Fish sorting assessments of Clarias gariepinus fingerlings stocked and raised in fish tanks were undertaken for a 6-month culture period: Sorting was undertaken from the first, second, and third months of stocking the fish fingerlings while the control was not sorted at all. The sorting assessments revealed that the twice sorting of fish fingerlings stocked with a Marginal Rate of Return (MRR) of 3.44 was significantly different (p>0.05) from those sorted once with MRR of 0.912, and three times with MRR of 2.65 respectively, thus making twice sorting most advisable for fish farmers utilizing Clarias gariepinus fingerlings for tank aquacultur

Adekoya, B.B.

Adeleye, O.A.

Ayansanwo, T.O.

Ayinla, O.A.

Idowu, A.A.

Kudoro, O.A.

Ogun, A.O.

Ogunmodede, B.A

Oresegun, A.

Salawu, R.A

Salisu, A.A.

English

Aquatic Commons

SORMilier ASEEOSPZIE117,3 CIF (72E,M111/15
FITICEIRILums FAIISEID IN FISH
B.I3. Adekoya*; O.A. Ayinla**; R.A. Salawu*; A. Oresegun**; B.A. Ogunmodede***; A.O. Ogun*, O.A.
Adeleye*; T.O. Ayansanwo*; A.A. /dowu*; O.A. Kudoro*; and A.A. Salisu*.
*Ogun State Agricultural Development Programme; Abeokuta, Nigeria
**Nigeria Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria.
Institute of Agricultural Research and Training, Obafemi Awolowo University, Moor Plantation, 1badan, Nigeria.
Abstract
Fish sorting assessments of Clarias gariepinus fingerlings stocked and raised in fish tanks were undertaken for a 6-
mo.nth culture period. Sorting was undertaken as from the first, second, and third months of stocking the fish fingerlings
while the control was not sorted at all. The soiling assessments revealed that the twice sorting of fish fingerlings
stocked, with a Marginal kate of Return (MRR) of 3.44 was significantly different (p>0.05) from those sorted once
with MRR of 0.912, and thrice with MRR of 2.65 respectively, thus making twice sorting most advisable for fish
farmers utilizing Clarias gariepinus fish fingerlings for tank aquaculture.
Introduction
Aquaculture. which has its antecedents in the African
traditional fishfolk 'fish catch keeping practices in beels
(Adekoya et al. 1996)? creels, pots, cages, and pens,
particularly Acadjas (Solarin and Udolisa, 1992; Hem,
et al. 1995) has been known to Ogun State fishers through
their indigenous knowledge systems (Adekoya, 1997a)
since 10,000 years before present (Adekoya, 1997b).
Recent efforts in Nigeria at promoting productive
aquaculture with the support of the research extension
system is regaining fresh irripetus after its earlier travails
(Fish Network, 1997). The result has been the growing
trend of stocking fish ponds with fish fingerlings from
uncertified sources (Adekoya, 1991). This pressure for
fish fingerlings as stocking material as against the use of
more cost effective juveniles arose from the increased
demands of the growing aquaculture industry in Nigeria
which has not been matched by supplies (Oladosu et al,
190).
Field observations by the rosearch-extens ion network had
included limitations in fish fingerlings supply and its
attendant effects on the growth of aquaculture (Olurin e
al, 1998). The resultant stress evident from souring fish
fingerlings has had as much backlash on the fish breeders
as well as he table-fish producing fish farmers
271
(Ayansanwo, 2001). Fish farmers in Ogun State have
thus, generally continued to suffer losses on stocked fish
fingerlings even at 5/m2 stocking density (Ugwumba,
1994) particularly through the phenotnenon of their
differential growth which often resulted in some
overgrown fish or "shooters" among the stock at test-
cropping time which would do better with the sorting of
the "shooters: from the "sortees".
Materials and Mentodis
The following research methods and materials used were
Fish tanks with demarcations, Fish Fingerlings ofC/arias
gariepinus, Maggots, Plastic bowls and sieves, weighing
scales, pH paper, Thermometer, Oxygen meter and
water.
Treatments employed in this work included:
No sorting
Sorting once
Sorting twice
Sorting thrice.
Each tank was divided hito four (4) compartments tagged
B, C, and D. Partition A served as the control while
C, and D, served for the three remaining treatments.
Each compartment or treatment was replicated t \ ice
and stocked with 50 fingerlings (each weighing 5.0+ () 10
