Advertisement

Fisheries Science

, Volume 85, Issue 6, pp 1055–1065 | Cite as

Bio-economic analysis of super-intensive closed shrimp farming and improvement of management plans: a case study in Japan

  • Junpei Shinji
  • Setsuo Nohara
  • Nobuyuki Yagi
  • Marcy WilderEmail author
Original Article Aquaculture

Abstract

Crustacean aquaculture is a multibillion-dollar industry worldwide that continues to show significant growth. Shrimp farming has been intensified for decades, and super-intensive closed culture systems have now been developed to improve productivity and reduce environmental burdens. Here, we used bio-economic approaches to investigate the mechanisms and economic productivity of shrimp farming. We used three steps: (1) path analysis by using structural equation models to determine the candidate factors associated with productivity; (2) modeling of population dynamics and profits; and (3) simulations based on the models to clarify the productive characteristics of a super-intensive closed culture system. Our findings suggest that the population dynamics of the system were limited by unidentified factors that differed from those found in many experimental studies, such as water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and nitrogenous waste. The unidentified factors were related to the number of days of rearing and cumulative biomass mortality. The production plan suggested by our simulation required frequent culture rotation to increase profits. Our case study provides important practical information about the characteristics of super-intensive shrimp farming, implications for efficient economic management, and new research subjects for the future.

Keywords

Bio-economic Litopenaeus vannamei Population dynamics Shrimp farming Super-intensive aquaculture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Takahiro Matsui and Dr. Taro Oishi of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Dr. Tomoaki Murakami of the University of Tokyo, and Dr. Toru Nakajima of Mie University for their helpful technical assistance.

Supplementary material

12562_2019_1357_MOESM1_ESM.docx (61 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 61 kb)

References

  1. Araneda M, Pérez EP, Gasca-Leyva E (2008) White shrimp Penaeus vannamei culture in freshwater at three densities: condition state based on length and weight. Aquaculture 283:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avella MA, Olivotto I, Silvi S, Place AR, Carnevali O (2010) Effect of dietary probiotics on clownfish: a molecular approach to define how lactic acid bacteria modulate development in a marine fish. Am J Physiol Regul I 298:359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlanga-Robles CA, Ruiz-Luna A, Bocco G, Vekerdy Z (2011) Spatial analysis of the impact of shrimp culture on the coastal wetlands on the Northern coast of Sinaloa, Mexico. Ocean Coast Manag 54:535–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronnmann J, Asche F (2016) The value of product attributes, brands and private labels: an analysis of frozen seafood in Germany. J Agric Econ 67:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chockley BR, St. Mary CM (2003) Effects of body size on growth, survivorship, and reproduction in the banded coral shrimp, Stenopus hispidus. J Crustac Biol 23:836–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curran S (2002) Migration, social capital and the environment: considering migrant selectivity and network in relation to coastal ecosystems. Popul Dev Rev 28:89–125Google Scholar
  7. Dierberg FE, Kiattisimkul W (1996) Issues, impacts, and implications of shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Environ Manag 20:649–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Estrada-Pérez M, Ruiz-Velazco JMJ, Hernandez-Llamas A, Zavala-Leal I (2015) A bio-economic approach to analyze the role of alternative seeding-harvesting schedules, water quality, stocking density and duration of cultivation in semi-intensive production of shrimp in Mexico. Lat Am J Aquat Res 43:466–472Google Scholar
  9. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2017) FishStatJ: software for fishery statistical time series. Version 3.03.2. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Statistics and Information Branch. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  10. Flaherty M, Karnjanakesorn C (1995) Marine shrimp aquaculture and natural resource degradation in Thailand. Environ Manag 19:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furtado PS, Campos BR, Serra FP, Klosterhoff M, Romano LA, Wasielesky W (2015) Effects of nitrate toxicity in the Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, reared with biofloc technology (BFT). Aquac Int 23:315–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonzalez-Romano MA, Hernandez-Llamas A, Ruiz-Velazco JMJ, Plascencia-Cuevas TN, Nieto-Navarro JT (2014) Stochastic bio-economic optimization of pond size for intensive commercial production of whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 433:496–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hostins B, Braga A, Lopes DLA, Wasielesky W, Poersch LH (2015) Effect of temperature on nursery and compensatory growth of pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis reared in a super-intensive biofloc system. Aquac Eng 66:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hudinaga M, Kittaka J (1967) The large scale production of the young Kuruma prawn, Penaeus japonicas Bate. Inf Bull Planktol Jpn Commemoration Vol., Dr. Matsue's 60th Birthday 35–46Google Scholar
  15. Ishida T, Fukushige M (2010) The effects of fishery harbor-based brands on the brand equity of shore fish: an empirical study of branded mackerel in Japan. Food Policy 35:488–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kautsky N, Ronnback P, Tedengren M, Troell M (2000) Ecosystem perspectives on management of disease in shrimp pond farming. Aquaculture 191:145–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li E, Chen L, Zeng C, Chen X, Yu N, Lai O, Qin J (2007) Growth, body composition, respiration and ambient ammonia nitrogen tolerance of the juvenile white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, at different salinities. Aquaculture 265:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin Y, Chen J (2003) Acute toxicity of nitrite on Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone) juveniles at different salinity levels. Aquaculture 224:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Llorente I, Luna L (2016) Bioeconomic modelling in aquaculture: an overview of the literature. Aquac Int 24:931–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mialhe F, Gunnell Y, Mering C (2013) The impacts of shrimp farming on land use, employment and migration in Tumbes, northern Peru. Ocean Coast Manag 73:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ng WK, Koh CB, Teoh CY, Romano N (2015) Farm-raised tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon, fed commercial feeds with added organic acids showed enhanced nutrient utilization, immune response and resistance to Vibrio harveyi challenge. Aquaculture 449:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pan L, Zhang L, Liu H (2007) Effects of salinity and pH on ion-transport enzyme activities, survival and growth of Litopenaeus vannamei postlarvae. Aquaculture 273:711–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pardy CR, Griffin WL, Johns MA, Lawrence AL (1983) A preliminary economic analysis of stocking strategies for penaeid shrimp culture. J World Maric Soc 14:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roheim CA, Gardiner L, Asche F (2007) Value of brands and other attributes: hedonic analysis of retail frozen fish in the UK. Mar Resour Econ 22:239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanchez-Zazueta E, Martinez-Cordero FJ (2009) Economic risk assessment of a semi-intensive shrimp farm in Sinaloa, Mexico. Aquac Econ Manag 13:312–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanchez-Zazueta E, Hernandez JM, Martinez-Cordero FJ (2013) Stocking density and date decisions in semi-intensive shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) farming: a bioeconomic approach. Aquac Res 44:574–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schock TB, Duke J, Goodson A, Weldon D, Brunson J, Leffler JW, Bearden DW (2013) Evaluation of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) health during a superintensive aquaculture growout using NMR-based metabolomics. PLoS O ne 8:e59521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shi Y, Zhang G, Liu J, Zhu Y, Xu J (2011) Performance of a constructed wetland in treating brackish wastewater from commercial recirculating and super-intensive shrimp growout systems. Bioresour Technol 102:9416–9424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snieszko SF (1973) Diseases of fishes and their control in the US. The two lakes fifth fishery management training course report. Jansen, London, pp 55–66Google Scholar
  30. Thakur DP, Lin CK (2003) Water quality and nutrient budget in closed shrimp (Penaeus monodon) culture systems. Aquac Eng 27:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson J, Gregory S, Plummer S, Shields RJ, Rowley AF (2010) An in vitro and in vivo assessment of the potential of Vibrio spp. as probiotics for the Pacific White shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. J Appl Microbiol 109:1177–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vinatea L, Gálvez AO, Browdy CL, Stokes A, Venero J, Haveman J, Lewis BL, Lawson A, Shuler A, Leffler JW (2010) Photosynthesis, water respiration and growth performance of Litopenaeus vannamei in a super-intensive raceway culture with zero water exchange: interaction of water quality variables. Aquac Eng 42:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wasielesky W, Atwood H, Stokes A, Browdy CL (2006) Effect of natural production in a zero exchange suspended microbial floc based super-intensive culture system for white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture 258:396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wyban J, Walsh WA, Godin DM (1995) Temperature effects on growth, feeding rate and feed conversion of the Pacific white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei). Aquaculture 137:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yan B, Wan X, Cao M (2007) Effects of salinity and temperature on survival, growth, and energy budget of juvenile Litopenaeus vannamei. J Shellfish Res 26:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yu R, Leung PS, Bienfang P (2006) Optimal production schedule in commercial shrimp culture. Aquaculture 254:426–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zar JH (1984) Data transformations. In: Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 236–243Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Fisheries Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Global Agricultural Sciences, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.IMT Engineering Inc.TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Japan International Research Center for Agricultural SciencesTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations