TY - JOUR AU - Uddin, MN AU - Rahman, MS AU - Shahjahan, M PY - 2014/03/04 Y2 - 2024/03/29 TI - Effects of Duckweed (Lemna minor) as Supplementary Feed on Monoculture of Gift Strain of Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) JF - Progressive Agriculture JA - Progress. Agric. VL - 18 IS - 2 SE - Fisheries DO - 10.3329/pa.v18i2.18201 UR - https://www.banglajol.info/index.php/PA/article/view/18201 SP - 183-188 AB - <p>An experiment was conducted for a period of 135 days on the effect of duckweed (<em>Lemna minor</em>) as supplementary feed on monoculture of GIFT strain of tilapia (<em>Oreochromis niloticus</em>). The experiment had two treatments, each with three replications. In treatment-1 ponds were supplied with duckweed as supplementary fish feed and in treatment-2 ponds were kept as control (without supply of duckweed). Ponds were stocked at a stocking density of 150 fingerlings per decimal. The ponds were fertilized fortnightly with poultry dropping at the rate of 5 kg/decimal, urea 60g/decimal and TSP 90g/decimal. Duckweeds were supplied to the ponds (treatment-1) at the rate of 60% of the total body weight (wet weight basis) of the fish. During the experimental period, the ranges of physico-chemical parameters viz, water temperature, transparency, dissolved oxygen, pH, total alkalinity, free CO2, PO4-P, and NO3-N were within the productive limit and more or less similar in all the ponds under treatments 1 and 2. There were 24 genera of phytoplankton under 5 major groups and 10 genera of zooplankton under 3 major groups were found in the experimental ponds. Mean survival rates in treatments 1 and 2 were 85.34% and 83.68% respectively. Specific growth rate (SGR, % per day) of the fish in treatments 1 and 2 were 1.90% and 1.60% respectively. Calculated net production of the fish in treatment-1 was 5.03 ton/ha/yr and in treatment-2 was 3.11 ton/ha/yr. By t test it was found that the net production of fish in treatment-1 was significantly (p&lt;0.05) higher than that of treatment-2.</p><p>DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pa.v18i2.18201">http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/pa.v18i2.18201</a></p> <p><em>Progress. Agric.</em> 18(2): 183 - 188, 2007</p> ER -