and the fish were fed with Maggots at 20% body weight
of fish stocked daily. The tanks used in this trial were
subject of a flush-through trickle tube water supply
system. This made it possible for total water replacements
every 48 hours.
Partition A (Control) was not sorted at al!; Partition B
was test cropped and sorted once; while partitions C,
and D, were sbrted twice and thrice respectively during
the trial period. Sorting was done at monthly intervals
included;
Number of fish per partition (shooters and sortees)
Average weight of fish
Total weight of fish
pH of water medium
Temperature of water medium
Oxygen concentration of the water medium.
o
Tireatknehilts ez.
Replica s
Sorting once
Sorting twice
Sorting thrice
Results and Discussions:
Table 1 below shows the average weight of fish from
each treatment while Table 2 shows fish mortality within
the trial period. PH of the medium was 8.0 on the average,
the average temperature was 29°c while the dissolved
Oxygen concentration was O. 6mg/L.
Mean fish weight at harvest shows that the treatment of
sorting twice had the highest average weight gain per
fish of 592.75gm. Fishes sorted thrice gained an average
of 553.00gm, while those sorted once again 411.55gm
where the fishes were not sorted at all the average weight
gain was195.75gm.
Table 3: Fish mortality was higher with the no. sorting
treatment with a total of 17 and this was closely followed
by the thrice sorting treatment where about 10 fishes
were lost. The lowest mortality rate was recorded from
the twice sorting treatment with on l 5 dead fishes. In
the treatment where the fish were sorted once there was
a loss of 7 fishes.
272
A 154 200 208 221 783 195.75
B* 111.3 77.9 170 440 799.2 199.8
B1** 228 226 233 200 7 221.75
C* 276 256 400 371 1303 325.75
C** 183 214 371 300 1068 267
D* Z32 290 428 410 1410 325.5
D1** 182 190 200 230 802 200.5
Total 1416.3 1453.9 2010 2172 7052.2
Mean 202.329 207.7 287.143 310.286 251.864
* Shooters
** Sortees
A-) No Sorting
Loe 2 Loe 3 Lae 4 oTotal. Mean
3912.6
244.538
Mean
Means with the sarne alphabet are not significantly different from each other.
CV = 15,58%
Lsd(0.05) 60.934g
ANO VA
A
Total
Mean
Treatments Loc
A
C.
D
Total
Mean
Lod: 1
5
3
2
4
14
3.75.
273
Loe Loe 3 Loe 4 Total Mean
5
3
9
3
13
3.25
4
1
o
2
7
1.75
3
O
1
1
5
1.25
17
7
5
10
39
2.44
4.25c
1.75ab
1.25a
2.5b
Loe 2 Loe 3 Loe 4 Total Mean
154 200 208 221 783 195.75a
169.65 151.95 201.5 320 843. 1210.775ab
229.5 230 385.5 335.5 1180.5 295.125c
232 240 314 320 1106 276 5bc
785.15 821.95 1109 1196.5 3912.6
196.288 205.488 277.25 299.125 244.538
Average Fish lAfeight Gain (g)
Treatments Loc i Loe 2 Loe 3 Loc 4
A 154 200 208 221
13 169.65 151.95 201.5 320
229.5 230 385.5 335.5
232 240 314 320
Total 785.15 821.95 1109 1196.5
Mean 196.288 205.488 277.25 299.125
3 9467.76 6.52362 0:01231 3.86254
3 10537.2 7.26047 0.00891 3.86254
9 1451.3
15
SN SS
Sortings 28403.3
Reps 31611.5
Error 13061.7
Total 73076.5
783 195.75a
843.1 210.775ab
1180.5 295.125c
1106 276 5bc
CV = 21.87%
Lsd(0.05) = 0.85
AN OVA
Table 3: Fis Illortality
df MS icritP value
Parameters
Table 4: Partial Budget Analysis
Total Fish harvest (kg)
Gross Benefit (=N=)
Cost of Sorting (=N=)
Total Cost that vary (=N=)
Net Benefit (=N=)
Gains from Net Benefit (=N=)
Marginal Rate of Return
From the economic analysis of this fish sorting
atssessments, if a farmer decides to adopt fish sorting
once before cropping, he stands to gain an average of
=1\1=0.91 for every =N=1.00 spent. If on the other hand
he decides to adopt sorting his fish twice before cropping
he stands to gain an additional =N=3.44 for every
=N=1.00 spent.
However if he adopts sorting his fish thrice before
cropping he stands to gain an additional =N=2.65 for every
---N=1.00 spent in the sorting exercise.
Conclusion;
Even though on the surface it seems as if three sorting
giVC5 higher profit the MRR shows that the additional
gain of-N=270.00 cannot compensate for the additional
cost of =N=250.00 spent in the sorting exercise.
Furthermore it seems as if die third sorting tend to impose
excessive stress on the fish which may account for the
heavy loss of fish under this treatment.
Sorting twice is therefore most advisable especially in
view of the minimal mortality compared to other
treatments and is hereby recommended for fish farmers.
EFE ENCES
Adekoya, t.B. (1991) Ed. In "A Diagnostic survey of
culture and capture fisheries in Ogun State, OGADEP,
Abeokuta, Nigeria.
Adekoya B.B.; A.O. Kudoro and A.A. Akinyetai (1996)
A preliminary Report of Fishing at the Alawariwa Beels.
Ogun State, Nigeria.
Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the
rdFisheries Society of Nigeria, New Bussa. (3 Nov.
1996) FISON, Lagos, Nigeria.
274
Adekoya, B.B. (1997a): indigenous knowledge systems
in fisheries. A paper presented at OGADEP's Annual
pm-season Training in Abeokuta, Nigeria (March 5'''
61h, 1997). Gpp.
Adekoya, B. . (1997b) "Aquaculture in Ogun State:
Status Review. "Paper presented at the first fish
veterinary workshop held at the Department of veterinary
services, Ita-Eko, Abeokuta on Tuesday 1 Ith Nov. 1997.
8PP.
Ayansanwo, T.IP. (2000) Aquatic Biotopes, Fish and
Fisheries of Ogun State, Nigeria. Aqualfield No 2, June
2001.
Fish Network (1997): A Quality publication of the
Fisheries Society of Nigeria (FISON): Vo12: No 2:
FISON, Apapa, Lagos, Nigeria.
Hem, Sr; Avit, .1B.L.F. and Cisse, A. (1995)
Aeadja as a system for Improving fishery productivity.
A paper presented at the seminar on "The Management
of Integrated freshwater Agro piscicultural ecosystems
in Tropical Areas" Brussels 16- 19th May 1994. Royal
Academy of Overseas Sciences, Brussels pp435 - 455
(1995).
Oladosu, G.A.; Ay lulu, Adeyerno, A.A.;
Yakubu, A.T.: and Aiani A.A.
(1993) Comparative study of the Reproductive capacity
of the African Cat Fish Fishes. Heterobranehus
bidorsails Geoffroy
Clarias gariepinus Burchell and their hybrid
16.30 18.39 27.10 29.70
3,200.00 3,678.00 5,420.00 5,940.00
250.00 500.00 750.00
250.00 500.00 750.00
3,200.00 3,428.001, 720.00 4,920.00 5,190.00
228 1,720.00 1,990.00
0.912 3.44 2.65
Rows 20.6875 3 6.89583 24.2195 0.00012 3.86254
Columns 14.6875 3 4.89583 17.1951 . 0.00046 3.86254
Error 2.5625 9 0.28472
Total 37.9375 15
1.1 f the Fh orting Assessments.
FeritMS -valuedf
Treatments
No sorting
Once sorting
Twice sorting
Thrice sorting
Sub Total (ii)
PENDIX 3:
FEED COSTS (ALL)
Maggots collection (labour, etc)
Sub Total 00:-
200 clarias
Transport, etc
200 clarias
Transport etc.
200 clarias
Transport etc.
200 clarias
Transport etc.
275
500.00
1,000.00
500.00
I '4400 1,500.C:
506.00
1,000.00 1,500.00
J 1,500.00
"Heteroclarias" 1993) 331 337.
N.I.O.M.R Technical paper No 92 August, 1993. U, ailtivable Fish Species and
Relative stocking RE :os:
K.B.; G.N.0 Ezeri; and B.B. Adekoya A r at the Monthly Technology
(1998): Trends in Aquaculture Development in Ogun Rev le - (! I .T.R.11i) at the Ogun State
State; (1990 1997). "Paper presented at the 14th Agricult1 r.1 Development ;.)-togramin, (OGADEP)
Annual Conference of the Fisberies Society of Nigeria. HEADQUARTERS, AL, 1994)
(Jan. 9" 23rd, 1998) held at the University of Ibadan, fipp.
Conference Centre, Ibadan.
Solarin, D.B. nd Udolisa, R.E.K. (1993)
An Investigation of Brush Park Fishing in Lagos
Lagoon, Nigeria.
APP NDIX 1:
FISH SOR TING COSTS
Trea fin its sts (N)
No sorting (control)
Once sorting 250.00
Twice Sorting 500.00
Thrice Sorting 750."
Sub-Total (1):
PENDIX 2:
FISH FINGERLINGS COSTS:
N600.00 x. 4 29400 00
GRAND TOTAL
(1+11+ KH +1V) = (1,50.00 + 6,000.00 + 2.400.00 + 1,000.00,
N10,900.00
PPE/V.D/X
VENUE SCHEDULE
(Fi 31 Harv.est)
S/N Treatmen Fish harvest (kg) Total harvest (kg)
APPENDIX 6:
ISHF 0.':.TALliT
Total fish gocked:
Total fish re° lities:
Balance:
44)
18.4
26.53
ATA
Treatments
890
30
770
.(16.3) 16.3
Rate (N)
276
Mortalities (No) Total Mortalities (No)
1. No surfing (control) 4 4
2. Once sorting 7
3. Twice sorting 5 5
4. Thrice sorting 3 7 10
To4L)11
_
7 2 30
200 t 3,200.00
200.00 3,678.00
200.00 5,420.00
200.00 5,940.00
18,238.00
13.9 1839
3.7 27.10
3.17 29.70
Thus, Profit (gross) N(10,238.00 10,900.00)
N7,338.00
APPEN 6 4:-
11, O PIN COSTS
Cropping net: N250.00 x 4 1,000.00
1. No sorting
(Control)
0110e sorting
Twice sorting
Thrice sorting
Totaìll evue
Sub Total (iv): 1,000.00


Fish sorting assessments of Clarias gariepinus fingerlings raised in fish tanks

http://aquaticcommons.org/3632/1/16P271.pdf

Fish sorting assessments of Clarias gariepinus fingerlings raised in fish tanks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons