เอกสารการประชุมวิชาการและเสนอผลงานวิจัย มหาวิทยาลัยทักษิณ ครั้งที่ 19 2552 - page 1096

2
producers. Simple descriptive statistics, i.e. percentage, arithmetic mean and standard error were employed to
analyze the raw data. The results of the production potential analysis of the traditional seafood processing industry
could be classified into 5 categories and could be summarized as follows. First, in term of production site, it was
found that Singhanakorn district and Muang district, Songkla Province were the most potential production areas of
this industry. Second, in term of quantity of the products, we found that dried fish, dried squeeze, dried-sweet
shrimp, shrimp paste and dried shrimp, respectively were the high potential products. Third, regarding the
production technology, it was clear that most of the producers have applied traditional simple technologies and
inadequate sanitation production system. All production processes, i.e. sizing, cleaning, boiling and drying
processes, were undertaken in the open air system. Thus, the products were contaminated by dust and plagues.
Forth, regarding the cost of production, it was found that the high cost products were dried-sweet shrimp, dried
shrimp, dried squeeze and sweet fish products, respectively. For all products, it was clear that the variable cost
shared more than 90% in the total cost. Comparing the average cost and selling price of the products, the
producers could earn profit from all products. However, the profits varied according to the products. The products
that gave high profit/kg consisted of shrimp oil, dried-sweet shrimp, dried shrimp and dried squeeze, respectively.
Fifth, regarding the desire and readiness to develop the products of the producers, it seemed that most of them did
not intend to develop the products. This could be explained as follows. From the producers’ perception, product
development was unnecessary because it would increase production cost and led to low profit.
Keywords: Production Potential, Traditional Seafood Processing Industry, Songkhla Lake Basin, Production
Cost, Profit
‡Î µœÎµ
¨»n¤œÊ嚳Á¨µŠ ¨µ˜´ÊŠ°¥¼nœ {~Šš³Á¨—oµœš·«˜³ª´œ°°„ °Š£µ‡Ä˜oĜ˜ÎµÂ®œnŠ¨³˜· ‹¼—š¸É 6 °Š«µ 27
¨·ž—µÁ®œº° ™¹Š ¨°Š˜·‹¼—š¸É 8 °Š«µ 12 ¨·ž—µÁ®œº° ¨³¦³®ªn µŠ¨°Š˜·‹¼—š¸É 99 °Š«µ 44 ¨·ž—µ˜³ª´ œ°°„ ™¹Š¨°Š˜·‹¼—š¸É
100 °Š«µ 41 ¨·ž—µ˜³ª´œ°°„ ¤¸ ÁœºÊ°š¸É 9,807 ˜µ¦µŠ„·Ã¨Á¤˜¦ (6,129,375 Ŧn) nŠ°°„Áž}œ 2 nªœ ‡º ° nªœš¸ÉÁž}œ
¡ºÊ œ—·œ¤¸ÁœºÊ°š¸Éž¦³¤µ– 8,761 ˜µ¦µŠ„·Ã¨Á¤˜¦ ¨³n ªœš¸ÉÁž}œ¡ºÊœœÊε¤¸¡ºÊœš¸Éž¦³¤µ– 1,046 ˜µ¦µŠ„·Ã¨Á¤˜¦ ¤¸ ‡ªµ¤
„ªo µŠ‹µ„š·«˜³ª´œ˜„Åžš·«˜³ª´œ°°„ž¦³¤µ– 20 „·Ã¨Á¤˜¦ nªœ‡ªµ¤¥µª‹µ„š·«Á®œº°Åžš·«Ä˜ož¦³¤µ– 75
„·Ã¨Á¤˜¦ ‡¦°‡¨»¤¡ºÊœš¸É 3 ‹´Š®ª´— ŗo„n ‹´Š®ª´—Š ¨µ ‡º° °ÎµÁ£°Á¤º°Š °ÎµÁ£°®µ—Ä®n °ÎµÁ£°³Á—µ °ÎµÁ£°¦´ ˜£¼¤·
°ÎµÁ£°¦³Ãœ— °ÎµÁ£°š·Š¡¦³ °ÎµÁ£°‡ªœÁœ¸¥Š °Î µÁ£°„¦³Â·œ›»r °ÎµÁ£°œµ®¤n °¤ °ÎµÁ£°µŠ„¨ÉÎ µ °ÎµÁ£°‡¨°Š®°¥
à n Š ‹´Š®ª´—¡´š¨»Šš´ÊŠ®¤— ¨³‹´Š®ª´—œ‡¦«¦¸›¦¦¤¦µ ‡º° °ÎµÁ£°³°ª— ¨³°ÎµÁ£°®´ ªÅš¦
ÁœºÉ°Š‹µ„¨»n¤œÊ嚳Á¨µŠ ¨µ˜´ÊŠ°¥¼nĜ¦·Áª–š¸É¤¸š´ÊŠœÊε‹º— œÊ儦n°¥ ¨³œÊεÁ‡È¤°¥¼nĄ¨oÁ‡¸¥Š„´œ ‹¹ŠšÎµÄ®o¤¸
‡ªµ¤®¨µ„®¨µ¥šµŠ¸ª£µ¡ ¤¸¡´ œ›»r¡º Â¨³¡´œ›»r ´˜ªrœÊÎ µ®¨µ„®¨µ¥œ·— nŠŸ¨Ä®o °µ¸¡ž¦³¤ŠÂ¨³Á¡µ³Á¨¸Ê¥Š´ ˜ªr
œÊÎ µ¤¸‡ªµ¤Îµ‡´˜n°Á«¦¬“„· ‹ °Š¡ºÊœš¸É—´Š„¨nµª ץĜže 2547 ÁŒ¡µ³‹´Š®ª´—Š ¨µÁ¡¸¥Š‹´Š®ª´—Á—¸¥ª¤¸¤¼¨‡n µŸ¨Ÿ¨·˜
‹µ„ž¦³¤Šš³Á¨ 4,427,385,600 ¨oµœµš Ĝ˜n¨³ª´ œ¡ªnµ ¤¸Á¦º°ž¦³¤Š ¹Ê œÁš¸¥šnµ – šnµÁ¦º°ž¦³¤ŠŠ ¨µ 44 ¨Îµ
¤¸ž¦·¤µ–´˜ªrœÊÎ µª´œ¨³ 233.92 ˜´œ ¤¼¨‡nµ 11.74 ¨o µœµš ´˜ªrœÊεš¸É‹´Å—oœ°„‹µ„‹³‹Îµ®œnµ¥Áž}œ°µ®µ¦—¨oª nªœ