@article{Vargas_2003, title={Tilapia feed market of Costa Rica.}, volume={14}, url={https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/agromeso/article/view/11995}, DOI={10.15517/am.v14i1.11995}, abstractNote={<p>The source and the</p><p>manufacturing process of tilapia feed sold in the country and</p><p>registered in the Quality Control Program for Animal Feed of</p><p>the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Costa Rica and</p><p>the prescriptions according to the physiological stage, chemical</p><p>compositions and the relations crude protein : metabolizable</p><p>energy and calcium : phosphorus, were evaluated and</p><p>compared to nutritional requirements. The physical quality</p><p>was evaluated in terms of particle size of the pellets against</p><p>the size of fish. The market study compared the selling price</p><p>per nutrient unit in each formula, with respect to its contents.</p><p>It was determined that 82.35% of the formulas were manufactured</p><p>in Costa Rica, 82.23% were extruded feed and 41%</p><p>of the formulas are recommended for all types of tilapia fish,</p><p>which resulted in inconsistencies with respect to the requirements.</p><p>However, all crude protein levels in different fingerlings</p><p>formulas complied with requirements. With respect to</p><p>physical quality the situation is more critical, since only</p><p>23.53% of the registers indicated the size of the pellet. Only</p><p>5 out of the 17 registered formulas are being marketed, reason</p><p>enough to conclude that comparing formulas on their selling</p><p>price per nutrient unit, is not a good criteria for selecting</p><p>a particular formula.</p>}, number={1}, journal={Agronomía Mesoamericana}, author={Vargas, Ruth}, year={2003}, month={Apr.}, pages={89–95} }