1 23

Aquaculture InternationalJournal of the European AquacultureSociety ISSN 0967-6120Volume 20Number 1 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51-70DOI 10.1007/s10499-011-9441-0

From production to consumption: a casestudy of tilapia marketing systems inBangladesh

Nesar Ahmed, James A. Young, MadanM. Dey & James F. Muir

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Springer

Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you

wish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.

From production to consumption: a case study of tilapiamarketing systems in Bangladesh

Nesar Ahmed • James A. Young • Madan M. Dey • James F. Muir

Received: 1 October 2010 / Accepted: 7 April 2011 / Published online: 20 April 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract In spite of the long history of tilapia, introduced to Bangladesh in 1954, its

culture has yet to become well established because of socioeconomic, technological,

institutional, and marketing constraints. Nevertheless, a considerable number of farmers

are involved in tilapia farming in the Mymensingh area of north-central Bangladesh.

Almost all the tilapias produced are marketed internally for domestic consumption. The

marketing chain from farmers to consumers encompasses primary, wholesale, and retail

markets. Although the tilapia marketing system is traditional, it plays a vital role in

connecting producers with consumers and thus contributes significantly in the value-adding

process. Evidence from this study suggests that tilapia marketing could play a greater role

in increasing food supply. However, sustainable development of tilapia marketing is

essential, if tilapia is to become a more important component of food supplies in the

country.

Keywords Tilapia � Marketing � Traders � Food supply � Bangladesh

N. Ahmed (&)Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University,Mymensingh 2202, Bangladeshe-mail: nesar_2000@yahoo.com

J. A. YoungMarketing Division Stirling Management School, University of Stirling,Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK

M. M. DeyAquaculture Economics and Marketing, Aquaculture/Fisheries Center,University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff, AR 71601, USA

J. F. MuirInstitute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK

123

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70DOI 10.1007/s10499-011-9441-0

Author's personal copy

Introduction

Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, covering an area

of 144,000 km2 with a population of 164 million. The most important food crops for the

people of Bangladesh are rice and fish. Fish accounts for about 60% of the animal protein

intake with annual fish consumption of 17.23 kg per person (DOF 2010). The average per

capita fish consumption in Bangladesh is slightly higher than the world average of 17.1 kg

a year, but lower compared with the Asian average of 18.5 kg annually (FAO 2010a).

Nevertheless, the importance of aquaculture as a source of fish food has been well rec-

ognized in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is considered one of the most suitable countries in the world for freshwater

aquaculture, because of its favorable resources and agro-climatic conditions. A sub-tropical

climate and vast areas of shallow water provide ideal conditions for fish production. The

total annual fish production was estimated to be 2.7 million tonnes in 2008–2009 fiscal

year, of which 1.06 million tonnes (39%) were obtained from inland aquaculture, 1.12

million tonnes (42%) from inland capture fisheries and 514,644 tonnes (19%) from marine

fisheries (DOF 2010). The main production systems for freshwater aquaculture in Ban-

gladesh are extensive and semi-intensive pond polyculture of Indian major carps and exotic

carps, which accounts for 80% of the total freshwater aquaculture production (ADB

2005a). The remaining 20% were mainly from prawns, catfish, tilapia,1 small indigenous

fish, and rice–fish farming. The total annual tilapia production was estimated to be 66,767

tonnes, 7% of aquaculture production (Hussain 2009).

Despite several attempts, the adoption of tilapia farming in Bangladesh has not been

widespread due to a combination of socioeconomic, technological, institutional, and

marketing constraints (Bart et al. 2005). Nevertheless, tilapia is cultured worldwide in over

100 countries, and much of it has occurred in other developing countries. With increasing

popularity among consumers, tilapia has become the world’s second most important cul-

tured fish after carps (ADB 2005b). Global tilapia production was estimated to be 2.8

million tonnes in 2008 (FAO 2010b). China alone currently accounts for half of the global

tilapia production, while Asia including China grows around 75% of the world’s tilapia

production. Nile tilapia has been dubbed the ‘aquatic chicken’ for Asia2 (Smith and Pullin

1984), and currently, it contributes over a million tonnes to Asian aquaculture production.

In order to meet the soaring demand for food, there is a huge potential of tilapia farming

in Bangladesh. Although tilapia farming has yet to make a significant contribution to

national freshwater aquaculture production, this is likely to change, because both the

availability and popularity of farmed tilapia are increasing (Dey 2001; ADB 2005b).

Tilapia has good resistance to poor water quality and disease tolerance to a wide range of

environmental condition. A marketable size of tilapia is reached within 4 months under

subsistence fish farming systems, which allows for a minimum of two crops per year.

However, while tilapia farming has huge potential, its commercial viability and sus-

tainability clearly depends on markets. Although market demand for tilapia is generally

strong and driven by population growth, there is a growing gap between available supplies

and market demands. Narrowing the gap not only requires increasing production but

critically improvements in many components of the related value chains (Kleih et al. 2002;

Ahmed et al. 2007; Ahmed et al. 2009). The aim of this study is to develop sustainable

1 There are about 70 species of tilapia in the world—all are native to Africa, of which 10 have been used inaquaculture.2 In 1939, the first tilapia introduced from Africa to Asia as aquarium fish in Indonesia (ADB 2005b).

52 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

tilapia marketing systems in Bangladesh. It is assumed that sustainable tilapia marketing

would have a favorable impact on food supply to meet the growing demand for fish among

consumers.

Tilapia farming in Bangladesh

History

There is a long history of tilapia farming in Bangladesh. The Mozambique tilapia (Ore-ochromis mossambicus) was introduced to Bangladesh from Thailand in 1954 (Rahman

1985). However, this species was not widely accepted for aquaculture because of its early

maturation and prolific breeding leading to overcrowded ponds. To overcome this problem,

the Chitralada strain of Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) was introduced to Bangladesh from

Thailand by UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) in 1974

(ADB 2005b). Nevertheless, Nile tilapia farming was slow to develop as most farmers

remained more interested in carp. Gradually, the red tilapia (hybrid of O. mossambi-cus 9 O. niloticus) was imported to Bangladesh from Thailand. The Bangladesh Fisheries

Research Institute (BFRI) reintroduced Nile tilapia and Red tilapia from Thailand in 1987

and 1988, respectively (Gupta et al. 1992). Thereafter, Genetically Improved Farmed

Tilapia (GIFT) was introduced to Bangladesh by ICLARM (International Center for Living

Aquatic Resources Management, now known as the WorldFish Center) and BFRI in 1994

(Hussain et al. 2004; Ponzoni et al. 2010). The performance of the GIFT strain was found

to be significantly superior to that of other tilapia in many respects (Hussain et al. 2000;

Hussain 2009). Technology was developed to produce sex-reversed male tilapia to avoid

the unwanted reproduction and benefit from the faster growth rate of males compared with

females. Since 2000, interest in tilapia farming has grown because of its observed success

in other Asian producers and increasing consumer acceptance both within Bangladesh and

internationally.

Farming systems

Tilapia may be produced in a wide range of culture systems, including small-scale, low-

input, rural ponds, semi-intensive, intensive, and commercial operations (Chowdhury et al.

2006; Hossain et al. 2007; Rahman et al. 2008). Nevertheless, large-scale commercial

culture of tilapia remains limited. In the Mymensingh area, most tilapia farmers (80%)

stock Nile tilapia and/or GIFT in polyculture with carp in ponds, while the remainder is

produced in monoculture. The average area of pond size for small-scale tilapia farming is

0.12 ha (Ahmed 2009). The main season for tilapia farming is from April to December

with many farmers beginning the 4-month production cycle in April–May. In extensive

farming systems, one annual crop is common, whereas two or three crops may be grown in

semi-intensive and intensive farming systems. Tilapia culture is fully dependent on

hatchery-produced fry, which are typically stocked at a density of 24,700 per ha (Chow-

dhury et al. 2007). A somewhat higher stocking density of 30,000 per ha has been found

optimal for GIFT (Hussain et al. 2004); but both fry necessitate the coordinated and

integrated availability of fry at the appropriate times in the year.

The most common supplementary feed used in small-scale tilapia farming is a mixture

of rice bran, wheat bran, and mustard oil cake; ingredients are readily available on-farm or

in local markets. Farmers also use fertilizers mainly cow dung, urea, and triple

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 53

123

Author's personal copy

superphosphate for grow-out of tilapia with carp at varying rates and frequencies. These

fertilizers enhance pond productivity by increasing the growth of natural fish food (e.g.,

plankton, periphyton, and benthos). Nevertheless, intensive or semi-intensive tilapia

farming is primarily dependent upon industrially manufactured pelleted feed where greater

consistency of inputs can be assured, albeit at some cost. The average annual yield of

tilapia with carps in polyculture is 3,800 kg/ha (Ahmed 2009), ranging from 3,000 to

5,000 kg/ha although some better managed semi-intensive ponds do exceed this level.

Despite these seeming favorable production characteristics, a number of constraints

have been identified for tilapia farming. These include a lack of technical support, limited

availability, and poor quality of seed, which can have serious impacts upon producers,

especially where they are financially marginal. High input prices of seed and feed are

commonly accompanied by low market prices for tilapia resultant from inadequate and

inefficient marketing facilities. In some cases, the adoption of tilapia has been discouraged

because of greater returns delivered from carp polyculture (Dey 2000; Bart et al. 2005).

Financial constraints have also prevented poor producers from engagement in semi-

intensive or intensive culture systems with potentially greater returns. Despite earlier noted

advances in husbandry, uncontrolled breeding of tilapia in ponds remains a common

constraint on production volumes. This is commonly tolerated as the small tilapia’s ability

to breed and provide seed are often viewed positively by many poorer households.

Moreover, small tilapias provide an important part of farmers’ household fish consumption,

leaving the larger fish to be sold and enable the purchase of low-value fish including sutchi

catfish (pangas) and silver carp. Such production strategies enmeshed with social and

cultural practice can confound seemingly more rational approaches to increasing the

contribution of the tilapia sector. In order to get a clearer understanding of the nature of

change that might be required, a review of the sector was undertaken.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study was primarily conducted in the Trishal sub-district under Mymensingh district of

north-central Bangladesh (Fig. 1). Mymensingh is called the ‘Mecca’ of freshwater

aquaculture in Bangladesh because of the ‘blue revolution’ (Ahmed 2009). Geographically,

Trishal has been identified as the most important and promising area for tilapia culture,

because of the availability of hatchery-produced fry, favorable resources, and climatic

conditions, such as the availability of pond, warm climate, fertile soil, and abundant labor.

A considerable number of farmers in this area also received training in tilapia farming with

the help of Department of Fisheries (DOF). Moreover, many pangas farmers have recently

switched to tilapia farming due to lower market prices of pangas and hence has resulted in

a moderate increase in tilapia production over the last few years.

For the market survey, two important fish markets in Mymensingh town, namely

Machua Bazaar (fish market) and Nutun Bazaar (new market), were selected based on

market history, tilapia supplies, the number of traders, and the duration of trading season.

Similarly, two important fish markets in the capital city of Dhaka, namely Kawran Bazaar

and Mohammadpur Kitchen Market, were selected to carry out comparative studies of

tilapia marketing between Mymensingh and Dhaka. In each market, around 20–25 indi-

viduals are associated with fish trading including tilapia, except for Kawran Bazaar which

is larger.

54 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

Data collection methods

Primary data were gathered by field surveys initially involving the inspection of the study

area in terms of tilapia distribution and marketing systems. A combination of participatory,

qualitative, and quantitative methods was used for primary data collection (Table 1). Data

were collected for a period of 9 months from April to December 2008.

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is a group of methods to collect information in a

participatory fashion from rural communities. The advantage of PRA over other methods is

that it allows wider participation of the community; therefore, the information collected is

likely to be more accurate (Chambers 1994; Conroy 2002). For this study, the PRA tool

focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted with tilapia farmers. A total of 15 FGD

Fig. 1 Map of the tilapia producing area in the Mymensingh district

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 55

123

Author's personal copy

sessions were conducted, where each group consisted of 6–12 farmers (total 120 farmers)

and the duration of each session was approximately 2 h. FGD was used to get an overview

of existing tilapia harvesting and marketing systems, farm-gate prices of tilapia, and

constraints of tilapia marketing. FGD sessions were held in farmers’ houses and at farm

sites, wherever there were spontaneous gatherings and where participants could sit, feel

comfortable, and were easily observed. A number of visits were also made to farms for

observation of tilapia harvesting and marketing practices.

