RESEARCH REPORT ON

STAKEHOLDERS AWARENESS TOWARD THE EMBEDDED PROBLEMS OF THE SHRIMP INDUSTRY: A STUDY ON THE SOUTH WEST REGION OF BANGLADESH

A Report on the Stakeholders Awareness Toward The Embedded Problems Of The Shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West Region Of Bangladesh

Supervised by: Md. Nur Alam Asst. Professor Business Administration Discipline Khulna University

Prepared by: Saidul Hassan ID. 020320

Date of Submission: December 10, 2006.

December 10, 2006. Chairman Internship and Placement Committee Business Administration Discipline Khulna University Sub: Submission of Research Repot

Dear Sir: Enclosed herewith is my report on “Stakeholders Awareness toward the Embedded Problems Of The Shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West Region Of Bangladesh” submitted to you as a mandatory part of the fulfillment of the Research Study/ Internship Program. While preparing this report, I tried to gather what I believed to be the most complete as well as relevant information regarding my study. The primary data has been collected through survey conducted on individual respondents and the secondary data has been collected from various secondary sources.

I sincerely hope that my work will help future researchers for intensive research in this field. If any further clarification is needed or any question arises about my work, please let me know. Thank you. Sincerely yours, ___________________ Saidul Hassan ID: 020320 Business Administration Discipline, Khulna University

Approved By: _____________________ Md. Nur Alam Asst. Professor (Supervisor) Business Administration Discipline, Khulna University

Acknowledgement

It’s my immense pleasure to completed this study in due time. I wish to express my profound sense of gratitude to my respected supervisor Md. Nur Alam, Assistant Professors of Business Administration discipline, Khulna University, for his inspiration, guide, valuable suggestions, sympathetic advice and enthusiastic encouragement made throughout the course of study work. I express my profound gratitude to my respected teacher Md. Noor Un Nabi, Assistant Professors of Business Administration discipline, Khulna University, for his inspiration, guide and valuable suggestions. I would like to avail the opportunity to express my deep gratitude and regards to Md.Al Masud, Extension specialist of SSOQ for his cooperation and help. I would also like to thank Dr. Anisul Haque, Associate Professor of FMRT discipline of Khulna University for his guidance and cooperation. Last but not least, I am very grateful to Kayas Mahmud, student of Business Administration discipline 14th batch, Khulna University for his time to time cooperation in the whole process of the study. I also extend my thanks to Mr. Hanif Hayat Shohag, assistant technician, Red Star Hatchery- Chalna; for his cooperation.

I

List of Abbreviations

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

ADB ATDP BCAS BFFEA BSF BSFF DOF EC EU FMRT GOB HACCP LDC PL R&D SSOQ USAID USFDA WB WTO

Asian Development Bank Agro-based Industries and Technology Development Project Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies Bangladesh Frozen Fish Exporters Association Bangladesh Shrimp Foundation Bangladesh Shrimp and Fish Foundation Department of Fisheries European Commission European Union Fisheries & Marine Resource Technology Government of Bangladesh Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Least Developed Country Post Larvae Research and Development Shrimp Seal of Quality United States Agency for International Development United States Food and Drug Administration World Bank World Trade Organization

II

Executive Summary
The Shrimp industry of Bangladesh is one of the most important contributors for economic sustenance at present and is the second largest export commodity of the country. The industry suffers from significant production inefficiencies and is exposed to important social and environmental risks. However, the contribution of the industry both in terms of helping the poor as well as earning foreign exchange is immense and thus is considered by many as the future prospect of the country. Shrimp culture is expected to continue to play an important role in ensuring food security and poverty alleviation, particularly for the rural poor. The urban population will benefit from the improvement in processing, value adding, marketing and the shrimp industry as a whole. Increase in production efficiency is required for large-scale industrial farms since currently it is not fully exploited. It is indeed possible for Bangladesh to meet the international market, environmental, and social challenges of shrimp cultivation while the sector can thrive and continue to benefit the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on this multimillion dollar industry for their living. Incident like “EU ban on Bangladeshi shrimp” should not happen again and most importantly this industry is operating under capacity and can increase the productivity up to five times than the current capacity. To achieve these targets, this study tried to identify whether the hypothetical 60% of the mass members of the industry are aware about the shrimp industry embedded problems or not and to identify the significance of difference among the cluster members opinion on a specific issue. On the average, the mass member of the industry was found aware about the problems and the difference among the cluster members opinion was found insignificant. Thus the proper authority including the GOB, DOF, donor agency and individual actor in particular level of the supply-chain should take immediate initiative to eradicate these industry-embedded problem.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No. Acknowledgement List of Abbreviation Executive Summery I II III

PART I

Introduction
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Background Problem Discussion Purpose of the Research Scope Limitations Detailed Methodology 1.6.1 Sources of Data 1.6.2 Research Approach 1.6.3 Instruments 1.6.4 Attitude Measurement 1.6.5 Sample Design And Sampling Procedures 1.6.6 Data Collection 1.6.7 Analysis Plan 1.6.8 Questionnaire Design 1.6.9 Hypothesis 1.6.10 The Chi-Square (χ2) Test For Goodness Of Fit 1.6.11 Application Procedure of χ2 Test in this Report 1.6.12 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 1.6.13 Application Procedure of ANOVA in this Report 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 8 8 9 11 12 14 15 17

PART II

Literature Review
Background Study Information 18

PART III PART IV

Shrimp in Bangladesh Analysis and Findings
4.1 4.2. General Tendency of the Respondents Hypothetical 60% mass members awareness toward the industry-embedded problems

32

41

42

4.3.

The significance of the difference among the cluster members opinion on specific issues: 4.3.1 Facilities issue 4.3.2 Monitoring issue 4.3.3 Quality issue 4.3.4 Technology issue

48 48 48 48 49

PART V

Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 5.2 Conclusion Recommendation 50 50

Appendices
Reference Bibliography Electronic Sources Annex 1: Survey Questionnaire Annex 2: Calculation of chi-square χ2 Annex 3: Calculation of ANOVA Annex 4: Frequency Table of the Respondents Annex 5: Chi-Square χ2 Table Annex 6: F Table 52 54 54 i iii xi xix

Part-I
Introduction

1.1 Background
Shrimp is one of the major export products of Bangladesh. Second only in value to its ready-made garment exports, shrimp exports from Bangladesh have been earning US$300 million annually. Bangladeshi shrimp is exported to more than 30 countries all over the world. The leading importing nations are USA, Belgium, Japan, UK, Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, Canada and Singapore. In 2003-2004 fiscal, Bangladesh exported shrimp and other fishes worth US$ 390 million against US$321.81 million of 2002-03 fiscal1. In 2000-2001 fiscal, shrimp exports amounted to US$ 322.4 million. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that it constitutes more than 70% of the export of primary products from Bangladesh2.The United States and the European Union (EU) each import 40 percent of the shrimp, with the remaining 20 percent going to Japan. Bangladesh is already among the top 10 exporters of shrimp in the world and accounts for some 3 percent of global production.3 Numerous people are engaged in upstream and downstream activities related to shrimp culture in the country - in harvesting, culture, processing and exporting. A majority of these workers are women. The shrimp industry benefits three to four million “mostly poor” Bangladeshis while providing livelihood directly to 142,000 farming households numbering some 600,000 people. Over 200,000 hectares are now under shrimp farming.4 Evidently, the importance of the EU market for this particular export sector of Bangladesh is indeed very high. Any disruption in this market is bound to have severe and important implications for this export-oriented sector of the country, and negative multiplier impact for the national economy.

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1: 2: 3: 4: Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005 (USAID-funded project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan. EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman. Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005(USAID-funded project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan,Washington File Special Correspondent. Quazi Kudrat-e-Kabir, SSOQ’s regional director in Khulna, Bangladesh.

-1-

Unfortunately this sector suffers from severe problem relating production inefficiency, bio-security, monitoring compliances, corruption, technology and knowledge transfer. Study and research have been conducted to some extent on the part of the donor agencies, individual research farms and scholars. But still there is a lack of holistic approach addressing the persisting bottlenecks from the part of the GOB, DOF, donor agencies and companies operating in the industry. Author of this report, therefore, attempts a procedure that tried to understand the awareness level of the actors in this industry regarding the industry embedded problems which have been utterly identified for about one decade. To make the procedure workable, a comprehensive survey was conducted that not only determined the attitude of each respondent about the problems but also revealed the beliefs (perception and knowledge) of the actors on the basis of different population cluster. The key feature of this suggested procedure is that it unveils the real situations about them who are comprised of the uttered problems in question depending on their attitude, not on the opinion of any authority that is judging this industry depending on their resources, facilities, projects and investments etc. As attitude is formed on the basis of individuals’ perceptions and knowledge rather than fact, this procedure can be followed by any institution operating in this industry to collect useful information about the industry to re-adjust or re-structure their strategy and operation.

1.2 Problem Discussion
Secondary studies extensively indicate that the Shrimp industry of Bangladesh is severely disintegrated at each level of the cluster. And insufficient infrastructure and monitoring body, ignorance and various kinds of problems prevail at almost every level of the value chain. Several incidents like ban on import in the EU, continuous rejection of the shipments and low price compared to the other importing country etc. has become the common phenomenon of this industry. SPS measure, HACCP regulation, buyers specifications, bio-safety etc have been continuously uttered by the importer, GOB, donor agencies, EC and the U.S. After the 1997 ban incident;

-2-

country's shrimp export industry is put under severe strain, and led to serious market disruptions from which the country is still trying to recover. Both the firms and GOB have taken initiative to upgrade the facilities to comply with the HACCP regulation and SPS measure. But some of the regulations require high cost and considerable time to upgrade the industry up to date. Besides, farming practice is conventional here and most of the actors lack awareness and a massive level of infrastructure is still to be build. The need to respond to the international market is undoubtedly acknowledged widely by the cluster members. But the burning question here is whether the mass root level feels the deadly need for the huge upgradation of the facilities and modern practice or not.

1.3 Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this study is to find out the root level peoples perceptions about the dire problem. Because without the mass root level participation; no initiative to the modern technology and farming practice would be fruitful. For this purpose, author of this research identifies sixteen problem areas basing on the secondary source and a pilot investigation at the field level. Members of the various clusters are asked whether they agree with these problems or not. Aim is to identify whether the stakeholders are aware at the level secondary source indicates or the ignorance levels of the members are so acute. More specifically the goals are: To identify whether hypothetical 60% of the mass members of the industry are aware about the shrimp industry embedded problems or not. To identify whether the difference among the cluster members opinion on a specific issue is significant or not.

-3-

1.4 Scope
The research will be limited to the revelation of the awareness and determination of the uniformity of awareness of the various cluster members of the shrimp industry in the south-western region of Bangladesh; namely the cultivation area of Khulna, Bagerhat and Satkhira district of Bangladesh. Various cluster members include actors involved in Hatchery, Processing Factory, Shrimp and Post Larvae (PL) Trading Agency, Feed Agency, Transportation Agency and Shrimp Farmer.

1.5 Limitation
Reluctance of the respondents to go through a survey process was the main limitations of this survey. Lack of acquaintance to this kind of questionnaire may also have caused some distortion of real information. Besides, the severe level of illiteracy among the majority of the stakeholders was a major obstacle to collect reliable information. This research is an approach to check the awareness level of the people involved in shrimp industry in south-western area depending only upon the attitude of the stakeholders toward the highly threatening problems of this industry. Thus the result of this study lacks in usability in any field other than the insight about the problems.

1.6 Detailed Methodology
1.6.1 Sources of Data
Both primary and secondary source was used for collection of necessary data. Primary data was collected through a questionnaire survey. Use of secondary data was strictly limited to the background discussion of the research and the designing of the report and construction of the survey questionnaire (primary source was also used in these purpose).

-4-

1.6.2 Research Approach
This study was the combination of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. A Quantitative approach was taken to describe the research problem. Quantitative analysis was done in a formal and rigid fashion to draw inference about the opinion of the population. Assumption and Hypothesis were made basing on the secondary sources and depth-interview following Qualitative approach.

1.6.3 Instruments
To collect the data from the population, a structured questionnaire had been followed. Primary data have been gathered through interviewing respondents in their respective workplaces. An unstructured questionnaire had been used to collect the data from the stakeholders. The procedure of information collection from various categories was of conversation type.

1.6.4 Attitude Measurement:
1. Attitude Defined:5 An attitude is usually viewed as an enduring disposition to respond consistently in a given manner to various aspect of the world; composed of affective, cognitive and behavioral components. In this study, awareness of the stakeholders is measured as an attitude. Affective component is the component of attitude that reflects ones general feelings or emotions toward an object. Cognitive component is the component of attitude that represents ones awareness of and knowledge about an object. Behavioral component is the component of attitude that includes buying intentions and behavioral expectations; reflects a predisposition to action.

5:

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 308 Chapter14

-5-

2. Awareness as a Hypothetical Construct:5 Hypothetical construct describes a variable that is not directly observable but is measured through indirect indicators, such as verbal expressions or overt behavior. In this study, hypothetical construct of the stakeholders’ awareness was described as: People are aware if they agree that the problems exist or if they choose between 6-10 on a 1-10 scale. 3. Technique Used For Measuring Attitude: Choice technique is a measurement task that identifies preferences by requiring respondents to choose to between two or more alternatives.5 Choice technique was used to measure the respondents attitude. 4. Attitude Rating Scales: 6 Simple attitude scale was used in this study. In its most basic form, attitude scaling requires that an individual agree or disagree with a statement or respond to a single question. Because this type of self-rating scale merely classifies respondents into one of two categories, it has only the properties of a nominal scale. Despite disadvantages, simple attitude scaling was used because the questionnaires were extremely long, respondents have little education, and the time and cost were scarce. Category scales: An attitude scale consisting of several response categories to provide the respondents with alternative ratings. Category scales were used in the field level survey for the convenience of the respondents following the expert opinion.7

5: 6: 7:

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 308 Chapter14 William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 310 Chapter14 Al-Masud, Extension Specialist of ATDP-SOQ and Dr.Anisul Haque, Assosiate Professor of Fisheries & Marine Resource Technology Discipline of Khulna University

-6-

1.6.5 Sample Design And Sampling Procedures:8
1. Target population: The target population for the study was defined as follows: Elements— All the actors of the shrimp industry was considered as the elements from where required information was collected. Sampling units— The sampling unit is a single element or a group of elements subject to selection in the sample. For this study sampling units was the same as elements for the study. It includes all People involved at different hatcheries, processing factories, feed, PL and shrimp trading agencies, transportation agencies and culturing farms are considered as the sampling frame for this study. Extent— The south-western region of Bangladesh; namely the cultivation area of Khulna, Bagerhat and Satkhira district of Bangladesh. Time—2006. 2. The sampling frame: A sampling frame is the list of elements form which the sample may be drawn; also called working population. People involved at different hatcheries, processing factories, feed, PL and shrimp trading agencies, transportation agencies and culturing farms are considered as the sampling frame for this study. 3. Sampling Technique (Quota sampling): Quota sampling is a non probability sampling procedure that ensures that certain characteristics of a population sample will be represented to the exact extent that the investigator desires. Following the research objective, quota sampling was followed.

