Keeton Industries ShrimpShield™ compared to leading competitor farm trial at intensive shrimp farm in Iztapa, Guatemala
March 8, 2016 to June 7, 2016.
For an average of 77 days from March 8, 2016 to June 7, 2016 the farm applied Keeton Industries’ ShrimpShield to ten ponds totaling 10.95 hectares and a well-respected American made probiotic (competitor) to seven ponds totaling 10.49 hectares. Pond size averaged 1.10 hectares for ShrimpShield treated ponds and 1.50 hectares for competitor treated ponds. ShrimpShield ponds had an average density of 111 PLs/m2. Competitor ponds had an average density of 109 PLs/ m2. Days of Culture in ShrimpShield ponds averaged 80 days and competitor ponds averaged 74 DOC. ShrimpShield was applied at a rate of 1 kg per hectare every three days for three treatments followed by 1kg per hectare every 5 days thereafter. Competitor was amplified using 200g of probiotic plus pH stabilizers and nutrients to 1000 liters and incubated for hours, then 250 liters per hectare was applied when filling ponds followed by continuous amplification and application of 200 liters per hectare three times per week thereafter. The following results indicate Keeton Industries’ ShrimpShield is more effective and offers better results than the competitor.
After all trial ponds were harvested and processed a value was assigned to each pond by giving a representative value to each size class, summing up the total value of the harvest divided by pounds harvested per pond. Larger shrimp command a higher price than smaller shrimp. The price per pound of shrimp harvested from ponds treated with ShrimpShield averaged USD$2.37. The price per pound of shrimp harvested from ponds treated with competitor averaged USD$2.32. This is an indication that the shrimp from ponds treated with ShrimpShield were larger and grew faster than those in the ponds treated with competitor. The average weight in grams verifies this. ShrimpShield treated ponds yielded an average of 9.15% more pounds per hectare and 2.16% higher price per pound.
Table 1 (below) indicates the differences between the final results using ShrimpShield and competitor in their respective ponds.
Table 1. Comparison of results of Epicin PST and ShrimpShield at test farm in Guatemala.
|Average USD$/ha (Net)||$43,567.20||$48,107.58||$4,540.38||10.42%|
|Average weight (grams)||11.33||12.27||0.94||8.30%|
|Total Pounds Harvested||195867||223165||27298||13.94%|
|Total Gross Income USD$||$457,649.29||$530,939.02||$73,289.73||16.01%|
|Cost of Product/ha/cycle||$60.00||$380.00||$320.00||145.45%|
|Total Cost of Product/cycle||$629.40||$4,161.00||$3,531.60|
|Total Net Income USD$||$457,019.89||$526,778.02||$69,758.13||15.26%|
Final pounds harvested divided by hectares yielded an average pounds per hectare of 20,380.37 pounds per hectare for ShrimpShield ponds and an average of 18,671.78 pounds per hectare for competitor ponds. Pounds per hectare divided by days of culture (20,380.37/80 ShrimpShield; 18,671.78/74 competitor) yields an average pounds per hectare per day of 254.75 for ShrimpShield and 252.32 for competitor. Every metric of comparison indicates that ShrimpShield outperforms competitor.
This trial focused on growth and survival. When comparing the cost to apply each product, labor and additional materials must be considered. There is nothing else required when applying ShrimpShield and labor is minimal. Competitor requires tanks to amplify, containers for application, pH stabilizers, nutrients, and lots of labor. ShrimpShield was applied every 5 days, competitor was applied three times per week. Between the hours spent filling tanks, mixing, amplifying, applying, and cleaning equipment the additional costs associated to apply competitor add up. Accounting for these additional costs the difference in price between the two products becomes less significant.
If the products were compared only on the basis of cost competitor would certainly look like the better option costing much less than ShrimpShield. The results however, indicate that ShrimpShield is the better investment. The additional cost of ShrimpShield is easily justified by the superior yields and more importantly the increased profit. Spending an additional $320/ha/cycle on ShrimpShield produced a 1,319% return on investment.
The increase in income from ShrimpShield treated ponds resulted in over 15% higher net income. Better survival and improved growth rates lead to higher profits using ShrimpShield. Had ShrimpShield been applied to all ponds at this farm (25 hectares) the additional net income would have been $113,509.50. That would have this farm producing 509,509.25 pounds and $1,212,189.54 per cycle on only 25 hectares. Using ShrimpShield for all three cycles per year and that becomes and additional $340,528.50 by investing an additional $24,000. For every $1 invested in ShrimpShield this farm received over $14 in return.