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 small-
scale 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
(12–15 cm, 5–6 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

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 world’s
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 “Everybody’s
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 androgen-
supplemented diet, which brings about sex reversal by interfering with the sex-
determining 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 all-
male 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 20°N latitude to about 15°S 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

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 Area at FSL* Total production Tilapiine
name (ha) production
t/yr kg/ha/yr t/yr kg/ha/yr
Veeranam 3 885 36 9.3 44 4.1
Poondi 3 263 15 4.6 41 1.9
Wellingtopn 1 554 9 5.8 44 2.5
Krishnagiri 1 248 47 37.7 24 9.0
Perumchani 962 9 9.4 28 2.6
Godar 678 3 4.4 57 2.5
Kadama 657 51 77.6 85 66
Vembakottai 467 18 38.5 22 13.5
Kullur Santhai 316 48 151.9 70 106.3
Barur 256 24 93.8 90 84.4
Pambar 243 26 102.9 35 36
Thumbalahalli 193 11 57 79 45
Chinnar 170 6 35.3 26 9.2
Sathiar 120 6 50 48 24
Thoppaiyar 120 15 125 77 96.3
Nagavathy 118 5 42.4 76 32.2
Kasarikulihalla 105 4 38.1 73 27.8
Varattupallam 89 6 67.4 56 37.8
Sicclagiri 54 8 148.1 28 41.5
Periyar 76 17 223.7 53 118.6
Kovilar 74 12 162.2 48 77.8
Maruthanathi 72 8 111 37 41.1
Sicclagiri 54 8 148.1 28 41.5
*FSL = Full Storage Level
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 53.6±8.2
kg/ha/yr.

FAWN RAYS
Aquaculture of tilapias
Although aquaculture is considered an old tradition, modern aquaculture is essentially a post-
1950 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

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.

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
Thailan
Bangladesh China Philippines Viet Nam
d
Parameter
Pond Pond Cage Pond Cage Pond Pond
Mc Mc Pc Mc Mc Mc Pc Mc
Inputs *
Rice bran 426 9 472 3 982 3 172 445 79
Commercial feed 2 811 3 998 11 431 2 336 533 3 087 62
Manure 615 1 339 7175 2 035 132
Fertilizer 10 213
Yield * 1 736 5 860 6 593 5613 2 959 540 6 290 3 020
Harvest wt. (g) 111 310 340 460 130 175 232 241
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 all-
male 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 17á-
methyltesterone (male hormone) to early stage fry. Since the original discovery the
effectiveness of 17á-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 17á- 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 17á-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 17á-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 sex-
inversion 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 9 percent 6 percent 9 percent
2003 1 595 000 1 640 000 1 263 000 1 299 000
2004 1 690 000 1 787 000 1 339 000 1 416 000
2005 1 792 000 1 948 000 1 420 000 1 544 000
2006 1 899 000 2 124 000 1 505 000 1 683 000
2010 2 398 000 2 998 000 1 900 000 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 over-

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

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. Training Course / Institute / Organisation

No. Seminar
01 Fresh Water Fish & Prawn Ramkrishna Ashram Krishi Vikash Kendra,
Culture & Management Nimpith, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal.
Sponsored by Indian Council of Agricultural
Research
02 Sea Food Processing & Integrated Fisheries Project, Department of

Quality Control Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India, Kochin, Kerala
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
04 National Seminar & Central Calcutta Scientific & Culture Organisation

Workshop on ornamental for youth in collaboration with Department of
Fish Fisheries, Aquaculture, Aquatic Resources &
Fishing Harbours, Govt. of West Bengal, Kolkata
05 Entrepreneurship Liberal Association for Movement of People

Development & (LAMP) in collaboration with National Small
Management Industries Corporation (NSIC), Govt. of India,
Kolkata
06 Seed production technique Experimental Prawn Hatchery, Digha, Department

of Giant Fresh Water Prawn of Fisheries, Govt. of West Bengal
07 Seed Production techniques Reliance Aqua Farms, Ukil Bari, Trishal,

of Tilapia Maymensingh, Bangladesh.
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.

