- Email: [email protected]
Test marketing of freshwater shrimp, Macrobrachium rosenbergii, in South Carolina
Aquaculture, 23 (1981) 373-379 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands
373
Brief Technical Note TEST MARKETING OF FRESHWATER
SHRIMP,
MACROBRACHIUM
ROSENBERGII,IN SOUTH CAROLINA* DAVID S. LIAO and THEODORE
I.J. SMITH
Marine Resources Research Institute, P.O. Box 12559, (Accepted
Charleston, SC 29412
(U.S.A.)
18 August 1980)
ABSTRACT Liao, D.S. and Smith, T.I.J., 1981. Test marketing of freshwater shrimp, Macrobmchium rosenbergii, in South Carolina. Aquaculture, 23: 373-379. A market testing study was conducted to examine the consumer and retailer acceptance for locally produced freshwater shrimp, Macrobrachium rosenbergii, in South Carolina. Data were collected from 103 consumers and 4 seafood retailers. The majority of consumers evaluated freshwater shrimp as similar to saltwater shrimp and about 89% were willing to purchase these shrimp from seafood stores. Consumers preferred the heads-off form (tails) and were willing to pay prices comparable to those received for saltwater shrimp. All retailers indicated that freshwater shrimp demonstrated high saleability in their outlets and that they would add this aquafood to existing product lines. The freshwater shrimp were sold as ungraded tails at prices ranging from $ 8.79-ll.Ol/kg. If given a choice, the majority of retailers indicated a preference for fresh shrimp in the 78-110 tails/kg size category. However, 75% of the retailers marketed previously frozen shrimp tails with no difficulty and 50% of the retailers attempted marketing whole large shrimp. Other marketing opportunities for freshwater shrimp may include supermarkets, restaurants and hotels.
INTRODUCTION
Commercial farming of freshwater shrimp, Macrobruchium rosenbergii, has been successfully developed in Hawaii and other tropical areas (Ling and Costello, 1976; Hanson and Goodwin, 1977). In addition to climate, the major reason for success of freshwater shrimp farming in Hawaii is the existence of a substantial local market for the locally produced product. In South Carolina freshwater shrimp farming has been demonstrated on a ’ Contribution No. 118 from the South Carolina Marine Resources Center. This paper is the result of iesearch sponsored by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce, under Grant Nos. NA79AA-D-00132 and 04-8-MOl-173, the Coastal PlainsRegional Commission under Grant No. 10740047, and the State of South Carolina. Reference to trade names in this paper does not imply endorsement by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, or the State of South Carolina.
374
technical scale and the economic outlook appears promising (Roberts and Bauer, 1978; Bauer et al., 1980; Sandifer et al., 1980). However, information on the marketing and acceptability of this farm-reared product is lacking. Therefore, a test marketing was undertaken to provide information on the consumer and retailer acceptance of this product and to obtain market data which could aid in determining the economic potential of shrimp farming in South Carolina. Commercial farming of freshwater shrimp in South Carolina will probably begin as a small-scale operation and thus production will be limited. Marketing success would best be achieved if this farm-reared product could easily move into existing marketing channels, and the product form was desirable by both retailers and consumers. Thus, this study was directed towards examining the marketing opportunity in seafood retail markets as such outlets would probably be the initial recipients of this farm-reared product. MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Test marketing of freshwater shrimp was conducted October--December, 1979, using shrimp reared in experimental grow-out ponds (Table I). Due to limited product availability and financial constraints only small samples were available for this market test. In October, three seafood retail stores in Charleston were chosen for the preliminary marketing trials. About 45 kg of fresh shrimp tails were provided to each retailer and two retailers also TABLE I Product form and prices received for freshwater and saltwater shrimp during the test marketing study Retailer number
1
Date
Product form
2
7 Nov. 10 Oct.
3
7 Nov. 11 Oct.
Fresh whole Fresh tails Frozen tails Fresh whole Fresh tails Frozen tails Fresh tails
4
20 Dec.
Frozen tails
10 Oct.
Freshwater shrimp
~__ Price @/kg)
Count size (No./kg)
Quant . sold (kgs)
18- 29 68-121* 68-121* 18- 29 68-121* 68-121* 57- 99*
11 37 23 5 39 23 27
10.99 11.01
68-121*
14
10.99
4.39
8.79 8.79 6.59 8.79
Saltwater shrimp Count size (No/kg)
Price ($/kg) _
-
-
go- 99 101-110 -
10.11 8.79 -
101-110 go- 99 68- 77 112-121 154-176 101-110
6.59 8.79 12.12 9.92 6.94 8.79
*Freshwater shrimp tails were sold ungraded with about 66% of the tails contained in these count categories.
375
agreed to try marketing whole freshwater shrimp. These retailers were asked to place the product on their counters with a sign to indicate the product name “freshwater shrimp” and not to advertise the product. Further, the retailers were requested to set a price at least as high as that for saltwater shrimp. In November and December another marketing trial was conducted with three seafood retailers, two of which had previously participated in the study. This time 14-23 kg of frozen shrimp tails were provided to each retailer. Detailed information on retailers attitudes and reactions to the product were gathered by personal interview after sales were completed. Consumer questionnaires were provided to the retailers for distribution to customers who purchased freshwater shrimp. The questionnaires were designed to provide data concerning the consumer’s: (a) method of preparing the freshwater shrimp; (b) evaluation of the product; (c) comparison of freshwater and saltwater shrimp; (d) willingness to buy and product form preference; and (e) willingness to pay a higher or lower price for freshwater shrimp than saltwater shrimp. A total of 80 questionnaires were distributed and 23 completed questionnaires were returned to us. To increase the sample size, 0.5 kg packages of recently defrosted shrimp tails were provided without charge to 100 individuals who were requested to complete and return the questionnaires after they had tested the product. A total of 80 completed questionnaires were received from this group. The responses from these two groups of consumers, those who purchased the shrimp and those who received a free sample, were statistically compared using the Chi-Square and the student’s t-tests. No significant differences (probability in any response category was above 0.40) were detected between these two groups and thus all response data were pooled. RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Retailer attitude
and reaction to the product
All retailers indicated that freshwater shrimp demonstrated high saleability in their outlets. About 92% of the 195 kg provided were sold within a few days with the remainder withheld by the retailers for home consumption. Based on retailer No. 1 data, freshwater shrimp were sold as ungraded tails at a price of $ 8.79/kg. Additionally, 11 kg of shrimp were provided whole and these sold at a price of $4.39/kg in less than 4 h. Retailer No. 2 priced the freshwater shrimp $ 2.20/kg higher than saltwater shrimp, even so he experienced no problem in selling both fresh and frozen freshwater shrimp. However, he felt that the whole product was more difficult to market. This may be due to seafood consumers lack of familiarity in buying shrimp in heads-on form. Overall, the retail prices received by four retailers were comparable with those for saltwater shrimp during the product sales period (Table I). Furthermore, some repeat buyers were reported by the
3’76
retailers and additional requests were made after the product sold out. All retailers labelled the product “freshwater shrimp” as suggested. This name suggests the product as a saltwater shrimp substitute and saltwater shrimp are premium priced in South Carolina. In Hawaii, the product is called “Hawaiian prawns” (Aquaculture Development Program, 1979). This name is intended to emphasize that the product is locally grown and not a saltwater shrimp substitute. This approach can be successful in promoting a premium specialty market. In addition, in Hawaii most of the product sold from retail outlets are marketed live or freshly iced, and usually direct to hotels and restaurants. This possibility of developing a specialty market for the freshwater shrimp in South Carolina has not been explored. Seafood retailers were asked to evaluate the product in terms of freshness, appearance, texture, and saleability. Of the four retailers,three rated TABLE II Ratings of freshwater shrimp by four seafood retailers. Results are expressed as percentages (X) Evaluation rating
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
Evaluation category Freshness
Appearance
Texture
Saleability
0 0 0 25 75
0 0 0 25 75
0 0 0 50 50
0 0 0 50 50
TABLE 111 Product type and form preferred by four seafood retailers. Preferences presented are number of retailers who responded positively to each product type and form category
___.-
Product
Number of retailers
Type Tails only Whole only Whole + Tails
2 0 2
Form Fresh only Frozen only Fresh + Frozen
2 0 2
____
~~__.
377
the product as excellent in freshness and appearance and two said that texture and saleability were excellent (Table II). When seafood retailers were asked whether they would market the product, all retailers responded positively. When seafood retailers were asked what price they would pay relative to penaeid shrimp, they responded: 50% would pay the same price for both products; 25% would pay $ 0.45/kg higher for the freshwater shrimp; and 25% would pay 10% lower than penaeid shrimp prices. The survey indicated that freshwater shrimp would be acceptable to seafood stores in at least two forms (Table III). Fifty percent of the retailers preferred the product in the fresh, tails only form while the other 50% indicated that a product form which included frozen and whole shrimp would also be acceptable. The majority of the retailers indicated a preference for the product in the 78-110 tails/kg count category, which typically represents a “medium” market class (Table IV). TABLE IV Tail count categories preferred by four seafood retailers. Preferences presented as number of retailers who responded positively to each market category Tail count (No./kg)
Number of retailers
<68 6877 78- 88 89- 99 100-110 111-121 122-132 133-154 >155
Seafood retailers were asked to summarize a market evaluation of the product. Their responses were: a) “I feel that there is a good market for freshwater shrimp. I found the customers’ reaction to the product was good.” b) “Product was very good but it needs development. The public was not sufficiently aware of its value. ” c) “I have seen that there would be no problem in marketing the product heads-off. They have excellent taste and eye appeal. Heads-on may be a little more difficult to market.” d) “I think we have a definite market for this product.” Consumer’s attitude
and reaction to the product
All consumers sampled were asked to indicate the manner in which they prepared freshwater shrimp at home. From the survey it was determined
378
that 30% of the consumers prepared the product by frying, 17% by boiling, 15% by broiling, and 11% sauteed the shrimp in butter. Additionally, 20% used more than one method in preparing the product. The frequency of home consumption of saltwater shrimp by consumers of freshwater shrimp was also solicited. The results were: 69% consumed saltwater shrimp at home once a month or less; 24% consumed them 2 or 3 times a month; and 7% consumed them at least once a week. Thus, 31% of the sample who tested freshwater shrimp ate penaeid shrimp regularly. Consumers were asked to evaluate the food characteristics of freshwater shrimp. About 13% of the consumers indicated a fair or poor rating on texture while 11% of the sampled consumers gave a fair or poor evaluation on the taste (Table V). Examination of the survey data indicated that 76% of the respondents who rated the freshwater shrimp as fair or poor in the texture and taste categories prepared the shrimp by either boiling or sauteing in butter. Thus, method of home preparation of the freshwater shrimp may be very important in determining the acceptability of this product by the consumer. Fifty percent of the consumers rated the quality of freshwater shrimp similar to saltwater shrimp while 19% reported that freshwater shrimp were superior to saltwater shrimp. The remaining 31% considered freshwater shrimp to be inferior to saltwater shrimp. Thus, about 70% of those testing freshwater shrimp felt they were equal to or better than penaeid shrimp. TABLE V Ratings of freshwater shrimp by 103 consumers. Results are expressed as percentages (%) ___~ Evaluation rating
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
Evaluation category Freshness
Appearance
Texture
Taste
v-Ease of preparation ____
0 0 20 40 40
0 2 18 34 46
3 10 28 29 30
2 9 24 31 34
0 1 15 34 50
.-
_._
About 89% of the consumers indicated that they would buy freshwater shrimp from seafood retail stores. Further, 54% of these consumers also indicated that they would be willing to pay prices comparable to those charged for saltwater shrimp. However, 8% indicated that they would pay an average price of 17% higher for this product while 38% indicated they would pay an average price 26% lower for the freshwater shrimp. Over 89% of the consumers indicated that they would prefer freshwater shrimp in a heads-off form.
379 CONCLUSION
There does appear to be high acceptability for farm-reared freshwater shrimp by both consumers and local retailers in South Carolina. The preference was for fresh shrimp tails in the medium size count categories with prices competitive with marine shrimp. Additional detailed market research is needed to assess fully the marketing opportunities for freshwater shrimp in similar outlets, as well as in supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, etc. The latter may require a product form or size different to that preferred by the seafood retailer. Questions dealing with price elasticity, product seasonality, product name designation, etc. need to be examined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are due to our research personnel who assisted in preparing and delivering the shrimp to retailers and consumers, especially Frank Taylor, Wally Jenkins, and Mark Maddox, and to the retailers and the consumers who participated in this study. Thanks are due to our seafood marketing specialists, Paul Van Steenbergen and Donna Florio who provided marketing help, and to Nickie Kopacka who provided computer programming assistance. Ray Rhodes critically reviewed the manuscript. Virginia Hargis typed the manuscript. REFERENCES Aquaculture Development Program, 1979. The Hawaiian prawn industry: A profile. Department of Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii, 32 pp. Bauer, L.L., Sandifer, P.A. and Smith, T.I.J., 1980. Estimated costs and returns of Macrobrachium farming in South Carolina. Presented at the 5th Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technology Conference, 28-30 April 1980, Charleston, SC. (Unpublished manuscript). Hanson, J.A. and Goodwin, H.L. (Eds.), 1977. Shrimp and Prawn Farming in the Western Hemisphere. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA, U.S.A., 439 pp. Ling, S.W. and Costello, T.J., 1976. Review of culture of freshwater prawns. FA0 Technical Conference on Aquaculture, Kyoto, Japan 1976. Reference paper 29, 12 pp. Roberts, K.J. and Bauer, L.L., 1978. Costs and returns for Macrobrachium grow-out in South Carolina, U.S.A. Aquaculture, 15: 383-390. Sandifer, P.A., Smith, T.I.J. and Bauer, L.L., 1980. Economic comparisons of stocking and marketing strategies for aquaculture of prawns, Macrobrachium rosenbegii (de Man), in South Carolina, U.S.A. Presented at Symposium on Coastal Aquaculture, 12-18 Jan. 1980, Cochin, India. Marine Biological Association of India, in Press.
373
Brief Technical Note TEST MARKETING OF FRESHWATER
SHRIMP,
MACROBRACHIUM
ROSENBERGII,IN SOUTH CAROLINA* DAVID S. LIAO and THEODORE
I.J. SMITH
Marine Resources Research Institute, P.O. Box 12559, (Accepted
Charleston, SC 29412
(U.S.A.)
18 August 1980)
ABSTRACT Liao, D.S. and Smith, T.I.J., 1981. Test marketing of freshwater shrimp, Macrobmchium rosenbergii, in South Carolina. Aquaculture, 23: 373-379. A market testing study was conducted to examine the consumer and retailer acceptance for locally produced freshwater shrimp, Macrobrachium rosenbergii, in South Carolina. Data were collected from 103 consumers and 4 seafood retailers. The majority of consumers evaluated freshwater shrimp as similar to saltwater shrimp and about 89% were willing to purchase these shrimp from seafood stores. Consumers preferred the heads-off form (tails) and were willing to pay prices comparable to those received for saltwater shrimp. All retailers indicated that freshwater shrimp demonstrated high saleability in their outlets and that they would add this aquafood to existing product lines. The freshwater shrimp were sold as ungraded tails at prices ranging from $ 8.79-ll.Ol/kg. If given a choice, the majority of retailers indicated a preference for fresh shrimp in the 78-110 tails/kg size category. However, 75% of the retailers marketed previously frozen shrimp tails with no difficulty and 50% of the retailers attempted marketing whole large shrimp. Other marketing opportunities for freshwater shrimp may include supermarkets, restaurants and hotels.
INTRODUCTION
Commercial farming of freshwater shrimp, Macrobruchium rosenbergii, has been successfully developed in Hawaii and other tropical areas (Ling and Costello, 1976; Hanson and Goodwin, 1977). In addition to climate, the major reason for success of freshwater shrimp farming in Hawaii is the existence of a substantial local market for the locally produced product. In South Carolina freshwater shrimp farming has been demonstrated on a ’ Contribution No. 118 from the South Carolina Marine Resources Center. This paper is the result of iesearch sponsored by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce, under Grant Nos. NA79AA-D-00132 and 04-8-MOl-173, the Coastal PlainsRegional Commission under Grant No. 10740047, and the State of South Carolina. Reference to trade names in this paper does not imply endorsement by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, or the State of South Carolina.
374
technical scale and the economic outlook appears promising (Roberts and Bauer, 1978; Bauer et al., 1980; Sandifer et al., 1980). However, information on the marketing and acceptability of this farm-reared product is lacking. Therefore, a test marketing was undertaken to provide information on the consumer and retailer acceptance of this product and to obtain market data which could aid in determining the economic potential of shrimp farming in South Carolina. Commercial farming of freshwater shrimp in South Carolina will probably begin as a small-scale operation and thus production will be limited. Marketing success would best be achieved if this farm-reared product could easily move into existing marketing channels, and the product form was desirable by both retailers and consumers. Thus, this study was directed towards examining the marketing opportunity in seafood retail markets as such outlets would probably be the initial recipients of this farm-reared product. MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Test marketing of freshwater shrimp was conducted October--December, 1979, using shrimp reared in experimental grow-out ponds (Table I). Due to limited product availability and financial constraints only small samples were available for this market test. In October, three seafood retail stores in Charleston were chosen for the preliminary marketing trials. About 45 kg of fresh shrimp tails were provided to each retailer and two retailers also TABLE I Product form and prices received for freshwater and saltwater shrimp during the test marketing study Retailer number
1
Date
Product form
2
7 Nov. 10 Oct.
3
7 Nov. 11 Oct.
Fresh whole Fresh tails Frozen tails Fresh whole Fresh tails Frozen tails Fresh tails
4
20 Dec.
Frozen tails
10 Oct.
Freshwater shrimp
~__ Price @/kg)
Count size (No./kg)
Quant . sold (kgs)
18- 29 68-121* 68-121* 18- 29 68-121* 68-121* 57- 99*
11 37 23 5 39 23 27
10.99 11.01
68-121*
14
10.99
4.39
8.79 8.79 6.59 8.79
Saltwater shrimp Count size (No/kg)
Price ($/kg) _
-
-
go- 99 101-110 -
10.11 8.79 -
101-110 go- 99 68- 77 112-121 154-176 101-110
6.59 8.79 12.12 9.92 6.94 8.79
*Freshwater shrimp tails were sold ungraded with about 66% of the tails contained in these count categories.
375
agreed to try marketing whole freshwater shrimp. These retailers were asked to place the product on their counters with a sign to indicate the product name “freshwater shrimp” and not to advertise the product. Further, the retailers were requested to set a price at least as high as that for saltwater shrimp. In November and December another marketing trial was conducted with three seafood retailers, two of which had previously participated in the study. This time 14-23 kg of frozen shrimp tails were provided to each retailer. Detailed information on retailers attitudes and reactions to the product were gathered by personal interview after sales were completed. Consumer questionnaires were provided to the retailers for distribution to customers who purchased freshwater shrimp. The questionnaires were designed to provide data concerning the consumer’s: (a) method of preparing the freshwater shrimp; (b) evaluation of the product; (c) comparison of freshwater and saltwater shrimp; (d) willingness to buy and product form preference; and (e) willingness to pay a higher or lower price for freshwater shrimp than saltwater shrimp. A total of 80 questionnaires were distributed and 23 completed questionnaires were returned to us. To increase the sample size, 0.5 kg packages of recently defrosted shrimp tails were provided without charge to 100 individuals who were requested to complete and return the questionnaires after they had tested the product. A total of 80 completed questionnaires were received from this group. The responses from these two groups of consumers, those who purchased the shrimp and those who received a free sample, were statistically compared using the Chi-Square and the student’s t-tests. No significant differences (probability in any response category was above 0.40) were detected between these two groups and thus all response data were pooled. RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Retailer attitude
and reaction to the product
All retailers indicated that freshwater shrimp demonstrated high saleability in their outlets. About 92% of the 195 kg provided were sold within a few days with the remainder withheld by the retailers for home consumption. Based on retailer No. 1 data, freshwater shrimp were sold as ungraded tails at a price of $ 8.79/kg. Additionally, 11 kg of shrimp were provided whole and these sold at a price of $4.39/kg in less than 4 h. Retailer No. 2 priced the freshwater shrimp $ 2.20/kg higher than saltwater shrimp, even so he experienced no problem in selling both fresh and frozen freshwater shrimp. However, he felt that the whole product was more difficult to market. This may be due to seafood consumers lack of familiarity in buying shrimp in heads-on form. Overall, the retail prices received by four retailers were comparable with those for saltwater shrimp during the product sales period (Table I). Furthermore, some repeat buyers were reported by the
3’76
retailers and additional requests were made after the product sold out. All retailers labelled the product “freshwater shrimp” as suggested. This name suggests the product as a saltwater shrimp substitute and saltwater shrimp are premium priced in South Carolina. In Hawaii, the product is called “Hawaiian prawns” (Aquaculture Development Program, 1979). This name is intended to emphasize that the product is locally grown and not a saltwater shrimp substitute. This approach can be successful in promoting a premium specialty market. In addition, in Hawaii most of the product sold from retail outlets are marketed live or freshly iced, and usually direct to hotels and restaurants. This possibility of developing a specialty market for the freshwater shrimp in South Carolina has not been explored. Seafood retailers were asked to evaluate the product in terms of freshness, appearance, texture, and saleability. Of the four retailers,three rated TABLE II Ratings of freshwater shrimp by four seafood retailers. Results are expressed as percentages (X) Evaluation rating
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
Evaluation category Freshness
Appearance
Texture
Saleability
0 0 0 25 75
0 0 0 25 75
0 0 0 50 50
0 0 0 50 50
TABLE 111 Product type and form preferred by four seafood retailers. Preferences presented are number of retailers who responded positively to each product type and form category
___.-
Product
Number of retailers
Type Tails only Whole only Whole + Tails
2 0 2
Form Fresh only Frozen only Fresh + Frozen
2 0 2
____
~~__.
377
the product as excellent in freshness and appearance and two said that texture and saleability were excellent (Table II). When seafood retailers were asked whether they would market the product, all retailers responded positively. When seafood retailers were asked what price they would pay relative to penaeid shrimp, they responded: 50% would pay the same price for both products; 25% would pay $ 0.45/kg higher for the freshwater shrimp; and 25% would pay 10% lower than penaeid shrimp prices. The survey indicated that freshwater shrimp would be acceptable to seafood stores in at least two forms (Table III). Fifty percent of the retailers preferred the product in the fresh, tails only form while the other 50% indicated that a product form which included frozen and whole shrimp would also be acceptable. The majority of the retailers indicated a preference for the product in the 78-110 tails/kg count category, which typically represents a “medium” market class (Table IV). TABLE IV Tail count categories preferred by four seafood retailers. Preferences presented as number of retailers who responded positively to each market category Tail count (No./kg)
Number of retailers
<68 6877 78- 88 89- 99 100-110 111-121 122-132 133-154 >155
Seafood retailers were asked to summarize a market evaluation of the product. Their responses were: a) “I feel that there is a good market for freshwater shrimp. I found the customers’ reaction to the product was good.” b) “Product was very good but it needs development. The public was not sufficiently aware of its value. ” c) “I have seen that there would be no problem in marketing the product heads-off. They have excellent taste and eye appeal. Heads-on may be a little more difficult to market.” d) “I think we have a definite market for this product.” Consumer’s attitude
and reaction to the product
All consumers sampled were asked to indicate the manner in which they prepared freshwater shrimp at home. From the survey it was determined
378
that 30% of the consumers prepared the product by frying, 17% by boiling, 15% by broiling, and 11% sauteed the shrimp in butter. Additionally, 20% used more than one method in preparing the product. The frequency of home consumption of saltwater shrimp by consumers of freshwater shrimp was also solicited. The results were: 69% consumed saltwater shrimp at home once a month or less; 24% consumed them 2 or 3 times a month; and 7% consumed them at least once a week. Thus, 31% of the sample who tested freshwater shrimp ate penaeid shrimp regularly. Consumers were asked to evaluate the food characteristics of freshwater shrimp. About 13% of the consumers indicated a fair or poor rating on texture while 11% of the sampled consumers gave a fair or poor evaluation on the taste (Table V). Examination of the survey data indicated that 76% of the respondents who rated the freshwater shrimp as fair or poor in the texture and taste categories prepared the shrimp by either boiling or sauteing in butter. Thus, method of home preparation of the freshwater shrimp may be very important in determining the acceptability of this product by the consumer. Fifty percent of the consumers rated the quality of freshwater shrimp similar to saltwater shrimp while 19% reported that freshwater shrimp were superior to saltwater shrimp. The remaining 31% considered freshwater shrimp to be inferior to saltwater shrimp. Thus, about 70% of those testing freshwater shrimp felt they were equal to or better than penaeid shrimp. TABLE V Ratings of freshwater shrimp by 103 consumers. Results are expressed as percentages (%) ___~ Evaluation rating
Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent
Evaluation category Freshness
Appearance
Texture
Taste
v-Ease of preparation ____
0 0 20 40 40
0 2 18 34 46
3 10 28 29 30
2 9 24 31 34
0 1 15 34 50
.-
_._
About 89% of the consumers indicated that they would buy freshwater shrimp from seafood retail stores. Further, 54% of these consumers also indicated that they would be willing to pay prices comparable to those charged for saltwater shrimp. However, 8% indicated that they would pay an average price of 17% higher for this product while 38% indicated they would pay an average price 26% lower for the freshwater shrimp. Over 89% of the consumers indicated that they would prefer freshwater shrimp in a heads-off form.
379 CONCLUSION
There does appear to be high acceptability for farm-reared freshwater shrimp by both consumers and local retailers in South Carolina. The preference was for fresh shrimp tails in the medium size count categories with prices competitive with marine shrimp. Additional detailed market research is needed to assess fully the marketing opportunities for freshwater shrimp in similar outlets, as well as in supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, etc. The latter may require a product form or size different to that preferred by the seafood retailer. Questions dealing with price elasticity, product seasonality, product name designation, etc. need to be examined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are due to our research personnel who assisted in preparing and delivering the shrimp to retailers and consumers, especially Frank Taylor, Wally Jenkins, and Mark Maddox, and to the retailers and the consumers who participated in this study. Thanks are due to our seafood marketing specialists, Paul Van Steenbergen and Donna Florio who provided marketing help, and to Nickie Kopacka who provided computer programming assistance. Ray Rhodes critically reviewed the manuscript. Virginia Hargis typed the manuscript. REFERENCES Aquaculture Development Program, 1979. The Hawaiian prawn industry: A profile. Department of Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii, 32 pp. Bauer, L.L., Sandifer, P.A. and Smith, T.I.J., 1980. Estimated costs and returns of Macrobrachium farming in South Carolina. Presented at the 5th Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technology Conference, 28-30 April 1980, Charleston, SC. (Unpublished manuscript). Hanson, J.A. and Goodwin, H.L. (Eds.), 1977. Shrimp and Prawn Farming in the Western Hemisphere. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA, U.S.A., 439 pp. Ling, S.W. and Costello, T.J., 1976. Review of culture of freshwater prawns. FA0 Technical Conference on Aquaculture, Kyoto, Japan 1976. Reference paper 29, 12 pp. Roberts, K.J. and Bauer, L.L., 1978. Costs and returns for Macrobrachium grow-out in South Carolina, U.S.A. Aquaculture, 15: 383-390. Sandifer, P.A., Smith, T.I.J. and Bauer, L.L., 1980. Economic comparisons of stocking and marketing strategies for aquaculture of prawns, Macrobrachium rosenbegii (de Man), in South Carolina, U.S.A. Presented at Symposium on Coastal Aquaculture, 12-18 Jan. 1980, Cochin, India. Marine Biological Association of India, in Press.