Estelar CHAPTER-5 REARING AND PRODUCTION OF FISH

Transcription

1 CHAPTER-5 REARING AND PRODUCTION OF FISH

2 Rearing and production of fish 5.1 INTRODUCTION: To meet the multiple objectives of poverty reduction, food security, competitiveness and sustainability, several researchers have recommended the farming systems approach to research and development. A farming system is the result of complex interactions among a number of inter-dependent components, where an individual farmer allocates certain quantities and qualities of four factors of production, namely land, labour, capital and management to which he has access. Farming systems research is considered a powerful tool for natural and human resource management in developing countries such as India. This is a multidisciplinary whole-farm approach and very effective in solving the problems of small and marginal farmers. The approach aims at increasing income and employment from small-holdings by integrating various farm enterprises and recycling by-products within the farm itself. In developing countries inland aquaculture is often integrated with other agricultural activities. The integration of aquaculture with livestock and crop farming offers greater efficiency in resource utilization reduces risk by diversifying crops and provides additional food, income and employment. Thus, the three major side effects of population growth which are hunger, poverty and unemployment are solved through integrated fish farming. Integrated fish farming is generally considered particularly relevant to benefit the rural poor. In Asia, fish farming has been a part time activity of peasant farmers, who developed it as an efficient means of utilizing farm resources to the maximum capacity. The highest productions obtained so far in integrated fish farming are with pigs, ducks and chicken, a very widespread technique in Asia. 5.2 STUDIES RELATED TO POLYCULTURE OF CARPS: Carps are widely cultivated fish species in Asia, both under mono and polyculture systems. In polyculture system several fish species are reared together in same pond that feed on different natural organisms to utilize the fish production 136

3 potential of a pond. Polyculture, which is the traditional method of fish culture in Asia (Lin, 1982) started in China during the Tang dynasty (AD ) with the joint culture of Chinese carps (Chang, 1987). Polyculture has expanded with the introduction of Chinese carps to many countries to obtained increased fish production (Milstein, 1990). In India, traditional polyculture of the Indian major carps (catla, rohu, and mrigal) has been changed by a system in which these indigenous species are cultured together with Chinese carps in appropriate proportions (Jhingran, 1986). This system is commonly referred as composite fish culture. Success in composite fish culture depends largely on sustained production of fish food organisms. Organic and inorganic fertilizers are added to the fish ponds at periodic intervals to maintain the optimum level of essential nutrients. The best results in terms of fish production in this system results not only through a judicious combination of species, but also due to appropriate management techniques including pond fertilization, supplementary feeding and health care. On the basis of growth performance of different species, modifications are often made in stocking density, species ratio, fertilization schedule and supplementary feeding programme in different agro-climatic conditions. Although a large number of fish species grow successfully in ponds, only a restricted number of species are usually cultivated on commercial scale. Reasons for this restricted choice are obvious. Commercial pond culture basically aims at achieving maximum possible rate of fish production and profit through optimum utilization of the natural food and the supplementary feed which drastically limits the choice of fish species for pond cultivation. India is a carp country (Dhawan, 2005); Carps are the main output of freshwater pond aquaculture production system, which is photosynthesis dependant, most suited for poor resource farmers (Sinha, 1990). The most commonest and well-known type of traditional carp culture practice in India is polyculture of Indian major carps (Chakraborty, 1998). Introduction of three Asiatic carps namely grass carp, silver carp and common carp in India as the 137

4 component of composite fish culture has resulted in enhancing the productivity of rural aquaculture (Sinha, 1972, 1973; Ramchandran and Sinha, 1985). According to Grezlutz (2003), polyculture is not just about more production, it is also often about more profits and greatest benefit in extensive or moderately intensive fish production. Composite fish culture is a proven technology aimed for obtaining higher yield and return from unit area (Chand et al., 2003). Though the viability of composite carp culture technology is well established, experiments conducted at various centers in India in different agro- climatic conditions resulted in wide variation in the yield (Rout and Tripathi, 1988). High yields of the order of kg/ha/yr (Chaudhury et al., 1974; Rao and Singh 1984; Mathew et al. 1988) are achieved in semi- intensive carp culture under different experimental conditions. Derelict water bodies and unused low land like brick-klin land areas could be reclaimed through fish culture (Agarwal et al., 1997). Carps are culturally accepted and affordable food for the rural poor. So to meet the present and future demand of carps, development of lowinput, semi-intensive aquaculture technologies to augment production should be investigated (Pillay 1990). A number of workers have described culture techniques and fish production in composite carp culture system in various agro-climatic regions in India and in other countries (Ahmad et al. 1952; Yashov et al. 1963; Alikunhi et al., 1971; Parameswaran et al, 1971; Sukumaran 1972; Gupta 1972; Sinha et al., 1973; Chaudhury et al., 1975; Chakraborty et al., 1976; Murty et al., 1978; Ghosh et al., 1979; Aravindakshan and Murty, 1979; Rao et al., 1979; Mathew et al., 1979; Singh et al., 1979; Sen and Chakraborty, 1979; Tripathi et al., 1983; Kamal, 1984; Mishra, 1984; Rao, 1984; Sukumaran, 1984; Sahoo, 1984; Kaliyamurty, 1984; 1985; Ayyappan et al., 1990; Jena et al., 1998; Tripathi et al., 2000; Chauhan, 2001a; Jena et al., 2001; Ilyas, 2002; Yasmeen, 2002; Alim et al., 2005; Sukumaran, 2005). 138

