Livestock Research for Rural Development 13 (6) 2001 | Citation of this paper |
An experiment was conducted in the Fish Farm at the
All of the five fish species (Tilapia, Silver carp,
Bighead carp, Silver barb and Mrigal) grew faster in ponds
fertilized with effluent than with manure, but the degree of response was highest for
Silver Carp, Bighead carp and Tilapia and least for Mrigal.
The net fish yield was
55% greater in ponds fertilized with biodigester effluent
rather than with fresh manure. The improvement with effluent compared with chemical
fertilizer was 27%.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were significantly
increased when the ponds were fertilized with effluent compared with fresh manure. Thus
the principal benefit of prior anaerobic digestion of pig manure appears to be the
decrease in the BOD (biological oxygen demand) in the effluent due to removal of carbon as
methane in the digestion process.
The recovery of nitrogen in the fish from the nitrogen
in the fertilizer was 42% for the biogester effluent, 26% for the manure and 37% for the mixture of
urea and di-ammonium phosphate.
Poverty, population growth and environmental degradation (air, soil
and water pollution) are increasingly being considered as focal points for research and
development. The integration of livestock with trees, food crops and aquaculture is seen
as the most appropriate way to use the natural resources in a system that is productive
and sustainable (Preston 2000). In such a system the processing of the livestock manure by
anaerobic digestion is a key component as it has many positive features such as reduction
in emission of methane (a major actor in global warming), decrease in pathogens (better
health of people and animals), production of biogas for cooking (reduced pressure on
forests for fuel wood; more comfortable working conditions in the kitchen for women) and
improved nutrient recycling (reduced need for chemical fertilizer).
The main products from the biodigester
are biogas and effluent. The latter has
considerable potential as fertilizer because the anaerobic digestion process results in
conversion of organic nitrogen in the manure to ionized ammonia (NH4+) which can be used
directly by plant roots. Despite the
potential for improved fertilizer capacity of effluent compared with raw manure there are
few reports of trials to compare the two sources of plant nutrients. In
The following experiment was carried out to obtain further evidence
concerning the apparently superior fertilizer value of biodigester
effluent, compared with fresh manure, when used in polyculture
fish ponds.
The objective was to compare fresh pig manure with biodigester effluent, derived from the same manure, as the source of
nutrients in polyculture fish ponds.
Nine ponds with areas ranging from 45 to 65 m² and a depth of 1m were used. Three fertilizer treatments were applied to each of three ponds according to a random block design (Table 1). The treatments were:
Table 1: Allocation of the treatments to the
ponds |
||||||||
Block
1 |
Block
2 |
Block
3 |
||||||
PE |
U-DAP |
PM |
PM |
U-DAP |
PE |
PM |
PE |
U-DAP |
A plastic biodigester (Bui Xuan An et al 1997) was installed on
The biodigester was loaded initially with 392 kg of fresh pig manure. After a period of 19 days a further 100 kg were added and subsequently varying amounts were added at 2 to 3 day intervals, the aim being to achieve an average loading rate of about 15 kg fresh manure per day. At each loading water was added to the fresh manure to give a total solids content of about 10%.
All ponds were spread with quick-lime (CaO) at 1 kg/10m², 10 days before stocking with fish. This was to
eliminate parasites and pathogenic organisms and to increase the pH. The ponds were filled with water 3 days after
liming. Each pond was stocked with five fish species at a density of 2
fish/m². The relative proportions of the different species were: Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): 35%, Silver
carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix):
30%, Bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis):
15%, Silver barb (Puntius gonionotus):15%
and Mrigal (Cirrhinus mrigal): 5%. The Tilapia, Bighead carp, Silver carp and Silver
barb were available from the fish farm in the
The fertilizer treatments were applied 3 days after stocking the fish. The amounts of the inputs (U-DAP, PM and PE) were calculated to be iso-nitrogenous based on the nitrogen present in a loading rate for fresh pig manure of 15 g dry matter/m2. However, at this rate of application the fish in the ponds receiving the treatment receiving fresh pig manue gulped for air in the early morning. The total quantities (Table 2) were then adjusted on the basis of applying 6 g dry matter (as fresh pig manure)/m2 per day, given in amounts of 18 g every third day.
Table 2: Total quantities of
fertilizer added to the ponds over a 152 day period |
|||||||||
Pond No: |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Area, m2 |
57 |
59 |
60 |
50.5 |
60.5 |
65 |
55 |
62.5 |
45 |
Fresh pig manure, kg |
122 |
102 |
111 |
||||||
Effluent, litres |
2070 |
2356 |
2271 |
||||||
Urea, kg |
1.3 |
1.37 |
1.02 |
||||||
DAP, kg |
0.323 |
0.331 |
0.246 |
||||||
Total N, kg |
0.704 |
0.672 |
0.753 |
0.634 |
0.690 |
0.80 |
0.692 |
0.781 |
0.513 |
N, mg/ m2/day |
117 |
108 |
119 |
119 |
108 |
117 |
119 |
117 |
108 |
The weight and length of the fish were determined every 20 days in
the morning at
Samples of fresh pig manure and the corresponding effluent were taken every 15 days and analysed for nitrogen and ammonia, using a Foss-Tecatur kjeldahl apparatus (AOAC 1990), and for dry matter by micro-wave radiation (Undersander et al 1993).
The oxygen level of the pond water was measured
one day a week, two times during the day in the early morning at
Water temperatures were measured five days a week, three times a day
in the morning at
Daily increases in weight and length of the fish were determined by
linear regression with days as the independent variable. The data were analyzed by
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using the General Linear Model software of Minitab version
12.21, and the Tukey test for checking differences among the
treatment means. Variables were fertilizer treatments, fish
species and error.
The dry matter of the pig
manure, in samples taken at approximately two week intervals, varied in the range 29.6 to
41.8% with corresponding contents of N of 1.65 to 1.86% in DM (Table 3). The N content of the effluent during the same
period ranged from 290 to 470 mg N/litre. The ammonia-N in the
effluent varied in the range 223 to 484 mg/litre. The average amount of fresh pig manure added to
the biodigester was 46±2.8 kg (excluding the initial charge of 392 kg) with an interval
of 2 days. This resulted in a mean daily load of 15 kg including the initial charge on day
1. Water was added at the rate of 2 volumes of water per volume of manure to achieve a solids content of approximately 10%, thus the average amount of
diluted manure added daily to the biodigester was about 45 litres. The liquid
volume of the biodigester was estimated to be 4.0 m3
thus the average retention time would have been of the order of 50 days.
Table 3: Levels
of dry matter and nitrogen in fresh pig manure added to the biodigester
and in the effluent removed from the biodigester for application to the ponds |
|||||
Date |
DM in manure, |
N in manure, |
N in manure, % in DM |
N in effluent, mg/litre |
Ammonia-N |
May 10, 01 |
35.1 |
0.64 |
1.82 |
350 |
264 |
May 25, 01 |
29.6 |
0.51 |
1.75 |
290 |
318 |
June 10, 01 |
37.1 |
0.667 |
1.8 |
300 |
262 |
June 25, 01 |
36.0 |
0.669 |
1.86 |
400 |
478 |
July 10, 01 |
41.8 |
0.690 |
1.65 |
470 |
484 |
July 25, 01 |
32.3 |
0.590 |
1.82 |
300 |
223 |
August 10, 01 |
35.0 |
0.590 |
1.82 |
300 |
250 |
Mean |
35.2 |
0.622 |
1.79 |
344 |
326 |
SE |
1.45 |
0.0238 |
0.0262 |
26 |
42 |
Overall the fastest growth rates were with the effluent fertilizer
and the lowest with the fresh manure (Table 4 and Figures 1and 2). There were differences
in the response of the different fish species to the fertilizer treatments. The Silver Carp and the Bighead Carp in the
effluent ponds had double the growth rate compared with those in the manure ponds. Tilapia
also grew faster in the effluent than in the manure ponds but the difference was less
marked. In contrast, growth rates for Mrigal and Silver Barb
were similar in the effluent and manure ponds. Growth rates of fish in the ponds
fertilized with urea and diammonium phosphate (DAP) tended to
be intermediate between those in the manure and effluent ponds
Table 4: Least
square means for rates of increase in weight and length of the five fish species according
to the fertilizer treatments |
|||||
|
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
SEM |
Prob. |
Weight gain, g/day |
|||||
Tilapia |
0.499 |
0.348 |
0.358 |
0.045 |
0.100 |
Silver carp |
1.326 |
0.716 |
1.049 |
0.114 |
0.026 |
Bighead carp |
0.572 |
0.207 |
0.276 |
0.078 |
0.035 |
Silver barb |
0.682 |
0.551 |
0.651 |
0.133 |
0.517 |
Mrigal |
0.946 |
0.831 |
0.996 |
0.004 |
0.451 |
Increase in length, mm/day |
|||||
Tilapia |
0.405 |
0.329 |
0.315 |
0.002 |
0.71 |
Silver carp |
0.958 |
0.604 |
0.811 |
0.006 |
0.021 |
Bighead carp |
0.407 |
0.144 |
0.224 |
0.005 |
0.037 |
Silver barb |
0.483 |
0.433 |
0.441 |
0.009 |
0.630 |
Mrigal |
1.482 |
1.401 |
1.454 |
0.061 |
0.226 |
Figure 1. The daily weight gains of each fish species according to the different fertilizer treatment |
Figure 2. The daily increases in length of each fish species according to the different fertilizer treatments |
Table 5: Least
square means of weight and length of the five fish species according to the fertilizer
treatments |
|||||
Fish species |
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
SEM |
Pro |
Weight, g |
|
|
|
|
|
Tilapia |
48.6 |
39.3 |
41.5 |
0.625 |
0.001 |
Silver carp |
84.4 |
57.2 |
70.3 |
1.18 |
0.001 |
Bighead carp |
88.4 |
65.2 |
74.4 |
1.80 |
0.001 |
Silver barb |
55.8 |
47.9 |
55.0 |
1.39 |
0.001 |
Mrigal |
45.1 |
39.7 |
47.6 |
1.66 |
0.007 |
Length, cm |
|||||
Tilapia |
10.4 |
9.81 |
9.93 |
0.053 |
0.001 |
Silver carp |
15.6 |
14.1 |
14.7 |
0.086 |
0.001 |
Bighead carp |
16.0 |
14.6 |
15.2 |
0.129 |
0.001 |
Silver barb |
11.5 |
11.3 |
11.5 |
0.090 |
0.219 |
Mrigal |
9.65 |
9.13 |
9.35 |
0.114 |
0.015 |
|
||||||
|
Initial |
Final |
||||
|
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
Weight,
g |
||||||
Tilapia |
16.5 ± 0.43 |
16.0 ± 0.39 |
15.9 ± 0.51 |
71.4 ± 1.76 |
56.4 ± 1.64 |
55.9 ± 1.92 |
Silver carp |
15.0 ± 0.36 |
15.4 ± 0.24 |
15.5 ± 0.29 |
143 ± 4.46 |
95.8 ± 3.27 |
116 ± 3.88 |
Bighead carp |
44.3 ± 2.57 |
45.9 ± 1.85 |
47.0 ± 3.29 |
107 ± 4.55 |
73.6 ± 4.69 |
86.9 ± 3.08 |
Silver barb |
18.0 ± 0.42 |
17.8 ± 0.42 |
17.0 ± 0.45 |
83.3 ± 4.21 |
77.9 ± 3.89 |
82.3 ± 5.95 |
Mrigal |
0.73 ± 0.13 |
0.60 ± 0.00 |
0.67 ± 0.07 |
89.6 ± 10.41 |
78.8 ± 5.00 |
94.4 ± 6.36 |
Length,
cm |
||||||
Tilapia |
8.02 ± 0.11 |
7.75 ± 0.11 |
7.82 ± 0.16 |
12.2 ± 0.142 |
11.4 ± 0.11 |
11.3 ± 0.14 |
Silver carp |
10.1 ± 0.15 |
10.5 ± 0.13 |
10.2 ± 0.12 |
19.3 ± 0.27 |
16.5 ± 0.25 |
17.9 ± 0.29 |
Bighead carp |
13.3 ± 0.31 |
13.7 ± 0.19 |
13.4 ± 0.33 |
17.4 ± 0.27 |
15.1 ± 0.35 |
16.0 ± 0.25 |
Silver barb |
8.78 ± 0.11 |
8.72 ± 0.12 |
8.40 ± 0.12 |
13.4 ± 0.25 |
13.1 ± 0.21 |
13.3 ± 0.40 |
Mrigal |
2.6 ± 0.25 |
2.56 ± 0.22 |
2.5 ± 0.21 |
16.6 ± 0.73 |
15.7 ± 0.38 |
16.2 ± 0.50 |
Tilapia grew faster in effluent and U-DAP ponds than in manure ponds (Table 5 and Figures 3 and 4). The mean weights at the end of experiment (Table 6) were 48.7, 39.3 and 41.5 g for the effluent, fresh pig manure and chemical fertilizer, respectively.
Figure 3: The growth in weight of Tilapia according to the different fertilizer treatments |
Figure 4: The growth in length of Tilapia according to the different fertilizer treatments |
Silver carp grew faster in effluent and U-DAP ponds than in manure
ponds (Table 5 and Figures 5 an 6). As with the Tilapia, growth
was faster in the first two months and slightly slower in the third month, especially in
the pig manure ponds. Compared with the other fish species, Silver carp grew very fast in
the effluent pond, which probably reflected the ready availability of food for them,
mostly as phytoplankton.
Figure 5: The growth in weight of Silver Carp according to the different fertilizer treatments |
Figure 6: The growth in length of Silver Carp according to the different fertilizer treatments |
Bighead carp grew faster in effluent and U-DAP ponds than in the manure ponds (Table 4). The difference between effluent and manure ponds was especially noticeable (Figures 7 and 8). As with Tilapia and Silver Carp, growth rate decreased markedly after the second month.
|
Figure 8: The growth in length of Bighead carp according to the different fertilizer treatments |
During the first two months, the Silver barb grew at the same rate in
the effluent and U-DAP ponds with slowest growth being observed in the manure ponds (Table
4 and Figures 9 and 10). However, the final weights at the end of the experiment (Table 6)
showed no difference among the treatments.
Figure 9: The growth in weight of Silver barb according to the different fertilizer treatments |
Figure 10: The growth in length of Silver barb according to the different fertilizer treatments |
There were no differences in final weight between the fish in the effluent and U-DAP ponds but those in the manure ponds tended to be lighter. The difference was significant between DAP and the manure pond but not between effluent and manure ponds (Figure 11).
The fish yield extrapolated to a per hectare
basis was expressed as the net gain in total fish weight and the gross output (Table 7;
Figure 12). There were significant differences among treatments, with highest values for
the effluent treatment followed by chemical fertilizer and the manure ponds. Compared with
the manure treatment, the chemical fertilizer increased net yield by 27% while the
effluent treatment increased it by 55%.
Figure 12: The net fish yield according to the different fertilizer treatments
Table 7. Mean values (with SEM) for the fish yield according to the different fertilizer treatments in the
100-day experiment. |
|||||
Variable |
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
SEM |
Probability |
Initial
weight, g/m2 |
39.3 ± 3.17 |
39.6 ± 1.38 |
39.7± 3.69 |
2.92 |
0.995 |
Final
weight, g/m2 |
191 ± 11.2 |
138± 10.4 |
164± 11.7 |
11.12 |
0.040 |
Weight
gain, g/m2 |
152 ± 8.20 |
98.4± 9.57 |
124± 15.4 |
11.50 |
0.045 |
Extrapolated
net fish yield, kg/ha |
1521± 82 |
984± 95.7 |
1248± 154 |
115 |
0.045 |
Extrapolated
gross fish yield, kg/ha |
1915 ± 112 |
1381± 104 |
1645± 117 |
111.23 |
0.040 |
The results from this study show that the productivity of the ponds was relatively low, if compared with the potential when pond inputs are optimized. According to Knud-Hansen et al (1991) and Lin et al (1997) the optimum inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus for fish culture are 4 kg N/ha/day and 1 kg P/ha/day or 400 mg N/m2 and 100 mg/m2 per day, respectively. The quantity of N recommended by these authors is almost 4 times higher than what was used in the present study (about 1 kg N/ha/day). In a report by Lin et al (1998), the growth rate of Tilapia was 0.24 and 0.30 g per day in earthen ponds loaded with 429 mg N/m2/day and 114 mg P/m2/day and with a stocking density of 10 and 5 fish/ m2, respectively. In contrast, in the present study, the N application was only 108 to119 mg N/m2/day and the growth rate of the Tilapia at a stocking density of 2 fish/ m2 was 0.35 g/day with manure increasing to 0.5 g/day with the effluent. Thus the growth rates of the Tilapia were higher in our study but stocking rates, and hence overall productivity, was much less.
Overall the survival rates tended to be highest in the ponds
fertilized with urea and DAP (Table 8; Figure 13) but the difference was only significant
in the case of Tilapia that had poorer survival rates in the pond fertilized with fresh
manure as compared with the others.
Table 8: Least square means for
survival rates of the five fish species according to the fertilizer treatments |
|||||
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
SEM |
Prob. |
|
Tilapia |
87.7 |
72.7 |
91.7 |
3.93 |
0.032 |
Silver carp |
95.3 |
99.0 |
100 |
1.98 |
0.289 |
Bighead carp |
96.3 |
95.7 |
100 |
1.65 |
0.218 |
Silver barb |
98.3 |
100 |
100 |
0.96 |
0.422 |
Mrigal |
94.3 |
94.3 |
87.7 |
5.86 |
0.668 |
Table
9. Mean values of water quality
parameters during the experimental period according to the fertilizer treatments |
|||||
Parameters |
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
SEM |
Probability |
Dissolved oxygen, mg/litre |
|||||
0600 hr |
2.11 |
1.19 |
1.92 |
0.090 |
0.001 |
1400 hr |
7.13 |
6.22 |
6.62 |
0.213 |
0.012 |
pH |
|||||
0900 hr |
7.79 |
7.76 |
7.81 |
0.032 |
0.538 |
1600 hr |
8.66 |
8.39 |
8.66 |
0.030 |
0.001 |
Temperature, ºC |
32.0 |
32.1 |
32.0 |
0.132 |
0.880 |
Secchi disk depth, cm |
19.4 |
24.1 |
21.1 |
0.515 |
0.001 |
The dissolved oxygen concentration, both in early morning and
afternoon, was lowest in ponds fertilized with fresh pig manure (Table 9). Values for
effluent and U-DAP ponds were similar with a tendency for higher values in the effluent
ponds. During most of the culture period, the oxygen concentration was less than 1mg /litre in the morning in ponds loaded with fresh pig manure (Figure
14). Differences were less marked in the afternoon, but low values for dissolved oxygen
were observed in manure ponds midway through the culture period (Figure 15). According to Swingle
(1969), the minimum oxygen concentration should be not less than 5 mg/ litre. Values from 0.3 to 1mg/litre over an extended period were
considered to be lethal to fish and from 1mg to 5mg/litre the fish will survive, but growth will be slow. Thus it can be concluded that biodigester
effluent provides better conditions for fish growth than fresh manure.
Figure 14: The fluctuation of oxygen level in the ponds at 06.00 hr, according to the different fertilizer treatments. |
Figure 15: The fluctuation of oxygen level in the ponds at 14.00 hr, according to the different fertilizer treatments. |
The pH of the pond water in early morning did not differ among the
treatments. In the afternoon, pH was lower (P=0.001) in the manure ponds than in those
fertilized with effluent or U-DAP (Table 9). According to Swingle
(1969) the appropriate pH range for good fish growth is from 6.5 to 9. The values recorded
in the present study were within this range for all treatments (Figures 16 and 17).
|
|
There were no differences among the treatments (Table 9; Figures 16 and 17).
The water transparency
differed among treatments with the lowest value for the effluent, followed by thechemical
fertilizer and fresh pig manure, respectively ( Figure 18)
Figure 18: The mean values
of water transparency according to
the different fertilizer treatments
The most important finding in the
present study is the 55% increase in net fish yield as a result of processing the pig
manure through a biodigester.
In a comparison of fresh pig manure (FPM) and biogas fermentation liquid (BFL)
[presumably the liquid fraction of the biodigester effluent],
in a polyculture of seven species (Silver carp, Bighead carp,
Chinese bream, Grass carp, Black carp, Common carp and Crucian
carp), the overall fish yield in the BFL ponds was 26.2% higher than in FPM ponds and all
the species responded similarly, except for the Bighead carp that grew at the same rate on
both treatments (Han Yuqin and Ding Jieyi
1983). In contrast, in the present study the Bighead carp grew faster in the effluent
ponds (0.57 g/day) than in those fertilized with fresh pig manure (0.28 g/day). The Bighead carp feeds mainly on zooplankton and the
population of zooplankton in the pond is dependent on the presence of phytoplankton (since
zooplankton feeds on phytoplankton). Therefore, if the phytoplankton grows well,
zooplankton grows well also. Thus it is to be expected that Bighead carp will grow faster
in ponds loaded with effluent than in those loaded with fresh pig manure.
The efficiency with which
nutrients are recycled in the farming system is an important indicator of sustainability.
In the present study, estimates were made of the proportion of the applied fertilizer nitrogen that was
recovered in the fish biomass (Table 10). For the estimation of the nitrogen content of
the fish it was assumed that 20% of the live weight was protein and that 16% of the
protein was in the form of nitrogen.
Table 10: Efficiency of utilization of nitrogen in the
three fertilizer systems |
|||
Effluent |
Manure |
U-DAP |
|
N balance, kg/ha |
|||
Input in fertilizer |
117 |
119 |
108 |
Net gain in fish |
48 |
31 |
40 |
N recovery, % |
42 |
26 |
37 |
N recovery = (N gain - N input)*100 |
The rate of recovery of the
nitrogen was highest for the effluent and lowest for the fresh pig manure. In other words, processing the pig manure through
the biodigester increased the rate of utilization of the
nitrogen for fish growth by 62%. The only
comparable data are from the study of Kean Sophea and
Processing pig manure in an anaerobic biodigester, before using
it as fertilizer for ponds stocked with a fish polyculture, resulted in a 55%
increase in net fish growth compared with direct application of the fresh manure.
Compared with the use of iso-nitrogenous
amounts of a mixture of urea and di-ammonium phosphate, the
net fish yield was increased by 27% in the ponds fertilized with biodigester
effluent.
All of the five fish
species (Tilapia, Silver carp, Bighead carp, Silver barb and Mrigal)
grew faster in ponds fertilized with effluent than with manure, but the degree of response
was highest for Silver Carp, Bighead carp and Tilapia and least for Mrigal.
Dissolved oxygen
concentrations were significantly increased when the ponds were fertilized with effluent
compared with fresh manure. Thus the principal benefit of prior anaerobic digestion of pig
manure appears to be the decrease in the BOD (biological oxygen demand) in the effluent
due to removal of carbon as methane in the digestion process.
The recovery of nitrogen in
the fish from the nitrogen in the fertilizer was 42% for the biogester
effluent, 26% for the fresh manure and 37% for the mixture of urea and di-ammonium phosphate.
We wish to acknowledge the assistance of of our colleagues Mr Chhaty for carrying out the laboratory analyses, Mr San Thy for help in installing the biodigester and Lylian Rodriguez and Dr Julio Ly for fruitful discussions during the conduct of the experiment.
Bui Xuan An,
Ding Jieyi
and Han Yujin 1984 Comparative studies on the effects of
fresh pig manure and anaerobically fermented pig manure upon
fish farming, p: 288-296.
Knud-Hansen
C F, McNabb C D and Bartterson T R 1991 Application of limnology for efficient nutrient
utilization in tropic pond aquaculture. Verh.
Internat. Verein
Limnol., 24:2,541-2.543.
Le Ha Chau 1998a Biodigester effluent
versus manure from pigs or cattle as fertilizer for production of cassava foliage (Manihot esculenta). Livestock Research
for Rural Development (10)
3: http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd10/3/chau1.htm
Le Ha Chau 1998b Biodigester effluent versus manure, from pigs or cattle, as
fertilizer for duckweed (Lemna spp.).
Livestock Research for Rural Development (10) 3: http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd10/3/chau2.htm
Lin
C K, Teichert-Coddington D R, Green BW and Veverica K L 1997 Fertilization regimes. In: H.S. Egna and K.L. Boyd (Editors), Dynamic of pond aquaculture. CRCP Press,
Lin
C K, Yang Yi, Shivappa R B and Kabir
Chowhury M A 1998 Optimization of Nitrogen Fertilization
Rate in Freshwater Tilapia Production Ponds. PD/A
CRSP Sixteenth Annual Technical Report, P: 49-56
Swingle H S 1969 Methods of analysis for waters, organic matter
and pond bottom soils used in fisheries research.
Undersander D, Mertens D R and Thiex N 1993 Forage analysis procedures. pp 154 National Forage Testing Association.