Exploration of tools and equipment used in shrimp and farming and processing

Introduction

Shrimp production and processing contain series of steps which requires specialized tools or equipmentbased om their specialised function and efficiency as per working methods. Shrimp farming involves several equipment-dependent activities, including feeding, aeration, water-quality monitoring, disease management, maintenance and harvesting, while processing requires equipment and tools for cleaning, chilling, sorting, grading, de-heading, peeling and deveining. The use of technologies in shrimp farming depends on the nature of operation in production systems. Lekshmi et al. (2011) [1] , in a study of 120 shrimp farmers, reported increased adoption of technologies related to health and water management, with high adoption also observed for harvesting, pond-bottom management and feed management. A semi-intensive shrimp-farming case study in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, reported the use of six paddle-wheel aerators per hectare and two to four check trays per pond for aeration and feed management, respectively. Similarly, FAO reported on shrimp culture reported the use of feeding trays and automatic feeders, with tray size and placement varying according to pond conditions and feeding requirements.

In shrimp-processing facilities machinery and tools differ as per the nature of operations, including cleaning, de-heading, peeling, deveining, grading, chilling and packing. Although mechanised equipment is available for several operations, manual tools continue to be used widely for pre-processing activities. Standardized manual peeling methods has shown improvements in work methods that can enhance productivity in labourintensive shrimp processing (Chamchang et al., 2024) [2] . Therefore, mechanised systems offer advantages in processing efficiency, manual tools remain important in operations where workers perform repetitive peeling and deveining activities which require precision, careful handling and constant attention. Thus, exploring the equipment and tools used in shrimp farming and processing is important to identify types, sizes, availability, affordability, ease of use, adaptability and constraints, which can support the selection of suitable equipment for field and processing conditions. The present study explored different equipment or hand tools used in shrimp farming and processing facilities operations and assessed based on ease of use, efficiency, durability and maintenance requirements. The assessment was undertaken to identify usability and their limitations requiring for future improvement. The nature of equipment used varies according to the operation, scale of production and level of mechanization.

Materials and Methods

An exploratory field survey and market survey was adopted to identify the existing equipment and tools used in shrimp farming and processing. Field observations were carried out in 10 locations i.e 3 regions each in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana comprising shrimp farms and shrimp processing facilities. The observations were recorded to explore the equipment or tools used in shrimp farming and processing based on the activi ties performed and usability. A market survey was conducted through visits to local shops and online sources to identify the equipment or tools available. The efficiency of the tools or equipment's were evaluated using a Likert scale based on the rating given by the subjects ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = Poor, 2 = Bad, 3 = Average, 4 = Good and 5 = Very good based on the following characteristics like ease of use, efficiency, durability and maintenance requirements of the selected equipment or tools in shrimp farming and processing. Descriptive statistics, weighed mean scores and ranks were adopted for the study

Results and Discussion

The study results were presented to find different tools or equipment that are available in the market to understand the tools or machinery that were used based on the nature of activities with features in shrimp farming and processing, based on observations and workers' feedback.

Identification f the tools/ equipment

Market survey was undertaken through visits to local markets and through online websites, equipment dealers, suppliers and other sources of fisheries and processing equipment to identify the tools/ equipment available in the market shrimp farming and processing. The tools/equipment were documented with respect to type, nature of operation, material, dimensions, weight and cost and showed in Table 3

