Aquaculture Asia July Sept 2005

8/11/2019 Aquaculture Asia July Sept 2005

1/49

Grouper breeding in Thailand

Cobia seed production in VietnamContract hatchery systems for shrimp health

Now available on CD-ROM!

ISSN 0859-600X Volume X No. 3 July-September 2005

Recycling water for profit

Rainbow trout culture in Iran

Babylon snail growout


2/49

1

Aquaculture Asia

is an autonomous publication

that gives people in developing

countries a voice. The views and

opinions expressed herein are

those of the contributors and

do not represent the policies or

position of NACA.

Editor

Simon Wilkinson

[email protected]

Editorial Consultant

Pedro Bueno

NACA

An intergovernmental

organization that promotes

rural development throughsustainable aquaculture. NACA

seeks to improve rural income,

increase food production and

foreign exchange earnings and

to diversify farm production. The

ultimate beneficiaries of NACA

activities are farmers and rural

communities.

Contact

The Editor, Aquaculture Asia

PO Box 1040

Kasetsart Post Office

Bangkok 10903, Thailand

Tel +66-2 561 1728

Fax +66-2 561 1727

Email

[email protected]

Website http://www.enaca.org

Printed byScand-Media Co., Ltd.

Volume X No. 3July-September 2005

ISSN 0859-600X

Probiotics: Snake oil or modern medicine?

I confess to being something of a sceptic when it comes to aquacultureprobiotics. I accept the argument that some beneficial microbes may competewith harmful microbes, or provide a range of other benefits that may contributeto stock health in some way. This seems quite likely and logical to me.

My objection stems from the way commercial aquaculture probiotics aremarketed and the lack of rigour with which they are tested, if they are tested at all.How do you know that any particular product works as advertised? Is it equallyeffective in all environments? What assurance do you have that it isnt actuallyharmful?Where is the science? For that matter, how do you know you are actuallygetting what you paid for?

In most cases, people have no real idea what is in the box. Most users of probi-otics are simply pouring expensive powders and liquids into their tanks, ponds andfeed and hoping that it works. Many view it as a kind of insurance.

To my mind there are many parallels between probiotics in aquaculture and thenatural medicine industry - the only difference being that in aquaculture there aremoresnake oil salesmen - often trading on fear of disease - and the products are

even lesswell studied. Where there is research on a products efficacy, it is usuallyconducted or commissioned by the manufacturer - not exactly what you might callan independent authority.

In my opinion, products traded on the basis of their medicinal qualities (wheth-er preventative or not) should be subject to the same regulation and scrutiny asconventional pharmaceuticals used in animal husbandry. Without science-basedtesting, probiotics remain the realm of snake oil salesmen and voodoo mythol-ogy. Science is not only necessary to evaluate the merits of probiotics, but also tostandardise their use, and fully realise their potential and limitations as additionaltools in (and not a substitute for) aquatic animal health management.

This is not to say I am a complete sceptic. I have spoken to some people usingspecific bacterial cultures to address specific bacterial disease problems in hatch-ery environments; but they are using a targeted, science-based approach, not ashotgun and prayers.

Lastly, we are thinking about overhauling the NACA website before the end ofthe year to make it more useful and relevant. So if the bits of pro-website propa-ganda scattered through this magazine havent gotten to you yet, you might log onto www.enaca.org. Register as a member, go to the forums and tell us what youthink. Post your comments in Website feature requests. What would you like tosee there? Continuously updated news headlines? Market price information? More

publications from network centres? An online peer-reviewed journal? I dont know- you tell me! Go on. Its your network.


3/49

2 Aquaculture Asia Magazine

In this issue

Sustainable aquaculture

Peter Edwards writes on rural aquaculture: 6

Asian Development Bank study on aquaculture and poverty

New ACIAR projects to commence in Indonesia 9

David McKinnon and Jes Sammut

Assessing the consequences of converting to organic shrimp farming 11

Xie, Biao, Li, Jiahua and Wang, Xiaorong

Recycling water and making money 18

Hassanai Kongkeo and Simon Wilkinson

Asia-Pacific Marine Finfish Aquaculture Network

Advances in the seed production of CobiaRachycentroncanadumin Vietnam 21

Le Xan

Australian success with barramundi cod 23Dr Shannon McBride

Brief overview of recent grouper breeding developments in Thailand 24

Sih-Yang Sim, Hassanai Kongkeo and Mike Rimmer

Application of probiotics in rotifer production systems for marine fish hatcheries 27

Tawfiq Abu-Rezq and Charles M. James

Research & farming techniques

Contract hatchery systems: A practical approach to procure quality seeds 30

for aquaclubs of small-scale shrimp farmers in India

Arun Padiyar

Recirculation systems: Sustainable alternatives for backyard 32

shrimp hatcheries in Asia?

Thach Thanh, Truong Trong Nghia, Mathieu Wille and Patrick Sorgeloos

Rainbow trout culture in Iran: Development and concerns 34

Hussein Abdulhai & Mohammad Kazem Seiedi Ghomi

Large-scale growout of spotted Babylon, Babylonia areolatain earthen ponds: 38

Pilot monoculture operation

S. Kritsanapuntu, N. Chaitanawisuti, W. Santhaweesuk and Y. Natsukari

Cage cum pond fish production using mixed sex nile tilapia in Nepal 44

A.K. Rai, M.K. Shrestha and S. Rai

Page 6.

Page 9.

Page 18.

Page 24.

Page 34.

Page 38.


4/49

3July-September 2005

Notes from the Publisher

Milestones: 25 years of NACA, 15 years as anintergovernmental organization

I would like to take this opportunity tothank Australias Department of Agri-culture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)for seconding to NACA Dr JohnAckerman of the Bureau of Rural Sci-ences, to assist in the assessment anddevelopment of approaches to tsunami

rehabilitation. Dr. Ackerman workedin NACA HQ but also spent almost 3weeks in Aceh. There he teamed upwith Indonesian relief and development

personnel to set up an information sys-tem that enables a better identificationand monitoring of efforts and playersin rehabilitation, and in developing acash-for-work scheme that was kickedoff by a modest but immediate contri-

bution from NACA, augmented witha more substantial contribution from

Aquaculture without Frontiers, andnow topped up by a 600,000 US$ fundfrom the French Red Cross, which hasrequested NACA to act as the techni-cal overseer for its part of the scheme(see NACA Newsletter April-June andJuly-September 2005). John, always in

partnership and harmonious collabora-tion with local staff, also set up thegroundwork for the FAO-GOI-NACAworkshop on tsunami rehabilitationheld in Aceh in July. After four monthson secondment to NACA, John will

be continuing to provide assistance toNACA and FAO, over the remainder ofthe year, mainly for ongoing rehabilita-tion work in Aceh.

Establishment andinstitutionalization: From

project to organization

This issue starts a 3-part historical

series on the highlights and organiza-

tional development of the Network of

Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific.

Thisfirst part highlights the creation

of an independent organization and the

strategies adopted to place thefledgling

organization on a more stable footing.

Efforts to successfully transformNACA into an intergovernmentalorganization culminated during its FirstGoverning Council Meeting, held inDhaka in December 1989, when thisstatus was formalized. The major ac-tivities toward this objective were:

Development of the draft Agree-ment on NACA, finalized in 1987

by the Second Provisional Govern-ing Council Meeting. It was adoptedwith some amendments on 8 January1988 at the Conference of Plenipo-tentiaries convened by FAO at itsRegional Office for Asia and thePacific (RAPA) in Bangkok.

Preparatory work for institutionaliz-ing NACA included the formulationof the Schedule of Government Con-tributions; Rules and Procedures forthe Organization; Financial Regula-tions; Employment Conditions; StaffRegulations; and development of thefirst Five-Year Work Program forRegional Aquaculture Developmentunder the Intergovernmental NACA.

Initiatives were taken to generatecollaborative support from donorgovernments and agencies to imple-ment priority field activities underthe Work Program.

In another effort to lay a strong

foundation for the intergovernmentalorganization, a consultative meetingof agencies and organizations imple-menting aquaculture and related de-

velopment programs was organizedby the project. The meeting adopteda set of recommendations meant tofoster closer collaboration among

participating organizations and to as-sist and strengthen the governmentsin managing the intergovernmental

body. A core group of five regional experts

recruited under Special ServicesAgreements were trained to take

over the operation of NACA. Spe-cialists from the Network centrescould also be called upon to assistcountries of the region in variousdisciplines related to aquacultureresearch and development.

The Headquarters Agreement be-tween the Government of Thailandand NACA was developed, withThailand continuing to host the

project coordinating office of NACAand provide various immunities and

privileges for the organization andstaff.

The result was the establishment of anautonomous intergovernmental organi-zation. The strengthening of the Net-work centres attracted the collaborationof other organizations and agencies. Anautonomous NACA, with its core pro-gram funded by member governments,created a conducive environment for

bilateral and multilateral agencies tochannel their assistance, thereby sup-

porting the governments at managing

NACA and further strengthening theircollective efforts in expanding aquacul-ture development.

Pedro Bueno

is the Director-

General of

NACA. He is the

former Editor of

Aquaculture Asia

Magazine.

John Ackerman (center) with some of

the NACA crowd.


