nicaragua small shrimp producer assistance program · nicaragua has many trained professionals but...

Nicaragua Small Shrimp Producer Assistance Program

FINAL REPORT

March 15, 2002

Michigan Sea Grant College Program

Table of ContentsIntroduction

Shrimp Farming Demonstration ProjectSubmitted by Russell Allen, Aquatic Design Inc., with assistance from Michigan Sea Grant . . . . . . . . 1

Economic Revitalization and Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Submitted by Florida Sea Grant

Human Resource Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Submitted by Florida Sea Grant

Appendix

(hard copy format)

Entrenamiento en Suciedad y Otros Aspectos Relacionados con la Calidad del Camaron(Shrimp School agenda)

Informacion Adictional Acerca de la Descomposicion(More Information on Decomposition)

Suciedad(Filth)FDA Procedure for the Examination of Shrimp for FilthAlan R. Olsen

Procedimientos Para la Deteccion de Residuos de Metabisulfito en Camarones(Procedures to Determine Metabisulfite Residuals)Neogen Corporation, Lansing, Mich.

Confrontando Problemas en el Puerto de Entrada EEUU(Dealing with Problems at the Port of Entry)FDA

La Importancia Relativa del Camaron Cultivado en Nicaragua dentro de la Industria Pesquera Nicaraguense y los PrincipalesMercados Estadounidenses de Importacion de Camaron: 1994-2000

The Relative Importance of Nicaraguan Cultured Shrimp within the Nicaragua Seafood Industry and U.S. Major ShrimpImport Markets: 1994-2000

Florida Sea Grant, Sept. 2001

Presupuestos de Costos e Ingresos para una Granja Camaronera Semi-intensiva en Nicaragua, 1994-2000

Cost and Returns Budgets for a Semi-intensive Shrimp Farm in Nicaragua, 1994-2000Florida Sea Grant, Sept. 2001

Cost and Returns Budgets for an Intensive Zero Water-Exchange Shrimp Culture Demonstration Project in Nicaragua, 2001Florida Sea Grant, Feb. 2002

Cultivo Intensivo de Camaron con Sistema Cerrado en Nicaragua: su Factibilidad Economica (Materiales del Taller)

Economic Feasibility of Zero-Exchange Shrimp Culture Systems in Nicaragua (Workshop Materials)NOAA, Florida Sea Grant, USAID, Aquatic Design, Inc.

Aspectos Economicos de los Sistemas Cerrado-Intensivo y Semi-Intensivo

Agenda

La PrensaCamarones por monton12-07, 2001. (Web site article: www.laprensa.com/economia)

HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Training CurriculumNorth Carolina Sea Grant

Curso sobre Procedimientos de Control Sanitario para el Procesamiento de Pescados y MariscosFlorida Sea Grant

Camaron de CultivoBuenas Practicas de Acuacultura para la Calidad e Inocuidad del ProductoFlorida Sea Grant

IntroductionShrimp aquaculture is an important part of the world economy. Shrimp farms now produce roughly 40 percent of the totalworld consumption of shrimp. The majority of shrimp are produced in tropical, developing countries, where the industry hasa significant impact on local, regional and national economies. In the Western Hemisphere, the shrimp farming industryspread from its origin in Ecuador to all tropical countries in the hemisphere.

In Nicaragua, fishing cooperatives constructed the first aquaculture ponds in the late 1980s. Important developments ofthe industry began to occur in 1993, as both privately owned companies and cooperatively owned farms saw the benefits ofshrimp farming. A growth spurt occurred in the Nicaraguan shrimp farming industry during 1994 and 1995. However, thefollowing years resulted in little or no increase. Experts attribute this situation largely to the introduction of the TauraSyndrome Virus (TSV) in the Estero Real watershed, which decimated shrimp stocks. TSV surfaced in Ecuador in the mid1990s and quickly spread around the hemisphere. Shrimp farming in Nicaragua became unprofitable.

This was the situation when Hurricane Mitch struck Central America during late October 1998. Hurricane Mitch causedserious damage to many cooperatively owned farms as well as some privately owned operations. Flooding in the Gulf ofFonseca and the Estero Real caused US$8 million in damages to the struggling shrimp farming industry.

A second problem concerned financing. Prior to the hurricane, the coops had extended all of their assets to coverworking capital loans. The net result is that both working capital and their concomitant loan guaranties were lost to theflooding. Concern began to grow that these farms would be unable to raise capital to remain in business, especially consid-ering the already eroded confidence of the banks and other financial institutions.

An almost final blow to the industry occurred in January 1999 with the introduction of White Spot Syndrome Virus(WSSV). The farms not lost to Hurricane Mitch that managed to take advantage of the dry season crop had very lowsurvival rates. Producers realized that unless something was done to restore financial stability in the industry there was noway to regenerate support or to operate a profitable business. As they looked for ways to succeed, producers hit obstaclesresulting from an immature industry that relied upon wild shrimp larvae sources and lacked basic support industries such asfeed manufacture, disease diagnosis and equipment manufacture. Possible solutions included the use of a certified virus freelarvae. However, Nicaraguan shrimp farmers did not have the capability of testing for the virus, diagnosing the new diseaseor generating certified disease free animals.

Modernization of the industry is necessary to exclude diseases and operate a sustainable industry. Specific needs include thefollowing:

• Shrimp must be isolated to permit the production of certified disease free organisms or genetically selected resistantanimals.

• Farm managers must be trained in best manufacturing practices, as established in other aquaculture industries, to limitthe possible exposure to disease and other related problems.

• The entire food production sequence, from lab to farm to plant, must be consistently monitored and controlled from afood safety perspective to ensure a high quality and safe product. This includes the need for training of food safetyprofessionals in the area.

Shrimp sampling.

Nicaragua Small Shrimp Producer Assistance Program

At the request of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration (NOAA) enlisted Michigan Sea Grant to manage a project addressing the concerns mentioned above. Subcontrac-tors include Florida Sea Grant and shrimp aquaculture specialist Russ Allen from Michigan. The goal of the NicaraguaSmall Shrimp Producer Assistance Program was to assist Nicaraguan shrimp farmers in modernizing their technologies tohelp the industry be economically viable. Three of the program’s components are covered in this report:

• Closed Intensive Shrimp Production System. The goal is to assist small and medium size producers by testing new,closed-production farming techniques in areas known to harbor several aggressive viruses. A related goal calls for astrong extension program to teach and familiarize farmers with the concepts and practices of the new technologies.

• Economic Viability and Financial Access. This component introduces commercial financial institutions, local develop-ment agencies and other possible sources of credit for small and medium size farmers to the benefits and results of theproject.

• National Professional Aquaculture Capacity. The goal is to raise the national level of competence within the small andmedium farmers with regard to their basic understanding of the industry. A related goal is to create a network ofcontacts and industry support professionals.

The following sections include brief background information, project objectives and accomplishments.

Paddlewheel aerators circulate water in the demonstration farm production ponds.

1Hurricane Mitch Reconstruction Nicaragua Small Shrimp Producer Assistance Program

Shrimp Farming Demonstration Project

BackgroundDuring the last decade, two issues confronted shrimp farming in Nicaragua that provided the need to investigate alternativemethods for growing shrimp. First, the introduction of viral diseases began to slow industry growth in the mid 1990s. Theprevalence of Taura Syndrome Virus (TSV) among others graphically demonstrated that traditional semi-intensive shrimpproduction methods were not adequate to maintain a sustainable industry. Second, the environmental community beganvoicing concerns about mangrove destruction in the fragile coastal zone and the introduction of nutrients into coastal water-ways from shrimp pond discharges.

When Hurricane Mitch struck Nicaragua in late 1998, the country’s shrimp farming industry was dominated by small,semi-intensive shrimp farms. The majority of these farms were owned by fishing cooperatives and found on the Estero Realestuary system. Following the hurricane, many shrimp farms along the estuary were forced out of production. Soon afterHurricane Mitch struck, the remaining farms faced the introduction of White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV). The few farmsthat recovered from the flooding of Hurricane Mitch and that could afford to re-stock their farms experienced extremely highshrimp mortalities.

The combination of virulent diseases, environmental degradation and damage from Hurricane Mitch dictated that newproduction systems be developed.

Project Goals and Objectives

The goal of the shrimp farming demonstration project was to design and operate a “zero-exchange” shrimp production systemin Nicaragua to demonstrate the potential of producing shrimp with a higher level of biosecurity and reduced environmentalimpact. The project focused on two main objectives:

1. Design, construct and operate a cost-effective biosecurity system for incoming farm water.

2. Design, construct and operate an intensive zero-exchange shrimp production unit.

These objectives address the major issues facing shrimp farmers in the region, including biosecure operations, eliminationof most effluents, and water quality control in an area of poor water quality.

The demonstration project was led by Russell Allen of Aquatic Design, Inc., Okemos, Michigan, an aquaculture specialistwith experience in developing countries. The project was based upon a 16-acre pilot farm constructed by Allen in 1996 inBelize, which incorporated the zero-exchange concept developed at the Waddell Mariculture Center in South Carolina.

Bacteria are the foundation of the zero-exchange shrimp production system. These systems are classified as beingheterotrophic (dependent on organic material), as opposed to the semi-intensive systems that are autotrophic (phytoplanktondominated). The principal concept behind the zero-exchange system is efficient recycling of nutrients through the pond thatprovides for good water quality through nitrification and denitrification. Heterotrophic bacterial communities tend to be verystable. These communities normally develop in about eight weeks and are characterized by floc composed of bacteria andpond nutrients. These floc allow the shrimp to graze directly upon the bacterial biomass, increasing the recycling of pondnutrients and feeding efficiencies.

Water circulation in the pond is induced by the operation of paddlewheel aerators. The water movement scours the pondbottom and keeps the feed, feces, and other detritus in the water column. This allows the aerobic, nitrifying bacteria toconsume these waste products.

Since production water is maintained within the project, this technologically-advanced system does not release effluents(i.e. feces, bacteria) into natural water sources. By filtering and reusing water, the closed system reduces the risk from virusesand eliminates effluent.

Site Selection

The site chosen for the shrimp farming demonstration project in Nicaragua was the University of Central America (UCA)shrimp farm in Puerto Morazan (west-central Nicaragua, north of Managua) near Estero Real. In early 1999, a field trip toNicaragua was undertaken by David McKinnie of NOAA, Russ Moll (formerly of Michigan Sea Grant), and Russ Allen andLarry Drazba of Aquatic Design, Ltd. to determine the best site for the closed intensive shrimp production system, hereincalled the “zero-exchange system.”

Hurricane Mitch Reconstruction Nicaragua Small Shrimp Producer Assistance Program2

ZERO-EXCHANGE SITE PLANRECONSTRUCTED

(PILA J AND I DETAIL- SEE ABOVE)

SITE PLAN(EXISTING)

TWOSETTLING

PONDS

FOURPRODUCTION

PONDS

Figure1Site Plan


The project site was one of the first shrimp farms in Nicaragua and had long been used for shrimp farming using tradi-tional extensive and semi-intensive methods. The farm was flooded by Hurricane Mitch and had been out of operation sincethat event. The physical characteristics of the site presented ongoing challenges for the project.

Water quality was a significant factor. Water from the estuary, fed by the Gulf of Fonseca, is of very poor quality, and infact, contains salmonella. The estuary feeding the ponds is approximately 20 miles from the Gulf of Fonseca and is theprimary source of water for the area. Due to this distance and the high tidal fluctuation, there is very little mixing of new,clean water from the Gulf, and the estuary receives contaminated run-off from farms and towns upstream.

Lack of elevation was another factor that affected project construction; the farm is located on an estuary where its land islower than high tide level. Other factors that presented challenges included soil quality, the poor condition of existing dikesand the farm’s location amid extensive shrimp ponds that use primarily wild caught post-larvae, resulting in a high incidenceof viral diseases.

Project Design and ConstructionProduction and Settling Ponds

Before project construction began, the site was surveyed by local surveyors. A topographical map was generated by surveyinga 20m x 20m grid, with elevations accurate to +/- 4 cm. The map was used to calculate drainage and the cuts and fills for thepond earthwork. The zero-exchange production system consists of four one-half hectare production ponds and two one-hectare settling ponds located in the farm’s two existing ponds “I” and “J” (6.7 ha. each). This arrangement allowed for thesystem to be located on the highest and most isolated section of the farm and minimally interferes with the existing pondinfrastructure. (Figure 1)

Due to the low elevation of the site, it was not possible to excavate the pond bottoms for dike construction. Material fordike construction came from the drain excavation and was moved by truck from the sedimentation ponds. Earth was exca-vated from the bottom of the sediment ponds by a track excavator. Spreading and compaction of the material was done bybulldozer. Dump truck traffic on the dikes during construction also helped with compaction. Total earthwork for the projectwas approximately 22,000 cubic meters.

The production ponds are square, 70.7 meters by 70.7 meters at the waterline, with a center drain. Although a typicalzero-exchange farm has ponds over 2 meters deep, it was not possible to achieve these depths given the low elevation of thefarm site. The water level was designed to be 1 meter deep at the point of the slope from the dikes and 1.8 meters deep at thecenter. The ponds were built with a center drain to allow for removal of solids during the production cycle and to permit theharvest of the animals. The dikes were designed with a crown width of 5 meters, with an interior slope of 1:1 and exteriorslope of 2.5:1.

The settling ponds were designed to hold sufficient water to fill all four production ponds. Once in operation, either of thesettling ponds can be used for reception of the pond water and sediments. While one pond is filled with sediments, a secondallows continued operation of the farm. One pond may be drained and sediment removed, before returning to service. Thesettling ponds have two drains, one to release water to the estuary once sediments are removed (if necessary) and another torefill water to the pond.

Aerial view of production and settling ponds.


Pond Liners

The production ponds were designed to be built using highdensity polyethylene (HDPE) liners. The liners are critical toeliminate erosion from high water velocities generated bymechanical aerators. They prevent any chemical interactionbetween the bottom soils and the pond water. The use ofHDPE liners is essential for creating the directional waterflow with high water velocities required to keep solids insuspension. With the interior slopes of the dikes being 1:1,the liners do not allow for predation by birds along theshoreline; the material is too slippery and doesn’t allow thebirds to hunt.

Another major benefit to liner usage is the improvementof pond use efficiency. Utilization of the liners allows forrapid removal of sediments after harvest and permits thepond to return to production almost immediately. This canimprove pond use from around 75% in typical semi-intensiveponds to 95% in this super-intensive system. The materialchosen was 30 mil avg GSE HD black, smooth rolls 22.5'wide x 143' long. The liners were purchased from GSELining Technology, Inc., Houston, Texas. The extrusionwelding equipment was also purchased from GSE to allowlocal installation of the liners and have equipment on site forfuture repairs. Due to the late shipping of the liners and theearly inception of the rainy season, liner installation wasdifficult and expensive.

Drainage and Water Flow

After the earthwork was finished, center drains and harvestsluice gates were installed. The center drains were installedwith 15" PVC pipe, reduced to 12" at the sluice gate andcapped with a 12" gate valve. The center drain was installedwith a concrete apron for liner attachment and fitted with afilter cap. The harvest sluice gates were of typical boxdesign, made of formed concrete. They were set into theslope of the dike wall to minimize drain pipe length andallow for bag or pump harvesting of the ponds.

Water entering the system through the sluice gate travelsthrough the pond drain to the central pump station. Thecentral pump station is the heart of the water movement onthe farm. At the pump station, water is lifted to one of thesediment ponds and filtered to 100 microns. From thesediment pond, water is drained back to the pond drain andpumped into any of the production ponds, again filtered to100 microns.

The pond pump station was constructed of formedconcrete. The elevation of the pump was designed for ponddrainage and sloped for water to flow through the drain tothe pump station. The pump was sized to fill a pond within24 hours. The pump is a 12" axial flow pump with a 20 hpelectric motor, rated at 3,500 GPM @ 11.0' TDH, and 1180RPM.

Installation of pond liners.

Sluice gate.

Pond drain.


Water distribution from the pump to the ponds was donevia 12" PVC pipe buried in the central dike. Each pond inletwas controlled using 12" knife gate valves. The pipe was T’dout of the pump, sending water in one direction to theproduction ponds and in the opposite direction to thesediment ponds. One hundred-micron filter bags wereattached to the outlet side of the valve.