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 Rs. In Lakhs
3 Hector land rent @ Rs.23000/- per hector 0.69

Excavation of 3 Hector land @ Rs.225000/- per hector 6.75
Hatchery Building 2.00
Construction of office and laboratory 1.00
Fencing and watch tower. 0.70
Egg incubation unit 1.00
Larval rearing tank 0.70
Acclimatization tank (4m X 3m X 1m) 1.30
2 Power Generator (7.5 KVA) with accessories 1.10
Water pumps 0.50
Submersible pump 1.30
Water supply line and connection 0.50
Electrification 0.40
Water reservoir 0.50
Microscope, saline meter, pH kit, Oxygen kit, Hardness kit, Mixer, etc. 0.60
Computer 0.25
Refrigerator 0.14
Construction of labor room and a room for the manager 0.50
2 Number of sewing machine 0.10
Interest on Term Loan priot to commencement 1.62
Misc Expenses per unit 0.35
Total 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 Rs. In Lakhs
Cost of brood stock development 0.04
Breeding Happa, Hatching happa 0.13
Feeds for brooders and feed for small fishes. 0.25
Chemical/medicines 0.06
Electricity/Diesel 0.17
Wages (1 Manager @ 7000/month for 12 month and 10 labourers @
2500/month for 12 month) 0.32
Bamboo sticks 0.05
Buckets, mugs, trays, etc. 0.01
Miscellaneous expenditure 0.04
Total 1.06
Means of Finance
Means of Finance per unit Rs. In Lakhs
Promoters Contribution 4.40
Subsidy 2.00
Bank Finance (Term Loan) 15.60
Total 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)

FAWN RAYS
Term Loan amount per unit (Rs Lakhs) 15.60

Total No. of units 10
Total Term Loan amount 156
Interest (Rate p.a) 11.50%
Duration of loan (after moratorium) in months 24
Moratorium (months) after final disbursal 3
Year Month Disbursal Op. Repayment Cl. Interest Interest Capitalised Charged
1 15.60 0.00 0.00 15.60 0.00
2 0.00 15.60 0.00 15.60 0.15
3 15.60 15.60 0.00 31.20 0.15
4 0.00 31.20 0.00 31.20 0.30
5 15.60 31.20 0.00 46.80 0.30
YEAR - 0
6 0.00 46.80 0.00 46.80 0.45

7 15.60 46.80 0.00 62.40 0.45
8 0.00 62.40 0.00 62.40 0.60
9 15.60 62.40 0.00 78.00 0.60
10 0.00 78.00 0.00 78.00 0.75
11 15.60 78.00 0.00 93.60 0.75
12 0.00 93.60 0.00 93.60 0.90 5.38 5.38 0.00
13 15.60 93.60 0.00 109.20 0.90
14 0.00 109.20 0.00 109.20 1.05
15 15.60 109.20 0.00 124.80 1.05
16 0.00 124.80 0.00 124.80 1.20
17 15.60 124.80 0.00 140.40 1.20
YEAR - 1
18 0.00 140.40 0.00 140.40 1.35

19 15.60 140.40 0.00 156.00 1.35
20 0.00 156.00 0.00 156.00 1.50
21 0.00 156.00 0.00 156.00 1.50
22 0.00 156.00 0.00 156.00 1.50
23 0.00 156.00 6.50 149.50 1.50
24 0.00 149.50 6.50 143.00 1.43 15.49 10.01 3.91
25 0.00 143.00 6.50 136.50 1.37
26 0.00 136.50 6.50 130.00 1.31
27 0.00 130.00 6.50 123.50 1.25
28 0.00 123.50 6.50 117.00 1.18
29 0.00 117.00 6.50 110.50 1.12
YEAR - 2
30 0.00 110.50 6.50 104.00 1.06

