Tilapia Farming Full

FAWN RAYS
Prepared by : Insmart Management Consultants (P) Ltd., Kolkata
Introduction
Fawn Rays is a 3 Star Category Budget Resort coming up at Agarhati, P.S. Sandeshkhali, 24 Parganas (North) amidst a Pollution Free area promoted by iits Proprietor Sri Debasish Das a Professional with more than decade old business experience. The promoter of the Firm proposes to diversify further in the arena of Eco Tourism by integrating a Tilapia Farming unit capable of producing 96.0 millions per annum of Super Tilapia otherwise known as GIFT (Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia).
About Tilapia
Tilapia is the common name for nearly a hundred species of cichlid fishes from the tilapiine cichlid tribe. Tilapias inhabit a variety of fresh and, less commonly, brackish water habitats from shallow streams and ponds through to rivers, lakes, and estuaries. Most tilapias are omnivorous with a preference for soft aquatic vegetation and detritus. They have historically been of major importance in artisanal fishing in Africa and the Levant, and are of increasing importance in aquaculture around the world As they have been introduced globally for human consumption, tilapia often have specific names for them in various languages and dialects. Certain species of tilapia are sometimes called "St. Peter's fish." This term is taken from the account in the Christian Bible about the apostle Peter catching a fish that carried a shekel coin in its mouth. However, no species of fish is named in that passage of the Bible. While that name is also applied to Zeus faber, a marine fish not found in the area, one tilapia (Sarotherodon galilaeus galilaeus) is known to be found in Sea of Galilee where the account took place. This particular species is known to have been the target of smallscale artisanal fisheries in the area for thousands of years. In some Asian countries including the Philippines, large tilapia are often referred to as pla-pla while their smaller brethren are still referred to as tilapia. In Hebrew, tilapia are called amnoon. In Arabic, tilapia are called mush(brush) because of its brush-like tail. It is called jilaebi in Tamil and Telapia or American Koi in Bengali.
Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit
Sheet No. 1
FAWN RAYS
Tilapia has become the third most important fish in aquaculture after carps and salmonids, with production reaching 1,505,804 metric tons in 2002. Because of their large size, rapid growth, and palatability, a number of tilapiine cichlids are at the focus of major aquaculture efforts, specifically various species of Oreochromis, Sarotherodon, and Tilapia, collectively known colloquially as tilapias. Like other large fish, they are a good source of protein and a popular target for artisanal and commercial fisheries. Originally, the majority of such fisheries were in Africa, but accidental and deliberate introductions of tilapia into freshwater lakes in Asia have led to outdoor aquaculturing projects in countries with a tropical climate such as Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Indonesia. In temperate zone localities, tilapiine farming operations require energy to warm the water to the tropical temperatures these fish require. One method involves warming the water using waste heat from factories and power stations. Tilapiines are also among the easiest and most profitable fish to farm. This is due to their omnivorous diet, mode of reproduction (the fry do not pass through a planktonic phase), tolerance of high stocking density, and rapid growth. In some regions the fish can be put out in the rice fields when rice is planted, and will have grown to edible size (1215 cm, 56 inches) when the rice is ready for harvest. One recent estimate for the FAO puts annual production of tilapia at about 1.5 million tonnes, a quantity comparable to the annual production of farmed salmon and trout. Unlike salmon, which rely on high-protein feeds based on fish or meat, commercially important tilapiine species eat a vegetable or cereal based diet. Tilapias raised in inland tanks or channels are considered safe for the environment, since their waste and disease should be contained and not spread to the wild. Set against their value as food, tilapiines have acquired notoriety as being among the most serious invasive species in many subtropical and tropical parts of the world.
Super Tilapia (GIFT) Farming in India

Super Tilapia otherwise known as GIFT (Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia) was developed by the scientists at WorldFish Center (formerly known as ICLARM) through selective breeding of several strains of Nile Tilapia and is farmed at present in various countries such as Israel, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and also in Bangladesh. Super Tilapia,. This grows faster and survives better than the original fish. This fish lowers the farmers cost of production, thereby allowing them to practice low cost, environmentally friendly aquaculture. According to available information, GIFT survives well even in polluted waters. It can be farmed well under extensive systems too, avoiding even the application of commercial feeds. At the same time, it is reported that the fish also responds well when extra feed is given. GIFT benefits both the rich and poor farmers. A test study from Philippines reveal that a small farmer owning 1.56 ha of pond could earn as much as US $ 3,100 per year by farming GIFT without the use of commercial feed and with no additional expense. GIFT was developed by WorldFish Center (former ICLARM) from several strains of Nile Tilapia, a popular farmed fish in Asia, adopting traditional selective breeding techniques. It is neither genetically modified nor transgenic. It is stated to be now in its
Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 2
FAWN RAYS
ninth generation of selection and has yet to reach its maximum potential yield. Selective breeding of Nile Tilapia is continuing in a number of countries seeking to develop a GIFT variety tailored to local growing conditions, it is mentioned. Tilapia is rapidly expanding its market share, helped by the drop in capture fisheries. The Americal Tilapia Association reported that retail sales of Tilapia had surpassed that of trout since 1995. Indonesia, Thailand, China and Taiwan are leading Asian exporters of Tilapia and its products to the growing US and European markets. The US is the worlds largest importer of Tilapia and Tilapia products. Bangladesh and Srilanka also export Tilapia to US and other countries. Tilapia has come to be the most studied tropical food fish. Only the temperate Atlantic salmon has seen more research performed on it. Sometimes known as Everybodys fish, Tilapia farming is popular because it is vigorous and tolerates crowding incredibly well in fish ponds.
It consumes rice bran to weeds and even sewage but it is mainly plant-eating. It can reach marketable size in four months when reared in cages, and in six months when grown in ponds rich in natural food and without the use of commercial feed, it is stated out. It is stated that demand for GIFT fry exceeds supply at the moment. The reason for this is stated to be poor management and technical inefficiency at many hatcheries. However, it is stated that efforts are underway to improve hatchery operations and, in some countries, governments are training workers to maintain GIFT broodstocks properly. Farm trials in a number of countries have shown strong gains in GIFT yields, compared with local strains, between 25 per cent (China) and 78 per cent (Bangladesh). The cost of production of GIFT is also stated to be markedly lower, compared other cultivated
FAWN RAYS
species, over 30 per cent in the Philippines and Bangladesh and about 20 per cent in China, Thailand, and Vietnam. Indian government is understood to be against the introduction of GIFT a widely accepted fish for farming in several countries, in India. It is to be noted here that there are no reports of any harm done by GIFT (Super Tilapia) to the fish fauna of the countries into which it was introduced. This could be probably confirmed by the Indian authorities concerned by sponsoring an indepth study of the ongoing GIFT farming activities and their effects on local fish fauna in countries such as Thailand, China, Indonesia, Philippines and near home in Bangladesh. Further, Vorion Chemicals, Chennai, undertook monosex culture of Nile Tilapia until recently for a quite a few years, with no known reports of either its escape into the wild waters or of ecologically adverse affects of this fish on native fish fauna. Yet, probably on account of the reason that compulsions that forced vorion to take up Nile Tilapia monosex culture, although it was not part of their profession, were no longer there, the company gave up Nile Tilapia farming. Nila Tilapia/GIFT (Super Tilapia) has to be considered as an eminently viable species. GIFT has become popular in neighbouring Bangladesh and Sri Lanka with no reported adverse repercussions. Fillets of this fish are being exported from these countries mostly to USA. So far as India is concerned, there is no material to conclude that, if introduced in India, GIFT (Super Tilapia) would harm the native fish fauna. In the light of the fact that Nile Tilapia, cultured by Vorion Chemicals, had not been reported to have entered the wild, it could be considered that introduction of GIFT (Super Tilapia), which is a selectively bred version of several types of Nile Tilapia would not be an ecological hazard if introduced. Further, GIFT (Super Tilapia), introduced by the respective governments in south-east Asian Countries, as referred to above, has brought prosperty to the farmers of those countries, besides augmenting production for domestic consumption as well as exports. There are no reports of any adverse affects on account of the introduction of GIFT. Qualities of GIFT are different from Tilapia mossambica, which was introduced into Indian waters long back in 1960s and acquired a bad reputation of having become a pest. This experience should not be a deterrent to the introduction of GIFT, a far superior strain with sterling farming qualities and export potential. In the light of the developments beneficial to the farmers taking place in neighbouring countries because of introduction of GIFT for farming, without causing any adverse effect on indigenous species and on the environment, it is desirable that Indian Government takes steps to formulate a pilot project in this respect that would provide setting up of a few GIFT hatcheries at selected points and formulate guidelines for their operation and supply of certified seed, monosex or otherwise, to the farmers, for its farming. It may be noted here that in USA too Tilapia farming has been introduced and American Tilapia Association is understood to be promoting this. In the present scenario that displays symptoms of stagnation in aquaproducts exports, the crucial importance of introducing GIFT deserves the consideration of the authorities concerned. At a technical session held in Visakhapatnam as part of Fish Farmers Day celebration on 10 July 2005, the following recommendation was made.
FAWN RAYS
Considering that Genetical Improvement of farmed Tilapia (GIFT) fish is being cultured and exported in fillet form by several countries such as Taiwan, Israel, Thailand etc. to USA, Europe and Japan in large quantities and that there are no serious environmental hazards reported from those countries, the Session recommended that government may reconsider the issue with a view to allowing introduction of GIFT fish in India, its seed production and farming under a regulated system and its export.
Monosex Tilapia
Supermale (YY c?) Oreochromis mossambicus was produced for the first time by judiciously combining the endocrine sex reversal technique with selective breeding or gynogenetic technique. The combination of endocrine and gynogenetic techniques increased supermale production from 25 to 50% and reduced the time cost of production from 22 to 8 months. The major drawback in world-wide culture of tilapias is their ability to quickly overpopulate aquatic systems. The most widely used technique to eliminate unwanted reproduction is the production of monosex populations. All-male populations are often preferred because of the faster growth rate exhibited by males. Monosex populations may be obtained by: (i) manual sexing of fingerlings and separating the sexes3, (ii) hybridization4, and (iii) sex-reversal by hormone treatment " Manual sexing is laborious and requires some skill; the major disadvantages of this method are human error in sexing and the wastage of females. Interspecific and intergeneric hybridizations are known to produce all-male progeny. However, this technique has very limited scope for the following reasons: (i) difficulty in maintaining pure parental stocks that consistently produce 100% male offspring, (ii) poor spawning success, and (iii) incompatibility of breeders resulting in low fertility. A monosex male population can be produced by feeding the fry with androgensupplemented diet, which brings about sex reversal by interfering with the sexdetermining mechanism in females. This is the most widely used technique but many workers have achieved only 90-98% males in a given population. They adopted a feeding regime in which some fry in the last peck of the hierarchy order do not receive the effective minimum hormone-treated diet to ensure complete sex reversal; in such individuals the gonadal differentiation proceeds oniy up to a point resulting in the production of intersexes or even females. Although the hormonal sex reversal technique is effective, it is now not preferred for the following reasons: (i) inconsistency in producing a cent per cent monosex population, and (ii) consumer's concern for carcinogenicity and sex interference of the treated androgen and its residues. Whether it is manual sexing or endocrine sex reversing technique, one female inadvertently introduced into a pond of males can undo all the efforts undertaken to establish an allmale population. An alternative technique for commercial production of all-male populations has been sought for a long time. Sperm from supermale (YY) fish could theoretically be used.
FAWN RAYS
Using suitable combinations of endocrine sex reversal and selective breeding techniques Yamamoto produced the first set of goldfish (Carassius auratus) supermales. Briefly, the technique combines the endocrine sex reversal of F1generation and selective breeding at F2 to produce 25% supermales, which could be distinguished through progenies of F3. Since its first description in 1975, this useful technique has not been extended to other species, including tilapias. This paper describes an alternative procedure: a combination of endocrine sex reversal in Fx and chromosome manipulation in F2 for producing 50% supermale tilapias.
The introduction and distribution of tilapias in Asia.