8:

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 373-375 Chapter16

-7-

4. Sample Size: The study required information from all the cluster members of the shrimp industry. Sample size for the study was as follows:
A Hatchery 10 B PL Agents 15 C Transportation & Feeding 10 D Farmer 30 E Shrimp Agent 15 F Processors 10 G Scholar & Researcher 10 Total 100

1.6.6 Data Collection
Both primary and secondary source was used for collection of necessary data. Primary data was collected through a questionnaire survey. Secondary data was collected from various reports, newspapers, books, journals and websites.

1.6.7 Analysis Plan
Depending on the specific objective to be met nominal scales had been used in the questionnaire. For analyzing the data obtained from the survey, statistical calculations had been done to make inferences.

-8-

1.6.8 Questionnaire Design:7

1. What Was Asked: To determine the awareness level of the stakeholders, a survey questionnaire was used dealing with sixteen important problems found through extensive study of secondary data (reports, journals, newspapers, books & various published and unpublished papers). The questions to the respondents were whether they agree on the hampering existence of these problems or not. Agreed respondents on particular issue were considered well aware about the problem. Though in field level survey, for convenience and according to the expert advice*, given choice for respondents were followed an interval scale ranging from 1-10. Responses ranging from 1-5 were considered as agreed and 6-10 were considered as disagreed on the particular issue. Main reason for this type of given choice is that most of the stakeholders lack industry awareness and institutional education and they would be confused if they were asked “Yes or No” type questions.* Questionnaire Relevancy: A questionnaire is relevant if no unnecessary information is collected and if the information that is needed to solve the business problem is obtained. In the survey questionnaire, only the particular issues regarding the plaguing problems were asked. Questionnaire Accuracy: Accuracy means that the information is reliable and valid. Question wording and sequences substantially influence accuracy. I’ve tried to obtain the most reliable and valid information. For the question wording and sequences, expert* consultancy has taken.

7:

*

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 330-333 Chapter15 Al-Masud, Extension Specialist of ATDP-SOQ and Dr.Anisul Haque, Assosiate Professor, Fisheries & Marine Resource Technology Discipline of Khulna University.

-9-

2. Phrasing Questions: Fixed-alternative questions are the question in which the respondent is given specific limited alternatives responses and asked to choose the one closest to his/her own viewpoint. • Simple-dichotomy question of the type Fixed-alternative was used in this study. Simple-dichotomy question is a fixed alternative question that requires the respondent to choose one of two alternatives. For example: PL (Post Larvae) supplied by the hatcheries is of low quality. O Yes O No

3. Question sequence: Since all the 16 questions are within 4 broad categories (quality, technology, facility &technology), questions were sequenced carefully to disguise the purpose from the respondents following the experts instructions.* Order bias is the bias caused by the influence of earlier questions in a questionnaire or by an answer’s position in a set of answers.

*:

Al-Masud, Extension Specialist of ATDP-SOQ and Dr.Anisul Haque, Assosiate Professor of Fisheries & Marine Resource Technology Discipline of Khulna University

- 10 -

1.6.9 Hypothesis11
Hypothesis: In statistical theory a hypothesis is an unproven proposition or supposition that tentatively explains certain facts or phenomena. A hypothesis is a statement, an assumption about the nature of the world. In its simplest form a hypothesis is a guess. The Null Hypothesis (H0) and the Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Statistical hypothesis are generally stated in a null form. A null hypothesis is a statement about a status quo. It is a conservative statement that communicates the notion that any change from what has been thought to be true or observed in the past will be due entirely to random error. The alternative hypothesis is a statement indicating the opposite of the null hypothesis. The Level of Significance: The significance level is a critical probability in choosing between the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. the level of significance determines the probability level-say .05 or .01- that is to be considered to low or to warrant support of the null hypothesis. on the assumption that the null hypothesis being tested is true, if the probability of occurrence of the observed data is smaller than the level of significance, then the data suggests the null hypothesis should be rejected. in other words, there is evidence to support contradiction of the null hypothesis, which is equivalent to supporting the alternative hypothesis.12 Procedure of Hypothesis Testing13 The general procedure followed in testing hypothesis comprises the following steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Set up a hypothesis. Set up a suitable significance level. Determination of a suitable test static. Determine the critical region/value. Doing computation. Making decisions.

11: 12: 13:

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 499 Chapter21 William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 500 Chapter21 S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006); p. 583-585 Chapter15

- 11 -

1.6.10 The Chi-Square (χ2) Test For Goodness of Fit:
One of the simplest techniques for describing sets of relationships is the cross tabulation. Chi-square (χ2) is a test that statistically determines significance in the analysis of frequency distribution. The Chi-square (χ2) test allows us to test for significance in the analysis of frequency distributions. The logic inherent in the Chisquare (χ2) test allows us to compare the observed frequencies (f) with the expected frequencies (fe) based on our theoretical ideas about the population distribution or our proposed proportions. It tests the “goodness of fit” of the observed distribution with the expected distribution. The steps in the calculation of the Chi-square (χ2) test are as follows: 14 1. Formulate the null hypothesis and determine the expected frequency of each answer 2. Determine the appropriate significance level. 3. Calculate the Chi-square (χ2) value, using the observe frequencies from the sample and the expected frequencies. 4. Make the statistical discussion by comparing the calculated Chi-square (χ2) value with the critical χ2 value.

After we’ve determined that the Chi-square (χ2) test is appropriate at the .05 level of significance (or some other probability level), the χ2 statistic may be calculated using the following formula:

χ2 =

∑ [( f − fe)2

fe]

With (R-1)(C-1) degrees of freedom; Where χ2 =chi-square static f = observed frequency in the ith cell fe = expected frequency in the ith cell

14:

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 511 Chapter21

- 12 -

The chi-square (χ2) test allow us to conduct tests for significance in the analysis of an R x C contingency table (where R=row and C=column).Like many other probability distributions, the chi-square (χ2) distribution is not a single probability curve but a family of curves. These curves vary according to the degrees of freedom. Thus we must calculate the number of freedom. Degrees of freedom refers to the number of observations that can be varied without changing the constrains or assumptions associated with a numerical system. To compute a chi-square (χ2) static, we calculate degrees of freedom as the number of rows minus one (R-1) times the number of columns minus one (C-1).15 If the calculated chi-square (χ2) is larger than the tabular chi-square (χ2) the null hypothesis is rejected.

Grouping when Frequencies are small If small theoretical frequencies occur, it is generally possible to overcome the difficulty by grouping two or more classes together. In other words, one or more classes with theoretical frequencies less than five (5) may combined into a single category before calculating the differences between observed and expected frequencies. The number of degrees of freedom would be determined with number of classes after the regrouping.16 Whether or not a calculated value of chi-square (χ2) is considered significant is ascertained by reference to tabulated value for a given degrees of freedom at a certain level of confidence. If the value of chi-square (χ2) exceeds the tabulated value, the difference between the observed and expected frequencies is significant. On the other hand, if its value is less than the table value, the difference is attributed to chance and may be ignored.17

15: 16: 17:

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 523 Chapter22. S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006); p. 635 Chapter1. M.C. Shukla & S.S. Gulshan, Statistics Theory and Practice. (7th edition)); p. 720 Chapter23.

- 13 -

1.6.11 Application Procedure of chi-square(χ2) Test in This Report:
Cross tabulation was used for organizing data by groups or categories to facilitate comparison. It is a joint frequency distribution of observations on seven sets of variable. The purpose of categorization and cross-tabulation is to allow the inspection of differences among groups and to make comparison. Here the theoretical idea about the expected frequency is that 60% of the respondents are well aware about the industry-embedded problems (H0). 0.05 was taken as the level of significance and initial degrees of freedom was (R-1)(C-1)=(7-1)(2-1)=6; but as the row A, C, F & G produced expected frequency less than 5, A+C & F+G was combined and the final degrees of freedom was (5-1)(2-1)=4. Every problem question was considered separately and thus the calculations consisted of 16 particular chi-square (χ2) test individually. Theoretical assumption on each problem was that 60% of the respondents are well aware about the particular problem.

- 14 -

1.6.12 Analysis Of Variance
Analysis of variance is a technique to test for the significance of the difference between more than two samples means and to make inferences about whether our samples are drawn from the population having the same mean. The analysis of variance procedure or F-test is used in such problems where we want to test for the significance of the difference among more than two sample means. In fact the technique of analysis of variance is one of the most powerful of statistical methods developed by R.A Fischer. Irrespective of the type of classification, the analysis of variance is a technique of partitioning the total sum of square deviations of all sample values from the grand mean and is divided into two parts: sum of squares between the samples and sum of squares within the samples.18 If we have three groups or levels of the independed variable, the null hypothesis is stated as follows: u1=u2=u3 The null hypothesis is that all the means are equal. If we calculate the variance within group and compare it to the variance of the group mean about a grand means, we can determine whether the means are significantly different.

The F-Test The F-Test is a procedure for comparing one sample variance to other sample variance. (The principal is similar to that of the Chi-Square, where a sample variance is compared to a population variance.). The F-test determines whether there is more variability in the scores of one sample than in the scores of another sample. To obtain the F-statistic (or F-ratio), the larger sample variance is divided by the smaller sample variance. To test the null hypothesis of no difference between the sample variance, a table of the F distribution is necessary and degree of freedom must be specified. Inspection of an f table allows the researcher to determine the probability of finding an f as large as the calculated F.
18: S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006); p. 664 Chapter18.

- 15 -

Calculating the F-ratio19

The calculation of the F-ratio requires that we partition the total variation into two parts:Total sum of squares = Within group sum of squares + Between group sum of squares. SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween The total sum of squares, or SStotal, is computed by squaring the deviation of each score from grand mean and summing these squares: SStotal =

∑∑ ( x
i =1 j =1

n

c

ij

− x) 2

SSwithin, the variability that we observe within each group, is calculated by squaring the deviation of each score from its group mean and summing these scores: SSwithin =

∑∑ ( x
i =1 j =1

n

c

ij

− x j )2

SSbetween, the variability of the group means about a grand mean, is calculated by squaring the deviation of each group mean, multlipling by the number of items in the group, and summing these score: SSbetween =

∑ n (x
j j =1

c

j

− x) 2

The next calculation requires dividing the various sums of squares by their appropriate degrees of freedom. These divisions produce the variances, or mean squares. To obtain the mean square between groups, SSwithin is divided by c-1 degrees of freedom: MSbetween = MS between (c − 1)

19:

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 531-534 Chapter22.

- 16 -

To obtain the mean square within groups, SSwithin is divided by cn-c degrees of freedom: MSwithin = SSwithin /(cn-c) Finally, the F-ratio is calculated by taking the ratio of the mean square between groups to the mean square within groups. The between-groups mean square is used as the numerator and the within-groups mean square is used as the denominator: F = MSbetween/MSwithin There will be (c-1) degrees of freedom in the numerator and (cn-n) degrees of freedom in the denominator: (c-1)/(cn-c). Then, the calculated F-ratio is compared with the tabulated F-ratio with respect to appropriate degrees of freedom from the F-table. If the computed value of F exceeds the table value of F, the null hypothesis is rejected.

1.6.13 Application Procedure of ANOVA in this Report:
The analysis of variance procedure (F-test) is used in such problems where we want to test for the significance of the difference among more than two sample means. Here, awareness levels of the various categories are compared. Shrimp industryembedded problems were categorized into four broad groups following the extensive study of the secondary study (reports, journals, newspapers, books & various published and unpublished papers); namely- 1.Quality issues 2.Technology issues 3.Facility issues and 4.Monitoring issues. Then all the cluster members’ awareness level was compared regarding one of the four broad categories issues.

- 17 -

Part-II
Literature Review

2.0 Background Study Information:
This study was based on extensive study of secondary data, especially published reports, journals, papers etc on the shrimp industry of Bangladesh. Background problem, research approach, hypothetical construct and author’s personal judgments were exclusively based on these secondary studies. For further clarification and to give a deep insight about the shrimp industry embedded problems analyzed in this study, a brief description on the most relied studies are presented below. Point to note here is that, Literatures from the respective studies are presented here in the original form as they were found in the original studies.

Impact of Market Access Barrieres and Subsidies: The Case of Shrimp in Bangladesh
Presented at the Hong Kong Trade and Development Symposium Session on Fisheries and Trade – Exploring Opportunities for Advancing Sustainable Development Hong Kong: 15 December 2005

by Dr Fahmida Khatun, Senior Research Fellow, CPD
E-mail: fahmida@cpd-bangladesh.org © Centre For Policy Dialogue (CPD), 2004

Recommendations
• • • Assessment of the Sector to Determine the Needs Monitoring of Shrimp Farms and Close Supervision of Quality Control Access to Information on technological improvement and change in global policies • Market Diversification to Avoid Sudden Shocks • Financial Support to Small Farmers • Infrastructural Development for Better Processing, Handling and Storing Facilities • Ensuring Security and Reducing Tensions • Capacity Building in Trade Issues

- 18 -

Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005 (USAID-funded project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan Washington File Special Correspondent

Summary of the paper:
Effort to impose uniform quality standards became necessary after the EU imposed a ban on Bangladesh shrimp imports in 1997 because of a failure to comply with EU quality regulations in shrimp processing plants in Khulna and Chittagong. At the same time, the Bangladesh government realized that up-to-date scientific methods were needed to maximize shrimp production for export. A major thrust of the SSOQ program is to get rid of a wide-spread viral disease that has been responsible for declining production since the early 1990s of the marine shrimp known as “Black Tiger,” or “Bagda,” which dominates the export market. The other main variety of Bangladesh shrimp is actually a giant fresh water prawn known as “Galda,” which is immune to this viral disease. The Bagda proliferates in tidal basin areas along the Bay of Bengal coastline in brackish water, while the Galda can flourish farther inland in ponds. The disease known as White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) was detected through tests in a laboratory set up by the SSOQ program. The tests found the incidence of WSSV at over 70 percent. Although WSSV is harmless to the human consumer, it cuts down shrimp production in the farms drastically. The laboratory in Cox’s Bazar, at the southeastern tip of Bangladesh, screens shrimp fry, or larvae, for the disease from four designated hatcheries. So far, only 4 percent of the total larvae used in shrimp production are screened by this laboratory. In addition to screening for WSSV, the SSOQ program seeks to put into practice shrimp farming techniques to improve yields, while decreasing the risk of the white spot virus spreading. Demonstration farms and field schools disseminate information about best management practices while providing training and consulting services to shrimp farmers. Finally, the SSOQ, through its voluntary certification program, aims to assure buyers overseas that the Bangladesh shrimp industry has met international food safety standards, has addressed global environmental concerns, and has followed to international labor practices. By adhering to international food safety standards, Bangladesh is able to assure overseas buyers that the shrimp are free from disease and harmful chemicals and additives that are sometimes used to reduce spoilage. International labor standards include banning of child labor and ensuring fair treatment of seasonal workers.

