ponds are designed to re meters. As such the ponds are approximately

21'x73' with an average depth of water of six feet plus two feet of free board. The

f the four production ponds built, two ponds were lined with 30 mil generic HDPE

t wide

PE -specially after it weathers. Even with a trained and experienced installation crew

welds when it's too cool. It is truly n art form.

he 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.

d Constructio

Toccupy a surface area of 1500 squa2ponds inside slopes were built at a two to one slope, since they would be lined andnot 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. (SeeFig.2.2)

Lining

Oand 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 requireheavy 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 foorolls of HDPE into one continuous leak proof liner. The HDPE is very stiff, especiallywhen 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 HDethe 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 bondeda

T

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

as equipped with a twelve inch PVC drain connecting it to the SWRP.ree elbowe elbow was

et 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.

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 wThe drain and overflow system consisted of a twelve inch PVC - 90 degonnected to the twelve inch horizontal drain line. The vertical leg of thc

s

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. Paddlewheelaerators 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

ident 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.)

ev

Fig. 2.9 Oval Raceway Pond Paddlewheel Aeration and Mixing System

53

Storm water Retention Pond (SWRP)

d

ecause the projects ponds were relatively small, additional soil had to be collected

d

ild the production pond and the WRP produced a borrow pit pond on three sides of the project proper - on the east, orth and west sides of the project.

hrimp Transfer and Harvest Systems

hrimp can be harvested at on a small scale with dip nets, or seines, or even cast ets. These however are very inefficient methods and also often damage both the hrimp that are harvested and as well as those that escape and are left behind. here are generally two basic conceptual methods of commercially harvesting hrimp from a pond.

he first is to use a bag or basket to receive the shrimp from the ponds drain when it harvested. Harvest bags are notorious for splitting when they are full of shrimp.

he also tend to damage the shrimp when they become too heavy causing thehrimp to be pressed against the bags net mesh.

he second method uses center intake centrifugal food pump "shrimp pump" to take e 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.

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 designesuch 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 ofthe shrimp production ponds. It was equipped with a drain identical to the four shrimp production ponds - minus the concrete collar. The 12 inch drain wasinstalled at the lowest point in the north end of the SWRP and connected to the barrow pit pond.

Borrow Pit Pond

Bto build the production ponds levee such that the bottom of these ponds were abovethe existing ground water table. Other wise the lined shrimp production ponds woulhave had water seeping under the liners during periods of high rainfall that raised the local water table. The required dirt fill to buSn

S

SnsTs

TisTs

Tth

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 thelorida Keys, the shrimp project made the nursery tanks ready to receive them. To

h this, the tanks were filled half full of filtered sea water from the sand oint beach well in front of the Florida Institute of Technology's - Vero Beach Marine

truck.

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 degre f e same temperature of the nursery four nursery tanks

uch that each tank received about 100,000 PLs.

ig. 3.1 Receiving and Acclimating Post Larvae in Greenhouse Nursery

FaccomplispLab. The sea water was hauled by a Florida Division of Forestry water tankeras donated contribution to the Project. The sea water which arrived near 36 pptwas diluted to 12 ppt.

es o thtank - the bags were open and divided equally between two of thes

F

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 -articularly near the end of the nursery grow out.

eration and recirculation flows were gradually increased as the post larvae grew.ecirculation flows were increased from about 30 GPM per tank to 50 GPM per nk. Well water as added to the tanks such that tanks averaged between 5-10 % xchanger per day.

ig. 3.2 Greenhouse Nursery Tanks With Juvenile Shrimp

p

ARtae

F

hen outside temperatures were above 24 degrees C the Crop 1 juvenile shrimp ere transferred to the open ponds on May 11. They were approximately 0.10 rams each. The transfer was accomplished by draining each nursery tank into the entral drain and harvest sump. A screened basket was located in the sump to eparate the juvenile shrimp from their tank water. The basket was allowed to fill ith shrimp to the point where it appeared to be prudent to stop the process. Once hrimp were stocked the basket containing the shrimp was raised out the sump by a pe 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 shri p weight into the amount of shrimp weighed - a total count on the harvest shri

Wwgcswsro

mmp 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 w s received on June 10, 2004. Sea water had been hauled by Ranger Construction, Inc. The Florida Forestry water tanker sed for the first crop was occupied putting out forest fires. It was planned that three rops be stocked in the second crop. This would allow a comparison between three

intensive tank productions systems inside the Project's green house ursery. A total of 450,000 PL 12s were received and stocked equally into three of

d

at wasto have

hes possible

a

ucponds and threenthe nursery raceway tanks. The acclimation and rearing procedures were followethe same protocols as the first crop. The acclimation was completed and once againDr. Laramore's post larval and juvenile shrimp feeds were used. One thing thnoted in the first crop was the need for a fine particulate feed in order notsolid 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 tfirst nursery crop. With the availability of increased staff resources, it wato 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 15

13

12

6750

Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 133238 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 133238 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 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 = 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 thecurrent 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 shrimpwere 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.

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

n

-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 11-Jun-04 Friday 0.0 8.0

12-Ju -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

Date Date

CROP 1 - POND 1 CROP 1 - POND 3

Feedings (lbs.) Feedings (lbs.)

64

26-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 20.0

27-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 25.0

26-Jul-04 Monday 0.0 20.0

27-Jul-04 Tuesday 0.0 20.0

28-Jul-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 28-Jul-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0

Jul-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 29-Jul-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0

l-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 30-Jul-04 Friday 25.0 25.0

l-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

0-Aug-04 Friday 25.0 25.0

1-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 50.05-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 50.030-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

29-

30-Ju

31-Ju

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 25.010-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 2

21-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 2

65

20-Oct-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 20-O 04

-O -04

ct- Wednesday 0.0 65.0

21-Oct-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 21 ct 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 Thursday19-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 lbsPond Shrimp Yield = 4345 lbs Pond Shrimp Yield = 3053 lbs

Feed Conversion Ratio = 2.3 :1 Feed Conversion Ratio = 2.97 :1

Feed Conversion Summary

66

67

Table 3.4 Feed Acquired For Shrimp Poject

Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project

rinciple Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell

roject Manager BCI, Inc.

te 12/10/04

ork Description Feed Acquired For Shrimp Project

rk by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc.

Date Source Shipments Lbs

P

P

Da

W

Wo

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

and dissolved oxygen measurements wererning and the afternoons. As the biomass of both shrimp - and most

addition high nitrite levelsere becoming evident. A shrimp die off was noted in Pond 3. At that point the

. With this ratio of molasses the eterotrophic bacterial began to displace the dominant algal bloom. The ponds went

shrimp from the Nursery to Pond 2. This emergency procedure prevented the use of

Water quality - primarily temperature ken in the mota

especially phytoplankton built in the ponds, the diurnal oxygen demand anddifferentials 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 wmolasses level was increased to .5 to 1hfrom a bright green color to a dark brown. Diurnal oxygen swings in demandceased. 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

the prescribed sampling and sample treatment protocols. Sediment and water samples were taken from the Pond 3 during its harvest. Those samples were taketo the UF Soil and Water Testing Laboratory. At the time of this writing the testresults had not been received.

In discussing the TDS with local agriculture specialist it seems clear that water with aTDS of 2100 can not be used for the irrigation of most crops with out salting out thland over time. This would seem to infer that any use of the pond effluent flocculants or sediments would also require separating it fr

n

at

om the high TDS water or aching 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.

le

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

Work Description Water Quality

Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc.

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.

1-Jun-04 Tuesday

2-Jun-04 Wednesday 28.3 5.5

3-Jun-04 Thursday

4-Jun-04 Friday

5-Jun-04 Saturday

12/10/04

Temperature Dis. Oxygen

Crop 2 - Pond 3 Crop 2 - Pond 3

Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen TemperatureDateCrop 1 - Pond 1 Crop 1 - Pond 3 Crop 2 - Pond 2

Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen

P.M.

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

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

28.5 6.1

24-Jul-04 Saturday 28.7 5.90 5.50 28.5 6.1 5.5

day 27.3 5.40 27.8 6.1

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

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

21-Jul-04 Wednesday

22-Jul-04 Thursday

23-Jul-04 Friday

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 Fri

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

69

19-Aug-04 Thursday 28.4 29.6 4.36 5.23 28.4 29.5 5.06 6.7

20-Aug-04 Friday 28.4 30.5 4.43 5.15 28.3 30.8 5.63 7.55

21-Aug-04 Saturday 28.7 30.9 5.21 9.00 28.7 30.2 5.75 7

22-Aug-04 Sunday 27.1 27.1 5.76 6.40 26.8 27.0 6.36 7.6

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

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 Saturday 27.4 28.4 6.22 7.17 27.6 28.6 6.48 8 28.7 29.5 3.72 6.36

12-Sep-04 Sunday 27.2 29.0 5.88 7.53 27.3 29.2 5.95 8.31 28.4 30.0 4.39 6.27

13-Sep-04 Monday 27.4 28.7 7.20 7.73 27.5 28.9 7.67 9.06 28.2 29.4 5.75 7.63

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 Saturday 27.8 29.1 5.07 7.78 27.8 29.3 5.54 8.26 28.7 29.9 5.09 6.64

19-Sep-04 Sunday 27.4 28.8 5.34 8.11 27.6 29.1 5.58 8.75 28.3 29.5 5.23 8.13

20-Sep-04 Monday 26.3 26.6 6.74 6.99 26.5 26.7 7.42 7.72 27.0 27.1 6.6 7.07

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 Monday 25.2 27.2 6.70 7.90 25.2 27.4 6.92 6.62 25.4 27.4 7.1 8.14

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 6.28 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

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

Pond C1 - P3 Harvested

Pond 2 split to Pond 3 & 4

Nusery Tanks to Pond 2

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

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 C1 - P1 Harvested

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

72

Table 3.6 Crop 1 Production Summary

Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004)

Principle estigInv aFerd

6/10/0

tion Crop

Durw1 - Pond 1

matedple Donatio

/Gifts

18210 DG=11

302479 DG=5572 Sold59 DG=3547 DG=352236 DG=2022 DG=10181412

1212

4

32

D HARVEST

ge - shrimp admp blown out ot2 = 6600

Stocki

Total I

Total W

Total N

inand , Ph R swell

Project Manager BCI, Inc.

Dat

54 21

2 818 74 on.

2 Loss29 st Wt.

0 5

1121

111

11 3.592 12 2.13 25581 5 1.72 13201 3 0.891 2 0.65

HU NOTA

* H ded to 22 169* E f pond rricane

Sh 0.30Sh 1 13 Lbs. 131

ng Den 8 ng De 126341 84 m2

nd. Sa 19 nd. Sa = 10430

t. Sa 91 Wt. Sa t Harvest = 414 lbs

umber 126 Number mp Produced

Wirth

4

1 producti

ood M. Dug

ns

TIONS

insure 1 duririmp/Frimp losity =

mpled

mples A

Shrim

.D., LeRoy

on Summa

ger - BCI, I

Avg.ShrimpWt.

1818

18181818131211

9.28

7.426.644.493.722.6

1.751.3

0.74

10 lbs.ng the two hut2 =st =

119998

=

t Harvest =

p Produced

. Cre

ry

nc.

Calc. # ofShrimp inSamples

HanW

228018664631

454297757605993816060778908777249101957213465095038048227

s)

980

774

132

Date

Work De

Work by

es

11/19/0

11/19/0

11/17/0

11/15/0

11/9/0

11/3/0

10/28/0

10/27/0

10/19/0

10/12/0

10/5/0

9/21/0

9/15/0

8/31/0

8/24/0

8/3/0

7/26/0

7/13/0

7/6/0

6/22/0

6/15/0

RRICA

arveststimat

scrip

Crop

EstiSamWts.

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

NE AN

Overaed shri

(F

Crop

fEstiSamWts.

