Submit manuscript...
Journal of
eISSN: 2378-3184

Aquaculture & Marine Biology

Research Article Volume 7 Issue 1

Performances of Bottom Dwelling Carpsin Polyculture Ponds under Drought Prone Barind Area of Bangladesh

Mohammad Golam Sarowar Talukder, Akhtar Hossain, Mohsin ABM , Rafiqual Islam Khan

Department of Fisheries University of Rajshahi Banglades

Correspondence: Mohammad Golam Sarowar Talukder Department of Fisheries University of Rajshahi Bangladesh, Tel 93730359116

Received: January 06, 2018 | Published: January 17, 2018

Citation: Talukder MGS, Hossain A, Mohsin ABM, Khan RI (2018) Performances of Bottom Dwelling Carpsin Polyculture Ponds under Drought Prone Barind Area of Bangladesh. J Aquac Mar Biol 7(1): 00178 DOI: 10.15406/jamb.2018.07.00178

Download PDF

Abstract

Selection of appropriate bottom dwelling species is considered important to address the problem of increased temperature and reduced culture period for carp polyculture in ponds under drought prone Barind area (with characteristic soil and water quality) in Bangladesh. This experiment evaluated the performances of bottom feeding carps for polyculture ponds in Tanoreupazila of Rajshahi district, Bangladesh. Three different combinations of bottom feeding carps were tested under three treatments (T1: polyculture involving Cyprinuscarpio as bottom dwelling carp; T2: polyculture involving Cirrhinus mrigala as bottom dwelling carp; and T3: polyculture involving Labeocalbasu as bottom dwelling carp).Each treatment had three replications. Fish growing period (July-December), mean weight (100±0.4g) and density of the stocked species (Catla catla-741/ha, Hypopthalmichthys molitrix-1,976/ha, Aristichth is nobilis-741/ha, Labeo rohita-1,976/ha and Cyprinus carpio/ Cirrhinus mrigala/Labeo calbasu -1,976/ha; all species-7,410/ha), lime and ash treatment, fertilization and supplementary feeding were same for all treatments. Water quality parameters were monitored monthly and mean values were found within the suitable range. Treatment T1 (with Cirrhinus carpio as bottom dwelling carp) varied more significantly (P<0.05) than other treatments for the mean values of growth (Final weight, weight gain, specific growth rate and survival rate), yield and net benefit.

Keywords: bottom feeder, carp polyculture, drought

Introduction

Importance of pond based carp polyculture as a popular technique for fish production in Bangladesh is well documented. 1 It has further potentials to improve the livelihood of the poor and marginal peoples.2 Potentials of pond based fish production towards livelihood improvement are also explored well by Hossain et al.3 for Barind area having characteristic soil-water qualities like lower pH and organic matter content in soil along with lower alkalinity and higher turbidity level in pond water.4 Apart from these potentials of pond polyculture and constraints for fish production associated with soil-water qualities, promotion of aquaculture is found to be affected by climate change aspects. Studies indicate that climate change may result in decline of groundwater level5 and thus remodelling of carp polyculture is felt necessary in terms of insufficient water level in ponds under drought prone area. Fish production in polyculture is largely affected by species combination, stocking density, pond fertilization, supplementary feeds as well as ecological conditions. Stocking of comparatively larger size of carps can solve the problem of fish production for lower water column in polyculture ponds under drought prone area. 2 However all species do not play equal role in terms of water quality and fish production. The knowledge of fish-fish and fish-environment relationships enables choosing adequate combinations of fish species, stocking rates, input types and rates, and other management decisions according to the specific local conditions; climate, quality of water supply and pond fertility, availability of fish fry and fingerlings, availability of feeds and fertilizers, and market requirements.6 Polyculture is the system in which fast growing compatible species of different feeding habits are stocked in different proportions in the same ponds Chakraborty et al., 2005. The bottom dwelling carps help re-suspension of bottom nutrients to water while stirring the bottom mud in search of food. Such an exercise of bottom dwellers also aerates the bottom sediment. Techniques to mitigate the low alkalinity and high turbidity problems are found to be addressed well but guidelines are not found for selecting appropriate bottom dwelling species for profitable carp polyculture in ponds under drought prone area. This study evaluated the performances of bottom dwelling species in carp polyculture ponds under Barind area of northern Bangladesh. The specific objectives of this study were to monitor the water quality and fish growth; to evaluate the yield and economics of carp polyculture; and thereby to recommend best performing species combination for profitable carp polyculture in ponds under drought prone Barind area.

Materials and methods

Study duration and location

The study was conducted in nine ponds (mean water area of 0.025±0.003 ha and depth of 1.66±0.096 m) for a period of six months (July to December) in Rajshahi district, Bangladesh (24.35450N, 088.32000E to 24.35530N, 088.32220E; elevation: 21 to 23m). All the ponds were rain-fed and well exposed to sunlight of average 8 hours per day.

Experimental design

Randomized Completely Block Design (RCBD) was followed for the present experiment with three treatments of combinations of bottom dwelling species (T1: polyculture involving Cyprinuscarpio as bottom dwelling carp; T2: polyculture involving Cirrhinusmrigala as bottom dwelling carp; and T3: polyculture involving Labeocalbasuas bottom dwelling carp). Each treatment had three replications. Stocking density (Catla catla-741/ha, Hypopthalmichthys molitrix-1,976/ha, Aristichthis nobilis-741/ha, Labeo rohita-1,976/ha and Cyprinuscarpio/ Cirrhinusmrigala/Labeocalbasu -1,976/ha; all species-7,410/ha) and mean individual stocking weight of fish (100±0.4g) were same for all treatments.

Pond management

Weeding was done manually and predatory fish and other unwanted species were removed through repeated netting. In order to maintain good water quality, liming (CaO @ 750kg/ha as basal dose and 125kg/ha/month as periodic dose) with ash (2500kg/ha/month) treatment was followed after Hossain (2011) for all the ponds. To enhance the natural feed production in the experimental ponds, fertilization was also done by cow dung (Basal dose: 2500kg/ha; periodic dose: 2500kg/ha/month), urea (Basal dose: 50kg/ha; periodic dose: 50kg/ha/month) and TSP, Triple Super Phosphate (Basal dose: 50kg/ha; periodic dose: 25kg/ha/month). Basal fertilization was done after three days of liming. Selected species of carp fingerlings were purchased from a private nursery and stocked in the morning (Table 1) (Table 2). Home-made feed prepared with rice bran (50%) and mustered oil cake (50%) was administered into the ponds at 4% of fish body weight (6% for July-August, 5% for September-October, 3% for November and 2% for December) once a day between 10:00 and 11:00 AM using feeding tray. Quantity of feed was adjusted every month according to total biomass of fish obtained from the sampling.

Parameters       

Treatments and Replications

T1: Ponds Stocked C. carpio as bottom feeder)               

T2: Ponds stocked with C. mrigala as bottom feeder                 

T3: Ponds stocked with L. calbasu as bottom feeder

Replications

T1R1

T1R2

T1R3

T2R1

T2R2

T2R3

T3R1

T3R2

T3R3

Pond area (ha)

0.022

0.025

0.021

0.027

0.025

0.030

0.025

0.023

0.028

Pond depth (m)

1.60

1.55

1.65

1.80

1.73

1.68

1.50

1.65

1.75

Total fish stocked

163

185

156

200

185

222

185

170

207

Table 1 Experimental layout for carp polyculture in ponds under different treatments

Parameters

 

Treatments

 

F value

P value

T1

T2

T3

Water temperature (°C)

27.60±0.99a

27.31±1.04a

27.19±1.00a

0.042

0.959

Dissolved oxygen (mgL-1)

6.76±0.23a

6.74±0.22a

6.71±0.24a

0,011

0.990

Turbidity (cm)

28.81±0.45a

28.62±0.59a

28.57±0.55a

0.056

0.945

pH

7.12±0.08a

7.10±0.08a

7.19±0.07a

0.413

0.664

Alkalinity (mgL-1)

61.43±1.76a

60.24±1.87a

60.48±1.69a

0.126

0.882

Table 2 Variations in the mean values of water quality parameters under different treatments during the study period
Figures bearing common letter(s) in a row as superscript do not differ significantly (P <0.05)

Monitoring of water quality parameters

Water quality parameters like temperature, transparency, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and alkalinity were monitored monthly between 09:00 and 10:00 AM for the present study. Water temperature was recorded with the help of a Celsius thermometer, transparency was measured by a Secchi disk. Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and alkalinity were determined by the help of a HACH kit (FF-2, USA).

Determination of fish growth and yield

Fish growth was monitored by weighing at least 10% of the individual species caught from each pond using a cast net, and sampled fishes were released into the ponds unharmed immediately after sampling. Growth and yield of fishes were calculated after Brett and Groves (1979) as follows:

Initial weight (g)=Weight of fish at stock

Final weight (g)=Weight of fish at harvest

Weight gain (g)=Mean final weight (g) - Mean initial weight (g)

Specific Growth Rate: SGR (%, bwd-1)=[(Ln W2 - Ln W1)×100]/ (t2–t1)

Where, W1 and W2 are the mean start and end weight (g fish-1) and t1 and t2 (days) are the start and end of the period.

Survival rate (%)=(Number of fish harvested/Number of fish stocked)×100

Fish yield (kg ha-1)=Fish biomass at harvest – Fish biomass at stock

Economics of carp polyculture

Simple cost-benefit analysis was done to explore the economics of carp polyculture in ponds under different treatments. At the end of the study, all the fishes were sold in a local market. The prices of inputs and fish corresponded to the market prices in Rajshahi, Bangladesh in 2012 and were expressed in Bangladesh currency (Taka) as BDT (1 US $=80 BDT). Data on both fixed and variable costs were recorded to determine the total cost (BDT/ha). Total return determined from the market price of fish sale was expressed as BDT/ha. Net benefit and cost benefit ratio (CBR) were calculated as follows:

R=I –(Fc+Vc +Ii)

Where, R refers to net benefit; I, total income from fish sold; Fc for fixed costs, Vc for variable costs and Ii for interests on input costs.

CostBenefit Ratio ( CBR ) = Net benefit TotalInvestment MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcfaieaaaaaa aaa8qacaWGdbGaam4BaiaadohacaWG0bGaeyOeI0IaamOqaiaadwga caWGUbGaamyzaiaadAgacaWGPbGaamiDaiaabccacaWGsbGaamyyai aadshacaWGPbGaam4BaiaabccapaWaaeWaaeaapeGaam4qaiaadkea caWGsbaapaGaayjkaiaawMcaa8qacaqGGaGaeyypa0ZaaSaaaeaaca WGobGaamyzaiaadshacaGGGcGaamOyaiaadwgacaWGUbGaamyzaiaa dAgacaWGPbGaamiDaaqaaiaadsfacaWGVbGaamiDaiaadggacaWGSb Gaamysaiaad6gacaWG2bGaamyzaiaadohacaWG0bGaamyBaiaadwga caWGUbGaamiDaaaaaaa@65B8@

Statistical analysis

Before analysis, the normality of data were verified and then analyzed by one-way ANOVA using SPSS software version 16). Different treatments were compared. The mean values were also compared by Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) after Gomez and Gomez (1984) at 5% level of significance. All data were expressed as mean±standard error (S.E.).

Results

Water quality

The ANOVA and Duncan’s test showed that there was no significant (P <0.05) difference of mean value of water quality parameters among the treatments (Table 3) (Figure 1). Mean value of water temperature (°C), dissolved oxygen (mgL-l), transparency (cm), pH and total alkalinity (mgL-l) varied from 27.19±1.00 (T3) to 27.60±0.99 (T1), 6.71±0.24 (T3) to 6.76±0.23 (T1), 28.57±0.55 (T3) to 28.81±0.45 (T1), 7.10±0.08 (T2) to 7.19±0.07 (T3) and 60.24±1.87 (T2) to 61.43±1.76mgL-1 (T1), respectively.

Species                                             

Treatments    

SGR (%, bwd-1)                        

Weight Gain (g)                       

Final Weight (g)                           

SurvivalRate (%)

Labeorohita

T1

0.88±0.01a

66.67±0.96a

500.00±5.7a

85.50±0.87a

 

T2

0.85±0.02a

61.67±2.55a

470.67±15.26a

86.50±0.29a

 

T3

0.85±0.02a

65.00±2.93a

490.00±17.56a

85.33±10.44a

F value

 

1.271

1.217

1.217

1.162

P value

 

0.347

0.360

0.360

0.374

Catlacatla

T1

0.94±0.01a

75.83±2.21a

555.00±13.a

86.33±0.44a

 

T2

0.92±0.02a

73.33±2.41a

540.00±14.43a

87.17±0.44a

 

T3

0.90±0.02a

70.00±2.55a

490.00±17.56a

86.50±0.29a

F value

 

1.527

1.500

1.500

1.235

P value

 

0.291

0.296

0.296

0.355

Hypopthalmichthysmolitrix

T1

1.09±0.02a

105.00±4.19a

730.00±25.a

85.33±0.60a

 

T2

1.07±0.02a

102.50±3.63a

715.00±21.79a

86.67±0.93a

 

T3

1.04±0.03a

95.83±5.20a

675.00±31.23a

86.83±0.67a

F value

 

1.164

1.164

1.164

1.217

P value

 

0.374

0.374

0.374

0.360

Aristichthisnobilis

T1

1.11±0.02a

111.67±4.41a

770.00±26.46a

85.67±0.44a

 

T2

1.09±0.02a

106.67±3.85a

740.00±23.09a

87.17±0.73a

 

T3

1.07±0.01a

102.50±2.10a

715.00±12.58a

85.50±0.29a

F value

 

1.644

1.635

1.635

3.138

P value

 

0.274

0.271

0.271

0.117

Cyprinuscarpio

T1

1.08±0.03a

105.00±6.74a

730.00±40.42a

87.17±0.88a

F value

 

12.437

16.842

16.305

0.530

P value

 

0.007

0.003

0.001

0.615

Cirrhinusmrigala

T2

0.94±0.02b

75.83±3.76b

555.00±22.55b

86.83±0.17a

F value

 

9.133

11.412

23.698

0.526

P value

 

0.005

0.003

0.002

0.620

Labeocalbasu

T3

0.87±0.02b

65.83±2.21b

495.00±13.23b

87.67±0.44a

F value

 

22.312

9.842

18.218

0.528

P value

 

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.610

All species

T1

1.02±0.02a

92.83±3.70a

657.00±22.21a

86.00±0.65c

 

T2

0.97±0.02b

84.00±3.24b

604.13±19.35b

86.87±0.51b

 

T3

0.95±0.02b

79.83±2.99b

573.00±18.42b

88.37±2.42ª

F value

 

7.069

6.230

9.105

1.188

P value

 

0.002

0.187

0.186

0.435

Table 3 Growth and yield of fishes under different treatments
Figures bearing common letter(s) in a column as superscript do not differ significantly (P<0.05)

Figure 1 Variation in the mean value of the water quality parameters a1: treatment-based presentation of water quality parameters, and b1: treatment-based comparison of water quality parameters.

Fish growth

Results showed no significant (P<0.05) differences in the mean value of SGR, weight gain and final weight for all fish species except C. carpio (T1), C. mrigala (T2), and L. calbasu (T3). Duncan’s test revealed that mean value of SGR, final weight and weight gain in treatment T1 (with C. carpio as bottom feeder) was significantly (P<0.05) higher compared to T2 and T2, where C mrigala and L calbasu were stocked as bottom feeder, respectively. The examined treatments were statistically similar in the estimation of survival rates for all fish species under three treatments (Table 4).

Species

Treatments

F value

P value

T1

T2

T3

L. rohita

675.69 ±8.70a

632.55±27.82a

657.83±32.20a

0.747

0.513

C. catla

291.16±9.87a

284.11±7.92a

269.27±10.66a

1.368

0.324

H. molitrix

1062.40±44.19a

1052.99±35.59a

986.01±48.44a

0.935

0.443

A. nobilis

425.22±15.85a

413.23±13.24a

389.63±7.93a

2.011

0.215

C. carpio

1083.93±61.10a

 

 

24.960

0.001

C.mrigala

 

780.78±39.56b

 

22.621

0.001

L. calbasu

 

 

684.04±19.73b

20.638

0.001

All species

3538.41±64.17a

3163.66±22.12b

2986.77±94.89b

17.484

0.003

Table 4 Fish yield (kg/ha/6 months) under the treatments
Figures bearing common letter(s) in a row as superscript do not differ significantly (P<0.05)

Fish yield

The present study revealed significant (P <0.05) difference in the yield under different treatments with highest in T1 and lowest in T3. The study also revealed that the mean value of yield for C. carpio (T1), C. mrigala (T2) and L. calbasu (T3) were significantly different, whereas mean value of yield of other fish species were statistically similar (Table 5 & Figure 2).

Treatments

Treatments (mean value in BDT/ha/6 months)

 F value

 P value

Parameters

T1

T2

T3

Variable Costs

Pond preparation*          

9000.00±0.00ª

9000.00±0.00ª

9000.00±0.00ª

-

-

Fertilizer

17500.00±0.00ª

17500.00±0.00ª

17500.00±0.00ª

-

-

Fish seed

90400±11.25c

95000.00±8.25b

96250±14.23ª

-

-

Feed

110150.00±563.00c

112330.00±0.00b

115715±0.00a

239.958

0.000

Harvesting cost

2000.00±0.00ª

2000.00±0.00ª

2000.00±0.00ª

-

-

Fixed Costs

Pond Rental

1500.00±0.00ª

1500.00±0.00ª

1500.00±0.00ª

-

-

Total cost

230550.00±0.00c

237330.00±944.39b

241965.00±0.00a

678.183

0.000

Total return

530252.32±8232.07ª

478623.01±3274.96b

466219.40 ±12414.15c

43.874

0,005

Net benefit

299702.32±8232.06ª

241293.01±3274.96b

224254.40±10993.24c

23.563

0.001

Cost Benefit Ratio (CBR)

1.30±0.036ª

1.02±0.114b

0.93±0.040c

37.234

0.000

Table 5 Economics of carp polyculture under different treatments
Figures bearing common letter(s) in a row as superscript do not differ significantly (P <0.05)
Note: Currency is given in Bangladeshi Taka (BDT); (80 BDT = 1 USD, 2012)
* includes lime, ash and labor cost

Figure 2 a1: individual fish yield (kg/ha/6 months) and b1: treatment based yield for six months and one year under different treatments.

Discussion

Water quality

Lower temperature recorded in the later stage of the study might be gradual approach to the winter that might have impact on the seasonal variation of the water quality.7 Lower value of water transparency found in all treatments might be due to higher clay turbidity caused by heavy rainfall in monsoon. Periodic application of ash minimized high turbidity during the high rainy season. Hossain4 reported high turbidity during monsoon and followed ash treatment to maintain suitable water turbidity. Saran & Rathore8,9 stated lower transparency due to rich phytoplankton density and higher budgets of suspended and particulate matter. Boyd10 recommended 30 to 40cm transparency appropriate for fish culture. Similar to the current results, Dewan & Swingle11,12 recorded mean pH value of water from 6.60-8.60 and 6.5 to 9, respectively. Boyd10 suggested over 20ppm, and Michael & Verma13,14 suggested over 40ppm total alkalinity for productive pond that aligned with present results. However, Asadujjaman and Hossain4 recorded relatively higher total alkalinity (113.28 to 114.36 mgL-1) in feed and weed based pond polyculture that might be due to low dissolved oxygen and more production of free CO2 that enhanced by increasing fish biomass.

However, above findings indicated that the mean value of the water quality parameters in the present study were within the suitable range for aquaculture. The findings from resent studies also supported the above statement. Talukder et al.2 found water temperature 26.57 to 26.68°C, dissolved oxygen 6.81 to 6.86mgL-1, water transparency 29.90 to 30.17cm, pH 6.88 to 6.96 and alkalinity 51.29 to 52.26 mg L-1 in carp polyculture ponds. Asaduzzaman et al.15 reported water temperature, dissolved oxygen, transparency, pH and total alkalinity as 27.57 to 28.130C, 6.51 to 6.73mgL-l, 32.83 to 32.28cm, 7.38 to 7.18, 61;51 to 63.17mgL-l. Ahmad et al. reported temperature from 27.08 to28.66°C, DO from 5.15 to 5.91 mgL-l, transparency from 18.17 to 25.50cm and pH from 8.04 to 8.23 in polyculture pond. The mean water temperature, pH, DO, CO2 and total alkalinity was recorded as 19.6 to 32oC, 6.6 to 8.0, 1.1 to 4.9mgL-l, 3.5 to 4.0mgL-l and 92.0 to 167mgL-l, respectively in polyculture pond.16 Hossain et al.17 recorded dissolved oxygen ranging from 5.33 to 5.51mgL-l.

Fish growth

Significant (P <0.05) differences in mean values of fish growth parameters were found among the treatments (Table 4). However, variations in growth might be due to the different combination of fish species under treatments.

Comparatively higher mean value of SGR, final weight, weight gain indicated the positive influence of C. carpio as bottom feeder on overall growth parameters compared to C mrigala and L calbasu in carp polyculture. Rahman et al.18 recorded mean SGR of rohu, catla and mrigal as 1.12, 1.09 and 1.13 to 1.13, 1.12 and 1.14 respectively in different treatments under pond polyculture system. Majhi et al.19 recorded SGR value of carp as 1.65% in fish pond. Hossain4 found weight gain of L. rohita, C. catla, C. mrigala, H. molitrix, A. nobilisand C. carpio as 125.7, 170.2, 120.8, 400.2, 402, 400g, respectively with stocking weight of 7.5 to 10.0g in polyculture under Barind area which were lower than the findings from present study. Comparatively higher mean monthly weight gain (g/month) was observed at mid time of the study might be due to influence of air temperature on water temperature resulting fast metabolic activity and thereby higher weight gain of fishes at the mid-stage of the experiment. Boyd20 expressed similar opinion while working on pond carp polyculture.

No significant (P <0.05) variations in survival rate (%) under different treatments possibly due to similar stocking weight and stocking density of fishes including similar feed and management of all ponds. Talukder et al.2 reported similar survival rates (83.17±0.58, 84.13±0.58, 85.33±0.58, 84.13±1.00, 85.33±0.58, 84.42±0.66%) for L. rohita,C. catla, C. mrigala, H. molitrix and A. nobilis, respectively in carp polyculture ponds. Asadujjaman and Hossain 15 recorded similar range of survival rate (%) of L. rohita, C. catla, C. mrigala, H. molitrix and C. idella. Kabir & Talukdar et al.3,21 recorded survival rate of C. carpio from 83.2 to 86and 82%, respectively in carp polyculture system. Roy et al.22 reported survival rate (%) of grass carp, rohu, catla and mrigal 76.6%, 87.8%, 84.0% and 88.6%, respectfully, which are likely findings of present study.

Azad et al.23 reported weight gain of H. molitrix as 72.87g and C. mrigala as 70.42g in carp polyculture ponds which were lower than the present findings. Kabir et al.3 found final weight (g/6 months) of H. molitrix, C. mrigala and C. carpio as 300, 210 and 211.20g, respectively which were lower than the present findings. Higher final weight (g/6 months) achieved in the present study might be due to optimum species composition, larger stocking weight and better management of water quality, proper utilization of both natural and supplementary feed.

Fish yield

Yield significantly (P <0.05) varied among all three treatments. The study revealed that the combined yield of L. rohita, C. catla, H. molitrix and A. nobilis under three treatments were not significantly varied; but yield significant (P <0.05) varied in case of three different bottom feeders e.g. C. Carpio: 1083.93±61.09kg/ha/6 months (T1), C. mrigala: 780.78±39.562kg/ha/6 months (T2), and L. calbasu: 684.04±19.733kg/ha/6 months (T3), respectively. That might be due to difference in first growing nature of three bottom feeders as well as effects of combination of other fish species. Yield of C. carpio was found significantly high compared to other two bottom feeders which finally contributed to overall variation in net yield.

Siddiquei24 reported that the gross fish production of 40.4kg/dec/yr from mixed culture which is a bit higher than the present findings. Noman et al.25 reported that comparatively higher yield and net benefit were observed when C. carpio was used in carp polyculture. Net yield of the present study was higher in T1, compared to T2 and T3 might be due to first growing nature of C. carpio and larger stocking weight with better pond management and suitable range of water quality parameters. Asadujjaman & Hossain15 recorded total yield of 4,403.51kg/ha/6 months with conventional feed applied and lower production of 2,541.00 kg/ha/6 months where only banana leaf was supplied. Miajae26 reported the total production of fish from 2,934 to 3,318 kg/ha/4 months in polyculture of Indian major carps which was similar to the findings from present study. Azim et al.27 recorded total fish yield of 2,020kg/ha/4 months in pond which was lower than the findings from the present study possibly due to higher stocking weight in present study. Such variations in growth and yield among the treatments were the usual phenomenon of fish growth form which was strongly supported by Grover et al.28

Economics

Economic analysis of current study showed significant (P <0.05) variations in total cost, return, net benefit and CBR among treatments (Table 5) (Figure 3). Comparatively higher cost was involved in treatment T3 might be due to the higher fish seed cost for L. calbasu compared to C. carpio (T1) and C. mrigala (T2).

Figure 3 Variation in the mean values of CBR under different treatments.

Talukder et al.2 recorded total cost and net benefits as 253,768.00±5146.04 and 337,629.45±7295.36 BDT/ha/6 months, respectively and cost benefit ratio as 1.33. Asadujjaman & Hossain15 recorded 123,430.50±0.00 to 235,930.50±0.00 BDT/ha/6 months; net benefit as 111,639.90±2056.87 to 206,744.85±3221.73 BDT/ha/6 months; and cost benefit ratio as 0.77±0.02 to 1.67±0.18, respectively in carp polyculture system. Khan et al.29 reported CBR value of 1.22 in pond polyculture system; and Abou et al.30 found CBR as 1.3 in carp polyculture system which was similar to the present findings.

Overall findings from the current study revealed that treatment T1 with C. carpio as bottom feeder performed better in terms of total cost, net benefit and CBR compared to treatment T2 and T3 stocked with C. mrigala and L. calbasu, respectively. Milstein et. al.6 certify C. carpio as a first growing and high tolerant to environmental hazards.

According to Jain C. carpio has the ability to survive under various climatic conditions and found to be the most suitable for many fish farming systems. Da Silva et al. concluded that C. carpio has the potential to improve conditions in pond bottom soil, as a result soil perturbation increases the oxygen transfer to the soil, decreases the concentration of toxic compounds and enables more efficient food web recycling and nutrient release.31–38

Conclusion and recommendation

Considering the water quality, growth and yield of fish and economic viability of carp polyculture in pond under three treatments, treatment it can be concluded that stocking of C. carpio as bottom dwelling species can be a suitable option for carp polyculture in ponds under drought prone Barind area. One of the major limitations of this study was to use equal stocking density of all three bottom dwelling species. Therefore, it is necessary to see the effect of different stocking density of C. carpio as bottom dwelling species in carp polyculture as further step.

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. DoF (Department of Fisheries). National Fish Week 2017 Compendium (in Bengali). Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Bangladesh. 2017; 160 p.
  2. Talukder MGS, Mohsin ABM, Hossain MA, et al. Optimization of stocking weight in carp polyculture ponds under drought prone Barind area of Bangladesh. Journal of Fisheries. 2017;5:3.
  3. Kabir ANMA, Hossain MA, Rahman MS. Use of duckweed as feed for fishes in polyculture. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2009;7(1–2):157–160.
  4. Hossain MA. Effect of fertilization techniques on fish growth in ponds under red soil zone of northern Bangladesh. Journal of Progressive Science and Tech. 2011;9(2):192–196.
  5. Mishra AK Singh VP. A review of drought concepts. Journal of Hydrology. 2010;391(1–2):202–216.
  6. Milstein A, Wahab MA, Rahman MM. Environmental effects of common carp Cyprinus carpio (L.) and mrigal Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton) as bottom feeders in major Indian carp polycultures. Aquaculture Research. 2002;33(14):1103–1117.
  7. Halwart M Gupta MV. Culture of fish in rice fields. FAO and the World Fish Center. 2004; 83 p.
  8. Saran WM, Adoni AD. Studies on seasonal variation on pH and dissolved oxygen contents in Sagarlake. Acta Botanica India. 1982;10:324–326.
  9. Rai JPN, Rathore VS. Pollution of Nainital Lake water and its management. In: Ecology and pollution of Indian Lakes and reservoirs, Ash. Pub House, India. 1993. p. 1–247.
  10. Boyd CE . Water quality management of pond fish culture. Elsevier Science Publications Company, Amsterdam–Oxford, USA. 1982. 318 p.
  11. Dewan SM, Wahab MA, Beveridge MCM, et al. Food selection, electivity and dietary overlap among planktivorous Chinese and Indian major carp fry and fingerlings grown in extensively managed, rain–fed ponds in Bangladesh. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management. 1991;12 (3):227–294.
  12. Swingle HS. Standardization of chemical analysis from water and pond muds. FAO, Fish Rep. 1967; 494, p. 397–421.
  13. Michael R. Seasonal trends in physico–chemical factors and plankton in a fresh water fish pond and their role in fish culture. Hydrobiol. 1968;33:144–158.
  14. Verma NM. Hydro–biological study of a tropical impoundment, Gualior, India, with special reference to the breeding of Indian carps. Hydrobiology. 1969;34(3–4):358–368.
  15. Asadijjaman M, Hossain MA. Fish growth, yield and economics of conventional feed and weed based polyculture in ponds. Journal of Fisheries. 2016;4(1):353–360.
  16. Mamun AA, Mahmud AI. Study on growth performence and production of juvenile Indian major carp (Catla catla, Labeorohita and Cirrhinus cirrhosus) and their hybrids. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 2014;9(3):92–108.
  17. Asadujjaman M, Azad MAK, Ali MR, et al. Optimization of stocking density for Azolla based carp polyculture pond. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture Studies. 2016;4(4):273–279.
  18. Rahman MA, Hossain MK, Azad MAK. Culture potential of Thai Sharpunti, Barbodesgonionotus(Bleeker) with major carps in seasonal ponds. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science. 2006;9(10):1891–1897.
  19. Majhi SK, Das A, Mandal BK. Growth Performance and Production of Organically Cultured Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodonidella (Val.) Under Mid–Hill Conditions of Meghalaya; North Eastern India. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2006;6:105–108.
  20. Boyd CE. Water quality for fish pond. Aquaculture Research and Development Series No. 43.Aburn University, Alabama, USA. 1998; p. 37.
  21. Talukdar MZH, Shahjahan, Rahman MS. Suitability of duckweed (Lemna minor) as feed for fish in polyculture system. International Journal of Agricultural Innovation & Technology. 2012;2(1):42–46.
  22. Roy NC, Kohinoor AHM, Wahab MA, et al. Evaluation of performance of carp–SIS polyculture technology in the rural farmers’ pond.Asian Fisheries Science. 2002;15(2002):43–52.
  23. Azad MAK, Rahman MR, Rahman Z, et al. Polyculture of carp, tilapia and pangas using low cost inputs. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science. 2004;7(11):1918–1926.
  24. Siddiquei IR. Notun Niyame Maccherchas O UtpadonPadhoti. Salahuddin Bai Ghar, Dhaka. 2001; p. 80.
  25. Noman M, Ashraf M, Abbas S, et al. Growth performance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) in response to organic fertilizers and supplementary feed. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2011;1(2):032–040.
  26. Miajae MAH. Effect of supplementary feed on the growth of Indian major carps with Thai sarputi in polyculture. Bangladesh Journal of Training and Development. 1999;13:117–124.
  27. Azim ME, Wahab MA. Development of a duckweed–fed carp polyculture system in Bangladesh. Aquaculture. 2003;18(1–4): 425–438.
  28. Grover JH, Islam MA, Shah WA, et al. Training manual for extension personnel on low cost environment friendly sustainable aquaculture practices. ICLARM, India. 2000; p. 101.
  29. Khan S, Hossain MS, Haque MM. Effects of feeding schedule on growth, production and economics of pangasiid catfish (Pangasiushypophthalmus) and silver carp (Hypophthalmichthysmolitrix) polyculture. Journal of Bangladesh Agricultural University. 2009;7(1): 175–181.
  30. Abou Y, Fiogbe ED, Micha J. Effects of stocking density on growth, profitability of farming Nile tilapia, Orechromisniloticus L., fed Azolla diet, in earthen ponds. Aquaculture Research. 2007;38:595–604.
  31. Alam MJ, Kohinoor AHM, Islam MS, et al. Polyculture of carps using over–wintered fingerlings under different stocking densities. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research .2002;6(2):117–124.
  32. Azim ME, Wahab, MA, Kamal AHM, et al. Feeding relations of silver barb, Barbodesgonionotus (Bleeker) with major Indian and common carp and its effect on fish production in a polyculture system. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 2004;35(1):100–108.
  33. Boyd CE, Zimmermann S. Grow–out systems–water quality and soil management. Blackwell Science. Oxford, UK.2000; p. 221–238.
  34. Brett JR, Groves TDD. Physiological energetics. In: Fish Physiology. vol. VIII, Bioenergetics and Growth, WS Hoar, DJ Randall, JR Brett, editors, Academic Press, USA.1979; p. 280–352.
  35. DoF (Department of Fisheries) Fish Fortnight Compendium. Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries & Livestock, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, India. 2016;148 p.
  36. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons, USA. 1984. 697 p.
  37. Hossain MY. Effects of iso–phosphorus organic and inorganic fertilizer on water quality parameters and biological production. M.S. Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, BAU, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. 2000. 74 p.
  38. Wahab MA, Ahmed ZF, Islam A, et al. Effects of introduction of common carp, Cyprinus carpio on the pond ecology and growth of fish in polyculture. Aquaculture Research. 1995;26(9):619–628.
Creative Commons Attribution License

©2018 Talukder, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.