Thore is an explanation for tho differential in trip exjjensQS 

 wliich is found in Toxas oparationa (Region IV). Tho explanation is a 

 si:nplo one. Tho principal elomont of trip oxponae is crow wages. The low 

 crow wajos in Regions III and IV, the principal reason for tho lov/or trip 

 costs in those areas, are explained, thareforo, in tonus of the smaller 

 proceeds from catch. 



Tho smallor proceeds are accounted for in part by the higher 

 co\mt slu'iiiip constituting a largo proportion of the Louisiana (Region 

 III) catchos, and by the lower price received for the brown shrimp in 

 Texas (Region IV) • 



VJhen the individual elenienta of cost are related to total 

 costs it becomes apparent that tho proportion of trip to vessel ex- 

 penses in tho sample of operations surveyed remained relatively con- 

 stant from year to year and region to region. Trip expenses account 

 for approximately tliree-fifths, and vessel expenses two-fifths, of 

 total expenses. Crew wages, the most important single element of cost, 

 accounted for 3D to hi cents of every expense dollar, tho corresponding 

 rango for operations in Regions III and IV (for which mora complete data 

 woro available) was considerably smaller, i.e., 33 to hO cents. Fuel 

 costs, ranlcing naxt in importance amorig trip expenses, represented from 

 7 to over l6 cents of each dollar of expense. Repairs and maintenance 

 £ind vessel depreciation were the biggest vessel expense items, account- 

 ing for Ik to 25 cents of every expense dollar. 



Motor Boats 



■ ■ I III II itiiii ■ 



Tables IV - 30 through IV - 38 show gross receipts, cost of 

 production and operating profit (or loss) for the Federal Trade Cohw 

 mission sample of shrimp motor boat operations in the South Atlantic 

 and Gulf States for the years 1952, 1953, and 19514. 



Production costs for motor boat operations showed a fair de-» 

 greo of unifoi*fflity. On the basis of data for the year 195i», the only 

 year for which comparable data for all regions are available, costs in 

 Region I appeared to exceed costs in the other three regions (sea 

 su)taary - table IV - 39), The unfavorable rosxxlts of operations in 

 1951i in all regions must be blamed on the severe price decline in tha 

 market for rav/ shrirap« 



The motor boats in tables IV - 30 through IV - 38 are identified 

 by numbers. However not all the motor boats surveyed by the Federal Trade 

 Commission furnished data which could be used for analysis. 



19h 



