if 1-~ ~ S -r ~r4# a '&( ~4~t - 1 r" r~.urn3taa~' 'I :' -#At-~- sYr'jr - k 7A CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION................................................................................... 5 STRATEGY .................................................................................................... 5 Fish Species........................................................................................ 5 Ponds ............................................................................................ 5 Pond Management ................................................................................... 5 Livestock ......................................................................................... 6 Horticulture........................................................................................ 8 Forestry .......................................................................................... 8 Harvestiog ........................................................................................ 8 Credit ............................................................................................ 8 Technology Transfer..................................................................................S8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 8 Weather .......................................................................................... 9 Water Quality ...................................................................................... 9 Fish Production..................................................................................... 9 Seed Production ................................................................................... 10 Harvests.......................................................................................... 10 Livestock......................................................................................... 10 Technology Transfer................................................................................. 12 Constraints on Self Sufficiency......................................................................... 12 CONCUISIONS .............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER 2 NUTRITIONAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION .......................................................... 13 THE NUTRITIONAL PROBLEMI IN PANA.NIA......................................................................... 13 OBJECTIV ES ................................................................................................ 13 METHIODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 13 Evaluation Model................................................................................... 13 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 14 \.nthropomnetry........................................................................................... 14 Consumption of Proteinaceous Foods.........................................................................15 Socioeconomic Aspects .................................................................................... 15 Food Prices.............................................................................................. 17 Traditional Communities ................................................................................... 17 DISCUSSION................................................................................................ 17 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 19 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 3 SOCIOECONOMIiC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 20 PROJECT BACKGROUND....................................................................................... 20 PROJECT EV ALUATION........................................................................................ 20 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 4 ECONOMIC EVALUATION............................................................................ 25 BUDGET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 2.5j Fish Alone...............................................................................................25 Hogs Alone .............................................................................................. 28 Cattle Alone ............................................................................................. 28j Ducks Alone ............................................................................................. 28 Chickens ................................................................................................ 29 Livestock-Fish Association ................................................................... .............. 30 Hog-Fish Association...................................................................................... 30 Chicken-Fish Association...................................................................................0 Cattle-Fish Association .................................................................................... 30 Duck-Fish Association..................................................................................... 31 Summary of Rates of Return ................................................................................ 32 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 33 SLIARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 47 REEECE......................................................47 Cooperatively Managed Rural Panamanian Fish Ponds: The Integrated Approach L.L. Lovshin, N.B. Schwartz, V.G. de Castillo, C.R. Engle, and U.L. Hatch' INTRODUCTION A N EMERGING VIEW of development is that the governments of developing nations must satisfy basic human needs as well as fos- ter economic growth. Improved nutrition is prominent among these needs, particularly since average annual increases in food produc- tion world-wide (1.6 percent from 1970 to 1979) have not always kept up with demographic growth. Even when food production and de- mography are in balance, food supplies may be unevenly distrib- uted, the tendency being to favor urban populations over rural ones. Thus, many planners are especially concerned with the food needs of rural groups in developing nations, and in this context there is in- creasing interest in the application of rural freshwater fish culture technology as one of several ways to help meet the needs of these groups. In Latin America, interest in rural freshwater fish culture has grown rapidly. Governments actively promote construction of family, community, and commercial fish ponds to improve nutritional and economic well-being among rural groups. In many places, disillu- sionment replaced early enthusiasm when initial research and pilot study successes were not duplicated on a larger scale. Reasons for the lack of success range from technical to political and are varied and complex. There are no simple explanations for failure, but in many cases a principal cause has been inadequate numbers of seed fish to stock grow-out ponds. People in countries with no history of fish culture need govern- ment assistance to make their ponds technically and economically viable. Thus, hatcheries are built and research and pilot studies car- ried out, often with the financial and technical assistance of donor nations. Initial results are usually quite promising, and policy mak- ers promote the construction of grow-out ponds through private bank loans or government subsidies. Government institutions pro- duce the seed and transport them to grow-out ponds where they are sold or donated to growers. This approach works well at first. As word of the nutritional and economic benefits of the program spreads, more ponds are constructed, but the early momentum may be difficult to sustain as the amount of seed needed to stock increas- ing numbers of widely dispersed ponds increases. Eventually, the government is unable to meet the seed needs of growers, and then expansion ceases or the program slowly fails. 1 Professor of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University; Professor of Anthropology, University of Delaware; Direccion Nacional de Acuicultra, M.I.D.A., Santiago de Veraquas, Panama; Assistant Pro- fessor of Economics, Auburn University-Montgomery; and Assistant Pro- fessor of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University; respectively. A government may be unable to supply sufficient seed stock to producers for several reasons. 1. Frequent changes in government policy and/or administrators, and political instability which make rural areas unsafe. 2. Economic constraints which prevent hatchery installation, ex- pansion, and/or acquisition of additional staff and vehicles for trans- porting fish seed. 3. Inadequately trained and poorly paid hatchery personnel who lack the knowledge and dedication needed to intensify seed produc- tion. In the private sector, commercial seed producers are often slow to respond to the need for more seed for the following reasons. 1. The technology required to reproduce the species selected for small-scale rural fish ponds is too demanding for inexperienced cul- turists. Only the government or large, well-financed growers with trained biologists and adequate spawning facilities can reproduce the fish. 2. Even when the species selected for culture is easily repro- duced, planning which fails to anticipate economic and political con- straints results in a limited capacity to produce adequate numbers of seed stock. The project under discussion was designed to cope with these and related problems. PROJECT BACKGROUND The rural fish culture program in Panama was initiated in 1976. At that time, the political philosophy of the country supported a communal approach to nutritional problems. Grow-out ponds were constructed with government financial and technical assistance. Ti- lapias were selected as the principal culture species, and all-male hybrids of Tilapia nilotica x T. hornorumn and T. mossambica x T. hornorum were produced in a government hatchery and transported to the grow-out ponds. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis), and silver carp (Hypopthalmnichthys mol- itrix) were also stocked to increase fish production. Initial efforts to culture fish with a commercial ration proved unsatisfactory The high cost of the ration required that the fish be sold at a price beyond the means of rural consumers. Since the major goal was to improve nutrition, a way to lower the cost of the cultured fish had to be found. Thus, the Panamanian government began to focus on an in- tegrated strategy: combining fish ponds with gardens and livestock production. The use of locally produced animal manures to fertilize grow-out ponds proved successful in terms of fish harvests. Early success stimulated program expansion and soon about 200 family and community ponds of 100-10,000 square meters were in opera- tion in a tri-province area. The need for hybrid tilapia fingerlings grew rapidly, and a shortage of seed developed. The complex tech- nology and pond installations needed to produce the hybrid seed barred the inexperienced rural grower from producing his own seed. Then, in 1980, the United States Agency for International Devel- opment (USAID) granted the Government of Panama (GOP) $1,142,000 to carry out a 4-year, pilot fish culture program. The main goals of the program were: 1. To teach organized groups of poor rural people to manage the integrated systems by themselves. Within 24 months, they would have to learn to produce their own seed fish, fatten, harvest, and either consume or market their products, and meet recurrent costs with no more than modest government extension support. The goal was self-sufficiency 2. To focus on integrated production activities. The ponds are a nucleus around which other enterprises-livestock production, gar- dening, silviculture-develop. Each operation should enhance the efficiency and value of the others. None stand alone. 3. To have multiple benefits for the rural poor. The program should improve their nutrition, provide them with some additional income, and inhibit some of them from migrating to urban areas for economic reasons. 4. To design a simple, practical technology that is compatible with microenvironmental and local community conditions. If anything, the technology is intended to upgrade microecologies by improving soils and by fomenting reforestation. Twenty-two communities in a five-province area were selected for the pilot study. Prerequisites for inclusion were: 1. A source of good quality, gravity-flow water of sufficient quan- tity to permit year-round maintenance of pond water levels. 2. Soils that permit no more than minimum water loss to infiltra- tion. 3. Sites with topographical features that permit pond construe- tion at reasonable cost. 4. All-weather road access to pond sites (with one exception). 5. Community interest in the project which was determined at or- ganizational meetings with community groups and also by willing- ness of these groups to cooperate with project personnel. In addition to the "pilot" communities, 10 "control" communities (i.e., settlements without ponds) and 10 "traditional" communities (i.e., settlements with pre-project ponds that usually lack animal and garden components) were selected for purposes of nutritional and sociological study The project was administered by the National Directorate of Aquaculture (DINAAC) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Live- stock Production (MIDA). Technical, economic, nutritional, and so- ciological studies, to be carried out over a 2.5-year period, were to measure project impact on the pilot communities. The major em- pirical results of these studies are reported in the following chap- ters. For the most part, pilot study recommendations, final analytic conclusions, and synthesis of technical, economic, nutritional, and sociological studies are not reported here. The emphasis is on em- pirical findings, and these other matters are left for subsequent dis- cussion, [(4) Chapter 3]. Map of Panama with shaded areas defining project borders. Chapter I Technical Evaluation L. L. Lovshin STRATEGY FISH SPECIES Iil pi ItIs o (I \i i'L,, us itl s t I~i i t sl( t o' s k (/II I/l )Il iiLt( I/ tttit ti l 1 ( I l 41 itI cs i~ ti I i to ( iiii ii i mi it I 'ILII LI\ it I i k (d ~ll 11 ll ((t I II 51 t IILilln , to 1511 1111it. l tj itIt \11( it IL l 'Ilollll llill tl I I I l iti II ii (alp, I St ir.tt I i kc ii'II tp I' 't' Li " Lit'lO( h I1 tI ~'i 'I C c l hl il ((I flt itil \\(( I 55 ccI s ti ill itliISt( I 55 tiI~ 1 i '111 PONDS ll's d ii t il (I I 111i II po)111 Li 11 1111c,15it lit si t IIIItl 111 i' 11 1 IIli'ii IltIIi 111 Itt111 Its. t.1 tIi Il ~ id c (dis t iII t Oil 155 111 111111l L l m ll t iiltit 1111 t1111 LI oil (- ()11 I tss It I ttililt (Iii 11 sI It 111 II S I L LI llsk Il ()I1111 t i tt ttI11111 i\ ii tct ( It I 1w llmIlt t lc Lt l l io u t o I LI ,(. 111111 t l ill ik 1 to 111\\5 , (I 1 ,,f ll 1111 l~ lit i l ll i is ti t ill iii ldit P i\ ( iL t i ll I I '11)1)\ stll pI It t t L-(I I I 111 St tt I t s Ic~c I )t I~ i 1 I I ( I tiil t 1 1 ' ikp 1 i. 1)(11( I I itt 115 tl l I 11 \\ i ltl O1w11 l ml~ it ti t l- 1111i(- ll I(ll( it ) f1111 l ilts(t( S\ t I (\(l , ill il 1\1tilw l )It smII1111 111 Ill) ii111 \\ I i t ' OllI la I lill-AIlic (li\ 11 (c 55 111110 it I LL~k ()i ' 11.11 p ilt 22l~ pt lIi I)i\\(It, II tt\ all him II ) l( hi tliii t t)I til tii A I ' 1)11ii 111 i Is Lil 1)(111 11111 ) 1 1 \\(I (' ilii Lit d \ cl 111111 Ittai LI- II I t I II I M 3 s i I I()( IIII I I I Is 11 1 Ii 11 1 I I 1 I i i kI i I I I 1\ It ;i i t 111 I111 I5 I I I11 I 111 )I Itw FIG. 1. Cooperatively managed 2,700 M 2 four-pond module located in Cascajal, Codle. This duck-fish-vegetable project provides food to 11 families. POND MANAGEMENT Two-Pond Module '1 1i ( ()lI I s I , dit I I li I 11111 ,I I m I(]1 II I t ill I (111 \ -I)(1 I I 11111I T Iit , t1;mI I I111 I i-, I III tr I( li is stil I1 I s t I I I I 1( / 1 ti I ( LI I I I ts 111 li t -,(. 1I i i I L i II I (d I I((t t w1 1111I it di I I I , 11 1 - 2. \ i \1 (I 51 F l ifli 4 il l i( 05 lII rc i illto I tI l Ii 1 )() 1 a t i Ir 111 II I I 111 IIIIII I I() II li ) I 1111 11 11 tI lt I I ill I I1(,', ):))t Ill)\I 1 1110 1111I( i I it' Tlc II (tol'i l sI .~ iI liiI ill till ktill tll ( Ii l (l tt ( (" i it I Iil 1111hpii't is ii lit I'll (' l iI 1I111 _I nS i to it t (d11 1 )()1 5it (- (i hI i I I ( 1 . Pr1111 , t it li t is i iii (1d111 ii,( i tsll I I 'tI l m -I I t I its) II lii Ill \I I I 11,1 Mi Ilt I I it tt , I 1111 iiil s il Iti 1 ,1,111 I 'itll (d11 il l h t i I pIS 1 16 1 il i l ti i ii t ll' stI I I i 11111 t\\ lIti tl 1111pit t tI111 it llii r~iS I II ,i/( It ial of ) t II (1()1 1 , I(II 'S tl) tlt ~ l iI C 51,~t11116 1111 l t is liht' *is t Ii 111I lit il II )I dw 1 1 1 Ill it 11,11111 1 il a P t mlilt I iii t ( (I t II 55 Ii ilt st Im d to t11 II I sit i ttilt liiI i Ill t'Iiltpis. til ' slii hI i 11 I (d it I 1111s I I IIisk (d 150 11,1 I wII f~l~ it i l I t l i ll 0 1( I 1111 l I ii t aI 51111' I k1(I111 ) sl i I iI IlIl s l i II, 1m ll ,t 11 (d i tl 1111 'I5 I 1,( s i i A II' ill iI SPAWNING-NURSERY POND T niltica mates and temate adults. Stocking rate Females 1 3 ml Males 1 9mr GROW-OUT POND T nidotica mates arid teolales ot 6 cm to 10 cm -a pieoatst C main aquense Initial stocking rate Tilapia 1 to2 im Predator 1 to 2 5 m Ratio o1 mates to females: Ratio ot tilaplas to predator 1 mate tor each 3 temaies 5 titapias for each predator Harvest: Time -alter 4 months Type -partial Size ot fingerinog 6 to 10 cm Harvest: Time -atter 4 to 6 months Type -partial or Iotal Restocking Partial harvest -stock 5 tilapias of 6-10 cm for each 4 tilapias har- vesied. C. managuense wilt repro- ouce in the pond and does not re- quire restocking. Total harvest -equal to the initial stocking rate FIG. 2. Two-pond moduie. '11(.1l 1,; -1 T- T nilotica male and female adults. Stocking rate: Females = 1/3 m 2 Males = 1/9 m 2 Ratio of males to females: 1 male for each 3 females Harvest: Time - 2 to 3 months Type - total Size of fingerling - 3 to 6 cm T nilotica mixed sex fingerlings of 3 cm to 6 cm. Stocking rate: Tilapias = 10/m 2 Harvest: Time - 3 to 4 months Type - total Size of fingerling - 8 to 12 cm Restocking: All fingerlings remaining in the pond must be eliminated before restocking. Restocking: All fingerlings and fry remaining in the pond must be eliminated before restocking with adults. NURSERY POND FIG. 3. Three-pond module. munity while the males are retained for further growth. After all the nursery pond fingerlings have been sexed, the pond is dried, pre- pared, and restocked with small fingerlings from the spawning pond. Well managed spawning and nursery ponds will permit three cycles (harvests) per year. The grow-out pond is initially stocked with male tilapias and carps at the rate described for the two-pond module. The grow-out pond is partially harvested 4 to 6 months after stocking and res- tocked with male T. nilotica taken from the nursery pond. The nurs- ery pond is also used to hold Chinese carp seed produced in the gov- ernment fish hatchery for restocking the grow-out pond. The management steps carried out in a 3-pond module are shown in fig- ure 3. Four-Pond Module This module consists of spawning, nursery, prestocking, and grow-out ponds, figure 4. The procedure used to produce small and large tilapia fingerlings in the spawning and nursery ponds is similar to that of the three-pond module. Male tilapia fingerlings can be stocked directly into the grow-out pond or held in the prestocking pond until needed. Holding the male tilapias in a prestocking pond permits a second manual sexing to reduce the number of females in- advertently included with the males. The prestocking pond also serves as a Chinese carp holding pond. Stocking rates, partial har- vests, and restocking of the grow-out pond are performed as in the other modules. Figure 4 depicts the steps used by a community to produce male T. nilotica seed, stock, and harvest a four-pond, grow-out system. LIVESTOCK All pond modules were associated with animal husbandry activi- ties. The organic wastes were washed daily into all ponds to increase water fertility Projects with pigs, chickens, ducks, and cattle were tested to determine the effects of the manure on fish production. Materials such as cement, galvanized zinc sheets, wire, and ce- ment blocks to build the animal enclosures and storehouses were subsidized by the government and were included in pond construc- tion costs. Each community provided local building materials, such as sand, gravel, and wood poles, and the labor to build the facilities. Animal shelters were located to permit water to flow through the en- closures and transport wastes to the ponds. Most grow-out ponds received either a prestocking application of chicken manure, 2,000 kilograms per hectare, or 12-24-12 (N,P,0, K,0), 60 kilograms per hectare, in addition to the livestock manure. Pigs Ten pond projects were associated with hogs. The pig sties en- closed 30 square meters with cement floors, wire enclosures, and SPAWNING POND Tniticamale and female adults Stocking rate: Females = 1/3m 2 Males = 1/9 m 2 Ratio of males to females: 1 male for each 3 females Harvest: Time - 2 to 3 months Type - total Size of fingerling - 3 to 6 cm Restocking: All fingerlings and fry remaining in the pond must be eliminated before restocking with adults. NURSERY POND PRESTOCKING POND GROW-OUT POND T niotica mixed sex finger- Tnilotica males (storage) T nilotica males Stocking rate: Tilapia= 10/m 2 Harvest: Time - 3 to 4 months Type - partial or total Size of fingerling-8 to 12 cm Restocking: All fingerlings remaining in the pond must be elimi- nated before restocking with adults. Stocking rate: Tilapia = 5/m 2 Harvest: Time - when males are needed in the grow-out pond Type - partial or total F Restocking: Partial-5 male tilapias for every 4 harvested Total - same as initial stocking rate Stocking rate: Tilapia = 1 to 2/m 2 Harvest: Time - 4 to 6 months Type - partial or total Size- 17 to 22 cm Restocking: Partial harvest - 5 male tilapias for each 4 male tilapias harvested. Total harvest - equal to the initial stocking rate. FIG. 4. Four-pond module. SPAWNING POND GROW-OUT POND T nilotica males Stocking rate: Tilapias = 1 to 2/m 2 Harvest: Time - 4 to 6 months Type - partial or total Size - 17 to 22 cm Restocking: Partial harvest - 5 male tilapias for each 4 male tilapias harvested Total harvest - equal to the initial stocking rate. LV~I\~ U _ __v f galvanized zinc sheet roofs. The sties were divided so that two lots of pigs could be raised simultaneously. Lots were introduced about 2 months apart so that the sty always contained pigs. The staggered fattening cycle facilitates marketing and the fish pond never lacks manure. The sties were built to hold 30 pigs, but were initially stocked with 20 pigs. This stocking rate was the equivalent of 64-101 pigs per hectare of water, table 1. The piglets, Yorkshire x Landrace hybrids, were purchased from private producers and fattened on commercial rations bought in large cities. The pigs were fed a grow- ers ration daily for the first 11/2 months and then a fattening ration to slaughter size at approximately 5 percent of their body weight. The community was encouraged to plant forage crops, manioc, corn, ba- nanas, or other crops to supplement the commercial ration and lower feed costs. Pigs were fattened over a 100- to 120-day period and mar- keted locally or transported to a slaughter house. Transportation of piglets, ration, and fattened pigs is by public, private, and govern- ment transportation. Project members provide daily maintenance and simple prophylatic health care. The government provides vet- erinarian service. Chickens Three communities with existing chicken fattening projects were selected. They contain between 5,000 and 10,000 birds and the manure produced was greater than required for the fish ponds and gardens. Chicken manure, mixed with litter, was bagged and stored after each fattening cycle. The manure was then applied weekly to the fish ponds at rates from 500 to 1,000 kilograms per hectare. Chicks were bought from government and private producers. Com- mercial chicken feed was purchased from a private supplier who de- livered the ration to the growers for a modest transportation fee. The 60-day-old chickens were sold alive, on-the-farm to a private pro- cesser who cleaned, froze, and marketed them. Ducks Two communities raised Peking ducks. The ducks were placed on the grow-out ponds at a rate equivalent to one duck every 10.4 square meters and 12.5 square meters of pond surface. Two-week- old ducklings were purchased from a commercial producer. The ducks were fed a commercial chicken ration placed in feeders lo- cated on floating pond rafts. The ducks were restricted within a fence, allowing them access to specific pond areas. The duck corral was divided in half so that two lots of ducks could be raised. When one lot was ready for market, a second lot remained, providing man- ure to the ponds. The ducks were ready for harvest in approximately 11 weeks of fattening, processed by project members, and trans- ported to freezing facilities. The government provided transport of ration and also ducks to markets. Cattle Four communities with existing extensive cattle or dairy cow projects and fenced pastures used liquid cattle manure to fertilize their fish ponds. A cement-floored cattle corral was built near the pond modules. The corral was positioned so that the water used to fill the ponds passed through the corral before reaching the ponds. Cattle or dairy cows were corraled in the evening, 3 to 7 days per week. Each morning the cattle were released to pasture. The wastes deposited during the night were washed into the fish ponds in a liq- uid form. Although the correct number of adult animals per hectare of water is unknown, community groups were advised to use one cow per 100-200 square meters of pond area. One project was able to supplement its cattle manure production by collecting and trans- porting manure from a nearby dairy farm. The experienced Pana- manian cattle rancher needs little help in reproducing, fattening, and marketing his animals. The grass-fed cattle do not receive a commercial ration. Cattle and Chicken Manure Three projects started with cattle but, because of technical or so- cial problems, were unable to continue solely with cattle. The com- munities started supplementing the periodic applications of cattle manure with chicken manure at the rate of 200-500 kilograms per hectare per week. Chicken manure was purchased locally or do- nated by the government. Irregular doses of liquid cattle manure were applied as detailed for cattle only ponds. TABLE 1. RELATIONSHIP OF LIVESTOCK To TOTAL FISH PRODUCTION Livestock Module, no. Grow-out Prestocking Culture Type of Animals Fish Fish Average pr yield vield yield Livestock of ponds pond area fertilization period harvest hetare heet day her/vr he /vr. hectr etare/day hectare/vr. hectare/vr. 11m" Days No. kg kg kg Pigs Chumical......... . 3 1,980 C.M.' 552 Total 101 3.5 1,288 Guavabito ........ 4 2,072 C.M. 642 Total 96 7.7 2,821 Mata Palo ........ 2 2,450 C.M. 629 Total 82 7.4 2,693 2,197 Montana ......... . 4 3,219 688 Total 64 5.9 2,161 La Penita......... . 2 2,260 C.M. 587 Total 88 5.5 2,022 Ducks La Arena ......... . 2 1,845 249 Total 962 9.9 3,613 3,460 Cascajal .......... 4 2,500 C.M. 484 Total 800 9.1 3,306 Chickens Los Higos ........ 3 3,823 C.M. 781 Partial 5.6 2,027 Majarilla ......... . 4 3,010 C.M. 482 Total 8.3 3,031 2,329 San Jose .......... 3 12,400 C.M. 652 Total 5.3 1,928 Cattle Espavecito ........ 3 4,051 N-P-K" 538 Total 3.3 1,205 La Miel .......... 3 2,534 N-P-K 755 Total 59 5.2 1,893 1,727 Remedios ........ 3 4,118 N-P-K 581 Partial 5.7 2,084 Cattle + Chickens Bavano........... . 4 3,966 N-P-K 727 Partial 2.6 960 Pedregoso ........ 2 1,805 C.M. 536 Total 5.4 1,955 1,171 Las Trancas ........ 2 3,029 551 Total 1.6 597 1. Chicken manure. 2. 12-24-12 (N, P,0 5 , K,0). HORTICULTURE I () I i l i i , ill 1 i lif I t 1 1(1 )1(1 I iil. itti itl li t I I I it]- tlii 11iii.it to (It I i () (k Ii l I I i t I i x i i li: \it l i i i i dI-ra it tI )I I (J I I(- liiid ill I ix \ccii l oit it I I it )t i q c liol liii I t iic- I I t hci~ IT) it orc. -11 1 il I i ll )1 11i li tx lii 111 IL il i tt i "ICi ti it l r~ 'il I S t o 111 11 (1(t i 1it 1(iLtt I h ) 1i (- i It Ii i l h I uit i 1 it ;il iiit/li i i lii , i 1 tIlt F M ) t Idx I i I I i xt Ilii~ Iiii iiiillil L itttii lx ti i it HARVESTING I l il itcil adIiiii( ctlo I ii tio Tooi ith 1 iN iixiitx it 111tixi" itl itl- Ii Ii i it a l i )1 i . I() - it * i iii l1 ,ii l\\ I I ()I ,, I \\ i i li it I I i t .1 i Iiii. i i i iiis -, I ()\ x it i Ii it -,it i' Iiii xxilliii (it iti i uu i a lii i di Ii G its illil . \\ iiudit FI Ii i I i t i t ii i I ix i i o(i Iii 1(1( iti ic iioll itt I t lii i l tt ill iiittd cadwi .tiiii lw \cr oltdopi((l(c \ ~ ).j,, im-ok .1 , (:o llIlloio, CRED) \ it i d to p kt l (,. HARVESTIN Il l (,t d \ il ,il l t tl il ,, il ip r m la e ll(Itll ll laS I-1w .P rt lla~c t\,L ~ Ickte FIG, 5. A partial harvest of tilapia and carps is evenly distributed amongst the 14 families participating in the agroaquaculture project located in Mata Palo, Veraguas. 11111(li i tt 20 0x \" [ ii Itx i l 1 ii I i iii ll, TIiii it_, 1ii 1111 1xi 1)( \i pi l wiii i Bilil i i I i ( )1 (m iii(- - t I ,i , ) p 1((]t i ' N t )Il( TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Extension liittii l.IxI) 1)1. i I l x ilti I ( 1(\ : Lxiii 1 ii l itpli 1, 2( ti 1 2 c l \\C )i xiit (ii it -2.5- (,, ii til i noki it.\ .x ilc i ci iii ii i i \ tt ii iutlh w tiiiiiu iiiiil .u iiiulxv xxiii itititiit i x x tt i til ix- I) i c 1i t lx,i lt lii lad i i -\ x I ku w l x it I I I loll I )i l i I Ii d iI l t ix lli s ixt ii lodct io and tiliii i,,c oil t ii tpi c d i i i , o itl \ii t i oiliiti if xt it ix)It lloim iii l t xli L i lr iol ditt a lii l eiii Il i\iiir itt li i t t to w imi it itiit i d( it,, t xiii,, i xl iii iii i, ait )I -)i tl li it ".iitiiii iT id Ii I tI C I i t ii lit -t t Ii /1t I t i 11(liii ii lralnin Ii \w \\ ii \lul )i ll\i\ \['1 I\ l~xx txxx 19 1 77xi. 19I52 \\I) i \o\ Dc(~t 212 L t t I 1 1)10 0I 1 tilt -- - tills Poi -I o "1 it1 iiioititli Haillf1k1l, Im illollitlis Jan. Fcb. M ill opl . \lit,\ -- .11111c Jilk \11'_ Scl)L Oct TABLE 3. PRODUCTION, AVERAGE WEIGHT, AND PERCENT OF TOTAL FISH YIELD FOR SPECIES CULTURED IN EACH LIVESTOCK GROUP Performance measure Pigs Ducks Livestock- Cattle Cattle + chicken Average by species chickens Tilapia Average yield (790-2,550) 1 (1,461-2,107) 1 (1,203-1,715) 1 (929-1,120) 1 (311-1,019) 1 Kg/ha/yr ................ 1,584 1,784 1,400 1,023 682 1,295 (79-185) (141-146) (147-250) (90-209) (81-240) Average weight, g ....... 133 144 191 168 147 154 Avg. percent of total (59.0-91.0) (49.0-66.0) (57.0-63.0) (47.0-77.0) (52.0-74.0) Yield .................. 71.0 53.7 59.7 61.0 60.3 61.1 Common carp Average yield (86-134) (266-399) (36-172) (9-69) (33-221) Kg/ha/yr ................ 150 333 93 32 104 142 (244-1, 165) (556-624) (391-488) (303-1,733) (393-815) Average weight, g ....... 582 590 448 852 545 601 Avg. percent of total (3.0-16.0) (6.0-12.0) (2.0-8.0) (1.0-3.0) (6.0-12.0) Yield ................ .. 7.4 10.0 4.0 1.7 8.7 6.4 Silver and bighead carps Average yield (103-814) (710-917) (672-1,216) (269-1,074) (21-597) Kg/ha/yr ................ 442 814 866 698 346 712 (381-793) (363-750) (318-797) (325-418) (369-439) Average weight, g ....... 598 557 613 384 408 520 Avg. percent of total (4.0-30.0) (22.0-45.0) (33.0-41.0) (22.0-50.0) (22.0-38.0) Yield .................. 21.6 36.3 36.3 37.3 31.0 32.5 'Range of values. TABLE 4. FISH YIELD COMPARISON BETWEEN Two-POND AND THREE- AND FOUR-POND MODULES Two-pond module Three and four-pond Performance measure mixed sex tilapia with a modules predator all-male tilapia Average tilapia yield, kg/ha/yr ............ 1,052 1,371 Average tilapia weight, g........... 136 163 Total fish yield, kg/ha/yr ........... 1,864 2,064 WEATHER Average monthly rainfall data were collected in Divisa, Panama, for a 5-year period, 1977-81, and the drought years of 1982 and 1983 are presented in table 2. One millimeter of rainfall was recorded over a 165-day period from November 11, 1982, to April 28, 1983. The 6-month period from November 1, 1982, to April 30, 1983, was the driest in the last 75 years. As a result, 8 of 16 projects analyzed in this chapter were seriously affected by a lack of water. Two proj- ects dried completely and six had their spawning and nursery ponds dry up. Two conclusions may be drawn from this situation: 1. Despite technical problems, people maintained an interest in their ponds. 2. The technology can withstand severe environmental pressures. WATER QUALITY Pond water quality was measured in each community with a Hach kit. Readings for pH values ranged from 6.5 to 7.5, with an average reading of 7.2. Total alkalinity ranged between 10 and 150 milli- grams per liter, an average of 68, and hardness ranged between 0 and 103 milligrams per liter, an average of 51. Water quality was not considered a constraint on fish production except in Chumical, table 1, where the pH was 7.0, total alkalinity was 10 milligrams per liter, and hardness was 0. Pond water and soil in Chumical were recently limed to improve water quality. Lime was not applied in any other projects. No fish mortalities due to low dissolved oxygen caused by excess manure were recorded. FISH PRODUCTION Average fish production for all projects was equivalent to 2,177 kil- ograms per hectare per year, table 2. Integration with ducks re- sulted in the largest average fish production, followed by fish pro- duction with chickens, pigs, cattle, and cattle plus chickens, table 2. Highest average tilapia production also was obtained with ducks, followed by pigs and chickens. Reduced tilapia production occurred with cattle and cattle plus chickens. Average tilapia production for all livestock treatments was 1,295 kilograms per hectare per year,; table 3. Average tilapia harvest weight for all livestock treatments was 154 grams. The size of tilapia harvested depended on commu- nity desire and net mesh size used. Some project members were sat- isfied with fish of 50 to 100 grams, while others wanted fish of 200 grams, table 3. An average of 61 percent of the total fish production from all livestock treatments was comprised of tilapia. Average common carp and silver and bighead carp production for all livestock treatments was 142 and 712 kilograms per hectare per year, respectively. Common carp had an average harvest weight of 601 grams, while silver and bighead carps averaged 520 grams. Common carp and silver and bighead carps averaged 6 percent and 32 percent, respectively, of the average total weight harvested. A summary of fish production results are presented in tables 2 and 3. The guapote tigre effectively controlled tilapia density and con- sisted of 0.6-2.8 percent of the total catch by weight (17 kilograms per hectare per year). Many small guapote were confused with and reported as tilapia. The average fish production obtained from the two-pond modules using mixed-sex T. nilotica with a predator and three- and four- pond modules stocked with male tilapia is given in table 4. A small difference was observed in average tilapia and total fish production in the two systems. Survival of stocked fish was hard to determine because partial harvests left an undetermined number of fish in some ponds. How- ever, eight totally drained grow-out ponds allowed an estimate of fish survival. An average of 72 percent of the stocked tilapias were harvested, while an average of 57 percent and 53 percent of the stocked common carp and silver and bighead carps were recovered. Low survival appears to be related to the small size of stocked fish, 1 to 3 grams, and unregistered harvesting by project participants and non-participants. Demand for Divisa hatchery fish seed is high. Thus, fish seed are stocked below ideal size, resulting in high mor- tality due to handling during transport and insect predation after stocking. lIi 1 1 1 - 111f 1 I t I iiii xl tI I , 'IIIIi ] I,iliIi Ill C I hfi 111 ti I h ,i II liii I11 fI l lii (III I I I I(\ (fI1 1111lo It XX iloo I I Ii I i ail t I lilt I 'I I I I I( l I . i I tI (It Ii )itI ( )I Ii I IIIII il t ji Ifill ( i tijii I ll Iiii i t iL c i Iiot I ~I(i r o\\ ( o11 Ii tl s11 I X I 1 I II t I( I I IX li i 11. I IIItI I i i i I (' IX III I i (- I i . ihioi I\ \\i i it\ o c ii Ii i Ix lit fil Ii ( I s li l I I f illl\ l ' ilill ) i l JIXI Ixi ',, Xip c e i ll a il tiiiit \ Ix li iie V \ c? i th h s xlio iI lii ril d ,ii XIII i i ll 'ii ,Id l( ' l ti itv ( l till iiitil tid, lii i I I lI I I I l Iti \ il i I I I f (,) I i lim I 1 toll i I lcr a i I I i lii tI il till. -ll pl iiit. 1111' ti-ll l ~ i si utXi (tth Xli i cs \i III t 111ilit to 1111 X h l iiils If( ii li li siii I , iii (IX .iiiii X ci l ii i s liii li l\ ilii tll' I I -IIti i olll i li aI cc itlei sn ti r he l h pXXII s i t o )111 t Ii111 X I I I l c 1 tl i llt'- 1 ' if 1)11) p lfi i li t li l iIi XXodIII iiiit Is\illilil Iii 111r Ilifiil t ii i lXli il' \Imiiiiof'~ tilpiX al IIIi I(lilc dcitiXl'il iic tisdfi il o cc t10p r HARVESTS '1 11fl Im It i( iljlll X Xiil (' iii li thi' il s Ii X i ti fl 1111 IlitX Ill 1 XI tl l ofs lx 11111. c o ih h tc llb olsi cdo ol i i lI)[ 'X Iii' I 'iil t x to ' Iii- i t .iii ' iii X 1111 t i itiIii of l i' hil\ te filt il X t i i Ill 11 tl t ill IX ll d i it IX Ii i Ii i i 1 l \\ 11 iii , ii i i t, 11 11 ii 11 111111 X I ,1 fI X it It ft : ~ i I X ill( IL . kIi l t, i I I I I I I I I I , i I11 I I I IIIIIIIIIt I (1-I1 II1 lI I Xj litXX 111114im- 11111 XIIl X:3 11111ll 41ilo lis(' uhfl t fI)(,- tiii\ (,ill iii t'20 _rtm ii Iii lu ifi. 'twilt siX c i lt '-I m 111 it( (ii ti 1w I'Xt Ii itid lihi 11( 1 l cilm- i i I t h f I) IX Ciif iillo I Wili Ii H lifl I o t it iti l-iii calltI itI Ic it (I loc l) Iilt id I i ' .11i1I~ tlo XII plili il ital 111 ii i I itc hoXo k an if- ](it to11 X l i i 1, t ] i uu, il thi I u 11 1 I i XiI w XIX ~ hi> ~X vi. ~t'. I' I'' 4''- A; ~; ~ * g~I ~.fl I',?' XI ~I *I 9 v.4 XII. FIG. 6. Pastured cattle are herded into a corrat each afternoon in El Pedregoso, Veraguas. Manure deposited at night is washed into the pond to increase pond fertility and fish yield. Pigs xili nt theiuu fi l( iiiii 122 pii2IctX \ Xit IX , ) fi-litl lDiwi \XI XIX nut iii scIX lii prob t i ll lout~ fit c liii i. t tl'i.ld (iii lit\lu ll (,X i irhll i fl li 111 Loll it ic Xi illisiii I iti l X th filiii ',o I lill liii it il lilith111 to l mi i dct tip fix i ce lX f )1i4 fll i X oiicaIuull l u ll t i li i ~i tillix \\ih11 N l 11.1l( " .- 111 lt Iils r d t ils o tl FIG. 7 Typical pigsty constructed of cement, wire, wood poles, and zinc sheets located on the bank of a pond module in Mata Palo, Ver- aguas. Unemployed boys and women commonly provide daily care to the pigs and fish. Ducks I )1 iii p] mi (x'(*I Il i I) xi 'w ilcI o t i i Ilt iii c i al i f it. Ii ". flit it] x ti ll tilii i t ll ii o t i c \\ii(1(1 ,h tt c ,Ic lt s l b c l Chickens (:ll( I\ I t I i (I(-( t s t \c x x i i i t it it it ollt b\ flix t I i 11", \ liii b al l- itt c f it l ci ot i l k. it \x itilii tfti, \1I If) V 'I'li fi tritti tx xxci liit l Ilitilx xx it 1ii .( i ki lix t (Itik i if i i itti i ill ii t o tili it lcxmx itt tilt\ \x li t ifpi o tilto if xii it t xxi.~u tlix tix &S lit ,ikit up oil lii ( ttittull Iit\ lii ) t (x I fixit t x t ti iit xx i atf i l \\x it xit ifl(] il Ittix sl Cattle i I I,Ii I IIIi I I iii ii i I t 1 dIii-.lx 11t ( , I tIo li, -i I x I , l ii ( (I I I/ Ii xi It[ I I, (,( I ito x) Ii I i t t ( 1111111 Ii xt Ii if rsii Iitk f c .I A 11 ( iix iii!( 1 I -( \ ixh iat t h I I i ] il I fIIIr \ *.l c lc lilc l ( )i, l ,.(:ttc ol ltI ~ I lte ilit I i i tt () lx h)I sA il I ofI IxIIIIIII I 1 -1 i .i Ii oi til ittiii ('s,, 'it (iIi t I ls TlI t til 'ltii x i Il ii (l i tilt/1\ c i it r Ii I ii ili fil t11 i iii liii li )l Iot\xt I xI 1) li i.I ii .3 I iIi xIs, it)t i tI it II I t (I1(ti Ii iii x i I I I I -l I I I I t I l ll it I I II' litl appcitCattl and Chickenscc~ 2lxxiii if t N S, I )li ji i iIx is 1 i1( 1 I i I I i 11 i itaIc t t I c i Ii RII I i i I I itetl ii cof ixilittil I p qxiix ht xli) Il( i1 \i ,cao ii ix x tli ilii itt pol iii ii tliii aii il s It 1i 11,,xt i i. Ax 1w (Ipls~ to o itiil xiiic hit i flit i iitttlt f,()] bcst11"llForestryll 3.lx t i p11 iiix iits I tix lilti s i i i (I i( ]lot iiic l iii i llt i iiit i i a litI i itt co lii I i ll w ft i ii ii . wi i li .x itt iii t s \'( it ~ iI(o \\ li c t xxi 'i it x i i lt x e r i i t t t l i i i l c a t i i t x i i ix- x i i t l l c r i l l i I i i i f i i a l t i t i l Credit FIG. 8. Up to 800 ducks per hectare can be inten: fish harvests of 3,500 kg ha ,yr. as is seen in thit pond in Cascal, Ccde. xxiii (iitlii utt lix BM)- ill LI ci ls iix itl oIit S,200t ill lottit xxiit it II iliI. ( pict liii f(ilit n c Ii ~ I fli it tt t t' i tIlt. I i l i f tI I i t I lt )( 1 xxi tu Iliiw ,i i (' ) ( )iti I iiii il x ( itui s\\ if thIu\ it i o f x I I II(( it tx x I,) IxI.I I I. ~ ' I t iai Itt lx xx 11 tt i tIjI I t tut I is i x ) I It Ii tu xi if I( I Ill iic - - 11 . xx11( i x hut a-Iiulil lilii ilt xx oc siitititi l it thu I xic, t ii b t tw tiltuli i x iii ltiitoxtiuuixtx pro itit 1ltItI w Itit o () tl ()l I o-1 o'\c, f' viw ofagr w o t ItI I at( ititutthi litf It p] oetil e I II) iii i tuIu uIf to tIoi xso, t tI ii I ll)ai \ TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Extension An attempt was made to determine the average number of days extensionists spent in each project. During the time that participant groups were being organized and construction completed, extension activities were intense. Thereafter, extension assistance was slowly reduced as project members became more experienced and as new projects demanded attention. After the first year of operation, ex- tension effort was reduced to three visits per month, about 12 hours, and involved routine pond checks, harvesting, attending group meetings, transporting feed and animals, processing loan applica- tions, and giving seminars. An average of about 261 hours was spent by extensionists in proj- ect communities during the first year. Over two-thirds of this time was spent in group organization and construction of pond and animal facilities. The quantity and quality of extension assistance varied greatly, depending on the number of projects each extensionist ser- viced and the distance and accessibility of each project from head- quarters. For example, the extensionist in charge of Eastern Chiri- qui attends only 3 projects, four extensionists assist 17 projects in Herrera, two attend 81 ponds in Codcle, two oversee 11 projects in Los Santos, and six assist 182 ponds in Veraguas. While extension efforts were mainly directed toward the AID financed projects, ex- clusive attention was not possible because other pond operators needed assistance. Technical capacity of extension workers was ad- equate. Dedication and interest were excellent. The number of ex- tensionists was not a major limiting factor except in Veraguas Prov- ince. Transportation of extensionists to the field was the principal con- straint on effectiveness of the extension program. Nevertheless, the authors feel that technical aspects of the extension effort during the 2.5-year pilot phase were adequate. As demand for fish projects in- creased, the extensionists' work load became greater and less time could be spent with each project. Transportation limitations placed additional strains on them. Interest in rural, integrated aquaculture was growing, but the technical transfer support base remained sta- ble. The necessity of an adequate extension program cannot be over emphasized. Working with the most needy and inexperienced seg- ment of the rural population requires time and patience. Expansion of rural agroaquaculture must coincide with the growth of the tech- nical support services (extension). Initially, the AID supported project groups selected members to be trained at Divisa. Demand for training increased rapidly and the program was expanded to non-AID supported communities. Mem- bers of 70 communities participated in fish culture training pro- grams. Courses also were offered to personnel, including extension- ists, from other government agencies interested in promoting agroaquaculture. The training component was highly effective and should be continued and even strengthened. CONSTRAINTS ON SELF-SUFFICIENCY There are many factors that affect the ability of a community to attain self-sufficiency. Two principal constraints, transportation and credit, have been discussed. A third constraint, group size, war- rants mention. Many projects have too many participants to provide each an adequate amount of fish per harvest. Approximately 2 kil- ograms per week, about 104 kilograms per year, would allow a fam- ily of five to eat fish twice a week. Based on the average fish pro- duction obtained to date, 2,177 kilograms per hectare per year, approximately 484 square meters of pond space would be needed to provide each participant with 104 kilograms per year. If fish pro- duction is increased to 3,000 kilograms per hectare per year through improved management, then 350 square meters of pond area would suffice. Thus, at least 350 square meters of grow-out area should be allotted per participant. At this time, most projects have only 100- 200 square meters of pond per participant. Where topography does not permit at least 350 square meters of grow-out pond per partic- ipant, the number of project members should be limited to conform to the pond area available. Too many members for the amount of fish harvested can produce social pressures that cause the project to fail. CONCLUSIONS In summary, projects have been well-received by participants. Groups have organized and generally followed instructions of the ex- tensionists. In general, the participants have learned to manage their agroaquaculture projects. However, several more years are needed to determine if agroaquaculture projects can generate enough social, economic, and nutritional benefits to become self- sustaining operations in rural Panama. Project groups also need more time to improve their operational efficiency. Finally, more time is needed to determine if these groups can operate with minimal Government of Panama logistical support. 12 Training Chapter 11 Nutritional Monitoring and Evaluation V.G. deCastillo itiii ltil it ioiat statuls (If 11155 illlilic huh1-a ftiliicis is of grit loitec to illit ciiii 1011(1s awlitintona f ulicri'i i4 alccs )~Ciallge fOill of iil i\ I i i a o11 1 1r'lit iii ll omgrcill fo ir 1 illi 055n Ilroll' proolli iil 011i. I iti Ialii oIs wiio fis tnring faric patlif taii power callt ir 5(ll iii Il lit ite11a ni l ilas gil tcatc atils f a riciial s ro - phs3 f li gl ciuilli l iifI lcatl ilidio iii il'dii pp rn i ii tis ak lti. .\ut t ii ii ii llltiii pi Irilct fish IIloilt 5 sss ic ii' aiiri s ii liiis i al 1 1(1 toa caill dilliiiltlui Itlll\ grr'at tia ltl r 11 i iti i triflll. 1i.i tii iiitistic a alhl t ihto pa(1riciiltsitg 1 stiis rciallbii'llto 2i 1111 tiii inaiaiiali i ~iiitr l(,toii ll fsh or oth al irr llitl tiir'~l silisl( urios if/o toi iiacqui(re hlt ira ,i(t IllsI itis fiiiiaiie ofl oiiti\ill illi'lli proteins, awl illiirliis iiiiitsi i rs'ss hifiro :Ioi s iw rati onr lit5 rfa~ i ti ri li tsiciirki ()iioi h983fa(' ail'lliir i 1 1a 1a(l t tlc c iof tic lli)liii r (il' iic s t fothe1ri a il. The 1iiits itttiiiii imptS t f'lii'l I ipriti its lis 1as) iiiisscsrt ill irilitok i ti' thiiei' (hlit s l -il cri7pr rrr'ient illfr'liic ioil'i tclicr trchi cqitiasimtiigi o5a gt'iti'i illa ilci n il~l hagiid the- elgtc 41 prI iniirii tii lcl iiits ssaXli 153 uiiltu ii-ulii (Xi Nico i'( ii (Ilx A ~ iii cHiol s ii a Iie nriti nalt pr'r'i uti Paama aliii oIf ta ilitis i lwi~oiolf iiiii atsfci .ts fabostiffly clirrti t o t\ili aiiiii' tih i nt rir ii75paci roif th daits (rliiiiiiFish idcd lrs Pit i Pnma Tth cioolpli. iriitin' ias ior'c ws of (>ic~lic Xr' t'ai 1)-iii oftVritutla rcoi oclui I 1 titcui, aws Los XXats b\ ilt, 9 f,n aithroicilitrIc slcti li oishh tg tlk~s lfwl iiol %t c,ukat in1oiaui bscii r'cinflc r tr ir siugu ictbe liiiS. Tltutut 1twici iliiis the ciiiiticii iiiinls darsol'a1 idrt Paiam rsil siu'C t lo alltiltiol ahichlaiin to(d weiats arc ioiaiis (3 rt Reet sioic ( i) r ss itt i111 fts inrae at 1 liclaiiuuup1o iocuclrratio crugu ans 95ci ihcs nt fc' sti't thi ll\rclilir'rllI cloriictaql 5 pa ofclts tIl'ls itic fuiur's r'oiuior'i uocat i 1 as tiht a~c calosi c Sit I Hias is fit pi t lt ftnh a c d lirtars e( ](tt'r\(,I: firl Iou in Prttr' ii fiii inth 1 1 ,iuiui ilirs a( tno o lit dec 5prei' ficoii'ci itallnsc T ihits Ourlt i( \\s lea t1il iiic e an( tirt uitiicti 36i iiolii ts pef' FIG. 1. A typical member household in the mountains of impover- ished El Pedregoso, Veraguas. OBJECTIVES impact of thec 1'rr'sissalt Fish ti otoi c" pri uir on) iiii at faiies. XMiire spcifir'ails tie lictiscs XXIII: I. Toi (iitrtiliii iff fu' -siusstu' fish ruutirtti iiiprojets iiiipiisi thei ill tauke of naiiiiics, prouteini s itainfin A, ji-on, owt iblflis i, is tiuc tar tiripatiflg fliiiiili's amwl tii rcitil Iru i the iiopit ion iii chituti cii ill- rctilcil ill auii'iiuati' ssigiit lai.e ticigut/igc iiiui ssigii'itjl .IiIlt rutcgurir's aiiur ther total itiroton' of, tiic fMiiii awil thei sti uctoic of tauuuiis iuiirhgcts. 2 .ii i)(ctcrttuuinc'tlic ireIatioitsliip iutsicntn'ilsc r'ir'itic ill tiir' alnus raidin tIuc sizre of tiir pruir'rt, pnuriihl attaiii'ni awl tiii 3 .lTo 0rictiufsl~ (iiirittuf tiu(,c riatincis alurt nicstiloationl of tlic fish I. Tii rtitf alln ir'srhr ther iiiiti'itiiiiiii ,itii soiocii 'uiiuuir' i troi i il r'i ti iticus. METHODOLOGY EVALUATION MODEL Traditional Terli rolliiilikii it lus si'Ii'tu~ 'r ( itiilo ufn tom a tutal iif77 thiat tim 1 )1980. Alt ther r'oilltioiiittii's ssrr iiuratr'r ill tiii ti-o ii' c iiii' ii N t iis Pilot itil r'ioiiitiitii's ill tiii patit itti'rtatcdI aijiaiiuitu i sr'icu lii timtcrI iii 1981 tic firt 10 itprlitirts it ii'ii'iti'rh) werell sclictcirt 'Fi ilrc arc iti thii' p]ios itc of' Xi'tagiiis th-c il In li'rr'ua, tll ci' ill Los Sintiis iiiif iow' ill Coiidi. Control 'Tu c itii riitiio co (liii itir's whic IiIo wfiiit hisi'wi of \iill t i 115 fish poun~ ii ogrihos ill tien ncxt :3 Xlii', wsuiu' scii'ntiut t'Il( sceceI com-il structures as the pilot communities and are located in the same provinces, i.e. three are in Veraguas, and so on. From each of the three groups, an attempt was made to survey a maximum of 40 randomly selected families, and at least 50 percent of the participant and non-participant populations in the fish pond project communities. It was not possible to achieve this goal in all the communities. Information on domestic diet, anthropometry, and household budgets was gathered in 30 communities, from the prov- inces of Veraguas, Cocle, Herrera, and Los Santos. Data were col- lected using a package of seven questionnaires. The 24-hour recall method combined with food weight and measurement was utilized for the dietetic survey. Equipment used consisted of measuring cups, 500-gram balances (Hanson brand, with 2-grams sensitivity), waxed paper, and aluminum wrap. For the anthropometric survey, infant meters ('infantometros'), meter sticks, and scales were uti- lized. The surveying team consisted of seven DINAAC staff members. All of them received survey and measurement training and three pilot tests were run in order to standardize anthropometric mea- surement techniques. The study sample consisted of 839 families with a total of 3,667 members. Processing The Latin American Food Composition Table, Tabla de Compo- sicion de Alimentos Latinoamericana, was utilized to evaluate the diet (1) and the standards recommended by the OPS were used to evaluate weight and height as related to age. The data were pro- cessed in the Computing Center of the INCAP located in Guate- mala. Analysis Analysis was done at the family and community levels to deter- mine the magnitude and statistical significance of differences ob- served between participant and non-participant families, and be- tween pilot and control communities. Traditional communities will be compared only to pilot and control communities in the Province of Veraguas because of socioeconomic, nutritional, and geographic differences among provinces and because there are few traditional ponds outside Veraguas. Garden data were insufficient between 1981 and 1983 for analysis and are not included here. The analysis pre- sented here represents a baseline for future evaluations. RESULTS ANTHROPOMETRY Table 1 presents the nutritional condition of children under 5 years of age, according to weight and height measurements. There are no significant differences between participant and non-partici- pant families, nor between children in pilot and control communi- ties. Diet Dietary information at the family level and for most nutritionally vulnerable groups (mothers and pre-school children) appears in ta- bles 2 and 3, respectively. No significant observable differences in average protein adequacy between the groups studied were found. There were differences in caloric adequacy between pilot and control communities. Table 3 shows significant differences in the percentage of families with ad- equacies below 75 percent. In pilot communities, a greater propor- tion of non-participating families have caloric and protein adequacy levels below 75 perceit (45.0 percent and 20.8 percent, respec- tively) than participating families, 35.1 percent and 13.2 per- cent,respectively. Also, a greater proportion of pilot community families have caloric adequacy levels below 75 percent (40.7 per- cent) than control communities (32.6 percent). TABLE 1. RESULTS OF THE ANTHROPOMETRIC SURVEY-JULY/AUGUST 1985, PILOT AND CONTROL COMMUNITIES Pilot Participating Non- Average participating Number .............. 73 91 % < -2S.D. H/A.... 17.8 14.3 15.9 % < -2 S.D. W/A..... 8.2 4.4 6.1 % < -2 S.D. W/H ..... 2.7 1.1 1.8 Pilot Control Average Number .............. 164 137 % <-2 S.D. H/A' ...... 15.9 22.6 18.9 % <-25S.D. W/A 2 ..... 6.1 10.9 8.3 % < -2 S.D. W/H/ 3 .... 1.8 2.9 2.3 'Percent of children under 5 years of age with height below two times the standard deviation for their age. 2 Percent of children under 5 years of age with weight below two times the standard deviation for their age. 3 Percent of children under 5 years of age with weight below two times the standard deviation for their height. TABLE 2. RESULTS OF THE DIETETIC SURVEY-JULY/AUGUST 1983, PILOT COMMUNITIES Diet Participating Non- Average participating Families Number .............. 114 149 % < 75% caloric adequacy ............ 35.1 45.0* 40.7 % < 75% protein adequacy ............ 13.2 20.8* 17.5 X t S.D. caloric adequacy ............ 89.2 + 27.7 84.6 + 31.8 86.8 + 30.2 X + S.D. protein adequacy ............ 121.0 + 42.4 115.7 - 49.7 118.0 _ 46.6 X t S.D. iron adequacy 88.2 _ 47.5 77.1 _ 42.7* 81.9 + 45.1 X -_t S.D. retinol adequacy ............ 14.1 + 16.7 13.7 + 14.8 13.8 + 15.6 X + S.D. riboflavin adequacy ............ 59.3 _ 33.5 59.7 + 39.9 59.5 ? 37.2 Mothers Number .............. 42 56 % < 75% caloric adequacy ............ 35.7 42.9 39.8 % < 75% protein adequacy ............ 23.8 26.8 25.5 X ? S.D. caloric adequacy ............ 90.2 _ 33.2 82.4 + 28.9 85.7 ? 30.9 X + S.D. protein adequacy ............ 112.8 + 49.0 103.3 _ 42.0 107.4 ?45.2 X ? S.D. iron adequacy 45.2 - 21.6 40.7 _ 16.0 42.6 + 18.6 X + S.D. retinol adequacy ............ 16.2 + 26.3 10.4 _ 13.9 12.9 + 20.2 X ? S.D. riboflavin adequacy ............ 59.1 ? 50.2 46.8 + 26.4 52.1 _ 38.7 Children Number.............. 54 75 % < 75% caloric adequacy ............ . 63.0 50.7* 55.8 % < 75% protein adequacy ............ .. 9.3 26.7** 19.4 X + S.D. ealnrie adequacy............ 76.0 -_ 32.9 80.0 + 30.6 78.3 + 31.5 X + S.D. protein adequacy ............ 121.3 + 51.8 121.2 + 56.2 121.2 + 56.2 X + S.D. iron adequacy 64.1 + 28.3 69.8 + 39.3 67.4 + 35.4 X _ S.D. retinol adequacy ............ 37.2 + 45.8 53.5 + 77.0 46.7 + 66.0 X + S.D. riboflavin adequacy ............ 78.7 + 83.2 84.9 + 83.8 82.3 + 83.2 ?P < 0.05 **P < 0.01 All groups surveyed had higher protein intake adequacy values than caloric adequacy values, figure 2. Furthermore, even though mean protein intake values are adequate, 15 to 17 percent of the fam- 14 \\ o (,(,\ I i l ( ( \ I \i t 11 ,L oq I ltl\ - 1 1, a l tI - ') 1) p ti i lilt i 1ii l l) \3 11h 1, i i . .......i u 75 'N l Ii S.D . li ) i I iii (1 i li Mlci lil - 5,; I) t ill i lul ifl i ii ~ l D ' I o i llf ii-ii i S D I i-I lit ill Ntc I' a(N I uuuti i I 1' 0.05 1)i 0.01 1 .7 I I'91151 5. 53, S5.7 30.9i 107. 1 15.2 12. 6i IS li 12.9 2112 55.S 19 . t 85.: 3335 121.2 5t.2 67. 1 351 16, 6 '66. 1 12 7) ': S3 3 21-1 .32, 1, 9 .7 - 3-I 3-: 12.2 ' 17 7 S3,9 44,3 1tS 7 12.2 19.i 2 53.0 37,i 21.S 6.i S -- :32. 6 120. 3 53.2 62, I-3101 II0 7 - 1).9 St - YSI I)i 32 S2, 1) 1.- 7 1. 16. (i lit.7 :372 1:1.7 27 ,0 S2 ,S -- 30.6 105.1 1: 3. 9 5.5 37 376 77. i - :3t 1. 120. , 5 3.6 11.01 59- .3 .3 I S1-52* Ili( S 111 1 ), it I I I )I I( ) t , [I I I ( , ) I I t I ( ) I ( , )I I J I I I I I I I I t I( ( i , ) I J )t I ( , I , I I I , o I I t of I-ccomillcildcd ploteill hitakc. No dilluicncc s %Ncrc Ili 111cal I I I ol I, icti I iol, ill )d i-il)oflii% I I I ;Ill(. (I I I, kc\ \al tics, tl lot It'd It I Ic\ ilic u\ t I c I III d\ h m I I I ill I "rrot ips. CONSUMPTION OF PROTEINACEOus FOODS Molitlik fish coll lllllptioll k 11i"'llcl ill piirticipiltilit Ellililics thall ill thc 1 loll-part icipitt ill(,' f 1111ili(-, Mcat colislilliptioll is sm"Ilificalitk lik"llcr Ili colitiol colilillullitics c\cll t11011("ll price of Illcilt k hi("lwl ill colitiol coillilltillitics thall ill pilot coil) 11ilillitics, fill)](' 1. FaIllilics ill pilot coilillitillitics Wild to collstillic Illorc fish thill) thow ill (1011tiol colillillillities, th0til"ll this diffcrelice I,, not sil"Iiificillit P , 0.07 9). Acccptilbilit\ of' fi ll wils 100 1wicclit aillolig pill ticipiltill", imili- lics, \N I I I lc 96. 9 percent of' tl I(, I lot I -piu t icipat I ng E Ili I il ics I I kcd I' I sl I. At thc communitN lc\cl, 98 pciccot of thc i mii ic's ill pilot coillill, Ilitics alld 92 pci-culit ill colitrol collifillillitics acceptcd fidi. \11(vst finllilic p1-cfCI-Icd cittiIII, fre"ll ildl 11 wd alid prcscr\ ill',' IPll h\ salt- ilu and (11.\ illi,,. sixt\ dii\ s prior to Hoc ,111 \c\1 WS pcr(ullt of' tlic pill ticipiltili(" 1,11milic's iIIIJ 6S.9 of dic lioll-pill-ticip.itiw-, Elm- ilies iltc lisli. Abolit 7S pci-ccia of pilot (ommitnit\ f tmiliri, ittid 57 percent of control collillitillit\ fullilics \,,crc able to obtitill fidl ,ollw- tillic durilu4 it 60-dilo, period 1)(101-c ,itilipling Almost it]] pilrticipiltillt4 [1111ilics I_ ot tlicir lish fi-oill t1w polld.s. 'I'lic most rcmarkiiblc flict is that it filirk hi"'ll 1wi-cclitilge of lioli-partici- pillits illso obtaillcd pond-rilisud fish. \lost ofthc lattel got tllcil fish its ("ifits 0I- I)III(Illitsud tlicir fi,,11 llom Iwi"'llbors or (.ollllllllliit\ storcs, tablc,, 5 imd 6. SOCIOECONomic ASPECTS Thc oilk diflCr(,Ii(.(. hrtm 'cll part icipilt im" aild lioll- participiltill", flillilics wcrc edlicilt iol 1,11 lc\cl itild f lllllil\ sizc. I Icads of' participatill", Itillilics (i.c. holl"cholds) had sit_ Iiificillitk iliore ciirs of' stildo, alid lill-ger fillililics thall licilds of lioli-pill ticipilting f1lillilies. Moic pilot collillitillit\ laillilics ill-c imokc(l Ili collIpIc- 111elltzil.\ limd pro"'faills thilil tltos(, ill colitrol collilillillitic,,. Control collollullitic,,, oil thc othcr hand, cil.im hc(tcr cli\ irollilicTitill, titl-\ and llolisill(-, conditions. F111-thcr dillcrelices ill sociocuolionlic ill(iiciltol-,, itic ",kcll ill tilble's 7 illid i. No difiCiclic(", ill total \('iill\ pcl ( apita sp('1IdiII1glwt\NcclI pilitic- ipating and lloli-lmrticipittinl , Ellllilic,, oI pilot and control collillill- illities \Ncrc f,01111d. Food expenscs \wrc 55 to 60 percent of total Ili- collic lot- all i llllilics. 'I'llelc \\crc It() dif]Crcoccs bct\w('II pilot and (:()\Ilio[ (:()\I\I( mill N oo 1 FIG. 2. About 70 men, women, and children are obtaining additional protefn from thefr communally managed pig-fish project fn Mata Palo, Veraguas. Happy partici pants display their harvest of tilapia and carp. 's Ii I ii II I . t i I u Ix M 11i t x Ii i iii and cafood.i 25 21.2 16.3 15A 3 9,11 11.0 S7 7t 6. 5 6 - . 4. 6 5.0 t t ili t 2S93 20. 2 1. 14.1 S. S Ill.3 S.- 5 ~ 4 . 9 ., 5 33 :. 5 -. 6 It 19. 1 15 tS 1:.32 -. .6 _5 7. --- 5 3.3-, 4.1' 2653 22.i (1 - Il 6.s 1I .2 - 91.0 1 .3 - 8.4 9,9 5** 5. ( 44 :3.2- 1.3 2112 -'-IS 1 .t t S 10, 5 1 6. 9 5.S' 13 3. 1,0 ,i-I'c 2 1 : 16.i 3 t t. S 9 10.8 ' 5 3 S 6 '7.8 5.7 1. :3 .5 -- 1 It 11h llttti , c lolt a lllc olsi c h l o c Ii ito w lull& i1 1 0,.0 TABLE 5. KINDS OF FISH CONSUMED AND SOURCES 1, JUNE/AUGUST 1983, PILOT COMMUNITIES Participating Sources of fish 3 Non-participating Sources f fish 3 Kind of fish N = 117 1 4 5 6 N = 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 No.' %' No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Tilapia. ................... 96 82.1 96 82.1 47 40.2 11 9.4 19 16.2 8 6.8 9 77 Carp ..................... 87 75.0 87 75.0 34 29.1 9 7.7 17 14.5 5 4.3 3 2.6 Snapper .................. 20 17.1 10 8.5 2 1.7 8 6.8 29 24.8 1 .9 3 2.6 17 14.5 8 5.8 Corvina .................. 17 14.5 12 10.3 1 .9 4 3.4 20 17.1 6 5.1 Spanish mackerel .......... 15 12.8 9 7.7 1 .9 5 4.3 18 15.4 1 .9 10 8.5 7 5.0 Cojinua .................. 9 7.7 5 4.3 4 3.4 5 4.3 5 4.3 Revoltura................. 5 4.3 2 1.7 2 1.7 1 .9 8 7.0 1 0.9 1 .9 6 5.2 1 .9 Yellowtail ................. 3 2.6 2 1.7 1 .9 5 4.3 3 2.6 2 1.7 Mullet ................... 7 6.0 2 1.7 4 3.4 1 .9 2 1.7 2 1.7 Snook .................... 3 2.6 3 2.6 2 1.7 1 .9 1 .9 1,2Number and % of participating or non-participating families that reported obtention of each kind of fish in the 60 days prior to the survey. 31: Own crop; 2: Gift; 3: Purchased from neighbor; 4: Ambulant truck; 5: Community store; 6: Store in another place. TABLE 6. KINDS OF FISH CONSUMED AND SOURCES, JULY/AUGUST 1983, PILOT AND CONTROL COMMUNITIES Pilot Sources of fish 3 Control Sources of fish Kind offish N = 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 N = 117 1 3 4 5 6 No.1 %2 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %2 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Tilapia........... . 143 61.1 107 45.7 19 8.1 8 3.4 9 3.8 Carp............ 121 51.9 96 41.2 17 7.3 5 2.1 3 1.3 Snapper ......... .49 20.9 1 .4 3 1.3 27 11.5 2 .9 16 6.8 54 35.3 1 0.7 44 28.8 9 5.9 Corvina .......... 37 15.8 26 11.1 1 .4 10 4.3 43 28.3 35 23.0 8 5.3 Spanish mackerel 33 14.1 1 .4 19 8.1 1 .4 12 5.1 49 32.2 35 23.0 1 .7 13 8.6 Cojinua............14 6.0 10 4.3 4 1.7 15 9.8 3 2.0 8 5.2 1 .7 3 2.0 Revoltura ........ 13 5.6 3 1.3 8 3.4 2 .9 9 5.9 2 1.3 7 4.6 Yellowtail ........ 8 4.4 5 2.1 3 1.3 14 9.2 8 5.3 1 .7 5 3.3 Mullet........... 9 3.8 2 .9 6 2.6 1 .4 7 4.6 6 3.9 1 .7 Snook........... 5 2.1 4 1.7 1 .4 1 .7 1 0.7 ,2Number and % of participating or non-participating families that reported obtention of each kind of fish in the 60 days prior to the survey. :1: Own crop; 2: Gift; 3: Purchased from neighbor; 4: Ambulant truck; 5: Community store; 6: Store in another place. o0) E/. TABLE 7. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, JULY/AUGUST 1983, PILOT COMMUNITIES Socioeconomic Participating Non-participating characteristics N = 128 N = 161 Age of the family/household head...................... 47.6 _ 12.3 49.2 _ 14.1 Years of education of head..... 3.3 + 3.3 2.4 2.2** Years of living in the community ................ 37.3 ? 16.7 37.2 + 19.6 Family composition .......... 5.2 ? 2.6 4.6 + 2.6* Hectares per capita .......... 5.6 _ 20.6 4.2 _ 24.4 Total income per year per capita (Balboas) ......... .370.6 _ 741.0 266.4 + 823.0 Total expenditures per year per capita (Balboas) .......... 413.2 + 402.6 423.6 ? 665.6 Number of bedrooms per capita..................... 0.5 _ 0.4 0.5 ? 0.4 Percent of families involved in complementary nourish- ment programs ............. . 52.3 43.5 Drinking water consumption . 54.7 64.4 Adequate sewage disposal, percent .................... .. 76.6 74.5 Inadequate roofs, percent ..... 19.5 16.8 Inadequate walls, percent..... 26.4 23.9 *P < 0.05 **P < 0.01 TABLE 8. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, JULY/AUGUST 1983, PILOT AND CONTROL COMMUNITIES Socioeconomic Pilot Control characteristics N = 128 N = 161 Age of the family/household head. ..................... 48.5 + 13.4 48.2 - 14.7 Years of education of head..... 2.8 ? 2.8 2.8 _ 2.6 Years living in the community 37.2 ? 18.3 38.8 ? 19.2 Family composition .......... 4.8 _ 2.6 4.5 + 2.3 Hectares per capita .......... 4.8 + 22.7 3.2 ? 8.0 Total income per year per capita (Balboas) ......... 312.6 _ 788.1 390.5 + 682.1 Total expenditures per year per capita (Balboas) ......... 419.0 _ 563.6 427.8 ? 376.6 Number of bedrooms per capita ..................... . 0.5 ? 0.4 0.5 ? 0.4 Percent of families involved in complementary nourish- ment programs .............. 47.4 32.8*** Drinking water consumption . 60.1 84.2*** Adequate sewage disposal, percent ................... . 75.4 86.4*** Inadequate roofs, percent ..... 17.9 9.8* Inadequate walls, percent..... 25.0 15.0** *P < 0.05 **P < 0.01 ***P < 0.005 control communities or participating and non-participating families. However, two differences did occur: (1) participating families spent a significantly larger sum on electricity, medical attention, soap, transportation, and parties than the non-participating fami- lies; and (2) families in control communities spent a significantly larger sum on electricity and medical attention than families in pilot communities, tables 7 and 8. FOOD PRICES No differences between participating and non-participating fam- ilies were found in the prices paid for regular staple foods. Appar- ently both groups buy their food at the same stores. People in control communities pay more for fresh meat and milk and less for rice than people in pilot communities. These differences, however, are small (less than 3 percent). The statistically significant difference found was due to low variation rather than a great difference in actual cost. Participating families pay significantly less than non-participating families for fish, and the expenditure for fish per family is also smaller. Consistent with this, the price of fish and the domestic ex- penditure for them in pilot communities are significantly lower than in control communities, table 9. TABLE 9. AVERAGE COST (BALBOAS) PER KILOGRAM OF FISH AND EXPENDITURE PER FAMILY, JULY/AUGUST 1983, PILOT AND CONTROL COMMUNITIES Participating Non Pilot Control N = 100 participating N = 213 N= 130 N = 103 0.84 ? 1.41 + Per kg of fish .... 0.33 ? 0.46 0.64*** 0.57 ? 0.62 0.44*** Expenditure 1.98 _ per family ..... 0.88 ? 1.28 1.23 ? 1.10* 1.03 ? 1.21 1.17** *P < 0.05 ***P < 0.005 TRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES The differences found between pilot and traditional colmmunities in Veraguas were similar to those found between pilot and control communities in the global study. The only detected differences oc- curred in the frequency of selected food consumption, i.e., tradi- tional communities consume more red meats and fish than control and pilot communities. However, it was noted that only 5 percent of families from traditional communities get fish from ponds. In addi- tion, socioeconomic comparisons between control and traditional communities in Veraguas demonstrated that traditional communi- ties enjoy better sanitation and a greater involvement in comple- mentary food programs. DISCUSSION No differences were detected in the nutritional condition, lmea- sured anthropometrically, of children under 5 years of age, table 10. These results were expected since nutritional problems are affected by diverse factors such as environmental and sanitary conditions, nutrition and health habits, and morbidity. Research under con- trolled conditions also shows that it takes a long time for anthropo- metry (as a nutritional indicator) to be affected by intervention. None of the projects in this study had been in operation long enough to affect anthropometry. Moreover, there was an appreciable amount of pond group membership change during the course of the study, i.e., some original members dropped out, non-members became members, etc., table 11. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the pilot project is reaching the neediest communities. As shown in table 12, the intake of calories and protein in pilot communities is below that reported for the whole country, and less than in the control communities. When the same analysis is done at the level of children under 5 years of age, the situation is even worse. Diet is better in participating than in non-participating families. It may be that participating families were better off before the proj- ect began, or that project benefits are manifesting themselves. Al- though the educational level of family heads and family composition differ, no other significant socioeconomic differences were detected between participating and non-participating families. Apparently, there were no significant socioeconomic differences other than the two noted between participating and non-participating families be- fore the beginning of the project. We cannot yet assert that the dif- ference in diet between participating and non-participating families was an effect of the aquaculture project, but the absence of differ- ences in most of the socioeconomic variables supports this possibil- ity. Families in pilot communities had a caloric intake inferior to that 17 of families in control communities. Because of the parallel link be- tween calories and protein, it was expected that protein intake would also be inferior. However, there was no difference in protein consumption between pilot and control communities, perhaps dem- onstrating an effect of the freshwater fish culture project. An addi- tional positive impact of the program may occur as pond-linked gar- dens contribute to participating family diets. The monthly frequency of fish consumption is significantly higher in participating families than in non-participating ones. Moreover, a fairly high percentage of the families from pilot communities get their fish from the ponds. This suggests that the pilot program ben- efits all the families in the communities in which they have been constructed and not only those labeled as participating. Participating families are spending more than others for goods TABLE 10. NUTRITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PILOT AND CONTROL COMMUNITIES, SECOND SURVEY, JULY/AUGUST 1983 Malnutrition in children under 5 X Adequacy/type of diet Communities No. of Percent of children under 2 Families Mothers Children families No. times S.D. Height/ Weight/ Weight/ Calories Protein Calories Protein Calories Protein age height age Los Santos Province Las Trancas (P) 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12 104.1 143.2 99.7 127.9 91.2 167.6 Rio Hondo (C) .................... 25 9 - - 108.7 150.0 82.7 126.3 74.6 150.2 LaMiel(P) ....................... 33 28 14.8 87.5 126.5 90.6 119.0 91.6 135.6 El Munoz (C)...................... 41 9 12.5 87.2 121.9 90.4 123.6 83.6 140.8 Bayano(P)........................ 28 11 9.1 102.6 148.6 86.1 127.3 76.2 129.4 Valle Rico (C) ..................... . 24 5 - 20.0 108.2 145.5 120.5 147.5 76.8 144.0 Herrera Province Los Higos(P) ..................... 37 17 11.8 5.9 91.3 108.2 98.0 108.7 73.5 121.8 Pedernal (C)...................... 39 13 - 92.5 126.4 74.8 115.4 59.4 99.7 Guayabito (P) ..................... 36 24 8.3 4.2 85.8 110.4 89.6 108.1 75.7 115.3 Las Guabas (C) .................... 34 25 29.1 12.5 87.2 116.5 70.5 95.6 79.9 132.4 LaArena(P)...................... 32 18 31.3 31.3 89.8 112.9 83.7 97.6 79.7 110.4 Calabacito (C) ..................... . 26 14 14.3 14.3 14.3 97.0 128.0 74.2 91.4 86.3 131.4 Cocle Province Chumical (P)...................... 21 21 9.5 - - 70.1 103.8 66.5 88.4 69.8 103.8 Salado (C)........................ 14 15 25.0 - 8.3 67.2 101.5 44.6 49.2 58.8 86.8 Veraguas Province LaMontana(P).................... 32 17 25.0 12.5 16.3 61.6 90.0 82.5 111.0 71.7 115.8 Llano Grande (C) .................. 22 27 57.7 - 23.1 84.3 110.0 82.8 103.7 62.1 92.6 Espavacito(P)..................... 26 18 33.3 5.6 85.8 116.7 81.2 95.0 75.4 109.0 LaArena(C)...................... 19 20 10.5 5.6 5.6 92.6 111.4 78.4 89.0 87.6 120.2 Mata Palo (P) ..................... 17 2 - 100.0 100.0 96.0 122.1 49.0 61.4 66.1 106.0 Pereque (C)....................... 21 7 28.6 14.3 96.5 116.6 90.3 125.4 104.8 151.8 TOTAL......................... 555 312 18.9 2.3 8.3 89.6 120.9 82.8 105.8 77.6 120.8 '(P) = pilot; (C) control. TABLE 11. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PILOT AND CONTROL COMMUNITIES, SECOND SURVEY, JULY/AUGUST 1983 Family data Family head Projects Communities Hectares Income per Family Age Years of Months fish Lb./mo./ Participating year (Balboas) composition Age education harvested family families Los Santos Province Las Trancas (P)' ................ 10.7 1,287 3.9 50.6 4.4 4 9 15 Rio Hondo (C) ................. 18.9 1,665 3.8 53.6 3.8 La Miel(P) .................... 34.2 1,221 4.9 49.0 3.2 11 6 29 El Munoz (C)................... 5.1 1,165 4.3 50.3 2.5 Bayano(P)..................... 20.4 1,777 4.1 46.1 3.8 10 6 20 Valle Rico (C).................. .33.1 2,326 3.9 48.1 4.3 Herrera Province Los Higos (P) .................. 1.3 1,080 4.4 48.2 2.1 11 12 19 Pedernal (C)................... 4.8 968 3.6 47.7 2.5 Guayabito(P) .................. 8.3 617 4.9 48.5 1.9 4 12 21 Las Guabas (C)................. 7.5 711 4.9 48.4 1.4 La Arena (P)................... 10.6 1,034 5.1 46.6 2.9 6 9 19 Calabacito (C).................. 10.6 1,366 4.3 45.3 Cocle Province Chumical(P)................... 5.3 1,056 6.4 49.2 4.4 5 4 16 Salado (C) ..................... 7.2 1,074 5.6 49.3 3.3 Veraguas Province LaMontana(P)................. 6.0 365 5.5 51.9 1.8 9 10 21 Llano Grande (C) ............... . 16.9 525 6.0 43.3 2.7 Espavacito(P).................. 4.5 783 5.5 42.9 2.5 5 4 32 LaArena(C)................... 3.6 1,202 4.9 45.7 3.2 Mata Palo (P) .................. 21.6 201 3.8 54.4 2.1 6 10 10 Pereque (C).....................15.0 1,019 4.8 48.8 3.0 TOTALS...................... 12.8 1,343 4.7 48.4 2.8 '(P) = pilot; (C) = control. 18 TABLE 12. AVERAGE ADEQUACY LEVELS AND PERCENT FAMILIES BELOW 75 PERCENT ADEQUACY IN CALORIES AND PROTEINS Calories Protein Percent Percent Sfamilies families Families below 75 X below 75 adequacy percent percent adequacy adequacy Participating ....... 89.7 35.1 121.0 13.2 Non-participating... 84.6 45.0 115.7 20.8 Pilot .............. 86.8 40.7 118.0 17.5 Control ........... 92.7 32.6 124.2 15.3 National (1980)' ........... 95.0 28.0 153.0 9.3 'Results from the National Nutritional Survey conducted in July 1980 (4). and services (e.g., soap and medical attention) which do not belong in the category of highest priority needs. This suggests that they have a more flexible budget than non-participating families. Further research is necessary to find out if this is a consequence of the in- tegrated aquaculture project. The impact of traditional ponds in the Province of Veraguas is dif- ficult to evaluate, especially because of the high percentage of fam- ilies that have been favored with complementary food programs. However, a low percentage of families obtain fish from ponds. This suggests that the few differences found between community types may be due to causes other than the integrated fish pond programs. This may reflect the low fish yields per family within traditional communities. Thus, it may be useful to upgrade traditional ponds, i.e., add animal-garden components to them, train participants at Divisa, etc., (see Chapter I) to improve fish production. CONCLUSIONS 1. The freshwater fish culture program has led to increased fish consumption. People in communities with pilot projects eat more fish and spend less money for this food item than people in com- munities where there are no ponds. Thus, this program reduces the cost of animal protein and increases its availability for the rural poor. This is quite important given the inadequate dietary and income levels of many rural inhabitants of Central Panama. 2. The program positively affects the diets of all families living in communities where it functions, not only those of participating fam- ilies. 3. The program has benefited some of the neediest communities in which caloric and protein intakes were below the national aver- age. 4. In addition to affecting caloric and protein intake, the program may have a positive effect on family budgets. Further evaluations are necessary to confirm this. 5. Fish is well accepted and in great demand in the different com- munities. 6. The impact of the program on the growth of children under 5 years of age could not be determined within the time frame of the study. The ponds will have to be in operation at least several more years before impact on growth can be measured. 7. The methodology developed for this evaluation permitted an adequate collection, tabulation, and analysis of data. These data represent a base-line for future evaluations. This study also helped develop a simplified low-cost methodology for conducting future evaluations. REFERENCES (1) INSTITUTO DE NUTRICION DE CENTRO AMERICA Y PANAMA/ ICNND. 1961. Tabla de Composicion de Alimentos Para Uso en America Latina. (2) ORGANIZACION MUNDIAL DE LA SALUD. 1979. Guia para la Medicion del Efecto Nutricional de un Programa de Alimen- tacion Suplementaria Destinado a Grupos Vulnerables. Con referencia, especialmente, alas operaciones del Programa Mundial de Alimentos. FAP/79.1. (3) PARILLON, C. 1983. Estado Nutricional de la Poblacion Pan- amena. Ministeterio de Salud, Panama. Panama. (4) QUEVEDO, M. 1981. Tabulacion, Analisis e Interpretacion de la Ingesta de Calorias y Nutrientes a Nivel Familiar en la Re- publica de Panama, Encuesta Nacional de Nutricion. Univ- ersidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Guatemala. (5) RIVERA, G. 1981. Tabulacion, Analisis e Interpretacion del Consumo de Alimentos a Nivel Familiar en la Republica de Panama. Encuesta Nacional de Nutricion. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Guatemala. 19 Chapter Ill Socioeconomic Considerations N.B. Schwartz Coi so tiiui Nutiiiiui ijuutilctui \\(it-( ii liti f' cox\ ili iitxso ii(t~ li i i i i iiu li i ii li ii fix f i ci il d ti rojecil t xtsliilcs f li d ill soit i11l i itc of Ix ph xi Ii i ll 111111it li xxiii lp I~ lii I I f ~tiat~i~ iiiil xlic t xx tliuuuu ilii iuiuiui itii xx(ililllllitsll. 'iiiii i t i i ii iI ill ihlla l i t li i I i iirc t i ii. tilAY ' iiit l xx itil fixid ki li I ' i i lpi liiltt Iid il . T liii ti 11111lix lii Iit li i Ipioiict 1 , i x Il i i i l l l i l i l l i 1i t Ic x x )i l il i x l i l i tti I t i x l i l - l i lli l I i oiil 1 1 1 . lii iiix luxilulli hti iiidt l l d uxi lu titr txi ilttiiiix \ l(c\iliie th iilto -1 pi wc p i l l li i i i i l ofiit t ll - t\\f) LII c l tilii' of xii oxll li P l I a 'l aIi)i Ii iji it i r\u iui l It l oI i il it I c lix I i( -1 llilii i I h-r l l xish ftuill (11" iuttu a Ioil-l liltlIilctoillp\ ci lxuuutuuu\iiulitlui il iidu Hoci i illi f ixol mi 1ii li'sti I-e oil sfhiti i0-1 ox i l ca duf luu il t o i tiil I i ) Hl, x d ( , I ,I t( I ,t I H t I I I, I , , I I \ [ I (, ii ' I I , (i( I iii il0 I t I iiik c I to\\i toii [ Ii I I It~ XIc \, k rot i ic x i 1 IhoXi toi (i i tilitc rii c bef)il lit lliltiltl lii ds and soii itiiiitx ju 1 lbcii tilixo (ii it iii xiii i ii should liilillil it' lilt ii iii) t o it xi hu i l ii fliliu ix it t i If. s I(r , ti I I I li c I I l Iti Ii m 111 t(. pill I )I I s ii t liof t I i l I\, i I Itllitli, ii lo\ i it Vtix it 5 1), itl tx t x it lxiics toc d pli il tl xi itilt ii tioll iltlid liifiti xixtii tfip i piilet li t1liluis ili ild tik xiu-\ui xkx il iX xxitrsM ii il~lliIN il d h u tli litllii it [ituitilt xx9itl i.lirt ii ll li t\i i s2trit offiial xiid xjttitiits \ihutii 90i percent oiii li I\c ilixiilx i l lsfd hl lc ilt-\illot11f lpr l- A' ~ ~ ~vir4A, FIG. 1. Men, women, and children are assisted by DINAAC extension- ists in partial harvesting their grow-out pond in Mata Palo. Veraguas. repaid on time. Although PGs were to become as self-sufficient in securing loans as in technical management of modules 2 years after the project began, some still depend on extension to deal with the bank. This shortcoming is related to banking procedures, timidity on the part of the poor farmers unfamiliar with banks (see Chapter I), and the readiness of some extensionists to accept client depend- ency Panamanian social relationships are often cast into paternal- istic and patron-client molds, and both countrymen and extension- ists alike readily accept the situation. 2. Several PCs lack access to inexpensive reliable public or private transportation, and continue to depend on extension help to bring in animal feed, take animals to market, and so on. So far, these PGs have not earned enough to defray the cost of transport, and the gov- ernment cannot afford permanent transportation subsidies. One of the frustrating ironies of this problem is that it exists only with the use of pigs and fowl fed commercial ration, both of which do a good job fertilizing ponds in an association that is economically sound (see reference 4 and Chapter IV). On the other hand, transport is no problem at all with grass-fed cattle which do not require commercial feed to be trucked in, and for which buyers travel to the community. But cattle graze on poor pasture, and so do not fertilize the ponds as well as pigs or fowl. Moreover, during the dry season, ranchers must pasture their cattle further and further from pond sites, which in turn creates coordination and social problems with respect to the as- sociation between cattle and ponds. Community Characteristics Although community as such is but one element in an explanation of differences in collective adoption and proficient use of a new tech- nology (a wide range of extra-local factors, technical, administrative, economic, and political are also important), community character- istics, the center of attention here, remain critical, tables 1 and 2. Certainly no two rural places in central Panama are identical, but they do share some common features. Thus, none are "closed cor- porate communities" and people look outside the community for employment, patronage and secondary sources of support. Further- more, even in the smallest hamlet there is considerable variation in socioeconomic status as measured by annual family income, land distribution, and cattle ownership, table 3. Voluntary organizations and collective efforts tend to be short-lived. Countrymen more com- monly participate in intermittent group activities (e.g., labor ex- changes at critical moments in the agricultural cycle, sports teams, and so on) rather than in those calling for continuous commitments of time and labor, such as PG work. This is countered by the fact that in Panama, as in much of Central America, community remains an important principle of social organization (12) and commonly a ref- erence group for its members (13). In addition, the government channels services and projects through the community, typically as an administrative-territorial unit as well as a social one. Country- men identify with their community, see its welfare linked to their own and, if conditions are right, will unite for the common good. Most of the communities under review are small and composed of interrelated families and ritual kinsmen (6). People live in indepen- dent, patripotestal households. Individual legal ownership of or usufruct right to land is an important economic and cultural value. Most men, aided by wives and children, operate small farms, but many are landless and destitute. The major, sometimes the sole, source of cash income is sugarcane cutting. Generally, ranching set- tlements are wealthier than farming ones, and the degree of socio- economic inequality within them is much greater, table 3. In Veraguas, Code, and Herrera, the most common type of off- farm labor is in the sugarcane fields. In Los Santos and eastern Chiriqui, countrymen work off-farm for large-scale commercial ag- riculturalists and ranchers. Rural employment opportunities are particularly scarce in Los Santos, a province with ever increasing la- TABLE 1. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS, 1983-841 Column Code A- B- C- D- E- F- C- H- I- J- K- L- M- N- 0- Approximate number of households in commnunity: direct code Administrative level 1 - Hamlet 2 - Subcounty seat 3 - County seat Province 1 - Cocl, 2 - Herrera 3 - Los Santos 4 - Veraguas 5 - Chiriqui Potable water system: 1 - Yes 2 - No Electricity: 1 - Yes 2 - No Primary school: 1 - Yes 2 - No Secondary school: 1 - Yes 2 - No Health post: 1 - Yes 2 - No Number of churches: direct code Dance halls and/or saloons: 1 - Yes 2 - No Number of stores: direct code Large general merchandise store(s): 1 - Yes 2 - No Hon. Representative (HR) resident in community: 1 - Yes 2 - No Collective farm (asentamniento) in community: 1 - Yes 2 - No 3 - Other form of collective Primary sources of employment for adult males: 1 - Agriculture and sugar cane field work 2 - Agriculture and other 3 - Ranching and agriculture 4 - Wage labor, office employment, and agriculture Community 1. Guayabito 2. Pefiitas 3. Mata Palo 4. Montafiita 5. Chumical 6. Pedregoso 7. Remedios 8. San Jose 9. La Miel 10. Los Higos 11. La Arena 12. Espavacito 13. Bayano 14. Trancas A B C DE F G HI 2 2 1 1 4 1 4 2 1 2 41 5 1 4 1 3 2 21 2 2 4 2 3 1 3 1 37 29 24 45 23 13 600 37 52 84 40 33 42 59 J K 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 19 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 4 L MN 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 23 1 1 2 1 1 2 21 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 'Communities listed in terms of overall PG technical performance, fron best to worst, as of June 1984. Initial work on supplying San Jose with elec- tricity was not completed by June 1984. Note that because of the number of private and public vehicles in Los Santos and access to paved roads, the functional distance between many communities and, e.g., health posts, is not great. Communities 1-14 are pilot study settlements. tifundia-minifundia dichotomies and outmigration (7). In fact, the complexity of individual household strategies to juggle on- and off- farm labor appears to be a major reason why countrymen often find it difficult to sustain continuous collective activities. Countrymen distinguish social esteem, wealth, and political power or office as bases for deference and local leadership. In some places power, wealth, and esteem are congruent, and in as many others they are not. The poor both defer to and mistrust their rich and/or politically powerful neighbors, which is perhaps an acknowl- edgment of divergent interests. The mistrust is only partially offset by patron-client relations. Provincial histories differ in important ways, the sharpest con- trasts being between Los Santos and Veraguas. Until about the mid- dle of this century, Los Santos was characterized by medium-sized land holdings, Hispanic cultural traditions, an egalitarian ideology, and active opposition to central government. In contrast, Veraguas has a history of latifundia and minifundia associated with ethnic (Hispanic and Indian) differences. Although many Indians are now almost indistinguishable from Hispanic countrymen, outward ser- vility is a common social pose among them in certain situations, for example in dealing with urban officials. Veraguas, neglected by cen- tral government until 1968, is also one of the poorest provinces in Panama. With reference to this project, Santenos are quick to impose their own ideas on extensionists and not at all ready to go along with proj- 21 TABLE 2. COMMUNITY AND PILOT PROJECT GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Column Code A - Ability to meet transport needs 1-Very good 2-Good 3 - Fair 4-Poor 5 - Very poor B - Road access 1 - Year round, with 2-wheel drive vehicle 2 - Year round, with 4-wheel drive vehicle 3 - Year round, 4-wheel drive vehicle, but wet season problems 4 -Year round, 4-wheel drive vehicle, but severe wet season problems 5 - No year round access, road often impassable in wet season C - Animal component 1I-Cattle 2 - Chickens 3- Pigs 4- Ducks and pigs 5 - None D - Project group leadership and/or presidency of PG based primarily on: 0 - President not regarded as a community leader 1- Social esteem 2 - Political power and/or political office 3 - Wealth (which usually implies some measure of political power) 4 - Derived from presidency of collective farm E - Project Group membership, June 1984: direct code F - Change in PG membership from June 1983- June 1984 1 - Decrease 2 - No change 3 - Increase 4 - Ponds aban- doned Community 1. Guayabito 2. Pefiitas 3. Mata Palo 4. Montanfito 5. Chumical 6. Pedregoso 7. Remedios 8. San Jos6e 9. La Miel 10. Los Higos 11. La Arena 12. Espavacito 13. Bayano 14. Las Trancas Columns 15 14 12 21 8 14 8 23 17 14 15 33 14 3 ects they perceive as "imposed" from above. Many countrymen in Veraguas, on the other hand, view extension personnel as potential patrons and will agree to plans which subsequent experience shows they did not fully understand. Yet, to judge from interviews, beneath the overt deference there is much greater mistrust, even fear, of su- perordinates here than in Los Santos. Negative experience with prior development programs reinforces these attitudes, but at the same time, countrymen (especially in Veraguas, Cocle, Chiriqui, and Herrera) say that they must have government assistance to cope with their most pressing economic needs for more food, more work, and feeder roads. The ambivalence is clearly seen in relations with Hon. Represen- tatives (HRs), elected to represent sub-counties and their subordi- nate hamlets. HRs have a community development fund at their dis- posal, the use of which is subject to a great deal of criticism and talk of corruption. Most HRs are not only politically powerful, but also members of local economic elites. The poor are reluctant to chal- lenge them openly, yet they are also skeptical about involvement in their development plans. Because they fear that HRs (and/or wealthy co-residents) will somehow capture project benefits, the poor may avoid participation in a given project which then, by de- fault, is indeed monopolized by HRs or local elites. Galjart (3) points out that "A change agent from the outside is nearly always necessary to start (development) things going" (word in parentheses added), and in Panama this typically involves enlisting HR support. Yet, if the HR is too closely identified with the change agent or the project, this will qualify or dampen popular enthusiasm for "things." Much of what is said of HRs also applies to other officials and wealthy peo- ple in a community. These comments, brief as they are, provide a context within which reasons or differences in PG technical proficiency may be ex- amined. Differences in PG Proficiency Three connected community factors in particular appear to exert strong influences on PG proficiency: (1) the HR's role in the project and in the community, (2) the identity of PG leaders, and (3) the de- gree of intracommunity socioeconomic variation. As mentioned ear- lier, project technology, internal rates of financial return, access to transportation, extension skill, political climate, and history also af- fect project success or failure, but the makeup of a community is the influence that is the focus of attention in this chapter. Discussion of the three influencing factors follow: 1. A "plain face" reading of tables 1 and 2 indicates that PGs are more proficient when HRs are not resident in the community It should be noted that in Chumical and Remedios, the HRs are at odds with the PGs, in Remedios because the asentamniento effec- tively owns the project and the HR regards collectives as commu- nist. In the best traditional PGs, there are no resident HRs (5). Non- resident HRs play different roles in the better PGs, ranging from mild opposition and/or indifference to supportive (in Mata Palo and Montanita). Non-resident HRs mildly opposed to a project uninten- tionally foster local self-reliance. In contrast, in the less effective PGs, there tends to be a resident HR who is active in the PG. Tran- cas, the least effective PG, is a major exception. There, the resident HR's negativism is related to the fact that the original (though skept- ical) PG sponsor is an ex-HR and the major political opponent of the incumbent. Wealthy people in a community relate to PGs in a manner nearly identical to that of the HRs. For example, in Bayano several affluent TABLE 3. HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND LAND AND CATTLE OWNERSHIP IN PILOT COMMUNITIES, 1983 Community NHousehold income (balboas)2 Land ownership (hectares) Cattle ownership Range Mean Median S.D. Range Mean Median S.D. Range Mean Median S.D. 1. Guayabito... 36 100-2,520 617 500 508 0-60 8.3 4.0 12.1 0-15 2.6 0.4 4.9 2. Pefiitas ...... 29 40-3,120 739 500 800 0-25 3.7 3.0 4.6 0-2 0.1 0.1 0.5 3. Mata Palo ... 17 0-864 201 150 203 0-84 21.6 15.0 23.2 0-10 1.6 0.4 3.2 4. Montafiita... 32 0-3,600 365 151 644 0-40 6.0 2.0 9.5 0-45 7.0 0.9 13.8 5. Chumical .... 21 40-6,000 1,056 200 1,759 0-20 5.3 3.0 5.8 0-2 0.1 0.1 0.5 6. Pedregoso... 11 120-1,200 378 288 339 0-30 4.6 1.0 8.6 0-7 0.9 0.5 2.5 7. Remedios ... 20 374-4,744 1,894 1,621 1,241 0-25 2.7 1.0 6.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8. San Josd .... 37 100-3,500 832 400 892 0-80 5.3 1.0 14.1 0-21 3.4 1.5 5.8 9. La Miel ..... 33 0-5,280 1,221 800 1,291 0-300 34.2 2.0 65.7 0-2503 21.9 2.8 33.8 10. Los Higos ... 37 0-3,992 1,080 1,008 815 0-25 1.3 0.1 4.3 0-403 5.0 0.5 6.0 11. La Arena .... 32 100-6,000 1,034 600 1,282 0-70 10.6 5.0 13.9 0-40 6.9 5.0 9.4 12. Espavacito... 26 50-3,456 783 864 641 0-40 4.5 01 8.9 0-35 4.0 0.2 8.8 13. Bayano ...... 28 100-9,000 1,777 800 2,324 0-250 20.4 2.0 53.3 0-100 26.2 3.5 38.5 14. Las Trancas.. 26 250-9,000 1,287 650 1,820 0-110 10.7 2.0 22.9 0-90 17.5 2.0 29.0 'Each case represents one household. 'Calculated to nearest whole number. 3 Estimated. 22 ranchers control the PG, and while they take some pride in having the module in their community, they feel no need to optimize pro- duction, treating the entire affair rather as if it were a social club. That may be why poorer residents in Bayano have opted to not par- ticipate. PGs work best when HRs and/or the wealthy are indifferent to them or, if supportive, do not live in the community Why this is so is relatively complicated. On the one hand, few poor countrymen openly oppose resident HRs and economic elites, but on the other hand, they are reluctant to join them in a common undertaking. If a HR is actively and intensely opposed to a project, few will participate in it. His approval, in contrast, does permit par- ticipation, but his direct involvement with a project arouses suspi- cion and discourages popular cooperation and genuine commitment. Moreover, in such places a Guayabito, HRs and the wealthy consti- tute a negative reference group for the poor, with the result that (their perception of) mild opposition to something by the elite can help mobilize support for it, although vigorous elite opposition in- hibits participation among the poor. HRs who actively aid a PG pose dependency problems. They can recruit clients for a project, aid participants with transportation and banking problems, and so on, but if the HR leaves the community for any reason, project work is apt to deteriorate. Thus, in La Arena people are enthusiastic about the module, but when the project HR is absent, PG members find it difficult to mobilize labor for the proj- ect precisely because they depend on the HR for this. Thus, PG pro- ficiency in La Arena fluctuates a good deal. Again, La Miel initially had an excellent PG led by an energetic, popular HR. When he took up residence elsewhere, PG productivity declined, partly due to an intra-group squabble which his presence had muted. So just as res- ident HRs who aggressively oppose a project inhibit participation in it, overly helpful resident HRs foster counterproductive dependency among its members. 2. The leaders of the more effective PGs are men of solid repu- tation for concern with community welfare. Ethnographic open- ended interviews and survey data show that others name them as people to turn to for advice (but they themselves seek out HRs and the rich for political and economic aid). With one exception, all have had prior committee and/or project experience. Most are religious, but are not church lay officials. They are not wealthy, but usually they are in the 3rd quartile of land owners, table 4. Most have the average third grade formal education, but are most interested in and better informed about the wider world than their peers. When a project is placed on an agricultural cooperative, asenta- miento, its president normally becomes PG president. The social es- teem of the asentamiento president varies from place to place for several reasons, e.g., how well the collective is doing, how land ten- ure disputes with non-members have been handled, and so on. For this reason, the position is not related to PG proficiency in any straightforward way. TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF LAND INHECTAREs HELD BY POPULATION QUARTILES Quartiles Community First Second Third Fourth 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. Guayabito ............ Pefiitas............... M ata Palo ............ Montafiita ............ Chumical............ Pedregoso ............ Remedios ............ San Jose ............ La Miel............. Los Higos ............ La Arena ............. Espavacito ............ Bayano............... Las Trancas........... 0 3.8 1.1 0 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 3.8 0 0 .4 4.7 11.4 12.8 3.2 8.3 5.5 5.8 4.1 .4 0 9.4 0 0.7 3.6 22.4 26.7 26.4 14.4 27.5 7.3 5.8 10.7 11.4 0.0 19.8 9.2 3.2 13.7 72.9 58.1 59.8 82.4 64.2 873 86.0 85.2 88.3 100.0 67.0 90.8 96.1 82.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.1 100.0 100.0 100.1 99.9 100.0 100.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 No matter how participatory or egalitarian a project group, some- one must have or be given authority to move things along (1). Some- one must organize work crews, make sure group decisions are im- plemented, cope with free riders (a concern of many PG members), and the like. Poor countrymen are most at ease with and most will- ing to cooperate voluntarily with each other when led by a respected peer, rather than by an outstandingly wealthy or powerful person. Thus, PG leadership based primarily on social esteem is closely as- sociated with capable group performance, table 2. These leaders are best able to strike a needed balance between authority and equality in collective enterprises. 3. Inequality varies from community to community. Although no single measure may suffice to capture completely the difference, land ownership in many "Third World" countries is "a fairly reliable indicator of social and political power" (5) and socioeconomic status within and across settlements. An examination of survey data on land ownership, family income, and cattle ownership leads to the tentative conclusion that in a general way (e.g., La Arena is an ex- ception) less stratified communities have more proficient PGs, ta- bles 3 and 5. This is consistent with some comparative studies of ru- ral development (8,10), but contradicts others (2). Apparently, near absolute equality (not an issue here) impedes collective adoption of technology, and too much inequality has the same effect. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about how much is "too much," but in highly stratified communities elite and non elite interests may diverge so greatly that the former undermine (9) or monopolize (11) projects designed for the latter. Elites can legit- imate and provide managerial expertise for a project, but they have little need to optimize production, and in this sense undercut proj- ect goals. Leadership is necessary, but effective leaders must share the need for project benefits, in this case additional food and in- come. Tendler (14) reports that farmer groups perform better when they are organized around concrete goals which require cooperation for completion and involve a minimum of non-farm skills, conditions generally satisfied in this instance. In addition, the groups should be small, about 10 members, and composed of peers. Peer pressure can sustain group cohesion and assure fulfillment of group obligations. One may infer from this that group leaders must be regarded as peers. In this project, the leaders of the better PGs have resources (some land, social esteem), but they are not markedly wealthier, bet- ter educated, or more powerful than the majority. They are the TABLE 5. PROJECT GROUP TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY AND LAND DISTRIBUTION' Project group Coefficient of C-statistic proficiency variation (land) rank order rank order 1 1.46 5 2 1.24 3 3 1.07 1 4 1.58 6 5 1.09 2 6 1.87 7 7 2.22 11 8 2.66 13 9 1.92 8 10 3.31 14 11 1.31 4 12 1.98 9 13 2.61 12 14 2.14 10 'The coefficient of variation (C) is the ratio of standard deviation to mean; the closer the ratio to 1.0, the less skewed the distribution of values for a given sample (Koch and Link 1971). When group technical performance and C for land ownership are rank ordered and compared, Spearman's rho = .631 (df 12), t = 2.817, thus p < .02. Given the sample size and possible distortions in survey data, the table does no more than suggest that the less skewed land ownership in a settlement, the more proficient its project group. 23 1rl1l1 countrymen's peers and so do not discourage effective popular participation in a collective undertaking. 4. Other differences can also impede a project, e.g., occupational diversity or diverging interests between members and non-mem- bers of collective farms. In addition, to judge from what some people in San Jose say, table 1, an abundance of projects can weaken com- mitments to any one or all of them. There, the collective farm, the government, and the Catholic Church all sponsor cooperative food production activities, and this diffuses the help an individual can give to any one of them. As one countryman put it, "There is so much to help with that I am not a (formal) member of anything." Esman and Uphoff (2) find that difficult terrain positively corre- lates with task success in local organizations. The current study sup- ports that conclusion, qualified by the requirement that groups other than those working with cattle had to have year-round access to urban places. Unlike easy access, moderately difficult access ap- pears to be associated with relative PG success, table 2. Access is probably also related to the number and type of services available in a community. As a general rule, the fewer the public and commercial services in a community, the more technically self-sufficient and proficient its PG, table 6. Settlements which lack electricity, potable water, health posts, churches (which often serve as centers for cooperative projects in rural Panama), saloons, and/or general merchandise stores are better sites for this project than places with these facili- ties. These are typically hamlets rather than sub-county seats. The service-poor communities also tend to have middling to difficult road access and are not highly stratified, all of which may throw people back on their own resources and set the stage for successful cooperative enterprises. If nothing else, a lack of large stores and other facilities, combined with difficult access to them and an ab- sence of competing programs, means that for want of alternatives people can or must commit themselves to a given project. TABLE 6. PROJECT GROUP PROFICIENCY AND SERVICES IN PROJECT GROUP COMMUNITY' Technical Number of Community ranking services Guayabito ............ 1 2 Penfiitas............... .2 3 M ata Palo ............ 3 2 M ontafiita ............ 4 2 Chumical............. 5 1 Pedregoso ............ 6 3 Barrio ............ ... .. 7 3 San Jos6 .............. 8 7 La M iel .............. 9 4 Los Higos ............ 10 7 La Arena............. 11 4 Espavacito ............ 12 2 Bayano............... . 13 12 Las Trancas........... 14 10 'Data derived from table 1. 'Refers to the Barrio in Remedios in which the module is located. Re- medios as a whole has 17 services. CONCLUSION The final test of project strategy, PG self-sufficiency, is still several years off. Although the basic incentive for a household to participate in a PG is a felt need to produce food, social organizational factors and household characteristics affect project success. The project ap- pears to appeal especially to relatively well-informed, somewhat younger than average married men with large households. Although they may not be poorer than others, they are at a stage in the do- mestic cycle when they have not only the time and strength to risk participation but the need to do so. They also have children who can assist them in modular activities. Households exist in communities, and several community level factors affect project chances for success. PGs appear to work best in the less complex structured communities. Organizational conm- plexity related to such things as socioeconomic inequality, ranching, and divisions between members and non-members of asentamien- tos, appear to hinder PG performance. Relative socioeconomic homogeneity fosters PG success. Effective PG leaders are socially esteemed people who are neither so rich nor powerful that they can- not be seen as peers by ordinary countrymen. Extensionists who identify and cooperate with this type of leader enhance chances for project success. PGs are also best served by mildly supportive to in- different non-representatives who reside outside the community. Given the countrymen's past experience with government spon- sored projects, however, little will avail unless GOP and DINAAC maintain their commitment to the project. REFERENCES (1) DESHPANDE, S. H. 1979. Problems of incentive and manage- ment in cooperative farming. In J. Wong (ed.) Group Farming in Asia. Singapore: University Press. pp. 197-206. (2) ESMAN, M. J. AND N. T. UPHOFF. 1984. Local Organizations: Intermediaries in Rural Development. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. (3) GALJART, B. 1981. Participatory Democracy Projects: Some Conclusions from Research. Sociologia Ruralis 21: 142-159. (4) GOMEZ DE CASTILLO, V, S. CASTILLO, L. L. LOVSHIN AND N. B. SCHWARTZ. 1984. Proyecto de Estanque de Manejo Co- munal para Peces: Pamana. U.S. AID/Panama, Project No. 525-0216. (5) Gow, D. D. AND J. VANSANT. 1983. Beyond the Rhetoric of Rural Development Participation: How Can It Be Done? World Development 11: 427-446. (6) GUDEMAN, S. 1976. Relations, Residence and the Individual: A Rural Panamanian Community Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (7) HECKADON MORENO, S. 1983. Cuando se acaban los montes. Panama: Smithsonian Tropical Institute. (8) JOHNSTON, B. E AND W C. CLARK. 1982. Redesigning Rural Development: A Strategic Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (9) LEONARD, D. K. 1982. Analyzing the Organizational Re- quirements for Serving the Rural Poor. In D. K. Leonard and D. R. Marshall (eds.) Institutions of Rural Development for the Poor: Decentralization and Organizational Linkages. Uni- versity of California, Institute of International Studies: Berkeley, California. pp. 1-39. (10) OxBY, C. 1983. Farmers Groups in Rural Areas of the Third World. Community Development Journal 18: 50-59. (11) PINNOCK, R. AND C. ELTON. 1982. La pobreza rural en Pan- ama: Su evolucion y sus causas estracturales. Praxis Cen- troamericana 1:67-121. (12) REINA, R. E. 1965. Town, community and multicommunity" Estudios de Cultura Maya 5: 361-390. (13) RUBEL, A. J. 1977. 'Limited Good' and 'Social Comparison': Two theories, one problem. Ethos 5: 222-238. (14) TENDLER, J. 1975. Inside Foreign Aid. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (15) . 1976. Intercountry Evaluation of Small Farmer Organizations: Ecuador, Honduras, Final Report. Washington, D.C.: US AID. (16) WEST, P. C. 1983. Collective Adoption of Natural Resources Practices in Developing Nations. Rural Sociology 48: 44-59. 24 Chapter IV Economic Evaluation C.R. Engle' and Upton Hatch In 1980, the United States Agency for International Development initiated a project designed to develop a simple fish culture system emphasizing farmer self-sufficiency in fish seed production for either home consumption or sale (12). The basic human need among the target population was a source of low-cost animal protein. A second- ary consideration was the desire for increased cash income. In order to minimize production costs and to maximize benefits to the com- munity, fish ponds were integrated with other types of livestock and agricultural enterprises (17). Budget and rate-of-return analyses are used to estimate returns for the various production combinations. These analyses are based on primary and secondary production data. The integrated approach has been attempted and documented in several locales (16). Feasibility analyses have been undertaken for in- tegrated aquaculture systems with pigs (2,11,22), with ducks (22), and with livestock and fowl (6). Appropriate fertilizing rates for aquaculture systems have been investigated in Israel (10) and in China (8). The economic potential of small-scale integrated systems has been studied in Thailand (3). In addition, an effort has been made to make research more responsive to farmer needs. This "farming systems research" approach has been applied in Panama to assist in the transfer of pesticide and fertilizer technologies (13) and has potential in the development of integrated agro-aquaculture (15). BUDGET ANALYSIS The impact of integrating livestock with fish enterprises is ana- lyzed by first budgeting each activity separately and then in asso- ciation. In the case offish, investment and production costs were es- timated for fish alone by estimating the cost of collecting and transporting different types of manure to the fish pond. Investment and production costs were also budgeted for cattle, hog, chicken, and duck enterprises alone. Budgets were then prepared for the fish- cattle, fish-chicken, fish-duck, and fish-hog combinations. In addition to providing information on the profitabilities of the enterprises independently and in association with each other, this analysis provides the basis for calculating the respective cost of an- imal protein production. 1 Funded by Interamerican Development Bank-Contract IDB-BNP- MIDA-No. 98IC-PN. The following data were collected directly from the projects: pond construction costs; hog, duck, and cattle corral construction costs; fish, hog, and duck production costs; and marketing costs and prices for fish, hogs, and ducks. Investment, production, and marketing costs for cattle and chicken were obtained through secondary data of the Department of Livestock Production within the Agriculture Development Ministry (14). The average pond size and cost of the projects were used in all analyses. This eliminated variation caused by varying pond con- struction costs for larger and smaller ponds. Management of the live- stock systems is detailed in Chapter I. It is important to note some inherent variation among the projects. The chicken and cattle enterprises were already established prior to construction of fish ponds. These were viable economic units minde- pendent of fish culture. While both were commercial undertakings, chickens were managed intensively whereas cattle were managed on an extensive, open range level of management. On the other hand, the hog and duck enterprises were initiated with the fish ponds; they were designed to accommodate fish production. Both ducks and hogs were managed on a semi-commercial scale, but the lack of ex- perience with these animals, the lack of established market chan- nels, and access to inputs introduces a bias in comparing ducks and hogs to the more traditional cattle and chicken enterprises. FISH ALONE The fish production system is described in detail in Chapter I. The following analysis is based on the 3-pond module, figure 1. Capital Investment Data were collected on expenses incurred during construction of the modules. These data include costs of PVC pipe, materials and transportation of equipment and materials. Earth-moving costs were charged at B/. 40.00 per tractor-hour.2 Only new projects are included in capital investment analysis. Improved projects are not included because grow-out ponds existed before project interven- tion. The average total area of water surface for the projects was 4,191 square meters, table 1. The average total cost of pond construction was B/. 2,970.05 with an average total cost of B/. 0.70/m2 for total pond area and B/. 1.12/m2 for grow-out pond area. The average labor 2 B/. = Balboa, the Panamanian currency. 1 Balboa U.S. $1.00. TABLE 1. CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SURFACE AREA OF A.I.D. MODULAR PONDS BY PROJECT Total Grow-out Costs Location area area Construction Earth Labor @ Transportation Total m 2 m2 materiales moving B/. 4.00 per B/. B/. B/ B/. man-day Cascajal ........ . 3,690 2,500 626.12 1,400 112.50 400 2,538.62 Chumical....... 2,580 1,980 957.65 1,800 184.50 350 3,292.15 Pedregoso ...... 2,205 1,805 329.47 1,404 92.50 350 2,175.97 Los Higos ...... 3,969 3,423 610.33 2,040 136.50 250 3,036.83 Guayabito ...... 3,350 2,071 514.29 2,475 142.50 250 3,381.79 Espavecito ...... 4,802 4,051 526.91 2,655 168.00 400 3,749.91 Remedios ...... 16,675 4,118 564.72 2,940 219.00 300 4,023.72 Bayano......... . 4,890 3,966 511.00 1,800 140.00 400 2,851.00 La Miel ........ 3,314 2,655 727.93 1,920 105.00 300 3,052.93 Montafiita ...... 3,940 3,128 754.30 2,160 120.00 300 3,334.30 La Arena ....... 2,075 1,845 712.36 1,040 99.00 300 2,151.36 Majarilla ....... 9,209 3,010 542.05 3,400 127.50 200 4,269.55 Mata Palo ...... 2,808 2,450 234.57 1,755 204.75 300 2,494.32 Las Trancas ..... 3,317 3,029 564.63 1,600 120.00 400 2,684.63 El Barrero ...... 2,180 1,900 544.35 1,760 106.00 200 2,610.35 La Pitaloza ..... 2,000 1,478 664.44 1,600 100.00 500 2,864.44 Mogollon 2,604 2,000 730.05 2,240 136.50 400 3,306.55 Las Fuentes .... 4,310 3,570 621.50 1,908 126.12 100 2,753.62 Pino del Cobre. . 1,700 1,500 560.70 1,020 126.12 150 1,856.82 Total........... . 79,627 50,479 11,297.37 36,717 2,566.49 5,850 56,430.86 Average' ....... 4,191 2,657 594.60 1,932 135.08 308 2,970.05 'Average cost/m 2 : Total = B/. 0.71; Grow-out = B/. 1.12/. 25 4K 4% i 'Ii FIG. 1. A three-pond module located in Tole, Chiriqui. This church sponsored project raises fish,ducks, pigs, chickens, rabbits, and vegetables to provide for their school. Students learn the principles of agroaquaculture by caring for the animals and garden. x , \\ ItB 1.'35 )t, ( -, i I xi i \ i I(,((, I it I 't i if I I (w 1 1 1, i1 1 iiiatcrIia.il cost13 J I (4 ) I60 This I xt it(' 11c 1 ci a x I c I c i\ ('1 (.11tW I tfixt'iil it(, iof 20) cars, \NliIcjl iixiiifx ill all cilciald]clc( iittiIi oft B/. 29.T:3. Iatifl dix in", iciltiiifci 50f lciict oi tiii total cost, a Iiir 26i pe't cent, iiitciijaix Ii iiccii [111 iii'i t ificcicahl " l (c (']itt l'rtlilci iill(, costsf xxr ti '. f. 2 pelci iic ticl'. I iitii ilti ill- cos~tS\ xcr icitci dcci ill o[(li hii' iti I xcldi i iii ticd ci ilt'iii ci fl topt soil, pilic cxcix tiii li fiX lc(i'i ciii cliff clii xc fcccli c riitii A ciiitlti loc~k xtiiiii' xliic( 12-15 xcfiiti c iiic'tcix tica c\ Xis (il- ci icgc total costf wxas 13, 1-I8.4:3 \\ itc ft'e costcof itiatci iaix a\i 21 diii' Xlt'( was cx iti iitt' tic ice 2ff0 cai xi cliic' I c tx ii i all aloii ticpi t'iitioii cliii(, of' I 513 . . hI'it iccaiacitict'it of' theolc' ictc S\ xfcict icqtfcicc'x a xc'iitc i lial xt'xtii lc' ie'rprociiiticnc cliii xcix, aloof 1)1 tc'tiiiii oo fiiil cc tic assist xxiti (iii' tcotail Ilr~ti o'f tiic'I-\ -ic cit ficiild lit flic' liiit liti xc'xts a 12ff icict cull 1i s ix itili/ici \ 5ff6o sccifxttc f6 ct dcci xx itic 12 ili cit li ccli xl \\ c' l c liicicot Ic Ic tiih xii 1c cclxl po dccl tc fillixc tic' ftctal lii xctt oclf hIfIttciwg pocid. t~ tli cc t'xx .\ t'ciiiillc'it itliclc's cliip ccc'tx, lic s awlf cud 'tic ofi ict icuis tcc hlucd ixih Iii c(cix\ ccitt xociijici. Iis c'iiccccix asi total ccit o' B,3 :360f.5ff xc itic ani iutiil tltcrcc tiic i& cKi1. h6tf2, faclc 2. Thet citll ci xx xtc'iii ofi 1ixic prfli tilccicci ilcix cc ic c fo11-1 cilaia xcc'c prioduictionic. ( ox cc thait tilt I lllw i siii pi cciiilix, iiitci c'tcd ill tciixx cult dccci lidi cxt flic( aiii xix ci ll(iIiIcc )1il.(' filLific xcii] tili lxiii 2. lxI\I V xi C os [i cxix tiK iii icii c ili (dcccxx m c ii \cc - 2,f5-, cic I ct (Cocxt/ ccit B/. Qucclit tct itc rxitixll Pi'idic/ Vali cccIlix tctt3 Ltic fills I ilixfcii tai l xcii tct ii Soiti ago hi' du \ic cci I iticiticci ci xciiie (;ill lct i)it) ict fcc' bl. Nit pc lix osI cci a 1tt itiii/xtioi k iliac Tota cciii cit, xcod ccii] cci 5f fit. 6i tf dciip 1/2-iii, 120 f t. ]oit-' S ft. (cep, 3il. icixl icl t rc 'Suf 'k ii iii lf 1liii (11 c'tf Icx l(if 1i 1, 163/h3 thafl t thlt flitict a ix t d. I ((( iiilxii cxiii ictitici ti t tfi iSt itiiiiittxtiii- ff ti tut xt'1t'cfc'ti tutu t~wolt't'ititxa l i tlc ix rcccii atc xcmn"tcIi lctict ftl(it c ix too c1(ii c i ticiti ccii :. A'\'x \ c f ci t1C s I OF St c1 1) i'is, ic u i) 1ci to;\\ ic I" I IIIIi c l F sI I' Pli n Itict I 1iti\ ificlil )i'xi ript ciii Ulcit (coxt/ciccit. IV Cot iix xcc Bit icix ccit 5 c cd icc ccciii ii ca i) I\ix~ idc cai fi Tri lt xii i ft iii Sciktoii t /I i tii-i ii ci~aii ccct xix cc x itcigiat 122-1-12 tiff kl!/ia) ft f22 ft02 ff 24.00f 17.125 2 ftc 7 0f 24.0ff :4. 1ff 9. 12 1352 29. fit A cc cilic iccic cxc tt is iS illicttlix Tlw lacii ci c lil it~ ft 0ft 1i li iii o Ilitcit'iict anii dicstrlcute lcccgcuuicix ofi 2 incici iii xizec' iSokc t flu' c ifitixitt if 15ffha the fl\ cxag ci tc ikiiw dci i fit ficci ci 'Sfict krci at flu c ii aucitIitt 1,50lcia ftea ~ic'icgc xtci t4 clixci l ccc li' 1ictt t iTtt1 1 acicci xc xi ii ccicii illcitg loodit itiilcicx aucid giccxx)Il uhf ds kiiii cx N1 ill-' of ci .ti 9 iic lfCrtitticil at tif6t0 l I i'ci cipt ciii fi ictoicifluci ttal t cII CAIi 1.932.00f 595,00tff 3ff',iff 2 'uS35 :364. 7ft 192.00tt 125.ff0 15.f0t 3.1ff 7 5ff ft.f2 125.00f 15.00f 22.5ff :3ff05ff 0 11 2, 0t0 .00ff . 00f f fi. itt 13 62S. 00 '5. 62 15ff 6. 0it I .50 fif. ff2 1ft ft first year. Broodstock are then selected from the first grow-out har- vests to stock in the brood ponds. Future broodstock are obtained from the grow-out pond. The initial investment in tilapia stock is B/. 6780, table 2. Production Costs The pond is stocked with tilapia as the principal species in poly- culture with common carp, and the bighead and silver carp hybrid. The carp seed is purchased at the beginning of each production cycle at a cost of one cent per inch. With an average stocking size of 2 inches, each carp seed costs B/. 0.02, table 3. The average trans- portation cost is B/. 24.00 per trip. The fish production cycle varied greatly between projects. The actual cycles were averaged to obtain the 18-month cycles utilized in the analysis. The first partial harvest was done with gill nets at ap- proximately 4 months after stocking the pond. Thereafter, the grow- out ponds were harvested monthly Annual costs were determined by multiplying the total costs per cycle by 12 and dividing by 18. At the onset of each production cycle, the pond was fertilized once with an inorganic fertilizer to stimulate the rapid development of natural food organisms in the pond. The fertilizer applied was 12- 24-12 at a rate of 60 kilograms per hectare for each 18-month pro- duction cycle. Labor In order to analyze the relative profitability of the fish production component alone, the value of the labor necessary to collect the manure and apply it to the pond was estimated. This analysis as- sumes that the livestock enterprise already exists on the farm but is not associated directly with the fish production unit. Hog manure had the highest collection costs, B/. 182.48, table 4. Ducks and chicken manure costs were identical, B/. 136.88, with cattle manure costs being the lowest, B/. 117.00. Cattle manure was collected only three times per week, whereas the other manures were collected daily. The majority of the labor utilized in the modules was provided by the group that managed the project. Data on labor were recorded only during the construction phase, and production labor was esti- mated. In the 2-pond system, total annual labor was estimated to be 51.5 man-hours, table 5, for fish production alone. In the 3-pond system, the labor is almost tripled because of sex identification to select males. In the 4-pond system, labor is greater yet for the double sex- ing. The second separation of sexes is less time consuming because a large percentage of males are selected in the first procedure. Labor values were averaged to obtain a standardized value to compare the different types of livestock-fish associations. The low number of pond replicates precludes more rigorous analysis. Yield and Return Fish production data from the livestock-fish associations were uti- lized in the fish only budgets. The manure charged to the budgets was equivalent to the quantities of manure produced by the animals actually on the ponds in order to utilize that fish production data. Fish production was calculated in units of kilograms per hectare per year in order to compare the different types of livestock-fish asso- ciations. The highest fish production, 3,460 kilograms per hectare per year was obtained in the duck-fish association. The lowest fish production, 1,727 kilograms per hectare per year, was produced in the cattle-fish association, while the hog-fish association produced 2,197 kilograms per hectare per year of fish. The chicken-fish asso- ciation resulted in fish production of 2,329 kilograms per hectare. The value of the fish produced was estimated to be B/. 0.40 per pound. 3 This is the actual sales price of the fish in the communities. Fish produced with duck manure resulted in net returns to cap- ital, land, and management of B/. 529.10, table 6. This was followed by B/. 264.42 with chicken manure, B/. 188.19 with hog manure and B/. 143.78 with cattle manure. 3The unit of measure in Panama is the pound. For ease of understanding and comparison, prices per pound are not converted to prices per kilogram. TABLE 4. YEARLY QUANTITY AND VALUE OF MANURE COLLECTION, TRANS- PORTATION, AND APPLICATION (FISH PRODUCTION ALONE) Animal Hours daily Hours Man-days' Value of man- Total value, yearly day, B/. B/. Hogs ...... 1.00 365.00 45.62 4.00 182.48 Cattle ..... 1.50 234.002 29.25 4.00 117.00 Ducks ..... .75 273.75 34.22 4.00 136.88 Chickens .. .75 273.75 34.22 4.00 136.88 'A man-day is equivalent to 8 hours. 2Cattle manure is collected only 3 days per week. TABLE 5. YEARLY VALUE OF LABOR UTILIZED IN FISH PRODUCTION BY NUMBER OF PONDS IN SYSTEM Man-hoursMan-hours Value of Total System Brood Nursery Pre-grow-out Grow-out' Man-days man-dav, Total Stocking Harvest Harvest and Harvest and Partial Total Total B/. cost, B/. sexing sexing harvest harvest Two ponds Per cycle... 0.5 6 2 20 Yearly ..... . 1.5 18 18.67 2 13.33 51.5 6.44 4.00 25.76 Three ponds Per cycle ... .5 6 32 2 20 Yearly ..... 1.5 18 96 18.67 13.33 147.5 18.44 4.00 73.76 Four ponds Per cycle ... .5 6 32 12 2 20 Yearly ..... 1.5 18 96 36 18.67 13.33 183.5 22.94 4.00 91.76 '18-month cycle. 'Partial harvests are initiated the fourth month after stocking for 14 months, at which time grow-out pond is totally harvested-12 [(2.14) +18] = 18.67. TABLE 6. ANNUAL NET RETURNS TO CAPITAL, LAND AND MANAGEMENT FOR FISH PRODUCTION ALONE FERTILIZED WITH DIFFERENT MANURES (GROW-OUT AREA = 2,657 m 2) Fish Sales price Gross Annual Variable costs Total Net returns to Manure production, fish, returns annual capital, land, and source p kg B/hcosts, Seed, B/. Manure, B/. Total, B/. costs, B/. management, B/. source kg B/./kg B!. B/. Hogs ............. 583.74 0.88 513.69 114.01 29.01 182.48 211.48 325.50 188.19 Cattle..............458.86 .88 403.80 114.01 29.01 117.00 146.01 260.02 143.78 Ducks ............ 919.32 .88 809.00 114.01 29.01 136.88 165.89 279.90 529.10 Chickens .......... 618.55 .88 544.32 114.01 29.01 136.88 165.89 279.90 264.43 27 HOGS ALONE Capital Investment Pigsties were constructed with concrete floors, pig wire, and a zinc roof with an average total cost of B/. 662.00, table 7. With an estimated useful life of 10 years, the annual depreciation is B/. 66.21. A block storage shed (12-15 square meters) was also con- structed to store feed and equipment at a total cost of B/. 364.70. With an estimated useful life of 20 years, the annual depreciation is B/. 18.24. Hog production requires several additional tools, such as picks (2 years useful life), shovels (2 years useful life), and a wheelbarrow (5 years useful life), to construct the pigsty. Total equipment cost is B/. 133.10 with an annual depreciation of B/. 35.05. Production Costs Hog production costs were analyzed based on a production unit of 20 animals. This was the average number of animals per average project size. Feeder pigs were purchased at an average weight of 30 pounds and an average price of B/. 1.205 per pound. Each feeder pig cost approximately B/. 36.15, table 8. The feeding regime varied greatly by project. Some projects fed starter, grower, and fattening rations, while other projects fed only grower and fattening rations. To standardize the analysis, the quan- tities of feed were weighted according to the different prices to ob- tain a weighted average of the feed price. This is the price applied in the analysis. Theoretically, a hog production cycle is 120 days with 3 possible cycles per year. Nevertheless, the average hog production cycle was 1.5 per year. This slow turnover was due to logistical problems of transportation and loan agreements. Per cycle production costs are multiplied by 1.5 to obtain annual costs. Net returns to capital, land and management were B/. 175.70. CATTLE ALONE Capital Investment The cattle corrals cost, on the average, B/. 381.00, table 9. The estimated useful life was 5 years with an annual depreciation of B/. 76.22. Cattle production also requires additional fencing and, in many instances, re-establishment of pasture. Total investment costs are B/. 1,520.11 with an annual depreciation of B/. 164.02, table 9. Production Costs In the modular projects associated with cattle, the cattle enter- prise was already established. For this reason, the only economic data collected were the construction and labor costs for the corral and collection of manure. The data included in the analysis are sec- ondary and were obtained from the Departamento de Produccion Pecuaria of MIDA. The analysis is based on a production unit of 20 head of cattle. This was the average number of cattle corraled at night to collect manure. Table 10 details the production costs. The income from cattle production is based on a survival of 95 percent, an average weight of 900 pounds per head of cattle, and a price of B/. 0.40 per pound, table 10. Net returns to capital, land and management were B/. 791.90. DUCKS ALONE Capital Investment The ducks were corraled in a way that provided free access to part of the pond. The duck corrals cost an average of B/. 540.30, table 11. TABLE 7. INVESTMENT COSTS FOR HOG PRODUCTION (UNIT OF 20 FEEDER PIGS) Item Description Unit Cost/unit, Quantity Total cost, iUseul depAnnual Item Description Unit B/.Quantity B/. life, depreciation, years B/. Pigsty Materials pig wire, concrete total 662.12 1 662.12 10 66.21 floor, zinc roof Equipment Buckets c/u 3.00 2 6.00 1 6.00 Storage shed materials total 364.70 1 364.70 20 18.24 Shovels c/u 6.65 2 13.30 2 6.65 Picks c/u 9.40 2 18.80 2 9.40 Wheelbarrow c/u 95.00 1 95.00 5 19.00 Total 1,159.92 125.50 TABLE 8. ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR HOG PRODUCTION (UNIT OF 20 HOGs, 1.5 CYCLES PER YEAR) Item Description Unit Cost/unit, B/. Quantity Total cost, B/. Returns Hogs Average weight of 115.9 lb., average price hog 119.50 29.41 3,513.30 B/. 1.031/lb. Costs Fixed Annual Depreciation 125.50 Variable Feeder pigs Average weight of 30 lb. average price of hog 36.15 30 1,084.50 B/. 1.205/lb. Feed Grower and fattening cwt. 12.50 135 1,687.50 Medication hog 2.01 30 60.30 Transportation For animals and feed total 193.50 Taxes Slaughtering and municipal hog 4.42 30 132.60 Insurance hog 2.00 30 60.00 Interest (9%) 58.20 Total annual costs 3,337.60 Annual net returns to capital, land, and management 175.70 'Projects averaged 2 percent mortality of hogs. 28 The useful life was estimated to be 5 years with an annual depre- ciation of B/. 108.06. Ducks were the only livestock alternative that was marketed in a processed form. Hogs, chickens, and cattle were all marketed live. Duck processing required an investment in equipment that in- cluded a 55-gallon barrel for boiling water to clean the ducks, tweez- ers for plucking, and a cooler for transporting processed ducks. Total cost was B/. 645.30 with an annual depreciation of B/. 122.56, table 11. Production Costs The projects associated with ducks had an average of 150 ducks per project. This is the production unit utilized in the analysis. Processing and marketing costs were B/. 272.66 per year, or B/. 0.21 per duck, table 12. Stocking costs were only B/. 276.00 and feed costs were B/. 1,162.20. These costs are the actual costs re- corded in the projects. Duck production was 566.3 pounds per unit of 150 ducks. Mor- tality was 3.2 percent and average weight was 3.9 pounds per cleaned duck. The theoretical production cycle is 11 weeks. How- ever, the projects achieved only two cycles per year. Net returns to capital, land and management were negative, B/. -345.90. CHICKENS Capital Investment Chicken production units were already functioning when the modules were built. Investment costs were estimated for a unit of 2,000 chickens. The projects with chickens had several units of this size and always had extra manure. Capital investment included con- struction of the chicken house, well drilling, pump installation, re- serve tanks, labor, feeders and waterers. Total investment cost was B/. 6,341.70 with annual depreciation of B/. 698.17, table 13. Production Costs Chicken production costs were estimated from secondary data obtained from the Department of Livestock Production. Theoreti- TABLE 9. INVESTMENT COSTS FOR CATTLE PRODUCTION (UNIT OF 20 STOCKERS) Annual Item Description Unit Cost/unit, B/. Quantity Total cost, B/. Useful sife, depreciation, years B/. Fences (3 km) 1 Live stakes c/u 0.25 1,200 300.00 Barbed wire roll 31.25 12 375.00 5 75.00 Staples 50-pound box box 32.00 2 64.00 5 12.80 Transportation" total 20.00 Subtotal 759.00 87.80 Corral total 381.00 5 76.22 Pasture improvement Seed cwt. 6.00 60 360.00 Transportation total 20.00 Subtotal 380.00 Total 1,520.11 164.02 'The majority of the farms and fences established. These costs are fence improvements. 'The farm is assumed to be 30 km from source of supply. 'Average construction costs in the projects. TABLE 10. ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR CATTLE PRODUCTION (UNIT OF 20 STOCKERS) Item Description Unit Cost/unit, B/. Quantity Total cost, B/. Returns Stockers pound 0.40 17,1001 6,840.00 Costs Fixed Annual depreciation 164.02 Variable Stocker calves c/u 250.00 20 5,000.00 Deparasitization total 100.00 Mineralized salt cwt. 14.90 3.2 54.08 Urea gal. .25 400 100.00 Insurance head 7.50 20 150.00 Transportation head 12.00 40 480.00 Subtotal 5,884.08 Total annual costs 6,048.10 Annual net returns to capital, land, and management 791.90 'Market weight averaged 900 pounds per stocker. Mortality was estimated at 5 percent. TABLE 11. INVESTMENT COSTS OF DUCK PRODUCTION (UNIT OF 150 DUCKS) Annual Item Description Unit Cost/unit, B/. Quantity Total cost, B/. Useful sife, depreciation, years B/. Corral Materials total 540.30 1 540.30 5 108.06 Marketing Drum 55-gallon c/u 10.00 2 20.00 4 5.00 Tweezers total 10.00 1 10.00 5 2.00 Cooler c/u 75.00 1 75.00 10 7.50 Total 645.30 122.56 29 It ''11 If Idili If h 1 1 l ) 1 IJ I , i 1 ' m I t I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I T tII(IIIII ,IITt I k lt( lI I,\ I i I I2 ( Ii ' I It t Ist xII I. ,tI )(), ( :ot/IIf itt I Tiiil It ]I(tll iis I )it(ikx Ollitiltitv To t co t 11). 1 f 1, 1:32.l (1 1 6:30. 9 1 I 111a ixtiliatol 122,Sit \I ii lii I ) ITi kliix-x ('1 it92 3001 2,l (1 00 Itcc i\% ixt. 190 1-1 1I 1 112 ()1 tit ~lii ii toa 136 .33 2 2 T2 6 tilt W x Ii (i i; 7T litt ill t o a](] t15. 90 31111 Ittksx %\iltl S6, pii tit xittm xi ai t iii txi (, ii ghx t'i~i tif 3.9J pititi ii pt do(i k. LIVESTOCK-FISH ASSOCIATION I II (tctu iii li'jttioI it I x d d it\tsoc \ iIIt I' s iit i t O\ ix ill(, i (, i xI i mo ii Aii sciut T iT s ti 4 licd I ) I t I dIi f I d Iit It Ii lITT I xI .it(Il II it I I _i I ' II I) 'liii iti also i xliiitte ic as l lit' t lt rt lid liiiftli xxxti i ti 1 nica417 .2 Theiii ii iip i fw h o T ii f 13 215i, 27\ ii call f)( ls c oti i Ii Il\tstiwi fish. '1w if ft Sr I 31 t 13i i,, lii c t tI. i / l o ih I]) ( lii l fI if( Ii o f i I w p Ii d i sii' it xa ita i 1 1r ~) IJ~L 1 IIso \ it fIt ip s I of itII f n i1:. I\ ' ii xlxt \ is (tixix ti I IT 11i \i Piiti i t t I . xt ITI m I ) 20 :111 i kl Nx Itcl ( M1ixti ik, i'clti s li c lliii s aitt iiit ic :3.0 I tl lIii If[ 1 t~ 1. \\I i I x i I l is.ii l (itll i K N Itititt l l)\u SI 1t 01. 2tl000l it KI)Is,, \x ixToI )I il' l i I \ 1- Till ( sI t 'I[il I W~kiiix /I(i l it I' lo a ixt if it t d l itt kx I it ~iii xiil i )"ait titl l It I I itt*ii I I xii ft I f i oi xf I i tI fi t I I I itI. i I I Ii io ll I i ll , liitttx tixt\ t 11). 0 5:3 I 1 04' _' 7T 12 69>S, IT till bft t u 11) i xi I i.\ t. xi\N t lii ilii i .11l 2.75 2 .3.5 1.501 2.,S5 15.35 11.55 25 1.001 .501 22.00l IS. 511 IS o).lt 22.S)t 1,5:35.00I :3,21,00~l 11 21 WOO il 1IT 0t0l 100. 0 1~ (Ill 0 6, 131) Sf1 6, S2S' i9h S5,S I I (dit ii tl TL d t itit Jl li Iu B3itu 3 STIM 00) 300 S 0l0li til0.00li 6, l liii1 T 6,97 )2. 00l \\tlit f u l fit t rn tt il li i i)! ] t, I& M III it Iiitii'IICIt Of fti 1,259. 4 1 tififi 16. CATTLE-FISH ASSOCIATION [flit total casxh ii x 'tmiti it , xixB .5A I IS I \\~ i an ititui o i I t i- citititn if B3 27 ff3 till)]( IT. fIlit total iiitii cosxtx xxiii ft. B1. 1052., . ablcIT 4 '0 -01 - 4 4 FIG. 10. A two-pond module located in Las Penitas. Codle. A pigsty (under palm trees) and goat corral (far or distant background) pro- vide the manure for this agroaquaculture project with the motto, "Food is Peace". il). 17 I Y) 0011 0l)"), IT -) 1 1, 000 960. 00 'ollillial lict wtill its to capitill, land, ill)(] \,,, of 3 7 polold, TABLE 15. ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR HOG-FISH PRODUCTION Item Total value or cost, B/. Annual depreciation, B/. Annual returns Fish ............... 513.69 Hogs............... 3,513.30 Total annual returns 4,026.99 Fixed costs Pond............... 2,835.00 29.75 Storage shed ........ 364.70 18.24 Broodstock .......... 67.80 Pigsty.............. 662.12 66.21 Equipment ......... 487.60 101.07 Subtotal............ 4,417.22 215.27 Variable costs Fish seed ........... 22.73 Feeder pigs ......... 1,084.50 Fertilizer ........... 6.28 Feed............... 1,687.50 Medication ......... 60.30 Insurance ........... 60.00 Transportation ....... 193.50 Taxes .............. 132.60 Subtotal............ 3,247.41 Total annual costs ..... 3,462.68 Annual net returns to capital, land, and management ........ 564.31 TABLE 16. ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR CHICKEN-FISH PRODUCTION Item Total value or cost, B/. Annual depreciation, B/. Annual returns Fish ............... 544.32 Chicken............ 7,687.12 Total annual returns 8,231.44 Fixed costs Ponds.............. 2,835.00 29.75 Storage shed ........ 364.70 18.24 Equipment ......... 730.50 167.02 Broodstock .......... 67.80 - Chicken house ...... 3,871.50 387.17 Pump, well, tank .... 2,100.00 210.00 Subtotal ............ 9,969.70 812.18 Variable costs Fish seed ........... 22.73 Chicks ............. 960.00 Fertilizer ........... 6.28 Animal health ....... 81.60 Feed............... 4,736.00 Transportation ....... 176.00 Maintenance ........ 177.21 Subtotal ............ 6,159.82 Total annual costs ..... 6,972.00 Annual net returns to capital, land, and management ........ 1,259.44 DucK-FISH ASSOCIATION The cash investment was B/. 4,273.30 with annual depreciation of B/. 236.57, table 18. The total annual costs are B/. 2,119.86, table 18. Net returns to capital, land, and management are B/. 320.08. Summary of Budget Analysis Budget analysis indicates the general profitability of a productive activity by comparing the average costs and returns in a given year. Comparing the different alternatives considered, the "chick-fish" al- ternative yielded the highest net return to capital, land and man- agement, B/. 1,259.44, table 20. The least profitable was fish raised alone with cattle manure, B/. 143.78. Only one activity, duck pro- duction alone, was not profitable. TABLE 17. ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR CATTLE-FISH PRODUCTION Item Total value or cost, B/. Annual depreciation, B/. Annual returns Fish ............... 403.80 Cattle.............. 6,840.00 Total annual returns 7,243.80 Fixed costs Ponds.............. 2,825.00 29.75 Storage shed ........ 364.70 18.24 Equipment ......... 360.50 66.02 Broodstock .......... 67.80 Corral.............. 381.11 76.22 Fencing............ 759.00 87.80 Pasture improvement 380.00 Subtotal............ 5,148.11 278.03 Variable costs Fish seed ........... 22.73 Fertilizer ........... 6.28 Stockers ............ 5,000.00 Supplemental feed... 254.08 Insurance........... . 150.00 Transportation ....... 480.00 Subtotal............ 5,913.09 Total annual costs ..... 6,191.12 Annual net returns to capital, land, and management ........ 1,052.68 TABLE 18. ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR DUCK-FISH PRODUCTION Item Total value or cost, B/. Annual depreciation, B/. Annual returns Fish ............... 809.00 Ducks.............. 1,630.94 Total annual returns 2,439.94 Fixed costs Ponds.............. 2,835.00 29.75 Storage shed ........ 364.70 18.24 Equipment ......... 465.50 80.52 Broodstock .......... 67.80 Corral .............. 540.30 108.06 Subtotal ............ . 4,273.30 236.57 Variable costs Fish seed ........... 22.73 Ducklings .......... 276.00 Fertilizer ........... 6.28 Feed............... 1,162.20 Marketing .......... 272.66 Transportation ....... 109.72 Interest ............ 33.70 Subtotal............ 1,823.29 Total annual costs ..... 2,119.86 Annual net returns to capital, land, and management ........ 320.08 Production Costs Per Pound of Meat Produced Given that the initial goal of the project was to produce animal protein at a low cost, the production costs of the different types of meat produced were calculated for the alternatives considered. The quantity of meat produced in each integrated system was added to the fish production (all in live weight) and this number divided into the total annual cost for each respective system. The costs per pound of meat varied between B/. 0.14 per pound of fish (with duck manure) to B/. 1.75 per pound of duck meat, table 19. Fish meat produced without animal integration was always cheaper than the other meats considered. Integrating the livestock operations with fish lowered the cost per pound of meat in every case. For example, pork production alone had a production cost of B/. 0.98 per pound but when fish were integrated with hogs, the cost dropped to B/. 0.74 per pound. 31 TABLE 19. PER POUND PRODUCTION COSTS OF ANIMAL PROTEIN (LIVE WEIGHT) Alternative Annual produc- Live weight of Cot per pound tion costs, B/. animals, lb. meat produced, B/./lb. 1. Fish alone ..... 27990 2,022.50 0.14 (duck manure) 2. Fish alone ..... (chicken 279.90 1,360.81 .21 manure) 3. Fish alone..... 325.50 1,284.23 .25 (hog manure) 4. Fish-cattle ..... 685.67 Fish 6,191.12 17,100.00 Cattle Total 17,785.67 .35 5. Cattle......... 6,048.10 17,100.00 .35 6. Fish alone ..... 26002 685.67 .38 (cattle manure) 7. Fish-chickens 1)360.81 Fish 6,983.21 14)50.00 Chickens 504.00 Total 15,864.81 .44 8. Chicken....... 6,840.29 14,504.00 .47 9. Fish-ducks ..... Fish 2,119.86 2,022.50 Ducks 1,132.60 Total 3,155.10 .67 10. Fish-hogs ...... 1284.23 Fish 3,462.68 1,4.46 Hogs 407.46 Total 4,691.69 .74 11. Hogs.......... 3,337.60 3,407.46 .98 12. Duck.......... 1,976.84 1,132.60 1.75 TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF NET RETURNS TO CAPITAL, LAND, AND MANAGEMENT Alternative Net returns to capital, land, and management, B/. 1. Fish-chicken...................1,259.44 2. Fish-cattle.....................1,052.68 3. Chicken....................... 858.14 4. Cattle......................... 791.90 5. Fish-hogs...................... 564.31 6. Fish alone (duck manure) ........ 529.10 7. Fish-ducks..................... 320.08 8. Fish alone (chicken manure) ...... 264.42 9. Fish alone (hog manure) ......... 188.19 10. H ogs......................... 175.70 11. Fish alone (cattle manure) ....... 143.78 12. Ducks........................ -345.90 Rate of Return Analysis The internal rate of return is a useful tool for analyzing the effi- ciency of capital use in different projects throughout the respective lives of the projects. Traditional economic analysis focuses on effi- ciency or income maximization for project selection (20). An addi- tional unit of consumption will give the poor man more additional utility in society's eyes than it would to the rich man (5). Project evaluation calls for making adjustments in the calculations of eco- nomic profitability on the basis of income distribution considerations and effects of project on government income and savings. With these, a social profitability criterion is derived(4). In the absence of sufficient data to assess the social profitability of the project, financial rates of return were estimated to provide some indications of the efficiency of resource use. For lack of complete data, however, these rates of return cannot be interpreted as con- clusive. Rates of return were estimated for the four different types of fish- livestock associations as well as both the fish and livestock compo- nents in isolation. Interest on working capital was charged at the 9 percent level charged by the Agricultural Development Bank of Panama in the project. Tables 21-24 present the stream of incremental net benefits for a 20-year period for the four combinations, analyzing the fish enter- prise independently of the whole. Tables 25-28 present an overall analysis that includes costs and returns for both fish and livestock enterprises. Tables 29-32 present annual benefits for the livestock components in isolation. In the first year, the first 6 months are devoted to construction. The fish and other animals are stocked on July 1. The only income the first year is from two partial harvests of fish (November and De- cember) and one cycle each of ducks and chickens. Hogs and cattle would not be marketed until the second year. The first total harvest of fish is December of the second year. Two harvests of hogs, ducks, and chickens and one of cattle are achieved the second year. The feed for each cycle of hogs, ducks, and chickens is purchased at one time to economize on transportation and is stored in the storage shed Labor is provided by the community, so it is not a cash expense of the project. Rather, the returns are returns to the management who also provide the labor. Financial rates of return are calculated with and without operator's labor, to assess both the situation from the farmer's perspective and the efficiency of labor utilization. The allocation of labor between fish culture and the husbandry ac- tivities is presented in tables 29-30. Because of the symbiotic nature of the integrated activities, a clear delineation of labor used by ac- tivity is difficult. However, the data presented represent best esti- mates and are supported by a description of and accounting of all labor activities attributed to each animal combination, table 33. Daily pond maintenance and water control, pond harvest and fin- gerling production, andpond maintenance and drainage per pro- duction cycle involve the same labor activities for each animal com- bination. Differences in labor allocation among the combinations arise as a result of pond fertilization activities. More effort was needed to fertilize with cattle manure because of the time required to corral the animals and clean the enclosures. Chickens demand less time because manure was bagged at the end of each fattening cycle, stored, and then applied once a week. Hog manure was ap- plied to the ponds daily when the sties were cleaned. No time was spent fertilizing duck ponds since the ducks were located on the pond and dropped their wastes directly into the water. Annual dif- ferences result from the 18-month production cycle. Cash flows are calculated using the accounting convention of al- locating all entries on the last day of the period. Incremental work- ing capital is included in the financial analyses to make expenditures during the period. The incremental residual value is the increased value of the land assuming the module will keep 75 percent of its new value with included maintenance. The labor used in the project is generally an underemployed re- source, thus its real social value is less than wage rates prevalent in the country Adult male participants have seasonal employment op- portunities in sugar harvesting and other farm labor. Much of the la- bor used in the project is done by young males and females who have limited employment opportunities. Thus, the opportunity cost of la- bor was estimated at B/. 2.15 per day (17). SUMMARY OF RATES OF RETURN A summary of the rates of return derived for the alternative ani- mal combinations is presented in table 35. For each combination, the system is self-sustaining because returns cover variable costs. The fish-duck systems achieved the highest rates of return (23 percent) for the fish only alternative, table 35. Fish production was considerably higher with ducks than with the other livestock alter- natives. The analysis, however, assumes a ready market for the ducks which does not currently exist in Panama. Fish-chicken systems obtained the second-best results of any of the combinations. The financial return of 14 percent, table 35, is above the 12 percent cutoff rate for capital established by the Plan- 32 above the 12 percent cutoff rate for capital established by the Plan- ning Ministry in Panama. Efficient resource use is indicated by the high economic returns that provide significant incentive for partic- ipation. The fish-hog system analyzing fish alone yielded a rate of return of 13 percent, also above the accepted 12 percent cutoff rate. The low profitability of raising hogs in Panama decreases the rate of re- turn to 6 percent in the overall analysis. The fish-cattle systems had the lowest rates of return with 9 per- cent for fish analyzed separately. This lower rate of return is consis- tent with the lower fish yields obtained with cattle manure. Analysis of the system as a whole yielded lower rates of return than the fish enterprises analyzed separately for each livestock al- ternative. The rates of return were: 10 percent for the fish-chicken enterprise, 6 percent for the fish-hogs enterprise, 8 percent for the fish-ducks enterprise, and 2 percent for the fish-cattle enterprise. The change in rates of return indicates that fish have higher returns than the livestock alternatives considered in these areas. The lowest rates of return were those of the livestock component in isolation. Chickens alone had a rate of return of 5 percent, hogs alone-6 percent, and cattle-4 percent. Ducks alone had regative returns for each year so that the rate of return could not be calcu- lated. DISCUSSION Direct comparisons of the different alternatives would lead to biased conclusions. Chickens were the only enterprise managed on a commercial scale. The only valid comparison would be to look at free-ranging chickens or chickens housed in a cage directly over the ponds. Internal rates of return cannot be used to rank projects (9). The rate of return should be compared only to the cutoff rate to decide whether to accept or reject the project. The higher rate of return for chickens does not mean that chickens should always be selected over hogs, but rather that both chickens and hogs are viable if their rates of return are above the accepted opportunity cost of capital. The fish-chicken systems yielded the highest net returns and ac- ceptable rates of return. Chicken manure is easy to handle and store and the animals are raised in a confined area. The chicken opera- tions were already in existence; fish culture provided a productive use of the chicken manure and water for an irrigated garden. The success of this combination indicates probable success of integrated systems for small commercial poultry operations. The results with hogs were less conclusive. Hogs, independently of fish, are marginally profitable in Panama. This system puts par- ticular strains on traditional farmers in the form of additional credit and transport requirements. Whereas the chicken processors pro- vided these services to chicken producers, the farmers with hogs had no comparable service. Traditional farmers are not accustomed to banking operations and bank personnel are not accustomed to dealing with traditional farmers. Even with favorable credit terms, traditional farmers' risk aversion and the possibility of default make this system difficult for farmers in remote areas. Farmers with good access to transportation could work with hogs, but the hogs should be stocked at least at 100 per hectare (as com- pared to the current use of 75 per hectare). Hopkins et al. (11) achieved highest fish yields at 103 hogs per hectare and highest net returns at 100 hogs per hectare. This ensures sufficient pond fertility and utilizes more efficiently the capital investment in the pigsty and water control structures (7). The rate of return for the fish-duck combination was high. This analysis, however, assumes a value for duck meat. If the ducks are neither sold nor consumed, they would have little or no value as a source of meat. In this case, they would then be viewed as a cost to fish culture. The Panamanian diet, except for Oriental populations, does not generally include duck. Thus, duck in traditional commu- nities may have a low value. Marketing ducks to restaurants in Pan- ama City would require a large consistent production far in excess of production capabilities in these communities. Chicken proces- sors would be the most likely distributors of duck, but such distri- bution would require minimum shipments that would be beyond the capability of small producers. These current marketing con- straints make intensive duck-fish combinations unfeasible under the present conditions in Panama. However, if other countries have a de- veloped market outlet for duck meat, this combination would be fea- sible. For farmers whose families would consume a certain quantity of intensively raised ducks per year, it would still be advisable to stock a small number on the ponds in addition to other livestock for home consumption. The rate of return for the cattle projects, although below the es- tablished cutoff rate for capital investments in Panama, demon- strated that the rate of return is increased by integrating fish pro- duction with cattle. The fertilizing quality of unprocessed cow manure as an organic fertilizer for aquaculture is lower than that of hog, chicken, and duck manure (8,10). In this project, the cattle en- terprises required corraling dispersed herds. The labor effort and logistics involved may have led to the lower level of pond fertilization and fish production. However, in isolated communities with poor road access and an established cattle herd, fertilizing fish ponds with cattle manure is the only available method to intensify fish produc- tion. This analysis indicates that farmers with cattle would achieve higher rates of return by combining fish production with cattle op- erations. Fish-cattle exceed the 12 percent mark if the price of fish is B/. 0.60 per pound. Other fish prices for lower-quality fish transported from the coast range from B/. 0.35 to B/. 1.00 per pound in the re- gion. The rate of return of the fish enterprises alone is highly sensitive to changes in the price of fish. A B/. 0.10 increase in price produced an almost doubling of the rate of return in most cases. The addition of a value for operator's labor in the rate of return analysis causes a considerable drop in the rates of return. The labor intensity of daily fertilization and animal care, when handled in the classical manner, is a significant cost in a small-scale project. Sub- sistence or near-subsistence farmers, however, do not generally make decisions on their distribution of family labor in the classical economic fashion. Evidence in the Philippines shows that fishpen culture in the Laguna de Baye is not feasible if operator's labor is included (19). Yet, these operators are making money and expanding businesses, and new operators are entering the industry. "Peasant families will work unimaginably hard and long for the smallest in- crements in production. They will continue to work long after a pru- dent capitalist would move on" (18). Clearly, economics has not yet developed an adequate theory or tool to determine the value of an operator's labor in a near-subsistence context. In all cases, the fish enterprise considered alone yielded a higher rate of return than the overall rate. This indicates that it is worth- while and feasible to integrate fish culture with these livestock al- ternatives. 33 TABLE 21. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FISH-CHICKEN MODULE, FISH ONLY Fiaca tmYear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Fnnaltm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond' .......................... $2,835.00 $0.00 Storage Shed..................... 364.70 0.00 Equipment ....................... 360.50 6.00 Broodstock'....................... 67.80 0.00 Subtotal......................... 3, 628. 00 6.00 Contingency (10%)................. 362.80 0.60 Subtotal .......................... $3,990.80 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 0.60 0.60 22.05 $6.60 $6.60 242.55 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 Variable Costs Fish Seed'........................ $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 Fertilizer .......... '*................* * 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 Interest Working Cap............... 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 Subtotal ........................... $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 131.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 131.00 0.60 13.10 $6.60 $144.10 $0.00 $34.10 0.00 9.42 0.00 3.92 $0.00 $47.44 Total Cost ......................... $4,038.24 $6.60 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $289.99 $54.04 $6.60 $ 19 1.5 Gross Returns ...................... $116.64 $769.80 $564.56 $564.56 $846.84 $564.56 $564.56 $846.84 $564.56 Net Returns To Capital, Land, and Management (Without Operator's Labor)......................... ($3,921.60) $763.20 $510.52 $510.52 $840.24 $274.57 $510.52 $840.24 $373.0 Operator's Labor .................... $103.20 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.251 Net Returns to Capital and Land ... ($4,024.80) $529.92 $220.27 $220.27 $606.96 ($15.68) $220.27 $606.96 $82.77 'Includes transport. TABLE 22. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FISH-HOcS MODULE, FISH ONLY Fiaca tmYear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Fnniltm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond' .......................... $2,835.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Storage Shed...................... 364.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment ....................... 360.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 Broodstock'....................... 67.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal......................... 3,628.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Contingency (10%)................. 362.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 Subtotal .......................... $3,990.80 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 Variable Costs Fish Seed'........................ $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 Fertilizer.......................... 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 Interest Working Cap............... 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 Subtotal ........................... $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 6.00 131.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 6.00 131.00 0.60 22.05 0.60 0.60 13.10 $6.60 $242.50 $6.60 $6.60 $144.10 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 0.00 9.42 $34.10 0.00 9.42 0.00 3.92 9.42 0.00 3.92 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 Total Cost ......................... $4,038.24 $6.60 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $289.99 $54.04 $6.60 $191.54 Gross Returns ...................... $110.08 $726.48 $532.80 $532.80 $799.20 $532.80 $532.80 $799.20 $532.8 Net Returns To Capital, Land, and Management (Without Operator's Labor)........................($3,928.16) $719.88 $478.76 $478.76 $792.60 $242.81 $478.76 $792.60 $341.26 Operator's Labor.................... $95.68 $217.15 $261.22 $277.35 $201.02 $277.35 $261.22 $217.15 $261.22 Net Returns to Capital and Land ... ($4,023.84) $502.73 $217.54 $201.41 $591.58 ($34.54) $217.54 $575.45 $80.04 'Includes transport. 34 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 60.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 23.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 22.05 13.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 259.05 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $242.55 $144.10 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 0.00 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 $54.04 $259.05 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $54.04 $289.99 $144.10 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $0.00 564.56 $846.84 $564.56 $564.56 $846.84 $564.56 $564.56 $846.84 $564.56 $564.56 $2,906.89 $0.00 $510.52 $587.79 $510.52 $510.52 $840.24 $510.52 $274.57 $702.74 $510.52 $510.52 $2,900.29 $0.00 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $0.00 $220.27 $354.51 $220.27 $220.27 $606.96 $220.27 ($15.68) $469.46 $220.27 $220.27 $2,667.01 $0.00 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 60.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 23.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 22.05 13.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $259.05 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $242.55 $144.10 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 0.00 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 $54.04 $259.05 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $54.04 $289.99 $144.10 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $0.00 $532.80 $1,258.56 $839.04 $839.04 $1,258.56 $839.04 $839.04 $1,258.56 $839.04 $839.04 $3,318.61 $0.00 $478.76 $999.51 $785.00 $785.01 $1,251.96 $785.00 $549.05 $1,114.46 $785.00 $785.00 $3,312.01 $0.00 $277.35 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $0.00 $201.41 $814.61 $539.90 $539.91 $1,067.06 $539.90 $303.95 $929.56 $539.90 $539.90 $3,127.11 $0.00 35 TABLE 23. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FISH-DUCK MODULE, FISH ONLY Fiaca tmYear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Fnnaitm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond' .......................... $2,835.00 $0.00 $0.00 Storage Shed...................... 364.70 0.00 0.00 Equipmient ....................... 360.50 6.00 6.00 Broodstock'....................... 67.80 0.00 0.00 Subtotal......................... 3,628.00 6.00 6.00 Contingency (10%)................. 362.80 0.60 0.60 Subtotal .......................... $3,990.80 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 Variable Costs Fish Seed'........................ $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 Fertilizer......................... 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 Interest Working Cap............... 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 Subtotal ........................... $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 0.60 22.05 0.60 $6.60 $242.55 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 3.92 3.92 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 131.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 131.00 0.60 13.10 $6.60 $144.10 $0.00 $34.10 0.00 9.42 0.00 3.92 $0.00 $47.44 Total Cost ......................... $4,038.24 $6.60 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $289.99 $54.04 $6.60 $191.54. Gross Returns ...................... $173.36 $1,144.20 $839.04 $839.04 $1,258.56 $839.04 $839.04 $1,258.56 $839.0 Net Returns To Capital, Land, and Management (Without Operator's Labor) .......................... (3,864.88) $1,137.60 $785.00 $785.00 $1,251.96 $549.05 $785.00 $1,251.96 $6471.50r Operator's Labor.................... $79.55 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 Net Returns to Capital and Land ... ($3,944.43) $952.70 $539.90 $539.90 $1,067.06 $303.95 $539.90 $1,067.06 $402.4 'Includes transport. TABLE 24. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FISH-CA-rLE MODULE, FISH ONLY Fiaca tmYear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Fnnaitm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond' .......................... $2,835.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Storage Shed...................... 364.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment ....................... 360.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 Broodstoek'....................... 67.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal......................... 3,628.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Contingency (10%)................. 362.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 Subtotal .......................... $3,990.80 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 Variable Costs Fish Seed'........................ $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 Fertilizer......................... 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 Interest Working Cap............... 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 Subtotal ........................... $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 6.00 131.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 6.00 131.00 0.60 22.05 0.60 0.60 13.10 $6.60 $242.55 $6.60 $6.60 $144.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 Total Cost ......................... $4,038.24 $6.60 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $289.99 $54.04 $6.60 $191.54 Gross Returns....................... $86.53 $570.96 $418.72 $418.72 $628.08 $418.72 $418.72 $628.08 $418.72 Net Returns To Capital, Land, and Management (Without Operator's Labor)........................($3,951.71) $564.36 $364.68 $364.68 $621.48 $128.73 $364.68 $621.48 $227.18 Operator's Labor .................... $131.15 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.7 Net Returns to Capital and Land ... ($4,082.86) $276.26 $24.98 $24.98 $333.38 ($210.97) $24.98 $333.38 ($112.52 'Includes transport. 36 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 60.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 23.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 22.05 13.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $259.05 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $242.55 $144.10 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 $54.04 $259.05 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $54.04 $289.99 $144.10 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $0.00 $839.04 $799.20 $532.80 $532.80 $799.20 $632.80 $532.80 $799.20 $532.80 $532.80 $2,859.25 $0.00 $785.00 $540.15 $478.76 $478.76 $792.60 $478.76 $242.81 $655.10 $478.76 $478.76 $2,852.65 $0.00 $245.10 $201.02 $277.35 $261.22 $217.15 $261.22 $277.35 $201.02 $277.35 $261.22 $217.15 $0.00 $539.90 $339.13 $201.41 $217.54 $575.45 $217.54 ($34.54) $454.08 $201.41 $217.54 $2,635.50 $0.00 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 60.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 6.00 235.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 23.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 22.05 13.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $259.05 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $242.55 $144.10 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00 0.00 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $47.44 $47.44 $0.00 $0.00 $54.04 $259.05 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $54.04 $289.99 $144.10 $54.04 $54.04 $6.60 $0.00 $418.72 $628.08 $418.72 $418.72 $628.08 $418.72 $418.72 $628.08 $418.72 $418.72 $2,688.13 $0.00 $364.68 $369.03 $364.68 $364.68 $621.48 $364.68 $128.73 $483.98 $364.68 $364.68 $2,681.53 $0.00 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $0.00 $24.98 $80.93 $24.98 $24.98 $333.38 $24.98 ($210.97) $195.88 $24.98 $24.98 $2,393.43 $0.00 37 TABLE 25. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FISH-CHICKEN MODULE Financial item Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond' ........................... $2,835.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Storage Shed ..................... . 364.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment........................ -730.50 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 500.50 96.00 6.00 221.00 Chicken House ................... 3,871.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Broodstock' ...................... 67.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pumps, Tanks .................... 2,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal ......................... 9,969.70 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 500.50 96.00 6.00 221.00 Contingency (10%) ................ 996.97 0.60 9.60 0.60 9.60 50.05 9.60 0.60 22.10 Subtotal .......................... $10,966.67 $6.60 $105.60 $6.60 $105.60 $550.55 $105.60 $6.60 $243.10 Variable Costs Fish Seed' ....................... $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 Chicks ........................... 480.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 Fertilizer ........................ 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 Feed ............................ 2,368.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 Vaccinations ...................... 40.80 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 Transportation .................... 88.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 Sanitation ........................ 83.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 Maintenance ..................... . 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 Interest Working Cap .............. 280.31 551.68 555.60 555.60 551.68 555.60 555.60 551.68 555.60 Subtotal ........................... $3,394.84 $6,681.49 $6,728.93 $6,728.93 $6,681.49 $6,728.93 $6,728.93 $6,681.49 $6,728.93 Total Cost......................... $14,361.51 $6,688.09 $6,834.53 $6,735.53 $6,787.09 $7,279.48 $6,834.53 $6,688.09 $6,972.03 Gross Returns ...................... $3,960.20 $8,456.92 $8,251.68 $8,251.68 $8,533.96 $8,251.68 $8,251.68 $8,533.96 $8,251.68 Net Returns To Capital, Land, and Management (Without Operator's Labor).......................... ($10,401.31) $1,768.83 $1,417.15 $1,516.15 $1,746.87 $972.20 $1,417.15 $1,845.87 $1,279.65 Operator's Labor Fish............................. $103.20 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 Chickens ........................ $785.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 Net Returns to Capital and Land ...... ($11,289.51) ($34.45) ($443.10) ($344.10) ($56.41) ($888.05) ($443.10) $42.59 ($580.60) 'Includes transport. TABLE 26. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FISH-HOG MODULE Financial item Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond' .......................... $2,835.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Storage Shed ..................... . 364.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment....................... 487.60 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 6.00 131.00 Pigsty ........................... . 662.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Broodstock' ...................... 67.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal ......................... 4,417.22 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 6.00 6.00 131.00 Contingency (10%) ................ 441.72 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 22.05 0.60 0.60 13.10 Subtotal .......................... $4,858.94 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $242.55 $6.60 $6.60 $144.10 Variable Costs Fish Seed' ....................... $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 Feeder Pigs ...................... 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 Fertilizer ........................ 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 Feed ............................ 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 Medications ...................... 30.15 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.60 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 Crop Insurance ................... . 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 Transportation .................... 65.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 Interest Working Cap.............. .182.40 367.77 190.51 371.68 186.60 371.68 190.51 367.77 190.51 Taxes. ........................... . 0.00 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 Subtotal ........................... $2,209.07 $4,630.87 $2,395.73 $4,678.30 $2,348.30 $4,678.30 $2,395.73 $4,630.87 $2,395.73 Total Cost.......................... $7,068.01 $4,637.47 $2,402.33 $4,684.90 $2,354.90 $4,920.85 $2,402.33 $4,637.47 $2,539.83 Gross Returns ...................... $110.88 $5,416.21 $2,878.86 $5,221.06 $3,147.19 $5,221.00 $2,878.86 $5,489.39 $2,878.86 Net Returns To Capital, Land And Management (Without Operator's Labor)........................... ($6,957.13) $778.74 $476.53 $536.16 $792.29 $300.15 $476.53 $851.92 $339.03 Operator's Labor Fish............................. $95.68 $217.15 $261.22 $277.35 $201.02 $277.35 $261.22 $217.15 $261.22 Hogs ............................ $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 Net Returns To Capital and Land ...... ($7,068.81) $529.59 $199.31 $226.81 $575.27 ($9.20) $199.31 $602.77 $61.81 'Includes transport. 38 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 605.50 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 500.50 221.00 6.00 96.00 6.00 62.50 0.00 3,871.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 0.00 2,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6,577.20 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 500.50 221.00 6.00 96.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 657.72 0.60 9.60 0.60 9.60 50.05 22.10 0.60 9.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $7,234.92 $6.60 $105.60 $6.60 $105.60 $550.55 $243.10 $6.60 $105.60 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 $0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 0.00 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 0.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 0.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 0.00 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 0.00 555.60 551.68 555.60 555.60 551.68 555.60 555.60 551.68 555.60 555.60 551.68 0.00 $6,728.93 $6,681.49 $6,728.93 $6,728.93 $6,681.49 $6,728.93 $6,728.93 $6,681.49 $6,728.93 $6,728.93 $6,681.49 $0.00 $6,735.53 $13,916.41 $6,735.53 $6,834.53 $6,688.09 $6,834.53 $7,279.48 $6,924.59 $6,735.53 $6,834.53 $6,688.09 $0.00 $8,251.68 $8,533.96 $8,251.68 $8,251.68 $8,533.96 $8,251.68 $8,251.68 $8,533.96 $8,251.68 $8,251.68 $10,596.26 $0.00 $1,516.15 ($5,382.45) $1,516.15 $1,417.15 $1,845.87 $1,417.15 $972.20 $1,609.37 $1,516.15 $1,417.15 $3,908.17 $0.00 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $290.25 $290.25 $233.28 $0.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $0.00 ($344.10) ($7,185.73) ($344.10) ($443.10) $42.59 ($443.10) ($888.05) ($193.91) ($344.10) ($443.10) $2,104.89 $0.00 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 362.60 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 62.50 0.00 662.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 6.00 1,024.72 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 102.47 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 22.05 13.10 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $1,127.19 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $242.55 $144.10 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 723.00 1,446.00 557.25 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 877.50 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 0.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 0.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 0.00 371.68 186.60 371.68 190.51 367.77 190.51 371.68 186.60 371.68 190.51 367.77 0.00 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 $4,678.30 $2,348.30 $4,678.30 $2,395.73 $4,630.87 $2,395.73 $4,678.30 $2,348.30 $4,678.30 $2,395.73 $4,630.87 $0.00 $4,684.90 $3,475.49 $4,684.90 $2,402.33 $4,637.47 $2,402.33 $4,920.85 $2,492.40 $4,684.90 $2,402.33 $4,637.47 $0.00 $5,221.06 $3,147.19 $5,221.06 $2878.86 $5,489.39 $2,878.86 $5,221.06 $3,147.19 $5,221.06 $2,878.86 $8,986.44 $0.00 $536.16 ($328.30) $536.16 $476.53 $851.92 $476.53 $300.21 $654.79 $536.16 $476.53 $4,348.97 $0.00 $277.35 $201.02 $277.35 $261.22 $217.15 $261.22 $277.35 $201.02 $277.35 $261.22 $217.15 $0.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $0.00 $226.81 ($545.32) $226.81 $199.31 $602.77 $199.31 ($9.14) $437.77 $226.81 $199.31 $4,099.82 $0.00 39 TABLE 27. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FiSH-DUCK MODULE Fiaca tmYear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Fiiniltm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond' .......................... $2,835. 00 Storage Shed...................... 364.70 Equipment ....................... 465.50 Corral ........................... 540.30 Broodstoek'....................... 67.80 Subtotal......................... 4,273.30 Contingency (10%)................. 427.33 Subtotal .......................... $4,700.63 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 26.00 230.50 0.00 0.00 540.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 26.00 770.80 0.60 2.60 77.08 $6.60 $28.60 $847.88 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 151.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 151.00 0.60 15.10 $6.60 $166.10 Variable Costs Fish Seed'........................ $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 Ducklings'........................ 148.50 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 Fertilizer......................... 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 Feed' ........................... 600.60 1,201.20 1, 201.20 1,201.20 1, 201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 Marketing........................ 161.19 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 Interest Working Cap............... 85.84 163.8.5 167.77 167.77 163.85 167.77 167.77 163.85 167.77 Subtotal .......................... $1,039.65 $1,984.43 $2,031.87 $2,031.87 $1,984.43 $2,031.87 $2,031.87 $1,984.43 $2,031.87 Total Cost ......................... $5,740.28 $1,991.03 $2,038.47 $2,038.47 $2,013.03 $2,879.75 $2,038.47 $1,991.03 $2,197.9 Cross Return ....................... $988.83 $2,775.14 $2,469.98 $2,469.98 $2,889.50 $2,469.98 $2,469.98 $2,889.50 $2,469.9 Net Returns to Capital, Land, And Management (Without Operator's Labor)......................... ($4,751.45) $784.11 $431.51 $431.51 $876.47 ($409.77) $431.51 $898.47 $272.01 Operator's Labor Fish ............................. $79.55 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 Ducks........................... $229.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 Net Returns to Capital and Land ... ($5,060.00) $155.21 ($257.59) ($257.59) $247.57 ($1,098.87) ($257.59) $269.57 ($417.09 'Includes transport. TABLE 28. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR FISH-CATTLE MODULE Fiaca tmYear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Fiacaien1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Pond'........................... $2,835.00J $0.00 Storage Shed...................... 364.70 0.00 Equipment....................... 360.50 6.00 Corral........................... 381.11 0.00 Broodstock'....................... 67.80 0.00 Fence Improvement................ 759.00 0.00 Pasture Re-estab................... 380.00 0.00 Subtotal ......................... 5,148.11 6.00 Contingency (10%)................. 514.81 0.60 Subtotal........................... $5,662.92 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 0.00 381.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 459.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 1, 060.61 0.60 106.06 $6.60 $1,166.67 $0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 131.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 131.00 0.60 13.10 $6.60 $144.10 Variable Costs Fish Seed'........................ $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 Stockers......................... $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Fertilizer.......................... 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 Feed ............................ 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.0B Crop Insurance.................... 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 Transportation.................... 240.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 Interest Working Cap............... 511.88 529.57 533.48 533.48 529.57 533.48 533.48 529.57 533.48 Subtotal........................... $6,199.48 $6,413.65 $6,461.08 $6,461.08 $6,413.65 $6,461.08 $6,461.08 $6,413.65 $6,461.08 Total Costs ........................ $11,862.41 $6,420.25 $6,467.68 $6,467.68 $6,420.25 $7,627.76 $6,467.68 $6,420.25 $6,605.18 Gross Returns....................... $86.53 $7,410.96 $7,258.72 $7,258.72 $7,468.08 $7,258.72 $7,258.72 $7,468.08 $7,258.72 Net Returns to Capital, Land And Management (Without Operator's Labor)......................... ($11,775.88) $990.71 $791.04 $791.04 $1,047.83 ($369.04) $791.04 $1,047.83 $653.54 Operator's Labor .................... $131.15 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 Net Returns to Capital and Land ... ($11,907.03) $702.61 $451.34 $451.34 $759.73 ($708.74) $451.34 $759.73 $313.84 'Includes transport. 40 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 320.50 6.00 26.00 6.00 6.00 230.50 145.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 62.50 0.00 540.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 540.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 6.00 860.80 6.00 26.00 6.00 6.00 770.80 145.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 86.08 0.60 2.60 0.60 0.60 77.08 14.50 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $946.88 $6.60 $28.60 $6.60 $6.60 $847.88 $159.50 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 297.00 0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 0.00 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 0.00 167.77 163.85 167.77 167.77 163.85 167.77 167.77 163.85 167.77 167.77 163.85 $2,031.87 $1,984.43 $2,031.87 $2,031.87 $1,984.43 $ ,031.87 $2,031.87 $1,984.43 $2,031.87 $2,031.87 $1,984.43 $0.00 $2,038.47 $2,931.31 $2,038.47 $2,060.47 $1,991.03 $2,038.47 $2,879.75 $2,143.93 $2,038.47 $2,038.47 $1,991.03 $0.00 $2,469.98 $2,889.50 $2,469.98 $2,469.98 $2,889.50 $2,469.98 $2,469.98 $2,889.50 $2,469.98 $2,469.98 $4,951.80 $0.00 $431.51 ($41.81) $431.51 $409.51 $898.47 $431.51 ($409.77) $745.57 $431.51 $431.51 $2,960.77 $0.00 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $245.10 $245.10 $184.90 $0.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $0.00 ($257.59) ($670.71) ($257.59) ($279.59) $269.57 ($257.59) ($1,098.87) $116.67 ($257.59) ($257.59) $2,331.87 $0.00 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 235.50 6.00 0.00 381.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 459.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 1,075.61 6.00 0.60 107.56 0.60 $6.60 $1,183.17 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 220.50 131.00 0.00 381.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 459.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 1,060.61 131.00 0.60 106.06 13.10 $6.60 $1,166.67 $144.10 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $1,932.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 62.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 285.00 6.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $2,347.30 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $34.10 $34.10 $0.00 $0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00 0.00 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 0.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 0.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 0.00 533.48 529.57 533.48 533.48 529.57 533.48 533.48 529.57 533.48 533.48 529.57 0.00 $6,461.08 $6,413.65 $6,461.08 $6,461.08 $6,413.65 $6,461.08 $6,461.08 $6,413.65 $6,461.08 $6,461.08 $6,413.65 $0.00 $6,467.68 $7,596.82 $6,467.68 $6,467.68 $6,420.25 $6,467.68 $7,627.76 $6,557.75 $6,467.68 $6,467.68 $6,420.25 $0.00 $7,258.72 $7,468.08 $7,258.72 $7,258.72 $7,468.08 $7,258.72 $7,258.72 $7,468.08 $7,258.72 $7,258.72 $9,815.38 $0.00 $791.04 ($128.74) $791.04 $791.04 $1,047.83 $791.04 ($369.04) $910.33 $791.04 $791.04 $3,395.13 $0.00 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $339.70 $339.70 $288.10 $0.00 $451.34 ($416.84) $451.34 $451.34 $759.73 $451.34 ($708.74) $622.23 $451.34 $451.34 $3,107.03 $0.00 41 TABLE 29. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR CHICKEN ENTERPRISE Financial item Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Storage Shed ..................... . $364.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Equipment....................... . 370.00 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 286.00 96.00 Chicken House ................... 3,871.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pumps, Tanks .................... 2,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal ......................... 6,706.40 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 286.00 96.00 Contingency (10%) ................ 670.64 0.60 9.60 0.60 9.60 28.60 9.60 Subtotal ........................... $7,377.04 $6.60 $105.60 $6.60 $105.60 $314.60 $105.60 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 96.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 96.00 0.60 9.60 $6.60 $105.60 Variable Costs Chicks .......................... $480.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 Feed ............................ 2,368.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 Vaccinations ...................... 40.80 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 Transportation .................... 88.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 Sanitation ........................ 83.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 Maintenance ..................... . 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 Interest Working Cap. 276.39 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 Total ............................ $3,347.40 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 Subtotal Cost...................... $10,724.44 $6,688.09 $6,787.09 $6,688.09 $6,787.09 $6,996.09 $6,787.09 $6,688.09 $6,787.09 Gross Returns ...................... $3,843.56 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 Net Returns To Capital, Land And Management (Without Operator's Labor).......................... ($6,880.88) $999.03 $900.03 $999.03 $900.03 $691.03 $900.03 $999.03 $900.03 Operator's Labor Chickens ........................ $785.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 Net Returns to Capital and Land ...... ($7,665.88) ($570.97) ($669.97) ($570.97) ($669.97) (878.97) ($669.97) ($570.97) ($669.97) TABLE 30. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR HOG ENTERPRISE Financial item Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Storage Shed ..................... $364.70 $0.00 $0.00 Equipment....................... 127.10 6.00 6.00 Pigsty ........................... 662.12 0.00 0.00 Subtotal ......................... 1,153.92 6.00 6.00 Contingency (10%) ................ 115.39 0.60 0.60 Subtotal ......................... . $1,269.31 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 0.60 0.60 $6.60 $6.60 Variable Costs Feeder Pigs ...................... $723.00 $1,446.00 $723.00 $1,446.00 $723.00 $1,446.00 $723.00 $1,446.00 $723.00 Feed ............................ 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 Medications ...................... 30.15 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 Crop Insurance ................... . 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 Transportation .................... 65.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 Interest Working Cap .............. 178.48 367.77 186.60 367.77 186.60 367.77 186.60 367.77 186.60 Taxes. ............................ 0.00 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 Subtotal .......................... $2,161.63 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 Total Cost......................... $3,430.95 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 Gross Returns ...................... $0.00 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 Net Returns To Capital, Land And Management (Without Operator's Labor)........................... ($3,430.95) $46.93 ($12.70) $46.93 ($12.70) $46.93 ($12.70) $46.93 ($12.70) Operator's Labor Hogs ............................ $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 Net Returns to Capital and Land ...... ($3,446.95) $14.93 ($28.70) $14.93 ($28.70) $14.93 ($28.70) $14.93 ($28.70) 42 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 376.00 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 286.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 6.00 2.25 0.00 3, 871.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 6,347.70 6.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 286.00 96.00 6.00 96.00 6.00 2.25 0.60 634.77 0.60 9.60 0.60 9.60 28.60 9.60 0.60 9.60 0.60 0.23 $6.60 $6,982.47 $6.60 $105.60 $6.60 $105.60 $314.60 $105.60 $6.60 $105.60 $6.60 $2.48 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $960.00 $0.00 $4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 4,735.00 0.00 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 81.60 0.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 176.00 0.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 166.00 0.00 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 11.21 0.00 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 551.68 0.00 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $6,681.49 $0.00 $6,688.09 $13,663.96 $6,688.09 $6,787.09 $6,688.09 $6,787.09 $6,996.09 $6,787.09 $6,688.09 $6,787.09 $6,688.09 $0.00 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,687.12 $7,689.60 $0.00 $999.03 ($5,976.84) $999.03 $900.03 $999.03 $900.03 $691.03 $900.03 $999.03 $900.03 $1,001.50 $0.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $1,570.00 $0.00 ($570.97) ($7,546.84) ($570.97) (669.97) ($570.97) ($669.97) ($878.97) ($669.97) ($570.97) ($669.97) ($568.50) $0.00 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 127.10 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 2.25 0.00 662.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 789.22 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 2.25 0.60 78.92 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $868.14 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $2.25 $1,446.00 $723.00 $1,446.00 $723.00 $1,446.00 $723.00 $1,446.00 $723.00 $1,44600 $723.00 $1,446.00 $557.25 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 1,125.00 2,250.00 877.50 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 60.30 0.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 40.00 80.00 0.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 125.00 250.00 0.00 367.77 186.60 367.77 186.60 367.77 186.60 367.77 186.60 367.77 186.60 367.77 0.00 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 88.40 176.80 0.00 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $2,348.30 $4,630.87 $1,434.75 $4,637.47 $3,216.44 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 $4,637.47 $2,354.90 $4,637.47 $0.00 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 $4,684.40 f$2,342.20 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 $4,684.40 $2,342.20 $6,121.40 $0.00 $46.93 ($874.24) $46.93 ($12.70) $46.93 ($12.70) $46.93 ($12.70) $46.93 ($12.70) $1,483.93 $0.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $16.00 $32.00 $0.00 $14.93 ($890.24) $14.93 ($28.70) $14.93 ($28.70) $14.93 ($28.70) $14.93 ($28.70) $1,451.93 $0.00 43 TABLE 31. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR DUCK ENTERPRISE Financial item Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Storage Shed ..................... $364.70 Equipment ....................... 105.00 Corral ........................... 540.30 Subtotal......................... 1,010.00 Contingency (10%)................. 101.00 Subtotal .......................... $1,111.00 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 26.00 16.00 0.00 540.30 26.00 556.30 2.60 55.63 $28.60 $611.93 Variable Costs Ducklings' ....................... $148.50 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 Feed'............................ 600.60 1,201.20 1,201.20 1, 201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1, 201.2 Marketing........................ 161.19 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 3 22.3 Interest Working Cap............... 81.93 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.8 Subtotal ........................... $992.22 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 Total Cost ......................... $2,103.22 $1,991.03 $1,991.03 $1,991.03 $2,013.03 $2,596.36 $1,991.03 $1,991.03 $2,013.03 Cross Returns ...................... $815.47 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 Net Returns to Capital, Land And Management (Without Operator's Labor)......................... ($1,287.75) ($360.09) ($360.09) ($360.09) ($382.09) ($965.42) ($360.09) ($360.09) ($382.09 Operator's Labor Ducks........................... $229.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 Net Returns to Capital and Land ... ($1,516.75) ($804.09) ($804.09) ($804.09) ($826.09) ($1,409.42) ($804.09) ($804.09) ($826.(9 'Includes transport. TABLE 32. FLOW OF INCREMENTAL NET BENEFITS FOR CATF[LE ENTERPRISE. Fiaca tmYear Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Fnniitm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fixed Costs Storage Shed ..................... $364.70 Equipment........................ 6.00 Corral ........................... 381.11 Fence Improvement............... 759.00 Pasture Re-estab.................. 380.00 Subtotal.........................1,890.81 Contingency (10%)................. 189.08 Subtotal .......................... $2,079.89 $0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 381.11 0.00 459.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 846.11 0.60 84.61 $6.60 $930.72 Variable Costs Stockers ........................ $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Feed ............................ 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 Crop Insurance.................... 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 Transportation ..................... 240.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 Interest Working Cap.............. 507.97 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 5 29.157 Subtotal .......................... $6,152.05 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 Total Costs ........................ $8,231.94 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $7,344.37 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 Cross Returns....................... $0.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 Net Returns to Capital, Land And Management (Without Operator's Labor)........................($8,231.94) $419.75 $419.75 $419.75 $419.75 ($504.37) $419.75 $419.75 $419.75 Operator's Labor.................... $96.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 Net Returns to Capital And Land ... ($8,327.94) $227.75 $227.75 $227.75 $227.75 ($696.37) $227.75 $227.75 $227.75 44 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 26.00 0.00 26.00 2.60 $28.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 6.00 91.00 0.00 540.30 6.00 631.30 0.60 63.13 $6.60 $694.43 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 26.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 26.00 0.60 2.60 $6.60 $28.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 16.00 20.00 0.00 540.30 0.00 6.00 556.30 20.00 0.60 55.63 2.00 $6.60 $611.93 $22.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 $297.00 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 1,201.20 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 322.38 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 163.85 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,984.43 $1,991.03 $2678.86 $1,991.03 $2,013.03 $1,991.03 $1,991.03 $2,596.36 $2,006.43 $1,991.03 $1,991.03 $1,991.03 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,630.94 $1,635.67 ($360.09) ($1,047.92) ($360.09) ($382.09) ($360.09) ($360.09) ($965.42) ($375.49) ($360.09) ($360.09) ($355.37) $0.00 2.25 0.00 2.25 0.23 $2.48 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $444.00 $0.00 ($804.09) ($1,491.92) ($804.09) ($826.09) ($804.09) ($804.09) ($1,409.42) ($819.49) ($804.09) ($804.09) ($799.37) $0.00 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Residual 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 value $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 381.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 381.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 459.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 459.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 285.00 6.00 846.11 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 846.11 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 285.00 0.60 84.61 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 84.61 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.00 $6.60 $930.72 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $930.72 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $6.60 $285.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 254.08 0.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 0.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 0.00 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 529.57 0.00 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $6,413.65 $0.00 $6,420.25 $7,344.37 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $7,344.37 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $6,420.25 $0.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $7,125.00 $0.00 $419.75 ($504.37) $419.75 $419.75 $419.75 $419.75 ($504.37) $419.75 $419.75 $419.75 $704.75 $0.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $192.00 $0.00 $227.75 (696.37) $227.75 $227.75 $227.75 $227.75 ($696.37) $227.75 $227.75 $227.75 $512.75 $0.00 45 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 $0.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 0.60 $6.60 TABLE 33. DESCRIPTrION OF OPERATOR'S LABOR Activity Year Time A. Da'ly pond main- 1 1.5 hr./day for 6 months (produc- nance and tion begins Julyl1) water control 2,5,8,11,etc. 1. 5 hr. /day for 12 months 3,4),6,7,9,10, etc. 1. 5 hr/day for 11 months (1 month duwn time) B. Pond harvest and 1 1.5 man-days/month for 2 months fingerling pro- duction 2,5,8,11,etc. 1. 5 man-days/month for 12 months 3,4,6, 7, 9,10, etc. 1. 5 man-days/month for 8 months C. Pond maintenance 3,4,6,7,9,10,etc. 40 man-days per cycle of pro- duction D. Pond fertilization 1 Hogs: 1/2 hr. /day for 4 months (1 hog cycle) Cattle: 2 hr. /day; 4 days/week for 6 months Chickens: 1/2 hr. /day for 6 months Ducks: 0 Even years flogs: 1/2 hr/day for 8 months (2 hog cycles) Odd years Hogs: 1/2 hr. /day for 4 months (1 hog cycle) 2,5,8,11, etc. Cattle: 2 hr./day; 4 days/week for 12 months Chickens: 1/2 hr./day for 12 months 3),4,6,7,9,10, etc. Cattle: 2 hr/day; 4 days/week for 11 months Chickens: 2 hr/day; 4 days/week for 11 months E. Ducks production 1-20 6.5 man-days/year processing 1 100 man-days (1 cycle) 2-20 200 man-days (2 cycles) E Chickens 1 2 persons full-time (6 months) 2-20 2 persons full-time (12 months) C. Hogs Odd years 1/2 hr. /day for 4 months Even years 1/2 hr. /day for 8 months TABLE 35. RATES OF RETURN Without With Alternative operator's labor operator's labor B!. 0.40/lb.' B!. 0.60/lb. B!. 0. 40/lb. B/. 0. 60/lb. Fish only Fish-chicken 14 24 6 16 Fish-bogs 13 22 6 15 Fish-ducks 23 38 17 31 Fish-cattle 9 16 -1 7 Integrated Fish-chicken 10 14 -23 -15 Fish-hogs 6 11 1 7 Fish-ducks 8 20 -12 3 Fish-cattle 2 5 -2 1 Livestock only Chickens 5 neg. returns Hogs -6 -7 Ducks neg. returns neg. returns Cattle -4 -10 'Cost of fish/lb. TABLE 34. VALUE OF OPERATOR'S LABOR BY YEAR AND ENTERPRISE Year Hogs 1__ Chickens $ Cattle $ Ducks Man-days $' Man-days $ Man-days $ Man-days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '$2.15 per man-day. 44.5 101 121.5 129 93.5 129 121.5 101 121.5 129 93.5 129 121.5 101 121.5 129 93.5 129 121.5 101 95.68 217.15 261.22 277.35 201.02 277.35 261.22 217.15 261.22 277.35 201.02 277.35 261.22 217.15 261.22 277.35 201.02 277.35 261.22 217.15 48 108.5 135 135 108.5 135 135 108.5 135 135 108.5 135 135 108.5 135 135 108.5 135 135 108.5 103.20 233.28 290.25 290.25 233.28 290.25 290.25 233.28 290.25 290.25 233.28 290.25 290.25 233.28 290. 25 290.25 233.28 290.25 290.25 233.28 61 134 158 158 134 158 158 134 158 158 134 158 158 134 158 158 134 158 158 134 131.15 288.10 399.70 339.70 288.10 339.70 339.70 288.10 339.70 339.70 288.10 339.70 339.70 288.10 339.70 339.70 228.10 399.70 399.70 288.10 37 86 114 114 86 114 114 86b 114 114 86 114 114 86 114 114 86 114 114 86 79.55 184.90 245.10 245.10 184.90 245.10 245.10 14.90 245.10 245.10 184.90 245.10 245.10 184.90 245.10 245.10 184.90 245.10 245.10 184.90 46 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The economics of agro-aquaculture systems is complex. Sufficient data do not exist to draw a firm conclusion on the projects. One or two years of production data are highly subject to vagaries of the weather, learning curves, and political events. The data from this project, howeve;r, do provide some important indications. Of the animal protein alternatives considered, four of the five least-cost sources involved fish production. Values ranged from B/. 0.14 to B/. 0.25 per pound for the three least-cost fish alternatives to B/. 1.75 per pound for duck meat. Integration of fish production with other types of livestock production consistently lowered the cost per pound of animal protein produced. In the case of hogs, for example, pork production alone had a production cost of B/. 0.98 per pound but when fish were integrated with hogs, the cost dropped to B/. 0.74 per pound. The budget analyses indicate that integrated systems in impov- erished rural areas are economically viable for the farmer. The chicken-fish alternative yielded highest net returns. Integration of fish culture with other livestock enterprises increased net returns in every instance. The rates of return for the fish-chicken, fish-hog, and fish-duck combinations, analyzing the fish enterprise in isolation, are above the 12 percent cutoff rate established as the opportunity cost of cap- ital by the Planning Ministry in Panama. Project data serve to provide guidelines for expansion of agro- aquaculture in Panama. All of the combinations are profitable, yet some combinations will be more profitable under certain conditions than under others. Benefits following from the irrigated gardens (for which data were not available) are not included in this analysis and have the potential of greatly improving the efficiency and profitability of the integrated approach. Within the water supply developed for the animal and ag- riculture enterprises, irrigated gardens can be added at a minimal expense. This additional use of the facility will also improve the ef- ficiency and profitability of the fish culture component because some portion of the fixed costs would be allocated to the garden. REFERENCES (1) AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 1979. Fish- pond Program-Panama Project Paper. United States of America. (2) AQUILAR, V. L. 1983. Feasibility of Growing Tilapia Fish in Swine Waste Lagoons. International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, Israel. (3) ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. 1983. Small-scale Fishery Project in Pathumthani Province, Central Thailand: A Socio- economic and Technological Assessment of Status and poten- tial. AIT Research Report No. 158, Bangkok, Thailand. (4) BALASSA, B. 1976. The "Effects Method" of Project Evalua- tion. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 231, World Bank. (5) BRUCE, C. 1976. Social Cost-benefit Analysis: A Guide for Country and Project Economists to the Derivation and Ap- plication of Economic and Social Accounting Prices. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 239. (6) DELMENDO, M. N. 1980. A Review of Integrated Livestock- fowl-fish Farming Systems. In R. S. V. Pullin and Z. M. She- hadeh (eds.), Integrated Agriculture-aquaculture Farming Systems, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines. (7) ENGLE, C. R. 1984. Segundo informe trimestral. Direccion Nacional de Acuicultura. Convenio de Prestamo BID/BNP/ MIDA No. 98 IC-PN, Panama. (8) FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS. 1977. Freshwater Fisheries and Aquaculture in China. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 168, Rome. (9) GrITINGER, J. P 1983. Analisis economico de proyectos agri- colas. Editorial Tecnos. Madrid. 532 pp. (10) HEPHER, B. AND Y. PRUGININ. 1981. Commercial Fish Farm- ing. John Wiley & Sons, New York. (11) HOPKINS, K. D., E. M. CRUz, M. L. HOPKINS AND K. C. CHONG. 1980. Optimum Manure Loading Rates in Tropical Freshwater Fishponds Receiving Untreated Piggery Wastes. International Symposium on Biogas, Microalgae and Live- stock Wastes, Taipei, Taiwan. (12) LOVSHIN, L. L. AND R. PRETTO. 1983. A Strategy for the Use of Tilapias in Rural Latin America: The Panamanian Inte- grated Approach. In Tilapia Symposium, Nazareth, Israel. (13) MARTINEZ, J. C. AND J. R. ARAUZ. 1983. Institutional Inno- vations in National Agricultural Research: On-farm Research within IDIAP, Panama. CIMMYT Economics Program Work- ing paper, Mexico. (14) MINISTERIO DE DESARROLLO AGROPECUARIO. 1983. Perfil preliminar del proyecto regional de desarrollo en microcuen- cas con enfasis en agro-acuicultura. MIDA, Panama. (15) MOLNAR, J. J., L. U. HATCH, B. L. DUNCAN AND G. M. SULLIVAN. 1984. Aquaculture as a Farming System: Potentials and Limitations of the FSR Approach. Proceedings of 1983 Farming Systems Research Symposium, Kansas. (16) PULLIN, R. S. V. AND Z. H. SHEHADEH (EDs.). 1980. Inte- grated Agriculture-aquaculture Farming Systems. Interna- tional Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines. (17) SCHWARTZ, N. B., V GOMEZ DE CASTILLO, S. CASTILLO AND L. L. LOVSHIN. 1984. Informe Final. Proyecto de Estanque de Manejo Comunal Para Peces: Panama. Agencia de los EE.V.V. para el Desarrolo Internacional. Proyecto Numero 525-0216. (18) Scorr, J. C. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven and London, Yale University Press. (19) SMITH, I. R., E. B. TORRES, AND E. V. TAN (EDs.). 1983. Summary Report of the PCARRD-ICLARM Workshop on Philippine Tilapia Economics. ICLARM Conference Pro- ceedings 10. Philippine Council for Agriculture and Re- sources Research and Development, Los Banos, Laguna and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Manage- ment, Manila, Philippines. (20) SQUIRE, L. AND H. G. VAN DER TAK. 1975. Economic Anal- ysis of Projects. The John Hopkins University Press. 153 pp. (21) WOYNAROVICH, E. 1980a. Raising ducks on fish ponds. In R. S. V. Pullin and Z. M. Shehadeh (eds.), Integrated Agricul- ture-aquaculture Farming Systems, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines. (22) . 1980b. Utilization of Piggery Wastes in Fish Ponds. In R. S. V. Pullin and Z. M. Shehadeh (eds.), In- tegrated Agriculture-aquaculture Farming Systems, Inter- national Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines. 47 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank the Government of Panama and the National Directorate of Aquaculture for their cooperation and assistance dur- ing the project. We give special recognition to Dr. Richard M. Pretto, Director of Aquaculture, whose outstanding leadership and dedication has carried the Panamanian program to the forefront of Latin American aquaculture in a relatively short time. Finally, we thank the many dedicated extensionists, surveyors, trainers, and employees of DINAAC who, through their efforts in the field and in the office, have made this project a success, and by improving the quality of life for a great many participants in this program, have made Panama a better place in which to live.