- 19 -

Shrimp Industry Study: Problems, Prospects and Intervention Agenda Submitted To: USAID, Bangladesh Submitted By: ATDP Research Team September 18, 2005

Management Summary:
Shrimp is one of the leading export items of Bangladesh. It accounts for roughly 2.5 percent of global exports and fetches a fair amount of foreign exchange ($250-330 million for last three years). There is ample demand in the international market for shrimp and Bangladesh is blessed with an environment congenial for shrimp production. However, the industry is fraught with many obstacles at present. A primary study was undertaken to detect the problems plaguing the different levels of the value chain of shrimp in the country. Consequently, a study was conducted in which the participants were representatives of the various stakeholders in this industry. The discussion that ensued aimed to identify obstacles to the growth of the industry, develop some intervention strategies that would help eradicate these obstacles . The problems that were revealed through the study are the following: Inefficient management High mortality rate Low quality shrimp Negative country image abroad Indiscriminate catching of brood mothers Lack of an integrated agriculture policy Inadequate Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures (SPS) Lack of standards and Lack of traceability Vertical competition amongst different actors in the value chain due to supplydemand inconsistency Lack of coordination amongst donor agencies Lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government Lack of awareness Unfair practices by agents Almost non-existent R&D endeavors

- 20 -

Problems in the Shrimp Industry:
The problems described below were pointed out by the participants in the primary study. The workshop also shed light on some additional problems. The problems prevalent at different levels of the value chain are enumerated below:

1. General
An integrated agricultural policy is a prerequisite for the development of any primary market. However, the present agricultural policy can at best be described as disjointed and non-functional. There also exist serious shortcomings in the government regulation and control of the following environmentally important issues:
o o o o

Wild Fry Collection Standards maintenance Land grabbing Inadequate Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary measures (SPS)

Lack of standards at all levels of the value chain The members in the value chain also seem to be involved in vertical competition. There are quite a large number of hatcheries operating within the country under capacity. The farms are running at capacity (although with high mortality rates) as a result the farms have abundant demand for their supply. Thus a captive market results in manipulation by the agents. The processors are faced with huge demand from the international markets. But they aren’t able to meet this demand because of failure of the part of the farms to supply them with adequate shrimp. Inconsistency in the supply chain results in substantial and rapidly changing price structure. As a result unethical practices are prevalent in the value chain. In order to meet the necessary weight requirements, farmers sometimes inject the shrimp with illegal material. The various donor bodies at the field level are working in isolation as opposed to creating partnerships. As a result transfer of learning and experience is sporadic and uncoordinated. The various donor bodies at the field level are working in isolation as opposed to creating partnerships. As a result transfer of learning and experience is sporadic and uncoordinated. Endeavors by BRAC, DANIDA and ATDP-II have yielded positive results in their respective fields. However, very little effort has so far been taken to share the knowledge gathered which could have resulted in even better results. Lack of a proper monitoring mechanism plagues every level of the value chain. There also exists no formal exit strategy on the part of the donors. Moreover the exit strategy lacks transfer to the private sector. The present practice is geared towards either the government or creation of NGO based private sector which seriously affects free market principles. The extension workers provided by the government have so far performed very poorly and failed to facilitate the farmers properly. - 21 -

2. Brood Parent Collectors
Indiscriminate catching of brood mothers has emerged as a serious threat. In fact, experts forecast that brood mothers may become extinct in two to three years from Bangladesh waters if this present practice persists. In Bangladesh the male and female shrimp are harvested together. There is no mechanism to harvest the brood mother separately. In the case of galda cultivation however, the mechanism for collecting brood mothers only has been developed. Inadequate policy measures regarding the time of catching, technology, human resources, etc. also presents a great threat to the brood parent collection. There exists no legal mechanism for licensing the nets and vessels used for this purpose. Lack of appropriate technology is also a big problem. Fry collection from the sea, called baish dhora in Cox’s Bazaar and baccha dhora in Satkhira/Khulna, is skilled work that requires hard physical labor and local expertise is inadequate which results in the death of a large number of fries. A large number of the poor — men, women and children (child labor) — do such work in these areas. Child labor seems to be more rampant in golda cultivation. In case of bagda farming children are mainly employed for catching fry. The sector however, ensures gender equality. In fact the majority of the workers involved in this sector are female especially in the processors and hatcheries. People involved in this business as well as those who live in the shrimp habitats have no knowledge regarding wild life. Lack of monitoring of compliance afflicts this level of the value chain as well.

3. Agents (brood)
These agents are mostly traders with local influence in the society and thus have entered the business not due to need in business but by force. The traders also force the farmers to buy shrimp of PL in stocks. It is often found that only 5% of this stock contains brood mothers. Quality and price control measures are compromised due to inadequate supply. This level of the chain is also characterized by too much dependence on catchers and they eventually dictate prices. Inadequate monitoring and control by law enforcing and monitoring agencies is also a troubling issue in this phase of the chain.

- 22 -

4. Hatchery/Nursery
Unlike the other levels in the value chain, this level is characterized by too many players. However, almost all of them are engaged in marginal operations. No extensive studies have been undertaken so far to ascertain the required number of hatcheries. Most investors are motivated to turn black money white. Production and sales figures are often exaggerated to override the law. That is why frequent changing of hands (of facilities) is quite a common practice in this field. Inadequate bio-security measures such as drainage, bacterial control, viral control, use of medication, etc. due to inadequate technology base also results in high mortality rate and low quality of the product. The disease called White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) effects the bagda species specifically and is the sole contributor behind falling productivity of bagda. In the case of golda bio security related problems mainly involve bacterial infections and contaminated medicine and feed. The EU imposed a ban on Bangladesh shrimp imports in 1997 because of a failure to comply with EU quality regulations. These events have resulted in a bad image of Bangladeshi shrimp in foreign markets. As a result Bangladesh cannot demand the same price as its competitors in the international market. Lack of trained human resources in this field necessitates the influx of foreign technicians. In fact 70% of technicians are from outside the country. The majority (50%) of them are Indian nationals. These foreign experts at times enter the country illegally and apply their technology, medication, and at times even strains without any pre-testing measures. This quite clearly represents a potential threat to bio-security. Weak association among the different hatcheries exist since a large number are involved in unethical business practices and are least concerned about business development. Although businesses change hand regularly, they do not close indicating that unethical practices rather than business itself promotes sales. Most of these unethical practices are a direct result of government incentive programs directed in favor of the hatcheries. The cost of undertaking R&D activities at the hatchery level is clearly uneconomical for private industry and other stakeholders to undertake at the present capacity utilization rates.

5. Agents (Post Larvae – PL)
These agents constitute the major profit making actor in the chain with the least risk. These agents are very influential in the value chain and determine prices. Lack of working capital and availability of special interest rates are outlined as major constraints faced by the group. High mortality rates during transshipment from hatchery to farms especially in the case of bagda are also observed. - 23 -

These agents control both farmers as well as hatchery owners. On one hand, they purchase on credit from the hatchery owners and on the other they derive commission from the farmers. In the case of galda, a large amount of the PL is imported from neighboring India. Some PL imported from India contains excess amounts of nitrofurine which is a prohibited substance.

6. Transport Agency
The poor transportation infrastructure of the country further cripples the industry. This problem is even more acute in the case of bagda as in this case the shrimp have to be transported from Cox’s bazaar to Khulna. Lack of landing facility for air transporters in Khulna results in high carrying and time costs which ultimately results in the farmers paying higher prices. Idle capacity for air transport during off-season makes it difficult for them to sustain their operations. Inadequate aircraft parking facility in Cox’s bazaar airport during peak season contributes to even more delay in shipment. It takes a total of thirty hours to reach the farms from Cox Bazar to Khulna by road. Some hatcheries have taken it upon themselves to transport the PL by road; however, this has not yet improved the situation. Policy regarding licensing for air transport is inadequate – the status of both leased aircraft and owned aircraft are regarded as same. Temperature and oxygen controlled vans for road transport are still at the experimental stage.

7. Farmer/Nursery
Low awareness level regarding proper farming practices results in high mortality rates and diseases in the farms. The weak financial capability of the farmers is also a great barrier towards development. Inadequate banking support makes it impossible for the farmers to obtain the funding they require. High mortality of Post Larvae of both bagda and golda result primarily from the previously mentioned shortcomings. Although export benefits are extended to this sector, the processors are the ones who mostly get to enjoy the same. They pass some of the benefit to the agents in the form of higher prices. However, the other members of the value chain are not able to absorb much of this benefit. The farmers in Bangladesh get higher prices for their products compared to farmers in countries like Thailand primarily due to higher production cost

- 24 -

resulting from low management capability, inefficient quantity management and high mortality. This on the other hand affects the market share in the international market. This aspect can be summarized in the illustration from group discussion presented below.
o

o o o o

o o o

High prices do not necessarily mean high profits as the cost of operation are also high in these farms. After covering all the overheads a very meager profit is left. On an average, 20% of the overheads fall under labor. The sales price is completely independent of costs The price is dictated by competition alone. Management inefficiency and lack of technology are considered the main contributing forces behind these rising costs of production. Primary production cost is quite low in Bangladesh compared to other countries as 90% of the Bagda larvae are traditionally produced and therefore entail no spending at all. In fact some regard this as the sole reason behind the survival of this sector in Bangladesh. The start-up capital and input cost is much lower in Bangladesh. However, it is important to properly define sustainability in this aspect. Although some shrimp farms are sustaining, the owners are doing so by engaging themselves in side businesses. A study conducted under the ATDP surveyed about 600 such farmers and found that average production was less than 100 kg per hectare even though it was required to produce 148kg per hectare to break even considering the price of land.

The government has also failed to play a constructive role, evidenced by the lack of support from government extension workers. The cost of maintaining nurseries and undertaking experiments is at times too risky and expensive.

8. Agents (shrimp)
No special interest rates for working capital are available. As mentioned before, there exists a huge gap between the demand for shrimp by processors and the supply of the same provided by the farmers. Processors dictate prices based on international market rates. Too many depots are engaged in this stage and a large number of these depots and sub-depots are either owned or controlled by agents. All adulteration is performed in the depots or sub-depots. Here shrimp are injected with fluids and other substances or immersed in water to increase their weight. Again, the measures taken by the government in monitoring of compliance are alarmingly inadequate

- 25 -

9. Processor
The quality of raw material (shrimp/prawn) supplied to the processors is not satisfactory because of adulteration, cool chain maintenance, size variation etc. Processors should reject these shipments but do not due to their desperate need for raw material to fulfill orders. It has also been observed that, some processors engage in this business only for the period for which the tax holiday has been extended. After expiry they simply get a new registration. This practice results in financial default. Lack of marketing efforts and a negative country image are also great obstacles. The negative country image is solely responsible for the low prices Bangladeshi shrimp commands in the international markets and its failure to increase its market share and acquire new markets. Inadequate technology and knowledge transfer also impact operations. Although in recent times, there have been efforts to comply; compliance with HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) is still not adequate. Non tariff barriers from the developed world at times are considered inappropriate by local producers. For instance, although EU regulations prohibit child labor, in Bangladesh complete abolition of the practice is impossible as the children are forced to work for their very sustenance mostly at the lowest ladder of the value chain. EU regulations also necessitate the availability of proper sanitary conditions which most of the farms simply cannot afford. In fact some requirements of the SPS don’t even fall under the standard regulations of health and sanitation. For example in case of golda, the acceptable level for nitrofurans required by the EU is substantially and impractically lower than that approved by general health and sanitation standards. This is a perfect example of inappropriate grounds for rejection by the developed countries. International laws can therefore sometimes be questionable.

Intervention Strategy:
Results of the field level survey suggests that by pursuing an integrated policy, under the current capacity figures, the shrimp production per unit area of land can be raised manifold provided that the current bottle necks are eliminated. It is therefore quite possible to attain the year 2010 export revenue target of $1 billion if the abovementioned obstacles are overcome. The study strongly recommends an integrated model for both Golda and Bagda projects. It suggests formation of strategic business units based on clusters incorporating members of value chain. Strategic business units can be cooperative based, where groups of farmers work together under a commercial umbrella, or individual based where existing agents - 26 -

are enlisted to disseminate technical information and training to their farmer clients. Dialogues and forums should be held regularly with exporters and importers to raise and address questionable trade practices and standards. The government must formulate an integrated agricultural policy to ensure sustainable development in this sector. Enforcement of the policy must be done with the assistance of industry groups. Instead of working in isolation, the donors should address these problems collaboratively so that transfer of learning and experience is ensured. Donors should also formulate smooth exit strategies whereby projects are handed over to the private sector after completion. Ecological protection and gender equity issues can be controlled by working with the aforementioned strategic units to prohibit certain dangerous practices like land grabbing, indiscriminate catching, child labor and participation of women across the value chain, etc. Mass awareness can be generated on such issues as bio-security by again working through the established industry channels that will benefit from them. These again are the business units and association groups. The SSOQ and DANIDA models can be applied in this area. The positive aspects of both the models may be applied in the value chain. The study suggests that implementation of these strategies is quite possible if all the stakeholders in the sector confront them jointly in an integrated fashion. Given the various existing interest groups, there is a fair amount of negotiation and information dissemination that has to be done to ensure implementation success.

- 27 -

Shrimp Culture in Bangladesh with Emphasis on Social and Economic Aspects Financially supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR) Project ASEM/1995/039.

By Mohammad Alauddin and M. Akhter Hamid Department of Economics, University of Queensland, 4072, Australia.