31 0.00 104.00 6.50 97.50 1.00
32 0.00 97.50 6.50 91.00 0.93
33 0.00 91.00 6.50 84.50 0.87
34 0.00 84.50 6.50 78.00 0.81
35 0.00 78.00 6.50 71.50 0.75
36 0.00 71.50 6.50 65.00 0.69 12.33 0.81 10.28
37 0.00 65.00 6.50 58.50 0.62
38 0.00 58.50 6.50 52.00 0.56
39 0.00 52.00 6.50 45.50 0.50
40 0.00 45.50 6.50 39.00 0.44
YEAR - 3
41 0.00 39.00 6.50 32.50 0.37

42 0.00 32.50 6.50 26.00 0.31
43 0.00 26.00 6.50 19.50 0.25
44 0.00 19.50 6.50 13.00 0.19
45 0.00 13.00 6.50 6.50 0.12
46 0.00 6.50 6.50 0.00 0.06 3.43 0.00 3.08

FAWN RAYS
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
118. 101.
Total outflow 80 20
Opening
Balance 0.00 9.20
Add: Surplus 9.20 -9.20
Closing
Balance 9.20 0.00
Capital
Inflow/Outflow Year 0 Year 1
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Outflow
Unit A 11.00 2.20 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
Unit B 0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 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
Unit C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 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
Unit D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 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
Unit E 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 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
Unit F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unit G 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 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unit H 0.00 0.00 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 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unit I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.00
Unit J 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20

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 Year 0 Year 1

Own Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Unit A 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unit B 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 0.00 0.00
Unit C 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
Unit D 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
Unit E 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unit F 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unit G 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00
Unit H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Unit I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Unit J 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Term Loan
Unit A 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
Unit B 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
Unit C 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
Unit D 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
Unit E 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
Unit F 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
Unit G 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
Unit H 0.00 0.00 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
Unit I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Unit J 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Subsidy
Unit A 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
Unit B 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
Unit C 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
Unit D 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
Unit E 0.00 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
Unit F 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Unit G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Unit H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Unit I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

FAWN RAYS
Unit J 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Total Capital 20.00 0.0020.00 0.0020.00 2.0020.00 2.0020.00 2.0020.00 2.0020.00 2.0020.00 2.0020.00 2.0020.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
Inflow
Net Fund Surplus 9.00 -2.20 6.80 -4.40 4.60 -4.60 4.60 -4.60 4.60 -4.60 4.60 -4.60 4.60 -4.60 4.60 -4.60 4.60 -4.60 4.60 -4.60 -4.40 -2.40 -2.20 -0.20
Opening Balance 0.00 9.00 6.80 13.60 9.20 13.80 9.20 13.80 9.20 13.80 9.20 13.80 9.20 13.80 9.20 13.80 9.20 13.80 9.20 13.80 9.20 4.80 2.40 0.20
Closing Balamce 9.00 6.8013.60 9.2013.80 9.2013.80 9.2013.80 9.2013.80 9.2013.80 9.2013.80 9.2013.80 9.2013.80 9.20 4.80 2.40 0.20 0.00

