2 Bioslurry For Fishpond Final Report PDF

INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
AQUACULTURAL DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ANIMAL AND AQUACULTURAL SCIENCES
HANOI UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
FINAL REPORT
ON RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION
Utilization of bioslurry for comercial fishpond
PROJECT
: BIOGAS PROGRAM FOR THE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

SECTOR IN VIETNAM 2007 - 2011
INVESTOR
: LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT MINISTRY

FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
CONSULTANT : INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TEAM

AQUACULTURAL DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ANIMAL AND AQUACULTURAL SCIENCES
HANOI UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
HANOI, 2011
INFORMATION OF PROJECT
1. Objectives: To estimate the method of using bioslurry from Biologic Gas Project
and the effects of that to grow-out pond.
2. Organization in charge: Biologic Gas Project to Animal Science Sector in
period of 2007 - 2012
3. Implementation Organization: Independent consulting Team of Aquaculture
Department, Faculty of Animal Science and Aquaculture, Ha Noi University of
Agriculture.
4. Co-operation team:
5. Expenditure in total: 394,1 Million Vietnam Dong
6. Duration: From January, 2011 to September, 2011.
PARTICIPANTS
I. Head of consultant team

Eng. Nguyen Van Tuyen, Aquacultural Department, Faculty of Animal and
Aquacultural Sciences, Hanoi University of Agriculture.
II. Team members
No.
Full name
Degree
Ms. Pham Thi Lam Hong
Master
Ms. Tran Anh Tuyet
Engineer
Mr. Trinh Dinh Khuyen
Master
Mr. Vo Quy Hoan
Master
ii
Office
Aquacultural Department,
Faculty of Animal and
Aquacultural Sciences,
Hanoi University of
Agriculture
CONTENTS
INFORMATION OF PROJECT ..................................................................................... i
PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................ ii
CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. iii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... viii
SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................x
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................1
CHAPTER I: DOCUMENT OVERVIEW, OBJECTIVE, CONTENT AND
METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................2
I. DOCUMENT OVERVIEW .........................................................................................2
1.1 Biogas technology .....................................................................................................2
1.2 Bioslurry ....................................................................................................................2
1.3 Quality of bioslurry ...................................................................................................3
1.4. Utilization of bioslurry in agriculture and fish culture .............................................4
1.5 Biological characteristics of some fish used in the research .....................................7
2.1. Objective and Approach .........................................................................................14
2.2. Approach ................................................................................................................14
2.3. Research content .....................................................................................................15
2.4. Research methodology ...........................................................................................16
CHAPTER II: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................21
I. SUBJECT 1: USING BIOSLURRY FOR COMMERCIAL FISHPOND ................21
1. Growth rate ................................................................................................................21
1.1. Growth rate of silver cap ........................................................................................21
1.2. Growth rate of Grass carp.......................................................................................24
1.3. Growth rate of Indian carp .....................................................................................26
1.4. Growth rate of Common carp .................................................................................29
1.5. Growth rate of Black carp ......................................................................................32
iii
1.7. Growth rate of Tilapia ............................................................................................37

2. Survival rate ...............................................................................................................40
3. Food conversion ratio ................................................................................................42
II. SUBJECT 2: CULTURE ENVIRONMENT AND FISH HEALTH .......................45
1. Monitoring results of environmental parameters before fish culturing.....................45
2. Fluctuation of hydration and physical hydrology in culturing environment....................45
2.1. Temperature fluctuation .........................................................................................45
2.2. Fluctuation of Dissolved oxygen (DO) ..................................................................47
2.3. pH fluctuation .........................................................................................................48
2.4. NH4+ fluctuation ......................................................................................................50
2.5. NH3 fluctuation .......................................................................................................51
2.6. Nitrate (NO3) fluctuation .......................................................................................52
2.7. Nitrite (NO2) fluctuation .......................................................................................53
2.8. Turbidity fluctuation ...............................................................................................54
3. Hydration fluctuation.................................................................................................56
3.1. Phytoplankton changes ...........................................................................................56
3.2. Fluctuations of phytoplankton ...............................................................................59
3. Results on fish health monitoring ..............................................................................61
3.1. Prevention ...............................................................................................................61
III. SUBJECT 3 EVALUATION OF COMPREHENSIVE EFFICIENCY AND
ECONOMY WHEN USING BIOSLURRY FOR COMMERCIAL FISH POND ......64
1. Evaluating economic efficiency ................................................................................64
CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...................................66
1. Conclusion .................................................................................................................66
1.1. Growth of fish .........................................................................................................66
1.2. Survival rate ............................................................................................................66
1.3. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) ..................................................................................66
1.4. Fluctuation of environmental factors......................................................................66
1.5. Disease ....................................................................................................................67
1.6. Assess the comprehensively effectiveness of the use of bioslurry in commercial
fish ponds .......................................................................................................................68
2. Recommendation .......................................................................................................68
iv
CHAPTER IV: REFERENCES ....................................................................................69

I. Vietnamese documents ..................................................................................................69
II. English documents .......................................................................................................69
CHAPTER V: APPENDIX ...........................................................................................71
1. Weight .......................................................................................................................71
2. The number of dead fish ............................................................................................73
3. Feed (kg) ....................................................................................................................75
4. Temperature (C) .......................................................................................................75
5. DO (mg/L) .................................................................................................................76
6. pH ..............................................................................................................................77
7. NH4+, NH3 (mg/L) .....................................................................................................78
7. NO2, NO3 (mg/L) .......................................................................................................79
8. Turbidity (cm)............................................................................................................80
9. Some pictures on research .........................................................................................81
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Afternoon
FCR
Food Conversion Ratio
GIFT
Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia
Morning
Pond
Treatment
VN
Viet Nam Dong
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Macro nutrients in bioslurry and fresh pig manure ...................................... 3
Table 2. Household participated in research ............................................................ 15
Table 3. Arrange experiments .................................................................................. 17
Table 4. Growth rate of Vietnam Silver cap............................................................. 21
Table 5. Growth rate of grass carp ........................................................................... 24
Table 6. Growth rate of Indian carp ......................................................................... 26
Table 7. Growth rate of Common carp ..................................................................... 29
Table 8. Growth rate of Black carp .......................................................................... 32
Table 9. Growth rate results of Bighead carp ........................................................... 35
Table 10. Growth rate results of Tilapia ................................................................... 37
Table 11. Survival rate among fish of all experiment (%) ....................................... 40
Table 12. FCR in all experiment treatments during farming time ........................... 43
Table 13. Environment parameters in all experimental before fish culturing .......... 45
Table 14. The parasite check before stocking .......................................................... 62
Table 15. Periodically monitoring on parasitic infected ratio .................................. 62
Table 16. Economic accounting (million VN) ...................................................... 64
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys) .............................................................. 7
Figure 2. Bighead carp (Aristicthys nobilis) ............................................................... 8
Figure 3. Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) ............................................................... 9
Figure 4. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) ..................................................... 9
Figure 5. Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus) ..................................................... 10
Figure 6. Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus........................................................... 11
Figure 7. Indian carp (Labeo rohita) ........................................................................ 13
Figure 9. Absolute growth rates of the silver carps .................................................. 22
Figure 10. Growth rates of the Silver carps in checking times ................................ 23
Figure 11. Absolute growth rates of the grass carps ................................................ 24
Figure 12. Growth rates of the grass carp in checking times ................................... 25
Figure 13. Absolute growth rates of the Indian carp ................................................ 27
Figure 14. Growth rate of Indian carp in all experimental treatments ..................... 28
Figure 15. Growth rate of Common carp in all experimental .................................. 30
Figure 16. Growth rates of the Common carp in all experimental treatments ......... 31
Figure 17. Absolute growth rates of the Black carp ................................................. 33
Figure 18. Growth rates of the Black carp in all experimental treatments............... 34
Figure 19. Absolute growth rates of the Bighead carp ............................................. 36
Figure 20. Growth rates of the Bighead carp in all checking times ......................... 36
Figure 21. Absolute growth rates of the Talapia ...................................................... 38
Figure 22. Growth rates of the Talapia in all checking times .................................. 39
Figure 23. Average survival in all experimental ...................................................... 41
Figure 24. Survivap raion of all fish furing farming time ........................................ 42
Figure 25. FCR ......................................................................................................... 44
Figure 26. Daily temparature fluctuation ................................................................. 46
Figure 27. DO fluctuation in morning ...................................................................... 47
Figure 28. DO fluctuation in afternoon .................................................................... 47
Figure 29. pH fluctuation in morning ....................................................................... 49
Figure 30. pH fluctuation in afternoon .................................................................... 49
Figure 31. Timely NH4+ variation ............................................................................ 50
viii
Figure 32. NH3 variation in all experiment............................................................... 51

Figure 33. NO3 variation in all experimental treatments ........................................ 52
Figure 34. NO2 fluctuation in all experiment .......................................................... 54
Figure 35. Turbidity of all experimental fishponds .................................................. 55
Figure 36. Ratio of algae species in experiments ..................................................... 56
Figure 37. Fluctuation of Phytoplankton amount during rearing time ..................... 57
Figure 38. Percentage of species of phytoplankton in the treatments ...................... 59
Figure 39. Fluctuations of zooplankton over the culture period .............................. 60
Figure 40. experiment pond ...................................................................................... 81
Figure 41. weighting fish .......................................................................................... 81
Figure 42. pellet feed and Fish Health production ................................................... 82
Figure 43. Test Sera .................................................................................................. 82
Figure 44. Disease in Grass Carp by Aeromonnas spp ............................................ 83
Figure 45. Disease in Black carp by Aeromonnas spp ............................................. 83
Figure 46. Probiotic ANOVA NB - 25 ..................................................................... 84
Figure 47. Benkocid ................................................................................................. 84
ix
SUMMARY
Overview
The development of Animal Science Sector has opened the establishment of
Biologic Gas Technology in order to deal with waste of Animal Science Sector.
Residues from process of Biologic Gas producing include bioslurry, waste matter
and scum. Those brings certain advantages to Aquaculture such as reducing risk of
disease infecting; increasing growing rate of fish caused by bioslurry containing
nutrient which enrich aquatic organism system. In order to estimate the effects of
using bioslurry to grow-out pond, we carried out experiment named Utilization of
bioslurry for comercial fishpond
Objective
To study method(s) using bioslurry for commercial fish pond and benefits of
the practice.
Define method(s) using bioslurry for commercial fish pond (eg. Diet of
bioslurry and pellets; substitution rate of bioslurry for organic manure; substitution
rate of bioslurry for chemical fertilizer; what attention should be paid when using
bioslurry for fish farming);
Calculate economical, environment and safe product benefits;
Develop manual on using bioslurry for commercial fishpond.
Method
Four formulations was used with tow replicates for each in 8 ponds
(1000m2/pond).
Experiment did from January to June, 2011 in nh Bng, T Sn, Bc Ninh.
Results
The using of bioslurry shows good influence to growth of fish. That using with
method of mixing and distributing present better effects in comparison with that of
using no bioslurry. Especially, Grass Carp and Black Carp which prefer living in clean
water, show significant growth. The survival rate was show being lowest at treatment
with using pig manure of 85,83%. The highest rate is of 89,29% in treatment with
mixture if bioslurry and pellets. Common Carp shows highest survival rate of 94,15%
and lowest one is in Grass Carp being 78,61%.
Feed Converting Rate shows considerable increase during experiment period,

that is lowest at 1.42 in method of mixing bioslurry with pellets and highest at 1.55
in control.
In general, water and hydration of the ponds in all treatments are suitable for
the development of fish.
Phytoplankton in pond using bioslurry is abundant, in which 222 species of
algaes were defined and refered to 5 main species named Euglenophyta,
Chlorophyta, Cyanophyta, Bacillariophyta and Pyrrophyta. Some dominate in the
pond like Phacus, Trachelomonas, Scenedesmus, Pediastrum, Closterium,
Oscillatoria, Melosira.
Zooplankton was also isolated with 26 species in 3 groups named Cladocera
with 8 species holding 30,76%, Copepoda and Rotatoria with 9 species for each
occupying 34,62 %.
We were monitoring epidemic diseases in fishes. We saw epidemic diseases
happened in Grass carp and Black carp. Epidemic disease happened strongly in the
trial adding pig manure.
Thus, when use water discharge from biogas project effect well to speed
growth up, rate live kind of fishes in the trade pond. Special, there are two kind of
fishes like clear water environment are Grass carp and Black carp. Beside it effect
to speed growth up, it reduce coefficient of food (0,13) compare non-use water
discharge from biogas project. So, to produce 1 kg of fish if the water discharged
from the use of biogas will save 0.12 Kg compared to the non-food use of
discharge. Otherwise, use water discharge to be limited as well as disease and make
clean products. Finally, when using effluents from biogas projects, bringing
economic efficiency than non-use of water discharged from 3.18 to 3.25 million on
an area of 1000m2 in the 6 months of culture.
xi
BACKGROUND
Biogas technology was of interest from the middle of the 19th century and
realy attracted the attention of scientists since 1973 due to the importance of biogas
and the benefits of biogas as source not only non-polluting but also clean energy to
the environment (FAO, 1992).
Today biogas has gain more interested in many countries around the world
and is considered a kind of efficient renewable energies for rural areas. China, India
and Israel are the countries that have extensive experiences in exploitation and
utilization of bioslurry. Many international organizations such as ESCAP, FAO,
WHO, UNIDO, UNEP has been early interested in assessment, development and
support for studies biogas to deal with multi-dimensional and comprehensive
problems of the world in terms of eco- society, food, industry, medicine and
environment (FAO, 1992).
In Vietnam, the use of organic manure for fish-ponds has its long history.
However, this practice not only cause fish diseases as manure bring many harmful
bacteria but also consume dissolved oxygen in water, resulting in the reduction of
dissolved oxygen and head-floating increase. Along with the rapid development of
biogas digester construction, farmers start to use bioslurry to replace the use of fresh
manure. In some provinces, a number of demonstration pilots using bioslurry for
fish pond. Even though positive results achieved from demonstration pilots but still
lack of concrete formula for the substitution of bioslurry for chemical fertilizer or
animal fresh manure nor the calculation for benefits of the practice in terms of
economy, environment and safe product.
Therefore, the study "Utilization of bioslurry for commercial fishpond" is
needed to give people guidance, specific processes and issues that need to be paid
attention during the utilization of bioslurry for commercial fishponds.
CHAPTER I: DOCUMENT OVERVIEW,

OBJECTIVE, CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY
I. DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
1.1 Biogas technology
Biogas technology was of interest from the middle of the 19th century and
realy attracted the attention of scientists since 1973 due to the importance of biogas
and the benefits of biogas as source not only non-polluting but also clean energy to
the environment (FAO, 1992).
Today biogas has gain more interested in many countries around the world and is
considered a kind of efficient renewable energies for rural areas. China, India and
Israel are the countries that have extensive experiences in exploitation and
utilization of bioslurry. Many international organizations such as ESCAP, FAO,
WHO, UNIDO, UNEP has been early interested in assessment, development and
support for studies biogas to deal with multi-dimensional and comprehensive
problems of the world in terms of eco- society, food, industry, medicine and
environment (FAO, 1992).
In Vietnam, the Centre for New and Renewable Energy under the Institute of
Energy has researched on using local construction materials and other materials to
build biogas plants. Some typical plants were constructed in different geographical
areas while the development programs gained the concern of the State (FAO,
1992). The Project Biogas Program for the Animal Husbandry Sector in Vietnam
(the Project) has been implemented for 8 years by the Department of Livestock
Production (DLP) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD)
in cooperation with the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV). The Project
has collaborated with professional bodies/organizations to perform a number of
studies using bioslurry for pig production and cultivation, achieved some initial
results to serve as a basis for guidance to project officers and farmers to implement
in reality. However, the project has not conducted any studies on the use of
bioslurry for fishpond.
1.2 Bioslurry
Bioslurry has three types of liquid bioslurry, residue and scum. Liquid
bioslurry is in liquid form and stored in boislurry pit or compenstation tank that
connect to the digester (Biogas Program for the Animal Husbandry Sector in
Vietnam, 2008). Researches on bioslurry have been implemented in many countries
in the world to maximize the utilization of this patent fertilizer in many sectors and
purposes like fertilizers for crops, use as additional feed for pig, use for mushroom
cultivation and aquacultural production.
1.3 Quality of bioslurry

The quality of bioslurry that was studied by the Project includes the
nutritional content and safety levels of bioslurry. Nutritional content of bioslurry
includes poly nutritional elements and pH. Analysis results show that bioslurry is
slightly acid or neutral pH and can be used to irrigate all crops. Bioslurry is of
high protein content and total potassium, rather high total phosphorus, mainly in
the form of easy to use for crops such as N-NO3, N-NH4, effective phosphorus and
potassium. When compared with regulations on standard hydroponic solution,
bioslurry has total nitrogen of 2.5 to 4.3 times (mean 3.4 times) higher, total
phosphorus of 0, 38 to 1.14 times higher, total potassium of 2.02 to 2.54 times
higher than that of standard hydroponic solution. Compared to the maximum limit
in hydroponic solution, bioslurry has much higher of trace elements such as Cu is
of 1.8 to 10.9 times higher, Zn is of 2.8 to 10.7 times higher, Mo is of 3.1 to 4.4
times higher while a number of other elements such as Mn, Mg, Fe has equal or
slightly higher value. Some elements have lower concentrations such as Ca, Bo.
When comparing the levels of macro nutrients (N, P; K) between the bioslurry and
fresh manure, it was found that concentrations of macro nutrients in bioslurry are
lower than those in fresh manure as shown in Table 1:
0.06 - 0.07
Fresh pig
manure
0.7
Total P2O5 (%)
0.016 - 0.018
1.42
Total K2O (%)
0.107 - 0.129
0.54
Parameter
Total N (%)
Bioslurry
(Cao K Sn and partners, 2008)
Table 1: Macro nutrients in bioslurry and fresh pig manure

Even though bioslurry has the lower concentration of macro nutrients but the
nutrients are mainly in the form of inorganic minerals thus plants and phytoplankton
can use immediately. In pig manure, nutrients are partly in the form of inorganic
minerals, while the other are in the form of organic compounds thus plants and
phytoplankton can not be used immediately, instead it need to be under degradable
process to be in the form of inorganic minerals. The utilization of bioslurry is good to
the growth of phytoplankton, then good to the growth of bottom species, thus
positively effects fishes, especialy for the filter feeders (Silver carp, Bighead) and
benthic species (Common carp, Indian carp)
Safety of bioslurry: according to Le Thi Xuan Thu (2008), the reason why
the concentration of Cadmium, lead, arsenic in bioslurry after biogas treatment
are higher than those of allowed threshold can be caused of the infiltrate from
food or from drinking water. The process of biogas decomposition itself does not
create heavy metals, but change the dynamics of the heavy metals from bioresidue or scum to new forms in bioslurry. It is pretty simple to handle this issue,
if would like these metals is deposited in residue or scum, just increase the pH of
bioslurry. Bio-residue and scum can be produced organic fertilizer after being
composted with straw and/or leaves... that can be safety used for crops. If would
like to use bioslurry to irrigate crops, just diluted to concentrations of heavy
metals under the suggested threshold.
Microbial safety: The density of microorganisms in the cow manure is 1.27 x 108
CFU/g, in pig manure is 1.39 x108 CFU/g, in a mixture of cow and pig manure is
2.52 x 108 CFU/g that suit to normal distribution of microorganisms in general
manure in Vietnam. In bioslurry it is not found epidemic microorganisms such as
cholera, typhoid and almost no worm egg density. The degradation of manure in
the digester reduces the density of microorganisms in bioslurry to an average of
63.5 times (for cow), 24.0 times (for pig) and 89.4 times (for a mixture of cow
manure + pig manure).
According to Cao Ky Son et al 2008, the density of microorganisms in
bioslurry is under the permission thredhold, in average of 2 x 106 CFU/ml (bioslurry
of the cow dung), 5.79 x 106 CFU/ml (bioslurry of pig dung) and 2.82 x106 CFU/ml
(bioslurry of mixture of cow dung and pig dung). It is not found the disease - causing
microorganisms, only found few helminth eggs of 1.7 to 3.7 eggs/25 ml they may be
introduced from outside into the bioslurry or unexplained sources. Thus bioslurry is
safety due to having no disease-causing microorganisms nor insignificant worm eggs,
are eligible to irrigate crops.
1.4. Utilization of bioslurry in agriculture and fish culture

Today people care more about construction and utilization of biogas system.
Many studies have shown the importance of bioslurry and the utilization of bioslurry
become popular in countries like China, India and other countries in South Asia.
Bioslurry can be used as a potent fertilizer for crops, as fertilizer for fish production and
this system remarkably contributes in pollution reduction. In addition, bioslurry after
anaerobic digestion of waste from pig, cattle or poultry can be safely used as additional
feed for animal as they can provide protein (2.94% N according to dry matter), multiminerals and vitamins.
In 2004, Giang and Len conducted a study on impact of bio-slurry to the

development and food transformation in hybrid pig F2. They concluded that
mixture of 1 - 2 litters of bio-slurry digested from pig excreta and 1kg mixed
food can help increase the efficiency of food transformation and weight of pig.
The result shows that when blending bio-slurry with mixed food, there is no
symptom of respiration or digestion illness in pigs. However, not many studies
focus on methods to process bio-slurry before feeding pig as well as how to feed
the pig to get the highest efficiency.
Using bioslurry in aquaculture has been known in many countries with a
tradition and high technology in fisheries science, such as China, Israel, the
Philippines. From the years 1977 - 1978, in Middle East and Israel there have been
many trials and studies using untreated animal dung as cow manure as food for fish
in the pond . Many experiments were conducted in ponds having polyculture of
Carp, Tilapia and White Silver carp. The experiment compared the growth rates of
fishes in the ponds when using pellets, fresh cow dung and composted cow dung.
The results showed that the growth rate of Tilapia did not differ between treatments.
Dissolved oxygen in the ponds varied from 1 to 8 mg/L and in average maintained
at 3 mg/L in 80% of the raising time. Primary productivity has been studied to
assess the impact of organic matter in ponds on fish yield. Rates of photosynthesis
in ponds receiving bioslurry are higher in comparison with those in the ponds using
chemical fertilizers. Ponds with bioslurry have rate of zooplankton higher than those
in ponds without bioslurry. Results of experiments in three seasons shows using
bioslurry for fish ponds can save 50% pellets, eg economically meaning. Degani et
al. (1982) conducted laboratory studies using a number of treatments and
bioslurry with different diets for Tilapia. Results showed that bioslurry can
replace 50% of food in fish farming but the different types of bioslurry, the
different effect. Other study evaluating the effects of bioslurry in raising
Tilapia showed a part of carbohydrate was replaced by the growth of algae that
make balancing the ratio between the energy exchange with the protein in the
diet. The results also indicate that bioslurry may play an important role to
increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in the pond so help increase primary
productivity and Chlorophyll A concentration. Experiment by Marchaim et al,
(1983) in pond having carp showed levels of dissolved oxygen in the pond is
higher than those in pond with regular fish feed.
In China, since 1988s people used pig manure for fishponds to stimulate the
growth of aquatic plants to create a natural food source in the ponds. According to
Fang Xing and Xu Yiz Hong (1988), the Chinese sprayed liquid bioslurry into the
pond every 3 days with a volume of 400 kg/666 m2. This practice showed that the
utilization of bioslurry for fishpond have many benefits. First, bioslurry contains
many nutrients, macro elements and micronutrients that stimulate the growth of
phytoplankton and zooplankton in the pond. The aquatic organisms are direct or
indirect feed that help increase fish yield. In southern China, raising fish in pond is
very common practice. Normally, fish is fed with wheat bran, but recently people
use bioslurry as additional feed to increase fish productivity while reduce
production costs (Center for Biogas Technology of China, 1982). As bioslurry is the
product of the the degredation of organic matters that have been fermented
completely, dissolved oxygen in water will not be consumed thus not badly impact
water quality. Bislurry has brownish gray color so it absorbs heat from the sunlight
better, then the temperature of water ponds increased thus positive impact growth
rate of fish. During anaerobic fermentation in the digester, bactericidal and eggs of
the parasite causing disease in the fresh dung are killed, so fish in the pond using
bioslurry are less infected with diseases. pH value of water of pond using bioslurry
is neutral so suitable for the growth of fish.
In Vietnam, the use of organic manure for fish-ponds has its long history.
However, this practice not only cause fish diseases as manure bring many harmful
bacteria but also consume dissolved oxygen in water, resulting in the reduction of
dissolved oxygen and head-floating increase. Along with the rapid development of
biogas digester construction, farmers start to use bioslurry to replace the use of fresh
manure. In some provinces, a number of demonstration pilots using bioslurry for
fish pond. Even though positive results achieved from demonstration pilots but still
lack of concrete formula for the substitution of bioslurry for chemical fertilizer or
animal fresh manure nor the calculation for benefits of the practice in terms of
economy, environment and safe product.
According to Le Thi Xuan Thu (2008), so far in Vietnam, there are very few
studies on bioslurry or nutrient content, toxins and benefits as fertilizer for crops of
bioslurry. During the years of 2007 - 2008, the Biogas Program for the Animal
Husbandry Sector in Vietnam (the Project) in collaboration with the Research
Centre for Nutrition and Fertilizer for plants (National Institute of Soils and
Fertilizes) performed a review on the quality of bioslurry based upon results from
an investigation and systematic analysis of a wide range of different indicators. The
review was carried out in Soc Son district, Hanoi at 9 households having biogas
plants that built and operated in accordance with the procedures of the Project. At
each household, a slurry pit of 1m3 was built to connect with the compenstation
tank. Feeding materials for the digester are cow dung, pig dung and mixture of cow
dung and pig dung. Water used to dilute the dung is in accordance with the design
and direction to ensures that the animal manure stay in the digester for 45 days.
1.5 Biological characteristics of some fish used in the research

1.5.1 Vietnam silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys harmandi Sauvage, 1844)
Distribution: Previously, Vietnam white bighead is widely distributed in the
Red River system, Thai Binh River, Ma River, and Lam River. This is the typical
species of fish in the North of the country. Many documents show this species is
detected in the South of Hainan-China. At present, due to the uncontrolled
production of varieties of the species, the pure original species are not existed,
especially the Vietnam white bighead.
Figure 1. Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys)

Living behavior: Fish lives in the middle layer, agility, live in herds in
rivers, lakes, ponds and fields. When grown in reproductive season fish migrate to
the upstream of the river where the ecological conditions are suitable for breeding.
Eating behavior: Major foods of white bighead are phytoplankton and a few
zooplankton and organic mulch residue.
Growth: In natural conditions in the river, the fish grow rapidly:
At 1 year old fish rearch 35.1 - 38cm, weigh 0.785 - 0.885 kg.
At 2 years old fish rearch 43.3 - 43.5cm, weigh 1.404 - 1.532 kg.
At 3 years old fish rearch 54.1 cm and weight 1.938 - 2.037 kg.
In ponds, the growth rate depends on nutrient conditions and density of raising fish,
usually after a year one fish reaches 0.3 to 0.5 kg.
1.5.2. Bighead carp (Aristicthys nobilis Rich)
Distribution: Bighead carp is one of the typical species of the fish fauna
at the plains of China. At the begining, Bighead carp was naturally distributed
Yangtze River and Ngoc River. In our country, Bighead carp is only distributed
in Ky Cung River (Lang Son), but the quantity is very low. In 1958 the fish was
imported from China and sucessfully carried out the artificial breeding in
1963. From that time the Bighead carp have been become widely farmed in
many localities.
Living behavior: Bighead carp mainly lives in middle layer of water and
upper layer of water. They preferred to live in nutrient-rich waters, rich in dissolved
oxygen and live in herds. The fish stop eating when dissolved oxygen levels below
1.1 mg/L and death when oxygen concentration is at 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L.
Figure 2. Bighead carp (Aristicthys nobilis)

Eating behavior: At the stages of fry and fingerlings, they eat mainly
plankton, or artificial food such as rice bran, wheat, soybean flour. At the stage of
maturation, the Bighead carp eat mainly plankton or little algae and also use fine
feed. The strong nutrition of the fish is strong in spring, summer and the fall, but
falling food in winter but never stop permanently.
Growth: The Bighead carp of 12 days old have 1.52 cm long and weighs
0.134g; 22-day-old one has 1.91cm long and weight 0.176g; 80 days old are 6 cm in
length, weighs 63.3 g. The Bighead carp grow faster than the Silver carp. The
maximum of length grow from year 1 to year 3 and then decline gradually. In terms
of weight of the fish, it increase fast from year 2 to year 6, but the fastest in year 3.
The growth of Bighead carp depends on the density of farming and nutrition. When
farming density in ponds is low, the fish grow fast: after 1 year fish can weigh 1.0 1.5 kg; even 2.0 - 2.5 kg; the fish of two to three years weigh 4 - 6 kg. In the newly
formed reservoir, where rich in natural food, the fish grow very fast. Thac Ba Lake
(Yn Bi) fish of 1-year-old weigh 2.7 kg; 2-year-old fish weigh 5.218 kg. Cam Son
Lake (Bac Giang) fish of 2-year-old weight 20 kg. The biggest Bighead carp was
caught in the country is from Thac Ba Lake in 1976.
1.5.3 Common carp (Cyprinus carpio, Line 1758)
Distribution: Common carp is a species that widespread throughout the
world. They are found in all types of freshwater. According to a survey by Tran
Dinh Trong, Vietnam has seven different types of carp with variety of color.
However, carp that are raised most popular is the white carp in the North.
Currently, V1 common carp is the most preferred in Vietnam. V1 is selected by
the Institute of Aquaculture. Carp V1 has many good characters as they collected
good characters from the fish flakes from Hungary, Common Carp from Indonesia
and the white carp in Vietnam.
Figure 3. Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Eating and growth:
Fish of 3 to 4 day-old have length of 6 to 7.2 mm live at the upper water
layer. Fish of 4 to 6 day old have length of 7.2 to 7.5 mm lives at the middle
water layer. Their main feed is plankton. Fish of 80 to 10 days of age have
length of 14.3 - 19 mm. Their siege began complete, having flakes, whiskers.
Their feed are mainly small benthic. Fish of 20 - 28 days old have length of 19
to 28 mm, live mainly in the bottom. They mainly eat benthic food, organic
mulch and a small residue of phytoplankton. When being adult, carp eat the
main benthic mollusks, larvae, insects, worms ... In addition, they eat organic
residue mulch, bulbs, vegetable seeds and artificial feed. Carp cultured in
ponds normally reach weight of 0.7 to 1.0 kg/year. Extensive productivity in
the improved culturing ponds in Europe is about 500 kg/ ha/year.
1.5.4 Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus)
Figure 4. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus)

Distribution: Grass carp is a native Chinese freshwater fish with a broad
distribution of water in Central Asia, the plains of China, Hainan Island, Amua
River Basin, which borders the Soviet Union (former) with China.
In Vietnam, P.cherey and Lemasson (1927) found grass carp in the Red River.
Grass carp also naturally distributed in Ky Cung River (Lang Son). In 1958, grass
carp were imported from China. In 1967 artificial breeding of grass carp was
succesful, then the fish become the object of popular culture, especially for
mountainous areas, and the object to cage culture in the north.
Feed: 3 days after hatching fish reach the lenghth of about 7 mm. They
started feeding rotifers, non-vertebrae larvae and inferior algae. Fish of 2 to 3 cm
start feeding a little pre - plant, proportion of rotifers in the diet reduced, but the
crustacean plankton accounted for main proportion in feed.
Fish of 30 to 10 cm long can crush superior plants and they switch to feed
aquatic plants. Natural food of grass carp is mainly mature superior plant (both
aquatic and terrestrial), some insects and worms.
Consumption of vegetation of huge grass carp is from 22.1 to 27.8% by
weight of fish per day. On average, 40 kg of plant will gain 1 kg of fish. Grass carp
feed well artificial feed. However, if the ingredients more starchy, more fatty fish
and less growth of fish.
Growth: Under culture conditions in Vietnam, when nursuring with density
of 180 - 200 fry/m2 for 25 - 30 days, the fish can reach length of 3 - 3.1 cm and
weight of 140 - 240mg.
At stage of nursuring with density of 10 fry/m2, after two months of
nursuring the fish can rearch length of 10 - 12 cm. In mature ponds, 1 year old fish
can reach 1 kg and 2 year old fish can reach 2 - 4 kg. Where abundant of aquatic
seed, 3 year old grass carp can reach 9 - 12kg/fish.
1.5.5 Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)
Figure 5. Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)

Distribution: In nature Black carp are distributed in China and North
Vietnam. In Vietnam the fish are distributed in the lower Red River, Thai Binh,
Ma, Lam Rivers.
Living character: Grass Carp are peaceful, prefer to clean water, live in
bottom. Their endurance to the fertility of water is less than grass carp.
10
Feed: Fry feed mainly zooplankton, while adults feed primarily benthic as
snails, mussels... When feeding, fish use teeth to crush the shells and extract the
meat. In farming ponds and lakes, the Black carp can feed bran, bran circuit, cake,
industria food. Currently Black carp are mostly polycultured with a very low rate in
ponds (1 - 2 fry/sao of pond). Recently appeared monoculture and polyculture of
Black carp in ponds with high rates using both snail and industrial food (Kim Van
Van et al, 2009).
Growth: Black carp is a big size commercial fish with rapid growth rate,
particularly in year 2 and year 4 fish grow quickly. Standard commercial Black carp
from 2.5 kg and above.
1.5.6 Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus
In 1974, Research Institute for Aquaculture No. I imported Nile tilapia with
types of GIFT, Egyptians and Thai from the Philippines. Studies show that GIFT
type , grow faster than types of Viet and Egyptians (Nguyen Cong Dan, 2006).
Figure 6. Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus

Feed: Tilapia are omnivores plant preferred fish. According Chervinski
(1982), their feed change at stages of development and culture environment. Their
feed are mainly algae, a part of vascular plant and organic humus. In the fry stage
(from lavae to fingerlings) their feed is zooplankton. From the fingerlings stage to
the mature stage they feed mainly humus and organic residues of phytoplankton.
Nile Tilapia can digest green algae, which cannot be digested by some other
species. Nile tilapia feed the additional feed such as rice bran, cornmeal and other
agricultural residue.
Development and growth: The growth and development of tilapia of all
stages is not entirely like other fish, and can be divided into 14 stages.
11
After hatching 3 to 5 days, tilapia have length of 6.5 to 10 mm, the ball full
of air, the fish are able to swmim out, on the surface water layer, and able to catch
prey. After hatching 5 to 7 days, tilapia have length of 10 - 10.5 mm, swim to the
bottom to feed small Chironomus.
After hatching 7 - 9 days, the fish have length of 10.5 - 11mm, live outside
their mother fish mouth and able to catch prey.
After hatching 9 - 10 days, the fish have length of 11 - 15mm, out of ovule,
have all fins, live completely outside.
After 20 days, tilapia have length of 17.5mm, have all fins, stable body.
Tilapia feed mainly algae, plankton, benthic organic residues and humus.
Speed of growth depends on the condition of culture and feed. Nile tilapia
grow faster and larger than Black tilapia. Black Tilapia grow fast month 3 and 4
while Nile tilapia grow rapidly from month 5 and 6. Male grow faster than female,
especially after sexual maturity. Nile Tilapia GIFT type can reach a weight of an
average of 600 - 700g per fish, after 5 to 6 months farming (Trn Vn Tr, 2007).
The heat threshold: According to Chervinski (1982), tilapia can stand up
with temperatures of 5C to 40C. The growth of Tilapia decrease in temperatures
below 20C. The fish stop feeding when temperatures below 15C. Most species of
Tilapia grow well at temperatures of 20 - 35C, optimum temperature for growth,
development of tilapia is about 25 - 30oC (Rana, 1990).
The oxygen threshold: Compared to many species of fish, tilapia can live in
an environment with rich in nutrition, such as sewage, water pond... that
concentrations of low oxygen dissolves of 1 mg/L. Under experiment conditions,
tilapia can tolerate concentrations of oxygen dissolves of less than 0.5 mg/L in a
short time. But if the prolonged low concentration of oxygen in water will affect the
rate of growth of the fish (Magid and Babiker, 1975).
pH threshold: Tilapia grow best in a neutral or slightly alkaline environment
with pH of 6.5 - 8.5. It is the ideal range for tilapias growth and development.
Tilapia died at pH < 4 or > 11 (Philippart and Ruwet, 1982).
Salinity threshold : Tilapia are species adapted to salt. They can live in three
of freshwater, brackish and saline (Le Quang Long, 1964). Tilapia O. niloticus is
the species can growth fast and adapt to the environment with salinity brackish
water from five to ten parts per thousand (Suresh and Kweilin, 1992).
12
1.5.7 Indian carp (Labeo rohita, Hamilton (1822))

Indian carp is scientifically name Labeo rohita - Hamilton (1822) of Labeo Cuvier
breed (1817). They are one of three species of Indian carp that introduced Vietnam in August
1982, and have become one of the subjects of freshwater fish farming.
Figure 7. Indian carp (Labeo rohita)

Living characteristics: Indian carp originated from the River Ganges in India,
that quickly become the object of fish culture from South to North in Vietnam. Indian
carp is a species living near the bottom, withstand high temperature of 42 - 43C, but
sensitive with cold temperature, temperature of 12 - 13C cause dead of fish. Suitable
environment for fish: water temperature of 24 - 25C; pH = 7 - 8, oxygen is greater
than 3 mg/L. Oxygen threshold is 0.32 mg/L. The fish can tolerate salinity of 14
parts per thousand.
Nutrient: In the first day old, fish feed small plankton like protozoa, wheel,
single-celled algae etc. From the day 17, the length of bowel is longer than the
length of the body and fish start to eat humus-organic residue.
The most common point in the conclusions that Indian carps are omnivorous
and prefer humus residue therefore their competitiveness is strong. Thank to this
characteristics they have the most common breeding objects.
Growth: Indian carp an reach length of 35 to 45 cm and weight of 0.58

kg in normal culture conditions in 1 year, 2.6 kg in year 2 and year 3 is 5.4 kg.
13
II. OBJECTIVE, APPROACH, CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY

2.1. Objective and Approach
2.1.1. General objective
To study method(s) using bioslurry for commercial fish pond and benefits of
the practice.
2.1.2. Specific objective
9
Define method(s) using bioslurry for commercial fish pond (eg. Diet
of bioslurry and pellets; substitution rate of bioslurry for organic manure;
substitution rate of bioslurry for chemical fertilizer; what attention should be paid
when using bioslurry for fish farming);
9 Calculate economical, environment and safe product benefits;
9 Develop manual on using bioslurry for commercial fishpond.
2.2. Approach
2.2.1. Desk-study
The study was carried out with desk-study on the overview of the domestic
and abroad researches and issues related to the study such as species, percentage of
polyculturing in commercial ponds, percentage of bioslurry replacement, combined
industrial feed, etc.
2.2.2. Investigation, selection of research place and households
Site selection for study is based on the project database of the Biogas
Project on research localities and a list of participating households. We
conducted a survey (November and December 2010) and selected four
households having eight ponds and five households having biogas plants with
appropriate livestock scale. The selected households are households meeting the
required conditions for conducting research such as equally area of ponds, depth
of the pond, biogas plants, suitable breeding pigs. Priority went to households
who are voluntary contribution of capital to participate in research. List of
participating households are presented in Table 2
14
Table 2. Household participated in research
No.
Full name
Address
Area of
pond (m2)
Size of biogas
plant (m3)
Remark
Nguyen The Toan
Cao Lam
2,200
Nguyen The Sang
Cao Lam
2,000
Nguyen Thi Thao
Cao Lam
2,000
Nguyen Thi Van
Cao Lam
2,000
Tran Duc Thang
Ao Sen
12
10 pigs
Nguyen The Thang
Ao Sen
12
12 pigs
Ngo Van Lam
Ao Sen
12
10 pigs
Ngo Van Diem
Ao Sen
12
10 pigs
Nguyen Dinh Luan
Ao Sen
17
30 pigs
Two ponds
per
household
Biogas plants are all constructed 3 years ago and located in Dinh Bang village, Tu
Son district, Bac Ninh province.
2.3. Research content

2.3.1. Culturing environment
Daily observed changes in the experimental ponds. Take samples of water in
ponds before, during and after the experiment to examine changes in the hydration
factor, and aquatic life.
2.3.2. Monitor the health of the fish
Health of fish is daily observed. When the fish have healthy problem,
measurements have to carry out such as testing sample swabs, drug prevention,
treatment and processing environment.
2.3.3. Comprehensive evaluation of bioslurry use in commercial fish pond
All results from the research are comprehensively evaluated, including: the
growth rate, commercial size, survival rate, feed conversion ratio, feed cost, total
15
cost and evaluation on economic efficiency when using feed pellets, bioslurry use,
fresh manure, fish yield when harvesting, comparing the economic efficiency.
2.3.4. Develop draft technical document for utilization of bioslurry for
commercial fish pond
The draft technical documents on using bioslurry in commercial fish has
been developed based on the results and content of research after evaluation,
compilation and analysis of experimental results, the frequency and volume of
bioslurry used in ponds, the amount of bioslurry mixing into feed for the fish are
daily recorded by all households. Notebooks of research are checked monthly.
2.4. Research methodology

2.4.1. Experiment equipment:
- Bioslurry was sampled by specialized equipment to transport to the
ponds and weight carefully.
- After research on biological characteristics, we refer intergrated
treatments on local fish (pond environment, potencial feed supplement, price of
commercial fish), collect intergrated treatments as well as amount of types of fish in
experiments as following: Tilapia 40%, Grass carp 15%, Bighead Carp 5%, and
10% for each species of Common Carp, Mrigal, Silver Carp and Black Carp. When
you use the amount of types of fish essential refer on the fish biological
characteristics.
- After studying the biological characteristics, the actual conditions (pond
environment, the ability to provide food, the price of each commercial species), and
discussions with participating households, we give suggestions on formula for the
experiment as follows: Tilapia 40%, Grass Carp 15%, Bighead 5% and 10% each
for other species: Common Carp, Indian Carp, Silver Carp, Black Carp. The
formula is proposed basing on eating characteristic of each species and their
commercial value (households contributed to the including ponds, 50% of the
purchase of fingerling fish, 75% of food, therefore cost efficient economy which
provided by the formula polyculture that people care). The filter feeding fish: Silver
carp and Bighead can use algae in ponds to make ponds water clean. However,
these species have low economic value thus the polyculture rate is low (50-10%).
Tilapia have the ability to consume food, high resistant and economic value, easy to
sell thus have a high rate of polyculture (40%). Grass carp and black carp are
species of high economic value but they prefer clean water so they have low
polyculture rate (10-15%%). Although common carp has high economic value and
high resistance but their growth depends to the number of bottom animals then they
should not be raised in high density resulting in low polyculture rate (10%).
16
2.4.2. Experiment arrangement

Experiments was carried out on 8 ponds and arrange as below:
Table 3. Arrange experiments

Experiment
Description
Pond
Area (m2)
Feed pallets + Fresh manure (10

kg/100m2/week)
P1, P2
1,100
Pump bioslurry into fishponds twice a

week + feed pallets
(10L/100m2/2times/week)
P3, P5
1,000
Mix bioslurry with feed pallets with

ratio of 1:1(L/kg)
P4, P6
1,000
Only feed pallets
P7, P8
1,000
The experimental ponds are located in places far away from the household
having biogas plants to avoid undefinite impacts of the waste water to flow freely to
experimental ponds.
2.4.3. Culture engineering
Details of the general specification follow the prescribed technical
standards: the pond that cleared of dusty, dry pond bottoms for 3 days, clearance
ponds with 7 - 10 kg/100 m2, water of the pond is filtered through the grid,
feeding twice a day, feed management, monitoring on health of fish
2.4.4. Management on pond and feed
Fish are fed twice a day with feed pellets of 3 - 10% of body weight. During
culture, daily notes exactly the volume of consumed feed in order to calculate the
feed consumed coefficient.
Managing measures to the pond and feeding technique are applied in order to
minimize losses and achieve economic efficiency.
The depth of pond is maintained of 1.5 - 2 m.
2.4.5. Monitoring on environment and fish health during culture
9 Culture environment:
Check the water environemtn:
temperature, dissolved oxygen in water, pH, total ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total by
using test analysis kits in order to timely treatment at the research site.
17
Checking bio-planton (phytoplankton and zooplankton):

Water samples were taken by phytoplankton and zooplankton nets. Sample
taking places: taking samples at 4 pond corners, every month for four times
- Quantitative sample taking: The phytoplankton net was used to horizontally
get out of the ponds in 8 places like octagon and zigzag. Water samples were contained
in 500ml bottle, marked, fixed by Lugol solution and then brought to the laboratory.
- Qualitative sample taking: In sample taking places, we used 20L buckets to
get water samples, filtered through phytoplankton and zooplankton rackets. Getting
125ml water to contain 500ml plastic bottles, marked, fixed by Lugol solution and
brought to the laboratory.
Identification of species Component (Qualtitative analysis):
Pouring 1 - 2 drops to glass, covered by slide and looked through CETI lightmicroscope with magnification of 40 - 100 times. The samples were looked repeatedly
2 - 3 times. Identification of species Component was refered the doccument below:
Nguyen Van Tuyen, 2003; Identification of zooplankton species: According to
document of Dang Ngoc Thanh, Pham Van Mien, Thai Tran Bai (1980).
Determination of phytoplankton amount (Quantitative analysis): Sacking
gentlely water samples, put 1 drop into Neubauer. Counting the number of agar and
zooplankton in center of square with 1mm2.
Formula of phytoplankton and zooplankton density: B = A x 104
In Which:
B : Density of total counted cells (tb/mL)
A: Counted cells in the center square
Density of phytoplankton and zooplankton in 1 little was presented below:
C (tb/l) = B x 103/h
In Which:
B: Density of phytoplankton and zooplankton (tb/mL)
h: afterfilter coefficient (h = 20000/125 = 1.6 x 102)
Determination of zooplankton amount (Quantitative analysis): Individual
counting method of Konkvic (1905): Counting the number of zooplankton by
advanced Bogrov method in Microscope with magnification of 40 - 100 times.
According to the number of individuals that we looked, calculate the quantity of
individual in cubic (A):
C x V'
A=
V" x V"'
In which: C is the number of counted zooplanktons in V" (individual)
V' is the volume of center samples (100 ml)
V" is the volume of counted samples (ml)
V"' is the volume of pond taking samples (m3)
18
9 Fish health: Select healthy and normal shape, free diseases etc.
- Fish was bathed with with dilute concentration of 2 - 3% (2 - 3kg of salt per
100 liters of water) for 10 minutes before stocking.
- Monitoring fish health during farming duration.
- In case of disquality of the environment, timely solutions such as using lime
processing environment or using drugs, chemicals, biological products that licensed by
the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development are used to prevent diseases.
2.4.6. Methods for define growth rate, feed consuming coefficient, living rate
and productivity
The speed growth was monthly checked by examining a random 30
individuals, calculate the average weight to adjust food intake accordingly.
Calculate the average growth speed
M1 - M2
M=
T
In which: M:
Average gain (g/individual/day)
M1:
Average weight of individual when stocking
M2:
Average weight of individual when harvesting
T:
Farming day
Total harvesting quantity (head)
Living ratio (% ) =
x 100
Total stocking quantity (head)
Total amount of feed used (kg)
Feed coefficient =
Total amount of weight gained (kg)
Total weight of harvesting fish (ton)
Yield (ton/ha) =
Culture area (ha)
The data on the volume of fish (stock, harvest), food consumption,
environmental data etc are calculated for average value, standard errors, statistical
analysis have done on 2003 Excell sheet and SPSS software.
19
2.4.7. Method for economic benefit assessment:

Effective breeding including indicators when harvest could be calculated:
size of fish, feed consuming coefficient, cost of feed and cost of production.
Economic efficiency = total revenue - total expense cost
In which: total revenue = quantity of sold fish x product price
Total expense cost = breeder cost + feed costs + labor cost + cost
depreciation pond.
20
CHAPTER II: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I. SUBJECT 1: USING BIOSLURRY FOR COMMERCIAL FISHPOND
1. Growth rate
Influence result of using bioslurry for commercial fishpond on growth speed
as follows:
1.1. Growth rate of silver cap
Growth result of Vietnam silver cap is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Growth rate of Vietnam Silver cap
Indicators
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average weight
when stocking
326.5
326.5
326.5
326.5
889.91
881.33
874.83
851.96
563.41 0.78
554.83 1.67
176
176
176
176
3.201 0.004a
3.152 0.009b
3.116 0.017bc
2.986 0.025c
(g/individual)
Average weight
when harvesting
(g/individual)
Averate growth
(g/individual)
Farming day
(day)
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
548.33 3.07
525.46 4.46
The same scripts in one row mean that there is no statistical significance (P > 0.05)
Through the Table 4, the average weights of the harvested silver carps shot
up a peak of 889.91 g/individual in T1 (fresh manure supplemental experiemental), and
then reduced in T2, T3 and plunged to 851.96 g/individual in T4 (only feed pallets).
At the same time, the absolute growth rates of such fish were fastest in T1 (3.201
g/individual/day) and slowest in T4 (2.986 g/individual/day). The differences in the
absolute growth rates of the silver carps in all experiemental treatments are shown
in the Firgure 9.
21
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
3.3
3.201
3.152
3.2
3.116
3.1
2.986
3.0
2.9
2.8
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 9. Absolute growth rates of the silver carps

When using ANOVA analysis of the Excel 2003 software, it is shown that
the absolute growth rates of the silver carps in T1(fresh manure supplemental
experiemental) was different to those of other treatments (P < 0.05). However, there
was no statistical significance on the growth rates of the silver carps in the T2
(Pump bioslurry into fishponds experiemental) and T3 (mix bioslurry with feed
pallets experiemental) (P > 0.05). This means the method of using different
bioslurry did not affect the growth rates of the silver carps in polyculture ponds
of commercial fish species. On the other hand, the growth rates of the Silver
carps in T2 and T3 contrasted markedly with that in T4 ((only feed pallets). The
growth rates in T2 was statistically different to that in T4 (p < 0.05), whereas
T3s was not (p < 0.05).
This can be explained as silver carp is a filter feeding spieces; its main foods
are phytoplankton and zooplankton so that its growth rate is influenced by the
quantity of the foods in the fishing ponds. It is therefore, when adding an equivalent
volume of bioslurry into T2 and T3, the phytoplankton and zooplankton there grew
similarly. However, when mixing the bioslurry into industrial fish meal, part of the
bioslurry penetrated into the meal and eaten immediately by the spcieces that feed
on the industrial meal (common carp, black carp, nile talapia...). This leads to the
difference in the volume of the bioslurry in the fishing ponds of T2 in comparison to
those of T3. That is why the quantity of phytoplankton and zooplankton in NT3 was
lower than T2s but higher than T4s. However the difference between the quantities
22
of phytoplankton and zooplankton of T2 and T3 was not significant enough to lead

to discrepancies in the growth rates of the silver carps in the two said experimental
treatments. The growth rate of the silver carps in T2 was therefore not statistically
different to that in T3 but significantly varies to that in T4. On the contrary, although
making use of bioslurry, the quantity of phytoplankton and zooplankton in T3 ponds
was not markedly higher than that in T4. That is why the growth rate of the silver
carps in T3 was not different to that in T4
When monitoring the growth rates of the silver carps in all experimental
treatments, it was recognized that the rates differed throughout the farming months.
This is presented in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Growth rates of the Silver carps in checking times

The figure 10 showns that growth rate of silver carp is increased gradually
from the first to the fourth checking times, and accelerated faster from the fourth to
the sixth checking period. This can be explained that: in the former period (from
first farming month to fourth farming month), the pond experienced a lower
temperature, and the weather was less sunny than the latter duration; thus, the
quantity of phytoplankton and zooplankton in the pond was correspondingly
reduced and the carp growth rate was consequently slowlier. On the other hand, in
the fry and fingerlings stage, silver carp undergoes a slowlier absolute growth rate
than that in the mature period. The Firgure 10 also shows the insignificant
differences amongst the growth rates of the Silver Carps in all experimental
treatments, only T4s was lower than the others.
23
1.2. Growth rate of Grass carp

Table 5. Growth rate of grass carp
Indicators
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average weight
when stocking
538.3
538.3
538.3
538.3
1,306.66
1,334.83
1,345.77
1,333.96
768.36 5.71
796.53 2.72
807.47 2.26
795.63 0.63
176
176
176
176
(g/individual)
Average weight
when harvesting
(g/individual)
Averate growth
(g/individual)
Farming day
(day)
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
4.37 0.0334
4.53 0.0154
4.59 0.0129
4.52 0.0036
The same scripts in one row mean that there is no statistical significance (P > 0.05)
In the Table 5 showed that, the average weights of the harvested grass carps
is shot up a peak of 1,345.77 g/individual in T3 and then is in T2, T4 and smallest
average weight is in T1 (1,306.66g/idividual/day). At the same time, the absolute
growth rates of such fish were fastest in T3 (4.59 g/individual/day) and slowest in T1
(4.37 g/individual/day). The differences in the absolute growth rates of the grass
carps in all experiemental treatments are shown in the Firgure 11.
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
4.65
4.59
4.53
4.52
4.50
4.37
4.35
4.20
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 11. Absolute growth rates of the grass carps
24
ANOVA analysis results indicated that there was a statistically significance

in the growth rate of the grass carp in T1 to those of the other experiment treatments
(p < 0.05). Thus, the use of fresh pig mannure in the polyculture ponds of
commercial fish species has slowed down the growth rate of the grass carp. Such
carps in T3 experienced a statistically significant growth rate to those of T2 and T4 (p
< 0.05). However, the growth rates of the grass carps in T2 and T4 had no statistical
significance (p > 0.05). The two different methods of using bioslurry (Pump directly
bioslurry into fishponds and mix bioslurry with feed pallets) has consequently
resulted in the different growth rates of the grass carps.
Growth rates of the grass carps in all experimental treatments is presented in Figure 12.
Growth
(g/individual)
250
T1
200
T2
150
T3
100
T4
50
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Checking period
Figure 12. Growth rates of the grass carp in checking times

