4.6 Article

Feeding frequency affect feed utilization of tilapia under biofloc system condition during nursery phase

期刊

AQUACULTURE REPORTS
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100625

关键词

Tilapia; Nursery phase; Feed frequency; Biofloc system

资金

  1. Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority in Egypt [5671]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research showed that feed frequency does not significantly impact growth performance under biofloc conditions, but FF2 and FF5 groups had the best feed conversion and protein efficiency ratios. Different feeding frequencies also influenced the composition of biofloc and the abundance of zooplankton.
Feed frequency is one of the factors that have great effect on feed utilization. This factor was previously examined under clear water condition but not under biofloc condition. Different feed frequencies (FF); one (FF1), two (FF2), three (FF3), four (FF4) and five (FF5) times a day were evaluated under biofloc system condition. Fish with initial body weight of 7.9 g +/- 0.03 were stocked (20 fish tank-1) in fifteen tanks (55 L). Total ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and pH values were within acceptable limits for Nile tilapia. No significant differences were recorded among different feeding frequency treatments regarding growth performance parameters. FF2 and FF5 groups had the best significant values for feed conversion and protein efficiency ratios. Ash content of the collected biofloc slightly differed(P <= 0.05) among treatments. The highest zooplankton count was recorded for FF5 treatment while, the lowest was recorded for FF2 treatment. Rotifers was the most dominant group (70-92 %) and the highest percentage were recorded for FF2 (92.4 %). FF5 showed a unique development in zooplankton community where, nematodes only appeared in this treatment. From economical prospective, feeding tilapia juveniles twice daily under biofloc condition will save labor costs or feeder energy and improve feed utilization than other frequencies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据