Electrical

The electrical power to the project was provided by dieselpower generation. Two Caterpillar generators were installed;one is 60 kW and a second is 125 kW. Power to the pumpand mechanical aerators was provided at 480 volts, 60 hertz.The smaller generator was used to operate the farm duringthe day, the larger generator during the night, which allowedbetter utilization of fuel.

Electrical distribution was accomplished via a buriedcable within PVC conduit in the dikes. Control boxes formotor starters that operated the aerators were installed at twoopposite corners of the production ponds. Each aerator couldbe turned on and off individually from the control boxes.

Operational Infrastructure

Project infrastructure included the construction of thegenerator shed combined with an office, laboratory, and feedstorage. Feed storage was accomplished with a 40' shippingcontainer. The office / generator shed was constructed usingstate-of-the-art pole barn building techniques and materialsfrom the United States. Construction of the shed wascompleted in August 2001.

Biosecurity Measures

Although neither TSV or WSSV are harmful to humans, theyare deadly to shrimp. TSV may infect the ponds via aerialtransmission from insects and birds. Once shrimp areexposed, TSV has approximately a three-week incubationperiod. TSV is very difficult to control, and the biosecuritymeasures for this project were principally aimed at WSSV.TSV usually results in a high percent mortality rate (at timesgreater than 80%).

WSSV appears to be principally transmitted by water-borne vectors, but could also be transmitted by land basedtransmission via walking crabs, raccoons, or infected hostsdropped in ponds by birds. WSSV originated in Asia andspread to other countries in the Americas by several means.Unlike TSV, WSSV dies in birds’ stomachs and cannot betransferred by droppings.

There were four basic biosecurity efforts utilized by theproject: 1) Water filtration. 2) Use of resistant or pathogen-free post larvae. 3) Farm quarantine and disinfection ofhands and feet upon entrance. 4) Reduction of birds in thepond area.

Pond pump station.

Operation of generator.

Office/generator shed.


Water Filtration

Although transmission of the pathogenic shrimp viruses isnot completely understood, it is believed that biosecurityagainst water-borne pathogens (such as WSSV) can beachieved through water filtration. In the zero-exchangesystem, water flows through a series of filters, 500 to 100microns, to eliminate hosts that may harbor the viruses.

Water is pumped out of the primary pump station locatedon the Estero Real. The water then flows into the receivingand distribution canal. This canal contains a biosecuritystructure to filter the incoming water to 500 microns. Thewater then passes into the settling ponds to deposit sedi-ments. Water from the sediment basin then passes through asluice gate, filtered to 300 microns, into the secondaryreservoir. From the secondary reservoir, the water then flowsthrough another sluice gate, filtered to 200 microns, into thetertiary reservoir. From the tertiary reservoir, the water entersthe demonstration project via one of the original pondentrance sluice gates. At this point the water is filtered to 100microns. Filtration to 100 microns is labor intensive andrequires that workers clean filtration bags constantly andchange them frequently.

Pathogen-free Post Larvae

Most of the shrimp larvae sold in Central America areproduced in Panama. These laboratories have worked todevelop resistant animals, particularly resistant to TSV. Dueto improved results from these animals in the region, it wasdecided they would be the most appropriate larvae to stock.SPF larvae from the United States had proven to be veryproductive in Belize and other countries without the presenceof TSV, but in the presence of TSV, the SPF animals hadvery poor survivals, sometimes as low as 5% survival.Shrimp for the project were purchased from Pacific LarvalCentre, Inc. and Farallon Aquaculture.

Disinfection

Gates were set up at the entrances to the project with aniodine bath placed there. All entrants to the farm were towash their hands and shoes at the gate before entering theproject, thus reducing the risk of contamination from nearbyfarms and ponds.

Bird Predation

With the small pond area and the constant presence ofworkers around the ponds, it was hoped that control of birdswould be possible. It appears that workers successfully keptout the major predators, such as cormorants and herons, butsmall gulls and terns remained a problem. These smallerbirds would feed on floating feed pellets and any deadshrimp or detritus in the ponds. Bird feces were seen on thepond banks and the aerators, which were used as percheswhen not in use.

Reservoir filter (500 micron).

Shrimp larvae.

Entrance poster.


Water Quality Control

After filling the settling ponds, water is prepared with afertilization regime to promote pond production. The water isfertilized with a balanced commercially available nitrogen/phosphate fertilizer and molasses. Fertilization rates dependupon the nutrient levels of the fresh seawater pumped intothe system; fertilization is used to promote a phytoplanktonbloom for stocking of shrimp larvae.

Mechanical aerators used in the production pondscirculate the water, providing mixing and oxygenation. Theproduction ponds were designed for 40 horsepower perhectare, or 20 hp per pond. Ten (2 horsepower) paddlewheelunits were used for each pond. The aerator units are inexpen-sive and provide maximum flexibility for water movementand operation. Positioning of the aerators is very importantin keeping solids in suspension. Having more units ofsmaller horsepower helps to distribute the water-movingcapability more evenly over the entire pond and lets you turnon and off aerators only as you need them, thus conservingenergy.

Dissolved oxygen, salinity, pH, and pond water tempera-tures were taken twice daily, once at 6 am, again at 3 pm.Dissolved oxygen levels need to be maintained at or above4.0 mg/l. This was accomplished throughout the projectperiod using eight horsepower per pond of aeration duringthe day and 20 hp during the night. Salinity ranged from 16ppt at stocking to 25 by harvest time. PH levels maintainedbetween 7.2 - 8.6. Morning temperatures ranged from 29.9 inAugust down to 25.9 in December. Afternoon temperaturesranged from 33.5 down to 28.5.

Chemical parameters were normally measured once aweek, more often if necessary. Alkalinity was controlled withthe addition of agricultural lime to the ponds. When alkalin-ity fell below 120 ppm, lime was added until the alkalinitystabilized. During the first month of operations, lime wasadded almost daily. After the first month of operations, verylittle lime addition was necessary. Ammonia-nitrogen levelswere monitored and ranged from below .01 mg/l up to 3.5mg/l, falling normally in the 0.5 mg/l level. Nitrites andnitrates never surpassed 1 mg/l throughout the trial, fallingnormally at less than 0.2 mg/l.

Reduction of Effluents

The ponds were designed to be able to remove sediments asthey built up during the production cycle. Although with somuch activity during the first cycle, it was not possible tobegin removing sediments until the last month of production.The center drain was opened during operation of the aerators,removing sediments as they were deposited at the center ofthe pond. The pump was turned on and the water containingthe sediments was pumped out of the drain and into thesediment pond. At harvest, all the water is pumped from thedrain into the sediment pond. Very little sediment was left inthe ponds after harvest. Once the sediments have settled out,the water can be returned to the production ponds.

Pond fertilization.

Two-horsepower paddlewheel aerator.

Paddlewheel aerators.


Operation of the Zero Exchange System

Larry Drazba, from Managua, Nicaragua, managed the farm’s day-to-day operations. Four local workers, including a biolo-gist, an electrical and mechanical specialist and two additional men, assisted in stocking, feeding, fertilizing and maintainingthe ponds. The workers fed the shrimp, monitored water quality, operated the aerators and generators, and generally main-tained the facility. Workers were paid an average of $3 per day and were supplied with room and board.

Pond Preparation

Water from the Estuary was pumped and filtered into the reservoir. Water entering the system was filtered to 100 microns andmoved to the settling ponds for two weeks. During this period, plankton samples were taken and tested for WSSV. Initially,there were some positive PCR results for WSSV, but it was impossible to determine the actual host. During the second week,all samples tested negative. In order to test the filtration hypothesis for WSSV prevention, the settling ponds were notsterilized. After two weeks in the settling ponds, water was transferred to the production ponds.

Ideally, the production ponds should have gone through an additional two weeks of pond preparation with fertilizationand lime application. However, due to time limitations, the ponds had to be stocked with shrimp larvae almost immediatelyafter filling.

The volume of water available presented another problem. Due to the slow velocities of water moving through the sluicegates (filtered to 100 microns), the sediment ponds could not be filled in a timely manner. Ponds could not be adequatelyfilled to allow optimum operation of the system. Production pond #2 had to be filled directly from the entrance sluice gate,bypassing the sediment ponds and the settling cycle. Because it did not have a two-week “resting” period, this productionpond was chlorinated a week before stocking.

Stocking

To properly test the production system, it was assumed thatthe project would be biosecure and free from all viruses,including TSV. Project managers overstock to compensatefor TSV-induced mortality. The ponds were stocked at 110—130 larvae per square meter.

The demonstration farm was stocked with shrimp larvae onAugust 15, 24 and September 5, 2001. Pond # 4 was stockedfirst with pl-10 post larvae from Pacific Larvae at the rate of109 per square meter. Pond #3 was stocked on August 24with pl-10 post larvae from Farallon Aquaculture at the rateof 130 per square meter. Ponds #1 & #2 were stocked onSeptember 5 with pl-10 post larvae from Pacific Larvae atthe rate of 128 & 130 pl’s per square meter, respectively.

Feeding

The feeding regime for the zero-exchange system was amajor consideration in the success of the system. Being aheterotrophic, bacteria based system, the bacteria feed uponthe suspended organic material in the pond to establish ahealthy bacterial population. The ability to sustain thebacteria depends upon the carbon/nitrogen ratio in the pondwater. (High protein feeds provide too much nitrogen,causing ponds to become carbon-limited, thus limiting thebacterial population and reducing water quality.) Feeds forthe project were purchased from Zeigler Brothers, Inc. ofGardners, Pennsylvania, U.S. They supplied three feeds forthe grow-out phase and three feeds for post larval acclima-tion and rearing; their production feeds are specificallyformulated for the zero-exchange system. The acclimationand larval rearing feeds are standard shrimp productionfeeds. Sampling. Inset, Pond Stim.

Installing filter bags.


After stocking, the feeding plan for the ponds called for use of a 400-600 micron diet, at 500 mg per day, four times perday, for six days. This would be followed by another six days with PL Raceway Plus #1 and #2. This was not accomplished;ground Zeigler 30% protein 3/32" pellets were substituted.

In order to achieve the carbon/nitrogen balance required, Zeigler provides a feed supplement called “Pond Stim,” which isprincipally a carbon supplement. Pond Stim is half the cost of the other two protein based diets, one 25% protein and theother 31%. The first half of the production cycle was fed Pond Stim and 31% feed. Feedings were conducted at 6 am, 10 am,2 pm, 6 pm, and 10 pm. Feeding was done by hand and food distributed evenly around the pond perimeter. The second half ofthe production cycle was fed Pond Stim and the 25% protein feed. The feeding tables were provided by Zeigler. Due to theunexpectedly high mortalities, food conversions ranged between 2.5:1 to 3:1.

Grow Out

Percolation (water leakage) was a persistent problem fromthe time water was first pumped into the reservoir under thedikes and pond liners. Because this water was filtered to only500 microns, it may have been a source for virus introduc-tion into the ponds. Liners could not be completely sealeddue to installation problems and infiltration of water from thereservoir.

Approximately two weeks after stocking, each of theponds showed signs of TSV infection and mortality. Nor-mally, this would not be seen until three weeks, leading tothe assumption that the post larvae may have arrived alreadyinfected with TSV. With a typical TSV infection at this stage,mortality is taken and those that survive continue on toharvest without another mortality event. These animals, in allponds, continued to show signs of TSV infection and lowlevels of mortality throughout the production cycle.

Vibriosis also appeared during the first month of production, causing some mortality. It was assumed this could have beenmitigated if there had been ample time for pond preparation and fertilization before stocking.

Despite these early disease problems, animal growth was better than expected, with individuals reaching four grams in thefirst month. Overall growth rates averaged 0.95 grams/week. The shrimp reached 15.5 grams in 16.5 weeks.

During the second month of the production cycle, mortality was noticed from Necrotizing Hematopancreatitis (NHP), agram-negative intracellular bacteria. There appeared to be a general problem with this disease in the Estero Real area,something that had not been common in the past. This disease is treatable with oxytetracycline medicated feed if detectedearly and treated immediately. However, this treatment is not approved by the FDA in the United States. It took some timeafter discovery of the infection to get the approval to use medicated feed, as long as its use was stopped at least two weeksbefore harvest. Medicated feed was located, purchased and sent to the farm. By the time treatments began, significantmortality had already occurred.

Another significant problem encountered during this period was the travel ban imposed by the U.S. Embassy in Managuaduring the month of November. The principal investigator was not able to be in-country during much of the critical grow-outperiod, and production suffered. The final and optimal orientation of the aerators was not found until late November after theban was lifted. It was only at this time that experiments could begin with removal of sediments.

Harvesting

Harvesting of the ponds occurred during the second two weeks of December, with a total grow out time of 115 days. Theponds were drain-harvested through the center drain. The shrimp were collected in a bag net connected to the 12" outletvalve. Harvesting of the ponds was difficult for several reasons. First and foremost was the poor welding job done on theliner installation. Water was able to percolate under the liners, causing them to float. As the water level came down, thisfloating would raise the liner in a bubble that would not allow the pond to drain properly. The liners had to be pierced toallow the water to drain out so that shrimp could be harvested. The second reason for harvesting difficulties was the minimalslope in the pond bottoms. Due to the low elevation of the farm, the bottoms could not be excavated to any great degree.They did, in fact, have to be filled around the perimeter to achieve a minimal slope. It remains to be seen, when the liners areproperly installed, if this will continue to be a problem.

Juvenile shrimp (4-5 grams).


Results

Due to the mortalities from the persistent TSV epidemic and the attack of NHP, pond productions were lower than expected.Although this was the first harvest from the system, located in an area with the highest incidence of all diseases, the demon-stration project yielded record production for the Country of Nicaragua. An approximate total of 20,000 pounds of wholeshrimp were harvested from the four ponds. The best pond yielded about 13,000 pounds per hectare; the worst yielded 7000pounds per hectare. The overall survival rate was 35%. (Figure 2)

Of significant note, and probably the biggest success of the project, was the fact that WSSV was successfully excludedfrom the project. Samples were taken and checked by PCR throughout the trial, and none ever came up positive, nor werethere any clinical or histological signs of the disease at any time.

Figure 2

Conclusion

The primary objectives for the project have been met. First, principal investigators were able to prove that the system can bebuilt on a typical semi-intensive shrimp farm. The costs for doing so were well within the range for profitable, competitiveshrimp farming in the future.

Second, the system did work. Principal investigators were able to maintain water quality at full feeding rates. Lowproduction was a result of disease, not water quality.

Third, the system did prove to be biosecure against WSSV. There were a number of other disease problems that need to beaddressed, but the zero-exchange system has the capacity to manage viruses better than semi-intensive farm methods.

In the future, it is expected that the zero-exchange system should be able to achieve the desired performance levels,provided that the shrimp experience a full grow out period of 140 days, the ponds are stocked at a higher rate anticipating aTSV infection, and medicated feed is kept on hand for NHP prevention. The system has shown that it can exclude WSSV andthat it has the potential for being the lowest-cost production method for shrimp farming. Additional work with the zero-exchange system is needed to reveal its true capabilities.


Economic Revitalization and Sustainability:Promote Economic Profitability and Access to

Credit and Financial Systems for theNicaragua Shrimp Culture Industry

Background

The developing shrimp farming industry in Nicaragua was decimated by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, and by the Taura Syn-drome Virus (TSV) and White Spot Virus (WSSV). Banks, lenders and suppliers of inputs to the farming and processingsector have been hesitant to supply the investment capital necessary for industry recovery. Because the industry is of recentorigin, there has not been either time or money to provide training to shrimp farming professionals. Funds have not beenavailable to test and demonstrate the most recent advances in shrimp farming technology.