The market survey in processing facilities aimed at exploring the tools manually operated tools at processing facilities. The most common tools used by the processing workers for manual activities like peeling, be-heading and deveining were scissors, knives and foldable blades. Cent percent of the processing facilities used scissors as the primary tool for various pre-processing activities for de-heading, peeling and deveining operations. Despite the availability of tools, it was observed that most women workers performed the operations manually using both hands, indicating that the available tools were not comfortable to operate and expressed that these tools intervene their speed and efficiency. The other activities in processing facilities were mechanised and required minimal intervention, apart from regular maintenance. Processing facilities purchase imported machinery from countries like China, Thailand and Japan to meet the production demands and standard requirements. Hence, there is a need to identify the needs of the workers for better efficiency and adaptability. The market survey revealed that shrimp farmers purchased aerators ranging from ₹25,000 to ₹30,000 per set, with the price varying according to the capacity and specifications of the aerator. Most farmers used 2-3 HP aerators, while the number of aerators installed varied from approximately 2 to 10 sets or more depending on the size of the pond and aeration requirement. Locally available brands such as Nandhini and Royal were preferred by majority of the farmers, particularly because of the availability of obtaining spare parts and servicing facilities. Small and marginal farmers who were unable to make the initial investment commonly obtained aerators on a lease basis, with the leasing cost generally ranging from ₹2,000 to ₹3,000, depending on the type and capacity of the aerator or purchase second hands. Farmers operating larger pond holdings purchased aerators in bulk and maintained additional units or spare components for future use, enabling replacement according to pond level aeration requirements. Check nets were usually prepared by the farmers themselves using materials purchased from local markets, providing a low-cost and easily adaptable option for monitoring feed consumption and shrimp activity in the ponds. Feeding systems, aerators and sludge-removal equipment or motors pumps were available in different design specifications and power capacities. Smallholder farmers preferred to buy local brands of aerators, pumps and mechanical small parts for easy availability, at affordable prices and through other famers reviews.

The market survey indicated that low-cost manual tools had greater practical adaptability, while higher-priced automated farming equipment required greater investment and technical support, which influence its adoption among farmers.

Effectiveness on the usability of tools/ equipment used in shrimp farming and processing facilities

The effectiveness of the selected tools or equipment used in shrimp farming and processing facilities was assessed. The assessment was conducted established on the user's ratings with the following criteria such as ease of use, efficiency, durability and maintenance requirements to understand the improvements and gaps.

Mean scores and criterion-wise ranking of shrimp farming equipment

The scores provided by the subjects were analysed using weighed mean scores and ranking system to assess the performance and serviceability and shown in table 3. Note: Mean scores were calculated using five-point rating scale where rank 1 represented highest mean score within each criterion

The results revealed that water quality testing kits and aeration devices received the highest rating for ease of use (mean 5.0), which may be due to easy operation and availability by the farmers. Ulhaq et al. (2022) [3] reported that perceived ease of use influenced the adop tion of information and Communication technologies (ICT) among intensive shrimp farmers. Harvesting nets recorded the highest efficiency score (4.7) because of the skill acquired, the usage and repairs were taken care by the workers. In feeding systems and maintenance tools had comparatively lower efficiency scores (4.0), which related to the size of the farm and manual effort while performing the activities. The importance of farm inputs and labour in shrimp-farm efficiency was also reported by Thriveni et al. (2022) [4] . For durability, water quality testing kits, aeration devices and disease treatment equipment received the highest score (4.0), whereas harvesting nets and maintenance tools recorded lower scores (3.3). The lower durability rating of harvesting nets may be associated with repeated pulling, stretching and exposure to water and pond edges dur-ing harvesting. Frequent use and exposure to moisture may contribute to wear and tear of maintenance tools. For maintenance requirements, water quality testing kits received the highest score (4.1), while harvesting nets recorded the lowest score (2.0) due to its maintenance before or after use. Aeration devices received a lower score (2.8), because of their mechanical components require regular cleaning, inspection and servicing. Jayanthi et al. (2021) [5] highlighted the importance of appropriate aerator selection and operating conditions in shrimp farming.

Mean scores and criterion-wise ranking of shrimp processing equipment or tools

The mean scores revealed differences in worker's perceptions across the processing equipment evaluated and shown in table 4.2. Note: Mean scores were calculated using five-point rating scale where rank 1 represented highest mean score within each criterion

