chapter-5 estelar production rearing and of...

CHAPTER-5

REARING

AND PRODUCTION

OF FISH

Estelar

136

Rearing and production of fish

5.1 INTRODUCTION:

To meet the multiple objectives of poverty reduction, food security,

competitiveness and sustainability, several researchers have recommended the

farming systems approach to research and development. A farming system is the

result of complex interactions among a number of inter-dependent components,

where an individual farmer allocates certain quantities and qualities of four factors

of production, namely land, labour, capital and management to which he has

access. Farming systems research is considered a powerful tool for natural and

human resource management in developing countries such as India. This is a

multidisciplinary whole-farm approach and very effective in solving the problems

of small and marginal farmers. The approach aims at increasing income and

employment from small-holdings by integrating various farm enterprises and

recycling by-products within the farm itself. In developing countries inland

aquaculture is often integrated with other agricultural activities. The integration of

aquaculture with livestock and crop farming offers greater efficiency in resource

utilization reduces risk by diversifying crops and provides additional food, income

and employment. Thus, the three major side effects of population growth which are

hunger, poverty and unemployment are solved through integrated fish farming.

Integrated fish farming is generally considered particularly relevant to benefit the

rural poor. In Asia, fish farming has been a part time activity of peasant farmers,

who developed it as an efficient means of utilizing farm resources to the maximum

capacity. The highest productions obtained so far in integrated fish farming are

with pigs, ducks and chicken, a very widespread technique in Asia.

5.2 STUDIES RELATED TO POLYCULTURE OF CARPS:

Carps are widely cultivated fish species in Asia, both under mono and

polyculture systems. In polyculture system several fish species are reared together

in same pond that feed on different natural organisms to utilize the fish production

Estelar

137

potential of a pond. Polyculture, which is the traditional method of fish culture in

Asia (Lin, 1982) started in China during the Tang dynasty (AD 618-907) with the

joint culture of Chinese carps (Chang, 1987). Polyculture has expanded with the

introduction of Chinese carps to many countries to obtained increased fish

production (Milstein, 1990). In India, traditional polyculture of the Indian major

carps (catla, rohu, and mrigal) has been changed by a system in which these

indigenous species are cultured together with Chinese carps in appropriate

proportions (Jhingran, 1986). This system is commonly referred as composite fish

culture.

Success in composite fish culture depends largely on sustained production of

fish food organisms. Organic and inorganic fertilizers are added to the fish ponds at

periodic intervals to maintain the optimum level of essential nutrients. The best

results in terms of fish production in this system results not only through a

judicious combination of species, but also due to appropriate management

techniques including pond fertilization, supplementary feeding and health care. On

the basis of growth performance of different species, modifications are often made

in stocking density, species ratio, fertilization schedule and supplementary feeding

programme in different agro-climatic conditions. Although a large number of fish

species grow successfully in ponds, only a restricted number of species are usually

cultivated on commercial scale. Reasons for this restricted choice are obvious.

Commercial pond culture basically aims at achieving maximum possible rate of

fish production and profit through optimum utilization of the natural food and the

supplementary feed which drastically limits the choice of fish species for pond

cultivation. India is a carp country (Dhawan, 2005); Carps are the main output of

freshwater pond aquaculture production system, which is photosynthesis

dependant, most suited for poor resource farmers (Sinha, 1990). The most

commonest and well-known type of traditional carp culture practice in India is

polyculture of Indian major carps (Chakraborty, 1998). Introduction of three

Asiatic carps namely grass carp, silver carp and common carp in India as the

Estelar

138

component of composite fish culture has resulted in enhancing the productivity of

rural aquaculture (Sinha, 1972, 1973; Ramchandran and Sinha, 1985).

According to Grezlutz (2003), polyculture is not just about more production,

it is also often about more profits and greatest benefit in extensive or moderately

intensive fish production. Composite fish culture is a proven technology aimed for

obtaining higher yield and return from unit area (Chand et al., 2003).

Though the viability of composite carp culture technology is well

established, experiments conducted at various centers in India in different agro-

climatic conditions resulted in wide variation in the yield (Rout and Tripathi, 1988).

High yields of the order of 7000-10678 kg/ha/yr (Chaudhury et al., 1974;

Rao and Singh 1984; Mathew et al. 1988) are achieved in semi- intensive carp

culture under different experimental conditions. Derelict water bodies and unused

low land like brick-klin land areas could be reclaimed through fish culture

(Agarwal et al., 1997). Carps are culturally accepted and affordable food for the

rural poor. So to meet the present and future demand of carps, development of low-

input, semi-intensive aquaculture technologies to augment production should be

investigated (Pillay 1990).

A number of workers have described culture techniques and fish production

in composite carp culture system in various agro-climatic regions in India and in

other countries (Ahmad et al. 1952; Yashov et al. 1963; Alikunhi et al., 1971;

Parameswaran et al, 1971; Sukumaran 1972; Gupta 1972; Sinha et al., 1973;

Chaudhury et al., 1975; Chakraborty et al., 1976; Murty et al., 1978; Ghosh et al.,

1979; Aravindakshan and Murty, 1979; Rao et al., 1979; Mathew et al., 1979;

Singh et al., 1979; Sen and Chakraborty, 1979; Tripathi et al., 1983; Kamal, 1984;

Mishra, 1984; Rao, 1984; Sukumaran, 1984; Sahoo, 1984; Kaliyamurty, 1984;

1985; Ayyappan et al., 1990; Jena et al., 1998; Tripathi et al., 2000; Chauhan,

2001a; Jena et al., 2001; Ilyas, 2002; Yasmeen, 2002; Alim et al., 2005;

Sukumaran, 2005).

Estelar

139

In any aquaculture system the rearing density of animals is one of the most

important factors influencing the results of fish production. This has been well

described for most of the cultivable fish species and also in different types of

production systems (Haskell, 1955; Refsite, 1977; Carr and Aldrich, 1982). Saha et

al. (1997) reported that the selection of stocking densities of different species along

with conducive culture environment play vital roles for better growth rates of fishes

ultimately leading to higher production.

Every pond can support a fish biomass only upto a certain carrying capacity

or higher standing crop (Yashouv, 1959; Hickling, 1962-71). Stocking carp seed of

proper size is the critical input for the success of carp culture (Lakshmanan et al.,

1967; Sukumaran et al., 1976; Tripathi, 1990; Mohanty, 1995).

In the upland waters the Indian major carps do not grow well, due to the low

thermal regime. Therefore, Chinese carps may be taken as the candidate species for

polyculture trials. The Chinese carp found suitable for the Mid-Himalayan region.

It involved the three major Chinese carps namely grass carp, silver carp and

common carp.

Silver carp is basically inhabitant of major river systems of South and

Central China and in the Amur Basin of USSR from where it has been transplanted

throughout the Indo-Pacific region including India. It is a surface dweller feeding

mainly upon zooplankton during its early stages and gradually becomes

predominantly a phytoplankton feeder. Its relatively longer branchiospines provide

a fine filter capable of retaining planktonic organisms. It readily accepts

supplementary feed like oil cakes and rice bran mixture in pond culture systems.

Grass carp is a native of the river systems of South-Central and North China,

and the Amur River of USSR. Its suitability in aquaculture and biological control of

aquatic weed infestation has resulted in wide-scale transplantation throughout the

world. In early life it feeds on planktonic organisms and gradually switches over to

macrophytes. They are voracious eaters and show distinct preference for vegetable

food materials such as grass, leaves, weeds, etc. However, they also accept

Estelar

140

supplementary artificial feed materials. Usually only a portion of ingested food is

digested and the rest is voided in semi digested or undigested form which, in turn,

becomes choice food for the bottom dweller common carp (Alikunhi, Sukumaran

and Parameswaran, 1963).

The common carp is now the most domesticated and cultivated carp species

throughout the world, which is originally a native of temperate region of Asia,

especially China. It is an omnivorous bottom dweller subsisting mainly on benthic

fauna and decaying vegetable matter. It frequently burrows the pond bottom in

search of food. This habit of digging the pond bottom helps in maintaining the

productivity of undrainable ponds and hence culture of common carp with other

carp species is of great advantage. Moreover, it also feeds directly on the

undigested excreta of grass carp. Growth mainly depends upon the bottom biota,

stocking density and the rate of supplementary feed.

5.3 STUDIES RELATED TO INTEGRATED FISH FARMING:

An integrated approach of composite fish culture together with compatible

combination(s) with poultry, duckery, pig rearing and cattle raising is now being

adopted. Under this system of farming small livestock and farm yard animals, viz.

pigs, poultry, ducks, etc., are integrated with composite fish culture by siting

animal housing units on the pond embankments in such a way that the animal

wastes and washings are diverted into fish ponds for recycling. The fish not only

utilize spilled animal feed but also directly feed on fresh animal excreta which is

partially digested and is rich in nutrients. Surplus excreta support the rich growth of

planktonic fauna. Fertilizers and supplementary feed are not used, resulting in

drastic cost reduction (Sharma et al., 1979; 1979a)

Fish is the cheapest animal products when grown on wastes (Edwards,

1980). Fish grow rapidly in tropical water and if waste replaces the need for

expensive supplementary feed, the cost of production is minimal. The potential for

recycling animal waste have been demonstrated by the Chinese who use animal

Estelar

141

manure as the main fertilizer in fish culture. Integrated farming may be defined as

an innovation, in which two or more commodities are framed together on a

common infra-structural base with the objective to optimizing use of available

resources. The basic principles involved in this system are the utilization of the

synergetic effect of the interrelated farm activities and the conservation including

the full utilization of farm wastes (Pillay, 1990). It is based on the concept that

“there is no waste and waste is only a misplaced resource, which can become a

valuable material for another product”. There are several advantages of integrated

farming system viz. increased productivity, greater income, improved cash flow,

fuller employment, a better diet for the farmer’s family and the less biological and

economic risk. On the other hand, there is the disadvantage that the integrated

system is more complex, with a need for more knowledge and better management,

since the failure of one system could adversely affect the other. Hence, there is a

need to optimize the integrated livestock fish farming to get higher production of

food per unit area with efficient management practices.

Integrated fish farming is generally considered particularly relevant to

benefit the rural poor. In Asia, fish farming has been a part time activity of peasant

farmers, who developed it as an efficient means of utilizing farm resources to the

higher capacity. The highest productions obtained so far in integrated fish farming

are with pigs, ducks and chicken, a very widespread technique in Asia (Edwards et

al., 1986 and Edwards, 1983,). In some countries, fish farmers also integrate geese,

rabbits, goats, sheep, cattle and water buffalo with fish culture.

The prospects of fish culture in organic waste like cow dung, poultry, duck, pig

excreta and sewage have been suggested by Alikunhi, 1957; Lakshmana et al., 1971;

Grower et al., 1976; Sen et al., 1978 and Barash and Schroeder, 1983. Hickling,

1962; Cruz and Shehadeh, 1980; Delmendo, 1980; Sin, 1980; Hopkins and Cruz,

1982; Jhingran and Sharma, 1986; Sharma and Olah, 1986, NACA, 1989; Pekar

and Olah, 1991; Esteky et al., 1995; Zoccarato et al., 1995 and Sharma et al., 1998

have described culture technique and fish production in various crop-livestock

Estelar

142

integrated farming systems in countries like Hungary, Philippines, Malaysia,

Germany, China, Taiwan, Madagascar and India.

Many authors have emphasized the importance of fish livestock integration in

recycling of waste products, income generation and diversification of products

(Woyanarovich, 1979; Yadav et al., 1986; Little and Muir, 1987; Sharma and Das,

1988; Radhey Shyam, 1995; Kaunhog, 1996; Sharma et al., 1998). Swingle (1957)

reported better growth of fish with higher rate of application of manure. Chen and Li

(1980) described the Chinese AAA system (Aquaculture-Animal husbandry-

Agriculture). This system recycles organic waste such as weeds and crop byproducts

from field, livestock and natural food production from photosynthesis within the farm

itself. Delmendo (1980) presented the review on integrated livestock-fowl-fish farming

system. He also described the integrated farming system, being practiced in various

countries of Asia, where animal house are erected right over the fish ponds. Pathak

(1981) presented the data regarding energetics of an integrated farming system. They

further reported that the production of autotrophic and heterotrophic in an aquaculture

system help in trapping the solar energy. Barash and Schoeder (1983) tested the

possibilities of replacing part of all of fish feed pellets with fermented cow manure.

Sharma et al. (1985) presented the package of practices for fish livestock farming.

Mishra et al. (1986) showed the possibilities of obtaining 52% higher production of

Indian major carps through the application of water hyacinth manure. He also

indicated 70% increase in production by combined application of hyacinth manure,

biogas slurry and cattle shed washing. Patra and Ray (1988) investigated the influence

of a combination of pigeon dropping, goat dung and cow dung on growth and

production of Indian major carps and suggested that cow dung, goat dung, pigeon

dropping significantly increase the growth and production of Indian major carps. Singh

and Das (1993) developed the model of integrated system or triple A (Aquaculture-

Agriculture-Animal husbandry) system for marginal farmers. This system was based

on the recycling of wastes. He calculated that a farmer having around 3 acres of land

can earn Rs. 35,000-40,000 annually and that would be sufficient for him to run a

small family. Fang et al. (1994) observed the effect of animal manure protein

Estelar

143

(Chicken, duck, pig, cow) on fish yield and reported that the conversion efficiency of

manure protein into fish protein was about 40% on a dry weight basis in the fish pond.

Kestemont (1995) has made a critical review of various agro-aquaculture integrated

systems viz. direct or indirect and parallel or sequential.

Different management aspects of organic fertilization in fish ponds have

been reviewed by Edwards, 1980; Olah et al., 1986; Wohlfarth and Schroeder,

1987 and Varadi, 1990.

The ranking order worked out by Ray and David (1966) and Govind et al.

(1978) of different animal wastes potency was poultry > cow dung > goad > sheep

> piggery. However, Kapur (1981); Kapur and Lal (1986 a, b) and Yadav (1987)

found poultry > piggery > goat > sheep > cow dung. Prinsloo Schoonbee (1987a)

noted the comparative effectiveness as duck manure > pig manure > raw chicken

manure > cattle manure > sheep manure.

The FAO Technical conference on Aquaculture held in 1976 in Kyoto,

Japan, devoted one of his sessions to integrated farming. The resolution of this

fundamental global meeting, which has come to know as the “Kyoto declaration on

Aquaculture”, pointed out that “…… aquaculture can, in many circumstances, be

combined with agriculture and animal husbandry with mutual advantage and

contribute substantially to integrated rural development”. The International center

for Living Aquatic resource (ICLARM) organized an international conference on

integrated agriculture, aquaculture farming systems in 1979 and promotes these

even outside of Asia. The center on Integrated Rural development for Asia and the

Pacific (CIRDAP) initiated studies in 1986 on integrated farming and organized a

regional workshop as a follow up in 1988. The network of Aquaculture centers in

Asia (NACA) assigned one of its four regional centers for integrated fish farming

and published a text book on this subject in 1989.

Poultry fish integration is one of the excellent ways of recycling of all the

organic waste efficiently in fish pond as a source of nutrients. Nutrients

requirement of fish pond which depends mainly on the nutrients status of pond soil

Estelar

144

and fish density there in, can be fulfilled by supplying needed quantity of excreta

by regulating the number of pigs stocked with pond.

Experiment on integration of fish culture with poultry was initiated at

CIFRI, Barrackpore during 1978 (Sharma et al., 1979). Integrated fish farming by

recycling of poultry manure in fish pond have been reported by Sharma et al.,

1979; Cruz and Shehadeh 1980; Woynarovich, 1980; Sharma et al., 1985; Sharma

and Olaha, 1986; Sharma and Das, 1988; Gavina, 1994 and Borah et al., 1998 in

India and abroad.

Ashwathanarayana (1979) has compared the effectiveness of poultry

manure, sheep and goat manure and pig dung on carp production and found poultry

and sheep manure as equally effective. Woyanarovich (1979) obtained a yield of

15-18 t/ha/year from the water treated with poultry and pig manure. Kapur (1984a)

reported the 20% increase in fish yield with poultry-piggery waste combination in a

ratio of 1:1 as compared to poultry waste alone.

5. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Integrated livestock fish farming system is a proven environmentally

sustainable and economically viable technology that encompasses rational

utilization of available resources. Different forms of integrated livestock fish

farming viz. pig-fish, poultry-fish, duck-fish etc. have been evolved and

popularized in India (Sharma et al., 1985). Efforts are being made to improvise the

technology by way of multiplication of production potentiality and minimization of

risk factor through better management practices (Sharma, 1989). The present study

was undertaking on the feasibility of an integrated poultry fish farming system in

the semi-temperate climate of mid hills region.

