crap 2

1

Chapter 4 RESULTS

To study the relative efficacy of organic and inorganic fertilizers and

supplementary feed on growth performance of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus

carpio, the experiment was conducted in earthen ponds with six treatments, each with

two replications for the duration of one year. The amount of organic manure, fertilizer

and supplementary feed was calculated on N-equivalence of 0.2g N/100g body weight of

fish daily. Fertilization was done on weekly basis while feeding was done on daily basis.

Water samples from all the ponds were also taken on fortnightly basis to see the

changes in physico-chemical factors and their average values were calculated on

monthly basis.

4.1. Growth Performance of Fish The growth performance of three cultured fish species under six different treatments

was studied on the following morphmetric parameters:

a. Increase in average fish body weight (g)

b. Increase in average total length (mm)

a. Increase in Average Fish Body Weight

i. Labeo rohita

The initial wet average body weights of Labeo rohita were recorded as 16.3, 16.5, 17.1,

16.5, 16.1 and 16.4g whereas the final average body weight were 933.7, 923.1, 974.8,

931.9, 1024.6 and 1215.0g in T1, T2, T3, T4,T5 and T6, respectively (Table 3). The

minimum weight gain of Labeo rohita was 28.8, 20.8, 18.3, 21.2, 23.1 and 30.3g in the

start of the experiment (August) in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Labeo rohita

showed the maximum average body weight gain of 141.4g in T1 which was noted in

May. In T2, T3, T4 and T6, the maximum body weight increase of 140.5, 155.6, 148.9 and

219.1g was observed during July, while in T5 the maximum increase in the average

body weight was noted as 156.8g in June (Table 3, Fig. 1).

.

2

Table 3: Monthly increase in average body weight (g) of Labeo rohita under different treatments

Months

Time duration

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Av.

Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Initial 01-08-2005 16.3 - 16.5 - 17.1 - 16.5 - 16.1 - 16.4 -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08- 2005 45.1 28.8 37.3 20.8 35.4 18.3 37.7 21.2 39.2 23.1 46.7 30.3

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 91.6 46.5 77.2 39.9 70.6 35.2 80.5 42.8 77.7 38.5 101.2 54.5

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 145.4 53.8 127.0 49.8 125.9 55.3 129.9 49.4 143.5 65.8 178.7 77.5

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 190.9 45.5 181.5 54.5 190.1 64.2 169.7 39.8 191.8 48.3 264.0 85.3

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 220.2 29.3 207.8 26.3 218.4 28.3 188.9 19.2 218.0 26.2 302.3 38.3

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 250.5 30.3 235.3 27.5 236.9 18.5 209.2 20.3 243.9 25.9 323.7 21.4

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 309.3 58.8 299.8 64.5 296.8 59.9 275.1 65.9 319.6 75.7 394.0 70.3

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 400.6 91.3 401.7 101.9 417.4 120.6 375.6 100.5 424.9 105.3 519.2 125.2

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 520.8 120.2 533.0 131.3 553.2 135.8 499.4 123.8 561.4 136.5 643.5 124.3

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 662.2 141.4 653.9 120.9 678.9 125.7 644.7 145.3 717.3 155.9 811.6 168.1

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 801.2 139.0 782.6 128.7 819.2 140.3 783.0 138.3 874.1 156.8 995.9 184.3

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 933.7 132.5 923.1 140.5 974.8 155.6 931.9 148.9 1024.6 150.5 1215.0 219.1

3

Figure 1: Monthly increase in average body weight (g) of Labeo rohita under different treatments

4

Among the different treatments, maximum increment in body weight was recorded in T6,

as 219.1g which was treated with cow manure, nitrophos and supplemetary feed.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference among the treatments and

months for final average body weight of Labeo rohita. Duncan Multiple range test

revealed that T6 differ significantly from the other treatments while other five

treatments differ non-significantly(P>0.05) from each other. Comparison of mean

values showed that the best performance of Labeo rohita was observed in terms of

average body weight from May to July, however, its poor performance was recorded in

December and January. (Table 6). Among the treatments, T6 was the best, followed by

follwed by T5, T3, T4, T2 and T1 which caused the maximum increment in body weight

of Labeo rohita under the influence of fertilization and supplementary feed.

ii) Catla catla:

At the time of stocking, the initial average body weight of Catla catla was noted

as 18.6, 19.1, 18.7, 18.9, 18.3 and 19.1g and the final average body weight was recorded

as 972.1, 890.6, 1073.0, 1181.0, 1038.7 and 1256.7g in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,

respectively (Table 4). The minimum increment was recorded as 24.0, 22.2, 23.5, 30.8,

28.3 and 28.7g in August in the start of the experiment from T1 to T6, respectively.

Maximum increase in average body weight of Catla catla were observed as 149.9 and

145.5g in T1 and T3 during June, while in T2, T4 and T6, 130.5, 170.5 and 186.4g were

observed in July, at the end of the experiment. In T5 maximum increase (142.8g) in

body weight was recorded in May (Table 4, Fig. 2). Overall, the maximum increment of

186.4g was noted in T6, under the influence of fertilization and supplementary feed,

with the final average body weight of 1256.7g.

Analysis of variance on the final average body weight of Catla catla showed a

highly significant difference (P< 0.01) for the treatments and months (Table 6).

Statistical analysis showed the significant variation among the treatments for the Catla

catla during the experimental period that differ from each other. In case of Catla catla,

comparison of mean values of average body weight in different treatments, showed that

5

Table 4: Monthly increase in average body weight (g) of Catla catla under different treatments

Months

Time

duration

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Av.

Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt..

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt..

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Initial 01-08-2005 18.6 - 19.1 - 18.7 - 18.9 - 18.3 - 19.1 -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 42.6 24.0 41.3 22.2 42.2 23.5 49.7 30.8 46.6 28.3 47.8 28.7

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 83.5 40.9 82.5 41.2 100.5 58.3 100.0 50.3 97.9 51.3 112.7 64.9

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 149.3 65.8 134.9 52.4 165.0 64.5 185.9 85.9 162.3 64.4 187.5 74.8

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 194.5 45.2 191.4 56.5 245.3 80.3 250.4 64.5 237.1 74.8 275.8 88.3

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 224.8 30.3 227.7 36.3 275.6 30.3 286.7 36.3 267.4 30.3 312.1 36.3

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 253.5 28.7 261.9 34.2 301.8 26.2 317.2 30.5 296.8 29.4 338.6 26.5

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 320.8 67.3 322.2 60.3 390.2 88.4 391.4 74.2 382.1 85.3 426.9 88.3

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 411.5 90.7 410.7 88.5 511.1 120.9 524.2 132.8 498.0 115.9 547.3 120.4

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 538.8 127.3 510.5 99.8 642.4 131.3 688.5 164.3 618.8 120.8 721.6 174.3

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 681.7 142.9 631.8 121.3 786.9 144.5 849.0 160.5 761.6 142.8 891.9 170.3

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 831.6 149.9 760.1 128.3 932.4 145.5 1010.5 161.5 897.9 136.3 1070.3 178.4

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 972.1 140.5 890.6 130.5 1073.0 140.6 1181.0 170.5 1038.7 140.8 1256.7 186.4

6

Figure 2: Monthly increase in average body weight (g) of Catla catla under different treatments

7

it appeared to attain maximum weight gain under the influence of T6, differ

significantly followed by T4, T3, T5, T1 and T2. While comparing monthly performance

on the basis of mean values, it can be concluded that this fish species gave its best

performance in terms of increase in body weight in June and July. However the

minimum increase in body weight was obvious in January (Table 6).

iii) Cyprinus carpio:

The initial average body weight of Cyprinus carpio was 24.5, 24.9, 24.7, 24.7,

24.3 and 24.3g while the final average weight was observed as 1013.7, 921.3, 992.6,

1105.8, 992.4 and 1119.0g for T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The minimum

increment of 28.3, 22.3, 20.0, 30.5, 25.6 and 28.2g was noted in August, in T1-T6,

respectively (Table 5, Fig. 3). The maximum increment in average body weight were

observed as 138.7 (T1) during June, while in T2, T3 and T5, Cyprinus carpio showed the

135.3, 135.5 and 129.5g in July. The maximum increment of 144.7 and 154g was

recorded in T4 and T6 during April, while on overall performance basis Cyprinus carpio

gained maximum weight of 1119.0g under the influence of fertilization and

supplementary feed.

Statistical analysis revealed highly significant difference among the values of

final average body weight of Cyprinus carpio with reference to treatments and

months.There was a significant difference in T6 as compared to T2, T3 and T4 but non

significantly(P>0.05) from T1 and T4. T6 was found to be the best treatment, as evident

from comparison of means while among monthly growth performance, Cyprinus carpio

showed excellent performance in terms of weight gain from March to July (Table 6).

Statistical Analysis:

Analysis of variance on the final average body weight of these three fish species

showed a highly significant difference (P< 0.01) among the species, treatments as well

as among the interaction of species and treatments (Table 7). Comparison of mean

values of average body weight also showed that Labeo rohita, Catla catla and

8

Table 5: Monthly increase in average body weight (g) of Cyprinus carpio under different treatments

Months

Time

duration

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Av. Body Wt.

Inc. in Body Wt.

Initial 01-08-2005 24.5 - 24.9 - 24.7 - 24.7 - 24.3 - 24.3 -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 52.8 28.3 47.2 22.3 44.7 20.0 55.2 30.5 49.9 25.6 52.5 28.2

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 99.0 46.2 92.4 45.2 92.2 47.5 110.1 54.9 97.7 47.8 112.4 59.9

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 157.5 58.5 142.4 50.0 156.7 64.5 187.6 77.5 166.6 68.9 193.1 80.7

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 206.0 48.5 186.1 43.7 197.6 40.9 247.4 59.8 226.6 60.0 251.9 58.8

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 242.3 36.3 216.2 30.1 231.5 33.9 287.9 40.5 261.9 35.3 288.2 36.3

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 276.2 33.9 250.0 33.8 266.6 35.0 329.9 42.0 295.6 33.7 321.7 33.5

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 355.0 78.8 311.3 61.3 337.2 70.7 409.2 79.3 375.6 80.0 411.3 89.6

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 490.9 135.9 436.7 125.4 472.5 135.3 538.2 129.0 498.6 123.0 559.0 147.7

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 607.7 116.8 548.2 111.5 600.7 128.2 682.9 144.7 619.4 120.8 713.0 154.0

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 737.5 129.8 666.5 118.3 726.3 125.6 822.7 139.8 742.6 123.2 863.0 150.0

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 876.2 138.7 786.0 119.5 857.1 130.8 965.3 142.6 862.9 120.3 996.5 133.5

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 1013.7 137.5 921.3 135.3 992.6 135.5 1105.8 140.5 992.4 129.5 1119.0 122.5

9

Figure 3: Monthly increase in average body weight (g) of Cyprinus carpio under different treatments.

10

Cyprinus carpio attained the maximum average body weight of 1215.0, 1256.7

and 1119.0g in treatment T6 receiving organic manure, inorganic fertilization and

supplementary feed differ significantly(P< 0.05) from the other treatments. However

there was a highly significant difference (P< 0.01) among the T6 and the other

treatments but a least significant difference was noted among T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 for

Labeo rohita. For Catla catla T6 showed the highly significant difference with respect

to T1, T2, T3 and T5 while non-significant(P>0.05) difference was observed with T4. In

case of Cyprinus carpio a significant variation was noted among the T6 and T1, T2, T3

and T5.Comparison of mean revealed a non-significant(P>0.05) difference beween T6 vs

T4, T3 vs T5.Also a significant variation was found among the T6 and T2 (Table 7).

Overall, these three fishes species showed the significant difference in T6 as compare

to, T2, T4 and T5. Non-significant difference was observed among the T1, T3 and T5

however significant in T2 and T4 but species wise Catla catla with 1256.7g gained the

maximum body weight increment ,significantly varies from Labeo rohita and Cyprinus

carpio while among these two species , it was found to be non-significant (P>0.05).

Figure 4 represents the increment in average body weight of Labeo rohita, Catla

catla and Cyprinus carpio under different treatments. According to this figure,

Cyprinus carpio gained the maximum average body weight and performed better in T1

while for T2, Labeo rohita and Cyprinus carpio showed the simila trend. Catla catla

attained the maximum average body weight in T3, T4 and T6 but in contrast, Labeo

rohita and Catla catla remained almost same (T5) as compared to Cyprinus carpio.

Among these three fish species, Catla catla attained the maximum average body weight

than the Labeo rohita and Cyprinus carpio.

11

Table 6: Analysis of variance on average body weight (g) of three fish species under different treatments.

S.O.V d.f

Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio

MS F-value Prob. MS F-value Prob. MS F-value Prob.Months 11 15986.8 123.79** 0.00 14602.3 120.52** 0.00 11960.2 248.93** 0.00 Treatments 5 1041.3 8.06** 0.00 1497.15 12.36** 0.00 474.03 9.87** 0.00 Error 55 129.1 121.161 48.046

** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio SEM for Months 4.6394 4.4937 2.8298 SEM For Treatments 3.2805 3.1775 2.0010 Comparison of Means Months August 23.75 G 26.25 I 25.82 D September 42.90 F 51.15 G 50.25 C October 58.60 E 67.97 F 66.68 B November 56.27 E 68.27 F 51.95 C December 27.93 G 33.30 H 35.40 D January 23.98 G 29.25 I 35.32 D February 65.85 E 77.30 E 76.62 B March 107.50 D 111.50 D 132.70 A April 128.60 C 136.30 C 129.30 A May 142.90 B 147.10 B 131.10 A June 147.90 AB 150.00 AB 130.90 A July 157.90 A 151.60 A 133.50 A Treatments

T1 76.45 B 79.46 E 82.43 ABC T2 75.55 B 72.63 F 74.70 C T3 79.81 B 87.86 C 80.66 BC T4 76.28 B 96.84 B 90.09 AB T5 84.04 B 85.03 D 80.68 BC T6 99.88 A 103.10 A 91.22 A

** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

12

Table 7: Analysis of variance on final wet body weight (g) of three fish species under different treatments.

S.O.V d.f MS F-value Prob.

Replications 1 151.29 0.09

Species 2 56790.59 34.16** 0.00

Treatments 5 14378.28 8.65** 0.00

Species x Treatments 10 742.60 4.66** 0.00

Error 17 1662.61

** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Standard error of means: Replications = 9.611 Species = 16.646 Treatments = 11.771 Species × Treatments = 28.832 Comparison of means: Treatments

Species Mean Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio

T1 933.7 ghi 972.1 f-i 1013.7 d-h 973.2 C T2 923.1 hi 890.6 i 921.3 hi 911.7 D T3 974.8 f-i 1073.0 cde 992.6 e-h 1013.5 C T4 931.9 hi 1181.0 ab 1105.8 bcd 1072.9 B T5 1024.6 c-g 1038.7 c-f 992.4 e-h 1018.6 C T6 1215.0 a 1256.7 a 1119.0 bc 1196.9 A

Mean 1000.5 B 1068.7 A 1024.1 B

Means sharing similar letter in a row and column are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). Small letters represent comparison among interaction means and capital letters are used for overall mean.

13

Figure 4: Final body weight (g) of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio under different treatments

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Fina

l bod

y w

eigh

t (g)

Labeo rohita

Catla catla

Cyprinus carpio

14

b. Increase in Average Total Length

i. Labeo rohita

The average initial and final average total length of Labeo rohita were recorded as

100.8, 102.5, 105.2, 100.9, 104.1 and 102.5mm and 444.0, 441.5, 456.6, 447.7, 461.5

and 495.0mm in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 , respectively. The minimum increment in

average total length of Labeo rohita was 10.7, 10.8, 8.9, 10.0 and 9.9mm in T1, T2, T3

T4 and T5, respectively in January but in T6 it was noted as 9.8 in December (Table 8,

Fig. 5). The maximum gain in average total length of Labeo rohita was observed as

46.7, 42.9mm in T1, T2, during June whereas in case of T3, 45.6mm was observed in

July. However, in treatments T4 and T5 it was observed as 44.8 and 41.6mm in May.

Maximum increase in total length in T6 was found to be 45.8mm during the month of

March. Overall among the different treatments, maximum increment in total body length

was recorded in T6, as 45.8mm which was treated with cow manure, nitrophos and

supplemetary feed.

Analysis of variance revealed that highly significant (P< 0.01) difference existed

among the treatments and months for final total body length of Labeo rohita. The

performance of Labeo rohita was superior in T6 which showed that fertilization and

supplementary feed caused the increment in body length, while other treatment means

represented non significant variation. According to statistical analysis,T6 was

significant differ(P< 0.05) from T5 and T4 whereas non-significant(P>0.05) difference

was noted among the other treatments. Comparison of mean values showed that the

best performance of Labeo rohita was observed in terms of total body length from May

to July, however, its poor performance was recorded in December and January (Table

11).

ii) Catla catla:

The initial average total length of Catla catla was 109.5, 111.0, 118.5, 109.7,

108.5 and 110.2 mm during August and the final average total length were recorded as

421.6, 391.2, 474.5, 441.1, 449.0 and 481.1mm, in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 , respectively

(Table 9, Fig 6). The minimum increment was recorded as 7.1, 6.0, 8.3, 6.9 and 8.7mm

15

(January) in T1, T2, T3 T4 and T5 but in T6 it was recorded as 8.2mm in December. Catla

catla showed the maximum increase in T6 with the average total length of 48.8mm

during June. In T1, this species showed maximum average total length of 40.3mm in

April. Under T2, T3 T4, and T5, maximum average total length, increment of 35.5, 45.7,

38.6 and 43.7mm was noted during May (Table 9, Fig. 6).

Analysis of variance on the final average total length of Catla catla showed a

highly significant difference (P< 0.01) for the treatments and months (Table 11). In

case of Catla catla, comparison of mean values of average total length in different

treatments and months showed that it appeared to attain maximum length under the

influence of T6 receiving cow manure, nitrophos and supplementary feed that showed

the significant difference (P< 0.05) with respect to T3 and T2, while the means of other

treatments showed less variation (P> 0.05) among them. While comparing monthly

performance on the basis of mean values, it can be concluded that this fish species gave

its best performance in terms of increase in average total length from March to July.

However the minimum increase in body length was obvious in December and January

(Table 11).

