The Environmental Impacts of Shrimp Aquaculture on Coastal/ Mangrove

Ecosystems

Aim – Environmental Impacts, Worth it?

1. Introduction - Shrimp aquaculture –

Shrimp farming plays an important but controversial role in the economic

development of many countries in Asia because of the high economic returns and
often catastrophic environmental impact of production in coastal areas (Senarath and
Visvanathan, 2001; Huitric et al., 2002; Lebel et al., 2002a; Hall, 2003; van Mulekom
and Axelsson, 2006; Vandergeest, 2007; Islam, 2008).
Nowhere is this trade off between growth and environmental impact seen more clearly
than in Asia where approximately 75% of the global production of farmed shrimp
takes place. The three largest producing nations being China (1,242,000 tons),
Thailand (501,000 tons), and Vietnam (349,000 tons), followed by Indonesia
(326,000 tons), and India (132,000 tons) (FAO, 2007). Thailand is by far the largest
shrimp exporting country with a market share of more than 30%, followed by China,
Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and then Ecuador (ibid.).
Shrimp farming in Vietnam began in earnest at the end of the 1990s in response to
international market demand and supported by government coastal land conversion
policies (Lebel et al., 2002a,b). Today, almost 90% of the brackish shrimp farming in
Vietnam takes place in the Mekong Delta (about 600 ha). Black tiger shrimp (Penaeus
monodon) is the dominant species with 289,000 tons produced in 2008 (MARD, 2009
(a)). In recent years, the Vietnamese government has promoted the production of
white leg shrimp (Littopenaeus vannamei) as a more environmentally friendly
alternative to black tiger shrimp. It is hoped this alternative species will help the
industry maintain high yields, while providing more efficient use of water, low-feed
conversion rates, high survival rates, and faster growth cycles (Wyban, 2007;
Mishra et al., 2008). However, black tiger shrimp is preferred in most international
markets and remains the most important species in tropical shrimp farming.
Farming systems have gradually shifted from extensive traditional systems to
improved extensive, semi-intensive and intensive production that are classified
according to the pond size, water use, capital, labor, feed and chemicals used, and
stocking densities (Table 1). Although traditional and improved farming systems
continue to exist in parallel, production does appear to have intensified. During the
past ten years shrimp production increased faster than the area of shrimp ponds (Fig.
1). Since 2008, the area of shrimp farming has decreased while production has
increased. Although statistics are not yet available, the area of shrimp farming in 2009
was expected to decline 9% to 580,000 ha, while production was expected to grow
10% to 380,000 tons (MARD, 2009).
Anh 2010, Water pollution by intensive brackish shrimp farming in south-east
Vietnam: Causes and options for control

Attracted by the demand from North America, Europe, and Japan in the last two
decades, large-scale shrimp farming has arisen. High profitability and the generation
of foreign exchange have provided the major driving forces in the global expansion of
shrimp culture (Primavera 1997). The expansion of this activity has occurred in the
tropical and subtropical coastal lowlands and, as with other aquaculture practices, can
compete for wet spaces in common with waste disposal from different important
economic activities (industrial, agriculture, tourism, traditional fisheries) and rural
development. Additionally, shrimp farming can degrade the environment, jeopardize
the integrity of ecosystems, and compete for food and habitat with natural
populations.
It is estimated that 1–1.5 million ha of coastal lowlands have been converted into
shrimp farms, mainly in China, Thailand, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia,
Ecuador, Mexico, Honduras, Panama, and Nicaragua (Figure 1) (Rosenberry 1998,
FAO 1999). In some of these countries, the growth of the shrimp aquaculture industry
has created various environmental impacts. These impacts have led to reductions in
production, disease outbreaks, and implementation of regulations on aquaculture
operations and the use of the coastal zone. This work examines the causes, effects,
and possible mitigations related to environmental impacts during the siting, operation,
and abandonment of shrimp farms. In addition, recommendations on research
priorities are presented.
Global Production and Shrimp Cultured Species Wild catches of shrimp from the
world’s oceans are estimated to have a maximum sustainable yield of 1.6–
2.2 million metric tons, and future demands for shrimp apparently can only be
satisfied through aquaculture production. In 1998, the world’s shrimp farmers
produced an estimated 840,200 metric tons of whole shrimp in an operating area of
999,350 ha (Figure 1). The Asian region produced the largest amount of cultured
shrimp followed by Latin America (Rosenberry 1998, FAO 1999). From 1975 to
1985, the production of farmed shrimp increased 300%; from 1985 to 1995, 250%. If
production were to increase by 200% in 1995– 2005, the yield would be about 2.1
million tons in 2005 (Rosenberry 1998), an amount comparable to the production
from the commercial shrimp fisheries.
Over 30 species of shrimp have been cultured in ponds. However, only a few species
are of most importance in terms of large-scale commercial production (Figure 1). In
Asia, five species comprise almost all of the cultured shrimp production. The giant
tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) is the most attractive due to its large size and rapid
growth. Fenneropenaeus merguiensis and Fenneropenaeus indicus together are the
second most commonly cultured species in Asia. Other important species in the region
are Fenneropenaeus chinensis, cultured in China, and Marsupenaeus japonicus,
cultured in Japan, Taiwan, and China (Rosenberry 1998). In America, there are two
commonly cultured species, Litopenaeus vannamei and Litopenaeus stylirostris, while
the Marsupenaeus japonicus is grown in Brazil.