FAWN RAYS
Balance Sheet 1 2 3 4 5 6
LIABILITIES
Proporietor's Capital Account
Opening Balance 0.00 61.62 124.32 203.74 309.05 413.71
Add: Introduction 44.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subsidy Capitalised 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Profit for the year -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67 151.01
61.62 127.32 213.74 324.05 433.71 564.72
Less: Drawings 0.00 3.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 21.00
Closing Balance 61.62 124.32 203.74 309.05 413.71 543.72
Quasi Equity 2.52 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Loan Funds
Term Loan 143.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Working Capital Finance 7.55 20.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 150.55 85.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Current Liabilities
Creditors for Goods 3.66 9.90 11.54 12.12 12.73 13.36
Creditors for Expenses 0.65 1.05 1.22 1.40 1.57 1.82
Total 4.32 10.95 12.77 13.53 14.30 15.18
Total Liabilities 219.00 223.67 240.65 322.57 428.01 558.90
ASSETS
Acqualcultre cost - Gross 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00
Less: Ammortisation 22.00 44.00 66.00 88.00 110.00 132.00
Acqualcultre cost - Net 198.00 176.00 154.00 132.00 110.00 88.00
Investments etc 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 150.00 250.00
Current Assets
Closing Stock - Monosex
Tilapia 2.12 2.23 2.34 2.46 2.58 2.71
Closing Stock - Stores &
Consumables 2.79 7.52 8.78 9.22 9.68 10.16
Receivables 9.47 29.04 33.85 38.07 39.77 44.33
Cash & Bank Balances 6.62 8.88 16.68 65.83 115.98 163.69
Total 21.00 47.67 61.65 115.57 168.01 220.90
Total Assets 219.00 223.67 240.65 322.57 428.01 558.90
Statement of Profitability 1 2 3 4 5 6
FAWN RAYS
Income
Sales 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 359.60
Closing Stock 2.12 2.23 2.34 2.46 2.58 2.71
Total 78.92 237.77 276.90 311.21 325.14 362.31
Expenditure
Opening Stock 0.00 2.12 2.23 2.34 2.46 2.58
Cost of Production 44.59 120.39 140.46 147.48 154.86 162.60
Total 44.59 122.52 142.69 149.82 157.31 165.18
Gross Profit 34.33 115.25 134.21 161.39 167.83 197.13
Administrative Expenses 6.00 7.20 8.64 10.37 12.44 14.93
Selling Expenses (Rs 1000 1.92 5.61 6.24 6.71 6.72 7.19
Insurance etc 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Bank Interest - Term Loan 3.91 10.28 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bank Interest - Working 0.89 2.45 2.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 14.72 27.54 22.80 19.08 21.16 24.12
Cash Profit 19.62 87.71 111.42 142.31 146.67 173.01
Ammortisation 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00
Profit for the year -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67 151.01
Statement of Fund Flow 1 2 3 4 5 6

Funds generated from operations
Profit for the year -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67151.01
Add: Ammortisation 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00
Total 19.62 87.71 111.42 142.31 146.67173.01
Other Fund Generations
Capital Introduction 44.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Term Loan from Bank 156.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subsidy from NFDB 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unsecured Loan 2.52 0.00 -2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
Increase in Working Capital Finance 7.55 13.34 3.27 -24.15 0.00 0.00
Total 230.06 13.34 0.75 -24.15 0.00 0.00
Total Fund Generation 249.68 101.04 112.16 118.16 146.67173.01
Application of Funds
Aquaculture Expenses 220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Repayment of Term Loan 13.00 78.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Increase in Working Capital 10.06 17.78 4.36 4.01 1.51 4.30
Investments for future expansion etc 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00100.00
Drawings etc 0.00 3.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 21.00
Total Fund Applications 243.06 98.78 104.36 69.01 96.51125.30
Surplus 6.62 2.26 7.81 49.14 50.16 47.71
Opening Balance 0.00 6.62 8.88 16.68 65.83115.98
Closing Balance 6.62 8.88 16.68 65.83 115.98163.69
Computation of Working 1 2 3 4 5 6

FAWN RAYS
Capital
Current Assets
Stock of Monosex Tilapia 2.12 2.23 2.34 2.46 2.58 2.71
Receivables - 45 days 9.47 29.04 33.85 38.07 39.77 44.33
Stock of Chemicals etc 2.79 7.52 8.78 9.22 9.68 10.16
Total Current Assets 14.38 38.79 44.97 49.74 52.03 57.21
Current Liabilities
Creditors for goods - 30 days 3.66 9.90 11.54 12.12 12.73 13.36
Creditors for expenses - 30
days 0.65 1.05 1.22 1.40 1.57 1.82
Total Current Liabilities 4.32 10.95 12.77 13.53 14.30 15.18
Net Current Assets 10.06 27.84 32.20 36.22 37.72 42.02
Margin @ 25.00% 2.52 6.96 8.05 36.22 37.72 42.02
Bank Finance 7.55 20.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6
Months in operation
Unit A 12 12 12 12 12 12
Unit B 10 12 12 12 12 12
Unit C 8 12 12 12 12 12
Unit D 6 12 12 12 12 12
Unit E 4 12 12 12 12 12
Unit F 2 12 12 12 12 12
Unit G 0 12 12 12 12 12
Unit H 0 10 12 12 12 12
Unit I 0 8 12 12 12 12
Unit J 0 6 12 12 12 12
Total months 42 108 120 120 120 120
Expected Production
per unit month (in Lakh) 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
for the year (in Lakh) 336.00 864.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 960.00
Achievement (%) assumed 60.00 65.00 65.00 70.00 70.00 75.00
Actual production 201.60 561.60 624.00 672.00 672.00 720.00
Expected Sales
Cl. Stock level - 2 months 9.60 10.40 10.40 11.20 11.20 12.00
Add Op. Stock 0.00 9.60 10.40 10.40 11.20 11.20
Total available for sales 192.00 560.80 624.00 671.20 672.00 719.20
Sales price per lakh 40,000.00 42,000.00 44,000.00 46,000.00 48,000.00 50,000.00
Total Sales 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 359.60

FAWN RAYS
Production Cost 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cost per unit/month 1.06 1.11 1.17 1.23 1.29 1.35
Production months 42 108 120 120 120 120
Production Cost (Lakhs) 44.59 120.39 140.46 147.48 154.86 162.60
Valuation of Cl. Stock 1 2 3 4 5 6

Production Cost per Lakh 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.23
Estimated Cl. Stock (Lakh) 9.60 10.40 10.40 11.20 11.20 12.00
Cl. Stock Value (Rs Lakh) 2.12 2.23 2.34 2.46 2.58 2.71
FAWN RAYS
ESTIMATED INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
Rs. (in Lakhs)
Nett Cash
Year Cash Outflow Cash Inflow Flow
0 Cost of Project 220.00 0.00 -220.00
PAT+Bank Interest+Non Cash
1 Increase in Working Capital 10.06Expenses 24.41 14.35
Disposal value of Current Assets
less Total Liabilities 455.72 455.72
Disposable value of fixed assets
(at 0% of last year wdv) 0.00 0.00
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 40.34%
FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS
RATIO ANALYSIS ESTIMATES 1 2 3 4 5 6

DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
Profit after tax -2.38 63.05 71.77 83.74 94.91 111.18
Depreciation SLM 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00
Interest Paid on Term Loan 3.91 10.28 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 23.53 95.33 96.85 105.74 116.91 133.18
Repayment obligation 13.00 78.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Interest Paid on Term Loan 3.91 10.28 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 16.91 88.28 68.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.39 1.08 1.42 N/A N/A N/A
Average DSCR 1.30
CURRENT RATIO
Current Assets 21.00 47.67 61.65 115.57 168.01 220.90
Current Liabilities 11.86 31.83 36.92 13.53 14.30 15.18
Current Ratio 1.77 1.50 1.67 8.54 11.75 14.55
ACID TEST RATIO

Current Assets less Inventory 16.09 37.92 50.53 103.89 155.75 208.03
Quick Ratio (Acid Test) 1.36 1.19 1.37 7.68 10.89 13.70
DEBT EQUITY RATIO

