MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH AND COST IN MULTI-SIZED CULTURE SYSTEM OF COMMON CARP CYPRINUS CARPIO L. IN NET ENCLOSURES.
A Thesis Submitted to the Council of Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University Of Sulaimani in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master In Animal Production Sciences
Fish Farms Management
By
Sarwar Abwbakr Hama Amin B.Sc. Animal Resource (2006), University of Salahaddin-Erbil
Supervisor
Dr. Faroq M. Kaml Professor
2014 A.D
2714 K
ادار النمو والك
لن
التربي متعدد ااحج ل ك ر
ااعتي دي Cyprinus carpio L.في الح وي
الش كي .
رسال م دم الى م س فاك تي الع و ال راعي -جامع الس يماني ك ء من متط ا نيل درج الماجستي في الع و ال راعي -اانتاج الحيواني أدار المزار السمكي
من ق ل
( بكالوريو
عو
س رو ر ابوبكر حم أمين
راعي س ث و الحيواني ،ك ي ال راع ،جامع صا الدين) 6002 ,
بإشراف
أ.د.ف رو محمود ك مل الح يب
6024
6724
بة ِريَوةب دني ةشةو تيَ وون بؤ بةخيَوك دني كيَشي جياوا لة ثةنجة ماسي كاربي ئاسايي Cyprinus carpio L.
ثيَش ة
نامةيةكة ك ا بة ئةنج مةني فاكةلَ ي ان ة كش كالَيةكا لة ان ؤ سليَ ان ك بةشيَك لة ثيَ ي ييةكان بةد س يَنان ثلة ماس ة لة ان ة كش كالَيةكا -بة ب مي ئاذ لَي
بة ِيَ ب دني كيَلَطة ماسي لةا ية
اب ب
سة بةكال َ ي َ س – ساماني ئاذ لَي ،كؤليَ
ح ة امين
كش كا َ ،ان ؤ سةاَحةددين6002 ,
بة سة ثة ش
.د.فا ق مح د كامل الح يب
201 4
6724ك
Acknowledgements I must bow to Almighty Allah, the most merciful and compassionate, the most gracious and beneficent, whose bounteous blessing enabled me to perceive and pursue higher ideals of life. I invoke peace for the Prophet Muhammad (peace is upon Him) who is an eternal source of guidance and knowledge for humanity as a whole. I would deeply like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr.Faroq M. Kaml for his helpful advice, valuable
guidance
and
moral
support
during
the
preparation of this thesis. My sincere thanks to the members of my committee: (Dr.Nader Abed Salman Dr.saeed al-shawi, Dr.Mahmod Ahmad Mohamad ) for their time and vital contributions to this thesis, their guidance and assistance were greatly appreciated. I would like to express my deepest appreciations and thanks to all members of the Dept. of Animals Production, and all my colleagues inside and outside the faculty of Agriculture. My
best
thanks
to
Dr.Nasreen
Mohi
Alddin
Abdulrahman, Karzan A. Ahmad, Karwan M. Hamakhan I want to extend large thanks to (Muqdad K. Ali,Vian M. Ahmed,Azad
A.
Muhamad,
Ata
M.
Salih,
Hemn
N.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Muhammad, Hozan J. Hamasalim, Hersh A. Faraj, , Rauf H. Majeed, Saman M. Karim, Nizar Yasen,Sarwar M. Sadiq). I would like to express my sincerest thanks to my father, mother, wife, brothers and sisters for their prayers and moral support during whole of my life.
Sarwar
Appendix
weekly weight
weight(g)
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
S M B PS PM PB initial
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
weeks Appendix No. 1 Mean of biweekly weight gain (g) every two week of common carp of different size in net enclosure.
daily weihgt gain 1.2 1
weihgt
0.8
S
0.6
M B
0.4 PS 0.2
PM PB
0 2
4
6
8
10
12
week Appendix No. 2 Mean of daily weight gain (g) of common carp of different size in net enclosure. 48
Relative Growth Rate 35 30 25 20
(%)
15 10 5 0 2
4
6
8
10
12
week S
M
B
PS
PM
PB
Appendix No. 3 Relative Growth Rate of common carp of different size in net enclosure.
Specific Growth Rate (SGR) 6 5 4
%
S M
3 B 2
PS PM
1 PB 0 2
4
6
8
10
12
Week Appendix No. 4: Specific Growth Rate (SGR) of common carp of different size in net enclosure.
49
Food Conversion Ratio (FCR) 12 10 S
8
M 6 B 4
PS
2
PM PB
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
week Appendix No. 5: Food Conversion Ratio (FCR) Performance at Different weight of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) cultured in net enclosure.
50
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions 1. Multi-sized culture of common carp in net enclosures is beneficial for better growth and feed conversion in comparison with mono-sized culture system. 2. Small-sized fish grew better and had better conversion than medium and bigsized fish. 3. On biomass basis, small sized fish and multi-sized culture had the best growth and feed conversion efficiencies. 4. Total cost / Net production was superior in the big fish and multi-size enclosures. Recommendations: For future research projects: 1. Multi-sized culture system should be tried in earthen ponds to test the role of natural food. 2. In multi-sized earthen ponds median harvest for big fish may be practiced along with rational compensation with smaller fish, in graded production cycle. 3. Management of rational stocking density trials in conjunction with economic feasibility studies is highly recommended for such culture system.
51
INTRODUCTION Fishery production, including fishing and farming is considered as important sources for food security and economic development in Iraq and Kurdistan. The existing renewable water resources as well as the geographic location of Iraq help in providing diverse environment regarding distribution of temperature and diversity of geographic and biological resources (Hassan, 1988). Production of fish under controlled conditions started 4–5,000 years ago in China through rearing of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in earthen ponds. Common carp is one of the most important fish species in aquaculture (Yousefian and Laloei, 2011). They are frequently cultured and are of great commercial value as a food fish both over their native and introduced range (Aguirre and Poss, 2000). As robust omnivores fish, these carp feed on algae, plankton, snails and detritus that were naturally produced in the ponds (Gjedrem and Baranski, 2009). Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) prefers water bodies with stagnant and slowly flowing waters with sand and/ or silt bottoms with shell incorporations (Kuznetsov et al., 2002). The common carp fish of economically important fish took first place for culture in temperate and warm regions, including Iraq (Al-Daham, 1990; Al-Saadi et al., 1999). The cultivation of carp in Iraq started from the early fifties 1956 in Al-Zaafrania fish farm (Al-Daham, 1990; Al-Saedy et al., 1999). There are many important and influential factors in fish farming, including nutritional and management factors, since all management process in farming projects are very important starting from getting juvenile fish and availability of ponds and feeds
and also disease prevention,
marketing management.
1
production management
and
INTRODUCTION
In fish farming, nutrition is critical because feed represents more than 60% of the production costs. Recently fish nutrition has advanced dramatically with the development of new, balanced commercial diets that promote optimal fish growth and health (Tom and Van-Nostrand, 1989). Feed acceptability, palatability and digestibility vary with the ingredients and feed quality. Fish farmers pay careful attention to feeding activity in order to determine feed acceptance, calculate feed conversion ratios and feed efficiencies, monitor feed costs, and track feed demand throughout the year (Roberts, 1989). Nutrition is the series of processes by which living organisms obtain food substances and use them to provide energy and materials for growth, activities and reproduction. Good nutrition in animal production systems is essential to economically produce a healthy, high quality product (Winfree, 1992). Digestion is the means whereby the various items of the diet become broken up into a form in which they can be assimilated into the blood or lymph. The breaking down of large molecules that takes place in digestion is based on the chemical reaction of hydrolysis, whereby organic and inorganic compounds are split into fragments by the addition of water (Winfree, 1992). There is a little concern about administrative aspects of fish farming and production and in contrast there is more interest in the economic side. One of the main management aims is to increase production. Multi-sized culture has been practiced in China long time ago aiming at increasing harvest frequency and ultimately increasing production in fish farms (WPRIAP, 1975). This method has been practiced in earthen ponds in Iraq as recorded by Al-Rudainy et al., 1999). In that trial, common carp of various size-classes were raised together and those
2
INTRODUCTION
attained table-size were harvested periodically, giving the chance for smaller size fish to grow faster. The aim of the present study is to culture three different sizes of common carp in net enclosures. Multi- and mono-sized culture was practiced to examine their effects on growth, feeding activities, digestibility and production costs.
3
CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Experimental procedures: The experiment was conducted for 98 days using 240 fingerlings common carp Cyprinus carpio L. (Figure 2) which was brought from a local hatchery located in Waste Governorate, middle of Iraq. The size of fish was varying and the weights ranged between 8.914-99.713 g. The fish have been sorted depending on size then weighed and put in experimental net enclosure. They were then acclimated to pond conditions and fed with pellets prior to the feeding trials for 21 days in separate size groups.
Figure 2: Experimental fish, Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.)
21
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.2 Experimental system and design This experiment was carried out in the fish pond of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal production, University of Sulaimani in Bakrajo. The number of net enclosures in the trial was eight representing four treatments with two replicates for each treatment. The experimental design was conducted according to CRD (ANCOVA). Each net enclosure was made of wood covered with plastic buckle, and their dimensions are: 1.5m (length) x 1m (width) x 1.5(height) (Figure 3). Each net enclosure was stocked with thirty fish and fed twice a day. The experimental design is represented in a diagram in Figure (4) which shows the distribution of fish on the eight net enclosures. Net enclosures that contain the small size fish (S) were stocked with fish averaged 8.942g in weight, while net enclosures (M) were stocked with fish of medium size with an average weight of 29.927g. Net enclosures with big size fish (B) were stocked with fish averaged 91.498g in weight. The multi-sized poly culture net enclosures (P) were stocked with fish of all previous sizes (S, M and B).
Figure 3: The fish pond with the net enclosures 22
MATERIALS AND METHODS
240 Fish (common carp) (Cyprinus carpio) Each treatment two replication (30 fish/ net enclosure)
Net enclosure S1
Net enclosure S2
Net enclosure M1
Net enclosure M2
N = 30
N = 30
N = 30
N = 30
W= 8.971g
W= 8.914g
W= 29.914g
W= 29.941g
Biomass=897.42g
Biomass=898.23g
Biomass=269.13g
Biomass=267.42g
Net enclosure B1
Net enclosure B2
Net enclosure P1
N = 30
N = 30
W= 90.283g
W=92.713g
PS/ N=15 W=8.789 PM/ N=10 W=29.66 PB/ N=5 W=90.571
Biomass=2708.49g
Biomass=2781.39g
Net enclosure P2 PS/ N=15 W =8.87 PM/ N=10 W=30.13 PB/ N=5 W=90.42
Biomass=881.29g Biomass=886.45g
Studied characteristics Weight gain (WG) Growth rate (GR) Relative Growth Rate (RGR) Specific growth rate (SGR) Food conversion ratio (FCR) Cost of production Apparent digestibility N=number of fish W=Average initial weight (g/fish)
Figure 4: Experimental design of the research project 23
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.3 Experiment diet: Commercial ration supplied by BESLER YEM Company was used in the experiment. The chemical composition of the experimental diet as supplied by the company is shown in Table (1). Table 1: The chemical composition of experimental diet (BESLER YEM) Composition Dry matter Crude Protein Crude Fat Crude Fiber Crude Ash Moisture
Ratio % (%min) 88 (%min-max) 24-26% (%min-max) 2.5-3% (%max) 18% (%max) 10% (%max) 10%
Calcium
(%min-max)1.0-3.0%
Phosphorus
(%min) 1
NaCl
(%max) 1
Metabolizable Energy
2400(Kcal/Kg.min)
Vitamin A(Per KG) Vitamin D3(Per KG) Vitamin E(Per KG)
5000 IU 700 IU 30 mg
In addition to the above analysis which was supplied by the company, the ration was analyzed using the standard AOAC procedures for the main components. The actual analysis is listed below:
24
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Composition Dry matter Crude Protein Crude Fiber Crude Ash
Ratio % 86 23% 16% 11%
3.4 Feeding Method: Fish of all sizes in the experimental net enclosure were fed a commercial ration (Turkish feed company –Besler) at the rate %4 of body weight. Feed was offered to fish twice a day (9am and 3pm) using net cases suspended in the water of the net enclosures by a piece of rope. Feeding activity is monitored daily to ensure consumption and rectify feeding rate if necessary especially during winter months.
3.5 Growth parameters: The individual body weight (g) for all fishper net enclosure (30 fishes) was measured biweekly. The feed consumption of each treatment was recorded and readjusted according to the obtained biomass at every treatment biweekly. The average growth parameters calculated according to the following equations: 3.5.1 Body weight gain: Body weight gain (g/fish) = Mean of weight (g) at the end of the experimental period (Wf) – weight (g) at the beginning of the experimental period (Wi) 3.5.2Daily weight gain (DWG): Daily weight gain (DWG) = Weight gain / Experimental period 25
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Wf – Wi (g) Daily weight gain (DWG) =
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ T2 - T1 (days)
3.5.3 Specific Growth Rate (SGR) SGR =
LnWf (g) – Ln Wi (g)
x 100
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
T2-T1
(Hepher, 1988)
(Days)
Wf= Final average weight at the end of the experiment Wi = Initial average weight at the beginning of the experiment Ln = Natural logarithm T2 – T1 = Number of days for the experiment 3.5.4 Relative Growth Rate (RGR): Wf (g) – Wi (g) RGR (%) = ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــx 100
(Wannigamma et al., 1985)
Wi (g) 3.5.5 Feed Conversion Ratio (g) (FCR):
FCR =
Weight of feed given (g) ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ Fish weight gain (g)
26
(Hepher, 1988)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.6 Water Quality: Three samples of the pond water were taken each month for estimation of the dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity and electric conductivity. The results represent the mean of two readings according to (APHA, 1999). 3.6.1 Temperature: The temperature was measured using a special digital temperature–sensitive thermometer. 3.6.2 Hydrogen Ion Potential (pH): The pH of the water sample was measured using portable pH-meter, model (pH330i, (2004), WTW company-Germany).The instrument was calibrated before using with standard buffer solution (pH=4, 7, and 10) according to operating manual. 3.6.3 Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The dissolved oxygen was measured using a special oxygen meter supplied with sensitive membrane electrode (InoLab.OXi730, (2004), WTW company-Germany). Dissolved Oxygen values were recorded directly in the field and the results were expressed in mg/L. 3.6.4Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit) (NTU): Turbidity of surface water was determined using portable turbid meter; model (PHoto Flex Turb., (2006), WTW company-Germany). The readings were in Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) after calibration with turbidity standards. 27
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.6.5 Electrical Conductivity (EC): The electrical conductivity (EC) of the water sample was measured using portable EC-meter; model (LF318, (2000), WTW Company-Germany).The instrument is supplied with thermocouple to compensate the temperature effect. 3.7 Measurement of Apparent Digestibility: After the completion of the field experiment five fish of each size treatment were taken and put in the plastic tanks in the laboratory. After two weeks of acclimatization, the digestibility experiment was started putting the fish in three plastic tanks and starving them for a full day to get rid of all ruminants in the alimentary canal then fish were fed the experimental ration enriched with 2% Cr2O3 for three hours. They were then transferred to another three clean tanks to collect feces. Feces were collected by filtration using piece of mesh cloth. They were then air-dried, weighed and analyzed. Both ration and feces were analyzed to determine nutrients and Cr2O3 concentrations (AOAC). Calculations according to (Hepher, 1988): Total Apparent Digestibility Coefficient (TADC) = % Marker in diet
% TADC =100-] 100 × (-----------------------------)[ % Marker in faeces
Nutrient Apparent Digestibility Coefficient (NADC): % marker in diet / % marker in faeces % NADC =100-] 100× ([ )ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ % nutrient in faeces / % nutrient in diet
28
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.8 Statistical Analysis:
Analysis of variance was conducted using the general linear models (GLM) procedure of XLSTAT.Pro.7.5 One way CRD (ANCOVA). Fisher’s L.S.D test’s was used to compare between means of the experiment treatments. The model of analysis was as follows: Yij = μ + Ti + Eij μ = the overall mean. Ti = the effect of treatment. Eij= the random error.
29
Chapter Four RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Water Quality Parameters 4.1.1 Temperature The water temperature in all treatments ranged between (18–31Co). It was highest in September (31 Co) and a lowest (18 Co) in December(Table2).The maximum temperature, which fish can withstand, varies from species to species, and within species according to the environmental history of the fish. Generally, fish can acclimate to gradually rising temperatures for some degree, so that the lethal temperature depends to some extent on the temperature to which the fish was initially acclimated. Temperature recorded in the present experiment is within the suitable range of temperature for common carp which has well been documented. The present results agreed with that pointed out by Jhingran (1991) who observed that carps thrive well in the temperature range of 18.3C° to 37.8C°.
4.1.2 Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH): The hydrogen ion concentration ranged from 6.8–7.5. The pH values were high in September (pH 8) and low (pH 7.1) in December (Table 2).This range is quite suitable for wellbeing of common carp. For aquatic animals including fish, pH level plays an important role (Miron et al. 2008). An increase or decrease in pH disturbs the acid-base balance, ion regulation, and ammonia excretion (Wood, 2001).Saeed(2012) explained in his study that common carp grow and survive best when exposed to a water pH of 7.5-8.0. The same author postulated that only 4%11% of carp survived exposure to acidic waters (pH 6-6.5). Exposure of carp to pH levels lower than 7.5 or higher than 8.5 reduced survivals compared to pH levels of 30
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
(7.5-8.0) (Lloyd and Jordan, 1964). Higher water pH had a detrimental effect on survival. The fish died before the second week of the experiment at pH 9.0. In fact, exposure to alkaline waters caused an increase in plasma ammonia, which is toxic to fish (Miron et al. 2008).
Table 2: Water quality parameter in the pond Months
EC (μs/cm ) 0.6433
7.5
DO (mg/l) 5
Temp. (Co) 31
Turbidity (NTU) 76.9
October
0.604
7.2
5.3
26
87.4
November
0.565
7.1
5.8
23
92
December
0.531
6.8
6.4
18
94
September
pH = Hydrogen Ion concentration, Temp= Temperature.
pH
EC = Electronic conductivity,
DO = Dissolved Oxygen,
4.1.3 Dissolved Oxygen (DO): Dissolved oxygen (DO) during the experimental period ranged from 5mg/l to 6.4 mg/l. It increased from September to December, and the highest (6.4mg/l) was recorded in December (Table 2). According to Hepher (1988), the suitable concentration of dissolved oxygen to common carp to grow well ranged from 3 to 7 mg/liter. This means that the observed range is suitable for feeding and growth of carp in the present experiment. Carp are able to respire from the thin surface film of water which contains more oxygen than water below the surface (Kramer and McClure, 1982). Carp are often seen apparently gulping at the water surface The dissolved oxygen concentration within a water body can experience large daily fluctuations. Decreased oxygen availability is also considered a major factor 31
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
in determining food intake. Low dissolved oxygen is a type of stress frequently found in fish farms characterized by high fish densities and polluted fresh or marine waters (Caduto, 1990). 4.1.4 Turbidity Turbidity (NTU) (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) during the experimental period ranged from 76.9to 92.0 NTU. Turbidity increased from September to December, and the highest was in December. Roberts and McCorkell (1995) stated that carp at densities of 510 and 226 kilograms per hectare, caused an increase in turbidity from 7 to 73 (NTU) respectively, over only four days. They have postulated that carp had a negative impact on the development of epiphytic algae, probably because of decreased light penetration caused by carp increasing turbidity they also found that concentrations of total phosphorus were usually greater with higher carp densities, but there were no consistent patterns for dissolved phosphorus. Malcolm, (1971), working in Gippsland in Victoria, found a general trend indicating an increase in turbidity in farm dams with the presence of carp. The removal of carp was followed by a reduction in turbidity.Lougheed et al. (1998) used carp of different densities in enclosures in a marsh in Canada to show that turbidity, total phosphorus and total ammonia concentrations all increased as predicted with increases in carp biomass. 4.1.5 Electrical conductivity Level ranged from 0.531μs/cm at December to 0.643μs/cm at September (Table 2). This ranged is suitable to growth of the common carp (FAO, 1985). In Iraq common carp survive and grew well in concrete ponds supplied by drainage water 32
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
of (2.5 – 4.3 g/l) salinity and in floating cages placed in drainage canal of the same salinity (Salman, et al., 1993; Salman et al., 1997).
4.2 Growth Performance The summary of the growth performance of Cyprinus carpio is shown in Tables 3 and 4. 4.2.1 Mean Weight Gain (MWG) Weight gain of C. carpio in different net enclosures is shown in Table 3. There are significant difference in weight gain between different size groups (P<0.05). Final weight of fish of various sizes (S, M and B) which were cultured separately is 28.676, 71.141 and 182.048 respectively. Fish of various sizes which were cultured together attained higher final (PS 33.132g, PM 76.450g and PB 188.398g) (Table3). Treatment effect was significant at all period of the study. The net enclosure (p) with polyculture of multi size shad the best result compared with other net enclosures. Such result may be attributed to the low competition among fish for feed. In all net enclosures S, M and B the initial weight of fish were homogenous and the competition for feed was higher compared with the net enclosure (P). According to Jobling (1995), intra-specific competition for food occurs at high density because the available food is insufficient to allow maximum growth of fish (Jobling, 1995). The same author postulated that significant difference in initial weight decreases the competition for feed. Furthermore, there is a possibility that small sized fish which have been reared together with largesized one in the same enclosure may feed on the indigestible food excreted by large fish. This might explain the better growth seen by small fish cultured in
33
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
multi-size enclosure compared with fish of similar size which were cultured separately in mono-size enclosures. From the data of Table 3, it seems that differences between (S) and (PS) became significant (p<0.05) after week 4, while those between (M) and (PM) became significant (P<0.05) after week 6. Similar observations were noted among (B) and (PB). Table 3: Mean of biweekly weight gain (g) every two week of common carp of different size in net enclosure Week Net enclo sure
Initial weight
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
a b b b b b b 11.190 13.390 16.520 19.841 23.291 26.42 28.67 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.070 0.120 0.130 0.080 0.245 0.095 0.201 a a a a a a a 8.832 PS 12.085 15.635 19.235 22.882 26.632 29.782 33.13 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.043 0.195 0.745 0.645 0.795 0.745 0.690 0.145 a a b b b b b 29.927 M 36.375 42.725 48.975 55.723 62.073 67.47 71.14 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.013 0.635 0.785 0.235 0.485 0.080 0.245 0.095 a a a a a a a 29.899 PM 36.300 43.600 51.450 58.400 64.850 67.473 76.450 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.233 0.330 0.430 0.780 1.430 1.380 1.480 1.780 a a b b b b b 91.498 B 105.34 118.34 133.195 147.39 161.098 172.8 182.0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 1.215 0.665 0.165 0.185 0.785 0.585 0.085 0.235 PB 90.497 105.54a 119.74a 135.245a 149.048a 164.048a 177.38a 188.38a ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.073 0.175 0.775 0.475 0.525 0.775 0.825 1.125 Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).
S
8.942 ± 0.029
S=Small size, M=Medium size, B=Big size P=Poly culture (mixed weight of small, medium and big size) PS=Poly culture small size PM= Poly culture medium size PB= Poly culture big size 34
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.2.2 Daily weight gain: From the data presented in Table (4), it is clear that the daily gain of C. carpio in the multi size net enclosure (P) was higher than other single size net enclosures. These results indicated that the daily gain for a was negatively correlated with stocking density especially in the (B) enclosure where stocking density reached 2780 per enclosure compared with the (S) enclosure where only 268 g were stocked and (P) enclosure which contains 890 g. Such results are in agreement with those obtained by Karplus et al. (1996) as well as (Abdulrahman, 2008) recorded that the total weight gain ranged from (2.3-6.63)g/fish in diet contain %32 protein. Daily weight gain was low in all net enclosures in the first period of trial, but gradually increased in weeks 4, 6, 8, 10. In the final weeks (10-14) was decreased as of the temperature dropped down. As seen in Table (4), no significant differences in daily weight gain were recorded between small-sized fish reared in multi- or mono-sized culture (P>0.05). The same observation can be said for medium-sized fish apart from daily gain in 4-6 weeks. Big-sized fish showed significant differences (P<0.05) in DWG when reared in mono and multi-sized culture during 8-12 weeks.
35
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 4: Mean of daily weight gain (g) of common carp of different size in net enclosure Week Net enclosure S
2-4 0.158
4-6 b
± 0.008
PS
0.255
a
± 0.013
M
0.455
a
± 0.123
PM
0.523
a
± 0.008
B
0.930
b
± 0.040
PB
1.013
a
6-8
0.223
a
± 0.003
0.258
a
± 0.040
0.445
b
± 0.143
0.560
a
± 0.008
1.060
a
± 0.035
1.108
a
0.238
8-10 a
± 0.008
0.260
a
± 0.008
0.483
a
± 0.135
0.498
a
± 0.025
1.013
a
± 0.025
1.040
a
0.248
10-12 a
± 0.007
0.268
a
± 0.010
0.453
a
± 0.110
0.460
a
± 0.048
0.980
b
± 0.043
1.018
a
0.223
a
± 0.003
0.225
a
± 0.003
0.388
a
± 0.103
0.438
a
± 0.005
0.843
b
± 0.015
0.953
a
± ± ± ± ± 0.020 0.043 0.023 0.005 0.018 Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).
12-14 0.160
a
± 0.013
0.240
a
± 0.005
0.263
a
± 0.080
0.393
a
± 0.008
0.655
a
± 0.038
0.785
a
± 0.003
This result agreed with many researcher when they reported that the daily weight gain was (0.181g) from the carp feed the commercial diet (Salaei, 2006) and (Alchalabi, 2010) who recorded that the total weight gain from common carp reached 55.04g during 10 weeks. The growth rate of 3.2g/day, 4.2g/day was reported for Clarias gariepinusin net-net enclosures by Otubusin (2001) and 7.3g/day as reported by Otubusin et al. (2004). This growth is higher when 36
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
compared with other culturing system like concrete tank with hybrid catfish (2.6g/day) as reported by Salami et al. (1993) and 0.012g/day by Egwui (1986).
4.2.3 Relative Growth Rate (RGR): Relative Growth Rate (RGR) give us better idea about fish growth as it reduces the variance between initial weights and final weight (Hepher, 1988). Data of relative growth rate (Table 5) showed the same pattern exposed by other growth parameters. This means that fish of various sizes reared together give better RGR than those reared separately. As seen in Table (7), PS attained 275.1% compared with 220.6% attained by (S) (P<0.05). On weekly basis only during 2-4 weeks and 10-12 weeks, differences were significant (Table 5). Medium sized fish attained lower RGR values (137.7%) when reared separately. This value increased significantly (P<0.05) to 155.6% when reared together. Much lower RGR values were recorded in big-sized fish (B) 98.9% due to the big initial weight, values increased to 108.1% in (PB) enclosure with no significant differences (P>0.05) in weekly data (Table 5). Weekly monitoring of RGR (Table 5) showed a studious increase during the initial period (weeks 2-8) due to the suitable water temperature. RGR values decreased during winter months (8-14) due to lower water temperature which affect the growth of fish in all treatments. The present findings are comparable to those of other studies. RGR values recorded in the present study were higher than those found by Abdul-Halim (2006) for common carp reared in net enclosures.
37
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table5: Relative Growth Rate of common carp of different size in net enclosure Week Net enclosure S
2-4
4-6
19.655
b
± 0.012
PS
29.315
17.460b
a
b
20.110
12.345
a
13.455
14.655
17.995
a
13.785
13.490
a
10.660
12.945
a
10.760
a
a
16.415
a
11.055
a
± 0.005
a
9.295
a
± 0.038
a
9.515
a
11.835
b
± 0.007
a
11.395
13.455
12-14
± 0.023
± 0.080
± 0.032
a
17.390
± 0.008
± 0.005
± 0.008
a
a
± 0.012
a
10-12
± 0.004
± 0.005
b
12.545
a
18.975
± 0.009
± 0.146
PB
a
23.110
8-10
± 0.123
± 0.006
± 0.007
B
20.095
± 0.001
± 0.002
PM
a
± 0.008
± 0.012
M
23.370
6-8
a
8.700
a
± 0.013
9.405
a
± 0.024
7.280
a
± 0.028
8.135
a
± ± ± ± ± 0.006 0.017 0.006 0.003 0.035 Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).
8.550
± 0.043
11.300
a
± 0.009
5.450
a
± 0.008
7.750
a
± 0.015
5.300
a
± 0.007
6.200
a
± 0.002
4.2.4 Specific Growth Rate (SGR): The specific growth rate data are shown in (Table 6) on weekly monitoring basis and in (Table 7) which showed the summary of the mean growth performance. As stated before fish reared in multi-size enclosures exhibited higher SGR values (PS: 1.348, PM: 0.958 and PB: 0.747) compared with mono-size system (S: 1.189, M: 0.883, B: 0.702). This could be related to the less competition when multi-size fish are reared together. Homogenous sizes might face a sort of 38
a
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
competition resulted in a reduction of feed intake which is, in turn, reflected on growth. As seen in Table (5), differences between (PS x S) and (PM x M) are significant (P<0.05) in all weeks, and those between (PB x B) were significant (P<0.05) only during weeks (8-12). Table 6: Specific Growth Rate (SGR) of common carp of different size in net enclosures Week Net enclosure S
2-4
2.594
4-6 b
± 0.006
PS
2.748
a
± 0.016
M
3.755
a
± 0.017
PM
3.775
a
± 0.009
B
4.774
a
± 0.006
PB
4.785
a
2.805
6-8 b
± 0.009
2.956
a
± 0.048
3.891
b
± 0.018
3.940
a
± 0.010
4.892
a
± 0.001
4.907
a
8-10
2.988
b
± 0.008
b
± 0.007
3.130
a
± 0.034
4.020
3.148
10-12
b
± 0.005
4.067
a
± 0.015
4.993
a
± 0.001
5.009
a
3.282
a
± 0.035
4.128
b
± 0.007
4.172
a
± 0.024
5.082
b
± 0.005
5.100
a
3.274
b
± 0.003
3.394
a
± 0.028
4.212
b
± 0.009
4.262
a
± 0.021
5.153
b
± 0.004
5.178
a
± ± ± ± ± 0.002 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.005 Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).
39
12-14
3.356
b
± 0.009
3.501
a
± 0.004
4.265
b
± 0.003
4.336
a
± 0.021
5.204
a
± 0.001
5.239 ± 0.006
a
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 7: Summary of the Mean Growth Performance at Different weight of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) cultured in net enclosures Week Net
IWT
FWT
WTG
RGR
SGR
( g)
( g)
( g)
(% )
(% /week)
8.942
28.676
19.734
± 0.029
± 0.201
± 0.124
8.832
33.132
24.3
± 0.043
± 0.145
± 0.102
29.927
71.141
41.214
± 0.013
± 0.095
± 0.714
29.899
76.450
46.551
± 0.233
± 0.780
± 1.547
FCR
DWG (g/day)
enclosure S
PS
M
PM
B
91.498 182.048 ± 1.215
PB
± 0.235
90.497 188.398 ± 0.073
± 0.125
90.55 ± 1.450
97.901 ± 1.199
220.688
a
± 0.041
b
± 0.213
275.135
b
± 0.188
1.348
a
± 0.041
137.715
b
± 0.074
0.883
b
± 0.121
155.694
a
± 0.123
98.963
1.189
0.958
a
± 0.065
b
± 0.021
108.181
0.702
b
± 0.259
a
0.747
a
3.681
a
± 0.020
3.440
a
± 0110
a
± 0.115
b
± 0.160
6.427
a
± 0.005
5.913
b
± 0.032
0.251
a
± 0.020
5.649
4.725
0.208
b
0.414
b
± 0.020
0.478
a
± 0.005
0.913
b
± 0.010
0.986
a
± ± ± ± 0.030 0.070 0.170 0.008 Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).
4.2.5 Food Conversion Ratio (FCR): The analysis of the food conversion ratio, which expresses the efficiency of fish in converting food to flesh, was better in fish reared in multi-size enclosure (PS:3.4, PM:4.7, PB:5.9) compared with the fish reared separately in (S: 3.6, M:5.6 and B:6.4) enclosures (Table 7). This might be due to the energy expenditure 40
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
during feeding. Fish at the net enclosures with homogenous sizes (S, M, and B) may expend more feed for energy due to competitive feeding behavior than converting feed into flesh. The overall weight gain at the net enclosure with similar size (S, M, and B) was low and may be attributed to high energy expenditure expended during feeding, whereas fish at the net enclosure with mixed sizes showed more conversion into flesh. However, on weekly basis (Table 8) differences in FCR values between S x PS, M x BM and B x PB were not significant (P>0.05) during most of the weeks. It can be seen from data of Table (7) and Table (8) that better FCR was recorded by small size fish followed by medium and big size fish. This might be due to the faster growth rate in small size fish. Results also showed that FCR values during warm season (first 10 weeks) are better than FCR during the colder late period (10-14 weeks). Progressive deterioration was noted with decreased water temperature. Feeding activities are known to be related with water temperature. Jhingran (1991) observed that carps thrive well in the temperature range of 18.3C° to 37.8C°. The FCR pattern is mainly coincide with growth performance. The food conversion ratio is improved (lowered) at higher growth rates (Markore and Rorvik 2001, Crampton et al. 2003, Norgarden et al. 2003). In most cases, the FCR appears to be slightly lower for tank studies (mean: 0.93) than for net-pen studies (mean: 1.02). The average FCR values in Scotland and Chile were 1.28 and 1.26 respectively (Neuman et al. 2004). The best FCR in Scotland was 0.99 while Chile’s best came in at 1.1. Kreiberg and Brenton-Davie (1998) report an FCR of 0.99 for Atlantic salmon in a Sea Systems floating bag. An experiment done on tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) showed that FCR was inversely proportional to the 41
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
dissolved oxygen level (1.45 at higher dissolved oxygen level and 6.75 at lower dissolved oxygen level) (Tsadik and Kutty 1987). Bromage et al. (2000) showed that Halibut are capable of achieving a 1:1 food conversion ratio (FCR) Table 8: Food conversion ratio (FCR) Performance at Different weight of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) cultured in net enclosures Week Net enclosure S
2-4
2.850
4-6 a
± 0.107
PS
1.950
b
± 0.063
M
3.210
a
± 0.182
PM
2.785
a
± 0.020
B
4.545
a
± 0.197
PB
4.170
a
6-8 a
2.405
± 0.050
2.435
a
± 0.270
3.860
a
± 0.020
3.115
b
± 0.015
4.465
a
± 0.205
4.330
a
2.790
8-10 a
± 0.115
2.950
a
± 0.185
4.070
a
± 0.410
4.175
a
± 0.105
5.265
a
± 0.115
5.205
a
3.220
10-12 a
± 0.110
3.420
a
± 0.020
4.915
a
± 0.130
5.075
a
± 0.325
6.030
a
± 0.215
5.895
a
a
4.175
± 0.070
4.740
a
± 0.160
6.440
a
± 0.005
5.950
a
± 0.165
7.660
a
± 0.120
6.880
b
± ± ± ± ± 0.059 0.170 0.110 0.005 0.075 Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).
42
12-14
6.650
a
± 0.205
5.150
a
± 0.210
11.400
a
± 0.170
7.250
a
± 0.030
10.600
a
± 0.350
9.000
a
± 0.010
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.3 Biomass-based Comparisons of growth and feed conversion performance: Biomass comparisons were conducted between the four enclosures due to differences in fish size and numbers. These comparisons would enable statistical analysis of data concerning different size groups (S, M and B) without splitting data of the multi-size enclosure (P), as done in the previous analyses. Comparisons include growth and feed conversion parameters. As seen from the data presented in Table 9, small- sized fish achieved the best biomass specific (SGR) (1.18 %/day) and relative (RGR) ( 220.62 %) growth rates compared with fish of medium and large size or those in the multi-sized culture (Table, 9). Differences were significant (p<0.05). Superior growth rate of this treatment might be due to the better feed conversion rate (FCR) (2.85) recorded for small-sized fish. The culture of different size groups in the same enclosure stands second and has resulted in better growth rate and feed conversion than medium and large – sized fish which were raised in mono-sized culture enclosures (P<0.05). It seems that the presence of small-sized fish might have affected the result of growth and feed conversion positively. Furthermore, as appeared from previous comparison of S, M and B sizes cultured separately and jointly, multi-sized culture appeared superior. This might indicate an improvement in feeding activities in multi-sized culture system. Reduced competition and improved consumption with high conversion efficiency may stand for such improvement as revealed by Al-Rudainy, et al. (1999) and WPRIAP (1975).
43
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 9: Biomass-based comparison of growth and feed conversion performance of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) of different sizes cultured in net enclosures Parameters Enclosures S M B P
IWT
FWT
(g)
(g)
268.26
860.28
±0.855
± 2.850
897.81
2134.23
± 0.405
± 21.000
2744.94
5461.44
± 36.450
± 7.050
883.93
2203.47
± 2.613
± 25.600
WTG (g)
RGR
SGR
(%)
(% /day)
592.02 220.68a
± 3.705
±0.041
d
1236.42 137.71 ±21.405 ±0.074
c
2716.50 98.963 ±43.500 ±0.021 1319.51 149.28b ±20.209 ±0.094
1.189
a
±0.213
0.883
b
±0.121
0.702
c
±0.259 a
0.931
FCR c
2.85 ±0.0 04
4.56
a
±0.007
4.82
a
±0.008
3.34
b
±0.205 ±0.005 Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).IWT = Initial Weight FWT = Final Weight, WTG = Weight Gain SGR = Specific Growth Rate, RGR = Relative Growth Rate, FCR = Feed Conversion Ratio
4.4 Apparent Digestibility Coefficients: Results of the digestibility experiment to calculate the total and nutrients apparent digestibility coefficients, mainly for protein and lipids, are shown in Table (10). The data compared digestibility coefficients in three size groups (S, M and B). It is obvious that medium-sized fish (M) were superior in their digestibility efficiency compared with small (S) and large-sized fish (L). Differences, however, were not significant (p>0.05) between M and S fish, but are significant (p<0.05) when compared with L fish. More efficient digestibility in smaller fish can be attributed to the rapid metabolic activities (Tacon et al, 1984) which are necessary for the relatively faster growth rates compared with larger sizes and to satisfy nutrients requirements (Salman, 1987, Salman, 2009). It can also be related to acid 44
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
secretion and enzymatic activity as well (Jobling , 1986) . Finding of the present study agreed with similar findings reported by Al-Bassam (2011) and Al-Habbib and Al-Bassam (2011). Variations in protein digestibility coefficients between 76.36 % in big size and 96.92 % in small size are noticeable. Such variation has not appeared in the case of lipid digestibility which varies between 72.0 % and 79.7 %. Gastric digestion of protein may explain such variation compared with the pancreatic and intestinal digestion of lipids (Salman, 1987; Jobling, 1986). Table10: Total, protein and fat apparent digestibility coefficients of deferent size of common carp Size of fish
Total
Protein
S
76.82 ±0.034 a 78.65 ±0.006 b 73.22 ±0.003
a
88.84 ±0.028 a 96.92 ±0.001 b 76.36 ±0.001
M B
a
Fat a
78.94 ±0.027 a 79.67 ±0.011 b 72.0 ±0.002
Mean values with different superscripts within a column differ significantly (P≤0.05).
The results of Klahan et al. (2008) agreed with the report by Rathore et al. (2005) who also found that the amylase activity of common carp was high in the large fish. The growth of fish is highly variable being greatly dependent up on a variety of interacting environmental factors such as water temperature with other factors such as the degree of competition, the amount and quality of food ingested and the age and state of maturity of the fish (Moyle and Cech, 2000).
45
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Fish generally digest proteins with an Apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) exceeding 90%, a level equal or superior to those observed in terrestrial vertebrates. Digestibility of proteins from a given source varies relatively little between fish species. For a given species, it is very consistant, although it sometimes increases slightly with fish size (Klahan et al., 2008). PER and FCR are generally related to digestibility of nutrients. In our study, apparent protein and lipid digestibility were decreased by inclusion of dietary TLM (GÜMÜŞ, et al., 2009). According to Anonymous (1997), carp can digest up to 95% of proteins in fish meal. However, the value can decrease from 92 to 68%, depending on source and treatment of the meals (Pike et al., 1990).The difference in protein digestibility may be due to differences in chemical composition, origin and processing of various feed ingredients, method of faeces collection and fish species (Koproco et al.,2004). The feeds acceptability and palatability was observed as all groups of fish consumed the offered feeds and no rejection of any of the feeds was recorded. Digestibility of the feeds and survival rate were significantly high with the increase in WH amount in the studied feed up 20%, but decline when the inclusion rate of WH reached 25% (replacement) in test feed, and that could be referred to the fiber content(A-Rahman, et al., 2012) . 4.5 Production costs Results of production costs are presented in Table (11). They showed that the net production of fish reared in deferent enclosures were (0.592, 1.236, 2.7168, 1.3194 kg/enclosure /98 days) for S, M, B and polyculture P respectively. The cost of total production (Iraq dinar) were (66.533, 76.871, 91.810, and 73.764) 46
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
respectively. For comparison the total cost /net production was calculated. Net enclosure with big size alone stand first and gave the best rate of 33.2 IQD/kg, while the net enclosure with multi size polyculture stand second and gave 55.9 IQD/kg. Table 11: The cost of production (IQD) of different weight of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) cultured in net enclosures Net Enclosure
Net Enclosure
Net Enclosure
Net Enclosure
(S)
(M)
(B)
(P)
Production period (days)
98
98
98
98
Initial Biomass (per net enclosure)
268.26
897.81
2744.94
883.928
Final Biomass (per net enclosure)
860.28
2134.23
5461.44
2203.47
Net production(g/ net enclosure/98day)
592
1236
2716.8
1319.4
Feed Input (g)
1692
4857
Cost of feed/ Kg (1Kg/IQD)
900
900
900
900
Cost of Feed used ( IQD)
1522.8
4371.3
11809.8
1263.6
Cost of Fingerlings (IQD )
30000
37500
45000
37500
Cost of net enclosure (IQD )
35000
35000
35000
35000
66.523
76.871
91.810
73.764
112.36
62.19
33.168
55.9
Production parameters
Total cost of Production(IQD)
Total cost /net production IQD=Iraq dinar
47
13122
4404
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIW 2.1 Aquaculture: Aquaculture has been a fast-growing industry because of significant increases in demand for fish and seafood throughout the world. It is growing more rapidly than any other segment of the animal culture industry (Gang et al. 2005).The farm-raised fish grown under controlled conditions known as aquaculture. Aquaculture is recognized as the only way to meet these increasing demands for aquatic foods (Allan, 2004). The world aquaculture has risen dramatically since the mid 1980sand continues to increase at a rate of around 8% per year. This represents by far the fastest increase in animal protein production today. The annual catch from world fisheries has now stabilized at around 90 million tons of which approximately 60 million tons are used for human consumption, and is not expected to increase in coming years. Annual aquaculture productions now approaching the output of wild fisheries, and if current trends continue, will reach this level in five to seven years (Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, 2007). Aquaculture is the fastest growing animal food-producing sector of the world economy (FAO, 2009).Asia dominates world aquaculture, accounting for around 90% of world production, followed by Europe with 5%, North and South America with 4%, Africa with1% and Oceania with 0.3% of production. China is by far the highest producing country with 67% of world production. Outside Asia, Chile and Norway are the largest producers of fish and shellfish. (Gjedrem and Baranski, 2009).Half of the sea foods consumed worldwide is from commercial fishing i.e. fish caught in the wild open waters (FAO, 2009).
4
LITERATURE REVIW
Aquaculture production of fish originated in freshwater and today fresh water species continue to represent the majority of overall production (54%), with 6%of fish production occurring in brackish waters and only 4% in marine waters. Marine aquaculture production is dominated by mollusks which represent 28% of total aquaculture production, with crustacean species representing 8% of total aquaculture production. Given that saltwater offers by far the largest available area for aquaculture (after all, it covers 72% of the earth’s surface!), it is anticipated that the largest growth in aquaculture will occur in marine waters in coming years (Gjedrem and Baranski, 2009).Fish is a major source of proteins, micro-nutrients and essential fatty acids for humans (Roos et al., 2003 and Michaelsen et al., 2009)
2.2Aquaculture in Iraq: “In Iraq, fish production relies on inland and marine fisheries because no particular attention was given to aquaculture in the past. In developing this sector, the aquaculture in Iraq depends on the availability of water, as well as, good soil and adequate sites. The rivers Tigris and Euphrates, in addition to the country’s tributaries, marshes, dams and reservoirs comprise Iraq’s main water source. Iraq has a limited coastline of approximately 50 km bordering the Gulf with a water surface area of approximately 700 km2.Despite the availability of water resources, freshwater aquaculture production is limited to pond culture of common carp (C.carpio). There is also a limited culture of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) and silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix). In 2007, the total production deriving from freshwater and marine aquaculture was estimated to be approximately 16 000 tones. The aquaculture sector is owned at 5
LITERATURE REVIW
the public and private sector. These two sectors are widely distributed in the middle and southern parts of Iraq” (FAO, 2011). The following graph illustrates total aquaculture production in Iraq according to FAO statistics:
Figure 1: Aquaculture production in Iraq (Source: Fishery Statistics, Aquaculture production, FAO (2011). 2.3 Carp culture: Common carp (C.carpio Linnaeus, 1758) has been a popular aquaculture fish for more than 2,000 years. It is one of the most commercially important and widely cultivated freshwater fish in the world, contributing to 11% of the total world freshwater aquaculture production (FAO, 2010). More than 90% of this production comes from Asia, where common carp is cultured in various pond aquaculture systems. Similarly common carp might alter its food preference and
6
LITERATURE REVIW
behavior in response to changing food resources (Adamek et al., 2003; Rahman et al., 2006 and 2008). Common carp is one of the most variable freshwater fish species regarding the shape of body. The body of native forms and improved strains may vary from elongated to deep oval. There are four basic types of scaliness such as scaly carp, mirror carp, linear carp (also called frame carp) and leather carp. The transitional forms are the strongly- or slightly-scaled irregular mirror or scattered carp (Bakos and Gorda, 2001). Common carp increase nutrient availability, turbidity and phytoplankton abundance, reduce benthic macro invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes, and alter zooplankton assemblages (Lougheed et al., 1998; Parkos et al., 2003; Weber and Brown 2009).
2.4 Carp culture in Iraq: In the 1950s, carp species were firstly introduced for scientific research purposes. In Iraq the main aim was to acclimatize this species in the Iraqi inland waters and to establish whether they would be suitable for rearing in the Iraqi environment without interference and without a negative impact on endemic species. However, at that time, this experience was not channeled into commercial activities. Later, significant attention was given to the aquaculture sector, initially with the establishment of hatcheries and the construction of fish farms (FAO, 2011). Freshwater fish production in Iraq consists of pond culture of the common carp, as well as the grass carp and the silver carp. There have been no initiatives to provide opportunities for the development of native fish production due to a 7
LITERATURE REVIW
limited supply of good quality fish seed, a lack of scientific knowledge and because native species are economically worthless to be produced or cultured in ponds. Such species require 4–5 years to reach marketable size (FAO, 2011).
2.5 Polyculture: 2.5.1 Multi-species polyculture: The primary goal of rational pond management is to utilize existing conditions in the ponds to produce fish to maximize economic returns to farmer. However, polyculture is one of sustainable aquaculture systems that offers desired level production and raises both the culture profit and ecological efficiency. Polyculture utilizes the concept that a mixed stock of selected fish species, with complementary or minimal competing feeding habits and different ecological requirements, can exploit the resources of different ecological niches in a pond efficiently, thereby resulting in maximum fish production for given input quantities ( Sharma et al., 1999) The Polyculture of several fish species that feed on different natural recourses is an important management technique for efficient utilization of the production potential in ponds. Synergistic interaction among fish species manifested by higher growth and yield in Polyculture were found (Essa, 1989; Milstein, 1992 and Abdel-Tawabet al., 2007) Fish in Polyculture systems represent a possibility for increasing the total yield. This is especially with species differing their feeding habits which are cultured to maximum use of all available natural as well as using supplementary feed in ponds. In order to achieve high production, the species stocked must have different feeding habits and occupy different atrophic niches in the ponds. Common carp, tilapia, silver, grass carps and to a certain extent, mullet and 8
LITERATURE REVIW
bighead carpall differs in their feeding habits, and their culture in a pond increases total fish yield. The yield of silver and common carp, cultured together in polyculture is higher than that of either species alone. A similar effect has been seen when culturing common carp and tilapia (Hepher and Pruginin 1981) Polyculture have competitive benefit from synergism, diversity in production and environmental soundness. Stocking two or more complementary species can increase the maximum standing crop of a pond by allowing a wider range of available foods and pond volume to be utilizes (Lutz, 2003). 2.5.2 Multi size Polyculture This technique has been used in the early Seventies by Chinese scientists in multi-grade pond culture system aiming at continuous harvest of fish during the rearing season (WPRIAP, 1975). They intend to make use of differences in growth performance of various size-grades of carp to harvest those attained marketable table-size leaving the younger to grew in less crowded environment and bigger chance of feeding opportunities. Similar experimental trials have been practiced in the Fish Research Center (Zaafarania, Baghdad) during the Nineties. Several multi-grade earthen ponds were used to grew fish at certain size in a high stocking density. Serial periodical transfer of fish of various sizes was practiced to control optimum stocking density aiming at producing table-size fish at the final stage (Al-Rudainy et al, 1999). Result showed the superiority of multi-size culture upon mono-size culture system in terms of growth performance, feed conversion efficiency and production. Continuous harvest raised fish production rate to nearly double that of fish produced by the traditional mono-size culture.
9
LITERATURE REVIW
2.6 Stocking density: Stocking density can be expressed as number of fish or including the number and weigh of fish, i.e. the biomass of fish cultured in a in a certain area. If fish are stocked in similar size then number can be used to express stocking density. In the multi-sized culture system where various fish weights are used, then biomass is the right expression for stocking density. Stocking density is an important factor that affects growth, efficiency and reproductive performance of fish. Specific stocking density can have positive and negative effects on fish growth (Merino et al., 2007)Variation stocking density of fish may change growth and survival rates(Miao, 1992)Fish larvae have slow growing and low survival rates at high density (Huang et al., 2007). High stocking densities in many species indicate that this technique can have negative effects on growth indices and survival in some species (Imanpoor et al., 2009). Negative relationship between the logarithm of length and the logarithm of stocking density was found in common carp and the highest size variation was noticed at the medium stocking density (1.6 fry/l) as seen by Ben Huang et al. (2002). The increase in stocking densities can alter the immunological responses and physiological processes, mainly those related to metabolism and behavior (Vijayan et al., 1990; Irwin et al., 1999; Barcellos et al., 2004; Kristiansen et al., 2004; Schram et al., 2006). The effects of stocking density on the growth of different aquaculture species was studied including turbot (Scophthalmusmaximus) (Carro-Anzalota and McGuinty, 1986), arctic charr (Salvelinusalpinus) (Christiansen et al., 1992), African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)(Kaiser et al., 1995), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (King et al., 1998),Dover sole (Solea solea) (Schram et 10
LITERATURE REVIW
al., 2006), and California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) (Merino et al., 2007). However, few studies have analyzed the effect of crowding within the context of the physiological alterations in fishes (Di Marco et al., 2008). Increase in stocking density results in increasing stress, which leads to higher energy requirements, causing a reduction in growth rate and food utilization (Aksungur et al., 2007).
2.7 Culture in Cages and Net enclosures: There is some confusion concerning the terms ‘cage culture’ and ‘net enclosure culture’ in fish farming. Both terms are often used interchangeably, particularly in North America, where ‘sea pens’ and ‘sea cages’ describe the same method of culture (Novotny, 1975, Saxton et al., 1983), or the general term ‘enclosure culture’ is used to describe what more precisely could be defined as cage or pen culture (Milne, 1979). Both cage and pen culture is types of enclosure culture, and involve holding organisms captive within an enclosed space whilst maintaining a free exchange of water. The two methods, however, are distinct from one another. A cage is totally enclosed on all, or all but the top, sides by mesh or netting, whereas in pen culture the bottom of the enclosure is formed by the lake or sea bottom like most other types of aquaculture. Cage culture is an aquaculture production system where fish are held in floating net pens. Cage culture of fish utilizes existing water resources but encloses the fish in a cage or basket on all sides and bottom by materials that
11
LITERATURE REVIW
hold the fish inside while permitting water exchange and waste removal into the surrounding water (Masser, 2008). Cage culture began in Southeast Asia, although it is thought to be of comparatively recent origin (Ling, 1977). It seems to have developed independently in at least two countries. According to Pantalu (1979), the oldest records of cage culture come from Kampuchea where fishermen in and around the Great Lake region would keep catfishes Clarias spp. and other commercial fishes in bamboo or rattan cages and baskets until ready to transport to market. In captivity, the fishes were fed kitchen scraps and were found to grow readily. This traditional method of culture has been practiced since the end of the last century, and is now widespread throughout the lower Mekong area of the country (Ling, 1977). From here it has spread in recent year to Viet Nam, Thailand and other Indo-Chinese countries. Cages are constructed using materials such as nylon, plastic, polyethylene and steel nets (more expensive although, permit better water exchange), wood and bamboo. Most cage designs are of the floating type and, rely on a buoyant collar usually constructed from locally available materials such as bamboo, steel or plastic pipes suspended in a synthetic fiber net, oil drums or Styrofoam (Coche, 1982) 2.8 Importance of Water quality: The success of a commercial aquaculture enterprise depends on providing the optimum esnvironment for rapid growth at the minimum cost of resources and capital. Water quality affects the general condition of cultured organism as it 12
LITERATURE REVIW
determines the health and growth conditions of cultured organism. Quality of water is, therefore, an essential factor to be considered when planning for high aquaculture production. Water quality is the physical, biological and chemical parameters that affect the growth and welfare of cultured organisms (Yovita, 2007).Although the environment of aquaculture fish is a complex system. It is consisting of several water quality variables, only few of them play decisive role. The critical parameters are temperature, suspended solids and concentrations of dissolved oxygen, ammonia, nitrite, carbon dioxide and alkalinity. However, dissolved oxygen is the most important and critical parameter, requiring continuous monitoring in aquaculture production systems. This is due to the fact that fish aerobic metabolism requires dissolved oxygen (Timmons et al., 2001).
2.8.1 Water Temperature: Temperature has a great influence on the metabolism, biological activity, food intake and growth of fish (Brett et al., 1969).The maximum temperature, which fish can withstand, varies from species to other, and within a species according to the environmental history of the fish. Generally, fish can acclimate to gradually rising temperatures, so that the lethal temperature depends to some extent on the temperature to which the fish was initially acclimated. Relatively small, sudden changes of temperature, which do not allow the acclimation process to occur, can be more harmful than larger, more gradual changes (Davis, 2003). 2.8.2Hydrogen-ion concentration (pH): The hydrogen-ion concentration (pH) of any water is the measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of the water. It is usually measured on a scale of 0 - 14 13
LITERATURE REVIW
with 7 being neutral. The effects of pH on the chemical, biological and physical properties of a water system, makes its study very crucial to the lives of the organisms in the medium. Freshwaters with a pH ranging from 6.5 - 9.0 have been known to be productive and recommended as suitable for fish culture (Adeniji, 1986; Auta, 1993). 2.8.3 Dissolved oxygen: The two main sources of oxygen into the aquatic environment are the atmosphere and photosynthetic activities of aquatic plants. The ideal range of dissolved oxygen in the water must be at least 5mg/l, to sustain fish and other aquatic life in water bodies Overall health and physiological conditions are best if the dissolved oxygen is kept closer to saturation (Adakole, 2000).The dissolved oxygen in fishponds normally fluctuates widely between seasons especially during
Summer. Daily fluctuations occurred because of plant
photosynthesis which increases the oxygen concentration during the day; during the night, plant and fish respiration reduces the oxygen concentration in the water. There is a need to maintain the level of dissolved oxygen at the saturation level which will not affect physiological or metabolic activities, or decreasing high production in any culture system. The oxygen level required depends on the species, but also on fish size and activity of the fish (Wedemeyer, 1996).In fish, the metabolic rate is highly affected by the concentration of oxygen in the rearing environment. As the dissolved oxygen concentration decreases, respiration and feeding activities also decrease. As a result, the growth rate is reduced and the possibility of a disease attack is increased. However, fish is not able to assimilate the food consumed when DO is low (Tom, 1998). 14
LITERATURE REVIW
2.8.4 Turbidity: Although turbidity can be a problem in many different types of water, turbidity caused by suspended clay tends to occur most often in soft, poorlybuffered (low alkalinity) waters (Boyd, 1979). Clay turbidity reduces the magnitude of daily fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentration, so that it gets neither very high nor very low. However, muddy water tends to have a lower average concentration of dissolved oxygen than water with a green phytoplankton bloom. Clay turbidity can sometimes develop quite suddenly, as when heavy storm runoff enters the pond or high winds churn the water and cause bottom soils to be re-suspended. In such cases, oxygen may decline to critically low levels and make it necessary to aerate the pond (Wu and Boyd 1990). Carp re-suspend sediments while foraging for macro invertebrates, causing
increased
turbidity.
Increased
turbidity
results
in
decreased
photosynthesis and growth of vascular plants (Chumchal et al., 2005), which play an important role in reducing re-suspension of sediments by the wind (Egertson and Downing 2004). Carp also uproot vegetation, further reducing macro phyte growth (Crivelli 1983) and eliminating important fish and macro invertebrate habitat (Egertson and Downing, 2004).These substances include carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulphate, nitrate, calcium, sodium etcetera. When some of these substances are in suspension, they cause turbidity in the water, reducing photosynthesis, decreasing the amount of dissolved oxygen and affect the feeding habits of the organisms that depend on sight to catch its prey. A certain level of these ions in water is necessary for aquatic life (Stone and Thomforde, 2006). 15
LITERATURE REVIW
2.8.5 Electrical conductivity: Electrical conductivity is the ability of a water body to receive and conduct electrical current in correlation to its salt content.. Freshwater fish thrive over a wide range of salinity. The desirable range is 100 – 2,000μSi/cm and the acceptable range, is 30 – 5,000μSi/cm (Stone and Thomforde, 2006). Lind (1979) reported that estimation of total ion in matter in a solution or water bodies is related to its fertility while, Ryder et al. (1974), reported that salinity and mean depth of a reservoir could be used to calculate the potential fish yield of a lake. High conductivity or salinity is an indication of the presence of large amount of dissolved salts while, at low level major ions may be determine by the nature of the fauna (Moss, 1993).
2.9 Supplementary Feeding: Supplemental feed is a feed that does not completely satisfy the nutritional requirements of fish, but which supplements naturally available food. Supplemental feeding of fish increases fish production and allows for higher stocking densities. Unconsumed artificial diet in the culture system acts as fertilizer which helps to stimulate rapid growth of plankton population. Artificial feeding allows the farmer to observe behavior of the cultured fish during feeding. Supplemental feeding should have the benefits of promoting greater production in terms of yield per hectare and efficient growth of fish in an aquaculture system depends on feeding best feed at quantity not exceeding the dietary requirements (Banyigyi et al., 2001). Common carp eats artificial protein-rich foodstuffs such as fish meal, blood meal, carcass meal, dried insects, silkworm pupae, flesh of mollusks, and minced 16
LITERATURE REVIW
flesh of fish, frog and snake the growth of common carp was satisfactory by feeding on poultry feed pellets having about 20% animal protein and 10% vegetable protein content. The carp has its maximum appetite when the water temperature remains between 20-25Coand under 14Co the fish takes little food (Woynarovich, 1975). The same author reported that the carp gets daily food of about 5-6% of its body weight and grow fast (1 to 2% of the body weight per day). Feeding represents the largest part of expenses in intensive and semiintensive aquaculture, so fish feed must be of good quality to assure high utilization, high growth rate, and good health, and at the same time to protect the water environment. Fish feed is formulated to fulfill the requirements of fish in nutrients and energy (Meyers, 1999; Aarseth et al., 2006). Good nutrition in animal production systems is essential to economically produce a healthy, high quality product. Fish nutrition has advanced dramatically in recent years with the development of new, balanced commercial diets that promote optimal fish growth and health. The development of new speciesspecific diet formulations supports the aquaculture (fish farming) industry as it expands to satisfy increasing demand for affordable, safe and high-quality fish products (Craig, 2002).Increasing global production will probably contribute to sustained exploitation of marine fisheries for feed ingredients used for farmed fish and terrestrial livestock feeds. Production of cultured fish requires large inputs of fish meal and oil, primarily derived from marine sources (Naylor et al., 2000).
17
LITERATURE REVIW
Feeding constitute a major factor in intensive rearing of fin fishes and their fry. This is because growth of fish depends strongly on the quality of feeds provided. Depending on the culture system adopted, feed can represent 40 to 70% of the total production costs in fish farming. (Kubitza, 2000)Fishmeal is the major source of protein for farmed fish worldwide and is in limited supply (Refstie, 2001). Nutrient requirements for growth, reproduction and normal physiological functions much higher for fish than other husbandry animal where require 25 to 45% of proteins (Davies and Gouveia, 2010). Aquaculture is highly dependent on the production of fish meal and fish oil, because of their use in fish feed, particularly for carnivorous species, and to lesser extent in omnivorous species (Watanabe, 2002; Pike, 2005). However, the limiting factors for application of fish meal in the production of aqua feed are: limited resources due to a drastic reduction in populations of fish that are used for fishmeal production (Deutsch et al., 2007); increased needs, due to aquaculture annual growth of about 9%; and price increase due to reduced world production of fish meal (Kristofersson and Ierson, 2006).
2.10 Feed conversion ratio (FCR): The food conversion ratio (FCR) is the amount of fish food consumed to generate a given weight gain. It is the ratio between the weights gained in a given period to the total feed intake by the fish in the same period. It is the inverse of the feed intake. The food conversion ratio is improved (lowered as a value) at higher growth rates (Crampton et al. 2003, Norgarden et al., 2003) The feed conversion ratio (FCR) is a good tool to measure the acceptability and suitability of artificial feed for fish. The proper information of 18
LITERATURE REVIW
FCR on locally available ingredients can provide the basis to develop acceptable feed, though the task of preparing acceptable and suitable artificial feed for major carps is complicated one due to their feeding preference. The FCR values of various fish feed ingredients for carps under controlled conditions have been estimated by many workers (Chang et al, 1983; Jhingran, 1991). Jhingran (1991) has also stated that value of conversion rate, besides depending upon the nutrients contents of feed, also varies with the method of presentation of food to the fish, environmental factors such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and size of fish. He further reported that no reliable data have been obtained on the rate of conversion of feed into fish flesh.
2.11 Digestibility: Digestion is the process by which ingested food particles are reduced to smaller molecules. In this process, proteins are hydrolyzed to amino acids, carbohydrates to glycogen and lipids to glycerol. Indigestible food materials are voided as faeces. The digestibility of most natural proteins and lipids ranges from 80 to 90%. Digestion is a progressive process starting from the stomach and ends when food leaves the rectum as faeces. For the channel catfish, digestion is continuous through each part of the gut (Lovell, 1988). Most theories about the digestion process have been based on an examination of stomach contents either collected from the field or from experiments conducted in the laboratory. And despite the recent increased interest in this field there is still much disagreement and confusion over the major factors which determine the rate of digestion (Bromley, 1994).
19
LITERATURE REVIW
Some technological treatments applied to plant proteins bring about a marked improvement in Apparent Digestibility Coefficient (ADC) by destroying anti nutritional factors (Guillaumej et al, 2001). Lipids are well utilized by fish (ADC>95%), whatever their origin. The digestibility of starch, which is the only source of carbohydrates likely to be incorporated into fish feeds for economic reason, is often of the order of 70 -80 % and can be less than 50%. Starch digestibility depends on its nature, the relative proportions of amylose and amylo pectin as well as the sizes and integrity of the starch grain (klahan et al., 2008).
20
الخاصة أُجريت ا دراسة ا حا ية معرفة تأثير استزراع اوزان مختلفة من اسماك ا ارب ااعتيادى في احواض فا لتى علوم ا زراعية قسم اانتاج ا حيواني ,جامعة ا سليمانية اقليم ردستان ا عراق فترة ()41اربعة عشر اسبوع مع فترة اسبوعين غرض ااقلمة. استخدمت 012سم ة من اسماك ا ارب مختلفة ااوزان ا صغيرة(8غرام) وا متوسسطه(02غرام) وا بيرة()22غرام بصورة منفردة وزعت على ستة احواض( Sو Mو ) Bوبواقع مكررين بااضاف الى ااقفاص ()Pاحتو
على خليط من ااسماك الصغير ( )PSو المتوسط ( )PMو الك ير ( )PBوبواقع
( )02سم ة ل قفص استمرت فترة ا تربية مدة 41اسبوع من 42سيبتمبر و غاية 41ديسمبر اى مدة ( )28يوم. اظهرت ا نتائج ان ا تربية ا مختلطة اسماك اظهرت فروقات معنوية( )P<2020مقارنة بااسماك ا تى تم تربيتها بنظام ا تربية ا مفرد .و انت ا زيادة ا وزنية اسماك ا مختلطة( 0140و 110004و )210224غرام مقارنتا بااسماك ا منفردة ا تربية( 420101و 140041و )22000غرام. وا زيادة ا وزنية ا يومية ( 20004و 20118و ) 20281غرام مقارنتا بااسماك ا منفردة ا تربية ( 20028و 20141و )20240غرام . معدل ا نمو ا نوعي فقد بلغ اسماك ا مختلطة ا تربية ( 0100400و 4000121و )4280484اما بنسبة ااسماك ا مربى بش ل ا منفردة ( 0020188و 4010140و )280210 معدل ا نمو ا نسبي فقد بلغ اسماك ا مختلطة ا تربية 20080(2و 20141و%( )20000يوم) اما بنسبة ااسماك ا مربى بش ل ا منفردة( 20041و 20080و %( )20020يوم).
i
وبلغ معدل ا تحويل ا غذائي اسماك ا مختلطة ا تربية ( 00112و 10100و %()00240يوم) غرام اما بنسبة ااسماك ا مربى بش ل ا منفردة ( 0,184و 00112و %( )10101يوم). معامل ا هظم فقد ان ( 11040و 18010و )10000ا صغير و ا متوسط وا بير على ا توا ى وبلغ معامل هضم ا بروتين ( 88082و 22020و )11001و انت هناك فروقات معنوية بين ااسماك وا صغيرة مقارنة با متوسط ا حجم .
ii
SUMMARY This work was carried out to study the effect of culturing common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) at different size in net enclosures at the fish pond of Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agricultural sciences of Sulaimani University, Sulaimani, Kurdistan region, Iraq. The actual experimental period lasted 14weeks with an adaptation period of two weeks, using two hundred forty common carp fingerling to test the effect of culturing three different sizes (S-small, M- medium, B-big and P-multi size poly culture) at the rate of 60 fingerlings per treatment. Four groups were used with an average weight of 8gm, 29gm, 90gm and mixture of all sizes. Each group was replicated twice using 30 fingerlings in each replicate (net enclosure). Fish were fed twice daily at the rate of %4 of body weight. The experimental th
th
period lasted for14 weeks from 10 September to the 17 December 2012. Results indicated that the polyculture of deferent sizes gave significant differences than other net enclosures in weight gain. Fish in the polyculture enclosure attained the following weight gain (PS=24.3 g, PM=46.551gand PB=97.883g) while those in the mono-sized culture enclosures gained (S=19.734 g, M=41.214 g and B=90.55 g) for small, medium and big size respectively. Daily growth rate recorded (PS=0.251, PM=0.478 and PB=1.166) in the multisized culture compared with (S=0.208, M=0.414 and B=0.913) and for small, medium and big size for those cultured separately. For specific growth rate (SGR), fish of multi-sized culture recorded (PS=0.585, PM=0.416 and PB=0.325). SGR in small, medium and big size fish reared separately were (S=0.516, M=0.383 and B=0.305) respectively. Values of relative growth rate (RGR) in multi-sized culture were (PS= 275.13 %, PM= 155.69 % and PB=108.18%) and for small, medium and big size. I
Those cultured alones
SUMMERY showed lower values being (S=220.68%, M=137.71% and B=98.96%) respectively. Food conversion ratio (FCR) values ranged from (PS=3.440, PM=4.725 and PB=5.913) in multi-sized culture and (S=3.681, M=5.649 and B=6.471) for small, medium and big size in those cultured separately. The total apparent digestibility of common carp varied among sizes. Big size (182.08g) and small size carp (28.67g) showed significant differences compared with medium size (71.14g). The protein and fat digestibility in large and small size fish were superior to medium size one.
II
ثوختة ئ
ت يَ ين ةي ئ نجا د ا ة بؤ انين كا يط
كا ب
ئاسا
ب خيَ ك دني كيَش جيا ا ل س
()Cyprinus carpio( )common carpل س
ل س با ا ِ .ل كيَ َط ماس /فاك لَت عيَ اق ،ت يَ ن ةك بؤ ما ة ض ا دة ه فت ب دة ا ب
ه ن َ ثي َ ة
ث نج ماس كا يط
ش
ان ت كشت كالَي كا /ان ؤ س يَ ان /ه يَ
ِ 41ؤ
ةما ة
ك دستا /
ِاهاتن ماسي كا ب يت ب
سي كيَشي جيا ا ب كا ها 012 ،ماس ب كا هيَن ا ب كيَش جيا ا ك تياي ا َ
ل
ل َ
سي كيَش جيا ا ة . تي َ ل َ ي ك ل َ تيَ ا كيَش جيا ا ةكا ب شيَ ة ب ا ب
تيَ ِا ()094902
,كيَش
ا ب
ةه
ةها تيَ لَ
ة تيَ ِا ()944192
( 242.0
ا ) بؤ ليَ ؤلَن ة ل
كيَش ك كا يط
ب خيَ ك دني كيَش جيا ا ك ل ه م
مام لَ كان ا ي ك جؤ ئاليك ب كا ها ب .بؤ ه
ة ه
ة ه
د با ة
د با ةي ك ِؤ ان د
ا
094299
(ت ا ) ه ب
ة بؤ ما ة ض ا دة ه فت ب دة ا ب دةست ك
ثيشان ا دةدا
كا يط
يات ة ل ئاست ش
نا ةن ب ا دب ِيَ ة بؤ ئ مام آن بؤ ئ
مام لَ
مام آن
ك كيَش كا تيَ يك ل
مام لَ
ك كيَش كا تيَ
ك ب ت ن ا ب خيَ ك ا (25022 ك كيَش كا تيَ
ت ن ا ب خيَ ك ا (25645 كيَش كا تيَ
ة ما ة
َ ب
( 02654.6
(0025522
َ ب
اتا ق ف س
ياد ب ن
كيَش (014.
155664
َ ب
25.2.
)25.26
( .5112
15206
َ ب
25122
)2594.ة نا ةن
4665591
ش
)4225424ب ا د ب
)25.06 25145ب ا د ب
مام آن
ؤ ِين خؤ اك بؤ ئ
.)6594.ب ا د ب
ة
) 25925
)92595.ة نا ةن
ة ضااك
A
145041
(25064
25141
)92566
ش
4.25246
(25626
خايان ئ نجام كا ك ()Pجيا ا
ك ب ت ن ا ب خيَ ك ا (4952.1
ك كيَش كا تيَ َ ب
دة
دةست ثيَ ا ه تا 42كان ني ي ك
ِاهاتن ماسي كا ِ 41ؤ
( )p<0.05بؤ ه
ك ب ت ن ا ب خيَ ك ا مام لَ
د با ةي ك سي ماسي ل خؤ
خايان ل 42ئ ي
مام لَ
ك ئ
ِ َ ان بؤ ئ مام آن
924192
ثي دةد ا . ة خ ا دن ئاسا َ
تؤيَ ن ة ِاست قين ك ما ة ض ا دة ه فت
)925924ب ا د ب
ا
س َي
ب
مام لَ ي ك د
شي َ ة ب
كيش ب
ك ب تيَ ِا ()24910
ا ب
,كيَش مامنا ةن
مام آن
مام لَ
جؤ ك ب ك
ك ب ت ن ا ب خي َ
)55102ة ي ك
ه س
ك ا (.5524
ب ( )2.500 22556 25540ب ا د ب
مام آن
65519
)255.5
B
خؤ اك بؤ ئ
مام لَ
ك ب ت ن ا ب خي َ ك ا
ك كيَش كا تيَ َ
(92590 22522
Supervisor Certification I certify that this thesis was prepared under my supervision in the University of Sulaimani, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish Farms Management.
Dr. Faroq Mahmoud Kaml Professor Supervisor /
/2014
In view of the available recommendation, I forward this thesis for debate by the examining committee.
Dr. Saman Abdul Majid Rashid Assistant Professor Head of the Animal Production Department Faculty of Agricultural Sciences /
/2014
List OF CONTENTS Subject No.
Subject Title Summary…………………………………………………… List of contents…………………………………………… List of tables……………………………………………… List of figures……………………………………………. List of Appendix ……………………………………………
Page No. Ι ΙΙΙ V VI VI
Chapter one : Introduction Introduction ……………………………………………….
1
Chapter two: Literature review 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.8.4 2.8.5 2.9 2.10 2.11
Aquaculture …………………………………………. Aquaculture in Iraq……………………………………… Carp culture……………………………………………… Carp culture in Iraq………………………………………. Polyculture…………………………………………………… Multi-species polyculture……………………………………. Multi size Polyculture………………………………….......... Stocking density…………………………………………. Culture in Cages and Net enclosures………………………. Importance of Water quality………………………………. Water Temperature………………………………………… Hydrogen-ion concentration (pH)……………………….. Dissolved oxygen…………………………………………. Turbidity………………………………………………….. Electrical conductivity……………………………………. Supplementary Feeding…………………………………… Feed conversion ratio (FCR)……………………………… Digestibility……………………………………………….
III
4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 18 19
Chapter three: Material and Method 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.6 3.6. 1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.7 3.8
Experimental procedures………………………………… Experimental system and design………………………… Experimental diet ……………………………………….. Feeding method………………………………………….. Growth parameters……………………………………….. Body weight gain…………………………………………. Daily weight gain…………………………………………. Specific Growth Rate (SGR) ……………………………… Relative Growth Rate (RGR)……………………………….. Feed Conversion Ratio (g) (FCR)…………………………… Water quality………………………………………………… Temperature ……………………………………………….. Hydrogen Ion Potential (pH) ……………………………….. Dissolved Oxygen (DO)…………………………………….. Turbidity (NTU)…………………………………………….. Electrical conductivity (EC)……………………………….... Measurement of apparent digestibility……………………… Statistical analysis……………………………………………
21 22 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 29
Chapter four: Results and discussions 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3 4.4 4.5
Water Quality Parameters…………………………………. Temperature……………………………………………….. Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH)………………………… Dissolved Oxygen (DO)………………………………….. Turbidity………………………………………………….. Electronic conductivity…………………………………… Growth Performance …………………………………….. Mean Weight Gain (MWG)……………………………… Daily weight gain ……………………………………….. Relative Growth Rate (RGR)…………………………….. Specific Growth Rate (SGR)……………………………… Food Conversion Ratio (FCR)…………………………….. Biomass-based Comparisons of growth and feed conversion performance……………………………………………… Apparent Digestibility Coefficients………………………. Production costs…………………………………………….. IV
30 30 30 31 32 32 33 33 35 37 38 40 43 44 46
Appendix……………………………………………………. Conclusions and recommendation………………………. Conclusions……………………………………………. Recommendation………………………………………. Reference………………………………………………. Summery in Arabic…………………………………….. Summery in Kurdish ……………………………………
48 51 51 51 52-72 i-ii A-B
LIST OF TABLES Table Table Title No. 1 The chemical composition of experimental diet ……………. 2 Water quality parameter in the pond……………………. 3 Mean of biweekly weight gain (g) every two week of common carp of different size in net enclosure……………. 4 Mean of daily weight gain (g) of common carp of different size in net enclosure……………………………….. 5 Relative Growth Rate………………………………. 6 Specific Growth Rate (SGR)…………………………….. 7 Summary of the Mean Growth Performance at Different weight of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) cultured in Cages 8 Food Conversion Ratio (FCR)………………………… 9 Biomass-based comparison of growth and feed conversion performance of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) of different sizes cultured in net enclosure …………………… 10 Total, protein and fat Digestibility of deferent size of common carp ………………………………………. 11 The cost of production (IQD)……………………….
V
Page No. 24 31 34 36 38 39 40 42 44
45 47
LIST OF FIGURES Figures No. 1
Figure Title
Page No.
2 3
Reported aquaculture production in Iraq (from 1950) (FAO Fishery Statistic)…………………………………… Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) …………………………. The fish pond with the net enclosures………………………
6 21 22
4
Experimental design………………………………………
23
List of Appendix No. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix Mean of biweekly weight gain (g) every two week of common carp of different size in net enclosure……………. Mean of daily weight gain (g) of common carp of different size in net enclosure………………………………………. Relative Growth Rate of common carp of different size in net enclosure………………………………………………….. Specific Growth Rate (SGR) of common carp of different size in net enclosure………………………………………. Food Conversion Ratio (FCR) Performance at Different weight of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) cultured in net enclosure……………………………………………………..
VI
Page No. 48 48 49 49 50
REFERENCES Aarseth, K. A., M., Sorensen and T. Storebakken, 2006. Effects of red yeast inclusions in diets for salmonids and extrusion temperature on pellet tensile strength: Weibull analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 126: 75 – 91. Abdel-Twab, F. M.; M. F. Eman; A. Demerdash; H. M. O. Saleh and G. G. H. Abdul-Halim,B. A.(2006) effect of artificial lighting on growth of carp reared in cages A thesis sub. To col. Of Agriculture university of Dohuk Req.for the degree of master of sci. Animal production Abdulrahman, N. M., (2008) locally produced probiotic and its role in the growth of common carp fry a dissertation sub. To the con. Of the college of Agrculture university of sulaimani in part Fulfement of requirement for the degree of doctor of phil. In fish sci. Adakole, J. A. (2000). “The effects of Diuretic, Agricultural and industrial effluents on the water quality and Biota of Bindare stream”, Ph.D. dissertation, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Nigeria11: 75-110. Adamek, Z.; I. Sukop; M. P. Rendon and J. Kouril, (2003). “Food competition between tench (Tinca tinca L.), common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) and bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellusVal.) in pond polyculture”, J. Appl. Ichyol.19: 65-169. Adeniji, H. A. (1986). “Some Limnological precautions for fish farmers”, Kainji Lake Research Institute Annual Report 54 -56.
Aguirre, W. and S.G. Poss,( 2000). Cyprinus carpio Non-Indigenous Species in the
Gulf
of
Mexico
Linnaeus. 52
1758.
Ecosystem-Gulf
REFERENCES
StatesMarineFisheriesCommission(GSMFC).http://nis.gsmfc.org/nis_facts heet.php?toc Aksungur1, N.; M. Aksungur1; B. Akbulut1 and I. Kutlu1, (2007). “Effects of Stocking Density on Growth Performance, Survival and Food Conversion Ratio of Turbot (Psetta maxima) in the Net Cages on the Southeastern Coast of the Black Sea”, Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 7: 147-152. Alchalabi, A. M. B. (2010) the effect of soaking in water and heating treatment of vicia sativa seed As. Apartially cr sub. Of soybean meal on some pro. And phys. traits in carp M.Sc. thesis university of Mosul college of agriculture and forestry. Al-Daham, N. K. (1990). “Fish farming”, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Dar Al-Hekma 45.Al-Habeeb.F.M.
(1996) Non convenient diet
for common carp thesis university of Basraha
Al-Habeeb.F.M. , Al-Bassam N.S. (2012) Effect of different levels of sunflower oil in common carp J. of pure Tikrit science . For Agri. Sci. vol. (11) No. (3).
Al-Habeeb.F.M. Al-Bassam N.S. (2011) studies Total protein and fat digestibility for four feed stuff greadent on common carp J. of Tikrit uni. For Agri. Sci. vol. (16) No. (3). Allan, G. (2004). “Fish for feed vs. fish for food. In: A. G. Brown (Ed) Fish, Aquaculture and Food Security: Sustaining Fish as a Food Supply”,
53
REFERENCES
Record of a conference conducted by the ATSE Crawford Fund, Parliament House Canberra 20-26. Al-rudainy
A.J.,N.A
Salman
,A.M.Ruhaig
A.J.Abul-Hani
and
K.M.Mosa(1999).Effect of Multi-size culture on Growth ,food conversion and production of common carp.The scientific journal of Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission lvol.4 Al-Saadi, H. A.; A. Abdul-Zahra al-Lami and T. I. Qassem, (1999). “Study of the environmental characteristics of the high Tigris and Euphrates rivers and their relationship to the development of fisheries in Iraq”, J. of Environmental Research and Sustainable Development 2 (2): 20 - 31. Anonymous, 1997. Nutrient Requirements of Warm Water Fish. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.Aquaculture Bamidgeh 45(1): 18-25.Aquaculture Center (SRAC – 165 – 2). A-Rahman Tibin ME, Abol-Munafi AB, Amiza AM, Khoda Bakhsh H and Adam Sulieman HM. 2012. Apparent digestibilty coefficient of pelleted fish feed incorporated with water hyacinth (echhornia crassipes). Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 2(1): 30- 33. Auta, J. (1993). “Water Quality Management in Fish Ponds”. Proceedings of National Workshop on Fisheries Extension Delivery 2. Avtalion, R. R. (1981). “Environmental control of the immune response in fish Crit”, Rev. Environ. Control 11: 163-188. Avtalion, R. R.; A. Wishkovsky; D. Katz, (1980). “Regulatory effect of temperature on specific suppression and enhancement of the humoral 54
REFERENCES
response in fish”, Phylogeny of immunological memory, red. Manning M. J., Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam 113-121. Bakos, J. and S. Gorda, (2001). “Genetic resources of common carp at the Fish Culture Research Institute Szarvas, Hungary”, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper - T417, 106p Billard, Roland.Carp Biology and Culture. Paris. Banyigyi, H. A.; J. K. Balogun; S. J. Oniye and J. Auta, (2001). “Growth performance and feed utilization of Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fed diet containing toasted Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranean) meal”, Journal of Agriculture and environment 2 (1): 121-127. Barcellos, L. J.; L. C. Kreutz; C. de Souza; L. B. Rodrigues; I. Fioreze; R. M. Quevedo; L. Cericato; A. B. Soso; M. Fagundes; J. Conrad; L. A. Lacerda and S. Terra, (2004). “Hematological changes in jundia (Rhamdia quelen Quoy and Gaimard Pimelodidae) after acute and chronic stress caused by usual aquaculture management, with emphasis on immunosuppressive effects”, Aqua. 237: 229-236. Bhyiyan, A. S.; S. Afroz and T. Zaman, (2006). “Food and feeding habit of the juvenile and adult snakehed, Channa Punctatus (Bloch)”, J. Life Earth Sci.1(2): 53-54. Boyd, C. E. (1979). “Aluminum sulfate (alum) for precipitating clay turbidity from fish ponds”, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108: 307-313. Branco, C. W. C. and P. A. C. Senna, (1996). “Relations among heterotrophic bacteria cholorophyta total Phytoplankton, total Zooplankton and Physical
55
REFERENCES
and Chemical features in the Paranoa Reservior”, Basilia, razil. Hydrobiologia 337: 171-181 Brett, J. R.; J. E. Shelbourn, and C. T. Shoop, (1969). “Growth rate and body composition of fingerling sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, in relation to temperature and ration size”, J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 26: 23632394. Bromley, D.W., 1994. Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy.Blackwell, Oxford. Caduto, M. J. (1990). “Pond and Brook: a guide to nature in freshwater environments”, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 23-45 Cairns, J.; A. G. Heath and B. C. Parker, (2005). “The effects of temperature upon the toxicity of chemicals to aquatic organisms”, Hydrobiology 47:135-171. Carro-Anzalota, A. and A. McGuinty, (1986). “Effects of stocking density on growth of Tilapi anilotica culture in cages in ponds”, J. World Aqua. Soc. 17: 1-4. Chang, W. Y. B.; J. S. Diana and W. Chuapoehu, (1983). Workshop report to Agency for International Development. 30. Christiansen, J.; Y. Svendsen and M. Jobling, (1992). “The combined effects of stocking density and sustained exercise on the behavior, food intake, and growth of juvenile Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.)”, Can. J. Zool. 70: 115-122.
56
REFERENCES
Chumchal, M. M.; W. H. Nowlin; and R. W. Drenner, (2005). “Biomassdependent effects of common carp on water quality in shallow ponds”, Hydrobiology 545: 271-277. Coche, A.G. (1982). “Cage culture of tilapias. p. 205-246. In: R.S.V. Pullin and R.H. Lowe-Mc Connell (eds.)”, In Proceedings of the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, (ICLARM) Manila, Philippines 7: 432. Committee on Animal Nutrition (CAN), (1993). “Nutrient Requirements of Fish” National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington D.C. 114. Craig, S. (2002). “Understanding fish nutrition, Feeds and feeding”, http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/fisheries/ 420-256/420-256.html. Crampton, V.; A. Bergheim; M. Gausen; A. Næss and P. M. Holland; (2003). “Effect of low Oxygen on fish performance”. (www.ewos.com). Crivelli, A. J. (1983). “The destruction of aquatic vegetation by carp”, Hydrobiology 106:37-41. Davies, S. J. and A. Gouveia, (2010). “Response of common carp fry fed diets containing a pea seed meal (Pisum sativum) subjected to different thermal processing methods”, Aqua. 305(1-4):117-123. Davis, J. C. (2003). “Sub lethal effects of bleached Kraft pulp mill effluent on respiration and circulation in sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)”, J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30: 369-377. Deutsch, L.; S. Graslund; C. Folke; M. Troell; M. Huitric; N. Kautsky and L. Lebel, (2007). “Feeding aquaculture growth through globalization: 57
REFERENCES
exploitation of marine ecosystems for fishmeal”, Global Environmental Change 17: 238-249. Di Marco, P.; A. Priori; M. G. Finoia; A. Massari; A. Mandich and G. Marino, (2008). “Physiological responses of European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax to different stocking densities and acute stress challenge”, Aqua. 275: 319-328. Durham, New Hampshire, USA( 1997): Published by the University of New Hampshire Sea Grant Program on November 1998, pp. 173–180. Egertson, C. J. and J. A. Downing, (2004). “Relationship of fish catch and composition to water quality in a suite of agriculturally eutrophic lakes”. Cana. Jour. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci. 61:1784-1796. Egwui, P. C. (1986). Yields of the African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell), from a low input, homestead, concrete pond. Aquaculture, 55: 87-91 El-Karim, (2007). “Molecular phylogenetic relationships of two genera of Labiatae Family”, Egypt. J. Cytol. 36: 325-339. Essa, M. A. (1989).
“Comparison between common and silver carps as
additional fish in red tilapia cultures”, Proc. Third Egyptian British Conf., Animal, Fish and Poultry Production 505-512. FAO, (2007). “Fisheries statistics”, Aquaculture production 100 (2): 206. FAO, (2009). “Report of the global conference on small-scale Fisheries”, 190. FAO, (2010). “Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1061/6 regional review on status and trends in aquaculture development in the near east and North Africa”. FAO, (2010). “The State of world fisheries and Aquaculture”, (SOFIA) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture 93. 58
REFERENCES
FAO, (2011). “The State of world fisheries and Aquaculture”, (SOFIA) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fine, M.; D. Zilberg; Z. Cohen; G. Degani; B. Moav and A. Gertler, (2002). “The effect of dietary protein level, water temperature and growth hormone administration on growth and metabolism in the common carp (cyprinus carpio)”, Comparative Biochemistry and physiology 114: 35- 42. Gang, Q.; C. K. Clark; N. Liu; R. Harold and E. T. James, (2005). “Aquaculture wastewater treatment and reuse by wind-driven reverse osmosis membrane” technology: a pilot study on Coconut Island, Hawaii. Aquacultural En-gineering 32, 365–378 Gjedrem, T. and M. Baranski, (2009). “Selective Breeding in Aquaculture”, Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries. Gümüş E. Y. Kaya, B. A. Balci And B. B. Acar. 2009. Partial replacement of fishmeal with tuna liver meal in diets for common carp fry, cyprinus carpio l. 1758, Pakistan Vet. J. 29(4): 154-160.
Guillaumej, S., K. P. Bergot and R. Metailler. 2001. Nutrition and Feeding of Fish and Crustaceans. Praxis Publishing. UK. Hassan, M. R. (1988). “Fisheries Economics”, Journal of Fisheries 2 (6):1- 8. (In Arabic) Hepher, I. E. (1988). “Nutrition of pond fish London Cambridge university press”, 41-237 Hepher, I. E. and Y. Pruginin, (1981). “Commercial Fish Farming with special reference to fish culture in Israel .John Wiley and Sons, New York 161 pp. 59
REFERENCES
Houlihan, D.; T. Bouiard and M. Jobling, (2001). “Food Intake in Fish”. Iowa State University Press. Blackwell Science Ltd.418. Howell, W.H., Keller, B.J., Park, P.K., McVey, J.P., Takayanagi, K., Uekita, Y. (Eds.), Nutrition and Technical Development of Aquaculture. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth US–Japan Aquaculture Symposium. Hurst, T. P. and D. O. Conover, (2001). “Diet and consumption rates of over wintering YOY striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Hudson River fish”, Bull. 99: 545-553. Huang, W. B. and T. S. Chiu, (1997). “Effects of stocking density on survival, growth, size variation and production of Tilapia fry”, Aqua. Res. 28: 165173. Imanpoor, M. R.; A. R. Ahmadi and M. Kordjazi, (2009). “Effects of stocking density on survival and growth indices of common carp (Cyprinus carpio)”, Iranian Scientific Fisheries Journal 18(3): 1-9. Irwin, S.; J. O'Halloran and R. Fitzgerald, (1999). “Stocking density, growth and growth
variations
in
juvenile
turbot,
Scophthalmus
maximus
(Rafinesque)”, Aqua. 178: 77-88. Jasm, X. A. (1987). “Methods of fishing gear”, the Ministry of Agriculture publications 42. Jhingran, V. G. (1991). Fish and Fisheries of India, 3rd ed. Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, India, 727. Jhingran, V. G.; A.V. Natarajan; S. M. Banerjea and A. David, (1969). “Methodology on reservoir fisheries investigations in India”, Bulllletin of the Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore 109.
60
REFERENCES
Jobling, M. (1986). Gastrointestinal overload - a problem with formulated feeds. Aquaculture 51: 257-263. Jobling, M. (1995). “Environmental Biology of Fishes”, Chapman and Hall, London 455. Kaiser, H.; O. Weyl and T. Hecht, (1995). “The effect of stocking density on growth, survival and agonistic behavior of African catfish”, Aqua. Int. 3: 217–225. Karplus, I.; A. Milstein; S. Cohen and S. Harpaz, (1996). “The effect of stocking different ratios of common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., and tilapias in polyculture ponds on production characteristics and profitability”, Aqua. Res. 27: 447-453. King, N., Howell, W.H., Fairchild, E., 1998. The effect of stocking density on the growth of juvenile summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus. In: Klahan, R. N. Areechon, R. Yoonpundh And A. Engkagul. 2008. In Vitro Protein, Lipid And Starch Digestibility In Various Sizes Of Nile Tilapia,(Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus)8th , international Symposium On Tilapia In Aquaculture 2008 Klyachko, O. S. and N. D.
Ozernyuk, (1998). “Functional and structural
properties of lactate dehydrogenase form embryos of different fishes”, Comparative Biochemistry and physiology 119: 77-80. Koproco, K., P. T. Seven and G. Tuna, 2004. Apparent digestibility coefficients of protein in selected feedstuffs for juvenile Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.). Pakistan J. Biol. Sci., 7(12): 2173-2176.
61
REFERENCES
Kramer, D. L. and M. McClure, (1982). “Aquatic surface respiration, a widespread adaptation to hypoxia in tropical freshwater fishes”, Environmental Biology of Fishes 7: 47–55. Kraugerud, O. F. (2008). “Physical and nutritional properties of polysaccharides in extruded fish feed”, Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. Kreiberg, H., Brenton-Davie, V., 1998. Seawater growth of Atlantic salmon in SEA SystemsTM floating bag. Aquaculture Update 81: 1-2. Kristiansen, T. S.; A. Ferno; J. C. Holm; L. Privitera; S. Bakke, and J. E. Fosseidengen, (2004). “Swimming behavior as an indicator of low growth rate and impaired welfare in Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus L.) reared at three stocking densities”, Aqua. 230:137-151. Kristofersson, D. and L. J. Ierson, (2006). “Is there a relationship between fisheries and farming? Inter dependence of fisheries, animal production and aquaculture”, Marine Policy 30: 721-725. Kubitza, F. (2000). “Tilápia: tecnologia e planejamento na produção commercial”. Acqua & Imagem, Jundiaí, Brasil 285. Kucharczyk, D.; K. Targonska; P. Hliwa; G. Pior; M. Kwiatkowski; S. Krejszeff and J. Perkowski, (2008). “Reproductive parameters of common carp spawners during natural season and out-of-season spawning”, J. Reproductive Biol. 8: 285-289. Kuznetsov, Yu. A., I.M. Aminova and Z.M. Kuliev, 2002. Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus,1758.CaspianSea.BiodiversityDatabase.http://www.caspianenvir onment
62
REFERENCES
Ling, S.W., 1977. Aquaculture in Southeast Asia. Seattle, Washington, University of Washington Press, 108 p. Lloyd, R. and D. H. M. Jordan, (1964). “Some factors affecting the resistance of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson) to acid waters”. Inter. J. Air Water Poll. 8: 393-403. Lougheed, V. L.; B. Crosbie and P. Chowfraser, (1998). “Predictions on the effect of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) exclusion on water quality, zooplankton, and submergent macrophytes in a great lakes wetland”, Cana. Jour. of Fisheries & Aquatic Sci. 55: 1189-1197. Lovell, T., 1988. “Nutrition and Feeding of Fish. Van Nostrand Reinhold”, New York, pp: 260. Lutz, C. G. (2003). “Polyculture: Principles, practices, problems, and promise”, Agriculture magazine (March/ April 2003). macrocephalus x C. gariepinus) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) culture in an integrated pen-cum pond system: growth performance and nutrient budgets”, Aqua. 217: 395-408. Malcolm, S. (1971). “The Status of the Common or European Carp, Cyprinus carpio", B.Sc. Thesis, Monash University. Manufactures. Technical Bulletin No. 24: 1-35 Masser, M. P. (2008). “Cage Culture: Cage Culture Problems”, Southern regional Merino, G. E.; R. H. Piedrahita and D. E. Conklin, (2007). “The effect of fish stocking density on the growth of California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) juveniles”, Aqua. 265: 176-186. 63
REFERENCES
Meyers, S. P., 1999. Aquafeed formulation and in- gredients. In: Chang, Y. K. And Wang S. S. (eds.) Advances in extrusion technology. Aquaculture /animal feeds and foods. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Lancaster, PA.USA. pp. 19-27. Miao, S. (1992). “Growth and survival model of red tail shrimp (Penaens penicillatus) (Alock) according to manipulating stocking density”, Bull. Inst. Zool., Academia Sinica 31: 1-8. Michaelsen, K. F.; C. Hoppe; N. Roos; , P. Kaestel; M. Stougaard; L. Lauritzen; C. Mølgaard; T. Girma; H. Friis, (2009). “Choice of foods and ingredients for moderately malnourished children 6 months to 5 years of age”. Food and nutrition bulletin 30 (3):343-404. Milne, P.H., 1979. Fish and shellfish farming in coastal waters. Farnham, Surrey, Fishing News Books Ltd., 208 p. 2nd ed. Milstein, A. (1992). “Ecological aspects of fish species interactions in polyculture ponds”, Hydrobiology 231: 177-186 Miron, D. S.; B. Moraes; A. G. Becker and G. Crestani, (2008). “Ammonia and pH effects on some metabolic parameters and gill histology of silver catfish, Rhamdia quelen (Heptapteridae)”, Aqua. 277: 192-196. Morkore, T. and K. A. Rorvik, (2001). “Seasonal variations in growth, feed utilisation and product quality of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) transferred to sea water as 0+ smolts or 1+ smolts”, Aqua., 199: 145-158. Moss, B. (1993). “Ecology of freshwater – man and medium”. 2nd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publication. London 417. Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech, Jr. 2000. Fish: An Introduction to Ichthyology. Prentice Hall Inc. United States of America. 64
REFERENCES
Naylor, R. L.; R. J. Goldburg; ,
J. H. Primavera; N. Kautsky; M. C. M.
Beveridge; J. Clay ; C. Folke; J. Lubchenco; H. Mooney and M. Troell, (2000). “Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies”, Nature (London) 405: 1017-1024.
Neuman, J., Weir, M., Beattie, C., 2004. Skretting in the UK and Chile: An opportunity for comparison. Skretting Outlook 21: 8-11 Nordgarden, U.; F. Oppedal; G. L. Taranger; G. I. Hemre and T. Hansen, (2003). “Seasonally changing metabolism in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)”, Aqua. Nutr. 9: 287-289. Nordgarden, U.; F. Oppedal; G. L. Taranger; G. I. Hemre, and T. Hansen, (2003). “seasonally changing metabolism in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)”, Aquac. Nutr. 9: 287-289. Novotny, A.J., 1975. Net-pen culture of Pacific salmon in marine waters. Mar.Fish.Rev., 37(1):36–47 Oscoz, J.; P. M. Leuda; R. Miranda and M. C. Escala, (2006). “Summer feeding relationships of the co-occurring Phoxinus Phoxinus and Gobio lozanoi (cyprinidae) in an Iberion river”, Folia. Zool. 55(4): 418-432. Otubusin, S.O. (2001). Economics of Small Scale Table Size Tilapia Production in Net Cages ASSEST Series A Vol.1. No. 86 - 90. Otubusin, S.O., Olaofe, O. O. and Agbebi, O. T. (2004). High yields and growth of catfish (Clarias gariepinus) in floating bamboo net cage system in Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Science. Sci. Ass. Of Nig 12p.
65
REFERENCES
Pantulu, V.R., 1979. Floating cage culture of fish in the lower Mekong River Basin. In Advances in aquaculture, edited by T.V.R. Pillay and W.A. Dill. Farnham, Surrey, Fishing News Books Ltd., for FAO, pp. 423–7 Parkos, J. J.; V. J. Santucci and D. H. Wahl, (2003). “Effects of adult common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on multiple trophic levels in shallow mesocosms”, Cana. Jour. of Fisheries & Aquatic Sci. 60: 182-192. Parra, G. and M. Yufera, (2001). “Comparative energetics during early development of two marine fish species, Solea senegalensis (KAUP) and Sparus aurata L”, The journal of experimental biology 204: 2175-2183. Pensoft Series Faunistica No 93 ISSN 1312-0174 Pike, I. (2005). “Eco-efficiency in aquaculture: global catch of wild fish used in aquaculture”, International Aqua feed 8(1): 38-40. Pike, I. H., G. Andorsdotttir and H. Mundhein, 1990. The role of fish meal in diets for salmonids. International Association of Fish Meal R. Klahan, N. Areechon, R. Yoonpundh And A. Engkagul. 2008. In Vitro Protein, Lipid And Starch Digestibility In Various Sizes Of Nile Tilapia, (Oreochromis niloticus Linnaeus)8th , international Symposium On Tilapia In Aquaculture 2008 Rahman, M. M. (2006). “Food web interactions and nutrient dynamics in polyculture
ponds”,
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Wageningen
University.
Wageningen. Rahman, M. M.; M. C. J. Verdegem; L. A. J. Nagelkerke; M. A. Wahab and J. A. J. Verreth, (2008). “Swimming, grazing and social behavior of rohu Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.) in tanks under fed and non-fed conditions”, Appl. Ani. Behav. Sci. 213:255–264. 66
REFERENCES
Rathore, R. M., S. Kumar and R. Chakrabarti. 2005. Digestive enzyme profile of Cyprinus carpio during ontogenic development. J. World Aqua. Soc. 36(2) : 37 – 41. Rijkers, G.T.; E. M. H. Frederix-Wolters; W. B. Van Muiswinkel, (1980). “The immune system of cyprinid fish. Kinetics and temperature dependence of antibody-producing cells in carp (Cyprinus carpio)”, Immunology 41: 9197. Roberts, J. and G. McCorkelle, (1995). “Impact of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) on channel banks in New South Wales”, Consultancy Report No. 95/41. CSIRO Division of Water Resources. Roberts, R. J. (1989). “Nutritional Pathology of Teleosts”, R.J. Fish Pathology 337-362. Robertson, A. I.; A. J. King; M. R. Healey; D. J. Robertson and S. Helliwell, (1995). “The impact of carp on billabongs”, A report prepared for the Environment Protection Agency, New South Wales, Riverina Region. Roos, N.; M. M.Islam and S. H. Thilsted, (2003). “Small indigenous fish species in Bangladesh: Contribution to vitamin A, calcium and iron intakes”, The Journal of Nutrition 133 (11): 4021-4026. Ryder, P.; E. Ross and K. Howarth, (1974). “The Ecology of Running waters”, Liverpool University Press. London 318. Saeed, M. (2012). “Heydarnejad Fish and Fisheries Laboratory”, J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 36(3): 245-249.
67
REFERENCES
Salaei,V.S.(2006).The effect of substitution of soybean meal by cottonseed cake in common carp diet. Thesis submitted to conference of Agriculture University of salahadin –Erbil degree of master in Animal Resource. Salami, A. A., Fagbenro, O. A. and Sydenham, D. H. J. (1993). The production and growth of clarrid catfish hybrids in concrete tanks. The Isreal journal of Aquaculture Bamidgeh 45(1): 18-25. Salman, N. A. (1987). Nutritional and physiological effects of dietary NaCl on rainbow trout (Salma gairdneri Richardson) and its application in fish culture. PhD Thesis, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK. 467 pp. Salman, N. A.(2009) Effect of Dietary salt on feeding, digestion and osmoregulation of fish (Chapter Pp 109-150). In Handy, R. Role of gut in fish osmoregulation. Society of Experimental Biology UK, 246 pp. Salman, N.A., Al-Mahdawi, G.J. Al-Azzawi, A.H., Rzouki, R. H. , Abbas, L.M., Al-Rudainy, A. M. J., Al-Timimi, M.T. and Faisal, S.M. (1997). Acclimation and culture of common carp (Cyprinuscarpio) in the northern part of drainage canal using floating cages. Marina Mesopotamica, 12(1): 169-188. Salman, N. A. Al-Mahdawi, G.j. Kittan, S.A. : Al-Ruddany , A.J. and Haban , M.K. (1993) .Acclimation of common carp . Bunni and cattan to drainage water of Suddam River by using concrete ponds. Marin Mesopotamiea ,8(3): 190-20 Saxton, A.M., R.N. Iwamoto and W.K. Hershberger, 1983. Smoltification in the net-pen
culture
of
accelerated
Coho
salmon, Onchorhyncus
kisutch Walbaum: predicition of saltwater performance. J.Fish Biol., 22:363–70 68
REFERENCES
Schram, E.; J. W. Van der Heul; A. Kamstra and M. C. J. Verdegem, (2006). “Stocking density dependent growth of Dover sole (Solea solea)”, Aqua. 252: 339-347. Sharma, K. R.; P. Leung; H. Chen and A. Peterson, (1999). “Economic efficiency and optimum stocking densities in fish polyculture: an application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) to Chinese fish farms”, Aqua.180: 207-221. Stone, N. M. and H. K. Thomforde, (2006). “Understanding your Fish Pond. Water Analysis report. Co-operative Aquaculture/Fisheries Extension Programme”. University of Arkansas. Pine Bluff. U. S. Department of Agriculture and County Governments C-operating. FSA - 9090. Tacon, A. G. J. (2005). “Salmon aquaculture dialogue: status of information on salmon aquaculture feed and the environment”, International Aqua feed 8(4): 22-37. Tacon, A. G. J., Knox, D. and Cowey, C. B. (1984). Effect of different dietary levels of salt mixture on growth and body composition in carp. Bull Jap Soc Sci Fish 50: 1217-1222. Timmons, M. B.; M. E. James; W. W. Fred; T. S. Sreven and J. V. Brian, (2011). “Recirculating Aquaculture Systems”. NRAC publication No.01002. water quality. Tom, L. (1998). “Nutritional and feeding of fish”, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Second edition” 87:245
69
REFERENCES
Tom, L. and R. Van-Nostrand, (1989). “Nutrition and Feeding of Fish”. New York 260. Tsadik Gagma M.N. Kutty 1987. Influence of ambient oxygen on feeding and growth of tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus ARAC/87/WP/10.United Nation Development Programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Nigerian institute for oceanography and marine research project RAF/87/009. Varley, M. (2003). “British freshwater fishes: Factors affecting their distribution”. Fishing News (Books), London. Vijayan, M. M.; J. S. Ballantyne and J. F. Leatherland, (1990). “High stocking density alters the energy metabolism of brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis”, Aqua. 88: 371-381. Voss, R.; M. Dickmaan and J. O. Schmidt, (2009). “Feeding ecology of Sprat (Sprattus sprattus L.) and sardine (Sardina pilchardus) larvae in the German Bight, North Sea”, Oceanology 51(1): 117-138. Wannigama, D. N.; D. E. M. Weerakon and G. Muthukumarana, (1985). “Cage culture of S. niloticus in Sri Lanka: Effect of Stocking Density and Dietary Crude Protein levels on Growth”, International Development Research Center Ottawa, Canada. Watanabe, T. (2002). “Strategies for further development of aquatic feeds”, Fisheries Science 68: 242-252. Weber, M. J. and M. L. Brown, (2009). “Effects of common carp on aquatic ecosystems 80 years after ‘Carp as a dominant’: ecological insights for fisheries management”, Fisheries Science 17: 524-537.
70
REFERENCES
Welcomsme, R. L. (1988). “International Introductions of inland aquatic species”, FAO Fish. Tech. Pasp.294: 318. Wedemeyer,G.A.(1996)
Interactions
with
Water
Quality
Conditions in Physiology of Fish in Intensive Culture Systems. Chapman and Hall, New York. Winfree, R. A. (1992). “Nutrition and Feeding of Tropical Fish”, The Science of Fish Health Management 197-206. Wood, C.M.: Toxic responses of the gill. In: Schlenk, D., Benson, W.H., Eds. Target Organ Toxicity in Marine and Freshwater Teleosts. Taylor and Francis, London. 2001; 1-89 Woynarovich, E. 1975. Elementary guide to fish culture in Nepal. FAO Rome. WPRIAP 1975.Wangtung Provincial Research Institute of Aquatic products Lecture notes of training course in freshwater fish culture.part.3:Adult fish culture in pond,Kwangchaw,China35pp . Wu, R. and C. E.
Boyd, (1990). Evaluation of calcium sulfate for use in
aquaculture ponds”, Progressive Fish-Culturist 52:26-31. Yang, N.; C. L. YiKwei and J. S. Diana, (2003). “Hybrid Catfish (Clarias) 2: 233 445.
71
REFERENCES
Yousefian, M. and F. Laloei, (2011). “Genetic Variations and Structure of Common carp, (Cyprinus carpio) Populations by Use of Biochemical, Mitochondrial and Microsatellite Markers”, Middle-east J. Scientific Res.7: 339 345. Yovita, J. M. (2007). “The effects of dissolved oxygen on fish growth in aquaculture (Kingolwira National Fish Farming Centre, Fisheries Division Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Tanzania.)”11-30
72