Harv

1 - Pond 3

matedple Donati

Gifts

est32 DG=202418

32 DG=201818

128

12

Stocki

Total I

Total

Total

arvestd Othert. Totals

50 Lbs.

005

95 Lbs.

5

10 m2

5 lbs

Disposition oShrimp

SoldRepl.Proj. Sup. DEst. HarvestTotal Harve

ons/ RecieveShrimp

nsity

mpled

mples A

Shri

rs ofAvg.ShrimpWt.

181817161512

6.24.29

Calc.ShrimSamp

5

8 1

# ofp inles

Ha

688980764151196968102879847

1518

arvestnd Oth

Wt. Tot

225

2

erals

5.5 Lbs.

= 67319

ond P 434 Pond P ion = 3053 lbs

ted Su ted Su = 0.53

t Dens 8 st Dens 45 m2

Total P

Estima

Harves

roduct

rvival

ity =

ion =

=

5 lbs

4 m2

Total

Estima

Harve

roduct

rvival

ity =

1.05

Growout Production - Second Crop

Stocking

he plan to stock Ponds 2, 3 and 4 for Crop 2 after Pond 3 of Crop 1 was harvested,

m, the

over

f shrimp transferred. The entireansfer of the estimated 4-500,000 juvenile shrimp took less than two hours. No

apparent damage was caused to the

Thad 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 storshrimp 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 by200 feet of six inch hose and PVC pipe to pond 2. Due to the proximity of the stormno attempt was made to quantify the number otr

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

er,y

re given due to the reduced growth rates.

red

sample between staffnd volunteers that composed the taste panel. While this is an admittedly informal

ch member had years of experienced tasting aquaculture food roducts and specifically farmed shrimp. Each was also familiar with off flavor taste

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. Howevwith the advent of temperatures below 24 degrees in November there were mandays when only half feed rations we

In addition to monitoring dissolved oxygen, the taste of the shrimp was monitothroughout the growout. Due to the heterotrophic nature of the pond culture processthere was concern that off flavors might develop. To monitor off flavors a taste panelwas set up. This was accomplished by dividing each weeklyataste panel, eapin these foods and therefore would know what would constitute and off flavor.

74

75

Table 3.7 Crop 2 Feed SummaryP

P

roject University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004)

rinciple Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell

Project Manager BCI, Inc.

DateWork Description Crop 2 Feed Summary

Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc.

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 Sat

9-Oct-04 Saturday 38.0 38.0 14-Dec-04 Sunday 14-Dec-04 Su

0-Oct-04 Sunday 38.0 38.0 15-Dec-04 Monday 15-Dec-04 Monday

ay

ec-04 Sunday 28-Dec-04 Sunday

-04 Monday 29-Dec-04 Monday

5-Oct-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 30-Dec-04 Tuesday 30-Dec-04 Tuesday

-Nov-04 Wednesday 75.0 75.0

75.0 75.0

75.0 75.0

75.0 75.0

0.04305.0

12/6/04

CROP 2 - POND 2 CROP 2 - POND 3 CROP 2 - POND 4

Feedings (lbs.)

Split and transferred to Ponds 3 & 4

DateFeedings (lbs.)

Date DateFeedings (lbs.)

urday

nday

1

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 Sund

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-D

24-Oct-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 29-Dec

2

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

4-Nov-04 Thursday

5-Nov-04 Friday

6-Nov-04 Saturday

2599.0 2611.0 400.0 1700.0 400.0 170Total Feed Pond C2 - P2 = 5210.0 Total Feed Pond C2 - P3 = 4705.0 Total Feed Pond C2 - P4 =

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 thehrimp also generates lower nitrogenous waste as well. Water quality results can be

d

arvest was accomplished using the PRAqua shrimp pump. The intake hose of the

epth.

tower. Successive shrimp push the shrimp off the grating and out of the ewatering towers discharge pipe. Since it was decided to sell the Project's shrimp

oot

sfound in the Water Quality section of Crop 1 where the results of both Crop 1 anCrop 2 are combined for the sake of comparison.

Harvest

Hpump was attached to the drain of the pond to be harvested. The discharge hoseand 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 dAt 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 dewateringdlive, the dewatering tower discharged the shrimp into a six foot diameter, three fdeep 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 tastepanel. No off flavors were detected prior to harvest. However, after harvest of Pond

(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 u rs h ed post ha . Intalking to consumers it became apparent that in an effort to provide the shrimp to the c " a state law requiresshrimp to remove the actual pond wa r and sedime hem. Thoconsumers 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 m from consumers who did not wash the shrimp i st put them refrigerat ch likethey would do with cooked shrimp from their grocer. (See marketing section for further discussions of this problem.)

fter the harvest of Pond 3 and its minor, but significant off flavor complaints, a

f

3

p to the harvest, it was theorized that the flavo ad develop rvest

onsumer "live s , there had been insufficient washing of the te nts from t ugh

ost of the off flavor complaints camemmediately when they got home. Many ju in their ors mu

Acomplete 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 dewateringtower 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 ooff 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 2Production 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 - bgrowth and apparent survival, declining seasonal temperatures have severely limthe growth of those shrimp in the Crop 2 growout. Unless a second crop of shcan be started in May it is unlikely that a second crop of shrimp will be large enoughto have enough value to justify its costs.

oth inited

rimp

78

79

Table 3.8 Crop 2 Production SummaryProject University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004)

Principle InvestigaFerdinand Wi

BCI, Inc.

6/10/04

Crop 2 produ

Durwood M.Pond 3

d

3

33

Pond 26

6

tocking Densit

std. Mortality

otal Ind. Samp

otal Wt. Samp

std. Shrimp B

r

Project Manager

Dat

Wor n c

Wor D-

Dateple

s

Wt.hrimp in

Samples

Ha

O

WTo

12

1 52

1 67

11 84

-

1

10/28/04

10 8

10 5

1 42

2

1

S y = 193194 29 m

E by 12 660 = .05

T led b 12/6 = 4502

T les b 54 l arvest = bs

E ioma 129 l Produced

th, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell

tion Summary

ugger - BCI, Inc.

Avg.

ShrimpWt.

Calc. # of

Shrimp inSamples

Harveand

Other

Wt.Totals

5.4 2525.1 267

4.8 284

3.7 736

3.5 7782.4 1513

1.1 20641.73 1050

1.3 6981 908

1 454

8202

193194 129 m2

/6 = 0.05 9

y 12/6 = 4502

y 12/6 =

ss by 12/6 = 179032 2

e

k D

k b

s

/10/

2/6/

2/1/

/17/

1/6/

/20/

/12/

0/5/

9/21/

9/15/

9/2/

es

y

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

cri

Cro

Esti

SamWts.

Cro

ptio

p 2

mate

p 2

Crop 1 - Pond 4t

Estimated

SampleWts.

3

33

Stocking Density

Estd. Mortality by 12/6

Total Ind. Sampled by

bs Total Wt. Samples At H

bs Total Number Shrimp

Avg

Shri

.

mp

4.

C

S

8

alc. # of

22

2

1

0

arvestnd

ther

t.tals

5.4

5.1

2

9660

54 l

= 183535 bs

S y as 122 m

F te = 705 l bs

F .21 : 1

C

o

2 sto d

2183 l

2

4305 l

1.97 :

tanding Densit

eed used to da

CR =

of 12/6 = 119 m2

4

2

P

Pond

Harvest Density =

bs Feed used to date =

1 FCR =

Pond

nd 3 and 4 stocked form Pond 2 Nov. 16th.

cked from Nursery Tanks 1,2 & 3 Sept, 2n

1 - P4 Sold

80

Table 3.9 Intensive Closed System Shrimp Pond Production Comparison Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004)

Principle Investigator

Manager

scription

F

1

I

erd

BCI,

2/2

nte

Dur

ina

Inc

/04

nsi

wooA

nd

.

ve C

dnnual

Wir

los

M. D

th, P L s

Project

Date

Work De S m d

Work by ugge CI

Production

h.D.,

yste

r - B

eRoy R. Cre

Shrimp Pon

, Inc.

well

Production Comparison Tableed

Production/

Crop (k

s/

rg/m2)

Crop

Yea

Density

hrimp/m2)

Salinity

(ppt)

Survival

(%) FCR

Harv

Weigh

58 1.80-2.60 46 2.4

80-100 1.70-6.30 N/A N/A40 11.00 65 2.0 17.5

50-70 0.23 63 2.950-70 0.23 65 2.3

153+/-38 0.70 77+/-14 1.59+/-0.24 14.1+

128+/-21 0.70 61+/-12 1.74+/-0.11 15.9+/

N/A 3.00-5.00 N/A N/A

nsity 126341

0.29 ac.tion 3053 lbs.

67319

ival 0.53

ity 45 m2

cre 10483 lbs/ac.ectare 4759 k/ha.

2 0.23 lb./ft2

2 2.42 k/m2

2.97

nsity 00.29 ac.

tion 0 lbs.

0ival 0.00

ity 0 m2

cre 0 lbs/ac.

ectare 0 k/ha.2 0.00 lb./ft2

2 0.00 k/m2

1.97 :1* All data as of 12/6

Crop 2 - Pond 4 *

Crop 1 Pond 3

(s

es

t (

1 Wood B (A na) Farm a N/A 1

2 Arizona es 5* 20.

3 Regal F a 1 -24 Duda a

1998 a 2 1

1999 a 2 1

5 Harbor ic ute

Singl 4.14+/-0.82

+/ 2 /-

Thre 7.20+/-1.22

+/ 6 -3.

6 Matan N srael) 3* N/A* projectN/A Not

7 UF IRR ulture Ce

Stocking 1 8 ng De

Pond Si 0.29 ac. SizeTotal Pr 5 lbs. roduc

Total Sh 2 hrimp

Overall 5 ll Surv

Harvest 4 m2 st Dens

Producti 9 lbs/ ction/aProducti 3 k/ha. ction/h

Producti 2 lb./f ction/ft

Producti 5 k/m ction/m

FCR 6

Stocking 193,194 ng DePond Si 0.29 ac. Size

Total Pr 2129 lbs. roduc

Total Sh 2 hrimpOverall 3 ll Surv

Harvest 9 m2 st Dens

Producti 1 lbs/ ction/a

Producti 9 k/ha. ction/hProducti 6 lb./f ction/ft

Producti 9 k/m ction/m

FCR 1 :1* All data as 6/04. /04.

p 1 -

op 2 - P

t

g)

Days

to Harvest

9.8 N/A

0* N/A

1.0 N/A

4.9 145

9.1 160

2.6 180

05 180

N/A

rothers Shrimp Farm Average

Mariculture Associat

arms (Texas)

nd Sons (Florida)

Branch Oceanograph

e-Phase

e-Phase

egev Shrimp Farm (IedAvailable

EC Williamson Aquac

Density

zeoduction

rimp Harvested

Survival

Density

on/acreon/hectare

on/ft2

on/m2

Densityze

oduction

rimp HarvestedSurvival

Density

on/acre

on/hectareon/ft2

on/m2

rizo

Instit

Cro

Cr

4

1.6-

4

57

.6 to

2.0 k

.5 to

.7 to

.4 to

4 k

1

1

ns/h

g/m2

ns/h

ns/hns/h

0 kg/m

6 kg/m

g/m2

19,99

434

2613

1.0

8

1491677

0.3

3.4

2.2

79030.9

11

731

3310.1

1.6

2.2 of 12/

N/A

* N/A

N/A

N/AN/A

-0.40

-0.21

* N/A 2-

Stocki

PondTotal P

Total S

Overa

Harve

ProduProdu

Produ

Produ

FCR

StockiPond

Total P

Total SOvera

Harve

Produ

ProduProdu

Produ

FCR

2.07

1.20

ac.

t2

2

ac.

t2

2

nter

Pond

ond

1

3 *

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, o These development objectives cannot be achieved if producers do not attain inimum i e and p bility.The producers’ profit or net income per unit of land or water area (Y) is mainly affected by pro the cost o roduc and mar g (C), and the price received (P), a wn in the basic e ation:

QP

creases in yield, reductions in costs, and increases in price are the major means of r or

s foreturns for a business

nterprise is commonly referred to as an enterprise budget.