As reported in Welcomme (1988) aquaculture was the prime reason for the introductions of tilapias. For the vast majority of the records in DIAS there has been no evaluation of the ecological or social/economic impact of the introduction. However, of the impacts assessed, there were more positive social and economic impacts reported than negative environmental impacts. Although Welcomme (1988) and others (Beverton 1992) reported that the majority of introductions did not result in the establishment of alien species in the wild, the records in DIAS indicated that most tilapia introductions to Asia and the Pacific were successful at establishing reproducing populations. Of the species introduced to Asia, O. mossambicus and O. niloticus are by far the most important from both production and scientific points of view. These species are now widely distributed in most of Asia and occur in natural and quasi-natural waters making them a part of the fish fauna of most of tropical and even sub-tropical Asian aquatic environments, thus creating an increased concern among some conservationists and environmental lobby groups. Tilapia species tend to hybridize relatively easily, a trait that had been utilized in tilapia aquaculture development from the very early stages. Introgressive hybridization in cultured stocks and self-recruiting stocks of tilapia species, particularly between O. mossambicus and O. niloticus, have been reported from many countries. The "red tilapia", a hybrid between strains of O. mossambicus x O. niloticus is currently considered as important to aquaculture in Asia. The origin of the first introduction of tilapias into Asia is not clear except for the fact that, by 1950, O. mossambicus had spread into many Asian countries. At present, tilapias are a part of the fish assemblages in most Asian countries. In most countries, tilapias have had a noticeable impact on fish production, although the contribution is not officially reported to FAO by many countries. It is difficult, if not impossible, to single out a country in which tilapias have not become established after introduction. The introduction of O. mossambicus to Asia was hailed as the solution to the short supply of animal protein in the region. However, due to its recurring problems of overcrowding and stunting in small ponds, O. niloticus became the preferred species due to its higher growth rate, a reduced tendency to stunt and better consumer appeal. In spite of the rather wide-scale introduction into Asian waters, there is no explicit evidence to indicate that tilapias have been overly destructive environmentally; nor is there evidence to indicate what effect these species have on biodiversity.
FAWN RAYS
Tilapias continue to make an important and a significant contribution to fish production in Asia, both in the inland capture fishery and aquaculture sectors. It is being reported that 1, 166,737 tonnes of total tilapia production from many ASEAN countries and China. This is an underestimate of the production as many ASEAN countries have introduced tilapias and are farming them, but do not report production to FAO. Although small-scale fisheries and rural aquaculture share many commonalities and are often difficult to separate completely (e.g. culture-based fisheries in Sri Lanka), the two sectors are treated as distinct entities in this document.
Capture fisheries of tilapias

Tilapias contribute to capture fisheries in inland and lacustrine waters (predominantly reservoirs) in Asia and the Pacific, but have not been reported in rivers with the exception of the artisanal fishery in the flood plains of the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea. Tropical Asia has a paucity of natural lakes. Almost all lacustrine waters in tropical Asia are reservoirs, with the exception of natural lakes in Indonesia and the Philippines. In this region, tilapia capture fisheries in lacustrine waters are documented from about 20N latitude to about 15S longitude. The contribution of tilapias to the total landings in individual water bodies and their contribution to the inland capture fisheries vary widely between water bodies and between countries. The global tilapia capture fishery production in 2002 was reported as 6,16,000 tonnes, the bulk of the production coming from Africa. The inland tilapia capture fishery doubled during the last two decades and continues to increase, both in Africa and in Asia and the Pacific (Asia and Oceania under FAO regional classification) regions. The Asia and the Pacific now contributes approximately 20 percent of the global tilapia capture fishery. It is probable that the yield from tilapia fisheries is under-estimated, for two possible reasons. First, production of tilapias may be grouped with production of other cichlids or with miscellaneous freshwater fishes; and second, some portion of the inland capture fishery yield may be included in aquaculture, (e.g. Lao PDR). It is apparent that tilapia introductions constitute an important component of the inland capture fisheries in India, but species-level production data for tilapias are not included in the national data returns submitted to FAO. It is likely that tilapias are a component of the 3,77,000 tonnes of miscellaneous freshwater fish reported for India in 2002. The two main constituent species in the tilapia capture fisheries in the world, and particularly in Asia and the Pacific, are O.niloticus and O.mossambicus. However, the figure does not convey the complete picture because many countries do not always identify catches up to species level, thus making a group - Tilapia nei ("nei" is the FAO term for "not elsewhere included") - which is a conglomerate of many tilapia species. It is evident from Graph below that the contribution of O.niloticus to the world tilapia fishery has been increasing steadily; O. mossambicus contribution has remained rather static.
Capture fisheries production of tilapia by species 1970-2002 Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 7
FAWN RAYS
In contrast, the contribution of O. niloticus to the fishery in Asia and the Pacific has declined recently, whereas O. mossambicus has increased slightly (Figure 3). In Asia and the Pacific, the major contribution to the tilapia inland fishery primarily comes from Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Although the overall yield in the region increased over the years (Figure 4), there have been major changes in the contribution from different countries, most notably Thailand. The Thai tilapia fishery commenced with the introduction of O. niloticus, reached a peak in the mid-1990s and has since declined significantly. The following sections will attempt to summarize the status of the tilapia inland fisheries in selected countries of the region, starting with Sri Lanka, for which good information is available.
Capture fisheries production of tilapia by species in Asia and the Pacific 1970-2002
*Tilapia nei = not elsewhere included
Capture fisheries of tilapias Indian scenario

