General francis in carp farming
465
Chairman‘s comments on Dr Leopold's paper
The
approach present is original because it provides an insight into
methods
of aquaculture efficiency in a country with a planned econonv. Since
the environmental conditions of this type of economy are not familiar to me,
I am reduced
to
formulating theories or rather to asking questions on how the
cyprinid economy functions in Poland.
First, the use of the English terms "cost" or ”benefit approach" are
confusing. The first could refer to various methods of optimizing or even ma—
ximizing profit, used in micro—economy, at a firm level. Contrary to what the
author says
("to improve profitability”), the second term does not permit de—
termination of the most efficient strategies in monetary terms. This approach
would better be called "analysis of aggregate trends" without reference to
the term "benefit".
While it furnishes a number of useful data (but for whom ?), the method
used has
certain limitations.
lt does not seem to permit a comparison of the
profitability of different types of aquacultures (e.g. trout salmon vs carp)
that use different internediate consumptions. The method does not give
enough information on the sensitivity of the Polish model to variations in
intermediate costs or market prices; the data used for the "use of feed” are
only ponderal. Moreover, this method gives no indication of the cost (or
price) levels acceptable to the Polish consumer.
The
idea of profit or benefit is never clearly defined in the paper and
seems
to
be
confused with that of maximal weight production, which is mani—
‘
festly a basically different concept. The aim of "state ponds" in terms of
"effectiveness" has not been defined clearly, but it seems to be maximal
production (corrected to what unit ?).
It would have been very interesting to have sone details on the fol—
lowing aspects (but it is true that the paper could not include them all) :
—
who determines
the
sale prices and on what basis ?
—
what are
the
criteria of economic efficiency in a pisiculture economy :
minimal cost, maximal use, maximal added value, capital return, datention
of
currency via export to West Germany, etc...?
—
can
the
implied hypothesis that all production farns behave the same be
verified ? Is there absolutely no competition between them ?
Other methods might have been used, e.g. since the system of gross
Operting margins is not satisfactory (Gilly, Weber, 1985), the method of net
added value that takes into account capital costs (but is easy to evaluate
in Poland) would be useful.
Although I do not have much knowledge of Polish economy, the method
used
seems
useful
(and efficient) in the following respects :
-
it is based on data that are usually available because physical ;
—
it does not bring into question the type and characteristics of the eco—
nomy in Poland
;
,
,
“
in these conditions, it permits a better orientation of ch01ces in terms
Of
apparently gratuitous or almost gratuitous improvement (Of Of the Phy51_
cal organization of a space
—"unused ponds"—) ;
_
_
it reveals some relationships between the technologies used and ponderal
efficiency ("damnæd" pond area ÏË
"used" pond area).
465
Chairman‘s comments on Dr Leopold's paper
The
approach present is original because it provides an insight into
methods
of aquaculture efficiency in a country with a planned econonv. Since
the environmental conditions of this type of economy are not familiar to me,
I am reduced
to
formulating theories or rather to asking questions on how the
cyprinid economy functions in Poland.
First, the use of the English terms "cost" or ”benefit approach" are
confusing. The first could refer to various methods of optimizing or even ma—
ximizing profit, used in micro—economy, at a firm level. Contrary to what the
author says
("to improve profitability”), the second term does not permit de—
termination of the most efficient strategies in monetary terms. This approach
would better be called "analysis of aggregate trends" without reference to
the term "benefit".
While it furnishes a number of useful data (but for whom ?), the method
used has
certain limitations.
lt does not seem to permit a comparison of the
profitability of different types of aquacultures (e.g. trout salmon vs carp)
that use different internediate consumptions. The method does not give
enough information on the sensitivity of the Polish model to variations in
intermediate costs or market prices; the data used for the "use of feed” are
only ponderal. Moreover, this method gives no indication of the cost (or
price) levels acceptable to the Polish consumer.
The
idea of profit or benefit is never clearly defined in the paper and
seems
to
be
confused with that of maximal weight production, which is mani—
‘
festly a basically different concept. The aim of "state ponds" in terms of
"effectiveness" has not been defined clearly, but it seems to be maximal
production (corrected to what unit ?).
It would have been very interesting to have sone details on the fol—
lowing aspects (but it is true that the paper could not include them all) :
—
who determines
the
sale prices and on what basis ?
—
what are
the
criteria of economic efficiency in a pisiculture economy :
minimal cost, maximal use, maximal added value, capital return, datention
of
currency via export to West Germany, etc...?
—
can
the
implied hypothesis that all production farns behave the same be
verified ? Is there absolutely no competition between them ?
Other methods might have been used, e.g. since the system of gross
Operting margins is not satisfactory (Gilly, Weber, 1985), the method of net
added value that takes into account capital costs (but is easy to evaluate
in Poland) would be useful.
Although I do not have much knowledge of Polish economy, the method
used
seems
useful
(and efficient) in the following respects :
-
it is based on data that are usually available because physical ;
—
it does not bring into question the type and characteristics of the eco—
nomy in Poland
;
,
,
“
in these conditions, it permits a better orientation of ch01ces in terms
Of
apparently gratuitous or almost gratuitous improvement (Of Of the Phy51_
cal organization of a space
—"unused ponds"—) ;
_
_
it reveals some relationships between the technologies used and ponderal
efficiency ("damnæd" pond area ÏË
"used" pond area).