4.0 Article

Performance of two varieties of Nile tilapia farming in hapas and excavated ponds in Brazil

Journal

SEMINA-CIENCIAS AGRARIAS
Volume 40, Issue 2, Pages 885-894

Publisher

UNIV ESTADUAL LONDRINA
DOI: 10.5433/1679-0359.2019v40n2p885

Keywords

Farming environment; Fish farming; Genotypes; Oreochromis niloticus; Strains

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The great commercial potential of Nile tilapia is due to features such as its high production performance, its adaptability to different fanning systems, and the development of genetic varieties with superior performance. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of two varieties, GIFT (Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia) and Supreme, grown in hapas in concrete tanks and grown in excavated ponds. Were used 200 and 1234 fingerlings of both varieties, GIFT and Supreme (average initial weight of 0.83 g), for farming in hapas and ponds, respectively. Biometric measurements were taken at four farming stages (fingerling, juvenile, growth, and fattening). Were measured weight (g), total length (cm), standard length (cm). trunk length (cm), head length (cm), head height (cm), body height (cm), weight gain (g) and head/edible-part ratio. For all parameters and in all stages, superior results were observed for tilapia reared in excavated ponds. When the varieties were compared, GIFT had the best performance for most parameters in the fingerling stage. and for weight, total length, and body height in the juvenile stage. Both varieties grew better in excavated ponds. Moreover, GIFT showed higher growth than Supreme during all stages when grown in excavated ponds. Supreme showed higher growth than GIFT in hapas only in the growth stage. Thus, it is concluded that the rearing in excavated ponds provided better results, with superiority of the GIFT variety. which was more able to take advantage of the favorable conditions of this system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available