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 wa -y trat her than anongoing business, so the economic analysis will be limited to an enterprise account of capital const on costs, plus cos and re s for a on 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 new ms, but e rprise ounts se provid f the dataneeded for an enterprise budget. Even a shrimp farmer who expects to duplicatethis facility using the identical system of production may expect different input prices, product prices, and/or production levels in the future. Furthermore, changes in hrimp prices expected may suggest that a different combination of variable input nd/or timing of production would be more profitable in the future. In some cases,

r a combination of these objectives.a m ncom rofita

duction (Q), f p tion ketins sho qu

Y = – C

Inincreasing profits. To determine the profitability of a business for the coming yeaseveral years, managers of farm businesses must estimate costs and returnfuture periods of time. A projection of annual costs and re

In

s a one ear demons ion, rat

ructi ts turn e-s

shrimp far nte acc ldom e all o

sashrimp 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 inputsProduction 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, marketin

, etc.

g,

82

interest rates, and land costs. In many cases, the costs of the last three items are

osts can be categorized in various ways, but division into two broad categories, fixed costs and variable costs, is appropriate for mo omic analyses. Indeveloping enterprise budgets, it is important for a farm manager to distinguishbetween 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 cas oncash co ne ch risti ed costsis 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 construc of the ECShrimp Demonstration facility. A detailed itemization of fixed costs is incluAppendix 4.1. Fixed costs totaled $540,097.30 and are so

) fixed capital construction costs, (2) materials, equipment and supplies costs, and ) annual recurring fixed costs.

the

se with four lined tanks and necessary systems, and (4) an mergency generator system.

he size, shape, and depth of the ponds and the clearing work required was the ajor fixed cost. Generally, the larger the pond size, the greater the efficiency of nd and water utilization and the lower the construction costs. On the other hand, e smaller the pond size, the greater the convenience of pond management and the wer the earthwork maintenance. Economy of construction and operation, fficiency of operation, and productivity of the pond are usually the primary factors in etermining the size, shape, and depth of a pond.

beyond the control of individual shrimp farmers.

Cst econ

h and n sts. O aracte c of fix

tion IRRded as

rted into three categories: (1(3

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 includedengineering 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 greenhoue

Tmlathloed

83

Table 4.1 IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project Fixed Cost Summary

FIXED CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 489,585.90

Engineering and Surveying: 17578.75

5.62.37

Well Construction: 852ter Testin 2860

Em Gener 6671.00

Earthmoving: Pond and Roadway Cons 3439.68Liners and Installa 9582.51

Nursery Greenhouse Construction: 2132.11Electrical Contrac 3318.90

Construction Labor: 5476.96

MATERIALS, EQU NT AND SUPPLIES COSTS

7Well Wa

ergency

g:

ator: 2

truction 10tion: 4

3tor: 6

11

IPME 48,061.40

Equipment: Paddl els 7234.46

Equipment: other pum s & motors 6981.75Water testing & sh plies: 1834.91

Pond supplies/equ 7497.33Nursery supplies/equipment: 7017.65

laneous Supplies: 6886.21

Harvest supplies: 609.0

NNUAL RECURRING FIXED COSTS

ewhe

p 1rimp sampling eq

ipment:

uipment and sup

Miscel

9

A : 2,450.00

0,

riculture and

S veral categories o s no d project. Theseinclude 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 C

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. E ses for shr PLs d, labor, fuel, and harvesting are examples of

Aquaculture Certification: 50.00Storage Building Rental: Mobile Storage Group 2400.00

Fixed costs for materials, equipment, and supplies cost an additional $48,061.4approximately 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 quaculture certification fee payable to the Florida Department of Aga

Consumer Services, and $200 monthly for rental of an air conditioned, metal storagerailer for feed and equipment.t

e f fixed co ts were t evaluated uring this

osts

xpen imp , fee

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 decreasethe manager’s discretion and will increase as production increases.

Table 4.2 summarizes the variable costs associated with operating the IRShrimp Demonstration facility.

d at

RECA detailed itemization of variable costs is included as

nally,

osts.

Feed represented the next most ort c r intensive shrimpa u e. The of as rt, to 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 i Sept r 2004. Tru g co ies wer ctant to into Florida because

00 pounds of Zeigler SI-35 feed cost $1,118 for the feed plus an additional $881 for

r

reliable supply of high quality shrimp seed (PL12s), obtained at a reasonable cost, one of the most important requirements for successful shrimp aquaculture. This cility purchased PL12s from GMSB Hatchery in Summerland Key, Florida. Getting e shrimp PLs from a domestic source confers marketing advantages – the

arvested shrimp can be labeled a “Product of the USA.” Mandatory country-of-rigin labeling regulations for both wild and farmed seafood will go into effect in April 005.

Appendix 4.2. Variable operating costs totaled $99,217.37 for the crop productioseason. Project Management ($53,886.65) was the highest variable cost. Norma commercial shrimp farmer would serve as project manager, saving these c

impfeed w

ant variabledue, in pa

ost item fohigh tquac ltur high cost ra

n embe ckin mpantunities. Fo

e relur example, in early October an order for

haulthere were no backhauling oppor1shipping.

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. Costof 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 priceof feed, or by a combination of these two factors. The establishment of a shrimpfeed mill in Florida would significantly reduce the cost of feed.

Labor costs for technicians were based on two full-time technicians from Septembethrough 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

onitoring.m

Aisfathho2

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 shrimpANNUAL VARIABLE (OPERATING) COSTS: 99,217.37 8.47

Shrimp PLs: 5646.19 0.482Feed: (costs include freight) .72 1.216abor: Project Managem nt .65 4.602

r: Tech 14057.10 1.200Nursery Saltwater for acclimation: 00 0.000Molasses: (cost for pickup in Clewiston) 471.39 0.040Electricity: monthly 10367.43 0.885Harvest supplies: 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 len f the p g per creases, the number of co hat are ed in the varia le category creases nd vice versa.For example, at the beginning of the crop year, all shrimp PL and feed costs are considered v ts ever, once t juvenile s mp hav een transferredfrom the greenhouse to the ponds, the cost of the PLs, feed consumed, and other greenhouse production expenses already rred ar . A isions to useadditional variable inputs, therefore, depend on the manager’s estimate of the additional variable costs and expected returns at tha At harvest time, all costs

curred up to that time a . Thus, the decision to harvest or not to harvest the 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

1423753886L e

Labo nicians0.

550.

gth o lannin iod insts t includ b in , a

ariable cos . How he hri e b

incu e fixed ny dec

t time.inshrimp crop depends on whether

re fixed

As with any business, the success of aquatic farming ventures depends ultimatelyon 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 handlingincreased production.

86

One of the stated objectives of the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project was to evaluate the marketing of shrimp grown at he facility. U.S. farm-raised shrimpcannot compe commoditymarkets for the most popular forms and sizes. One of the most feasible marketing

tential obstacle to direct marketing of farmed shrimp is the general nfamiliarity of U.S. consumers with whole, head-on shrimp. Head-on shrimp iscreasingly important in Europe, but the U.S. market for this product is still very

000). As noted in the Literature Review section of Chapter 1, Wirth and Davis (2003b, 2001b) reported that 72% of southeastern U.S. consumers who

uld be willing to purchase farm-raised umers who indicated a willingness to

lingness to buy whole, head-on o purchase whole shrimp. ucers interested in selling

rl permits. However, any shrimp

farmer offering product direct to the public in any form other than live is considered a mit from ture

rmit costs $2f ice, and the

e direct markIRREC shri

ly to interested in , 2004 thef shrimp (35-4

pondside to indivf potential customers for this first harvest was

ployees, (2) iculturalsearch Lab , (3) St.

mployees, (4) St. Lucie County employees at the county’s administrative offices in Fort Pierce,

Institution Aquaculture Division staff.f the sale, and advance reservations solicited, by

tte effectively on price with imports in fresh-frozen shrimp

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 pouinsmall (Dore, 2

replied to a mail survey indicated that they woshrimp directly from a farmer. Of those consbuy directly from shrimp farmers, 39% indicated a wilshrimp, with males more likely than females to be willing tThis is the product form of primary interest to shrimp proddirect 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 farmecan sell his farm product live without any specia

processor and must obtain a Food Perand

the Florida Department of Agricul84 per yearConsumer Services. The pe

oand requires an

use of a licensed kitchen forinspection, an approved sourceprocessing.

To investigate the dynamics of th et for pondside sales of live shrimp directly to Florida consumers, the mp demonstration project decided to sell its first shrimp crop direct dividuals. On October 27first of the two ponds (Pond 3) o 0 count tail size) from the first cropwas harvested and sold live iduals who had placed advancedreservations for shrimp. The pool olimited to (1) UF/IFAS IRREC emResearch Service Horticultural Re

employees of the USDA Agratory in Fort Pierce, Floridaor

Lucie County Cooperative Extension efrom three departments locatedand (5) Harbor Branch OceanographicPotential customers were notified o

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 schedu

Weight

le:

Price/lb Total Price5 lb $ 3.40 $ 17.00

10 lb 3.00 30.00 20 lb 55.0050 lb 125.00

The e-mails f 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 gro e price of $2.69 per pound wasconsiderably have been receivedfrom a wholesaler. Unfortunately, there were considerable delays removing the last 400 – 500 po 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 shri igerators or freezers bagged in pond water. Sever pond” flavor. As a result,several customers were unhappy with the shritotaling $615 cement shrimp (80pounds) from the second sale, described below.

Given the suc al investigatorsdecided to re 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,by e-mand thadditioarticle s fororderin

The e-Appen ,the minshrimpaccord

2.75 2.50

or the Octobe

ss receipts. The average salhigher than the $1.80 - $1.90 per pound that would

unds of shrimp from the pond after the p

mp and stored them in their refral customers also reported an unsatisfactory “

mp. Five customers received refunds (240 pounds) and five customers received repla

cess of the October 27, 2004 harvesondside shrimp sale fo

t, the princippeat the live, p

the pool of potential customers notified ail was expanded to include employees of Indian River Community Collegee St. Lucie County School Board, both located in Fort Pierce, Florida. In n, the Palm Beach Post newspaper announced the sale as part of an in-depth about the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project. The e-mail addresg shrimp was included in the newspaper article.

mail announcement for the November 19, 2004 harvest sale is included asdix 4.4. To test consumers’ willingness-to-pay for live shrimp sold pondsideimum order size was increased from five pounds to 10 pounds, and the selling price was increased by $1.00 per pound for this second harvest sale

ing 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- alegenerafor 605times ugenerapotenthaving

The shsmall b179,03 sestimabiomass. Williamson Cattle Company, an Okeechobee, Florida cattle and citrus operation with 400 acres of catfish in Alabama, purchased the 2,183 pounds of hrimp 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

d $0.65 per pound processor fee for processing and ansportation. The shrimp in Pond 3, valued at $2,022.55 (based upon $0.95 per

River REC Shrimp

p carryover

al weight of shrimp sold, total net sales, and carryover

mail and newspaper announcements for the November 19, 2004 harvest sted 88 confirmed orders for 2,230 pounds of shrimp, and 27 contingent orderspounds, contingent upon supply availability. Despite long lines and waiting p to three hours, 75 customers purchased 2,150 pounds of shrimp and ted $7,732.50 in gross receipts, an average of $3.60 per pound. Numerous

ial customers were unable to wait for the shrimp and left the facility without their orders filled.

rimp from the second crop, growing in two ponds (Ponds 3 & 4) were too y December 6, 2004 to sell to individuals. Pond 3 was estimated to hold 2 small shrimp (130-count tails) with a biomass of 2,129 pounds. Pond 4 wated to hold 183,535 130-count shrimp with 2,183 pounds of total shrimp

s

Barry) minus the standartrpound) are being retained as carryover inventory by the IndianDemonstration Project and will be monitored for growth until harvest in late spring2005.

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 shriminventory retained is summarized below in Table 4.3:

Table 4.3. Summary of totinventory

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) -----

act

imp demonstration l

rcent of the $15,433.85 net sales is $771.69.

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 contrbetween the University of Florida/IFAS and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 5 percent of total receipts from the shrproject must be paid to the FDACS Division of Aquaculture for deposit in the GeneraInspection Trust Fund. Five pe

89

Marketing Research

Each consumer purchasing live shrimp at the October 27, 2004 and November 19,

e. Recipients were

d more than 10 pounds of shrimp were questioned about the number of ily.

additional surveys. A total of 252

ysresponse rate through December 10, 2004. Forty-

ts (39.7%) purchased shrimp on November 19, 2004.

bout consumer nsumption.

nge of questions relating to demographiceferences and purchasing

havior. Shrimp preference questions identified consumer preferences for various , product forms, and sizes of shrimp. The survey also

ptions about farm-raised shrimp by asking consumersent with several statements comparing U.S. farm-raised

hrimp with wild-caught and imported shrimp. Additional questions asked aboutnowledge 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.

2004 harvest sales was given a 5-page market research survey, along with an explanatory letter and a stamped business reply envelopinstructed to complete the survey after they had cooked and tasted the shrimp they purchased live from the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project. Individuals who purchasefamilies sharing the shrimp purchase, and were given one survey for each famShrimp purchasers at the November 19, 2004 harvest who had purchased shrimp at the October 27, 2004 harvest were not givensurveys were distributed during the two harvests, 132 at the October 27, 2004 harvest and 120 at the November 19, 2004 harvest. Sixty-eight completed survewere returned, generating a 27%one respondents (60.3%) purchased shrimp on October 27, 2004 and 27 responden

The purpose of the survey was to elicit additional information aattitudes toward these shrimp and shrimp purchased for at-home coConsumers were asked a racharacteristics, general shopping habits, and shrimp prberefrigeration statesinvestigated consumer perceto state their level of agreemsk

90

Table 4.4. Respondents’ ratings of overall APPEARANCE of the shrimp (7-point scale)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

2.00 1 1.5 1.5 1.5

3.00 1 1.5 1.5 3.0

neither like nordislike

2 2.9 3.0 6.0

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

Valid

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

spondents (8%) issued a texture rating of 4 or lower.re

Table 4.5. Respondents’ ratings of overall TEXTURE of the shrimp (7-point scale)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

2.00 2 2.9 3.0 3.0

3.00 1 1.5 1.5 4.5

neither like nordislike

3 4.4 4.5 9.0

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

Valid

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 e flavor of the shrimp. However, 16 respondents (24%) issued flavor ratings of 4

or dislike) or lower. As described previously, the shrimp harvested ear the end of the October 27, 2004 harvest had a strong, offensive odor that sulted in significant replacements or refunds. To determine if the odor problem

or ratings, the ratings for flavor were examined for each harvest date

or lower purchased their shrimp on October 27, 2004. All respondents who urchased shrimp on November 19, 2004 rated flavor at 5 or higher. These results learly suggest that the flavor ratings were adversely affected by the offensive smell at occurred with some of the shrimp from the October 27, 2004 harvest.

th(neither like nnreaffected the flav(Table 4.6). The results show that all 16 respondents who provided flavor ratings of 4pcth

91

Table 4.6. Overall FLAVOR* Harvest date cross tabulation to examine FLAVOR ratings by harvest date

Harvest

October27, 2004

November19, 2004 Total

Count 4 0 4extremely dislike

% withinHarvest

10.0% .0% 6.0%

Count 4 0 42.00

% withinHarvest

10.0% .0% 6.0%

Count 5 0 53.00

% withinHarvest

12.5% .0% 7.5%

Count 3 0 3neither like nordislike % within

Harvest7.5% .0% 4.5%

Count 6 4 105.00

% withinHarvest

15.0% 14.8% 14.9%

Count 10 7 176.00

% withinHarvest

25.0% 25.9% 25.4%

Count 8 16 24

Flavor

extremely like

% withinHarvest

20.0% 59.3% 35.8%

Count 40 27 67Total

% withinHarvest

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The aresultsoverall like ratings of 4 or less (Table 4.7). However, all 10 respondents who rated ove llTwe tyoverallthe shr

r tings for the overall likeability of the shrimp were very similar to the flavor , probably for the same reasons. Eleven respondents (16.6%) provided

ra likeability at 3 or less purchased shrimp during the October 27, 2004 harvest.n -six of 27 respondents (95.3%) from the November 19, 2004 harvest issued

likeability ratings of 6 or 7, suggesting that the respondents very much likedimp overall.

92

Table 4.7. Overall LIKE* Harvest date cross tabulation to examine overall LIKE ratings by Harvest date

Harvest

October27, 2004

November19, 2004 Total

Count 2 0 2extremely dislike

% within Harvest 5.1% .0% 3.0%

Count 6 0 62.00

% within Harvest 15.4% .0% 9.1%

Count 2 0 23.00

% within Harvest 5.1% .0% 3.0%

Count 0 1 1neither like nordislike % within Harvest .0% 3.7% 1.5%

Count 9 0 95.00

% within Harvest 23.1% .0% 13.6%

Count 11 11 226.00

% within Harvest 28.2% 40.7% 33.3%

Count 9 15 24

Overall

extremely like

% within Harvest 23.1% 55.6% 36.4%

Count 39 27 66Total

% 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 widerange 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)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

verydifficult

4 5.9 5.9 5.9

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

Valid

Total 68 100.0 100.0

93

Respondents were also asked if t ing, heading, peeling, andreparing whole shrimp would prevent them from repurchasing whole shrimp (Table .9). The results suggest that the cleaning, heading, peeling, and preparation

ent repurchase. Only 0.3% of respondents would not repurchase because of the processing

heading, peeling, and

he process of cleanp4process will not serve as an impediment to whole shrimp sales. Fifty-eight respondents (85.3%) indicated that processing would not prev1requirements of whole shrimp.

able 4.9. Respondents indicating whether the cleaning, T preparation process would prevent repurchase of whole shrimp

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

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

at

waseteen

oft

that Florida

of the shrimp (whole, fresh, never frozen) you just tasted? Possible responseswere 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 thshrimp 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 poundtoo expensive were predominantly October 27, 2004 purchasers. Ninrespondents (28.4%) felt that $5.00 per pound was a fair price. More than 70%November 19, 2004 purchasers responded with ratings of 5, 6, or 7, suggesting thaa $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 suggestsshrimp 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

October27, 2004

November19, 2004 Total

Count 9 0 9tooexpensive % within

Harvest22.5% .0% 13.4%

Count 4 1 53.00

% withinHarvest

10.0% 3.7% 7.5%

Count 12 7 19fair price

% withinHarvest

30.0% 25.9% 28.4%

Count 2 4 65.00

% withinHarvest

5.0% 14.8% 9.0%

Count 2 4 66.00

% withinHarvest

5.0% 14.8% 9.0%

Count 11 11 22

Price

it's a bargain

% withinHarvest

27.5% 40.7% 32.8%

Count 40 27 67Total

% withinHarvest

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

95

CHAPTER 5

OUTREACH AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

yo,s also planned by Robin Koestoyo. Public workshops were

lso developed and performed by LeRoy Creswell to respond to the interest that has

business attendees from as far as Tampa nd St. Petersburg. The following are examples of the how the Shrimp Economic

Center

n

rous inind donations provided by the following individuals and the organizations and companies

rank “Sonny”Williamson Jr. , Williamson Cattle

oward Searcy, Gulfstream Contractors Inc.

igler, Zeigler Bros. Feed Inc.obert Heideman, Aquatic Eco-Systems

d Consumer Services Division of Water Policy

griculturery

Dr. Rolland Laramore, Bonnie, Hopkins and

Mark Zivojnovich, HydroMentia

George Pantuso, Circle H CitrusStuart McGahee, PE, Dragonfly Engineering Inc.

The Shrimp Economic Demo has disseminated its results in a number of venues.Numerous news releases were developed by IRREC's PR person Robin Koestoand an Open House waabeen generated in the local area regarding low salinity shrimp farming. It should be noted that the workshops received agro-aDemonstration Project has disseminated its experiences and knowledge to the public:

Open House

he University of Florida/IFAST

Aquaculture Demonstration Project F/IFAS Indian River Research and EducationU

UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension

Open House and Shrimp Boil Marine shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei,recently harvested at the UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstratio

Project. The UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project was made possible by genekthey represent. Their support is greatly appreciated.

FCo.Travis Murphy, River Country Citrus Inc.Doug Coward, St. Lucie Board of CountyCommissioners

Laramore Inc.Dr. Megan Davis, Harbor Branch OceanographicInstitutionDavid Feltenberger, HydroMentia

HDavid Neill, Big Red Tomato Packers Inc.Anita Neal, UF/IFAS St. Lucie CooperativeExtension

om Ze

Durwood Dugger and Dr. Darryl Jory, BCI Inc.Dr. Sabine Alshuth and Gary Koser, Indian RiverCommunity College

TRMark Yunker, Yunker Plastics Inc. John Heathcote, Specialty Products Division-Firestone, Inc. Phillip Metcalf and Camilo Gaitan, Florida

epartment of Agriculture

Dr. Junda Lin, Florida Institute of TechnologyChuck Syfrett, Syfrett Feed Co.Ranger Construction Co. Inc.Pat Widden, U.S. Sugar Corporation

DanDavid McMahon, OceanBoy Farms Inc.Joseph Spataro, Florida Department of A

d Consumer Services Division of Forestan

96

ProgramMonday, November 15, 2004 2:00 p.mWelcome

Comments

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Joe Joyce

Frank “Sonny” Williamson Jr.

UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension

firsted food species aquaculture research facility south of Gainesville.

Its mission is to identify alternative crops for growers in south Florida. Shrimp

ltureAdvisory Subcommittee on which Frank “Sonny” Williamson Jr. serves as

rch becauseuniversity to provide them with information

erdinand Wirth obtained a grant from The

002. Additional funding was provided by UF/IFAS.

Brian Scully, Professor and Director University of Florida/IFAS Indian RiverResearch and Education Center

Sherman Wilhelm Director, Division of AquacultureFlorida

UF/IFAS Executive Associate Vice President

Ann BolducAide to State Sen. Ken Pruitt

UF/IFAS Aquaculture Advisory Subcommittee Chair

Ferdinand Wirth UF/IFAS Associate Professor and Principal Investigator

LeRoy Creswell

Sea Grant Extension Agent and Co-Principal Investigator

Brian Scully, Professor and DirectorClosing Words

Shrimp Boil

The University of Florida/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project is thepublicly-own

is the first commodity studied. Work began five years ago with theorganization of the Indian River Research and Education Center Aquacu

chair. He said the committee was formed to initiate reseaagriculturalists depend on theabout the science and economics of aquaculture and to determine whichAquaculture products would be the most viable for them as alternative crops.UF/IFAS Associate Professor FFlorida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Aquaculture Division for nearly a quarter of a million dollars to start construction of the project in 2

97

Durwood Dugger, an internationally renowned aquaculture specialist wexpertise in shrimp culture, designed the project and has managed its operationthrough the planning, construction and production stages. Thi

ith

s month, the first

rcher

om farming shrimp, and additional product

shrimp harvest was reaped from the project’s four grow-out ponds with an outstanding yield and quality product, according to Dugger. Further reseais planned with other commodities such as tiger shrimp, pompano and othfinfish. The data collected frresearch findings will be provided to the region’s growers who are considering aquaculture products as alternative crops. LeRoy Creswell, UF/IFAS SeaGrant 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 industryFORT PIERCE— Frank "Sonny" Williamson, Okeechobee County cattleman and citrus

zen people downing Pacific White shrimp Monday fternoon during the first harvest of the crustaceans during an open house and shrimp boil at

f ornamentals have been the backbone, food species such as shrimp represent the future

ure

onstruction began in 2002 with a grant for almost a quarter of a million dollars from the

00

armers need to diversify so they're not dependent on one or two crops, said Williamson,

es.hey're going to wait until they see some figures out of the university that will show it can

crop popping outis week show shrimp farming can be done at the site.

grower, pronounced them "sweet, mild and very tasty." Williamson was one of several doathe 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. "Ipotential," 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 aquacultand study its economic viability. Cstate Agriculture Department. Additional money provided by the University of Florida'sInstitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences brought the start-up costs to just under $600,0to date, Wirth said. Fchairman 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 commoditi"Tbe successful," Williamson said. The first crop of 2,400 pounds of shrimp, harvested Oct. 27, and the nextth

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.

lorida is home to 10 shrimp farms, seven of which produced $5 million worth of shrimp in

production data, Wirthid, but the data collected at the demonstration facility will be the basis for a profitability

-principal investigator with the UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension ervice. "Those things are yet to be determined."

theation's top seafood. Aquaculture is becoming more of a necessity all the time, and it's a

t."hite shrimp from the University of Florida's Aquaculture Demonstration Project

4 a pound.ld live.

y Susan Salisbury

F2003, according to the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service.The problem has been that private producers have been loath to sharesaanalysis."Is it a profitable enterprise? We hope so, and we think so," said LeRoy Creswell, the project's coSSherman Wilhelm, director of the state Division of Aquaculture, said shrimp are nownnatural because the demand is there. "The world's population is demanding protein," he said. "It isn't going to be all coming fromred mea• Pacific Wwill be available, by pre-order only, to the public beginning Friday.• Consumers must buy a minimum of 10 pounds; the price is $• The shrimp will be so• To order, e-mail Ferdinand Wirth at ffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu.

BPalm 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

ptember,

You are cordially invited to attend a workshop “Raising Marine Shrimp in Florida’s

h,

be set later in the year if there is sufficient interest.

f $5 defray the cost of printing materials.

d designWater Quality

Of course, the workshop will include a tour of the shrimp demonstration site.

eRoy Creswell

the unprecedented hurricane season, we successfully harvested shrimp at yields which exceeded our expectations. Although we had hoped to begin some workshops in Sethey were postponed due to the storms.

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 13t14th, 16th, and 17th, from 1 to 4 pm. Note that these are different dates for the sameworkshop, so you need only to sign-up for the one that is most convenient to you. Other dates may

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 owill be asked to

Topics to be covered include: An Overview of Shrimp Culture Types of Systems Used to Culture ShrimpPon

Feeding, Growth and Survival Permits and BMPs Marketing and Economics

To register contact Laura at 772-462-1660, and let her know which workshop date you wish to attend.

Kind regards,

LFlorida Sea Grant Cooperative Extension

100

CHAPTER 6

onclusions

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C

L. vannamei can be produced without any apparent signs of toxicity in tanks

he balance between algae and bacteria populations in ponds is challenging but necessary

er water - providing those shrimp are rinsed in clean potable water as part of the harvest process.

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

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 mineraladditions.

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 t

o Molasses works well – ratio of ½ lb. per lb. of feed High quality shrimp can be produced in St. Lucie County using Floridan Aquif

Those shrimp can be sold to an enthusiastic public market at or above retail prices.

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 optimizeall their production and marketing economies will have a significantcompetitive 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 floccul ic forms of aquaculture.

the State of Florida, the state e an aquaculture feed product

ent by-product from heterotrophTo further encourage an aquaculture industry inshould encourage commercial concerns to locatmill 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

rk:06 pp.

eport FTP-enter,

lture

ray, W.A., Lawrence, A.L., and Leung-Trujillo, J.R. 1994. The effect of salinity on nteraction of

HN virus and salinity. Aquaculture 122:133-146.

95. Proceedings of the Special Session on hrimp Farming, Aquaculture ’95, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.

astell, J.D. 1979. Review of lipid requirements of finfish. In: Halver J. and E., Tiews

e68A:75-80.

Wickins, J. F. 1983. Responses of venile Penaeus monodon Fabricius to natural and artificial sea waters of low

Ch g ShellfishSpecies in the United States. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 87-2. Ma 9

Da , ryminera , salinity and substrate on growth and Tissue Mineralizationfor 0.

postlarvae. Aquatic Living Resources 4:169-174.

Boehlje, Michael D. and Vernon R. Eidman. 1983. Farm Management. New YoJohn Wiley and Sons. 8

Boman, B.J., 1999. Managing salinity in citrus irrigation water. IRREC R1999-8, University of Florida, IFAS, Indian River Research and Education CFort Pierce, FL.

Boyd, C.E., 2001. Inland shrimp farming and the environment. World AquacuMagazine, pp.10-12, Vol. 32, No. 1.

Bgrowth and survival of Penaeus vannamei, with observations on the iIH

Browdy, C.L. and J.S. Hopkins, eds. 19S

CK. (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 thgenus Penaeus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology

Cawthorne, D. F., Beard, T., Davenport, J. andjusalinity. Aquaculture 32:165-174.

en , Hsiang-tai and Orals Capps, Jr. Demand for Disaggregate Fish and

y 1 87.

vis D. A., Bierdenbach, J. and Lawrence A. L. 1990. Qualitative effects of dietal supplementation

Penaeus vannamei. World Aquaculture Society Meeting. Halifax, Canada. 199

103

Dio HSouthethe AA

lorida. Global Aquaculture Advocate (6):20.

D. S., Bardsley, W. J. and Allan, G. L. 2001. Survival and growth of ustralian snapper, Pagrus auratus, in saline groundwater from inland New South

oltz, J., S. Dasgupta and S. Devadoss. “Consumer Perceptions of Trout as a Food -

ergr. Econ. 77 (December 1995):

306-1312.

re –

ral Economics, North Dakota State University, October 1999.

ues

rvard

p, ., R.W. Harrison and W.R. Keithly. “Impact of Increasing Imports on the U.S. astern Region Shrimp Processing Industry 1973-1996.” Paper presented atEA Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN., 8 -11 August 1999.

Dixon, H.M. 1999. Bait shrimp production in F2

Dixon, H.M. and F. Whitney. Commercial Recirculating System for Bait ShrimpProduction 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 Agricultureand 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,AWales, Australia. Aquaculture 201: 73-90.

FItem.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2(1) (1999): 83101.

Gempesaw II, C. M., R. Bacon, D.R. Wessells and A. Manalo. “ConsumPerceptions of Aquaculture Products.” Amer. J. A1

Golz, Theresa K. and William C. Nelson. “Markets for Northern Plains AquacultuCase Study of Tilapia.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 429, Department of Agricultu

Green, P.E. and V. Srinivasan. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issand Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5 (1978):103-123.

Green, P.E. and Y. Wind. “New Ways to Measure Consumers’ Judgments.” HaBusiness Review, July-August 1975, pp 89 -108.

104

Hanson, Gregory D., Robert O. Herrmann, and James W. Dunn. “Determinants oSeafood Purchase Behavior: Consumers, Re

fstaurants, and Grocery Stores.” Amer.

. Agr. Econ. 77 (December 1995): 1301-1305.

uswater ponds. Aquaculture America ‘99 Book of Abstracts

ariculture Society 10:565-570.

nium,

ill

uaculture on the.S. Market: An Econometric Analysis.” In Aquaculture: Models and Economics, Eds

P.E.

cts,

ee, P.G. 2000, Biosecurity and Closed Recirculating Systems. Global Aquaculture

J

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, Penaevannamei, in fresh

Hutchins, D.L., G.W. Chamberlain, and J.C. Parker. 1979. Length-weight relationsfor several species of Penaeid shrimp cultured in ponds near Corpus Christi, Texas. Proc. World M

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 MillenBangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome.

Kay, Ronald D. and William M. Edwards. 1994. Farm Management. McGraw-HSeries in Agricultural Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 458 pp.

Keithly, W.R., K.J. Roberts and J.M. Ward. “Effects of Shrimp AqUUpton 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 andTurk. 2001. Biosecure, commercial, inland marine shrimp raceway production and environmentally isolated, SPF broodstock culture systems. Book of AbstraAquaculture 2001, World Aquaculture Society, Orlando, FL

LAdvocate, Volume 3, Issue 5.

105

Lesser, William H. 1993. Marketing Livestock and Meat. Binghamton, NY: ThHaworth Press, Inc.

e

resources in the east central Florida region.lorida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology Report 61.

t

air, J. McD., 1980 Salinity and water-type preferences of four species of postlarval d

n. Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 54-143.

as of: 589-

cols for inland culture of Pacifichite shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) with zero discharge in low-salinity ponds.

eade, James. W. 1989. Aquaculture Management. New York: Van Nostrand einhard. 175 pp.

enz, A. and B.F. Blake. 1980. Experiments on the growth of Penaeus vannameioone. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 48(2): 99-111.

stitut (NFI). 2 02. “Ses/to ten.php

es of the United States, 2001.”

Lichtler, W.F., 1972. Appraisal of waterFTallahassee, 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 weighin Penaeus stylirostris. Aquaculture 170: 79-92.

Mshrimp (Penaeus)from west Mexico. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology anEcology 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 PhysiologicalRegulatio

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 hepatopancreadult shrimps, Penaeus japonicus. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 17594.

McMahon, D.Z., B. Baca, T. Samocha and D.E. Jory. Florida’s first inland, commercial-scale shrimp farm: developing protowGlobal Aquaculture Advocate. (In press)

MR

MB

National Fisheries In e 0 afood’s Top Ten”.http://www.nfi.org/new p .

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). “Fisherihttp://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus01/

Nauman, F. A., C. M. Gempesaw, J.R. Bacon and A. Manalo. “Consumer Choice forrce Economics, 10 Fresh Fish: Factors Affecting Purchase Decisions.” Marine Resou

(1995): 117-142.

106

Nayga, Rodolfo M. and Oral Capps, Jr. “Factors Affecting the Probability of Consuming Fish and e Markets.” Jour.of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 27(1), July 1995: 161-171.

Parado-Estepa, F. D., Ferra esus, E. G. 1987.Responses of intermolt Penaeus tuations in environmentalsalinity. Aquaculture 64:175-184.

Prochaska, F.J. and C.O. Andrew, “Shrimp Processing in the Southeast: Supply

obertson, L., Lawrence, A. L. and Castille, F. 1993. Interaction of salinity and feed -

54.

Rosas, C., Ocampo, L., Gaxiola, G., Sanchez, A. and Soto, L.A. 1999. Effect of stlarvae (PL10-PL21) of

Biology 19:244-251.

rs.aol.com/brosenberr/Home.html

. Shrimp News

Samocha, T.M., A.L. Lawrence, C.R. Collins, C.R. Emberson, J.L. Harvin, and P. entally-sound inland shrimp

quaculture

1.

. Book of Abstracts, Aquaculture 2001. ake Buena Vista, Florida. Page 573.

amocha,T. M., Guajardo, H., Lawrence, A. L., Castille, F. L., Speed, M., McKee, D. 98. A simple stress test for Penaeus vannamei postlarvae.

re 165:233-242.

, C.R. Emberson, A.D. Davis, A. Balafas, D. McIntosh,ools for development of a

. Texas Agricultural Experiment tation, Shrimp Mariculture Research, Corpus Christi, TX.

carpa, J. and D.E. Vaughan, 1999. Freshwater culture of the marine shrimp, enaeus vannamei. Aquaculture America ‘99 Book of Abstracts.