5.5 GROWTH, SURVIVAL AND FISH YIELD:

The on field trial was conducted on selected 9 farmer’s ponds with stocking

density of 2.5, 3 and 4 fish/m3 and species combination of 40:30:30 for silver carp,

Estelar

145

grass carp and common carp. The land holding in the hill area is smaller (700-

900m2) as compared to the national average (1370 m2). Farmers are doing fish

culture in small sized ponds (50-150m2). Ponds having almost uniform size (90-

100m2) were selected for the present study.

The growth of fishes in terms of weight was observed and monitored

monthly. The growth rate and average final weight of different species in different

experimental ponds (non-integrated, integrated with 10 chicks and integrated with

20 chicks) are presented in Table 5.1-5.4. At the time of stocking, the average

weight of fish were 5.0-5.4 g, 6.0-6.4g and 12.0-12.6 g for silver carp, grass carp

and common carp, respectively (Table 5.09). The average final weight at harvest

time was recorded as 318.7g, 325g and 347.3g in non-integrated, integrated with 10

chicks and integrated with 20 chicks for the silver carp. Hence, the average final

weight of the silver carp was recorded higher in integrated ponds with 20 chicks

(Table 5.10). The net weight gained by individual silver carp was recorded higher

with 2.5 fish/m3density (325g) in non-integrated pond which was 2.5% higher than

the weight in density 3 fish/m3 (316.8g) and 8.1% higher (298.6g) from the density

4 fish/m3, which might be due to the overstocking of the fish ( Table 5.11,

Fig.5.13)).The same trend was found in integration with 10 and 20 chicks having

2.2% and 3.5 % higher weight from the density 3 and 7.3% and 11.4 % from the

density 4 fish/m3,respectively (Table 5.12, 5.13). In case of non-integrated pond,

the total production of silver carp (22.7 kg/100m3) was found higher with the

density of 3 fish/ m3, having 14.6% difference from the density 2.5 fish/m3.Total

production with density 4 fish/m3 was also 5.5% higher from the density of 2.5

fish/m3. In non-integrated pond (10 chicks), 6.4% difference from the density 2.5

fish/m3 was also recorded having the highest production with density 3 fish/m3

(21.6 kg) (Table 5.12).The survival of this species was recorded as 60, 62 and 58 %

with 2.5 fish/m3 density, 60, 56 and 70 % with 3 fish/m3 density and 44, 41 and 48

% with 4 fish/m3 density (Table 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13). Better SGR (2.56-3.12) was

recorded with less density and with high integrated rate (Table 5.23). Though the

growth of the individual fish was higher with less density but due to the better

Estelar

146

survival, SGR and pond condition the net fish production was higher with medium

density of 3 fish/m3. Better protein content in the fish flesh was recorded with less

density and high integration (Table 5.25). Less density reflected the better nutrition,

while high integration provides the enough natural food to the growing fish. The

nutritive value of the silver carp observed as 17.1-17.64% crude protein, 2.24-

2.40% crude fat and 73.98-74.14% moisture content (Table 5.25). The data

revealed that the optimum density for the growth, survival and production is 3

fish/m3 .

Similarly, the net weight gained by Grass carp was recorded higher (454.2g)

in 2.5 fish/m3density in non-integrated pond which was 1.2 % higher than the

weight in density 3 fish/m3 (448.6g) and 5.8 % from the density 4 fish/m3

(428.0g),which might be due to the overstocking of the fish. The same trend was

found in integration with 10 and 20 chicks having 2.7% and 9.6% higher weight

from the density 3 fish/m3 (456.0g) and 4.9 % and 13.3 % from the density 4

fish/m3(524.1g) (Table 5.15, 5.16, fig.5.13)). In case of non-integrated pond, the

total production of Grass carp was found higher with the density of 3 fish/m3

(25.5kg); having 17.0 % difference from the density 2.5 fish/m3 .Total production

with density 4 fish/m3 (24.6kg) was also 12.8 % higher from the density of 2.5

fish/m3 (21.8kg) (Table 5.14). In integrated pond(10 chicks), 20.8 % difference

from the density 2.5 fish/100m3 was also recorded having the highest production

with density 3 fish/m3 (24.9kg).Total production was also 19.9 % higher with

density 4 fish/m3(24.7kg) from the density 2.5 fish/m3(20.6kg) .The survival of this

species was recorded as 64,64 and 56 % with 2.5 fish/m3 density, 64, 62 and 75 %

with 3 fish/m3 density and 48,48 and 55 % with 4 fish/m3 density (Table 5.14-5.16).

Better SGR was recorded in 2.5 fish density and in 20 chick’s integration. Though,

the growth of the individual fish was higher with less density but due to the better


density of 3 fish/m3. Better protein content in the fish flesh of grass carp was

observed in integrated pond (Table 5.25). The data revealed that the optimum

density for the growth, survival and production is 3fish/m3.

Estelar

147

Having the same trend of growth, survival and production, the net weight

gained by individual common carp was recorded maximum (230g) in 2.5

fish/m3density in non-integrated pond which was 8.9 % higher than the weight in

density 3 fish/ m3 and 14 % from the density 4 fish/m3 (Table 5.17). The same trend

was found in integration with 10 and 20 chicks having 5.2 % and 8.7 % higher

weight from the density 3 fish/m3( 235.8g, 256.4g)) and 12.7 % and 15.7 % from

the density 4 fish/m3(Table 5.18, 5.19). In case of non-integrated pond, the total

production of Common carp was found maximum with the density of 3 fish/m3

(13.7kg), having 10% difference from the density 2.5 fish/m3. Total production

with density 4 fish/m3 (12.96kg) was also 4.3 % higher from the density of 2.5

fish/m3. But, in integrated pond (10 chicks), the maximum production of this

species was found in 4 fish/m3 (16.2kg) with 23.7 % difference from the density 2.5

fish/m3 (Table 5.18).Total production was also 7.6 % higher with density 3

fish/m3(14.1kg) from the density 2.5 fish/m3. Similar trend was observed in

integration with 20 chicks having highest production of common carp in ponds of 3

fish/m3 (17.5kg) with a difference of 31.6% from the density of 2.5 fish/m3 (Table

5.19).The survival of this species was recorded as 72, 74 and 74 % with 2.5 fish/m3

density, 72, 70 and 81 % with 3 fish/m3 density and 55, 65 and 68 % with 4 fish/m3

density (Table 5.17-5.19). Better SGR (1.74-2.56) was recorded with less density

and with high integrated rate. The overall SGR showed by fishes pooled in

experimental pond are almost similar as reported earlier by Kumar (2004). Though

the growth of the individual fish was higher with less density but due to the better


density of 3 fish/m3 in non-integrated ponds and with 4 fish/m3 in integrated ponds.

Integrated ponds also reflected the better protein content (17.5-18.24%) in the fish

flesh. As common carp is the bottom dwelling omnivorous fish, the growth and

survival was recorded better in highly integrated ponds having the organic bottom

deposits. The data revealed that the optimum density for the growth, survival and

production of this fish is 3-4 fish/m3. The growth data in the different non-

integrated and integrated ponds and for different species showed non significant

variation on the ANOVA analysis at 0.01 & 0.05 level (Table 5.20-5.22).

Estelar

148

The average data for net production of fish reflected the maximum

production of fish with stocking density of 3 fish/m3. The net productions from the

different integrated and non-integrated ponds reflected the maximum production

with integration of 20 chicks /m3 pond area (Table 5.10, Fig. 5.14).

In a separate experiment of FCR, Grass carp was found with highest FCR of

3.1 followed by Silver carp (3.4) and Common carp(3.8) (Table 5.27).The similar

results were also obtained by Pandey & Malik (2008).

On the analysis of proximate composition of feed 24% crude protein, 6 %

crude fat and 12.8 % crude fiber was observed in the experimental diet (Table

5.26). Overall high protein content (17.99±0.12%) in all carps in integrated fish

ponds was reported by Pandey & Malik (2008).