India has an estimated reservoir area of about 3 million ha in three size categories of reservoirs; (a) small (< 1000 ha) - an area about 1.5 million ha; (b) medium (1 000 to 5 000 ha) - an area about 500 000 ha; and (c) large (>5 000 ha) - an area about 1 million ha (Sugunan, 1995). By the end of 1960s, O.mossambicus had been introduced to
FAWN RAYS
many reservoirs in the southern states, contributing significantly to the commercial catches in many reservoirs. The lack of reports makes it difficult to estimate the contribution of tilapia to food security in India. Tilapia production from capture fisheries and aquaculture have not been entered into national and FAO fisheries data bases, even though the gradual dominance of this species in the catches in many reservoirs was documented initially in 1967 and reiterated in 1976. Sugunan (1995) reported that tropical reservoirs in India provided suitable habitats for O. mossambicus, and it has established self-sustaining populations in a number of south Indian reservoirs. Fears of stunted growth have not been realised as the average size has not declined. The most detailed account of the status of tilapia fishery is available for reservoirs in the southern state of Tamil Nadu (Table below). Tilapia contributed more than 20 percent to the total landings for both medium-sized reservoirs (4 of 10 reservoirs) and small-sized reservoirs (18 of 34 reservoirs). In the latter group, in most instances, tilapia was the dominant species in the landings.
Reservoirs in which the tilapiine fishes contributed in excess of 20 percent to the total landings in Tamil Nadu, India (based on data from Sugunan, 1995).
Reservoir name
Veeranam Poondi Wellingtopn Krishnagiri Perumchani Godar Kadama Vembakottai Kullur Santhai Barur Pambar Thumbalahalli Chinnar Sathiar Thoppaiyar Nagavathy Kasarikulihalla Varattupallam Sicclagiri Periyar Kovilar Maruthanathi Sicclagiri
Area at FSL* (ha)

3 3 1 1
Total production
t/yr kg/ha/yr 885 36 9.3 263 15 4.6 554 9 5.8 248 47 37.7 962 9 9.4 678 3 4.4 657 51 77.6 467 18 38.5 316 48 151.9 256 24 93.8 243 26 102.9 193 11 57 170 6 35.3 120 6 50 120 15 125 118 5 42.4 105 4 38.1 89 6 67.4 54 8 148.1 76 17 223.7 74 12 162.2 72 8 111 54 8 148.1 *FSL = Full Storage Level
Tilapiine production t/yr kg/ha/yr

44 41 44 24 28 57 85 22 70 90 35 79 26 48 77 76 73 56 28 53 48 37 28
4.1 1.9 2.5 9.0 2.6 2.5 66 13.5 106.3 84.4 36 45 9.2 24 96.3 32.2 27.8 37.8 41.5 118.6 77.8 41.1 41.5
The total production in Indian reservoirs is considerably lower than elsewhere (De Silva, 2001a), and so was the tilapia production in Tamil Nadu which ranged from 1.9 to 9.0, and 9.2 to 118.6 kg/ha/yr in medium sized reservoirs over 1 000 ha and below 500 ha, respectively (Table 2). These data indicate that the total fish production as well as the tilapia production was considerably higher in smaller reservoirs. However, there was no apparent statistical relationship between these two parameters. The mean tilapia production in small reservoirs in Tamil Nadu, for example, is estimated to be 53.68.2 kg/ha/yr.
Sheet No. 9
FAWN RAYS
Aquaculture of tilapias
Although aquaculture is considered an old tradition, modern aquaculture is essentially a post1950 phenomenon. The perception that tilapia (O.mossambicus) would be a potential panacea to the growing animal protein deficiency in Asia (Lin 1977) began to be dismissed relatively early for reasons indicated earlier. O.niloticus became the preferred tilapia species for aquaculture in the region. Although it is difficult to assess whether this species has made a significant contribution to the animal protein needs of rural Asian communities, it certainly had a major impact on aquaculture developments in Asia and the Pacific since the 1970s.
Production
Aquaculture of tilapias provides a classic example of a success story of a species group outside its natural range of distribution. The group currently contributes about 3.8 percent to the cultured fish and shellfish production of about 40 million tonnes globally (FAO FishStat). The current aquaculture production (2002) of tilapias is about 1.5 million tonnes, the great bulk of which takes place in Asia accounting for nearly 80 percent of the total world production. It is important to note, however, that tilapia culture in Africa and South America is also increasing. Prior to the mid-1990s, the yield of tilapia from capture fisheries was greater than that from aquaculture. Currently, the later accounts for approximately 2.5 times the production from capture fisheries. Tilapia aquaculture production increased from 28 000 tonnes to 1.504 million tonnes globally from 1970 to 2002; in Asia and the Pacific, production increased from 23 000 tonnes to 1.192 million tonnes equivalent to an
FAWN RAYS
annual growth rate of 13.2 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively. In contrast, capture fisheries for tilapias have grown at the rate of 3.5 percent per annum. The growth of tilapia culture can be exemplified by comparing production with cyprinids and salmonids in different time periods. The trend shows that in all three groups of fish the annual rate of increase declined with time, as in the case of the aquaculture industry as a whole. However, the rate of increase in tilapia culture exceeded that of cyprinids and salmonids over all the time periods considered, with tilapia culture recording the highest rate of annual growth over the last two decades among all finfish groups. The growth of tilapia culture in Asia and the Pacific however, lagged slightly behind to that of the world. For example, the percent annual increase in tilapia culture in Asia and the Pacific for the 20 (1982 - 2002), 10 (1992 - 2002) and 5 (1997 - 2002) year periods was 12.5 (vs. 12.6), 10.9 (vs. 11.9) and 7.7 (vs. 10.0), respectively. This lower rate of growth in Asia and the Pacific is more a reflection of increased tilapia production in countries such as Egypt, where O. niloticus production increased from 9,000 tonnes in 1980 to 168,000 tonnes in 2002. Also the rate of growth observed, in all three groups of fish is considerably higher than that witnessed in the sector as a whole. Although a number of tilapia species has been introduced into the region, only a small number of these are cultured. Oreochromis mossambicus and O.niloticus are the most widely cultured tilapias in the world. In 15 countries in Asia and the Pacific, only four tilapia species are cultured, dominated by O. mossambicus (five countries) and O. niloticus (10 countries); the later accounts for more than 90 percent of the production and its contribution to aquaculture production has been increasing steadily.
Aquaculture production of tilapias by species in Asia and the Pacific 1970-2002
Sheet No. 11
FAWN RAYS
One of the significant changes that has occurred over the last decade is the increase in tilapia culture in brackish waters. For 2002, brackishwater culture production was 193,000 tonnes. This represents a tripling from the relatively constant values (approximately 60,000 tonnes) for the period 1987-1997. O. niloticus accounts for about 73 percent of the brackishwater production, with most of the increase driven by large increases in production in Egypt. On the other hand, brackishwater culture of O.mossambicus has not increased as dramatically over the last decade. Egypt dominates O. niloticus brackishwater culture with 138 000 tonnes produced in 2002.
Culture practices
Culture practices of tilapias in the world are very diverse, perhaps the most diverse among all aquaculture species in the world. It is a group of fish that could be cultured at many desired intensities, thus, appealing to all socio-economic strata, enabling the culture practices to be adjusted to suit their economic capabilities. Oreochromis niloticus is commonly cultured in backyard and/or home garden ponds to supplement the income of poor households as well as provide a fresh source of animal proteins to the family. In such situations, the cultured stock is often fed with kitchen waste and supplemented by relatively readily available, often low cost agricultural by-products such as rice bran. However, the direct nutritional value of the latter to the stock is not known and in all probability rather low; the inputs act more as a fertilizer. Oreochromis niloticus is cultured in relatively poor quality waters, including: (a) sewage fed ponds (e.g. commercial culture in Kolkata,India) and (b) primary and secondary treated waste effluents (e.g. Egypt). So far, there have not been any reports of detrimental effects of consumption of fish reared in sewagefed farms on human health even as the practice has been in operation since the 1930s.
Tilapias are generally used in other aquaculture systems. Oreochromis niloticus is often used in integrated-fish culture. The most extreme development in this system is the integration of commercial poultry farming with O. niloticus culture. Cultured stocks are not fed, but depend on poultry waste and the natural food production in eutrophic
FAWN RAYS
ponds. Oreochromis niloticus is also being increasingly used in rice-fish culture, a traditional system which is gaining revival in Asia and is reported to enhance the overall yields in practices in China and Bangladesh. Similarly, the potential of using O. niloticus in biogas slurry has been demonstrated with a view to integrating biogas technology in food production . Tilapia pond culture practices are, in almost all cases, conducted in static systems, which require water replenishment between grow-out cycles and aeration is rarely used. Such minimal requirements reduce the initial investment and also keep the recurrent cost relatively low and therefore, more affordable for poorer sectors of the community. Cage culture of tilapias is also relatively popular, the intensity and the sophistication varying from practice to practice and requiring minimal investment. Tilapia cage culture is effective as a means of providing alternative livelihood to displaced persons during reservoir impoundment (e.g. Jatilnuhur reservoir in Indonesia and Batan Ai reservoir in Malaysia). Operations in these cases are done on an industrial scale when cage construction, feed supplies, marketing strategies etc. are provided as an integrated package.
Cage culture of tilapia in Batanai reservoir, Sarawak, East Malaysia
Most interestingly, tilapia culture is also being conducted in recirculation or closed cycle systems in temperate countries such as Canada, which incorporates expertise on greenhouse operations. This is an evidence of a growing demand for cultured tilapia in many countries and the subsequent expansion of tilapia culture practices throughout the world. The diversity of tilapia culture practices is also borne by the fact that tilapias are high salinity tolerant species and could be cultured in brackish waters and in sea cages. For sea cage culture, the appropriate species is O. spilurus. As mentioned earlier, tilapia production in brackish waters have grown steadily over the last decade with Egypt being the largest producer.
Sheet No. 13
FAWN RAYS
The returns from tilapia culture differ according to the environment, system and practice of culture. According to Dey (2001), the best tilapia culture practices in Asia and the Pacific are encountered in Taiwan Province of China yielding 12 to 17 tonnes/ ha/yr in ponds, followed by mean yields of 6.6, 6.3, 3.0 and 1.7 tonnes/ha/yr in Thailand, the Philippines, Viet Nam and Bangladesh, respectively. Cage culture operations in the Philippines and in PR China on the other hand, yielded 0.5 and 5.5 tonnes/100 m2, respectively. Similarly, the mean size at harvest varied considerably among countries; between culture systems, the highest (460 g) being in cage cultured O. niloticus in China.
Inputs used and yields obtained from freshwater tilapia culture practices in some Asian countries in 1999
Bangladesh Parameter Inputs * Rice bran Commercial feed Manure Fertilizer Yield * Harvest wt. (g) 10 Pond Mc Mc
China Pond Pc Mc
Philippines Cage Pond Cage Mc 3 172 533 7175 213 5613 2 959 460 130 540 175 Mc
Thailan Viet Nam d Pond Pc 445 3 087 2 035 6 290 232 Pond Mc 79 62 132 3 020 241
426 9 472 3 982 615 1 339 1 736 5 860 6 593 111 310 340
2 811 3 998 11 431 2 336
Mc- mono culture; Pc- polyculture; * kg/unit area
Notable phases in the development of tilapia culture

FAWN RAYS
Culture of tilapias has gone through a number developmental phases since the nineteenth century. In confined environments such as ponds, early maturation of the species, which resulted to overpopulation and eventually stunting, needs to be addressed. The earliest approach to overpopulation was stocking of predators, and few examples include Ophicephalus spp. and Clarias spp. in Asia, L. niloticus and Micropterus salmoides in Africa and Cichalosoma managuense in Central America. Such a strategy requires the following: (a) optimization of predator to prey ratios; and (b) appropriate timing of the introduction with the correct number of predators of appropriate size(s). The effectiveness of such a strategy was limited and "fine tuning" is required so that an optimal balance is formed between the fry production of tilapias and the voracity of the predator(s). This strategy does not eliminate the channelling of food energy for egg and fry production thereby decreasing yields that could have been otherwise attained.
Netload of tilapia
Realizing that male tilapias grow faster, further approaches to solving the problem of overpopulation in culture systems was to develop all-male tilapias resulting to higher growth rate; elimination of reproduction; reduction of sexual/territorial behaviour; narrower size range at harvest; and reduction of environmental impacts resulting from escapees. In view of the above considerations, the initial approach was to produce monosex tilapias through hybridization. Female O. mossambicus x male O. hornorum cross generated nearly all-male hybrids. Other cross selection followed which resulted in allmale and/or nearly all-male hybrids. Thus, hybridization strategy minimized overpopulation in the culture environments and also resulted in higher yields because of the faster rate of growth of the males. However, large-scale hybrid production did not always succeed due to instability in production of all-male hybrids and increasing appearance of females among progenies. Only few species of commercial value consistently produced allmale F1 generation. The most notable of these was the O.
FAWN RAYS
niloticus x O. aureus cross, which tolerated winter periods in Israel and became a focal point for a fresh wave of distribution of the parent species to other regions. Except in a few cases, hybridization did not become established as a commercial method for allmale tilapia production The hybridization phase gave way to hormonal sex-reversal as a method of producing large quantities of all-male seed stock, an approach perceived to be more practical. At the time that hormonal sex reversal was gaining popularity, a "shift" in the species was taking place, where O. niloticus became the preferred species for culture in view of its faster growth rate, attractive coloration and supposedly better taste. Consequently, most of the technological advances on sex-reversal were developed for this species, although the initial discoveries were made on O. mossambicus when Clemens and Inslee (1968) succeeded in producing all-males by oral administration of 17methyltesterone (male hormone) to early stage fry. Since the original discovery the effectiveness of 17-methyltesterone, sex-reversal in a number of tilapia species has been demonstrated, e.g. O. aureus, O. niloticus, O. hornorum, Tilapia zillii, O. spilurus, among others. In addition, apart from 17- methyltesterone, the effectiveness of other chemicals incorporated in food and orally administered for sex-reversal in tilapias has also been demonstrated. Hormonal sex-reversal is effective in early fry stages only. The hormones are almost always provided with the feed by spraying an alcoholic solution of the hormone on the feed and allowing the alcohol to evaporate. The dosage (generally 40 to 60 ppm) and treatment duration for the different hormones used for tilapias are well documented. It is also important to note that the orally administered masculinizing hormones, in particular 17-methyltesterone, are eliminated (converted into polar metabolites) within 72 hours of administration and that by day 10 only traces remained. Indeed, even in instances when 17-methyltesterone was used as a growth promoter, the chemical was eliminated from muscle within a very short period of time, thus enablling the continued use of the technique without restrictions on the marketing the final product. The technology for mass production of sex-reversed juveniles was initially developed by Rothbard and has been extended into many hatcheries in the region. On the other hand, Beardmore pointed out the main disadvantages of the method particularly in relation to practical difficulties in providing a uniform dose to all of the stock. Following hormonal sex-reversal of tilapias and the greater understanding of sexdetermination systems in a number of key species, it became possible to develop techniques for the production of genetically male tilapia (GMT) initially on O. niloticus. This technique is based on creation of males with two Y chromosomes (supermales) that when mated with other genotypes usually to give all-males and generally only a small percentage of females. Genetically male has also been produced, in this instance, through gynogenesis of XY neofemales. The technique of producing GMT, particularly in the case of O. niloticus, is well established and is commercially adopted now, achieved through several generations of breeding. Beardmore claimed that the YY/GMT technology in O. niloticus is the only
FAWN RAYS
genetic technology adopted by the aquaculture industry for the production of all-males. Mair and Little considered the relative advantages, including commercial viability, of producing genetically all-male tilapia and its, as opposed to hormone induced sexinversion to be: (a) all genetically male progeny; (b) potential to produce 100 % male progeny; (c) potential that no reproduction will occur in the growout phase; (d) applicability to most fry production systems; (e) not labour intensive after the initial phase; (f) lack of consumer resistance; (g) no centralization of fry production; and (h) comparatively higher growth rate.
Future prospects
It is believed that there is potential for further tilapia culture development in the Asia and the Pacific, as well as in Africa and South America. The trends in the growth of tilapia aquaculture production, taking into consideration the mean annual increase in production, over different time periods are summarized in Table below:
Predicted global and Asia and the Pacific cultured tilapia production (tonnes) for the years 2003 to 2010.
Year Global Production - Rate of mean Asia and the Pacific Production - Rate percent annual growth of mean percent annual growth 6 percent 2003 2004 2005 2006 2010 1 595 000 1 690 000 1 792 000 1 899 000 2 398 000 9 percent 1 640 000 1 787 000 1 948 000 2 124 000 2 998 000 6 percent 1 263 000 1 339 000 1 420 000 1 505 000 1 900 000 9 percent 1 299 000 1 416 000 1 544 000 1 683 000 1 375 000
Estimates are based on the approximate rate of increase between 2001 and 2002 (6%) and on the approximate average rates for the period 2001-2002 (9%)
The growth in cultured tilapia production will also likely be augmented by technological developments and more effective extension of the technologies that are already commercialized or being commercialized. A good example of this is the production and availability of genetically improved seed such as GMT. Most of these improved seed types (specifically GMT), as yet, are not readily available to most rural farmers in Asia, except perhaps in Thailand and to a certain extent in the Philippines. Ready availability of such seed to rural farmers throughout Asia is bound to have a positive impact on production. The potential development of strains with a better growth rate, such as the "GIFT fish" and indeed the greater popularization of already developed better performing strains are also likely to impact tilapia culture. Tilapia culture is currently restricted to warm tropical climates. Tilapia culture in northern Viet Nam requires facilities for overProposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 17
FAWN RAYS
wintering. Progress has been made with the development of cold resistant O. niloticus strain. Development and popularization of a cold resistant strain of O. niloticus would provide the opportunity to extend the range of its culture in relatively cold climates, thereby positively impacting overall production. These developments will, however, be affected to varying degrees by policies which countries would adopt with regard to the use of genetically improved organisms in food production. Commercial feed manufacturers in developing countries in Asia often view tilapias as a suitable group of fish to market their feeds through community-based subsidy schemes. Tilapia's robust characteristics, such as fast growth rate and relative resistance to disease, satisfy the aspirations of rural farmers who are new to aquaculture, thus would be willing to consider such schemes. With the current trend towards increasing competition among industrial suppliers of "aquaculture goods" and primarily feeds, such feed subsidy schemes are likely to become popular among rural communities and can thus contribute to the overall increases in production. In Asia, tilapia cage culture has been one of the primary ways of providing alternate livelihoods to displaced persons from dam building and reservoir impoundment in inland areas. Although dam building, particularly across major rivers, is subjected to increasing community disapproval, it goes on unabated in most developing countries primarily for purposes other than fisheries. It is being considered in many instances that tilapia cage culture could be an alternative livelihood for displaced persons, and such programmes might contribute to the overall tilapia production in the coming years. Twenty-five years ago, predictions were made with regard to sewage treatment plants becoming large centres for food production, and that excreta use in aquaculture would become an increasingly important form of waste disposal and food production. Use of excreta for food production is not a new phenomenon; night soil is used for agricultural production in some countries, although this practice has now become controversial on food safety grounds and is gradually diminishing. These predictions have not yet been fully realized. As we progress through the new millennium, there will be more demand for waste management and recycling of biological wastes for food production, directly and indirectly, will become paramount. Tilapias have shown to be ideal candidates in this regard. As pointed out earlier, tilapias are already cultured in sewage ponds as well as in wastewater treatment plants. With increasing pressures on communities to recycle nutrient resources, there is real prospect for expansion of such activities and the potential for contributing to the overall cultured tilapia production in the tropics. Prospects for tilapia culture will remain an attractive proposition both to the poor sectors of communities and those who are embarking on aquaculture, either to supplement the household income or as an alternative livelihood, because of the following characteristics: (a) need for only modest investments; (b) relatively low recurrent costs for the culture of the tilapias; (c) ease of breeding and growout; and (d) ability to do well in waters of relatively low quality. The fact that tilapia culture can also be conducted on a large-scale, on an intensive basis, or integrated with
FAWN RAYS
other forms of agriculture such as rice-fish farming or livestock-fish farming, also provides greater scope for expansion of its culture practices.
Potential constraints
With the envisaged developments and expansion in tilapia culture and the trend towards intensification of farming systems, feed supply and cost of production will become issues for consideration. Tilapia has some advantages in view of its omnivorous feeding habit which requires less protein as compared to other species cultured using intensive systems. Although there have been considerable advances in laboratory research on partial replacement of fish meal in tilapia diets, it has never been demonstrated in any cultured fish species that effective diets can be prepared without fish meal. Inclusion of fish meal in feeds remains essential. Future growth in tilapia culture will be triggered primarily by export markets to the United States of America, Japan and some European countries, and even to the Near East. These countries have stringent quality requirements concerning chemical and veterinary drug residues. Therefore, in order to be competitive, developing country producers have to satisfy such requirements and endeavour to produce high quality products that are safe to eat and satisfy consumer demand and expectations. Tilapia culture practices will need a general uplift in facilities and attitudes in dealing with a commodity that is not considered as high value, profit margins are relatively narrow and market demand is a possible constraint. There are increasing concerns on the potential threats to biodiversity in countries where tilapias have been introduced. It was also shown that most, if not all, of the perceived effects of tilapias on biodiversity are primarily due to factors other than tilapias and explicit evidence in this regard, at least to date, are wanting.
Simple Process Flow an Illustration
Sheet No. 19
FAWN RAYS
Photograph of a net full of eggs, newly hatched fry with egg sacs still attached and free swimming babies.
Little Tilapia with their egg sacs. This will provide the little fellows with enough food for a couple of days.
New home of little Tilapia for the next 2 - 3 weeks as they grow and then move out to the farms when they are about 40mm long.
Promoter of the Project