Rapid market appraisal (RMA) is an efficient way to obtain policy-relevant and inter-

vention-focused information about any commodity sub-sector (Holtzman 2003). RMA

techniques mostly rely on discussion with key market actors and knowledgeable observers

of a sub-sector. This study was designed to apply RMA to include: (1) identify tilapia

marketing channels, (2) visit physical facilities such as tilapia landing sites and markets,

and (3) directly observe tilapia trading operations. For this method, several visits were

made to selected markets in Mymensingh and Dhaka, and a total of 30 wholesalers (15 in

each area) were conducted for discussion.

Face-to-face questionnaire interviews with retailers were preceded by preparation and

testing of the questionnaire, use of statistical procedures to determine the sample size and

sampling method, and training of enumerators to fill in questionnaires. The pre-survey

activities included reconnaissance for the pilot survey and revision of survey instrument.

For the preparation of the questionnaire, primary interviews with 10 retailers were con-

ducted. Attention was paid to incorporate any new information identified as relevant. The

questionnaire was modified and improved based on experience gained from the pilot

survey. For questionnaire interviews, retailers were selected through simple random

sampling. A total of 80 retailers were interviewed in Mymensingh and Dhaka markets (20

in each market 9 4 markets). Interviews were conducted at a time convenient to the

retailers at the market center. The interviews, lasting about an hour, focused on tilapia

trading systems, pricing mechanisms, marketing costs and margins, income of traders, and

identification of bottlenecks.

A key informant is someone with special knowledge on a particular topic. Key infor-

mants are expected to be able to answer questions about the knowledge and behavior of

others and about the operations of the broader systems (Atkinson 1992; Elmendorf and

Luloff 2006). For this study, cross-check interviews were conducted with government

fisheries officers, researchers, policymakers, non-governmental organization (NGO)

Table 1 Data collection methods and sample size for target groups

Targetgroup

Survey area Samplesize

Datacollectionmethod

Information gathered

Farmers Trishal,Mymensingh

120 Focus groupdiscussion

Tilapia harvesting and marketing systems, farm-gate prices of tilapia, and marketing constraints

Wholesalers Mymensinghand Dhakamarkets

15 ? 15 Rapid marketappraisal

Overall tilapia distribution and marketingsystems, marketing channel, and financing oftilapia marketing

Retailers Mymensinghand Dhakamarkets

40 ? 40 Questionnaireinterviews

Tilapia trading, pricing mechanism, marketingcosts and margins, income of traders, andmarketing constraints

Keyinformants

Mymensinghand Dhaka

25 Cross-checkinterviews

Validation of collected information

56 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

workers, relevant project staff, tilapia entrepreneurs, and informed consumers. A total of

25 key informants were interviewed in their offices and/or houses. Where information was

found to be contradictory, further assessment was carried out.

Data analysis

Data from FGD, RMA, and questionnaire interviews were coded and entered into a

database system using Microsoft Excel software for analysis using SPSS (Statistical

Package for Social Science) to produce descriptive statistics. Results from the data anal-

yses, in combination with qualitative information collected through different data collec-

tion methods, were used to describe tilapia marketing systems. Comparisons among

different markets were made by ANOVA F-test, and a 2-tailed P \ 0.05 indicated sta-

tistically significant differences. A multiple regression was used to relate tilapia price

according to the following relationship:

P ¼ f S; W ; D; Cð Þ

where P = Retail price of tilapia (US$/kg), S = Supply of tilapia in retail markets (kg/

day), W = Weight of tilapia (kg), D = Distance to the retail markets from the producing

area (km), and C = Marketing costs (US$/kg of tilapia).

Results and discussion

Harvesting of tilapia

Harvesting of tilapia starts as soon as fish reach marketable size. The peak harvesting

season is from August to December. Most small-scale farmers harvest tilapia by them-

selves although a few large farmers depend on commercial harvesters. Normally, tilapias

are harvested at very early hours in the morning to take advantage of cooler temperatures

during handling and distribution along the chain. Farmers harvest tilapia by using cast nets

and seine nets, usually netting several times at biweekly intervals. Most farmers practice

partial harvesting of large tilapia, which allows smaller fish to grow, while a few farmers

(10%) harvest the entire stock. Harvested tilapias are cleaned with pond water and kept in

aluminum or plastic containers until they are sold to the local agents or suppliers. Vans and

rickshaws are commonly used to transport tilapia from remote villages to the assembling

centers near the main roadside, which takes 30 min to an hour, depending on distance. It

was reported by farmers that about 65% of tilapias are transported to the capital city of

Dhaka, around 100 km south from the tilapia producing area. The rest (35%) of the tilapia

are transported to Mymensingh town markets, about 20 km north from the tilapia farming

area. The farm-gate prices of tilapia depend on quality, size and weight, supply and

demand, and seasonality. The average farm-gate prices of tilapia varied between US$0.88

and US$1.25 per kg (Table 2).

A number of constraints were reported by farmers in marketing of tilapia, including

inadequate knowledge of marketing systems, low market prices for tilapia, exploitation by

intermediaries, and infrastructure deficiencies notably poor road and transport facilities.

According to the survey, 42% of respondents identified exploitation by intermediaries as

their single most important constraint on tilapia marketing. Farmers are commonly weakly

positioned (i.e., no bargaining power on price) against the intermediaries. Farmers believe

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 57

123

Author's personal copy

that the prices received for tilapia do not adequately reflect the prices paid by the con-

sumers. This finding supported by Karim et al. (2006) as the gap between the producers’

price and the consumers’ price is often high in Bangladesh. The proportion of respondents

identifying poor road and transport facilities was 34%. In spite of substantial improvements

of the road infrastructure, remote areas still face accessibility problems, which in turn

affect the marketing of tilapia. Monsoon rains often disrupt road distribution resulting in

increased transport costs and hence lower profit margins. While only 24% of farmers

identified low market price to be the most important constraint, this remains a potentially

significant determinant of production planning decisions.

Tilapia marketing systems

A widespread of poor people including women are involved in the tilapia marketing chain

as traders, intermediaries, transporters, and day laborers. The tilapia marketing system is

traditional and less competitive but plays a vital role in connecting, albeit indirectly,

farmers and consumers, thus creating potential for adding value. With a few exceptions,

farmers seldom communicate with consumers. Instead, the marketing channel from

farmers to consumers intertwine primary, wholesale, and retail markets, involving local

agents, suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers from whom consumers make most purchases

(Fig. 2). The demand for tilapia is high in markets but supply is limited, and a strong

multifunctional network has developed with intermediaries and traders intervening

between farmers and consumers.

Tilapia marketing is almost entirely managed, financed, and controlled by a group of

powerful intermediaries, especially wholesalers. Communication between the suppliers

and wholesalers is generally good and takes place by mobile phones. Suppliers are a form

of intermediary traders who supply tilapia from primary markets to wholesalers. In general,

suppliers are tied to a limited number of wholesalers. According to the survey, a supplier

carried an average 18 kg of tilapia daily, ranging from 10 to 39 kg. Suppliers commonly

use trucks, buses, pickups, and taxis to transport tilapia to the wholesale markets in My-

mensingh and Dhaka, which takes 1–4 h depending on distance and mode of transporta-

tion. If the transportation time is less than 6 h from primary market to retail point, tilapia is

not iced or insufficiently so.

As soon as the suppliers land tilapia in the wholesale market, the wholesalers take care

of landing, handling, and auctioning by size-grades. A number of day laborers work with

the wholesalers to perform post-landing tasks that include cleaning, sorting, grading, and

icing of tilapia. Normally, the auction sale is made by heaps of fish laid out for display on

the market floor, and wholesalers follow the incremental bidding system, which provides a

competitive mechanism for the determination of prices. Auctioneers are appointed by

wholesalers who conduct the sale by means of a shout auction to allocate supplies to the

buyers (who are normally retailers). Auctioneers are incentivized to realize the highest

Table 2 Average farm-gate pri-ces of tilapia by size in 2008

a US$1 = Bangladesh unit ofcurrency Tk 69 in December2008

Size (g) Product share (%) Price (US$a/kg)

50–100 20 0.88

101–150 35 0.95

151–200 30 1.06

201–250 10 1.14

251–300 5 1.25

58 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

price as they earn a commission, normally 3–5% of the auction price, for their services

provided. Most sales agreements are informal and are based on trust in word of mouth

agreements; this has the benefit of reducing time and administration costs but does carry

the possible risk of ex-post disputes. Buyers retail their purchases at stalls in fish markets

and through itinerant retailers (fish vendors and hawkers).

Financing of tilapia marketing

A quite substantial amount of money is required for tilapia marketing. According to the

survey, wholesalers typically have a daily operational capital requirement of around

US$176 with a range from US$122 to US$639. Operational capital demands on whole-

salers in Dhaka are typically greater than those in Mymensingh. Finance for tilapia mar-

keting comes mainly from a broad mix of personal and informal sources, and loans

(Fig. 3). It was found that 70% of wholesalers used their own money for tilapia marketing,

while the rest (30%) received loans. The number of wholesalers received credit was higher

in Dhaka markets (33%) than in Mymensingh markets (27%). Wholesalers primarily

finance tilapia marketing by disposing of household assets. Some have their own capital,

either savings or proceeds from sales of personal assets, especially gold jewellery, live-

stock, and timbers.

Many wholesalers are unable to finance tilapia marketing and therefore look to various

sources of credit. Over recent years, a number of institutions providing credit to fish

marketing have been developed such as banks and moneylenders. According to

95%5%

20% 75% 5%

35%65%

Tilapia farmers

Local agents

Wholesalers

Suppliers

Consumers

Retailers

Primary market

Retail market

Wholesale market

Fig. 2 Tilapia marketing systems with percent of quantities supply from producers to consumers (based onsurvey)

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 59

123

Author's personal copy

wholesalers who received credit, 89% obtained from moneylenders, while the rest (11%)

received from banks. The average amount of credit received by a wholesaler was estimated

at US$747 per year, ranging from US$442 to US$1,435. In general, local businessmen act

as moneylenders. Wholesalers typically enjoy a very close working relationship with the

moneylenders. The average interest rate charged by a moneylender is 10% monthly (i.e.,

120% yearly). Local branches of national banks also provide credit to the wholesalers, with

collateral of land at a 15% yearly interest rate. However, wholesalers who received loans

from banks stated that they would not like to go to banks due to official paper work.

In general, wholesalers possess more capital and thus have the means to control sup-

pliers and retailers. Sometimes suppliers take small amounts of credit (US$7 to US$29 per

day) from wholesalers to ensure the supply of tilapia from farmers. Retailers also often

take temporary credit from wholesalers, buying tilapia one day and paying one or two days

later. The advance or later payment indicates a good cooperation among market actors.

Retailers typically operate with capital from US$52 to US$143 per day. The majority of

retailers (56%) received either formal or informal credits for tilapia marketing. The number

of retailers who received credit was higher in Dhaka markets (60%) than in Mymensingh

markets (53%). In general, retailers received credit from moneylenders, banks, friends,

relatives, and neighbors. Nevertheless, NGOs have not played much of a role in the

development of tilapia marketing in general. NGOs could play an important role, but few

have been involved in tilapia farming rather than marketing, because of the technical

nature and the limited attention to social issues. Similarly, the Grameen Bank, a

Wholesalers

Tilapia farmers

Retailers

Consumers

NGOs

Suppliers

Banks, moneylenders Friends, relatives etc

Money supply line Tilapia supply line

Fig. 3 Financing of tilapia marketing from different sources (based on survey)

60 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

specialized rural bank for microcredits that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006, is

active in several villages of fish farming areas and could play an important role for tilapia

market development.

Tilapia trading

For the market survey, four important retail fish markets were selected: Machua Bazaar and

Nutun Bazaar in Mymensingh town, and Kawran Bazaar and Mohammadpur Kitchen

Market in the capital city of Dhaka. The following sections describe tilapia trading in these

retail markets.

Supply of tilapia

In terms of volume and value, the tilapia market is small. Most retailers in Mymensingh

and Dhaka markets reported that small-scale tilapia trading has commercially been oper-

ated since 2000. Over this time, tilapia trading has become a profitable business for its

participants and has generated new employment. Nevertheless, the supply of tilapia is not

regular, and therefore, retailers are also involved in other fish trading. According to the

survey, a retailer in Kawran Bazaar daily sold an average of 37 kg tilapia during the peak

season from August to December, while in Mohammadpur Kitchen Market, Machua

Bazaar, and Nutun Bazaar sold an average of 31, 25, and 19 kg per day, respectively.

There was a significant difference (P \ 0.05) of tilapia sales by markets. The supply of

tilapia in Kawran Bazaar was higher because of the higher number of traders and con-

sumers associated in this market. On the other hand, the supply of tilapia in Nutun Bazaar

was lower due to the lower number of traders and consumers involved. Tilapias are traded

whole, un-gutted, and fresh without processing.

Retail price

The price of tilapia is negotiated through bargaining, depending on quality and freshness.

Regardless of market locations, the average retail price of tilapia varied between US$1.30

and US$1.74 per kg (Table 3). There was a significant difference (P \ 0.05) of tilapia

prices in different markets. Overall, the prices of tilapia were considerably higher in Dhaka

markets than in Mymensingh because of a larger concentration of consumers and superior

family incomes. Among Dhaka markets, the average prices of tilapia were lower in

Table 3 Average prices (US$/kg) of tilapia in different retail markets in 2008

Size (g) Mymensingh market Dhaka market Total average

Machua Bazaar Nutun Bazaar Kawran Bazaar MohammadpurKitchen Market

50–100 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.30

101–150 1.35 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.42

151–200 1.44 1.47 1.56 1.62 1.52

201–250 1.57 1.62 1.65 1.70 1.63

251–300 1.66 1.69 1.76 1.84 1.74

Average 1.45 1.50 1.54 1.60 1.52

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 61

123

Author's personal copy

Kawran Bazaar due to higher supply and larger concentration of consumers (i.e., maximum

sale–minimum profit). In Mymensingh markets, on the other hand, the average price of

tilapia was higher in Nutun Bazaar because of lower supply and less concentration of

consumers (i.e., minimum sale–maximum profit).

Factors affecting price of tilapia

Multiple regression (Table 4) of tilapia price (P) against supply of tilapia in retail markets

(S), weight of tilapia (W), distance to the markets from the producing area (D), and

marketing costs (C) yielded the following:

P ¼ 112:36� 0:29Sþ 0:78W þ 0:31Dþ 0:67C

r2 ¼ 0:79; SE ¼ 37:34; P\0:001� �

Multiple regression of price against supply of tilapia was negative (-0.29) but signif-

icant at the 1% level, which indicated that increase in tilapia supply would decrease market

price. This statement is supported with the results of some studies suggested a negative

relationship between supply of fish and market price (Hasan and Middendorp 1999; Bri-

ones et al. 2004; Burger et al. 2004; Dey et al. 2008). According to Dey (2000), increased

supply of tilapia will reduce market prices by 5–16% in Bangladesh. There are many

factors affecting the price of tilapia through supply and demand (Fig. 4). Tilapia supply is

determined according to the biological environment, the technology used, the policy and

institutional environment, and the producer’s profile. Likewise, the demand side is

Table 4 Summary of theregression of tilapia price affect-ing different factors, based on 80retailers’ survey

*, **, and *** Significant at 10,5, and 1% levels, respectively

Variable Regression coefficient Standard error

Y-intercept 112.36 21.34

S -0.29*** 0.11

W 0.78*** 0.09

D 0.31* 0.13

C 0.67** 0.15

Tilapia production

Supply side

Tilapia consumption

Demand side

Supply Demand

Biological environment

Production technology

Policy and institutions

Producers’ profile

Policy

Consumers’ profile

Fig. 4 Interaction of tilapia supply and demand in markets (adapted from Briones et al. 2004)

62 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

influenced by policy and the profile of consumers. Changes in any of these factors result in

changes in supply, demand, trade, and prices of tilapia. On the supply side, tilapia price is

affected by the seasonality of production, which in turn causes the quantity of the product

available on the market. When supplies are scarce, tilapia prices increase.

The price of tilapia also depends closely on the weight of the fish. There was a positive

relationship between price of tilapia and fish weight. Apparent differences in price of

tilapia of the various weights were found to be statistically significant. Similarly, there was

a positive relationship between price of tilapia and market distance, which indicated that

increase market distance would increase transport costs, and hence marketing costs, which

in turn increase price of tilapia. The marketing channel of tilapia is relatively short due to

the shorter distance of Mymensingh and Dhaka markets from tilapia producing area, which

involves less transport stages and processing activities. According to Lem et al. (2004), the

longer the fish marketing channels, the higher the price margins. This implies that prices go

up with increasing the distance of the market as well as number of transactions in the fish

marketing channel (Brummett 2000). Ahmed and Lorica (2002) stated that high-value fish

have higher price elasticity, whereas low-value fish have lower price elasticity. According

to IMPACT (International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and

Trade), tilapia is treated as a low-value fish (Delgado et al. 2003).

Marketing costs and margins

The marketing costs of tilapia depend on market distance, mode of transportation, volume

of fish, number of laborers required, and market infrastructure. The total average marketing

costs of tilapia from producers to consumers was calculated to be US$0.18 per kg of fish,

which is divided into: (1) primary market—US$0.04 (22%), (2) wholesale market—

US$0.05 (28%), and (3) retail market—US$0.09 (50%). Table 5 shows that the highest

average retail marketing costs was calculated in Kawran Bazaar and the lowest in Machua

Bazaar. However, apparent differences in retail marketing costs were not significant

(P [ 0.05).

The marketing margins received by intermediaries in the process of tilapia trade sig-

nificantly discriminate. It was calculated that farmers received an average 69% of the retail

price. Thus, the total marketing margin is 29%, which is divided into: (1) primary mar-

ket—5%, (2) wholesale market—16%, and (3) retail market—10% (Table 6). Neverthe-

less, the highest average marketing costs per kilogram of tilapia was found in retail market,

Table 5 Average marketing costs (US$/kg) of tilapia in different retail markets in 2008

Cost item Mymensingh market Dhaka market Total average

Machua Bazaar Nutun Bazaar Kawran Bazaar MohammadpurKitchen Market

Rent of market place 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.008 0.005

Electricity 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007

Ice 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.015 0.015

Wage of laborers 0.027 0.024 0.028 0.026 0.026

Transportation 0.029 0.030 0.034 0.031 0.031

Miscellaneous 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004

Total 0.083 0.088 0.092 0.091 0.088

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 63

123

Author's personal copy

followed by wholesale and primary market. Thus, wholesalers were identified as most

responsible actor for price increase to the consumer.

Income of traders

Tilapia trading is a profitable business, and most retailers reported that they had made

profits. According to the survey, retailers make an average marketing margin of US$0.15

per kg of tilapia when buying from wholesalers and selling to consumers. Although

retailers can earn considerable amounts of money in their business, they spend a large

portion for marketing costs (US$0.09 per kg), an average 60% of marketing margin. Based

on supply of tilapia, the highest average daily income (marketing profit) of a retailer was

Table 6 Average marketing margins and profits of tilapia trading, based on survey of primary, wholesale,and retail markets

Market Marketing particular Value(US$/kg)

Market sharea

(%)Market margin(%)

Primary market Purchase price (PP) 1.05 69 74 - 69 = 5

Marketing costs (MC) 0.04

Sales price (SP) 1.13

Marketing margin (MM = SP-PP) 0.08

Marketing profit (MP = MM-MC) 0.04

Wholesale market Purchase price (PP) 1.13 74 90 - 74 = 16

Marketing costs (MC) 0.05

Sales price (SP) 1.37

Marketing margin (MM = SP-PP) 0.24

Marketing profit (MP = MM-MC) 0.19

Retail market Purchase price (PP) 1.37 90 100 - 90 = 10

Marketing costs (MC) 0.09

Sales price (SP) 1.52

Marketing margin (MM = SP-PP) 0.15

Marketing profit (MP = MM-MC) 0.06

Consumers price 1.52

a Market share = (purchase price/consumer price) 9 100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Machua Bazaar Nutun Bazaar Kawran Bazaar MohammadpurKitchen Market

Retail markets

US$

/day

/trad

er

Marketing cost

Marketing margin

Marketing profit

Fig. 5 Average daily marketing cost, margin, and profit of a retailer in different markets

64 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

found in Kawran Bazaar (US$2.15), followed by Mohammadpur Kitchen Market

(US$1.83), Machua Bazaar (US$1.68), and Nutun Bazaar (US$1.18; Fig. 5). There was a

significant difference (P \ 0.05) in income of retailers among markets. It was reported by

retailers that tilapia trading cannot provide full-time employment and thus the income

derived from other fish trading.

The income of wholesalers is comparatively better than retailers. According to the

survey, the average daily income of a wholesaler was estimated at US$4.07, which was

higher in Dhaka market (US$4.91) than in Mymensingh market (US$3.24). The average

daily income of a supplier and local agent was estimated as US$1.43 and US$1.21,

respectively.

Marketing constraints

Despite the potential of tilapia marketing, a number of constraints were reported by traders,

including poor road and transport facilities, higher transport costs, insufficient supply of

ice, unhygienic conditions, lack of credit facilities, and poor markets infrastructure (i.e.,

inadequate drainage systems, poor supply of water, limited ceiling, and flooring space).

Traders reported that political disturbances such as strikes and road blocks also affect fish

marketing including tilapia. According to key informants, frequent power cuts also affect

ice production, which in turn concerns the marketing of fish including tilapia with good

quality. During market visits, it was observed that there are currently no standard practices

for handling, washing, sorting, grading, cleaning and icing of tilapia. Most key informants

reported that quality control at landing, handling, distribution, and marketing places is

hardly ever carried out. This is largely because of a shortage of quality control inspectors

and less emphasis on quality control for domestic markets. Regardless of market locations,

44% of retailers identified high marketing costs as their single most important constraint

(Table 7). The proportion of respondents identifying poor road and transport facilities was

24%. Only 20 and 12% of respondents, respectively, identified lack of financial support

and poor market infrastructure to be the most important constraints.

Sustainable tilapia marketing

Adequate supply of tilapia is essential for maintaining markets. The market demand for

tilapia will expand with increased supply. However, tilapia production as well as supply is

not enough in order to fulfill the market demands. Production of tilapia is still low due to

Table 7 Key constraints of tilapia marketing by retailers in different markets

Key constraint Mymensingh market Dhaka market All traders

Machua Bazaar Nutun Bazaar Kawran Bazaar MohammadpurKitchen Market

n = 20 n = 20 n = 20 n = 20 n = 80

High marketing costs 9 (45%) 8 (40%) 8 (40%) 10 (50%) 35 (44%)

Poor road and transportfacilities

5 (25%) 4 (20%) 5 (25%) 5 (25%) 19 (24%)

Lack of financial support 4 (20%) 5 (25%) 4 (20%) 3 (15%) 16 (20%)

Poor market infrastructure 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 3 (15%) 2 (10%) 10 (12%)

n Sample size of traders

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 65

123

Author's personal copy

lower adoption of farming and the lower rate of production from low-input technology.

According to Gupta and Acosta (2004), the lack of attention given to marketing has been

identified as one of the constraints to success of commercial tilapia farming. Integration of

production systems and development of backward (production inputs) and forward (post-

harvest and value-added activities) linkages can help to develop tilapia marketing (Ahmed

and Lorica 2002).

In the tilapia marketing channel, farmers’ profit margins get reduced with the increase in

number of intermediaries. Presence of intermediaries in different stages in the marketing

channel is due to lack of government control over the trade. The intermediaries avail the

opportunity and exploit both farmers and consumers. This situation makes the farmers

vulnerable in bargaining with market actors who have better capital endowments. This

situation is further aggravated by the lack of transparency in the price formation process,

inequalities in market information, and inadequate post-harvest infrastructure facilities.

According to Lem et al. (2004), better marketing facilities, transportation, market infor-

mation, and government control over the trade would help to improve the situation of fish

marketing.

In order to increase the market access and the sales systems, it is necessary to improve

fish marketing infrastructure, especially market centers and facilities. Efficient distribution

systems for tilapia should be set up to serve the consumers better. It is also worthwhile to

establish strong coordination between farmers and market actors to ensure a smooth supply

of tilapia to the consumers. The public sector has an important roles to develop tilapia

marketing through policy implementation. Provision of capacity building for the devel-

opment of stakeholder organizations, government institutions make available technical

advice and support on marketing, design of market facilities, and transportation, involving

NGOs where appropriate and the implementation of a management plan to address existing

constraints. Overall, there is a lack of appropriate policies for sustainable development of

tilapia marketing.

A conceptual framework has developed, which consists of three basic components:

market awareness, market access, and marketing facilities those are assumed to be inter-

linked in order to develop sustainable tilapia marketing (Fig. 6). Awareness implies

allowing stakeholders to become informed about tilapia farming and marketing so that they

can actively participate in all stages. This process increases willingness of tilapia farmers

Innovation for market

development

Marketing facilitiesMarket

access

Market awareness

Fig. 6 A conceptual frameworkfor sustainable tilapia marketing(adapted from Bart et al. 2005)

66 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

and traders to be involved in innovation for sustainable market development. However,

attempt an innovation largely depends on the scope of market access. A fundamental

paradigm shift would be needed to ascertain market awareness, market access, and mar-

keting facilities of stakeholders in order to get an innovation adopted. Appropriate

extension works by DOF, support services by public organizations and public–private

partnership, could make significant impact on innovation of sustainable tilapia marketing.

Although tilapia has become a significant export item from many developing countries

(Delgado et al. 2003), Bangladesh is still behind in this opportunity. Good-quality large

tilapia might, however, become exportable in the future through market development.

Given the importance of tilapia product and their export to international markets, Ban-

gladesh will need to pay adequate attention to food safety standards.

Consumer behavior and food supply

Local market demand for tilapia is significant because of the low market price at US$1.52

per kg, compared with Indian major carps at an average of US$1.74 per kg. Nevertheless,

the price of tilapia is higher than exotic carps in Bangladesh, which average US$1.35 per

kg (Ahmed 2010). The demand for tilapia in Dhaka markets is evidently higher. The

consumers of Dhaka markets have higher purchasing power, and there is an increasing

trend in fish consumption. On the other hand, the demand for tilapia and consumption level

in Mymensingh markets is lower due to low purchasing power and slow growth of income.

Most traders reported that tilapia is becoming popular among consumers because of taste

and less bones making it easier to eat. According to traders, consumption of tilapia at

household level has been increasing because more household consumers purchase tilapia

from retail markets. In general, the high-income groups (i.e., high officials and rich

businessmen) buy large tilapia, and the middle class is able to afford medium-sized and

small tilapia (5–6 fish/kg). The large segments of poor people also buy small tilapia due to

equity considerations, i.e., one tilapia per household member. Nevertheless, most con-

sumers prefer larger tilapia due to taste, but normally purchase smaller tilapia because of

its lower market price. It was reported by traders that consumers usually prefer fresh tilapia

without ice. When eating out, tilapia with rice is the most frequent lunchtime meal for

middle class and the poor. Nevertheless, the high-income groups prefer to eat tilapia during

dinner at home or restaurants. Roadside hotels, highway motels, guest houses, depart-

mental stores (i.e., Agora, Nandan), and institutional consumers (i.e., university halls and

medical hospitals) also buy tilapia due to increasing popularity. Tilapia is also consumed

during festivities and guest entertainments. It is realized that tilapia is becoming an

important component of the Bengali diet.

It is recognized by stakeholders that small-scale tilapia marketing contributes a range of

benefits at different levels. At the local level, tilapia production, distribution, and mar-

keting activities provide employment, income, and food for the poor. At the national level,

tilapia marketing systems make an important contribution to food supply and nutritional

benefits. Apparently, if tilapia produces widely, the marketing of tilapia would have a

favorable impact on food supply to meet the growing demand for fish among consumers,

including the large segment of poor households. In order to improve food security, it is

therefore necessary to increase the supply of tilapia in the diet of Bangladeshi people.

Tilapia farming has contributed greatly to food supply in Vietnam and Thailand (ADB

2005b). Elsewhere, the Honduran economy has made significant progress through a

domestic tilapia market (Leyva et al. 2005).

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 67

123

Author's personal copy

Conclusions

From this study, it becomes clear that sustainable tilapia marketing can play an important

role to increase food supply in Bangladesh. The development of sustainable tilapia markets

and wider adoption of tilapia farming could significantly impact on household food supply.

Despite the importance of food supply, not much has been done to sustain the production of

tilapia. A number of bottlenecks also affecting the efficiency of tilapia marketing including

high marketing costs, poor road and transport facilities, inadequate market infrastructure,

and exploitation by intermediaries. A range of public and private sector investments and

partnership initiatives are needed to realize the potential for food supply from tilapia

production to consumption. Moreover, institutional and organizational support is essential

for sustainable tilapia marketing. There is a significant role for public–private partnerships

in the extension and knowledge transfer of aquaculture and fish marketing (WorldFish

Center 2010). Substantial extension services will have to develop facets of tilapia farming

and its sustainable marketing.

A number of other issues are also important for the sustainable development of tilapia

marketing, including training of market operators, appropriate credit facilities, and gov-

ernment policy. A positive policy at the government level should encourage sustainable

tilapia farming and marketing. Training of market actors in areas of handling, icing, curing,

and preservation are necessary to maintain quality. Farmers, traders, and associated groups

do not have easy access to credit due to much official paper work and collateral

arrangements. Therefore, assisting farmers and traders to obtain cheaper adequate bank

credit for tilapia production, distribution, and market operation costs should be considered.

Credit significantly influences the development of aquaculture products and its sustainable

marketing (Lem et al. 2004).

Although tilapia has good potential in Bangladesh, scaling-up tilapia production will

depend on market forces, consumers’ needs and preferences, and promotional efforts. More

research is needed to assess overall prospects for tilapia market developments in Ban-

gladesh, including analyzing the technological dimensions of tilapia production, supply,

and demand of tilapia as well as consumers’ preferences. Considering the lack of infor-

mation services among tilapia producers, distributors, and market actors, the development

of an information network needs to be given attention.

Acknowledgments The study was supported by the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Pro-gram (NFPCSP), funded by EU and USAID, jointly implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations, and the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit of the Ministry of Food andDisaster Management, Government of Bangladesh. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for theirvery helpful and constructive comments. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of any organizations.

References

Ahmed N (2009) Revolution in small-scale freshwater rural aquaculture in Mymensingh, Bangladesh.World Aqua 40(4):31–35 (and 54)

Ahmed N (2010) Marketing of low-valued cultured fish in Bangladesh: an evaluation of value chain. AquaAsia 15(3):15–21

Ahmed M, Lorica MH (2002) Improving developing country food security through aquaculture develop-ment—lessons from Asia. Food Policy 27:125–141

Ahmed N, Ahammed F, Lecouffe C (2007) Socio-economic aspects of small-scale freshwater prawnmarketing systems in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Aqua Econ Manag 11:335–353

68 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy

Ahmed N, Lecouffe C, Allison EH, Muir JF (2009) The sustainable livelihoods approach to the developmentof freshwater prawn marketing systems in southwest Bangladesh. Aqua Econ Manag 13:246–269

Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2005a) An evaluation of small-scale freshwater rural aquaculturedevelopment for poverty reduction. Operations Evaluation Department, Asian Development Bank,Manila, Philippines

Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2005b) An impact evaluation of the development of genetically improvedfarmed tilapia and their dissemination in selected countries. Operations Evaluation Department, AsianDevelopment Bank, Manila, Philippines

Atkinson SJ (1992) Interviews with key informants and household surveys: Central Ethiopia. Disasters16:255–258

Bart A, Yi Y, Shivakoti GP, Wahab MA, Diana JS, Lin CK (2005) Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)production constraints in Bangladesh: a socioeconomic perspective. In: Burright J, Flemming C, EgnaH (eds) Twenty-second annual technical report, aquaculture CRSP. Oregon State University, Oregon,USA, pp 24–28

Briones M, Dey MM, Ahmed M (2004) The future for fish in the food and livelihoods of the poor in Asia.NAGA. WorldFish Center Q 27(3&4):48–50

Brummett RE (2000) Factors influencing fish prices in Southern Malawi. Aquaculture 186:243–251Burger J, Stern AH, Dixon C, Jeitner C, Shukla S, Burke S, Gochfeld M (2004) Fish availability in

supermarkets and fish markets in New Jersey. Sci Total Environ 333:89–97Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22:953–969Chowdhury MAK, Yi Y, Lin CK, El-Haroun ER (2006) Effect of salinity on carrying capacity of Nile tilapia

Oreochromis niloticus L. in recirculating systems. Aquacult Res 37:1627–1635Chowdhury MAK, Bureau DP, Bose ML, Dey MM (2007) Relevance of a rapid appraisal approach to

identify locally available feed ingredients to small-scale Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.)aquaculture. Aqua Econ Manag 11:151–169

Conroy C (2002) PRA tools used for research into common pool resources: socio-economic methodologiesfor natural resources research—best practice guideline. Natural Resources Institute, the University ofGreenwich, Chatham, UK

Delgado CL, Wada N, Rosegrant MW, Meijer S, Ahmed M (2003) Fish to 2020—supply and demand inchanging global markets. International Food Policy Research Institute and the WorldFish Center

Department of Fisheries (DOF) (2010) Fishery statistical yearbook of Bangladesh 2008–2009. FisheriesResources Survey System. Department of Fisheries, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Dey MM (2000) The impact of genetically improved farmed Nile tilapia in Asia. Aqua Econ Manag4:107–124

Dey MM (2001) Tilapia production in South Asia and Far East. In: Subasinghe S, Singh T (eds) Tilapia:production, marketing and technological development, international technological and trade confer-ence on Tilapia, 28–30 May 2001. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp 17–26

Dey MM, Garcia YT, Kumar P, Piumsombun S, Haque MS, Li L, Radam A, Senaratne A, Khiem NT,Koeshendrajana S (2008) Demand for fish in Asia: a cross-country analysis. Aust J Agric Resour Econ52:321–338

Elmendorf WF, Luloff AE (2006) Using key informant interviews to better understand open space con-servation in a developing watershed. Arboric Urban For 32:54–61

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010a) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2010. FAOFisheries and Aquaculture Department. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,Rome, Italy

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010b) FAO yearbook: fishery and aquaculture statistics. Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

Gupta MV, Acosta BO (2004) A review of global tilapia farming practices. Aqua Asia 9(1):7–12 (and 16)Gupta MV, Ahmed M, Bimbao P, Lightfoot C (1992) Socio-economic impacts and farmers’ assessment of

Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) culture in Bangladesh. ICLARM Technical Report No. 35, 50 pHasan MR, Middendorp HAJ (1999) Market survey of carp prices and estimation of their optimum harvest

size in culture based fisheries. In: Middendorp HAJ, Thompson PM, Pomeroy RS (eds) Sustainableinland fisheries management in Bangladesh, ICLARM conference proceedings 58, Dhaka, pp 149–155

Holtzman JS (2003) Rapid appraisals of commodity sub-sectors. Abt Associates Inc., Bethesda, USAHossain MS, Chowdhury SR, Das NG, Rahman MM (2007) Multi-criteria evaluation approach to GIS-based

land-suitability classification for tilapia farming in Bangladesh. Aquacult Int 15:425–443Hussain MG (2009) A future for the tilapia in Bangladesh. Aqua Culture Asia Pacific 5(4):38–40Hussain MG, Kohinoor AHM, Islam MS, Mahata SC, Ali MZ, Tanu MB, Hossain MA, Mazid MA (2000)

Genetic evaluation of GIFT and existing strains of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticas L., under on-station and on-farm conditions in Bangladesh. Asian Fish Sci 13:117–126

Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70 69

123

Author's personal copy

Hussain MG, Kohinoor AHM, Islam MS, Mazid MA (2004) Status and potential of tilapia production inBangladesh. Paper presented at the workshop on Tilapia culture in Bangladesh: constraints andpotentials, 4–5 April 2004, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Karim M, Ahmed M, Talukder RK, Taslim MA, Rahman HZ (2006) Policy working paper: dynamicagribusiness-focused aquaculture for poverty reduction and economic growth in Bangladesh. World-Fish Center Discussion Series No. 1, 44 p

Kleih U, Greenhalgh P, Oudwater N (2002) A guide to the analysis of fish marketing systems using acombination of sub-sector analysis and the sustainable livelihoods approach. Natural ResourcesInstitute, the University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK

Lem A, Tietze U, Ruckes E, Anrooy RV (2004) Fish marketing and credit in Viet Nam. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper 468, 104 p, FAO, Rome

Leyva CM, Engle CR, Wui YS (2005) A mixed-integer transshipment model for tilapia (Oreochromis sp)marketing in Honduras. In: Burright J, Flemming C, Egna H (eds) Twenty-second annual technicalreport, aquaculture CRSP. Oregon State University, Oregon, USA, pp 350–364

Ponzoni RW, Khaw HL, Yee HY (2010) GIFT: the story since leaving ICLARM (now known as theWorldFish Center)—socioeconomic, access and benefit sharing and dissemination aspects. TheWorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia

Rahman AAK (1985) Introduction of exotic fishes in Bangladesh. Fisheries Research and Training Center,Department of Fisheries, Chandpur

Rahman MM, Verdegem M, Wahab MA (2008) Effects of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L) stocking andartificial feeding on water quality and production in rohu-common carp bi-culture ponds. Aquacult Res39:1579–1587

Smith IR, Pullin RSV (1984) Tilapia production booms in the Philippines. ICLARM Newslett 7:7–9WorldFish Center (2010) Public private partnerships in small-scale aquaculture and fisheries. Policy Brief

No. 2135, the WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia

70 Aquacult Int (2012) 20:51–70

123

Author's personal copy