4.5 Article

Effects of stocking density and feeding levels on growth and feed efficiency of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) fry

期刊

AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 621-626

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2109.2002.00700.x

关键词

Nile tilapia; stocking density; feeding levels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of stocking density and feeding levels on larval survival, growth rates, feed utilization efficiency and body composition of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) fry were investigated in two consecutive experiments. In experiment 1, swimup fry (0.016 g average body weight) were stocked in 20-L fibreglass tanks, in a closed, recirculating indoor system, at five stocking densities (3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 fry L-1 ) and fed a larval test diet (40% crude protein) to apparent satiation, three times a day, for 40 days. Fish survival, percentage weight gain and specific growth rate (% SGR) were negatively correlated with stocking density. The best performance was achieved at 3 fry L-1 . However, no significant differences in growth parameters were found between 3 and 5 fry L-1 . Body composition was not significantly affected by stocking density. In experiment 2, fry (0.016 g average body weight) were stocked at 5 fry L-1 , and fed a larval test diet (40% crude protein) at six feeding levels (10%, 20%, 25%, 30% and 35% BW day(-1) ) and to satiation, three times a day for 40 days. Fish growth rates and survival were extremely poor at 10% feeding level, and improved significantly with increasing feeding levels up to 30%, and levelled off with further increase in feeding levels. On the contrary, feed conversion ratio (FCR) and protein production value (PPV) were negatively correlated with feeding level. The lowest feeding level (10%) produced significantly lower body lipid and higher protein and ash than other feeding levels. The present results suggest that the optimum stocking density and feeding level of Nile tilapia fry are 5 fry L-1 and 30% per day respectively.

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

4.5
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