Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration in Inland Freshwater Systems

Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration
in Inland Freshwater Systems
Final Project Report for

Cost Reimbursable Contract 007188 between
FL DACS, Division of Aquaculture and
University of Florida, IFAS
Submitted December 15, 2004 by:
Ferdinand F. Wirth, Ph.D.

University of Florida, IFAS, Food and Resource Economics Department
Indian River REC, 2199 South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, FL 34945
Durwood M. Dugger
BioCepts International Inc.
5618 N. Old Dixie Hwy., Fort Pierce, FL 34945
LeRoy Creswell
St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension
8400 Picos Road, Fort Pierce, FL 34945
Funding for this project provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Funding for this project provided by the Florida Department of Agriculture
Services, Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner
and Consumer Services, Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1 Introduction and Background Information 1
2 Facility Design and Construction 35
3 Shrimp Production Results 56
4 Economics and Marketing Research 82
5 Outreach and Information Dissemination 96
6 Conclusions and Recommendations 101
BIBLIOGRAPHY 103
APPENDICES 111
ii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Introduction
Persistent low returns for citrus and the development and spread of diseases such
as citrus canker and citrus tristeza virus have prompted citrus growers in central and
south Florida to seek alternative or supplementary crops. Aquaculture, the
production of aquatic plants and animals in a controlled environment, is one of the
fastest growing sectors of U.S. agriculture, and there is strong interest in aquaculture
among Florida citrus growers, especially in the Indian River area.
Shrimp aquaculture, using the Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), has
been practiced in Florida for 30 years. However, due to the competition for coastal
land, it has primarily been limited to research, brood stock and hatchery operations.
The establishment of a large marine shrimp aquaculture industry in Florida using
traditional culture locations and techniques based upon saltwater and coastal land
use is probably infeasible due to high land costs, competing land uses, and
environmental regulations. Development of the aquaculture industry in coastal areas
is also criticized on the basis of potential contamination from aquaculture effluents,
construction of unsightly facilities that may discourage tourism, and obstruction to
coastal navigation. In addition, there are often conflicts between fish farmers and
commercial fishermen in coastal regions.
Over the past 6-7 years, a few individuals and researchers have experimented with
acclimating L. vannamei at approximately 3 weeks of age (minimum PL12) from
saltwater to freshwater and culturing the resulting animals to market size in fresh
waters high in dissolved minerals, especially chlorides, typical of the Floridan
aquifer. The groundwater from the Floridan aquifer, a series of limestone strata that
underlie most of the state of Florida, has the correct mineral balance to support
these species. The Floridan is an abundant supply of water that is relatively unused
in South Florida. In many parts of South Florida it does not meet state drinking water
standards due to high levels of dissolved solids and chlorides, although farmers may
use it for irrigation when higher quality water is not available.
The South Florida Water Management District or SFWMD comprises parts or all of
the 16 counties in South Florida. In these counties, total dissolved solids and
chloride concentrations range from 250 to greater than 1,000 ppm in the Floridan
aquifer with concentrations generally increasing with depth of the aquifer (Lichtler,
1972, Edwards 1989, SFWMD 1998). Many parts of the Floridan exceed 1,000 ppm
chlorides and have been known to reach 2,000 ppm or more. Surficial aquifer
waters, overlying the Floridan aquifer, range from 0-500 ppm chlorides and from 500
to over 1,000 ppm total dissolved solids (SFWMD 1998). Thus, use of water from the
Floridan aquifer to culture marine shrimp would have limited impact on the overall
management of water resources in South Florida.
1
Farms in South Florida account for over half of the state’s agricultural value and
many of these farms have Floridan aquifer wells in place. These inland sites are
already zoned and prepared for agriculture, and environmental concerns and
competition with other uses and users would be tremendously decreased by the use
of inland rather than coastal sites for aquaculture. With its abundant supply of
suitable fresh water, warm climate, and strong agricultural industry, Florida has
excellent potential for culturing marine shrimp species that can be acclimated to
freshwater at inland sites.
The various projects and experiments culturing L. vannamei in Florida have thus far
not been convincingly economically feasible, and further have not been sufficiently
coordinated or consolidated. There is a need to publicly demonstrate inland shrimp
culture in fresh waters in outdoor, but closed, systems of a commercially large
enough size and that exhibit greater control over production variables, including
diseases and waste management.
The project is a partnership for a commercial scale demonstration of farming marine

shrimp in a freshwater aquaculture system. The project is designed to prove
feasibility of these technologies to existing farmers, ranchers, grove owners, and
others in rural communities, as a means to stimulate economic activity through new
crop revenues, job retention and job growth. This community driven project includes
direct participation of farmers and businesses in designing, consulting, funding and
administrating the project. The proposed environmentally responsible shrimp culture
technology, coupled with opportunities for multiple uses of agricultural land and
water will help achieve the goal of a more sustainable South Florida. Anticipated
outcomes include incorporation of shrimp production into existing farms, new
investment dollars by individuals and companies interested in this activity, and the
creation of a number of supportive businesses such as hatchery, processing, feeds,
distribution and marketing. These outcomes will result in adding new jobs and
diversifying our agricultural economy sufficiently to help insulate it from the
pressures of urban sprawl.
Project Objectives
The overall goal of the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project is to demonstrate

shrimp pond aquaculture technologies and to evaluate the feasibility of establishing
a shrimp aquaculture industry for south Florida. Specific objectives include:
(1) Construct two 1,500 sq. meter (0.37 acre) pond aquaculture production units
with An appropriately sized retention and/or treatment system resulting in
zero discharge;
(2) Stock, feed, monitor, grow and record data of shrimp over the grant cycle;
(3) Evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment system in meeting aquaculture
BMPs;
(4) Assess the potential to recycle effluent onto other agricultural crops;
(5) Have farmers and interested persons visit, learn and participate in the
demonstration;
2
(6) Compare results with other existing information on culturing penaeids in
freshwater; and
(7) Produce a written report complete with design, costs, marketing and
economic evaluation on performance and transfer these results throughout
the state.
Organization of this Report
This project report is organized into six chapters. Chapter one introduces the
research problem, objectives, and provides background information on the marine
shrimp farming industry and the U.S. shrimp market. Chapter two presents details
on the demonstration facility design and construction. Chapter three details the
shrimp production results for two crop cycles, including acclimation and nursing in
the greenhouse, and growout in lined production ponds. Chapter four reviews the
enterprise’s fixed and variable production costs and the results of market survey
research on customers’ attitudes toward the harvested shrimp. Chapter five outlines
outreach and information dissemination efforts designed to transfer project results
and recommendations to project stakeholders, current shrimp farmers, and potential
shrimp farmers. Chapter six discusses the general conclusions from this project and
provides recommendations and directions for future research.
Background Information
The Marine Shrimp Farming Industry
Penaeid shrimp are farmed throughout the world primarily in salt and brackish water.
The Pacific or western white shrimp, Penaeus vannamei (also known as
Litopenaeus vannamei) is native to the Pacific coast from Mexico to Peru and is the
leading farm raised species in the Western Hemisphere. This species breeds well in
captivity, has a high hatchery survival, can be stocked at small sizes, has a uniform
growth rate, and juveniles can be raised to adults who can then be maintained in
captivity for spawning future generations. Shrimp aquaculture has primarily been
developed in third world countries by the private sector along with participation by
foreign governments and organizations such as the World Bank interested in
developing economies and exportable products. From 1975 to 1985, the production
of farmed shrimp worldwide increased 300% and from 1985 to 1995 it increased
another 250% with a new world record in total cultured shrimp production of 815,000
metric tons set in 1999 (Rosenberry, 2001). However, the industry began to
experience problems in 1987 due to waste management followed by disease
pathogens and many leading shrimp farming counties including Taiwan, China,
Thailand and Ecuador have since experienced erratic production cycles. These
problems have led to the emergence of a clear need to develop the next generation
of shrimp production systems that (1) focus on greater control over production
variables, including diseases and waste management, (2) can be achieved in
production systems that are more intensive, closed or semi-closed, and (3)
recirculate or reuse more water.
3
Historically the commercial farming of marine shrimp throughout the world occurs on
the coastal plain using waters of estuarine and oceanic origin. In 1981 an El Nino
event in Ecuador caused coastal shrimp farms there to have their saline water
sources diluted by rainfall runoff to near zero salinity. However, many shrimp
farmers noted that their shrimp survived this El Nino event that lasted for months.
Their low salinity growout survivability and success in Ecuador was noted by at least
one aquaculturist in south Texas - Durwood M. Dugger. This farmer produced over
5,000 lbs. of Litopenaeus vannamei that year in ponds filled and supplied with Rio
Grand River irrigation water with salinities less than 2 ppt. (Les Hodgeson, Marco
Sales, Inc. Brownsville, Texas, personal communications.)
Shrimp culture in the United States has historically occurred in coastal areas in
ponds using brackish water in South Carolina, Texas and Hawaii. In the continental
United States, pressures from economic and environmental interests have caused
potential shrimp farming researchers and entrepreneurs to increasingly examine the
potential of more inland shrimp farming.
In recent years, pilot shrimp farms have been established in Alabama, Arizona,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.
Researchers (Van Wyk, et al, 1998; Harvin, 2000; Samocha, et al, 2001; Lee, et al,
2001; Boyd, 2001) have reported on culturing L. vannamei at inland sites in
freshwater ponds and indoor raceways in Texas, Arizona, Alabama and Florida.
Boyd (2001) reported on pilot projects culturing shrimp inland in Alabama using
groundwater taken from aquifers located at depths between 60-120 m and wells
yielding 750 to 3,500 L/min of water ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 ppt salinity. Most of
these farms seek to grow either L. vannamei or L. monodon. Both have shown a
tolerance for growth in low salinity ground and well waters.
Pond production trials in Arizona showed high survivals of up to 100%, yields up to

2.3 Kg per sq. meter, and conversion ratios less than 1 that were feasible for ponds
stocked at 20,000 PL per sq. meter in low salinity (1.8-2.6 ppt) ground water with
intensive aeration (60 hp/ha). L. vannamei (Samocha, et. al, 2000) can be raised in
low salinity geothermal water at inland sites without negative effect on growth and
survival. The studies conducted in enclosed raceways in greenhouses in Arizona
showed that juvenile shrimp (PL 8) could be acclimated to the low salinity well water
and grown up to 1.5 gram each with yields approaching 2.3 Kg per square meter in
35 days. The well water had chlorides ranging from 796-985 ppm, sodium from 627-
820 ppm, and Total Soluble Salts of 1,843-2,591 ppm. Grow out trials, also in indoor
raceways (98 square meters in surface area), showed that shrimp could be grown to
a marketable size of 14-18 grams each in 107 days, with survivals ranging from 59-
86%, FCR ranging from 2.1-3.2, and production values ranging from 1.0-4.3 Kg per
square meter. The authors concluded that L.vannamei can be cultured to
marketable size in Arizona both in both indoor raceways and outdoor ponds.
Economic feasibility was not addressed in the study.
4
Scarpa (1998, 1999) produced a recommended range of water quality parameters
for the culture of L. vannamei in Florida freshwater that includes chlorides minimally
greater than 300 ppm, total hardness greater than 150 ppm, total and alkalinity
greater than 100 ppm. Harvin (2000) has previously presented information from
small private pond production experiments in Florida producing one crop of L.
vannamei annually that could yield on the order of 6,700 Kg/Ha (5,968 lbs/acre) or
more. A prototype indoor three-phase raceway undergoing experimentation in
Florida may be capable of producing 2.4-2.7 kg per sq. meter per crop with up to six
crops per year (Van Wyk, 2001). Van Wyk, et al (1999) produced a manual on
culturing marine shrimp in indoor recirculating freshwater systems in Florida.
However, the economic model generated by the project required sales returns of 20-
70% above (then) current wholesale prices before profitability looked probable.
Most of these shrimp aquaculture pilot ventures have experienced some degree of
technical success. However, none have declared economic success, as evidence
by large scale expansion. The largest scale of these inland shrimp farming
ventures, OceanBoy Farms, Inc., is located in Florida and consists of approximately
800 acres of low salinity production ponds located in south central Florida near Lake
Okeechobee. However, this particular farm is funded with private investment dollars
and it is unknown whether the farm is profitable or being sustained by investor funds.
Recently, OceanBoy Farms achieved USDA organic certification and announced
that the farm would only produce organic shrimp in the future, presumably to
differentiate their product from competing shrimp products and achieve higher than
normal market prices.
The crux of the problem facing development of an inland shrimp farming industry is
an in-depth analysis of the economic feasibility of such a venture. There are myriad
technical problems facing the development of inland/low salinity shrimp farming
industry in the U.S. and, specifically, in the state of Florida (reuse and disposal of
even low salinity waters, disposition of production waste by-products - both solid and
liquid, and production processes that allow yields to compete with other shrimp
producers around the world). However, it is a dearth of information on the economic
feasibility of low salinity shrimp farming that primarily holds back the private sector
from large scale investment in this potential agri-industry.
U.S. Market for Shrimp
The U.S. seafood market is a series of niche markets ranging from “live” markets
catering to largely Asian consumers to white tablecloth restaurants offering limited-
availability high cost product, such as swordfish and large sea scallops. American
consumers spend more than $41 billion each year on a wide variety of fish and
shellfish products. This total includes about $28 billion purchased in food service
establishments and about $13 billion in retail stores. Away-from-home outlets now
account for over 60 percent of total U.S. seafood consumption (Adams, 1998).
5
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates that approximately 1,500
plants manufacture seafood in the United States. Most are small businesses and
many are family owned. Fish and seafood are distributed to restaurants and retail
outlets throughout the United States by approximately 2,800 wholesale and
distribution firms. These firms include both full-line distributors and those specializing
in seafood.
In 1996, U.S. commercial fishermen landed almost 9.5 billion pounds of fish and
shellfish at U.S. ports, valued at approximately $3.4 billion. Demand for seafood far
exceeds what U.S. commercial fishermen and aquaculture producers can produce.
This shortfall in domestic supply varies widely by product, but is most severe for fish
blocks, tuna and shrimp.
Approximately 1,000 U.S. firms are in the business of importing fish and shellfish.
Importers compete for products with buyers in Japan, Europe and other major
markets. In 1996, these firms purchased more than 3.2 billion pounds of seafood
valued at $6.7 billion, making the U.S. the second largest seafood import market in
the world. Altogether, more than half the seafood consumed by Americans is
imported. The American seafood industry is also the world’s largest exporter of
seafood. In 1996, U.S. firms exported 2.1 billion pounds of seafood valued at $3.0
billion. The largest export markets are in Japan, followed by the European
Community and Canada.
Shrimp Consumption
Shrimp is the leading seafood consumed in the U.S. (NFI, 2002). Many species of
shrimp are consumed in the United States, but consumers have shown a strong
preference for warm-water shrimp species, with white shrimp generally preferred
(Keithly, et al., 1993). Shrimp is sold in a variety of fresh or frozen product forms,
including whole or tails, shell-on or peeled, and round or split and deveined. Sales
and shipments are reported by size categories of shell-on shrimp tails, defined by
count per pound. Customary commercial size classifications in the U.S. are U/15
(under 15 shrimp/lb), 16/20, 21/25, 26/30, 31/35, etc. About half of all shrimp sold in
the U.S. are medium-sized (41-50 count/lb) (Schumann, 2000), and consumers
expect the count to be near the middle of the range, with all purchased shrimp
consistently about the same size (Dore, 2000).
Most farmed shrimp for the U.S. market is currently packed as shell-on tails,
although some is sold whole. Head-on shrimp is increasingly important in Europe,
but the U.S. market for this product is still very small and consists primarily of
oriental restaurants (Dore, 2000). The major product form for white shrimp is
frozen, heads-off, 41-50 count shrimp (Schumann, 2000). There has been a gradual
shift in preferences from canned and dried shrimp to fresh and frozen product forms
(USDOC, 1996). Most of the growth in U.S. consumption of shrimp is in the form of
raw headless, raw peeled, or cooked peeled shrimp (US Dept. of Commerce, 1996).
U.S production of breaded shrimp increased from 122 million pounds (55.5 metric
6
tons) in 1992 to 152 million pounds (69 metric tons) in 2001, a 24.5 percent increase
(NMFS, 2002).
There has been overall growth in consumption of shrimp since 1965. Per capita
consumption increased slowly through the early 1980s from 1.4 pounds in 1980 to
2.0 pounds by 1985. From 1986 through 1996, per capita consumption slowly
increased, fluctuating between 2.2 pounds and 2.5 pounds. Since 1996, per capita
consumption skyrocketed from 2.5 pounds in 1996 up to per capita shrimp
consumption of 3.4 pounds/person in 2001, a 36 percent increase over the 5-year
period. The 2001 per capita shrimp consumption represents 23% of total U.S.
seafood consumption (NMFS, 2002).
The tremendous increase in U.S. per capita shrimp consumption over the last
several years can be attributed, in large measure, to decreases in shrimp prices
caused by the large supply increases. Market behavior is characterized in part by
the relationship between quantity of a product and its price, from both the producer’s
(supply) perspective and the consumer’s (demand) perspective. The quantity of any
food product, including shrimp, demanded by consumers is determined by: the
product’s price, the price of other products competing for the consumer’s dollar,
consumers’ incomes, and consumers’ tastes and preferences (Schaffner, et al.,
1998). In general, as prices fall, producers are willing to supply less of their product,
but consumers are willing to purchase more.
‘Elasticity’ refers to the ratio of the percent change in quantity demanded to a one
percent change in price. The price elasticity of demand is a measure of the relative
responsiveness of demand to changes in product prices. Demand is considered
inelastic if this ratio is less than one. In this case, a 1% change in price produces
less than a 1% change in demand (or supply). Participants at the First International
Symposium on Sustainable Fish Farming in 1994 (Reinertsen and Haaland, 1995)
observed that luxury species, such as lobster, shrimp, crab, salmon and flatfish,
have a relatively inelastic demand.
Shrimp Supply
Demand for shrimp in the U.S. far exceeds the supply produced by U.S. commercial
fishermen and aquaculture producers. The total domestic supply of shrimp is simply
the total of U.S. commercial landings plus aquaculture production plus imports minus
exports. U.S. supply of all forms of shrimp (heads-off weight) increased from 819.7
million pounds in 1992 to 841.6 million pounds in 1996, an increase of only 2.7
percent. By 2001 total supply skyrocketed to 1.312 billion pounds, an increase of
55.9 percent from 1996 to 2001 (NMFS, 2002).
U.S commercial landings increased from 198 million pounds (head-off weight) in
1991 to 218.5 million pounds head-off weight (332.5 million pounds or 150,815
metric tons live weight) in 2000. This represented an increase of only 10.3 percent
over the ten-year period. Landings in 2001 decreased 7.8 percent to 201.4 million
pounds head-off weight (306.5 million pounds or 139,022 metric tons live weight
(Johnson, 2001; NMFS, 2002).
7
During the 1995 – 2000 period, domestic U.S. aquaculture production increased
from 2.2 million pounds (1,000 metric tons) in 1995 to 4.8 million pounds (2,169
metric tons) in 2000, an increase of almost 117 percent (NMFS, 2002). Despite this
impressive growth rate, domestic farmed shrimp production accounts for less than
5% of the total U.S. supply (Harvey, 2002). The increase in domestic shrimp
aquaculture production also failed to offset the decrease in commercial landings.
U.S. shrimp exports (domestic and foreign re-exports) in 2001 were only 32.5 million
pounds (14,756 metric tons), primarily shipped to Canada and Mexico (NMFS,
2002).
Imported shrimp, primarily farm raised, is the leading contributor to the U.S. seafood
trade imbalance. Imports have increased significantly since the mid-1960s. Shrimp
imports in 1998 totaled 695 million pounds, worth $3.1 billion, an increase of 5
percent from 1997. In 2001, 882.6 million pounds of shrimp were imported into the
U.S., 121.8 million pounds more than the quantity imported in 2000, and increase of
16 percent in just one year. The 2001 imports, primarily from Southeast Asia,
represented about 85% of the total U.S. supply. These imports were valued at $3.6
billion and accounted for 37% of the value of total edible fishery product imports
(NMFS, 2002).
Two-thirds of U.S. shrimp exports originate in Asia. Imports from Asian countries,
primarily Thailand, increased from 354.8 million pounds (product weight) in 1992 to
587.2 million pounds in 2001, a 65.5 percent increase. Imports from South America
totaled 146.7 million pounds in 2001, 16.6 percent of U.S. imports. Ecuador has
been the major South American supplier, but Ecuadorian imports have fluctuated
wildly. Ecuadorian shrimp imports fell from 120.6 million pounds in 1992 to 97.2
million pounds by 1996, rebounded to 142.3 million pounds by 1998, then fell again
to 111.1 million pounds in 1999, and 42.1 million pounds in 2000 (70 percent
decrease from 1998). Imports from Ecuador increased to 59 million pounds (26,760
metric tons) in 2001 (Johnson, 2001; NMFS, 2002).
Venezuela has been the second leading source of imported shrimp from South
America. Venezuelan imports grew from 7.8 million pounds in 1992 to 32.8 million
pounds in 2000. Imports from Venezuela fell to 21 million pounds (9,517 metric
tons) in 2001 (Johnson, 2001; NMFS, 2002).
Through October 2002, shell-on black tiger shrimp imports from Asia were down by
5.4 percent, with Thailand imports down sharply. Imports from white shrimp
producing areas (primarily South America, China and Mexico) grew almost 14
percent from 2001. Brazil, China, and Venezuela all showed significant gains
(Brown, 2003).
Frozen products accounted for 86 percent of imported shrimp (599 million pounds in
1998, up 5 percent from 1997), fresh shrimp for 1 percent and prepared products
(breaded, canned, pre-cooked, etc.) for 13 percent of the total. Although frozen
8
products dominate shrimp imports, a growing portion of imported shrimp is now
being shipped as prepared products. In 1998, prepared-shrimp imports totaled 89
million pounds, valued at $452 million, a 29 percent increase from 1997. Shipments
of prepared shrimp are expected to continue outpacing increases in fresh and frozen
products. The increases in prepared-shrimp imports are driven by higher away-from-
home food consumption and the growth of food store sales of prepared meals.
Shrimp Prices
Shrimp prices vary according to a wide variety of factors including size, supply,
quality, origin, and species or color (Yokoyama, et al., 1989). Price generally
increases with the size of the shrimp, but users readily switch to adjacent size
categories as relative prices fluctuate (Dore, 2000). The wholesale prices of shrimp,
as of January 14, 2003 for Central and South American pond-raised white shrimp
ranged from $1.95 for 91-110 count shrimp to $$11.10 for under 10-count per
pound. The price for 41-50 count shrimp, the most popular size, was $3.15 per
pound, lower than the 52-week average of $3.25. Priced had fluctuated from a 52-
week low of $2.90 on August 22, 2002 to a 52-week high of $3.65 on April 16, 2002.
As stated previously, the price elasticity of demand for shrimp is relatively inelastic.
An inelastic price elasticity of demand has ramifications for producers. An inelastic
demand means that the quantity demanded does not change as much as the price.
Hence, noting that total sales or revenue is price times quantity, a reduction in price
increases the quantity demanded less than proportionally. Therefore, total revenues
would be lower for the producers with the increase in supply (Lesser, 1993; Shang,
1990).
Another way to examine the effects of inelastic demand is to consider what happens
when the quantity sold varies. For most agricultural and marine products, price
changes occur mainly in response to changes in supply, demand being both
relatively stable and inelastic. This is because of the biological nature and structure
of agricultural production. (For all non-storable products, such as live animals and
fresh meat, once produced, they are consumed; therefore the quantity sold is
typically determined by the amount supplied.) Higher quantities decrease prices
more than proportionally, while lower quantities increase prices more than
proportionally. The significance of products with inelastic price elasticities of
demand and variable supplies, such as shrimp, is clear: prices will be very unstable
(Lesser, 1993; Schaffner, et al., 1998).
Figure 1.1 shows the monthly U.S. wholesale prices for Central and South American
pond-raised white shrimp, 41-50 count from January 1995 through December 2002.
Prices have been highly volatile. From 1995 through 1999, prices fluctuated
between $4.00 - $5.00 per pound. In early 2000, prices climbed quickly to $6.00 per
pound during a period of tight supplies caused by industry disease problems. Since
mid-2000, as U.S. shrimp supplies skyrocketed, prices have slowly fallen 50% from
the high of $6.10 in July 2000 to the 2003 average of $3.15 per pound.
9
7.00
6.00
5.00
Price per pound
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02
Date
Figure 1.1. U.S. Wholesale Shrimp Prices, Central & South American, Pond-raised
White Shrimp, 41-50 count
Shrimp Buying Behavior and Product Preferences
Shrimp Dealers (Wholesale and Retail)
The retail food business in the United States is gigantic and dominated by
supermarkets; the few remaining specialty retail seafood markets are on the coasts
or in large cities such as Chicago, and many of these combine retail sales with a
wholesale or restaurant business. Similarly, specialty wholesalers of seafood are
located almost exclusively in coastal states or the largest inland cities and primarily
supply restaurants (Dore, 2000). Activities associated with the wholesale, retail, and
food service sectors of the seafood industry create significant economic activity
within many non-coastal metropolitan areas of the country; this is becoming even
more pronounced given the rapid development of inland aquaculture (Adams, 1998).
Although some retail food stores do buy through wholesale grocers, most
supermarkets are supplied through their own purchasing departments, with smaller
chains more likely to buy direct (Dore, 2000). Market analyses for several
aquaculturally produced finfish (Golz and Nelson, Wirth, et al., 1990) have
demonstrated a strong retailer and wholesaler preference for highly processed
product (fish fillets), consistent with a noted consumer preference for convenience
and ease of preparation.
General information concerning retailer and wholesaler shrimp purchase behavior

was extracted from three studies. Shang (1990) interviewed 63 fish distributors in
Hawaii and found that the shrimp dealers sold shrimp in six forms: frozen head-off,
10
frozen peeled and deveined, breaded, canned, dried, and fresh. Frozen head-off
was the most important category, accounting for about 70% of the total volume sold;
fresh shrimp accounted for only 1% of the total volume. Dealers preferred large
shrimp for frozen tails and frozen peeled and deveined shrimp. Firms that indicated
foreign imports as their major supply source most often cited “best price” as their
reason, firms that relied on U.S. supply sources did so for “best quality” or “steady
supply.”
Schumann (2000) surveyed 87 Florida shrimp broker/distributors. Of 18 respondents