5/49


For a stable footing: Thefirst 5-year Work Program

The NACA Project, having demon-strated the effectiveness of the networkof regional collaborative efforts in

developing aquaculture, was recom-mended to be elevated to the statusof an intergovernmental organizationand to be further strengthened, whilecontinuing to establish collaborative ar-rangements with UNDP/FAO and otherinternational and donor agencies. Withfurther support, NACA continued tooffer an opportunity for donor govern-ments and agencies to work together onactivities of mutual interest.

The obligatory contribution of mem-ber governments, based on a formula

developed by agreement, was seen assufficient only to maintain a core staffof nationals seconded by the govern-ments or recruited directly. Therefore,donors had to be found for most of thefield programs. In this connection, theFive-Year Work Program approved bythe Third Provisional Governing Coun-cil Meeting held in Bangkok in January1989 proposed a number of ways forobtaining external funding support.One of these was for NACA to under-

take the responsibility of implementingprojects of international agencies likeUNDP and FAO, as well as the WorldBank and Asian Development Bank,that fall within the field of interest andcompetence of the organization.

The diversity of problems in theregion called for cooperative regionalaction for solutions. The networkmechanism has shown the effectivenessof pooling of resources and sharing ofresponsibilities, as well as results of re-search and development in approachingcommon problems. Increasing aquacul-ture production was done by increasingthe area or intensifying the productionsystems. In either case, either approachspawned associated and linked socio-economic and environmental con-straints. The regions countries neededto adopt a collective approach in deal-ing with common problems through

planning and adoption of realistic poli-cies for orderly development.

NACAs work program for 199094

was planned with the above issues inconsideration. Proposals for the supportof research and training activities inthis direction were formulated.

For the fish health program, sup-port came from the ADB for a regionalstudy on fish disease control and fishhealth management. This regional studyconsisted of expert visits to countries,consultations and a regional work-

shop, recommended a regional actionprogram on fish health managementincluding a networking mechanism forresearch and information exchange; aregion-wide fish disease monitoringand reporting system; and a capacity

building in prevention, diagnostics,treatment and regulation.

The interrelationships between theimpact of environmental changes onthe development of aquaculture andthe impact of aquaculture itself on theenvironment became emphasized in the

regional program; its objective was toensure the development of the aquacul-ture sector in harmony with the rest ofthe economy.

Emphasis was made on the impor-tance of research in the improvementof important aquaculture systems atthe regional lead centres. Proposalswere made to obtain funding supportfrom donors to carry out farm perform-ance surveys of selected systems andtechnologies in different countries to

provide the basis for development plan-ning, investment and successful farmmanagement. A study of integratedfish farming systems was conductedin China and data were collected fromother countries in the region. Furtherexperimental studies were implementedto delineate pond dynamics and wasterecycling. Appropriate bio-economicmodels of integrated fish farming sys-tems and models of modified systemswere constructed for the differentsub-regions for field trials. The resultsobtained were disseminated in trainingand workshops, and used to formulateappropriate rural development pro-grams.

Socio-economic aspects of aquacul-ture development were addressed withthe aim of developing the capabilityof national administrators and plan-ners to ensure sustainable aquaculturefor growth and social development.

NACA provided assistance to a numberof governments in preparing national

aquaculture development plans as wellas in undertaking studies for aquacul-ture investments.

Updates

We are pleased to announcethat the Asian DevelopmentBank has awarded NACA a

2-year contract to manage aproject aimed at rehabilitatingthe aquaculture and fisheriessector of Aceh. The projectwill manage a US$30,000,000grant to Indonesia underthe Banks Earthquake andEmergency Support Project(Fisheries Component). Ourassociates in this project arethe Sloane Cook & King PtyLtd, Australia and PT TransIntra Asia, Indonesia.

We have also expanded ourtsunami rehabilitation anddevelopment activities inSouthern Thailand to threecommunities - in Phangnga,Krabi and Trang - and arecollaborating now with theRotary International, the ThaiDepartment of Fisheries,CHARM (Coastal Habitat andResource Management, anEU supported project of the

Department of Fisheries), anda Japanese civic group, theChiba Conference on Environ-mental Protection and Educa-tion.

Indias Marine ProductsExport Development Author-ity has approved the exten-sion of the MPEDA/NACAshrimp management and theenvironment project. The new

phase will expand the projectfrom Andhra Pradesh to otherstates and entails organizingand training more aquafarmerclusters. ACIAR has joinedthe project in India with acomponent that will standard-ize and calibrate PCR labs andtrain personnel, as well as con-duct a rigorous study on thetransmission of viruses thatinfect shrimp (more details inthe NACA Newsletter). It isstrong in scientific and techni-

cal capacity building.


6/49


Interdisciplinary research improvesthe efficiency of aquaculture productionsystems as in the case of animal hus-

bandry, in which the interrelationshipsof various component disciplines (e.g.,animal health, nutrition, reproduction

and genetics) have been establishedand integrated into a multidisciplinarybody of knowledge. Discipline-orientedstudies on certain special areas are

being done in NACA lead centres, buttertiary level education in the variousdisciplines, which can complementand strengthen aquaculture develop-ment programs, is lacking in the region.However, certain universities andinstitutions do have strengths in somespecial areas within these disciplines.Work Program 199094 spelled out a

program to assist in the development orupgrading of tertiary level educationaland advanced level research activitiesin selected institutions/universitieswithin the region which would serve ascentres of excellence in particular disci-

plines for meeting training needs.The NACA and Seafarming projects

(the latter also a UNDP/FAO regionalproject) shared management resourcesunder a cost-effective arrangement.When the seafarming project terminat-

ed, its integration into the Intergovern-mental NACA expanded the networkwith the addition of the eight seafarm-ing nodal centres. This effectively

brought coastal and marine aquacultureinto the NACA program.

Aquaculture had been largelytraditional until around the 1980s. The

priority then was to increase produc-tion and therefore production technol-ogy was needed. At present, most ofthe technical skills and technologiesare available for most culture systems.The NACA research and development

program moved towards a multidisci-plinary approach in order to address thebroader, non-biotechnical constraints.The network umbrella concept was pro-

posed. Under this would be a regionallycoordinated multidisciplinary researchand development program implemented

by various centres of excellence, eachwith responsibility for a specific disci-

pline. The same pooling of resourcesand sharing of responsibilities adopted

by the NACA project was followed.This is taking some shape in the Asia-Marine Finfish Program.

One of the initiatives of the project,which contributed to laying a firmfoundation for the Intergovernmen-tal NACA, was the organization inJune 1989 of a consultative meetingamong agencies and organizations in

the region implementing aquaculturedevelopment and related projects. Themeeting adopted a set of recommenda-tions to assure collaboration amongthem, foster cooperation in areas ofmutual interests and avoid duplicationof effort. The other initiative consistedof liaising with donor governments andagencies with the view of seeking col-laborative support for the implementa-tion of some of the field activities underthe NACA Programme of Work. Thesewere essential preparatory actions for

the establishment of a fully functionalindependent NACA organization.

As originally planned, the projectwas phased out by 1989. However,consultations with officials concernedwith the participating governmentsand institutions showed the need forinternational assistance in the earlystages of the NACA network operatingindependently for the first time as anintergovernmental organization. Theassistance would firm up the founda-

tion for the intergovernmental bodyby providing advisory activities andfunding support needed to consolidateand improve ongoing regional activi-ties, initiate new programs, mobilizefunding support and liaise with otherinstitutions in and outside the region. It

prepared the governments to fully as-sume the funding for the core programthrough their contributions. It alsoallowed NACA to continue to engagethe services of the regional and nationalexperts who had been seconded tothe project by their governments andtherefore were already trained in thevarious activities required to operatethe network.

Next issue: The Second Five Year

Programme of Work: Towards self-reli-

ance and a broadening of emphasis.

Announcement

The Second InternationalSymposium on CageAquaculture in Asia

3-8 July 2006, Zhejiang

University Hangzhou, Zhejiang

Province, China.

Cage aquaculture has a long his-tory in Asia, but it is only in re-cent years that it has been widely

practised and recognized for itspotential, especially for off-shorecage culture in open sea. Thefirst cage culture symposiumwas successfully held more thanfive years ago and the aquacul-ture community will be meetingagain in Hangzhou city, China todiscuss the recent advances, po-tentials, challenges and problemsof cage aquaculture in Asia.

The second internationalsymposium on cage aquaculturein Asia (CAA2) scheduled for3-8 July 2006 will discuss thefollowing topics: Recent advances and innova-

tions in cage culture technolo-gies

Cage design, structure andmaterials

Site and species selection Nutrition, feed, feeding tech-

nologies and management Disease prevention and health

management Economics and marketing Sustainable management and

development Policy and regulation Constraints to cage culture

development Conflicts between cage culture

and other stakeholders

For more information, contact:Secretariat2nd International Symposiumon Cage Aquaculture in AsiaTel. and Fax +86-571-86971960Email: [email protected]://library.enaca.org/PDF/Fly-

er_CAA2_email_version.pdf


7/49



Peter Edwards is a consultant, part

time Editor and Asian Regional

Coordinator for CABIs Aquaculture

Compendium, and Emeritus Professor

at the Asian Institute of Technology

where he founded the aquaculture

program. He has nearly 30 years

experience in aquaculture in the Asian

region. Email: [email protected].

Asian Development Bank study on

aquaculture and poverty

The Operations Evaluation Depart-ment of the Asian Development Bank(ADB) has recently carried out aSpecial Evaluation Study (SES): AnEvaluation of Small-scale FreshwaterRural Aquaculture Development forPoverty Reduction. The multidiscipli-nary team was led by Njoman Bestari,Senior Evaluation Specialist, ADB andcomprised several consultants: NesarAhmed (research associate, Bangla-desh), Peter Edwards (aquaculturedevelopment specialist), Brenda Katon(research associate, Philippines), AlvinMorales (rural economist, Philippines)and Roger Pullin (aquatic resourcesmanagement specialist). Cherdsak Vi-rapat and Supawat Komolmarl collabo-rated with the team in Thailand.

The purpose of the study was toassess channels of effects of aquacul-ture to generate livelihoods and reduce

poverty. The enabling conditions foraquaculture to benefit the poor wereanalyzed. The study distilled pertinentlessons for making aquaculture more

relevant for poverty reduction for futureADB operations as well as for otherindividuals and organizations.

The study was guided by a concep-tual framework for analyzing chan-nels of effects, which combined keychannels of effects from a previousADB report on a modified poverty im-

pact assessment matrix and the DFIDsustainable livelihoods framework.The conceptual framework consideredthe five capital livelihood assets ofsmall-scale farmers; their vulnerabilityto seasonality, shocks and trends; aseries of transforming processes andstructures; barriers and access to op-

portunities; and livelihood outcomes interms of income and employment, foodand nutrition, and natural resource andenvironmental sustainability.

Previous R&D initiatives of ADBwere reviewed and eight case stud-

ies were developed in three countries(Bangladesh, Philippines and Thailand)to illustrate diverse contexts and to per-mit drawing general conclusions. The

following four case studies were basedon primary data collected by the teamwith the assistance of field assistants: Farming carps in household-level

ponds in Kishoreganj, in the GreaterMymensingh Area (GMA), which isthe major area for freshwater aqua-culture in Bangladesh. The GMAhas been targeted by donor-funded

projects e.g., funded by ADB, DA-NIDA and DFID, since the 1980s.

Farming carps in leased ponds bygroups in Chandpur, Bangladesh.The groups comprised marginal andlandless farmers, mainly women.The fish farming groups had been setup earlier as part of the small-scalefisheries development component ofthe ADB-financed Command AreaDevelopment Project to compensatefor decline of wild fish through pastconstruction of flood embankments.

Farming tilapia in ponds in CentralLuzon, the major area for pondfarmed tilapia in the Philippines.

Farming tilapia in cages in LakeTaal, Batangas, the largest cage

production in the Philippines.The contribution of freshwater aqua-culture to human nutrition is signifi-cant in the three countries studied andespecially so for the rural and urban

poor with fish being the main sourcesof animal protein, essential vitaminsand minerals and fatty acids. The poortypically have limited access to land

and water although some do benefitdirectly from small-scale fish farming.The household-level ponds in Kishore-ganj were mostly small-scale (0.5-1 ha)

Young beneficiaries offish pond harvests, Chandpur, Bangladesh.


8/49



and medium-scale (1-2 ha) landownersbut 34 and 25% were below the povertyline, respectively; however, the restwere only precariously above the pov-erty line and an unexpected crisis couldslide them into poverty. Just belowhalf (43%) of the surveyed small-scalehouseholds farming tilapia in ponds inCentral Luzon were below the povertyline. While most of the cage operatorsin Lake Taal were not poor, farmingtilapia provided indirect benefits forthe poor through direct employmentas cage and associated nursery pondcaretakers, through cage and net mak-ing, supplying feed, and harvesting andmarketing fish.

The poor are unlikely to farm fishdirectly without access to land andwater or natural capital. They alsorequire access to other livelihood assets

such as skills (human capital); infor-mation, training and advisory services(social capital), and household finance/ savings and formal / informal credit

(financial capital). However, the abilityof poor people to farm fish for the firsttime for those involved was demon-strated by the groups of mainly womenfrom marginal and landless householdsin Chandpur. An innovative organi-zational arrangement involved theDepartment of Fisheries, which mainly

provided technology and training, andan NGO, which mainly provided mi-crocredit and assistance in input supplyand marketing, and training in financialmanagement. The latter included asavings scheme to build up the financialcapital of the poor households so thatthey would eventually be able to farmfish without project support.

However, freshwater aquaculturemakes a significant contribution to ruraleconomics in terms of employmentand income. For example, it generated

an output at farm gate of about $700million in 2002 in Bangladesh. It isestimated that freshwater aquaculturecontributed more than $1 billion to

the countrys rural economy in 2002,including post harvest handling andmarketing. Current employment figuresfor freshwater aquaculture and its as-sociated activities have been grosslyunderestimated. Survey respondentsoverwhelmingly believed that aqua-culture had improved their welfarethrough fish consumption and increasedincomes. The latter enabled poorfarming households to improve theirhousing and sanitation, and to pay forclothes, health services and their chil-drens education.

The main recommendation of thestudy is to obtain a contextual under-standing of the major ways in whichvarious types of small-scale freshwaterrural aquaculture can benefit the poorand to determine the conditions formaking aquaculture work for them.

There is a need to: Analyze channels of effects for

poverty reduction


9/49



Recognize barriers, requirementsand risks

Assess specific demands on userscapacity to operate aquaculturesystems

Analyze available options for pro-viding access to land and water

Consider options for financing aqua-culture investments and operations

Analyze markets and marketing ofaquaculture products and factors of

production Analyze the labour market

Understand the roles of services,facilities and support infrastructure

Assess the roles of public and pri-vate institutions

A group of womenfish farmers in Chandpur, Bangladesh.

Harvesting tilapia from afish cage at lake Taal, Philippines.

Selling small tilapia in a market in Northeast Thailand.

Assess the policy environment, legalframework, and their conditions

Protect aquatic resources, environ-ment and aquatic health

Recognize multiple uses of waterand minimize conflicts

It is suggested that use of the concep-tual framework utilized in this studycould help in future project preparationand design for aquaculture to fulfillits potential as a poverty alleviatingmechanism.

Future columns will each deal with

a specific case study but the study isavailable on the ADB web site and as a

printed book with the title An Evalu-ation of Small-scale Freshwater Rural

Aquaculture Development for PovertyReduction:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Re-ports/Evaluation/sst-reg-2004-07/de-

fault.asp?p=opereval.For a hard copy contact:

Njoman George BestariSenior Evaluation SpecialistOperations Evaluation DepartmentAsian Development BankEmail: [email protected] (632) 632-5690Fax (632) 636-2161Web: http://www.adb.org.

More stories on ruralaquaculture

www.enaca.org

Why dont you try it?


10/49



New ACIAR projects to commence in Indonesia

David McKinnon1and Jes Sammut2

1. Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB No. 3, Townsville MC, Queensland 4810, Australia,

email: [email protected]; 2. Jes Sammut, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University ofNew South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia, email: [email protected]

Two new projects will commence thisyear in Indonesia, both funded by theAustralian Centre for InternationalAgricultural Research (ACIAR). These

projects have a common theme ofproviding tools for the management ofcoastal aquaculture, and will be prima-rily based at the Research Institute forCoastal Aquaculture (RICA) in South

Sulawesi. The projects, Land capabil-ity assessment and classification forsustainable pond-based, aquaculturesystems (Dr. Jes Sammut, University of

New South Wales) and Planning toolsfor environmentally sustainable tropicalfinfish cage culture in Indonesia andnorthern Australia (Dr. David McKin-non, Australian Institute of MarineScience) share the following commonthemes: Multivariate analysis of environ-

mental & production factors; Identification of optimal environ-

mental conditions for aquaculturesystems;

Development of coastal capabilityassessment techniques; and

Development of a coastal classifica-tion scheme, mapping protocols andmodels.

Land capability assessmentand classification for

sustainable pond-based,aquaculture systems

Production failure and low yields inland-based, brackish water aquacultureare often associated with disease out-

breaks, unsuitable pond managementpractices, and/or limiting environmen-tal factors such as soil properties, waterquality and hydrological conditions.The rapid expansion of land-basedaquaculture systems in Indonesia hasoften resulted in the construction of

earthen ponds in unsuitable environ-ments due to a lack of effective siteselection criteria and land capability as-sessment techniques. Intensive shrimp

farming systems are often developed inareas that are more suited to less inten-sive or alternative aquaculture systems.Consequently, the development of landcapability classification schemes is nowa high priority in Indonesia to ensurethat new aquaculture enterprises aresustainable.

Aquaculture stakeholders in

Indonesia have identified a numberof research needs to more properlymanage brackish water aquaculture inIndonesia. These included: (i) identi-fication of environmental constraintson pond production, particularly inreference to soil and water limitations;(ii) low cost techniques to characterisesoil and water properties and to assesssite suitability; (iii) protocols to classifyand rank land capability for a range ofaquaculture systems to maintain diver-

sity and to reduce resource competi-tion; and (iv) coastal resource and landsuitability/capability mapping to guideenvironmental decision makers and

coastal planners involved in the devel-opment of aquaculture industries.

The new ACIAR project will de-velop more effective and informativesite selection criteria and land capabil-ity assessment techniques to produceland classification schemes and mapsfor a variety of land-based aquaculturesystems in Indonesia. Land capability

assessment protocols will be devel-oped using geospatial data and satelliteimagery for regional-scale environ-mental assessment. The project outputswill also include accompanying landcapability maps for sustainable pond-

based aquaculture and where required,combined land and water classificationschemes. The classification scheme willuse mapping units that identify envi-ronmental suitability for a range of landand sea-based aquaculture systems and

prescribe important farm managementpractices to address common envi-ronmental limitations. Farm-level siteselection criteria, utilizing low cost andsimple technology, will be developed to

The environmental effects of cage culture have been comparatively well studied in

North America and Europe, but this knowledge base may not be applicable to sea

cage culture in the tropics.


11/49



enable farmers to make better choicesfor pond/sea cage location, design andmanagement, and also to select themost appropriate form of aquaculture.

Project outputs will include: Land capability maps for sustainable

pond-based aquaculture and whererequired, combined land and waterclassifications schemes. The clas-sification scheme will use mappingunits that identify land suitability fora range of land and sea-based aqua-culture systems and prescribe im-

portant farm management practicesto address common environmentallimitations.

Farm-level site selection criteria,utilizing low cost and simple tech-nology, will be developed to enable

Australian and Indonesian farmersto make better choices for pond/seacage location, design and manage-ment, and also to select the mostappropriate form of aquaculture.

Planning tools for environmentallysustainable tropical finfish cage culturein Indonesia and northern AustraliaSea cage culture in Indonesia is devel-oping at an alarming rate. For instance,the value of grouper aquaculture inLampung, East Sumatra, increased

from $AUS 9,000 in 1999 to $AUS680,000 in 2002 (Kawahara & Ismi2003). If the industry continues todevelop at this rate, and stocks cages

beyond sustainable levels, continuedand untreated environmental impactscould cause the collapse of the indus-

try as well as impacts in surroundingwaters.

Environmental constraints on the de-velopment of fish cage culture in Asiainclude (i) a lack of equitable plan-ning tools; (ii) no established meansof estimating carrying capacity; (iii) alack of tools for environmental impactassessment, and (iv) a very real risk of

disease as a result of clustering offarms in bays and estuaries. In addition,reported economic losses associatedwith poor environmental managementcan reach or exceed 10 per cent of thevalue of production.

Despite a substantial amount of in-formation on the environmental effectsof cage culture in Europe and NorthAmerica, very little is known about theenvironmental effects of aquaculturein the tropics. European-style benthiccapacity models are inadequate inthe environments used for fish cageculture in Asia, where models based

upon water quality may be appropri-ate. In Asia, fish cage arrays are morediverse and more extensive than inEurope. In any one area of coast, it is

possible to find cage arrays producinga wide variety of species e.g. groupers,snappers, milkfish, siganids, lobster,oysters and seaweeds. These farms areoften very close to each other, and so itis difficult to separate the effects of anyone activity. Also, biological turnoverrates are manyfold higher in the tropicsthan in temperate ecosystems. The mostmarked environmental effect of fishcage culture in temperate ecosystemsis on the benthos underlying the cages,where waste products accumulate,sediments become anaerobic and large

bacterial flocs (Beggiatoaspp.) ac-cumulate. Organic material degradationin tropical sediments is faster than intemperate sediments.Many waste materials are rapidly

broken down either in the water columnprior to settling.

Large schools of small wildfishes, such as these polka dot cardinalfish

(Sphaeroma orbicularis) in the vicinity offish cages in South Sulawesi, may

alleviate or exacerbate environmental effects of aquaculture activities.

Disused pond at an Indonesian farm, resulting from inadequate site selection

criteria. Continued on page 17...


12/49



Assessing the consequences of converting to organic

shrimp farming

Xie, Biao1*, Li, Jiahua2and Wang, Xiaorong2

1. Organic Food Development Center of State Environmental Protection Administration, and Nanjing Institute of

Environmental Sciences, State Environmental Protection Administration, 8 Jiangwangmiao Street, Nanjing 210042, China,

email [email protected]; 2. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment,

Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China.

Organic shrimp farming

Shrimp farming has undergone extraor-dinary expansion since 1976. Currentannual production stands at around 1million metric tones, which is equiva-

lent to one third of total world shrimpsupply. This development generates

profit and income, but it also bears risksof negative environmental impacts,such as pollution, landscape modifica-tion, or biodiversity change2,3,4,5.

The main input in most conventionalshrimp culture systems is shrimp feed.Part of this is transformed into shrimp

biomass but some is inevitably releasedinto the water as suspended organicsolids or dissolved matter such as nitro-

gen and phosphorus, originating fromsurplus food, faeces and excretion viathe gills and kidneys. Other pollutantsinclude residues of drugs used to pre-vent or treat disease. As a consequence,an increasing number of consum-ers, who are critical of conventional

production methods, are willing to paypremium prices to enable the farmers toreduce economical and environmental

pressure on production cost6. This haslead to the emergence of organic aqua-culture, which has the goal of address-ing the environmental, food safety andhealth problems faced by conventionalaquaculture systems. As a relativelynew concept, standards for organicaquaculture have to be developed thatwill take into account consumer andconservation concerns about the sector,as well as the rapid development of in-dustry. One of the main factors drivingthe development of organic farming isconsumer concern over the use chemi-cal substances in conventional produc-

tion especially inorganic fertilizers andpesticides.

Standards for organic aquaculturewere first developed by the Naturland

association, an internationally operat-ing certifier for organic agriculture7.Guidelines for organic aquaculture

production have also been developedby others8,9,10,11 in order to elaboratealternatives to conventional production

systems. The International Federationof Organic Agriculture Movement(IFOAM), a large umbrella organiza-tion, has also drafted organic aquac-ulture standards12, which have foundapplication all over the world. TheFood and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organizations interna-tional Codex Alimentarius Commissionhas finalized organic crop, livestock,

processing, labeling, inspection andcertification guidelines1but organic

standards are not yet in place for aquat-ic animals and are still in draft form.

The organic sector in the world isbooming with the largest ever waveof farm conversions underway13andaquaculture is also the fastest growingsector. There will likely be a niche forfarmers interested in going the extramile for organic aquaculture certifica-tion14.

A fundamental principle in organicaquaculture production is to minimizeits environmental impact as much as

possible while developing a valuableand sustainable aquatic ecosystem.Aside from that, the term organic is

presently poorly defined, and is takento mean different things by differ-ent people. One view, as it relates tothe discussion in this article, is thatcertified organic products should

be a complete or holistic concept,covering all aspects of production fromorigin of stock, feed and fertilizers tochoice of production site, design of

holding units, stocking densities, en-ergy consumption and processing. Themain principles for organic aquaculture

production are7:

Absence of genetically modifiedorganisms (both brood and seed) instocks and feeds.

Strict limitation of stocking density(in regard to fish production).

No artificial feed ingredients, ie.

origin of feed and fertilizer fromcertified organic agriculture.

Strict criteria for fishmeal sources(trimmings of fish processed forhuman consumption, by-catchesfrom artisanal fishery; no dedicatedfishmeal harvesting operations.);in general, decreased protein andfishmeal content of diets.

No use of inorganic fertilizers. Restriction of energy consumption,

e.g. regarding aeration.

Preferences for natural medicines;no prophylactic use of antibioticsand chemotherapeutics.

Intensive monitoring of environmen-tal impact, protection of surround-ing ecosystems and integration ofnatural plant communities in farmmanagement.

Processing according to organicprinciples.

Organic production is sometimes hailedas the true "sustainable agriculture"15.Its advocates claim that it has manysocial, environmental and economicadvantages. While a number of studieshave conducted comparisons betweenorganic and conventional agricul-ture6,15,16,17,18,19, 20,21,22,23,24there are no

published studies comparing the con-sequences of organic and conventionalshrimp farming.

We conducted a one-year multidis-ciplinary field study of a shrimp farmundergoing transition from conven-tional to full organic status, by examin-

ing a range of ecological, culture andeconomic factors. This article describesour findings.


13/49



The farm

The study area is located in Xuwei saltfield, Yellow Seaside, Lianyungangcity of Jiangsu Province, China andwas part of a 10-ha commercial shrimp

farm. We studied four ponds, two un-dergoing conventional production andtwo undergoing organic production.

The ponds were about 0.33 ha (110m length 30 m width) and 2.8 m indepth. A 1500-W aerator was fixedin the center of each pond to preventwater stratification and to increase theconcentration of dissolved oxygen to asmall extent.

The farming system

The Naturland Standards for OrganicAquaculture8and IFOAM Draft Stand-ard for Aquaculture Production12wereadopted in the organic farming system.The ponds were stocked with native

juvenilePenaeus chinensis(Chineseshrimp) bought from the shrimp farmof Sea Institute of Shandong Province.Shrimp were stocked in two systemson at a density of 16 individuals/m2with the body length of 0.840.16 cm.Before stocking, the juveniles were

acclimatized to seawater with a salinityof 30 parts per thousand. In cooperationwith the farmers, we chose appropri-ate management practices for the two

systems (Table 1). The two systems hadthe same total water, nitrogen and phos-

phorus inputs. Disease and physicaldisorders were monitored throughoutwhole growing season by the farmersand by professional consultants who

recommended organic and conventionaltreatments for their control.One month before the beginning of

the experiment, the two systems werefertilized with fully composted chickenmanure to cultivate natural food. Afterstocking, composted chicken manurewas applied in both the conventionaland organic ponds, according to watercolor and secchi disc visibility, to keepthe optimum water color and transpar-ency of 30-40 cm during the experi-ment. Shrimp in conventional ponds

were fed with a commercial pelletmanufactured by the local SulanlinFishery Feed Co. Ltd., Jiangsu, China.Shrimp in organic ponds were fedwith a formulation containing wildartemia from local salt pans, organicsoybean from OFDC certified farms (anIFOAM accredited organic certifier inChina) and natural clam, in accordancewith organic requirements. Feedingwas conducted twice per day in the

beginning (April), gradually increas-

ing in frequency to five times per day(August-September) as shrimp grew.Feeding behavior was monitored withcheck trays, and growth was monitored

by sampling 20 individuals every 10days. Aeration was applied twice perday from 07000800 and 14001500h on sunny days before June, threetimes a day in July and August 05000600,14001500 and 21002200 h,

and on cloudy or rainy days over thewhole course of the study. The waterin the systems was exchanged andadded as required to make up for lossesdue to evaporation and seepage and toimprove the water quality in the ponds.Water exchange normally happened atmonthly intervals and varied accordingto the stage of the production cycle anddifferent management systems.

Analysis

Standard water quality parameters weremonitored (Table 2). Measurements oftemperature, salinity, dissolved oxygenand pH of pond water were performedon siteduring the sampling process, ata depth of 30 cm in each pond. Am-monium, nitrite, nitrate and phosphatewere quantified in the laboratory ap-

plying standard methods41. Dischargedwater quantity was recorded and watersamples were monitored also. Whenharvesting, samples of fresh shrimp (20

individuals) were collected randomlyfrom organic and conventional shrimpfarming systems. Body length, body

Management items Organic shrimp pond Conventional shrimp pond

Selection of site, interac-tion with surroundingecosystems

Physical buffer zones around the organic pond; nomangrove existed.

No buffer zones; no mangroveexisted.

Species and origin of stock NativePenaeus chinensisadopted; no GMO involved; NativePenaeus chinensisadopted; no GMO involved;

Breeding Natural reproduction, no hormones used. Natural reproduction, no hor-mones used.

Designing of holdingsystems, water quality,stocking density

Water quality conforming to the natural requirements ofthe species; 7.2 pieces/m2

Water quality conforming to thenatural requirements of the spe-cies; 7.2 pieces/m2

Health and Hygiene No medicine and treatment used; adopting optimizedhusbandry, rearing and feeding measures permitted inthe Naturland Standards for Organic Aquaculture.

Bleaching powder, calciumoxide, keng iodine disinfectantand bioremediation products usedduring the culture period

Oxygen supply A 1500-W aerator, temporarily used A 1500-W aerator, temporarilyused

Organic fertilizing Certified Organic fertilizer (1000 kg/ha) Composted chicken manure

(1000kg/ha)Feeding Organic soybean; wild artemia and clam Commercial pellet

Table 1. Management practice for organic and conventional shrimp ponds.


14/49



weight and amino acid levels wereanalyzed.

We also calculated gross receiptsusing farm gate prices for shrimp soldat harvest or after storage. Prices for thespecific size and grade and for con-

ventional vs organic shrimps from ourstudy were based on practical prices.Total costs included non-harvestedvariable costs (fertilizers, pesticides,feed, fuel, labour, electricity and hous-ing), harvest variable costs (harvesting,grading, packing and storage) and fixedcosts (machinery, interest and taxes).

Water quality

The quality of two pond systems wasevaluated by analyzing the parameters

mentioned above. The results wereshown as follows:

pH, temperature, salinity anddissolved oxygen

The quality data are listed in Table 3.During the field experiment, salinityfluctuated between 13.5 and 19.6,temperature fluctuated from 19.5 to29.8C, pH from 8.4 to 8.9, and dis-solved oxygen from 5.0 mg/l to 6.0

mg/l. There were no significant differ-ences in above-mentioned parameters

between conventional and organictreatments throughout the experiment.

The concentration of ammonium,nitrite, nitrate and phosphate are givenin Figures 1-4, respectively. The patternof all four nutrients shows considerabledifferences between the two productionsystems. Both systems displayed in-creases in the concentration of nutrientsover time. However, levels of nitrite,nitrate and phosphate were significantlyhigher in the conventional system,while ammonium concentration higherin the organic system.

Disease

A potential incidence of viral diseasewas found in the conventional systemin mid August, however, no diseasewas observed in the organically farmedshrimp throughout the whole growingseason.

Harvest and shrimp quality

Due to early signs suggesting viraldisease, shrimp in the conventional

production system were harvested from10-12 August. Shrimp from the organic

system were harvested on September15. The final culture duration was 127days for conventionally farmed shrimpand 153 days for organic.

The harvested organic shrimp hada significantly higher average bodylength of 14.1 cm, and fresh bodyweight of 22.4g (dry body weight6.1g), higher than conventionallyfarmed shrimp, which had an average

body length of 10.6 cm and fresh bodyweight of 13.1g, (dry body weight3.9g). The net organic shrimp yield was3,060 kg/ha compared to 1,545kg/hafor conventionally farmed shrimp(Table 4). Survival in ponds was 85.4%for organically farmed shrimp and 73.7% for conventional respectively. Feedconversion ratio was 1.18 for or-ganic and 1.26 for conventional ponds.Analysis of amino acid content, anindication of shrimp quality, found thatcontent in organic shrimp was higherfor most, though not all, amino acids(Table 5). We conducted a taste panel

of 15 consumers to evaluate percep-tions of shrimp quality. 80% found thatorganically farmed shrimp tasted better,

and 100% indicated that it had a firmertexture.

Benefits of the two treatmentsystems

Net economic income in organic andconventional systems were 6182 and103 RMB yuan/mu (here, RMB is theabbreviation of the currency used inP.R. China, and Yuan is its monetaryunit whose exchange rate to US dollaris 1 : 8.3 or so;mu is Chinese unit ofarea whose exchange rate to ha is 1:15),with the ratio of total costs to grossreceipts of 1 : 1.76 and 1 : 1.08 re-spectively. The organic shrimp systemexhibited significantly better economicefficiency (Table 6).

We assessed the environmentalbenefits of the two production systemsby comparing the total dischargednitrogen and phosphorus quantity. Thetotal discharged water quantity duringthe culture period was lower for the or-ganic system than for the conventionalsystem (Table 7). The conventionalsystem discharged 34.27 kg of nitrogenand 0.3747 kg phosphorus; some 14.89kg and 0.3418 kg more than that for theorganic system respectively. This indi-

cates that the organic system performedbetter in terms of nutrient load on theenvironment.

Variable Monitoring Method

pH Twice daily pH / mV meter / electrodeDissolved oxygen 10 days Oxygen meter Salinity 10 days RefaractometryTemperature Twice daily Thermometer Ammonium

MonthlyNesselerization/Spectrophotometry

NitriteMonthly

Diazotization/Spectrophotometry

Nitrate Monthly Cadmium reduction/ diazotization

Phosphate MonthlyAmmonium molybdate/Spectrophotometry

Amino acid When harvesting Amino acid analyzer

Table 2. Variables studied and corresponding methodology.

Parameter Organic system Conventional systempH 8.4-8.8 8.6-8.9Salinity () 13.5-19.6 13.5-19.6Temperature(C) 19.5-29.8 19.5-29.8DO (mg/l) 5.0-6.0 5.0-5.8

Table 3. Temperature, pH, salinity and DO for organic system andconventional nutrients.


15/49



Environmentally friendlyproduction

Adverse environmental impacts re-lated to shrimp aquaculture have beenwidely reported in the literature3,25,26,27.

There is a large amount of nutrientsin shrimp ponds derived directly fromfeeding and fertilization or indirectlyfrom primary productivity, some ofwhich is dissolved or suspended inwater, some of which is deposited atthe bottom of the pond. Much of thesenutrients are wasted in the middle andlater culture stages of the monoculturesystem because it cannot be fed upondirectly by shrimp28. During the courseof conventional aquaculture, untreatedwaste water laden with uneaten feed

and fish faeces may contribute to nutri-ent pollution near surrounding water

bodies29. Moreover, nitrogen wastes(for example, ammonia and nitrite) thatexceed the assimilative capacity of re-ceiving waters can lead to deteriorationin water quality that is toxic to fish andshrimp. Leaching from both uneatenfeed and shrimp faeces results in sig-nificant amounts of dissolved organicnitrogen being released in the water30.

Our findings show that organic

shrimp production can make more effi-cient use of input materials, effectivelyreducing the loading of organic matter

both within the pond and in dischargedwaters. This difference is probably duein part to differences in the nutrientquality and composition of feed, whichare likely to have a significant impacton nitrogen and phosphorus leach-ates.Artemia, fed to the organicallyfarmed shrimp, is one of the best livefoods for and can be digested fully byshrimp, with a protein conversion rateof around 80%, significantly more thanfishmeal31,32upon which the artificialdiet given to conventionally farmedshrimp was based. Soybean has a low

phosphorus level33, which results in

lower phosphorus leaching if used asfeed of aquatic animals.

However, we also found that theorganic system has its own problems.The ammonium level is higher in theorganic pond than in the conventionalsystem. This may be attributed to thehigh NH

3excretion rate from the gills

of organically farmed shrimp. Previ-ous studies have shown that the mainsource of ammonium is ammoniaexcreted from shrimp gills30.

Disease

Disease is recognized as one of the big-gest obstacles for the future of shrimpaquaculture and they indirectly have

bearing on the environment3. Viral andbacterial diseases, together with poorsoil and water quality, are the maincauses of shrimp mortality34,35, althoughdeficient environmental management ofshrimp farms is another determinant36.

Management of the pond environ-ment is probably the most importantfactor for disease prevention in shrimpmariculture36. Conventional shrimpfarming systems are reliant on nutrient-

Body length

(cm)

Fresh body

weight (g)

Dry body

weight (g)

Net yield

(kg/ha)

Organic 14.10.4 22.43.6 6.10.4 3060Conventional 10.60.3 13.10.8 3.90.3 1545

Table 4. Mean final sizes and yield of cultured shrimp in the organicand conventional systems. The parameters were presented as mean standards deviation except for net yield.

Amino acid Organic (g/g DW) Conventional (g/g DW)

Asp 0.091 0.064Glu 0.116 0.055Ser 0.031 0.032His 0.013 0.009Gly 0.074 0.060

Thr* 0.028 0.025Arg 0.073 0.062Ala 0.048 0.046Tyr 0.024 0.021

Cys-cys 0.090 0.070Val* 0.038 0.037Met* 0.023 0.022Phe* 0.028 0.026Ile* 0.034 0.033

Leu* 0.058 0.055Lys* 0.051 0.050Pro 0.125 0.159

Trp* 0.012 0.009* Essential amino acid for humans.

Table 5. Amino acid content for harvested organic and conventionalshrimp.

Treatments Costs BenefitsTotal costs vs.

gross receipt

Seeds Labour Feed Electricity Housing Other Shrimp Net incomeOrganic 4000 8000 10920 5969 5000 2600 71400 30911 1:1.76Conventional 4000 1000 1100 2468 0 200 9283 515 1:1.08

Table 6. Economic benefits for organic and conventional shrimp systems (unit: RMB yuan).


16/49



rich feed inputs. If not properly man-aged, this can cause deterioration of the

pond environment leading to disease37.Although based on a very limited

trial, our study suggests that organicmanagement practices may be able toreduce disease risks. This may be at-tributed to superior water quality in theorganic shrimp pond. As for the othermechanisms, the authors are of the fol-lowing opinions. In contrast to conven-tional production, the basic standards oforganic aquaculture production includeregulations concerning cultivating

conditions, which serve as preventivemeasures. For example, we created

physical buffer zones around organicpond to prevent the entry and spread ofdisease from off-farm. Adequate poli-cies and regulations had been taken tocontrol the entry and escape of speciescultivated in the organic pond as wellas movement of water and people.

Economic benefit

It appears that disease was the mainproximate factor for the final economicbenefit. We assessed the economicbenefit of the two production system bycalculating the net profit in this study.The organic system was significantlymore profitable than the conventionalsystem. Higher production costs forthe organic system were largely dueto differences in feed applications,labour, housing, electricity, operationetc. The cumulative gross receipt canvary depending on several factors,

such as shrimp body length, prices,yields, shrimp taste and shrimp quality.Regarding shrimp body length, the

breakeven point happened from July to

August. During this period, first signsof disease appeared in the conventional

system. In order to reduce disease risk,the grow-out period in shrimp farmingis often shortened, resulting in harvest-ing of smaller shrimp. Sometimes,cultivation continues until first signsof disease appear when the crop isimmediately harvested and can still bemarketed, but at lower quality38. Thatwas the case happened in our study too.

Product quality

The harvested organic shrimp wasgenerally superior with regards to im-

portant variables such as taste, firmnessand amino acid levels. In the consum-ers mind, organic produce must be

better and healthier than that producedunder conventional farming system.This image is also the main motivefor consumers who are willing to pay

premium prices for purchasing organicfood39. Therefore, quality differenceshave been the subject of many recentcomparisons between conventionaland organic food17,40. However, a clearcomparison between organic and con-ventional produced products is difficultto establish due to the great variationwithin the production methods, con-cerning among other things, intensifica-tion, feeding rate or breeds used6.

Conclusion

Our results show that the organicshrimp production system trialled in

Lianyungang city of Jiangsu Provinceis not only better for the environmentthan its conventional counterpart, buthas significantly comparable yields and

higher profits while producing a betterquality product. Although shrimp yield

and quality are important products ofa farming system, the benefit of theenvironment quality provided by theorganic production system is equallyvaluable and usually overlooked in themarketplace. Such external benefitscome at a financial cost to farmers.It would be very interesting to com-

pare organic and conventional shrimpapproaches in a costbenefit analysisincluding environmental costs andsustainability issues (environmental

and economic) to see how we shouldoptimize shrimp production. Due tohigh cost, organic farmers may be un-able to maintain profitable enterpriseswithout economic incentives, suchas price premiums or subsidies fororganic products. The challenge fac-ing policymakers is to incorporate thevalue of ecosystem processes into thetraditional marketplace, thereby sup-

porting organic food producers in theirattempts to employ both economicallyand environmentally superior organicmanagement practices.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this study wasprovided by the Technical Center forNanjing University and Jiangsu SaltIndustrial Group Company. The authorsthank Ding Zhuhong, Wang Guichunand Qian Guangliang for their assist-ance in the field and in the laboratory.Sincere thanks are also due to shrimp

farmers of Xuwei Salt Field who al-lowed us access to their farm for theduration of the study.

Table 7. Discharged water for the two production systems and correspondent nitrogen and phosphorusquantity (Nitrogen=NH

4++NO3-+NO

2-; Phosphorus = Phosphate).

ParameterDischarged water

(m3)

Nitrogen

concentration of

pond water (mg/l)

Phosphorus

concentration of

pond water (mg/l)

Nitrogen quantity

in the discharged

water (kg)

Phosphorus

quantity in the

discharged water

Organic Non-org. Organic Non-org. Organic Non-org. Organic Non-org. Organic Non-org.

April

May

June

July

August

September

Post-harvest

0

0

0

800

1200

400

9240

400

600

767

834

934

---

9240

0.365

0.616

0.802

0.906

1.369

1.741

1.767

0.114

0.456

1.364

2.456

3.043

----

3.031

0

0

0

0.001

0.003

0.002

0.003

0

0

0.018

0.029

0.034

----

0.033

0

0

0

0.725

1.643

0.694

16.32

0.046

0.274

1.046

2.048

2.842

----

28.01

0

0

0

0.0008

0.0036

0.0008

0.0277

0

0

0.0138

0.0242

0.0318

----

0.3049

Total 11640 12644 --- --- --- --- 19.38 34.27 0.0329 0.3747


17/49



References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2001.

Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling

and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods.

http://www.fao.org/organicag/frame2-e.htm

2. Neiland, A.E., S. Neill, J. B. Varley et al., 2001.

Shrimp aquaculture: economic perspectives for

policy development. Marine Policy, 25, 265-279

3. Paez-Osuna, F. P., 2001. The environmental impact

of shrimp aquaculture: a global perspective. Envi-

ronmental Pollution, 112,229-231

4. Kautsky, N., P. Ronnback, M. Tedengren et al., 2000.

Ecosystem Perspectives on Management of Disease

in Shrimp Pond Farming, Aquaculture 191, 145-161

5. Senarath, U., C. Visvanathan. 2001. Environmental

issues in brackish water shrimp aquaculture in Sri

Lanka. Environmental Management, 27(3), 335-348

6. Sundrum, A., 2000. Organic livestock farming: A

critical review. Livestock Production Science, 67,

207-215.

0 1

0 2

0 3

0 4

0 5

0 6

A M J J A S

NH4

+

C

O

Fig. 4 Monthly patterns of phosphate in the organicand conventional systems, April to September.

Fig. 1 Monthly patterns of NH4

+in the organic andconventional systems, April to September.

Fig. 2 Monthly patterns of nitrite in the organic andconventional systems, April to September.

0 005

0 01

0 015

0 02

0 025

0 03

0 035

A M J J A S

Time

Nitrate

C

O

Fig. 3 Monthly patterns of nitrate in the organic andconventional systems, April to September.

0 5

1 5

2 5

3 5

A M J J A S

Time

Nitrite

C

O

0 005

0 01

0 015

0 02

0 025

0 03

0 035

0 04

A M J J A S

Time

Phosphate

C

O

7. Bergleiter, S. 2001. Organic Shrimp Production.

Ecology and Farming, May 2001, 22-23

8. Naturland. 2002. Naturland Standards for Organic

Aquaculture. Kleinhaderner Weg 1, 82166 Grafelf-

ing, Germany, 20pp

9. KRAV. 2001. Standards. Idetryck Grafisk Uppsala,

Sweden, pp. 60-69

10. NASAA (The National Association for Sustainable

Agriculture Australia, Limited).

2001. The Standards for Organic Agricultural Produc-

tion. Stirling. S.A 5152, Australia, pp. 37-38

11. Organic Food Development Center of State Envi-

ronmental Protection Administration (OFDC). 2002.

Organic Certification Standards. Nanjing, China, pp.

30-32

12. IFOAM (International Federation of Organic

Agriculture Movements). 2000. Basic standards for

organic production and processing, D-66606 St.

Wendel, Germany, 67 pp.

13. Willer, H. and M. Yussefi. 2001. Organic Agricul-

ture Worldwide Statistics and Future Prospects, Bad

Drkheim : SL, 22-23

14. Brister, D.J. and A. R. Kapuscinski. 2000. Organic

Aquaculture: A New Wave of the Future. http://li-

brary.kcc.hawaii.edu/praise/news/aquacon6.html.

15. ORiordan T. and D. Cobb. 2001. Assessing the

consequences of converting to organic agriculture.

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52, 22-35

16. Younie, D., and C. A. Watson, 1992. Soil nitrate-N

levels in organically and intensively managed grass-

land systems. Aspects Appl. Biol., 30, 235238.

17. Woese, K. et al., 1997. A comparison of organi-

cally and conventionally grown foods - Results of a

review of the relevant literature. J. Sci. Food Agric.

74, 281-293

18. Weibel, F. P. et al., 1998. Are Organically Grown

Apples Tastier and Healthier? A Comparative Field

Study Using Conventional and Alternative Methods

to Measure Fruit Quality. In: Foguelman, Dina &

Lockeretz, Willie (Eds.), Organic Agriculture- the

Credible Solution for the XXIstCentury: Proceed-

ings of the 12thInternational IFOAM Scientific

Conference, Mar del Plata, Argentinean , 147-153.


18/49



19. Reganold, J. P. et al., 2001. Sustainability of three

apple production systems. Nature 410, 926-929.

20. Kristensen, S. P. et al., 1994. A comparison of the

leachable inorganic nitrogen content in organic and

conventional farming systems. Acta Agric. Scand.

Sect. B: Soil Plant Sci., 44, 19-27.

21. Feber, R. E., L. G. Firbank, P. J. Johnson et al.,1997. The effects of organic farming

on pest and non-pest butterfly abundance. Agric. Eco-

syst. Envir., 64 , 133-139

22. Cobb, D. et al., 1999. Integrating the environmental

and economic consequences of converting to or-

ganic agriculture: evidence from a case study. Land

Use Policy, 16, 207-221.

23. Cederberg, C. and B. Mattsson. 2000. Life cycle

assessment of milk production a comparison

of conventional and organic farming. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 8, 49-60.

24. Dalgaard, T. et al., 2001. A model for fossil energy

use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic

and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems

& Environment, 87, 51-65.

25. Primavera, J.H. 1997. Socio-economic impacts of

shrimp culture. Aquaculture Research, 28, 815-827

26. Primavera, J.H. 1998. Tropical shrimp farming and

its sustainability. In: De Silva, S. (Ed.). Tropical

Mariculture. Academic Press, London, 257-289

27. Phillips, M.J., 1998. Tropical mariculture and

coastal environmental integrity. In: De Silva, S.

(Ed.). Tropical Mariculture. Academic Press, Lon-

don, 17-69

28. Ding, T., Li, M., Liu, Z., 1995. The pattern and prin-ciples of synthetical culture of the prawn cultivating

ponds. J. Zhejiang Fish. College, 15(2), 134-19

29. Ervik, A. et al,1997. Regulating the Local Environ-

mental Impact of Intensive Marine Fish Farming,

Aquaculture 158, 85-94

30. Burford, M.A. and K.C. Williams. 2001. The fate of

nitrogenous waste from shrimp feeding. Aquacul-

ture, 198, 79-93

31. Li, R. 1983. Assessing the artemia as feed of

aquatic animal. Marine Sciences, 5, 61-69

32. Zeng, G.Y., Li, R. and Guo, L., 1998. The prelimi-

nary analysis of protein, fatty acid, amino acid, min-

eral contents of Huangqihai Artemia Flakes. Acta

Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis NeiMongol,

29(2), 199-201

33. Che, Z.L., 1998. Aquaculture feed and environ-

mental impact. Journal of Oceanography in Taiwan

Strait, 17, 201-204

34. Liao, I. C., 1989. Penaeus monodon culture in Tai-

wan: through two decades of growth. Int. J. Aquat.

Fish.Technol. 1, 1624.

35. Chamberlain, G.W., 1997. Sustainability of world

shrimp farming. In: Pikitch, E.K., Huppert, D.D.,

Sis-senwine, M.P (Eds.), Global Trends: Fisheries

Management. American Fisheries Society Sympo-

sium 20, Bethesda, MD.

36. Flegel, T., 1996. A turning point for sustainable

aquaculture: the White Spot virus crisis in Asian

shrimp culture. Aquaculture Asia, 2934.

37. Huitric, M., 1998. The Thai shrimp farming

industry: historical development, social drivers and

environmental impacts. MSc Thesis. Dept. Systems

Ecology, Stockholm University, 13, 151.38. Thongrak, S., Prato, T., Chiayvareesajja, S., Kurtz,

W., 1997. Economic and water quality evaluation

of intensive shrimp production systems in Thailand.

Agricultural Systems 53, 121-141

39. Lockie, S. et al., 2000. Constructing green foods:

Corporate capital, risk, and organic farming in

Australia and New Zealand. Agriculture and Human

Values 17, 315-322

40. Worthington. V. 1998. Effect of agricultural methods

on nutritional quality: A comparison of organic with

conventional crops. Alternative Therapies 4, 58-69

41. National Oceanographic Bureau. 1991. Water moni-

toring and analysis. Specification of Oceanographic

Survey (HY003-1-91). Ocean Press, Beijing.

New ACIAR projects in Indonesia...continued from page 10.

The sea-cage project will: Generate a model to estimate carry-

ing capacity for fish cage culture ina broad range of habitat types acrossthe tropics.

Develop best practice guidelines forthe aquaculture industry to minimisethe environmental impact of waste

products. Place emphasis on deliverables to

management authorities that will beeasily implemented.

Putting it all together: Minimisingconflicts between land- and sea-based aquaculture

The land- and sea-based projects willjointly develop site selection criteriafor coastal aquaculture to develop anoverall coastal classification scheme.Many environmental problems can beconveniently avoided by appropriatefarm siting (Phillips 1998).

The community benefits in bothcountries include more accurate siteassessment, improved yields, more ef-fective environmental decision-making,reduced social conflicts between landand sea-based aquaculture industries,

minimised socio-economic inequalities,and improved resource management.

ACIAR will coordinate and run theland- and sea-based projects in parallel

to result in a classification scheme andresulting management tools appropriatefor the development of both industries.In the first instance, the tools developedwill be applied to the coastal zone ofSouth Sulawesi, but it is envisaged

that these serve as a model for otherlocations in Indonesia and elsewhere inSoutheast Asia. In Indonesia, a Na-tional Steering Committee under thechairmanship of the Director Generalof Aquaculture (DGA) will integrate

project results and outputs into plan-ning and decision making processes.Liaison and coordination with a LocalAdvisory Group in South Sulawesiwill be mediated through the office ofthe DGA. A model and decision sup-

port system will extend the results to

a broader range of environments, andwill have application not only to theIndonesian and Australian situation, butto the tropical Asia-Pacific.

Whos involved?

These projects involve multi-discipli-nary studies by a number of collaborat-ing agencies. Most of the research will

be based at the Research Institute forCoastal Aquaculture in Maros, South

Sulawesi. Other agencies include theGondol Research Institute for Maricul-ture in Bali, Gadjah Mada University inYogyakarta, and Hasanuddin Univer-sity in Makassar. For the land-based

project, the project leaders are Dr.Akhmad Mustafa and Dr. Jes Sammutat the University of New South Wales,Sydney, Australia. The sea cage projectis lead by Dr. Rachmansyah [email protected] and Dr. David McKin-non [email protected] at theAustralian Institute of Marine Science,Townsville, Australia.

References

Eng, C.T., Paw, J.N., Guarin, F.Y. (1989) The envi-

ronmental impacts of aquaculture and the effects

of pollution on coastal aquaculture development

in Southeast Asia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 20,

335-343.

Kawahara, S., Ismi, S. (2003) Grouper seed production

statistics in Indonesia. Departemen Kelautan dan

Perikanan and JICA.

Phillips, M.J. (1998). Chapter 2 - Tropical Mariculture

and Coastal Environmental Integrity In Tropical

Mariculture (De Silva, S.S. ed.), pp. 17-69. Aca-

demic Press, London.


19/49



Harvesting the Artemia pond: The slowly turning paddlewheel and bamboo guides direct Artemia into the shallow-set net

fixed in position behind, where it can be easily removed.

Recycling water and making money

By Hassanai Kongkeo and Simon Wilkinson, NACA

Serious about recycling

If you think that you cant keep reusingseawater, think again: Recently wevisited a shrimp hatchery that has beenrecycling a single batch of seawater foreleven years. Only freshwater has beenadded to the system to control salinity,and no water has been discharged to theenvironment in the history of the farm.At the same time the water quality in

production facilities is amongst the bestwe have ever seen, and the hatchery isgenerating a tidy profit from its watertreatment ponds by making use of thehypersaline waters to farmArtemia

biomass and reclaim nutrients at thesame time.

The hatchery is owned and operatedby Khun Banchong Nissagavanich,Vice-President of the Thai ShrimpProducers Association, and located atBanpho District, Chachoengsao Prov-ince, nearly 60 km east of Bangkok.Khun Banchong specialises inPenaeus

monodon, his hatchery has never pro-ducedP. vannameiand he has no inten-tion to start now particularly since the

price ofP. vannameihas crashed. While

most of the Thai industry has movedaway fromP. monodonand the priceof postlarvae has fallen, he points outthat the price ofP. monodonbroodstockhas also fallen to about 1,000 baht(US$25) per animal from former levelsof 10,000 baht (US$250).

Although it is far from the sea(30km), he selected this site for hishatchery with an aim to use recycledwater to keep water quality stable,reduce the risk of viral pathogens enter-ing the hatchery system and to avoidongoing costs such as transportationof brine, commonly practiced by manyinland hatcheries in Thailand KhunBanchong estimates that recyclingwater reduces his operational costs by200,000 300,000 baht (US$5,000-7,500) per month. He believes that thestable water quality is a key factor inthe sustainability of a shrimp hatcheryand broodstock culture. Water drawnfrom the sea or from estuaries mayfluctuate in parameters such as pH,

alkalinity, salinity, temperature andplankton content, creating stress andvariation in shrimp survival rates.

Before use in the hatchery, surfacewater from earthen treatment pondsis pumped into 30 ton concrete tankswhere it settles for a few days beforesalinity adjustment. On average, watersalinity in treatment ponds should bearound 38 ppt. In the wet season, salin-ity may drop to 20 ppt, which requiresaddition of hypersaline water fromthe farmsArtemiaponds to adjust itup to normal seawater salinity (30-35

ppt). In the dry season when salinity intreatment ponds may rise to more than40 ppt, it is necessary to dilute withfreshwater. Then chlorine (30-50 UPN)is applied for elimination of phyto-

plankton and disinfection, followed byheavy aeration to eliminate residues.The treated water is pumped throughan efficient filter system and ozonated

before use in hatchery.After hatchery use, water is drained

to treatment ponds (0.2-0.4 ha) for sedi-mentation and breakdown of organicloads. Algae and seaweeds seeded

in the ponds and mangroves plantedaround the edges assimilate some ofthe nutrients and dissolved organiccompounds that are released. At night,


20/49



Water treatment canals and ponds are aerated and lined with mangroves to assist in improving water quality. The dykes are

lined with pigface, a hardy and salt-tolerant plant, to reduce erosion.

aeration is also given to accelerateplant growth. Reducing nutrient loadshelps prevent excessive phytoplankton

blooms, which may destabilise waterquality and cause shrimp mortality.

During the first two to three years ofoperation, water salinity in treatment

ponds did not rise above 50 ppt, sonot much freshwater was required fordilution to hatchery standard. However,when salinity reached 70-120 ppt insubsequent dry seasons a huge quan-tity of freshwater would have beenrequired, so Khun Banchong beganlooking for an alternative way to usethis hypersaline resource and convertedtwo 0.5 ha treatment ponds forArtemiaculture.Artemiaare an ideal animalfor this kind of environment, as theycan grow and reproduce very rapidly inhigh salinity conditions where fish andother predators cannot survive.

Seaweed and macro algae areharvested daily from water treatment

ponds and composted for a few days

as a natural fertilizer. This is used tostimulate phytoplankton blooms withintheArtemiaponds, upon which theanimals feed. In this way the hatchery Adult Artemia harvested from the water treatment ponds.


21/49



reclaims nutrients asArtemiabiomass,which is sold as a secondary crop. Usu-ally, one cycle of water treatment willtake about 7-10 days.

HarvestingArtemia

The farm produces an incredible200-600kg ofArtemiabiomassperday!This is sold at around 60 baht(US1.50) per kilo as feed for aquariumfish, Asian seabass nurseries andP.monodonbroodstock culture.Artemia

biomass is also exported, Around 80%is sold in frozen form, and 20% live.

Artemiais harvested with a verysimple and effective set up: A surface-set net with bamboo guides is fixed in

position behind a small, slowly rotating

paddlewheel that maintains slow circu-lation within the pond.Artemiaswim-ming in the surface layers are sweptinto the net, which is lifted and cleared

periodically. The catch is transferred tosmall hapa-style holding cages at the

pond side to await packing.

Looking into marine fishculture

With a practically unlimited supply of

Artemiaavailable on site Khun Ban-chong has recently begun experiment-ing with marine finfish culture; as everyaquarist knows fish regardArtemiamuch in the same way that childrenregard lollies: They loveit -Artemia

biomass provides nutrient-rich feed(50-60% protein) and keeps water inrearing tanks relatively clean comparedwith non-living feed, thus contribut-ing to higher survival. At present he isrearing mouse grouper (Cromileptes al-tivelis) in the hatchery for two monthswith near 100% survival before transferto outdoor ponds. Stocking densitiesare around 500 3cm fingerlings per 10ton tank with excellent water qual-ity and scrupulous hygiene. It is earlydays yet, but his preliminary results arequite promising with some fish reach-ing 500g in 10 months of culture usingliveArtemiabiomass as the primaryfeed for fingerlings held in the hatch-ery andArtemiamixed with trash fishin growout ponds. This is quite fast

compared to a typical growout periodof 18 months for C. altivelison trashfish alone.

Inside the shrimp hatchery preparing the ponds.

Mouse grouperfingerlings (Cromileptes altivelis).

More profitable shrimp farming?

Learn about better management practices

www.enaca.org/shrimp


22/49


Marine Finfish Aquaculture Network

Asia Pacic Marine Finsh Aquaculture NetworkAsia-Pacific Marine Finfish Aquaculture Network

agazineMagazine

July-September 2005

Advances in the seedproduction of Cobia

Rachycentron canadum

in Vietnam: 21

Australian success withbarramundi cod: 23

Brief overview of recentgrouper breedingdevelopments in

Thailand: 24

Application of probioticsin rotifer productionsystems for marine

fish hatcheries: 27

Advances in the seed production

of CobiaRachycentron canadum in

Vietnam

By Le Xan

Research Institute for Aquaculture No 1.

Cobia culture is expanding throughoutthe world, notably in China and Viet-nam. Cobia have an extensive naturaldistribution, grow quickly, and can feedon artificial diets. Under culture condi-tions, Cobia can reach 34 kg in bodyweight in one year and 810 kg in twoyears. Products from Vietnamese Cobia

are exported to the US, Taiwan Prov-ince of China and local markets. Themarket price of one-year farmed Cobiaare around US$ 46 kg in Vietnam.Research on seed production and growout culture of cobia in Vietnam beganin 1997-1998.

Broodstock and spawning

Broodstock can be acquired by pur-chasing wild fish or by collectingdominant individuals from grow-outoperations (selecting broodstockfrom different parental lines to avoidinbreeding). Most fish more than twoyears in age have fully developed ova-ries, but it is best to collect three-yearold broodstock if possible. In Vietnam,cobia spawn twice per year duringApril to May and September to Octo-

ber. Conditioning of broodstock usuallystarts some 3-4 months before antici-

pated spawning, by feeding with trash

fish, squid and swimming crab sup-plemented with mineral vitamins and17-methyltestosterone. The amountof trash fish fed is about 4 5%/bodyweight per day.

Mature fish are spawned in dedi-cated spawning tanks or sometimesin floating net cages. Spawning tanksare 60m3in volume with a depth of2.5m. Female broodstock are admin-istered with an injection of LRH-e orLRH-a at a dosage of 20 g/kg female,

Adult cobia, Rachycentron canadum.

These two were on the menu!


23/49


Marine Finfish Aquaculture Network

Marine Finfish Aquaculture

Magazine

An electronic magazine of the

Asia-Pacific Marine Finfish

Aquaculture Network

Contact


Aquaculture Network

PO Box 1040

Kasetsart Post Office

Bangkok 10903, Thailand

Tel +66-2 561 1728 (ext 120)

Fax +66-2 561 1727

Email [email protected]

Website http://www.enaca.org/

marinefish

Editors

Sih Yang Sim


Aquaculture Network

c/o NACA

[email protected]

Dr Michael J. Phillips

Environmental Specialist &

Manager of R&D, NACA

[email protected]

Simon Wilkinson

Communications Manager

[email protected]

Dr Mike Rimmer

Principal Fisheries Biologist

(Mariculture & Stock

Enhancement)

DPIF, Northern Fisheries Centre

PO Box 5396

Cairns QLD 4870

[email protected]

with males receiving half of this dose.There isnt a need to inject all females

but only one or two pairs. Spawningof cobia usually takes place at night,although it occasionally also hap-

pens during the day. After spawning,fertilized eggs are separated out andcollected using seawater at 3536.Sinking eggs should be discarded.

Eggs are stocked in the incubationtank at a density of 20003000 eggs/litre. The incubation tank is 500m3involume maintained with light aera-tion. Water exchange is carried out at200-300% per day, using an input andoverflow pipe system.

Larval rearingCobia larvae are reared in cement

ponds, composite tanks or earthenponds. A suitable pond size is 400-500m3in volume with an average depthof 11.2 metres. Rearing ponds arefertilized to stimulate production ofnatural live feed before stocking withlarvae. Live feed density needs to bechecked frequently, and if low, must

be supplemented with correctly sizedlive feeds (rotifer or copepod) to suit

the larvae as they grow. After 22 25days, larvae can be fed with mixed foodor artificial diets. However, there may

be a need to transfer larvae to a larval

rearing tank where they can be trainedto accept the new food and receive

proper care.A suitable size for larval rearing

tanks is 310m3in volume. The optimal

temperature for rearing the larvae is inthe range 2430OC, with a salinity of2832,pH 7.58.5 and light inten-sity about 500 lux. Larvae of cobiathat must be weaned can be reared insalinity of 20 22. The microalgaeN. ocullata, ChlorellaorI. galabanashould be supplied and mai