Secured Loan Funds 150.55 85.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Shareholders' Funds (incl. quasi capital) 64.13 126.84 203.73 309.04 413.71 543.72
Debt Equity Ratio 2.35 0.68 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
PROFITABILITY RATIO
Profit after Tax -2.38 63.05 71.77 83.74 94.91 111.18
Sales 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 359.60
Net Profit Ratio -3.10 26.77 26.14 27.12 29.42 30.92
CAPITAL TURNOVER RATIO

Sales 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 359.60
Shareholders' Funds (incl. quasi capital) 64.13 126.84 203.73 309.04 413.71 543.72
Secured Term Loans 150.55 85.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 214.68 212.72 227.89 309.04 413.71 543.72
Capital Turnover Ratio 0.36 1.11 1.20 1.00 0.78 0.66
WORKING CAPITAL TURNOVER

Sales 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 359.60
Current Assets 21.00 47.67 61.65 115.57 168.01 220.90
Net Working Capital 9.13 15.84 24.73 102.04 153.71 205.72
Working Capital Turnover Ratio 8.41 14.87 11.10 3.03 2.10 1.75
FAWN RAYS

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

FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS
FORM III : ANALYSIS OF BALANCE SHEET
1 2 3 4 5 6
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities
Cash Credit facility 7.55 20.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sub Total 7.55 20.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trade Creditors 3.66 9.90 11.54 12.12 12.73 13.36

Expenses creditors 0.65 1.05 1.22 1.40 1.57 1.82
Statutory Liabilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Advance from Customer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Term Loan obligations 78.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
repayable within 1 year
Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sub Total 82.32 75.95 12.77 13.53 14.30 15.18
Total Current Liabilities 89.86 96.83 36.92 13.53 14.30 15.18
TERM LIABILITIES
Term Loans(Excluding 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
repayable within 1 year
Term Loans from friends 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other term Liabilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Term Liabilities 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net Worth
Proprietor's Capital opening Balance 0.00 61.62 124.32 203.74 309.05 413.71
Add: Introduction 44.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Add: Profit for the year -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67 151.01
Add: Subsidy 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Less: Drawings 0.00 3.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 21.00
Proprietor's Capital closing Balance 61.62 124.32 203.74 309.05 413.71 543.72
Unsecured Loan: Quasi Capital 2.52 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Tangible Net Worth 64.13 126.84 203.73 309.04 413.71 543.72
Total Liabilities 219.00 223.67 240.65 322.57 428.01 558.90

FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS
FORM III : ANALYSIS OF BALANCE SHEET
1 2 3 4 5 6
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash & Bank Balance 6.62 8.88 16.68 65.83 115.98 163.69
Debtors: Considered Good 9.47 29.04 33.85 38.07 39.77 44.33

Debtors: Above 6 months 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Debtors 9.47 29.04 33.85 38.07 39.77 44.33
Inventory: Raw Materials/ Chemicals 2.79 7.52 8.78 9.22 9.68 10.16
: Stores & Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
: Process Stock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
: Finished Goods 2.12 2.23 2.34 2.46 2.58 2.71
Total Stock 4.91 9.75 11.12 11.68 12.26 12.87
Advances to Suppliers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Advance payment of Tax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fixed Assets
Gross Block 0.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00 220.00
Add New Assets 220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Less Depreciation 22.00 44.00 66.00 88.00 110.00 132.00
Less Disposal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net Block 198.00 176.00 154.00 132.00 110.00 88.00
Non Current Assets

Investments 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 150.00 250.00
Security Deposits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fixed Deposits as Security 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deferred Tax Asset 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Misc Expenses not w/off 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Non Current Assets 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 150.00 250.00
TOTAL ASSETS 219.00 223.67 240.65 322.57 428.01 558.90

FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS
COMPUTATION OF ASSESSED BANK FINANCE
1 2 3 4 5 6

