Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ AquaDocsarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
OceanDocs
Report . 2008
Data sources: OceanDocs
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Performance of Clarias gariepinus in a polyculture with Oreochromis niloticus.

Authors: Oladosu, G.A.; Ayinla, O.A.; Onuoha, G.C.; Needom, J.G.;

Performance of Clarias gariepinus in a polyculture with Oreochromis niloticus.

Abstract

A study of the performance of Clarias gariepinus (African Mudfish) in a polyculture with Oreochromis niloticus (Tilapia), integrated with broiler chicken production was carried at the African Regional Aquaculture Centre, Nigeria. Three experimrntal treatments were utilized. Treatment I was a polyculture of C. gariepinus and O. niloticus integrated with broiler chicken production, with application of supplemental feed to fish. Treatment II was a repeat of treatment 1, except that no supplemental feed was applied to fish, while treatment III was a polyculture of the two fish species per se with application of supplemental feed to fish. Results showed that the final individual weight, individual weight gain and recovery rate were best for C. gariepinus, under treatment I. Moreover, C. gariepinus yield in treatment II was 47.7% of that of treatment I, while yield in treatment III was 15.6% and 32.7% of those treatments i and ii respectively. Furthermore the comparisons of the daily growth rate for each of the fish species under different treatments were made. Statistical analysis showed that there is no difference (F >0.10 and F > 0.05) in the mean growth rate and average yield of both fish species, in all the treatments. A further comparison of these parameters (mean daily growth rate and average yield) showed that there was significant difference in the mean daily growth rate between treatments I and III only, and in the mean yield between treatment I and II, I and III and II and III. Furthermore, the possible effect of some physico-chemical parameters of the pond water, on the growth and survivability of the stocked fish species were discussed.

Published

NIOMR

Keywords

Polyculture, Fish culture

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average