In the Figure 12 showed that, the weight growth of the Grass Carps remained
consistent amongst all checking times at all experimental treatments, and tended to
gradually increase after each checking times. Initially, from the first to the third
checking times, the growth rate in T1 was lowest to those of the rest treatments (the
line showing the grass carp growth rate in T1 always lay below those of T2, T3 and
T4 in the Grass Carp growth rate chart). From the third to fifth checking times, the
growth rates in all streatments were relatively alike, all lines came closer. From the
fifth to sixth checking times, the growth rates of the grass carps in T2, T3 and T4
were quite the same and higher than T1s.
25
1.3. Growth rate of Indian carp

Growth rate of Mud carp is presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Growth rate of Indian carp
Indicators
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average weight
when stocking
215.7
215.7
215.7
215.7
Average weight
when harvesting
(g/individual)
735.39
710.88
718.55
703.71
Averate growth
519.69 5.74
495.18 1.52
502.85 3.33
488.01 0.87
176
176
176
176
(g/individual)
(g/individual)
Farming day
(day)
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
2.95 0.0326
2.81 0.0086
2.86 0.0189
2.77 0.0049
The same scripts in one row mean that there is no statistical significance (P > 0.05).
Through Table 6, its is showed that , the average weights of the harvested
Indian carps shot up a peak of 735.39 g/individual in T1 (fresh manure supplemental
experiemental), and then reduced in T3 ( mix bioslurry with feed pallets), T2 (pump
directly bioslurry into fishponds) and plunged to 703.71 g/individual in T4 (control
experiemental - only feed pallets). However, maximum standard declination value is
in T1 (5.74) and smallest is in T4 (0.87), this mean showed that growth rate level of
Indian carp in T4 is highest and T1 is lowest.
Absolute growth rate of T1 is 2.95 g/individual/day, T2 is 2.81g/individual/day,
T3 is 2.86 g/individual/day and lowest is T4 (2.77 g/individual/day).
ANOVA analysis revealed that the absolute growth rate of the Indian
carps in T1 had statistically significance with those of the other experimental
treatments (P < 0.05), this means the supplementing of fresh pig manure has
accelerated the growth rate of such fish in T1 in comparison with those in T2 and T3
wherein bioslurry was added, and that in T4 (the control experiment - only use
industrial fish meal). On the other hand, the growth rate of Indian carps in the
26
experiemental treatment where the bioslurry was mixed with feed pallets was faster
than that in the experimental treatment where the bioslurry was sploshed into the
pond. However, the ANOVA analysis provided no statistical significance between
the growth rates of T1 and T2 (p > 0.05). This reflects that two different methods of
using bioslurry (sploshing directly to the pond and mixing with feed pallets) have
not affected the growth rates of the Indian carps in the polyculture ponds of
commercial fish species. When analysing the absolute growth rates of the Indian
carps amongst the bioslurry using expirmental treatments and the control treatment
(only feed pallets), statistical significance was there to appear (p < 0.05), thus,
adding of bioslurry can affect the Indian carp growth rate in the polyculture ponds
of commerical fish. The differences in the absolute growth rates of the Indian carp
in all experiemental treatments are shown in the Firgure 13.
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
3.0
2.95
2.86
2.9
2.81
2.77
2.8
2.7
2.6
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 13. Absolute growth rates of the Indian carp

Above-mentioned results indicated that as Indian carps are omnivorous
feeding species, their main foods are organic humus, benthic; the Indian carp can
also feed well on industrial fish meal. When using fresh pig manure in T1, the
increased amount of organic humus, and nutrients has speed up the growth of the
benthic in the ponds. Hence, the amount of preferred diets of the Indian carp
increased, giving positive effects on the our growth rate. As a result, the absolute
growth rate of the Indian Carp in the experimental treatment using fresh pig manure
was higher than those in the other treatments. Similarly, when adding bioslurry into
the ponds, although the amount of organic humus there is not as much as pig
manure brings, the bioslurry is still rich in nutrients so that it can accelerate the
27
growth of the benthic within the ponds, leading to a faster growth rate of the Indian
Carp. As a result, the growth rates of such fish in the bioslurry-using
experimental treatments were higher than that of the control experimental
treatment (only feed pallets). However, the growth rates of the Indian Carp of T2
and T3 have no statistical significance (p > 0.05). The reason is that the volume
of bioslurry added into the two experimental ponds were equal, so that it did not
impringe the growth of benthic even when the bioslurry has partially penetrated
into the feed but not mixed into the pond water in the treatments where the
bioslurry was mixed with industrial fish meal.
Growth rates of the Indian carp in all experimental treatments is
presented in Figure 14.
Growth
(g/individual)
180
T1
140
T2
100
T3
60
T4
20
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Checking period
Figure 14. Growth rate of Indian carp in all experimental treatments

Look into the graph showing the Indian Carp growths via all checking times, it
is clear that from the first to third checking times, there was a gradual and equal
increase on the growth of the Indian Carp in all exprimental treatments (the lines
showing the growth rates of the Indian Carp were close to each other). From the third to
sixth checking times, the growths of the Indian Carp in T2, T3 and T4 were quite similar
and lower than that in the T1 (the illustrated growth lines of the Indian Carp in T2, T3
and T4 were close to each other and lower than that of T1). Nevertheless, the growth
rate during the fourth and sixth checking period was slowlier than that of the former
period (the growth lines of the Indian Carp in all experimental treatments during the
first to fourth checking period were less sloping than those of the fourth to sixth
checking times). Thus the use of fresh pig manure has affected markedly on the growth
of the Indian carp since the forth checking times.
28
1.4. Growth rate of Common carp

Growth rate results of Common carp is presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Growth rate of Common carp
Indicators
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average weight
when stocking
268.5
268.5
268.5
268.5
Average weight
when harvesting
(g/individual)
827.40
820.13
819.63
801.33
Averate growth
558.90 1.34
551.63 2.23
551.13 0.96
532.83 4.93
176
176
176
176
(g/individual)
(g/individual)
Farming day
(day)
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
3.176 0.008
ab
3.134 0.013
3.131 0.005
3.027 0.028
Table 7 showed that the average weights of the harvested Common carp
shot up a peak of 558.9 g/fish in T1 (fresh manure supplement), and then
reduced in T2 (pump directly bioslurry into fishponds), T3 (mix bioslurry with
feed pallets) and plunged to 523.83 g/fish in T4 (control experimental - only
feed pallets). However, smallest standard diclination in T3 is 0.96g/individual,
and then T1, T2 and biggest is T4 (4.93g/individual). At the same time, the
absolute growth rates of such fish were fastest in T3 and slowest in T4. This
much when polyculturing serveral commercial fish species, if fresh pig manure
or bioslurry is added, the uniformity of the Common Carp sizes is higher than
that of just using feed pallets.
Absolute growth rate in Common carp in T1 is 3.176 g/individual/day, T2 is
3.134 g/individual/day, T3 is 3.131 g/individual/day and lowest is in T4 (3.027
g/individual/day). When using ANOVA analysis, it is clear that the absolute growth
rate of the Common arp in T1 was statistically different to those of the Common
carp in T3 and T4 (P < 0.05), but not different to that in T2. Thus, the adding of fresh
pig manure has increased the growth of the Common carp in T1 than in T3 and T4.
29
However, when analysing the growth rate of the Common carp at the bioslurry
using treatments, there was no statistical significances (p > 0.05). This means the
different methods of using bioslurry (ploshing directly into the ponds and mixing
with the fish meal) have not impringed the growth rates of the common carp in the
polycuture ponds of commercial fish species. When analysing the absolute growth
rates of the Common carp in the bioslurry using experimental treatments in
comparison with that of the control treatment, a statistical significance was recorded
(p < 0.05). Thus, the adding of bioslurry into the commericial polyculture ponds can
give positive effects on the carp growth rates.
The differences in the absolute growth rates of the Common Carp in all
experimental is presented in Figure 15.
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
3.30
3.20
3.176
3.134
3.134
3.10
3.027
3.00
2.90
2.80
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 15. Growth rate of Common carp in all experimental

The differences in the absolute growth rates of the Common carp amongst all
experimental treatments are explained as: because the Common carp are
omnivorous feeding species, their main fodds are benthic, it can either feed well on
feed pallets. When using fresh pig manure in T1, the incrased amount of organic
humus and nutrients has speed up the benthic growth in the ponds. Thus, the amount
of prefered diets for the Common Carp increased, positively accelarting the growth
rate of the carp. As a result, the absolute growth rate of the Common carp in the
experimental treatment using fresh pig manure was higher than those of T3 and T4
ones. Similarly, when adding the bioslurry into the ponds, the amount of organic
humus was not as much as the pig manure does, but the slurry has sustaintial
nutrients so that it can accelerate the growth of the benthic within the ponds, leading
30
to a faster growth rate of the Common carp. As a result, the growth rates of the
Common carp in the bioslurry-using experimental treatments were higher than that
of the control treatment. However, the two methods of ploshing directly the
bioslurry and mixing the bioslurry with fish meal have no differences on the
Common carp growth rates. The reason is that the volume of bioslurry added into
the two experimental ponds were equal, so that it did not impringe the development
of benthic; even when part of the slurry has penetrated into the feed but not mixed
into the pond water.
Growth rates of the Common carp in all experimental treatments is presented
in Figure 16.
Growth
(g/individual)
180
150
T1
120
T2
90
T3
60
T4
30
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Checking period
Figure 16. Growth rates of the Common carp in all experimental treatments
The Common carp growth graph during all checking times shows that
from the first to third checking time, there was a similar increase on the growth
of the common carp at all expriments. From the third to sixth checking time, the
growths of the Common carp at T1, T2 and T3 are quite similar and higher than
that of NT4 (the growth graph lines of Common carp at NT1, NT2 and NT3 are
close to each other and higher than that of NT4). However, the growth rate in the
period of the first to second checking time was slowlier than that of the second to
sixth checking period (the sloping level of the growth lines in all experiments
during the former period was smaller to that of the latter one). Thus the use of
fresh pig manure has positively impacts on the growth of the Common carp since
the third checking times.
31
1.5. Growth rate of Black carp

Growth rate results of Common carp is presented in Table 8.
Table 8. Growth rate of Black carp
Indicators
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average weight
when stocking
212.6
212.6
212.6
212.6
1,069.17
1,097.26
1,111.29
1,096.27
856.75 5.95
884.66 3.46
898.69 5.41
883.67 5.30
176
176
176
176
(g/individual)
Average weight
when harvesting
(g/individual)
Averate growth
(g/individual)
Farming day
(day)
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
4.867 0.0339
5.026 0.0197
5.106 0.0307
5.021 0.0301
The Table 8 showed that the average weights of the harvested Black carps
shot up a peak of 898.69 g/individual in T3, and then reduced in T2, T4 and
plunged to 856.75 g/individual in T1. However, smallest standard diclination in
T2 is 3.46 g/individual, and then T3, T4 and biggest is T1 (5.95g/individual). This
mean showed that uniform level of Black carp in T2 is highest and T1 is lowest.
The absolute growth rates of such fish were fastest in T3 (5.106
g/individual/day) and then T2 (4.687g/individual/day), T4 (5.021 g/individual/day)
and slowest in T1 (4.687 g/individual/day).
When using ANOVA analysis, it shows that the absolute growth rate of the
Black carp of the T1 (supplement fresh pig manure) has statistically significant
difference with those of other experiments (P < 0.05). This means the supplementing
of fresh pig manure has accelerated the growth rate of the the Black carp of T1 in
comparison with those of T2 (pump directly bioslurry into fishponds), T3 (mix
bioslurry with feed pallets), T4 (control experiment - only feed pallets) . On the
other hand, when analysing the growth rates of the Black carp, it is recognized that
there was no statistical discrepancy beween the experiments using bioslurry as well
32
as between these with the control experienment (p > 0.05). This reflects that using
bioslurry and using different methods for adding bioslurry did not affected the
Black carp growth rate in the polyculture pond of commercial fish.
The differences in the absolute growth rates of the Black carp in all
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
5.106
5.2
5.026
5.0
5.021
4.867
4.8
4.6
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 17. Absolute growth rates of the Black carp

The differences and similarities of the growth rates of the Black carp of all
experimental treatments are explained as follows: As far as we know, Black carp are
the species prefering clean water, requiring high transparency and having high
demand for disolved oxygen. That is why when whe used fresh pig manure in T1,
the amount of nutrient in the ponds went up but the preferred diets of the Black carp
were not increased; the water quality in the pond was either decreased. When
adding the fresh pig manure, the decomposition of organic matters in the manure
will consume disolved oxygen in the water, leading to a reduction of disolved
oxygen concent. At the same time, the manure stimulates the growth of plankton in
the water, reducing the water trasparency, and leads to a reduction of the disolved
oxygen content at night due to the strong respiration of the plankton. On the
contrary, in cases of using bioslurry or not using bioslurry combined with manure, a
lower amount of organic humus, lower density of plankton were recorded in the
ponds, the disolved oxygen content at night was higher. This beneficially influenced
the growth of the Black carp. Consequently, the growth rate of the Black carp at the
experimental treatment using the fresh pig manure was slowlier than that of the
Black carp in the other experimental treatments. Concurrently, the absolute growth
rates of the Black carp amongst the bioslurry and control experimental treatments
had no discrepancy.
Growth rates of the Black carp in all experimental treatments is presented in
Figure 18
33
Growth
(g/individual)
250
200
T1
150
T2
T3
100
T4
50
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Checking period
Figure 18. Growth rates of the Black carp in all experimental treatments
The growth rates of the Black carp in all experiemental treatments were
similar throughout all checking times, just only T1s was lower than those of the
other treatments (the growh lines showing the growth rates of such fish in all
experimental treatment were close to each oher, except the T1 which lay below the
others). On the other hand, the graph has several rough sections, reflecting that the
growth rates varied throughout the monitoring times. From the first to second
checking times, the growth rates were slow, illustrated by a marginal upward trend
on the graph. From the second to the fourth checking times, the growth rates were
higher and reflected by a steep slope on the graph. From the fourth to the fifth
checking times, the rates were slowlier, reflected by a less steep slope. From the
fifth to sixth checking times, the growth rates went up again, the illustrating lines
were steeper in comparison to all previous periods.
This can be explained as follows: From the first to the fourth checking times,
the pond temperature rose gradually (from 11C to 25C); When the temperature
increased and still under the suitable theshold for the Black carp growth, it can
stimulate the growth rates of the fish. However, the characteristics of the species are
that during the period of increasing from 200 to 1200 g/fish, the growth rates of the
fish go in a direct proportion with its weight. Hence, its growth rates from the first
to the second checking times were low, and then increased from the second to
fourth checking times. From the fourth to fifth checking times, the growth rates
reduced since the fish got deseases and had to take medicine. After the fifth
checking times, the growth rates increased again since the epidemic was cured, and
the fish got recovered, healthy and normally grew.
1.6. Growth rate of Bighead carp
Growth rate results of Bighead is presented in Table 9.
34
Table 9. Growth rate results of Bighead carp

Indicators
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average weight
when stocking
420.5
420.5
420.5
420.5
1,474.47
1,438.88
1,429.70
1,401.05
1,053.97 5.70
1,018.38 0.52
1,009.20 2.35
980.55 6.65
176
176
176
176
(g/individual)
Average weight
when harvesting
(g/individual)
Averate growth
(g/individual)
Farming day
(day)
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
5.988 0.0324
5.786 0.0029
5.734 0.0133
5.571 0.0378
The Table 9 showed that the average weights of the harvested Bighead
carp shot up a peak of 1,053.97 g/individual in T1, and then reduced in T2, T3 and
plunged to 980.55 g/individual in T4. However, smallest standard diclination in
T2 is 0.52 g/individual, and then T3, T1 and biggest is T4 (6.65g/individual). This
mean showed that uniform level of Bighead carp in T2 is highest, then T3, T1 and
T4 is lowest. This much when polyculturing serveral commercial fish species, if
fresh pig manure or bioslurry is added, the uniformity of the Bighead carps sizes
is higher than that of just using feed pallets.
g/individual/day) and then T2 (5.786g/individual/day), T3 (5.734 g/individual/day)
and slowest in T4 (5.571 g/individual/day).
When using ANOVA analysis, it is clear that the absolute growth rate of the
Bighead carp in T1 had statistical significance against those of T2, T3 and T4 (P < 0.05).
Thus, the adding of fresh pig manure has accelerated the growth rate of such fish in T1
in comparison with those of T2, T3 and T4. On the other hand, when analysing the
growth rates of the Bighead carp amongst the bioslurry using experimental treatments
and between those with the control experimental treatments, there were always
statistical differences (p < 0.05). This means the use of bioslurry and the methods of
bioslurry using had effects on the growth rate of the Bighead carp in the commercial
polycuture ponds.
35
The differences in the absolute growth rates of the Bighead carp in all
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
6.20
5.988
6.00
5.786
5.734
5.80
5.571
5.60
5.40
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 19. Absolute growth rates of the Bighead carp

The differences in the absolute growth rates of the Bighead carp in all
experiment treatments are explained as follows: The Bighead carp in this period
mainly fed on zooplankton and algae. When using fresh pig manure in NT1 or
bioslurry in NT2 and NT3, the nutrient therein increased and influenced on the
growth of zooplankton and phytoplankton (algae) in the rearing ponds, thus,
increasing the amount of the prefered diets for such fish. However, due to the
difference between pig manure and bioslurry, as well as the way of using the
bioslurry, the densities of phytoplankton and zooplankton in all experimental ponds
were different. As a result, the absolute growth rates of the Bigheads carp in all
experimental treatments were different. Growth rates of the Bighead carp in all
experimental treatments is presented in Figure 20
Growth
(g/individual)
300
T1
250
200
T2
150
T3
100
T4
50
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Checking period
Figure 20. Growth rates of the Bighead carp in all checking times
36
The Bighead carp growth graph during all checking times shows that there
is a steadily upward trend in the growth of the Bigheads carp througout all
checking times (the slopes of all growth lines in the growth graph of such fh in all
treatments were not very different). The growth rate of the T1s Bigheads carp in
all checking times were higher that those of the other experimental treatments (the
growth line of such fish in T1 always lay above those of the other treatments, and
at the sametime, the distance between T1s line to the other lines was longest at the
6th checking times). The growth rates of the Bighead carp in T2 and T3 were lower
than that in T1 but higher than that in T4 througout all checking times (the growth
lines of T2 and T3 lay below the T1s and above the T4s). The growth rate of such
fish was recorded lowest in T4 through all checking times (the T4 growth line was
below the lines of other experiment treatments). Thus, the adding of fresh pig
manure and bioslurry has created difference in the growth rates of the Bighead in
the commercial polyculture pond.
1.7. Growth rate of Tilapia

Growth rate results of Tilapia is presented in Table 10.
Table 10. Growth rate results of Tilapia
Indicators
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average weight
when stocking
65.6
65.6
65.6
65.6
538.80
521.41
523.12
498.88
473.20 2.35
455.81 5.03
457.52 3.47
433.28 3.68
176
176
176
176
(g/individual)
Average weight
when harvesting
(g/individual)
Averate growth
(g/individual)
Farming day
(day)
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
2.689 0.0134
2.590 0.0286
2.60 0.0197
2.462 0.0209
The Table 10 showed that the average weights of the harvested Talapia shot
up a peak of 473.20 g/individual in T1, and then reduced in T2, T2 and plunged to
37
433.28 g/individual in T4. However, smallest standard diclination in T1 is 2.53

g/individual, and then T3, T4 and biggest is T2 (5.03 g/individual). This mean
showed that uniform level of Talapia in T1 is highest and T2 is lowest.
g/individual/day) and then T3 (2.6g/individual/day), T2 (2.59 g/individual/day) and
slowest in T4 (2.462 g/individual/day).
When using ANOVA analysis, it shows that the absolute growth rate of the
Tilapia in T1 was statistically significant to those of the other experimental
treatments (P < 0.05), this means the supplementing of fresh pig manure has
positive effects on the growth rate of the Tilapia in T1 in comparison with those of
T2, T3, T4. On the other hand, when analysing the growth rates of the Tilapia
amongst the bioslurry using experimental treatments and between such with the
control experimental treatment, it was recognized that there was no statistical
significance (p > 0.05) with the former comparison and a significance with the latter
one. This reflects that the use of bioslurry has effects on the growth rates of the
Tilapia in the polyculture ponds of commercial fish, whereas the method of
bioslurry utilization does not do so.
The differences in the absolute growth rates of the Talapia in all
Absolute growth
(g/individual/day)
2.8
2.689
2.590
2.600
2.6
2.462
2.4
2.2
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 21. Absolute growth rates of the Talapia

The differences on the absolute growth rate of the Tilapia amongst all
experimental treatments are explained as: As the Tilapia is omnivorous feeding
species, their main foods are organic humus and phytoplankton, but it can either
feed well on industrial fish meal. When using fresh pig manure in T1, the
38
increased amount of organic humus and nutrients raised the amount of organic
humus; and the nutrients increased the amount of phytoplankton (algae) in the
ponds. Thus, the amount of preferred diets for the Tilapia increased, positively
accelarted the growth rate of such fish. As a result, the absolute growth rate of the
Tilapia in the experimental treatment using fresh pig manure was higher than
those of T3 and T4. Similarly, when adding bioslurry into the ponds, the amount of
organic humus is not as much as the pig manure brings, but the bioslurry has
sustaintial nutrients so that it can accelerate the growth of the phytoplankton as a
preferred diet for the Tilapia within the ponds, leading to a faster growth rate of
the fish. The growth rates of the Talipia in the bioslurry-using experimental
treatments were consequently higher than that of the control ones. However, T2
and T3 withnessed no differences in the Tilapia growth rates. The reason is that the
volume of bioslurry added into the two experimental ponds were equal, so that it
did not impringe the development of phytoplankton; even when a part of the slurry
penetrated into the feed but not mixed into the pond water.
Growth rates of the Talapia in all experimental treatments is presented in
Figure 22
Growth
(g/individual)
160
T1
120
T2
80
T3
40
T4
0
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Checking period
Figure 22. Growth rates of the Talapia in all checking times

The Talapia growth graph during all checking times shows that the Tilapia
grew stablisingly during all checking times (the line showing the growth rate of the
Tilapia is likely a straight line throughout all checking times). Moreover, T1
witnessed the fastest growth rate of Tilapia in comparison to other experimental
treatment (the growth line of Tiapia in T1 is always above those of the other
experimental treatments). T4 underwent the lowest growth rate of Talipia throughout
39
all checking times and the rates were gradually lower that those of other experiments
after each checking times (the line showing the growth rate of the fish in T4 always
lies below the lines of the other experiments, the middle section of T4s line is higher
that those of other experiments and plateaued at the sixth checking times). The
growth rates of T2 and T3 were not much different and had intermediate values in
comparison with those of T1 and T4 (the growth lines of T2 and T3 are overlied and
stay in-between the lines of T1 and T4).
2. Survival rate
At the end of the experiments, some of the fish did not meet the
commercial sizes (Gras carp, Black carp, Bighead) so that some households
have not emptied their ponds yet; all kinds of fish were collected, the total
survivals were counted to calculate accurately the survival rate (the household
had cull-harvested only commercially-sized fish as Common carp, Talapia,
Silver carp, Myd carp and continued raising the remained to the end of the year
and expected to haverst those on the Lunnar New Year). Thus, the calculation
of survival rate was relatively balanced on the number of the fish cultured at
the beginning and the number of the dead fish recorded daily. Survival rate
results among fish are presented in Table 11.
Table 11. Survival rate among fish of all experiment (%)
Experiment
T1
T2
T3
T4
Average
Siver carp
85.68
85.75
85.75
84.50
85.42 0.61
Grass carp
75.61
79.17
79.83
79.83
78.61 2.03
Indian carp
88.18
91.00
92.00
91.00
90.55 1.64
Common carp
95.84
96.80
96.00
97.00
96.41 0.57
Black carp
71.59
85.50
85.00
83.25
81.34 6.57
Bighead
94.09
95.00
96.50
91.00
94.15 2.32
Talapia
89.83
90.00
89.88
89.50
89.80 0.21
Average
85.83 9.10
Kind of fish
89.03 6.07
40
89.28 6.12
88.01 5.81
88.04 6.55
In the Table 13 showed that survial rate of each fish species in all
experimental treatments fluctuated in the range of 71.59 to 97 %. Survical rate of
Common carp is highest (with average of 96.41%) and lowest is Grass carp (with
average of 77.61%). In each experimental, survical rate of Grass carp is always
lowest and highest is Common carp among other fish. Average survival of T3 is
highest (89.28%), then T2, T1 and lowest is T4 (88.01%). Average survival in all
experimental is described in Figure 23.
Survival rate (%)
92
88
89.03
89.28
88.01
85.83
84
80
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments
Figure 23. Average survival in all experimental

When analysing the survival rate in all experimental treatments, it is explicit
that there was a statistical significance between T1 with the other treatments. On the
other hand, amongst all bioslurry-using experimental treatments and between those
with the control treatment, no statistic significance was seen (p > 0.05). Thus, the
adding of fresh manure has reduced the survival rate of all fish species in the
commericial polycuture ponds. Concurrently, the adding of bioslurry as well as
different methods of using the bioslurry has not impringed on the survival rate of
the fish in the commercial ponds. The statistical significance between the
experimental treatments T1 with the other is explained as follows: See the Table 11,
most of the survival rates of all fish species in the experiemental treatments were
quite alike. However, the survival rate of the Black and Grass carp in T1 is lower
than those of the others. The survival rates of the Black and Grass Carp in T1 low
because those fish species require clean living environment, high dissolved oxygen
content and high transparency. But because of the adding of fresh manure into T1,
the amount of organic matters, plankton in the ponds were high, leading to low
dissolved oxygen content and dirty pond water, as well as epidemic diseases. That is
41
why the survival rate of the Black and Grass Carp in T1 was low. These leads to the
average survival rate of T1 lower than the other. Survival rate of all fish during
farming time is presented in Figure 24.
Survival rate (%)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
102.0
100.0
98.0
96.0
94.0
92.0
90.0
88.0
Siver carp
Grass carp
Mud carp
Common carp Black carp
Bighead
Talapia
Kind of fishs
Figure 24. Survivap raion of all fish furing farming time

The Figure 24 showed that in the first culturing month, the Silver carps
experienced the lowest survival rate, the Tilapias rate was higher and the Black
Carps enjoyed the highest rate. In the second month, the survival rates of all fish
species in the ponds were less fluctuating and stayed at high level. In the third and
fourth rearing months, the survival rates of the Black and Grass Carps were lower
that those of the other species. The reason found via the checking seining times was
that the Black Carps and Grass Carps suffered diseases, lots of fish dead, leading to
the lower survival rates of those fish species in the two months in comparison to the
other species. In the rest two months, the survival rates of all fish species increased
and reached the level of 100%. In this period, only some Carps were caught dead
during the seining times for checking the fish weights.
3. Food conversion ratio

Food conversion ratio (FCR) is the mass of food eaten to gain a body mass unit.
FCR depends on kinds of fish, growth stages of the fish, environmental conditions,
types of foods and feeding methods, etc.
As the experimental condition was to polyculture many fish in one treatment, we
could not count the FCR for each species. Thus, the FCR was calculated relatively
42
based on the fish species that feed on industrial fish meal and total quantity of foods
for each experimental block in each month.
During the feeding durations, we adjusted the quantity for diets to meet the
need of the fish. In the mean time, the fish in the experiment treatments using
industrial fishmeal were fed by the feed pallets with the protein content of
26% Pr, with the price of VND 14,000 per kilogram. FCR result of all
experiment treatments is presented in Table 12.
Table 12. FCR in all experiment treatments during farming time
Experiment
T1
T2
T3
T4
1st month
1.305
1.325
1.305
1.365
2nd month
1.320
1.335
1.315
1.415
3rd month
1.375
1.385
1.385
1.550
4th month
1.435
1.445
1.440
1.595
5th month
1.480
1.495
1.485
1.650
6th month
1.575
1.580
1.580
1.735
Average
1.42 0.103
1.43 0.099
1.42 0.106
1.55 0.140
Farming
month
Through Table 12, it showed that FCR of the experimental treatments

increased from the 1st to 6th rearing month. The FCR in T4 was always higher than
those in T1, NT2 and T3. This is explained as follows: when adding fresh manure
and bioslurry into the ponds, the preferred diets for some of the fish species in the
ponds that can feed on natural and industrial food (Common carp, Indian carp,
Talapia) were increased. When such favourite diets appear in the ponds, the fish
will eat those rights of way. At the same time, those diets are the sources of
necessary microingredients and high quality protein provided for the fish in there
treatments, much more than those of the control treatment. It is therefore the fish in
the experimental treatments added with fresh manure or bioslurry experienced the
higher growth rate than those in the control treatment. As a result, the FCR of those
treatments were lower than that of the control treatment (only feed pallets). FCR of
43
the treatments had no statistical significance. Thus, the adding of fresh manure and
liquid bioslurry as in the experiments has had no effects on the FCR amongst all
experimental treatments. However, when using ANOVA analysis, FCR of all
experimental treatments, no statistic significance was seen. Thus, the adding of
fresh manure and bioslurry as experimental treatments has not impringed on the
FCR of the fish in the commercial ponds. FCR displacement in all experimental
treatments is expressed in Figure 25.
T1
FCR
T2
T3
T4
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.48
1.50
1.49
1.44
1.45
1.44
1.38
1.39
1.39
1.32
1.34
1.32
1.4
1.31
1.33
1.31
1.37
1.42
1.55
1.6
1.60
1.65
1.74
1.8
1.2
1st month
2nd month
3rd month
4th month
Processding time
Figure 25. FCR
44
5th month
6th month
II. SUBJECT 2: CULTURE ENVIRONMENT AND FISH HEALTH

1. Monitoring results of environmental parameters before fish culturing
One day before culturing, we collected samples and checked all
environmental parameters in the experimental ponds. In general, the environmental
factors were all under the suitable thresholds for fresh water fish species, except for
the temperature that was quite lower than the technical requirement. The monitoring
results of environment parameters are presented in Table 13.
Table 13. Environment parameters in all experimental before fish culturing
Environment parameters
Experiment
NO2NH4+
NH3 Turbidity
NO3
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(cm)
(C)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
NT1
15.5
5.25
10
0.1
0.4
0.02
48
NT2
16
0.1
0.3
0.015
45
NT3
15
4.75
0.1
0.4
0.02
50
NT4
15.5
4.75
0.1
0.4
0.02
52
2. Fluctuation of hydration and physical hydrology in culturing environment

2.1. Temperature fluctuation
Temperature is the most crucial factor that affects the aquatic organismsm, and
has a close relationship with other environmental parameters. The pond temperature
tends to fluctuate daily and seasonally. The pond temperature fluctuation in all
experimental treatments is showed in Figure 26.
45
TC
30
25
Morning
20
Afternoon
15
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Processding time
Figure 26. Daily temparature fluctuation

The figure 26 showns that water temperature was likely to increase during
the culturing time, however in the first 8 weeks, the temperature was low and did
not vary very much, even reduced to 11C in daytime.
Since the water temperature in the very first weeks was low, the survival
ratio of the fish was reduced. This is because when fishing, transporting, the fish
caught scratches, and cold weather, easily caught diseases, especially to Tilapia (the
fish has inability to survive in cold temperature). According to the monitoring, the
dead amount of Tilapia was mostly of the first weeks.
According to Nguyen Duc Hoi, 2004, tropical fish species, the temperature
range of 25 to 30C is most suitable for growth. Thus see in Figure 24, it was
identified that after the 13th weeks, the temperature range (of above 20oC) within
the experimental ponds was most suitable for the fish growth.
The temperature gradient from morning to night is 0.2 - 5C, this gradient
was met in the first and last 4 weeks. The temperature variation between morning
and afternoon was under the acceptable range, so that such variation did not affect
the growth and survival ratios of the fish.
The temperature rose and fluctuated around the threshold of 20C from the
10th to 15th week. This is the suitable temperature range for some disease
pathogens, especially bacteria (Bui Quang Te, 1992). Factual monitoring shows that
from the 10th to 15th week, the survival ratios were affected by the temperature
indirectly via other environmental parameters and diseases. During that period, lots
of the Grass carps caught dead due to Bacterial Septicemia Disease (cause for this
disease is Aeromonas sp bacteria).
From the 15th week to 25th week is the period experiencing the most suitable
temperature range for the fish growth.
46
2.2. Fluctuation of Dissolved oxygen (DO)

DO is one of important factors affecting the fish growth and survival rate.
DO content depends strongly on temperature, photosynthesis and respiration of
aquatic organisms; decomposition of organic matters and oxygen exchange between
the ponds and the atmosphere.
Monitoring results of DO fluctuation is described in Figure 27 and Figure 28.
Figure 27. DO fluctuation in morning
Figure 28. DO fluctuation in afternoon

The Figure 27 is showns DO in the morning reduced gradually during the
rearing time. The reason is that DO is fluctuated in an indirect proportion with
temperature, thus, along the culturing period, when the temperature rises, DO will
be steadily reduced. This can be explained as: When the temperature increases, DO
47
content will be reduced due to the increased respiration of algae and organic matter
decomposition under higher temperature, which lead to a vast consumption of DO
in the aquatic reservoir. DO in the morning was high in the first 12 weeks of the
experimental duration, reached a peak of 5.5 mg/L in the morning in NT4s ponds.
From the 13th week on, DO underwent a down-ward trend, and got the lowest value
of 1.12 mg/L in the ponds using fresh pig manure. From 15th to 25th week, DO
contentsreduced to a level of below 3 mg/L in the morning in the ponds wherein
bio-slurry and fresh manure were added; whereas, in the NT1 ponds, the contents
were always higher than3 mg/L. This had effects on the fish growth and survival
ratios. If DO content is lower than 2 mg/L, the fish is less activated and stops to
eat. According to the fishery standard of Vietnam, the suitable DO contents for
fresh water fish are from 3 - 5 mg/L. Given that standard, the DO contents in
some mornings were of low values. However, the low DO contents were just
recorded in the morning in NT1 from 16th to 18th week and in NT2 (pump
directly bioslurry to the ponds) in the 20th week. To overcome this phenomenon,
we have discharged the water of those two experimental treatments ponds to
increase DO contents therein.
The Figure 28 is showns that DO in the afternoon varied from 3.71 - 8.3 mg/L,
this content was suitable for the fish growth in the culture ponds (Ellis, 1973). The
DO contents in the afternoon had no remarkable change by time. However, the most
varying DO content was recorded in the control experimental treatments (only feed
pallets), followed by NT3s (mix bioslurry with feed pallets). The experimental
treatments supplemented with fresh pig manure and liquid bio-slurry had less
variations. This can be explained as: NT1 (adding fresh manure) and NT2 (pump
directly bioslurry into fishponds) underwent the higher density of phytoplankton
than those in NT3 (mix bioslurry with feed pallets) and NT4 (only feed pallets).
With such higher density, DO contents in those two experimental treatments
were more stabilized.
When analyzing DO data collected in the morning and afternoon in all
experimental treatments, it is recognized that there was statistical significance
amongst those. This means the use of fresh manure and liquid bio-slurry has
affected DO contents in the rearing ponds.
2.3. pH fluctuation
pH is a vital factor in the culture pond. It can directly affect fish respiration,
metabolism, cellularosmotic pressure and indirectly affect the fish via other
environmental factors. Optimum pH range for freshwater fish is from 6.5 8.5, the
most favorable range is from 7.5 to 8.2 (Nguyen Duc Hoi, 2004).
The monitoring results of pH in all experimental treatments is presented in
Figure 29 and Figure 30.
48
Figure 29. pH fluctuation in morning
Figure 30. pH fluctuation in afternoon

The Figure 29 is showns that pH in all ponds in the morning were likely to
reduce gradually by time. This can be explained as: the respiration of aquatic plants
and animals and the decomposition of organic matters will emit Carbon Dioxide
(CO2). This CO2 amount will combine with water to form H2CO3 acid. When
dissociates, this acid will release cation H+ to reduce pH of the pond water. Thus,
towards the end of the rearing cycle, when the algae density, fish quantity as well as
organic matter content in the pond increased, the amount of H+ created was
increased, pH of the pond water was therefore reduced. pH variation in the morning
was not much, from 6.3 to 7.8, (still in the suitable range of 6.5 to 8.5), thus, this
brought no adverse effects on the fish health. One of the reasons that made the pH
49
increased in the first months is that we had used lime powder (Calcium carbonate)
to clean the ponds.
The Figure 30 is showns that pH in the afternoon decreased gradually by time, but
in the daytime, the afternoon enjoyed the higher pH than that in the morning, the pH
variation between the morning and the afternoon was 0.5 - 2. The variations in the ponds
using fresh manure and liquid bio-slurry were higher and wider.
pH values during the experimental time varied from 6.3 - 8.6. The lowest
pH value was recorded in the mornings of the 17th week in NT4 ponds (pH =
6.3) whereas the highest value was recognized in the afternoons of the 4th week
in NT1 pond (pH = 8.6).
Variance analysis indicated that there was no statistical significance between
pH values in the mornings (p > 0.05), but the pH values in the afternoons (p < 0.05)
in all treatments did have the differences.
2.4. NH4+ fluctuation

NH4+ content reflects the level of nutritional abundancein the ponds. NH4+ is
one type of total ammonia which is not toxic to fish, except in case of extremely
high content. The monitoring results of NH4+ variation is expressed in Figure 31.
Figure 31. Timely NH4+ variation

The Figure 31 is showns The NH4+ content varied within the range of 0 - 0.6 mg/L.
The highest content of NH4+ was recorded in the experimental treatments using fresh
manure and liquid bio slurry by sloshing directly the liquid to the ponds. The variation
of NH4+ in the two treatments was from 0.1 - 0.6 mg/L. The minimum value measured
in the bio-slurry using- and control experimental treatments was 0 mg/L, the NH4+
variation in those ponds was from 0 to 0.5 mg/L . According to Michaels 1998, to be
50
safe with tropical fish, the released (free) ammonia concentration should be lower than
1.0mg/L. Thus, the NH4+ content in the ponds were safe to the fish.
NH4+ contents in the ponds of the treatments using liquid bio slurry were
typically higher than those in the control treatments pond. The reason is that when
using liquid bio slurry and fresh manure, the organic matter contents will be higher
than that in the control treatments pond.
The variance analysis showed that there is statistical significance between the
+
NH4 concentrations amongst all treatments. Thus, fresh manure and liquid bio
slurries as well as different methods of using liquid bio slurry can affect the NH4+
content in the commercial poly-culture ponds.
2.5. NH3 fluctuation

NH3 in ponds is released from the decomposition of organic matters,
excessive feeds, excretion of fish, etc. NH3 content in pond varies in direct
proportion with pH variation; besides, it is also affected by temperature. This is the
toxic precursor to fish and the safely acceptable concentration is below 0.13 mg/L.
The monitoring results of NH3 variation in all experimental treatments is
Figure 32. NH3 variation in all experiment

The Figure 32 is showns NH3 content varied between 0 to 0.1mg/L.
However, most of NH3 values were under 0.01 mg/L. NH3 contents were highest in
NT1 (adding fresh pig manure (0.1 mg/L)), the lower in NT2 (pump directly
bioslurry into fishponds (0.025 mg/L). The maximum NH3 values in the rest two
experimental treatments were both below 0.01 mg/L.
51
This can be explained as follows: NH3 gas was released from the decay of
organic matters. Within all experiments, only NT1 was added with fresh manure so
that this treatment experienced high content of organic matters, leading to much NH3
as a product of decomposition process. The NH3 content there was higher than those
of the other treatments. As regards the liquid bio slurry adding treatments and the
control ones, there were less organic matters within the water body than that of NT1.
Accoring to Michaeal (1998), NH3 is safe to all tropical fish if its
concentration is lower than 1,0mg/L and be harmful if the value is higher than 3
mg/L. Thus, although all ponds were added with organic matters on a weekly basis,
the NH3 contents in all experimental treatments ponds were still under the
permissible level and not harmful to the fish health.
ANOVA analysis results indicated that NH3 values of all experimental
treatments had no statistical significance. Thus, the adding of fresh manure and
liquid bio-slurry as well as different methods of using liquid bio-slurry have not
affected the NH3 contents in the commercial poly-culture ponds.
2.6. Nitrate (NO3) fluctuation

Under the effects of Nitrobacteria, NO2 was decomposed to become NO3
and NO3 is the final product of the decomposition of organic matters to inorganic
compounds, which are non toxic to fish (Nguyen Dinh Trung, 2004). The
monitoring results of NO3 in all experimental treatments is presented in Figure 33.
-
NO3 (mg/L)
18
16
T1
14
T2
12
10
T3
T4
6
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Processding time
Figure 33. NO3 variation in all experimental treatments

See the Figure 33, its showns that NO3 values in NT1 (adding fresk pig
manure) is higher than all other experimental treatments during the farming time,
and then NO3 values of NT2 (pump directly bioslurry into fishponds). NT3 and NT4
52
experienced equal NO3 values. NO3 contents of all experimental treatments in the
first 9 weeks were less variable and quite similar. From the 10th week on, NO3
values of those had more discrepancies (the distance between lines showing NO3
values in all treatments is increased in this period and higher than those in the
previous period). This is due to the lower temperature of the pond water in the fist
period which leaded to slowlier decomposition rate of organic matters in the water.
Concurrently, the first period experienced the lower amount of organic matters that
that of the latter one.
Via monitoring, it is recognized that NO3 varied from 5 - 17 mg/L in all
experimental treatments, the ponds of the treatments using fresh manure and liquid
bio-slurry had higher NO3 than those in the control treatments ponds.
This can be explained as: NO3 is the final product of the organic matter
decomposition process. Because NT1 was added with fresh manure, it had abundant
amount of organic matters. Conversely, the control and liquid bio-slurry using
experimental treatments had very low amount of organic matters (most of those had
been decomposed in the composite process). As a result, the water of NT1 pond
enjoyed higher organic matter contents that the other treatments, so that the NO3
content in NT1 was highest amongst all.
The variation of NO3content depends on a wide range of factors such as
temperature, DO, fish weight and its excretion, etc. Especially on the quantity of
algae in the culturing ponds. In spite of the adding of organic matter, the amount of
NO3 released still be consumed by algae. This leads to the stabilization of NO3
content in many weeks.
According to Nguyen Dinh Trung (2004), the suitable NO3 content in
the freshwater culturing ponds is between 2 - 3 mg/L. Thus, the contents of
NO3 in the experimental ponds were higher than the suitable limits, especially
in the ponds added with organic matters. But NO3 is the nutritiotal factor that
is non toxic to fish.
Variance analysis results indicated that NO3 values of all experimental
treatments had statistical significance (p < 0.05). Thus, the adding of fresh manure
and liquid bio-slurry as well as different methods of using liquid bio-slurry have
affected the NO3 contents in the commercial poly-culture ponds.
2.7. Nitrite (NO2) fluctuation

NO2 is the intermediate product of the conversion process from NH4+ to
NO3 and conversely. This is a toxic product to fish because when absorbing the
substance, NO2 will combine with hemoglobin to create methemoglobin, which
is unable to combine with oxygen and lead to the insufficiency of oxygen for the
fish.The blood containing much methemoglobin has brown color, so that this is
53
called brown blood disease (Nguyen Dinh Trung, 2004). According to Michaels
(1998), effective NO2 concentration is from 0.1 to 0.25 mg/L and if the
concentration is higher than 0.5 mg/L, thiswill lead to fish deaths.
The monitoring results of NO2 variation is presented in Figure 34.
-
NO2 (mg/L)
0.30
0.25
T1
0.20
T2
0.15
T3
0.10
T4
0.05
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Processding time
Figure 34. NO2 fluctuation in all experiment

The Figure 34 is showns that NO2 contents varied complicatedly,
fluctuated from 0.01 - 0.25mg/L, but most of the contents were below 0.1 mg/L,
and still in the suitable range for fish. There were 2 high NO2 values in all
experiments. That was at the 4th and 17th rearing week, the NO2 contents
increased to the values of 0.2 and 0.25 mg/L respectively at liquid bio-slurry
adding ponds. The reasons might be the accumulation of organic matters from the
previous weeks, increased DO contents had facilitated the process creating NO2.
To overcome the highly increased NO2 content, we had discharged the pond
waters to stabilize the NO2 content at the safe level for the fish.
Variance analysis of NO2 values showed that, there was statistical
significance. Thus, the adding of fresh manure and liquid bio-slurry as well as
different methods of using liquid bio-slurry has affected the NO2 contents in the
commercial poly-culture ponds.
2.8. Turbidity fluctuation

The monitoring results of turbidity of all experimental treatments is
54
Turbididty (cm)
50
45
T1
40
T2
35
30
T3
25
T4
20
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Processding time
Figure 35. Turbidity of all experimental fishponds

The Figure 35 showns that turbidity of all experimental treatments were mostly
in the range of 20 - 40 cm. This is the suitable levels for the fish growth. The turbidity
of water in all experimental treatments were likely to reduce gradually by time. The
reason is that in the winter, the water temperature reduced, swimming and hunting
activities of the fish were accordingly reduced in comparison with those in the summer.
On the other hand, as be newly cultured, the fish had small sizes and the swimming and
hunting activities of those caused little diffusion in the water body than the big fish.
Thus, the suspended matters settled into the lower strata layer. Besides, as the first
rearing period underwent cold temperature, the phytoplankton has not strongly grown.
On the contrary, such plankton grew strongly in the summer. The combination of all
afore-said factors has reduced the water turbidity by rearing time.
The turbidity variations of all experimental treatments were different. NT4 has the
widest variation; from 20 to 48 cm. NT2 has the lowest variation, from 22 to 35 cm.
Comparing all treatments together, it is recognized that the ponds added with liquid
bio-slurry and fresh manure had the most suitable transparency levels. This is because the
adding of organic matters has led to the growth of algae with suitable quantity and density.
At the 5th week, the highest transparency level measured was 48 cm in NT4.
Variance analysis of turbidity showed that there was statistical significance
amongst all experimental treatments. Thus, the adding of fresh manure and liquid
bio-slurry as well as different methods of using liquid bio-slurry has affected the
turbidity in the commercial poly-culture ponds.
55
3. Hydration fluctuation
3.1. Phytoplankton changes
3.1.1 Component of Phytoplankton species in experiments
When checking the species composition of phytoplankton in all experimental
treatment, we had identified and classified 222 algae species in 5 main algae divisions:
Euglenophyta, green algae Chlorophyta, Blue algae Cyanophyta, Silic Bacillariophyta
and Pyrrophyta. Composition ratio of algae species is presented in Figure 36.
6,9%
5,5%
1,4%
49%
37,2%
Euglenophyta
Chlorophyta
Bacillariophyta
Pyrrophyta
Cyanophyta
Figure 36. Ratio of algae species in experiments

In the above algae divisions, the Euglenophyta Division was identified to
have 93 species, accounting for 41.9% of the total found species. Those are
belonged to 2 classes, 2 orders, 2 families and 6 genera. In which, the dominant
genera included the genus has 35 species, mostly met species are P.longicauda
(Ehr) Duj, P.acuminatus Stokes, then has Trachelomonas with 22 species, mostly
met species are Tr.Playfairii Defl, Tr.cylindracea (Playf.) Popova; the Euglena
genus has 18 species, mostly met species are Euglena acus, E.oxyuris Schmarda,
Lenpocinclis genus and Strombomonas genus have 8 species found.
The Green algae Chlorophyta Division was identified to have 92 species,
accounted for 41.4% of the total found. Those are belonged to 2 classes, 5 orders, 9
families, 17 genera. In which, most of the species are belonged to Chlorophyceae
class. The Chlorococcales order dominated with 64 species under 4 families, 10
genera; Scenedesmus Genus accounted for the largest number of species with 25
frequently met species are Scenedesmus Acuminatus Chodat, Sc.rostrato-spinosus,
Sc.quadricauda (Turp) Brb. Pediastrum genus had 19 species, met species are
Pediastrum duplex Meyen, P.biradiatum Meyen, P.simplex Lemm. Ultrichales
Order had 7 species, which belongs to 2 generas: Ulothrix (5 species) and
Microspora. The Tettasporalea Order and Volvocales Order have just been
56
identified via onl one species. The Zygnematales order under the Conjugatophyceae
class has 19 species identified, which belongs to 19 Desmidiaceae families,
including 16 species under Closterium genus; the frequently met species are
Closterium calosporum Wittr, Cl.pronum Brb.
Blue algae Cyanophyta Division was identified to have 16 species,
accounted for 7.2% of the total found. Those are belonged to 2 classes, 3 orders, 6
families, 9 genera. In which, most of the species are belonged to Nostocales class
with 9 species, Oscillatoria geneus with 4 species, and remaning geneus with from
1 to 2 species. The Chroococcales order has 6 species identified, which belongs to 3
classes, Merismopedia class accounted 4 species. Mostly met species in Cyanophyta
Division are Merismopedia tenuissima Lemm, Merismopedia minima G. Beck,
Oscillatoria brevis (Kutz) Gom
Silic Bacillariophyta Division was identified 19 species, acoounted for
8.6% of the total found. Thoese are belonged to 2 classes, 4 orders, 5 families and 8
genera. In which, Raphinales order had mostly with 9 species wich belongs to
Naviculaceae families. Mostly met species are Melosira granulata (Ehrenb) Ralfs,
Gomphonema gracile Kutz.
Pyrrophyta Division has lowest species with only 2 species, acoounted
for 0.9% of the total found. It belongs to Dinophyceae class, Peridiniales order and
Peridiniaceae, Ceratiaceae families.
3.1.2 Fluctuation of Phytoplankton amount
Fluctuation of Phytoplankton amount in all treatments during rearing time is
Density
NT 1
(x 10 tb/L)
NT 2
NT 3
NT 4
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Processding time
Figure 37. Fluctuation of Phytoplankton amount during rearing time

The Figure 37 showns that density of phytoplankton varied by each treatment
and rearing time. The density of phytoplankton in all experimental blocks increased
57
gradually from the first to 21th week. From the 21th week on, the phytoplankton quantity
tended to reduce. In the first 8 culturing weeks, the quantities in all experimental
treatments did not vary very much (the lines showing the phytoplankton quantities lie
close to each other and seem to be a straight line). The reason is that the average
temperature level was low in this period, just from 11 to 15C, thus, the phytoplankton
did not grow strong. From the 9th to 14th culturing week, the temperature rose but still at
the low threshold of from 15 to 20C, thus the phytoplankton density increased in
comparison with the previous 8 weeks, but yet to the optimum level. The variation of
phytoplankton quantities was strong after the 14th week and got high values at the 17th
to 20th week, maximum at the 18th week. This is because of the favorable weather at
that time, the temperature was high and remained consistent (from 22 - 28C), in
combination with the high nutritional accumulation within the ponds. Those factors have
created favorable conditions for the phytoplankton to grow strongly. At then end of the
experiments, due to high temperature, prolonged hot weather combined with lots of rains,
the phytoplankton density reduced significantly in comparison with that of the culturing
time at the 17th week.
Quantities of phytoplankton were not only variable by time, but also amongst
all experimental treatments. In all experimental months, the phytoplankton density
was always highest in NT1. In the other treatments, the phytoplankton densities
were lowest at the first rearing week, and then increased gradually afterwards and
got the highest values at the 18th week, and then reduced steadily after the 18th
week. In the first 8 weeks, the quantities of phytoplankton in all experimental
treatments were less variable; the lines showing the quantities of those in all
experimental treatments are close to each other and nearly like a straight line. From
the 8th week on, those quantities were strongly varied.
ANOVA analysis results on phytoplankton density in all experiment
treatments indicated that there was a statistically significance (p < 0.05) amongst
NT4 (control experiment - only feed pallets) to those of NT1 (adding fresh
manure) and NT2 (pump directly bioslurry into fishponds), concurrently there
was no statistical significance (p > 0.05) amongst NT4 and NT3 (mix bioslurry
with feed pallets). This means when supplementing bioslurry and mix bioslurry
with feed pallets have positive effects on creasing of the phytoplankton amount.
The adding of liquid bio-slurry as well as different methods of using the liquid
have not affected the amount of phytoplankton in the commercial ponds. On the
other hand, there was no different amongst NT1, NT2 (pump directly bioslurry
into fishponds) and NT3 (mix bioslurry with feed pallets) as well as amongst all
58
treatments (p > 0.05). Thus, the adding of mix bioslurry and pump directly
bioslurry into fishpond as well as different methods of using liquid bio-slurry
have positive affected the phytoplankton amount in the commercial poly-culture
ponds. On the other hand, when analyzing phytoplankton amount of two
experiments using bioslurry with control experiments have contradiction results,
pump directly bioslurry into fishpond experimental treatments had statistical
significance (p < 0.05) in comparision with control experiment, while mix
bioslurry with feed pallets had no statistical significance (p > 0.05). This means
the use of pumping directly bioslurry into fishponds has affected amount of
phytoplankton in ponds while mixing bioslurry has no affected.
3.2. Fluctuations of phytoplankton