The seasonal growth pattern was observed similar for the all tested three

species with rapid growth during September-October and April-May and a stagnant

growth during the winter months (Fig. 5.1-5.12). This growth pattern may be

correlated with the optimum water quality and availability of enough natural food

in the form of plankton during high growth period. The period of the month of

November to January is the hibernation period for the growth of these species due

to the low water temperature. The silver carp shown uniform growth pattern, while

common carp reflected the non uniform seasonal growth. The length of the silver

carp and grass carp was uniformly increased in accordance to the body weight, but

it was not shown by the common carp. The percent composition of the different

species in the total production, shown the maximum contribution of grass carp (39-

41%) followed by silver carp (36-37%) and common carp (23-24%) without

significant difference in non- integrated and integrated ponds (Fig. 5.15-5.17).

High production trend in the experimental ponds found to be similar with the

earlier reports on integrated fish farming in India and abroad (Sharma et al., 1979,

Cruz and Shehadeh 1980, Woynarovich 1980, Sharma and Das 1988). Such high

rate of fish yield was due the application of the animal excreta, recycled in the

pond, which served two most important purposes for enhancing fish yield (as direct

feed and pond fertilizer) and also acted as substratum for multiplication of

microbial community that provide essential nutrition for fish and fish food

Estelar

149

organisms (Newell 1980, Schroedar 1980). A uniform linear growth pattern was

exhibited by almost all species in experimental pond.

Apart from this, it was observed that high percentage of survival can be achieved

with healthy fish, predator free pond, favorable ecological conditions etc.

Lakshmanan et al. (1971) and Chaudhury et al. (1978) stressed the importance of

these factors in governing the survival. The survival was found better in low

stocking density in comparison of higher stocking density.

Jena et al. (2001) and Alikunhi et al. (1971) reported the superior growth of

silver carp over the other exotic and indigenous carps in polyculture system. But, in

hilly climate the growth of silver carp was not in higher side probably due to the

low production of phytoplankton.

Singh (2002) reported the survival of carp species in the range 67-72% in an

integrated fish production practice. In integrated pond, Singh et al. (1972) obtained

survival rate of fishes in the range of 80.0-98.9% of fishes with best survival of

surface feeder fishes. The survival rates in the experimental pond of present study

are comparable to the above values. Data of present study on survival reflected that

the survival was less for the surface feeder fish followed by column feeder and

highest for bottom feeder. The similar findings were also reported by

Aravindakshan et al. (1999), Azim et al. (2001) and Jena et al. (2001).

The Chinese carp found suitable for the Mid-Himalayan region based on the

41 experiments conducted at the farm on composite carp farming system. It

involved the three major Chinese carps namely grass carp (feeds on all types of

aquatic and terrestrial grass), silver carp (feeds on plankton) and common carp

(feeds on semi digested faecal material of grass carp, unutilized feed on pond

bottom) stocked @ 2.8-4 fish/m3 (having advantage of higher oxygen level) in the

ratio of 4-5:2-2.5:3-3.5, respectively. The supplementary feed prepared from

locally available ingredients-oil cake, rice polish/bran etc. and fed @ 2-3 % of the

body weight and fertilization of pond was done with raw cow dung (RCD) @ 9000

kg/ha/yr to ensure consistent growth. Average annual fish production of 1870

kg/ha and 3708 kg/ha had been achieved by monoculture of common carp and

polyculture of grass, silver and common carp respectively, in an experiment

Estelar

150

conducted at the farm (Tyagi and Behl 1998, Tyagi et al, 1999). Further,

comparatively higher fish production @ 0.34-0.68 kg/m2 /yr (3400 to 6800

kg/ha/yr) has been harvested from the earthen ponds of Uttarakhand state located in

middle Himalayan region (800-2000 msl) under transfer of technology programme

of the institute (Kumar et.al,2009). The production observed in the present study

was in higher side as reported by the previous workers.

5.6 LENGTHS-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP AND CONDITION FACTOR:

The length-weight relationship was computed from the data collected

throughout the investigation period of 12 months from the non-integrated ponds

and integrated ponds in on farm trial. The equations obtained are shown in Table

5.28. The scattered diagrams obtained by plotting total length against weight of all

species (pooled data) from the experimental ponds (Figs. 5.18 to 5.44) resulting in

log-log transformation of the data for which the line of best fit was drawn by least

square method.

The length-weight relationships vary for a particular species in different

species combination and stocking density. The value of regression co-efficient ‘n’

ranged from 2.2999- 3.1649 in different species combination with stocking

densities. It was in the range of 2.2999-2.7170 with stocking density of 2.5 fish/m3,

2.7409-2.7909 with stocking density of 3.0 fish /m3 and 2.7033-2.7600 with

stocking density of 4.0 fish /m3 for silver carp. For the grass carp the regression co-

efficient ‘n’ ranged from 2.29709- 3.0555 in stocking density of 2.5 fish/m3,

3.1288-3.1649 with stocking density of 3.0 fish/m3 and 3.0408-3.1440 with

stocking density of 4.0 fish/m3. In case of the common carp, these values are

observed as 2.8314-3.5666 in stocking density of 2.5 fish/m3, 2.7780-2.9715 with

stocking density of 3.0fish/m3 and 2.6695-2.9325 with stocking density of 4.0 fish

/m3 (Table 5.28). For silver carp, these values calculated as 2.2999-2.7909, 2.6900-

2.7600 and 2.7033-2.7529 in non-integration, integration with 10 chicks and

integration with 20 chicks, respectively. In case of grass carp these values observed

as 2.9709-3.1649, 3.0130-3.1288 and 3.0555-3.1424 in non-integration, integration

with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. Common carps

Estelar

151

reflected these values as 2.9325-3.0566, 2.6709-2.8960 and 2.6695-2.8314 in non-

integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively.

The overall data reveal that grass carp has the higher ‘n’ values (2.9709-3.1649)

followed by the common carp (2.6695-3.0566) and silver carp (2.29999-2.7909).

The results are in agreement with the studies of Ghosh et al. (1983) who recorded

the value of ‘n’ from 1.29 to 3.97. The obtained ‘n’ values for silver carp, grass

carp and common carp are nearly comparable to that obtained for similar species

elsewhere in India (Jhingran, 1952, 1959; Chakraborty and Singh, 1963; Natarajan

and Jhingran 1963; Srivastava and Sinha, 1964; Panthulu et al., 1967; Khan, 1972;

Devraj and Natarajan, 1973).Thakur and Das (1979) stated that the value of an

exponent signifies >3 or <3, denoted that it did not maintain the isometric pattern of

growth. The exponent <3 shows that the species becomes lighter for its length, as it

grows larger and >3 shows that the species becomes heavier for its length as it

grows longer.

In the present study only grass carp showed the values of ‘n’ close to 3. The

silver carp showed the non-isometric and light weight to its length. values also

reflected the isometric growth of silver carp and grass carp with integration of 20

chicks and in 300 fish density, while common carp reflected the better results with

non- integration and in 250 fish density.

The calculated correlation coefficient was in the range of 0.8420-0.8750

with stocking density of 2.5 fish/m3, 0.8850-0.9150 with stocking density of 3.0

fish/m3 and 0.9000-0.9420 in stocking density of 4.0 fish /m3 for the silver carp. For

the grass carp the correlation coefficient ranged from 0.9620-0.9810 in stocking

density of 2.5 fish /m3, 0.9260-0.9780 with stocking density of 3.0 fish /m3 and

0.9320-0.9660 with stocking density of 4.0 fish /m3. In case of the common carp,

these values are observed as 0.8870-0.9460 in stocking density of 2.5 fish /m3,

0.8230-0.9360 with stocking density of 3.0 fish /m3 and 0.7730-0.9250 with

stocking density of 4.0 fish /m3. For silver carp, these values calculated as 0.8420-

0.9420, 0.8750-0.9250 and 0.8690-0.9000 in non-integration, integration with 10

chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. In case of grass carp these

values observed as 0.9260-0.9620, 0.9660-0.9770 and 0.9620-0.9810 in non-

Estelar

152

integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively.

Common carps reflected these values as 0.9250-0.9460, 0.7730-0.8870 and 0.8800-

0.9250 in non-integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20

chicks, respectively. The overall data reveal that grass carp has the higher ‘r’ values

(0.9260-0.9810) followed by the common carp (0.7730-0.9460) and silver carp

(0.8420-0.9420). These values are more close to 1 for the grass carp; reflect the

more balanced growth of this species. Data also reflected the comparatively balance

growth of silver carp and grass carp in the integration pond and for common carp in

non- integration ponds (Table 5.28).

Thus the results of the present study are in conformity with the views of

Lecren (1951) and Chauhan (1987) who pointed out that as the fishes normally did

not retain the same body outline throughout their life-span and specific gravity of

tissue may not remain constant, the actual relationship may depart significantly

from the cube law.

Ghosh et al. (1983) studied the length-weight relationship of Indian major

carps and exotic carps under composite fish culture. Sharma (2004) also revealed

the length-weight relationship of all the six species of carps under fish-cum-duck

integrated system.

The general well being or robustness of the fish can be estimated by the

calculation of condition factor or ponderal index. The ponderal index or condition

factor in different fishes have been worked out by Pathak (1975), Kumar et al.

(1979), Pathani and Das (1980), Sinha et al. (1990), Kumar (2000), Singh (2003)

and Sharma (2004). Kumar et al., 1979 concluded that a fish having the value of

condition factor as about one is considered to be of its average weight. This factor

is the indicator of the robustness or well being of fish. The results of the ‘k’ values

of different species in experimental pond (1.22-1.56 for silver carp, 1.3-1.64 for

grass carp and 1.18-1.53 for common carp) are in conformity of above results,

which shows the well being of fishes in the ponds of less density and high

integration (Table 5.23). Various workers have calculated the ponderal index or

condition factor of different fish’s viz. 0.73 to 0.95 in Tor putitora (Pathani and

Das 1980) 1.03-1.31 in Salmo trutta fario (Kumar et al., 1979). 1.20-1.3 in

Estelar

153

Salvelinus namaycush (Oosten and Eschnerger 1956), 1.17-1.26 in Labeo rohita

(Kumar, 2004). The results of the ‘k’ values of different species in experimental

ponds (1.18-1.64) are in conformity of above results, which shows the well being of

fishes in the integrated ponds.

Estelar

154

Table 5.1: Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in non- integrated ponds.

Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp

C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 Jul 5.0 5.2 5.4 6.2 6.4 6.0 12 12.5 12.4

Aug 14.2 13.2 13.0 13.8 12.6 11.3 16 14.1 13.0

Sep 32.6 30.4 30.0 34.0 31.4 29.5 22 19.4 17.2

Oct 52.4 50.6 48.4 60.2 58.1 56.0 32 28.2 25.6

Nov 74.0 73.0 72.0 80.1 77.8 75.4 36 31.6 28.8

Dec 80.0 78.8 76.6 108.0 106.6 103.8 50 44.3 41.4

Jan 86.0 85.2 84.1 116.5 114.2 111.6 56 49.6 45.5

Feb 124.0 123.0 122.2 159.0 156.6 154.2 78 72.0 67.2

Mar 234.0 231.4 229.2 312.0 309.4 306.6 92 84.5 78.1

Apr 278.0 272.6 268.4 342.5 339.3 329.0 130 115.7 109.4

May 314.0 311.0 300.2 372.2 375.4 351.2 190 176.6 167.2

Jun 330 322 304 460.4 455 434 242 222 210

*Average of 10 fish, C1- non-integrated pond with 2.5/m3 fish density, C2- non-integrated pond with 3.0/m3 fish density, C3- non-integrated pond with 4.0/m3 fish density.

Estelar

155

Table 5.2: Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in integrated ponds( 10chicks).


T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

Jul 5.1 5.3 5.5 6.0 6.2 6.4 12.2 12.4 12.0

Aug 13.0 12.4 11.8 27.6 24.4 24.4 13.6 13.4 12.8

Sep 31.2 27.3 26.2 54.0 52.2 50.3 20.2 20.4 14.1

Oct 51.8 49.6 48.4 92.2 89.5 87.6 34.4 32.2 25.4

Nov 73.2 71.4 69.6 130.5 127.6 125.4 35.8 33.6 27.9

Dec 77.8 76.6 74.4 180.4 176.2 173.2 51.2 48.8 41.2

Jan 85.4 82.3 79.2 230.2 224.6 221.3 55.6 52.7 44.7

Feb 102.8 99.7 96.6 270.2 264.4 260.8 77.6 74.5 66.6

Mar 232.6 229.4 227.2 360.4 354.8 351.6 91.5 78.4 78.6

Apr 266.6 260.8 257.8 414.2 409.4 406.2 129.6 126.3 108.8

May 313.4 308.5 308.5 444.4 439.6 432.1 189.3 186.2 166.6

Jun 335 328 312 462 450 440 248 236 218

T1-10 chicks integrate pond with 2.5 fish density, T2-10 chicks integrate pond with 3.0 fish density, T3-10 chicks integrate pond with 4.0 fish density.

Estelar

156

Table 5.3: Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in integrated ponds (20chicks).


T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T6

Jul 5.2 5.1 5.4 6.1 6.4 6.2 12.0 12.2 12.6

Aug 14.2 13.2 11.6 28.4 26.2 22.2 14.5 14.4 13.4

Sep 33.1 32.1 28.2 55.2 53.6 46.4 22.4 22.6 15.6

Oct 58.8 59.5 58.4 94.1 91.4 82.6 36.2 34.8 29.4

Nov 79.2 72.2 79.0 136.4 129.8 120.8 38.6 36.4 30.8

Dec 81.6 76.5 75.4 190.3 179.6 175.2 54.8 51.6 44.6

Jan 88.2 84.2 84.2 242.1 226.4 223.6 58.2 54.2 48.2

Feb 122.6 112.4 107.4 272.4 268.2 268.4 82.4 79.5 70.5

Mar 252.4 249.2 227.2 371.6 358.6 356.2 96.6 88.6 88.8

Apr 286.2 270.6 257.8 426.2 418.8 416.1 139.8 136.3 118.2

May 343.2 338.2 308.5 458.4 454.2 438.8 196.2 190.1 176.4

Jun 365.2 352.3 324.4 530.2 480.4 460.5 268.4 246.2 228.8

T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density, T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density, T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density.

Estelar

157

Table 5.4: Average Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in integrated and non- integrated ponds.


C T10 T20 C T10 T20 C T10 T20

Jul 5.2 5.3 5.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 12.3 12.2 12.3

Aug 13.4 12.4 13 12.6 25.5 25.6 14.4 13.3 14.1

Sep 31 28.2 31.1 31.6 52.2 51.7 19.5 18.2 20.2

Oct 50.46 49.9 58.9 58.1 89.8 89. 4 58.1 30.7 33.5

Nov 73 71.4 76.8 77.8 127.8 129 28.6 32.4 35.3

Dec 78.5 76.3 77.8 106.1 176.6 181.7 45.2 47.1 50.3

Jan 85.1 82.3 85.5 114.1 225.4 230.7 50.4 51 53.5

Feb 123 99.7 114.1 156.6 265.1 269.7 72.4 72.9 77.5

Mar 231.5 229.7 242.9 309.3 355.6 362.17 84.9 82.8 91.4

Apr 273 261.7 271.5 336.9 409.9 420.4 118.4 121.6 131.4

May 308.4 310.1 330.0 366.3 438.7 450.5 177.9 180.7 187.6

Jun 318.7 325 347.3 449.8 450.7 490.4 224.7 234 247.8

C-without integration, T10- integration of 10 chicks, T20- integration of 20 chicks.

Estelar

158

Table 5.5: Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in non-integrated ponds.


C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3

Jul 7.2 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.0 7.5 9.2 9.8 10.4

Aug 8.4 8.2 9.2 7.8 7.8 8.4 10.2 10.6 10.8

Sep 11 10.0 10.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 11.6 11.4 11.4

Oct 13 11.4 12.2 11.4 11.4 10.4 11.8 11.8 12

Nov 15.2 13.2 13.4 13.2 13.0 12.2 12.2 12.4 13

Dec 17.2 15.6 14.8 14.6 15.1 12.8 12.6 13.8 14.2

Jan 18.6 17.1 17.1 15.2 16.2 14.8 14 14.2 14.6

Feb 22.2 20.8 20.4 17.8 17.4 16.2 14.4 14.8 14.8

Mar 24.2 22.0 22.8 20.2 19.2 17.1 14.8 15.6 16.2

Apr 25.8 24.5 24.2 26.8 23.8 21.8 17 17.2 17.2

May 26.8 25.3 26.2 27.4 25.3 26.2 18.6 18.8 19.2

Jun 28.2 27.1 28.2 30.2 27.6 28.6 20.2 20.6 20.6

*Average of 10 fish, C1- non-integrated pond with 2.5/m3 fish density, C2- non-integrated pond with 3.0/m3 fish density, C3- non-integrated pond with 4.0/m3 fish density.

