STOCKING DENSITIES AND

FERTILIZATION REGIMES FOR NILE

TILAPIA (Oreochromis niloticus) PRODUCTION
IN PONDS WITH SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING
James S. Diana1, Yang Yi2 and C. Kwei Lin2
1. School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan, USA
2. Aquaculture and Aquatic Resources Management
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

AARM/AIT

Aquaculture
CRSP

INTRODUCTION
Semi-intensive culture:
Fertilization and supplemental feeding
Roles of supplemental feed in fertilized pond
Increase in fish growth and carrying capacity
Limitation on feeding and increasing stocking density
Poor water quality
Concomitant fertilization might helped maintain reasonable
water quality
Stocking density

OBJECTIVE
To determine the upper limits to Nile tilapia
production utilizing supplemental feeds

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Location: Ayutthaya Freshwater Fisheries Station
Pond facilities: 9 earthen ponds of 280- m2 in surface area
Culture periods: 155 days (Experiment 1);
194 days (Experiment 2)
Test species: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
Stocking density: 3, 6 or 9 fishm-2

Stocking size: 18.7 0.2 (Experiment 1),

15.5 0.2 (Experiment 2)
Feeding: 50 % satiation rate using floating pelleted
feed (30% crude protein)
Fertilization:
Experiment (1)- Urea 28 kg Nha-1wk-1,
TSP 7 kg Pha-1wk-1
Experiment (2)- fertilizerfish waste balanced input
(Approx. 14 kg Nha-1wk-1 and 6 kg
Pha-1wk-1)

RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION

The biomass (kg), number, and mean size (g) of Nile tilapia stocked and
harvested in each experimental pond for two experiments
A t sto ck in g
Pond
N u m b er
(fish /p o n d )
E x p erim en t 1
A1
840
A2
840
A3
840
B1
1680
B2
1 ,6 8 0
B3
1 ,6 8 0
C1
2 ,5 2 0
C2
2 ,5 2 0
C3
2 ,5 2 0
E x p erim en t
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3

B io m ass
(k g/p o n d )

M ean siz e
(g/fish )

A t h arv est
N u m b er
(fish /p o n d )

B io m ass
(k g/p o n d )

M ean siz e
(g/fish )

1 5 .4
1 5 .5
1 5 .0
3 0 .2
3 1 .8
3 3 .0
4 7 .9
4 8 .0
4 8 .7

1 8 .3
1 8 .5
1 7 .9
1 8 .0
1 8 .9
1 9 .6
1 9 .0
1 9 .1
1 9 .3

737
744
745
1 ,3 5 5
1 ,2 4 8
1 ,1 0 3
1 ,4 7 1
1 ,7 8 2
1 ,7 2 3

3 0 7 .0
3 4 5 .5
3 4 2 .9
4 2 6 .3
3 9 5 .5
3 0 8 .5
3 8 1 .4
5 2 6 .3
4 5 0 .3

4 1 6 .6
4 6 4 .4
4 6 0 .3
3 1 4 .6
3 1 6 .9
2 7 9 .7
2 5 9 .3
2 9 5 .3
2 6 1 .4

1 2 .8
1 2 .8
1 5 .0
2 6 .3
2 6 .6
2 6 .4
3 8 .1
4 0 .3
4 1 .1

1 5 .2
1 5 .2
1 4 .5
1 5 .6
1 5 .8
1 5 .7
1 5 .1
1 6 .0
1 6 .3

678
735
669
1 ,1 5 5
1 ,3 5 7
1 ,3 5 1
1 ,3 5 2
1 ,3 8 2
1 ,6 3 4

3 3 5 .2
4 4 5 .1
3 1 3 .9
5 0 2 .5
6 5 2 .8
5 6 7 .6
4 1 7 .4
4 5 2 .5
5 3 3 .5

4 9 4 .4
6 0 5 .6
4 6 9 .2
4 3 5 .1
4 8 1 .1
4 2 0 .1
3 1 5 .0
3 2 7 .4
3 2 6 .5

2
840
840
840
1 ,6 8 0
1 ,6 8 0
1 ,6 8 0
2 ,5 2 0
2 ,5 2 0
2 ,5 2 0

Mean weights of Nile tilapia during the experiment 1 and 2.

Growth performance of Nile tilapia in each pond in experiment 1 and 2.

Growth
(g?fish-1?day-1)

Survival
(%)

Net yield
(kg/pond)

Feed applied
(kg/pond)

FCR

Annual net yield

(kg?ha-1?year-1)

Experiment 1
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3

2.57
2.88
2.86
1.91
1.92
1.68
1.55
1.78
1.56

87.7
88.6
88.7
80.7
74.3
65.7
58.4
70.7
68.4

291.6
330.0
327.9
396.1
363.7
275.5
333.5
478.3
401.6

304
332
328
399
410
393
533
566
512

1.04
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.13
1.42
1.60
1.18
1.27

24,524
27,753
27,577
33,313
30,588
23,170
28,048
40,226
33,775

Experiment 2
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3

2.47
3.04
2.34
2.16
2.40
2.08
1.55
1.61
1.60

80.7
87.5
79.6
68.8
80.8
80.4
52.6
54.8
64.8

322.4
432.3
301.7
476.2
626.2
541.2
379.3
412.1
492.4

463
505
458
624
783
712
590
660
689

1.44
1.17
1.52
1.31
1.25
1.32
1.55
1.60
1.40

21,663
29,048
20,273
32,001
42,080
36,369
25,490
27,701
33,090

Pond

Multiple regression results for main effects (density) related to fish growth (gday-1),
survival (%), and yield (kg).
Variable
Coefficient
Experiment 1
Growth Rate (r2 = 0.811, P < 0.001)
Constant
3.42
Density
-0.210

P
0.001
0.001

Constant
Density

Survival (r2 = 0.739, P < 0.001)

0.984
-0.038

0.001
0.002

Constant
Density

Yield (r2 = 0.281, P > 0.05)

267.39
14.66

0.001
0.082

Constant
Density

Growth Rate (r2 = 0.789, P < 0.001)

3.169
-0.172

0.001
0.001

Constant
Density

Survival (r2 = 0.736, P < 0.001)

0.978
-0.042

0.001
0.002

Constant
Density

Yield (r2 = 0.281, P > 0.05)

366.78
12.61

0.006
0.408

Experiment 2

Changes of Chlorophyll-a content in pond water during the experiment 1 and 2.

Changes in alkalinity content of pond water during experiments 1 and 2.

Changes in un-ionized ammonia nitrogen content during experiments 1 and 2.

Changes in dissolved oxygen content of pond water at dawn during

experiments 1 and 2.

Calculation of annual profit for each stocking density in both experiments.

Fry
(number)

Urea
(kg)

TSP
(kg)

Feed
(kg)

Gross yield
(kg)

Fish size
(g)

Profit
($)

Experiment 1
3
70,645
6
141,290
9
211,935

3,129
3,129
3,129

1,825
1,825
1,825

27,037
33,704
45,079

24,508
38,590
31,434

447
304
272

1,180
- 520
- 7,581

Experiment 2
3
56,443
6
112,887
9
169,330

1,606
1,493
1,869

1,507
1,197
1,584

31,999
47,509
43,386

24,508
38,590
31,434

523
445
323

2,171
- 2,406
- 5,375

Density
(fish?m-2)

CONCULATIONS
- The optimal feeding system, most rapid growth, highest
survival and positive economic return occurred at the
lowest density, 3 fish m-2.
- The fertilizer and fish waste balancing of nutrient inputs
successfully controlled nutrient addition and maintained
high water quality.
- HOWEVER, the reduced fertilization rates probably
could not produce adequate natural foods for tilapia.
- Further fine-tuning of fertilizer balance may be
necessary at each stocking and feeding level.