The Shrimp Industry: Linking the Components
The shrimp industry comprises four sub-sectors: shrimp farms (ghers), shrimp hatcheries, feed mills and shrimp processing plants (Haque 1994). Figure 1 represents sectoral linkages in the shrimp industry. The success of the industry depends on the concurrent development of all these sub-sectors. It is important to note that development, on the other hand, depends on the availability of modern technology, management concepts and finance. The shrimp marketing system is also crucial and comprises a complex chain of agents who are involved in the process from the farm gate to the processing plants. While providing the details of shrimp marketing is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to mention that the processing plant sub-sector has ultimate command of the marketing system. In other words, this sector has a vertical line of command, which in turn acts on international market signals. Most of the people engaged in shrimp marketing are either directly or indirectly employed by this sub-sector. Often ‘buying houses’ act as negotiators between the exporting and importing companies. Shrimp hatcheries About 95% of farm stock come from wild fry catch (Ahmed 1996) and this has implications for biodiversity. Since black tiger shrimp (bagda chingri—P. monodon) is the most targeted species, wild shrimp collectors discard other shrimp and fish species onshore. For every single bagda fry collected from the natural habitat, up to 99 other species of shrimp and finfish could be destroyed (Selim 1994). Realising this, DOF provided plans for construction of about 30 private-sector hatcheries (Selim 1994) 12 of which were under construction in 1995 (Haque 1995). In 1995, there was only one bagda hatchery (out of 10 shrimp hatcheries; DOF 1995) in Bangladesh producing between 20–30 million post larvae. The estimated requirement for the 130,000 h of shrimp farms is 2.6–3.0 billion post larvae and the difference is made up from wild fry (Karim 1995; Rahman and Pal 1995). Mazid (1995) suggested the establishment of a shrimp hatchery village for galda (M. rosenbergii) shrimp which would be specially designed for small farmers with a production capacity of 150,000– 200,000 postlarvae/unit/season. The greatest obstacle to shrimp hatchery technology is the collection of unstressed brood stock from the sea. Unfortunately, there are no definite data on the distribution and abundance of such stock, the state of standing stock (stock assessment by various research teams revealed different results), or the timing of their availability. Khan (1994) quoted a standing stock of 7,000–8,000 t of shrimp, but there is a wide variation in standing stocks reported by several authors (for details see Khan 1994). In

- 28 -

addition, there is no provision for brood stock collection on a commercial basis (Hossain 1995). In 1995, hatcheries relied on the government research vessel, Anusandhani, which catches broodstock from the sea. Largely under-utilized publicsector hatcheries suffer from various management problems that limit their production(Khan1995).

Shrimp feed mills There is a shortage of artificial shrimp feed in Bangladesh (Hussain 1994; Hossain 1995; Karim 1995; Khan 1995). Only 6,000 t of shrimp and fish feed are produced locally as opposed to a total requirement of more than 100,000 t (Hussain 1994). Apart from the Bangladesh Fisheries Development Corporation’s fishmeal plant, there is only one other feed mill operating in Mymensingh and a few small-scale local manufacturers of fish feed (Karim and Aftabuzzaman 1995). Shrimp feeds, usually with a shelf-life of about three months, are imported from Thailand and Taiwan. It has been reported that stale feeds are supplied at the farm level, leading to adverse effects on shrimp farming (Karim and Aftabuzzaman 1995). Consequently, most farmers rely on natural feed and their farms suffer from lower productivity.

Processing plants There is a big mismatch between the raw material requirements of shrimp processing plants and the supply of farmed shrimp. As of 1994, while there was a requirement of 156,000 t of shrimp to utilize the maximum production capacity of 93 plants, the supply was only about 20,000 t, resulting in only 13% utilization of plant capacity (Haque 1994). Further, Hussain (1994) pointed out that the processing industry had a 500% overgrowth in capacity as compared to raw material production. He added that in 1992–93, only 32 plants were under production. In 1994, most of the plants were out of operation, mainly due to the lack of raw material supply. He argued that factors such as an unplanned credit system, liberal attitudes of financial institutions towards this industry, expectations of some stakeholders to make quick fortunes, and easy availability of loans to build plants, were the main reasons for this unpleasant situation.

- 29 -

Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Barriers to Trade and its Impact on the Environment The Case of Shrimp Farming in Bangladesh By A. K. Enamul Haque North South University, Dhaka Trade Knowledge Network Paper 2004
http://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net

Executive Summary
1. Shrimp is the second largest source of export from Bangladesh. In the late 1980s, the shrimp industry grew out of a major non-traditional item of export from Bangladesh. Commercial culture of shrimp increased rapidly in the coastal belt of Bangladesh and it went through several stages of transformation. 2. There are now approximately 37,397 farms cultivating bagda (tiger shrimp) with an average farm size of 4.5 ha. Twenty-five thousand tons of bagda was produced in 2001. Bagda production has increased by 20 per cent per annum in the last fifteen years. There are 124 shrimp processing factories in Bangladesh sited mostly in Khulna and Chittagong and about 60 hatcheries, mostly in Cox’s Bazar. There are also 30,000 ha of land under galda (sweet water shrimp) production that produced 11,942 tons in 2001. Because galda farms are generally smaller than bagda mud (averaging 0.28 ha and four ha respectively), they support a greater proportion of poor and marginal farmers. 3. There are 105,000 galda farms, mostly located in the Khulna division although this method of cultivation is spreading rapidly in other parts of Bangladesh. Unlike brackish water cultivation of bagda (tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon), freshwater galda cultivation is not restricted to the coastal regions and is expanding at a rate of 10–20 per cent per annum. Moreover, galda shrimp (fresh water scampi, Marobhrachium rosenbergii) farming is usually done on family farms by small farmers who have transformed their tiny plots of agricultural land into shrimp-cumrice farms. 4. There are 600,000 people employed in the shrimp sector in Bangladesh generating US$301 million annually, from bagda and galda farms (US$243 million from bagda alone). Yet the industry suffers from significant production inefficiencies and is exposed to important social and environmental risks. 5. One of the risks has emerged out of sanitary and phyto-sanitary agreements and subsequent standardization of production and processing methods using HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) methods. As of now, HACCP is applied on the processing plants, but to ensure the quality of production and to reduce risks, shrimp farms are also required to adopt HACCP methods. Processing plants, being the large investors and the ultimate risk taker in the business, have already adopted the procedures mentioned in HACCP, but it has been quite difficult for them to impose the same on the small shrimp farms. Overall, the industry is in crisis—low production capacity at plants and very low yields at the shrimp farms. 6. The farming community lacks capital, education, and also motivation to accept changes under the current market conditions. This study has shown that, while most

- 30 -

of the shrimp farmers are aware of the risks in the business, they are also not very active to adopt the standards. It was also found that most farmers need to be trained regarding the impact on shrimp quality of the use of chemicals during crop production. 7. Using field data, the study developed a simulation exercise to show that, under the current situation, the trend in the industry is toward intensive shrimp farming. This will threaten the ecosystem and the social fabric in rural Bangladesh and increase social conflicts. Consequently, an alternative strategy has been devised and found feasible. 8. The alternative is to provide training to the farmers and make them aware of the risks in the business, create meaningful liaison with the processing plants and reduce inefficiencies in production. This is a more socially-desirable response to resolve the current crisis in the industry. 9. The result of the study was presented at a national workshop in Dhaka and during presentation of the report at the workshop it was further observed that stakeholders of the shrimp industry lack a common understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Moreover, there exists severe mistrust between the farmers and the processors. High rate of marketing margin is also a genuine problem. These are all rooted in the overall lack of awareness and information at the primary level of production. It is, therefore, suggested that a multi-stakeholder dialogue process may be initiated by a neutral organization to buildup the trust between them. The objective of the dialogue will also include developing a common policy prescription for the industry to make it environmentally sustainable.

For further clarification, author recommends following studies:
An Evaluation of The Bangladesh Agro-Based Industries And Technology Development Project (ATDP II).Submitted to: United States Agency for International Development/Bangladesh; Under: Evaluation IQC No. AEP-I-00-00-00023-00 Task Order No. 855. Submitted by: Development Associates, Inc. 1730 N. Lynn St. Arlington, VA 22209 EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman Challenges facing the Shrimp Industry in Bangladesh Claire Fleming American International School/Dhaka. Senior Project 2004 Policy Research – Implications of Liberalization of Fish Trade for Developing Countries. A Case Study for Bangladesh Fish Trade Liberalization in Bangladesh: Implications of SPS Measures and Eco-Labelling for the Export-Oriented Shrimp Sector by Fahmida Khatun,Project PR 26109,July 2004. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome.(Regional workshop on commodity export diversification and poverty reduction in south and south-east Asia, (Bangkok, 3-5 April, 2001) organized by UNCTAD in cooperation with ESCAP)

- 31 -

Part-III
Shrimp In Bangladesh

3.0 Shrimp In Bangladesh: Background
In the early seventies, Bangladesh entered the global export market for shrimp. This aquatic animal, which was locally much cheaper than any other seafood, suddenly became a very high priced commodity. Since then, much attention has been focused on increasing shrimp production. (Karim, 2003). Initially, the public sector efforts concentrated on exploitation of the shrimp from the sea by employing trawlers which were not only costly to buy and import, but also expensive to operate. The increasing demand and steadily rising prices of shrimp encouraged its cultivation in the coastal belt of the country. Once it got started with some success, the practices expanded very quickly, and with cheap land and cheap labor, shrimp farming expanded phenomenally. By 1982-83, the shrimp farming area occupied nearly 52,000 hectares, and by 1986 had spread to over 115,000 hectares. (Karim, 2003). Currently, an area of an estimated 160,000 Ha is under shrimp farming, although actual numbers may differ somewhat. Of the total shrimp farming area, some 30,000 ha is fresh water shrimp farming while the rest is devoted to marine shrimp farming. The main districts in which marine shrimp are being farmed include Satkhira, Khulna, Bagerhat and Cox’s Bazar. The main Fresh water shrimp farming districts are Khulna, Bagerhat, Jessore, Narail, Gopalganj, Pirojpur and Noakhali. More or less 80% of the shrimp farming areas are in the country’s southwestern region while the rest are in the southeastern part. Shrimp is the second most important export item to Bangladesh. The cultured (cultivated) shrimp constitutes more than 95% of the total shrimp export. The main cultured species is the tiger shrimp (locally known as bagda shrimp) of which the technical name is Penaeus monodon. It is a marine shrimp and is cultivated in brackish water. The next most important export is the fresh water species, locally called galda, technically known as Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Large-scale shrimp cultivation is a relatively new phenomenon to the country. Coastal shrimp aquaculture in Bangladesh was greatly aided by the country’s unique natural features, including large areas of low-lying tidal land, a favorable environment, and a high market demand and economic returns (WARPO, 2003). Table 1 refers to exports

- 32 -

of shrimp from the major exporting countries in the world. Notice that Bangladesh is ranked eighth by value.

Table 1.
Export of shrimp from the major exporting countries in 1998 by volume and value. (Ranked in order of importance). Volume (1,000 mt) Value ($ US millions) Thailand 247.2 Thailand 2306.6 Indonesia 128.0 Indonesia 864.0 Ecuador 115.0 Ecuador 857.1 Norway 152.3 India 761.2 India 101.4 Mexico 494.6 Denmark 75.2 Viet Nam 4 01.5 VietNam 50.8 Denmark 379.0 Mexico 46.9 Bangladesh 246.6 China 43.1 Netherlands 213.5 Netherlands 43.1 China 206.8 Greenland 43.0 Iceland 191.6 Canada 36.7 Greenland 171.1 Iceland 32.0 Canada 170.9 Malaysia 27.6 Argentina 167.4 Norway 27.3 Malaysia 158.1 UK 23.8 Belgium 155.4 Argentina 23.4 Norway 152.3 UK 145.4 Bangladesh 23.0
Note. From The Coastal shrimp sector in Bangladesh (36), Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), 2001, Dhaka, Bangladesh: Author.

Bagda “There are around 38,000 Bagda ghers in Bangladesh.” (WARPO, 2003). Bagda farms are mostly rice fields converted into shrimp ponds varying in size from .4 to 200 ha. (Banks, 2002). Most of the shrimp farmers are not permanent residents of the areas in which their ghers are situated; even the local big landowners typically lease their land to outside entrepreneurs. Although both types of farming are profitable, the larger scale Bagda exports bring in the lion’s share of foreign exchange, second only to ready-made garments. Because it requires saline water throughout the entire process, Bagda farms cause more damage to the soil and the environment.

- 33 -

Galda There are about 105,000 freshwater prawn farms in Bangladesh’s “Shrimp Region,” the average size of the farms being approximately .3 ha. (WARPO, 2003). Galda farming has increased quite rapidly in recent years, and because it tends to be on a smaller scale, and the prawns are grown in freshwater that can often be re-used three or four times, the environmental impact is much less than in Bagda farming. Galda shrimp are cultured in ponds and ghers. “The practice of integrated farming of prawn with rice, fish, and vegetables is spreading, particularly among small-scale farmers, providing a year-round supply of crops for family subsistence, supplemented by a cash crop (Galda).” (U.S. Agency for International Development, 2003). An interesting fact about Galda shrimp is that unlike Bagda, they are always de-headed before selling, as the heads are part of the diet of farm households. (Williams & Khan, 2003). Shrimp Farming: A Brief History Shrimp farming itself is not a new phenomenon in the southwestern region of Bangladesh. Farmers used to construct shallow, seasonal enclosures on the banks of rivers and canals, to grow brackish water finfish and Bagda shrimp as an extra source of income. They also cultivated fresh water Galda prawns. In the 1960s, the government felt the need to enhance the country’s domestic rice production to feed its rapidly increasing population. Fortunately, this coincided with the development of High Yielding Varieties (HYV) of grain. (Coastal Development Partnership [CDP], 2003). To expand the area of cultivable land for rice productivity, the tidal flood plains of the southwestern region were then converted into permanent fresh water areas by building high embankments to create polders as well as by closing many canals, especially in the Khulna region. (Tutu, 2001). Eventually, due to large quantities of silt deposits in the riverbeds and to the embankments blocking the flood plains, water logging occurred and then spread from the north to the south, becoming a permanent feature of the region. With no agricultural alternative, a few farmers experimented with “small-scale shrimp cultivation in their water-logged plots.” Their success encouraged others and the practice [began to] spread gradually. (Tutu, 2001).

- 34 -

Reasons For Growth Of The Sector “International pressure on wild, caught species, increasing global incomes, importing significant quantities of seafood products, and a strengthening demand in these countries, have all combined to result in a steady rise in international prices for shrimp, and the growing importance for cultured shrimp.” (Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, 2001). When the demand for shrimp began to increase during the 80s, the proportion of Bagda shrimp also began to increase gradually, and ultimately dominated the economy of the brackish water regions of the southwest. The source of the demand was from foreign buyers and specifically from consumers’ preference for that kind of shrimp, i.e. “Tiger shrimp.” Bagda shrimp cultivation was started in these regions on a comparatively large scale, extensive basis and has remained that way. In 1984, the percent of global shrimp supply from wild capture fisheries was approximately 20% higher than it is today and is continuing to decline – although it has been steady in recent years. This decline in wild fry collection has been another factor in the growth of the cultivated shrimp industry. Another major reason for the development of the shrimp industry in Bangladesh is government assistance to the sector through bank loans, tax breaks, technical expertise, etc. Over the past 30 years, production has been increasing in response to strong international demand and rising prices, and like many export-oriented industries, profitability is extremely sensitive to changes in international prices, therefore the recent dip in prices is having significant impacts on the profitability of shrimp processing industries in Bangladesh. (BCAS, 2001). Bangladesh also has certain natural factors that have favored the growth of the shrimp industry. Compared to other shrimp-producing countries, this country is fortunate to have a large inter-tidal range and broad low-lying areas of land, meaning that water circulation can be achieved through natural tidal fluctuations without artificial pumping. This greatly reduces costs. (BCAS, 2001).

- 35 -

Shrimp Cultivation Bangladeshi shrimp culture is practiced in brackish water, saltwater, and freshwater. The two main cultivated species are Bagda shrimp (Tiger shrimp) and Galda (Giant Freshwater prawn). (Banks, 2002). While these are the two main varieties of shrimp, a small amount of other shrimp species are also harvested. Because of poor screening, other species of wild shrimp get trapped in the tidal pools. Two systems are currently in operation: extensive gher (or pond) culture, which is used to produce the marine and brackish water species of shrimp, and fresh water gher culture used to produce prawn. The average marine aquaculture farm is 4.5 ha, while the fresh water ponds on inland farms are usually no greater than 0.3 ha. (Banks, 2002). In order to understand the production process more clearly, a brief description of the four key stages in shrimp cultivation is necessary. Please refer to Table 2 for the estimated number of people employed in selected areas of the sector.
Table 2. Estimated employment in selected areas of the shrimp sector.
Employment Galda farm owner Bagda farm owner Bagda farm worker Galda farm worker Shrimp hatchery owner Bagda hatchery worker Galda hatchery worker Wild hatchling and fry collectors Fry transporters, trader Bagda and Galda nursery operators Shrimp depot works Shrimp processing casual workers Shrimp processing permanent workers Total Persons employed 105,000 80,000 130,000 105,000 60 500 100 250,000 30,000 300 35,000 24,000 6,000 765,960 effective months 8 8 8 8 12 6 6 6 5 6 8 8 12

Note. From The coastal shrimp sector in Bangladesh (23), by Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), 2001, Dhaka, Bangladesh: Author.

In the first stage, the fry (or larvae) are either collected in the wild from the rivers (using one of four principal types of nets: the pull net, push net, bag net, or shooting net) or they are produced in hatcheries. (Department of Fisheries, 2003). Wild fry collection in general is still preferred by farmers, but there is a strong opposition to

- 36 -

this practice, and has been officially banned by the government because “biodiversity is being negatively impacted by the capture of fry and destruction of by-catch.” (WARPO, 2003). In practice however, wild fry collection continues. Secondly, the fry are sold to agents in local markets, small local businessmen who sell to agents, and occasionally directly to the shrimp farms. In the third stage, the fry are grown in ghers (ponds of brackish water) in shrimp farms, which vary in size from 1 to 600 hectares. Work on shrimp farms includes building gher walls, guarding the shrimp from thieves, and catching the shrimp. Lastly, all harvested shrimp are collected in depots to ready them for onward export processing or local consumption. (Delap & Lugg, 1998). This involves de-heading and cleaning the shrimp and subsequent freezing and packaging.

EU Ban On Imports Of Bangladesh Shrimp: 1 In July, 1997 the European Commission imposed a ban on imports of shrimp products from Bangladesh into the EU on the ground that exports of this commodity did not meet the stringent provisions of EC's HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) regulations. The ban originated from (a) concerns as regards standards in areas related to health safeguards, quality control, infrastructure and hygiene in the processing units, and (b) lack of trust in the efficiency of the controlling measures carried out by designated authorities in Bangladesh, in this particular case, the Department of Fisheries (DOF). The ban was imposed following EU inspection of Bangladesh's seafood processing plants in July 1997 which raised questions as regards compliance with HACCP regulations in the processing plants in Bangladesh.The visiting team also expressed its doubt with respect to reliability and efficiency of the controlling function of the GOB inspectors. The EC determined that "consuming fishery products processed in Bangladesh posed a significant risk to public health in EU member countries”. Thus, both the firms and the GOB were put on the dock. The ban put the country's shrimp export industry under severe strain, and led to serious market disruptions from which the country is still trying to recover.

1

EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman

- 37 -

International Standards And Regulatory Requirements:

Shrimp processed for global markets has to comply with the international standards and has to meet buyer specifications as well as the regulatory requirements of the importing country. Unfortunately, as in may other LDCs, Bangladesh have difficulty in meeting with the required safety standards and quality requirements. Problems with quality compliance arise at pre-processing phase at the stage of handling of raw shrimp (harvesting, sorting by size and color, removal of heads and peeling which are often carried out under conditions and facilities that are unsuitable from hygiene perspective) and also at processing stage (absence of high quality water and ice, irregular electricity supply, poor infrastructure and transportation facility) which seriously constrain Bangladeshi firms' ability to pursue modern sanitary practices. As is the case in other LDCs, Bangladeshi plants do not have sufficient funds to invest in expensive mechanical equipment, fishing boats, quality control measures and adequately trained staff. The GOB's governance capacity to design, implement and monitor quality and safety compliance is also very weak.

Value Chain In The Shrimp Industry:

Value Chain in Shrimp industry starts with the collecting activities of the brood mother from the deep sea or the collecting activities of the fry (or larvae); collected in the wild from the rivers (using one of four principal types of nets: the pull net, push net, bag net, or shooting net) or they are produced in hatcheries. Hatchery owners usually contact with foreign experts from India, Thailand etc for collecting the brood mother from the sea. Sea plane, motorboat etc is used for the means of transport. The concerns related quality-control and bio-hazard is present at some hatchery-levelactivities. After producing the PL (Post Larvae) at hatchery, the activities are transferred to the farmers through the agents/dealers. The farmers directly culture the fry without treating the water. Most of the times, the way they feed and use antibiotic doesn’t meet the safety regulations.

- 38 -

After harvesting, shrimp is brought to the agents or depot for sale. Small agents or depots supply these shrimp to large depots or to the processing industries. Amazing factor here in the value chain is that, almost every phase of the chain, there persist agents/trader/middleman who don’t care about this industry and/or know very poor about the bio-hazard and safety regulations. Another important value chain component is the transport system. It consists of air, water and road. Finally, the processing industry exports the processed shrimp to the importing country. Secondary studies extensively indicate that the Shrimp industry of Bangladesh is severely disintegrated at each level of the value chain. And insufficient infrastructure and monitoring body, ignorance and various kinds of problems prevail at almost every level of the value chain. The value chain in the shrimp industry is provided below:

Importer Processing Industry

Depot

Agent/Trader

Farmer Transport (Air/Road)

Department of Fisheries Shrimp Technologist Facilitating Agency Financial Agency Donor Agency Association Laboratory

Agent/Trader

Post Larvae

Hatchery Transport Air/Motorboat

Brood Parent

- 39 -

Recent Developments In The Shrimp Industry One of the ways of developments is through a new closed fresh water shrimp cultivation method, launched in 2003 by the USAID-funded Agro-based industries and Technology Development Project (ATDP) that provides “technical assistance for the promotion of virus-free shrimp farming in Bangladesh,” which is now bringing hope to many farmers.2 The method reuses and recycles water rather than discharging it and letting new water in, which greatly reduces risk to local shrimp farms suffering from repeated virus attacks. “The closed system works by allowing the water in the shrimp pond to be purified through chlorination.”2 The new method can also significantly increase yield production over the traditional methods of farming, increasing yields by up to ten times. By increasing yields ten-fold, it takes enormous pressure off the land and so greatly reduces the need to expand aquaculture, thereby limiting its impact on the environment. It may reduce water resource utilization as well.2 “This technology will be crucial for the country, especially as international buyers have imposed certain restrictions on imports from Bangladesh to ensure highquality and disease-free shrimp, produced in an environmentally and socially sound way. ATDP has developed a program that offers farmers and producers the opportunity to begin cultivating high-quality, disease-free shrimp with reduced negative social and environmental impacts”2. This model program offers new technology and a new approach to cultivating shrimp.

Future Steps

Within the next couple of years, there will be a lot of changes within the shrimp sector (hopefully for the better!) and it’s crucial and would be very interesting to continue researching these changes because of the great impact they will have on so many people. Because shrimp farming is a relatively new industry to Bangladesh, and is still growing and developing, it will be interesting to see if it survives and how it changes to meet international standards and, in so doing, provide a model for other sectors of the economy, which it definitely has the potential to do.
2: Md.Al-Masud, Extension Specialist; ATDP-Shrimp Seal of Quality, House no. G-3, Jalil Sarani, Boyra, Khulna-9000

- 40 -

Part-IV
Analysis &Findings

4.1. General Tendency of the Respondents:
Meeting with the theoretical expectation, at least 60% of all categories of respondents were found aware about the problems. Highest 78% respondents are aware about the non-existent facilities for the WSSV virus testing (q.4) and Lowest 60% respondents are aware about the poor access to the industry related information (q.9) and almost nonexistent research and development endeavor (q.15). On the average, 66.875% of the respondents are aware about the industry embedded problems. Among the 16 problem analysis, 3 of them were found significant and the rest was found insignificant in the analysis of frequency distribution. And the of Difference among the cluster members opinion on a specific issue was found insignificant.

Agreed Responses:
Response
A Yes B Yes C Yes D Yes E Yes F Yes G Yes Total Yes

Q.01 Q.02 Q.03 Q.04 Q.05 Q.06 Q.07 Q.08 Q.09 Q.10 Q.11 Q.12 Q.13 Q.14 Q.15 Q.16

4 7 5 9 6 7 7 6 5 7 7 7 6 7 5 8

7 6 8 10 10 10 11 10 8 8 9 9 9 10 9 11

7 6 8 8 6 7 6 6 6 6 8 7 6 7 6 8

22 20 27 28 18 14 18 22 18 19 22 17 18 20 19 26

8 8 11 8 9 9 10 8 9 9 10 11 9 10 9 7

7 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 6 7 6 8 6 7 6 8

8 8 7 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 9 7 8 9 6 8

63 61 73 78 66 63 69 68 60 64 71 66 62 70 60 76 Mean 66.875

- 41 -

4.2. Hypothetical 60% Mass Members Awareness Toward The Industry-Embedded Problems:

Problem 01. PL (Post Larvae) supplied by the hatcheries is of low quality. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the low quality PL supplied by the hatcheries. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 5.694 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor quality PL supplied by the hatcheries.

Problem 02. There are very poor control activities in the shrimp industry. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor control activities in the shrimp industry. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 4.374 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor control activities in the shrimp industry .

- 42 -

Problem 03. Shrimp culture is hampered by high mortality rate. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the high mortality rate in shrimp culture. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 13.68 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value > Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is rejected. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are not well aware about the high mortality rate in shrimp culture. . Problem 04. Facility for WSSV (white spot syndrome virus) screening is almost nonexistent. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the nonexistent facility for WSSV (white spot syndrome virus) screening Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 21.528 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value > Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is rejected. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are not well aware about the nonexistent facility for WSSV (white spot syndrome virus) screening.

Problem 05. Infrastructure and culture technology are poor. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor infrastructure and cultural technology. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 5.485 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor infrastructure and cultural technology.

- 43 -

Problem.06 There are lack of quality and safe feed supply. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor and unsafe feed supply. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.664 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor infrastructure and cultural technology.

Problem.07 Wild brood-stock population is declining due to over fishing and lack of concentration. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the declining wild broodstock population due to over fishing and lack of concentration. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.803 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the declining wild brood-stock population due to over fishing and lack of concentration.

Problem.08 There is no suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial capacities. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial capacities. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.108 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial capacities.

- 44 -

Problem.09 Access to the industry related information is poor. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor access to the industry related information. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 1.318 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor access to the industry related information.

Problem.10 There is inefficient management practice in this industry. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the inefficient management practice in this industry. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 2.498 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the inefficient management practice in this industry.

Problem.11 There is inadequate backward linkage for the poor; i.e.
Appropriate farming technology. Institutional and supervised credit at reasonable terms. Adequate and good quality PL, fertilizer and feed in time. Good infrastructure: rural road, electricity, etc. Security of crop under cultivation and law and order.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the inadequate backward linkage for the poor Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.248 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the inadequate backward linkage for the poor.

- 45 -

Problem.12 There is generally weak forward linkage; i.e.
Inadequate post-harvest handling, transportation and preservation. Poor market linkage of the producers. Inadequate research on export market. Producers do not get fair price.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the generally weak forward linkage in the shrimp industry. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 3.956 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders are well aware about the generally weak forward linkage in the shrimp industry.

Problem.13 There is lack of standard and lack of traceability in the whole supply chain. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of standard and lack of traceability in the whole supply chain in the shrimp industry. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 0.833 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of standard and lack of traceability in the whole supply chain.

Problem.14 There is lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government in the shrimp industry. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 5.275 and Table value of χ2 =9.488. Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government.

- 46 -

Problem.15 Research and development (R&D) endeavor is almost nonexistent. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of research and development (R&D) endeavors in the shrimp industry. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 0.346 and Table value of χ2 =9.488. Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of research and development (R&D) endeavors in this industry.

Problem.16 Unfair practices by the shrimp agents are hampering export market. Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware that unfair practices by the shrimp agents are hampering export market. Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 17.774 and Table value of χ2 =9.488. Since the Calculated χ2 value >Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is rejected. That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are not well aware about the fact that unfair practices by the shrimp agents are hampering export market.

.

- 47 -

4.3. The Significance of The Difference Among The Cluster Members Opinion On Specific Issues: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the awareness level
of the various clusters members of the industry on a specific issue. 4.3.1 Facilities Issue Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on facilities issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg. Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.133 and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the 0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on facilities issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

4.3.2 Monitoring Issue Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on monitoring issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg. Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.185 and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the 0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on monitoring issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

4.3.3 Quality Issue Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on quality issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg. Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.0105 and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the 0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on quality issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

- 48 -

4.3.4 Technology Issue Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on technology issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg. Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.232and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the 0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on technology issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

- 49 -

Part-V
Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion
Problems identified and analyzed in this report are persistent in the shrimp industry without any doubt. But the severe level of illiteracy of most of the cluster members is the main reason for the significant difference in the hypothetical level of the problem and the actual stakeholders’ awareness level toward the problems. Besides, lack of monitoring, widespread corruption and the absence of an integrated policy for this industry are also the reason. The disintegrated supply chain of the industry is also to blame. The focus of this study was entirely on the perception of the most valuable stakeholders. It is a mix of both qualitative and quantitative approach which used two popular statistical tools for analyzing and comparing the population static. The result of this study is usable only in the insight of the problems in this industry. Use of this result to draw an inference about these cluster members degree of awareness would be completely wrong since the result was drawn from comparing with a hypothetical idea found in the secondary study.

5.2 Recommendation
Mass level of the stakeholders need institutional and industry education immediately. Activities like training programs, seminars, trade-fair etc are still in the initial level and done on small project base. Industry wise expansion of these kinds of activities should be taken into account immediately. Involvement of the GOB need to be increased to a high extent. Problem area including high mortality rate, virus screening facility and the unfair practices should be taken into account for the both operative and strategic level immediately. To identify the exact extent of these problems, further study should be conducted. Enforcement of food safety outside the government should be explored. Neither GOB nor industry has been able to ensure shrimp exports are food safe. ATDP’s shrimp seal of quality (SSOQ) program offers an alternative to government enforcement as - 50 -

this third party voluntary certification program has more credibility with international shrimp importers than government or exporters do. Following special measures should be taken immediately:

Introduction of quality certification system at all levels of the shrimp and fish based industry to ensure food safety, traceability, environmental sustainability and social responsibility is needed. All local manufacturers or importers of shrimp feeds must certify on the body of feed bag or package that the feed does not contain any EU and USFDA prohibited antibiotics or other chemicals. Feed manufacturers should be allowed to import duty free any essential ingredients not locally available. Affordable rate of interest, easy repayment schedule should be introduced for the entrepreneurs. Vocational training centers should be established at strategic aquaculture locations for hands-on training in aquaculture, post-harvest handling and processing. All aquaculture related research facilities and manpower should be inventoried to identify the strength and any short-fall for better future planning of research

- 51 -

Appendices

References
Haque, M.M. 1995. Bangladesh’s fisheries sector at a glance. In: Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin: Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mash. Dhaka, Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Haque, S.M. 1994. Annual report of Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Associations (BFFEA). Dhaka, BFFEA Special Bulletin, January 1994. Hossain, M.A. 1995. Lagsai projucti proege upakulya chingri chash unnayan. In: Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin: Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mash. Dhaka, Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Hussain, M.M. 1994. Status of development of the fishery and seafood processing industry in Bangladesh. In: Sustainable development of marine fisheries resources in Bangladesh. Mymenshingh, Fisheries Research Institute. Karim, M. 1986. Brackish water shrimp culture demonstration in Bangladesh. Madras, Bay of Bengal Programme for Fisheries Development, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Karim, M. 1995. Some aspects of shrimp culture development and management. A paper presented at Fish Fortnight 1995, August 29, Dhaka. Karim, M. and Aftabuzzaman 1995. Brackish and marine water aquaculture: potential, constraints and management needs for sustainable development. A paper presented at the National Workshop on Fisheries Resources, Development and Management,Dhaka, October 1995. Khan, M.G. 1994. Present status and future plan for sustainable marine resources development. In: Sustainable Development of Marine Fisheries Resources in Bangladesh. Mymensingh, Fisheries Research Institute. Mazid, M.A. 1994. Environmental issues and aquaculture development in Bangladesh. Country Paper, presented at the Final Workshop, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Mazid, M.A. 1995. Matshya o chingri chash unnayaner janna gabesanalavda lagshai projuctir utvaban, prayash ebang prosar”. In Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin, Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mas. Dhaka, Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Rahman, M. and Pal, S.C. 1995. Bagda chingri hatchery babasthapana. In: Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin: Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mas. Dhaka,Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Selim, N.M. 1994. Development of ‘bagda’ hatchery as a strategy for acceleration of shrimp aquaculture as an industry in Bangladesh. Dhaka, BFFEA (Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Associations Special Bulletin), January 1994. Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS). (2002). The coastal shrimp sector in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

- 52 -

Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS). (2001). The costs and benefits of bagda shrimp farming in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Banks, R. (2002). Brackish and marine water aquaculture. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Government Printing Office. Coastal Development Partnership (CDP). (2003). Adverse effects of shrimp aquaculture, potential solutions, measures to ensure participation of smallholders, and role of the government. Khulna, Bangladesh. Delap, E. & Lugg, R. (1998). Not small fry: children’s work in Bangladesh’s shrimp industry. Save the Children Fund (UK), London. Department of Fisheries. (2003). Balancing resource conservation with livelihood protection for shrimp fry collectors: an integrated approach to managing coastal resources. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Karim, Mahmudul. (2003). A gross oversimplification: Stop blaming shrimp. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Shrimp Seal of Quality Organization. Williams, D. & Khan, N. A. (2003). Freshwater prawn farming in gher systems: indigenous technology developed in south-west Bangladesh. GOLDA Project, CARE Bangladesh. Tutu, Asharaf-ul-Alam. (2001, April). Industrial shrimp cultivation and related issues in respect to south-west coastal region of Bangladesh. Khulna, Bangladesh: Coastal Development Partnership (CDP). Water Resources Planning Organization (WARPO). (2003). Integrated coastal zone management plan project: a systems analysis of shrimp production. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005(USAID-funded project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan. EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman. Quazi Kudrat-e-Kabir, SSOQ’s regional director in Khulna, Bangladesh. Md.Al-Masud, SSOQ’s extension expert in Khulna, Bangladesh. Dr.Anisul Haque, Associate Professor of FMRT discipline, Khulna University.

- 53 -

Bibliography
William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition). Naresh K. Malhotra, Marketing Research: An applied orientation (2004). C R Kothari, Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques (2nd edition). S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006). M.C. Shukla & S.S. Gulshan, Statistics Theory and Practice Raymond V. Lesikar & Marie E. Flatley,Basic Business Communication. 10th edition.McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Electronic Source:
http://www.bcas.net http://www.bcas.net http//:www.epb.gov.bd http//:www.bffea.org http//:www.cpd-bangladesh.org http://www.uow.edu.au/research http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2003/10/27/economic.htm retrieved on 4/10/2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3034993.stm retrieved on 4/10/2006 http://www.bssnews.net/index.php?genID=BSS-09-2004-05-26&id=7 retrieved on 4/10/2006 http://www.usaid.gov/bd/files/atdp_2_shrimp_evaluation.doc retrieved on 26/9/2006 http://www.bcas.net/Publication/Documentation/PORESSFAfinal.pdf retrieved on 26/9/2006 http://www.bcas.net/Publication/Documentation/Women&ChildrenStudyReport.pdf retrieved on 26/9/2006 http://www.usaid.gov/bd/files/atdp_2_shrimp_report.doc 26/9/2006 http://www.nri.org/projects/fishtrade/bangladesh.pdf retrieved on 26/9/2006 retrieved on

- 54 -

Annex 1:
Survey Questionnaire

Stakeholders Awareness Toward The Embedded Problems of The shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West Region Of Bangladesh. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Respondent,
This questionnaire is designed to complete an exclusive research work. Your cooperation would be highly appreciated. Information you provide here would be kept confidential and used for academic purpose only. Thank you for your cooperation.

Designation/Occupation: Company/Address: How long have you been involved in shrimp industry?

______ Years.

How to use these scales: If you highly agree tick 10. If you highly disagree tick 1. If you feel something else then tick one of the numbers in the middle accordingly.

01.

PL (Post Larvae) supplied by the hatcheries is of low quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

02.

There are very poor control activities in the shrimp industry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

03.

Shrimp culture is hampered by high mortality rate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

04.

Facilities for WSSV(white spot syndrome virus) screening is almost nonexistent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

05.

Infrastructure and culture technology are poor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

06.

There are lack of quality and safe feed supply. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

07.

Wild brood-stock population is declining due to over fishing and lack of concentration. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

08.

There is no suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial capacities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

i

Stakeholders Awareness Toward The Embedded Problems of The shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West Region Of Bangladesh. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------09. Access to the industry related information is poor. 1 10. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

There is inefficient management practice in this industry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11.

There is inadequate backward linkage for the poor; i.e.
Appropriate farming technology. Institutional and supervised credit at reasonable terms. Adequate and good quality PL, fertilizer and feed in time. Good infrastructure: rural road, electricity, etc. Security of crop under cultivation and law and order.

1 12.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

There is generally weak forward linkage; i.e.
Inadequate post-harvest handling, transportation and preservation. Poor market linkage of the producers. Inadequate research on export market. Producers do not get fair price.

1 13.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

There are lack of standard and lack of traceability in the whole supply chain. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

14.

There is lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15.

Research and development (R&D) endeavor is almost nonexistent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16.

Unfair practices by the shrimp agents are hampering export market. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

ii

Calculation of chi-square χ2

Annex 2:

Q.01 Aware Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi A (10) 4 6 B (15) 7 9 C (10) 7 6 D (30) 22 18 E (15) 8 9 F (10) 7 6 G (10) 8 6 Total 100 63 60 Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 11 12 1 .083 A+C(20) 9 4 .444 7 B(15) 22 18 16 .889 D(30) 8 9 1 .111 E(15) 15 12 9 .750 F+G(20) Total 100 63 60 2.277 Category Oi 6 8 3 8 7 3 2 37 9 8 8 7 5 37 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 8 6 12 6 8 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

1 4 6 1 9

.125 .667 1.333 .167 1.125 3.417

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
=5.694

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1) = (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q.02 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 7 6 6 20 8 6 8 61 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 3 9 4 10 7 4 2 39 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 13 12 1 .083 A+C(20) 6 9 9 1 B(15) 20 18 4 .222 D(30) 8 9 1 .111 E(15) 14 12 4 .333 F+G(20) Total 100 61 60 1.749

7 9 10 7 6 39

8 6 12 6 8 40

1 9 4 1 4

.125 1.5 .333 .167 .5 2.625

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 4.374

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1) = (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 =9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

iii

Q.03 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 5 8 8 27 11 7 7 73 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 5 7 2 3 4 3 3 27 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 13 12 1 .083 A+C(20) 8 9 1 .111 B(15) 27 18 81 4.5 D(30) 11 9 4 .444 E(15) 14 12 4 .333 F+G(20) Total 100 73 60 5.471

7 7 3 4 6 27

8 6 12 6 8 40

1 1 81 4 4

.125 .167 6.75 .667 .5 8.209

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
=13.68

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 04 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total Oi 9 10 8 28 8 7 8 78 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 1 5 2 2 7 3 2 21 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 17 12 25 2.083 A+C(20) 10 9 1 .111 B(15) 28 18 100 5.556 D(30) 8 9 1 .111 E(15) 15 12 9 .750 F+G(20) Total 100 78 60 8.611

3 5 2 7 5 22

8 6 12 6 8 40

25 1 100 1 9

3.125 .167 8.333 .167 1.125 12.917

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 21.528

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

iv

Q. 05 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 6 10 6 18 9 8 9 66 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 4 5 4 12 6 2 1 34 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 12 12 0 0 A+C(20) 10 9 1 0.111 B(15) 18 18 0 0 D(30) 9 9 0 0 E(15) 17 12 25 2.083 F+G(20) Total 100 66 60 2.194

8 5 12 6 3 34

8 6 12 6 8 40

0 1 0 0 25

0 .166 0 0 3.125 3.291

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 5.485

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 06 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 7 10 7 14 9 8 8 63 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 3 5 3 16 6 2 2 37 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 14 12 4 .333 A+C(20) 10 9 1 .111 B(15) 14 18 16 .888 D(30) 9 9 0 0 E(15) 16 12 16 1.333 F+G(20) Total 100 63 60 2.665

6 5 16 6 4 37

8 6 12 6 8 40

4 1 16 0 16

.5 .166 1.333 0 2 3.999

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
=6.664

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

v

Q. 07 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 7 11 6 18 10 8 9 69 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 3 4 4 12 5 2 1 31 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 13 12 1 .083 A+C(20) 11 9 4 .444 B(15) 18 0 0 18 D(30) 10 9 1 .111 E(15) 17 12 25 2.083 F+G(20) Total 100 69 60 2.721

7 4 12 5 3 31

8 6 12 6 8 40

1 4 0 1 25

.125 .666 0 .166 3.125 4.082

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 6.803

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.44 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 08 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 6 10 6 22 8 8 8 68 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Ei Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 4 5 4 8 7 2 2 32 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with 12 12 0 A+C(20) 10 9 1 B(15) 22 18 16 D(30) 8 9 1 E(15) 16 12 16 F+G(20) Total 100 68 60

R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 0 .111 .888 .111 1.333 2.443

8 5 8 7 4 32

8 6 12 6 8 40

0 1 16 1 16

0 .166 1.333 .166 2 3.665

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
=6.108

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

vi

Q. 09 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 5 8 6 18 9 6 8 60 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 5 7 4 12 6 4 2 40 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 11 12 1 .083 A+C(20) 8 9 1 .111 B(15) 18 18 0 0 D(30) 9 9 0 0 E(15) 14 12 4 .333 F+G(20) Total 100 60 60 0.527

9 7 12 6 6 40

8 6 12 6 8 40

1 1 0 0 4

.125 .166 0 0 .5 0.791

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
=1.318

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 10 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 7 8 6 19 9 7 8 64 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 3 7 4 11 6 3 2 36 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 13 12 1 .083 A+C(20) 8 9 1 .111 B(15) 19 18 1 .055 D(30) 9 9 0 0 E(15) 15 12 9 .75 F+G(20) Total 100 64 60 0.999

7 7 11 6 5 36

8 6 12 6 8 40

1 1 1 0 9

.125 .166 .083 0 1.125 1.499

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 2.498

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

vii

Q. 11 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 7 9 8 22 10 6 9 71 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 3 6 2 8 5 4 1 29 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 15 12 9 .75 A+C(20) 9 9 0 0 B(15) 22 18 16 .888 D(30) 10 9 1 .111 E(15) 15 12 9 .75 F+G(20) Total 100 71 60 2.499

5 6 8 5 5 29

8 6 12 6 8 40

9 0 16 1 9

1.125 0 1.333 .166 1.125 3.749

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 6.248

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 12 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 7 9 7 17 11 8 7 66 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 3 6 3 13 4 2 3 34 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 14 12 4 .333 A+C(20) 9 9 0 0 B(15) 17 18 1 .055 D(30) 11 9 4 .444 E(15) 15 12 9 .75 F+G(20) Total 100 66 60 1.582

6 6 13 4 5 34

8 6 12 6 8 40

4 0 1 4 9

.5 0 .083 .666 1.125 2.374

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 3.956

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

viii

Q. 13 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 6 9 6 18 9 6 8 62 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 4 6 4 12 6 4 2 38 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 12 12 0 0 A+C(20) 9 9 0 0 B(15) 18 18 0 0 D(30) 9 9 0 0 E(15) 14 12 4 .333 F+G(20) Total 100 62 60 0.333

8 6 12 6 6 38

8 6 12 6 8 40

0 0 0 0 4

0 0 0 0 .5 0.5

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 0.833

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 14 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 7 10 7 20 10 7 9 70 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 3 5 3 10 5 3 1 30 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 14 12 4 .333 A+C(20) 10 9 1 .111 B(15) 20 18 4 .222 D(30) 10 9 1 .111 E(15) 16 12 16 1.333 F+G(20) Total 100 70 60 2.11

6 5 10 5 4 30

8 6 12 6 8 40

4 1 4 1 16

.5 .166 .333 .166 2 3.165

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 5.275

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

ix

Q. 15 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 5 9 6 19 9 6 6 60 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 5 6 4 11 6 4 4 40 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 11 12 1 .083 A+C(20) 9 9 0 0 B(15) 19 18 1 .055 D(30) 9 9 0 0 E(15) 12 12 0 0 F+G(20) Total 100 60 60 0.138

9 6 11 6 8 40

8 6 12 6 8 40

1 0 1 0 0

.125 0 .083 0 0 0.208

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 0.346

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 16 Category A (10) B (15) C (10) D (30) E (15) F (10) G (10) Total 100 Oi 8 11 8 26 7 8 8 76 Ei 6 9 6 18 9 6 6 60 Aware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi 2 4 2 4 8 2 2 24 Ei 4 6 4 12 6 4 4 40 Unaware (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 16 12 16 1.333 A+C(20) 11 9 4 .444 B(15) 26 18 64 3.555 D(30) 7 9 4 .444 E(15) 16 12 16 1.333 F+G(20) Total 100 76 60 7.109