Other Current Liabilities (including TL) 82.32 75.95 12.77 13.53 14.30 15.18
Working Capital Gap -61.32 -28.28 48.89 102.04 153.71 205.72
Min. stipulated NWC -15.33 -7.07 12.22 25.51 38.43 51.43
Actual NWC (including TL installments) -68.87 -49.16 24.73 102.04 153.71 205.72
Item 3 minus 4 -45.99 -21.21 36.66 76.53 115.28 154.29
Item 3 minus 5 7.55 20.88 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Assessed Bank Finance -45.99 -21.21 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recommended Limit -45.99 -21.21 24.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Surplus/Defecit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NWC/TCA (%) -328.02 -103.12 40.12 88.30 91.49 93.13
OCL/TCA (%) 392.07 159.32 20.71 11.70 8.51 6.87
BF/TCA (%) -219.05 -44.49 39.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Turnover Method 1 2 3 4 5 6
A. Turnover 76.80 235.54 274.56 308.75 322.56 359.60
B. 25% of (A) 19.20 58.88 68.64 77.19 80.64 89.90
C. Margin Required at 5% of (A) 3.84 11.78 13.73 15.44 16.13 17.98
D. Margin (NWC) -15.33 -7.07 12.22 25.51 38.43 51.43
E. (B - C) 15.36 47.11 54.91 61.75 64.51 71.92
F. (B-D) 34.53 65.95 56.42 51.68 42.21 38.47
G. MPBF(E or F whichever is lower)
15.36 47.11 54.91 51.68 42.21 38.47
H. Excess borrowing -19.17 -18.85 -1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00

FAWN RAYS
FAWN RAYS
FUND FLOW STATEMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6
LONG TERM SOURCES
Profit after Tax -2.38 65.71 89.42 120.31 124.67 151.01
Depreciation (SLM) 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 22.00
Subsidy received 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Increase in Capital 44.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Increase in Unsecured Loan 2.52 0.00 -2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
Increase in Term Loan 156.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Decrease in
Fixed Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non Current Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Increase in Reserves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 242.13 87.71 108.90 142.31 146.67 173.01
LONG TERM USES
Increase in:
Fixed Assets 220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non Current Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Repayment of Term Loan 13.00 78.00 65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Investments 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00
Dividend paid 0.00 3.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 21.00
Total 233.00 81.00 100.00 65.00 95.00 121.00
Long term Surplus/(Deficit) 9.13 6.71 8.90 77.31 51.67 52.01
SHORT TERM SOURCES
Increase in Working Capital Finance 7.55 13.34 3.27 -24.15 0.00 0.00
Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 7.55 13.34 3.27 -24.15 0.00 0.00
SHORT TERM USES
Increase in Working Capital 10.06 17.78 4.36 4.01 1.51 4.30
Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total -2.52 -4.45 -1.09 -28.16 -1.51 -4.30
Summary
Long Term Surplus/Deficit 9.13 6.71 8.90 77.31 51.67 52.01
Short Term Surplus/Deficit -2.52 -4.45 -1.09 -28.16 -1.51 -4.30
Net Surplus/Deficit 6.62 2.26 7.81 49.14 50.16 47.71
Represented by increase in Cash 6.62 2.26 7.81 49.14 50.16 47.71

