Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JAERD
Research Article
The study was designed to estimate the costs, returns and resource use efficiency of tilapia fish
farming in some selected areas of Mymensingh district. Both tabular and statistical techniques
were used to achieve the objectives set for the study. The study revealed that the tilapia fish
production is profitable business. Per hectare yield of tilapia fish were 19432 kg, 23234 kg,
27993 kg, for which money value was Tk. 2407846, 2950242, 3517805 for marginal, small and
medium farmers, respectively. Benefit cost ratio was the highest for medium farmers (1.33)
followed by marginal and small farmers (1.27). It was observed that the coefficient of human
labour, feed and irrigation charge had significant effect on economic returns. Resource use
efficiency analysis revealed that farmers are not efficient in using resources in tilapia fish
production. Human labour cost, feed cost and fish protection chemicals cost were underused
and therefore increase the use of these resources can maximize profit in tilapia fish production.
Multiple ownership of pond, high price of feed, high disease infestation and lack of scientific
knowledge and management were found the major problems for tilapia fish.
Key word: Cost, returns, resource use efficiency, tilapia fish, Bangladesh
INTRODUCTION
Fisheries is the second most valuable productive and
dynamic sectors in Bangladesh which plays a significant
role providing food, nutrition, incomes, livelihoods,
employment and foreign exchange earnings in the
economy of Bangladesh (Dey et al. 2010; Jahan et al.
2010; Belton et al. 2011, DOF, 2011). Moreover, fish
accounts for 4.43% to national GDP and 23.37% to the
agricultural GDP and 2.73% to foreign exchange
earnings (DOF, 2012). About 1.25 million peoples are
directly involved in fisheries sector and over 12 million
additional rural people indirectly earn their livelihoods
from fisheries related activities (DOF, 2012). The present
per capita annual fish consumption in Bangladesh stands
at about 17.52 kg/year against a recommended minimum
Toma et al.
050
Or
In
Y
=
lna+b1lnX1+b2lnX2+b3lnX3+b4lnX4+b5lnX5+b6lnX6+b7lnX7+
b8lnX8+U
Where, Y = Gross return (Tk./ha); X 1= Human labour cost
(Tk./ha); X2 = Fingerling cost (Tk./ha); X3=Feed cost
(Tk./ha); X4= Fertilizer cost (Tk./ha); X5 =Lime cost
(Tk./ha); X6 = Insecticide cost (Tk./ha); X7= Water supply
cost (Tk./ha); X8= Electricity cost (Tk./ha); In= Natural
logarithm; a = Intercept: (b1b9) =
Coefficients of respective variables; and U = Error term.
Returns to scale was calculated as the sum of the
regression coefficient of the model. If this sum is 1, then
there are constant returns to scale. If the sum is less than
1, there are decreasing returns to scale. Finally, if the
sum is greater than 1, there are increasing returns to
scale (Gujarati, 1995).
Efficiency of Resource Allocation
In order to test the efficiency, the ratio of marginal value
product (MVP) to the marginal factor cost (MFC) for each
input is computed and tested for its equality 1.
MVPXi
i.e. MFCX = 1
i
051
Cost heading
Marginal farmers
Cost (Tk.)
393043
1177620
164497
17798
12653
7648
10150
33500
84578
1901487
Human labour
Feed
Fingerlings
Fertilizer
Lime
Pesticide
Electricity
Land use cost
IOC
Total cost
Small farmers
Cost (Tk.)
384915
1604933
158711
13315
8637
3599
10200
35055
102930
2322295
Medium farmers
Cost (Tk.)
377925
1905622
162814
14781
8869
6335
13093
36900
116457
2642796
All farmers
Cost (Tk.)
385294
1562725
162007
15298
10053
5861
11148
35152
101322
2288859
% of total cost
16.83
68.28
7.08
0.67
0.44
0.26
0.49
1.54
4.43
100.00
Items
Yield (kg)
Gross returns (GR)
Total variable cost (TVC)
Marginal farmers
19432
2407846
1783409
Small farmers
23234
2950242
2184310
Medium farmers
27993
3517805
2489439
118078
1901487
137985
2322295
153357
2642796
2152386
136473.3
2288859
Gross Margin
624437
765932
1028366
806245
Net Returns
506359
0.27
627947
0.27
875009
0.33
669772
0.29
1.27
1.27
1.33
1.29
All farmers
23553
2958631
Toma et al.
052
Table 3. Estimated values of coefficient and related statistics of Cobb-Douglas
production function model
Factors
constant
Human labour cost (X1)
Fingerlings cost (X12)
Feed cost (X3)
Fertilizer cost (X4)
Lime cost (X5)
Pesticide cost (X6)
Water supply cost (X7)
Electricity cost (X8)
F- Value (N=50)
Co-efficient
1.680
0.23**
0.008
0.56***
-0.059
0.075
0.008
0.129**
0.090
29.750
Standard Error
t-value
1.969
0.862
0.094
2.301
0.110
0.086
0.050
9.987
0.073
-0.819
0.045
1.574
0.031
0.281
0.069
2.077
0.087
1.049
2
R = 0.86 and Returns to scale = 1.041
Source: Field survey, 2012. Note: ***=1% level of significance, **=5% level of significance.
Table 4. Marginal value product of tilapia fish production and resource use efficiency
Variables
Gross return (Y)
Human labour (X1)
Fingerlings (X2)
Feed (X3)
Fertilizer (X4)
Lime (X5)
Pesticide (X6)
Water supply (X7)
Electricity (X8)
Coefficient
0.23
0.008
0.56
-0.059
0.075
0.008
0.129
0.090
GM
429300.78
28799.80
15225.23
179022.21
13215.42
10732.10
4241.07
1589.87
10145.30
MVP
243
0.20
41.29
-0.79
1.759
36.95
27.53
2.80
MFC
241
0.63
40.24
19.75
10.35
17.38
50.98
4.06
Efficiency
1.008
0.32
1.03
-0.04
0.17
2.13
0.54
0.69
053
Problems
% of respondents
Marginal farmers
%
73
65
60
55
68
70
55
Small farmers
%
68
61
55
62
71
62
55
Medium farmers
%
70
58
60
60
70
62
49
All farmers
%
Rank
70 1
61 3
58 5
59 4
70 1
65 2
49 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
rd
th
th
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
AIS (2011). Agricultural information Service, Department
of Agricultural Extension, Khamarbari, Farmgate,
Dhaka.
Belton B, Karim M, Thilsted S, Jahan K, Collis W, Phillips
M (2011). Review of aquaculture and fish consumption