Paez Osuna 2001. The Environmental Impact of Shrimp Aquaculture: Causes,

Effects, and Mitigating Alternatives.

2. The Process of Shrimp Farming

Our analysis focuses on shrimp production in ponds with particular attention to the
preparation, cultivation and harvesting phases in the production cycle. The
preparation phase includes deforestation, pond construction, pond treatment and inlet
water treatment. The cultivation phase includes breeding stock, feeding and pond
water exchange. The harvest phase includes harvesting and pond emptying. A number
of farming processes in these phases have potentially significant impact on the
environment. We focus in particular on pond treatment, inlet water treatment, feeding,
water exchange, and final water discharge and sediment dredging. The system studied
here is described in Fig. 2. As indicated above, Can Gio was accepted in 2000 as a
World Biosphere Reserve. This implies that the area of shrimp production cannot
increase. As a result, shrimp ponds are not abandoned.
Typical shrimp farms have one production cycle per year, which lasts for four months.
Before each production cycle, farmers empty their ponds and dredge the sludge (both
after harvest and before the new cycle). Depending on the natural conditions of each
area the ponds may require further treatment before the new cycle. In the case of acid
sulfate soil, common to many parts of the Mekong Delta, this may include flushing
the ponds three to four times followed by treatment with lime (CaO) to increase the
pH.
The ponds are then aerated continuously for three to four days, to kill vectors of
infectious diseases such as snails and crabs. The ponds are sterilized with chlorine,
Saponine (of herbal origin), or KMnO4, and then fertilized to promote algal
production with urea phosphate (or super phosphate), and/or a mix of chicken dung
and lime in a ratio of 1:3. The quality of the water before stocking shrimp larvae is
supposed to meet the criteria listed in Table 2 according to the guideline for black
tiger shrimp farming from the government (MoFI, 2001), and should be maintained
throughout the cultivation season.
After preparation the ponds are stocked and fed with pelleted industrial feed. The
Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) measures the efficiency of converting the total quantity
of feed in one grow-out period with the total biomass of shrimp harvested. Different
feeds have different conversions, but current feeds on the market have an FCR
between 1.4 and 2 (Funge-Smith and Briggs, 1998;
SEAFDEC, 2008). At these FCRs it is estimated that approximately 80% of the feed
nitrogen enters the pond nutrient cycling, through both inefficient conversion and
excrement (Australian Prawn Farmers Association, 2004).
Depending on the age of the shrimp and the scale of the pond,
there are several ways to ensure efficient feed use. First, the
calculation of feed quantity needs to be made in accordance with
shrimp size. The quantity of feed for 100.000 PL15 (Post Larvae 15
days of age) can be calculated as: PL15–PL20: 1–2 kg of food/
100.000 PL/day (MOFI, 2006). After five days from PL21 and
onwards, the feed can be increased by 0.1–0.4 kg/day, depending
on the capacity of the Post Larvae. After one month, when the shrimp are
approximately 1.5–2.0 g, the amount of feed in
intensive farms can double from 2% to 4% of the estimated total shrimp weight in
accordance with Standard 28 TCN 171: 2001 from the Vietnamese Ministry of
Fishery (MOFI, 2006). Controlling water quality involves careful control of water
exchange. The water level in the pond increases over time. In the beginning of the
cycle, the water in the pond is set at a depth of 0.8–1 m. After one month, the water
level in the pond is increased to 1.2–1.5 m, and after the third month the water level is
increased and maintained at a depth of 1.5–2.0 m.
Depending on the season and the quality of the water in the shrimp pond, the water
needs to be exchanged about every 10 days. During the dry season, the temperature
and salinity of the water increases, requiring between 10 and 15% water exchanges.
When the shrimp pond is polluted or diseases show up, also 10–15% of the water is
exchanged.
The duration of a typical crop of intensive shrimp farming is usually 100–120 days,
after which the harvested shrimp reach a size of 40–50 shrimp/kg. After harvesting, a
large amount of wastewater is discharged to the surrounding environment and clean
water is pumped into the pond to flush the pond sediment. This water is then often
pumped back into canals or used for putting in the mangrove forest area. The cycle is
then started again with pond treatment.

Anh 2010, Water pollution by intensive brackish shrimp farming in south-east

Vietnam: Causes and options for control

3. Benefits of Shrimp Farming?

3. Environmental Impacts from Shrimp Aquaculture

3.1 Direct Environmental Impacts from Shrimp Aquaculture

1) Habitat loss > biodiversity (relate to ecosystem output/function)

Mangrove conversion to shrimp ponds is the single major factor that has
contributed to
the negative press received by aquaculture. Southeast Asia has 35% of the
world’s 18
million ha of mangrove forests [3], but has also suffered from the highest rates of
mangrove loss, e.g., 70–80% in the Philippines and Vietnam for the last 30 years
[4,5]. Around half of
the 279,000 ha of Philippine mangroves lost from 1951 to 1988 were developed
into culture
ponds; 95% of Philippine brackish water ponds in 1952–1987 were derived from
mangroves [6]. Globally, more than a third of mangrove forests have disappeared
in the
last two decades, and shrimp culture is the major human activity accounting for
35% of
such decline [7]. This transformation results in loss of essential ecosystem
services
generated by mangroves, including the provision of fish/crustacean nurseries,
wildlife
habitat, coastal protection, flood control, sediment trapping and water treatment.
Fish
pens and cages also degrade nearshore habitats through their physical
installations on
seagrass beds and sediment communities, or through deposits of uneaten feeds
[8].

2) Chemicals/pollution from shrimp pond effluents

3.4. Use of antibiotics and chemicals

Chemicals used in shrimp culture may be classified as therapeutants,
disinfectants, water
and soil treatment compounds, algicides and pesticides, plankton growth inducers
(fertilizers and minerals), and feed additives [21,22]. Excessive and unwanted use
of such
chemicals can result in toxicity to non-target populations (cultured species,
human
consumers, and wild biota), development of antibiotic resistance, and
accumulation of
residues [23]. The widespread or excessive use of an antibiotic leads to the
development of
resistance in bacterial populations, and the rotating use of several antibiotics
contributes to
the occurrence of multiple drug resistance patterns [24]. High rates of antibiotic
resistance
to tetracycline, oxytetracycline, oxolinic acid, furazolidone and chloramphenicol
were
observed in bacteria from fish ponds [25] and from shrimp ponds [26] where
antibiotics
were routinely used; widespread multiple resistance was observed in the latter
study. A
majority of Thai shrimp farmers (74%) have used antibiotics [23], mostly on a
prophylactic
basis. The collapse of the 1988 shrimp crop in Taiwan was due, among other
factors, to the
indiscriminate use of antibiotics that led to higher short-term survival in the
cultured
animals but long-term resistance among their pathogens [27].
Risk to humans also stems from the persistence of chemicals in edible tissues.
The
antibiotics oxytetracycline and oxolinic acid were detected above permissible
levels in 8.4%
of 1461 P. monodon sampled from Thai domestic markets in 1990–1991 [28]. The
direct
effects of these chemotherapeutants and antibiotics on humans constitute a
public health
concern—chloramphenicol can cause aplastic anemia, hypoplastic anemia,
stomatitis and
other less severe conditions [29]. From June 1992 to April 1994, Japanese
quarantine
stations found antimicrobial residues in 30 shipments of cultured shrimp from
Thailand
[30]. Organotin pesticides have long been used to control Cerithidea cingulata
snails that
prevent growth of natural food in Philippine milkfish ponds. More than 10 years
ago, the
government banned these substances because of potential harm to humans and
the
environment. But the ban has not stopped the clandestine use and backdoor
smuggling of
these molluscicides from Indonesia and Malaysia where they remain legal. Coloso
and
Borlongan [31] found evidence of triphenyltin contamination of sediment and
milkfish
tissues collected from ponds previously treated with organotins. Milkfish is an
important
food fish, accounting for a third of total aquaculture production in the Philippines.