FAWN RAYS
Sri Debasish Das, an eminent businessman, by qualification MBA, aged about ____ years id the Proprietor of the Firm. Sri Das is having a wide business experience of more than 2 decades in the arenas of Trading and Tourism. Sri Avijit Kumar Kolay, a Honoures Graduate form the University of Calcutta in Industrial Fish & Fisheries is the Chief Executive of the Division. Sri Kolay a man with experience in Industrial Fishery have participated in the following Trainings/ Seminars: Sl. No. 01 Training Course / Seminar Institute / Organisation
Fresh Water Fish & Prawn Ramkrishna Ashram Krishi Vikash Kendra, Culture & Management Nimpith, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. Sponsored by Indian Council of Agricultural Research Sea Food Processing Quality Control & Integrated Fisheries Project, Department Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Ministry Agriculture, Govt. of India, Kochin, Kerala of of
02
03
National Integrated SCAMPI Parasitology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, FISH Culture & BEE University of Allahabad. Sponsored by Farming Workshop Department of Biotechnology, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Allahabad National Workshop Fish Seminar & Central Calcutta Scientific & Culture Organisation on ornamental for youth in collaboration with Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture, Aquatic Resources & Fishing Harbours, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata Liberal Association for Movement of People & (LAMP) in collaboration with National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC), Govt. of India, Kolkata
04
05
Entrepreneurship Development Management
06 07
Seed production technique Experimental Prawn Hatchery, Digha, Department of Giant Fresh Water Prawn of Fisheries, Govt. of West Bengal Seed Production techniques Reliance Aqua Farms, Ukil of Tilapia Maymensingh, Bangladesh. Bari, Trishal,
The business expertise of Sri Das and practical expertise of Sri Kolay together with the small team developed by the Fisheries Division of Fawn Rays is an envy for the competition.
Sheet No. 21
FAWN RAYS
Financials
The proposal for the Firm is to have 10 separate integrated units with each unit capable of producing 9.60 million mono sex Tilapia making a total capacity of 96.0 million mono sex tilapia. The capital cost required for each unit is as under:
Capital Cost per Unit 3 Hector land rent @ Rs.23000/- per hector Excavation of 3 Hector land @ Rs.225000/- per hector Hatchery Building Construction of office and laboratory Fencing and watch tower. Egg incubation unit Larval rearing tank Acclimatization tank (4m X 3m X 1m) 2 Power Generator (7.5 KVA) with accessories Water pumps Submersible pump Water supply line and connection Electrification Water reservoir Microscope, saline meter, pH kit, Oxygen kit, Hardness kit, Mixer, etc. Computer Refrigerator Construction of labor room and a room for the manager 2 Number of sewing machine Interest on Term Loan priot to commencement Misc Expenses per unit Total Rs. In Lakhs 0.69 6.75 2.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 1.30 1.10 0.50 1.30 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.25 0.14 0.50 0.10 1.62 0.35 22.00
For development of a unit10 months of estimated gestation period is required. The strategy or unit development is as under: Strategy To eventually operate 10 units of 3 hectares each Each unit fo produce eventually 10 million Mono Sex Tilapia Seed Activities for each unit to commence in every alternate month over a spread of 20 months (e.g. Unit A in month 1, Unit B in month 3, Unit C in month 4 & so on)
FAWN RAYS
Recurring Cost per unit Recurring Annual Cost per unit is estimated as under:
Variable Cost per unit per month of operation Cost of brood stock development Breeding Happa, Hatching happa Feeds for brooders and feed for small fishes. Chemical/medicines Electricity/Diesel Wages (1 Manager @ 7000/month for 12 month and 10 labourers @ 2500/month for 12 month) Bamboo sticks Buckets, mugs, trays, etc. Miscellaneous expenditure Total Rs. In Lakhs 0.04 0.13 0.25 0.06 0.17 0.32 0.05 0.01 0.04 1.06
Means of Finance
Means of Finance per unit Promoters Contribution Subsidy Bank Finance (Term Loan) Total Rs. In Lakhs 4.40 2.00 15.60 22.00
A sum of Rs 4.40 Lakhs is proposed to be introduced by the Proprietor as his share of Capital contribution. A subsidy of 25% of the cost subject to a maximum of Rs 2.00 Lakhs is available from the National Fisheries Development Board. A sum of Rs. 22.00 Lakhs is proposed to be taken as Term Loan from a commercial Bank.
Means of Finance
71%
9%
20%
Promoters Contribution
Subsidy
Bank Finance (Term Loan)
Sheet No. 23
FAWN RAYS
Prepared by : Insmart Management Consultants (P) Ltd., Kolkata Term Loan amount per unit (Rs Lakhs) Total No. of units Total Term Loan amount Interest (Rate p.a) Duration of loan (after moratorium) in months Moratorium (months) after final disbursal Year Month Disbursal Op. Repayment 1 15.60 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 15.60 0.00 3 15.60 15.60 0.00 4 0.00 31.20 0.00 5 15.60 31.20 0.00 6 0.00 46.80 0.00 7 15.60 46.80 0.00 8 0.00 62.40 0.00 9 15.60 62.40 0.00 10 0.00 78.00 0.00 11 15.60 78.00 0.00 12 0.00 93.60 0.00 13 15.60 93.60 0.00 14 0.00 109.20 0.00 15 15.60 109.20 0.00 16 0.00 124.80 0.00 17 15.60 124.80 0.00 18 0.00 140.40 0.00 19 15.60 140.40 0.00 20 0.00 156.00 0.00 21 0.00 156.00 0.00 22 0.00 156.00 0.00 23 0.00 156.00 6.50 24 0.00 149.50 6.50 25 0.00 143.00 6.50 26 0.00 136.50 6.50 27 0.00 130.00 6.50 28 0.00 123.50 6.50 29 0.00 117.00 6.50 30 0.00 110.50 6.50 31 0.00 104.00 6.50 32 0.00 97.50 6.50 33 0.00 91.00 6.50 34 0.00 84.50 6.50 35 0.00 78.00 6.50 36 0.00 71.50 6.50 37 0.00 65.00 6.50 38 0.00 58.50 6.50 39 0.00 52.00 6.50 40 0.00 45.50 6.50 41 0.00 39.00 6.50 42 0.00 32.50 6.50 43 0.00 26.00 6.50 44 0.00 19.50 6.50 45 0.00 13.00 6.50 46 0.00 6.50 6.50 YEAR - 0 YEAR - 1 YEAR - 2 YEAR - 3 15.60 10 156 11.50% 24 3 Cl. Interest Interest 15.60 0.00 15.60 0.15 31.20 0.15 31.20 0.30 46.80 0.30 46.80 0.45 62.40 0.45 62.40 0.60 78.00 0.60 78.00 0.75 93.60 0.75 5.38 93.60 0.90 109.20 0.90 109.20 1.05 124.80 1.05 124.80 1.20 140.40 1.20 140.40 1.35 156.00 1.35 156.00 1.50 156.00 1.50 156.00 1.50 149.50 1.50 143.00 1.43 15.49 136.50 1.37 130.00 1.31 123.50 1.25 117.00 1.18 110.50 1.12 104.00 1.06 97.50 1.00 91.00 0.93 84.50 0.87 78.00 0.81 71.50 0.75 65.00 0.69 12.33 58.50 0.62 52.00 0.56 45.50 0.50 39.00 0.44 32.50 0.37 26.00 0.31 19.50 0.25 13.00 0.19 6.50 0.12 3.43 0.00 0.06
Capitalised Charged
5.38
0.00
10.01
3.91
0.81
10.28
0.00
3.08
Sheet No. 24
FAWN RAYS
Prepared by : Insmart Management Consultants (P) Ltd., Kolkata SUMMARY Year 0 1 Inflow Capital introduced 26.40 17.60 Term Loan 93.60 62.40 Subsidy 8.00 12.00 128. 92.0 Total Inflow 00 0 Total outflow Opening Balance Add: Surplus Closing Balance
Capital Inflow/Outflow Month Outflow Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit F Unit G Unit H Unit I Unit J 11.00 2.20 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 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 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 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 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 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 1 2 3 4 5
118. 101. 80 20 0.00 9.20 9.20 -9.20 9.20 0.00
Year 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5
Year 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 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 11.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20
0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20
Sheet No. 25
FAWN RAYS
Total Capital Outflow
11.00 2.20 13.20 4.40 15.40 6.60 15.40 6.60 15.40 6.60 15.40 6.60 15.40 6.60 15.40 6.60 15.40 6.60 15.40 6.60 4.40 4.40 2.20 2.20
Inflow Own Capital Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit F Unit G Unit H Unit I Unit J Term Loan Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit F Unit G Unit H Unit I Unit J Subsidy Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit F Unit G Unit H Unit I
1 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 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
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Year 0 6 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 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 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 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
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Year 6 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00
1 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 9 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 11 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 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 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 15.60 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 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 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 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
Sheet No. 26
FAWN RAYS
Unit J Total Capital Inflow Surplus Net Fund Opening Balance Closing Balamce 0.00 20.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.0020.00 -2.20 6.80 9.00 6.80 6.8013.60 0.00 0.00 0.0020.00 -4.40 4.60 13.60 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 0.00 2.0020.00 -4.60 4.60 13.80 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 0.00 2.0020.00 -4.60 4.60 13.80 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 0.00 2.0020.00 -4.60 4.60 13.80 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 0.00 2.0020.00 -4.60 4.60 13.80 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 0.00 2.0020.00 -4.60 4.60 13.80 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 0.00 2.0020.00 -4.60 4.60 13.80 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 0.00 2.0020.00 -4.60 4.60 13.80 9.20 9.2013.80 0.00 2.00 -4.60 13.80 9.20 0.00 0.00 -4.40 9.20 4.80 0.00 2.00 -2.40 4.80 2.40 0.00 0.00 -2.20 2.40 0.20 2.00 2.00 -0.20 0.20 0.00