5 In any aquaculture system the rearing density of animals is one of the most important factors influencing the results of fish production. This has been well described for most of the cultivable fish species and also in different types of production systems (Haskell, 1955; Refsite, 1977; Carr and Aldrich, 1982). Saha et al. (1997) reported that the selection of stocking densities of different species along with conducive culture environment play vital roles for better growth rates of fishes ultimately leading to higher production. Every pond can support a fish biomass only upto a certain carrying capacity or higher standing crop (Yashouv, 1959; Hickling, ). Stocking carp seed of proper size is the critical input for the success of carp culture (Lakshmanan et al., 1967; Sukumaran et al., 1976; Tripathi, 1990; Mohanty, 1995). In the upland waters the Indian major carps do not grow well, due to the low thermal regime. Therefore, Chinese carps may be taken as the candidate species for polyculture trials. The Chinese carp found suitable for the Mid-Himalayan region. It involved the three major Chinese carps namely grass carp, silver carp and common carp. Silver carp is basically inhabitant of major river systems of South and Central China and in the Amur Basin of USSR from where it has been transplanted throughout the Indo-Pacific region including India. It is a surface dweller feeding mainly upon zooplankton during its early stages and gradually becomes predominantly a phytoplankton feeder. Its relatively longer branchiospines provide a fine filter capable of retaining planktonic organisms. It readily accepts supplementary feed like oil cakes and rice bran mixture in pond culture systems. Grass carp is a native of the river systems of South-Central and North China, and the Amur River of USSR. Its suitability in aquaculture and biological control of aquatic weed infestation has resulted in wide-scale transplantation throughout the world. In early life it feeds on planktonic organisms and gradually switches over to macrophytes. They are voracious eaters and show distinct preference for vegetable food materials such as grass, leaves, weeds, etc. However, they also accept 139

6 supplementary artificial feed materials. Usually only a portion of ingested food is digested and the rest is voided in semi digested or undigested form which, in turn, becomes choice food for the bottom dweller common carp (Alikunhi, Sukumaran and Parameswaran, 1963). The common carp is now the most domesticated and cultivated carp species throughout the world, which is originally a native of temperate region of Asia, especially China. It is an omnivorous bottom dweller subsisting mainly on benthic fauna and decaying vegetable matter. It frequently burrows the pond bottom in search of food. This habit of digging the pond bottom helps in maintaining the productivity of undrainable ponds and hence culture of common carp with other carp species is of great advantage. Moreover, it also feeds directly on the undigested excreta of grass carp. Growth mainly depends upon the bottom biota, stocking density and the rate of supplementary feed. 5.3 STUDIES RELATED TO INTEGRATED FISH FARMING: An integrated approach of composite fish culture together with compatible combination(s) with poultry, duckery, pig rearing and cattle raising is now being adopted. Under this system of farming small livestock and farm yard animals, viz. pigs, poultry, ducks, etc., are integrated with composite fish culture by siting animal housing units on the pond embankments in such a way that the animal wastes and washings are diverted into fish ponds for recycling. The fish not only utilize spilled animal feed but also directly feed on fresh animal excreta which is partially digested and is rich in nutrients. Surplus excreta support the rich growth of planktonic fauna. Fertilizers and supplementary feed are not used, resulting in drastic cost reduction (Sharma et al., 1979; 1979a) Fish is the cheapest animal products when grown on wastes (Edwards, 1980). Fish grow rapidly in tropical water and if waste replaces the need for expensive supplementary feed, the cost of production is minimal. The potential for recycling animal waste have been demonstrated by the Chinese who use animal 140

7 manure as the main fertilizer in fish culture. Integrated farming may be defined as an innovation, in which two or more commodities are framed together on a common infra-structural base with the objective to optimizing use of available resources. The basic principles involved in this system are the utilization of the synergetic effect of the interrelated farm activities and the conservation including the full utilization of farm wastes (Pillay, 1990). It is based on the concept that there is no waste and waste is only a misplaced resource, which can become a valuable material for another product. There are several advantages of integrated farming system viz. increased productivity, greater income, improved cash flow, fuller employment, a better diet for the farmer s family and the less biological and economic risk. On the other hand, there is the disadvantage that the integrated system is more complex, with a need for more knowledge and better management, since the failure of one system could adversely affect the other. Hence, there is a need to optimize the integrated livestock fish farming to get higher production of food per unit area with efficient management practices. Integrated fish farming is generally considered particularly relevant to benefit the rural poor. In Asia, fish farming has been a part time activity of peasant farmers, who developed it as an efficient means of utilizing farm resources to the higher capacity. The highest productions obtained so far in integrated fish farming are with pigs, ducks and chicken, a very widespread technique in Asia (Edwards et al., 1986 and Edwards, 1983,). In some countries, fish farmers also integrate geese, rabbits, goats, sheep, cattle and water buffalo with fish culture. The prospects of fish culture in organic waste like cow dung, poultry, duck, pig excreta and sewage have been suggested by Alikunhi, 1957; Lakshmana et al., 1971; Grower et al., 1976; Sen et al., 1978 and Barash and Schroeder, Hickling, 1962; Cruz and Shehadeh, 1980; Delmendo, 1980; Sin, 1980; Hopkins and Cruz, 1982; Jhingran and Sharma, 1986; Sharma and Olah, 1986, NACA, 1989; Pekar and Olah, 1991; Esteky et al., 1995; Zoccarato et al., 1995 and Sharma et al., 1998 have described culture technique and fish production in various crop-livestock 141

8 integrated farming systems in countries like Hungary, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany, China, Taiwan, Madagascar and India. Many authors have emphasized the importance of fish livestock integration in recycling of waste products, income generation and diversification of products (Woyanarovich, 1979; Yadav et al., 1986; Little and Muir, 1987; Sharma and Das, 1988; Radhey Shyam, 1995; Kaunhog, 1996; Sharma et al., 1998). Swingle (1957) reported better growth of fish with higher rate of application of manure. Chen and Li (1980) described the Chinese AAA system (Aquaculture-Animal husbandry- Agriculture). This system recycles organic waste such as weeds and crop byproducts from field, livestock and natural food production from photosynthesis within the farm itself. Delmendo (1980) presented the review on integrated livestock-fowl-fish farming system. He also described the integrated farming system, being practiced in various countries of Asia, where animal house are erected right over the fish ponds. Pathak (1981) presented the data regarding energetics of an integrated farming system. They further reported that the production of autotrophic and heterotrophic in an aquaculture system help in trapping the solar energy. Barash and Schoeder (1983) tested the possibilities of replacing part of all of fish feed pellets with fermented cow manure. Sharma et al. (1985) presented the package of practices for fish livestock farming. Mishra et al. (1986) showed the possibilities of obtaining 52% higher production of Indian major carps through the application of water hyacinth manure. He also indicated 70% increase in production by combined application of hyacinth manure, biogas slurry and cattle shed washing. Patra and Ray (1988) investigated the influence of a combination of pigeon dropping, goat dung and cow dung on growth and production of Indian major carps and suggested that cow dung, goat dung, pigeon dropping significantly increase the growth and production of Indian major carps. Singh and Das (1993) developed the model of integrated system or triple A (Aquaculture- Agriculture-Animal husbandry) system for marginal farmers. This system was based on the recycling of wastes. He calculated that a farmer having around 3 acres of land can earn Rs. 35,000-40,000 annually and that would be sufficient for him to run a small family. Fang et al. (1994) observed the effect of animal manure protein 142

9 (Chicken, duck, pig, cow) on fish yield and reported that the conversion efficiency of manure protein into fish protein was about 40% on a dry weight basis in the fish pond. Kestemont (1995) has made a critical review of various agro-aquaculture integrated systems viz. direct or indirect and parallel or sequential. Different management aspects of organic fertilization in fish ponds have been reviewed by Edwards, 1980; Olah et al., 1986; Wohlfarth and Schroeder, 1987 and Varadi, The ranking order worked out by Ray and David (1966) and Govind et al. (1978) of different animal wastes potency was poultry > cow dung > goad > sheep > piggery. However, Kapur (1981); Kapur and Lal (1986 a, b) and Yadav (1987) found poultry > piggery > goat > sheep > cow dung. Prinsloo Schoonbee (1987a) noted the comparative effectiveness as duck manure > pig manure > raw chicken manure > cattle manure > sheep manure. The FAO Technical conference on Aquaculture held in 1976 in Kyoto, Japan, devoted one of his sessions to integrated farming. The resolution of this fundamental global meeting, which has come to know as the Kyoto declaration on Aquaculture, pointed out that aquaculture can, in many circumstances, be combined with agriculture and animal husbandry with mutual advantage and contribute substantially to integrated rural development. The International center for Living Aquatic resource (ICLARM) organized an international conference on integrated agriculture, aquaculture farming systems in 1979 and promotes these even outside of Asia. The center on Integrated Rural development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP) initiated studies in 1986 on integrated farming and organized a regional workshop as a follow up in The network of Aquaculture centers in Asia (NACA) assigned one of its four regional centers for integrated fish farming and published a text book on this subject in Poultry fish integration is one of the excellent ways of recycling of all the organic waste efficiently in fish pond as a source of nutrients. Nutrients requirement of fish pond which depends mainly on the nutrients status of pond soil 143

10 and fish density there in, can be fulfilled by supplying needed quantity of excreta by regulating the number of pigs stocked with pond. Experiment on integration of fish culture with poultry was initiated at CIFRI, Barrackpore during 1978 (Sharma et al., 1979). Integrated fish farming by recycling of poultry manure in fish pond have been reported by Sharma et al., 1979; Cruz and Shehadeh 1980; Woynarovich, 1980; Sharma et al., 1985; Sharma and Olaha, 1986; Sharma and Das, 1988; Gavina, 1994 and Borah et al., 1998 in India and abroad. Ashwathanarayana (1979) has compared the effectiveness of poultry manure, sheep and goat manure and pig dung on carp production and found poultry and sheep manure as equally effective. Woyanarovich (1979) obtained a yield of t/ha/year from the water treated with poultry and pig manure. Kapur (1984a) reported the 20% increase in fish yield with poultry-piggery waste combination in a ratio of 1:1 as compared to poultry waste alone RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Integrated livestock fish farming system is a proven environmentally sustainable and economically viable technology that encompasses rational utilization of available resources. Different forms of integrated livestock fish farming viz. pig-fish, poultry-fish, duck-fish etc. have been evolved and popularized in India (Sharma et al., 1985). Efforts are being made to improvise the technology by way of multiplication of production potentiality and minimization of risk factor through better management practices (Sharma, 1989). The present study was undertaking on the feasibility of an integrated poultry fish farming system in the semi-temperate climate of mid hills region. 5.5 GROWTH, SURVIVAL AND FISH YIELD: The on field trial was conducted on selected 9 farmer s ponds with stocking density of 2.5, 3 and 4 fish/m 3 and species combination of 40:30:30 for silver carp, 144

11 grass carp and common carp. The land holding in the hill area is smaller ( m 2 ) as compared to the national average (1370 m 2 ). Farmers are doing fish culture in small sized ponds (50-150m 2 ). Ponds having almost uniform size (90-100m 2 ) were selected for the present study. The growth of fishes in terms of weight was observed and monitored monthly. The growth rate and average final weight of different species in different experimental ponds (non-integrated, integrated with 10 chicks and integrated with 20 chicks) are presented in Table At the time of stocking, the average weight of fish were g, g and g for silver carp, grass carp and common carp, respectively (Table 5.09). The average final weight at harvest time was recorded as 318.7g, 325g and 347.3g in non-integrated, integrated with 10 chicks and integrated with 20 chicks for the silver carp. Hence, the average final weight of the silver carp was recorded higher in integrated ponds with 20 chicks (Table 5.10). The net weight gained by individual silver carp was recorded higher with 2.5 fish/m 3 density (325g) in non-integrated pond which was 2.5% higher than the weight in density 3 fish/m 3 (316.8g) and 8.1% higher (298.6g) from the density 4 fish/m 3, which might be due to the overstocking of the fish ( Table 5.11, Fig.5.13)).The same trend was found in integration with 10 and 20 chicks having 2.2% and 3.5 % higher weight from the density 3 and 7.3% and 11.4 % from the density 4 fish/m 3,respectively (Table 5.12, 5.13). In case of non-integrated pond, the total production of silver carp (22.7 kg/100m 3 ) was found higher with the density of 3 fish/ m 3, having 14.6% difference from the density 2.5 fish/m 3.Total production with density 4 fish/m 3 was also 5.5% higher from the density of 2.5 fish/m 3. In non-integrated pond (10 chicks), 6.4% difference from the density 2.5 fish/m 3 was also recorded having the highest production with density 3 fish/m 3 (21.6 kg) (Table 5.12).The survival of this species was recorded as 60, 62 and 58 % with 2.5 fish/m 3 density, 60, 56 and 70 % with 3 fish/m 3 density and 44, 41 and 48 % with 4 fish/m 3 density (Table 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13). Better SGR ( ) was recorded with less density and with high integrated rate (Table 5.23). Though the growth of the individual fish was higher with less density but due to the better 145

12 survival, SGR and pond condition the net fish production was higher with medium density of 3 fish/m 3. Better protein content in the fish flesh was recorded with less density and high integration (Table 5.25). Less density reflected the better nutrition, while high integration provides the enough natural food to the growing fish. The nutritive value of the silver carp observed as % crude protein, % crude fat and % moisture content (Table 5.25). The data revealed that the optimum density for the growth, survival and production is 3 fish/m 3. Similarly, the net weight gained by Grass carp was recorded higher (454.2g) in 2.5 fish/m 3 density in non-integrated pond which was 1.2 % higher than the weight in density 3 fish/m 3 (448.6g) and 5.8 % from the density 4 fish/m 3 (428.0g),which might be due to the overstocking of the fish. The same trend was found in integration with 10 and 20 chicks having 2.7% and 9.6% higher weight from the density 3 fish/m 3 (456.0g) and 4.9 % and 13.3 % from the density 4 fish/m 3 (524.1g) (Table 5.15, 5.16, fig.5.13)). In case of non-integrated pond, the total production of Grass carp was found higher with the density of 3 fish/m 3 (25.5kg); having 17.0 % difference from the density 2.5 fish/m 3.Total production with density 4 fish/m 3 (24.6kg) was also 12.8 % higher from the density of 2.5 fish/m 3 (21.8kg) (Table 5.14). In integrated pond(10 chicks), 20.8 % difference from the density 2.5 fish/100m 3 was also recorded having the highest production with density 3 fish/m 3 (24.9kg).Total production was also 19.9 % higher with density 4 fish/m 3 (24.7kg) from the density 2.5 fish/m 3 (20.6kg).The survival of this species was recorded as 64,64 and 56 % with 2.5 fish/m 3 density, 64, 62 and 75 % with 3 fish/m 3 density and 48,48 and 55 % with 4 fish/m 3 density (Table ). Better SGR was recorded in 2.5 fish density and in 20 chick s integration. Though, the growth of the individual fish was higher with less density but due to the better survival, SGR and pond condition the net fish production was higher with medium density of 3 fish/m 3. Better protein content in the fish flesh of grass carp was observed in integrated pond (Table 5.25). The data revealed that the optimum density for the growth, survival and production is 3fish/m

13 Having the same trend of growth, survival and production, the net weight gained by individual common carp was recorded maximum (230g) in 2.5 fish/m 3 density in non-integrated pond which was 8.9 % higher than the weight in density 3 fish/ m 3 and 14 % from the density 4 fish/m 3 (Table 5.17). The same trend was found in integration with 10 and 20 chicks having 5.2 % and 8.7 % higher weight from the density 3 fish/m 3 ( 235.8g, 256.4g)) and 12.7 % and 15.7 % from the density 4 fish/m 3 (Table 5.18, 5.19). In case of non-integrated pond, the total production of Common carp was found maximum with the density of 3 fish/m 3 (13.7kg), having 10% difference from the density 2.5 fish/m 3. Total production with density 4 fish/m 3 (12.96kg) was also 4.3 % higher from the density of 2.5 fish/m 3. But, in integrated pond (10 chicks), the maximum production of this species was found in 4 fish/m 3 (16.2kg) with 23.7 % difference from the density 2.5 fish/m 3 (Table 5.18).Total production was also 7.6 % higher with density 3 fish/m 3 (14.1kg) from the density 2.5 fish/m 3. Similar trend was observed in integration with 20 chicks having highest production of common carp in ponds of 3 fish/m 3 (17.5kg) with a difference of 31.6% from the density of 2.5 fish/m 3 (Table 5.19).The survival of this species was recorded as 72, 74 and 74 % with 2.5 fish/m 3 density, 72, 70 and 81 % with 3 fish/m 3 density and 55, 65 and 68 % with 4 fish/m 3 density (Table ). Better SGR ( ) was recorded with less density and with high integrated rate. The overall SGR showed by fishes pooled in experimental pond are almost similar as reported earlier by Kumar (2004). Though the growth of the individual fish was higher with less density but due to the better survival, SGR and pond condition the net fish production was higher with medium density of 3 fish/m 3 in non-integrated ponds and with 4 fish/m 3 in integrated ponds. Integrated ponds also reflected the better protein content ( %) in the fish flesh. As common carp is the bottom dwelling omnivorous fish, the growth and survival was recorded better in highly integrated ponds having the organic bottom deposits. The data revealed that the optimum density for the growth, survival and production of this fish is 3-4 fish/m 3. The growth data in the different nonintegrated and integrated ponds and for different species showed non significant variation on the ANOVA analysis at 0.01 & 0.05 level (Table ). 147

14 The average data for net production of fish reflected the maximum production of fish with stocking density of 3 fish/m 3. The net productions from the different integrated and non-integrated ponds reflected the maximum production with integration of 20 chicks /m 3 pond area (Table 5.10, Fig. 5.14). In a separate experiment of FCR, Grass carp was found with highest FCR of 3.1 followed by Silver carp (3.4) and Common carp(3.8) (Table 5.27).The similar results were also obtained by Pandey & Malik (2008). On the analysis of proximate composition of feed 24% crude protein, 6 % crude fat and 12.8 % crude fiber was observed in the experimental diet (Table 5.26). Overall high protein content (17.99±0.12%) in all carps in integrated fish ponds was reported by Pandey & Malik (2008). The seasonal growth pattern was observed similar for the all tested three species with rapid growth during September-October and April-May and a stagnant growth during the winter months (Fig ). This growth pattern may be correlated with the optimum water quality and availability of enough natural food in the form of plankton during high growth period. The period of the month of November to January is the hibernation period for the growth of these species due to the low water temperature. The silver carp shown uniform growth pattern, while common carp reflected the non uniform seasonal growth. The length of the silver carp and grass carp was uniformly increased in accordance to the body weight, but it was not shown by the common carp. The percent composition of the different species in the total production, shown the maximum contribution of grass carp (39-41%) followed by silver carp (36-37%) and common carp (23-24%) without significant difference in non- integrated and integrated ponds (Fig ). High production trend in the experimental ponds found to be similar with the earlier reports on integrated fish farming in India and abroad (Sharma et al., 1979, Cruz and Shehadeh 1980, Woynarovich 1980, Sharma and Das 1988). Such high rate of fish yield was due the application of the animal excreta, recycled in the pond, which served two most important purposes for enhancing fish yield (as direct feed and pond fertilizer) and also acted as substratum for multiplication of microbial community that provide essential nutrition for fish and fish food 148

15 organisms (Newell 1980, Schroedar 1980). A uniform linear growth pattern was exhibited by almost all species in experimental pond. Apart from this, it was observed that high percentage of survival can be achieved with healthy fish, predator free pond, favorable ecological conditions etc. Lakshmanan et al. (1971) and Chaudhury et al. (1978) stressed the importance of these factors in governing the survival. The survival was found better in low stocking density in comparison of higher stocking density. Jena et al. (2001) and Alikunhi et al. (1971) reported the superior growth of silver carp over the other exotic and indigenous carps in polyculture system. But, in hilly climate the growth of silver carp was not in higher side probably due to the low production of phytoplankton. Singh (2002) reported the survival of carp species in the range 67-72% in an integrated fish production practice. In integrated pond, Singh et al. (1972) obtained survival rate of fishes in the range of % of fishes with best survival of surface feeder fishes. The survival rates in the experimental pond of present study are comparable to the above values. Data of present study on survival reflected that the survival was less for the surface feeder fish followed by column feeder and highest for bottom feeder. The similar findings were also reported by Aravindakshan et al. (1999), Azim et al. (2001) and Jena et al. (2001). The Chinese carp found suitable for the Mid-Himalayan region based on the 41 experiments conducted at the farm on composite carp farming system. It involved the three major Chinese carps namely grass carp (feeds on all types of aquatic and terrestrial grass), silver carp (feeds on plankton) and common carp (feeds on semi digested faecal material of grass carp, unutilized feed on pond bottom) fish/m 3 (having advantage of higher oxygen level) in the ratio of 4-5:2-2.5:3-3.5, respectively. The supplementary feed prepared from locally available ingredients-oil cake, rice polish/bran etc. and 2-3 % of the body weight and fertilization of pond was done with raw cow dung 9000 kg/ha/yr to ensure consistent growth. Average annual fish production of 1870 kg/ha and 3708 kg/ha had been achieved by monoculture of common carp and polyculture of grass, silver and common carp respectively, in an experiment 149

16 conducted at the farm (Tyagi and Behl 1998, Tyagi et al, 1999). Further, comparatively higher fish kg/m2 /yr (3400 to 6800 kg/ha/yr) has been harvested from the earthen ponds of Uttarakhand state located in middle Himalayan region ( msl) under transfer of technology programme of the institute (Kumar et.al,2009). The production observed in the present study was in higher side as reported by the previous workers. 5.6 LENGTHS-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP AND CONDITION FACTOR: The length-weight relationship was computed from the data collected throughout the investigation period of 12 months from the non-integrated ponds and integrated ponds in on farm trial. The equations obtained are shown in Table The scattered diagrams obtained by plotting total length against weight of all species (pooled data) from the experimental ponds (Figs to 5.44) resulting in log-log transformation of the data for which the line of best fit was drawn by least square method. The length-weight relationships vary for a particular species in different species combination and stocking density. The value of regression co-efficient n ranged from in different species combination with stocking densities. It was in the range of with stocking density of 2.5 fish/m 3, with stocking density of 3.0 fish /m 3 and with stocking density of 4.0 fish /m 3 for silver carp. For the grass carp the regression coefficient n ranged from in stocking density of 2.5 fish/m 3, with stocking density of 3.0 fish/m 3 and with stocking density of 4.0 fish/m 3. In case of the common carp, these values are observed as in stocking density of 2.5 fish/m 3, with stocking density of 3.0fish/m 3 and with stocking density of 4.0 fish /m 3 (Table 5.28). For silver carp, these values calculated as , and in non-integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. In case of grass carp these values observed as , and in non-integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. Common carps 150

17 reflected these values as , and in nonintegration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. The overall data reveal that grass carp has the higher n values ( ) followed by the common carp ( ) and silver carp ( ). The results are in agreement with the studies of Ghosh et al. (1983) who recorded the value of n from 1.29 to The obtained n values for silver carp, grass carp and common carp are nearly comparable to that obtained for similar species elsewhere in India (Jhingran, 1952, 1959; Chakraborty and Singh, 1963; Natarajan and Jhingran 1963; Srivastava and Sinha, 1964; Panthulu et al., 1967; Khan, 1972; Devraj and Natarajan, 1973).Thakur and Das (1979) stated that the value of an exponent signifies >3 or <3, denoted that it did not maintain the isometric pattern of growth. The exponent <3 shows that the species becomes lighter for its length, as it grows larger and >3 shows that the species becomes heavier for its length as it grows longer. In the present study only grass carp showed the values of n close to 3. The silver carp showed the non-isometric and light weight to its length. values also reflected the isometric growth of silver carp and grass carp with integration of 20 chicks and in 300 fish density, while common carp reflected the better results with non- integration and in 250 fish density. The calculated correlation coefficient was in the range of with stocking density of 2.5 fish/m 3, with stocking density of 3.0 fish/m 3 and in stocking density of 4.0 fish /m 3 for the silver carp. For the grass carp the correlation coefficient ranged from in stocking density of 2.5 fish /m 3, with stocking density of 3.0 fish /m 3 and with stocking density of 4.0 fish /m 3. In case of the common carp, these values are observed as in stocking density of 2.5 fish /m 3, with stocking density of 3.0 fish /m 3 and with stocking density of 4.0 fish /m 3. For silver carp, these values calculated as , and in non-integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. In case of grass carp these values observed as , and in non- 151

18 integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. Common carps reflected these values as , and in non-integration, integration with 10 chicks and integration with 20 chicks, respectively. The overall data reveal that grass carp has the higher r values ( ) followed by the common carp ( ) and silver carp ( ). These values are more close to 1 for the grass carp; reflect the more balanced growth of this species. Data also reflected the comparatively balance growth of silver carp and grass carp in the integration pond and for common carp in non- integration ponds (Table 5.28). Thus the results of the present study are in conformity with the views of Lecren (1951) and Chauhan (1987) who pointed out that as the fishes normally did not retain the same body outline throughout their life-span and specific gravity of tissue may not remain constant, the actual relationship may depart significantly from the cube law. Ghosh et al. (1983) studied the length-weight relationship of Indian major carps and exotic carps under composite fish culture. Sharma (2004) also revealed the length-weight relationship of all the six species of carps under fish-cum-duck integrated system. The general well being or robustness of the fish can be estimated by the calculation of condition factor or ponderal index. The ponderal index or condition factor in different fishes have been worked out by Pathak (1975), Kumar et al. (1979), Pathani and Das (1980), Sinha et al. (1990), Kumar (2000), Singh (2003) and Sharma (2004). Kumar et al., 1979 concluded that a fish having the value of condition factor as about one is considered to be of its average weight. This factor is the indicator of the robustness or well being of fish. The results of the k values of different species in experimental pond ( for silver carp, for grass carp and for common carp) are in conformity of above results, which shows the well being of fishes in the ponds of less density and high integration (Table 5.23). Various workers have calculated the ponderal index or condition factor of different fish s viz to 0.95 in Tor putitora (Pathani and Das 1980) in Salmo trutta fario (Kumar et al., 1979) in 152

19 Salvelinus namaycush (Oosten and Eschnerger 1956), in Labeo rohita (Kumar, 2004). The results of the k values of different species in experimental ponds ( ) are in conformity of above results, which shows the well being of fishes in the integrated ponds. 153

20 Table 5.1: Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in non- integrated ponds. Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Jul C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun *Average of 10 fish, C1- non-integrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density, C2- non-integrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density, C3- non-integrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 154

21 Table 5.2: Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in integrated ponds( 10chicks). Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T T1-10 chicks integrate pond with 2.5 fish density, T2-10 chicks integrate pond with 3.0 fish density, T3-10 chicks integrate pond with 4.0 fish density. 155

22 Table 5.3: Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in integrated ponds (20chicks). Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density, T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density, T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density. 156

23 Table 5.4: Average Growth performance (weight in gm) of fish in integrated and non- integrated ponds. Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp C T10 T20 C T10 T20 C T10 T20 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun C-without integration, T10- integration of 10 chicks, T20- integration of 20 chicks. 157

24 Table 5.5: Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in non-integrated ponds. Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C *Average of 10 fish, C1- non-integrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density, C2- non-integrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density, C3- non-integrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 158

25 Table 5.6: Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in integrated ponds (10 chicks). Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T T1-10 chicks integrate pond with 2.5 fish density, T2-10 chicks integrate pond with 3.0 fish density, T3-10 chicks integrate pond with 4.0 fish density. 159

26 Table 5.7: Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in integrated ponds (20chicks). Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T6 T4 T5 T *Average of 10 fish. T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density. T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density. T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density. 160

27 Table 5.8: Average Growth performance (length in cm) of fish in integrated and nonintegrated ponds. Months Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun C T10 T20 C T10 T20 C T10 T C-without integration, T10- integration of 10 chicks, T20- integration of 20 chicks. 161

28 Table 5.9: Species wise growth performance of fish in integrated and non-integrated ponds having different fish density. Ponds/ Tanks C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Fish species Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Avg. initial wt. (g.) Avg. final wt.(g.) Avg. net wt gain(g) Survival ( %) Production (Kg/100m 3 ) Net production (Kg/100m 3 )

29 Table 5.10: Species wise growth performance of fish in different integrated and nonintegrated ponds. Ponds/ Tanks C T10 T20 Fish species Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Avg. initial wt. (g.) Avg. final wt.(g.) Avg. net wt gain (g) C-without integration (average of C1, C2 & C3) T10- integration of 10 chicks (average of T1, T2 & T3) T20- integration of 20 chicks (average of T4, T5 & T6) Survival ( %) Production ( Kg/100m 3 ) Net production (Kg/100m 3 )

30 Table 5.11: Growth performance of Silver carp in non- integrated ponds at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond C1 (Control) C2 Difference from control C3 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (2.5%) (8.1%) (14.6%) (5.5%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) C1- non-integrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density. C2- non-integrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density. C3- non-integrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 164

31 Table 5.12: Growth performance of Silver carp in integrated ponds (10 chicks) at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond T1 (Control) T2 Difference from control T3 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (2.2%) (7.1%) (6.4%) (1%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) T1-10 chicks integrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density. T2-10 chicks integrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density. T3-10 chicks integrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 165

32 Table 5.13: Growth performance of Silver carp in integrated ponds (20 chicks) at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond T4 (Control) T5 Difference from control T6 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (3.55%) (11.4%) (40.4%) (17.8%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density. T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density. T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density. 166

33 Table 5.14: Growth performance of Grass carp in non- integrated ponds at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond C1 (Control) C2 Difference from control C3 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (1.2%) (5.8%) (17.0%) (12.8%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) C1- nonintegrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density. C2- nonintegrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density. C3- nonintegrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 167

34 Table 5.15: Growth performance of Grass carp in integrated ponds (10 chicks) at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond T1 (Control) T2 Difference from control T3 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (2.7%) (4.9%) (20.8%) (19.9%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) T1-10 chicks integrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density. T2-10 chicks integrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density. T3-10 chicks integrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 168

35 Table 5.16: Growth performance of Grass carp in integrated ponds (20 chicks) at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond T4 (Control) T5 Difference from control T6 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (9.6%) (13.3%) (43%) (36%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density. T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density. T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density. 169

36 Table 5.17: Growth performance of Common carp in non- integrated ponds at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond C1 (Control) C2 Difference from control C3 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (8.9%) (14.0%) (10%) (4.3%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) C1- nonintegrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density. C2- nonintegrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density. C3- nonintegrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 170

37 Table 5.18: Growth performance of Common carp in integrated ponds (10 chicks) at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond T1 (Control) T2 Difference from control T3 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (5.2%) (12.7%) (7.6%) (23.7%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) T1-10 chicks integrated pond with 2.5/m 3 fish density. T2-10 chicks integrated pond with 3.0/m 3 fish density. T3-10 chicks integrated pond with 4.0/m 3 fish density. 171

38 Table 5.19: Growth performance of Common carp in integrated ponds (20 chicks) at different fish density. Parameter/ Pond T4 (Control) T5 Difference from control T6 Difference from control Pond size (m 2 ) Stocking no Initial Av. Weight (gm.) Final Av. Weight (gm.) Net gain in Av. Weight (gm.) Total production (Kg.) Total production (Kg./100m 2 ) (8.7%) (15.7%) (29.0%) (31.6%) Survival (%) SGR Condition factor(k) Protein content (%) T4-20 chicks integrated pond with 2.5 fish density. T5-20 chicks integrated pond with 3.0 fish density. T6-20 chicks integrated pond with 4.0 fish density. 172

39 Table 5.20: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Silver carp in non integrated and integrated (with 10 and 20 chicks) ponds of different fish density. Source of variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F-value Treatment * Error Total *non significant at 0.01 and 0.05 level. Table 5.21: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Grass carp in non integrated and integrated (with 10 and 20 chicks) ponds of different fish density. Source of variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F-value Treatment * Error Total *non significant at 0.01 and 0.05 level Table 5.22: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for common carp in non integrated and integrated (with 10 and 20 chicks) ponds of different fish density. Source of variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F-value Treatment * Error Total *non significant at 0.01 and 0.05 level. 173

40 Table 5.23: Specific growth rate (SGR) in different fish species stocked in integrated and non-integrated fish ponds. Ponds 174 SGR Silver carp Grass carp Common carp C C C T T T T T T Table 5.24: Condition factor k in different fishes stocked in experimental and control pond. Ponds Value of k Silver carp Grass carp Common carp C C C T T T T T T

41 Table 5.25: Nutritive value (in %) of fish at the end of experiment in different fish species stocked in integrated and non integrated fish ponds. Pond Silver carp Grass carp Common carp MO CP CF AS MO CP CF AS MO CP CF AS C C C T T T T T T MO = Moisture, CP = Crude protein, CF = Crude fat, As = Ash content 175

42 Table 5.26: Proximate composition of Fish feed. Nutrients (%) Crude protein 24.0 Crude fat 6.0 Crude fiber 12.8 Table 5.27: FCR of different fish species. Fish FCR Silver carp 3.4 Grass carp 3.1 Common carp

43 Table 5.28: Length weight relationship of fish reared in trial Ponds. Pond Nonintegrated Integrated (10Chicks) Integrated (20Chicks) Non- integrated Integrated (10Chicks) Integrated (20Chicks) Non- integrated Integrated (10Chicks) Integrated (20Chicks) Species (Density) Exponential Equation Logarithmic Equation Correlation Coefficient r SC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (4/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (4/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC (4/ m 3 ) W L Log W= Log L GC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L GC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L GC (4/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L GC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L GC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L GC (4/ m 3 ) W L Log W= Log L GC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L GC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L GC (4/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (4/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (2.5/ m 3 ) W L Log W= Log L CC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (4/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (2.5/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (3/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L CC (4/ m 3 ) W = L Log W= Log L SC- silver carp, GC- grass carp, CC- common carp. 177

44 Fig.5.1: Growth performance (weight) of Silver carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density. Wt. ( gm) Wt. ( gm) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Fig.5.2: Growth performance (weight) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density. C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 178

45 Wt. ( gm) Fig.5.3: Growth performance (weight) of Common carp in non-integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density. Wt.(gm) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Fig.5.4: Growth performance (weight) of Silver carp in non-integrated and integrated ponds. C C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T10 T20 179

46 Wt.(gm) Fig.5.5: Growth performance (weight) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds. Wt.(gm) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Fig.5.6: Growth performance (weight) of Common carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds. C T10 T20 C T10 T20 180

47 length(cm) Fig.5.7: Growth performance (Length) of Silver carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun length(cm) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Fig.5.8: Growth performance (Length) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density. C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 181

48 length(cm) Fig.5.9: Growth performance (Length) of Common carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds of different fish density Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun length(cm) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Fig.5.10: Growth performance (Length) of Silver carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds. C C1 C2 C3 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T10 T20 182

49 length(cm) Fig.5.11: Growth performance (Length) of Grass carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun length(cm) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Fig.5.12: Growth performance (Length) of Common carp in non- integrated and integrated ponds. C T10 T20 C T10 T20 183

50 Production(kg/100m 3 ) Fig.5..13: Production of different carp fish in non- integrated and integrated ponds T20 T10 C C1 C2 C T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Pond 68.7 Silver carp Grass carp Common carp Fig.5.14: Net fish Production (Kg/100m 3 ) in non- integrated and integrated ponds. 184

51 Non integrated ponds Common carp 23% Grass carp 41% Silver carp 36% Fig.5.15: Species composition of net fish production in non- integrated ponds. Integrated ponds with 10 chicks Common carp 24% Silver carp 37% Grass carp 39% Fig.5.16: Species composition of net fish production in integrated ponds (10 Chicks) 185

52 Integrated ponds with 20 chicks Common carp 23% Grass carp 41% Silver carp 36% Fig.5.17: Species composition in net fish production in integrated ponds (20 Chicks) 186

53 Fig. 5.18: Length-weight relationship of silver carp in non- integrated pond (2.5 fish/m 3 ) Fig. 5.19: Length-weight relationship of silver carp in non-integrated pond (3.0 fish/m 3 ) 187

54 Fig. 5.20: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in non integrated pond (4.0 fish/m 3 ) Fig. 5.21: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 2.5 fish/m 3 ) 188

55 Fig. 5.22: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 3.0 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.23: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 4.0 fish/m 3 ). 189

56 Fig. 5.24: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 2.5 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.25: Length-weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 3.0 fish/m 3 ) 190

57 Fig. 5.26: Length- weight relationship of silver carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 4.0 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.27: Length- weight relationship of Grass carp in non integrated pond (2.5fish/m 3 ). 191

58 Fig. 5.28: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in non integrated pond (3.0 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.29: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in non integrated pond (4.0fish/m 3 ). 192

59 Fig. 5.30: Length- weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 2.5 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.31: Length- weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 3.0 fish/m 3 ). 193

60 Fig. 5.32: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (10 chicks and 4.0 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.33: Length- weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 2.5 fish/m 3 ). 194

61 Fig. 5.34: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 3.0 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.35: Length-weight relationship of Grass carp in integrated pond (20 chicks and 4.0 fish/m 3 ) 195

62 Fig. 5.36: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in non integrated pond (2.5 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.37: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in non integrated pond (3.0fish/m 3 ). 196

63 Fig. 5.38: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in non-integrated pond ( 4.0 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.39: Length- weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (10 Chicks 2.5fish/m 3 ). 197

64 Fig. 5.40: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (10 Chicks 3.0 fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.41: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (10 Chicks 4.0 fish/m 3 ). 198

65 Fig. 5.42: Length- weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (20 Chicks 2.5fish/m 3 ). Fig. 5.43: Length- weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (20 Chicks 3.0 fish/m 3 ). 199

66 Fig. 5.44: Length-weight relationship of Common carp in integrated pond (20 Chicks 4.0 fish/m 3 ). 200

67 Plate 5.1: Seed stocking in the experimental pond. Plate 5.2: Liming in the experimental pond. 201

68 Plate 5.3: Netting in the experimental pond. Plate 5.4: Harvested fish from the experimental ponds. 202

69 Plate 5.5: Fish From experimental ponds for measurement. Plate 5.6: Weight measurement of Fish. 203

70 Plate 5.7: Length measurement of Fish. 204