The findings showed that sorting/grading machines recorded the highest total mean score (4.83), with consistently high ratings for ease of use (4.90), efficiency (4.70), durability (4.90) and maintenance (4.80). This may be due to the standardized operation and reduced need for continuous manual handling. Zhao et al. (2015) [6] reported that mechanization of shrimp-processing operations could improve processing efficiency and reduce dependence on manual operations. Cleaning equipment (4.15) and chilling units (3.98) received moderate to high overall scores, indicating comparatively better usability and performance. The higher ratings were associated with standardized functions, while the relatively lower maintenance scores may reflect the need for regular cleaning, sanitation and servicing. SEAFDEC (2014) [7] emphasized that seafood-processing equipment should be designed for effective cleaning, sanitation and maintenance. Further, deveining tools (2.68) and de-heading tools (2.53) received lower overall scores for ease of use and efficiency. This was related to due to manual effort required during these operations. Shelling and peeling tools recorded the lowest overall score (1.93), mainly because of very low ratings for ease of use (1.70) and efficiency (1.70). The repetitive nature of peeling and the need for continuous hand manipulation may have contributed to these lower ratings. Chamchang et al. (2024) [2] reported that adopting a standardized shrimp-peeling method improved productivity, while Zhao et al. (2015) [6] highlighted mechanization as an important approach for improving shrimp-peeling efficiency.

Conclusion

The study revealed that significant variation was observed in the performance of equipment or tools used in shrimp farming and processing. In farming, water quality testing kits recorded the highest overall mean score (4.30), whereas harvesting nets recorded the lowest (3.53); in processing, sorting/grading machines ranked first (4.83), while shelling and peeling tools recorded the lowest score (1.93). Mechanized equipment received higher scores, while manually operated processing tools showed greater constraints in ease of use and efficiency. The findings highlighted the need to develop suitable ergonomic assessment and interventions to improve work efficiency and reduce physical strain on workers.

References

1. Swathi Lekshmi PS, Balasubramani N, Chandrakandan K. Diffusion of scientific shrimp farming through various stages of the adoption period. Tropical Agricultural Research & Extension. 2011;14(4):93-98.
2. Chamchang P, Chairach J, Vilaisri S, Kumar V. Enhancing productivity: The impact of standardized work methods in the shrimp processing industry. TEM Journal. 2024;13(4):2875-2883.
3. Ulhaq I, Pham NTA, Le V, Pham HC, Le TC. Factors influencing intention to adopt ICT among intensive shrimp farmers. Aquaculture. 2022;547:737407.
4. Thriveni K, Jayaraman R, Senthikumar V, Sujathkumar NV, Anand C, Ramana TV. Technical efficiency analysis of shrimp farms in Andhra Pradesh, India using stochastic frontier approach. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 2022;69(2):119-127.
5. Jayanthi M, Balasubramaniam AAK, Suryaprakash S, Veerapandian N, Ravisankar T, Vijayan KK. Assessment of standard aeration efficiency of different aerators and its relation to the overall economics in shrimp culture. Aquacultural Engineering. 2021;92:102142. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development https://www.extensionjournal.com 26180731, 2026, 9(10), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26180723.2026.v9.i10d.4392 by International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development on [08/10/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.extensionjournal.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6. Zhao L, Xi M, Wang W, Chu X, Zhao X, Yuan Y. A review of technology development process of a typical shrimp peeling machine. Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing. 2015;9(2):JAMDSM0013.
7. mediumsized fish and fish products pre-processing establishments in ASEAN. Samut Prakan, Thailand: Training Department, SEAFDEC; 2014.
8. Alagarswami K. Report on a regional study and workshop on the environmental assessment and management of aquaculture development: India country report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1995.
9. Sasikumar R, Lourdu Lincy L, Saranya S, Roja B, Thamanna L, Sreekutty VP, Dhayanithi S, Sathyan A, Chellapandi P. Field trial evaluation of sensor-based aquaculture automation for improved biofloc shrimp culture. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2024;64:105661.
10. Tang Q, Chen B, Fang Y, Peng K, Jiang Q, Xu L. Multi-objective optimization design for prawn peeling machine via PSO-BPNSGA-II method. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology. 2026;35(4):250-267. How to cite this article: Siresha M, Lakshmi VV, Kodali S, Rani RN, Prakash CB. Exploration of tools and equipment used in shrimp and farming and processing. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2026;9(10):265271. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26180723.2026.v9.i10d.