The overall goal of this project was to create more informed decisions regarding public and private investment necessary forthe recovery of the Nicaragua shrimp culture industry. This was accomplished by determining the investment and economicfeasibility of a zero water-exchange demonstration shrimp culture project, comparing it to existing traditional semi-intensiveculture methods, and holding workshops to educate the small-scale shrimp farmers and lenders on the economic feasibility ofthe system. The specific objectives were:

1. Conduct a financial analysis of a traditional semi-intensive shrimp culture system in Nicaragua. The ability to performthis objective was entirely dependent on obtaining historical revenue, cost and production data from the cooperatives,private shrimp farmers and from the Universidad Centro Americana. The goal was to include capital equipment costs,production cost and returns budgets, break-even analysis, balance sheet, income statements and cash flow statements.

2. Create a financial analysis of the Aquatic Designs, Inc. zero water-exchange demonstration project at the UniversidadCentro Americana farm. This includes capital equipment costs, production cost and returns budgets, break-evenanalysis, and other associated economic measures. The demonstration project consisted of four one-half hectare ponds.The ponds were considered as replicates for the production data and cost and returns budgets for the analysis. Data wereto be collected during one summer grow-out cycle. Acquiring data from an additional grow-out cycle in late summer/early fall of 2001 depended on the success of the demonstration project and the available time and budget left for theproject.

3. If available data were sufficient to permit the completion of objective one, a comparison was to be made of the differ-ences in costs and returns between the traditional system and the zero water-exchange demonstration project.

4. Up to four workshops were to be held for growers and financial institution representatives. The exact number ofworkshops was to be determined based on the success of the demonstration project and the usefulness of the data.Workshops were to focus on simple business procedures, bank requirements for loans and the economic analysis of thedemonstration project.

Accomplishments

1. Semi-intensive Shrimp Culture Cost and Returns

The volume of shrimp imported from Nicaragua into the U.S. has historically been small. Between 1994 and 2000, thehighest volume and value year was 4,827MT valued at US$44.1M in 2000. Peeled frozen shrimp is the dominant productform. In recent years, cultivated (farmed) shrimp exports from Nicaragua have been the second leading seafood product invalue behind lobster tails. The major export markets for cultivated shrimp have been the U.S. and Spain (1).

Cost and return budgets were developed for a typical Nicaragua semi-intensive shrimp farm. Data from secondary sourcesin the literature, from the Universidad Centro Americana, and from interviews with current shrimp farmers in Nicaragua wereused to create a base budget (2). Sensitivity analysis was used to vary stocking density, survival rates, and post larvae costs.Changes in shrimp price were then used to demonstrate the effect of changes in these variables on the level of net returns thatcan be expected from a typical operation and on break-even levels of operation. Budgets were also developed to demonstratethe difference between newer farms and older farms where depreciation may not be a factor.

Data from 1994-1999 were used in the analysis with the following assumptions determined for the baseline farm: growout(134 days); stocking density (18.16 PL/m2); practical survival rate (32%); animal harvest size (12.98 grams head-on);


production cycles per year (2.04); feed conversion ratio (1.81 to 1). Based on actual cost and revenue data for this timeperiod, the typical semi-intensive farm using current technology produced shrimp for US$2.00 per pound, sold shrimp forUS$2.17 per pound; and received net returns of US$0.17 per pound.

The sensitivity analysis was conducted using the following variables: stocking density (10, 20, 30 PL/m2); post-larvaecost (US$2.00, 5.00, 6.00 per thousand); practical survival rate (13, 23, 33, 42%); shrimp price (US$2.50, 3.00, 3.50 perpound). Break-even levels at US$2.17 per pound were as follows: stocking density (15.52 PL/m2); post larvae cost (US$5.42per thousand); survival rate (28.78). Net returns across the entire range of sensitivity levels can be found in the detailed report(2). Sufficient data were not available to create a break-even analysis, balance sheets, income statements or cash flowstatements.

2. Zero Water-Exchange Intensive Shrimp Culture Project

The demonstration farm was built during the first half of 2001 by Aquatic Designs, Inc., near Estero Real at the existingUniversidad Centro Americana demonstration farm site at Puerto Morazan, Nicaragua. This is a site used for shrimp farmingusing the traditional semi-intensive method. The project consisted of developing four production ponds of one-half hectareeach and two one-hectare settling ponds within an existing farm site. Each of the four production ponds is lined with plasticand aerated.

The ponds were stocked in late summer 2001 with the final pond harvested in December 2001. One production cycle wasachieved. The original plan was to complete pond construction in the first four months of 2001, and achieve two productioncycles. Due to shipping and construction delays, this was not accomplished. The entire project was built and managed byAquatic Designs, Inc., with the University of Florida team doing the economic analysis contained in this report and refer-enced manuscripts. The analysis represents one production cycle. These data were then projected to two cycles to estimatewhat could be achieved on an annual basis (3).

Total construction cost for the project was US$254,543. Of the total, US$4,100 was for feeding equipment, US$65,416for permanent equipment and US$185,027 for earthwork, ponds, liners, electrical, water control structures and miscellaneousequipment.

Based on the one growout cycle, the following production characteristics were observed: Harvest (10,004 pounds/hectare/cycle); survival rate (30%); stocking density (115 PL/m2 average across four ponds); average harvest size (13.29 gramsheads-on per animal). Production levels, survival rates and harvest size per animal were lower than predicted. However, it isanticipated predicted levels can be achieved as the local operators gain more knowledge about the system and improvementsare made based on what was observed during the initial production cycle. It is also felt that locating nearer the Pacific coastmay provide better production and higher water quality availability.

Based on projecting actual project results (one cycle), to an annual basis (two cycles), and utilizing actual shrimp salesdata, the demonstration project resulted in per hectare net revenue of US$20,508, costs of US$30,147, and negative netrevenues of US$9,639. However, it should be noted that December 2001 market prices for shrimp were at the lowest level ina number of years. At US$3.00 per pound, net revenues would have been US$30,012 per hectare for one cycle, resulting in abreak-even situation. If predicted production levels can be achieved, net revenues per hectare will be US$23,235 (Table 1).

Table 1. Cost and returns budget for zero water-exchange UCA demonstration project


A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to show variations in the zero water-exchange intensive culture system as follows:harvest levels per hectare per cycle (15,000 to 40,000 pounds in 5,000 pound increments); shrimp prices (US$2.50, 3.00,3.50, 4.00). The intensive farm returned positive net revenue for each of these sensitivity combinations.

3. Comparison of Semi-intensive and Intensive Culture Systems

One of the objectives of this project was to compare traditional and zero water-exchange systems (3). Thus, a zero water-exchange system using actual production rates from the demonstration project was designed to achieve a production level of1,033,661 pounds, an average level of production for existing Nicaragua shrimp farms (2). A 26-hectare zero water-exchangesystem would be required to generate this level of production. Total investment requirements for feeding equipment, perma-nent equipment, and other costs associated with the construction of a 26-hectare zero water-exchange farm (52 one-half-hectare ponds) amounts to US$2,815,622 or US$108,957 on a per hectare basis. Total annual depreciation for this system isUS$386,152 and per hectare depreciation cost equals US$14,943. Total initial investment requirements may vary fromproducer to producer. For instance, earthwork cost could increase or decrease depending on the existing land characteristics.Utilizing the levees of an existing farm system would decrease the cost of pond construction. The per hectare cost ofbuilding a pond system utilizing the semi-intensive technology has been estimated to be between US$4,000 and US$10,000.

The assumptions used for estimating production costs and revenues for the hypothetical zero water-exchange farm and thetypical semi-intensive farm are shown in Table 2. It was estimated that the 20,000 pounds/hectare cycle-production levelmight be achieved if optimum production management practices for the zero water-exchange intensive technology areemployed. The total area utilized by each of the two systems was determined dependent on the production objective(1,033,661 pounds annually) and the production variables after implementing the corresponding production strategies. Withthe zero water-exchange technology, a 26 hectare farm with 52 one-half-hectare ponds is needed to produce the desiredannual production with a survival rate of 55 percent and average harvest size of 13.50 grams (heads-on). In contrast, a 324hectare farm using the semi-intensive technology will be required to produce the 1,033,661 pounds annually. For the semi-intensive farm, survival rate is 31.68 percent and average harvest size is approximately 13 grams (heads-on). Stockingdensity varies as well between the two systems: 122 PL/m_ for the zero water-exchange system and 18 PL/m_ for the semi-intensive system. The selling price used in this comparison is US$3.00 per pound of shrimp.

Table 2. Production assumptions for the 26 hectare zero water-exchange farm and the 324 hectare semi-intensive farm.

Costs vary between the two systems mainly due to the total area needed to produce the desired production. The costs for eachsystem are compared on a total, per harvested pound of shrimp, and per seeded hectare basis (Tables 3-6). The cost of postlarvae (PL) per pound harvested for the zero water-exchange system is lower than for the semi-intensive technology. How-ever, PL cost per hectare is greater for the zero water-exchange system since stocking density (PL/m_) is much higher. Feedcost, on the other hand, is greater in both per pound harvested and per seeded hectare for the zero water-exchange system.The estimated value was calculated using the feed conversion ratio of 2.44; however, this ratio should decrease significantlyif more efficient production strategies, such as a better assessment of the actual survival rate, are used. The cost of chemicalsand fertilizers per pound harvested is lower and on a per seeded hectare basis this cost is much greater for the zero water-exchange system. When considering this cost in total U.S. dollars, the zero water-exchange system costs less than the semi-intensive system. Direct labor for the hypothetical farm using the zero water-exchange technology is always greater (on perseeded hectare, per harvested pound, and in total U.S. dollars) than for the semi-intensive system. With respect to indirectcosts, it was not accurate to make a comparison between the two systems since the variables included in this cost categoryvary for each system. Nevertheless, total operating costs clearly indicate that the zero water-exchange system can be morecost efficient than the semi-intensive system.


Table 3. Annual financial comparison for the 26 hectare zero water-exchange farm and the 324 hectare semi-intensive farm.

Table 4. Detailed annual operating expenses for the zero water-exchange and semi-intensive systems(on a per harvested pound basis).

Table 5. Detailed annual operating expenses for the zero water-exchange and semi intensive systems(on a per seeded hectare basis).

Total revenue, total operating costs and gross profit summarized per harvested pound and per seeded hectare for the twosystems are also estimated (Table 6). Even though the zero water-exchange system provides a small profit (10 cents) differ-ence on per harvested pound when compared to the semi-intensive system, gross profit generated by the zero water-exchangetechnology on per hectare basis is significantly higher. Annual profit per seeded hectare for the zero water-exchange systemwas US$21,989, whereas the same value for the traditional system was US$1,532.


Table 6. Annual financial comparison for the 26 hectare zero water-exchange farm and the 324 hectare semi-intensive farm(per harvested pound and per seeded hectare).

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Zero Water-Exchange System

Disadvantages

The zero water-exchange system requires a very large initial investment which may discourage many potential investors fromconsidering the system as a profitable alternative to traditional semi-intensive shrimp farming. This may be particularly truefor those semi-intensive farmers who might wish to retrofit a portion of their existing farms.

Given the relatively large initial investment, the financial risk associated with a crop failure is much higher with the zerowater-exchange system.

Advantages

The zero water-exchange technology can result in sustained higher yields. The yields are higher due to high survival ratesbecause of the biosecurity practices implemented and the high stocking density. The zero water-exchange system also reducesthe amount of nutrients released into the environment since no water is exchanged.

These technical advantages can lead to lower operating costs in total U.S. dollars and per pound harvested. The feedconversion ratio should be better for the zero water-exchange system due to high levels of aeration, which creates a currentthat suspends solids for shrimp grazing. Thus, feed costs should be reduced.

Another advantage of the new system is the use of less land to produce the same desired production objective. This shouldresult in lower annual concession fees.

Due to lower operating costs, the zero water-exchange system generates slightly higher profits per pound harvested, butmuch higher profits on a per hectare basis when compared to the semi-intensive technology.

Another advantage of the zero water-exchange system is the reduction in the amount of time required to prepare pondwater for stocking. By using both the recycled water and the ponds lined with plastic, restocking can take place as soon asfive days after a pond is harvested. A more efficient use of the available growing season is allowed.

4. Workshops

It was determined that two workshops was the optimum number to provide adequate training and exposure to interestedshrimp farmers and bankers. The workshops were held at the Universidad Centro Americana shrimp culture demonstrationfarm at the site of the intensive shrimp culture demonstration project at Puerto Morazan, Nicaragua on December 4 and 5,2001. One workshop was held for bankers, lenders and agency representatives and one was held for shrimp farmers. How-ever, a mixture of each attended each day. The workshop was presented in Spanish and all workshop materials were distrib-uted in both English and Spanish.

The workshop notebook contained the agenda, a Spanish copy of the presentation materials (4) and copies in English andSpanish of the semi-intensive cost and returns budgets and Nicaragua shrimp import-export data. Preliminary results on thecosts and returns for the intensive system were provided in the presentation materials. One of the four one-half hectare pondswas harvested prior to the workshop, with estimates presented based on that harvest. The three other ponds were harvested inthe following two weeks. Actual results (3) were very close to those used in the workshop, and all attendees will be providedthe final project analysis (3).

Cost and Revenues

Per Harvested Lb. Per Seeded Ha. Per Harvested Lb. Per Seeded Ha.

Annual Production per ha. 40,000 3,133

Total Area (ha) 26 324

Pounds Harvested 1,033,661 1,033,661

Shell-On Price (US$/lb) 3.00 3.00

Total Revenue US$ 3.00 60,000 3.00 4,608

Total Operating Expenses US$ 1.90 38,011 2.00 3,076

Gross Profit US$ 1.10 21,989 1.00 1,532

Zero Exchange System Semi-Intensive System


The agenda for the two one-day workshops was as follows:

Description of the zero water-exchange project Russ Allen, Larry Drazba, Aquatic Designs, Inc.A discussion of the physical setup Special issuesthat need consideration Recommendations for changesbased on the information learned in the demonstration

Tour of the ponds Demonstration and description of the physical characteristics of the system

Lunch

Economic Analysis Mayra López

Capital Costs Chuck Adams

Cost and Returns Budgets Don Sweat

Comparison to Traditional Jim Cato

Semi-intensive Systems Food & Resource Economics Department, Florida Sea Grant College ProgramUniversity of Florida

The workshops were advertised in Nicaragua by Ms. Monica Drazba, NOAA Hurricane Mitch project coordinator. Ms.Drazba also coordinated the local arrangements for projectors, workshop notebooks and other support needs. Twenty-fivepeople attended the first workshop and 16 attended the second. The attendees who chose to sign in for the workshop were:

December 4 participants (female participants italicized)

1. Juana Francisca Tellez URCOPANIC

2. Jose Angel Orozco URCOOCAM

3. Jesús A. T. (name not complete) Cooperative Gracias ADiós

4. Mariel Gonzalez (name not complete)

5. Alvaro Rojas N. Frixsa

6. Luis Alberto Ordóñez URCOOCAM

7. Lilliam Sandoval URCOPANIC

8. Alejandro Garcia URCOPANIC

9. Reyes de los Santos UNICANH

10. Narciso Cáceres URCOPANIC

11. Mariano Icaza Granja Santa Rosa

12. Delazkar Gutierrez Granja Santa Rosa

13. Franklin Lin Camaronera Calinsa

14. Laura Martínez UCA

15. Cesar García Frixsa

16. Alejandro Frixione Frixsa

17. Roberto Pineda Belice Aquaculture

18. Jose A. Díaz Aquatic Design

19. Julio Ramirez Martinez Aquatic Design

December 5

1. Ana Isabel Horviler BanExpo

2. Alex Peña R.

3. Gonzalo Alvarez San Miguel

4. Reynaldo Zúñiga San Miguel

5. Ariel Moran Zamorano University (Honduras)

6. Francisca Palacios Zamorano University (Honduras)

7. Juan Ramón Bravo UCA

8. Gary Cummings Sahlman Seafood

9. Luisa Ocon Sahlman Seafood

10. Carolina Portobanco Banco de Finanzas

11. Luis E. Morales BanExpo

12. Julio Juárez Sahlman Seafood

13. Mario Callejas Nicaragua Camaronera

14. Alfonso Callejas Penn, SA

15. Alfonso Callejas, Sr. A y A, SA

Ms. Drazba also distributed evaluation forms at the conclu-sion of the workshop (second day only) and 13 peoplecompleted evaluation forms. Eighty-five percent said theywould use the information at their workplace during the nextyear, and 15 percent said they would not. One-hundredpercent said the course materials were very effective oreffective, and 100 percent indicated the instructors knew thematerials well.