Shellfish in the Away from Home and at Hom

ris, R. P., Ladja, J. M. and de Jindicus to large fluc

Problems and Structural Changes.” Southern J. Agr. Econ. (1974): 247-252.

Rprotein level on growth of Penaeus vannamei. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 2: 43

salinity on survival, growth, and oxygen consumption of poLitopenaeus setiferus. Journal of Crustacean

Rosenberry, R., 2001, Shrimp News, http://membe

Rosenberry, B. 2000. World Shrimp Farming. Number 12International. San Diego, CA.

Van Wyk. 2001. Development of integrated environmproduction technologies for Litopenaeus vannamei. Book of Abstracts, A2001, World Aquaculture Society, Orlando, FL

Samocha, T.M., Davis, A. D., Lawrence, A. L., Collins, C. R. and Van Wyk, P. 200Intensive and super-intensive production of the Pacific white Litopenaeus vannameiin greenhouse-enclosed raceway systemsL

SA. and Page, K. I. 19Aquacultu

Samocha, T.M., L. HamperA.L. Lawrence, P.G. Lee and G.F. Wood, 2000. Potential tsustainable and biosecured shrimp farming industryS

SP

107

Scarpa, J., 1998. Fresh Pages 67-70. In: S.M.oss, Editor, Proceedingorkshop, Oceanic Institute, Waimanalo, Hawaii.

chaffner, David J., William R. Schroder and Mary D. Earle. 1998. Food Marketing, , MA.

llular regulation in Maja squinado Risso and enaeus aztecus Yves. Archives Internationales de Physiologie et de Biochimie 78:

C. Aquaculture Economic Analysis: An Introduction. Advances in Society, Baton Rouge, LA,

grassrimp Penaeus monodon. Fisheries Science 67:592-595.

mith, L. L. and Lawrence, A. L. 1990. Feasibility of penaeid shrimp culture in inland nce 42:3-12.

agement District. 1998. Upper East Coast Water Supplylan, Volumes I, II and III. West Palm Beach, FL.

paargaren, D. H. and Haefner, P. A., Jr. 1987. The effect of environmental osmotic hrimp, Crangon crangon

.). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 87A: 1045-1050.

acon, A.G., J.J. Cody, L.D. Conquest, S. Divakaran, I.P. Forster, and O.E. ecamp. 2002. Effect of culture system on the nutrition and growth performance of acific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone) fed different diets. Aquacultureutrition, 8: 121-137.

suzuki, M.Y., Cavalli, R.O. and Bianchini, A. 2000. The effects of temperature, age, nd acclimation to salinity on the survival of Farfantepenaeus paulensis postlarvae.. World. Aquacult. Soc. 3:459-468.

nited States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service. 000. Aquaculture Outlook. Washington, DC, March 13, 2000.

water recirculating systems in Florida.s of the US Marine Shrimp Farming Program, Biosecurity M

W

SAn International Perspective. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston

Schoffeniels, E. 1970. Isosmotic intraceP461-466.

Schumann, Don. Indian River Aquaculture. Personal Communication, 2000.

Shang, YungWorld Aquaculture, Volume 2. The World Aquaculture1990.

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 juvenilesh

Ssaline groundwater-fed ponds. Texas Journal of Scie

South Florida Water ManP

Sconditions on blood and tissue glucose levels in the brown s(L

TDPN

TaJ

U2

108

United States Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and tmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. “The1996

in Our Living Oceans: The Economic Status of U.S.isheries. Washington DC, pp 1-103.

ecirculating Aquaculture Systems. Global Aquaculture Advocate 3(3):41-43.

.

ture Systems, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.ob Crawford. Tallahassee, Florida.

conomic

gs of the Special Session on Sustainable Shrimp Culture,quaculture 2001. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United

ensive commercial production of gram, PO Box 1675, Galveston, TX.77553-

ang, Q., C. Halbrendt, and N. Caron. “Differences between Retailer and Consumeroncerns 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 AquacultureAdvocate, 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.

ASoutheast Regional Report”F

Van Wyk, P. 2000. Culture of Penaeus vannamei in Single-Phase and Three-PhaseR

Van Wyk, P., M. Davis-Hodgkins., R. Laramore, K.L. Main, J. Mountain, and JScarpa. (2000). Production of Marine Shrimp in Freshwater Recirculating AquaculB

Van Wyk, P.M. Designing efficient indoor shrimp production systems: a bioeapproach. Pp. xx-xxx. In: Browdy, Craig L., and Jory, Darryl, E. editors. 2001. The New Wave, ProceedinAStates.

Villalon, Jose, R. 1991. Practical manual for semi-intmarine shrimp. Texas Sea Grant Pro1675. U.S.A.

WC

109

Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2001a. Seafood Restaurant ShrimpPurchasing 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 ResourceEconomics 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-AtlanticFood-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 240-39222199 South Rock Road Fax (772) 468-5668Fort 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 ithin 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:

the installation of the corrugated plastic overflow pipes (supplied by contractor),setting of safety posts on levees,setting of light posts at the four corners of the ponds,adding and grading an approximate 12" of fill to incoming road, utility pad, turn-around pad. the construction of the earthen access and egress ramps at the north and south ends of the center line levee.

w

112

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 theContractor'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.

y Insurance shall be written for limits of not less son, era ther w n o

o nt of final payment and termi tio yed to be ma ayment. The required ins shall

o ractor's o igations in the n the "XCU" exposure.

The required Contractor's Liabilit0than $10

an occurrence or claims-made basis, sha,000 per per $300,000 per occurrence. Cov

ll be maintained withoutges, wh

interruption from e ritte n

date of c mmenceme work until date of na n of ancoverage requir intained after final p uranceinclude c ntractual liability insurance applicable to the cont blA.I.A. Ge eral Conditions, and coverage for

Worker's Compensation - The Contractor shall secure and maintain for the life of this orker's on Insurance as required by chapter 440,

ti y

AgreemeFlorida

nt, valid W CompensatiS atutes.

Automob le Liabilit - The Contractor shall secure and maintain, during the life of this Agreement, Automobile Liability insurance on all vehicles against bodily injury and

ge in at least the amount of $100,000.00 per person, $ 00,000.00 pec

e nce

property dama 3 roccurren e.

Certificat s of Insura - The Contractor shall file with the University Certificates of to the ior to the commencement of work. These

e suran re required shall conta ar t be cancel wed irea prior w s been given to the University. If any of

the foregoing insurance coverages are required to remain in force after final ional certificate evidencing continuation of such cov rage shall be

al App ired by Subp ra

e ce whi the name of e iContractor, the specific job by name and job number, the name of the insurer, the

, and its termination date.

I

Insurance acceptable University prCertificat s and the in ce policies which a in provisionthat cove ages afforded under the policies will no ed or allo to expuntil at le st 30 days ritten notice ha

payment an addit esubmitted with the fin lication for Payment as requ a graph9.10.2, A.I.A. General ConditCertificat

ions. The Contractor shall furnish one copy of the ch shall be dated and showof Insuran th nsured

number of the policy, its effective date

Property nsurance - The C e and maintain from a company or c orizo d let e amount of the initial contract sum,

s od t th a ents in le w

s o all persons and entities b su til final payment has bee ma

ne il no person or entity other than the y ble ed to be co re

his in clude interests of the Uni rsontra

i e form or its u

ontractor shall purchasompanies lawfully auth ed to do business in Florida, property insurance, written

ed value form, in thn a Buil er's Risk compas well a , subsequent m ifications for the entire work a e site on

ss othereplacemiscost basi . Such property

tsurance shall be maintained, un

in writing byr e provided

in the contract documen r otherwise agreedwho are eneficiaries of ch insurance, un n de asprovided in the A.I.A. Ge ral Conditions or untUniversit has an insura interest in the property requir ve d,whichever is earlier. T surance shall in ve ity, theContractor, and Sub-c ctors in the work.

Propertyincluding reasonable compensation for Arch

nsurance shall b on a Special Causes of Lossitect/Engineer's services and expenses

eq ivalent,

114

required as a result of such insured loss. The Contractor shall purchase and t rdinp pr ctor y cb d

oss shall file with t e U ty aa hat inc Insurance co ra cha all gene i lu d

th policy shall contain a provisio epolicy will not be canceled or allowed to expire until at least 30 days' prior written

y the Un ea able r the in u d ir

Subcontractors their just shares of ds receive r, and by appropriate agreements,

h ally requir Subcontractors in similar

e ciary sured loss de aeds University shall d tribgre may reach or in

ward r in dispu , inp all be the A.I.A. General Conditions. If after

pecial a ent of dama ed p yby approp

g-free workplace rogire 02, Florida Statutes.

d . Dugger, BCI Inic Demo ro ager

y AS search an Ev and

University of Florida5618 N. Old Dixie Hwy.

c 138 e, FL 349467 xt. 2-1046. erdm@earth nk.

maintain he Building O ance Endorsement.If the pro erty insurance ovides deductibles the Contra

eductibles.shall pa osts not

covered ecause of such

Before an exposure to l may occur, the Contractor h niversicopy of e ch policy t ludes the required Property ve ges. Eapolicy sh ll contain rally applicable conditions, defin tions, exc sions anendorsements related to is project. Each n that th

notice has been given to the University.

A loss insured under prde pay

operty insurance shall be adjusted bfiduciary fo

iv rsity ass,fiduciary nd ma to the University as re as the

interests may appear. The Contractor shall payinsurance procee d by the Contractowritten w ere leg ed for validity, shall requiremanner.

The Univ rsity as fidu shall, upon occurrence of an in , posit inseparatea

account procea

so received, which the is ute inccordance with such ement as the parties in interest

te,

accordance with an a based on a resolution of a mat te whichcase the rocedure sh as provided insuch loss no other s greement is made, replacem g ropertshall be covered riate Change Order.

CONTRACTOR NOTICE - Shall implement - a dru p ram inaccordance with the requ ments of Section 440.1

Sincerely

Ferdinan F. Wirth Durwood M , c.Assistant Professor

rida, IFShrimp Econom

River ReP ject Man

dUniversitIn

of Flo Indian d ucationdian Ri er Research Education Center

Center2199 South Rock Road Fort Pier e, FL 34945-3 Fort PiercPhone: 7 2.468.3922, e 111 Phone 772/33Fax: 772 468.3973 E-mail: dugg li netE-mail: ffw s.ufirth@mail.ifa l.edu

115

IFASLI TIONS

tallation,

Provide proposals for the installation of the electrical service in building #7358.

ly wit all local and state codes and regulations governing the ired e

The project will be permitted with and inspected by Environmental Health and y

will aceways.4.

nd fi ht.have In Use outlet covers.

7. All service risers and raceways penetrating the ground will be Ridge Pipe. round raceways maybe PVC pipe.

ll circuit runs will be surface mounted on interior walls.i rds d are to be man fac yr

lets arthree outlets per circu .

ircuits.0 will b akers.

fixtu ot Moisture Resis nt .hang onstructed of g lvani etal.

a d sa

y quest

d Ope

Gainesvo 392-6488 6488

FACI TIES PLANNING and OPERA

Bid CriteriaInsElectrical Service

Building No. 7358

Estimates are to be based on the following criteria.

1. Work shall compstalla

hin

2.tion of requ quipment.

Safet .3. All electrical circuits be installed in EMT r

All EMT fittings will be compression type. 5. All junction boxes a xture covers will be Weather Tig6. All receptacles will

8. Horizontal underg9. A10.Electr cal panel boa and devices being installe u tured b

Squa e “D”.11.All electrical out e to be commercial grade.12.Receptacle circuits will have not more than

u its arit

13.All eq ipment circu e to be installed as dedicated c14.All 12 -volt circuits e installed with 20 AMP bre15.Fluorescent lighting res will be 2 tubes, 4 fo ta fixtures16.All electrical fixture ers and supports will be c a zed m17.Maint in a clean an fe work area.