to the question about willingness to purchase live shrimp, only 2 indicated that they
currently purchase live shrimp and 6 confirmed that they would probably purchase
live shrimp in the future. Shrimp buyers indicated a willingness to pay $3.50/lb -
$4.80/lb for farmed shrimp in 1999, and an interest in marketing full shrimp farm
production capacity.
Wirth and Davis (2004, 2003a) surveyed 3038 seafood dealers in the nine states
comprising the southeastern U.S. Dealers were asked to describe their business in
terms of the percentage of their total sales in each of four specified categories:
wholesale to wholesale, wholesale to retail, retail, and other. For this report, dealers
were classified as “wholesalers” if they indicated that more than 50% of their total
sales were wholesale-to-wholesale and/or wholesale to retail. Similarly, dealers were
classified as “retailers” if they indicated that more than 50% of their total sales were
retail. Respondents were fairly evenly split between these designations, but
approximately 70% of responding dealers reported some retail sales, suggesting
that many seafood dealers are diverse, selling in multiple markets.
Dealers were asked several questions about their current shrimp buying practices.
Of those responding, 85% (212) indicated that they currently purchase shrimp and
reported their total annual shrimp purchases. Table 1.1 presents the total pounds
purchased by these dealers; about two-thirds of dealers who buy shrimp purchase
50,000 pounds or less annually. Almost 10% buy more than one million pounds
annually.
11
Table 1.1. Number of Pounds of Shrimp Purchased Annually by Dealers who Sell
Shrimp
Pounds of Shrimp Number of Dealers Percent of Dealers
1 - 50,000 144 67.6
50,0001- 100,000 19 8.9
100,001- 250,000 20 9.4
250,001-1,000,000 12 5.6
1,000,001-5,000,000 9 4.2
more than 5,000,000 9 4.2
These dealers were also asked to list the percentage of their total shrimp purchases
in each of several specified sizes and product forms. Figure 1.2 shows the percent
of responding shrimp buyers who indicated they currently purchase any shrimp in
the specified sizes and forms. The results indicate that shrimp dealers carry the full
range of sizes from 16/20 count to counts smaller than 41/50 count. Figure 1.3
shows the shrimp product forms currently being purchased by responding shrimp
dealers. The vast majority of shrimp dealers carry shrimp tails, but more than 50% of
shrimp dealers purchase some whole, head-on shrimp. A significant proportion of
shrimp dealers also purchase peeled & deveined (p&d) tails and peeled &
undeveined (pud) tails.
100
90
80
70
% shrimp dealers
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
larger than 16/20 21/25 26/30 31/35 36/40 41/50 smaller than
16/20 41/50
shrimp size
Figure 1.2. Percent of Shrimp Dealers Currently Buying Any Shrimp in Specified
Sizes
12
100
90
80
70
% of shrimp dealers
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
whole tails p&d tails pud tails butterfly other
shrimp product form
Figure 1.3. Percent of Shrimp Dealers Currently Buying Any Shrimp in Specified
Forms
Seafood dealers were asked to rate various shrimp product features from 0-10, with
10 indicating the feature is “most important” in their shrimp purchase decisions.
Table 1.2 shows the mean rating (ranking) of each product feature for all dealers
combined and for those identified as wholesalers or retailers. Ratings were
consistent among wholesalers and retailers. Quality, freshness, and smell were the
three most important shrimp product features to the responding dealers, each with
mean rating greater than 8.5. Production source (imported vs. wild-caught vs. farm-
raised) and country-of-origin appear to be relatively unimportant to dealers. Dealers
also do not consider the whole (head-on) shrimp form, or fresh (never frozen) state
to be very important.
13
Table 1.2. Mean Rating and Ranking of Shrimp Features in Purchase Decisions
Product Mean Rating (Ranking)
Feature
ALL WHOLESALERS COMBO/OTHER RETAILERS
DEALERS
Quality 9.51 (1) 9.57 (1) 9.38 (1) 9.61 (1)
Freshness 8.82 (2) 8.88 (2) 8.44 (5) 9.03 (3)
Smell 8.75 (3) 8.66 (3) 8.31 (6) 9.12 (2)
Price 7.73 (4) 8.04 (5) 7.06 (10) 7.78 (4)
Color 7.61 (5) 8.04 (4) 7.44 (8) 7.44 (5)
Size 7.51 (6) 7.80 (6) 8.13 (7) 7.27 (7)
Consistent
7.37 (7) 7.70 (7) 8.94 (3) 7.10 (8)
Size
Taste 7.17 (8) 7.19 (8) 8.56 (4) 7.38 (6)
Consistent
6.93 (9) 6.97 (9) 9.31 (2) 6.94 (9)
Taste
Tails 6.49 (10) 6.42 (11) 7.13 (9) 6.79 (10)
Raw 5.88 (11) 5.86 (12) 5.33 (12) 6.08 (11)
Frozen 5.82 (12) 6.63 (10) 4.27 (15) 5.79 (12)
Fresh 4.64 (13) 4.22 (15) 4.33 (14) 5.00 (13)
Whole 4.23 (14) 4.29 (14) 4.19 (16) 4.32 (14)
Country-of-
4.19 (15) 4.32 (13) 5.44 (11) 4.14 (15)
Origin
P&D 3.44 (16) 3.53 (18) 4.56 (13) 3.23 (16)
Wild-Caught 3.40 (17) 3.73 (17) 4.06 (17) 3.16 (17)
Nutritional
3.14 (18) 4.11 (16) 2.38 (19) 2.74 (19)
Value
Farm-Raised 3.00 (19) 3.36 (19) 2.31 (20) 3.01 (18)
Imported 2.73 (20) 3.26 (20) 2.93 (18) 2.65 (20)
Cooked 1.50 (21) 2.04 (21) 0.93 (21) 1.25 (21)
Wirth and Davis (2003a) also performed a conjoint analysis experiment to determine
the relative importance of key shrimp product features (size form, refrigeration state,
and price) on dealers’ purchasing decisions (Table 1.3). Conjoint analysis, which
has become a popular marketing research tool for designing new products, refers to
any decompositional method that estimates the structure of buyers’ preferences for
a product’s features, given the buyers’ overall evaluations of a set of alternative
products that are pre-specified in terms of levels of different features (Green and
Srinivasan, 1978). Using conjoint analysis, a researcher can analyze a
heterogeneous product market and obtain results that can be highly disaggregated
to homogeneous groups of buyers. Alternatively, aggregating results for buyers who
have similar preference or utility functions can be useful in modifying current
products or services and in designing new ones for selected market segments
(Green and Wind, 1975).
14
Table 1.3. Relative Importance of Shrimp Product Features to Seafood Dealers
Attribute Relative Importance*
ALL DEALERS WHOLESALERS COMBO/OTHER RETAILERS
Size 23.3 26.1 26.4 17.9
State 2.2 4.4 1.9 5.5
Form 45.3 35.2 31.9 52.0
Price 29.1 34.3 39.8 24.7
* Relative Importance does not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Product form is the most important shrimp product feature for dealers, contributing
almost 50% to the rating decision. Tails are strongly preferred, and contributed more
to the product utility value than any other feature or feature level. Price contributed
almost 30% to the decision and is slightly more important than size. As expected,
the highest preference was for the lowest price and the largest size. State (fresh or
frozen) has no significant effect on the product rating, suggesting that dealers are
completely indifferent to the shrimp refrigeration state in their shrimp purchasing
decisions. Results were fairly consistent between all dealers combined and the
wholesaler and retailer groups, except that form is more important and size is less
important to retailers.
Seafood Restaurants
Away-from-home outlets now account for over 60 percent of the expenditures

associated with total U.S. seafood consumption (Adams, 1998), and a large
proportion of the products of the aquaculture industry are intended for the restaurant
market. In the U.S., shrimp is mainly consumed in restaurants. Further, in
restaurants that serve any seafood, shrimp is the seafood most likely to be found on
the menu (Dore, 2000). Today, even restaurants that are located far inland may offer
seafood menu items, including shrimp, based on air-transported fresh seafood
(USDOC, 1996). Restaurant consumption of seafood is expected to benefit from
long-term increases in disposable income and a strong domestic economy that
boosts sales in the restaurant and foodservice sectors (Dore, 2000; USDA, 2000).
Despite the popularity of shrimp in U.S. restaurants, information about seafood

restaurant buyers’ attitudes, preferences and purchase behaviors toward shrimp is
extremely limited; most recent research was found to focus on wild-caught and
farmed finfish. In addition, most studies specifically explore consumer seafood
preferences, rather than restaurant buyer purchase behavior. Shang (1990)
surveyed 58 restaurants in Honolulu, Hawaii. Quality of the shrimp, characterized by
firmness and color of flesh, was identified as a significant product characteristic at
the restaurant level. High product quality, consistent supply, and lower prices were
most often cited as preconditions for increased sales.
Wirth and Davis (2002, 2001a) surveyed 2465 seafood restaurants in the nine states
comprising the southeastern U.S. This sample represents the entire population of
seafood restaurants included in the InfoUSA database for the southeastern states.
15
The survey included questions concerning the location, size and style of the
restaurant, shrimp purchase behavior, willingness to buy directly from shrimp
farmers, and a conjoint experiment.
One-third (32%) of the responding seafood restaurants were located in a resort area,
and approximately 25% each were located in a rural or suburban area. Only 18% of
responding seafood restaurants were located in urban areas. The majority of the
restaurants (59%) described themselves as casual, with another 21% characterizing
themselves as family style. Only seven percent (7%) described themselves as fine
dining establishments. The average dinner entrée price was in the $11-$20 range,
and 91% of the seafood restaurants reported an average dinner entrée price of
$20.00 or less.
Restaurant buyers were asked several questions concerning their current shrimp
purchase practices. Fifty-eight percent (58%) indicated they purchase no shrimp
from Florida, while 16% indicated Florida as their sole source, and 22% indicated
they purchase all of their shrimp from suppliers in the U.S. outside Florida. Others
indicated various proportions purchased from Asia, South or Central America, and
other unspecified sources. Most purchases were through a seafood wholesaler; 72%
indicated all of their shrimp is purchased through a wholesaler. Annual shrimp
purchases are shown in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4. Pounds of Shrimp Purchased Annually by Seafood Restaurants

Percent of
Number of Valid
Restaurants Responses
Valid 0 1 .5
1-50,000 157 76.6
50,001-100,000 27 13.2
100,001-250,000 12 5.9
250,001-1,000,000 4 2.0
1,000,001-5000,000 1 .5
more than 5,000,000 3 1.5
Total 205 100.0
Invalid 6
Total 211
Figure 1.4 indicates the percent of restaurant buyers who indicated that they
currently purchase shrimp in the specified sizes. The restaurants purchase a wide
range of shrimp sizes, which reflects the diversity of the shrimp menu items in a
typical seafood restaurant. The greatest number of restaurants purchase the
smallest shrimp size, and the largest size is purchased by very few seafood
16
restaurants. This diversity of shrimp sizes purchased suggests that there may be
market potential for virtually all sizes of farm-raised shrimp.
Figure 1.5 illustrates the product forms currently purchased by the seafood
restaurants. Tails clearly dominate shrimp purchases. More than 80% of the
restaurant shrimp buyers indicated that 50% or more of their total shrimp purchases
are in the form of tails and 23% indicated that 100% of their shrimp purchases are in
this form. Further, 89% of the respondents indicated that they currently purchase no
whole shrimp. Shrimp farmers may have difficulty in marketing shrimp directly to
restaurants without first processing their product to remove the heads.
100
Percent Restaurants Currently Buying Size
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
16/20 26/30 36/40 smaller than 41/50
21/25 31/35 41/50 other size
Shrimp Size
Figure 1.4. Percent of Restaurants Currently Buying Specified Shrimp Sizes
17
100
90
Percent Restaurants Currently Buying Form
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
whole tails p&d tails pud tails butterfly other form
Shrimp Product Form
Figure 1.5. Percent of Restaurants Currently Buying Specified Shrimp Forms
Seafood restaurant buyers were asked to assess the importance of various shrimp
product features. The seafood restaurant buyers were asked to rate various shrimp
product features from 0-10, with 10 indicating that the feature is “most important” in
their shrimp purchase decisions. The mean ratings for each product feature are
shown in Table 1.5. Not surprisingly, quality and taste are most important product
features for the majority of the responding restaurant buyers. Smell, price, size and
freshness are also very important features for the large majority of restaurants. It is
encouraging to note that consistent size and consistent taste, features that are within
the control of shrimp farmers, are the third and fourth highest rated features for the
majority of restaurant buyers. Consistency may represent a competitive advantage
for farmed shrimp over wild-caught. Raw shrimp are highly preferred over cooked
shrimp, and most of the buyers also considered the shrimp tails product form an
important feature, suggesting again that shrimp farmers may encounter initial market
resistance to the whole shrimp product form.
18
Table 1.5. Importance Rating of Shrimp Product Features in Purchase Decisions
(Scale from 0-10, 10 Most Important)
Shrimp Product Mean Standard

Feature Rating Deviation
Quality 9.88 0.68
Taste 9.63 1.29
Consistent size 9.60 1.22
Consistent taste 9.56 1.31
Smell 9.39 1.53
Price 9.34 1.41
Size 9.29 1.54
Freshness 9.18 2.11
Tails 8.44 2.96
Raw 8.04 3.39
Color 7.79 2.59
Frozen 7.31 2.99
Country of origin 5.07 3.94
P&D 4.90 4.26
Nutritional value 4.61 3.50
Fresh (not frozen) 3.94 3.69
Farm-raised 3.67 3.67
Wild-caught 3.00 3.44
Imported 2.57 3.11
Whole 2.28 3.47
Cooked 1.47 2.92
The low importance ratings of several shrimp product features, especially for fresh
(not frozen), farm-raised, wild-caught, and imported are not favorable for farm-raised
shrimp. The restaurant buyers preferred frozen shrimp instead of fresh shrimp.
Further, they did not seem to care whether the shrimp were farm-raised, wild-caught,
or imported. This result suggests that shrimp farmers will not have a competitive
marketing advantage because their product is farm-raised, instead of wild-caught or
imported.
Restaurant buyer preferences for four shrimp product attributes, size, state, form
and price, were assessed through the use of a conjoint analysis experiment,
included as part of the mail survey by Wirth and Davis (2002, 2001a). The
calculated relative importance of each feature is presented in Table 1.6.
19
Table 1.6. Relative Importance of Each Shrimp Product Feature to Seafood
Restaurants
Attribute Range of Utility Relative Importance*

Size 1.057 21.9%
State 0.190 3.9%
Form 2.875 59.7%
Price 0.696 14.4%
*Relative Importance does not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Product form was the most important shrimp product feature, contributing almost
60% of total utility. Tails were strongly preferred, and contributed more to the product
utility than any other feature or feature level. In general, restaurant buyers have little
or no interest in the whole shrimp product form. These results reinforce the
conclusion that shrimp farmers interested in marketing directly to seafood
restaurants may be required to offer shrimp tails, rather than whole shrimp.
Large size (26-35 tails/pound) shrimp had a higher utility value than extra-large (16-
25 tails/pound) shrimp for the seafood restaurants and both large and extra-large
were preferred to medium size (36-50 tails/pound) shrimp. Price, with its relative
importance of only 14% for the seafood restaurant buyers, was less important than
size and far less important than form. State (fresh or frozen) had little effect on the
product rating, suggesting that restaurant buyers are virtually indifferent to the
shrimp refrigeration state in their shrimp purchase decisions. Restaurants may
generally be unwilling to pay extra to purchase fresh shrimp instead of frozen
shrimp, which precludes restaurant marketing and product differentiation of fresh
shrimp on the basis that they have never been frozen.
One positive aspect of seafood restaurants’ preference structure is the relative
unimportance of price to the seafood restaurant buyers, which suggests that
restaurant buyers may be willing to pay a price premium for a high quality, farm-
raised shrimp product with consistent taste and consistent size. The more expensive
restaurants, in particular, indicate a willingness to purchase the largest (typically
most expensive) size of shrimp, in the form of tails, directly from shrimp farmers. A
price premium in the restaurant market may offset any processing costs for the
shrimp farmer. However, research has not clearly identified any characteristics of
farm-raised shrimp that confer a competitive advantage and justify a price premium,
given buyers’ preference for frozen shrimp over fresh shrimp and the relative
indifference of seafood restaurant buyers to farm-raised versus wild-caught and
imported shrimp (Wirth and Davis, 2001a).
20
Consumers
The literature addresses three distinct aspects of consumer purchase behavior for
shrimp and seafood in general: (1) preferences for species, size, and product form,
(2) the effect of purchase considerations such as price and perceptions of freshness
and safety, and (3) the influence of demographic factors such as age, race, income,
and household size.
In economics, the price (income) elasticity of demand succinctly describes the

relationship between price (income) and quantity demanded for a particular product.
Price (income) elasticity refers to the percentage change in quantity to a one-percent
change in price (income). Demand is termed elastic if the elasticity exceeds one (in
absolute value), while it is called inelastic if the value lies between zero and one
(Lesser, 1993). An inelastic demand means that the quantity demanded does not
change as much as the price (income). Shrimp appears to be both price-inelastic
and income-inelastic, with expenditures for fresh and frozen shrimp increasing with
increasing income and decreasing with increasing price.
Since total sales or revenue is price times quantity sold, when the price elasticity of
demand is inelastic, a reduction in price increases the quantity demanded less than
proportionally and total revenue falls. Another way to examine the effects of
inelastic demand is to consider what happens when the quantity sold varies. For
non-storable products, such as live animals and fresh meat, once produced, they are
consumed; the quantity sold is typically determined by the amount supplied. Higher
quantities decrease prices more than proportionally, while lower quantities increase
prices more than proportionally. “The significance of products with inelastic price
elasticities of demand and variable supplies is clear: prices will be very unstable”
(Lesser, 1993).
Several studies have examined consumer expectations for shrimp and seafood in
general. Consumers demand freshness; the shrimp must have a pleasant flavor and
aroma that is characteristic of the species (Dore, 2000). Consumers are influenced
by nutrition and health considerations in their decision to purchase shrimp or other
seafood (Gempesaw, et al., 1995; Nauman, et al., 1995), although there are limits to
the amount consumers are willing to spend on “healthy” foods. It should be noted
that consumers are often doubtful about the safety of seafood in the market, and
tend to perceive aquaculturally produced seafood, in general, as safer than wild-
caught (Nauman, et al., 1995; Foltz, et al., 1999; Wang, et al., 1995). Consumers
also increasingly value convenience and ease of preparation, and this influences
their purchase decisions for seafood.
The heaviest consumers of shrimp or seafood tend to be well-educated, affluent

adults in the 35 - 55 age range (Dore, 2000). Coastal residents are significantly
more likely to consume seafood than inland residents; experience with fresh seafood
and purchase frequency of seafood decline with increasing distance from the sea
(Nauman, et al., 1995; Wessells, et al., 1994; Dore, 2000). Per capita consumption
21
of seafood in Florida far exceeds the national average (Schumann, 2000) and the
southeast region together with the inland border states consume approximately 37%
of the shrimp consumed in U.S. homes (Prochaska and Andrew, 1974).
Numerous demographic factors, including urbanization, region, race, ethnicity, age,

diet status, and income significantly affect the likelihood of eating shellfish at home.
Individuals living in urban and suburban areas are more likely to eat shellfish at
home than individuals living in rural areas. Individuals from the Northeast and West
regions of the U.S. are more likely to eat shellfish at home than those from the
South. Hispanics are more likely to eat shellfish at home than non-Hispanics, and
blacks are more likely to eat shellfish at home than whites (Nayga and Capps,
1995). White households are only about half as likely as non-white households to
be frequent at-home consumers of seafood (Nauman, et al., 1995; Cheng and
Capps, 1987), so the growth of immigrant populations and the increasing popularity
of ethnic cuisines is probably a positive indicator for shrimp consumption in the U.S.
(Dore, 2000). Expenditures for fresh and fresh-frozen shrimp are lower if children
are present in the household (Cheng and Capps, 1987). Age and income are also
positively related to eating shellfish at home. Since the U.S. population is becoming
older, there may be increasing opportunities to market shrimp to older Americans
(Nayga and Capps, 1995).
Region, urbanization, employment, diet status, household size, age, and income are
demographic variables that affect the likelihood of eating shellfish away from home.
Prior research suggests that race does not seem to significantly affect consumption
of shellfish away from home (Nayga and Capps, 1995). Individuals living in urban
areas are more likely to eat shellfish away from home than residents of non-urban
areas. As household size increases, there is a decreasing affinity to eat shellfish
away from home. In general, restaurant consumption of seafood decreases if
children are present in the household (Hanson, et al., 1995). Similar to at home
shellfish consumption, age and income are positively related with the likelihood of
consuming shellfish away from home (Nayga and Capps, 1995).
The remainder of this section reports results of a six-page consumer survey

developed and administered by mail in June 2001 to a randomly selected stratified
sample of 5000 households in nine southeastern U.S. states (Wirth and Davis,
2003b, 2001b). The survey instrument consisted of 53 questions. Consumers were
asked a range of questions relating to demographic characteristics, general
shopping habits, and shrimp preferences and purchasing behavior. The shrimp
purchasing behavior questions elicited information about both away-from-home
shrimp consumption, i.e. restaurant consumption, and at-home shrimp consumption.
The mail survey included a conjoint analysis experiment to quantify the relative
importance of various shrimp features to consumers.
When asked whether any member of their household eats shrimp, 96% of the
consumers responded positively. Those who indicated that no member of their
household eats shrimp were asked to indicate their reasons for not eating shrimp.
22
Among these consumers, the most frequently reported reason for not eating shrimp
was “doesn’t like the taste”.
Away-from-home Consumption:
Consumers were asked how often they eat shrimp away from home; responses are
summarized in Table 1.7. The most frequent response was once per month (28%),
followed closely by once every three months (25%). Black and Hispanic
respondents report more frequent away-from-home shrimp consumption than do
white respondents. Consumers were also asked to identify the proportion of their
restaurant meals that include shrimp. The most frequent response (24%) was two
meals in ten, and the mean was 3.34 meals in ten, with a standard deviation of 2.40.
Black and Hispanic respondents also indicated a higher proportion of restaurant
meals that include shrimp.
Table 1.7. Frequency of Away-from-Home (Restaurant) Shrimp Consumption

Percent of
Number of Valid
Consumers Responses
Valid never 10 2.0
once every six months 76 15.1
once every three months 125 24.9
once per month 142 28.2
twice per month 106 21.1
other 44 8.7
Total 503 100.0
Invalid 29
Total 532
The consumers were asked to describe the types of shrimp dishes they purchase in
restaurants. Their responses are presented in Figure 1.6. The most frequently
selected dish was breaded, fried shrimp; 71% of those responding indicated that
they order shrimp in this form.
23
400
Number of Consumers, N=532

300
200
100
0
sh
sh
br
br
bo
ta
sh
sh
ot
ils
he
ea
oi
rim
rim
rim
rim
ile
le
rs
de
in
d
p
p
p
p
or
hr
sa
d
in
co
sh
ov
ov
&
im
st
uc
sa
ck
rim
er
er
fri
ea
p
e
ta
la
pa
ric
ed
di
m
d
il
e
st
sh
ed
a
Figure 1.6. Shrimp Dishes Ordered in Restaurants
Only 18% of consumers indicated that their shrimp purchases at restaurants vary by
season; these consumers were asked to rank the four seasons in terms of
restaurant shrimp. Overall, restaurant purchases of shrimp appear to be lowest in
winter and highest in summer among those whose purchases vary seasonally.
At-home Consumption:
Consumers were asked an array of questions related to their preferences and

purchase behavior for shrimp to be consumed at-home. About 84% of survey
respondents indicated that they purchase shrimp for at-home consumption. The
frequency of at-home shrimp consumption is presented in Table 1.8. Consumers
were most likely to report eating shrimp at home about once every three months
(27%), followed closely by once per month (26%) and twice per month (25%). Black
respondents appear to eat shrimp at home more frequently than other respondents.
24
Table 1.8. Frequency of At-Home Shrimp Consumption
Percent of
Number of Valid
Consumers Responses
Valid never 4 1.0
once every six months 64 15.6
once every three months 110 26.8
once per month 106 25.8
twice per month 104 25.3
other 23 5.6
Total 411 100.0
Invalid 121
Total 532
Consumer responses concerning the refrigeration states, product forms and sizes of
shrimp purchased for at-home consumption are presented in Figures 1.7 – 1.9. The
most popular product state, form, and size were fresh, never frozen (72%), and
shell-on tails (61%) in the 26-30 count/lb size (51%). In general, black respondents
are more likely than others to purchase shrimp in a breaded form.
The high response for fresh, never frozen shrimp is significant for shrimp producers
hoping to sell their shrimp in this refrigeration state. However, fresh shrimp are not
widely available in supermarkets, and it is possible that consumers mistake thawed,
previously frozen shrimp for fresh, never frozen shrimp. A surprising 31% of
consumers report purchasing whole, head-on shrimp. These are very encouraging
results for U.S. shrimp farmers, who primarily wish to sell fresh, whole shrimp, thus
minimizing the need for processing permits and formal HACCP food safety
programs.
The locations where shrimp is purchased for at-home consumption are shown in
Figure 1.10. Shrimp for at-home use was most likely to be purchased in a
supermarket (65%) or at a seafood market (43%). Consumers also reported the
frequency of shrimp purchases from a grocery store and from a seafood market. For
both of these purchase locations, "once every few months" was the most likely
frequency for shrimp purchases. This is consistent with the frequency reported
overall for shrimp purchased for at-home use. Both black and Hispanic respondents
more frequently purchase shrimp while grocery shopping than do white respondents.
25
26
Figure 1.7. Shrimp Refrigeration States Purchased for At-home Use
te
ta m
rs or
he rf
ot he
ot
k
oc
Figure 1.8. Forms of Shrimp Purchased for At-home Use

bl d
in de
n d
ze ea ne
fro br i
ve
n de
ze un
fro &
al
ly ed
el
du pe ne
d
vi i
di ve
in
de
n &
ze ed
fro el
ly pe
us
io
ev ils
pr ta
n
ze
n l-o
ro el
rf sh
ve n
-o
, ne ad
sh he
fre l e,
ho
w
400
300
200
100
400
300
200
100
0
0
Number of Consumers, N=532 Number of Consumers, N=532
27
e ce
Figure 1.10. Places where Shrimp is Purchased for At-home Use

z
si la
r /lb rp
he 50 he
ot n ot
ha at
rt bo
al
le or
ck
Figure 1.9. Sizes of Shrimp Purchased for At-home Use
sm do
d
an
st
lb de
0/ si
-5 ad
e
41 or
ro st
lb od
0/ fo
-4 th
al t
36 he ke
ar
lb m
5/ d
-3 oo
31 af
se ry
ce
lb ro
0/ lg
-3 al
26 sm t
ke
lb ar
5/ rm
-2 pe
21 su r
te
lb en
0/ rc
-2 pe
16 su
400
300
200
100
400
300
200
100
0
0
Number of Consumers, N=532 Number of Consumers, N=532
Consumers who purchase shrimp while grocery shopping were asked to indicate
factors that influence their purchase decision. Responses are presented in Figure
1.11. Price and appearance of the shrimp were the most frequently selected factors,
indicated by 72% and 54% of responding consumers, respectively. Consumers
were also asked whether the availability of recipes or preparation information is
important; 33% indicated that this is at least somewhat important.
Consumers were asked to indicate the importance of 21 shrimp product features in

their purchases for at-home consumption by rating each feature on a scale from 0 –
10, with 10 most important. The mean ratings for those features were then sorted to
indicate a ranking, or relative importance; the results are shown in Table 1.9. The
four most highly rated, or most important, features for both white and black
respondents were freshness, quality, taste and smell. For both of these groups,
purchase price was the seventh most highly rated feature. However, among the
small set of Hispanic consumers responding, purchase price was the second most
highly rated feature, following only freshness.
The importance rating attached to farm-raised and wild-harvested as shrimp product

features was very low. The mean rating for farmed shrimp was higher than that for
wild-harvested; fresh shrimp was rated more highly than frozen, and the mean rating
for shell-on tails was higher than that for peeled and deveined shrimp, and both of
these forms were more highly rated than whole shrimp.
400
Number of Consumers, N=532
300
200
100
0
ap
st
pr
si
st
co
nu
t im
sp
ot
ze
or
or
he
ic
up
ec
pe
tri
e
e
e
tio
rf
ia
of
on
a
di
ad
ra
ac
lo
na
sp
ye
ve
nc
to
cc
lv
la
ar
rti
e
r
as
y
al
se
ue
io
m
n
en
t
Figure 1.11. Factors Influencing Shrimp Purchases
28
The consumer utility and relative importance of four specific, farmer-controllable
shrimp product attributes (size, state, form and price) in purchasing shrimp for home
use were assessed through a conjoint analysis experiment, included as part of the
mail survey by Wirth and Davis (2003b, 2001b). The aggregate conjoint results
were also segmented by race for each of three racial groups: white, black, and
Hispanic.
The utilities for all shrimp features and feature levels are shown in Table 1.10. The
signs and magnitudes of the feature level utilities indicate that large shrimp are
preferred, with medium and x-large shrimp considered about equally desirable; this
is consistent with consumer reports of sizes of shrimp they currently buy or would be
willing to buy direct. Fresh shrimp are strongly preferred to frozen, with previously
frozen shrimp considered least desirable, and peeled and deveined shrimp tails are
strongly preferred to shell-on tails with whole shrimp least desirable. The preference
for fresh, never frozen shrimp is encouraging for shrimp producers, but the strong
preference for peeled and deveined shrimp tails indicates a potential obstacle to
direct marketing without processing. In addition, preference decreases
approximately linearly with increasing price.
29
Table 1.9. Mean Ratings and Rankings for Shrimp Product Features
Shrimp ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC
Feature
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
Rating Rating Rating Rating
freshness 9.53 1 9.44 1 9.97 1 9.91 1
quality 9.23 2 9.23 2 9.19 4 8.45 5
taste 9.12 3 9.07 3 9.32 3 8.78 4
smell 8.83 4 8.74 4 9.39 2 8.82 3
consistent 7.94 5 7.84 5 8.80 5 7.80 7

taste
color 7.86 6 7.77 6 8.74 6 7.20 9
purchase 7.84 7 7.76 7 8.45 7 9.00 2

price
fresh 7.58 8 7.51 8 7.53 8 7.27 8
state
tails 6.97 9 6.99 9 6.29 13 6.90 11
size 6.81 10 6.85 10 6.42 12 7.00 10
consistent 6.44 11 6.31 11 6.47 10 7.89 6

size
raw 6.34 12 6.23 12 7.03 9 5.67 14
peeled & 5.52 13 5.28 13 5.61 15 6.78 13

deveined
nutritional 5.21 14 4.89 15 6.17 14 6.80 12
value
frozen 5.16 15 5.18 14 4.74 19 4.80 15/16
state
country 4.87 16 4.63 16 6.43 11 3.90 17
of origin
whole 4.53 17 4.45 17 5.48 16 4.80 15/16
form
cooked 4.10 18 3.93 18 5.19 17 3.00 19
farmed 3.29 19 2.97 19 4.80 18 3.80 18
wild – 3.02 20 2.81 20 3.17 20 2.89 20

caught
Imported 2.50 21 2.31 21 3.07 21 2.56 21
30
Table 1.10. Calculated Consumer Utility for Each Shrimp Product Feature Level*
Attribute & Level ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC
constant (mean) 4.457 4.426 4.947 4.616

size x-large -0.124 -0.097 -0.082 -0.495
size large 0.291 0.295 0.281 0.263
size medium -0.167 -0.198 -0.199 0.232
state fresh 1.082 1.124 0.792 0.929
state frozen -0.440 -0.471 -0.019 -0.616
state prev. frozen -0.642 -0.653 -0.773 -0.313
form whole -0.863 -0.922 -0.281 -0.586
form shell-on tails 0.075 0.099 -0.003 -0.192
form p & d tails 0.788 0.823 0.281 0.778
price $5.00/lb 1.320 1.241 1.845 1.626
price $9.50/lb -0.013 0.027 0.120 -0.586
price $14.00/lb -1.307 -1.268 -1.965 -1.040
* differences between racial groups are not statistically significant
The relative importance of each feature is the range of utility over all levels of that
feature, expressed as a percentage of the sum of the utility ranges for all features.
The calculated relative importance of each feature for the aggregate data and each
of the three racial groups is presented in Table 1.11. Price is the most important
feature for all consumers, but it is more important to both black and Hispanic
consumers than to white consumers. As expected, preference decreases with
increasing price. Refrigeration state and form are about equally important for white
and Hispanic consumers, and size is relatively unimportant. For black consumers,
size and form are both relatively unimportant.
Table 1.11. Relative Importance of Each Shrimp Product Feature to Consumers

ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC
Feature Relative Relative Relative Relative
Importance Importance Importance Importance
Size 7.1% 7.6% 7.5% 12.0%
State 26.7% 27.2% 24.4% 24.4%
Form 25.6% 26.7% 8.8% 21.5%
Price 40.7% 38.5% 59.4% 42.1%
The shrimp feature relative importance results for black and Hispanic consumers
should be interpreted with caution. First, since the Hispanic sample size is very
small, with only 11 Hispanic consumers providing preference ratings, the results may
not be representative of Hispanic consumer shrimp product feature preferences.
Second, the statistical significance of feature coefficients may affect the computation
of feature relative importance.
31
Consumers were presented with a series of statements concerning shrimp quality
and comparisons of wild-caught or imported shrimp with U.S. farm-raised shrimp.
They were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a Likert
scale, a 5-level scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Responses
to each of these questions are presented in Tables 1.12 – 1.15. To every question
contrasting U.S. farm-raised shrimp with imported shrimp or with wild-harvested
shrimp, the most frequent response was "don't know". This is consistent with the
general unfamiliarity of these consumers with U.S. farm-raised shrimp.
Most consumers (73%) agreed “water pollution is the primary cause of unsafe
shrimp.” The vast majority (86%) also agreed "it is important to know the date when
the shrimp were harvested." However, the harvest date is rarely shown on shrimp
purchased through grocery stores. This result suggests that shrimp farmers may be
able to differentiate their farm-raised shrimp and add market value by showing the
harvest date on the shrimp package.
Consumers responded somewhat less strongly to "it is important to know the state or
country shrimp were harvested from before purchasing" (62% agreed). This
suggests that a country-of-origin label may be of limited benefit in marketing farm-
raised shrimp directly to consumers.
Table 1.12. Consumer Response to the Statement:
It is important to know the date when the shrimp were

harvested.
Percent of
Number of Valid
Consumers Responses
Valid don't know 19 3.9
strongly disagree 11 2.2
somewhat disagree 8 1.6
neutral 33 6.7
somewhat agree 95 19.3
strongly agree 327 66.3
Total 493 100.0
Invalid 39
Total 532
32
Farm-raised shrimp are of higher quality than
wild-harvested shrimp.
Percent of
Number of Valid
Consumers Responses
strongly disagree 6 1.2
neutral 118 23.6
Total 500 100.0
Invalid 32
Total 532

Farm-raised shrimp are safer than wild-harvested shrimp.
Percent of
Number of Valid
Consumers Responses
strongly disagree 4 .8
neutral 90 18.1
Total 496 100.0
Invalid 36
Total 532
33
U.S. farm-raised shrimp are safer than imported shrimp.
Percent of
Number of Valid
Consumers Responses
strongly disagree 3 .6
neutral 67 13.5
Total 498 100.0
Invalid 34
Total 532
34
CHAPTER 2
FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Project Site Selection
A number of sites within the IRREC 700 acre land holdings were considered for the
Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project. Ultimately the potential to expand the
project became the overriding factor in locating it on a 200 acre tract that did not
have immediate development plans. The site consisted of pine and palmetto scrub.
The site is located immediately next door to the St. Lucie County Agriculture
Extension Center. This convenient proximity allowed the potential use of the
Center's offices, classrooms, parking and kitchen facilities to be used by the Project.
Fig. 2.1 Site Selection and Land Clearing
The site was surveyed and staked out by DAC's engineer Phillip Metcalf. Gulf
Stream Construction began clearing the brush and roots. Once this was
accomplished Gulf Stream began the excavation and movement of earth that would
become the Project's four production ponds, its Storm Water Retention Pond and the
borrow pit where the majority of the earthen structure's dirt would be taken from.
Project Planning
The conceptual design of the project was developed by the Project Manager, BCI,
Inc. and Durwood M. Dugger. This conceptual plan was then turned into
engineering plans by Mr. Phil Metcalf working out of DACs Okeechobee office.
During the construction of the Project, as is often the case a number of factors
caused the design to change some what. The most notable of which was the
enlargement of the Storm Water Retention Pond (SWRP) and the borrow pit. The
borrow pit was enlarged primarily because the water table prevented the contractor
from going deeper to obtain the necessary soil. Instead he had to enlarge the
dimensions of the borrow pit to acquire the necessary yardage.
35
Table 2.1 Pond Design Criteria
Project UF/IFAS, IRREC Aquaculture Project Fact Sheet
Principle Investigator Ferdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell
Project Manager BCI, Inc.
Date 12/2/04
Work Description Pond Design Criteria
Work by Durwood M. Dugger - BCI, Inc.
Construction Assumptions:
Ponds Built 4
Prescribed (Grant) Pond Area 1500 m2 16146 ft2 Pond Drain/flow-fill requirements
Pond Inside Dimensions* Per Pond Vol. 543048 gal. 2055437 L
Shoulder length ft. 221 ft 67.4 m Total Pond Vol. 2,172,192 gal. 8221747 L
Shoulder width ft. 73 ft 22.3 m Minutes Hours GPM
Water line length ft. 208 ft 63.4 m 1440 24 377
Water line width ft. 61 ft 18.6 m
Water Depth Avg 6 ft 1.8 m 73 ft. X
Side wall volume loss 3528 ft3
Pond Volume 72600 ft3 Pond # 1 Pond # 2 Pond # 3 Pond # 4
Pond Surface Area (As built) 16133 ft2 1499.35 m2 Growout Growout Growout Retention
Pond Water Surface Area 12688 ft2 1179 m2
0.29 ac 0.12 ha 221 ft. Y
Pond Earthwork
levee ht. (earth moved) 8 ft
high water tables.)
levee slope 2
levee crown 12 ft 12 73 12 |------61------| 12 12 12
cross sectional volume 8 yd3/lin.ft. 6 8
levees - x 682 ft/3 |------76------|
levees - y 1105 ft/3

Cubic yards of earth moved 14825 yd3 Site Road 400 13 2 385 yd3
Turn-a-round 100 100 2 741 yd3
1126 yd3
Road 15,951 yd3
*Total avg. levee height above ground is 6 feet with 2 feet in the ground
and 2 foot of pond free board with an avg. water depth of 6 ft.
Because of the small pond size, most levee material will be hauled.
(Going deeper than 2 feet below grade will undoubtedly cause water
intrusion problems with the liner and drainage system.
36
Facility Design and Construction
Well Specifications & Water Quality Parameters
It has been well established that Litopenaeus vannamei will perform well in some
low salinity waters and those waters down to Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of 1,500
depending on the specific combinations of ions in them. (Bray et al., 1994). The
general experience in Florida that the deeper one drills the higher the TDS, but there
are occasional exceptions to this rule where certain anomalies allow high TDS water
to come near to the grounds surface... With this in mind a phone survey was
accomplished early on with the local well drillers within a 60 mile radius of the
Shrimp Project. The survey solicited the experience of the drillers with high TDS
wells. It was found that one driller had made a well of 120 feet approximately 1 mile
from the Shrimp Project site. This well had produced water in the 2-3000 TDS range
and was capped off because of its high mineral content and lack of potability. The
driller believed that the high TDS water from this comparatively shallow well was
caused from aquifer contamination by much deeper and older wells in the immediate
area. These older wells had been drilled in the last 50 years and their steel casings
were rusting through allowing the deep high TDS of the free flowing Floridan Aquifer
- normally found below 1,000 feet to rise up and leak through the perforated casing
into the shallow 120 aquifer. Since deep wells into the Floridan Aquifer can cost as
much as $100,000, it was decided to drill a well on site in the 120 foot aquifer and
see if we could access the high TDS water. The well was drilled by Domer, Inc.
Unfortunately, the highest TDS water obtained from this well was about 500 - very
low TDS.
Water samples were taken from the well to Dr. Rolland Laramore at the Aquatic
Animal Health Lab operated by Bonnie, Hopkins and Laramore, Inc. of Vero Beach,
Florida. Dr. Laramore performed a short term bioassay on the water using post
larvae Litopenaeus vannamei. The results showed the well caused complete
mortality within a few hours.
With additional funding from DACs and UF, a second deeper well was made by
Domer, Inc. This well was steel cased and stopped at 1070 feet. Water samples
from the free flowing well showed the TDS to between 2100 and 2300 - which we
considered acceptable. Dr. Laramore performed a second bioassay and had very
good survival for and extended period. He said he saw no reason given the limits of
his two week bioassay why this well water should not perform well as the Shrimp
Projects primary growout water resource. (See Table 2.2)
37
Fig. 2.2 Deep Well Installation and Completion
Table 2.2 Deep Well Analysis and Comparison

Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project
Date 12/10/04
Work Description Deep Well Analysis Comparison To Other Low Salinity Shrimp Farms
Analysis by Harbor Branch Environmental Laboratory
Alabam Arizona - Florida - Texas -
PARAMETER Results 800' Results 940' Results 1070' UNITS a -11* 7* 2* 9*
Alkalinity 260 160 150 mg/L CaCO3
Arsenic ND ND 0.0026U mg/L
Barium 0.021 0.0237 0.053 mg/L
Boron 0.17 0.158 0.18 mg/L
Cadmium ND ND 0.00070U mg/L
Calcium 97 65 110 mg/L 86 494 74 961
Hardness Ca 240 162 280 mg/L CaCO3
Hardness CaCO3 440 370 680 mg/L CaCO3
Chloride 390 440 1100 mg/L 2274 2016 1023 3479
Chromium 0.0021 ND 0.0018U mg/L
Copper ND ND 0.0014U mg/L
Initial pH 7.6
Iron 4.6 0.040 0.13 mg/L
Lead ND ND 0.0030U mg/L
Magnesium 49 52 87 mg/L 21 86 83 581
Manganese 0.079 0.0056 0.0038U mg/L
Mercury ND ND 0.000060U mg/L
Potassium 13 12 20 mg/L 8 11 55 51
Selenium ND ND 0.0021U mg/L
Silver ND ND 0.0010U mg/L
Sodium 260 290 600 mg/L
Sulfide, as S-- 0.50 6.9 3.1 mg/L
Total Dissolved 1100 1200 2100 mg/L
Total Phosphorus 0.031 ND 0.012U mg/L
Zinc ND ND 0.011 mg/L
* Number of farms in the respective states
38
Nursery Greenhouse
There are a number of serious risks to shrimp - especially small shrimp that are
stocked into exposed, outside shrimp ponds:
Lethal Temperature risks - The sub-tropical climate of south Florida has temperature
potentials of 34 to -4 degrees Celsius - or even lower in extremes. Extended (more
than 12 hours) water temperatures below 11 degrees Celsius have shown to be
lethal for L. vannamei. L. monodon may be even more sensitive. Unseasonably low
temperatures in either the spring or fall could spell disaster for Florida shrimp ponds
located outside.
Predation risks - Eyelash shrimp Stage 12 post larvae arriving from the hatchery are
easy prey for a number of species of water beetles and dragon fly nymph larvae.
Economic loss risk - Even in the best cases when temperatures are not extremely
low and when insect predators are not present - shrimp post larvae stocked into
outside ponds may still cause their farmer a loss of money. Cool spring weather in
Florida extended later than normal in 2004. These low temperatures also
represented a potential loss of growth in the standard 5 month commercial shrimp
growout. This is because those cool no growth days experienced at the beginning of
the growout in the spring - become a penalty to the farmer when he has to harvest
smaller than normal or smaller than anticipated shrimp.
The solution to these risk problems is the use of a temperature moderated or

controlled nursery facility. In Florida, green houses have been used for shrimp and
tropical fish nurseries for some time. It was decided to use a greenhouse nursery
system for the IRREC Economic Shrimp Demonstration as well. The primary
justifications being the elimination of cold risk, insect predation, and the potential of
having more and larger (more days of optimum growing temperatures) higher value
shrimp, and the increased potential for a two crop outside pond system.
Nursery Greenhouse Design and Construction
The Project erected a commercial greenhouse (30'x96') in January of 2004. Within

its confines were constructed four rectangular/oval raceway tanks 9. These tanks
used Schedule 80 pipers as their vertical wall supports and treated lumber side
walls. The tank floors were sloped to a drain system near the center of one end.
(See Fig. 2.12.)
The four nursery tanks were designed with a redundant aeration system and
recirculating system. The first aeration and recirculation system was composed of
20 one and half inch airlifts down each side of each tank. The simple airlifts were
composed of a two foot length of inch and half Sch. 40 PVC pipe. Each airlift pipe
was attached to a frame made of the same PVC material that attached to the tank
wall above the water line by stainless steel screws at three points along each of the
39
two airlift frames of each tank. A piece of 3/16 inch polypropylene irrigation tubing
was fixed into a whole at the bottom of each airlift to provide a steady stream of air
bubbles to operate each airlift.
Fig 2.3 Air Lift Pump and Support Rack
The each PP tube was attached to a two inch PVC header attached on the wall of
the tank over the airlift frame. The tube was pressed into the appropriate sized
whole in the airlift header - no fitting was required due to the comparatively low
pressure of the air. (See Fig. 2.3)
Each airlift header's air flow was controlled by a single two inch PVC ball valve
where the header began at central end of the tank. It was estimated that each airlift
pump - of the 40 per tank pumped approximately 40 GPM from the bottom of the
tank to the surface. Each airlift pump pipe was set at a 60 degree semi-vertical
angle such that its discharge was directional in the angle of the flow. to further affect
the airlifts flow control each end of the two foot airlift tube was cut off at 45 degree
angle such that the open end of the bottom of the airlift opened into the oncoming
tank current and discharged in the direction of the tank current. (See Fig. 2.4)
40
Fig. 2.4 Working Air Lift Pump Discharges
The second aeration and recirculating of the redundant system consisted of multiple
spray bars (4) in each tank. A 200 GPM swimming pool centrifugal pump powered
the spray bar system. The pump picks up water from a central drain sump that each
of the four tanks drain into via its own independent 6" PVC drain line. Each drain
line is equipped with stand pipe level control the pump pushes water from the
common drain sump through a 10 cubic foot fiberglass bead filter. Water filtered by
the bead filter was then pushed through two inch PVC lines to the spray bars one
each of the four tanks in the green house. Each spray bar had 10 holes 3/32" in
diameter drilled along its face. Each spray bar was connected at the center of the
tank to its opposing twin. Each spray bar spays in opposite directions on opposite
sides of the tank thereby creating an oval flowing current around the raceway.
The oval flow in each of the four tanks was controlled by a center wall constructed of
two inch Sch. 40 PVC pipe. The wall was formed when the pipe frame was covered
by 30 mil HDPE pond liner material. The rectangular wall prevented the mixing of
the current entrained by the spray bar.
Water from the line of orifices in the spray bar face were angled to strike the tank's
water surface at a low angle of incidence thereby creating a "pushing" affect on the
water surface as it injected both water and entrained air into the tanks water surface.
41
The desired affect of both the airlifts and the spray bars was to create an oval flow
within the rectangular tank. This flow would aerate the water as well as suspend
excess food and waste particles - except at two points on the down stream end of
the tanks center wall. Here an eddy around the center wall would allow heavier
waster particles to collect in a small controlled area on the bottom of the tank where
they could easily be manually removed.
Fig. 2.5 Recirculating System Spray Bars
Each tank was equipped with a six inch drain. The drain was formed at the deepest
point of the tank in the center of the radius of one end. The drain itself was made of
a six inch Sch. 40 PVC - 90 degree elbow which was welded into a twelve Sch. 40
PVC cap. The elbow received the stand pipe on its vertical end and its horizontal
end was connect to a six inch PVC line connected to the common central drain
sump. The twelve cap surrounding the vertical arm of the elbow - open side up was
used to receive a twelve inch screen frame. The screen frame prevents the post
larvae shrimp from leaving the tank with the recirculated water. The elbow and cap
welded cap unit were connected to six inch drain and set in a concrete collar to
stabilize it.
Water from all four tanks was carried to a common sump. A four by six by four foot
deep PP box was used for the sump. Within the sump was also located a lift pump
42
used to send any excess water from the system to the Storm Water Retention Pond.
The sump also acted as a basin in which to harvest the juvenile shrimp. The harvest
could be accomplished in a framed net basket, or using a shrimp pump. (See Figure
3.4)
43
Fig. 2.11 Green House Shrimp Nursery Airlift System
Greenhouse Shrimp Nursery

Layout and Construction Details GREENHOUSE SHRIMP NURSERY
12/026/03
Low Pressure Air Lift Pumps
Reqd. by: Sonny Williamson
IREEC Aq. Adv. Com. Ch.
N
LW PRESSURE AIR – 2 “AIR LIFT PUMPS
Work by: Durwood M. Dugger
Project Manager
BCI, Inc.
Lift Drain to Storm Water Retention
Pond
Top View
Flow
Well Water
Covered Harvest Sump and Lift Station
Drains – 6”
Flow
Flow
= 40 W Florescent Lights Air Lift Pumps
Blowers
= 110/220 V Outlet
44
Fig. 2.12 Green House Shrimp Nursery Water System
GREENHOUSE SHRIMP NURSERY Discharge from bead filter

“Drain” or “Backwash”
to SWRP
Pump Driven Spray Bar
Recirc. And Aeration System
Spray bars with recirc. water from sand filter

Sand filter
Top View
Flow
Flow
45
Fig. 2.13 Green House Shrimp Nursery Center Wall
AIR LIFT PUMP (1.25”) AND CENTER WALL COMBINATION
(2” PVC Pipe frame w/ 60 mil HDPE cover.

Right Side Center Wall
Left Side Center Wall
Center Wall and Tank Wall Air Lifts Air Manifold and airlift pump air lines Spray Bar – Recirc. Water
46
Fig. 2.14 Green House Shrimp Nursery Sectional Views
Green House Nursery System -

Tank and Harvest System Cross Section.
Tank Side View
Green House Nursery Cross Section

At Center of Green House
Hold-Down Line Stabilizer Recirc./Spray Bar Lines

For Center Wall
Air Lift Manifold
47
Fig. 2.15 Green House Shrimp Nursery Standpipe Drain System
Tank Drain and Level Control Details
6”
Stand Pipe Sleeve
Stand Pipe Level Control
36 “
30 “
Stand Pipe Screens
12” Cap set in concrete to receive

standpipe screen –
6” Elbow is set inside of and welded to the
cap to receive the 6” standpipe.
48 To Harvest Sump
Fig. 2.16 Green House Shrimp Nursery Cover and Liner Fastening
Greenhouse Frame, Cover, and Liner Details
Cover Inside Layer
Dead Air Space Sloped liner frame seals against greenhouse cover - prevents jumping shrimp from stranding.
Liner
Outside PE Cover + Shade Cloth

Pressure Treated lumber
Cover Attachment Spline
Pressure Treated lumber
49
Growout Pond System Design and Construction
Pond System
The growout pond system consists of four lined ponds. The ponds are designed to
occupy a surface area of 1500 square meters. As such the ponds are approximately
221'x73' with an average depth of water of six feet plus two feet of free board. The
ponds inside slopes were built at a two to one slope, since they would be lined and
not experience erosion. While the slopes of the exterior levees of the pond's
perimeter levees and the SWRP's levees were built at a three to one slope. (See
Fig.2.2)
Lining
Of the four production ponds built, two ponds were lined with 30 mil generic HDPE
and two were lined with 30 mil Firestone EPDM. Some or most of both synthetic
liners were donated. Both materials come in large and very heavy rolls that require
heavy equipment to off load as well as to position pond side.
The HDPE liner was less expensive material wise, but it required a professional
crew of 6 installers equipped with a $15,000 fusion welder to seam the 20 foot wide
rolls of HDPE into one continuous leak proof liner. The HDPE is very stiff, especially
when the weather is cool. This lack of flexibility requires numerous seams to be
made in order to form the liner smoothly into pond corners. Repairs of the HDPE
are problematic since there are no solvents or glues that will adhere to the HDPE -
especially after it weathers. Even with a trained and experienced installation crew
the fusion welder requires constant adjustment - just when the sun goes behind a
cloud. Temperature changes can cause the welder to burn through the liner when
it's too hot or produce brittle, incompletely bonded welds when it's too cool. It is truly
an art form.
The EPDM on the other hand is much more flexible, requiring less contouring
seams. Seams that are required are joined with a solvent bonded seaming tape.
The EPDM took less than half the installation labor and time to install. In fact, the
EPDM liner on this project was installed by two professional installers and a few
"volunteer" high school students from the Eckerd Youth Leadership Program. While
installation is easier than with HDPE if was found that it does some experience to
determine the correct amount of glue and its proper application to make the seaming
tape work properly.
50
Fig. 2.6 HDPE Installation
Fig. 2.7 EPDM Installation
51
Filling System
Each of the four ponds is filled by a four inch Sch. 40 PVC pipe header that runs
under ground from the site's deep well to the ponds and across the deep end of their
levee. Each pond has a four inch fill line coming off the underground header. This
line is controlled by a four inch PVC union ball valve. The deep well pump supplying
this fill line is capable of pumping 400 GPM into to any one pond. This gives the
capability of filling any one pond in 24 hours.
Even though the deep well Floridan Aquifer water has significant amounts of
hydrogen sulfide in it, it has not been necessary to degas the water prior to pumping
into the ponds and or nursery tanks. This is because of the high level of mixing and
aeration that is achieved in Project's pond and nursery tank systems.
Drain System
Each pond was equipped with a twelve inch PVC drain connecting it to the SWRP.
The drain and overflow system consisted of a twelve inch PVC - 90 degree elbow
connected to the twelve inch horizontal drain line. The vertical leg of the elbow was
set in a three foot by four inch thick concrete collar at the lowest point in the pond
bottom. Once set in the concrete the elbow is capable of receiving and supporting a
12 inch vertical PVC pipe that is ten feet long and that acts as the stand pipe. At the
six foot point of the vertical pipe a series of window like openings are cut. Each
window is two feet high by four inches and cut such that the bottom of the
rectangular opening comes to a vee shaped point - rather than flat. The vee shaped
bottom is increase flow rates by increasing the surface of the orifice opening.
Fig. 2.8 Pond Standpipe Drain System
52
Center Wall
As in the green house nursery tanks - the design concept of the pond system was
also that of the oval raceway. Each pond was equipped with a center wall. The
center wall was supported by 13 center post made of 4 inch Sch. 40 PVC pipe 10
feet in length. Each post of the center wall was set into a used truck tire filled with
concrete. The base of each pipe post had a steel reinforcement rod through holes in
the bottom of the post that prevented the post from working loose out of the concrete
tire center. The post with concrete/tire bases were set approximately twelve feet a
part down the center line of each pond with the first and last post being at the center
of the end radius of each pond. As in the nursery tanks, the center wall's purpose
was to train the flow of the oval current around the pond and encourage solid waste
deposition at specific points of the pond.
Aeration System
Unlike the nursery tanks the Project's ponds did not have redundant aeration and
recirculation systems, but did have multiple paddle wheel aerators. Paddlewheel
aerators are neither the most efficient aerator nor the most efficient mixing device for
pond aeration. However, they are the most efficient at doing both simultaneously
with one piece of equipment. Each pond was initially installed with two - two horse
power electrical (220 V, three phase) paddle wheel aerators. Later it became
evident that at least one additional (a total of 3) would be required per pond. The
paddlewheels were placed such that each pushed the oval current in the same
direction. The paddle wheels were located on the radius of each end of the pond
with the deep end of the pond receiving two paddle wheels - one on either side.
(See Fig. 2.2.)
Fig. 2.9 Oval Raceway Pond Paddlewheel Aeration and Mixing System
53
Storm water Retention Pond (SWRP)
In order that no water be lost from the ponds and off the Project site during heavy
rainfall events - regulations require that a Storm Water Retention Pond be designed
such that if would collect and contain all overflow from the ponds during a 100 year
rainfall event. This earthen pond was designed and constructed immediately west of
the shrimp production ponds. It was equipped with a drain identical to the four
shrimp production ponds - minus the concrete collar. The 12 inch drain was
installed at the lowest point in the north end of the SWRP and connected to the
barrow pit pond.
Borrow Pit Pond
Because the projects ponds were relatively small, additional soil had to be collected
to build the production ponds levee such that the bottom of these ponds were above
the existing ground water table. Other wise the lined shrimp production ponds would
have had water seeping under the liners during periods of high rainfall that raised
the local water table. The required dirt fill to build the production pond and the
SWRP produced a borrow pit pond on three sides of the project proper - on the east,
north and west sides of the project.
Shrimp Transfer and Harvest Systems
Shrimp can be harvested at on a small scale with dip nets, or seines, or even cast
nets. These however are very inefficient methods and also often damage both the
shrimp that are harvested and as well as those that escape and are left behind.
There are generally two basic conceptual methods of commercially harvesting
shrimp from a pond.
The first is to use a bag or basket to receive the shrimp from the ponds drain when it
is harvested. Harvest bags are notorious for splitting when they are full of shrimp.
The also tend to damage the shrimp when they become too heavy causing the
shrimp to be pressed against the bags net mesh.
The second method uses center intake centrifugal food pump "shrimp pump" to take
the shrimp from a collecting basin or from the drain pipe of the pond or tank. The
design of the nursery tanks allowed either with its use of the sump. However, the
pond system had no drain sump. Because the shrimp pump is more efficient man
power wise in either transferring shrimp or harvesting shrimp, it was decided to
purchase one. PRAqua, Ltd. of Canada produces a light weight 6 inch shrimp
pump. With this pump shrimp could be transferred live from the nursery, between
ponds, or harvested live from any one pond with a minimum support crew.
54
Fig. 2.10 Transfer and Harvest Shrimp Pump
55
CHAPTER 3
SHRIMP PRODUCTION RESULTS
Nursery Production - First Crop
Prior to receiving post larvae shrimp from the Shrimp Culture, Inc. hatchery in the
Florida Keys, the shrimp project made the nursery tanks ready to receive them. To
accomplish this, the tanks were filled half full of filtered sea water from the sand
point beach well in front of the Florida Institute of Technology's - Vero Beach Marine
Lab. The sea water was hauled by a Florida Division of Forestry water tanker truck
as donated contribution to the Project. The sea water which arrived near 36 ppt.
was diluted to 12 ppt. in three of the green house nursery tanks. T
The Project received its first PLs on April 5, 2004, about 3 PM in the afternoon. The
shrimp were shipped in standard card board box/Styrofoam ice chest containers.
Each of the 15 containers had two double tropical fish bags filled with about 3- 5
liters of water cooled to about 20 degrees C. Each bag was filled with an
atmosphere of pure oxygen. Each bag contained about 10,000 shrimp Stage 12
post larvae. Stages younger than 12 do not have the osmoregulatory ability
developed sufficient to allow them to acclimate to low salinity water. Each bag was
twisted shut and sealed with a rubber ligature. When the sealed poly bags were
taken from their shipping boxes, they were floated in the Nursery Tanks so that the
bags would temperature acclimate to the tank temperatures. (See Fig. 3.1).
Once the PL shrimp were within 2 degrees of the same temperature of the nursery
tank - the bags were open and divided equally between two of the four nursery tanks
such that each tank received about 100,000 PLs.
Fig. 3.1 Receiving and Acclimating Post Larvae in Greenhouse Nursery
56
The PLs were immediately fed with Dr. Rolland Laramore's post larvae feeds.
Feeds were added at 10% of the PLs estimated body weights per day. An
acclimating incoming flow of the Projects well water was initiated such that the
salinity would be diluted down at a rate of about 1-2 ppt. per day. This rate of
acclimation brought the shrimp from the 12 ppt. that they were stocked in on their
first day, down to a salinity of 2.5 ppt. in about a week. Through out the nursery
rearing of the juveniles they were fed three times per day. Water quality was
monitored daily. The tank bottoms were scrubbed with a small push broom daily to
prevent adherence of solid waste to the bottom of the tank and their ultimate
anaerobic decay. Any accumulation of solid waste were removed as necessary -
particularly near the end of the nursery grow out.
Aeration and recirculation flows were gradually increased as the post larvae grew.
Recirculation flows were increased from about 30 GPM per tank to 50 GPM per
tank. Well water as added to the tanks such that tanks averaged between 5-10 %
exchanger per day.
Fig. 3.2 Greenhouse Nursery Tanks With Juvenile Shrimp
When outside temperatures were above 24 degrees C the Crop 1 juvenile shrimp
were transferred to the open ponds on May 11. They were approximately 0.10
grams each. The transfer was accomplished by draining each nursery tank into the
central drain and harvest sump. A screened basket was located in the sump to
separate the juvenile shrimp from their tank water. The basket was allowed to fill
with shrimp to the point where it appeared to be prudent to stop the process. Once
shrimp were stocked the basket containing the shrimp was raised out the sump by a
rope hoist. An overhead suspended scale was used to weigh the shrimp. The scale
had been tared with the basket prior to the weightings. The weights of shrimp were
recorded and by dividing the individual shrimp weight into the amount of shrimp
weighed - a total count on the harvest shrimp could be obtained.
57
Fig. 3.4 Harvesting Nursery Juvenile Shrimp for Transfer to Growout
Once weighed and counted the shrimp were transported outside in a tank trailer
fabricated specifically for that purpose. The projects small utility vehicle pulled the
tank trailer to its designated pond and the shrimp were drain released into the pond
by gravity.
Fig. 3.5 Transporting Nursery Juvenile Shrimp to Growout Ponds
58
Table 3.1 Nursery Production Summary- Crop 1
Project University of Florida - Shrimp Economic Demonstration Project (CROP 1 - 2004)

Date 5/11/04
Work Description Crop 1 - Nursery Production Summary
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 was received on June 10, 2004. Sea water
had been hauled by Ranger Construction, Inc. The Florida Forestry water tanker
used for the first crop was occupied putting out forest fires. It was planned that three
crops be stocked in the second crop. This would allow a comparison between three
ponds and three intensive tank productions systems inside the Project's green house
nursery. A total of 450,000 PL 12s were received and stocked equally into three of
the nursery raceway tanks. The acclimation and rearing procedures were followed
the same protocols as the first crop. The acclimation was completed and once again
Dr. Laramore's post larval and juvenile shrimp feeds were used. One thing that was
noted in the first crop was the need for a fine particulate feed in order not to have
solid waste build up in the tanks. During crop 2 any course feeds such as the
Laramore "J" diets were ground to a powder before use.
Growth in the second crop appeared to be more rapid and more uniform than in the
first nursery crop. With the availability of increased staff resources, it was possible
to both measure and weigh nursery samples and begin to establish a length weight
chart for this specific variety of L. vannamei.
60
Table 3.2 Nursery Production Summary- Crop 2

Date 6/10/04
Work Description Crop 2 - Nursery Summary
Seedstock Ordered
Ordered from hatchery = 450000

Estd. Shipping Overage = 0.10 495000
Estd. Shipping loss = 0.05
Estd. total received = 470250
Estimated Tank # 1 to Pond #2 Tank #2 to Pond #2 Tank #3 to Pond #2
Estd. Nursery Stocking 156750 Estd. Nursery Stocking 156750 Estd. Nursery Stocking 156750
Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 133238 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 133238 Estd. Nursery Survival = 0.85 133238
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 = 126576
Estd # shrimp stocked in Pond 2 = 386389

Avg. individual wt. = 1.0000 g.
Lbs. gross shrimp wt. in harvest 851.077 lbs
Calculated Nursery Survival = 0.90
CalculatedTransferred to Pond = 386389
Calculated Pond Stocking Density = 328 m2
61
Growout Production - Crop 1
Stocking
The juvenile shrimp were stocked from the nursery tanks into Pond 1 and Pond 3.
Pond 1 was stocked with 119,998 shrimp making a stocking density of 80 per square
meter. Pond 3 was stocked with 126,341 making a stocking density of 84 per
square meter. (See Crop 1 - Nursery Summary)
Aeration
The growout ponds were aerated from day one 24 hours a day. This was to
maintain oxygen levels and to suspend waste particles to insure that they were
aerobically digested.
Fig. 3.6 Oval Raceway Growout Pond Paddlewheel Aeration
Feeding and Sampling
Feed for the project was produced by Zeigler Bros., Inc. The feed was 35% protein
and in a 3/32" pelleted form. The feed was stored in a rented, insulated, air
conditioned, storage building. The feed was shipped to the site in road freight trucks
on pallets, but in less than container load quantities.
Initially for the first few weeks the shrimp in the growout ponds were fed just once a
day. Feeding was accomplished by hand broadcasting from the side of the levee.
Unlike in traditional lower density growouts - where there is and effort made to
distribute the feed all over the pond - in the oval raceways it was deemed most
efficient to through feed in the highest velocity current areas of the pond and let the
current distribute the feed. This way feed would not accumulate in any dead areas
of the ponds where the shrimp would be less likely find and eat the feed.
As the biomass increased, feed was broadcast by hand in the early morning and
then just before dark in the afternoons. These are the two periods of the day when
the shrimp are the most active. Feed quantities were determined by sampling each
62
pond's shrimp population once a week. When the shrimp were under 2 grams they
were sampled using a 20 foot seine with a 1/8 inch mesh size. After the shrimp
were above 2 grams, they were caught by an 8 foot radius cast net with a 1/4 inch
square mesh. Each ponds sample was measured from the orbit to the telson to
establish and record its length. The shrimp's length was then compared to a length
wt. chart. When the project increased its staffing resources the shrimp were both
measured in length and weighed individually. The average individual weight of the
shrimp in the sample was then used to calculate the estimated biomass of shrimp in
the pond. The shrimp biomass is then fed a percentage of their body weight per
day. For this study a 5% body weight of feed was assumed.
63
Table 3.3 Crop 1 Feed Summary
Date 12/6/04
Work Description Crop 1 Feed Summary
CROP 1 - POND 1 CROP 1 - POND 3
Feedings (lbs.) Feedings (lbs.)
Date Date
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
11-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0 11-May-04 Tuesday 0.0 8.0
12-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0 12-May-04 Wednesday 0.0 8.0
13-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0 13-May-04 Thursday 0.0 8.0
14-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0 14-May-04 Friday 0.0 8.0
15-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0 15-May-04 Saturday 0.0 8.0
16-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0 16-May-04 Sunday 0.0 8.0
17-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0 17-May-04 Monday 0.0 8.0
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
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
64
1-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0 1-Aug-04 Sunday 25.0 25.0
2-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0 2-Aug-04 Monday 25.0 25.0
3-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0 3-Aug-04 Tuesday 25.0 25.0
4-Aug-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0 4-Aug-04 Wednesday 25.0 25.0
5-Aug-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0 5-Aug-04 Thursday 25.0 25.0
6-Aug-04 Friday 25.0 25.0 6-Aug-04 Friday 25.0 25.0
7-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0 7-Aug-04 Saturday 25.0 25.0
1-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0 1-Sep-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0
2-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0 2-Sep-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0
3-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0 3-Sep-04 Friday 50.0 50.0
4-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0 4-Sep-04 Saturday 50.0 50.0
5-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0 5-Sep-04 Sunday 50.0 50.0
6-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0 6-Sep-04 Monday 50.0 50.0
7-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0 7-Sep-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0
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
65
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
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
19-Nov-04 Friday harvest harvest 19-Nov-04 Friday harvest harvest
3273.5 6560.5 3842.0 5237.0
Total Feed C1 - P1 = 9834.0 lbs Total FeedC1 - P3 = 9079.0 lbs
Pond Shrimp Yield = 4345 lbs Pond Shrimp Yield = 3053 lbs
Feed Conversion Summary
Feed Conversion Ratio = 2.3 :1 Feed Conversion Ratio = 2.97 :1
66
Table 3.4 Feed Acquired For Shrimp Poject

Date 12/10/04
Work Description Feed Acquired For Shrimp Project
Date Source Shipments Lbs Value
Nursery Feed Acquisitions
4/2/2004 Laramore Donation 120 $ 1,800.00
5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb PL-C 150 $ 1,200.00
5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb J400 Juvenile 150 $ 825.00
420 $ 3,825.00
Pond Grow Out Feed Acquisitions
4/15/2004 Zeigler 14 bags(55lb) E30 * 770 $ -
4/15/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 4400 $ 1,482.80
4/15/2004 Zeigler Donation Freight $ 753.90
7/30/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 4400 $ 894.40
9/20/2004 Feed water damaged in hurricanses and discarded. -880 $ (297.26)
10/22/2004 Zeigler 20 bags SI35E 1100 $ 427.80
10/22/2004 Zeigler 30 bags SI30 1650 $ 580.20
11/8/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 $ 949.50
11/16/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 $ 949.50
12/10/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 $ 949.50 (unused)
Total Growout Feed Used 27940 $ 9,597.84 $ 10,547.34
Grand Total 31110 $ 14,372.34
* Feed: (costs include frt. except as specified)
Feed Fed as of 12/6/04 from pond feeding records.

Crop 1 18913.0 lbs
Crop 2 9010.0 lbs
Total 27923.0 lbs
Water Quality
Water quality - primarily temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements were

taken in the morning and the afternoons. As the biomass of both shrimp - and most
especially phytoplankton built in the ponds, the diurnal oxygen demand and
differentials became more and more extreme. In an effort to reduce the
phytoplankton bloom, molasses was added to each pond. Initially the molasses was
added at a .25 to 1 ratio by weight - .25 pounds of molasses to one pound of shrimp
feed. The algal blooms continued to become denser. In addition high nitrite levels
were becoming evident. A shrimp die off was noted in Pond 3. At that point the
molasses level was increased to .5 to 1. With this ratio of molasses the
heterotrophic bacterial began to displace the dominant algal bloom. The ponds went
from a bright green color to a dark brown. Diurnal oxygen swings in demand
ceased. To be sure that the heterotrophic bacteria did not create too much oxygen
demand a third 2 horsepower paddle wheel was placed in both Pond 1 and Pond 3.
Unfortunately, the arrival of Hurricane Jeanne caused and emergency transfer of the
shrimp from the Nursery to Pond 2. This emergency procedure prevented the use of
67
the prescribed sampling and sample treatment protocols. Sediment and water
samples were taken from the Pond 3 during its harvest. Those samples were taken
to the UF Soil and Water Testing Laboratory. At the time of this writing the test
results had not been received.
In discussing the TDS with local agriculture specialist it seems clear that water with a
TDS of 2100 can not be used for the irrigation of most crops with out salting out that
land over time. This would seem to infer that any use of the pond effluent
flocculants or sediments would also require separating it from the high TDS water or
leaching it.
It should be noted that there was a material difference between Ponds 1 and 3.
Pond 1 was lined with HDPE material and Pond 3 was lined with Firestone EDPM.
There were no differences in growth or observable performance between the two
shrimp populations. However, there were notable differences in the liners in terms
of management. The HDPE is extremely slick. This made it difficult for personnel to
stand on the slopes during sampling or other pond maintenance activities. The
EDPM being rubber like was not slick above the water line, but was just as slick as
the HDPE below the water line. There were also notable differences in predatory
bird activity and behavior with the different liners. The HDPE did not provide a
useable foothold for wadding birds until a water line dried protein and dead algae
film developed. Here on this dried film the birds could find purchase. White herons
were the primary wading birds feeding.
68
Table 3.5 Crop Water Quality Summary Crop 1 and Crop
Date 12/10/04
Work Description Water Quality
Crop 1 - Pond 1 Crop 1 - Pond 3 Crop 2 - Pond 2 Crop 2 - Pond 3 Crop 2 - Pond 3
Date Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen Temperature Dis. Oxygen
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
1-Jun-04 Tuesday
2-Jun-04 Wednesday 28.3 5.5
3-Jun-04 Thursday
4-Jun-04 Friday
5-Jun-04 Saturday
6-Jun-04 Sunday
7-Jun-04 Monday
8-Jun-04 Tuesday 28.6 6.68 28.3 6.7
9-Jun-04 Wednesday
10-Jun-04 Thursday
11-Jun-04 Friday 28.7 6.20 28.9 6.7
12-Jun-04 Saturday
13-Jun-04 Sunday
14-Jun-04 Monday 29.0
15-Jun-04 Tuesday
16-Jun-04 Wednesday 29.0 29.0 6.5
17-Jun-04 Thursday 28.3 6.50 28.5 6.57
18-Jun-04 Friday 28.6 6.68 28.3 6.7
19-Jun-04 Saturday 28.6 6.70 28.3 6.7
20-Jun-04 Sunday 29.1 6.40 28.9 6.5
21-Jun-04 Monday 29.0 6.49 29.0 6.6
22-Jun-04 Tuesday 28.7 6.45 28.5 6.5
23-Jun-04 Wednesday 28.3 6.70 28.1 6.7
24-Jun-04 Thursday 27.7 7.00 27.8 7
25-Jun-04 Friday 27.3 28.6 6.20 6.30 27.4 28.1 6.35 6.7
26-Jun-04 Saturday 26.5 29.2 6.00 6.30 26.1 29.1 6.32 6.3
27-Jun-04 Sunday 28.7 6.60 28.3 6.6
28-Jun-04 Monday 28.6 6.30 29.0 6.5
29-Jun-04 Tuesday 29.1 6.00 28.5 6.7
30-Jun-04 Wednesday 28.7 6.20 28.9 6.7
1-Jul-04 Thursday 29.0 6.00 28.9 6.5
2-Jul-04 Friday 28.3 5.50 28.3 6.3
3-Jul-04 Saturday
4-Jul-04 Sunday 28.2 6.00 28.3 6.3
5-Jul-04 Monday 28.1 6.00 28.0 6.3
6-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.8 6.70 27.9 6.9
7-Jul-04 Wednesday 27.8 6.50 27.7 6.6
8-Jul-04 Thursday 27.9 6.90 27.9 6.7
9-Jul-04 Friday 27.6 6.10 27.6 6.1
10-Jul-04 Saturday 28.2 6.00 27.8 6.2
11-Jul-04 Sunday 28.6 6.00 28.3 6.1
12-Jul-04 Monday
13-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.8 6.40 27.7 6.7
14-Jul-04 Wednesday 6.40 10.50
15-Jul-04 Thursday 28.8 30.1 6.40 28.7 6.1 8.95
16-Jul-04 Friday 28.8 6.40 28.7 6.1
17-Jul-04 Saturday 27.8 6.30 27.5 6.4
18-Jul-04 Sunday 27.7 6.30 27.5 6.6
19-Jul-04 Monday 27.2 8.20 27.2 8.3 9
20-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.5 8.00
21-Jul-04 Wednesday
22-Jul-04 Thursday
23-Jul-04 Friday 28.5 6.1
24-Jul-04 Saturday 28.7 5.90 5.50 28.5 6.1 5.5
25-Jul-04 Sunday 28.7 4.90 29.0 4.9
26-Jul-04 Monday 28.3 5.1
27-Jul-04 Tuesday 27.8 6.10 28.3 5.1
28-Jul-04 Wednesday 27.6 5.70 28.1 5.3
29-Jul-04 Thursday
30-Jul-04 Friday 27.3 5.40 27.8 6.1
31-Jul-04 Saturday 28.5 5.20 28.7 5.4
1-Aug-04 Sunday 27.4 6.10 27.3 6.1
2-Aug-04 Monday
3-Aug-04 Tuesday 27.3 5.80 27.1 5.4
4-Aug-04 Wednesday 27.2 6.80 27.1 6.7
5-Aug-04 Thursday 26.8 7.10 26.7 6.9
6-Aug-04 Friday 27.5 5.90 27.4 6.3
7-Aug-04 Saturday
8-Aug-04 Sunday
9-Aug-04 Monday
10-Aug-04 Tuesday
11-Aug-04 Wednesday 27.3 5.50 29.3 5.6
12-Aug-04 Thursday 28.3 4.90 28.3 5.6
13-Aug-04 Friday 28.1 4.50 28.0 5.6
14-Aug-04 Saturday 27.3 4.80 27.2 6.4
15-Aug-04 Sunday 27.2 4.60 27.2 6
16-Aug-04 Monday
17-Aug-04 Tuesday 27.9 6.60 28.1 8.7
18-Aug-04 Wednesday 28.4 4.50 5.78 28.3 29.4 5 7.22
69
19-Aug-04 Thursday 28.4 29.6 4.36 5.23 28.4 29.5 5.06 6.7
20-Aug-04 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 Nusery Tanks to Pond 2
3-Sep-04 Friday 29.0 30.3 7.3 8.6
4-Sep-04 Saturday 28.7 29.9 6.8 7.7
5-Sep-04 Sunday 28.3 29.5 5.23 8.13
6-Sep-04 Monday 27.0 27.1 6.6 7.6
7-Sep-04 Tuesday 28.2 6.2
8-Sep-04 Wednesday 29.0 30.3 5 5.66
9-Sep-04 Thursday 28.7 29.9 5.09 6.64
10-Sep-04 Friday 28.3 29.5 5.23 8.13
11-Sep-04 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 Pond C1 - P3 Harvested 24.2 4.92
28-Oct-04 Thursday 24.0 25.6 7.92 8.25 23.8 25.3 7.61 9.45
29-Oct-04 Friday 26.5 9.61 26.4 10.67
30-Oct-04 Saturday 24.6 26.3 6.17 8.88 24.7 26.6 5.71 9.77
31-Oct-04 Sunday 23.9 25.7 6.33 9.44 24.5 26.2 5.68 8.78
1-Nov-04 Monday 25.0 26.0 9.27 8.52 25.6 27.5 6.8 9.41
2-Nov-04 Tuesday 25.4 26.6 6.75 7.92 25.0 26.5 5.62 8.8
3-Nov-04 Wednesday 25.0 26.8 6.20 8.06 24.3 26.5 4.02
4-Nov-04 Thursday 25.6 26.8 7.67 8.52 26.8 5.34 9.02
5-Nov-04 Friday 24.8 24.7 8.60 7.55 Pond 2 split to Pond 3 & 4
6-Nov-04 Saturday 21.7 24.2 7.78 8.93 22.5 24.0 7.37 7.9 22.5 24.5 7.37 8.47
7-Nov-04 Sunday 22.3 8.11 21.6 8.23 23.5 7.39
8-Nov-04 Monday 22.7 10.00 23.8 8.01 22.9 8.72
9-Nov-04 Tuesday 21.4 8.82 22.2 8.9 21.8 8.81
10-Nov-04 Wednesday 22.2 9.69 21.8 10.23 21.6 10.04
11-Nov-04 Thursday 22.0 7.57 21.5 7.99 21.6 8.03
70
12-Nov-04 Friday 23.2 24.3 9.88 9.30 23.2 23.9 10.08 9.84 23.3 24.0 10.18 10.13
13-Nov-04 Saturday 23.7 24.2 7.23 8.70 22.4 24.0 7.39 8.65 22.5 24.1 7.2 8.83
14-Nov-04 Sunday 23.2 7.03 22.9 23.6 7.07 7.96 23.1 23.7 6.96 7.39
15-Nov-04 Monday 21.1 8.23 20.8 8.26 20.6 7.95 7.95
16-Nov-04 Tuesday 21.7 9.24 20.8 9.96 20.9 10.12
17-Nov-04 Wednesday 21.8 9.09 21.3 8.69 22.2 8.4
18-Nov-04 Thursday 24.2 6.39 21.1 8.18 22.4 7.79
19-Nov-04 Friday Pond C1 - P1 Harvested
20-Nov-04 Saturday 22.7 10.48 22.8 10.54
21-Nov-04 Sunday 23.0 10.64 23.1 10.71
22-Nov-04 Monday 23.1 9.75 23.3 9.76
23-Nov-04 Tuesday 22.0 8.57 22.3 8.75
24-Nov-04 Wednesday 22.8 8.89 22.8 8.71
25-Nov-04 Thursday 22.3 10.24 22.4 9.86
26-Nov-04 Friday 20.8 21.8 10.3 9.43 20.9 21.8 9.95 9.37
27-Nov-04 Saturday 22.1 23.3 7.71 9.61 22.4 23.4 7.31 9.85
28-Nov-04 Sunday 22.2 23.5 7.46 9.94 22.3 23.6 7.31 10.43
29-Nov-04 Monday 21.0 24.0 7.74 8.87 21.2 23.8 9.03 9.27
30-Nov-04 Tuesday 20.7 23.3 8.34 9.09 21.2 21.9 8.76 10.32
1-Dec-04 Wednesday 22.6 23.7 9.59 10.1 22.4 23.5 9.8 11.02
2-Dec-04 Thursday 23.0 7.02 23.9 5.88
3-Dec-04 Friday 22.1 10.7 22.1 11.52
4-Dec-04 Saturday
5-Dec-04 Sunday
6-Dec-04 Monday
7-Dec-04 Tuesday
8-Dec-04 Wednesday
9-Dec-04 Thursday
10-Dec-04 Friday Pond C2 - P4 Sold
Crop 1 Production Results
Ponds 1 and 3 used in Crop 1 were very similar in performance through most of the
growout. However, a die off occurred in Pond 3. The die off was attributed to a
combination of low DO and excessive Nitrites. It might also have been those factors
along with the depletion of one or more of the critical ions such as calcium,
potassium and magnesium. Once water was exchanged as soon as the die off was
observed - all negative factors seemed to be mediated. Since staff limitations and
budge limitations precluded daily mineral analysis it is impossible to make a specific
diagnosis. What can be said is that the Project's well water was sufficiently
endowed with the necessary elements to correct the problem. From that point on a
50% by volume of the pond was exchanged one day per week. To eliminate the
nitrite build up additional molasses was added and this problem too went away. No
substantial die offs were noted in Pond 1.
71
Table 3.6 Crop 1 Production Summary
Principle InvestigaFerdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell
Date 6/10/04
Work Description Crop 1 production Summary
Crop 1 - Pond 1 Crop 1 - Pond 3
Estimated Avg. Calc. # of Harvest Estimated Avg. Calc. # of Harvest

Sample Donations Shrimp Shrimp in and Other Disposition of Sample Donations/ Recievers of Shrimp Shrimp in and Other
Dates Wts. /Gifts Wt. Samples W t. Totals Shrimp Wts. Gifts Shrimp Wt. Samples Wt. Totals
11/19/04 54228 2150 Lbs. Sold

2018 80 Repl.
18664 740 Proj. Sup. Don.
631 25 Est. Harvest Loss
11/19/04 2995 Lbs. Total Harvest Wt.
11/17/04 18 18 454
11/15/04 210 DG=110 18 5297
11/9/04 30 18 757
11/3/04 24 18 605
10/28/04 79 DG=55 18 1993
10/27/04 72 Sold 18 1816 Harv est 18 56889 2255.5 Lbs.
10/19/04 59 DG=35 13 2060 32 DG=20 18 807
10/12/04 47 DG=35 12 1778 24 17 641
10/5/04 22 11 908 18 16 511
9/21/04 36 DG=20 9.2 1777 32 DG=20 15 969
9/15/04 22 DG=10 8 1249 18 12 681
8/31/04 18 7.42 1101 18 8 1022
8/24/04 14 6.64 957 12 6.2 879
8/3/04 12 4.49 1213 8 4.29 847
7/26/04 12 3.72 1465 12 3.59 1518
7/13/04 12 2.6 2095 12 2.13 2558
7/6/04 4 1.75 1038 5 1.72 1320
6/22/04 3 1.3 1048 3 0.89
6/15/04 2 0.74 1227 2 0.65
HURRICANE AND HARVEST NOTATIONS

* Harvest Overage - shrimp added to insure 10 lbs. 225 169
* Estimated shrimp blown out of pond 1 during the two hurricanes
(Ft2 = 6600 Shrimp/Ft2 = 0.30 )
Shrimp lost = 1980 131 Lbs. 131
Stocking Density = 119998 80 m2 Stocking Density 126341 84 m2
Total Ind. Sampled = 19774 Total Ind. Sampled = 10430
Total Wt. Samples At Harvest = 915 lbs Total Wt. Samples At Harvest = 414 lbs
Total Number Shrimp Produced 126132 Total Number Shrimp Produced = 67319
Total Pond Production = 4345 lbs Total Pond Production = 3053 lbs
Estimated Survival = 1.05 Estimated Survival = 0.53
Harvest Density = 84 m2 Harvest Density = 45 m2
72
Growout Production - Second Crop
Stocking
The plan to stock Ponds 2, 3 and 4 for Crop 2 after Pond 3 of Crop 1 was harvested,
had to be abandoned due to Hurricanes Francis and Jeanne. In fact the day before
Francis hit - when it was obvious that there would be no reprieve from this storm, the
shrimp were pump transferred to Pond 2. The shrimp in Nursery Tanks 1,2 and 3
were each drained down into the sump in the greenhouse where they were picked
up by the intake line of the shrimp harvest pump. The pump was connected by over
200 feet of six inch hose and PVC pipe to pond 2. Due to the proximity of the storm
no attempt was made to quantify the number of shrimp transferred. The entire
transfer of the estimated 4-500,000 juvenile shrimp took less than two hours. No
apparent damage was caused to the shrimp.
Fig. 3.7 Nursery Harvest and Pump Transfer
73
Feeding and Sampling
Feeding and sampling was accomplished as in Crop 1, using the same assumptions
up to December. Based on the feed conversions - above 2:1 in Crop 1 it was
decided to drop the feed rate down to 3 % rather than 5$ as in Crop 1. However,
with the advent of temperatures below 24 degrees in November there were many
days when only half feed rations were given due to the reduced growth rates.
In addition to monitoring dissolved oxygen, the taste of the shrimp was monitored
throughout the growout. Due to the heterotrophic nature of the pond culture process
there was concern that off flavors might develop. To monitor off flavors a taste panel
was set up. This was accomplished by dividing each weekly sample between staff
and volunteers that composed the taste panel. While this is an admittedly informal
taste panel, each member had years of experienced tasting aquaculture food
products and specifically farmed shrimp. Each was also familiar with off flavor taste
in these foods and therefore would know what would constitute and off flavor.
74
Table 3.7 Crop 2 Feed Summary
Date 12/6/04
Work Description Crop 2 Feed Summary
CROP 2 - POND 2 CROP 2 - POND 3 CROP 2 - POND 4
Feedings (lbs.) Feedings (lbs.) Feedings (lbs.)
Date A.M. P.M.
Date A.M. P.M.
Date 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
26-Sep-04 Sunday 30.0 30.0 1-Dec-04 Monday 0.0 65.0 1-Dec-04 Monday 0.0 65.0
27-Sep-04 Monday 30.0 30.0 2-Dec-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0 2-Dec-04 Tuesday 0.0 65.0
28-Sep-04 Tuesday 30.0 30.0 3-Dec-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0 3-Dec-04 Wednesday 0.0 65.0
29-Sep-04 Wednesday 30.0 30.0 4-Dec-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0 4-Dec-04 Thursday 0.0 65.0
30-Sep-04 Thursday 30.0 30.0 5-Dec-04 Friday 0.0 65.0 5-Dec-04 Friday 0.0 65.0
1-Oct-04 Friday 30.0 30.0 6-Dec-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0 6-Dec-04 Saturday 0.0 65.0
2-Oct-04 Saturday 30.0 30.0 7-Dec-04 Sunday 7-Dec-04 Sunday
3-Oct-04 Sunday 30.0 30.0 8-Dec-04 Monday 8-Dec-04 Monday
4-Oct-04 Monday 30.0 30.0 9-Dec-04 Tuesday 9-Dec-04 Tuesday
5-Oct-04 Tuesday 30.0 30.0 10-Dec-04 Wednesday 10-Dec-04 Wednesday
6-Oct-04 Wednesday 38.0 38.0 11-Dec-04 Thursday 11-Dec-04 Thursday
7-Oct-04 Thursday 38.0 38.0 12-Dec-04 Friday 12-Dec-04 Friday
8-Oct-04 Friday 38.0 38.0 13-Dec-04 Saturday 13-Dec-04 Saturday
26-Oct-04 Tuesday 50.0 50.0
27-Oct-04 Wednesday 50.0 50.0
28-Oct-04 Thursday 50.0 50.0
29-Oct-04 Friday 75.0 75.0
30-Oct-04 Saturday 75.0 75.0
31-Oct-04 Sunday 75.0 75.0
1-Nov-04 Monday 75.0 75.0
2-Nov-04 Tuesday 75.0 75.0
3-Nov-04 Wednesday 75.0 75.0
4-Nov-04 Thursday 75.0 75.0
5-Nov-04 Friday 75.0 75.0
6-Nov-04 Saturday 75.0 75.0
Split and transferred to Ponds 3 & 4
2599.0 2611.0 400.0 1700.0 400.0 1700.0