3.5. Aquaculture wastes and coastal pollution

A major factor behind the mass mortalities in the 1988 Taiwanese shrimp crop
was the
re-use of waste-laden pond water discharge [27]. As fish/shrimp biomass and feed
inputs
grow, the water quality in intensive ponds, pens and cages deteriorates over the
cropping
cycle. Total nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), nitrite, silicate, orthophosphate,
dissolved
oxygen, and biological oxygen demand increased and water visibility decreased in
intensive Thai ponds throughout the grow-out period [32]. Sediment is the major
sink accounting
for 31% of N output, 84% of P, 63% of organic matter and 93% of solids, and
accumulates in intensive shrimp ponds at the rate of 185–199 mt/ha/cycle DW
while
effluent water during regular flushing and at harvest accounts for 45% of N and
22% of
organic matter output [33]. Intensive shrimp ponds form a thick sludge layer at
the rate of
20–290 mt/ha/crop DW. Quality of receiving waters deteriorates if the assimilative
capacity
of the environment is exceeded.
In early 2002, massive milkfish kills in pens and cages in Pangasinan, Philippines,
of
110,000mt valued at US$16 million were traced to overstocking, overfeeding and
low
dissolved oxygen levels. Nutrient fluxes and organic matter levels were found to
be higher
inside fish pens compared to outside levels [34]. Pens released 51–68% of total
carbon and
nitrogen inputs to the surroundings, and P was bound in the sediments, resulting
in
significant environmental impacts [34]. Another concern is that the composition of
phytoplankton communities may be altered by nutrients added to the water
column from
aquaculture farm wastes. Nishimura [35] has shown that yellowtail feces may
stimulate
growth of the red tide-forming dinoflagellate Gymnodinium. Mass mortalities in a
Taiwan
shrimp pond were traced to blooms of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium
tamarense [36].
Closely related to A. tamarense, and also associated with paralytic shellfish
poisoning, A.
minutum appeared only in samples from aquaculture ponds and coastal areas but
was not
present at other sites [37].

3) Loss of bycatch

Many aquaculture farms in Asia stock wild-caught juveniles rather than hatchery-
reared
post-larvae derived from wild spawners or broodstock. Collection of such
‘seedstock’ can
have major consequences for wild fisheries in terms of high rates of bycatch. For
example,
juvenile milkfish collected for grow-out constitute only 15% of total finfish fry from
inshore seine net catches [9]; the remaining 85% are discarded and left to die on
the beach.
The use of 1.7 billion wild milkfish fry stocked annually in Philippine milkfish ponds
[10]
corresponds to a loss of about 10 billion fry of other finfish species. In shrimp
culture, the
favored species, Penaeus monodon, constitutes a very small proportion of wild
juvenile and
adult populations. For every fry of P. monodon, up to 330–475 other shrimp fry are
caught
in Malaysia [11] and the Philippines [12]. Given a yearly collection of one billion
P. monodon in southeast Bangladesh, the amount of bycatch destroyed is likely to
have
important consequences for marine food webs [13]. A similar problem occurs
when wild
adult P. monodon are collected to provide eggs for hatcheries, or for broodstock.
Adult
P. monodon are rare and comprise only 0.06–0.14% of total catch from trawls in
Peninsular Malaysia [14] and the Arafura Sea, Indonesia [15]. The high demand
for wild
adult P. monodon in the late 1990s—220,000 broodstock for 185 hatcheries in
India
[A. Ganapathy, pers. comm., 1996], 90,000 broodstock and spawners for 4200
hatcheries
in Indonesia (A. Taufik, pers. comm., 1998), and 6400 wild spawners for 300
hatcheries in
Vietnam (V.D. Qinh, pers. comm., 1998)—undoubtedly resulted in the loss of
substantial
numbers of fish and invertebrates through bycatch.

(see paez osuna and capture of wild postlarvae and wild shrimp stocks)

4) Introducing species > spread of diseases

The greatest number of introductions of exotic fish and crustacean species

outside their
natural range has occurred for aquaculture purposes [16]. The potential negative
effects of
such introductions include the degradation of host environment, disruption of the
host
community, genetic degradation of the host stock, and the introduction of
diseases and
parasites. Disease risks are particularly acute: almost all of the 20 identified
viruses in
marine shrimp have been described in cultured animals [17]. Impacts from
disease have
also been observed in the case of transfers of species within their range. In recent
years,
viruses, notably the Whitespot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and Yellowhead Virus,
have
caused catastrophic multimillion dollar crop losses in shrimp farms across Asia.
The origin
of the WSSV pandemic has been traced to the import into Japan of infected
hatcheryproduced
P. japonicus from Chinese hatcheries in 1993 [18]. Since then, it has spread to
China, Taipei, Korea, India, the Philippines and even tropical America [19]. In the
Philippines, cultured P. monodon showed 100% incidence of the infectious
hypodermal
and hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHHNV) compared to a mean of only 51% in four
wild
tiger shrimp populations [20]. Moreover, IHHNV prevalence among the wild
shrimp
populations was directly proportional to shrimp culture intensification and
mangrove
degradation.

Viral disease emergence in shrimp aquaculture: origins, impact and the effectiveness
of health management strategies. Peter J. Walker and C. V. Mohan

Socio-economic impacts
The emergence and spread of disease in shrimp aquaculture has caused economic
impacts on a scale rivalling that of many of the major emerging diseases of livestock
and humans. It was estimated in 1996 that annual disease-related losses in shrimp
farming globally were ∼US$3000 million or 40% of the total production capacity of
the industry (Israngkura & Sae-Hae 2002). The most devastating impacts have
followed the first emergence of each of the major pathogens, which was marked either
by a pause in industry expansion or a dramatic drop in the level of production (Fig. 2).
In Taiwan in 1987/1988, an epizootic attributed to MBV, but likely to have been a
combination of disease and environmental degradation, saw a 70% fall in production
and near-total collapse of the industry (Lightner 1996a). It has been estimated that the
combined economic losses as a result of IHHNV and TSV on wild and cultured
shrimp fisheries in the Americas, from first emergence to 2001, totalled US$1.5–3.0
billion (Hasson et al. 1999a; Lightner 2003) In China in 1993, the emergence of
WSSV resulted in an estimated production loss of US$420 million in a single season
(Wei 2002). In Thailand, annual production losses peaked at US$650 million in 1994,
falling marginally to US$600 million in 1997 (Timothy Flegel, pers. comm., 1998).
Production losses of a similar magnitude have occurred in many shrimp-farming
countries in Asia (Walker 2004; Bondad-Reantaso et al.2005) and it has been
estimated that the impact of WSSV throughout Asia in the first 10 years after its
emergence in 1992 was of the order of US$4–6 billion (Lightner 2003). In the
Americas, the emergence of WSSV in 1999–2000 also saw a rapid decline in
production with immediate losses estimated at more than US$1 billion. The industry
in many countries has never fully recovered (Lightner 2003).
Figure 2. Effect of disease emergence on farmed shrimp production in countries in
South America and Asia. IHHNV, infectious hypodermal and haematopoietic necrosis
virus; IMNV, infectious myonecrosis virus; MSG, monodon slow growth; TSV,
Taura syndrome virus; WSSV, white spot syndrome virus. ▪,  P. vannamei; , P.
chinensis; , P. monodon.

Although losses resulting from disease have subsided since the period of peak impact
during the 1990s, WSSV and other newly emerging pathogens continue to impact
severely, particularly on the small-holder farmers that comprise much of the industry
in major producing countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia and India. Lost production
as a result of disease impacts on the income and food security of small-holder farmers,
as well as job security for workers on larger farms and in hatcheries, feed mills and
processing plants (Bondad-Reantaso et al. 2005). As shrimp aquaculture supplies
seafood markets in the USA, Europe and Japan, disease also impacts directly on
export revenue with flow-on impacts on socio-economic development in the
sustaining local communities in tropical coastal regions of many developing countries
in Asia and the Americas.
Environmental impacts
Assessing the environmental impacts of aquatic animal diseases is a complex and
difficult task and rigorous scientific assessments have rarely been conducted. Arthur
and Subasinghe (2002) noted that potential impacts of aquatic animal diseases on wild
populations and biodiversity could include changes in predator and prey populations,
changes in host abundance, reduction in intra-specific genetic variation, local
exterpations and extinctions. However, despite the widespread occurrence of disease
in shrimp ponds and evidence that major pathogens occur at relatively high
prevalence in wild stocks, there is little available evidence that viral diseases have led
to a decline in wild shrimp populations in Asia. This may be because of a combination
of low population densities and the likely absence of extreme environment stressors
that promote disease emergence in the farming system. It may also reflect a lack of
objective data. Nevertheless, there is circumstantial evidence that IHHNV has
impacted on populations of wild shrimp in the Americas, with P. stylirostris fisheries
landings in the Gulf of Mexico falling to the lowest on record following the
introduction of the virus in 1987 (Morales-Covarrubias et al.1999), and the risks of
serious environmental consequences of known or newly emerging viral diseases
should not be underestimated.
The indirect environmental impacts of shrimp disease are more clearly evident.
Successive crop failures have led to the abandonment of affected ponds and the
relocation of farming operations to new areas, compounding the problem of coastal
zone and mangrove habitat degradation (Dierberg & Kiattisimkul 1996; Paez-Osuna
2001). Abandoned ponds are rarely re-habilitated for farming and either remain idle or
are converted to non-agricultural land uses, such as housing or manufacturing (Szuster
2006). Crop failures in disease-prone coastal areas have also led to the development
of low-salinity husbandry practices, resulting in the conversion of irrigated paddy
fields and the expansion of shrimp farming into inland areas. There have been
concerns that this practice could lead to soil salinization, water pollution and
increased competition between agriculture and aquaculture for water resources
(Miller et al. 1999; Pongnak 1999; Ali 2006). In Thailand, such environmental
concerns have led to a national ban of low-salinity shrimp farming in inland areas
(Szuster 2006).
Difficulties in maintaining reliable production of the major endemic farmed species in
Asia have driven a major shift to exotic species. The white Pacific shrimp
(P. vanammei), which is native to the west coast of the Americas, has been bred in
captivity for many generations from stocks that are free of most known pathogens.
Since 1998–1999, white Pacific shrimp have been used for large-scale commercial
production in Asia, rapidly becoming the major production species (Fig. 2). In 2004,
it was estimated that 28 000 specific-pathogen-free (SPF) P. vannamei broodstock
were exported from the hatcheries in Hawaii to Asia each month, translating to a
possible 6 billion nauplii and 3 billion postlarve (Briggs et al. 2004). In
2006, P. vannamei production in Asia reached 1.81 million tonnes or 64.8% of total
farmed shrimp production (FAO 2008). This may well represent the largest trans-
continental relocation of a single species in the history of the planet.
Although P. vannamei are now commonly recovered off the coast of several Asian
countries, and concerns have been expressed about their impact on native habitats
(Arthington & Bluhdorn 1996; Szuster 2006), there has been little evidence to date of
displacement of endemic species and the environmental consequences of this mass
translocation remain uncertain.
Another potential indirect environmental impact is the use of antibiotics, disinfectants
and other chemicals to prevent disease or to treat shrimp during disease outbreaks
(Boyd & Massaut 1999; Paez-Osuna 2001; Holmstrom et al. 2003; Cabello
2006; Biao & Kaijin 2007). A study conducted in 2000 indicated that 74% of shrimp
farmers along the Thai coast used antibiotics in shrimp pond management. At least 13
different antibiotics were in use, mostly as prophylactics (Holmstrom et al. 2003).
Subsequent attention to chemical residue testing and bans by importing countries has
significantly reduced chemical use in shrimp-farming operations. Although
disinfectants, such as iodophores and hypochlorite, can be used to inactivate viruses
contaminating surfaces (Danner & Merrill 2006), there are no commercially available
prophylactics or treatments that have been shown to be effective against the major
viral pathogens in infected shrimp