Sheet No. 27
FAWN RAYS
Balance Sheet LIABILITIES Proporietor's Capital Account Opening Balance Add: Introduction Subsidy Capitalised Profit for the year Less: Drawings Closing Balance Quasi Equity Loan Funds Term Loan Working Capital Finance Total Current Liabilities Creditors for Goods Creditors for Expenses Total Total Liabilities ASSETS Acqualcultre cost - Gross Less: Ammortisation Acqualcultre cost - Net Investments etc Current Assets Closing Stock - Monosex Tilapia Closing Stock - Stores & Consumables Receivables Cash & Bank Balances Total Total Assets Statement of Profitability
0.00 44.00 20.00 -2.38 61.62 0.00 61.62 2.52
61.62 0.00 0.00 65.71 127.32 3.00 124.32 2.52
124.32 0.00 0.00 89.42 213.74 10.00 203.74 0.00
203.74 0.00 0.00 120.31 324.05 15.00 309.05 0.00
309.05 0.00 0.00 124.67 433.71 20.00 413.71 0.00
413.71 0.00 0.00 151.01 564.72 21.00 543.72 0.00
143.00 7.55 150.55
65.00 20.88 85.88
0.00 24.15 24.15
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
3.66 0.65 4.32 219.00
9.90 1.05 10.95 223.67
11.54 1.22 12.77 240.65
12.12 1.40 13.53 322.57
12.73 1.57 14.30 428.01
13.36 1.82 15.18 558.90
220.00 22.00 198.00 0.00
220.00 44.00 176.00 0.00
220.00 66.00 154.00 25.00
220.00 88.00 132.00 75.00
220.00 110.00 110.00 150.00
220.00 132.00 88.00 250.00
2.12 2.79 9.47 6.62 21.00 219.00 1
2.23 7.52 29.04 8.88 47.67 223.67 2
2.34 8.78 33.85 16.68 61.65 240.65 3
2.46 9.22 38.07 65.83 115.57 322.57 4
2.58 9.68 39.77 115.98 168.01 428.01 5
2.71 10.16 44.33 163.69 220.90 558.90 6
Sheet No. 28
FAWN RAYS
Income Sales Closing Stock Total Expenditure Opening Stock Cost of Production Total Gross Profit Administrative Expenses Selling Expenses (Rs 1000 Insurance etc Bank Interest - Term Loan Bank Interest - Working Total Cash Profit Ammortisation Profit for the year Statement of Fund Flow Funds generated from operations Profit for the year Add: Ammortisation Total Other Fund Generations Capital Introduction Term Loan from Bank Subsidy from NFDB Unsecured Loan Increase in Working Capital Finance Total Total Fund Generation Application of Funds Aquaculture Expenses Repayment of Term Loan Increase in Working Capital Investments for future expansion etc Drawings etc Total Fund Applications Surplus Opening Balance Closing Balance
76.80 2.12 78.92 0.00 44.59 44.59 34.33 6.00 1.92 2.00 3.91 0.89 14.72 19.62 22.00 -2.38 1
235.54 2.23 237.77 2.12 120.39 122.52 115.25 7.20 5.61 2.00 10.28 2.45 27.54 87.71 22.00 65.71 2 -2.38 22.00 19.62
274.56 2.34 276.90 2.23 140.46 142.69 134.21 8.64 6.24 2.00 3.08 2.84 22.80 111.42 22.00 89.42 3
308.75 2.46 311.21 2.34 147.48 149.82 161.39 10.37 6.71 2.00 0.00 0.00 19.08 142.31 22.00 120.31 4
322.56 2.58 325.14 2.46 154.86 157.31 167.83 12.44 6.72 2.00 0.00 0.00 21.16 146.67 22.00 124.67 5
359.60 2.71 362.31 2.58 162.60 165.18 197.13 14.93 7.19 2.00 0.00 0.00 24.12 173.01 22.00 151.01 6
65.71 22.00 87.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.34 13.34 101.04 0.00 78.00 17.78 0.00 3.00 98.78 2.26 6.62 8.88
89.42 22.00 111.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.52 3.27 0.75 112.16 0.00 65.00 4.36 25.00 10.00 104.36 7.81 8.88 16.68
120.31 22.00 142.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -24.15 -24.15 118.16 0.00 0.00 4.01 50.00 15.00 69.01 49.14 16.68 65.83
124.67151.01 22.00 22.00 146.67173.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 146.67173.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 4.30 75.00100.00 20.00 21.00 96.51125.30 50.16 47.71 65.83115.98 115.98163.69
44.00 156.00 20.00 2.52 7.55 230.06 249.68 220.00 13.00 10.06 0.00 0.00 243.06 6.62 0.00 6.62
Computation of Working
6 Sheet No. 29
FAWN RAYS
Capital Current Assets Stock of Monosex Tilapia Receivables - 45 days Stock of Chemicals etc Total Current Assets Current Liabilities Creditors for goods - 30 days Creditors for expenses - 30 days Total Current Liabilities Net Current Assets Margin @ 25.00% Bank Finance Year Months in operation Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Unit F Unit G Unit H Unit I Unit J Total months Expected Production per unit month (in Lakh) for the year (in Lakh) Achievement (%) assumed Actual production Expected Sales Cl. Stock level - 2 months Add Op. Stock Total available for sales Sales price per lakh Total Sales 1
2.12 9.47 2.79 14.38 3.66 0.65 4.32 10.06 2.52 7.55 2 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 42
2.23 29.04 7.52 38.79 9.90 1.05 10.95 27.84 6.96 20.88 3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 8 6 108
2.34 33.85 8.78 44.97 11.54 1.22 12.77 32.20 8.05 24.15 4 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
2.46 38.07 9.22 49.74 12.12 1.40 13.53 36.22 36.22 0.00 5 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
2.58 39.77 9.68 52.03 12.73 1.57 14.30 37.72 37.72 0.00 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
2.71 44.33 10.16 57.21 13.36 1.82 15.18 42.02 42.02 0.00
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 120
8.00 336.00 60.00 201.60 9.60 0.00 192.00 40,000.00 76.80
8.00 864.00 65.00 561.60 10.40 9.60 560.80 42,000.00 235.54
8.00 960.00 65.00 624.00 10.40 10.40 624.00 44,000.00 274.56
8.00 960.00 70.00 672.00 11.20 10.40 671.20 46,000.00 308.75
8.00 960.00 70.00 672.00 11.20 11.20 672.00 48,000.00 322.56
8.00 960.00 75.00 720.00 12.00 11.20 719.20 50,000.00 359.60
Sheet No. 30
FAWN RAYS
Production Cost Cost per unit/month Production months Production Cost (Lakhs) Valuation of Cl. Stock Production Cost per Lakh Estimated Cl. Stock (Lakh) Cl. Stock Value (Rs Lakh)
1 1.06 42 44.59 1 0.22 9.60 2.12
2 1.11 108 120.39 2 0.21 10.40 2.23
3 1.17 120 140.46 3 0.23 10.40 2.34
4 1.23 120 147.48 4 0.22 11.20 2.46
5 1.29 120 154.86 5 0.23 11.20 2.58
6 1.35 120 162.60 6 0.23 12.00 2.71
FAWN RAYS ESTIMATED INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN Rs. (in Lakhs) Nett Cash Flow 0.00 -220.00 24.41 100.44 117.33 142.31 146.67 173.01 455.72 0.00 40.34% 14.35 82.66 112.98 138.29 145.16 168.71 455.72 0.00
Year Cash Outflow 0 Cost of Project 1 Increase in Working Capital 2 Increase in Working Capital 3 Increase in Working Capital 4 Increase in Working Capital 5 Increase in Working Capital 6 Increase in Working Capital
Cash Inflow 220.00 PAT+Bank Interest+Non Cash 10.06Expenses PAT+Bank Interest+Non Cash 17.78Expenses PAT+Bank Interest+Non Cash 4.36Expenses PAT+Bank Interest+Non Cash 4.01Expenses PAT+Bank Interest+Non Cash 1.51Expenses PAT+Bank Interest+Non Cash 4.30Expenses Disposal value of Current Assets less Total Liabilities Disposable value of fixed assets (at 0% of last year wdv) Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
FAWN RAYS
Sheet No. 31
FAWN RAYS
RATIO ANALYSIS ESTIMATES DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO Profit after tax Depreciation SLM Interest Paid on Term Loan Total Repayment obligation Interest Paid on Term Loan Total Debt Service Coverage Ratio Average DSCR CURRENT RATIO Current Assets Current Liabilities Current Ratio ACID TEST RATIO Current Assets less Inventory Current Liabilities Quick Ratio (Acid Test) DEBT EQUITY RATIO Secured Loan Funds Shareholders' Funds (incl. quasi capital) Debt Equity Ratio PROFITABILITY RATIO Profit after Tax Sales Net Profit Ratio CAPITAL TURNOVER RATIO Sales Shareholders' Funds (incl. quasi capital) Secured Term Loans Total Capital Turnover Ratio WORKING CAPITAL TURNOVER Sales Current Assets Current Liabilities Net Working Capital Working Capital Turnover Ratio
1 -2.38 22.00 3.91 23.53 13.00 3.91 16.91 1.39 1.30
2 63.05 22.00 10.28 95.33 78.00 10.28 88.28 1.08
3 71.77 22.00 3.08 96.85 65.00 3.08 68.08 1.42
4 83.74 22.00 0.00 105.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
5 94.91 22.00 0.00 116.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
6 111.18 22.00 0.00 133.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
21.00 11.86 1.77
47.67 31.83 1.50
61.65 36.92 1.67
115.57 13.53 8.54
168.01 14.30 11.75
220.90 15.18 14.55
16.09 11.86 1.36
37.92 31.83 1.19
50.53 36.92 1.37
103.89 13.53 7.68
155.75 14.30 10.89
208.03 15.18 13.70
150.55 64.13 2.35
85.88 126.84 0.68
24.15 203.73 0.12
0.00 309.04 0.00
0.00 413.71 0.00
0.00 543.72 0.00
-2.38 76.80 -3.10
63.05 235.54 26.77
71.77 274.56 26.14
83.74 308.75 27.12
94.91 322.56 29.42
111.18 359.60 30.92
76.80 64.13 150.55 214.68 0.36
235.54 126.84 85.88 212.72 1.11
274.56 203.73 24.15 227.89 1.20
308.75 309.04 0.00 309.04 1.00
322.56 413.71 0.00 413.71 0.78
359.60 543.72 0.00 543.72 0.66
76.80 21.00 11.86 9.13 8.41
235.54 47.67 31.83 15.84 14.87
274.56 61.65 36.92 24.73 11.10
308.75 115.57 13.53 102.04 3.03
322.56 168.01 14.30 153.71 2.10
359.60 220.90 15.18 205.72 1.75
FAWN RAYS Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 32
FAWN RAYS
ASSESSMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL OPERATING STATEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 No of months of Production 6 12 12 12 12 12 Net Sales 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 359.60 % Net increase N/A 206.69 16.57 12.45 4.47 11.48 Cost of Sales Producrion Cost 42.47 120.29 140.35 147.36 154.73 162.47 Ammortisation 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 Total Cost of Sales 64.47 142.29 162.35 169.36 176.73 184.47 Selling Expenses 1.92 5.61 6.24 6.71 6.72 7.19 Administrative & Other Expenses 8.00 9.20 10.64 12.37 14.44 16.93 Sub Total 74.39 157.09 179.23 188.44 197.89 208.59 Operating Profit before interest 2.41 78.44 95.33 120.31 124.67 151.01 Interest : Term Loan 3.91 10.28 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cash Credit 0.89 2.45 2.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 : Total 4.80 12.73 5.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operating Cost 79.18 169.83 185.14 188.44 197.89 208.59 Op.Profit after Interest -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67 151.01 Add Discount 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Add Non Op.Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Less Non Op.Exp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Profit/Loss before Tax -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67 151.01 Provision for Taxes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Profit after Tax -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67 151.01 Dividend 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 25.00 30.00 Retained Profit -2.38 65.71 89.42 105.31 99.67 121.01 Financial Indices PBDIT 24 100 117 142 147 173 Interest Coverage 5.09 7.89 19.83 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! PBT/Sales(%) -3.10 27.90 32.57 38.97 38.65 41.99 PAT/Sales(%) -3.10 27.90 32.57 38.97 38.65 41.99 PBDIT/Sales(%) 31.79 42.64 42.73 46.09 45.47 48.11 Intt/Total Cost(%) 6.06 7.50 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 SDExpenses/Total Cost(%) 2.42 3.30 3.37 3.56 3.40 3.45
Sheet No. 33
FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS ASSESSMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL FORM III : ANALYSIS OF BALANCE SHEET 1 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Cash Credit facility Sub Total Trade Creditors Expenses creditors Statutory Liabilities Advance from Customer Term Loan obligations repayable within 1 year Others Sub Total Total Current Liabilities TERM LIABILITIES Term Loans(Excluding repayable within 1 year Term Loans from friends Other term Liabilities Total Term Liabilities Net Worth Proprietor's Capital opening Balance Add: Introduction Add: Profit for the year Add: Subsidy Less: Drawings Proprietor's Capital closing Balance Unsecured Loan: Quasi Capital Total Tangible Net Worth Total Liabilities 2 3 4 5 6
7.55 7.55 3.66 0.65 0.00 0.00 78.00 0.00 82.32 89.86
20.88 20.88 9.90 1.05 0.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 75.95 96.83
24.15 24.15 11.54 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.77 36.92
0.00 0.00 12.12 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.53 13.53
0.00 0.00 12.73 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.30 14.30
0.00 0.00 13.36 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.18 15.18
65.00 0.00 0.00 65.00
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
0.00 61.62 124.32 44.00 0.00 0.00 -2.38 65.71 89.42 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 10.00 61.62 124.32 203.74 2.52 2.52 0.00 64.13 126.84 203.73
203.74 0.00 120.31 0.00 15.00 309.05 0.00 309.04
309.05 0.00 124.67 0.00 20.00 413.71 0.00 413.71
413.71 0.00 151.01 0.00 21.00 543.72 0.00 543.72
219.00 223.67 240.65 322.57 428.01 558.90
Sheet No. 34
FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS ASSESSMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL FORM III : ANALYSIS OF BALANCE SHEET 1 ASSETS Current Assets Cash & Bank Balance Debtors: Considered Good Debtors: Above 6 months Total Debtors Inventory: Raw Materials/ Chemicals : Stores & Others : Process Stock : Finished Goods Total Stock Advances to Suppliers Advance payment of Tax Others Total Current Assets Fixed Assets Gross Block Add New Assets Less Depreciation Less Disposal Net Block Non Current Assets Investments Security Deposits Fixed Deposits as Security Deferred Tax Asset Misc Expenses not w/off Total Non Current Assets TOTAL ASSETS 2 3 4 5 6
6.62 9.47 0.00 9.47 2.79 0.00 0.00 2.12 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00
8.88 29.04 0.00 29.04 7.52 0.00 0.00 2.23 9.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.67
16.68
65.83 115.98
163.69 44.33 0.00 44.33 10.16 0.00 0.00 2.71 12.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 220.90
33.85 38.07 39.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.85 38.07 39.77 8.78 9.22 9.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 2.46 2.58 11.12 11.68 12.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.65 115.57 168.01
0.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.00 44.00 66.00 88.00 110.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 198.00 176.00 154.00 132.00 110.00
220.00 0.00 132.00 0.00 88.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00
75.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 150.00
250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 558.90
219.00 223.67 240.65 322.57 428.01
Sheet No. 35
FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS ASSESSMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL COMPUTATION OF ASSESSED BANK FINANCE 1 Total Current Assets Other Current Liabilities (including TL) Working Capital Gap Min. stipulated NWC Actual NWC (including TL installments) Item 3 minus 4 Item 3 minus 5 Assessed Bank Finance Recommended Limit Surplus/Defecit NWC/TCA (%) OCL/TCA (%) BF/TCA (%) Turnover Method A. Turnover B. 25% of (A) C. Margin Required at 5% of (A) D. Margin (NWC) E. (B - C) F. (B-D) G. MPBF(E or F whichever is lower) H. Excess borrowing 2 3 4 5 6 220.90 15.18 205.72 51.43 205.72 154.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.13 6.87 0.00 6 359.60 89.90 17.98 51.43 71.92 38.47 38.47 0.00
21.00 47.67 82.32 75.95 -61.32 -28.28 -15.33 -7.07 -68.87 -49.16 -45.99 -21.21 7.55 20.88 -45.99 -21.21 -45.99 -21.21 0.00 0.00 -328.02 -103.12 392.07 159.32 -219.05 -44.49
61.65 115.57 168.01 12.77 13.53 14.30 48.89 102.04 153.71 12.22 25.51 38.43 24.73 102.04 153.71 36.66 76.53 115.28 24.15 0.00 0.00 24.15 0.00 0.00 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.12 88.30 91.49 20.71 11.70 8.51 39.17 0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 19.20 58.88 68.64 77.19 80.64 3.84 11.78 13.73 15.44 16.13 -15.33 -7.07 12.22 25.51 38.43 15.36 47.11 54.91 61.75 64.51 34.53 65.95 56.42 51.68 42.21 15.36 -19.17 47.11 -18.85 54.91 -1.51 51.68 0.00 42.21 0.00
Sheet No. 36
FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS ASSESSMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL FUND FLOW STATEMENT 1 2 3 LONG TERM SOURCES Profit after Tax Depreciation (SLM) Subsidy received Increase in Capital Increase in Unsecured Loan Increase in Term Loan Decrease in Fixed Assets Non Current Assets Increase in Reserves Total LONG TERM USES Increase in: Fixed Assets Non Current Assets Repayment of Term Loan Investments Dividend paid Total Long term Surplus/(Deficit) SHORT TERM SOURCES Increase in Working Capital Finance Others Total SHORT TERM USES Increase in Working Capital Others Total Summary Long Term Surplus/Deficit Short Term Surplus/Deficit Net Surplus/Deficit Represented by increase in Cash -2.38 22.00 20.00 44.00 2.52 156.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 242.13 65.71 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.42 22.00 0.00 0.00 -2.52 0.00
4 120.31 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 142.31
5 124.67 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 146.67
6 151.01 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.71 108.90
220.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 233.00 9.13 7.55 0.00 7.55 10.06 0.00 -2.52 9.13 -2.52 6.62 6.62
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78.00 65.00 0.00 25.00 3.00 10.00 81.00 100.00 6.71 8.90 13.34 0.00 13.34 17.78 0.00 -4.45 6.71 -4.45 2.26 2.26 3.27 0.00 3.27 4.36 0.00 -1.09 8.90 -1.09 7.81 7.81
0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 15.00 65.00 77.31 -24.15 0.00 -24.15 4.01 0.00 -28.16 77.31 -28.16 49.14 49.14
0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 20.00 95.00 51.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 0.00 -1.51 51.67 -1.51 50.16 50.16
0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 21.00 121.00 52.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 0.00 -4.30 52.01 -4.30 47.71 47.71
Sheet No. 37
FAWN RAYS
PBDIT Interest Coverage PBT/Sales(%) PAT/Sales(%) PBDIT/Sales(%) Intt/Total Cost(%) SDExpenses/Total Cost(%) Tangible Net Worth Total Outside Liabilities TOL/TNW Trade Creditors/Purchases Long Term Sources Net Working Capital ROCE Current Ratio(CA/CL) Holdings Raw Materials Process Stock Finished Stock Inventory/Net Sales (Days) Debtors/Sales(Days) Net Sales/TTA PBDIT/TTA Bank Finance/TCA(%) Creditors/TCA(%) Stock+Debtors/Sales(D) Long Term Uses PBDIT/Interest PBT/TTA (%)
FINANCIAL INDICES 1 2 3 4 5 6 24.41 100.44 117.33 142.31 146.67 173.01 5.09 7.89 19.83 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -3.10 27.90 32.57 38.97 38.65 41.99 -3.10 27.90 32.57 38.97 38.65 41.99 31.79 42.64 42.73 46.09 45.47 48.11 6.06 7.50 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.42 3.30 3.37 3.56 3.40 3.45 64.13 126.84 203.73 309.04 413.71 543.72 154.86 96.83 36.92 13.53 14.30 15.18 2.41 0.76 0.18 0.04 0.03 0.03 31.50 30.03 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02 67.52 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -68.87 -49.16 24.73 102.04 153.71 205.72 11.15 44.91 48.76 44.12 34.27 30.96 0.23 0.49 1.67 8.54 11.75 14.55 23.95 18.77 18.76 18.76 18.76 18.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.89 4.70 4.33 4.35 4.38 4.41 17.26 12.42 12.15 11.34 11.40 10.74 33.29 36.99 36.99 36.99 36.99 36.99 0.35 1.05 1.14 0.96 0.75 0.64 0.11 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.34 0.31 35.95 43.81 39.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.46 20.76 18.72 10.49 7.58 6.05 68.34 60.12 59.78 58.80 58.87 58.07 198.00 176.00 179.00 207.00 260.00 338.00 5.09 7.89 19.83 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -1.09 29.38 37.16 37.30 29.13 27.02
END OF REPORT
Sheet No. 38

