EFFECT OF STOCKING SIZES EFFECT OF STOCKING SIZES ON THE YIELD AND - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EFFECT OF STOCKING SIZES EFFECT OF STOCKING SIZES ON THE YIELD AND ON THE YIELD AND SURVIVAL OF NILE TILAPIA SURVIVAL OF NILE TILAPIA ON- -GROWN IN PONDS GROWN IN PONDS ON

Researchers Researchers Remedios B. Bolivar, Eddie Boy T. Jimenez, Jun B. Bolivar, Eddie Boy T. Jimenez, Jun Remedios Rey A. A. Sugue Sugue Rey College of Fisheries/ Freshwater Aquaculture Center College of Fisheries/ Freshwater Aquaculture Center Central Luzon State University, Science City of Mu Muñoz, Central Luzon State University, Science City of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and and Christopher L. Brown Christopher L. Brown Marine Biology Program Marine Biology Program Florida International University Florida International University 3000 NE 151 St. ACI 378, North Miami, Florida, USA 3000 NE 151 St. ACI 378, North Miami, Florida, USA

Funding for this research was Funding for this research was provided by the provided by the Aquaculture Aquaculture Collaborative Research Collaborative Research Support Program Support Program The Aquaculture CRSP is funded in part by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Grant No. LAG-G-00-96-90015-00 and by participating institutions. .

OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVES ! To determine the growth and survival rate of To determine the growth and survival rate of ! producing various stocking sizes of Nile producing various stocking sizes of Nile tilapia fingerling during the nursery phase in tilapia fingerling during the nursery phase in hapas. hapas. ! To determine the effect of fingerling size on To determine the effect of fingerling size on ! the growth, survival, yield at harvest of Nile the growth, survival, yield at harvest of Nile tilapia in grow- -out ponds. out ponds. tilapia in grow

Materials & Methods for Materials & Methods for the Nursery Phase the Nursery Phase

Material and Methods Material and Methods ! Genomar Supreme Tilapia Strain (GST Strain) Genomar Supreme Tilapia Strain (GST Strain) ! were used in the study were used in the study ! Tilapia fingerling size # 22 required fourteen days Tilapia fingerling size # 22 required fourteen days ! (14 days) rearing in 2 x 2 x 1 m hapas hapas to attain size to attain size (14 days) rearing in 2 x 2 x 1 m # 14 # 14 ! Tilapia fingerling size # 22 required twenty eight Tilapia fingerling size # 22 required twenty eight ! days (28 days) rearing in 2 x 2 x 1 m hapas hapas to to days (28 days) rearing in 2 x 2 x 1 m attain size # 10 attain size # 10 ! Stocking density of fingerlings per Stocking density of fingerlings per hapa hapa was was ! -3 3 200 m - 200 m

Materials and Methods Materials and Methods ! A commercial type of feed was provided to the A commercial type of feed was provided to the ! fingerlings at the rate of 10- -20% of the body 20% of the body fingerlings at the rate of 10 weight weight ! The pond where The pond where hapas hapas were installed was were installed was ! fertilized with inorganic fertilizers at the rate of fertilized with inorganic fertilizers at the rate of 28 kg N & 5.6 kg P ha - -1 1 week week - -1 1 28 kg N & 5.6 kg P ha ! Production costs in the nursery phase were Production costs in the nursery phase were ! estimated to determine the cost of producing the estimated to determine the cost of producing the desired size of the fingerlings desired size of the fingerlings

Results of the Nursery Results of the Nursery Phase Phase

Growth pattern of Nile tilapia fingerlings from Growth pattern of Nile tilapia fingerlings from size # 22 to size # 14 in nursery hapas hapas size # 22 to size # 14 in nursery 2.1 1.8 Ave rage W e igh t (g) 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0 0 7 14 Culture Days

Growth pattern of Nile tilapia fingerlings from Growth pattern of Nile tilapia fingerlings from size # 22 to size # 10 in nursery hapas hapas size # 22 to size # 10 in nursery 7 6.1 6 Ave rage We ight (g) 5 4 3.6 3 2.1 2 1 0.6 0.2 0 0 7 14 21 28 Culture Days

Simple cost and benefit analysis of growing Nile tilapia Simple cost and benefit analysis of growing Nile tilapia fingerlings in the nursery hapas hapas from size # 22 to size # 10 and from size # 22 to size # 10 and fingerlings in the nursery -1 1 ) ha - from size # 22 to size # 14 (in PhP PhP ha ) from size # 22 to size # 14 (in Item Size #22 to #14 Size #22 to #10 A. Gross Return* P 30,000.00 P 38,000.00 B. Cost Fingerlings** 19,600.00 19,600.00 1,226.40 Feeds 6,468.00 Fertilizers 46-0-0 55.12 55.12 16-20-0 25.76 25.76 P 20,907.28 Total Cost (P) P 26,148.88 C. Net Return P 9,092.72 P 11,851.12 0.69 0.70 D. Cost Benefit Ratio * based on GFII pricing, ** based on the required number of fingerlings ha -1 for grow-out culture

Assumptions: Assumptions: Price of Feeds = P28.00 kg - -1 1 ! Price of Feeds = P28.00 kg ! ! Price of Fertilizers: Price of Fertilizers: ! 0 = P10.60 kg - -1 1 ! 46 46- -0 0- -0 = P10.60 kg ! 0 = P9.20 kg - -1 1 ! 16 16- -20 20- -0 = P9.20 kg ! ! GFII pricing for various sizes of fingerlings are as GFII pricing for various sizes of fingerlings are as ! follows: follows: -1 1 Size # 22 = P0.49 pc - ! Size # 22 = P0.49 pc ! -1 1 Size # 14 = P0.75 pc - ! Size # 14 = P0.75 pc ! -1 1 Size # 10 = P0.95 pc - ! Size # 10 = P0.95 pc !

Materials & Methods for Materials & Methods for the Grow- -out Phase out Phase the Grow

Materials and Methods Materials and Methods 2 ponds were used in the study Twelve (12) 500 m 2 ! Twelve (12) 500 m ponds were used in the study ! ! Three (3) stocking sizes were designated as Three (3) stocking sizes were designated as ! treatments: treatments: Treatment I - - direct stocking at size # 22 direct stocking at size # 22 Treatment I Treatment II - - stocking at size # 14 stocking at size # 14 Treatment II Treatment III - - stocking at size # 10 stocking at size # 10 Treatment III

Materials and Methods Materials and Methods ! Four (4) replicates per treatment Four (4) replicates per treatment ! -2 2 Stocking density: 4 fish m - ! Stocking density: 4 fish m ! ! Fish were provided with commercial Fish were provided with commercial ! feeds feeds ! Alternate day feeding strategy was Alternate day feeding strategy was ! followed followed ! Adjustment of the amount of feed was Adjustment of the amount of feed was ! done every two weeks done every two weeks

Materials and Methods Materials and Methods ! All ponds were fertilized using inorganic All ponds were fertilized using inorganic ! -1 1 fertilizers at a rate of 28 kg N and 5.6 kg P ha - fertilizers at a rate of 28 kg N and 5.6 kg P ha -1 1 week - week ! D.O., temp., pH, alkalinity, TAN and D.O., temp., pH, alkalinity, TAN and ! phosphorus were monitored every two weeks phosphorus were monitored every two weeks ! Water depth in the ponds was maintained at 1 m Water depth in the ponds was maintained at 1 m ! ! 100 fish samples were weighed individually 100 fish samples were weighed individually ! every two weeks in each pond to monitor weight every two weeks in each pond to monitor weight gain. gain.

Materials and Methods Materials and Methods ! Culture period: 120 days Culture period: 120 days ! ! Counting and bulk weighing of the Counting and bulk weighing of the ! harvested fish were done harvested fish were done ! Final mean weight, daily weight gain, gross Final mean weight, daily weight gain, gross ! yield, and survival rates were calculated yield, and survival rates were calculated ! Simple cost and return analysis was made to Simple cost and return analysis was made to ! compare the cost benefits among the compare the cost benefits among the different stocking sizes different stocking sizes

Results of the Grow- -out out Results of the Grow Phase Phase

Growth trend of Nile tilapia on- -grown in ponds at grown in ponds at Growth trend of Nile tilapia on different stocking sizes different stocking sizes 140 120 Tr I (size #22) 100 Tr II (size #14) Mean weight (g) TrIII (size #10) 80 60 40 20 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Culture Period (days)

Final mean weight of Nile tilapia in relation to Final mean weight of Nile tilapia in relation to survival rate survival rate 130.176 129.631 140 140 114.308 120 Final Mean Weight. (g) 120 Survival Rate(%) 100 100 80 80.45 80 74.98 60 60 57.21 40 40 20 20 0 0 I II III Final mean weight Survival Rate Treatments