3.2.1. Composition of phytoplankton
Results of monitoring of species in the treatments of phytoplankton is shown
in Figure 38.
34,62%
34,62%
30,76%
Copepoda
Cladocera
Rotatoria
Figure 38. Percentage of species of phytoplankton in the treatments

Figure 38 shows the percentage of species of Opepods, Cladocera and
Rotatoria are fairly even in the treatments. Copepods and Rotatoria occupy 34.42%
each, with 9 species of 26 species identified in the treatments. Cladocera accounted
for slightly lower rate of 30.76% corresponding to 8 species of 26 species.
In the experimental ponds the two species of Daphnia carinata King and
Simocephalus elizabethae King in the family of Daphniidae in the crustaceans beard
group of Cladocera that studied by Nguyen Xuan Quynh in 1995 are found. The two
species are important food for the fishes and be used as a biological indicator for
water quality by a lot of biologists in the world. The appearance of the two species
59
in the pond prove the water contain a lot nutrition. There was no major discrepancy
with the distribution of species in the ponds. Number of species in the experimental
protocol varies from 22 to 25 species.
3.2.2. Fluctuations of zooplankton over the culture period
Fluctuations in the number of zooplankton in over the culture period is
shown in Figure 39.
Density
3
(x1000 c th/m )
T1
T2
T3
T4
250
200
150
100
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Processding time
Figure 39. Fluctuations of zooplankton over the culture period

Look at Figure 39, we see the fluctuations in the number of phytoplankton
took place over culture time and there is no difference between the treatments.
Treatments added with fresh pig manure always had the highest number of
phytoplankton. In contrast, the control treatments - just use the industry food always
has the lowest number of phytoplankton throughout the experimental period.
In the first 8 weeks, the fluctuations were minor with the lines denoting the
number of phytoplankton are close and small slope. From week 8 to week 14, the
number of phytoplankton in the treatments started to increase and began to have
differences among the treatments. The lines showing number phytoplankton have
larger slope and lie far apart than those of the first 8 weeks. From the week 14 to
week 19, number of phytoplankton increased dramatically, reaching a maximum in
week 19. Treatment 1 reached a peak with 235x1000 individual/m3, following are
Treatment 2, Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 was lowest with 163x1000 individual/m3.
After week 19, the number of phytoplankton tends to decrease. At week 23, the
number of phytoplankton tends to rise again
60
ANOVA analysis showed that the statistically significant difference (P < 0.05)
between Treatment 4 and Treatment 1 and Treatment 2, but no differences between
Treatment 4 and Treatment 3 (p > 0.05). Thus the direct adding of fresh pig manure
and bioslurry to the pond had a positive influence to the development of
phytoplankton in commercial fish ponds. While the adding of bioslurry via mixing
with fish feed has not affected the development of phytoplankton in commercial
polyculture. On the other hand when comparing the density of phytoplankton in
ponds of the Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 and Treatment 3 there was statistically
significant difference between Treatment 1 and Treatment 3 but no difference
between Treatment 1 and Treatment 2. When comparing the density between the
two treatments using bioslurry, the statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was
not found. In conclusion, using fresh manure influence the greater development of
phytoplankton than method of mixing bioslurry with fish food. This result was the
same with direct using of bioslurry to the pond. In addition, the different methods of
using bioslurry, the same influence on the development of phytoplankton in
commercial fish ponds.
3. Results on fish health monitoring

3.1. Prevention
In first two months we conducted a water treatment with diluted lime water
in order to prevent disease for fish with doses: 3 kg/time/100 m3/time/month.
From month 3 onwards when concentrations of organic matters increase,
biological products of ANOVA firm was used to handle environment with
frequency as follows:
Month 1: 200 g/1000 m3, twice/month
Month 2: 250 g/1000 m3, 3 times/month
Month 3: 300 g/1000 m3, 3 times/month
Month 5 v Month 6: 200 g/1000 m3, 2 times/month (no application in month 4)
Water was changed periodically with 20 to 25% of the pond after 10 to 15
days. In pond having any changes in environmental factors which may adversely
affect the health of fish, we changed water of that pond.
3.2. Diseases during experiment
61
3.2.1. Diseases infected with Ectoparasite infection

Before stocking the fish into the pond we examined samples of all
species. Observation showed that the fish are healthy, no deformities or
defects. Only anchors parasites were found on Silver Carp and Bighead.
Results are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. The parasite check before stocking
Infection
No.
Fish
Parasitic organ
Parasite/fish
Silver Carp
Skin and Gill
60
Bighead
Skin and Gill
40
ratio (%)
In the first and second sampling, we only checked out the two species of Silver Carp
and Bighead and showed in Table 15.
Table 15. Periodically monitoring on parasitic infected ratio
Checking
No
Species
Infection ratio (%)
Infection intensity (Parasite/fish)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Silver Carp
80
60
60
60
10
Bighead
40
40
20
40
Silver Carp
100
40
40
80
13
Bighead
20
40
20
40
After two checking in the first two months, we found the amount of
Ectoparasites appear mainly in the skin and gills with high prevalence but low
intensity of infection. The intensity of this infection does not significantly influence
growth and mortality of fish. So we stopped to check into the following months.
It can be observed in Treatment 1 (added with manure) higher infection ratio
and number of parasite per individual than those of other treatments. High amount
of organic matters is cause of this infection and this is also a suitable environment
for developing the anchor parasite.
62
3.2.2. Infection caused by bacteria

During experiments, epidemics have occurred on week 12 on grass carp and
Black Carp. Can be noticed in month 3 and month 4, death rate of grass carp and
Black carp increased unexpectedly. So at this point the water temperature rises and
reaches 22 - 28C. This is proper temperature for the growth of pathogenic
microorganisms. By observation, most of fish died during this period appear in midApril (from week 13 to week 17). We saw pathological signs as fish floating on the
water, and one fish skin discoloration, no silver light, dry, viscous fish died,
especially spots appear on a red hemorrhage. Visceral surgery found abdominal
bleeding sinuses, pallor, loss color, somewhat shiny, hemorrhagic kidney duct, gut
had no gas or food that area of necrosis. We believe that causes the disease is
bacterial Aeromonnas spp.
We have conducted using antibiotic garlic (Fish Health) mixing with feed
with 1 g dose drug/1 kg of fish per day; twice a day and for 7 days continuously.
After a week we found fish did not die any more so we stopped feeding garlic. In
addition, we use Benkocid to handle environmental with dose of 1 liter/1000 m3.
63
III. SUBJECT 3 EVALUATION OF COMPREHENSIVE EFFICIENCY

AND ECONOMY WHEN USING BIOSLURRY FOR COMMERCIAL
FISH POND
1. Evaluating economic efficiency
Economic efficiency of the experiment ponds was calculated based on the
cost of fish when stocking, the cost of food during the breeding and selling prices at
the time of harvest. Economic efficiency of treatments shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Economic accounting (million VN)
Norm
Treatment1
Treatment2
Treatment3
Treatment4
Block1 Block2 Block3 Block5 Block4 Block6 Block7 Block8

Area (m2)
1100
1100
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Cost for breed

fish
21.63
21.63
19.66
19.66
19.66
19.66
19.66
19.66
Cost for bran
19.73
20.03
18.15
18.35
18.26
18.31
19.26
19.60
Labor
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
Medicine,
chemicals
5.50
5.50
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
Improve ponds
3.30
3.30
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Electricity for
pumping water
2.20
2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Total expense
58.36
58.65
54.06
54.25
54.16
54.22
55.16
55.51
Total income
71.63
71.69
69.19
69.63
69.39
69.64
67.02
67.80
Profit
13.27
13,04
15.13
15.38
15.23
15.41
11.86
12.28
Average
13.15 0.162a
15.25 0.176 b
15.32 0.133b
12.07 0.302c
Superscript letters at the same row mean values with insignificantly

difference (P > 0.05).
The above economic accounting shows that economic efficiency from the
treatment with adding fresh pig manure and treatment with using bioslurry is
64
higher than that of control. If only feed fish with industrial food, profit varies
from 11.86 - 12.28 millions VND per pond, on average reach 12.07 million per
pond. Whereas treatment with using bioslurry has profit of 15.13 - 15.41 million
VND per pond, on average 15.29 million VND per pond. Treatment with adding
fresh pig manure has profit of 13.04 - 13.27 million VND per pond, on average
13.15 million VND per pond.
When analyzing the profit of one pond showed a statistical difference
between the control treatments (using only industria food) with the remaining
treatments and treatment with adding fresh pig manure with treatments with adding
bioslurry (p <0.05). Treatments using bioslurry did not show the statistical
difference (p > 0.05). Thus the addition of fresh manure or bioslurry have a positive
effect in raising profit for commercial fish ponds. However, different methods of
using bioslurry (direct adding bioslurry or mix bioslurry with fish food) donot
affect the profit of commercial fish ponds.
65
CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

1. Conclusion
1.1. Growth of fish
- Absolute growt of fish eating organic mulch residue and the fish eating
plankton (Indian carp, tilapia, common carp, silver carp, bighead) in the treatments
with bioslurry is higher than that of the control treatment (only use industrial food)
from 0.07 to 0.24 g/individual/day.
1.2. Survival rate

- Survival rate in ponds adding bioslurry is of 1.07 - 3.45% higher than those
of ponds using pig manure and control pond.
1.3. Feed conversion ratio (FCR)

- Feed conversion ratio in ponds using bioslurry are similar and 0.12 - 0.13
lower than that of control pond. adding pig manure and in pond adding bioslurry
are similar but lower than that of control ponds. Thus to produce 1 kg of fish, the
utilization of bioslurry helps save feed from 0.12 to 0.13 kg (0.74 to 8.38%)
compared to using only industrial food.
1.4. Fluctuation of environmental factors

1.4.1. Fluctuation of factors of hydro, hydro-chemical
In general, water and hydration of the ponds in all treatments are suitable for
the development of fish.
- DO fluctuates from 1.12 - 8.3mg/L, mainly at 3mg/L.
- pH fluctuates from 6.4 - 8.4.
- Nitrate fluctuates from 5 - 17 mg/L.
- Nitrite fluctuates from 0.001 - 0.5 mg/L.
- NH4+ fluctuates from 0 - 0.6mg/L and NH3 fluctuates from 0.001 - 0.1 mg/L.
- Turbidity fluctuates from 22 - 48 cm.
1.4.2. Fluctuations of phytoplankton in farming ponds
14.2.1. Plant plankton
- In the treatments using bioslurry number of species of plant plankton is
very diverse with 222 algae species belonging to 5 main algae phylum are
66
identified, including Euglenophyta, green algae Chlorophyta, Blue algae

Cyanophyta, Silic Bacillariophyta and Pyrrophyta. In which species of
Chorococcales, Scenedesmus (Green algae), Cryptophyceae, Sanguinea and species
of Silic algae is good feed sources for fish as they help fish grow rapidly.
- The treatments using bioslurry all have algal density higher than the control
treatment (using only industrial food). Treatments using sprayed bioslurry have 140
species of algae, treatments using bioslurry mixed with fish feed have 127 species
while control treatments have only 99 species.
- Density of plant plankton in the treatments increased from the first week to
week 18 over the culture period then a gradual decreased until the end of culture period.
1.4.2.2. Phytoplankton
- Species composition in the treatments are relatively abundant. 26 species in
three groups are identified: Cladocera with 8 species accounting for 30.76%, both
Copepods and Rotatoria with nine species accounting for 34.62% of species
identified in the treatments. Most species in these groups are natural food for fish.
- The addition of bioslurry by directly spraying into the pond had a
positive effect on the development of phytoplankton in commercial fish ponds,
while the addition of bioslurry by mixing with the fish food did not effect to the
development of phytoplankton in commercial polyculture.
- Density of phytoplankton in the treatments increased gradually from
week 1 to week 19 over culture period, while tends to decrease until week 23
weeks and tends to increase again until the end of culture period.
1.5. Disease
- When stocking, we examined the ectoparasites on fish. Only anchor
parasites on silver carp and bighead was found. During the experiment, we checked
again and the result showed that infection intensity and prevalence of infection with
anchors parasites were almost nil then have no effect on survival and growth of
these fish species.
- During the experiment, the disease has occurred on the grass carp and black
carp. Disease occurs strongly in treatments adding with fresh pig manure, less
occurred in ponds using bioslurry. Thus, the use of bioslurry limits the risk of
infection of fish compared with the use of pig manure. Observation showed that fish
were infected with red spot disease, that caused by Aeromonas spp. bacterium.
67
1.6. Assess the comprehensively effectiveness of the use of bioslurry in

commercial fish ponds
The utilization of bioslurry had a good effects to the growth, survival of fish
in commercial fish ponds, especially good for grass carp and black carp - two
species prefer clean water. This practice reduced the feed coefficient (0.12 to 0.13)
compared with not using bioslurry. Thus, to produce 1 kg of fish if bioslurry is used
will save from 0.12 to 0.13 kg feed compared to the unuse of bioslurry. On the other
hand, the use of bioslurry for commercial fish ponds do not affect the water quality
of ponds, but limit the disease and create cleaner products compared with the use of
manure for the pond. When calculating economic efficiency, all the treatments have
profit of from 11.86 - 15.41 million VND per pond. The use of bioslurry brings
economic efficiency of 3.18 to 3.25 million on an area of 1000m2 in the 6 months
of culture higher than non-use of bioslurry.
2. Recommendation
- Study on using bioslurry for commercial fish ponds is new. Further studies
followed this study should be carried out to have more accuracy conclusion thus to
bring high economic efficiency for farmers.
- It should have more trials on using bioslurry and fresh pig manure at
different culture periods for some fish species and different formulas farming
methods (The formula in the study is proposed by the consulting group and from
experience of the participating households).
- Further researches on the deep impact of bioslurry to environmental factors
affecting breeding ponds as well as the development of plant plankton and
phytoplankton are needed.
68
CHAPTER IV: REFERENCES

I. Vietnamese documents
1. Nguyen Cong Dan, (2006) Final report on Technical to produce highquality tilapia for export meet diagnostic, Bac Ninh.
2. Nguyen Cong Dan and Tran Van Vy (1996), Technical zebra tilapia
Agriculture Press.
3. Nguyen uc Hoi (2004), Manual on water quality management in
aquaculture, Research Institute of Aquaculture I

4. Le Quang Long (1964), Physiological ecology of tilapia regional climate
of North Vietnam
5. Cao K Sn and partners, 2008. Evaluation on the quality of bioslurry in
biogas program for livestock in Vietnam
6. FAO, 1992 Biogas technology for sustainable development
7. China Biogas Technology Research Centre, 1992, Biogas technology in
China
8. Le Thi Xuan Thu, 2008. Assessment of the effectiveness of fertilizer effluents
of bioslurry Biogas Project Division
9. Bui Quang Te and partners, 1992. Research results red spot disease in
grass carp cage culture Scientics report of Research Institute of

Aquaculture I
10. ng Ngc Thanh, Thi Trn Bi, Phm Vn Min, The types of freshwater
invertebrates of North Vietnam Ha Noi technical and Scientics Press, 1980
11. Tran Van Tri (2007), FAQs techniques raise a number of economic species
of freshwater fish, Thanh Hoa Press
12. Nguyn Vn Tuyn (2003),
Algal biodiversity in Vietnam's inland

waterways prospects and challenges, Agriculture Press.
13. Kim Van Van and partners (2009), Aquaculture Book. Agriculture Press
II. English documents

14. Chervinski J. (1982), enviroment physiology of Nile Tilapia In: R. S. V.
pullin and R. H. Lowe - McConnell (esd), The Biology and culture of Tilapia,
ICLARM Conference Proceedings 7, pp. 432.
15. Ellis A.E. & de Sousa M.A.B. 1974 Phylogeny of the lymphoid system. 1. A
study of the fate of circulating lymphocytes in the plaice (Pleuronectes
platessa L.). European Journal of Immunology 4, 338343
69
16. Magid A. and M. M. Babiker (1975) Oxygen consumpsion and respiratory

behaviour of thee Nile fish, Hydorobol. 46, pp. 359 - 367
17. Michaels (1988), Carp farming, Fishing NewBooks and Carp farming.
Fishing NewBooks, England, pp: 50-51
18. Philipart J. CL. and Ruwet. J. CL., 1982, Ecology and Distribution of
Tilapia, In: R. S. V. Pullin and R. H. Lowe - McConnell (eds.), The Biology
and Culture of Tilapia, ICLARM Conference Proceedings 7, pp. 432.
19. Rana K. L., 1990, Influence of incubation temperature on Orechromis
niloticus eggs and fry I gross embryology, temperature tolerance and rate of
embryonic development, Aquaculture, 165, pp. 165 - 181.
20. Suresh A. V. A. Kwei Lin (1992) Tilapia Culture in Salin Waters , a
Review, Aquaculture, 6, pp. 201 - 206.
21. Trewavas E. (1983) Tilapia fish of the genera Sarrotherodon, Oreochromis
and Danakinia British Munseum (Natural History), London.
70
CHAPTER V: APPENDIX
1. Weight
WEIGHT - DATE 25/1 (Gr/individual)
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
377,82
375,95
376,38
373,03
374,33
374,06
368,85
370,08
Grass carp
608,56
609,83
612,68
616,94
614,11
617,72
614,83
613,44
Mud carp
250,95
252,17
246,97
252,19
246,16
250,55
250,31
248,89
Common carp
312,10
312,75
313,65
313,56
312,87
312,98
311,80
315,32
Black carp
288,42
289,74
291,84
296,14
293,27
297,39
292,75
296,17
Bighead
511,75
513,03
509,92
506,64
508,63
507,74
504,07
505,22
Tilapia
87,73
86,43
83,84
86,46
85,27
86,92
81,94
83,42

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
438,68
436,99
435,51
430,17
434,87
432,67
422,42
424,90
Grass carp
695,09
697,74
704,42
712,28
706,24
714,44
708,07
708,01
Mud carp
296,07
298,41
290,24
297,02
287,91
296,24
292,51
292,16
Common carp
365,28
366,92
368,75
367,88
369,35
364,35
365,26
369,45
Black carp
378,90
381,31
386,22
392,87
389,10
395,54
388,62
393,31
Bighead
647,43
650,85
643,50
636,92
640,46
639,59
632,81
635,39
Tilapia
125,16
122,57
120,08
120,61
122,69
122,75
115,73
118,88

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
509,03
508,15
506,74
501,13
507,22
504,26
491,59
494,92
Grass carp
803,22
807,28
814,79
822,22
815,21
825,01
817,24
818,24
Mud carp
356,20
359,88
351,02
355,81
347,38
356,56
350,85
352,10
Common carp
439,77
442,58
443,42
444,80
445,48
439,45
439,42
442,63
Black carp
504,28
508,14
515,60
523,39
519,67
527,72
518,47
524,48
Bighead
813,26
817,97
806,77
797,19
805,04
801,77
787,19
791,51
Tilapia
185,65
182,31
175,75
178,04
179,42
181,37
169,40
174,00
71

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
599,26
599,63
596,30
590,81
597,37
594,31
573,96
578,68
Grass carp
935,49
940,76
950,07
958,05
951,95
962,15
952,06
951,41
Mud carp
442,55
447,51
432,40
435,98
429,85
438,20
429,47
431,23
Common carp
539,97
544,29
540,76
540,61
543,65
536,59
530,80
535,10
Black carp
664,56
669,87
679,97
691,96
684,79
697,14
683,71
690,86
Bighead
998,93
1.005,09
988,04
977,47
987,38
983,30
963,67
969,74
Tilapia
272,03
269,06
260,99
263,43
265,83
265,50
250,67
254,38

Pond
Treatments
Silver carp
Grass carp
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
715,83
717,98
712,30
706,33
715,05
711,20
684,23
686,85
1.100,87 1.107,58 1.120,45 1.127,42 1.123,18 1.130,26 1.119,9
1.119,7
Mud carp
570,92
577,62
556,78
557,35
555,98
560,78
549,25
549,15
Common carp
664,91
667,70
666,37
665,83
667,83
662,66
649,17
654,58
Black carp
841,38
847,99
863,24
874,60
866,55
880,93
863,88
872,62
Bighead
Tilapia
1.214,76 1.221,36 1.196,38 1.189,11 1.197,14 1.193,78 1.165,15 1.172,91

388,16
385,85
374,57
379,08
380,10
379,39
359,43
364,22

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
889,35
890,46
880,15
872,66
882,51
877,00
848,80
855,11
Grass carp
1.302,62 1.310,69 1.332,91 1.344,17 1.336,75 1.347,37 1.333,48 1.334,37
Mud carp
731,33
739,45
711,95
716,19
709,80
720,90
703,09
704,32
Common carp
826,45
828,35
818,55
820,31
821,70
818,95
797,84
804,81
Black carp
1.064,96 1.073,37 1.094,81 1.107,46 1.099,71 1.115,11 1.092,52 1.100,01
Bighead
1.470,44 1.478,50 1.439,24 1.428,04 1.438,51 1.431,36 1.396,34 1.405,75
Tilapia
540,46
537,13
517,85
520,66
72
524,96
525,57
496,28
501,48
2. The number of dead fish

THE NUMBER OF DEAD FISH IN 1st
Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
20
18
17
17
18
15
19
18
Grass carp
15
13
10
Mud carp
19
12
10
12
10
10
10
10
Common carp
Black carp
11
Bighead
Tilapia
61
60
55
54
54
56
58
56
THE NUMBER OF DEAD FISH IN 2nd

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
10
Grass carp
17
13
10
Mud carp
10
Common carp
Black carp
Bighead
Tilapia
18
18
16
16
16
16
17
17
THE NUMBER OF DEAD FISH IN 3rd

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
Grass carp
18
15
12
12
16
17
18
20
Mud carp
Common carp
13
18
12
13
Bighead
Tilapia
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
Black carp
73
THE NUMBER OF DEAD FISH IN 4th

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
Grass carp
32
35
32
33
29
30
26
25
Mud carp
Common carp
Black carp
23
28
15
14
18
15
Bighead
Tilapia

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
Grass carp
Mud carp
Common carp
Black carp
Bighead
Tilapia

Pond
Treatments
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Silver carp
Grass carp
Mud carp
Common carp
Black carp
Bighead
Tilapia
74
3. Feed (kg)
Times
Ponds treatment
Tatal
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
Month 1st
96
97
87
92
90
93
89
92
736
Month 2nd
127
128
119
118
122
120
125
128
987
Month 3rd
186
187
169
170
169
173
183
189
1.427
Month 4th
243
250
225
224
228
226
242
241
1.879
Month 5th
324
325
299
298
302
298
316
323
2.485
Month 6th
433
443
397
401
399
398
421
427
3.320
Tatal
1.410
1.430
1.296
1.304
1.310
1.308
1.375
1.400
10.835
4. Temperature (C)
Times
Morning
Afternoon
Times
Morning
Afternoon
Week 1st
13,08
16,83
Week 13th
22,03
23,78
Week 2nd
11,75
15,50
Week 14th
22,93
25,43
Week 3rd
12,60
16,73
Week 15th
24,42
26,45
Week 4th
16,50
18,33
Week 16th
26,58
28,05
Week 5th
15,05
16,50
Week 17th
22,83
25,63
Week 6th
14,93
16,37
Week 18th
26,63
29,73
Week 7th
15,67
17,22
Week 19th
24,82
28,07
Week 8th
17,32
18,57
Week 20th
24,57
27,77
Week 9th
15,22
17,37
Week 21th
26,82
29,00
Week 10th
18,42
20,05
Week 22th
26,08
29,13
Week 11th
20,75
22,47
Week 23th
26,45
29,12
Week 12th
18,92
20,90
Week 24th
26,30
28,58
Week 25th
26,00
29,00
75
5. DO (mg/L)
Times
T2
T1
T3
T4
Week 1st
4,37
5,71
3,89
6,71
4,34
5,84
5,1
4,97
Week 2nd
4,52
6,39
4,06
6,5
3,94
5,39
4,32
4,48
Week 3rd
4,37
6,84
4,5
6,06
4,02
6,77
4,65
4,7
Week 4th
4,1
6,02
4,2
5,99
4,65
6,7
4,98
5,29
Week 5th
4,44
5,4
4,23
6,15
3,9
5,48
5,2
5,87
Week 6th
5,1
6,01
4,2
6,63
4,57
6,61
4,32
4,37
Week 7th
5,2
3,75
6,48
3,61
5,65
4,76
4,07
Week 8th
3,91
4,4
5,34
4,2
4,5
3,84
4,71
Week 9th
4,93
6,23
4,5
6,52
4,52
4,2
3,71
Week 10th
4,66
5,65
4,37
5,96
5,16
7,5
5,5
4,73
Week 11th
4,33
6,57
3,76
6,46
4,07
7,37
4,7
5,7
Week 12th
3,82
5,59
4,28
6,65
4,06
6,65
3,76
5,39
Week 13th
3,28
5,31
3,14
5,77
3,82
5,5
3,95
6,63
Week 14th
2,3
6,42
2,87
6,36
3,86
7,06
4,04
5,48
Week 15th
2,32
5,97
3,19
5,6
1,93
6,7
4,32
6,34
Week 16th
1,12
6,55
2,05
6,82
2,08
6,14
3,52
4,73
Week 17th
1,53
5,4
2,78
6,14
2,97
5,79
3,64
3,87
Week 18th
1,5
4,75
2,1
5,47
1,94
6,47
3,41
4,44
Week 19th
2,86
6,07
2,42
6,11
3,57
6,88
4,03
5,36
Week 20th
2,46
7,71
1,67
6,94
1,94
6,49
3,1
5,77
Week 21th
2,1
7,27
6,06
6,71
4,23
5,84
Week 22th
6,8
2,77
6,95
3,02
6,95
3,89
8,3
Week 23th
2,75
7,3
2,54
6,79
3,08
6,95
4,13
6,17
Week 24th
1,93
7,5
2,38
7,06
3,1
6,1
3,85
4,95
Week 25th
5,1
7,71
4,5
7,06
5,16
5,5
8,3
76
6. pH
T1
Times
T2
T3
T4
Week 1st
7,5
8,4
7,5
8,5
7,5
8,4
7,4
8,2
Week 2nd
7,6
8,5
7,5
8,5
7,4
8,3
7,5
8,3
Week 3rd
7,8
8,5
7,2
8,4
7,4
8,4
7,3
8,1
Week 4th
7,4
8,6
7,5
8,4
7,4
8,3
7,3
Week 5th
7,6
8,4
7,4
8,4
7,3
8,2
7,6
8,2
Week 6th
7,4
8,4
7,4
8,5
7,3
8,4
7,1
Week 7th
7,5
8,2
7,3
8,3
8,5
6,9
8,4
Week 8th
7,8
8,3
7,2
8,3
7,2
8,5
7,2
Week 9th
7,4
8,3
7,5
8,2
6,9
8,2
7,4
7,9
Week 10th
7,4
8,3
7,2
8,4
7,1
8,2
7,5
8,1
Week 11th
7,2
8,2
8,2
7,4
8,1
Week 12th
6,9
8,4
7,2
7,3
8,1
Week 13th
6,5
8,2
6,9
8,4
7,2
8,1
7,3
Week 14th
6,7
8,4
8,1
6,8
7,9
7,3
7,9
Week 15th
7,1
8,1
6,8
6,8
8,3
7,2
7,8
Week 16th
6,8
8,2
6,5
6,5
8,4
6,6
7,8
Week 17th
6,4
6,5
8,1
6,5
8,4
6,3
7,8
Week 18th
6,5
6,4
7,8
6,5
8,2
6,5
Week 19th
6,5
6,6
7,8
6,6
8,1
6,4
7,9
Week 20th
6,7
8,2
6,4
6,5
8,3
6,7
7,9
Week 21th
6,5
8,1
6,4
8,3
6,6
8,3
7,4
7,8
Week 22th
6,8
6,4
8,3
6,5
8,3
6,4
8,1
Week 23th
6,6
8,1
6,5
6,8
8,3
6,5
8,3
Week 24th
6,5
8,2
6,4
7,9
6,7
8,2
6,3
8,3
Week 25th
6,6
8,2
6,6
8,3
6,6
8,3
6,9
7,9
77
7. NH4+, NH3 (mg/L)

NH4
Times
NH3
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Week 1st
0,300
0,400
0,100
0,100
0,006
0,025
0,001
0,001
Week 2nd
0,500
0,500
0,200
0,009
0,009
0,001
0,001
Week 3rd
0,400
0,200
0,100
0,100
0,003
0,004
0,001
0,001
Week 4th
0,250
0,200
0,005
0,005
0,001
0,001
Week 5th
0,500
0,300
0,250
0,100
0,009
0,006
0,002
0,001
Week 6th
0,400
0,500
0,100
0,006
0,009
0,001
Week 7th
0,600
0,500
0,250
0,250
0,009
0,006
0,002
0,002
Week 8th
0,500
0,500
0,400
0,400
0,100
0,006
0,006
0,006
Week 9th
0,600
0,600
0,500
0,300
0,009
0,009
0,003
0,005
Week 10th
0,400
0,100
0,100
0,200
0,009
0,001
0,001
0,005
Week 11th
0,600
0,600
0,005
0,005
0,001
Week 12th
0,250
0,250
0,150
0,150
0,002
0,002
0,001
0,002
Week 13th
0,100
0,100
0,100
0,100
0,001
0,001
0,001
Week 14th
0,250
0,250
0,001
0,002
0,001
Week 15th
0,250
0,250
0,250
0,250
0,002
0,001
0,001
0,002
Week 16th
0,500
0,250
0,250
0,250
0,003
0,001
0,001
0,001
Week 17th
0,500
0,250
0,500
0,250
0,002
0,001
0,002
0,001
Week 18th
0,250
0,500
0,250
0,001
0,002
0,001
0,001
Week 19th
0,600
0,600
0,250
0,500
0,002
0,002
0,002
0,002
Week 20th
0,500
0,500
0,500
0,500
0,002
0,002
0,009
0,003
Week 21th
0,600
0,600
0,400
0,400
0,003
0,003
0,001
0,006
Week 22th
0,250
0,250
0,200
0,100
0,001
0,001
0,001
Week 23th
0,500
0,250
0,250
0,100
0,002
0,001
0,001
Week 24th
0,600
0,500
0,400
0,200
0,002
0,002
0,002
0,001
Week 25th
0,400
0,400
0,400
0,250
0,001
0,001
0,001
0,001
78
7. NO2, NO3 (mg/L)

NO3-
NO2
Times
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
Week 1st
0,15
0,1
0,1
0,15
Week 2nd
0,06
0,05
0,02
0,02
10
10
Week 3rd
0,06
0,06
0,05
0,05
10
10
Week 4th
0,06
0,06
0,2
0,1
10
10
Week 5th
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,01
10
10
Week 6th
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,01
10
Week 7th
0,05
0,05
0,1
0,01
10
Week 8th
0,08
0,12
0,08
0,02
11
Week 9th
0,01
0,03
0,001
0,01
11
12
Week 10th
0,03
0,03
0,001
0,01
12
10
Week 11th
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,01
15
13
Week 12th
0,03
0,03
0,01
0,01
15
13
Week 13th
0,15
0,15
0,11
0,08
15
12
Week 14th
0,15
0,1
0,02
0,02
16
16
Week 15th
0,1
0,1
0,02
0,02
17
16
10
Week 16th
0,1
0,1
0,08
0,08
17
15
Week 17th
0,25
0,25
0,1
0,1
16
16
10
Week 18th
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,02
17
14
10
Week 19th
0,08
0,08
0,05
0,05
17
15
10
Week 20th
0,05
0,05
0,01
0,01
15
15
10
Week 21th
0,1
0,08
0,05
0,01
15
15
12
Week 22th
0,05
0,05
0,15
0,01
16
15
Week 23th
0,02
0,02
0,01
0,06
15
15
12
Week 24th
0,02
0,02
0,01
0,01
14
15
11
Week 25th
0,02
0,02
0,01
0,01
16
15
10
79
8. Turbidity (cm)
Weeks
T1
T2
T3
T4
Week 1st
35
35
35
37
Week 2nd
30
35
33
35
Week 3rd
26
40
26
39
Week 4th
30
38
32
42
Week 5th
33
40
28
48
Week 6th
29
32
35
45
Week 7th
35
38
34
41
Week 8th
25
32
27
36
Week 9th
34
35
35
38
Week 10th
38
35
30
37
Week 11th
28
32
30
31
Week 12th
35
30
28
27
Week 13th
35
33
30
39
Week 14th
30
33
28
32
Week 15th
27
33
35
32
Week 16th
35
30
33
38
Week 17th
30
35
30
35
Week 18th
30
35
25
20
Week 19th
25
20
25
28
Week 20th
35
27
27
25
Week 21th
30
25
27
30
Week 22th
30
28
25
33
Week 23th
29
25
28
27
Week 24th
27
25
28
20
Week 25th
20
30
22
25
80
9. Some pictures on research
Figure 40. experiment pond
Figure 41. weighting fish
81
Figure 42. pellet feed and Fish Health production
Figure 43. Test Sera
82
Figure 44. Disease in Grass Carp by Aeromonnas spp
Figure 45. Disease in Black carp by Aeromonnas spp
83
Figure 46. Probiotic ANOVA NB - 25
Figure 47. Benkocid
84

2 Bioslurry For Fishpond Final Report PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2 Bioslurry For Fishpond Final Report PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT

Utilization of bioslurry for comercial fishpond

: BIOGAS PROGRAM FOR THE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

: LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT MINISTRY

CONSULTANT : INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TEAM

I. Head of consultant team

Ms. Pham Thi Lam Hong

Ms. Tran Anh Tuyet

Mr. Trinh Dinh Khuyen

Mr. Vo Quy Hoan

1.7. Growth rate of Tilapia ............................................................................................37

CHAPTER IV: REFERENCES ....................................................................................69

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Food Conversion Ratio

Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia

Viet Nam Dong

Figure 32. NH3 variation in all experiment............................................................... 51

Feed Converting Rate shows considerable increase during experiment period,

CHAPTER I: DOCUMENT OVERVIEW,

1.3 Quality of bioslurry

Total P2O5 (%)

Total K2O (%)

(Cao K Sn and partners, 2008)

Table 1: Macro nutrients in bioslurry and fresh pig manure

1.4. Utilization of bioslurry in agriculture and fish culture

In 2004, Giang and Len conducted a study on impact of bio-slurry to the

1.5 Biological characteristics of some fish used in the research

Figure 1. Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys)

Figure 2. Bighead carp (Aristicthys nobilis)

Figure 3. Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Figure 4. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus)

Figure 5. Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)

Figure 6. Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus

1.5.7 Indian carp (Labeo rohita, Hamilton (1822))

Figure 7. Indian carp (Labeo rohita)

Growth: Indian carp an reach length of 35 to 45 cm and weight of 0.58

II. OBJECTIVE, APPROACH, CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY

Table 2. Household participated in research

Nguyen The Toan

Nguyen The Sang

Nguyen Thi Thao

Nguyen Thi Van

Tran Duc Thang

Nguyen The Thang

Ngo Van Lam

Ngo Van Diem

Nguyen Dinh Luan

2.3. Research content

2.4. Research methodology

2.4.2. Experiment arrangement

Table 3. Arrange experiments

Feed pallets + Fresh manure (10

Pump bioslurry into fishponds twice a

Mix bioslurry with feed pallets with

Only feed pallets

Checking bio-planton (phytoplankton and zooplankton):

Average weight of individual when stocking

Average weight of individual when harvesting

2.4.7. Method for economic benefit assessment:

CHAPTER II: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 9. Absolute growth rates of the silver carps

of phytoplankton and zooplankton of T2 and T3 was not significant enough to lead