Estelar

159

Table 5.6: Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in integrated ponds (10 chicks).


T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

Jul 7.4 7.4 7.4 6.8 7.1 7.3 9.4 10.0 10.3

Aug 9 9.1 9.8 8.8 8.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 11.4

Sep 12 10.9 11.8 10.4 10.2 9.7 12.2 12.1 12.7

Oct 14.2 12.3 12.4 12.2 12.6 12.2 13.6 13.0 14

Nov 16.4 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.4 13.8 14.2 14.2 14.8

Dec 17.2 16.4 15.4 15.4 16.6 15.4 15.2 15.1 15.4

Jan 19.2 18.2 17.2 16.6 17.8 16.4 16 16.4 17.6

Feb 23.4 21.6 20.6 19.2 19.2 16.8 16.6 17.2 18.8

Mar 25.6 23.6 23.4 22.4 20.4 20.2 17.2 18.5 19.2

Apr 26.2 25.8 25.4 26.2 24.8 23.2 18.4 19.4 20.4

May 28.1 26.4 27.4 28.8 26.6 25.8 21.2 20.6 21.6

Jun 30.2 28.2 28.2 31.8 28.8 28.4 22.4 21.8 22.2

T1-10 chicks integrate pond with 2.5 fish density, T2-10 chicks integrate pond with 3.0 fish density, T3-10 chicks integrate pond with 4.0 fish density.

Estelar

160

Table 5.7: Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in integrated ponds (20chicks).


T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T6

Jul 7.2 7.2 7.8 7.2 7.4 7.2 9.6 10.2 10.4

Aug 10.4 10.5 10.6 9.8 9.8 9.4 11.2 11.4 12.2

Sep 13.2 11.6 12.2 11.8 11.4 11.2 12.8 12.8 12.6

Oct 15.3 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.2 12.8 13.6 13.6 13.9

Nov 18.2 15.9 16.2 15.2 15.1 15 14.6 15.2 15.4

Dec 19.2 17.8 17.6 16.4 17.7 17.4 15.2 16.1 16.2

Jan 20.5 19.2 19.6 17.8 18.6 17.8 15.6 16.8 17.2

Feb 25 22.8 22.6 20.8 19.8 18.8 17.2 17.4 18.2

Mar 27.2 25.1 25.2 23.2 21.6 20.9 18.2 19.6 19.2

Apr 28.8 27.2 27.2 28.8 26.2 25.2 20.4 20.2 21.6

May 30.2 28.6 27.8 30.6 27.8 28 22.2 22.1 23.4

Jun 31.4 30.4 30.2 32.8 30.2 30 24.8 24.3 25.2

*Average of 10 fish. T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density. T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density. T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density.

Estelar

161

Table 5.8: Average Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in integrated and non-integrated ponds.


C T10 T20 C T10 T20 C T10 T20

Jul 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.3 9.8 9.9 10.1

Aug 8.6 9.3 10.5 8 8.5 9.7 10.5 11.2 11.8

Sep 10.4 11.6 12.3 9.2 10.1 11.5 11.5 12.3 12.7

Oct 12.2 12.7 14.3 11.1 12.3 13.3 11.9 13.5 13.7

Nov 13.9 15.3 16.8 12.8 14.1 15.1 12.5 14.4 15.1

Dec 15.9 16.3 18.2 14.2 15.8 17.2 13.5 15.2 15.8

Jan 17.6 18.2 19.8 15.4 16.9 18.1 14.3 16.7 16.5

Feb 21.1 21.9 23.5 17.1 18.4 19.8 14.7 17.5 17.6

Mar 23 24.2 25.8 18.8 21 21.9 15.5 18.3 19.0

Apr 24.8 25.8 27.7 24.1 24.7 26.7 17.1 19.4 20.7

May 26.1 27.3 28.9 26.3 27.1 28.8 18.9 21.1 22.6

Jun 27.8 28.7 30.7 28.8 29.7 31.0 20.5 22.1 24.8

C-without integration, T10- integration of 10 chicks, T20- integration of 20 chicks.

Estelar

162

Table 5.9: Species wise growth performance of fish in integrated and non-integrated ponds having different fish density.

Ponds/ Tanks

Fish species Avg. initial wt. (g.)

Avg. final

wt.(g.)

Avg. net wt gain(g)

Survival ( %)

Production (Kg/100m3)

Net production (Kg/100m3)

C1 Silver carp Grass carp Common carp

5.0 6.2 12

330 460.4 242

325 454.2 230

60 64 72

19.8 21.8 12.42

54.02


5.2 6.4 12.5

322 455 222

316.8 448.6 209.5

60 64 72

22.7 25.5 13.7

61.9


5.4 6.0 12.4

304 434 210

298.6 428

197.6

44 48 55

20.9 24.6 12.96

58.46

T1 Silver carp Grass carp Common carp

5.1 6.0 12.2

335 462 248

329.9 456

235.8

62 64 74

21.3 20.6 13.1

55.0


5.3 6.2 12.4

328 450 236

322.7 443.8 223.6

56 62 70

21.6 24.9 14.1

60.6


5.5 6.4 12.0

312 440 218

306.5 433.6 206

41 48 65

22.1 24.7 16.2

63.0


5.2 6.1 12.0

365.2 530.2 268.4

360 524.1 256.4

58 56 70

20.8 22.2 13.3

56.3


5.1 6.4 12.2

352.3 480.4 246.2

347.2 474 234

70 75 81

29.2 31.75 17.1

78.05


5.4 6.2 12.6

324.4 460.5 228.8

319 454.3 216.2

48 55 68

24.5 30.1 17.5

72.0

Estelar

163

Table 5.10: Species wise growth performance of fish in different integrated and non-integrated ponds.

Ponds/ Tanks

Fish species Avg. initial wt. (g.)

Avg. final wt.(g.)

Avg. net wt gain (g)

Survival ( %)

Production ( Kg/100m3)

Net production (Kg/100m3)

C Silver carp Grass carp Common carp

5.26.2 12.3

318.7 449.8 224.7

313.5 443.6 212.4

54.6 58.7 66.3

21.10 23.96 13.02

58.08


5.3 6.2 12.2

325 450.7 234

319.7 444.5 221.8

53.0 58.0 69.7

21.66 23.40 14.46

59.52


5.2 6.2 12.3

347.3 490.4 247.8

342.1 484.2 235.5

58.7 62.0 73.0

24.83 28.00 15.96

68.7

C-without integration (average of C1, C2 & C3) T10- integration of 10 chicks (average of T1, T2 & T3) T20- integration of 20 chicks (average of T4, T5 & T6)

Estelar

164

Table 5.11: Growth performance of Silver carp in non- integrated ponds at different fish density.

Parameter/ Pond C1 (Control)

C2

Difference from control

C3


Pond size (m2) 100 95 - 99 -

Stocking no. 100 114 - 158 -

Initial Av. Weight (gm.)

5.0 5.2 - 5.4 -

Final Av. Weight (gm.)

330 322 - 304 -

Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.)

325 316.8 -8.2(2.5%) 298.6 -26.4(8.1%)

Total production (Kg.)

19.5 21.6 - 20.7 -

Total production (Kg./100m2)

19.8 22.7 +2.9 (14.6%) 20.9 +1.1(5.5%)

Survival (%) 60 60 44

SGR 2.88 2.42 2.16

Condition factor(k) 1.4 1.28 1.25

Protein content (%)

17.20 17.30 17.10

C1- non-integrated pond with 2.5/m3 fish density. C2- non-integrated pond with 3.0/m3 fish density. C3- non-integrated pond with 4.0/m3 fish density.

Estelar

165

Table 5.12: Growth performance of Silver carp in integrated ponds (10 chicks) at different fish density.

Parameter/ Pond T1 (Control)

T2


T3


Pond size (m2) 102 100 - 105 -

Stocking no. 102 120 - 168 -


5.1 5.3 - 5.5 -


335 328 - 312 -


329.9 322.7 -7.2(2.2%) 306.5 -23.4(7.1%)


20.7 21.6 - 21.1 -


20.3 21.6 +1.3 (6.4%) 20.1 -0.2(1%)

Survival (%) 62 56 41

SGR 2.98 2.64 2.34


Protein content (%)

17.46 17.38 17.32

T1- 10 chicks integrated pond with 2.5/m3 fish density. T2- 10 chicks integrated pond with 3.0/m3 fish density. T3- 10 chicks integrated pond with 4.0/m3 fish density.

Estelar

166

Table 5.13: Growth performance of Silver carp in integrated ponds (20 chicks) at different fish density.


T5


T6


Pond size (m2) 104 100 - 95 -

Stocking no. 104 120 - 152 -


5.2 5.1 - 5.4 -


365.2 352.3 - 324.4 -


360 347.2 -12.8(3.55%) 319 -41.0(11.4%)


21.6 29.2 - 23.3 -


20.8 29.2 +8.4 (40.4%) 24.5 +3.7(17.8%)

Survival (%) 58 70 48

SGR 3.12 3.10 2.56


Protein content (%) 17.64 17.54 17.42

T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density. T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density. T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density.

Estelar

167

Table 5.14: Growth performance of Grass carp in non- integrated ponds at different fish density.


C2


C3


Pond size (m2) 100 95 - 99 -

Stocking no. 75 85 - 119 -


6.2 6.4 - 6.0 -


460.4 455 - 434 -


454.2 448.6 -5.59(1.2%) 428 -26.2(5.8%)


21.8 24.2 - 24.39 -


21.8 25.5 +3.7 (17.0%) 24.6 +2.8(12.8%)

Survival (%) 64 64 48

SGR 2.73 2.64 2.32


Protein content (%) 17.40 17.42 17.38

C1- nonintegrated pond with 2.5/m3 fish density. C2- nonintegrated pond with 3.0/m3 fish density. C3- nonintegrated pond with 4.0/m3 fish density.

Estelar

168

Table 5.15: Growth performance of Grass carp in integrated ponds (10 chicks) at different fish density.


T2


T3


Pond size (m2) 102 100 - 105 -

Stocking no. 76 90 - 126 -


6.0 6.2 - 6.4 -


462 450 - 440 -


456 443.8 -12.2(2.7%) 433.6 -22.4(4.9%)


21.0 24.9 - 26.0 -


20.6 24.9 +4.3 (20.8%) 24.7 +4.1(19.9%)

Survival (%) 64 62 48

SGR 3.10 2.54 2.48


Protein content (%)

17.76 17.72 17.54


Estelar

169

Table 5.16: Growth performance of Grass carp in integrated ponds (20 chicks) at different fish density.


T5


T6


Pond size (m2) 104 100 - 95 -

Stocking no. 78 90 - 114 -


6.1 6.4 - 6.2 -


530.2 480.4 - 460.5 -


524.1 474 -50.1(9.6%) 454.3 -69.8(13.3%)


23.1 31.75 - 28.6 -


22.2 31.75 +9.6 (43%) 30.1 +7.9(36%)

Survival (%) 56 75 55

SGR 3.41 3.22 2.98


Protein content (%) 18.12 18.02 17.86


Estelar

170

Table 5.17: Growth performance of Common carp in non- integrated ponds at different fish density.


C2


C3


Pond size (m2) 100 95 - 99 -

Stocking no. 75 86 - 119 -


12.0 12.5 - 12.4 -


242 222 - 210 -


230 209.5 -20.5(8.9%) 197.6 -32.4(14.0%)


12.42 13.0 - 12.84 -


12.42 13.7 +1.28 (10%) 12.96 +0.5(4.3%)

Survival (%) 72 72 55

SGR 2.18 1.90 1.74


Protein content (%)

17.50 17.52 17.59

C1- nonintegrated pond with 2.5/m3 fish density. C2- nonintegrated pond with 3.0/m3 fish density. C3- nonintegrated pond with 4.0/m3 fish density.

Estelar

171

Table 5.18: Growth performance of Common carp in integrated ponds (10 chicks) at different fish density.


T2


T3


Pond size (m2) 102 100 - 105 -

Stocking no. 77 90 - 126 -


12.2 12.4 - 12.0 -


248 236 - 218 -


235.8 223.6 -12.2(5.2%) 206 -29.8(12.7%)


13.4 14.1 - 17.0 -


13.1 14.1 +1.0 (7.6%) 16.2 +3.1(23.7%)

Survival (%) 74 70 65

SGR 2.42 2.02 1.82


Protein content (%)

17.82 17.76 17.66


Estelar

172

Table 5.19: Growth performance of Common carp in integrated ponds (20 chicks) at different fish density.


T5


T6


Pond size (m2) 104 100 - 95 -

Stocking no. 78 90 - 114 -


12.0 12.2 - 12.6 -


268.4 246.2 - 228.8 -


256.4 234 -22.4(8.7%) 216.2 -40.2(15.7%)


13.8 17.1 - 16.6 -


13.3 17.1 +3.8 (29.0%) 17.5 +4.2(31.6%)

Survival (%) 70 81 68

SGR 2.56 2.34 1.94


Protein content (%)

18.24 18.20 18.10


Estelar

173

Table 5.20: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Silver carp in non integrated and integrated (with 10 and 20 chicks) ponds of different fish density.

Source of variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F-value Treatment 27.9204 2 13.9602 0.26* Error 1751.1502 33 53.0652 Total 1779.0706 35 *non significant at 0.01 and 0.05 level. Table 5.21: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Grass carp in non integrated

and integrated (with 10 and 20 chicks) ponds of different fish density.

Source of variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F-value Treatment 28.0672 2 14.0336 0.26* Error 1752.835 33 53.1162 Total 1780.9022 35 *non significant at 0.01 and 0.05 level Table 5.22: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for common carp in non integrated

and integrated (with 10 and 20 chicks) ponds of different fish density.

Source of variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F-value Treatment 18.8493 2 9.4247 0.71* Error 422.411 32 13.2003 Total 441.2604 34

*non significant at 0.01 and 0.05 level.

Estelar

174

Table 5.23: Specific growth rate (SGR) in different fish species stocked in integrated and non-integrated fish ponds.

Ponds SGR

Silver carp Grass carp Common carp C1 2.88 2.73 2.18

C2 2.42 2.64 1.90

C3 2.16 2.32 1.74

T1 2.98 3.10 2.42

T2 2.64 2.54 2.02

T3 2.34 2.48 1.82

T4 3.12 3.41 2.56

T5 3.10 3.22 2.34

T6 2.56 2.98 1.94

Table 5.24: Condition factor ‘k’ in different fishes stocked in experimental and

control pond.

Ponds Value of ‘k’

Silver carp Grass carp Common carp C1 1.40 1.48 1.36

C2 1.28 1.36 1.25

C3 1.25 1.32 1.19

T1 1.32 1.42 1.30

T2 1.39 1.52 1.39

T3 1.22 1.30 1.18

T4 1.36 1.44 1.32

T5 1.56 1.64 1.53

T6 1.48 1.56 1.42

Estelar

175

Table 5.25: Nutritive value (in %) of fish at the end of experiment in different fish species stocked in integrated and non integrated fish ponds.

Pond

Silver carp Grass carp Common carp

MO CP CF AS MO CP CF AS MO CP CF AS

C1 73.98 17.32 2.4 6.3 73.86 17.44 2.3 6.4 74.1 17.5 2.1 6.3

C2 74.2 17.3 2.3 6.2 73.99 17.42 2.29 6.3 74.08 17.52 2.1 6.3

C3 74.3 17.1 2.4 6.2 74.01 17.38 2.31 6.3 73.91 17.59 2.1 6.4

T1 74.04 17.46 2.3 6.2 73.82 17.76 2.22 6.2 73.94 17.82 2.14 6.1

T2 74.12 17.38 2.3 6.2 73.87 17.72 2.31 6.1 74.01 17.76 2.13 6.1

T3 74.09 17.32 2.29 6.3 74.15 17.54 2.21 6.1 74.12 17.68 2.1 6.1

T4 73.78 17.64 2.28 6.3 73.33 18.12 2.35 6.2 73.64 18.24 2.12 6.0

T5 74.11 17.54 2.25 6.1 73.46 18.02 2.32 6.2 73.64 18.2 2.16 6.0

T6 74.14 17.42 2.24 6.2 73.64 17.86 2.3 6.2 73.76 18.1 2.14 6.0

MO = Moisture, CP = Crude protein, CF = Crude fat, As = Ash content

Estelar

176

Table 5.26: Proximate composition of Fish feed.

Nutrients (%)

Crude protein 24.0

Crude fat 6.0

Crude fiber 12.8

Table 5.27: FCR of different fish species.

Fish FCR

Silver carp 3.4

Grass carp 3.1

Common carp 3.8

Estelar

177

Table 5.28: Length –weight relationship of fish reared in trial Ponds.

Pond Species

(Density) Exponential Equation Logarithmic Equation Correlation

Coefficient ‘r’

Non-

integrated

SC (2.5/ m3) W = -4.2588L 2.2999 Log W= - 0.6293 + 2.2999Log L 0.8420

SC (3/ m3) W = -4.9585L 2.7909 Log W= - 0.6954 + 2.7909Log L 0.9150

SC (4/ m3) W = -4.9480L 2.7553 Log W= - 0.6944 + 2.7553Log L 0.9420

Integrated

(10Chicks)

SC (2.5/ m3) W = -5.0018L 2.6900 Log W= - 0.6991 + 2.6900Log L 0.8750

SC (3/ m3) W = -4.9941L 2.7409 Log W= - 0.6985 + 2.7409Log L 0.8890

SC (4/ m3) W = -5.0480L 2.7600 Log W= - 0.7031 2.7600Log L 0.9250

Integrated

(20Chicks)

SC (2.5/ m3) W = -5.1172L 2.7170 Log W= - 0.7090+ 2.7170Log L 0.8690

SC (3/ m3) W = -5.0878L 2.7529 Log W= - 0.7065 + 2.7529Log L 0.8910

SC (4/ m3) W -5.0531L 2.7033 Log W= - 0.7035 2.7170Log L 0.9000

Non-

integrated

GC (2.5/ m3) W = -5.0405L 2.9709 Log W= - 0.7024+ 2.9709Log L 0.9620

GC (3/ m3) W = -5.1268L 3.1649 Log W= - 0.7099+ 3.1649Log L 0.9260

GC (4/ m3) W = -5.0681L 3.0408 Log W= - 0.7048 + 2.9709Log L 0.9320

Integrated

(10Chicks)

GC (2.5/ m3) W = -4.9306L 3.0130 Log W= - 0.6929 + 3.0130Log L 0.9770

GC (3/ m3) W = -5.1686L 3.1288 Log W= - 0.7133 + 3.1288Log L 0.9730

GC (4/ m3) W -5.13302L 3.1106 Log W= - 0.71039+ 3.1106Log L 0.9660

Integrated

(20Chicks)

GC (2.5/ m3) W = -5.1326L 3.0555 Log W= - 0.7103 + 3.0555Log L 0.9810

GC (3/ m3) W = -5.2914L 3.1440 Log W= - 0.7235 + 3.1440Log L 0.9780

GC (4/ m3) W = -5.2315L 3.1248 Log W= - 0.7186 + 3.1248Log L 0.9620

Non-

integrated

CC (2.5/ m3) W = -5.3727L 3.0566 Log W= - 0.7302+ 3.0566Log L 0.9460

CC (3/ m3) W = -5.3260L 2.9715 Log W= - 0.7264 + 2.9715Log L 0.9360

CC (4/ m3) W = -5.3225L 2.9325 Log W= - 0.7261 + 2.9325Log L 0.9250

Integrated

(10Chicks)

CC (2.5/ m3) W -5.3135L 2.8960 Log W= - 0.7253 + 2.8960Log L 0.8870

CC (3/ m3) W = -5.2564L 2.8316 Log W= - 0.7207 + 2.8316Log L 0.8230

CC (4/ m3) W = -5.1411L 2.6709 Log W= - 0.7110+ 2.6709Log L 0.7730

Integrated

(20Chicks)

CC (2.5/ m3) W = -5.2539L 2.8314 Log W= - 0.7204 2.8314Log L 0.9250

CC (3/ m3) W = -5.2323L 2.7780 Log W= - 0.7186 + 2.7780Log L 0.8800

CC (4/ m3) W = -5.1635L 2.6695 Log W= - 0.7129 + 2.6695Log L 0.9000

SC- silver carp, GC- grass carp, CC- common carp.

Estelar

178

Fig.5.1: Growth performance (weight) of Silver carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density.

Fig.5.2: Growth performance (weight) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Wt. ( g

m)

C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Wt. ( g

m)

C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6Estelar

179

Fig.5.3: Growth performance (weight) of Common carp in non-integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density.

Fig.5.4: Growth performance (weight) of Silver carp in non-integrated and integrated ponds.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Wt. ( g

m)

C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Wt.(gm

) C

T10

T20Estelar

180

Fig.5.5: Growth performance (weight) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds.

Fig.5.6: Growth performance (weight) of Common carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Wt.(gm

) C

T10

T20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Wt.(gm

) C

T10

T20Estelar

181

Fig.5.7: Growth performance (Length) of Silver carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density.

Fig.5.8: Growth performance (Length) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


length(cm)

C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


length(cm)

C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6Estelar

182

Fig.5.9: Growth performance (Length) of Common carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density.

Fig.5.10: Growth performance (Length) of Silver carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


length(cm)

C1

C2

C3

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


length(cm)

C

T10

T20Estelar

183

Fig.5.11: Growth performance (Length) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds

Fig.5.12: Growth performance (Length) of Common carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


length(cm)

C

T10

T20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


length(cm)

C

T10

T20Estelar

Fig.5.

F

T

T

.13: Producponds

Fig.5.14: Nein

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

C1

Prod

uctio

n(kg/100m

3 )

C

T10

T20

ction of diff

et fish Prodntegrated p

1 C2 C3

58.08

59.52

184

ferent carp

duction (Kgponds.

T1 T2 TPond

68

fish in non

g/100m3) in

T3 T4 T5

8.7

n- integrate

n non- integ

5 T6

d and integ

grated and

Silver carp

Grass carp

Common carp

grated

d

Estelar

185

Fig.5.15: Species composition of net fish production in non- integrated ponds.

Fig.5.16: Species composition of net fish production in integrated ponds (10 Chicks)

Silver carp36%

Grass carp41%

Common carp23%

Non‐ integrated ponds

Silver carp37%

Grass carp39%

Common carp24%

Integrated ponds with 10 chicks

Estelar

186

Fig.5.17: Species composition in net fish production in integrated ponds (20 Chicks)

Silver carp36%

Grass carp41%

Common carp23%

Integrated ponds with 20 chicks

Estelar

187

Fig. 5.18: Length-weight relationship of silver carp in non- integrated pond (2.5 fish/m3)

Fig. 5.19: Length-weight relationship of silver carp in non-integrated pond (3.0 fish/m3)

Estelar

188

Fig. 5.20: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in non integrated pond (4.0 fish/m3)

Fig. 5.21: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 2.5 fish/m3)

Estelar

189

Fig. 5.22: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 3.0 fish/m3).


Estelar

190


Fig. 5.25: Length-weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 3.0 fish/m3)

Estelar

191


Fig. 5.27: Length- weight relationship of Grass carp in non integrated pond (2.5fish/m3).

Estelar

192

Fig. 5.28: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in non integrated pond (3.0 fish/m3).

Fig. 5.29: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in non integrated pond (4.0fish/m3).

Estelar

193

Fig. 5.30: Length- weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 2.5 fish/m3).


Estelar

194

Fig. 5.32: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 4.0 fish/m3).


Estelar

195

Fig. 5.34: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 3.0 fish/m3).

Fig. 5.35: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 4.0 fish/m3)

Estelar

196

Fig. 5.36: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in non integrated pond (2.5 fish/m3).

Fig. 5.37: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in non integrated pond (3.0fish/m3).

Estelar

197

Fig. 5.38: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in non-integrated pond ( 4.0 fish/m3).

Fig. 5.39: Length- weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (10 Chicks 2.5fish/m3).

Estelar

198

Fig. 5.40: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (10 Chicks 3.0 fish/m3).


Estelar

199

Fig. 5.42: Length- weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (20 Chicks 2.5fish/m3).

Fig. 5.43: Length- weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (20 Chicks 3.0 fish/m3).

Estelar

200


Estelar

201

Plate 5.1: Seed stocking in the experimental pond.

Plate 5.2: Liming in the experimental pond.

Estelar

202

Plate 5.3: Netting in the experimental pond.

Plate 5.4: Harvested fish from the experimental ponds.

Estelar

203

Plate 5.5: Fish From experimental ponds for measurement.

Plate 5.6: Weight measurement of Fish.

Estelar

204

Plate 5.7: Length measurement of Fish.

Estelar

chapter-5 estelar production rearing and of...

Documents