Assessment of production, marketing and management constraints in P. vannamei shrimp farming of Andhra Pradesh

Introduction

Aquaculture has emerged as one of the world's fastest expanding food production sectors, making important contributions to food security, employment generation, export revenues, and rural livelihoods. Shrimp farming is a key aquaculture commodity due to its high economic value and significant international market demand. India is one of the world's biggest producers and exporters of farmed shrimp, with frozen shrimp accounting for the majority of the country's seafood export revenues. In 2025-26, India recorded its highest-ever seafood exports, hitting 1.97 million metric tonnes valued at ₹73,890 crore. Frozen shrimp was the main export commodity driving this development. Andhra Pradesh is India's largest shrimp producer and the backbone of the country's shrimp export economy. The state accounts for more than half of India's farmed shrimp production and has the greatest area under Penaeus vannamei cultivation. According to MPEDA 2026 reports, Andhra Pradesh accounted for 71,921 ha under P. vannamei cultivation, generating 6,34,672 metric tons with a productivity of 8.82 MT ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, significantly higher than the national average. According to current statistics, Andhra Pradesh accounts major share of India's total seafood exports and is the country's largest aquaculture hub, notably in coastal districts like Bapatla, Krishna, East Godavari, West Godavari, and Nellore (MPEDA,2024-25). Despite its remarkable growth and economic significance, shrimp farming in the state confronts a range of production and marketing obstacles, including concerns about seed quality, feed costs, disease outbreaks, infrastructure shortages, market fluctuations, and management strategies. These constraints have the potential to reduce shrimp farming operations' productivity, profitability, and sustainability. As a result, understanding and prioritizing the restrictions faced by shrimp producers is critical for creating effective policy interventions and extension programs. In this regard, the current study was conducted to assess the key obstacles faced by shrimp farmers.

Materials and methods

A sample of 200 shrimp farmers were selected through simple random sampling technique to identify the constraints faced by farmers in shrimp farming in Bapatla district, Andhra Pradesh state. Ex-post facto research design was adopted to collect information about constraints faced by shrimp farmers. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed and farmer group discussions were also held to collect primary data. After review of the literature and a discussion with an expert group, the constraints that shrimp producers encounter were identified. A total of 32 constraints were enlisted and categorised under five heads www.extensionjournal.com i.e. seed constraints (05 nos.), feed constraints (04 nos.), disease constraints (03 nos.), marketing constraints (07 nos.), management constraints (06 nos.) and miscellaneous constraints (07 nos.). Percentage analysis is performed based on the farmers' statements, and Garrett ranking method followed to highlight and rank the most critical constraints experienced by shrimp farmers.

Results and Discussion

Seed constraints

The respondents' major seed constraints were tabulated in table 1. Ninety-three percent (93%) of respondents cited that high cost of seed as major constraint (Mittal, I. and Mavi, H.K.,2025) (Patil, S. and Sharma, A., 2020) (Mohamed et al 2013), (Koteswari et al, 2014), (Jagadeesh, 2015) (Srinivas and Venkatrayalu 2016). And majority of farmers identified three major issues in shrimp farming: heavy mortality of hatchery seeds due to low quality 90% (Tank, K.V. et.al 2019) (Tandel, J. and Maheta, D., 2018.), insufficient supply of hatchery seeds at the necessary period (88%) (Tejavath Jagadeesh,2015) and non-availability of quality seed 90% (Chittem, P.B. and Kunda, S.K., 2017) (Patil, S. and Sharma, A., 2020). Furthermore, mixed seed or variations in seed size from hatcheries caused issues for 65% of the respondents (Ravichandran, P., 2025), (Phana, N.T et.al 2022) [26, 22, 17, 21, 34, 6, 13, 14, 18, 20, 32, 35] .

Feed constraints

The main feed limitations that the respondents faced were listed in table 2. The most significant issue, according to 97% of farmers, is the high cost of feed (Mittal, I. and Mavi, H.K.,2025) (Patil, S. and Sharma, A., 2020) (Tank, K.V. et.al 2019) (Sayed et al, 2013) (Tandel and Meheta, 2018). 77% of respondents agreed that the feed was of poor quality (Chittem, P.B. and Kunda, S.K., 2017), (Tandel and Meheta, 2018) and 71% reported that aflatoxins in the feed caused problems. Additionally, 58% of respondents cited that absence of feed mills or processing facilities as one of the limitations (Chittem and Kunda 2017), (Mohamed et al 2013), (Koteswari et al 2014) (Jagadeesh, 2015) [6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 33, 34] .

Disease constraints

The respondents stated major shrimp health problems in the table 3. According to 98% of respondents, WSSV was the most dangerous disease (Santhosha, K.M. and Naik, A.D., 2022), (Hira, B et (Chellapandian, H et.al. 2021). Some of the respondents reported that these diseases were not a problem in aquaculture [5, 9, 12, 20, 21, 29, 30] .

Marketing constraints

The respondents' main marketing obstacles are displayed in the table 4. The majority of farmers cited inputs price variations (96%), ( and Low, L.K., 1995) as their top concerns. Ninety-one percent of the respondents stated that they had no government support, (Patil, S. and Sharma, A., 2020) and eighty-eight percent reported they had problems because they were far from the market (Ha, T.T.P et.al 2013) (Phillips, M. and Subasinghe, R., 2010) and lack awareness about product cost or how to store it. Just 11% of respondents stated that excessive commission fees were a significant barrier [23] .

Management constraints

The table 5 shows the primary managerial constraints of the responders. The majority of farmers listed ignorance of export-oriented standards (80%) and insufficient inlet and exit canals for feeding and drainage (70%) as their top concerns. Sixty-two percent of respondents stated they were uninformed of MPEDA/CAA services (Saha, A.M.B. and Roy, A., 2019). (Tandel, J. and Maheta, D., 2018.), whereas forty percent reported unaware of quarantine requirements (Santhosha, K.M. and Naik, A.D., 2022). In contrast, fewer respondents admitted to issues with theft (15%) and birds (20%). Roshnath, R et.al (2014) and Ramesh Roshnath et.al (2014) reported engaging dogs as guards and bird fencing would reduce the theft issues and damage from migratory birds. These data demonstrates that inadequate infrastructure and a lack of institutional and technical expertise are the primary management challenges affecting farmers. Cold storage facilities are necessary to maintain post-harvest shrimp quality over extended periods of time. It also decreases post-harvest losses during marketing. Government institutions, such as NABARD and MPEDA, can support shrimp marketing development through various schemes (Santhosha, K.M. and Naik, A.D., 2022). Each block should have one or more ice factories. Shrimp growers and middlemen cited transportation as a major impediment in marketing shrimp. Increased fuel and transportation costs impact the marketing of shrimp [25, 27, 28, 30, 33] .

Miscellaneous constraints

The table 6 illustrates that the respondents' diverse miscellaneous constraints. Most farmers identified lack of post-harvest knowledge (79%) ( [2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39] . www.extensionjournal.com

Conclusion

The present study identified and studied the primary constraints encountered by shrimp producers in Bapatla district of Andhra Pradesh state. The data revealed that high input costs, notably feed and seed prices, were the most important productivity restrictions. Farmers also reported significant challenges due to poor seed quality, disease outbreaks such as White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP), price fluctuations in inputs, lack of storage and post-harvest infrastructure, and insufficient awareness of institutional support services. Furthermore, challenges in technical knowledge, marketing facilities, and post-harvest management were found to adversely affect the profitability and sustainability of shrimp farming. Addressing these limitations a collaborative effort from government agencies, research institutes, hatcheries, feed makers, and extension programs is needed. Ensuring the availability of quality seed, strengthening disease surveillance systems, improving marketing and cold-chain infrastructure, increasing insurance coverage, and improving farmers' access to technical training and institutional services can all have a significant impact on farm productivity and income. The study's findings can help policymakers and stakeholders design focused interventions for sustainable shrimp aquaculture development in Andhra Pradesh.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors sincerely thank Vice Chancellor, Acharya Nagarjuna University for providing necessary facilities for conducting the study. The author thanks the respondents for being patient enough to vide necessary information to the study

References

1. Alam SMN. Shrimp depots: Quality management practices and strategic approaches in Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2024;16(15):6628.
2. Bhargavi KSS, Kumaran M, Muralidhar M, et al. Does abiotic stress influence the white fecal disease incidence and its intensity in Penaeus vannamei shrimp farms? Aquacult Int. 2025;33:220.
3. Bhargavi KSS, Kumaran M, Ravisankar T, Kumar JA, Kumar TS, Muralidhar M, et al. Is the price volatility risk in shrimp farming manageable and can profitability be sustained? Aquacult Int. 2025;33(1):57.
4. Bisheko MJ, Rejikumar G. Major barriers to adoption of improved postharvest technologies among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: A systematic literature review. World Dev Sustain. 2023;2:100070.
5. Chellapandian H, Sivakamavalli J, Anand AV, Balasubramanian B. Challenges in controlling vibriosis in shrimp farms. In: Infections and Sepsis Development. London: IntechOpen; 2021.
6. Chittem PB, Kunda SK. Constraints analysis of Litopenaeus vannamei culture in Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Int J Res Stud Biosci. 2017;5(10):10-17.
7. Chittem PB, Kunda SK. Constraints perceived by the Litopenaeus vannamei farmers with implementation of better management practices (BMPs) in Andhra Pradesh, India. Int J Fish Aquat Stud. 2018;6(6):292300.
8. Chowdhury MA, Khairun Y, Shivakoti GP. Indicatorbased sustainability assessment of shrimp farming: A case for extensive culture methods in south-western coastal Bangladesh. Int J Sustain Dev. 2015;18(4):261281.
9. Geetha R, Avunje S, Solanki HG, Priyadharshini R, Vinoth S, Anand PR, et al. Farm-level economic cost of Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei to Indian Penaeus vannamei shrimp farming. Aquaculture. 2022;548:737685.
10. Ha TTP, van Dijk H, Bosma R, Sinh LX. Livelihood capabilities and pathways of shrimp farmers in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Aquac Econ Manag. 2013;17(1):1-30.
11. Hassan MN, Rahman MM, Hossain MM, Nowsad AAKM, Hossain MB. Post-harvest handling and marketing of shrimp and prawn in south-western region of Bangladesh. World J Fish Mar Sci. 2012;4(6):651656.
12. Hira B, Rahman MA, Mazumder MSU, Ali MS, Al Masum A. Constraints faced by the farmers in shrimp culture: An empirical investigation from selected areas of Bagerhat district. J Bangladesh Agric Univ. 2025;23(1):50-58.
13. Jagadeesh T. An economic analysis of shrimp farming practices in Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh [master's thesis]. Nagapattinam (Tamil Nadu): Tamil Nadu Fisheries University; 2015. 99 p.
14. Koteswari N, Sheela I, Leo Cyril AR, Viswanatha BS. Impact of aqua societies on shrimp farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. Fish Technol. 2014;51(2):130-135.
15. Kumaran M, Ravisankar T, Anand PR, Vimala DD, Balasubramanian CP. Knowledge level of shrimp farmers on better management practices (BMPs) of Penaeus vannamei farming: A comparative assessment of east and west coasts of India. Indian J Fish. 2017;64(3):93-99.
16. Lin DY, Wu MH. Pricing and inventory problem in shrimp supply chain: A case study of Taiwan's white shrimp industry. Aquaculture. 2016;456:24-35.
17. Mittal I, Mavi HK. Constraints encountered by farmers engaged in shrimp cultivation in Punjab. List Sci Who Joined Life Members. 2025;1:518.
18. Mohamed EM, Ghoneim S, Gaber D, Ashraf ELD. Major constraints facing development of marine shrimp farming in Egypt. J Arabian Aquacult Soc. 2013;8(2).
19. O'Keefe T, Campabadal CA. Storage and handling of feeds for fish and shrimp. In: Davis DA, editor. Feed and feeding practices in aquaculture. Duxford: Woodhead Publishing; 2022. p.337-351. www.extensionjournal.com
20. Patil PK, Geetha R, Ravisankar T, Avunje S, Solanki HG, Abraham TJ, et al. Economic loss due to diseases in Indian shrimp farming with special reference to Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei and white spot syndrome virus. Aquaculture. 2021;533:736231.
21. Patil S, Sharma A. Empirical analysis of constraints faced by shrimp farmers of Maharashtra. J Exp Zool India. 2020;23(2).
22. Phana NT, Pabuayon IM, Kien ND, Dung TQ, An LT, Dinh NC. Factors driving the adoption of coping strategies to market risks of shrimp farmers: A case study in a coastal province of Vietnam. Asian J Agric Rural Dev. 2022;12(2):65-74.
23. Phillips M, Subasinghe R. Small-scale shrimp farmers and global markets: Trends, future prospects and adaptation. In: The Shrimp Book. Wallingford: CABI; 2010. p.35-46.
24. Pongthanapanich T, Nguyen KAT, Jolly CM. Risk management practices of small intensive shrimp farmers in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. FAO Fish Aquac Circ. 2019;(1194).
25. Ravichandran P. Health management in penaeid shrimp seed production. In: Aquatic Animal Health Management. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2025. p.545-568.
26. Roshnath R, Chandramohan B, Ashokkumar M, Pramod VS. Bird damage and mitigation measures in shrimp farms of Cuddalore and Villupuram district of Tamil Nadu. In: Proceedings of the 26th Kerala Science Congress; 2014; Pookode, Wayanad. p.28-31.
27. Saha AMB, Roy A. Constraints analysis of Penaeus vannamei culture in Purba Medinipur district, West Bengal. Fish Stat. 2019;2017:18.
28. Sai Susmitha Bhargavi K, Kumaran M, Ravisankar T, Muralidhar M, Sathish Kumar T, Ananthan PS, et al. Risk perception and assessment in Pacific white shrimp farming: An exploratory study. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(7):203-210.
29. Santhosha KM, Naik AD. Constraints analysis of shrimps farming in Karnataka-RBQ approach. J Farm Sci. 2022;35(4):460-464.
30. Silva JL, Philips H, Madrid RM. Post-harvest handling and processing. In: New MB, Valenti WC, Tidwell JH, D'Abramo LR, Kutty MN, editors. Freshwater prawns: Biology and farming. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p.400-419.
31. Srinivas D, Venkatrayalu C. Studies on present problems and prospects of shrimp farming in West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh, India. Adv Appl Sci Res. 2016;7(2):49-54.
32. Tandel J, Maheta D. Constraint analysis of shrimp culture in Gujarat, India. Int J Fish Aquat Res. 2018;3(2):30-34.
33. Tank KV, Yusufzai SI, Bajaniya VC. Constraints analysis of shrimp farming in Saurashtra, Gujarat, India. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2019;7(3):124-127.
34. Tejavath J. An economic analysis of shrimp farming practices in Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh [master's thesis]. Nagapattinam (Tamil Nadu): Tamil Nadu Fisheries University; 2015.
35. Tolentino PDH, Manggao DFB, Plasus MMG. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices on fisheries postharvest losses in Lucena, Quezon Province, Philippines. J Ilm Perikan Kelaut. 2026;18(1):295.
36. Tothova M. Main challenges of price volatility in agricultural commodity markets. In: Piot-Lepetit I, M'Barek R, editors. Methods to analyse agricultural commodity price volatility. New York: Springer; 2011. p.13-29.
37. Tu VH, Trang NT, Nomura H, Takahashi Y. Understanding shrimp farmer preferences on indexbased insurance as a risk mitigation tool in the Mekong Delta. Discov Sustain. 2025;6(1):1142.
38. Yamagata M, Low LK. Banana shrimp, Penaeus merguiensis, quality changes during iced and frozen storage. J Food Sci. 1995;60(4):721-726.