Environmental Problems of Fish Farming in Hidalgo, México

Velasco Amaro, P. I.1 , Calvario Martínez, O.2 , Pulido Flores, G.3 , Acevedo Sandoval, O.4 , Castro Rosas, J.1 ,
Román-Gutiérrez, A. D.

ABSTRACT

In the last 20 years, aquaculture has undergone an accelerated growth in the world, representing a
successful source of income and food. However, many studies have demonstrated that it is not a sustainable
activity, due to wastewater discharge to natural water bodies without previous treatment. Hidalgo has a key
role in fish farming, being the second place at national level, thus it is necessary to have updated
information about aquaculture. The objective is to evaluate the aquaculture at state level in order to
estimate the environmental impact. A database of the aquaculture production units registered with the
corresponding state secretariats was generated based on the farming intensity and the level of
marginalization. A theoretical calculation of the residual production of nitrogen and phosphorus was
performed based on the annual production. There are 610 units of aquaculture production for the year
2011, 48 hectares of cultivation area, dedicated to fattening (>95 %), mean density of 6.14 org/m2 and
production of 446 tons of fresh product. Results obtained showed that 7% have environmental impact study,
41% have National Register fishing and 22% have concession of water use, but environmental sampling is
not performed. Every year 17 t of nitrogen and 6 t of phosphorus are release to the natural water bodies,
and this may represent an impact to the body receptors where production is greater than 10 t/year

Keywords: aquaculture, waste, fish

INTRODUCTION

Aquaculture is an activity that in the last decades has increased, since it represents a source of income and
livelihood for million people (FAO 2010), being the activity of animal protein production with greater annual
growth (6.6%). Mexico worldwide ranks 24th in aquaculture production and this generates more than 16%
of fishery production national (CONAPESCA 2011; NOTIMEX 2011). In the national territory aquaculture
production is concentrated in the states of Sonora, Sinaloa, Veracruz, Tabasco, Jalisco, State of Mexico and
Nayarit, and a large number of aquaculture production units in Michoacán, Guerrero, Yucatan, Guanajuato,
Hidalgo, Morelos and Puebla (NOTIMEX 2011). one of the main criticism of the aquaculture activity, is that
of being a unsustainable activity since it causes important environmental impacts (Martínez et al. 2009;
Somer 2009). The largest environmental impact contamination of water bodies is frequent natural with
nutrients and organic matter due to the discharge of untreated effluents (Bushmann 2001; Sipaúba-Tavares
et al. 2002; Baron et al. 2004; Bushmann and Fort 2005; Pardo et al. 2006; Marinho et al. 2009; Martinez et
al. 2009). However, it is difficult to determine the isolated impact of effluents of aquaculture in the
environment, since there is interaction with environmental factors (Bushmann 2001; Buschmann and Fort
2005).

The specialized literature shows various efforts for theoretically calculating the contribution of nutrients that
represent aquaculture activities to systems aquatic, based on weight gain total, feed intake and nutrient
retention, feed rate and waste that can be generate from it, noting that the data obtained by estimation are
very similar to those found in environmental sampling or even by below the actual discharge (Bergheim and
Asgard 1996; Jover 2000; Bureau et al. 2003; Sindilarius 2007).

Kestemont (1995) conducted an assessment of the power contaminant of the production systems in trout
farms, concluding that they all generate environmental problems. Cao et al. (2007) determined that
aquaculture contributes greatly to the deterioration of the coasts of China. Mariano et al. (2010) observed
water deterioration in seven high Andean lagoons in Judín, Peru, in a period of 12 years caused by the
accumulation of matter organic from intensive farming of rainbow trout.

