4. PRODUCTION COST


4.1 Cash Flow and Production Costs
4.2 Variable or Direct Costs

4.2.1 Raw material
4.2.2 Direct labour
4.2.3 Supervision
4.2.4 Utilities
4.2.5 Maintenance
4.2.6 Supplies
4.2.7 Royalties and patents
4.2.8 Packaging

4.3 Fixed Costs

4.3.1 Indirect costs
4.3.2 Management and administration costs
4.3.3 Sale and distribution costs
4.3.4 Global estimate of fixed costs

4.4 Case studies on Production Costs

4.4.1 Icing costs utilizing insulated containers
4.4.2 Capture costs for coastal fishing vessels

4.5 Model for Estimating Production Costs in Fish Plants


Production costs (also called operating costs) are the expenses necessary to maintain a plant, processing line or equipment in production. In a healthy company the difference between income (from sales and other sources) and production costs indicates the gross profit.

This means that the economic fate of a company is linked to the income (e.g., goods sold on the market and price obtained) and the production costs of the goods sold. Whereas income, particularly income from sales, is linked to the marketing sector of a company, production costs are closely related to the technical sector; it is thus essential that the fish technologist knows the production costs.

Production costs have two opposite characteristics sometimes not well understood in developing countries. The first is that to produce goods one must expend; this means produce at a cost. The second characteristic is that costs should be kept as low as possible and eliminated when unnecessary. This does not mean cutting or eliminating costs indiscriminately.

For instance, there is no sense in not having a proper equipment maintenance programme merely to avoid maintenance costs. It would be more advisable to have an acceptable maintenance scheme which would, perhaps, eliminate 80-90 % of breakdown risks. Likewise, purchasing fish of marginal quality to reduce raw material costs is not usually recommendable. The right approach would be to have a proper fish purchasing scheme in accordance with the market requirements and costs. Usually neither low nor top quality fish produce an optimum income to the company; this will be discussed later.

Many other aspects understood as "costs" to be eliminated (e.g., plant safety programmes, personnel training, research and development) are often non-existent in the fish processing industry of many developing countries. Unfortunately, in the same way, environmental costs (e.g., treatment of effluents) are very often ignored and, therefore, transferred to the community at large or to future generations.

Another aspect should be examined when analysing the importance given to production costs in developing countries: for a given cost structure, a variation in the sale price will have an immediate impact on the gross profit because the gross profit is the balance between income (mainly from sales) and production costs. Therefore, sale price increases or variations are very often perceived as the most important variable (together with the raw material cost) particularly when considerable price variations exist.

An example of this variation in sale prices is given in Figure 4.1. In this case, the sale prices for canned tuna in brine (48 x 6 1/2 oz) imported into the USA and Europe from Thailand during 1993, show variations of up to 25.75 and 28.58% respectively.

In a situation as described in Figure 4.1, the manager or plant owner could be tempted to disregard the possibility of analysing the whole cost scheme as a way of improving earnings (perhaps with the exception of raw material as will be seen later). The manager will tend to reason that market price variations are of such magnitude as to overshadow any relatively small improvement in the cost structure (e.g., improvements in energy efficiency or in yield). Company efforts are usually channelled only to improve the market position (to sell or to buy) and eventually to obtain global political cost reductions (e.g., tax reductions or exemptions, electricity and petrol rebates, soft loans).

 

Figure 4.1 Monthly Price of Canned Tuna in Brine (48 x 6 112 oz) Imported into USA and Europe from Thailand during 1993 (from FAO GLOBEFISH data bank)

Managers can easily fail to recognize that any improvement in the production costs structure and not only in sale price or raw material cost, will increase gross profit in any M t price situation and that this improvement will be cumulative in time. Moreover, this might distract them from technological developments which, in the medium and long term, could make the industry first non-competitive and then obsolete.

Appropriate concern for the rational management of all production costs is an indication of a mature and developed fishery industry in a competitive international market.

The lack of understanding of the importance of production costs factors, and in particular depreciation, insurance and reserves, make fishery businesses very unstable in many developing countries and often prevents development and self-sustainability, despite the existing opportunities on both domestic and international markets.

4.1 Cash Flow and Production Costs

Cash flow is the clue to costs and profitability studies. Cash flow analysis is useful for understanding movements and timing of cash not only for a complete company but also for partial production lines.

Figure 4.2 shows a general scheme of the cash flow which defines an operation (plant, processing line, equipment) and how it is paid. Production costs can be divided into two large categories: VARIABLE or DIRECT COSTS, which are proportional to production, and FIXED COSTS, which are independent of production. Table 4.1 shows a classification of production costs that can be used as a guide for calculations.

 

Figure 4.2 Scheme of Cash Flow for a Fish Processing Plant/Line/Equipment

Table 4.1 Classification of Production Costs

1. VARIABLE COSTS (direct)

1.1 Raw Material
1.2 Direct Labour
1.3 Supervision
1.4 Maintenance
1.5 Utilities
1.6 Supplies
1.7 Royalties and Patents
1.8 Packaging

2. FIXED COSTS

2.1 Indirect costs

2.1.1 Investment Costs

2.1.1.1 Depreciation
2.1.1.2 Property Taxes
2.1.1.3 Insurance
2.1.1.4 Credit (Financing)
2.1.1.5 Other Obligations

2.1.2 General Expenses

2.1.2.1 Research and Development
2.1.2.2 Public Relations
2.1.2.3 Accounting and Auditing
2.1.2.4 Legal Advice and Patents

2.2 Administration and management costs
2.3 Sale and distribution costs

Figure 4.2 shows two main flows: the first is income from sales and services and any other source of income connected to the firm; the second includes expenses and all fixed and variable costs. Gross profit is the difference between the income and expenditure. The relative importance of the flows depends on the type of operation analysed.

For example, capture costs in artisanal fisheries are low, since fixed costs are lowered by small capital invested and variable costs can be reduced by an appropriate combination of vessel and fishing gear used. Production costs for some of these combinations are related to the duration of the fishing trip, distance to fishing area, etc. (Stevenson, 1982).

Industrial production of fishery products is usually intensive in variable costs such as raw materials, labour and packaging. These three components could make up about 80% of total production costs. For example, Figure 4.3 shows a proximal distribution of the costs of producing canned fish in Argentina (Parin and Zugarramurdi, 1987).

 

Figure 4.3 Proximal Distribution of the Production Costs of Canned Fish (Argentina)

In Table 4.2 some production costs per 1 kg of finished products for various types of fishery products are listed. The data appearing in Table 4.2 are only indicative and refer to the place and year where they were collected. It should be taken into account that costs per unit depend on installed capacity and production level (see Chapter 3).

Actual production costs are very difficult to find in literature because they are a direct indication of market possibilities. For instance, from Table 4.2 it is clear that production costs of Argentine canned sardines were not competitive on the regional and international market and that eventually even imported canned tuna and bonito could compete with them on the domestic market (something that actually happened when the market was opened). On the other hand, production costs of frozen hake fillet blocks in Argentina and Uruguay make them competitive on international markets at about the same time. With reference to capture costs, values vary widely, depending on the country and type of vessels; examples are shown in Table 4.2.

It is necessary to highlight the difference between accounting for costs, and estimates made in the preparation of a future project. In the first case, a historical fact is analysed, which can be classified and arranged according to the pre-established accounting policies used by the company, and which would have been used to calculate the production cost of a product made in the past. In the second of concern here, estimates are made by trying to calculate the future cost of a product, the production of which could begin soon or one or two years after it has been created.

Table 4.2 Production Costs in Fish Plants

Type of Product

US$/kg finished product

Country

References

Canned

     

Tuna, 452 g

1.14

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al., 1973)

Shrimp, 135 g

2.70

"

"

Sardines, 125 g

1.30

Norway

(Myrseth, 1985)

Sardines, 125 g

1.27

Tropical Countries

(Edwards et al, 1981)

Sardines, 170 g

2.94

Argentina

(Parin & Zugarramurdi, 1987)

Mackerel, 380 g

1.92

"

"

Hake, 380 g

1.31

"

"

Sardines in sauce, 452 g

0.67

Chile

(1989)

Tuna chunks, 185 g

1.82

Thailand

(1989)

Brine bonito, 185 g

1.64

"

(1989)

Frozen

     

Hake fillet block

1.20

Argentina

(1989)

Hake fillet block

1.17

Uruguay

(Kelsen et al., 1981)

White croaker H&G

0.90

"

"

Striped weakfish, IQF

1.17

"

"

Shrimp

2.8

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Shrimp

2.39

USA

(Bartholomai, 1987)

Cod, fillet block

2.88

Canada

(1989)

Alaska pollack, fillet

1.52

Japan

(1989)

Krill, tails, block

3.55

Poland

(Budzinski, 1985)

Fresh

     

Sole

4.18

USA

(Georgianna & Hogan, 1986)

Dried

     

Naturally

0.28

African countries

(Waterman, 1977)

Mechanically

0.41

"

"

Fishmeal

     
 

0.12

Argentina

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

 

0.14

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

 

0.15

Peru

(1989)

 

0.2-0.33

European countries

(Atlas, 1975)

 

0.28

African countries

(Mlay & Mkwizu, 1982)

 

0.33

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

FPC

     

Capture

     

Purse seiners

0.241

Thailand

(Haywood & Curr, 1987)

Purse sciners

0.021

Morocco

"

Boats

0.038

Bangladesh

(Eddic & Natham, 1980)

Boats

0.435

Seychelles

(Parker, 1989)

Artisanal

0.035

India

(Kurien & Willmann, 1982)

Trawler

0.331

"

"

Gillnet

0.200

"

"

Purse seiners

0.500

Argentina

(1990)

Trawlers

0.300

"

(1990)

An estimate of production costs could be made for several reasons. First, the estimate allows the selection of an operation that will save time, effort and money on non profitable projects, choosing the most advantageous alternative. Second, the estimate must identify the costs which most influence profitability, so that those components can be specifically determined in future calculations, leaving the other components to more rapid estimates. Estimates of the probable future costs of production are needed to determine financial and economic studies, and could help to take decisions regarding:

4.2 Variable or Direct Costs

4.2.1 Raw material

This component comprises primary and secondary raw materials directly or indirectly involved in the transformation process (fish, oil, salt, ingredients, etc.), since the primary characteristic of this activity is manufacturing. It can be estimated by knowing:

In the fishery industry, there are normally three ways of purchasing fish:

  1. It can be bought directly at the landing site or fish auction market

  2. It can be captured by boats belonging to the company

  3. It can be imported.

In the case of A, raw material costs can be calculated according to the agreed fixed price for seasonal species, or an average price paid according to the current rate for the particular species. For B, raw material costs are taken as the annual costs of operation of the vessels. For example, in Figure 4.4, the capture cost for anchovy by coastal boats in Mar del Plata (Argentina) are shown as a function of the use of the hold (Parin et al., 1987b).

 

Figure 4.4 Average Capture Costs of Anchovy in Relation to Percentage Use of Fleet

In case C, which involves imported raw materials, cost includes delivery to the plant and other charges as detailed in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Constituent Elements of Price of Imported Raw Material  

(a) Price at Loading Dock (FOB)

(b) Loading-Destination port transport charges

(c) Marine Insurance

 

Destination port CIF cost

(d) Customs fees

(e) Other expenses (office, dispatcher, freight)

Arrival at Factory Price

In chemical plants, the raw material component can vary between 10% and 50% of the total production cost. Values given in Table 4.4 can be used as a guide for fish plants.

Table 4.4 Typical Costs of Raw Material as a Percentage of the Total Cost of Production

Type of Plant

% of Total Costs of Production

Country

Data calculated from

Freezing

     

Hake fillet

60-70

Argentina

(Parin et al, 1990)

Kingklip

75-85

"

"

Shrimp

54.2-77.1

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Hake

53.8

"

"

White croaker, H&G 

48.9

Uruguay

(Kelsen, 1981)

Striped weakfish (with skin IQF)

49.6

"

"

Raw shrimp (headless)

63

USA

(Bartholomai, 1987)

Farmed catfish

91

"

"

Canning

     

Sardines, mackerel 

23-44

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Shrimp

55

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al, 1973)

Sardines 

18.5

Norway

(Myrseth, 1985)

Sardines 

21.5

Tropical countries

(Edwards et al, 1981)

Fresh Sole Processing Plant 

80.4

USA

(Georgianna & Hogan, 1986)

Salted anchovy 

50-60

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981a)

Fishmeal 

65

"

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

"

65.3

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

FPC, type A 

35.6

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

"

45.9

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

FPC, type B 

47.5

"

"

Drying (natural) 

28.6

"

"

"

70

African countries

(Waternian, 1977)

Drying (mechanical)

29.1

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

"

48

African countries

(Waterman, 1977)

Table 4.4 shows that there are substantial differences between processing plants depending on the country to which they belong. Considerable differences exist between dry fish processing plants in Africa or Brazil. It can be inferred that this situation occurs as a result of different salaries paid to workers. The ratio between cost of labour and cost of raw material is 1.5 in Brazil, while this quotient is 0.007 in Africa, despite the fact that the price for raw material is 33 % higher in Brazil. Appendix C2 includes additional indicative costs of different species of fish and shellfish. The following expenses may have to be added to these costs:

In Appendix C2 raw material costs are shown: the prices of raw material given in Appendix C2 are only indicative, perhaps to be used in a first approximation. However, average and price series should be utilized for appropriate calculations, particularly in cases where the raw material is decisive in the production cost structure (see Table 4.4). The main reason is that raw material costs, in particular fish, may vary widely throughout the year in an open market economy.

Figure 4.5 gives an example of the price of frozen skipjack tuna, raw material for the canning industry of Thailand, for the years 1990 and 1993. From Figure 4.5 it is clear that monthly prices varied during 1993 up to 66%; average prices for 1990 and 1993 were similar. Average prices for 1991 and 1992 were 835.8 and 708.1 respectively which means that, in the long run, variations in average prices are much less marked than monthly variations. In this particular case, not considering 1992 which was a particular year for skipjack tuna, maximum deviations of yearly average prices on the overall average price for 1990, 1991 and 1993 was 1.6%.

 

Figure 4.5 Monthly Cost (C & F) of Frozen Skipjack Tuna (4-7.5 1b) in Thailand (years 1990 and 1993) in US$ per ton (from FAO GLOBEFISH data)

Therefore, an analysis of the average monthly and in some cases seasonal variations of raw material costs is normally necessary in the fishery industry. However, as in the case of the sale price, short term wide variations in raw material prices should not make the manager, and in particular the fish technologist, disregard analysis of other production costs.

Example 4.1 The Cost of Salt in Fish Salting in Trinidad

Salt is a raw material to produce salted fish. An incorrect practice in fish salting in developing countries is the large amount of salt utilized (it is not unusual to find ratios of 1: 1 and 2:1 of salt to fish). This is probably due to old methods imported from developed countries, where salt was very cheap compared with the price of fish. This is not necessarily always so in developing countries. The authors have recorded prices up to US$ l/kg of salt paid by artisanal fishermen in developing countries.

Further amounts of salt to those shown in Table 2.6 will not add to the safety of the product, will increase the costs of salt, the cost of handling and processing and the storage costs of salt and salted fish (containers, premises, etc.). Moreover, excessive use of salt fosters the bad practice of salt or saturated brine reutilization observed in many places.

An example from a shark salting plant in Trinidad illustrates this point very clearly. The percentage of salt (approximate plant capacity 1 t raw material/day) was 100% (1:1) for a wet salting method utilizing pressure (salted shark is dried afterwards), and there was no change of brine during salting. Due to problems with the quality of the salt produced locally, imported salt was utilized (a very common situation in many developing countries).

According to the examples discussed earlier (see Table 2.6) 30-40% salt will suffice. A figure of 45 % could be adopted to take into account losses (salt lost before it reaches the fish). The use of the 1:1 ratio in this case is excessive. However, even higher rates are utilized in practice in the Caribbean region. For comparison purposes, a 2:1 ratio was also utilized in the calculations and the alternative to salting croaker is also included. The results can be seen in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Influence of Salt/Fish Ratio on Production Costs

Ratio
Salt : Fish
(w/w)

Cost of imported salt
per year (1)(2)(4)

Production cost per kg of
salted shark (3)

Production cost per kg of
salted croaker (3)

0.45 : 1

27945

3.43

2.82

1 : 1

62100

3.56

3.15

2 : 1

124200

3.79

3.63

Notes:

(1) 270 working days per year, plant capacity 1 t/day (material for salting)
(2) Exchange rate US$ 1 = 4.25 M (October 1991)
(3) Round shark price: US$ 0.37/kg; croaker price: US$ 0.37/kg
(4) Salt price: local US$ 0.094/kg; imported (Canada) US$ 0.23/kg

From Table 4.5, it is apparent that the costs of salt will affect the final cost of production significatively, and the incidence is higher in croaker than in shark (the calculation is influenced by the fish cost). Table 4.5 also shows the amount of total reduction in the cost of salt. When unitary prices are calculated there is a tendency to overlook how much it could mean in absolute terms throughout the year. The reduction in production costs and savings could be higher utilizing salt produced locally, even allowing an additional 20% of salt that will be lost during washing to improve quality. The situation should usually be analysed.

The general relationships "cheaper than" or "more expensive than" of developed countries may not apply in all the situations in developing countries. This example also illustrates the need for a management that comprises appropriate technical knowledge at production level.

4.2.2 Direct labour

This includes salaries of workers/employees whose labour is directly identified with production operations. In highly mechanized processes (for instance fishmeal and fish oil plants), this component represents less than 10% of production costs. In operations where much handling is involved, however, it can exceed 25 % of production costs. In Table 4.6, average percentages are given for fish plants (Zugarramurdi, 1981b).

Table 4.6 Costs of Direct Labour as a Percentage of the Total Costs of Production

Type of Plant

% of Total Costs of Production

Country

Data calculated from

Canning

     

(*)

11-17

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981a)

Shrimp

9.7

Indonesia

(Bromiley el al., 1973)

Tuna

7,2

"

"

Sardines

9.2

Norway

(Myrseth, 1985)

Sardines

10.5

Tropical countries

(Edwards et al., 1981)

Fresh Sole

12.1

USA

(Georgianna & Hogan, 1986)

Freezing

     

Hake fillet (manual)

10-12

Argentina

(Parin et al., 1990)

Hake fillet (mechanical)

7-9

"

"

Kingklip fillet, (manual)

7-9

"

"

Hake (fillet block)

11.1

Uruguay

(Kelsen et al., 1981)

White croaker, H&G

6.7

"

"

Striped weakfish (with skin IQF)

6.0

"

"

Shrimp (manual)

9.3-18.6

USA

(Graham, 1984)

Shrimp (mechanical)

5.35

"

(Bartholomai, 1987)

Catfish (mechanical)

1.8

"

"

Salting of anchovy

9-12

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Drying (natural)

5.1

African countries

(Waterman, 1977)

"

42.7

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

Drying (mechanical)

1.7

African countries

(Waterman, 1977)

"

20.7

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

Fishmeal

6

Argentina

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

FPC, type A

6.3

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

FPC, type A

5.9

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

FPC, type B

1.4

"

"

(*)depends on the type of production (sardine, tuna)

The two variables which govern this component are the cost of man-hour or man-year and number of man-hours or number of men/women required. To the basic costs of the man-hour calculated according to standard labour agreements, must be added the social charges which are normally the responsibility of the employer. In the case of the Argentinean fishing industry, social charges amounted to 75% (1994) of gross salaries (without allowance for equipment) and include weekends, paid holidays, absenteeism, illness and accidents, social work, social security and bonuses. Elsewhere, this percentage is considerably lower (approximately 21-45%) although it generally does not include as many components.

Unfortunately, from the development point of view, in some developing countries there is no provision for the industry to pay (in practice) social charges. Although it may appear advantageous for the industry, cheap manpower does not automatically mean competitive advantage. Current world tendency is towards a reduction in social charges (both on the part of the worker and the industry) as a means of increasing workers' take-home pay and reducing labour costs at the same time. Appendix C3, gives examples of basic salaries for fishery industry personnel.