The workshop and information was also covered by the media. An article in the Managua, Nicaragua newspaper appearedtwo days after the workshop. A copy of the internet version of the coverage is attached along with a partial copy from theprint version.

Materials Developed and Cited

1. López, Mayra, Charles Adams, James C. Cato and Donald Sweat. 2001. The relative importance of Nicaragua culturedshrimp within the Nicaragua seafood industry and U.S. major shrimp import markets: 1994-2000. Florida Sea Grant CollegeProgram manuscript. Gainesville: University of Florida. 16 pp. (Appendix)

La importancia relativa del camarón cultivado en Nicaragua dentro de la industria pesquera Nicaragüense los principalesmercados Estadounidenses de importación de camarón: 1994-2000 (Spanish version). (Appendix)

2. López, Mayra, Charles Adams, James C. Cato and Donald Sweat. 2001. Cost and returns budgets for a semi-intensiveshrimp farm in Nicaragua, 1994-2000. Florida Sea Grant College Program manuscript. Gainesville: University of Florida. 59pp. (Appendix)

Presupuestos de costos e ingresos pura una granja camaronera semi-intensiva en Nicaragua, 1994-2000 (Spanish version).(Appendix)

3. López, Mayra, Charles Adams, James C. Cato and Donald Sweat. 2002. Cost and returns budgets for an intensive zerowater-exchange shrimp culture demonstration project in Nicaragua, 2001. Florida Sea Grant College Program manuscript.Gainesville: University of Florida. 29 pp. (Appendix)

English version is currently being translated into Spanish. (Not included).

4. Materiales del Taller. 4-5 de diciembre de 2001. Cultivo intensivo de camarón con sistema cerrado en Nicaragua: sufactibilidad económica. Puerto Morazán, Nicaragua. (Appendix)

5. Camarones por Montón. La Prensa, El Diario de los Nicaragüenses. Viernes 7 de December del 2001/Edición No. 22575.(Appendix)

Some of the workshop attendees and Mayra Lopez, one of the instructors at Puerto Morazan, Nicaragua Shrimp CultureWorkshop, December 4th, 2001 (Photo by Jim Cato).


Human Resource Development:Shrimp Safety as Food and Best Management Practices

Pertinent to Shrimp Processing in Nicaragua

Background

Shrimp farming in Nicaragua was decimated by Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and by the white spot shrimp virus, among otherdisease problems. Sanitation and quality issues have also plagued shrimp exports from Nicaragua. The impact has been felt inthe shrimp processing plants and in the national economy. Banks, lenders and suppliers of inputs to the farming and process-ing sector are hesitant to supply investment capital. Nicaragua has many trained professionals but few in the shrimp farmingsector. Because the industry is of recent origin, there has not been either the time or money to provide training to shrimpfarming and processing professionals. Data collection and analysis and training are needed in food safety in order to helpreestablish the viability of the Nicaragua shrimp farming and processing sector. Immediate problems and needs to beaddressed included –

• Improved in-plant sanitation and related food handling practices; i.e. HACCP, in order to produce safe, wholesomeshrimp necessary to participate in international commerce;

• Commercial and regulatory training in preparation to address specific concerns for environmental contamination, i.e.,Salmonella, that could devalue the shrimp products; and

• Use of ‘good aquaculture practices’ in shrimp farming along with ‘best manufacturing practices’ in processing in order tobe consistent with international expectations in commerce and regulations.


Goal:

To provide specific education, training and practical experience for professionals in Nicaragua that support the shrimp andaquaculture industry either through academic programs, regulation, or commercial practices.

Specific Objectives:

1. Develop self-sufficient regulatory programs for shrimp farmers and processors that can address and foster food safetythrough application of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) programs, sanitation control procedures andbasic analytical skills.

2. Provide training for detection and monitoring of problematic bacteria (i.e., Salmonella) in post-harvested, processedshrimp products through instruction with methods to screen for specific contaminants that may appear during andsubsequent to processing.

3. Provide training in Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) and Best Management Practices (BMP) through instruction formethods to prevent and screen for possible food safety contaminants that could compromise processed products andresult in regulatory consequences (i.e., FDA automatic detentions).

Accomplishments

A Cadre of In-Country Expertise has been Developed

A selected cadre of expertise from existing Nicaragua shrimp commerce, regulation and academia were given specifictraining and materials to prepare them to contribute a higher level of expertise to the shrimp industry. The participants wereselected based on recommendations of the Nicaragua shrimp industry, pertinent regulatory agencies and the prominentacademic program at Universidad Centro Americana based in Managua. The 24 participants included representatives fromthe Nicaragua agency governing food safety and commerce (5), the prominent shrimp farmer associations (5), the leadingshrimp processors (11), and the established academic technology transfer program (3) (Table 1). These individuals are nowprepared to provide satisfactory regulatory, farming and processing skills and to teach others what they have learned.


Training Programs CompletedA series of training programs were provided for all cadre participants.

• The HACCP training course was provided in accordance with the internationally recognized “Seafood HACCPAlliance” program and certified by the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) of North America. This courseis the nationally recognized Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) course for seafood processors asjudged by the US Food and Drug Administration. All participants received certificates of course completion recorded andfiled by AFDO in York, Pennsylvania with individual certification numbers and dates to evidence training by thestandardized program. Course materials were provided in English and Spanish as cited at the end of this report, with theSpanish version attached (1).

• The Sanitation Control Procedures training course was provided with similar certificates of completion issued byAFDO. This course is the sister training program for HACCP as prepared by the national ‘Seafood HACCP Alliance’and recognized by the US Food and Drug Administration. Course materials were provided in English and Spanish ascited at the end of this report, with the Spanish version attached (2).

• Shrimp SchoolThe Latin America Shrimp School was conducted August 13 – 16 in Chinandega, Nicaragua, the center of the industryand the site of the Universidad Centro Americana shrimp culture demonstration project conducted as part of the overallproject. The school included lectures and numerous hands-on training sessions. Trainers included representatives fromthe European Union, the US Food and Drug Administration Office of Seafood, and Florida Sea Grant, University ofFlorida (Table 2). All participants completing the course received a certificate issued by the University of Florida/FloridaSea Grant. A sample certificate is available on request. The agenda is attached (3). The topics covered were:

• HACCP

• SANITATION

• REGULATIONSGood Aquacultural Practices and HACCP European Union Regulatory Expectations and Requirements Dealingwith Problems at the Port of Entry-US

• DECOMPOSITIONFDA Prospective on Shrimp DecompositionChemical Aspects in Shrimp DecompositionShrimp Decomposition Trials: Demonstration and Test Packs (Hands-on)

• FILTHFDA Prospective on Filth in ShrimpTraining on Filth Analysis in Shrimp (Hands-on)

• SULFITES/MELANOSISMelanosis and SulfitesVerification of Sulfite Residuals (Hands-on)

• MICROBIOLOGYControlling Salmonella and other Microbial Concerns

Training Materials

Specific training materials were prepared in English and Spanish. The project prepared these materials for subsequent use in-country by those trained. Materials included:

• Farm-Raised Shrimp: Good Aquacultural Practices for Product Quality and Safety (4). Spanish version attached.

• Training Units assembled to support continuing education (5)

Shrimp Decomposition Analysis

Shrimp Filth Analysis

Shrimp Sulfite Analysis

Confronting Problems with Imports to European Union


Mini – Lab Materials and Training

In conjunction with the specific training courses and materials, a series of mini-labs were taught and materials provided tokey programs to support the application of their training in their places of work. The mini-lab materials were customassembled to support the typical analytical work for the respective locations. Labs were located in the lead regulatory agency(MAGFOR), the established academic support program (UCA), and the two prominent processing firms (Table 3). Thesematerials remain in Nicaragua to help advance expertise in monitoring and judging shrimp quality and safety and are inongoing use by the four locations.

Program Evaluations

The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning the effectiveness of the training. The response clearlyindicates all training was rated very effective (87.5%) or effective (12.5%). 100% of the 24 participants indicated they woulduse the information during the next 12 months (Table 4).

MAGFOR - Ministero de Agricultura y Foresta

Camarones de Nicaragua and Sahlman Seafood – two largest shrimp processing firms in Nicaragua representing over 90%of Nicaragua shrimp production.

Table 1. Individuals Trained in Nicaragua, 2001

NAME ORGANIZATION1. Ana Cristina Miranda Departamento de Inspección y Certificación,

HACCP, MAGFOR (Local Inspection Agency)

2. Bernabela Orozco Departamento de Inspección y Certificación,HACCP, MAGFOR(Local Inspection Agency)

3. Birmania Martinez Departamento de Inspección y Certificación,HACCP, MAGFOR(Local Inspection Agency)

4. Lionel Martinez Departamento de Inspección y Certificación,HACCP, MAGFOR(Local Inspection Agency)

5. Jacinto Flores6. Luby Betancourt7. Mercedes Gutierrez8. Volter Renteria9. Lujana Munguia10. Maura Mejia

Camarones de Nicaragua(Shrimp Processing Plant)

11. Birgit Alber12. Jaime Garcia13. Lucia Carillo14. Julio Juárez15. Carlos Penalba

Sahlman Seafoods(Shrimp Processing Plant)

16. Francisco Mayorga URCOOCAM (Farmer Cooperative)17. Lilliam Garcia UNICANH (Farmer Cooperative)18. Carmen Chacon Centro de Investigación de Camarón UCA

(University)19. Eric Sandoval Centro de Investigación de Camarón UCA

(University)20. Ma. Eugenia Salazar

(Shrimp Farm)21. Dr. Ronald Bernal OIRSA (Shrimp Farm)22. David Hughes Ave Maria College (University)23. Augusto Parajon AdPesca (Fisheries Institute)24. Maria Herrera LANVINIC, S.A. (Shrimp Farm)


Table 2. Shrimp School Trainers by Host Program and Expertise Covered.

Name Title Host Program Location Subject TaughtChristina Laso-Sanz

PrincipalAdministrator,Veterinary andPhytosanitaryLegislation

European UnionCommission

Brussels,Belgium

EU ImportRegulations

Jim Barnett Seafood ProductResearch Center

Food and DrugAdministration

Bothell, WA Sensory andDecomposition

Brett Koonse Chief, Programsand Enforcement


College Park,MD

U.S. ImportRegulations

Hans Loechelt-Yoshioka

Seafood ProductsResearch Center


Bothell, WA Filth andDecomposition

Kevin Gerrity Seafood ProductsResearch Center


Bothell, WA Sensory andDecomposition

Laura Garrido SeafoodSpecialist

University ofFlorida

Gainesville, FL AnalyticalProcedures,MonitoringQuality, Sourcesof Information

Steve Otwell Professor University ofFlorida


Victor Garrido Seafood SafetySpecialist

University ofFlorida



Table 3. Locations and supplies provided as part of the Labs-in-a-Box training

Location for the Labs-in-a-Box

UCA MAGFORPROCESSING

PLANT # 1Camanica

PROCESSINGPLANT # 2

Sahlman Seafood

Types of Analytical capability for the respective Labs-in-a Box

Supplies

Total Plate CountE.ColiSulfites

SanitationSensory Measures

Total Plate CountE.ColiSulfites

SanitationSensory Measures

Salmonella

SulfitesSanitation

Sensory Measures

SulfitesSanitation

Sensory Measures

Incubator 1 1 13M-TPC 500 5003M-E.coli / TC 500 500RollerHomogenizer

1 1

Hand HeldCounter

1 1 2 (touch)

SterileDisposablePipettes 5 ml

750 750

SterileDisposablePipettes 10 ml

750750

Peptone Water 3 3Pippetter 3 3 1

1-Acid Dispenser

Salmonella Ssagar-2ONPG-2

Oxidase-2Lactose Broth-2

Sanitizersmeasuring kit

1 1 1 1

FreeChlorine/TotalChlorine Strips(50 per pack)

3 3 3 3

NeogenSanitationSwabs

100 100 100 100

Neogen SulfiteDrop test

1 1 1 4

Thermometer 2 2 2 2Wash Bottles 4 4 4 4


DisposableBeakers 250ml

50 50 50 50

Beakers 1000MlLarge weighboats

125 125 125 125

Small weigh boats 125 125 125 125Pour weigh boats 50 50 50 50Whirl pack bagsfor 3M and pre-harvest watersample collection

300 300 200 200

Whirl pack bagsfor 3M and pre-harvest Samplecollection

1000 1000 1000 1000

Coolers 1 1 1 1Chlorine Strips10-200 ppm

2 2 11 11

Total /FreeChlorine Strips0-10 ppm

3 3 6 5

Thermometers 1 1 3 5Timers 2 2Balance 1Glassware 6-500 ml

Erlenmeyer6-1000 ml

Erlenmeyer6-250 ml

Erlenmeyer10- 400mlBeakers

6-1000 mlBeakers

Wash Bottles 6 6 5 4

Other supplies for Shrimp School:2 microscopes (filth analysis)1 balance (weights of shrimp and additives)


Table 4. First International Shrimp School in Nicaragua

Course EvaluationVery

Effective/

Yes

Effective MarginallyEffective

NotEffective

/NoExpectations:

Did you receive theinformation you wanted?

100%

Instructors:Did they know the

material?

100%

Would you use thisinformation in the next

12 months at work?100% (yes)

How would you rate thecontent in the handouts

and in the books? 87.5% 12.5%How would you evaluateThe presentation by the

European Union?62.5% 37.5%

How would evaluate thelectures related toHACCP? 83.3% 16.6%How would you evaluate

the Sanitation ControlProcedures Course?

83.3% 16.6%

How would you evaluatethe Good Aquaculture

Practices Course?83.3% 16.6%

Evaluation ofDecomposition

Workshop

91.66% 8.3%

Evaluation ofFilth

Workshop87.5% 12.5%

Evaluation of thePracticalExercise

83.3% 16.6%


Human Resource Development:Shrimp Safety as Food and Best Management Practices

Pertinent to Shrimp Processing in Nicaragua

Materials Used and Cited

1. HACCP: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Training Curriculum. National Training Manual. 2001. SeafoodHACCP Alliance (4th Edition). Florida Sea Grant Report No. 120. Gainesville: University of Florida 280 pp.

Curriculum de Entrenamiento en Analisis de Peligros y Puntos Criticos de Control. 1997. Alianza Nacional de HACCPen Productos Marinos para Educacion y Entrenamiento. Segunda Edicion. 230 pp. (Appendix)

2. Sanitation Control Procedures for Processing Fish and Fishery Products. 2000. Florida Sea Grant Report No. 119.Gainesville: University of Florida. 300 pp.

Curso sobre Procedimientos de Control Sanitario para el Procesamiento de Pescados y Mariscos. Desarrollado por laAlianza Nacional de HACCP de Pescados y Mariscos para la Capacitación y Educación. Florida Sea Grant. PrimeraEdición 2000. (Appendix)

3. Shrimp School Agenda. Entrenamiento en Suciedad y otros Aspectos Relacionados Con La Calidad del Camaron.Jueves, 16 de agosto de 2001. (Appendix)

4. Otwell, S., L. Garrido, V. Garrido and R. Benner. 2001. Farm-Raised Shrimp: Good Aquacultural Practices for ProductQuality and Safety. Florida Sea Grant SGEB-53. Gainesville: University of Florida. 71 pp.

Otwell, S., L. Garrido, V. Garrido and R. Benner. 2001. Camaron de Cultivo: Buenas Practicas de Aquacultura Para LaCalidad E. Inocuidad del Producto. Florida Sea Grant SGEB-53. Gainesville: University of Florida. 71 pp.

5. Training Units

• Informacion Adictional Acerca de la Descomposicion (Decomposition) (Appendix)

• Suciedad (Filth) (Appendix)

• Procedimientos para la Deteccion de Residuos de Metabisulfio en Camarones (Metabisulfite) (Appendix)

• Confrontando Problemas enel Puerto de Entrada EEUU (Port of Entry Problems) (Appendix)

nicaragua small shrimp producer assistance program · nicaragua has many trained professionals but...

Documents