Total Feed Pond C2 - P2 = 5210.0 Total Feed Pond C2 - P3 = 4705.0 Total Feed Pond C2 - P4 = 4305.0
75
Water Quality
Water quality in Crop 2 was generally better than in Crop in terms of dissolved
oxygen because of the lower temperatures. Of course the lower metabolism of the
shrimp also generates lower nitrogenous waste as well. Water quality results can be
found in the Water Quality section of Crop 1 where the results of both Crop 1 and
Crop 2 are combined for the sake of comparison.
Harvest
Harvest was accomplished using the PRAqua shrimp pump. The intake hose of the
pump was attached to the drain of the pond to be harvested. The discharge hose
and pipe were connected to the small dewatering tower that was designed for the
pump. The pond was drained down to about the half way point of the ponds depth.
At that point the stand pipe was removed from the pond drain and the shrimp were
allowed to leave the pond. As is typical of most shrimp ponds, the majority of the
shrimp come out of the pond with the very last of the pond water. The shrimp are
separated somewhat from the pond water as they pass over the grating of the
dewatering tower. Successive shrimp push the shrimp off the grating and out of the
dewatering towers discharge pipe. Since it was decided to sell the Project's shrimp
live, the dewatering tower discharged the shrimp into a six foot diameter, three foot
deep fiberglass tank. The tank served two purposes. It acted as a wash tank to
rinse pond debris, mud, silt, etc. off the shrimp and it kept them alive until they were
dipped out and placed into a plastic bag for a customer.
Fig. 3.8 Pond Pump Harvest System
76
Throughout the growout weekly samples were taste tested by an informal taste
panel. No off flavors were detected prior to harvest. However, after harvest of Pond
3 (the first pond harvested) there were comments from consumers off flavors. Since
no taste test had produced any off flavor results from either Pond 1 or Pond 3 shrimp
up to the harvest, it was theorized that the flavors had developed post harvest. In
talking to consumers it became apparent that in an effort to provide the shrimp to the
consumer "live" as state law requires, there had been insufficient washing of the
shrimp to remove the actual pond water and sediments from them. Though
consumers were give the shrimp live right out of the harvest tank - it was up to the
consumer wash the shrimp and to place the shrimp on ice. What we found was that
most of the off flavor complaints came from consumers who did not wash the shrimp
immediately when they got home. Many just put them in their refrigerators much like
they would do with cooked shrimp from their grocer. (See marketing section for
further discussions of this problem.)
After the harvest of Pond 3 and its minor, but significant off flavor complaints, a
complete review of our harvest process was made. We decided the primary
problem was a lack of sufficient clean water to rinse the shrimp with as they were
harvested. In the harvest of Pond 3 the shrimp were collected from the dewatering
tower in a 6 foot diameter fiberglass tank. However, only pond water was circulated
through the tank. With the harvest of Pond 1 an additional the harvest receiving
fiberglass tank was also connected to the one of the Project's potable wells to
provide a clean source of clean rinse water. This eliminated almost all complaints of
off flavors in the harvest of Pond 1 (the second pond harvested in Crop 1).
Fig. 3.9 Shrimp Production From Crop 1
77
Crop 2 Production Results
Crop production data is given below in Table 3.8. Immediately following the Crop 2
Production Results is a side by side comparison of both Crop 1 and Crop results in
Table 3.9.
While Crop 2 performed even better than Crop 1 during its nursery phase - both in
growth and apparent survival, declining seasonal temperatures have severely limited
the growth of those shrimp in the Crop 2 growout. Unless a second crop of shrimp
can be started in May it is unlikely that a second crop of shrimp will be large enough
to have enough value to justify its costs.
78
Table 3.8 Crop 2 Production Summary
Principle InvestigaFerdinand Wirth, Ph.D., LeRoy R. Creswell
Date 6/10/04
Work Description Crop 2 production Summary
Crop 2 - Pond 3 Crop 1 - Pond 4
Harvest Harvest
and and
Estimated Avg. Calc. # of Other Estimated Avg. Calc. # of Other
Sam ple Shrimp Shrimp in Wt. Sample Shrimp Shrimp in W t.
Dates Wts. Wt. Samples Totals Wts. Wt. Samples Totals
12/10/04 Pond C1 - P4 Sold
12/6/04 3 5.4 252 3 5.4 252
12/1/04 3 5.1 267 3 5.1 267
11/17/04 3 4.8 284 3 4.8 284
Crop 2 - Pond 2 Pond 3 and 4 stocked form Pond 2 Nov. 16th.
11/6/04 6 3.7 736
10/28/04 6 3.5 778
10/20/04 8 2.4 1513
10/12/04 5 1.1 2064
10/5/04 4 1.73 1050
9/21/04 2 1.3 698
9/15/04 2 1 908
9/2/04 1 1 454
8202 Pond 2 stocked from Nursery Tanks 1,2 & 3 Sept, 2nd
Stocking Density = 193194 129 m2 Stocking Density 193194 129 m2

Estd. Mortality by 12/6 = 0.05 9660 Estd. Mortality by 12/6 = 0.05 9660
T otal Ind. Sampled by 12/6 = 4502 Total Ind. Sampled by 12/6 = 4502
T otal Wt. Samples by 12/6 = 54 lbs Total Wt. Samples At Harvest = 54 lbs
Estd. Shrimp Biomass by 12/6 = 179032 2129 lbs Total Number Shrimp Produced = 183535 2183 lbs
Standing Density as of 12/6 = 119 m2 Harvest Density = 122 m2
Feed used to date = 4705 lbs Feed used to date = 4305 lbs
FCR = 2.21 :1 FCR = 1.97 :1
79
Table 3.9 Intensive Closed System Shrimp Pond Production Comparison
Date 12/2/04
Work Description Intensive Closed System Shrimp Pond Production Comparison Table
Annual Production/ Crops/ Density Salinity Survival Harv est Days
2 2
Production Crop (kg/m ) Year (shrimp/m ) (ppt) (%) FCR Weight (g) to Harvest
1 Wood Brothers Shrimp Farm (Arizona)
Farm Average 4.6 tons/ha N/A N/A 58 1.80-2.60 46 2.4 19.8 N/A
2
2 Arizona Mariculture Associates 1.6-2.0 kg/m * N/A 5* 80-100 1.70-6.30 N/A N/A 20.0* N/A
3 Regal Farms (Texas) 4.5 tons/ha N/A 1 40 11.00 65 2.0 17.5-21.0 N/A
4 Duda and Sons (Florida)
1998 5.7 tons/ha N/A 2 50-70 0.23 63 2.9 14.9 145
1999 7.4 tons/ha N/A 2 50-70 0.23 65 2.3 19.1 160
5 Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute
2
Single-Phase 4.14+/-0.80 kg/m 2.07+/-0.40 2 153+/-38 0.70 77+/-14 1.59+/-0.24 14.1+/-2.6 180
2
Three-Phase 7.20+/-1.26 kg/m 1.20+/-0.21 6 128+/-21 0.70 61+/-12 1.74+/-0.11 15.9+/-3.05 180
2
6 Matan Negev Shrimp Farm (Israel) 4 kg/m * N/A 2-3* N/A 3.00-5.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
* projected
N/A Not Available
7 UF IRREC Williamson Aquaculture Center
Crop 1 - Pond 1 Crop 1 Pond 3

Stocking Density 119,998 Stocking Density 126341
Pond Size 0.29 ac. Pond Size 0.29 ac.
Total Production 4345 lbs. Total Production 3053 lbs.
Total Shrimp Harvested 126132 Total Shrimp 67319
Overall Survival 1.05 Overall Surv ival 0.53
Harvest Density 84 m2 Harvest Density 45 m2
Production/acre 14919 lbs/ac. Production/acre 10483 lbs/ac.
Production/hectare 6773 k/ha. Production/hectare 4759 k/ha.
Production/ft2 0.32 lb./f t2 Production/ft2 0.23 lb./ft2
Production/m2 3.45 k/m2 Production/m2 2.42 k/m2
FCR 2.26 FCR 2.97
Crop 2 - Pond 3 * Crop 2 - Pond 4 *

Stocking Density 193,194 Stocking Density 0
Pond Size 0.29 ac. Pond Size 0.29 ac.
Total Production 2129 lbs. Total Production 0 lbs.
Total Shrimp Harvested 179032 Total Shrimp 0
Overall Survival 0.93 Overall Surv ival 0.00
Harvest Density 119 m2 Harvest Density 0 m2
Production/acre 7311 lbs/ac. Production/acre 0 lbs/ac.
Production/hectare 3319 k/ha. Production/hectare 0 k/ha.
Production/ft2 0.16 lb./f t2 Production/ft2 0.00 lb./ft2
Production/m2 1.69 k/m2 Production/m2 0.00 k/m2
FCR 2.21 :1 FCR 1.97 :1
* All data as of 12/6/04. * All data as of 12/6/04.
80
Table 3.10 Shrimp Project - Key Dates
Nov. 2002 project site selection completed.
January 2003 site clearing begins.
February 2003 pond construction begins.
March 10, 2003 1st well excavation begins.
June 26, 2003 HDPE pond liner installed.
January 2004 Greenhouse nursery construction begins.
January 26, 2004 EDPM liner is installed.
March 30, 2004 green house nursery completed.
April 5, 2004 received approximately 300,000 1st shipment of PL 12s from
GMSB into nursery.
May 11, 2004 transfer 1st nursery crop of nursery juveniles (0.1 grams avg.
wt.) to outside growout ponds - #1 and # 3.
June 10, 2004 received 2nd shipment of about 450,000 PL 12s from GMSB
into nursery.
September 2, 2004 transfer 2nd crop of nursery juveniles (0.3-0.4 grams avg.
wt.) to outside growout Pond #2.
September 4, 2004 Hurricane Francis passes over shrimp project - destroys
greenhouse.
October 27th, 2004 1st harvest and sale of shrimp (avg. 18-19 grams whole)
from project.
September 25, 2004 Hurricane Jeanne passes over shrimp project with
damage to surrounding trees and the addition of a lot of leaf debris to ponds.
October 19, 2004 - Dugger cooks shrimp sample for the County Ag. Agents
and Staff as a harvest .
Promotion at St. Lucie Cty. Ag. Center. Results in one Ag. Center Staff
member (Marsha Hiott selling over 500 lbs. of harvested shrimp.
October 27, 2004 Pump harvest of Pond 3 - 9,849 lbs. per acre.
November 6, 2004 Pump transfer and splitting of Pond 2 into Ponds 3 and
Pond 4.
November 19, 2004 Pump harvest of Pond 1 - 13,671 lbs. per acre.
81
CHAPTER 4
ECONOMICS AND MARKETING RESEARCH
Generally, the primary interest in establishing viable aquaculture industries is for the
purpose of domestic consumption, export, employment opportunities, income
distributions, or a combination of these objectives. These development objectives
cannot be achieved if producers do not attain a minimum income and profitability.
The producers’ profit or net income per unit of land or water area (Y) is mainly
affected by production (Q), the cost of production and marketing (C), and the price
received (P), as shown in the basic equation:
Y = QP – C
Increases in yield, reductions in costs, and increases in price are the major means of
increasing profits. To determine the profitability of a business for the coming year or
several years, managers of farm businesses must estimate costs and returns for
future periods of time. A projection of annual costs and returns for a business
enterprise is commonly referred to as an enterprise budget.
In contrast to an enterprise budget, an enterprise account is a summary of costs and

returns for some historic period such as the past year, and is obtained from the
records of the business. This project was a one-year demonstration, rather than an
ongoing business, so the economic analysis will be limited to an enterprise account
of capital construction costs, plus costs and returns for a one-season (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 shrimp farms, but enterprise accounts seldom provide all of the data
needed for an enterprise budget. Even a shrimp farmer who expects to duplicate
this facility using the identical system of production may expect different input prices,
product prices, and/or production levels in the future. Furthermore, changes in
shrimp prices expected may suggest that a different combination of variable input
and/or timing of production would be more profitable in the future. In some cases,
shrimp farmers will want to estimate the costs assuming a different set of buildings,
machinery, or equipment than those used in this demonstration project.
Economic Costs of Shrimp Culture
The costs of producing the same species varies from region to region due to
differences in climatic and topographical conditions, in the technology used, in the
distance from farms to input sources and output markets, in the prices of inputs, etc.
Production costs also vary from farm to farm within a region because of differences
in management skill, farm size, and technology. The major production costs in
aquaculture are construction, feed, stocking materials, labor, water, marketing,
82
interest rates, and land costs. In many cases, the costs of the last three items are
beyond the control of individual shrimp farmers.
Costs can be categorized in various ways, but division into two broad categories,
fixed costs and variable costs, is appropriate for most economic analyses. In
developing enterprise budgets, it is important for a farm manager to distinguish
between fixed and variable costs.
The distinction between fixed and variable costs is also important in decision-
making. Only variable costs should be considered by the manager in deciding what
to produce, how to produce, and how much to produce in the short run. Fixed costs
will remain at the same level regardless of these decisions.
Fixed Costs
Fixed costs are those that do not change with (are not a function of) the level of
output. These costs remain the same whether or not output is produced. Farm
management publications typically term fixed costs as “ownership costs” and
distinguish between fixed cash and noncash costs. One characteristic of fixed costs
is that they are not under the control of the farm manager in the short run. They
exist and at the same level regardless of how much or how little the resource is
used. The only way they can be avoided is to sell the item, which can be done in the
long run.
Table 4.1 summarizes the fixed costs associated with construction of the IRREC
Shrimp Demonstration facility. A detailed itemization of fixed costs is included as
Appendix 4.1. Fixed costs totaled $540,097.30 and are sorted into three categories:
(1) fixed capital construction costs, (2) materials, equipment and supplies costs, and
(3) annual recurring fixed costs.
At $489,585.90 the costs of construction are the major fixed costs (90% of total)
associated with development of the facility. Capital construction costs included the
engineering costs, construction costs, and construction labor for (1) two wells, a
shallow well dug to a depth of 120 feet, and a deep flowing well dug to 1070 feet to
access Floridan aquifer water with high total dissolved solids, (2) four lined
production ponds with accompanying stormwater retention pond and borrow pits, (3)
a nursery greenhouse with four lined tanks and necessary systems, and (4) an
emergency generator system.
The size, shape, and depth of the ponds and the clearing work required was the
major fixed cost. Generally, the larger the pond size, the greater the efficiency of
land and water utilization and the lower the construction costs. On the other hand,
the smaller the pond size, the greater the convenience of pond management and the
lower the earthwork maintenance. Economy of construction and operation,
efficiency of operation, and productivity of the pond are usually the primary factors in
determining the size, shape, and depth of a pond.
83
Table 4.1 IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project Fixed Cost Summary
FIXED CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 489,585.90
Engineering and Surveying: 17578.75

Well Construction: 78525.62
Well Water Testing: 2860.37
Emergency Generator: 26671.00
Earthmoving: Pond and Roadway Construction 103439.68
Liners and Installation: 49582.51
Nursery Greenhouse Construction: 32132.11
Electrical Contractor: 63318.90
Construction Labor: 115476.96
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES COSTS 48,061.40
Equipment: Paddlewheels 7234.46

Equipment: other pumps & motors 16981.75
Water testing & shrimp sampling equipment and supplies: 1834.91
Pond supplies/equipment: 7497.33
Nursery supplies/equipment: 7017.65
Miscellaneous Supplies: 6886.21
Harvest supplies: 609.09
ANNUAL RECURRING FIXED COSTS: 2,450.00
Aquaculture Certification: 50.00

Storage Building Rental: Mobile Storage Group 2400.00
Fixed costs for materials, equipment, and supplies cost an additional $48,061.40,
approximately 10% of the capital construction costs. Materials and equipment
included an assortment of paddlewheels, pumps, testing equipment and
miscellaneous supplies. Annually recurring fixed costs included the $50 annual
aquaculture certification fee payable to the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, and $200 monthly for rental of an air conditioned, metal storage
trailer for feed and equipment.
Several categories of fixed costs were not evaluated during this project. These
include opportunity costs of alternative uses of farm assets, a land charge for the
use of owned land, depreciation on buildings and equipment, real estate taxes,
insurance, maintenance and repair, and interest payments on loans.
Variable Costs
Variable costs are those that change with the level of output. They are a function of
the amount produced and do not occur unless the operator attempts to produce a
product. Expenses for shrimp PLs, feed, labor, fuel, and harvesting are examples of
84
typical variable costs in shrimp farming. Variable costs are also often called
“operating costs” in farm management publications. The farm manager has control
over variable costs at a given point in time. They can be increased or decreased at
the manager’s discretion and will increase as production increases.
Table 4.2 summarizes the variable costs associated with operating the IRREC
Shrimp Demonstration facility. A detailed itemization of variable costs is included as
Appendix 4.2. Variable operating costs totaled $99,217.37 for the crop production
season. Project Management ($53,886.65) was the highest variable cost. Normally,
a commercial shrimp farmer would serve as project manager, saving these costs.
Feed represented the next most important variable cost item for intensive shrimp
aquaculture. The high cost of feed was due, in part, to high transportation costs.
There are no shrimp feed mills in Florida, and feed must be transported from
Pennsylvania. Shipping costs skyrocketed after the area was hit by two hurricanes
in September 2004. Trucking companies were reluctant to haul into Florida because
there were no backhauling opportunities. For example, in early October an order for
100 pounds of Zeigler SI-35 feed cost $1,118 for the feed plus an additional $881 for
shipping.
One useful way to examine variable costs is to compute each variable cost per
pound of shrimp output. Based on the facility’s output of 11,710 pounds of shrimp,
feed represents more than $1.21 per pound of shrimp produced in the facility. Cost
of feed per pound of shrimp produced depends primarily on two elements: the
conversion ratio of shrimp feed to flesh and the unit price of feed. The cost of feed
can be reduced by an improvement in the conversion ratio, by lowering the unit price
of feed, or by a combination of these two factors. The establishment of a shrimp
feed mill in Florida would significantly reduce the cost of feed.
Labor costs for technicians were based on two full-time technicians from September
through December, to distribute feed and monitor water quality seven days per
week. The project manager handled all labor prior to the hiring of the technicians,
with routine assistance from the principal investigators. For a commercial shrimp
farm, the shrimp farm operator would normally have one full-time technician year-
round, unless the facility operation included automated feeding and water
monitoring.
A reliable supply of high quality shrimp seed (PL12s), obtained at a reasonable cost,
is one of the most important requirements for successful shrimp aquaculture. This
facility purchased PL12s from GMSB Hatchery in Summerland Key, Florida. Getting
the shrimp PLs from a domestic source confers marketing advantages – the
harvested shrimp can be labeled a “Product of the USA.” Mandatory country-of-
origin labeling regulations for both wild and farmed seafood will go into effect in April
2005.
85
Table 4.2. IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project Variable Cost Summary and
Cost of each Input per Pound of Shrimp Output (11,710 lbs)
$/lb shrimp
ANNUAL VARIABLE (OPERATING) COSTS: 99,217.37 8.47
Shrimp PLs: 5646.19 0.482

Feed: (costs include freight) 14237.72 1.216
Labor: Project Management 53886.65 4.602
Labor: Technicians 14057.10 1.200
Nursery Saltwater for acclimation: 0.00 0.000
Molasses: (cost for pickup in Clewiston) 471.39 0.040
Electricity: monthly 10367.43 0.885
Harvest supplies: 550.89 0.047
In any discussion of fixed versus variable costs, it should be noted that the inclusion
of a cost in the variable category for decision-making typically depends on the period
of time considered. In general, as the length of the planning period increases, the
number of costs that are included in the variable category increases, and vice versa.
For example, at the beginning of the crop year, all shrimp PL and feed costs are
considered variable costs. However, once the juvenile shrimp have been transferred
from the greenhouse to the ponds, the cost of the PLs, feed consumed, and other
greenhouse production expenses already incurred are fixed. Any decisions to use
additional variable inputs, therefore, depend on the manager’s estimate of the
additional variable costs and expected returns at that time. At harvest time, all costs
incurred up to that time are fixed. Thus, the decision to harvest or not to harvest the
shrimp crop depends on whether the expected returns from the shrimp crop are
greater than the costs that are variable at that point in time – harvesting and
marketing costs.
Revenues from Shrimp Marketing
As with any business, the success of aquatic farming ventures depends ultimately
on the marketability of the product. Products have frequently been selected for
aquaculture development primarily based on ease of culture without regard to
demand, and development of aquaculture products has historically caused prices to
plummet, perhaps below the cost of production, as supply has increased
dramatically (Josupeit, Lem and Lupin, 2001). According to Shang (1990, 1981) a
species has commercial development potential if, in addition to its biotechnical
feasibility, there is a ready market at prices that provide a reasonable profit, with
marketing infrastructures and channels that are adequate and efficient in handling
increased production.
86
One of the stated objectives of the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project was to
evaluate the marketing of shrimp grown at the facility. U.S. farm-raised shrimp
cannot compete effectively on price with imports in fresh-frozen shrimp commodity
markets for the most popular forms and sizes. One of the most feasible marketing
alternatives, especially during the early stages of shrimp culture industry
development, is for U.S. shrimp farmers to market their products directly to
consumers. Further, although some farms will undoubtedly develop processing
capability, the food safety requirements (HACCP), equipment, packaging and
marketing required to assure the success of value-added products are beyond the
capability or interest of many farmers. Thus, the shrimp product forms leaving the
farm will generally be live shrimp or fresh, head-on shrimp.
One potential obstacle to direct marketing of farmed shrimp is the general

unfamiliarity of U.S. consumers with whole, head-on shrimp. Head-on shrimp is
increasingly important in Europe, but the U.S. market for this product is still very
small (Dore, 2000). As noted in the Literature Review section of Chapter 1, Wirth
and Davis (2003b, 2001b) reported that 72% of southeastern U.S. consumers who
replied to a mail survey indicated that they would be willing to purchase farm-raised
shrimp directly from a farmer. Of those consumers who indicated a willingness to
buy directly from shrimp farmers, 39% indicated a willingness to buy whole, head-on
shrimp, with males more likely than females to be willing to purchase whole shrimp.
This is the product form of primary interest to shrimp producers interested in selling
direct to consumers.
Wirth and Davis (2003b, 2001b) also reported that the most frequently selected
location where individuals were willing to buy shrimp direct was a fish farm (62%)
followed closely by a community farmers' market (56%). In Florida, a shrimp farmer
can sell his farm product live without any special permits. However, any shrimp
farmer offering product direct to the public in any form other than live is considered a
processor and must obtain a Food Permit from the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services. The permit costs $284 per year and requires an
inspection, an approved source of ice, and the use of a licensed kitchen for
processing.
To investigate the dynamics of the direct market for pondside sales of live shrimp
directly to Florida consumers, the IRREC shrimp demonstration project decided to
sell its first shrimp crop directly to interested individuals. On October 27, 2004 the
first of the two ponds (Pond 3) of shrimp (35-40 count tail size) from the first crop
was harvested and sold live pondside to individuals who had placed advanced
reservations for shrimp. The pool of potential customers for this first harvest was
limited to (1) UF/IFAS IRREC employees, (2) employees of the USDA Agricultural
Research Service Horticultural Research Laboratory in Fort Pierce, Florida, (3) St.
Lucie County Cooperative Extension employees, (4) St. Lucie County employees
from three departments located at the county’s administrative offices in Fort Pierce,
and (5) Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution Aquaculture Division staff.
Potential customers were notified of the sale, and advance reservations solicited, by
87
e-mail. Appendix 4.3 is a copy of the e-mail solicitation. Shrimp prices started at
$3.40 per pound for five pounds, with quantity discounts according to the following
schedule:
Weight Price/lb Total Price

5 lb $ 3.40 $ 17.00
10 lb 3.00 30.00
20 lb 2.75 55.00
50 lb 2.50 125.00
The e-mails for the October 27, 2004 harvest sale generated 56 orders for 2,470
pounds of shrimp. A total of 2,320 pounds of live shrimp were sold, and generated
$6,242.50 gross receipts. The average sale price of $2.69 per pound was
considerably higher than the $1.80 - $1.90 per pound that would have been received
from a wholesaler. Unfortunately, there were considerable delays removing the last
400 – 500 pounds of shrimp from the pond after the pond had been 95% drained.
The concentrated sediments in the bottom of the pond imparted a very strong,
negative smell to the shrimp that was exacerbated by some customers who failed to
clean the shrimp and stored them in their refrigerators or freezers bagged in pond
water. Several customers also reported an unsatisfactory “pond” flavor. As a result,
several customers were unhappy with the shrimp. Five customers received refunds
totaling $615 (240 pounds) and five customers received replacement shrimp (80
pounds) from the second sale, described below.
Given the success of the October 27, 2004 harvest, the principal investigators
decided to repeat the live, pondside shrimp sale for the second, and last, pond
(Pond 1) from the first shrimp crop. The second harvest sale took place on
November 19, 2004. The procedure for soliciting advance orders was similar to the
previously used e-mail procedure. However, the pool of potential customers notified
by e-mail was expanded to include employees of Indian River Community College
and the St. Lucie County School Board, both located in Fort Pierce, Florida. In
addition, the Palm Beach Post newspaper announced the sale as part of an in-depth
article about the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project. The e-mail address for
ordering shrimp was included in the newspaper article.
The e-mail announcement for the November 19, 2004 harvest sale is included as
Appendix 4.4. To test consumers’ willingness-to-pay for live shrimp sold pondside,
the minimum order size was increased from five pounds to 10 pounds, and the
shrimp selling price was increased by $1.00 per pound for this second harvest sale
according to the following schedule:
Weight Price/lb Total Price

10 lb $ 4.00 $ 40.00
20 lb 3.75 75.00
50 lb 3.50 175.00
88
The e-mail and newspaper announcements for the November 19, 2004 harvest sale
generated 88 confirmed orders for 2,230 pounds of shrimp, and 27 contingent orders
for 605 pounds, contingent upon supply availability. Despite long lines and waiting
times up to three hours, 75 customers purchased 2,150 pounds of shrimp and
generated $7,732.50 in gross receipts, an average of $3.60 per pound. Numerous
potential customers were unable to wait for the shrimp and left the facility without
having their orders filled.
The shrimp from the second crop, growing in two ponds (Ponds 3 & 4) were too
small by December 6, 2004 to sell to individuals. Pond 3 was estimated to hold
179,032 small shrimp (130-count tails) with a biomass of 2,129 pounds. Pond 4 was
estimated to hold 183,535 130-count shrimp with 2,183 pounds of total shrimp
biomass. Williamson Cattle Company, an Okeechobee, Florida cattle and citrus
operation with 400 acres of catfish in Alabama, purchased the 2,183 pounds of
shrimp in Pond 4 for $0.95 per pound, generating $2,073.85 gross receipts. The
$0.95 purchase price was based upon the wholesale, New York FOB price for 130-
count frozen shrimp tails of $1.60 per pound in mid-November (as reported by Urner
Barry) minus the standard $0.65 per pound processor fee for processing and
transportation. The shrimp in Pond 3, valued at $2,022.55 (based upon $0.95 per
pound) are being retained as carryover inventory by the Indian River REC Shrimp
Demonstration Project and will be monitored for growth until harvest in late spring
2005.
The 8,542 pounds total weight of shrimp sold, the $13,360 total net sales (gross
receipts minus refunds) of shrimp sold, and the $2,022.55 value of shrimp carryover
inventory retained is summarized below in Table 4.3:
Table 4.3. Summary of total weight of shrimp sold, total net sales, and carryover
inventory
Date Weight (lbs) Size (ct/lb) Net Sales ($) Carryover ($)
10-27- 04 2,320 35 - 40 6,242.50 -----
10-27-04 (240) 35 - 40 (615.00) -----
11-19-04 2,150 35 - 40 7,732.50 -----
12-06-04 2,183 130 2,073.85 -----
12-06-04 2,129 130 ----- 2,022.55
Totals 8,542 lbs $ 15,433.85 $ 2,022.55
Finally, it should be noted that according to the terms of the original grant contract
between the University of Florida/IFAS and the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, 5 percent of total receipts from the shrimp demonstration
project must be paid to the FDACS Division of Aquaculture for deposit in the General
Inspection Trust Fund. Five percent of the $15,433.85 net sales is $771.69.
89
Marketing Research
Each consumer purchasing live shrimp at the October 27, 2004 and November 19,
2004 harvest sales was given a 5-page market research survey, along with an
explanatory letter and a stamped business reply envelope. Recipients were
instructed to complete the survey after they had cooked and tasted the shrimp they
purchased live from the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project. Individuals who
purchased more than 10 pounds of shrimp were questioned about the number of
families sharing the shrimp purchase, and were given one survey for each family.
Shrimp purchasers at the November 19, 2004 harvest who had purchased shrimp at
the October 27, 2004 harvest were not given additional surveys. A total of 252
surveys were distributed during the two harvests, 132 at the October 27, 2004
harvest and 120 at the November 19, 2004 harvest. Sixty-eight completed surveys
were returned, generating a 27% response rate through December 10, 2004. Forty-
one respondents (60.3%) purchased shrimp on October 27, 2004 and 27
respondents (39.7%) purchased shrimp on November 19, 2004.
The purpose of the survey was to elicit additional information about consumer
attitudes toward these shrimp and shrimp purchased for at-home consumption.
Consumers were asked a range of questions relating to demographic
characteristics, general shopping habits, and shrimp preferences and purchasing
behavior. Shrimp preference questions identified consumer preferences for various
refrigeration states, product forms, and sizes of shrimp. The survey also
investigated consumer perceptions about farm-raised shrimp by asking consumers
to state their level of agreement with several statements comparing U.S. farm-raised
shrimp with wild-caught and imported shrimp. Additional questions asked about
knowledge and attitudes toward seafood quality, seafood safety, and country-of-
origin labeling.
Consumer preference or acceptance toward the IRREC shrimp was measured

through a series of questions that asked respondents to rate the shrimp in terms of
appearance, flavor, texture, and overall like. All ratings were based on a 7-point
hedonic scale, where 1 = extremely dislike, 4 = neither like nor dislike, and 7 =
extremely like.
Sixty-seven survey respondents provided appearance ratings (Table 4.4). The

mean rating was 6.13, suggesting that respondents very much liked to appearance
of the shrimp. Only four respondents (16.4%) issued appearance ratings of 4 or
lower.
90
Table 4.4. Respondents’ ratings of overall APPEARANCE of the shrimp (7-point
scale)
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2.00 1 1.5 1.5 1.5
3.00 1 1.5 1.5 3.0
neither like nor
2 2.9 3.0 6.0
dislike
5.00 7 10.3 10.4 16.4
6.00 29 42.6 43.3 59.7
extremely like 27 39.7 40.3 100.0
Total 67 98.5 100.0
Missing System 1 1.5
Total 68 100.0
The mean respondent rating for overall shrimp texture was 6.0, suggesting that
respondents liked the texture of the shrimp very much (Table 4.5). Only 6
respondents (8%) issued a texture rating of 4 or lower.
Table 4.5. Respondents’ ratings of overall TEXTURE of the shrimp (7-point scale)
Cumulative
Valid 2.00 2 2.9 3.0 3.0
3.00 1 1.5 1.5 4.5
neither like nor
3 4.4 4.5 9.0
dislike
5.00 9 13.2 13.4 22.4
6.00 26 38.2 38.8 61.2
extremely like 26 38.2 38.8 100.0
Total 67 98.5 100.0
Missing System 1 1.5
Total 68 100.0
The mean rating for flavor was 5.4, suggesting that the majority of respondents liked
the flavor of the shrimp. However, 16 respondents (24%) issued flavor ratings of 4
(neither like nor dislike) or lower. As described previously, the shrimp harvested
near the end of the October 27, 2004 harvest had a strong, offensive odor that
resulted in significant replacements or refunds. To determine if the odor problem
affected the flavor ratings, the ratings for flavor were examined for each harvest date
(Table 4.6). The results show that all 16 respondents who provided flavor ratings of
4 or lower purchased their shrimp on October 27, 2004. All respondents who
purchased shrimp on November 19, 2004 rated flavor at 5 or higher. These results
clearly suggest that the flavor ratings were adversely affected by the offensive smell
that occurred with some of the shrimp from the October 27, 2004 harvest.
91
Table 4.6. Overall FLAVOR* Harvest date cross tabulation to examine FLAVOR
ratings by harvest date
Harvest
October November
27, 2004 19, 2004 Total
Flavor extremely dislike Count 4 0 4
% within
10.0% .0% 6.0%
Harvest
2.00 Count 4 0 4
% within
10.0% .0% 6.0%
Harvest
3.00 Count 5 0 5
% within
12.5% .0% 7.5%
Harvest
neither like nor Count 3 0 3
dislike % within
7.5% .0% 4.5%
Harvest
5.00 Count 6 4 10
% within
15.0% 14.8% 14.9%
Harvest
6.00 Count 10 7 17
% within
25.0% 25.9% 25.4%
Harvest
extremely like Count 8 16 24
% within
20.0% 59.3% 35.8%
Harvest
Total Count 40 27 67
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Harvest
The ratings for the overall likeability of the shrimp were very similar to the flavor
results, probably for the same reasons. Eleven respondents (16.6%) provided
overall like ratings of 4 or less (Table 4.7). However, all 10 respondents who rated
overall likeability at 3 or less purchased shrimp during the October 27, 2004 harvest.
Twenty-six of 27 respondents (95.3%) from the November 19, 2004 harvest issued
overall likeability ratings of 6 or 7, suggesting that the respondents very much liked
the shrimp overall.
92
Table 4.7. Overall LIKE* Harvest date cross tabulation to examine overall LIKE
ratings by Harvest date
Harvest
October November
27, 2004 19, 2004 Total
Overall extremely dislike Count 2 0 2
% within Harvest 5.1% .0% 3.0%
2.00 Count 6 0 6
3.00 Count 2 0 2
neither like nor Count 0 1 1
dislike % within Harvest .0% 3.7% 1.5%
5.00 Count 9 0 9
6.00 Count 11 11 22
% within Harvest 28.2% 40.7% 33.3%
extremely like Count 9 15 24
% within Harvest 23.1% 55.6% 36.4%
% within Harvest 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Shrimp purchasers were also asked to give their opinions on the level of difficulty in
cleaning and preparing whole shrimp at home, using a 7-point scale where 1 = very
difficult, 4 = neutral, and 7 = very easy. Table 4.8 shows that there was a wide
range of opinions, with 18 respondents (26.5%) indicating that cleaning and
preparation are difficult. Nineteen percent were neutral, while 37 respondents
(54.4%) indicated that cleaning and preparation was easy to very easy. These
results suggest that the cleaning and preparation of whole shrimp at home will not
be a major constraint to direct sales of whole shrimp to consumers.
Table 4.8. Difficulty in cleaning and preparing whole shrimp at home (7-point scale)
Cumulative
Valid very
4 5.9 5.9 5.9
difficult
2.00 1 1.5 1.5 7.4
3.00 13 19.1 19.1 26.5
neutral 13 19.1 19.1 45.6
5.00 12 17.6 17.6 63.2
6.00 15 22.1 22.1 85.3
very easy 10 14.7 14.7 100.0
Total 68 100.0 100.0
93
Respondents were also asked if the process of cleaning, heading, peeling, and
preparing whole shrimp would prevent them from repurchasing whole shrimp (Table
4.9). The results suggest that the cleaning, heading, peeling, and preparation
process will not serve as an impediment to whole shrimp sales. Fifty-eight
respondents (85.3%) indicated that processing would not prevent repurchase. Only
10.3% of respondents would not repurchase because of the processing
requirements of whole shrimp.
Table 4.9. Respondents indicating whether the cleaning, heading, peeling, and
preparation process would prevent repurchase of whole shrimp
Cumulative
Valid No 58 85.3 85.3 85.3
uncertain 3 4.4 4.4 89.7
Yes 7 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 68 100.0 100.0
To explore price perceptions and willingness-to-pay for whole, fresh shrimp,

respondents were asked the following price scenario question: “Typically at retail
establishments, shrimp tails (previously frozen or frozen) are sold at an average
price of $6.00 to $7.00 a pound. How would you feel about paying $5.00 for a pound
of the shrimp (whole, fresh, never frozen) you just tasted? Possible responses
were based on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = too expensive, 4 = fair price, and 7 =
it’s a bargain. The responses, shown in Table 4.10 suggest a strong probability that
shrimp farmers can sell whole, fresh shrimp for $5.00 per pound. Only 14
respondents (20.9%) gave a response of 3 or lower, suggesting that $5.00 per
pound would be too expensive. The respondents who felt that $5.00 per pound was
too expensive were predominantly October 27, 2004 purchasers. Nineteen
respondents (28.4%) felt that $5.00 per pound was a fair price. More than 70% of
November 19, 2004 purchasers responded with ratings of 5, 6, or 7, suggesting that
a $5.00 per pound price was more than fair, and 40.7% of the November 19, 2004
respondents felt that $5.00 per pound is a bargain. This result suggests that Florida
shrimp farmers selling live shrimp direct to consumers will be able to charge up to
$5.00 per pound with little market resistance.
94
Table 4.10. Price * Harvest date cross tabulation to examine attitude toward paying
$5.00/lb for whole fresh shrimp when frozen tails are selling for $6.00 –
$7.00 per pound in retail stores (by harvest date)
Harvest
October November
27, 2004 19, 2004 Total
Price too Count 9 0 9
expensive % within
22.5% .0% 13.4%
Harvest
3.00 Count 4 1 5
% within
10.0% 3.7% 7.5%
Harvest
fair price Count 12 7 19
% within
30.0% 25.9% 28.4%
Harvest
5.00 Count 2 4 6
% within
5.0% 14.8% 9.0%
Harvest
6.00 Count 2 4 6
% within
5.0% 14.8% 9.0%
Harvest
it's a bargain Count 11 11 22
% within
27.5% 40.7% 32.8%
Harvest
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Harvest
95
CHAPTER 5
OUTREACH AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
The Shrimp Economic Demo has disseminated its results in a number of venues.
Numerous news releases were developed by IRREC's PR person Robin Koestoyo,
and an Open House was also planned by Robin Koestoyo. Public workshops were
also developed and performed by LeRoy Creswell to respond to the interest that has
been generated in the local area regarding low salinity shrimp farming. It should be
noted that the workshops received agro-business attendees from as far as Tampa
and St. Petersburg. The following are examples of the how the Shrimp Economic
Demonstration Project has disseminated its experiences and knowledge to the
public:
Open House
The University of Florida/IFAS

Aquaculture Demonstration Project
UF/IFAS Indian River Research and Education Center
UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension
Open House and Shrimp Boil
Marine shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei,recently harvested at the UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration
Project. The UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project was made possible by generous in
kind donations provided by the following individuals and the organizations and companies
they represent. Their support is greatly appreciated.
Frank “Sonny”Williamson Jr. , Williamson Cattle Dr. Rolland Laramore, Bonnie, Hopkins and
Co. Laramore Inc.
Travis Murphy, River Country Citrus Inc. Dr. Megan Davis, Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Doug Coward, St. Lucie Board of County Institution
Commissioners David Feltenberger, HydroMentia
Howard Searcy, Gulfstream Contractors Inc. Mark Zivojnovich, HydroMentia
David Neill, Big Red Tomato Packers Inc. Durwood Dugger and Dr. Darryl Jory, BCI Inc.
Anita Neal, UF/IFAS St. Lucie Cooperative Dr. Sabine Alshuth and Gary Koser, Indian River
Extension Community College
Tom Zeigler, Zeigler Bros. Feed Inc. George Pantuso, Circle H Citrus
Robert Heideman, Aquatic Eco-Systems Stuart McGahee, PE, Dragonfly Engineering Inc.
Mark Yunker, Yunker Plastics Inc. Dr. Junda Lin, Florida Institute of Technology
John Heathcote, Specialty Products Division- Chuck Syfrett, Syfrett Feed Co.
Firestone, Inc. Ranger Construction Co. Inc.
Phillip Metcalf and Camilo Gaitan, Florida Pat Widden, U.S. Sugar Corporation
Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services Division of Water Policy
David McMahon, OceanBoy Farms Inc.
Joseph Spataro, Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services Division of Forestry
96
Program
Monday, November 15, 2004
2:00 p.m
Welcome
Brian Scully, Professor and Director
University of Florida/IFAS Indian River
Research and Education Center
Comments
Sherman Wilhelm
Director, Division of Aquaculture
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Joe Joyce
UF/IFAS Executive Associate Vice President
Ann Bolduc
Aide to State Sen. Ken Pruitt
Frank “Sonny” Williamson Jr.
UF/IFAS Aquaculture Advisory Subcommittee Chair
Ferdinand Wirth
UF/IFAS Associate Professor and Principal Investigator
LeRoy Creswell
UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension
Sea Grant Extension Agent and Co-Principal Investigator
Brian Scully, Professor and Director
Closing Words
Shrimp Boil
The University of Florida/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project is the first

publicly-owned food species aquaculture research facility south of Gainesville.
Its mission is to identify alternative crops for growers in south Florida. Shrimp
is the first commodity studied. Work began five years ago with the
organization of the Indian River Research and Education Center Aquaculture
Advisory Subcommittee on which Frank “Sonny” Williamson Jr. serves as
chair. He said the committee was formed to initiate research because
agriculturalists depend on the university to provide them with information
about the science and economics of aquaculture and to determine which
Aquaculture products would be the most viable for them as alternative crops.
UF/IFAS Associate Professor Ferdinand Wirth obtained a grant from The
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Aquaculture
Division for nearly a quarter of a million dollars to start construction of the
project in 2002. Additional funding was provided by UF/IFAS.
97
Durwood Dugger, an internationally renowned aquaculture specialist with
expertise in shrimp culture, designed the project and has managed its operation
through the planning, construction and production stages. This month, the first
shrimp harvest was reaped from the project’s four grow-out ponds with an
outstanding yield and quality product, according to Dugger. Further research
is planned with other commodities such as tiger shrimp, pompano and other
finfish. The data collected from farming shrimp, and additional product
research findings will be provided to the region’s growers who are considering
aquaculture products as alternative crops. LeRoy Creswell, UF/IFAS Sea
Grant Extension Agent, will work with growers to develop their aquaculture
production sites. He can be contacted at the UF/IFAS St. Lucie County
Extension (772) 462-1660.
Palm Beach Post Article
Farm-raised shrimp are the future of Florida's aquaculture industry

FORT PIERCE— Frank "Sonny" Williamson, Okeechobee County cattleman and citrus
grower, pronounced them "sweet, mild and very tasty."
Williamson was one of several dozen people downing Pacific White shrimp Monday
afternoon during the first harvest of the crustaceans during an open house and shrimp boil at
the University of Florida's Aquaculture Demonstration Project off Picos Road.
Florida ranks third in aquaculture production of all types, but the industry's backbone has
been ornamental fish for aquariums, said Ferdinand Wirth, associate professor and the
project's principal investigator.
"If ornamentals have been the backbone, food species such as shrimp represent the future
potential," Wirth said.
The farm's four "grow-out" ponds and the greenhouse where shrimp the size of an eyelash
begin their life at the site will help researchers perfect the practical application of aquaculture
and study its economic viability.
Construction began in 2002 with a grant for almost a quarter of a million dollars from the
state Agriculture Department. Additional money provided by the University of Florida's
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences brought the start-up costs to just under $600,000
to date, Wirth said.
Farmers need to diversify so they're not dependent on one or two crops, said Williamson,
chairman of the institute's aquaculture advisory subcommittee.
Land grant universities such as UF have a duty to provide agricultural producers with
information about the science and economic feasibility of new ventures such as aquaculture.
There's definite interest on the part of growers of other commodities.
"They're going to wait until they see some figures out of the university that will show it can
be successful," Williamson said.
The first crop of 2,400 pounds of shrimp, harvested Oct. 27, and the next crop popping out
this week show shrimp farming can be done at the site.
98
Research also is planned with other seafood such as tiger shrimp, pompano and other finfish.
The facility's shrimp will be sold beginning Friday as live shrimp to the public for $4 a
pound, with a minimum purchase of 10 pounds, Wirth said.
Florida is home to 10 shrimp farms, seven of which produced $5 million worth of shrimp in
2003, according to the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service.
The problem has been that private producers have been loath to share production data, Wirth
said, but the data collected at the demonstration facility will be the basis for a profitability
analysis.
"Is it a profitable enterprise? We hope so, and we think so," said LeRoy Creswell, the
project's co-principal investigator with the UF/IFAS St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension
Service. "Those things are yet to be determined."
Sherman Wilhelm, director of the state Division of Aquaculture, said shrimp are now the
nation's top seafood. Aquaculture is becoming more of a necessity all the time, and it's a
natural because the demand is there.
"The world's population is demanding protein," he said. "It isn't going to be all coming from
red meat."
• Pacific White shrimp from the University of Florida's Aquaculture Demonstration Project
will be available, by pre-order only, to the public beginning Friday.
• Consumers must buy a minimum of 10 pounds; the price is $4 a pound.
• The shrimp will be sold live.
• To order, e-mail Ferdinand Wirth at ffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu.
By Susan Salisbury
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
99
SeaGrant Workshops by R. LeRoy Creswell
November 24, 2004
Dear XXX
Thank you for your interest in the UF/IFAS Shrimp Demonstration Project. Despite
the unprecedented hurricane season, we successfully harvested shrimp at yields which
exceeded our expectations. Although we had hoped to begin some workshops in September,
they were postponed due to the storms.
You are cordially invited to attend a workshop “Raising Marine Shrimp in Florida’s
Freshwater”, to be held at the St. Lucie County Cooperative Extension office at 8400 Picos
Rd., Ft. Pierce, 34945 (see attached map). Four workshops are scheduled for December 13th,
14th, 16th, and 17th, from 1 to 4 pm. Note that these are different dates for the same
workshop, so you need only to sign-up for the one that is most convenient to you. Other
dates may be set later in the year if there is sufficient interest.
Workshops will require a minimum of five attendees to be held and a maximum of 15

per workshop. Registration will be on a “first come – first serve” basis. A nominal fee of $5
will be asked to defray the cost of printing materials.
Topics to be covered include:

An Overview of Shrimp Culture
Types of Systems Used to Culture Shrimp
Pond design
Water Quality
Feeding, Growth and Survival
Permits and BMPs
Marketing and Economics
Of course, the workshop will include a tour of the shrimp demonstration site.
To register contact Laura at 772-462-1660, and let her know which workshop date
you wish to attend.
Kind regards,
LeRoy Creswell
Florida Sea Grant Cooperative Extension
100
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Litopenaeus vannamei can be raised in St. Lucie County's Floridan aquifer

water at densities of at least 75/m2 without the use of supplemental mineral
additions.
L. vannamei can be produced without any apparent signs of toxicity in tanks
or ponds lined with either HDPE or EPDM synthetic liners.
It is very difficult to grow two crops per year without a heated greenhouse
nursery, especially if there are cold Spring temperatures
Managing the balance between algae and bacteria populations in ponds is
challenging but necessary
o Molasses works well – ratio of ½ lb. per lb. of feed
High quality shrimp can be produced in St. Lucie County using Floridan
Aquifer water - providing those shrimp are rinsed in clean potable water as
part of the harvest process.
Those shrimp can be sold to an enthusiastic public market at or above retail
prices.
Advanced sales over 2,000 lbs. per event can be generated using only
internet notification of local entities that employee significant numbers of
people at or above the average income.
Recommendations
Given the continued decline of the US dollar and the decline commodity
market prices for shrimp in sizes less than 30 grams, it will be difficult for a
business or an industry to develop in Florida using only a seasonal growout of
shrimp.
Given that the United States continues to produce the least expensive animal
feed ingredients and feeds, a U.S. based shrimp producer who can optimize
all their production and marketing economies will have a significant
competitive advantage.
There are significant economies of size or increasing returns to size in shrimp
farming. To optimize these production and marketing economies, a producer
would have to be of a scale significant enough to afford an internal hatchery
(with appropriate genetic selection programs), a feed mill, a shrimp
processing and packaging plant (with new product development capabilities)
and the means to market, distribute and sell their own production.
The Florida Department of Agriculture should support research that advances
the aforementioned business models. Specifically, shrimp production
technology that can produce shrimp year-round in a factory-like environment.
101
The Florida Department of Agriculture should also support further research to
determine how to separate, leach and beneficially utilize and/or market the
flocculent by-product from heterotrophic forms of aquaculture.
To further encourage an aquaculture industry in the State of Florida, the state
should encourage commercial concerns to locate an aquaculture feed product
mill in the state.
102
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Chuck. “Selected Factors Affecting Seafood Markets in the United States.”
Journal of Food Distribution Research 29, no. 1 (1998):8-17.
Aquacop. 1991. Modeling of resistance to salinity shocks of Penaeus vannamei

postlarvae. Aquatic Living Resources 4:169-174.
Boehlje, Michael D. and Vernon R. Eidman. 1983. Farm Management. New York:
John Wiley and Sons. 806 pp.
Boman, B.J., 1999. Managing salinity in citrus irrigation water. IRREC Report FTP-
1999-8, University of Florida, IFAS, Indian River Research and Education Center,
Fort Pierce, FL.
Boyd, C.E., 2001. Inland shrimp farming and the environment. World Aquaculture
Magazine, pp.10-12, Vol. 32, No. 1.
Bray, W.A., Lawrence, A.L., and Leung-Trujillo, J.R. 1994. The effect of salinity on
growth and survival of Penaeus vannamei, with observations on the interaction of
IHHN virus and salinity. Aquaculture 122:133-146.
Browdy, C.L. and J.S. Hopkins, eds. 1995. Proceedings of the Special Session on
Shrimp Farming, Aquaculture ’95, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.
Castell, J.D. 1979. Review of lipid requirements of finfish. In: Halver J. and E., Tiews
K. (Eds), Proceeding of the World Symposium of Finfish Nutrition and Fishfeed
Technology, Hamburg, Germany, V1. Heenemann, Berlin, pp59-84.
Castille, F. L. and Lawrence, A. L. 1981. The effect of salinity on the osmotic,

sodium and chloride concentrations in the hemolymph of Euryhaline shrimp of the
genus Penaeus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 68A:75-80.
Cawthorne, D. F., Beard, T., Davenport, J. and Wickins, J. F. 1983. Responses of

juvenile Penaeus monodon Fabricius to natural and artificial sea waters of low
salinity. Aquaculture 32:165-174.
Cheng, Hsiang-tai and Orals Capps, Jr. Demand for Disaggregate Fish and Shellfish
Species in the United States. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 87-2.
May 1987.
Davis, D. A., Bierdenbach, J. and Lawrence A. L. 1990. Qualitative effects of dietary

mineral supplementation, salinity and substrate on growth and Tissue Mineralization
for Penaeus vannamei. World Aquaculture Society Meeting. Halifax, Canada. 1990.
103
Diop, H., R.W. Harrison and W.R. Keithly. “Impact of Increasing Imports on the U.S.
Southeastern Region Shrimp Processing Industry 1973-1996.” Paper presented at
the AAEA Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN., 8 -11 August 1999.
Dixon, H.M. 1999. Bait shrimp production in Florida. Global Aquaculture Advocate
2(6):20.
Dixon, H.M. and F. Whitney. Commercial Recirculating System for Bait Shrimp
Production in Florida. Global Aquaculture Advocate. (In press)
Dore, Ian. SHRIMP Supply, Products and Marketing in the Aquaculture Age. Toms
River, New Jersey: Urner Barry Publications, Inc., 2000.
Edwards, R. E. and D.E. Roberts, 1989. Inland Aquaculture of Red Drum in

Freshwater from the Floridan Aquifer: A Feasibility/Demonstration Project.
Aquaculture Market Development Aid Program, Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL.
Ferraris, R. P., Parado-Estepa, F. D., Ladja, J. M. and de Jesus, E. G. 1986. Effect

of salinity on osmotic, chloride, total protein and calcium concentrations in the
hemolymph of the prawn Penaeus monodon (Fabricius). Comparative Biochemistry
and Physiology 83A:701-708.
Fielder, D. S., Bardsley, W. J. and Allan, G. L. 2001. Survival and growth of

Australian snapper, Pagrus auratus, in saline groundwater from inland New South
Wales, Australia. Aquaculture 201: 73-90.
Foltz, J., S. Dasgupta and S. Devadoss. “Consumer Perceptions of Trout as a Food

Item.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2(1) (1999): 83-
101.
Gempesaw II, C. M., R. Bacon, D.R. Wessells and A. Manalo. “Consumer

Perceptions of Aquaculture Products.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77 (December 1995):
1306-1312.
Golz, Theresa K. and William C. Nelson. “Markets for Northern Plains Aquaculture –
Case Study of Tilapia.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 429, Department of
Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, October 1999.
Green, P.E. and V. Srinivasan. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues

and Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5 (1978):103-123.
Green, P.E. and Y. Wind. “New Ways to Measure Consumers’ Judgments.” Harvard
Business Review, July-August 1975, pp 89 -108.
104
Hanson, Gregory D., Robert O. Herrmann, and James W. Dunn. “Determinants of
Seafood Purchase Behavior: Consumers, Restaurants, and Grocery Stores.” Amer.
J. Agr. Econ. 77 (December 1995): 1301-1305.
Harpaz, S. and Karplus, I. 1991. Effect of salinity on growth and survival of juvenile
Penaeus semisulcatus reared in the laboratory. Israeli Journal of Aquaculture -
Bamidgeh 43:156-163.
Harvey, David J. 2002. “Aquaculture Outlook.” Washington DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, LDP-AQS-15, March 2002.
Harvey, D. 2001. Aquaculture Outlook. USDA-ERS, LSP-AQS-13, Washington, DC.

Harvin, J.L., 2000. A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Culture of the marine shrimp, Penaeus
vannamei, in freshwater ponds. Aquaculture America ‘99 Book of Abstracts
Hutchins, D.L., G.W. Chamberlain, and J.C. Parker. 1979. Length-weight relations
for several species of Penaeid shrimp cultured in ponds near Corpus Christi, Texas.
Proc. World Mariculture Society 10:565-570.
Johnson, Howard M. 2001 Annual Report on the United States Seafood Industry.
Jacksonville, OR: H.M. Johnson and Associates.
Josupeit, Helga, Audun Lem and Hector Lupin. 2001. “Aquaculture Products:
Quality, Safety, Marketing and Trade” in Aquaculture in the Third Millennium
(Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium,
Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome.
Kay, Ronald D. and William M. Edwards. 1994. Farm Management. McGraw-Hill

Series in Agricultural Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 458 pp.
Keithly, W.R., K.J. Roberts and J.M. Ward. “Effects of Shrimp Aquaculture on the
U.S. Market: An Econometric Analysis.” In Aquaculture: Models and Economics, Eds
Upton Hatch and Henry Kinnucan, Westview Press, Boulder, CO., 1993: 125-126.
Kumulu, M. and Jones, D.A. 1995. Salinity tolerance of hatchery-reared postlarvae

of Penaeus indicus H. Milne Edwards originating from India. Aquaculture 130:287-
296.
Lee, P.G., C. Zuercher, C. Davies, A.L. Lawrence, T. Samocha, G. Woods and P.E.
Turk. 2001. Biosecure, commercial, inland marine shrimp raceway production and
environmentally isolated, SPF broodstock culture systems. Book of Abstracts,
Aquaculture 2001, World Aquaculture Society, Orlando, FL
Lee, P.G. 2000, Biosecurity and Closed Recirculating Systems. Global Aquaculture
Advocate, Volume 3, Issue 5.
105
Lesser, William H. 1993. Marketing Livestock and Meat. Binghamton, NY: The
Haworth Press, Inc.
Lichtler, W.F., 1972. Appraisal of water resources in the east central Florida region.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology Report 61.
Tallahassee, FL.
Lignot, J. H., Cochard, J. C., Soyez, C., Lamarire, P. and Charmantier, G. 1999.
Osmoregulatory capacity according to nutritional status, molt stage and body weight
in Penaeus stylirostris. Aquaculture 170: 79-92.
Mair, J. McD., 1980 Salinity and water-type preferences of four species of postlarval
shrimp (Penaeus)from west Mexico. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 45:69-82.
Mantel, L. H. and Farmer, L. L. 1983. Osmotic and Ionic Regulation. In: Mantel, L.
H.(Ed.), The Biology of Crustacea Volume 5: Internal Anatomy and Physiological
Regulation. Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 54-143.
Marangos, C., Brogren, C. H., Alliot, E and H. J. Ceccaldi. 1989. The influence of
water salinity on the free amino acid concentration in muscle and hepatopancreas of
adult shrimps, Penaeus japonicus. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 17: 589-
594.
McMahon, D.Z., B. Baca, T. Samocha and D.E. Jory. Florida’s first inland,
commercial-scale shrimp farm: developing protocols for inland culture of Pacific
white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) with zero discharge in low-salinity ponds.
Global Aquaculture Advocate. (In press)
Meade, James. W. 1989. Aquaculture Management. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhard. 175 pp.
Menz, A. and B.F. Blake. 1980. Experiments on the growth of Penaeus vannamei
Boone. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 48(2): 99-111.
National Fisheries Institute (NFI). 2002. “Seafood’s Top Ten”.

http://www.nfi.org/news/topten.php.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). “Fisheries of the United States, 2001.”
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus01/
Nauman, F. A., C. M. Gempesaw, J.R. Bacon and A. Manalo. “Consumer Choice for
Fresh Fish: Factors Affecting Purchase Decisions.” Marine Resource Economics, 10
(1995): 117-142.
106
Nayga, Rodolfo M. and Oral Capps, Jr. “Factors Affecting the Probability of
Consuming Fish and Shellfish in the Away from Home and at Home Markets.” Jour.
of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 27(1), July 1995: 161-171.
Parado-Estepa, F. D., Ferraris, R. P., Ladja, J. M. and de Jesus, E. G. 1987.

Responses of intermolt Penaeus indicus to large fluctuations in environmental
salinity. Aquaculture 64:175-184.
Prochaska, F.J. and C.O. Andrew, “Shrimp Processing in the Southeast: Supply
Problems and Structural Changes.” Southern J. Agr. Econ. (1974): 247-252.
Robertson, L., Lawrence, A. L. and Castille, F. 1993. Interaction of salinity and feed
protein level on growth of Penaeus vannamei. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 2: 43-
54.
Rosas, C., Ocampo, L., Gaxiola, G., Sanchez, A. and Soto, L.A. 1999. Effect of
salinity on survival, growth, and oxygen consumption of postlarvae (PL10-PL21) of
Litopenaeus setiferus. Journal of Crustacean Biology 19:244-251.
Rosenberry, R., 2001, Shrimp News, http://members.aol.com/brosenberr/Home.html
Rosenberry, B. 2000. World Shrimp Farming. Number 12. Shrimp News

International. San Diego, CA.
Samocha, T.M., A.L. Lawrence, C.R. Collins, C.R. Emberson, J.L. Harvin, and P.
Van Wyk. 2001. Development of integrated environmentally-sound inland shrimp
production technologies for Litopenaeus vannamei. Book of Abstracts, Aquaculture
2001, World Aquaculture Society, Orlando, FL
Samocha, T.M., Davis, A. D., Lawrence, A. L., Collins, C. R. and Van Wyk, P. 2001.
Intensive and super-intensive production of the Pacific white Litopenaeus vannamei
in greenhouse-enclosed raceway systems. Book of Abstracts, Aquaculture 2001.
Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Page 573.
Samocha,T. M., Guajardo, H., Lawrence, A. L., Castille, F. L., Speed, M., McKee, D.
A. and Page, K. I. 1998. A simple stress test for Penaeus vannamei postlarvae.
Aquaculture 165:233-242.
Samocha, T.M., L. Hamper, C.R. Emberson, A.D. Davis, A. Balafas, D. McIntosh,

A.L. Lawrence, P.G. Lee and G.F. Wood, 2000. Potential tools for development of a
sustainable and biosecured shrimp farming industry. Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, Shrimp Mariculture Research, Corpus Christi, TX.
Scarpa, J. and D.E. Vaughan, 1999. Freshwater culture of the marine shrimp,
Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture America ‘99 Book of Abstracts.
107
Scarpa, J., 1998. Freshwater recirculating systems in Florida. Pages 67-70. In: S.M.
Moss, Editor, Proceedings of the US Marine Shrimp Farming Program, Biosecurity
Workshop, Oceanic Institute, Waimanalo, Hawaii.
Schaffner, David J., William R. Schroder and Mary D. Earle. 1998. Food Marketing,
An International Perspective. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Schoffeniels, E. 1970. Isosmotic intracellular regulation in Maja squinado Risso and

Penaeus aztecus Yves. Archives Internationales de Physiologie et de Biochimie 78:
461-466.
Schumann, Don. Indian River Aquaculture. Personal Communication, 2000.
Shang, Yung C. Aquaculture Economic Analysis: An Introduction. Advances in

World Aquaculture, Volume 2. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA,
1990.
Shang, Yung C. 1981. Aquaculture Economics: Basic Concepts and Methods of

Analysis. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 153 pp.
Shiau, S. Y. and Hsieh J-.F. 2001. Dietary potassium requirement of juvenile grass
shrimp Penaeus monodon. Fisheries Science 67:592-595.
Smith, L. L. and Lawrence, A. L. 1990. Feasibility of penaeid shrimp culture in inland

saline groundwater-fed ponds. Texas Journal of Science 42:3-12.
South Florida Water Management District. 1998. Upper East Coast Water Supply
Plan, Volumes I, II and III. West Palm Beach, FL.
Spaargaren, D. H. and Haefner, P. A., Jr. 1987. The effect of environmental osmotic
conditions on blood and tissue glucose levels in the brown shrimp, Crangon crangon
(L.). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 87A: 1045-1050.
Tacon, A.G., J.J. Cody, L.D. Conquest, S. Divakaran, I.P. Forster, and O.E.
Decamp. 2002. Effect of culture system on the nutrition and growth performance of
Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone) fed different diets. Aquaculture
Nutrition, 8: 121-137.
Tsuzuki, M.Y., Cavalli, R.O. and Bianchini, A. 2000. The effects of temperature, age,
and acclimation to salinity on the survival of Farfantepenaeus paulensis postlarvae.
J. World. Aquacult. Soc. 3:459-468.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service.

2000. Aquaculture Outlook. Washington, DC, March 13, 2000.
108
United States Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. “The1996
Southeast Regional Report” in Our Living Oceans: The Economic Status of U.S.
Fisheries. Washington DC, pp 1-103.
Van Wyk, P. 2000. Culture of Penaeus vannamei in Single-Phase and Three-Phase

Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Global Aquaculture Advocate 3(3):41-43.
Van Wyk, P., M. Davis-Hodgkins., R. Laramore, K.L. Main, J. Mountain, and J.

Scarpa. (2000). Production of Marine Shrimp in Freshwater Recirculating
Aquaculture Systems, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Bob Crawford. Tallahassee, Florida.
Van Wyk, P.M. Designing efficient indoor shrimp production systems: a bioeconomic
approach. Pp. xx-xxx. In: Browdy, Craig L., and Jory, Darryl, E. editors. 2001. The
New Wave, Proceedings of the Special Session on Sustainable Shrimp Culture,
Aquaculture 2001. The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United
States.
Villalon, Jose, R. 1991. Practical manual for semi-intensive commercial production of

marine shrimp. Texas Sea Grant Program, PO Box 1675, Galveston, TX.77553-
1675. U.S.A.
Wang, Q., C. Halbrendt, and N. Caron. “Differences between Retailer and Consumer
Concerns about Seafood Safety: Evidence from Survey Data.” Proceedings of NE-
165 Conference: Economics of Reducing Health Risk from Food. Washington DC,
June 6-7, 1995.
Wessells, C. R., S.F. Morse, A. Manalo and C. M. Gempesaw II. “Consumer

Preferences for Northeastern Aquaculture Products: Report on the Results of a
Survey of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic Consumers.” Rhode Island Experiment
Station Publication No. 3100, December 1994.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2004. “Dealer Preferences - U.S. Shrimp
Producers Face Challenges, Rewards in Domestic Market.” Global Aquaculture
Advocate, 7(5): 30-32.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2003a. “Seafood Dealers’ Shrimp

Purchasing Behavior and Preferences.” Journal of Shellfish Research, 22(2),
August: 581-588.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2003b. “Survey: U.S. Consumers Willing to
Buy Farm-Raised Shrimp.” Global Aquaculture Advocate, 6(5): 82-84.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2002. “Survey Tests Restaurant Attitudes
Toward Farm-Raised Shrimp.” Global Aquaculture Advocate, 5(2) April: 82-83.
109
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2001a. Seafood Restaurant Shrimp
Purchasing Behavior and Attitudes Toward Farm-Raised Shrimp. Staff Paper 01-19,
Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. December 2001.
Wirth, Ferdinand F. and Kathy J. Davis. 2001b. Assessing Potential Direct

Consumer Markets for Farm-Raised Shrimp. Staff Paper 01-13, Food and Resource
Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida. September 2001.
Wirth, F.F., C.K. Halbrendt, and G.F. Vaughn. “Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic
Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass.” University of Delaware,
College of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 488,
November 1990.
Yokoyama, K.M., S.T. Nakamoto, and K. Wanitprapha. “Shrimp Economic Fact

Sheet.” Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Hawaii,
July 1989.
Zajicek, P. 1998. The rules have changed in Florida. Aquaculture Magazine 24(3):
26-32.
110
Appendix 2.1 Construction Specifications
UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Phone (772) 468-3922
Indian River Research and Education Center sc 240-3922
2199 South Rock Road Fax (772) 468-5668
Fort Pierce, FL 34945-3138 Internet www.irrec.ifas.ufl.edu
TO:
River Country Citrus, Inc.
Mr. Travis Murphy
1313 W. Midway Rd.
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
772/467-8677
EARTHMOVING SCOPE OF WORK FOR

THE U. F. SHRIMP PROJECT
GENERAL BIDDING INFORMATION
The contractor shall build, compact and grade pond bottoms and levees around five
ponds as described and specified in this document, the attached engineer's
drawings and notes. The bid award will be based on the following factors: type of
equipment, experience in similar types of work, less any donated services, start
date, the completion date and the contractors total bid price.
DEADLINE FOR BIDDING
It is hereby understood and mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto that
the deadline to deliver bids for the described project is March 17 and that this time is
an essential condition to compete in the bidding process.
DEAD LINE FOR COMPLETION OF DELIVERY
It is hereby understood and mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto that
the time of delivery - which is thirty (30) days from March 17th and that this time is
an essential condition of this contract and shall be guaranteed by suitable
performance bond.
111
If said vendor shall neglect or fail or refuse to furnish and deliver the equipment
within time herein specified, then said vendor does hereby agree, as a part
consideration for the awarding of this contract to pay to University of Florida, Indian
River Research and Education Center - Account Number 193 the sum of $ 300/per
day, as partial liquidated damages, for loss of use and/or additional costs incurred by
the University for administration of the contract during such delay.
Provided, that the vendor shall, within seven (7) days from the beginning of such
delay, notify the owner in writing of the cause(s) of the delay, who shall ascertain the
facts and extent of the delay and notify the vendor within a reasonable time of his
decision in the matter.
If the vendor shall be delayed in the completion of his work by reason of

unforeseeable causes beyond his control and without his fault or negligence,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, floods,
epidemics, quarantine, restrictions, strikes, riots, civil commotion's, freight
embargoes or priority regulations, the period herein above specified for the
completion of his work shall be extended by such times as shall be fixed by the
University.
BUILD, COMPACT AND GRADE CONSTRUCTING FIVE PONDS
All filling material shall be laid down into the levees in layers less than six inches
thick - per pan scrapper/tractor pass.
CRITICAL GRADE REQUIREMENTS
The contractor understands that the grade of the pond bottoms in the four production
ponds is critical to their operation and the contractor agrees to establish and
maintain grade on these pond bottoms to within plus or minus 1 inch. The grade on
the levee slopes is less critical and can be established and maintained to plus or
minus 3-4 inches. The grade of the percolation pond and the borrow pit can be
established and maintained to plus or minus 3-4 inches
OTHER CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
The bidding contractor should note that contractor will be responsible for all features
on the drawing related to the construction of the ponds. This includes:
x the installation of the corrugated plastic overflow pipes (supplied by
contractor),
x setting of safety posts on levees,
x setting of light posts at the four corners of the ponds,
x adding and grading an approximate 12" of fill to incoming road, utility pad,
turn-around pad.
x the construction of the earthen access and egress ramps at the north and
south ends of the center line levee.
112
x the "boxing", spreading and compaction of the shell material (supplied by UF)
on the incoming road (12'x300'), the turn-around pad (100'x100'), the utility
pad (50'x50'), and the access ramp including the center levee top (14'x 388').
CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY INSURANCE
The Contractor shall purchase from And maintain with a company or companies
lawfully authorized to do business in Florida such insurance as will protect the
Contractor from claims set forth below which may arise out of or result from the
Contractor's operations under the Contract and for which the Contractor may be
legally liable, whether such operations be by the Contractor or by a Subcontractor or
by anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or by anyone for whose
acts any of them may be liable. All insurance policies shall be issued and
countersigned by representatives of such companies duly authorized for the State of
Florida and shall be written on ISO standard forms or their equivalents. The
Contractor shall provide the ISO Commercial General Liability policy for general
liability coverage. All liability policies shall provide that the University is a named
additional insured as to the operations of the Contractor under the University-
Contractor Agreement and shall provide the Severability of Insured's Provision. The
University shall be exempt from, and in no way liable for, any sums of money, which
may represent a deductible in any insurance policy. The payment of such deductible
shall be the responsibility solely of the Contractor and/or Subcontractor providing
such insurance. This insurance shall protect the Contractor from the following
claims:
A. Claims under worker's or workmen's compensation, disability benefit and other

similar employee benefit acts which are applicable to the work to be performed.
B. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, occupational sickness or disease,

or death of the Contractor's employees.
C. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death of

any person other than the contractor's employees.
D. Claims for damages insured by usual personal injury liability coverage including
claims which are sustained (1) by a person as a result of an offense directly or
indirectly related to employment of such person by the Contractor, or (2) by another
person.
E. Claims for damages, other than to the work itself, because of injury to or
destruction of tangible property, including loss of use resulting there from.
F. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, death of a person or property

damage arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.
113
G. Claims involving contractual liability insurance applicable to the Contractor's
obligations in the A.I.A. General Conditions.
The required Contractor's Liability Insurance shall be written for limits of not less
than $100,000 per person, $300,000 per occurrence. Coverages, whether written on
an occurrence or claims-made basis, shall be maintained without interruption from
date of commencement of work until date of final payment and termination of any
coverage required to be maintained after final payment. The required insurance shall
include contractual liability insurance applicable to the contractor's obligations in the
A.I.A. General Conditions, and coverage for the "XCU" exposure.
Worker's Compensation - The Contractor shall secure and maintain for the life of this
Agreement, valid Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by chapter 440,
Florida Statutes.
Automobile Liability - The Contractor shall secure and maintain, during the life of this
Agreement, Automobile Liability insurance on all vehicles against bodily injury and
property damage in at least the amount of $100,000.00 per person, $300,000.00 per
occurrence.
Certificates of Insurance - The Contractor shall file with the University Certificates of
Insurance acceptable to the University prior to the commencement of work. These
Certificates and the insurance policies which are required shall contain a provision
that coverages afforded under the policies will not be canceled or allowed to expire
until at least 30 days prior written notice has been given to the University. If any of
the foregoing insurance coverages are required to remain in force after final
payment an additional certificate evidencing continuation of such coverage shall be
submitted with the final Application for Payment as required by Subparagraph
9.10.2, A.I.A. General Conditions. The Contractor shall furnish one copy of the
Certificate of Insurance which shall be dated and show the name of the insured
Contractor, the specific job by name and job number, the name of the insurer, the
number of the policy, its effective date, and its termination date.
Property Insurance - The Contractor shall purchase and maintain from a company or
companies lawfully authorized to do business in Florida, property insurance, written
on a Builder's Risk completed value form, in the amount of the initial contract sum,
as well as, subsequent modifications for the entire work at the site on a replacement
cost basis. Such property insurance shall be maintained, unless otherwise provided
in the contract documents or otherwise agreed in writing by all persons and entities
who are beneficiaries of such insurance, until final payment has been made as
provided in the A.I.A. General Conditions or until no person or entity other than the
University has an insurable interest in the property required to be covered,
whichever is earlier. This insurance shall include interests of the University, the
Contractor, and Sub-contractors in the work.
Property insurance shall be on a Special Causes of Loss form or its equivalent,

including reasonable compensation for Architect/Engineer's services and expenses
114
required as a result of such insured loss. The Contractor shall purchase and
maintain the Building Ordinance Endorsement.
If the property insurance provides deductibles the Contractor shall pay costs not
covered because of such deductibles.
Before an exposure to loss may occur, the Contractor shall file with the University a
copy of each policy that includes the required Property Insurance coverages. Each
policy shall contain all generally applicable conditions, definitions, exclusions and
endorsements related to this project. Each policy shall contain a provision that the
policy will not be canceled or allowed to expire until at least 30 days' prior written
notice has been given to the University.
A loss insured under property insurance shall be adjusted by the University as

fiduciary and made payable to the University as fiduciary for the in ureds, as their
interests may appear. The Contractor shall pay Subcontractors their just shares of
insurance proceeds received by the Contractor, and by appropriate agreements,
written where legally required for validity, shall require Subcontractors in similar
manner.
The University as fiduciary shall, upon occurrence of an insured loss, deposit in a

separate account proceeds so received, which the University shall distribute in
accordance with such agreement as the parties in interest may reach, or in
accordance with an award based on a resolution of a matter in dispute, in which
case the procedure shall be as provided in the A.I.A. General Conditions. If after
such loss no other special agreement is made, replacement of damaged property
shall be covered by appropriate Change Order.
CONTRACTOR NOTICE - Shall implement - a drug-free workplace program in

accordance with the requirements of Section 440.102, Florida Statutes.
Sincerely
Ferdinand F. Wirth Durwood M. Dugger, BCI, Inc.

Assistant Professor Shrimp Economic Demo Project Manager
University of Florida, IFAS Indian River Research and Education
Indian River Research and Education Center
Center University of Florida
2199 South Rock Road 5618 N. Old Dixie Hwy.
Fort Pierce, FL 34945-3138 Fort Pierce, FL 34946
Phone: 772.468.3922, ext. 111 Phone 772/332-1046
Fax: 772.468.3973 E-mail: duggerdm@earthlink.net
E-mail: ffwirth@mail.ifas.ufl.edu
115
IFAS
FACILITIES PLANNING and OPERATIONS
Bid Criteria
Electrical Service Installation,
Building No. 7358
Provide proposals for the installation of the electrical service in building #7358.
Estimates are to be based on the following criteria.
1. Work shall comply with all local and state codes and regulations governing the
installation of required equipment.
2. The project will be permitted with and inspected by Environmental Health and
Safety.
3. All electrical circuits will be installed in EMT raceways.
4. All EMT fittings will be compression type.
5. All junction boxes and fixture covers will be Weather Tight.
6. All receptacles will have In Use outlet covers.
7. All service risers and raceways penetrating the ground will be Ridge Pipe.
8. Horizontal underground raceways maybe PVC pipe.
9. All circuit runs will be surface mounted on interior walls.
10. Electrical panel boards and devices being installed are to be manufactured by
Square “D”.
11. All electrical outlets are to be commercial grade.
12. Receptacle circuits will have not more than three outlets per circuit.
13. All equipment circuits are to be installed as dedicated circuits.
14. All 120-volt circuits will be installed with 20 AMP breakers.
15. Fluorescent lighting fixtures will be 2 tubes, 4 foot Moisture Resistant fixtures.
16. All electrical fixture hangers and supports will be constructed of galvanized metal.
17. Maintain a clean and safe work area.
All estimates and any questions regarding this project are to be directed to:
Bruce Musselwhite
Engineer
Facilities Planning and Operations.
Building 106 Mowry Road
P.O. Box 110850 Gainesville, Fl. 32611-0850
Phone No. 352-392-6488 Fax No. 352-392-6488
116
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK
Project Number:
Location: Indian River REC, Ft Pierce, Building 7358
Project Manager: Bruce Musselwhite
Project Description: Install Electrical system in Green House.
Services Required: Provide design for review and permitting, install a 100 Amp
Electrical service and panel, lighting, and circuits to support Green House
equipment.
Major Project Elements: Provide an electrical design for review by Facilities and
occupant showing distribution and panel schedules, riser diagrams, and circuit
distribution. Include panel, fixture, and lighting submittals for approval. Permit project
with Environmental Health and Safety at the University of Florida. Coordinate
installation schedule with IFAS Facilities Project Manager. Install panels and fixtures
per schedule. Call for required inspections, substantial completion and final.
Schedule Requirements:
Design Review: By Facilities Planning and EH&S.
Construction Budget:
Total Project Budget:
Preferred Method of Construction: Electrical Contractor
117
March 7, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached is a copy of the design engineering drawings for University of Florida’s

Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration in Inland Fresh Water System.
The drawings should be used at this time for bidding purposes only. They are under
final review by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(FDACS) and the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Services
(IFAS).
A final set of construction drawings will be produced, once a contractor is chosen

and a pre-construction meeting between this contractor, FDACS and IFAS
representative occurs. The project will be constructed according to that set of signed
and sealed drawings.
Any questions or concerns about the drawings should be addressed to:
Phillip Metcalf – FDACS, Office of Ag. Water Policy

Phone: 863-462-5885
Email: metcalp@doacs.state.fl.us
118
Appendix 2.2 Engineering Construction Drawings
119
120
Engineering As Built Drawings
121
122
Appendix 4.1 IRREC SHRIMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FIXED COST DETAILS
FIXED CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Engineering and Surveying: 17578.75

2/21/2003 Phil Metcalf - Construction drawings 75hrs@$70 donation 5250
FDACS
3/17/2003 Carter Assoc Surveying services 1808.75
11/14/2003 FP&L Easement engineering 1500.00
11/15/2003 Crossroads Const Well, electric, generator engineering 5490.00
11/15/2003 Crossroads Const Miscellaneous fees 180.00
12/8/2004 Dragonfly Engin. Engineering & drafting as-built plans donation 3350.00
Well Construction: 78525.62

2/10/2003 Domer's Shallow Well 15606.00
Domer's Deep Well 57943.37
11/26/2003 Domer's Deep Well Pump 4976.25
Well Water Testing: 2,860.37

5/16/2003 HB2015514 Shallow Well 532.50
6/15/2003 Rolland Laramore Bioassays on shallow well donation ?????
10/21/2003 HB2016941 Deep Well 800' 616.87
10/27/2003 HB2016941 Deep Well 800' 51.00
10/27/2003 HB2016989 Deep Well 940' 765.00
11/4/2003 HB2017069 Deep Well 1070 TDS 130.00
12/15/2003 Rolland Laramore Bioassays on deep well donation ?????
12/8/2004 HB2020318 Deep Well 1070 765.00
Emergency Generator: 26671.00

11/15/2003 Crossroads Emergency generator, delivered 20576.00
Const.
11/20/2003 Crossroads Generator slab & extension, wall 6095.00
Const.
Earthmoving: Pond and Roadway Construction 103439.68

1/13/2003 Williamson CC Initial site clearing donation 1650.00
2/10/2003 River CountryC Site clearing & road const 4423.25
4/3/2003 River CountryC Addl site clearing 1400.00
4/4/2003 River CountryC Earthmoving contract 48032.00
6/2/2003 Southern Culvert 15'x30' alum culvert 249.00
6/10/2003 St. Lucie Co. Coquina FL rock - 563.71 yds@18 donation 10146.78
6/11/2003 Sawmill Trucking Coquina rock delivery; 52.5hrs@$50 2625.00
6/26/2003 River CountryC Seeding pond levees 1549.00
6/26/2003 River CountryC Borrow pit expand 3999.00
6/27/2003 River CountryC Contract change order 1961.00
6/23/2003 River CountryC Emergency pond repair & redress 4711.75
9/15/2003 Sod Services Sod pond levees 4550.00
1/9/2004 Sod Services Sod retention pond levee 1664.00
1/12/2004 Gulfstream 12'x40' culvert/flap gate 1600.00
4/20/2004 Contech Southern culverts 4878.90
6/30/2004 Gulfstream donated heavy equipment services 10000.00
123
Liners and Installation: 49582.51
4/17/2003 Williamson CC Haul 2 rolls HDPE to WCC donation 210.00
5/1/2003 OceanBoy Farm 3 rolls 30-mil HDPE donation 7500.00
6/13/2003 Comanco Install 44,313 sqft liner ponds 1&2 13622.08
6/20/2003 Amer. Port. Toilet 105.00
6/26/2003 River CountryC Anchor Trenching - Ponds 1&2 2500.00
6/30/2003 Williamson CC Transport 2 HDPE rolls 280.00
1/21/2004 Gulfstream Ponds3-4 reshape, liner trench 3500.00
2/27/2004 Firestone EPDM liner:ponds 3&4; 44,313'@.36 donation 15953.00
2/27/2004 Yunker Plastics EPDM installation 5912.43
Nursery Greenhouse Construction: 32132.11

12/13/2003 Turner PVC materials 664.03
12/15/2004 Crossroads Const Greenhouse permit fees 93.00
12/17/2003 CP Enterprises Quonset Greenhouse pkg & erection 17785.70
1/8/2004 Turner 3"PVC, screws, fittings 719.35
1/8/2004 Home Depot 50 treated 2'x12'x12' 748.50
1/9/2004 Turner PVC pipe and fittings 1966.04
1/12/2004 Turner Fittings, valves, bits, PVC glue 552.83
1/15/2004 American Fasten TEK screws (400) #14x3" 26.00
1/21/2004 Turner TEK screws, bolts, nuts, washers 69.59
1/21/2004 Gulfstream Floor, set sump, drain pipe/fixtures 7000.00
1/22/2004 Home Depot Lumber, treated 1439.73
1/28/2004 Factory Direct TEK screw (600) #14x2.5" 48.00
2/4/2004 Home Depot Sacrete, bolts, turnbuckles, washers 45.33
2/10/2004 Home Depot Lumber treated & portland cement 102.04
2/10/2004 Home Depot Lumber, treated 36.72
3/8/2004 L Creswell Reimburse Grainger strapping kit 63.45
3/8/2004 Turner Fittings, screws, screw eyes 188.82
3/29/2004 Aquatic EcoS Nylon screening standpipes 108.07
4/9/2004 Turner Banding & banding buckles 138.60
4/12/2004 R. Creswell Reimburse PVC materials 11.96
4/22/2004 Aquaculture Sys Omni threaded ball valve 49.69
5/5/2004 Tractor Supply Pulleys, rachets for transfer system 21.68
7/8/2004 Wal-Mart White rock gravel 14.51
7/8/2004 Turner PVC and tap screws 33.51
7/6/2004 Aquatic EcoS PVC and mesh for media boxes 204.96
Electrical Contractor: 63318.90

5/1/2003 Applebee Elec Pond electrical installation 22832.00
6/5/2003 Applebee Elec Trailer & well electric installation 1425.00
11/15/2003 Applebee Elec Generator, deep well, service panel 17075.00
12/15/2003 FP&L Fee for electrical service 2358.00
Feb-04 Applebee Elec Greenhouse electrical service 10742.18
5/6/2004 Applebee Elec rewire pump 1754.98
5/6/2004 Applebee Elec check out pump 224.00
5/18/2004 Applebee Elec wire motors for paddlewheels 542.44
5/20/2004 Applebee Elec replace overloads with larger size 101.22
5/24/2004 Applebee Elec labor & materials for greenhouse 240.11
8/30/2004 Applebee Elec hookup paddlewheels 1075.73
10/22/2004 Applebee Elec wire and hookup paddlewheels 2499.90
10/26/2004 Applebee Elec Add'l paddlewheel support 2448.34
124
Construction Labor: 115476.96
Durwood Dugger Project Mgmt 10/02/02 - 03/31/04 81910.00
5/1/2003 Williamson CC Dissa/haul HBOI greenhouses donation 2260.00
6/17/2003 Williamson CC Install concrete pads in ponds donation 726.09
6/30/2003 Williamson CC water lines - well to 1&2 donation 987.00
7/2/2003 Williamson CC Dock labor at WCC donation 1375.00
7/2/2003 Williamson CC Install docks - ponds & retention donation 2200.00
7/3/2003 Williamson CC Install posts and dividers, Ponds 1&2 donation 2658.00
11/15/2003 Crossroads Const Const. Mgr profit - well, generator, elec. 6000.00
12/9/2004 Williamson CC skilled labor 01/01/04 - 12/09/04 donation 17360.87
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES COSTS
Equipment: Paddlewheels 7234.46

04/04 - Hydromentia 20 USED paddlewheels@$200 donated 4000.00
09/04
6/6/2003 Aquatic EcoS 6 paddlewheel motors 990.00
6/30/2003 Williamson CC haul paddlewheels from 296.00
Hydromentia
7/7/2004 Aquatic EcoS 4 Paddlewheel motors 695.40
10/14/2004 Aquatic EcoS 2 paddlewheel motors & gear boxes 808.13
10/15/2004 Aquatic EcoS 2 paddlewheel motors 444.93
Equipment: other pumps & 16981.75

motors
6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS Sweetwater and cent. pumps 2081.70
3/31/2004 Aquatic EcoS Hanging scale 349.93
7/19/2004 PR Aqua Transfer Pump, Dewater Tower 14550.12
Water testing & shrimp sampling equipment and supplies: 1834.91

6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS DOmeter, pH, YSI Spec & reagents 1320.20
6/23/2003 Aquatic EcoS Nitrite, pH, Potassium starter kit 43.40
3/31/2004 Aquatic EcoS Ohaus scale, refractometer 261.31
5/6/2004 Aquatic EcoS Nitrite reagent replacement kit 40.50
10/21/2004 Aquatic EcoS Ohaus Scout scale 169.50
Pond supplies/equipment: 7497.33

6/11/2003 Turner Rope & pipe for dividers 2824.20
6/20/2003 Home Depot Lumber for dividers 286.04
6/20/2003 Aquatic EcoS PVC couplings, valves, netting donation 2201.72
7/2/2003 Williamson CC Dock materials - ponds and retention donation 800.00
5/5/2004 Home Depot Lumber, hanger nails, bolts, washers 126.21
5/6/2004 Aquatic EcoS gate valves 113.80
7/8/2004 Turner Rope, screws, washers, nylon ties 158.92
7/20/2004 HBOI gate and ball valves 800.00
7/28/2004 Turner 8" pvc & clamps for standpipes 135.78
8/5/2004 Home Depot Liquid Nails for standpipe 3.72
8/6/2004 Turner PVC, nuts, washers for standpipes 12.02
8/9/2004 Turner PVC & Cleaner - pond water valves 34.92
125
Nursery supplies/equipment: 7017.65
1/28/2004 Aquatic EcoS Blowers (2) & float switches (2) 1290.00
1/28/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria fresh & salt gals donation 74.30
1/30/2004 Turner Rustol, saw blades, chalk, knife 37.66
1/30/2004 Aquaculture Sys Bead filter, controllers, relays 3426.09
3/9/2004 Home Depot Flotec 1.5hp pump & saw blades 208.96
3/10/2004 Publix Joy Liq. Dish detergent 14.06
3/10/2004 Pinch a Penny Chlorine 40.80
3/10/2004 Home Depot Reel mount, rubber plug & cord 78.36
3/12/2004 Home Depot Hose & reel, electric cord, nozzles 111.89
3/26/2004 Home Depot Trash can, WD-40, caulk, glue gun 77.36
3/31/2004 Turner Rope for shadecloth 12.60
3/29/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria fresh H2O (4 x gal) 100.07
4/1/2004 Aquatic EcoS Proline Bacteria concentrate (gal) 264.78
4/2/2004 Home Depot Channel lock plier and 4" vise 60.82
4/9/2004 Turner Band tool 84.00
4/12/2004 R. Creswell Aqua ammonia and acid 9.36
4/20/2004 Home Depot Fittings and batteries 7.47
5/7/2004 Turner Washers, tap screws, nylon ties 16.73
7/12/2004 HBOI Kaldness Bio-filter media 999.00
8/11/2004 Home Depot Roof coater brooms (2) 7.34
8/24/2004 Praxair O2 regulator 96.00
Miscellaneous Supplies: 6886.21

5/23/2003 Big Johns Gate materials 686.40
6/20/2003 Home Depot Keys for storage trailer 7.19
6/20/2003 Home Depot Tools and hardware 534.68
7/21/2003 Home Depot garden hoses (2) & nozzle 56.47
7/21/2003 Home Depot Push brooms (2) 77.94
12/8/2003 Turner Hose adaptors 40.24
1/26/2004 Home Depot Handles (2) - push brooms 10.94
1/28/2004 Wal-Mart Paper towels 10.58
4/7/2004 Home Depot Rubber Maid Garden Cabinet 189.00
4/7/2004 HBOI tracking trailers (2) 60.00
4/14/2004 Home Depot 10' 2x4s, coater broom 13.05
4/22/2004 Aquatic EcoS Juv. transport tank and cage fittings 321.96
5/5/2004 Wal-Mart boat fenders, padlock, scale 104.02
5/6/2004 Turner PVC elbow and pipe 34.62
5/7/2004 Turner O-ring for transfer tank 3.28
5/7/2004 Turner PVC for transfer tank 15.03
5/10/2004 Turner PVC cement for transfer assembly 15.88
5/12/2004 Home Depot Bungees, snap hooks, eye snap 39.68
6/23/2004 Home Depot Sacrete (168) and lumber 630.34
7/8/2004 Home Depot Dustpan, brush, screwdriver set 36.05
7/8/2004 Dugger Sacrete, screws, PVC slips/adapters 724.92
7/8/2004 Home Depot Garbage can and straps 68.03
7/26/2004 Home Depot 4' fiberglass stepladder 118.00
8/4/2004 Amazon Hose PVC Suction hose 6" x 100' 786.00
8/27/2004 Turner PVC, couplings, ties for transfer 261.23
9/1/2004 Turner PVC & couplings for emer. transfer 611.26
9/20/2004 Home Depot folding tables and shelving units 124.91
9/20/2004 Home Depot Saw blades, hammers - GH disass. 92.30
126
10/4/2004 Home Depot Blades, saws, tools for GH disass. 221.96
10/5/2004 Advance Auto paddlewheel oil 11.88
10/20/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel 50-gal trash can 303.56
10/25/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel 50-gal trash can 151.78
11/8/2004 Turner Rope 0.5" white nylon (600') 126.00
11/16/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel Transh, wringer buck. 354.99
11/20/2004 Turner 4 Hose clamps 3.60
12/3/2004 R. Creswell reimburse hose clamps & WD-40 13.48
12/7/2004 Home Depot 11' black nylon ties 24.96

10/25/2004 Home Depot Pails and handles 22.78
10/25/2004 Tractor Supply Two 2-bu. Baskets 27.02
10/25/2004 Turner Tap screws, washers, nuts, hose clamps 40.37
10/25/2004 Roberts of FL Big wheel 50-gal trash cans 151.78
10/26/2004 Home Depot Door pulls, wooden stakes 22.74
10/26/2004 Turner hose clamps & PVC male adapters 11.24
10/26/2004 Turner PVC Ls, hose clamps, tap screws 37.16
10/26/2004 Staples Cash box 13.00
11/16/2004 Boynton Pump adapter/shrimp harvest 200.50
11/16/2004 Boynton Pump well screen 82.50
OTHER ONE-TIME EXPENSES:
Open House Expenses: 4,742.48

11/16/2004 Diamond R Fert. Extinguish Plus fireant control 157.50
11/24/2004 Staples Reem of Exceptional business paper 20.98
11/29/2004 Parks Rental folding chairs 80.00
11/30/2004 Scott Sibley World Court Grill catering 750.00
12/10/2004 Gulfstream Cleanup, grading for open house 3734.00
UF/IFAS Facility Sign: 500.00 500.00
127
Appendix 4.2. IRREC SHRIMP DEMONSTRATION PROJECT VARIABLE COST DETAILS ($)
Shrimp PLs: 5,646.19

3/12/2004 GMSB 270,000 PL12s 1957.50
4/4/2004 D. Dugger transport expenses 179.50
5/18/2004 GMSB 450,000 PL12s 3262.50
6/9/2004 D. Dugger transport expenses 246.69
Feed: (costs include freight) Lbs 14,237.72

4/2/2004 Laramore Larval feed donation 120 1800.00
4/15/2004 Zeigler 14 bags(55lb) E30 donation 770 156.52
4/15/2004 Zeigler 80 bags(55lb) SI35 donation 4400 894.40
4/15/2004 Zeigler Freight on Zeigler donation 753.90
5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb PL-C 150 1200.00
5/18/2004 Laramore 150 lb J400 Juvenile 150 825.00
7/30/2004 Zeigler 100 bags(55lb) SI35 5500 1858.00
10/22/2004 Zeigler 20 bags SI35E 1100 427.80
10/22/2004 Zeigler 30 bags SI30 1650 580.20
11/8/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.50
11/16/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.50
12/10/2004 FTFFA 50 bags(55lb) SI35 2750 949.50
Labor: Project Management 53886.65

4/13/2004 Durwood Dugger 03/26 - 04/08/04 1480.40
4/27/2004 Durwood Dugger 04/09 - 04/22/04 2960.80
5/11/2004 Durwood Dugger 04/23 - 05/06/04 2960.81
6/8/2004 Durwood Dugger 05/21 - 06/03/04 2960.81
6/22/2004 Durwood Dugger 06/04 - 06/17/04 2960.80
7/1/2004 Durwood Dugger 06/18 - 07/01/04 2960.80
7/15/2004 Durwood Dugger 07/02 - 07/15/04 2960.81
7/29/2004 Durwood Dugger 07/16 - 07/29/04 2960.80
8/12/2004 Durwood Dugger 07/30 - 08/12/04 2960.81
8/26/2004 Durwood Dugger 08/13 - 08/26/04 2072.56
9/9/2004 Durwood Dugger 08/27 - 09/09/04 2960.81
9/23/2004 Durwood Dugger 09/10 - 09/23/04 2960.80
10/7/2004 Durwood Dugger 09/24 - 10/07/04 2960.81
10/21/2004 Durwood Dugger 10/08 - 10/21/04 2960.80
11/4/2004 Durwood Dugger 10/22 - 11/04/04 2960.81
11/18/2004 Durwood Dugger 11/05 - 11/18/04 2960.80
12/2/2004 Durwood Dugger 11/19 - 12/02/04 2960.81
12/16/2004 Durwood Dugger 12/03 - 12/16/04 2960.80
12/30/2004 Durwood Dugger 12/17 - 12/30/04 2960.81
Labor: Technicians 14057.10

9/9/2004 Payroll 08/27 - 09/09/04 1830.05
9/23/2004 Payroll 09/10 - 09/23/04 1830.05
10/7/2004 Payroll 09/24 - 10/07/04 367.36
10/21/2004 Payroll 10/08 - 10/21/04 1352.22
128
11/4/2004 Payroll 10/22 - 11/04/04 1651.10
11/18/2004 Payroll 11/05 - 11/18/04 1756.58
12/2/2004 Payroll 11/19 - 12/02/04 estimated: 1756.58
Nursery Saltwater for acclimation: ?????

3/15/2004 FDACS Forestry tanker truck from FIT donation ?????
3/15/2004 FIT, Vero Beach 15,000 ocean well water donation ?????
6/15/2004 Ranger Const. tanker truck from FIT donation ?????
6/15/2004 FIT, Vero Beach 15,000 ocean well water donation ?????
Molasses: (cost for pickup in Clewiston) total pounds = 14680 lbs 471.39
8/26/2004 U.S. Sugar Corp 251 miles at $0.375 2500 lbs 94.13
12/15/2004 U.S. Sugar Corp 251 miles at $0.375 3000 lbs 94.13 projected
Electricity: monthly 10367.43

3/15-4/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse only estimate 535.00
4/15-5/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse and 2 ponds (1/2) estimate 1100.00
5/15-6/15/04 FP&L Two ponds only estimate 1100.00
6/15-7/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse & 2 ponds 1596.67
7/15-8/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse & 2 ponds, heavy aeration 2375.83
8/15-9/15/04 FP&L Greenhouse (1/2) & 3 ponds 360.23
Hurricane
9/15- FP&L 3 ponds only & hurricane 1461.24
10/15/04
10/15- FP&L 3 ponds (1/2); 2 ponds (1/2) 938.46
11/15/04
11/15- FP&L Two ponds only estimate 900.00
12/15/04

10/21/2004 Uline Poly bags (2 ctn),13"x18" 250/ctn 208.78
10/26/2004 Staples Cash box, receipt pad, labels, envelopes 35.03
10/27/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse sandwiches/ drinks for crew 22.04
10/29/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse debriefing lunch 122.38
11/10/2004 Uline Poly bags (1 ctn),13"x18" 250/ctn 105.14
11/16/2004 Miller Bearings V-belt for harvest pump 10.88
11/20/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse sandwiches/ drinks for crew 24.50
11/20/2004 F. Wirth Reimburse snacks & beverages for crew 17.75
11/24/2004 Staples Sales receipt book - 3 part 4.39
Ice 0
129
Appendix 4.3. Text of E-mail Announcing October 27, 2004 Shrimp Sale and
Soliciting Advance Orders
October 18, 2004
Dear HBOI and USDA aquaculture faculty and staff,
Good News! The IRREC shrimp aquaculture project is ready to harvest its first
crop. The harvest date is still uncertain because we have to harvest an entire pond
at one time to comply with Florida legal requirements – we have to sell the shrimp
live, rather than bagged on ice. So, we have to make sure we can sell all the
shrimp in the pond. We are targeting the harvest for one evening next week,
between 4:00 – 6:00 pm. We will give at least two days notice of the harvest.
The shrimp will be live, large size and should yield about 35 tails per pound. Buyers
should bring bags, coolers and ice for their shrimp. The prices and quantity
discounts are:
Weight
U U U Price/lb U U Total 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 (ffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu) as soon as possible to reserve your

HTU UTH
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
2199 South Rock Road
Fort Pierce, Florida 34945-3138
Phone: 772.468.3922 x111
Fax: 772.468.3973
Email: ffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu
HTU UTH
130
Appendix 4.4. Text of E-mail Announcing November 19, 2004 Shrimp Sale and
Soliciting Advance Orders
November 10, 2004
Dear Friends of UF/IFAS,
Good News! The University of Florida/IFAS Indian River Research and Education
Center shrimp aquaculture project is ready to harvest its second pond of large
shrimp. The harvest date is next Friday, November 19th. We are offering bulk
P P
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:
Weight
U U U Price/lb U U Total 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 19th at the IRREC Aquaculture Demonstration project
P P
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 (ffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu) as soon as possible to reserve your

HTU UTH
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 18th. P P
Ferdinand F. Wirth
Associate Professor of Food and Resource Economics
2199 South Rock Road
Fort Pierce, Florida 34945-3138
Phone: 772.468.3922 x111 Fax: 772.468.3973
Email: ffwirth@ifas.ufl.edu
131
Appendix 4.5. Text of Cover Letter Accompanying Shrimp Market Research
Surveys, printed on St. Lucie County Extension Letterhead
October 26, 2004
Dear Shrimp Purchaser:
Thank you for purchasing live shrimp from the UF/IFAS Aquaculture Demonstration Project.
Your support for this research and demonstration project is appreciated. There has been a
great deal of interest in developing a shrimp farming industry in the southern United States
to help meet the increasing demand for seafood. Shrimp farmers have distinct production
advantages over traditional shrimp suppliers. The farmer can customize his product to
match buyer needs.
One goal of this shrimp project is to identify direct markets for U.S. farm-raised shrimp and
to determine which shrimp product features are most important to consumers. You are one
of a small number of Florida seafood consumers who are being asked to give information on
shrimp purchasing behavior and preferences by completing the enclosed questionnaire.
Information gained in this study will help current and future U.S. shrimp farmers produce
shrimp products which most closely match U.S. consumer needs. Participation in this
research may also be helpful to you in evaluating your own preferences toward shrimp
products.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You do not have to answer any question you do
not wish to answer. There are no anticipated risks, compensation, or other direct benefits to
you as a participant in this study. However, in order for the results to truly represent the
needs of all shrimp consumers, it is important that each questionnaire be completed and
returned in the enclosed business reply envelope. Completion of the questionnaire should
take no longer than 10 - 15 minutes, and you must be 18 or older to complete the
questionnaire.
Your complete confidentiality is assured. You and your household will not be identified or
connected with the questionnaire in any way and participation is totally anonymous. Results
will only be reported as aggregate or summarized data. The information gathered in this
study might be published in professional journals or presented at scientific meetings, but will
not be accessible as individual data.
If you have any questions about this research study or the questionnaire, please contact me
at (772)462-1660. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
LeRoy Creswell
Marine Extension Faculty
132
Appendix 4.6. Consumer Shrimp Preferences Survey Distributed to Shrimp
Purchasers at the October 27, 2004 and November 19, 2004
Pond Harvest Sales
133
Florida Consumer
Shrimp Preference Survey
Please cook and eat some of the UF/IFAS Aquaculture Project shrimp before completing this questionnaire.
First, we would like to know your impressions about the shrimp you purchased from UF/IFAS:
1. Overall, how much do you like the APPEARANCE of these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
extremely neither like extremely
dislike nor dislike like
2. Overall, how much do you like the FLAVOR of these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Overall, how much do you like the TEXTURE of these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Overall, how much do you LIKE these shrimp? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Typically at retail establishments, shrimp tails (previously frozen or frozen) are sold at an average price of $6.00 to
$7.00 a pound. How would you feel about paying $5.00 for a pound of the shrimp (whole, fresh, never frozen) you just
tasted? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
too fair it’s a
expensive price bargain
6. How difficult do you think whole shrimp is to clean and prepare at home? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Neutral Very
Difficult Easy
7. Would the process of cleaning, heading, peeling and preparing whole shrimp prevent you from repurchasing whole
shrimp? (circle only one answer)
YES NO UNCERTAIN
134
We would like to know about your household’s preferences and interests in shrimp for at-home consumption.
8. What percentage of the shrimp you consume at home is obtained from of the following sources: (For example, if you
purchase fish from a seafood market half of the time and from a grocery store the other half of the time, your answer
would be 50% Seafood Market and 50% Grocery Store or Supermarket. All answers should total 100%.)
SUPER CENTER (Wal-Mart, etc.) SHRIMP FARM

GROCERY OR SUPERMARKET FROM FISHERMAN, AT DOCK OR BOAT
SEAFOOD MARKET RECREATIONAL CATCH
ROADSIDE STAND OTHER (please specify)
9. What percentage of the shrimp you consume at home is obtained in each of the following refrigeration states: (All
answers should total 100%.)
FRESH (Never frozen) FROZEN IN BLOCK
PREVIOUSLY FROZEN OTHER (please specify)
INDIVIDUALLY FROZEN, LOOSE
10. What percentage of the following forms of shrimp do you most frequently purchase for home use? (All answers
should total 100%.)
WHOLE (HEAD-ON) PEELED AND UNDEVEINED (PUD) TAILS

TAILS (SHELL-ON)) BREADED
PEELED AND DEVEINED TAILS OTHER (please specify)
11. What percentage of the shrimp you purchase falls in each of the following sizes (tail count per pound): (All answers
should total 100%.)
16 - 20 COUNT (extra large) 36 - 40 COUNT (medium)

21 - 25 COUNT 41 - 50 COUNT
26 - 30 COUNT (large) SMALLER THAN 50 COUNT
31 - 35 COUNT OTHER (please specify)
Now we would like to ask you some questions about farm-raised (or aquacultured) shrimp.
12. Do you currently buy farm-raised shrimp? (circle only one answer) YES NO UNCERTAIN
13. Would you be willing to purchase farm-raised shrimp directly from a farmer? YES NO UNCERTAIN
If NO, please explain why not:
14. If YES, at which locations would you be willing to purchase farm-raised shrimp directly from a farmer? (circle all
that apply)
1 AT SHRIMP FARM 4 FAIR OR FESTIVAL
2 ROADSIDE STAND 5 FARM INTERNET WEBSITE
3 COMMUNITY FARMERS MARKET 6 OTHER (please specify)
15. Which forms of farm-raised shrimp would you be willing to buy directly from a farmer? (circle all that apply)
1 WHOLE (HEAD-ON) 4 PEELED AND UNDEVEINED (PUD) TAILS

2 TAILS (SHELL-ON)) 5 BREADED
3 PEELED AND DEVEINED TAILS 6 OTHER (please specify)
16. Which sizes of farm-raised shrimp (tail count per pound) would you be willing to buy from a farmer? (circle all
that apply)
1 16 - 20 COUNT (extra large) 5 36 - 40 COUNT (medium)
2 21 - 25 COUNT 6 41 - 50 COUNT
3 26 - 30 COUNT (large) 7 SMALLER THAN 50 COUNT
4 31 - 35 COUNT 8 OTHER (please specify)
135
17. We can learn a lot about your shrimp buying preferences from your ratings of a series of shrimp products that differ
across seven different shrimp features: species, size, refrigeration state, product form, purchase price, country of origin
label, and product source label. Each feature has three different levels, as follows:
Species: 3 levels, based on shrimp species - White, Black Tiger, Brown (brown or pink)
Size: 3 levels, based on tail count per pound - Medium (36-50), Large (26-35), X-large (16-25)
State: 3 levels based on refrigerated state in the store - Fresh (never frozen), Previously Frozen, Frozen
Form: 3 levels: Whole shrimp (head-on), Tails (head-off, shell-on), P&D Tails (peeled & deveined)
Purchase price: 3 levels based on price per pound - $5.00, $7.50, $10.00
Country of Origin label: 3 levels - product of USA, product of Another Country, origin Not Identified
Product Source: 3 levels based on source of product - Farm Raised, Wild Harvest, source Not Identified
Please rate the 19 shrimp products listed below, based on your preference in purchasing shrimp for your home use.
More than one product may have the same rating if you have the same preferences for the products. Use a scale from
"0" to "20" where: 0 = least preferred combination of product feature levels
20 = most preferred combination of product feature levels
ҙҗ P R O D U C T F E A T U R E S җҗѽ
Shrimp Size Refrig. Product Purchase Country Product
Rating Species (Tail count State Form Price of origin Source
per pound) Label Label
examples:
20 a. White X-large Fresh P&D Tails $5.00/lb USA Farm Raised
13 b. Tiger Large Prev. Frozen Tails $7.50/lb Another Country Wild Harvest
0 c. Brown Medium Frozen Whole $10.00/lb Not Identified Not Identified
1. White Large Frozen P&D Tails $5.00/lb USA Wild Harvest
2. White Medium Frozen Tails $7.50/lb Not Identified Farm Raised
3. Brown Medium Prev. Frozen P&D Tails $7.50/lb USA Not Identified
4. Tiger X-large Prev. Frozen Whole $7.50/lb Not Identified Wild Harvest
5. Brown X-large Fresh Whole $5.00/lb USA Farm Raised
6. Brown Medium Fresh Tails $10.00/lb Another Country Wild Harvest
7. White Large Fresh Whole $10.00/lb Not Identified Not Identified
8. Brown Large Frozen Whole $7.50/lb Another Country Not Identified
9. Brown Large Prev. Frozen Tails $5.00/lb Not Identified Farm Raised
10. Tiger X-large Frozen Tails $5.00/lb Another Country Not Identified
11. Brown X-large Frozen P&D Tails $10.00/lb Not Identified Wild Harvest
12. Tiger Large Prev. Frozen P&D Tails $10.00/lb Another Country Farm Raised
13. Tiger Medium Fresh P&D Tails $5.00/lb Not Identified Not Identified
14. Tiger Large Fresh Tails $7.50/lb USA Wild Harvest
15. White X-large Fresh P&D Tails $7.50/lb Another Country Farm Raised
16. White X-large Prev. Frozen Tails $10.00/lb USA Not Identified
17. Tiger Medium Frozen Whole $10.00/lb USA Farm Raised
18. White Medium Prev. Frozen Whole $5.00/lb Another Country Wild Harvest
19. White Medium Fresh Whole $5.00/lb USA Farm Raised
136
We would like to ask you some general questions about food quality and food safety.
18. How much have you seen, read, or heard about food quality? (circle only one number)
1 A GREAT DEAL 4 NOT MUCH

2 SOME 5 NOTHING AT ALL
19. How much have you seen, read, or heard about food safety? (circle only one number)
1 A GREAT DEAL 4 NOT MUCH

2 SOME 5 NOTHING AT ALL
20. How knowledgeable are you about choosing the highest quality fresh seafood? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Moderately Extremely
Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
21. How knowledgeable are you about seafood safety issues? (circle only one number)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Moderately Extremely
Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Knowledgeable
22. Have you ever purchased ready-to-eat foods through the Internet? YES NO UNCERTAIN
23. If YES, how were they prepared and shipped? (circle all answers that apply)
FRESH CANNED BOTTLED FROZEN
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about shrimp quality, and the statements
comparing U.S. farm-raised shrimp with wild harvested shrimp and imported shrimp. (circle only one answer for
each statement)
---------------------------------- Level of Agreement------------------------------------
24. It is important to know the Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t
shrimp harvest date before Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
purchasing
25. It is important to know the Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t
shrimp country of origin Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
before purchasing
26. I prefer farm raised Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t
to wild harvested shrimp Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
27. Farm raised shrimp are Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t
of higher quality than wild Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
harvested shrimp
28. Farm raised shrimp are Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t
safer than wild harvested Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
29. U.S. farm raised shrimp Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t
are of higher quality than Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
imported shrimp
30. U.S. farm raised shrimp Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t
are safer than imported shrimp Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
137
Finally, we would like to know a little about you and your household
31. What is your zip code? 32. In which Florida county do you live?
33. Which of the following best describes the area in which you live? (circle only one number)
1 RURAL AREA 3 URBAN AREA

2 SUBURBAN AREA 4 RESORT AREA
34. What is your gender? (circle only one answer) MALE FEMALE
35. What is your age? (circle only one number)
1 0 - 20 4 51 - 65
2 21 - 35 5 66 OR OLDER
3 36 - 50
36. What is your marital status? (circle only one number)
1 SINGLE 3 DIVORCED
2 MARRIED 4 WIDOWED
37. What is your ethnic origin? (circle only one number)
1 WHITE/CAUCASIAN 5 NATIVE AMERICAN

2 BLACK/AFRICAN-AMERICAN 6 BI-RACIAL OR MIXED ETHNIC
3 HISPANIC, LATINO, CHICANO 7 OTHER (please specify)
4 ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
38. What is the highest level of education you completed? (circle only one number)
1 SOME HIGH SCHOOL 4 ASSOCIATE (or other 2 year technical) DEGREE

2 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 5 BACHELOR’S (or other 4 year) DEGREE
3 SOME COLLEGE COURSES 6 ADVANCED/PROFESSIONAL DEGREE
39. Which of the following best describes your employment status? (circle only one number)
1 EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 4 RETIRED

2 EMPLOYED PART-TIME 5 UNEMPLOYED, LOOKING FOR WORK
3 HOMEMAKER 6 UNEMPLOYED, NOT LOOKING FOR WORK
40. Does anyone in your immediate family farm or ranch for a living? YES NO UNCERTAIN
41. How many people live in your household, including yourself? (circle only one number)
1 ONE 3 THREE 5 FIVE

2 TWO 4 FOUR 6 SIX OR MORE
42. What is your annual household income before taxes? (circle only one number)
1 $0 - $20,000 4 $60,001 - $80,000

2 $20,001 - $40,000 5 $80,001 - $100,000
3 $40,001 - $60,000 6 $100,001+
Thank you for completing this survey. Your contribution to this research effort is very greatly appreciated. Please return
this completed survey in the Business Reply Envelope provided, or mail the completed survey to: LeRoy Creswell, St.
Lucie County Cooperative Extension, 8400 Picos Road Ste 101, Fort Pierce, Florida 34945-3045
DACS-P-00068 138

Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration in Inland Freshwater Systems

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration in Inland Freshwater Systems

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Commercial Scale Penaeid Shrimp Demonstration

in Inland Freshwater Systems

Final Project Report for

Submitted December 15, 2004 by:

Ferdinand F. Wirth, Ph.D.

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

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The project is a partnership for a commercial scale demonstration of farming marine

The overall goal of the IRREC Shrimp Demonstration Project is to demonstrate

Organization of this Report

The Marine Shrimp Farming Industry

Pond production trials in Arizona showed high survivals of up to 100%, yields up to

U.S. Market for Shrimp

Shrimp Buying Behavior and Product Preferences

Shrimp Dealers (Wholesale and Retail)

General information concerning retailer and wholesaler shrimp purchase behavior

Schumann (2000) surveyed 87 Florida shrimp broker/distributors. Of 18 respondents

shrimp product form

Away-from-home outlets now account for over 60 percent of the expenditures

Despite the popularity of shrimp in U.S. restaurants, information about seafood

Table 1.4. Pounds of Shrimp Purchased Annually by Seafood Restaurants

Figure 1.4. Percent of Restaurants Currently Buying Specified Shrimp Sizes

Shrimp Product Form

Figure 1.5. Percent of Restaurants Currently Buying Specified Shrimp Forms

Shrimp Product Mean Standard

Attribute Range of Utility Relative Importance*

In economics, the price (income) elasticity of demand succinctly describes the

The heaviest consumers of shrimp or seafood tend to be well-educated, affluent

Numerous demographic factors, including urbanization, region, race, ethnicity, age,

The remainder of this section reports results of a six-page consumer survey

Table 1.7. Frequency of Away-from-Home (Restaurant) Shrimp Consumption

Number of Consumers, N=532

Consumers were asked an array of questions related to their preferences and

Figure 1.8. Forms of Shrimp Purchased for At-home Use

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

Consumers were asked to indicate the importance of 21 shrimp product features in

The importance rating attached to farm-raised and wild-harvested as shrimp product

Figure 1.11. Factors Influencing Shrimp Purchases

quality 9.23 2 9.23 2 9.19 4 8.45 5

taste 9.12 3 9.07 3 9.32 3 8.78 4

smell 8.83 4 8.74 4 9.39 2 8.82 3

consistent 7.94 5 7.84 5 8.80 5 7.80 7

purchase 7.84 7 7.76 7 8.45 7 9.00 2

size 6.81 10 6.85 10 6.42 12 7.00 10

consistent 6.44 11 6.31 11 6.47 10 7.89 6

peeled & 5.52 13 5.28 13 5.61 15 6.78 13

farmed 3.29 19 2.97 19 4.80 18 3.80 18

wild – 3.02 20 2.81 20 3.17 20 2.89 20

Attribute & Level ALL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC

constant (mean) 4.457 4.426 4.947 4.616

Table 1.11. Relative Importance of Each Shrimp Product Feature to Consumers

Table 1.12. Consumer Response to the Statement:

It is important to know the date when the shrimp were

Table 1.14. Consumer Response to the Statement:

FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Project Site Selection

Fig. 2.1 Site Selection and Land Clearing

levees - y 1105 ft/3

Well Specifications & Water Quality Parameters