In artisanal fishing, the "share system" is very often used to calculate wages for the crew. In some cases once the price of the fish is known or agreed and the general expenses are deducted, the net income from sales is divided into shares. The total number of shares is determined by the number of crew, and the number of shares assigned to the boat and the net. The amount assigned to the boat and net is intended for loan amortization. This figure is partially determined by the costs and useful life of the boat and the fishing gear. To the "shares" for the boat and net is added one part per crew member. In smaller boats, the 'chief' fisherman is often also the owner and his share is equal to that of the other fishermen. In medium sized boats, there is usually an owner and a master fisherman and the former generally gives half a share more to the latter.

The share ratios between boatowner and crew differ slightly from country to country, but the same basic concepts apply. In the Philippines, when the boatowner is also a crew member, the earnings are shared (once expenses have been deducted) by a ratio of 67-33 %; with 67% of the net earnings going to the owner of the vessel (owner-fisherman), and 33% being divided up among the crew. When the owner does not work on the boat he receives one-third of the earnings, one-third goes to the master fisherman, and the remaining one-third is divided among the crew (Guerrero, 1989).

In the Seychelles, one-third of the net earnings goes to the vessel owner and the remaining two-thirds to the crew, which includes the owner-fisherman. Thus, the owner benefits from two sources: his share as a crew member and that received as vessel owner, after maintenance repair costs and amortization payments have been made (Parker, 1989).

In Kerala (India), the owner usually participates in the artisanal fishing activity, and gives 32-75 % of net earnings to the crew, while in the mechanized sector, where the cost of fuel is a major expenditure, crew wages represent a lower percentage of net earnings: 13% for trawlers and 26% for boats using gillnets. Nevertheless, the average income for a crew member is greater in this case (Kurien and Willmann, 1982). In large-scale fisheries, the crew receives a fixed wage; examples are given in Appendix C3.

4.2.3 Supervision

Supervision consists of the salaries paid to personnel directly responsible for supervising different operations. It represents approximately 10% of the direct labour in the fishery industry. Very often, supervisory personnel (foremen) receive a monthly salary, which means that this component would become a fixed cost of up to 100% of the capacity installed. Also, in this case, social charges must be included in the basic salary. Other percentages used for supervision in the cases examined in the literature are shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Costs of Supervision as a Percentage of Direct Labour 

Type of Product

%

Country

Data calculated from

Canned

     

Sardine, mackerel 

10.0

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Shrimp

12.9

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al., 1973)

Sardines

3.5

Tropical Countries

(Edwards et al., 1981)

Catfish

7.1

USA

(Bartholomai, 1987)

Frozen

     

Hake

10.0

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Shrimp

16.2

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Shrimp, whitefish

16.3

Tropical Countries

(Street et al., 1986)

4.2.4 Utilities

4.2.4.1 Electricity

Once electricity consumption has been estimated in kWh, according to the degree of production chosen, only the cost of the electricity remains to be established. Electricity can be acquired in two different ways, namely:

In cases where energy is self-generated, the costs of kWh depend on the factory's production level, i.e., it must be estimated for each possible level of production.

4.2.4.2 Steam

Specific consumption and costs of unit under consideration are the two values required here. Regarding costs of steam, there are several possible sources of steam in a plant:

The fishery industry usually adopts the first method. In this case, the cost of 1 t of steam is calculated according to the price of fuel, once all other costs have been considered in their particular components. In Appendix C4, international costs are given for fuel.

4.2.4.3 Water

The cost of water depends on many factors. A company may have to purchase water, may produce their own water (from wells, or treating river or lake water) and eventually, as discussed in Chapter 3, could utilize clean seawater for some purposes. Often, companies use a mixture of these features. At the same time, water may be abundant and hence cheap, or scarce and therefore relatively expensive. Companies in countries where the water supply is scarce or cannot be assured, should create their own water reserve (cistern), and sometimes may need a water truck fleet which, in practice, implies an increase in investment and production costs. In some countries, the water pumped from a well must pass through a sealed meter and the company pays the Government for each cubic metre pumped.

Although water costs used to be low in many countries (sometimes as a form of subsidy from the State), the current tendency is towards an increase in the cost of water as a consequence of the awareness of the worldwide drop in availability of this resource. At the same time, control of water sources is falling gradually into the hands of local Government (e.g., city councils) which are more conscious about actual water costs than central Governments. In this situation, variations can be found even within the same country for the cost of water, use policies and somewhat complex schemes according to the level of consumption.

For example, the fishery industry of Mar del Plata (Argentina) should pay a municipal water company every two months for the water consumed. Water costs depend on the actual level of consumption. Before being connected to the drinking water network, each fish company should present an estimate of its average consumption. If consumption is less than that estimated by the company, they only pay a flat rate. If consumption exceeds estimates, the excess is paid for in the following way: first 25% (Basic Price x 1.72), next 25% (BP x 2.13), 50% (BP x 2.92), 100% (BP x 5.35), etc. (first bi-monthly payment 1990). In addition, each factory is obliged to pay for a chemical analysis carried out weekly on its waste water. The costs of this analysis is US$ 6.6 (1990). If the result of this analysis is not satisfactory, another analysis is carried out a few days later. Repeating offenders may be required to pay fines. Table 4.8 shows the percentages that utilities (electricity, steam and water) represent of the total cost of production for the different types of fish plants.

Table 4.8 Costs of Utilities as Percentage of the Total Costs of Fish Plants

Type of Plant

% of Total Cost

Country

Data calculated from

Canning

     

Sardines, mackerel

2.5

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Shrimp

1.4

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al, 1973)

Tuna

2.2

"

"

Sardines (manual)

2.9

Tropical Countries

(Edwards et al, 1981)

Sardines (mechanized)

7.3

Norway

(Myrseth, 1985)

Freezing

     

Hake fillet

4.0

Argentina

(Parin et al, 1990)

Shrimp

6.3

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Shrimp

10.1 (1)

USA

(Bartholomai, 1987)

Catfish 

1.1

"

"

Fresh fish

0.9

USA

(Georgianna & Hogan, 1986)

Salting

0.1

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Drying (mechanical)

20.6

African countries

(Waterman, 1977)

"

11.3

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

Fishmeal

8.5

Argentina

(Cabrejos, 1969)

"

11.3

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

FPC, type B

14.4

"

"

FPC, type A

32.3

"

"

"

28.9

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

Catch

     

Wooden boats

29.3

Bangladesh

(Eddie & Nathan, 1980)

Motor boats

9.0

"

"

Purse Seiners

14.1

India

(Haywood & Curr, 1987)

"

19.0

Thailand

"

"

10.7

Morocco

"

Schooner (standard)

11.7

Seychelles

(Parker, 1989)

Schooner (special)

15.6

"

"

Schooner(new design)

20.4

"

"

Long-liners

26.2

Philippines

(Guerrero, 1989)

(1) Hydraulic conveyors used

For canning plants that use manual labour, expenses for utilities arise mainly from the consumption of fuel for the generation of steam; in mechanized fish canning plants utilities costs are mainly due to electricity consumption by equipment. As seen in Table 4.8, this percentage increases to 7.3% for a totally mechanized canning plant. Values for the mechanical drying process are not comparable because the cost of labour is higher in Brazil than in Africa. Fixed costs are similar, but variable costs (70%) in Africa are shared between raw materials (4.8%; Table 4.4), labour (1.4%; Table 4.6) and the remainder for utilities. Although when budgeting a project, utilities cost is estimated in a consolidated way (electricity, steam plus water) in analysing the cost structure of a plant, it may be necessary to disclose the various factors. In general, utilities account for less than 10% of the total cost of production in fish plants, while in catch, the price of fuel can push these values up to 30%.

4.2.5 Maintenance

This component includes the cost of materials and labour (direct and supervision) employed in routine or incidental repairs and, in some cases, the overhaul of equipment and buildings. Table 4.9 shows some reference maintenance costs as percentage of fixed investment.

Table 4.9 Costs of Maintenance as a Percentage of Fixed Investment (IF)

 

Costs of Maintenance as % of IF

Country

Data calculated from

Freezing

     

Sardines

2.6

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Shrimp

4

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Filleted and frozen

3

Senegal

(Jarrold & Everett, 1978)

Canning

     

Sardines

2.6

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Tuna

3

Senegal

(Jarrold & Everett, 1978)

Tuna, Shrimp

2% Building

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al., 1973)

"

5% Equipment

"

"

Sardines

5

Tropical countries

(Edwards et al., 1981)

Drying

     

natural

6

African countries

(Waterman, 1977)

mechanical

2

"

"

Fishmeal

1.6

Argentina

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

 

3

Senegal

(Jar-rold & Everett, 1978)

 

3.3

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

Capture

     

Artisanal

     

Non-motorized canoes

2

Senegal

(Jarrold & Everett, 1978)

Canoes with fishing lines

3.1

Philippines

(Guerrero, 1989)

Canoe with awning

4.9

Seychelles

(Parker, 1989)

Boats with motor

5.7

Bangladesh

(Eddie & Natham, 1980)

Purse Seiners

2.4

Morocco

(Haywood & Curr, 1987)

Purse Seiners

2.1

Thailand

"

Catamaran 

1.3

India

(Kurien & Willmann, 1982)

Canoe 

1.5

"

"

Semi-industrial/Industrial 

5

Senegal

(Jarrold & Everett, 1978)

Deep Sea Fishing Vessels 

10

India

(Nordheim & Teutscher, 1980)

Hake vessels 

5 (year 1)

Argentina

(Otrera et al., 1986)

Purse Seiners with motor

20

India

(Kurien & Willmann, 1982)

Canoes with motor and line 

15

"

"

Canoes with trawling nets 

10.8

"

"

Maintenance is a critical factor in developing countries and two extreme situations cab be found. The most typical situation is insufficient and sometimes complete lack of maintenance (even though it may be included in the original project) which works against self-sustained activities. In developing countries key equipment and even whole fish processing plants remain idle, due to lack of proper maintenance and small spares. The second situation, although much less common is over-maintenance, this means equipment that has exceeded a reasonable lifespan, and continues to be utilized. In the latter case there is the risk of utilizing less effective equipment (e.g., consuming more energy per unit of final product) and eventually resulting in a loss rather than a profit.