Tilapia Farming Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tilapia Farming Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAWN RAYS

Prepared by : Insmart Management Consultants (P) Ltd., Kolkata

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Super Tilapia (GIFT) Farming in India

The introduction and distribution of tilapias in Asia.

Capture fisheries of tilapias

*Tilapia nei = not elsewhere included

Capture fisheries of tilapias Indian scenario

Area at FSL* (ha)

Tilapiine production t/yr kg/ha/yr

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Aquaculture production of tilapias by species in Asia and the Pacific 1970-2002

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Cage culture of tilapia in Batanai reservoir, Sarawak, East Malaysia

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

2 811 3 998 11 431 2 336

Mc- mono culture; Pc- polyculture; * kg/unit area

Notable phases in the development of tilapia culture

Simple Process Flow an Illustration

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Promoter of the Project

Entrepreneurship Development Management

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Bank Finance (Term Loan)

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

118. 101. 80 20 0.00 9.20 9.20 -9.20 9.20 0.00

0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20

0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit

0.00 44.00 20.00 -2.38 61.62 0.00 61.62 2.52

61.62 0.00 0.00 65.71 127.32 3.00 124.32 2.52

124.32 0.00 0.00 89.42 213.74 10.00 203.74 0.00

203.74 0.00 0.00 120.31 324.05 15.00 309.05 0.00

309.05 0.00 0.00 124.67 433.71 20.00 413.71 0.00

413.71 0.00 0.00 151.01 564.72 21.00 543.72 0.00

143.00 7.55 150.55

65.00 20.88 85.88

0.00 24.15 24.15

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

3.66 0.65 4.32 219.00

9.90 1.05 10.95 223.67

11.54 1.22 12.77 240.65

12.12 1.40 13.53 322.57

12.73 1.57 14.30 428.01

13.36 1.82 15.18 558.90

220.00 22.00 198.00 0.00

220.00 44.00 176.00 0.00

220.00 66.00 154.00 25.00

220.00 88.00 132.00 75.00

220.00 110.00 110.00 150.00

220.00 132.00 88.00 250.00

2.12 2.79 9.47 6.62 21.00 219.00 1

2.23 7.52 29.04 8.88 47.67 223.67 2

2.34 8.78 33.85 16.68 61.65 240.65 3

2.46 9.22 38.07 65.83 115.57 322.57 4

2.58 9.68 39.77 115.98 168.01 428.01 5

2.71 10.16 44.33 163.69 220.90 558.90 6