All estimates and an ions regarding this project are to be directed to:

Bruce MusselwhiteEngineerFacilities Planning an rations.Building 106 Mowry Road P.O. Box 110850 ille, Fl. 32611-0850Phone N . 352- Fax No. 352-392-

116

PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK

Project Number:

Location: Indian River RE 7358C, Ft Pierce, Building

Project Manager: Bruce Musselwhite

Project Description: Insta ouse.ll Electrical system in Green H

Services Required: Provid ing, instal 10pane ort Green H use

o nts:

e design for review and permpp

itt l a 0 AmpElectrical service and l, lighting, and circuits to su oequipment.

Major Pr ject Eleme Provide an electrical design for review by Facilities and occupant showing distributi er diagrams, d ci

ude panel, mittals for approva Pe ojectr ealth iversity of Florida. Co rdina

ule with F s Project Manager. Install panels and fixtures for req ired inspections, substantial completion and final.

e nts:

on and panel schedules, ris an rcuitdistribution. Incl fixture, and lighting sub l. rmit prwith Envi onmental H and Safety at the Un o teinstallation sched I

uAS Facilitie

per schedule. Call

Schedul Requireme

Design Review: By Faciliti

t:

es Planning and EH&S.

Construction Budge

Total Project Budget:

d ConsPreferre Method of truction: Electrical Contractor

117

March 7,

ern:

he de or University f Flaeid

be us . They are under final review by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Services

ion d ntrac r is nmee ctor, FDACS and FAS

t curs. The ording to th t set nedngs.

rns hould be addressed to:

fice of Ag. Water Policy 5

alp@d acs.state.fl.us

2003

To Whom It May Conc

Attached is a copy of tle Pen

sign engineering drawings fnstration in Inland Fresh Water System.

o orida’sCommercial Sca Shrimp Demo

The drawings should ed at this time for bidding purposes only

(FDACS) and(IFAS).

A final set of construct rawings will be produced, once a co to choseand a pre-construction ting between this contra Irepresen ative oc project will be constructed acc a of sigand sealed drawi

Any questions or conce about the drawings s

Phillip Metcalf – FDACS, Of Phone: 863-462-588

oEmail: metc

118

Appendix 2.2 Engineering Construction Drawings

119

120

Engineering As Built Drawings

121

122

Ap REC ILS

FIXED CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS

pendix 4.1 IR SHRIMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FIXED COST DETA

En ing: 17578.753 Phil Metcalf - Construction drawings 75hrs@$70 donation 5250

Surveying services 1808.75111

We 78525.62Shallow Well 15606.00

1

We 60.37

111 6989 Deep Well 940' 765.00

3 HB2017069 Deep Well 1070 TDS 130.001

Em 26671.001

1 oadsConst.

Generator slab & extension, wall 6095.00

Ea 39.68

ing contract 48032.00

2.5hrs@$50 2625.00iver CountryC Seeding pond levees 1549.00

River CountryC Borrow pit expand 3999.003 River CountryC Contract change order 1961.003 River CountryC Emergency pond repair & redress 4711.75

rvices Sod pond levees 4550.00Sod retention pond levee 1664.0012'x40' culvert/flap gate 1600.00

4/20/2004 Contech Southern culverts 4878.906/30/2004 Gulfstream donated heavy equipment services 10000.00

gineering and Survey2/21/200

FDACS3 Carter Assoc3/17/200

1/14/2003 FP&L Easement engineering 1500.001/15/2003 Crossroads Const Well, electric, generator engineering 5490.001/15/2003 Crossroads Const Miscellaneous fees 180.0012/8/2004 Dragonfly Engin. Engineering & drafting as-built plans donation 3350.00

ll Construction:/10/2003 Domer's2

Domer's Deep Well 57943.371/26/2003 Domer's Deep Well Pump 4976.25

ll Water Testing: 2,85/16/2003 HB2015514 Shallow Well 532.506/15/2003 Rolland Laramore Bioassays on shallow well donation ?????0/21/2003 HB2016941 Deep Well 800' 616.870/27/2003 HB2016941 Deep Well 800' 51.000/27/2003 HB20111/4/2002/15/2003 Rolland Laramore Bioassays on deep well donation ?????12/8/2004 HB2020318 Deep Well 1070 765.00

ergency Generator:1/15/2003 Crossroads

Const.Emergency generator, delivered 20576.00

1/20/2003 Crossr

rthmoving: Pond and Roadway Construction 10341/13/2003 Williamson CC Initial site clearing donation 1650.002/10/2003 River CountryC Site clearing & road const 4423.254/3/2003 River CountryC Addl site clearing 1400.004/4/2003 River CountryC Earthmov6/2/2003 Southern Culvert 15'x30' alum culvert 249.00

6/10/2003 St. Lucie Co. Coquina FL rock - 563.71 yds@18 donation 10146.78/11/2003 Sawmill Trucking Coquina rock delivery; 56

6/26/2003 R/26/20036

6/27/2006/23/2009/15/2003 Sod Se1/9/2004 Sod Services

1/12/2004 Gulfstream

123

Lin : 49582.514/17/2003 Williamson C5/1/2003 OceanBoy F

6/13/2003 Comanco t liner ponds 1&2 13622.086/20/2003 Amer. Port. Toilet 105.006/26/2003 River CountryC Anchor Trenching - Ponds 1&2 2500.006/30/2003 Williamson CC Transport 2 HDPE rolls 280.001/21/2004 Gulfstream Ponds3-4 reshape, liner trench 3500.002/27/2004 Firestone EPDM liner:ponds 3&4; 44,313'@.36 donation 15953.002/27/2004 Yunker Plastics EPDM installation 5912.43

Nursery Greenhouse Construction: 32132.1112/13/2003 Turner PVC materials 664.0312/15/2004 Crossroads Const Greenhouse permit fees 93.0012/17/2003 CP Enterprises Quonset Greenhouse pkg & erection 17785.70

1/8/2004 Turner 3"PVC, screws, fittings 719.351/8/2004 Home Depot 50 treated 2'x12'x12' 748.501/9/2004 Turner PVC pipe and fittings 1966.04

1/12/2004 Turner Fittings, valves, bits, PVC glue 552.831/15/2004 American Fasten TEK screws (400) #14x3" 26.001/21/2004 Turner TEK screws, bolts, nuts, washers 69.591/21/2004 Gulfstream Floor, set sump, drain pipe/fixtures 7000.001/22/2004 Home Depot Lumber, treated 1439.731/28/2004 Factory Direct TEK screw (600) #14x2.5" 48.002/4/2004 Home Depot Sacrete, bolts, turnbuckles, washers 45.33

2/10/2004 Home Depot Lumber treated & portland cement 102.042/10/2004 Home Depot Lumber, treated 36.723/8/2004 L Creswell Reimburse Grainger strapping kit 63.453/8/2004 Turner Fittings, screws, screw eyes 188.82

3/29/2004 Aquatic EcoS Nylon screening standpipes 108.074/9/2004 Turner Banding & banding buckles 138.60

4/12/2004 R. Creswell Reimburse PVC materials 11.964/22/2004 Aquaculture Sys Omni threaded ball valve 49.695/5/2004 Tractor Supply Pulleys, rachets for transfer system 21.687/8/2004 Wal-Mart White rock gravel 14.517/8/2004 Turner PVC and tap screws 33.517/6/2004 Aquatic EcoS PVC and mesh for media boxes 204.96

Electrical Contractor: 63318.905/1/2003 Applebee Elec Pond electrical installation 22832.006/5/2003 Applebee Elec Trailer & well electric installation 1425.00

11/15/2003 Applebee Elec Generator, deep well, service panel 17075.0012/15/2003 FP&L Fee for electrical service 2358.00

Feb-04 Applebee Elec Greenhouse electrical service 10742.185/6/2004 Applebee Elec rewire pump 1754.985/6/2004 Applebee Elec check out pump 224.00

5/18/2004 Applebee Elec wire motors for paddlewheels 542.445/20/2004 Applebee Elec replace overloads with larger size 101.225/24/2004 Applebee Elec labor & materials for greenhouse 240.118/30/2004 Applebee Elec hookup paddlewheels 1075.73

10/22/2004 Applebee Elec wire and hookup paddlewheels 2499.9010/26/2004 Applebee Elec Add'l paddlewheel support 2448.34

ers and InstallationC Haul 2 rolls HDPE to WCC donation 210.00

PE donation 7500.00arm 3 rolls 30-mil HDInstall 44,313 sqf

124

125

Construction Labor: 115476.96 Durwoo 81910.00

5/1/2003 Williamson CC Dissa/haul HBOI greenhouses donation 2260.006/17/2003 Williamson CC Install concrete pads in ponds donation 726.096/30/2003 Williamson CC water lines - well to 1&2 donation 987.00

7/2/2003 Williamson CC Install docks - ponds & retention donation 2200.00000

360.87

S S

d Dugger Project Mgmt 10/02/02 - 03/31/04

7/2/2003 Williamson CC Dock labor at WCC donation 1375.00

7/3/2003 Williamson CC Install posts and dividers, Ponds 1&2 donation 2658.11/15/2003 Crossroads Const Const. Mgr profit - well, generator, elec. 6000.0

12/9/2004 Williamson CC skilled labor 01/01/04 - 12/09/04 donation 17

MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES CO T

7234.4604/04 - 0

Hydromentia 20 USED paddlewheels@$200 donated 4000.00

E S motor 990.00mson CC eels fro

Hydromentia 296.00

695.4010/14/2004 Aquatic EcoS 2 paddlewheel motors & gear boxes 808.13

444.93

e mps & 16981.75

2081.70 349.93 14550.12

p s pling s pplies 1834.91

Nitrite reagent replacement kit 40.50 169.50

Pond su 7497.336/11/2003 Turner Rope & pipe for dividers 2824.20

.04n 2201.72

ion 800.005/5/2 e t ger nails rs 126.215/6/2 E S gate valves 113.80

8" pvc & clamps for standpipes 135.78 3.72

8/6/2004 Turner PVC, nuts, washers for standpipes 12.028/9/2004 Turner PVC & Cleaner - pond water valves 34.92

Equipment: Paddlewheels

9/046/6/2003 Aquatic co 6 paddlewheel s

6/30/2003 Willia haul paddlewh m

7/7/2004 Aquatic EcoS 4 Paddlewheel motors

10/15/2004 Aquatic EcoS 2 paddlewheel motors

Equipm nt: other pumotors

6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS Sweetwater and cent. pumps 3/31/2004 Aquatic EcoS Hanging scale 7/19/2004 PR Aqua Transfer Pump, Dewater Tower

Water testing & shrim am equipment and u : 6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS DOmeter, pH, YSI Spec & reagents 1320.206/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS Nitrite, pH, Potassium starter kit 43.403/31/2004 Aquatic EcoS Ohaus scale, refractometer 261.315/6/2004 Aquatic EcoS

10/21/2004 Aquatic EcoS Ohaus Scout scale

pplies/equipment:

6/20/2003 Home Depot Lumber for dividers 2866/20/2003 Aquatic EcoS PVC couplings, valves, netting donatio7/2/2003 Williamson CC Dock materials - ponds and retention donat

004 Home D po , bolts, washe004 Aquatic co

Lumber, han

7/8/2004 Turner Rope, screws, washers, nylon ties 158.927/20/2004 HBOI gate and ball valves 800.007/28/2004 Turner 8/5/2004 Home Depot Liquid Nails for standpipe

126

saw b 37.66ilter, co1.5hp

Joy Liq. Dish y Chlorine

epot Hose & reel, electric cord, nozzles 111.89Trash can, W 77.36Rope or sha

Bacteria fresh H2O (4 x gal) 100.074/1/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria concentrate (gal) 264.78

Turner Band tool 84.00Aqua ammonFittings and b

rs, tapss Bio

M 6886.21s Gate material 686.40

Keys for stora 7.19t Tools and ha

7/21/2003 Home Depot garden hoses (2) & nozzle 56.4777.94

60.00 13.05

boat fenders, padlock, scale 104.025/6/2 PVC elbow a 34.625/7/2 O-ring for tran 3.285/7/2

5/10/2004 Turner PVC cement for transfer assembly 15.88

6/23/200 Sacrete (168) and lumbe7/8/2 Dustpan, bru7/8/2 re7/8/2

ouplin 261.239/1/2 611.26

9/20/2 s 124.919/20/2 Saw blades,

Nursery supplies/equipment: 7017.651/28/2004 Aquatic EcoS Blowers (2) & float switches (2) 1290.001/28/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria fresh & salt gals donation 74.301/30/2004 Turner Rustol, lades, chalk, knife 1/30/2004 Aquaculture Sys Bead f ntrollers, relays 3426.09

Flotec 208.963/9/2004 Home Depot pump & saw blades 3/10/2004 Publix detergent 14.063/10/2004 Pinch a Penn 40.803/10/2004 Home Depot Reel mount, rubber plug & cord 78.363/12/2004 Home D3/26/2004 Home Depot D-40, caulk, glue gun 3/31/2004 Turner f decloth 12.603/29/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline

4/2/2004 Home Depot Channel lock plier and 4" vise 60.824/9/2004

4/12/2004 R. Creswell ia and acid 9.364/20/2004 Home Depot atteries 7.475/7/2004 Turner Washe screws, nylon ties 16.73

7/12/2004 HBOI Kaldne -filter media 999.008/11/2004 Home Depot Roof coater brooms (2) 7.348/24/2004 Praxair O2 regulator 96.00

iscellaneous Supplies: 5/23/2003 Big John s6/20/2003 Home Depot ge trailer 6/20/2003 Home Depo rdware 534.68

7/21/2003 Home Depot Push brooms (2) 12/8/2003 Turner Hose adaptors 40.241/26/2004 Home Depot Handles (2) - push brooms 10.941/28/2004 Wal-Mart Paper towels 10.584/7/2004 Home Depot Rubber Maid Garden Cabinet 189.004/7/2004 HBOI tracking trailers (2)

4/14/2004 Home Depot 10' 2x4s, coater broom 4/22/2004 Aquatic EcoS Juv. transport tank and cage fittings 321.965/5/2004 Wal-Mart

004 Turner nd pipe 004 Turner sfer tank 004 Turner PVC for transfer tank 15.03

5/12/2004 Home Depot Bungees, snap hooks, eye snap 39.684 Home Depot r 630.34

004 Home Depot sh, screwdriver set 36.05004 Dugger Sacrete, sc ws, PVC slips/adapters 724.92004 Home Depot Garbage can and straps 68.03

7/26/2004 Home Depot 4' fiberglass stepladder 118.0004 Amazon Hose PVC Suction hose 6" x 100' 786.008/4/20

8/27/2004 Turner PVC, c gs, ties for transfer PVC & coupli r004 Turner ngs for emer. transfe

004 Home Depot folding table and shelving units 004 Home Depot hammers - GH disass. 92.30

127

10/4/2004 Home Depot Blades, saws, tools for GH disass. 221.96

plies 609.094 H 22.78

27.02

w s

04 Turner hose clamps & PVC male adapters 11.2410/26/20 Turn se 37.1610/26/20 sh box 13.001/16/2 Boynton Pump hrim

reen

THER NSES

10/5/2004 Advance Auto paddlewheel oil 11.8810/20/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel 50-gal trash can 303.5610/25/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel 50-gal trash can 151.78

11/8/2004 Turner Rope 0.5" white nylon (600') 126.0011/16/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel Transh, wringer buck. 354.9911/20/2004 Turner 4 Hose clamps 3.60

12/3/2004 R. Creswell reimburse hose clamps & WD-40 13.4812/7/2004 Home Depot 11' black nylon ties 24.96

Harvest sup : 10/25/200 ome Depot Pails and handles 10/25/2004 Tractor Supply Two 2-bu. Baskets 10/25/2004 Turner Tap screws, washers, nuts, hose clamps 40.3710/25/2004 Roberts of FL Big heel 50-gal trash c 151.78an

H .7410/26/2004 ome Depot Door pulls, wooden stakes 2210/26/20

04 er PVC Ls, ho clamps, tap screws 04 Staples Ca

1 004 adapter/s p harvest 200.5011/16/2004 Boynton Pump well sc 82.50

O ONE-TIME EXPE :

1/16/2 D Fert. h Pl contro 157.501/24/2 S

11/29/201/30/2 Scott Sibley rld Court Grill cate ng 750.002/10/2 G m anup, gra or en ho 0

ty 0.00 0

Open House Expenses: 4,742.481 004 iamond R Extinguis us fireant l 1 004 taples Reem of Exceptional business paper 20.98

04 Parks Rental folding chairs 80.001 004 Wo ri1 004 ulfstrea Cle ding f op use 3734.0

UF/IFAS Facili Sign: 50 500.0

128

Appendix 4.2. IRREC SHRIMP DEMONSTRAT LE COST DETAILS ($)

5,646.193/12/2 270,000 PL1 1957.504/4/2 trans ort exp 179.50

5/18/200 450,000 PL12 3262.50

F Lbs

ION PROJECT VARIAB

Shrimp PLs: 004 GMSB 2s

gger 004 D. Du p enses 4 GMSB s

6/9/2004 D. Dugger transport expenses 246.69

eed: (costs include freight) 14,237.72re 120 1800.00

4/15/2 770 156.524/15/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 donation 4400 894.40

753.90150 1200.00150 825.00

0/2 5500 1858.007/30/2 4400 894.40

511001650 580.20

11/8/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.500 949.50

12/10/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.50

04/23 05/21

od 06/04 Durwood Dugger 06/18 - 07/01/04 2960.80

07/02wood 07/16

Durwood Dugger 07/30 - 08/12/04 2960.818/26/2004 Durwood Dugger 08/13 - 08/26/04 2072.56

rwood 08/27wood 09/10

10/7/2004 Durwood Dugger 09/24 - 10/07/04 2960.81od 10/08

ood 10/22 Durwood Dugger 11/05 - 11/18/04 2960.80

od 11/19od 12/03od Dug 12/17 - 12/3

04 Payroll 08/27 - 09/09/04 1830.059/23/2004 Payroll 09/10 - 09/23/04 1830.05

09/2410/08

4/2/2004 Laramo Larval feed donation 004 Zeigler 14 bags(55lb) E30 donation

4/15/2004 Zeigler Freight on Zeigler donation 5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb PL-C

re venile5/18/2004 Laramo 150 lb J400 Ju7/3 004 Zeigler 100 bags(55lb) SI35

004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 10/6/2004 Zeigler 100 bags(55lb) SI35 500 1999.00

10/22/2004 Zeigler 20 bags SI35E 427.8010/22/2004 Zeigler 30 bags SI30

11/16/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 275

Labor: Project Management 53886.654/13/2004 Durwood Dugger 03/26 - 04/08/04 1480.404/27/2004 Durwood Dugger 04/09 - 04/22/04 2960.805/11/2004 Durwood Dugger - 05/06/04 2960.81

od 46/8/2004 Durwo Dugger - 06/03/0 2960.8122/2004 Durwo Dugger - 06/17/04 2960.806/

7/1/20047/15/2004 Durwood Dugger - 07/15/04 2960.817/29/2004 Dur Dugger - 07/29/04 2960.808/12/2004

9/9/2004 Du Dugger - 09/09/04 2960.819/23/2004 Dur Dugger - 09/23/04 2960.80

10/21/2004 Durwo Dugger - 10/21/04 2960.8011/4/2004 Durw Dugger - 11/04/04 2960.81

11/18/2004 12/2/2004 Durwo Dugger - 12/02/04 2960.81

o 412/16/2004 Durw Dugger - 12/16/0 2960.8012/30/2004 Durwo ger 0/04 2960.81

Labor: Technicians 14057.109/9/20

10/7/2004 Payroll - 10/07/04 367.3610/21/2004 Payroll - 10/21/04 1352.22

129

11/4/2004 Payroll 10/22 - 11/04/04 1651.10

1756.581756.58

2/30/2 12/17 estimated: 1756.58

Nursery Saltwater fo ???????????????

truck from FIT donation ?????6/15/2004 FIT, Vero Beach 15,000 ocean well water donation ?????

Molasse icku in Clewiston) t 14680 lbs 471.398/26/2 ugar Corp 251 miles at $0.375 2500 lbs 94.139/14/2004 U.S. Sugar Corp 252 miles at $0.375 3000 lbs 94.50

75 3200 lbs 94.1310/19/20 252 mile 2980 lbs 94.502/15/2 a Corp 251 m 3000 lbs 94.13 projected

10367.43nly estimate 535.00

4/15-5/1 Gree house mate 1100.005/15-6/1 ds o 100.006/15-7/1 se7/15-8/1 se ponds, heavy aeration 2375.838/15-9/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse (1/2) & 3 ponds 360.23

9/15-1 /15/04

FP&L 3 ponds only & hurricane 1461.24

10/15-1 /15/04

s (1/2) 6

FP&L Two ponds only estimate 900.00

Harvest 550.890/21/2 y gs (2 .780/26/2 Cash box, rec

8 105.14 10.88

1/20/2 irth e sandwich r crew 24.501/20/2 irth sn cks & 17.75

k - 3 pa 4.39 0

11/18/2004 Payroll 11/05 - 11/18/04 1756.5812/2/2004 Payroll 11/19 - 12/02/04 estimated:

12/16/2004 Payroll 12/03 - 12/16/04 estimated:1 004 Payroll - 12/30/04

r 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

s: (cost for p p otal pounds = 004 U.S. S

10/5/2004 U.S. Sugar Corp 251 miles at $0.304 U.S. Sugar Corp s at $0.375

1 004 U.S. Su r iles at $0.375 g

Electricity: monthly 3/15-4/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse o

5/04 FP&L n and 2 ponds (1/2) esti5/04 FP&L Two pon nly estimate 15/04 FP&L Greenhou & 2 ponds 1596.675/04 FP&L Greenhou & 2

Hurricane

0

1 FP&L 3 pond ; 2 ponds (1/2) 938.4

11/15-12/15/04

supplies: 1 004 Uline Pol ba ctn),13"x18" 250/ctn 2081 004 Staples eipt pad, labels, envelopes 35.0310/27/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse sandwiches/ drinks for crew 22.0410/29/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse debriefing lunch 122.311/10/2004 Uline Poly bags (1 ctn),13"x18" 250/ctn 11/16/2004 Miller Bearings V-belt for harvest pump 1 004 F. W Reimburs es/ drinks fo1 004 F. W Reimburse a beverages for crew

04 Staples Sales receipt boo rt 11/24/20 Ice

130

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:

UWeight U UPrice/lb U UTotal Price U

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 ( HTUffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu 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: HTUffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu UTH

131

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 shrimp. The harvest date is next Friday, November 19P

thP. 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:

UWeight U UPrice/lb U UTotal Price U

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 – 5:00 pm on Friday, November 19P

thP 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 ( HTUffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu 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, November 18P

thP.

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: ffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu

132

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

133

Appendix 4.6. Consumer Shrimp Preferences Survey Distributed to Shrimp Purchasers at the October 27, 2004 and November 19, 2004 Pond Harvest Sales

134

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

135

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: (Allanswers 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)

136

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

P R O D U C T F E A T U R E S Shrimp Size Refrig. Product Purchase Country ProductRating Species (Tail count State Form Price of origin Source per pound) Label Labelexamples:

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

137

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

138

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