When no other data are available, maintenance costs can be estimated as 4-6% of fixed investment. This criterion,. although commonly used, converts in practice, maintenance costs in a fixed cost, which is not completely correct.

A more appropriate estimate of maintenance costs can be made using the method proposed by Pierce (1948). If some basic costs and additional information are available equation (4.1) can be applied.

K = X x (a + b x y) (4.1)

where:

K = maintenance costs (US$/year)
X = annual consumption of electricity (kWh/year)
a = index for materials = costs of material for repairs per kWh used
b = index for labour = man-hours worked in repairs per kWh used
y = cost of man-hour with supervision.

It should be noted that the cost of maintenance increases as the equipment ages, but in these estimates average figures are used. This can be important for the economic evaluation of the investment, since the costs for the first years of operation will include a greater maintenance expenses charge. A new formula estimating maintenance costs is thus suggested, using a new value equal to the investment multiplied by the actual age of the equipment or installation.

I x E

resulting in the formula:

M = A x (I x E) + B (4.2)

where:

M = Annual cost of Maintenance
I = Permanent Investment
E = Time elapsed (in years) since equipment was assembled whose investment is I

A and B are coefficients calculated based on historical values of similar plants. Unfortunately, few data are available to estimate these coefficients. For fish processing plants, an average value of A = 0.005 has been estimated. In the absence of other data, the value of B has been taken as 1 % of fixed investment.

Krenkel et al., (1968) proposed a formula for the calculation of maintenance for chemical plants, instead of using a percentage of fixed costs. This author proposes a correlation of maintenance costs against a parameter which denominates (investment - time), defined as:

(Investment - time) = I x (E/n) (4.3)

where I and E have the same significance as given before, and n is the useful life of the equipment. This method could be used in highly mechanized fish processing plants.

For operational capacities lower than that installed, maintenance costs are generally estimated as 85 % of total maintenance costs for a 75 % operation capacity and 75 % of total maintenance costs for a 50% level of production. In fishmeal plants, this component represents only 0.7% of the total cost of production and in frozen and canned fish plants it represents 0. 8 % and 0. 3 % respectively. From this, it can be deduced that maintenance costs never exceed 1 % of the total cost of production. Therefore, as discussed earlier, the engrained tendency found in the fishery industry of many developing countries to avoid maintenance is mistaken unless other factors (e.g., lack of trained people to perform maintenance) prevail.

It is difficult to obtain data on repair and maintenance costs for fishing vessels. An alternative is to estimate using technical coefficients. Earlier, it was established that maintenance costs vary in proportion to the original value and age of the vessel. Based on this concept, Otrera and Gualdoni (1986), in estimating maintenance costs for deep sea vessels, propose using 5% of the initial value and a 4% increase annually to account for ageing, in the case of the hake fleet, since these values would adequately adjust actual values. For coastal fishing vessels, Parin et al. (1987b) found that 2% of the initial value and 4% annual increment would be close enough to actual values for repairs every four years and monthly servicing of the accounts of affidavits of remuneration of coastal fishermen, a share system to which fishermen contribute the costs of naval and mechanical work. Table 4. 10 shows maintenance costs for each type of coastal vessel.

Table 4.10 Maintenance Costs by Type of Coastal Fishing Boats (Mar del Plata, Argentina)

Length  (m)

Motor  (HP)

Total Investment (*) (US$ '000)

Age (Years)

fM (**)

Maintenance Costs  (US$/year)

12-13.5

70-80

35-45

24-41

51-99

2295-3465

13.5-15

70-80

45-70

28-38

60-89

4005-4200

15-16

175

120-310

25-28

53-60

7200-8215

16-18.5

380

180-240

25-41

53-99

12 720-17 820

18.5-21

380

240-300

8-13

27-33

5520-8 100

(*) Cost of investment in boat and nets

(**)Annual maintenance factor x 103

4.2.6 Supplies

Except for those included in raw materials, or repairing and packaging materials, this component includes all materials used by the industrial plant, such as lubricating oils, chemical reagents, laboratory glassware and soap for can washers. This item can be estimated as 6% of the costs of labour and 15% of maintenance costs (Woods, 1975).

4.2.7 Royalties and patents

Any production licence to be paid for based on units produced must be considered a component of variable costs. This is not an usual situation in the fishery industry; it could change with aquaculture development and application of bio-engineering. Generally, the licence fee is paid according to a pre-determined volume of production. In the absence of other data, it can be estimated between 1 % and 5 % of the sale price of the product in question.

4.2.8 Packaging

This component is usually considered part of the raw material costs but it is preferable to detail it separately, as in some instances in the fishery industry it constitutes a very important part of the total production costs. Table 4.11 shows percentages of cost of packaging for fish processing plants. Packaging costs are generally high in canning plants. However, costs for canning in Norway are surprisingly low, far from the average values encountered for this component (this in turn could be linked to low energy costs in Norway). A similar case is found in the packaging costs for standard frozen products, but the variation here results from the prices paid for different raw materials. In turn, this influences the type of product, as a higher packaging cost would be involved in the production of headed and eviscerated fish than of fillets. Appendix C5 lists actual costs for tin plate cans and other packaging.

Table 4.11 Costs of Packaging as a Percentage of the Total Cost of Fish

Type of Plant

% of Total Costs

Country

Data calculated from

Canning

 

 

 

Sardines

6

Norway

(Myrseth,1985)

Anchovy-mackerel-tuna 

23-41

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi,1981b)

Sardines 

40.9

Tropical Countries

(Shaw,1976)

Tuna 

18.6

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al., 1973)

Shrimp 

19.4

"

"

Freezing 

2-6

Argentina

(Parin et al., 1990)

Shrimp 

6.6

U.K.

(Graham, 1984)

Hake, fish block 

5.1

Uruguay

(Kelsen et al., 1981)

White croaker H&G 

12.2

"

"

Striped weakfish IQF 

6.0

"

"

Catfish (live) 

0.2

USA

(Bartholomai, 1987)

Shrimp 

2.1

"

"

Fresh, sole 

2.6

"

(Georgianna & Hogan, 1986)

Salting of anchovy 

15

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Fishmeal 

2.8

"

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

4.3 Fixed Costs

4.3.1 Indirect costs

4.3.1.1 Investment costs

Depreciation: means a reduction in value. Most goods decrease in value as they increase in age. Production equipment recently acquired has the advantage of the latest refinements and operates with less risk of breakdown or need for repairs. Except for a possible antique value, production equipment gradually becomes less valuable with use. This loss in value is recognized in accounting practice as an operating expense. Instead of charging the entire value of a new asset as a one-time expense, the usual practice is to distribute the purchase cost in the accounting ledgers, over the useful life of the asset. This concept of depreciation may seem to conflict with the actual cash flow for a particular transaction, but when all the transactions are seen collectively, they form a realistic picture of the consumption of capital in profit and loss situations.

In financial accounting, depreciation is an indirect cost. The main objectives in charging a depreciation cost can be summarized, to: 1) recover capital invested in production equipment, 2) enable accurate calculation of indirect production costs for recording purposes, and 3) include costs of depreciation in operational expenses for tax purposes.

The importance of depreciation should be stressed particularly at artisanal and small-scale industrial level. Countries and institutions receiving equipment and plants as external aid for. development must be aware that they should plan their operation such that depreciation could be effectively considered, otherwise self-sustainability will not be achieved. To emphasize the importance of depreciation, the following can be considered:

Example 4.2 The Importance and Meaning of Depreciation

The inhabitants of Jakuna Matata, a fishery village on the coast of Ruritania, have a very serious problem. The ice plant that provided ice to the fishermen during the last four years is broken and the cost to fix it is equivalent to that of buying a new plant, but they do not have enough money for this. Four years ago when the ice plant was delivered to the fishermen, it was a feast day for Jakuna Matata people. The Minister of Fisheries of Ruritania and the Ambassador of the country that donated the US$ 10 000 ice plant were there. Fishermen were badly in need of the ice plant to be able to sell their fish in the capital of Ruritania or to keep the fish in the right condition till the trucks from the middlemen arrived in Jakuna Matata.

The fishermen organized themselves and collectively decided to set a price on the ice in order to cover the electricity costs and the salaries of two men to run and care for the ice plant plus a small profit just to cover ice losses and unexpected expenditures. Ice prices were very low, lower than the price paid in the capital city and the fishermen were very happy. During the first two years there were no problems and the plant worked for nearly 300 days a year. When the first breakdown occurred, fortunately there were funds available from the small profits to pay for the spare parts and the mechanic who came to fix the plant. The savings were not high, about US$ 5 per working day, but enough to pay for the first expenditure. Nevertheless, not all the money that should have been there was available; part of it had been used for village festivities and some had been lent to fishermen in need who had not returned it. Despite this, there was sufficient money to pay for the first breakdown and it taught the lesson that savings were necessary.

Repairs were also necessary during the third and fourth years of functioning of the ice plant and people realized that operations would not be so straightforward as during the first two years. However, towards the end of the fourth year, the ice plant stopped and the mechanic that came from the capital city informed them that this time the damage was very serious and that repair would cost the same as buying a new ice plant. The fishermen realized that they had not saved enough to pay for such a large repair job or to buy a new ice plant at the end of the lifespan of the one they received as a gift. What had happened?

The fishermen had not considered depreciation in their calculations and no provision for recovering the capital invested in the ice plant (US$ 10 000). Its initial value of US$ 10 000 depreciated until its residual value was zero. By not including depreciation they were also utilizing the initial capital of US$ 10 000 to produce ice and to produce (or so it appeared) large profits and extra benefits for the fishermen. Actually, it was a production cost, similar to raw material and energy costs. However, depreciation differs from these costs in that it is always paid or provided for in advance. Consequently, it is essential that depreciation be taken into account so that the capital used to provide for this cost can be recovered. If this is not done, the final result will be the exhaustion of the capital, as happened to the fishermen of Jakuna Matata (and unfortunately to many other artisanal fishermen worldwide). By not calculating depreciation they failed to produce a sustainable situation even when all the other factors were in order.

Please discuss the case. The fishermen of Jakuna Matata were thinking of asking for a new ice plant from the donor country and resolved not to repeat the same mistake. Analyse in this case, other aspects that could come into the picture like the existence of banking facilities (for saving), inflation and the actual possibilities of the fishermen to obtain hard currency and import machinery.

In studying depreciation, it is helpful to visualize a depreciation charge as a series of payments made to a specific fund to replace an asset which is still being used. While this notion is completely acceptable in theory, it is rarely practised in industrial contexts. An accounting ledger shows the annual depreciation charge used for taxation purposes, but it also appears in the accounts with "Other Assets" such as working capital.

The physical form of the "depreciation fund" can take very different forms, for instance it can be a revolving stock of raw material or finished products (often used in the frozen and canning fishery industry), treasure bonds, time-deposits, secured deposits and sometimes land (when it can be sold easily). In the artisanal fisheries of many developing countries, actual "depreciation funds" can be gold and silver jewellery that fishermen buy for their wives and daughters (or that women, engaged in fisheries, buy themselves).

The original cost of the asset less the accumulated depreciation, is called the Net Book Value. Land is one of the few assets which does not need a depreciation reserve, as its value normally remains the same or increases.

Depreciation is not an easy concept. Therefore, the fish technologist should know, in each case, the causes for loss of value of equipment and machinery. Knowledge of the potential causes of a decrease in value of an asset can help determine the most appropriate means of depreciating it. Possible causes of depreciation are:

  1. Physical Depreciation: Break-down due to daily use of equipment gradually reduces its physical ability to carry out its function. A good maintenance programme retards the speed of decline, but it is difficult to maintain the precision expected from new equipment. Added to normal use, accidental physical damage can also reduce output.

  2. Functional Depreciation: Demands made on an item can exceed its production capacity. A central heating unit, not built to satisfy increased demand for heat resulting from the addition of a new building, will not provide more than its specific capacity. In the other extreme, demand for a machine's services may cease during its existence, as can happen with a machine that produces a product for which there is no longer any demand.

  3. Technological Depreciation: The development of new methods to carry out a function may render current methods uneconomical. For example, steam engines rapidly decreased in value with the advent of the Diesel engine. The current style for a product, new materials, improvements in safety and better quality at lower cost, due to new developments, renders old designs obsolete.

  4. Depletion: The consumption of a natural exhaustible (non-renewable) resource in the production of goods or services is called depletion. The extraction of petroleum, wood from tropical forests, rock or minerals from a place diminishes the value of the unexploited resource. This reduction is compensated for by a proportional reduction in earnings derived from the resource. In theory, the depletion charge per unit of resource extracted is
    Current Value of the Resource / Remaining Units of the Resource = depletion rateUS$/unit)
    Fish is a natural renewable resource. However, current fish stocks have an MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield), above which overfishing and depletion are risked.

  5. Monetary depreciation: Change in price is one problem which causes decreases in value of depreciation reserves. Usual accounting practices calculate depreciation based on the original price of the item and not on the new price. However, because of the high rate of inflation, revaluationis allowed for tax purposes.

4.3.1.2 Methods of Calculating Depreciation Costs

Four methods of calculating depreciation rate are normally used: Straight Line, Declining Balance, Sinking Fund and Sum of the Year's Digits. All these methods are based strictly on time; that is, an asset used every day has the same depreciation charge as one used only once a year.

Each depreciation calculation method has unique characteristics which make it attractive to different types of administrative philosophies. For tax purposes, however, the one recognized by law should be used. For example, in Argentina, this is the Straight Line method; and from 30 December 1968 accelerated depreciation was permitted in specific cases (due to monetary depreciation by inflation).

A method through which the total amount of capital invested can be recovered early in the life of an asset is a popular and conservative concept. Early settlement guards against sudden changes which can make the asset lose value, and transfer some taxes to later years. However, methods in which the annual charge is constant simplifies accounting procedure.

In general, it is desirable that a depreciation method: 1) recovers the capital invested in an asset; 2) maintains a book value near the real value of the asset throughout its lifetime; 3) is easy to apply and 4) is acceptable by law. In reality, there are two aspects relating to application of the methods of depreciation: the internal company aspect, through which the method which the management considers most appropriate is applied and the tax aspect, where the method assigned by law, must be applied.

In general, the annual amount of depreciation, is given as:

Annual depreciation value = e x (IF - L) (4.4)

where:

e = rate of depreciation for company purposes of calculating profit

IF - L = depreciable investment

IF = initial fixed capital investment

L = salvage or scrap value at the end of the useful life of an asset

The term salvage or scrap value implies that the asset can give some type of further service. If the property cannot be disposed of as a useful unit, it can often be dismantled and sold as junk to be used again as manufacturing raw material. The profit obtainable from this type of disposal is known as the scrap or junk value.

The residual value cannot be predicted with absolute accuracy, so it is advisable to make new estimates from time to time during the service life of the depreciation costs (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1978). All methods used to calculate the rate of depreciation compute it as a function of time; i.e., an asset used every day has the same depreciation charge as one used only once a year. The straight line method; the simplest and most widely used, is explained below; annual depreciation is constant and the relationship is:

e = 1 / n                             (4.5)

where n is the total expected useful life in years. Therefore, applying Equation (4.4), the annual depreciation charge is:

D = (IF - L) / n                   (4.6)

For any arbitrary year, the kth year, depreciation is:

Dk = (IF - L) x  ( k / n )

The book value is the difference between initial investment and the product of the number of years of use multiplied by the annual depreciation charge; the book value at the end of k year, Bk, is:

Bk = IF - k x D = IF - k x (IF - L) / n             (4.7)

Depreciation costs are calculated according to the straight line method. Various references give detailed descriptions of the other depreciation methods (Riggs, 1977; Barish and Kaplan, 1978; Happel and Jordan, 1981).

Property taxes: This component can vary widely according to current laws. Basically, taxes depend on the location of the plant, and thus plants located in cities pay more taxes that those in less populated areas. Taxes on earnings are not included here. In the fishery industry, this component is calculated as a percentage of investment, with values which do not usually exceed 2%. If local value of property taxes is not available, 1-2% of the IF can be used as the first basis of calculation.

Insurance: This depends on the type of process and possible need of protective services. Normally insurance is bought on property (fire, partial or total theft), for personnel and merchandise (partial or total loss), drop in wages, etc. In capture, the percentage paid for insurance is higher, as indicated in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Costs of Insurance in the Fishery Industry and in Capture

Activities 

% of IF

Country

Data calculated from

Fish capture 

3

Peru

(Engstrom et al., 1974)

Fish capture 

3.5

India

(Nordheim & Teutscher, 1980)

Fish capture 

3.5

Seychelles

(Parker, 1989)

Fish processing (general) 

1-2

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Fish canning 

2

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al., 1973)

Fish canning 

1

Tropical Countries

(Edwards et al., 1981)

Fish freezing 

2

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Fishmeal 

2

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

The tendency in developing countries, particularly at medium and small scale level is to avoid paying insurance. This is compounded in many places by the lack of insurance companies at local level that want to sell insurance on fishing boats and small enterprises, social unrest, civil wars, high inflation in local currency and difficulties in having insurance paid in case of accident. This situation, when it exists, plays against sustainability.

Credit financing: Interest is compensation paid for the use of borrowed capital. On seeking credit, a fixed or adjustable interest rate is established according to the economic circumstances of the country. This interest is a fixed cost to be paid when a loan or bank credit is requested to make a full or partial investment. Even so, many insist that interest should not be regarded as a production cost since it can be considered as part of the earnings of a business. This is due to the fact that a company's earnings would depend on the source of capital employed.

Therefore, a plant which is run more efficiently and uses borrowed capital, will have higher production costs and lower earnings than one of the same size and type which operates under less efficient conditions, but which uses its own capital.

The essence of the discussion is whether or not "earnings" include interest as part of the costs. If the interest is deducted from total capital (own and borrowed), the remaining difference will represent earnings. However, for taxation purposes, the laws generally consider earnings as the difference between income from sales (net earnings) and total costs without taking account of interest on the capital belonging to the company. Thus, unless otherwise specified by law, interest paid on a loan bank credit or financial credit by suppliers (e.g., on machinery) should be considered a fixed cost.

Other obligations: This includes rent (when the land and/or building or even equipment is rented), contributions, etc.

4.3.1.3 General expenses

In the fishery industry, these costs are a small part of the total costs of production (approximately 1 %) and are usually estimated in conjunction with investment costs.

4.3.1.4 Global estimate of indirect costs

When a quick estimate has to be made, these costs can be calculated together as a percentage of the direct costs of manufacture, using coefficients given in Table 4.13, which were generally evaluated for the fishery industry.

Table 4.13 Indirect Costs for Fish Processing Plants

Type of Plant

Indirect Costs

Country

Data calculated from

 

% of Direct Costs

% of Total Cost of Production

 

 

Canning, Sardines

10-12.5

8-10

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Freezing

17-20.0

14-16

"

"

"

13.9

10.8

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Salting of anchovy

16.8-19.7

14-16

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b

Fishmeal

2.5

11.8

"

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

FPC

16.0

13.6

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

4.3.2 Management and administration costs

Some authors propose an estimate of 40% of direct labour for this component. However, when estimating this component as percentages of direct production costs for the fishery industry, values in Table 4.14 can be used (Zugarramurdi, 1981b).

Management and administration costs usually include the costs of all the services related indirectly to production, for example:

Table 4.14 Management and Administration Costs for Fish Plants

Type of Plant 

% Direct Costs

% Total Costs

Country

Data calculated from

Canning

       

Sardine and mackerel 

5-7.5

4-6

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Tuna 

5

-

Senegal

(Jarrold & Everett, 1978)

Tuna 

8.5

6

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al, 1973)

Shrimp

2.1

1.8

"

"

Sardines 

8.8

4.85

Tropical Countries

(Edwards et al, 1981)

Freezing 

3.9

3.2

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Shrimp 

12.6

9.8

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Salting 

2.6

2.1

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Fishmeal 

3.2

1.7

"

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

4.3.3 Sale and distribution costs

This component usually includes:

In general, this cost is usually approximated as 1 % of total sales. In the case of fish plants, values in Table 4.15 can be used.

Table 4.15 Sale and Distribution Costs for Fish Plants

Type of Plant 

% Direct Costs

% Total Costs

Country

Data calculated from

Canning

 

 

 

 

Sardine and mackerel

2.5-12.5

2

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Shrimp 

0.9

0.8

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al,1973)

Tuna 

2.4

1.8

"

"

Freezing 

1.0

0.8

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Salting 

0.9

0.7

"

"

Fishmeal 

0.6

0.5

"

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

4.3.4 Global estimate of fixed costs

From the values given before (see section 4.3), it is possible to estimate the values given in Table 4.16 which allow the approximate Total Fixed Costs for a fish processing plant to be estimated.

Table 4.16 Fixed Costs for Fish Plants

Type of Plant

% Direct Costs

% Total Costs

Country

Data calculated from

Canning

       

Sardine and mackerel 

22-29.5

18-22

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Tuna 

18.5

14.5

Indonesia

(Bromiley et al, 1973)

Shrimp 

11.4

10.2

"

"

Sardines 

11

10.2

Tropical countries

(Edwards et al, 1981)

Freezing 

22-25

18-20

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

"

22.8

22.4

UK

(Graham, 1984)

Fishmeal 

16.3

14

Argentina

(Cabrejos & Malaret, 1969)

FPC 

18.5

15.5

USA

(Almenas, 1972)

"

23.8

19.3

Brazil

(Vaaland & Piyarat, 1982)

Salting 

22.7

18.5

Argentina

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

4.4 Case Studies on Production Costs

4.4.1 Icing costs utilizing insulated containers

In tropical developing countries, the only economically viable possibility of introducing ice in fisheries, is introducing insulated fish containers together with ice. Depending on the case, even insulated containers may not be a sustainable choice. However, the option to insulate containers plus ice, a cold chain with refrigerated trucks and chilling rooms will be more expensive and probably less sustainable. In order to make a proper analysis of production costs of icing, it should be taken as an activity in which equipment (the insulated container, fixed costs) is operated by a worker (labour cost), who introduces ice (raw material) into the container, in order to create a finite volume where a given amount of fish will be kept at about 0C. This means that in this operation, three basic elements are needed to determine the icing processing cost (IPC):

IPC = (fixed costs) + (ice cost) + (labour cost)         (4.8)

The fixed cost will be in this case basically the depreciation cost. Therefore, according to the section on depreciation (p. 111):

(fixed costs) = e x (I - L)         (4.9)

where:

e = annual depreciation value (l/expected lifespan)
I = depreciable investment (the cost of the container)
L = residual value (in case of fish boxes and containers L = 0)

In the case of fish boxes and insulated containers, it is customary to count lifespan according to the number of times the box or container is utilized. This criterion can be considered equivalent to the annual depreciation value and it is easier to understand particularly at the artisanal level. Therefore, fixed costs can be expressed in this case as:

(fixed costs) = I/N         (4.10)

with:

N = expected. number of times the container will be used

In the same way:

(ice cost) = ci x Mi             (4.11)

(labour cost) = cw x tfh         (4.12)

where:

ci = price of ice (US$/kg)

cw = cost of labour (US$/man x hour)

Mi = initial mass of ice in the container (kg)

tfh = working time to fill in a container with fish and ice (hours) (tfh should incorporate transport time within the plant, washing if necessary, dead and waiting time and any other time linked with the operation)

Replacing (4.10), (4. 11) and (4.12) in (4.8) the following is obtained:

IPC = (I/N) + ci x Mi + cw x tfh         (4.13)

Expression (4.13) can be used to estimate the icing cost (one operation with a given container). However, as with other equipment, it is more useful to express the results per 1 kg of final product. In this case, the final product is the amount of fish chilled and kept at 0 °C in the insulated container (Mf). Dividing both parts of (4.13) by Mf gives:

IC = I/(N x Mf) + c i x (Mi/Mf) + cw x (tf/Mf)                 (4.14)

where:

IC = Icing costs per 1 kg of fish kept in the container (US$/kg of fish).

Equation (4.14) allows introduction of the capacity factor. In the way that, for instance, a fish filleting machine will be evaluated according to the number of fish it can process in a given period (because it is related to production cost) an insulated container should be evaluated according to the amount of fish it can keep each time it is used. In an insulated container the useful volume is divided between fish and ice according to:

Vc = Mi x V si + Mf x Vsf (4.15)

where:

Vc = internal (useful) volume of the insulated container (cm3)

V si = specific volume of ice utilized (cm3/kg)

Vsf = specific volume of fish stowed in the container (cm3/kg)

Equation (4.15) assumes that the container is fully loaded with ice and fish (which in most cases is a normal situation). As the fish to ice ratio is:

n = Mf /Mi (4.16)

from where:

Mf = n x Mi                 (4.17)

or:

Mi = Mf /n         (4.18)

replacing (4.18) in (4.15) gives:

Vc = Mf x (Vsf + Vsi/n)             (4.19)

or:

Mf =  Vc / (Vsf + (Vsi / n))         (4.20) 

Replacing equation (4.14) by equations (4.16) and (4.20) gives:

(4.21) 

The type of container and the conditions will influence IC(N) through VC, n and N (durability). The value of n can be obtained from the calculations presented in Chapter 2 of this manual. In general, Equation (4.21) is represented in Figure 4.6.

 

Figure 4.6 Scheme of the Ice Costs Variation vs the Number of Times the Container is Utilized

As can be seen, IC(N) will decrease with the increase in the number of times the same container (N) is utilized. If the container lasts long enough, the final costs of icing are determined by the cost of ice. The same happens if the cost of the container is negligible compared with the ice cost. N* in Figure 4.6 indicates the number of times when fixed costs equal ice costs plus wages. Above N* the relative cost of ice will be higher than the relative costs of the container. It can be seen that the fish to ice ratio will affect the incidence of the relative cost of wages. The higher the fish to ice ratio, the lower the relative incidence of wage costs for icing.

Example 4.3 Calculate Icing Costs in Developing Countries

Compare the value of fish to ice ratio (n) and the icing costs in different countries, using the situations defined in Example 2.12 (wage costs are not considered in this calculation). With: m = number of containers iced per hour = 3; tfh = 0.33 h

Table 4.17 Data for Developing Example 4.3

Country 

Paraguay

Trinidad

Tobago

Denmark

Type of container 

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Cost of container (in US$/kg) 

26.15

7.3

130

70

Ice cost (US$/kg) 

0.099

0.11

0.017

Fish cost (US$/kg)

 

 

 

Characin (Prochilodus scrofa)

0.27

-

-

Jaw characin (Salminus maxillosus) 

1

-

-

Snapper 

-

3.26

4.5

(1) Styrofoam, (2) Styrofoam, insulated, (3) Insulated (rubber), (4) Metabox 70

Answer: Using the data provided in this example, values in Table 4.18 are obtained.

Table 4.18 Optimal Utilization of Containers in Different Climatic Conditions

Country 

Paraguay

Trinidad

Tobago

Denmark

Type of container

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Mf/Mi, characin (Prochilodus scrofa) 

1.57 (19.27112.27)

-

-

-

Mf/Mi , jaw characin (Salminus maxillosus) 

1.56(19.00/12.18)

-

-

-

Mf/Mi, snapper 

 

0.71(8.31111.82)

1.32(16/12.16)

6.48

Value ice/value fish (in %)

 

 

 

 

Characin (Prochilodus scrofa) 

23.3%

 

 

-

Jaw characin (Salminus maxillosus) 

6.3%

-

 

-

Snapper 

-

4.8%

2.6%

-

N* 

21.4

5.65

77.12

434

Table 4.18 shows that the relative cost of ice in developed temperate countries is so low compared with other costs that the fish to ice ratio can be varied without introducing great changes. In tropical countries the relative cost of ice is sometimes so high that a variation in n will introduce wide variations in the total cost. The main concern in this type of country should be the increase in the fish to ice ratio (n). From Table 4.18 it is clear that the N* value is generally reached more rapidly in developing countries than in developed countries (i.e., the savings on ice would pay for the investment cost rather quickly).

The cost of the container (locally made or imported) cannot be a valid deterrent to the introduction of insulated containers in most developing countries provided they have the proper insulation and allow for tangible savings on ice and increased earnings due to quality and prevention of post-harvest losses. If wage costs are introduced in the calculations, the main factor will usually be the wage cost in developed countries whereas in developing countries it will be the ice cost.

This means that the main objective in reducing icing costs in developed countries will be (and actually is) to increase productivity, e.g., to introduce a special chute to handle ice, a special table to handle and move containers, an automatized weighing and mixing device for fish and ice, whereas in developing countries it should be to rationalize the ice consumption as far as possible (Lupin, 1985 b). Utilizing actual values, it has also been found that a 20-times difference in wage cost cannot offset a 10-times difference in the cost of ice. In this case, the "comparative advantage" of developing countries in having low manpower cost is lost when the ice cost factor is taken into consideration (Lupin, 1985 b). This case underlines the need for cost analysis as an essential tool to identify concrete development needs and define the type of technology and procedures to be pursued.

In some tropical developing countries it is possible to find large and expensive locally made metallic containers. Although they are costly probably the incidence on the costs per 1 kg of iced fish is negligible after a year or so. Moreover, the containers tend to be large in order to reduce the area/volume ratio that in turn will decrease ice losses and increase the fish to ice ratio. Fishermen may not know about the fish to ice ratio or cost calculations, but they certainly tend to optimize from experience. As found elsewhere the costs of the container are quickly paid for by the savings on ice in tropical conditions (Villadsen et al., 1979).

4.4.2 Capture costs for oastal fishing vessels

An analysis of the values for capture costs given in the literature on the subject shows that the variables which have most influence are: type of fishing vessel, fishing gear used, price of fuel, species to be caught (seasonal or yearly), efficient use of the fish hold.

Figure 4.7 is presented as an example and shows the proximal distribution of the capture costs for coastal fishing vessels in Argentina, estimated in accordance with the basic method proposed (sections 4.2 and 4.3). The results of Figure 4.7 are typical of artisanal fish processing in which a large proportion of costs is labour (crew plus the owner who is usually the master fisherman) and, therefore, profits are relatively low.

 

Figure 4.7 Proximal Distribution of Production Costs in Capture (Coastal Fishing Vessels, Argentina, Parin et al., 1987b)

In case 4.4. 1, the basic cost structure was combined with the technical aspects to develop an analysis of the situation. In case 4.4.2, the basic cost structure was applied to obtain a classic result.

4.5 Model for Estimating Production Costs in Fish Plants

When analysing production costs schemes it is useful to be able to make quick estimates on changes in one or more variables and/or to study the relationship between variables in order to determine production policies.

In analysing the methods for estimating operational costs in fish processing, it emerges that a satisfactory means of evaluating them is to consider five main variables (Parin and Zugarramurdi, 1987), devising an equation such as the following, for each productive process, using total capacity:

TC = a x R + b x L + c x E + (d + m) x (IF/Q)                             (4.22)

where:

TC = total unit cost (US$/unit of production)
R = cost of raw material (fish) (US$/unit)
L = cost of direct labour (US$/unit)
E = cost of services (US$/unit)
IF = fixed investment (US$)
Q = plant capacity (Units/year)

It can be observed that:

a indicates the relationship of total costs of raw material, including fish packaging, ingredients, etc. and R;
b indicates the relationship between total costs of direct and indirect labour (general, administrative and supervision costs) and L;
c indicates the relationship between effluent and other services and the direct costs of steam, water and electricity, affecting production;
d indicates the relationship between depreciation costs, insurance, taxes and IF /Q;
m indicates the relationship between maintenance costs and IF /Q.

The analysis of the coefficient a is especially important, as it indicates the proportion between the costs of the product with and without packaging. In canning plants, for example, the costs of the can are generally high when compared with that of raw material, reaching values close to or above 2, in the majority of the cases studied.

According to the methodology proposed, coefficient a considers not only packaging, but also ingredients. Thus a coefficient value slightly higher than 2 would indicate that the consumer is still receiving in proportion a greater quantity of raw material than packaging for the same price.

Table 4.19 shows the coefficients obtained for different fish processing plants, using equation (4.22).

Table 4.19 Estimate of Production Costs of Fish Plants

Type of Plant

a

b

c

(d + m)

References

Canning plant

         

- Sardines, manual

3.00

2.23

1.05

0.228

(Zugarramurdi & Parin, 1987a)

- Mackerel, manual

1.88

2.22

1.05

0.253

"

- Hake, manual

2.17

2.22

1.05

0.249

"

- Tuna, manual

1.30

2.22

1.05

0.237

"

Freezing plant

   

 

 

(Parin et al., 1990)

- Hake, fillet, manual

1.15

1.77

1.05

0.147

"

- Hake, H&G, manual

1.20

1.96

1.05

0.147

"

- Kingklip, fillet, manual

1.08

1.65

1.05

0.147

"

- Shrimp, manual

n/a

1.60

1.05

0.148

"

- Shrimp, mechanical

1.09

2.41

1.05

n/a

"

- Catfish, mechanical

1.06

2.27

1.05

n/a

"

Salting plant (*)

1.035

1.62

1.035

0.168

(Zugarramurdi, 1981b)

Fishmeal plant (*)

1.038

1.66

1.038

0.167

"

(*) In this case, coefficient a was calculated with R including raw material and packaging

Table 4.20 shows some values of a that were obtained from food canning plants; it is seen that in the case of sardines in oil the consumer receives a greater proportion of packaging than raw material, even in the larger volume cans. This is not the case with hake, which in the 380 g can, succeeds in reaching a coefficient value of a near to 2. A coefficient value of 2.04 was registered in a Norwegian plant (sardines); the corresponding value from tropical countries was 3.47, exceeding all similar values recorded in Argentina.

Table 4.20 Coefficients a for Fish Canning Plants

Type of Product

 

Coefficient a

Country

References

Canned fish

       

Sardines

115 g

3.34

Argentina

This work

Sardines

170 g

3.00

"

"

Sardines

260 g

2.69

"

"

Mackerel

380 g

1.88

"

"

Hake

190 g

2.72

"

"

Hake

380 g

2.17

"

"

Tuna

190 g

1.30

"

"

Hake

330 g

2.26

"

"

Sardines

115 g

3.47

Tropical Countries

(Edwards et al., 1981)

Sardines

115 g

2.04

Norway

(Myrseth, 1985)

Thus, the value of the coefficient a can be correlated to the relative prices of fish (R/TC), in order to analyse the possibilities of export and the type of modifications that will be required in the cost structure in order to reduce costs. From the relationship R/L can be defined the incentives policy to be followed. The greater the value of this relationship, the more advisable it will be to pay incentives to the work force.

From Tables 4.19 and 4.20 it is clear that coefficients of equation (4.22) should be determined for each particular case. However, coefficients in Table 4.19 and 4.20 can be used for first estimates when actual values are not available.

Example 4.4 Calculation of Production Costs for a Fish Frozen Plant

Calculate the production costs to elaborate frozen skinless fillet blocks for the frozen fish plant of Example 2.1.

(a) Component by component

(b) From the coefficients given in Table 4.19

Answer:

(a) Operating costs are commonly calculated on one of three bases: unit-of-product, daily or annual. First, it will be calculated the unit-of-product cost expressed as US$ per unit of end product. Daily production is 2 t of frozen fish blocks (FB).

- Raw Material

Fish

Amount of raw material = 5.9 t hake/day (from Example 2.3)

Price of raw material = 235 US$/t hake (from Appendix C2)

Cost of Fish = Amount raw material (t hake/day) x Price (US$/t hake) / Production fillet blocks (t FB/day)   = (5.9 x 235) / 2 = US$ 693.2/t FB

Packaging:

Amount of waxed cartons = 300 cartons (from Example 2.17)

Price of waxed boxes = US$ 0.26 (from Appendix C5)

Amount of master boxes = 100 boxes (from Example 2.17)

Price of master boxes = US$ 0.5 (from Appendix C5)

Straps and labelling cost = US$ 4/t FB

Cost of waxed cartons = Amount waxed cartons (cartons/day) x Price (US$/carton) / Production fillet blocks (t FB/day) = (300 x 0.26) / 2 = US$ 39/t FB

Cost of master boxes = Amount master boxes (boxes/day) x Price (US$/box) / Production fillet blocks (t FB/day) = (100 x 0.5) / 2 = US$ 25/t FB

Cost of Packaging = Cost of cartons + Cost of boxes + Cost of Straps & Labelling = 39 + 25 + 4 = US$ 68/t FB

Cost of Raw Materials = Cost of Fish + Cost of Packaging = 693.2 + 68 = US$ 761.2/t FB

- Labour:

Direct Labour (DL)

Filleters

Amount of Filleters = 15 (from Example 2.13)

Basic salary: US$ 0.06/kg fillet (from Appendix C3)

Social charges: 70% (Argentina, 1991)

Cost of Filleters = Basic salary (US$/kg) x (1 +social charges expressed as decimal) x 1000 kg/t FB = 0.06 US$/kg (1 + 0.70) x 1000 kg/t = US$ 102/t FB

Manual sorting workers + inspectors + packagers

Amount of workers to sort, inspect and pack = 2 + 5 + 3 = 10 (from Example 2.13)

Average rate: US$ 1.11/h (from Appendix C3)

Cost of workers = No. of workers x rate (US$/h) x h/day x (1 + social charges expressed as decimal) / Production fillet blocks (t FB/day) = 10 x US$ 1.11/h x 8 h/day x 1.51 / 2 t FB/day = US$ 67/t FB

Cost of direct labour = Cost of filleters + Cost of workers =102+ 67 = US$ 169/t FB

Indirect Labour (IL)

Workers (indirect labour) 127

Amount of workers = 2 + 2 = 4 (from Example 2.13)

Average rate: US$ 1.12/h (from Appendix C3)

Cost of indirect (or general) workers = No. of workers x rate (US$/h) x h/day x (1 + social charges expressed as decimal) / Production fillet blocks (t FB/day) = (4 x US$ 1.121h x 8 h/day x 1.70) / 2 t FB/day = US$ 30.5/t FB                    

Freezer attendants

Number of freezer attendants = 1 (from Example 2.13)

Average rate: US$ 1.49/h (from Appendix C3)

Cost of freezer attendant = No. of worker x rate (US$/h) x h/day x (1 +social charges expressed as decimal) / Production fillet blocks (t FB/day) = (1 x US$ 1.491h x 8 h/day x 1.70) / 2 t FB/day = US$ 10.1 /t FB

Cost of indirect labour = Cost of labourers + Cost of freezer attendant = 30.5 + 10.1 = US$ 40.6/t FB

Total Cost of Labour Cost of direct labour + Cost of indirect labour = 169+ 40.6 = US$ 209.6/t FB

- Supervision:

Supervision of labour cost is generally estimated as a percentage of operating labour cost, a typical value being 10% (from Table 4.6).

Total Cost of Supervision = 0. 10 x Cost of labour 0. 10 x US$ 209.6/t FB = US$ 21/t FB

- Utilities:

Electricity

Energy consumption= 200 kWh/t FB (from Example 2.15)

Average rate: US$ 0.20/kWh (from Appendix C4)

Cost of electricity = Energy consumption (kWh/t FB) x unit price (US$/kWh) = 200 kWh/t FB x US$ 0.20/kWh = US$ 40/t FB

Water

Water consumption= 9.5 m3/t FB (from Example 2.15)

Average rate: US$ 1/m3 (from Appendix C4)

Cost of water = Water consumption (m3/t FB) x unit price (US$/d) = 9.5 m3/t FB x US$ 1/m3 = US$ 9.5/t FB

Total Cost of Utilities Cost of electricity + Cost of water = 40 + 9.5 = US$ 49.5/t FB

- Maintenance:

Maintenance cost is generally estimated as a percentage of investment per year, a typical value being 4% for freezing plant (from Table 4.9).

Fixed Investment ('F ) = US$ 600 000 (from Example 3. 1)

Production fillet blocks = 2 t FB/ 8-hour shift

Operating days/year = 270

Annual production (Q) = 540 t FB

Fixed Investment per year = IF /Q = US$ 600 000/540 t FB = US$ 1 111/FB

Total Cost of Maintenance = 0.04 x Fixed Investment per year = 0.04 x US$ 1 111/t FB = US$ 44.4/t FB

On the other hand, the estimate allows for a seasonal pattern of availability of raw material in that the production line is operative for only 150 days per year.

In many fisheries, adequate catches can only be made during certain times of the year.

Direct Costs = Raw Materials + Labour + Supervision + Utilities + Maintenance = 761.2 + 209.6 + 21 + 49.5 + 44.4 = US$ 1 085.7/t FB

- Investment Costs:

Depreciation

Depreciation is generally taken as straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the plant. It is assumed a service life (n) of ten years. Allocation of the depreciable cost is uniform for all years.

Fixed Investment (I.) = US$ 600 000 (from Example 3. 1)

Because of the difficulties involved in making future estimates of salvage or scrap value, for most engineering calculations these values are usually designated as zero. Therefore,

Salvage value (L) = 0

The annual depreciation cost, by Eq. (4.4) is US$ 60 000 per year.

Unit Depreciation costs = Annual depreciation cost/ Annual production (Q) = US$ 60 000 per year/540 t FB per year = US$ 111/t FB

Insurance and Taxes

Local taxes and insurance are about 2 % of the fixed capital investment (from sections 4.3.1.1.2 and 4.3.1.1.3).

Taxes and insurance = 0.02 x Fixed Investment per year = 0.02 x US$ 1 111/t FB = US$ 22.2/t FB

Total investment costs = Depreciation + Taxes & Insurance =111 + 22.2 = US$ 133.2/t F13

- Management and Administration:

This component can be estimated as a percentage of direct production costs; a typical value being 3.9% for frozen fish plant (from Table 4.14).

Management & Administration costs = 0.039 x Direct cost = 0.039 x US$ 1 085.7/t FB = US$ 42.3/t FB

- Sales and Distribution Costs:

These costs are sometimes estimated as 1 % of direct costs for freezing plants (from Table 4.15).

Sales and Distribution costs = 0.01 x Direct Cost = 0.01 x US$ 1 085.7/t FB = US$ 11/t FB

Fixed costs = Investment + Management & Administration + Sales & Distribution = 133.2 + 42.3 + 11 = US$ 186.5/t FB

Unit Production Costs (excluding financing cost) = Direct Cost + Fixed Cost = 1085.7 + 186.5 = US$ 1 272.2/t FB

Annual Production Costs = Unit costs (US$/t FB) x Production (t FB/year) = US$ 1 272.2/t FB x 540 t FB/ year = US$ 686 988/year

(b) The unit production cost, by Eq. (4.22) and the coefficients from Table 4.19, are:

TC = 1.15 R + 1.77 L + 1.05 E + 0. 147 IF/Q

R = 693 L = 209.6 E = 49.5 IF/Q = 1 111

Unit- of- Product cost = US$ 1 383.2/t F13

Example 4.5 Calculation of Production Costs for a Fish Canning Plant

Calculate daily production costs for the canned fish plant in Example 2.2

  1. Component by component

  2. Using coefficients given in Table 4.19

Answer : (a) The daily cost will be calculated, expressed as US$/day. Daily production is 2 670 cans of 180 g each.

- Raw Material:

Fish

Amount of raw material = 1 t tuna/day (from Example 2.5)

Price of raw material = US$ 1 000/t tuna (from Appendix C2)

Cost of Fish = Amount raw material (t tuna/day) x Price (US$/t tuna) = 1 t tuna/day x US$ 1 000/t tuna = US$ 1 000/day

Oil

Amount of oil = 80 kg oil/day (from Example 2.5)

Price of oil = US$ 0.51kg oil (from Appendix C2)

Cost of Oil = Amount of oil (80 kg/day) x Price (US$/kg oil) = 80 kg oil/day x US$ 0.5/kg oil = US$ 40/day

Salt

Amount of salt = 12 kg/day (from Example 2.5)

Price of salt = US$ 0.5/kg salt (from Appendix C2)

Cost of Salt = Amount salt (kg salt/day) x Price (US$/kg salt) = 12 kg/day x US$ 0.5/kg salt = US$ 6/day

Packaging

Amount of cans = 2670 cans (from Example 2.18)

Price of can = US$ 0.12 (from Appendix C5)

Amount of cardboard boxes = 115 boxes (from Example 2.17)

Price of cardboard box = US$ 0.3 (from Appendix C5)

Cost of cans = Amount of cans (cans/day) x Price (US$1can) = 2 670 cans/day x US$ 0.12/can = US$ 320.4/day

Cost of cardboard boxes = Amount of boxes (boxes/day) x Price (US$/box) = 115 boxes/day x US$ 0.3/box = US$ 34.5/day

Cost of Packaging = Cost of cans + Cost of cardboard boxes = 320.4 + 34.5 = US$ 354.9/day

Cost of Raw Materials = Fish + Oil + Salt + Packaging = 1 000 + 40 + 6 + 354.9 = US$ 1 400.9/day

- Labour (direct and indirect):

Amount of workers = 14 (from Example 2.14)

Basic salary, including social benefits: US$ 10/day (8-hour shift) (from Appendix C3)

Cost of workers = no. of workers x rate (US$/day) = 14 workers x US$ 10/day x worker = US$ 1401day

- Supervision:

Supervision of labour cost is generally estimated as a percentage of operating labour cost, a typical value being 10% (from Table 4.6). As one supervisor is required with a daily rate of US$ 14/day, the result is the same.

Cost of Supervision = 0. 10 x Cost of Labour = 0. 10 x US$ 140/day = US$ 14/day

- Utilities:

Electricity

Energy consumption 0.031 kWh/can (from Example 2.16)

Average rate: US$ 0.20/kWh. (from Appendix C4)

Cost of electricity = Energy consumption (kWh/can) x unit price (US$/kWh) x production (cans/day) = 0.031 kWh/can x US$ 0.20/kWh x 2 670 cans/day US$ 16.6/day

Fuel Oil

Fuel oil consumption = 0.034 kg/can (from Example 2.16)

Average rate: US$ 0.2/kg fuel oil (from Appendix C4)

Cost of fuel oil = Fuel oil consumption (kg/can) x unit price (US$/kg) x production (cans/day) = 0.034 kg/can x US$ 0.2/kg x 2 670 cans/day = US$ 18.2/day

Water

Water consumption = 8.9 1/can (from Example 2.16)

Average rate: US$ 1/1000 1 (from Appendix C4)

Cost of water = Water consumption (l/t FB) x unit price (US$/m3) x production (cans/day) = 8.9 1/can x US$ 1/1000 1 x 2 670 cans/day= US$ 23.8/day

Cost of Utilities = Cost of electricity + Cost of fuel oil + Cost of water = 16.6 + 18.2 + 23.8 = US$ 58.6/day

- Maintenance:

Maintenance cost is generally estimated as a percentage of investment per year, a typical value being 3% for canning plant (from Table 4.9).

Fixed Investment (h) = US$ 130 000 (from Example 3.2)

Production = 2 670 cans/8-hour shift

Operating days/year = 250

Annual production (Q) = 667 500 cans

Fixed Investment per day = IF / Q = US$ 130 000 1250 days = US$ 520/day

Cost of Maintenance = 0.04 x Fixed Investment per day = 0.04 x US$ 520/day = US$ 20.8/day

On the other hand, the estimate allows for a seasonal pattern of availability of raw material in that the production line is operative for only 150 days per annum. In many fisheries, adequate catches can only be made during certain times of the year.

Direct Costs = Raw Materials + Labour + Supervision + Utilities + Maintenance = = 1400.9 + 140 + 14 + 58.6 + 20.8 = US$ 1 634.3/day

- Investment Costs:

Depreciation

Depreciation is generally taken as straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the plant. A service life (n) of ten years is assumed. Allocation of the depreciable cost is uniform for all years.

Fixed Investment (IF ) = US$ 130 000 (from Example 3.2)

Salvage value (L) = 0

The annual depreciation cost, by Eq. (4.4) is US$ 13 000 per year.

Unit Depreciation costs = Annual depreciation cost/Annual production (Q) = = US$ 13 000 per year/250 day per year = US$ 52/day

- Management and Administration:

Insurance and Taxes

Local taxes and insurance are about 4% of the fixed capital investment (from sections on property taxes and insurance, p. 115).

Taxes and insurance = 0.04 x Fixed Investment/day = 0.04 x US$ 520/day = US$ 20.8/day

Total investment costs = Depreciation + Taxes & Insurance = 52 + 20.8 = US$ 72.8/day

This component can be estimated as a percentage of labour costs; a typical value is 40% (from section 4.3.2) or as 7% of direct costs for canning plants (Table 4.14).

Management and Administration costs = 0.40 x Labour cost = 0.40 x US$ 140/day = US$ 56/day

Management and Administration costs = 0.07 x Direct cost = 0.07 x US$ 1 634.3/day = US$ 114.4/day

Average of two estimated values will be considered, therefore,

Management and Administration costs = US$ 85.2/day

- Sales and Distribution Costs:

These costs are sometimes estimated as 1 % of sales or as a percentage of direct costs (from Table 4.15).

Sales and Distribution costs = 0.01 x Sales/day = 0.01 x US$ 2 000/day = US$ 20/day

Sales and Distribution costs = 0.024 x Direct cost = 0.024 x US$ 1 634.3/day = US$ 39.2/day

A reasonable figure for sales and distribution costs is US$ 29.6.

Fixed costs = Investment + Management and Administration + Sales and Distribution = 72.8 + 85.2 + 29.6 = US$ 187.61day

Daily Production Costs (excluding financing cost) = Direct Cost + Fixed Cost = 1634.3 + 187.6 = US$ 1 821.9/day

Annual Production Costs = Daily costs (US$1day) x Operating days/year = US$ 1 821.9/day x 250 days/year = US$ 455 475/year

(b) The daily production cost, by Eq. (4.22) and the coefficients from Table 4.19, are:

TC = 1.3 R + 2.22 L + 1.05 E + 0.237 IF /Q R 1000 L = 140 E = 58.6 IF /Q 520 Daily costs = US$ 1 795.57/day