FAWN RAYS
FINANCIAL INDICES
1 2 3 4 5 6
PBDIT 24.41 100.44 117.33 142.31 146.67 173.01
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
Tangible Net Worth 64.13 126.84 203.73 309.04 413.71 543.72
Total Outside Liabilities 154.86 96.83 36.92 13.53 14.30 15.18
TOL/TNW 2.41 0.76 0.18 0.04 0.03 0.03
Trade Creditors/Purchases 31.50 30.03 30.02 30.02 30.02 30.02
Long Term Sources 67.52 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Net Working Capital -68.87 -49.16 24.73 102.04 153.71 205.72
ROCE 11.15 44.91 48.76 44.12 34.27 30.96
Current Ratio(CA/CL) 0.23 0.49 1.67 8.54 11.75 14.55
Holdings Raw Materials 23.95 18.77 18.76 18.76 18.76 18.76
Process Stock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Finished Stock 8.89 4.70 4.33 4.35 4.38 4.41
Inventory/Net Sales (Days) 17.26 12.42 12.15 11.34 11.40 10.74
Debtors/Sales(Days) 33.29 36.99 36.99 36.99 36.99 36.99
Net Sales/TTA 0.35 1.05 1.14 0.96 0.75 0.64
PBDIT/TTA 0.11 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.34 0.31
Bank Finance/TCA(%) 35.95 43.81 39.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Creditors/TCA(%) 17.46 20.76 18.72 10.49 7.58 6.05
Stock+Debtors/Sales(D) 68.34 60.12 59.78 58.80 58.87 58.07
Long Term Uses 198.00 176.00 179.00 207.00 260.00 338.00
PBDIT/Interest 5.09 7.89 19.83 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
PBT/TTA (%) -1.09 29.38 37.16 37.30 29.13 27.02
END OF REPORT

Tilapia Farming Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Fawn Rays is a 3 Star Category Budget Resort coming up at Agarhati, P.S.

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 1

Super Tilapia (GIFT) Farming in India

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 2

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 3

Indian government is understood to be against the introduction of GIFT a widely

Nila Tilapia/GIFT (Super Tilapia) has to be considered as an eminently viable species.

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 4

The major drawback in world-wide culture of tilapias is their ability to quickly

An alternative technique for commercial production of all-male populations has been

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 5

Using suitable combinations of endocrine sex reversal and selective breeding

The introduction and distribution of tilapias in Asia.

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 6

Tilapias continue to make an important and a significant contribution to fish production

Capture fisheries of tilapias

Tilapias contribute to capture fisheries in inland and lacustrine waters (predominantly

Capture fisheries production of tilapia by species 1970-2002

*Tilapia nei = not elsewhere included

many reservoirs in the southern states, contributing significantly to the commercial

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 9

The growth of tilapia culture can be exemplified by comparing production with

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

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 11

ponds. Oreochromis niloticus is also being increasingly used in rice-fish culture, a

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

Most interestingly, tilapia culture is also being conducted in recirculation or closed

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 13

Notable phases in the development of tilapia culture

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 14

The hybridization phase gave way to hormonal sex-reversal as a method of producing

Following hormonal sex-reversal of tilapias and the greater understanding of

The technique of producing GMT, particularly in the case of O. niloticus, is well

(a) all genetically male progeny;

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 17

Commercial feed manufacturers in developing countries in Asia often view tilapias as a

other forms of agriculture such as rice-fish farming or livestock-fish farming, also

There are increasing concerns on the potential threats to biodiversity in countries

Simple Process Flow – an Illustration

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 19

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 20

Sl. Training Course / Institute / Organisation

02 Sea Food Processing & Integrated Fisheries Project, Department of

03 National Integrated SCAMPI Parasitology Laboratory, Department of Zoology,

04 National Seminar & Central Calcutta Scientific & Culture Organisation

05 Entrepreneurship Liberal Association for Movement of People

06 Seed production technique Experimental Prawn Hatchery, Digha, Department

07 Seed Production techniques Reliance Aqua Farms, Ukil Bari, Trishal,

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 21

Capital Cost per Unit Rs. In Lakhs

3 Hector land rent @ Rs.23000/- per hector 0.69

For development of a unit10 months of estimated gestation period is required. The

To eventually operate 10 units of 3 hectares each

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 22

Recurring Cost per unit

A sum of Rs 4.40 Lakhs is proposed to be introduced by the Proprietor as his share of

Promoters Contribution Subsidy Bank Finance (Term Loan)

Proposal for a Tilapia Farming unit Sheet No. 23

Term Loan amount per unit (Rs Lakhs) 15.60

6 0.00 46.80 0.00 46.80 0.45

18 0.00 140.40 0.00 140.40 1.35