Shrimp Farming and the Environment

in Ecuador: Past and Present

Fabrizio Marcillo

A Brief History Surveying Shrimp Producers

In Ecuador, large-scale commercial
shrimp culture began almost 50 years
ago by mere serendipity. A road was
being built in the southern province
of El Oro near Peru and during high
tide water entered and formed shallow
pools in the excavated areas beside the
road embankments. After some time,
birds were seen feeding from these FIGURE 1. Evolution of mangrove, salt flats and shrimp
small ponds and people started catching areas from 1969 to 2006 (Clirsen 2007).
shrimp from them with cast nets. Two
local entrepreneurs decided to replicate
these flooded ponds on a larger scale and
built the first commercial shrimp farm in
1969, which continues to operate to this
day. In the following years, many other
businessmen with no formal expertise in
shrimp farming copied the idea, starting
the shrimp boom in Ecuador.
Little was known at the time about
raising shrimp, but through sheer will FIGURE 2. Weight and value of shrimp exports from
and by trial and error, the operational Ecuador (Cámara Naciconal de Acuicultura 2016).
and business constraints of shrimp
farming were overcome, although not always in the best long-term
way. A lack of scientific knowledge and production methodologies
did not stop Ecuadorian camaroneros (shrimp entrepreneurs) from
becoming one of the world’s main suppliers of high quality farm-
raised shrimp. In fifteen years, almost 90,000 ha of shrimp farms
were built, and by 1995 nearly 180,000 ha were in operation (Fig. 1).
In the 1980s, large shrimp operations that could afford it
began bringing emerging shrimp aquaculture technology from
abroad. Ecuadorian universities also started to do research and
produce trained aquaculturists. During these years, with the help of
Ecuadorian scientists and technicians, foreign techniques – mainly
American, French and Japanese – were combined and adapted
to the country’s particularities and gave birth to the “Ecuadorian
Shrimp Culture Technique.” This was not a fixed technique and as
time went by and new problems arose, culture techniques had to
evolve.
Because of the disorganized way the industry evolved, it is not
surprising that many conflicts developed with the environment that
affected sustainability of the activity. We have to keep perspective
here. Sustainability, environmental friendliness and good
management practices are rather new terms. It is not a matter of evil
people intentionally destroying the environment for profit. It is more
a story of people doing things that looked reasonable at the time and
then later gradually learning and adopting better practices.
Most of this has been common
knowledge in Ecuador but there has
been little bibliography or published
research. In 2007, the aquaculture
engineering program at ESPOL
conducted extensive mapping of
aquaculture development in Ecuador.
More than 150 researchers visited,
surveyed and interviewed producers all
around Ecuador’s coastline and reviewed
the available publications. This told the
story of how production techniques
evolved in different parts of Ecuador,
the state of aquaculture in that zone at
the moment, and the environmental
and socioeconomic impacts it had in
that zone. This article is based partly
on those nearly 40 publications. A
search in www.dspace.espol.edu.ec or
a Google search for “caracterización y
propuesta técnica de la acuicultura” will
provide links to pdfs of most of those
publications.
In the past ten years, there have been significant changes in the
Ecuadorian shrimp industry: production and prices have increased, the
industry is more regulated and ordered, there is a better appreciation
for the environment, and many actions were taken to address
sustainability. To assess those changes, a survey was taken in October
2016 of 126 shrimp farmers operating along the Ecuadorian coastline.
Shrimp Farming and Land Use
It is generally accepted that one of the impacts from shrimp
farming of greatest concern is the destruction of mangroves for
pond construction (Páez-Osuna 2001). Remote sensing image data
(Fig. 1) sheds some light in this case. According to the Ecuadorian
Undersecretary for Aquaculture, there were 213,032 ha of shrimp
ponds in 2014, 70 percent of which were located on privately owned
high ground above the high tide. Only 30 percent (64,074 ha) were
located in what is called the “bay and beach zone,” state-owned leased
land, consisting originally of mainly mangroves and salt flats. From
1969 to 2006, there was a reduction of nearly 47,000 ha of salt flats. It
is well known to camaroneros that it is less costly and easier to build
a farm in salt flats than in mangrove forests. Also, mangrove soil is
acidic and high in organic matter, which is not good for aquaculture.
For these reasons, most shrimp farms on low lands (44,000 ha) were
built in salt flats and only the remaining 20,000 ha in mangrove
forest (Spurrier 2012). Of the nearly 55,000 ha of mangrove area lost
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 40)

W W W.WA S .O R G • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • S E P T E M B E R 2 017 39

between 1969 and 2006, 63 percent was due to activities that were not
related to aquaculture, mostly agriculture, cattle, logging for timber
and charcoal, and housing development (Suman 1994). Thirty years
ago, mangrove wood was used every day in barbeques as charcoal
and disposable skewers, slum neighborhoods were being built in
Guayaquil on top of mangrove forests at the shores of the Salado
Estuary, flagship government projects like the “Perimetral” road and
hydraulic filling were executed, even though they destroyed mangrove
forest, and mangrove timber was a common building material. That
was the Ecuador of the time, and the camaroneros were just another
part of the country, neither better or worse.
Ignorance or habit are lame excuses for making mistakes,
however, and 20,000 ha of lost mangrove forest are not coming back
simply by regretting their loss. Ecuador has had different laws that
prohibited activities that affected mangrove ecosystems since at least
1974. However, enforcement of those laws was slow to come, although
the situation has been improving since the turn of the millennium,
and now it is very stern. Net mangrove area loss stopped in the mid-
1990s and has even started recovering since then (Fig. 1). The greatest
effort made in reversing this loss has been the mangrove reforestation
project that started in 2008 and the order for shrimp farms that had
cut mangroves to conduct reforestation at their own expense. By 2012,
1,419 ha of mangroves had been reforested, with 3,447 ha planned.
Based on a 2016 survey, 83 percent of farms that were required to do
reforestation had fulfilled their reforestation plan, 11 percent were still
in process, and the remaining 6 percent had not done anything or were
having problems implementing reforestation.
On the other side, many ancestral communities of mangrove
dwellers, mostly crab and black clam fishermen, have been granted
access and control of the mangrove forests where they make a living.
They know that they must maintain the mangrove ecosystem’s
integrity and function to secure their long-term source of income. In
case of actions that affect mangrove ecosystems, they are the first to
blow the whistle and inform authorities. Other beneficial effects of
this measure have been better control of closure periods, increased
environmental awareness, and better community organization.
Although direct logging for pond construction is the main
public concern, it does not seem to be a major problem for future
sustainability. Indirect effects are a different story and the low
public awareness of this threat makes it worse. One of the problems
faced by Ecuadorian shrimp aquaculture is eutrophication. Several
sites that had good water quality 30 or even 20 years ago now
have problems related to low dissolved oxygen levels, low carrying
capacity, high BOD, high bacterial counts, and off-flavor. This is a
problem that was already reported in studies ten years ago at several
places around Ecuador: El Recreo, Tenguel, Balao, Churute, Chone
River Estuary, among others. Eutrophication is mostly associated
with low water exchange in narrow estuaries, where many shrimp
farms discharge water in the same place, or areas with agricultural
or urban contamination. The 2016 survey showed the same patterns,
with morning dissolved oxygen levels below 2 mg/L in many of
these places. Although production levels per crop have risen from
around 600 kg/ha to nearly 1,000 kg/ha in the past ten years, they
are still significantly below production levels in zones with better
water quality. There has been little research on the effects of nutrient
discharge on the surrounding biota or on shrimp pond carrying
capacity. Surely research on this topic is needed to shed light on the
40 S E P T E M B E R 2 017 • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • W W W.WA S .O R G
way the process works and its effects and on findings ways to mitigate
possible effects. There have been some commercial trials using
recirculation to address this problem, but this is not yet a mainstream
practice.
Seed Supply
When shrimp farming first started, shrimp seed entered ponds
naturally with intake water; it was not counted and was free. Many
species of non-suitable shrimp for aquaculture, fish fry and other
invertebrates came along as bycatch that eventually died. Gradually
shrimp farmers began collecting their own seed, and later on
buying it from specialized fishermen called larveros. Counting
and identification methods were developed to access the amount
of Penaeus vannamei post-larvae, generally called barba roja or
redbeard shrimp. With the lack of commercial shrimp post-larvae
production, Ecuador’s availability of wild P. vannamei post larvae
became a competitive advantage for the development of this activity.
After the 1982-1983 El Niño event, there was a shortage of wild post-
larvae and in 1984 as much as 40 percent of pond area was either
empty or understocked. This coincided with the beginning of hatchery
production.
Although the start was difficult, 30 percent of shrimp seed
stocked were from hatcheries by 1986, and by the end of the decade,
there were enough hatcheries to cover the cumulative demand from
all farms. During the 1990s, there was sufficient installed capacity to
produce maturation nauplii and hatchery post-larvae. Although the
average price of wild seed was US$ 7.00 per thousand, and hatchery
seed was US$ 3.50 per thousand, farmers almost always preferred
wild post-larvae when available, rather than hatchery seed. Analyzing
economic data from one of Ecuador’s main shrimp producers in that
decade shows that, even if wild seed was twice as expensive, ponds
stocked with wild seed produced on average double the gross margin
per hectare per day as those stocked with hatchery seed. When
deciding between hatchery post-larvae raised from maturation nauplii
or from nauplii from wild-caught gravid females, farmers usually
preferred the latter.
This was a short-sighted strategy because it hindered earlier and
more aggressive development of genetic improvement programs. By
the end of the decade, most major shrimp corporations were working
on genetic improvement of their broodstock lines. When White Spot
Syndrome Virus (WSSV) hit the country in 1999, more emphasis was
put into this effort. In 2000, the fishing, transportation, selling and
stocking of wild shrimp post-larvae and gravid females was prohibited.
This was done to protect bycatch and limit the spread of WSSV,
supposedly more prevalent in wild shrimp, but the greatest effect was
seen 10-15 years later with increased growth, survival, productivity,
and lower feed conversion ratios. In the 2016 survey, 77 percent of
interviewed farmers identified better seed or genetics as the main
factor contributing to the increase in productivity.
Feeds and Feeding Practices
On the first farms, shrimp were not fed at all and natural
productivity was the sole food source. After a couple of years,
agricultural fertilizers were applied to increase productivity and
later shrimp were fed with supplemental feed. Initially chicken feed
was used and then formulated shrimp diets were produced. By the
mid-1980s, formulated shrimp diets were used on nearly all shrimp
farms in most parts of Ecuador. Feed is considered to be the main
production cost and also one of the main factors affecting success in
aquaculture. It is also the main source of pollution. It is not easy to
achieve an optimum feeding level: too much results in increased feed
conversion ratio, feed costs and pollution, too little and shrimp will not
grow fast enough and feed conversion ratio and costs also go up.
In the 1980s, feeding rates were mostly calculated using feeding
and survival tables, corrected by arbitrary criteria related to optimal
growth: if growth rate was high, feeding was not increased. Feed was
mostly broadcast all over the pond from a canoe once daily. Most
ponds in the early years were stocked with wild seed. When buying
wild seed, machete (a way of undercounting shrimp seed) was a
widely used method and bycatch associated with wild seed increased
the real biomass in the pond. As a result, underfeeding was a common
practice, leading to poor growth. It was not too rare to have ponds
with more than 100 percent survival or with a large proportion of the
biomass consisting of other species.
In the 1990s, with mortalities related to the Seagull Syndrome,
Taura Syndrome and vibriosis, survival tables became impractical.
Better ways of assessing biomass in the pond and the use of other
tools to determine feed consumption led to better feed management.
Feeding trays became a trend after 1995 for partial (control) feeding
or for feeding the whole pond. Feeding tables were quickly deemed
obsolete and feeding several times a day started to be evaluated, even
if it was not a common practice.
Immediately after the appearance of WSSV, farmers reduced
stocking densities and all costs, including feeding, went down to
a minimum. The 2001 price drop, which lasted until 2012, was
particularly hard on shrimp farmers. Internal inflation rates and
regulation costs also had an impact. An increase in productivity (Fig.
2), which leveled off in 2006, did not translate to an increase in profit.
Beginning in 2006, increases in international oil prices and
higher food demand in China and India led to an increase in raw
material prices. There is a strong correlation between the price of the
main raw materials used in shrimp feed and oil prices. This led to an
88 percent increase in feed raw material costs between 2004 and 2010
(Aguirre 2011). The main factor contributing to shrimp feed price
increase during that period was the price of fishmeal.
Fishmeal is not just a matter of feed cost, it is the main source
of essential amino acids in many aquaculture feeds. Most shrimp
farmers want a black pellet with a fishy smell. However, there is a high
environmental impact associated with its use. Around 20 percent of all
marine capture fisheries were used for fishmeal and fish oil production
in 2014 (FAO 2016). Some estimates indicate that as much as 2-3 times
the weight of wild fish in feed is used as the weight of farmed shrimp
that is produced. However, the proportion of fishmeal used in feed
for shrimp aquaculture has been declining from around 18 percent in
2005 to 9 percent in 2015. Furthermore, much of the fishmeal used
nowadays in Ecuador comes from processing byproducts of fish for
human consumption, mainly tuna. Alternative protein sources and
amino acid supplementation was a response to the fishmeal price
increase but it has had a beneficial impact on the environment.
Feeds have evolved to maximize the advantage of growing
genetically improved shrimp and feeding techniques have also
improved. In the 2016 survey, 67 percent of respondents were feeding
two times a day and 16 percent three or more times, 11 percent were
using or testing automatic feeders, 16 percent were providing feed
completely on feeding trays, and 44 percent were using feeding trays
for controlling feed broadcast into ponds.
Evolution of Production Practices
It is difficult to make generalizations about the production
techniques used during the past half century, mainly because there
are no clear barriers between periods; it has been a continuum of
gradual changes. Some periods are more or less homogeneous in
the methodologies used. To summarize the changes in production
strategies (Table 1), we considered eight periods:
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 42)

TABLE 1. Production strategies used in Ecuadorian shrimp farming.

Pe r io d St o c kin g d en sit y St o c kin g t ype Feedi ng Chemi cal s Medi an p r o d u c tio n

(PL / m 2 ) (kg /h a / c yc le)

1969-1984 2-7 Direct Natural productivity None 450

1985-1993 5-15 Direct/Nursery Broadcast Lime 650
1994-1995 10-30 Direct Broadcast/ Lime, antibiotics 550
Feeding trays
1996-1998 10-15 Direct/Nursery Broadcast/ Lime, antibiotics, 770
Feeding trays quaternary ammonium
1999 10-15 Direct/Nursery Broadcast/ Lime, antibiotics, quaternary 270
Feeding trays ammonium, pesticides, ozone,
chlorine
2000-2005 5-12 Direct/Nursery/ Feeding trays Lime, quaternary ammonium, 360
Raceways probiotics
2006-2012 6-14 Direct/Nursery/ Broadcast/ Lime, probiotics 730
Raceways Feeding trays
2013-2016 6-17 Direct/Nursery/ Broadcast/ Lime, probiotics 1230
Raceways Feeding trays/
Automatic feeders

W W W.WA S .O R G • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • S E P T E M B E R 2 017 41

 1) 1969 to 1984: From the beginning of shrimp aquaculture
in Ecuador until the beginning of technification, with little or no
technical knowledge.
2) 1985 to 1993: Until the start of the Taura Syndrome. During a
period of technology improvement, hatchery post-larvae began to be
used, water quality was monitored, and formulated feed began to be
used extensively. During this period, the Seagull Syndrome appeared
and some antibiotics started to be used.
3) 1994 to 1995: Taura syndrome. Heavy mortality in the first
month after stocking. Antibiotics started to be used more extensively.
Some farms started stocking P. stylirostris. Many chemicals were
tested to try to stop mortalities, with no success.
4) 1996 to 1998: Post Taura syndrome. Increase in productivity,
1997-1998 El Niño boosted production and wild seed availability.
Many chemicals and antibiotics were used haphazardly.
5) 1999: White Spot Syndrome onset. When shrimp started
dying, farmers experimented with many chemicals, from ozone to
pesticides and gadgets such as plankton filters and perimeter barriers
for crabs, without success. This coincided with the Ecuadorian
financial crisis, with hyper-devaluation, that led to dollarization in
the following year. Many shrimp farms, hatcheries, and supporting
industries closed. The socioeconomic impact was hard.
6) 2000 to 2005: White Spot Recovery. Permanent ban on
wild post-larvae. Antibiotics and non-approved chemicals were
discontinued from use in aquaculture. Greater interest in selection of
shrimp strains for genetic improvement. Mortalities continued, with
extremely low production levels, at first, and gradually recovering to
pre-White Spot levels.
7) 2006 to 2012: Post White Spot. Increase in productivity, but
with low market prices, and rising costs. During this period most
environmental and food safety regulations were implemented, as
well as the regulation of shrimp farms and mangrove reforestation.
There was a stricter enforcement of laws. Small farms associated
to cooperate, and most producers started to develop environmental
awareness.
8) 2013 to date: Best production levels so far. Costs have
increased, but international market prices are good. Greater
environmental awareness.
Governance and Socioeconomics
It is important to address the regulatory and control efforts made
in the past ten years. A regularization plan was put into effect to
have all aquaculture-related facilities registered. This plan included
environmental profile sheets, compliance with labor laws, mangrove
reforestation as needed, and compliance with the National Control
Plan. The National Control Plan was a food safety initiative led by
the National Fisheries Institute (INP). All actors included in the
aquaculture value chain – including hatcheries, farms, feed mills,
packing plants, suppliers, transporters, and consumables sellers –
are registered, as are the materials approved for use in aquaculture.
Together with inspections and the required traceability, these
measures ensured the safety of Ecuadorian shrimp. An important
effect has been the change of perception of shrimp farmers: 98
percent of survey respondents said that the relationship between
aquaculture and the environment has improved; 21 percent said
this has happened for fear of fines, but most (76 percent) said it was
because of better awareness and education and that it was beneficial
42 S E P T E M B E R 2 017 • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • W W W.WA S .O R G
to take care of the environment.
On the socioeconomic side, shrimp aquaculture has had a
positive impact in all zones examined. Shrimp is Ecuador’s second
largest generator of non-oil export earnings. Direct jobs in aquaculture
are estimated at 180,000, and indirect jobs at 160,000, many in poor
rural areas, and 33 percent to women, contributing to gender equity.
Additionally, there is a multiplier effect: every dollar from shrimp
exports moves three dollars through the Ecuadorian economy.
Although some farms halted operations and closed after the white spot
crash, at present most shrimp farms are operational and farm prices
have almost tripled.
In the 1980s, “Ecuadorian White” shrimp became synonymous
with “the best shrimp in the world.” In 2000, after drops in production
and the price crash, it lost that position and is now trying to recover
it. Farmers have higher costs, in part due to increased regulations,
environmental and food safety controls, but are not seeing a return
on this investment. Efforts have been made in the past years to show
Ecuador’s effort for shrimp sustainability under the campaign “The
Best Shrimp in the World.” Ecuador’s shrimp farming industry
claims it is betting on semi-intensive, low environmental impact, food
safety, social awareness, and inclusive culture techniques. This type
of shrimp culture has less impact on the environment than intensive
shrimp culture (Cao et al. 2011). It appears that the Ecuadorian shrimp
farming industry is now on the right track. It remains to be seen how
this will continue into the future.
Notes
Fabrizio Marcillo, ESPOL Polythecnic University. Escuela Superior
Politécnica del Litoral, ESPOL. FIMCBOR. Campo Gustavo
Galindo Km 30.5 via Perimietral, P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Guayaquil,
Ecuador. fmarcill@espol.edu.ec
References
Aguirre, V. 2011. Estudio Y Alternativas De Solución Viables Para
Las Materias Primas Utilizadas En La Producción Acuícola Del
País. Guayaquil: UEES.
Cámara Nacional de Acuicultura. 2016. Resumen Ejecutivo de
Estadísticas de Exportación de Camarón. Guayaquil.
Cao, L., J. Diana, G. Keoleian and Q. Lai. 2011. Life cycle assessment
of Chinese shrimp farming systems targeted for export and
domestic sales. Environment, Science & Technology 6531-6538.
CLIRSEN (Remote Sensing Center (Ecuador)). 2007. Actualización
del Estudio Multitemporal de manglares, camaroneras y áreas
salinas en la Costa Continental Ecuatoriana al año 2006. Guayaquil:
Programa de Manejo de Recursos Costeros, Ministerio del
Ambiente.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
Páez-Osuna, F. 2001. The environmental impact of shrimp
aquaculture: causes, effects, and mitigating alternatives.
Environmental Management 28(1):131-140.
Spurrier, W. 2012. Estudio de Impacto de la Acuicultura Camaronera
en el Ecuador. Guayaquil.
Suman, D. 1994. El Ecosistema de Manglar en América Latina y
la Cuenca del Caribe: Su Manejo y Conservación. University of
Miami and The Tinker Foundation, New York, New York USA.