Co-culture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and red seaweed (Gracilaria tenuistipitata) under different feeding rates: effects on water quality, fish growth and feed efficiency
Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (4.12 ± 0.05 g initial weight), and red seaweed, Gracilaria tenuistipitata , were co-cultured in 250-L tanks for 8 weeks. Six feeding treatments were conducted, with the control group (monoculture) being fed a commercial pellet (30% protein, 6% lipid) at 100% feed...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied phycology 2020-06, Vol.32 (3), p.2031-2040 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2040 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 2031 |
| container_title | Journal of applied phycology |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | An, Bui Nguyen Thu Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc |
| description | Nile tilapia,
Oreochromis niloticus
(4.12 ± 0.05 g initial weight), and red seaweed,
Gracilaria tenuistipitata
, were co-cultured in 250-L tanks for 8 weeks. Six feeding treatments were conducted, with the control group (monoculture) being fed a commercial pellet (30% protein, 6% lipid) at 100% feed ration (4% of biomass per day), while fish in the five other groups were co-cultured with red seaweed (1 kg m
−3
) and received pellet at 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 0% of the feeding ration of the control. The results indicated that the concentrations of TAN, NO
2
−
, NO
3
−
, and PO
4
3−
in the co-culture tanks were much lower than those in the monoculture. Moreover, the growth rate and productivity of fish in the 80% feeding ration treatment were comparable to those in the control group (
p
> 0.05). However, fish performance gradually reduced with a decrease in feeding rates from 60% downwards and all were significantly inferior to the control group (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10811-020-02110-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2418887773</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2418887773</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ebc69a6a697ad416b33fcdf65a46bf4b28319c6834ad33687417245748f2fb703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcGKFDEQhhtRcFx9AU8FXnbBXpNOT5L2JoOuC4t70XNIpyszWXqT2UqaYZ7M1zOzI3jzUPxQfF_V4W-a95xdc8bUp8yZ5rxlHavDOWvVi2bF10q0a67ky2bFho63elD8dfMm5wfG2KC5XjW_N6l1y1wWQkgefoQZoYTZ7oOFy3vC5HaUHkOGGOZUglvyFdg4AeEEGe0Ba17ekHXVoeoUjEvIJexDscVewRInJJiC90gYC_gqhLgFsgXzZ8C6dyVDinCoG4Knxc6hHD-CD3kHW0qHsnt-eBJPeHABozu-bV55O2d89zcvml_fvv7cfG_v7m9uN1_uWif4UFocnRystHJQduq5HIXwbvJybXs5-n7sdMWc1KK3kxBSq56rrl-rXvvOj4qJi-bD-e6e0tOCuZiHtFCsL03Xc621UkpUqjtTjlLOhN7sKTxaOhrOzKkgcy7I1ILMc0FGVUmcpVzhuEX6d_o_1h9XT5ZY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2418887773</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Co-culture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and red seaweed (Gracilaria tenuistipitata) under different feeding rates: effects on water quality, fish growth and feed efficiency</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>An, Bui Nguyen Thu ; Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc</creator><creatorcontrib>An, Bui Nguyen Thu ; Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc</creatorcontrib><description>Nile tilapia,
Oreochromis niloticus
(4.12 ± 0.05 g initial weight), and red seaweed,
Gracilaria tenuistipitata
, were co-cultured in 250-L tanks for 8 weeks. Six feeding treatments were conducted, with the control group (monoculture) being fed a commercial pellet (30% protein, 6% lipid) at 100% feed ration (4% of biomass per day), while fish in the five other groups were co-cultured with red seaweed (1 kg m
−3
) and received pellet at 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 0% of the feeding ration of the control. The results indicated that the concentrations of TAN, NO
2
−
, NO
3
−
, and PO
4
3−
in the co-culture tanks were much lower than those in the monoculture. Moreover, the growth rate and productivity of fish in the 80% feeding ration treatment were comparable to those in the control group (
p
> 0.05). However, fish performance gradually reduced with a decrease in feeding rates from 60% downwards and all were significantly inferior to the control group (
p
< 0.05). Feed conversion ratio and feed cost were lower at the lower feeding rates. The results also proved that the co-culture of tilapia–red seaweed supplied at 80% feed ration, which could reduce feed cost by 28.9% compared with the control, still sustained normal growth while also maintaining better water quality. The proximate composition of fish fillet (moisture, protein, lipid, and ash) is also discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0921-8971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5176</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10811-020-02110-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Algae ; Ammonium nitrogen ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Control ; Conversion ratio ; Culture tanks ; Ecology ; Feed conversion ; Feed conversion efficiency ; Feed efficiency ; Feeding ; Feeding rates ; Feeds ; Fish ; Fish fillets ; Food conversion ; Freshwater & Marine Ecology ; Freshwater fishes ; Gracilaria tenuistipitata ; Growth rate ; Life Sciences ; Lipids ; Marine fishes ; Monoculture ; Monoculture (aquaculture) ; Nitrogen dioxide ; Oreochromis niloticus ; Plant Physiology ; Plant Sciences ; Ponds ; Proteins ; Seafoods ; Seaweeds ; Tanks ; Tilapia ; Water quality</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied phycology, 2020-06, Vol.32 (3), p.2031-2040</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2020</rights><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ebc69a6a697ad416b33fcdf65a46bf4b28319c6834ad33687417245748f2fb703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ebc69a6a697ad416b33fcdf65a46bf4b28319c6834ad33687417245748f2fb703</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10811-020-02110-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10811-020-02110-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>An, Bui Nguyen Thu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc</creatorcontrib><title>Co-culture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and red seaweed (Gracilaria tenuistipitata) under different feeding rates: effects on water quality, fish growth and feed efficiency</title><title>Journal of applied phycology</title><addtitle>J Appl Phycol</addtitle><description>Nile tilapia,
Oreochromis niloticus
(4.12 ± 0.05 g initial weight), and red seaweed,
Gracilaria tenuistipitata
, were co-cultured in 250-L tanks for 8 weeks. Six feeding treatments were conducted, with the control group (monoculture) being fed a commercial pellet (30% protein, 6% lipid) at 100% feed ration (4% of biomass per day), while fish in the five other groups were co-cultured with red seaweed (1 kg m
−3
) and received pellet at 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 0% of the feeding ration of the control. The results indicated that the concentrations of TAN, NO
2
−
, NO
3
−
, and PO
4
3−
in the co-culture tanks were much lower than those in the monoculture. Moreover, the growth rate and productivity of fish in the 80% feeding ration treatment were comparable to those in the control group (
p
> 0.05). However, fish performance gradually reduced with a decrease in feeding rates from 60% downwards and all were significantly inferior to the control group (
p
< 0.05). Feed conversion ratio and feed cost were lower at the lower feeding rates. The results also proved that the co-culture of tilapia–red seaweed supplied at 80% feed ration, which could reduce feed cost by 28.9% compared with the control, still sustained normal growth while also maintaining better water quality. The proximate composition of fish fillet (moisture, protein, lipid, and ash) is also discussed.</description><subject>Algae</subject><subject>Ammonium nitrogen</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Control</subject><subject>Conversion ratio</subject><subject>Culture tanks</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Feed conversion</subject><subject>Feed conversion efficiency</subject><subject>Feed efficiency</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Feeding rates</subject><subject>Feeds</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fish fillets</subject><subject>Food conversion</subject><subject>Freshwater & Marine Ecology</subject><subject>Freshwater fishes</subject><subject>Gracilaria tenuistipitata</subject><subject>Growth rate</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Lipids</subject><subject>Marine fishes</subject><subject>Monoculture</subject><subject>Monoculture (aquaculture)</subject><subject>Nitrogen dioxide</subject><subject>Oreochromis niloticus</subject><subject>Plant Physiology</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>Ponds</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Seafoods</subject><subject>Seaweeds</subject><subject>Tanks</subject><subject>Tilapia</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><issn>0921-8971</issn><issn>1573-5176</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcGKFDEQhhtRcFx9AU8FXnbBXpNOT5L2JoOuC4t70XNIpyszWXqT2UqaYZ7M1zOzI3jzUPxQfF_V4W-a95xdc8bUp8yZ5rxlHavDOWvVi2bF10q0a67ky2bFho63elD8dfMm5wfG2KC5XjW_N6l1y1wWQkgefoQZoYTZ7oOFy3vC5HaUHkOGGOZUglvyFdg4AeEEGe0Ba17ekHXVoeoUjEvIJexDscVewRInJJiC90gYC_gqhLgFsgXzZ8C6dyVDinCoG4Knxc6hHD-CD3kHW0qHsnt-eBJPeHABozu-bV55O2d89zcvml_fvv7cfG_v7m9uN1_uWif4UFocnRystHJQduq5HIXwbvJybXs5-n7sdMWc1KK3kxBSq56rrl-rXvvOj4qJi-bD-e6e0tOCuZiHtFCsL03Xc621UkpUqjtTjlLOhN7sKTxaOhrOzKkgcy7I1ILMc0FGVUmcpVzhuEX6d_o_1h9XT5ZY</recordid><startdate>20200601</startdate><enddate>20200601</enddate><creator>An, Bui Nguyen Thu</creator><creator>Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200601</creationdate><title>Co-culture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and red seaweed (Gracilaria tenuistipitata) under different feeding rates: effects on water quality, fish growth and feed efficiency</title><author>An, Bui Nguyen Thu ; Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-ebc69a6a697ad416b33fcdf65a46bf4b28319c6834ad33687417245748f2fb703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Algae</topic><topic>Ammonium nitrogen</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Control</topic><topic>Conversion ratio</topic><topic>Culture tanks</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Feed conversion</topic><topic>Feed conversion efficiency</topic><topic>Feed efficiency</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Feeding rates</topic><topic>Feeds</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fish fillets</topic><topic>Food conversion</topic><topic>Freshwater & Marine Ecology</topic><topic>Freshwater fishes</topic><topic>Gracilaria tenuistipitata</topic><topic>Growth rate</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Lipids</topic><topic>Marine fishes</topic><topic>Monoculture</topic><topic>Monoculture (aquaculture)</topic><topic>Nitrogen dioxide</topic><topic>Oreochromis niloticus</topic><topic>Plant Physiology</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>Ponds</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Seafoods</topic><topic>Seaweeds</topic><topic>Tanks</topic><topic>Tilapia</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>An, Bui Nguyen Thu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied phycology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>An, Bui Nguyen Thu</au><au>Anh, Nguyen Thi Ngoc</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Co-culture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and red seaweed (Gracilaria tenuistipitata) under different feeding rates: effects on water quality, fish growth and feed efficiency</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied phycology</jtitle><stitle>J Appl Phycol</stitle><date>2020-06-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>2031</spage><epage>2040</epage><pages>2031-2040</pages><issn>0921-8971</issn><eissn>1573-5176</eissn><abstract>Nile tilapia,
Oreochromis niloticus
(4.12 ± 0.05 g initial weight), and red seaweed,
Gracilaria tenuistipitata
, were co-cultured in 250-L tanks for 8 weeks. Six feeding treatments were conducted, with the control group (monoculture) being fed a commercial pellet (30% protein, 6% lipid) at 100% feed ration (4% of biomass per day), while fish in the five other groups were co-cultured with red seaweed (1 kg m
−3
) and received pellet at 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 0% of the feeding ration of the control. The results indicated that the concentrations of TAN, NO
2
−
, NO
3
−
, and PO
4
3−
in the co-culture tanks were much lower than those in the monoculture. Moreover, the growth rate and productivity of fish in the 80% feeding ration treatment were comparable to those in the control group (
p
> 0.05). However, fish performance gradually reduced with a decrease in feeding rates from 60% downwards and all were significantly inferior to the control group (
p
< 0.05). Feed conversion ratio and feed cost were lower at the lower feeding rates. The results also proved that the co-culture of tilapia–red seaweed supplied at 80% feed ration, which could reduce feed cost by 28.9% compared with the control, still sustained normal growth while also maintaining better water quality. The proximate composition of fish fillet (moisture, protein, lipid, and ash) is also discussed.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10811-020-02110-7</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0921-8971 |
| ispartof | Journal of applied phycology, 2020-06, Vol.32 (3), p.2031-2040 |
| issn | 0921-8971 1573-5176 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2418887773 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Algae Ammonium nitrogen Biomedical and Life Sciences Control Conversion ratio Culture tanks Ecology Feed conversion Feed conversion efficiency Feed efficiency Feeding Feeding rates Feeds Fish Fish fillets Food conversion Freshwater & Marine Ecology Freshwater fishes Gracilaria tenuistipitata Growth rate Life Sciences Lipids Marine fishes Monoculture Monoculture (aquaculture) Nitrogen dioxide Oreochromis niloticus Plant Physiology Plant Sciences Ponds Proteins Seafoods Seaweeds Tanks Tilapia Water quality |
| title | Co-culture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and red seaweed (Gracilaria tenuistipitata) under different feeding rates: effects on water quality, fish growth and feed efficiency |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T03%3A59%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Co-culture%20of%20Nile%20tilapia%20(Oreochromis%20niloticus)%20and%20red%20seaweed%20(Gracilaria%20tenuistipitata)%20under%20different%20feeding%20rates:%20effects%20on%20water%20quality,%20fish%20growth%20and%20feed%20efficiency&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20phycology&rft.au=An,%20Bui%20Nguyen%20Thu&rft.date=2020-06-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=2031&rft.epage=2040&rft.pages=2031-2040&rft.issn=0921-8971&rft.eissn=1573-5176&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10811-020-02110-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2418887773%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2418887773&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |