Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aquaculture

Farm-level economic cost of Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) to Indian

Penaeus vannamei shrimp farming
R. Geetha a, S. Avunje a, H.G. Solanki b, R. Priyadharshini a, S. Vinoth a, P.R. Anand a,
T. Ravisankar a, Prasanna Kumar Patil a, *
a
ICAR-Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai 600 028, Tamil Nadu, India
b
College of Fisheries, Navsari Agriculture University, Navsari 396445, Gujarat, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) is endemic in major shrimp farming countries affecting the economic sus­
Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) tainability, production and supply of shrimp in the global market. The study reports development of a stochastic
Farm-level economic cost model to estimate the economic loss due to EHP to Indian Penaeus vannamei shrimp farms and identify the
Stochastic modelling
associated key risk factors at the farm-level. Information on the cost of production and revenue were collected
Excel@risk
through a survey of shrimp farms (n = 281) from September to November 2020. The quantitative risk analysis for
Monte Carlo simulation
Penaeus vannamei specific effects of the disease was estimated by Monte Carlo simulation using excel@Risk. The occurrence of the
EHP was found to be positively correlated with the stocking density. The observed harvest of lower size shrimp
and higher FCR could be attributed to EHP. Biological loss due to EHP was 75.21% and was highly significant.
The cost of prevention of EHP was 15.22% and the treatment cost was 4.30%, along with an extraordinary cost of
5.26% with an average loss of ₹ 61,778 (US$ 813) ton− 1 at farm-level. Regression sensitivity analysis revealed
farm gate price was the strongest stochastic variable and one unit increase in farm gate price of shrimp positively
influenced the net return by 0.76 units. The significant factors negatively influencing the net returns were
expenditure on feed (0.51), seed (0.19) and labour (0.18). The net return estimated using Monte Carlo simulation
in EHP affected farms was ₹ 14,390 (US$ 189.37) and the distribution revealed that nearly half of the farmers
could lose their investment due to EHP. The study quantified the economic impact of EHP at the farm-level and
identified the regional variation in the risk factors impacting the cost-benefit analysis of Indian shrimp farming.

1. Introduction Infection due to microsporidian parasite, EHP was reported in most

Shrimp aquaculture contributes to economic growth and provides
significant employment opportunities in developing countries in Asia.
Diseases largely determine the economic sustainability, production and
supply of shrimp in the global market (see Asche et al., 2020). Following
the introduction of P. vannamei in 2009, the practice of screening im­
ported broodstock and post larvae for diseases before stocking has led to
a substantial improvement in shrimp health and production in India.
However, this economic gain was short-lived due to the emergence of
new infectious diseases and deteriorating farm-environmental condi­
tions following intensification. In recent years, Enterocytozoon hep­
atopenaei (EHP) has emerged as a significant challenge to the global
shrimp industry, similar to the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) in the
1990s (Walker and Mohan, 2009) and Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS)
in the 2010s (Flegel, 2019).
of the major shrimp farming countries like China, Thailand, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Vietnam and Venezuela (Aranguren et al., 2017; Shinn et al.,
2018; Tang et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2017; Tangprasittipap et al., 2013).
The disease was first reported in India during 2016 (Rajendran et al.,
2016; Biju et al., 2016) and the disease is now considered as endemic in
the countries. Being an intracellular microsporidian parasite, EHP
multiplies in the cytoplasm of hepatopancreatic cells. Impaired nutrient
absorption and the altered gut epithelium can lead to growth retarda­
tion, size variation, and loss of production in addition to enhanced
susceptibility to secondary bacterial and viral infections (Biju et al.,
2016; Rajendran et al., 2016). Biology, pathology, life cycle, trans­
mission, diagnostic and control measures have been reviewed recently
(Chaijarasphong et al., 2020).
Economic consequences of diseases in shrimp farming can be
considered at the farm and national level. Studies at farm-level losses

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pk.patil@icar.gov.in (P.K. Patil).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737685
Received 24 September 2021; Received in revised form 30 October 2021; Accepted 2 November 2021
Available online 5 November 2021
0044-8486/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Geetha et al. Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685

give insight into the risk factors addressed at local levels, while the
national level losses provide information on the trends in the country’s
production and its impact on business and trade. Expression of biolog­
ical losses due to diseases and their control measures in monetary terms
will help in the effective allocation of resources to develop suitable
control and prevention strategies to achieve the economic sustainability
of the farming systems. Sustainable control of diseases at the national
level could be achieved by understanding the economic risk of infection
at the farm-level. In simple terms, the economic impact of the disease
can be expressed as the reduced net revenue compared to a healthy pond
having an identical production cycle. Asche et al. (2020) have reviewed
the basic models to analyse the economic impact of shrimp diseases.
With regard to disease affected farms, besides the basic costs of
farming, the direct cost to producers also include expenditures incurred
towards prevention and treatment, the extraordinary cost to manage the
disease, production loss and the reduced unit price for small size harvest.
In addition, indirect costs of the disease include loss of employment,
reduction in national production and foreign exchange earnings. Several
studies have speculated significant economic loss due to EHP (Newman,
2015; Thitamadee et al., 2016); Shinn et al. (2018) estimated a loss of US
$ 76.4 million due to EHP alone in Thailand. In our earlier study, the
economic loss due to EHP was estimated to the tune of US$ 567.62 M to
the Indian shrimp industry. The study was carried out through a
questionnaire-based survey of shrimp farms in major shrimp farming
states of India during 2018–2019 (Patil et al., 2021).
Generally, the research on infectious diseases of aquatic animals is
limited to understand the pathogenesis at the animal level and their
impact on the sector. The information related to the economic impact of
the disease at the farm-level covering the income forgone and cost of
mitigation is lacking for most of the diseases. Hence, the objective of this Fig. 1. Map of India showing the places of shrimp producing farms in AP, TN
study was to develop a stochastic model to estimate the economic loss and Gujarat.
due to EHP and identify the critical risk factors associated at the farm-
level. A stochastic bio-economic model is a technique for estimating
probability distributions of potential outcomes (Getaneh et al., 2017) Table 1
which allows random variation in one or more inputs over time. This Basic information on farming, disease management and cost parameters.
model was used to analyse the risk of Bolbophorus infections of channel S. Particulars Details
catfish (Wise et al., 2008), pancreatic disease (Aunsmo et al., 2010) and no.
sea lice (Abolofia et al., 2017) in farmed Atlantic salmon and WSSV in 1. Farming system Location, number and area of ponds, duration of
P. vannamei (Hernández-Llamas et al., 2013; Hernandez-Llamas et al., culture, size at harvest, production, employment
2016) have been reported. No similar studies on EHP have been reported etc.
2. Stocking and feeding Stocking density, feeding rate etc.
so far. In the present study, we employed the model developed for
3. Disease and health Prevalence, clinical signs and symptoms,
Pancreatic disease in salmon (Aunsmo et al., 2010). The flexibility in the management diagnosis, medicines/chemicals, growth
model allows the inclusion of different types of losses, varying with promoters, technical consultation etc.
location and farm intensification. The quality of results from this model 4. Cost and price factors Cost of pond preparation, seed, feed, power,
aeration, health management, labour, technical
was ensured by obtaining the first hand data from the farmers, including
consultation, farm gate price, etc.
all the possible specific losses the farm incurs following the EHP
infection.
Analysis of farm-level economic losses would help to develop the 2.2. Category of farms
cost-effective strategies for managing the disease, assist the farmers to
take an informed decision on reducing the risks and ultimately deter­ The background production data for healthy farms were collected
mine the economic viability of the aquaculture activity. from the EHP negative farms located in the affected area. The farms
experiencing size variation, white faecal syndrome (WFS), drop in feed
2. Materials and methods intake, loose shell syndrome (LSS), mortality and slow growth without
any other obvious signs of disease were classified as affected farms (Otta
2.1. Source of data et al., 2017). The information on confirmation of the EHP clinical signs
by PCR test was obtained through questionnaire. The positive diagnosis
A questionnaire-based survey was conducted to estimate the loss due in the EHP reported farms were cross-checked with clinical signs, sug­
to EHP in major shrimp farming states of Andhra Pradesh (n = 116), gestive of the disease and confirmation by PCR test.
Tamil Nadu (n = 66) and Gujarat (n = 99) in India (Fig. 1). The farm-
based survey was conducted by trained researchers to obtain informa­
tion regarding farming systems, stocking density and feeding, disease 2.3. Cost of production
and health management, cost and price factors (Table 1). The data was
collected through personal interviews and online platforms (Microsoft The production parameters and the farm gate price of shrimp
forms and Survey Monkey). Data was collected using stratified random collected in each of the three states during 2020 were used in the model.
sampling and 281 individual shrimp farms were included in the analyses The production cost included expenditure on pond preparation, seed,
after initial verification by the experts. feed, labour, consultation, health management, power and cost of

2
R. Geetha et al.
disease and expressed as per tonne production of shrimp. Net returns
were calculated as gross returns (biomass harvested*farm gate price)
minus the cost of production. Lost profit (LP) for the EHP affected farms
was estimated as the difference between net returns of affected and
healthy farms.
2.4. Direct cost of EHP
An economic model to estimate the direct cost of EHP in Indian
shrimp farming was developed, including biological loss, prevention
costs, treatment costs and extraordinary costs. The stochastic model
(Huirne and Dijkhuizen, 1997; Bennett, 2003) developed for Pancreatic
disease in salmon (Aunsmo et al., 2010) describing the cost of the dis­
ease was adapted to commercial shrimp operations, which included
Biological Loss (BL), Treatment Cost (TC), Extraordinary Cost (EC) and
Prevention Cost (PC). The cost of biological loss was calculated based on
the difference in the biomass harvested in EHP affected and healthy
shrimp farms. The TC included expenditure on chemicals, nutritional
supplements and other healthcare products to manage the disease. The
EC included expenditure to hire labour for treatment and manage the
disease, while PC included pond preparation and consultation expen­
diture. The total direct cost (DC) due to EHP was estimated as in Formula
(1);
DC = BL + TC + EC + PC (1)
2.5. The model framework
2.5.1. Monte Carlo simulation
Quantitative risk analysis for specific effects of EHP was done using
Monte Carlo simulation by excel@Risk 5.7 (Palisade, USA) with sto­
chastic inputs as probability distributions. Sensitivity/risk analysis was
used to calculate the impact of uncertainty variables affecting the
possible extent of the net returns. The deterministic sensitivity analysis
comparing the relative importance of production variables affecting the
net returns was included in the model and represented as a tornado
diagram. The final stochastic model was used to simulate the distribu­
tion of various cost parameters to estimate the probabilities of net re­
turn. The best fitting distribution based on Akaike Information Criteria
(AIC) was selected using excel@Risk. For parameters like, pond prepa­
ration, feed and health management, the logistic distribution was used
(Formula 2) with parameter where, μ and σ and their density function is.
(x− μ)
e−
f (x; μ, σ) = ( σ
)2 where, − ∞ < x < ∞ (2)
(x− μ)
σ 1 + e− σ (75.21%) followed by prevention cost (15.22%), extraordinary cost
The uniform distribution (Formula 3) was applied for farm gate
price. The probability density function of the distribution is.
1 ton− 1, US$ 1124) and while it was minimum for Gujarat (₹ 31,226
f (x) = where, a < x < b, a < b (3)
(b − a)
Seed and labour cost were simulated using invgauss distribution
(Formula 4) with parameter μ and λ, the density function is.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ( ) The regression coefficient analysis revealed that a unit increase in
λ λ(x − μ)2
f (x; μ, σ) = exp − where, x > 0, μ, λ > 0 (4)
2π x3 2μ2 x
Other parameters like cost of treatment, prevention, extraordinary
cost, power and aerator, cost of consultation and other costs were
simulated using exponential distribution (Formula 5) with parameter λ,
f (x; λ) = λe− λx
where, x > 0, λ > 0 (5)
2.5.2. Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity of economic losses due to EHP in affected farms and
profit lost in typical farm scenarios were calculated using the Regression
3
Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685
coefficient. Higher absolute values of the coefficient indicate higher
sensitivity to the corresponding input variable. A sensitivity analysis was
conducted using 5% and 10% reduction or increase in the farm gate
price and feed cost (Aunsmo et al., 2010).
3. Results
3.1. Effect of EHP on shrimp size, feed conversion ratio and farm gate
price
The average size (g) at harvest was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in
EHP affected farms compared to healthy farms. Since the duration of
culture in farms of Gujarat was longer, they generally harvested higher
sized shrimp (healthy: 28.80 ± 0.84 g, EHP affected: 25.36 ± 0.92 g),
compared to Andhra Pradesh (healthy: 20.86 ± 0.83 g, EHP affected:
15.43 ± 0.46 g), and Tamil Nadu (healthy: 20.62 ± 0.95 g, EHP affected:
16.58 ± 0.87 g). Significantly higher (p < 0.05) Feed Conversion Ratio
(FCR) was observed in EHP affected farms compared to healthy farms,
the FCR was higher in Tamil Nadu (healthy: 1.56 ± 0.06, EHP affected:
1.99 ± 0.07), and Andhra Pradesh (healthy: 1.41 ± 0.04, EHP affected:
1.71 ± 0.04), compared to their counterparts in Gujarat (healthy: 1.49
± 0.02, EHP affected: 1.58 ± 0.03). Due to the smaller harvest size, the
EHP affected farms were offered lower farm gate prices in all the states.
The price for the harvest from Gujarat was higher (healthy: ₹ 370 ± 7.41
kg− 1, EHP affected: ₹ 349 ± 8.06 kg− 1) compared to Andhra Pradesh
(healthy: ₹ 329 ± 9.24 kg− 1, EHP affected: ₹ 262 ± 6.97 kg− 1) and Tamil
Nadu (healthy: ₹ 314 ± 8.33 kg− 1, EHP affected: ₹ 272 ± 8.86 kg− 1)
(Table 2).
3.2. Effect of EHP on costs of production and returns
The national average of additional expenditure on account of EHP at
the affected farms was 21.3% compared to healthy farms. The farmers of
Tamil Nadu incurred the highest additional expenditure of 42.4% fol­
lowed by Andhra Pradesh (23.3%) and Gujarat (1.16%). The estimated
reduction in gross returns was 20.6%, 18.44% and 6.09% in affected
farms of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, respectively with a
national average of 19.83%. The national average of net return in
affected farms was estimated to be 88.89% lower than the healthy farms
(Table 3).
3.3. Direct cost of EHP
The average cost of the disease was due to loss of production
(5.26%) and treatment cost (4.30%). The average loss at the farm-level
was estimated at ₹61,778 (US$ 813) ton− 1. Analysis revealed that farm-
level loss to the farmers of Andhra Pradesh was the maximum (₹ 85,404
ton− 1, US$ 411). A similar trend was observed among the various direct
cost components (Table 4).
3.3.1. Monte Carlo simulation on direct cost of EHP
shrimp farm gate price positively influences the net return by 0.76, 0.71
and 0.57 units for Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, respec­
tively with a national average of 0.76. Expenditure on account of feed
was the major factor negatively influencing the net return suggesting
one unit increase in feed cost would decrease the net return by 0.51
units. The highest impact was observed in the state of Gujarat (0.76)
followed by Andhra Pradesh (0.51) and Tamil Nadu (0.48). The cost of
seed was the second major variable negatively influencing the net return
for India (0.19) and Gujarat (0.21), whereas for the state of Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu the expenditure on labour was the second
major factor (Fig. 2).
R. Geetha et al. Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685

Table 2
Characteristics of the farming system in normal and EHP affected farms.
Parameters Andhra Pradesh (n = 116) Tamil Nadu (n = 66) Gujarat (n = 99) India (n = 281)

Healthy (n = Affected ((n = Healthy (n = Affected (n = Healthy (n = Affected (n = Healthy (n = Affected (n =

37) 79) 27) 39) 55) 44) 119) 162)

Farm size (WSA) (ha) 2.96 ± 0.59 4.97 ± 0.66 4.53 ± 0.69 4.96 ± 0.54 4.85 ± 1.04 4.06 ± 0.82 4.11 ± 0.53 4.66 ± 0.40
Stocking density (no sq.
34.89 ± 1.97 40.08 ± 1.17* 38.33 ± 2.42 34.36 ± 1.44 24.41 ± 1.46 27.89 ± 1.25* 32.54 ± 1.20 34.11 ± 0.85
m− 1)
Duration of culture
108 ± 2.23 108 ± 1.72 113 ± 2.14 113 ± 2.26 144 ± 3.73 150 ± 3.39 121.66 ± 2.45 123.69 ± 1.98
(days)
Harvest size (g) 20.86 ± 0.83 15.43 ± 0.46* 20.62 ± 0.95 16.58 ± 0.87* 28.80 ± 0.84 25.36 ± 0.92* 23.42 ± 0.63 19.12 ± 0.52
FCR 1.41 ± 0.04 1.71 ± 0.04* 1.56 ± 0.06 1.99 ± 0.07* 1.49 ± 0.02 1.58 ± 0.03 1.48 ± 0.02 1.76 ± 0.03
Productivity (t ha-1) 7.57 ± 0.49 6.64 ± 0.22 7.44 ± 0.27 5.89 ± 0.36 7.01 ± 0.17 5.54 ± 0.29 7.34 ± 0.19 6.02 ± 0.16
Farm gate price (₹ kg− 1) 329 ± 9.24 262 ± 6.97* 314 ± 8.33 272 ± 8.86* 370 ± 7.41 349 ± 8.06 337.6 ± 4.76 294.33 ± 5.41

Note: WSA - Water Spread Area.

*
at 5% level of significance.

income to ₹ 56,806. Similarly, increase in feed cost and decrease in farm

Table 3
gate by 10% would reduce the farm-level net income to ₹ - 28,026. A
The average cause-specific effects of EHP on the cost of production and net
significant variation was observed in the net returns among the states,
returns (₹ t− 1).
Gujarat showed higher net return of ₹ 52,587 in the worst scenario of
Particulars States EHP affected farms Healthy farms
increase in feed cost and reduction in farm gate price by 10% (Table 5).
Andhra Pradesh 2,66,277 2,15,939 The estimated farm-level net return was ₹ 1,16,509, ₹ 1,37,168 and ₹
Cost of production
Tamil Nadu 2,81,343 1,97,528 1,00,172 ton− 1 for healthy farms and ₹ − 2585, ₹ − 8380 and ₹ 74,594
Gujarat 2,71,384 2,68,271
ton− 1 for EHP affected farms in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
India 2,63,570 2,17,155
Andhra Pradesh 2,63,691 3,32,448 Gujarat, respectively. At the national level, the net return recorded was ₹
Tamil Nadu 2,72,963 3,34,696 1,29,590 and ₹ 14,390 ton− 1 in healthy and affected farms, respectively.
Gross returns
Gujarat 3,45,979 3,68,443
India 2,77,960 3,46,745
Andhra Pradesh -2585 1,16,509 3.4. Effect of harvest size on net return
Tamil Nadu -8380 1,37,168
Net returns
Gujarat 74,594 1,00,172 Data on farm gate prices indicated that giant-sized shrimp fetches
India 14,390 1,29,590
higher prices. Compared to the healthy farms, average size of shrimp
harvested in the affected farms was lower by 26.03%, 19.59% and
11.94% in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, respectively. The
Table 4 farm gate price for average size at harvest in affected farms of Andhra
Direct costs of EHP outbreak in shrimp farms (₹ t− 1). Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat was lower by ₹ 67, ₹ 42 and ₹ 21 per
Particulars Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu Gujarat India kg, respectively (Table 2). Data revealed that size at harvest seems to be
Biological loss (BL) 66,784 51,025 21,586 46,465
the factor determining the quantum of loss due to EHP. Harvesting
Treatment cost (TC) 4190 2035 5715 2658 shrimp at the size above 10 g would be required for the return on in­
Extraordinary cost (EC) 2710 2065 695 3250 vestment. In Gujarat, however, return on investment was assured in all
Preventive cost (PC) 11,720 7765 3230 9405 the size groups, and it was proportional to the size at harvest (Table 6).
Total direct cost 85,404 62,890 31,226 61,778

3.5. Distribution of net return among the EHP affected farms

3.3.2. Factors influencing the net returns
The ranking of cost factors was expressed as a Tornado plot using
excel@Risk. The feed was the primary factor in all the states while, la­
bour and seed in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, seed and health
management in Gujarat were the other factors impacting the economic
outcome in the EHP affected farms (Fig. 3). Keeping all other factors
constant, change in farm gate price of shrimp by the lowest and highest
10 percentile values (Mun, 2012) would influence the net income by -₹
67,444 to ₹ 1,34,042. Farm gate price showed less positive impact on net
returns of Gujarat farms compared to other states. Similarly, a change in
feed and seed cost would influence the net income by ₹-65,264 to ₹
92,089 and ₹ -19,655 to ₹ 32,239 respectively.
3.3.3. Sensitivity analysis
Regression sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the farm gate price
was the strongest stochastic variable followed by the cost of feed in
determining the variation in the output in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil
Nadu, whereas seed in Gujarat was the strongest stochastic variable
(Fig. 3). The sensitivity model with 5% and 10% variation in the price of
feed and farm gate price indicates the possibilities of compensating the
losses due to EHP by reducing the expenditure on feed or higher farm
gate price. The results of the analysis suggest a reduction in the cost of
feed and increase in farm gate price by 10% would increase the net
The distribution of net returns revealed 46% of all the shrimp
farmers would lose their investment following the EHP infection. The
highest loss was observed in the farms of Andhra Pradesh (54%) fol­
lowed by Tamil Nadu (53.2%) and Gujarat (21.1%). In the event of
disease, 43.9% of the farms in Gujarat were able to get the net return
more than ₹ 1,00,000, whereas in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu only
7.6% and 3.6% farms, respectively would make it (Table 7).
4. Discussion
The EHP impacts the production, supply, prices of shrimp, and
economic viability of the sector (Patil et al., 2021). In food animal
production practices, the cost of diseases could be direct to the farmer
and indirect to the sector (Dijkhuizen and Morris, 1997). The economic
impact of the disease is measured at the national and farm-level. For the
first time, the present stochastic model based study reports a quantifi­
cation of economic loss due to EHP at the farm-level and variations in
the determinant factors among different farming regions of the country.
The farm-level economic loss estimations highlight various risk factors
influencing the economic outcome of the disease, which can be
addressed in a targeted approach.
The probability distributions for EHP associated expenditures shows

4
R. Geetha et al.
a. Andhra Pradesh
b. Tamil Nadu
Fig. 2. Tornado plots showing the regression coefficients of affected shrimp farms in India.
up as profits foregone because of reduced production either due to slow
growth or mortality, which is compounded by low prices for the smaller
size harvest and the cost of treatment. Studies using similar model for
estimating economic risks associated with WSSV in shrimp (Hernandez-
Llamas et al., 2016), cost of sea lice in salmon (Abolofia et al., 2017) and
economics of catfish (Kumar and Engle, 2017) were reported earlier.
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu on the East coast, and Gujarat on
the West coast of India contribute 90% to the Indian shrimp production
(Geetha et al., 2019). There is a significant difference in the farming
practices followed between the two coasts. Farmers on the East coast
generally practice comparatively higher stocking density targeting
smaller sizes at harvest, while farmers on the West coast stock fewer
seeds and target larger harvest size for a premium price (Kumaran et al.,
2017). Though the microsporidian parasite is the aetiology, crop
intensification and the environmental parameters aggravate the disease
condition (Singh and Singh, 2018). The observed association of farms
with higher stocking density and loss due to EHP might be due to the
challenges in alleviating stress.
5
Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685
In this study, significant reduction in the harvest size and higher FCR
in EHP affected farms were observed. Disturbance in the digestive and
metabolic functions leading to size variation and growth retardation
resulting in higher FCR has been reported widely in the EHP affected
farms (see Kooloth Valappil et al., 2021). The comparatively better FCR
in Gujarat could be due to the lower stocking density, timely diagnosis
and harvest generally practised. The lower farm gate price for the
shrimp from Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu might be due to lower
average weight at harvest. Hence, the farmers of Gujarat have obtained
higher net income. Lower impact of EHP on cost of production in Gujarat
might be due to lesser expenditure on prevention and control of the
disease.
4.1. Direct cost of EHP disease
The direct cost of the disease includes biological loss, cost of treat­
ment, extraordinary cost and cost incurred on account of prevention.
The analysis using the model demonstrated the EHP infected shrimp
R. Geetha et al.
c. Gujarat
d. India
Fig. 2. (continued).
farms incur a considerable loss by reduced average harvest weight,
increased cost of feed in addition to expenditure on treatment and
prevention. The study found that reduction in production was the
strongest stochastic variable in the EHP specific biological loss. Previous
studies have reported mortality as the significant factor in economic loss
due to Pancreatic Diseases in salmon (Aunsmo et al., 2010), WSSV in
Mexican shrimp farms (Hernandez-Llamas et al., 2016) and infectious
diseases in Egyptian tilapia farming (Alia et al., 2020). In a similar study,
reduction in the biological loss was reported to be covered partly by
insurance in Norwegian salmon farming (Aunsmo et al., 2010). At pre­
sent these losses were borne by the farmers in the absence of insurance
plan. Recent initiatives of covering the Indian shrimp farming under
insurance could help partly recover these losses in future.
The economic loss due to EHP was correlated with higher FCR. A
similar correlation with growth, FCR and quality was recorded in
Atlantic salmon (Aunsmo et al., 2010). Unlike in the present study,
Aunsmo et al. (2010) observed the minimal effect of feed cost on losses
due to pancreatic diseases in Norwegian salmon farming. Generally,
farmers take up compensatory actions to maintain production.
6
Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685
Reduction in production due to EHP infection was seem to be partially
compensated by harvesting at a marketable size and appropriate timing
for reducing the cost of feed and for realising farm gate price
commensurate with the size of shrimp. The study suggested a strategy to
stock more young ones to compensate for the expected future disease
loss in salmon farming (Aunsmo et al., 2010) might not work for EHP
since higher stocking density was correlation with economic loss in the
model. In the absence of effective therapeutic measures, management
intervention included expenditure towards feed supplements to reduce
the stress and to improve the growth. The observed increase in
extraordinary cost might be due to additional labour required for pond
management during the disease. The EHP spores accumulate in the pond
soil and require higher application of disinfectants (Limsuwan et al.,
2008; Sritunyalucksana et al., 2014). Hence, the expenditure on pond
preparation and professional consultation was included in the cost of
prevention.
The observed influence of farm gate price on the economic impact
suggests the importance of larger size produce which fetches a higher
unit price. Reduction in the animal’s size is the primary determinant in
R. Geetha et al.
a. Andhra Pradesh
b. Tamil Nadu
Fig. 3. Tornado plot showing the ranking of various cost factors with net returns for EHP affected farms.
reducing the profitability in the EHP affected farms. This might be the
reason for the observed impact of EHP on the production and supply of
shrimp in the domestic and international markets. Previously, we have
reported the probability of occurrence of EHP as 17%, with the corre­
sponding annual revenue loss of US$ 567.62 M in India (Patil et al.,
2021). In a similar study, Aunsmo et al. (2010) reported a strong in­
fluence of farm gate price on profitability in salmon farming. Loss of
production and expenditure on feed were the significant risk factors
responsible for influencing the economic loss, as indicated by the
sensitivity analysis confirming the effect of EHP on growth retardation
and continuous feeding by farmers in the absence of any observed
mortality. As expected, loss of production was the major component
influencing the direct loss positively while higher farm gate price was
influencing negatively. Lower production leads to reduced supply of the
commodity in the market and price escalation in the endemic regions.
However, an inverse relationship of price and WSSV was observed in
Mexican shrimp farming (Hernandez-Llamas et al., 2016). Since the
commodity is traded internationally, shrimp prices are mainly driven by
7
Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685
demand and supply in the international market. The glitch in production
in any country due to disease is compensated by the competitors (see
Geetha et al., 2020).
In addition to the cost of disease, farmers lose their net income due to
lower sale prices during disease incidence. In endemic areas, farmers are
forced to harvest smaller size shrimp, further reducing the wider market
accessibility. A significant difference in the state-wise average farm gate
prices of shrimp was not observed during the study period. The reduced
losses in farms of Gujarat might be due to premium harvest size, as the
farm gate prices per unit of shrimp are directly proportional to the size of
harvest.
In the absence of ‘hard data, ‘researchers have used the expert panel
to quantify the biological effects of diseases in terrestrial livestock (Van
der Fels-Klerx et al., 2002; Bennett, 2003) and Atlantic salmon pro­
duction (Aunsmo et al., 2010). In the present study using the first hand
data collected in the survey, the biological effect of EHP on reduced
production, harvest size and their correlation with the cost of prevention
was established. The estimated loss of profit in EHP affected farms was ₹
R. Geetha et al.
c. Gujarat
d. India
Fig. 3. (continued).
1,15,200 ton− 1 (US $ 1576) of shrimp production. In a similar study, the
direct costs associated with a pancreatic disease was estimated as NOK
14.4 million with a 70% reduction in saleable biomass and increased
cost of production of NOK 6.0 kg− 1 (Aunsmo et al., 2010). Similarly,
using Monte Carlo simulation, the probability distribution of economic
losses was calculated as US $ 484.27 ha− 1 for Mexican shrimp farms
(Hernandez-Llamas et al., 2016). Abolofia et al. (2017) reported the
empirical analysis to quantify the impacts of sea lice on the biological
growth of farmed salmon and the profitability of individual farms.
4.2. Cost-benefit analysis of intervention
Using cost-benefit models, the information generated on biological
losses could be expressed in monetary figures. Measures to reduce the
economic impact by identifying components contributing to the loss
would benefit the individual farmers and the sector in general.
Combining biological and economic models would help to identify the
8
Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685
most effective cost-benefit analysis to address the issue at the national
level. The model can be further improved by incorporating the addi­
tional factors contributing to the loss due to EHP.
The reported losses due to EHP could be overcome by practising
lower stocking density, scientific pond preparation and testing of seeds
before stocking. Despite the threat of diseases the short crop cycle is
helping in sustainability of the sector. Identification and generating the
appropriate information on the specific cost of the disease would help in
the efficient use of resources for economic control of the disease (McI­
nerney et al., 1992). The effect of measures like reducing the expendi­
ture on feed by harvesting the appropriate size of shrimp would help
reduce the losses due to the EHP. These observations would be further
confirmed considering other externalities influencing the economic
impact of the disease.
R. Geetha et al. Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685

Table 6

− 14,128
− 28,026
Effect of harvest size on net returns of affected shrimp farms in India (₹ t− 1).

13,668
27,566
10%
Harvest size(g) Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu Gujarat India

<10 − 82,318 − 1,01,575 11,886 − 83,981

10–20 32,318 34,915 21,213 16,232

− 20,716
20,978
34,876
20–30 1,17,028 1,19,857 1,05,152 1,08,152

− 6818
1,51,098 1,51,098

5%
>30 – –

15,112

42,908
56,806
− 10%

1214
Table 7
Distribution of farm net returns in EHP affected farms (%).
Net returns (Rs/ton) Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu Gujarat India

35,598
49,496
− 6096
India

7802
− 5%

Less than zero 54 53.2 21.1 46

0–50,000 24.2 28.1 15.5 21.9
50,000–1,00,000 14.2 15.1 19.5 16.1
1,00,000-1,50,000 6.2 3.4 20.5 10.4
1,02,558
1,19,214
69,244
52,587

1,50,000-2,00,000 1.2 0.2 16.0 4.3

10%

2,00,000-2,50,000 0.2 – 6.7 0.9

>2,50,000 – – 0.7 0.3
1,08,602
1,25,259
75,289
58,632

5. Conclusion
5%

Reduction in production and harvest of smaller size shrimp associ­

1,26,737
1,43,393

ated with EHP infections are the major biological factors in addition to
93,423
76,766
− 10%

cost of disease management causing substantial loss to the Indian shrimp

farms. The economic impact of the disease could be compensated by
harvesting the EHP affected crop at appropriate size, thereby, reducing
Sensitivity model projections with 5% and 10% reduction/increase of farm gate price and feed cost in EHP affected farms (₹ t− 1).

1,20,692
1,37,349

the expenditure on feed and realising commensurate farm-gate price.

Gujarat

87,378
70,721
− 5%

Farm-level economic loss due to EHP estimated in the study would be

helpful to understand the factors determining the profitability of shrimp
farms. The study identified the regional variation in the risk factors
− 38,659
− 52,307
− 11,363

impacting cost-benefit analysis. This universal model can be used for

2285
10%

estimating the direct cost of other shrimp diseases.

Author statement
− 30,344
− 43,992

10,600
− 3047
5%

Name of the author and e-mail ID Types of contribution

Geetha, R, geethaeconomist99@g Economic and statistical analysis of data

mail.com
− 19,045
21,898
35,546
− 5397

Avunje, S., s.avunje@gmail.com Technical support on data collection and

− 10%

interpritaiton of results
Solanki, H.G. hgsolanki@gmail. Data collection from Gujarat area
Tamil Nadu

com
− 13,713
− 27,361

Priyadharshini R, priyadhar Datat analysis

13,583
27,231

shini1796@gmail.com
− 5%

Vinoth S, vnoshri@gmail.com Data collection from Tamil Nadu area

Anand P R., pranand123@gmail. Data collection from Andhra Pradesh area
com
− 30,170
− 43,355

T Ravisankar, Ravi.Sankar@icar. Guidance and providing logistics

− 3801
9383
10%

gov.in
Patil, P⋅K, pkpatilvet@yahoo.com Conceptualization of idea and writing the
manuscript
− 22,970
− 36,155

16,583
3398
5%

− 14,555
24,998
38,183
− 1370

Declaration of Competing Interest

− 10%
Andhra Pradesh

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
− 21,755
17,798
30,983
− 8570

the work reported in this paper.

− 5%
Feed

Acknowledgments
Farm gate price

The authors are grateful to Indian Council of Agricultural Research

(ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Government of
Table 5

− 10%
− 5%

India for providing financial support via All India Network Project on
10%
5%

Fish Health (AINP_FH).

9
R. Geetha et al. Aquaculture 548 (2022) 737685

References Penaeus vannamei farming: a comparative assessment of east and west coasts of India.
Indian J. Fish. 64 (3), 93–99.
Limsuwan, C., Chuchird, N., Laisutisan, K., 2008. Efficacy of calcium hypochlorite on the
Abolofia, J., Asche, F., Wilen, J.E., 2017. The cost of lice: quantifying the impacts of
prevalence of microsporidiosis (Thelohania) in pond-reared Litopenaeus vannamei.
parasitic sea lice on farmed salmon. Mar. Resour. Econ. 32, 329–349.
Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.) 42 (2), 282–288.
Alia, S.E., Jansen, M.D., Mohand, C.V., Delamare-Deboutteville, J., Charo-Karisa, K.,
McInerney, J.P., Howe, K.S., Schepers, J.A., 1992. A framework for the economic
2020. Key risk factors, farming practices and economic losses associated with tilapia
analysis of disease in farm livestock. Prev. Vet. Med. 13, 137–154.
mortality in Egy. J. Aquac. 527, 735438.
Mun, J., 2012. Monte Carlo Risk Simulation. Quantitative Business Valuation: A
Aranguren, L.F., Han, J.E., Tang, K.F.J., 2017. Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) is a risk
Mathematical Approach for Today’s Professionals, pp. 539–571.
factor for acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) and septic
Newman, S.G., 2015. Microsporidian impacts shrimp production – industry efforts
hepatopancreatic necrosis (SHPN) in the Pacific white shrimp Penaeus vannamei.
address control, not eradication. Glob. Aquac. Advocate. 16-17 (March/April)
Aquaculture 471, 37–42.
(Accessed 11 March 2020). https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/micros
Asche, F., Anderson, J.L., Botta, R., Kumar, Ganesh, Abrahamsen, E.B., Nguyen, L.T.,
poridian-impacts-shrimp-production/.
Valderrama, D., 2020. The economics of shrimp disease. J. Invertebr. Pathol.
Otta, S.K., Alavandi, S.V., Vijayan, K.K., 2017. Field guide for diagnosis, prevention and
107397.
control of diseases of shrimp and finfish in brackishwater aquaculture. Central Inst.
Aunsmo, A., Valle, P.S., Sandberg, M., Midtlyng, P.J., Bruheim, T., 2010. Stochastic
Brackishwater Aquac. 2017, 38.
modelling of direct costs of pancreas disease (PD) in Norwegian farmed Atlantic
Patil, P.K., Geetha, R., Ravisankar, T., Avunje, S., Solanki, H.G., Abraham, T.J.,
salmon (Salmo salar L.). Prev. Vet. Med. 93, 233–241.
Vijayan, K.K., 2021. Economic loss due to diseases in Indian shrimp farming with
Bennett, R., 2003. The ‘direct costs’ of livestock disease: the development of a system of
special reference to Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) and white spot syndrome
models for the analysis of 30 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain. J. Agric.
virus (WSSV). Aquaculture 533, 736231.
Econ. 54, 55–71.
Rajendran, K.V., Shivam, S., Praveena, P.E., Rajan, J.J.S., Kumar, T.S., Avunje, S.,
Biju, N., Sathiyaraj, G., Raj, M., Shanmugam, V., Baskaran, B., Govindan, U.,
Alavandi, S.V., 2016. Emergence of Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) in farmed
Chellamma, T.S.R.Y., 2016. High prevalence of Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei in
Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei in India. Aquaculture 454, 272–280.
shrimps Penaeus monodon and Litopenaeus vannamei sampled from slow growth
Shinn, A.P., Pratoomyot, J., Griffiths, D., Trong, T.Q., Vu, N.T., Jiravanichpaisal, P.,
ponds in India. Dis. Aquat. Org. 120 (3), 225–230.
Briggs, M., 2018. Asian shrimp production and the economic costs of disease. Asian
Chaijarasphong, T., Munkongwongsiri, N., Stentiford, G.D., Aldama-Cano, D.J.,
Fish. Sci. 31, 29–58.
Thansa, K., Flegel, T.W., Itsathitphaisarn, O., 2020. The shrimp microsporidian
Singh, M., Singh, P., 2018. Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei: a microsporidian in the midst of
Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP): biology, pathology, diagnostics and control.
serious threat to shrimp aquaculture. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 6, 936–939.
J. Invertebr. Pathol. 107458.
Sritunyalucksana, K., Sanguanrut, P., Salachan, P.V., Thitamadee, S., Flegel, T.W., 2014.
Dijkhuizen, A.A., Morris, R.S., 1997. Animal Health Economics. University of Sydney,
Urgent appeal to control spread of the shrimp microsporidian parasite
Sydney.
Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP). Network Aquac. Centres Asia-Pacific (NACA).
Flegel, T.W., 2019. A future vision for disease control in shrimp aquaculture. J. World
4–6.
Aquacult. Soc. 50, 249–266.
Tang, K.F., Han, J.E., Aranguren, L.F., White-Noble, B., Schmidt, M.M.,
Geetha, R., Ravisankar, T., Sairam, C.V., Kumaraguru Vasagam, K.P., Vinoth, S.,
Piamsomboon, P., Hanggono, B., 2016. Dense populations of the microsporidian
Vijayan, K.K., 2019. Aquastat India 2019, 219. ICAR- Central Institute of
Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) in feces of Penaeus vannamei exhibiting white
Brackishwater Aquaculture, (CIBA), Chennai.
feces syndrome and pathways of their transmission to healthy shrimp. J. Invertebr.
Geetha, R., Ravisankar, T., Patil, P.K., Avunje, S., Vinoth, S., Sairam, C.V., Vijayan, K.K.,
Pathol. 140, 1–7.
2020. Trends, causes, and indices of import rejections in international shrimp trade
Tang, K.F., Aranguren, L.F., Piamsomboon, P., Jee, E.H., Maskaykina, I.Y., Schmidt, M.
with special reference to India: a 15-year longitudinal analysis. Aquac. Int. 28 (3),
M., 2017. Detection of the microsporidian Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) and
1341–1369.
Taura syndrome virus in Penaeus vannamei cultured in Venezuela. Aquaculture 480,
Getaneh, A.M., Mekonnen, S.A., Hogeveen, H., 2017. Stochastic bio—economic
17–21.
modeling of mastitis in Ethiopian dairy farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 138, 94–103.
Tangprasittipap, A., Srisala, J., Chouwdee, S., Somboon, M., Chuchird, N., Limsuwan, C.,
Hernández-Llamas, A., Ruiz-Velazco, J.M., Gomez-Muñoz, V.M., 2013. Economic risk
Sritunyalucksana, K., 2013. The microsporidian Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei is not
associated with white spot disease and stochastic variability in economic,
the cause of white feces syndrome in whiteleg shrimp Penaeus (Litopenaeus)
zootechnical and water quality parameters for intensive production of Litopenaeus
vannamei. BMC Vet. Res. 9 (1), 1–10.
vannamei. Rev. Aquac. 5 (2), 121–131.
Thitamadee, S., Prachumwat, A., Srisala, J., Jaroenlak, P., Salachan, P.V.,
Hernandez-Llamas, A., Cabanillas-Ramos, J., Magallon-Barajas, F.J., 2016. Estimating
Sritunyalucksana, K., Itsathitphaisarn, O., 2016. Review of current disease threats
impact of white spot disease on economic risk in semi-intensive shrimp farms in
for cultivated penaeid shrimp in Asia. Aquaculture 452, 69–87.
Mexico: the case of the state of Sinaloa. Rev. Aquac. 8 (2), 111–120.
Van der Fels-Klerx, H.J., Martin, S.W., Nielen, M., Huirne, R.B.M., 2002. Effects on
Huirne, R.B.M., Dijkhuizen, A.A., 1997. Basic methods of economic analysis. In:
productivity and risk factors of bovine respiratory disease in dairy heifers; a review
Dijkhuizen, A.A., Morris, R.S. (Eds.), Animal Health Economics. University of
for the Netherlands. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 50, 27–45.
Sydney, Sydney, pp. 25–39.
Walker, P.J., Mohan, C.V., 2009. Viral disease emergence in shrimp aquaculture origins,
Kooloth Valappil, R., Stentiford, G.D., Bass, D., 2021. The rise of the syndrome–sub-
impact and effectiveness of health management strategies. Rev. Aquac. 1, 125–154.
optimal growth disorders in farmed shrimp. Rev. Aquac. 1–19.
Wise, D.J., Hanson, T.R., Tucker, C.S., 2008. Farm-level economic impacts of
Kumar, G., Engle, C., 2017. Economics of intensively aerated catfish ponds. J. World
Bolbophorus infections of channel catfish. N. Am. J. Aquac. 70 (4), 382–387.
Aquacult. Soc. 48 (2), 320–332.
Kumaran, M., Ravisankar, T., Anand, P.R., Vimala, D.D., Balasubramanian, C.P., 2017.
Knowledge level of shrimp farmers on better management practices (BMPs) of

10