4 4 4 8 4 24

8 6 12 6 8 40

16 4 64 4 16

2 .666 5.333 .666 2 10.665

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)]
= 17.774

Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 Level of significance= 0.05. Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

x

Annex 3:
Calculation of ANOVA

ANOVA: FACILITIES

Question:08
Category xi1 A B C D E F G Total Mean Grand Mean ( xi1-x )2 ( xi1- x1 )2 xi2

Question:09
( xi2-x )2 (xi2-x2 )2 xi3

Question:11
( xi3-x )2 (xi3-x3 )2 xi4

Question:12
( xi4-x )2 (xi4-x4 )2

6 10 6 22 8 8 8
68
x1=
9.714

11.992 0.288 11.992 157.176 2.140 2.140 2.140

13.793 0.081 13.793 150.945 2.937 2.937 2.937

5 8 6 18 9 6 8
60
x2=
8.571

19.918 2.140 11.992 72.880 0.214 11.992 2.140

12.752 0.326 6.610 88.906 0.184 6.610 0.326

7 9 8 22 10 6 9
71
x3=
10.142

6.066 0.14 2.140 157.176 0.288 11.992 0.14

9.872 1.304 4.588 140.612 0.020 17.156 1.304

7 9 7 17 11 8 7
66
x4=
9.428

6.066 0.14 6.066 56.806 2.362 2.140 6.066

5.895 0.183 5.895 57.335 2.471 2.039 5.895

9.463

∑( x
i =1

n=7

i1

− x)

2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i1

− x)

2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i2

− x)

2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i2

− x) 2

∑ ( xi 3 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i3

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i4

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i4

− x) 2

=187.868

=187.423

=121.276

=115.714

=178.09

=174.856

=79.72

=79.713

xi

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween

SS total = ∑
i =1

n =7

∑(x
j =1

c =4

ij

− x) 2

SS between c −1 =9.246517/(4-1) =3.082172333 MS between =

187.868+121.276+178.09+79.72

=566.954
SS within = ∑∑ ( xij − x j ) 2
i =1 j =1 n =7 c = 4

187.423+115.714+174.856+79.713 =557.706

SS within cn − c =557.706/(28-4) =23.23775 MS within =

SS between = ∑ n j ( x − x) 2
j =1

c=4

7(9.714-90463)2+7(8.571-9.463)2+7(10.142-9.463)2+7(9.428-9.463)2 =0.441007+5.569648+3.227287+0.008575 =9.246517

MS between MS within =3.082172333/23.23775 =0.132636435 F=

where

xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group;

c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group;

x=

grand mean;

x j = group mean for the jth group.

xii

ANOVA: MONITORING

Question:07
Category xi1 A B C D E F G Total
Mean

Question:13
( xi2-x )2 (xi2-x2 )2 xi3

Question:14
( xi3-x )2 (xi3-x3 )2 xi4

Question:16
( xi4-x )2 (xi4-x4 )2

( xi1-x )2 ( xi1- x1 )2 xi2

7 11 6 18 10 8 9

8.363 1.227 15.147 65.739 0.011 3.579 0.795

8.162 1.306 14.876 66.308 0.020 3.448 0.734

6 9 6 18 9 6 8

15.147 0.795 15.147 65.739 0.795 15.147 3.579

8.162 0.020 8.162 83.594 0.020 8.162 0.734

7 10 7 20 10 7 9

8.363 0.011 8.363 102.171 0.011 8.363 0.795

9 0 9 100 0 9 1

8 11 8 26 7 8 8

3.579 1.227 3.579 259.467 8.363 3.579 3.579

8.162 0.020 8.162 229.310 14.876 8.162 8.162

69
x1= 9.857

62
x 2= 8.857

70
x 3= 10

76
x 4= 10.857

Grand Mean

9.892

∑(xi1 − x) 2
i =1

n=7

∑ ( xi1 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ ( xi 2 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i2

− x) 2

∑ ( xi 3 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i3

− x) 2

∑ ( xi 4 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i4

− x) 2

=94.861

=94.854

=116.349

=108.854

=128.077

=128

=283.373

=276.854

xiii

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween
n =7 i =1 c =4

SS total = ∑
=622.66
n =7 c = 4

∑(x
j =1

MS between =
ij

− x) 2

SS between c −1

=14.107373/(4-1) =4.702457667

=94.861+116.349+128.077+283.373

SS within = ∑∑ ( xij − x j ) 2
i =1 j =1

=94.854+108.854+128+276.854 =608.562

MS within =

SS within cn − c

=608.562/(28-4) =25.35675

SS between = ∑ n j ( x − x) 2
j =1

c=4

F=

MS between MS within

=7(9.857-9.892)2+7(8.857-9.892)2+7(10-9.892)2+7(10.857-9.892)2 =0.008575+7.498575+0.081648+6.518575 =14.107373 where xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group; c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group;

=4.702457667/25.35675 =0.185451907

x = grand mean; xj =
group mean for the jth group.

xiv

ANOVA: QUALITY

Question:01
Category xi1 A B C D E F G
Total Mean

Question:02
( xi2-x )2 (xi2-x2 )2 xi3

Question:06
( xi3-x )2 (xi3-x3 )2 xi4

Question:10
( xi4-x )2 (xi4-x4 )2

( xi1-x )2 ( xi1- x1 )2 xi2

4 7 7 22 8 7 8
63 x1= 9

24.641 3.857 3.857 169.937 0.926 3.857 0.929

25 4 4 169 1 4 1

7 6 6 20 8 6 8
61 x 2= 8.714

3.857 8.785 8.785 121.793 0.929 8.785 0.929

2.937 7.365 7.365 127.373 0.509 7.365 0.509

7 10 7 14 9 8 8
63 x 3= 9

3.857 1.073 3.857 25.361 0.001 0.929 0.929

4 1 4 25 0 1 1

7 8 6 19 9 7 8
64 x 4= 9.143

3.857 0.929 8.785 100.721 0.001 3.857 0.929

4.592 1.306 9.878 97.160 0.020 4.592 1.306

Grand Mean

8.964

∑( x
i =1

n=7

i1

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i1

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i2

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i2

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i3

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i3

− x) 2

∑ ( xi 4 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i4

− x) 2

=208.007

=208

=153.863

=153.423

=36.007

=36

=119.079

=118.854

xv

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween

SS total = ∑
i =1

n =7

∑(x
j =1

c =4

MS between =
ij

− x) 2

SS between c −1

=208.007+153.863+36.007+119.079 =516.956
SS within = ∑∑ ( xij − x j ) 2
i =1 j =1 n =7 c = 4

=0.679931/(4-1) =0.226643666

=208+153.423+36+118.854 =516.277

SS within cn − c =516.277/(28-4) =21.51154167 MS within =

SS between = ∑ n j ( x − x) 2
j =1

c=4

F=

MS between MS within

=7(9-8.964)2+7(8.714-8.964)2+7(9-8.964)2+7(9.143-8.964)2 =0.009072+0.4375+0.009072+0.224287 =0.679931
where
xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group; c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group;

=0.226643666/21.51154167 =0.010535909
x= x j = group mean for the jth group.
grand mean;

xvi

ANOVA: TECHNOLOGY

Question:03
Category xi1 A B C D E F G Total
Mean

Question:04
( xi2-x )2 (xi2-x2 )2 xi3

Question:05
( xi3-x )2 (xi3-x3 )2 xi4

Question:15
( xi4-x )2 (xi4-x4 )2

( xi1-x )2 ( xi1- x1 )2 xi2

5 8 8 27 11 7 7

23.931 3.579 3.579 292.683 1.227 8.363 8.363

29.463 5.895 5.895 274.631 0.327 11.751 11.751

9 10 8 28 8 7 8

0.795 0.011 3.579 327.899 3.579 8.363 3.579

4.588 1.304 9.872 284.192 9.872 17.156 9.872

6 10 6 18 9 8 9

15.147 0.011 15.147 65.739 0.795 3.579 0.795

11.751 0.327 11.751 73.479 0.183 2.039 0.183

5 9 6 19 9 6 6

23.931 0.795 15.147 82.955 0.795 15.147 15.147

12.752 0.184 6.610 108.764 0.184 6.610 6.610

73
x1= 10.428

78
x2= 11.142

66
x3= 9.428

60
x4= 8.571

Grand Mean

3.892

∑(xi1 − x) 2
i =1

n=7

∑ ( xi1 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ ( xi 2 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i2

− x) 2

∑ ( xi 3 − x) 2
i =1

n =7

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i3

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i4

− x) 2

∑ (x
i =1

n =7

i4

− x) 2

=341.725

=339.713

=347.805

=336.856

=101.213

=99.713

=153.917

=141.714

xvii

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween
n =7 i =1 c =4

SS total = ∑
=944.66
n =7 c = 4

∑(x
j =1

MS between =
ij

− x) 2

SS between c −1

=26.670931/(4-1) =8.890310333

=341.725+347.805+101.213+153.917

SS within = ∑∑ ( xij − x j ) 2
i =1 j =1

=339.713+336.856+99.713+141.714 =917.996

MS within =

=917.966/(28-4) =38.24858333

SS within cn − c

SS between = ∑ n j ( x − x) 2
j =1

c=4

F=

=7(10.428-9.892)2+7(11.142-9.892)2+7(9.428-9.892)2+7(8.571-9.892)2 =2.011072+10.9375+1.507072+12.215287 =26.670931

MS between MS within

=8.890310333/38.24858333 =0.232435022

where

xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group;

c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group;

x = grand mean; xj =
group mean for the jth group.

xviii

Annex 4:
Frequency Table of the Respondents

ANNEX: 3
Tabulated Frequency of the Respondents:
10 Question No. 15 B PL Agents 10 C Transporta tion & Feeding 30 15 10 F Processors 10 G Scholar & Researcher
1-4 5-10 1-4

100

A Hatchery

E Shrimp Agent

D Farmer

5-10

1-4

5-10

1-4

5-10

1-4

5-10

1-4

5-10

1-4

5-10

5-10

Total
1-4

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

4 7 5 9 6 7 7 6 5 7 7 7 6 7 5 8

6 3 5 1 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 5 2

7 6 8 10 10 10 11 10 8 8 9 9 9 10 9 11

8 9 7 5 5 5 4 5 7 7 6 6 6 5 6 4

7 6 8 8 6 7 6 6 6 6 8 7 6 7 6 8

3 4 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 2

22 20 27 28 18 14 18 22 18 19 22 17 18 20 19 26

8 10 3 2 12 16 12 8 12 11 8 13 12 10 11 4

8 8 11 8 9 9 10 8 9 9 10 11 9 10 9 7

7 7 4 7 6 6 5 7 6 6 5 4 6 5 6 8

7 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 6 7 6 8 6 7 6 8

8 8 7 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 9 7 8 9 6 8

63 61 73 78 66 63 69 68 60 64 71 66 62 70 60 76

37 39 27 22 34 37 31 32 40 36 29 34 38 30 40 24

xix

Annex 5:
χ2 Table

Critical Values of the χ2 Distribution

df 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

0.99 0.000 0.020 0.115 0.297 0.554 0.872 1.239 1.646 2.088 2.558 3.053 3.571 4.107 4.660 5.229 5.812 6.408 7.015 7.633 8.260 8.897 9.542 10.196 10.856 11.524

0.95 0.004 0.103 0.352 0.711 1.145 1.635 2.167 2.733 3.325 3.940 4.575 5.226 5.892 6.571 7.261 7.962 8.672 9.390 10.117 10.851 11.591 12.338 13.091 13.848 14.611

Area in the Upper Tail 0.9 0.1 0.016 2.706 0.211 4.605 0.584 6.251 1.064 7.779 1.610 9.236 2.204 10.645 2.833 12.017 3.490 13.362 4.168 14.684 4.865 15.987 5.578 17.275 6.304 18.549 7.042 19.812 7.790 21.064 8.547 22.307 9.312 23.542 10.085 24.769 10.865 25.989 11.651 27.204 12.443 28.412 13.240 29.615 14.041 30.813 14.848 32.007 15.659 33.196 16.473 34.382

0.05 3.841 5.991 7.815 9.488 11.070 12.592 14.067 15.507 16.919 18.307 19.675 21.026 22.362 23.685 24.996 26.296 27.587 28.869 30.144 31.410 32.671 33.924 35.172 36.415 37.652

0.01 6.635 9.210 11.345 13.277 15.086 16.812 18.475 20.090 21.666 23.209 24.725 26.217 27.688 29.141 30.578 32.000 33.409 34.805 36.191 37.566 38.932 40.289 41.638 42.980 44.314

Annex 6:
F Table

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 1) [top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level] df numerator 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15
161 4052 18.51 99 10.13 34.12 7.71 21.20 6.61 16.26 5.99 13.75 5.59 12.25 5.32 11.26 5.12 10.56 4.96 10.04 4.84 9.65 4.75 9.33 4.67 9.07 4.60 8.86 4.54 8.68 199 4999 19.00 99 9.55 30.82 6.94 18.00 5.79 13.27 5.14 10.92 4.74 9.55 4.46 8.65 4.26 8.02 4.10 7.56 3.98 7.21 3.89 6.93 3.81 6.70 3.74 6.51 3.68 6.36

3
216 5404 19.16 99 9.28 29.46 6.59 16.69 5.41 12.06 4.76 9.78 4.35 8.45 4.07 7.59 3.86 6.99 3.71 6.55 3.59 6.22 3.49 5.95 3.41 5.74 3.34 5.56 3.29 5.42

4
225 5624 19.25 99 9.12 28.71 6.39 15.98 5.19 11.39 4.53 9.15 4.12 7.85 3.84 7.01 3.63 6.42 3.48 5.99 3.36 5.67 3.26 5.41 3.18 5.21 3.11 5.04 3.06 4.89

5
230 5764 19.30 99 9.01 28.24 6.26 15.52 5.05 10.97 4.39 8.75 3.97 7.46 3.69 6.63 3.48 6.06 3.33 5.64 3.20 5.32 3.11 5.06 3.03 4.86 2.96 4.69 2.90 4.56

6
234 5859 19.33 99 8.94 27.91 6.16 15.21 4.95 10.67 4.28 8.47 3.87 7.19 3.58 6.37 3.37 5.80 3.22 5.39 3.09 5.07 3.00 4.82 2.92 4.62 2.85 4.46 2.79 4.32

7
237 5928 19.35 99 8.89 27.67 6.09 14.98 4.88 10.46 4.21 8.26 3.79 6.99 3.50 6.18 3.29 5.61 3.14 5.20 3.01 4.89 2.91 4.64 2.83 4.44 2.76 4.28 2.71 4.14