In Mexico, the development of aquaculture is framed in the General Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture
Sustainable, which establishes the principles for order, promote and regulate the comprehensive
management and sustainable use of the activity. Additionally, the activity is subject to other federal
regulations, contained in the Law General Ecological Balance and Protection to the Environment, National
Water Law, Regulation of the National Water Law and the Law Federal Rights, which establish the obligation
to have an environmental impact assessment prior to the realization of the project, concession of use of
water and with treatment works prior to the discharge of water to avoid contamination of receiving water
bodies. The official standard NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996 establishes the limits maximum allowable
discharges to bodies of water natural and considers as basic contaminants the nitrogen, phosphorous, total
suspended solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Demand Oxygen, among others. The state of
Hidalgo represents a powerhouse in fish farming within of the landlocked states at the national level, being
the second place in aquaculture production for 2011, Therefore, it is necessary to have information up-to-
date information on the sector: production systems and normativity. The objective of this work was to carry
out an assessment of the current situation of fish farming in the state of Hidalgo, taking as indicators
production systems, degree of marginalization and compliance with current regulations with the purpose of
estimating its potential impact environmental.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study began with the generation of a database with information regarding the Units of Aquaculture
Production (UPA) registered in the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock and Development Rural, Fisheries and
Food (SAGARPA) in the Estad Hidalgo; for which databases were accessed the same Secretariat, Hidalgo
Aquaculture Committee of Health A.C. and State Fishing Sector, registering general production data and
compliance with current regulations. the basis of data was divided taking into account the Districts of Rural
Development (DDR), (Fig. 1) proposed by SAGARPA, the intensity of cultivation and the degree of
marginalization of the area where they are located. The DDR considered are: Huejutla (01), Zacultipan (02),
Tulancingo (03), Pachuca (04), Mixquiahuala (05) and Huichapan (06).
 Figure 1. Map of Rural Development Districts (DDR) in the State of Hidalgo proposed by SAGARPA

Regarding the intensity of cultivation, they were considered five groups: self-consumption (<0.5 org/m2),
extensive (0.5-1 org/m2), semi-intensive (1-5 org/m2), intensive (5-20 org/m2) and super-intensive (> 20
org/m2). The degree of marginalization was established through the indices established by the National
Council of Population (CONAPO) for the year 2010. From the database data generated inactive farms were
deleted, didactics, and those that correspond to another type of culture; Subsequently, a theoretical
calculation was carried out taking into account the total production and estimate of residual production of
nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) for farming catfish, carp and tilapia, as mentions Ghaly et al. (2005), for
each ton of fresh product, 60 kg N and 12 kg of P are obtained; Y for trout farming as mentioned by Jover
(2000), for each ton of fresh product, they obtain 50 kg of N and 6 kg of P.

RESULTS

A total of 610 UPAs are reported, of which 10% are found inactive; a cultivated area of 47.8 hectares,
average crop density of 6.14 org/m2 and production of 446.6 t of fresh product. Of the 546 active UPAs, 4
function as units of confinement and the rest are breeding units and/or gain weight. Most of the UPAs (42%)
are established in DDR 05-Mixquiahuala. Of the total cultivated area the largest area is located in DDR 5 with
218,076.67 m2 and DDR 3 with 165,898.05 m2; 47% and 36% of the surface respectively. The smallest
cultivated area has in DDR 1-Huejutla with 15,545.8 m2 and DDR 4-Pachuca with 26,806 m2. In terms of
production, the largest producer is DDR 3 with 219,801 t/year (35%), followed by DDR 6 with 135,802 t/year
(22%), DDR 5 with 125,2316 t/year (20%) and DDR 4 with 103,317 t/year (17%) (Table 1). Cyprinus carpio
specularis is cultivated in Hidalgo (common carp mirror variety) and C. carpio rubrofruscus (pot-bellied),
Ctenopharyngodon idellus (grass carp), Aristichtys nobilis (grass carp), bighead), Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix (carp silver); Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout), Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia), O. aureus
(blue tilapia) and O. mossambicus (tilapia mosambica). However, in all the UPAs there is presence of more
than one species belonging to the same genus, which is why they are called groups of carp, trout and tilapia
farming; in 34% of the UPAs It has the presence of mixed culture of carp and tilapia. The culture preference
is mixed (34%), tilapia (29%), carp (22%) and trout (14%), however the largest production is tilapia (275
t/year) and trout (177.7 t/year), mainly in DDR 3-6 and 4 respectively.
 Table 1. Characteristics of the cultivation systems present in the DDR in the state of Hidalgo.

57% of the UPAs are located in areas of very high or high marginalization, the rest in areas of medium
marginalization (23%), low (16%) and very low (4%). As a source of supply, 60 springs, 40 streams, 31 rivers,
27 wells, 2 lagoons and 3 dams. The UPAs mainly use water from spring (54%), streams (10%), well (12%),
river (9%) and a small percentage use alternate sources (11%); such as filtration (7%), precipitation rainwater
(3%) and irrigation canal water (1%), with flows ranging between 2 and 300 l/s. In the state it practice semi-
intensive fish farming (50%) and intensive (30%), and only 8% are extensive, 10% of self-consumption and
2% super-intensive. Although, one much of the cultivated area in the state corresponds to self-consumption
systems (30%) (Table two). In self-consumption production systems and extensive, alternative sources of
water are used (16%). Only 7% of the total registered UPAs they have an environmental impact study or not
applies, 41% have a national fishing registry and 22% have a concession for water use. you don't have record
that monitoring of the discharges of water by the units of production. Based on the information obtained
and with the methodology described above, it was observed that in one year 12 t of nitrogen and 5 t of
phosphorus are dumped into receiving water bodies. The DDR-03 is where the largest amount of nitrogen
and phosphorus is poured, 6 t and 2t respectively. The DDR-01 is the one with lower discharge of nitrogen
and phosphorus, 140.6 kg and 84.36 kg respectively (Table 3). When analyzing for cultivation intensity, it
was detected that the UPA are the which represent a greater contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus to
the receiving bodies, of 6.9 t/year and 1.65 t/year respectively. Self-consumption systems are those that
represent less contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus, 0.39 t/year and 0.24 t/year respectively (Table 4).
The analysis of the contribution per crop unit, showed that super-intensive intensity farms are the ones with
the highest contribution with 295 g/year of nitrogen and 9.85 g/year of phosphorus (Table 5).

Table 2. Classification of aquaculture production units by cultivation intensity, with characteristics of each
group.
Table 3. Discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (kg/year) in the different DDRs. Based on the estimates of
Ghaly et al. (2005) and Jover (2000).

Table 4. Discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (kg/year) in the different cropping systems (intensity) in
total, in based on the estimates of Ghaly et al. (2005) and Jover (2000).

Table 5. Discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus (kg/year) in the different cropping systems (intensity) for
each unit of production, based on the estimates of Ghaly et al. (2005) and Jover (2000).
 DISCUSSION