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2009.01007.x/full

5) Salinisation of soil and water

Pumping large volumes of underground water to achieve brackish water salinity in

the
1980s to mid-1990s led to the lowering of groundwater levels, emptying of
aquifers, land
subsidence and salinization of adjacent land and waterways in Taiwan and
Southeast Asia.
Even when fresh water is no longer pumped from aquifers, the discharge of salt
water from
shrimp farms located behind mangroves still causes salinization in adjoining rice
and other
agricultural lands [38]. The development of low salinity shrimp farming in Thailand
paved the
way for industry expansion into rice paddies and other inland sites [39]. However,
due to
opposition from community groups, academicians and NGOs because of
salinization (estimated salt loading of 5.6 mt/ha/year), the government banned
inland shrimp farming in 1998 [40].

6) Dependence on fish meal and fish oil

The promotion of aquaculture development has been based on the premise that it
can
compensate for the shortfall in food production due to declining wild fisheries. To
assess
whether farmed fish production adds to global fish supplies on a net basis, Naylor
et al.
[41] traced the flow of aquatic primary production that moves through
aquaculture
(Fig. 4). Of the total 1997 capture fisheries landings of 96 mmt (excluding
bycatch), 66 mmt
was directly consumed by humans and 30 mmt was used in fish meal and fish oil
production (Fig. 4). The total 1997 aquaculture production of 37 mmt_10 mmt of
fish used
for aquafeeds gives a net aquaculture production of 27 mmt comprising
seaweeds, filter
feeders and herbivorous species (41). The proportion of fish meal in aquaculture
feeds is
much higher than in poultry and livestock feeds, with one kilogram of carnivorous
fish
requiring up to 5 kg of wild fish [42]. The increasing demand for fish meal, fish oil
and raw
(‘trash’) fish is fastest in aquaculture, growing from 10% in 1988 to 33% in 1997
and 65–68% in 2002 [42,43]. But the aquaculture industry cannot continue to rely
on finite
stocks of wild-caught fish, a number of which are already overexploited or
depleted. This
appropriation of aquatic productivity for fish feeds reduces wild fish supplies for
human
consumption, e.g., small pelagic fishes, such as mackerel, anchovy and sardines
in
Southeast Asia [44,45]. Only production of filter-feeding molluscs, and
herbivorous and
omnivorous fish that directly consume microalgae and seaweeds, represents a net
contribution of aquaculture to global fish supplies.

7) Pond sediment disposal – BOD

8) Abandoned shrimp ponds

4. Indirect Environmental Impacts from Shrimp Aquaculture

Socio-economic impacts – comparing the value of shrimp aquaculture to value of

mangroves

References

Title: Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone

Author(s): Primavera JH
Source: OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT Volume: 49 Issue: 9-10 Special
Issue: Sp. Iss. SI Pages: 531-545 Published: 2006
Title: The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: Causes, effects, and
mitigating alternatives
Author(s): Paez-Osuna F
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Volume: 28 Issue: 1 Pages: 131-
140 Published: JUL 2001