8
239 5981 19.37 99 8.85 27.49 6.04 14.80 4.82 10.29 4.15 8.10 3.73 6.84 3.44 6.03 3.23 5.47 3.07 5.06 2.95 4.74 2.85 4.50 2.77 4.30 2.70 4.14 2.64 4.00

9
241 6022 19.38 99 8.81 27.34 6.00 14.66 4.77 10.16 4.10 7.98 3.68 6.72 3.39 5.91 3.18 5.35 3.02 4.94 2.90 4.63 2.80 4.39 2.71 4.19 2.65 4.03 2.59 3.89

10
242 6056 19.40 99 8.79 27.23 5.96 14.55 4.74 10.05 4.06 7.87 3.64 6.62 3.35 5.81 3.14 5.26 2.98 4.85 2.85 4.54 2.75 4.30 2.67 4.10 2.60 3.94 2.54 3.80

11
243 6083 19.40 99 8.76 27.13 5.94 14.45 4.70 9.96 4.03 7.79 3.60 6.54 3.31 5.73 3.10 5.18 2.94 4.77 2.82 4.46 2.72 4.22 2.63 4.02 2.57 3.86 2.51 3.73

12
244 6107 19.41 99 8.74 27.05 5.91 14.37 4.68 9.89 4.00 7.72 3.57 6.47 3.28 5.67 3.07 5.11 2.91 4.71 2.79 4.40 2.69 4.16 2.60 3.96 2.53 3.80 2.48 3.67

13
245 6126 19.42 99 8.73 26.98 5.89 14.31 4.66 9.82 3.98 7.66 3.55 6.41 3.26 5.61 3.05 5.05 2.89 4.65 2.76 4.34 2.66 4.10 2.58 3.91 2.51 3.75 2.45 3.61

14
245 6143 19.42 99 8.71 26.92 5.87 14.25 4.64 9.77 3.96 7.60 3.53 6.36 3.24 5.56 3.03 5.01 2.86 4.60 2.74 4.29 2.64 4.05 2.55 3.86 2.48 3.70 2.42 3.56

0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 2) [top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level] df numerator 1 2 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30
4.49 8.53 4.45 8.40 4.41 8.29 4.38 8.18 4.35 8.10 4.32 8.02 4.30 7.95 4.28 7.88 4.26 7.82 4.24 7.77 4.23 7.72 4.21 7.68 4.20 7.64 4.18 7.60 4.17 7.56 3.63 6.23 3.59 6.11 3.55 6.01 3.52 5.93 3.49 5.85 3.47 5.78 3.44 5.72 3.42 5.66 3.40 5.61 3.39 5.57 3.37 5.53 3.35 5.49 3.34 5.45 3.33 5.42 3.32 5.39

3
3.24 5.29 3.20 5.19 3.16 5.09 3.13 5.01 3.10 4.94 3.07 4.87 3.05 4.82 3.03 4.76 3.01 4.72 2.99 4.68 2.98 4.64 2.96 4.60 2.95 4.57 2.93 4.54 2.92 4.51

4
3.01 4.77 2.96 4.67 2.93 4.58 2.90 4.50 2.87 4.43 2.84 4.37 2.82 4.31 2.80 4.26 2.78 4.22 2.76 4.18 2.74 4.14 2.73 4.11 2.71 4.07 2.70 4.04 2.69 4.02

5
2.85 4.44 2.81 4.34 2.77 4.25 2.74 4.17 2.71 4.10 2.68 4.04 2.66 3.99 2.64 3.94 2.62 3.90 2.60 3.85 2.59 3.82 2.57 3.78 2.56 3.75 2.55 3.73 2.53 3.70

6
2.74 4.20 2.70 4.10 2.66 4.01 2.63 3.94 2.60 3.87 2.57 3.81 2.55 3.76 2.53 3.71 2.51 3.67 2.49 3.63 2.47 3.59 2.46 3.56 2.45 3.53 2.43 3.50 2.42 3.47

7
2.66 4.03 2.61 3.93 2.58 3.84 2.54 3.77 2.51 3.70 2.49 3.64 2.46 3.59 2.44 3.54 2.42 3.50 2.40 3.46 2.39 3.42 2.37 3.39 2.36 3.36 2.35 3.33 2.33 3.30

8
2.59 3.89 2.55 3.79 2.51 3.71 2.48 3.63 2.45 3.56 2.42 3.51 2.40 3.45 2.37 3.41 2.36 3.36 2.34 3.32 2.32 3.29 2.31 3.26 2.29 3.23 2.28 3.20 2.27 3.17

9
2.54 3.78 2.49 3.68 2.46 3.60 2.42 3.52 2.39 3.46 2.37 3.40 2.34 3.35 2.32 3.30 2.30 3.26 2.28 3.22 2.27 3.18 2.25 3.15 2.24 3.12 2.22 3.09 2.21 3.07

10
2.49 3.69 2.45 3.59 2.41 3.51 2.38 3.43 2.35 3.37 2.32 3.31 2.30 3.26 2.27 3.21 2.25 3.17 2.24 3.13 2.22 3.09 2.20 3.06 2.19 3.03 2.18 3.00 2.16 2.98

11
2.46 3.62 2.41 3.52 2.37 3.43 2.34 3.36 2.31 3.29 2.28 3.24 2.26 3.18 2.24 3.14 2.22 3.09 2.20 3.06 2.18 3.02 2.17 2.99 2.15 2.96 2.14 2.93 2.13 2.91

12
2.42 3.55 2.38 3.46 2.34 3.37 2.31 3.30 2.28 3.23 2.25 3.17 2.23 3.12 2.20 3.07 2.18 3.03 2.16 2.99 2.15 2.96 2.13 2.93 2.12 2.90 2.10 2.87 2.09 2.84

13
2.40 3.50 2.35 3.40 2.31 3.32 2.28 3.24 2.25 3.18 2.22 3.12 2.20 3.07 2.18 3.02 2.15 2.98 2.14 2.94 2.12 2.90 2.10 2.87 2.09 2.84 2.08 2.81 2.06 2.79

14
2.37 3.45 2.33 3.35 2.29 3.27 2.26 3.19 2.22 3.13 2.20 3.07 2.17 3.02 2.15 2.97 2.13 2.93 2.11 2.89 2.09 2.86 2.08 2.82 2.06 2.79 2.05 2.77 2.04 2.74

0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 3) [top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level] df numerator 1 2 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45
4.16 7.53 4.15 7.50 4.14 7.47 4.13 7.44 4.12 7.42 4.11 7.40 4.11 7.37 4.10 7.35 4.09 7.33 4.08 7.31 4.08 7.30 4.07 7.28 4.07 7.26 4.06 7.25 4.06 7.23 3.30 5.36 3.29 5.34 3.28 5.31 3.28 5.29 3.27 5.27 3.26 5.25 3.25 5.23 3.24 5.21 3.24 5.19 3.23 5.18 3.23 5.16 3.22 5.15 3.21 5.14 3.21 5.12 3.20 5.11

3
2.91 4.48 2.90 4.46 2.89 4.44 2.88 4.42 2.87 4.40 2.87 4.38 2.86 4.36 2.85 4.34 2.85 4.33 2.84 4.31 2.83 4.30 2.83 4.29 2.82 4.27 2.82 4.26 2.81 4.25

4
2.68 3.99 2.67 3.97 2.66 3.95 2.65 3.93 2.64 3.91 2.63 3.89 2.63 3.87 2.62 3.86 2.61 3.84 2.61 3.83 2.60 3.81 2.59 3.80 2.59 3.79 2.58 3.78 2.58 3.77

5
2.52 3.67 2.51 3.65 2.50 3.63 2.49 3.61 2.49 3.59 2.48 3.57 2.47 3.56 2.46 3.54 2.46 3.53 2.45 3.51 2.44 3.50 2.44 3.49 2.43 3.48 2.43 3.47 2.42 3.45

6
2.41 3.45 2.40 3.43 2.39 3.41 2.38 3.39 2.37 3.37 2.36 3.35 2.36 3.33 2.35 3.32 2.34 3.30 2.34 3.29 2.33 3.28 2.32 3.27 2.32 3.25 2.31 3.24 2.31 3.23

7
2.32 3.28 2.31 3.26 2.30 3.24 2.29 3.22 2.29 3.20 2.28 3.18 2.27 3.17 2.26 3.15 2.26 3.14 2.25 3.12 2.24 3.11 2.24 3.10 2.23 3.09 2.23 3.08 2.22 3.07

8
2.25 3.15 2.24 3.13 2.23 3.11 2.23 3.09 2.22 3.07 2.21 3.05 2.20 3.04 2.19 3.02 2.19 3.01 2.18 2.99 2.17 2.98 2.17 2.97 2.16 2.96 2.16 2.95 2.15 2.94

9
2.20 3.04 2.19 3.02 2.18 3.00 2.17 2.98 2.16 2.96 2.15 2.95 2.14 2.93 2.14 2.92 2.13 2.90 2.12 2.89 2.12 2.87 2.11 2.86 2.11 2.85 2.10 2.84 2.10 2.83

10
2.15 2.96 2.14 2.93 2.13 2.91 2.12 2.89 2.11 2.88 2.11 2.86 2.10 2.84 2.09 2.83 2.08 2.81 2.08 2.80 2.07 2.79 2.06 2.78 2.06 2.76 2.05 2.75 2.05 2.74

11
2.11 2.88 2.10 2.86 2.09 2.84 2.08 2.82 2.07 2.80 2.07 2.79 2.06 2.77 2.05 2.75 2.04 2.74 2.04 2.73 2.03 2.71 2.03 2.70 2.02 2.69 2.01 2.68 2.01 2.67

12
2.08 2.82 2.07 2.80 2.06 2.78 2.05 2.76 2.04 2.74 2.03 2.72 2.02 2.71 2.02 2.69 2.01 2.68 2.00 2.66 2.00 2.65 1.99 2.64 1.99 2.63 1.98 2.62 1.97 2.61

13
2.05 2.77 2.04 2.74 2.03 2.72 2.02 2.70 2.01 2.69 2.00 2.67 2.00 2.65 1.99 2.64 1.98 2.62 1.97 2.61 1.97 2.60 1.96 2.59 1.96 2.57 1.95 2.56 1.94 2.55

14
2.03 2.72 2.01 2.70 2.00 2.68 1.99 2.66 1.99 2.64 1.98 2.62 1.97 2.61 1.96 2.59 1.95 2.58 1.95 2.56 1.94 2.55 1.94 2.54 1.93 2.53 1.92 2.52 1.92 2.51

0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 4) [top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level] df numerator 1 2 50 50 55 55 60 60 65 65 70 70 80 80 90 90
100 100 110 110 120 120 130 130 140 140 160 160 180 180 200 200

3
2.79 4.20 2.77 4.16 2.76 4.13 2.75 4.10 2.74 4.07 2.72 4.04 2.71 4.01 2.70 3.98 2.69 3.96 2.68 3.95 2.67 3.94 2.67 3.92 2.66 3.91 2.65 3.89 2.65 3.88

4
2.56 3.72 2.54 3.68 2.53 3.65 2.51 3.62 2.50 3.60 2.49 3.56 2.47 3.53 2.46 3.51 2.45 3.49 2.45 3.48 2.44 3.47 2.44 3.46 2.43 3.44 2.42 3.43 2.42 3.41

5
2.40 3.41 2.38 3.37 2.37 3.34 2.36 3.31 2.35 3.29 2.33 3.26 2.32 3.23 2.31 3.21 2.30 3.19 2.29 3.17 2.28 3.16 2.28 3.15 2.27 3.13 2.26 3.12 2.26 3.11

6
2.29 3.19 2.27 3.15 2.25 3.12 2.24 3.09 2.23 3.07 2.21 3.04 2.20 3.01 2.19 2.99 2.18 2.97 2.18 2.96 2.17 2.94 2.16 2.93 2.16 2.92 2.15 2.90 2.14 2.89

7
2.20 3.02 2.18 2.98 2.17 2.95 2.15 2.93 2.14 2.91 2.13 2.87 2.11 2.84 2.10 2.82 2.09 2.81 2.09 2.79 2.08 2.78 2.08 2.77 2.07 2.75 2.06 2.74 2.06 2.73

8
2.13 2.89 2.11 2.85 2.10 2.82 2.08 2.80 2.07 2.78 2.06 2.74 2.04 2.72 2.03 2.69 2.02 2.68 2.02 2.66 2.01 2.65 2.01 2.64 2.00 2.62 1.99 2.61 1.98 2.60

9
2.07 2.78 2.06 2.75 2.04 2.72 2.03 2.69 2.02 2.67 2.00 2.64 1.99 2.61 1.97 2.59 1.97 2.57 1.96 2.56 1.95 2.55 1.95 2.54 1.94 2.52 1.93 2.51 1.93 2.50

10
2.03 2.70 2.01 2.66 1.99 2.63 1.98 2.61 1.97 2.59 1.95 2.55 1.94 2.52 1.93 2.50 1.92 2.49 1.91 2.47 1.90 2.46 1.90 2.45 1.89 2.43 1.88 2.42 1.88 2.41

11
1.99 2.63 1.97 2.59 1.95 2.56 1.94 2.53 1.93 2.51 1.91 2.48 1.90 2.45 1.89 2.43 1.88 2.41 1.87 2.40 1.86 2.39 1.86 2.38 1.85 2.36 1.84 2.35 1.84 2.34

12
1.95 2.56 1.93 2.53 1.92 2.50 1.90 2.47 1.89 2.45 1.88 2.42 1.86 2.39 1.85 2.37 1.84 2.35 1.83 2.34 1.83 2.32 1.82 2.31 1.81 2.30 1.81 2.28 1.80 2.27

13
1.92 2.51 1.90 2.47 1.89 2.44 1.87 2.42 1.86 2.40 1.84 2.36 1.83 2.33 1.82 2.31 1.81 2.30 1.80 2.28 1.80 2.27 1.79 2.26 1.78 2.24 1.77 2.23 1.77 2.22

14
1.89 2.46 1.88 2.42 1.86 2.39 1.85 2.37 1.84 2.35 1.82 2.31 1.80 2.29 1.79 2.27 1.78 2.25 1.78 2.23 1.77 2.22 1.76 2.21 1.75 2.20 1.75 2.18 1.74 2.17

4.03 7.17 4.02 7.12 4.00 7.08 3.99 7.04 3.98 7.01 3.96 6.96 3.95 6.93 3.94 6.90 3.93 6.87 3.92 6.85 3.91 6.83 3.91 6.82 3.90 6.80 3.89 6.78 3.89 6.76

3.18 5.06 3.16 5.01 3.15 4.98 3.14 4.95 3.13 4.92 3.11 4.88 3.10 4.85 3.09 4.82 3.08 4.80 3.07 4.79 3.07 4.77 3.06 4.76 3.05 4.74 3.05 4.73 3.04 4.71

0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful