Business Opportunity Plan for Specific Pathogen-Free Shrimp Culture Facilities
in Hawaii and Guam
by Robert T. B. Iversen and Dr. Christopher L. Brown*
*Project Leader Center for Tropical and
Subtropical Aquaculture Publication No. 113
Introduction and Background
Worldwide cultured shrimp production
One of the most remarkable feats of worldwide aquaculture in the past 10 years has been the huge increase in the amount of cultured penaeid shrimp production. Since 1982, cultured shrimp production in Asia/Oceania (hereafter called Asia) and the Western Hemisphere (Tables 1, 2 and 3) has increased 790 percent. Production soared from 84,022 metric tons (mt) in 1982 to 663,800 metric tons in 1991. Cultured shrimp are an extremely valuable seafood commodity, and while comprehensive statistics on their value are difficult to obtain, their worldwide value during recent years is estimated to be on the order of $3-$4 billion. For example, in 1991 the United States alone imported approximately 225,300 metric tons of cultured shrimp, worth about $1.7 billion [note: Shrimp exported from the principal exporting countries listed are assumed to be cultured shrimp.] (U.S. Department of Commerce,1992). Asia especially China, Indonesia and Thailand has been responsible for most of the increased production. For example, these three countries alone accounted for 67 percent of Asia's 1991 total cultured shrimp production of 522,840 metric tons. Production increased in the Western Hemisphere during 1982-1991, but its percentage of worldwide production fell from 41 percent in 1982 to 30 percent in 1991. While the trend of Asian dominance of cultured shrimp production is expected to continue (Fast, 1992), Central and Latin American countries especially Ecuador, Columbia and Mexico show good promise of increasing their production (Weidner and Rosenberry, 1992).
Disease is a big problem
This huge increase in cultured shrimp production has not been without its setbacks. One of the most serious impediments to farming shrimp is the incidence of disease. Numerous pathogens are found in penaeid shrimps. Lightner (1992) lists 11 viruses that have infected 21 penaeid species. Two of the most important species infected are the white shrimp, P. vannamei, and the tiger shrimp P. monodon, which dominate production in both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. Wyban, et al. (1992) list seven certifiable pathogens that are found in P. vannamei. Three of these are the viruses IHHN (infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis virus), BP (Baculovirus penaei-type-A baculovirus), and HPV (hepatopancreatic parvo virus). Three of the most destructive viruses are IHHN, BP and MBV (monodon-type baculovirus). The Oceanic Institute (OI) has shown that the IHHN virus is responsible for the condition known as runt deformity syndrome, or RDS. It is widely found in penaeid shrimps in both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. BP is a serious hatchery disease in P. vannamei larvae in such countries as Ecuador, Peru, Columbia and Panama (Lightner, 1992). MBV has been linked to serious mortalities on many Taiwan farms that culture tiger shrimp (Chen, et al., 1989). Production of P. monodon in Taiwan plummeted from 95,000 metric tons in 1987 to only 20,000 metric tons in 1989 due to MBV (Liao, 1992; Rosenberry, 1990). The incidence of penaeid viruses is widespread in both captive and wild populations. Lotz et al. (1991) and Lightner et al. (in press) report that IHHN virus is widespread in wild stocks of P. vannamei throughout its range. For example, IHHN virus is found in both captive and wild populations of P. vannamei in Ecuador, the leading shrimp producer in the Western Hemisphere. According to Kuljis (1992), the impact of the IHHN virus was first realized in Ecuador in 1987 when runt deformity syndrome became a problem, causing a 15 percent loss in production. Kuljis reported The severity of the RDS appears to be directly related to the level of IHHN virus infestation. ... It is presumed that this is because the level of infection of IHHN virus in the wild population is relatively low, and when these wild stocks are held in captivity, the virus quickly spreads from infected broodstock to non-infected broodstock. Weidner and Rosenberry (1992) state that The increasing intensification of methods in Latin America and the wide-spread use of imported seedstock suggest that in time, Latin American growers will face serious disease problems. Viruses are also widespread in Asian countries besides Taiwan. The MBV virus has been identified in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Australia. The IHHN virus has been identified in cultured shrimp in Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore (Kuljis, 1992; Lightner and Redman, 1992; Weidner and Rosenberry, 1992). Weidner and Rosenberry feel that the IHHN virus could be a bigger problem than MBV, which, they note, has disrupted shrimp farming throughout Southeast Asia
What is an SPF shrimp?
The term disease-free shrimp is often mentioned. The term really means shrimp that are free from specific microorganisms or parasites. That is, shrimp that are Specific Pathogen-Free, or SPF shrimp. They are also called high-health shrimp. A number of attempts have been made to control viral diseases in cultured shrimp. Taiwan has undertaken efforts to correct the disease problems that led to a crash of its shrimp culture industry in 1987 (Fast, 1992). In Hawaii, Marine Culture Systems, which operated a super-intensive shrimp farm (100,000 kg per hectare per year), had to destroy its entire stock of P. stylirostris. Although the company disinfected its raceway system, it went out of business after suffering multi-million dollar losses. These disinfection efforts did not produce SPF shrimp; they were only an attempt to reduce the prevalence of either MBV (Taiwan) or IHHN (Hawaii) viruses.
The Oceanic Institute produces SPF shrimp
In Hawaii, The Oceanic Institute program to rear P. vannamei suffered a number of setbacks from the effects of the IHHN virus (Wyban and Sweeney, 1991). However, OI was able to correlate the presence of the IHHN virus with runt deformity syndrome, which caused lower growth and production rates (Kalagayan et al., 1991). OI then started a successful comprehensive program to produce stocks of P. vannamei that are free of this disease (Wyban, et al., 1992). Ol's thus produced SPF P. vannamei. OI's success is described below.
Production of SPF P. vannamei a business opportunity
The production of SPF seedstock or broodstock represents a business opportunity for the U.S. shrimp farming industry (DLNR, 1993). As described earlier, the worldwide production of cultured shrimp has grown tremendously in the past 10 years, but at the same time the industry faces widespread incidence of disease, which is expected to worsen. Disease represents the biggest obstacle to the future of shrimp farming, according to Weidner and Rosenberry (1992). They point out that no medications are available to treat shrimp viruses and that prevention is the only remedy for viral infection. The concept of SPF shrimp has been widely accepted. Because the use of SPF seedstock and broodstock has been shown to lead to increased production and greater profits (Wyban, et al., 1992), a market for SPF shrimp can realistically be expected to develop and expand.
The Industry Advisory Council of the Hawaii-based Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture (CTSA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Regional Aquaculture Center that covers tropical and subtropical aquaculture species) identified a priority area to investigate the establishment of centers for disease-free aquaculture stocks of shrimp in Hawaii and Guam (CTSA, 1992). Several organizations and shrimp farms have already started to use SPF P. vannamei. In 1991, OI's program distributed 1,300 SPF broodstock to three shrimp farms in the United States: Amorient Aquafarm in Hawaii; Harlingen Shrimp Farm in Texas; and Waddell Mariculture Center in South Carolina. These broodstock produced 200 million high- health nauplii and 75 million high-health postlarvae (Wyban, et al., 1992). Industry sources report that a U.S. consulting firm is working with Ecuadorian shrimp farm interests to develop a hatchery for SPF shrimp. Amorient is also starting SPF shrimp production (Andrew Kuljis, personal communication). This shows that U.S. shrimp firms have already recognized the business potential of SPF shrimp and are moving to take advantage of the opportunity.
Necessary steps to establish an SPF facility
Before investors engage in SPF shrimp culture in a hatchery/growout facility with the intent of selling the output to commercial shrimp farmers, they should take the following steps: Evaluate the market for SPF nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock. Obtain the facility design and a list of needed equipment. Obtain firm estimates for the costs of constructing, equipping and staffing the facility. Estimate the cost of operating the facility for several years (i.e., profit and loss statements). In other words, investors must evaluate the economics of establishing the SPF shrimp facility. This statement may appear trivial. It is not! The history of aquaculture development in the Pacific islands is littered with projects that were unsuccessful because the economics of the endeavors were not fully considered. Uwate (1984), in a generally negative assessment of aquaculture projects undertaken in the Pacific islands, repeatedly emphasized that many projects failed because economic factors were not considered, or because unrealistic estimates of costs and revenue were made, or because markets were not identified.
The purpose of this report is to: present a business opportunity plan for the design, development and construction of modular SPF facilities to produce P. vannamei seedstock, postlarvae and broodstock. The Hawaii facility would be large-scale, and the Guam facility would be small-scale. The Hawaii facility is designed to be a profit-making business. However, the Guam facility is designed rather to be a stockpile of SPF P. vannamei postlarvae and broodstock for use in case disease infects other SPF facilities. Another purpose of the Guam facility would be to conduct experiments to improve the stocks of P. vannamei. The funding of the Guam facility is not addressed in this report. A modular shrimp facility is one that is modeled after another facility in order to take advantage of economies of design, construction, outfitting and operation perfected in the original facility. This plan is for the benefit of the U.S. aquaculture industry (emphasis added). This report is directed toward two sets of end-users: those potential investors in an SPF shrimp facility who have limited knowledge and information about shrimp viruses and the need for SPF shrimp, and a much smaller number of potential investors, who are already in the shrimp farming business and who are knowledgeable about the problems caused by viruses and the need for producing SPF P. vannamei shrimp. summarize the potential world market for SPF seedstock and broodstock, with emphasis on P. vannamei. present a preliminary design for both large- and small-scale SPF P. vannamei production facilities. present cost estimates for building and equipping both large- and small-scale SPF facilities. provide a list of equipment needed to operate large- and small-scale SPF facilities. provide a list of the staff needed to manage and operate the SPF facilities, and the salaries required to employ the staff. make preliminary estimates of the cost of operation and profit and/or loss for the first three years. outline the process of obtaining permits to engage in aquaculture in Hawaii and Guam. The authors emphasize that the designs described and figured are not the result of detailed engineering studies but are first approximations.
The market for SPF penaeid shrimp nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock, especially for P. vannamei, is large in Latin America and the United States and possibly in East and Southeast Asia. Kuljis (1992) provides an analysis of the market for P. vannamei nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock in Ecuador, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia. P. stylirostris is another important shrimp along the Pacific coast of Latin America, but it is more susceptible to disease than P. vannamei. Disease in this report refers to viral diseases and other specified pathogens of penaeid shrimp, unless otherwise stated. Potentially, markets are very large in China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand for SPF Penaeussp.shrimp, primarily monodon, but also for chinensis, P. japonicus, P. penicillatus, P. indicus and P. merguiensis. The potential will be realized if shrimp farmers can be educated to purchase nauplii, postlarval and broodstock shrimp from a SPF shrimp production facility. The requirements of farms in Ecuador, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia as given by Kuljis (1992) are the basis of evaluating the market potential for SPF shrimp in these countries. The operation of SPF shrimp production facilities described in this report is based on the culture of P. vannamei. Hawaii is more suited for the operation of a large-scale SPF shrimp production facility than Guam, which is better suited to be the site of a small-scale SPF facility. The definitions of a large- and small-scale facility are given below. Hahn et al. (in press), have pointed out that frequent disease outbreaks at SPF facilities have demonstrated the need for having several smaller SPF facilities as a backup in case of loss of stocks in larger SPF facilities. Whether a Hawaii- or Guam-based SPF shrimp production facility can be profitably operated on a commercial basis is not known at this time. monodon and other penaeid shrimps can be cultured in an SPF production facility.
This section reviews both viral and non-viral diseases in shrimp. Because this report is concerned primarily with viral diseases of penaeid shrimp, these pathogens are emphasized. Non-viral shrimp diseases are discussed briefly, and the reader is referred to references cited for further information on non-viral diseases. Infectious diseases These include the viruses, bacterial diseases and fungus-caused diseases. Brock and LeaMaster (1992) provide an excellent review of the bacterial, fungal and parasitic diseases of shrimp. Viral diseases Ten years ago, four penaeid shrimp viruses had been identified. By 1992, this increased to 11 penaeid viruses that have been detected in 20 species of shrimp, in both known and experimentally infected hosts (Lightner, 1983; Lightner, 1992b). A list of the 11 viruses and their occurrence in P. vannamei and three other important penaeid shrimp species is given in Table 4. BP, MBV, IHHN and HPV viruses appear to be the most important ones infecting P. vannamei, P. stylirostris, P. monodon and P. chinensis. The following information on these viruses has been taken from Lightner (1983, 1992). Baculovirus penaei (BP) infects the epithelial cells of the hepatopancreas and midgut of the host, as well as host hemocytes. Significant disease accompanied by high mortality rates in larval, postlarval and early juvenile stages of several penaeid shrimps has been reported due to this virus. Larval stages of P. vannamei have been seriously infected in sporadic outbreaks of the disease in commercial hatcheries in Ecuador, Columbia, Panama and Peru. The MBV virus is widely distributed along the coasts of Asia, Australia, Africa and southern Europe. The virus occlusion bodies are also found in the hepatopancreatic and midgut epithelial cells of the host. This is the virus thought to be responsible for the crash of Taiwan's P. monodon shrimp culture production from 95,000 metric tons in 1987 to 20,000 metric tons in 1989. Lightner (1992), citing several studies, reports that the MBV virus has been linked to serious disease or economic losses in many Taiwanese shrimp farms. However, in discussing the presence of MBV in Philippine shrimp farms, Kuljis (1992) says there is no conclusive evidence that MBV adversely affects production. The IHHN virus is distributed worldwide and was accidentally introduced to cultured shrimp populations in Hawaii and Mexico. It is widely distributed among wild populations of penaeids along the west coasts of Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Panama and Ecuador. The virus has caused serious disease and acute catastrophic epizootics in semi-intensively or intensively cultured P. stylirostris juveniles, which are extremely susceptible to the virus. Work done at OI (Kalagayan et al., 1991) has shown IHHN to be linked to runt deformity syndrome (RDS) in cultured P. vannamei. Some infected populations may contain up to 30 percent runts. RDS shrimp often have greatly reduced growth rates and a variety of deformities affecting the rostrum, antennae and other areas of the exoskeleton. RDS reduces the value of P. vannamei and thus lessens profits. As a result of P. stylirostris' susceptibility to the IHHN virus, the shrimp culture industries of the Americas have elected to develop P. vannamei rather than the larger P. stylirostris.
A list of the principal bacterial, fungal and parasitic diseases of farmed shrimp is given in Table 5. Among the most serious non-viral diseases are those caused by epicommensal organisms. Serious losses occur when the gills of juvenile and adult shrimp are encrusted by heavy infestations of gill-fouling bacteria such as Leucothix mucor, and protozoans such as Zoothamniumsp.and Epistylis sp.Other important epicommensals that cause problems are blue-green algae and diatoms (Lightner, 1983).
Nutritional, environmental and toxic diseases
Information in this section is from Lightner (1983). A penaeid nutritional disease called black death, which has been linked to a deficiency of ascorbic acid, has been experimentally induced in P. stylirostris and P. californiensis and has been observed in cultured populations of other penaeid species, including P. japonicus. Gas bubble disease has been observed when oxygen levels were supersaturated. Other diseases include cramped tail when water temperatures were high, muscle necrosis following periods of severe stress, and toxigenic algae-induced disease (dinoflagellates, diatoms and blue-green algae). Lightner also lists 15 other miscellaneous diseases of penaeid shrimp.
The Need For Virus-Free SPF Shrimp
The production of SPF animals is not new. Foster (1962) described the establishment and operation of SPF colonies of laboratory animals. In the early 1960s, pig breeders began to develop SPF piglets that exploited the superior genetics of the broodstock. Piglets were delivered via hysterectomy under sterile conditions. SPF pigs increase the income of commercial farmers through greater output and high product value. The SPF concept has been used to produce many other animals such as rabbits, mice, primates, guinea pigs, turkeys, chickens, cats and rats (Hahn et al., in press). The term SPF has not been used to describe germ-free fish populations. Until 1989, when OI started to develop a population of P. vannamei certified to be SPF, nobody appeared to have been successful in producing other SPF aquatic organisms. Hahn et al. (in preparation) review the steps needed to produce SPF finfish and particularly the efforts made in Norway to produce a higher grade salmon through genetic manipulations. But none of these efforts can, strictly speaking, be considered to have resulted in SPF finfish. Several of the documents and proposals reviewed for this report state that the need for SPF shrimp is obvious. It may obvious to professionals who are knowledgeable about SPF shrimp but not to potential investors who lack an aquaculture background. Therefore, a summary of some points that underscore the need for SPF shrimp may be useful. Details on the prevalence of viral diseases in penaeid shrimp are outlined in the section titled Disease is a big problem (pp. 1 4), and the principal viral diseases are described in the section titled Viral diseases (pp. 11 12). One would be safe in saying that penaeid shrimp viruses are sweeping the world. Four were described in 1983. By 1992, 11 viruses had been identified in 20 different penaeid species. This does not necessarily mean viruses are becoming more abundant. Not only are these viruses sweeping the world, but they are increasingly found in both wild and cultured populations. P. vannamei is a case in point. P. vannamei is the principal species cultured by shrimp farms in Ecuador, which produced 100,000 metric tons in 1991. Kuljis (1992) points out the impact of the IHHN virus became apparent to Ecuadorian farmers in 1987, when they learned the shrimp produced by captive maturation had a high degree of RDS from IHHN infestation. Production was 15 percent lower in these shrimp than in shrimp produced from wild spawners. The IHHN virus is now found in both wild and captive populations of P. vannamei in Ecuador. The IHHN virus is also found throughout Asia, including in P. chinensis in China, although at present the infection is not considered significant. Other viruses of worldwide importance are the MBV and HPV viruses. P. monodon is seriously infected with the MBV virus and significantly infected with the IHHN and HPV viruses. The MBV virus has been implicated in the crash of Taiwan's shrimp farm industry in 1988 and 1989. China has become the world's largest producer of farmed shrimp, producing 145,000 metric tons in 1991. Considering the increasingly broad degree of infection by different viruses, China's shrimp populations likely will become more subject to viral infections, making that country a market for high health shrimp. No known medications prevent or cure viruses in shrimp. If the world's supply of farmed shrimp is to grow, steps must be taken to provide farmers with healthy shrimp for growout. One way of doing this is to provide shrimp that are virus free. Culture Of SPF P. vannamei In Hawaii At The Oceanic Institute OI is a member of the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program, founded in 1984 as a Congressional initiative. The program is administered by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research Service and executed by the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Consortium. OI coordinates the Consortium, which is made up of six shrimp research organizations. The goal of the program is to expand the U.S. domestic shrimp farming industry and thus reduce the U.S. trade deficit in shrimp, which is about $1.7 billion yearly. OI follows the guidelines of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES, 1988) in defining what constitutes a SPF shrimp population. Reliable diagnostic techniques to determine the presence of shrimp pathogens are essential. Only those pathogens that can be reliably diagnosed and excluded from a shrimp facility can be considered in an SPF program. OI considers SPF P. vannamei to be those that do not have any of seven diagnosable pathogens, as shown in Table 6. Procedures to diagnose various shrimp pathogens are given in Wyban and Sweeny (1991), Brock and LeaMaster (1992), and Lightner and Redman (1992). Shortly after OI initiated its shrimp research program in 1986, some of the shrimp at OI were discovered to be carriers of the IHHN virus (Oceanic Institute, 1986). OI destroyed all shrimp stocks at the Institute and decontaminated the facility. This was a serious setback to the program goal to establish a 20 million/month supply of disease-free shrimp seed for farms in Hawaii and the mainland U.S. (Oceanic Institute, 1988). While the facility was being restored to clean status, Amorient Aquafarm maintained a reservoir of 4,000 disease-free shrimp for use in continuing research at OI in 1987. The following data are derived from Wyban and Sweeney (1991) and Wyban et al. (1992). Wyban and Sweeney (1991) is a thorough, comprehensive handbook on intensive shrimp production. It includes specific instructions on starting and maintaining an SPF shrimp population. In 1988 and 1989, P. vannamei populations at OI were IHHN-free with no RDS observed. In 1989, because of the problems caused by viral infections in shrimp in Taiwan and previously at OI, the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program initiated a project at OI to develop and distribute SPF P. vannamei to the U.S. industry. However, in December 1989, postlarvae in OI's hatchery were diagnosed as probably infected with IHHN. What followed is a remarkable success story. OI then turned to a reservoir of 10,000 tentative SPF P. vannamei postlarvae from the University of Arizona. The postlarvae had been shipped to Hawaii and held in quarantine at the State of Hawaii's Anuenue Fisheries Research Center (AFRC) in Honolulu under the supervision of State Aquatic Veterinarian Dr. James Brock. These shrimp were subjected to two independent bioassay tests at OI and at the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory and found to be IHHN-free. By December 1989, OI had constructed an SPF shrimp hatchery and growout facility at Keahuolu, Kailua-Kona, on the island of Hawaii. The tentative P. vannamei postlarvae from the AFRC were then sent to the OI-Keahuolu facility for maturation and growout. Postlarvae from these tentative SPF broodstock were tested and found free from known pathogens. By 1991, OI was able to distribute 1,300 SPF broodstock from this facility to the U.S. industry. These broodstock produced 200 million high-health nauplii and 75 million high-health postlarvae. Numerous commercial tests were conducted to compare the high-health progeny of this SPF population with non-high-health shrimp. The high-health shrimp were found to exhibit much better production results. Table 7 gives the results of an experiment comparing production results of high-health shrimp in a pond with non-high health shrimp that used the same pond in a previous trial. Results showed a significant improvement in performance in all categories. The basic principles followed by OI to establish and maintain a SPF shrimp facility can be summarized as follows: Start with shrimp that are certified to be pathogen-free. Isolate these stocks from other shrimp by rearing them in quarantine facilities far from any kind of contact with non-SPF shrimp. Take strict precautions against disease introduction. Continuously monitor shrimp health. If diseases occurs, take prompt action.
Other SPF shrimp activities in Hawaii
Amorient is Hawaii's largest aquaculture farm and producer of penaeid shrimp (editor's note: as of March 1, 1994, Amorient ceased farm activities; the hatchery was still operating, however). In the late 1980s, it held disease-free SPF P. vannamei for later use by OI while OI's facility was being decontaminated. Since then, Amorient has marketed postlarvae from stocks that reportedly offer improved performance (Lester, 1992). This refers to SPF activities by Amorient. In November 1992, Amorient announced the formation of a joint venture with Taiyo Fisheries Co. of Japan to expand production of high-health SPF penaeid shrimp nauplii and broodstock. The joint venture company is named Pacific Aquaculture Technology, Inc. Initial production will be P. vannamei, with P. monodon and P. japonicus to follow. Amorient states that its research into SPF shrimp stocks has shown significantly improved growth rates, with greater uniformity of size at harvest and better feed conversion ratios, and has virtually eliminated characteristics of IHHN related-deformities. The firm says that after two seasons of restocking a commercial growout facility with disease-free stock, the incidence of demonstrably IHHN-affected animals from harvested shrimp has been reduced to almost zero. The first quantities of SPF nauplii and broodstock for sale from the new facility are expected in the spring of 1993 (personal communication, Andrew Kuljis, Amorient Aquafarm).
Hawaiian High Health Shrimp Corporation
Formation of this new company has been announced by Dr. James Wyban, formerly of The Oceanic Institute. It will specialize in production of P. vannamei broodstock (DLNR, 1993). Anuenue Fisheries Research Center The Anuenue Fisheries Research Center (AFRC) is not involved with the culture of penaeid shrimp. Its function is holding P. vannamei and testing for various pathogens. It has also held P. stylirostris.
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
The Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) does not culture SPF penaeid shrimp. It has held populations of P. vannamei and P. stylirostris and made them available for use by OI and other researchers. The HIMB plans to renovate existing shrimp facilities for holding and breeding SPF shrimp.
Why Culturing SPF Shrimp Is Difficult And Unique
The overriding concern of the aquaculturist in raising SPF shrimp is maintaining absolute control of all aspects of the culture process 24 hours a day. The process literally allows no room for mistakes, even small ones; the penalty for not following the correct protocols can be extreme, both in the loss of seedstock and broodstock and in financial losses. A number of operational procedures follow from the basic principles followed by OI to produce SPF shrimp (pp. 18-19). These include: Hatcheries and growout facilities for SPF shrimp require the best of high technology equipment and bioassay procedures. The reproduction units in an SPF facility are of specialized design. The staff members of SPF facilities will require specialized training if they do not already possess the needed experience. Laboratory analysis of the shrimp for disease must be conducted on a routine basis. There are no holidays in culturing SPF shrimp. The facility must enjoy absolute quarantine from contact with any person or any materials that could introduce diseases. Physical security is a must. For this reason, facilities must be enclosed by a special fence and a security guard is required. Management must take immediate steps to control any outbreak of disease. This includes the ability to completely disinfect the facility if necessary. Management must be prepared to maintain 24-hour supervision of the facility by technical personnel if required. The SPF shrimp facilities described in this report are expected to undertake stock improvements through genetic experiments. This requires highly trained scientific personnel.
The Market For SPF Shrimp Seedstock And Broodstock
The material on Ecuador, the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia has been derived mainly from Kuljis (1992). Other sources are Rosenberry (1991) and Weidner and Rosenberry (1992).
Western Hemisphere Requirements
Ecuador is the largest producer of cultured shrimp in the Western Hemisphere and in 1991 produced about 100,000 metric tons. Prices of Ecuadorian shrimp fell in 1991, but production nevertheless increased 35 percent. All other shrimp-producing countries in the Western Hemisphere produced a combined total of only 40,960 metric tons (see table 3). P. vannamei is the principal species cultured, both in Ecuador and in other Western Hemisphere shrimp-farming countries. Shrimp farmers and hatchery operators in Ecuador obtain their P. vannamei spawners and wild postlarvae from the Guyas Estuary and San Pablo in the southern part of Ecuador between December and April and in the northern part of Ecuador at Esmeraldas between June and November. Shrimp culture is very big business in Ecuador: 1991 production was valued at more than $400 million. In 1991, the United States imported 48,800 metric tons of shrimp worth $362 million from Ecuador (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). It is estimated that by 1991 more than 160,000 hectares of ponds had been constructed for shrimp culture. In 1990, 125,000 hectares of ponds were registered with the Ecuadorian government. At present Ecuador has more than 300 shrimp hatcheries, 117 of which are registered with the government. More than $50 million has been invested in Ecuadorian hatcheries in the past 10 years (Hirono and Leslie, 1992). Postlarvae taken from the wild account for 20-40 percent of required seedstock, depending on weather and oceanographic conditions. Hatcheries operate mainly during June through September, when wild seedstock is not available. Hatcheries produce about 60 percent of postlarvae from wild spawners, although in some years hatcheries produce 80 percent of the postlarvae needed. Wild postlarvae are particularly abundant during warm, wet, El Nino years. Pond production increased greatly during the 1986-1987 El Nino. The 1992 El Nino also produced a very abundant crop of wild postlarvae. Ecuador's 1991 requirements for postlarvae, nauplii and broodstock and their prices in U.S. dollars are discussed below.
Ecuador requires about 18 billion nauplii, assuming the hatchery survival rate is 50 percent. Presently the price is about $0.43 per 1,000. Kuljis reports that over the last five years, Amorient paid about $0.95 per 1,000, but he expects that prices in the future will not exceed $0.75 per 1,000. In 1988, hatcheries purchased more than three billion wild nauplii (Hirono and Leslie, 1992). The total value of hatchery-produced postlarvae is $36 million, the total value of hatchery-produced nauplii is $13.5 million and the value of wild spawners is $3 million (see Table 8).
A total of 15 billion postlarvae are required; 9 billion come from hatcheries, and 6 billion are captured from the wild. Postlarvae prices differ, depending on their source. Postlarvae from the wild cost $5.40 per 1,000. Postlarvae from wild broodstock spawned in hatcheries cost $3.85 per 1,000, and postlarvae from broodstock matured and spawned in a hatchery cost $2.70 per 1,000.
Approximately 90,000 broodstock would be required to produce 18 billion nauplii from captive maturation. This is based on a ratio of 50/50 males and females stocked in the hatchery. Recent prices have ranged from $15 to $80 per wild spawner. Disease is becoming a problem for Ecuadorian shrimp farmers because the IHHN virus is now found in both captive and wild populations of P. vannamei in Ecuador. Disease problems caused by the IHHN virus likely will worsen rather than improve. Kuljis (1992) points out that Ecuador has made a major commitment to captive maturation in terms of investment in facilities. Enough captive maturation capacity already has been constructed to supply the country's entire nauplii requirements, if these facilities were operating at production levels currently being achieved at Amorient Aquafarm in Hawaii. ... Unfortunately, many of these facilities no longer operate due to the impact of the IHHN virus on the Ecuadorian shrimp farming industry. Kuljis also states that Considering the level of contamination of both BP and IHHN viruses in the Ecuadorian environment, finding a site suitable for the production of SPF stocks within the country is unlikely. Therefore, SPF stocks must be produced outside the country and shipped in, either as broodstock, nauplii or postlarvae. Current laws prohibit the importation of live shrimp into Ecuador. Therefore, special permission must be obtained from the Ecuadorian government for the importation of SPF stocks to Ecuador. It should be noted that the Ecuadorian government allows importation of swine and poultry for breeding and stock improvement. This means that the market in Ecuador for SPF P. vannamei postlarvae, nauplii and broodstock is substantial and likely will increase. Reports from industry sources that a Hawaii consultant is working with Ecuadorian hatcheries to establish SPF seedstock and broodstock indicate that such a market exists. Amorient's new joint venture attests to this. Determining the number of hatcheries in Ecuador that would purchase SPF seedstock and broodstock from a Hawaii shrimp facility would require a very detailed market survey, which is beyond the scope of this report.
Other Western Hemisphere Countries
The remaining Western Hemisphere countries produce 41 percent as much shrimp as does Ecuador (table 3). The other top three shrimp producers and their production as a percentage of Ecuador's output are Columbia at 9.8 percent, Mexico at 6.7 percent and Honduras at 6.8 percent. The 12 other countries produce from 0.2 percent to 5.5 percent of Ecuador's production. According to Weidner and Rosenberry (1992), there are 225 hatcheries among these 16 countries. The size of their total requirements for nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock is unknown. Certainly these needs are large. For example, Peru produces 5.5 percent as much shrimp as Ecuador. Peru has 4,000 hectares in production and three hatcheries. These hatcheries produce 20-30 million postlarvae per month, but the demand is for 40-50 million postlarvae per month (Rosenberry, 1991). Peru also gets postlarvae via contraband shipments from Ecuador. It can be speculated that other countries would have similar requirements for seedstock, depending on the acreage of ponds in production. It could be argued that the seedstock and broodstock requirements of other Western Hemisphere countries would be 41 percent of Ecuador's, based on their comparative shrimp production figures. Although this may look good on paper, it is unlikely to be true. The situation in each country can be expected to vary considerably, so this report assumes the other countries will require only 20 percent as much seedstock and broodstock as Ecuador . Anyone contemplating investment in a shrimp hatchery in Hawaii should make a detailed survey to determine this figure. Weidner and Rosenberry (1992) state that the availability of wild seedstock has been a critical factor in the development of the shrimp farming industry in Latin America. Few farms have prospered along the Atlantic/Caribbean coast due to the lack of wild postlarvae, which can be found along the Pacific coasts of Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Honduras. Estimated Western Hemisphere requirements for P. vannamei nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock requirements are given in Table 8.
China is the world's largest producer of penaeid shrimps. In 1991, the country harvested an estimated 145,000 metric tons, down somewhat from a high of 153,000 metric tons in 1987. The principal species cultured is P. chinensis (also called P. orientalis), which accounts for 97 percent of all production. Other species cultured are P. merguiensis, which accounts for 1.5 percent of total production; P. penicillatus, which accounts for 1.0 percent of total production; and P. monodon which accounts for 0.5 percent of total production. In 1980, China had only 9,300 hectares of ponds in production. But by 1991, it had 140,000 hectares of ponds in production, an increase of 1,500 percent. China also operates 1,000 hatcheries, all of which are medium to large size. Information on China's requirements for seedstock and broodstock, however, is scattered and fragmentary. These hatcheries produced 72 billion postlarvae in 1987. One hatchery on Hainan Island in the Gulf of Tonkin annually produces 20-50 million postlarvae from locally caught spawners. Some Chinese hatcheries in southern provinces are run by Taiwanese technicians. Other southeast Asian countries provide broodstock, and nauplii are occasionally air-shipped to these hatcheries from Taiwan. Spawners from three locations are the source of much of China's seedstock. One group is from spawning grounds after their spawning migration in the Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea of northern China. The second source is either from culture ponds in summer or from the ocean during winter migrations. The third source is from shrimp captured during their reproductive migration before they are sexually mature. In 1991, about 27 percent of China's seedstock were produced from 1.3 million female shrimp held in hatcheries over the 1990/1991 winter. The above information is from Rosenberry (1991), Lightner and Redman (1992), Weidner and Rosenberry (1992) and Xin and Sheng (1992). The principal markets for China's shrimp exports are the United States and Japan; the United States imported 35,000 tons with a value of $220 million in 1991 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Because China obtains hard currency by exporting its shrimp, the assumption can be made that China's policy is to continue to increase shrimp production as long as world shrimp demand and prices are favorable with a corresponding increase in the need for postlarval shrimp. Because both the MBV and HPV viruses have been found in wild and cultured Chinese shrimp (Lightner and Redman, 1992), viral disease can be expected to become an increasingly serious problem for Chinese hatcheries.
Thailand is the second largest producer of farmed shrimp in east Asia. In 1991, the country produced 110,000 metric tons of shrimp from 80,000 hectares of ponds. P. monodon accounted for 90 percent of production. In 1991, the United States imported 45,500 metric tons of shrimp worth $434 million from Thailand (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). According to statistics from the Thai Directorate of Fisheries and reported by Kuljis (1992), the country has 488 hatcheries; Rosenberry (1991) reported that the country had 2,000 hatcheries. The reason for the big difference between the two figures is unknown, but it may be due to the operation of a lot of very small hatcheries that are not registered with the government. The total Thai requirement for postlarvae is approximately 6 billion per year, nearly all of which are produced from hatcheries, and which have a value of approximately $36 million. Many of these small-scale hatcheries produce less than 10 million postlarvae per year. Some large hatcheries can produce 70-100 million postlarvae per year. The price of P. monodon postlarvae is very low, less than $6 per 1,000. Thailand has no shortage of P. monodon fry, which accounts for the low price. The backyard hatcheries have many small rearing tanks averaging 1-10 tons in volume (a 1-ton tank has a volume of 1,000 liters = 1 metric tons). Large-scale hatcheries are of the Taiwanese type with 40-ton concrete tanks. Thailand producers annually require approximately 18 billion nauplii, with a value of $1.1 million. Nauplii sell for $0.06 per 1,000 and are said to be produced at a cost of less than $0.03 per 1,000. Spawners are obtained from the Andaman Sea just south of Thailand's border with Myanmar (formerly Burma). Some operators buy spawners and broodstock for use in modified maturation facilities. Females sell for about $50 each. The above information is from Kuljis (1992). Kuljis also reports that The government currently controls the importation of shrimp species in Thailand. In order to introduce SPF stocks to Thailand, government permission would have to be obtained. Applications for importation of SPF stocks should be made by the importer directly to the Director of Fisheries in Bangkok.
Indonesia's shrimp production is the third highest in Asia. In 1991, the country produced 105,000 metric tons of P. monodon from more than 250,000 hectares of ponds (Kuljis, 1992). The United States imported 11,500 metric tons of shrimp worth $106 million from Indonesia in 1991 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Kuljis (1992) reports that Indonesia has 200 large-scale hatcheries, each of which is capable of producing 50-150 million postlarvae per year. The country probably has another 200 backyard hatcheries that can produce 2-5 million postlarvae per year. Indonesia has three types of hatcheries. One is the so-called Taiwanese hatchery, which features square-walled cement tanks operated with little seawater exchange. The second is a Western-style hatchery with technology introduced from France and the United States. Separation of functions is emphasized in this hatchery. Algae for feeding larvae is cultured separately. The third type is the backyard hatchery, usually with low postlarvae production of less than 500,000. Indonesian farmers need about 6 billion postlarvae each year. Hatcheries produce about 90 percent of postlarvae sold in Indonesia. Postlarvae produced by western-style hatcheries bring the highest prices $6-$8 per 1,000 while backyard hatchery postlarvae sell for about $4-$6 per 1,000. Indonesian hatcheries have the capacity to produce all needed postlarvae, but in 1991, disease in hatcheries was said to have caused a shortage of postlarvae. Current postlarvae prices average about $5-$7 per 1,000. Indonesia's estimated need for nauplii is approximately 1.8 billion per year. No hatcheries specialize in nauplii production. The small backyard hatcheries purchase excess production from large hatcheries for approximately $0.10 per 1,000. Broodstock and spawners can be obtained near many of the 200 large-scale hatcheries on Java, but Indonesian farmers prefer to get broodstock and spawners from Banda Aceh in north Sumatra, 1,000 miles away. Banda Aceh spawners sell for about $50 each. Spawners from other areas cost about $20-$30. The number of spawners required by Indonesian hatcheries is estimated at about 9,000 per year, assuming the average spawner produces 2 million nauplii. Kuljis (1992) reports that Any importation of live shrimp or broodstock or postlarvae for growout require permission from the Directorate of Fisheries. Importation is generally allowed when the final product is an exportable commodity. The most recent case involving importation of live shrimp is a Taiwanese-sponsored joint venture on a P. japonicus farm. Postlarvae and feed are imported from Taiwan to Bali. Live Kuruma prawns are then exported to Japan. The feed and postlarvae for this project are imported duty free.
In 1991, the Philippines produced 30,000 metric tons of shrimp from 50,000 hectares of ponds. P. monodon accounted for 27,000 metric tons of this total. This is a drop from the 50,000 metric tons produced in 1989. Weakening prices for P. monodon are said to have caused the drop in production, although severe weather in 1990 is said also to have been a factor. The United States imported 6,400 metric tons of Philippine shrimp worth $58 million in 1991 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Many Filipino farmers practice polyculture, growing shrimp with milkfish in about 200,000 hectares of brackish water ponds. Many farmers do not intentionally stock shrimp, and the yields in these ponds are low, averaging 20-60 kilograms per hectare per year. In 1990, hatcheries in the Philippines numbered about 102, but fewer than 60 operate routinely (Kuljis, 1992). This compares to 380 hatcheries in 1988. The six small hatcheries produce less than 2 million postlarvae per month. Some of the 67 larger hatcheries can produce 5-10 million postlarvae per month. Filipino farmers require about 1.4 billion postlarvae per year. Almost all come from hatcheries. Prices range widely, from $5.60 per 1,000 to $10 per 1,000. Traditional and extensive growers buy the cheaper postlarvae, while intensive growers buy the higher-priced postlarvae. The value of postlarvae sold annually in the Philippines is about $10.5 million. Nauplii survival is about 50 percent, so approximately 2.8 billion nauplii are required in the Philippines each year. Almost all nauplii come from wild spawners. No hatcheries practice captive maturation. The number of viable nauplii per spawner is about 500,000, which brings the cost of nauplii to about $0.10 per 1,000. However, nauplii are not purchased in the Philippines. The total value of Philippine nauplii is $900,000 per year (Kuljis, 1992). The total number of spawners needed in the Philippines is about 9,000 per year. At $40-$50 per spawner, the annual value of spawners is about $360,000-$450,000. The virus MBV has been found throughout the Philippines for years. Kuljis (1992) points out that no conclusive evidence proves that MBV adversely affects production. A test for quality postlarvae is the presence or absence of Monodon baculovirus occlusion bodies (OBs). Few hatcheries can produce P. monodon postlarvae without OBs, so the percentage of OBs in a sample of postlarvae at harvest determines the quality of the postlarvae. IHHN virus was first observed in P. monodon several years ago, but it has not been linked with any particular symptoms in P. monodon. Bent body syndrome (BBS) has recently been noted in Philippine shrimp. BBS causes a deformity of the body, usually at the third tail segment. Some ponds have produced shrimp with 20 percent BBS, but the cause is unknown. The rise in MBV and BBS in postlarvae from the Mas Bate area spawners has caused farmers to seek spawners from other areas, such as Tacloban, Leyte Island (Kuljis, 1992). Regarding government regulations, Kuljis (1992) reports that Due to the level of contamination in the Philippine environment with both MBV and IHHN virus, production of SPF stocks under current standards of shrimp farm operations is unlikely. Therefore, unless a major capital investment is made in facilities, SPF P. monodon stocks will likely be produced outside the country and shipped into the Philippines as either broodstock, nauplii or postlarvae. Current Philippine laws prohibit the importation of P. monodon broodstock, nauplii and postlarvae into the country. Special permission must be obtained from the Philippine government for the importation of SPF stocks. Weidner and Rosenberry (1992) report that a change in Philippine law now allows foreign companies to lease shrimp farms. Two-well known large companies, San Miguel Corporation and Dole Philippines, are increasing their shrimp farming activities, which will require additional seedstock.
In 1991, Taiwan produced an estimated 30,000 metric tons of shrimp from 8,000 hectares of ponds. This is a big drop from the record 70,000 metric tons produced in 1986, but an improvement over 1989, when 20,000 metric tons were harvested. In 1988, Taiwan had 16,400 hectares of ponds under culture (Liao, 1992). As mentioned above, mass mortality in Taiwan's P. monodon stocks caused the decline. Taiwan shrimp farmers have switched species in part to P. penicillatus and P. japonicus. The United States imported only 1,400 metric tons of shrimp worth $13 million from Taiwan in 1991; Taiwan's principal market is Japan. Taiwan had 800 hatcheries operating in 1991, compared to 2,000 in 1988. Unfortunately, information on the number and prices of postlarvae, nauplii and broodstock and spawners was not available for this study. However, a rough approximation of the amount of postlarvae, nauplii and broodstock and spawners needed can be made by assuming the requirements of the Philippines are roughly equivalent to Taiwan's. This would mean that Taiwan needs about 1.4 billion postlarvae, 2.8 billion nauplii and about 9,000 broodstock and spawners. Making an estimate of their value is too risky to attempt. Liao (1992), in a paper emphasizing future directions of the Taiwan prawn industry, sees growth as greatly increased opportunities for improving and exporting technology as the industry emerges as a joint-venture partner and research and development center. Other new directions include diversifying culture species, conquering disease and producing new strains particularly pathogen-free and disease-resistant strains through genetic improvement and manipulation.
In 1991, India produced 35,000 metric tons of shrimp from 65,000 hectares of ponds. Of this, the United States imported 17,500 metric tons with a value of $67 million (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). India has a small number of hatcheries; 16 were operating in 1991. However, the Marine Products Export Development Authority has established two large commercial hatcheries in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, which are located on the east coast of the subcontinent on the Bay of Bengal (Rosenberry, 1991). Weidner and Rosenberry (1992) report that about 5,000 hectares of new semi-intensive and intensive shrimp farms were expected to be operational in 1991. At present, most production comes from farms in the State of West Bengal, adjacent to Bangladesh.
In 1991, Vietnam produced 30,000 metric tons of cultured shrimp from about 160,000 hectares of ponds. Hatcheries number 120; 93 percent are small-scale, 5 percent are medium scale and 2 percent are large-scale (Rosenberry, 1991). P. monodon postlarvae were first mass produced in 1984-1985 in a hatchery in Nha Trang, and hatchery production has emphasized this species since then. Typical output from a hatchery in the Nha Trang area is 1-5 million postlarvae per year. Total output of all hatcheries was 36 million postlarvae in 1989. However, the annual capacity of 54 hatcheries was more than 250 million postlarvae per year (Quynh, 1992). In 1989, postlarvae cost $1.75-$7.50 per 1,000, depending on demand. Vietnamese shrimp farming relies mostly on catching wild seed to stock ponds. Ponds are filled when seed is most abundant. The best times for trapping wild seed in the north are from April to June for Penaeus sp. and from August to November for Metapenaeus sp. In the south, wild seed is available year-round. Recent improvements in mass production of postlarvae allows controlled stocking. Shrimp farmers purchase juveniles from fishermen to stock ponds when possible. Seed collecting is a business for some people in central and south Vietnam. P. merguiensis is the principal species collected, with daily yields of 2,000 to 10,000 juveniles (3-4 cm). Broodstock are caught by small shrimp trawlers, and the crews select and transport the gravid females on request. Good sources for P. monodon are off central Vietnam. Prices for P. monodon stage IV females in 1989 were about $25-$30 per piece, as the spawners were in short supply. Information is not available on Vietnam's need for seedstock and broodstock, but a comparison can be made with the Philippines, which also produced 30,000 metric tons in 1991. Since a very high percentage of seedstock in Vietnam is obtained by allowing ponds to be flooded with water containing nauplii and postlarvae, Vietnam's needs are unlikely to be the same as those of the Philippines. It can be speculated that Vietnam's needs are only 25 percent of the Philippines' needs. If that is true, then Vietnam would need about 350 million postlarvae and about 700 million nauplii. An estimate of the number of broodstock needed in Vietnam is not made because shrimp trawlers probably can supply all that is needed. Quynh (1992) believes the future of Vietnamese shrimp farming lies with elaborating the present system of semi-intensive culture because such ponds require less capital and have higher returns per production unit. Because some economists believe prices of shrimp on the international market will drop, it may be the most appropriate form of technology for Vietnam, he says.
Bangladesh produced 25,000 metric tons of shrimp from 100,000 hectares of ponds in 1991. The United States imported 4,900 metric tons of Bangladesh shrimp in 1991 worth $37 million (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Rosenberry (1991) reports that Bangladesh has no hatcheries, so seedstock are obtained from the wild on incoming tides. Stocking rates are low, about 10,000-30,000 fry per hectare. Assuming an average of 20,000 fry per hectare, Bangladesh's need for seedstock could be about 2 billion. The need for broodstock might be on the order of the Philippines, or 9,000, because Bangladesh has twice as much acreage in production but uses a low stocking rate. One of Bangladesh's problems in developing its shrimp farming industry is the periodic occurrence of severe cyclones that wreak havoc with shrimp farms located in low lying areas at the top of the Bay of Bengal. A cyclone in April 1991 caused a loss of 4,000 metric tons of shrimp worth $20 million. The cyclone destroyed the shrimp hatchery in Chokoria, but a new one is under construction. The previous destruction of mangroves to construct ponds amplified the cyclone's devastation.
Japan is small producer of cultured penaeid shrimp. In 1991, only 3,500 metric tons were harvested from 500 hectares of culture facilities. P. japonicus is the only species cultured in any quantity. Japan's domestic market absorbs the country's entire production, and Japan imports a large amount of shrimp from other shrimp-producing nations in Asia and Southeast Asia, notably China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. P. japonicus, which are preferred live by the Japanese consumer, command high prices. Recently, imports of smaller live P. japonicus have been reported from Taiwan, and they stimulated greater consumption, according to Shigueno (1992). He reports that shrimp production in Japan is expected to level off due to limited tidal area for further development. Japanese shrimp farmers rear their larvae in large concrete tanks, with a typical size of 56 cubic meters. Such a tank is capable of producing 1.3 million postlarvae in about one month. A total of about 700 million postlarvae are produced each year in Japan by shrimp farmers and by government organizations. Forty hatcheries have been reported in production (Rosenberry, 1991). Farmers produce 20-day-old postlarvae for about $3.50 per 1,000, including capital depreciation. Some farms sell postlarve to other farms for about $7 per 1,000. Some farms have reported serious disease infections and mass mortalities of 60-100 percent of postlarvae. The virus BMN has been identified as the pathogen. Shigueno (1992) reports that because of limited availability of sites for new ponds, most farmers believe that improving yields from existing ponds and producing high quality shrimp are the only ways to survive in the competition of the open market. It is thus fair to say that producing SPF P. japonicus for sale would interest Japanese culturists. The new joint venture between Amorient and Taiyo may be targeting this market, which could be a special niche market.
Australia is the smallest producer of farmed shrimp in Asia, producing 1,300 metric tons from 400 hectares in 1989-1990. A few tonnes were produced in 1986, but production did not exceed 100 metric tons until 1988/1989. The principal species farmed is P. monodon, accounting for 83.2 percent of production. The farms are located on the east coast of Australia in Queensland and New South Wales (Maguire and Allan, 1992). HPV and MBV viruses have been found, but thus far the IHHN virus has not been identified in Australia (Lightner and Redman, 1992; Maguire and Allan, 1992). A new viral pathogen is called yellow head, but not much is known about it (Andrew Kuljis, Amorient AquaFarm, personal communication). Australia has eight major penaeid hatcheries operating, and others are being developed. Hatchery prices for postlarvae were $30 per 1,000 at one time, but prices have dropped considerably since 1988 due to increased production. Water temperature is a major concern for an expanding Australian shrimp farming industry. Ideal temperatures for year-round culture of tropical species are not found in Queensland and New South Wales. Other areas have notably dry seasons. One possibility is to culture different species at different times of the year, for example P. monodon during the warm season, and Metapenaeus macleayi during the cooler season. Scura (1987) says Australian shrimps will have a tough time competing with those from Southeast Asia. It may be more realistic for Australian farmers to produce for the domestic market, which exhibits a strong demand for shrimp about 20,000 metric tons per year. On the other hand, Maguire and Allan (1992) feel that Australia must depend on export markets in the long term. Estimated Asian requirements for Penaeussp.nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock are given in Table 9. Only countries where some data exist are included.
Definition of Large-Scale andSmall-Scale SPF Facilities
A large-scale SPF shrimp production facility has a spawning and larval rearing system, a limited nursery system and a broodstock rearing and holding system. The purpose of such a facility would be to raise and sell SPF nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock of P. vannamei to shrimp farmers in the Western Hemisphere United States, Mexico, Latin America and also to provide postlarvae and broodstock to small SPF shrimp facilities in Guam or Micronesia. The large-scale facility would also engage in experiments to improve the genetic characteristics of vannamei stocks.
Small-scale SPF facilities can be of two types. Type A engages in the same type of activities as a large-scale facility but on a smaller scale. Type B does not have a spawning and larval-rearing system but only a postlarval nursery system and a broodstock rearing and holding system. It is also smaller in size. In this report, the small-scale facility described is a type-B operation. The purpose of this facility would be to sell SPF P. vannamei postlarvae and broodstock to penaeid shrimp farmers in the Western Hemisphere upon request and possibly to sell other penaeid shrimp species to farmers in Asia, Australia and Micronesia. It would hold SPF P. vannamei broodstock as a backup in case large-scale facilities elsewhere failed because of disease.
Location of the SPF Shrimp Facilities
The large-scale facility is proposed to be located in Hawaii, and the small-scale facility is proposed to be located in Guam (CTSA, 1992). The market for seedstock and broodstock in the Western Hemisphere can be serviced more readily by air shipments from Hawaii than from Guam. Further, maintaining a pool of SPF spawners in Hawaii would reduce the chances of pathogen introductions from either North or South America. The small-scale facility could be located in Guam because its remote location from Hawaii and the Western Hemisphere will help maintain its SPF characteristic.
General Requirements of an SPF Facility
The general categories of requirements for either a large-scale or a small-scale SPF shrimp facility are: land, salt water, salt water delivery systems, electrical power, reproduction systems, nursery systems, growout and holding ponds for broodstock, shipment logistics, staff, equipment and supplies. All but equipment and supplies are covered in the following sections, which describe the preliminary design and components of both large and small-scale facilities. A list of equipment and supplies is given in Table 12 and Appendices A and B. Preliminary Design and Components of a Large-Scale SPF Facility Figure 1 shows a preliminary design for a large-scale SPF facility proposed to be located on Oahu, Hawaii. The facility occupies 69,500 square feet, or 1.6 acres, which would lease for about $800 per acre yearly. The facility would be enclosed by an 8-foot-high chain link fence topped with several strands of barbed wire and have three access gates. The site is assumed to contain a good supply of high quality salt water beneath good quality, level soil that can be excavated for broodstock holding and growout ponds. A salt water well would be dug on the facility. An injection well for runoff is not part of the facility. Drainage is by gravity to an unspecified location. Please note the facility is not designed to be situated at the Natural Energy Laboratory Authority (NELHA) of Hawaii in Kailua-Kona on the island of Hawaii. This is because the proposed site would have earthen ponds, and the ground at the NELHA is solid lava. The longer journey of nauplii and PL10s to market from the island of Hawaii was also a factor in selecting Oahu as the facility site.
The large-scale facility has seven main components.
Salt water is delivered from a 12-inch-diameter, 75-foot-deep well dug on the premises. The water is assumed to contain adequate oxygen. The salt water is delivered to the various ponds, tanks and larval and spawning facilities by a pump/motor system using electrical power from an outside source. An engine-driven pump backup system is provided in case of a power outage. Fuel for the backup engine is stored adjacent to the pump shed (see Figure 1).
Three reproductive-unit buildings contain the maturation and spawning systems, larval rearing area, algae production room, a small laboratory and a food preparation and work areas. Some aspects are modeled on similar facilities at The Oceanic Institute. Each building measures 85 feet by 30 feet (see Figure 2). Three separate buildings are provided in order to allow each building to be isolated in case of a disease outbreak. The buildings would require specialized plumbing in order to isolate stocks, if necessary. A nursery tank field contains four tanks, each 6 meters in diameter, containing up to 7,900 gallons. The tanks are modeled after The Oceanic Institute nursery tank field (see Figure 1). A 60-foot-by-15-foot, multi-purpose building contains an office, men's and women's showers, changing facilities and toilets, and a storage room for spare parts, dry stores, shipping materials, etc. Sewage disposal is via septic tank and leach field. It is assumed fresh water is from a hookup adjacent to the facility (see Figure 3). The facility's four broodstock-rearing and holding ponds have approximately nine feet between them. Each 5,000-square-foot pond measures 100 feet by 50 feet and has an excavated depth of 3 feet. The excavated soil is used to make the banks and berm for a total water depth of 3-5 feet (see Figure 1). A small incinerator to dispose of questionable material (for quarantine purposes) is located in the lower right hand corner of the facility, close to an access gate (see Figure 1). Expansion area is provided. About 10,000 square feet in the lower right-hand portion of the facility could be used to construct two additional 5,000-square-foot ponds or to increase the capacity of the nursery tank field or to build several more reproductive unit buildings (See Figure 1). Table 10 lists the personnel required to operate the large-scale facility.
Preliminary Design and Components of a Small-Scale SPF Facility
Figure 4 shows the preliminary design of a small-scale, type-B SPF facility proposed to be located in Guam. The area of the facility is 35,000 square feet, or 0.8 acre. The yearly land lease would cost approximately $1,600 an acre, about twice the cost in Hawaii. Land prices on Guam range from $250-$300 per square meter (William FitzGerald, personal communication). This facility would also be enclosed by an 8-foot-high chain link fence topped with barbed wire and have three gates for vehicular access. The availability of good quality salt water and good quality soil is assumed to be the same as that for the large-scale facility. It would also have a well for salt water delivery, but no injection well for drainage.
The small-scale facility has six main components.
Salt water is delivered from a 12-inch-diameter, 75-foot-deep well dug on the premises. The salt water will be delivered by a pump/motor system using power from an outside source. An engine-driven pump backup system is provided in case of power outages, which occur frequently on Guam. Fuel for the backup engine is stored adjacent to the pump and motor shed (See Figure 4). The facility has two 5,000-square-foot earthen ponds that measure 100 feet by 50 feet (See Figure 4). A nursery tank field contains six large tanks, each 6 meters in diameter, holding up to 7,900 gallons. It is modeled after The Oceanic Institute's nursery tank field and after tanks used in Guam's government aquaculture facility. A larger number of nursery tanks are provided in case large numbers of small SPF P. vannamei are needed in places where disease has become a problem (See Figure 4). A 60-by-15-foot multi-purpose building contains an office, men's and women's showers, changing facilities and toilets, and a room that could be subdivided for use as storage and as a small laboratory. Sewage disposal is via septic tank and leach field. It is assumed fresh water is from a hookup adjacent to the facility (See Figure 3). A small incinerator is located in the lower right hand corner close to an access gate (see Figure 4). Expansion area is provided. About 7,500 square feet on the right side of the facility could be used to construct one additional 5,000-square-foot pond, or to double, triple or quadruple the size of the nursery tank system (See Figure 4). Table 11 lists the personnel required to operate the small-scale facility.
Estimated Cost of Constructing and Equipping Each Facility
Strategy for Producing and Marketing SPF Shrimp Approaches
Production and marketing of SPF shrimp can be approached in at least three ways. One approach is to concentrate on producing and marketing large numbers of nauplii and postlarvae (PL10s) and to grow relatively small numbers of 1.0-gram shrimp to full size for sale as broodstock. This approach requires a large reproduction facility, but a relatively small number of nursery tanks and growout ponds. Another approach is to produce large numbers of nauplii and PL10s and large numbers of full-size shrimp for sale as broodstock. This approach requires a large reproduction facility, considerably more nursery field tanks to supply the growout ponds, and a larger number of growout ponds. A third approach is to specialize in the production of broodstock. This would require the production of a relatively smaller number of nauplii, PL10s and 1.0-gram postlarvae in order to concentrate on growing larger numbers of adult broodstock. This approach has been taken by a new entrant into the aquaculture of SPF P. vannamei, the Hawaiian High Health Shrimp Corporation (DLNR, 1993). This study recommends the first approach. Therefore, the design is of an SPF facility with a large reproduction facility but a small number of nursery field tanks and a relatively small number of growout ponds. The facility's main effort would be to raise large numbers of nauplii and PL10s and small numbers of full-size shrimp for broodstock purposes. This approach was taken because the principal market in the Western Hemisphere appears to be for nauplii and PL10s rather than for broodstock shrimp (Table 8). P. vannamei farmers use 29.6 billion nauplii and 20.8 billion PL10s but only 120,000 broodstock. The proposed facility would be located on Oahu in order to reduce air transportation time to market. Marketing could start with production and shipping of nauplii and some PL10s to growers on the U. S. mainland. After the production/shipping system had been perfected, markets in Ecuador and other Latin American countries could be addressed, especially with much larger numbers of PL10s. Raising broodstock requires a considerably larger capital expenditure for the construction of growout ponds, as well as a larger farm area, which would result in higher lease rental for the farm. Because the size of the reproduction facility in approach (1) or (2) would be about the same, starting with a small number of growout ponds would be the more conservative approach, which is desirable for this analysis. If this approach proves profitable, then building more growout ponds could be considered. The first version of the large-scale facility considered for this study had three 5,000-square-foot growout ponds. These three ponds were estimated to produce about 3,375 broodstock per year. This is based on stocking each pond with 2,250 20-gram shrimp and a 50 percent mortality rate. Construction costs of each pond were estimated to be $8,840, for a total of $25,320 for all three. If the goal were to meet 25 percent of the Western Hemisphere demand, or 30,000 broodstock, nine ponds would be required, and the construction cost would be an estimated $75,960, not counting PVC pipes, fittings, a larger farm, increased lease rent, a longer fence and other expenses due to a larger size. No attempt was made to devise a production or marketing strategy for Guam facility. This is because the scope of this study considers only (emphasis added) P. vannamei, and marketing P. vannamei from Guam in competition with a facility in Hawaii would be very difficult. The market for P. vannamei is in the Western Hemisphere rather than in Asia. As mentioned above, the Guam facility is intended as a backup facility for SPF P. vannamei in case stocks in Hawaii became contaminated with viruses. This would be done by maintaining adequate numbers of separate stocks (biodiversity) in the event that they are needed elsewhere.
Estimated Production and Income
The production of nauplii and PL10s depends mainly on the size of the reproduction facility used for spawning and larval rearing. Wyban and Sweeney (1991) report that the OI reproduction facility produced 9.6 million nauplii per month during 1990/1991, or 115.2 million nauplii per year. That OI yearly figure was used as the basis to calculate production of nauplii and PL10s from the reproduction unit(s) considered for the large-scale facility described above. For example, if one OI reproduction unit produces 115.2 million nauplii per year, then two, three or four OI reproduction units should be able to produce between 230.4 and 460.8 million nauplii per year. The estimated cost of constructing and equipping one to four OI-type reproduction units is between $414,255 and $1,657,020. Table 13 presents nauplii and PL10 production levels for various numbers of OI-type reproduction units and the costs of building the reproduction units. Income An SPF production facility can derive income from three sources: (1) sale of nauplii, (2) sale of PL10s, and (3) sale of broodstock or a combination of all three. It is assumed that the nauplii will be sold for $1 per 1,000, and that the PL10s will be sold for $10 per 1,000 (Andrew Kuljis, personal communication). Nauplii would be shipped at a density of 5,000 per liter, because shipping duration from Hawaii is 24 hours (Wyban and Sweeney, 1991). A total of 200,000 nauplii would be shipped in each bag or container, and 20,000 PL10s would be shipped in each bag or container (Andrew Kuljis, personal communication). Thus, each shipment of nauplii is worth $200, and each shipment of PL10s is also worth $200. The recipient of shrimp shipments pays the transportation costs. In order to simplify the income figures shown below, it is assumed that 20 percent of all nauplii are sold as nauplii. The number of PL10s available to be sold therefore is 80 percent of the nauplii produced, less 50 percent lost due to mortality. For example, if 115.2 million nauplii are produced and 20 percent are sold, 92.2 million nauplii are left to be raised to PL10. Fifty percent survival of these 92.2 million nauplii would yield 46.1 million PL10s. It is further assumed that all PL10s are sold. In fact, this would not be the case because a few PL10s would be retained to be grown into adult broodstock. However, the number would be very small much less than 1 percent. The number of adult broodstock sold depends on the number of growout ponds in the facility. A conservative market strategy for selling broodstock is to seek 5 percent of the total Western Hemisphere broodstock market, which is 120,000 adult shrimp (Table 8). This allows the 5,000-square-foot growout ponds to be stocked at a density much lower than their carrying capacity. According to Wyban and Sweeney (1991), growout ponds can be stocked with 75 1-gram juvenile shrimp per square meter. In this case, when only 5 percent of the broodstock market is targeted, the ponds would be stocked with only nine 1-gram shrimp per square meter. Using the conservative assumption of a 50 percent mortality rate, 6,000 40-gram shrimp would be available for sale at a conservatively estimated price of $40 each. Thus, the income from one 5,000-square-foot (450-square-meter) pond would be $60,000 (1,500 x $40 = $60,000); this figures does not include income from the sale of adult shrimp retained for maturation purposes. The number of growout ponds associated with each production facility shown is arbitrary and would depend on the marketing policy of the aquaculturist developing the SPF shrimp farm. If a larger portion of the market for broodstock can be obtained, production from the four broodstock growout ponds can be increased without too much difficulty. Table 14 shows the estimated income from selling nauplii, PL10s and broodstock under various production and growout regimes. A shrimp farm with three reproduction unit buildings and four growout ponds was chosen for the large SPF facility because it represents a compromise between a low shrimp-production, low construction-cost facility, and a facility that produces a higher number of shrimp but is much more costly to build.
The following is excerpted from DPED (1980), a publication titled Permits and Environmental Requirements for Aquaculture in Hawaii. It is available from the Aquaculture Development Program, Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, 335 Merchant Street (Room 348), Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (telephone: 808-587-0030; fax: 808-587-0033). Note that this publication was issued in 1980. Some new Hawaii permit and environmental requirements have been enacted since then. A new compilation of permit and environmental requirements has recently been undertaken for the State's Aquaculture Development Program, but it is still under review and was not available for citation at this writing. A general sequence for filing permit applications and securing administrative approvals is given in Appendix D. According to DPED (1980) The seemingly lengthy web of legal and scientific complexities from the various regulatory permits and review procedures ... should not be interpreted as representing the normal list of requirements or actions for entering the aquaculture industry in Hawaii. While regulatory actions for proposed aquaculture operations on submerged lands or lands immediately adjacent to the shoreline can be formidable, sound site selection guidelines, combined with preliminary discussions with County, State and Federal officials, can greatly reduce the cost and time required .... Thus, careful project planning at the conceptual stages of project development can insure prompt and responsive agency actions and a minimum of project delay. Ten major legal bases and jurisdictional arrangements cover the issuance of permits for aquaculture projects in Hawaii. Not all will apply to every aquaculture project; the project's location will determine which legal base has cognizance. These legal bases and jurisdictional arrangements are complicated, and prospective shrimp aquaculturists should consult DPED (1980) and the State's Aquaculture Development Program for details and advice. Figure 5 shows the major jurisdictional areas for aquaculture activities in Hawaii. The 10 major legal bases and jurisdictional arrangements are: State Land Use Law:Its jurisdiction has resulted in the State Land Use Commission classifying all land into four permitted land use districts: urban, agricultural, rural and conservation. Raising of fish or other animal or aquatic life for economic or personal use is within the range of permissible uses for agricultural lands. Shoreline Setback Variance:This law directed the State Land Use Commission to establish setbacks inland of the shoreline of not less than 20 feet and not more than 40 feet to minimize man-induced impacts on natural shoreline processes. The variance aspect of the law allows permission to be granted for a proposed structure, activity or facility if (a) it is in the public interest or (b) denial will cause hardship to the applicant. State Permit for Work Within Shores and Shorewaters:This gives the Hawaii State Dept. of Transportation (DOT) authority over aquaculture related activities within shores and shorewaters of the State, including (but not limited to) construction and placement of structures. An example of an aquaculture structure is hardware for pumping salt water. Federal Permit for Work in Navigable Waters:The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the principal federal agency for this permit. Consultation with other agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Hawaii State Division of Aquatic Resources may also be necessary. A permit requirement applies to virtually any construction within navigable waters, or construction or operation of facilities that result in any discharge into waters that may affect the waters' navigability. Navigable waters have traditionally been defined as coastal waters subject to inundation, up to the mean high tide line. Conservation District Use PermitAquaculturists proposing to use conservation district lands must apply to the Board of Land and Natural Resources (Dept. of Land and Natural Resources) describing in detail the proposed project, and including an environmental impact statement (EIS). Aquaculturists proposing to use lands and waters in the conservation district within the Special Management Areas (SMA's) of the counties must first receive approval from the SMA authority of the respective County, and then approval from the Board of Land and Natural Resources. State Environmental Quality Control:State Environmental Quality Control Commission regulations grant decision-making authority concerning the necessity for an environmental impact statement (EIS) to the first agency receiving a project approval application. Depending on specifics of the proposed project, EIS determinations could be made by the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, or even the Department of Health. National Environmental Quality Control:The Federal Council on Environmental Quality issues regulations concerning EISs that are binding on all Federal Agencies and provide uniform standards for conducting environmental reviews. A federal EIS is generally required whenever a federal action is involved. This is generally interpreted to mean any action proposing the use of federal lands, funds or permits and where such action constitutes a significant impact on the environment. Aquaculture-related activities that may require a federal EIS include projects involving construction adjacent to inland or coastal waters, work in navigable waters, sites involving the National Register of Historic Places, threatened or endangered species, diversion of waters, effluent discharges, federal financing and projects requiring a federal permit (e.g., Corps of Engineers permit). Water Quality Control:This comes under the control of the Department of Health. The regulation mode of the Department of Health is that of a permit and variance system. The permit system is called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES permit regulates discharge of waste materials into the environment. The contents of a proposed discharge must be adequately described by the applicant as a basis for determining the difference between the effluent and the quality of the receiving water. Effluent monitoring is often a condition for such permits, which are issued for a limited period of time, usually five years. Hawaii Coast Zone Management ActThis act expanded the jurisdictions of the counties to control development in the Special Management Areas (SMA). It also defined development broadly and brought activities of aquaculturists under county purview. The counties have adopted an assessment procedure to determine whether a proposal will need a SMA permit. The applicant must file a document giving all the particulars of the proposed project, including maps, a description of the environment, and the project's technical, economic, social and environmental characteristics. To secure a SMA permit, an applicant must present sufficient data to demonstrate the project will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, except as such adverse effect is clearly outweighed by public health or safety. A public hearing before the county Special Management Area authority is generally required. Honolulu is the only county that has extended EIS applicability to its Special Management Area. Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species:The importation of species into Hawaii is covered by several statutes including the Federal Lacey Act, Presidential Executive Order 11987, and several Hawaii state laws. In 1980, the DPED said The constraints associated with importation of non-indigenous species, in particular, offer perhaps the greatest impediment to diversification of aquaculture opportunities in Hawaii. [Author's note: since 1980 several species of penaeid shrimp have legally been introduced into Hawaii, notably P. vannamei and P. stylirostris. Since protocols have been established covering the importation of P. vannamei, it is assumed that further importations of this species would not present any problem, providing all protocols are satisfied. Thus, the jurisdiction of this section should not have a significant effect on their importation.] Table 15 lists government agencies in Hawaii involved in issuing permits for aquaculture activities in three locations: inland of the Special Management Area, within the Special Management Area, and seaward of the shoreline. For details covering each action/activity, see DPED (1980).
The following is excerpted from the publication An Introduction to Aquaculture on Guam (Guam Dept. of Commerce, no date). Construction of an aquaculture facility on Guam may require a number of local and federal permits, depending on the location and type of aquaculture facility being built. Table 16 lists the Guam agencies responsible for issuing permits for various activities involved in the construction and operation of an aquaculture facility. The agency issuing the permit often calls upon other agencies to review and comment on the permit application before approval or denial. The Bureau of Planning, the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Agriculture usually function as reviewing agencies and not as the permit issuing agency. If an aquaculture project requires any federal permits (e.g., Army Corps of Engineers) or is wholly or partially federally funded, then a finding of consistency with the Guam Coastal Management Program (GCMP) is required. Guam's coastal zone includes all non-federal property within the Territory of Guam, including offshore islands and submerged lands and waters extending seaward to a distance of three nautical miles. The Department of Parks and Recreation serves mainly as a review agency that examines permits and environmental impact statements from the Territorial Planning and Seashore Protection Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. Construction of earthen ponds requires an excavation permit from the Department of Public Works. Construction of structures such as storage sheds, living quarters, water storage tanks and concrete-wall ponds requires a building permit from Public Works. The applicant must submit detailed draftsman's drawings of the proposed facility to secure the permit. An access road constructed within private property does not require a permit. The Guam Environmental Protection Agency would be involved with permits for a sewer connection or septic tank construction. The Department of Land Management must also issue a permit denoting that the proposed construction does not violate zoning laws. All building construction requires a permit from Public Safety's Fire Department. The Guam Power Authority must inspect before electrical power outlets are installed. If a power line and power poles are required into private property, the owner of the property must sign an easement. The charge to install poles and power lines is approximately $700 to $1,000 per pole, subject to some reduction depending on projected use over a 30-month period. Aquaculture is an agricultural activity, and Section 16024(b) of the Government Code of Guam stipulates that an agriculture producer who markets or sells his own farm produce in its natural state is not required to purchase a business license. Title XX of the Code, Section 19453, states that agricultural producers and fisheries are exempted from payment of the Gross Receipts tax, provided that the aquaculture producers sell their product directly to the markets. Other exemptions provide for tax breaks on fuel used on the aquaculture facility, on aquaculture equipment and supplies imported into Guam and on property used for aquaculture purposes only. The Department of Agriculture issues permits for the importation of live aquatic animals and plants. Aquatic animals must also be accompanied by a certificate of health from a certifying agent in the country of origin; the certificate must verify that the animals are free of disease (emphasis added). The importation of new species of aquatic animals to Guam is reviewed by the importation review committee, which comprises members from the Department of Agriculture, University of Guam, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Department of Public Health and the private sector. The Department of Land Management, in which the Territorial Land Use Commission and the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission are located, serves as a review and approval agency. The seashore reserve, which is under the jurisdiction of the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission, is the land and water area of Guam extending seaward to the 60 foot contour. This includes almost all lands within the Government's jurisdiction, and extends inland to the nearest of either 1) from the mean high water line for a distance on a horizontal plane of ten meters; or 2) from the mean high water line to the inland wedge of the nearest public right of way. Permits required by the Army Corps of Engineers for a development action that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission must be cleared through the Department of Land Management before the Army Corps of Engineers issues the permit. The Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) must review various permits before they are issued by the appropriate agency. For example, all clearing and grading permits (Department of Public Works) must be approved by the GEPA for compliance with the Guam Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Rules and Regulations. A well driller's license, a well drilling permit and well operating permit are required from GEPA and falls under the Rules and Protection, Development and Conservation of Water Resources in the Territory of Guam. GEPA is responsible for issuing permits for discharge of effluent through an injection well, which is restricted to an area within 2,000 feet of the coastline. Further, if the aquaculture facility is large enough, applying for a federal permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system may be necessary. Finally, Guam Executive Order 90-10 allows local government permitting agencies to require an environmental impact assessment of any development application that needs further review. Potential operators of an SPF shrimp facility on Guam should carefully review the document from which the above material has been excerpted (Guam Dept. of Commerce, no date.) It is available from the Dept. of Commerce, 590 South Marine Drive, GITC Bldg. (Suite 601), Tamuning, Guam 96911. Telephone: (671) 646-5841/4; fax: (671) 646-7242. Note that (671) is the country code for Guam; calls to Guam are considered international calls.
Cost of Operations
The estimated cost of operations for the large-scale facility in Hawaii during Years 1 through 3 is given in Table 17. Only those items with a yearly operational expense in excess of $10,000 (see Appendix C) are listed, for a total of seven out of 16 operational expense items. The seven major operational expenses are staff compensation, interest on the construction loan for the facility, depreciation, staff training, security, vehicles and electricity. Which of these expense items could change due to operational procedures? Staff compensation might be reduced if operation of the reproduction unit buildings can be handled by fewer than six technicians. While this is possible, it seems unlikely given the high level of technology and oversight necessary to produce shrimp nauplii through broodstock. Initial and continuing staff training would be needed to meet requirements caused by staff turnover. About 4,000 shipments of nauplii, PL10s and broodstock would be sent during Year 1, and about 8,000 shipments of shrimp would be sent starting with Year 2. Shipping is labor intensive, which is the reason five workers to pack and ship are needed. However, if the packing operation could be automated, perhaps the number of packers/shippers could be reduced. The loan for construction and initial equipping is based on a 12-year loan issued by a semi-government financial organization that makes loans to farmers and has had experience in aquaculture. If a longer loan period could be negotiated, then presumably the yearly interest would be less. Depreciation is unlikely to change. A bare minimum of $37,960 yearly for a security guard should be budgeted. A security guard is an absolute necessity. The $37,960 would pay for one guard for one eight hour shift, presumably at night when the need is greatest. Vandalism and other irregular problems are ever-present concerns for aquaculturists. The cost of operating vehicles is based on $0.25 per mile and a yearly mileage of 25,000 per vehicle. Vans would be large, boxy step vans, suitable for carrying many small- to medium-size shrimp shipments. Actual practice might show vehicle costs are somewhat less than estimated. The cost of electricity was difficult to estimate. This facility is not like a typical shrimp farm with large numbers of earthen ponds that require pumping large amounts of water with an associated high cost of electrical power. The large SPF facility shown in Figure 1 has a little less than one-half acre of ponds, and the carrying capacity of the ponds is programmed to be less than usual when raising broodstock, so presumably their pumping (and electrical) requirements would be less than usual. Further, because of the many categories of activities in the reproduction unit buildings, calculating their electrical needs was difficult and not attempted. Similarly the water needs of the nursery tanks were difficult to model since they were based on a much larger series of nursery tanks at OI. An attempt to segregate OI's cost of electricity for their SPF reproduction unit, nursery tanks and ponds was unsuccessful. In the end, the technique used to estimate the monthly requirement for electricity ($4,000) was not very sophisticated. One very large U.S. farm, which has about two orders of magnitude of pond acreage greater than that of this large SPF facility, provided Pacific Fisheries Consultants with its yearly electrical costs. An appropriate scaling down of this farm's electrical costs to a facility the size of the proposed SPF facility resulted in an estimated yearly cost of $48,000 starting in Year 2, which appears to be a conservative estimate. The cost of electricity could change most substantially of all the major expense categories. Although the cost of feed is not one of the seven items listed in Table 17, it merits mention. The amount budgeted $2,000 per year starting in Year 2 could go significantly higher. The feed figures given are for unsterilized feed. If the feed has to be sterilized by autoclaving or some other method, the cost would go up, and sterilization equipment would have to be purchased.
Clearly, worldwide production of cultured marine shrimp has increased dramatically since the early 1980s. Worldwide production was more than 660,000 metric tons in 1991 and was worth an estimated $3-$4 billion. Increases in Hawaii's cultured marine shrimp production have kept pace with worldwide production increases, rising from an almost invisible 6 metric tons in 1982 to 495 metric tons in 1987 and 197 metric tons in 1992 (Richard Fassler, Hawaii state Aquaculture Development Program, personal communication). However, these sharply increased production levels have been accompanied by serious problems caused mainly by diseases such as the IHHN and MBV viruses. This has occurred not only in Western Hemisphere stocks, including Hawaii, but also in Asian stocks. The IHHN virus has already caused significant production problems in the culture of P. vannamei in the Western Hemisphere and Hawaii, and the MBV virus has reduced the production of P. monodon in Taiwan and other Asian countries. The potential for further damage in both hemispheres is very great. It is safe to say that these shrimp viruses are sweeping the world. In order to defeat viral diseases and to maintain high production levels of P. vannamei, a number of U.S. shrimp farms are now producing SPF shrimp, which was made possible by The Oceanic Institute's work in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This has led to the establishment of colonies of SPF P. vannamei nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock in Hawaii the beginning of a Hawaii-based industry to produce SPF shrimp, including P. vannamei, P. monodon and P. japonicus. No doubt a market for SPF P. vannamei exists. This is proven by the fact that two Hawaii firms are either selling SPF P. vannamei or preparing to do so (Amorient Aquafarm and Hawaiian High Health Shrimp Corporation). Each year, the Western Hemisphere market for SPF P. vannamei in Latin America principally Ecuador uses at least 29.6 billion nauplii, 20.8 billion postlarvae and 120,000 broodstock with a combined value of $84.9 million. The Asian market is also extremely large for P. monodon and P. chinensis. To maintain production, Asian shrimp farmers each year need at least 40.5 billion nauplii, 16.0 billion postlarvae and 36,000 broodstock with a combined value of $90.4 million. While this study focuses on the production of SPF P. vannamei, Hawaii-based shrimp farmers could easily turn their attention to SPF species for the Asian market. Locating a large-scale facility in Hawaii to produce SPF P. vannamei makes good prophylactic, marketing, logistics and development sense. Maintaining SPF stocks in Hawaii in isolation from the consuming areas in the Western Hemisphere should safeguard the integrity of the Hawaii stocks. Hawaii is not too far distant from the Western Hemisphere market those nations from Mexico through South America not to mention potential consumers on the mainland United States. Mainland farmers, however, could become strong competitors against Hawaii. Hawaii could also lead in developing stocks of nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock of other SPF Penaeus sp.for marketing in the large Asian market. One of the attractive features of establishing either a large-scale or a small-scale SPF shrimp facility is that neither requires a lot of land. The large SPF shrimp facility described in this report needs only 1.6 acres of land and is capable of producing 345.6 million nauplii and 172.8 million PL10s. When the facility is in full production, sales could reach 69.1 million nauplii, 138.2 million PL10s and 6,000 broodstock per year, with an estimated value of $1,691,000. The cost of $2,287,635 to construct and equip the Hawaii facility is relatively modest. The cost to construct and equip a small-scale facility on Guam on only 0.8 acres is a modest $570,610. The production strategy of the Hawaii facility is based on producing large numbers of nauplii, PL10s and a small number of broodstock. This mix could easily be changed to emphasize more nauplii, more PL10s, or more or less broodstock. However, utilization of nauplii, PL10s and broodstock in the Western Hemisphere indicates the money to be made in SPF P. vannamei lies in producing large numbers of PL10s. A pro forma profit and loss (income) statement prepared for a large-scale SPF P. vannamei facility in Hawaii indicates a profit beginning with the second year of operation. Conclusions The worldwide production of cultured penaeid shrimp has increased 790 percent from 1982 to 1991 and is currently worth an estimated $3-$4 billion per year. In 1991, Asian shrimp farmers produced 522,840 metric tons and Western Hemisphere farmers produced 140,960 metric tons. Ecuador is the leading producer in the Western Hemisphere at 100,000 metric tons in 1991, and vannamei is the preferred species. P. monodon and chinensis are the preferred species by Asian farmers. The production of penaeid shrimp in Hawaii from 1980 to 1992 has also increased and roughly kept pace with the worldwide production of penaeid shrimp. Although these increases have been quite rapid, a potentially devastating problem has occurred at the same time a big increase in shrimp diseases, especially viruses. The number of viruses identified in penaeid shrimp has also increased, from four in 1982 to 11 in 1992. The virus IHHN has been especially debilitating in the Western Hemisphere (Ecuador and Hawaii), and the virus MBV has caused serious problems in Asia. Some experts have said that shrimp viruses are the biggest obstacle facing the world's shrimp farmers today. For example, the IHHN virus caused a 15 percent loss of P. vannamei production in Ecuador in the mid-1980's and the MBV virus caused Taiwan's P. monodon production to decrease 71 percent between 1986 and 1989. The market for SPF P. vannamei nauplii, postlarvae and broodstock in the Western Hemisphere is large; Ecuador is expected to be the biggest consumer. This market for SPF P. vannamei could be worth $84.9 million. The market for other SPF Penaeus sp.in Asia is also large and could be worth $90.4 million. The large-scale SPF facility proposed for Hawaii would be well positioned to penetrate the Western Hemisphere market. The small-scale SPF facility proposed for Guam, while primarily designed to hold SPF vannamei, could be redirected without too much trouble to produce SPF Penaeus sp.for the Asian market. The cost to construct and equip a large-scale facility in Hawaii is relatively modest $2,237,635. Yearly expenses are about $1 million. The cost to construct and equip a small SPF facility in Guam is much less $570,610. A pro forma profit and loss (income) statement suggests the large-scale SPF Hawaii facility will begin to show a modest profit beginning in second year of operations. The layout diagrams and costs of constructing and equipping both the large and small-scale SPF facilities should be considered preliminary. Potential investors are cautioned to make their own detailed studies before venturing further.
Brock, J. A., and B. LeaMaster, 1992. A look at the principal bacterial, fungal and parasitic diseases of farmed shrimp. In Wyban, J. (ed.): Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. pp. 216-226.
Chen, S. N., P. S. Chang, and G. H. Kou, 1989. Observation on pathogenicity and epizootiology of Penaeus monodon baculovirus (MBV) in cultured shrimp in Taiwan. Fish Pathology 24:189-195.
Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, 1992. Exploratory study of Hawaii and Guam as specific pathogen-free (SPF) aquaculture stock centers. Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, The Oceanic Institute, P. O. Box 25280, Honolulu, Hawaii 96825. Project Update, p. 1, July, 1992.
Department of Planning and Economic Development, 1980. Permits and environmental requirements for aquaculture in Hawaii. Hawaii state Dept. of Planning and Economic Development, Aquaculture Development Program, 335 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Department of Land and Natural Resources, 1993. Pond to Plate (newsletter). Bulletin of the Hawaii Aquaculture Extension and Advisory Network. Aquaculture Development Program, Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, 335 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2921. 2 p.
Fast, A. W., 1992. An overview of Asian marine shrimp culture. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ., B. V. pp. 623-640.
Foster, H. L., 1962. Establishment and operation of SPC colonies. In Harris, R. J. C. (ed.): The problems of laboratory animal diseases, Academic Press, New York. pp. 249-259.
Guam Dept. of Commerce, no date. An introduction to aquaculture on Guam: prospects, permits and assistance. Dept. of Commerce and the Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of Planning, Government of Guam. 22 p.
Hahn, K. O., C. L. Brown, and G. D. Pruder. (in press). Standard agricultural practices for the culture of specific pathogen-free organisms, and their application to aquaculture. Accepted February 1994 by Reviews in Fishery Science.
Hirono, Y., and M. Leslie, 1992. Shrimp culture industry in Ecuador. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 783-815.
Hopkins, J. S., 1992. Shrimp culture in the United States. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 817-837.
ICES, 1988. Code of practice to reduce the risks of adverse effects arising from introduction of non-indigenous marine species. Proceedings of the 1979 Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas.
In Sinderman, C. J., and D. V. Lightner (eds.): Disease diagnosis and control in marine aquaculture in the Americas. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., New York, N.Y.
Kalagayan, H., D. Godin, R. Kanna, G. Hagino, J. Sweeney, J. Wyban, and J. Brock. 1991. IHHN virus as an etiological factor of runt deformity syndrome (RDS) in juvenile Penaeus vannamei cultured in Hawaii. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 22(4):235-243.
Kuljis, A. M., 1992. SPF shrimp market study. Amorient Aquaculture International Inc., Kahuku, Hawaii. 43 pp.
Lester, L. J., 1992. Overview of shrimp farming in the Western Hemisphere. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 771-782.
Liao, I. C., 1992. Marine prawn culture industry of Taiwan. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 653-675.
Lightner, D. V., 1983. Diseases of cultured penaeid shrimp. In McVey, J. P. (ed.): Handbook of mariculture, vol. I, crustacean aquaculture. CRC Press. pp. 289-320.
Lightner, D. V., 1992. Shrimp virus diseases: diagnosis, distribution and management. In Wyban, J. (ed.): Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. pp. 238-253.
Lightner, D. V., and R. M. Redman, 1992. Penaeid virus diseases of the shrimp culture industry of the Americas. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 569-588.
Lightner, D. V., T. A. Bell, R. M. Redman, and L. A. Perezl. 1990. A collection of case histories documenting the introduction and spread of the virus disease IHHN in penaeid shrimp culture facilities in northwestern Mexico. In Sinderman, C. J. (ed.): Proceedings of the International Symposium on the effects of Introductions and Transfers of Aquatic Species on Resources and Ecosystems, June, 1990, Halifax Canada. Special publication of the World Aquaculture Society.
Lotz, J. M., R. M. Overstreet, D. V. Lightner, and R. M. Redman. 1991. Occurrence of IHHN virus in penaeid shrimp from wild populations of the eastern Pacific Oceanic. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 22:37A.
Maguire, G. B., and G. L. Allan, 1992. Shrimp culture industry in Australia. In Fast, A. W. and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 757-769.
Oceanic Institute, 1986. Annual report for 1986. The Oceanic Institute, P. O. Box 25280, Honolulu, Hawaii 96825. 21 p.
Oceanic Institute, 1988. Annual report for 1988. The Oceanic Institute, P. O. Box 25280, Honolulu, Hawaii 96825. 37 p.
Primavera, J. H., 1992. Prawn/shrimp culture industry in the Philippines. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 701-728.
Quynh, V. D., 1992. Shrimp culture industry in Vietnam. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 729-756.
Rosenberry, B., 1989. World shrimp farming 1989. Aquaculture Digest, San Diego, California. 28 p.
Rosenberry, B., 1990. World shrimp farming 1990. Aquaculture Digest. San Diego, California. 40 p.
Rosenberry, B., 1991. World shrimp farming 1991. Aquaculture Digest. San Diego, California. 45 p.
Scura, E. D., 1987. Review of world prawn farming. In Sloane, P. (ed.): Proceedings of the SCP prawn farming seminar. SCP, Sydney, Australia. pp. 1-12.
Shigueno, K., 1992. Shrimp culture industry in Japan. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture, principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp. 641-652.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988. Aquaculture and capture fisheries: impacts in U.S. seafood markets. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 230 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989. Fisheries of the United States, 1988. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8800. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 114 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992. Fisheries of the United States, 1991. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9100. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 113 pp. Uwate, K. R., 1984.
Aquaculture assessment project - final report. Pacific Islands Development Program, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. 50 pp.
Weidner, D. and B. Rosenberry, 1992. World shrimp farming. In Wyban, J. (ed.): Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. pp. 1-21.
Wyban, J. A., and J. N. Sweeney, 1991. Intensive shrimp production technology; The Oceanic Institute shrimp manual. The Oceanic Institute, P.O. Box 25280, Honolulu, Hawaii 96825. 158 pp.
Wyban, J. A., J. S. Swingle, J. N. Sweeney, and G. D. Pruder. 1992. Development and commercial performance of high health shrimp using specific pathogen free (SPF) broodstock Penaeus vannamei. In Wyban, J. (ed.): Proceedings of the Special Session on Shrimp Farming, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. pp. 254-260.
Xin, C. J., and Y. N. Sheng, 1992. Shrimp culture in China. In Fast, A. W., and L. J. Lester (eds.): Marine shrimp culture: principles and practices. Elsevier Sci. Publ. B. V. pp.. 677-689.
List of Equipment Neededfor a Large-Scale Facility
Office equipment and supplies Computer $2,000 Printer $500 Software $1,500 FAX $600 Photocopier $1,000 Electric typewriter $900 Printer stand $115 Computer desk $225 Computer chair $140 Desks (2) $500 Desk chair, large $175 Desk chair, small $140 Bookshelves (3) $525 Filing cabinets(3) $300 Venetian blinds $750 Telephone $100 Supplies $500 Miscellaneous $250 Total $10,220
Hatchery equipment for reproduction building (Adapted from Wyban and Sweeney, 1991)
BL Galen III Trinocular microscope, model TC 020 (1) $2,000 Camera system for microscope (1) $520 U 5000 D sartorius balance (1) $1,600 Stirrer hot plate w/stirring bars (1) $250 Air conditioner model A105 (1) $275 Dissecting scope Richert 43RT BF (1) $600 Refrigerator/freezer (1) $1,000 Autoclave/pressure cooker (1) $1,625 Sterile hood: fiberglass demo hood (1) $1,450 Microcomputer w/printer (1) $2,000 Refractometer (Fritz) S-100 (1) $250 pH meter Model SA 250 portable (1) $500 Sears table top distiller (1) $195 Reservoir heating system (1) $2,000 Reservoir tank (5,000 l.) (1) $1,500 Subtotal $15,765 Tanks: larval rearing and algae LRTs 1,000 l., clear polycarbonate (4) $5,525 150 l. fiberglass algae cylinders (4) $140 Subtotal$5,665 Artemia tanks 113 l. Polypropylene tanks, 7154066 (3) $750 Algae carboys (4) 22 l. clear polycarbonate, w/spigot 124-131 (3 cs) $920
Delivery pump (mass algae culture to LRTs) (1) $100 Pump 2 MDSC (1)..$90 Big John pump model 6-CIM-R128, 506274 (reservoir 130 to LRT) (1)$130 Little Giant pump (algae room to LRTs) (1)$105 Recirculating pump (reservoir mixing) (2) $1,200 Delivery pump (reservoir to LRTs, algae room, artemia culture) (1) $280 Subtotal $1,905
SW (sand filters, reservoir/spa filter)$300 Ametek Cold Blue Filter Holder (6)$105 Hytrex Cartridge Filter GX 1-10 (1 ctn)$125 Hytrex Cartridge Filter GX 10x10 (1 ctn)$110 CUNO Cartridge Filters 0.5u (9x3/4 in.) (8)$80 Activated carbon filters (9x3/4 in.)(5)$55 Subtotal $775
Blower $800 Plastic air valves (1 box) $10 500 ft. air tubing (3/16 in. std) (1 roll) $40 Brass pipe valve air regulators (25) $40 Silicate air stones (36)$25 Hikari 2 in. round air stones (2 boxes) (12)$45 6 in. air stones (20)$15 4 in. air stones (20)$10 1 in. air stones (30)$5 Subtotal$990
Suction cup for submersible light #219 (4)$5 200-500 W halogen lamp fixtures (6)$200 500W halogen bulbs (6)$200 100W swivel arm lamps (3)$40 100W clip-on lights (3)$25 Subtotal$470
AO brightline hemacytomer w/cover 059-618 (2)$125 Centigrade Thermometer (-20 degrees to 110 degrees), MW-14-4380-02 (6) $50 Hand tally counters VRI-73-3155-01 (2) $55 Hemacytometer cover glasses (1 pkg) $30 Alcohol burner w/2 spare wicks BKL-19691 (1) $15 9 l. rectangular aspirators w/spigot (2) $105 1,000 ml. polypropylene graduated cyl. 3662 1000 (2) $40 (2) 10 ml. pyrex graduated cyl. CGW-11-7850-28 (1 pkg) $15 100 ml. polypropylene graduated cyl. 3662-0100 (8) $75 500 ml. nalgene graduated cyl. BAP-F28457 (4) $40 3,000 ml. polypro. graduated beakers w/handle 028-969 (2) $40 1,000 ml. polypro. graduated beakers w/handle (1 cs)$90 1,000 ml. wash bottles 051-276 (1 pkg) $10 500 ml. wash bottles 051-268 (1 pkg) $10 (100) 1,000 ml. polypro. tripout beakers 254-532 (1cs) $50 500 ml. erlenmeyer flasks CGW-12-6255-81 (12) $35 250 ml. erlenmeyer flasks CGW-12-6255-78 (12) $30 Culture tubes w/caps 14-8471-09 (18) $25 Unwire test tube racks 5970-0220 (4) $40 20x150 mm. culture tubes w/screw caps 226-563 (1 cs) $70 10 ml. pipette pumps BAP-13-7342-28 (4) $45 2 ml. pipette pumps BAP-13-7342-17 (2) $20 10 ml. pipettes CGW-13-6112-17 (3) $15 5 ml. pipettes CGW-13-6115-06 (3) $15 1 ml. pipettes (3) $15 5x3/4 in. Pasteur pipettes 26k-13-6737-23 (1 pkg) $10 10 ml. disposable pipettes (1 pkg) $20 1 ml. pipette bulbs BRG-18-9200-12 (1 pkg) $5 Macroset pipettor 5-10 ml. (1) $185 250 pipettor tips (2 pkgs) $70 #7 solid rubber stoppers 13-8750-12 (18) $10 #6 solid rubber stoppers 13-8750-10 (21) $10 funnels (1 set of 3) $5 funnels 109-587 (1 pkg of 4) $10 Spot plate (9 depressions) (4) $65 microscope slides M6158-1 (10 boxes) (1 cs) $15 Slide cover slips LGW-13-3915-05 (2 oz) $15 Disposable petri dishes D1906 (500/bag) (100) $65 Clear plastic cups (1 bag) $5 6 in. x 6. in. weighing pipes SSI-10-1791-03 (1 box) $15 Flash brusher 10-6900-30 (2) $10 Nylon beaker brushes JBC-10-6585-01 (2) $10 16 in. cylinder brushes JBC-10-6870-35 (2) $10 Scrub brushes JBC-10-6980-01 (2) $15 Subtotal $1,610
F/2 algae food, A & B, 1080 (5 gal) $100 Sodium metasilicate (5 kg) $20 5-1 containers EDTA disodium salt (4) $80 500 g. containers NaOH pellets (2) $30 500 g. sodium thiosulfate (1) $20 125 g. potassium iodide (1) $30 l. ethyl alcohol (8) $60 4-4 l. hydrochloric acid (reagent grade) (1 cs) $90 4 gal. muriatic acid (1 cs) $15 Chlorine (100 lbs) $125 Treflan (1 gal) $55 Sabouroad dextrose agar (1) $30 pH buffer solution (pH 4, 7, 10) $25 Subtotal $600
Oxygen tank, standard, 4 ft. (1) $165 Victor JR 250 D-540 regulator (1) $65 Tank fill w/oxygen (1) $15 Cardboard shipping boxes (50) $150 Styrofoam insulated boxes (50) $175 250) plastic bags, 16 in. x 28 in. (1 cs) $50 Rubber bands (3 bags) $10 Duct tape (3 rolls) $25 Subtotal $655
(12) 425 g. can SFB brand (1 cs) $295
Standard garden hose (30 ft) $30 Hose remnants (10 ft) $10 Clear 1 in. hose 0500-213 (100 ft) $95 Clear 5/8 ub x 1/8 in. hose (carboy) (12 ft) $15 Braided 1x1/2 in. x 1/4 in. hose (harvest) (12 ft) $40 Subtotal $190
Protective goggles G-7507 (1) $5 Latex gloves (2 prs) $5 Glendale half mask (1) $20 Acid gas and organ's vapor cartridges (1 box) $30 Scouring pads (2 pkgs)$5 Sweeper/scrub brush for floor (1)$15 Sponge mop (2)$10 Sponge (8)$10 (9) 4 lb. Alconox AXI-11-4775-21 (1 cs)$75 (60) Kimwipes (1 cs)$110 Paper towels (2 cs)$70 Powerstrip mop (1)$10 Dish strainer (1)$10 Subtotal$375
Office swivel chair (1)$50 Wooden stool (1)$5 Step stools (2)$60 Formica write on board and 4 markers (1)$25 Subtotal$140
Aquarium sealant (8 tubes)$30 105u filter cloth HC7-105 (5 yds)$80 200u filter cloth HC7-200 (5 yds)$60 300u filter cloth (5 yds)$70 500u filter cloth (5 yds)$60 20 ft. electrical extension cord (1)$10 Scissors (1)$5 Pliers (1)$5 5 gal. buckets w/handles (8)$40 10 gal. Brute Rubbermaid harvest containers (2)$25 Boots (4 prs)$90 Tupperware dishpan (footbath) (1)$5 Clipboards (6)$15 Pens, pencils, notepads, stick on pads$25 Spare microscope bulbs Ge146$15 Disposable sterile gloves (10 pr)$5 Cotton balls (3 bags)$5 Cheese cloth (1)$5 Aluminum foil (3 rolls)$10 Duct tape (3 rolls)$25 Masking tape (3 rolls)$10 Rubber bands (2 bags)$5 Battery for pH probe (9v) (1)$5 Battery for microscope camera (1)$10 100W light bulbs (12)$20 Film for microscope camera (2)$15 Subtotal$650 Total$31,755
List of Equipment Neededfor a Small-Scale
Facility Office equipment and supplies Same items as for a large-scale facility:$10,220 see Appendix A Hatchery equipment for reproduction building (None; no reproduction building planned)
|Annual Projected Income Statement For Hawaii Facility|
|Year 1a||Year 2||Year 3|
|Less sales rejected (2%)||$16,910||$33,820||$33,820|
|Cost of shipping materials||$40,030||$80,055||$80,055|
|General excise tax||$4,230||$8,455||$8,455|
|Pickup truck(pu), van(v)||$47,000pu||v$30,000||v0|
|Computer Software, FAX, Telephone, Photocopier, Electric typewriter, Office furniture, Filing cabinets, Venetian blinds, Hatchery equipment||$95,265||$4,770c||$4,770 (see Appendix A)|
|Feed for shrimp||$1,000||$2,000||$2,000|
|Pickup truck, van(s)||$15,000||$22,750||$22,750|
|Office supplies||$250||$250||$+ 250|
|Telephone service(includes FAX line)||$6,000||$6,000||$6,000|
|Repairs (1% of total farm cost)||$20,570||$20,570||$20,570|
|Bank account expense||$200||$200||$+ 200|
|Amortization and depreciation (@ 10%)||$178,545||$178,545||$178,545|
|Staff compensation salaries||$345,000||$345,000||$345,000|
|fringe benefits (@ 20%)||$69,000||$77,000||$77,000|
a. Assumes only 50% of possible
production in year 1.
b. See Appendix A for cost details.
c. 5% of $95,265.
d. Eight hours per day (night), 365 days per year.
Permit Application Sequence for Hawaii (The following material has been taken from DPED ) The following is a generalized sequence for filing permit applications for a hypothetical aquaculture enterprise located in the Special Management Area (SMA), including project components within the 20 to 40 foot shoreline setback area, and with activities extending seaward of the shoreline. The sequence is as follows: Applicant consults with the respective County SMA administrative agency and prepares an assessment form. The administrative agency determines that the proposed project requires an SMA permit, a variance from shoreline setback regulations, and various zoning and use permits (Note: aquaculture/mariculture facilities or operations in the SMA are normally exempt from the SMA permit requirements, unless such development or activities may result in a significant environmental impact). Applicant consults with all other agencies that have permit or review authority to determine the scope and degree of specificity in data requirements. For example: Permits: Conservation District Use Permit (DLNR) Designated Groundwater Control Area Use Permit (DLNR) Permit for work in shorewaters (DOT) NPDES and Zone of Mixing Permits (DOH) Shellfish Sanitation Certificate (DOH)1 County Well Permit (City and County of Honolulu) County Grading, Grubbing and Stockpiling Permits (County Public Works) Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army) Permit/Review: Historic Site Review (DLNR) Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review (DPED)2 Floodplain Management (County Planning Committee) Consultations: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Dept. of Interior) National Marine Fisheries Service (Dept. of Commerce) Division of Fish and Game (DLNR) The proposal is assessed, and the applicant is told that an Environmental Impact Statement is required because of the expected significance of impact. Agency files and Environmental Impact State Preparation Notice (EISPN) with Environmental Quality Commission. Environmental Quality Commission publishes notice of EIS preparation. Applicant is informed that a Federal EIS is required as a condition of securing a Corps of Engineers permit. Because of Federal (NEPA) regulations, the applicant must first prepare a draft EIS (Note: proposals not involving federal permits or Federal agency actions do not require the submittal of a draft EIS). Applicant arranges for professional services to generate necessary data for preparation of a draft EIS and required permits. Applicant prepares draft EIS and files document with approving agency (SMA authority), the Corps of Engineers and the Coast Zone Management Program. Draft EIS is circulated to all relevant and interested parties for comment. Applicant responds to comments and revises EIS (prepares Final EIS) or, if required, files Supplemental Statement. Applicant files for applicable permits/review actions identified in Step 3. Approving agency (SMA authority) determines that the Final EIS (or Supplemental Statement) is comprehensive and complete, and Final EIS is accepted. Applicant files for SMA permit, variance from shoreline setback regulations, and or various zoning and use permits. Single public hearing (when possible) is scheduled. Hearing is favorable and the authority issues SMA permit, variance from setback regulations, and various county zoning and use permits. Public hearings are held (when required for permits identified in Step 3) and permits are granted. Corps of Engineers grants permit (CZM certificate of consistency and other local authorizations have been secured). Applicant commences work on the project subject to agency conditions and monitoring." 1. Does not apply to shrimp.2. DPED is now known as DBEDT (Dept. of Business, Economic Development and Tourism).3. Division of Fish and Game is now known as Division of Aquatic Resources.