16

Table 8: Monthly increase in average total length (mm) of Labeo rohita under different treatments

Months

Time duration

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Initial O1-08-2005 100.8 - 102.5 - 105.2 - 100.9 - 104.1 - 102.5 -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 120.5 19.7 118.7 16.2 123.6 18.4 119.9 19.0 124.7 20.6 132.6 30.1

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 147.3 26.8 147.0 28.3 148.9 25.3 147.2 27.3 154.9 30.2 162.6 30.0

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 173.1 25.8 178.0 31.0 182.0 33.1 180.8 33.6 189.1 34.2 194.9 32.3

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 193.1 20.0 204.3 26.3 208.5 26.5 199.3 18.5 209.4 20.3 230.7 35.8

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 205.5 12.4 215.3 11.0 219.2 10.7 210.6 11.3 221.9 12.5 240.5 9.8

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 216.2 10.7 226.1 10.8 228.1 8.9 220.6 10.0 231.8 9.9 251.4 10.9

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 240.0 23.8 251.1 25.0 250.0 21.9 248.6 28.0 264.4 32.6 280.7 29.3

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 268.5 28.5 281.8 30.7 286.3 36.3 281.0 32.4 300.6 36.2 326.5 45.8

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 306.1 37.6 316.1 34.3 325.8 39.5 317.8 36.8 338.8 38.2 371.2 44.7

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 352.1 46.0 357.1 41.0 365.8 40.0 362.6 44.8 380.4 41.6 414.3 43.1

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 398.8 46.7 400.0 42.9 411.0 45.2 404.7 42.1 420.6 40.2 455.6 41.3

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 444.0 45.2 441.5 41.5 456.6 45.6 447.7 43.0 461.5 40.9 495.0 39.4

17

Figure 5: Monthly increase in average total length (mm) of Labeo rohita under different treatments

18

Table 9: Monthly increase in average total length (mm) of Catla catla under different treatments

Months

Time duration

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length Initial 01-08-2005 109.5 - 111.0 - 118.5 - 109.7 - 108.5 - 110.2 -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 131.9 22.4 132.6 21.6 142.9 24.4 134.8 25.1 126.9 18.4 126.8 16.6

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 158.3 26.4 160.7 28.1 169.0 26.1 165.0 30.2 151.0 24.1 157.5 30.7

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 188.2 29.9 185.1 24.4 197.2 28.2 199.5 34.5 179.8 28.8 190.1 32.6

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 209.3 21.1 204.0 18.9 227.0 29.8 219.2 19.7 204.5 24.7 216.9 26.8

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 218.5 9.2 213.1 9.1 235.6 8.6 228.1 8.9 214.3 9.8 225.1 8.2

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 225.6 7.1 219.1 6.0 243.9 8.3 235.0 6.9 223.0 8.7 235.4 10.3

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 243.6 18.0 232.1 13.0 261.7 17.8 260.3 25.3 246.8 23.8 259.3 23.9

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 270.3 26.7 255.4 23.3 302.6 40.9 295.9 35.6 290.0 43.2 303.4 44.1

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 310.6 40.3 286.1 30.7 345.1 42.5 332.3 36.4 324.5 34.5 343.1 39.7

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 346.5 35.9 321.6 35.5 390.8 45.7 370.9 38.6 368.2 43.7 384.3 41.2

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 384.1 37.6 356.3 34.7 432.7 41.9 405.3 34.4 408.2 40.0 433.1 48.8

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 421.6 37.5 391.2 34.9 474.5 41.8 441.1 35.8 449.0 40.8 481.1 48.0

19

Figure 6: Monthly increase in average total length (mm) of Catla catla under different treatments

20

iii) Cyprinus carpio:

In T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, the initial average total length of Cyprinus carpio was

125.0, 128.2, 128.0, 130.2, 125.9 and 126.2mm while the final average total length was

observed as 401.5, 363.5, 391.1, 412.2, 397.5 and 418.6 mm, respectively. The minimum

increment of 13.0, 9.3, 8.1, 12.6 and 10.5mm was noted in the month o f December in

first five treatments while in T6, it was 11.1mm in January. The maximum increase in

average total length of Cyprinus carpio was 29.6mm (August) and 36.5(October) in T1

and T5 while in T2, T3, T4 and T6 it was recorded as 30.1, 38.0, 42.4, and 40.7mm during

the month of September (Table 10, Fig. 7).

Statistical analysis:

Statistical analysis revealed that highly significant difference (P< 0.01) existed

among the values of final average total length of Cyprinus carpio with reference to

months while non significant variation(P> 0.05) was obvious in terms of treatments.

Comparison of means on monthly growth performance showed that, Cyprinus carpio

gave excellent performance in terms of average total length in September. While in case

of treatments, T6 receiving cow manure, nitrophos and supplementary feed showed the

significant difference (P< 0.05) with respect to T2 and T5, while the means of other

treatments showed less variation(P> 0.05) among them. (Table 11).

According to statistical analysis, the growth performance in terms of total

average length of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio remained highly

significant (P< 0.01) under the influence of T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6. But in the case of

interaction of species and treatments the average total length of these three fish species

showed a significant (P<0.05) difference (Table 12).

As the Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio exhibited the best

performance in the average total length increment of 495.0, 481.1 and 418.6mm in T6

under the influence of fertilization and supplementary feed which remained

significantly different(P< 0.01) from the other treatments.

21

Table 10: Monthly increase in average total length (mm) of Cyprinus carpio under different treatments

Months

Time duration

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

Length

Av. Total

Length

Inc. in Total

LengthInitial 01-08-2005 125.0 - 128.2 - 128.0 - 130.2 - 125.9 - 126.2 -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 154.6 29.6 153.2 25.0 150.9 22.9 162.3 32.1 152.4 26.5 156.8 30.6

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 180.0 25.4 183.3 30.1 188.9 38.0 204.7 42.4 188.8 36.4 197.5 40.7

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 198.8 18.8 205.6 22.3 215.4 26.5 232.5 27.8 225.3 36.5 236.0 38.5

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 229.6 30.8 225.7 20.1 235.7 20.3 256.0 23.5 253.6 28.3 256.5 20.5

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 242.6 13.0 235.0 9.3 243.8 8.1 268.6 12.6 264.1 10.5 269.3 12.8

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 256.1 13.5 245.0 10.0 256.4 12.6 282.7 14.1 275.1 11.0 280.4 11.1

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 279.4 23.3 267.5 22.5 278.2 21.8 301.0 18.3 293.9 18.8 300.9 20.5

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 305.2 25.8 291.0 23.5 304.1 25.9 328.9 27.9 316.5 22.6 329.2 28.3

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 331.6 26.6 309.8 18.8 324.1 20.0 355.0 26.1 339.8 23.3 356.5 27.3

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 357.7 25.9 327.7 17.9 345.0 20.9 375.2 20.2 359.6 19.8 381.1 24.6

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 380.0 22.3 345.0 17.3 367.5 22.5 393.2 18.0 378.0 18.4 399.3 18.2

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 401.5 21.5 363.5 18.5 391.1 23.6 412.2 19.0 397.5 19.5 418.6 19.3

22

Figure 7: Monthly increase in average total length (mm) of Cyprinus carpio under different treatments

23

Table 11: Analysis of variance on increase in total length (mm) of three fish species under different treatments. S.O.V d.f


MS F-value Prob. MS F-value Prob. MS F-value Prob.Months 11 798.37 66.93** 0.00 794.56 56.92** 0.00 274.62 19.89** 0.00 Treatments 5 31.457 2.64* 0.03 87.349 6.26** 0.00 32.369 2.34NS 0.05 Error 55 11.928 13.960 13.808

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio SEM for Months 1.4100 1.5253 1.5170 SEM For Treatments 0.9970 1.0786 1.0727 Comparison of Means Months August 20.67 F 21.42 DE 27.78 BC September 27.98 DE 27.60 CDE 35.50 A October 31.67 CD 29.73 BCD 28.40 B November 24.57 EF 23.50 DE 23.92 B-E December 11.28 G 8.97 F 11.05 F January 10.20 G 7.88 F 12.05 F February 26.77 E 20.30 E 20.87 E March 34.98 BC 35.63 ABC 25.67 BCD April 38.52 AB 37.35 AB 23.68 CDE May 42.75 A 40.10 A 21.55 DE June 43.07 A 39.57 A 19.45 E July 42.60 A 39.80 A 20.23 E Treatments

T1 28.60 B 26.01 AB 23.04 A T2 28.25 B 23.35 B 19.61 B T3 29.28 B 29.67 A 21.92 AB T4 28.90 B 27.62 AB 23.50 A T5 29.78 AB 28.38 AB 22.63 AB T6 32.71 A 30.91 A 24.37 A

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

24

Table 12: Analysis of variance on final total length (mm) of three fish species under different treatments. S.O.V d.f MS F-value Prob. Replications 1 65.61 0.39 Species 2 2848.45 17.09** 0.00 Treatments 5 11878.40 71.27** 0.00 Species x Treatments 10 466.95 2.80* 0.03 Error 17 166.65 * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Standard error of means: Replications = 3.0428 Species = 5.2703 Treatments = 3.7267 Species x Treatments = 9.1284 Comparison of means:

Treatments Species Mean Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio

T1 444.0 de 421.6 efg 401.5 g 422.4 C T2 441.5 def 391.2 sh 363.5 h 398.7 D T3 456.6 bcd 474.5 abc 391.1 gh 440.7 B T4 447.7 cde 441.1 def 412.2 fg 433.7 BC T5 461.5 bcd 449.0 cde 397.5 g 436.0 BC T6 495.0 a 481.1 ab 418.6 efg 464.9 A

Mean 457.7 A 443.1 B 397.4 C Means sharing similar letter in a row and column are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). Small letters represent comparison among interaction means and capital letters are used for overall mean.

25

Comparison of mean showed that the increment in the average total length of Labeo

rohita was found to be statistically non- significant in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and but in T6, it was

observed as significant. Table 12 showed that T6 is significantly different(P< 0.05) from all

the treatments except T3 for Catla catla. In case of Cyprinus carpio there was a statistically

significant difference (P< 0.01) among T6 and T2 however non-significant difference (P>

0.05) was noted in all the other treatments. Among these three fish species Labeo rohita

showed the maximum average total length in T1, T2, T4, T5 and T6 while in case of T3 for Catla

catla showed the best growth performance. However there was a significant difference in

final average total length of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio in all the

treatments (Fig. 8).

26

Figure 8: Final total length of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio under different treatments

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Fina

l tot

al le

ngth

(mm

)

Labeo rohita

Catla catla

Cyprinus carpio

27

c. Condition Factor

Table 13 depicted the condition factor of three cultured fish species viz., Labeo

rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio under the semi-intensive culture system with the

provision of fertilization and supplementary feed in various combinations, designated as

T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.

Labeo rohita:

The minimum value of condition factor (K) for the Labeo rohita was observed as

1.067, 1.073, 1.024, 1.038, 1.042 and 1.002 in July for T1 to T6, respectively. The

maximum values were recorded as 2.866, 2.430, 2.138, and 2.524 for T1, T2, T3 and T4

during September while in T5 and T6, 2.122 and 2.414 was noted in October, respectively

(Table 13, Fig, 9).

Catla catla:

For the Catla catla the lowest value of condition factor was noted as 1.297, 1.004,

1.376, 1.147 and 1.128 for T1, T3, T4, T5 and T6 at the end of the experiment whereas in

T2, it was found as 1.396 duing August. The highest value of condition factor was found

to be 2.240, (T1) during October, 2.577 and 2.177 in T2 and T3 (Feburary) and 2.444 was

recorded in T4 in the month of the January but 2.843 and 2.885 were observed for T5 and

T6, during September (Table 13, Fig, 10).

Cyprinus carpio:

In case of Cyprinus carpio, the minimum value was recorded as 1.254, 1.182,

1.177, 1.119, 1.217 and 1.209 in August in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6. The maximum values

of condition factor was observed to be 2.005 (October) in T1, 1.918 (July) in T2, 1.768

(May) in T3, 1.588 (June) in T4, 1.597 (May) in T5 and 1.574 (April) in T6 (Table 13, Fig,

11).

Data of condition factor were subjected to statistical analysis by using analysis of

variance and Duncan Multiple Range Test to compare the relative heaviness and

28

suitability of environment under different treatments for fish rearing. Table 14 revealed

that a highly significant difference existed in the months and treatments for the condition

factor. According to statistical analysis, comparison of mean indicated that T6 differ

significantly from T1 and T2 but non-significant difference (P> 0.05) was noted among

the T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Catla catla showed the significant variation in T6 that

differ from T1 and T3 while other treatments differ least significantly from each other

except T3 . In case of Cyprinus carpio, there was ahighly significant variation (P< 0.01)

among T2, T3 and T4 whereas significant difference (P< 0.05) was noted in T1, T2 and T3.

Non-significant (P> 0.05) variation was fonud among the T4, T5 and T6. Among these

cultured fish species, the highest average values of condition factor viz., 2.885

(September) in T6 for the Catla catla followed by Labeo rohita showed the value of

2.866 (September) in T1.

29

Table 13: Condition factor (K) of three fish species under different treatments

Months Treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Labeo rohita

Initial 1.592 1.532 1.468 1.606 1.427 1.523

August 2.578 2.230 1.875 2.187 2.022 2.003

September 2.866 2.430 2.138 2.524 2.091 2.354

October 2.803 2.252 2.088 2.198 2.122 2.414

November 2.651 2.128 2.097 2.144 2.089 2.150

December 2.537 2.082 2.074 2.022 1.995 2.173

January 2.479 2.036 1.996 1.948 1.958 2.037

February 2.237 1.894 1.899 1.791 1.729 1.781

March 2.069 1.795 1.778 1.693 1.564 1.492

April 1.816 1.687 1.599 1.556 1.444 1.258

May 1.517 1.436 1.387 1.352 1.303 1.141

June 1.263 1.223 1.179 1.181 1.175 1.053

July 1.067 1.073 1.024 1.038 1.042 1.002

Catla catla

Initial 1.417 1.396 1.124 1.432 1.433 1.427

August 1.856 1.771 1.446 2.029 2.280 2.345

September 2.105 1.988 2.082 2.226 2.843 2.885

October 2.240 2.127 2.152 2.341 2.792 2.729

November 2.121 2.255 2.097 2.377 2.772 2.703

December 2.155 2.353 2.107 2.416 2.717 2.736

January 2.208 2.490 2.080 2.444 2.676 2.596

February 2.219 2.577 2.177 2.219 2.542 2.448

March 2.084 2.465 1.845 2.023 2.042 1.959

April 1.798 2.179 1.563 1.876 1.811 1.786

May 1.639 1.899 1.318 1.664 1.526 1.571

June 1.468 1.680 1.151 1.517 1.320 1.317

July 1.297 1.487 1.004 1.376 1.147 1.128

30

Continued Table 13: Cyprinus carpio

Initial 1.254 1.182 1.177 1.119 1.217 1.209

August 1.429 1.313 1.301 1.291 1.409 1.362

September 1.698 1.500 1.368 1.284 1.452 1.459

October 2.005 1.638 1.568 1.493 1.457 1.469

November 1.702 1.618 1.509 1.475 1.389 1.493

December 1.697 1.666 1.597 1.486 1.422 1.476

January 1.644 1.699 1.582 1.460 1.419 1.459

February 1.628 1.626 1.566 1.501 1.479 1.509

March 1.727 1.772 1.680 1.513 1.573 1.567

April 1.667 1.844 1.765 1.526 1.578 1.574

May 1.611 1.894 1.768 1.557 1.597 1.559

June 1.597 1.914 1.727 1.588 1.597 1.565

July 1.566 1.918 1.659 1.579 1.580 1.525

31

Table 14: Analysis of variance on condition factor of three fish species under different treatments.

S.O.V d.f


MS F-value Prob. MSF-

value Prob. MS F-

value Prob.Months 12 1.21 87.11** 0.00 1.21 32.7** 0.00 0.11 18.7** 0.00 Treatments 5 0.31 22.61** 0.00 0.36 9.70** 0.00 0.09 15.6** 0.00 Error 60 0.01 0.04 0.00

** = Highly significant (P<0.01) Labeo rohita Catla catla Cyprinus carpio SEM for Months 0.0480 0.0785 0.0319 SEM For Treatments 0.0326 0.0533 0.0217 Comparison of Means Months Initial 1.53 F 1.37DE 1.19 F August 2.15 C 1.95 BC 1.35 E September 2.40 A 2.35 A 1.46 D October 2.31 AB 2.39 A 1.57 ABC November 2.21 B 2.39 A 1.53 CD December 2.15 C 2.41 A 1.56 BCD January 2.07C 2.42 A 1.54BCD February 1.88 D 2.36 A 1.55 BCD March 1.73 E 2.07 B 1.64AB April 1.56 F 1.84 C 1.66 A May 1.36 G 1.60 D 1.66 A June 1.18 H 1.41 DE 1.66 A July 1.04 I 1.24 E 1.64 AB Treatments

T1 2.11A 1.89 B 1.62 AB T2 1.83B 2.0 AB 1.66A T3 1.74 BC 1.70C 1.56 B T4 1.79 BC 1.99 AB 1.45 C T5 1.69 C 2.15 A 1.47 C T6 1.72C 2.13A 1.48 C

** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

32

Figure 9: Condition (K) factor for Labeo rohita under the different treatments.

33

Figure 10: Condition factor (K) for Catla catla under the different treatments.

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Initia

l

Augu

stSe

ptem

ber

Octo

ber

Nove

mbe

rDe

cem

ber

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June

July

Month

Con

ditio

n factor

(K)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

34

Figure 11: Condition factor (K) for Cyprinus carpio under the different treatments

35

d. Specific growth rate: Table 15 showed the specific growth rate of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and

Cyprinus carpio under the influence of organic manure, inorganic fertilizer and

supplementary feed in various combinations under six different treatments.

Labeo rohita showed the minimum value of specific growth rate as 1.103 and

1.105 in T2 and T4 in which inorganic fertilizer and organic and supplementary feed was

applied. Maximum value of 1.177% of specific growth rate was noted in T6. For the

Labeo rohita the overall range of specific growth rate was observed as 1.109, 1.103,

1.107, 1.105, 1.138 and 1.177% in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 respectively.

The specific growth rate of Catla catla in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 were noted as

1.084, 1.055, 1.109, 1.133, 1.106 and 1.147%. The minimum value was 1.055 in T2

treated with inorganic fertilizers. This species attained the best value of specific growth

rate (1.147%) in T6, which was treated with organic, inorganic and supplementary feed.

For Cyprinus carpio, the values of specific growth rate were recorded as 1.019,

0.989, 1.012, 1.042, 1.016 and 1.049% in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 respectively. The

minimum value (0.989%) was remained in T2 with inorganic fertilization. The maximum

value of specific growth rate was recorded as 1.049% in T6, followed by 1.042% in T4

receiving organic manure and supplementary feed (Table. 15, Fig.12)

The highest specific growth rate was observed for the Labeo rohita (1.177) as

compared to the Catla catla (1.147) and Cyprinus carpio (1.049). The lowest value of

1.103, 1.055 and 1.019% SGR was recorded for the Cyprinus carpio in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5

and T6 (Fig 12). Comparison of means showed the similar trends in specific growth rate

of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio in all the treatments but T6 showed the

highest value of 1.12% which differ significantly (P< 0.05) from the other treatments.

There was a significant difference among the T6 and T2, T3 and T5 while T1, T2, T3, T4 and

T5 varies non-significantly from each others (Table 16). Statistical analysis revealed a

highly significant difference (P< 0.01) for the specific growth rate among the species and

the treatments (Table 16).

Fig. 12 represent that the Labeo rohita showed the maximum value of specific

growth rate in T1, T2, T5 and T6 but in T3 and T4 Catla catla obtained the highest specific

growth rate as compared to Labeo rohita and Cyprinus carpio, respectively.

36

Table 15: Specific growth rate (%) of three fish species under different treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Labeo rohita Initial body weight (g) 16.3 16.5 17.1 16.5 16.1 16.4

Final body weight (g) 933.7 923.1 974.8 931.9 1024.6 1215.0

Specific growth rate (%) 1.109 1.103 1.107 1.105 1.138 1.177

Catla catla Initial body weight (g) 18.6 19.1 18.7 18.9 18.3 19.1



Cyprinus carpio Initial body weight (g) 24.5 24.9 24.7 24.7 24.3 24.3



37

Table 16: Analysis of variance on specific growth rate(%) of three fish species under different treatments.

S.O.V d.f MS F- value Prob.

Species 2 0.01 68.03** 0.00

Treatments 5 0.00 7.28** 0.00

Error 10 0.00

** = Highly significant (P<0.01) SEM for Species 0.0094 SEM For Treatments 0.006 Comparison of means:

Species Mean

Labeo rohita 1.123A

Catla catla 1.11A

Cyprinus carpio 1.02 B

Treatments

T1 1.07 BC

T2 1.05 C

T3 1.07 BC

T4 1.09 B

T5 1.09 B

T6 1.12 A

Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

38

Figure 12: Specific growth rate of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio under different treatments

39

e. Length- Weight Relationship of Cultured Fish Species: Length-weight relationship in fisheries research, is considered as important

parameters commonly used to predict and evaluate the mathematical relationship among

the body weight and total length, to calculate condition factor (K) which represent the

degree of fish health and the condition for its growth to test the suitability of

environmental condition for the culturable species by culturing two or more population of

species from different niches (LeCren, 1951). The relationship between the length and

body weight follows approximately the cube law

W= aL3

W= Weight of fish species (g)

L = Length of fish species (mm)

a = Constant

As the fish showed continuously increase in body weight with the increasing total

length during its life, so the cube law does not apply throughout its growth of fish, a more

satisfactory formula for the expression of relationship is logarithmically as

Log W= log c +n log L (LeCren,1951)

The length-weight relationship were fitted to mean values obtained from the

average wet body weight (g) and total length (mm) of sample of each fish species on

monthly basis . The value of “c” and “n” were obtained through computer by using

linear regression method.

The regression equation for the length-weight relationship of these three cultured

fish species under six different treatments was computed from the data collected during

the investigation period of one year. The equations obtained are shown in Table 17.

40

The correlation co-efficient for Labeo rohita was calculated as 0.955, 0.976,

0.976, 0.978, 0.978 and 0.967 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and, T6 respectively. For Catla catla

and Cyprinus carpio it was recorded as 0.976, 0.971, 0.950, 0.974, 0.945, 0.950 and

0.992, 0.999, 0.999, 0.999, 0.999 and 0.999 during the experimental period (Table 17).As

the data showed a positive correlation between total length and body weight of these

three fish species is indicated by “r” and high value of “r” (nearly one) for each

regression equation showed the high accuracy of these regression model (Table 17).

Regression lines showed the linear trend amiong the average total length and body weight

for these three fish species under the influence of fertilization and supplementary

feedduring the experimental period. Maximum linear increment (r=0.989) for labeo

rohita in T4 and T5, nearest equal to 1 that depicted significant and direct relationship

among the total length and body weight followed by T2, T3, T6 and T1 (Fig.13).

Catla catla with a highest value of r =0.975 nearly equal to 1 showed the significant and

direct relationship with respect to average total length and body weight followed by T4,

T2, T6, T3 and T5 ,respectively (Fig. 14).Regression equation revealed a significant

relationship for Cyprinus carpio in T6 (r=0.999) as compared to T4, T2, T5, T3 and T1

,respectively (Fig.15).

41

Table 17. Length-weight relationship of three fish species under different

treatments

Regression equation (log10 transformation) r R² Probability

Labeo rohita T1

Y = - 3.61 + 2.54 (X) SE = 0.1121 0.977 0.955 0.000

T2 Y = - 388 + 2.63 (X)

SE = 0.0846 0.988 0.976 0.000

T3 Y = - 4.02 + 2.68 (X)

SE = 0.0864 0.988 0.976 0.000

T4 Y = - 3.76 + 2.57 (X)

SE = 0.0794 0.989 0.978 0.000

T5 Y = - 3.96 + 2.65 (X)

SE = 0.0829 0.989 0.978 0.000

T6 Y = - 3.70 + 2.55 (X)

SE = 0.1028 0.983 0.967 0.000

Catla catla T1

Y = - 4.40 + 2.86 (X) SE = 0.0829 0.988 0.976 0.000

T2 Y = - 4.80 + 3.05 (X)

SE = 0.0896 0.985 0.971 0.000

T3 Y = - 4.30 + 2.80 (X)

SE = 0.1236 0.975 0.950 0.000

T4 Y = - 4.37 + 2.86 (X)

SE = 0.0897 0.987 0.974 0.000

T5 Y = - 3.80 + 2.63 (X)

SE = 0.1265 0.972 0.945 0.000

T6 Y = - 3.82 + 2.64 (X)

SE = 0.1246 0.975 0.950 0.000

Cyprinus carpio T1

Y = - 5.05 + 3.11 (X) SE = 0.0457 0.996 0.992 0.000

T2 Y = - 5.85 + 3.45 (X)

SE = 0.0156 0.999 0.999 0.000

T3 Y = - 5.63 + 3.34 (X)

SE = 0.0182 0.999 0.999 0.000

T4 Y = - 5.51 + 3.27 (X)

SE = 0.0159 0.999 0.999 0.000

T5 Y = - 5.29 + 3.19 (X)

SE = 0.0171 0.999 0.999 0.000

T6 Y = - 5.27 + 3.18 (X)

SE = 0.0134 0.999 0.999 0.000

SE = Standard error; r = Correlation coefficient; R² = Coefficient of determination; X = Total length (mm); Y = Fish body weight (g)

42

Figure 13: Regression line for the length-weight relationship of Laboeo rohita under different treatments.

T1 = 2.5408x - 3.6164R2 = 0.9554

T2 = 2.631x - 3.8793R2 = 0.976

T3 = 2.681x - 4.0154R2 = 0.9759

T4 = 2.5735x - 3.7556R2 = 0.9783

T5 = 2.652x - 3.9562R2 = 0.978

T6 = 2.5483x - 3.6959R2 = 0.9669

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7log10(Length)

log 10

(wei

ght)

T1T2T3T4T5T6Linear (T1)Linear (T2)Linear (T3)Linear (T4)Linear (T5)Linear (T6)

43

Figure 14: Regression line for the length-weight relationship of Catla catla under different treatments.

T1 = 2.8593x - 4.3975R2 = 0.9757

T2 = 3.0457x - 4.8026R2 = 0.9705

T3 = 2.7968x - 4.2964R2 = 0.9496

T4 = 2.8561x - 4.3651R2 = 0.9736

T5 = 2.6256x - 3.8022R2 = 0.9455

T6 = 2.6354x - 3.8221R2 = 0.9504

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7log10(Length)

log 10

(wei

ght)


44

Figure 15: Regression line for the length-weight relationship of Cyprinus carpio under different treatments.

T1 = 3.1074x - 5.047R2 = 0.9919

T2 = 3.4464x - 5.8477R2 = 0.999

T3 = 3.3427x - 5.6323R2 = 0.9988

T4 = 3.2737x - 5.5059R2 = 0.9991

T5 = 3.1914x - 5.2949R2 = 0.9989

T6 = 3.1811x - 5.2712R2 = 0.9994

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7log10(Length)

log 10

(wei

ght)


45

g. Nitrogen Conversion Ratio (NCR): The observation recorded on manuring, fertilizing feeding rate and nitrogen conversion

ratios on monthly basis are shown in Table 18-23 and Fig. 6.

1. Treatment with organic manure (Cow manure) (T1):

Under this treatment, lowest nitrogen conversion ratio was noted as 1: 1.92 with

the increment of 1545.0 g in fish weight when 803.21g of nitrogen was added to the fish

pond during the January. The highest nitrogen conversion ratio from cow manure was

found to be 1: 9.42 during the August. In this month, the combined fish weight gain of

47.48kg was obtained by the utilization of 14.54kg nitrogen from organic manure. The

gross mean conversation ratio of 1: 4.30 was calculated by the input of 14.54kg (Table

18) organic manure in which increment of 47.48kg in cultured fish species weight (Table

18, Fig.,16).

2. Treatment with inorganic fertilization (nitrophos) (T2):

From inorganic fertilization (nitrophos), the nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) was

the minimum (1: 2.04) in the month of January while the maximum NCR remained as 1:

8.42 during August when the Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus caipio showed the

increment in body weight of 1083.5g with 128.65g nitrogen from nitrophos. During this

experimental trial 13.72 kg, inorganic fertilizer was used that gave a total increase in fish

yield of 44.65kg (Table 19, Fig. 16).

.

3. Treatment with organic manure and inorganic fertilization (T3):

The nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) showed the fluctuation between 1: 1.57

(minimum) and 1: 8.86 (maximum) and in January and September, respectively which

caused marked increment in total fish yield of about 258.62g by the utilization of 2291.0g

of nitrogen from organic and inorganic fertilization (Table 20, Fig. 16). The overall mean

ratio was computed as 1: 4.34 by the addition of 15.16kg fertilizer containing nitrogen

from organic and inorganic fertilization to the fish pond which showed a gross fish

production of 50480.0 g of Labeo rohita, Catla catlta and Cyprinus caipio in this

treatment (Table 20).

46

4. Treatment with organic manure and supplementary feed (T4):

The nitrogen conversion ratio form organic manure and supplementary feed under

the influence of T4 was found to be minimum 1: 1.73 (January) and the maximum value

was recorded as 1: 9.30 during the August with an increase of 1343.5 g of fish body

weight was obtained by the using 15.84kg from manure and feed with 144.46g nitrogen

(Table 21, Figure, 16). The overall mean of nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) was

computed as 1: 4.35 by the addition of 15.84kg N from manure and feeding (Table 21,

Fig, 16).

5. Treatment with inorganic fertilizer (Nitrophos) and supplementary feed (T5):

The poor conversion ratio was observed as (1: 1.72) in the month of January,

which showed the increment of 1464.5 g in the fish yield for these three fish species. The

best nitrogen conversion ratio was observed to be 1: 9.19 (August) when 138.26 g N from

the inorganic and supplementary feed was used, that showed an increase in total fish

yield of 1270.5 g. At the end of experimental trail, the overall nitrogen conversion ratio

was calculated as 1: 4.35(Table 22, Fig. 13).

6. Treatment with organic, inorganic and supplementary feed (T6):

The overall seasonal variations in nitrogen conversion ratio were recorded from 1:

9.65 to 1: 1.32. The minimum and maximum nitrogen conversation ratio was recorded in

January and August during which a prominent increase of 1328.0 and 1459.5g in fish

biomass was observed by the utilization of 18.09kg nitrogen from the organic manure,

inorganic fertilization and supplementary feed (25:25:50). In this treatment, a maximum

prominent increment of 9015.5g in fish body weight was obtained with the provision of

fertilization and supplementary feed with (18.09kg N). (Table 23, Fig, 16).

Analysis of variance on nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) revealed highly significant

difference for the growth performance of three fish species during the months whereas

for treatments a non-significant difference (P>0.05) for the conversion of nitrogen was

noted from fertilization and supplementary feed. Comparison of means showed the a non-

significant difference among the treatments, which showed a linear trends among them

47

regarding to nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) of Labeo rohita,Catla catla and Cyprinus

carpio There was a non-significant difference among the treatments which decreased

rapidly and significant difference was observed between the months (Table 24).

f. Nitrogen Incorporation Efficiency (N.I.E):

1. Cow manure fertilized pond (T1)

The nitrogen incorporation efficiency of these three fish in T1 receiving organic

manure (cow manure) showed the variation from 0.106 (August) to 0.519 (January),

respectively (Table 18). The minimum efficiency was noted in January of 0.519 with the

overall efficiency of 0.292. The maximum nitrogen incorporation efficiency was recorded

as 0.106 in 1st observation in August by using 144.46g nitrogen from cow manure which

showed the increment of 1360.5 of total fish biomass. (Table 18, Fig. 17).

2. Nitrophos treated pond (T2):

Nitrogen incorporation efficiency showed the overall variation from 0.119 to

0.489 as showed in Table 19. The lowest value was noted (0.489) during January when

the total amount of nitrogen (767.87g) was added which increased the fish biomass of

1570.0g. The best efficiency ratio (0.119) was recorded during August and September

when 128.65 ans 250.20 g nitrogen from nitrophos was used to obtain the increment in

average body weight of 1083.5 and 2094.0g of these three fish species. The overall N.I.E

remained as 0.289 (Table 19, Fig. 17).

3. Cow manure and nitrophos (50:50) treated ponds: (T3):

As shown in Table 20, the nitrogen incorporation efficiency (N.I.E) showed the

seasonal variations from 0.113 to 0.638 by utilizing a 15.16kg nitrogen from cow manure

and nitrophos and increased in total fish biomass was recorded as 50480.0g from August

to July. The lowest and highest nitrogen incorporation efficiency (N.I.E) was recorded as

0.638 (January) and 0.113 (September), when 822.43 and 258.62 g of fertilizer and

manure were used to obtain the increase of 1288.0 and 2291.0 of fish yield (Table 20,

Fig. 17).

48

4. Cow manure and supplementary feed (50:50) treated pond. (T4):

The overall range of nitrogen incorporation efficiency (N.I.E) with the provision

of organic manure and supplementary feed remained as from 0.577 to 0.108 during

January and August, respectively. The overall nitrogen incorporation efficiency was

noted as (0.299) at the end of the experiment. The minimum and maximum value of

N.I.E was observed as 0.577 (January) and 0.108 (August) where 861.18 and 144.46g of

nitrogen was added from supplementary feed (50:50) and cow manure which gave the

total fish biomass of 1493.5 and 1343.5g of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus

carpio (Table 21, Fig. 17).

5. Nitrophos and supplementary (50:50) treated pond (T5):

Table 22 depicted that the lowest value was noted as (0.583) by utilization of

853.43 g N from nitrophos and supplementary feed (50:50) from that 1464.5 increment in

total fish biomass was recorded. Maximum nitrogen incorporation efficiency (0.109) of

fish under the influence of nitrophos and supplementary feed was observed during

August when using 138.26 g N in the form of nitrophos and supplementary feed while

The overall NIE was observed as 0.301 in T5 (Table 22, Fig. 17).

6. Cow manure, nitrophos and supplementary (25:25:50) treated pond T6:

As shown in Table 23, the minimum nitrogen incorporation efficiency (N.I.E)

value of 0.765 was observed in February in which total increase in fish biomass

(1328.0g) was recorded from cow manure, nitrophos and supplementary feed (25:25:50).

The maximum N.I.E of fish was found as 0.104 (August) when 151.28 g N was used to

obtain 1459.5g of fish biomass with the provision of cow dung, nitrophos and

supplementary feed (Table 23, Fig. 17).

Statistical analysis showed a highly significant (P<0.01) difference in nitrogen

incorporation efficiency among the months. Whereas there was a non-significant(P>0.05)

difference among the treatments, which show a uniform trends among them with respect

to nitrogen incorporation efficiency of Labeo rohita,Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio

There was a non-significant difference(P>0.05) among the treatments then decrease

rapidly and significant difference was observed between the months (Table 24).

49

Table 18: Manuring rate of fish pond, nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) in T1

Months Time duration

No. of Fishes

Gross Fish Weight (g)

Nitrogen (N) added day-1

(g) Total N added

month-1 (g)

Increase in Fish biomass

(g)

Nitrogen Conversion Ratio

(NCR)

Nitrogen Incorporation

Efficiency (NIE) Manure

Initial 01-08-2005 50 972.5 - - - - -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 50 2333.0 4.66 144.46 1360.5 1: 9.42 0.106

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 50 4569.5 9.14 274.20 2236.5 1: 8.16 0.123

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 50 7510.0 15.02 465.62 2940.5 1: 6.32 0.158

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 50 9825.5 19.65 589.50 2315.5 1: 3.93 0.255

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 50 11410.5 22.82 707.42 1585.0 1: 2.24 0.446

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 50 12955.5 25.91 803.21 1545.0 1: 1.92 0.519

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 50 16323.0 32.65 914.20 3367.5 1: 3.68 0.271

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 50 21548.0 43.09 1335.79 5225.0 1: 3.91 0.256

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 50 27613.5 55.23 1656.90 6065.5 1: 3.66 0.273

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 50 34532.0 69.06 2140.86 6918.5 1: 3.23 0.309

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 50 41641.0 83.28 2498.46 7109.0 1: 2.85 0.351

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 50 48461.0

96.92 3004.52 6820.0 1: 2.27 0.441

Total - - - 14.54(kg) 47.48(kg) 1: 4.30 0.292

50

Table 19: Fertilization rate of fish pond, nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) in T2

Months Time duration No. of Fishes


Nitrogen (N) added day-1 (g)

Total N added

month-1 (g)

Increase in Fish biomass

(g)

Nitrogen Conversion Ratio

(NCR)


Efficiency (NIE) Fertilization

Initial 01-08-2005 50 990 - - - - -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 50 2073.5 4.15 128.65 1083.5 1: 8.42 0.119

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 50 4167.5 8.34 250.20 2094.0 1: 8.37 0.119

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 50 6699.5 13.40 415.40 2532.0 1: 6.10 0.164

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 50 9292.5 18.59 557.70 2593.0 1: 4.65 0.215

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 50 10814.5 21.63 670.53 1522.0 1: 2.27 0.441

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 50 12384.5 24.77 767.87 1570.0 1: 2.04 0.489

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 50 15498.5 31.00 867.72 3114.0 1: 3.59 0.279

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 50 20745.0 41.49 1286.19 5246.5 1: 4.08 0.245

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 50 26540.5 53.08 1592.40 5795.5 1: 3.64 0.275

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 50 32552.5 65.11 2018.41 6012.0 1: 2.98 0.336

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 50 38843.5 77.69 2330.70 6291.0 1: 2.70 0.370

July 01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 50 45640.5 91.28 2829.68 6797.0 1: 2.40 0.416

Total - - - 13.72(kg) 44.65(kg) 1: 4.27 0.289

51

Table 20: Manu ring and fertilization rate of fish pond, nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) in T3



Nitrogen (N) added day-1 (g) Total N added month-1 (g)

Increase in Fish

biomass (g)

Nitrogen Conversion Ratio (NCR)


Efficiency (NIE) Manure Fertilizers Total

Initial 01-08-2005 50 993 - - - - - - - August 01-08-2005 to 31-

08-2005 50 2011.5 2.01 2.01 4.02 124.71 1018.5 1: 8.17 0.122

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 50 4302.5 4.31 4.31 8.62 258.62 2291.0 1: 8.86 0.113

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 50 7343.5 7.35 7.35 14.70 455.60 3041.0 1: 6.67 0.150

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 50 10445.5 10.45 10.45 20.89 626.70 3102.0 1: 4.95 0.202

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 50 11974.5 11.97 11.97 23.95 742.45 1529.0 1: 2.06 0.486

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 50 13264.0 13.26 13.26 26.53 822.43 1288.0 1: 1.57 0.638

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 50 16847.0 16.85 16.85 33.69 943.32 3584.5 1: 3.80 0.263

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 50 23102.0 23.10 23.10 46.20 1432.20 6255.0 1: 4.37 0.229

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 50 29710.5 29.71 29.71 59.42 1782.60 6608.5 1: 3.71 0.270

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 50 36276.0 36.28 36.27 72.55 2249.11 6565.5 1: 2.92 0.343

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 50 43226.5 43.23 43.23 86.45 2593.59 6950.5 1: 2.68 0.373

July

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 50 50480.0 50.48 50.48 100.96 3129.76 7253.5 1: 2.32 0.431

Total - - - - - - 15.16(kg) 49.48(kg) 1: 4.34 0.302

52

Table 21: Manuring and feeding rate of fish pond, nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) in T4



Feed added per

day (g)

Nitrogen (N) added day-1 (g)

Total N added

month-1 (g)

Increase in Fish

biomass (g)


Nitrogen Incorporation Efficiency (NIE) Manure Feed Total

Initial 01-08-2005 50 984 - - - - - - - -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 50 2327.5 4.655 2.33 2.33 4.66 144.46 1343.5 1: 9.30 0.108

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 50 4761.5 9.523 4.76 4.76 9.52 285.60 2434.0 1: 8.52 0.117

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 50 8200.5 16.401 8.20 8.20 16.40 508.40 3439.0 1: 6.76 0.148

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 50 10861.0 21.722 10.86 10.86 21.72 651.60 2660.5 1: 4.08 0.245

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 50 12397.0 24.794 12.40 12.39 24.79 768.49 1536.0 1: 2.00 0.500

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 50 13890.5 27.781 13.89 13.89 27.78 861.18 1493.5 1: 1.73 0.577

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 50 17511.0 35.022 17.51 17.51 35.02 980.56 3620.5 1: 3.69 0.271

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 50 23448.0 46.896 23.45 23.45 46.90 1453.90 5937.0 1: 4.08 0.245

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 50 30559.0 61.118 30.56 30.56 61.12 1833.60 7111.0 1: 3.88 0.258

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 50 37969.5 75.939 37.97 37.97 75.94 2354.14 7410.5 1: 3.15 0.318

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 50 45297.0 90.594 45.30 45.29 90.59 2717.70 7327.5 1: 2.70 0.371

July

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 50 52940.0 105.880 52.94 52.94 105.88 3282.28 7643.0 1: 2.33 0.429

Total - - - - - - 15.84(kg) 51.96(kg) 1: 4.35 0.299

53

Table 22: Fertilization and feeding rate of fish pond, nitrogen conversion ratio and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) in T5

Months Time duration

No. of Fishes


Feed added

per day (g)

Feed Nitrogen (N) added day-1 (g)

Total N added

month-1 (g)

Increase in Fish

biomass (g)


Nitrogen Incorporation Efficiency (NIE) Inorganic Feed Total

Initial 01-08-2005 50 961 - - - - - - - -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 50 2231.5 4.463 2.23 2.23 4.46 138.26 1270.5 1: 9.19 0.109

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 50 4488.0 8.976 4.49 4.49 8.98 269.40 2256.5 1: 8.37 0.119

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 50 7803.5 15.607 7.80 7.80 15.61 483.91 3315.5 1: 6.85 0.146

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 50 10791.5 21.583 10.79 10.79 21.58 647.40 2988.0 1: 4.61 0.217

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 50 12299.5 24.599 12.30 12.29 24.60 762.60 1508.0 1: 1.98 0.506

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 50 13764.0 27.528 13.76 13.76 27.53 853.43 1464.5 1: 1.72 0.583

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 50 17757.5 35.515 17.76 17.76 35.52 994.56 3993.5 1: 4.02 0.249

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 50 23447.0 46.894 23.45 23.45 46.89 1453.59 5689.5 1: 3.91 0.256

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 50 29801.0 59.602 29.80 29.80 59.60 1788.00 6354.0 1: 3.55 0.281

May 01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 50 36909.0 73.818 36.91 36.91 73.82 2288.42 7108.0 1: 3.11 0.322

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 50 43894.0 87.788 43.89 43.89 87.79 2633.70 6985.0 1: 2.65 0.377

July

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 50 50958.5 101.917 50.96 50.96 101.92 3159.52 7064.5 1: 2.24 0.447

Total - - - - - - 15.47(kg) 49.99(kg) 1: 4.35 0.301

54

Table 23: Manuring, fertilization and feeding rate of fish pond, nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) in T6


Gross Fish

Weight (g)

Feed added

per day -1 (g)

Nitrogen (N) added day-1 (g) Total N added

month-1 (g)

Increase in Fish

biomass (g)

Nitrogen Conversion

Ratio (NCR)

Nitrogen Incorporation Efficiency (NIE) Manure Inorganic Feed Total

Initial 01-08-2005 50 979.0 - - - - - - - -

August 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 50 2438.5 4.877 1.22 1.22 2.44 4.88 151.28 1459.5 1: 9.65 0.104

September 01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 50 5400.5 10.801 2.70 2.70 5.40 10.80 324.00 2962.0 1: 9.14 0.109

October 01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 50 9283.0 18.566 4.64 4.64 9.28 18.57 575.67 3882.5 1: 6.74 0.148

November 01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 50 13195.5 26.391 6.60 6.59 13.20 26.39 791.70 3912.5 1: 4.94 0.202

December 01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 50 15050.5 30.101 7.53 7.53 15.05 30.10 933.10 1855.0 1: 1.99 0.503

January 01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 50 16378.5 32.757 8.19 8.19 16.38 32.76 1015.56 1328.0 1: 1.32 0.765

February 01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 50 20453.0 40.906 10.23 10.23 20.45 40.91 1145.48 4074.5 1: 3.56 0.281

March 01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 50 26978.5 53.957 13.49 13.49 26.98 53.96 1672.76 6525.5 1: 3.90 0.256

April 01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006

50 34389.0 68.778 17.19 17.19 34.39 68.78 2063.40 7410.5 1: 3.59 0.278 May 01-05-2006 to

31-05-2006 50 42715.5 85.431 21.36 21.36 42.72 85.43 2648.33 8166.5 1: 3.08 0.324

June 01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 50 50920.0 101.840 25.46 25.46 50.92 101.84 3055.20 8364.5 1: 2.73 0.365

July

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 50 59935.5 119.871 29.97 29.97 59.94 119.87 3715.97 9015.5 1: 2.43 0.412

Total - - - - - - - 18.09(kg) 58.96(kg) 1: 4.42 0.312

55

Table 24: Analysis of variance on nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) of three fish species under different treatments.

S.O.V d.f

NCR NIE

MS F-value Prob. MS F-value Prob.Months 11 35.99 439.14** 0.00 0.13 131.61** 0.00 Treatments 5 0.03 0.40NS 0.56 0.01 0.79NS 0.56 Error 55 0.082 0.00

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

NCR NIE SEM for Months 0.1169 0.0130 SEM For Treatments 0.0826 0.0092

Comparison of Means

Months August 9.02 A 0.11 I September 8.57 B 0.12 HI October 6.57 C 0.15H November 4.53 D 0.22 G December 2.09 I 0.48 B January 1.72J 0.59 A February 3.72 EF 0.27 F March 4.04 E 0.25 FG April 3.67 F 0.27 F May 3.08G 0.32 E June 2.72 H 0.37 D July 2.33 I 0.43 C

Treatments

T1 4.29 0.29 T2 4.27 0.29 T3 4.34 0.30 T4 4.35 0.29 T5 4.35 0.30 T6 4.42 0.31

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean.Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

56

Figure 16: Nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) of three fish species under different treatments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Months

Nitr

ogen

Con

vers

ion Ratio

T1T2T3T4T5T6

57

Figure 17: Nitrogen Incorporation Efficiency (NIE) of three fish species under different treatments

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun

Months

Nitrog

en In

corporation Effic

ienc

y

T1T2T3T4T5T6

58

i. Total fish production The gross fish production of Labeo rohita, pond-1year-1 were calculated to be 18.67,

18.46, 19.49, 18.64, 20.49 and 24.30kg whereas for Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio 14.58,

13.36, 16.05, 17.72, 15.58 and 18.85 kg and 15.21, 13.82, 14.89, 16.59, 14.89 and 16.78kg-1

pond-1 year-1 in T1, T2, T3 ,T4, T5 and T6 , respectively (Table 25-30).

The gross fish production pond-1 acre-1 was calculated to be 376.41, 372.18, 392.94,

375.81, 413.10 and 489.92; 293.95, 269.35, 323.59, 357.26, 314.11 and 380.05 and 306.65,

278.63, 300.20, 334.47, 300.20 and 338.31 kg-1acre-1year-1 for Labeo rohita, Catla catla and

Cyprinus carpio in T1, T2, T3 ,T4, T5 and T6 , respectively (Table 25-30).

The gross fish production of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio pond-1

hectare-1 were calculated to be 933.50, 923.00, 974.50, 932.00, 1024.50 and 1215.00; 729.00,

668.00, 802.50, 886.00, 779.00 and 942.53 and 760.50, 691.00, 744.50, 829.50, 744.50 and

839.00 in T1, T2, T3 ,T4, T5 and T6 respectively (Table 25-30, Fig. 18).

The net fish production of Labeo rohita, Catla catla was also calculated. It was found to

be 18.35, 18.13, 19.15, 18.31, 20.17 and 23.97 and 14.30, 13.07, 15.81, 17.43, 15.31 and 18.56

and for Cyprinus carpio, it was recorded as 14.84, 13.45, 14.52, 16.22, 14.52 and 16.42 kg-

1pond-1 year-1 (Table 25-30, Fig. 16).

The net fish production of all three fish species ( Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus

carpio) kg-1 pond-1 acre-1 was calculated to be 369.96, 365.52, 386.08, 369.15, 406.65 and

483.31; 288.31, 263.51, 318.75, 351.41, 308.67 and 374.27 and 299.19, 271.17, 292.74, 327.05,

292.74 and 331.05kg-1acre-1 year-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Similarly net fish

production pond-1 hectare-1 was calculated to be 917.50, 906.50, 957.50, 915.50, 1008.50 and

1198.60; 715.00, 653.50, 790.50, 871.50, 765.50 and 928.20 and 742.00, 672.50, 726.00, 811.00,

726.00 and 821.00 kg-1 ha-1year-1 in all the treatments. (Table 25-30, Fig. 18)

The gross fish production of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio was recorded

as 2423.00, 2282.00, 2521.50, 2647.50, 2548.00 and 2996.53kg-1hectare-1year-1 in all the

treatments.

59

Table 25: Total fish production of three fish species in T1


No. of stocked fish 20 15 15 Survival rate (%) 100 100 100 Initial average body weight (g) 16.3 18.6 24.5 Final average body weight (g) 933.7 972.1 1013.7 Increase in average body weight (g) 917.4 953.5 989.2 Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 18.67 14.58 15.21 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 376.41 293.95 306.65 Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 933.50 729.00 760.50 Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 18.35 14.30 14.84 Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 369.96 288.31 299.19 Net fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 917.50 715.00 742.00

Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 48.46 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 977.01 Gross fish production ha-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 2423.00

60



No. of stocked fish 20 15 15 Survival rate (%) 100 100 100 Initial average body weight (g) 16.5 19.1 24.9 Final average body weight (g) 923.1 890.6 921.3 Increase in average body weight (g) 906.6 871.5 896.4 Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 18.46 13.36 13.82 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 372.18 269.35 278.63 Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 923.00 668.00 691.00 Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 18.13 13.07 13.45 Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 365.52 263.51 271.17 Net fish production-1 ha-1year-1 (kg) 906.50 653.50 672.50

Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 45.64 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 920.16 Gross fish production ha-1 year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2282.00

61



No. of stocked fish 20 15 15

Survival rate (%) 100 100 100

Initial average body weight (g) 17.1 18.7 24.7

Final average body weight (g) 974.8 1073.0 992.6

Increase in average body weight (g) 957.7 1054.3 967.9

Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) 19.49 16.05 14.89

Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 392.94 323.59 300.20

Gross fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 974.50 802.50 744.50

Net fish production-1pond-1 year-1 (kg) 19.15 15.81 14.52

Net fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) 386.08 318.75 292.74

Net fish production-1 ha-1year-1 (kg) 957.50 790.50 726.00

Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 50.43 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1016.73 Gross fish production ha-1year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2521.50

62













Net fish production-1 ha-1 year-1 (kg) 915.50 871.50 811.00

Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 52.95 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1067.54 Gross fish production ha-1 year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2647.50

63














Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 50.96 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1027.41 Gross fish production ha-1year-1 (kg ) (All the fish species) = 2548.00

64














Gross fish production-1pond-1 year -1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 59.93 Gross fish production-1 acre-1 year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 1208.28 Gross fish production ha-1year-1 (kg) (All the fish species) = 2996.53

65

Figure 18: Gross fish production of three species under different treatments

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Gro

ss fi

sh p

rodu

ctio

n ha

-1 y

ear-1

(kg

)Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio

66

Figure 19: Net fish production of three species under different treatments

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Net

fish

pro

duct

ionh

a-1 y

ear-1

(kg

)Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio

67

4.2 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF FISH MEAT: At the end of the experiment, meat samples of stocked three fish species viz., Labeo rohita,

Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio of each fish species were selected from experimental ponds to

investigate the influence of organic manure and inorganic fertilizer and artificial feed in six

different combinations on the meat quality for its proximate composition. Table 32 shows the

moisture, crude protein, total fats, and total ash and carbohydrates contents of experimental fish

species as a measure of their meat quality.

Moisture: In this experiment, Labeo rohita showed the moisture contents of 78.40, 78.90, 78.80,

78.20, 77.22 and 77.18 %under the influence of T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The

minimum and maximum value of moisture contents was noted as 77.18 and 78.90 % in T6 and

T2, respectively. In Catla catla, the moisture contents varied from 78.09 to 79.71% under T1, T2,

T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively.

The Cyprinus carpio was observed as 80.10, 80.35, 80.20, 78.30, 79.45 and 77.20 % in

T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The minimum percentage was found as 77.20 % in T6

under the influence of fertilization and supplementary feed while the maximum was recorded

80.35% in T2. The comparison of moisture percentage value under all the treatments showed that

the Cyprinus carpio had highest moisture contents (79. 27%), followed by Catla catla (79.07%)

and for Labeo rohita (78.12%) which differ non-significantly (P>0.05) from each others. In all

the six different treatments, the moisture contents of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus

carpio showed non-significant difference (P>0.05) as shown in Table 31. Whereas the mean

values of moisture percentage was non-significant from each other in different treatments (Table

32, Fig. 20).

Crude protein:

The percentage of protein contents in Labeo rohita was found to be 18.25, 17.90,

17.72, 18.09, 18.30 and 18.90% in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Catla catla showed the

crude protein contents of 16.85, 16.06, 17.09, 17.00, 17.00 and 17.55 % in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and

T6, respectively. The minimum (16.06%) and maximum (17.55%) crude protein contents were

68

noted in T2 and T6 under the influence of fertilization and supplementary feed. The Cyprinus

carpio showed the variation in the mean of its protein contents as 15.72, 15.65, 15.62, 16.95,

16.80 and 17.10% reared under T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The lowest value 15.62%

was observed in T3 while in T6, the highest value was being noted as 17.10% in the combined

effect of fertilization and supplementary feed (Table 32, Fig. 21).

There was significant (P<0.05) difference in the percentage of protein contents among the

species but non-significant difference (P>0.05) was observed among the treatments and

interaction among the species and treatments (P<0.05). The comparison mean of crude protein

contents showed that Labeo rohita significantly differ from Cyprinus carpio as compared to

Catla catla. According to the overall performance of these three fish species, Labeo rohita

showed the best performance (18.90%) in terms of accumulated protein in the body(T6),

followed by T5 (18.30%)(Table 31, Fig. 21).

Total fats:

In Labeo rohita, the total fat contents were recorded as 1.05, 1.10, 1.08, 1.06, 1.42 and

1.30% in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The minimum was observed in 1.05 under the

influence of organic manure while the maximum fat contents were noted 1.42% in T5. The Catla

catla showed the variation in the total fat contents as 1.55, 1.68, 0.95, 1.62, 1.72 and 2.02%

reared under T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively. The lowest value (0.95%) was observed in

T3 while in T6, the highest value was being noted as 2.02% under the effect of fertilization and

supplementary feed. As regarding to Cyprinus carpio showed the percentage of fat contents

reared under T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 which were recorded as 1.42, 1.28, 1.39, 1.52, 1.82 and

2.00%, respectively. In T6, the highest percentage was being noted as 2.00, while the lowest

percentage 1.28 was observed in T2. Among these three fish species, the overall performance of

Catla catla showed the maximum total fat contents (2.02) was recorded in T6. (Table 32, Fig.

22).

Statistical analysis showed the highly significant difference in the percentage of total

fat contents among the species, treatments and interaction among the species and treatments

(P<0.01). Duncan multiple range tests revealed significant difference for these three fish species

among all the treatments (Table 32).

69

It is evident from fig. 22 that the total fat contents of Labeo rohita was lower than the other

two species viz.,Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio in T1, T2, T4, T5 and T6 but higher in T3 than

Catla catla, respectively.Total fat contents of Catla catla found to be maximum in T1, T2, T4 and

T6 but minimum in T3 and T5 higher than Labeo rohita. In case of Cyprinus carpio, it was

observed in T3 and T5. Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio showed almost similar trend in the fat

contents in T6 receiving organic, inorganic and supplementary feed.

Total ash:

The ash contents of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio showed highly

significant difference (P<0.01) as shown in Table 31 in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 respectively.

The ash contents of Labeo rohita were recorded as 1.15, 1.20, 1.12, 1.28, 1.34 and 1.30%, in T1,

T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 respectively. The minimum and maximum value of ash was observed as and

1.12 and 1.34% in T2 and T5. Catla catla showed the lowest and highest total ash percentage as

1.08 and 1.50% in T1 and T4, respectively. Ash percentage of Cyprinus carpio was found to be

1.35, 1.42, 1.52, 1.78, 0.92 and 1.84 in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6 respectively. In case of Cyprinus

carpio, the minimum and maximum percentage was recorded as 0.92 and 1.84% in T5 and T6.

Statistical analysis revealed the highly significant (P<0.01) difference in the percentage

of total fat contents among the species, treatments and interaction among the species and

treatments (Table 31). The comparison of ash percentage showed that Cyprinus carpio had a

highest ash contents (1.47%), followed by 1.23% which differ significantly (P<0.05) from that of

Labeo rohita and Catla catla.The mean values of ash percentage among the treatment showed

significant variation among the T5 and T6 but non-significant from each other in T1, T2, T3, T5

and T6 v/s T4, respectively (Table32, Fig. 23).

Fig. 23 depicts that Cyprinus carpio had the prominent effect of fertilization and

supplementary feed on the ash contents . In T1, T2, T3, T4, and T6, Cyprinus carpio showed the

maximum ash contents while minimum in T5. In case of Labeo rohita, T5 showed the higher ash

contents as compare to the other fish species. The lowest ash contents of Catla catla was noted

in T1 and T2 whereas in the case of T3 and T4, Labeo rohita showed the minimum ash contents

but in T5 and T6, Cyprinus carpio, Catla catla and Labeo rohita showed the lowest ash contents

in T6.

70

Carbohydrates:

The carbohydrates percentage in the meat of Labeo rohita in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6

were recorded as 1.15, 0.90, 1.28, 1.37, 1.72 and 1.32%, respectively. Under the influence of

inorganic fertilizer and supplementary feed, minimum was found as 0.90 in T2, whereas the

maximum percentage was being noted as 1.72 in T5. In Catla catla, the carbohydrate contents

were observed as 1.10, 1.44, 1.07, 1.38, 1.13and 1.06% in T1, T2, T3 T4, T5 and T6, respectively.

The carbohydrate contents being minimum (1.06%) and maximum (1.38%) were noted in T6 and

T4. (Table 32, Fig. 24). The Cyprinus carpio showed the minimum and maximum percentage of

carbohydrates in 1.01 and 1.86% in T5 and T6, respectively.

Statistical analysis revealed the highly significant difference in the percentage of

carbohydrates contents among the species, treatments and interaction among the species and

treatments (P< 0.01) (Table 31). Comparison of mean revealed the significant difference in

carbohydrates contents among Cyprinus carpio and Catla catla but Labeo rohita varies non-

significantly (P< 0.05) from other fish species (Table 32).Among these three fish species,

Cyprinus carpio showed the highest carbohydrates percentage (1.86%), which was found in T6,

differ significantly from the other treatments (Table 32). The mean values of ash percentage

among the treatment showed significant variation among the T6 and T3 but non-significant from

each other in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 v/s T5, respectively (Table32, Fig. 24).

Fig. . 24 revealed rhat carbohydrates contents of Cyprinus carpio remained highest in T1,

T3, T4 and T6, except T2 and T5 . Catla catla and Labeo rohita showed the maximum value of

carbohydrates contents in T2 and T5. Amongthe three fish species, Catla catla had the lowest

vlalue in T1,T3 and T6. In case of Labeo rohita and Cyprinus carpio it was found in T2 and T5

by the utilization of nitrophos and supplementary feed. In T4, Labeo rohita, Catla catla and

Cyprinus carpio showed the similar trends in the carbohydrates contents receiving cow manure

and supplementary feed.

71

Table 31: Analysis of variance on proximate composition of three fish species under different treatments.

S.O.V

Moisture Crude protein Total fats Total ash Carbohydrates MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob. MS F Value Prob.

Species

4.54

0.31NS

11.10

5.03*

0.018

0.68

40.59**

0.000

0.24

15.37**

0.000

0.10

6.24**

0.008

Treatments

4. 27

0. 29NS

1. 33

0.60NS

0.32

18.98**

0.000

0. 14

9.06**

0.000

0.54

3. 22**

0.029

Species × Treatments

0.47

0.03NS

0.244

0.11NS 0.07

3.96**

0.005

0.07

4.44**

0.003

0.15

9.09**

0.000

Error

14.43

2.208 0.02

0.02

0.02

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

Moisture

Crude protein

Total fats

Total ash

Carbohydrates SEM( Standard Error Mean) for Species

1.096

0.429

0.037

0.036

0.037

SEM( Standard Error Mean) for Treatments

1.551

0.606

0.053

0.051

0.053

SEM( Standard Error Mean) for Species × Treatments

2.686

1.051

0.092

0.089

0.091

72

Table 32: Comparison of mean on the proximate analysis of three fish species under different treatments Fish Species Treatments Mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Moisture (%)Labeo rohita 78.40 78.90 78.80 78.20 77.22 77.18 78.12 Catla catla 79.42 79.70 79.71 78.50 79.00 78.09 79.07 Cyprinus carpio 80.10 80.35 80.20 78.30 79.45 77.20 79.27 Mean 79.31 79.65 79.57 78.33 78.56 77.49

Crude protein (%)Labeo rohita 18.25 17.90 17.72 18.09 18.30 18.90 18.19 A Catla catla 16.85 16.06 17.09 17.00 17.00 17.55 16.93 AB Cyprinus carpio 15.72 15.65 15.62 16.95 16.80 17.10 16.31 B Mean 16.94 16.54 16.81 17.35 17.37 17.85

Total fats (%)

Labeo rohita 1.05 hi 1.10 ghi 1.08 hi 1.06 hi 1.42 def 1.30 fgh 1.17 B Catla catla 1.55 c-f 1.68 cde 0.95 i 1.62 cde 1.72 bcd 2.02 a 1.59 A Cyprinus carpio 1.42 def 1.28 fgh 1.39 efg 1.52 c-f 1.82 abc 2.00 ab 1.5 7 A Mean 1.34 B 1.35 B 1.14 C 1.40 B 1.65 A 1.77 A

Total ash (%)Labeo rohita 1.15 efg 1.20 d-g 1.12 efg 1.28 c-f 1.34 c-f 1.30 c-f 1.23 B Catla catla 1.08 fg 1.12 efg 1.18 efg 1.50 cd 1.15 efg 1.28 c-f 1.22 B Cyprinus carpio 1.35 c-f 1.42 cde 1.52 bc 1.78 ab 0.92 g 1.84 a 1.47 A Mean 1.19 B 1.25 B 1.27 B 1.52 A 1.14 B 1.47 A

Carbohydrates (%)Labeo rohita 1.15 c-i 0.90 i 1.28 c-h 1.37 c-g 1.72 ab 1.32 c-h 1.29 AB Catla catla 1.10 e-i 1.44 bcd 1.07 f-i 1.38 c-f 1.13 d-i 1.06 ghi 1.20 B Cyprinus carpio 1.41 cde 1.30 c-h 1.27 c-h 1.45 hi 1.01 hi 1.86 a 1.38 A Mean 1.22 B 1.11 B 1.21 B 1.40 AB 1.29 AB 1.41 A

Means sharing similar letter in a row or in a column are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). Small letters represent comparison among interaction means and capital letters are used for overall mean.

73

Figure 20: Moisture contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments

60

65

70

75

80

85

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Moi

stur

e (%

)

Labeo rohita

Catla catla

Cyprinus carpio

74

Figure 21: Crude protein contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments

0

5

10

15

20

25

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Prot

ein

(%)

Labeo rohitaCatla catlaCyprinus carpio

75

Figure 22: Total fat contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Fat (

%)


76

Figure 23: Total ash contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Ash

(%)


77

Figure 24: Carbohydrates contents of fish meat of three species under different treatments

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Treatments

Carb

ohyd

rate

s (%

)


78

j. Cost benefits analysis of three fish species: The cost-benefit analysis of this experimental trail was shown in Table 33. At the final

harvesting, Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio showed the average body weight of

2919.5, 2735.0, 3040.4, 3218.7, 2155.7 and 3590.7g-1fish -1 pond-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,

respectively.

During the experimental trail, various inputs likes’ organic manure, inorganic fertilizers

and supplementary feed were utilized in required doses according to the treatments. These

amounts were recorded as 1824.40 (cow manure), 59.90 (nitrophos), 955.31 and 33.23 (cow

manure and nitrophos), 992.02 and 165.34 (cow manure and supplementary feed), 33.89 and

160.85 (nitrophos and supplementary feed) and 573.05, 19.73 and 188.23 kg-1pond-1 (cow

manure, nitrophos and supplementary feed). According to Table 33, cost of these various inputs

were observed as Rs.912.20, 2396.00, 1806.85, 3802.81, 4572.60 and 4840.32 in T1, T2, T3, T4,

T5 and T6, respectively.

The income of three fish species acre-1 were found to be Rs. 4381.85, 3890.32,4565.30,

4857.80, 4716.0 and 6667.50 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Table 33 revealed that

fixed cost remained as Rs.700 but the total cost difference among the treatments was recorded as

Rs.1612.20, 3096.00, 2506.85, 4502.81, 5272.60 and 5540.33 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,

respectively.

In case of total cost and total income acre-1, T6 remained the best with Rs. 1108066 and

133350.00 as compared to the other treatments. According to the net profit of three fish species

in different treatments, T6 showed the highest benefit of Rs.974716.00 with a total cost of Rs.

1108066 followed by T1, which showed the net profit of Rs. 55393.00 under the influence of cow

manure. Total cost and total income hectare-1, T6 remained the best with Rs. 277016.50 and

333375.00 as compared to the other treatments. The net profit-1 hectare-1, of three fish species in

T6 with the highest profit of Rs.56358.50 with the provision of of cow manure, nitrophos and

supplementary feed. But economical point of view, T1 with low cost inputs (Rs. 32244.00 and

80610.00) showed the maximum production as being feasible to farmers.

79

Table 33: Cost benefits analysis per hectare of three fish species under different treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

No. of socked pond -1 50 50 50 50 50 50

No. of fish harvested pond -1 50 50 50 50 50 50

Harvested fish weight -1fish -1pond-1

Labeo rohita 933.7 923.1 974.8 931.9 1024.6 1215.0

Catla catla 972.1 890.6 1073.0 1181.0 1038.7 1256.7

Cyprinus carpio 1013.7 921.3 992.6 1105.8 992.4 1119.0

Total 2919.5 2735.0 3040.4 3218.7 2155.7 3590.7 Amount of fertilizer-1 feed-1 (kg)

Manure( cow manure) 1824.40 - 955.31 992.02 - 573.05

Inorganic fertilizer (nitrophos) - 59.90 33.23 33.89 19.73

Supplementary feed - - - 165.34 160.85 188.23

Cost of fertilizer feed(kg)

Manure( cow manure) 912.20 - 477.65 496.01 - 286.53

Inorganic fertilizer(nitrophos) - 2396.00 1329.20 - 1355.60 789.20

Supplementary feed - - - 3306.80 3217.00 3764.60

Total 912.20 2396.00 1806.85 3802.81 4572.60 4840.32

Income (Fish sale) -1 acre-1

Labeo rohita 1773.65 1753.70 1851.55 1770.80 2049.00 2916.00

Catla catla 1239.30 961.92 1448.10 1594.80 1402.20 2073.50

Cyprinus carpio 1368.90 1174.70 1265.65 1492.20 1264.80 1678.00

Total 4381.85 3890.32 4565.30 4857.80 4716.00 6667.50

Fixed cost 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00

Total cost of production 1612.20 3096.00 2506.85 4502.81 5271.60 5540.33

Total cost -1 acre-1 32244.00 61920.00 50137.00 90056.20 105452.00 1108066

Total income-1 acre-1 87637.00 77806.40 91306.00 97156.00 94320.00 133350.00

Net profit of all treatments 55393.00 15886.40 41169.00 7099.80 11132.00 974716.00

Total cost -1 hectare-1 80610.00 154800.00 125342.50 225140.50 263630.00 277016.50

Total income-1 hectare-1 219092.50 194516.00 228265.00 243790.00 235800.00 333375.00

Net profit-1 hectare-1 of all treatments 138482.50 39716.00 102922.50 18649.50 27830.00 56358.50

80

4.3 Limnological Studies

Effect of different treatments on the physico-chemical attributes of pond water under

polyculture system:

The physico-chemical parameters of water which were analysed during the course of

study include air temperature, water temperature, pH, light penetration, dissolved oxygen, total

alkalinity, carbonates, bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, total solids, total

dissolved solids and planktonic biomass was estimated on fortnightly and their averages were

calculated on monthly basis for the entire experimental period. These parameters are interlinked

and estimate the water quality by influencing the biological productivity of the pond water.

Air and Water temperature

Water temperature inflicts prominent effects on fish life by directly or indirectly influencing

the aquatic environment. Each organism has specific survival range of environmental

temperature range for its efficient existence and beyond these limits conditions become lethal.

Fish being a cold blooded animal is affected by the temperature of surrounding water in terms of

the body temperature, growth rate, feed consumption, feed conversion and other body functions.

As the average air temperature showed the range from 12.20 to 35.56°C, from August to

July (Table 34). The overall range of water temperature were 10.32 to 33.12, 10.32 to 33.38,

10.57 to 33.56, 10.22 to 33.05, 10.64 to 33.38 and 10.22 to 33.54 °C in T1, T2, T3, T4,T5 and T6,

respectively (Table 34, Fig. 25). The minimum average value was recorded during the January

while maximum values for water temperature were found during July, in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and

T6,that differ significantly varies from rest of the months, respectively. Statistical analysis

showed a highly significant (P <0.01), difference for water temperature among the different

month of experiment, while remained non-significant(P >0.01) among the different treatments.

(Table 35, Fig. 25).

Secchi disc penetration

Light exerts a very prominent influence on the whole series of biological phenomenon in

water by affecting the photosynthetic activity of all the chlorophyll bearing aquatic plants and

81

thus responsible for primary production. Natural water has inclusion of various substances which

affect light penetration. It proves to be a limiting factor in distribution of organisms in water,

particularly the planktons. The overall seasonal fluctuations in light penetration, varied from

12.40 to 25.30, 12.30 to 23.00, 11.20 to 22.90, 12.50 to 20.00, 12.10 to 19.20 and 12.10 to

20.40cm in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, as shown in (Table 34, Fig. 26). The minimum vlues of

secchi disc penetration were observed in July in T1, T2, T3, and T4 while in T5 and T6, it was

recorded in June and September. The maximum light penetration recorded in T1, T2 and T3 was

recorded during August while T4, T5 and T6 showed maximum light penetration was noted in

February. Statistically, there was a highly significant difference (P <0.01) among the months and

the treatments of the experiment (Table 35, Fig. 26).Comparison of mean of light penetration

revealed a highly significant variation in T6 with respect to T1 while non-significant difference

was noted in T1, T2, T3, and T4 and T1, T2, T3, respectively.

82

Table 34: Seasonal variations in air, water temperature and secchi’s disc penetration of pond water under different treatments

Months Air

temp (OC)

Water temperature (OC) Secchi’s disc penetration (cm)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 31.12 29.64 29.21 28.21 28.57 28.10 28.22 25.30 23.00 22.90 14.40 14.20 14.20

01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 29.34 27.32 27.57 26.70 26.10 26.10 26.39 22.00 21.20 22.40 14.60 12.60 12.10

01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 20.15 18.32 18.31 18.57 18.22 18.39 18.10 22.00 18.60 20.30 15.40 14.50 13.70

01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 17.20 15.22 15.39 15.45 15.57 15.31 15.21 20.30 19.40 18.30 17.30 18.20 17.40

01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 15.25 13.32 13.10 13.64 13.31 13.21 13.10 21.20 20.50 19.00 19.30 19.00 19.70

01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 12.30 11.22 11.39 11.39 11.10 11.57 11.22 25.10 20.50 19.00 19.00 19.10 19.00

01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 12.20 10.32 10.32 10.57 10.22 10.64 10.22 20.90 20.60 19.40 20.00 19.20 20.40

01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 20.20 18.45 18.31 18.10 18.32 18.39 18.32 17.20 16.10 16.30 17.40 16.30 17.00

01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 31.06 29.05 29.33 29.10 29.12 29.00 29.38 15.60 14.10 14.50 15.10 14.30 14.50

01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006

33.50 30.85 30.05 30.23 30.85 30.16 30.00 13.00 13.10 13.30 14.40 13.70 13.30

01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 32.65 31.34 31.12 31.38 31.16 31.15 31.12 12.40 12.30 11.30 13.10 12.10 12.30

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 35.56 33.12 33.38 33.56 33.05 33.38 33.54 12.40 12.30 11.20 12.50 12.80 12.90

83

Table 35: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in water temperature (°C) and secchi disc penetration (cm) of pond water under different treatments

S.O.V

d.f

Water temperature (°C) Secchi disc penetration (cm) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.

Months 11 434.68 4609.9** 0.00 52.59 11.47** 0.00 Treatments 5 0.14 1.52NS 0.19 22.67 4.95** 0.00 Error 55 0.09 4.58 Total 71 Water temperature Secchi disc penetration SEM for Months 0.1254 0.8739 SEM For Treatments 0.0886 0.6180 Comparison of Means Months August 28.65 E 19.00 ABC September 26.69 F 17.48 BC October 18.31 G 17.42 BC November 15.35 H 18.48 ABC December 13.28 I 19.78 AB January 11.31 J 20.28 A February 10.38 K 20.08 AB March 18.31 G 16.72 CD April 29.16 D 14.68 DE May 30.35 C 13.47 E June 31.21 B 12.25 E July 33.33 A 12.35 E Treatments

T1 22.34 18.95 A T2 22.29 17.64 AB T3 22.24 17.33 ABC T4 22.13 16.04 BC T5 22.11 15.50 C T6 22.06 15.54 C

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

84

Figure 25: Seasonal variations in water temperature of pond water under different treatments

7

12

17

22

27

32

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun Jul

Months

Wat

er te

mpe

ratu

re (°

C)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

85

Figure 26: Seasonal variations in secchi disc penetration of pond water under different treatments

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

Aug

Sept Oct

Nov

Dec Jan

Feb

Mar Ap

r

May Jun

Jul

Months

Secc

hi's

dis

c vi

sibi

lity

T1T2T3T4T5T6

86

Dissolved oxygen: There are two main sources of dissolved oxygen in water are by diffusion from air and

photosynthetic activity of the plant. The ability of water to retain oxygen is strongly determined

by the salts concentration and the temperature greatly of water. The solubility of oxygen

increases with the decrease in temperature, while it decreases with the increase in salinity.

Dissolved oxygen depends upon the surface area, circulation of water by wind or wave action

and the amount produced and consumed by living organism. Therefore, a daily seasonal and

spatial variation can be expected in dissolved oxygen levels of natural water.

The seasonal variations in average dissolved oxygen were noted as 5.1 to 8.5, 5.8 to 8.5,

5.1 to 8.5, 5.3 to 8.1, 5.4 to 8.3 and 5.5 to 8.1 mg L-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.

The minimum value 5.1 mg L-1 was observed in T1 and T3 during July-August, whereas, the

maximum value 8.5 mgL-1 was found in T3 during January (Table 36, Fig. 27). Statistical

analysis showed a highly significant difference for dissolved oxygen among the different

month of experiment (P <0.05), while remainecd non-significant among the different

treatments, respectively (Table 37, Fig, 27). Seasonal variation in dissolved oxygen was

maximum and statistically significant during the month of Deember, January and Feburary.

However it varied non-significantly (P >0.05) in November and March but was significantly

different from the dissolved oxygen in rest of the year.

pH: pH is the measure of hydrogen ion concentration. Each organism has its maximum and

minimum toleration range of pH. It can be regarded as index of environmental condition. The

water used in fish culture is chemically not pure and contains different substances, which make

it acidic, neutral and alkaline in reaction in terms of pH. The majority of natural water has an

alkaline pH, due the presence of sufficient quantities of carbonates and bicarbonates It

increases during the day largely due to the photosynthetic activity, whereas decreases at night

due to respiratory activity.

The range of pH in different treatments is presented in Table 36 and Fig. 28. The

average pH value ranged from 7.8 to 8.5 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. Statistical

analysis showed that there was a non-significant(P >0.05) difference among the treatments and

months (Table 37).

87

Table 36: Seasonal variations in dissolved oxygen and pH of pond water under different treatments

Months Dissolved oxygen (mg L-1)

pH

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 5.5 5.8 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.5 8.0 8.1 8.4 8.0 8.5 8.4

01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005

5.6 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.9 6.2 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.5 8.3 8.5

01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005

6.2 6.9 6.8 6.1 6.8 6.9 8.5 7.9 8.5 8.3 8.5 7.9

01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005

8.1 7.9 7.6 7.3 6.8 7.3 8.3 8.2 8.5 8.3 8.5 7.8

01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005

7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.9 8.2 8.1 8.5 8.1 8.5 8.1

01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006

8.5 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.3 7.9 8.0 8.3 8.0 8.3 7.8 8.2

01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 8.5 8.1 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.5 8.3 8.0 8.5 8.3 8.4

01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006

6.3 7.1 7.3 7.8 7.2 7.5 8.5 8.0 8.4 8.1 8.0 8.1

01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006

5.2 6.5 6.8 7.2 7.0 7.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.5 8.5

01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006

6.5 6.6 6.5 6.9 6.9 6.3 8.4 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.2 8.3

01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006

5.5 6.1 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.5 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.5

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006

5.1 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 8.5 8.4 8.1 7.8 8.5 8.3

88

Table 37: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in dissolved oxygen (mgL-1) and pH of pond water under different treatments

S.O.V

d.f

Dissolved oxygen (mg L-1) pH MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.

Months 11 5.74 40.56** 0.00 0.03 0.60 NS Treatments 5 0.22 1.59NS 0.176 0.03 0.63 NS Error 55 0.14 0.047 Total 71 Dissolved oxygen pH SEM for Months 0.1536 0.0886 SEM For Treatments 0.1086 0.0627 Comparison of means Months August 5.43 E 8.23 September 5.72 E 8.28 October 6.62 C 8.26 November 7.50 B 8.26 December 8.02 A 8.25 January 8.28 A 8.10 February 8.10 A 8.33 March 7.20 B 8.18 April 6.62 C 8.30 May 6.62 C 8.36 June 6.18 CD 8.28 July 5.80 DE 8.26 Treatments

T1 6.57 8.29 T2 6.96 8.19 T3 6.86 8.30 T4 6.85 8.21 T5 6.87 8.31 T6 6.93 8.25

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

89

Figure 27: Seasonal variations in dissolved oxygen of pond water under different treatments

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun Jul

Months

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n (m

g/L)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

90

Figure 28: Seasonal variations in the pH of pond water under the different treatments

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun Jul

Months

pHT1T2T3T4T5T6

91

Total alkalinity:

Carbonates and bicarbonates are the most common ions present in water which

are the major cause of increase in alkalinity because carbonate minerals particularly

calcium carbonate occur abundantly in nature. The wide range of fluctuations in

alkalinity levels depends upon the location, season, plankton population and nature of

sediments. The overall range in the total alkalinity is shown in Table 38. The average

total alkalinity varied from 403.0 to 490.5, 405.5 to 529.5, 400.5 to 520.0, 399.5 to

581.0, 430.5 to 560.5 and 425.5 to 501.5 mg L-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.

The minimum average value of alkalinity (399.5 mg L-1) was recorded in the treatment

T4 during December while maximum average alkalinity (581.0 mgL-1 ) was noticed in

treatment T4 during September (Table 38, Fig. 29). There was a statistically non-

significant difference(P >0.05) for months but significant(P <0.05) in response to

treatments .There was a non-significant difference existed among T2, T3, T4, T6 and T1

v/s T5 (Table 39).

Carbonates and bicarbonates:

Carbonates and bicarbonates present in natural water, determine the quality of

water in terms of alkalinity.

The average carbonates values showed the seasonal variation from 45.0 to 85.0,

50.0 to 85.0, 48.0 to 80.0, 50.0 to 80.0, 50.0 to 90.0 and 60.0 to 90.0 mgL-1 while

bicarbonates were recorded as 321.5 to 426.5, 335.5 to 469.5, 330.5 to 470.0, 329.5 to

511.0, 351.5 to 490.5 and 345.5 to 441.5 mgL-1 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.

The minimum average values of carbonates and bicarbonates 45 and 321.5 mg L-1were

recorded in the treatment T1 during May and November. The maximum average

carbonate and bicarbonate values (85.0 mg L-1 and 511.0 mg L-1) were observed in T1

and T4 during November and September (Table 38, 40, Fig. 30, 31). There was a

statistically non-significant(P >0.05) difference existed between months and in

response to seasonal variations in carbonates and bicarbonates under different

treatments (Table 39, 41).

92

Table 38: Seasonal variations in total alkalinity and carbonates of pond water under different treatments

Months Total alkalinity (mg L-1) Carbonates (mg L-1)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 465.0 502.5 475.5 425.0 510.5 475.0 80.0 60.0 75.0 65.0 90.0 70.0

01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 460.0 463.5 470.5 581.0 431.5 500.5 60.0 65.0 48.0 70.0 80.0 80.0

01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 486.5 490.0 520.0 485.5 510.0 499.0 60.0 70.0 50.0 80.0 60.0 60.0

01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 406.5 405.5 441.0 500.5 502.5 475.5 85.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 70.0 70.0

01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 490.5 529.5 450.5 399.5 540.5 425.5 70.0 60.0 80.0 70.0 50.0 80.0

01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 480.0 482.0 502.0 400.0 560.5 485.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 60.0 80.0 90.0

01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 425.5 502.5 430.5 485.0 470.5 475.5 50.0 63.0 60.0 50.0 70.0 70.0

01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 410.5 423.5 470.5 475.5 501.0 475.5 80.0 65.0 70.0 60.0 80.0 60.0

01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 403.0 462.5 480.0 482.5 500.5 485.0 80.0 60.0 50.0 80.0 60.0 60.0

01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 405.0 460.0 480.5 435.0 510.5 475.0 45.0 65.0 50.0 70.0 60.0 80.0

01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 465.0 462.0 400.5 510.5 501.0 455.0 50.0 85.0 70.0 80.0 80.0 80.0

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 425.5 480.0 500.5 455.0 430.5 501.5 50.0 50.0 80.0 60.0 60.0 60.0

93

Table 39: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in total alkalinity (mgL-1) and carbonates (mgL-1) of pond water under different treatments

S.O.V

d.f

Total alkalinity (mg L-1) Carbonates (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.

Months 11 947.07 0.674 NS 200.98 1.62NS 0.117 Treatments 5 3600.07 2.56 * 0.03 85.53 0.69NS Error 55 1404.70 123.62 Total 71 Total alkalinity Carbonates SEM for Months 15.301 4.539 SEM For Treatments 10.819 3.210 Comparison of means Months August 475.58 73.33 September 484.50 67.16 October 498.50 63.33 November 455.25 70.00 December 472.66 68.33 January 484.91 78.33 February 464.91 60.50 March 459.51 69.16 April 468.91 65.00 May 461.00 61.66 June 465.66 74.16 July 465.50 60.00 Treatments

T1 443.58 A 65.83 T2 471.95 AB 66.08 T3 468.50 AB 64.83 T4 469.58 AB 67.08 T5 497.45 A 70.00 T6 477.33 AB 71.66

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

94

Figure 29: Seasonal variations in total alkalinity of pond water under the different treatments

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Aug

Sept Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun

Jul

Months

Tota

l alkalin

ity (m

g/L)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

95

Figure 30: Seasonal variations in the carbonates of pond water under different treatments

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun Jul

Months

Car

bona

tes

(mg/

L)T1T2T3T4T5T6

96

Total hardness:

The hardness of water is generally due to the presence of salts of calcium and

magnesium. Hardness is also caused by the presence of carbonates and bicarbonates.

The hardness of water plays an important role in the distribution of aquatic organisms.

Calcium and magnesium are also concerned in controlling the permeability of living

tissues to water and solutes and are essential components of the outer covering of many

arthropods and mollusks.

Data presented in Table 40 revealed statistically significant results. The overall

range of total hardness was recorded as 190 to 245, 193 to 246, 202 to 255, 202 to 240,

203 to 250 and 205 to 245 mg L-1 for the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,

respectively. The minimum average value of total hardness (190.0 mg L-1) was recorded

in the treatment T1 during October while maximum concentration (255 mg L-1) of total

hardness was recorded in treatment T3 during January (Table 40, Fig. 32). There was a

statistically significant difference(P <0.05) for months and non-significant(P >0.05)

difference in response to different treatments (Table 41).

97

Table 40: Seasonal variations in bicarbonates and total hardness of pond water under different treatments

Months Bicarbonates (mg L-1) Total hardness (mg L-1 ) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 385.0 442.5 400.5 360.0 420.5 405.0 215 212 220 223 203 245

01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 400.0 398.5 422.5 511.0 351.5 420.5 228 246 212 210 210 205

01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 426.5 420.0 470.0 405.5 450.0 439.0 190 193 203 202 225 235

01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 321.5 335.5 376.0 440.5 432.5 405.5 202 245 202 190 218 221

01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 420.5 469.5 370.5 329.5 490.5 345.5 245 215 248 215 220 221

01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 400.0 402.0 422.0 340.0 480.5 395.0 236 213 255 235 241 200

01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 375.5 439.5 370.5 435.0 400.5 405.5 230 218 249 218 220 205

01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 330.5 358.5 400.5 415.5 421.0 415.5 220 203 245 240 215 230

01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 323.0 402.5 430.0 402.5 440.5 425.0 201 202 210 209 212 215

01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 360.0 395.0 430.5 365.0 450.5 395.0 200 204 210 209 203 210

01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 415.0 377.0 330.5 430.5 421.0 375.0 240 242 215 236 250 230

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 375.5 430.0 420.5 395.0 370.5 441.5 211 200 218 221 230 215

98

Table 41: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in bicarbonates (mg L-1) and total hardness (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments S.O.V

d.f

Bicarbonates (mg L-1) Total hardness (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.

Months 11 1025.28 0.64NS 532.98 2.39* 0.016 Treatments 5 2994.76 1.86NS 0.1152 92.25 0.41NS Error 55 1604.38 222.74 Total 71 Bicarbonates Total hardness SEM for Months 16.35 6.09 SEM For Treatments 11.56 4.31 Comparison of means Months August 402.25 219.67 A-D September 417.33 218.50 A-D October 435.16 208.00 CD November 385.25 213.00 BCD December 404.33 227.33 ABC January 406.58 230.00 AB February 404.41 223.33 A-D March 390.25 225.50 A-D April 403.91 208.17 CD May 399.33 206.00 D June 391.50 235.50 A July 405.50 215.83 A-D Treatments

T1 337.75 218.17 T2 405.87 216.08 T3 403.66 223.92 T4 402.50 217.33 T5 427.45 220.58 T6 405.66 219.33

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean.Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

99

Figure 31: Seasonal variations in bicarbonates of pond water under different treatments

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Aug

Sept Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun Jul

Months

Bic

arbo

nate

s (m

g/L)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

100

Figure 32: Seasonal variations in the total hardness of pond water under the different treatments

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

Aug

Sept Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun Jul

Months

Tota

l har

dnes

s (m

g/L)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

101

Calcium:

Calcium is one of the most abundant ions present in fresh water in the form of

calcium carbonate, being soluble in water. Data pertaining to calcium in pond water are

given in Table 42 and Fig. 33. The average value of calcium under the influence of

different treatments was ranged from 16.0 to 26.3, 16.0 to 26.8, 16.0 to 24.0, 16.0 to 24.5,

14.4 to 24.0 and 19.0 to 26.0 mg L-1 for the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,

respectively. The minimum average value of calcium (14.4 mg L-1) was recorded in the

treatment T5 during August. The maximum concentration (26.8 mg L-1) of calcium was

recorded in treatment T2 during November. Statistically non-significant (P >0.05)

relationship was found among months as well as different treatment for the concentration

of calcium (Table 43).

Magnesium:

Magnesium concentration in ponds is absolutely essential for chlorophyll bearing

aquatic plants for photosynthetic activity. It is present in water in the form of magnesium

carbonate, sulphate and chloride. The overall range of magnesium concentration is given in

(Table 42, Fig. 34). It ranges from 32.81 to 48.56, 31.81 to 48.81, 36.12 to 48.75, 35.93 to

48.75, 37.50 to 49.31 and 37.37 to 49.12 mg L-1 with minimum value (31.81 mg L-1) found

in treatment T2 in December and maximum value (49.12 mg L-1) observed in treatment T6

in August. Statistically significant difference(P <0.05) was found in monthly variation but

non significant (P >0.05) difference for treatments of magnesium concentration (Table

43).

102

Table 42: Seasonal variations in calcium and magnesium of pond water under different treatments

Months Calcium (mg L-1 ) Magnesium (mg L-1 ) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 21.2 16.0 22.3 22.5 14.4 19.4 40.50 43.00 41.06 41.68 41.75 49.12

01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 21.2 20.3 16.0 22.0 19.5 21.5 43.75 48.81 43.00 38.75 40.31 37.81

01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 23.5 22.5 23.4 23.3 21.0 22.3 32.81 34.18 36.12 35.93 43.13 44.81

01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 26.3 26.8 20.0 16.0 21.0 22.2 34.06 44.50 38.00 37.50 41.37 41.37

01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 23.0 23.9 23.3 24.5 20.3 26.0 37.50 31.81 47.43 38.43 42.31 39.00

01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 24.0 24.1 24.0 16.0 17.5 19.0 44.00 38.18 48.75 48.75 49.31 38.12

01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 24.6 24.0 23.3 23.0 24.0 22.2 42.12 39.50 47.68 40.12 40.00 37.37

01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 16.0 22.5 22.0 21.2 22.3 23.0 45.00 36.68 47.50 46.75 39.81 43.12

01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 19.0 18.5 20.4 20.3 22.0 21.8 38.37 38.93 39.75 39.56 39.25 40.12

01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 20.4 18.4 19.4 20.5 21.2 23.0 37.25 39.50 40.37 39.43 37.50 38.12

01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 18.3 19.5 20.5 21.6 22.3 24.0 48.56 48.31 40.93 45.50 48.56 42.50

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 21.4 21.0 22.3 21.2 22.0 21.2 39.37 36.87 40.56 42.00 43.75 40.50

103

Table 43: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in calcium (mg L-1) and magnesium (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments

S.O.V

d.f

Calcium (mg L-1) Magnesium (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.

Months 11 10.71 1.83 NS 0.07 36.31 2.57* 0.01 Treatments 5 3.17 0.54 NS 12.82 0.91NS Error 55 5.85 14.14 Total 71 Calcium Magnesium SEM for Months 0.98 1.53 SEM For Treatments 0.69 1.08 Comparison of means Months August 19.30 42.85 A-D September 20.08 42.07 A-D October 22.66 37.83 D November 22.05 39.46 CD December 23.50 39.41 CD January 20.76 44.51 AB February 23.51 41.13 A-D March 21.16 43.14 ABC April 20.33 39.33 CD May 20.48 38.69 CD June 21.03 45.72 A July 21.51 40.50 BCD Treatments

T1 21.57 40.27 T2 21.45 40.02 T3 21.40 42.59 T4 21.00 41.20 T5 20.62 42.25 T6 22.13 40.99

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05).

104

Figure 33: Seasonal variations in calcium of pond water under different treatments

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Ju

n Jul

Months

Cal

cium

(mg/

L)T1T2T3T4T5T6

105

Figure 34: Seasonal variations in the magnesium of pond water under different treatments

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Ju

n Jul

Months

Mag

nesi

um (m

g/L)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

106

Total solids:

Total solids present in natural water comprises of suspended and dissolved material,

plankton, finely divided substances of organic origins, silt and non living substances. Total solids

in any water body affect the availability of natural food to fish in aquatic environment. The annual

changes in the average concentration of total solids are shown in Table 44 and Fig. 35.

During the experimental period, the average value of total solids was found to be 1394.38

to 1605.00, 1390.50 to 1573.20, 1370.00 to 1568.20, 1334.25 to 1608.50, 1413.50 to 1612.20 and

1460.20 to 1558.20 mg L-1in the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively (Table 44). The

treatment T3 gave lowest value (1370.00 mg L-1) in August while the highest value (1612.20 mg L-

1) of total solids was recorded in T5 in January. Statistical analysis of the data showed the highly

significant (P <0.01) difference for the months and significant (P <0.05) for the treatments

(Table 45, Fig, 35).

Total dissolved solids:

Natural water contains dissolved solids. Total dissolved solid is a measurement by weight

of total amount of material dissolved in measured volume of water. A large number of salts are

found in natural water in dissolved form. The common ones are: carbonates, bicarbonates,

chlorides, phosphates and nitrates of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and manganese etc.

The quantity and the quality of dissolved solids depends on the nature of basin, erosion of

shoreline, wind blow material, rainfall, inflow of seepage and decay of organic matter. Total

dissolved solids play an important role directly or indirectly in the biology of aquatic organism.

The average value of total dissolved solids is given in Table 44 and Fig. 36.

The minimum value (1230 mg L-1) was noted in treatment T4 in December while the

maximum value (1510 mg L-1) was observed in treatment T5 in January. The average value of total

dissolved solids showed the seasonal fluctuation of 1340 to 1480, 1290 to 1460, 1280 to 1450,

1230 t0 1490, 1310 to 1510 and 1340 to 1450 mg L-1in different treatments. Statistically, for total

dissolved solids, highly significant (P <0.01) difference was noted among the month and

significant(P <0.05) difference in the treatments (Table 45).

107

Table 44: Seasonal variations in total solids and total dissolved solids of pond water under different treatments

Months Total solids (mg L-1 ) Total dissolved solids (mg L-1 ) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 1394.38 1398.50 1370.00 1478.25 1480.50 1466.37 1340 1340 1310 1350 1350 1340

01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 1428.37 1432.76 1415.47 1470.35 1491.55 1480.75 1350 1360 1340 1340 1360 1350

01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 1429.81 1433.62 1445.39 1480.65 1502.25 1495.30 1340 1340 1360 1360 1380 1370

01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 1530.20 1515.55 1496.50 1489.25 1565.30 1558.20 1430 1410 1390 1380 1460 1450

01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 1458.25 1390.50 1392.20 1334.25 1413.50 1460.20 1360 1290 1290 1230 1310 1350

01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 1444.20 1561.50 1383.25 1514.30 1612.20 1523.20 1380 1460 1280 1410 1510 1420

01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 1578.20 1555.80 1544.20 1550.80 1568.90 1521.20 1470 1450 1440 1450 1470 1420

01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 1595.20 1570.20 1568.20 1546.20 1530.20 1548.20 1480 1450 1450 1430 1420 1440

01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 1605.00 1573.20 1539.20 1608.50 1547.20 1548.20 1480 1450 1420 1490 1430 1430

01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 1492.20 1490.20 1468.30 1465.20 1541.20 1470.20 1360 1360 1340 1340 1420 1350

01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 1525.50 1522.20 1508.20 1495.20 1478.25 1485.80 1390 1390 1370 1370 1350 1360

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 1472.20 1448.20 1452.30 1486.50 1468.30 1475.20 1340 1320 1330 1360 1340 1350

108

Table 45: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in total solids (mg L-1) and total dissolved solids (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments S.O.V

d.f

Total solids (mg L-1) Total dissolved solids (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob. MS F.Value Prob.

Months 11 15996.91 12.43** 0.00 14796.97 15.47** 0.00 Treatments 5 3351.49 2.60* 0.035 2370.00 2.48* 0.043 Error 55 1286.69 956.06 Total 71 Total solids Total dissolved solids SEM for Months 14.64 12.62 SEM For Treatments 10.35 8.92 Comparison of means Months August 1432.39 EF 1338.3 CD September 1453.20 DE 1350.0 C October 1464.50 CDE 1358.3 C November 1525.83 AB 1420.0 AB December 1408.15 F 1305.0 D January 1506.44 BC 1410.0 B February 1553.18 A 1450.0 A March 1559.70 A 1445.0 AB April 1570.21 A 1450.0 A May 1487.88 BCD 1361.7 C June 1502.52 BC 1371.7 C July 1467.11 CDE 1340.0 CD Treatments

T1 1496.12 AB 1393.3 A T2 1491.01 AB 1385.0 AB T3 1465.79 B 1360.0 B T4 1493.28 AB 1375.8 AB T5 1516.61 A 1400.0 A T6 1502.73 A 1385.8 AB

* = Significant (P<0.01); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05). .

109

Figure 35: Seasonal variations in total solids of pond water under different treatments

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Ju

n Jul

Months

Tota

l sol

ids

(mg/

L)T1T2T3T4T5T6

110

Figure 36: Seasonal variations in total dissolved solids of pond water different treatments

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May Jun

Jul

Months

Total disso

lved

solids (m

g/L)

T1T2T3T4T5T6

111

Planktonic biomass:

Planktonic biomass includes the complete biotic components (producers, consumers

and decomposers) of the pond ecosystem. Planktonic biomass data is given in Table 46.

Data presented in Table revealed that the results statistically significant. Lowest value

(54.38 mg L-1) was obtained in T1 in August while the highest planktonic biomass value

(138.20 mg L-1) was observed in treatment T3 in June. The overall planktonic biomass

value ranged from 54.38 to 135.50, 58.50 to 132.20, 60.00 to 138.20, 100.80 to 130.35,

98.90 to 131.55 and 101.20 to 130.75 mg L-1 in the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6,

respectively (Table 46, Fig. 37). Statistical analysis revealed the highly significant(P <0.01)

difference in monthly variation of planktonic biomass, however, significant (P <0.05)

difference was observed for treatments (Table 47).

112

Table 46: Seasonal variations in planktonic biomass of pond water under different treatments

Months Planktonic biomass (mg L-1 ) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

01-08-2005 to 31-08-2005 54.38 58.50 60.00 128.25 130.50 126.37

01-09-2005 to 30-09-2005 78.37 72.76 75.47 130.35 131.55 130.75

01-10-2005 to 31-10-2005 89.81 93.62 85.39 120.65 122.25 125.30

01-11-2005 to 30-11-2005 100.20 105.55 106.50 109.25 105.30 108.20

01-12-2005 to 31-12-2005 98.25 100.50 102.20 104.25 103.50 110.20

01-01-2006 to 31-01-2006 64.20 101.50 103.25 104.30 102.20 103.20

01-02-2006 to 28-02-2006 108.20 105.80 104.20 100.80 98.90 101.20

01-03-2006 to 31-03-2006 115.20 120.20 118.20 116.20 110.20 108.20

01-04-2006 to 30-04-2006 125.00 123.20 119.20 118.50 117.20 118.20

01-05-2006 to 31-05-2006 132.20 130.20 128.30 125.20 121.20 120.20

01-06-2006 to 30-06-2006 135.50 132.20 138.20 125.20 128.25 125.80

01-07-2006 to 31-07-2006 132.20 128.20 122.30 126.50 128.30 125.20

113

Table 47: Analysis of variance on seasonal variations in planktonic biomass (mg L-1) of pond water under different treatments

S.O.V

d.f

Planktonic biomass (mg L-1) MS F. Value Prob.

Months 11 890.35 4.01** 0.00 Treatments 5 474.79 2.14* 0.07 Error 55 221.74 Total 71 Planktonic biomass SEM for Months 6.08 SEM For Treatments 4.29 Months August 93.00 C September 103.20 BC October 106.17 BC November 105.83 BC December 103.15 BC January 101.44 BC February 103.18 BC March 114.70 AB April 120.21 AB May 126.21 A June 130.85 A July 127.11 A Treatments

T1 105.29 A T2 106.01 A T3 105.26 B T4 117.45 C T5 116.61 D T6 116.90 E

* = Significant (P<0.01); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01) SEM = Standard error of mean. Means sharing similar letter are statistically non-significant (P>0.05)

114

Figure 37: Seasonal variations in the Planktonic biomass of pond water under different treatments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Ju

n Jul

Months

Plan

kton

ic b

iom

ass

(mg/

L)

T1

T2T3

T4

T5

T6

115

Studies of correlation coefficient among different water attributes under

different treatments Among the six different treatments, correlation among the water quality attributes

was studied during the experimental trial for one year as depicted in Table 48-53.

1. Cow manure fertilized pond (T1)

The water temperature showed negative but significant correlation with secchi disc

penetration while it was found to be negative and highly significantly correlated with

dissolved oxygen. Negative and non significant correlation was observed with PH, total

alkalinity, carbonates, bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium, total solids and total

dissolved solids as obvious from Table 48. According to statistical analysis, water

temperature is positively and non-significantly correlated with magnesium and planktonic

biomass. Secchi disc penetration is found to be negatively and non-significantly

correlated with pH, magnesium, total solids and total dissolved solids. However it

showed positive and non-significant correlation with dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity,

carbonates, bicarbonates, total hardness and calcium. In contrast, it showed highly

significant and negative correlation with the planktonic biomass (P<0.001).

The statistical analysis indicated that dissolved oxygen is negatively and non-

significantly correlated with pH, magnesium and planktonic biomass, but it had non-

significant and positively correlation with total alkalinity carbonates, bicarbonates, total

hardness, total solids and total dissolved solids. It had also shown positive and significant

correlation with calcium.

pH showed negative and non-significant correlation with total alkanity, CO3, HCO3,

total hardness, calcium and magnesium but in case of total solids, total dissolved solids

and planktonic biomass,it showed positive and non-significant relationship.

Table 48 depicted the negative and non-significant correlation of total alkalinity with

carbonates and planktonic biomass (P >0.05) but positive and non-significant relationship

was observed with bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium and magnesium. Total alkalinity

showed negative but significant correlation with total dissolved solids and higly

significant correlation with total solids

116

Carbonates showed negative and non-significant correlation with bicarbonates,

total hardness, magnesium and planktonic biomass. With the total dissolved solids, total

solids and calcium, positive and non-significant correlation was noted.

In case of bicarbonates, positive and non-significant correlation was observed

with total hardness, calcium and magnesium (P> 0.05). Negative and significant

correlation was noted with total solids and total dissolved solids while negative and non-

significant correlation was observed with bicarbonates and planktonic biomass.

Statistical analysis for water quality attributes showed the negative and non-

significant correlation of total hardness with calcium, total solids and planktonic biomass

but positive and non-significant relationship was observed with magnesium and total

dissolved solids.

Calcium showed the negative and non-significant correlation with magnesium

total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass (P > 0.05) but magnesium

showed positive and non-significant correlation with total solids, total dissolved solids

and planktonic biomass. Total solids showed positive and non-significant correlation with

total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass. Total dissolved solids also showed the

positive and non-significnat correlation with planktonic biomass.

117

Table 48: Correlation co-efficient among various physico-chemical parameters of pond water in T1. WT SDP DO pH TA CO3 HCO3 TH Ca Mg TS TDS

SDP -0.600*

DO -0.901** 0.469

pH -0.019 -0.558 -0.025

TA -0.232 0.546 0.116 -0.319

CO3 -0.348 0.526 0.198 -0.571 -0.009

HCO3 -0.073 0.289 0.027 -0.064 0.917 -0.407

TH -0.286 0.175 0.325 -0.242 0.465 -0.048 0.444

Ca -0.574 0.536 0.678* -0.119 0.239 0.068 0.191 -0.054

Mg 0.142 -0.130 -0.139 -0.103 0.101 -0.125 0.142 0.706 -0.535

TS -0.120 -0.496 0.086 0.399 -0.720** 0.064 -0.684* -0.058 -0.335 0.174

TDS -0.329 -0.159 0.239 0.178 -0.620* 0.326 -0.696* 0.001 -0.215 0.194 0.932

PB 0.270 -0.912** -0.141 0.575 -0.522 -0.460 -0.293 -0.058 -0.375 0.144 0.643 0.346

{2-Tailed, * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01);NS= Non-Significant(P>0.05)} WT = Water temperature, SDP = Secchi disc penetration, DO = Dissolved oxygen, TA = Total alkalinity, CO3 = Carbonates HCO3 = Bicorbonates, TH = Total hardness, Ca = Calcium, Mg = Magnesium, TS = Total solids, TDS = Total dissolved solids, PB = Planktonic biomass

118

2. Nitrophos Treated Pond (T2):

The correlation co-efficient among the various water quality parameter under the

influence of inorganic fertilizers (nitrophos) are shown in Table 49. The correlation co-

efficient between the water temperature and secchi disc penetration was negative and

non-significant but with dissolved oxygen and calcium, it was found to have negative and

highly significant correlation. A positive and non-significant correlation was observed

with pH, magnesium and planktonic biomass. Negative and non-significant correlation

was noted with total alkanity, carbonates, bicarbonates, total hardness, total solids and

total dissolved solids.

Secchi disc penetration showed positive and non-significant (P> 0.05) correlation

with dissolved oxygen, total alkanity, carbonates, bicarbonate, total hardness, magnesium

and calcium. It was also obvious from Table 49 that total solids and total dissolved solids,

it was found to be negatively and non-significantly correlated with pH. It showed

negative but highly significant correlation with planktonic biomass (P< 0.01). The

correlation between dissolved oxygen and pH, total total hardness and magnesium was

noted as negative and non-significant. Correlation was observed to be positive and non-

significant with total alkalinity, carbonates, bicarbonates, total solids, total dissolved

solids and planktonic biomass. Dissolved oxygen showed positive and highly significant

correlation with calcium.

pH showed the negative and non-significant correlation with total alkalinity,

bicarbonates and calcium while positive and non-significant correlation was obvious with

carbonates, total hardness, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic

biomass (P> 0.05). Total alkalinity showed negative and non-significant correlation co-

efficient (P> 0.01) with carbonates, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, total solids, total

dissolved solids and planktonic biomass. Positive and highly significant (P< 0.01)

correlation existed with total alkalinity and bicarbonates.

Carbonates correlated negatively and non-significantly with bicarbonates whereas

positive and non-significant correlation was noted with total hardness, calcium,

magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass. In contrast

bicarbonates showed the negative but non-significant correlation (P >0.05) with total

hardness, calcium, magnesium, total dissolved solids, total solids and planktonic biomass.

119

Table 49: Correlation co-efficient among various physico-chemical parameters of pond water in T2.

WT SDP DO pH TA CO3 HCO3 TH Ca Mg TS TDS SDP -0.586* DO -0.932** 0.388 pH 0.281 -0.478 -0.053 TA -0.129 0.339 0.116 -0.020 CO3 -0.234 0.001 0.247 0.118 -0.246 HCO3 -0.059 0.308 0.044 -0.048 0.970** -0.473 TH -0.027 0.230 -0.001 0.243 -0.321 0.439 -0.402 Ca -0.820** 0.268 0.801** -0.071 -0.190 0.203 -0.223 0.215 Mg 0.405 0.014 -0.462 0.311 -0.417 0.391 -0.477 0.808** -0.273 TS -0.226 -0.332 0.304 0.321 -0.522 0.368 -0.567 0.000 0.239 0.091 TDS -0.332 -0.037 0.330 0.164 -0.474 0.390 -0.528 0.076 0.236 0.178 0.945 PB 0.175 -0.888** 0.061 0.534 -0.341 0.101 -0.336 -0.194 0.110 -0.182 0.559 0.258

{2-Tailed, * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); NS= Non-Significant (P>0.05)} WT = Water temperature, SDP = Secchi disc penetration, DO = Dissolved oxygen, TA = Total alkalinity, CO3 = Carbonates, HCO3 = Bicorbonates, TH = Total hardness, Ca = Calcium, Mg = Magnesium, TS = Total solids, TDS = Total dissolved solids, PB = Planktonic biomass

120

Total hardness is positively and non-significantly correlated with calcium, total

solids and total dissolved solids, as shown in Table 49. Positive and highly significant

relationship was recorded with magnesium but negative and non-significant correlation

was observed between the total hardness and planktonic biomass. Calcium showed the

negative and non-significant correlation with magnesium but positive and non-significant

correlation with total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass. On the other

hand magnesium showed positive and non-significant correlation with total solids and

total dissolved solids but negative and non-significantly related with planktonic biomass.

Total solids were positively and non-significantly correlated with total dissolved solids

(P> 0.05) and planktonic biomass. Total dissolved solids showed positive and non-

significant correlation with planktonic biomass.

3. Cow manure and nitrophos (50:50) treated ponds (T3):

Statistical analysis of various physico-chemical parameters showed tht water

temperature exhibited negative and non-significant correlation with secchi disc

penetration, carbonates, total hardness, calcium, magnesium and total dissolved solids.

However, negative and highly significant relationship was observed with dissolved

oxygen. In contrast, positive and non-significant correlation was observed with pH, total

alkalinity, bicarbonates, total solids and planktonic biomass.

Secchi disc penetration showed the negative and non-significant correlation with

dissolved oxygen, carbonates, total solids and total dissolved solids. It showed positive

significant correlation with pH, total alkalinity, bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium and

magnesium. Whereas, the negative and highly significant correlation was noted with the

planktonic biomass. The correlation of dissolved oxygen was recorded as negative and

non-significant with pH, total alkanity and bicarbonates. Positive and non-significant

correlation was observed with carbonates, calcium, magnesium, total solids, total

dissolved solids and planktonic biomass but in case of total hardness,it showed the

positive and significant correlation. In case of pH, it was found to have positive and non-

significant correlation with total alkalinity and bicarbonates. The correlation co-efficient

between pH and carbonates, magnesium, calcium, total solids, total dissolved solids and

planktonic biomass was noted to be negative and non-significant.

121

Total alkalinity showed negative and non-significant relationship with carbonates,

total hardness, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass but

positive and highly significant with bicarbonates. It showed positive and non-significant

correlation with calcium. Carbonates showed the negative and non-significant correlation

with bicarbonates, total solids and total dissolved solids. Positive and non-significant

correlation was observed with total hardness,calcium, magnesium and planktonic

biomass whereas positive and significant correlation was noted between calcium and

carbonates.

Statistical analysis revealed that bicarbonates showed a negative and non- significant

relationship with total hardness, calcium, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids

and planktonic biomass. Total hardness was found to be positively and non-significantly

correlated with calcium, and planktonic biomass. However it was found to have positive

and highly significant correlation with magnesium, in contrast negative and non-

significant correlation was observed with total solids and total dissolved solids. Calcium

showed the positive and non-significant correlation with magnesium but negative and

non-significant correlation was observered with total solids, total dissolved solids and

planktonic biomass.Table 50 depicted a negative and non-significant relationship

between magnesium and total solids, total dissolved solids. Total solids showed the direct

relationship with total dissolved solids as a positive and highly significant correlation was

noted while with planktonic biomass, it was positive but non-signficant. Among the total

dissolved solids and planktonic biomass, carrelation was positive and non-significant.

122


WT SDP DO pH TA CO3 HCO3 TH Ca Mg TS TDS SDP -0.513 DO -0.829** -0.013 pH 0.061 0.113 -0.141 TA 0.061 0.173 -0.145 0.084 CO3 -0.187 -0.106 0.234 -0.228 -0.109 HCO3 0.120 0.192 -0.212 0.155 0.939** -0.445 TH -0.624 0.166 0.609* -0.438 -0.103 0.569 -0.290 Ca -0.505 0.038 0.533 -0.133 0.207 0.578* -0.013 0.575 Mg -0.550 0.179 0.524 -0.461 -0.188 0.462 -0.330 0.961** 0.328 TS 0.009 -0.474 0.221 -0.043 -0.382 -0.330 -0.230 -0.061 -0.100 -0.037 TDS -0.081 -0.200 0.146 -0.008 -0.324 -0.424 -0.145 -0.080 -0.121 -0.051 0.951** PB 0.211 -0.927** 0.328 -0.119 -0.318 0.066 -0.309 0.025 -0.002 0.029 0.600 0.326 {2-Tailed, * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); NS= Non-Significant (P>0.05)} WT = Water temperature, SDP = Secchi disc penetration, DO = Dissolved oxygen, TA = Total alkalinity, CO3 = Carbonates HCO3 = Bicorbonates, TH = Total hardness, Ca = Calcium, Mg = Magnesium, TS = Total solids, TDS = Total dissolved solids, PB = Planktonic biomass

123

4. Cow manure and supplementary feed (50:50) treated pond (T4):

Table 51 showed negative and highly significant correlation between the

water temperature and other water quality attributes, such as light penetration and

dissolved oxygen. There was a positive and non-significant correlation among the water

temperature and total alkanity, carbonates, bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium and

total solids, in contrast negative and non-significantly correlated with pH, magnesium

and total dissolved solids. The correlation of planktonic biomass with water

temperature was observed to be positive and highly significant as dipicted from Table

51. Correlation between secchi disc penetration and dissolved oxygen was noted to be

positive and highly significant. pH, total hardness, magnesium and total dissolved

solids was found to be positive and non-significant but with the other factors like total

alkanity, carbonates, bicarbonates, calcium and total solids it was recorded as negative

and non-significant. Statistical analysis revealed a negative and highly significant

correlation (P< 0.01) with planktonic biomass. Dissolved oxygen showed a positive and

non-significant correlation co-efficient with the water quality variables like pH, total

hardness, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids and negatively and highly

significantly correlated with planktonic biomass it was observed to be negative and

non-significant with total alkalinity, carbonates, bicarbonates and calcium.

pH showed the positive and non-significant correlation with total alkalinity,

bicarbonates, total solids and total dissolved solids. Negative and non-significant

correlation was observed between the pH and carbonates, total hardness, calcium,

magnesium and planktonic biomass. Statistical analysis showed positive and non-

significant correlation between total alkalinity and carbonates, bicarbonates, calcium,

total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass but negative and non-

significantly correlated with total hardness and magnesium. Carbonates showed positive

and non-significant correlation with bicarbonates, calcium and planktonic biomass.

Carbonates showed the negative and non-significant correlation with bicarbonates,

calcium and planktonic biomass. Negative and non-significant correlation existed

between total hardness, magnesium, total solids and total dissolved solids. Bicarbonates

exhibited the negative and non-significant correlation with total hardness and

124

magnesium whereas positive and significant correlation was noted between calcium,

total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass.

Statistical analysis revealed a negative and non- significant correlation of total

hardness with calcium, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic

biomass. Calcium was found to be negative and non-significantly correlated with

magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids and positive and non-significantly

correlated with planktonic biomass. However magnesium showed the positive and non-

significant correlation with total solids and total dissolved solids and negative and non-

significant with the magnesium and planktonic biomass. Total solids showed the positive

and non-significant correlation among the total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass.

Between the total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass, carrelation was negative and

non-significant.

5. Nitrophos and supplementary (50:50) treated pond (T5):

Table 52 showed that water temperature showed negative but significant

correlation with dissolved oxygen and secchi disc penetration, total alkalinity,

bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, total solids and total dissolved solids.

Positive and non significant correlation was observed with pH, carbonates and planktonic

biomass. According to statistical analysis, positive and non-significant correlation was

observed between secchi disc penetration and dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity,

bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium, manesium, total solids and total dissolved solids.

However it is negatively and non-significantly correlated with pH, bicarbonates and

planktonic biomass .

The statistical analysis indicated a negative and non-significant correlation between

dissolved oxygen and pH, carbonates and planktonic biomass, but it is non-significant

positively correlated with total alkalinity, carbonates, total hardness, calcium,

magnesium, total solids and total dissolved solids.

pH showed negative and non-significant correlation with total alkanity, CO3, HCO3,

total hardness, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids but with calcium and

planktonic biomass,it showed positive and non-significant relationship.

Table 51 depicted the negative and non-significant correlation of total alkalinity with

carbonates, calcium and planktonic biomass (P >0.05) but positive and non-significant

125


WT SDP DO pH TA CO3 HCO3 TH Ca Mg TS TDS SDP -0.950**

DO -0.711** 0.826**

pH -0.385 0.404 0.221

TA 0.223 -0.319 -0.420 0.303

CO3 0.478 -0.516 -0.357 -0.101 0.200

HCO3 0.135 -0.226 -0.360 0.328 0.982 0.012

TH 0.040 0.021 0.142 -0.420 -0.263 -0.165 -0.237

Ca 0.144 -0.109 -0.258 -0.137 0.061 0.254 0.014 0.079

Mg -0.022 0.065 0.242 -0.338 -0.273 -0.262 -0.228 0.908 -0.345

TS 0.111 -0.078 0.061 0.113 0.307 -0.095 0.332 0.156 -0.348 0.293

TDS -0.032 0.070 0.201 0.152 0.244 -0.171 0.282 0.154 -0.380 0.304 0.987

PB 0.894** -0.935** -0.889** -0.253 0.386 0.485 0.300 0.003 0.217 -0.088 0.025 -0.133

{2-Tailed, * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); NS= Non-Significant (P>0.05)} WT = Water temperature, SDP = Secchi disc penetration, DO = Dissolved oxygen, TA = Total alkalinity, CO3 = Carbonates HCO3 = Bicarbonates, TH = Total hardness, Ca = Calcium, Mg = Magnesium, TS = Total solids, TDS = Total dissolved solids, PB = Planktonic biomass

126

relationship was observed with bicarbonates, total hardness, magnesium, total dissolved

solids and total solids.

Carbonates showed negative and non-significant correlation with bicarbonates and

calcium. With the total hardness, magnesium, total dissolved solids, total solids and

planktonic biomass, a positive and non-significant correlation was noted.

In case of bicarbonates, positive and non-significant correlation was observed with

total hardness, magnesium, total solids and total dissolved solids. While negative and

non-significant correlation was observed with calcium and planktonic biomass.

Statistical analysis for water quality attributes showed the positive and non-significant

correlation of total hardness with other factors like calcium,magnesium, total solids and

total dissolved solids while negative and non-significant relationship was observed with

planktonic biomass.

Calcium showed the negative and non-significant correlation with magnesium and

planktonic biomass (P > 0.05). In contrast, it was positively and non-significantly

correlated with total solids and total dissolved solids. Magnesium showed positive and

non-significant correlation with total solids and total dissolved solids, however, negative

and non-significantly correlated with planktonic biomass. Total solids showed positive

and non-significant correlation with total dissolved solids and negative and non-

significant with planktonic biomass. Total dissolved solids also showed the negative and

non-significant correlation with planktonic biomass.

6. Cow manure, nitrophos and supplementary feed (25:25:50) treated pond (T6):

The correlation co-efficient of water quality parameters in T6 with the provision of

fertilization and supplementary feed are shown in Table 53. The correlation co-efficient

between the water temperature and secchi disc penetration, dissolved oxygen, carbonates,

calcium, total solids and total dissolved solids were negative and non-significant but with

pH, total alkalinity, bicarbonates, total hardness,magnesium and planktonic biomass, it

was found to be positive and non-significant. Secchi disc penetration showed positive and

non-significant correlation with dissolved oxygen, carbonates, calcium, total solids and

total dissolved solids while in case of pH, total alkalinity, bicarbonates, total hardness,

magnesium and planktonic biomass it was found to be negative and non-significant.

127


WT SDP DO pH TA CO3 HCO3 TH Ca Mg TS TDS SDP -0.929 DO -0.790 0.829 pH 0.263 -0.218 -0.442 TA -0.461 0.524 0.548 -0.331 CO3 0.055 -0.133 -0.345 -0.453 -0.035 HCO3 -0.452 0.535 0.620 -0.177 0.954 -0.332 TH -0.120 0.055 0.232 -0.351 0.165 0.063 0.137 Ca -0.043 0.018 0.304 0.035 -0.348 -0.486 -0.183 0.219 Mg -0.101 0.047 0.096 -0.366 0.320 0.280 0.219 0.900 -0.227 TS -0.363 0.389 0.451 -0.538 0.219 0.259 0.129 0.040 0.082 0.003 TDS -0.497 0.536 0.582 -0.537 0.292 0.185 0.221 0.059 0.125 0.003 0.985 PB 0.876 -0.958 -0.912 0.290 -0.492 0.233 -0.534 -0.117 -0.259 -0.001 -0.474 -0.620

{2-Tailed, * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); NS= Non-Significant (P>0.05)} WT = Water temperature, SDP = Secchi disc penetration, DO = Dissolved oxygen, TA = Total alkalinity, CO3 = Carbonates HCO3 = Bicarbonates, TH = Total hardness, Ca = Calcium, Mg = Magnesium, TS = Total solids, TDS = Total dissolved solids, PB = Planktonic biomass

128

The correlation between dissolved oxygen and pH, total alkalinity,bicarbonates,

total hardness, magnesium and planktonic biomass, was noted as negative and non-

significant. Correlation was observed to be positive and non-significant with carbonates,

,calcium, total solids and total dissolved solids. pH showed the positive and non-

significant correlation with total alkalinity, carbonates and planktonic biomass while

negative and non-significant with bicarbonates, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, total

solids and total dissolved solids. Total alkalinity showed negative and non-significant

correlation co-efficient with carbonates, total hardness and calcium. Positive and

significant correlation existed with bicarbonates, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved

solids and planktonic biomass.

Carbonates correlated negatively and non-significantly with bicarbonates, total

hardness, calcium, magnesium, total solids, total dissolved solids and planktonic biomass.

In contrast bicarbonates showed the positively but non-significant correlation with total

hardness, magnesium, total dissolved solids, total solids and planktonic biomass but

negative and non-significant with calcium.

Total hardness is positively and non-significant correlated with calcium,

magnesium and planktonic biomass, as shown in Table 53. Negative and non-significant

relationship was recorded with total solids and total dissolved solids. Calcium showed the

negative and non-significant correlation with magnesium, total solids, total dissolved

solids and planktonic biomass. On the other hands magnesium showed positive and non-

significant correlation with planktonic biomass but negative and non-significantly

correlated with total solids and total dissolved solids. Total solids positively and non-

significantly correlated with total dissolved solids and negative and non-significant

correlated with planktonic biomass. Total dissolved solids showed negative and non-

significant correlation with planktonic biomass.

.

129


WT SDP DO pH TA CO3 HCO3 TH Ca Mg TS TDS SDP -0.892 DO -0.866 0.877 pH 0.552 -0.367 -0.382 TA 0.270 -0.451 -0.360 0.064 CO3 -0.211 0.183 0.142 0.187 -0.374 HCO3 0.294 -0.427 -0.339 -0.022 0.934 -0.681 TH 0.225 -0.272 -0.396 -0.229 -0.201 -0.438 0.010 Ca -0.084 0.118 0.297 -0.169 -0.688 -0.003 -0.542 0.122 Mg 0.250 -0.308 -0.490 -0.168 0.034 -0.429 0.193 0.942 -0.218 TS -0.390 0.381 0.523 -0.304 0.206 -0.322 0.287 -0.159 -0.167 -0.100 TDS -0.525 0.547 0.655 -0.344 0.093 -0.234 0.163 -0.224 -0.124 -0.179 0.980 PB 0.818 -0.938 -0.892 0.365 0.332 -0.150 0.320 0.373 -0.067 0.389 -0.581 -0.730

{2-Tailed, * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01); NS= Non-Significant (P>0.05)} WT = Water temperature, SDP = Secchi disc penetration, DO = Dissolved oxygen, TA = Total alkalinity, CO3 = Carbonates, HCO3 = Bicarbonates, TH = Total hardness, Ca = Calcium, Mg = Magnesium, TS = Total solids, TDS = Total dissolved disc solids, PB = Planktonic biomass

130

j. Regression analysis

Regression analysis was computed to study the relationship among the various

parameters of the experimental trail of different treatments.

Secchi disc penetration V/s Planktonic biomass:

The regression model for the secchi disc penetration and planktonic biomass was

noted as negative and highly significant for all the treatments. The regression value of “r”

showed the inverse relationship among these attributes (Table 54).

Water temperature V/s Nitrogen conversion ratio:

The positive and non significant relationship existed between water temperature

and Nitrogen Conversion Ratio, as evident from Table 54.

This relationship shows that water temperature and nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) from

fertilization (organic and inorganic) and supplementary feed are independent of each

other.

Water temperature V/s Fish biomass increment:

The value of coefficient regression varies from 0.702 to 0.834 in regression

equation, which depicts a highly significant, linear and positive relationship between

water temperature and fish biomass increment (Table 54).

Planktonic biomass V/s Fish biomass increment:

The computed value of coefficient of determination “R2” for regression equation

shows that the above mentioned two characters are directly proportional and positively

affect each other (Table 54).

131

Table 54: Regression models computed for various parameters under the different

treatments

Treat-ments

Variables

Regression equations r R² Proba-bility

(X) (Y) Secchi’s

disc penetration

(cm)

Planktonic biomass (mgL-1)

T1 18.95 105.29 Y = 195 – 4.76 (X) SE = 10.56 -0.912 0.831 0.000

T2 17.64 106.02 Y = 200 – 5.31 (X) SE = 11.09 -0.888 0.789 0000

T3 17.33 105.27 Y = 196 – 5.24 (X) SE = 8.897 -0.927 0.859 0.000

T4 16.04 117.45 Y = 180 – 3.90 (X) SE = 3.867 -0.935 0.874 0.000

T5 15.50 116.61 Y = 182 – 4.25 (X) SE = 3.651 -0.958 0.917 0.000

T6 15.54 116.90 Y = 166 – 3.19 (X) SE = 3.70 -0.938 0.880 0.000

X = Secchi’s disc penetration; Y = Planktonic biomass

Treat-ments

Variables


(X) (Y) Water

temperature (°C)

Nitrogen conversion

ratio

T1 22.35 4.299 Y = 2.76+0.0689(X) SE = 2.442 0.249 0.062 0.437

T2 22.29 4.270 Y = 3.09+0.0529(X) SE = 2.297 0.202 0.041 0.526

T3 22.24 4.340 Y = 3.41+0.0415(X) SE = 2.489 0.145 0.021 0.651

T4 22.13 4.352 Y = 3.00+0.0610(X) SE = 2.715 0.207 0.043 0.519

T5 22.12 4.350 Y = 3.38+0.0437(X) SE = 2.584 0.145 0.021 0.650

T6 22.07 4.422 Y = 2.98+0.0655(X) SE = 2.787 0.205 0.042 0.521

X = Water temperature; Y = Nitrogen conversion ratio

132

Continued Table 54:

Treat-ments

Variables


(X) (Y) Water

temperature (°C)

Increase in fish

biomass (g)

T1 22.35 3697 Y = -800+207(X) SE = 1345 0.818 0.669 0.002

T2 22.29 3441 Y = -460+180(X) SE = 1295 0.788 0.620 0.004

T3 22.24 3839 Y = -816+215(X) SE = 1484 0.796 0.633 0.003

T4 22.13 4028 Y = -1059+236(X) SE = 1427 0.834 0.696 0.001

T5 22.12 3903 Y = -721+214(X) SE = 1413 0.807 0.651 0.003

T6 22.07 1312 Y = -342+76.9(X) SE = 716.5 0.702 0.493 0.016

X =Water temperature; Y = Increase in fish biomass

Treat-ments

Variables


(X) (Y) Planktonic Biomass (mg/l)

Increase in fish biomass (g)

T1 105.29 3697 Y = -7808+105(X) SE = 930.5 0.917 0.842 0.000

T2 106.02 3441 Y = -7157+96.0(X) SE = 983.6 0.884 0.781 0.000

T3 105.27 3839 Y = -7826+107(X) SE = 1318 0.843 0.711 0.001

T4 117.45 4028 Y = -11383+132(X) SE = 2151 0.556 0.309 0.076

T5 116.61 3903 Y = -7090+95.3(X) SE = 2077 0.496 0.246 0.121

T6 116.90 1312 Y = -1657+25.6(X) SE = 968.1 0.274 0.075 0.415

SE = Standard error; r = Correlation coefficient; R² = Coefficient of determination; X = Planktonic biomass; Y = Increase in fish biomass

133

Chapter 5 DISCUSSION

In semi-intensive polyculture system, the frequent application of organic manure,

inorganic fertilizers, supplementary feed and stocking species ratio make the maintenance

of production, population of natural food organism and the maximal utilization of

productivity of pond ecosystem. Besides the fertilization of organic manure and chemical

fertilizers, supplementary feed including animal and plant based protein diets utilized as a

source of energy and feed in the polyculture to increase the fish yield and primary

productivity of pond ecosystem (Abdelghany and Ahmad, 2002). The quantity and

quality of supplementary feed have a pronounced effect on growth rate, feed conversion

efficiency and proximate composition of fish (Hassan et al., 1996; Jena et al., 1998;

Erfanullah and Jafri., 1998).

Much research work has been done on the culture of major carps viz., Labeo

rohita, Catla catla and Cirrhinus mrigala in polyculture system, under different

treatments (Azim et al., 2001; Sarwar et al., 2003; Sahu et al., 2007). The present

research work was carried out to evaluate the growth performance of Labeo rohita, Catla

catla and Cyprinus carpio under different treatments. In this polyculture system,

Cyprinus carpio was used instead of Cirrhinus mrigala as a bottom feeder fish and to

assess the effect of this fish on the growth performance of major carps in polyculture

system (Da Silva et al., 2006; Rahman, 2008; Khan et al., 2005; Alim et al., 2005). In

this experiment cowdung was used as organic manure, nitrophos was used as fertilizer

and supplementary feed was prepared by using rice polish, sunflower meal, maize

gluten, canola oil, vitamins and mineral premixes.

The results of present investigation revealed that at the end of the experiment, all

the three fish species gained maximum weight in T6, in which cow manure, nitrophos and

supplementary feed was added as compared to other treatments. These results confirmed

the findings of Liang et al., (1999) and Keshavanath et al., (2001), who reported that

ground nut oil cake, cotton seed meal, deoiled rice bran and sunflower meal and additives

in the feed such as salt and mineral mix along with organic manure (buffalo manure and

134

poultry droppings), contribute to high yield in carp polyculture. Jena et al., (1999) and

Islam et al., (2008) also concluded that artificial diet comprising of rice bran, soybean

meal, fish meal, vegetable oil, vitamin and mineral mixture (40:20:10:3:2) influenced the

growth and survival of carp fingerlings on the basis of specific growth rate and harvested

fish biomass. Mahboob et al.(1995) suggested that application of supplementary feed

along with chemical fertilizers and organic manure is the best mean to obtained

maximum production in fish culture practices from confined water bodies within the

limited possible time in semi intensive culture system.

In the present study, it was observed that higher fish production was observed in

T1 (organic manure) when compared with T2 in which inorganic fertilizer was used. The

results are in accordance with the findings of Mahboob and Sheri, (1997) who obtained

the fish production of 9400 kg-1ha-1yr-1 by using broiler dropping as compared to 7400

kg/ha/yr by using NPK fertilizer with major carps. Organic manuring proves to benefit

the farmer economically as it serves to reduce 50 % cost of inorganic fertilizer and

supplementary feed (Yadava and Garg, 1992).

Among three fish species, Catla catla, showed the maximum average body

weight (1256.7g), followed by Labeo rohita (1215.0g) and Cyprinus carpio (1119.0g) in

T6. Highest growth performance of Catla catla was due to the higher growth potential

than the other two species reared under semi-intensive culture system. These results are

in line with the findings of Javed et al., (1990) and Tahir (2008), who reported that Catla

catla gained maximum body weight than Labeo rohita and Cirrhinus mrigala, when

cultured under different treatments.

Being the cold blooded, fish is easily influenced by the surrounding water

temperature that shows the prominent affect on body temperature, growth rate, feed

consumption, FCR and other metabolic function (Britz et al., 1997). Temperature and

ecological conditions are responsible for the fluctuation of salt contents, which in turn

influence the production, and growth of fish (Hayat et al., 1996; Jena et al., 1998). In the

present study, it was observed that higher fish production was obtained in the warmer

months than colder ones due to the reduction of feed consumption and metabolic rates in

winter. Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio attained the maximum increment

135

in average body weight in the month of July and minimum growth was observed in

February. Similar results were observed by Hassan et al., (1996) and Sahu et al., ( 2007)

who reported that water temperature is the only variable that affect significantly the

growth rate of major carps (Catla catla, Labeo rohita and Cirrhinus mrigala) which is

indicated by an increase in fish yield that showed the linear trends with the increase in

temperature .

In fisheries with respect to total length and body weight, condition factor shows

the variation which may be allometric or isometric. These variations in condition factor

values due to the feeding opportunities, age, size, seasons, stocking density and feeding

rates as observed by Baumgarner et al., (2005), San gun et al., (2007) and Balik et al.,

(2006).The data on condition factor of Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cyprinus carpio

exhibited an isometric growth pattern between the body weight and total length. During

the experimental trial, Labeo rohit and Catla catla showed the seasonal variation,

showing decline in condition factor inverse to Cyprinus carpio.This might be due to

seasonal variation variation in the growth rate with respect to the difffernt months of the

year, showed prominent growth from Feburay to November. Secondly major carps

depicted the linear trend between the average body weight and total length, which

showed the direct relationship among them. However Cyprinus carpio with the constant

growth rate showed the increment in morphometric parameters through out the year. That

is why in Cyprinus carpio condition factor increased as compared to major carps, with

decreasing trends. Another important factor, viz., length-weight relationship, in which

Cyprinus carpio showed the overall positive growth response in terms of average total

length and body weight. These findings showed that three fish species showed an

isometric pattern and seasonal fluctuation during the experimental duration. These

results are proved by the conclusion of Yildiz et al., (2006), who observed that condition

factor was influenced by seasonal changes as low in winter as compared to summer.

Doria and Leonhardt (1993b) concluded that significantly affects the length-weight

relationship and condition factor (K) which varied with the environmental temperature.

According to the present investigations, length- weight relationship (value of “r”,

regression coefficient) for these three fish species is in accordance with the model of

LeCren (1951) in all the treatments, to evaluate the fish health and suitability of an

136

environment. The value of “R” in the regression equation of Labeo rohita, Catla catla

and Cyprinus carpio showed the isometric pattern. These results are in accordance with

the findings of Hasan and Javed (1999), who investigated the length-weight relationship

of major carps by the application of organic manure at different levels. A high degree and

positive correlation among the total length and average body weight of these three fish

species in all the treatments. These values are nearly equal to 1, for each equation, which

depicts high precision of these regression models.

During this investigation, Labeo rohita showed the maximum specific growth rate

(1.177%) in T6 by the addition of organic manure, inorganic fertilizer and supplementary

feed than other two species i.e. Catla catla (1.047%) and Cyprinus carpio (1.049%).

These results are confirmed by Dhawan and Kaur (2002), who reported the specific

growth rate of Catla catla and Labeo rohita as 0.90 and 1.23%, respectively. Khan et al.,

(2003) observed the maximum value of specific growth rate by the inclusion of

supplementary feed. Sahu et al., (2007) also found that the provision of each additional

inputs including fertilization such as cow dung, urea and single super phosphate, and

supplementary feed caused a significant increase in specific growth rate of major carps.

In the present experiment, the overall maximum value of nitrogen conversion

ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation efficiency (NIE) were recorded as 1: 9.65 and

0.765% in T6, while the minimum value was recorded as 1:1.32 and 0.104 in T6 in

Jqnuary and August. Nitrogen conversion ratio (NCR) and nitrogen incorporation

efficiency (NIE) remained significant for the months and non-significant for the

treatments. Tahir (2008) recorded the maximum NCR in that treatment in which

supplementary feed was added. Hassan et al. (1996) reported the significant and positive

NIE of poultry droppings for the major carps in fertilization treatments.

Meat quality is an important attribute, which is affected by pond ecosystem, fertilization

(Hassan, 1996) and feed composition (Javed et al., 1995) and feeding rates (Hasan and

Macintosh, 1993). The proximate composition of fish meat of three species showed that

maximum moisture contents were observed in Cyprinus carpio in T2 (80.35%) and

minimum were noted in T6 (77.18%) in Labeo rohita. Maximum crude protein was noted

as 18.90% in Labeo rohita, under T6 while minimum crude protein was observed in T3

(15.62%) in Cyprinus carpio. Hassan (1996) and Javed et al. (1995) confirmed these

137

results by reporting g that meat quality is affected by fertilization and supplementary

feed. Similar findings were obtained by Hossain et al., (2001). They concluded that the

inclusion of sesbania seed as supplementary feed results in low body moisture but high

contents of crude protein, crude lipid and gross energy. Catla catla remained prominent

with maximum fat contents in T1, T2, T4 and T6 but minimum in T3 and T5 higher than

Labeo rohita. In case of Cyprinus carpio,showed the highest ash contents of (1.84%) in

T6 as compared to other experimental fish species. Cyprinus carpio with the maximum

value of (1.14%) and 1.78 and 1.45% in the fat , ash and carbohydrates contents

remained prominent as compared to Catla catla and Labeo rohita in T3, and T4. This

might be due to presence of high moisture and low protein content that showed the

inverse relationship between the protein and fat, ash and carbohydrates contents. These

findings are substantiate with Mohanta et al. (2008) and El-Saidy and Gaber,(2005) who

also reported that supplementary feed significantly reduces protein contents but increase

the moisture, fats and ash contents. Cyprinus carpio also occupied highest position in

respect of carbohydrate contents in T6. These results are supported by findings of

Keshavanath et al. (2002).

According to the findings of present study, air and water temperature showed the

seasonal fluctuation. During the experimental duration, water temperature was slightly

lower than the air temperature. These results are in accordance with the findings of

Ahmed (1993) and Tahir (2008), who reported water temperature to be 2-5°C lower than

the air temperature during the course of study. In the present study, the overall range of

water temperature i.e. 10.22-33.56°C. The same was reported by Britz et al., 1997; Jena

et al., 1998; Bhakta et al., 2006; Imsland et al., 2006 and Sahu et al., 2007. They also

reported the prominent effect of water temperature on growth rate, feed consumption and

other metabolic functions. Osborne and Riddle (1999) observed that fish growth

parameters in terms of weight gain, feeding rate and feeding efficiency showed an

increasing trend with the increase in water temperature for grass carp.

During this study, a positive and non- significant correlation was noted among the

water temperature and planktonic biomass in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively.

Hassan et al., (1996) and Hayat et al., (1996) reported the positive and significant

correlation among the water temperature and planktonic biomass. They concluded that

138

water temperature and planktonic biomass is the important parameter which mainly

contributed in the fish growth increment, yield and primary productivity of pond

ecosystem.

Light penetration is one of the limiting factors for the primary productivity of any

water body. Biological productivity of pond is a measure of planktonic biomass and

various activity of metabolic process of aquatic organisms are affected by the availability

of light, water temperature, and presence of essential nutrients (Mahboob et al., 1993;

Singh et al., 2000; Rafique et al., 2003; Pramila et al., 2004; Liti et al., 2006).

The dissolved oxygen is the important factor for the growth and survival of fish.

Dissolved oxygen concentration of pond water remained in suitable range 5.1-8.5 mgL-1

as an optimum range to encourage the fish growth in all the treatments. It showed the

seasonal variation due to the photosynthetic and respiratory activity. During this present

investigation, dissolved oxygen showed the negative and highly significant correlation

with the water temperature in T1, T2, T3, and T4 while in T5 and T6 it was negative and

non-significant correlated with water temperature, respectively. These findings are

verified by Mahboob and Sheri (2002) and Tahir (2008). They observed the inverse

correlation coefficient among these two parameters under the influence of fertilization

and supplementary feed.

Hydrogen ion activity (pH) is the index of environmental condition of pond water.

pH showed the seasonal variation throughout the experimental period due to respiration

and photosynthetic activities in pond water ecosystem and pH values varied from 7.5 to

8.5 in all the treatments. However, the statistical analysis showed the non-significant

difference among the months and treatments. It was also observed that a positive and

non-significant correlation was studied among the pH and planktonic biomass in all the

treatments and as confirmed by Mahboob and Sheri (2002).

The pond water remained alkaline throughout the experimental duration in all the

treatments. Presence of carbonates and bicarbonates make the pond water slightly

alkaline which proves to be suitable for aquatic organism (Pandey and Lal, 1995;

Terziyski et al., 2007; El-Saidy and Gaber, 2003; Swelium et al., 2005). In the present

experiment, the correlation coefficient among the total alkalinity and total hardness was

observed to be positive and non significant in T1 and T5. However, negative and non

139

significant correlation was recorded in T2, T3, T4 and T6. Similar results were observed by

Mahboob and Sheri, (2002) who reported the positive correlation among the total

alkalinity and total hardness under the effect of fertilization and supplementary feed in

carp polyculture system. Tahir (2008) showed the negative and non significant

correlation in differents treatments of supplementary feed. In the present study

bicarbonates alkalinity was found to be higher than the carbonates alkalinity in all the

treatments and seasonal variation in total alkalinity corresponded with the total hardness,

as also reported by Ahmed (1993).

During this investigation, total solids remained maximum in the month of January

and minimum in August at the start of the experiment. The minimum value (1230 mg L-

1) was noted in treatment T4 in December while the maximum value (1510 mg L-1) was

observed in treatment T5 in January. There was a highly significant difference for the

months and significant difference was noted for the treatments. It may be concluded that

the presence of total solids and total dissolved solids in pond water stimulate the growth

of planktonic biomass and contributed towards the primary productivity of pond

ecosystem. The planktonic biomass was found to be highest in T3 (June) in which

cowdung and nitrophos were used. These results were corroborate with the findings of

Sayeed et al., (2007); Afzal et al., (2007) and Anetikhai et al., (2005) who suggested that

basic macro and micro nutrients in pond sediments can be enhanced by the application of

combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizatioin. Cattle manure and nitrophos

caused a marked increase in planktonic biomass in T3 which is an indication of well pond

productivity. Similar observations were recorded by Lane, (2000).

The correlation between the total solids and planktonic biomass remained positive

and non-significant in T1, T2, T3 and T4 while in case of T5 and T6 negative and non-

significant relationship was noted. Total dissolved solids showed the positive and non-

significant in T1, T2 and T3 but negative and non-significant relationship was noted in T4,

T5 and T6, respectively. These findings are confirmed by Parvez et al., (2006). However

in contrast Mahboob and Sheri, (2002);Azad et al., (2004); Hayat et al., (1996); Hassan

et al., (2000) reported the positive and significant relationship among the phytoplankton

and zooplankton productivities under the fertilization that caused the increment in fish

yield.

crap 2

Documents

Transcript of crap 2