Aquaculture is an issue that occupies a prominent place within the strategies against hunger, poverty, rural
and regional development (FAO 2006; Rosales and Acevedo 2011). In the state of Hidalgo, this activity takes
place in 73 of the 84 municipalities of the state, directly benefiting 7,476 citizens (Aquaculture and Fisheries
Charter of the State of Hidalgo 2010). More than 95% of UPAs are dedicated to fattening of juveniles, 57%
are found in areas of high marginalization and 30% of the production area is self-consumption cultivation,
thus representing a source of food and income, not only from the owners, but of the general population of
the area. The above is This is because in Mexico, as in most of the world, aquaculture was born as an activity
complementary social support to communities rural areas, with which it was intended to combat poverty
and low nutritional levels of the population (Juárez 1987; Aquaculture and Fisheries Charter of the State of
Hidalgo 2010). Mexico has great potential for satisfaction their food security and rural development, both
local and regional (FAO 2006). However, their growth must be fostered and taking into account
consideration the impact it could have on the environment. With respect to the above in the analysis carried
out in this work, it was found that only 7% of the production units have a study of environmental impact or
not applicable, 41% have RNPA and 22% have a water use concession. East Failure to comply with current
regulations is due to three main reasons: 1) political flexibility (Rosales and Acevedo, 2011); 2)
marginalization and poverty in the areas where the activity is carried out (FAO 2006, Aquaculture and
Fisheries Charter of the State of Hidalgo 2010) and 3) have shown that the activity is "non-polluting"
(Aquaculture and Fisheries Charter of the State of Hidalgo 2010). As far as "political flexibility" is concerned,
official reports (Aquaculture and Fisheries Charter of the State of Hidalgo 2010) mention that the farms
established before the law came into force General Ecological Balance and Protection to the Environment
(1988), are exempt from the presentation of environmental impact study since It is an impacted area.
However you have record that in the period from 1965 to 1995 66 UPAs were established and from 1996 to
date there have been established 544 of the current UPAs; having to the 11% of the UPAs were established
in the period prior to the entry into force of said law, for which More than 80% of the units should have said
process and only 7% have it. Other procedures are to have RNPA, water use concession, bimonthly
wastewater sampling, measurements and effluent treatment and mitigation works, with the purpose of
protecting and preventing contamination of the water resource, as established by the Water Law National
Law (1992) and the General Law on Fishing and Sustainable Aquaculture (2007); for which all established
farms should have such paperwork and precautionary measures. However, it is observed that only 41% of
the UPAs have RNPA (despite that the procedures are free) and 22% have concession of use of water, and
none presents with measures or works of prevention for contamination of the bodies of water receptors.
Rosales and Acevedo (2011) emphasize that the activity has not reached its maximum potential of
production and regularization in terms of regulations to comply with, since there is a lack of flow of
information towards this productive sector, having to the problems that arise during its development,
political responses are given in instead of technological and scientific answers. Is It is important to highlight
that 23% of the UPAs are are established in areas that are considered conserved (Aquaculture and Fisheries
Charter of the State of Hidalgo 2010), for which there is a need to regularize and improve the management
of UPAs established in said zones with the purpose of are not impacted. The second reason is the degree of
marginalization and poverty where the units of production (57%), mainly due to the fact that in much of the
world the activity is born as a strategy to combat hunger (FAO 2010), and in the State of Hidalgo is managed
by a policy with high rural and social content (Aquaculture and Fisheries Charter of the State of Hidalgo
2010). Further CONEVAL (2012) reported that about 20% of the population in the State presents food
poverty and nationally, Hidalgo ranks eighth in marginalization (CONAPO 2012). Still, it is necessary that this
activity reaches the status of sustainability for the benefit of the inhabitants themselves, for which Effluent
treatment options should be sought appropriate to the degree of poverty, marginalization and area
education. Ponce et al. (2006) propose that in order to achieve sustainable development in aquaculture, an
investment must be made in the people through education and training, investment in research and
development, improvement in the flow of information and communication, among others, seeking with
these measures reduce poverty in the areas rural.

The Aquaculture and Fisheries Charter of the State of Hidalgo (2010) mentions that the activity is “not
pollutant"; All activities represent impact and pollution to the environment, although aquaculture together
with other activities, such as agriculture, industries, municipal waters, etc., considered less polluting
(Kestemont 1995, Pardo et al. 2006). However, in the region has a published report, whether or not it shows
this impact. In addition to not sampling bimonthly environmental analysis of the effluents within the farms
for the cost that this implies. In other countries fish farming has been shown to have an impact negative in
recipient bodies, Karakassis et al. (2005) determined on the Mediterranean coast that the contribution of
total nitrogen and phosphorus released represent approximately 5% of the download annual anthropogenic
and has repercussions in the increase of 0.01%, under a production rate of 150,000 tons. Mariano et al.
(2010) analyzed the pollution generated by aquaculture activities in seven high Andean lagoons, in Judín,
Peru, in which rainbow trout is intensively farmed, with a production of 10-20 t/year, noting that a period of
12 years there is a deterioration in the body receptor by the accumulation of organic matter. Another
worrying problem in aquaculture mexicana mentioned by Álvarez (1996) and FAO (2006), is the uncontrolled
use of resources continental hydrics; in the State of Hidalgo the sources of supply used are: 60 springs, 40
streams, 31 rivers, 27 wells, 2 lagoons and 3 dams of the entity, but it is mainly used spring water (54%) with
maximum flows of 150 l/s. In the National Aquaculture Charter (2011), it is mentioned that farming
technologies for carp and tilapia are must use water to compensate for what is lost by evaporation or water
exchanges of 5% per day, for tilapia and trout farming, flows of 10 l/s (in intensive systems) and 90 l/s (in
raceways). Regarding the above, it was found that more than 95% of the farming systems in Hidalgo are
above the water flows, this is due to the infrastructure available, the little knowledge and information
technology cultivation and that there are no trained personnel in management of production units. In this
study, a theoretical estimation of the supply of nitrogen and phosphorus, which are considered as basic
pollutants in the law of national waters of Mexico and are important ecology in the process of
eutrophication in the receiving water bodies (Hua et al. 2008). I know found that intensive systems together
represent the largest annual contribution of nitrogen (6.9 t) and phosphorus (1.6 t); and per crop unit super-
intensive systems are those that represent the greater contribution with 295 kg of nitrogen and 163.5 kg of
phosphorus for each unit of production. On average you have that for every ton of fish you get residually
24.8 kg of nitrogen and 11.5 kg of phosphorus, which could represent a danger in the process of
eutrophication of water bodies, that there are supplying-receiving water bodies that provide the water
resource to several farms, such as example the Laguna de Zacualtipan from which supply and unload four
crop farms intensive, with flows greater than 30 ls-1. Another case important is the Laguna de San Miguel
Regla, supplied by water from the La Cruz spring and the water discharge of the U.P.A. San Ecotourism Park
Miguel Regla, which is the largest farm in the State with an annual production of 35 t of product cool.
Mariano et al. (2010) in a period of 12 years demonstrated the deterioration of the lagoon with a production
of 10 tons / year. In other case studies estimates have been shown to be useful. theoretical, since the data
obtained by estimation are very close to the actual download data, without However, it is necessary to carry
out environmental monitoring, in order to determine the actual discharge of the systems and implement
low-cost technologies and easy handling, to avoid body contamination of water, which represent sources of
supply for marginalized populations. It is important to mention the efforts that are being currently being
carried out in the State, the systems products involved in the activity and government of the
state, are conducting training programs in order to make UPAs more profitable established. Similarly, they
are implementing recirculation systems (currently 5 in the state) and the use of alternative sources of supply
such as pluvial precipitation and use of canal water. What's more, is working with the policies and programs
of government to bring the activity, first to the regularization and its subsequent sustainability; the
drawback is that the aquaculture activity is not priority for the state or national agenda.

CONCLUSIONS

The problems generated around the activity aquaculture is due to the union of political factors, social and
environmental; because most of of the activity takes place in rural areas, there is a lack of information flow
towards the productive sector and a disarticulation of the sectors involved. The activity represents a
negative impact on the receiving bodies, particularly where production is greater than 10 t/year, or in those
where they discharge more than one aquaculture unit and this production is reached; without However, we
must consider the body of water receiver since in lagoons it can give greater quality deterioration compared
to rivers and streams, due to the natural self-regulation process of these systems. Monitoring should be
done environment of a representative case study of the area, to demonstrate the impact of the activity and
in Based on this, design and implement strategies for prevention and/or mitigation of aquaculture effluents.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alvarez TP (nineteen ninety six). Analysis of the problem of aquaculture production and research in inland
waters in Mexico. In: II Meeting of the National Network of Researchers for Aquaculture in Continental
Waters (REDACUI). Patzcuaro, Mich. National Fisheries Institute.

Barón-Sevilla B., Bückle-Ramírez L., Hernández-Rodríguez M. 2004. Intensive culture of Litopenaeus

vannamei Bonne 1931, in recirculating system. "Marine Sciences". 30(1), 179-188.

Bergheim A., Asgard T. (1996) Waste production from aquaculture. In: “Aquaculture and Water Resources
Management”. Baird D.J., Beveridge M.C.M., Kelly L.A., Muir J.F. (eds). 50-80. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

Bureau D.P., Gunther S.J., Cho C.Y. (2003) Chemical composition and preliminary theoretical estimates of
waste outputs of rainbow trout reared in commercial cage culture in Ontario, North American. “Journal of
Aquaculture”.65.33-38.

Buschmann H. (2001). Environmental impact of aquaculture: the state of research in Chile and the world, a
bibliographical analysis of the advances and restrictions for sustainable production in aquatic systems.
Terram Publications, Santiago de Chile, Chile.

Buschmann H. and Fortt A. (2005). Environmental effects of intensive aquaculture and alternatives for
development sustainable. “Environment and Development Magazine”. 21(3), 58-64.

Cao L., Wang W., Yang Y., Yang C., Yuan Z., Xiong S., and Diana J. (2007). Environmental Impact of
Aquaculture and Countermeasures to Aquaculture Pollution in China. “Environmental Science Pollution
Research”. 14 (7), 452 –462

Aquaculture and Fisheries Charter of the State of Hidalgo. (2010). Secretary of Agriculture and Rural
Development. Gentleman,Mexico.

National Aquaculture Charter. (2011). Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and
Food.Official Gazette of the Federation on Monday, January 31, 2011.

CONAPESCA. (2011). “The Fishing and Aquaculture Sector. Achievements 2007 to 2010”. National
Aquaculture Commission and Fisheries (CONAPESCA), Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural
Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA). Mazatlan, Mexico.
CONAPO. (2012). Marginalization indices 2010. National Population Council. http://www.conapo.gob.mx
CONEVAL. (2012). Food poverty indices 2010. National Council for the Evaluation of Food Policy Social
development. http://www.coneval.gob.mx

FAO. (2006). “Overview of the national aquaculture sector – Mexico”. United Nations Organization for
Agriculture and Food.

FAO. (2010). “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010”. United Nations Organization for

Agriculture and Food.

Ghaly A, Kamal M, Mahmoud N (2005). Phytoremediation of aquaculture wastewater for water recycling
and production of fish feed. “Environmental International”. 3, 1-13.

Jover C.M. (2000). Estimation of growth, feeding rate and waste production in fish farming using a
bioenergetic model. “AquaTIC”. (9).

Juarez-Palacios, R.R. (1987). Aquaculture in Mexico, social and economic importance. In: Fisheries
development Mexican 1986-1987. Secretariat of Fisheries. Mexico. 11, 219-232.

Kestemont P. (1995). Different systems of carp production and their impacts on the environment.
"Aquaculture".129, 347-372

National Water Law 1992. Last reform 2011. Official Gazette of the Federation on December 1, 1992. Federal
Rights Law 2010. Second Title, Chapter VIII. Official newspaper of the federation on December 31, 1981.

General Law of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture 2007. Official Gazette of the Federation on July 24,
2007.

General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, last reform 2011. Official Gazette of the
Federation on January 28, 1988.

Mariano M., Huaman P., Mayta E., Montoya H., Chanco M. (2010). Pollution produced by fish farming
intensive in Andean lagoons of Junín, Peru. "Peruvian Journal of Biology". 17(1), 137 – 140.

Marinho-Soriano E., Nunesa O., Carneiroa M., Pereiraa D.C. 2009. Nutrients' removal from aquaculture
wastewater. using the macroalgae Gracilaria birdiae.. “Biomass and Bioenergy”. 33, 327-331.

Martínez Córdova L., Martínez Porchas R. and E. Cortés-Jacinto. (2009). Mexican and world shrimp farming:
sustainable activity or polluting industry? “International Journal of Environmental Pollution”. 25(3), 181-
196.