Shrimp polyculture is not yet a common practice among farmers; however, this activity represents an important alternative to solving and ⁄ or minimizing some of the problems that shrimp aquaculture has faced in the past two decades (environmental pollution, diseases and decreasing prices). In this context, many benefits have been achieved with some polyculture practices. Several species from diverse trophic levels have the potential to be co-cultured with shrimps. A good knowledge of the species that are candidates for polyculture and an adequately designed culture system are the most important points to consider when co-culturing shrimp with other species. The present paper is a review of the past, present and future of shrimp polyculture with other organisms.

The use of probiotics is a common practice of current shrimp aquaculture. Despite the immunophysiological responses that have been measured in shrimp exposed to probiotics, no information is currently available on the effect of this practice on the intestinal microbiota. The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of a probiotic mixture on the intestinal microbiota of shrimp cultured under farm conditions. A culture-independent method based on high-throughput-sequencing (16S rRNA) was used to examine intestinal bacterial communities. A traditional system (without probiotics) was used as the reference. Targeted metagenomics analysis revealed that the probiotic mixture was based on bacteria in the phyla Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. A total of 23 species of bacteria were detected in the probiotic mixture; of these, 11 were detected in the intestine of shrimp reared in both systems, and 12 were novel for the system. Eight of the novel species were detected in shrimp cultured with the probiotic mixture; however, none of these novel species were related to marine or inclusively aquacultural environments, and only one (Bacillus subtilis) was recognized as probiotic for shrimp. The use of the probiotic mixture modified the bacterial profile of the shrimp intestine; however, most of the bacteria incorporated into the intestine were nonindigenous to the marine environment with no previous evidence of probiotic effects on any marine organism. The use of this probiotic mixture may represent a risk of causing environmental imbalances, particularly because farms using these types of probiotic mixtures discharge their effluents directly into the ocean without prior treatment.

Shrimp postlarvae were reared into different microcosm systems without water exchange; a traditional system based on simple fertilization to improve microalgae concentration (control), an autotrophic system (AS) based on the promotion of biofloc and biofilm by the addition of fertilizer and artificial substrates and a heterotrophic system (HS) based on the promotion of heterotrophic bacteria by the addition of nitrogenous and carbonaceous sources and artificial substrates. Better growth performance and survival were registered in shrimp from the AS and HS compared to the control. Feed conversion ratios were below 0.7 for all treatments, but AS and HS were significantly lower than the control. Regarding digestive performance, no significant differences were observed for trypsin, amylase and lipase activities among AS and control shrimp; however, shrimp from HS showed a higher trypsin and amylase activities, suggesting a higher digestive activity caused by the presence of microbial bioflocs. The presence of biofilm and bioflocs composed by either autotrophic or heterotrophic organisms in combination with formulated feed improved the growth performance and survival of shrimp. Apparently, such combination fits the nutritional requirements of shrimp.

The effect of dietary protein level and natural food management on the production parameters of blue and white shrimp, as well as on water quality, was evaluated in a microcosms system (plastic pools simulating aquaculture ponds). Two experimental trials were carried out in the facilities of DICTUS, University of Sonora, Northwest Me´xico. Treatment with low protein diet (LP) consisted of a low protein input (diet with 250 g kg À1 crude protein) through the culture period; treatment with high protein diet (HP) consisted of a high protein input (diet with 400 g kg À1 crude protein) through the trial, and finally treatment VP consisted of an adjustment of protein input (diets with 250, 350 or 400 g kg À1 crude protein), depending on the abundance of biota (zooplankton and benthos) in the system. Each species responded differently to the treatments. For blue shrimp, low protein input resulted in the lowest final body weight (12.9 AE 0.6 g) and biomass (696.0 g pool À1 ). Survival and feed conversion ratio were similar in the three treatments. For white shrimp, the best growth, biomass and food conversion ratio were obtained in the low protein input treatment. Water quality parameters such as nitrate, ammonia and organic matter during the two trials, were better for LP and VP treatments. White shrimp seems to have lower protein requirements than blue shrimp. For the blue shrimp culture, adjusting protein input according to natural food abundance (zooplankton and benthos) in the system, seems to be advantageous because of the possibility of getting a production similar to that obtained with a high protein input through the farming period, but at lower feed cost, and with a lower environmental impact. It is concluded that a high protein input through the whole farming period is not the best feeding strategy for any of the two species.KEY WORDS KEY WORDS: blue shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), dietary protein level, shrimp feeding, white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)

No abstract