Shrimp production in greenhouse-

enclosed super-intensive biofloc systems

at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research
Mariculture Lab: 2003-2012
Tzachi Samocha, T.C. Morris, A. Braga, V. Magalhães, R. Schveitzer,
D. Krummenauer, E.S. Correia, J.S. Kim, J.J. Austin, J.K. Mishra, J.
Burger, B. Advent, and T. Hanson

Texas A&M AgriLife Research Mariculture Laboratory at Flour Bluff,

Corpus Christi, TX

Aquaculture 2013 Nashville, Tennessee, USA. February 21-25, 2013

Introduction
 US imports more than 90% of the shrimp consumed in
the country
 Because of higher production costs and regulations, US
shrimp producers have a difficult time competing with
cheap imports from the Far East and Central America
 Research efforts by the USMSFP during the last decade
focused on the development of sustainable, biosecure, and
cost-effective super intensive shrimp production
technology
 This presentation summarizes the work done over the last
eight years by the AgriLife Research Mariculture Lab at
Flour Bluff along with some economic aspects
Old System: Texas A&M AgriLife Research
 Six 40 m3 (68.5 m2) greenhouse-enclosed RWs
with water depth of 0.45 m used previously to
accommodate production of food shrimp
 Every RW has eighteen, 5.1 cm airlift pump, six 1
m air diffusers, a Venturi injector operated by a 2
hp centrifugal pump, and a center partition
positioned over a 5.1 cm PVC pipe with spray
nozzles to enhance bottom water circulation
 Early studies were conducted with sand filters
Grow-out Study: 2007 Old System

 1.25 g juveniles were stocked at a density of

530/m3 in four 40 m3 RWs filled with water
previously used in a 77-d nursery trial
 Two RWs were had a home-made FF while the
other two had 8.6 m3 settling tank with 4.9 m3
working water volume
 Shrimp were maintained with no water
exchange
 Water salinity was kept at 30 ppt
Foam Fractionator
Settling Tank Setup
water from the raceway

water

water

sludge sludge

returned water
 Old System: 2007-Litopenaeus vannamei performance in a 94-d
grow-out trial in greenhouse-enclosed RW’s stocked with
juveniles (1.25 g) at a density of 530/m3 & operated with no
water exchange

Wtf Growth Yield* Yield** Sur. Water Use

ID FCR
(g) (g/wk) (kg/m3) (kg/m2) (%) (L/kg Shrimp)

ST1 18.4a 1.32 9.29 5.02 88.3 1.21 155

ST2 18.5a 1.23 8.63 4.50 80.5 1.36 142
FF1 17.4b 1.22 8.57 4.38 80.5 1.40 152
FF2 17.3b 1.30 7.92 4.66 80.0 1.30 147
* Based on RW water volume at harvest (37 m3)
** Based on RW bottom area of 68.5 m2
Grow-out Study: 2009 Old System

 0.99 g juveniles were stocked at 450/m3 in four

40 m3 RWs filled with water previously used in
a 62-d nursery trial
 Two RWs were operated with a small
commercial FF while the other two were
operated with the same ST used in the previous
study
 Feed: a commercial Zeigler HI-35 (35% CP)
 Rations were adjusted based on FCR, expected
growth, survival and feed consumption
 1.0 1.6
Settling Tank Settling Tank
0.9 1.4
Foam Fractionater Foam Fractionater
0.8 Foam Fractionater Foam Fractionater
1.2
0.7 Settling Tank Settling Tank
Ammonia-N(mg/L)

0.6 1.0

NO2-N (mg/L)
0.5 0.8
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1 0.2

0.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week Week

500 900
Settling Tank Settling Tank Foam Fractionater
450 Foam Fractionater 800
400 Foam Fractionater
700
Settling Tank
350
600
NO3-N (mg/L)

300 TSS (mg/L) 500

250
400
200
300
150
100 200

50 100

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week Week
Old System: Summary of the 2009 108-d grow-out
study with Litopenaeus vannamei stocked with
juveniles (0.99 g) at 450/m3 under no water
exchange
Yield Av. Wt. Sur. Growth Freshwater L/kg O2: last 7 d
ID FCR
(kg/m3) (g) (%) (g/wk) (%/day) Shrimp (L/min)
ST1 9.34 21.96 94.5 1.60 1.36 0.28 126 0.19
ST2 9.52 21.81 94.5 1.57 1.39 0.27 107 0.16
FF1 9.51 22.51 96.9 1.53 1.35 0.24 108 0.36

FF2 9.75 22.40 96.3 1.57 1.39 0.22 98 0.19

Power use: 15.4 KW/kg shrimp produced

Grow-out Study: 2011 Study Old System
 The study was conducted in five RWs
 Four the RWs were stocked with a fast growth
line juvenile (1.90 g) L. vannamei at a density of
500 shrimp/m3 provided by the Oceanic Institute
 RWs were filled with a mixture of seawater (12
m3), and biofloc-rich water (8.5 m3) previously
used in a 42-d zero exchange nursery trial
 Salinity in these four RWs was 18 ppt
 The fifth RW was operated with water salinity of
30 ppt and was stocked at the same density using
smaller juveniles 1.40 g from the same stock
Grow-out Study: 2011 Studies Old system

 Feed Zeigler HI 35%

 All five RW were operated with no water exchange
 Feed was distributed by hand during the day and
automatic feeders at night
 Rations were adjusted as described earlier
 0.8 1.2

0.7
1.0
RW 1-5 (Av.)
0.6
0.8
0.5 RW 1-5 (Av.)

N-NO2 -N (mg/L)
0.4 0.6
TAN -N (mg/L)

0.3 0.4

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78
Days Days

300 600.00

250 500.00

200 400.00
N-NO3 - N (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)
150 300.00

100 RW 1-5 (Av.) 200.00

RW 1-5 (Av.)
50 100.00

0 0.00
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78
Days Days
Old System: 2011 Results GO trial with no exchange

Stocking Stock Harvest Growth SGR Sur Yield Water Use Sal
RW Days FCR
(Juv./m3) (g) (g) (g/wk) (g/d) (%) (Kg/m3) L/1 kg (ppt)
1 500 1.9 22.16 81 1.75 0.25 87.6 9.66 1.39 169.0 18
2 500 1.9 23.63 82 1.86 0.27 81.5 9.59 1.44 160.8 18
3 500 1.9 23.36 82 1.83 0.26 80.7 9.40 1.45 149.0 18
4 500 1.9 23.79 83 1.85 0.26 79.3 9.39 1.45 161.0 18
5 500 1.4 25.12 85 1.95 0.28 78.9 9.87 1.44 148.2 30
Av. 23.61 1.85 0.26 81.6 9.58 1.43 157.6
SD 0.9 4 0.06 0.01 0.3 0.18 0.02 7.9
Grow-out Study: 2012 Old System
 A 67-d study was conducted in six RWs with 2.66
g Fast-growth/Taura Resistant line L. vannamei
juveniles stocked at a 500/m3 (SIS, Florida)
 RWs were filled with a mixture of seawater (22
m3), and biofloc-rich water (18 m3) previously
used in a 49-d zero exchange nursery trial
 Salinity in all six RWs was 30 ppt
 All RWs were operated with no water exchange
 Bioflocs were controlled by FF & ST
Grow-out Study: 2012 Old System

 Shrimp in three RWs were fed the HI-35 diet while

those in the other three were fed the SI-35 diet with
delivered price of $1.749 & $0.994/kg, respectively
 Both feeds had 35% CP and were made by Zeigler
Bros., Gardners, PA
 Feed was distributed continuously by belt feeders
 All RWs had an optical DO probe and monitoring
system (5500, YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH)
 1.4
0.50
HI-35 SI-35
0.45
HI-35 SI-35 1.2
0.40
1.0
0.35

NO2-N (mg/L)
NH3-N (mg/L)

0.30
0.8
0.25
0.6
0.20

0.15
0.4
0.10
0.2
0.05

0.00
0.0
WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8
WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8

300

HI-35 SI-35 400

250
350

200 300
NO3-N (mg/L)

250
TSS (mg/L)
150
200

100 150

100
50 HI-35 SI-35
50

0 0
WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8 WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8 Week
9
Old System-2012: Performance of shrimp fed HI-35 &
SI-35 diets in a high-density 67-d trial
HI-35 SI-35
Final Weight (g) 22.12 ± 11.35a 19.74 ± 8.28b
Growth (g/wk) 2.03 ± 0.01a 1.76 ± 0.10b
Total Biomass (kg) 389.8 ± 1.77a 348.5 ± 9.21b
Yield (kg/m3) 9.74 ± 0.04a 8.71 ± 0.22b
FCR 1.25 ± 0.01a 1.43 ± 0.04b
Survival (%) 87.4 ± 0.52a 88.3 ± 4.18a
* Although the cost difference between the HI & SI feeds is
significant ($1.75/kg vs. $0.99/kg), a preliminary economic
analysis indicates that both feeds would be commercially viable
with the profit advantage in favor of the HI feed
2010 Study – 100 m 3 New System
 To reduce operation costs, an investigation was
initiated to explore ways to reduce energy use,
and to eliminate the need for supplemental
oxygen when operating these systems at biomass
loads greater than 8 kg/m3
 These newly patented injectors are currently used
in several wastewater treatment facilities and
require little maintenance compared to other
aeration methods
 Test system had two greenhouse-enclosed 100 m3
RWs
2010 Study New System
 Aeration, mixing, and circulation was generated
by 14 non-Venturi nozzles positioned parallel to
the direction of flow along the bottom of each
RW’s wall where one additional nozzle was used
to power a home-made FF
 RWs were stocked with 8.5 g shrimp at a density
of 270/m3 and operated with 2 pumps (total 5hp)
 RWs filled with a mixture of seawater (50 m3) &
biofloc water (30 m3)
 Feed: HI-35 diet; Duration: 87-d
2010 Study New System

Yield Av. Wt. Survival

RW 3
FCR (g/wk)
(kg/m ) (g) (%)
1 6.25 25.68 89.5 2.56 1.38
2 6.56 26.58 90.8 2.36 1.45
 2011 Study New system
 The two RWs were each filled to 100 m3 with a
mixture of seawater (55 m3), municipal chlorinated
freshwater (10 m3), and biofloc-rich water (35 m3)
from a previous nursery study
 RWs were stocked with juveniles (1.9 g) at a
density of 390 shrimp/m3 from a Taura resistant line
purchased from SIS, FL
 Shrimp were fed the same HI-35 feed by hand
during the day and with automatic feeders at night
 RWs were operated with no water exchange
 YSI 5200 DO monitoring system
 4.5 3
TAN B1
4.0
TAN B2
2
3.5

3.0

NO2-N mg/L
Ammonia-N mg/L

2 NO2-N B1
2.5
NO2-N B2
2.0
1
1.5

1.0 1

0.5
0
0.0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106
Days
Days

700 1200
NO3-N B1
TSS B1
600
NO3-N B2 1000
TSS B2
500
800
NO3-N mg/L

400
TSS mg/L

600
300

400
200

100 200

0 0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106
Days Days
2011 Study New System

A summary of the shrimp performance in a 106-

d grow-out study – Taura resistant line
Stocking Harvest Growth Sur. Yield Water Use
RW FCR
(Juv/m3) (g) (g) (g/wk) (%) (kg/m3) (L/1 kg)
1 390 3.14 25.14 1.45 79.7% 8.04 1.83 166.6
2 390 3.14 25.39 1.47 86.3% 8.69 1.70 149.7
Av. 25.26 1.46 83.0% 8.36 1.77 158.1
SD 0.18 0.01 3.3% 0.32 0.06 8.5
 2012 Study New System
 The two RWs were each filled to 100 m3 using a
mixture of seawater (37 m3), municipal chlorinated
freshwater (38 m3), and biofloc-rich water (25 m3)
from a previous nursery study
 RWs were stocked with 3.6 g juveniles at a density
of 500/m3 from a fast-growth hybrid line from SIS
 Shrimp were fed continuously the HI-35 feed using
belt feeders
 RWs were operated with no water exchange and
salinity was maintained at about 30 ppt
 YSI 5200 DO monitoring system
 1.20 1.50

1.00
1.00

B1 B2 B1 B2
0.80
NH3-N (mg/L)

0.50

0.60

0.00
0.40

-0.50
0.20

0.00 -1.00
WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8 WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8

450 450
B1 B2 B1 B2
400 400

350 350

300 300
NO3-N (mg/L)

250 TSS (mg/L) 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8 WK 0 WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6 WK 7 WK 8
 2012 Study New System

Performance of Litopenaeus vannamei juveniles

stocked at 500/m3 in RWs operated the special
injector in a 64-d grow-out study
Stocking Harvest Growth Sur. Yield Water Use
RW FCR
(Juv/m3) (g) (g) (g/wk) (%) (kg/m3) (L/1 kg)
1 500 3.6 22.76 2.13 80.2 9.20 1.43 139.5
2 500 3.6 22.67 2.12 78.2 8.86 1.53 148.9
Av. 22.72 2.12 79.5% 9.03 1.48 144.2
Economic Aspects
 Performed a 10-year cash flow analysis to
estimate:
 Cost of production, Net returns to land, Net present
value, Internal rate of return, and Payback period
 Prices/Costs used in analysis
 Shrimp sales price: averaged $3.27/lb ($7.19/kg)
 Grow-out feed (2007): $0.4965/lb or $993/ton
 Juveniles production cost: $19.52/1,000
 Interest rate for loans: 8%
 Table 1. A summary of enterprise budget and financial
indicators of profitability for a super-intensive shrimp grow-
out production system (A, B) and expected results (C),
expressed in $/kg
A-11 B-11 C
Gross Receipts $7.20 $7.20 $7.20
Variable Costs $5.36 $6.71 $5.30
Income Above Variable Cost $1.84 $0.49 $1.90
Fixed Cost $0.84 $0.88 $0.57
Total of All Specified Expenses $6.01 $7.59 $5.87
Net Returns Above All Specified Expenses $1.19 -$0.39 $1.33
Payback period, years 3.17 11.39 2.67
Net present value ($) 669,878 -447,547 1,137,451
Internal Rate of Return (%) 21.12% -2.04% 33.87%
Table 2. Production results from four experiments
and one hypothetical (C)
Treatment A-11 A-2012 B-11 B-2012 C
Stocking density (Juvenile/m3) 500 500 390 500 500
Survival rate (%) 81.6 87.7 87.7 79.5 83.0
Growth rate (g/wk) 1.85 1.89/2.03 1.46 2.15 1.85
Stocking size (g) 1.8 2.66 3.14 3.6 1.8
Desired harvest size (g) 23.6 19.74/22.12 25.3 22.7 23.6
FCR 1.43 1.43/1.25 1.77 1.48 1.43
Length of crop period (day/crop) 83 67 106 63 83
Production (kg/m3) 9.58 9.23/9.75 8.36 9.03 9.79
A=40 m3 RWs-2011 A-2012=40 m3 RWs-2012
B= 100 m3 RWs-2011 B-2012= 100 m3 RWs-2012
Opportunities for the Future
 Improved technology continues to increase
growth and production rates while reducing
variable costs
 Continued genetic selection should favor higher
yields over time
 Financial analyses are focusing research to
sharpen competitiveness
 Marketing opportunities
 Consistent fresh never frozen product
 Improved image as a domestic producer of healthy
food in eco-friendly systems
Issues to address
 Operating year round
 Diseases
 PL Supply
 Marketing
 Feed cost
 FCR
 Growth
 Survival
 Energy & Temp control
 Zero exchange vs. recirculating
Acknowledgements
 National Institute of Food & Agriculture (NIFA)
USDA, AgriLife Research, and The National
Academy of Sciences USAID for funding
 Zeigler Bros. for the feed
 SIS for Nauplii/PL
 YSI for the DO monitoring systems
 Aquatic Eco-Systems for the foam fractionators
 Colorite Plastics for the air diffusers
 Firestone Specialty Products for the EPDM liner
 a3 All Aqua Aeration