




































African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 1 (4), pp. 113-119, November, 
2013. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

 
 

 

Full length Research paper 
 

Mixed culture (shrimps, oysters and macroalgae) to 
improve the productivity, and reduce the environmental 

impact to coastal ecosystem caused by shrimp 
hatcheries in Mexico 

 
Guillermo Galindo Reyes 

 
Facultad de Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Paseo Claussen, s/n, Mazatlan, Sin. C.P. 82000. 

Mexico. E- mail: guillermo_galindo_reyes@hotmail.com. Tel/Fax: +52 669 
9828656. 

 
Accepted 19 August 2013 

 
In Mexico, shrimp hatcheries have been developed as intensive monocultures, resulting in hatcheries 
management troubles, economic losses and environmental impact. Therefore, the aim of this work was 
compare to a traditional culture vs. a mixed culture. Shrimp juveniles were distributed in aquariums and 

ponds at the same density (51 shrimps/m
2
) but ponds, also had oysters and macroalgae. Shrimps in 

aquaria and ponds were feed with same food amount. Water was change each two days, but in ponds 
only 20%. To compare traditional vs. mixed culture, shrimp’s growth, feed efficiency conversion and 
nutrients concentration, in aquariums and ponds were recorded. At experiment’s end, shrimps grew  
35% more in ponds than aquariums; feed efficiency conversion was 0.68 units lower in ponds than 

aquariums, and NH4 concentrations were close to 3 and 1 mg/L in aquariums and ponds respectively. 
The mean increase weight in oyster and macroalgae, was 4.04 and 19.3 g respectively. Therefore, mixed 
culture has many ecological and economic advantages over traditional culture. Therefore it is 
suggested that scaling this technology to commercial level, in addition to shrimps, oysters and 
macroalgae are produced, which could be used for human consumption and animal fodder 
respectively. Also, this model improves water quality and reduces the environmental impact. 

 
Key words: Shrimp-monoculture, mixed-culture, oysters, macroalgae, higher productivity, water quality, 
environmental impact. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
In many countries, the aquaculture activities have grown 
vertiginously during the last decades. The shrimp 
cultivation in ponds under controlled conditions is one of 
most important of these activities (FAO, 2008); however, 
this biotechnology has been developed with many 
failures, because it is based on not ecological principles, 
such as intensive monoculture which have resulting with 
many troubles in the hatcheries management, economic 

 
 
 

 
losses and also an increasing environmental impact due 
to deforestation of mangroves and salt marshes, and 
excess of organic matter, nutrients and pollutants drained 
to coastal ecosystems, where the hatcheries are located 
(Primavera, 1998; Trott and Alongi, 2000).  

The shrimp world production is not available because 
there are no data of many producer countries; however, 
the shrimp importation by the principal regions or 

  



Reyes 263 
Reyes               113 

 
 
 
Table 1. Principal importers of shrimp in the world. The product is frozen (with or without head). 
 

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Total (M. Ton) 727945 732022 700960 693667 697139 738878 
Japan 115000 116000 105000 102000 115000 110000 
E. Union 370000 370000 310000 370000 380000 390000 
USA 242945 246022 285960 221667 202139 238878 

 
(Source: www.goblefish.org/shrimp-december-2011.html). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 1. Typical shrimp hatcheries in the NW coast of Mexico (Source: Google.ca/imgres 
q=shrimp+hatcheries+in+Mexico). 

 

 
countries in the world, is shown in Table 1, which give an 
idea of shrimp’s world production during 2011. Mexico 
held the sixth place in the world as shrimp producer after 
China, India, Ecuador, Thailand and others Asiatic 
countries (CONAPESCA, 2011).  

As currency income, the shrimp fishery is the most 
important in the country; this yielded $10860 millions of 
Mexican pesos in 2009; approximately $868.8 millions of 
USD (INEGI, 2009). This fishery grew around 13000 
Metric Ton per year from 2003 to 2011 (CONAPESCA, 
2011). In 2009, the production reached 181000 Metric 
Ton. The same source, report that for each Metric Ton, 
671 Kg are produced in hatcheries and 329 Kg are fishing 
in estuaries, coastal lagoons and adjacent sea; therefore, 
67.1% of production corresponds to aquaculture. 
However, all the hatcheries are located in the coastal 
ecosystems, i.e estuaries, salt marshes and coastal 
lagoons (Figure 1).  

In NW of Mexico, Sonora and Sinaloa are the States 
(provinces), which produce 71.6% of shrimp in the county 
(Figure 2). The shrimp aquaculture has been expanding 
rapidly in these States, but due to “successful”, shrimp 
hatcheries also are settling in the Baja California 
peninsula (DeWalt et al., 2002).  

The number of producers nearly doubled in the period 
between 1993 and 2010 to nearly 600 farms; there are 
now nearly 20,000 ha of shrimp aquaculture ponds in the 

 

 
region; and the average yields are approximately 1.34 
Tons per hectare (CONAPESCA, 2011). However, only 
460 to 480 are in operation; the others are closed due to 
diverse troubles (Dr. Audelo Naranjo, Facultad de 
Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, 
personal communication). Such as has seen in other 
countries, the shrimp aquaculture in Mexico has far 
developed largely with some detrimental environmental 
effects (McKinnon et al., 2002). Considerable evidence of 
mangrove destruction has been reported. There are no 
official data, but some authors have reported that 
mangroves and salt marshes in the Sinaloa coast are 
disappearing at rate of 2 to 3% annually (Martínez– 
Córdova et al., 1998; Boyd and Gautier, 2000; Páez-
Osuna, 2001).  

But the most serious potential threat from shrimp 
aquaculture in Mexico, is the impacts at water quality 
(DeWalt et al., 2002). Some authors have reported that 
detrimental water quality drained into coastal ecosystems 
is due to high amount of organic matter, high nutrient 

concentration (particularly NH4, by their toxicity), 
increased level of coliform bacteria, organic pollutants 
such as antibiotics, pesticides and in some cases heavy 
metals (Páez-Osuna et al., 1999; Trott and Alongi, 2000; 
Galindo et al., 2008; Martínez-Córdova et al., 2009). 
Many of these compounds comes from excess of 
supplied food for fast grow shrimp, which is required by 



114       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2. States of Mexico where are located the major number of 
shrimp hatcheries in the country (adapted from Google Earth, 
satellite image). 
 
 

 
high density of shrimps per square meter in the ponds 
(30-55 in intensive hatcheries; 80-200 in super intensive 
hatcheries), excess use of antibiotics, and biocides to 
combat shrimp diseases, pollution by diesel and oil used 
for water pumps and blowers, abandoned batteries, etc. 
(Boyd and Gautier, 2000; DeWalt et al., 2002).  

Faced with this problem, the objective of this work is 
the implementation of mixed cultures, which in addition to 
shrimp, contemplates use of filter feeders such as oysters 
(Crassostrea spp.) and cultivation of macro-algae (Ulva 
spp.) known as "sea lettuce" in the effluent of shrimp 
ponds, or in the same pond. This could reduce particulate 
organic matter, bacterial load, nutrients excess and some 
biocides. In other words, this shrimp's productive model, 
will seems closer to coastal ecosystem, where energy 
and material fluxes, are not altered excessively; 
therefore, the ecosystem keeps his homeostasis, 
reducing environmental impact and increasing the shrimp 
productivity. 
 

 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
Certificated shrimp larvae (Litopenaeus vannamei) were obtained 
from a commercial larvae producer. The larvae were maintained in 
an aquarium (18-21°C, 28 psu salinity, 5.5-7.1 ml/L dissolved O2). 
As food, brine eggs were supplied four times per day during one 
month, until the larvae reached the juvenile stage (mean weight 
0.72 g, mean size 49 mm) then, shrimp juveniles were transferred 

to three aquariums (0.43 m
2
, 68 L) 66 juveniles per aquarium. The 

aquariums water was changed each two days, aeration was 
permanent and physical-chemical parameter (pH, salinity, dissolved 
oxygen, temperature, and total suspended solids) were recorded, 
using a Hanna® multiparameter apparatus, Model HI 9828. The 
nutrients concentrations were quantified following the protocols 
presented by (Strickland and Parsons, 1972). 

 
 
 

 
Brand food (camaronina) Purina ® was supplied two times per day 
at rate of 12% total biomass (11-12 g/day). In order to keep the 
aquaria at similar conditions, the shrimp number per aquaria was 
maintained equal; so dead shrimps were replaced immediately. At 
the same time, oysters Crassostrea corteziensis (mean weight 8.2 
g, mean size 37.5 mm) and macro-algae Ulva spp. (68 g) were put 

into three plastic ponds (0.78 m
2
, 240 L); the oyster’s number per 

pond was 46. The source and conditions of water in ponds were 
same as in aquaria, but no food was supplied, because no shrimps 
there were. Also water was changed each two days, but only 20% 
total volume (48 l/pond). The same physical–chemical parameters 
were recorded, and dead oysters were replaced.  

When shrimps reached 1.9 g (mean weight) and 61 mm (mean 
size), they were redistributed into aquariums and ponds (three 
each), 22 shrimp per aquarium and 40 per pond; therefore, shrimp 

density was same in each (51 shrimps/m
2
). In order to compare 

traditional shrimp culture (aquariums) vs. mixed culture (ponds), the 
growth rate, the feed efficiency conversion and the nutrients 
concentration in water, both in aquariums as in ponds were 
recorded. During this experimentation time, same routine works 
were performed; that is, water change each 2 days, record of 
physical-chemical parameters, etc. Also, due to shrimp’s growth, 
the supply of food in aquariums and ponds was increased to 13 to 
13.5 g/day; and the amount of macroalgae was increased to 159 g 
per pond. Shrimp mortality was recorded each day, and three 
weeks after, the experiment was finished. 

 
Statistical analysis 
 
All physical-chemical parameters, chemical analyses and growth 
parameters were realized by triplicate. A statistical program 

MYSTAD
®

 was used to obtain the mean and standard deviation for 
each variables group and an ANOVA with the Shapiro-Wilk test for 
normality and Fisher test for homoscedasticity, to calculate the 
significance values (p). 
 
 
RESULTS 
 
During first part of this work (January 8 to February 18), 
there were no relevant changes; just a “normal” growth of 
shrimps in aquariums. The increase mean weight was 
0.63 g (from 0.09 to 0.72), with a standard deviation 
(S.D.) of 0.05, and in length 43 mm (from 4-7 to 49 mm), 
with a S.D. of 2.5. The mean growth of oysters in ponds 
was 1.87 g (from 8.2 to 10.07), with a S.D. of 1.15, and in 
length 3.9 mm (from 37.5 to 41.4) with a S.D. of 3.1 
during the same period. The physical-chemical 
parameters in ponds and aquariums do not presented 
relevant differences, except dissolved oxygen and pH, 
which were significant lower in aquaria than in ponds 
(Table 2). The p-values ranged from 0.000 to 0.024 for 
dissolved oxygen, and from 0.002 to 0.031 for pH.  

The values of physical-chemical parameters during the 
second part of experiment (March 5 to March 28) are 
summarized in Table 3. No significant differences 
between aquariums and ponds were observed for 
physical-chemical parameters, except for pH and 
dissolved oxygen, which were significant higher in ponds 
than aquariums (p-values ranged from 0.000 to 0.029 for 
dissolved oxygen, and from 0.007 to 0.035 for pH). The 
total suspended particles (TSS) were moderately higher 



Reyes 265 
Reyes               115 
 
 

 
Table 2. Physical–chemical parameters during first part of experiment (January 8 to February 18). The ponds had only 
oyster and macroalgaea; the aquaria just shrimps. 

 
 Data Aquarium or pond Salinity (psu) Dis O2 (ml/l) Temp (°C) pH TSS( ppb) 
 Jan./8/2012 Pond 1 28 7.4 19 7.7 19500 
 Jan./8/2012 Pond 2 28 7.2 19 7.5 18987 
 Jan./8/2012 Pond 3 28 7.3 19 7.7 19500 
 Jan./8/2012 Aquarium 1 28 4.2 19 7.3 17510 
 Jan./8/2012 Aquarium 2 28 3.9 19 7.3 17680 
 Jan./8/2012 Aquarium 3 28 5.4 19 7.4 17670 
 Feb./8/2012 Pond 1 28 7.6 21 7.8 18763 
 Feb./8/2012 Pond 2 28 7.5 21 7.7 19001 
 Feb./8/2012 Pond 3 28 7.4 21 7.8 18720 
 Feb./8/2012 Aquarium 1 28 3.2 21 7.2 18010 
 Feb./8/2012 Aquarium 2 28 3.2 21 7.2 18000 
 Feb./8/2012 Aquarium 3 28 3.1 21 7.1 18480 
 Feb./18/2012 Pond 1 28 7.4 19 7.7 19206 
 Feb./18/2012 Pond 2 28 7.4 19 7.5 19259 
 Feb./18/2012 Pond 3 28 7.5 19 7.5 18760 
 Feb./18/2012 Aquarium 1 28 4.7 19 7.3 17530 
 Feb./18/2012 Aquarium 2 28 4.7 19 7.3 17880 
 Feb./18/2012 Aquarium 3 28 5.1 19 7.4 18000 

 

 
Table 3. Physical-chemical parameters during second part of experiment (March 5 to March 28). The ponds had oyster, macroalgae 
and shrimps; the aquaria just shrimps. 
 

Data Aquarium or pond Salinity (psu) Dissolved O2 (ml/l) Temp (°C) pH TSS (ppb) 
March/5/2012 Pond 1 28 7.1 20 7.8 22897 
March/5/2012 Pond 2 28 7 20 7.5 23065 
March/5/2012 Pond 3 28 7.2 20 7.6 23110 
March/5/2012 Aquarium 1 28 4.9 20 7.4 17550 
March/5/2012 Aquarium 2 28 4.3 20 7.4 21100 
March/5/2012 Aquarium 3 28 4.1 20 7.5 19970 
March/12/2012 Pond 1 29 6.9 21 7.7 22659 
March/12/2012 Pond 2 29 6.2 21 7.5 22920 
March/12/2012 Pond 3 29 6.5 21 7.4 19760 
March/12/2012 Aquarium 1 29 4.9 21 7.2 19310 
March/12/2012 Aquarium 2 29 4.3 21 7.2 19500 
March/12/2012 Aquarium 3 29 4.3 21 7.2 18720 
March/18/2012 Pond 1 28 6.8 21 7.7 22789 
March/18/2012 Pond 2 28 6.9 21 7.8 23100 
March/18/2012 Pond 3 28 6.9 21 7.5 22986 
March/18/2012 Aquarium 1 28 4.9 21 7.2 21970 
March/18/2012 Aquarium 2 28 4.6 21 7.2 21900 
March/18/2012 Aquarium 3 28 4.5 21 7.3 21890 
March/24/2012 Pond 1 28 6.4 20 7.6 22765 
March/24/2012 Pond 2 28 6.5 20 7.6 22500 
March/24/2012 Pond 3 28 6.4 20 7.5 21900 
March/24/2012 Aquarium 1 28 4.5 20 7.3 19500 
March/24/2012 Aquarium 2 28 4.4 20 7.2 21400 
March/24/2012 Aquarium 3 28 4.1 20 7.2 18740 
March/28/2012 Pond 1 28 6.4 20 7.7 22234 
March/28/2012 Pond 2 28 6.2 20 7.8 22750 



       

 Table 3. Contd.       
        

 March/28/2012 Pond 3 28 6.3 20 7.5 21010 
 March/28/2012 Aquarium 1 28 5.7 20 7.3 19120 
 March/28/2012 Aquarium 2 28 5.5 20 7.2 19210 
 March/28/2012 Aquarium 3 28 5.1 20 7.3 20600 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 3. Differences in weight Increase of shrimp (mean values) 
between traditional culture and mixed culture (p-values were 
0.041, 0.001 and 0.000 for March 5, 18 and 28 respectively). 

 

 
in ponds than in aquariums; however, the significance 
values (p) were of 0.057, 0.005 and 0.029 for March 5, 18 
and 28 respectively. However, during second part of 
experiment important differences were registered 
between traditional cultures (aquaria) vs. mixed culture 
(ponds), which becomes the relevant points of this work.  

Figure 3 shows the differences in mean weight increase 
of shrimps between mixed culture and the traditional one. 
As can be observed, the values were significant higher in 
ponds than in aquariums, even though food supplied was 
the same in both cultures, and the shrimp number per 
aquarium was 22, whereas in ponds 40 in each one. 
Therefore, at the end of experiment, with same amount of 
food, the shrimps gained 35% more weight in ponds than 
in aquariums [(3.87g W. in ponds/2.86 g W. in aquariums) 
×100-100]; which means an economy of 35% in food 
supplied.  

Also the feed conversion factor, which is relationship 
between the amount of food supplied divided by the 
biomass increase of shrimp, was significantly lower in the 
mixed culture than in traditional one (Figure 4). At the end 

 

 
of experiment, this difference was 0.68 units or 44.7% 
lower in ponds than aquariums. This means that shrimps 
have higher metabolic efficiency in pond than in 
aquariums, or have others food sources, or both; which 
also becomes an economy of food supplied. In fact, as it 
was indicated above, the TSS were moderately higher in 
ponds than in aquariums during second part of 
experiment. As can be observed in Table 3, the TSS in 
ponds, ranged from 19760 to 23110, whereas in 
aquariums, the values ranged from 17550 to 21970; this 
means a moderately higher organic matter amount in 
ponds than in aquariums, particularly at the end of 
experiment.  

Regarding oysters and macroalgae; at the end of 
experiment, oyster mortality was 14%, leaving about 39 
oysters per pond. The final mean size of oysters was 
47.1 mm, with a S.D. of 3.59, and the mean weight 14.11 
g with a S.D. of 1.35. Therefore in a period of 37 days 
(from February 20 to March 28) the mean increase 
weight was 4.04 g (from 10.07 to 14.11) and the increase 
of size 5.7 mm (from 41.4 to 47.1). The algae biomass 
also had a mean increase weigh of 19.3 g (from 159 to 
178.3) per pond with a S.D. of 4.25, during same period. 
Concerning to nutrient concentrations; the ammonia was 
the nitrogen compound which registered significant 
differences between aquariums and ponds (Figure 5). As 
observe, at all times ammonia concentrations were 
significant higher in the aquariums than in ponds. The 
ammonia in ponds was almost unchanged, also the 
differences were greater toward end of experiment when 
the macroalgae biomass was higher in ponds. The nitrate 
concentrations in water are shown in Figure 6. Contrary 
to ammonia values, the differences of nitrate 
concentration between aquariums and ponds were not 
significant, however, as the experiment progressed, the 
nitrates increased both in aquariums as in ponds.  

The phosphate concentration in aquariums and ponds are 

shown in the Figure 7. As can be observed there are not 

significant differences between aquariums and ponds, 

except at March 5. However, the phosphates increased 

moderately in ponds as experiment progressed, whereas in 

aquariums were almost unchanged. The N/P relationship 

found in this work ranged from 4.15 to 17.45 in aquariums 

and from 8.7 to 13.96 in ponds. 
 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
From  the results obtained, it is possible  to reach the 

116       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 



  
 
 
 
 1.4 

 

 1.2 
 

fa
c

to
r 

1 
 

 
 

c
o

n
v

e
rs

io
n
 

0.8 
 

0.6  

fe
e

d
 

 

 
 

o
f 

0.4  

M
e

a
n
 

 

 
 

 0.2 
 

 0 
  

March March March 
5/2012 18/2012 28/2012 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

M
e

a
n

 v
a
lu

e
s
 o

f 
N

O
3
 c

o
n

c
. 

(m
g

/ 
L

) 

 
 
 
0.45 

 
0.4 

 
0.35 

 
0.3 

 
0.25 

 
0.2 

 
0.15 

 
0.1 

 
0.05 

 
0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
March March March 

 
Differences between Aquaria (yellow bars) and 

Ponds (blue bars) 
 
Figure 4. Differences in feed conversion factor (mean values) 
between traditional culture and mixed culture (p-values were 0.037, 
0.014 and 0.008 for March 5, 18 and 28 respectively). 
 
 
 
 3.5   

 

 3   
 

L
)    

 

c
o

n
c
. 

(m
g

/ 

2.5   
 

2   
 4

 

   

   
 

N H
    

 

o
f 

1.5   
 

v
a
lu

e
s
   

 

   
 

M
e

a
n
 

1   
 

   
 

 0.5   
 

 0   
 

 March March March 
 

 5/2012 18/2012 28/2012 
  

Differences between Aquaria (yellow bars) and 
Ponds (blue bars) 

 
Figure 5. Differences in ammonia concentrations (mean values) 
between aquariums and ponds, during the second part of 
experiment (p-values were 0.023, 0.005 and 0.000 for March 5, 18 
and 28 respectively). 

5/2012 18/2012   28/2012  
Differences between Aquaria (yellow bars) and Ponds 

(blue bars) 
 
Figure 6. Differences in nitrate concentrations (mean values) 
between aquariums and ponds, during the second part of 
experiment (p≥0.076), except at March 28 (p=0.000). 

 
 

 
 0.035   

 

 0.03   
 

L
)    

 

c
o

n
c

. 
(m

g
/ 

0.025   
 

0.02   
 

    4
 

   
 

P O
    

 

o
f 

0.015   
 

v
a
lu

e
s
    

0.01 
  

 

M
e

a
n
 

  
 

   
 

 0.005   
 

 0   
 

 March March March 
 

 5/2012 18/2012 28/2012 
  

Differences between Aquaria (yellow bars) and 
Ponds (blue bars) 

 
Figure 7. Differences in phosphate concentrations (mean 
values) between aquariums and ponds, during the second part 
of experiment. (p≥0.062), except at March 5 (p=0.000). 

Reyes               117 



118       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
following conclusions and relevant points about the 
advantages of mixed culture (ponds) over traditional one 
(aquariums). 
 
1. The growth rate of shrimps was higher in the mixed 
culture than in the traditional one (Figure 3) because the 
shrimps reached a higher weight in ponds than in 
aquariums during the same period of time, and with the 
same amount of food supplied. This means that shrimps 
in the ponds must have others sources of food, such as 
phytoplankton and detritus which are not available or are 
not in the same amounts in the aquariums. This becomes 
an important issue, because in the commercial shrimp 
hatcheries, the reduction in the growth time is an 
important thing, because the production costs becomes 
reduced as the growth period also is reduced. Others 
authors claims similar conclusions (Martínez-Córdova et 
al., 1997).   
2. The feed conversion factor also is higher in the mixed 
culture than in the traditional one (Figure 4). This 
indicates that the efficiency of food assimilation 
(metabolic efficiency) is higher in ponds than in 
aquariums, which means an economy of food supplied; 
therefore in money in the commercial hatcheries, 
because in the mixed culture the food supplied was 35% 
less than in the traditional one.   
3. The total amount of water changed, was 30% less in 
ponds than in aquariums; because in the ponds, was 144 
L (48 L/pond) each two days, whereas in aquariums was   
204 L(68 L/ aquarium) in the same time period. This 
means an economy in water consumption, which is a very 
important point because in commercial shrimp hatcheries, 
the water is pumped from the sea or estuaries toward the 
ponds; therefore, the energy consumption (electricity or 
diesel) will be 30% less in the mixed culture than in the 
traditional one.   
4. Concerning to ammonium concentrations in water, the 
values registered in this work, were into the “normal” 
ranges. Other authors report similar concentrations in 
ponds of shrimp hatcheries (Arencibia, 1996; Páez-
Osuna et al., 1999, 2001; Pis et al., 2010; Pereira et al., 
2011). Common values in semi-intensive shrimp 
hatcheries, are from 0.1 to 2 mg/L, and in the intensive 
cultures, values are close to 4 (Boyd and Tucker, 1998) 
however, the same authors claims that when ammonia 
concentration increase, it can create problems in the 
shrimps, such as low growth and more susceptibility to 
diseases. In this work the ammonia concentration 
reached concentrations close to 3 mg/L in aquariums, 
whereas in the ponds, maximum values were around 1 
mg/L (Figure 5). This could be attributed to macroalgae, 
which are consuming this nutrient for growth; therefore, 
the elevated ammonia concentration recorded in the 
aquariums, which is a deleterious factor for the shrimp, is not   
a problem in ponds, consequently, the mixed culture is 
much more successful that traditional one. Although there 
were not significant differences in nitrate concentrations 
between aquariums and ponds during the 

 
 
 
experiment, the nitrate values are slightly higher 
compared to those reported by Pis et al. (2010) and 
Pereira et al. (2011). This could be due to several factors; 
one of these, are the intense nitrification processes, 

because at high O2 concentration and pH values greater 
7.5, which were recorded in ponds (Table 3), the 

Nitrosomas bacteria reduce NH4 to nitrites, and then, 
nitrites are oxidized to nitrates by Nitrobacteria (Boyd and 
Tucker, 1998). Other important factor is the 
production/consumption relationship, which is higher in 
the first part of experiment than in the second one, 
because in the second one, the consumers are more 
(phytoplankton, macroalgae, etc.). During the second 
part of experiment, the biomass of macroalgae was 
increased from 159 to 178.3 g. 
 
 
Conclusions 
 
The phosphorous concentrations found in this work, are 
within normal ranges. Other authors report similar 
phosphorus concentrations in commercial shrimp 
hatcheries (Jackson et al., 2003; Lacerda et al., 2006). 
Also, the N/P relationship found, are within ranges 
reported by Jones et al. (2001) and Alonso-Rodriguez 
and Páez-Osuna, 2003) however, the N/P relationship in 
ponds (mixed culture), are closer to 15, which correspond 
to coastal waters less disturbed. This suggest that 
metabolism and recycling of nutrients by bacteria are 
more efficient in mixed culture than in traditional culture, 
because the nutrients in shrimp hatcheries comes from 
food supplied and recycling (Briggs and Funge–Smith, 
1994; Páez-Osuna et al., 1997).  

From the above comments, we can conclude that 
mixed culture has many advantages over the traditional 
one; not only on the production efficiency and economy 
aspects, but also on the improvement in water quality. On 
the other hand, with the same amounts of water and 
food, we obtained a good growth of oysters and 
macroalgae. This represents a plus in the productivity, 
because the oysters can be edible after a simple 
treatment to clean up them; and the macroalgae can be 
used as animal fodder. Other authors propose to use 
macroalgae, to reduce the eutrophication in effluents of 
shrimp culture (Primavera, 1998; McKinnon et al., 2002).  

Finally, we could demonstrate, at laboratory level, that 
mixed culture of shrimp (ponds) has many ecological and 
economic advantages over the traditional culture 
(aquariums). So, we suggest scaling this technological 
model of shrimp production to commercial level, in order 
to replace the obsolete traditional model, improve the 
water quality, and reduce environmental impact on 
coastal ecosystems. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
Author wish to thank: Programa Internacional  de  Becas 



Reyes               119 
 
 

 
para la Educación Superior-SEP, and Programa de 
Movilidad del Consorcio de Universidades Mexicanas; 
also to Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa (UAS), by the 
economic support to performing this Project, and to Prof. 
Frederic Guichard, from McGill University by his support 
in this work. Also thanks to the students of Faculty of 
Marine Sciences (UAS) by their support in the field and 
laboratory works of this project. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Alonso-Rodriguez, Páez-Osuna (2003). Nutrients, phytoplankton and 

harmful algal blooms in shrimp ponds: A review with special 
reference to the situation in the Gulf of California. Aquaculture. 
219:317–336.  

Arencibia G (1996). El amonio en el cultivo de camarón blanco 
(Penaeus schmitti) en Cuba. Master Science thesis in Ciencias del 
Agua. Mención en Hidrobiología, CIP, MIP.  

Boyd CE, Gautier D (2000). Effluent composition and water quality 
standards. Global Aquacult. Advocate 3(5):61-66.  

Boyd CE, Tucker CS (1998). Pond Aquaculture Water Quality 
Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, 
USA. P. 700.  

Briggs MRP, Funge-Smith FSJ (1994). A nutrient budget of some 
intensive marine shrimp ponds in Thailand. Aquacult. Fish Manage. 
25:789-811.  

CONAPESCA (2011). Diagnostico y Planificación Regional de la Pesca 
y Acuacultura. SAGARPA. México D.F. P. 331.  

DeWalt BR, Ramírez-Zavala JR, Noriega L, González RE (2002). 
Shrimp Aquaculture, the People and the Environment in Coastal 
Mexico. Report prepared under the World Bank, NACA, WWF and 
FAO Consortium Program on Shrimp Farming and the Environment. 
P. 73.  

FAO (2008). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. World Wide 
Web electronic publication, accessible at 
http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0250e/i0250e00.htm (Accessed 
07/27/2011).  

Galindo RG, Lazcano AM, y Osuna PE (2008). Biorremediación para 
reducir el impacto ambiental causado por los efluentes de las granjas 
camaroneras. Industria Acuícola 5(1):26-29.  

INEGI (2009). Anuario estadístico de Sinaloa. Instituto Nacional de 
Geografía e Informática. Mexico, DF. pp. 408-409.  

Jackson C, Preston N, Thompson PJ, Burford M (2003). Nitrogen 
budget and effluent nitrogen components at an intensive shrimp farm. 
Aquaculture 218:397-144.  

Jones AB, O’Donohue MJ, Udy J, Dennison WC (2001). Assessing 
ecological impact of shrimp and sewage effluent: Biological indicators 
with standard water quality analyses. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 52:91-
109.  

Lacerda LD, Vaisman AG, Maia LP, Silva CAR, Cunha EMS (2006). 
Relative importance of nitrogen and phosphorus emissions from 
shrimp farming and other anthropogenic sources for six estuaries 
along the NE Brazilian coast. Aquaculture 253:433–446. 

  
 
 

 
Martínez-Córdova LR, Barraza R, Pasten N (1997). Abundance, 

composition and nutritional contribution of zooplankton in fertilized 
and unfertilized shrimp aquaculture ponds with different feeding 
rates. J. Aquacult. Trop. 12:23-34.  

Martínez-Córdova LR, Porchas-Cornejo M A, Villareal- Colmenares HJ, 
Calderón-Perez A and Naranjo-Paramo JE (1998). Evaluation of 
three feeding strategies on the culture of white shrimp Penaeus 
vannamei Boone 1931 in low water exchange ponds. Aquacult. Eng. 
17:21–28.  

Martínez-Córdova L, Martínez PM y Cortés E (2009). Camaronicultura 
mexicana y mundial: ¿Actividad sustentable o industria 
contaminante?. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient 25(3):181-196.  

McKinnon AD, Trott L A, Cappo M, Miller DK, Duggan S, Speare P and 
Davidson A (2002). The trophic fate of shrimp farm effluent in 
mangrove creeks of North Queensland, Australia. Estuar. Coast. 
Shelf Sci. 55:655-671.  

Páez-Osuna F, Guerrero-Galván SR, Ruiz-Fernández AC and 
Espinoza-Angulo R (1997). Fluxes and mass balances of nutrients in 
a semi-intensive shrimp farm in the northwestern Mexico. Mar. Pollut. 
Bull. 34: 290-297.  

Páez-Osuna F, Guerrero-Galván SR, Ruiz-Fernández AC (1999). 
Discharge of nutrients from Shrimp Farming to Coastal Waters of the 
Gulf of California. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38:585-592.  

Páez-Osuna F (2001). The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: 
causes, effects and mitigating alternatives. Environ. Manage. 
28(1):131-140.  

Pereira-Cardozo A, Oliveira V, Odebrecht C (2011). Temporal variability 
of plankton and nutrients in shrimp culture ponds vs. adjacent 
estuarine water. Pan-Am. J. Aquat. Sci. 6(1):28-43.  

Pis MA, Delgado G, Fuentes M, Martínez Y, Hernández A, Diez J y 
Valdivia Y (2010). Revista electrónica de Veterinaria (REDVET). 11 
(03):1695-7504. 

http://www.veterinaria.org/revistas/redvet/n03032010.html  
Primavera JH (1998). Tropical shrimp farming and its sustainability. In: 

S. DeSilva (ed.), Tropical mariculture. Academic Press, London, pp. 
257–289.  

Strickland JDH, Parsons TR (1972). A practical handbook of seawater 
analysis. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. Bulletin 167 
Trott LA, Alongi DM (2000). The impact  of shrimp pond  effluent  on  
water quality and phytoplankton biomass in a tropical mangrove 
estuary. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40:947-951. 

 


